Oceanic Linguistics Special Publication No. 21

The Causatives of Malagasy

Charles Randriamasimanana

University of Hawaii PressHonolulu

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Randriamasimanana, Charles. The causatives of Malagasy. (Oceanic linguistics special publication ; no. 21) Bibliography: p. 1. Malagasy languageCausative. I. Title., II. Series. PL5373.R36 1986 499'.35 86-16017 ISBN 0-8248-1079-1 (pbk.) Publication of The Causatives of Malagasy has been supported in part by grants from The University Publications Sub-Committee, the Research and Graduate Studies Committee of the Arts Faculty, and the Research and Graduate Studies Committee of the English Department, each of the University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia. Camera-ready text copy was prepared using the facilities of the English Department, University of Melbourne, under the supervision of the author.

In loving memory of my father, my mother and my grandmother

CONTENTS

FOREWORD ACKNOWLEDGMENTS GENERAL INTPODDCTICN

pages xiii-xiv xv-xvi 1 2-201 2-7 7-28 29-74 75-85 86-128 129-177 178-194 195-200 201

CHAPTER CUE: THE CAUSATIVE CONSTRUCTIONS OF MALAGASY Introduction Section 1: Animacy Section 2: Control Section 3: Entailment Section 4: Productivity Section 5: Fusion Section 6: Markedness Conclusions Footnotes CHAPTER TWO: PREVIOUS SCHOLARSHIP ON MALAGASY CAUSATIVES Introduction Griffiths Parker Ferrand Malzac Dahl Rajaona Rabenilaina Conclusions Footnotes

202-229 202-203 203-205 205-206 206-208 208-210 210-213 213-221 221-222 222-224 225-229

viii

CHAPTER THREE: KEFLEXIVIZATION Introduction The Process Scope of Present Study Criteria for Markedness Mditional Criterion for Markedness Assumption Section Is Reflexivization and Granmatical Relations Section 2: Reflexivization and non-Causative Constructions Section 3: Reflexivization and Causative Constructions Section 4: Reflexivization and the Cyclic Convention Section 5: Reflexivization and Pronominalization Conclusions _

230-323 230-236 231 232 232-234 234-235 235-236

236-249

249-264

265-274

274-30

301-320 321-323 324-417 324-325 326-386 326-343 344-345 345-365

CHAPTER FOUR: PRCNOMINALIZATIQN Introduction Section Is The Basic Process Human Trigger Assumption Summary: Human Trigger and Proncminalization Animate But Non-Human Trigger Assumption Sunmary: Non-Human, Animate Trigger and Pronominalization Non-Animate Trigger Assumption Sunmary: NOn-Animate Trigger and Pronominalization

365-367 367-384

384-386

ix

Section 2: Other Relevant Parameters The "Precede" Parameter The "Command" Parameter Forward Pronominalization Backward Pronominalization Section 3: The Cyclic Convention Against Simultaneous and Free Order Rule Applications Against Simultaneous Rule Application Against Free Order Rule Application Ordering of Rules Conclusions Footnotes CHAPTER FIVE: PASSIVIZATION Introduction Section Is The Basic Process The Relevant Parameters Malagasy Verb Classification Distribution of Passive Affixes Additional Parameters: Tense and Aspect Ihe Semantics of Passive Affixes Relevance of the Keenan-Comrie Hierarchy Order of the Different Types of Oblique Case-marking and the Passive Voice Relative Order of the Different Types of Oblique Summary: Relative Order and Properties of the Obliques

386-404 387-397 397-403 404 404 405-414

405-406 406-407 407-409 409-414 414-416 417 418-590 418 419-493 420-421 421-429 429-446 446-449 450-454 454 454-465 465-476

477-490

490-493

Section 2 s The Passive and Complex Structures Verbal Construction Types Bgui-1 Equi-2 Raising-to-DO Raising-to-Su Complementizer Fa and Application of Affixal Passive

493-588

495-509 509-525 525-539 539-554

554-567

Affixal Passive Contingent upon Underlying Fa 567-568 Causative Constructions Predicate-Raising Causatives Restriction on Affixal Passive Affixal Passive and Causal Causatives Coniplement-Causatives and Nature of the Embedded Verb Cbmplement-Causative and Verbal Aspect The Causative aha and the Nature of the Predicate in the Embedded Clause The Causal Causative aha and Affixal Passive The Causal Causative ank (a) and Affixal Passive General Restriction on Affixal Passive and the Dichotomy between PredicateRaising Causatives and Comp-Causatives Summary: the Different Types of Biibedded Clauses Affixal Passive and the Cycle Conclusions 586 587-588 588-590 585-586 582-584 580-582 578-580 574-576 576-578 568-570 570-572 572-574

xi

CHAPTER SIX: HE BI-SENTENTIAL SOURCE OF ALL CAUSATIVE CONSTRUCTIONS Introduction Section 1: Bi-Sentential Source Co-Occurrence Restrictions on the Verb Transportability of Adverb and Scope Ambiguity Do-So Replacement Izany-Replacement Reflexivization to N Tenany and Pronominalization Section 2: Single S Output Sentential Question Formation Exclamation Formation No-Longer Negation Izy-Substitution Distinction between DO and 10 Demotion of the Embedded Su to DO Passivization Conclusion Footnotes GENERAL CONCLUSIONS APPENDIX A: List of Abbreviations APPENDIX B: Classes of Verbs BIBLIOGRAPHY 637-639 640-672 641-644 644-646 647-649 650-654 655-661 661-669 669-672 672-673 674 675-676 677 678-680 681-683 607-623 624-631 631-637 591-674 591-592 592-639 592-607

TABLES

Table 1: The Animacy Parameter Table 2: Control by Causee Table 3: The Entailment Parameter Table 4: The Different types of Embedded Predicates Table 5: The Degree of Fusion of the Higher and Lower Predicates Table 6: Markedness Table 7: Anaphoric Pronominalization: Human Trigger Table 8: Anaphoric Pronominalization: Non-Human Animate Trigger Table 9: Anaphoric Pronominalization: Non-Animate Trigger Table 10: Verb Classes Table 11: Distribution of the Different Verbal Affixes Table 12: The Different Types of Oblique Table 13: The Order of the Different Types of Oblique Table 14: Types of Clause That Can be Embedded Table 15: Criteria for the Distinction between DO and 10

28 74 85 128

176 194 344

366

385 427

449 491 492 586

661

FOREWORD

Most previous studies on Malagasy syntax have been concerned primarily with classification of the various surface structures that occur in Malagasy. These studies have provided a wealth of invaluable information on Malagasy sentence structure, reflecting both the strengths and the weaknesses, of this methodology. More recently, developments in transformational and generative graitmar have been applied to provide deeper insight into many aspects of Malagasy sentence structure. Pioneering work in this area has been carried out by Edward L. Keenan, some of whose relevant publications are cited in the bibliography to the present work. Charles Randriamasimanana's study of Malagasy causative cons ' structions is the most comprehensive application to date of this methodology to Malagasy syntax. Charles Randriamasimanana shows that, although Malagasy causative constructions appear to consist of a single clause, many of their properties can only be given insightful analysis if one assumes a level of analysis at which the causative construction consists of two distinct clauses. In fact, a Malagasy causative construction requires two distinct levels of syntactic analysis: one where it is biclausal (accounting for the similarities to other complex sentences) and one where it is monoclausal (accounting for the similarities to other simple sentences). This monograph will be Of interest as a detailed illustration of the application of this methodology to an Austronesian language and for the way in which it uses linguistic argumen-

xiv

tation to evaluate competing analyses. But even linguists whose interests are less theoretical will find Charles Randriamasimanana's study an invaluable source of insight into a wide range of syntactic phenomena and semantic distinctions in Malagasy grammar.

December 19, 1985 Bernard Comrie

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to express m/ thanks and appreciation to the following persons and institutions without whose encouragement and help this book would have never been published in English: Noam Chomsky and Kenneth Hale, both of MIT, who expressed in many ways their academic interest in this little known language and whose help made it possible for me to prepare the final manuscript for publication; Bernard Comrie, of TJSC, who originally took the initiative of proposing The Causatives of Malagasy as a PhD dissertation under the title A Study of the Causative Constructions of Malagasy; Edward Keenan, of UCLA, who not only was generous of his time in discussing most aspects of this study, but who also, with Elinor Ochs, extended their hospitality to me upon my first arrival in California and subsequently, provided guidance and financial support in periods of need. I would like to express my gratitude to the Publications Sub-Committee of the University of Melbourne for its generous publication grant. I am grateful to the Arts Faculty of the University of Melbourne^,for its Research Development Scheme during 1984, 1985 and 1986. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank the English Department for the research money it granted me as well as the constant support it gave during the preparation of the manuscript. The following native speakers of Malagasy, who happened to be in the United States, provided me with their grammaticality

xvi

judgments and intuitions, absolutely crucial when i y cwn were n uncertain: B. Andriamanalimanana, L. Koziol nee Randrianarivony, A. Rabakoarihanta, H. Rahaingoson, J. Rajaofera, R. Rakotomalala, F-X Ramarosaona, B. Ranaivoarisoa, V. Randrianasolo and his wife, M. Rasamimanana, H. Rasolondramanitra, V. Razafimahatratra, and M. Razafimamonjy. It goes without saying that the final decision was mine so that any error or mistake in the present publication should not be attributed to any of my consultants. Several of the sentence types used in this work originated from personal letters written over a period of several years by ir parents before their death, whereas others were inspired by r/ two daily newspapers, i.e. Atrika and Vaovao, published in Madagascar and graciously sent to me by the Embassy of the Democratic Republic of Madagascar in Washington, D.C., in the United States. Many thanks to John Pater son, who helped me prepare the final copy of the manuscript, and to Heather Bcwe whose cooperation with the final proof-reading was much appreciated. Last but not least, I would like to pay a special tribute to my father, Randriamasimanana, my rrother, Denise Rasoamanana, and my grandnother, Gertrude Rakala, for their encouragements, love, understanding and sacrifice.

Parkville, Victoria, Australia January, 1986

GENERAL INTRODOCTION

The present study deals with the Causative Constructions of Malagasy, showing that all of them have to be derived from bi-sentential sources. A number of tests will be used to establish the validity of such a hypothesis. These will include but will not be restricted to Reflexivization, Pronominalization, and Passivization, each one of these processes being described in great detail in Chapters Three, Four, and Five, respectively. Chapter One presents all the Causative Constructions of the language and proposes a set of six parameters to account for all the semantic and syntactic aspects thereof in a systematic manner: Animacy, Control, Entailment, Productivity, Degree of Fusion, and Markedness. Chapter Two provides a rapid review of previous works touching upon the Malagasy Causatives and written between 1854 and 1974 by the following authors: Griffiths (1854), Parker (1883), Ferrand (1903), Malzac (1908), Dahl (1951), Rajaona

(1972), and Rabenilaina (1974). Finally, Chapter Six exploits the findings of all previous chapters and presents additional evidence to bear on the issue of the bi-sentential sources of all Causative constructions.

