1 Applicatives and prepositions in Bantu Hannah Gibson, Lutz Marten, Maarten Mous, Kristina Riedel (University of Essex, SOAS University of London, University of Leiden, University of the Free State) Roadmap 1. Introduction 2. Prepositions in Bantu: an overview 3. Prepositions: a comparative overview 4. The Interaction of prepositions and applicatives: Cycles of grammaticalization 5. Broader context: insights from Cushitic 6. Discussion, summary and further questions 1. Introduction Applicatives in Bantu languages are often described as typical examples of the construction. They can introduce an applied phrase into the clause which would otherwise be more peripheral or not be licensed (e.g. Katamba 2003). Applied phrases can fulfil a wide range of argument-structure related functions: benefactive, location, instrument, substitutive and reason (see e.g. Ngonyani 1996, 1998; Marten 2011; Marten and Kula 2014). However, in many cases the picture is more complex. Applicative verbs do not always alternate systematically with non-applicative verbs and do not always affect valency (e.g. Marten 2003, Creissels 2004, Voisin 2006, Cann and Mabugu 2007, Marten and Mous 2014, Jerro 2016, Sibanda 2016, Marten and Mous 2017, Pacchiarotti 2017). Aim here is to explore the: i) Different functions and properties of Bantu applicatives ii) Interaction of applicatives and prepositions iii) Processes of change which may have given rise to the variation found in Bantu applicative constructions 2. Prepositions in Bantu: an overview Bantu languages typically have comparatively small preposition inventory. These are often poorly described preposition inventories. However, their origins include: i) Morphologically simple (typically old) ii) Transparently grammaticalized form iii) Borrowed forms 2.1 Morphologically simple, historically old prepositions Herero employs the morphologically simple preposition na ‘with’ (1) (na + o- = no-) (1) Mbì-ryá òn-yámà n-òrútúwò SM1SG-eat 9-meat CONJ-11-spoon ‘I usually eat meat with a spoon’ (Marten field notes, 03-08-2005, 18, 6) A form similar to na ‘and, with’ is widespread across Bantu.
Transcript
1
Applicatives and prepositions in Bantu Hannah Gibson, Lutz Marten, Maarten Mous, Kristina Riedel
(University of Essex, SOAS University of London, University of Leiden, University of the Free State) Roadmap
1. Introduction 2. Prepositions in Bantu: an overview 3. Prepositions: a comparative overview 4. The Interaction of prepositions and applicatives: Cycles of grammaticalization 5. Broader context: insights from Cushitic 6. Discussion, summary and further questions
1. Introduction Applicatives in Bantu languages are often described as typical examples of the construction. They can introduce an applied phrase into the clause which would otherwise be more peripheral or not be licensed (e.g. Katamba 2003). Applied phrases can fulfil a wide range of argument-structure related functions: benefactive, location, instrument, substitutive and reason (see e.g. Ngonyani 1996, 1998; Marten 2011; Marten and Kula 2014). However, in many cases the picture is more complex. Applicative verbs do not always alternate systematically with non-applicative verbs and do not always affect valency (e.g. Marten 2003, Creissels 2004, Voisin 2006, Cann and Mabugu 2007, Marten and Mous 2014, Jerro 2016, Sibanda 2016, Marten and Mous 2017, Pacchiarotti 2017). Aim here is to explore the:
i) Different functions and properties of Bantu applicatives ii) Interaction of applicatives and prepositions iii) Processes of change which may have given rise to the variation found in Bantu
applicative constructions 2. Prepositions in Bantu: an overview Bantu languages typically have comparatively small preposition inventory. These are often poorly described preposition inventories. However, their origins include:
i) Morphologically simple (typically old) ii) Transparently grammaticalized form iii) Borrowed forms
2.1 Morphologically simple, historically old prepositions Herero employs the morphologically simple preposition na ‘with’ (1) (na + o- = no-) (1) Mbì-ryá òn-yámà n-òrútúwò
SM1SG-eat 9-meat CONJ-11-spoon ‘I usually eat meat with a spoon’ (Marten field notes, 03-08-2005, 18, 6)
A form similar to na ‘and, with’ is widespread across Bantu.
