Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T15:20:50.582Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The causative–instrumental syncretism1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 May 2017

KYLE JERRO
KYLE JERRO*
Affiliation:
The University of Texas at Austin
*
Author’s address: Department of Linguistics, The University of Texas at Austin, College of Liberal Arts Building, Austin, TX 78712-1048, USA[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Causative and applicative morphemes have been central in work on the morphosyntax of argument structure. However, several genetically unrelated languages use a single, syncretic form for both functions, which complicates the traditional view that a causative adds a new subject and an applicative adds a new object. In this paper, I propose an analysis of a morphological syncretism found in the Bantu language Kinyarwanda where the morphological causative and instrumental applicative are both realized by the morpheme –ish. I argue for Kinyarwanda that both causation and the introduction of an instrument are analyzable as two outgrowths of the same semantic notion of introducing a new link into the causal chain described by the verb. The different causative and instrumental readings derive from underspecification of the position of the new link in the causal chain, although its placement is restricted via general constraints on possible event types as well as constraints on verb meaning and argument realization. This analysis provides an explanation for the presence of the causative–instrumental syncretism as well as provides insight into the interface between verb meaning and valency-changing morphology.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 53 , Issue 4 , 10 November 2017 , pp. 751 - 788
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

[1]

I am grateful to John Beavers, Michael Diercks, Pattie Epps, Scott Myers, and Stephen Wechsler for helpful comments on various stages of the present paper. I am also indebted to the editors and three anonymous reviewers for their invaluable comments. Thanks are due to several people whom I have consulted on the data presented here – especially Gilbert Habarurema and Félicité Ingabire. All errors remain the fault of the author. This research was funded in part by NSF Grant #1451566. I dedicate this work to the children at the Urukundo Children’s Home in Muhanga, Rwanda.

