NACAL 41 Kramer and Baker 1 APPLICATIVE VERBS IN AMHARIC Ruth Kramer (Georgetown University) & Mark Baker (Rutgers University) NACAL 41 | February 16 th 2013 1 INTRODUCTION 1 Focus: peripheral participants in the event denoted by a verb… e.g., benefactives, malefactives, and instruments not agents/subjects, themes/objects, etc. Amharic expresses peripheral participants as prepositional phrases (e.g., against Aster)… …and can add a special marker to the verb when a peripheral participant is present. (1) dañña-w bä-Aster färräd-ä-bb-at Malefactive judge-DEF.M against-Aster.F judge.PF-3MS.S-BB-3FS.A ‘The judge judged against Aster.’ (Amberber 1997:3,(9a)) 2 o The marker has two parts. o Part 1: a morpheme that seems cognate to the preposition bä- (glossed as BB) o Part 2: agreement with the peripheral participant (glossed as 3FS.A) Goal: investigate the properties of this marker in Amharic – referred to henceforth as the applicative marker 3 Specifically, is Part 2 similar to or different from other kinds of agreement in Amharic? Bigger Question: what is the correct analysis of Amharic clauses that contain peripheral participants? There are multiple competing analyses in the Amharic literature (see e.g., Hetzron 1970, Haile 1970, Mullen 1986, Amberber 1996, 1997, 2002, Demeke 2003, Yabe 2007). A close investigation of the applicative marker will help to decide between them. Conclusions: Part 2 is identical to the object agreement found elsewhere in the language – both are instantiations of a single phenomenon of “nonsubject agreement.” Analysis: the applicative marker is comprised of case agreement (e.g., bb) plus non-subject agreement in number/gender/person (Mullen 1986, Amberber 1996, Demeke 2003 in part). 1 Endless thanks to the Amharic consultants whose judgments shaped this work, including Mehret Tadesse Getachew, Girma Demeke, Mahlet Tadesse and Mahi Megra. 2 Gloss abbreviations: 1 – first person, 3 – third person, ACC – accusative case, AUX – auxiliary, C – complementizer, DEF – definite marker, M – masculine, F – feminine, IMP – imperative, PF – perfective, PL – plural, S – singular, .A – applicative agreement, .O – object agreement, .S – subject agreement. Examples without a citation are from the authors’ fieldwork. 3 Due to the broad similarity between this construction and constructions that have been called applicative in the generative literature (see e.g., Baker 1988ab, Alsina and Mchombo 1990, Pylkkanen 2002, McGinnis 2008)
Transcript
NACAL 41 Kramer and Baker
1
APPLICATIVE VERBS IN AMHARIC
Ruth Kramer (Georgetown University) & Mark Baker (Rutgers University)
NACAL 41 | February 16th 2013
1 INTRODUCTION
1 Focus: peripheral participants in the event denoted by a verb…
e.g., benefactives, malefactives, and instruments
not agents/subjects, themes/objects, etc. Amharic expresses peripheral participants as prepositional phrases (e.g., against Aster)…
…and can add a special marker to the verb when a peripheral participant is present. (1) dañña-w bä-Aster färräd-ä-bb-at Malefactive judge-DEF.M against-Aster.F judge.PF-3MS.S-BB-3FS.A ‘The judge judged against Aster.’ (Amberber 1997:3,(9a))2
o The marker has two parts. o Part 1: a morpheme that seems cognate to the preposition bä- (glossed as BB) o Part 2: agreement with the peripheral participant (glossed as 3FS.A)
Goal: investigate the properties of this marker in Amharic – referred to henceforth as the applicative marker3
Specifically, is Part 2 similar to or different from other kinds of agreement in Amharic? Bigger Question: what is the correct analysis of Amharic clauses that contain peripheral participants?
There are multiple competing analyses in the Amharic literature (see e.g., Hetzron 1970, Haile 1970, Mullen 1986, Amberber 1996, 1997, 2002, Demeke 2003, Yabe 2007).
A close investigation of the applicative marker will help to decide between them.
Conclusions: Part 2 is identical to the object agreement found elsewhere in the language – both are instantiations of a single phenomenon of “nonsubject agreement.”