2
Meeussen (1967: 115) reconstructs two non-predicative ‘index forms’ – non-concordial elements which can precede a nominal or prenominal: associative na(-) ‘with, also, and’ and comparative nga(-) ‘like’. 2.2. Transparently grammaticalized Herero í ‘by’ (e.g. of passive agents) (<? í-rí ‘it is’ 9-be) Herero k-ón-gòtwè ya- ‘at the back of, behind’ (2) Òvà-nátjè má-vè-tàrá k-ón-gòtwè y-òmù-tì
2-child PRES-SM2-hide-FV 17-9-back CONN9-3-tree ‘The children are hiding behind the tree’ (Marten fieldnotes 7-8-2005, 48, 7)
Mbuun ɔ́ŋgírá which is derived from a prepositional phrase meaning ‘on the body of’ (LOM 9-body CONN) (Bostoen and Mundeke 2011: 187). (3) ó-á-mó-dzwíllé ɔ́ŋgírá n-dzim
SM1-PRS-PROG-OM1-kill.APPL for 9-money ‘He kills her for the money.’ (Mbuun, Bostoen and Mundeke 2011: 192)
Swahili katika ‘in, at’ (< kati, katikati ‘middle, centre’) Swahili kwa ‘at’ (< locative class 17 ku- and connective -a) Swahili mpaka ‘until’ (< mpaka ‘boundary’), a preposition with noun phrase and clause complements. As a preposition, it has spread to numerous languages in East Africa (Mous in print). However, in Swahili (where prepositions do not combinate with applicatives, as we argue later) it is hardly ever used together with a productive applicative derivation. This is also true of other Bantu languages. The few examples that we found of mpaka in combination with an applicative contain lexicalised applicatives. 2.3 Borrowed prepositions In some languages, prepositions borrowed from contact languages are also found. Speakers of varieties of Sesotho (as spoken in the Mangaung area of the Free State) use two types of applicative construction.1
i) The applicative verbal extension found across the Bantu languages and which can be traced back to Proto-Bantu *ɪd (4a)
ii) And a construction using the borrowed English preposition ‘for’ before the ‘applied’ noun (4b).
(4) a. Ke-rek-etse se-lamba sa-ka di-konopo SM1S-buy-APPL.PERF 7-jacket 7-POSS.1S 10-button ‘I bought buttons for my jacket’
1 Sesotho data not from cited published sources were collected in Botshabelo and Bloemfontein by Riedel and Gibson between July and November 2019.
3
b. Ke-rek-ile di-konopo for se-lamba sa-ka. SM1S-buy-PERF 10-button for 7-jacket 7-POSS.1S ‘I bought buttons for my jacket’(Sesotho, Gibson and Riedel 2019) 3. Prepositions and applicatives in Bantu: A comparative overview 3.1 Morphologically simple prepositions Morphologically simple prepositions can often co-occur with applicative marking in instrumental applicatives, such as in Bemba (5) Mutálé a-léé-!ípík(-íl)-a na supuni
Mutale SM1-PROG-cook(-APPL)-FV with 9.spoon ‘Mutale is cooking with a spoon’ (Bemba, Marten and Kula 2014: 21)
3.2 Borrowed prepositions Borrowed prepositions with applicative-like functions have been noted for a number of Bantu languages spoken in South Africa (from English) and Mozambique (from Portuguese). The Sesotho construction with a borrowed preposition can be used as an applicative-like construction with a wide range of verbs and different types of objects, including animate and inanimate noun phrases, pronouns or abstract objects. (6) a. Ba-re-shweletse SM2-OM1P-die.APPL.PERF ‘They died for us’ b. Ba-shwele for rona SM2-die.PERF for PRON.1P ‘They died for us’ c. Ba-shwele for tokoloho SM2-die.PERF for 9.freedom ‘They died for freedom’ (Sesotho, Gibson and Riedel 2019) Simango (2019) notes the use of the English pronoun for in examples of isiXhosa-English code-switching. These examples phrases typically contain several English words or phrases. However, ‘for’ is the most prevalent in his data (Simango 2019:320) suggesting a stabilization or grammaticalization of the form. (7) There are ii-places apho ku-phek-w-a khona iisuphu for
there are 10-places 16DEM SM17-cook-PASS.FV 17DEM 9soup for a-ba-ntu a-ba-homeless. AUG-2-person AUG-2-homeless ‘There are places where soup is cooked for homeless people.’ (isiXhosa, Simango 2019:322, gloss added)
(8) a. Ndi-zo-phek-a u-ku-tya for a-ba-ntwana SM1S-FUT-cook-FV AUG-15-food for AUG-2-child
‘I will cook food for the children’
4
b. Ndi-zo-phek-el-a a-ba-ntwana u-ku-tya
SM1S-FUT-cook-appl-FV AUG-2-child AUG-15-food ‘I will cook food for the children’ (isiXhosa, Simango 2019:324, glossing added)
Borrowing a preposition meaning ‘for’ has also been reported for some Bantu languages of Mozambique. (9) Cuwabo (Guérois 2015: 107)
órómá=ná labó=néne ńttíle para osongólro 15.start=COM 5.day.PL=5INT I5.DEM.III to 17.future.PL ‘From that day on’
(10) Cuwabo (Guérois 2015: 223)
o-ní-já weeká pára=ni sm2SG-PRS.CJ-eat 2SG.alone for=what ‘Why do you eat on your own’
(11) Makhuwa (van der Wal, p.c.)
