in a Filemaker program and the various semantic explanations given by the ...... basically says that when, for example, one has finished eating an apple, the ...
The Hausa causative and benefactive in a cognitive and cross-linguistic perspective
i
ii
The Hausa causative and benefactive in a cognitive and cross-linguistic perspective Marit Lobben Dissertation presented in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Philosophiae Doctor (Ph. D.) at the University of Oslo
Oslo 2010
iii
iv
Acknowledgements This dissertation has been long in the making. Finally, I hope to have gained enough insight to present something that makes up a coherent whole; from the bits and pieces that had previously been described, completed by my fieldwork data and new insights from general linguistics. The topic has been controversial and each researcher presented his or her own perspective, as it appeared true to him or her. An image that I kept in mind while working on this topic is the ancient, originally Sanskrit parable about the three blind men and the elephant (a parable that also exists in a Hausa version): Parable of the blind men and the elephant ‘A group of blind men heard that a strange animal, called an elephant, had been brought to the town, but none of them were aware of its shape and form. Out of curiosity, they said: “We must inspect and know it by touch, of which we are capable.” So, they sought it out, and when they found it, they groped about it. In the case of the first person, whose hand landed on the trunk, said: “This being is like a drain pipe”. For another one whose hand reached its ear, it seemed like a kind of fan. As for another person, whose hand was upon its leg, said: “I perceive the shape of the elephant to be like a pillar.” And in the case of one who placed his hand upon its back, said: “Indeed, this elephant is like a throne.” Now, each of these presented a true aspect when he related what he had gained from experiencing the elephant. None of them had strayed from the true description of the elephant. Yet they fell short of fathoming the true appearance of the elephant.’ (Jainist version, Wikipedia free encyclopaedia)
Throughout the process I have received invaluable help and support from a number of people and institutions.The Norwegian Research Council funded three years of initial studies, from 1993-1995, including a stay at Indiana University in the USA, where I consulted the archives on Hausa and Chadic languages, and fieldwork in Niger and Nigeria in the summer of 1994. I am deeply grateful for being afforded such an opportunity. I wish to thank Roxana Ma Newman and Professor Paul Newman, whose generous hospitality I enjoyed during my stay in Bloomington, Indiana. I wish to thank Paul Newman especially, for, at the ACAL conference of 1993, inviting me to come to his department at IU as a visiting scholar. In the course of my stay in Indiana I benefited greatly from discussions both with Prof. Newman and with Ph.D. student and Hausa speaker Mustafa Ahmad, with whom I shared an office. I also wish to thank Hamidou Boukary who at that time was giving an advanced course in Hausa in
v
which I was the only student. I enjoyed his classes, his wit, and his and his wife Jean’s hospitality at the IU campus. Mr. Boukary also provided me with accommodation in Niger at his sister Fati’s place in Kwarakano in Niamey, which ensured me of good working conditions when preparing the tests prior to the interview process. I would like to express a special gratitude to Sahabi Maman, whom I had arranged to meet in Niamey through contacts in Indiana. Sahabi agreed to work as my research assistant, and his outstanding efforts in translating, suggesting improvements to the tests, and in taking care of all the practicalities of travelling and the job of finding informants were crucial in creating a solid empirical basis for the writing of this dissertation. Without his efforts this dissertation would never have been written in its present form. Sahabi later became my husband and the father of my two adorable children, Nora Aïcha and Erlend Soumana. My supervisors, Professor Rolf Theil and Professor Hanne Gram Simonsen of the linguistics department at the University of Oslo gave professional advice throughout the process of preparing the fieldwork, in the early process of writing the preliminary chapters in my scholarship period, and after I resumed writing in the period 2000-2004. My writing has benefited from Hanne’s professionalism regarding the demands of scientific presentation and form, especially on the phonology chapter, and from Rolf’s dedicated belief in my original hypothesis and his extensive knowledge of African linguistics and linguistics in general. My supervisors offered sufficient resistance for my mind to become independent, the importance of which should not be underestimated. Many scholars of Hausa have offered their experience and knowledge of the Hausa language and linguistics while I was in the process of writing. I am indebted to Dr. Philip Jaggar at SOAS, London, who referred me to relevant examples and answered my questions about Hausa; to Dr. Muhammed Munkaila who sent me maps of Nigeria free of charge, and to Dr. Andrew Haruna, who provided me with a sample of causative sentences, besides cracking his usual jokes. I would also like to thank Dr. Mahamane Adoulaye for discussing the semantics of the instrumental marker with me by e-mail. Dr. Nina Pawlak read sections of my case analyses and gave valuable comments. In the course of my Ph.D. studies at the University of Oslo I have enjoyed the friendship and support of a number of colleagues at the linguistics department. I
vi
would especially like to mention Ingebjørg Tonne who gave me both personal and professional advice, and Kjell Magne Yri who always had time for a coffee break and a hug. Both of these generously let me live in their homes while I was residing outside of Oslo. I also appreciated Elisabeth Wennevold’s cheerful and optimistic attitude, both when we shared an office, and afterwards. Discussions of the semantics of the dative case with Sturla Berg-Olsen and Tomoko Hansen were reassuring and helpful, and their advice was especially insightful since the dative was also the topic of their own dissertations. Dr. Thomas Egan of Hedmark University College proofread all of the initial 500 or so pages, gave advice about possible ways of abridging the text, and made detailed and numerous suggestions about how to improve it. I would also like to mention a number of people have helped me realize my deeper motivation for writing this dissertation. Among them are Sahabi Maman, with his knowledge of African spiritualism, Håkan Stolfer, who aided me with his clear visions, and Vigdis Ekeberg who is my faithful friend and a pensive philosopher. This dissertation was first submitted for evaluation in 2006. It was referred for revision on certain issues. This added another three years to its fulfillment, since I presently work full time within language training for the Norwegian Defence. I had four weeks off in the summer of 2007, but it appeared that this was not sufficient to elaborate on all issues. I am therefore deeply grateful to my superior at the Norwegian Defence, LTC FF. Commandant Freddy Furulund, for granting me another nine months with full pay to complete my dissertation. These last months I have enjoyed the discussions and cheerful company of my linguistics companion Laila Henriksen, who submitted her thesis right before I did. I also wish to thank professor of cognitive psychology Bruno Laeng at the Department of Psychology, University of Oslo, for his continuous personal and professional support, which was invaluable at a time when I needed it, and which helped me through the last stage. Finally, a joyful hug to my beautiful, patient and very understanding children, Nora and Erlend, who have grown up with a mama in the continuous process of writing a doctoral dissertation, and have never seen me without it. I also want to express my deepest gratitude to my parents, Jon Lobben and Anne Lobben, for supporting me all the way in my sometimes somewhat unusual choices, and for giving me life, love and language.