References

Ackerman, F., Malouf, R. & Moore, J.. 2017. Symmetrical objects in Moro: Theoretical challenges. Journal of Linguistics 53, 3–50.Google Scholar
Alsina, A. 1992. On the argument structure of causatives. Linguistic Inquiry 23, 517–555.Google Scholar
Alsina, A. & Mchombo, S.. 1993. Object asymmetries and the Chicheŵa applicative construction. In Mchombo, S. (ed.), Theoretical aspects of Bantu grammar, 17–45. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Aranovich, R. 2009. Animacy effects and locative marking in Shona applicatives. In Butt, M. & King, T. (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG09 Conference, 65–84. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Baker, M. 1988. Theta theory and the syntax of applicatives in Chicheŵa. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6, 353–389.Google Scholar
Bastin, Y. 1983. La finale verbale -ide et l’imbrication en Bantou (Sciences Humaines 114), Tervuren: Annales du Musée Royal de l’Afrique Central.Google Scholar
Bastin, Y. 1986. Les suffixes causatifs dans les langue Bantoues. Africana Linguistica 10, 61–145.Google Scholar
Bax, A. & Diercks, M.. 2012. Information structure constraints on object marking in Manyika. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 30, 185–202.Google Scholar
Beavers, J. & Koontz-Garboden, A.. 2013. Manner and result in verbal meaning. Linguistic Inquiry 43, 331–369.Google Scholar
Bostoen, K. & Mundeke, L.. 2011. The causative/applicative syncretism in Mbuun (Bantu B87, DRC): Semantic split or phonemic merger? Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 32, 179–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, J., Asudeh, A., Toivonen, I. & Wechsler, S.. 2016. Lexical functional syntax, 2nd edn. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Bresnan, J. & Mchombo, S.. 1987. Topic, pronoun, and agreement in Chichewa. Language 63, 741–752.Google Scholar
Bresnan, J. & Moshi, L.. 1990. Object asymmetries in comparative Bantu syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 21, 147–185.Google Scholar
Byarushengo, E., Duranti, A. & Hyman, L.. 1977. Haya grammatical structure. Los Angeles: University of Southern California Press.Google Scholar
de Bois, K. 1975. Bukusu generative phonology and aspects of Bantu structure. Tervuren: Musée Royal de l’Afrique Central.Google Scholar
Comrie, B. 1985. Causative verb formation and other verb-deriving morphology. In Shopen, T. (ed.), Language typology and linguistic description III, 309–348. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Comrie, B. 1989. Language universals and linguistic typology. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Creissels, D. 2006. Encoding the distinction between location and destination: A typological study. In Hickmann, M. & Robert, S. (eds.), Space in languages: Linguistic systems and cognitive categories, 19–28. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Croft, W. 1991. Syntactic categories and grammatical relations: The cognitive organization of information. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Diercks, M.2010. Agreement with subjects in Lubukusu. Ph.D. dissertation, Georgetown University.Google Scholar
Diercks, M. 2012. Parameterizing case: Evidence from Bantu. Syntax 15, 253–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diercks, M. & Sikuku, J.. 2013. Object clitics in a Bantu langauge: Deriving pronominal incorporation in Lubukusu. Ms, Pomona College and Moi University.Google Scholar
Dixon, R. & Aikhenvald, A.. 1997. A typology of argument-determined constructions. In Bybee, J., Haiman, J. & Thompson, S. (eds.), Essays on language function and language type: Dedicated to T. Givón, 71–113. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. 1977. A grammar of Yidiɲ. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dowty, D. 1979. Word meaning and Montague grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Dowty, D. 1991a. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67, 547–619.Google Scholar
Dowty, D. 1991b. Towards a minimalist theory of syntactic structure. In Sijtsma, W. & van Horck, A. (eds.), Discontinuous constituency. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Dryer, M. 1983. Indirect objects in Kinyarwanda revisited. In Perlmutter, D. (ed.), Studies in relational grammar, vol. 1, 129–140. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Engel, R. & Allhiser de Engel, M.. 1987. Diccionario Zoque de Francisco Leon. Mexico: Instituto Lingüístico de Verano.Google Scholar
Gary, J. & Keenan, E.. 1977. On collapsing grammatical relations in universal grammar. In Cole, P. & Sadock, J. (eds.), Syntax and semantics: Grammatical relations, 83–120. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Gazdar, G., Klein, E., Pullum, G. & Sag, I.. 1985. Generalized phrase structure grammar. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Gerdts, D. B. & Whaley, L.. 1993. Kinyarwanda multiple applicatives and the 2-AEX. Chicago Linguistic Society (CLS) 28, 186–205.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. 1995. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. 2002. Surface generalizations: an alternative to alternations. Cognitive Linguistics 13, 327–356.Google Scholar
Hale, K. & Keyser, S.. 1993. On argument structure and the lexical expression of syntactic relations. In Hale, K. & Keyser, S. (eds.), The view from building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, 53–109. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Harley, H. 2003. Possession in the double object construction. In Pica, P. & Rooryck, J. (eds.), Linguistic variation yearbook 2, 31–70. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hemmings, C. 2013. Causatives and applicatives: the case for polysemy in Javanese. SOAS Working Papers in Linguistics 16, 167–194.Google Scholar
Hyman, L. 1995. Minimality and prosodic morphology of CiBemba imbrication. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 16, 3–39.Google Scholar
Hyman, L. & Duranti, A.. 1982. The object relation in Bantu. In Hopper, P. & Thompson, S. (eds.), Syntax and semantics 15: Studies in transitivity, 217–239. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Ichihashi-Nakayama, K. 1996. The “applicative” in Hualapai: its functions and meanings. Cognitive Linguistics 7, 227–239.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. 1990. Semantic structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jerro, K.2013. Argument structure and the typology of causatives in Kinyarwanda: Explaining the causative–instrumental syncretism. MA Report: University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar
Jerro, K. 2015. Revisiting object symmetry in Bantu. In Kramer, Ruth, Zsiga, Elizabeth & Boyer, One Tlale (eds.), The Selected Proceedings of the 44th Annual Conference on African Linguistics, 130–145. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Jerro, K.2016a. The syntax and semantics of applicative morphology in Bantu. Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX.Google Scholar