Saárá onthumenlé ekolár' íile *(para) páni? Sara o-n-thum-el-ale ekolari ile para pani 1.Sara SM1-OM1-buy-APPL-PFV.CJ 9.necklace 9.DEM.DIST for 1.who ‘Who did Sara buy the necklace for?’
• the preposition ɔ́ŋgírá ‘for’ is historically derived from a prepositional phrase literally meaning ‘on the body of’ (ɔ́ ŋ-gir á LOC 9-body CONN) (Bostoen and Mundeke 2011:187)
• ɔ́ŋgírá ‘for’ and the morphological applicative are two possible ways of forming an applicative
• the ɔ́ŋgírá-applicative can be used where the morphological applicative is not grammatical (example 29b in Bostoen and Mundeke 2011:192)
• both strategies can be combined which “has the discursive function of putting focus on the oblique (beneficiary/reason) argument.” (Bostoen and Mundeke 2011:192)
(12) a. mo-íb ó-á-dzúú máám ɔ́ŋgírá nke? (preposition only) NP1-thief SM1-PRS.PROG-kill mother for what ‘Why does the thief kill mother?’ b. ó-á-mó-dzwíllé ɔ́ŋgírá n-dzim? (both) SM1-PRS.PROG-OM1-kill.APPL for NP9-money ‘He kills her for the money’ c. mo-íb ó-á-dzwíllé máám ɔ́ŋgírá nke? (both) NP1-thief SM1-PRS.PROG-kill.APPL mother for what ‘Why does the thief kill mother?’ Cf. also the use of kwa in Swahili applicatives alternations in (28)
5
3.4 Locative marking between locative prepositions and locative markers In many Bantu languages, the applicative can co-occur with locative marking (Sesotho in (13), Bemba in (14)) and/or prepositions (Setswana in (15)): (13) a. Ngwana o-tla-khutla motseng 1child SM1-FUT-return 3.village.LOC ‘The child will come back from the village.’ b. O-tla-khutl-el-a motseng SM1-FUT-return-APPL-FV 3.village.LOC ‘S/he will go back to the village.’ (Sesotho, Doke and Mofokeng 1957:323) (14) a. N-de-ly-a mu-mu-putule SM1SG-PRES-eat-FV 18-3-room ‘I am eating in the room’ (neutral; as answer to: What are you doing?)
b. N-de-li-il-a mu-mu-putule SM1SG-PRES-eat-APPL-FV 18-3-room ‘I am eating in the room’ (emphatic; as answer to: Where are you eating?) (Bemba, Marten 2003: 217) (15) a . Ke-tlaa-taboga ko tseleng. SM1S-FUT-run PREP 9.road.LOC ‘I will run on the road.’ b. Ke-tlaa-tabog-el-a ko tseleng. SM1S-FUT-run-APPL-FV PREP 9.road.LOC ‘I will run to the road.’ (Setswana, Creissels 2004:11) Ndendeule also allows applicatives with prepositions/locative prefixes: (16) βana βá-ki-lɔng-ɛl-ɛ́ pa-luβanja.