CHAPTER ONE

THE CAUSATIVE CONSTRUCTIONS OF MALAGASY

0.1

Introduction. The relevant parameters for an adequate description of the Causative Constructions of Malagasy. The purpose of Chapter One is two-fold: first, to in-

troduce all the Causative Constructions of Malagasy, and second, to propose a set of six factors which will account for all the semantic and syntactic aspects thereof in a systematic manner. In fact, the following are the parameters relevant for a description of the Causative Constructions of this language:

Animacy (Section 1), Control (Section 2), Entailment (Section 3), Productivity of the different Causative predicates (Section 4), Degree of fusion of the higher and the lower predicates (Section 5) , Markedness (Section 6).

3

Throughout the present chapter, bi-sentential sources for all Causative Constructions will be assumed (see Chapter Six for justification of such a hypothesis).

0.2

The Causative Constructions of Malagasy. Malagasy has the following types of Causative Con-

structions:

(1)a.

Nanao

izay handehanan'

i Jeanne i Paoly1. Paul

past-do comp fut-circ-go-by Jeanne

"Paul was doing so that Jeanne would leave."

b.

Nanao

izay hividianan'

i Jeanne ny boky i Paoly. Paul

past-do comp fut-circ-buy-by Jeanne the book

"Paul was doing so that the book would be bought by Jeanne."

(2)a.

Nanery

an' i Jeanne handeha i Paoly. Jeanne fut-go Paul

past-force

"Paul was forcing Jeanne to leave."

b.

Nanery

an' i Jeanne hividy ny boky i Paoly. Jeanne fut-buy the book Paul

past-force

"Paul was forcing Jeanne to buy the book."

(3) a.

Namela an'i Jeanne handeha i Paoly. past-let Jeanne fut-go Paul

"Paul was allowing Jeanne to leave."

4

b.

Namela an'i Jeanne hividy ny boky i Paoly. past-let Jeanne fut-buy the book Paul

"Paul was allowing Jeanne to buy the book."

(4)a.

N-amp-andeha an'i Jeanne i Paoly. past-caus-go Jeanne Paul

"Paul was having Jeanne go."

b.

N-aitp-ividy

ny boky an'i Jeanne i Paoly. Jeanne Paul

past-caus-buy the book

"Paul was having Jeanne buy the book."

(5)a.

N-amp-iakanjo an'ilay zaza Rasoa. past-caus-dress the child Rasoa

"Rasoa was dressing the child."

b.

N-amp-idina

ny saina i Paoly. Paul

past-cause-lower the flag

"Paul was causing the flag to come down," i.e. "Paul was lowering the flag."

c.

N-amp-ianjera ny latabatra/an1i Jaona i Paoly. past-caus-fall the table/ John Paul

"Paul was causing the table/Paul to fall."

d.

N - aha - sasa past-caus-wash

ny

fitaratra i Paoly. Paul

the glass

"Paul was causing the glass to be washed," i.e. "Paul managed to wash the glass."

5

e.

N - am -(v)aky

ny fitaratra i Paoly. Paul

past-caus-broken the glass "Paul was breaking the glass."

(6)a.

N - aha - resy past-caus-be in defeat

an'i Jaona i Paoly. Jaona Paul

"Paul succeeded in causing John to be in defeat, i.e. "Paul managed to defeat John."

b.

N - aha - vaky

ny fitaratra i Paoly. Paul

past-caus-broken the glass

"Paul caused the glass to be in the broken state i.e. "Paul managed to break the glass."

(7)a.

Ny ditra-ny

no

n-ampa-voa-kapoka an'i P. P

the mischief-his part past-caus-pass-punish

"It was his mischief which was the cause of P's having been punished."

b.

Ny adala-ny

no

n-aha-resy

an'i P. P

the stupidity-his part past-caus-in-defeat

"It was his stupidity which was the cause of P's having been defeated."

c.

Ny resaka no the talk

n-an-dreraka

an'i Jeanne, Jeanne

part past-caus-fed up

"It was the talk which fed Jeanne up," or "Because of the talk, Jeanne was fed up."

6

d.

Ny sakafo no

n-ank-arary an'i Jeanne, Jeanne

the food part past-caus-sick

"It was the food which sickened Jeanne," i.e. "It was the food which caused Jeanne to be sick."

In ( 1 ) w e have the "persuasive" construction; in (2), the "coercive"; in (3), the "permissive"; and in (4), the "neutral" Directive respectively. These first four subtypes represent what will be referred to as Directive. In (5), we have the Manipulative; in (6), the Abilitative; and in (7), the Causal constructions. With these it is usual to cleft on the Subject (henceforth Su) NP, as illustrated under 2.2.4 to 2.2.7 of Chapter Five, for example; now, if Clefting does not occur, a special intonation has to be used with a pause demarcating the non-fronted Su from the rest of the sentence. Finally, (7)c. with Causal 3 an(a) tends to acquire a Manipulative reading. (See 6.1.9) The following are examples similar to those referred to above, showing that Clefting is optional: (8)a. N - ampa - sosotra an'i Paoly io. past-caus-angry Paul this

"Paul was angry because of this," or "This angered Paul."

b.

Io

no

n - ampa - sosotra an'i Paoly. Paul

this part past-caus-angry

"It was because of this that Paul was angry," or "Because of this, Paul was angry."

7

(9) a.

N - aha - voa- kapoka

an'i Paoly ny ditra-ny. Paul the mischief-his

past-caus-passive-strike

"Paul was punished because of his mischief."

b.

Ny ditra-ny no

n - aha - voa - kapoka an'i Paoly. Paul

the mishief part past-caus-passive-strike "It was because of his mischief that Paul was punished."

In (8)a. and (9)a., Clefting has not applied, and a special intonation is needed, whereas in (8)b. and (9)b., Clefting has applied.

Section 1

Animacy

1.0

The Animacy Parameter. In Section 1, assuming bi-sentential sources for all

Causative Constructions and if the Su of the matrix clause is referred to as the Causer and that of the embedded clause as the Causee, both in the underlying sequence, the Animacy parameter yields the following pattern: 1. if ws have a Directive or Manipulative construction, then the Causer is Animate; 2. if we have a Causal construction, the Causer is not Animate; 3. but if we have an Abilitative construction, the Causer is optionally Animate.

8

Furthermore, 4. in a Directive construction, the Causee is also Animate; 5. in a Manipulative construction, the Causee is typically nonAnimate; 6. in an Abilitative construction, the Causee is optionally Animate; 7. in a Causal construction, the Causee is typically Animate and under aha or ampa, the latter is obligatorily deleted while the Causer is typically non-Animate.

1.0.1

Criteria for Each Type of Construction. As will be seen in Sections 4 and 5, the classification

into four different types of Causatives for those constructions where fusion takes place (see Section 5) correlates with the following characteristics of each: 1. A Causal construction is one where the Causative prefix, i.e. ampa, aha, ana, or anka, meets one of the following requirements: a. if (See Section 4) it can entoed a transitive verb, the latter must be in the Affixal Passive form with the perfective aspect marker voa; b. if it can embed an intransitive verb, the latter must be in the Affixal Passive form with the perfective aspect marker tafa, unless it is a Psychological predicate (see 1.5); c. if it can embed a root passive or an adjective, the latter must be a Psyctological predicate (see 1.5). 2. An Abilitative construction is one where the lower predicate can be either a Psychological or a non-Psychological predicate and where the sequence with the lower predicate strip-

9

ped of its higher Causative predicate has the same cognitive meaning as the sequence without the Causative predicate (see 2.2.2.4). 3. A Manipulative construction is one where ClauseUnion can precede Affixal Passive (see 4.1.13). 4. A "neutral" Directive construction is one which is not subject to any of the above restrictions.

1.1

Hie Causative Prefix Amp (a). The Causative prefix amp (a) can enter into three types

of constructions: - "neutral" Directive, when both the higher and the lower Sus are Animate; - Manipulative, if only the higher Su is Animate, but not the lower Su; - Causal, if the higher Su is not Animate.

1.1.1

The Directive Causative Amp(a). In the following examples, amp (a) has the Directive

reading:

(10)a.

N - amp - andidy ny mofo an'i Jeanne i Paoly. past-caus-cut the bread Jeanne Paul

"Paul was having Jeanne cut the bread."

b.

N - anp - andidy ny mofo {an'azy/*an'ilay izy} izy. past-caus-cut the bread him/her *it he/she

"He/she was having him/her/*it cut the bread."

10

c. ?*N - anp - andidi - n' i Paoly an'i Jeanne ny nrofo. past-caus-cut-pass-by (intended reading) "Paul was having the bread cut by Jeanne." Paul Jeanne the bread

(11)a.

N - anp - itsangana an'i Jeanne i Paoly. past-caus-stand-up Jeanne Paul

"Paul was having Jeanne stand up."

b.

N - amp - itsangana {an'azy/*an'ilay izy} izy. past-caus-stand-up him/her *it "He/she was having him stand up." he/she

c.

*N - anp - itsangana-n'

i Paoly i Jeanne. Jeanne

past-caus-stand-up-pass-by Paul "Paul was having Jeanne stand up."

The ungrammatically of the relevant portion of (10 )b. and (11) b. shews that the underlying Su of the lower clause is indeed Animate since izy/azy refers to an Animate in Pronominalization (see details in Chapter Four). (10)c. is marginally grammatical, which

suggests that we only have tendencies and not absolutes. (11)c. could be gramnatical but with a different meaning, i.e. "Paul stood Jeanne up."

1.1.2

The Manipulative Causative Amp (a). In the following examples, anp (a) has the ffcnipulative

reading:

11

(12)a.

N - anp -idina

ny saina i Paoly. Paul

past-oaus-go-down the flag "Paul was lowering the flag."

b.

N - amp - idina {an'ilay izy/*an'azy} izy. past-caus-go-dcwn it/*prep him/her he/she

"Paul was lowering it/*him/*her."

c.

N - amp - idini - n' past-caus-go-down-pass-by

1 Paoly ny saina. Paul the flag

"The flag was being lowered by Paul."

d.

N - anp - iakanjo an'ilay zaza Rasoa. past-caus-dress that child Rasoa

"Rasoa was dressing the child."

e.

N - anp - iakanjo - n -dRasoa ilay zaza. past-caus-dress-pass-by-Rasoa that child "the child was being dressed by Rasoa."

f.