Analysis: the applicative marker is comprised of case agreement (e.g., bb) plus non-subject agreement in number/gender/person (Mullen 1986, Amberber 1996, Demeke 2003 in part).
1 Endless thanks to the Amharic consultants whose judgments shaped this work, including Mehret Tadesse Getachew, Girma Demeke, Mahlet Tadesse and Mahi Megra. 2 Gloss abbreviations: 1 – first person, 3 – third person, ACC – accusative case, AUX – auxiliary, C – complementizer, DEF
– definite marker, M – masculine, F – feminine, IMP – imperative, PF – perfective, PL – plural, S – singular, .A – applicative agreement, .O – object agreement, .S – subject agreement. Examples without a citation are from the authors’ fieldwork. 3 Due to the broad similarity between this construction and constructions that have been called applicative in the generative literature (see e.g., Baker 1988ab, Alsina and Mchombo 1990, Pylkkanen 2002, McGinnis 2008)
NACAL 41 Kramer and Baker
2
Plan
Applicative markers in Amharic: an overview (Section 2)
Applicative agreement is object agreement (Section 3)
Preliminary analysis (Section 4)
Conclusion (Section 5) 2 APPLICATIVE MARKERS IN AMHARIC: AN OVERVIEW There are two types of applicative markers in Amharic: bb+Agr (see (1)) and ll+Agr. (2) dañña-w lä-Aster färräd-ä-ll-at Benefactive
ll- is cognate with the preposition lä- ‘to/for.’ They each correspond to two main kinds of peripheral participants (classified roughly by semantic/thematic role). Table 1: Types of Participants Used with each Marker4
bb5+Agr ll+Agr
Malefactive Benefactive
Instrument Goal (e.g., return to, bring to, send to, sell to, explain to)6
Yohannes.M book-DEF.M-ACC to-Aster.F return.PF-3MS.S-LL-3FS.A ‘Yohannes returned the book to Aster.’ (Demeke 2003:70, (29))
4 bb- can also be used with certain locative phrases (Leslau 1995:428-429). The question ‘What should I do with this
box?’ can be followed with lɨbs-ɨh-ɨn ask’ämmɨt’-ɨbb-ät clothes-your-ACC put.IMP-BB-3MS.A ‘Put your clothes in it’ (Leslau
1995: 429). However, Leslau does not provide any examples with an overt phrase in the sentence corresponding to the locative. The vast majority of the provided examples are from relative clauses. We set the locatives aside here, for their limited empirical scope, as does much previous work on Amharic applicatives (e.g., Demeke 2003). Locatives are generally a more rare type of applicative cross-linguistically. 5 The marker bb can also be used with an existential copula to indicate deontic modality (with the sense of “it is on him to do…”); see Leslau 1995:430-432 6 There is one major exception: the goal of the verb give cannot be referred to with an applicative marker, to the best of our knowledge. In Demeke 2003:70-71, it is implied that if ll- is added to the verb referencing the goal argument of give, the argument becomes reinterpreted as a benefactive and the goal is understood as null. See Section 4. 7 Some speakers prefer to assign accusative case to instruments.
NACAL 41 Kramer and Baker
3
The bb/ll and the agreement marker are inseparable (Mullen 1986:208).
The bb/ll requires a following agreement marker.
(5) a. lä-Gɨrma färräd-ä-ll-ät b. *lä-Gɨrma färräd-ä-ll No Agr for-Girma.M judge.PF-3MS.S-LL-3MS.A ‘He judged in Girma’s favor.’
The agreement marker also requires a preceding bb- or ll-.8
(6) *Yohannɨs mäs’haf-u-n l-Aster mälläs-at No -ll
Yohannes.M book-DEF.M-ACC to-Aster.F return.PF-(3MS.S)-3FS.A Intended: Yohannes returned the book to Aster.(Demeke 2003:74, (37)) The bb/ll+Agr unit is generally optional.9 (6) dañña-w lä-Aster färräd-ä Benefactive = (1)
Two applicative markers: o bb+Agr (malefactives, instrumentals) o ll+Agr (benefactives, goals)
The two pieces (bb/ll and Agr) are inseparable
The bb/ll+Agr unit is generally optional These facts are widely known and generally reported by all sources, from purely descriptive grammars like Leslau 1995 to theoretically-oriented analyses like Yabe 2007. However, the properties of the applicative marker itself have been less thoroughly investigated.