vii
Printed with the permission of the artist, Håkan Stolfer.
viii
For Bruno, wanda ya nunam mini hanya
ix
x
Contents CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION………………………………………… 1
1. 0 Introduction……………………………………………………… 1 1. 1 The problem……………………………………………………… 2 1. 2 The hypotheses…………………………………………………… 4 1. 3 A principled debate on polysemy and homonymy………………. 5 1. 3. 1 The isomorphism principle……………………………………….. 5 1. 3. 2 What characterizes homonymy and how does this come about?............. 6 1. 3. 3 When is an item polysemous and how does this come about?.................. 6 1. 3. 4 Criteria for establishing homonymic/polysemic status…………………. 7 1. 3. 5 Contrasting attitudes: maximize homonymy at the expense of polysemy or vice versa?............................................................................................................ 9 1. 3. 6 Category types and attitudes towards polysemy........................................ 10 1. 3. 7 Summary of background assumptions on polysemy…………………… 11
1. 4 A general discussion of argument structure and transitivity……… 11 1. 4. 1 Clausal participants...................................................................................... 12 1. 4. 2 Identification of clausal participants...........................................................12 1. 4. 3 Verbs, arguments and constructional meaning…………………………. 14 1. 4. 4 Core arguments............................................................................................. 15 1. 4. 5 Oblique arguments……………………………………………………….. 16
1. 5 What does it mean to say that a construction is benefactive?......... 18 1. 5. 1 Distinguishing between applicatives and benefactives………………….. 18 1. 5. 2 Semantic characterizations of the benefactive………………………….. 20 1. 5. 3 Differences between benefactive and dative case……………………….. 21 1. 5. 4 Syntactic realizations of benefactive constructions……………………... 22 1. 5. 5 Cross-linguistic variations in benefactive constructions……………….. 22 1. 5. 6 Benefactive by means of the give schema……………………………….. 23 1. 5. 7 Transitivity effects in the benefactive……………………………………. 24
1. 6 What does it mean to say that a construction is causative?............. 25 1. 6. 1 A classification on the semantics of causatives………………………….. 26 1. 6. 2 Causatives and classes of base verbs…………………………………….. 28 1. 6. 3 When is an expression transitive and when is it causative?...................... 30
xi
1. 6. 4 Means of expression of causatives……………………………………….. 32 1. 6. 5 The syntax of causatives………………………………………………….. 33 1. 6. 6 Causatives and valency……………………………………………………. 36
1. 7 Organization of topics……………………………………………. 37 CHAPTER 2: RELEVANT ASPECTS OF HAUSA……………………………… 40
2. 0 Introduction…………………………………………………..…… 40 2. 1 Hausa within Chadic……………………………………………… 41 2. 2 Notes on phonology………………………………………………. 43 2. 2. 1 Phoneme inventories………………………………………………………. 44 2. 2. 2 Syllable structure and relevant phonotactic rules………………………. 45 2. 2. 3 Tone………………………………………………………………………… 46 2. 2. 4 Epenthetic consonants…………………………………………………….. 46 2. 2. 5 Palatalization rules……………………………………………………….. 46 2. 2. 6 Dialectal variations in consonants……………………………………….. 47 2. 2. 7 Historical sound changes………………………………………………….. 47
2. 3 The main dialectal divide: Eastern and Western Hausa………….. 49 2. 4 The Hausa derivational verbal system (grade system)…………….51 2. 4. 1 The phonology of the Hausa grade system…………..………………….. 51 2. 4. 2 The meaning and transitivity of grades………………………………….. 55 2. 4. 3 The meaning of grades with OBJDAT…………………………………….. 56
2. 5 Basic clause structure…………………………………………….. 58 2. 5. 1 Terminology for objects and cases……………………………………….. 58 2. 5. 2 General word order………………………………………………………. 59 2. 5. 3 Focus constructions………………………………………………………. 59
2. 6 Formal structure of Hausa causative/caused-motion and benefactive sentences………………………………………………………………. 61 2. 6. 1 The Benefactive construction……………………………………………. 61 2. 6. 2 Causative/caused-motion constructions………………………………….. 62 2. 6. 3 Encoding of objects in benefactive sentences (containing OBJDAT ma-/wà (mà))……………………………………………………………………………… 63 2. 6. 3. 1 The encoding of intransitive benefactives (IB)…………………...……… 64
xii
2. 6. 3. 2 The encoding of the transitive benefactive (TB)………………………… 64 2. 6. 4 Encoding of objects in causative/caused-motion sentences (containing INST dà)……………………………………………………………………………65 2. 6. 4. 1 The encoding of intransitive causatives (IC)…………………………….. 65 2. 6. 4. 2 The encoding of transitive causatives (TC) and caused-motion constructions ………………………………………………………………..…….. 66 2. 6. 5 The encoding of sentences that combine DAT and INST case marking: causatives with an OBJDAT……………………………………………………… 66
2. 7 Classification of Hausa causative and benefactive types in relation to general linguistic literature………………………………. 68 2. 7. 1 A characterization of semantics of the Hausa benefactive…………….. 68 2. 7. 2 The Hausa -aC causative related to Dixon’s classification criteria…… 69 2. 7. 2. 1 Aspects of the –aC causative relating to lexical verbal semantics……… 69 2. 7. 2. 2 Aspects of the –aC causative relating to transitivity of the verb………… 71 2. 7. 2. 3 Aspects of the –aC causative relating to the Causee…………………….. 72 2. 7. 2. 4 Aspects of the –aC causative relating to the Causer…………………….. 72
2. 8 Summary…………………………………………………………. 74 CHAPTER 3: THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK…………………………………. 75
3. 1 Basic concepts of Cognitive Grammar…………………………… 75 3. 1. 1 Phonology, semantics and symbolic units……………………………….. 75 3. 1. 2 Construal and conventional imagery……………………………………. 75 3. 1. 2. 1 Domain, base and profile, trajector and landmark……………………….. 76 3. 1. 2. 2 Level of specificity………………………………………………………. 78 3. 1. 2. 3 Scale, scope of predication……………………………………………… 79
