The Linguistics of Giving (Typological Studies in Language)

THE LINGUISTICS OF GIVING

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

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

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

Volumes in this series will be functionally and typologically oriented, covering specific topics in language by collecting together data from a wide variety of languages and language typologies. The orientation of the volumes will be substantive rather than formal, with the aim of investigating universals of human language via as broadly defined a data base as possible, leaning toward cross-linguistic, diachronic, developmental and live-discourse data. The series is, in spirit as well as in fact, a continuation of the tradition initiated by C. Li (Word Order and Word Order Change, Subject and Topic, Mechanisms for Syntactic Change) and continued by T. Givón (Discourse and Syntax) and P. Hopper (Tense-Aspect: Between Semantics and Pragmatics).

Volume 36

John Newman (ed.) The Linguistics

of Giving

THE LINGUISTICS OF GIVING Edited by

JOHN NEWMAN Massey University

JOHN BENJAMINS PUBLISHING COMPANY AMSTERDAM/PHILADELPHIA

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 The linguistics of giving / edited by John Newman. p. cm. -- (Typological studies in language, ISSN 0167-7373; v. 36) Includes bibliographical references and index. 1. Semantics, Comparative. 2. Generosity--Terminology. 3. Linguistics. I. Newman, John, 1948- . II. Series. P325.L485 1997 401'.43--dc21 97-39855 ISBN 90 272 2933 3 (hb.) / 90 272 2934 1 (pb.) (European; alk. paper) CIP ISBN 1-55619-647-4 (hb.) / 1-55619-648-2 (pb.) (U.S.; alk. paper) © Copyright 1998 - John Benjamins B.V. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other means, without written permission from the publisher. John Benjamins Publishing Co. • P.O.Box 75577 • 1070 AN Amsterdam • The Netherlands John Benjamins North America • P.O.Box 27519 • Philadelphia PA 19118-0519 • USA

Contents Preface GIVE in Amele John R. Roberts

vii 1

Giving in Nawatl David Tuggy

35

Double object constructions in Zulu John R. Taylor

67

Giving and taking in Chipewyan: The semantics of THINGmarking classificatory verbs Sally Rice

97

Lots of ways to GIVE in Cora Eugene H. Casad

135

GIVE: Acts of giving in American Sign Language Phyllis Perrin Wilcox

175

Sochiapan Chinantec GIVE: A window into clause structure David Foris

209

GIVE, HAVE, and TAKE in Slavic Laura A. Janda

249

Giving in Dutch: An intra-lexematical and inter-lexematical description Theo A. J.M. Janssen

267

The origin of the German es gibt construction John Newman

307

On the development of MANNER from GIVE Jae Jung Song

327

One child's early talk about possession

349

Michael Tomasello Index of Names

375

Index of Subjects

379

Abbreviations ACC ADJ ALL APPL AUX CAUS CLASS DAT DU EMP FUT GEN HON IMP IMPF IND IRR

accusative adjective allative applicative auxiliary causative classifier dative dual emphatic future genitive honorific imperative imperfective indicative irrealis

LOC N NEG NOM OPT PASS PERF PL PRES PURP REFL SG V 1 2 3

locative noun negative nominative optative passive perfective plural present purposive reflexive singular verb first

person second person third person

Preface The papers in this volume were written in response to a 1994 call for papers exploring aspects of GIVE and GIVE-type verbs across languages. The call for papers was directed mainly to linguists associated with the International Cognitive Linguistics Association. In addition, a number of scholars were individually approached and invited to contribute papers. The idea for such a collection had occurred to me in the course of writing the monograph Give: A Cognitive Linguistic Study, published as Newman (1996). While my monograph was cross-linguistic in its approach, the very fact that I was attempting to survey GIVE facts from very many languages meant that I was unable, in that context, to investigate GIVE facts from any one language to the extent I would have liked. As part of what I saw as the prospects for future research on GIVE-type verbs, I wrote: .. . there is a place for in-depth research into the manifestations of GIVE within a par­ ticular language. Such research would complement the present study which has not attempted to document all the facts from any one language. One might investigate either literal or figurative uses of GIVE within a particular language. Such studies would show the range of "work" which may be done by GIVE morphemes in different languages. (Newman 1996:266)

The present collection of papers fulfills this hope for more languagespecific studies of GIVE verbs. Taken together, the papers document an impressive range of constructional possibilities with GIVE verbs, as well as addressing many important issues relating to the morphology, syntax, and semantics of GIVE constructions. Why GIVE? Why should GIVE constructions receive such special attention and what can we learn from a collection of studies devoted to this verb? There are two important properties of GIVE which make it especially interesting: GIVE is experientially basic and semantically complex. In terms of the kind of interaction denoted by GIVE, it represents a relatively fundamental kind of human activity. Giving is a purposeful,

viii

John Newman

highly frequent, highly interactive, and functionally significant event. It compares, in its basicness, with other human behaviours such as walking, sitting, standing, talking, listening, touching, eating, drinking, feeding, sleeping, helping etc. Giving, like helping, talking, feeding etc., is one of a number of activities which pertain to interactions between people and is basic to our experience as humans living ordinary human lives, interacting with other individuals. There are various ways in which the basicness of GIVE manifests itself in language. Not surprisingly, perhaps, the give me . . . construction is one of the earliest constructions understood by children acquiring English as a first language. A relevant piece of research here is Benedict (1979). Benedict studied the acquisition of words and phrases by eight children be­ tween the ages of 0;9 and 1;9. Give was one of only a couple of words and phrases which had been acquired by all the children studied by Benedict. Interestingly, the form give may not appear amongst the earliest forms produced in children acquiring English as a first language. So, for exam­ ple, in Benedict's study, the results on the production of give are quite dif­ ferent from the results on comprehension. None of Benedict's subjects produced give as one of their first 50 words. The explanation for this state of affairs can be found in Benedict's own discussion of her findings, which indicated that action words in general, not just give, are relatively rare amongst the early words produced. As Benedict (1979:198) points out, actions done by the child, such as throwing and giving, are typically accom­ panied by a nominal type of word (ball, for example) rather than the action word. It is a nominal, then, referring to the thing given, which is used to describe acts of giving, presumably because it is the most salient part of the transfer event. Thus, although give, or a form corresponding to it, does not appear early in a child's speech, acts of giving may still be amongst the earliest acts to be commented on by the child or reflected in some way in the child's speech. In adult language, too, there are various manifestations of the basicness of GIVE. There have been various attempts to construct "basic" Englishes over the years, all with small, but functional, vocabularies. There is, for example, Ogden's Basic English from the 1930's. As described in Ogden (1968), this Basic English was designed as an international auxiliary lan­ guage and contained a vocabulary of 800 words (increased to 1,000 words for specific scientific purposes). More recently, dictionary-makers have

Preface

ix

found it useful to rely on a relatively small vocabulary for the purposes of explaining word-definitions. In all these attempts, the verb give is included as one of the verbs of the basic vocabulary. This is particularly noteworthy in the case of Ogden's Basic English where verbs were limited to an ex­ tremely small set (less than twenty). There are some natural languages which are somewhat similar to Ogdens' Basic English in the way their vocabularies are structured. Papuan languages, for example, often have a small set of "generic" verb stems which enter into combinations with other morphemes to express the full range of verbal concepts. Kalam, as described first by Pawley (1966) and summarized in Foley (1986:114119), is one such language. In Kalam, only about twenty-five verb stems are in common use and it is from these twenty-five verb stems that all other verbal forms are constructed. One of these basic stems is the GIVE morpheme ñ-. The other significant property of GIVE is its semantic complexity. This relates, not to its functional importance in human interactions, but rather to the internal structure of the giving act itself. Consider the following obser­ vations about the act encoded by a typical GIVE verb:

•

• • • •

there are three crucial entities (a GIVER, the THING transferred, and a RECIPIENT); there is an interaction between the GIVER and the THING; there is an interaction between the RECIPIENT and the THING; there is motion of the THING from the GIVER to the RECIPIENT; there is a change in the control over the THING, passing from the GIVER to the THING; in the most typical kind of giving, the hands of the GIVER and the RECIPIENT are both involved; the giving is done intentionally; the giving is usually done for the benefit of the RECIPIENT so that the RECIPIENT can make some use of the THING transferred.

These components of the giving act contribute to the semantic complexity of GIVE verbs. The combination of the experiential basicness and internal semantic complexity in the case of GIVE makes it a particularly rewarding focus of study, whether we study GIVE in its most literal interpretation ("to pass

x

John Newman

something to someone by hand") or in its various metaphorical extensions {give someone a headache, give the car a wash etc.). The considerable conceptual complexity of GIVE is the reason for the extensive array of morphological and syntactic devices which are relevant to GIVE construc­ tions cross-linguistically. We may find the THING functioning as an object of GIVE with the RECIPIENT as an oblique phrase. As an oblique, the RECIPIENT may be encoded in the same way as a benefactive, allative, locative, or possessive. It may be marked by a case (or adposition), closely bound to the concept of a RECIPIENT in the GIVE frame, a case for which the term "dative" is highly favored. Or we may find the RECIPIENT func­ tioning as the object with the THING marked as an instrumental or some other oblique marking. Or we may find that both THING and RECIPIENT could be considered as objects, giving rise to a ditransitive construction. The considerable diversity found in the encoding of literal GIVE has its source in the multi-faceted nature of the giving act itself, as described above. Both the experiential basicness and the semantic complexity contribute to the abundance of metaphorical extensions we find with GIVE verbs in many languages. GIVE, understood either literally or figuratively, offers a fascinating case study of how human minds, through the grammars of nat­ ural languages, may alternatively construe one and the same scene, albeit a scene with considerable internal complexity. In addition, the study of metaphorical GIVE offers us an opportunity to study the ways in which various events and scenes not involving giving in its literal sense may, nevertheless, be construed as metaphorical acts of giving. The figurative extensions of GIVE, including some developments one could call grammaticalizations, make up an impressively large collection of meanings. The main areas of extension cross-linguistically appear to be the following: (a)

interpersonal communication e.g. I gave a lecture to the third-year students. (b) emergence/manifestation e.g. The sun gives warmth; "GIVE fruit" = "bear fruit" in Italian; "GIVE interest" = "bear interest" in Italian (c) causative/purpose e.g. GIVE = "cause, make" in Jacaltec (d) permission/enablement e.g. GIVE = "let, allow" in Mandarin

Preface

xi

(e)

schematic interaction e.g. I gave the car a wash. (f ) recipient/benefactive marking e.g. GIVE as a benefactive preposition in Mandarin (g) movement e.g. "GIVE self to a place" = "to go to a place" in German (h) completedness e.g. GIVE as an auxiliary-like verb in Hindi, used with perfective verbs

For a fuller discussion of these extensions of GIVE, the reader is re­ ferred to Newman (1996, to appear). Some of the extensions of GIVE seem far removed from the literal sense and there are many intriguing puzzles, which have yet to be solved, relating to the paths of extensions. The papers in this collection contribute to our knowledge of GIVE con­ structions by exploring particular aspects of the literal or figurative use of GIVE. John Roberts' discussion of GIVE constructions in Amele is an appropriate paper to have at the beginning of this volume since the Amele construction reflects most directly the basicness of GIVE and the special coding which GIVE verbs tend to inspire cross-linguistically. In Amele, at least at a superficial level, there is no separate morpheme which corre­ sponds to the GIVE concept. Where one might expect to find a verbal morpheme with attached affixes (marking agreement etc.), one finds instead, in the GIVE construction, what appears to be just the string of affixes. It is as though the concept of GIVE is present as a default interpretation of a clause containing a subject, object and indirect object. Roberts, however, provides some evidence for a reanalysis so that an indirect object agree­ ment marker now functions, in effect, as a GIVE stem. Two papers which can be profitably read together are David Tuggy's and John Taylor's. Both papers reflect on the object status of the THING and RECIPIENT in double object and applicative constructions. David Tuggy discusses GIVE constructions in Nawatl. These may involve a lex­ ical verb stem with incorporated object ("I-him-food-give") or the use of a causative/applicative suffix which can appear on nouns as well as verbs ("food-causative" = "give food to"). In the latter case, there is no lexical verb stem which one can really identify as a GIVE morpheme (cf. John Robert's discussion of Amele). Tuggy employs the concepts and notation of Langacker's Cognitive Grammar to express the intricate syntactic and

xii

John Newman

semantic effects of combining morphemes in the GIVE constructions he examines. He pays special attention to the question of which entity in the GIVE scene functions as the primary landmark or object. The GIVE scene may be variously construed as a kind of manipulation of the object or as a kind of human interaction. These alternative visualizations of the GIVE scene reflect the internal complexity of the interaction between GIVER, THING, and RECIPIENT. John Taylor reviews the Zulu ditransitive con­ struction, which, like its English counterpart, has a special relationship to the notion of GIVE. It has been claimed for English (Goldberg 1992:5155) that GIVE is a central sense associated with the ditransitive construc­ tion and Taylor takes a similar position for the Zulu ditransitive. Unlike English and Nawatl, Zulu encodes only the human interaction construal of the GIVE scene, not the manipulation of the object construal. Taylor con­ siders a range of verbs which enter into the ditransitive construction in order to better understand the use of GIVE in this particular construction. A number of papers survey languages which include classifiers as part of their GIVE constructions. Chipewyan GIVE (and TAKE) constructions, as discussed by Sally Rice, involve an elaborate system of classificatory verb stems which refer to animacy, shape, and consistency characteristics of the THING transferred. Rice also carefully considers how various se­ mantic effects are created in Chipewyan GIVE constructions relating to temporary vs. permanent transfer of the THING, direct vs. indirect transfer, beneficial vs. antagonistic interactions. As in Cora, discussed in the next paper, the distinction between GIVE and TAKE in Chipewyan is not ex­ pressed by different verb stems but rather results from different additional morphemes (affixes and/or adpositions) occurring with the same basic verb stem. Eugene Casad documents the variety of forms which encode GIVE in Cora along with the semantic distinctions carried by the different forms. In Cora, GIVE is also expressed through a set of classificatory verb stems which, in combination with various prefixes and suffixes, give rise to a large number of semantic distinctions relating to "have", "take", "carry", "bring" etc. Phyllis Perrin Wilcox discusses the various signs in American Sign Language (ASL) which encode GIVE as well as information about the THING given. In addition, she discusses some of their metaphorical exten­ sions affecting GIVE constructions in ASL. A classifier system, classifying the THING transferred, is relevant here as in Chipewyan and Cora. Also, as in these other languages, a difference between temporary handing over

Preface

xiii

of an object and relatively permanent transfer of possession is reflected in different GIVE verbs or constructions. David Foris examines the range of syntactic and semantic factors which need to be taken into account in constructing a GIVE clause in Sochiapan Chinantec, including an animacy hierarchy, active vs. passive, antipassive, direct vs. inverse voice. These factors, which need to be considered in any clause analysis in the language, become all the more complex in the case of three-place predicates like GIVE. The conceptual complexity associated with GIVE, here laid out in all its glory, is responsible for much of the morphological and syntactic complexity found with the GIVE verb in Chi­ nantec. Laura Janda considers the syntactic constructions used to encode the closely related set of concepts GIVE, HAVE, and TAKE in Slavic languages. While GIVE constructions seem very similar in all the Slavic languages, there are interesting differences in the way HAVE and TAKE are constructed. Three papers explore aspects of GIVE relating to uses of GIVE verbs different from the literal transference sense. Theo Janssen examines the ex­ tent of the causative use of a two-place predicate GIVE in Dutch ("that remark gave much commotion" = "that remark caused much commotion"). The causative use is characterized by Janssen as [x] CAUSE THAT [Y] BE [IN

and this same characterization is applicable, with some fur­ ther elaboration, to the three-place predicate GIVE, i.e. literal GIVE. So, for example, the literal GIVE construction in which the recipient appears as an indirect object is characterized by Janssen as [IT CONCERN W THAT] [x] CAUSE THAT [Y] BE [IN SOME DOMAIN], where W represents the indirect object. In this analysis, the causative use of GIVE is taken to be con­ ceptually more basic than literal GIVE and Janssen's analysis of literal GIVE builds upon his analysis of causative GIVE. This contrasts with the approach in Newman (1996:171-181), where the extension to the causa­ tive sense is understood as proceeding from the literal GIVE sense. John Newman draws attention to the importance of the causative use of GIVE in tracing the origin of the German es gibt construction (es gibt faule Men­ schen auf der Welt = "there are lazy people in the world"). The es gibt NP construction in modern German became established in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, a period for which there is a significant written liter­ ature, and so one is able to trace its early history. I argue that the exten­ sion of German GIVE to this existential construction is mediated by a causative SOME DOMAIN]

xiv

John Newman

use of the verb (cf. Janssen's paper). Jae Jung Song offers an explanation for the intriguing extension of the GIVE predicate in Thai, Khmer, and Vietnamese to mark a type of manner adverbial ("GIVE comfortable" = "comfortably"). Though a manner adverbial formation seems far removed from the sense of literal GIVE, Song argues for a chain of extensions which makes the manner adverbial extension more understandable. Song cites a manner adverb suffix in Korean as evidence of an extension from purposive to manner sense and draws upon this in arguing for the plausability of the chain of extensions leading to manner adverbial formation using GIVE in Thai, Khmer, and Vietnamese. In the last paper of the volume Michael Tomasello analyzes in fine detail the acquisition of forms relating to possession in the development of his English-speaking daughter in her second year. Tomasello documents the stages by which linguistic manifestation of possession and exchange of pos­ session develop and demonstrates the considerable variety in the ways in which an exchange of objects can be expressed. Interestingly, the GIVER is always expressed in his daughter's give utterances (e.g. Aunt Lulu gave me boots). This is different from, say, share which may lack an explicit subject (e.g. Share Maria's coat) and points to the prominence of the GIVER as part of the intended meaning of the child's give utterances. A variety of descriptive and theoretical frameworks are represented in these papers. The contributors were not obliged to follow any one syntac­ tic or semantic framework and, consequently, a number of theoretical orien­ tations are represented in this volume. It seemed more important that the contributors show a sensitivity to fine syntactic and semantic distinctions in their analyses rather than necessarily conforming to one particular linguis­ tic theory. In any case, it is doubtful whether any one syntactic or seman­ tic theory could do justice to the full range of linguistic facts which are described in this volume. I thank Talmy Givón for his encouraging words in 1994 when I first broached the idea for this volume. It was he who first suggested the TSL series as an avenue of publication for the anticipated volume. Some of the contributors were very prompt in responding to my call for papers and, as a result, they paid the price of having to wait the longest before the vol­ ume as a whole could go ahead. As Nietzsche once said, "We are punished most for our virtues". An anonymous reviewer gave detailed and helpful feedback on all the papers in the volume and I would like to express my

Preface

xv

gratitude here to that reviewer. I also thank Sally Rice for encouragement, advice, and editorial assistance along the way. I acknowledge the support of Massey University in providing the computing facilities enabling me to prepare the manuscript. And to Kathleen, Kimberly, and Ashley, thanks (again) for your support and patience.

References Benedict, Helen. 1979. "Early lexical development: Comprehension and production." Journal of Child Language 6:183-200. Foley, William A. 1986 The Papuan Languages of New Guinea. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Goldberg, Adele E. 1992. "The inherent semantics of argument structure: The case of the English ditransitive construction." Cognitive Linguistics 3:37-74. Newman, John. 1996. Give: A Cognitive Linguistic Study. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter [Cognitive Linguistics Research 7]. Newman, John. To appear. "Figurative giving." In Leon de Stadler (ed.), Proceedings of the Third International Cognitive Linguistics Association Conference. Ogden, Charles K. 1968. Basic English: International Second Language. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World. Pawley, Andrew. 1966. "The structure of Kalam: A grammar of a New Guinea High­ lands language." [University of Auckland doctoral dissertation.]

GIVE in Amele J o h n R. R o b e r t s Summer Institute of Linguistics

1.

Introduction

In this article1 I describe the syntax and semantics of GIVE in the Amele language2 of Papua New Guinea (PNG). GIVE is unusual in this language in that there is no overt lexical stem with the meaning 'to give'. Instead affixes which normally attach to verb stems marking tense, aspect or mood and subject and object agreement appear in the position where the verb would be expected, A typical greeting one might expect from an Amele if you met him on the road would be (l). 3 The GIVER is expressed by sub­ ject agreement (SuAgr) on the verb, the THING being given is expressed by an NP in the clause, and the RECIPIENT is expressed by indirect object agreement4 on the verb which is in the imperative mood. (1)

Ceb

it-ag-a!

betelnut 1SG:IO-2SG:SU-IMP

'Give me betelnut!' According to Z'graggen (1975, 1980) all the other five languages of the Gum language family have a similar zero stem form for GIVE. In the closely related Kare and Kokon language families a morpheme similar in shape to mec 'put' in Amele appears to function as the stem for GIVE in those languages. So a zero stem for GIVE could be a genetic feature of the Gum family. I am also aware of this phenomenon occurring outside of PNG, such as in the Amerindian language Koasati described by Kimball (1991:102). Before I discuss the syntactic and semantic structure of GIVE in detail

2

John R. Roberts

it will be necessary for me to explain to the reader some of the complexi­ ties of Amele verb morphology, particularly the system of object cross-ref­ erence agreement referred to collectively as 'OAgr'. Further information on different aspects of Amele verb structure can also be gained from Roberts (1988a, 1988b, 1990, 1991a, 1992a, 1992b, 1993, 1996) and a full gram­ matical description of the language is provided in Roberts (1987). In §2 and §3 I discuss the phonological shape and ordering of the OAgr markers that serve to distinguish three distinct sets of OAgr, although for most verbs only up to two OAgr functions can be marked on the verb. In §4 I discuss the syntactic nature of the dative marker and in §5 I dis­ cuss the morphological status of the object marking as to whether it is cross-reference agreement or a type of cliticization. In §6 I show how a range of different semantic functions can map onto the different OAgr func­ tions. In §7 I discuss the syntax and semantics of the verb GIVE and the article concludes with a discussion of whether GIVE should be considered a basic verb in Amele or not.

2.

The form of object agreement

Three different types of object agreement can be cross-referenced on the active verb: direct object (DO), indirect object (IO), and oblique object (OO) agreement. The sets of DO, IO and OO agreement markers are almost the same phonologically, differing mainly in the shape of the third person singular forms. The OAgr markers also bear some resemblance to the free pronoun forms, which are the same for both subject and object grammati­ cal functions. The different OAgr markers are illustrated in Table 1 and compared with the free pronoun forms. Amele, like many Papuan lan­ guages, has the same form for second and third person dual and second and third person plural, respectively. For the DO forms a distinction between animate and inanimate gender direct objects is made in the third person singular form of some verbs. Some examples of this are: madec 'to tell it' and madoc 'to tell him'; culec 'to leave', culdec 'to leave it' and culdoc 'to leave him'; sildec 'to explain it' and silditoc 'to explain it to him'. In these verb forms an inanimate DO is marked with -id. Some examples from text are given in (2)-(3).

GIVE in Amele

3

Table 1. The object agreement markers and free pronouns Direct Object INAN 1SG 2SG 3SG 1DU

-id

AN -(i)t -(i)h -(u)d ≈ -itld

-(i)l

2/3DU

-al

1PL

-ad

2/3PL

(2)

-al -(i)g -ad

Indirect Object

Oblique Object

Free Pronoun

-it -ih -it ≈ -ut -il -al -ig -ad

-it -ih -it ≈ -ut -il -al -ig -ad

ija hina uqa ele ale ege age

Age jobon eu cul-d-i-me-ig 3PL village that leave-3sG:DO:INAN-DAT-ss-3PL:su bel-ein. go-3PL:su:REMP 'They left that village and went.'

(3)

Uqa sil-d-i-ade-i-a. 3SG explain-3sG:Do:INAN-DAT-3PL:Io-3sG:su-TODP 'He explained it to them.'

When the DO is animate gender the third person suffix is -du if the verb has an obligatory valency marker, -doc, in the infinitive form. Other­ wise if the verb is subcategorised as [±DO] then the third person suffix is -ud in most cases. For some verbs with a short stem comprising a single phoneme there is variation in the third person form. There is also variation in the other person and number forms. Table 2 gives a comparison of the range of variation in different verbs. The verb cesuldoc 'to help him' demonstrates the standard paradigm of forms for all verbs with the obligatory -doc valency marker. Helec 'to throw' is a verb that can take optional DOAgr and this verb demonstrates the standard paradigm of forms for this class of verbs. The last three columns show three of the verbs with minimum stems that are subcategorized for [±DO]. These all vary from the standard paradigms in the first two columns in different ways. For example, with qoc 'to hit' and oc 'to get' the third person singular forms have a voiceless -t instead of a voiced

4

John R. Roberts

Table 2. A comparison of direct object agreement marking across different verb stems

1SG 2SG 3SG 1DU 2DU 3DU 1PL 2PL 3PL

[+DO]

[±DO]

[±DO]

[±DO]

[±DO]

cesuldoc 'to help'

helec 'to throw'

joc 'to wash'

qoc 'to hit'

oc 'to get'

cesultec cesulhec cesuldoc cesullec cesulalec cesulalec cesulgec cesuladec cesuladec

heltec helhec heludec hellec helalec helalec helgec heladec heladec

joitec joihec joudec ≈ joidec joilec joadec joadec joigec joadec joadec

qitec qihec qutoc qilec aqalec aqalec qigec aqec aqec

oitec oihec oitoc oilec oalec oalec oigec oadec oadec

Table 3. A comparison of indirect/oblique object marking across different verb stems

1SG 2SG 3SG 1DU 2DU 3DU 1PL 2PL 3PL

[+DO, ± 0 0 ]

[±00]

[±00]

[±00]

[±00]

cesuldoc 'to help'

helec 'to throw'

joc 'to wash'

qoc 'to hit'

oc 'to get'

cesuldutec cesulduhec cesuldutoc cesuldulec cesuldualec cesuldualec cesuldugec cesulduadec cesulduadec

helitec helihec helitoc helilec helialec helialec heligec heliadec heliadec

jutec juhec jutoc julec juadec juadec jugec juadec juadec

qutec quhec qutoc qulec qualec qualec qugec quadec quadec

utec uhec utoc ulec ualec ualec ugec uadec uadec

-d and for the ISG, 2SG, lDU and lPL forms a preceding -i vowel occurs similar to the IOAgr forms. The IOAgr and OOAgr marking is more regular than the DOAgr mark­ ing. The same set of verbs displayed in Table 2 with DOAgr is also given in Table 3, this time with OOAgr. There is a marker -i which occurs between the verb stem and the IO/OOAgr marking which serves to stabilize the forms. I will refer to this -i suffix as

GIVE in Amele

5

Table 4. IOAgr and OOAgr third person singular variations Set (a) -ec infinitive 'to renew' alafec bujec 'to defecate' cacec 'to chew' 'to bundle' fiqec foloec 'to go flat' gusec 'to shoot at' jaqec 'to write' letec 'to cross over' 'to do' odec sanijec 'to read' wegec 'to sew'

alafitoc bujitoc cacitoc fiqitoc foloitoc gusitoc jaqitoc letitoc oditoc sanijitoc wegitoc

'. . . for him' (benefactive) '. .. on him' (malefactive) ' . . . for him' (benefactive) '. . . for him' (benefactive) '. . . on him' (malefactive) '. . . at him' (allative) '. . . to him' (recipient) ' . . . to him' (allative) ' . . . for him' (benefactive) '. . . to/for him' (benefactive) '. .. for him' (benefactive)

Set (b) -oc infinitive 'to wipe' cacoc cagoc 'to cut' hoc 'to come' 'to write' jaqoc odoc 'to do' qoc 'to hit' sahoc 'to urinate'

cacutoc cagutoc hutoc jaqutoc odutoc qutoc sahutoc

'. . . for him' (benefactive) ' . . . for him' (benefactive) '. . . to him' (allative) '. .. to him' (recipient) '. .. for him' (benefactive) ' . . . for him' (benefactive) ' . . . on him' (malefactive)

the dative marker (DAT) and a fuller discussion of its function and analy­ sis is presented in §4. Where this dative marker follows an o vowel in the stem then o + i → u. What is analyzed to be DAT in each form is under­ lined. Even so, there is also some variation in the third person singular IOAgr and OOAgr markers. In general verbs with an -ec infinitive marker take the -it form and the infinitive marker then becomes -oc, and verbs with an -oc infinitive marker take the -ut form. Some examples are given in Table 4. However, this convention is not always adhered to by native speakers. Some verbs also have alternate infinitive forms, such as jaqec ≈ jaqoc 'to write' and odec « odoc 'to do' for example. In fact, the difference between DO, IO and OO grammatical function is not marked so much in the agreement forms themselves, except in the case of the third person singular form, but rather in the way the object markers attach to the verb stem. The DOAgr marker attaches directly to the

6

John R. Roberts

verb stem with no intervening material. However, as already mentioned, with the IOAgr and OOAgr markers there is an intervening dative marker, -i, which occurs between the stem and the IO/OOAgr. This difference with the IOAgr and OOAgr marking can be most clearly illustrated by the dual and plural, second and third person forms, as in (4)-(6). (4)

(5)

(6)

a.

Uqa meen eu hel-al-ei-a. 3SG stone that throw-3Du:DO-3sG:su-TODP 'He threw those two stones.'

b.

Uqa meen eu hel-ad-ei-a. 3SG stone that throw-3PL:DO-3sG:su-TODP 'He threw those stones.'

a.

Uqa meen eu hel-i-al-ei-a. 3SG stone that throw-DAT-3DU:Io/3Du:oo-3sG:su-TODP 'He threw that stone at/for you/those two.'

b.

Uqa meen eu hel-i-ad-ei-a. 3SG stone that throw-DAT-3PL:Io/3PL:oo-3sG:su-TODP 'He threw that stone at/for you/them.'

a.

Uqa meen eu hel-ad-i-al-ei-a. 3SG stone that throw-3PL:DO-DAT-3Du:Io/3Du:oo-3sG:su-TODP 'He threw those stones at/for you/those two.'

b.

Uqa meen eu hel-ad-i-ad-ei-a. 3SG stone that throw-3PL:DO-DAT-3PL:Io/3PL:oo-3sG:su-TODP 'He threw those stones at/for you/them.'

Because of the similarity in phonological shape between OAgr forms one way of determining whether you are looking at a DOAgr form as opposed to an IO/OOAgr form is by paradigmatic substitution of the plural or dual form. This completes the description of the phonological shape of OAgr in Amele. In the next section we look at the ordering of the OAgr marking on the verb.

7

GIVE in Amele 3.

The ordering of object agreement

Up to two OAgr markers can be suffixed to the verb stem in any of the following combinations: +DO or +IO or + 0 0 , or +DO+IO or +DO+00 or +IO+00. This can be illustrated by the inflected infinitive forms of helec 'to throw' in Table 5. Although the same form helitec is used to express either an IO or OO function a difference between IO and OO grammatical function can be established on more than just the English gloss. For example, if the post­ positional forms are substituted for the OAgr forms then IO is expressed by =ca, as in (7), and OO is expressed by =nu, as in (8). (7)

ija=ca hel-ec lsG=to (IO) throw-INF 'to throw to me'

(8)

ija=nu hel-ec lSG=for (OO) throw-INF 'to throw for me'

There is also a constraint on the order in which DOAgr, IOAgr and OOAgr markers can occur on the verb when two occur. When DOAgr and IO/OOAgr occur then DOAgr precedes IO/OOAgr. When IOAgr and OOAgr occur then IOAgr precedes OOAgr. So there is a hierarchy of occurrence with respect to proximity to the verb stem: [DO]

>

[IO]

>

[OO]

This ordering constraint therefore provides another diagnostic for deter­ mining whether the form is IOAgr or OOAgr. If it is IOAgr by itself then an OOAgr suffix can usually be added after it. If it is OOAgr by itself then no other OAgr form can be added after it. Table 5. The orderings of object agreement on helec 'to throw' VERB VERB VERB VERB VERB VERB

STEM+DO STEM+IO STEM+OO STEM+DO+IO STEM+DO+OO STEM+IO+OO

heltec helitec helitec heladihec heltihec helitihec

'to 'to 'to 'to 'to 'to

throw throw throw throw throw throw

me' to me' for me' them to you' me for you' to me for you'

8

John R. Roberts

The mapping of OAgr onto the verb stem is actually a mirror image order of the free argument order, which is NP [Su] NP [ o o ] NP [I0] NP [DO] V when the word order is unmarked. Since only up to two objects can be marked on the verb at any time there is a Primary Object (POAgr) and a Secondary Object (SOAgr) position in the verb structure.5 This can be dia­ grammed as follows:6 [[Vstem] ([DAT]) ([POAgr]) ([DAT]) ([SOAgr]) [INFL]]V The PO position can be occupied by any of the grammatical functions of DOAgr, IOAgr or OOAgr. The SO position, on the other hand, can only be occupied by IOAgr or OOAgr. The structure of the verb in Amele is actually a reflection of the structure of the clause. A diagram of the con­ figuration of the basic clause is given in Figure 1. In Roberts (1992b, 1996) I show how INFL is a constituent of the clause and forms a clitic-type structure comprising SuAgr, Tense, Mood and Aspect morphology which attaches to the verb as head of the clause. There are several pieces of evidence that Amele has a VP constituent. For example, the domain of the verbal negator, qee 'not', is the VP. This is illustrated by (9). The negator can occur anywhere before the verb but cannot occur before the NP[Su]. The VP can also be optionally omitted, as in (10).

Figure 1. The structure of the clause in Amele

GIVE in Amele (9)

9

(*qee) Ija (qee) dana eu (qee) uqa=na qaig (qee) not lSG not man that not 3sG=of money not o-l-om. take-NEGP-lSG:su 'I did not take that man's money.'

(10) Uqa aide-g ma cil-i-a ija qee 3SG wife-3sG:pos taro boil-3sG:su-TODP lSG not 'His wife cooked the taro not I.'

4.

.

The dative marker

At this point it would be relevant to discuss further the syntactic nature of the dative marker -i/-u. As well as preceding the IOAgr and OOAgr mor­ phology on the verb the dative marker also seems to occur in serial verb constructions where the INFL morphology is deleted leaving just the verb stem and the dative marker. In (11) for example, the verbs cuculi and cecewiti occur with the same subject following morphology deleted. The full forms would be cuculimeig and cecewitimeig, respectively. The serial verb cuculi comprises STEM+DAT and cecewiti comprises STEM+DOAgr+DAT. This is the core part of the verb which cannot be deleted without loss of meaning. Serial verbs are therefore V' constituents. (11) Dana mati bahic ene sab ad-ece-min sab cu-cul-i man many very here food 3PL:IO-DS-LSG:SUfood SIM-leave-DAT ija ce-cew-it-i

bel-eig-a.

LSG SIM-despise-LSG:DO-DAT go-3PL:su-TODP

T offered food to very many men here (but) they refused the food and despising me they went.' There would appear to be two possible formal analyses for the dative marker in Amele. On the one hand, it could be analyzed as a type of applicative or postposition incorporation (PI). Baker (1988) has proposed a novel theory of Incorporation in terms of syntactic movement (Move-) operating over lexical X o categories rather than maximal syntactic XP pro­ jections. He argues that noun incorporation obeys the same principles that

10

John R. Roberts

other movement rules obey under GB Theory. He applies GB principles to the incorporation of lexical categories by a lexical head, which in most cases is the main verb, and considers in particular incorporation phenom­ ena involving passives, antipassives, causatives, applicatives (preposition incorporation) and possessor ascension. Under Baker's theory a lexical item such as a verb may only incorporate those X o categories which it properly governs. This is formalized as the Head Movement Constraint and is a cru­ cial part of Baker's proposals. For Baker's theory to work PPs have to be governed by the verb. He presents several pieces of evidence that they are. One is that cross-linguistically the ultimate semantic role of the NP within the PP depends both on lexical properties of the particular adposition (P) in the PP and on lexical properties of the particular main verb. The P determines a certain range of interpretations that the NP can have, and the V then further limits that range. The consequence of this can be illustrated from Amele. In (12a) the P =nu can only have the interpretation of benefactive. With the corresponding applicative construction in (12b), on the other hand, there can be a benefactive or malefactive interpretation depending on the semantics of the verb. In this case the latter is more appropriate. (12) a.

b.

Uqa ija-na ho=nu q-oi-a. 3SG lSG=of pig=for hit-3sG:su-TODP 'He killed my pig for me.' Uqa ija-na

ho

q-i-t-i-a.

3SG lSG=0f pig hit-DAT-lSG:00-3SG:SU-TODP

'He killed my pig on me.' So this would suggest that the dative marker in Amele is an applica­ tive construction of postposition incorporation. However, as I point out in §6, in most of the IO cases where the dative marker is employed, such as recipient and possessive for example, there is no corresponding PP and therefore no postposition incorporation. In these cases the indirect objects are obligatory terms. If we assume that the 'dative marker' found in serial verb forms, as illustrated in (11) above, is the same morpheme that occurs preceding IO/OOAgr then another possible analysis is that this morpheme is a pro­ verb. Therefore instead of analyzing a verb with DOAgr and IO/OOAgr as

GIVE in Amele

11

[[Vstem] [DOAgr] [DAT] [IO/OOAgr] [INFL]]V we would analyze it as a type of coalescent verb construction, such as [[Vstem] [OAgr] [pro-verb] [OAgr] [INFL]]V Such coalescent verb forms do exist in the language. The verb ahoc 'to bring', for example, is historically a combination of the verbs oc 'to get' and hoc 'to come'. Notice too that the clause structure in Figure 1 does not allow the three governed objects to be defined uniquely by configuration. In this respect they are all defined as [NP, V']. Therefore the grammatical functions of [DO], [IO] and [OO] have to be defined independently of the structure. To overcome this problem we could set up more levels, such as V", V " , etc. Hudson (1992) argues that so-called 'double-object' constructions in Eng­ lish also cannot be defined in configurational terms since, on the basis of a comparison of eleven different syntactic properties, the NP immediately following the verb equates with the traditional 'indirect object' rather than the configurational 'direct object'. Thus, even in English the grammatical functions of [DO] and [IO] have to be defined independently of the struc­ ture. However, defining the dative marker in Amele as a pro-verb with a single object NP would overcome this problem, since there would then be only one object function instead of three. In §7.2 I present evidence that the dative marker is, in fact, an applica­ tive. In the next section we discuss the morphological status of the OAgr, which is also controversial.

5.

The morphological status of the object agreement marking

The point to consider here is whether the object marking is cross-reference agreement or cliticization of pronouns. This is relevant since the OAgr bears some formal resemblance to the free pronoun forms, as illustrated in Table 1. If the OAgr were pronouns cliticized to the verb then it should not occur with object pronouns. However, the OAgr can readily occur with such free pronouns, as in (13a) for example.

12

John R. Roberts (13) a.

Uqa dana eu ale wal-al-ena. 3SG man that 3DU seek-3Du:DO-3sG:su:PRES 'She is seeking those (two) men.'

It should also be noted that Amele is a pro-drop language and OAgr can be used without an overt object NP or pronoun, as in (13b) for exam­ ple. This only applies to those verbs which can take optional OAgr. There is a whole class of verbs, such as cesuldoc 'to help him' for example, which must take obligatory DOAgr.7 (13) b.

Uqa wal-al-ena. 3SG seek-3DU:DO-3sG:su:PRES 'She is seeking them (two).'

Zwicky (1977) and Zwicky and Pullum (1982) have suggested a range of criteria for distinguishing clitics from affixation. They argue that wordclitic combinability is largely governed by syntactic considerations and that word-affix combinability, on the other hand, is controlled by morphological and/or lexical considerations which are concerned with the substructure of a particular set of words. Zwicky and Pullum (Z&P) apply their criteria to the contracted forms in English 's 'is', 's 'has', 've 'have' and n't 'not'. They determine that while the forms 's 'is', 's 'has' and 've 'have' meet all the criteria of being simple clitics, n't 'not', on the other hand, is distin­ guished as being an affix. The criteria that Z&P use are: 1.

2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Clitics exhibit a low degree of selection with respect to their hosts, while affixes exhibit a high degree of selection with respect to their stems. Arbitrary gaps in the set of combinations are more characteristic of affixed words than of clitic groups. Morphophonological idiosyncrasies are more characteristic of affixed words than of clitic groups. Semantic idiosyncracies are also more characteristic of affixed words than of clitic groups. Syntactic rules can affect affixed words, but cannot affect clitic groups. Clitics can attach to material already containing clitics, but affixes cannot.

GIVE in Amele

13

As already mentioned, in Roberts (1992b, 1996) I show how the SuAgr/Tense/Aspect/Mood system of verb inflection can be equated with the abstract constituent INFL proposed by Chomsky (1982). INFL occurs in complementary distribution to the infinitive marker -ec/-oc and immedi­ ately follows any OAgr on the verb. Using Z&P's criteria it can be demon­ strated that INFL in Amele is actually a semi-independent syntactic unit which cliticizes to the verb. The OAgr has similar properties in that while it has several characteristics of being verbal affixation it can also be sepa­ rated morpho-syntactically from the verb stem. For example, with respect to Z&P's first criterion that affixes show a much higher degree of selection with respect to their hosts than clitics, OAgr attaches almost exclusively to verb stems but there are exceptions. Firstly, it is possible to incorporate certain adverbial constituents into the verb. One of these is the emphatic word bahic 'very, must, really'. 8 This adverb can occur either preceding the verb, as in (14a), or be incorporated into the verb between the verb stem and the OAgr inflection, as in (14b). The function of this incorporation is to express special emphasis for the purposes of contrast or correction, for example. (14) a. Age bahic cesul-t-eig-a. 3PL really help-LSG:DO-3PL:su-IMP 'They really helped me.' b.

Age cesul bahic t-eig-a! 3PL help really 1SG:DO-3PL:SU-IMP 'They REALLY helped me!'

Negators, such as qee 'not' and cain 'don't', can also be incorporated into the verb in a similar way, as in (15) for example. With both the adver­ bial and negator incorporation the OAgr attaches to a constituent that is not a verb stem. (15) a.

b.

Hina qee fadal-t-ag-aun. 2SG not destroy-lSG:DO-2sG:su-NEGF 'You will not destroy me.' Hina fadal 2SG

qee t-ag-aun!

destroy not

1SG:DO-2SG:SU-NEGF

'You will NOT destroy me!'

14

John R. Roberts

The OAgr can also be separated from the verb stem with speech verbs. An example of this is given in (16). For direct speech reporting a speech verb typically precedes the quote and the DO.ADDRESSEE agreement (if present) plus INFL morphology is copied to the end of the quote as a clo­ sure device. (16) Uqa ma-ad-ei-a "Jobon t-eig-a," 3SG say-3PL:DO-3SG-TODP village go up-2PL:su-IMP ad-ei-a. 3PL:DO-3SG-TODP

'He told them: "Go home.'" Finally, Amele, like many Papuan languages, has impersonal verb con­ structions, so-called because they lack subject-person contrast and always occur with only third person singular subject agreement. There are several types. In one type a nominal constituent occurs followed by verb inflection which must include DO agreement. A typical example is illustrated by (17a). The impersonal verb describes a physiological or psychological state and a free pronoun or other nominal can occur before the impersonal verb which refers to the entity experiencing the particular state described by the verb. This experiencer-NP is not the subject of the impersonal verb, how­ ever, since there is concord between it and the DO inflection on the verb. (17) a.

Ija wen

t-ei-a.

l SG hunger 1SG:DO-3SG:SU-TODP

'I was hungry.' It can be demonstrated that the stem in an impersonal verb, such as wendoc 'to be hungry', is actually a nominal constituent by the fact that it can be readily expanded as such, as in (17b) for example. (17) b. Ija wen ben bahic t-ei-a. lSG hunger big very 1SG:DO-3SG:SU-TODP T was very hungry.' With respect to Z&P's criteria 2, 3 and 4 OAgr in Amele has the char­ acteristics of being an affix. So there are arbitrary gaps in the OAgr sys­ tem. For example, some verbs take obligatory DOAgr, some take optional DOAgr and others do not allow any DOAgr. Similarly some verbs take optional IO/OOAgr and others do not allow any OAgr at all to be marked.

GIVE in Amele

15

Table 6. Irregular verb stem forms with DO agreement

cec cinec fec jec joc madec oc qoc

'to 'to 'to 'to 'to 'to 'to 'to

copulate' follow' see' eat' wash' say' get' hit'

3S.DO

3P.DO

candoc cinecdoc fecidoc jeudec joudec madoc oitoc qutoc

canadec cinecadec feciadec jeadec joadec maadec ≈ amadec oadec aqec

There are also irregular forms, such as the irregular DOAgr third per­ son forms cited in Tables 1 and 2. With some verbs OAgr causes irreg­ ularities to the verb stem. The irregularities in form are various and are illustrated in Table 6. For example, with cec 'to copulate' the form with DOAgr has a dif­ ferent stem, with cinec 'to follow' and fec 'to see' the infinitive marker -ec remains with the stem in the DOAgr form, with jec 'to eat', joc 'to wash' and oc 'to get' the vowel of the infinitive marker remains, and with madec 'to say' and qoc 'to hit' the plural DOAgr can form around the stem like a circumfix. This is optional for madec and obligatory for qoc. It is also the case that OAgr in Amele shows semantic idiosyncracies in that with some verbs the combination of verb stem+DOAgr does not indicate cross-reference agreement with the DO. For example, with some intransitive verbs marking with plural DOAgr indicates a partitive goal. An example of this is given in (18). (18) Caja age age=na jobon cesel-i bel-ad-ein. woman 3PL 3PL=of village return-DAT go-3PL:DO-3PL:su:REMP 'The women returned to their own villages.' With other intransitive verbs marking with plural DOAgr indicates a partitive subject, as in (19), for example. (19) Dana eu eeta=nu tati-ad-egi-na? men that what=for look UP-3PL:DO-3PL:SU-PRES 'Why are all those men looking up?'

16

John R. Roberts

With Z&P's criteria 5 and 6 OAgr in Amele patterns like a clitic. So with syntactic movement rules the DOAgr+INFL component of a speech verb can be copied to the end of the quote, as already illustrated by (16). It is also the case that OAgr can attach to material already containing the clitic constituent INFL. This occurs with certain impersonal verbs and is illustrated later by (42). The evidence presented in this section shows that while OAgr in Amele is not cliticization of pronouns it can be analyzed as a type of cliticization. Namely, similar to the INFL affixation the OAgr affixation is cliticized to the verb stem as a semi-independent constituent of the verb word.

6.

The semantic functions of object agreement

Each of the grammatical functions of DO, IO and OO can have a range of semantic functions depending on the semantic properties of the verb. These functions are summarized in Table 7. As can be seen from this table the DO position allows the most semantic functions, with less allowed by IO and only two allowed by OO. Amele does not have a grammatical function changing syntactic device like passive but instead the semantic interpretation of the OAgr is determined by the semantic properties of the individual verb. A full description of all these possible semantic functions together with data examples is provided in Roberts (1993). For the purposes of this article I will only illustrate some of these functions. The primary semantic functions of DO is that of PATIENT and EXPERIENCER. DO.PATIENT has already been illustrated. DO.EXPERIENCER occurs mainly with the impersonal verbs, as in (20). (20) Ija co-cob-i li-li-g wen t-ei-a. ISG SIM-walk-DAT SIM-go-lsG:su:ss hunger 1SG:DO-3SG:SU-TODP 'As I walked along I became hungry.' The primary functions of IO is that of RECIPIENT and POSSESSIVE. An example of IO.RECIPIENT function is given in (21). (21) Uqa sab siw-i-ad-ei-a. 3SG food share-DAT-3PL:IO-3SG:SU-TODP 'He shared the food out to them.'

GIVE in Amele

17

Table 7. The semantic functions of DO, I0 and 00 DO patient experiencer addressee comparative possessive causative recipient goal locative benefactivet malefactive partitive-goal partitive-actor

IO

OO

recipient possessive experiencer addressee allativet ablativet locative partitive

benefactivet malefactive

t Only these semantic functions can be expressed by an alternative PP.

The IO.POSSESSIVE function occurs mainly with the impersonal verbs and indicates that the experiencer is possessed in some way by another entity. In (22), for example, the coconuts are possessed by T . (22) Ahul agag d-u-t-ena. coconut heat 3SG:DO-DAT-1SG:IO-3SG:SU:PRES 'My coconuts are getting hot in the sun.' The IO.POSSESSIVE function can also occur with the speech verbs. An example of this is given in (23). (23) Ija mela-mi

cain

lSG son-lSG:POS PROH

ma-ad-i-t-ag-aun. tell-3PL:DO-DAT-lSG:IO-2SG:SU-NEGF

'Do not tell them about my son.' The primary functions of OO is that of BENEFACTIVE and MALE­ FACTIVE. Examples of OO.BENEFACTIVE have already been seen. An example of OO.MALEFACTIVE is given in (24). (24) Ene cain salal-i-t-ag-aun. here PROH slide-DAT-1SG:OO-2SG:SU-NEGF 'Don't slide here and annoy me (coll. don't slide on me here).'

18

John R. Roberts

It is also the case that with most of these semantic functions they can only be expressed by OAgr on the verb. The semantic functions marked by t in Table 7 are the only functions that can be expressed by an alternative PP. For example, the OO.BENEFACTIVE can be expressed alternatively with the postposition =nu 'for/because of'. An example of this alternation is given in (25). However, because the =nu form also has a CAUSE com­ ponent to its meaning native speakers would say that (25a) and (25b) are not equivalent in meaning. (25) a.

b.

Uqa jacas qet-i-ad-ei-a. 3SG tobacco cut-DAT-3PL:oo-3sG:su-TODP 'He cut tobacco for them.' Uqa age=nu jacas qet-ei-a. 3SG 3PL=for tobacco cut-3sG:su-TODP 'He cut tobacco for/because of them.'

The IO.ALLATIVE function can be expressed alternatively with the postposition =ca 'towards' and an example of this is given in (26). (26) a.

H-u-t-ag-a! come-DAT-LSG:IO-2SG:SU-IMP

'Come to me!' b.

Ija-ca h-og-a! lSG=towards come-2SG:SU-IMP 'Come to me!'

The IO.ABLATIVE function can also be expressed alternatively with the postpositional combination of =nadec 'from off of' and an example of this is given in (27). (27) a.

Ija je eu casac Bunag dah m-u-t-ug-a. lSG talk that first Bunag ear put-DAT-3SG:IO-LSG:S U-TODP

'I first heard that talk from Bunag.' Ija je eu casac Bunag=na=dec dah m-ig-a. lSG talk that first Bunag=of=from ear put-LSG:SU-TODP 'I first heard that talk from Bunag.' With some verbs the DOAgr expresses PARTITIVE-GOAL and PARTI­ TIVE-ACTOR functions. The DO.PARTITIVE-GOAL function can apply to verbs either with or without an overt NP object. The form is restricted b.

GIVE in Amele

19

to the third person dual and plural morphemes -al and -ad, respectively. Where a verb has no object the -ad marking indicates that the action of the verb applies 'everywhere' or 'extensively'. Example (18) given above illus­ trates this. The -al marking indicates 'both' and example (28) illustrates this. Where a verb has an object the -ad marking indicates 'all' and the -al marking indicates 'both'. (28) Age jobon lecis eu bel-al-eig-a. 3PL village two that go-3DU:DO-3PL:su-TODP 'They went to both of those two villages.' The DO.PARTITIVE-ACTOR function only applies to verbs subcategorized [-DO]. The form is also restricted to the third person dual and plural morphemes, -al and -ad respectively. The -ad marking indicates that all the actors participated in the action of the verb and example (19) given above illustrates this function. The -al marking indicates that both the actors participated in the action of the verb, as in (29). (29) Dana lecis eu cal-al-esin. men two that arrive-3DU:DO-3DU:SU:REMP 'Both those two men arrived.' Foley (1986:96-98) says that Papuan languages can fall into three main groupings with regard to how they mark the dative arguments of recipient and benefactive. Some behave like Yimas, in which the dative nominais are assimilated to the class of core relations, i.e. actor and undergoer, and are indicated by verbal affixation. Others behave like Iatmul, in which the datives are assimilated to the class of peripheral relations and are suffixed with nominal case markers. There is also a third intermediate group in which beneficiary can appear as either a core argument marked on the verb or as a peripheral argument marked by a nominal case marker and recipi­ ent is marked only as a core argument. The Barai language of the Koiarian family is cited as an example of this class. Amele would appear to belong to the Barai class since in Amele the BENEFACTIVE can be expressed either by OOAgr on the verb or by the postposition =nu 'for/because' cliticized to the beneficiary. NP.RECIPIENT, on the other hand, can only be expressed by OAgr on the verb. However, as will be shown in §7, RECIP­ IENT can be marked as either a core argument by DOAgr or a dative argu­ ment by IOAgr. This completes our review of the semantic functions of OAgr in Amele.

20 7.

John R. Roberts The form of GIVE

The verb GIVE does not have a regular verb stem, as such, but instead the verb stem comprises just OAgr markers. So there are, in actuality, seven verb forms meaning 'to give'. Their infinitive forms are given Table 8. Typically the THING being given is expressed by just a nominal expression in the clause and there is agreement marked on the verb for the GIVER, as SuAgr, and the RECIPIENT, as OAgr. (30) Dana uqa=na mel sigin ut-i-a. man 3sG=of boy knife 3SG:O-3SG:SU-TODP 'The man gave his son the knife.' (31) Caja eu dana ceu ad-en. woman that man beer 3PL:O-3SG:REMP 'That woman gave the men fermented root beer.' (32) Sapol it-ece-m ja qatan-ig-a. axe 1SG:O-DS-2SG:SU firewood split- 1SG:SU-INJ 'Give me the axe to split the firewood.' Table 8. The forms of the verb GIVE itec ihec utec ilec alec igec

adec

'to 'to 'to 'to 'to 'to 'to

give give give give give give give

me' you' him' us(du)' you/them(du)' us(pl)' you/them(pl)'

7.1. RECIPIENT cross-referenced by DOAgr or IOAgr In this section we will examine the nature of the OAgr in GIVE to deter­ mine whether it is direct or indirect. Dryer (1986) and Newman (1996) note that cross-linguistically the RECIPIENT in a GIVE verb construction can be marked either in the same way as the single object of a monotran­ sitive clause (i.e. DOAgr) or not. In Amele the RECIPIENT can be cross-

GIVE in Amele

21

referenced on several different verbs by either DOAgr or IOAgr depending on the semantics of the verb itself. Incidentally, this semantic function can only be indicated by cross-reference on the verb. It cannot be indicated by a PP construction, for example. The THING given can only be cross-refer­ enced by DOAgr. Table 9. DO.RECIPIENT and IO.RECIPIENT verb classes9 DO.RECIPIENT

IO.RECIPIENT 'to divide/share' 'to share with him' 'to divide them/ to share with them' 'to divide/share for him' 'to divide/share for them'

siw-ec siw-i-toc siw-ad-i-toc

'to share' 'to share with him' 'to share them with him'

faj-ec faj-ud-ec faj-ad-ec faj-i-toc faj-i-adec

'to 'to 'to 'to 'to

pay/buy' pay him' pay/buy them' pay/buy for him' pay/buy for them'

jaq-ec jaq-i-toc jaq-ad-i-toc

'to write' 'to write to him' 'to write them to him'

ihac-ec ihac-doc ihac-adec ihac-ad-i-toc

'to 'to 'to 'to

show' show him' show them' show them to him'

sanij-ec sanij-i-toc sani-ad-i-toc

'to read' 'to read to him' 'to read them to him'

iwal-doc iwal-adec iwal-ad-i-toc

'to lead/teach him' 'to lead/teach them' 'to lead/teach them for/to him'

cesaw-ec cesaw-udec cesaw-adec cesaw-i-toc cesaw-i-adec

A sample of DO.RECIPIENT and IO.RECIPIENT verbs is given in Table 9. All have the semantic components of GIVER, THING given and RECIPIENT. Each of these verbs have slightly different cross-reference marking. The verbs cesawec and fajec, for example, take optional DOAgr marking and use the -ud '3SG' set. Ihacec also has optional DOAgr mark­ ing but uses the -doc '3SG' set. Iwaldoc has obligatory DOAgr marking

22

John R. Roberts

and also uses the -doc marker. The three IO.RECIPIENT verbs, siwec, jaqec and sanijec, can all take optional DOAgr and IOAgr marking. For the DO.RECIPIENT verbs, when only DOAgr is marked the RECIPIENT interpretation depends on the animacy of the referent. If it is [+human] then this interpretation is usually assumed. With respect to cesawec and fajec, however, the RECIPIENT interpretation only applies if the marking is DOAgr. If nonDOAgr is marked then this is interpreted as OOAgr with a BENEFACTIVE function. With ihacec and iwaldoc, on the other hand, DOAgr alone is interpreted as RECIPIENT. If additional OAgr is marked then this is interpreted as IO.RECIPIENT and the DOAgr is interpreted as THING. With the IO.RECIPIENT verbs the DOAgr (when present) is never interpreted as RECIPIENT. Only the IOAgr can be given this interpretation. Some examples of the usage of these different verbs are given in (33)-(39). (33) Ija cot-ig lecis eu ceb cesaw-al-ig-a. lSG brother-3sG:POS two that betelnutdivide-3DU:DO-lsG:su-TODP T divided the betelnut between those two brothers.' (34) Age cum ho=nu qaig faj-ud-eig-an. 3PL yesterday pig=for money pay-3sG:DO-3PL:su-YESTP They paid him the money for the pig yesterday.' (35) Ija ho eu ihac-h-ig-en. ISG pig that show-2sG:DO-lSG:su-FUT 'I will show you that pig.' (36) Age cob-oc tucuc iwal-g-ein. 3PL walk-NOM straight teach- 1PL:DO-3PL:SU:REMP 'They taught us the straight life.' (37) Uqa uqa=na sab siw-i-ad-ena. 3SG 3sG=of food share-DAT-3PL:io-3sG:PRES 'He is sharing his food with them.' (38) Hina meme-n jaq-i-h-ei-a. 2SG father-2sG:POS write-DAT-2sG:io-3sG:su-TODP 'Your father wrote to you.'

GIVE in Amele

23

(39) Me je sanij-i-t-ag-a. good talk read-DAT- 1SG:IO-2SG:SU-IMP 'Read the Scriptures to me.' Without access to historical data the only way to decide whether the OAgr in GIVE is direct or indirect is to compare it with the way RECIP­ IENT is marked in other verbs in the language. OAgr paradigms with mor­ pheme breaks for some of the DO.RECIPIENT and IO.RECIPIENT verbs are given in Table 10 and compared with the forms of GIVE. As can be seen, there is no set of OAgr amongst the RECIPIENT marking verbs that exactly matches that of GIVE. Looking at the full para­ digms in each case the closest match is between the cesaw-udeclfaj-udec set and GIVE. The only difference between these forms and that of GIVE is in the third person singular form. In the former it is -udec and in GIVE it is utec — a difference in voicing. Notice, however, that this same difference in voicing also occurs be­ tween ihacdoc and siwitoc. When the dative marker is taken into account in the siwitoc paradigm the only difference between this verb and ihacdoc is the -doc vs. -toc distinction in the third person singular form. The IO.RECIP­ IENT agreement has the voiceless form. Table 10. A comparison of DO.RECIPIENT and IO.RECIPIENT verbs with GIVE

1SG

2SG 3SG 1DU 2DU 3DU 1PL 2PL 3PL

DO.RECIP

DO.RECIP

IO.RECIP

'to divide' cesaw-itec cesaw-ihec cesaw-udec cesaw-ilec cesaw-alec cesaw-alec cesaw-igec cesaw-adec cesaw-adec

'to show' ihac-tec ihac-hec ihac-doc ihac-lec ihac-alec ihac-alec ihac-gec ihac-adec ihac-adec

'to share' siw-i-tec siw-i-hec siw-i-toc siw-i-lec siw-i-alec siw-i-alec siw-i-gec siw-i-adec siw-i-adec

'to give' itec ihec utec ilec alec alec igec adec adec

'to 'to 'to 'to 'to 'to 'to 'to 'to

me' you' him/her' us(du)' you(du)' them(du)' us' you(pl)' them(pl)'

24

John R. Roberts

Amele would appear to have two distinct paradigm sets of DOAgr forms in just the same way it has two distinct paradigm sets of SuAgr forms.10 One set is illustrated by cesawudec and one set is illustrated by ihacdoc. However, ignoring GIVE for the moment, there is only one set of IOAgr forms, which is illustrated by siwitoc. These forms correspond directly with the ihacdoc DOAgr set. The only difference being -doc '3SG:DO' vs. -toc '3SG:IO'. It would therefore be reasonable to conclude that GIVE has the IOAgr paradigm set that corresponds to the cesawudec DOAgr paradigm. Again, these paradigms are identical apart from the -udec vs. utec contrast. The form of GIVE can also be compared with another type of 'free­ standing' OAgr morphology in the language. Recall that an impersonal verb, such as wen doc 'to be hungry', has DO.EXPERIENCER cross-ref­ erenced in its verb morphology. Such verbs are similar to GIVE in that they do not have an overt verb stem. Instead a nominal expression, such as wen, functions as an incorporated stem.11 These are clearly nominal expressions since they can be expanded as such, e.g. wen ben bahic doc 'to be very big hungry'. Also inalienably possessed nouns, which have their own agree­ ment morphology, can function as incorporated stems of impersonal verbs. An example of this would be the inalienably possessed noun majani 'my shame', majain 'your shame', majag 'his/her shame' forming the imper­ sonal verb majag doc 'to be ashamed'. A comparison of GIVE with wen doc is given in Table 11. The OAgr morphology for wen doc is the same as the DOAgr for ihacdoc and con­ trasts in the first person, and second and third person singular forms with those for GIVE. So the free-standing DOAgr morphology in the impersonal verbs is clearly quite different to the free-standing IOAgr morphology of GIVE. Table l l . A comparison of GIVE IOAgr with impersonal verb DOAgr sab sab sab sab sab sab sab

itec ihec utec ilec alec igec adec

'to 'to 'to 'to 'to 'to 'to

give give give give give give give

me food' you food' him food' us(du) food' you/them(du) food' us(pl) food' you/them (pl) food'

wen wen wen wen wen wen wen

tec hec doc lec alec gec adec

'to 'to 'to 'to 'to 'to 'to

hunger hunger hunger hunger hunger hunger hunger

me' you' him' us(du)' you/them (du)' us(pl)' you/them (pl)'

GIVE in Amele

25

7.2. IOAgr as the lexical stem of GIVE In the preceding section we have established that the OAgr in GIVE is that of IO and not DO. I now want to argue for the analysis that this IOAgr morphology actually functions as the lexical stem of GIVE rather than affixation with a zero verb stem. The main basis for this analysis is that the IOAgr morphology in GIVE can itself be suffixed as though it were a verb stem. In §3 I said there is a hierarchy of occurrence for the OAgr markers with respect to their proxim­ ity to the verb stem, viz. [DO]

>

[IO]

>

[OO]

This hierarchy applies to all verbs except for one, the verb GIVE. In example (40) the DOAgr marker follows the IOAgr marker contrary to the order found in all other verbs and there is also no intervening dative marker. This would indicate that the second second set of OAgr is direct and not indirect or oblique. It would also indicate that the DOAgr is affixing to the IOAgr as though it were a verb stem. (40) Uqa ho eu it-ad-ei-a. 3SG pig that 1SG:IO-3PL:DO-3SG:SU-TODP 'He gave me those pigs.' Another example taken from a conversation is given in (41). Here OOAgr is also marked in addition to the DOAgr. The OOAgr actually has a MALEFACTIVE meaning in this instance. (41) Eeta=nu

ut-ad-i-t-ag-a?

what=for 3SG:IO-3PL:DO-DAT-1SG:OO-2SG:SU-TODP

'Why did you give him them on me?' The fact that both DOAgr and OOAgr can be suffixed to the IOAgr morphology in the GIVE verb at the same time would substantiate the hypothesis that the IOAgr is functioning as a verb stem. It also provides GIVE with another unique characteristic. It is the only verb in the language in which all three OAgr functions of DO, IO and OO can be marked at the same time. The structure of the verb GIVE in Amele can therefore be analysed as [STEM[IOAgr] (DOAgr) (DAT) (OOAgr) [INFL]]V

26

John R. Roberts

So GIVE has three unique characteristics as a verb: it has no lexical stem, the order of DOAgr and IOAgr is reversed, and all three forms of OAgr can be marked on this verb at the same time. It is also the case that GIVE does not just have seven infinitive forms but rather 343 possible infinitive forms! This is the figure reached when you multiply the three object agreement paradigms together, i.e. 73. Figure 2 gives a sample of how these paradigms can build on each other. Borg and Comrie (1984) say that in many languages GIVE is syntac­ tically a very atypical ditransitive verb. This is certainly the case with Amele. Is there any explanation for the unique morphological characteris­ tics of GIVE in this language? The obvious explanation would seem to be that when the original stem for GIVE disappeared in the language the IOAgr marker itself, as the remaining obligatory component of the verb, was relexicalized by native speakers as the verb stem.

Figure 2. Possible forms of GIVE

GIVE in Amele

27

Table 12. Coalescence of DOAgr markers with certain verb stems madec

'to tell'

qoc

'to hit'

+al +ad +al +ad

a-ma-l-ec a-ma-d-ec a-q-al-ec a-q-ec

'to 'to 'to 'to

tell you(du)/them(du)' tell you(pl)/them(pl)' hit you(du)/them(du)' hit you(pl)/them(pl)'

where the verb stem can be omitted or deleted in certain contexts, as with the speech verbs illustrated in (16) above. This would suggest that there is already a formal morphological pattern in the language which makes the language conducive to expressing GIVE as a form made up solely of affixes. Secondly, recall that for madec 'to say/tell' and qoc 'to hit' the stems of these verbs 'coalesce' with the dual and plural object markers. This is illustrated more fully in Table 12. In effect the -al and -ad suffixes form a circumfix type construction around the verb stem. In the case of qoc 'to hit' forming with -ad 'you(pl)/ them(pl)' the d from the suffix is completely absorbed into the stem and the a that is left functions like a prefix. It is as though when the verb stem is phonologically small in form the OAgr affixes tend to take the stem's place in the structure of the verb. If we assume that previously the stem of GIVE in Amele was small then a similar process with the IOAgr markers taking the place of the stem and eliminating it entirely would result in the present form of GIVE in the language.12 If we analyze the IOAgr in GIVE as a relexicalized verb stem then this also forces a choice between analyzing the dative marker as either an applicative or a pro-verb. As an applicative the dative marker would cease to have a function when the IOAgr relexicalized to become the verb stem and should disappear, which it has. If it is a pro-verb then when the orig­ inal GIVE stem disappeared this pro-verb should have taken its place and we should now have forms like i-alec 'to give to them(du)' and i-adec 'to give to them'. Since we do not have these forms the dative marker must be an applicative.

28 8.

John R. Roberts GIVE as a basic verb in Amele

Newman (1996) argues that the concept of GIVE is basic to human cogni­ tive experience and that the verb GIVE should be considered a basic verb in human language. He presents a range of evidence to substantiate his case. In contrast to this Wierzbicka (1993) does not include GIVE in her set of 'semantic primitives' on the basis that GIVE is not indefinable. On the contrary GIVE can be decomposed into more elementary meanings. So whether GIVE is considered a basic term in human language depends entirely on one's theoretical motives. It would also seem to depend on the particular language you are working in. For example, one of Wierzbicka's semantic primitives is want, which is deemed an indefinable notion in English at least. In Amele, however, this notion is expressed by a complex lexical form which has decomposable parts. Consider (42), for example, which expresses the notion I want to eat. (42) Ija j-ag-a t-ena. lSG eat-2sG:su-IMP 1SG:DO-3SG:PRES 'I want to eat.' This is a highly complex form. It is an impersonal verb construction with an incorporated imperative verb. The impersonal verb cross-references T with DOAgr as the EXPERIENCER. This verb is also marked with third person singular SuAgr whose reference remains anonymous. The incorpo­ rated imperative jaga 'you(sg) eat' is addressed to the experiencer. Present tense, imperative mood, SuAgr and DOAgr, as well as three different per­ son categories are all marked in the one verb form. From the point of view of an Amele speaker want would be considered a highly complex semantico-syntactic notion and not a semantic primitive. In fact, any verb in Amele is semantically and syntactically complex. For example, all verbs have to be subcategorized according to the argu­ ments they can take. This is an essential part of their meaning. If we take the verb odoc 'to do', for instance, which is another of Wierzbicka's semantic primitives, this is subcategorized for [±DO, -IO, ± 0 0 ] . It cannot be a verb in the language without having these as components of its mean­ ing. Odoc also has several other sides to its meaning. It is the main verb used to express the CAUSATIVE. An example illustrating this is given in (43).

GIVE in Amele (43) Uqa od-it-ece-b

29 nu-ig-a.

3SG do-lSG:DO-DS-3SG:SU go-lSG:SU-TODP

'He made me go. / He caused me to go.' Odoc also functions as a pro-verb to link clauses together in discourse. Some examples of this can be found in Roberts (1987:116ff). Therefore odoc 'to do' in Amele is also semantically decomposable and not a seman­ tic primitive in Wierzbicka's terms. Another way we could view GIVE as a basic verb in Amele is if the lexical form occurs as a basic building block type of verb. Foley (1986) notes that in many Papuan languages there is often a small set of basic, or 'generic' verb stems which enter into combinations with other morphemes to yield the full range of verbal forms. Amele also has a number of these kind of verb forms. The two most ubiquitous are qoc 'to hit' and mec 'to put'. These two verbs, especially qoc can combine with other morphemes to form scores of different compounds. A sample of some are given in Tables 13 and 14 taken from Roberts (1994). Other verbs that can form many compounds are oc 'to get, to receive, to do', mudec 'to make, to do', lec 'to go, to become', bec 'to come up, to happen', nec 'to come down, to happen', bilec 'to sit, to be', nijec 'to lie, to be', and tawec 'to stand, to be'. Surprisingly, however, GIVE does not figure in the set of verbs in Amele that can combine readily with other morphemes to produce new forms. A few compounds do exist involving GIVE and these are shown in Table 15. Most of them involve the giving of various kinds of pledges, however, and GIVE does not seem to have the same range of combinability nor extensions of meaning that the verbs cited above have. So GIVE in Amele fails to meet the basicness criteria of a simplex semantico-syntactic structure and a morpheme of lexical formation. However, there is one way in which GIVE could be considered a basic verb. Most of the verbs that function in lexical formation have a verb stem that comprises just a single phoneme, e.g. q-oc 'to hit', m-ec 'to put', o-c 'to get', l-ec 'to go', b-ec 'to come up', and n-ec 'to come down'. This shortness of form is taken a stage further with GIVE. With this verb there is no stem at all that can be equated with the meaning of 'to give'. As a short form it has been reduced to zero. All that is left is a morphological reference to the RECIPIENT as the essential referent in the giving act. The sense of GIVE is therefore understood without an overt realisation of

30

John R. Roberts

Table 13. Some compound forms based on qoc 'to hit' cesil qoc cololo qoc gonin qoc hag qoc ilo qoc ijan qoc jagel qoc mala qoc mede qoc qato qoc qem qoc sib qoc

'to sneeze (lit. to hit cassowary)' 'to play the bamboo flute (lit. to hit the flute)' 'to curl up (lit. to hit curled)' 'to be sick (lit. to be hit with sickness)' 'to have a headache (lit. to be head hit)' 'to name (lit. to hit his name)' 'to menstruate (lit. to be moon hit)' 'for the cock to crow (lit. for the chicken to hit)' 'to gather (lit. to hit the nose)' 'to shrug (lit. to hit the shoulder)' 'to paint red (lit. to hit the red)' 'to yawn (lit. to hit the jaw)'

Table 14. Some compound forms based on mec 'to put' ameg mec bal mec ben mec cahug mec cal mec dah mec deweg mec gonagona mec heel mec muguh mec qee mec sanan mec

'to 'to 'to 'to 'to 'to 'to 'to 'to 'to 'to 'to

keep an eye out (lit. to put his eye)' cast a spell (lit. to put a spell)' become big (lit. to put big)' become smelly (lit. to put smell)' die' listen (lit. to put the ear)' hang around (lit. to put his body)' argue (lit. to put an argument)' be jealous (lit. to put hole)' give his share (lit. to put his breastbone)' become nothing (lit. to put not)' start'

Table 15. Some compound forms based on utec 'to give him' bagol utec gihin utec gomi utec lalafan utec lig utec loo utec nun utec qadaug utec sahun utec uum utec

'to 'to 'to 'to 'to 'to 'to 'to 'to 'to

give a gift' give the gihin as a pledge of peace' poke and tease someone' give kindness' give the croton as a pledge of peace' give hospitality' give a punishment' mourn for someone' give the fibre of the coconut as a pledge of marriage' give freely without recompense'

GIVE in Amele

31

GIVE. A semantic notion could not seem to get more basic when it is so taken for granted that it does not even have to be expressed overtly! With the loss of its lexical stem GIVE in Amele has been reduced to its essential meaning of GIVER, THING and RECIPIENT. When combined with other morphemes the meaning remains as 'to give'. There is no extended or secondary meaning as with the other verbs that form combi­ nations. Therefore as a verb reduced to its basic components of meaning GIVE can be defined as a basic term in the Amele language.

Abbreviations used in glosses Agr= agreement; AN= animate gender; DS= different subject following; DO= direct object; INAN= inanimate gender; I0= indirect object; INFL= inflection; INJ= injunctive mood; NEGF= negative future tense; NEGP= negative past tense; NOM= nominaliser; o= object; POS= possessor; PO= primary object; PROH= prohibitor; REMP= remote past tense; ss= same subject following; so= secondary object; SIM= simultaneous tense; su= subject; TODP= today's past tense; YESTP= yesterday's past tense; fur further abbreviations, see list on p. vi.

Notes 1.

I am grateful for John Newman's helpful comments and suggestions on an earlier draft of this article. I have also endeavoured to clarify many of the points raised by the anonymous reviewer. However, any errors of fact or analysis remain my respon­ sibility.

2.

Amele is spoken by about 6,000 people most of whom live on their traditional land just south of the town of Madang in Papua New Guinea and has the largest number of speakers of the six languages of the Gum language family. Amele has three main dialects (see Roberts 1991b). The particular dialect discussed in this article is the Haija dialect.

3.

The data examples are all written orthographically. Two symbols whose pronunciation may not be obvious are c which is [?] and q which is [6]. The symbol = indicates a postpositional clitic and the symbol ≈ means 'varies with'.

4.

This analysis of IOAgr is justified in §7.1.

5.

Dryer (1986) uses the PO and SO terminology to define a fourth type of relationship between terms, i.e. O → SU via passivization, Ergative → Absolutive via antipassivization, 10 → DO via dative movement and SO → PO via antidative movement.

32

John R. Roberts In a DO vs. I0 system the NP referring to the OBJECT in a GIVE-type clause is marked in the same way as the single object of a monotransitive clause. In a PO vs. SO system the NP referring to the RECIPIENT in a GIVE-type clause is marked in the same way as the single object of a monotransitive clause. I am not using the terms PO and SO in this way. PO simply refers to the first position of object agreement after the verb stem and SO refers to the second position.

6.

For a full description of what constitutes INFL in Amele see Roberts (1992b, 1996).

7.

See Roberts (1993) for further description and discussion of this.

8.

Other adverbials that can be incorporated in this way are the limiters dih 'just' and himec 'only'. In Roberts (1996) these adverbials are analyzed as specifiers on the verb.

9.

The DO.RECIPIENT vs. IO.RECIPIENT verb classes parallels the DO.ADDRESSEE vs. IO.ADDRESSEE verb classes. Examples of the former are madoc 'to tell/say to him', sadoc 'to tell/recount to him' and sisildoc 'to ask him'. An example of the lat­ ter is silditoc 'to explain it to him'.

10.

See Roberts (1987:277-278) for a description of the two basic sets of SuAgr in Amele.

11.

Analyzing the stems of impersonal verbs as incorporated nominal subjects is essen­ tially what is proposed in Roberts (1987:315-316).

12.

Kimball (1991:102) also suggests the deletion of a single phoneme stem as the his­ torical process by which GIVE in Koasati is now realized purely by verbal affixation.

References Baker, Mark. 1988. Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Borg, Albert J. and Bernard Comrie. 1984. "Object diffuseness in Maltese." In Frans Plank (ed.), Objects: Towards a Theory of Grammatical Relations. London: Aca­ demic Press, 109-126. Chomsky, Noam. 1982. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris. Dryer, Matthew S. 1986. "Primary objects, secondary objects, and antidative." Language 62:808-845. Foley, William A. 1986. The Papuan Languages of New Guinea. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hudson, Richard. 1992. "So-called 'double objects' and grammatical relations." Lan­ guage 68:251-276. Kimball, Geoffrey D. 1991. Koasati Grammar. Lincoln and London: University of Nebraska Press. Newman, John. 1996. Give: A Cognitive Linguistic Study. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter [Cognitive Linguistics Research 7].

GIVE in Amele

33

Roberts, John R. 1987. Amele. London: Croom Helm. Roberts, John R. 1988a. "Amele switch-reference and the theory of grammar." Lin­ guistic Inquiry 19.1:45-63. Roberts, John R. 1988b. "Switch-reference in Papuan languages: A syntactic or extrasyntactic device?" Australian Journal of Linguistics 8:75-118. Roberts, John R. 1990. "Modality in Amele and other Papuan languages." Journal of Linguistics 26:363-401. Roberts, John R. 1991a. "Reduplication in Amele." In T. Dutton (ed.), Papers in Papuan linguistics, No. 1, 115-146. Pacific Linguistics, A-73. Roberts, John R. 1991b. "A study of the dialects of Amele." Language and Linguistics in Melanesia 22:67-126. Roberts, John R. 1992a. "The Category 'Irrealis' in Papuan medial verbs." Paper pre­ sented at the Symposium on Mood and Modality, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque. Roberts, John R. 1992b. "The morphological and syntactic status of verbs in Amele." Paper presented at the Third International Conference on Papuan Linguistics, Sept 1992, Madang. Roberts, John R. 1993. "Object agreement in Amele: A preliminary report." Paper pre­ sented at the 1993 Linguistics Society of PNG Conference, Port Moresby. Roberts, John R. 1994. Amele-English Dictionary. Unpublished ms. Roberts, John R. 1996. "A Government and Binding analysis of the verb in Amele." Language and Linguistics in Melanesia 27.1:1-66. Wierzbicka, Anna. 1993. "The alphabet of human thoughts." In Richard A. Geiger and Brygida Rudzka-Ostyn (eds.), Conceptualizations and Mental Processing in Lan­ guage. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter [Cognitive Linguistics Research 3], 23-51. Z'graggen, John A. 1975. The Languages of the Madang District, Papua New Guinea. Pacific Linguistics, B41. Canberra: Australian National University. Z'graggen, John A. 1980. A Comparative Word List of the Mabuso Languages, Madang Province, Papua New Guinea. Pacific Linguistics, D32. Canberra: Australian Na­ tional University. Zwicky, Arnold M. 1977. On Clitics. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club. Zwicky, Arnold M. and Geoffrey K. Pullum 1982. Cliticization versus Inflections: English n't. Bloomington: Indiana Linguistics Club.

Giving in Nawatl David Tuggy Summer Institute of Linguistics Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México

1.

Introduction1

The notion GIVE is, depending on one's viewpoint, one of the most troublesome or fascinating of the common concepts by means of which we understand our world. Typical relationships seem to be in some sense inher­ ently binary,2 with one of the related entities accorded pride of place and the other taking second billing, but the GIVE relationship is somehow inherently ternary, and this permits an intriguing complexity in the rela­ tionships of the related elements: the GIVER, the RECIPIENT, and the THING given. In particular, it is less than clear which of these elements, and in what sense, naturally takes second billing and which takes third. The relation­ ships between the GIVER and the THING given fit quite exactly the most common prototype for relationships between the subject and object of a transitive verbal concept, and by following that pattern would be given first and second billing, respectively. Yet the RECIPIENT is likely to be so prominent in the minds of speaker and hearer that third billing will not do for him. This results naturally from the facts that the RECIPIENT is typi­ cally a human, and that he is so intrinsically involved in the action that the action is difficult if not impossible to conceive without reference to him (contrast the case of an optional indirect object of a typical transitive verb like hit in hit me a home run). It is thus easy to construe an act of giving as basically involving the relationship of GIVER to RECIPIENT, with the THING given as less important, as merely the medium or instru­ ment of that relationship.3

36

David Tuggy

This raw material is seized upon differently by different languages and, typically, by different lexemes and constructions within a given language. One language may make the parallel with typical transitives paramount and give first and second billing to GIVER and THING given, making its version of GIVE antonymous to TAKE. Another may take the GIVERRECIPIENT relationship as preeminent, making its version of GIVE antonymous to ROB. Most will have an arsenal of grammatical and/or lex­ ical means for restructuring such a basic conception to produce other promi­ nence configurations, e.g. they may have a passive version of GIVE or per­ haps a verb meaning RECEIVE. This paper will look at how the Nawatl language structures the con­ cept of giving, using for the analysis the Cognitive Grammar framework of Langacker (Langacker 1979, 1982, especially 1987 and 1991; Lindner 1981; Tuggy 1981). 1.1. The cognitive underpinnings Cognitive Grammar claims that verbal concepts are best understood as pro­ cesses, i.e. relations whose evolution is cognitively tracked through time. (Adjectives, adverbs and adpositions are all non-processual, or atemporal relations.) Relations are (practically) impossible to conceive of without at least a schematic (i.e. vague, underspecified) characterization of the enti­ ties that participate in them, and virtually always one of those participant entities is singled out, given special prominence. This especially salient participant is called the Trajector (abbreviated TR):4 it functions as cogni­ tive figure relative to the other specifications of the verbal concept. Those other cognitive specifications, which function as the ground relative to the Trajector, are by no means necessarily homogenous as to salience, however, and will often contain entities of sufficient salience to stand out from the rest. These are termed landmarks; and landmarks may themselves differ in prominence. The Trajector of a transitive verb corresponds to its subject, and the primary Landmark (with a capital L, abbreviated LM) corresponds to its direct or primary object. That is, in Cognitive Grammar the subject is by definition a nominal that corresponds to the Trajector, and the primary object one that corresponds to the Landmark, of a transitive verb. (When a verb is construed without a primary Landmark, it will naturally be intran­ sitive, i.e. no grammatical object will appear with it.)