N - aitp - ianjera ny latabatra i Paoly. past-caus-fall the table Paul

"Paul was causing the table to fall," i.e. "Paul made the table fall."

g.

*N - anp - ianjera - n'i Paoly ny latabatra. past-caus-fall-pass-by Paul the table (intended reading) "The table was made to fall by Paul."

12

The lower Su is not Animate in (12)a., (12)b., and (12)c., judging from the ungrammaticality of the sequence after the substitution with azy "him/her," as in (12)b. But the higher Su is indeed Animate since it can be replaced with izy "he/she," as shown in (12)b. Furthermore, in (12)a., (12)b., (12)c., (12)d., and (12)e., Affixal Passive with ...(i)n(a) can apply after ClauseOnion in contrast to (12)d., where Affixal Passive has not applied and as a result, the sequence lends itself to an ambiguous interpretation as either a Manipulative or a "neutral" Directive Causative; in (12)e., where the lower verb is a non-Psychological predicate and Affixal Passive has applied, the output is grammatical and can only be assigned a Manipulative reading, while in (12)f., which has a Psychological predicate in the lower clause, the resulting sequence, as shown in (12)g., is ungrairmatical. Likewise, in (12)c., the lower verb is not a Psychological predicate and Affixal Passive after Clause-Union yields a grammatical output with an unambiguous interpretation, i.e that of a Manipulative Causative. Finally, in (12)a., we have a case of "controlled" Manipulation, as opposed to the "ballistic" type of Manipulation found in (12)f: in the first instance, causation remains effective throughout the entire phase, whereas in the second, causation provides only the initial impulse. The terminology is borrowed from Shibatani (1973).

1.1.3

The Causal Causative Amp(a). Amp(a) has the Causal reading in the following senten-

ces, where Fronting of Su with insertion of the particle no has applied. Typically, the embedded predicate is one where the Causee retains no Control.

13

(13)a.

Ny eritreri-ny no the mind-her

n - anp - ijaly an'i Jeanne, Jeanne

part past-caus-suffer

"It was because of her mind that Jeanne suffers."

b.

{llay izy/*lzy} no n-anp-ijaly {an'azy/*an'ilay izy}. it/*he/*she him/her/*it

"It was because of *him/*her/it that Jeanne suffers."

(14) a.

Ny orana no

n-anp-ianjera ny trano.

the rain part past-caus-fall the house "It was because of the rain that the house fell."

b.

{llay izy/*izy} no n-anp-ianjera {an'ilay izy/*azy}. it *he/*she it/*him/*her

"It was because of it that it fell."

The grammaticality pattern emerging from (13) and (14) suggests that the higher Su is always non-Animate, as evidenced by the distribution of different forms of pronouns, whereas the lower Su can be Animate, as in (13), or non-Animate, as in (14). As will be seen in Section 3, there is Entailment of the lower clause in both (13) and (14).

1.2

The Causative Prefix Aha. Aha can show up in two types of constructions:

- Abilitative, when both the higher and the lower Sus are optionally Animate, i.e. both the higher and the lower Sus are Animate, only the higher Su is, both the higher and the lower Sus are nonAnimate, and only the lower Su is Animate;

14

- Causal, when the higher Su is not Animate.

1.2.1

the Abilitative Causative Aha. Four cases exist in the Abilitative reading of aha

depending cm the Animacy of the Causer and the Causee and given all theoretical possibilities: - Both the higher and the lower Sus are Animate, as in

(15)a.

N - aha - zaka past-caus-carried

an'i Jeanne i Paoly. Jeanne Paul

(zaka "(be) carried" is a root passive) "Paul managed to carry Jeanne."

b.

Zaka-n'

i Paoly i Jeanne. Jeanne

carried-by Paul

"Paul managed to carry Jeanne."

- Only the higher Su is Animate, as in

(16)a.

N - aha - loka

ny varavarana i Paoly. Paul

past-caus-with-hole the door

(loka "(be) with a hole" is a root passive) "Paul managed to make a hole in the door."

b.

Loka-n'

i Paoly ny varavarana.

with-hole-by Paul the door "Paul managed to make a hole in the door."

15V

- Both the higher and the lower Sus are not Animate, as in

(17) a.

N - aha - zaka past-caus-carried

ny entana ny nozana. the luggage the scale

"The scale could lift the luggage."

b.

Zaka-n1

ny mozana ny entana.

carried-by the scale the luggage "The scale could lift the luggage."

- Only the lower Su is Animate, as in

(18)a.

N - aha - zaka an'i Jeanne ny nozana. past-caus-carried Jeanne the scale

"The scale was able to support Jeanne."

b.

Zaka-n1

ny nozana i Jeanne. Jeanne

carried-by the scale

"The scale was able to support Jeanne."

In all of the above sentences, the a. and b. sequences have the same cognitive meaning.

1.2.2

The Causal Causative Aha. In the Causal reading, the higher Su is typically not

Animate: - but if the lower Su is Animate, then we have a Psychological predicate:

16

(19)a.

N - aha - variana past-caus-be-absorbed

an'i Paoly ny raharaha. Paul the affair

"The affair absorbed Paul."

b.

Variana i Paoly tamin'

ny raharaha.

absorbed Paul because-of the affair "Paul was absorbed because of the affair."

- If the lower Su is not Animate, then we have a non-Psychological predicate:

(20)

Ny rivotra no n- aha - vaky

ny fitaratra.

the wind part past-caus-broken the glass "The glass got broken because of the wind."

- It is also possible for the lower Su to be Animate, with a nonPsychological predicate in the perfective aspect involving voa or tafa:

(21)a.

Ny ditrany

no

n-aha-voa-kapoka

an'i Paoly. Paul

the mischief part past-caus-strike

"It was because of his mischief that Paul was punished."

b.

Ny adalany

no

n-aha-tafa-janona

an'i Paoly. Paul

the stupidity-his part past-caus-stay

"It was because of his stupidity that Paul was left behind."

17

1.3

The Causative Prefix An (a). The Causative prefix an(a) can enter into two different

types of constructions: - Manipulative, when the higher Su is Animate; however, it is also possible to marginally have the Manipulative reading even if the lower Su is Animate, as in (23) below. - Causal, when the higher Su is not Animate.

1.3.1

The Manipulative Causative An(a). Typically, in the Manipulative reading of an (a), the

higher Su is Animate and the lower Su, not Animate (however, see sentence (5)a.):

(22)

N - am - (v)aky ny fitaratra i Paoly. past-caus-broken the glass Paul

(vaky "(be) broken" is a root passive) "Paul was doing so that the glass be-broken," i.e. "Paul was breaking the glass."

However, it is possible to have the higher and the lower Sus Animate although this appears to be marginal:

(23)

?I Jeanne no

n-an-dreraka

an'i Paoly. Paul

Jeanne part past-caus-fed-up

(reraka "(be) fed up" is an adjective) "It was because of Jeanne that Paul was fed up."

In its Manipulative reading, (23) is acceptable, although thischaracterizes a very familiar style.

18

1.3.2

Bie Causal Causative An (a). When the higher Su is not Animate:

- then, if the lower Su is Animate, we have a Causal reading with a lower Psychological predicate, as in

(24)

Hay resaka no that talk

n-an-dreraka

an'i Paoly. Paul

part past-caus-fed-up

"It was because of the talk that Paul was fed up."

- But, if the lower Su is not Animate, then we have a Causal reading with a lower predicate which is not Psychological, as in

(25)

Ilay vato no

n-am-(v)aky

ny fitaratra.

that stone part past-caus-broken the glass "It was because of the stone that the glass got broken."

1.4

The Causative Prefix Ank(a). The Causative prefix ank(a) can enter into three dif-

ferent types of constructions: - Manipulative, as in (116)a. and (116)b.; - Abilitative, when the higher Su is optionally Animate; - Causal when the higher Su is not Animate.

1.4.1

The Abilitative/Causal Ank(a). When the higher Su is optionally Animate, we have the

Abilitative reading, as in (26), whereas when it is not Animate, we have the Causal reading, as in (27). Thus:

19

(26)a.

N - ank - arenin-tsofina i Paoly. past-caus-be-deaf-of-ear Paul

((h)arenina "(will be) deaf" is an adjective) "Paul made a deafening noise."

b.

I Paoly no

n-ank-arenin-tsofina.

Paul part past-caus-deaf-of-ear "It was Paul who made a deafening noise."

(27)a.

Hay sakafo no that food

n-ank-arary an'i Paoly. Paul

part past-caus-sick

((h)arary "(will be) sick" is an adjective) "The food sickened Paul," i.e. "It was because of the food that Paul got sick."

b.

Ilay sakafo no that food

n-ank-arary

ny vavoni-ny.

part past-caus-sick the stomach-his

"It was the food which upset his stomach."

(28)a.

*I Jeanne no

n-ank-arary

an'i Paoly. Paul

Jeanne part past-caus-sick

*"Jeanne was the cause of Paul's being sick."

b. ?*I Jeanne no

n-ank-arary

ny vavoni-ny.

Jeanne part past-caus-sick the stomach-his "It was Jeanne who upset his stomach."

In (28), the higher Su is Animate, and in the Causal reading, the sequences are of very doubtful grammaticality.

20

1.5

The Causative Constructions and Animacy. All the Causative prefixes, i.e. amp (a), aha, an (a),

and ank(a), can have the Causal reading whose main characteristic is that the higher Su is not Animate, as illustrated in the preceding paragraphs. Furthermore, Causal constructions share one comnn feature in that they comprise either a Psychological predicate or an Affixal Passive with voa/tafa in the lower clause. The following segment of this chapter will provide five criteria for distinguishing between a Psychological and a nonPsychological predicate. With the former: 1. the embedded predicate must take an Animate Su; 2. the eirbedded Su is not an Agent; 3. Clause-Union cannot precede Affixal Passive; 4. Clause-Union and Affixal Passive cannot co-occur; 5. a Psychological predicate cannot take an Agent in the genitive case.

1.5.1

Psychological Predicates and Animacy. Typically, with a Psychological predicate, the embedded

Su of the underlying representation is Animate, as opposed to the Manipulative reading, where it is not Animate:

(29) a.

N - am - (v)aky ny

kitay i Paoly. Paul

past-caus-broken the wood "Paul was chopping the wood."

b.

*N - am- (v)aky an'i Jaona i Paoly. past-caus-broken John Paul

"Paul was chopping John."

21

(30)a.

N - an - (t)afitohina an'i Jeanne i Paoly. past-caus-be-upset Jeanne Paul

(tafitohina "(be) upset" is an adjective) "Paul was causing Jeanne to be upset."

b.

*N - an - (t)afitohina ny sai-n' i Jeanne i Paoly. past-caus-be-upset the mind-of Jeanne Paul

*"Paul was causing Jeanne's mind to be upset."