3. 2 The network model……………………………………………….. 79 3. 2. 1 The process of networking: mechanisms of category extension……….. 79 3. 2. 2 Cognitive Grammar: a usage-based model……………………………… 82 3. 2. 3 The prototypical structure of categories………………………………… 83 3. 2. 4 Schema and schematization……………………………………………… 84 3. 2. 5 The nature of constructions, semantic overlap, and the redundancy issue………………………………….………………………….. 86
xiii
3. 3 The action chain in Cognitive Grammar: a cognitive semantic account of transitivity and grammatical relations…………………….. 92 3. 3. 1 The stage model and billiard ball model as ICMs for the finite clause…92 3. 3. 2 The action chain and the construal of grammatical relations………….. 94 3. 3. 3 The action chain as a conception of construed asymmetry…………….. 98 3. 3. 3. 1 The collapsing or spreading out of semantic roles in relation to grammatical relations………………………………………………………………. 99 3. 3. 3. 2 Mental energy transitive clauses in asymmetric absolutive constructions. 100 3. 3. 3. 3 Construed asymmetry in symmetric absolutive constructions……………100 3. 3. 3. 4 Subjectivity and objectivity imagery explaining construed asymmetry in ABS ⇒ ABS clauses……………………………………………………………… 101 3. 3. 4 Extension of the action chain to non-physical domains………………… 102 3. 3. 5 Summary and conclusion…………………………………………………. 103
3. 4 Semantic roles in Cognitive Grammar…………………………... 104 3. 4. 1 Hybrid roles……………………………………………………………….. 105 3. 4. 2 Role archetype hierarchies……………………………………………….. 105
3. 5 Predictions of Hopper and Thompson’s Semantic Transitivity Hypothesis (STH)………………………………………………........... 108 3. 5. 1 An example of typical high vs. low transitivity……...……………………111 3. 5. 2 Number of participants…………………………………………………… 114 3. 5. 3 Individuation of O…………………………………………………………. 115 3. 5. 4 Affectedness of O (totality)……………………………………………….. 116 3. 5. 5 Aspect………………………………………………………………………. 119 3. 5. 6 Intensity……………………………………………………………………. 121 3. 5. 7 Kinesis……………………………………………………………………… 122 3. 5. 8 Punctuality…………………………………………………………………. 122 3. 5. 9 Negation and irrealis mode……………………………………………….. 123 3. 5. 10 A criticism of the semantic transitivity model…………………………. 123
3. 6 Presentation of Goldberg’s construction grammar for the purpose of justification of choice of theoretical model…………………………… 124 3. 6. 1 What makes Goldberg’s model cognitive?................................................. 124 3. 6. 2 From generative to constructionist models……………………………….125
xiv
3. 6. 3 What is a construction in Goldberg’s model?............................................ 125 3. 6. 4 Meaningful constructions…………………………………………………. 126 3. 6. 5 Motivations………………………………………………………………… 126 3. 6. 6 Frame semantics……………………………………………………………128 3. 6. 7 Polysemous syntactic structures and their bases………………………... 129 3. 6. 8 The integration of verb and construction………………………………... 130 3. 6. 9 Relations among constructions…………………………………………… 133
3. 7 Summary and discussion…………………………………………. 137 CHAPTER 4: ISSUES RELATING TO –aC CONSTRUCTIONS; LITERATURE REVIEW AND DISCUSSION…………………………………………………….142
4. 0 Conflicting claims about Causative and Benefactive in Hausa.…. 142 4. 1. Earlier claims about phonology…………………………………. 143 4. 1. 1 Phonology without semantics: the ‘borrowed Grade 5’…………………143 4. 1. 2 Only partly overlapping phonology……………………………………….145 4. 1. 2. 1 Benefactive -a®¶-am is derived from a destinative *in suffix……………. 145 4. 1. 2. 2 Evidence against the proposal that the Hausa pre-datival final -® verb = the ‘Grade 5’ -®/-as verb………………………………………………… 148 4. 1. 3 The causative and benefactive have identical phonology……………….. 150
4. 2 Historical reconstructions as synchronic argument………………. 152 4. 2. 1 Chadic comparisons………………………………………………………. 152 4. 2. 2 The causative and Benefactive derive from different sources ………… 155 4. 2. 3 Reconstructing the -an suffix ……………………………………………. 156
4. 3 Earlier claims about semantics: homonymy or not?........................ 157 4. 3. 1 All instances of –C have a common function…………………………….. 157 4. 3. 1. 1 -C is a transitivity marker………………………………………………... 157 4. 3. 2 A clear case of homonymy – arguments relating to the causative………157 4. 3. 2. 1 A causative/benefactive alignment lacks semantic motivation………….. 157 4. 3. 2. 2 The ‘causative’ is not a causative………………………………………... 159 4. 3. 2. 3 Frajzyngier’s criticism of Newman’s ‘action away’ hypothesis………….165 4. 3. 3 A look at the arguments that the causative is not a causative…………. 166 4. 3. 3. 1 Languages may have more than one causative…………………………... 166 4. 3. 3. 2 Double causatives………………………………………………………... 167
xv
4. 3. 3. 3 The productivity of causative constructions…………………………….. 168 4. 3. 3. 4 Instrumental and dative case in the -aC construction……………………. 168 4. 3. 3. 5 Two senses of ‘action away’……………………………………………... 169 4. 3. 4 Comparison with Chadic…………………………………………………. 177 4. 3. 5 ‘Change of orientation’ and ‘point of view’……………………………... 182 4. 3. 5. 1 What is a central sense?.............................................................................. 182 4. 3. 5. 2 The base verbs…………………………………………………………….183 4. 3. 5. 3 Is –aC a basically directional or an argument oriented morpheme?........... 185 4. 3. 5. 4 Is –aC a source oriented or endpoint oriented morpheme?.........................187 4. 3. 5. 5 Comments on the directional approach…………………………………...189 4. 3. 5. 6 Comments on the affected object analysis……………………………….. 191 4. 3. 5. 7 Change of orientation as the creation of or emphasis on a transitive relation………………………………………………………………… 192 4. 3. 6 Valency, voice and multifunctionality of causative morphemes……….. 194 4. 3. 6. 1 An alternative view on valency and voice………………………………. 194 4. 3. 6. 2 Multifunctionality in causative morphemes…………………………….. 196 4. 3. 6. 3 Valency change…………………………………………………………... 202 4. 3. 7 -aC/BEN and –aC/‘CAUS-EFF’ as a clear case of homonymy: arguments relating to the benefactive…………………………………………… 205 4. 3. 7. 1 Morphosyntactic differences between benefactive and causative in Hausa…………………………………………………………………………….205 4. 3. 7. 2 Semantic differences between benefactive and causative in Hausa …......207 4. 3. 8 What others have said about dà…………………………………………..211 4. 3. 8. 1 The homonymy view…………………………………………………….. 212 4. 3. 8. 2 Non-semantic explanations: dà is void of content……………………….. 213 4. 3. 8. 3 The polysemy view…………….………………………………………… 214 4. 3. 8. 4 Summary…………………………………………………………………. 214 4. 3. 9 Cohesion between causative/caused-motion and benefactive -aC and their respective objects………………………………………………………. 215 4. 3. 9. 1 The verb-dative marker nexus in the benefactive……………………….. 215 4. 3. 9. 2 Syntactic traces of the grammaticalization process of INST dà into Secondary agent: fusion of INST with –aC………………………………………. 216