Giving in Nawatl

37

For instance, in the English verb fry, a relation between a human being and a physical, solid or semi-solid, substance is tracked through conceived time. This relationship is what is profiled (i.e. designated, named) by the word. The human is chosen as Trajector (and a nominal corresponding to it will be subject), and the substance is primary Landmark (and a nominal corresponding to it will be direct object). During the course of conceived time the Trajector causes the Landmark to be heated with oil or an oil-like substance on a hot surface. These, being the most salient specifications, constitute the core of the meaning of fry. Even here there are more than just two elements of the conception: besides the Trajector and the Land­ mark there are the hot surface and the oil and the heat source, which are sorts of secondary landmarks, besides the schematically specified time, place, etc., in which the process takes place. In the prototypical construal of fry these elements are described more fully: the Landmark is food, which is made more palatable or edible by the process; the Trajector is in fact intending this to happen, the hot surface is the inside of a flat pan which is on a stove, which holds the pan, with the food in it, over a burner, which supplies the heat; there is oil or melted butter in the pan, the Trajector periodically turns the food with a spatula, the whole action takes place in a kitchen not long before a meal which, the cook intends, will consist in part of the fried food, and so forth. These additional specifications, including the specification of new secondary landmarks such as the spat­ ula, do not disturb the basic organization of the concept. They may be more or less extensive, and may even be contradicted on occasion (some more easily than others), without destroying the recognizability of the basic configuration, which is what determines the appropriateness of the use of the term fry. This ranking of participants within fry is not arbitrary; on the other hand, neither is it completely predictable. Given that English speakers are human beings, they are naturally concerned with food, and when they engage in the activity named by fry their purposes and interest are virtu­ ally always centered on the effect the process has on the food rather than on, say, the spatula. Thus it would be quite surprising if the word fry were structured so that something other than the food was its Landmark, the most cognitively salient participant after the (human agent) Trajector. But the pri­ mary objecthood of the food is not a logically or cognitively necessary fact, nor would it be inconceivable that one of the other participants might be

38

David Tuggy

chosen. (One could easily enough imagine frying in order to determine the effect or produce a certain effect on the frying pan, or the spatula, or the oil. If this were a common activity one would even expect a version of fry to appear which had that participant as Landmark.) Although fry ranks its participants in the way described, there are vari­ ous grammatical resources available for changing that ranking. The pastparticipial adjective fried and the related passive construction be fried make the erstwhile Landmark into Trajector, relegating the old Trajector to back­ grounded status. Putting fry into a relative clause makes it possible to give primary salience to virtually any entity involved in the process, profiling it alone and relegating all the others to the cognitive background (the oil they fried the potatoes in, the spatula they used to fry the potatoes, the time of day when they fried the potatoes, the room where they fried the potatoes, etc.). Thus fry is especially useful and fits especially easily where the prominence relations it brings with it coincide with the communicative intent of the speaker, but even where the speaker wishes to establish a different prominence ranking, the language has resources to allow fry to be used in a larger construction which allows that different prominence rank­ ing to obtain. Fry is a member of a class of verbal concepts which are very common among the world's languages; other examples would be make, paint, stuff, slice, stretch, pop, pour, flip, tie, hoe, etc., etc. In these concepts an ani­ mate, typically human, entity manipulates or affects an inanimate entity. The animate entity is picked as Trajector (i.e. it is given the highest degree of cognitive prominence among the participant entities), and the affected inanimate entity is the Landmark. We can speak of these as examples of the Manipulation archetype. There may be other humans besides the manipu­ lator involved in the process, e.g. affected by it; they may be coded by prepositional phrases (paint the car in spite of him) or as 'indirect objects' (slice me a couple of carrots), but we feel that their relationship is more contingent and less central to the process than are those of the Trajector and Landmark. Another archetypical kind of verbal concepts involves the interaction of animate, again particularly human, entities. Examples of this class would be idolize, knight, reprimand, tickle, impress, hire, imitate, respect, marry, and so forth; we will speak of them as instances of the Human Interaction archetype. They too may have inanimate objects involved in the process

Giving in Nawatl

39

(e.g. a sword may be part of the knighting process, money is involved in the hiring process) but those inanimate objects are felt to be less central than is the relationship between the persons. In verbs representing these concepts, the more active or initiative human (or, for symmetrical inter­ actions, the more communicatively prominent one) is taken as Trajector, and the other as Landmark. Probably the majority of transitive verbal concepts fall under one or other of these archetypes, or both (e.g. hit, which might involve one person hitting another, but might also involve a person hitting something inani­ mate). 5 Manipulations are generally more common than Human Inter­ actions.6 And of course there are other archetypes (Inanimate Interactions, for instance, or Inanimate-affecting-Human, or Human-being-affected). But these two are the ones most relevant to the notion of giving. The concept GIVE would be a typical Manipulation verbal process except that there is another person besides the GIVER, i.e. the RECIPIENT, who is so central to the process that he cannot easily be left out of the pic­ ture. If Landmark status is accorded to the THING given, the construal is essentially a Manipulation; if the RECIPIENT is made Landmark, the con­ cept is rather a Human Interaction. Langacker (1991:331-332) represents English give (in its non-dativeshifted version) with a diagram essentially equivalent to our Figure la. 7 In it an agent (AG) (which we also refer to as the GIVER) is seen as transfer­ ring energy (symbolized by the labelled hollow arrow) to a moving THING (labelled MVR), which causes that moving THING to leave the GIVER's domain of possession and move to that of a RECIPIENT (RCP). (The motion is represented by the single arrow: the dotted line of correspond­ ence indicates that the moving THING is the same entity in both posi­ tions in which it is represented.) The RECIPIENT perceives the transfer and typically even exercises his motor faculties to assist its completion; this is represented by the dashed arrows from the RECIPIENT to the moving THING in the last stages of the transfer. (These arrows will be omitted in most other GIVE diagrams, e.g. in Figure lb, in order to unclutter the dia­ grams.) The important issue here is that the agent (the GIVER) is accorded the highest degree of prominence (i.e. is the Trajector, TR), and the mov­ ing THING is accorded the second highest degree of prominence (i.e. is the primary Landmark, LM).8 As this analysis indicates, English give structures the giving situation

40

David Tuggy

Figure lb. giv-er

Giving in Nawatl

41

according to the pattern of the Manipulation archetype, even though the RECIPIENT remains highly prominent. The majority of give's English synonyms do this as well, including bestow, donate, grant, and impart, and present and provide in one of their standard usages {present something to someone, provide it for someone). Other words and usages impose a dif­ ferent construal on the same situation: present and provide in their other most standard usage and endow in its most standard usage {present, pro­ vide or endow someone with something) elicit a Human-interaction-type construal, with the RECIPIENT given pride of place as Landmark; so also (in a different way) do the "dative-shifted" versions of give and some of its other synonyms. Receive (see Section 3 below, also Figure 2b) makes the RECIPIENT Trajector and so effects something between a Manipulation and a Human-being-affected construal, and the passive form be given sim­ ilarly effects a purer Human-being-affected construal. We will have occasion to discuss simple constructions in later parts of this paper. Figure lb diagrams, for illustrative purposes, the English construction giv-er? To give is added the nominalizing suffix -er, which profiles (designates) a Thing which is trajector of a process of unspecified nature. That process is put in correspondence (indicated by the dotted line) with the profiled process of give, and the two structures are integrated into a whole on the basis of that correspondence. The global correspondence of the two processes implies, and in fact consists in, multiple local cor­ respondences; of these only the correspondence between trajectors is ex­ plicitly represented. The uppermost, composite, structure represents the meaning of the construction as a whole. (In this case the composite struc­ ture is readily computable from the parts and their mode of combination, but this is by no means always or automatically the case. For instance in Figures 3a and 7a-b, the composite structure contains information not provided by either component, and in 3b, 5b and 7a it contradicts some specifications of its head component.) The suffix -er is profile deter­ minant, i.e. its specifications as to what should be profiled win out over those of give. (Profile determinance is equivalent to headship in many uses of that term.) This profile determinance is represented (1) by an arrow of schematicity from the profile determinant -er to the composite structure, signifying that the construction as a whole is, semantically, a kind of -er rather than a kind of give; and, (2) redundantly, by boldfacing the box enclosing -er. Some important correspondences (not necessarily all that obtain) are shown between the non-profile determinant give and the com-

42

David Tuggy

posite structure: the schematicity arrow implies (and in effect consists of) correspondences of all elements in the head with their counterparts in the composite structure. 1.2. Nawatl verbs and other relevant structures Verbs in Nawatl consist of a verb stem (simple or derived) with certain inflectional suffixes (which except for a pluralizer will not concern us here) and prefixes. All verb stems take a subject prefix, which for third persons is zero (though certain meteorological and other verbs may be analyzed as taking no subject prefix rather than taking the zero third person prefix). The other subject prefixes we will use in examples are ni- T , ti- 'you (SG)', and an- 'you (PL)'. Transitive verb stems must have an object marked as well, either by an incorporated noun or (more normally) by an object prefix, which comes between the subject prefix and the verb stem. Among the object prefixes are such forms as nēch- 'me', mitz- 'you (SG, object)', ki-/k- 'him, her, it', which we will call deictic objects. Non-deictic object prefixes include the reflexive mo- '(one)self' (which with plural subjects also bears a reciprocal meaning), the unspecified object prefixes tla- 'things, something, stuff' and tē- 'someone, people', and the nearly obsolete unspecified reflexive/reciprocal ne- 'people to themselves, each other'. Incorporated noun-stem objects should also be included among non-deictic objects, tla-, although it can generally be glossed as 'unspecified nonhuman object', often bears more specific meanings; two of these are 'nor­ mal or canonical object' and 'sacred (tabu) object'. Transitivity relations in Nawatl are most importantly worked out be­ tween a verb stem and these prefixes: transitivity at the clausal level is a secondary phenomenon, largely derivative of the transitivity of the verb stem. Any noun-like facet of the verbal meaning, including time, place, subject or object, or secondary objects, may be further elaborated by an independent nominal in the clause, but this is not necessary for the clause to be complete: any transitive verb stem with its subject and object prefixes, or an intransitive stem with its subject prefix, can stand alone as a full clause. The deictic object prefixes are probably best analyzed as primary objects, i.e. as always corresponding to the primary Landmark of the verb stem they attach to. There are a number of derivational constructions which

Giving in Nawatl

43

change what entity (if any) is designated as Landmark. Chief among them are causatives and applicatives (Section 4); an object prefix on a simple stem and on its causative and applicative forms will bear a different par­ ticipatory relationship to the process in each case, nēch-itta 'he sees me' is a simple verb, its causative is nēch-itti-tia 'he shows me', and its applica­ tive nēch-itti-lia 'he notices about me'; nēch- 'me' is primary object in every case, but its designatum (the speaker) is construed in the first case as seen, in the second as seeing, and in the third as being the locus or back­ ground for something else being seen. The non-deictic objects also typically function as primary objects (though incorporated nouns more often than not have some other func­ tion)10; thus ni-tla-kuā (I-UNSPEC-eat) means 'I eat (stuff, something, food)', ni-tê-chöki-lia (I-UNSPEC:HUM-cry-APPL) means 'I cry to/mourn someone, people', ni-mo-tta (I-REFL-see) means 'I see myself', ni-naka-kuā (I-meateat) means 'I eat meat'. (Verb stems with unspecified object prefixes often correspond functionally to intransitives in English or Spanish.) However, unlike the deictic object prefixes, the non-deictics can also be used as sec­ ondary objects (almost always of causative or applicative verbs), i.e. they may correspond not to the primary Landmark but to secondary landmarks; when this happens a deictic (or rarely another non-deictic) primary object is added to the left of the non-deictic-cum-stem, forming a double-object construction. We will call the leftmost (usually deictic) prefix in such a con­ struction the outer object, the prefix next to the root or inner stem (always non-deictic) we will call the inner object. For example, ni-k-chia-lia (I-himawait-APPL) means 'I take care of something for him'; what is taken care of (a secondary object of chialia) can be expressed with tla- as in ni-k-tlachia-lia 'I take care of stuff for him'; k- and tla- are the outer and inner objects, respectively, of the double-object construction. This pattern is also exemplified by the stem tla-maka (UNSPEC-give) 'feed' (Figure 3a), i.e. 'give (the expected object, food) to (the Landmark)'. Another double-object pattern has the inner object functioning as pri­ mary object, but producing a stem that is still transitive, with respect to a different (outer) object. We will refer to this as the valence-shifting pattern. Thus the primary object of mach-tia (know-CAUS) 'teach' is the person who is caused to know something: ni-tē-mach-tia T teach (people)' is a well formed verb, with tē- as its primary object, tē-mach-tia can also be used transi­ tively, however, and the primary objecthood shifts in this double-object

44

David Tuggy

construction to the subject material taught, which is designated by the outer object: ni-k-tê-mach-tia means 'I teach it'. This valence-shifting pattern is also exemplified in the stem tē-maka 'give away', diagrammed in Figure 3b. The shifting of Landmark status constitutes a conflict between the specifications of the profile-determinant or head and those of the compos­ ite structure; this is reflected in Figure 3b by having the schematicity arrow between maka and tē-maka dotted; i.e. maka is not fully schematic for tê-maka as it is for tla-maka (Figure 3a). Particularly in double-object constructions, the non-deictic prefixes behave derivationally, in contrast to the deictic prefixes, which are much more strongly inflectional (Tuggy 1989:130-133). Thus double-object constructions are not freely productive, speakers are typically quite conscious of a new one when it is coined, and the constructions often have somewhat idiosyncratic ele­ ments of meaning associated with them.

2.

maka

2.1. The verb maka 'give to' The Nawatl verb maka would be the normal translation for give in English, but it differs from it in that its Landmark is not the THING given, but the RECIPIENT, the person to whom something is given. In other words, it is not a Manipulation but rather a Human Interaction verb, and the THING given is a secondary landmark, a necessary and central participant, but not one of the two focal participants in the process. This concept is diagrammed

Figure 2a. maka

Figure 2b. selia

Giving in Nawatl

45

in Figure 2a, which should be contrasted with give in Figure la (cf. Tuggy 1989:123). It should be obvious that the "objective content" of the two verbs is the same, or to say nearly the same thing, the range of real-world cases each would appropriately describe is the same; the difference is simply one of construal, whether the RECIPIENT or the moving THING is taken as the most important participant after the Trajector. Maka combines in the normal manner with both deictic and nondeictic object prefixes, satisfying its object valence and producing intransi­ tive stems. Thus for example ti-nēch-maka (you-me-give) means 'you give me (it/something)', ti-mo-maka (you-REFL-give) means 'you give yourself (it/something)' and an-mo-maka-h (you:PL-REFL-give-PL) can mean either 'you give yourselves (it/something)' or 'you give each other (it/something)', ni-tè-maka (I-UNSPEC:HUM-give) means 'I give people (something/things/ it), I am generous'. In every case the (primary) object is the RECIPIENT, not the moving THING: ti-nèch-maka cannot mean 'you give me (to someone)'.

Figure 3a. tlamaka

46

David Tuggy

Figure 3b. te-maka 2.2. Double-object constructions with maka maka participates in an unusual number of double-object constructions. Briefly — for more detail see Tuggy (1989, 1994) —, it can have incor­ porated secondary objects (e.g. ni-k-tlakual-maka (I-him-food-give) 'I feed, sustain him' 11 or ni-k-tlāl-maka (I-him-earth-give) 'I give/bequeath him a piece of land'), or the non-deictic prefix tla- as a secondary object: ni-ktla-maka T give food to him, feed him'. In this stem (Figure 3a, compare with the closely synonymous forms in Figures 8a-b) tla- has a 'canonical, typical object' sense which is quite usual for it (though the fact that it is food rather than, say, clothing, that is construed as given is not of course fully predictable). There are three valence-shifting double-object stems formed with maka: in each case the primary object status shifts from the RECIPIENT (designated by the non-deictic inner prefix) to the mover (the THING given, designated by the outer object prefix). These forms are: (1) tē-maka 'give

Giving in Nawatl

47

(away)' (Figure 3b) as in ni-k-tè-maka 'I give it (away, to people)'. This stem is very close in meaning to English give (cf. Tuggy 1989:137-138); compare Figure la with the composite structure of Figure 3b. The major difference is that, since in tê-maka an explicit choice has been made not to specify the RECIPIENT, tê-maka does not easily allow the RECIPIENT to be specified in the clause, as give does. If tê-maka is used with a human (outer) object, it means something like 'betray, hand over (to one's ene­ mies)'. 12 (2) mo-maka can mean 'give to oneself', as in ni-k-mo-maka 'I give it to myself' (cf. the single-object ni-mo-maka T give (it/something/ things) to myself). Since mo- can be reciprocal with plural subjects, the form an-ki-mo-maka-h (you:PL-it-REFL-give-PL) means either 'you give it to yourselves' or 'you give it to each other'. (3) The archaic prefix ne'(unspecified) people to themselves, each other' also occurs with maka: ne-maka means 'sell'. Apparently this is a development from a reciprocal reading like an-ki-mo-maka-h 'you give it to each other'. The predicted meaning would be '(people) give to each other', which is a pretty good de­ scription of a bartering transaction. Nowadays it is used only for exchang­ ing money for goods, and the person who gets money and gives goods is the Trajector (i.e. the stem means 'sell' and not 'buy'). The primary Landmark is the goods, and not the person receiving them and paying money (i.e. not the buyer).

3.

selia and other RECEIVE verbs

Nawatl has several simple verb stems which, like maka, have to do with a giving situation, but which take the RECIPIENT rather than the GIVER as Trajector, and take the moving THING as Landmark. The most neutral of these is selia 'receive', which is diagrammed in Figure 2b (cf. Langacker's essentially identical representation of English receive in 1991:331332). Although all the elements of the typical GIVE situation are present, the choosing of the RECIPIENT as Trajector goes together with a down­ grading of the salience of the GIVER and the part of the process that he is directly involved with. In fact selia (like English receive) can be used where there is no readily identifiable agentive GIVER, as long as the Landmark moves into the RECIPIENT'S domain of possession (as e.g. when a field receives the rain that falls on it.) When selia is used with the unspecified object prefix tla-, it gives it an

48

David Tuggy

'object unspecified because sacred (tabu)' twist; tla-selia means either 'receive the Host (at Mass)', or 'be(come) a mayordomo, i.e. receive the image of a saint into your care (for the appointed period of time, usually a year)'. Near-synonyms of sella include (on-)āna 'take, grasp' and kul 'grasp, take up, snatch up'. They differ from sella in that they specify a greater degree of initiative and activity on the part of the RECIPIENT, and in fact do not have a strong expectation that the Landmark (the moving THING) is headed towards the RECIPIENT'S domain of possession apart from that activity. Yet they are often used in prototypical giving situations, especially where the receiving requires physical grasping of the Landmark THING.

4.

Causative and applicative stems meaning GIVE

Nawatl has a rich set of derivational suffixes which produce transitive verb stems from nominal, verbal, or other stems. There are at least seven such suffixes (many of them are so similar phonologically that it is sometimes difficult to decide when to delimit one from another). These forms when suffixed to verbal, adjectival, or postpositional stems typically function as causatives or applicatives. (They are much more common and more nearly freely productive on verb stems.) A number of these causativized and applicativized stems express meanings very close to GIVE. -tia in its typical causative usage attaches to a verb stem and yields the meaning 'cause (the Landmark) to do (the verb stem)'. 13 Causation can, for our purposes, be equated with an energy transfer, typically from an agent, to a situation; thus it is already present in all the GIVE-type con­ cepts we have examined, -tia attaches, following this normal pattern, to chōka 'cry' and the resulting complex stem, chōk-tia, means 'cause (the Landmark) to cry'.14 chōk-tla is represented in Figure 4a. When a transitive verb stem is combined with -tla the meaning is again 'cause (the Land­ mark) to do (the verb stem)', and the erstwhile Landmark (direct object) of the verb stem becomes a kind of secondary landmark. Thus in Section 1.2 we mentioned mach-tia 'teach', the causative form of mati 'know'; the Landmark of the causativized form is the knower, and the known thing is a secondary landmark; the concept is a Human Interaction rather than a Manipulation. Applicatives mean 'do (the verb stem) to/for/in spite of (etc.) (the Landmark)'. Figure 4b represents chōki-lia, an applicative of chōka which

Giving in Nawatl

49

Figure 4a. chōktia {causative)

means 'cry to (the Landmark)'.15 Here the crying is construed as having an effect upon some person who hears it (and whom the crier intends to have hear it); that person is given Landmark status. Causatives and applicatives share the notion of a process (designated by the verb stem) participating in a causation relationship; they differ largely in whether the process partici­ pates as causing or as caused. Thus the internal semantic structures of -tia and -lia in Figures 4a-b are identical: they differ only in what part corre­ sponds to the verb stem. If the verb stem is put in correspondence with material to the left of or including the causation arrow, i.e. if it is construed as an occurrence which causes something else to happen, you have an applicative (Figure 4b); if it is put in correspondence with material to the right of that arrow, i.e. if it is an occurrence which is caused to happen, you have a causative (Figure 4a, cf. Tuggy 1981:341-454, 1988). Causatives and applicatives on non-verbal stems function very simi­ larly. One such case is that of -tia attaching to the postposition -mák 'in the hand/power of'.16 The notion 'the power of' is closely synonymous to

50

David Tuggy

Figure 4b. chökilia {applicative)

the notion "domain of possession" which we have used as part of the char­ acterization of GIVE; of course being in the someone's hand is a (or even the) typical case of being in his power. In Cognitive Grammar adpositions are directly parallel to transitive verbs except that they are atemporal, i.e. they lack a "temporal profile" (Langacker 1987:244-254). The verb be in the English phrase be in the hand of changes the atemporal in the hand of an adpositional notion, to a verbal notion. In either case the Trajector (= subject) is the possessed or held object, and the Landmark (object) is the holder/possessor. Thus one might expect that when -mák is causativized the held or possessed thing would be the Landmark, and the holder/pos­ sessor would be a secondary landmark; the predicted meaning would be, more or less, 'hand (the Landmark) over (to someone)'. That is in fact the case for speakers in some towns in the Orizaba area. This construal, a manipulation verb, is diagrammed in Figure 5a, using the 'in the power of' version of -māk's meaning; note that the composite structure is essentially equivalent to that of English give in Figure la.

Giving in Nawatl

51

Figure 5a. māktia 'hand over

For some speakers from other towns in the Orizaba Nawatl-speaking area, however, māk-tia takes as Landmark the RECIPIENT rather than the moving THING, and thus its meaning is 'hand (something) over to (the Landmark)', a Human Interaction virtually identical to maka (Figure 5b; compare the composite structure with Figure 2a. Also note in particular the dotted arrow from the profile determinant -tia to the composite structure, indicative of a less than prototypical headship, since certain specifications of the head, namely its identifications of Landmark and sub-landmarks, are violated by the composite structure.). This construal follows a strong predi­ lection in Nawatl for making a human primary rather than secondary land­ mark.17,18 In the towns where māk-tia is construed as in Figure 5a, an applicative form, māk-ti-lia (in.the.hand.of-CAUS-APPL), is used to give that meaning. Throughout the Orizaba area the transitive form tē-māk-tia, with the unspecified human object prefix tē- forming a double-object construc­ tion, means 'give (the Landmark) away, hand (the Landmark) over (to

52

David Tuggy

Figure 5b. māktia 'hand over to'

someone unspecified) '. For those for whom māk-tia means 'hand over' (Figure 5a), the tè- would be a secondary object, like tla- in tla-maka (Figure 3a); for those who take mäk-tia as meaning 'hand over to' (Figure 5b), the tēwould be a primary object whose presence prompts a valence shift, trans­ ferring the primary object status to the other participant in the scene (i.e. to the moving THING), just like the tē- in tē-maka (Figure 3b). Another verb which is closely synonymous with (tē-)māk-tia and têmaka is tē-pano-ltia, formed with tē- and the causative suffix -Itia on the intransitive stem panowa 'pass', pano-ltia in single-object constructions is a Manipulation verb meaning 'cause to pass, pass (e.g. food, not e.g. a milestone), move along', tē- is again a secondary object, indicating that the Landmark is caused to pass along to the domain of possession of some unspecified person. Thus tē-pano-ltia means 'pass along (to someone else), give away'. Another form meaning GIVE is the construction of selia 'receive'

Giving in Nawatl

53

(Figure 2b) with the causative -ltia. It should be clear that if selia is sub­ stituted for mák in Figure 5 a (or for chöka in Figure 4a), a structure much like the composite structure of māktia might be expected to result, confirm­ ing our intuitions that cause to receive would be a close synonym of give. Actually the structure would be even closer to that of maka (Figure 2a) since, like for maka, the RECIPIENT rather than the moving THING would be Landmark. However, seli-ltia has other, somewhat unpredictable, mate­ rial associated with it as well: it means 'give the Host (at Mass) to (the Landmark)'. We mentioned in Section 3 that tla-selia already has this reli­ gious association, meaning 'receive the Host'; as one might expect, the double-object-forming stem tla-seli-ltia occurs; it is synonymous with (and actually somewhat more common than) seliltia.19 Applicatives, as we have seen, basically mean 'do the verb stem so as to affect a new (usually human) Landmark'. Some applicatives are quite

Figure 6. xelilia

54

David Tuggy

vague as to what kind of effect is foreseen, but many are rather specific. And one of the most common types of effect is one that involves posses­ sion. Thus in ē-teki-lia (bean-cut-APPL) 'cut beans for (the Landmark)' the implication is that the Landmark comes to have the beans as part of the process; in one of the meanings of pehpeni-lia (pick.out-APPL) 'choose out for', the Landmark receives the chosen thing (another meaning is 'pick out from'); in tlakual-chiwi-lia (food-make-APPL) food is prepared and given to the Landmark. There are many other examples of this sort. Two of those most nearly approaching a pure GIVE construal are xeli-lia (divide-APPL) 'distribute to, hand out to', which is represented in Figure 6, and kāwi-lia (leave-APPL) or its more common form kāh-tēwi-lia (leave-do.upon.departure-APPL) 'leave (something) to, for (the Landmark)'. All these forms are, of course, Human Interactions rather than Manipulations.

5.

Verbalized nouns

When a causative suffix is attached to a noun stem, one might expect the meaning to be 'cause (the Landmark) to be (the noun)', much as with adpositions or adjectives the meanings is 'cause (the Landmark) to be (the adjective/adposition)'.20 There are a few cases where this expectation is born out, e.g. in kallō-tia (householder-CAUS) 'give hospitality to, make free of the house', literally 'cause to be owner of the house'. This construction may be taken as giving rise to another GIVE verb: -axka means 'owned thing, possession',21 and axka-tia involves causing something to be a possessed thing. However, the Landmark is not the possessed thing, but rather the new possessor. This is reminiscent of what happens to mäk-tia in those towns where it means 'hand over to (the Landmark)' (Figure 5b) rather than 'hand (the Landmark) over' (Figure 5a), and again illustrates Nawatl's propensity for giving primary Landmark status to any non-Trajector humans involved in the process. So the meaning is effectively changed from the expected 'cause (the Landmark) to be a possession' to 'cause (something) to be the possession of (the Landmark)'; unpredictably, it has the added specification that the person comes into possession upon the death of the causer. In other words, axka-tia means 'bequeath to, give as an inheritance to'; it is dia­ grammed in Figure 7a. Note, as in Figure 5b, the dotted arrow from the profile determinant -tia to the composite structure, indicating that there is a

Giving in Nawatl

55

Figure 7a. axkatia

certain degree of conflict between -tia's specifications and those of axkatia as a whole. There is another way to analyze axka-tia, however, -tia itself can be taken as meaning not 'cause to be N', but rather 'cause to have N'. (This would be a new sense of -tia in the polysemous network already including 'cause to do V' and 'cause to be ADJ/N/P'.) axka-tia would thus mean directly 'cause to have a possessed thing', rather than immediately mean­ ing 'cause to be a possessed thing' and only by extension giving Landmark status to the recipient. Under this analysis, diagrammed in Figure 7b, -tia's specifications do not conflict with those for the composite structure, and thus it is a more typical head for the construction. Cognitive Grammar would claim that it is quite possible for speakers to entertain either or both analyses for axka-tia, and any attempt to prove categorically that one is right and the other wrong is probably misguided.

56

David Tuggy

Figure 7b. axkatia (alternative analysis)

The analysis of Figure 7a is, as we have seen, validated to a large extent by its parallelism with the usage of -tia with atemporal relations (and with verbs, for that matter) and with a few nouns, and by the existence of other structures in which Landmark status is shifted from a possession to a human possessor. The analysis of Figure 7b, however, is corroborated by the fact that it fits the vast majority of (other) noun-ria constructions. By far the most common meaning for noun, stem-causative constructions is 'cause (the Landmark) to have (the noun)', or, equivalently 'give (the noun) to (the Landmark)'. For example, the noun stem tlakual means 'food', and tlakual-tia means 'give food to', or 'feed' (Figure 8). It would be rather difficult (though not totally impossible) to maintain that tlakual-tia "really" means 'cause to be food', with the Landmark status then shifting to the one receiving the food; this would be even more difficult for other cases such

Giving in Nawatl

57

Figure 8. tlakualtia

as koton-tia 'give a shirt to, put a shirt on' or tlāka-tia (man-CAUS) 'marry (the Landmark, a woman) to,a man'. As noted above, under this analysis, -tia means, essentially, GIVE: its semantic representation in Figure 8 is exactly the same as that of maka in Figure 2a, and differs from that of give in Figure la only in being a Human Interaction instead of a Manipulation (i.e. in giving Landmark status to the RECIPIENT rather than to the moving THING). One can say (as John Newman does in the introduction to this volume, p. xi) that "there is no lexical verb [in the noun-tia construction] that one can really identify as a GIVE mor­ pheme"; alternatively one can consider -tia in this usage to be precisely such a verb, but one which differs from maka (or English give, for that matter) in that it always incorporates its object, whereas maka does so only rarely — the two forms tlakual-maka (food-give) 'feed, sustain' and

58

David Tuggy

tlāl-maka (earth-give) 'give/bequeath a piece of land', mentioned in Section 2.2, are the most common incorporations on maka, and they are not highfrequency items. In tlakual-maka, tlakual is incorporated as a secondary object. Fig­ ure 8, although it represents the structure of tlakual-tia, could also be used to represent that of tlakual-maka, which makes explicit the close syno­ nymy between them (both are of course almost equally close synonyms with tla-maka, Figure 3a).22 The differences between them are of four kinds: (1) Semantic distinctions too fine to be represented at the coarse level of representation we are using (e.g. the likelihood that tlakual-maka rather than tlakual-tia will be used when a long-term arrangement of provid­ ing food to someone not a family member is in mind). (2) Semantic dis­ tinctions which accrue to maka and -tia because of their use in other constructions. These include the expectation within -tia that a structure explicating what is given will be joined to it (a natural result of -tia's always incorporating a stem, in fact always a noun stem in this usage, and one major part of the reason -tia is a suffix and maka is not). (3) The phonological structures themselves (i.e. the fact that one is pronounced and heard maka and the other tia). (4) Phonological distinctions which accrue to the forms because of their use in other constructions, including the strong expectation (amounting to a requirement) within -tia that a phonological form of unspecifiable shape will precede it (again a natural result of -tia's always incorporating a stem, and the other part of why -tia is a suffix and maka is not). 23 Often when -tia is used with a noun stem, a specific mode of "having" that noun is indicated, more or less predictably; and other semantic details may be less than predictably specified in the composite structure as well. Thus with clothing nouns (such as koton-tia (shirt-CAUS), which we men­ tioned above, or pantalon-tia (trousers-CAUS)) the prototypical meaning is 'cause to have (the clothing) on' (thus, 'put (the Landmark's) shirt/trousers on (him)'). The forms with the stems tlāka 'man' and siwa 'woman' imply having as a spouse; thus tlāka-tia, as previously mentioned, means 'cause (a woman) to be married' and siwa-tia means 'cause (a man) to be married' In äminal-tia (diarrhea-CAUS) the "having" relationship is that of under­ going a disease (which we also happen to call having in English, although, to be sure, it is not a typical kind of possession.) In tlāl-tia (land-CAUS) the land is given through inheritance, and that is also typical for kal-tia (house-

Giving in Nawatl

59

CAUS) (and, of course, axka-tia, Figure 7b). In ama-tia (paper-CAUS) the GIVER is expected to be an official and the paper which he gives to the Landmark is an official document which he is empowered to issue. tlan-tia (tooth-CAUS) can mean 'give false teeth to', 'sharpen (a saw)' or 'roughen (a millstone)'; yak-tia (nose-CAUS) means 'make pointed, sharpen (a pencil)'. And so forth. A number of these forms occur more easily and/ or frequently in reflexive constructions: thus Ø-mo-tlāka-tia (3 SUBJ-REFLman-CAUS) 'she gets married' is much more common than Ø-ki-tlāka-tia (3suBJ-3oBJ-man-CAUS) 'he (the priest, her father) marries her off (to a man)'; ni-mo-tlakēn-tia (I-REFL-clothing-CAUS) 'I get dressed' is consider­ ably more common than ni-k-tlakēn-tia 'I dress him/her'. Perhaps the most spectacular noun-tia formation is another GIVE form in which the ostensible noun stem is actually a variant of the unspecified object tla-. tlah-tia (UNSPEC-CAUS) has the quite surprising meaning 'give baptismal or wedding clothing to (a godchild).' The 'canonical object' and 'sacred object' senses of tla-ltlah- are clearly at work here, but the mean­ ing is far from predictable for all that. {tlah-tia is discussed at some length and diagrammed in detail in Tuggy 1992:263-265.) It is not clear to what extent the noun-tia construction is productive — the vast majority of the forms which one comes across are clearly wellestablished units in their own right —, but there is more than residual productivity involved. For instance, within the clothing.noun-r/a subfamily virtually any clothing noun, including forms borrowed from Spanish, can be combined with -tia (e.g. kalsetines-tia, from Spanish calcetines 'socks', is not common but is perfectly understandable), and similarly just about any conceivable bodypart-tia combination seems to be possible; e.g. ikxi-tia (foot/leg-CAUS) 'put legs on (e.g. a table)' is already established, but if one were to choose to put a joint in such a leg, tlankua-tia 'put a knee on' could be said and would be understood. Closely related to these noun-tia constructions are a series of noun-wia constructions. Sometimes these have meanings virtually synonymous with what would be expected in a -tia construction (e.g. atol-wia (gruel-VBLZR) 'fix gruel for'); typically, however, they specify that the "having" relation­ ship is one of physical contact. As often as not the Landmark of these forms is neutral or even resistant toward the "having" relationship's taking effect. Thus ah-atol-wia (RDP-gruel-VBLZR) means 'spill gruel on',24 chihchiwia (spittle-VBLZR) means 'lick, moisten with saliva', pah-wia (medicine-

60

David Tuggy

means 'spray/spread medicine on' (contrast with pah-tia 'give med­ icine to (a plant)'; pahtia would be used for putting fertilizer or insecticide in the soil for a plant to pick up; pahwia would imply spraying the insec­ ticide or fertilizer on the plant); popōch-wia (incense.smoke-VBLZR) means 'bathe in incense smoke', tlāl-wia (land-VBLZR) means 'dump/spill dirt on, soil' (contrast with tlāl-tia 'leave land (as an inheritance) to'). Although these noun-wia constructions may have a human object, they are quite likely not to. When they do, they are, like maka, instances of the Human Interaction archetype, with the THING given (the mover) as a sec­ ondary landmark, the medium or instrument of the process relating the two humans.25 When they do not, they are instances of the Manipulation arche­ type, but different from give in that the Landmark is not the moving THING but rather the object to which it moves, the analogue of the RECIPIENT. The moving THING is, as in the cases with a human Landmark, the medium or instrument of the profiled process.

VBLZR)

6.

Conclusion

Orizaba Nawatl (and Nahuatl generally) expresses the GIVE concept by means of simple verb stems, particularly maka 'give (to the Landmark)' and selia 'receive', and by derived verb stems, including causatives such as seliItia 'give the Host to' or tē-pano-ltia 'pass along (to someone else)', applicatives such as xeli-lia 'distribute to', and verbalized constructions such as māk-tia 'hand over (to)' axka-tia 'bequeath to', tlakual-tia 'give food to', or atol-wia 'fix gruel for'. By choosing among such forms, or by using their derivatives with non-specified object markers, Nawatl speakers may choose either the GIVER or the RECIPIENT as subject (Trajector), and either the mover (the given THING) or the RECIPIENT as primary ob­ ject (Landmark). (English speakers can, via a passive, construe the moving THING as Trajector; Nawatl has no similarly handy way to accomplish this.)26 The most common configuration is for the GIVER to be Trajector and the RECIPIENT Landmark, producing a Human Interaction construal. Somewhat less common is the Manipulation construal (which happens to be the predominant one for GIVE situations in English), under which the GIVER is Trajector and the moving THING is primary Landmark. Least common of all, but still quite possible, is the RECEIVE-type construal

Giving in Nawatl

61

(another kind of Manipulation, or a Human Being Affected construal) under which the RECIPIENT is Trajector, the moving THING is Landmark, and the GIVER is excluded from the profiled focus of attention. Nawatl thus provides a rather different array of lexical and grammati­ cal tools for expressing giving than does English; the same sorts of com­ mon situations can easily be described in the two languages, but they are likely to be construed slightly differently. The construals provided by the two languages are not absolutely predictable, but they are reasonable, and they constantly prove their usefulness by the flexibility they afford their speakers in communicating the concept of giving.

Abbreviations used in glosses AG= agent, HUM= human, MVR= moving thing, OBJ= object, p= postposition, RCP= recipi­ ent, RDP= reduplication, SUBJ= subject, UNSPEC= unspecified object, VBLZR= verbalizer.

Also in glosses and text 'he' and 'him' may be used generically for human beings regardless of gender; for further abbreviations, see list on p. vi.

Notes 1.

Data are from the Orizaba Nawatl dialect, but are typical, at least in general outline, of Nawatl as a whole. Nawatl is traditionally spelled Nahuatl (from Spanish náhuatl); this spelling follows the Nawatl orthography here adopted, and also happens to be more transparently pronounceable for English speakers. The orthography is that used by the Decanato of the Sierra de Zongolica for their vernacular publications, except that long vowels and non-penultimate stresses are marked (with a macron and an acute accent, respectively. Vowel length is quite problematic to establish and carries a very low functional load, and non-penultimate stresses are nearly all predictable from mor­ phological information; thus neither is marked in the practical orthography.) Pronun­ ciations are generally comparable to the Spanish for the same letters, except that x is the alveopalatal fricative [š], and w is pronounced [v] in many towns; in some a slight contrast is developing between w and v. ch, ku, tz, and tl are digraphs, representing [č], [kw], [¢], and [λ] respectively. I wish to thank the speakers of Orizaba Nawatl, and especially Victor Hernández de Jesús, for sharing their beautiful language with me, and the Summer Institute of Linguistics and the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México for supporting me as a linguistic researcher during the collection and analysis of these data.

62

David Tuggy

2.

1-ary relationships, which can typically be analyzed as involving an entity's relation­ ship to (sub-parts of) itself or to some diffuse background, are common but will not centrally concern us.

3.

Cf. Newman's (1996:61-74) discussion (essentially compatible with this) of these as two different applications of a basic AGENT-PATIENT model, both partially but not fully compatible with the prototypical specifications of that model.

4.

A relation (or a Thing, a nominal concept) may include subordinate relations, and subtrajectors (trajectors of such subordinate relations) will be called (lower-case) trajectors and abbreviated as tr.

5.

In cases like that of one person hitting another, while humans are clearly interacting, there is also a sense in which the trajector is treating the landmark as if he were an inanimate object, so the process can be quite properly construed as a Manipulation.

6.

In a sampling of the first 50 non-applicative Nawatl transitive verbs in a dictionary in the P section (taken at random), 32 were typically Manipulations, and 9 Human Inter­ actions; 4 easily permitted either type of reading; 5 were of other types. Similarly the first 50 transitive verbs in the P section of the American Heritage Dictionary yielded 29 Manipulations, 9 Human Interactions, 2 permitting either reading, and 10 of other types.

7.

I am using stick-figures for the (prototypically) human participants, where Langacker used circles, as he did for the (typically) non-human participant. The notations are essentially equivalent: my use of a stick figure is for ease of understanding the dia­ grams and does not imply that the human physical body-shape is particularly promi­ nent in the semantics, and both the stick-figures and Langacker's circles are short-hand representations of much more richly specified concepts of human beings.

8.

The labels AG, MVR, and RCP are essentially redundant and could be read from the separately represented facts that the AG is a person who is an energy source, the MVR moves, and the RCP is the person in whose domain of possession the MVR comes to be. Similarly the labels TR and LM, referring as they do to degrees of prominence, duplicate the information given by the degree of boldfacing of the entities involved (i.e. the fact that that the Trajector is drawn with the thickest lines, the Landmark with the next thickest).

9.

All of the diagrams in this paper include only the semantic pole, representing the pho­ nological pole of the morphemes (or constructions) only by ad-hoc labels. The phono­ logical structures are integrated with each other in fashion quite exactly parallel to the semantic pole. The "linear ordering" of the morphemes is part of the specifications of the phonological pole; this model makes the commonsensical claim that such order­ ing is a phonological rather than a non-phonological (and non-semantic) "syntactic" matter. It is largely other specifications at the phonological pole that make giv-er and the other constructions in the diagrams morphological rather than phrasal (cf. Tuggy 1992).

Giving in Nawatl

63

10.

Incorporated nouns may be subjects (parallel to the noun in (to) earth-quake), sub­ ject's or object's "active zones" (parallel to the nouns in hand-sew or brain-wash; these are the most numerous types), or secondary objects, or may explicate the time, purpose, manner, etc., of the verbal process, or may fulfill other quasi-adverbial func­ tions (Tuggy 1986, 1981:221-243); adjectives, adverbs, postpositions, and verbs may be incorporated as well (Tuggy 1981:557-572).

11.

The nouns in isolation would be tlākual-li and tlāl-li, with an 'absolutive' suffix. The stem tla-kua-l is complex (UNSPEC-eat-nominalizer), but its complexity is not rele­ vant to us here.

12.

Note how differently the primary object (nēch-) functions with tla-maka and tē-maka; once as RECIPIENT and once as moving THING: ti-néch-tla-maka 'you feed me', i.e. 'you give me food' vs. ti-nêch-tê-maka 'you betray me', i.e. 'you give me to my enemies'.

13.

The overall Landmark (LM in the diagrams) is thus a sub-trajector (tr in the diagrams), i.e. trajector of a backgrounded, important but not profiled, process.

14.

Truncations and several other phonological changes, including changing a to i and palatalizing certain consonants, often occur before both causative and applicative suf­ fixes. Apart from this note they are not commented on where they occur in this paper.

15.

chōki-lia can also mean 'mourn (the Landmark)', a more complex kind of applicative that in some ways is halfway between a causative and an applicative (cf. the analysis of the Tetelcingo Nahuatl form which bears that meaning, cökï-tiya, in Tuggy 1981: 397-400).

16.

-mák is complex, being formed of -mā 'hand' (an always-possessed noun) and -k 'loca­ tive'. This complexity is irrelevant to us here.

17.

Cf. the situation in Zulu, which, according to the contention of Taylor (this volume p. 91) "consistently opts for the human interaction model". This is, in fact, not an uncommon pattern among the world's languages.

18.

In a related valence-shifting pattern, a possessed noun is incorporated, and its posses­ sor takes over its position as Landmark or Trajector. For example, in the subject incor­ poration tlāka-miki (man-die) a man is understood as dying, but his wife (whose man he is) takes over as Trajector, and the stem means 'become a widow'. Many "active zone" incorporations (fn. 10) can be analyzed in this way. Similarly in this construal of māktia (Figure 5b) it is the hand's owner that takes over the landmark position. axka-tia in Figure 7a (not 7b) would be another example.

19.

This form neatly illustrates the ambiguities that arise from trying to decide which affix is put on which stem. Assuming tla[seliltia] makes for a neater statement of doubleobject-verb constructions, but [tlaseli]ltia makes better sense in terms of how the 'sacred object' sense was introduced and spread. Cognitive Grammar would allow both derivations to be simultaneously valid in some degree.

64

David

Tuggy

20.

Noun stems can generally function as intransitive (present tense) verbs, meaning 'be a (noun)', with the addition of a (verbal) subject prefix. This fact would make the expected causative meaning even more natural. The fact that the meaning 'cause to have' predominates over this 'cause to be' meaning is doubtless a reflection of the fact that it is more generally useful to talk of causing people to have things than to be things.

21.

-axka, except in this construction, requires a possessive prefix. It could be taken as an adjective, meaning 'own' (as in my own). The difference between such a concept and that diagrammed in Figures 7a-b is simply a matter of degree of salience: whether the possessor in axka is construed as part of the profiled entity or not. The analysis works out the same under either construal. (Adjectives and nouns generally in Nawatl, as in many other languages, are not all that easy to separate from each other.)

22.

Cf. also tlakual-chiwi-lia 'make food for', which was mentioned in Section 4. tlamaka is more normal than tlakualmaka or tlakualtia for cases of feeding animals.

23.

Cf. Tuggy (1992) for a thorough discussion of the differences between stems and affixes. The specific cases of maka and -tia are contrasted on pp. 259-261.

24.

The fact that the reduplication changes the meaning of atol-wia from 'fix gruel for' to 'spill gruel on' is not predictable, although there are other cases where a reduplication seems to signal a negative tinge to the meaning.

25.

As pointed out for cases of a human hitting another human (fn. 5), there is also some­ thing right about seeing these Interactions as simultaneously a kind of Manipulation, treating the Landmark human more as a physical entity than as anything else.

26.

A relative clause can be used, such as tlen okimakak (what he.gave.it) 'that which he gave', or another clause headed by a movement verb can be used. Classical Nahuatl had a passive -lo which has virtually disappeared or been reanalyzed in many mod­ ern dialects. Other passivizing constructions (e.g. the nominalizer -/ or the passive durative -tok) are not commonly used with maka and other GIVE-verbs, at least in Orizaba Nawatl.

References Langacker, Ronald W. 1979. "Grammar as image." Linguistic Notes from La Jolla 6. San Diego, CA: University of California, San Diego, 88-126. Langacker, Ronald W. 1982. "Space grammar, analyzability, and the English passive." Language 58:22-80. Langacker, Ronald W. 1987/1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vols. I and II. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Lindner, Susan J. 1981. "A lexico-semantic analysis of English verb-particle construc­ tions with UP and OUT." PhD dissertation, University of California, San Diego.

Giving in Nawatl

65

Newman, John. 1996. Give: A Cognitive Linguistic Study. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter [Cognitive Linguistics Research 7]. Taylor, John R. 1997. "Double object constructions in Zulu." This volume. Tuggy, David. 1981. "The transitivity-related morphology of Tetelcingo Nahuatl: An exploration in Space Grammar." [UCSD doctoral dissertation.] Tuggy, David. 1988. "Náhuatl causative/applicatives in Cognitive Grammar." In Brygida Rudzka-Ostyn (ed.), Topics in Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 587-618. Tuggy, David. 1989. "The Nahuatl verb maka: A Cognitive Grammar analysis." Work­ papers of the Summer Institute of Linguistics, University of North Dakota Session, XXXIII:121-147. Tuggy, David. 1992. "The affix-stem distinction: A Cognitive Grammar analysis of data from Orizaba Nahuatl." Cognitive Linguistics 3:237-300. Tuggy, David. 1994. "El verbo maka del náhuatl: Un análisis cognoscitivo." In Carolyn J. Mackay and Verónica Vázquez (eds.), Investigaciones lingüísticas en Mesoamérica. Mexico: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, 109-145.

Double object constructions in Zulu J o h n R. T a y l o r University of Otago

1.

Introduction

A much studied feature of English is the so-called "dative shift alterna­ tion".1 A verb such as give may occur in two kinds of syntactic environ­ ment. On the one hand, the thing given features as the object of the verb, with the recipient expressed in a prepositional phrase. Alternatively, the recipient features as the verb's object, with the thing given appearing as a bare nominal, immediately following the recipient. (1)

a. b.

They gave a prize to the best pupil. They gave the best pupil a prize.

While these two sentences could well be truth-conditionally equivalent, they construe the situation in different ways. Let us refer to the person who does the giving as the AGENT, the thing given as the PATIENT, and the person to whom it is given as the TARGET.2 The prepositional construc­ tion (la) presents the action of the AGENT as affecting, first and foremost, the PATIENT. The AGENT, as it were, launches the PATIENT on a path, the path being designated by the prepositional phrase headed by directional to, with the intention that the PATIENT ends up at, or with the TARGET. The same image underlies a large number of sentences constructed on the pattern of (la). (2)

a. I sent a parcel to my grandmother. b. The speaker addressed his words to the committee chair­ man. c. I transferred the money into your bank account.

68

John R. Taylor d. e.

The child rolled the ball towards the wall. They threw rocks at the police.

Although the details may differ, these all construe the situation in terms of an AGENT acting on a PATIENT, such that the PATIENT moves along a spatial or metaphorical path to, into, or towards a TARGET, or on a path which is aimed at the TARGET. Generally, in these and countless similar examples, the verb may be passivized, whereby the PATIENT comes to function as the subject of the passivized verb. Observe moreover that in many cases, the prepositional phrase is not strictly necessary for the syntactic and semantic well-formed­ ness of the expressions. We can ask What did they give?, Did you send anything?, without specification of the TARGET or of the path that leads to the TARGET. It is equally feasible to respond They gave a prize, I sent a parcel. The TARGET, and the path that leads to it, are therefore periph­ eral to the main event of the AGENT acting on the PATIENT. At first sight, the double object construction in (lb) is more problem­ atic, in that there appears to be a mismatch between the way the three par­ ticipants — AGENT, PATIENT, and TARGET — interact, and the way the situation is encoded grammatically. There is an obvious sense in which an event of giving involves, first and foremost, the AGENT acting on the PATIENT; the TARGET is involved only as a consequence of the AGENT's successful action on the PATIENT. In terms of Langacker's (1991:283) action chain model, the TARGET lies "downstream" from the PATIENT. Yet insofar as the TARGET appears in immediate postverbal position, the double object construction presents the action of the AGENT as directed primarily at the TARGET. That the TARGET is indeed the affected entity is suggested by the fact that if a double object expression is passivized, it is the TARGET which features as the subject of the pas­ sivized verb. (3)

a. b.

They gave the best pupil a prize. The best pupil was given a prize.

If, in the double object construction, the TARGET is construed as the affected entity, we need to ask in what way it is affected. Not, obviously, by being manipulated by the AGENT; generally, there will be no direct contact at all between AGENT and TARGET. One clue could be the fact

Double object constructions in Zulu

69

that the specification of the PATIENT is essential for the well-formedness of the expression. They gave the best pupil, with no mention of what was given, is incoherent, and no amount of contextual support can rescue it. A reasonable conclusion, therefore, is that the TARGET is affected through being given something; the TARGET, in virtue of the action of the AGENT, comes to have the PATIENT, or at least comes to have access to the PATIENT. Similar remarks apply to the following. In each case, the AGENT directly manipulates the PATIENT, but the sentences highlight the AGENT'S ulterior intention that the TARGET should be affected. (4)

a. I sent my grandmother a birthday present. b. He'll fax you the report. c. Joe baked Mary a cake. d. He threw me the ball. e. I'll get you a chair.

As mentioned, the "dative shift alternation" in English has been the focus of much attention in recent years. A major issue has been the fact that not every verb which occurs in the prepositional construction is able to occur in the double object construction, and vice versa. Most linguists who have addressed this issue have sought a semantic explanation for the facts. In spite of important differences in theoretical assumptions, the gen­ eral strategy has been to associate each construction with a distinctive semantic content, and then to show that a given verb, in virtue of its inher­ ent semantics, is compatible with the one or the other of the two construc­ tions, or with both. Thus Pinker (1989:211), adopting the conceptual semantics of Jackendoff (1983), analyses the conceptual structure of the prepositional con­ struction as, roughly, "X CAUSE Y TO GO TO Z", whereas the double object construction is assigned the conceptual structure "X CAUSE Z TO HAVE Y". Linking rules map elements of conceptual structure onto the appropriate syntactic constituents. These "broad-range" characterizations of the two constructions are supplemented by various "narrow-range" rules, each covering a particular sub-class of verbs. Goldberg (1992), on the other hand, focusing on the double object construction, argues that the broad characterization lacks predictive power; indeed, she doubts whether the construction can be associated at all with a "uniform meaning" (p. 53). Instead, she treats the construction as a case of

70

John R. Taylor

structured polysemy. She identifies a "central", or prototypical meaning of the construction, and proposes a number of extensions from it, each related to the prototype and motivated by some aspect of it. The prototype consists in an event where an AGENT successfully causes the TARGET to have the PATIENT; this kind of event is invoked by those verbs which "inher­ ently signify acts of giving", such as give itself, which she takes to be the "most prototypical" (p. 54) of the double object verbs. Other uses of the construction differ from the prototype in small details. On one extended sense, the AGENT merely intends that the TARGET receives the PATIENT {bake, cook, etc.); on another sense the AGENT enables the TARGET to receive the PATIENT {permit, allow); alternatively, the AGENT acts so as to cause the TARGET to receive the PATIENT at some future time {bequeath, allocate). Various conceptual metaphors, such as the ubiquitous conduit metaphor (Reddy 1979), licence the applicability of the double ob­ ject construction, in its various senses, to more abstract domains, such as verbal communication. An important difference between the two approaches concerns the ontological status of grammatical constructions in the two theories. For Pinker, constructions are "epiphenomena" (Lakoff 1987:467), which emerge as products of linking rules, in interaction with general phrase structure prin­ ciples. For Goldberg, constructions, i.e. conventionalised pairings of form and meaning, are basic. The set of constructions in a language make up a "highly structured lattice of interrelated information" (Goldberg 1995:5). Thus, one construction can be contained within a larger construction, or a con­ struction can instantiate a more abstract, schematic construction. A con­ struction can also serve as a prototype, to which other constructions can be related through similarity, in some respects, to the prototype.3 Having introduced the double object construction on the example of some well-known English data, I now turn to a very similar construction (or set of constructions) in Zulu. Once due allowance is made for the typo­ logical differences between Zulu and English, we can observe a remarkable formal similarity between the double object constructions in the two lan­ guages. Two differences need to be emphasised as the outset, however. First, it will be inappropriate to speak of an "alternation" in Zulu. Often there is simply no way of encoding the three-participant events other than by means of a double object expression. Secondly, the Zulu construction has a much wider range of application than its English equivalent. Despite their theoretical differences, Pinker and Goldberg, and others who have

Double object constructions in Zulu

71

addressed the issue, do agree on the importance of "possession", whether potential or actual, literal or metaphorical, in the semantics of double object expressions in English. Langacker, for example, points out (1991: 360) that while the prepositional construction in (la) highlights the path of the PATIENT, the double object construction in (lb) accords greater promi­ nence to the TARGET and to the resultant possessive relationship between TARGET and PATIENT. But if the "resultant possessive relationship" is a salient, or even a unifying feature of the English construction, a much broader characterization will be required for Zulu. Nevertheless, the threeparticipant act of giving can still be recognised as the prototype of the Zulu construction. The construction's usage range, however, is motivated, not by the resultant possessive relationship between TARGET and PATIENT, but by a much more general aspect of the give-situation, namely the AGENT's intention to affect the TARGET (the first postverbal nominal) as much as, or perhaps even more so, than the PATIENT (the second postverbal nominal).

2.

Some features of Zulu

Before proceeding, I remark on some typological features of Zulu which are relevant to the discussion. (a) Zulu is a strict SVO language, at least insofar as subject and object are expressed as full nominais, internal to the nuclear predication. Within the nuclear predication, nothing (other than morphemes bound to the verb) may intervene between subject and verb, or between verb and object. (b) The preverbal subject obligatorily co-occurs with a Subject Concord (sc) prefixed to the verb; the sc here functions as an agreement marker. In the absence of an overt subject nominal, or in case of a dislocated sub­ ject, the sc is pronominal. The phonological shape of the sc is determined by the class (or "gender") of the subject nominal. There are also scs cor­ responding to independent forms denoting 1st and 2nd person, singular and plural. (c) There is a series of Object Concords (ocs), which appear between the sc and the verb stem. Van der Spuy (1993) has argued that ocs in Zulu are invariably pronominal.4

72

John R. Taylor

(d) Nominais are not marked for case; with two exceptions, concords are also not differentiated with respect to their subject vs. object status.5 (e) Subject and object nominais may be dislocated from their canonical positions immediately before and after the verb; this may give rise to the (false) impression that word order in the Zulu clause is "free". Dislocated nominais are external to the nuclear predication, and must be cross-refer­ enced to an appropriate pronominal sc or oc on the verb. Some possibili­ ties are illustrated in (5) (cf. van der Spuy 1993:336-337). The nuclear predication is enclosed in square brackets. (5)

a.

[Abantwana 2children

b.

[Ba-ya-si-hlupha] 2sc-LF7-7oc-annoy

c.

[Ba-hlupha 2sc-annoy

ba-hlupha 2sc:annoy

isalukazi].6 7old woman

abantwana isalukazi. 2children 7old woman isalukazi] 7old woman

abantwana. 2children

d. Isalukazi [abantwana ba-ya-si-hlupha]. 7old woman 2children 2sc-LF-7oc-annoy 'The children annoy the old woman.' (f) Dislocated nominais — as pointed out, these need to be cross-refer­ enced with an appropriate sc or oc — have topical status (van der Spuy 1993:354), i.e. they denote entities that are given by the discourse context, or which are presupposed, and which are not constrastive. Since definiteness is symptomatic of topicality, Doke's (1981:299) observation that the use of an oc is "the nearest approach to the significance of the [English] definite article in Zulu" may be interpreted along similar lines. Thus, Doke differentiates the sentences in (6) in terms of the definiteness of the object nominal. (The glosses in (6) are Doke's; the marking of the nuclear predi­ cation is mine.) Observe the presence of the long form marker in (6b) — see note 7 — which confirms the dislocated status of umuntu. (6)

a.

[Ngi-bona lSG:SC-see 'I see a person.'

umuntu]. 1 person

Double object constructions in Zulu b.

73

[Ngi-ya-m-bona]

umuntu. (D:299)

1 SG:SC-LF-1oc-see

1 person

'I see the person.' (g) Turning to the verb, important for our topic is the fact that a verb stem may be modified by the addition of one or more "extensions". These are suffixes whose general effect is to change the valence, or argument struc­ ture, of the verb stem. The applicative extension -el(a) and the causative extension -is(a) augment the valence of a verb, whereby an intransitive acquires an object, and a transitive acquires a second object. The newly acquired object occurs in immediate postverbal position. It is even possible for a verb to acquire a third object. The argument introduced by the applicative extension is typically a TARGET, i.e. a person who benefits or suffers from, or, more exactly, a person whom the AGENT intends should benefit or suffer from, the event. The argument introduced by the causative extension is the CAUSEE, i.e. the person that the AGENT intends should perform the action in question. Several English verbs that are eligible to occur in the English double object construction have, as their nearest Zulu equivalent, a morphological causa­ tive. Examples include fundisa 'teach' (causative of funda 'learn'), thembisa 'promise' cf. themba 'hope', and thengisa 'sell' cf. thenga 'buy'. In other cases, the Zulu equivalent requires the applicative extension. Whereas thenga 'buy' takes as its sole object the PATIENT, i.e. the thing bought {thenga iphepha 'buy the newspaper'), a statement of the TARGET, i.e. the person for whom the newspaper is bought, requires the applicative verb: thengela ubaba iphepha 'buy (for) father the newspaper'. (h) Doke (1981:232) asserted that Zulu lacks prepositions. This is debat­ able. The instrumental morpheme nga- 'with, by means of' is plausibly analysed as a preposition; its use is illustrated in (12b). Arguably, however, Zulu does lack spatial prepositions, both directional (corresponding to English to, from, towards, etc.) and locational {at, in, on, etc.). Notions of directionality are incorporated into the verb (Taylor 1997), while location is expressed by locativised nouns, and other miscellaneous locatives. The significance of this fact to the present topic is that Zulu does not have a prepositional construction corresponding to (la).

74 3.

John R. Taylor Three types of double object construction in Zulu

We can distinguish three broad categories of double object expressions in Zulu, according to whether the verb (a) lacks an extension, (b) bears the applicative extension, or (c) bears the causative extension. 3.1. Non-extended verbs Nika 'give' and tshela 'tell' belong to this category: (7)

a.

Umama u-nika amantombazana 1 mother lsc-give 6girls 'Mother gives the girls money.'

imali. 9money

b.

Umama u-tshela amantombazana 1 mother lsc-tell 6girls 'Mother tells the girls the news.'

indaba. 9news

These examples closely resemble their English glosses. In both the Zulu and the English sentences, the TARGET, as a consequence of the AGENT'S action on the PATIENT, enters into a possessive relation — literal in (7a), metaphorical in (7b) — with the PATIENT. Observe that in the situations designated in (7), the possessive relation between TARGET and PATIENT comes about simultaneously with, and in virtue of, the AGENT's success­ ful action on the PATIENT.8 Although the notion of a resultant possessive relation may well be gen­ erally valid for double object expressions in English, the possessive rela­ tion is not bound to occur simultaneously with the successful completion of the AGENT-PATIENT interaction. In (4c): Joe baked Mary a cake, Mary does not necessarily get the cake immediately it has been baked, or even at all! For Zulu, the notion of a resultant possessive relation turns out to be much too restrictive for a characterization of the construction. The fol­ lowing have to do with deprivation, not with receiving. Nevertheless, there is an affinity with the examples in (7), in that the AGENT, by virtue of his interaction with the PATIENT, simultaneously affects the TARGET.

Double object constructions in Zulu (8)

a. Ba-s-amuk-ile 2sc-lPL:OC-take way-PAST

75 thina lIPL

ukudla 15food

kwethu. (D:355) 15 our They took our food away from us.' (lit. They took us away our food.') b. Ba-mbula ubaba izingubo. (D&V:7) 2sc:PAST-strip lfather 8clothes They stripped my father of his clothes.' (lit. They stripped (my) father (his) clothes.') c. Ba-yi-khuthuza indoda isikhwama sayo. 2sc:PAST-9oc-rob 9man 7wallet 7his They robbed the man of his wallet.' (lit. They robbed the man his wallet.') Nika 'give', tshela 'tell', amuka 'take away (from)', ambula 'strip (from)', khuthuza 'rob' belong to a small group of about a dozen or so verbs which, in virtue of their inherent semantics, one might well want to categorise as inherently ditransitive.9 The use of the double object con­ struction is by no means restricted to such verbs, however. Khipha 'extract, pull out', geza 'wash', azi 'know', are typical transitives, yet they too may be used in double object expressions. The following involve actions on a body part. (9)

a.

Udokotela u-khiph-e umfana izinyo. (W:87) ldoctor lsc-extract-PAST lboy 5tooth 'The doctor extracted the boy's tooth.' (lit. 'The doctor extracted the boy the tooth.')

b.

Umama u-gez-e ingane ubuso. (W:90) lmother lsc-wash-PAST 9child 14face 'The mother washed the child's face.' (lit. 'The mother washed the child the face.')

In the following, the TARGET is inanimate, and the PATIENT is either a part of the TARGET (10a), or something circumstantially in contact with it (10b):

76

John R. Taylor (10) a.

uku-mpompa imoto amasondo. (W:90) INF-pump 9car ówheels 'to pump up the car's wheels' (lit. 'to pump the car the wheels')

b.

ukw-esula itafula uthuli. (W:90) INF-wipe 5table 11 dust 'to wipe the dust off the table' (lit. 'to wipe the table the dust')

The following have to do with a person's more abstract "belongings": (11) a.

A-ngi-m-azi NEG-lSG:SC-loc-know

lomuntu l:this person

igama 5name

lakhe. (W:92) 5his 'I don't know this person's name.' (lit. 'I don't know this person his name.') b.

Si-ba-fund-e lPL:SC-2oc-study-PAST

labobantu 2:those people

imicabango 4thoughts

yabo. (W:91) 4their 'We studied those people's thoughts.' (lit. 'We studied those people their thoughts.') The unifying feature of these examples is that the AGENT, in inter­ acting with the PATIENT, simultaneously affects the TARGET. In (9a), the dentist (AGENT), in extracting the tooth (PATIENT), is simultaneously treating the boy (TARGET), by extracting the tooth. Likewise the mother (9b), in washing the child's face, is at the same time cleaning up the child, while a person who pumps up the car's wheels (10a) does so with the in­ tention of simultaneously affecting the car, e.g. by making it roadworthy. Significantly, (10a) would be appropriate only if the wheels are attached to the car; if the wheels had been removed, pumping them up would not simultaneously affect the car, the car, in other words, could not be construed as an affected TARGET. Example (11a) designates a cognitive state rather than an action. But here again, not to know a person's name is to be in a state of ignorance towards (a salient aspect of) the person,

Double object constructions in Zulu

11

while to study a person's thoughts (llb) is simultaneously to scrutinise the person. The encoding of the TARGET rather than the directly manipulated PATIENT as postverbal object is not confined to double object expressions. Consider the following contrast. (12) a. Li-phons-e itshe 5oc-throw-IMP 5stone 'Throw a stone at/to him.'

ku-ye. Loc-he

b. M-phons-e nge-tshe. (D:356) loc-throw-IMP with-stone Throw a stone at him.' (lit. 'Throw him with a stone.') The sequence of constituents in (12a) matches the location of participants on the action chain; one first throws the stone (the PATIENT, encoded by the object of the verb), which ends up at the TARGET (encoded by a loca­ tive). In (12b) the situation is construed differently, in terms of an intention to hit the TARGET (encoded as the verb's object), the PATIENT being the means by which this is achieved.10 3.2. Applicative

constructions

A second category consists of double object expressions in which the first object is introduced by the applicative extension -el(a). Although the ap­ plied argument can bear a variety of semantic roles, the general meaning of the applicative appears to be that the AGENT carries out the action with a view to its effects on the applied argument (the TARGET). According to Doke (1981:140), the action is "applied on behalf of or with regard to" some entity.11 This characterization is appropriately vague, and applicative expressions are often open to a range of pragmatically plausible interpre­ tations. Thus, (13b) below could mean that I am employed by my father, that I work instead of my father (because my father is incapacitated), that I work in order to earn money that I can give to my father, and so on. Importantly, and in contrast to the double object construction with nonextended verbs, applicatives lack the idea of simultaneous direct affect. Although the action may be carried out "on behalf of" a third party, this person may only benefit at a later time, or perhaps may not benefit at all, or even come to know that the action was in fact carried out on their behalf.

78

John R. Taylor

The introduction of an applied argument makes an intransitive verb transitive. (13) a.

Ngi-ya-sebenza. lSG:SC-LF-Work

'I am working.' b. Ngi-sebenz-ela ubaba. lSG:SC-work-APPL father 'I work for/on behalf of my father.' A transitive verb acquires an additional object. The applied object occurs in immediate postverbal position, while the original object appears in second place. (14) a.

Ngi-theng-e iphepha. lSG:SC-buy-PAST 5paper T bought a newspaper.'

b. Ngi-theng-el-e ubaba iphepha. lSG:SC-buy-APPL-PAST 1 father 5paper 'I bought father a newspaper.'/T bought a newspaper for father.' (15) a.

Ngi-bhala incwadi. 1SG:SC-write 91etter T am writing a letter.'

b. Ngi-bhal-ela ubaba incwadi. lSG:SC-write-APPL 1 father 91etter T am writing a letter for my father.'/T am writing a letter to my father.' Observe the two distinct readings of (15b), i.e. that I write the letter in order to help my father (perhaps because my father is illiterate, or is otherwise unable to write himself), or that my father is the intended recipient of the letter. This latter reading can be made explicit as follows. In (16) the path of the PATIENT is expressed in a relative clause containing the motion verb ya 'go to' in association with the locativised form of ubaba 'father'.

Double object constructions in Zulu

79

(16) Ngi-bhala incwadi e-ya ku-baba. lsG:SC-write 91etter 9RC-go to Loc-father 'I am writing a letter (which is going) to my father.' As with the double object construction in English, we observe in (14b) and (15b) a mismatch between the sequence of nominais in the clause and the location of participants in the action chain. My buying the newspaper for my father requires that I first buy the newspaper; my father can only benefit once this action has been successfully completed. The TARGET (my father) lies downstream from the PATIENT (the newspaper). Neverthe­ less, the purpose of my buying the newspaper is that my father gets the newspaper; I intend that my action should ultimately affect the TARGET, rather than the PATIENT. In principle, the applicative extension can even add a third object to a verb. The following are from Wilkes (1989). In (17b) the applicative verb is followed by a series of three plain nominais; in (18b) the applied object appears as the oc -m- on the verb. (17) a.

b.

(18) a.

b.

uku-gunda umfana INF-shave lboy 'to cut the boy's hair'

izinwele lOhair

uku-gund-ela umalume umfana INF-shave-APPL 1uncle lboy 'to cut for (his) uncle the boy's hair'

izinwele lOhair

uku-bopha inkukhu imilenze INF-tie 9chicken 41egs 'to tie the chicken's legs (together)' uku-m-boph-ela inkukhu imilenze INF-1oc-tie-APPL 9chicken 41egs 'to tie the chicken's legs (together) for him'

The mismatch between the action chain and syntactic encoding is particularly striking in these examples. In (17b) the AGENT must first cut the hair (PATIENT), thereby grooming the boy (TARGET), this event then serves to benefit the uncle, who functions as a higher order TARGET. The sequence of nominais in the clause (uncle - boy - hair) is the reverse of the order of the participants on the action chain (hair - boy - uncle), with

80

John R. Taylor

the "higher" TARGET appearing first, the intermediate TARGET second, and the PATIENT last.12 My suggestion that the applied nominal designates a non-immediate TARGET is supported by the fact that the item introduced by the appli­ cative extension may be the interrogative morpheme -ni 'what?'. This is a clitic, which attaches at the very end of the verb (hence Ba-funa-ni? They want what?', 'What do they want?'). The combination of applicative and interrogative is a way to inquire into the purpose of an action (cf. English what for?). Compare: (19) a.

Ba-ya-ngi-funa. 2SC-LF-lSG:OC-want

They want me.' b.

(20) a.

b.

Ba-ngi-fun-ela-ni? (D:141) 2sc-1SG:OC-want-APPL-what They want me for what?'/'What do they want me for?'/ 'Why do they want me?' U-kw-enz-e lokho. 2sG:SC-15oc-do-PAST 15 that 'You did that.' U-kw-enz-el-e-ni lokho? 2SG:SC-15oc-do-APPL-PAST-what 15that 'You did that for what?'/'Why did you do that?'

3.3. Causative expressions The causative extension -is(a) introduces a nominal argument (the CAU­ SEE), which, like the applied argument, appears in immediate postverbal position. As with the applicative, the causative morpheme can add a sec­ ond object to a transitive verb, whereby the erstwhile object of the base verb appears in second position. (21) a.

Nga-bona lSG:SC:PAST-see T saw the bird.'

inyoni. 9bird

Double object constructions in Zulu b.

(22) a.

81

Wa-ngi-bon-isa mina lsc:PAST-lSG:OC-see-CAUS ISG 'He showed me the bird.' Umfana wa-phuza lboy lsc:PAST-drink T h e boy drank water.'

inyoni. (D:148) 9bird

amanzi. 6water

b. Isalukazi sa-phuz-isa umfana amanzi. 7old woman 7sc:PAST-drink-CAUS lboy 6water 'The old woman made the boy drink water.'/'The old woman gave the boy water to drink.' Causatives in -is(a) are non-implicative, i.e. they do not entail success­ ful causation. Unlike its English gloss, (23) is not contradictory. Rather, the idea is that the AGENT merely intends that the CAUSEE performs the action, or that the AGENT helps or encourages the CAUSEE to do so. Doke (1981:147) even glosses some uses of the causative as 'help to do'. (23) Nga-sebenz-isa

umfana,

kodwa

lSG:SC:PAST-work-CAUS

lboy

but

aka-sebenz-anga NEG:lsc-work-NEG:PAST

/we-hluleka. lsc:PAST-be unable

'I made the boy work, but he didn't work/he was unable to.' The sequence of nominais in double object causatives does correspond to the location of participants on the action chain. The AGENT first inter­ acts with the CAUSEE, with the intention that the CAUSEE then interacts with the PATIENT. To this extent, double object causatives are not strictly comparable with the double object expressions examined so far. But there is still an obvious affinity, in that the point of the AGENT'S action in (21b) and (22b) is not so much that the bird gets seen, or that the water gets drunk, but that the CAUSEE gets to see the bird, or gets water to drink. The AGENT intends to affect primarily the CAUSEE, rather than the down­ stream PATIENT (and, as we have seen, there is no implication that the PATIENT is in fact affected). The CAUSEE is thus the TARGET of the AGENT'S activity.

82 4.

John R. Taylor Object status

In this section I establish that the nominal that occurs in immediate postverbal position in a double object expression, i.e. the TARGET, is indeed a syntactic object, and may thus be regarded as the entity that the AGENT primarily intends to affect. I also consider the status of the second postverbal nominal, i.e. the PATIENT. First I review some syntactic evidence bearing on the issue, followed by semantic considerations. Bantuists recognise a number of syntactic criteria for objecthood. These include (a) word order, (b) behaviour when the verb is passivized, and (c) the use of ocs (Hyman and Duranti 1982). (a) Word order. Zulu is a strict SVO language. The object nominal not only occurs after the verb, nothing may intervene between verb and object (van der Spuy 1993). The impossibility of inserting e.g. an adverbial before the first nominal shows that, on this criterion, the TARGET nominal is the verb's object. (24) a.

*Umama 1mother

u-nika lsc-give

kaningi often

amantombazana 6girls

imali. [Cf. (7a)] 9money 'Mother gives often the girls money.' b.

*Udokotela 1 doctor umfana lboy

u-khiph-e lsc-extract-PAST

izolo yesterday

izinyo. [Cf. (9a)] 5tooth

'The doctor extracted yesterday the boy's tooth.' Equally, the fact that the second nominal is separated from the verb (by the first nominal) could suggest that the second nominal is not an object! Furthermore, the order of the nominais (i.e. TARGET - PATIENT) is rigidly fixed. (An apparent exception will be mentioned below.) Bresnan and Moshi (1990) draw attention to a broad typological dif­ ference within the Bantu family with respect to the object properties of the two postverbal nominais. In some languages (e.g. Chichewa) there is an asymmetry, with object properties going to the first nominal, whereas in

Double object constructions in Zulu

83

symmetrical object languages (e.g. Kinyarwanda) the second object also exhibits a range of object properties. In terms of this typology, Zulu is pre­ dominantly an asymmetrical object language, although some object proper­ ties do accrue to the second object. (b) Passivization. A second criterion for objecthood is that when a verb is passivized, the object of the active verb features as the subject of the passivized verb. In a "symmetrical" double object language, either of the postverbal objects may appear as the subject of the passivized verb. In Zulu, this possibility is readily available for the first object. Evidence from the second object is not so clear, at least with applicatives and plain verbs. Passivization thus fully confirms the object properties of the TARGET nom­ inal, but not of the PATIENT nominal. (25) a. Ngi-nika umfana lSG:SC-give lboy T give the boy a book.'

incwadi. 9book

b.

Umfana u-nik-wa incwadi lboy lsc-give-PASS 9book T h e boy is given a book (by me).'

c.

?Incwadi i-nik-wa umfana 9book 9sc-give-PASS lboy 'The book is given the boy (by me).'

(yi-mi). (by-me) (yi-mi). (by-me)

(26) a. Ngi-bhal-ela ubaba incwadi. lSG:SC-write-APPL 1father 91etter T am writing a letter for father.' b.

Ubaba u-bhal-el-wa incwadi (yi-mi). 1 father 1sc-write-APPL-PASS 91etter (by-me) 'Father is being written a letter for (by me).'

c.

?Incwadi i-bhal-el-wa ubaba 91etter 9sc-write-APPL-PASS 1father 'A letter is being written for father (by me).'

(27) a.

Isalukazi sa-phuz-isa umfana 7old woman 7sc:PAST-drink-CAUS lboy 'The old woman made the boy drink water.'

(yi-mi). (by-me) amanzi. 6water

84

John R. Taylor b.

Umfana lboy

wa-phuz-is-wa lsc:PAST-drink-CAUS-PASS

amanzi 6water

(y-isalukazi). (by-7old woman) T h e boy was made to drink water (by the old woman).' c.

*Amanzi 6water

a-phuz-is-wa 6sc:PAST-drink-CAUS-PASS

umfana lboy

(y-isalukazi). (by-old woman) 'Water was given to the boy to drink (by the old woman).' (c) The object as an oc on the verb. This possibility is fully available with TARGETS. Indeed, informants often report that the double object construc­ tion sounds better if the TARGET does appear as, or co-occurs with, an oc. Some expressions given above, e.g. at (11) and (18b), illustrate the use of an oc. Here is a further example. Observe that the class 1 oc -m- is con­ strued with the TARGET nominal, i.e. first object, the class 1 noun umfana. (28) Ba-m-leth-ela umfana 2sc:PAST-loc-bring-APPL lboy 'They brought the boy a book.'

incwadi. (D:303) 9book

The reason for this preference plausibly has to do with the topicality of the TARGET nominal.13 In Taylor (1996:Ch. 8) I explicate the notion of topicality in terms of the cognitive accessibility of a concept. Symptoms of topicality are givenness, humanness, definiteness, and choice of a pronom­ inal over a full nominal. TARGET entities are generally human, while PATIENTs are often inanimate. All other things being equal, the first postverbal nominal will thus tend to be more topical than the second. We have already noted that the oc causes the nominal in question to be construed as definite and topical. A reasonable conclusion is that the preference, in Zulu, for the TARGET to appear as, or in association with, an oc reflects the topicality of the TARGET.14 It is not impossible for the second nominal, i.e. the PATIENT, to be co-referenced to an oc. The following quasi-minimal pairs are from Doke (1981:303). Doke suggests that the (a) versions represent the "ordinary" state of affairs; here the TARGET is topical (and human) and is expressed

Double object constructions in Zulu

85

by a pronominal oc. Arguably, the departure from this state of affairs in the (b) sentences, in which the PATIENT co-occurs with an oc, reflects the topicality of the PATIENT. Observe that in the (b) sentences the PATIENT nominais can plausibly be analysed as a dislocated element. (29) a. Ba-m-phek-el-e 2sc-1oc-cook-APPL-PAST b.

(30) a. b.

ukudla. 15food

[Ba-ku-phek-el-e yena] 2sc-15oc-cook- APPL-PAST him They cooked for him the food.' Wa-ngi-bon-isa 1SC:PAST- 1SG:OC-see-CAUS

ukudla. 15food

inyoni. 9bird

[Wa-yi-bon-isa mina] lsc:PAST-9oc-see-CAUS ISG 'He showed me the bird.'

inyoni. 9bird

Topicality can even sanction what appears to be a reversal of the nor­ mal TARGET-PATIENT order, as in (31b). The choice of ocs suggests that in (a) the PATIENT is topical, whereas in (b) the TARGET is topical. (31) a. Ngi-yi-nika umfana incwadi. lSG:SC-9oc-give lboy 9book T give it (the book) to the boy.' b. Ngi-m-nika incwadi lSG:SC-loc-give 9book T give him (the boy) a book.'

umfana. lboy

The apparently "free" word order in (31) is probably more correctly ascribed to the dislocation of the TARGET out of the nuclear predication, as shown in (32a). Observe that umfana 'boy' can also be left-dislocated, in which case its status as a non-nuclear element is transparent.15 (32) a. b.

[Ngi-m-nika lSG:SC-loc-give

incwadi] 9book

Umfana [ngi-m-nika lboy lSG:SC-loc-give 'The boy, I give him a book.'

umfana. lboy incwadi]. 9book

86

John R. Taylor

Summing up so far: Syntactic criteria confirm that the TARGET nom­ inal in a double object construction is indeed the verb's syntactic object. This status is consistent with the claim that the construction presents the AGENT's action as directed primarily at the TARGET. Evidence pertain­ ing to the PATIENT nominal is ambiguous. Although word order facts deny object properties to the PATIENT, the use of ocs suggests that under appropriate circumstances of topicality, the PATIENT, too, can acquire object properties. Semantic criteria, on the other hand, could suggest that in some cases at least it is the PATIENT nominal that is the verb's true object. I earlier drew attention to a property of English double object verbs, viz. the verbs can often be used as transitives, with specification of the PATIENT but without mention of the TARGET. The situations denoted by the verbs inherently involve a PATIENT, but only circumstantially (or optionally) a TARGET. At least some of the Zulu double object verbs behave in a sim­ ilar way. Nika 'give' and khipha 'extract' denote actions which inherently affect the PATIENT. Nika imali 'give money' and khipha izinyo 'extract a tooth' are fully acceptable collocations, whereas nika amantombazana 'give (to) the girls' and khipha umfana 'extract (from) the boy' are incom­ plete, and require specification of the PATIENT: nika amantombazana imali 'give the girls money', khipha umfana izinyo 'extract the boy the tooth'.16 The evidence from subcategorisation does not always allow us to make such a clean distinction, however. Generally, double object applica­ tives and causatives require the two objects. Both thengela iphepha 'buyfor the newspaper' and thengela ubaba 'buy-for father' are syntactically and semantically incomplete.17 On the other hand, with some non-extended verbs, a clean distinction between subcategorised PATIENT and nonsubcategorised TARGET fails to emerge. Consider the verb esula 'wipe'. Example (10b) shows the verb followed by two nominais: esula itafula ithuli 'wipe the dust off the table', literally, 'wipe the table the dust'. As a transitive, esula may select as its object either the thing wiped clean, or the thing wiped away; esula itafula 'wipe the table', esula ithuli 'wipe the dust'. Even though, in (10b), the table is construed as the TARGET, the table is not incompatible with PATIENT status. In fact, the example nicely illustrates the simultaneity of the AGENT's action on the PATIENT and the intended effect on the TARGET. Comparable observations apply to the verbs geza 'wash' (which as a transitive can subcategorise for either a body

Double object constructions in Zulu

87

part or a person), azi 'know', and funda 'study', when these are used with two objects, as in (9b), (11a), and (llb). 1 8

5.

Unity or diversity?

The subcategorisation facts reviewed above show that double object expres­ sions by no means constitute a perfectly homogeneous category. At the same time we have observed some striking similarities amongst the var­ ious types. Although Doke (1981) treats them separately, there are good a priori reasons why one should seek to bring the three types under a unified account. Discussions of analogous constructions in other Bantu languages, however, have tended to emphasise the diversity of the constructions. Here, I consider Baker's (1988a) account. Baker analysed applicatives in terms of preposition incorporation (see also Baker 1988b), causatives in terms of verb incorporation, and some other double object expressions in terms of possessor raising. Baker proposes that the underlying structure of an applicative, such as (14b): Ngithengele ubaba iphepha 'I bought for father a newspaper', closely resembles its English gloss, where father features as the object of a prepo­ sition with the approximate semantic value 'for'. This underlying preposi­ tion gets incorporated into the verb, where it appears in the shape of the applicative morpheme; the verb acquires as its first object the erstwhile object of the preposition, while the verb's original object is demoted to second object. The notion of preposition incorporation may well be indicated for e.g. Germanic languages (including, if somewhat marginally, English). In German, incorporation of the preposition über 'over' into the verb gießen 'pour' gives the derived verb übergießen. This takes as its (accusative) object the erstwhile (accusative) object of the preposition, while the erst­ while object of the verb appears in a prepositional phrase (Wunderlich 1987). (33) a.

Er gießt Wasser über die Rosen. 'He pours water over the roses.'

b. Er übergießt die Rosen mit Wasser. 'He overpours the roses with water.'

88

John R. Taylor

Likewise, for English, it could be argued that preposition incorporation derives They overflew the Atlantic from They flew over the Atlantic. Con­ cerning Zulu, however, there is a serious problem. This is that Zulu does not have prepositions of the appropriate semantics that are able to be incor­ porated into verbs. We should have to say that the applicative morpheme -el(a) is an allomorph of an underlying, but superficially non-occurring pre­ position, with the semantic values 'for', 'to', 'on behalf of', etc. More­ over, Baker also analysed double object expressions in English in terms of preposition incorporation. The claim is that the verb in They gave the best pupil a prize incorporates the preposition to. Applying this analysis to Zulu, we should have to say that when it takes two objects, nika 'give' like­ wise incorporates a preposition. The postulated underlying preposition in Zulu therefore has a second allomorph, besides the applicative extension, namely zero. Not only is this account irredeemably "Anglocentric", in that it imputes to Zulu a lexical category of directional preposition which is not attested in the language, it also, as Carstairs-McCarthy (1992:128) observes, raises serious questions about the permissible extent of allomorphy.19 Baker analyses some double object expressions, e.g. those which de­ note actions on body parts, differently, in terms of possessor raising. The idea is that in (9a) Udokotela ukhiphe umfana izinyo 'The doctor extracted the boy the tooth', an underlying possessive phrase izinyo zomfana 'the tooth of the boy' has been reanalysed, such that the possessor nominal comes to function as an argument of the verb. Unfortunately, the supposed underlying structure of (9a), i.e. (34), to the extent that it is interpretable at all, would mean something quite different. It would mean that the dentist, in extracting the boy's tooth, is not thereby treating the boy, the boy, in other words, is not a TARGET. We can imagine that the tooth had already been removed from the boy's mouth and had been attached somewhere else, and that the dentist then extracted the tooth from its new lodging place. (34) Udokotela u-khiph-e izinyo zo-mfana. 1 doctor lsc-extract-PAST 5tooth 5PC-boy 'The doctor extracted the boy's tooth (from somewhere, not from the boy).'

Double object constructions in Zulu

89

The point, of course, is that the double object construction in (9a) presents the dentist's action as simultaneously involving both boy and tooth; the boy is affected in that his tooth is extracted. If this kind of interaction be­ tween AGENT and TARGET is not present, the double object construction is unacceptable. Consider the following (unacceptable) examples (from Wilkes 1989:91). (35) a.

*uku-ayina umfana ibhulukwe INF-iron lboy 5trousers 'to iron the boy's trousers' (lit. 'to iron the boy the trousers')

b.

*uku-khanda inkosikazi izicathulo INF-repair 91ady 8 shoes 'to repair the lady's shoes' (lit. 'to repair the lady the shoes')

c.

*ukw-amukela umphathisihlalo isiphakamiso INF-accept 1chairman 7proposal 'to accept the chairman's proposal' (lit. 'to accept the chair­ man the proposal')

Ironing the boy's trousers does not affect the boy; the boy cannot therefore be construed as a TARGET. Ironing the boy's trousers would be expressed by means of a possessive: uku-ayina ibhulukwe lomfana 'to iron the trousers of the boy'. If the idea is that the trousers are ironed for the benefit of the boy, the applicative is indicated: uku-ayinela umfana ibhulukwe (lakhe) 'to iron for the boy (his) trousers'. Compare also the unacceptability of (35c) with the fully acceptable (11a): Angimazi lomuntu igama lakhe 'I don't know this person his name'. Not to know a person's name is, in a sense, not to know the person. But to accept the chairman's pro­ posal does not entail simultaneously accepting the chairman, or indeed hav­ ing any attitude at all towards the chairman. The chairman is simply not a participant in the act of accepting his proposal, and so he cannot be con­ strued as a TARGET. In Baker (1988a), causatives receive a different analysis yet again. The claim is that the extended verb is headed by the causative morpheme -is(a). This is taken to be a verb, into which the base verb is incorporated. Givón (1971) has suggested that diachronically, the Bantu causative extension may indeed once have been a higher verb in a serial verb construction, which subsequently underwent reanalysis. Be that as it may, and despite

90

John R. Taylor

certain differences between causatives and other double object expressions studied here, especially with regard to the location of entities on the action chain, it is legitimate also to emphasise the "ecological niche" (Lakoff 1987:487) of causatives in the modern languages. Causatives "fit into the system" in that they exploit the very same double object construction and its syntactic properties that are so well entrenched for many other kinds of verbs.

6.