In (29), the underlying enbedded Su mist be non-Animate since the sentence (29) b. with an Animate Su yields an irretrievably ungranmatical sequence. This is the Manipulative reading. On the other hand, in (30)a., the lower Su must be animate, as can be inferred from the grammaticality pattern eiterging from the pair (30)a. and (30)b. In (30)b., therefore, we have a Psychological predicate in the lower clause.

1.5.2

Criteria for Agency. With the Causal reading, the enbedded Su is not an

Agent. For an NP to be an Agent, it must satisfy the following conditions: 1. it can be used to answer the question:

Nanao

inona i

NP?

past-do what deic NP "What was NP doing ?"

2. it can enter into combination with the adverbial expression fanahy iniana "deliberately";

22

3. its predicate must be able to form an Affixal Passive with the no...ina form (See Chapter Five on Passivization); 4. it can enter into combination with the expression amin'izay denoting a purpose; 5. it yields a grammatical sequence with the progressive aspect marker eo amp... followed by a verb in the circumstantial voice; and 6. it can show up in a sequence comprising an Instrument NP Thus, in:

(31)a.

Tbfoka i Jeanne. fed-up Jeanne

"Jeanne is/was fed up."

i Jeanne is not an Agent since it does not have any of the properties listed:

b.

Nanao

inona i Jeanne? Jeanne

past-do what

"What was Jeanne doing ?"

*Tfoka (izy). fed-up (he/she) "(He/she was) fed up.11

c.

*Fanahy inian' soul

i Jeanne

ny

tofoka.

willed-by Jeanne

carp fed-up

*"Jeanne deliberately was fed up."

23

d.

*No - tofh - in1 passive-fed-up-by

i Paoly i J(eanne). Paul J(eanne)

*"J was caused to be fed up by Paul."

e.

*Tofoka i J amin'izay voa-karakara fed-up

ny enta-ny.

J in-order pass-take-care-of the luggage-her

?*"J was fed up for her luggage to be-taken care of."

f.

*T-eo anp-i-tofoh-ina

i J no

tonga

i P.

past prcgr-circ-fed-up J part arrived P *"J was in the process of being fed up when P arrived."

g.

*Tt>foka t-amin' fed-up past-instr

ilay boky i J. that book J

*"J was fed up by using the book."

By contrast, in a non-Psychological State predicate like vaky "being in the state of having been smashed," it is possible to have the following sequences:

(31')a.

Vaky

ny fitaratra.

broken the glass "The glass is broken."

b.

N - am - (v)aky ny fitaratra i Paoly. past-caus-broken the glass Paul

"Paul was causing the glass to be broken," i.e. "Paul was breaking the glass."

24

c.

Nanao

inona i Paoly? Paul

past-do what

"What was Paul doing ?"

d.

Fanahy inian' soul

i P ny

namaky

willed-by P comp past-caus-broken

ny fitaratra. the glass "Paul was deliberately smashing the glass."

e.

No - vaki - n' i Paoly ny fitaratra. pass-broken-by Paul the glass

"The glass was being smashed by Paul."

f.

No - vaki - n 'i Paoly ny fitaratra past-broken-by Paul the glass

amin'izay ho tafa-voaka izy. in-order fut pass-exit he/she "Paul was smashing the window so as to exit."

g.

T-eo ampamakiana

ny fitaratra i Paoly Paul

past progr-cire-break the glass

no

tonga i Jaona.

part arrived John "Paul was in the process of breaking the glass when John arrived."

25

1.5.3

Distinction between Psychological and non-Psychological Predicates: Clause-Union preceding Passivization. With a Psychological predicate, it is not possible to

have a Clause-Union preceding Affixal Passive, whereas this is a possibility with a non-Psychological predicate (See (12) c.):

(32)a.

N - amp - isafoaka an'i Jeanne i Paoly. past-caus-angry Jeanne Paul

b.

*N - amp - isafoaka-n'

i Paoly i Jeanne, Jeanne

past-caus-angry-passive-by Paul (interpretation for both a. and b.)

"Paul was causing Jeanne to get angry."

(33)a.

N - anp - ieritreritra an'i Paoly ilay olona. past-caus-think Paul the person

b.

*N - amp - ieritrereti-n'

ilay olona i Paoly.

past-caus-think-passive-by the person Paul "The person was arousing suspicions in Paul's mind."

In (32), where Clause-Union precedes Affixal Passive, we have the Manipulative reading of amp(a) in a.^, whereas the b. sentence remains ungramraatical. Likewise, in (33)a., which does not allow Clause-Union to precede Affixal Passive in the intended reading, amp(a) has the Causal interpretation. Hcwever, (33)b. becomes grammatical with the meaning "The person gave Paul a choice between an unspecified nunfoer of alternatives," where the other person is in a position of Control over Paul.

26

1.5.4

Distinction between Psychological and non-Psychological: Possibility of Clause-Union and Passivization. With a Psychological predicate, it is not possible to

have Clause-Union and Affixal Passive, whereas this is possible with a non-Psychological predicate:

(34)a.

N - an - (t)afitohina an'i Jeanne i Paoly. past-caus-upset "Paul upset Jeanne," or "Jeanne was upset because of Paul." Jeanne Paul

b.

*No - tafitohi - n'i Paoly i Jeanne, passive-upset-by Paul Jeanne

(no interpretation whatsoever)

(35) a.

N - am - (v) aky ny fitaratra i Paoly. past-caus-broken the glass "Paul was breaking the glass." Paul

b.

No - vaki - n ' i Paoly ny fitaratra. pass-broken-by Paul the glass

"The glass was being deliberately broken by Paul," or "Paul was breaking the glass."

In (34)a., we have a Psychological predicate, hence the ungrammaticality of Affixal Passive, as seen in (34)b. On the other hand, (35)a. comprises a non-Psychological predicate and (35) b., where Affixal Passive has applied, is graiimatical.

27

1.5.5

Another Criterion: Possibility of Expressing the Agent. With a Psychological predicate, it is not possible to

express the Agent in the genitive case, whereas this is possible with a non-Psychological predicate:

(36) a.

Vaky

ny fitaratra.

broken the glass (same as (31')a-) "The glass is/was in the state of having been broken."

b.

Vaki-n'i Paoly ny fitaratra. broken-by Paul the glass "The glass is/was broken by Paul."

(37) a.

Tafitohina i Paoly. upset Paul

"Paul is/was upset."

b.

*Tafitohin'i Jeanne i Paoly. upset-by Jeanne Paul

"Paul is/was upset by Jeanne."

In (37)a., we have a Psychological predicate and therefore, it is not possible to have the sequence in (37) b. with the Agent in the genitive case: the latter is irretrievably ungranmatical. By contrast, in (36)a., the predicate is a non-Psychological m e and the sentence in (36) b., with the Agent in the genitive case, is perfectly grammatical. i

28

1.5.6

Summary: Animacy. Hie first parameter dealt with in this section, i.e.

Animacy distinguishes between four types of Causative constructions whose features are reported on Table 1.

Table 1

The Animacy Parameter

Underlyingly

Higher Su

Lower Su

"Neutral" Directive

[+Animate]

[H-Animate]

Manipulative

[+Animate]

[+/- Animate]

Abilitative

[+/- Animate]

[+/- Animate]

Causal

[-Animate]

[+Animate]

Note:

Higher Su = CAUSER; Lower Su = CAUSEE; + = Positive; - = Negative ; +/- = Optional.

29

Section 2

Control

2.0.1

The Control Parameter. This Section will consider the Control parameter, which

expresses the degree of Control exercised by the Causee and which is based on: - the nature of the embedded predicate, i.e. Aether it refers to an Activity or a State, as is made evident by the voice and aspect marker used or that can be used with the root of the lower predicate; - as well as the presence or absence of Intent, as shewn by the compatibility or incompatibility with certain adverbial nodifications. The distinction drawn under 1.5 between Psychological and non-Psychological predicates, along with the findings made in Section 1 with respect to the Animacy parameter, will be assumed since there are sentences like "Mati-n'i Jaona i Paoly (Dead-by John Paul)", i.e. "Paul was dead as a result of John's doing," where i Jaona "John," a human, hence Animate, is assumed to be an Agent. This contrasts with exanples like "Mati-n'ny hanoanana i Paoly (literally "dead because of hunger Paul)," i.e. "Paul died of hunger," where ny hanoanana "the hunger," is non-Animate, and therefore, is not assumed to be an Agent in the genitive case. Finally, note that although Affixal Passive in the nonperfective aspect typically encodes Control, as opposed to Root Passives, which usually do not, there exist a nunber of exceptions, of which lasa "(be) gone" is one.

30

2.0.2

Interaction of Causative Constructions with Mverbial Modification. All the Directive and the Manipulative constructions:

interact with the active or circumstantial voices or the Affixal Passive forms no...ina and a-, all of which denote an Activity and are compatible with the modifier fanahy inian'i NP (ny) "soul-willed," i.e. "deliberately," but not with tsy satry (not preferred) "not willingly, accidentally." All the Causal constructions interact with a Psychological predicate, whether the latter is a root passive or an adjective, which denotes a State. All of them are conpatible with tsy satry "accidentally," but not with fanahy inian'i NP (ny) "deliberately." Falling between these two extremes, the Affixal Passive forms voa and tafa, on the one hand, bhave as though they were Activity predicates since initially their agent is expressed but must be deleted under a Causal predicate; yet, en the other hand, they behave like Stative predicates, i.e. the union of the set of Psychological predicates with Animate Causees (for example (19) a) and that set of predicates which can have an Animate or non-Animate Causee (for example (17)a.), which does not involve Psychological predicates or predicates which refer to, or can refer to, an Activity. In fact, these Stative predicates are not compatible with fanahy inian (ny) "deliberately," but are conpatible with tsy satry "accidentally."

2.1.0

The Causative Constructions and Intent. In this Subsection, it will be shown:

31

1. that the "persuasive," the "coercive," the "permissive," and the "neutral" Directive constructions with amp(a) and an (a) allow voice and aspectual forms of the lower predicate, i.e. active, circumstantial, and no...ina or a Affixal Passive forms, which refer to a Deliberate Activity; 2. that the Causal constructions with aha and amp (a) allow, in the lower clause, voice and aspectual forms, i.e. voa/tafa, which correlate with an Activity turned into a State but which is not Intentional, as in the case of a Psychological predicate. They also allow a root passive or an adjective in the lower clause in the case of a Psychological predicate; 3. falling between these two, lies an intermediate zone represented by the Abilitative aha construction which not only a. allows a root passive or an adjective in the enbedded clause, but b. which also allows substitution of the Abilitative aha predicate by the Affixal Passive form no...ina and a, both of which correlate with Deliberate Activity.