Is applicative agreement similar to or different from other kinds of agreement? Main question of next section!
8 Since most of the applicative agreement markers are identical to object agreement markers (see Section 3), omitting the bb-/ll- sometimes leads to a grammatical sentence where the agreement marker is interpreted as agreeing with the theme, i.e., not with the peripheral participant. 9 The bb/ll+Agr is obligatory when the peripheral participant has accusative case.
3 APPLICATIVE AGREEMENT We have seen that the second component of the applicative marker in Amharic is a marker of agreement with a peripheral participant.
(8) Yohannɨs mäs’haf-u-n l-Aster mälläs-ä-ll-at
Yohannes.M book-DEF.M-ACC to-Aster.F return.PF-3MS.S-LL-3FS.A ‘Yohannes returned the book to Aster.’ (Demeke 2003:70, (29))
o It cannot agree with a non-peripheral participant, e.g., the theme the book.
(9) *Yohannɨs mäs’haf-u-n l-Aster mälläs-ä-ll-ät
Yohannes.M book-DEF.M-ACC to-Aster.F return.PF-3MS.S-LL-3MS.A Intended: Yohannes returned the book to Aster.’ The applicative agreement marker is almost identical to the agreement marker used for themes (10) and for the goal of the predicate give (11): glossed as e.g., 3FS.O
(10) Almaz tämari-wa-n ayy-ätʃtʃ-at Theme
Almaz.F student-DEF.F-ACC see-3FS.S-3FS.O ‘Almaz saw the female student.’
(11) Gɨrma lä-Almaz mäs’haf-u-n sät’t’-at Goal of give
Girma.M to-Almaz.F book-DEF.M-ACC give-(3MS.S)-3FS.O ‘Girma gave the book to Almaz.’
3rd person -(ä)w, -t after [u] or [o], -ɨw after [ʃ] or [tʃ] (masc.)
-at (fem.)
-atʃtʃäw
Table 3: Applicative Agreement Marker Paradigm
Singular Plural
1st person -ññ -n
2nd person -h (masc.)
-ʃ (fem.) -atʃtʃɨhu
3rd person -ät (masc.) -at (fem.)
-atʃtʃäw
o All cells of the paradigms are identical except for 3rd person masculine singular
NACAL 41 Kramer and Baker
5
However, it has not been carefully investigated to what extent applicative agreement has the morphological, syntactic and semantic properties of object agreement in Amharic.
A solid list of properties of the object marker have been collected and confirmed (Baker 2012, Kramer to appear).
Now: run through those properties and see if the applicative agreement marker behaves the same way as the object agreement marker. Preview: it does, and this is the key to analyzing applicative markers (applicative marker is composed at least partially of an object agreement marker) Terminological NB: I will refer to all markers that covary with person/number/gender as agreement
Cover term for clitic doubling and phi feature valuation (two separate processes in theoretical approaches)
Morphosyntactic Properties Same Position with respect to Verbal Stem: In clauses that contain a main verb and an auxiliary verb, the object agreement marker attaches to the main verb.
(12) s’ähafi-wa-n ɨ-fällɨg-at -allä-hu
secretary-DEF.F-ACC 1S.S-look.for-3FS.O AUX.NONPAST-1S.S ‘I am looking for the secretary.’
The applicative marker displays the same behavior: it attaches to the main verb.
quick.tempered wife-his always 3FS.S-shout-BB-3MS.A AUX.NONPAST-3FS.S ‘His quick-tempered wife is always shouting at him.’ (Leslau 1995:427)
The object agreement marker and the applicative marker share the same ‘slot’ or position in the complex multi-morphemic Amharic verb. Only One Marker Per Verb and Agrees with Highest Participant: Even when a clause contains both a theme and a goal for give, there can only be one object agreement marker.
In (14), there are two internal arguments (female goal Almaz, masculine theme mäs’hafun ‘the book’), but having two object agreement markers is ungrammatical.