Conclusion

Tuggy (this volume) has drawn attention to two archetypal patterns of transitivity. On the Manipulation archetype, an AGENT (prototypically a human) manipulates a PATIENT, prototypically an inanimate. On the Human Interaction archetype, the AGENT (the more active participant, or the one who initiates the event) interacts with another human. The three-participant event of giving is ambivalent with respect to these two archetypes, and it could, in principle, be assimilated to either of them. On the manipulation archetype, the event of X giving Y to Z involves X's manipulation Y. Alternatively, on the human interaction archetype, X interacts with Z by giving him Y. A language may opt for one of these patterns, to the exclu­ sion of the other; some, like English, permit both. Romance languages employ only the manipulation archetype, with the manipulated entity (PATIENT) appearing as the verb's object and the recipient (TARGET) appearing in a prepositional phrase. Zulu opts for the interaction archetype, encoding the person with whom the AGENT interacts (TARGET) as a postverbal nominal exhibiting the full range of syntactic object properties, and the manipulated entity (PATIENT) as a second object. Although the second object bears an intimate semantic relation to the verb, as shown by subcategorisation facts, it tends not to exhibit the full range of syntactic properties of an object. A crucial component of the Zulu construal, there­ fore, is the special prominence accorded the AGENT-TARGET interaction. The general schema [AGENT-verb-TARGET-PATIENT] is applied to a wide range of expressions. Three main types were identified: (a) Double object expressions with a non-extended verb exploit a special aspect of the transfer-of-possession scenario, namely the fact that inter-

Double object constructions in Zulu

91

action with the TARGET occurs simultaneous to, and in virtue of, manipu­ lation of the PATIENT. Events covered by this characterization include not only acts of giving and deprivation, but also actions on a part (whether a body part or a part of an inanimate) which simultaneously affect the whole. (b) Double object applicatives exploit a more general aspect of the sce­ nario, namely the AGENT's intention that manipulation of the PATIENT should affect (usually to their benefit) the TARGET, though with no impli­ cation that the benefit will occur at short range, or even at all. (c) Double object causatives diverge somewhat from the above, in that the AGENT directly interacts with TARGET/CAUSEE, with a view to the TARGET'S subsequent interaction with the PATIENT. Again, special pro­ minence attaches to the AGENT-TARGET interaction, since there is no implication of successful causation, i.e. the PATIENT is not necessarily affected. All these are kinds of situation which, like transfer-of-possession, are inher­ ently ambivalent vis-à-vis Tuggy's transitivity archetypes. The conceptual content of an applicative could be structured so as to highlight either the AGENT'S intended interaction with the TARGET, or the AGENT's man­ ipulation of the PATIENT. Likewise, causatives could be structured so as to give special prominence to the AGENT's interaction with the TARGET, or to the AGENT's intended manipulation of the PATIENT, through the intermediary of the TARGET. Zulu consistently opts for the human inter­ action model. Goldberg (1992) rejected the possibility of a schematic characterization of the double object construction in English, valid for its full usage range, on the grounds that it would lack predictive power. Instead, she identifies give as the semantic prototype, other uses of the construction being moti­ vated by similarity to the prototype. With respect to Zulu, double-object transfer-of-possession verbs may also plausibly be regarded as the con­ struction's prototype — not least because of the frequency and centrality of this kind of event in human experience.

92

John R. Taylor

Abbreviations used in glosses LF= long form (see note 7); oc= object concord; PC= possessive concord; RC= relative concord; sc= subject concord; in 1SG, 2SG, 1PL, and 2PL, 1 and 2= first person and sec­ ond person, otherwise 1, 2, 3, 4 etc.= noun and concord classes; for further abbrevia­ tions, see list on p. vi.

Notes 1.

I use the term "dative shift" as a convenient label for the phenomenon under discus­ sion. I do not wish to imply that constituents get "shifted" in the course of a deriva­ tion, nor indeed that the one kind of expression is "derived" from the other.

2.

With respect to the verb give, AGENT, PATIENT, and TARGET correspond to GIVER, THING, and RECIPIENT. Since I deal with examples for which these latter notions are inappropriate, because too specific, I use the more general labels through­ out this chapter.

3.

On Goldberg's understanding, words and morphemes, and even fixed expressions in a language, can count as constructions. Goldberg's constructions are thus comparable to Langacker's (1987) "symbolic units". A symbolic unit, for Langacker, is the conven­ tionalised association of a phonological representation with a semantic representation. Symbolic units comprise not only words and morphemes of a language, but also "con­ structional schemas", which capture the perceived commonality of more specific instances.

4.

In this respect, Zulu is comparable with Chicheŵa. According to Bresnan and Mchombo (1987), the sc in C h i c h e a is ambivalent between agreement marker and pronominal, while the oc is invariably pronominal.

5.

The exceptions concern class 1, with sc ú- and oc -m-; and 2SG, with sc ù- and oc -ku-. The phonological identity of sc and oc for a given noun class may, however, be obscured by the fact that the sc may fuse with morphemes of tense, mood, and polar­ ity. Thus the sc for lSG in present affirmative is ngi- (identical with the oc), while the remote past sc is nga-.

6.

Numbers in small capitals in the glosses refer to noun and concord classes. Examples marked D are from Doke (1981), those marked D&V are from Doke and Vilakazi (1972), and those marked W are from Wilkes (1989). Tone is not indicated.

7.

The morpheme -ya- in (5b) is a Long Form marker (LF). Certain Zulu tenses, in­ cluding present indicative affirmative, have "long forms" and "short forms". The long form is required when the verb is the final constituent of the verb phrase (van der Spuy 1993:347-349). The obligatory use of the long form in (5b) and (5d) is crucial evidence that isalukazi 'old woman' is a dislocated element, external to the nuclear predication.

Double object constructions

in Zulu

93

8.

Applying Pinker's conceptual analysis of the English double object construction (X CAUSE Z TO HAVE Y) to the sentences in (7), we can say that the predicate CAUSE signifies immediate causation.

9.

This is not to say that the verbs may not also be used with a single object, viz. the PATIENT. In suggesting that the verbs are inherently ditransitive, I mean that the sit­ uations designated by the verbs inherently contain three central participants: AGENT, PATIENT, and TARGET.

10.

The expression throw someone with a stone in the sense 'hit someone with a stone by throwing it at them' is current in South African English (Branford 1987:367, 420). Doke (1981:356) suggests that this usage may be calqued from Zulu. Interestingly, the same locution is possible in Afrikaans: iemand met 'n klip gooi.

11.

There is considerable variation amongst Bantu languages with regard to the range of semantic roles of the applied argument. In addition to benefactive applicatives, Chicheŵa, for example, has instrumental applicatives (Baker 1988a, b), while Shona has manner applicatives (Harford 1993). These options do not exist in Zulu. On the other hand, locative applicatives do constitute a very productive category in Zulu. In a locative applicative, the applicative extension -el(a) introduces a locative, which de­ notes the place at which a situation holds, or the place to which or from which an action proceeds.

12.

A reviewer wonders whether umfana izinwele and inkukhu imilenze in (17b) and (18b) may not have the status of possessive NPs, such that the applicative verbs are really taking only two NP objects. This possibility must be rejected. The word strings in question do not have the status of syntactic constituents; they may not, for example, function as clausal subjects. (i)

Ngi-gunda umfana lsG:SC-shave lboy T cut the boy's hair.'

izinwele. lOhair

(ii)

*Umfana izinwele lboy lOhair 'The boy's hair is being cut.'

u-/zi-gund-wa. lsc-/10sc-shave-PASs

Furthermore, the strings lack possessive morphology, cf. izinwele zo-mfana lOhair lOpc-boy 'the hair of the boy', imilenze ye-nkukhu 41egs 4pc-chicken 'the legs of the chicken', where zo- and ye- are possessive concords controlled by the possessee. 13.

Example (28), as well as those at (11), could be problematic with respect to van der Spuy's (1993) analysis of Zulu ocs as exclusively pronominal elements, and of the cross-referenced items as dislocated nominais. On this analysis, the presence of the oc in (28) entails that umfana 'boy' is a dislocated NP. If this is so, then, given the configurational nature of Zulu, incwadi 'book' must also be external to the nuclear predication. The PATIENT is not only not an object, it is not even an argument of the verb! Alternatively, it could be that in some environments (those associated with high topicality?) ocs are able to function as agreement markers. The plausibility of

94

John R. Taylor such a development is mentioned by Bresnan and Mchombo (1987:776-777). The matter deserves further investigation.

14.

Givón (1984) shows that in English, a major factor determining the choice of the dou­ ble object construction over its competitor, the prepositional construction, is in fact the topicality of the TARGET (see also Newman 1996:65-66). The effects of topicality also show up clearly in Shona. In Shona, unlike in Zulu, there is some freedom in the order of nominais in a double object expression. However, as Hawkinson and Hyman (1975) show, a reversal of the "normal" TARGET-PATIENT order is possible only if the PATIENT is able to be more topical than the TARGET.

15.

Nkabinde (1988:159-160) cites similar examples of alternative word orders. These he explains in terms of differences in "emphasis", where "emphasis" appears to be a pretheoretical term for topicality contrasts. Amongst Nkabinde's examples are the follow­ ing. (I have placed square brackets around the nuclear predication.) (i)

[Umama lmother

aka-niki amantombazana NEG:lsc-give:NEG 6girls

(ii)

Umama lmother

amantombazana 6girls

imali]. 9money

[aka-wa-niki NEG:lsc-6oc-give:NEG

(iii) [Umama aka-wa-niki imali] lmother NEG:lsc-6oc-give:NEG 9money 'Mother does not give the girls money.'

imali]. 9money

amantombazana. 6girls

16.

GB theory captures the distinction between the two postverbal NPs in terms of a dis­ tinction between structural case and inherent case. A double object verb like give is said to inherently assign objective case to the NP which it subcategorises, i.e. the PATIENT, while it structurally assigns objective case to the NP which immediately follows it, i.e. the TARGET (Baker 1988b:366).

17.

The picture is, however, complicated by the fact that morphological applicatives and causatives may become lexicalised, and thereby acquire new subcategorisation frames. For example, thembisa 'promise', morphologically a causative of themba 'hope', can be used without specification of the CAUSEE.

18.

Similarly with the verb buza 'ask'. One can 'ask a question' buza umbuzo, or 'ask a person' buza umuntu. The person can also be construed as TARGET in a double object expression: buza umuntu umbuzo 'ask a person a question'.

19.

Baker's preposition incorporation theory of applicatives has been criticised by, amongst others, Alsina and Mchombo (1990) and Garrett (1990). It should be men­ tioned that Baker himself has substantially revised his account, following the "dis­ covery" (cf. Baker 1992:29) of locative applicatives. Baker (1992) proposes that the applied nominal (i.e. TARGET) is in reality a prepositional phrase, headed by a phonologically null preposition. Even putting aside one's scepticism vis-à-vis invisible pre­ positions, this account could be made to work only for a very small sub-set of double object expressions. It would not, for example, work for (9a).

Double object constructions in Zulu

95

References Alsina, Alex and Sam Mchombo. 1990. "The syntax of applicatives in Chicheŵa: Problems for a theta theoretic asymmetry." Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 8:493-506. Baker, Mark. 1988a. Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Baker, Mark. 1988b. "Theta theory and the syntax of applicatives in Chichewa." Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6:353-389. Baker, Mark. 1992. "Thematic conditions on syntactic structures: Evidence from locative applicatives." In I.M. Roca (ed.), Thematic Structure: Its Role in Grammar. Berlin: Forls, 23-46. Branford, Jean. 1987. A Dictionary of South African English. Cape Town: Oxford University Press. Bresnan, Joan and Sam Mchombo. 1987. "Topic, pronoun, and agreement in Chicheŵa." Language 63:741-782. Bresnan, Joan and Lioba Moshi. 1990. "Object asymmetries in comparative Bantu syn­ tax." Linguistic Inquiry 21:147-185. Carstairs-McCarthy, Andrew. 1992. Current Morphology. London: Routledge. Doke, Clement M. 1981. Textbook of Zulu Grammar. Cape Town: Longman Southern Africa [First published 1927]. Doke, Clement M. and B.W. Vilakazi. 1972. Zulu-English Dictionary. Johannesburg: Witwatersrand University Press [First edition 1948]. Garrett, Andrew. 1990. "Applicatives and preposition incorporation." In K. Dziwirek, P. Farrell and E. Mejías-Bikandi (eds.), Grammatical Relations: A Cross-Theoretical Perspective. Stanford: CSLI, 183-198. Givón, Talmy. 1971. "On the verbal origin of the Bantu verb suffixes." Studies in African Linguistics 2:145-163. Givón, Talmy. 1984. "Direct object and dative shifting: Semantic and pragmatic case." In Frans Plank (ed.), Objects: Towards a Theory of Grammatical Relations. London: Academic Press, 151-182. Goldberg, Adele. 1992. "The inherent semantics of argument structure: The case of the English ditransitive construction." Cognitive Linguistics 3:37-74. Goldberg, Adele. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Harford, Carolyn. 1993. "The applicative in Chishona and lexical mapping theory." In Sam A. Mchombo (ed.), Theoretical Aspects of Bantu Grammar. Stanford: CSLI Publications, 93-111. Hawkinson, Annie and Larry Hyman. 1974. "Hierarchies of natural topic in Shona." Studies in African Linguistics 5:147-170. Hyman, Larry and Alessandro Duranti. 1982. "On the object relation in Bantu." In Paul Hopper and Sandra Thompson (eds.), Syntax and Semantics 15: Studies in Tran­ sitivity. New York: Academic Press, 217-239. Jackendoff, Ray. 1983. Semantics and Cognition. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

96

John R. Taylor

Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. I. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Langacker, Ronald W. 1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. II. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Newman, John. 1996. Give: A Cognitive Linguistic Study. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter [Cognitive Linguistics Research 7]. Nkabinde, A.C. 1988. "Word order in Zulu." In A.C. Nkabinde (ed.), Anthology of Articles on African Linguistics and Literature: A Festschrift to C.L.S. Nyembezi. Johannesburg: Lexicon, 153-194. Pinker, Stephen. 1989. Learnability and Cognition: The Acquisition of Argument Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Reddy, Michael. 1979. "The conduit metaphor." In A. Ortony (ed.), Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 284-324. Taylor, John R. 1996. Possessives in English: An Exploration in Cognitive Grammar. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Taylor, John R. 1997. "Syntax and semantics of locativised nouns in Zulu." In René Dirven and Martin Pütz (eds.), The Construal of Space in Language and Thought. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 287-305. Tuggy, David. "Giving in Nawatl." This volume. van der Spuy, Andrew. 1993. "Dislocated noun phrases in Nguni." Lingua 90:335-355. Wilkes, A. 1989. "Unmarked possessives: Fact or fiction in Zulu grammar?" South African Journal of African Languages 9:87-94. Wunderlich, Dieter. 1987. "An investigation of lexical composition: The case of German be- verbs." Linguistics 25:283-331.

Giving and taking in Chipewyan: The semantics of THING-marking classificatory verbs Sally Rice University of Alberta

1.

Introduction

A remarkable facet of GIVE (and TAKE) constructions in Chipewyan and, indeed, in all of its Athapaskan cousins, is the near absence of either a neutral or generic statement of giving. While there are no neutral or gen­ eric acts of giving in the realm of human interaction, there are languages whose way of expressing a particular instance of giving is fairly neutral and generic, as in the English, I gave it to him. Such a statement conveys nothing specific about the individual act such as the physical or abstract nature of the given object, the purpose behind the act of giving, the man­ ner in which the bestowal took place, the immediacy of the interaction, the permanence of the transfer, or the psychological state of the human participants. In a language such as English, narrative context (or direct observation) are required to fill in many of the details that Chipewyan en­ codes explicitly. In Chipewyan,1 most predications about the transfer of a THING from a GIVER to a RECIPIENT must obligatorily encode features about the animacy or shape/consistency of the transferred object, whether the transfer takes place in a moderated and deliberate or an abrupt and per­ haps careless manner, and whether the transferred THING ends up being placed directly into the RECIPIENT'S hands or merely gets transported vaguely into his or her sphere of influence for what may be beneficial pur­ poses or not. Not surprisingly, this last distinction, based as it is on where

98

Sally Rice

the transferred THING ends up, tends to correlate semantically with an inference of temporary change of possession versus permanent change of ownership. Perhaps the most striking aspect of any Athapaskan language with respect to issues being discussed in this volume is that there is no single verb stem of giving (or taking).2 There are at least as many stems as there are conventionalized animacy/shape/consistency distinctions in the lan­ guage. Afterall, one of the hallmark features of the entire family typologically is the presence of a THING-marking classificatory verb stem system. Typically, an Athapaskan language maintains about 8 or 9 such contrasts depending on the semantic relation being predicated. Semantically, these predicates range from expressions of object location, absolute motion of an object, object manipulation, and, of course, object transfer. Furthermore, there often exist in these languages parallel sets of classificatory verb stems for predications of object manipulation and transfer which, in addition to distinguishing physical attributes of the THING, encode something about the manner in which it was handled or transferred, i.e. either gently or forcefully. It remains an open question as to whether all these manner differences and the stem or prefixai changes they necessitate have effec­ tively become lexicalized (in the same way that the English verbs donate, hand, and toss represent lexically distinct but semantically related alterna­ tives for give) or whether they remain derivations on a set of verbal themes. The morphosyntactic requirements of Chipewyan are such that trans­ fer predications remain quite specific semantically, being as they are so thoroughly grounded in concrete experience. While there is some room for language play and metaphoric extension with respect to these constructions, statements about giving and taking in Chipewyan are overwhelmingly applicable only with sentient human participants and tangible transferred objects. One can neither be abstract nor generic when it comes to giving and taking since, for the most part, such actions are rigidly situated in the spatio-temporal domain. While this facet of Athapaskan languages alone makes them typologically noteworthy (although THING-marking verbs are not that unusual cross-linguistically3), it also makes them intriguing conceptually. The absence of either a schematic or an all-encompassing basic-level verb of giving or taking means that the coarsely-construed lexico-semantic category of transfer predications is populated exclusively by verbal hyponyms, or what George Miller has termed troponyms.4 In short, it seems as if the language, through its rather elaborate encoding

Giving and taking in Chipewyan

99

requirements, exerts a subtle pressure on speakers to remain not only lit­ eral in their use of such predications, but also constrained in their usage and interpretation of them by the exigencies of real-world physical transfer. This point will be illustrated and discussed in detail in later sections of the paper. One of the stated purposes of this volume, through its many case studies of individual languages, is to impress upon readers the fact that giving and taking as human activities are experientially and cognitively basic yet interactionally complex and that, in turn, GIVE and TAKE con­ structions cross-linguistically tend to receive special and often complex coding paradigmatically. As I hope to demonstrate below, Chipewyan more than meets both these textual and typological criteria. The organization of this paper is as follows. In Section 2, I provide a very schematic overview of the most salient elements of Chipewyan morphosyntax, especially as pertains to GIVE and TAKE constructions. In Sections 3 and 4, the composition and interpretation of literal GIVE constructions and literal TAKE constructions are exemplified and analyzed from a cogni­ tive linguistics point of view, using terminology and notation from Cognitive Grammar (as formulated in Langacker 1987/1991a, 1991b and applied to GIVE and TAKE constructions in Newman 1996). In Section 5, I turn to pragmatic and figurative aspects of transfer predications in Chipewyan and other Athapaskan languages and, in Section 6, I make a few general obser­ vations about the language with respect to issues raised in this paper.

2.

An overview of Chipewyan morphosyntax

It is impossible to due justice to the morphosyntactic complexities of any Athapaskan language in a few short pages or in a paper of this type, focused as it is on a single set of constructions. Suffice it to say that there is near universal agreement among neophyte and seasoned linguists work­ ing on these languages that the Athapaskan verb is both a poly synthetic marvel and nightmare. This reaction is primarily due to the sheer number of morphemes which may be integrated into the verbal unit, but also be­ cause of the extensive tonal and morphophonemic alternations and assimi­ lations, reductions, metatheses, and fusions that occur, as well as the rather commonplace elisions that take place in normal speech. Many of these are required to achieve a heavy/light syllable alternation, which is one way that inflectional differences are sometimes signalled in the verb system. There

100

Sally Rice

is also a fair amount of suppletion in the language. Nevertheless, despite their complexity and their great geographical spread, Athapaskan languages are surprisingly similar compositionally and, indeed, one frequently hears about mutual intelligibility between speakers of, for example, Dogrib in the N.W.T. in Canada and Navajo in the southwestern U.S. Excellent over­ views for individual languages which could reasonably be extrapolated to any of the others can be found in Young and Morgan (1987) for Navajo, Rice (1989) for Slave, and Kari (1990) for Ahtna. The most complete gram­ mar of Chipewyan remains Fang Kue Li's amazingly thorough 1928 sketch. With Goddard (1912), Richardson (1968), and Carter (1975), these sources more or less exhaust the readily available grammatical descriptions of the language. In this section I confine the presentation to the most relevant aspects of Chipewyan morphosyntax applicable to the constructions under study. 2.1. The verbal unit The basic word order in Chipewyan is SOV. In a ditransitive construction, it is SOXV. However, because the verbal unit typically features subject and object pronouns, a sentence could consist solely of a verb, in which case the order of mention of the verbal arguments becomes transposed when comparing between a full nominal and pronominal rendering of the same construction. This sequential contrast is illustrated in (1) for a typical act of giving. (For purposes of exposition, I have given an exploded version of the verb in (la). The form in (lb) differs from (la) only on the basis of the prenominal possessor of 'palm', ye- rather than Aniyes.) As discussed in Sections 2.2 and 2.3 below, the verb stem literally denotes the THING, or more precisely, the handling of the THING, in this case a bundled object or closed container: (1)

a.

keni Kenny S

erit¥is-tili paper-pail O

aniyes-tł'aghe-ye-į-ł-ą Agnes-palm-in-3sG:s-CLASS-PERF:handle a closed container X S V/O 'Kenny gave Agnes the box.'

Giving and taking in Chipewyan

101

b. ye-t aghe-ye-j- -t 3sG:x-palm-(in)-3sG:s-CLASS-PERF:handle a closed container X S V/O 4 He gave it to her.' The most salient feature of any Athapaskan language is the elaborate prefixal system within the verbal unit. The verb consists of a verb theme (the basic lexical entry) and some number of additional prefixes. The verb theme is comprised of a stem (it is the classificatory stems that are of particular interest in this paper), one of 4 classifiers (despite the rather infe­ licitous label, they express voice or valency alternations and may be real­ ized by a zero morpheme), and any other prefixes (called thematic prefixes) which are obligatorily part of the lexical verb. As shown in (1), the left­ most prefixai elements within the verbal unit, the postposition and its object, encode RECIPIENT in GIVE constructions (and SOURCE in TAKE constructions). Any remaining prefixes are called nonthematic and these encode derivational and inflectional categories as diverse as subject and object pronouns, aspect, mood, a variety of adverbial notions, and any incorporated noun stems that may be required. The prefixes are more or less rigidly arranged to the left of the verb stem in the verbal unit and to the right of any (incorporated) postpositional phrase. Depending on the lan­ guage, up to 23 different prefix categories have been posited, although most of the languages within the family exhibit only about 9-12 prefixai posi­ tions and Chipewyan is claimed to have 10 (depending on how one counts). A schematic template, such as the one given in Table 1, is commonly used to summarize the nature and order of the verbal prefixes. The inclusion of the PP as a thematic prefix and, indeed, its inde­ pendence or boundedness vis-à-vis the rest of the verbal unit is open to dispute, which is one reason that the postposition and its object are some­ times numbered 0 and 00 in a verbal template. In this paper, I will follow standard practice of writing them as if they were incorporated into the verbal unit. This template does not necessarily represent current thinking about Athapaskan verbal prefixes, but it serves our immediate expository needs. There has been extensive discussion in the literature about particu­ lar prefix functions and meanings, their separability and classification, metaclassifications (e.g. disjunctive vs. conjunctive prefixes), the templatic representation as a whole, and theoretical implications underlying such a

102

Sally Rice

"slot/filler" approach to the Athapaskan verb. These issues are well beyond the scope of this paper. However, the expectation that certain prefix posi­ tions exist and should be filled, coupled with some robust phonological processes alluded to above, complicates the task of parsing and glossing elements within the verbal unit. For this reason, I will not identify individ­ ual morphemes for most of the example sentences I give in this paper. As can be seen from an examination of Table 1, subject agreement prefixes precede the verb stem in position 8 and generally follow the the­ matic and aspectual prefixes within the verbal unit. If the DO is 3SG, then there would be an agreement prefix for it as well in position 4. The 3SG subject agreement prefix in position 5, called the deictic subject, is only required in special cases, usually involving indefinite subjects. As stated earlier, when the NP participants are represented pronominally, the sentence could consist minimally of the verb, as seen in sentence (lb). Li (1946:419) gave only one example of a completely pronominal GIVE construction in his sketch. I repeat it in (2) along with his exploded parse and gloss, but I have added numbers corresponding to the prefix positions given in Table 1: (2)

begháyéni tį < be-ghá-yé-n(e)-i- -tį 3sG:x-to-3sG:o-MOM-lSG:s-CLASS-PERF:handle animate object 00-0-5-7-8-9-10 T have given her to him.'

As will be discussed in Section 3, due to the choice of postposition and postpositional object, beghá, this sentence carries with it a sense that this was a permanent transfer, as in the case of someone being given in mar­ riage or a baby given up in adoption. Moreover, because of the particular choice of animate THING-marking verb stem, the transaction is marked as Table 1. A verbal template for Chipewyan

00 incorp. postpos. object pron.

0 P

1 local & adv. pre­ fixes

disjunctive 2 3 iter­ incorp ative noun pre­ stems fixes

(modified after Li

# 4 5 DO 3SG:S pron pron

6 modal/ theme pre­ fixes

1946:410) conjunctive 8 7 aspect S pre­ pron fixes

9 CLASS

10 stem

Giving and taking in Chipewyan

103

being deliberate and controlled, as any decision to give someone away would normally be. These "extra senses" are not due to pragmatic infer­ ence. They result from very regular paradigmatic alternations available in the language for the encoding of transfer events. These sources of variation are laid out in the remaining subsections of this grammatical overview. 2.2. The classificatory verb system There are 4 very general types of predicates in Chipewyan in which the verb stem refers to a class of objects participating in the event. These stems, called classificatory verbs, predicate events involving location, free fall or change of location, handling, and caused motion. The object specified in the verb stem of such a predication may refer to either the subject or direct object argument of the clause depending on the transitivity of the verb.5 In a classic paper, Davidson, Elford, and Hoijer (1963) devised a taxonomy of classificatory verb stems in Athapaskan based on event type. Their classificatory verb types are shown in Table 2. These sets differ in form and meaning, but also on the basis of the number of THING categories distinguished. Within each set, different predications are indicated by the addition of specific verbal prefixes or, in the case of transfer predicates under discus­ sion here, on the choice of PP. Sets A and B are semantically and mor­ phologically parallel. Sets C and D are different from both them and from each other. Set D uses still other criteria for classifying objects. Set C makes the fewest categorial contrasts and is distinguished from Set B primarily on the basis of manner of handling rather than direction of trans­ fer. To a speaker of an Indo-European language, directionality seems like Table 2. The classificatory verb types (after Davidson et al. 1963:30-31) Set A: Set B: Set C: Set D:

neuter verbs ("locative verbs"; no movement; orientation of object at rest {sit, lie, be in position, be in location}) verbs of handling, manipulation, continuing manual contact {give, hand, take, put, handle, lower, pick up, bring, carry, misplace} verbs of partially controlled action initiated by agent {toss, throw, throw out/ dispose of, hang up, set down, drop, lose, push over} verbs of free movement; movement independent of agent {fall/tip over}

104

Sally Rice

the most salient difference between GIVE and TAKE predications. This is not the case in Chipewyan since GIVE and TAKE predications draw from the same inventory of classificatory verb stems (Set B). Clearly, direction­ ality must be imputed from other morphosyntactic sources (i.e. the PP and other thematic prefixes). As just stated, Sets B and C, of special interest for the purposes of this paper, do more than specify the nature of the object being handled. They also describe the nature of the intent involved in handling the ob­ ject, e.g. whether it is a controlled or "partially controlled" action and whether the GIVER/TAKER is a willing participant throughout the trans­ fer or serves merely as the starting point or goal of the transfer. This sociopsychological distinction in manner of handling is supposed to permeate the culture and the entire verbal lexicon, not just the classificatory verb system. Rushforth and Tatti (1980), in a paper on Bearlake Athapaskan (a dialect of Slave), base this thematic distinction on what they claim are two cul­ turally relevant concepts, namely séodft'é and séodįt'é ?ile. These notions are difficult to translate, but the gist of the difference is between careful, controlled, deliberate, respectful, polite, humble, reserved, gentle, or con­ cerned behavior and actions marked by rough or quick movement, or by a lack of care, reservation, or control. Though it may not seem so to nonDene sensibilities, the latter is not necessarily considered to be negative in connotation and it would be wrong to polarize the two concepts. As I remarked in Section 1, the expression of a difference in manner may be enough to affect a different gestalt construal of the entire transaction. Eventually, such a contrast in construal may lead to a lexicalization of the difference. A few of these productive manner-changing inflections and derivations (e.g. pass gently vs. pass roughly) may have become conven­ tionalized to the point that they now represent entirely distinct lexical items in the language, even though they may not necessarily signify a qualita­ tively distinct result (e.g. change in possession vs. change of ownership, the way that loan and bestow do in English), but only a quantitative difference in how the transaction was carried out (e.g. in gradualness vs. abrupt­ ness of action, the sort of difference that the English verbs hand and toss suggest).

Giving and taking in Chipewyan

105

2.3. A taxonomy of THING types distinguished by the classificatory verb stem There are up to 9 THING types distinguished by the classificatory verb stem sets mentioned above. These verb stems are classified on the basis of a small set of perceptually or functionally salient features such as number, animacy, consistency/shape (e.g. compact/round, rigid/long, or flexible/flat) and constituency (e.g. a liquid, a granular heap, or some mushy matter). Rice (lecture notes) subsumes all of these constituency features under the rubric "containerfulness," which captures the pertinent distinctions nicely since liquids and mushy materials must be contained in a deep or closed container, such as a sack or a box, while granular objects or bundled objects can be contained in a shallow or open container, such as a plate or a canoe. The closed container category groups with other countable THINGS since the container is presumably more salient perceptually than its contents. A 10th classification is used with Set B and C verb types to indicate an unspecified THING or THINGS as well as THINGS being trans­ ferred for immediate consumption, such as food or cigarettes, regardless of their physical properties. As stated in Section 2.2, only predicates of transfer, manipulation and palpitation, motion, and orientation are expressed using the classificatory verb system. Perceptual predicates like SEE do not distinguish their 3rd person objects. For physical transfer predicates, the transferred THING (in the guise of a shape/material/animacy classifier) functions as the verb stem. When pronominalized, this verbal classifier is the only way in which the THING is expressed, as seen in sentences (lb) and (2). A list of the relevant THING categories in Chipewyan pertinent to this discussion of GIVE and TAKE constructions is given in Table 3 along with the abbreviations used for them in this paper and some sample deno­ tata. Plurality renders void all animacy and shape distinctions but not those, obviously, for consistency and material, as they designate mass-like objects. In Table 4, I summarize the classificatory verb stem forms for the predica­ tions of interest in this paper (Sets B and C from Table 2) including stem variations (or conjugations) due to an IMPERFECTIVE/PERFECTIVE contrast.6 In some ways, the fact that GIVE and TAKE constructions exploit a classificatory verb stem system is the least interesting aspect of these con­ structions conceptually. Of greater significance for purposes of illustrating an interdependence between syntax and semantics is the fact that GIVE and

106

Sally Rice

Table 3. THING-types distinguished by GIVE- and TAKE-like verbs (after Richardson 1968:48-49; Carter 1976:25; and personal fieldnotes of the author) AO RO SO FO CC

PO OC MM GO UO

ANIMATE OBJECTS: a baby, a person, a fish, a dog ROUND OR HARD/COMPACT OBJECTS: a ball, a radio, a coin, a pen­ knife, one berry, one shoe, a ring STICK-LIKE OBJECT/EMPTY CONTAINER: a pen, scissors, a table, a chair, a key, a canoe, a car FLAT OR FLEXIBLE OBJECTS: a blanket, an article of clothing, a leaf, a pillow, a dollar bill OBJECT IN CLOSED CONTAINER/BUNDLED OBJECTS: a single large container (i.e. a box) and contents, a sack of flour, a pack of cigarettes, berries in a jar, a motionless train (in station) PLURAL OBJECTS: a plurality of any of the above categories; rope, eye­ glasses, keys, antlers, firewood OBJECT IN OPEN CONTAINER: a pail of water, a plate of berries, tea in a cup, any food on a platter MUSHY MATTER: porridge, butter, mud GRANULAR OBJECT/OBJECT IN HEAP: an amorphous mass of, e.g. hay, grain, sugar, gravel UNSPECIFIED OR GENERIC OBJECT (for immediate consumption)

Table 4. Some Chipewyan classificatory verb stem forms (after Davidson et al. 1963:35; Haas 1968:168; Carter 1975:96, 1976:26; Elford and Elford 1981:185; and personal fieldnotes of the author)1

Giving and taking in Chipewyan

107

TAKE share the same stem forms so that, by necessity, there is a regular interaction between the classificatory verb system and the other parameters of variation within the typical GIVE or TAKE construction, notably the many ways in which the RECIPIENT and SOURCE of transfer can be encoded. 2.4. Chipewyan postpositional

phrases

As can be seen from the verbal template in Table 1, the left-most con­ stituent within a Chipewyan verb may be a postposition or a postpositional phrase. As was mentioned in Section 2.1, there is quite a bit of indetermi­ nacy as to the permeability of the postposition-verb boundary. Some post­ positions clearly get integrated into the verb-prefix complex and others do not. For the post-positional phrases under consideration in this paper, i.e. those that mark RECIPIENT in a GIVE construction or SOURCE in a TAKE construction, my consultants' intuitions suggest that the postposi­ tional phrase has been incorporated into the verb complex as a bound com­ ponent regardless of whether the postpositional object is pronominal or not. Postpositions, themselves, can be inflected in Chipewyan in a way identical to one kind of nominal inflection: They take possessive morpho­ logy. Thus, pronominal possessors of nouns, shown in (3), and postposi­ tional pronominal objects, shown in (4), are morphologically identical. Some Athapaskanists (notably Li 1946:403) have referred to postpositions as relational or local nouns for this reason. (3)

a.

se-ke lSG-foot 'my foot'

b.

c.

(4)

a.

se-k'e lSG-on 'on me'

ne-ke 2sG-foot 'your foot'

b.

ne-k'e 2sG-on 'on you'

be-ke 3sG-foot 'his/her foot'

c.

be-k'e 3sG-on 'on him/her'

d.8 ye-ke 3sG-foot 'his/her foot'

d.

ye-k'e 3sG-on 'on him/her'

108

Sally Rice

The PPs in (5) and (6) represent the conventional ways of coding the oblique NPs which denote, respectively, RECIPIENT and SOURCE of transfer in Cold Lake Chipewyan GIVE and TAKE constructions. Note that the "underlying" forms in (5c) and (6b) are rather complex, involving as they do a possessed postpositional object, 'in my palm' or 'out of (in) my palm'. These nearly always contract in rapid speech, with the postposition often dropping out completely along with the last syllable of 'palm', set 'a(ghe). Likewise, segha along with the all-purpose benefactive marker, -ba- as in seba 'for me', often contract to sa. (5)

a.

b.

c.

se-gha > sa (6) 1 SG-to 'to me' se-ts'en 1 SG-towards 'towards me' se-t aghe-ye > set aa lSG-palm-in 'in my palm'

a.

b.

se-gha-há 1 SG-from-out 'out from me' se-t aghe-ye-há > set aahá 1 SG-palm-in-out 'out of (in) my palm'

2.5. Summary of the relevant semantic distinctions Those aspects of Chipewyan morphosyntax most relevant for a discussion of GIVE and TAKE predications have now been presented. I have described how THINGS and RECIPIENTS/SOURCES get encoded and have mentioned how the overall construal of the manner in which a transfer event is carried out may be reflected in the choice of THING-marking stem. The semantic distinctions coded in transfer predicates include (i) the physical nature of the THING, (ii) the manner of the handling, (iii) the direction of the transfer, (iv) the endpoint or starting point of the transfer (i.e. someone's hands or the whole person), and (v) the immediacy or directness of the interaction. By selecting from among these components, a speaker can draw attention to or invite an inference about the permanence of the transfer and/or the willingness of the initial possessor (either the GIVER or the SOURCE in a TAKE construction) to part with the THING. Despite (or perhaps because of) the many obligatory distinctions it makes, these constructions are necessarily detailed in terms of information about

Giving and taking in Chipewyan

109

the underlying event and the psychological state of the human participants. For this reason, an expression of giving or taking cannot be schematic nor can aspects of the ACT be left unspecified to any real degree. No doubt, Chipewyan does not encode, either overtly or covertly, many semantic cate­ gories which are relevant in other languages and cultures. It also resists figurative applications of these constructions, an issue I address in Sections 5 and 6. In the next two sections, the morphosyntactic components pre­ sented here are integrated as I piece together the essential semantics of Chipewyan transfer predications.

3.

Chipewyan GIVE constructions

As has been exemplified by Newman (1996) and the other papers in this volume, languages differ greatly depending on which aspects of transfer events they encode as well as on any other aspects of these fundamental human interactions which might also get elaborated. In English GIVE construc­ tions, the GIVER, the THING, the RECIPIENT, and the ACT itself are coded by the Subject, the DO, the IO, and the verb, respectively. In Chipewyan, there may be no morphosyntactic separation of the ACT and the THING being given. If the ACT is construed as an immediate and direct change of possession as in the case of handing something to someone, the RECIPI­ ENT'S palm is mentioned as the oblique object. If the ACT is construed as a more permanent transfer, in the case of a change of ownership, for example, the RECIPIENT is mentioned by name or pronoun as the object of a different postposition. In both of these cases, however, the variant of the THING-marking stem is dependent on whether or not the ACT is being carried out in a deliberate and controlled manner. The choice of post­ position (there are three possibilities) and postpositional object (there are two) interacting with one of two THING-marking verb stem series con­ spire to provide a particular interpretation for a specific act of giving. In Table 5, I summarize the most salient semantic distinctions brought about by or associated with the three types of PPs. All of these forms represent options for coding a RECIPIENT. These options are still available in the Cold Lake dialect, but elsewhere, begha 'to him/her' is either the default way or the only way to mark RECIPIENT. Logically speaking, if there are 3 postpositional markings for RECIPIENT and 18 stem choices for THING

110

Sally Rice

Table 5. Semantic distinctions associated with choice of RECIPIENT-marking PPs in GIVE constructions Form/Gloss (a) beti'agheye 'in his/her palm' (b) begha 'to him/her' (c) bets'en 'towards him/her'

Sem. Role?

Contact

Duration

S's Manner

Stem Set

GOAL

direct

temporary

B

RECIPIENT

indirect

permanent

DIRECTION

indirect

(neutral)

controlled ('hand') controlled ('give') uncontrolled ('throw')

B C

(2 series of 9 classificatory verb stems in order to signal a controlled or uncontrolled manner of handling), plus one additional stem to mark the handling of non-specific THINGS or items of immediate use to the RECIPI­ ENT, there should be 55 different ways of giving in Chipewyan. Neverthe­ less, experientially speaking, there are not so many degrees of freedom when it comes to expressing individual acts of giving. In actuality, the lan­ guage closely reflects the limitations of bodily and physical experience as well as the normal constraints of social interaction. My consultants felt comfortable in producing only about 20-24 forms and, even so, changed the gloss and the PP for several of those items. As can be seen in Table 5, the PP forms (a) beti'agheye 'in his/her palm' and (b) begha 'to him/her' both correlate with controlled transfer or handing!giving in Chipewyan and only appear with stems from Set B. In point of fact, they are in complementary distribution with form (c), bets'en 'towards him/her', the PP used most commonly with stems of Set C to signal uncontrolled transfer or throwing in Chipewyan. Taken together, they represent a continuum of contact be­ tween GIVER and RECIPIENT, from direct physical contact in (a), to indi­ rect and beneficial contact in (b), to indirect and potentially antagonistic contact in (c). They also represent a continuum of contact between THING and RECIPIENT, from temporary or inconsequential possession in (a), to significant and lasting ownership in (b), to mere change of possession again in (c), although of possibly longer duration than that implicit in the PP in (a). Table 6 summarizes my consultants' intuitions about both the possible forms as well as the lexical gaps for all the fully pronominal THING-MANNER-RECIPIENT conjugations of the schematic phrase, I TRANSFERRED X TO HIM. Forms in the lefthand column represent controlled

Giving and taking in Chipewyan

111

versions of GIVE, while those in the righthand column indicate uncontrolled GIVE. Despite the non-occurrence of certain forms, Chipewyan allows for a considerably richer set of expressions both in terms of number of collo­ cations and their semantic content than all the possible combinations of the English, / {gave/handed/threw} {it/them/something} to him. The examples and glosses in Table 6 form the basis of the discussion in Sections 3.1-3.3. Table 6. Ways of GIVING: Variations on the theme I TRANSFERRED X TO HIM Thins

Deliberate/Controlled Action

Forceful/Uncontrolled Action

J

(7)

a.

*

betł'aghiłį 'I handed PERSON to him'

AO

b.

beghanįłtį [banįłtį]

*

'I gave PERSON to him'

(8)

c.

yets'enįłtį 'I gave PERSON to him (unwillingly)'

*

a.

betł'aghi?ą

*

'I handed ROUND THING to him'

RO

b.

*

beghani?ą 'I gave ROUND THING to him'

*

c. (9)

a.

bets'eyishel 'I threw RO at him'

*

betł'aghitą 'I handed STICK THING to him'

SO

b.

beghanitą [banitą]

*

'I gave STICK THING to him'

c. (10) a.

*

bets'eghiłxes 'I threw SO at him'

*

betł'aghiłchúdh 'I handed FLAT THING to him'

FO

b.

beghaniłchúdh [baniłchúdh]

*

'I gave FLAT THING to him'

c.

*

bets'eghi?ar 'I threw FO at him'

*

(11) a.

betł'aghiłtą

cc

beghaniłtą, [bąniłtą]

'I handed CLOSED CONTAINER to him'

b.

*

'I gave CLOSED CONTAINER to him'

c.

*

bets'eghiłxes 'I threw CC at him'

112

Sally Rice

(continuation) Thing

Deliberate/Controlled Action

(12) a.

betł'aghila

Forceful/Uncontrolled Action

*

'I handed THINGS to him'

PO

b.

beghanįla[banila]

*

'I gave THINGS to him'

*

c. (13) a.

bets'eghiłdel T threw PO at him'

*

betł'aghiką T handed OPEN CONTAINER to him'

OC

b.

*

banika 'I gave OPEN CONTAINER to him'

c.

*

(14) a. b. MM c.

* * *

(15) a. b. GO c.

* * *

(16)9 a.

betł'aghichu

b.

beghanichu

bek'eghinel [bek'inel] 'I dumped OC on him'

* * bek'intłe 'I dumped MM on him'

* * * ?

'I handed SOMETHING to him'

UO

?

T gave SOMETHING to him'

c.

?

?

Alternate combinations of postpositional phrases, controlled vs. uncon­ trolled stem forms, and THING-classifying vs. generic stem forms all con­ spire to distinguish specific instances of transfer in Chipewyan. Even so, the semantics of GIVE and TAKE constructions are only partially moti­ vated by the meanings of the component parts (the same THING-marking stem, afterall, is used in predications as diverse as GIVE, HAND, TAKE, BRING, CARRY, PICK UP, and MISPLACE). They also arise from the overall construct itself, that is, from the particular composite form created from the component parts, and its applicability as an expression to a realworld event that is capable of being reasonably achieved. An examination of Table 6 quickly reveals the absence of some forms

Giving and taking in Chipewyan

113

(or at least my consultants' reluctance to produce certain forms and my inability to find such forms cited anywhere in the literature) as well as the inclusion of some idiosyncratic glosses. A discussion of the paradigm's gaps, glosses, and semantic entailments is taken up in the next few sub­ sections. 3.1. Handing/passing vs. giving A comparison between the (a) and (b) forms in (7)-(16) in Table 6 shows that the only difference between giving and handing in Chipewyan resides chiefly in the choice of postposition and postpositional object: A whole per­ son in the case of GIVE and the person's palm in the case of HAND. There is also the presence of the momentaneous prefix, -n(e)-, in the (b) forms, which may be more thematic than modal. Since this prefix is optional in other conjugations, I will assume it contributes little to the overall predica­ tions lexically. Otherwise, both the verbal morphology and the range of application are identical. And, importantly, both forms are manifestations of "controlled" giving — a deliberate and careful ACT on the part of the GIVER. Nevertheless, there are some distinguishing semantic features which follow from the use of the two forms. For example, the choice of PP signals something about the immediacy of the ACT and, as such, may invite an inference of either direct or indirect physical contact between the GIVER and RECIPIENT. To illustrate, one cannot use the English form I handed it to him or the appropriate Chipewyan counterpart betł'aghita (9a) to mean T gave it (a car) to him'. Likewise, the "palm" form strongly invokes a reading that suggests a temporary change of possession rather than a more permanent change of ownership. Thus, we get an application of (7a) if a baby was handed to someone to hold for a short time, while (7b) can only mean that a baby was given up for adoption or a woman was given away in marriage. These are much more permanent types of transfer which do not reduce the ACT to a single episode of physical contact. More­ over, there is a strong sense that the RECIPIENT significantly benefits from the transfer in the "person" form of the construction, even though -gha- 'to' is not the regular postposition for marking benefactives in Chipewyan (-ba- 'for' is). On the other hand, the "palm" form, -tł'agheye 'in palm', has a very limited distribution as an incorporated PP. It is used literally for the motion of objects into and out of someone's hands (e.g. FALL, DROP, etc.). As it happens, one can be even more direct with respect to physical

114

Sally Rice

transfer than is suggested by the conventionalized (a) forms. Although the utterances setł'aanełhúdh 'hand it (FO) to me' and setł'agheyenįnįkhúdh 'place it (FO) in my hands' use the same PP and classificatory stem, there is nevertheless a semantic contrast. For many reasons, it is difficult to say which form of GIVE is more basic conceptually, the "palm" or the "person" form. In some sense, they each involve particular elaborations or profiles on a very schematic base. Indeed, the verbal base conveys nothing more than the handling of a cer­ tain type of object. As shown in the image-schematic diagrams in Figures 1 and 2 (which feature a rather collapsed Cognitive Grammar notation in the style of Newman 1996), both the "palm" and "person" forms of giving add different kinds of meanings to the overall controlled GIVE predications. The sphere of control superimposed on the GIVER in Figures 1 and 2 is meant to convey that the ACT is deliberate. The control domain surround­ ing the RECIPIENT in Figure 2 suggests that this participant assumes control (as in long-term possession or ownership) of the transferred THING (which in all of the diagrams represents a stick-like object). In Figure 1, which denotes an act of handing, the RECIPIENT'S palm (the Active Zone for the goal of transfer) is profiled as it is an explicit part of the pre­ dication, but there is no control domain indicated since the possession is assumed to be quite temporary and not especially beneficial. These elabo­ rated or profiled aspects of GIVE are absent from predications about uncon­ trolled giving, often glossed as throwing. I turn to these next. Note, first, that there are two lexical gaps amongst the forms for controlled giving, for handling granular objects (GO) and mushy matter (MM). According to my consultants, the fact that a heap of sugar or a glob of butter, for example, would probably not be handled directly means that they would not usually be transferred to someone else unless in a container, in which case they would be designated metonymically by way of the appropriate container classificatory stem form, CC or OC. These gaps in the morphological para­ digms are quite understandable, mitigated as they are by gaps in the realm of normal social interaction. 3.2. Giving vs. throwing Attention should now be directed to contrasts between the (b) and (c) forms in examples (7)-(16) of Table 6. These represent controlled and uncontrolled

Giving and taking in Chipewyan

115

Figure 1. Controlled giving-I The spatio-temporal domain of HAND STICK-LIKE OBJECT (SO) in RECIPIENT'S palm showing profiled Active Zone with domains of control superimposed

Figure 2. Controlled giving-II. The spatio-temporal domain of GIVE SO to RECIPIENT with domains of control superimposed

116

Sally Rice

Figure 3. Uncontrolled giving. The spatio-temporal domain of THROW SO towards RECIPIENT showing unprofiled Active Zone but no domains of control superimposed

acts of giving, respectively. In both cases, the postpositional object repre­ senting the RECIPIENT designates a whole person, but beyond a shared direction of transfer, the similarities end there. First of all, the two post­ positions come with their own sets of associations and entailments. As mentioned earlier, -gha- 'to' is the all-purpose RECIPIENT-marking post­ position. In rapid speech, it often contracts with its pronominal object rendering it superficially identical to the all-purpose benefactive marker -ba- 'for' and perhaps a bit semantically ambiguous with it as well. Speakers reconstruct the following constructions variously: bane jen [< beghanejen] 'sing to him' or [< bebanejen] 'sing for him', and satutenele [< seghatutenele] 'haul some water to me' or [< sebatutenele] 'haul some water for me'. On the other hand, -ts'en 'towards' is an all-purpose direc­ tional marker and is used in such predications as sets'eyaįghiłti 'he scolded me', setsegha 'he's coming towards me', and bets'ędakwidighá 'I pointed a finger at him.' The GIVE X to SOMEONE forms in (b) in (7)-(16) communicate some­ thing about a very deliberate and beneficial act. Again, the diagram in Figure 2 in which the entities representing GIVER and RECIPIENT are both enclosed in spheres of control is meant to suggest that both partici­ pants are conscious of the ACT and that both are willing participants in it. By contrast, the diagram in Figure 3 lacks any designation of these spheres

Giving and taking in Chipewyan

117

of control, indicating that neither the GIVER nor RECIPIENT is fully engaged in the activity, that there is a general lack of deliberation, no obvi­ ous benefit to the RECIPIENT, or that the GIVER is unwilling to part with the THING. Furthermore, there may be an implicit Active Zone in the guise of the GIVER'S arm since the overall ACT is construed as being quite force-dynamic. Over a number of separate occasions, my consultants gave me a range of possible glosses for the (c) forms. To take but one example, a form like bets'eghiłdel (in which the perfective PO stem, -del, designates something like a set of keys) generated the following glosses: T gave them to him unwillingly', 'I gave him the damn keys', or 'I threw them at him'. For its controlled "whole person" counterpart, beghanįla, I always got the gloss 'I gave them to him' with the comment that it sounded permanent as if the RECIPIENT was given a set of car keys to go with a new gift car. One interesting mix of the two stems occurred during my data collection. The DIRECTION- or GOAL-marking postposition, -ts'en 'towards', was coupled with the controlled AO stem form, -tį, a few times, as can be seen in (7c). The gloss was invariably something like 'I gave her to him (in marriage) unwillingly'. Otherwise, any attempt to elicit an uncontrolled or forceful form of GIVE/THROW an AO produced no acceptable utterances. One final comment about uncontrolled giving or throw forms in Chipewyan. Other than lexical gaps already mentioned for transferring ani­ mate beings, as shown in (7), and the infelicity of transferring granular objects of any kind or in any manner, as shown in (15), there are gaps or at least irregularities with respect to choice of PP for other kinds of trans­ fer. When it comes to forceful transfer or transfer in an uncontrolled man­ ner of substances in an open container (usually liquids) or items which have the consistency of mushy matter, speakers have a difficult time producing the potential forms or inventing appropriate use contexts. These gaps and irregularities are indicated by the forms and nonforms in (13) and (14), respectively. While one cannot physically throw granular or globular items to someone, one can dump or pour them on another individual. Chipewyan duly records this physical possibility by coupling the uncontrolled stem forms for OC and MM with a postpositional phrase headed by -k'e 'on'. These are just two more examples of many which demonstrate that Chi­ pewyan GIVE constructions are literal in every sense of the word. Giving directly to someone is a form of handing, which requires explicit mention

118

Sally Rice

of the RECIPIENT'S palm, while giving in an uncontrolled manner is not really like giving at all. It is more like an agitated gesture of throwing or dumping, depending on the nature of the THING being transferred. More­ over, certain types of items cannot be transferred either gently or roughly due to physical limitations (*HAND/GIVE/THROW a heap) or societal pres­ sures brought about by human decency or the conventions of normal inter­ personal relations (*THROW a person). 3.3. Non-specific giving In addition to the 9 shape/animacy/constituency classificatory stems forms discussed above, there is also a generic THING classificatory stem form for verbs of giving and taking. By no means, though, could we say that this classificatory stem is used for generic ACTS of giving or taking. Rather, it is used when a particular type of giving is involved, either transfer of some­ thing for immediate use or consumption by the RECIPIENT (in which case the referent of the THING is clearly understood from context) or in certain cases of metaphorical taking (an issue taken up in Section 5.2). For most speakers, the generic stem form is -chu, a near cognate with the FO stem, -chúdh. An expression like saniłchu 'give me some of it' or 'give me some' strongly suggests a request for something to eat, drink, or smoke. However, on a number of occasions, some of my consultants produced the RO stem form, -?a, to designate an unknown, unspecified object, as in ?asi bani?a T gave him something (singular)'. This is the preferred generic stem form in Navajo (according to Ken Hale, personal communication) and, perhaps not surprisingly, in ASL as well. A small, compact, hard, possibly round object makes for an awfully prototypical THING perceptually and conceptually. Therefore, it stands to reason that the canonical form should become the default. It is not clear whether the -?a forms in Chipewyan or their RO counterparts in Navajo and other Athapaskan languages also convey a sense of transfer for immediate use the way that -chu does. 3.4. The semantics of giving in Chipewyan This section has concerned itself with answering an unstated set of ques­ tions, but ones which each of the papers in this volume tries to address for a particular language or set of languages: What are the key aspects of the

Giving and taking in Chipewyan

119

most typical situation involving GIVE? What constitutes the basic frame? What aspects of giving can be or are elaborated? As we have seen, the short answer to these questions is that there is no "most typical" situation of giving, or rather, there are dozens of typical situations of giving.10 Richardson (1968:49) states that "[i]t is probably immaterial whether these [nine classificatory verb stems] are considered as nine verbs, or as one verb with nine stems". I would have to disagree. Not all of the stem forms are fully productive constructionally in Chipewyan, nor do they necessarily maintain a stable gloss across all THING categories. Inherent properties of physical objects and the contingencies of real-world transfer either permit, rule out, or uniquely flavor any one of the nine potential "types" of giving in this language. The basic ACT of giving in Chipewyan focuses on the relation between the THING and the RECIPIENT. Accordingly, there are a number of subparameters affecting the way in which they get encoded that have morphosyntactic and semantic repercussions, i.e. what type of THING is being handled, whether it is being transferred for immediate use or not, and whether the RECIPIENT is elaborated as a whole being or as the posses­ sor of the palm into which the transferred THING is placed. While always elaborated as a whole being, the GIVER may be designated as acting in either a controlled or uncontrolled, gentle or rough, and by implication willing or unwilling manner. As we shall see in the next section, the para­ meters of variation that color TAKE expressions in Chipewyan induce a different set of inferences.

4.

Chipewyan TAKE constructions

Superficially, a striking aspect of TAKE constructions in Chipeywan is that they are formed from the same set of classificatory verb stems as the GIVE/HAND constructions. The directionality of the transfer, therefore, is not implicit in the verb stem as it is in English, but must be read off the PP and the presence of the thematic prefix, -ri-. The controlled/uncontrolled opposition depends primarily on the choice of PP rather than on the verb stem set or the verbal theme, as in the case of GIVE constructions. The semantic distinctions and entailments brought about by the choice of PP are summarized in Table 7. We will explore these and other dimensions of

120

Sally Rice

Table 7. Semantic distinctions associated with choice of SOURCE-marking PPs in TAKE constructions

(a) (b)

Form/Gloss

Sem. Role?

Duration

X's Intention

setł'agheyeha 'out of my palm' seghąhá 'out from me'

SOURCE

(neutral)

willing

POSSESSOR

permanent

unwilling

S's Manner controlled ('take') uncontrolled ('snatch')

variation for TAKE constructions below. But as a prerequisite to this dis­ cussion, one should first examine the forms in Table 8, where I present a full paradigm of controlled (in the lefthand column) and uncontrolled (in the righthand column) TAKE constructions to complement the forms given in Table 6 for GIVE. 4.1. Giving vs. taking Given that the controlled GIVE/HAND constructions and all of the TAKE constructions share the same classificatory verb stem set (Set B, the "han­ dling object" set), it would be natural to assume that TAKE in Chipewyan is the simple semantic converse of GIVE, since the locus of the difference in directionality of transfer appears to reside in the PP. This is not really the case since the general kinds of elaborations or inferences available for GIVE constructions are not necessarily encoded in TAKE constructions, either explicitly or implicitly. While the potential range and form of stem variations are identical between controlled GIVE and TAKE, there are types of THINGS which resist being taken in Chipewyan. Thus, as far as TAKE being the semantic converse of GIVE goes, there are both similari­ ties and differences. In some sense, the morphological differences between controlled and uncontrolled giving (e.g. as exemplified by (8b) beghani?a 'I gave RO to him' and (8c) betseyishel 'I threw RO at him' or 'I gave the damn thing (RO) to him') are much greater than those between con­ trolled handing and controlled taking as exemplified in (8a) betł'ághi?ą 'I handed RO into his palm' and (18a) setł'ahaiį?ą 'He took RO from my palm'. While the first pairing (between controlled and uncontrolled giving) preserves the basic identity and configuration of the participants, it also involves a stem change as well as a change in postposition. The second

Giving and taking in Chipewyan

121

Table 8. Ways of TAKING: Variations on the theme HE TRANSFERRED X FROM ME Thing

Deliberate/Controlled Action

(17) a.

setł'aháyeghįłtį 'He took PERSON from my hand'

AO

b.

(18) a. RO

b.

(19) a SO

b.

(20) a. FO

b.

(21) a. CC

b.

(22) a. PO

b.

(23) a.

* setłahaį?ą 'He took ROUND THING from my hand'

* setłáháyeghįtą 'He took STICK THING from my hand'

* setłáhaįchúdh 'He took FLAT THING from my hand'

* setłaéhayeręltą 'He took CLOSED CONTAINER from my hand'

* setł'aháila 'He took THINGS from my hand'

* setł'aehąiką 'He took OPEN CONTAINER from my hand'

Forceful/Uncontrolled Action

* seghąhayereltį 'He snatched AO from me'

* seghąháyerę?ą 'He snatched RO from me'

* seghąháyerętą 'He snatched SO from me'

* seghąháyeręlchúdh 'He snatched FO from me'

* seghąháyereltą 'He snatched CC from me'

* seghąháyeręla 'He snatched PO from me'

*

b.

*

seghąháyeręką 'He snatched OC from me'

(24) a. MM b.

* *

* * *

OC

(25) a. GO

b.

(26) a. b. UO

setł'aahayłdzay 'He brushed GRANULAR THINGS from my hand'

* * *

* * seghąyįłchu 'He snatched UO from me'

122

Sally Rice

pairing (between controlled handing and taking), primarily involves only a realignment of the participants signalled by the difference in postposition. In GIVE constructions, the subject is the initial possessor (GIVER/THROWER) and the final possessor (RECIPIENT) is the object of the oblique. In TAKE constructions, the initial possessor (SOURCE) is the oblique object, while the final possessor (TAKER) is the subject. This realignment notwithstand­ ing, the verb stem is the same and in both cases, the postpositional object is one of the participant's palm. The semantic difference in directionality seems to depend entirely on the postposition. However, TAKE constructions are also distinguished by the presence (though not always recognizable in surface form) of a verbal prefix, -ri-, clearly thematic in function, and there­ fore considered part of the lexical verb. This modal or thematic prefix, which Li (1946:415) describes as denoting "a local relationship" of some kind, has uncertain meaning, but it tends to co-occur with many locatives signifying relations like -ni- 'up', -há- 'out', and -yé- 'in'. It is present (though sometimes invisible) in predications denoting both controlled and uncontrolled taking. Whereas the difference in RECIPIENT-marking post­ position in the two controlled GIVE constructions correlated with a differ­ ence in postpositional object (whole person vs. person's palm) but no difference, obviously, in terms of control, this profiled whole vs. profiled active zone contrast is chiefly responsible for signalling uncontrolled vs. controlled taking. One usually places or removes items from another's hands in a careful and controlled way. However, giving or taking from a person suggests a more careless, less direct, or potentially adversarial act. These differences are diagrammed in Figures 4 and 5. 4.2. Taking vs. snatching/stealing Just as we saw in the case of the GIVE paradigms, an examination of Table 8 reveals that there are gaps in the inventory and some idiosyncratic glosses which invite one to make certain inferences. The clearest inference comes from the controlled set, which my consultants felt constituted an ACT no more profound than the simple removal of an object from some­ one's hands. As far as general taking is concerned, the only points worth mentioning are that THINGS constituted as globular or granular (MM or GO) cannot be taken, presumably because they cannot be handled directly. One of my consultants was able to come up with a plausible scenario which

Giving and taking in Chipewyan

123

Figure 4. Controlled taking. The spatio-temporal domain of TAKE SO from RECIPI­ ENT'S palm showing profiled Active Zone with domains of control super­ imposed

Figure 5. Uncontrolled taking. The spatio-temporal domain of TAKE/SNATCH SO from RECIPIENT with domains of control superimposed

124

Sally Rice

would render (25a) somewhat viable, but with a gloss like 'He brushed GO (e.g. a pinch of salt or a dusting of flour) from my hand'. An uncontrolled form with the postposition -ghą 'from' is not acceptable at all. In the con­ trolled column, we also find a gap for the expected form in (26a) 'He took something from my hand'. This gap could be due to the 1st person oblique object and my consultants' strong feelings that one cannot be unaware of the identity of something lifted from one's hands. For ACTS of uncon­ trolled or forceful variants of taking, 'snatch' was my consultants' favorite gloss. In English, snatch carries with it an implication of direct removal from someone's hands or someone's immediate possession. While a sen­ tence like That thief just snatched my purse is perfectly felicitous in Eng­ lish, a sentence like *Someone snatched my car is not. This difference is apparently not relevant in Chipewyan if we assume 'snatch' is indeed the most appropriate gloss ('steal' was considered too strong as the emphasis is on an action done quickly rather than on a serious offense). Significantly, the 'snatch' series does not co-occur with the SOURCE'S palm as the Active Zone for that participant's construal, so in this way it is unlike its purported English counterpart. In all cases, my consultants added comments like: This was done against my will, It feels like a theft in progress, or He took it from me for himself and he doesn't want me to have it. With the AO stem in (17b), the only context that came to mind was stealing some­ one else's spouse, surely an uncontrolled and forceful ACT. 4.3. Non-specific taking With TAKE as with GIVE, we again see an interaction between the feasi­ bility of real-world activities and their linguistic expression. While it is pos­ sible to take an unspecified THING from someone, it does not appear to be morphosyntactically acceptable in Chipewyan to take it from the per­ son's hands (palm) directly. When the THING is coded by the all-purpose verb stem, -chu, the SOURCE must be represented as a whole being. 4.4. The semantics of taking in Chipewyan On the whole, the range of application and depth of meaning differences seem much more limited in the case of TAKE as opposed to GIVE con­ structions. Perhaps there is a conceptual explanation (i.e. the relative sali-

Giving and taking in Chipewyan

125

ence of GOAL-directed activity or motion [GIVE] compared to SOURCEoriented events [TAKE], perhaps there is a linguistic explanation (i.e. the tendency for verbs to more regularly subcategorize for GOALS rather than SOURCES or the fact that SOURCES are generally more overtly marked than GOALS), perhaps it is merely a typological fact about Chipewyan or Athapaskan languages in general. Nevertheless, in addition to marking the SOURCE, GOAL, and direction of transfer, TAKE predications do indeed signal something about (i) the physical nature of the THING, (ii) the manner of handling (either controlled or uncontrolled), and (iii) certain atti­ tudes held by the human participants (i.e. their willingness to give up or take the THING). Items (ii) and (iii) derive from the post-positional coding of the SOURCE (postpositional object) as a "palm" or a "whole person". To reiterate a point made earlier, it seems that the least interesting aspect of GIVE and TAKE predications in Chipewyan is that they obligatorily encode physical properties about the THING. The social interactional and psychological dynamics of transfer are just as important linguistically and may even be rarer typologically.

5.

Pragmatic and figurative aspects of Chipewyan transfer predications

Having now reviewed morphosyntactic aspects of literal GIVE and TAKE constructions in Chipeywan, relying as they do on a classificatory verb stem system, we might well ask what the grammatical function of such a sys­ tem is, beyond elaborating semantically a specific instance of giving or tak­ ing — which seems to be the only way one can formulate GIVE and TAKE constructions in Chipewyan. Moreover, based on extensive discussion and exemplification in Newman (1996) about the metaphorization and grammaticalization undergone by these constructions cross-linguistically, we might also wonder about such a system's capacity for metaphorical and/or grammatical extension. I address these two issues below. 5.1. Literal intrasentential and discourse uses In his 1991 functional comparison of classificatory verb constructions in Bearlake and Mescalero Apache, Rushforth discusses three separate use

126

Sally Rice

categories for these types of predications: (i) literal intrasentential uses, (ii) literal intersentential (discourse) uses, and (iii) non-literal uses. Intrasententially, the classificatory verb stems appear to have an anaphoric or, at the very least, an agreement-marking function for the verb's most salient argument, especially when the THING is represented elsewhere in the clause as a full NP. Intersententially, the THING-marking verb stems appear to have a pronominal function. In both capacities, the system does allow for disambiguation in cases where multiple possible referents for the stem are present. Afterall, the stem does not necessarily describe intrinsic prop­ erties of the THING it refers to, but rather the THING'S immediate con­ dition with respect to the utterance or discourse context. For example, a blanket can be folded into a fairly flat configuration (thereby necessitating the FO stem in a GIVE or TAKE construction). It could also be rolled up tightly (triggering the RO stem) or tied up in a bundle (requiring the CC stem). Other real-world objects like money, tobacco, paper, and certain foods can also assume different configurations and consistencies depending on their use in particular contexts. Rushforth gives the following paradigm for the giving or handing of lidi 'tea' in Bearlake, depending on its imme­ diate condition (i.e. either loose in a dry form as in a box or a teabag or in liquid form as in a cup or a pot): (27) a. b.

lidí seghánį'a lidí seghánįchu

c. d. e.

lidi seghánįle lidi seghánįwa lidi seghánįka

f.

lidi seghánįhge

g.

lidi

seghánįhxo

h.

lidi

seghánįhtį

i.

lidí

seghánįhxe

'Give me (a single box or bag of) tea.' 'Hand me (a single box or bag of) tea.' 'Give me (boxes or bags of) tea.' 'Hand me (boxes or bags of) tea.' 'Give me (a shallow/open container of) tea.' 'Hand me (a shallow/open container of) tea.' 'Hand me (some, a handful of loose) tea.' 'Give me (a deep/closed container of) tea.' 'Hand me (a deep/closed container of) tea.' (Bearlake, Rushforth 1991:254)

Giving and taking in Chipewyan

127

These examples illustrate a point that Carter (1976:30) makes in his analy­ sis of Chipewyan classificatory verb stems, which bears repeating here: The Chipewyan classificatory verb system does, indeed, classify the concrete objects which are the referents of certain Chipewyan nouns, but this classification includes information outside of the objects themselves. The system classifies the object in its phy­ sical and social context, talking into consideration whether or not the object is in a con­ tainer or is with other objects, or whether or not the object is intended for immediate use. The Chipewyan classificatory verb system reflects a taxonomy, not of objects, but of situations involving concrete objects. The shape, texture, and number of objects, whether or not they are contained, the intention of the speaker vis-à-vis the objects, as well as whether the object is sitting, falling, being handled, sought after, thrown, etc., — these are all aspects of the situation being classified when a speaker of Chipe­ wyan selects a verb stem [emphasis mine].

It seems, then, that in the trade-off between conventional or intrinsic values of a THING versus contextual informativeness, the latter will pre­ vail when it comes to the selection of a classificatory verb stem to desig­ nate the object handled or transferred. Elsewhere in his paper, Rushforth illustrates with a set of narratives how classificatory verb stems allow these languages to map semantic and grammatical relationships both within and across sentences. He claims that their main function is "to aid in anaphoric resolution" by keeping track of verbal arguments, especially in sentences lacking overt nomináis as long as certain descriptive conditions are met (1991:57). I have not examined any Chipewyan texts in detail, so can pro­ vide no examples from my own study of the language. Nevertheless, it is easy to see how a classificatory verb system can aid in the cause of verb agreement and textual coherency. In this regard, they are very much like any of the more familiar nominal classifier systems which mandate a cer­ tain type of grammatical dependency in the syntax in service of providing listeners with pragmatic cohesion devices for ease of processing. It is also clear that the "semantic co-occurrence restrictions" between THING and verb stem are not inherent, but contingent. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect violations of these restrictions under special circumstances. 5.2. Figurative uses There is some limited capacity in Chipewyan for figurative application of constructions with THING-marking verb stems (i.e. puns, jokes, and meta­ phorical extensions involving selectional restriction violations between stem

128

Sally Rice

classifier and physical referent). However, for both puns and metaphors, only the THING component of a handling predication is reconstruable in a non-literal way. The nature of handling predications in Athapaskan languages is such that they necessarily involve object transfer between humans. It is unlikely that Chipewyan would ever develop extended usages such as I gave the table a coat of paint, or That boring lecture gave me a headache, or I'm giving you 10 minutes to pack your bags and leave. Part of the problem is the ever overt coding of the path to the RECIPIENT or from the SOURCE through the postposition. Of course, the biggest obsta­ cle is no doubt the fact that there really is no verb of giving or taking in Chipewyan, only a set of verb stems for handling specific types of objects. Perhaps this is why it was so difficult to elicit examples of non-literal uses of giving and taking from my consultants, although I suspect that they engage in spontaneous word play all the time. They invariably catch many double-entendres I unwittingly produce through poor pronunciation or mis­ placed tones. Moreover, humor plays an important part in the culture and many verb forms are open to multiple (and often comical) interpretations. I can report on a few examples in the literature of figurative uses of GIVE and TAKE constructions in both Navajo and Chipewyan. Rushforth (1991) explains an oft-cited example documented by Edward Sapir involving a purportedly spontaneous pun in Navajo. The pun revolved around an inherent ambiguity in the Navajo lexical verb, no-ho-ni. . . aa (RO), which could mean either 'to decide on a matter' or 'to put it down'. At a contentious tribal meeting, a leader asked for a decision to be made. A crippled man, who realized that as an invalid his bunched-up and hunchedover body could be construed as either an animate thing (AO) or a solid compact object (RO), asked to be picked up. The one who picked him up recognized the potential word play and punned: Where am I to put it (RO) down?/What shall be decided? The pun rests on the fact that abstract ob­ jects such as words, a decision, an issue, a plan, or an idea, which would normally be ineligible for expression with a classificatory verb stem, can be used metaphorically in some situations and, in those situations, they receive classification as RO. This type of metaphorical extension is also weakly possible in Chipewyan. While one cannot give one's word in this language, one's word can be taken (i.e. one's word can be accepted or believed, as is also the case in English). Thus, we have the following forms using not the RO classificatory stem, but the generic one (UO):

Giving and taking in Chipewyan (28) a. beyatiye 3sG:word

129

heschu 1SG:S:IMPF:UO

'I am taking his word.' b.

seyatiye

hilchu

lSGiword

3SG:S:PERF:UO

'He took my word.' In other Athapaskan languages, RO is the default THING classifier for dis­ course elements and ideational objects. It may also be the case in Chipe­ wyan, but I have no examples in my corpus to confirm this. Finally, Carter (1976:29) cites the case of an obscene joke he inad­ vertently made when he tried to use the unspecified, immediate use THING form, -chu, with an overt animate NP. The sexually suggestive form is given in (29a) and a more neutral version in (29b). These are his forms and I am not able to give them a proper gloss, not recognizing parts of the forms and not having verified them with any of my consultants. (29) a.

b.

nake t'sekwas ser chu two:things girls 1SG:S ... UO 'Give me two girls (for sexual purposes).' nadene t'sekwas two:people girls 'Give me two girls.'

ser le 1SG:S ... PO

I might add that part of the "objectification" implicit in (29a) comes not just from the choice of non-specific classificatory verb stem, but from the fact that he referred to the girls with a cardinal number used for counting inanimate objects rather than people. He ended up requesting two girl things for immediate consumption. All things being equal, the potential for metaphorical, metonymic, or otherwise non-literal use of the classificatory verb system appears to be fairly limited in Chipewyan. Examination of a larger corpus including tex­ tual materials or more extensive probing of my consultants might reveal further examples of figurative language use along these lines. My discus­ sions with other Athapaskan scholars suggest that beyond the construal of words and thoughts as concrete objects, there is not much in the way of productive figurative extension involving the classificatory verb system.

130 6.

Sally Rice Some concluding remarks about giving and taking in Chipewyan

Why does Chipewyan feature such a rich inventory of forms for GIVE and TAKE constructions, yet tolerate such limited expressive application of those forms? I would like to speculate a bit and suggest that linguis­ tic factors rather than conceptual ones are responsible for keeping these predications so overwhelmingly literal in terms of their usage. Because of its unusual phonological inventory and phonotactic requirements,11 the language has long managed to impede lexicalization through external bor­ rowing. The near absence of foreign loanwords attests to the fact that the language is resistant to infiltration from without.12 It also seems resistant to grammaticalization from within. By grammaticalization, here, I do not mean any of the end-stage processes whereby lexical items become gram­ matical devices. There are certainly many areas of Chipewyan morphosyntax that illustrate the effects of long-term grammaticalization of this sort. Rather, I mean those early-stage processes whereby lexical items get extended metaphorically into new semantic or conceptual domains. Accord­ ing to Bybee et al. (1994), metaphoric extension is one of the initial mech­ anisms of grammaticalization and it usually affects whole collocations, allowing constructions to be interpreted in new ways or be applied to new conceptual fields. Part of this resistance to grammaticalization may stem from the fact that there are, relatively speaking, very few verb stems in the language. This fact should make the stems vulnerable to grammaticalization or at least to metaphorical processes. However, the basic lexical verb or verb theme is really a combination of a verb stem and some fixed number of thematic prefixes. The inventory of derivational and inflectional prefixes and their combinatorial power when integrated with verb themes is exten­ sive. Perhaps because of all the morphophonemic processes affecting the verbal unit (depending on the presence or absence of particular prefixes), speakers have quite enough to cope with — second language learners of Chipewyan certainly do — keeping straight all of the possible conjugations and derived forms of a verb. Indeed, speakers find it quite taxing to gen­ erate even a partial paradigm for a single modal or aspectual conjugation of a verb.13 As it happens, the most thorough dictionary of an Athapaskan language, Young and Morgan's colloquial dictionary of Navajo, consists mainly of verbal paradigms. Compounding, incorporation, and relativization

Giving and taking in Chipewyan

131

are the main devices for creating new words in the language, or at least new nomináis, the only part of the lexicon that seems to permit vocabulary growth through relexicalization.14 One could take the speculation a bit fur­ ther and suggest that the not insignificant requirements of regular inflection and word formation in Chipewyan keep any grammaticalization pressures in check, especially for expressions of giving and taking. Of course, the fact that so many aspects of the physical ACT of transfer are explicitly and productively coded in GIVE and TAKE constructions probably makes it hard for speakers to suspend any of the usual interpretations that these col­ loctions invoke, thus allowing them to be rendered unanalyzable or more idiomatic. In terms of semantic change, the language seems more susceptible to semantic neutralization than relexicalization or grammaticalization. Some dialects of Chipewyan no longer have a productive contrast between the two postpositional phrases for marking RECIPIENT in GIVE constructions, setł'agheye 'in my palm' and segha 'to me'. 15 In Cold Lake Chipewyan, this opposition carries with it a sense of handing vs. giving, of temporary vs. permanent transfer, and of immediate person-to-person contact vs. indirect interaction. As these semantic distinctions are left to pragmatic in­ ference in dialects which have lost the contrast, the entire complex of GIVE constructions could eventually collapse and giving and taking might eventually become construed in a more schematic, less troponymic way. One could well imagine that through contact and interference with Cree, French, English, and other languages which do not maintain an extensive classificatory verb system, the number of classificatory distinctions might very well diminish, if not disappear entirely in favor of an all-purpose THING marker, such as the UO marker, -chu, or the RO marker, -7a. It is already the case that speakers under the age of 40 tend to have trouble pro­ ducing or interpreting some of the conjugations, especially since not all of the 4 sets of classificatory verb stem predicates use the same forms nor make the same number of contrasts. One can only hope that the experien­ tial basicness of object transfer between individuals, the semantic salience of the component parts for Chipewyan speakers, and the high frequency of GIVE and TAKE constructions in statements about human interaction are enough to maintain the postpositional opposition and a fully intact classifi­ catory verb system for expressions of giving and taking in this language.

132

Sally Rice

Abbreviations used in glosses s= subject; o= direct object; x= oblique object; P = postposition; MOM= momentaneous aspect; for further abbreviations, see list on p. vi.

Notes 1.

I am describing the dialect of Chipewyan spoken in Cold Lake, Alberta, deemed to be fairly conservative since it preserves a number of phonological, morphosyntactic, and semantic distinctions missing from the more northern dialects. I thank Nora Matchatis, Rose Foote, Shirley Cardinal, and most especially Valerie Wood for their time and intuitions. I hope I have not mistranscribed or misrepresented their fascinating lan­ guage too badly.

2.

Keren Rice, Leslie Saxon, Ken Hale, and Chad Thompson provided helpful discus­ sion about Athapaskan during the writing of this paper. I express gratitude to each of them. Thanks also to an anonymous reviewer whose comments helped me to clarify certain points.

3.

Signed languages feature pronominal classificatory systems involving specialized hand shapes which distinguish entities on the basis of animacy, shape, and function. These are often co-articulated with signs for certain activities or relations and so could be analyzed as a type of THING-marking inflection on a verb stem. ASL and Athapaskan languages make strikingly similar classificatory distinctions (cf. Phyllis Wilcox's paper, this volume). THING-classifying verbs are even prevalent in English. To take but two obvious examples, weather expressions such as It rained last night or any of the denominal and ever delightful lexical innovations made by young children and discussed by Bowerman (1978) such as / crackered my soup or She's ballerening could be construed as THING-marking verb stems. (Of course, collocations like these are also quite productive in the adult language, e.g. He faxed me the map or Let's box those books.)

4.

Miller (1991:228-235) proposes "troponymy" as a semantic relation between a verb which denotes a basic-level action and any verb which conflates that action and man­ ner. Thus, limping would be a troponym for walking. Of some concern in this paper is how to determine whether productive manner inflections end up producing new troponyms (conceptually distinct lexical items) in the language.

5.

In Cognitive Grammar terms, we could say that the most salient event participant becomes the profile determinant of the entire predication. This point will be elaborated on in Sections 3 and 4.

Giving and taking in Chipewyan

133

6.

I have not included stem variants for a third category, FUTURE, usually called OPTA­ TIVE. (Many of the traditional grammatical labels in Athapaskan linguistics are used in an unconventional way.)

7.

No two sources give the same forms or even necessarily distinguish them on the basis of IMPERFECTIVE and PERFECTIVE (or even FUTURE/OPTATIVE) inflections. These forms should be taken as representing approximations at best.

8.

This second 3rd-person category represents the so-called be-lye- opposition. Atha­ paskan languages use this as a switch reference device to distinguish 3SG non-subject NPs (be-) in a clause with a 1st or 2nd person subject and 3SG non-subject NPs (ye-) in a clause containing another 3rd person subject or object. The ye- form has been called the "disjoint anaphor" or the "4th person noncoreferential object pronoun" for this reason.

9.

The UO (unspecified object) classificatory stem for predications from Set B, -chu, appears to be cognate with the FO (flat/flexible object) stem, -chúdh.

10.

Perhaps, significantly, traditional Chipewyan culture has no concept of unilateral "gift­ ing" — presenting someone with some unspecific thing as a favor or token of affec­ tion. The giving of gifts was historically a reciprocal act.

11.

The phonemic inventory, in addition to some velars and perhaps a glottal or laryngeal stop, includes only two seldom-used bilabials (/m/ and /b/) but approximately 22 con­ sonants in the dental-alveopalatal range.

12.

Haas (1968) gives some examples of French loanwords as transformed into Chi­ pewyan. Even proper nouns tend to undergo semantic reconfiguration in Athapaskan languages rather than phonological adaptation. To mention just a few noteworthy examples of some Navajo sobriquets given in Young and Morgan (1987:812b): Dágháilch¡¡h 'He Smells His Moustache' (Adolf Hitler), Nahalj 'd 'Moves Around Squatting' (the wheelchair-bound Franklin Delano Roosevelt).

13.

Just to give a flavor of the extensiveness of the inflectional possibilities for a Chi­ pewyan verb, there are 4 persons, 3 numbers, 3 aspects, 3 tenses, 5 modes, and up to 4 voice/valency alternations. Some of these select for particular morphological vari­ ants of the stem in addition to triggering a wide range of derivational prefixes.

14.

A few products of these word-formation processes include yałteyi 'a priest' (lit. 'one who speaks'), eritł'snet'ł 'TV' (lit. 'picture that is looked at'), ts'choghdeltai 'air­ plane' (lit. 'big boat which flies'), deneyuhedaredli 'monkey' (lit. 'the one that imi­ tates a man'), and bέschonέnέ tthot'inέ 'American' (lit. 'big knife land people'). More examples can be found in Haas (1968:169).

15.

This is apparently the case for Bearlake, as well, if we take Rushforth's glosses for (27) at face value. They all involve the same PP.

134

Sally Rice

References Bowerman, Melissa. 1978. "Systematizing semantic knowledge: Changes over time in the child's organization of word meaning." Child Development 49:977-987. Bybee, Joan, Revere Perkins, and William Pagliuca. 1994. The Evolution of Grammar. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Carter, Robin. 1975. "Chipewyan semantics: Form and meaning in the language and culture of an Athapaskan-speaking people of Canada." [Duke University doctoral dissertation.] Carter, Robin. 1976. "Chipewyan classificatory verbs." UAL 42:24-30. Davidson, W., L.W. Elford, and H. Hoijer. 1963. "Athapaskan classificatory verbs." In Harry Hoijer et al. (eds), Studies in the Athapaskan Languages. Berkeley: University of California Press, 30-41. Elford, Leon and Marjorie Elford. 1981. Chipewyan Dictionary. Prince Albert: Northern Canada Evangelical Mission. Goddard, Pliny Earle. 1912. "Analysis of Cold Lake Dialect Chipewyan." Anthropo­ logical Papers of the American Museum of Natural History 10:67-160. Haas, Mary. 1968. "Notes on a Chipewyan dialect." UAL 34:165-175. Kari, James. 1990. Ahtna Athabaskan Dictionary. Fairbanks: Alaska Native Language Center. Langacker, Ronald W. 1987/199la. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vols. I and II. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Langacker, Ronald W. 1991b. Concept, Image, and Symbol: The Cognitive Basis of Grammar. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter [Cognitive Linguistics Research 1]. Li, Fang Kue. 1928/1946. "Chipewyan." In Cornelius Osgood (ed.), Linguistic Struc­ tures of Native America. Viking Fund Publications, no. 6, 398-429. Miller, George. 1991. The Science of Words. New York: W.H. Freeman and Co. Newman, John. 1996. Give: A Cognitive Linguistic Study. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter [Cognitive Linguistics Research 7]. Rice, Keren. 1989. A Grammar of Slave. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Rice, Keren. Unpublished lecture notes from "The Structure of Athapaskan" [1995 LS A Institute Course]. Richardson, Murray. 1968. Chipewyan Grammar. Cold Lake: Northern Canada Evange­ lical Mission. Rushforth, Scott. 1991. "Use of Bearlake and Mescalero (Athapaskan) classificatory verbs." UAL 57:251-66. Rushforth, Scott and Fibbie Tatti. 1980. "Bear Lake Athapaskan classificatory verbs: The 'controlled'-'uncontrolled' distinction." Paper presented at the Symposium on Athapaskan Comparative Linguistics and Language Planning; Albuquerque, NM. Young, Robert and William Morgan. 1987. The Navajo Language: A Grammar and Colloquial Dictionary. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.

Lots of ways to GIVE in Cora Eugene H. Casad Summer Institute of Linguistics

1.

Introduction*

Given the multiplicity of ways for saying GIVE in Cora, a Southern UtoAztecan language of Northwest Mexico, it is appropriate to document the semantics, morphology and syntax of the relevant lexical items and con­ structions. In this way, I will be exploring the ins and outs of Cora GIVE verbs, just as I have done in a previous work for other 'ins' and 'outs' of Cora grammar (cf. Casad and Langacker 1985; Langacker 1991b). I begin this study with an overview of all of the GIVE verbs of Cora that can be put into one of four categories. The first is what I call 'per­ sonal interest' GIVE. It is realized by a single stem -pwéihve'e, illustrated in (1). Of all the Cora GIVE verbs, -pwéihvee most closely approximates semantically and syntactically the prototype GIVE sketched in Newman (1996:1). (1)

Ai

pú

DEM

SUBJ

ka=pú NEG=SUBJ

süku'u-ri Shirt-ABS

n-aa-ta-pwéihve'e-sin me-COMPL-PERF-give-DUR

y

n a-tui-ira-n. me-sell-APPL-FUT

'He is going to give me a shirt rather than sell one to me.' The second category of GIVE is what we can call 'enabling' GIVE.1 The result of this giving allows the RECIPIENT to engage in further action with the item bestowed, as illustrated by (2). There are actually four verbs in this set. The most general of these is given in (2).

136

Eugene H. Casad (2)

A'ati INDEF

pú SUBJ

yúuri corn

n-aa-tá-'a me-coMPL-PERF-give

n=i I=SEQ

r-áa-tuii-¢e. it-COMPL-Sell-APPL

nyeh I:SUBR

'Someone gave me some corn to sell it for him.' The third category of GIVE verbs is one that I call 'terminative' GIVE. It places particular salience on the transfer of control of something to the RECIPIENT and on the RECIPIENT, as is suggested by (3). (3)

Ruíhmwa'a nú r-úu-tui-ira-n. tomorrow I him-go:there-present-APPL-FUT T will go give it to him tomorrow.'