2.1.1

The "Persuasive" Directive Construction. In the "persuasive" Directive construction, the em-

bedded predicate must be in the circumstantial voice. Furthermore, it cannot be a Stative predicate (however, see 6.2.7 to 6.2.9).

(38)a.

Nanao [izay h-an-didi-an'i J(eanne) ny mofo] i P(aoly). did oomp fut-circ-cut J(eanne) the bread P(aul)

"P(aul) was doing so that the bread would be cut by J (eanne)."

32

b.

H-andidy ny itofo i J(eanne). fut-cut the bread J(eanne) "J(eanne) will be cutting the bread."

c.

*Nanao [izay h-andidy ny irofo (an)i J(eanne)] i P(aoly) did camp fat-cut the bread J(eanne) P(aul)

(no interpretation whatsoever)

d.

No - didi - n' i J(eanne) ny irofo. pass-cut-by J(eanne) the bread

"The bread was being cut by J(eanne)."

e.

*Nanao [izay no-didi-n'i J (eanne) ny riDfo] i P(aoly). did coup pass-cut-by J (eanne) the bread P(aul)

(only intended reading) *"P was doing so that the bread was being cut by J."

(39)a.

Nanao [izay h-an-defa-s-an'i J ny entana] i P. did cortp fut-circ-send-by J the luggage P

"P was doing so that the luggage would be sent by J."

b.

Ho a-lefa - n' i J(eanne) ny entana. fut pass-send-by J(eanne) the luggage "The luggage will be sent by J(eanne)."

c.

*Nanao [izay ho a-lefa-n' i J ny entana] i P. did coirp fut pass-send-by J the luggage P

(oily intended reading) "P was doing so that the luggage would be sent by J."

33

(40)a.

Voa - didi - n' i Jeanne ny iiDfo. pass - cut - by Jeanne the bread

"The bread has been cut by Jeanne."

b.

*Nanao [izay voa-didi-n'i Jeanne ny mofo] i Paoly. did comp pass-cut-by Jeanne the bread Paul

(only intended reading) *"Paul was doing so that the bread has been cut by Jeanne."

(41)a.

Tafa - petraka i Jeanne, pass - sit Jeanne

"Jeanne found herself sitting."

b.

*Nanao [izay tafa-petraka i Jeanne] i Paoly. did comp pass-sit Jeanne Paul

(cnly intended reading) "Paul was doing so that Jeanne found herself sitting."

(42)a.

Lasa i Jeanne, gone Jeanne

(lasa "(be) gone" is a root passive) "Jeanne is/was gone."

b.

*Nanao [izay lasa i Jeanne] i Paoly. did comp gone Jeanne Paul

(only intended reading) "Paul was doing so that Jeanne was gone."

34

(43)a.

Reraka i Jeanne. tired Jeanne

"Jeanne is/Was tired."

b.

*Nanao [izay reraka i Jeanne] i Paoly. did camp tired Jeanne Paul

(oily intended reading) "Paul was doing so that Jeanne got tired."

The graimaticality of (38)a. and (39)a., where the enbedded verb is in the circumstantial voice, shows that the latter can be in the circumstantial voice. The ungranmaticality of (38) c., where the enbedded verb is in the active voice, indicates that the latter cannot be in the active voice; insertion of the preposition an in front of the lower Su does not improve its grammaticality. The ungranmaticality of (38)e. with the Affixal Passive form no...ina in the imperfective aspect and that of (39)c. with the Affixal Passive form a, also in the imperfective aspect, suggests that the enbedded clause cannot take any Affixal Passive form in the imperfective aspect. The ungranmaticality of (40)b. with the perfective aspect-marker voa and that of (41)b. with the perfective aspect-marker tafa (see Chapter Five: 1.0 for further details) shew that the enbedded predicate cannot be an Affixal Passive form with a perfective aspect. Finally, the ungranmaticality of (42)b. with a root passive and (43) b. with an adjective demonstrates that a root passive or an adjective are ruled out in the embedded clause of the "persuasive" Directive. From (38) to (43), we have all the different possibilities that can occur and since only a verb in the circumstantial

35

voice is allowed in the embedded clause, it follows that the latter is obligatory.

2.1.2

The "Coercive" or "Permissive" Directive Constructions. In the "coercive" or "permissive" Directive constru-

ctions, the enbedded predicate must be either in the active or in the affixal Passive with no.. .ina or a. It cannot be a Stative predicate.

(44)a.

Nanery/Namela

an'i J hanasa an' i P i K. J fut-wash P K

past-force/past-let

"K was forcing/allowing J to wash P."

b.

H -an -(s)asa - n' i J an'i P ny savony. fut-circ-wash-by J P the soap

"The soap is being used by J to wash p."

c.

*Nanery / Nmsla an'i J hanasa-ny past-force/past-let j fut-wash-pass-by-her

an'i P ny savony i K. P the soap K

"K was forcing/letting P be washed with the soap by J."

d.

Nanery / Namela an'i P ho-sasa-n' i J i K. past-force/past-let P pass^wash-tay J K

"K was forcing/allowing P to be washed by J."

36

(45) a.

Bo a-lefa

any T(amatave) iP(aoly). P(aul)

fut pass-send to T(amatave) "P will be sent to T."

b.

Nanery/Namela

an'i P ho a-lefa

any

T i J. J

past-force/past-let

P fut pass-send there T

"J was forcing/allowing P to be sent to T," or "J forced/let P (to) be sent to T."

(46)a.

Ho voa - sasa - n' i J i P. fut pass - wash - by J P

"P will have been washed by J."

b.

*Nanery/*Namela an' i P ho voa-sasa-n' i J i K. past-forced/past-let P fut pass^wash-by J K

*"K was forcing/allowing P to have been washed by J."

(47)a.

Nanery/Namela

an'i J h-ipetraka i P. J fiat-sit p

past-force/past-let

"P was forcing/allowing J to sit."

b.

Tafa-petraka i J(eanne). pass-sit J

"J found herself sitting."

c.

*Nanery/Nanela

an'i J ho tafa-petraka i P. J fut pass-sit P

past-force/past-let

*"P was forcing/allowing J to find herself sitting."

37

(48) a.

lasa

i J(eanne). J(eanne)

fut gone

"J will be gone."

b.

*Nanery/Namela

an'i J ho lasa i P. J fat gone P

past-forced/past-let

?*"P was forcing/allowing J to be gone."

(49) a.

Matahotra

iJ(anne).

pres-afraid J(eanne) "J is afraid."

b.

*Nanery/Nairela

an'i J ho matahotra

i P.

past-force/past-let

J fut pres-afraid P

*"P was forcing/allowing J to be afraid."

In (44) a. and (44)d., the enbedded verb is in the active voice and the Affixal Passive no.. .ina, respectively; both are grammatical. By contrast, in (44) c., where the lower clause has its verb in the circumstantial voice, the output is ungramraatical despite the fact that the lcwer clause on its own, as shown in (44)b., is perfectly granmatical. (45) illustrates the case where the enbedded predicate has the Affixal Passive form with a. When the lower predicate has the perfective aspect marker voa or tafa, the output is ungrammatical, as shown in (46) b. and (47)c. In (48), we have a root passive and, in (49), an adjective: the ungranmaticality of their b. sequences suggests that the lower clause cannot comprise a Stative predicate. From all this, it

38

follows that the active voice or the imperfective aspect Affixal Passive with no..ina or a is mandatory (see 1.1.2 for the difference between no...ina and a).

2.1.3

The "Neutral" Directive Construction. In the "neutral" Directive construction, the embedded

predicate must be in the active voice since it transpires that none of the other voice possibilities yield granmatical sequences. Furthermore, a Stative predicate or a root passive is ruled out, as is made evident by the grammaticality pattern of the sentences below.

(50)a.

N

- anp - andidy ny mofo an'i Jeanne i Paoly. the bread Jeanne Paul

past-caus-cut

"Paul was having Jeanne cut the bread."

b.

H-andidy ny mofo i Jeanne, fut- cut the bread Jeanne "Jeanne will be cutting the bread."

c.

No - didi - n' pass - cut - by

i Jeanne ny mofo. Jeanne the bread

"The bread was being cut by Jeanne."

d.

*N - ampa - no - didi - n' i Jeanne ny mofo i Paoly past-caus-pass - cut - by Jeanne the bread Paul

(only intended interpretation) "Paul was having the bread cut by Jeanne."

39

(51) a.

N - anp - andefa ny entana an'i J (eanne) i P(aoly). past-caus-send the luggage J(eanne) P(aul)

(note that the enbedded verb is in the active voice) "P (aul) was having J (eanne) send the luggage."

b.

H-andefa ny entana fut-send the luggage

i J (eanne). J(eanne)

"J(eanne) will be sending the luggage."

c.

Ho a-lefa-n'

i J (eanne) ny entana.

fut pass-send-by J (eanne) the luggage (note the embedded verb in the passive voice with a, non-perfective aspect-marker "ballistic" interpretation in d. below) "The luggage will be sent by J(eanne)."

d.

*N - ampa- (ho) - a-lefa-n' past-caus-(fut)-pass-send-by (only intended reading)

i J ny entana i P. J the luggage P

"P was having the luggage sent by J."

(52)a.

H - anp - anasa an'i Jaona an'i Jeanne i Paoly. fut-caus-wash John Jeanne Paul

"Paul will be having Jeanne wash John."

b.

H - anasa an'i Jaona fut-wash John

i Jeanne. Jeanne

"Jeanne will be waging John."

40

c.

Voa - sasa - n'i Jeanne i Jaona. passive-wash-by Jeanne John

"John has been washed by Jeanne."

d.

*N - ampa - voa -sasa-n'i Jeanne i Jaona i Paoly. past-caus-pass-wash-by Jeanne John Paul

(only intended interpretation) *"Paul was having John have been washed by Jeanne."

53)a.

N - anp - i- petraka past-caus-prf-sit down

an'i Jeanne i Paoly. Jeanne

"Paul was having Jeanne sit down."

b.

H - i- petraka fut-prf-sit down

i Jeanne, Jeanne

"Jeanne will sit dcwn."

c.

Tafa - petraka i Jeanne, pass-sit dcwn Jeanne

(notice absence of Control by the Su) "Jeanne found herself sitting."

d.

*N - anpa - tafa - petraka an'i Jeanne i Paoly. past-caus-pass-sit down (only intended interpretation) *"Paul was having Jeanne find herself having sat dcwn. Jeanne Paul

41

(54)a.

N - anp - andeha an'i Jeanne i Paoly. past-caus-go Jeanne Paul '

"Paul was having Jeanne leave."

b.

H - andeha fut-go

i Jeanne, Jeanne

"Jeanne will be going."

c.