Jerro, K. 2016b. Locative applicatives and the semantics of verb class. In Payne, D., Pachiarotti, S. & Bosire, M. (eds.), Diversity in African languages: Selected papers from the 46th Annual Conference on African Linguistics (Contemporary African Linguistics 2), 289–309. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Jerro, K. & Wechsler, S.. 2015. Person-marked quantifiers in Bantu. In Fleischer, J., Rieken, E. & Widmer, P. (eds.), Agreement from a diachronic perspective, 147–164. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kay, P. 2005. Argument structure constructions and the argument–adjunct distinction. In Fried, M. & Boas, H. C. (eds.), Grammatical constructions: Back to the roots, 71–98. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kimenyi, A. 1979. Studies in Kinyarwanda and Bantu phonology. Carbondale: Linguistic Research Inc.Google Scholar
Kimenyi, A. 1980. A relational grammar of Kinyarwanda. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Kimenyi, A. 2006. Kinyarwanda. In Encyclopedia of language and linguistics, 2nd edn. 217–223. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Kittilä, S. 2005. Recipient-prominence vs. beneficiary-prominence. Linguistic Typology 9, 269–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kittilä, S. & Zúñiga, F.. 2010. Benefactives and malefactives: Typological perspectives and case studies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Koenig, J.-P., Mauner, G., Bienvenue, G. & Conklin, K.. 2008. What with? the anatomy of a (proto)-role. Journal of Semantics 25, 175–220.Google Scholar
Kratzer, A. 2005. Building resultatives. In Maienborn, C. & Wöllstein-Leisten, A. (eds.), Event arguments: Foundations and applications, 177–212. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kula, N. 2001. Imbrication in Bemba. In Hume, E., Smith, N. & van de Weijer, J. (eds.), Surface syllable structure and segment sequencing, 102–116. HIL Occasional Papers.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G.1965. On the nature of syntactic irregularity. Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana University Bloomington.Google Scholar
Levin, B. & Rappaport Hovav, M.. 1995. Unaccusativity: At the syntax–lexical semantics interface. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, M. P., Simons, G. F. & Fennig, C. D.. 2016. Ethnologue: Languages of the world, nineteenth edition. Dallas, TX: SIL International; http://www.ethnologue.com.Google Scholar
Marten, L. 2003. The dynamics of Bantu applied verbs: An analysis at the syntax–pragmatics interface. In Lébikaza, K. K. (ed.), Acts du 3ème congrès mondial de linguistique africaine lomé 2000, 207–221. Köln: Köppe.Google Scholar
Marten, L., Kula, N. & Thwhala, N.. 2007. Parameters of morphosyntactic variation in Bantu. Transactions of the Philological Society 105, 253–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGinnis, M. & Gerdts, D.. 2003. A phase-theoretic analysis of Kinyarwanda multiple applicatives. In Proceedings of the 2003 Canadian Linguistic Association Annual Conference Department of Linguistics, 154–165. Montréal: Université du Québec á Montréal.Google Scholar
Mchombo, S. 2004. The syntax of Chicheŵa. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Meeussen, A. E. 1967. Bantu grammatical reconstructions. Africana Linguistica 3, 81–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morolong, M. & Hyman, L.. 1972. Animacy, objects, and clitics in Sesotho. Studies in African Linguistics 8, 199–218.Google Scholar
Myers, S. 2003. F0 timing in Kinyarwanda. Phonetica 60, 71–97.Google Scholar
Overdulve, C. 1975. Apprendre la langue Rwanda. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Peterson, D. 2007. Applicative constructions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pollard, C.1984. Generalized phrase structure grammars. Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Pylkkänen, L. 2008. Introducing arguments. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ramchand, G. 2008. Verb meaning and the lexicon: A first phase syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rappaport Hovav, M. & Levin, B.. 1998. Building verb meanings. In Butt, M. & Geuder, W. (eds.), The projection of arguments: Lexical and compositional factors, 97–134. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Reidel, K. 2007. Object marking in Sambaa. Linguistics in the Netherlands 24, 199–210.Google Scholar
Rissman, L. 2011. Instrumental with and use: modality and implicature. SALT 21, 532–551.Google Scholar
Rissman, L. & Rawlins, K.. To appear. Ingredients of instrumental meaning. Journal of Semantics.Google Scholar
Rugemalira, J. M.1993. Runyambo verb extension and constraints on predicate structure. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Schadeberg, T. 2003. Derivation. In Nurse, D. & Philippson, G. (eds.), The Bantu languages, 71–89. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Schlesinger, I. 1989. Instruments as agents: On the nature of semantics relations. Journal of Linguistics 25, 189–210.Google Scholar
Shibatani, M. 1996. Applicatives and benefactives: A cognitive account. In Shibatani & Thompson (eds.), 157–194.Google Scholar
Shibatani, M. & Thompson, S. (eds.). 1996. Grammatical constructions: Their form and meaning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Shibatani, M. & Pardeshi, P.. 2001. The causative continuum. In Shibatani, M. (ed.), The grammar of causation and interpersonal manipulation, 85–126. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Simango, S. R. 1999. Lexcial and syntactic causatives in Bantu. Linguistic Analysis 29, 69–86.Google Scholar
Son, M.-J. & Cole, P.. 2008. An event-based account of –kan constructions in standard Indonesian. Language 84, 120–160.Google Scholar
Swift, K. E. 1988. Morfología del Caquinte (arawak preandino). Yarinacocha, Perú: Instituto Lingüístico de Verano.Google Scholar
Talmy, L. 1976. Semantic causative types. In Shibatani, M. (ed.), Syntax and semantics, vol. 6. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Tuggy, D. 1988. Náhuatl causative/applicatives in cognitive grammar. Topics in cognitive linguistics, 587–618. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Van Valin, R. D. & Wilkins, D. P.. 1996. The case for ‘effector’: Case roles, agents, agency revisited. In Shibatani & Thompson (eds.), 289–322.Google Scholar
Wald, B. 1998. Issues in the North/South syntactic split of East Bantu. In Maddieson, I. & Hinnebusch, T. J. (eds.), Language history and linguistic description in Africa, 95–106. Trenton: AfricaWorld Press.Google Scholar
Wunderlich, D. 1997. Cause and the structure of verbs. Linguistic Inquiry 28, 27–68.Google Scholar
Wunderlich, D.To appear. Valency changing operations, with a special emphasis on Bantu.Google Scholar
Zwicky, A. 1986. Concatenation and liberation. Chicago Linguistics Society (CLS) 22, 65–74.Google Scholar