Finally, the fourth kind of GIVE that Cora employs is a set of classificatory verbs, each of which means 'give'. I use the term 'classificatory verb' in the very same sense employed by Haas (1978:303). The GIVE verbs are also morphologically related to verbs that mean 'carry', 'take', 'bring', 'receive', 'pass X to Y', 'hold in the hand' and, more distantly, to several other classes of verbs that I do not discuss in this paper, including verbs meaning 'pick up X', 'put down X' and BE.2 Example (4) illustrates the use of the singular stem -píhte 'to give a small round object to X'. (4)

N-aa-ta-píh-t-e

mi

me-COMPL-PERF-give-CAUS-APPL ART

takwa¢i! ball

'Give me the ball!' The overall classificatory system has a number of its own wrinkles. Several of these verbs are either suppletive or are reduplicated for indicat­ ing plurality of the object being transported. In addition, they enter into a classificatory system according to the shape of the affected object and the manner in which it is being transported. In this paper, I describe the dis­ tinct morphological structures which constitute these sets of verbs and dis­ cuss the semantic relations among them. I also contrast the Image Schemas, or Idealized Cognitive Models (cf. Langacker 1987; Lakoff 1987) that moti­ vate the usages of each and begin to look at some of the extensions of these verbs to other domains of the grammar. For this paper, I assume that the meanings of lexical items are ency­ clopedic in nature, that anything that the speaker knows about entities and

Lots of ways to GIVE in Cora

137

their interactions in the world around him/her may be invoked for particu­ lar usages at any point in time for particular situations (cf. Haiman 1980, 1983; Langacker 1987:63, 154ff, 1991a:60, 495, 548). I further assume that the structuring of conceptual structure for symbolization and expression as­ sumes a variety of forms — external to the lexical item, for example, we find networks of related meanings (cf. Rudzka-Ostyn 1989; Casad 1992, 1993; Langacker 1987:162-163; 369ff). There are also more broadly based cognitive organizations of informa­ tion related to given usages. Such organizational principles may be called Idealized Cognitive Models (ICMs); they are mini-theories of meaning and they may be approximated by a series of propositions that mirror the knowledge structures, category types and prototypes which underly and ex­ plain particular usages of lexical items and constructions (cf. Lakoff 1987:45, 56-57, 67ff). We need to keep in mind, moreover, that ICMs are much more general than simple propositional models (Lakoff 1987:117).3 I also assume that there are various kinds of structurings internal to predicates, i.e. the meanings of individual lexical items. These include Image Schemas — graphs of entities and their interrelationships within conceptual space. They can be represented by line drawings with selective labelling of the entities and their relationships, often capture non-linear relation­ ships and reflect various levels of abstraction (cf. Rudzka-Ostyn 1989:615; Langacker 1987:371; Lauerbach 1993:659). Image Schemas represent fundamental complex conceptualizations such as the Directed Path Schema (Lakoff 1987; Casad 1982; Lindner 1981; Hawkins 1984; Johnson 1987:113ff), the Container Schema, the Part-Whole Schema, the Link Schema and the Center-Periphery Schema, among others (cf. Lakoff 1987:271ff; Johnson 1987, Chapters 4 and 5). Two other com­ mon Image Schemas are the Conversational Schema (Casad 1992) and the Speech Act Schema (cf. Rudzka-Ostyn 1989:617ff, 654). The Image Schemas themselves are complex; they are constituted by substructures that designate distinct entities related to one another in a vari­ ety of ways, encoding both static and dynamic relationships. Some of these abstract, or schematic, entities in the semantic structure of a predicate such as a verb stem enter into valence relations with specific entities that spell out in detail what the schematic entity itself is (cf. Langacker 1987:304ff). The schematic entity within a predicate, called an 'e-site' is said to be "elaborated" by the specific entity (Langacker 1987:305). Such elaborating

138

Eugene H. Casad

entities are often encoded as nomináis which serve as subjects, direct objects, indirect objects or oblique objects. The schematic character of an entity within a given Image Schema may allow it to be elaborated by a wide variety of grammatical elements, designating both physical or abstract conceptual entities. This is what allows a single verb such as GIVE to take either a pronoun, a noun phrase or a sentence as its direct object, a point crucial to the analyses of Cora GIVE verbs that follow in this paper.

2.

The prototypical GIVE verb -pweihve'e

The semantics of the Cora verb -pwéihve'e fit rather closely the model of prototypical GIVE, as found in Newman (1996). Briefly, prototypical giving involves one person, using his hands, who physically transfers a dis­ crete entity into the hands of a second person, and, by doing so, also trans­ fers to that second person control over the entity in question. The use of the hands to transfer control of an entity to another person is clearly implied in the use of -pwéihve'e given in (5). (5)

Séíka some mú they

mú they yée QUOT

nyau well

yée QUOT

n-aa-ta-pwéihve. me-coMPL-PERF-give

M-án MED-top

nyé-he'-i-rá'a-wa'anyi-hra-sih. me-DIST-path-corner-toss-APPL-PAST:DISTR

'Some guys gave it to me. They tossed it to me, coming from back over behind the fence.' The RECIPIENT in this GIVE situation is marked by the first person singular direct object prefix n-. The subject of the sentence designates the GIVER and is encoded by the plural quantifier seíka 'some', which occurs in sentence initial position and is reinforced by the following third person plural subject clitic mu. In sentence (5), there is no overt marking for the bestowed object. In summary, the personal interest GIVE of Cora basically profiles the interaction between the GIVER and the RECIPIENT. The scene in which this sentence is used, taken from the folkstory of Santo Entierro, finds the folk hero Santo Entierro and his mother living in an arbor pitched up against a fence with some men on the back side of the fence digging for several pots full of money. This winds up in Santo

Lots of ways to GIVE in Cora

139

Entierro's hands. He tells his mother about the money and when she en­ quires about its provenience, he responds with the comment, given in (5), that the men gave it to him by tossing it all over the fence. Note that the tossing of the pots over the wall, explicitly stated in the second sentence of (5), decidedly involves the use of the hands. By characterizing the act of tossing as a means for giving, Cora -pwéihve'e must have, in the wider frame that characterizes it, the use of the agent's hands to transfer control of an entity to another person. A clear difference in meaning between English GIVE and Cora -pwéihve'e is the salience of the human interest domain as evidenced by the use of the applicative suffix -e as part of the morphological structure of Cora -pwéihve'e. Typically, the applicative suffix comes into play when an activity is carried out for the benefit, good or use of someone else. A typ­ ical usage of the Cora applicative is illustrated by (6b), which contrasts with the simple causative of (6a). (6)

a.

Me-tí'i-hašu'u-ta. they-DISTR-wall-CAUS They are building a wall.'

b.

Me-tí'-nya-hašu'-te-e. they-DISTR-me-wall-CAUS-APPL 'They are building me a wall.'

In addition to the semantics of the applicative suffix that Cora employs with -pwéihve'e, the semantics of the stem itself are based on the human interest domain, as is evidenced by the use of the common compound form šá'a-pwei-ira (good-give-APPL). This compound form means 'to provide someone with the essentials for living'. Typical examples, again taken from the story of Santo Entierro, are given in (7) and (8). (7)

Váalí más, worth more

čé'e

aín

EXHRT

DEM

a let's

véer see

u or

je'ikí how

tí'i-mwa-šá'a-pwei-ira-n. DISTR-yOU-gOOd-give-APPL-POT 'I'd like to see whether or not he can even take care of you.' The verb tí'i-mwa-sa'a-pwei-ira, like -pwéihve'e, basically profiles the GIVER and the RECIPIENT, here marked with the second person singular

140

Eugene H. Casad

mwa- and the applicative -ira. The role of the distributive tfi- is ambigu­ ous in this context: it may mark unspecified object, carrying the impli­ cation that the 'caring for X' involves the provision of a wide variety of THINGS, without singling out any one item in particular. On the other hand, the use of tfi- could well mark unspecified subject, as its absence from (8) below suggests. In (7), the King, whose daughter has become pregnant due to Santo Entierro's machinations, is duly unimpressed by the appearance of his sonin-law to be. He lets his daughter know this by questioning whether or not Santo Entierro has the means to support her. Confirmation of the King's doubts about Santo Entierro's flaky character is given in (8), in which, just after taking the King's daughter to his own domicile, he rather unceremo­ niously sends her away with the comment that he is no longer going to sup­ port her. (8)

Ka=nu čé'e wí ínyáa mwa-šá'a-pwei-ira-n. NEG=I still QUOT I you-good-give-APPL-POT T am no longer going to provide for you.'

The GIVER of the benefits in (8), now become the withholder of those benefits, is indicated by the first person singular subject clitic nu, which fol­ lows the negative ka. The withholder is further identified by the first per­ son independent pronoun 'ínyaa, in focus position immediately preceding the verb in (8). The verb -pwéihve'e can also be nominalized to the form pweíhvi'i 'gift', which, as far as I know, is narrowly understood to designate a tangible object. And typically, the conveyance of this entity is effected by means of the hands. This nominal is used as subject of the sentence in both (9) and (10). (9)

Ka=pú mwa-hihve'e-sin, pweíhvi'i pú pwéèn. NEG=SUBJ you-charge-DUR gift SUBJ be 'He is not going to charge you anything for it; it is a gift.'

(10) Héekan pú lots SUBJ

tí-na-a-ráa-nahči DISTR-me-out-face-meet

pweihvi'i. gift 'This gift pleases me very much.'

eíhna

í

DEM

ART

Lots of ways to GIVE in Cora

141

A different nominalization of the stem pweíh- highlights both the per­ sonal interest aspect of its meaning and the fact that there is an inherent polarity to the quality of the effect on the RECIPIENT in this domain. As Rudzka-Ostyn points out, a given action can affect the accusative or da­ tive object in a variety of ways, planned or unplanned, positive or negative (Rudzka-Ostyn 1996:350). One of the ways in which the dative object can be affected is that of being a loser. This is what is suggested by sen­ tence (8) above. Another kind of effect is what has been called the 'malefactive'. This is a particularly negative result in which the dative object is injured, hurt or damaged in some way (Rudzka-Ostyn 1996:352ff). These comments fit very well some uses of related forms of -pwéihve'e. Whereas examples (7)-(10) above focus on the positive end of the benefactivity scale, the nominalization pwéih¢i 'suffering, punishment' fo­ cuses on the negative end of the scale, as illustrated in (11). This point is further substantiated by the verbal form tí-r-ah-pwéih¢i (DISTR-it-verticalsuffer), which is conventionally glossed as 'he is suffering'. A typical use of this verb is given in (12). (11) Pwéih¢i mú r-aa-tá-a. suffering they him-coMPL-PERF-give 'They punished him.' (12) Yáa PROCOMP ínyaa I

nú I

íiya=kwí here=EMP

n=í yé I=SEQ here:out šáa indeed

nyá'u well

tí-hí-r-ah-pwéih¢i DISTR-NARR-it-slope-suffer n=iku. I=obviously

'Thus I am really suffering right here at this place, I surely am.' In short, the personal interest -pwéihve'e is the verb that is used when the speaker wishes to highlight the effects of the transfer on the RECIPI­ ENT. Based on all the foregoing considerations, it seems evident that an adequate Idealized Cognitive Model for the prototypical Cora GIVE must include the physical transfer of a discrete object from the instigative entity (= GIVER) to the Patient (= RECIPIENT) and the assumption of control over that entity (= THING) by the receiver. It must also include mention of the use of the hands in making the physical transfer of the entity bestowed on the receiver. However, there are no implications whatsoever about the shape of the entity. Prototypically, the RECIPIENT is acting in

142

Eugene H. Casad

his/her own interest; this self-interest on the part of the RECIPIENT is sug­ gested by the applicative suffix -'e of -pwéihve'e.

3.

The 'enabling' GIVE verbs

I characterize a set of three GIVE verbs as 'enabling' GIVE verbs because each one invokes a frame in which someone desires something but, for a variety of reasons, cannot gain access to it as per the status quo. The frame also includes a second person, the GIVER, who is able to provide that access and he/she actually does so by transporting the THING given to the immediate physical location of the RECIPIENT who is thereby enabled to appropriate the THING for his/her own use. This particular construal of the frame relates to two verbs that can be glossed as 'give X some drinking water' or 'give X something to eat'. The first of these two verbs, watahányafíte'e is a compound built on two 'carry' stems, i.e. háana 'to carry a tall thing' and 'ft 'to carry a use­ ful thing'. It is highly specialized in its usage and probably refers to the drawing out of drinking water from a pot or bucket and the subsequent con­ veyance of that receptacle to the RECIPIENT. I will not concern myself further with this particular form. The second verb in this set is the stem -mi, which has a related com­ pound form -mikwa. Both of these forms can be glossed as 'give X some­ thing to eat'. This stem is related historically to verbs in a number of Uto-Aztecan languages, most of which mean GIVE in the prototypical sense and most of which relate to a proto-form *maka. The specialized meaning of 'give X something to eat' is associated with the synchronic reflexes of this proto-form in several of the Southern Uto-Aztecan languages; in particu­ lar, in two dialects of Mayo, in the Tepiman languages Eudeve and Tubare and in Cora's sister language Huichol (cf. Miller et al. 1988:152-153). The fact that Cora -mi is conventionally used with the distributive prefix ti'i-, is followed by a direct object prefix which designates the RECIPIENT, is accompanied by no overt nominal object that designates the THING transferred to the RECIPIENT and is conventionally understood by the Coras as meaning 'give X something to eat' suggests strongly that the context of usage is not sufficient to convey the precise meaning 'give X something to eat'. For example, if I see a Cora woman sitting underneath

Lots of ways to GIVE in Cora

143

a corn crib weaving a blanket and greet her with the expression in (13), she is likely to look at me somewhat askance and tell me that it is the wrong time of the day. (13) Rí pa=kaí tí'i-nye-mi-n? Q you=NEG DISTR-me-feed-FUT 'Are you not going to give me anything to eat?' On the other hand, suppose that she is in the cooking house and is both boiling water for coffee and is making tortillas. If I ask the question given in (13), she will most likely say 'yes' and give me some tortillas, as well as the coffee, but she will definitely not simply give me the coffee. Con­ siderations such as these should make it clear that the meaning 'give X something to eat' inheres in the stem itself. The linguistic context in which -mi occurs reinforces the foregoing discussion. Example (14) consists of two independent, juxtaposed Cora sentences taken from a folklore text. (14) Ti-r-ah-mí. Aá pú DISTR-him-slope-feed there SUBJ

'i SEQ

čéesu'u cheese

r-aa-tá-'a. him-coMPL-PERF-give 'He fed him. Right there he gave him some cheese.' The first of the two sentences in (14) simply asserts that personage one gave personage two something to eat. The RECIPIENT is specific, the THING is not specified and the stem -mi is used. The verb -mi 'to give to eat' profiles the GIVER and the RECIPIENT along with the goal event 'to eat'. In this case, the unspecified object is marked on the verb by the prefix tí-, the RECIPIENT is marked by the third person singular direct object prefix r- and the past tense form of the verb -mi 'to give to eat', occurs with a preceding locative prefix 'áh- 'off out in the slope'. Here the loca­ tive prefix probably designates the fact that the person providing the food left it off to one side of the RECIPIENT. The second sentence in (14) rein­ forces the first one. In this case, the THING granted is čéesu'u 'a piece of cheese'. The RECIPIENT is indicated by the third person singular direct object prefix r- on the 'enabling' GIVE verb -'a, to which we now turn. The generalized 'enabling' verb, which in its usages as part of the

144

Eugene H. Casad

overall classificatory system, means 'to give drinking water to X', has the stem form -'a. It is actually the most generic of all the Cora verbs meaning 'give'. It has several extensions of meaning and specialized usages that con­ vey such meanings as 'to give edible entities to X', 'to contribute money to a cause', 'to promise to do X', and 'to give permission to X for Y'. Most generally, as suggested above, it has the meaning 'somebody gives X to Y'. The use of the verb -'a to mean 'give drinking water to X' is illus­ trated in (15). (15) Kíh háh tí-n-aa-tá-'a. little water DISTR-me-coMPL-PERF-give 'Please give me a little water to drink.' Sentence (15) is an imperative; in particular, it is a polite request for something. In this case, the THING to be granted is a nameable object, i.e. háh 'drinking water'. Here it occurs in preverbal position, following the quantifying adjective kíh 'a little'. The verb itself is marked with the perfective form of the distributive tí'i-, which here probably marks an unspecified subject. The RECIPIENT is again marked by a first person direct object prefix n-. The perfective construal of this sentence is conveyed by the prefix sequence wa-ta- (COMPL-PERF), which follows the direct object prefix. To summarize, the 'give to eat' version of the 'enabling' GIVE verb -a places particular attention on (= profiles) both the edible entity and the RECIPIENT, as the discussion of (15) shows. Other examples show extended meanings based on the schematic one. For example, the meaning 'to contribute money' is exemplified in (16). This latter sentence is taken from a text that describes the events at a yearly community project. Besides pulling out the weeds in the corn patch, the participants are also expected to contribute to the community coffers. In this instance, the context provided the basis for the speaker to select the 'enabling' verb -'a for his expression, but the context itself does not determine the specific meaning of the verb. The speaker could have re­ sponded in a variety of ways, drawing on other verbs to express his in­ tended meaning. (16) Nye-tyú' -u-tá-a-sin nye-šé'evïira'a I-DISTR-coMPL-PERF-give-DUR my-will T will contribute some (money) willingly.'

kíme'e. with

Lots of ways to GIVE in Cora

145

Notice that there is no overt nominal corresponding to either a RECIP­ IENT or to the bestowed THING in (16). The GIVER is encoded by means of the first person singular subject prefix nye- and the idea that something will be given to someone is encoded by the ablauted distributive plural tyú'-, which as we have seen in earlier examples marks unspecified subjects and objects (cf. Casad 1984:193-194). In this case it clearly designates an unspecified object. The perfective construal of the act of giving is signalled by the use of the prefixes wa-ta (COMPL-PERF), whereas the use of the durative suffix -sin signals the continued intent of the speaker. This is re­ inforced by the use of the postverbal postpositional phrase with a first person possessed object that means 'with my will', i.e. T am going to do this willingly'. A common reflexive use of -'a 'to give' actually means 'to be willing to do X', or 'give in with respect to someone else's wishes', as illustrated in (17). (17) Ka-pú NEG=SUBJ

nú'u

ha'a¢ú

hi'i-tá-u-ra-'a-ka

QUOT

bit

NARR-PERF-REFL-facing-give-IMPERF

aíhna t DEM ART

tyaaku, Toad

tíkín:— QUOT

ka-nú. NEG=I

'That Toad was not willing to give an inch, saying: "No, I won't."' Sentence (17) is taken from a text about how Mother Toad tricked the Rains into leaving their abode in Teihmata'a and coming to earth to end a drought. After she succeeds, the Elders decide to give her the task of call­ ing the Rains yearly from then on. Her immediate response is given in (17); she was not one bit willing to undertake such a responsibility. Eventually, she gave in, as the narrator tells us in (18). (18) Ayán

tíkín: ka=pú

á'ih,

čée

á'ih

tí

na'a

PROCOMP QUOT NEG=SUBJ INDEF EXHRT INDEF SUBR b e

tí

'í

=kí

CNJ=INDEF

wa=tá-u-ra-'a. COMPL-PERF-REFL-facing-give

'And then she said: "No matter, so be it." And then she gave in [to their demands].' The form meaning 'she gave in [to their demands]' carries no overt nominal or prefixai marking to specify what was granted. Instead, it profiles

146

Eugene H. Casad

the resolution of an inner conflict, construed as a whole. Thus the use of wa-ta- is especially appropriate in this context. The reflexive u- (a metathesized version of ru- shortened to u-) locates the event as residing within the mental sphere of the GIVER. The use of the locative ra- 'in the face of' in (17) and (18) is also especially pertinent. This prefix can be variously glossed as 'facing outward from' or 'in the face of' (Casad 1982:305-312). The implication of this usage is that some situation was staring Mother Toad in the face that she did not exactly like. To fully explain how GIVE becomes 'accede to someone else's wishes' requires some further discussion about the syntax of this verb. A crucial point is that -'a may take abstract entities as its direct object, This is exem­ plified in (19) which describes the response of a Cora man when the vil­ lage elders asked him to take on the responsibility for a one year's role in the community ritual hierarchy. In this case, GIVE has the meaning 'to promise to do X'. This usage may well be a calque from Spanish. (19) Húuumpi, man

nya=tí'íh

n=í

I=then

I=SEQ

tyú-hu'-u-tá-'a

nye-nyuuka.

í

DISTR-NARR-COMPL-PERF-give

ART

my-WOrd

'Man, oh man! Then I promised [that I would do it].' The morphology of (19) departs somewhat from that of a prototypical transitive verb. The GIVE verb -'a appears to have as its direct object the postverbal nominal phrase í nye-nyuuka 'my word'. However, this is an abstract noun and the verb itself is marked with the ubiquitous distributive plural tí'i- in its ablauted form tyú'-. The wider context tells us that the activity of giving was directed to a group of people, none of whom are sin­ gled out for special mention. This group must, therefore, be the referent of tii-. Reinforcing this conclusion is the observation that, in Cora ditransitive sentences, the indirect object takes precedence over the direct object for marking on the verb; thus, if a sentence does contain both a direct object nominal and an indirect object nominal, the verb is marked to agree in person and number with the indirect object, which, in GIVE constructions, corresponds to the RECIPIENT. The fact that -'a can take abstract nouns as oblique objects, suggests that it may take even more abstract objects of a syntactic nature. Sometimes

Lots of ways to GIVE in Cora

147

the more abstract object can be a headless relative clause that actually des­ ignates a relatively concrete object, as it does in (20). (20) Tya=tífih we=CNJ

y-u-tyá-h-ru-pi, here-in-middle-enter-PST

ma-t-aa-tá-'a

t

tyeh

tyú'-u-kwa'a-ni.

they-US-COMPL-PERF-give ART weiSUBR DISTR-COMPL-eat-FUT

'When we came in here, they gave us that which we were going to eat.' The next degree of abstractness that can be attributed to the oblique object of -'a is the case in which an entire event is itself construed as an oblique object. With the 'enabling' GIVE verb -'a, this construal amounts to structuring a pair of events so that the temporally prior event sets up the conditions that allow the temporally posterior event to occur. It is in this sense that I label Cora -'a as 'enabling' GIVE. This account of things is borne out by the observation that in many of its usages, the verb -'a clearly indicates the giving of permission to do something. This permission can be done in either an ethical sense or a legal one. In (21), for example, the thing that was not granted was for Snake to return back to Jesus María from Teíhmata'a, the abode of the Rain Gods. (21) Ká=mu NEG=them y

hí-r-aa-tá-'a

tí

NARR-him-COMPL-PERF-give

SUBR

hu-vé'e-n e-n; inside-coming-arrive-PRTC

m-í-r-aa-ta-hé'ika. they-NARR-him-coMPL-PERF-kill

'They did not permit him to return; they up and killed him.' In (21), the GIVE verb has a third person plural subject, marked by the clitic mu, following the sentence initial negative ka. The verb is also marked with the narrative mode hí-, the distributive singular r- (for third person sin­ gular direct object) and the completive-perfective complex wa-tá-. In this case, the patient of the denial of permission is the one designated by r-, and the oblique object, i.e. the content of the denial, is marked by the sub­ ordinate clause. In (22), permission to come close to the compadre's physical location is what was denied.

148

Eugene H. Casad (22) Ka=pú NEG=SUBJ

r-aa-tá-'a tí án ha-a-rá-'asti him-coMPL-PERF-give SUBR there DiST-out-face-arrive

hamwán a'u tí ha-uh-sa'upe'e aíhna t with where SUBR DIST-REFL-rest DEM ART kumpwaraa-ra'an. compadre-his 'That compadre of his would not let him come to the place where he was resting.' In summary, the enabling GIVE verb -'a has a frame that allows it to take a variety of constituent structures as its oblique object, including noun phrases, object relative clauses, and subordinate clauses. This frame also allows the omission of a subordinate clause if the context has previously established the content of the oblique complement clause. Sentence (23), for example, shows this nicely. (23) Wa -u-tá-wavi-iri-'i them-coMPL-PERF-ask-APPL-STAT r-aa-tá-a-n tí him-coMPL-PERF-give-PTRC SUBR aru ka=mú CNJ NEG=they

mah they:suBR aún wá-ku-ti there coMPL-sleep-FUT

r-aa-tá-'a. him-coMPL-PERF-give

'He asked permission from them to sleep there, but they did not let him.' We can now return to our discussion of wa-tá-u-ra-'a. The prefix com­ bination wa-tá- (COMPL-PERF) shows that the speaker is construing the event wholistically and the reflexive -u signals the fact that the activity involves the subject as both initiator of the action and as the goal of it. This is con­ ventionally understood as doing something for oneself. The event consists of giving something to someone. The use of the locative prefix ra- 'in the face of' highlights the endpoint of the action, i.e. the situation facing the subject. Since 'enabling' -'a can take a sentential complement, it becomes very natural to construe the giving something to oneself as taking on the responsibility for carrying out some kind of an action. The pragmatics of it all is that this giving of oneself to carry out an action is the result of a particular force dynamics, i.e. in Talmy's terms, the social pressure that the

Lots of ways to GIVE in Cora

149

agonists, i.e. the Cora Elders, exerted against the antagonist, i.e. Mother Toad, was sufficient to get the cooperation that they wanted (cf. Talmy 1985). The more morphologically complex form wa-tá-u-ra-'a-te-'e can be glossed as 'to appropriate something for one's own self'. This form is marked with both the reflexive prefix and the causative-applicative suffix pair. Example (24), taken from a folkstory about the destruction of a previous race of Coras, advises the hearers that the spirits of these ancients are still around and have appropriated for their own the ground where people would like to plant crops, and can still cause a lot of trouble if not properly recog­ nized by the workman who tills the soil. (24) At mú nú'u m=i ptrtkt DEM they QUOT they=SEQ be

t máh kú wa-tyí ART they:suBR EV EXT-be:PL

má há'a-wa'a tyásta'a, méh there:MED be-yon cave they:SUBR ka' ín mía-káí Or

nyá'u nú'u

they=NEG w e l l

tyú-hu'-u-šáíinyere, DISTR-NARR-EXT curse

hi'i-tá-u-ra-'a-te-'e

QUOT NARR-PERF-REFL-face-give-CAUS-APPL

mí cueh án-ná ha'u mé-hé'e-čah-ka'a, . . . ART ground top-place where they-LOC-live-RZD 'These, so they say, are those who clearly live in the caves off yonder, those who place curses on people or who otherwise have appropriated for themselves the ground on which they lived, The meaning 'to appropriate X for one's self' arises rather transpar­ ently from the combination of the morphemes that jointly constitute the verb word. At the innermost level, the causative-applicative suffix pair com­ bines with -'a 'to give' with the resultant meaning of 'X causes Y to have Z'. The addition of the reflexive prefix then results in a structure whose meaning can be paraphrased as 'X causes himself to have Z'. At this point there is no specified object. The common addition of the completive-per­ fective sequence wa-ta- allows the speaker to construe the entire complex concept wholistically. In example (24), however, there is no completive prefix wa-. Instead, the narrative marker híi- appears in this context, reflect­ ing the background use of the timeless aspect that Cora discourse shows, especially in the explanatory or descriptive parts of narrative texts. Finally, recall that enabling -'a has as part of its frame the room for a sentential

150

Eugene H. Casad

complement or heavy NP. This is spelled out in (24) by the relative clause that is translated as 'the ground upon which they live'. There are still other variations of 'enabling' GIVE for which we will need to account. With the locative prefix sequence wa-ráa- 'extensive within an area-back and forth', the GIVE verb -'a takes on the meaning of 'distribute X among Y group of people'. The example in (25), also taken from the Pipe and Feathershaft story, states that Jesus Christ had called the Jesús María Cora people together so that He could distribute gifts to each of them, gifts by means of which they were to sustain themselves in their daily lives. (25) CNJ

QUOT NARR t h e r e DISTR-DIST-COMPL-PERF-Order-RZD

mah they:suBR

QUOT

up-REFL-meet-PRTC

ART

people

DISTR-them-EXT-around-give-DUR they=suBR

SUBR QUOT

QUOT

with

coMPL-PERF-REFL-help-PRTC ART Cora J.Maria-PL 'And then he sent them instructions that the Coras of Jesús María should assemble themselves together there so that he could give out among them the things on which they could sustain them­ selves.' A phenomenon that we have observed as we have moved from exam­ ple to example in this discussion is that speakers of Cora (and, by exten­ sion, speakers of any human language) can extract schemas from their personal experience, differentially highlighting particular entities and inter­ actions designated by the schema, while backgrounding other entities and interactions the schema contains. The speaker has a variety of options for selection, vantagepoint, orientation and construal which he/she may invoke in making statements about given situations (cf. Casad 1995:24ff; Givón 1989:88-90; Langacker 1987:115ff, 127ff). A close consideration of the data contained in this paper suggests that it is probably the case that no single image schema or ICM will accommo­ date all the usages of -'a meaning 'to give' that were discussed above. The very first ICM will be essentially the prototypical one outlined by Newman

Lots of ways to GIVE in Cora

151

(1996). The ICM includes three entities, a GIVER, a THING given via physical transfer, and a RECIPIENT. The salient interactions include one between the GIVER and the THING, a second one between the RECIPI­ ENT and the THING, and motion of the THING from the GIVER to the RECIPIENT. In addition, the physical transfer of the THING from the GIVER to the RECIPIENT entails a transfer of control of the THING to the RECIPIENT. Other aspects of this ICM include the typical use of the hands by both GIVER and RECIPIENT in implementing the transfer, the intentionality of the giving; and the implications that the giving is for the benefit of the RECIPIENT and that RECIPIENT will normally make some kind of use of the bestowed THING (Newman 1996:33-60). A second ICM will be highly specific. It will detail an instigative agent (= GIVER), a RECIPIENT, and a receptacle of water (= THING) small enough to be conveyed by the hands from the GIVER to the RECIPIENT. It will also detail the interaction between the two participants and the impli­ cation of a very specific subsequent act on the part of the RECIPIENT, i.e. he/she will drink the water. A third ICM will detail the action of an instigative agent doing some­ thing that will enable another person to carry out a distinct action. What ties varieties two and three together seems to be related to an implication of the giving water ICM: the RECIPIENT is expected to drink the water immediately upon receiving it and he/she is actually enabled to do so. This third ICM contains an iconic reflection of this tightly knit 'giving water''drinking water' sequence of events. The two events related by implication in this ICM are highly generic. This is reflected by the wide variety of entities that can serve as the object complement of Cora 'enabling' GIVE. The idea of increasingly abstract spheres of control and the mechanism of concept suspension, both discussed by Rudzka-Ostyn are also relevant (RudzkaOstyn 1996:347, 383). A fourth ICM is a reflexive version of things in which the GIVER exercises his own will in facing up to a situation requiring him/her to accede to the wishes of one or more unspecified RECIPIENTS and the THING given is a highly abstract or schematic process that usually involves the reflexive GIVER as the agent of that process. Functionally speaking, two events that are temporally contiguous with­ out any intervening event are easily construed as causally related and the notions of enabling someone to do something or permitting him to do some-

152

Eugene H. Casad

thing are simply two versions of causally related events (cf. King 1988:555556; Langacker 1991a:408ff; Tuggy 1988:590). All of this, of course, involves a shift in domain, from that of physical interactions to that of social relations and legal matters. This sets the stage for the kind of exten­ sion Langacker discusses when he notes that beginning with the conception of two autonomous events, the speaker's focus can be expanded to take in both the instigating agent and the participant affected by that agent's activ­ ity and anchor those two closely related events to a single instigative force (Langacker 1991a:408). In summary, the schema 'give X to Y' is the source domain for the specialized meaning 'give drinking water to X', and for the extensions to both enablement and permission in the legal sense and to the yielding of oneself to a less than ideal situation. Other varieties of GIVE verbs in Cora are also based, in part, at least, on elements of the prototypical GIVE outlined by Newman (1996). What I have in mind here is the specification of the directionality of the act of GIVING and the nature of the specific THING transferred.

4.

'Terminative' GIVE

A marginal member of the Cora family of GIVE verbs involves a motion verb and the applicative suffix -ira. The motion verb itself, -tuaa, means 'to leave off X somewhere'. A typical example is given in (26). (26) Yáa PROCOMP

nú I

tíi-mwa'a¢e DISTR-think

ínyaa I

nyah I:SUBR

hámu-há-uú-tuaa-ni. you:PL-DIST-that:way-leave-FUT 'I think that I will take you all off to leave you over there.' With the applicative -ira, the verb comes to mean 'to give X to Y', as illustrated by (27). (27)

Ny-auú-če'e r-aa-tá-tu'i-ire-'e-sin. I-LOC-Still him-COMPL-PERF-give-APPL-DUR-BASE 'I am still going to give it back to him.'

Lots of ways to GIVE in Cora

153

With this verb, both the subject as GIVER and the patient as RECIP­ IENT are encoded morphologically into the verb. In this particular exam­ ple there is no overt mention of the object that is to be given to the RECIP­ IENT. This does not reflect any intrinsic limitation on this verb, however. In other contexts, this verb can be passivized and the THING that is given appears as subject, as seen in (28). Within the domain of the household, and particularly the mealtime activities, this variant of GIVE can be glossed as 'to serve X to Y'. (28) Wápi'i exceeding

pú

'án-¢ina

í

pistée

tí

SUBJ

top-bitter

ART

atole

SUBR

y

n-u-'u-t áa-tu'i-re. me-inside-EXT-middle-give-APPL:PASS 'The corn gruel that was served to me is very bitter.' The usage of -tui-ira in (28) relates it to the enabling variants of GIVE discussed in Section 3, but its main connections are elsewhere. One of these contexts is the ritual system, as suggested by (29). (29) Ma=ti'ih=ta they=CNJ=and í ART

kauhnari rope

m=i wa' -u-tá-tuí-íre-en they=SEQ them-coMPL-PERF-give-APPL-PRTC tí SUBR

šú'umua, black

m=ahtá they=and

huríiyu judeos

ma-wa'-u-tya-hí'ike-'en. they-them-EXT-middle-bind-PRTC 'And when they have delivered the black rope to them, then the Judeos bind them (i.e. all of the others).' The usage illustrated in (29) is ordinarily rendered as 'to deliver X to Y'. Associated with this ritual usage is the idea of an obligation to turn ritual objects over to another person (or persons) so that they can subse­ quently carry out their ritual obligation. In this instance, a pair of partici­ pants in the Cora Holy Week rituals are administrative assistants and their job is to go get a black rope which they turn over to the Captains of the Painted Ones, who then bind their subjects with the rope. The final version of -tuaa 'to leave' + applicative -ira that I discuss here relates to the domain of commercial transactions. In this domain, the

154

Eugene H. Casad

simple transitive form means 'to sell X', as in (30), and the applicative form means 'to sell X to Y', illustrated in (31). (30) í meh tíi-tu'a-ra-ka ART they:SUBR DISTR-leave-TRNS-HAB 'the merchants' (lit. 'those who sell things') (31) Ha'ačúní pa-r-áa-tui-iri-i? how :much y ou-him-coMPL-leave-APPL-STAT 'How much did you sell it to him for?' To summarize, the various usages of 'terminative' GIVE invoke a vari­ ety of mental models depending upon the domain of applications. In no case is there any specification whatsoever about the shape of the entity that is transferred from the control of one party to the other. In both the ritual and the commercial usages, the RECIPIENT takes precedence over the transferred THING and thus the direct object prefixes used in these verbs designate the RECIPIENT and not the THING transferred. The version used within the domain of the household can be passivized and the transferred object can thus appear as the subject of such sentences.

5.

GIVE: a means of transporting objects

In this section I turn to the morphologically rich set of Cora classificatory GIVE verbs. As these verbs are construed, one implication of the act of giving something to someone is that the RECIPIENT takes it away to his/her own domicile. The Cora GIVE verbs are one set of classificatory verbs that indicate the shape of an object that is being transported or the manner in which that object is being moved. All of these verbs are built on a group of stems whose basic meaning is 'carry'. This is not a salient part of the semantics of English give, but it is very salient to an entire set of GIVE verbs in Cora. Different locative prefix sequences are used to help signal distinct tense-aspect forms of such verbs, as well as to distinguish one verb from another. Typical examples of these in Cora, in addition to GIVE, are verbs with meanings such as 'take', 'bring', 'have in the hand', 'pass it to X', and 'receive'. For convenient reference, I consider each of these classifica­ tory verbs to be an instantiation of what I call 'transport' GIVE. Although

Lots of ways to GIVE in Cora

155

we are not going to give a thoroughgoing analysis of this family of verbs, we do need to present an overview of it. 5.1. 'Take' verbs The Cora system of classificatory verbs groups transportable entities into one of seven classes: (a) long, rigid things, (b) round things, (c) flat, squar­ ish rigid things, (d) long, flexible things, (e) soft things that can be piled up, (f ) domesticated animals and (g) human beings.4 The 'take' verbs have distinct stems for each of these categories, as seen in (32a-f ). The exam­ ples of the nominais that are characteristically associated with each of these categories include čuun 'machete' (32a), takwá¢i 'ball' (32b), yuusari 'book' (32c), síikiïuri 'shirt' (32d), šaíiri 'pile of leaves' (32e), visáaru'u 'calf' (32f), and tévi 'person' (32g). (32) a. An-čuaá mí čuun! up-carry ART machete 'Take the machete!' b. An-tíi mí top-carry ART 'Take the ball!'

takwá¢i! ball

c. Any-í'i mí yu'ušari! top-carry ART book 'Take the book!' d.

An-pű mí top-carry ART 'Take the shirt!'

siikuuri! shirt

e. An-tú'i mí šaiiri! top-carry ART trash 'Take that pile of leaves away!' f.

An-háana mí top-carry ART 'Take the calf!'

visaaru'u! calf

g. Án-vVitici amíhna mí top-carry that ART 'Take that person there!'

tevi! person

156

Eugene H. Casad

Common to all of the 'take' verbs given in (32) is the locative prefix an'on top', which is used for the perfective imperative. The rationale for this usage of an- is one about which I can only speculate: certain usages of an­ ­an be construed as designating the interactive surface of a discrete object (cf. Casad 1982:271). Note, however, that this construal of an- does not account for the di­ rectionality of Cora 'take' verbs. More plausibly, the an- in these verbs may well be cognate to Náhuatl on- 'away', as illustrated by the Orizaba Nawatl forms on-yah-ki '(away-go-PRET:SG) 'he went away' and on-kiwika-k (away-it-take:away-PRET:SG) 'he up and took it' (cf. Miller et al. 1988:145-146, Lastra 1980:135).5 The problem with this suggestion is that there are as yet no obvious independently attested a:o vowel correspond­ ences between Cora and Náhuatl. So any identification of the two prefixes is not yet established. To substantiate this will require careful comparative work. (Wick R. Miller personal communication). A possible link between Náhuatl on- and Cora an- is the Huichol loca­ tive prefix sequence a-nu-, which Grimes glosses as 'at the far side of a reference line that runs at right angles to the speaker's line of sight' (cf. Grimes 1964:90; Casad 1995, ms.). Such a location would be at a distal point removed from the speaker's location and with a motion verb such as 'take', it would be appropriate to both the Cora and the Náhuatl forms. In short, the implied directionality of the notion of 'take', i.e. move­ ment away from the speaker's position, may well be the needed clue that Cora an- in this particular case is cognate with Náhuatl on- and may be a tenuous example of Hopper's Persistence Principle, i.e. clues of a form's history still hang around for a long time after the basic linguistic change takes place (cf. Hopper 1991:28ff, 33; cf. also Langacker 1977a:41,1977b:68). Later vowel harmony processes or analogical leveling operative in Cora could have turned an erstwhile *un to present-day an-. The act of taking something typically involves the use of the hands. In the cases of (32a-e), the act of taking something conventionally involves the physical taking hold of the entity being transported. In (32f), the ani­ mal is frequently led away on a rope that the person taking it holds in his hand. A more extended version of the 'take' situation is given by (32g). In this case, the 'taking' of another person involves simple accompaniment. The foregoing discussion suggests that the ICM of Cora 'take' profiles, i.e. highlights for linguistic expression, the (potential) transportation of an

Lots of ways to GIVE in Cora

157

object starting at the beginning of a path leading away from the location of the speech act and the entrance into a state of possession by the subject of 'take'. It also profiles the shape of the transported entity or the manner in which it is being transported. And in prototypical cases it includes the physical taking hold of the entity to be taken away by the agent. One might want to say that these stems are unanalyzable, but given the multiple contrasts with other derived stems whose morphemic structure is obviously analyzable, it seems unlikely that these stems constitute unana­ lyzable chunks. Even more importantly, other locative prefixes are employed for other tense aspect forms of particular 'take' verbs. In summary, the stem -čua is used for elongated, rigid objects, -tíi is used for rounded or roughly equidimensional shaped objects, and -í'i is used for flat, elongated or equidimensionally shaped rigid objects. Objects made of cloth or other flexible material are designated by -píi, soft things that can be piled up are indicated by the stem -tú'i, animate objects and objects carried on a cord, e.g. a gourd water bottle, are designated by -háana and humans by -vi'ití. At this point, I complicate the picture with a brief look at both the sin­ gular and plural forms, as well as exemplify the differential marking of plural objects of the 'take' verbs. These forms are summarized in Table 1. From Table 1, it is clear that not all of the 'carry' stems are supple­ tive. In particular, the stems -pii, for flexible objects, -tu'i for 'soft' or mass entities, and -vi'ití for humans all use the same stem for singular and plural objects. As the multiplicity of plural forms in Table 1 suggests, Cora plural Table 1. Cora 'take' Category

verbs: the imperative forms Singular Plural

antíi anyíi anpíi antú'i anháana anháana

tye'enyí'í anyfi wa'antú'utu tye'enyíipi'i tye'enpíi tya'antú'i wa'anháapwa anháana

machete wash basin baby, chicken book rope, shirt dry leaves, pile of clothes cow, goat gourd of water

anvi'ití

wa'anvi'ití

workman

1. Long, rigid

ančuáa

2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Round things Flat things Flexible things Soft things Animals Liquids in container 8. Person

Example

158

Eugene H. Casad

'take' and GIVE forms make a number of distinctions that the singular forms do not make. These distinctions can be summarized as (a) human or animate, (b) count nouns, and (c) mass nouns. Notice that human or ani­ mate plural is marked by the prefix wá'a-, inanimate plural is marked by the distributive plural tí'i-, which ablauts to tya- before the locative an-, and mass nouns are unmarked in the plural imperative forms. This is exem­ plified in (33). (33) a. them-top-carry:PLOBJ ART Take the eggs!'

egg-PL

b. DISTR-top-carry:PLOBJ Take the marbles!' c.

ART

marbles

yuuri! top-carry :PLOBJ ART corn Take the (sack of) corn!'

An appropriate ICM for Cora 'carry' verbs details both the conveyance along a path of some entity by an instigative agent and the nature of the transported entity in terms of both its shape and the way in which it is being transported. 5.2. GIVE verbs The set of Cora verbs meaning GIVE draws on the same set of stems that are used for signalling the concept 'take'. As seen below in (34a-g), this set makes use of the causative-applicative suffix, which ties Cora GIVE to the domain of human interest discussed by Newman (cf. Newman 1996:51-52). In addition, it employs the locative prefix sequence wa-tá'extensive-straight', which, in this set, has the extended aspectual meaning 'completive-perfective'.6 This extension involves an extended meaning of ta- which Cora shares with Huichol (cf. Grimes 1964:90). (34) a. me-coMPL-PERF-carry-CAUS-APPL 'Give me the machete!'

ART machete

Lots of ways to GIVE in Cora b. N-aa-tá-ti-st-e me-coMPL-PERF-carry-CAUS-APPL 'Give me the ball!' c. N-aa-tá-i'i-t-e me-coMPL-PERF-carry-CAUS-APPL 'Give me the book!' d. N-aa-ta-píh-te'-e me-coMPL-PERF-carry-CAUS-APPL 'Give me the shirt!' e. N-aa-tá-tu'i-t-e me-coMPL-PERF-carry-CAUS-APPL 'Give me the pile of leaves!' f. N-aa-ta-hán-te'-e me-coMPL-PERF-carry-CAUS-APPL 'Give me the calf!' g. N-aa-tá-vi'iti-ste'-e me-coMPL-PERF-carry-CAUS-APPL 'Give me the person!'

159 mí takwa¢ti! ART ball mí yu'ušari! ART book mí siiku'uri! ART shirt mí šaiiri! ART trash mí visaaruu! ART calf mí tevi! ART person

There are other complexities that the examples of 'take' and GIVE verbs in (33) and (34) do not reveal. I summarize them first in Table 2 and then present a pair of illustrative sentences. We can summarize the morphological peculiarities of the set of forms given in Table 2 in the following terms. First, both reduplication and suppletion relate the plural forms to some of the singular forms. The first of two suppletive pairs is -tiste and -tu'utu'ite'e, which is used to designate round or cylindrical objects. This particular suppletive pair may have arisen from a semantic shift that affected the plural form. This is suggested by the presence of the invariant stem -tu'ite for 'soft things' elsewhere in this set. The second suppletive pair is -čuite'e and its plural counterpart -í'ite'e, which are used to designate long rigid entities like machetes, sticks and poles. The reduplicated pairs are -hánte'e and -háhpwate'e, for designating tall things and animals and -i'ite and -i'ipi'ite for flat or circular objects.

160

Eugene H. Casad

Table 2. The GIVE verbs: singular and plural stems Category

Singular

Plural

Part I 1. Long and rigid 2. Round, cylindrical 3. Long and flexible 4. Flat and/or round useful objects

naatáčuite'e naatatíste naatapíhte'e naataí'íte

5. Soft things 6. Tall things, animals 7. People

naatátuite naatahánte'e naatávi'itíste'e

naataí'ite'e naatatú'utuite'e tínaatapíhte'e naatáí'ípi'ite tinaatáí'ipí ite tínaatátu'ite naataháhpwate'e naatávi'itíste'e

Part II 8. Liquids 9. Drinking water

naatahányai'it'e naatá'a

naatahányai'ite'e

Two pairs of stems show no change from the singular to the plural. These include -tú'ite, which designates "soft" entities that can be piled up, such as leaves and clothing, and -píhte'e, which refers to long, flexible enti­ ties such as a piece of string, a leather strap or a rope. It also can desig­ nate an individual piece of clothing such as a shirt or blouse. One pair of stems is distinguished only by tone placement, i.e. naatáviitistee 'give me that person' versus naataví'itiste'e 'give me those people'. Several of the plural forms in Table 2 are marked with the distributive plural ti'i-, which has a shortened allomorph ti- with verbs in the perfective aspect. In two cases, this is all that distinguishes a plural GIVE word from its singular counterpart, i.e. those verbs that indicate 'soft things' or 'long flexible things'. In one case, it reinforces the role of the reduplicated stem, i.e. the one used for 'flat objects'. The final wrinkle in these forms con­ cerns the applicative marker -e. In five cases, it ablauts the -a vowel of the causative -ta to -e, in the other two cases, it replaces the -a vowel of -ta. Notice that the contrast between ablauting -e and replacive -e preserves the lexical contrast between -i'ite'e 'to carry a long rigid entity:PL' and -i'ite 'to carry a flat entity:SG'. Turning to the semantics of the examples above, a Cora classificatory

Lots of ways to GIVE in Cora

161

GIVE verb could be paraphrased as 'X causes Y to carry off Z', a paral­ lel to the causative forms of both Chamorro and Ainu discussed in Newman (1966:19-20), but it is also clearly distinct from each. The causative GIVE of Chamorro, like the Cora construction, encodes the RECIPIENT as object of the verb and can be construed as making something happen that involves the RECIPIENT. The stem that would describe what the transpiring event would be, however, is absent from the Chamorro GIVE constructions (Newman 1996:13, 16-17, 277). The parallel between Cora classificatory GIVE and Ainu GIVE is that both involve causative constructions. The differences, however, are in the verb stems which enter into the respective causative constructions. The overt verb kor of Ainu means 'to have'. The Ainu causative kore can there­ fore be paraphrased as 'to cause to have' (Newman 1996:13, 277). The contrasting Cora causative, as mentioned above, can be paraphrased 'to cause to carry off'. Another contrast with both Chamorro and Ainu is the classificatory system that organizes the set of Cora causative GIVE con­ structions'. There are several clear contrasts between English give and Cora clas­ sificatory GIVE. Beyond the lack of any classificatory organization to English give is the differing potential for extensions into other domains and the differential behavior with respect to passivization. English give dis­ plays an almost staggering number of metaphorical extensions into a wide variety of semantic domains, Cora classificatory GIVE shows practically none of this (cf. the Chipewyan facts in Rice, this volume pp. 127-129). Although English give readily accepts passivization, the Cora classificatory GIVE stems do not. Semantically, English give is most closely related semantically to the verb take (cf. Newman 1996:56-59); Cora classificatory GIVE verbs are most closely related to Cora 'carry' verbs. One difference between transport GIVE and personal interest pwéihve'e is that the control of the bestowed item may not be permanent in the case of transport GIVE. Thus, while a Cora mother and her children were vis­ iting our home in Montrose, Colorado, I overheard her ask her two year old son for the children's book he was looking at using the sentence in (35a). The son's response, drawing on the mother's use of the transport verb stem pih- in the causative construction, is given in (35b).

162

Eugene H. Casad (35) a. N-aa-ta-pih-te-'e mí me-coMPL-PERF-carry-CAUS-APPL ART 'Give me the book!'

yu'ušari! book

b. M nya-mwa~a-ta-píh-te-'e? Q I-you-coMPL-PERF-carry-CAUS-APPL 'You want me to give it to you?' Of course, the mother was not asking the child to GIVE it to her "for keeps", as we say, but rather to hand it to her so that she could read it to him.7 A plausible ICM for 'transport' GIVE must profile the interaction that leads to the transfer of the THING from the GIVER to the RECIPIENT, and the assuming of control over the entity by the RECIPIENT. It also profiles the shape of the entity or the manner of its conveyance. Not so clearly central to the ICM, although it may be part of the prototype is the implication that the transferred entity will be conveyed to another location. As with the 'take' verbs, the ICM will note that the prototypical transfer in 'transport' GIVE also involves the use of the hands by both GIVER and RECIPIENT. For confirming much of what we have discussed in this section, it is instructive to turn to some of the usages of these verbs as they are found in Cora texts. The examples in (36), with the 'carry' verb in shown in bold, are taken from a Cora folklore story about how the Goddess of Salt came to Jesús María and was rejected by the community as a whole. According to the narrative, the Coras at the last house she visited at least gave her something to eat when she asked it of them.8 In both (36a) and (36b) we see the plural direct object form of the stem í'i 'to carry (something fiat)'. As observed in (36b), the simple past is formed by truncating the final syl­ lable -tye of the basic form. (36) a.

Tii=ki

tyu'-u-tá-wauh

then=INDEF

DISTR-COMPL-PERF-ask

w

Hám e'i tortilla

y

y

í

hamwe'i. Ticien:

ART

tortilla

QCOMP

9

se-t í-n-aa-tá-i'ipi'i-t e. you:PL-DISTR-me-coMPL-PERF-carry-CAUS:APPL

Né-'icua. I-hungry 'And then she asked for tortillas, saying, "Folks, give me some tortillas to eat. I'm hungry."'

Lots of ways to GIVE in Cora

163

b. Ma=ti'ih m=í tyí-r-aa-tá-i'ipiyih. they=CNJ they=SEQ DISTR-her-coMPL-PERF-carry:PL 'And then they gave her some.' 5.3. 'Bring verbs The 'bring' verbs are built on the 'carry' stems with the present tense forms marked with the locative prefix sequence a-ve'e- 'outside-coming this way'. The past tense forms are marked with the prefix sequence a-rá- 'outside-in the face'.10 A pair of examples of present tense forms using the stems -cui 'carry a long rigid object' and -ti 'carry a round object' are given in (37a-b). These particular forms are highly instructive for showing the way that Cora exploits the locational prefixes to signal the shape of the interactions that take place during the evolution of an event. In other words, with motion verbs, the position of the entities involved changes from the starting point of the motion until the completion of it. And the different tense-aspect forms give distinct perspectives on this evolution by focusing on distinct construals of the overall interactions. (37) a.

Má pú ye-'e-vé'e-čui-sin mí čuun. MED SUBJ it-outside-coming-carry-DUR ART machete 'He is right there bringing the machete'.

b. Má pú ya-'a-váa-ti-sin mí tyetye. MED SUBJ it-outside-coming-carry-DUR ART rock 'He is right there bringing the rock'. The use of a-vee in (37) presents an imperfective view of the devel­ oping 'bring' scenario. It is looking in on the observed ongoing process without any concern for either how it got started or how it is going to end. In contrast, the corresponding past tense forms of the verbs in sentences (38a-b) focus on the last stage of the process, i.e. the completed conveyance of the transported object to its particular goal. In these sentences, the loca­ tive prefix sequence a-rá- 'outside-in face' is used. This signals a perfec­ tive view of the 'bring' scenario. (38) a.

Aí pú ya-'a-ráh-čui mi čuun. DEM SUBJ it-outside-face-carry ART machete 'He brought the machete.'

164

Eugene H. Casad b.

Aí pú ya-ya-ráh-ti mí tyetye. DEM SUBJ it-outside-face-carry ART rock 'He brought the rock.'11

The base for Cora 'bring' verbs profiles either the conveyance of an entity of a particular shape along an extended path or the final stage of the path by which the transported entity arrives at its destination. The instigative agent who transports the item in question is also highly salient to the base of 'bring'. Usually implied is that the conveyance is also by means of the hands, but this is not as salient to 'bring' as it is to some of the other verbs, since there are lots of ways to transport a small entity, e.g. in a woven shoulder bag, in a suitcase or valise or even in a gunny sack. 5.4. 'Receive

verbs

The Cora verbs meaning 'receive' draw on locative prefixes and the set of 'carry' stems illustrated above in (33). In (39) we see usages of 'receive' in narrative text, as well as usages of the corresponding GIVE verbs. (39a-c) consist of three successive sentences from a text describing the rituals of Cora Holy Week. In (39a), a form of pih 'carry (flexible object)' is used with the meaning 'to bring'. In this case, a locative particle há'a 'off there' is part of the overall construction and is linked to the usage of the distal prefix he'e- in the verb. (39) a.

Ma=ti'ih m-í,

ma=ti'ih

they=CNJ they=SEQ they=CNJ

tyi'i-h-pwá'ari-tye-'e-n DISTR-it-end-CAUS-APPL-PRTC

náín, ah mú m-í máihná í papéh há'a all then they they-SEQ they-it ART paper there:PAUS he'e-h-píh-sin. DIST-it-carry-DUR 'And afterwards, when they are bringing it to an end, then they bring that paper from off there.'

Lots of ways to GIVE in Cora b. Ma-ti'ih they=CNJ

165

m=i séíh they=SEQ one

wa-ta-píh-tye-'e-sin, sekritáriu coMPL-PERF-carry-CAUS-APPL-DUR secretary

nú'u.12 QUOT

'And then they are going to give it to one whom they call "the Secretary".' c. Ai he

pú-'i SUBJ-SEQ

rá'-a-hihve'e-n, it-out-speak-PRTC

ra'-an-ku-ré'e-pí-n. it-top-around-corner-carry-PRTC 'And when he has received it, then he will read it.' In (39b), the GIVE verb wa-ta-pih-te-'e-sin is selected to convey the trans­ fer of control over a piece of paper to a specific šú'umwaviika, i.e. 'one who is painted black', who is said to have the role of 'Secretary'. In (39c), the receipt of the paper by the Secretary is signalled by the participial form ra-'an-ku-ré'e-pí-n 'it-top-around-corner-carry-PRTC'. In all three actions described in this scene, the participants are actively using their hands. In summary, an ICM of Cora 'receive' profiles both the shape of the entity to whom the transfer is made and the transfer of the entity to a RECIPIENT as well as the manner of completion of the transfer, i.e. the receiver assumes control of the item by taking it into his hands. 5.5. 'Pass X to Y' verbs The classificatory system is further illustrated by Cora verbs meaning 'pass X to Y', one example of which we have already seen in (39c) above. Typical examples, which are built on the same set of stems as the 'take' and GIVE verbs, are given in (40a-c). The direct objects involved here are siiku'uri 'shirt' (40a), túša'a 'plate' (40b), and kíišuri 'pile of rags' (40c). (40) a. Mé nye-vé'e-pih-te-'e MED:out me-coming-carry-CAUS-APPL 'Pass me the shirt!' b. Mé nya-vá-i'i-te-'e MED:out me-coming-carry-CAUS-APPL 'Pass me the plate!'

mí siiku'uri! ART shirt mí tuša'a! ART plate

166

Eugene H. Casad c. Mé nya-vá'a-tu'i-te-'e MED:out me-coming-carry-CAUS-APPL 'Pass me that pile of rags!'

mí kiisuri! ART rag

The medial distance locative particle mé is used in all the examples of (40). It indicates the hearer's position, which is also the starting point of a con­ ceptual path along which an entity will be transported to the speaker's posi­ tion. The locative prefix -vé'e (which alternates with the form vá'a by vowel harmony) indicates the motion of the transported entity toward the speaker. This grammatical pattern in Cora is another instance of something larger than a single word which is obviously part of the Cora lexicon, but is also an instance of a more general morphological pattern very common in Cora. And, finally, the use of the hands by both the passer and receiver is highly salient to the ICM for this verb. 5.6. 'Hold in the hand' verbs The final set of verbs that I illustrate in this section consists of the classificatory forms that can be glossed as 'to have/hold in the hand'. These are built on the same set of seven stems as the 'take' and GIVE verbs (with minor wrinkles) and draw on the locative prefix sequence u-ii-tya- 'insidefacing-middle'. This is another perspective on the way that the human hand wraps around the entity that it is holding. In this case, the hands are par­ ticularly salient to the ICM since the prefix sequence itself is convention­ ally understood to designate the interactive surface of the hands and the situation each usage describes is a stative one. Examples (41a-b) are typi­ cal of these verb forms. (41) a.

Nya-r-u-'i-tyée-čui I-it-inside-face-middle-carry í ART

čuun machete

nya-mwahka'a-he¢e. my-hand-in

'I have a machete in my hand.' b. Nya-r-u-'i-tyáh-tiki I-it-inside-face-middle-carry T have a ball in my hand.'

í takwa¢i. ART ball

The ICM that encapsulates the meaning of Cora 'hold in the hand' pro­ files the location of the entity with respect to the holder's physical body,

Lots of ways to GIVE in Cora

167

in particular, the interactive surfaces of the hands and the shape of the entity being held. It also profiles an imperfective view of the conveyance of the entity being transported.

6.

Four kinds of GIVE: a summary

At this point I summarize the contrasts between 'personal interest' GIVE, 'transport' GIVE, 'enabling' GIVE, and 'terminative' GIVE. The prototype of English GIVE as spelled out in Newman (1996:1) approximates closely the sense of Cora pweíhve'e as used in sentences (42) and (43) below, which are taken out of a folklore story about how the Coras obtained possession of the smoking pipe, leaf tobacco and the feathershaft, now used by Cora shamans in their rituals. Sentence (42), which follows, recounts the query from the Coras to Jesus Christ regarding gifts for themselves. (42) Ma-r-aa-ta-hé they-him-coMPL-call

nyí pa=cáí Q you=NEG

ticin:QCOMPL

ta- 'i-wa-ta-pwéihve'e-sin

ti'tí thing

ítehmi?

US-NARR-COMPL-PERF-give-DUR US

'They called out to him: "Are you not going to give us any­ thing?" ' As many of the examples we have previously seen illustrate, in Cora GIVE constructions, the RECIPIENT is marked by a direct object prefix on the verb. In (42), this marking consists of the first person plural prefix ta-. In addition, the RECIPIENT is further specified by the sentence final first person plural accusative pronoun ítehmi. (43) Yúuri pú corn SUBJ

haatí indef

hi-r-aa-ta-tú'utu'i-te-' e-sin NARR-him-COMPL-PERF-give-CAUS-APPL-DUR

múhme, beans

túmin, money

ha'ačú

tí

INDEF:QNT

SUBR

sath one

r-á'a-pweihve'e. him-out-give

'Some one will give him ears of corn, beans, money, however much that one gives him.'

168

Eugene H. Casad

Sentence (43) illustrates the use of both the classificatory GIVE wa-ta-tú'utu'i-te-'e and the prototypical personal interest -pwéihve'e. In the first clause of sentence (43), the RECIPIENT is marked by the distributive singular r-, which, for ease of presentation, I have glossed as it, him, or her. Interpreting r- properly in some of these sentences can be problematical, but a crucial point of Cora grammar helps us sort things out here. Spe­ cifically, Cora grammar does not mark direct objects on the verb if the direct object nominal precedes the verb. For this reason, it is not possible to construe either the nominal yúuri 'corn' as being coreferential with the r- that does mark the direct object in this verb form, or the indefinite pro­ noun haatí as being coreferential with this r-. In this sentence the distrib­ utive singular r- can only designate the RECIPIENT, i.e. the shaman. The use of the reduplicated stem -tú'utu'itee reflects the fact that the sentence initial nominal yúuri 'corn' and the two post-verbal nomináis múhme 'beans' and túmin 'money' are construed as joint members of a 'multiplex' direct object, each of which is bundled up in a sack for conve­ nient transporting.13 The use of -pwéihvee in the second part of (43) shows how the speaker can shift his/her focus in midstream, as it were, and draw on another image to further describe the situation he is talking about. In particular, the use of -pweihve'e nicely complements the use of transport GIVE in the initial clause of (43). Transport GIVE details the particular class of items and the nominals in that clause name them one by one. Personal interest GIVE summarizes their function, i.e. they are the payment by means of which the shaman maintains himself daily. The other two categories of GIVE verbs that I have treated in this paper are 'enabling' GIVE and 'terminative' GIVE. 'Enabling' GIVE finds its primary reference in the act of giving someone something to eat or drink. In contrast to 'transport' GIVE, 'enabling' GIVE has extended usages in which it means 'to allow or permit someone to do X' and takes a sentential complement, as illustrated in (44).

Lots of ways to GIVE in Cora

169

(44) Wa'-u-tá-wavii-ri-'i them-coMPL-PERF-request-APPL-STAT r-aa-tá-'a-n

tí

him-COMPL-PERF-give-NZR SUBR

aru ka-mú CNJ NEG=they

mah they : SUBR aún there

wá-ku-ti, COMPL-sleep-FUT

r-aa-tá-'a. him-coMPL-PERF-give

'He asked them if they would let him sleep there, but they did not permit him to do so.' 'Terminative' GIVE is built on the stem -tuaa 'to leave something with someone or in a specific location.' The GIVE sense, as well as the associ­ ated 'sell' sense arises from the addition of the applicative suffix -ira. As with the 'personal interest' -pweíhve'e, and the 'enabling' GIVE, neither the shape of the bestowed entity nor the manner in which it is carried figure in the semantics of the terminative GIVE stem tuiira. What does figure highly in its semantics is the completion of the change of control over the entity being given to someone.

7.

Conclusion

The results of this study lead to the following conclusions. In the first place, alternate combinations of locative prefix sequences, stems (some supple­ tive), the causative-applicative suffix sequence and locative clitic choice all function to distinguish one GIVE verb from another or one tense-aspect choice from another for a given classificatory verb. All this suggests strongly that lexical rules cannot be framed only in terms of the major lexical cat­ egories of noun, verb and adjective, but rather must also refer to the mor­ phological categories of prefix, suffix and clitic and must also refer to the combinations of these diverse grammatical entities. These data also suggest that the semantics of GIVE, 'take', 'carry' etc. is motivated by the meanings of the component parts of the respective verb words and does not arise from just the nature of the construction itself or from just the context in which it is used. Nonetheless, there are also global properties of these verb words. The presence of such emergent properties in these combinations underscores Lakoff's point that a psychologically adequate account of data such as these will provide individual Idealized Cognitive Models for describing the individual parts of the whole as well

170

Eugene H. Casad

as a more complex Idealized Cognitive Model for describing the overall construction (cf. Lakoff 1987:490, 510, 533, 538). Another clear implication of these data is that it is not simply seman­ tic extension that relates these varieties of GIVE to one another and to the 'take', 'bring', 'carry', 'receive', and 'hold in the hand' verbs, but rather it is a complex interaction of semantic extension, morphological combination, the grammaticalization of implications and the potential for alternate construals of given situations that jointly motivates the usages of these lexical items and the relations that hold among them. The third point is that the use of the hands is relevant to all of the verbs that I discuss here, but it is not equally salient to the semantics of all of them. It is most salient for the 'hold in the hand', 'pass X to Y', and 'receive' verbs. It is least salient to the 'personal interest' verb -pwéihve'e, the 'terminative' GIVE verb -tuiira and the 'enabling' GIVE verb -a. 'Transport' GIVE, 'take', and 'bring' show a middle range saliency of the role of the hands in the activity being described. Finally, each of these verbs is distinguished from all the others by the structuring of the conceptual content which is relevant to explaining their usages. This structuring includes the particular verb that serves as the derivational base for taking on the meaning of GIVE, the profiling or high­ lighting of such characteristics as the use of the hands, the shape of a tan­ gible object, the manner in which it is carried, the category of the entity within the overall class of life forms, the implication of what follows the giving, the particular stage of the transfer that is profiled, i.e. inceptive, imperfective or terminative, and the relative range of grammatical items and constructions that can function as complements of each of these verbs.

Abbreviations used in glosses ART= definite article; CNJ= conjunction; COMPL= completive; DEM= demonstrative; DIST=

distal location; DISTR= distributive; DUR= durative; EV= evidential; EXHRT= exhortative; EXT= extensive; HAB= habitual; INDEF= indefinite; LOC= locative; MED= medial; NARR=

narrative mode; PAUS= pausal; POT= potential mood; PROCOMP= procomplement; PRTC= participle; PST= past; Q= question marker; QCOMP= question complement; QNT= quantifier; QUOT= quotative; RZD= realized; SEQ= sequential; STAT= stative; SUBJ= subject;

SUBR= subordinator; TRNS= transitive; '=' indicates cliticization; for further abbreviations, see list on p. vi.

Lots of ways to GIVE in Cora

171

Notes *

The data in this paper come from a number of sources from fieldwork among the peo­ ple in the Cora community of Jesús María, Nayarit. I would like to express my grat­ itude to the many people who taught me their language. In particular, I would like to express my heartiest thanks to Professor Eusebio Zeferino Enriquez for his sponta­ neous lessons in the village that laid out for me the outlines of the complexities of it all. Both Tables 1 and 2 are based on his explanation to me of these verbs in February and March of 1972. I am also indebted to a number of Cora friends for examples and texts that they have given me in the course of field work under the auspices of the Summer Institute of Linguistics. Finally, thanks go both to my crusty, grizzley editor and to an anonymous referee for their comments and suggestions that have improved this paper very much. ¢ represents an alveolar affricate, h a soft post-velar fricative. The citation form of a morpheme may be modified when used in certain contexts, as can be seen in many examples in this chapter. No attempt will be made to explain all these modifications.

1.

This term was suggested to me by John Newman.

2.

This is an important typological parallel with the Muskogean system discussed by Haas (1978:302ff).

3.

For a sweeping discussion of the topic of Mental Models in general, see Johnson-Laird (1983).

4.

The Cherokee forms cited by Haas distinguish between (a) round objects, (b) long objects, (c) flexible objects, (d) liquids, (e) living beings, (f) containers with liquid contents, and (g) living being-nonhuman (Haas 1978:302-303). Cf. also the discussion of classifiers in the Chipewyan GIVE constructions discussed in Rice (this volume).

5.

I am indebted to my colleague David Tuggy for providing me with these data. He also notes that in the example on-ki-wika-k, the prefix on- no longer means 'away', as such, but has taken on an extended meaning of 'intensive' or 'suddenly do x' (David H. Tuggy, personal communication).

6.

The locative prefix wa- 'extensive throughout an area' has the surface form -aa fol­ lowing a direct object prefix, except for the case of 3rd person plural, in which case it surfaces as 'u-. Supporting this analysis is the fact that when the narrative mode prefix í- occurs immediately preceding wa- in a verb, wa- is realized as such phonologically. We can see this in example (i), in which narrative mode í- follows a first person plural direct object prefix and, in turn, is followed by wa-ta- 'extensive/com­ pletive-straight/perfective'. Contrast this with the morphemic shape of the same word without the narrative mode prefix í-, shown in (ii), as is common in everyday con­ versational usage. (i)

Ta-'i-wa-ta-pwéihve-'e-sin. US-NARR-COMPL-PERF-give-APPL-DUR

'He is going to give it to us.'

172

Eugene H. Casad (ii)

T-aa-ta-pwéihve-'e-sin. us-coMPL-PERF-give-APPL-DUR 'He is going to give it to us.'

7.

This usage also suggests the variation among speakers in the way that they categorize items. In this case, she construed the book as being like a single piece of paper, which prompted her use of the stem -píhte'e, whereas had she construed it as being a roughly square rigid entity, she would have used the stem -'i'ite. A thorough study of this vari­ ation is a subject of another paper, obviously, so, I do not discuss it further here.

8.

This text was provided by the late Fidel de Jesús at the Mitla, Oaxaca workshop cen­ ter in February of 1972.

9.

Both this form and the plural stem -háhpwa represent old reduplicated forms that have lost the word initial Proto-U-AZ * P -. The stem -háhpwa reflects the sound change *p > h/# (cf. Grimes 1959:22X). The plural form i'ipł'ł reflects the longer chain *p > h > ø/# . This change must have taken place prior to the prefixation of the sub­ ject, completive and perfective markers onto the Cora verb stem.

10.

The directionality of Cora 'carry' and 'take' vis-à-vis Cora 'bring' is reminiscent of Matisoff's characterization of the relation between GIVE and 'take' in Thai as 'outer directed' vs. 'inner directed' (Matisoff 1991:437-438). Watters notes that, in Tepehua, a Mexican Indian language of the Totonac-Tepehua family, the causative suffix links the pairs of verbs meaning 'come' and 'bring' and 'go' and 'take' (James Watters, personal communication).

11.

The -h following the locative prefix ra- 'in the face of' is probably inserted by a phonological rule in this context as not all of the 'bring' forms have it.

12.

The quotative particle nu'u, as used in this example can be glossed as 'X is called Y', e.g. 'he is called the "Secretary"'. In its more common usages, nu'u marks narrated events in discourse and can generally be glossed 'so they say'. In other contexts it can be used to indicate indirect discourse and can be glossed 'he says X'. Cora also has other quotative particles that mark direct discourse. The morphemic shapes are yee, yeehui and hui. The usages of these particles are discussed in considerable detail in Casad (1992).

13.

The term 'multiplex' is taken from Talmy (1988), which contains a lucid explanation of 'uniplex' and 'multiplex' construals of discrete, nameable entities.

References Casad, Eugene H. 1982. "Cora locationals and structured imagery." [UCSD doctoral dissertation.] Casad, Eugene H. 1984. "Cora." In Ronald W. Langacker (ed.), Southern Uto-Aztecan Grammatical Sketches. Arlington, TX: The University of Texas and the Summer Institute of Linguistics, 152-459.

Lots of ways to GIVE in Cora

173

Casad, Eugene H. 1992. "Cognition, history and Cora yee." Cognitive Linguistics 3:151186. Casad, Eugene H. 1993. '"Locations', 'paths', and the Cora verb." In Richard A. Geiger and Brygida Rudzka-Ostyn (eds.), Conceptualizations and Mental Processing in Language. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter [Cognitive Linguistics Re­ search 3], 593-645. Casad, Eugene H. 1995. "Seeing it in more than one way." In John R. Taylor and Robert E. MacLaury (eds.), Language and the Cognitive Construal of the World: Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 23-49. Casad, Eugene H. ms. "Where did nu go in Cora?" Paper presented to the 3rd Interna­ tional Cognitive Linguistics Association Conference, Leuven, Belgium, July 19-23, 1993. Casad, Eugene H. and Ronald W. Langacker. 1985. "'Inside' and 'outside' in Cora grammar." International Journal of American Linguistics 51:247-281. Givón, Talmy. 1989. Mind, Code and Context: Essays in Pragmatics. Hillsdale NJ and London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Grimes, Joseph E. 1959. "Huichol tone and intonation." International Journal of American Linguistics 25:221-232. Grimes, Joseph E. 1964. Huichol Syntax. The Hague: Mouton [Janua Linguarum Series Practica 11]. Haas, Mary R. 1978. "Classificatory verbs in Muskogee." In Mary R. Haas, Language, Culture and History: Essays by Mary R. Haas, Selected and Introduced by Anwar S. Dil. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 302-307. Haiman, John. 1980. "Dictionaries and encyclopedias." Lingua 50:329-357. Haiman, John. 1983. "Iconic and economic motivation." Language 59:781-819. Hawkins, Bruce W. 1984. "The semantics of English spatial prepositions." [UCSD doc­ toral dissertation.] Hopper, Paul. 1991. "On some principles of grammaticalization." In Elizabeth Closs Traugott and Bernd Heine (eds.), Approaches to Grammaticalization, Vol. 1. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 17-35. Johnson, Mark. 1987. The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination and Reason. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press. Johnson-Laird, P.N. 1983. Mental Models. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. King, Robert Thomas. 1988. "Spatial metaphor in German causative constructions." In Brygida Rudzka-Ostyn (ed.), Topics in Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 555-585. Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Langacker, Ronald W. 1977a. Studies in Uto-Aztecan Grammar, Vol. 1. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics and University of Texas at Arlington. Langacker, Ronald W. 1977b. "Syntactic reanalysis." In Charles N. Li (ed.), Mecha­ nisms of Syntactic Change. Austin, TX and London: University of Texas Press, 57-139. Langacker, Ronald W. 1987/199la. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vols. I and II. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

174

Eugene H. Casad

Langacker, Ronald W. 1991b. Concept, Image, and Symbol: The Cognitive Basis of Grammar. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter [Cognitive Linguistics Research 1]. Lastra de Suárez, Yolanda. 1980. El Náhuatl de Tetzcoco en la Actualidad. México D.F.: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Lauerbach, Gerda E. 1993. "Interaction and cognition: Speech act schemata with but, and their interrelation with discourse type." In Richard A. Geiger and Brygida Rudzka-Ostyn (eds.), Conceptualizations and Mental Processing in Language. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter [Cognitive Linguistics Research 3], 679-708. Lindner, Susan. 1981. "A lexico-semantic analysis of English verb-particle constructions with UP and OUT." [UCSD doctoral dissertation.] Matisoff, James A. 1991. "Areal and universal dimensions of grammatization in Lahu." In Elizabeth Closs Traugott and Bernd Heine (eds.), Approaches to Grammaticalization, Vol. II. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 383-453. Miller, Wick R. et al. 1988. Computerized Data Base for Uto-Aztecan Cognate Sets. Salt Lake City, Utah: University of Utah Research Committee. Newman, John. 1996. Give: A Cognitive Linguistic Study. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter [Cognitive Linguistics Research 7]. Rice, Sally. "Giving and taking in Chipewyan: The semantics of THING-marking classificatory verbs." This volume. Rudzka-Ostyn, Brygida. 1989. "Prototypes, schemas, and cross-category correspon­ dences: The case of ask." Linguistics 27:613-661. Rudzka-Ostyn, Brygida. 1996. "The Polish dative." In William Van Belle and Willy Van Langendonck (eds.), The Dative, Vol. 1: Descriptive Studies. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 341-394. Talmy, Leonard. 1985. "Force dynamics in language and thought." Papers from the Parasession on Causatives and Agentivity at the Twenty-first Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 293-337. Talmy, Leonard. 1988. "The relation of grammar to cognition." In Brygida RudzkaOstyn (ed.), Topics in Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 165-206. Tuggy, David. 1988. "Náhuatl causative/applicatives in Cognitive Grammar." In Brygida Rudzka-Ostyn (ed.), Topics in Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 587-618.

GIVE: Acts of giving in American Sign Language Phyllis Perrin Wilcox The University of New Mexico

1.

Introduction*

A giving frame in American Sign Language (ASL) may be analyzed in terms of Langacker's (1987) figure-ground distinction. The frame represents all the participants of a conceptualized scene and their semantic relation­ ships. An act of giving is dependent upon the interconnections involving one or more participants (referred to in this chapter as Giver, Thing, and Recipient) within the frame. The figure is perceived as the one participant within the giving scene that stands out and is profiled or highlighted against the ground. Langacker (1991) also refers to a participant with primary profile as the trajector. Other participants accorded special, but not primary, prominence in the organization of the scene are then called landmarks. In ASL giving constructions, the trajector and the landmarks can be both literal and metaphorical. Semantic differences can be found between the two main phonological forms of giving in ASL, GIVE1 and GIVE2. The basic prototype, GIVE1, is recognized as a predicate classifier verb with both literal and metaphor­ ical senses. A diachronic examination of a second GIVE verb, GIVE2, has resulted in the discovery of the semantic connections between the acts of giving in ASL and in langue des signes-francaise (LSF). Notwithstanding Klima and Bellugi's (1979) work on morphological inflection and McDonald's (1982) verb stem classification, there has been little previous research on the semantics of the ASL verbs of giving. The source of data for this paper came from both native and near-

176

Phyllis Perrin Wilcox

native users of ASL.1 Native users of ASL comprise less than ten per cent of the total deaf population due to the fact that only a small percentage are born of deaf parents who sign ASL. Thus, in the interest of descriptive lin­ guistics — to examine how ASL is used in the general deaf community — this author included a number of informants who learned the language in the manner of over ninety per cent of the deaf population — through later acquisition, rather than from birth. However, all informants for this study have been using the language for twenty years or longer and are consid­ ered by this author to be fluent and intuitive users of ASL. The organization of the paper focuses on the two main forms of the giving verb stems and their semantic distinctions. In Sections 2 and 3, the meanings are shown to be motivated by the predicate verb stems. Section 3 also examines the historical changes of GIVE2. Section 4 focuses on the metaphorical extensions of giving verbs, especially the metaphorical verb, GIVE2-IN-ARGUMENT. Section 5 indicates the various ways that giving has been nominalized. Section 6 concludes with general observations about the research findings.

2.

Prototype GIVE1

Newman (1996:46) recognizes that English words such as hand and hand over are partially synonymous with the meaning of 'give': "The signifi­ cance of the hands in characterizing the meaning of GIVE predicates is reflected in the way in which a morpheme meaning 'hand', 'palm', etc. may be incorporated into the GIVE construction." In ASL, the physical hand itself (not an iconic reference) and its patterned configurations and path movements are crucial to the semantic construction of the prototypical signed verb GIVE1. It is primarily the parameters of the hand — the handshape, the loca­ tion, the movement and the orientation of the palm — that determine the semantic operations of ASL (Stokoe, Casterline, and Croneberg 1965/76; Battison 1974).2 The phonological form of the handshape that represents the Thing can provide size and shape information about the object being trans­ mitted. The path movement indicates the locative relationship between the arguments and their agreement for location. In the GIVE1 prototype the path of motion from one agent (Giver) to

GIVE: Acts of giving in American Sign Language

177

Figure 1. Prototype GIVE] another agent (Recipient) is almost identical to the path that van Hoek (1992:187) has determined to function as a prototype for spatialized ref­ erence when pronominal signs are directed towards a physically-present referent. Instead of a straight pointing path, however, the give path of motion typically moves with a slight arc flowing upward from the Giver then downward toward the Recipient.3 2.1. General Spoken languages rely on the acoustic channel, and sounds lend themselves to a general sequential transmission. Spoken languages often have independent sequential morphemic units such as affixes added to the stem in a linear order, or independent words added to the sentence, (e.g. prepositions and adverbs). Signed languages, on the other hand, rely on the optical channel, and light (vision and space) lends itself to simultaneous transmission (Klima and Bellugi 1979). Whereas formational components are strung together sequentially for spoken languages, the components can be combined simul­ taneously in signed languages, although the phonology of ASL does also incorporate sequentiality (Liddell 1990). Supalla (1990) argues that in the realm of morphology, specifically in verbs of motion, there is a grammat­ ical limitation on the ability of ASL morphemes to occur simultaneously. Serial verbs of motion require sequential structure, even when the modal­ ity permits simultaneity. In vocal languages the act of giving has morphemes that show the parts of the frame of the act: the Giver, the Thing, the Recipient. In English, morphemes build sequentially into the trajector/landmark interaction. By

178

Phyllis Perrin Wilcox

contrast, in many Athapaskan languages (such as Koyukon), temporal, adverbial, and reflexive reference can be marked by discontinuous mor­ phemes which can be described as being neither wholly sequential nor wholly simultaneous (Axelrod 1993). In ASL, verb signs move back and forth between referential loci when marking coreference (van Hoek 1992: 183). In verb agreement found in the giving frame, the use of space is sequential in the process of moving from Giver to Recipient; it is simulta­ neous in that the object being passed is isomorphically part of the verb agreement process throughout the articulation of the sign. 2.2. Size and shape of object ASL is a predicate classifier language with the distinction of having nouns marked as being members of certain categories. In many spoken languages objects and events are generally referred to by name, with subsequent phy­ sical and qualitative attributes being introduced by adjectives, adverbs, or relative clauses. ASL, however, can use a word without actually naming the specific referent by selecting an appropriate classifier. It is similar in this respect to Navajo, a member of the Athapaskan family, and considered to be a rich predicate classifier language (McDonald 1982). When making use of an ASL classifier, partial specification of relevant points of information about a set of potential referents can be offered. Gradually, referents are further specified through the use of context, grammatical modifiers, and additional classifiers. In classifier constructions, nomináls, verbals, or adjectives can be represented by handshapes that serve as abstract seman­ tic markers to refer to prototype-structured categories of objects. Thus, ASL classifiers can function as pronouns and can describe in detail the size, shape, depth, or texture of an object. Figure 1 of the prototype GIVE1 depicts a 'handle' classifier (Schick 1990). 'Handle' handshapes are discrete categories of referents that vary along a continuous size or shape dimension. This multi-morphemic verb stem provides inherent active meaning to the verb that relates to the object handled. McDonald (1982) documented at least eighteen 'handle' classifiers in ASL. It is the configuration in the 'handle a thin flattish wide object' predicate verb stem that is realized in the prototypical verb GIVE1. Other classifier handshapes can be designated to handle an object being given to someone, but this particular configuration has acquired a 'frozen'

GIVE: Acts of giving in American Sign Language

179

status in ASL for the passing of any object from one person to another.4 This type of 'frozen' classifier form is semantically opaque and has wide distributional occurrence; internal morphological analysis no longer applies (Brennan 1990; McDonald 1982; Supalla and Newport 1978). Another example of this semantic opacity at work is in the ASL verb, TO-FALL. It is symbolized by the up-side-down V classifier handshape, which is com­ monly used to represent two-legged humans. At the frozen level, however, TO-FALL no longer represents the human legs, but simply the downwards motion responding to gravitational pull on any kind of animate or inani­ mate object, whether it is an elephant, a fork, or a book. Emmorey and Casey's (1995:274) findings on spatial language use (how one talks about space) suggest that when ASL users were asked to solve a set of spatial puzzles, the primary function of 'handle' verbs of motion was to express a change in location and direction for an inanimate object, and not for expressing the way an object should be held. In other words, the 'handle' classifiers were interpreted not so much as instructions for how to hold an object (in this case, a block) but for movement instruc­ tions instead. This suggests that although the shape of the hands may be used to identify the shape of an object being specified, there are further lin­ guistic functions that can override the iconicity of the handshape form. GIVE 1 can provide information about (1) control over the object, (2) the change of location from Giver to Recipient, and (3) the size and shape of an object. A message can indicate that a flat, thin thing — such as a piece of paper — is being passed between people. However, with the status of GIVE1 as a frozen word, the change of location becomes more salient than size and shape. As the word has become more frozen, and more acceptable as a vehicle for literally moving any thing between people, men­ tally conceived objects — as opposed to literal objects — have became passable. It will be shown that extended metaphorical abstractions such as the genetic information for eye coloring, or the values of a culture, can be passed on by using what was originally a 'handle' classifier for a thin, flattish, wide object. This semantic change follows the generalization that such change proceeds from the concrete to the abstract (Traugott 1974, 1982; Lakoff and Johnson 1980; Sweetser 1990). Typically, the 'handle' handshape realized in GIVE 1 represents the giving of objects ranging from the size of small keys to kitchen chairs. Other classifier (CL) handshapes, called size or shape specifiers (Baker and

180

Phyllis Perrin Wilcox

Cokely 1980), represent full nouns, such as GLASS or CUP. Janzen (1995) notes that classifiers often select a property of the noun (such as shape) to describe, and so may act in a sense like adjectives. When giving someone a glass of water, for example, the CL-cylindrical (a classifier that takes on a similar shape and size of the container) can be selected. Thus, specific hand configurations for giving an object, such as a videotape or a broomstick handle, can be encoded. The hand forms an iso­ morphic shape of an object enclosed by the palm, fingers, and thumb and presents an iconic image of the conceived thing that is being mentally 'held'. Not every conceivable handshape is acceptable; there are patterned and conventionalized shapes. The signer decides during discourse whether or not classificatory features will be selected. However, for an everyday occurrence of passing a Thing from a Giver to a Recipient, the frozen Flat-0 morpheme depicted in Figure 2a is generally selected. The prototypical giving frame in ASL differs from that in another polysynthetic language featured in this volume, Chipewyan (see Rice). This Athapaskan language obligatorily encodes animacy or shape verb stems with a near absence of either neutral or generic statements of giving. ASL does frequently encode and emphasize shapes of objects being passed, but it also maintains a prototype for the giving frame in general. A hallmark of Chipewyan is the near absence of figurative extension with 'giving' or 'taking'; ASL accepts metaphorical mapping in its giving frame.