4. 4 Summary of arguments………………………………………….... 219
xvi
CHAPTER 5: SHARING A SEMANTIC FEATURE: HIGH TRANSITIVITY EFFECTS IN THE CAUSATIVE/CAUSED-MOTION CONSTRUCTION AND THE BENEFACTIVE………………………………………………………….. 221
5. 0 Introduction……………………………………………………… 221 5. 1 Causative/caused-motion and benefactive as endpoint emphasis.. 222 5. 1. 1 -C/BEN and -aC/CAUS-CMN as redundant (= agreement) pronouns… 222 5. 1. 2 Agreement and topical arguments in Hausa…………………………….. 224 5. 1. 3 Ideas on the rise of verbal agreement……………………………..…….. 228 5. 1. 3. 1 Overuse and reanalysis of anaphoric pronouns………………………….. 228 5. 1. 3. 2 Dative vs. accusative object agreement and relative topicality………….. 231 5. 1. 3. 3 Arguments competing in topicality……………………………………… 232 5. 1. 3. 4 Topic-shifted arguments in Chadic………………………………………. 233 5. 1. 3. 5 Implications for the Hausa material……………………………………… 234 5. 1. 4 Newman about IO constructions in Hausa and Chadic…………………234 5. 1. 5 Possible implications of Newman‘s stage 2: after-thought topic-shift in OBJDAT constructions and reanalysis?.................................................................. 237 5. 1. 6 Agreement markers as transitivizers and exponents of transitivity effects in other languages………………………………………………………… 239
5. 2 Methodology in the testing process………………………………. 240 5. 2. 1 Testing semantics of the Benefactive…………………………………….. 240 5. 2. 1. 1 Test construction in benefactive semantics test………………………….. 240 5. 2. 1. 2 Methodological issues in the interviewing process……………………… 241 5. 2. 1. 3 Systematization of the semantic data……………………………………. 241 5. 2. 1. 4 Cross-comparison of the -aC/BEN and -aC/CAUS suffixes……..……. 242 5. 2. 2 Testing semantics of -C/CAUS for possible transitivity effects………… 242 5. 2. 2. 1 Test construction in the causative semantics test………………………… 242 5. 2. 2. 2 The interviewing process………………………………………………… 243 5. 2. 2. 3 Evaluation of reliability………………………………………………….. 243 5. 2. 3 Photographs from the fieldwork…………………………………………. 244
5. 3 Systematized test responses………………………………………. 246 5. 3. 1 High transitivity effects in the -aC/BEN ………………………………… 246 5. 3. 1. 1 Test sentences for the Benefactive………………………………………. 246
xvii
5. 3. 1. 2 A general meaning of intensity………………………………………….. 248 5. 3. 1. 3 Agentive and volitional subject in -aC/BEN…………………………... 249 5. 3. 1. 4 Object affectedness with -aC/BEN………………………………………. 257 5. 3. 1. 5 Completed action and certainty with -aC/BEN………………………….. 266 5. 3. 1. 6 Certainty and realis mode………………………………………..……… 267 5. 3. 1. 7 Other explanations of completed action……………………………..….. 268 5. 3. 1. 8 Individuation and -aC/BEN……………………………………………… 269 5. 3. 1. 9 A note on HT effects in imperative sentences…………………………… 269 5. 3. 2 High transitivity effects in the -aC causative……………………………. 270 5. 3. 2. 1 The intensity component of -aC/CAUS………………………………….. 272 5. 3. 2. 2 The subject volitionality/agency component of -aC/CAUS……..……… 273 5. 3. 2. 3 Object affectedness………………………………………………………. 274 5. 3. 2. 4 Object individuation………………………………………………………276 5. 3. 2. 5 Completed action and certainty………….…………………………….... 277 5. 3. 3 Middle characteristics of Grade 2 base verbs………………………..…. 278 5. 3. 3. 1 A previous approach to grade 2………………………………………….. 278 5. 3. 3. 2 Some semantic characteristics of grade 2 and their effects on the dative object………………………………………………………………………………. 279
5. 4 Plausible inferences drawn from transitivity effect findings…….. 284 5. 4. 1 A suggested explanation of the perfective aspect restriction………….... 285 5. 4. 2 What conclusions can be drawn from High Transitivity findings?......... 288 5. 4. 3 Affectedness of an oblique argument; a complication?............................ 288
5. 5 Summary……………………………………………………….…. 293 CHAPTER 6: TYPOLOGICAL AND GENERAL LINGUISTIC PERSPECTIVES ON CAUSATIVE AND BENEFACTIVE…………...…………………………….295
6. 0 Introduction………………………………………………………. 295 6. 1 Languages with common causative-benefactive phonology……... 295 6. 1. 1 A common affix for benefactive and causative………………………….. 295 6. 1. 2 Adjutative and causative polysemy………………………………………. 300 6. 1. 3 The same case or adposition for benefactive and causative………….…. 301 6. 1. 4 Languages where causative and benefactive are part of the same (morphological) system……………………………………………………………305
xviii
6. 2 Typological and general linguistic perspectives on causativebenefactive syncretism……………………………………………….. 307 6. 2. 1 Directionality of development between causative and applicative……. 308 6. 2. 2 From sociative to causative………………………………………………. 308 6. 2. 3 From causative to adjutative benefactive……………………………….. 309 6. 2. 4 Type of construction is decided by verbal semantics…………………… 310 6. 2. 5 Benefactive (ditransitive) as derived from a basic directional meaning.. 311 6. 2. 5. 1 The English caused-motion construction………………………………… 311 6. 2. 5. 2 The ditransitive construction in Goldberg’s model: successful transfer…. 313 6. 2. 5. 3 A synonymy relation between the Transfer-caused-motion construction and the ditransitive………………………………………………………………… 316 6. 2. 5. 4 Comparison of the English caused motion constructions in English and the Hausa causative-CMN…………………………………………………….. 318 6. 2. 5. 5 Comparison of the English ditransitive construction and the Hausa benefactive…………………………………………………………………………. 321 6. 2. 6 Causative/benefactive syncretism is caused by the extension of semantic roles………………………………………………………………..…… 322 6. 2. 6. 1 The basic idea of the biclausal approach to the causative……..………… 323 6. 2. 6. 2 A semantic explanation to the encoding of Causees within the biclausal paradigm……………..…………………………………………………………….. 326 6. 2. 6. 3 Independent typological indications in favour of monoclausal causatives. 327 6. 2. 6. 4 A monoclausal view on causatives enables comparison of semantic roles across construction types…………………………………..……………………… 334 6. 2. 7 Causative/benefactive syncretism as both path and semantic roles……. 338 6. 2. 8 Evaluation of directional and semantic roles’ analyses for Hausa…….. 341 6. 2. 9 Summary of typological perspectives on causative and benefactive..….. 342