Ho lasa i Jeanne, fut gone Jeanne. "Jeanne will be gone."

d.

*N - anpa - (ho) - lasa an'i Jeanne i Paoly. past-caus-(fut)-gone Jeanne Paul

(cnly intended interpretation) *"Paul was having Jeanne be gone."

(55) a.

H-arary i Jeanne. fut-sick Jeanne "Jeanne will be sick."

b.

*N - anp - arary an'i Jeanne i Paoly. past-caus-sick Jeanne Paul

(only intended interpretation) *"Paul was having Jeanne be sick."

All of the a. sequences, where the enbedded clause has a verb in the active voice are grammatical, from (50) to (54). Hie ungrammatically of (50)d., (51)d., (52)d., and (53)d. shows that the

42

lower clause cannot have its verb in the Affixal Passive, whether it is in the perfective or imperfective aspect. Hie ungrammatically of (54)d. and (55)b. indicates that the lower predicate cannot be a root passive or an adjective respectively, which suggests that the Causee must retain Control.

2.1.4.1

Hie Manipulative Amp (a) Construction. In the Manipulative amp (a) construction, the eirbedded

predicate is either in the active or in the circumstantial voice. The latter phenomenon has been labelled passive, i.e. Passivization applies after Clause-Union has taken place, this is the diagnostic test for a Manipulative construction.

(56)a.

N - anp - andeha an'i Jeanne i Paoly. past-caus-walk Jeanne Paul

I 'Paul was having Jeanne walk."

b.

N - anp - andeha-n-an' i Paoly i Jeanne. past-caus-circ-walk-by Paul Jeanne

'Jeanne was being made to walk by Paul.n

(57) a.

No - sasa - n'i Jeanne ny lanfoa. pass^wash-by Jeanne the linen

"The linen was being washed by Jeanne.n

b.

*N - ampa - no - sasa - n'i Jeanne ny lamba Rasoa. past-caus-pass-wash-by Jeanne the linen Rasoa

(notice passive in the lower clause exclusively) *"Rasoa was making the linen washed by Jeanne."

43

(58) a.

Voa

~ sasa ny lantoa.

pass-wash the linen "The linen has been washed."

b.

*N - anpa - voa - sasa ny lamba i Jeanne, past-caus-pass-wash the linen Jeanne

"Jeanne was washing the linen."

(59)a.

(Tafa) - latsakair

ilay taratasy.

(pass) - be-dropped the letter "The letter was dropped (accidentally)."

b.

*N - anpa - tafa - latsaka an'ilay taratasy i Paoly. past-cau s-pass-be-dropped the letter Paul

*"Paul was causing the letter to be dropped accidentally. "

c.

*N - airpa - latsaka an' ilay taratasy i Paoly. past-caus-be-dropped the letter Paul

*"Paul was having the letter dropped accidentally."

(60)a.

Potsy ny rindrina. white the wall "The wall is white."

b.

*N - anpa - fotsy ny rindrina i Paoly. past-caus- white the wall Paul

"Paul was whitewashing the wall."

44

In (56)a., the enbedded predicate is in the active voice, whereas in (56) b., it is in the circumstantial voice. In both cases the sequences are grammatical. By contrast, in (57)b. and (59)b., involving verbs in the Affixal Passive with perfective and imperfective aspect, the sentences are ungrammatical even though in each case, the lower clause becomes granmatical, as shown in the relevant a. sequences, when used in isolation. In (59)c., we have the root passive latsaka "be in the state of having been dropped" while in (60)b., the enbedded clause comprises an adjective. The ungranmaticality of these two sentences suggests that Manipulative amp(a) cannot embed a root passive or an adjective. However, exanple (5)a. involving the Stative verb miankanjo "be dressed in" shows that it is possible for the lcwer verb to be a Stativ predicate.

2.1.4.2

Restriction on the Manipulative Causative Amp (a). However, if the lower clause has a Stative predicate,

then it must be in the active voice since, as the following examples demonstrate, if it shows up in the passive, the output is ungrammatical. Ihis contrasts with those cases where the lower verb is in the active voice.

(61)a.

H - ianjera ny latabatra. fut-fall, the table

"the table will fall."

b.

N - anp - ianjera ny latabatra i Paoly. past-caus-fall the table Paul

"Paul made the table fall."

45

c.

H - i - anjera - n' ny vilia ny latabatra. fut-circ-fall-by the plate the table

"The table is where the plate(s) fell."

d.

*N - anp - i - anjera - n' ny vilia ny latabatra past-caus-circ-fall-by the plate the table

i Paoly. Paul "Paul made the table fall."

(61)b., which comprises the lower predicate shown in (61)a. and which is in the active voice, is grammatical. (61)d. with sequence (61)c. in its lower clause is ungranmatical. The only difference between (61)b. and (61)d. is that in the latter case, the

embedded verb is in the circumstantial voice.

2.1.4.3

Prefix Substitution with the Manipulative Causative Anp (a). When the embedded verb is a Stative predicate, although

not a Psychological predicate (see this distinction under 2.0.2), the Affixal Passive form corresponding to the Manipulative anp (a) has the a prefix, which substitutes for the Causative predicate and the verb prefix.

(62)

N - a - zera - n' i Paoly ny latabatra. past-pass-fall-by Paul the table

"The table has been made to fall by Paul" (compare with (61) b.)

46

The Affixal Passive prefix a replaces both the higher Causative predicate amp (a) and the prefix of the verb, in this case ian, leaving the root zera.

2.1.5.1

Restrictions on the Manipulative Causative An(a). In the Manipulative an(a) construction, the lower pred-

icate must be a root passive or an adjective that is Stative but ret Psychological; furthermore, it irust be the case that the Causee does not have any Control. Hi is excludes root passives like lasa which attribute some Control to the Causee.

(63)a.

*N - an - andidy ny mofo an" i Jeanne i Jaona. past-caus-cut the bread Jeanne John

(compare with (50)a.) *"John was making cut Jeanne the bread."

b.

*N - an - andeha-n-an' i Paoly an' i Jeanne i Jaona. past-caus-circ-go-by (oonpare with (56)b.) *"John was making Jeanne to be walkedfayPaul." Paul Jeanne John

c.

*N - an - no - didi - n' i Jeanne ny mofo i Paoly. past-caus-pass-cut-by (coitpare with (50) c.) Jeanne the bread Paul

d.

*N - an - voa - sasa - n ' i Jeanne an' i Jaona i Paoly. past-caus-pass-wash-by (coitpare with (52) c.) Jeanne John Paul

47

e.

*n - ana - a - lefa - n' i Jeanne ny entana i Paoly. past-caus-pass-send-by (compare with (51)c.) Jeanne the luggage Paul

f.

*N - ana - tafa - petraka an' i Jeanne i Paoly. past-caus-pass-sit (compare with (53)c.) Jeanne Paul

64)a.

N - an - datsaka

an' ilay taratasy i Paoly. the letter Paul

past-caus-be dropped

(see (59)a. with latsaka "(be) dropped") (the relevant meaning entails no Control by Causee) "Paul was dropping the letter."

b.

N - am -(f)otsy ny rindrina i Paoly. past-caus-white the wall Paul

(see (60)a. with fotsy "white") "Paul was whitewashing the wall."

c.

*N - an - atahotra an' i Jeanne i Paoly. past-caus-afraid Jeanne Paul

(see (49)a. with matahotra "(be) afraid) "Paul was frightening Jeanne."

d.

*N - an - dasa an" i Jeanne i Paoly. past-caus-gcne Jeanne Paul

(see (54)c. with lasa "(be) gone") "Paul was sending Jeanne away."

In (64)a., the embedded predicate is a root passive, latsaka "in the state of having been dropped." In (64)b., it is an adjective, fotsy "white." In both instances, the sequences are grammatical. However, in (64)c., the embedded clause also comprises an adjective, matahotra "afraid of"; yet, the sequence is ungrammatical. The difference between (64)a., (64)b., and (64)c. lies in the fact that the latter is a Psychological predicate. As for (64)d., its ungrammaticality seems to be due to the fact that, although lasa "gene" is a root passive, the Causee still retains Control. The ungrammatical sentences in (63) show that the embedded clause cannot comprise an active voice verb, as seen in (63)a., a circumstantial voice verb, as seen in (63)b., or any form of Affixal Passive, as can be inferred from (63)c. to (63) f. In all the cases shown in (63), no interpretation whatsoever could be assigned to the ungrammatical sequences.

2.1.5.2

Prefix Substitution with the Manipulative Causative An (a). In the Manipulative an (a) construction, the active

prefix an (a) of the typically transitive verb can be replaced by the no...ina circumfix of Affixal Passive.

(65)a.

Vaky

ny fitaratra.

broken the glass "The glass is/has been/was broken."

b.

N - am -(v)aky

ny fitaratra i Jaona. John

past-caus-broken the glass "John was breaking the glass."

49

c.

NO - vaki - n' i Jaona ny fitaratra. pass-broken-by John the glass

"The glass was being smashed by John."

2.1.5-3

Passive with A or Tafa Prefix. If the verb is a Stative intransitive, then the

relevant Affixal Passive is a in the most typical case:

(66) a.

N - ian - tonta ny entana. past-act-fall the luggage

"Ohe luggage fell."

b.

N - a - tonta - n' i Jaona ny entana. past-pass-fall-by John the luggage

"ftie luggage was being dropped by John."

(67)a.

Latsaka ny taratasy. dropped the letter (note "accidental" meaning) "The letter has dropped."

b.

N -

i - latsaka ny taratasy. the letter

past-pref-fall "The letter fell."

c.

N - a - latsak'

i Paoly ny taratasy.

past-pass-dropped-by Paul the letter (note "deliberate activity" meaning) "Hie letter was being dropped by Paul."

50

d.

N - an - datsaka ny taratasy i Paoly. past-caus-dropped the letter "Paul was dropping the letter." Paul

(68)a.

Tafa - latsaka ny taratasy. pass-dropped the letter

"Hiey/Someone managed to drop the letter."

b.

Tafa-latsak'

i Paoly ny taratasy.

pass-dropped-by Paul the letter "The letter was able to be dropped by Paul," i.e. "Paul managed to drop the letter."

m

(66)a., w= have a typically intransitive verb that is also

Stative. Its imperfective passive form is obtained by substituting a for its prefix. By contrast, in (67), to the root passive form in the a. sequence correspond an intransitive verb, as seen in the b. sentence, or a transitive verb, as shown in the d. sentence. Furthermore, the perfective aspect marker tafa acquires the Abilitative meaning.

2.1.6.1

Restrictions on the Abilitative Aha Construction. In the Abilitative construction involving the Causative

aha, the lower predicate is either a root passive or an adjective provided it is not a Psychological predicate. This requirement proves necessary since otherwise, the construction yields a Causal interpretation, to the exclusion of the relevant meaning.