2.child SM2-PST-converse-APPL-FV 16-11-playing.ground ‘Children conversed on the playground.’ (Ndendeule, Ngonyani 1996:183) Unlike Bemba, Sesotho and Tswana, Swahili does not allow prepositions or locative marking with applicatives: (17) a. Salma a-li-ka-a ki-ti-ni
1Salma SM1-PST-sit-FV 7-chair-LOC ‘Salma was sitting on a chair’
b. Salma a-li-kal-i-a ki-ti 1Salma SM1-PST-sit-APPL-FV 7-chair
‘Salma was sitting on a chair’ (Swahili, Marten and Mous 2017: 6) c. *Salma a-li-kal-i-a ki-ti-ni
1Salma SM1-PST-sit-APPL-FV 7-chair-LOC Int: ‘Salma was sitting on a chair’
d. *Salma a-li-kal-i-a kwa ki-ti 1Salma SM1-PST-sit-APPL-FV PREP 7-chair
Int: ‘Salma was sitting on a chair’ This also applies to directionals:
6
(18) a. Wa-li-po-pand-i-a ile mi-buyu...
SM2-PST-REL16-climb-APPL-FV DEM.4 4-baobab ‘When they climbed up the baobab trees...’ (Swahili, Ashton 1944:219)
b. M-toto a-li-m-kimbi-li-a mama wake. 1-child SM1-PST-OM1-run-APPL-FV 1.mother 1POSS.3S
‘The child ran off to his mother.’ (Swahili, Ashton 1944:219) c. Waziri a-li-anguk-i-a chini
1.minister SM1-PST-fall-APPL-FV down ‘The minister fell down’ (Swahili, Abdulaziz (1996: 32) cited in Marten & Mous 2017: 9)
Nyambo has a more complex interplay between prepositions and applicatives. It requires applicative marking for locative complements with certain verbs. Generally, these are verbs with no inherent locative meaning (‘speak’ in 19a./b. vs ‘store’ in 19c./d.). There are other verbs which do not allow an applicative (‘find’ in 19e./f.): (19) a. gamb-ir-á omu-nju
speak-APPL-FV LOC-house ‘to speak in the house’
b. *gamb-a omu-nju speak-FV LOC-house
c. biik-á omu-nju store-FV LOC-house
‘store (something) in the house’ d. biic-ir-á omu-nju
store-APPL-FV LOC-house ‘store (something) while in the house’
e. a-ka-mu-sang-á omu-nju SM1-PST-OM1-find-FV LOC-house ‘he found her in the house’
f. *a-ka-mu-sanj-ir-á omu-nju SM1-PST-OM1-find-APPL-FV LOC-house (Nyambo, Rugemalira 1993:71-72)
In a final category of verbs the locative and applicative alternate, as in Swahili (17) but unlike Sesotho (13) and Bemba in (14): (20) a. A-ka-sitamá aha-ntébe.
SM1-PST3-sit LOC16-9chair ‘He sat on a chair.’(locative)
b. A-ka-sitam-ir-á e-ntébe. SM1-PST3-sit-APPL-FV AUG-9ch air ‘He sat on a chair.’ (applicative) (Nyambo, Rugemalira 2005:95)
7
4 The interaction of prepositions and applicatives: Cycles of grammaticalisation Bantu prepositions interact with applicatives in different ways. In the Bemba, the preposition is required while the applicative marking is optional. When both are used together, emphasis is placed on the instrument (the spoon, in this case) (21a). In Chichewa, Trithart (1977: 16) comments on the optionality of the applicative in (21b) and notes that the applicative verb form “directs more attention to the fact that an instrumental appears in the sentence but it does not alter the behaviour of the sentence.” (21) a. Mutálé a-léé-!ípík(-íl)-a na supuni [Bemba]
Mutale SM1-PROG-cook(-APPL)-FV with 9.spoon ‘Mutale is cooking with a spoon’ (Marten and Kula 2014: 21)
b. Jóni a-ná-lí-lemb(-er)-a dzí!ná láké ndí péni [Chichewa]