Figure 2a. 'thin, flattish, wide handle' morpheme

GIVE: Acts of giving in American Sign Language

181

2.3. Change of control As in English (Newman 1996:46-47), insisting on a strong sense of pos­ session as the prototypical sense connected with most give predicates is not necessary. It is the semantic sense of a change of control over a Thing that is commonly realized in the prototypical giving act in ASL. In one narrative in my data an informant made use of the Flat-0 handshape to explain that her mother had passed a needle to a friend during a monthly craft and sewing session. The informant could have used an alter­ nate classifier verb stem that means 'handle a small or flattish object' (such as a seed or a piece of lint). If this had been the case, the CL: F classifier (Figure 2b) would have been used. But the salient meaning in this situation had to do with the passing of the needle from one person to another per­ son. The particular size or shape of the object was not the critical value of the message. Therefore, the Flat-0 morpheme of the prototype verb GIVE1 was selected, rather than a classifier that would show a more explicit shape and size of the needle being passed or manipulated. When a classifier is used primarily for descriptive purposes, the handshapes selected can give an indication of the size or the shape of that object. But in the GIVE1 construct, the handshape has acquired a 'frozen' status, and it is the function that becomes highlighted. There is still a weak isomorphic mapping of size and shape to be found in the handshape form, but the primary intent of GIVE1 is the function of passing a Thing from a Giver to a Recipient, resulting in a change of control.

Figure 2b. CL: F morpheme

182

Phyllis Perrin Wilcox

2.4. Change of location Mental spaces are conceptual representations "that we set up as we talk or listen and that we structure with elements, roles, strategies and relations" (Fauconnier 1985:1). In ASL, people or other referents are usually associ­ ated with locations in the signing space in front of the signer. Pronominal signs can be directed to the locations, and verb signs move between these loci to indicate their grammatical arguments. This structured array of loci, called the Fixed Referential Framework by van Hoek (1988:2), is charac­ terized by a representation of the contents of a particular mental space that Langacker (1991:97) refers to as the current discourse space. Within this mental space, people who are conceived as being physically present are associated with loci corresponding to their spatial locations. Typically, the person to be discussed is referenced by the use of indexing (pointing in the direction of the conceptualized person or object with the index finger). However, a signer who sets up a prototypical GIVE1 construct indicates that an object will be handed over (by articulating the sign and the appro­ priate non-manual markers for that object) in a distributional process that occurs sequentially from a starting point agent to an endpoint agent. For example, the Flat-0 morpheme may move from a first person singular loca­ tion (the center of the Giver's signing space) towards the direction of a Recipient. Thus, the object passing from Giver to Recipient is conceived of having been passed physically as well as temporally from one mental space to another. Van Hoek (1988) demonstrates in (1) that the visuospatial modality of ASL allows for the notion of a mental space dominion as part of the meaning of a word.5 As van Hoek (1988:10) says: "Give designates the transfer of the items into the possession of a recipient, resulting in the items being conceptually placed within the dominion associated with the recipi­ ent". Van Hoek's example, our (1), shows the direction of the movement of the give predicate and indicates transferal of Things between the Giver's and various Recipients' mental space dominions.6 Typically, as shown in this example, a Giver begins the verb of motion's process from the center of her own signing space and moves toward the center of the Recipient's signing space. It is also possible to set up mental spaces outside of the direct center of the Giver's normal signing space, although the commu­ nicative event remains within the entire current discourse space itself.

GIVE: Acts of giving in American Sign Language

183

Translation: 'Last Christmas I gave out presents to my family. I gave my father a drill, I gave my mother a microwave, and I gave my brother a bike. '

Suppose a signer is talking to two friends, Bill and Frank, as in Figure 3. In this scene the signer and Bill are in a common canonical encounter (the situation where two individuals interact face-to-face).7 In signing exchanges, a canonical encounter occurs when signers change their head and body orientation to indicate an original receiver of reported speech (Engberg-Pedersen 1995:149). Our signer requests that Frank reach down and give Bill a book that is on the low coffee table near him. To do this, she might turn slightly toward Frank, who is standing to Bill's left. She would then shift back to the original canonical encounter with Bill, who is once again directly in front of her.8 The signing of this request proceeds as in (2). The main context of the GIVE1 construct becomes active at her lower right side, close to where the actual book on the coffee table is located. The Flat-0 morpheme is then moved toward her far center front, where Bill is located, soon to become the Recipient of the book that will be given to him by Frank. In co­ occurrence with this passing motion, there may be a slight accompanying body shift of the signer from center, to lower right, ending back to center

184

Phyllis Perrin

Wilcox

Figure 3. A canonical encounter

again.9 Thus, GIVE1 does not have to originate from the signer's central signing space. (2)

BOOK (INDEX)right rightGIVElfar-center '(Frank), give the book to Bill.'

The GIVE1 in (2) is an everyday type of interaction used to demon­ strate when a conceived but physically present object is passed back and forth between people. In other words, an object is not physically picked up and passed to another person; the 'handle' classifier is commonly used to indicate the willingness to hand over a small object, such as a cookie or a book. A signer can 'give' a conceived Thing to a person directly in front of her by extending the GIVE1 verb stem toward that person, just as though an actual item were being offered. For a non-present referent, a mental space representing the conceived spatial location is utilized. It is commonly accepted ASL discourse practice that a subject and an object will be mentally 'set-up' in space before the verb is realized, allowing the verb to take an object. The mental space of the non-present Recipient can be activated by moving the GIVE1 morpheme from the dominion of the Giver's current discourse space toward the nonpresent Recipient's mental space domain. Commonly, the hand is extended

GIVE: Acts of giving in American Sign Language

185

outward toward the Recipient to indicate some kind of mentally-conceived relative distance. Movements in space can be contoured to create the morphological pro­ cessing of inflection found in an act of giving. Consider the inflectional pat­ terning of ASL giving verbs (Klima and Bellugi 1979:300-315): uninflected, multiple, exhaustive, durational, habitual, iterative, and so forth. For exam­ ple, an uninflected GIVE1 that shows the basic passing of an object from first person singular to second person singular can be inflected to indicate a giving scene of multiple indeterminate agents and objects. In addition to small items such as cookies or money, objects as large as chairs can be mentally conceived to pass from one person to another by using the GIVE1 morpheme.10 For example, one deaf woman demonstrated a scenario in which her mother had given her a set of four chairs. Her brother was not given any chairs because he did not have an apartment of his own at the time. Later, the daughter used GIVE1 to demonstrate that she gave two chairs to her brother when he eventually settled into his own apartment. The GIVE1 morpheme was chosen because the daughter was simply passing on to her brother the two chairs that their mother originally intended for him to have. (3)

LATER

centerGIVE1

left

'Later, (I) gave [a couple of chairs].' A book, a cookie, or objects the size of a chair, are readily given from Giver to Recipient by the use of the prototype morpheme. Relatively small objects of no great monetary or sentimental value are also passed from Giver to Recipient (or Recipients). Although the informants felt there was a restriction on size with the use of this morpheme, the acceptance was ambiguous over its use for an automobile. The morpheme was used, but more rarely. In one example, a young deaf boy teased an older woman, telling her that she should go out and buy a luxury car for her husband, then when they both passed away, she could give [using the GIVE1 mor­ pheme] the car to him. The woman laughed and teased back that she would give [GIVE1] the car to her own son, but certainly not to him. In both cases, Flat-0 verb stems were selected. Typically, however, the GIVE1 morpheme was not used to give a car to someone (see GIVE2 in Section 3). Another object that did not readily accept GIVE1 was the giving of a

186

Phyllis Perrin Wilcox

house. Many informants offered common folk explanations behind this restriction; they indicated that a house was "too large" or "too valuable" to be used in connection with that sign. This constriction complies with the earlier functional sense applied to the prototype morpheme — the passing of an object from one person to another. The following was not readily acceptable: (4)

*HOUSE (INDEX)left I leftGIVEl 'I gave that house (to Mother).'

right

Only when a house is given from one family member to another in a type of transmission by inheritance is the GIVE 1 morpheme typically acceptable.11 Informants indicated that a different morpheme (see GIVE2 in Section 3) would be more appropriate for giving something the size and the value of a home. 2.5. GIVE]-completive Often acting in concurrence with GIVE1 in many discourse situations is a completive verb that is similar to the give prototype. The only phonologi­ cal difference appears to be a final motion bound to the main verb stem morpheme. The sign ends with an opening extension of the fingers and thumb in an act of 'flinging out contents'. Preliminary analysis indicates that it often has to do with either plurality or the sense of finality. By bee et al. (1994:60) state: "Perhaps plurality is associated with the comple­ tive sense because to carry an activity or process through to completion, in many cases, would involve affecting multiple patients." The GIVE 1 completive morpheme is often associated with the distribution of Things to an unspecified number of Recipients. The sign can be articulated with two hands bent inward toward the waist, moving from the center signing space outwardly in arcs. The GIVE1-completive begins its articulation with the 'handle' classifier, and ends with the completive morpheme. The end morpheme of GIVE1-completive strongly resembles the phono­ logical morpheme found at the end of the ASL word FINISH. Although not identical, the form-meaning similarity between the two is striking. Bybee et al. (1994:61) note that completives with "finish" as a lexical source may develop into anteriors, with tense and aspect features of 'a past action with current relevance'. This connection does appear in my data. For example,

GIVE: Acts of giving in American Sign Language

187

typically pets are given food by use of the GIVE1-completive. In one exam­ ple, a deaf woman demonstrated that she fed her dog using the GIVE1 completive. She did not necessarily indicate that the act of feeding was finished, but that she had placed the dish on the floor, thus making it avail­ able to the dog. The common act of giving something to a pet typically takes the completive morpheme; rarely does it accept only the prototype GIVEi. Giving a collar or a special bone or play toy with the GIVE1 proto­ type is used only in instances where the pet is cherished and assumes human-like qualities in the mind of the Giver. The sense of thoroughly and completely releasing or passing an object to someone can also be found in GIVE1-completive. For example, one deaf woman referred to a jacket that a friend wanted her to give to another per­ son: Cleo told me to give the yellow jacket to Amy. In demonstrating how the jacket was passed, the GIVE1 prototype (moving in an arc from Cleo to the deaf person) indicated that Cleo gave the jacket to the deaf woman with the intention that it be passed on to their friend, Amy. Then the GIVEcompletive was articulated (moving from the deaf person's central space towards Amy's space domain), indicating a thorough release of the giving action. If an object is also expected to become a permanent possession of the Recipient, GIVE-completive is often accompanied by another give construction (see GIVE2 below) that adds this additional information to the discourse.

3.

GIVE2 (rotated wrist)

As demonstrated above, GIVE1 serves as a prototype for the giving frame in general. Although it was noted that money can be given by the use of the GIVEi morpheme, more typically, when ASL users refer to the giving of money, a different morpheme is used (Figure 4). GIVE2 is similar to the prototype verb in some aspects, but contributes additional semantic infor­ mation due to the phonemic verb stem difference. The alternating selection of the two different verb stems (found in GIVEi and GIVE2) in the giving path of motion between the Giver and the Recipient, creates mental spaces that manipulate and distinguish different mental constructs between the interlocuters.

188

Phyllis Perrin

Wilcox

Figure 4. GIVE2 (rotated wrist)

3.1. Permanence and 'money' GIVE2 involves several semantic features and motivates the senses of 'permanent possession', 'money', and 'value'. The path of motion between the arguments of GIVE2 retains the semantic senses of 'passing' and of 'change of control', which is congruent with the prototypical give scene. However, whereas the GIVE1 morpheme does not assume a strong sense of possession, GIVE2 does. This distinction is also found in Sochiapan Chinantec, where one construction refers to a temporary transfer of the Thing, and a second construction is used when the act of giving is irrevocable and the Thing truly becomes the possession of the Recipient (Foris, this volume p. 213; Newman 1996:267). If something is to be given to an ASL Recipient with the expectation that the Recipient will retain control over the object and will not pass it on to another, the GIVE2 morpheme is often selected. In contrast, GIVE1 is an everyday type of giving in which an object is passed on to another person without the expectation that it will remain permanently with that Recipient. The discussion below offers a general distinction between the two mor­ phemes. Their meanings are often fluid and they are commonly used inter­ changeably, yet several distinctions were discerned by my informants. If a Giver selects the GIVE2 morpheme in order to give an object — say a jacket — to a Recipient, the person receiving the jacket would assume that the article of clothing should not be passed on to another person. The handshape morpheme can imply that the Recipient will assume a perma-

GIVE: Acts of giving in American Sign Language

189

nent ownership role and will become the recipient of a 'gift' rather than just an 'object'. With this verb stem, permanent possession becomes salient. Many of the informants felt that if a Giver indicates the handing of a jacket to someone while subsequently using the GIVE1 handshape, and with no other explanation included, the Recipient might well wonder what he is to do with the jacket — why it is being passed on to him in the first place. If, on the other hand, the Giver used the GIVE2 morpheme, the Recipient would assume, for whatever reason, the jacket is probably his to keep. Without further instructions or explanations, he might still wonder why the jacket is being presented to him, but he would know that there are some expectations on his part to keep the jacket. The Recipient now has more than a change of control over the jacket. It has become his to own and to keep if he should be so inclined. This sense of permanent possession is not motivated directly by the handshape of the GIVE 2 's verb stem morpheme. Its etymology is more complex than an isomorphic classifier representation, although there are vestiges of iconicity in its distant past. It is difficult to document direct, causal links in the historical evolution of lexical items in ASL. There is no commonly accepted method of writ­ ing ASL.12 Videotapes have only recently begun to be used to accumulate and store literary works. However, there is documented historical relation­ ship between ASL and LSF (Lane 1984). This linguistic relationship plays out in the ASL verb, GIVE2, and in several signs related to money in LSF. A number of lexical items in LSF that relate to money seem to have evolved from the physical shape for coins found in the earlier 'money' signs preserved in Lambert (1865). The LSF word for MONEY looks like a mimed gesture of rubbing the thumb with the fingers to show coins or paper notes in a palm. Many modern LSF words that deal with money make use of a tight X-form handshape, which is phonologically similar to the earlier nineteenth century signs. Three such money-related signs are found in Figure 5 (Moody 1986; Girod 1990): ACHETER 'buy', CHER 'expensive', and DONNER UNE SUBVENTION 'subsidize'. Some other phonologically related signs (not pictured) are L'ARGENT 'money', BANQUE 'bank', DEPENSER 'to spend', DONNEZ UN DESSOUS DE TABLE 'to bribe', FAIRE DES COURSES 'to go shopping', FAIRE UN COLLECTE 'to make a collection', MOINS CHER 'less expensive', REMBOURSER 'to reimburse', and PRETER 'to lend'.

190

Phyllis P err in Wilcox

The phonological and semantic evolutions of the GIVE2 verb demon­ strate an extension from the LSF signs that denote 'money'. The tight Xform phoneme in the LSF words that deal with money is similar to the looser, extended X-form of the GIVE2 morpheme. However, there is little physical resemblance between the verb stem morphemes of GIVE2 and the LSF verb for give: DONNER. DONNER, with a Flat-0 morpheme, is phonologically identically to the ASL prototype GIVE1. Nevertheless, the verb stem that ASL users often select for the giving of money or donations is the X-form morpheme, rather than the Flat-0 verb stem. It is interesting to note that the word GIFT in LSF uses an "L" shape, and is articulated with a form and motion entirely different from the ASL GIVE2 and the ASL nouns for 'gift' (see "Nominalization of GIVE" in Section 5). Sweetser (1990:9) explains that words do not randomly acquire new meanings: "the multiple synchronic senses of a given word will normally be related to each other in a motivated manner." The composite senses of GIVE2 indicate that the path of motion between arguments supports the sense of passing and change of control found in the prototype. Additionally, the X-form handshape does not have an explicit classifier sense attached to it. Objects of any size or shape are typically given through the use of this verb stem. However, all informants in this study indicated that GIVE2 was often associated with the passing, the giving, or the donation of money. Not one informant expressed the opinion that the handshape may have come from any of the specific LSF words listed above. But each insisted that the sign was money-related. Several informants offered the opinion that the money sense found in the X-form handshape may have arisen "long ago".13 The folk etymology of the informants mirrors what we can surmise about GIVE2. In addition, and of linguistic importance, the physical form of the GIVE 2 verb stem is visually similar to a large number of signs having to do with money in LSF. A semantic extension has mapped onto the prototype ASL word for give via the X-form from LSF and motivates a semantic distinction between the two main ASL give verbs. Taking the diachronic study of GIVE2 further is an interesting LSF sign that shows the diverse path that semantics may take. The sign RENDRE HOMMAGE ('to pay one's respect to someone') was apparently metaphori­ cally derived from the gesture for tipping one's hat (tire son chapeau a in spoken French). RENDRE HOMMAGE uses the tight X-form handshape, representing a classifier shape for grasping the brim of a hat. However,

GIVE: Acts of giving in American Sign Language

191

192

Phyllis Perrin Wilcox

rather than move the hand outward and return it to one's head, as in physically tipping a hat, the metaphorical sign is made without the return movement to the head. Moody (1986) indicates that the long outward move­ ment demonstrates 'an idea of the intensity of the respect'. Metaphori­ cally, it also indicates that the sense of respect is being permanently offered, with no withdrawal forthcoming. The receiver retains the honor proffered. It may be impossible to determine exactly where the sense of permanent possession that is found in GIVE2 comes from. Yet the semantic paths found in the phonologically and morphologically similar LSF sign, REN­ DRE HOMMAGE, seem to flow metaphorically into this ASL giving word. 3.2. Sense of value A third sense pervading the everyday use of GIVE2 is that of conceived value. An object can be given with this verb stem even if it is of no mone­ tary worth if the item is valued by the giver or the receiver. For example, a deaf woman was making a craft and noticed that her seamstress friend had some tiny strands of Spanish moss that would make a lovely attach­ ment to her own handiwork. Upon asking if she could 'borrow' a piece of moss until she could buy some of her own, the second deaf woman insisted that under no circumstances would it be necessary to repay her. She would GIVE2 the moss to her friend. Moss is of little monetary worth. Yet, be­ cause one woman needed the moss, the other person realized its value and was willing to give the moss to her friend on that basis. This sense seems to derive subtly from the meaning of money and of its importance and value in society. The semantic envelope of GIVE2 is complex. The history of this verb stem is rich with semantic extensions. The original LSF classifier for the shape of a coin has evolved into a verb in ASL that incorporates complex meanings of permanent possession, money, and value. Our internal mental language is metaphorically structured from the external source domains of everyday experience. Through diachronic study it has become possible to trace the interaction of different meaning sources and to determine how signed words retain remnants of their source meanings while acquiring new semantic mappings.

GIVE: Acts of giving in American Sign Language

193

3.3. GIVE2-formally (non-rotated wrist) Informants commonly rotate their wrist when extending the GIVE2 verb stem toward a given Recipient.14 This everyday type of GIVE2 indicates common items being given, such as when a deaf man spoke of his brotherin-law using GIVE2 to give him a hair dryer as a Christmas present. Lakoff and Johnson (1980) and Sweetser (1990) argue that we model our under­ standing of the abstract, mental world through our pragmatic experience with the physical world. The flexible rotation of the wrist parallels with the everyday experience of flexibility and limp execution that we observe in our own interactions when routinely passing objects to one another. However, there are times when the giving wrist loses this lax rotation and instead displays little or no movement. The speed along the path of motion of the arms may also be slower. Additionally, both hands are some­ times used — thus motivating a sense of formality in the giving frame. This slower, deliberately tense presentation of an object motivates the GIVE2formally verb. Informants indicated that GIVE2-formally is usually reserved for spe­ cial occasions or for the awarding of a special gift honoring a person. The stiffness of the wrist iconically relates to the sense of formality found in the bestowing of an award. People usually put on special clothing or don more artifacts when conducting ceremonies of any kind. The occasional redundant use of two hands supports a notion of ceremony. One constant found in extremely formal giving presentations is the high extended arcing of the path of motion. The extra hand, the high arc movement, and the additional time expended into the articulation of the GIVE2-formally is different from everyday giving functions. When the GIVE2-formally morpheme is used to represent money, it usually designates the giving of financial sums such as grants from a government agency, or large donations to a non-profit corporation. Giving a friend a five-dollar bill can be articulated with GIVE2; being awarded a National Science Foundation grant rates the use of a GIVE2-formally variant.

194 4.

Phyllis Perrin Wilcox Metaphorical extension with GIVE1 and GIVE2

In ASL giving constructions of literal relationships, the Giver is construed as the figure (or trajector in Langacker's terms) and the Thing and Reci­ pient as the ground (or landmarks). In (1), (2), and (3) in Section 2.4, each Giver was the trajector of an object being passed to some receiver. In the following metaphorical example, there is no explicitly profiled Giver. The Recipient and the Thing are profiled and the Giver assumes landmark position. One informant had been complimented on her lovely green eyes, and she subsequently talked about the genetic inheritance of this physical trait. The scene had two frame dynamics, (1) the hereditary passing of genes; and (2) the ultimate acquisition of the genes by the deaf woman. Non-present referents were used in this scene by the association of loci that corre­ sponded to their conceived spatial locations. The woman used the prototype GIVE1 morpheme to indicate genetic heredity, beginning the articulation of the word in an area at her far hind right. This location represented the con­ ceived domain of her grandmother, placed higher than her own shoulders, perhaps indicating the mental space of a resting site in heaven. Her next movement arched closer to her right side, the location attributed to the men­ tal site of her father who had passed away recently. The endpoint of the next movement was contact with her own chest. In this giving scene it was not a Giver that was profiled, but a Thing — the physical trait. The genes being passed were conceived as a conceptual substructure perceived to 'stand out' from the remainder of the ground. Things, rather than Givers or Recipients, were accorded special prominence around the organization of this scene. Langacker (1991) tells us that it is a feature of human cognition that one and the same scene can be construed with different images or different figure-ground relationships. At the beginning of this scene, the grandmother, the father, and (by virtue of the possible continuity of genetics) the deaf woman herself, were land­ mark Givers of genes — a 'passive' type of giving was being described. As the Thing is passed through the hereditary stream of the frame, no agents are specified — only the genes being carried by the GIVE1 verb stem were highlighted in this conceptualized scene. The Giver and the Recipient, by virtue of not being specified, assumed landmark positions around the profiled Thing.

GIVE: Acts of giving in American Sign Language

195

The final endpoint of GIVE1 occurred when the verb sign made physi­ cal contact with the deaf woman's own upper chest. Instead of simply mov­ ing into the central signing space, as many of the prototypical GIVE1s do, there was actual physical contact accompanied by an eye blink. The men­ tal frame shifted at this endpoint, and the Recipient become the trajector of the giving scene. She received the hazel eye coloring. At the final endpoint, the Things (genes) and the Givers (departed relatives) became landmarks for the instantiation of the profiled Recipient. She became the figure, stand­ ing out against the ground. The conceived spatial locations of the grandmother and the father clearly marked non-present referents. In ASL the past is generally con­ ceived as being located slightly behind the signer's body, with the future being represented in the space in front of the body. Most descriptions of the general passing of genetic heritages are described with the prototype verb stem following a type of metaphorical time line. The distant past as a source of the hereditary trait maps on to the temporal sense of the time line. In discussing inheritance the GIVE1 morpheme is commonly initiated at the shoulder of the signer, with either one or two hands arcing downward. Each arc endpoint represents a mentally conceived domain of a generation, or a person from that generation. Thus, the GIVE1 construct of heritage shows agreement with present or non-present arguments, and metaphorically maps onto the abstraction of time. The eye blink in this mental frame is not an arbitrary physical gesture; it satisfies a purpose. Lakoflf and Johnson (1980) claim that people typically conceptualize the non-physical in terms of the physical. Our mental con­ cepts emerge from the constant interaction with the physical environment. When a human encounters an object near head-on, we often respond to this sudden intrusion by a blink of our eyes. In this case, the endpoint of the mental passage of genetic information was iconically represented by the mental image of the genes physically settling upon the deaf woman's chest. The deaf woman reacted to the mental encounter by blinking. Shutting or blinking the eyes carries a sense of reaction to something entering one's domain and also a sense of finality, just as a door shuts out intruders, or a book is closed at the end of the reading of a novel. This eye blink repre­ sents a mental encounter, but also a termination — a closure of a complex linguistic event.

196

Phyllis Ferrin Wilcox

4.1. GIVE1 and GIVE2-formally in metaphorical and literal frames The next example shows GIVE1 and GIVE2-formally in a complex interac­ tion of both literal and metaphorical natures. One deaf woman differenti­ ated between the two give morphemes in a hypothetical scenario involving an army base that was located directly across the street from a residential school for the deaf. According to the story, the school was in a run-down condition and in need of a new coat of paint; the army base had many left­ over cans of paint lying around going to waste. Imputing human qualities into the army base, the deaf woman explained that the army base decided to donate paint to the school. Her give choice to manifest this personi­ fication of the army base was the use of GIVE2-formally. The word was articulated with only a slight rotation of the wrist; there was formality involved in the sign production. GIVE2-formally functioned in terms of metonymy, with the army base representing a collection of government personnel mak­ ing a humane decision to present a gift in a ceremonial manner. Next the woman made use of an ASL discourse strategy called role shift and assumed the role of an officer asking for a volunteer who would be willing to actually deliver the paint to the school. Finishing up her story, the deaf woman shifted her torso once more and assumed the role of that volunteer, raising her hand and signing GIVE1, extending it toward the direction of the school: (i.e. "I will give [GIVE1] the paint to the school."). This second give construction represented the act of physically taking the paint across the street to the school building. The semantic differences between the two give signs were made ex­ plicit by the storyteller's morpheme choices. The first morpheme encoded formality and the presentation of a gift to the school; the second morpheme indicated a change of control taking place between the army base and the school when the paint was passed from one location to the other. 4.2. GIVE1 and GIVE2-formally in metaphorical interaction Langacker (1991:315) states: ". . . an expression's meaning cannot be reduced to an objective characterization of the situation described: equally important for linguistic semantics is how the conceptualizer chooses to con­ strue the situation and portray it for expressive purposes." The next exam­ ple shows give signs being used interchangeably in metaphorical senses,

GIVE: Acts of giving in American Sign Language

197

with no literal transferal taking place. A deaf activist was performing before an audience of mostly young deaf adults. At the end of his performance, he confided to the audience that his mother — whom many people in the theater knew — had recently passed away. He spoke lovingly about the deaf pride that she had instilled in him as a young boy. He explained that it had been his mother who had given him the signed language that he now used to entertain others, the knowledge of deaf culture that he cherished, the sense of humor that he used to overcome life's hard obstacles, and his understanding of deaf heritage and history. After telling the audience all of this, he signed: (5)

MOTHER

right[two hands]GIVE 1 center

L-E-G-A-C-Y [fingerspelled] right[two hands]GIVE2-formally center — [role Shift] center[two hands]GIVE1 (audience) — center[two

hands]GIVE 2 -formally(audience)

'Mother gave me a true gift, a legacy, and I, in turn, have passed it on to other deaf people.' In this example, it is not physical Things that are being given, but cul­ tural abstractions — language, heritage, history. The abstract directionality is explicit. The mental image of the mother was situated higher than the actor himself, either due to his remembrance of his mother being taller when he was a child receiving these 'gifts', or his mother now being in heaven. The abstract Things that his mother gave him moved downward into his signing space, then passed on in a canonical encounter to the audi­ ence in front of him. In the metaphorical scene above, the actor's mother did not physically give him anything that he could literally pass on to the audience. Metaphors are conceptual mappings (Lakoff and Turner 1989). The source domain concept of a physical object mapped onto the abstract target domain con­ cept of the historical 'thing' — heritage, culture, language. These abstrac­ tions were then metaphorically passed on in much the same way that one would give food or clothing to others. This semantic extension enables abstract ideas about culture or language to be given from one person to another in ASL.

198

Phyllis Perrin Wilcox

4.3. Metaphorical

GIVE2-IN-ARGUMENT

When the GIVE2-IN-ARGUMENT construction is executed, literal objects are rarely implied (Figure 6). While it is possible for a physical object to be involved in the discussion surrounding this verb, the object is of sec­ ondary importance. Usually, the debate is over some abstraction, such as the correct spelling of a word, or who might be the more talented seam­ stress, or the date when a new car was bought. If the argument revolves around who is to get to keep a box or an item, even though someone gives in and allows another person to take the item home, the argument itself is of primary focus when GIVE2-IN-ARGUMENT is used. The person who decides to cease arguing over an object willingly decides to allow the addressee to assume possession of the Thing. But this type of argument where an object is actually in the center of the debate is rare. Typically, an abstract, argumentive point is ceded. The handshape is identical for both GIVE 2 and GIVE 2 -IN-ARGUMENT. Yet the two signs differ in important ways. In GIVE2, there is usu­ ally a slight rotation of the wrist as the verb stem leaves the center of the Giver's space domain and is directed toward the mental space domain of the Recipient. In a GIVE2-IN-ARGUMENT construct, there is typically no rotation of the wrist.15 The wrist movement is stiffened and the movement arc is long and extended (similar to GIVE2-formally). The most interesting aspect is the initial location. In an iconic representation of the distancing that the Giver feels when deciding to cede an argument, the GIVE2-IN-

Figure 6. GIVE2-IN-ARGUMENT

GIVE: Acts of giving in American Sign Language

199

ARGUMENT verb stem originates away from the Giver's own body. The meaning of this word seems clear: I am giving up something to you, but it is not from the 'heart'. Neither is it from the central signing space. The sign construct usually begins over the shoulder of the dominant hand. It ends in the same location as the other GIVE verbs — the endpoint of the arc travels toward the Recipient. There are additional non-manual markers that support the iconicity of this metaphorical giving act. If an argument becomes slightly heated before the Giver decides to cede a point, the Giver often will not look into the eyes of the Recipient — one of the few times that eye contact does not take place between the participants in ASL giving frames. In addition, the chin may tilt either upward or downward, but definitely back and off to the side, physically and mentally distancing the Giver from the Recipient. Many informants indicated that the sign WILLING often precedes GIVE2-IN-ARGUMENT. Yet, the message conveyed is the denial of giv­ ing. Even though an argumentive point might be given 'willingly' on the part of the Giver, the message strongly suggests that it does not come from generosity, but rather for the sake of expediency or peacekeeping. One example contributed by an informant demonstrates the use of GIVE2-IN-ARGUMENT as a discourse marker. The informant was recount­ ing an argument that she had with a friend. She wanted very much to get her point across. At one point her friend decided to stop the discussion, signing that he would GIVE 2 -IN-ARGUMENT to her. She inflected the verb, executing it as though it came from his direction toward herself, then shook her head, protesting that she adamantly refused to accept the end of the argument. She insisted on continuing until she could make her point. GIVE2-IN-ARGUMENT had been used not only for the 'giving in' of a metaphorical point, but as an indication that the discussion was being closed. This give frame took on the form of a discourse marker, guiding the interlocutors during their communicative interaction. Thompson and Mulac (1991:320) observe that "as the function of a grammaticized element narrows, so does the variety of forms." With most give words, flexibility is allowed as to whether one or two hands are used without affecting the change of meaning. In certain giving contexts, the use of two hands can indicate more formality, or a greater degree of ceremony, or even more of an item being given. Meaning does not drastically change with the use of two hands — usually only the degree is affected. However,

200

Phyllis Perrin Wilcox

with GIVE2-IN-ARGUMENT, there is a restriction to one hand during its execution. It may be ungrammatical to use a two-handed GIVE2-IN-ARGUMENT. A replacement of the verb stem with the GIVE1 prototype mor­ pheme also renders the word to be ungrammatical. Diachronic examination of GIVE2-IN-ARGUMENT indicates that sem­ antic extension has taken place. Further study may determine if some basic kind of grammaticization principles can be applied to this word. Functional layering of ASL give words is emerging, with the older forms being re­ tained. The LSF classifier noun for money has extended to verbs in LSF, which have diachronically carried over to GIVE2 in ASL. Both the X-forms and the 'handle' forms of the giving frame are coexisting in ASL. The 'han­ dle' form is not necessarily being discarded, but has become frozen into the prototypical giving frame. GIVE2-IN-ARGUMENT shows a semantic diver­ gence from GIVE2. The verb stem phonology of both signs have a common etymology, but diverge functionally. GIVE2 remains an inflected verb of both literal and metaphorical nature; GIVE2-IN-ARGUMENT has become a verb of metaphorical mapping only, while functioning as a discourse marker in its operations. 4.4. Use of humor One recently married deaf woman elaborated on how her new mother-inlaw bought her a very expensive wedding gift. As she retold the story, she indicated that the gift was given to her with the GIVE2 morpheme, with its semantic implication of permanence. Then she added a bit of humor, teas­ ing that she later gave the wedding gift away, using the GIVE1 morpheme. When she noticed that this joke got a chuckle from her mother-in-law, she played up the humor further, saying that if her mother-in-law gave her a wedding gift (using GIVE2), then she would give it away to another person (also using GIVE2). The distinct implication in the first joke that an expen­ sive gift was being blithely 'passed on' by the daughter-in-law caused a humorous conflict. No daughter-in-law wishing to establish a good relation­ ship with her new mother-in-law would nonchalantly pass on her wedding gift in that manner. The second joke implied that the wedding gift would become an unwanted second-hand gift to another person, a clear insult to the mother-in-law's loving gesture. Both the deaf daughter-in-law and the mother-in-law laughed at this playful insult.

GIVE: Acts of giving in American Sign Language

201

If the two give verb stems' semantic contents were identical or wholly interchangeable, there would have been no humor in the exchange. But the deaf woman's use of inappropriate and ungrammatical morphemes created linguistic contrasts that resulted in humor. Another use of humor highlighted the sense of value found in the GIVE2 sign. One deaf woman said that if she won a $10,000 lottery, she would give her brother a penny. The use of the GIVE2, with its connota­ tion of value, was in contradiction with the worth of a penny. Using that sign created a semantic conflict of false generosity that caused her brother to laugh. 4.5. Productivity of metaphorical extension in GIVE words There are many semantic extensions for give found in English. One sub­ category of such extensions is illustrated in (6) (Newman 1996:15). (6)

a.

give [advice, opinion etc.] = 'to express [advice, opinion etc.] to someone' b. give one's word = 'to promise' c. give permission, consent etc. = 'to permit' d. give a hand = 'to help' e. give a push = 'to push' f. give a punch = 'to punch'

In ASL, "equivalents" of the above English phrases (with the possible exception of (6a)) do not include either of the verb stem morphemes of GIVE1 or GIVE2 as described in this chapter.16 Further research is needed before determining how cognitively extended these expressions are to the give variants. However, an initial examination shows that ASL equivalents of the above English expressions are all produced with an outward motion from the first person. Newman (1996:144-145) discusses the literal emer­ gence of a Thing coming from a zone of some sort. He also sees an abstract motion of a Thing out of a sphere of control or imaginary boundary around the Giver. In some languages the meaning of give expressions has been built upon this kind of emergence of some entity from another. There is a kind of abstract motion in this emergence that motivates the metaphorical extensions of the giving frame. ASL metaphorical extensions of this nature need further research.

202 5.

Phyllis Perrin Wilcox Nominalization of GIVE

Although GIVE2 has often been glossed into spoken English by signed lan­ guage interpreters as the noun "gift", this nominalization was not accepted by most informants in the study. The previously described give signs were used for nouns only in a few situations and by only a couple of individ­ uals. Rarely, one or two individuals accepted GIVE2 rapidly executed twice with one hand, or GIVE2 executed once with two hands, as a noun. Most informants found these executions to be understandable, but ungrammatical. A noun was usually indicated through the use of fingerspelling. Informants chose to spell out G-I-F-T or P-R-E-S-E-N-T or D-O-N-A-T-I-O-N when specifying a noun. One acceptable signed variant used two GIVE2 hands executed close together (actually touching) with a small arcing motion. An acceptable process to detail more information about the noun was the almost immediate incorporation of the passing of the object classifier with the GIVE2 articulation. For example, an outline of the shape of an object or the mimed motion of a wrapped item can precede the GIVE2 word (see (8) below). GIVE-CL-videotape is a variant of GIVE1 that shows the size and shape of an object given. (7)

WHERE MY 'Where's my gift?'

G-I-F-T

(8)

NEW VIDEOTAPE I GIVE-CL-videotape 'I gave (someone) a new videotape.'

(9)

*NEW

VIDEOTAPE

I

CL-wrapped-box

GIVE2

GIVE2

GTVE-CL-videotape

In (7) the G-I-F-T is fingerspelled to represent a noun, then the clas­ sifier for that particular gift is explicitly mimed. In (8) the classifier for a videotape was articulated with one hand immediately prior to GIVE2 with the second hand, in an almost simultaneous act of giving. It would be ungrammatical to articulate GIVE2 first, as in (9). As mentioned earlier, it is also possible to give objects of different sizes by singularly using a classifier that correlates to their shape and size. For example, stacks of papers, a mug of hot chocolate, one single key, blackboard erasers, a ball-point pen, a cardboard box, and so forth, can be passed by an appropriately formed size and shape specifier without the inclusion of a give sign. The iconic representation of the object is incor-

GIVE: Acts of giving in American Sign Language

203

porated into the movement from Giver to Recipient to result in the giving of that item (see similarities of this classifier construction in Chipewyan giving frames, described in Rice, this volume).

6.

Conclusion

The giving frame in ASL demonstrates clearly that slight handshape, loca­ tion, and motion changes affect the meaning of ASL words. This prelim­ inary study indicates that there is much more to be researched, especially the meanings underlying arc movements between arguments, hand-spread extensions, and wrist rotations. However, a cognitive framework of lin­ guistic analysis may lead to discoveries of a possible grammaticization path that can disclose further the semantics of give constructions. One mecha­ nism of change exhibited in ASL give words — metaphorical extension — reveals successive semantic changes that show ASL is following a process of grammatical evolution that spoken languages follow. Further crosslinguistic study between LSF and ASL diachronic relationships will reveal additional semantic information about the visual gestural languages. This chapter only touches the surface of the complexity of give frames in ASL. However, it is obvious that many of the semantic extensions that can occur in the spoken languages represented in this volume can also occur in ASL. How deaf people typically conceptualize the nonphysical in terms of the physical can help us to examine the intriguing area of meta­ phorical mapping found in all human minds and human languages.

Convention used in glosses In this chapter all uppercase words are English or French glosses for ASL/LSF words, following the conventionalized method used for writing these glosses.

204

Phyllis Perrin Wilcox

Notes *

I would like to extend special gratitude to my 'French connections': Penny BoyesBräm, Alex Bonucci, and Paula Bramante. Informants who graciously extended their knowledge to this research were Leticia Arellano, Gabriel Arellano, Toni Eidson, J.M. Lee, Bob Moore, Henri Grau, Bonnie J. Rudy, Sandra Sandoval, Cleo Torrez, Gloria Wickham, Amy Wickham, Amy Willman. Graphics were produced by Sherman Wilcox. I benefited from and enjoyed discussions about GIVE with Joan Bybee, Larry Gorbet, Bill Isham, Terry Janzen, Barbara O'Dea, Jo Santiago, Joanne Scheibman, Barbara Shaffer, and Sherman Wilcox. However, any misconceptions or errors are my own.

1.

The one hearing informant was the sole hearing member of an all deaf family. There is debate over what constitutes American Sign Language. Because this author was interested in how give is used sociolinguistically in the deaf community, signs that occurred naturally in the data were accepted as being representative of normal ASL discourse usage. To examine native signing use solely, further research is needed.

2.

Non-manual markers, as well as body stance and shift, play important semantic and syntactic roles in ASL. However, for the purpose of this article, the main focus will be upon the hands, their movements, and their subsequent relationships with the arguments.

3.

There are other variants of the ASL GIVE 1 's arc and path of motion that deserve fur­ ther research, but cannot be described fully within the scope of this paper. Especially interesting semantically is the GIVE 1 arc that begins with the palm down, smoothly flowing into the palm flipped upward and outward toward the Recipient.

4.

French Sign Language, or langue des signes-francaise (LSF), the language with which ASL has its closest linguistic ties, has a sign that appears to be identical in form and motion to the ASL GIVE 1 sign (Moody 1986). However, diachronic research with this data corpus has not yet indicated whether the LSF give construction has acquired the same 'frozen' semantic status.

5.

In the van Hoek (1988) example, there is no specification of handshape morpheme.

6.

Shaffer's (1996) description of van Hoek's conventions on spatial information follows: An arrow pointing down and to the right will indicate a sign which has a path move­ ment away from the signer and toward a space to the signer's LEFT. An arrow point­ ing down and to the left indicates a sign which has a path movement away from the signer and toward a space to the signer's RIGHT. An X (on the right, left, or center) indicates the space in which a sign is articulated relative to the signer's body.

7.

This concept was first found useful by Clark (1973) in understanding the semantics of spatial terms such as front and back in spoken language communications.

8.

Additional eye gaze, body stance, and non-manual markers contribute significant semantic and syntactic information in this kind of exchange. The description above focuses simply on the beginning and the endpoint of the path of motion.

GIVE: Acts of giving in American Sign Language

205

9.

It is also possible for the signer to remain in canonical encounter position with Bill and move her arm from lower right to far center, but the request must still be accom­ panied by appropriate eye gaze, non-manual markers, or head movement to indicate Frank's inclusion in the scene.

10.

The various arc morphemes that accompany the verb stems in this data corpus have not been analyzed in depth. The author recognizes a need for research in this area.

11.

Note in the earlier example of the young deaf boy asking the older deaf woman to GIVE1 him a car, some sense of heredity meaning could have been at play, thus apply­ ing a semantic cloak of acceptance to that particular usage.

12.

Several writing systems have been devised by linguists and others (Newkirk 1987; Stokoe, Casterline, and Croneberg 1976; Sutton 1981), but their systems are not commonly used by native signers in the deaf community.

13.

ASL is historically related to LSF. In the early 19th century, Laurent Clerc, a young deaf teacherfromParis, France, was persuaded by Thomas Hopkins Gallaudet, a Protestant minister, to travel to America and establish the first American School for the Deaf in Hartford, Connecticut. The language taught by Clerc mixed with the indigenous lan­ guage used by his young American students to become modern ASL (Lane 1984).

14.

The supination is not to be confused with the up-down flex found in the ASL modals MUST and NEED.

15.

The author has seen a variant articulated with a smaller movement and with wrist rota­ tion; the semantics of this difference needs to be examined. However, all the exam­ ples offered by the informants in this study were of the type noted above; therefore, discussion will center on that variant.

16.

Translation is an approach and not an equivalency and any word-for-word technique will render the translation ineffectual (Seleskovitch 1978; Frishberg 1990). However, there are, of course, ways to express the 'giving of a promise' in ASL. This is what is referred to as an "equivalency" above.

References Axelrod, Melissa. 1993. The Semantics of Time: Aspectual Categorization in Koyukon Athabaskan. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Baker, C. and D. Cokely. 1980. American Sign Language: A Teacher's Resource Text on Grammar and Culture. Silver Spring, MD: T.J. Publishers, Inc. Battison, Robin. 1974. "Phonological deletion in American Sign Language." Sign Lan­ guage Studies 5:1-19. Brennan, Mary. 1990. Word Formation in British Sign Language. Stockholm, Sweden: University of Stockholm.

206

Phyllis Perrin

Wilcox

Bybee, Joan, Revere Perkins, and William Pagliuca. 1994. The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Clark, Herbert. 1973. "Space, time, semantics, and the child." In T. Moore (ed.), Cogni­ tive Development and the Acquisition ofLanguage. New York: Academic Press, 27-63. Emmorey K. and Shannon Casey. 1995. "A comparison of spatial language in English and American Sign Language." In Sign Language Studies 88:255-288. Engberg-Pedersen, Elisabeth. 1995. "Point of view expressed through shifters." In K. Emmorey and J. Reilly (eds.), Language, Gesture, and Space. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 133-154. Fauconnier, Gilles. 1985. Mental Spaces: Aspects of Meaning Construction in Natural Language. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Foris, David. "Sochiapan Chinantec GIVE: A window into clause structure." This volume. Frishberg, Nancy. 1990. Interpreting: An Introduction. Silver Spring, MD: Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf, Inc. Girod, Michel. 1990. La Langue des Signes: Tome 3. Dictionnaire Bilingue Elementaire. Vincennes: International Visual Theatre. Hopper, Paul J. 1991. "On some principles of grammaticization." In Elizabeth Closs Traugott and Bernd Heine (eds.), Approaches to Grammaticalization, Vol. I. Amster­ dam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 17-35. Janzen, Terry. 1995. A Description of PUT, a Dependent Classifier, and an Aspectual Marker in ASL. Unpublished paper. University of New Mexico. Klima E. and U. Bellugi. 1979. The Signs of Language. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Lakoff, George and Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lakoff, George and Mark Turner. 1989. More Than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lambert, Par M. L'abbe. 1865. La Langage: De La Physionomie and Du Geste. Paris: Jacques Lecoffre, Libraire-Editeur. Montreal: Institution des Sourds-Muers. Lane, Harlan. 1984. When the Mind Hears: A History of the Deaf. New York: Random House. Langacker, Ronald W. 1987/1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vols. I and II. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Liddell, S.K. 1990. "Four functions of a locus: Reexamining the structure of space in ASL." In C. Lucas (ed.), Sign Language Research: Theoretical Issues. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press, 176-198. McDonald, B.H. 1982. "Aspects of the American Sign Language predicate system." Ph.D. dissertation, University of Buffalo. Moody, Bill. 1986. La Langue des Signes: Tome 2. Dictionnaire Bilingue Elementaire. Vincennes: International Visual Theatre. Newkirk, D. 1987. Architech: Final Version (Signfont Handbook). San Diego, CA: Emerson and Stern Associates.

GIVE: Acts of giving in American Sign Language

207

Newman, John. 1996. Give: A Cognitive Linguistic Study. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter [Cognitive Linguistics Research 7]. Rice, Sally. "Giving and taking in Chipewyan: The semantics of THING-marking classificatory verbs." This volume. Schick, B. 1990. "The effects of morphosyntactic structure on the acquisition of classi­ fier predicates in ASL." In C. Lucas (ed.), Sign Language Research: Theoretical Issues. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press, 358-374. Seleskovitch, Danica. 1978. Interpreting for International Conferences. Washington, DC: Pen and Booth. Shaffer, Barbara. 1996. "The structure and function of the comparative frame in ASL." Unpublished paper. University of New Mexico. Stokoe, W.D., D. Casterline, and C. Croneberg. 1965. A Dictionary of American Sign Language on Linguistic Principles. (Reprinted 1976 ed.). Silver Spring, MD: Linstok Press. Supalla, Ted. 1990. "Serial verbs of motion in ASL." In S.E. Fischer and P. Siple (eds.), Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Supalla, T. and E. Newport. 1978. "How many seats in a chair?" In P. Siple (ed.), Understanding Language through Sign Language Research. New York: Academic Press, 91-132. Sutton, V. 1981. Sign Writing for Everyday Use. Newport Beach, CA: Center for Sutton Movement Writing. Sweetser, Eve. 1990. From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Thompson, S.A. and A. Mulac. "1991. A quantitative perspective on the grammaticization of epistemic parentheticals in English." In E.C. Traugott and B. Heine (eds.), Approaches to Grammaticalization, Vol. II. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 311-333. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1974. "Explorations in linguistic elaboration: language change, language acquisition, and the genesis of spatio-temporal terms." In John M. Anderson and Charles Jones (eds.), Historical Linguistics, Vol. I. Amsterdam: North Holland, 263-314. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1982. "From propositional to textual and expressive mean­ ings: Some semantic-pragmatic aspects of grammaticalization." In Winfred P. Lehmann and Yakov Malkiel (eds.), Perspectives On Historical Linguistics. Amster­ dam: Benjamins, 245-271. van Hoek, Karen. 1988. "Mental space and sign space." Paper presented at the Linguis­ tics Society of America Conference, December 29, 1988. New Orleans. van Hoek, Karen. 1992. "Conceptual spaces and pronominal reference in American Sign Language." Nordic Journal of Linguistics 15:183-199.

Sochiapan Chinantec GIVE: A window into clause structure David Foris Summer Institute of Linguistics

1.

Introduction

Sochiapan Chinantec (SC)1 has eight inflectionally related2 forms of GIVE. The form of GIVE which occurs in any given context is determined by the interaction of four factors: (i)

transitivity — the number of semantic arguments (one, two, or three); (ii) the animacy of the THING given; (iii) voice — the term 'voice' includes the active/direct, inverse, pas­ sive, and antipassive (Givón 1994:8,9); and (iv) the person of the RECIPIENT, where subject and indirect object may be either coreferential (reflexive or reciprocal), or noncoreferential.

A discussion of GIVE serves to introduce a variety of factors relevant to SC clause structure. As Newman (to appear, §1) remarks: "One could say that the study of 'give' . . . serves as a kind of window on the basic mechanics of clause structure in a language". The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate four things: (i) (ii)

the complex morphology which is exhibited to some extent for all SC verbs, but most of all, for GIVE; the topicality of the semantic arguments as shown by means of permutations in their order, and the constraints on those

210

David Foris

(iii)

(iv)

permutations which arise as the factors of transitivity, relative animacy of the core arguments, and voice are taken into account; the semantic implications which arise as a result of the different ways the semantic arguments are encoded (one of the more interesting semantic implications which arises is the distinction between 'irrevocable give' and 'entrust with'); and as the factors of voice, transitivity, animacy of the THING given, and person of the RECIPIENT change, GIVE is not always indexed for every semantic argument. This in itself is interesting: which semantic arguments are indexed on GIVE as each factor changes, and which are not?

In SC, nominais are not marked for case or number. SC verbs are indexed for the person of the subject, primarily by changes in tone and stress, following an accusative pattern. The indexing of verbs for animacy, however, follows an ergative pattern: An 'inanimate verb' is one which is indexed for an inanimate subject if intransitive, or an inanimate direct ob­ ject if either transitive or ditransitive; an 'animate' verb is one which is in­ dexed for an animate subject if intransitive, or an animate direct object if either transitive or ditransitive. Animacy is marked on the verb primarily by nasalisation of the vowel nucleus, indicated orthographically by a postvocalic n. This ergative pattern of indexing applies only to verbs which are inflected for direct voice. Verbs which are inflected for inverse voice are not indexed for the animacy of the direct object — they are morpho­ logically neutral (neither ergative nor accusative). The verb GIVE, as will be seen, does not entirely conform to this characterisation of an animate verb. Further details on accusativity and ergativity with reference to GIVE are supplied where relevant. (For further information on verb inflection, see Foris 1993:83-202). SC has eight inflectionally related forms for GIVE. The citation forms (3rd person present) and the syntactic constructions in which they function are set out in Table 1. The full morphology of GIVE is presented in §8. Note that although the second and third citation forms in Table 1 are identical, the tone-stress paradigms for these forms are not identical — see Table 5 and Table 6 in §8.

Sochiapan Chinantec GIVE

211

Table 1. The inflectionally related forms of GIVE 1.

cue32

2. 3. 4. 5.

cueh32 cueh32 cuen2 cue2

6. 7. 8.

cú1 jienh1 cuén1 cué1

2.

Ditransitive and transitive GIVE

intransitive inanimate (II), transitive inanimate (TI), or ditransitive inanimate inverse (DI:I) ditransitive inanimate (DI) ditransitive inanimate reflexive (DI reflexive) transitive animate (TA) or ditransitive animate (DA) transitive animate inverse (TA:I) or ditransitive animate inverse (DA:I) ditransitive inanimate reciprocal (DI reciprocal) passive form of the transitive animate and ditransitive animate passive form of the transitive inanimate and ditransitive inanimate

Newman (to appear, §2) notes that: . .. one finds that either the Thing or the Recipient in the giving scene may be encoded as the patient. . . . Maori allows only the Thing as object, Ojibwa and Tzotzil have only the Recipient as object, while both types are found in West Greenlandic.

This observation raises the following questions for SC: (i)

When the direct object + oblique construction of transitive GIVE is used, is the THING or the RECIPIENT encoded as the object? (The term 'transitive' implies a monotransitive construction, and stands in contrast to ditransitive and intransitive.) (ii) Are the semantic implications of the transitive construction (direct object + oblique) and the ditransitive constructions identical? (iii) In the ditransitive construction, is the verb indexed for the THING, the RECIPIENT, or both? (iv) Is the transitivity of GIVE indexed on the verb in any way, or is the degree of transitivity purely a matter of placing one of the object arguments in an oblique construction?

First, let us look at what occurs when ditransitive GIVE is inflected for direct voice. (The topic of direct and inverse voice is addressed in §3.)

212

David Foris

In SC, the direct object of GIVE is the THING, and the indirect object is the RECIPIENT. The rationale for this mapping of syntactic function to semantic roles can be seen by comparing the ditransitive forms of GIVE in (1) and (2). GIVE is indexed for the animacy of the THING given by nasal­ isation of the vowel nucleus, symbolised by post-vocalic n. (Often the tonestress inflection of the verb changes as well, as can be seen here.) (1)

P S Cuéh32 tsú2 give:FUT:3 3 'S/he will give

IO Pé1 Peter Peter

DO T quie3 tsa3 háu2. money tomorrow money tomorrow.'

(2)

P S Cuen3 tsú2 give:FUT:3 3 'S/he will give

IO Pé1 Peter Peter

DO jan2 tsa3 cuá1 one:AN horse a horse tomorrow.'

T tsa3 háu2. tomorrow

Assuming that the direct object is the argument for which the verb is indexed, then in SC the direct object of GIVE is the THING, not the RECIPIENT. In (3), the RECIPIENT is encoded as an oblique object — a benefactive. By comparing ditransitive GIVE in (1) with transitive GIVE in (3), it can be seen that when the direct object is inanimate, GIVE is indexed for the degree of transitivity: ditransitive GIVE in (1) has glottal closure of the syllable (symbolised by h) whereas transitive GIVE in (3) does not. (3)

P S Cué32 tsú2 give:FUT:3 3 'S/he will give

DO BEN T quie3 ñí1 con2 Pé1 tsa3 háu2. money to Peter tomorrow money to Peter tomorrow.'

However, when GIVE has an animate DO, as in (2) and (4), there is no indexing for the degree of transitivity. In fact, the tone-stress paradigm is identical for both transitive and ditransitive GIVE as the verb is inflected for person, tense, motion, and mood (see Table 7).

Sochiapan Chinantec GIVE (4)

213

P S DO Cuen3 tsú2 jan2 give:FUT:3 3 one:AN

tsa3 cuál horse

BEN ñí1 con2 to

Pé1 Peter

T tsa3 háu2. tomorrow 'S/he will give a horse to Peter tomorrow.' GIVE, then, is indexed for the degree of transitivity — transitive vs. ditransitive — only when the direct object is inanimate. The question naturally arises, is there any semantic difference between the ditransitive construction and the transitive (direct object + oblique) con­ struction? As a general principle, ditransitive GIVE is used when the act of giving is irrevocable, the THING becomes the properly of the RECIPIENT. Transitive GIVE, however, is used more in the sense of 'entrust with'. Thus, in (1) and (2), the RECIPIENT gains total control of the THING. The transitive construction as exemplified in (3) and (4), however, would be used if the RECIPIENT has been entrusted with the THING. In (3), the implication is that the money has been given to the RECIPIENT to pay for or purchase something on behalf of the GIVER. In (4), the implication is that the horse has been loaned to the RECIPIENT. Actually, the semantics are not always quite so clear-cut as in (l)-(4). In the appropriate context, the transitive construction could also imply an irrevocable gift; however, the ditransitive construction always implies irrevocability. Thus there is little semantic difference, if any, in the follow­ ing two examples where a parent gives a kitten to her/his child: (5)

(6)

P S Cuen3 tsú2 give:FUT:3 3 'S/he will give

DO BEN jan2 mí1 tiei21 míh1 ñí1 con2 one:AN cat little to a kitten to her/his child.'

P S 3 Cuen tsú2 give:FUT:3 3 'S/he will give

IO DO 2 jon jan2 mí1 tiei21 child:3 one:AN cat her/his child a kitten.'

míh1. little

jon2. child:3

214

David Foris

The benefactive element is always introduced by the preposition ñí1 con2. It is interesting to note that the same preposition is used for both benefactive and source, with the meanings: 'to, towards, from'. The direc­ tionality of the action/transaction is dependent on the context. For example, compare (7) and (8):

3.

(7)

Ca3-cué3 tsú2 cáun2 PAST-give:3 3 one:IN 'S/he gave a book to me.'

sí2 ñí1 con2 book to

(8)

Ca3-héi32 jná13 cáun2 PAST-receive:lSG I one:IN T received a book from her/him.'

jná13. I

sí2 ñí1 con2 tsú2. book from 3

Direct and inverse voice

The system of direct and inverse voice can be expressed by the hierarchies in Figure 1, where 3 represents the third-person proximate and 3 1 represents the third-person obviative. For SC, the term 'proximate' generally refers to the first third-person participant introduced in a series of clauses, and 'obviative' refers to any successive third-person participant introduced, usu­ ally in the patient role. The inflection of transitive verbs for voice is subject to different con­ straints than ditransitive verbs. The inflection of transitive verbs is presented in §3.1. In §3.2 the inflection of ditransitive GIVE is discussed. 1,2 > 3 > 31 animate > inanimate Figure 1. The person/animacy hierarchy

Sochiapan Chinantec GIVE

215

3.1. Inflection of transitive verbs for direct and inverse voice Transitive verbs are inflected for the direct voice when either: (i) (ii)

the subject is non-third-person, and the object is third-person; or the subject is third-person proximate (3), and the object is thirdperson obviative (31). A 3 can only be inanimate if 3 1 is inani­ mate. If 3 is animate, 3 1 can be either animate or inanimate.

Transitive verbs are inflected for inverse voice when the subject is equal to or lower than the direct object in the hierarchy. Thus the verb is inflected for the inverse voice in any of the following conditions: (i)

(ii)

If the direct object is non-third-person, and any person other than self is the subject. (When 1 and 2 co-occur, regardless of which is subject or object, the verb is inflected for inverse voice.) If 3 1 is the subject, then 1, 2 or 3 may be the direct object.

(Verbs may also be inflected for reflexive and reciprocal in which subject and direct object are coreferential. The morphology and syntax relating to the reflexive and reciprocal forms are discussed separately in §6.1 and §6.2 respectively.) Generally, when the inverse voice is used, both participants are ani­ mate, although the subject can be inanimate (see Foris 1993:405ff). There is no distinct "inverse" morpheme. Verbs inflected for direct voice are usually indexed for second-person subject by glottal closure of the verb nucleus, and for an animate direct object by nasalisation of the nucleus. Verbs in­ flected for the inverse voice, however, exhibit the following features: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv)

Lack of indexing of the verb for a second-person subject by means of glottal closure of the verb nucleus. Lack of indexing of the verb for an animate direct object by nasalisation of the verb nucleus. Often the nucleus of a verb inflected for inverse voice is different from that of the same verb inflected for direct voice. Similarly, inflection of a verb for inverse voice frequently entails a difference from the direct voice counterpart in part or all of the tone-stress paradigm — 66% of the verbs in my corpus exhibit differences ranging from slight to total.

216

David Foris

In the following examples the inverse voice is indicated by the use of an arrow, the subject is shown to the left of the arrow and the object is shown to the right. For example, 1SG>2 means there is a first-person sin­ gular subject and a second-person object, and 31>3 means the subject is third-person obviative and the direct object is third-person proximate. When a transitive verb is inflected for direct voice, the participants are not marked as such in examples since the direct object is invariably third-person. Examples of a transitive verb inflected for direct voice, with inanimate and animate objects respectively, are: (9)

Jlânh1 ré2 pá23 tsú2 láu2. really well hit:PRES:3 3 skin 'S/he really plays the drums well.'

(10) Pan23 tsú2 jon2 hliá2 tiá2 neh3. hit:PRES:3 3 child:3 because NEG be:obedient:3 'S/he hits her/his child because s/he (i.e. the child) is disobedient.' An example of the inverse voice is given in (11). (11) Cun3 tsa3 háu2 bíh1 po23 each tomorrow AFF hit:PRES:3>l 'S/he (really) hits me every day.'

tsú2 jná13. 3 I

In (10), 'hit' is inflected for the direct voice and is nasalised, which is the characteristic indexing for an animate third-person object. In (11), 'hit' is inflected for the inverse voice, which involves the absence of nasalisation and, for the third-person form of this verb, a vocalic change from /a/ to /o/. Examples of two third-person participants with the verb 'hit' inflected for the direct and inverse voice respectively are given in (12) and (13). In both examples 'Mary' is the subject and 'Peter' the object in the first clause. The coreferentiality of the third-person pronoun tsú2 in the second clause, however, depends on whether the verb 'hit' is marked for the direct or inverse voice: (12) Ca3-jin3 PAST-scold:3

Má2réi3 Mary

ca3-pan3

yáh3

tsú2.

PAST-hit:3

ASSR

3

Pé1, Peter

ti3la3 but

tiá2 NEG

'Mary scolded Peter, but she (assuredly) didn't hit him.'

217

Sochiapan Chinantec GIVE (13) Ca3-jin3 PAST-scold:3

Má2réi3 Mary

Pé1, Peter,

ca3-po3

yáh3

tsú2.

PAST-hit:31>3

ASSR

3

ti3la3 tiá2 but NEG

'Mary scolded Peter, but he (assuredly) didn't hit her.' If the first of two third-person participants to be identified is corefer­ ential with the subject in any successive transitive clause, as in (12), the direct voice is used. If, however, the grammatical relations are switched, as in the second clause of (13), then the inverse voice is used, and continues to be used in successive clauses (unless there is a return to the original grammatical relation). 3.2. Inflection of ditransitive GIVE for direct and inverse voice With two-place predicates such as occur in (9)-(13) above it is relatively straightforward to see how some combinations of subject and object require the direct voice and other combinations require the inverse voice. With ditransitive verbs such as GIVE, the question is: Is the choice of the direct versus inverse voice contingent on a combination of GIVER and THING, GIVER and RECIPIENT, or must all three arguments be considered to­ gether? In SC, all three arguments — GIVER, THING, RECIPIENT — must be considered together. The first consideration is: Is the THING animate or inanimate? If the THING is animate, the form of GIVE is independent of the grammatical person of the RECIPIENT. GIVE is inflected for the direct voice when the GIVER is higher than the THING in animacy, as in (14). If the GIVER is lower than the THING in animacy, as in (15), GIVE is inflected for the inverse voice. (14) a.

P S Cuen3 tsú2 give:FUT:3 3 'S/he will give

b. P S Cuen3 tsú2 give:FUT:3 3 'S/he will give

IO DO Pé1 jon2. Peter child:3 Peter her/his child (in marriage).' IO DO hnú2 jon2. you:SG child:3 you her/his child (in marriage).'

218

David Foris (15) a.

b.

P DO S IO Cue3 jná13 tsú2 Pé1. give:FUT:3>l I 3 Peter 'S/he will give me (to) Peter (in marriage).' P Cue3 give:FUT:3>l 'S/he will give

DO S IO jná13 tsú2 hnú2. I 3 you:SG you me (in marriage).'

When the THING is inanimate, and the GIVER and RECIPIENT are non-coreferential, the form of GIVE depends on whether the GIVER is higher than the RECIPIENT in the animacy hierarchy, as in (16), thus requiring inflection of the verb for direct voice, or if it is lower than the RECIPIENT, thus requiring inverse voice, as in (17). (If the GIVER and RECIPIENT are coreferential — reflexive or reciprocal, different forms of GIVE are required; see §6.) (16) P Cueh32 give:PREs:3

S IO tsú2 tsáu2 3 people

DO quie3 [ní1 juáh3 money if

jmí1 when

mi32]. ask:PRES:3 'S/he gives people money [whenever they ask (for it)].' (17) P Cue32 give:PREs:3>l

S IO DO 2 tsú jná13 quie3 3 I money

[ní1juáh3 if

jmí1 when

mi23]. ask:PRES:lSG 'S/he gives me money [whenever I ask (for it)].' Newman (1996:74-80) points out that some languages encode the THING as the direct object, and others encode the RECIPIENT as the direct object. In §2, I defined a direct object as the object for which the verb is indexed. Since the verb is indexed for the RECIPIENT in (16) and (17), it would be consistent with the original definition to assign the RECIPIENT the syn­ tactic function of direct object when the THING is inanimate. Despite the

Sochiapan Chinantec GIVE

219

fact that here the verb is indexed for the RECIPIENT, there are three rea­ sons for not considering the RECIPIENT as the direct object: (i)

It would mean that of the 16 possible syntactic constructions involving GIVE (see Figure 2), the THING would be the direct object in seven instances, and in four, the RECIPIENT. (Of the five remaining constructions, intransitive GIVE has no direct ob­ ject, there is no direct object for the passive counterparts of the two transitive active constructions and, syntactically, there is no direct object in the two antipassive constructions.) (ii) The passive counterpart of ditransitive GIVE (see §4) allows either the THING or the RECIPIENT to function as the gram­ matical subject, but only the THING can function as the direct object. When the THING is the subject, the RECIPIENT cannot be encoded as the direct object, only as an oblique object. Any attempt to encode the RECIPIENT as a direct object results in ungrammaticality. (iii) In an antipassive construction (see §5), the direct object of the ergative counterpart is demoted. The antipassive construction of ditransitive GIVE allows only an animate THING to be demoted and be encoded as a complement clause. Any attempt to encode the RECIPIENT as an oblique object or complement clause re­ sults in ungrammaticality. In addition, GIVE is not indexed for the animacy of the RECIPIENT relative to the GIVER, even though it is the only remaining syntactic object.

Admittedly, the first reason for not considering the RECIPIENT as the direct object — on the basis of consistency — is not strong. Although my definition of what constitutes a direct object holds true in the majority of syntactic constructions involving ditransitive verbs such as GIVE, claiming that the RECIPIENT is not the direct object in constructions such as (16) and (17) results in an inconsistency in my definition. It could be argued, however, that GIVE is indexed for both objects when the THING is inani­ mate: The fact that GIVE is indexed for the animacy of the RECIPIENT relative to the GIVER entails that the THING must be inanimate. The alter­ native analysis for ditransitive verbs such as GIVE would also result in an inconsistency: usually the THING functions as the direct object, but some­ times the RECIPIENT.

220

David Foris

The second and third reasons are the strongest: Since GIVE is not indexed for the animacy of the RECIPIENT in an antipassive construction despite the RECIPIENT being the only object nominal, and since only the THING, but not the RECIPIENT can be encoded as a direct object in a passive or as a complement clause in an antipassive construction, clearly the RECIPIENT is never afforded direct object status.

4.

Passive constructions

Some introductory comments about SC passives are in order before I dis­ cuss the specifics of the passive voice and GIVE. (For further details on passive constructions, see Foris 1993:408ff.) (i) SC has two passive constructions, both are morphological, not periphrastic. The more common of the two passive constructions uses a subset of the directional prefixes, but since there is no longer any sense of direction or motion I have called it the conventional passive (PASS). The second passive construction uses the progressive prefixes. Since the sense of posture (or orientation) implicit in the progressive prefixes is retained in this construction, I have called it the posture passive. Less than 60% of the transitive and ditransitive verbs in my corpus can be inflected for the passive. (ii) In addition to marking the verb for passive inflection by prefixes, the verb itself exhibits a tone-stress and/or vocalic change which is not derivable from any other form in the verb paradigm. Apart from the dis­ tinct prefixes mentioned in (i), the form of the verb for these two passive constructions is generally, but not always, identical. A verb inflected for passive does not inflect for person or tense. Person is specified by overt nominais without being indexed on the verb. Tense is indicated on the con­ ventional passive by inflection of the passive prefix. The posture passive, however, occurs only in the past tense. (iii) SC has mainly agentless passives. Agented passives are restricted to inanimate agents. Turning now to the specifics of GIVE and the passive voice, the ques­ tions which need to be addressed are: Can either object argument be encoded as subject, or only one of them, and if only one, which one?

Sochiapan Chinantec GIVE

221

In (18a), the verb is indexed by nasalisation for an animate direct object — a THING which is lower in animacy than the GIVER. In (18b), the RECIPIENT is encoded as the subject and the indexing of the verb for the animacy of the THING once again identifies it as the direct object. (18) a.

b.

Cuen3 tsú2 Po1 lo1 hi3. give:FUT:3 3 Paul mule that:AN 'S/he will give Paul that (aforementioned) mule.' Tsa3-cuénl Po1 lo1 hí3. PASS:FUT-give:PASS Paul mule that:AN 'Paul will be given that mule.'

Any attempt to make 'that mule' the subject of the passive in (18) without introducing an oblique construction results in ungrammaticality. For the THING to be encoded as the subject of a passive construction the RECIPI­ ENT must be encoded as an oblique object. Compare (18b) with (19). (19) Tsa3-cuén1 lo1 hi3 ñí1 con2 PASS:FUT-give:PASS mule that:AN to 'That mule will be given to Paul.'

Po1. Paul

In (19), the passive construction is, in essence, intransitive. Following the ergative system, the verb is indexed by nasalisation for the animacy of the subject. If the subject were inanimate, the verb would be tsa3 cuél. The paradigms for both transitive and ditransitive GIVE are identical when the direct object is animate. Since the construction in (19) encodes the RECIPIENT as an oblique object, it is more likely the passive coun­ terpart of transitive GIVE than of ditransitive GIVE. This interpretation is strengthened by the semantic implications of the two constructions: (18b) implies that the RECIPIENT has gained irrevocable control of the THING, whereas in (19) the implication is that the RECIPIENT has been tem­ porarily entrusted with the THING. When GIVE is inflected for inverse voice, as in (20a), any attempt to produce a passive construction always results in the RECIPIENT being encoded in an oblique construction such as (20b). The implication of this restriction is that, in a passive construction, the RECIPIENT cannot func­ tion syntactically as a direct object:

222

David Foris (20) a.

b.

Ca3-cue3 tsú2 tsáu2 jná13. PAST-give:3>l 3 people I 'S/he gave someone me (in marriage).' (i.e. 'S/he gave me to someone.') Ca3-ja3-cuén1 jná13 ñí1 con2 tsáu2. PAST-PASS-give:PASS I to people 'I was given (in marriage) to someone.'

Because of the referents involved — both the THING and the RECIPI­ ENT are human, the only possible meaning is 'give (in marriage)', and the connotation of 'loan, entrust with' which occurs in (19) does not hold for (20b). Compare the meanings in (20) with those in the discussion of (5) and (6).

5.

The antipassive

A feature of many ergative languages is the antipassive construction. Like the passive, there is a loss of transitivity. However, in the antipassive con­ struction, it is the patient rather than the agent that is downgraded to an oblique object, or omitted (Dixon 1987:8). In SC, although the patient is downgraded in the antipassive, it cannot be omitted. Note that the SC antipassive is restricted to constructions in which the direct object of the corresponding ergative clause is animate. Compare the ergative construc­ tion in (21a) with the antipassive construction in (21b): (21) a. Jin23 tsú2 rainh21. yell:at:PRES:3 3 companion:3 'S/he (regularly) yells at her/his companion.' b. Jí23 tsú2 ñí1 con2 rainh21. yell:at:PRES:3 3 toward companion:3 'S/he (occasionally) yells at/toward her/his companion.' Note that the nasalisation which characteristically indexes the verb for an animate object, as in (21a), is lacking in the antipassive construction in (21b). The SC antipassive construction does not entirely agree with Givón's (1984:108, footnote 27) assertion that:

Sochiapan Chinantec GIVE

223

In Ergative languages, one consistent side-effect of the antipassive treatment of the patient is that marking of the agent is also scaled down, so that the entire clause loses syntactically both the typical marking of a patient-object and of an agent-subject. Syntactically it is just marked as an intransitive clause.

There are SC antipassive constructions, such as (21b) above, which conform to Givón's generalisation. That is, the SC verb is intransitive ani­ mate, and the patient-object is encoded as an oblique object. However, in SC, when both transitive inanimate (TI) and intransitive animate (IA) coun­ terparts of a verb exist, it is the TI counterpart that is utilised in the antipas­ sive. Although in such cases the verb itself is not marked as intransitive, the lack of nasalisation means that the verb is not indexed for the animate patient, and since the patient has been demoted to an oblique construction, syntactically the clause is intransitive. Only when an inflectionally related TI verb does not exist is an IA verb used. In (22a), GIVE functions in an ergative construction and is indexed as a transitive animate (TA) verb (the RECIPIENT is in an oblique construc­ tion), whereas in (22b) GIVE functions in an antipassive construction and is indexed as a TI verb. Note that the antipassive of GIVE requires that the patient be encoded in a complement clause rather than an oblique object. (22) a.

Cuen3 yeh3 give:FUT:3 old:man

jan2 one:AN

cál háu2 ñí1 con2 chicken to

jon2. child:3 'The old man will give a (whole) chicken to his child.' b.

Cué32 yeh3 give:FUT:3 old:man ñí1 to

con2

quioh21 have:3

jan2 one:AN

cál háu2 chicken

jon2. child: 3

'The old man will give some chicken (meat) to his child.' The construction in (22b) quioh21 jan2 cál háu2 is a complement clause in which the preposed complementiser hi3 'that' is optional and is usually omitted. Literally, it means '(that) has one chicken'. A more literal trans­ lation would be 'that which belongs/pertains to a chicken'. (For further information on SC complementation see Foris 1993:474-477.)

224

David Foris

What happens, then, when a ditransitive verb such as GIVE is used in an antipassive construction? With ditransitive verbs it is the ditransitive inanimate counterpart which is used for the antipassive. Compare the ergative construction in (23a), in which the ditransitive animate form of GIVE occurs, and the antipassive con­ struction in (23b), in which the ditransitive inanimate form of GIVE occurs. (23) a.

b.

Cuen3 yeh3 jon2 jan2 cá1 háu2. give:FUT:3 old:man child:3 one:AN chicken 'The old man will give his child a/one (whole) chicken.' Cuéh32 yeh3 give:FUT:3 old:man

jon2 child:3

quioh21 have:3

jan2 one:AN

cá1 háu2. chicken 'The old man will give his child some chicken (meat).' (lit. ' . . . will give his child (that) has one chicken.') Although SC has only one form of GIVE for both TA and DA clauses, as in (22a) and (23a), note that the antipassive of GIVE in (22b) requires cué32 (TI), whereas the antipassive of GIVE in (23b) requires cuéh32 (DI). Since SC has separate TI and DI forms for GIVE, the appropriate form — transitive or ditransitive — must be used when forming the antipassive. Another well documented feature of the antipassive is that the patient in the antipassive construction is in one sense or another less affected than the patient in the corresponding ergative construction. This partitive func­ tion of the antipassive is observable in (21b), (22b), and (23b). For further details on the SC antipassive see Foris (1993:426-431).

6.

Inflection for reflexive and reciprocal

Several SC transitive verbs inflect to index the coreferentiality of subject and direct object for either reflexivity or reciprocity (or both, but with different forms). Ditransitive reflexive and reciprocal verbs like GIVE require that the direct object (the THING) be inanimate. This means that all reflexive and reciprocal ditransitive verbs are indexed for the coreferen-

Sochiapan Chinantec GIVE

225

tiality of subject and indirect object (see §3.2). Reflexive and reciprocal verbs are discussed more fully in Foris (1993:144-148.) 6.1. Inflection for reflexive SC reflexive verbs are transitive or ditransitive. Since the subject and direct object of transitive verbs (or the subject and indirect object of ditransitive verbs) are coreferential and therefore (presumably) equal in animacy, the question arises: Does the form of the verb correspond more closely to that of the direct voice or the inverse voice? The tone-stress inflection of reflexives differs from that of the nonreflexive counterpart, both direct and inverse, but the reflexive form always bears a closer resemblance to that of the direct voice form. Compare the reflexive form of 'kill' and the non-reflexive direct and inverse transitive animate forms respectively in (24). Inflections for the third-person future, present, remote past, and the hortative are sufficient to illustrate the differ­ ence in the forms. (24) 'kill (oneself)' 'kill' (direct) 'kill' (inverse)

PRES jngih32 jngih2 jngah2

FUT jngíh32 jngih3 jngah3

PAST jngih3 jngih3 jngah3

HORT jngih21 jngih1 jngah1

The reflexive (REEL) form for GIVE has been found only in a construc­ tion based on a 'heart' metaphor.3 One can only give 'heart' to oneself, it is not possible to give 'heart' to someone else. The RECIPIENT indirect object 'self' is optional and is usually omitted. If the indirect object occurs, it obligatorily follows the direct object: (25) P S DO IO Ca3-cueh3 jná13 tsin32 (huen2 ) PAST-give:REFL:lSG I heart:1SG self:1SG [hi3

tiá2 hón13].

COMP

NEG groan:FUT:lSG

T controlled my feelings [so as not to groan].' (lit. T gave (my­ self) my heart that (I) not groan.')

226

David Foris

6.2. Inflection for reciprocal As with reflexives, the question is: Does the form of the verb correspond more closely to that of the direct voice or the inverse voice? The inflection of reciprocal verbs is distinct from that of their nonreciprocal counterparts. Compare the inflection of the non-reciprocal verbs for 'kill' in (24) above with the following (inflected for third-person): (26) 'kill (one another)'

PRES jngih23

FUT jngíh3

PAST jngíh3

HORT jngíh13

The reciprocal (RECP) form for GIVE consists of two bases: cu1 jienh1. (For further information on two-base (or 'binomial') verbs, see Foris 1993: 73ff and 189ff.) The first base, cú1, is a reduced form of the ditransitive inanimate (DI) form cueh32, the second base is the DI verb jienh23 'return, give back'. 4 Although cú1 jienh1 is a DI verb, the RECIPIENT indirect object is generally omitted. This is exemplified in (27). (27) S Tsá2 person

ná1-juónh23 ó32 PL:PROG-converse:RECP:3PL yonder

IO jienh1 (tsá2 return:PRES:RECP:3PL person DO hi3 COMP

zia32 quioh21 exist have:3

jan2 one:AN

P cú1 give:PRES

tsá2 person

jan2) one:AN

[ni1 má1 when:FUT PERFECT

ca3-láu2]. PAST-be:harvested 'The people conversing over there give (one another) what they have [when it has been harvested].'

Sochiapan Chinantec GIVE 7.

227

Types of ditransitive verbs

Although the discussion in this paper is focused mainly on ditransitive GIVE, it is of interest to note that SC exhibits two types of ditransitive verbs with differing indexing requirements. GIVE is prototypical of a small class of verbs which is indexed for the direct object or, under special con­ ditions, for the indirect object (see §3.2). There is, however, a large class of ditransitive verbs which are indexed only for the direct object. As a generalisation, it can be said that SC ditransitive verbs crossreference up to three nominal constituents directly, without prepositions. The subject of ditransitive verbs is normally animate, the direct object is a patient which may be inanimate or animate, and the indirect object is a source or goal which may be inanimate or animate, including instrumental, locative, and recipient. Those verbs which take an instrumental or a loca­ tive nominal as the indirect object are not indexed for the indirect object and exhibit three inflectionally related forms, whereas those which take a RECIPIENT nominal as the indirect object exhibit four inflectionally related forms (not counting reflexive, reciprocal, and passive forms). These two types of ditransitive verbs are discussed in turn. 7.1. Ditransitive verbs which encode instrumental or locative nominals as the indirect object The most common case-role encoded in indirect objects is the instrumen­ tal. All verbs which encode instrumental and locative case as an indirect object have a maximum of three inflectionally related forms, one for inani­ mate direct object, one for animate direct object inflected for direct voice, and one for animate direct object inflected for inverse voice. Examples of the first two respectively are: (28) P Ca3-sé3

S

IO

tsú2 jmái2

DO lí13.

PAST-sprinkle:3 3 water flower 'S/he sprinkled the flowers with water.'

228

David Foris (29) a.

P Ca3-sén32 PAST-sprinkle:3 'S/he sprinkled

S IO DO tsú2 jmái2 rainh21. 3 water companion:3 her/his companion with water.'

b.

P Ca3-sén32 PAST-sprinkle:3 'S/he sprinkled

S IO DO tsú2 chi3 mah2 rainh21. 3 ant companion:3 her/his companion with ants.'

By comparing (28) and (29), it can be seen that the verb 'sprinkle' in (29) is indexed for an animate direct object and inflected for direct voice by nasalisation of the nucleus (plus a change in tone-stress). Examples of a verb inflected for an animate direct object and inverse voice are: (30) a.

b.

P DO S IO Ca3-sé32 jná13 tsú2 jmái2. PAST-sprinkle:3>l I 3 water 'S/he sprinkled me with water.' P DO S IO 3 32 13 2 Ca -sé jná tsú chi3 mah2. PAST-sprinkle:3>l I 3 ant 'S/he sprinkled me with ants.'

By comparing (29) with (30), it can be seen that the verb in (30) lacks nasalisation, which is characteristic of verbs inflected for inverse voice (see §3). By comparing the (a) and (b) forms of (29) and (30), it is obvious that inflecting this class of ditransitive verbs for voice is not dependent on the animacy of the indirect object. The order of the subject, direct object, and indirect object elements is discussed in §7.3. 7.2. Ditransitive verbs which encode RECIPIENT nominals as the indirect object The sense of the RECIPIENT resembles that of the locative in that the direct object (the THING) may be seen as changing location to or from the indirect object (the RECIPIENT). There is the sense, however, that the indirect object benefits in some way from the transaction. In theory, six

Sochiapan Chinantec GIVE

229

Table 2. Combinations of direct object and indirect object based on animacy and person

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

Direct object (the THING)

Indirect object (the RECIPIENT)

inanimate inanimate animate third-person animate third-person non-third-person non-third-person

third-person non-third-person third-person non-third-person third-person non-third-person

combinations are possible. The logically possible conditions are set out in Table 2. SC inflectionally combines (c) with (d), and (e) with (f), resulting in four inflectional patterns: (a), (b), (c-d), and (e-f ). In other words, it is only when the THING is inanimate that the person of the RECIPIENT is indexed on the verb. As examples of patterns (a) and (b) respectively, compare (31) and (32). Note the difference in the verb inflection: (31) P S IO DO Ca3-cuéh3 tsú2 rainh21 mí1 jla2 quioh21. PAST-give:3 3 peer:3 knife have:3 'S/he gave her/his peer/companion her/his knife.' (32) P S Ca3-cué3 tsú2 PAST-give:3>l 3 'S/he gave me her/his

IO DO jná13 mí1 jla2 I knife knife.'

quioh21. have:3

Patterns (c) and (d) are illustrated respectively by (33) and (34). Note in (33)-(34) that, although the person of the RECIPIENT differs in the manner of (31)-(32) above, there is no change in the verb inflection as occurs in (31)-(32). (33) P S IO DO Ca3-cuen3 tsú2 Pé1 tsa3 cuá1 PAST-give:3 3 Peter horse 'S/he gave Peter her/his horse.'

joh1. have:3

230

David Foris (34) P Ca3-cuen3 PAST-give:3 'S/he gave me

S IO DO tsú2 jná13 tsa3 cuá1 3 me horse her/his horse.'

joh1. have:3

Patterns (e) and (f) are illustrated respectively by (35) and (36). Note that although the person of the RECIPIENT differs in the manner of (31)-(32) above, there is no change in the verb inflection as occurs in (31)-(32); nonetheless, the inflection differs from that of (33)-(34). (When a ditransitive verb is inflected for inverse voice, it is more common for the direct object to precede the subject and the indirect object.) (35) P Ca3-cue3 PAST-give:3>l 'S/he gave me to

DO S IO jná13 tsú2 ti32. I 3 teacher the teacher (in marriage).'

(36) P Ca3-cue3 PAST-give:3>l 'S/he gave me to

DO S IO jná13 tsú2 hnú2. I 3 you you (in marriage).'

In summary, the animacy of the THING and the person of the RECIPI­ ENT affects the ditransitive verb's paradigm, yielding four inflectionally related forms which are indexed for: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv)

inanimate direct object with a third-person indirect object — the RECIPIENT being lower in animacy than the GIVER; inanimate direct object with a non-third-person indirect object — the RECIPIENT being higher in animacy than the GIVER; animate direct object — the THING being lower in animacy than the GIVER; and animate direct object — the THING being higher in animacy than the GIVER.

Only three such verbs have been identified: the verbs cueh32 'give', jienh23 'return, give back', and hieh32 'show' (the three citation forms are inflected for ditransitive inanimate, direct voice, third-person present).

Sochiapan Chinantec GIVE

231

7.3. Order of ditransitive verb arguments The grammatical orderings of core arguments for ditransitive verbs which take a locative or instrumental as one of the object arguments are discussed in §7.3.1, and in §7.3.2 those for ditransitive verbs which take a RECIPI­ ENT as one of the object arguments are discussed and compared with the former. 7.3.1. Order of ditransitive verb arguments which take a locative or instrumental indirect object Ditransitive verbs which take a locative or instrumental as one of the object arguments are never indexed for the animacy of these elements. Conse­ quently, they can be unambiguously assigned the grammatical function of indirect object. The order of the direct object and indirect object appears to be quite flexible for most ditransitive verbs. The first object nominal is the more topical or contrastive, depending on the context. So in (37a), for exam­ ple, 'water' could be in contrast to some other substance, such as 'beer'. However, since the unmarked order is IO-DO, contrast is not necessarily implied, it could be simply that 'water' is topical (already mentioned ear­ lier in the discourse). In (37b), the 'jar' is more likely to be in contrast to some other receptacle which could have been used, although it too could be simply topical. Similarly, for (38). (37) a.

P S IO Ca3-ma3 cónh32 tsú2 jmí2 jma3 PAST-fill:3 3 potable:water 'S/he filled the jar (with) water.'

b. P S 3 3 32 Ca -ma cónh tsú2 PAST-fill:3 3 'S/he filled the jar (with)

DO tse3. jar

DO IO 3 tse jmí2 jma3. jar potable:water water.'