51

jg9ja

the body-of-him. d e i c .

246

Sequence (27) with the same predicate fantatra "be-known," as in (26), but in the active voice with the Causative prefix an yields an irretrievably ungrammatical sentence. No semantic interpretation whatsoever can be assigned to (27). Second, even in cases where the corresponding sentence with an active verb is grammatical and acceptable, its meaning is totally different from the one comprising the relevant root passive.

(28)a.

Fantatr'

i Paoly ny toetra-n'

i Jeanne, Jeanne

be-known-by Paul the character-of "Jeanne's character is known to Paul"

i.e. "Paul knew/knows Jeanne's character."

b.

N-am-(f)antatra ny toetra-n' active-be-known

i Jeanne i Paoly. Paul

the character-of Jeanne

"Paul tried to figure out Jeanne's character."

It follows that (27) cannot be proposed as the underlying representation for (26).

1.2.2

Non-Subject Trigger. The trigger for Reflexivization is not a Su but an

Experiencer in the Genitive case with a predicate like fantatra "(be) known," which takes a sentential Su.

(29)a.

Fantatr'i P^ tsara loatra angaha ny m-ampa-hory known-by P^ well too part oomp pres-caus-miserable

247 ny tenany^? the body-of-him^ "Does Paul^ know very well what causes hira^ to be miserable?"

b.

Fantatr'i P^ tsara loatra anie ny m-ampa-hory known-by P^ well too excl comp pres-caus-miserable

ny tenany^i the body-of-him " (Well) Paul^ knows all too well what causes him^ to be miserable1"

(30)a.

*Fantatr'

izy^ tsara loatra ny m-anpa-hory

be-known-by hinu well too oonp pres-caus-miserable ny tena-ny^. the body-of-him^. "He^ knows all too well what causes him^ to be miserable."

b.

Fanta-ny^

tsara loatra ny

m-airpa-hory

known-by-hinu well too

ccatp pres-caus-miserable

ny tenany^. the body-of-him^ "It is known to hin^ all too well what causes hin^ to be miserable."

248 (29) a. with the insertion of the question particle angaha ana (29) b. with the insertion of the exclamation particle anie show that the two clauses have a sentential Su. Note that theseare

the sane basic structure as (26) above. The ungrammatically of (30) a. proves that the NP i Paoly is not a Su since it cannot be replaced with the Su form of the independent pronoun izy "he/she". The sentence (30)b. with the clitic form of the pronoun, i.e. -ny "by him/her," confirms the view that it is indeed in the Genitive case.

1.2.3

Criterion for Basicness. Even in those cases where the corresponding sentence

with an active verb exists and is cognitively synonymous with the sequence comprising the relevant root passive form, it can be shown that the latter is more basic. The following sentence with the predicate zaka "bearable" and a sentential Su does have the corresponding sentence with an active voice verb, which is the sane as the Causative construction, i.e. with Abilitative aha.

(31)a.

Tsy zaka-n'

i Paoly^ ny tsy nikarakara-n'

not bearable-by Paul^ conp not past-circ-take-care-by

i Jeanne ny tenany^. Jeanne the body-of-him^ "The fact that Jeanne did not take care of h r u was not it bearable to Paul^', i.e. "Paul^ could not accept the fact that Jeanne did not take care of hiiru."

249

b.

Tsy n-aha-zaka

ny

tsy nikarakara-n'

not past-caus-bearable coup not past-circ-take-care-of

i Jeanne^ n y

tenany^

i Paoly.

Jeanne1, the body-of-him,Paul 1 sj "Paul could not accept the fact that Jeanne.^ did not take care of herself^." Now, as will be shown in Chapter Six, (31) b. with the Abilitative aha construction has a bisentential source, and as such, is less basic than its non-Causative counterpart in (31) a. In fact, (31)b. involves three different clauses or cycles, whereas (31)a. only involves two. In (31)a., the trigger for Beflexivization is 1 Paoly, an Experiencer in the Genitive case, since it passes all the tests applied in (29) and (30).

1.3

The Victim of Reflexivization. As far as the victim of Beflexivization is concerned,

it will appear in Section 2 that it too is constrained by Grammatical Relations since it shows up as tena if it occupies the DO position, but as ny tenany if it is an 10 or an Oblique.

Section 2

Reflexivization and non-Causative Constructions

2 0

introduction. In Section 2, it will be seen that in non-Causative

Constructions

250 1. When the trigger and its victim are clausemates initially, 2. the latter, if it is a DO, goes into tena, 3. but if it is an IO or an Oblique, then it surfaces as ny tenany. Justification for Equi-1, Equi-2, Raising-to-DO, and Raising-to-Su is provided in Section 2 of Chapter Five. Ihe focus of the second part of this section is the interaction of Reflexivization with Equi-1 and Raising-to-Su.

2.1

Ihe Victim as Tena. In a simplex sentence, the victim goes into tena if it

is a DO, or into ny tenany if it is not.

2.1.1

Restrictions on the Victim as Tena. In a simplex sentence with the Unmarked VOS word order,

where the trigger and its victim are clausemates, the latter goes into tena if it is a DO:

(32) a.

Namono tena^ i Paoly^. killed self ^ Paul^

b.

/[ Namono an'i Paolyi i pady^/ killed Pauli pauli

(33) a.

Namono an'i Jaona i Paoly. killed John Paul

"Paul killed John."

251 b. No-vono-in' passive-kill-by i Paoly i Jaona. Paul John

t "John was being killed by Paul.i

(32)a. whose underlying representation is provided in (32)b. has both the trigger and its victim within the sane clause. Evidence for this is provided by (33)b., where the DO an'i Jaona of (33)a. has been promoted to Su through Passivization. Furthermore, the presence of the preposition an in an'i Jaona is a clear indication that this NP occupies a DO position.

2.1.2

Basic Word Order. Indeed, the Unmarked word order is VOS, as in (32) and

(33), as opposed to the SV(O) of the following set of sentences:

(34)

*I

Paolyi namono tenai.

deic Paul^ killed selfi (contrast with the word order in (32)a.) "Paul^ killed himself

(35)a.

*I Paoly namono an'i Jaona. Paul killed John

(contrast with the order in (33)a.) t "Paul killed John. i

b.

*I

Jaona no-vono-in'

i Paoly.

deic John passive-kill-by deic Paul (contrast with the order in (33)b.) n "Jbhn was killed by Paul."

252 If there is no strong pause between the Su, i.e. i Paoly or i Jaona, and the constituents of each sentence, and if all three sequences are not part of an exhaustive list in the sense of

S.Kuno (1972) where what happened to Paul is contrasted with what happened to John, etc, in an enumeration, (34) and (35) are ungrammatical and unacceptable. Hiere are only three cases where the SVO order is possible:

(36)

I

Paoly ^ no naraono tena^.

deic Paul^ part killed self^ "It is Paul^ who killed himself^"

(37)

Nalahelo

i

J tamin'

i

P^ naircno tena^

was-afflicted deic J causal-Obi deic P^ killed self^ "J was afflicted because of P^'s killing himself^."

(38)

I Paolyi namono tena^,i Jeanne nandositra ary i Jaona Paul, killed selfl i niatonta. fell "As for Paul^, he^ killed himself^ whereas Jeanne took off and John fell." Jeanne took-off and John

In (36) we have defting on the Su; in (37) the clause embedded under the Causal-Oblique has the SVO order; and in (38), we have

253

an enumeration of different events which took place at the same time. Compare this with the intended reading provided for each of the sentences in (34) and (35).

2.1.3

ie Victim of Reflexivization and Marked Word Order. When the word order is the Marked one, i.e. SVO, it is

possible for the DO to go not only into tena but also into ny tenany. However, in the latter case, there is additional Emphasis or indirect Causation.

(39)

I

Paoly ^ ihany no namono tena^.

deic Pauli only part killed selfi "Pauli is the only one who killed himselfi."

(40)

I Paoly^ Pauli

ihany no only part

namono ny tenany killed selfi

*"It was Pauli himselfi who killed himselfi-" i.e. "It was Paula's own action which killed himi" in the sense of "Paul^ was responsible for hiSi own death."

(41)

*Namono ny tenany^ i paoly killed self. Pauli

"Paul^ killed himselfi."

The ungranmaticality of (41) with a VOS word order contrasts with the grammaticality of (39) and (40), both with the SVO word order and the no particle inserted after the Su. Furthermore, there are two important differences between the meaning of (39) and that of

254 (40): on the one hand, (39) holds true of a situation where Paul takes a knife at time T 1 and uses it to kill himself at a slightly later time T 2; on the other hand, (40) is true ofa

situation where at time T 1 he sets up a deadly mechanism to prevent burglars from entering his hare and then at a later date, T 2, he inadvertently steps into the trap and thus kills himself. In this case, T 1 and T 2 can be very far apart and not oily that but premeditation is absent since presumably Paul did not intend to kill himself. In short, (39) has a Contactive interpretation, whereas (40) has an Indirect Causation interpretation.

2.1.4

The Victim as Ny Tenany. In a simplex sentence where the trigger and its victim

are clausemates, the latter goes into ny tenany if not a DO:

(42) a.

Nanome enta-mavesatra ny tenany ^ i Paoly^ gave luggage-heavy self^ Pauli

"Paul^ was imposing a heavy burden upon himself^."

b.

*Nanome enta-mavesatra gave luggage-heavy

tena^ self^

i Paoly^. Paul^

(43)a.

Nikaroka hevitra ho an'ny tenany^ i Paoly looked-for idea for self^ Pauli

"Paul^ was seeking ideas for himself^."

b.

*Nikaroka hevitra ho (an) tena^ looked-for idea for self, l

i Paoly Paul^

255

in (42) we have an 10, whereas in (43) we have a BeneficiaryOblique. In both instances, the sequences with tena are irretrievably ungrairmatical in the intended reading, while the oneswith

ny tenany are grammatical. However, in the case of (43)b.,

if the preposition an is inserted in front of tena, the sentence becomes grammatical in Colloquial Malagasy, but with a totally different and unrelated interpretation:" Paul was seeking ideas for you-idiot," you referring to the hearer.

2.1.5

Tests for 10. That ny tenany in (42) a. is an 10 is shown by the fol-

lowing tests (For further details see Chapter Six, Section 8):

(44)a.

Nanome enta-mavesatra ny mpianatra i Paoly. gave luggage-heavy the student Paul

(same meaning as b. below)

b.

Nanome enta-mavesatra an'ny mpianatra i Paoly. gave luggage-heavy the student Paul

"Paul imposed a heavy-burden on the student(s)."