John SM1-PST-OM5-write-APPL-FV name his with pen ‘John wrote his name with a pen.’ (Trithart 1977: 16) In Sesotho either the applicative (22a) or the preposition (22b) can be used, but not both, and (as far as we know), there is no distinct information structure associated with either structure. (but see example 25c). Benefactive applicative constructions in Sesotho allow IO DO and DO IO orders when both objects are of equal animacy status (Morolong and Hyman 1977, Demuth et al. 2005). However, with the for-applicative the word order is fixed (22), irrespective of the animacy status of the objects. (22) a. Ke-rek-etse di-konopo se-lamba sa-ka [Sesotho] SM1S-buy-APPL.PERF 10-button 7-jacket 7-POSS.1S ‘I bought buttons for my jacket’ b. *Ke-rek-ile for se-lamba sa-ka di-konopo SM1S-buy-APPL.PERF for 7-jacket 7-POSS.1S 10-button Int: ‘I bought buttons for my jacket’ Object-marking the for-marked ‘applied object’ not possible (23b) unlike with the regular applicative (6a). (23) a. Ke-mo-reketse di-konopo. SM1S-OM1-buy.APPL.PERF 10-buttons ‘I bought him/her (something)’ b. *Ke-mo-rekile di-konopo (for yena) SM1S-OM1-buy.PERF 10-buttons for PRON.3S Int: ‘I bought him/her buttons’ (Sesotho, Gibson & Riedel 2019) It is also possible for the applicative form and the preposition for to co-occur: (24) a. Re-bin-el-a ba-eti SM1P-sing-APPL.FV 2-visitor ‘We sang for the visitors’
8
b. ?? Re-bin-a for ba-eti SM1P-sing-FV for 2-visitor ‘We sang for the visitors’ c. Re-bin-el-a for ba-eti ba-tlang. SM1P-sing-APPL.FV for 2-visitor 2-come.REL ‘We are singing for the visitors so that they would come’ (Sesotho, Gibson & Riedel 2019) Example (25c) which shows the co-occurrence of -el- and for has a clear intensive meaning. (25) a. ke-bolok-el-a Keresemose [reason morph applicative] SM1S-save-APPL-FV 9.Christmas ‘I am saving for Christmas’ b. ke-bolok-a for Keresemose [reason for-applicative] SM1S-save-FV for 9.Christmas ‘I am saving for Christmas’ c. ke-bolok-el-a for Keresemose [intensive + for applicative] SM1S-save-INT-FV for 9.Christmas ‘I am saving hard for Christmas’ (Sesotho, Gibson & Riedel 2019) According to Machobane (1989) certain intransitives do not allow benefactive applied objects (26a) but only locatives one (26b). The for-applicative can be used in these cases (26c). (26) a. *Baeti ba-fihl-etse mo-rena 2-visitor SM2-arrive-APPL.PERF 1-chief ‘The visitors have arrived for the chief’(Sesotho, Machobane 1989:60) b. Ba-eti ba-fihl-etse mo-reneng 2-visitor SM2-arrive-APPL.PERF 1-chief.LOC ‘The visitors have arrived at the chief's place’ (Sesotho, Machobane 1989:60) c. Mo-eti o-fihl-ile for wena. 1-visitor SM1-arrive-PERF for PRON.2S ‘A visitor has arrived for you.’ (Sesotho, Gibson & Riedel 2019) This looks similar to the restrictions on morphological applicatives in Mbuun. The two constructions can be used interchangeably in most contexts in Sesotho. However, there are clear and consistent syntactic differences between the two s with respect to:
i) word order and availability of object marking, ii) more subtle restrictions on verb types and meanings.
In isiXhosa, the applicative (and some causatives and lexical ditransitives), optionally allows the use of a locative marked phrase, even for a beneficiary: (27) a. Ndi-nik-el-a abantwana iiswiti. (non-locative marked beneficiary)
SM1S-send-APPL-FV 2child 10sweet ‘I hand over sweets to the children.’