6. 3 Summary………………………………………………………….. 342 CHAPTER 7: A SEMANTIC ANALYSIS OF HAUSA –aC SENTENCES…….. 344
7. 0 Introduction………………………………………………….……. 344 7. 1 The monoclausal model applied to Hausa…………………….….. 344 7. 1. 1 Arguments in favour of monoclausal -aC/CAUS sentences in Hausa… 345 7. 1. 2 The lack of biclausal markers in the Hausa morphological causative…. 346
xix
7. 1. 3 OBJINST and OBJDAT as ‘extra’ participants in Hausa………………… 347 7. 1. 3. 1. Base verbs and morphological modification by –aC……………………. 347 7. 1. 3. 2 Indications of -C being a remnant of a downstream participant…………. 349 7. 1. 3. 3 A shift to marking OBJDAT as a peripheral Experiencer……………….... 351 7. 1. 4 Semantic borrowing from simple sentence structures in Hausa……..... 354 7. 1. 4. 1 Semantic relatedness between causative -aC and benefactive –aC……….355 7. 1. 4. 2 Extensions of INST dà relevant to -aC sentences………………………...357
7. 2. Some preliminary issues regarding the semantic analyses of the linguistic elements in –aC constructions………………………………359 7. 2. 1 Semantic overlap and the meaningfulness of oblique cases……………..359 7. 2. 2 The personal sphere……….……………………………………………….361
7. 3 The semantic network of the Hausa DAT markers………………. 363 7. 3. 2. The allative/inanimate Goal schema……………………………………. 364 7. 3. 3 The animate Goal/Recipient schema…………………………………….. 366 7. 3. 3. 1 Recipient (physical transfer of object)…………………………………… 366 7. 3. 3. 2 Animate Goal…………………………………………………………….. 367 7. 3. 4 Beneficiary Recipient of action or object………………………………… 368 7. 3. 4. 1 Beneficiary Recipient……………………………………………………..368 7. 3. 4. 2 Intransitive actions on the PS……………………………………………..369 7. 3. 5 Fully externalized OBJDAT (EXPER based)……………………………...371 7. 3. 5. 1 The transitive EXPER benefactive……………………………...……….. 371 7. 3. 5. 2 The intransitive EXPER benefactive: action within PS………………….. 373 7. 3. 6 Deprived EXPER………………………………………………………….. 374 7. 3. 6. 1 Deprived EXPER possessor………………………………………………374 7. 3. 6. 2 EXPER of intransitive loss…………………………………..………….. 375 7. 3. 7 Summary network……………………………………………………..…. 376 7. 3. 8 The directionality of extensions………………..…………………………. 377
7. 4 A semantic network of instrumental dà in the conduit senses……. 379 7. 4. 1 INST dà as a conduit metaphor………………………………………….. 379 7. 4. 1. 1 INST of instrument………………………………………………………. 380 7. 4. 1. 2 INST of Causal agent………..…………………………………………… 381 7. 4. 1. 3 INST of manner………………………………………………………….. 382 7. 4. 1. 4 INST of instrumental object…………………………………………….. 384
xx
7. 4. 1. 5 Conduit INST of Secondary agent, transitive…………..……………….. 385 7. 4. 1. 6 Conduit INST of Secondary agent, intransitive…………………………. 386 7. 4. 2 Summary of the characterization of INST in Hausa……………………. 392
7. 5 The semantic network of –aC…………………………………….. 393 7. 5. 1 The general function of -aC: emphasis on effect of a downstream participant………………………………………………………………..………. 393 7. 5. 2 The function of the benefactive in relation to the base verb…………… 395 7. 5. 3 -aC in the sense of a highy affected Beneficiary………………………… 396 7. 5. 3. 1 -aC profiles inanimate Goal of moved OBJACC……………..…………. 398 7. 5. 3. 2 -aC profiles inanimate Goal of moved S………………………………….399 7. 5. 3. 3 -aC profiles effect on animate Goal of OBJACC……………………..….. 400 7. 5. 3. 4 -aC profiles effect on Animate Goal of S……………………………….. 400 7. 5. 3. 5 -aC profiles affected Recipient of OBJACC……………………………... 401 7. 5. 3. 6 -aC profiles affected Recipient of action………………………………... 404 7. 5. 3. 7 -aC profiles affected Experiencer via relationship to OBJACC…………... 406 7. 5. 3. 8 -aC profiles affected Experiencer of action within PS……………………407 7. 5. 3. 9 –aC as affected EXPER of provoked loss of close-knit OBJACC (via lexical meaning or antonymic extension)……………………………………... 409 7. 5. 3. 10 –aC as affected EXPER of S leaving PS……………..………………... 410 7. 5. 4 Summary network of benefactive -aC and transition to causative…….. 411 7. 5. 5 -aC in the sense of Secondary agent (Causee)…………………………… 413 7. 5. 5. 1 Causative meaning with mental Causees………………………………… 413 7. 5. 5. 2 Causative meaning with physical Causees……………..……………….. 419 7. 5. 6 -aC in the sense of MVR……….…………………………………………. 421 7. 5. 6. 1 MVR with motion based verbs………………………………………….. 422 7. 5. 6. 2 MVR as a result of High Transitivity effects in non-motion verbs……… 423 7. 5. 6. 3 MVR in verbs of transfer with potential Goals/Recipients……………….424 7. 5. 7 Summary network of causative/caused-motion –aC…………..……….. 426
7. 6 Conclusion…………...…………………………………………… 427 CHAPTER 8: PHONOLOGY OF –aC SENTENCES…………………………….428
8. 0 Introduction………………….…………………………………… 428
xxi
8. 1 Testing phonology………………..……………………………… 429 8. 1. 1 Test construction……………………….…………………………..……… 429 8. 1. 2 The selection of informants……………….……………..……………….. 435 8. 1. 3 The testing process…………………………….………………………….. 436 8. 1. 4 Evaluation of reliability…………………………………………………… 436