(14) *Gɨrma lä-Almaz mäs’haf-u-n sät’t’-at-äw
Girma.M to-Almaz.F book-DEF.M-ACC give-(3MS.S) -3FS.O-3MS.O10 Intended: Girma gave the book to Almaz.
10 This verb is a phonologically acceptable string in the language so there is no phonological reason why two object markers should not co-occur. Also, note that if the object markers are attached to the verb in the opposite order, the result is still ungrammatical (*sät’t’-ä-w-at give-3MS.S-3MS.O-3FS.O).
NACAL 41 Kramer and Baker
6
o The object agreement marker in such cases must agree with the goal, i.e., the higher argument.
Girma.M to-Almaz.F book-DEF.M-ACC give-(3MS.S)-3FS.O give-3MS.S-3MS.O ‘Girma gave the book to Almaz.’ Similarly, there can only be one applicative agreement marker per clause.
In (16) and (17), there is both an instrumental and a benefactive, but having two applicative agreement markers (or two entire applicative markers) is ungrammatical.
(16) Two Applicative Agreement Markers (ll+Agr+Agr)
Girma for-Almaz some doorway with-broom-DEF.M sweep.PF-3MS.S-LL-3FS.A-3MS.A Intended: Girma swept some doorway with the broom for Almaz.11 (17) Two Applicative Markers (ll+Agr+bb+Agr)
t’ärräg-ä-bb-ät-ll-at Girma for-Almaz some doorway with-broom-DEF.M sweep.PF-3MS.S-LL-3FS.A-BB-3MS.A Intended: Girma swept some doorway with the broom for Almaz.
The applicative agreement marker in such cases must agree with the higher of the two peripheral participants, in this case the benefactive (see McGinnis 2008).
Girma for-Almaz some doorway with-broom-DEF.M sweep.PF-3MS.S-LL-3FS.A ‘Girma swept some doorway with the broom for Almaz.’ In fact, the object agreement marker and the applicative marker cannot co-occur with each other as well, strongly indicating that the applicative marker is a type of object marker.12 (19) Applicative Marker and Object Agreement Marker
Almaz house-DEF.M-ACC with-broom-DEF.M sweep.PF-3FS.S-3MS.O.BB-3MS. Intended: Almaz cleaned the house with the broom.13
11 Putting the applicative agreement marker on the other side of ll results in a similarly ill-formed verb: *t’ärräg-ätɨ-ll-at.
12 The object marker and the applicative marker co-occur in presentational constructions, e.g., yɨhä-w-ɨll-ɨh ‘here he is for
you’ and Almaz yɨtʃtʃ-at-ɨll-ɨʃ ‘here Almaz is for you.’ However, it is possible that the “object marker” in these examples
is agreement on the deictic marker, a different phenomenon from the verbal agreement markers discussed above. 13 Putting the object agreement marker on the other side of the applicative marker still results in an ill-formed verb:
t’ärräg-ätʃtʃ-ɨbb-ät-äw
NACAL 41 Kramer and Baker
7
Trigger Same Morphological Process: Some necessary background: when a nominal phrase is definite and contains a relative clause, the definite determiner attaches to the verb within the relative clause.
(20) [lɨbs yä-särräk’-ä-w] lɨdʒ
clothes C-steal-3MS.S-DEF.M child ‘the child who stole the clothes’ (Leslau 1995:86)
However, if the verb within the relative clause has an object marker, there is no determiner.
(21) [wäre-w-ɨn yä-näggär-at] lɨdʒ
news-DEF.M-ACC C-tell-(3MS.S)-3FS.O child ‘the child who told her the news’ (Leslau 1995:85)
In (21), the nominal is interpreted as definite but without any visible determiner. In my previous work (Kramer to appear), I have argued that the object marker is a clitic, i.e., a type of pronoun. It thus has the category D(eterminer) (Postal 1969).
The restriction seen in (21) can then be explained in terms of haplology: there cannot be two determiners in a row on the same stem.