9
b. Ndi-nik-el-a iiswiti e-bantwaneni. (locative-marked beneficiary) SM1S-send-APPL-FV 9money LOC-2child.LOC
‘I hand over sweets to the children.’ (Xhosa, Du Plessis and Visser 1992:59, cited in Riedel 2019) Du Plessis and Visser say this has a focus-related meaning. This construction has the same word order and also the same object-marking restrictions2 as the Sesotho for-applicative and the for-applicative in isiXhosa as described in Simango (2019). In Mbuun, applicative marking and the use of the preposition are alternative coding strategies. Like in Bemba, when both are used together, as in (14) above, emphasis is placed on the applied object. Another area of variation is the possibility of replacing applicatives with prepositional or otherwise locative-marked phrase. Swahili, for example, allows this for all but malefactives but other languages, e.g. Ndendeule only allow it for instrumentals, locations and motives (Ngonyani 1996:19-22)
(28) a. Ni-li-andika barua kwa mw-enyekiti. SM1S-PST-write 9.letter 17PREP 1-chairperson ‘I wrote a letter to the chairperson.’ b. Ni-li-andik-(*i)-a barua kwa mw-enyekiti. SM1S-PST-write-APPL-FV 9.letter 17PREP 1-chairperson ‘I wrote a letter to the chairperson.’ c. Ni-li-mw-andik-i-a barua (*kwa) mwenyekiti. SM1S-PST-OM1-write-APPL-FV 9.letter 17PREP 1chairperson ‘I wrote a letter to the chairperson.’ 3 (Swahili, Riedel 2019) 5. Broader context: Insights from Cushitic We make a short excursion to Cushitic Iraqw spoken in Tanzania among Bantu (and other) languages. Iraqw has a number of preverbs that develop applicative functions. Preverbs are elements that form compounds with verbs. One of these preverbs can be linked to a preposition, hara. Here we present the evidence on the applicative functions of hara and its grammaticalisation. In competition with this non-productive applicative pre-verb there is a syntactic (productive) case directional case clitic i that is rendered by an applicative in translations of Iraqw into Swahili. This clitic is in the same preverbal position as the preverb hara and precludes the use hara. The applicative preverb hara changes the meaning of the verb so that the action is (i) nearly completed, or (ii) includes a third party that is expressed while the original object (if there is one) is still present and understood; ‘do VERB while including X’, see example (29).
2 The acceptability or not of object marking with these constructions is not mentioned in Du Plessis and Visser 1992. We thank Hlumela Mkabile for providing additional judgements. 3 This sentence would be grammatical with the reading of ‘I wrote him/heri/*i a letter at the chair personi’s place’.
10
(29) aara ki-na faár tsindoo-wo gurta ku-na
goats IMPS:O.P-PST count evening-PRED he.goat O3:IMPS:O.M-PST hara-faár sleeme COM-count also ‘They counted the goats in the evening and they counted the he-goat too (among them)’. [Swahili: walihesabu mbuzi jioni na walihesabia beberu pia] {note that hara is rendered by an applicative in the Swahili translation}
In (29) the verb with hara has the same complements as the one without in the previous clause but hara indicates that the counting in the second clause is concomitant with the counting in the first clause. The number of syntactic arguments does not change, both faar and harafaar require an object (pro)noun), but what is expressed is that the action is in addition to another. In the next example too, hara indicates that the action is together with the action of the preceding clause (going to the neighbours) (30). Thus, hara helps to stress the connection between clauses in narratives. (30) Garma i-ri qatuú áy iinslaawaay.
boy 3-CSEC1 lying:M:CON go:3M:PAST neighbours Ina maheeri-wós hara tlehhtuú áy 3-PST arrows-3SG.POSS COM making:M:CON go:3m:past ‘The boy went to stay with the neighbours. He went to prepare his arrows there.’
Yet, hara is used sparsely in narratives; only if the concomitant action is focal. The function to stress the connectivity of the two clauses when focussing on the second one containing hara is a particular instance of the function of continuity-driven applicative that is mentioned by Peterson (2009: 142). The preverb hara can co-occur with the directional case clitic i, as in (31) where hara links the pronoun ‘him’ to the inside of the house. (31) u baraá dóií hara-dah-aán
O.M in house:M:CON:DIR COM-enter-1PL ‘We’ll enter together to find him in his house.’ [Swahili: ‘Tutamwingilia ndani ya nyumba.’]
The preverbs har(a) goes back to the same origin and are related to the verbal adverb hara and the instrumental preposition and case clitic ar. Their history is unfolded in Kieẞling (2002: 275). He brings all these forms back to the verb proto West-Rift Southern Cushitic verb *had ‘to pass, to proceed; accompany,’ and its verbal noun *hada (and its 3M inflected form *hadi for the preposition). The instrumental preposition ar, also has concomitant, comitative semantics in (32) and indicating time as limitation of the statement (33). (32) ala i watlká ár sáxmaáreema. but 3 return.home:3:NEG INS peace ‘But they won't return safe and sound.’ [Swahili: Lakini hawarudi kwa salama.]
11
(33) na/i'i har afiqoomár kureraá tsiyáhh ngaa ayé',
children INS period:F:CON years:P:CON four O3:O.F:PRF go:3PL:PRF ‘The children went for a period of four years.’