8. 2 Establishing a dialectal map of the Hausa -aC suffixes…………. 437 Dialect map with the CAUS/BEN –aC isogloss based on fieldwork findings……. 439 8. 2. 1 The -an¶ª-a º area……………………………………………………….. 441 8. 2. 2 The -at area……………………………………………………………….. 442 8. 2. 3 The -as area……………………………………………………………….. 443 8. 2. 4 A possible -a® area………………………………………………………… 443 8. 2. 5 An -at/-as borderline area………………………………………………… 444 8. 2. 6 Summary of dialects with one predominant suffix……………………… 445 8. 2. 7 The agreement area………………………………………………………. 446 8. 2. 8 Conclusion…………………………………………………………………. 446
8. 3 The main controversial issue: acceptance vs. non-acceptance of benefactive –as………………………………………………………… 446 8. 4 Evidence that the causative and the benefactive cannot be distinguished on phonological grounds………………………………. 451 8. 4. 1 The distribution of suffixes within the dialects according to the CAUSCMN/BEN distinction…………………………………..…………………………453 8. 4. 1. 1 The CAUS-CMN/BEN distinction in the -at area……………………….. 453 8. 4. 1. 2 The CAUS-CMN/BEN distinction in the -an area………………..…….. 454 8. 4. 1. 3 The CAUS-CMN/BEN distinction in the -as area………………………. 454 8. 4. 1. 4 The CAUS-CMN/BEN distinction in the -a® area……………………….. 455 8. 4. 1. 5 The CAUS-CMN/BEN distinction in the agreement area……………….. 456 8. 4. 1. 6 The CAUS-CMN/BEN distinction in the border area…………………… 456 8. 4. 2 The distribution of suffixes within and across dialects in relation to phonological environment……………………………………………..………… 457 8. 4. 2. 1 Suffixes according to the phonological environment in the -at area…...... 457 8. 4. 2. 2 Suffixes according to the phonological environment in the -as area…….. 458 8. 4. 2. 3 Suffixes according to the phonological environment in the -an area……. 459 8. 4. 2. 4 Suffixes according to the phonological environment in the -a® area…….. 460
xxii
8. 4. 2. 5 Suffixes according to the phonological environment in the agreement area……………………………………………..…………………..….. 461 8. 4. 2. 6 Suffixes according to the phonological environment in the -at/-as border area……………………………………………………………………..….. 462 8. 4. 2. 7 Summary and concluding remarks………………………………………..463 8. 4. 3 Assimilation within the dialects…………………………………………... 463 8. 4. 3. 1 Assimilation and dialect…………………………………………………..464 8. 4. 3. 2 Assimilation rate related to the CAUS-CMN/BEN distinction within dialects……………………………………………………………………… 467 8. 4. 3. 3 Summary and conclusion………………………………………………… 470 8. 4. 4 Use of -aC suffixes in relation to phonological dialectal variation in other grammatical constructs…………………………………………………… 470 8. 4. 4. 1 Phonological correspondences in the -an area…………………………… 470 8. 4. 4. 2 Phonological correspondences in the -at area……………………………. 471 8. 4. 4. 3 Phonological correspondences in the -a® area……………………………. 471 8. 4. 4. 4 Phonological correspondences in the -as area………………..…………. 472 8. 4. 4. 5 Phonological correspondences in the -al area?........................................... 473 8. 4. 4. 6 Summary of arguments………………………………………………….. 474
8. 5 Causative/caused-motion and benefactive as agreement markers: additional evidence of phonological unity……………………………. 475 8. 5. 1 What is agreement in Hausa?..................................................................... 475 8. 5. 2 Agreement – independently produced cases……………………………. 477 8. 5. 2. 1 OBJDAT agreement………………………………………………………. 478 8. 5. 2. 2 Agreement with OBJINST/ACC……………………………………………. 479 8. 5. 2. 3 Subject agreement……………………………………………………….. 480 8. 5. 2. 4 Summary of gender agreement systems…………………..…………… 482 8. 5. 3 Evidence of phonological unity from elicited data………………………. 483 8. 5. 3. 1 Agreement with OBJDAT………………………………………………… 483 8. 5. 3. 2 Agreement with focussed and non-focussed OBJACC…………………… 483 8. 5. 3. 3 Agreement with subject………………………………………………….. 484 8. 5. 4 The geographical distribution of agreement in Hausa…………………. 485 8. 5. 5 Conclusion on agreement data…………………………………………… 486
8. 6 Assimilated forms -ad and -am gaining unit status?....................... 486
xxiii
CHAPTER 9: DISCUSSION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS……………488
9. 0 Introduction………………………………………………………. 488 9. 1 Considerations on linguistic theories, hypothesis making, and the adequacy of analyses………………………………………………….. 488 9. 1. 1 Different assumptions about syntax lead to different types of explanation……………………..……………………………………………… 488 9. 1. 2 What constitutes a plausible explanation?................................................. 489 9. 1. 2. 1 The analysis of Secondary agents in case languages…………………….. 490 9. 1. 2. 2 Arguments against analysing affixal languages as different…………….. 491
9. 2 Summary of discussion on previous research……...…………….. 493 9. 2. 1 Problems of meaning……………………………………………………… 493 9. 2. 2 Problems of syntax………………………………………………………… 495
9. 3 Inferences of typological arguments……………………………… 496 9. 4 Summary of and conclusions on semantic arguments……………. 498 9. 4. 1 Conclusion on the semantics of the -aC suffix…………………………… 498 9. 4. 1. 1 Change of domains………………………………………………………. 499 9. 4. 1. 2 Transfer from simple transitive to TC and simple intransitive to IC…….. 501 9. 4. 1. 3 The ambivalence of –aC………………………………………………… 501 9. 4. 1. 4 The semantic effect of high transitivity in the –aC suffixes…………….. 501 9. 4. 2 Conclusion on the semantics of MA (dative) and dà (INST)…………… 502 9. 4. 3 Syntactic morphemes as construal of encyclopaedic knowledge……….. 503
9. 5 Summary and conclusion on syntactic arguments……………….. 504 9. 5. 1 Summary of arguments for the monoclausal structure of causatives in a cross-linguistic perspective………………………………………………….. 504 9. 5. 2 Summary of arguments for monoclausal structure in the Hausa causative…………………………………………………………………… 505
9. 6 Summary and conclusion on phonological arguments…………… 507 9. 6. 1 Organization in dialect areas…………………………………………….. 507 9. 6. 2 The discovery of a previously unattested suffix…………………………. 508 9. 6. 3 The distribution of -aC suffixes…………………………………………... 508
xxiv