If the applicative marker also triggers haplology of D, this is evidence that it is the same (type of) marker as the object marker. And in fact, this is what we find.14
(23) a. yä-hed-ɨn-ɨbb-ät mängäd b. *yä-hed-ɨn-ɨbb-ät-u mängäd
C-go.PF-1PL.S-BB-3MS.A route C-go.PF-1PL.S-BB-3MS.A-DEF route ‘the route that we went on’ Intended: the route that we went on
Semantic Properties Sensitive to Specificity: The object agreement marker can only agree with specific nominals (Yabe 2001, Haile 1970).
The object marker agreement may agree with a specific wh-word like which student as in (24), but not a non-specific wh-word who as in (25).
(24) Almaz tɨnant yätɨñnaw-ɨn tämari ayy-ätʃtʃ-ɨw
Almaz.F yesterday which-ACC student.M see-3FS.S-3MS.O ‘Which student did Almaz see yesterday’?
14 (23b) and similar examples were reported to be ungrammatical by a native speaker consultant, and are also claimed to be ungrammatical in Appleyard 1996:151. However, Leslau 1995:430 reports that similar examples to (23b) are grammatical, although the majority of his examples are free/headless relative clauses. The definite determiner in a free/headless relative clause may be sufficiently different from nominal definite determiners and pronouns so as not to trigger the haplology rule in (22) (see e.g., Caponigro 2002 on definite determiners in free relatives).
NACAL 41 Kramer and Baker
8
(25) Gɨrma tɨnant männ-ɨn ayy-ä(*-w)
Girma.M yesterday who-ACC see-3MS.S-3MS.O ‘Who did Girma see yesterday?’ The same goes for the applicative marker. It can only refer to specific peripheral participants.
(26) lä-yätɨñña-wa set näw Gɨrma mägbiya-w-ɨn yä-t’ärräg-ä-ll-at
for-which-DEF.F woman is Girma doorway-DEF.M-ACC C-sweep.PF-3MS.S-LL-3FS.A ‘For which woman did Girma sweep the doorway?’
for-who is Girma doorway-DEF.M-ACC C-sweep.PF-3MS.S-LL-3MS.A ‘Who did Girma sweep the doorway for?’
Triggers Emphasis: The object marker also triggers a poorly-understood semantic effect of emphasis on the participant which it agrees with – most likely some kind of topichood.
Reported in Haile 1970 and Demeke 2003, and confirmed in fieldwork
Almaz house-DEF.M-ACC with-broom-DEF.M sweep.PF-3FS.S-3MS.O ‘Almaz cleaned the house with the broom.’ (Demeke 2003:91) Demeke (2003) reports a similar effect of emphasis on the participant which an applicative marker references.
Almaz with-broom-DEF.M house-DEF.M-ACC sweep.PF-3FS.S-BB-3MS.A ‘Almaz cleaned the house with the broom.’ (Demeke 2003:92)
Table 4: Similarities between Applicative Agreement and Object Agreement
Same position on the stem
Only one per verb
Agree with highest argument/participant
Trigger determiner haplology
Only agree with specific participants
Associated with a semantic interpretation of emphasis
Conclusion: It misses a generalization to say that applicative agreement and object agreement are two separate types of morphemes…
…as is traditionally done in both descriptive and theoretical work in Amharic
… their phonology, morphology, syntax and semantics are nearly identical. Instead, we submit that applicative agreement and object agreement should be considered the same phenomenon: non-subject agreement markers in Amharic.
NACAL 41 Kramer and Baker
9
Different forms in 3rd person masculine singular = allomorphy triggered by bb/ll (another conditioning factor in the already-existing rule for allomorphy in 3rd person masculine singular object agreement markers)
4 PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS In much of the data above, the entire applicative marker (bb/ll+Agr) acts like an object agreement marker.
Same position on the verb
Distribution is sensitive to specificity
Trigger a topic-like interpretation
Object agreement markers and applicative markers cannot co-occur To capture these similarities, we propose that the applicative marker is a two-part agreement marker (Mullen 1986, Amberber 1996, in part Demeke 2003).
Part 1: agrees with the case of the peripheral participant (benefactive/goal = ll-, malefactive/instrument = bb-)
Part 2: agree with person/number/gender of peripheral participant (uses same endings as other non-subject verbal agreement)
Many Indo-European languages have pronominal clitics (i.e., agreement markers) that vary in case (e.g., Spanish, French, Greek and many Slavic languages).