232

David Foris (38) a.

P Tí2 DISCONTINUATIVE DO tsá2 person

jiéinh32 spray:PRES:3

S IO tsú2 jmáí2 3 water

tsáun1. sick

'They used to spray sick people (with) water.' b.

P Tí2 DISCONTINUATIVE tsáun1 sick

32

jiéinh spray:PRES:3

S DO 2 tsú tsá2 3 person

IO jmái2. water

'They used to spray sick people (with) water.' The verb 'spray' in (38) is indexed for an animate direct object (the in­ animate counterpart is jiéih23). There are a few ditransitive verbs which require a fixed order for the two object elements. For example, in (39) the direct object is obligatorily first, whereas in (40) the indirect object is obligatorily first. The verbs of both examples are indexed for an animate object (the inanimate form of 'remove' is chí2, and of 'put' is cha3): (39) P Má2

S DO ná1-chin2 tsú2 Sé32 PERFECT PROG:PL-remove:SG:3 3 Joseph 'They are removing Joseph from jail now.'

IO hñu3mí1ñí2. jail

(40) P S IO DO T 3 2 32 2 3 Chan tsú héih mí ñí tsa3 háu2. put:FUT:3 3 measure pig tomorrow 'S/he will measure/weigh the pig tomorrow.' (lit. 'S/he will put the pig (at/to) the measure tomorrow.')

Sochiapan Chinantec GIVE

233

7.3.2. Order of ditransitive verb arguments which take a RECIPIENT indirect object In §7.3.1, it was shown how verbs which take a locative or instrumental indirect object permit a maximum of two permutations. Verbs which take a RECIPIENT indirect object, such as GIVE, are usually indexed for the animacy of the THING relative to the agent/giver, but when the THING is inanimate, they are indexed for the animacy of the RECIPIENT relative to the agent/giver. The questions that this raises are: Does the greater com­ plexity of indexing restrict or expand the permutational possibilities? Are these possibilities affected in any way by inflection for direct and inverse voice? What significance is there, if any, in the permutational possibilities? The first two questions are addressed in this section, the third question is addressed in §7.4 below. When ditransitive verbs which take a RECIPIENT indirect object are inflected for inverse voice, four possible orders of the core arguments are found: S-IO-DO, S-DO-IO, DO-S-IO, and IO-S-DO. Each of these possi­ bilities is illustrated below. If the direct object is inanimate and the indirect object is higher in ani­ macy than the subject (requiring that the verb be inflected for inverse voice), the order of clause elements may be either IO-S-DO or S-IO-DO. The first order is the least marked (or most common). For example: (41) a.

P

IO

Cué32

jná 1 3

S

DO

tsú2

sí2.

give:FUT:3>l I 3 book 'S/he will give me the book.' b.

P

S 32

Cué

IO 2

tsú

jná

13

DO sí2.

give:FUT:3>l 3 I book 'S/he will give me the book.' In contrast, if the direct object is inanimate and the indirect object is lower in animacy than the subject (requiring that the verb be inflected for direct voice), the order of clause elements can only be S-IO-DO. For example:

234

David Foris (42) P Cue1 give:FUT:lSG 'I will give him

S IO DO jná13 tsú2 sí2. I 3 book the book.'

When the direct object is animate, the degree of animacy of the indi­ rect object relative to the subject doesn't affect the indexing of the verb. It does, however, affect the permutational possibilities of the core arguments. Compare (43) with (44). If the direct object is animate, and lower in animacy than the subject (requiring inflection for the direct voice), but the indirect object is higher in animacy than the subject, three options are possible: S-IO-DO, IO-S-DO, and S-DO-IO. The first option is the least marked, and the last option is the most marked. For example: (43) a.

P S Cuen3 tsú2 give:FUT:3 3 'S/he will give

IO DO jná13 tsí2míh1. I puppy me the puppy.'

b.

P IO S DO Cuen3 jná13 tsú2 tsí2 míh1. give:FUT:3 I 3 puppy 'S/he will give me the puppy.'

c.

P S 3 Cuen tsú2 give:FUT:3 3 'S/he will give

DO IO 2 1 tsí míh jná13. puppy I me the puppy.'

If the direct object is animate and lower in animacy than the subject (requiring inflection for the direct voice), and the indirect object is also lower in animacy than the subject, the only permissible order is S-IO-DO: (44) a.

P S Cuen21 jná13 give:FUT:lSG I '1 will give Paul (to)

IO DO tsú2 Po1. 3 Paul her (in marriage).'

Sochiapan Chínantec GIVE b.

235

P

S

Cuen21 give:FUT:lSG

jná13 tsú2 tsPmíh1. I 3 puppy

IO

DO

'1 will give her/him the puppy.' If the direct object is animate and higher in animacy than the subject (requiring inflection for the inverse voice), and the indirect object is lower in animacy than the subject, three options are again possible: DO-S-IO, S-DO-IO, and S-IO-DO, with the first option being the least marked and the third option the most marked. For example: (45) a.

P

DO

S

Cue3

jná13

tsú2 ti32.

IO

give:FUT:3>l I 3 teacher 'S/he will give me (to) the teacher (in marriage).' b.

P

S 3

Cue

DO 2

tsú jná

13

IO ti32.

give:FUT:3>l 3 I teacher 'S/he will give me (to) the teacher (in marriage).' c.

P

S

Cue3

tsú2 ti32

IO

DO jná13.

give:FUT:3>l 3 teacher I 'S/he will give me (to) the teacher (in marriage).' Lastly, if the direct object is animate and higher in animacy than the subject (requiring inflection for the inverse voice), and the indirect object is higher in animacy than the subject, just two options are possible: DO-SIO, S-DO-IO, with the first option being the less marked. For example: (46) a.

P

DO

Cue3

jná13 tsú2

S

IO hnú2.

give:FUT:3>l I 3 you 'S/he will give you me (i.e. '. . . me to you') (in marriage).' b.

P

S 3

Cue

DO 2

tsú jná

13

IO hnú2.

give:FUT:3>l 3 I you 'S/he will give you me (i.e. ' . . . me to you') (in marriage).'

236

David Foris

In conclusion, whenever the verb is inflected for direct voice, the unmarked order of the core arguments is S-IO-DO. When the verb is inflected for inverse voice because the direct object is animate and higher in animacy than the subject, the unmarked order is DO-S-IO. When the direct object is inanimate, however, and the verb is inflected for inverse voice because the indirect object is higher in animacy than the subject, the unmarked order is IO-S-DO. The permutability of the core arguments is dependent on the ani­ macy of the direct object relative to the subject, and also on the animacy of the indirect object relative to the subject. The question arises as to why there are such different constraints on the core arguments — varying from only one possible order to three, and why there are different unmarked orders according to voice and the ani­ macy of the direct object. In the next section on the topicality of ditransitive verb arguments I address this question at least in part. 7.4. Topicality of ditransitive verb arguments It would be appropriate to ask: Does the permutability of the core argu­ ments exhibited by SC as outlined in §7.3 have any pragmatic implications? In Givón's discussion of the pragmatics of voice and de-transitivity (1994:8,9), he defines the relative topicality of the agent and patient of the active/direct, inverse, passive, and antipassive voices as in Table 3. The sig­ nificance of the > and » symbols, and their direction, can be understood by comparing the following comments with Table 3. In the active/direct voice, '. . . the agent is more topical than the patient, but the patient retains considerable topicality.' In the inverse voice, T h e patient is more topical than the agent, but the agent retains considerable topicality.' In the passive voice, T h e patient is more topical than the agent, and the agent is extremely non-topical ('suppressed', 'demoted').' In the antipassive voice, T h e agent is more topical than the patient, and the patient is extremely non-topical ('suppressed', 'demoted').' In SC, the unmarked (most common) order of active/direct clause ele­ ments is S-DO, and the unmarked order of inverse clauses is DO-S. The fact that these elements occur in a different order according to the inflection for direct and inverse voice is in accordance with Givón's assertion about the relative topicality of agent and patient. Givón (1984:162-163) equates

Sochiapan Chinantec GIVE

231

Table 3. Relative topicality of the agent and patient Voice

Relative topicality

active/direct inverse passive antipassive

agent agent agent agent

> < « »

patient patient patient patient

topicality with referentiality and discourse importance. The degree of topi­ cality can be . . . defined by two exact measures, one assessing the degree of continuity/recurrence/ predictability of the topic vis-à-vis its preceding discourse environment, the other assess­ ing the degree of the topic's importance/persistence vis-à-vis its succeeding discourse environment.

When the direct object is higher in animacy than the subject (requir­ ing inflection of the verb for inverse voice), as in (45) above, of the three possible orders, the order DO-S-IO reflects the greater topicality of the direct object (patient) — the unmarked order when inflected for inverse voice, whereas the orders S-DO-IO and S-IO-DO reflects a greater topical­ ity of the agent over the patient, which is normally most topical in an inverse construction. Secondarily, the order of the two object elements reflects their relative topicality, the leftmost element being the more topi­ cal. (Note that transitive clauses in which the verb is inflected for the active/direct voice exhibit only an S-O order, whereas transitive clauses in which the verb is inflected for inverse voice exhibit both O-S and S-O, with the former being the unmarked construction.)5 In conclusion, it appears that SC uses direct and inverse voice prima­ rily to track the interaction of discourse participants, and the relative topi­ cality of the participants is reflected by the order of the core arguments. In all the different permutations of the core arguments, at no time can the agent/subject be moved to third position — it always retains some degree of topicality (except for when the agent is omitted in a passive construction).

238 8.

David Foris The inflectionally related forms of GIVE

In Table 1 of the Introduction, citation forms for the eight inflectionally related forms for GIVE were presented. The full morphology of GIVE has not been presented until now because it has not been significant to the discussion. Chinantec verbs inflect for person, tense, motion and mood. (For all but the present and future tenses, there is a concomitant prefix or adverb. These are not discussed here since the focus is on verb morphology.) GIVE offers a rich variety of inflectional paradigms due to its many related forms based on the parameters of transitivity, animacy, voice, and the coreferentiality of subject and indirect object. Selecting the appropriate form of GIVE according to these parameters is illustrated in Figure 2 at the end of this section. The complete paradigms for the inflectionally related forms of GIVE are given in Table 4-Table 8, with the exception of the reciprocal cu1 jienh1, the inanimate passive cué1 and the animate passive cuén1 which are all invariant throughout their paradigms. In the following paradigms, those inflectional forms which can be pre­ dictably derived from some other inflectional form in the same column are cross-referenced to it. For example, FUT in the 1PL column means that the inflectional form for that cell in the paradigm matrix is the same as that of the 1PL future. (From these few matrices it would be easy to conclude that the form for the 3rd person hortative and evidential is derivable from the ambulative. A broader study of SC verb paradigms, however, reveals that this is coincidental — there are verbs for which these three forms are not identical, each must be separately elicited. For further information, see Foris 1993:84ff.) Those cells which disallow any form are indicated by xxx. Thirty-one verbal prefixes have been identified in SC. These fall into 10 ordered constituent sets. When more than one prefix occurs, the inner­ most prefix always governs the tone-stress inflection of the verb. Although the prohibitive morpheme is an adverb, it too governs the tone-stress inflection of the verb. However, the prohibitive can only contiguously pre­ cede the verb root with second-person. Its non-governing nature with the other grammatical persons is indicated by —.

Sochiapan Chinantec GIVE

239

The columns " 3 " , "2", "1SG" and "1PL" refer to the subject for which the verb is inflected. To facilitate comparisons of the matrices in Table 4-Table 8, senten­ tial examples of each are delayed until after Table 8. The inflectional paradigm for GIVE (II) is a subset of GIVE (TI/DI:I). The only inflectional forms which occur for GIVE (II) are 3-PRES, 3-FUT, 3-PAST, and 3-HORT. These are underlined in Table 4. The second-person is normally indexed on TI and DI verbs by glottal closure of the syllable. If third-person has glottal closure, usually firstperson singular and first-person plural will also (i.e. there is inherent glottal closure of the syllable). The paradigm for GIVE (DI) in Table 5 is irregular in that although both the second and third-person forms have glottal closure, the first-person singular and plural forms do not. Table 4. GIVE (II) — underlined, (TI), or (DI:I) — where the THING is inanimate and the RECIPIENT is equal to or higher than the GIVER in animacy

PRESENT FUTURE PAST AMBULATIVE HORTATIVE EVIDENTIAL HODIERNAL6 ANDATIVE PROHIBITIVE

3 cue32 cué32 cué3 cue21 cue21 cue21 cué32 cué2 —

2 cueh32 cuéh1 cuéh1 cueh21 XXX

AMB PAST PAST cué2

1SG cué23 cué13 cué3 cué13 FUT AMB PAST PAST —

1PL cué23 cué13 FUT FUT FUT FUT FUT FUT —

Table 5. GIVE (DI), where the THING is inanimate and the RECIPIENT is lower in animacy than the GIVER

PRESENT FUTURE PAST AMBULATIVE HORTATIVE EVIDENTIAL HODIERNAL ANDATIVE PROHIBITIVE

3 cueh32 cuéh32 cuéh3 cueh21 cueh21 cueh21 cuéh32 cueh1 —

2 cueh32 cueh1 cuéh3 cueh21 XXX

AMB PAST PAST cueh32

1SG cue2 cue1 cue3 cue1 FUT AMB PAST PAST —

1PL cue23 cue13 FUT FUT FUT FUT FUT FUT —

240

David Foris

Table 6. GIVE (DI reflexive), where the THING ('heart') is inanimate and the RECIPIENT and GIVER are coreferential

PRESENT FUTURE PAST AMBULATIVE HORTATIVE EVIDENTIAL HODIERNAL ANDATIVE PROHIBITIVE

3 cueh32 cuéh32 cueh3 cueh21 cueh21 cueh21 cuéh32 cueh32

—

2 cueh32 cueh13 cueh3 cueh21 XXX

AMB PAST PAST cueh3

1SG cueh23 cueh13 cueh3 cueh21 FUT AMB PAST PAST

1PL cueh23 cueh13 FUT FUT FUT FUT FUT FUT

—

—

Note: This paradigm exhibits inherent glottal closure of the syllable, so the indexing of the second-person forms by morphemic glottal is masked.7 Table 7. GIVE (TA) or (DA), where the THING is animate but lower in animacy than the GIVER

PRESENT FUTURE PAST AMBULATIVE HORTATIVE EVIDENTIAL HODIERNAL ANDATIVE PROHIBITIVE

3 cuen2 cuen3 cuen3 cuen1 cuen1 cuen1 cuen3 cuen3

—

2 cuen23 cuen13 cuen21 cuen13 XXX

AMB PAST PAST cuen3

1SG cuen32 cuen21 cuén32 cuen21 FUT AMB PAST PAST

1PL cuen23 cuen13 FUT FUT FUT FUT FUT FUT

—

—

Table 8. GIVE (TA:I) or (DA:I), where the THING is animate and equal to or higher than the GIVER in animacy

PRESENT FUTURE PAST AMBULATIVE HORTATIVE EVIDENTIAL HODIERNAL ANDATIVE PROHIBITIVE

3 cue2 cue3 cue3 cue1 cue1 cue1 cue3 cue3

—

2 cue23 cue13 cue21 cue13 XXX

AMB PAST PAST cue3

1SG cue32 cue21 cué32 cue21 FUT AMB PAST PAST

1PL cue23 cue13 FUT FUT FUT FUT FUT FUT

—

—

Sochiapan Chinantec GIVE

241

Sentential examples of each of the forms of GIVE in Tables 4-8 follow: GIVE (II) — Table 4 — is illustrated by: (47) P S 52 1 Cué bíh jéin2 [len3 jná13]. give:FUT AFF crop think:PRES:lSG I There will (surely) be a crop [I think].' (lit. ' T h e crop will surely give I think.') In (47), the verb GIVE can only be inflected for 3rd person, and jéin2 'crop' is the only possible subject. Nor is this a case of ellipsis of some under­ stood direct object — no direct object is possible. However, jéin2 'crop' is the only nominal that has been found which results in an intransitive con­ struction with cue32 GIVE. GIVE (TI) — Table 4 — is illustrated by: (48) P S Cué32 tsú2 give:FUT:3 3 'S/he will give

DO BEN T quie3 ñí1 con2 jon2 tsa3 háu2. money to child:3 tomorrow money to her/his child tomorrow.'

GIVE (DI:I) — Table 4 — is illustrated by: (49) P IO S DO T 32 13 2 3 Cué jná tsú quie tsa3 háu2. give:FUT:3>l I 3 money tomorrow 'S/he will give me money tomorrow.' GIVE (DI) — Table 5 — is illustrated by: (50) P S Cuéh32 tsú2 give:FUT:3 3 'S/he will give

IO DO T jon2 quie3 tsa3 háu2. child:3 money tomorrow her/his child money tomorrow.'

242

David Foris

GIVE (DI reflexive) — Table 6 — is illustrated by: (51) P S DO Cuéh32 tsú2 tsí3 give:REFL:FUT:3 3 heart:3

IO (hngá2) self:3

[hi3 COMP

tiá2 NEG

hau3]. cry:FUT:3 'S/he will control her/his emotions [to not cry].' (lit. 'S/he will give herself/himself heart that (s/he) will not cry.') GIVE (TA) — Table 7 — is illustrated by: (52) P S Cuen3 tsú2 give:FUT:3 3 'S/he will give

DO BEN jan2 mí1 tiei21 ñí1 con2 one:AN cat to a cat to her/his child.'

jon2. child:3

GIVE (DA) — Table 7 — is illustrated by: (53) P S 3 Cuen tsú2 give:FUT:3 3 'S/he will give

IO DO 2 jon jan2 child:3 one:AN her/his child a cat.'

mftiei21. cat

GIVE (TA:I) — Table 8 — is illustrated by: (54) P DO Cue3 jná13 give:FUT:3>l I 'S/he will give me to

S BEN tsú2 ñí1 con2 Pé1. 3 to Peter Peter (in marriage).'

In (54), although the order of the subject and direct object elements can be reversed, the benefactive element must come last. In (55), however, the order of the core arguments can be DO-S-IO, S-DO-IO, or S-IO-DO with no change in meaning (although there is a change in topicality or, alter­ natively, the first argument is contrastive).

Sochiapan Chinantec GIVE

243

GIVE (DA:I) — Table 8 — is illustrated by: (55) P DO S IO Cue3 jná13 tsú2 Pé1. give:FUT:3>l I 3 Peter 'S/he will give me (to) Peter (in marriage).' The same verb as occurs in (55) — inflected for the appropriate person — is used when both THING and GIVER are equal in animacy (see Figure 1). This is illustrated in (56): (56) P Cue21 give:FUT:l>2 'I will give you

S DO IO 13 jná hnú2 Pé1. I you Peter (to) Peter (in marriage).'

Sentential examples of the three forms of GIVE for which the tone-stress paradigms are invariant are as follows: GIVE (DI reciprocal) is illustrated by: (57) P S DO Cú1 jienh1 tsú2 ma3 cáun2 hi3 give return:RECP:3PL 3 by one:IN COMP lia32 quioh21 exist have:3 quioh21 have:3

[ni1 má1 cuoh32 jmái1 when:FUT PERFECT arrive:FUT day

Dió32 míh1]. God little

'They will give (each other) some of their things [on Christmas day].' Since reciprocal GIVE is invariant in its inflection, future time is under­ stood purely from context. Although both passive forms are invariant in their inflection, tense is marked by inflection of the passive prefix. GIVE inflected for the passive, with an animate THING as the direct object, is illustrated by:

244

David Foris (58) P Tsa3-cuén1 PASS:FUT-give:PASS

S DO jná13 tsa3 cuá1 joh1 I horse have:3

ñuh32 father:1

ná1. I 'I will be given the horse belonging to my father.' GIVE inflected for the passive, with an inanimate THING as the direct object, is illustrated by: (59) P S DO Tsa3-cué1 jná13 quie3 PASS:FUT-give:PASS I money 'I will be given money tomorrow.'

[tsa3 háu2]. tomorrow

The flow-chart in Figure 2 illustrates how the form of GIVE is selected according to the four parameters of transitivity, animacy, voice, and coreferentiality which were mentioned in the Introduction. The superscript numbers following GIVE in the flow-chart correspond to the numbers 1-8 adjacent to each inflectionally related form of GIVE presented in Table 1. (By way of reminder, the full inflectional paradigms for forms 1-5 are given in Table 4-Table 8. Forms 6, 7 and 8 do not inflect.) The terms 'lower' and 'higher' refer to animacy relative to the subject. When subject and indirect object are third-person and coreferential, it could be argued that they are equal in animacy. Nonetheless, all verbs which inflect for reflexive or reciprocal exhibit forms which more closely resemble those of the direct voice than those of the inverse voice — the indirect object is treated as lower in animacy than the subject. This prin­ ciple applies for coreferential first-person and coreferential second-person as well. Note that the animacy of the indirect object relative to the subject influences the form of GIVE only when GIVE is ditransitive, the direct object is inanimate, and the voice is either active/direct or inverse — four of the 16 instances. Although there is a potential of 16 inflectionally related forms for GIVE, as seen in Figure 2, SC exhibits just eight forms, of which three (the two passive forms and the reciprocal) do not inflect at all, whereas the other

Sochiapan Chinantec GIVE

Figure 2. Flow-chart of how the appropriate form of GIVE is selected

245

246

David Foris

five inflect for person, tense, motion, and mood — which is probably enough complexity for the human brain to keep track of!

9.

Conclusion

What do we see through the 'window into SC clause structure'? Firstly, the complex morphology of GIVE based on the interaction of transitivity, animacy, voice, and coreferentiality is a reflection in miniature of the nature of the syntactic arguments and the animacy of the direct object and indirect object relative to the subject. The indexing of GIVE for its object elements is based primarily on the relative animacy of the direct object. If it is animate, GIVE is indexed to reflect a direct object which is higher or lower in animacy than the subject, and the relative animacy of the indirect object has no bearing on the inflection. On the other hand, if the direct object is inanimate, the way is cleared for the verb to reflect the animacy of the indirect object relative to the subject. In other words, the fact that GIVE is indexed for the indirect object entails an inanimate direct object — it is, in fact, indexed for both objects. The unmarked order of S-IO-DO reflects the relatively high topicality of the subject when GIVE is inflected for direct voice. On the other hand, when the relatively low animacy of the subject is indexed on GIVE by inflection for inverse voice, the unmarked order of DO-S-IO reflects the relatively high topicality of an animate direct object with respect to the subject, and when the direct object is inanimate, the unmarked order IO-SDO reflects the relatively high topicality of the indirect object. Pragmatic implications with respect to topicality arise from the un­ marked order of subject, direct object and indirect object, and their various permutations. In all the different permutations of the core arguments, at no time can the subject be moved to third position — the subject can never become the least topical element in a ditransitive active clause. Finally, there are semantic implications which arise from the syntax: Transitive GIVE (with the RECIPIENT as an oblique object) and its pas­ sive counterpart imply 'entrust with', whereas ditransitive GIVE and its passive counterpart imply irrevocable giving.

Sochiapan Chinantec GIVE

247

Abbreviations used in glosses AFF= affirmation; AMB= ambulative; AN= animate; ASSR= assurance; BEN= benefactive;

COMP= complementiser; DA= ditransitive animate (direct); DA:I= ditransitive animate inverse; DI= ditransitive inanimate (direct); DIi:I= ditransitive inanimate inverse; DO= direct object; HORT= hortative; IA= intransitive animate; II= intransitive inanimate; IN= inanimate; IO= indirect object; P= predicate; PROG= progressive; RECP= reciprocal; s= subject; sc= Sochiapan Chinantec; TA= transitive animate (direct); TA:I= transitive animate inverse; TI= transitive inanimate (direct); 3= third-person proximate; 31= thirdperson obviative; for further abbreviations, see list on p. vi.

Notes 1.

Sochiapan Chinantec (SC), a VSO language of Otomanguean stock, is located in the State of Oaxaca, Mexico. There are 14 phonemic tone-stress patterns: /V represents a high tone, /2/ a mid tone, and /3/ a low tone; a two digit number such as /13/ repre­ sents a contour tone roughly spanning the distance from /1/ to /3/ (high to low); bal­ listic stress (brief, with high intensity) is shown by an accent over the nuclear vowel, controlled stress (prolonged, with lesser intensity than ballistic stress), is unmarked. Nasalisation of the syllable is indicated by post-vocalic n; for example, tan32 [tã32] 'bird'. The orthography is Spanish based but with certain additional symbols for sounds not found in Spanish, and slight modification of the phonetic value for others. The phonetic value of each letter is not significant to this study, but of interest is: h - /?/, j = /h/, ng = /ŋ/, z = /θ/, qu and c = /k/. For further details on the phonology, see Foris (1993:13-28). The research in this paper is based on 16 years of involvement in the SC commu­ nity. For the final checking of the data in this paper I am indebted to Wilfrido Flores Hernández, a native speaker of SC, who has been assisting me in the analysis of his language and the compilation of a Chinantec-Spanish dictionary. I want to thank Mary Salisbury and Frank Lichtenberk for their helpful comments on this paper. I am especially grateful to John Newman, whose gentle prodding has yielded a more focused and 'reader friendly' article. Any errors or inconsistencies are, of course, my own responsibility.

2.

The term 'inflectionally related' refers to a verb's syntactic/semantic counterparts; that is, forms which are not just synonyms, but are syntactically in complementary distri­ bution. This may involve differences in transitivity valence (e.g. cue32 'give' (transi­ tive inanimate) and cueh32 'give' (ditransitive inanimate)), animacy (e.g. chi2 'remove' (ditransitive inanimate SG) and chin2 'remove' (ditransitive animate SG)), number (e.g. chin2 'remove' (ditransitive animate SG) and huen2 'remove' (ditransitive animate PL)), and direct vs. inverse voice (e.g. chin2 'remove' (ditransitive animate direct SG)

248

David Foris and che2 'remove' (ditransitive animate inverse SG)). Some transitive animate verbs have inflectionally related forms for subject ≠ object (non-coreferential), subject = object (reflexive) and subject ↔ object (reciprocal), e.g. jngih2 'kill' (transitive ani­ mate), jngih32 'kill oneself' (transitive animate reflexive), and jngih23 'kill one another' (transitive animate reciprocal). The term 'inflectionally related' does not imply that the verbs share the same tone-stress inflectional paradigm, although they may; if verbs share the same tone-stress paradigm, they usually differ vocalically.

3.

The 'heart' is central to many SC metaphors; to date I have identified over 150 of them.

4.

The citation forms of verbs is that of the third-person, present tense, unless otherwise indicated.

5.

There is a very small class of transitive verbs such as hnuh32 'choke, drown' which take an inanimate subject; the order of the core arguments of these verbs is invariably O-S.

6.

The term 'HODIERNAL' refers to events in the past of 'today' (since midnight).

7.

Both glottal closure of the syllable and nasalisation of the syllable nucleus can be either inherent or morphemic. Lexemes contrast by the presence or absence of the glottal phoneme syllable final, and/or nasalisation of the nucleus. Examples are: ja32 'spider', jah32 'fist', jan32 'ice', and janh32 'move over'.

References Dixon, R.M.W. 1987. "Studies in ergativity: Introduction." Lingua 71:1-16. Foris, David. 1993. "A Grammar of Sochiapan Chinantec." [Doctoral dissertation, University of Auckland, New Zealand.] Givón, Talmy. 1984. Syntax: A Functional-Typological Introduction, Vol. I. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Givón, Talmy. 1994. "The pragmatics of de-transitive voice: Functional and typological aspects of inversion." In Talmy Givón (ed.), Voice and Inversion. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 3-44. Newman, John. 1996. Give: A Cognitive Linguistic Study. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter [Cognitive Linguistics Research 7]. Newman, John. To appear. "Recipients and 'give' constructions." In William Van Belle and Willy Van Langendonk (eds.), The Dative, Vol. II: Theoretical and Contrastive Studies. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

GIVE, HAVE, and TAKE in Slavic University

1.

Laura A. Janda of North Carolina at Chapel

Hill

Introduction

In the Slavic languages the GIVE, HAVE, and TAKE verbs (verbs of pos­ session and exchange) have informed and influenced one another in terms of their semantic and syntactic expressions. The etymologically related verbs for HAVE and TAKE have undergone very different historical devel­ opments in various parts of the Slavic world. The construction of HAVE has played a crucial role in determining whether or not TAKE will be pat­ terned after GIVE. In most of Slavic (the West and South Slavic languages) HAVE is expressed in active constructions, just as in English Sally has a book. The construction of HAVE as a transitive verb facilitates a parallel between GIVE and TAKE (as achievement vs. loss of an object by an active participant). Thus the expressions of HAVE, GIVE and TAKE in West and South Slavic could be paraphrased as in (1). (1)

a. b. c.

HAVE — Sally:NOM has book:ACC 'S has a book' GIVE — Sally:NOM gives Tommy:DAT book:ACC 'S gives T a book' TAKE — Sally:NOM takes Tommy:DAT bookiACC 'S takes a book from T'

In East Slavic, however, HAVE is normally expressed instead as existence in a location, roughly paraphrasable in English as At Sally there is a book. This construction of HAVE avoids attributing an active role to the posses­ sor, thus undermining the notion that loss of possession might be actively experienced and preventing the parallel construction of GIVE and TAKE.

250

Laura A. Janda

In East Slavic, therefore, TAKE is expressed as a syntactic variant of HAVE (existence in a location), and is not parallel to GIVE. The para­ phrases of HAVE, GIVE, and TAKE for East Slavic are given in (2). (2)

a. b. c.

HAVE — at Sally:GEN [is] book:NOM 'S has a book' GIVE — Sally:NOM gives Tommy:DAT book:ACC 'S gives T a book' TAKE — SallyiNOM takes at Tommy:GEN bookiACC 'S takes a book from T'

The syntactic and semantic profiles of Slavic GIVE, HAVE, and TAKE verbs will be examined below, as well as the factors that contribute to the variety of interactions we observe among them.

2.

An overview of GIVE, HAVE, and TAKE

It appears that the semantic and syntactic expression of TAKE was vari­ able in Slavic, and that, in a sense, there were two possibilities, one that took advantage of the opposition between TAKE and GIVE, and the other based upon a similar relationship between TAKE and HAVE. Late Common Slavic had two verbs that are glossed as 'take', brati and çti, both of which are continued in most modern Slavic languages (although çti reflexes generally require a prefix), and even form a suppletive imperfective/perfective "pair" in several languages (cf. Czech brát/vzít, Russian brat' /vzjat').1 The first verb, brati, is descended from the Proto-IndoEuropean *bher- usually glossed as 'bear, carry', and thus makes reference to transferal or movement of an object, an important ingredient of GIVE, the prototypical "three-place" verb.2 The second verb, çti, shares a root with imĕti 'have' (the two verbs differed only in their suffixes). At the time of Late Common Slavic the genetic relationship between çti and imĕti was still transparent (their conjugations were similar and in one form, the third person plural imotŭ 'they take/have', the paradigms even overlapped), but phonological and morphological changes have since made the link quite obscure. Suffice it to say at this point that there is considerable precedence for relating the concepts of TAKE, GIVE, and HAVE, with TAKE alter­ natively construed either as the inverse of GIVE or as assumption of/removal from possession (HAVING).

GIVE, HAVE, and TAKE in Slavic

251

Thus the etymologies of the Slavic words for TAKE betray semantic relationships between TAKE and both GIVE (via the third concept trans­ feral) and HAVE (where TAKE is a change of state verb referring to the state coded by HAVE). Oddly enough these relationships are borne out in the semantic and syntactic structures of the modern languages. As Newman (1996) has amply demonstrated, GIVE is at once both simple and complex. It is simple because it is a basic concept motivated by universal human experience. It is complex because it involves three partici­ pants (one of which may be omitted if recoverable from context, but none of which may be altogether absent3), and involves prototypical expectations across a variety of domains: spatio-temporal (physical transferal of an object from one person's hands to another's), control (subject relinquishes control of object to RECIPIENT), force-dynamics (object moves from sub­ ject to RECIPIENT), and human interest (RECIPIENT is advantaged by this event; cf. Newman 1996:33-54). Most constructions with three partici­ pants using other verbs can be shown to be motivated as extensions of GIVE.4 Aside from synonyms of GIVE and their extensions, the next closest concept is the antonym TAKE, which, in its prototypical sense, also in­ volves the passing of an object from one person to another. Yet TAKE dif­ fers from GIVE in several important respects, as Newman (1996:42) points out: (a) the force-dynamics is reversed (object moves toward subject rather than away); (b) the subject acts both as energy source (agent) and as energy sink (RECIPIENT); (c) the role of the GIVER ("takee") is less impor­ tant; that participant may be omitted. We could add to this a contrast in the domain of human interests: the RECIPIENT is advantaged in GIVE, but the "takee" is disadvantaged in TAKE (actually, both can be true in some sense for both scenarios, but GIVE highlights advantage to the third par­ ticipant, whereas TAKE highlights disadvantage). This contrast is brought into relief when we examine common synonyms for GIVE and TAKE, as in Table 1. The combination of close parallels and clashing contrasts between GIVE and TAKE motivates the mapping of structures associated with GIVE to expressions of TAKE, but this is not the only logical solution available. As suggested above, TAKE can also take advantage of structures associated with HAVE. Slavic has realized both alternatives, but, as is so often the case with languages, the distinction is not entirely black and

252

Laura A. Janda Table 1. Synonyms for GIVE and TAKE GIVE

TAKE

'offer' 'serve' 'give as a present' 'deliver'

'steal' 'seize' 'swipe' 'appropriate'5

white. Most Slavic languages clearly prefer one alternative over the other, yet there are situations where both strategies are employed to various degrees. The choice is partially determined by how HAVE is expressed, i.e. whether possessors are conceived of as agents of possession or as mere locations of possession. In West and South Slavic, HAVE is expressed by means of a transitive verb: the possessor is a nominative subject, the verb agrees with it, and the possessed object is an accusative direct object, as in (3). Czech (3)

Petr má novou penézenku. Peter:NOM has new wallet:ACC 'Peter has a new wallet.'

Here the possessor appears in the role of the active participant, the agent of possession. In East Slavic, however, the possessor is conceived of as the location or landmark of a state pertaining to the object in a construction that consists of the preposition u 'at' + possessor:GEN + verb 'be' (optional and usually omitted) + possessed object, which functions as the grammatical subject, as in (4). Russian (4)

U Petra novyj bumažnik. at Peter:GEN [is] new wallet:NOM Teter has a new wallet.' 6

The division of Slavic languages into "have-languages" (West and South Slavic) and "be-languages" (East Slavic) has long been clear, but its probable origin has only recently been probed, and the impact of this divi­ sion on the syntax of TAKE has not been widely recognized. The Late

GIVE, HAVE, and TAKE in Slavic

253

Common Slavic verb imĕti 'have' was paradigmatically a marginal item, belonging to a class of only five athematic (i.e. conjugated without a theme vowel) verbs (the other four were byti 'be', ĕsti 'eat', vĕdĕti 'know', and dati 'give'). At the close of the Common Slavic era VjV sequences in the­ matic verbs contracted to yield long V in West and South Slavic, giving thematic verbs a stem shape similar to the athematics. At this point the uni­ form pattern of the athematics was simpler and more distinctive than that of the contracted thematics. In about the fourteenth century a reevaluation of verbal stem types promoted imĕti 'have' to the role of paradigmatic prototype for vast sectors of the verbal lexicon and this once marginalized conjugation type became highly productive. In East Slavic, however, con­ traction did not take place; imĕti 'have' and the other athematic verbs remained marginalized and eventually assimilated to thematic paradigms, without ever experiencing the prototypical status they gained in West and South Slavic. In the case of imëti 'have' (and for some languages vëdëti 'know'), paradigmatic lack of prominence compromised semantic prominence as well, contributing to the development of an expression for HAVE that treats possession as location in East Slavic.7 In East Slavic TAKE cannot be con­ structed like GIVE, but instead derives its construction from that of HAVE, where the possessor acts as the locus of the existence of the object rather than as a transitive agent. We will survey enough languages to give us an idea of the geographi­ cal distribution of concepts of TAKE in Slavic: Russian, Ukrainian (East Slavic); Czech, Polish, Slovak (West Slavic); Macedonian, Serbo-Croatian (South Slavic).8

3.

TAKE as a parallel to GIVE

What is an antonym? Is TAKE an antonym of GIVE or of HAVE, and how is this expressed syntactically? The Slavic languages have woven these three concepts into the fabrics of their grammars in various ways, as we shall see below. But before we turn to these alternate solutions, let us take up the first question concerning the nature of antonyms. It is often observed (cf. Andersen 1989) that antonyms bear a special relationship to each other, one that transcends simple opposition. In order for words to be antonyms, or indeed, to be related in their meaning, they

254

Laura A. Janda

must make reference either to a more abstract concept embracing the scale the antonyms represent, or to another concept which relates them by chance. It is not uncommon in the etymological history of words to find that different languages have developed opposing meanings from the same source, thus realizing over the diachronic dimension the synchronic rela­ tionships that antonyms have in a given language. The English word black derives from the same root as French blanc and Russian belyj, both of which mean 'white', namely from Proto-Indo-European *bhā- 'shine, burn.' Here the concept of 'fire' by chance unites the incandescent light it pro­ duces, generally perceived as white, and the charred remains blackened by flames. Another notorious example within Slavic are the etymologically identical Russian cerstvyj 'stale' and Czech čerstvý 'fresh', both of which reflect Proto-Indo-European *kr-, the source of English hard, a meaning closer to that of the original Proto-Indo-European than either of the Slavic reflexes. Both Russian and Czech have abstracted the original meaning of firmness as an index of relative age, but they have done so in different domains of food. Whereas the Russians (or their ancestors) have applied this concept to bread, which hardens as it ages, the Czechs have based their observations on fruits and vegetables which show the opposite correlation since they go soft as they rot. One more example is of even more recent provenience, the meaning of Russian and Czech pitomec, which in both languages transparently refers to 'the one who is fed', being related to the root pit- 'feed.' In Russian, however, it means 'alumnus, graduate', whereas in Czech it means 'fool' — a pair of apparent opposites. Again, however, the difference in meaning is due to the domain in which it was realized. Russians have applied this word to the abstract domain of intellectual nour­ ishment, whereas Czechs use it metaphorically to refer to humans who exhibit the characteristics of domesticated livestock, demonstrably less cun­ ning than their cousins who must find their food in the wild. Like 'fire' in the case of black, belyj, and food/feeding in the cases of cerstvyj, cerstvy and pitomec, an oblique experiencer presents a domain that can yield opposite interpretations. The oblique experiencer may serve as either the goal of object transfer (in the case of GIVE) or as the source of object transfer (in the case of TAKE). The antonymical roles of goal and source allow TAKE to be conceived of as an antonym and therefore variant

GIVE, HAVE, and TAKE in Slavic

255

Table 2. GIVE and TAKE in parallel constructions GIVE

TAKE

Subject

Object

Oblique

Agent

Patient

Experiencer/Goal|

Subject

Object

Oblique

Agent

Patient

Experiencer/Source

of GIVE, where both involve the transfer of an object by an agent. The parallel constructions of TAKE and GIVE can be diagrammed as in Table 2, where the first row of the description refers to grammatical roles (real­ ized by means of cases and/or prepositions) and the second row refers to semantic roles.9 The only mismatch, highlighted in the table, involves the opposites Goal and Source. In languages where this parallel is exploited syntactically and TAKE uses the GIVE construction, the one non-correspondence is usu­ ally ignored by the grammar (though it retains some force in the domain of human interest: GIVE is associated with benefit, whereas TAKE is asso­ ciated with harm). The West and South Slavic languages permit the con­ struction of TAKE as GIVE, marked by the following case structure (also known as the indirect object construction): Nominative Agent, Accusative Patient, Dative Experiencer (the order of these items is variable, since they are clearly marked by cases, and in some of the Slavic languages a pro­ noun in the nominative case can be dropped). The use of the dative indirect object construction allows the grammar to capitalize on another parallel, that between HAVE and TAKE, shown in Table 3. HAVE and TAKE in parallel constructions HAVE

Subject Agent

Object Patient

TAKE = ATTAIN "HAVE"

Subject Agent

Object Patient

Oblique Experiencer/Source

256

Laura A. Janda

Table 3. Both HAVE and TAKE here describe transitive actions, the latter optionally expressing also the source of the object. Indeed, it is fruitful to paraphrase TAKE as ATTAIN "HAVE", since this highlights the parallel. The indirect object type of TAKE construction is best instantiated in Czech and Slovak, where this is the only neutral way to construct TAKE, and the case system is well-maintained. Here are some examples: Czech (5)

(6)

Hana dala Petrovi Hana:NOM gave Peter:DAT 'Hana gave Peter a gift.'

dárek. gift:ACC

Zlodĕj vzal Petrovi penĕženku. thief:NOM took Peter:DAT wallet:ACC 'The thief took Peter's wallet.' (lit. '. . took wallet from Peter.')

The datives in TAKE expressions such as (6) are often termed "datives of possession" in the literature, but their function is actually distinct from that of all other possessives. If no other possessive is present in the expression, it is assumed that the dative experiencer of the loss is also the possessor. However, true possessives referring both to the experiencer and to another possessor can be used along with the dative; if the dative's role were truly possession, the expressions in (7) and (8) would be ungrammatical, since two possessives cannot modify a single noun phrase in Czech. These exam­ ples prove that the semantic force of the dative is to identify the person (or thing) from whom something was taken, not whose something was taken: (7)

Zlodĕj vzal Petrovi moji penĕženku. thief:NOM took Peter:DAT my wallet:ACC 'The thief took my wallet from Peter.'

(8)

Studenti mi vzali všechny moje knihy. students:NOM me:DAT took all my books:ACC 'The students took all my books from me.'

The situation is the same in Slovak and nearly so in Polish, as the exam­ ples (9)-(12) attest.

GIVE, HAVE, and TAKE in Slavic Slovak (9)

Daj mi you give me:DAT 'Give it to me!'

257

to! it:ACC

(10) Ukradli mi dáždnik. stole me:DAT umbrella:ACC They stole [my] umbrella from me.' Polish (11) Mary daje pudeiko siostrze. Mary:NOM gives box:ACC sister:DAT 'Mary gives a box to her sister.' (12) Zabraia mi syna. took me:DAT son:ACC '[She] took [my] son from me.' Macedonian Macedonian generally lacks case marking on nouns and adjectives, but compensates for this by inserting the appropriate pronominal form to refer to some non-nominative noun phrases.10 Thus in indirect object construc­ tions the direct object (cf. knigata 'book:the' in (13)) is also realized as a pronoun {ja 'her:ACC'). Both GIVE and TAKE have this construction: (13) Mu ja dadov him:DAT her:ACC gave 'I gave him the book.'

knigata. book:the

(14) (Toj) mi go ukrade (he:NOM) me:DAT him:ACC stole 'He stole the watch from me.'

casovnikot. watch:the

Although the prototypical TAKE expression involves a dative indirect object in these languages, it is possible to construe TAKE differently, high­ lighting instead the fact that the "takee" is the source (rather than the experiencer) of the transferal of the object, and this is done with a prepositional phrase rather than the indirect object. Here is an example from Czech, where the source is identified in (15a) by the preposition od 'from' govern­ ing the genitive case, but in (15b) by a dative pronoun:

258

Laura A. Janda (15) a. Ani pes by not even dog:NOM would:AUX

od from

nëho kůrku chleba nevzal. him:GEN crust:ACC bread:GEN not took 'Not even a dog would take a crust of bread from him.' b. Ani pes not even dog:NOM kůrku chleba crust:ACC bread:GEN

by would:AUX

mu him:DAT

nevzal. not took

'Not even a dog would take away his crust of bread.' It appears that these two sentences encode the "same" hypothetical physi­ cal event (transfer of bread from man to dog), and indeed they form a syntactic minimal pair. However, the concepts communicated are strikingly different. (15b) focuses on how the man will experience the loss, whereas (15a) specifically avoids such a focus. The man in (15a) is so wicked or deceitful that even a dog will shun him. By contrast the man in (15b) is so pitiful and wretched that even a dog will feel sorry for him and not want to harm him by taking his food. Serbo-Croatian The competition between these two alternative constructions (indirect object vs. prepositional phrase) is rather evenly matched in Serbo-Croatian. The dative appears in prototypical indirect object constructions with GIVE as in (16). (16) Molim, dajte mi please you give me:DAT 'Please, give me five stamps.'

pet five:ACC

maraka. stamps:GEN

but the number of TAKE verbs that admit a dative indirect object is very limited, consisting of only three examples: uzeti 'take', oteti 'take away', and ugrabiti 'seize'. There are furthermore usage restrictions on TAKE verbs. The dative generally appears only with the past tense of oteti and ugrabiti', and uzeti can also take the prepositional phrase od 'from' + GEN, in which case it connotes 'borrow' rather than 'take (permanently)'. The following examples demonstrate the variation between the dative and the od + GEN prepositional phrase observed with uzeti 'take', as in (17)-(18).

GIVE, HAVE, and TAKE in Slavic

259

(17) Uzeo je novac took AUX money:ACC 'He took money from her.' (18) Uzeo joj je took her:DAT AUX 'He took her money.'

od from

nje. her:GEN

novac. money:ACC

To sum up, West and South Slavic languages tend to highlight the "takee's" role as an active experiencer of loss by using an indirect object construction, although it is possible to treat the "takee" as merely the source of the possessed object in a prepositional phrase.

4.

TAKE as a parallel to HAVE

In East Slavic, as we have seen in Section 2, HAVE is normally conceived of as presence in a possessor's vicinity. The transferal of possession ex­ pressed by TAKE is consequently conceived of as an action on an object in a possessor's vicinity. If HAVE can be diagrammed in East Slavic as in Table 4, then the attainment of HAVE, a transitive concept, should involve the addition of a third entity, which now serves as the subject and agent, and removes the patient (and now object) from the locus of possession (now realized as a source), as in Table 5. Table 4. East Slavic HAVE HAVE

Object

Oblique

Patient

Locus of possession

Table 5. East Slavic TAKE ATTAIN

Subject

Object

Oblique

"HAVE"

Agent

Patient

Locus of possession

TAKE

Subject

Object

Oblique

Agent

Patient

Experiencer/Source

260

Laura A. Janda

The normal construction for TAKE in East Slavic capitalizes on the semantic parallels available in HAVE, but chooses to suppress the mis­ match between locus of possession and experiencer in favor of the former (semantically close to the concept of source). This construction can be illus­ trated with the examples in (19) and (20). Russian (19) Slava vzjal u menja Slava:NOM took at me:GEN 'Slava took [my] umbrella from me.'

zontik. umbrella:ACC

Ukrainian (20) Ja

vidibrav u xlopciv hrosi. I:NOM took at boys:GEN money:ACC T took the money from the boys.'

In (19) (and 20) the patient (zontik 'umbrella') and the experiencer/source (u menja 'at me:GEN') constitute two separate constituents (cf. alternative word orders such as U menja Slava vzjal zontik). In other words, this type of construction could not be paraphrased as *'Slava took the at.me um­ brella', where 'at.me' modifies 'umbrella'. On the contrary, there are still three syntactic roles involved in TAKE, even in East Slavic. The indirect object construction cannot be used to express TAKE, and thus a sentence like Russian: (21) *On mne vzjal he:NOM me:DAT took 'He took my last kopeck.'

poslednjuju last

kopejku. kopeck:ACC

is ungrammatical. The closest we come to this sort of construction is in sentences that describe some sort of strong effect (usually damage or de­ struction) on the patient rather than actual 'taking', as in Russian: (22) On razbil otcu mašinu. he:NOM smashed up father:DAT car:ACC 'He smashed up his father's car.' (cf. Levine 1984:494)

GIVE, HAVE, and TAKE in Slavic 5.

261

Discussion

The above data yield a significant syntactic isogloss in Slavic: TAKE has an indirect object construction in West and South Slavic, but uses a prepo­ sitional phrase expressing location in East Slavic. In West and South Slavic a possessor is construed as an agent and appears as the nominative subject of a transitive verb. This construal facilitates the identification of the "takee" (the agent of HAVE prior to object transfer) as an experiencer equivalent to the RECIPIENT of GIVE. Here the actual subject (in the nominative case) of HAVE is clearly correlated with the potential subjects (in the dative case), i.e. the experiencers of both GIVE and TAKE.11 In East Slavic the construal of possessors as passive locations prevents this identification. One might wonder whether there are not other factors at work here. Could it be that the dative case has a different range of meanings and is just not as suited to the expression of loss as to the expression of gain in East Slavic? A look at independent evidence indicates that this is not the case. The dative case is unrestricted in marking the experiencer of both bene­ fit and harm in all areas of Slavic. Where damage is involved (as in (22) above), both Czech and Russian can mark the experiencer with the dative, as the following examples show: Czech (23) Kdo mi šlápl na rajcata? who:NOM me:DAT stepped on tomatoes:ACC 'Who stepped on [my] tomatoes [this impacted on me]?' Russian (24) Kto mne nastupil na pomidory? who:NOM me:DAT stepped on tomatoes:ACC 'Who stepped on [my] tomatoes [this impacted on me]?' 12 Grammatically (23) and (24) are identical and both utterances highlight the loss experienced by the possessor. Both languages also use dative government with verbs denoting harm, and indeed, this kind of verbal gov­ ernment is more prevalent in Russian than in Czech, as can be seen in Table 6. There is clearly nothing in the semantics of the dative case (which by itself bears no more semantic freight than 'experience') that would prevent

262

Laura A. Janda

Table 6. Czech and Russian verbs denoting 'harm' used with dative Czech

Russian 'bother' 'harm' 'hurt' 'hinder' 'take revenge on' 'annoy'

vadit skodit ublizovat prekážet mstít nesedët

mešat' vredit' izmenjat' nadoedat' mstit' dosazdat' naskučit' ostocertet' oprotivet' opostylet'

'bother, hinder' 'harm, hurt' 'betray' 'get on nerves of' 'take revenge on' 'annoy' 'bore' 'repel' 'repel' 'be hateful'

it from signaling loss in East Slavic. Instead it is the presumption of pos­ session on the part of the "takee", combined with the fact that possessors are in East Slavic mere locations (a historical result of the marginal para­ digm of imĕti 'have') that prevents construal of TAKE as harm, parallel to the benefit of GIVE. Continuing the discussion on the basis of Czech and Russian data, we can also observe that whereas TAKE is exclusively a two-place verb in Russian, it is most usually a three-place verb in Czech, even when the "takee" is not expressed (either by omission or because there is none, as in (25)). Thus, although it is possible to simply 'take an umbrella' (25a), it is more normal to highlight the fact that this action will advantage the sub­ ject by using the dative reflexive pronoun si (25b). Here the dative entity experiences a benefit directly parallel to that produced by GIVE: (25) a.

b.

Vezmi deštník! you take umbrella:ACC Take the/an umbrella!' Vezmi si destnik! you take REFL:DAT umbrella:ACC 'Take the/an/your umbrella [for your benefit]!'

(25a) is a neutral statement, and could be used even in a context where it is clear that the umbrella is not going to be used by the hearer, such as when moving from one home to another. In (25b), however, the speaker is

GIVE, HAVE, and TAKE in Slavic

263

asserting that the hearer will (probably) need to use the umbrella; the semantic import of the dative pronoun si is suggested by the gloss 'for your benefit'. Russian, which does not permit the "takee" to be expressed as an indirect object experiencer, also does not allow this status to be conferred on the "taker", so there is no Russian equivalent to (25b), and Russian allows only (26). (26) Voz'mi zontik! you take umbrella:ACC Take the/an umbrella!' The relationship between TAKE and GIVE or HAVE is not merely one of antonymy. These relationships are motivated by shared abstract concepts such as transferal and existence at a location. We may conclude with the following observations. Slavic data suggest that TAKE is certainly not as basic a concept as GIVE or HAVE. Instead, TAKE is manifested as an extension or variant of GIVE or HAVE. All Slavic languages express GIVE the same way, with the experiencer as a dative indirect object. As previous research has shown (Janda 1993; Smith 1985; Bachman 1980), the basic meaning of the dative case is "potential subjecthood", i.e. potential to serve as the agent of a further action, which is why the dative is the ideal vehi­ cle for expressing the role of the experiencer.13 The prototypical agent and/ or dative entity is a human being, with animals and animate objects pro­ gressively less felicitous and hence rarer in the dative case (as shown by Greenberg 1974). Slavic languages are not united, however, in their con­ struction of HAVE, which is expressed with an active agent of a transitive verb in West and South Slavic, but as mere existence at a location (which might or might not be human or animate) in East Slavic. In West and South Slavic, where both HAVE and GIVE imply that the possessor is a sentient being capable of reacting (the actual subject of HAVE and a potential sub­ ject in the GIVE construction), the TAKE construction likewise tends to capitalize on these (mainly human) qualities of the third participant. But in East Slavic, where the HAVE construction contains no implications about the animacy of the possessor, TAKE construes the possessor as nothing more than a passive location with no particular qualities, be they human or not. There is apparently not enough support in the semantic and syntactic systems of the East Slavic languages to realize the parallels between TAKE and GIVE. Language is indeed a system ou tout se tient — phonological

264

Laura A. Janda

shape (e.g. in the case of the athematic stems) can contribute to or detract from the viability of lexical items and their syntactic constructions and fur­ ther, semantic construals and syntactic constructions appear to form "com­ munities" that can mutually support one another. TAKE depends on both GIVE and HAVE for its expression.

Notes 1.

See discussion of these verbs in Townsend and Janda (1996:216, 239).

2.

Compare Buck's (1949/1988) entries for TAKE (733-734) and CARRY (707-708).

3.

In Newman's examples, such as We give to the Red Cross and I like to give presents the missing patient and RECIPIENT are clearly money and people, respectively.

4.

This is certainly true for Slavic and some other European languages, cf. Janda (1993).

5.

This is a sampling of glosses of synonymous verbs in Czech. All GIVE verbs are con­ structed exactly like 'give' and all TAKE verbs have the same construction as well, cf. Janda (1993:560).

6.

East Slavic languages do have transitive verbs meaning 'have', 'possess', and the like, but the prototypical construction for expressing this relationship is the one cited in (2). All others are marked and of low frequency.

7.

The fate of the athematic verbal paradigm in Slavic is examined in great detail in chapter 2 of Janda (1996).

8.

The only major Slavic languages missing from this list are Belarusian (which behaves like Russian and Ukrainian) and Bulgarian (which is similar to Macedonian). For con­ venience, we will use the traditional name "Serbo-Croatian" to refer to the linguistic entity which may be variously termed Serbian, Croatian, and Croato-Serbian.

9.

Both the grammatical roles and the semantic roles referred to in this article are admit­ tedly ad-hoc. The former are inspired by the grammatical options available in Slavic languages, and the latter are inspired by the semantic domains identified by Newman (1996).

10.

Pronouns are inserted for definite direct objects and for all indirect objects. Moreover, specific direct objects can trigger this phenomenon as well.

11.

As indicated below, potential subjecthood is a core meaning of the dative case, as argued by Janda (1993), Smith (1985), and Bachman (1980).

12.

Levine (1984) provides a good discussion of this phenomenon in Russian.

GIVE, HAVE, and TAKE in Slavic 13.

265

The sources cited have demonstrated the dative's expression of potential subjecthood only in Slavic and Germanic languages. However, the core meaning of the dative does not appear to be very language-specific, and this may well be valid for other languages or even for languages in general.

References Andersen, Henning. 1989. "Markedness theory — the first 150 years." In Olga M. Tomic (ed.), Markedness in synchrony and diachrony. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 11-47. Bachman, Ronald David. 1980. "The subject potential of the dative case in Modern Russian." Ph.D. dissertation, Ohio State University. Buck, Carl Darling. 1949/1988. A Dictionary of Selected Synonyms in the Principal Indo-European Languages. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press. Greenberg, Joseph H. 1974. "The relation of frequency to semantic feature in a case language (Russian)." Working Papers on Language Universals 16:21-45. Janda, Laura A. 1993. "The shape of the indirect object in Central and Eastern Europe." Slavic and East European Journal 37:533-563. Janda, Laura A. 1996. Back from the Brink: A Study of How Relic Forms in Languages Serve as Source Material for Analogical Extension. München: Lincom Europa [Lincom Studies in Slavic Linguistics 1]. Levine, James S. 1984. "On the dative of possession in contemporary Russian." Slavic and East European Journal 20:493-501. Newman, John. 1996. Give: A Cognitive Linguistic Study. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter [Cognitive Linguistics Research 7]. Smith, Michael B. 1985. "Event chains, grammatical relations, and the semantics of case in German." Papers from the Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society 21:388-407. Townsend, Charles E. and Laura A. Janda. 1996. Common and Comparative SlavicPhonology and Inflection. Columbus, OH: Slavica.

Giving in Dutch: An intra-lexematical and inter-lexematical description Theo A.J.M. Janssen Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam

1.

Introduction

In this paper1 I will examine the meaning of the Dutch verb geven 'to give' intra-lexematically (semasiologically) and inter-lexematically (onomasiologically). This twofold approach to the meaning of geven aims to reduce the methodological problem one is faced with when characterizing a word's meaning within a monosemy theory, since a monosemic intra-lexematical characterization is often so meagre or abstract that it cannot adequately dis­ criminate between the meaning of the word involved and the meaning of any synonym. The methodological problem of how to value the character­ ization of a word's meaning motivates the inter-lexematical approach. This type of description can delimit the characterization of a word's meaning by systematically taking into account the meanings of, for instance, its syn­ onyms. As a matter of fact, a main practical purpose of lexical semantics is the determination of the correspondences and differences between word meanings. Apart from my methodological stand, there are a number of theoreti­ cal points of view which I do not share with most monosemists. I reject both the idea that a word's meaning is invariant (Reid 1995; Tobin 1995) and the idea that a word has an inherent meaning (Ruhl 1989:33). If a word can be assumed to be a conventional entity serving to communicate, this does not imply that its conventionality entirely precludes the language user from determining through the factual usages of a word whether or not it

268

Theo A.J.M. Janssen

can be applied or seen as to be applied in the way it was successfully applied before. By the term word meaning I mean a highly conventionalized expe­ rience-based interpretative potential enabling people to communicate. Although experiential knowledge of successful usages of a word may serve as the primary basis for any new application, the language user has always to be prepared for some slight semantic (and, possibly, slight phonological) variance in a word's application. Variations in the applications of words can originate, for instance, in a language user's unfamiliarity with a word, his or her carelessness or creativity. It is due to the interlocutor's intelli­ gence and his willingness to cooperate that variations are tolerated (Diver 1995:99); if a variation regularly appears to be useful, it is possible that the meaning of a word is adjusted (reconventionalized). Although it is a neces­ sary condition for the existence of a word that it has a meaning, a word should not be ascribed an invariant meaning, let alone an inherent meaning, since people can and actually do adjust word meanings. The relationship between the potentialities of a word before and after a meaning adjustment is often compared to the resemblance between mem­ bers of a family. However, I would suggest that it is better to compare it with the resemblance between two clearly successive stages of an indi­ vidual's life. The continuity of a person's consecutive stages of life enables others to experience this person as preserving his identity in spite of his development. The analogy of the family resemblance wrongly implies that a word before and after a meaning adjustment represents two related but different words. Certainly, it happens that a word is subject to adjustments initiated and established by, for instance, different groups of language users in such a way that in the end various groups of language users apply exactly the same phonological unit very differently. When systematic communicative problems occur between usages of a phonological unit, it can be assumed to represent two or more words (see also Diver 1995:98-99; Keller 1995). Of course, in such circumstances the metaphor of family resemblance is possibly applicable to the semantic relationship between the words concerned. How can one decide whether a phonological unit can be assumed to represent one word or more than one? The decision has to be based on lin­ guistic examination. The theoretical principle guiding this examination is

Giving in Dutch

269

the criterion whether one single meaning can be assumed in the various usages of the phonological unit. Or as van der Leek (1996) puts it, "any sense in context should be intersubjectively traceable to its skeletal mean­ ing". This requirement differs essentially from the claim that various senses share one common semantic feature or core. Thus, if there is one phono­ logical unit to which various 'senses in context' can be related, I assume one meaning to the extent of which one abstract meaning is recoverable. It is the linguist's task to determine which aspects of a sense in context is incidental and to explain how different senses in context can be traced back to one word's conventional semantics (Janssen 1994). I will argue that geven 'to give' has one meaning in the cases examined below. In my approach I will combine the intra-lexematical with the interlexematical descriptive strategy. If both provide for consistent evidence, I assume I have reliable indications for a valid characterization. Thus, in order to present a characterization as recognizably and verifiably as possi­ ble, I will combine the intra- and inter-lexematical approaches to geven's meaning. In the intra-lexematical approach to the characterization of geven's meaning I will determine the basic experiential knowledge of its applications, such as combinations with and without a direct object and combinations with and without an indirect object. In my inter-lexematical approach to geven I will determine the dividing lines between its use and the uses of its synonyms. Although generally the term synonymy originating from lexical seman­ tics pertains to a very close semantic relationship between individual words, here it will also be used to indicate a very close semantic relationship between sentences. Unfortunately, there are no clear-cut criteria which can determine whether the semantic relationship between expressions is close enough to consider the relationship to be synonymous. The main criterion should be not so much the assessment that in some situations the expres­ sions under scrutiny can serve equally well to express what one likes to communicate, but rather the fact that there is hardly any situation in which one of the expressions serves better than the other to sketch what one wants to communicate. Nevertheless, here the term synonymy will be used in the first, rather loose sense; I will call expressions (i.e. words, phrases, or sen­ tences) synonymous if they seem referentially to be interchangeable in the situation concerned. Thus, the notion of synonymy will serve here as a merely heuristic tool.

270

Theo A.J.M. Janssen

Section 2 will concentrate on the combination of geven with a subject and direct object. Section 3 will deal with geven sentences in which also an indirect object participates. Section 4 will go into some special uses of geven.

2.

Geven combined with subject and direct object

In this section I will examine combinations of geven with a subject and direct object, in which an indirect object cannot occur. Subsection 2.1 will focus on the intra-lexematic characterization of geven; sentences featuring the geven pattern defined in subsection 2.1 will be compared with synony­ mous sentences in subsection 2.2. 2.1. The intra-lexematical characterization of geven combined with a subject and direct object Here I will discuss the meaning of geven combined with subject and direct object in the pattern whose distinctive characteristics are the following: a. b. c.

the presence of an indirect object is not conventional;2 the sentence has no passive counterpart; the sentence has no counterpart with the verb krijgen 'to get'.

I will explore the meaning of geven in this combination by comparing its applications in various circumstances. Let us consider sentences (l)-(3), in which geven can be translated by 'to cause'. (1)

Die opmerking gaf veel onrust. that remark gave much commotion 'That remark caused great commotion.'

(2)

Die opmerking gaf groot ongenoegen. that remark gave great displeasure 'That remark caused great displeasure.'

(3)

Die opmerking gaf veel spanning. that remark gave much tension 'That remark caused great tension.'

Giving in Dutch

271

None of these sentences can be transformed into a worden-passive; witness the clear nonconventionality of, for instance, sentence (4).3 (4) ? Er werd veel onrust gegeven door die opmerking. there was much commotion given by that remark A conversion into a krijgen-passive (comparable with the get-passive in English) is impossible because the original sentence lacks the entity which could serve as the subject of krijgen 'to get'. However, it is interesting to consider the passive-like conversion by means of the verb ontstaan 'come into being, arise', such as in sentences (5)-(7). (5)

Er ontstond veel onrust doorlover die there came into being much commotion by/about that opmerking. remark

(6)

Er ontstond groot ongenoegen doorlover die there came into being great displeasure by/about that opmerking. remark

(7)

Er ontstond veel spanning door/over die opmerking. there came into being much tension by/about that remark

Sentences (l)-(3) are synonymous with sentences (5)-(7). Can their syno­ nymy suggest how one should understand the meaning of geven? In sen­ tences (5)-(7) the meaning of ontstaan 'to come into being' comes close to the way geven can be interpreted in sentences (l)-(3). However, this notion of 'coming into being' is in one respect too abstract, in another too specific. Apart from the causative feature of geven, the notion of 'coming into being' does not cover the aspect that the entity which comes into the picture has some implication for another entity. Thus, it is in this respect that ontstaan 'come into being' is more abstract than geven. In which respect is it more specific than geven? Normally, the use of ontstaan requires that the entity involved did not exist before. Such a condition, however, does not gener­ ally apply to the use of geven, even if one has to assume that in sentences (l)-(3) the entities veel onrust 'great commotion', groot ongenoegen 'great displeasure', and veel spanning 'great tension' did not exist before the remark was made.

272

Theo A J. M. Janssen

How can the use of ontstaan 'to come into being' in sentences (5)-(7) be comparable to the use of geven in sentences (l)-(3)? When an entity comes into existence, it can be assumed to fall into some domain. And, conversely, if an entity falls into some domain, it is possible that while or by falling into some domain it comes into existence. In my view geven sig­ nals that an entity falls into some domain but it offers no indication of whether it comes into existence while or by falling into a domain. What is more, sentences (l)-(3) do not specify the domain into which an entity is caused to fall. The language user, however, can and does infer which is the relevant domain in the given situation. Assuming that a domain is always seen as the domain of some entity, I define the domain of y as 'the entirety that can be conceived of as constitutive of y in the relevant ontology, in which y can be a person, a group of persons, or a nonhuman concrete or abstract entity'.4 This will be discussed below. The considerations above lead to the semantic characterization of geven shown in (8). (8)

The intra-lexematical characterization of geven combined with subject and direct object: The word geven 'to give' means: 'to cause that an entity is in some domain', more formally: [x] CAUSE THAT [Y] BE [IN SOME DOMAIN].

As in sentences (l)-(3) no other entities than the referents of the subject and direct object are brought up, I have to explain the status of the last entity mentioned in geven's characterization, namely the entity referred to by means of some domain. In sentences (l)-(3) nobody (or nothing) is mentioned explicitly as the person (or the entity) involved in the commo­ tion, displeasure, or problems referred to. Nevertheless, these sentences imply that the commotion etc. arose in the domain of at least one person. The limits of the domain in question can be determined by means of, for instance, in kringen van aandeelhouders 'among shareholders'; witness sentences (9)-(12). (9)

Die opmerking gaf veel onrust in kringen van that remark caused much commotion in the circles of aandeelhouders. shareholders 'That remark caused great commotion among shareholders.'

Giving in Dutch

273

(10) Die opmerking veroorzaakte veel onrust in kringen that remark caused much commotion in the circles van aandeelhouders. of shareholders That remark caused great commotion among shareholders.' (11) Die opmerking gaf groot ongenoegen in kringen van that remark gave great displeasure in the circles of aandeelhouders. shareholders 'That remark caused great displeasure among shareholders.' (12) Die opmerking gaf veel spanning in kringen van that remark gave much tension in the circles of aandeelhouders. shareholders 'That remark caused great tension among shareholders.' However, such a phrase does not specify the domain in question itself, but rather the domain in which the entire event at issue occurred. Characterization (8) assumes that geven does not signal a transfer of the direct object's referent from the control domain of the subject's refer­ ent to the control domain of the indirect object's referent {pace Newman 1993, 1996; Goldberg 1995). For instance, one wonders how in sentence (9) the commotion at issue can be assumed to have been transferred from the control domain of the remark referred to. In other words, it is very unlikely that the commotion originated from the remark's control domain. 2.2. The inter-lexematical characterization of geven combined with a subject and direct object By comparing geven with other verbs, I will attempt to delimit geven's characterization in (8) more precisely. I will deal with the observations that one type of geven sentence can be interpreted as representing a cause-efiFect relationship and that another type can be interpreted as representing a source-product relationship.5 This distinction will be argued to be based not on two (context-independent) meanings of geven, but on the types of entity involved.

274

Theo A.J.M. Janssen

First, consider sentences (13)-(16), which are all synonymous with sen­ tence (1). (13) Die opmerking veroorzaakte veel onrust. that remark caused much commotion 'That remark caused great commotion.' (14) Die opmerking wekte veel onrust. that remark aroused much commotion 'That remark caused great commotion.' (15) Die opmerking verwekte veel onrust. that remark created much commotion 'That remark caused great commotion.' (16) Die opmerking bracht veel onrust teweeg. that remark brought much commotion about 'That remark caused great commotion.' The interpretation of these sentences can be that the remark at issue brought into being great commotion; the sentences can be seen as representing a cause-effect relationship. Although geven in sentence (1) is synonymous with veroorzaken, wekken, verwekken, and teweegbrengen in sentences (13)-(16), in some cases the use of geven is possible, but the use of veroorzaken, wekken, verwekken, and teweegbrengen is impossible, and the other way around. Let us first consider sentences in which a verb of the last series can be used but in which geven is clearly nonconventional. (17) a.

Die opmerking veroorzaakte grote verbittering. that remark caused great bitterness 'That remark caused great bitterness.'

b. ? Die opmerking gaf grote verbittering. that remark gave great bitterness (18) a.

Dat virus veroorzaakte een ernstige ziekte. that virus caused a serious illness 'That virus caused a serious illness.'

b. ? Dat virus gaf een ernstige ziekte. that virus gave a serious illness

Giving in Dutch

275

Contrary to the semantic similarity between sentences (1) and (13), the sentences of (17) and (18) cannot be valued as similar because the (a) sentences are perfectly conventional but the (b) sentences are clearly nonconventional. This discrepancy between the (a) and (b) sentences suggests that geven does not signal a relationship of cause and effect between the entities referred to. The synonymy of sentences (1) and (13) shows that geven can license the idea that a causal relationship is at issue. Thus, geven can license the context-dependent interpretation of such a causal relationship. However, the context-dependent causal interpretability of a sentence such as (1) is not a cogent reason to ascribe a contextually independent causal meaning to geven (of course, this is not to deny geven's semantic causativity feature). On the basis of the contrast between the (a) and (b) sentences in (17) and (18), we may conclude that it is not geven, but only veroorzaken which signals a relationship of cause and effect between the entities referred to. Admittedly, sometimes geven licenses the context-dependent interpretation of such a causal relationship. But the (b) sentences show that there is no guarantee that a geven sentence is possible if the entities involved can have a relationship of cause and effect, as is apparent from the (a) sentences.6 Let us now consider the relationship between geven and wekken, which was at issue in the comparison of sentences (1) and (14). In spite of their synonymy, however, the comparison of the (a) and (b) sentences in (19) and (20) shows a discrepancy between the meanings of both verbs since the (b) cases are highly unconventional. (19) a.

Die opmerking wekte grote nieuwsgierigheid. that remark aroused great curiosity 'That remark aroused great curiosity.'

b. ? Die opmerking gaf grote nieuwsgierigheid. that remark gave great curiosity (20) a.

Die opmerking wekte enige verbazing. that remark caused some surprise That remark caused some surprise.'

b. ? Die opmerking gaf enige verbazing. that remark gave some surprise

276

Theo A.J.M. Janssen

The lack of semantic correspondence between the (a) and (b) sentences in (19) and (20) suggests that wekken has a meaning different from geven. Wekken specifically expresses how the remark brought to the fore the curiosity and surprise at issue; this idea gains plausibility when one real­ izes that iemand wekken means 'to wake (up) someone'. What is the relationship between geven and verwekken? Do they also differ in meaning? The lack of synonymy between the (a) and (b) sentences in (21) and (22) suggests that the answer must be affirmative. (21) a.

Dat virus verwekte een ernstige ziekte. that virus caused a serious illness 'That virus caused a serious illness.'

b. ? Dat virus gaf een ernstige ziekte. that virus gave a serious illness (22) a.

Die opmerking verwekte een onbedaarlijk gelach. that remark created an uncontrollable laughter 'That remark caused an uncontrollable laughter.'

b. ? Die opmerking gaf een onbedaarlijk gelach. that remark gave an uncontrollable laughter Verwekken reminds one of the starting point of an entity's creation since the verb can be used in the sense of 'conceive'. Normally, the verb geven lacks any reminiscence of conception. The synonymy of sentences (1) and (16) argues in favour of the idea that geven and teweegbrengen are synonymous. However, the discrepancy between the (a) and (b) sentences in (23) and (24) reveals a semantic dis­ tinction between both verbs. (23) a.

Die opmerking bracht een plotselinge verandering that remark brought a sudden change teweeg. about 'That remark caused a sudden change.'

b. ? Die opmerking gaf een plotselinge verandering. that remark gave a sudden change

Giving in Dutch (24) a.

277

Die opmerking bracht een verzoening teweeg. that remark brought a reconciliation about 'That remark brought about a reconciliation.'

b. ? Die opmerking gaf een verzoening. that remark gave a reconciliation The verb teweegbrengen comes close to the meaning of to bring into exist­ ence, albeit that the etymological meaning of teweeg is more concrete than the meaning of into existence, since it originates from te 'on' + wege 'way', i.e. 'on the way'. The nonconventionality of the (b) sentences suggest that neither a sudden change nor a reconciliation can be conceived of as enti­ ties which can be given. Let us now consider cases where geven can be used but the verbs veroorzaken, wekken, verwekken, and teweegbrengen cannot, or if they can be used, they have an entirely different import (examples with these four verbs will not be discussed in order to save space).7 (25) Die koe gaf veel melk. that cow gave much milk 'That cow gave a great deal of milk.' (26) Elke plant gaf drie à vier vruchten. each plant gave three or four fruits 'Each plant produced three or four fruits.' (27) Die kachel gaf weinig warmte. that stove gave little heat 'That stove gave off little heat.' (28) Die radio gaf nauwelijks geluid. that radio gave hardly any sound 'The radio hardly emitted a sound.' (29) De man gaf een gil. the man gave a scream 'The man gave a scream.' Sentences (25)-(29) imply that the direct objects' referents were presented in some domain, which may give the impression that the referents were available to someone (cf. Newman 1996:152-153); sentence (29) gives rise

278

Theo A.J.M. Janssen

to the idea that the scream referred to was audible to at least one perceiver (cf. Newman 1996:149-150).8 Although in (25)-(29) geven cannot be substituted by veroorzaken, wekken, verwekken, and teweegbrengen, it has other synonyms. In sentences (25), (27), and (28) produceren 'to produce' can serve as a synonym of geven, but it sounds impersonal and, therefore, seems to emphasize the economic or technical qualities of the subject's referents. In sentences (26), (27) and (28) voortbrengen 'bring forth, produce' can serve as a synonym, albeit that this verb belongs to a more formal register. Finally, in sentence (29) pro­ duceren and voortbrengen can be applied but will produce a peculiar, formal and possibly ironic effect. Can produceren and voortbrengen always be substituted by geven? Let us have a look at, for instance, sentences (30) and (31). (30) a.

Deze fabriek produceerde 1250 personenauto's per dag. this factory produced 1250 passenger cars a day 'This factory produced 1250 passenger cars a day.'

b. ? Deze fabriek gaf 1250 personenauto's per dag. this factory gave 1250 passenger cars a day (31) a.

Die eeuw bracht veel grote mannen voort. that century brought many great men forth 'That century produced many great men.'

b. ? Die eeuw gaf veel grote mannen. that century gave many great men The nonconventionality of the (b) sentences shows that the applicability of produceren or voortbrengen does not guarantee that geven can also be used. Each of the (a) sentences shows that the central relationship between the entities referred to is a relationship between source and product. Both (a) sentences lack the semantic aspect required for the application of geven sentences. They do not imply that the products involved fall into the domain of some entity. Such an implication, however, is required by geven's characterization in (8). Can and should we assume a semantic dividing line between geven in sentences such as (l)-(3) and geven in sentences such as (25)-(29)? It is interesting to notice that sentences such as (25)-(29) can be continued by sentences with a so-called possessive construction in which the source fea-

Giving in Dutch

279

tures as the 'possessor' and the product as the 'possessed' entity; witness sentences (32)-(36). (32) En haar melk was van hoge kwaliteit. and her milk was of high quality 'And its milk was of high quality.' (33) De laatste vrucht van elke plant was steeds de the last fruit of each plant was always the lekkerste. most delicious 'The first fruit of each plant was always the most delicious one.' (34) Maar voor even was de warmte van die kachel voldoende. but for a while was the heat of that stove sufficient 'But for a while its heat was sufficient.' (35) En erger, het geluid van die radio was niet alleen miniem, and worse the sound of that radio was not only slight maar ook nog krakerig. but also creaky 'What's more, the sound of that radio was not only very low, but also creaky.' (36) Zijn gil klonk angstaanjagend. his scream sounded terrifying 'His scream sounded terrifying.' A similar continuation is meaningless in the case of sentences (l)-(3), and also in the case of the (a) sentences in (19)-(24). Thus, we can observe a clear distinction between sentences with a cause-effect and those with a sourceproduct relationship. However, I assume that it is not based on two mean­ ings of geven. The fact that all of the so-called possessive constructions in (32)-(36) also license the source-product relationship suggests that the dis­ tinction is due to the extralingual differences between the types of entity involved and, possibly, between the statuses assigned to their relationships in our culture.

280

Theo A.J.M. Janssen

2.3. The meaning of geven combined with a subject and direct object On the basis of the synonymy between sentences (1) and (13)-(16), we concluded that sentence (1) can be interpreted as licensing the cause-effect relationship between the referents of the subject and direct object. The nonconventionality of the (b) sentences in (17)-(24), however, showed that the cause-effect relationship should not be assumed to be an aspect of the meaning of geven. The examination of sentences (25)-(29), (32)-(36) leads to the conclusion that the geven sentences involved can be interpreted as licensing the source-product relationship between the entities referred to. The nonconventionality of the (b) sentences in (30) and (31) showed that the source-product relationship should not be assumed to be an aspect of the meaning of geven. These observations suggest the intra- and interlexematical characterization shown in (37). (37) The intra- and inter-lexematical characterization of geven combined with subject and direct object: 1. The word geven 'to give' combined with a subject and a direct object means: [x] CAUSE THAT [Y] BE [IN SOME

causes that an entity is in some domain). The word geven as used in 1. can be highly synonymous with the words veroorzaken, wekken, verwekken, and teweegbrengen, as illustrated in sentences (9)-(16), but differs from these words semantically, as is shown in ex­ amples (17)-(29). 2.2. The word geven as used in 1. can license the following interpretation: 'The subject's referent is the cause and the direct object's referent is the effect.' 3.1. The word geven as used in 1. can be highly synonymous with the words produceren and voortbrengen, but differs from these words semantically, as is elucidated by means of examples (30)-(31). 3.2. The word geven as used in 1. can license the following interpretation: 'The subject's referent is the source and the direct object's referent is the product.' DOMAIN] (X

2.1.

Giving in Dutch 3.

281

Geven combined with subject, indirect object, and direct object

This section will concentrate on the meaning of geven in combinations with a nominal or a prepositional indirect object. In subsection 3.1, geven's intralexematical characterization will be discussed; in subsection 3.2, various combinations with geven will be compared with synonymous types in order to elaborate geven's inter-lexematic characterization. 3.1. The intra-lexematical characterization of geven combined with a subject, indirect object, and direct object The verb geven can be combined with either a nominal or prepositional indirect object. Sentence (38) shows a nominal indirect object, namely Tom; sentence (39) shows a prepositional indirect object, namely aan Tom. (38) Fred gaf Tom een wandelstok. Fred gave Tom a walking-stick Tred gave Tom a walking-stick.' (39) Fred gaf een wandelstok aan Tom. Fred gave a walking-stick to Tom 'Fred gave a walking-stick to Tom.' I assume that the nominal and prepositional indirect object are different grammatical categories, although sentences such as (38) and (39) are gen­ erally judged as synonymous. Due to the undeniable semantic similarity between sentences of these two types, the nominal and prepositional indi­ rect object are traditionally assumed to be instantations of one and the same grammatical category, namely the category of the indirect object. Neverthe­ less, this idea is contestable because nominal and prepositional indirect objects do not alternate freely and, after all, sentences such as (38) and (39) do differ semantically, as argued by, for instance, Janssen (1976, 1992), Schermer-Vermeer (1991), and Van Belle and Van Langendonck (1992). Sentence (38) is used to signal that the giving of the walking-stick con­ cerns Tom, whether it is of service to him or not. Sentence (39) is just used to signal that the walking-stick has Tom as its destination. In the view of Schermer-Vermeer (1991:192), the variant with the preposition aan de­ scribes the situation in which the walking-stick is in contact with Tom. This

282

Theo A.J.M. Janssen

more or less spatial relationship is signalled particularly by means of the preposition aan. The semantic similarity between nominal and prepositional indirect object sentences is based on a lingual and nonlingual factor. The lingual factor is that the meaning of the verb geven is the same in both cases. The nonlin­ gual factor is that knowledge of the world allows language users to think that a sentence with a prepositional indirect object has the same interpre­ tation as a sentence with a nominal indirect object. For instance, although sentence (39) merely describes that the walking-stick reaches Tom, this does not prevent one from interpreting the situation described as concern­ ing Tom, or even as being of service to or affecting him. The interpreta­ tion is merely due to an inference which can thrust itself upon the hearer or reader on the basis of his or her knowledge of the world because if a walking-stick reaches Tom, it is very well possible that this fact concerns (is of service to or affects) him. However, in the prepositional indirect object sentence (39), the supposed concern cannot be seen as being por­ trayed by the lingual elements. How can the semantic difference between geven sentences with a nomi­ nal and sentences with a prepositional indirect object be characterized more specifically? What is referred to by means of the prepositional indirect object is the domain into which the direct object's referent is assumed to fall. In contrary to this, the nominal indirect object specifies the domain in which the entire situation at issue has to be seen.9 The semantic status of the nominal indirect object can be elucidated by the synomy of sentences such as in (40) and (41) (see Janssen 1976). (40) a.

Paul reikte Anna het glas aan. Paul handed Anna the glass PARTICLE 'Paul handed Anna the glass.'

b. Anna kreeg het glas door Paul aangereikt. Anna got the glass by Paul handed 'Anna was handed the glass by Paul.' (41) a.

Fred bood Tom een wandelstok aan. Fred offered Tom a walking-stick PARTICLE 'Fred offered Tom a walking-stick.'

Giving in Dutch b.

283

Tom kreeg door Fred een wandelstok aangeboden. Tom got by Fred a walking-stick offered 'Tom was offered a walking-stick by Fred.'

In the (b) sentences, the verb kreeg 'got' expresses the fact that the situa­ tions of Paul's handing the glass and Fred's offering the walking-stick are located in Anna's and Tom's domains. The synonymy of the (a) sentences with the (b) sentences argues for the plausibility of the idea that also in the (a) sentences the entire situations of Paul's handing the glass and Fred's offering the walking-stick are to be seen as located in Anna's and Tom's domains.10 How does this relates to characterization (8), saying [x] CAUSE THAT [Y] BE [IN SOME DOMAIN]? The prepositional indirect object specifies what is characterized by means of IN SOME DOMAIN. The nominal indirect object specifies the domain in which the entire situation characterized by means of [x] CAUSE THAT [Y] BE [IN SOME DOMAIN] occurs. Therefore, the semantic function of the nominal indirect object can be described as shown in (42) (Janssen 1994). (42) The semantic function of the nominal indirect object'. When a sentence has a nominal indirect object, the situation involved is presented as being in the domain of the nominal indirect object's referent in such a way that the situation concerns the referent. This view on the difference between the nominal and prepositional indirect object needs some further explanation. Therefore, I will first compare the nominal indirect object and the so-called 'possessive dative'. Second, I will discuss the status of two types of nominal indirect object, namely the dativus commodi and the dativus incommodi. And third, I will determine how characterization (42) relates to characterizations (8) and (37). 3.1.1. The nominal indirect object and the 'possessive dative' The structure of sentences with a 'possessive dative' can clarify the rela­ tionship between the nominal and prepositional indirect object. Let us com­ pare sentences (43)-(44).

284

Theo A.J.M. Janssen (43) Rita gaf haar zoon een kus op zijn voorhoofd. Rita gave her son a kiss on his forehead 'Rita gave her son a kiss on the forehead.' (44) Rita gaf haar zoon een kus. Rita gave her son a kiss 'Rita gave her son a kiss.'

In a sentence such as (43), haar zoon is traditionally analysed as a 'pos­ sessive dative'; this is based on the possessive relationship between the son and the forehead mentioned in the locative phrase. In a sentence such as (44), haar zoon is analysed as a nominal indirect object. In my view, how­ ever, haar zoon serves as a nominal indirect object in both cases, because it is merely epiphenomenal that the son is the possessor of the forehead mentioned in the locative phrase (Janssen 1976, 1994).11 I assume that the role of the locative phrase in sentences such as (43) is comparable to the grammatical role of the prepositional indirect object. Both the locative phrase and the prepositional indirect object specify the destination of the direct object's referent. There is, however, a noteworthy cognitive difference between the ref­ erents of a locative phrase and a prepositional indirect object. The referent of the locative phrase can be a part of the possessive dative's referent, an artificial part of his or her body, (a part of) an article of his or her cloth­ ing, or, for instance, an accessory. Most of the time, however, the referent of the prepositional indirect object is an entity which is comparable to the possessive dative's referent; thus, the prepositional indirect object's refer­ ent often happens to be an entity which itself could play the semantic role of a nominal indirect object's referent. 3.1.2. The dativus commodi and the dativus incommodi The characterization of the nominal indirect object in (42) captures in a generalizing way the traditional distinction between two types of nominal indirect object, namely the dativus commodi and the dativus incommodi. They can be illustrated by sentence (45), featuring a dativus commodi, and by sentence (46), featuring a dativus incommodi.