Other Iraqw preverbs with applicative-like functions (see Mous in prep):
Iraqw shows us how innovation by grammaticalisation from a variety of lexical sources can develop specific applicative functions in the presence of a competing more general syntactic marker. These markers are typically prone to lexicalisations, may already contain pragmatic functions and do not necessarily change syntactic valency, example (29) above. 6. Discussion, summary and further questions 6.1. Summary The interaction between applicative marking and prepositions in Bantu (and beyond) shows that: • Applicatives are often but not always valency-changing (as per talks in this workshop!).
• Complex (and multi-directional?) interaction between applicatives + transitivity/valency
(Mbuun, Sesotho) on the one hand, and saliency/emphasis on the other hand (e.g. Bemba, Mbuun).
• Bantu languages typically have a small inventory of prepositions – where a range of
different sources/origins cab be identified – and often with comparatively little lexical semantic content.
• Borrowed prepositions can co-occur with applicatives – one enabling the addition of arguments (changes in valency) and one performing a more focus/saliency-related function.
• With prepositions borrowed through language contact, in Sotho and Makhuwa, syntactic
coding, rather than information structure plays a more important role.
6.2 Diachronic pathways The most common etymological sources for applicative in general are adpositions (mostly POSTpositions) and verbs (Peterson 2007). Peterson proposes the following schema for the evolution of applicatives.
12
However, while this schema highlights the ‘topic’ dimension of applicative development, there is another trajectory, equally related to discourse and information structure, which highlights the ‘focus’ dimension of applicatives, which we capture here as saliency.
Pathways of applicative grammaticalisation
This is somewhat reminiscent of Pacchiarotti’s (2017) classification of applicatives into those which expand the argument structure of the verb (Type A), those which in addition trigger pragmatic effects (Type B), and those which change the lexical meaning of the verb (Type C). It is worth noting that in the Iraqw examples, both topic (discourse continuity) and focus (saliency) are relevant. As noted above, we would also be reluctant to characterise the applicative as essentially transitivizing. 6.3. Transitivity and saliency: A reanalysis analysis Having said that, a particular aspect of applicative development could be related to reanalysis: Stage 1: Assume that 1) applicatives license verbal complements (are ‘transitivising’), and
2) prepositions (can) license verbal complements Then a (locative) applicative with a prepositional complement is an instance of
double licensing => leading to pragmatic effects akin to reduplication, e.g. intensity, emphasis, saliency (cf. e.g. Kähler-Meyer 1966, Marten and Kula 2014, Pacchiarotti 2017 on the locative origin of applicatives)
highlighting saliency
saliency marker
13
Stage 2: Applicatives are reanalysed as marking pragmatic effects (intensity, emphasis, saliency); the prepositional verbal complement is licensed by the preposition only
Stage 3: Innovative speakers can use applicative markers without change in valency –
purely as a saliency marker. As would be expected, the change would be transmitted through the different speech communities, and possibly through lexical diffusion – thus underlying (some of) the variation observed in Bantu languages. 6.4 Conclusions
• Applicative constructions – including ‘non-canonical’ ones – are widespread in Bantu and there is a wide range of variation – so much so that it questions the notion of canonical!
• There are typically few prepositions in Bantu languages
• The interaction of applicative marking and prepositions provides a different
perspective on this variation
• This perspectives highlights (and reinforces) the importance of two dimensions of applicatives – argument structure/transivity/valency on the one hand and information structure/discourse/focus/saliency on the other.
References Abdulaziz, Mohamed H. 1996. Transitivity in Swahili. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe Verlag. Bostoen, Koen and Léon Mundeke. 2011. The causative/applicative syncretism in Mbuun
(Bantu B87, DRC): Semantic split or phonemic merger? Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 32: 179-218.
Cann, Ronnie and Patricia Mabugu. 2007. Constructional polysemy: The applicative construction in chiShona. Metalinguistica 19: 221-245.
Creissels, Denis. 2004. Non-canonical applicatives and focalisation in Tswana. Paper presented at SWL1, Leipzig.
Creissels, Denis. 2006. Encoding the distinction between location, source and direction: a typological study. In Maya Hickmann and Stephane Robert (eds.) Space in Languages. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 19-28.
Dammann, Ernst. 1961. Das Applikativum in den Bantusprachen. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 36: 160-169.