In these languages, case and person/number/gender are syncretic (the clitics do not have two pieces where one corresponds to case and one to person/number/gender).
Table 5: Bulgarian Clitic Pronouns (Scatton 1984:147)
Singular Plural
Person 1 2 3 1 2 3
Dative mi ti mu (m.), ì (f.) ni vi im
Accusative me te go (m.), ja (f.) ni vi gi
In Amharic, though, these two pieces are individually identifiable.
Table 6: Amharic Nonsubject Agreement Markers
Singular Plural
Person 1 2 3 1 2 3
Accusative/goal for give -ññ -h (m.), -ʃ (f.) -äw or –t (m.), -at (f.)
If this is so, why does the case agreement look like a reduced version of a preposition?
Baker and Kramer 2010 (cf. Hetzron 1970, Tremblay and Kabbaj 1990): all prepositions in Amharic are case markers.
Independent justification in B&K 2010 (head-final languages that have prepositions are typologically anomalous, if not nonexistent)
So the similarity is now between case agreement (ll/bb) and case markers themselves, and thus no longer surprising
Still Preliminary: there are still some loose ends in the data.
Why are there only three types of case agreement (null15, ll and bb) when there are many more cases (e.g., kä- ablative, wädä illative)?
Why are object agreement markers, not applicative markers, used to agree with the Goal of give (see (11))?
Closing the Loopholes: A Radical Suggestion
It may be that the bb/ll portion of the applicative marker is agreement with some kind of prepositional feature, not agreement with case per se.
If there are only two such prepositional features, it explains why there are only two PP agreement markers (perhaps [+toward] = ll, [-toward] = bb)
The Goal of give is a nominal with dative case, not a PP, so it does not trigger applicative agreement.
Advantages and conclusions:
This analysis directly captures the similarities between the applicative marker and the object marker: they are different instantiations of the same phenomenon of non-subject agreement
It also can account for the fact that the bb/ll looks like a reduced version of a preposition.
Promising avenue for future work, perhaps by investigating the idea of agreement with P 5 CONCLUSION Quick Summary:
The applicative marker in Amharic as a whole has many of the same characteristics of object agreement markers, and partially phonologically resembles case markers.
This suggests that the applicative marker is a two-part agreement marker that agrees separately in case and in person/number/gender with the same peripheral participant
Support for (the spirit of) Mullen 1986, Amberber 1996, Demeke 2003 (in part)
15 The Amharic paradigm raises the question of why accusative/dative doesn’t have a separate marker for case . In fact, Amharic’s close relative Chaha (Ethiosemitic) distinguishes the same cases with an overt marker for accusative/dative.
(ii) a. yɨ-rəx-r-o BENEFACTIVE: ‘He sent something for them.’
b. yɨ-rəx-β-o MALEFACTIVE: ‘He sent something to their detriment.’
c. yɨ-rəx-n-o ACCUSATIVE/DATIVE: ‘He sends them.’
3MS.S-send-CASE-3PL.O (Banksira 2000:262)
NACAL 41 Kramer and Baker
11
Cross-Linguistic Picture
Substantially similar facts across Ethiosemitic (Chaha: Banksira 2000, Gumer: Völlmin 2006)
Also found in other language families, e.g., Cushitic (Somali: Appleyard 1990) and Caucasian (Abaza: O’Herin 2001)
To what extent can the analysis above be generalized to account for these cases? 6 REFERENCES Alsina, Alya and Sam Mchombo. 1990. The syntax of applicatives in Chichewa: problems for a
theta-theoretic analysis. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 8. 493-506. Amberber, Mengistu. 1996. Transitive alternations, event-types and light verbs. Doctoral
Dissertation; McGill University. Amberber, Mengistu. 1997. The unergative-unaccusative distinction and the benefactive applicative
in Amharic. Proceedings of the Twenty-Third Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: Special Session on Syntax and Semantics in Africa. 1-13.