9. 6. 3. 1 The distribution of -aC suffixes in relation to the CAUS-CMN/BEN distinction………………………………………………………………………….. 508 9. 6. 3. 2. The distribution of -aC suffixes in relation to phonological environment…………………………………………………………. 509 9. 6. 3. 3 The distribution of -aC suffixes in relation to assimilation frequencies…. 509 9. 6. 3. 4 The distribution of -aC suffixes when used as an agreement marker in causative/caused-motion and benefactive…………………………………………. 510 9. 6. 3. 5 The potential unit status of -am/BEN and -ad/CAUS-CMN…………….. 511 9. 6. 4 The status of the -as suffix………………………………………………… 511 9. 6. 4. 1 The use of -as as a combined CAUS-CMN/BEN marker in several areas………………………………………...……………………………… 511 9. 6. 4. 2 Patterns of the non-use of -as/BEN and possible explanations…………...511 9. 6. 5 A note on the relevance of diachrony for the -aC suffixes: phonological mergers are compatible with synchronic polysemy analyses………………….. 513 9. 6. 6 Conclusion on the phonological argument: are -aC/CAUS-CMN and -aC/BEN the same or different?............................................................................. 514
9. 7 Has the main hypothesis been falsified of verified?........................ 515 REFERENCES…..………………………………………………………………… 516 APPENDICES……………………………………………………………..……… 539 APPENDIX A. TESTS/QUESTIONNAIRES…………………..………………... 539
1. Semantics test (benefactive)………………………………………... 539 2. High Transitivity effects in -aC/CAUS-CMN……………………… 546 3. Phonology test……………………………………………………… 548 List of informants for phonology test……………………………………………… 558
4. Agreement test……………………………………………………… 560 APENDIX B. HIGH TRANSITIVITY EFFECTS IN –aC/BEN
– Additional examples from benefactive test and list of informants….. 564 List of informants for semantics’ test……………………………………………… 564 1. HT effects associated with the subject……………………………………….. 564 1. 1 Effort………..…………………………………………………………………. 564 1. 2. Physical/negative force……………………………………………………….. 565 1. 3 Mental force…………………………………………………………………… 565 1. 4 Power-Control………………………………………………………………… 566
xxv
2. HT effects associated with the OBJDAT..…………………………………….. 566 2. 1 Impact…………………………………………………………………………. 566 2. 2 Intimacy…………………………………………………..…………………… 567 2. 3 Autonomy..…………………...…………………...…………………………. 567 3. HT effects associated with the OBJACC..…………………………………….. 567 3. 1 Affected Amount……………….…………………………………………….. 567 3. 3 Affected MVR object………………………………………………………… 568 4. Tense and aspect………………………………………………………………. 568 4. 1 Aspect…………………………………………………………………………. 568 4. 2 Tense………………………………………………………………………….. 568 APPENDIX C. HIGH TRANSITIVITY EFFECTS IN –aC/CAUS-CMN
– Transcription sample from causative test…………………………….569 List of informants for causative test……………………………………………….. 569 1. Volitionality, planned involvement, effort and power of Subject/agent…… 569 2. Affectedness of OBJINST; inanimate: movement away, animate: mental Causee………………………………………………………… 571 Animate Causees………………………………………………………………….. 574 Intimacy……………………………………………………………………………. 574 3. Individuation of OBJINST/OBJACC (referentiality, focussed OBJ)………… 575 4. Intensity meaning of the causative construction…………………………….. 576 5. Completedness of action (past tense/completive aspect restriction)……….. 577 6. Certainty of action…………………………………………………………….. 578 APPENDIX D. TABLES AND SURVEYS……………………………………… 579
1. Table D.1 Use of grade 1 replacement for -as/BEN……………….. 581 APPENDIX E. AGREEMENT DATA…………………………………………… 581
1. Spontaneously produced cases……………………………………… 581 1. 1. OBJDAT agreement…………………………………………………………. 581 1. 2. Agreement with focussed OBJACC/INST………………………….………… 595 1. 3. OBJINST agreement (non-focussed) …………………………….…………. 599 1. 4. Subject agreement…………………………………………………………… 604
2. Elicited agreement data…………………………………………….. 612 2. 1. OBJDAT agreement…………………………………………………………. 612
xxvi
2. 2. Focussed OBJACC agreement……………………………………………… 620 2. 3. OBJACC agreement (non-focussed)………………………………………… 622 2. 4. Subject agreement in elicited data………………………………………… 622 APPENDIX F. ADDITIONAL EXAMPLES…………………………………….. 624
1. Examples of the structure of periphrastic and morphological causatives……………………………………………………………… 624 2. Sentences with double case marking of Beneficiary/Causee………. 626 3. Sample of -as/BEN examples……………………………………… 628
xxvii
xxviii
Key to abbreviations A ABS ACC ADJ ADV AG AGR AGT ANIM AP ASP ASS AT AUX B BEN C C CAUS CG CM CMN COM COMPL CONT COP CSEE D DAT DAT.AGR DEC DEF DEIX DEM.PRO DESTIN DO, d.o. EH HTR HTR-MVR IMP IND (PRO) INF INST IO, i.o. ITR, intr L lm LOC M, masc. MAL MPR MRN MSN MVR NEG NOM NP OBJ OBJACC
verb form occurring when no object follows absolutive accusative adjutative adverb Agent agreement agentive animate Anaphoric pronominalization aspect associative after-thought topic-shift auxiliary verb form occurring before pronominal object benefactive verb form occurring before noun object conceptualizer (theory chapter) causative Cognitive Grammar conjunction marker caused-motion (construction) comitative completive continuous (aspect) copula Causee verb form occurring before dative (‘indirect’) object dative dative agreement declarative definite deixis demonstrative pronoun destinative direct object East Hausa High Transitivity High Transitivity Mover impersonal (in 3rd person singular) independent pronoun infinitive instrumental indirect object intranstive low tone landmark Locative masculine malefactive maximum possible responses maximum response number maximum score number Mover negation nominative noun phrase object accusative object
xxix
OBJDAT OBJINST OBJOBL OBL p (e.g. 3p) PAST PAT PF PL PLUR POSS PP PREP PRES PRO PRT PRTC PS Q RL RECIP red REF
dative object instrumental object oblique object oblique person past tense Patient perfective (aspect) plural pluralizer possessive (pronoun) prepositional phrase preposition present pronoun particle participle personal sphere question marker relative Recipient reduplicated referential
SEC AG
Secondary agent
STH
Semantic Transitivity Hypothesis
TI
Transitivity indicator
xxx
CHAPTER 1