(45)

Nanome enta-mavesatra gave luggage-heavy

ho an'ny mpianatra i Paoly. for the student Paul

"Paul gave a heavy burden for the student(s)."

(46)

*Ny irpianatra no nanome enta-mavesatra i Paoly. the student part gave luggage-heavy Paul

"It is on the student(s) that Paul imposed a heavy burden."

256 The grammaticality of (44)b. shows that if we substitute rg mpianatra "the student(s)" for ny tenany of (42)a., as in (44)a., it is possible to have a co-occurrence of an and The well-

formedness of (45) proves that insertion of the particle to is also possible in front of ny mpianatra. But (46), with fronting of ny mpianatra, is irretrievably ungrammatical. Now, this is a pattern characteristic of an 10 (as opposed to that of a DO).

2.1.6

Tests for Beneficiary-Oblique. That ny tenany in (43) a. is a Beneficiary-Oblique is

shown by the following tests (For further details see Chapter Five at the end of Section 1):

(47)a.

Nikaroka hevitra ho an'ny tenany^ i Paoly sought idea for self^ Paul^

"Paul^ sought ideas for himself

b.

Ny tenany^ ihany no n-i-karoh-an' self ^

i Paoly^ hevitra.

only part past-circ-seek-by Paul^ idea

"It was for himself^ Paul^ sought ideas."

c.

TN-i-karoh-an' past-circ-seek-by

i Paolyi hevitra ny tenany^ Paul^ idea selfi

"Paul^ was seeking ideas for himself^."

d.

Ho an'ny tenany^ ihany no n-i-karoh-an'i P^ hevitra. for self ^ only part circ-seek-by P _ idea j

"It was only for himself^ that Pauli sought ideas."

257

First, (47)a. has the ho an' preposition, which is characteristic of the Beneficiary-Oblique. Second, the contrast in grammaticall y between (47)b. with Clefting and (47)c. without Clefting, when the verb is in the circumstantial form of Passive, suggests that Clefting is preferred. Third, (47)d. shows that Clefting with the preposition ho an' is possible although this appears to be optional, judging from the grammaticality of (47)b. Hie above pattern is characteristic of a Beneficiary-Oblique.

2.2

Complex non-Causative Sentences. In a complex non-Causative sentence, since the trigger

and its victim are actually clausemates underlyingly, the victim also goes into tena if it is a DO, or into ny tenany if it is not, i.e. if it occupies the 10 slot on the Keenan-Comrie Hierarchy or anyone of the ten types of Oblique dealt with in Passivization, Subsection 1.3.2.

2.2.1

Reflexivization in Equi-2 Constructions. In 1.1.2.1 of Section 1, one illustrative example of an

Equi-2 structure was presented, where a non-Su trigger in the matrix clause triggers the deletion of the underlying Su of the embedded clause after Reflexivization to tena applies on the lower cycle. In that instance, the victim occupies a DO position. In the following examples, the matrix clause verbs are predicates that trigger Equi-2, mibaiko "to order (someone to do something)" and maioela "to allow (someone to do something)" and the victims of Reflexivization are an 10 and an Oblique respectively in the embedded clause.

258

(48)a.

Nibaiko an'i P^ hanome ordered

valin-kasasarana ny tenanyi self^

P^ will-give reward

i J(aona). J(ohn)

b.

*Nibaiko an'i P. hanome ordered

valin-kasasarana tena^ i J. self^ J

P^ will-give reward

(intended reading for both a. and b.) "J ordered P^ to grant himself^/herself^ a reward."

(49)a.

Namela an'i P i hitady let

trano ho an'ny tenany^ i J. selfi J

P i will-seek house for

b.

*Namela an'i P. hitady let

trano ho an-tenai

i J.J

Pj will-seek house for selfi

(intended reading for both a. and b.) "J let P^ look for a house for himselfi/herselfi."

Assume that Bgui-2 deleting the Su of the embedded clause applies only after Reflexivization has taken place in the subordinate structure. The contrast in graxmaticality between the a. and the b. sequences in (48) and (49) shows that when the victim is an 10 or an Oblique it can only surface as ny tenany, even in the case of a oonplex structure involving Equi-2. As was pointed out in connection with the sentence (43)b., the sequences (48)b. and (49)b. can only be granmatical in Colloquial Malagasy in a totally different sense, i.e. "John ordered Paul to give you-idiot a reward" and "John let Paul look for a house for you-idiot."

259

2.2.2

Reflexivization in Raising-to-DO Constructions. In 1.1.2.4, one illustrative example of a Raising-to-DO

structure was presented where the Su of the embedded clause was raised to DO of the matrix clause. In that instance, the victim occupies the DO position in the lower clause and therefore ends up as tena. In the following exanples, the victims are an 10 and an Oblique respectively:

(50)a.

Niandry an'i J. hanme expected

enta-mavesatra ny tenany^ i P. selfi P

0\ will-give luggage-heavy

b.

*Niandry an'i X hanome expected

enta-mavesatra tenai i P. P

will-give luggage-heavy selfi

(intended reading for both a. and b.) "Paul expected to impose a burden upon herselfi."

(51)a.

Niandry an'i J\ hitady expected

trano ho an'ny tenanyi i P. selfi P

J^ will-seek house for

b.

*Niandry an'i J^ hitady expected

trano an-tenai i P.p

J i will-seek house selfi

(intended reading for both a. and b.) "P expected of ^ that shei would look for a house for herselfi>"

The b. sequences, where the victim shows up as tena, are irretrievably ungrammatical. This contrasts with the grammaticality of the a. sequences with ny tenany.

260 2.2.3 Reflexivization and Bqui-1 Constructions. The following structures show the interaction between Reflexivization and Bqui-1, where the higher Su deletes the embedded Su of the underlying sequence, thus removing the actual trigger for Reflexivization on the lower cycle (See Chapter Five, 2.1.1.0.3, for further details):

(52)a.

Hamono

tena^

i Paolyi. Paul^

will-kill himself^

b.

*Hamono

ny tenany ^ i Paoly^. Paul^

will-kill self ^

(intended reading for both a. and b.) "Paul^ will kill himselfi."

(53)a.

Nitetika ny

hamono

tena^

i paoly Paul^

planned comp will-kill self ^

b.

*Nitetika ny hamono

ny tenany^ i PaolyiPaul^

planned comp will-kill self^ (intendedreading for

both a. and b.)

"Pauli planned to kill himself

(52) a. is a simplex sentence. Hie ungrairmaticality of (52)b., contrasted with the grammaticality of (52)a., indicates that the victim must be tena in such a case, and this correlates with the fact that the victim is in the same clause as its trigger. The contrast in grammaticality between (53)a. and (53)b. suggests that initially tena had its trigger within the same clause, i.e.

261

the one embedded under nitetika. Notice that in both (52) a. and (53)a. the victim tena occupies the DO position. The following sequences show cases where the victim is an xo and an Oblique respectively:

(54)a.

Nitetika ny hanome

valin-kasasarana ny tenany^ i j^. self^

planned coup will-give reward

b.

*Nitetika ny hanome

valin-kasasarana (an-)tena^ i j^. self^

planned conp will-give reward (intended reading for both a. and b.)

"John^ planned to grant himself^ a reward."

(55)a.

Nitetika ny hitady

trano ho an'ny tenany^ i p^. himself^ p^

planned conp will-seek house for

b.

*Nitetika ny hitady

trano ho (an-)tena^ self^

i p^, p^

planned conp will-seek house for (intended reading for both a. and b.)

"Paul^ planned to look for a house for himself^."

Again, as in the case of Equi-2 in 2.2.1, Raising-to-DO in 2.2.2, Equi-1 structures conform to the generalization made under 2.2 above.

2.2.4.1

Reflexivization and Raising-to-Su Constructions. The following structures show the interaction between

Beflexivization and Raising-to-Su (See Chapter Five, 2.1.4.6, for further details):

262

(56)a.

Fantatra fa namono tena^ i Paoly known oomp killed self^ Paul^

b.

Fantatra i Paoly^ fa namono tena^. knownPaul

i coup killed selfi

(interpretation for both a. and b.) "It is a known fact that Paul^ killed himself

(57)a.

Fantatra fa

ny tenany^ ihany no voa-vno-n'i p^. only part pass-hit-by p^

be-known conp self^

b.

*Fantatra i P^ fa ny tenany^ ihany no known P^ coirp self^ only part

voa-vonony^.

c.

*Fantatra ny tenany^ fa voa-vono-n'i P^. known self ^ conp pass-hit-by P^

(intended reading for a., b., and c.) *"It is a known fact that it was himself^ that was hit by Paul/', i.e. "It is a known fact that it was Paul^ who got himself^ hit."

In (56)a. fantatra "be known" is a Raising-to-Su predicate with a sentential Su which conprises i Paoly. Hie grammaticality of (57)a. indeed argues that i Paoly, in the genitive case here, since the lower clause is in the passive voice with the perfective aspect-marker voa-, belongs in the lower predicate. Hie contrast in grammaticality between (56)a. and (57)b. shows that in

263

the first sequence i Paoly is still a Su at the time Raising-togu applies, whereas this is not the case in the second sequence. Furthermore, the ungranmaticality of (57)c. shows that Raisingto-Su is restricted to an environment where the word order is Unmarked, i.e. VOS, as that found in the lower clause of (56)a., which contrasts with the Marked order SVX (X being the Agent) found in the lower clause of (57) a. Thus, the domain of application of Raising-to-Su is the complement of that of Raising-toDO since in the latter case, the order in the embedded clause is SVO, as in:

(58) a.

?I X hikarakara

tena^ no

andrasa-n'

i P.

J^ will-take-care-of self part pass-expect-by P "It is for Jeanne^ to take care of herself that is expected by Paul", i.e. "Paul is expecting Jeanne^^ to take care of herself."

b.

?Izy^ hikarakara

tena^ no

andrasa-n'i

i P.

she^ will-take-care-of self part pass-expect-by P "Paul is waiting for Jeanne^ to take care of herself."

Although (58)a. and (58) b. are of dubious graiimaticality, their grammaticality is enhanced by the use of a special international pattern, with a strong pause just before the particle no. The matrix verb is andrasana "be-expected ," passive form of miandry "to expect". The NP i Jeanne in (58)a. is indeed a Su since it can be replaced with the Su form of the independent pronoun izy "he/she."

264

2.2.4.2

Hie Victim of Reflexivization and Case-Marking. Fran (56) through (58) above, the victim was a do. i Paul^

"Paul^ expected himself^ to be served", i.e. "Paul^ expects other people to be subservient to him^ and to satisfy every one of his caprices."

b.

/[Niandry ["ny tenakoi ho hotonpoina"] expected

i P^]/. P^

self ^