Amberber, Mengistu. 2002. Verb Classes and Transitivity in Amharic. Münich: Lincom. Appleyard, David. 1990. Prepositional particles in Somali and their cognates in other Cushitic
languages. African Languages and Cultures 3. 15-31. Appleyard, David. 1995. Colloquial Amharic: A Complete Language Course. New York: Routledge. Baker, Mark. 1988a. Incorporation: a Theory of Grammatical Function Changing. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press. Baker, Mark C. 1988b. Theta-theory and the syntax of applicatives in Chichewa. Natural Language and
Linguistic Theory 6. 353-89. Baker, Mark C. 2012. On the relationship of object agreement and accusative case: evidence from
Amharic. Linguistic Inquiry 43. 255-274. Baker, Mark and Ruth Kramer. 2010. “Prepositions” as case morphemes inserted at PF in Amharic.
Paper presented at BCGL 5: Case at the Interfaces, Brussels, Belgium. Banksira, Degif Petros. 2000. Sound Mutations: The Morphophonology of Chaha. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Caponigro, Ivano. 2002. Free relatives as DPs with a silent D and a CP complement. In V. Samiian,
ed., Proceedings of the Western Conference on Linguistics 2000 (WECOL 2000). Fresno, California: California State University.
Demeke, Girma A. 2003. The clausal syntax of Ethio-Semitic. Doctoral dissertation, University of Tromsø.
Haile, Getachew. 1970. The Suffix Pronouns in Amharic. Papers in African Linguistics 3. 101-111. Hetzron, Robert. 1970. Toward an Amharic case-grammar. Studies in African Linguistics 1. 301-354. Kramer, Ruth. To appear. Clitic doubling or object agreement: the view from Amharic. Natural
Language and Linguistic Theory. Lambdin, Thomas O. 1978. Introduction to Classical Ethiopic (Ge’ez). Ann Arbor, Michigan: Scholars
Press. Leslau, Wolf. 1995. Reference Grammar of Amharic. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Marantz, Alec. 1993. Implications of asymmetries in double object constructions. In Sam A.
Mchombo, ed. Theoretical Aspects of Bantu Grammar. Volume 1. Stanford, CA: CSLI. 113-151. McGinnis, Martha. 2008. Applicatives. Language and Linguistics Compass 2. 1225-1245. Mullen, Dana. 1986. Issues in the morphology and phonology of Amharic: the lexical generation of
pronominal clitics. Doctoral dissertation, University of Ottawa. Nakamura, Masanori. 1997. Object extraction in Bantu applicatives: some implications for
minimalism. Linguistic Inquiry 28. 252-280. O’Herin, Brian. 2001. Abaza applicatives. Language 77. 477-493.
NACAL 41 Kramer and Baker
12
Postal, Paul M. 1969. On so-called pronouns in English. In Roderick A. Jacobs and Peter S. Rosenbaum, eds. Readings in English Transformational Grammar. Waltham, Mass.: Ginn and Company.
Pylkkänen, Liina. 2008. Introducing Arguments. Cambridge: MIT Press. Scatton, Ernest A. 1984. A Reference Grammar of Modern Bulgarian. Columbus, OH: Slavica. Tremblay, Mireille and Ouadia Kabbaj. 1990. The internal structure of PPs in Amharic. In John
Hutchison and Victor Manfredi, eds. Current Approaches to African Linguistics 7. 167-178. Völlmin, Sascha. 2010. Benefactives and malefactives in Gumer (Gurage). In Fernando Zúñiga and
Seppo Kittilä, eds. Benefactives and Malefactives: Typological Perspectives and Case Studies. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 317-330.
Yabe, Tomoyuki. 2007. The morphosyntax of complex verbal expressions in the Horn of Africa. Doctoral dissertation, CUNY.
Zeller, Jochen. 2006. Agreement and the EPP in Kinyarwanda applicatives. In Patrick Brandt and Eric Fuss, eds. Form, Structure and Grammar. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. 275-295.
APPENDIX: ALTERNATIVE ANALYSES There are two main alternative analyses of the applicative marker (and of bb/ll in particular):
bb/ll are incorporated prepositions
bb/ll is an Appl(icative) head We present some arguments against each alternative. Option 1: Incorporated Prepositions The morpheme bb is cognate with the preposition bä-, and the morpheme ll is cognate with the preposition lä-. (30) bä- : by means of, by, through, in, into, at, on, against, etc. (Leslau 1995:602)
lä- : to, for (Leslau 1995:601)
This makes it tempting to analyze bb/ll as a kind of ‘verbal preposition’ that would combine with the agreement marker.