Giving in Dutch

285

(45) Monica gaf haar zoon gelijk. Monica gave her son right. 'Monica said her son was right.' (46) Monica gaf haar zoon ongelijk. Monica gave her son wrong 'Monica said her son was wrong.' Obviously, the difference between these two nominal indirect objects should not be ascribed to different meanings of geven, but to the different import of the direct objects' referents. Other cases which can sustain this idea are, for instance, the examples in scheme (47). (47) iemand iemand iemand iemand geven iemand iemand

de de de de

bons geven schuld geven volle laag geven wind van voren

een aframmeling geven een berisping geven

iemand een boete geven iemand een doodklap geven iemand geven iemand donder iemand iemand geven iemand iemand

een draai om de oren een flink pak op z'n geven een grote mond geven een jaar gevangenisstraf een optater geven een pak ransel geven

iemand een schop (onder zn achterste) geven iemand een snauw geven iemand een standje geven

'to give someone the push' 'to blame someone' 'to give someone hell' 'to give someone something to think about' 'to give someone a hiding' 'to give someone a talking-to' 'to fine someone' 'to give someone an almighty blow' 'to box someone's ears' 'to give someone a really good bollocking' 'to give someone lip' 'to give someone a one-year prison sentence' 'to give someone a clout' 'to give someone a good hiding' 'to kick someone in the pants' 'to snarl at someone' 'to rebuke someone'

286

Theo A.J.M. Janssen iemand geven iemand iemand iemand geven iemand

een steek onder water een stomp geven een uitbrander geven (de keeper) het nakijken iets op zn brood geven

iemand klop geven iemand (een kind) slaag geven iemand stank voor dank geven iemand straf geven iemand zijn congé geven iemand zijn vet geven

'to have a sly dig at someone' 'to punch someone' 'to give someone a roasting' 'to give someone (the goalkeeper) the go-by' 'to give someone something to remember' 'to give someone a beating' 'to give someone (a child) a spanking' 'to give someone small thanks' 'to punish someone' 'to give someone the sack' 'to give someone a piece of one's mind'

In each case it is due to the negative import of the direct object's content that the action involved is to the detriment of the nominal indirect object's referent.12 Thus, it can be assumed that it is not the meaning of geven which determines whether the nominal indirect object serves as a dativus commodi or a dativus incommodi. Although dativus commodi and dativus incommodi sentences can be conceived of as representing two different cognitive relationships between the nominal indirect object's referent and the situations described, only one grammatical relationship should be assumed in both types of sentence. Both cognitive relationships are licensed by one grammatical relationship, namely the relationship characterized in (42). 3.1.3. Two types of indirect object and the meaning of geven Let us now consider the semantic characterization of geven in sentences with a prepositional and sentences with a nominal indirect object. Both types of geven sentence are in accordance with characterization (8), which says that geven means [x] CAUSE THAT [Y] BE [IN SOME DOMAIN]. The pre­ positional indirect object specifies the domain into which the direct object's

Giving in Dutch

287

referent is assumed to fall, whereas the nominal indirect object specifies the domain into which the entire situation at issue has to be seen to fall. (48) The intra-lexematical characterization of geven combined with a prepositional or a nominal indirect object: 1. The word geven combined with a subject, prepositional indirect object, and a direct object means: [x] CAUSE THAT [Y] BE [PREPOSITION Z], where x represents the subject, Y the direct object and PREPOSITION Z the prepositional indi­ rect object. 2. The word geven combined with a subject, nominal indirect object, and a direct object means:[ITCONCERN W THAT] [X] CAUSE THAT [Y] BE [IN SOME DOMAIN], where IT CONCERN [w] THAT represents the function of the nominal indirect

object, w represents the nominal indirect object, x repre­ sents the subject, and Y the direct object; IN SOME DOMAIN can possibly be instantiated as PREPOSITION Z. 3. The word geven as used in 2. can license the following interpretations: a. 'The situation represented by [x] CAUSE THAT [Y] BE [IN SOME DOMAIN] is advantageous to the nominal indirect object's referent.' b. 'The situation represented by [x] CAUSE THAT [Y] BE [IN SOME DOMAIN] is disadvantageous to the nominal indirect object's referent.' 4.1. Sentences featuring the combination in 1. can be highly synonymous with sentences featuring the combination in 2. 4.2. Sentences featuring the combination in 1. can license the following interpretation: 'The situation described is in the domain of Z in such a way that the situation concerns Z.' Characterizations (8), (37), and (48) do not specify whether CAUSE has to be seen as agentive or not. In my view, it is not geven but the nature of the subject which determines whether the sentence involved can have an agentive or non-agentive interpretation. Consider, for instance, sentences (49) and (50).

288

Theo A.J.M. Janssen (49) Met deze woorden gaf de arts haar hoop op with these words gave the doctor her hope on voorspoedig herstel. speedy recovery 'By saying this, the doctor gave her the hope of a speedy recovery.' (50) De woorden van de arts gaven haar hoop op voorspoedig the words of the doctor gave her hope on speedy herstel. recovery 'The doctor's words gave her the hope of a speedy recovery.'

I assume that the meaning of geven licenses both the agentive and nonagentive type of use. Thus, the characterization of geven in (48) could be extended by the licenses of both agentivity and nonagentivity.13 The same would go for the characterization in (8) and (37).14 For brevity's sake, in the lists of licenses, however, the point of (non)agentivity will be omitted. 3.2. The inter-lexematical characterization of geven combined with a subject, indirect object, and direct object In order to develop the inter-lexematical characterization of geven, I will focus on synonymous verbs which can also combine with a subject, indirect object, and direct object. First, however, I will consider the verb krijgen 'to get, to receive', which can be seen as the converse of geven and its synonyms.15 The importance of first looking at krijgen is that it can be used to show that some geven synonyms are semantically closer to geven than others. 3.2.1. Geven versus krijgen Sentence (51) can be converted into sentence (52). (51) Fred gaf Tom een wandelstok. Fred gave Tom a walking-stick 'Fred gave Tom a walking-stick.'

Giving in Dutch

289

(52) Tom kreeg een wandelstok van Fred. Tom got a walking-stick from Fred 'Tom got a walking-stick from Fred.' The main difference between geven and its counterpart krijgen is that the verb geven is causative and allows an imperative use (e.g. Geef Tom een wandelstok! 'Give Tom a walking-stick!'), whereas krijgen is inchoative and normally does not serve as an imperative.16 The synonyms of geven can be divided into two groups. The so-called past participles of one group of verbs can and those of the other group cannot serve as main verbs in combinations where krijgen serves as the auxiliary. This is illustrated by examples (53) and (54); here the source phrase (van Fred 'from Fred') or the agent phrase (door Fred 'by Fred') is left out since they cause an awkward stylistic effect in most cases where krijgen combines with a past participle. (53) a.

Fred gaf Tom een wandelstok. Fred gave Tom a walking-stick 'Fred gave Tom a walking-stick.'

b. ? Tom kreeg een wandelstok gegeven. Tom got a walking-stick given (54) a.

b.

Fred bood Tom een wandelstok aan. Fred offered Tom a walking-stick PARTICLE 'Fred offered Tom a walking-stick.' Tom kreeg een wandelstok aangeboden. Tom got a walking-stick offered 'Tom was offered a walking-stick.'

The (b) sentence in (53) shows that gegeven, being the past participle of geven, is incompatible with krijgen. The (b) sentence in (54), however, shows that aangeboden, being the past participle of aanbieden, can be combined with krijgen. I assume that the difference between geven and aanbieden is due to the fact that geven overlaps krijgen semantically much more than aanbieden does. Scheme (55) lists the different groups corre­ sponding with geven and aanbieden.

290

Theo A.J.M. Janssen (55) I. past participle cannot be combined with krijgen geven bieden opleveren

'to give' 'to offer' 'to produce'

schenken verlenen verschaffen

'to present' 'to grant' 'to supply'

II. past participle can be combined with krijgen aanbieden aanreiken bezorgen brengen leveren opdienen

'to 'to 'to 'to 'to 'to

offer' pass' provide' bring' furnish' serve'

opleggen overhandigen toedienen toekennen toewijzen verstrekken

'to 'to 'to 'to 'to 'to

impose' hand' administer' award' assign' supply'

Since the verbs of group I share the property that their past participles do not normally combine with krijgen,17 they seem to come semantically closer to geven than the verbs in group II. In any case, geven can be assumed to be sufficiently distinguished from the verbs of group II. In view of the aim to delimit geven's meaning, it is of primary relevance to examine the mean­ ings of the verbs in group I. 3.2.2. Geven versus bieden, opleveren, schenken, verlenen, verschaffen Let us consider sentences (56)-(61), which are all synonymous. (56) Zijn toezegging gaf me voldoende zekerheid om het project his promise gave me sufficient certainty for the project op te starten. up to start 'His promise gave me sufficient certainty to start up the project.' (57) Zijn toezegging bood me voldoende zekerheid om het project op te starten. (58) Zijn toezegging leverde me voldoende zekerheid op om het pro­ ject op te starten. (59) Zijn toezegging schonk me voldoende zekerheid om het project op te starten.

Giving in Dutch

291

(60) Zijn toezegging verleende me voldoende zekerheid om het project op te starten. (61) Zijn toezegging verschafte me voldoende zekerheid om het pro­ ject op te starten. When in these sentences the nonagentive subject zijn toezegging is replaced by an agentive subject, they continue to be synonymous except for the sen­ tence with the verb opleveren; in the latter case the change creates an odd­ ity, as is apparent from sentence (62). (62) ? Tom leverde me voldoende zekerheid op om Tom produced me sufficient certainty PARTICLE for het project op te starten. the project up to start The exceptional status of opleveren implies that geven's relationship with bieden, schenken, verlenen, and verschaffen remains to be examined. Let us, first, compare the geven sentence in (63) with the bieden sentence in (64). (63) Marc gaf me twintig gulden voor mijn oude fiets. Marc gave me twenty guilder for my old bike 'Marc gave me twenty guilders for my old bike.' (64) Marc bood me twintig gulden voor mijn oude fiets. Marc offered me twenty guilder for my old bike 'Marc offered me twenty guilders for my old bike.' The geven sentence implies that I received the money, whereas the bieden sentence implies nothing more than that Marc would give me the money if I were to accept his bid. The offering event can serve as a phase preced­ ing the acceptance, albeit that in sentence (57) the offering phase can hardly be distinguished from the actual giving phase.18 Both in sentence (57) and (64) bieden's meaning is comparable to 'to present, to exhibit'. It is up to the hearer to infer what is implied by the use of bieden in combination with the subject, direct object, etc. See, for instance, the following sentence. (65) De man bood ons weinig verzet bij zijn arrestatie. the man offered us little resistance at his arrest 'The man offered little resistance when he was arrested.'

292

Theo A.J.M. Janssen

This example19 illustrates clearly that what is offered does not need to be presented for acceptance or for sale. Additionally, it is interesting to note that in this sentence the verb geven cannot replace the verb bieden. A clear distinction between the verbs geven and schenken 'to give something as a present' can be made by comparing sentences (64) and (66). (66) ? Marc schonk me twintig gulden voor Marc presented me twenty guilder [as a present] for mijn oude fiets. my old bike In contexts as shown in (63) and (64), the verb schenken cannot be applied (bar rather artificial ironic usage). The verb schenken cannot cooccur with the phrase voor twintig gulden, even if the phrase would read voor niets 'for nothing'; the combination creates a contradiction in terms. Thus, by using the verb schenken, one signals that the entity which is given has to be seen as a gift. Let us now turn to the verb verlenen, which can be seen as a rather formal synonym of geven. Verlenen portrays the act involved as favourable or propitious to the entity to which something is given. Verlenen signals that the act involved is not compulsory, the same way schenken does. Con­ sider, for instance, the following sentences. (67) De koning verleende de gevangene gratie. the king granted the prisoner mercy 'The king showed the prisoner mercy.' (68) De bank verleende ons uitstel van betaling. the bank granted us postponement of payment The bank granted us postponement of payment.' (69) Hare Majesteits aanwezigheid verleende glans aan de her majesty's attendance lent lustre to the plechtigheid. ceremony 'Her Majesty's attendance gave lustre to the ceremony.'

Giving in Dutch

293

(70) De bloemen verleenden de kamer een vrolijk aanzien. the flowers lent the room a cheerful appearance 'The flowers lent the room a cheerful appearance.' The entities given by the act of 'verlenen' are always abstract, such as admittance, a chance, freedom, a privilege, a right, support, and a title. Although the verb verschaffen resembles the verb verlenen in its rather formal use, the verbs differ in several respects. Verlenen portrays a situa­ tion as favourable or propitious to the entity to which something is given, whereas verschaffen portrays a situation as advantageous or profitable to the entity concerned. The phenomenon that a situation portrayed by means of verschaffen cannot be disadvantageous to the indirect object's referent is apparent from the nonconventionality of the (b) sentence in (71), while it is possible to use geven or bezorgen in the same context, as shown by the (b) sentence in (72).20 (71) a.

Zijn goede vooropleiding verschafte hem snel his good preliminary training gave him soon een grote voorsprong. a great advantage 'His good preliminary training soon gave him a great head start.'

b. 1 Zijn slechte vooropleiding verschafte hem snel his bad preliminary training gave him soon een grote achterstand. a great disadvantage 'His bad preliminary training soon caused him to get behind considerably.' (72) a.

Zijn goede vooropleiding gaf/bezorgde hem his good preliminary training gave him snel een grote voorsprong. soon a great advantage 'His good education soon gave him a great head start.'

294

Theo A.J.M. Janssen b. Zijn slechte vooropleiding gaf/bezorgde hem snel his bad preliminary training gave him soon een grote achterstand. a great disadvantage 'His bad preliminary training soon caused him to get behind considerably.'

If verschaffen's meaning can be circumscribed as 'to make something avail­ able to someone', the requirement that the entity given is advantageous or profitable to someone is possibly based on the following inferential se­ quence: when an entity is available to someone, he or she can dispose of it, and when an entity is at his or her disposal, it is advantageous or profit­ able to him or her. Let us finally consider another point in which verschaffen differs from verlenen. The latter verb can only combine with a direct object if it serves as referring to an abstract entity, whereas verschaffen can combine with a direct object whose referent is abstract — see sentence (71a) — or con­ crete. This difference is illustrated by examples (73)-(76). (73)

Fred verschafte Tom een wandelstok. Fred supplied Tom a walking-stick 'Fred gave Tom a walking-stick.'

(74) ? Fred verleende Tom een wandelstok. Fred granted Tom a walking-stick (75)

Dit winkeltje kan u alle benodigde kruidenierswaren this little shop can you all required groceries verschaffen. supply 'This little shop can supply you with all the groceries you need.'

(76) ? Dit winkeltje kan u alle benodigde kruidenierswaren this little shop can you all required groceries verlenen. grant

Giving in Dutch

295

Sentences (73) and (75) are both conventional, but sentences (74) and (76) are both clearly nonconventional. Let us now turn to the difference between verschaffen and geven. Compare sentence (75) with sentence (77). (77) Dit winkeltje kan u alle benodigde kruidenierswaren this little shop can you all required groceries geven. give 'This little shop can give you all the groceries you need.' Sentence (77) seems to say that the shop can give the articles for free. But this is certainly not what sentence (75) says or implies. If a shop can sup­ ply you with the articles you want, normally the items will be sold to you. The difference between sentences (75) and (77) reminds one of the difference between bieden and geven. Both bieden and verschaffen do not actually say, but can license the implication — depending on the entities involved — that what is offered or supplied is not only presented or made available but also comes at one's disposal. 3.3. The meaning of geven combined with a subject, direct and indirect object In subsection 3.2.1 and, particularly, in 3.2.2 geven is compared to various synonyms in order to delimit the meaning of geven when combined with an indirect object. The results of the attempt to circumscribe the meaning of geven are summarized in (78). (78) The inter-lexematical characterization of geven combined with a subject, direct object and a prepositional or nominal indirect object [a supplement to (48)]: The characteristics 1.-4. are as represented in (48). 5. The word geven combined with a subject, indirect object, and a direct object can be highly synonymous with the words bieden, opleveren, schenken, verlenen, verschaffen, as is illus­ trated in sentences (56)-(61), but differs from these words semantically, as is elucidated by means of examples (62)-(77).

296

Theo A.J.M. Janssen 6.

4.

The word geven combined with a subject, indirect and direct object can license the following interpretations: 'The direct object's referent is presented as an offer to the indirect object's referent' — compare sentences (56) and (57), 'as a product for the indirect object's referent' — com­ pare sentences (56) and (58), 'as a gift to the indirect ob­ ject's referent' — compare sentences (56) and (59), 'as a grant to the indirect object's referent' — compare sentences (56) and (60), 'or as a supply to the indirect object's ref­ erent' — compare sentences (56) and (61).

Special uses of geven

The uses of Dutch geven are so diverse that the lexicon Woordenboek der Nederlandsche taal (de Vries, te Winkel et al. 1882-present) needs almost eleven pages to describe the word. This clearly means that only a limited number of its uses can be dealt with within the scope of this article.21 After the discussion of sentences in which the indirect object cannot and need not occur, this section will mainly concentrate on cases in which the direct object is not expressed. First, I will consider some kinds of geven sentences featuring a subject and some other elements. Subsequently, I will discuss sentences in which geven only combines with a subject and uses of geven which can do without a subject. Let us first look at the type of geven sentence in which a direct object is lacking but which shows a subject, nominal indirect object ('possessive dative') and a locative.22 (79) a.

Peter gaf hem op zijn bakkes. Peter gave him on his kisser (Peter gaf hem een klap op zijn bakkes.) 'Peter gave it to him in the kisser.'

b. Peter gaf hem op zijn bek. Peter gave him on his mouth (Peter gaf hem een klap op zijn bek.) 'Peter punched him in the mouth.'

Giving in Dutch c.

297

Peter gaf hem op zijn bliksem. Peter gave him on his lightning (Peter gaf hem een pak op zijn bliksem.) 'Peter gave him a good hiding.'

d. Peter gaf hem op/voor zijn broek. Peter gave him on/for his pants (Peter gaf hem een pak (/klap) op zijn broek.) 'Peter spanked him.' e.

Peter gaf hem op zijn donder. Peter gave him on his thunder (Peter gaf hem een pak op zijn donder.) 'peter gave him what for.'

f.

Peter gaf hem op zijn duvel. Peter gave him on his devil (Peter gaf hem een pak op zijn duvel.) Teter beat the hell out of him.'

g. Peter gaf hem op zijn falie. Peter gave him on his cloak (Peter gaf hem een pak op zijn falie.) Teter gave him hell.' h. Peter gaf hem op zijn gezicht. Peter gave him on his face (Peter gaf hem een klap op zijn gezicht.) 'Peter slapped his face.' i.

Peter gaf hem op zijn huid. Peter gave him on his hide (Peter gaf hem een pak op zijn huid.) 'Peter tanned his hide.'

j.

Peter gaf hem op/voor Peter gave him on/for (Peter gaf hem een klap Teter biffed him on the

zijn kanis. his face op zijn kanis.) kisser.'

298

Theo A.J.M. Janssen k. Peter gaf hem op zijn kloten. Peter gave him on his balls (Peter gaf hem een pak op zijn kloten.) 'Peter dressed him down.' 1.

Peter gaf hem op zijn kop. Peter gave him on his head (Peter gaf hem een klap op zijn kop.) 'Peter gave him what for.'

m. Peter gaf hem op zijn lazer(ij). Peter gave him on his [leprous] carcase (Peter gaf hem een pak op zijn lazer (ij).) 'Peter gave him a good roasting.' n. Peter gaf hem op zijn (sode)flikker. Peter gave him on his arse (Peter gaf hem een pak op zijn (sode)flikker.) 'Peter gave him a proper dressing down.' o. Peter gaf hem op zijn sodeju. Peter gave him on his arse (Peter gaf hem een pak op zijn sodeju.) 'Peter knocked the hell out of him.' p. Peter gaf hem op zijn (sode)mieter. Peter gave him on his arse (Peter gaf hem een pak op zijn (sode)mieter.) 'Peter keelhauled him.' q. Peter gaf hem op zijn ziel. Peter gave him on his soul (?) 'Peter beat him up.' r.

Peter gaf hem voor de blote. Peter gave him for the naked (Peter gaf hem een pak voor de blote.) 'Peter spanked him.'

s.

Peter gaf hem voor zijn billen. Peter gave him for his buttocks (Peter gaf hem een pak (/klap) voor zijn billen.) 'Peter smacked his bottom.'

Giving in Dutch t.

299

Peter gaf hem voor zijn kont. Peter gave him for his bottom (Peter gaf hem een klap voor zijn kont.) 'Peter smacked his bottom.'

The sentences in (79) are a coherent group. Each of them corresponds to a synonymous krijgen sentence23 and almost each of them can be comple­ mented by a direct object. In sentences (a), (b), (h), (j), (1), and (t) the direct object can be een klap24 'a bash, blow, clout, slap, smack, wallop, whack, or thwack'; in sentences (c), (e-g), (i), (k), (m-p), and (r) the direct object can be een pak [lit. a pack] 'a beating, hiding, licking, thrashing, or whacking'; sentences (d) and (s) can be complemented by both types of direct object.25 How do the sentences in (79) relate to geven's meaning represented as [x] CAUSE THAT [Y] BE [PREPOSITION z]? The fact that these sentences vary between two types of meaning 'to give a bash, etc.' and 'to give a hiding, etc.' indicates that instead of Y the element SOME ENTITY can be assumed in geven's semantic characterization.26 I would like to mention another type of sentence without a direct object but which implies an entity which could be conceived of as the direct object's referent. The example shown in (80) is synonymous with (81). (80) Jan gaf het kind te eten/drinken. Jan gave the child to eat/drink 'Jan gave the child something to eat/drink.' (81) Jan gaf het kind iets te eten/drinken. Jan gave the child something to eat/drink 'Jan gave the child something to eat/drink.' The sentences in (79) and (80) suggest that the meaning of geven together with knowledge of the world enables language users to interpret geven sentences without a direct object.27 Thus, the element in geven's charac­ terization corresponding with a direct object has to be represented as an unspecified entity by means of, for instance, SOMETHING.28 Finally, I would like to discuss two geven sentences without a direct and indirect object and a geven construction in which a subject is lacking. The question is whether my characterization of geven's meaning is an ade­ quate basis for interpreting such cases. Consider, for instance, sentences (82)-(84).

300

Theo A. J. M. Janssen (82) Deze koe geeft goed. this cow gives well 'This cow gives good milk.' (83) Wie moet er geven? who must there give 'Who's dealing?' (84) Het is zaliger te geven dan te ontvangen. it is more blessed to give than to receive 'It is more blessed to give than to receive.'

In the case of sentence (82), it is on the basis of knowledge of the world that one knows both what the cow can be assumed to give and to whom the cow gives what it gives. I assume that the elements in geven's charac­ terization corresponding with a direct and indirect object have to be repre­ sented as unspecified entities by means of, for instance, SOME ENTITY and IN SOME DOMAIN. In the factual situation of use it is up to the language user to infer the applicable specification. A similar way of reasoning holds for sentence (83). When it is used in the situation of a card game, one knows exactly both what is dealt, namely cards, and who receive the cards, namely the other players. In accordance with this approach, the characterization of geven in a sentence such as (84) requires that also the element corre­ sponding with a subject is represented as unspecified.29 This results in the following representation: [SOME ENTITY] CAUSE THAT [SOME ENTITY] BE [IN SOME DOMAIN].

Notes 1.

I am grateful to Justine Pardoen and Ina Schermer-Vermeer for valuable discussions about word meaning and other touchy linguistic subjects. I hope that Ronald Landheer will notice his influence on my approach to words. John Newman and an anonymous reviewer are also to be thanked for their important and effective comments.

2.

I will use the notion of (un)conventionality instead of notions such as (un)grammaticality or (un)acceptability. The criterion of (un)grammaticality presupposes an Archimedian point from which one can judge whether a sentence is grammatical or not; such an evaluation requires an exhaustive and explicit grammar of the language involved and a valid evaluation procedure which enables one to distinguish between

Giving in Dutch

301

grammatical and nongrammatical aspects of the sentences under scrutiny. I would like to restrict the notion of (un)acceptability to the question of whether a sentence is appropriately applied in a given context or situation. The issue I am concerned with here is the question of whether a sentence is a highly conventional unity. This type of question can be adequately answered by any speaker of the language concerned. This does not imply that I assume all speakers to have the same ideas about what is or what is not a highly conventional sentence; the degrees in which linguistic elements are conventionalized can differ between various social groups. 3.

A question marker preceding a sentence signals that one or more aspects of the sen­ tence are assessed as not being in line with the conventions of the language involved.

4.

The notion of 'domain' covers the cognitively interrelated notions of spatial, benefac­ tive and control domain (or sphere of influence) proposed by Newman (1993).

5.

Compare Newman (1996:143-156; this volume).

6.

The question of why geven cannot be used in the (b) sentences of (17) and (18) is difficult to answer. The reason is not that geven can only be used if the entity to be given is not detrimental to the possible recipient. If that were the case, sentences such as (l)-(3) would not be possible. Perhaps, the cause-effect relationship between the entities involved is so predominant that it suppresses the idea that the relationship might regard some people in such a way that what is effected ends up in their domain.

7.

In special circumstances sentences such as (25)-(27) could show an indirect object.

8.

As a matter of fact, a sentence such as De man slaakte een gil 'The man let out a scream' shows that the scream at issue can also be assumed to have been audible to at least one person even if there is no giving involved.

9.

For the relationship between the nominal indirect object's referent and the situation at issue, see also Van Belle and Van Langendonck (1992:40): in principle, the Dutch indirect object allows for a prepositional counterpart which does not imply any involvement on the part of the referent in question. [. . .] Omis­ sion or lack of a preposition reflects a closer relationship between the event and the indirect object's referent, i.e. a greater involvement of the referent in the event. With regard to German, see, for instance, Delbrück (1919:217): Aus allem dem läßt sich folgern, daß in den Dativ dasjenige tritt, dem die Satz­ handlung gewidmet ist, für den sie bestimmt ist, dem sie gilt. (One can infer from all this that it is the dative's referent to whom (which) the sentential action is devoted, for whom (which) it is destined, whom (which) it concerns.) With regard to English, see, for instance, Wierzbicka (1986:156): The internal dative indicates that the speaker views the [target person] as crucially involved in the situation, and as significantly affected by the action.

10.

German shows correspondences between indirect object sentences and sentences fea­ turing bekommen, kriegen, or erhalten, all meaning 'to get' (see, e.g., Heine 1993).

302 11.

Theo A.J.M. Janssen The relationship between the referent of a nominal indirect object and the referent of a locative can be rather diverse. Generally, the locative's referent has to be conceivable as part of the domain of the nominal indirect object's referent. Such a relationship, which may strongly vary from culture to culture, does not need to be a part-whole relationship; witness the following examples, in which Tom and Fred serve as nominal indirect objects and op z'n brood and in de pen serve as locatives. (i)

Ik zal het Tom op z'n brood geven. I 'll it Tom on his bread give 'I'll make Tom pay for that./I'll tell Tom off for that.'

(ii)

Zij gaf Fred die opmerking in de pen. she gave Fred that remark in the pen 'She inspired Fred to write that remark down.'

The bread is not part of Tom and the pen is not part of Fred. 12.

Although scheme (47) lists only agentive cases, there are nonagentive cases as well: dat gaf hem de doodsteek dat gaf hem een naar gevoel dat gaf hem een achterstand

'that finished him off' 'that gave him a nasty feeling' 'that made him lag behind'

Furthermore, in sentences without a nominal indirect object it can also depend on the content of the direct object whether the situation involved is to be interpreted as desir­ able or undesirable. For instance, in sentences (l)-(3) the situations will be judged as undesirable, but in sentences (25)-(26) as desirable. 13.

Possibly, one would reject the element CAUSE in geven's characterization if one assumes that CAUSE itself is ambiguous due to the fact that it may have an agentive and nonagentive interpretation. In my view, however, it is the element serving as its subject which can be agentive or nonagentive while the element CAUSE licenses both types of subject. The fact that a predicate — whether it is a lingual or a metalingual element such as geven and CAUSE — licenses an agentive and a nonagentive interpre­ tation can be considered to be a systematic phenomenon in English (Ruhl 1989:32; Diver 1995:97) and the English-based metalanguage. Therefore, this property does not need to be specially stipulated.

14.

Compare, for instance, sentence (29), which can be interpreted as agentive, with sen­ tences (25)-(28), which can be interpreted as nonagentive.

15.

Most sentences with a nominal or prepositional indirect object show a krijgen-counter­ part, but there are exceptions, such as the following: (i)

a.

Zij gaf hem goed partij. 'She proved to be a match for him.'

b. ? Hij kreeg goed partij van haar.

Giving in Dutch (ii)

a.

303

Het was hem niet gegeven zijn vader nog levend te zien. 'It was not given to him to see his father still alive.'

b. ? Hij kreeg het niet zijn vader nog levend te zien. (iii) a.

De zanger gaf uitdrukking aan hun gevoelens van frustratie. 'The singer gave voice to their feelings of frustration.'

b. ? Hun gevoelens van frustratie kregen uitdrukking [van/door de zanger]. (iv) a.

Veel vrijwilligers gaven gehoor aan de oproep van de VN. 'Many volunteers responded to the appeal by the UN.'

b. ? De oproep van de VN kreeg gehoor [van/door veel vrijwilligers]. (v)

a.

Rintje gaf zich geheel aan de schaatssport. 'Rintje gave himself entirely to skating.'

b. ? De schaatssport kreeg Rintje geheel. 16.

Some cases where krijgen can serve as an imperative are: (i)

Krijg de klere! 'Go to hell!'

(ii)

Krijg nou wat. 'You know what you can do!'

(iii) Krijg maar geen last met de politie! 'Don't get into trouble with the police!' These sentences do not have

geven-counterparts.

17.

The distinction between groups I and II does not imply that no sentence with a verb from group I can be converted into a variant consisting of krijgen + past participle or that each sentence with a verb from group II can be converted into a variant consist­ ing of krijgen + past participle. For instance, the combination of krijgen + opgeleverd would be possible in the special circumstance of the completion of a house.

18.

Sentences (i) and (ii) can be interchanged much more easily than sentences (63) and (64). (i)

Ik geef je twintig gulden voor die I give you twenty guilder for that 'I'll give you twenty guilders for that old bike.'

oude old

fiets. bike

(ii)

Ik bied je twintig gulden voor die I offer you twenty guilder for that 'I'm offering you twenty guilders for that old bike.'

oude old

fiets. bike

304

Theo A.J.M. Janssen In these sentences, the difference between offering and giving as apparent from sen­ tences (63) and (64) is neutralized, due to the fact that in both cases the possible acceptance is projected in the future.

19.

The variant without an indirect object is more usual.

20.

Here the variant with bezorgde in (72) cannot be converted into krijgen + bezorgd (i.e. bezorgen's past participle). This is caused by the fact that the subject's content in the original version plays such a central role that it has to be mentioned in the sentence resulting from the conversion. However, prepositional source or agent phrases produce an awkward stylistic effect, as stated with regard to the (b) sentences in (53) and (54).

21.

In the Woordenboek der Nederlandsche taal (de Vries, te Winkel et al. 1882-present; issue 1889, part 4, volume 6, columns 1923-1943), the four main sections of the geven entry are related to Latin dare, donare, reddere (French rendre), and edere, respec­ tively; the fifth section describes a number of obsolete impersonal uses.

22.

The examples in (79) represent cases of a rather forceful style, except for the exam­ ples in (d), (h), (1), and (s).

23.

However, the following krijgen sentence has no geven counterpart. (i)

Hij kreeg voor zijn gat. He got for his arse 'He got a beating/He was told off.'

24.

Een klap can be replaced by een tik (less rude than een klap) or een dreun (more rude).

25.

Most of the sentences in (79) can be interpreted both literally and figuratively; the sen­ tences (a), (d), (h), (j), (r-t) tend to be applied just literally.

26.

Consider also the following sentences, which all mean 'Peter gave him a hiding, Peter let him have it'. (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v)

Peter Peter Peter Peter Peter

gaf gaf gaf gaf gaf

hem hem hem hem hem

ervan langs. van de taart. van de lat. van jetje. van katoen.

The elements ervan, van de taart, van de lat, van jetje, and van katoen can be analysed as partitive elements, which licenses the inference of an entity corresponding to Y in geven's characterization although sentences (i)-(v) do not have variants in which een pak can serve as direct object. Note that the expression 'm van katoen geven can also mean 'to give all one's got'. Yet another type of geven sentence with an indirect object but without a direct object should be mentioned. An amendment proposed by a British Conservative MP is reported by the Dutch newspaper de Volkskrant (November 1, 1996) as follows:

Giving in Dutch

305

"schoolmeesters [mogen] onwillige leerlingen weer met het rietje, de roede, de riem of het zweepje geven" (lit. schoolmasters are again allowed to give obstinate pupils with the cane, the rod, the belt, or the small whip). Since a direct object is lacking, what is supposed to be given remains unspecified; however, one may infer on the basis of the instruments mentioned that it is a punish­ ment. The geven sentences in (i)-(iii) and de Volkskrant passage correspond to krijgen sentences. 27.

For similar 'give'-sentences in other languages, see Newman (1996:185-188). I have no simple explanation for the relationship between my characterization of geven's meaning and the use of geven in sentence (i), in which a direct object is lacking. (i)

Die opmerking gaf haar te denken. that remark gave her to think 'That remark gave her food for thought/made her think.'

As far as I know, sentence (i) has no highly synonymous counterpart with a direct object. And there is no krijgen sentence which corresponds to sentence (i). 28.

For the grammatical relevance of the unspecified entity's nature in comparable hebben ('to have') sentences, see Janssen (1997). In such sentences the nature of the supposed unspecified entity may impede the use of present and past tense forms of hebben, but not the use of the perfect or pluperfect.

29.

For other interesting cases such as Geef royaal 'Give generously' or Geef hier 'Give it here', see also Newman (1996:55).

References Delbrück, Berthold. 1919. Einleitung in das Studium der indogermanischen Sprachen. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte und Methodik der vergleichenden Sprachforschung. Sixth edition. Leipzig: Breitkopf — Härtel. Diver, William. 1995. "Theory." In Ellen Contini-Morava and Barbara Sussman Goldberg (eds.), Meaning as Explanation: Advances in Linguistic Sign Theory. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 43-114. Goldberg, Adele. 1995. A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press. Heine, Bernd. 1993. "Bekommen, ohne etwas zu bekommen: zur Grammatikalisierung des Dativpassivs." Sprache und Literatur 24:26-33. Janssen, Theo A.J.M. 1976. Hebben-konstrukties en indirekt-objektskonstrukties. Utrecht: HES Publishers.

306

Theo A.J.M. Janssen

Janssen, Theo A.J.M. 1992. "Het indirect object: Een grammatisch-theoretisch sjibbolet en een culturele entiteit, maar geen grammatische categorie? [The indirect object: A grammatical-theoretical shibboleth and a cultural entity but not a grammatical category?]" Tijdschrift voor Nederlandse Taal- en Letterkunde 108:354-371. Janssen, Theo A.J.M. 1994. "Betekenis en interpretatie, of hoe taal en wereldbeeld elkaar aanvullen. [Meaning and interpretation, or how language and world view complement each other]" In Tieme van Dijk and Roel Zemel (eds.), Het is kermis hier. Lezingen ter gelegenheid van het 75-jarig bestaan van Nederlands aan de Vrije Universiteit. Amsterdam: Stichting Neerlandistiek VU and Münster: Nodus Publika­ tionen. 5-18. Janssen, Theo A.J.M. 1997. "Geen vorm en toch een functie? Modale, temporele, aspectuele en lexematische bijzonderheden bij hebben. [No form but still a function? Modal, temporal, aspectual, and lexematic particularities in connection with hebben 'to have'.]" In Els H.C. Elffers-van Ketel, Joop M. van der Horst, and Wim G. Klooster (eds.), Grammaticaal spektakel. Artikelen aangeboden aan Ina SchermerVermeer. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam, 123-134. Keller, Rudi. 1995. Zeichentheorie. Zu einer Theorie semiotischer Wissens. Tübingen: Francke. Newman, John. 1993. "The semantics of giving in Mandarin." In Richard A. Geiger and Brygida Rudzka-Ostyn (eds.), Conceptualizations and Mental Processing in Lan­ guage. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 433-486. Newman, John. 1996. Give. A Cognitive Linguistic Study. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter [Cognitive Linguistics Research 7]. Newman, John. "The origin of the German es gibt construction." This volume. Reid, Wallis. 1995. "Quantitative analysis in Columbia School theory." In Ellen ContiniMorava and Barbara Sussman Goldberg (eds.), Meaning as Explanation: Advances in Linguistic Sign Theory. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 115-152. Ruhl, Charles. 1989. On Monosemy. A Study in Linguistic Semantics. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Schermer-Vermeer, E. [Ina] C. 1991. Substantiële versus formele taaibeschrijving: het indirect object in het Nederlands [Substantial versus formal description of language: The indirect object in Dutch]. [University of Amsterdam doctoral dissertation]. Tobin, Yishai. 1995. "Only vs. just: Semantic integrality revisited." In Ellen ContiniMorava and Barbara Sussman Goldberg (eds.), Meaning as Explanation: Advances in Linguistic Sign Theory. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 323-359. Van Belle, William and Willy Van Langendonck. 1992. "The indirect object in Dutch." Leuvense Bijdragen 81:19-43. van der Leek, Frederike. 1996. "The English conative construction: A componential account." In CLS 32:363-378. Vries, Matthias de, Lambert A. te Winkel, et al. 1882-present. Woordenboek der Nederlandsche taal [Dictionary of the Dutch language]. The Hague: Nijhoff and Leiden: Sijthoff [Second edition 1993; The Hague: Sdu]. Wierzbicka, Anna. 1986. "The semantics of the internal dative — a rejoinder." Quaderni di Semantica 7:155-165.

The origin of the German es gibt construction John Newman Massey University

1.

Introduction

In modern German, geben occurs in two very different constructions which appear far removed from each other, both syntactically and semantically. In the construction illustrated in (1), geben translates as 'give' and func­ tions as a three-place predicate, whereas in (2), geben functions as a twoplace predicate with an impersonal subject, corresponding approximately to the English 'there is/are' construction. (1)

Ich

gab dem Kind gave the:DAT child:DAT 'I gave the child an apple.'

I:NOM

(2)

Es gibt einen it:NOM gives a:ACC 'There is a/one God.'

einen a:ACC

Apfel. apple:ACC

Gott. God:ACC

The relationship between these two construction types is by no means obvi­ ous and it is natural to turn to an historical investigation of geben, in order to shed some light on the relationship. While the construction in (1) has existed throughout the history of German from the time of written documents, the es gibt construction only estab­ lished itself in the Early New High German period, in particular in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Since this period is well documented in terms of published literature, we are in a position to trace the early stages

308

John Newman

in the history of the es gibt construction. Of particular interest is the writer Johann der Täufer Friedrich Fischart (1546/7-1590) who would appear to be the first significant writer to make extensive use of the construction, as was already noted in the important works of Grimm (1837:230) and Kehrein (1854:55) in the nineteenth century. While Fischart appears to be the first writer to have made extensive use of an es gibt construction, it would be plainly wrong to say he "invented" the construction. There are occasional instances of es gibt + NP:ACC 'there is/are' before the time of Fischart's writings which Kehrein (1854:56) had noted. One relevant pas­ sage occurs in a text called Ein Pasquillus von dem Schloß zu Plassenburg by Hans Sachs (1494-1576) which I quote below (with a little more con­ text than that given originally by Kehrein): (3)

Nach dem erseufzet' das Schloß Plassenburg mit einem tiefen Seufzer, daß es gleich im Buchholz ein Widerhall gab, und gab weiter kein Antwort. (Sachs, 1554?, in 1966 ed. Vol. 2, p. 401) 'After that, Castle Plassenburg sighed a deep sigh such that there was immediately an echo in the beech-woods and there was no further answer.'

I have not been able to ascertain the exact date of this passage, but the date of the events described is given by Sachs as July 14, 1554 later in the same text. If we assume it was written at about the time of the events, then we could say it was written ca. 1555, and obviously not before 1554. In the passage quoted, it would be difficult, although perhaps not impossible, to construe the subject pronoun es as referring to das Schloß 'the castle'. Es would be the correct pronoun form, if it were referring to the castle. (The lack of an accusative ending on ein Widerhall is not untypical of object NPs in this period of German.) The sense then would be literally 'such that the castle gave (made?) an echo in the beech-woods'. It seems more feasi­ ble to construe es gab . . . ein Widerhall as a modern es gibt construction, meaning 'there was an echo' and this is how Kehrein appears to have inter­ preted it too.1 The present study is intended as a further contribution to our knowl­ edge of the early history of the es gibt construction. To this end, I will focus on the early uses of es gibt, as evidenced in the writings of Fischart. Focusing on this one author and his uses of geben, in both personal and impersonal constructions, has advantages when it comes to attempts to

The origin of the German es gibt construction

309

relate various uses of geben, as I wish to do. Proceeding in this way, we avoid the dangers of relating uses which might be geographically scattered and which may not all be present in one dialect or one coherent style of the language. While a complete history of es gibt is yet to be written, the present study offers a snapshot of its use at a crucial early stage in its history. The work from which I will draw the early examples of es gibt is Fischart's Geschichtklitterung, a greatly expanded and very free translation of the French novel Gargantua by François Rabelais, published in 1534. Fischart's work was given the title Geschichtklitterung which might be translated as 'Historical Scribbling' or 'Storyscribble' 2 , though it is also referred to as Gargantua. Geschichtklitterung was first published in 1575, a second edition appeared in 1582, and a third edition appeared in the year of Fischart's death, 1590.3 Although we are not interested here in the various literary qualities which characterize Geschichtklitterung, the work is so unusual in certain respects that some remarks about the work are necessary in order to appre­ ciate the oddity of many, indeed most, of the sample sentences taken from this work. Before elaborating on the language of Geschichtklitterung, how­ ever, one should note that the French original on which it is based has special linguistic qualities which are preserved and enhanced in Fischart's translation. Rabelais' Gargantua, along with his book Pantagruel (ca. 1532) and some other works, presents a grand comic saga of fantastic and pre­ posterous proportions. Matching the content, Rabelais' language is equally extraordinary in the way it combines the language of higher learning, ex­ pressions from Latin and Greek, crudities, colloquialisms, alliteration, rhyme, onomatopoeia, word coinage, foreign words etc.4 Many of the comments which have been made about Rabelais' Gar­ gantua also apply to Geschichtklitterung. It would be quite misleading, however, to view Geschichtklitterung as nothing more than a translation of Rabelais' novel. For one thing, Rabelais' novel is written in such a linguistically idiosyncratic way that any "translation" would necessarily involve considerable originality on the part of the translator in order to re­ produce the effect in the original French. Not only does Fischart reproduce similar linguistic effects to what is found in the original, but he greatly expands on the original in terms of length, albeit in a stylistically exag­ gerated way. A phrase or two in the original may be expanded to the extent

310

John Newman

of a few pages by Fischart. Often, these elaborations take the form of inventories of observations, classifications, or enumerations of entities, all expressed in Fischart's linguistically playful way. Fischart's linguistic play is evident in almost every phrase. The result of these linguistic and stylis­ tic liberties is an unusual and very obscure text. In fact, Geschichtklitterung has been described as "the most grotesque book of German literature".5 I will proceed by documenting the range of interpretations which attach to es gibt constructions in Fischart's Geschichtklitterung. In working through the illustrative examples from Fischart, I shall try to express the semantic force of the es gibt construction as carefully as possible. As one might infer from the remarks above, it is rarely a simple matter to estab­ lish a definitive meaning for any example from Fischart, given the highly individualistic and innovative style of the writing. Fortunately, for our pur­ poses, it will not be necessary to dwell on every word in each example. Rather the focus will be on the particular semantic contribution which the es gibt component appears to make. The context of each example is often crucial in establishing the appropriate meaning and some reference to the context will be made where this is relevant. The 1963 edition of Geschicht­ klitterung was published together with a companion glossary, Nyssen (1964), which is invaluable in any attempt to interpret the text, although even this glossary is no more than suggestive in its annotations of many words and phrases.

2.

The meanings of es gibt

When we consider the larger contexts which the es gibt constructions are part of, it can be seen that very often there is a sense of 'leads to, gives rise to' attaching to the construction. The overwhelming majority of the es gibt instances in Geschichtklitterung appear to fall into this category. I shall begin by analyzing the example in (4), which illustrates typical properties attaching to Fischart's use of es gibt. (In these and other examples from Fischart, I will show the essential part of the construction in bold.) (4)

wann nur alte Weiber unnd die Hund dran seychten, so gebs guten Burgundischen Saltpeter (125, 37-38) 'all you need is for old women and dogs to urinate on it, and you'd get good Burgundy saltpetre'

The origin of the German es gibt construction

311

or 'having just old women and dogs urinate on it would produce good Burgundy saltpetre' In (4), we see an explicit 'if. . . then. . .' construction, with wann 'if/when' introducing the condition, and so the accompanying consequence clause containing a subjunctive form of es gibt. The explicit antecedent clause functions semantically as the cause of the Burgundy saltpetre. (It may be noted that the es gibt construction never occurs as part of an antecedent clause in Fischart's use.) (5) illustrates es gibt used in a similar context to (4). In (5), however, the es gibt clause is functioning as a subordinate clause (of result), rather than the main clause as in (4): (5)

da regnets dann eitel Glück, daß man im Treck sitzet biß über die Ohren, da schneiet und hagelt es mit Gelt zu, das es Beulen gibt (106, 17-18) 'it will rain nothing but good fortune, so much so that you'll be sitting in mud [of good fortune] up over your ears, it will snow and hail with money, so much so that you'll have bumps [on account of all the coins pelting against your body]'

or '. . . so much so that it [the pelting of all the coins against your body] will lead to/cause bumps' The example occurs as part of a passage describing the qualities of a per­ fect wife and how happy a house will be when the wife is so good. (4) describes, figuratively, how happy and prosperous such a couple will be. To emphasize this, Fischart resorts to an oxymoron: the couple will be so happy that they will be up to their ears in mud/filth (cf. colloquial English filthy rich). Then comes another oxymoron creating the same kind of effect: it will snow and hail with money [on the lucky couple], so much so that they will end up with lumps and bruises. The appearance of the lumps is the result of all the money hailing down on them. Once again, the gibt may be interpreted as 'leads to/will lead to'. Apart from wann 'if. . .' and das(s) 'so that', various other connectives may serve to indicate a kind of antecedent-consequence relationship within the sentence, with the es gibt construction forming part of the consequence. In (6) so imposes this kind of semantic structure to the sentence:

312

John Newman (6)

sonst wo die Erd sich zwischen Sonn und Mon einlegt, so gibts finsternuß (99, 13-14) 'normally where the earth positions itself between the sun and the moon, then that will lead to darkness'

or 'normally where the earth positions itself between the sun and the moon, then that will lead to darkness' In this example, the positioning of the sun and the moon is what leads to darkness. The context makes clear that this sentence is actually a metaphor­ ical description of a domestic situation, where sun = husband, moon = wife, and the earth = unpleasantness. The wo which introduces the clause describ­ ing the sun and the moon could be translated as either 'where' or 'when'. In any case, the event of the earth positioning itself between the sun and the moon is what brings about the darkness. These examples describe an antecedent-consequence relationship like that of a physical law. The dy­ namic way of expressing the antecedent clause with the verb sich einlegen 'to position oneself in (between). . .' suggests an equally dynamic inter­ pretation for the consequence clause along the lines of 'this will lead to/ create darkness', rather than simply 'there exists darkness'. In other examples there is no previous clause within the sentence func­ tioning as an antecedent to the es. However, one could maintain the same kind of analysis as we have proposed above for a number of these sen­ tences, with the gibt understood, as before, as 'leads to/will lead to'. Con­ sider (7) for example: (7)

O wie ernsthafft betten gibt es alsdann für ihn, daß er wider gesund heimkomme (103, 4-5) 'Oh what intense praying there'll be for him then, so that he may return home safely'

or 'Oh what intense praying it [the husband leaving the house] will lead t o . . .' (7) occurs in the context of a discussion of the sorrow which the wife has to endure when her husband leaves the house. The departure of the hus­ band is clearly a discourse topic in the relevant passage. Here, then, the es

The origin of the German es gibt construction

313

could be taken to refer to the departure or absence of the husband which in turn brings about the wet eyes and the praying (for his safe return). The examples (4)-(7) illustrate the most commonly occurring structures in which es gibt is found. In all of them, there is a dynamic component in the meaning of es gibt, associated with the development, emergence, or creation of a new entity. This dynamic component is present in varying degrees, from being quite strongly present in examples (4) and (5) to being weakly implied in an example such as (7). There are few examples of es gibt in Geschichtklitterung which simply describe an unconditional, present existence of objects or reality of events. (8) is one of the few convincing examples of this usage. (8)

Dann es gibt gestolene Kind . . . (88, 6-7) 'For there are stolen children

(8) begins a list of various types of humans who exist in the world, such as cripples, love-children, etc. and could not be construed as being the end result of events described in the preceding discourse. Summing up these findings we can observe that there is, in many cases, a dynamic element of meaning in the es gibt construction. The meaning of gibt can often be interpreted as 'leads to/will lead to'. More specifically, one can distinguish the following uses, although there is often overlap be­ tween them: (9)

(i) (ii) (iii)

There is an antecedent clause and the object NP of es gibt NP refers to a resulting consequence; There is an implied antecedent clause and the object NP of es gibt NP refers to a resulting consequence; The es gibt clause asserts the existence of the referent of the object NP of es gibt NP.

The majority of instances appear to involve a reference to some future development. Indeed, the sense of 'leads to, develops' makes inherent ref­ erence to a relative future, in so far as the existence of some new entity is described. I believe the development of the modern es gibt construction is best understood as a progression from (9i) through (9ii) to (9iii) and I will elaborate further on the connections between these three uses in Section 5.

314 3.

John Newman es gibt and il y a

As a way of further delineating the meaning of es gibt in Geschicht­ klitterung, one may consider Fischart's translations of il y a. The French expression translates as a purely stative 'there is, are' in English without any suggestion of a 'lead, develop' sense as we have attributed to Fischart's es gibt. Fischart's translations of il y a may therefore help to clarify the function of es gibt in his prose. As mentioned above, Geschichtklitterung is by no means a literal trans­ lation of Rabelais' Gargantua and it is not always the case that one is able to find exact German counterparts to the original French phrases/clauses. Nevertheless, I was able to match the six instances of il y a clauses in the original with corresponding clauses in Fischart's German, providing us with some data for studying Fischart's translation of il y a. The relevant exam­ ples are given below.6 (10) il y a dix huyt jours que je suis à matagraboliser ceste belle harangue (85, 10-11) T have been these eighteen days in matagrabolising this brave speech' More literally: 'It has been eighteen days es sind achtzehen tag, daß ich an diser mühlichen red hab metagrabulisirt, und gekauet, und geraspelt ritzigs unnd reudigs (222, 34-36) (11) il y a un chapitre in statutis Ordinis auquel ne plairoit le cas (152, 20-21) 'there is a chapter in Statutis Ordinis which opposeth my laying of it down' es ist eyn Capitul in statutis ordinis, dem wird der handel nicht gefallen (354, 38-39) (12) Il n'y a raboulliere en tout mon corps où cestuy vin ne furette la soif (40, 28-29) 'There's not a corner in all my body where this wine doth not ferret out my thirst.' Es ist kein Königlin Nest noch irrgang in meim gantzen Leib, da dieser Wein nicht den durst erfrettelet (144, 1-3)

The origin of the German es gibt construction

315

(13) Il n'y a (dist Gallet) ordre (130, 6) ' "There is neither hope nor remedy" said Gallet' More literally: '. . . there is no o r d e r . . . ' Da ist kein Ordnung (319, 23-24) (14) // n'y a rien si vrai que .. . (156, 8) 'There is nothing so true as that Es ist nichts so war, als. .. (362, 19) (15) Cent diables me saultent au corps s'il n'y a plus de vieulx hyvrognes qu'il n'y a de vieulx medicins! (160, 5-7) 'A hundred devils leap into my body, if there be not more old drunkards than old physicians!' Oder 1000 Teuffei sollen mir inn den Mönchsack fahren, wa man nicht mehr alte Vollseuffer find, als alte Artzet (368, 24-26) The examples describe existing situations or the present non-existence of situations, rather than pointing to what will emerge under certain condi­ tions. In most cases Fischart uses the es ist/sind construction, which, like the French original, describes existence, not change. (15) is interesting in that a man findet 'one finds' construction is used to translate il y a. This kind of construction is, in fact, identified by Grimm and Grimm (1984, Vol. 4:1703) as the most common way of describing the existence of enti­ ties in Middle High German, before the rise of the es gibt construction. So, while there is more than one way in which il y a is translated by Fischart, it is significant that in no case is es gibt chosen. This fact lends indirect support to the view that a 'leads to' nuance attaches to Fischart's use of es gibt. Fischart's translations of il y a are of interest in another respect, too. One might speculate that il y a, which was well established in French at the time of Rabelais, provided a model for es gibt. Fischart was born in the Alsace and received much of his education in that region (he attended Gymnasium in Strassbourg, for example), so a French influence in the writ­ ing of Fischart is feasible. Just considering Fischart's intense preoccupation with Rabelais' writings would make a French influence on Fischart's writ­ ing quite feasible. If a German construction were to be chosen on the basis of the French construction, one would expect es hat X with the verb haben parallel to the use of the French a, from avoir, in il y a. In fact, es hat X

316

John Newman

is found occasionally in the history of German, as well as colloquially and dialectally, with the sense of 'there is/are'. Grimm and Grimm (1984, Vol. 10:69) cite examples of the construction in the history of German, the ear­ liest example dated 1510. The fact that Fischart does not use es hat X in his translations of il y a is significant, in so far as it shows that Fischart was not trying to introduce or promote the French construction in German. Nevertheless, one might see a weaker type of French influence in the use of es gibt in the sense that the prior existence of an impersonal construc­ tion in French may have facilitated the development of a similarly imper­ sonal construction (for a similar meaning) in German. Also, there are close semantic relationships between 'have' and 'give', 'give' being like a caus­ ative of 'have'. This would be consistent with the idea that French il y a (weakly) influenced the development of the es gibt construction.

4.

The two-place verb geben

Alongside the es gibt construction, Fischart has a variety of uses of geben in personal constructions. The uses which are of most interest in this context are the two-place predicate uses of geben, since these are most similar in their syntactic frame to the impersonal es gibt construction. By two-place predicate, I mean one where no more than a nominative subject and an accusative object form part of the construction. I will exclude here uses of geben 'transfer control' where the recipient is understood, but not overtly present. There are two distinct uses of geben as a two-place predi­ cate, meaning 'produce, yield', exemplified in (16), and 'become', exem­ plified in (17). (16) a.

b. (17) a.

verzicht mir, daß ich euch den Säuen vergleich, sie geben dannoch guten Speck (56, 30-31) 'pardon me that I compare you to sows, but they do produce good bacon' als vil all Berge Trauben geben (82, 22-23) 'as much as all mountains produce grapes' gebst ein guten Goldschmied (123, 25) 'you will become a good goldsmith'

The origin of the German es gibt construction b.

317

Geltet ihr Fronecken, welche nit gern spinnen, die geben gute Wirtin? (135, 29-30) 'Isn't it so that your girls who don't like to spin will make good innkeepers/innkeepers' wives?' 7

The development of a 'produce, yield' sense from a 'give' sense is widely attested in languages (it is extensive, for example, in the Romance lan­ guages), and motivations for this semantic shift can be found in the con­ ceptual similarities between 'give' and 'produce, yield'. 8 Thus, just as 'give' involves the movement of a thing from out of the sphere of control or possession of the giver, so 'produce, yield' involves a kind of movement of a new entity out of a physical region associated with the producing entity. Underlying both senses is a schematic meaning of emergence out of a bounded region. The 'produce, yield' sense of geben was already established by the time of Fischart and is well documented for earlier periods in German.9 The closeness of the 'produce, yield' sense to the 'leads to' meaning of es gibt may be illustrated with a direct comparison of examples (5) and (16b), rewritten here as (18) and (19): (18) Berge geben Trauben (based on 82, 22-23) 'mountains produce grapes' (19) es gibt Beulen (based on 106, 17-18) 'there will be lumps [on the body]' or '[the hailing down of money] will lead to/cause lumps [on the body]' In both cases, the subject referent is seen as a kind of cause and the object referent as the effect of some process and this cause-effect relation­ ship may be seen as a schematic meaning uniting these senses of geben. The processes differ in kind: in the former it is a biological process, involv­ ing the growth of grapes in the environment of the soil/climate of the mountain. Properties related to the mountain cause the grapes to grow. In the latter, the snowing and hailing [of money] causes the boils to break out. The causes are construed slightly differently also in that the cause is a noun-like entity in (18) and a clause-like entity in (19). I believe, then, that we see in the two-place predicate use of geben meaning 'produce, yield'

318

John Newman

the closest relative to the es gibt construction, as used by Fischart. It is important to bear in mind that most uses of es gibt by Fischart involve the 'leads to' sense, rather than the 'exists' sense, as discussed above. This is a key point in understanding the relationships between the uses of geben at this stage. It should be borne in mind that the emergence of the es gibt con­ struction occurred as part of a more general proliferation of impersonal constructions in the New High German period, as noted, for example, by Behaghel (1923:318). New impersonal constructions which arose at this time include, but are not restricted to, verbs describing physical or emotional human states such as es ekelt mich 'I am disgusted (by something)', es juckt mich 'I feel itchy', es verlangt mich nach etwas 'I desire something' etc. Thus, we see a preference at this time for constructions with an imper­ sonal es subject and es gibt should be seen as falling into this pattern. The emergence of the use of es gibt in constructions such as (19) represents a blending of the two-place 'produce, lead to' geben construction with an impersonal construction. When the subject entity is no longer profiled or "in focus", then the profile invariably shifts to the effect on the object entity. Figure 1 summarizes the key stages in the evolution of the es gibt con­ struction. In this Table, I have distinguished the Middle High German period (from the twelfth to the thirteenth century), the time of Fischart (second half of the sixteenth century), and the contemporary period, referred to as Modern Standard German. In all these stages, both threeplace and two-place predicate uses of geben are apparent. Note, in partic­ ular, that the two-place predicate use of geben in the sense of 'produce/ yield/lead to' is attested well before the time of Fischart. Grimm and Grimm (1984, Vol. 4:1701-1702) and Spalding (1967:924) comment on and exemplify Middle High German (and even Old High German) uses of geben in this sense. I have shown the three-place and two-place predicate uses as two separate clusters of meaning. At the time of Fischart, the 'pro­ duce/yield/lead to' use is extended to impersonal constructions with the range of uses documented above and shown as a group of meanings extend­ ing out of, and overlapping with, the two-place predicate uses. In Modern Standard German, the es gibt construction is more appropriately shown as a cluster of meanings in its own right. Another relevant usage to consider is the reflexive sich begeben 'to

319

Figure 1. Geben in three historical stages

The origin of the German es gibt construction

320

John Newman

occur, happen' which contains geben as a recognizable part of the verb. This verb is used reflexively by Fischart, as shown in examples (20) and (21). (20) und aber wißlich ist, dz nit alle kranckheit am oder im leib sich erregen, sonder mehrmals im gemüt durch melancholi oder traurigkeit sich begeben (15, 1-3) 'though it is well-known that not all sicknesses of the body or inside the body happen by themselves, but rather they occur sometimes in one's soul/heart due to melancholy or sadness' (21) Dann wann es sich begab, das er zornig . . . ward (159, 24-26) 'Then when it happened that he grew angry In (20), sich begeben occurs with a nominal subject referring to sicknesses which develop, while in (20) the subject is an es referring to the das clause which follows. As with most cases of es gibt, so too with sich begeben, there is a dynamic component of meaning. Although geben and sich begeben are clearly distinct verbs, there is a relatedness in form between the es gibt and sich begeben constructions. The relatedness in form is matched to some extent by similarities in meaning, namely the sharing of a 'develop, emerge' component of meaning.

5.

The polysemy of geben

In the preceding sections, I have argued for a close relationship between the 'produce, leads to' sense of geben and the use of geben in the es gibt construction. This relationship is hinted at in some commentaries on the history of the es gibt construction (e.g. Grimm 1837:230; Spalding 1967: 926; Ebert 1986:32), but without the detailed evidence I have presented here. Returning to the question posed at the beginning of this paper, con­ cerning the relationship between (1) and (2), we may now see that the emergence of the es gibt construction was not a one-step change from the 'transfer control of something' sense. Rather, the range of meanings asso­ ciated with the es gibt construction in Fischart's use may be arranged in a way which shows the gradualness of the steps involved. These shifts in meaning are detailed in Table 1.

The origin of the German es gibt construction

321

Table 1. The evolution of es gibt Y from X gibt Y X gibt Y (A) There is a causal relationship between some entity X and the emergence of another entity Y. Implication: There is some entity Y which will exist subsequent to X. Ex. (16b) Es gibt Y (B) Context of usage: There is an antecedent clause - consequent clause structure and es gibt Y is part of the consequent. There is some entity Y which will exist subsequent to the event described by the antecedent clause. Ex. (4)-(6) Es gibt Y (C) Context of usage: There is an implied causal relationship between prior events in the discourse and the emergence of some entity Y. There is some entity Y which will exist subsequent to the prior events. Ex. (7) Es gibt Y (D) Y exists. Ex. (8)

In Table 1, I have indicated the most prominent component of meaning, the "profile" in Langacker's (1987) terminology, in bold. The plain face repre­ sents aspects of the meaning which are associated with the use of geben but are present as part of the larger frame of meaning. Viewed in this way, the change from A to B is not nearly as dramatic as the traditional labels of "personal" and "impersonal" might suggest. Both the A and B meanings describe the emergence of a new entity as part of a consequence, but there is a shift in what is profiled. In the A meaning, the geben alone encodes this cause-effect relationship with the subject func­ tioning as the cause and the object functioning as the effect. In the B usage, the core of the meaning of geben is the emergence of the object referent, but the es gibt construction appears as a consequent (main or subordinate) clause representing the effect of some antecedent clause. The encoding of the cause-effect relationship is achieved by explicit connective devices

322

John Newman

{wann . . . dann . . ., (so) dass etc.) linking clauses as well as the emergent sense inherent in geben. The change from A to B thus reflects a shift from relative prominence of the cause-effect relationship to the prominence of the creation of the new entity itself. Viewed in this way, it is comparable to the relationship between the uses of wash in I washed the clothes and The clothes washed clean. In its transitive use, wash profiles the interaction between the Agent and Patient, at the same time implying a resulting clean state of the clothes. In the intransitive use, wash profiles the emergence of the clean state of the clothes and backgrounds the interaction between the implied Agent and Patient. In both the geben and wash examples, there is a profile shift from an interaction towards the result of the interaction. The change from B to C maintains the profile shift towards the emer­ gence of a new entity, but without any of the explicit connective devices which point to a prior cause. Rather, there is some event or action in the preceding discourse which gives rise to the new entity introduced by the es gibt construction. If one just takes the examples of the C meaning in isolation, without considering the prior discourse, then the es gibt Y con­ struction may be translated as simply 'there will be Y'. In the narrow sense, then, the C meaning amounts to asserting the future existence of an entity, but it must be remembered this narrow sense is embedded in the larger context of an effect produced by some cause supplied by the prior discourse. The change from B to C represents therefore a change in the scope of the causal relationship being described. In A, the relationship involves a causal antecedent from within the same sentence, whereas in B it involves a causal antecedent which is outside the sentence but still retrievable from the larger discourse. The meaning D arises out of the profiled portion of the C meaning which focuses on the existence of an entity. When the C usage is stripped of the accompanying antecedent-consequent structure, then we are dealing with nothing more than a marker of existence, albeit in a future context. From there, it is but a small step to the use of es gibt to encode existence in a present context. I propose the chain in Table 1 as a way of making the polysemy in­ volving A, B, C, and D more understandable. I should emphasize, however, that the proposed chain is not directly evidenced in the early history of the es gibt construction. The ideal evidence for a chain like this would be a succession of periods of German as in (22).

The origin of the German es gibt construction (22) Period Period Period Period

I II III IV

323

A A, B A, B, C A, B, C, D

The instances of es gibt prior to Fischart are too limited and sporadic for us to draw firm conclusions, but certainly there is no compelling evidence for the chronological development sketched in (22). Instead, the meanings B, C, and D all seem to emerge more or less together. The chain A through D is offered therefore as a way of understanding the varied uses of geben in Fischart, rather than as a documentation of the historically attested stages.

6.

Conclusion

While I have chosen to focus on the uses of es gibt in the sixteenth cen­ tury, it should be pointed out that the chain of meanings referred to above can also be found in modern German, a point also made by Spalding (1967:926). While the 'there is/are' sense has become more established and perhaps even the most prominent sense, the construction still betrays something of its origin. In fact, one can cite modern German sentences corresponding to each of the stages identified in Table 1 : (23) a. Der Ofen gibt Wärme. 'The oven provides/gives warmth.' b.

Wenn du das tust, gibt's ein Unglück. 'If you do that, there'll be a calamity.'

c. Es gibt bald Regen. 'There will be rain soon.' d. In diesem Fluss gibt es viele Fische. 'There are many fish in this river.' There is a tendency to take the es gibt construction as basically equivalent to 'there is/are', perhaps influenced by a desire to reduce meanings to formulae which philosophers and logicians are more used to dealing with. In any case, this is a simplification and more careful accounts will acknowl­ edge the full range of uses to which es gibt is put. Hammer (1971:220), for example, identifies one of the uses of modern es gibt as 'recording the

324

John Newman

consequences of some event', as in (23b), representing an aspect of usage which is crucial in understanding the polysemy of geben. The dynamic, emergent nuance associated with certain uses of es gibt in Fischart's prose as well as in modern German is thus the key to understanding the relationship of es gibt to other uses of geben. This is a further illustration of what Hopper (1991:22) has called the Principle of Persistence: When a form undergoes grammaticization from a lexical to a grammatical function, so long as it is grammatically viable some traces of its original lexical meanings tend to adhere to it, and details of its lexical history may be reflected in constraints on its gram­ matical distribution.

Notes 1.

My own search of es gibt in a number of Early New High German texts from the period between ca. 1350 to ca. 1550 revealed no more than a few examples, none of which could be analyzed unambiguously as meaning 'there is/are'. See Grimm and Grimm (1984, Vol. 4:1703), Kehrein (1854:55), and Spalding (1967:926) for examples of es gibt prior to Fischart.

2.

So translated in Weinberg (1986:11).

3.

The edition used in this study is Johann Fischart (1963). References to this work are given by page number, followed by line number.

4.

For an analysis of Rabelais' language, see Coleman (1971:204-229). Coleman, inci­ dentally, compares Rabelais with James Joyce in terms of their linguistic creativity.

5.

Hugo Sommerhaider, in his notes to Fischart's Geschichtklitterung (1963:439).

6.

In these examples, the Rabelais quotes are taken from Grimai (1939) and the English translations are from Sir Thomas Urquhart (1883).

7.

Following Nyssen (1964:84), geltet is taken to be an interjection in this clause.

8.

See Newman (1996:144-171) for some discussion of the extension of 'give' words, cross-linguistically, to mean 'emerge, lead to, yield'.

9.

See Grimm and Grimm (1984, Vol. 4:1701) for Middle High German examples of geben in constructions like 'give light', 'give off a sound' etc.

The origin of the German es gibt construction

325

References Behaghel, Otto. 1923. Deutsche Syntax: Eine Geschichtliche Darstellung. Band I. Heidelberg: Carl Winter's Universitätsbuchhandlung. Coleman, Dorothy G. 1971. Rabelais: A Critical Study in Prose Fiction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ebert, Robert Peter. 1986. Historische Syntax des Deutschen II:1300-1750. Bern: Peter Lang. Fischart, Johann. 1963. Geschichtklitterung (Gargantua). Düsseldorf: Karl Rauch Verlag. Grimai, Pierre (ed.) 1939. Gargantua (1534). Paris: Cluny. Grimm, Jacob. 1837. Deutsche Grammatik. Vierter Teil. Göttingen: Dieterichsche Buch­ handlung. Grimm, Jacob and Wilhelm Grimm. 1984. Deutsches Wörterbuch. München: Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag. Orig. Leipzig: Hirzel, 1878. Hammer, A.E. 1971. German Grammar and Usage. London: Edward Arnold. Hopper, Paul J. 1991. "On some principles of grammaticization." In Elizabeth Closs Traugott and Bernd Heine (eds.), Approaches to Grammaticalization, Vol. 1: Focus on Theoretical and Methodological Issues. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 17-35. Kehrein, Joseph. 1854. Grammatik der deutschen Sprache des funfzehnten bis sieben­ zehnten Jahrhunderts. Dritter Theil. Leipzig: Verlag von Otto Wigand. Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. I. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Newman, John. 1996. Give: A Cognitive Linguistic Study. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter [Cognitive Linguistics Research 7]. Nyssen, Ute. 1964. Johann Fischarts Geschichtklitterung. Glossar. Düsseldorf: Karl Rauch Verlag. Sachs, Hans. 1966. Werke in zwei Bänden. Berlin and Weimar: Aufbau Verlag. Spalding, Keith (with the assistance of Kenneth Brooke). 1967. An Historical Dictionary of German Figurative Usage. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Urquhart, Sir Thomas. 1883. The Life of Gargantua and the Heroic Deeds of Panta­ gruel. London: Rutledge and Sons. Weinberg, Florence M. 1986. Gargantua in a Convex Mirror. Fischart's View of Rabelais. New York: Peter Lang.

On the development of MANNER from GIVE Jae Jung Song University of Otago

1.

Introduction1

In Thai, Khmer, and Vietnamese, there is a very intriguing phenomenon wherein the lexical verb meaning 'to give' performs multiple functions. These include benefactive, purposive, and adverb-forming functions, as exemplified in the following data from Thai: (1)

GIVE (Clark 1978:153) ph

O

hây

ŊӘӘn

Pùk

father GIVE money Pook 'Father gave Pook (some) money.' (2)

BENEFACTIVE (Clark 1978:153) khàw sòŊ kh oŊ hây Pùk 3 send thing GIVE Pook 'She sent the things (to someone else) for Pook.'

(3)

PURPOSIVE (Vichit-Vadakan 1976:475) khàw khiàn côtmâay hây khun 3 write letter GIVE you 'He wrote a letter so that you would answer.'

(4)

to, p answer

ADVERB-FORMATION (Harrison and Sukcharoen ms:29) chart cà noon hây sabaay loey I IRR sleep GIVE comfortable EMP 'I will sleep comfortably.'

328

Jae Jung Song

The situation in Khmer, or in Vietnamese, is indeed identical to that in Thai, as will also be illustrated in later sections. In this chapter, I will provide an analysis of the relationship between these multiple functions by proposing a grammaticalization chain in the form of (5):2 (5) GIVE > BENEFACTIVE > PURPOSIVE > MANNER Although the shift from GIVE to BENEFACTIVE and further to PURPO­ SIVE is quite well documented and understood (e.g. Lord 1973, 1993; Li and Thompson 1974; Givón 1975; Clark 1978; Lichtenberk 1986; Heine 1990; Heine et al. 1991 inter alia), that from PURPOSIVE to MANNER is less well known, though it is mentioned in passing by Heine (1990) and Heine et al. (1991). The development of MANNER from the lexical verb GIVE cannot, however, be understood fully unless the whole gram­ maticalization chain is characterized. I will, therefore, examine each stage of the chain, and especially the shift from PURPOSIVE to MANNER by drawing on Traugott's (1982, 1988a, 1989, 1990) theory of semanticpragmatic change. I will suggest that although the first two stages (i.e. GIVE > BENEFACTIVE and BENEFACTIVE > PURPOSIVE) may involve changes of a metaphorical nature (e.g. Heine 1990; Heine et al. 1991), pragmatic strengthening (a type of metonymy in Traugott's view 1988a:409-413) is the "prime driver" of the shift from PURPOSIVE to MANNER. As additional illustration and evidence, I will also discuss the development of the manner adverb-forming suffix -ke from the purposive marker in Korean. Further, I will argue that the lexical verb GIVE must travel the whole grammaticalization path in (5) to be exploited as an adverb-forming device, because any shift must involve two contiguous seg­ ments of a given grammaticalization chain (Blansitt 1988, but cf. Newman 1996:151).

2.

Traugott's theory of semantic-pragmatic change

As a preface to the main discussion, I need to review Traugott's theory of semantic-pragmatic change in brief. Traugott (1982) proposes that mean­ ings with largely propositional (or ideational à la Halliday and Hasan 1976) content can assume either textual (i.e. cohesion-making) and expressive

On the development of MANNER from GIVE

329

(i.e. presuppositional and other pragmatic) meanings, or both, in the fol­ lowing order: (6) propositional > ((textual) > (expressive)) She adduces ample evidence mainly from the history of English to support the unidirectional model of semantic-pragmatic change in (6). For instance, the development of the phrase in Old English (OE) pa hwile pe 'at that time' into Middle English (ME) while 'during' and then finally into the concessive sense of 'although' in Present Day English (PDE) serves as a paradigmatic example of the semantic-pragmatic change schematized in (6). The purely temporal phrase in OE attained the text cohesion-making func­ tion in ME, when it was used not only to indicate the temporal function but also to signal the textual connection between two clauses. In its PDE concessive function, it registers the speaker's attitude toward situations or eventualities. In Traugott (1989, 1990), this direction of semantic-pragmatic change is further articulated by identifying the following three tendencies (also see Traugott and König 1991:208-209): (7) Tendency T. Meanings based in the external described situation > meanings based in the internal (evaluative/perceptive/cognitive) described situation. Tendency IT. Meanings based in the external or internal described situation > meanings based in the textual and metalinguistic situation. Tendency III: Meanings tend to become increasingly based in the speaker's subjective belief state/attitude toward the proposition. Thus, semantic-pragmatic change is looked upon as the shift from "mean­ ings grounded in more or less objectively identifiable extralinguistic situa­ tions to meanings grounded in text-making to meanings grounded in the speaker's attitude to or belief about what is said" (Traugott and König 1991:189; also Traugott 1989:35).3 In a nutshell, "meanings typically shift from what is said to what is meant" (Traugott and König 1991:193). Also note that Tendency I can feed Tendency II, and either of these tendencies can further feed Tendency III, as can actually be seen in the history of OE pa hwile pe referred to above. Tendencies I and II can, in fact, be seen as metaphorical transfer based

330

Jae Jung Song

on similarities: e.g. shall < *sculan, a shift from owing concrete debts such as money (i.e. external described situation) to owing certain behaviors (i.e. internal described situation), or a shift from a concrete meaning such as 'set/stand on' (i.e. insist denoting an external described situation) to a speech-act verb (i.e. insist in the metalinguistic sense of 'assert something vehemently') (e.g. Sweetser 1988, Heine et al. 1991 among others). Ten­ dency III, on the other hand, reflects the conventionalizing of conversational implicatures (Grice 1975; Geis and Zwicky 1971; Sperber and Wilson 1986; Blakemore 1987). Pragmatic inferences associated with expressions come to be reinforced by frequent use to the extent that those inferences become semantic meanings (Traugott and König 1991:196). Because pragmatic in­ ferences are present in the context, albeit covertly, Tendency III is regarded as metonymicin nature, not metaphorical (Traugott 1988a: 409-413 and Traugott and König 1991:207-212 for further discussion). This kind of pragmatic strengthening represents "strategic negotiation of speaker-hearer interaction, and articulation of speaker attitude", as opposed to metaphoric process, which typically relates to representation of cognitive categories (Traugott 1989:51).

3.

From GIVE to BENEFACTIVE

I will now look at the first stage of the grammaticalization chain in (5), namely GIVE > BENEFACTIVE. As has already been noted in §1, the lexical verb GIVE is used to mark a beneficiary nominal in Thai, Khmer, and Vietnamese. (1)

THAI (Clark 1978:153) pk o hay ŋәәn Puk father GIVE money Pook 'Father gave Pook (some) money.'

(2)

THAI (Clark 1978:153) khǎw sòŋ kh or) hǎy Pù 3 send thing GIVE Pook 'She sent the things (to someone else) for Pook.'

On the development of MANNER from GIVE (8)

331

KHMER (Schiller 1989:286) köat ?aoy luy khñom 3

GIVE

money

me

'He gives me money.' (9)

KHMER (Schiller 1989:287) köat teñ trәi ?aoy 3 buy fish GIVE 'He bought the fish for me.'

khñom me

(10) VIETNAMESE (Clark 1978:22) toi cho no hai cuón sách I GIVE 3 two CLASS book 'I gave him two books.' (11) VIETNAMESE (Clark 1978:24) nó g i thd cho toi 3 send letter GIVE I 'He sent letters (to someone else) for me.' In Thai, for instance, the form hâis used as the lexical verb GIVE, as in (1), whereby a situation wherein the GIVER passes the THING to the RECIPIENT is described. In other words, the lexical verb hay is utilized to depict the interaction among the three participants: the GIVER, the RECIP­ IENT, and the THING. Being a kind of social situation (also Newman 1996:1-4), the event denoted in (1) is also what Traugott (1990:499) refers to as an "external described situation", that is an event or a state of affairs "in the world about which we learn from being told about [it], and some­ times through verification" (Traugott 1990:499). For instance, we are able to ascertain on the basis of what we hear from others whether or not Father gave Pook money. We can also ask either Father or Pook for verifica­ tion, or even observe Father handing money to Pook. Note that in (1), the RECIPIENT is only expressed as the one who was given the THING. Whether or not the RECIPIENT or someone else benefits from the GIVER's act is not indicated at all. The use of the same form hây as a marker of beneficiary role in (2), on the other hand, highlights the very fact that as a consequence of the SENDER'S act, someone else gains certain benefit. The lexical verb hay is

332

Jae Jung Song

now used to signal the presence of the beneficiary. Note that the event denoted in (2) as a whole is still an external described situation in that it denotes a situation for which there are "external means of verification" (Traugott 1986:544). But (2), as opposed to (1), involves a certain amount of internal (or cognitive) evaluation on the part of the speaker: It must be determined that someone other than the SENDER (or the SENDEE) has indeed benefited from the SENDER'S act. That may not be evident in the SENDER'S act alone. That is to say, the speaker may have to make her own evaluation of what may be a consequence of the SENDER'S act, as it is ultimately the beneficiary that can really decide on (or know) whether or not the SENDER'S act is to her own benefit. Non-beneficiaries can only make judgments or guesses as to whether or not the beneficiary has derived any benefit from the SENDER'S act.4 This kind of evaluation, which in itself is independent of the SENDER'S act, must first be carried out on the basis of the "mere" event of SENDING (cf. Newman 1996:95-97). To put it differently, there are fewer external means of verification for (2) than for (1). Conversely, there is a higher degree of internal evaluation for (2) than for (1). The change from the lexical verb hay to the beneficiary marker hây is thus reflective of Tendency I: from a meaning based in the external described situation to a meaning based in the internal described situation (cf. Sweetser 1984:56, who makes reference to "the tendency to use vocabulary from the external (sociophysical) domain in speaking of the internal (emotional and psychological) domain").5

4.

From BENEFACTIVE to PURPOSIVE

Thai, Khmer, and Vietnamese all press the lexical verb GIVE into service to express PURPOSIVE, as in (3), (12), and (13), respectively: (3)

THAI (Vichit-Vadakan 1976:475) khăw khiăn còtmăay hây khun to p he write letter GIVE you answer 'He wrote a letter so that you would answer.'

On the development of MANNER from GIVE (12) KHMER (Jacob 1968:141) khñom khom thv : I try:hard work khñom I

ka:(r) work

333

aoy GIVE

o:pùk father

s a:y crt(t) be:pleased

'I am working hard so that my father will be pleased.' (13) VIETNAMESE (Thompson 1965:232) toi làm cho con mèo I do GIVE CLASS cat '(lit.) I did so that the cat was hurt.'

đau sick

Note that although the same lexical verb form GIVE is used as a kind of clausal marker to express PURPOSIVE in the above sentences, I assume here that PURPOSIVE has arisen out of BENEFACTIVE, not directly out of GIVE (see §6 for discussion).6 First, the shift from BENEFACTIVE to PURPOSIVE is reflective of Tendency II. This is so, because the use of the form hây as a purposive marker in (3) is based in what Traugott (1989:35) calls the "textual or metalinguistic situation." The form hay in (3) has a textual function in that it is used as a connective coding textual cohesion. In other words, it is now a grammatical device that cohesively links the main clause (i.e. khǎw khiǎn cǎtmǎay) and the subordinate clause of purpose (i.e. khun tɔ p). Thus, the development of the benefactive marker hây to the purposive marker hay is an instance of Tendency II: from a meaning based in the external/internal described situation to a meaning based in the textual/meta­ linguistic situation. Further, the shift from BENEFACTIVE to PURPOSIVE is character­ istic of Tendency I as well, because it involves a far greater degree of inter­ nal, cognitive evaluation of the situation than is the case with GIVE > BENEFACTIVE. PURPOSIVE describes a desire or an internal, psycho­ logical state of mind for which there may not be external means of veri­ fication. In (3), the actor wrote a letter to bring it about that X would answer; prior to writing the letter, the actor must have internally perceived the desire that X would reply. In a situation like this, although she may have witnessed the actual writing of the letter, the speaker may never have external means to verify the actor's internal state of mind: the desire that

334

Jae Jung Song

X would write back. The speaker, therefore, carries out the higher level of internal evaluation of the situation, thereby detecting the purposive con­ nection between the actor's action and desired state of affairs. In this respect, PURPOSIVE seems to be more speaker-based than BENEFAC­ TIVE. Said differently, PURPOSIVE is "more internal a percept than" BENEFACTIVE (Traugott 1988a:409). Therefore, the shift in question can be subsumed by Tendency I.

5.

From PURPOSIVE to MANNER

Now, the last stage of the grammaticalization chain in (5) represents the shift from PURPOSIVE to MANNER, which I am most concerned with in this chapter. In Thai, the lexical verb hây is used in conjunction with adjec­ tives to express the meaning of MANNER, as in (4): (4)

THAI (Harrison and Sukcharoen ms:29) chǎn cà noon hây sabaay I IRR sleep GIVE comfortable T will sleep comfortably.'

loey EMP

The same phenomenon is, as has already been noted in §1, found in Khmer, and Vietnamese, as in (14) and (15), respectively. (14) KHMER (Jacob 1968:141) cau rùәt t u sa:la:-rìәn child run go school T h e little boy ran quickly to school.'

aoy GIVE

(15) VIETNAMESE (Thompson 1965:177) ông làm o'n nói cho you

rë distinct

do

favour

ra up

đang able

speak

toi I

GIVE

hi u understand

rәhás quick

rành

cho

clear

GIVE

cho GIVE

rõ clear

'Please speak very distinctly so that I can understand clearly.' As has been shown in §4, when it is used as a purposive marker in (3), the form hây has the propositional function of expressing the purposive rela­ tion between the two events, i.e. an action carried out to achieve a goal

On the development of MANNER from GIVE

335

(denoted by the main clause) and the goal (denoted by the subordinate clause). Further, it has a textual function in that it cohesively links two separate clauses: the main clause and the subordinate clause of purpose. Manner adverbs, on the other hand, are expressive of the speaker's subjec­ tive judgments, opinions, attitudes etc., since they describe the manner of the action denoted by the verb. So, regardless of how "objectively" com­ fortably she will sleep (cf. Traugott's doubt (1989:36) on truly objective modality), the speaker signals her own subjective judgment of the event just by choosing to use the sequence hay sabaay. If the speaker does not think that she will sleep comfortably enough, she would not use the adverb in the first place. The change is thus from PURPOSIVE, which is both propositional and textual, to MANNER, which is expressive of the speaker's sub­ jective belief state/attitude toward the situation. Clearly, the development of PURPOSIVE into MANNER is an example of Tendency III in that the change has brought it about that the meaning of the sequence hay sabaay has become more based in the speaker's belief state or attitude toward the proposition or situation. As has already been noted in §2, Tendencies I and II can also be (re)interpreted in terms of metaphor. Thus, the shift from BENEFACTIVE to PURPOSIVE can be understood in such a way that a more concrete or less abstract category (i.e. the marker of beneficiary role) is exploited to express a less concrete or more abstract category (i.e. the connective cod­ ing textual cohesion). Is the shift from PURPOSIVE to MANNER (i.e. Tendency III), then, also susceptible of metaphor analysis? Indeed, Heine (1990:132-135) offers such a metaphor account of the shift from PURPO­ SIVE to MANNER in Ik and Kanuri, both Nilo-Saharan languages. In Ik, the suffix -ke has such functions as dative, benefactive, allative, purposive, etc. It is also used "as a derivative device to adverbialize verbs" (1990:134), as in (16). (16) IK tóda ŋIL-I-ke speak be:strong-OPT-DAT 'He speaks strongly.' The suffix -ro in Kanuri has such functions as allative, purposive, causal, etc. It is also used to derive adverbs from adjectives (Heine 1990:137; also see Lukas 1937:158).

336

JAe Jung Song (17) KANURI a. dívi 'bad' b. dívi-ro 'badly'

Heine (1990:131, 146) does not actually discuss how the MANNER func­ tion has arisen out of the PURPOSIVE function in these languages, except for referring to the shift as part of the grammaticalization chain akin to (5) and noting that the development "can be interpreted as being due to one and the same process whereby 'abstract' meanings are conceptualized in terms of more 'concrete' meanings — with the effect that the morphology used to express the latter is extended to be used for the former as well." Even if it is taken for granted that the shift in question is metaphori­ cal, however, certain questions still remain to be answered. As has correctly been pointed out by Givón (1994:318): [T]he metaphor hypothesis as it currently stands is not specific enough. It does not supply an actual mechanism for grammaticalization.