De Kind, Jasper and Koen Bostoen. 2012. The applicative in ciLubà grammar and discourse: A semantic goal analysis. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 30(1): 101-124.
Downing, Laura J. 2012. On the (Non-)congruence of focus and prominence in Tumbuka. In Michael R. Marlo et al. (eds.) Selected Proceedings of the 42nd Annual Conference on African Linguistics, Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, 122-133. Available on-line at www.lingref.com, document #2764.
Gibson, Hannah and Kristina Riedel. 2019. For-applicative constructions in Sotho. Ms University of Essex and University of the Free State.
Guthrie, Malcolm. 1962. The status of radical extensions in Bantu languages. Journal of African Languages 1: 202-220.
14
Jerro, Kyle. 2016. The syntax and semantics of applicative morphology in Bantu. PhD dissertation, University of Texas, Austin.
Kähler-Meyer Emmi. 1966. Die örtliche Funktion der Applikativendung in Bantusprachen. In Johannes Lukas (ed.) Neue afrikanistische Studien: Festschrift für A. Klingenheben. Hamburg: Deutsches Institut für Afrika-Forschung, 126-136.
Katamba, Francis, 2003. Bantu nominal morphology. In Derek Nurse and Gérard Philippson, eds., The Bantu Languages. London: Routledge, 103-120.
Kawasha, Boniface Kaumba. 2003. Lunda grammar: A morphosyntactic and semantic analysis. PhD dissertation, University of Oregon.
Kimenyi, Alexandre. 1995. Kinyarwanda applicatives revisited. Keynote address presented at the 8th Niger-Congo Syntax-Semantics Workshop, Boston University. Available at http://www.kimenyi.com/kinyarwanda-applicatives-revisited.php
Marten, Lutz. 2003. The dynamics of Bantu applied verbs: an analysis at the syntax-pragmatics interface. In Kézié K. Lébikaza (ed.) Actes du 3e Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Africaine Lomé 2000. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe Verlag, 207-221.
Marten, Lutz and Nancy C. Kula. 2014. Benefactive and substitutive applicatives in Bemba. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 35(1): 1-44.
Marten, Lutz and Maarten Mous. 2014. Non-valency-changing valency-changing derivations. In Rose-Juliet Anyanwu (ed.) Transitivity in African languages. Frankfurter Afrikanistische Blätter 26: 89-105.
Marten, Lutz and Maarten Mous. 2017. Valency and expectation in Bantu applicatives. Linguistics Vanguard 3(1). https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2016-0078
Ngonyani, Deogratias S. 1996. The Morphosyntax of Applicatives. Ph.D. dissertation, UCLA.
Ngonyani, Deo. 1998. Properties of applied objects in Kiswahili and Kidendeule. Studies in African Linguistics 27(1): 67-93.
Pacchiarotti, Sara. 2017. Bantu applicative construction types involving *-id: Form, functions and diachrony. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Oregon.
Peterson, David A. 2007. Applicative constructions. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Riedel, Kristina. 2019. Locative alternations in isiXhosa and the argument structure of
applied objects. Ms University of the Free State. Riedel, Kristina and Lutz Marten. 2012. Locative object marking and the argument-adjunct
distinction. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 30(2): 277-292.
Rugemalira, Josephat M. 1993. Runyambo Verb Extension and Constraints on Predicate Structure. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.
Rugemalira, Josephat M. 2005. A Grammar of Runyambo. LOT Publications. Sibanda, Galen. 2016. The Ndebele applicative construction. In Doris Payne, Sara
Pacchiarotti & Mokaya Bosire (eds.), The selected proceedings of the 46th Annual Conference on African Linguistics, 309-333. Language Science Press.
Simango, Silvester Ron. 2019. English Prepositions in IsiXhosa Spaces: Evidence from Code-Switching. In Raymond Hickey (ed.) English in Multilingual South Africa, Cambridge University Press, 310–328. doi:10.1017/9781108340892.015.
Trithart, Mary Lee. 1977. Relational grammar and Chichewa subjectivization. Los Angeles, CA: UCLA MA thesis.
Voisin, Sylvie. 2006. Applicatif et emphase. In Daniel Lebaud, Catherine Paulin and Katja Ploog (eds.) Constructions verbales et production de sens. Besançon: Presses Universitaires de Franche-Comté, 155-170.