In fact, many analyses of applicative constructions in other languages propose that applicative markers are prepositions which incorporate into the verb during the course of a syntactic derivation (see e.g., Baker 1988ab, Nakamura 1997, Zeller 2006).
However, there are some difficulties with treating bb/ll as if they are prepositions, especially as prepositions that are derived from or related to the peripheral participant PP itself.
Limited to lä- and bä-: Amharic contains many other prepositions, but none of the others are used as applicative markers. (31) kä- ‘from’ *kk+Agr
sɨlä ‘about’ *sɨl + Agr
wädä ‘towards’ *wädd+Agr This is not a phenomenon that targets prepositions generally in Amharic.
NACAL 41 Kramer and Baker
13
ll and bb Never Appear Separate from a Verb: The bb/ll is strictly a verbal morpheme.
It cannot appear as a preposition on its own, even with a pronominal object (Mullen 1986:80ff.).16
(32) a. *ll-Gɨrma to-Girma c. lä-Gɨrma to-Girma
b. *ll-ɨssu to-him d. lä-ɨssu to-him
c. *ll-ät17 to-3MS.A e. *lä-ät to-3MS.A Mismatches: If ll/bb is a preposition, then we might expect it to bear some relation to the preposition associated with the peripheral participant.
In a preposition incorporation analysis, this relationship is even more direct o The preposition moves from the peripheral participant onto the verb (and would have to
be pronounced in both its original and moved locations for Amharic). At first, this seems correct: bä- occurs with bb and lä- appears with ll.
However, the peripheral participant can be associated with a different preposition from bä- or lä-
(33) Bɨrhanu sɨlä-gudday-u mät’t’-a-bb-ät
Birhanu.M about-business-DEF.M come.PF-3MS.S-BB-3MS.A ‘Birhanu came for business (i.e., for the purpose of doing business).’ (Mullen 1986:269)
Certain locative applicatives can be marked by a postposition.
(34) [gänbo-w lay] mɨlɨkkɨt lät’t’ɨfɨ-bb-ät
jar-DEF.M on label stick.IMP-BB-3MS.A ‘Stick a label on the jar.’ (Leslau 1995:430)
Taken individually, none of these arguments against a prepositional analysis of ll/bb are insurmountable.
For example, various theoretical enrichments can be proposed in order to have the preposition incorporation analysis still work (e.g., proposing there is an additional ‘functional’ preposition that corresponds to ll-/bb- on each peripheral participant; Yabe 2007).
However, taking these objections together, it seems like analyzing bb/ll as a preposition is not a promising direction to pursue. Option 2: Appl Head Another alternative would be to have bb-/ll- be the realization of a syntactic head Appl(icative) in whose specifier the peripheral participant is merged (Demeke 2003 in part, Amberber 2002)
…similar to many Bantu languages (see e.g., Marantz 1993, Pylkkanen 2002, McGinnis 2008).
16 This is distinct from other Semitic languages where pronominal agreement markers/clitics can appear on prepositions, e.g., Modern Hebrew, Lebanese Arabic, Ge’ez (Mullen 1986:123, Lambdin 1978:44). 17 This is meant to be interpreted with the llät as a freestanding word/phrase, not attached to a verb.
NACAL 41 Kramer and Baker
14
(35) ApplP 3 PP Appl bä-Aster 3 Appl … -bb-
However, applicatives in Bantu are very different from Amharic peripheral participants. In Bantu:
the object agreement and the applicative marker do not form an inseparable morphological unit (e.g., they do not require each others’ presence)
the applicative marker does not generally look like a preposition
the peripheral participant can be passivized (not true for this construction in Amharic; Yabe 2007)
the peripheral participant must receive accusative case in order for the applicative marker to be present
the applicative marker does not need to refer to the highest participant The Bantu and Amharic constructions are related from a larger perspective in that they involve peripheral participants, but the details seem to be sufficiently different so as to warrant different analyses.