In other words, how does the shift actually take place? Is it the case that the speaker establishes a conceptual link between the two categories and (suddenly) starts to exploit the more concrete one to express the less con­ crete? Is the shift in question really metaphorical in nature at all? To address these questions, I will examine in the rest of this section how manner adverbs are formed productively in Korean: the -ke adverbforming suffix (for further discussion, see Song 1996b). I will demonstrate, pace Heine (1990), how what is originally a pragmatic inference of "sub­ jectivity of evaluation" on the part of the speaker is strengthened to the extent that it is conventionalized or semanticized, or to the extent that the purposive marker is grammaticalized into an adverb-forming suffix.7 I have deliberately chosen Korean as a language of exemplification here, because in this language, to the best of my knowledge, PURPOSIVE, out of which MANNER has arisen, has not in turn developed from any other known source.8 There may thus be no room for the counterproposal that in Korean MANNER has originated from GIVE or BENEFACTIVE. What is to be discussed below is, however, claimed to apply equally to the development of MANNER in Thai, Khmer, and Vietnamese. In these languages as well, MANNER has developed from PURPOSIVE, not directly from GIVE (or from BENEFACTIVE for that matter), although the beginning point of the whole grammaticalization chain is none other than GIVE (see §6).

On the development of MANNER from GIVE

337

In Korean, the manner adverb-forming suffix -ke, as in (18), has the same shape as the very grammatical element that marks the subordinate clause of purpose, as in (19).9 (18) KOREAN ki ai-ka chincәlha-ke the child-NOM courteous-KE

noin-eke old:man-DAT

mal-il speech-ACC

ha-әss-ta do-PAST-IND

'The child talked courteously to an old man.' (19) KOREAN kyosu-nim-kkesә professor-HON-HON/NOM

kaŋii-ka lecture-NOM

ccalp-ke short-PURP

ha-si-әss-ta do-HON-PAST-IND

'The professor did (something) so that her/his lecture would be short.' There are certain grammatical differences between the -ke suffix in (18) and that in (19). Suffice it here to mention one such difference: chincәlha-ke in (18) can be coordinated with other types of adverb (i.e. non-derived or -i derived), whereas the sequence ccalp-ke in (19) cannot be. This makes it clear that chincәlha-ke in (18) is indeed an adverb, whereas ccalp-ke in (19) is not. Interestingly enough, the sequence chincәlha-ke in (18) can also be interpreted as a subordinate clause of purpose, although it may be less preferable.10 So, when (18) is understood to contain such a subordinate clause, it may mean: 'The child talked to an old man in order to be cour­ teous (to him)'. Originally, the element -ke may only have been the purposive marker, which signals the subordinate clause of purpose. So, (20) is what may have been the original structure of (18):11 (20) Sl[ki ai-ka S2[(ki ai-ka) chincәlha-ke]S2 the child-NOM (the child-NOM) be:courteous-PURP noin-eke mal-il ha-әss-ta]Sl old:man-DAT speech-ACC do-PAST-IND

338

Jae Jung Song

It is this purposive marker, then, that the manner adverb-forming suffix -ke later descended from. The "reconstructed" structure in (20) can now explain why (18) is potentially susceptible of both MANNER and PURPOSIVE interpretations. I submit that the PURPOSIVE meaning is understood as a continuation of the original meaning of the form -ke, whereas the MANNER meaning is regarded as an addition to the form -ke (cf. Bybee and Pagliuca 1986:117 on a similar situation in the "future" markers in English). To put it in a different way, the development of MANNER from PURPOSIVE has not yet given rise to "an across-the-board re-semanticization of" -ke (Hopper 1991:29). The retention of the original meaning of -ke in (18) may not, in fact, be unexpected, as Hopper (1991:22) notes under what he calls the Principle of Persistence: "When a form undergoes grammatic[al]ization . . . some traces of its original . . . meanings tend to adhere to it." How, then, did the change from the purposive marker to the manner adverb-forming suffix come about? Given the (original) meaning of (20) that the child talked to an old man in order to be courteous, it is known that she talked to the old man and that the (sole) goal of her action was to be courteous to him. This then leads to the inference that the manner of the child's action was commensurate with her goal, since if X talks to Y in order that X will be courteous to Y, the first thing that X is expected to do is to talk courteously to Y. To put it differently, it is extremely difficult to imagine that if X talks to Y in order that X will be courteous to Y, X will talk to Y in a manner that is not consistent with X's goal (i.e. discour­ teously). So, if I say The child talked to an old man in order to be cour­ teous, I invite the inference that I believe that she did talk courteously (cf. Traugott 1988a:411). Thus, from the purpose of a given action one can implicate the manner of that action.12 Pragmatic inferences or conversational implicatures are known to be conventionalized to the extent that they are semanticized (Grice 1975; Geis and Zwicky 1971; Atlas and Levinson 1981). In Korean, the inference of the manner of a given action that is drawn pragmatically from the pur­ pose of that action has become conventionalized with the effect that the form -ke is now used to form manner adverbs (productively). Along with Traugott (1989:50-51), I suggest that the process that best accounts for the conventionalizing of the pragmatic inference is the process of prag­ matic strengthening (also see Traugott and König 1991:207-212; Hopper

On the development of MANNER from GIVE

339

and Traugott 1993:63-93; cf. Song 1996a: 148-157): A pragmatic inference that is generated with respect to a given expression is strengthened by high frequency of use, so much so that it becomes (part of) the meaning of that expression. What is the exact nature of the role that frequency plays in the strengthening of pragmatic inferences, however, remains to be seen (cf. Traugott 1989:52).

6.

Function Contiguity vs. Direct Shift

In (5) above, I have provided the grammaticalization chain leading from GIVE to MANNER in the following form: (5) GIVE > BENEFACTIVE > PURPOSIVE > MANNER By means of that chain, I do not claim that languages must start from GIVE in order to 'reach' the MANNER category or segment. Languages may skip the first segment of GIVE and instead start from BENEFACTIVE. The lexical verb GIVE may not at all be exploited to express MANNER. Or languages may begin the grammaticalization chain from PURPOSIVE, as is the case with Korean. Further, I do not claim that (5) is defined rigidly. That is to say that it could be elaborated on, as has indeed been presented in Heine (1990) or Heine et al. (1991) (cf. Note 2). What I do claim is, however, that the two segments that are involved in any given shift must be contiguous in the chain. This is in fact the essence of what Blansitt (1988:174) calls the Function Contiguity Hypothesis (hereafter FCH): The functions x, y, and z can be identically marked only if the identically marked functions are contiguous in the order shown (cf. Heine et al. 1991: 154-156).13 Therefore, the MANNER segment cannot be "reached" directly from GIVE or BENEFACTIVE, but it can only be from PURPOSIVE. For a lexical verb GIVE to be exploited as an adverb-forming device, it must also have been pressed into service to express both BENEFACTIVE and PURPOSIVE, because any shift must involve two contiguous segments of the grammaticalization chain. So, for the lexical verb GIVE in Thai, Khmer, or Vietnamese to be extended to MANNER, it must have traveled the whole grammaticalization path in (5), involving the sequence of: first the shift from GIVE to BENEFACTIVE, then the shift from BENEFACTIVE to PURPOSIVE, and finally the shift from PURPOSIVE to MANNER.14

340

Jae Jung Song

In contrast, Newman (1996:151) postulates what may be called the Direct Shift Hypothesis (hereafter DSH): a direct functional change from GIVE to MANNER or GIVE > MANNER. He thus suggests that "a prop­ erty, like quickness, associated with some action is understood [or con­ strued] as something produced, or generated, by the action." Given this opposing view, the FCH needs to be defended here. There are three points that I would like to raise against the DSH. First, the shift of GIVE > MANNER seems to be unwarranted even in terms of Newman's extension analysis, because in a typical GIVE situation it is the GIVER, not the action per se, that gives the THING to the RECIP­ IENT (Newman 1996:33-60). On the other hand, manner adverbs pertain to actions, not to agents by definition. Thus, one still has to explain why in the case of the shift from GIVE to MANNER, it is the action of GIVING, not the GIVER, that is regarded as the (energy) source of GIVING. Secondly, Thai, Khmer, and Vietnamese all press the lexical verb GIVE into service to carry out both the BENEFACTIVE and PURPOSIVE functions, as has been documented in the earlier sections. So, under the DSH, it will also have to be assumed that the lexical verb GIVE shifts directly to BENEFACTIVE or to PURPOSIVE. As a result, the DSH fails to recognize, for instance, that GIVE is much more closely related to BENEFACTIVE than to MANNER; for example, two of the three partici­ pants associated with GIVE, i.e. the GIVER and RECIPIENT, tend to be human, and so does the participant of BENEFACTIVE, or the beneficiary. This is, however, captured neatly by the grammaticalization chain in (5) (and hence in the FCH), since GIVE and BENEFACTIVE are next to each other, whereas GIVE and MANNER are separated by BENEFACTIVE and PURPOSIVE. More damaging to the DSH may be, however, that in Thai, the se­ quence of the lexical verb GIVE and ADJECTIVE can only occur in the context of "hypothetical" situations (Noss 1964:178). Thus, the sequence hây sabaay in (4) must only be used when non-factual (or unrealized) situa­ tions are expressed (e.g. commands, wishes, future events, etc.), as in (4): (4)

THAI (Harrison and Sukcharoen ms:29) chan cà noon hây sabaay I IRR sleep GIVE comfortable T will sleep comfortably.'

loey EMP

On the development of MANNER from GIVE

341

In other words, the sequence cannot be used in the context of factual situa­ tions (e.g. past events).15 If there were a grammaticalization path leading directly from GIVE to MANNER, it would then be extremely difficult to explain why there is the "non-factuality restriction" in Thai. For one thing, what does non-factuality have to do with GIVE on the one hand and with MANNER on the other? However, this is not a problem for the FCH. The segment immediately to the left of MANNER in (5) is PURPOSIVE; under the FCH, therefore, MANNER can only develop directly from PURPO­ SIVE, regardless of whether or not PURPOSIVE has in turn arisen out of another source. In Thai, the shift from PURPOSIVE to MANNER has not yet run its full course, whereby the sequence of hây + ADJECTIVE is still found only in the same non-factual context that the ordinary purposive con­ struction is. By its nature, the purposive construction denotes a non-factual, unrealized situation (when X does Y for the purpose of bringing about Z, Z necessarily denotes an event that has not yet occurred). Although it has already been enlisted in the service of expressing MANNER, the sequence of hây + ADJECTIVE is still governed by the non-factuality restriction which it is originally subject to as a purposive construction. Again, this may also be understood in terms of Hopper's (1991:22, 28-30) Principle of Persistence: "When a form undergoes grammatic[al]ization, . . . details of its . . . history may be reflected in constraints on its grammatical distribution." In Gã, for instance, the accusative marker kὲ "cannot be used if the verb is an effective verb (i.e. a verb whose object is produced by the action)", because it is originally a verb meaning 'to take'; one cannot 'take' something that is yet to be produced or to come into being (Hopper 1991:28). Similarly, in Thai the (most recent) history of the sequence of hây + ADJECTIVE, namely PURPOSIVE, is reflected in the non-factuality restriction which it still has to comply with. This, the DSH seems to be unable to explain.

7.

Conclusion

This chapter has begun with the observation that in Thai, Khmer, and Vietnamese the lexical verb of GIVE has multiple functions to perform. In order to explain the use of the lexical verb GIVE in forming manner ad­ verbs, the grammaticalization chain emanating from GIVE and culminating

342

Jae Jung Song

in MANNER has been put forward. Drawing on Traugott's theory of semantic-pragmatic change, each stage of the chain has been examined and accounted for. So, the shift from GIVE to BENEFACTIVE has been identified as an instance of Tendency I in that it involves a certain amount of internal cognitive evaluation of the situation on the part of the speaker. The shift from BENEFACTIVE to PURPOSIVE is subsumed by both Tendencies I and II, because it dose not only involve a higher degree of internal evaluation on the part of the speaker but also a change of the beneficiary marker into a connective coding textual cohesion. The shift from PURPOSIVE to MANNER, on the other hand, has been characterized as reflective of Tendency III, which captures increasing subjectivity of eval­ uation on the part of the speaker. Further, the process that is responsible for the semantic-pragmatic change of Tendency III is pragmatic strength­ ening, not metaphorization: Pragmatic inference becomes conventionalized as (part of) semantic meaning by frequent use. It has also been argued that the two functions involved in a given shift must be contiguous in the grammaticalization chain. This view, which is known as the Function Contiguity Hypothesis, contrasts with the Direct Shift Hypothesis, which postulates the direct functional change from GIVE to MANNER. It has been demon­ strated, however, that the DSH is inadequate for explaining that the func­ tions in the grammaticalization chain are related to one another to varying degrees. Further, the DSH is unable to deal with the non-factuality con­ straint on the hay + ADJECTIVE sequence in Thai. Finally, Traugott (1986, 1988b) envisages that what she calls "internal semantic-pragmatic reconstruction" can be carried out on the basis of her theory of semantic-pragmatic change: "[C]rosslinguistic processes of sem­ antic change . . . are so regular that it is possible to develop predictive hypothe­ ses that can be tested against historical data . . . [and since] . . . they are sufficiently predictive[,] . .. one can take synchronic polysemies from any period in any language and project change back into the past" (Traugott 1989:31, 1990:498). It is hoped that the present discussion can also be viewed as such an exercise in internal semantic-pragmatic reconstruction, particularly when there are no reliable historical data which could guide us in studying the relationship between GIVE and MANNER (e.g. Clark 1978: 183 for such a situation in Vietnamese; also see Note 7).

On the development of MANNER from GIVE

343

Notes 1.

An earlier version of sections 2 and 5 was presented at the Australian Linguistics Conference at La Trobe University (Melbourne) in July 1994; an earlier version of sections 3, 4, 5, and 6 was delivered at the Australian Linguistics Conference at the Australian National University (Canberra) in July 1996. Thanks are due to members of the audience for comments, and suggestions, especially John Newman, Anthony Diller, Cliff Goddard, and Kaoru Horie. Barry Blake kindly read, and made useful comments on, the first draft, for which I am grateful. I would also like to record my indebtedness to John Newman, who not only first drew my attention to the fact that the lexical verb GIVE is exploited as an adverbializing device in Khmer, but also offered many suggestions that improved the quality of this paper. Finally, I am indebted to Young Keun Ko for discussing the diachrony of the form -ke in Korean with me, to Anthony Diller and Suda Rangkupan for explaining the use of hây + ADJECTIVE in Thai, to John Marston and Chris Court for promptly responding to my question posted to the LINGUIST and SEALANG Lists concerning the use of ?aoy + ADJECTIVE in Khmer, and also to Thuan Macintyre for discussing the use of cho + ADJECTIVE in Vietnamese. None of these people is responsible for any errors of fact or judgment which I may have failed to eliminate.

2.

Heine (1990:13) and Heine et al. (1991:151) propose the grammaticalization chain in (i). (i)

344

Jae Jung Song This chain is interpreted in such a way that, for instance, BENEFACTIVE develops into PURPOSIVE and DATIVE, and these two in turn are further grammaticalized into CAUSE/REASON and POSSESSION, respectively. Of course, in the context of the present discussion, the chain must be modified so that GIVE can fit in; GIVE will perhaps 'head' a separate chain which will contain part of the left section of the chain in (i), from BENEFACTIVE down to MANNER, with CAUSE/REASON being skipped over.

3.

Note that Traugott (1989:36) chooses to regard the parameter of subjectification as a continuum, i.e. from weakly subjective to strongly subjective, rather than as a polarity phenomenon, i.e. objective as opposed to subjective (e.g. Lyons 1982), since it is not clear whether true objectivity really exists (especially in the epistemic domain) (cf. Palmer 1986, and Langacker 1985).

4.

Of course, unless the speaker is the beneficiary.

5.

Languages that exploit the lexical verb GIVE to express BENEFACTIVE also seem to use serial verb constructions (cf. Lord 1993:31-45; Newman 1996:211-212). Al­ though I am not in a position to determine whether there is a significant correlation between the shift in question and serial verb constructions, I suspect that the presence of the latter may be a motivating factor for the former.

6.

In Thai, Khmer, and Vietnamese, it is not easy to determine whether sentences such as (3), (12) and (13) are complex or not. However, Vichit-Vadakan (1976:475) regards the element hây in (3) as a complementizer, thereby suggesting that (3) involves a complex syntactic structure (also see Noss 1964:177-178).

7.

There do not seem to be any unequivocal historical data available that can shed light on the origin of the adverb suffix -ke in Korean (K.M. Lee 1972; S.N. Lee 1981; Y.K. Ko 1983 (and personal communication, 22 November 1994)). Lack of historical data should not, however, deter us from exploring a possible link between PUR­ POSIVE and MANNER. Otherwise, we may be forced to conclude that the formal similarity between form x and form y is accidental (cf. Lightfoot 1979:6-7). "If, in con­ trast, we try to discover a relationship [between form x and form y], in the worst case we may find that none exists" (Frajzyngier 1986:371; also see Song 1996a:74-75).

8.

The purposive marker -ke may have developed out of the Middle Korean dative case marker -ke/-kii (K.M. Lee 1972:171), although I am not aware of any conclusive his­ torical evidence in support of this relationship (Y.K. Ko, personal communication, 22 November, 1994; cf. S.W. Lee 1958).

9.

Sohn (1994:72, 91), in fact, thinks that the -ke suffix in (18) is actually the purposive marker or what he calls the clausal suffix in (19) being "used to indicate manner" (cf. Nam and Ko 1993:273).

10.

The subordinate clause of purpose in (19) cannot be interpreted as an adverb, because of the presence of the subject NP kaŋ-ii.

On the development of MANNER from GIVE

345

11.

The subject NP of the subordinate clause is optionally omitted (i.e. PRO) since it is coreferential with that of the main clause.

12.

As Halliday and Hasan (1976:240) put it, the speaker leaves "[her] own 'stamp' on the situation."

13.

The functions which Blansitt (1988) is concerned with are Object, Dative, Allative, and Locative.

14.

The claim that MANNER arises directly out of PURPOSIVE may come in conflict with the grammaticalization chain proposed by Heine (1990:131) and Heine et al. (1991:151), and hence the FCH (see Note 2). However, the relevant part of Heine's chain could well be that shown in (i): (i)

Obviously, the development of GIVE to MANNER in Khmer, Thai, and Vietnamese points to a slightly different grammaticalization chain, although I am not aware of any other evidence or work that can help decide between these two analyses (cf. see Song 1996a:73-109 for discussion of the development of CAUSE (or more accurately causa­ tive) from PURPOSIVE). 15.

In Vietnamese, the cho + ADJECTIVE sequence seems to be used in the context of factual events, as in: (i)

hôrn qua yesterday dê so+that

nó he horn nay today

làm do

cho GIVE làm do

nhanh fast

ít little

'Yesterday he worked fast so that he would work little today.' There, however, seems to be a restriction on the use of the sequence to the effect that either a purpose or a reason related to the action must be specified or at least under­ stood (Thuan Macintyre, personal communication, 23 March, 1995). So, (i) may not make much sense without dê hôrn nay làm ít, in which case nhanh, not cho nhanh, must be used. I do not understand this restriction well enough at the moment; I will leave it open for future research. In Khmer, there seems to be variation among speakers as to whether or not the ?aoy + ADJECTIVE sequence is subject to the nonfactuality restriction (cf. Jacob 1968:141). Again, I will leave this as an open question.

346

Jae Jung Song

References Atlas, J.D. and S. Levinson. 1981. "It-clefts, informativeness and logical form: Radical pragmatics." In P. Cole (ed.), Radical Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press, 1-61. Blakemore, D. 1987. Semantic Constraints on Relevance. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Blansitt, E.L. 1988. "Datives and allatives." In M. Hammond, E. Moravcsik, and J. Wirth (eds.), Studies in Syntactic Typology. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 173-191. Bybee, J. 1985. Morphology: A Study of the Relation between Meaning and Form. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins [Typological Studies in Language 9]. Bybee, J. and W. Pagliuca. 1986. "The evolution of future meaning." In A. Giacalone Ramat et al. (eds.), Papers from the Seventh International Conference on Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 108-122. Clark, M. 1978. Coverbs and Case in Vietnamese. Canberra: Australian National University. Frajzyngier, Z. 1986. "From preposition to copula." BLS 12:371-385. Geis, M.L. and A.M. Zwicky. 1971. "Invited inferences." Linguistic Inquiry 2:561-566. Givón, T. 1975. "Serial verbs and syntactic change: Niger-Congo." In C.N. Li (ed.), Word Order and Word Order Change. Austin: University of Texas Press, 47-112. Givón, T. 1994. "Irrealis and the subjunctive." Studies in Language 18:265-337. Grice, P.H. 1975. "Logic and conversation." In P. Cole and J.L. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press, 41-58. Halliday, M.A.K. and R. Hasan. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman. Harrison, C.J. and S. Sukcharoen. ms. "The question of polysemy in the Thai lexeme hây," Heine, B. 1990. "The dative in Ik and Kanuri." In W. Croft, K. Denning, and S. Kemmer (eds.), Studies in Typology and Diachrony. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Ben­ jamins, 129-149. Heine, B. 1992. "Grammaticalization chains." Studies in Language 16:335-368. Heine, B., U. Claudi, and F. Hünnemeyer. 1991. Grammaticalization: A Conceptual Frame­ work. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Hopper, P.J. 1991. "On some principles of grammaticization." In E.C. Traugott and B. Heine (eds.), Approaches to Grammaticalization, Vol. 1: Focus on Theoretical and Methodological Issues. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 17-35. Jacob, J.M. 1968. Introduction to Cambodian. London: Oxford University Press. Ko, Y.K. 1983. Studies in Korean Grammar: Yesterday and Today (written in Korean). Seoul, Korea: Thap Publisher. Langacker, R.W. 1985. "Observations and speculations on subjectivity." In J. Haiman (ed.), Iconicity in Syntax. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 109-150. Lee, K.M. 1972. An Introduction to the History of Korean (written in Korean). Seoul, Korea: Thap Publisher. Lee, S.N. 1981. Middle Korean Grammar: With Special Reference to Korean in the 15th Century (written in Korean). Seoul, Korea: Eulyu Munhwa.

On the development

of MANNER from GIVE

341

Lee, S.W. 1958. "A study of tense in Korean (written in Korean)." kukә yәnku 6. Li, C.N. and S.A. Thompson. 1974. "Co-verbs in Mandarin Chinese: Verbs or preposi­ tions?" Journal of Chinese Linguistics 2:257-278. Lichtenberk, F. 1986. "Syntactic-category change in Oceanic languages." Oceanic Linguistics 24:1-84. Lightfoot, D.W. 1979. Principles of Diachronic Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni­ versity Press. Lord, C. 1973. "Serial verbs in transition." Studies in African Linguistics 4:269-296. Lord, C. 1993. Historical Change in Serial Verb Constructions. Amsterdam and Phila­ delphia: John Benjamins [Typological Studies in Language 26]. Lukas, J. 1937. A Study of the Kanuri Language, Grammar and Vocabulary. London: Oxford University Press. Lyons, J. 1982. "Deixis and subjectivity." In R.J. Jarvella and W. Klein (eds.), Loquor, ergo sum?: Speech, Place, and Action: Studies in Deixis and Related Topics. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 101-124. Nam, K.S. and Y.K. Ko. 1993. Standard Korean Grammar (written in Korean). Seoul, Korea: Thap Publisher. Newman, J. 1996. Give: A Cognitive Linguistic Study. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter [Cognitive Linguistics Research 7]. Noss, R.B. 1964. Thai Reference Grammar. Washington, D.C.: Foreign Service Institute. Palmer, F.R. 1986. Mood and Modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schiller, E. 1989. "Syntactic polysemy and underspecification in the lexicon." BLS 15:278-290. Sohn, H.-M. 1994. Korean. London: Routledge. Song, J.J. 1988. "Clause linkage in Korean periphrastic causative and purposive con­ structions." Language Research 24:583-606. Song, J.J. 1996a. Causatives and Causation: A Universal-Typological Perspective. London and New York: Addison Wesley Longman. Song, J.J. 1996b. "From purposive to manner in Korean: A semantic-pragmatic change of subjectification." Australian Journal of Linguistics 16.2:209-227. Sperber, D. and D. Wilson. 1986. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Sweetser, E.E. 1984. Semantic Structure and Semantic Change: A Cognitive Linguistic Study of Modality, Perception, Speech Acts, and Logical Relations. Ph.D. disserta­ tion, University of California, Berkeley. Sweetser, E.E. 1988. "Grammaticalization and semantic bleaching." BLS 14:389-409. Thompson, L.C. 1965. A Vietnamese Grammar. Seattle: University of Washington Press. Traugott, E.C. 1982. "From propositional to textual and expressive meanings: Some seman­ tic-pragmatic aspects of grammaticalization." In W.P. Lehmann and Y. Malkiel (eds.), Perspectives on Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 245-271. Traugott, E.C. 1986. "From polysemy to internal reconstruction." BLS 12:539-550. Traugott, E.C. 1988a. "Pragmatic strengthening and grammaticalization." BLS 14:406416.

348

Jae Jung Song

Traugott, E.C. 1988b. "Is internal semantic-pragmatic reconstruction possible?" In C. Duncan-Rose and T. Vennemann (eds.), On Language: Rhetorica, Phonologica, Syntactica. London: Routledge, 128-144. Traugott, E.C. 1989. "On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: An example of subjectification in semantic change." Language 65:31-55. Traugott, E.C. 1990. "From less to more situated in language: The unidirectionality of semantic change." In S. Adamson, V. Law, N. Vincent, and S. Wright (eds.), Papers from the 5th International Conference on English Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 497-517. Traugott, E.C. 1991. "English speech act verbs: A historical perspective." In L.R. Waugh and S. Rudy (eds.), New Vistas in Grammar: Invariance and Variation. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 387-406. Traugott, E.C. and E. König. 1991. "The semantics-pragmatics of grammaticalization revisited." In E.C. Traugott and B. Heine (eds.), Approaches to Grammaticalization, Vol. 1 : Focus on Theoretical and Methodological Issues. Amsterdam and Philadel­ phia: John Benjamins, 189-218. Vichit-Vadakan, R. 1976. "The concept of inadvertence in Thai periphrastic causative constructions." In M. Shibatani (ed.), Syntax and Semantics 6: The Grammar of Causative Constructions. New York: Academic Press, 459-476.

One child's early talk about possession Michael Tomasello Emory University

1. Introduction* A number of cognitive linguists have hypothesized that human languages are organized around a smallish number of basic activities in which their speakers habitually engage, some of which are very likely universal among human societies (e.g. Fillmore 1977; Croft 1991; Goldberg 1995). One of the most prominent of these activities, or set of activities, is the exchange and possession of objects. All of the world's languages that have been stud­ ied in any detail have resources for talking about this topic, and indeed there are some commonalities in the linguistic forms used across languages for conversing in this semantic domain (Newman 1996). Moreover, obser­ vers of young children have found that expressions indicating exchange and possession are among the earliest topics of conversation for children of all cultures, again for all of the world's languages that have been extensively studied (e.g. Bowerman 1973; Braine 1976; Brown 1973; Leopold 1949; Stern and Stern 1928). As with any basic activity, however, a particular language is very likely to have diverse ways for construing the particular situations involved, for example, as an atemporal relation, as a state, as an activity, as a change of state, or as a caused changed of state (Croft 1991; Langacker 1993). The question thus arises (to developmental psychologists, at least): What is the ontogenetic relation among different forms of expression for exchange and possession within a given language? No researcher to my knowledge has asked this question for a single child, or group of children, speaking a sin­ gle language. The question is important first of all because it tells us some­ thing about how a given child, within one conceptual domain, is able to

350

Michael Tomasello

shift attention to view similar situations from the diverse perspectives embodied in the constructions of the language she is learning. It is also im­ portant from the point of view of the language-cognition relation. Modern students of this topic have argued that a particular linguistic expression may be acquired by a child only if that child has both the ability to con­ ceptualize the referential situation of the expression and the ability to master the particular linguistic construction in which it is conventionally expressed (Johnston and Slobin 1979; Slobin 1985; Choi and Bowerman 1991;Berman and Slobin 1995). Knowing how different expressions con­ cerning the same basic conceptual material are mastered by a single child (with a single conceptual apparatus) thus provides important information about the difficulty those expressions present for acquisition. In Tomasello (1992) I reported on my English-speaking daughter's lan­ guage development during her second year of life. The data for that study came from a relatively comprehensive diary in which virtually all of this child's predicative expressions were recorded. The study found a number of interesting developmental patterns, among them the lexically-specific nature of early grammatical constructions. For example, this child's learning of verb-argument structure and its canonical English marking for any particu­ lar verb (through word order and prepositions) did not seem to generalize to other verbs. Nor did the morphological marking of past tense and pro­ gressive aspect seem to generalize across verbs, but rather was learned for each verb separately (in some cases the marked forms were actually learned first, e.g. spilled and crying). This developmental pattern suggests that chil­ dren acquire different means of expression separately, even for the same basic conceptual situation, as they engage in particular types of conversation with adults (Olguin and Tomasello 1993; Tomasello and Olguin 1993). In that diary study I also reported in some detail on my daughter's verbs for exchange and possession (along with all of her other verbs for such things as the appearance-disappearance-recurrence of objects, the move­ ment and location of objects, the change of state of objects, and motoric and psychological activities of various shapes and kinds). However, her other means for expressing the possessive relation (i.e. those not involving verbs) were not systematically analyzed or related to the verbs for exchange and possession. In the current study, therefore, my intention is to bring together in one analysis my daughter's five main ways of talking about exchangepossession. These are:

One child's early talk about possession (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

351

performatives marking object exchange (e.g. "Thank-you", "Hereyou-go"); the possessive 's (e.g. "Mommy's sock"); possessive pronouns and adjectives (e.g. "Mine" or "Your lap"); verbs of exchange-possession (e.g. give, have, etc.) utterances with both a possessive NP and a possessive verb (e.g. "Have my box").

A naturalistic study of one child learning one language can never hope to be definitive, of course. However, in examining the developmental rela­ tion among this child's five ways of talking about exchange-possession, my aims are: (a) to determine relatively definitively the basic social activities within which this child's talk about exchange-possession first emerged ontogenetically; (b) to document relatively definitively the different ways for lin­ guistically construing exchange-possession situations in this child's early language, and how these were developmentally related to one another; and (c) to formulate hypotheses that might be applied to other children learning English, and, hopefully, with appropriate modifications, to children learn­ ing typologically very different languages as well.

2.

Methods of analysis

The subject of the study was my daughter Travis (T). My wife and I kept a continuous diary of T's early language from around her first to her sec­ ond birthday (expressed in months and days as 12.00 to 24.00). The full details of our procedure are reported in Tomasello (1992, Chapter 3), but in broad outline our procedure was as follows. From the outset we focused only on predicative expressions, that is to say, on all of her language that was something other than object naming. At the beginning we recorded, with paper and pencil, all individual predicative utterances. As T's language became more complex, however, we began to follow only its "emergent structure" (Braunwald and Brislin 1979). At first this meant ignoring repe­ titions of exactly the same expression in the same context (e.g. repeated instances of "Bye-bye" to Daddy leaving in the car in the morning). Later this meant ignoring expressions whose only difference was in the object label used (e.g. if many instances of the type "More juice", "More milk",

352

Michael Tomasello

"More apple", had been used, further instances of this type with more were ignored). Finally, as T's talk began to outstrip our ability to record it, we noted only those expressions that were of T's most complex types; for example, if she had used many expressions such as "Mommy give me this" we would not record simpler expressions with this same verb, such as simply "Give me". In the context of this procedure we recorded almost continuously all of T's qualifying utterances during the period of observation, from January 1974 to January 1975. At monthly intervals during the middle part of the study we also made video and audio recordings. Some years later the data were transferred to computer files, and the analysis was conducted with the help of the KWAL program of the CHILDES system (MacWhinney and Snow 1990) in 1987-1988. For purposes of the current analysis, a complete listing of all possessive expressions as recorded in the appendix of Tomasello (1992) was compiled and collated by date. A summary of this compilation is provided in Table 1, which will be used for reference throughout the analysis. In the current study, I assume that in the beginning, possession is basi­ cally equivalent to spatial collocation for the child — an object is located at a person — and thus a request for an object that another person is con­ trolling is simply a request that the object go from its current location to the self as a location (see Slobin 1985; Mills 1985). There is no easy answer to the question of when to attribute an understanding of possession to the child, but one of the keys is when the child begins to learn and use expressions that are distinguished from existing expressions only on the basis of some possessive element; for example, the child might learn to indicate when people have objects when she already has expressions for when people hold objects and the like. Specifically possessive construc­ tions such as "Mommy's bowl" and "My toy" will be assumed to indicate possession as long as they are comments on the appropriate situations, not requests for objects, and as long as they refer to a diversity of possessive situations. T's use of verbs for exchange and possession will be both described narratively and depicted in diagrams of the type used by Langacker (1987, 1991). In each of these diagrams, there is a depiction of a discrete series of states, for example, an object in one location at one "moment of atten­ tion" and then in another location at another "moment of attention" (von

One child's early talk about possession

353

Glasersfeld 1972). Based on my analysis of the child's totality of expres­ sions I will at first posit P (persons) and E (ego) simply as locations where objects may go, similar to other inanimate locations. I will later be forced to posit P and E as possessors, which will be clearly indicated in the dia­ grams through a shading of the appropriate areas. Also, there will be some cases where it is important how the child is to come into possession of the object; thus a causal arrow (→) will be used to indicate something like an "agent" who causes an object transfer.

3. Period 1: Exchanging and obtaining objects (12.00 to 17.14) Early in her language development T had two types of expression related to object exchange, although it is likely that neither of these involved an understanding of possession per se. The first was the politeness performa­ tive thank-you and the second involved requests for objects that others currently possessed (by various means). These were the only expressions involving the exchange or possession of objects during the period up to 17 months, 14 days of age (17.14) (see Table 1). They will be discussed in turn. Thank-you was an expression that T's parents sought to teach her for use in appropriate social situations. They thus instructed her to "Say thank you" or "Say thanks" when she was given an object. They also used thankyou in two other situations of exchange. They said "Thank you" or "Thanks" when T gave them an object, and they also said "Thank you" on some occasions when they took an object from T (e.g. when T would not relin­ quish an object an adult had asked for, he or she might take it from her forcibly and say "Thank you" or "Thanks"). As a consequence, T's early usage was not confined to her thanking other people for objects or favors. For example, at 16.12 T said "Thank-you" when her mother gave her her bottle (her form at this time was "Dankoo" with the appropriate rhythm and intonation), but later on the same day she says "Thank-you" as she gives a cracker to Daddy. Two days later she says "Thank-you" as a forbidden plant is being taken away from her, and in succeeding days she uses the same expression as she pours water on the plants, as she fills a bowl from a faucet, and as she places berries on a couch. These situations may thus be depicted as in Figure 1, with 'P' indicating

354

Michael Tomasello

Table 1. Summary of T's most important expressions indicating object exchange or possession POSSESSIVE MORPHOLOGY

POSSESSIVE ADJS & PRONOUNS

16.12 16.24 17.00 17.01 Mommy milk (10 exs) 17.10 17.14 Mommy's pillow 17.24 Danny's house Maria's house 17.25 Ashley's bottle Baby's bottle 18.04 Daddy's nose 18.07 Cat bit Daddy's finger 18.11 Travis beret Travis robe 18.13 Mine pillow 18.27 18.30 Bye-bye Daddy's car See Daddy's car 19.08 My book My hose My water 19.16 19.19 This ring mine 19.20 19.23

19.26 19.29 20.02 Hold this Maria's necklace 20.10 20.13

Daddy hold mine Mommy hold my hand

VERBS OF EXCHANGE/ POSSESSION

Thanks Get-it _ Back _ Hold_

Got-it

Gimme Have-it Here-go (Thanks - for receiving only) Give-it _ Girl have that umbrella - comment Share - recipient Use_ Buy - comment Mommy get sauce - comment

Daddy hold mine - comment

One child's early talk about possession

355

(table 1 continued) POSSESSIVE MORPHOLOGY

20.17

POSSESSIVE ADJS & PRONOUNS

Pete lick-up mine bacon (8 exs, ending 21.00)

20.19 Share Maria's coat Use Maria's necklace 20.29 This bee like Maria's 21.00 21.05 21.09 21.16 21.20 22.05 22.07 22.09 22.10 22.16 23.00 24.00

VERBS OF EXCHANGE/ POSSESSION

Lady got umbrella - comment

Get raisins to me - recipient Al gave me boots - commentlrecip Got for you, Maria - recipient Maria had that umbrella - comment Have juice in my bottle Have a donut for you - recipient Close your eyes

Left my coat in Schaufele's house Get your p back on your lap She has snakes in her neck

Get that p for me - benefactive G gave that for M - recipient M gave that cereal for me to eat Joe give that for you Left my coat in Schaufele's house Keep

a person other than T, 'E' (Ego) indicating T herself, and the large circle indicating the spatial domain of T or a person. The transfer is indicated by reading across the two panels, each panel representing an object-state at one "moment of attention". The two situations are thus ones in which T receives an object (O) from someone or else she transfers it to someone or someplace else (i.e. transfer of O is either from P to Ego or from Ego to P). During this same early period, T, like almost all children, also learned to request objects from others. This could take the simple form of naming the object with a requestive intonation, although, since this behavior was not recorded or analyzed systematically, the details of this means of

356

Michael

Tomasello

Figure 1. Conceptual schema for Thank-you

expression are unknown (it can be seen on the videotapes, however, and is basically similar to that of most English-speaking children). Also dur­ ing this time, however, T learned some verbs for requesting objects from others. First, at around 17 months, T learned to request others to get-it (with appropriate intonation). T's parents used the expression get-it with T in at least three distinct situations: saying "The phone! I'll get it!" as they went to get the telephone, telling T "The ball! Go get it" (or some other object), and telling T when she asked them for an object "You can get it". T thus learned "Get-it" as a request to others for objects that were in sight but inaccessible and as a comment on her own activity of getting (this might be considered a self-directive or request to self, as it had a requestive-type intonation as well). Early examples at around 17 months include: "Phone get-it" (16.25) as she goes to get it, "Coffee get-it" (17.07) pointing and requesting, "Ball get-it" (17.08) as a request to Daddy, and "Cookie get-it" (17.09) as she retrieves her dropped cookie. (Note that because of her par­ ents' most prominent discourse with get, T mostly adopts a topic-comment structure at this age in which she first names what needs getting and then says "get-it".) In addition to these prototypical uses to request objects and to comment on her own activity, on a few occasions at this same age T also says such things as "Spoon get-it" (17.07) when she wants Daddy to get his own spoon for himself. T also learned two other expressions for requesting visible objects at around this same age: back and hold. T used back as a request for an object that had been taken from her by another person or that she had otherwise lost possession of. Her parents often asked in that situation "Do you want it back?"; they also told her on some occasions to "Give it back" when she had taken something from someone else. For example, at 17.10 she re­ quests "Back" of an object taken from her; at 17.11 she requests that food

One child's early talk about possession

357

being cleared from the table be brought "Back"; and at 17.16 she requests that a ball she threw down the stairs be brought "Back". The other expres­ sion for requesting objects was hold. T's parents had used this expression to tell T to "Hold this" or to tell her "I'll hold that" or "You hold it". They had also used it to each other when T was transferred, for example "Hold her", and to T to ask "Do you want me to hold you?" T's earliest singleword use at 17.00 was to request being picked up and held. But on the same day she tells Daddy to "Hold-it" as she gives him her bottle for safe­ keeping, and at 17.03 she requests that she be allowed to "Hold" her bottle herself — when a parent was already holding it. It is these latter two uses that then predominate. The conceptual situations underlying these three object requests are thus similar in that they are mostly used in situations in which T desires an object that she does not have. Get is used quite widely for objects in any location (indicated by X), and is also used to direct herself to the object. Back is distinguished by the fact that T must have previously had the object in her possesssion shortly before. Hold is distinguished by the stipulation that the object she wants is currently being held by another per­ son. On occasion, she also uses get to tell people to get objects for them­ selves and hold to give objects to others for them to hold (including her own body). The main conceptual situations underlying these three expres­ sions may thus be represented as:

Figure 2. Conceptual schema for Get

Figure 3. Conceptual schema for Back

358

Michael

Tomasello

Figure 4. Conceptual schema for Hold

4. Period 2: First talk about possession (17.14 to 19.15) During this same early period T was able to make attributive statements without verbs that seemed to convey the fact that an object was in some sense the 'possession' of someone. The problem is that her earliest attempts were the well-known object + object constructions whose meaning had to be inferred from context (e.g. pointing and saying "Mommy sock"), with­ out any overt marking to distinguish them from other object + object con­ structions seemingly indicating location and the like (e.g. "Ball table"). Some of these did have a characteristic stressed intonation, however, that helped to indicate possession. Thus, at 17.01 and 17.03, T points at objects and says "Mommy milk" and "Lauren house", presumably as her parents had done previously. During the next 10 days there are 7 similar examples, all with mommy in the first position, stressed. At 17.14 T uses her first expression with the possessive 's: "Mommy's pillow" as she pats the pillow on which Mommy's head is resting. During the following three weeks T alternates using and not using the possessive 's in attributive expressions. From 17.24 on, however, she uses it quite consis­ tently. As can be seen in Table 1, T uses four different expressions on 17.24 and 17.25 employing four different possessors. Since this is the mature form of adult expression of this construction, there is of course no further dev­ elopment of the expression by itself. Development occurs within the next few weeks, however, in T's ability to use this possessive construction as a noun phrase in larger sentences, for example, "Cat bit Daddy's finger" (18.07) and "See Daddy's car" (18.30) (see Table 1). Although it is difficult to know precisely how T conceives of the relationship between persons and objects as embodied in the possessive 's construction, during the period of study this construction was used to indicate such things as the food/drink

One child's early talk about possession

359

Table 2. Summary of T's use of the possessive 's and my and mine

food house body part clothes object other

's

My and Mine

11 5 7 10 23 4

1 0 2 0 10 1

Note: 's is used mostly for other people and involves associative or inalienable possession; my and mine are mostly used for the self and in situations where possession is in some dispute.

that people were eating/drinking (or had on a plate or in a glass in front of them), houses particular people lived in, body parts of people including her­ self, people's clothes, and objects people were playing with or otherwise habitually associated with (see Table 2). It is interesting that these items range from inalienable possessions such as body parts to objects simply associated with one another (it is unlikely, for example, that T believed that Lauren owned the house she lived in). T had another way of expressing possession without a verb at this early period and that was the possessive terms my and mine. These were always used over disputed objects, mostly when someone was trying to take an object from T that she wanted to keep. Her first such expression is at 18.27, and is not totally appropriate from the adult point of view, "Mine pillow" as she clutches it to her. Beginning at 19.08, however, T began using more conventional expressions such as "My book", "My water", and "My hose" when she did not want someone to take something from her. At 19.19 she asserts in conventional fashion "This ring mine". T used these first-person possessive words to assert "ownership" of various objects, most especially free-standing objects such as toys (see Table 2). To reiterate, in contrast to the simple attributions using the possessive 's in which T had no claim on an object, all of the early uses of my and mine were used when there was some dispute over object possession (see Budwig 1989, for a related finding concerning children's uses of first person pronouns). A final interesting development in T's earliest talk about possession involves the verb got-it. At 18.13 T says "Got-it Weezer" after she caught

360

Michael Tomasello

the cat she had been chasing; at 18.25 she says "Got-it ball" in an analo­ gous situation; and at 18.29 she says "Ring got-it" after she picked it up. What is interesting in the current context is that in these expressions T is no longer demanding an object (as when she says "Get-it"), but is describ­ ing a state of affairs in which she has an object currently in her grasp. Although it is unlikely that the concept of possession per se is needed to indicate T's understanding in these cases, it is clearly a related notion — especially since the gloss for this expression is not the past tense (someone engaged in an act of getting yesterday), but rather the perfect expression "I have got it" (in my grasp). Overall, it is very difficult to decide what is T's understanding of pos­ session at this early age, that is, in the period from 17.14 to 19.15. She says "Thank you" when receiving objects, but also when giving them to others. She asserts that things are "Mine", or that it is "My book", but only when she wishes others to cease trying to take them away. She attributes to objects some relationship with particular persons (e.g. "Danny's house"), but all such attributions involve objects and persons habitually or saliently associated with one another in space-time. She says "Got-it" after she has succeeded in her efforts to get an object in her grasp, but getting is not necessarily possessing. On the basis of this pattern of usage, then, I would say that at this early age T has a budding notion of possession, but that it is very closely tied to the sensory-motor experience in which a person has a physical grasp on an object, or else is spatially collocated with it in a very direct way.

5. Period 3: Complex talk about possession (19.16 to 24.00) During the period from 19.16 on, T shows much more clearly that she understands possession in much more adult-like ways. This is manifest in three main ways: (1) her more adult-like use of thank-you, (2) her acquisi­ tion and use of a number of new verbs for exchange and possession, and (3) her more complex use of possessive adjectives and pronouns in sen­ tences also containing a possessive verb. I discuss these each in turn. First, during this period the overgeneralized use of thank-you for giv­ ing objects to others dies out, and indeed T is beginning to generalize thank-you to more abstract "favors" such as thanking Mommy for taking

One child's early talk about possession

361

the stem off an apple for her. As she ceases to use thank-you for giving objects to people, T learns another expression for this same purpose — from the obvious adult model. At 19.23 T begins to say "Here-you-go" (her form was simply "Go") as she handed an object to someone. T's parents had modelled the adult form of this expression on numerous occasions pre­ viously. This expression was not subsequently used in complex sentences, and so there is no documentation of the further use of this expression beyond the two video examples: one at 20 months, "Go, Maria" as she hands her spoons, and one at 23 months, "There you go" as she gives an object to Daddy. Second, the most telling development during this period concerns the veritable explosion of new verbs for exchange and possession. Most of these are used as both requests and comments on states of affairs, and some are used with the recipient verbally expressed. The earliest of these was have. On 19.20 there are two requests for objects: "Balloon have-it" and "Haveit cards". This requestive use is the most common throughout the period of study. In the succeeding two weeks, however, T also produces several utterances of a different type. Two are offers to others (requests for them to take an object), for example, "Daddy have this wallet" as she gives it to him. And four are comments that someone has something, for exam­ ple, "Girl have that umbrella" and "Linda have-it more cream". At around 20-21 months T begins adding benefactive phrases, for example, "Have a donut for you". One other sentence of interest is T's one use of the past tense: "Yesterday Maria had umbrella". A related expression learned during this same general period is give. This expression never became frequent during the period of study. At 19.16 T began to use "Gimme" (e.g. "Gimme me" as a request) and there is one video example at 19.25 of T asking her friend to "Give-it" (a toy the friend had). At 20.01 she asks Mommy to "Give-it pencil", and on the audiotape at 23 months she says "Give it to me". These are the only recorded uses. Presumably, T never uses this expression widely as she had three other well-established expressions that served her needs adequately (get, hold, have). T did, however, show a related use on 21.05 that seemed to have a unique function. T began at this time to comment about an object that someone "gave" it to her or someone else. This presumably was modelled on the parents saying about a gift that "X gave that to you". One early example of this expression is "Aunt Lulu gave me boots" (22.05) said out

362

Michael Tomasello

of nowhere (her aunt had given her boots but they were not present). A month later, and all on the same day (22.07) T indicated 6 different objects and said things such as "Gramommy gave that for Mommy", "Laura gave that for me", "Timothy gave that necklace for me", and "Mommy gave that cereal for me to eat". One interesting use during this same time period is T's utterance "Joe give that for you" {give not gave), about a just com­ pleted witnessed event. It is interesting because it suggests that perhaps T has different expressions depending on whether or not she recently wit­ nessed the event of giving: give if she has, gave if she has not. The conceptual situations underlying have and give are thus distin­ guished from get and hold by their use of the concept of possession (indi­ cated in the diagrams below by a shaded circle). Have would seem to be distinguished from give by its lack of specification of where the object orig­ inated (anywhere not in P's possession — at location X, including in the possession of another person), whereas give required the giver to have pos­ session of the object when the request was made. In addition, give also seemed to require that the possessor be the agent effecting the transfer, as otherwise T might just as well ask to have something. Representation of the conceptual situations underlying the use of these two terms is thus as in Figures 5 and 6. Note that because T uses both of these terms as comments on the pos­ session of others as well as requests for herself, the use of 'P' is justified as a general designation of persons including T. P1 and P 2 are used simply to designate that two different people are involved (either one of which may be T), as she sometimes comments that others are giving things to others. Also note that have as a state would be represented in the same way as the state uses of got, that is, two identical states with the object in the

Figure 5. Conceptual schema for Have

Figure 6. Conceptual schema for Give

One child's early talk about possession

363

domain of P, the difference being in the concept of possession underlies have in a way it does not for simply got. Gave and the one use of had pre­ sumably refer to these activities in the past. Related to these basic expressions of possession are several infre­ quently used, but extremely interesting and important, variations. First, the expressions share and use were learned at around 20 months. The three examples of sentences with share are "Share this pen" (20.01) asking for a pen Daddy is using, "Share me" (20.03) asking that Daddy share his milk with her, and "Share Maria's coat" (20.19) asking Maria to share her coat. Closely related to this expression was use. T asked on some occasions to "Use-it" (as a one-word expression), and produced the one sentence "Use Maria's necklace" (20.19) as a request. Although it is difficult to draw firm conclusions on the basis of so few examples, it would seem that both of these words were distinguished from have in that T was not requesting in either case full possession. Share was used in cases where the possessor did not need to fully relinquish the object in order for T to "have" it also. Within one interaction (e.g. drinking milk or drawing pictures) both parti­ cipants could control the object in question. The use of use might, as in adult language, imply that T wants full control over the object, but only temporarily — she will give it back to its rightful owner when she is finished using it. Recognizing that the diagrams are underdetermined by the data in these two cases, we may represent the underlying conceptual situations of these two words in terms of two spheres influence, P and Ego, as shown in Figures 7 and 8. In the case of share, T wants P to transfer the object from her possession to a joint possession. In the case of use, T wants P to transfer the object from her possession to T's location (not possession) while P retains possession.

Figure 7. Conceptual schema for Share

Figure 8. Conceptual schema for Use

364

Michael Tomase llo

A related but fairly specialized word is buy. After a trip to the store at 19.29, T comments as her parents unload the groceries "Buy this plum", "Buy this sponge", and "Buy this Weezer cat" (cat food). A day later, in a similar situation, she adds the name of the buyer "Daddy buy this" as her parents took a new record out of its wrapper (she had been at the store when it was bought). The three subsequent uses are all requests which add more information but do not specify the buyer: "Buy other kinds balloons" (20.19), "Buy popsicle now after that" (21.08), "Go store buy more cocacola" (21.27). As I assume that T does not understand about money trans­ fer and the like, I will simply represent the conceptual situation in which an object is transferred in an unspecified manner from a store to her (see Figure 9). It is important to note that buy is the sixth new possession expression that T learns during the two week period from 19.16 to 19.29 (give, have, here-go, share, use, buy). Another related expression was keep or keep-it. If someone else was trying to take an object away from T she would exhort "Keep-it" to let the person know that she had no intention of relinquishing it. T only used this as a single word request after 20 months, and so the notes are very gen­ eral; it appears that she only used it about herself, however. Finally in this subgroup, there is one recorded instance of T saying "Left my coat in Schaufele's house" (21.11), presumably indicating a temporary dislocation of a possessed object. These three conceptual situations are represented in Figures 9-11 (note that left depicts the case where T retains possession but the object is now located somewhere else): Two very important developments are evident in these newly learned possession verbs, as well as in some of her previously learned possession

Figure 9. Conceptual schema for Buy

Figure 10. Conceptual schema for Keep

Figure 11. Conceptual schema for Left

One child's early talk about possession

365

verbs. First, they are used as comments on states of affairs. This usage would seem to indicate an understanding of the underlying state involved, which, given the instrumental nature of requests for objects, is an important indication of a more adult-like comprehension of possession. Moreover, it can be seen in Table 3 that the first comments with previously-learned possession verbs come at the same time that these new verbs are learned, that is, during the 19-20 month period. (Verbs learned after that time are comments from the beginning.) Second, T uses some of these new verbs with the recipients verbally expressed indicating explicitly the persons involved in the exchange (see Table 3), mostly during the 20-21 month period. Thus, have, give, buy, gave, had, and left were all used during this period to comment on states of affairs, and all with the recipient or bene­ factor explicitly expressed. Some key examples are such things as: "Girl have that umbrella" (19.23) as a comment, "Aunt Lulu gave me boots" (21.05) as a comment, and "Yesterday Maria had that umbrella" (21.09) as a comment. T's more established verbs also showed this same pattern, as illustrated in such utterances as: "Got for you, Maria" (21.09), "Lady got umbrella" (20.19), and "Get that paper for me" (21.07) as a request. Third and finally are the development of possessive words and mor­ phemes during this period, and the sentences in which T used them. First Table 3. T's early use of verbs as comments and with recipients expressed (type of grammatical marking in parentheses)

Get Hold Got Give Have Share Use Buy Gave Had Left Keep

First Use

First Comment

16.24 17.00 18.13 19.16 19.20 19.26 19.26 19.29 21.05 21.09 22.16 23.00

19.29 20.10 20.19 22.10 19.23

— — 19.29 21.05 21.09 22.16

—

First Recipient 21.00 na 21.09 22.10 21.20 19.26 na

(to) (for) (for) (for)

— 21.05 (for, IO) na 22.16 (in) na

366

Michael Tomase llo

of all, she sorted out the appropriate use of my and mine during this period. Thus, early in the period she has 8 uses of mine in situations where an adult would use my, for example, "Pete lick up mine bacon" (20.17) and "Drink mine tea up" (20.19). This is at the same time she is saying such things as "Mommy hold my hand" (20.12) and "Brush my teeth" (20.13). The last inappropriate use of mine occurs 21.00, after which they are both used appropriately. The other possessive word that T used relatively frequently during this time was your. There are only two examples before 24 months, however: "Close your eyes" (22.05) to her friend in a game and "Get your paper back on your lap" (24.00) to an adult. At 24.00 there is also one use of her in "She has snakes in her neck" (to a TV program). Of special interest during this later period are T's use of possessive noun phrases (with possessive adjectives or the possessive 's) in sentences also containing possessive verbs. These sentences show especially clearly that T has something similar to an adult concept of possession because in many cases they explicitly contrast states of possession from states of spa­ tial collocation. These examples begin at 20.02 when T says "Hold-this Maria's necklace". In this utterance T demonstrates that whereas she wants to hold the necklace she understands that it belongs in a permanent sense to Maria. Two similar examples are T's requests to "Share Maria's coat" (20.19), in which she acknowledges that her simultaneous use of the coat with Maria will not affect Maria's ownership, and "Use Maria's necklace" (20.19), in which she recognizes that after her use of the necklace it will have to be returned to its rightful owner. The final example of this type, at 22.07, is the extremely interesting "Left my coat at Schaufele's house" in which T asserts that the coat that belongs to her ("my coat") is currently located not with her but at the house which belongs to the Schaufeles ("Schaufele's house"). These examples solidify, in my opinion, the evidence that T understands before her second birthday that spatial collocation and ownership are two separate matters. It is important to note in this context that as with all of her other verbs, T constructed these more complex possessive-verb utterances in most cases by a very straightforward process of symbolic integration, using construc­ tions she already had mastered separately. That is, almost all of the pos­ sessive NP's that appear in T's longer utterances with possessive verbs are phrases that occurred on their own first as attributives. For example, "See Daddy's car" is only uttered after T has already mastered both "See "

One child's early talk about possession

367

and "Daddy's " constructions. Similarly for "Use Maria's necklace", as it came only after "Use-it" expressions and "Maria's " expressions. The significance of this pattern is simply that it indicates the very concrete way that children of this age go about constructing sentences. For a full analy­ sis of processes of symbolic integration in this child's early sentence pro­ duction see Tomasello (1992, Chapter 8).

6.

Discussion

By way of summary, we may say that T's conceptualization of possession as manifest in language emerged in three stages. First were two interactive situations that themselves did not involve possession in the adult sense: obtaining objects from others using either object names (with requestive intonation) or the verbs get and hold, and imitating adults (sometimes on instruction) as they socially marked object exchange with the expression Thank you. Second, soon after learning expressions in these situations T learned to simply assert that a particular object belonged to, or at least was habitually associated with, a particular person (e.g. "Danny's house" or "Ashley's bottle"), and to assert her own possession by saying "Mine!" or "My book!" when others threaten to take away desired objects. Third and finally, T learned a number of clearly possessive verbs in a variety of discourse situations involve object exchange, culminating in fairly com­ plex sentences containing both one of these verbs and a possessive NP marked by either the possessive 's or a possessive adjective — some of which differentiated explicitly between the temporary location or move­ ments of an object and its permanent owner. These three stages are depicted in Figure 12. The majority of evidence points to the conclusion that T comes to understand the concept of possession in something like an adult manner during the 19 to 20 months period. It is during this time that she: (1) dif­ ferentiates thanks from here-go, (2) learns six new possession verbs indi­ cating a number of very subtly distinguished situations, (3) uses several of her possession verbs as comments and with recipients expressed, (4) begins using combinations of possession expressions in the same sentence in ways that make it clear that possession is a concept that is not the same thing as spatial collocation; she thus says that she wants to use an object owned by

Figure 12. Summary of the development of T's

language for exchange and possession

368 Michael Tomase llo

One child's early talk about possession

369

someone else or that she left her coat at someone's house or that she wants to share an object that another person owns on a more permanent basis. With these complex sentences T demonstrates unequivocally her under­ standing that although objects may be in the hands of herself or others, that is not the same thing as ownership. It is important to note in this context that although at the fine-grained level of analysis we have employed here the development is somewhat gradual, overall the emergence of T's possessive expressions is amazingly fast. Her first possessive 's is used at 17.14. Within 2 to 3 months she is making comments such as "Girl have that umbrella", as well as invoking in requestive situations the subtle distinctions embodied in such verbs as share, buy, and use. This developmental pattern thus suggests that the con­ ceptual prerequisites for talking about possession were not in place as T first began to talk about situations that adults understood as possessive, but that such conceptual prerequisites emerged early and relatively quickly in T's linguistic development. Throughout this time, of course, T participated in social interactions in which adults talked in various ways about exchange and possession. This talk presumably helped T to form the appropriate con­ cepts of exchange and possession as it drew her attention to particular aspects of exchange situations (Choi and Bowerman 1991). Nowhere is this diversity of perspectives on the same basic event more evident than in the different way T talked about the exchange of objects using verbs. Thus, the different ways that T had for profiling the same basic event of object exchange at some point in the study are summarized in Table 4. These different ways of construing the event of object exchange are basically: (1) profiling the physical activity versus the change of state involved (e.g. hold versus have); (2) profiling the different nature of loca­ tive and possessive states (e.g. get versus give); (3) profiling an agent in the exchange versus not profiling one (e.g. give and get versus have and hold); and (4) profiling different aspects of the exchange event depending on how the particular possessive and locative states change or do not change (e.g. share, use, keep, and left). Also important is T's explicit men­ tion of the agent or recipient of the act of transfer on some occasions. Thus, the whole point of T's sentences with gave is to indicate who had given her something and so the agent is always expressed (e.g. "Aunt Lulu gave me boots"). Expressed recipients mostly served to contrast the desired recip­ ient with another possible recipient implicit in the discourse situation.

370

Michael Tomasello

Table 4. Ts early use of verbs for the exchange of objects (req = requests; com — comments) Action req

com

Change of State req com

Spatial

Hold

Hold

Get-it

Possessive

Buy

Buy

State req

Get Left

com Got

Give Share Keep Use

Give Gave

Have

Have

While there are certainly more developments to come in T's ability to shift perspectives and profile and highlight different aspects of events, many of the basics seem to be present before her second birthday. It is thus safe to say that from a very early age the profiling of events in various ways, and the choice of which participants to express linguistically, is an integral part of child language acquisition and use. It is also interesting to note that within T's verbs for exchange and possession there is a general develop­ ment from active exchange situations to static situations in which T predi­ cates possession — similar to the same active-stative pattern in several of her other verb clusters (see Tomasello 1992, Chapter 7). However, unlike other domains of talk, in the possession domain T has a means of expres­ sion other than verbs (i.e. possessive 's) to talk about an atemporal relation of something like possession from a period before she has any truly pos­ sessive verbs. The order in which T learned her possessive expressions reflects not only the emergence of a more differentiated conceptualization of possession, but also something of how she was exposed to the relevant conventions of the English language in interaction with adults. Clearly there are some issues of conceptual complexity involved; for example, within the verbs it is unlikely that a child would learn the appropriate use of share and use without first knowing something about give and have as a general back­ ground (although the child could learn these forms first in non-adult-like ways to indicate very general situations). And it is also unlikely that the child would use complex sentences with possessive noun phrases before she uses the same verb in simpler sentences. But with these two provisos, it is

One child's early talk about possession

371

safe to say that young children should be able to learn many different types of possessive expressions, in many different languages, at this same early point in development given the right kind of exposure, that is, meaningful discourse with a mature language user. In T's case it is likely that her par­ ents talked in more salient ways about "Mommy's shirt" and the like at an earlier age than they talked about "having" and "giving", and that is the basis for her earlier learning of these expressions. Children growing up in other discourse circumstances could easily have reversed the developmental order. The current study thus demonstrates, among other things, the great flexibility of young children in the ways they can construe a very delim­ ited domain of activity. English-speaking children can talk about possession from a very early age with three very different kinds of forms: a posses­ sive inflection on persons' names, possessive pronouns and adjectives, and verbs indicating processes of exchange and states of possession (and they can also socially mark it with polite forms such as thank-you). The fact that they master these different means of expression at so young an age indi­ cates that they have the underlying conceptual tools necessary quite early and that, given appropriate discourse situations with mature language users, they have no trouble with the different construals that these different types of linguistic expression require of them. In the case of English, the differ­ ent types of symbolic integration required to master syntactic constructions combining these different possessive elements would not seem to be par­ ticularly difficult either. The hypothesis to be tested with other children and languages, therefore, is that, barring any special syntactic or processing dif­ ficulties, before their second birthdays children should be able to learn to talk about possession in whatever ways they have heard it talked about in their meaningful discourse with adults. *

I would like to express my appreciation to Kelly Dodson for help with the data collation and for helpful comments on the paper. Note that double quo­ tation marks in this paper enclose actual utterances, or tokens, as when the child says "Ball". Italics are reserved for specific words, or types, considered separately from the utterances in which they appear, e.g. referring to the child's acquisition of the vocabulary item ball.

372

Michael

Tomasello

References Berman, R. and D. Slobin. 1995. Relating Events in Narrative: A Cross-Linguistic Developmental Study. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Bowerman, M. 1973. Early Syntactic Development. New York: Cambridge University Press. Braine, M. 1976. Children's First Word Combinations. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 41, no. 1. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Braunwald, S. and R. Brislin. 1979. "The diary method updated." In E. Ochs and B.B. Schieffelin (eds.), Developmental Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press, 21-42. Brown, R. 1973. A First Language: The Early Stages. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Uni­ versity Press. Budwig, N. 1989. "The linguistic marking of agentivity and control." Journal of Child Language 16:263-84. Choi, S. and M. Bowerman. 1991. "Learning to express motion events in English and Korean: The influence of language-specific lexicalization patterns." Cognition 41:83121. Croft, W. 1991. Syntactic Categories and Grammatical Relations: The Cognitive Organ­ ization of Information. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Fillmore, C. 1977. "The case for case reopened." In P. Cole (ed.), Syntax and Semantics 8: Grammatical Relations. New York: Academic Press, 59-81. Goldberg, A. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Johnston, J. and D. Slobin. 1979. "The development of locative expressions in English, Italian, Serbo-Croatian, and Turkish." Journal of Child Language 6:529-546. Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. 1: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Langacker, Ronald W. 1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. 2: Descriptive Applications. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Langacker, Ronald W. 1993. "Universals of construal." BLS 19:447-463. Leopold, W. 1949. Speech Development of a Bilingual Child. Evanston: Northwestern University Press. MacWhinney, B. and C. Snow. 1990. "The child language data exchange system: an update." Journal of Child Language 17:457-472. Mills, A. 1985. "The acquisition of German." In D. Slobin (ed.), The Cross-Linguistic Study of Language Acquisition, Vol. 1. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 141-254. Newman, J. 1996. Give: A Cognitive Linguistic Study. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter [Cognitive Linguistics Research 7]. Olguin, R. and M. Tomasello. 1993. "Twenty-five month old children do not have a grammatical category of verb." Cognitive Development 8:245-272. Slobin, D. 1985. "Cross-linguistic evidence for the language-making capacity." In D. Slobin (ed.), The Cross-Linguistic Study of Language Acquisition, Vol. 2. Hills­ dale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1157-1256.

One child's early talk about possession

373

Stern, W. and A. Stern. 1928. Die Kindersprache. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buch­ gesellschaft. Tomasello, M. 1992. First Verbs: A Case Study of Early Grammatical Development. New York: Cambridge University Press. Tomasello, M. and R. Olguin. 1993. "Twenty-three month old children do have a cate­ gory of noun." Cognitive Development 8:451-464. von Glasersfeld, E. 1972. "Semantic analysis of verbs in terms of conceptual situations." Linguistics 94:90-107.

Index of Names A Alsina, A. 94 Andersen, H. 253 Atlas, J.D. 338 Axelrod, M. 178 B Bachman, R.D. 263, 264 Baker, C. 179 Baker, M. 9, 10, 87, 88, 89, 93, 94 Battison, R. 176 Behaghel, O. 318 Bellugi, U. 175, 177, 185 Benedict, H. viii Berman, R. 350 Blakemore, D. 330 Blansitt, E.L. 328, 339, 345 Borg, A.J. 26 Bowerman, M. 132, 349, 350, 369 Braine, M. 349 Branford, J. 93 Braunwald, S. 351 Brennan, M. 179 Bresnan, J. 82, 92, 94 Brislin, R. 351 Brown, R. 349 Buck, C.D. 264 Budwig, N. 359 Bybee, J. 130, 186, 338 C Carstairs-McCarthy, A. 88 Carter, R. 100, 106, 127, 129 Casad, E.H. xii, 135, 137, 145, 146, 150, 156, 172 Casey, S. 179

Casterline, D. 176, 205 Choi, S. 350, 369 Chomsky, N. 13 Clark, H. 204 Clark, M. 327, 328, 330, 331, 342 Clerc, L. 205 Cokely, D. 180 Coleman, D.G. 324 Comrie, B. 26 Croft, W. 349 Croneberg, C. 176, 205 D Davidson, W. 103, 106 de Vries, M. 296, 304 Delbrück, B. 301 Diver, W. 268, 302 Dixon, R.M.W. 222 Doke, CM. 72, 73, 77, 81, 84, 87, 92, 93 Dryer, M.S. 20, 31 Duranti, A. 82 E Ebert, R.P. 320 Elford, L. 103, 106 Elford, M. 106 Emmorey, K. 179 Engberg-Pedersen, E.

183

F Fauconnier, G. 182 Fillmore, C 349 Fischart, J. 308, 309, 310, 311, 314 315, 316, 317, 318, 319, 320, 323, 324

376

Foley, W.A. ix, 19, 29 Foris, D. xiii, 188, 210, 215, 220, 223, 224, 225, 226, 238, 247 Frajzyngier, Z. 344 Frishberg, N. 205 G Gallaudet, T.H. 205 Garrett, A. 94 Geis, M.L. 330, 338 Girod, M. 189 Givón, T. xiv, 89, 94, 150, 209, 222, 223, 236, 328, 336 Goddard, P.E. 100 Goldberg, A.E. xii, 69, 70, 91, 92, 273, 349 Greenberg, J.H. 263 Grice, P.H. 330, 338 Grimai, P. 324 Grimes, J.E. 156, 158, 172 Grimm, J. 308, 315, 316, 318, 320, 324 Grimm, W. 315, 316, 318, 324 H Haas, M. 106, 133, 136, 171 Haiman, J. 137 Halliday, M.A.K. 328, 345 Hammer, A.E. 323 Harford, C. 93 Harrison, C.J. 327, 334, 340 Hasan, R. 328, 345 Hawkins, B.W. 137 Hawkinson, A. 94 Heine, B. 301, 328, 330, 335, 336, 339, 343, 345 Hoijer, H. 103 Hopper, PJ. 156, 324, 338, 341 Hudson, R. 11 Hyman, L. 82, 94 J Jackendoff, R. 69 Jacob, J.M. 333, 334, 345 Janda, L. xiii, 263, 264

Index of Names Janssen, T.A.J.M. xiii, xiv, 269, 281, 282, 284, 305 Janzen, T. 180 Johnson, M. 137, 179, 193, 195 Johnson-Laird, P.N. 171 Johnston, J. 350 Joyce, J. 324 K Kari, J. 100 Kehrein, J. 308, 324 Keller, R. 268 Kimball, G.D. 1, 32 King, R.T. 152 Klima, E. 175, 177, 185 Ko, Y.K. 344 König, E. 329, 330, 338 L Lakoff, G. 70, 90, 136, 137, 169, 170, 179, 193, 195, 197 Lambert, Par M. 189 Lane, H. 189, 205 Langacker, R.W. xi, 36, 39, 47, 50, 62, 68, 71, 92, 99, 135, 136, 137, 150, 152, 156, 175, 182, 194, 196, 321, 344, 349, 352 Lastra, Y. 156 Lauerbach, G.E. 137 Lee, K.M. 344 Lee, S.N. 344 Lee, S.W. 344 Leopold, W. 349 Levine, J.S. 260, 264 Levinson, S. 338 Li, C.N. 328 Li, F.K. 100, 102, 107, 122 Lichtenberk, F. 328 Liddell, S.K. 177 Lightfoot, D.W. 344 Lindner, S.J. 36, 137 Lord, C. 328, 344 Lukas, J. 335 Lyons, J. 344

Index of Names M Macintyre, T. 345 MacWhinney, B. 352 Matisoff, J.A. 172 McDonald, B.H. 175, 178, 179 Mchombo, S. 92, 94 Miller, G. 98, 132 Miller, W.R. 142, 156 Mills, A. 352 Moody, B. 189, 192, 204 Morgan, W. 100, 130, 133 Moshi, L. 82 Mulac, A. 199 N Nam, K.S. 344 Newkirk, D. 205 Newman, J. vii, xi, xiii, 20, 28, 31, 57, 62, 94, 99, 109, 114, 125, 135, 138, 150, 151, 152, 158, 161, 167, 171, 176, 181, 188, 201, 209, 211, 218, 251, 264, 273, 277, 278, 301, 305, 324, 328, 331, 332, 340, 344, 349 Newport, E. 179 Nietzsche, F. xiv Nkabinde, A.C. 94 Noss, R.B. 340, 344 Nyssen, U. 310, 324 O Ogden, C.K. viii, ix Olguin, R. 350 P Pagliuca, W. 338 Palmer, F.R. 344 Pawley, A. ix Pinker, S. 69, 70, 93 Pullum, G.K. 12, 13, 14, 16 R Rabelais, F. 309, 314, 315, 324 Reddy, M. 70 Reid, W. 267

311 Rice, K. 100, 105 Rice, S. xii, xv, 161, 171, 180, 203 Richardson, M. 100, 106, 119 Roberts, J.R. xi, 2, 8, 13, 16, 29, 31, 32 Rudzka-Ostyn, B. 137, 141, 151 Ruhl, C. 267, 302 Rushforth, S. 104, 125, 126, 127, 128, 133 S Sachs, H. 308 Sapir, E. 128 Schermer-Vermeer, E.C. 281 Schick, B. 178 Schiller, E. 331 Seleskovitch, D. 205 Shaffer, B. 204 Slobin, D. 350, 352 Smith, M.B. 263, 264 Snow, C. 352 Sohn, H.-M. 344 Song, JJ. xiv, 336, 339, 344, 345 Spalding, K. 318, 320, 323, 324 Sperber, D. 330 Stern, A. 349 Stern, W. 349 Stokoe, W.D. 176, 205 Sukcharoen, S. 327, 334, 340 Supalla, T. 177, 179 Sutton, V. 205 Sweetser, E. 179, 190, 193, 330, 332 T Talmy, L. 148, 149, 172 Tatti, F. 104 Taylor, J.R. xi, xii, 63, 73, 84 te Winkel, L.A. 296, 304 Thompson, L.C. 333, 334 Thompson, S.A. 199, 328 Tobin, Y. 267 Tomasello, M. xiv, 350, 351, 352, 367, 370 Townsend, C.E. 264

378

Index of Names

Traugott, E.C. 179, 328, 329, 330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 338, 339, 342, 344 Tuggy, D. xi, 36, 44, 45, 46, 47, 49, 59, 62, 63, 64, 90, 91, 152, 171 Turner, M. 197 U Urquhart, T.

324

V Van Belle, W. 281, 301 van der Leek, F. 269 van der Spuy, A. 71, 72, 82, 92, 93 van Hoek, K. 177, 178, 182, 204 Van Langendonck, W. 281, 301 Vichit-Vadakan, R. 327, 332, 344

Vilakazi, B.W. 92 von Glasersfeld, E. 353 W Watters, J. 172 Weinberg, F.M. 324 Wierzbicka, A. 28, 29, 301 Wilcox, P.P. xii, 132 Wilkes, A. 79, 89, 92 Wilson, D. 330 Wunderlich, D. 87 Y Young, R.

100, 130, 133

Z Z'graggen, J.A. 1 Zwicky, A.M. 12, 13, 14, 16, 330, 338

Index of Subjects A Ablative 18 Accusative 87, 141, 255 Action chain see Cognitive Grammar Active zone see Cognitive Grammar Afrikaans 93 Agreement 24, 93 direct object 2-32, 168, 210, 212-213, 232, 246 indirect object xi, 1, 146, 154 oblique object 2-26 subject 1, 14, 24, 102, 210, 221; see also Concord Ahtna 100 Allative x, 18, 335, 343, 345 Amele xi, 1 American Sign Language (ASL) 118, 132, 175-205 canonical encounter 183-184 Fixed Referential Framework 182 GIVE (rotated wrist) 187-193 GIVE-IN-ARGUMENT 176, 198-200 historical evolution of 188-189 prototype GIVE 176-187 Animacy 22, 209-210, 212-220, 221, 230, 232-237, 244, 246-247 hierarchy xiii, 214-217, 218 Antidative 31 Ainu 161 Applicative xi, 9-11, 27, 43, 48-60, 63, 72, 74, 77-80, 86-89, 91, 93, 94, 139, 140, 149, 152-154, 158, 160, 169 benefactive 10, 93 instrumental 93

locative 93, 94 manner 93 ASL see American Sign Language Asymmetrical objects 82-83 Athapaskan languages 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 118, 128, 129, 130, 132, 133, 178, 180 B Bantu languages 82, 87, 89 Barai 19 Basic English see English "be-languages" see Slavic languages Bearlake Athapaskan 104, 125-126, 133 Belarusian 264 Benefactive x, 17-19, 22, 108, 214, 327, 328, 330, 335, 339, 340, 342, 344; see Applicative BRING 112, 163-164, 170, 172 Bulgarian 264 C Canonical encounter see American Sign Language CARRY 112, 169, 170, 172 Causation 49, 275-290, 299-300, 301, 316-318, 320-324 Causative xi, xiii, 10, 28, 43, 48-60, 63, 64, 72, 74, 80-81, 86, 89, 90, 91, 139, 149, 158, 161, 169, 172, 271, 289, 343, 345 Chamorro 161 Cherokee 171 Chicheŵa 82, 92 Chinantec see Sochiapan Chinantec

380 Chipewyan xii, 97-133, 171, 180 Classificatory verb xii, 98, 100, 110-114, 118-119, 125-127, 136, 154-167, 178-183, 190 Classifier xii, 101, 132, 178-183; see also Classificatory verb Cliticization 11 Cognitive Grammar xi, 36, 50, 55, 63, 114, 132 action chain 68, 79 active zone 63, 114-117 current discourse space 182, 184 figure 175, 194 ground 175, 194 landmark 36-64, 175, 177, 194 trajector 36-64, 175, 177 see also Representation Cold Lake Chipewyan see Chipewyan Common Slavic 253 Late 250, 253 Concord object 71, 84-85, 93 subject 71 see also Agreement Cora xii, 135 Cree 131 Croatian see Serbo-Croatian Croato-Serbian see Serbo-Croatian Czech 250, 252, 253, 254, 256, 261, 262, 264 D Dative x, 5, 9-11, 19, 27, 141, 255, 257, 258, 261-262, 263, 264, 283, 284, 296, 301, 335, 343, 345 dative shift 67, 69-71, 92 dativus commodi 284-286 dativus incommodi 284-286 Direct Shift Hypothesis 340-342 Distributive 140, 160, 168 Ditransitive x, xii, 11, 26, 44, 46-47, 63, 67-71, 73-94, 146, 211-214, 217-220, 224, 227-238, 244, 246, 247 Dogrib 100

Index of Subjects Double-object construction Ditransitive Dutch xiii, 267-305

see

E English 37-42, 50, 61, 67, 72, 74, 87, 93, 97, 98, 104, 109, 113, 119, 124, 128, 131, 132, 176, 201, 254, 271, 301, 328, 350-371 Basic viii-ix Middle 328 Old 328 South African 93 es gibt (German) 307 Eudeve 142 Existential xiii Experiencer 14, 16, 24, 28, 255, 256 F Figurative meaning see Metaphorical extensions Figure see Cognitive Grammar Fixed Referential Framework see American Sign Language French 131, 133, 254, 304, 309, 314 Sign Language see Langue des signes-francaise Function Contiguity Hypothesis 339-342 G GB Theory 10, 94 Head Movement Constraint 10 INFL 8, 13, 16, 32 German xi, xiii, 87, 301, 307, 310 Early New High 307 Middle High 315, 318-319, 324 New High 324 Old High 319 Germanic languages 87, 265 GIVE experiential basicness of vii-xi, 28-31, 251 - as human interaction xii, 38-39,

Index of Subjects 41, 44, 48, 51, 54, 60-61, 62, 63, 64, 91, 138 - as manipulation xii, 38-39, 41, 44, 48, 52, 54, 60-61, 62, 64, 90, 91 - as permanent transfer xiii, 161, 188-189, 213, 246 - as temporary transfer xii, 188, 213 nominalization of 202 semantic complexity of vii-xi, xiii, 28, 251 see also Cognitive Grammar; Ditransitive; Metaphorical extensions; Representation Grammaticalization x, 130, 199-200, 328, 330, 334, 336, 338, 341-342, 343, 345 Principle of Persistence 156, 324, 338, 341 Grammaticization see Grammaticalization Greek 309 ground see Cognitive Grammar Gum languages 1, 31 H HAVE 249-264 "have-languages" see Slavic languages Hindi xi Head Movement Constraint see GB Theory HOLD 166, 170 Huichol 142, 156 I Iatmul 19 Idealized Cognitive Model (ICM) 136-138, 141, 150-151, 156-158, 162, 165-166, 169-170 Ik 335 il y a (French) 314 Image Schema see Idealized Cognitive Model Impersonal verb construction 14, 16-17, 24, 28, 307-324, 321

381 Incorporation 9-10, 13, 24, 28, 73, 101, 107, 113, 130 nominal object vi, 58 nominal subject 32 postposition 9, 10 preposition 87, 88, 94 verb 87 Indo-European languages 103 INFL see GB Theory Instrumental x, 73, 227-228, 231-233; see Applicative Inter-lexematical 247-270, 273-280, 288-296 Intra-lexematical 247-273, 280-288 International Cognitive Linguistics Association viii Italian x J Jacaltec

x

K Kalam ix Kanuri 335, 336 Kare 1 Khmer xiv, 327, 328, 330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 336, 339, 340, 341, 344, 345 Kinyarwanda 83 Koasati 1, 32 Koiarian languages 19 Kokon 1 Korean xiv, 328, 336, 337, 338, 339, 344 Middle 344 Koyukon 178 L Landmark see Cognitive Grammar Langue des signes-francaise (LSF) 175, 189-192, 204, 205 ACHETER 189, 191 CHER 189, 191 DONNER UNE SUBVENTION 189, 191

382

Latin 304, 309 Language acquisition viii, xiv, 349-371 back 356, 357, 368 buy 364, 365, 368, 369 get 357, 361, 362, 365, 367, 368 give xiv, 362, 364, 365, 368, 370 give me viii got 359, 362, 365 have 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 368, 369, 370 here-go 364, 367, 368 hold 356, 357, 361, 362, 365, 367, 368, 369 keep 364, 365, 368, 369 left 364, 365, 368, 369 mine 359, 366, 368 my 359, 366, 368 possessive 's 358-359, 366, 368-370 share xiv, 363, 364, 365, 368, 369, 370 thanks 367, 368 thank you 353, 360-363, 367 use 363, 364, 365, 368, 369, 370 Locative 73, 148, 150, 156, 169, 227, 231, 233, 284, 296, 302, 343; see Applicative LSF see Langue des signes-francaise M Macedonian 253, 257, 264 Malefactive 10, 17, 25, 141 Mandarin x-xi Manner 328, 334-342, 338, 339, 340, 342, 343, 344, 345 adverbial xiv, 327, 335-338 Maori 211 Mayo 142 Mental models 171 Mental spaces 182, 184 Mescalero Apache 125 Metaphorical extensions x-xi, xii, 127-131, 161, 176, 179-180, 190, 192, 194-201, 203

Index of Subjects Amele 29 Chipewyan 125, 161 Cora 161 Monosemy 267-269 Muskogean 171 N Nahuatl xi, 36, 60, 61, 64, 156 Classical 64 Tetelcingo 63 see also Nawatl Navajo 100, 118, 128, 130, 133 Nawatl 51, 60, 61, 64, 156 Nilo-Saharan languages 335 O Objecthood 82-87 Obviative 214, 216 Ojibwa 211 Orizaba Nawatl see Nawatl Otomanguean languages 247 P Papuan languages 2, 14, 19, 29 Partitive 15, 18-19 PASS 165-166, 170 Personal hierarchy 214-217 Polish 253, 256, 257 Polysemy 55, 70, 320-323 Possessive x, 16-17, 64, 71, 74, 88, 89, 93, 256, 278, 279, 283, 284, 296, 350-371, 366 Possessor Ascension see Possessor Raising Possessor Raising 10, 87, 88 Pragmatic strengthening 328, 330, 342 Principle of Persistence see Grammaticalization Proto-Indo-European 250, 254 Prototype 70, 91, 135, 137, 138, 141, 162, 178, 180, 181-182, 185, 186, 187, 190, 195 Proto-Uto-Aztecan 172

Index of Subjects Proximate 214, 216 Purposive 327, 328, 332, 335, 339, 342, 341, 343, 344 R RECEIVE 164-165, 170 Reciprocal 47, 209, 218, 224-226, 227, 243, 244, 247 Reflexive 145-146, 149, 151, 209, 218, 224-226, 227, 244, 247 Representation (Cognitive Grammar) of Chipewyan controlled GIVE 115 Chipewyan uncontrolled GIVE 116 Chipewyan controlled TAKE 123 Chipewyan uncontrolled TAKE 123 English give 40 English giver 40 Nawatl BEQUEATH TO 55, 56 Nawatl CRY TO 50 Nawatl DISTRIBUTE TO 53 Nawatl FEED 45 Nawatl GIVE AWAY 46 Nawatl GIVE FOOD TO 57 Nawatl GIVE TO 44 Nawatl HAND OVER 51 Nawatl HAND OVER TO 52 Nawatl MAKE CRY 49 Nawatl RECEIVE 44 Romance languages 90 Russian 25, 252, 253, 254, 260, 261, 262, 263, 264 S Semantic primitives 28-31 Semantic-pragmatic change 328, 342; see also Pragmatic strengthening Serbian see Serbo-Croatian Serbo-Croatian 253, 258, 264 Shona 93, 94 Signed language 177; see also American Sign Language; Langue des signes-francaise Slave 100, 104

383 Slavic languages xiii, 249-265 "be-languages" - East 249, 259, 260, 262, 263, 264 "have-languages" - South 255, 259, 261, 263 - West 249-265 Slovak 253, 256, 257 Sochiapan Chinantec xiii, 188, 209-248 Spanish 247 Symmetrical objects 83 Synonymy 269, 271 T TAKE 36, 97, 99, 104, 106, 107, 108, 112, 119, 130, 155-158, 162, 169, 172, 249-264 Tepehua 172 Tepiman languages 142 THROW 114-118 Thai xiv, 172, 327, 330, 331, 332, 334, 336, 339, 340, 341, 344, 345 Topicality 72, 84-85, 86, 94, 209, 236, 246 Totonac-Tepehua languages 172 Trajector see Cognitive Grammar Troponym 98, 132 Tubare 142 Tzotzil 211 U Ukrainian 253, 260, 264 Uto-Aztecan languages 142, 172 Southern 135, 142 V Valence shifting 43, 46, 63, 73 Vietnamese xiv, 327, 328, 330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 336, 339, 340, 341, 342, 344, 345 Voice 209, 210-211, 246 active xiii, 209, 236, 244 antipassive xiii, 10, 31, 219, 220, 222-224, 236

384

direct xiii, 209, 214, 225, 226, 236-237, 244, 247 inverse xiii, 209, 214, 221, 225, 226, 228, 230, 233, 235, 236, 237, 244, 247 passive xiii, 10, 31, 64, 68, 83, 153-154, 161, 209, 219, 220, 227, 236, 237, 243, 244, 246, 270-271

Index of Subjects

W West Greenlandic Y Yimas Z Zulu

211

19

xii, 63, 70, 82-87, 92