Introduction 1. 0 Introduction As a species with language as one of the major devices for successful survival, we are dependent on constantly developing the tool of language. We need to sharpen the blade, as it were, to fulfil our changing expressive needs. A polysemous linguistic situation is the result of peoples’ wishes and needs to communicate as efficiently as possible. A language consists of a limited set of phonological units, which are ascribed a certain meaning or set of meanings by convention (mutual agreement in a speech society). The limited nature of linguistic units compels us as language users to be creative when we encounter a situation for which we want to find an adequate linguistic expression. What do people do when in need of acquiring labels for concepts for which they have no conventionalized expression? In such a situation we may either: 1) invent new labels by creating a new arbitrary combination of sounds, 2) borrow from other languages, 3) compose and derive new expressions from already existing material in our own language, or, 4) extend the use of existing forms to encompass new concepts by using strategies such as analogical transfer, metonymy, and metaphor. Point 4) is known as grammaticalization, a process in which problem solving is the main strategy. The language user, motivated by her inadequate means of expression, extends existing linguistic units creatively to encompass the novel uses for which she needs an expression. This is not done at random, but by means of metaphor or metonymy. The language user will observe some semantic similarity between the original meaning of the expression and the concept she wishes to express, and this similarity is what motivates the extension. The discrepancy between the old and new uses comprises the gap that has to be overcome for the extension to be successful. Such an innovation then has to be accepted and used in the speech community if it is to become a part of the language, i.e. it has to become conventionalized. When we see the same kinds of extensions being made in language after language, there is reason to suspect that this is more than an accidental change taking place in one particular language. It is rather a typological tendency of languages, and may reflect an aspect of how people think, i.e. it is part of our cognitive apparatus.
1
When it comes to the particular situation of why causative (‘make someone do something’) and benefactive (‘do something for/against somebody’) receive the same grammatical marking in many languages, we may be motivated to ask why this should be so. Is this an accident, or do enough languages share this feature for us to begin asking questions? The similarity in the grammar of causatives and benefactives is interesting, both because it reflects the way people relate to one another in terms of social roles, and because it is such a basic and frequent part of human experience. An ordinary day is full of ‘doings for’ and ‘makings do’. It is, in fact, such a basic human experience, that it would be surprising if this part of human experience had not manifested itself in terms of grammatical devices in several languages. The stereotypes we have of such social roles are indirectly expressed in language systems. In one analysis of causative-benefactive markers, the common denominator has been suggested to be ‘control’ (Saunders and Davis 1982). The choice of case markers on Causee-Beneficiaries would not seem to be accidental in this respect. Dative and instrumental cases are the ones most frequently used for (especially) transitive Causees (e.g. ‘I had him throw the ball’). Dative case is, apart from being used for Causees, frequently used for an Experiencer who is not in control, either because he or she is the Recipient of an object or action, or, because he or she is subjected to other outer circumstances such as weather or bodily functions (see, for instance, Wierzbicka 1979). Instrumental case is used, when not designating a Causee, for a peripheral, manipulated object, with the purpose of accomplishing the initiators task. In some languages (cf. Janda 1993), groups of verbs designating rule and dominance grammatically require dative or instrumental marked objects. It appears that general cognitive concepts are bound to influence the grammars of languages, and that there is no absolute border between the categories of the mind and the categories of grammar. The main difference may be that linguistic categories are conventionalized, it takes some time to change them, and there has to be majority action among the members of a speech community for that to happen. The final outcome of this process, however, represents these speakers’ perspective and their choice of presenting a piece of information. This much for the general background. Let us now turn to the problem at hand.
1. 1 The problem Apart from giving a general overview of the topic, this chapter will outline the hypotheses that are investigated in this dissertation. The -aC/BEN marker and the -aC/CAUS marker in
2
Hausa have been subject to various claims, especially regarding the phonological nature of these markers. This dissertation aims to shed new light on this controversial phonological issue. It aims to provide new phonological data on this issue. Some of these data will lend support to one of the sides in this controversy, although all former and new empirical observations will be subject to discussion and taken account of in the final analysis. Furthermore, more comprehensive phonological data which go beyond former claims and counter-claims will be presented, which will enable us to form a more complete picture. Another aspect of the controversy concerns the semantic aspect of these markers. The first semantic issue regards the question whether the -aC/CAUS suffix is actually a causative, or whether it is something entirely different, namely a directional marker. Lately this group is labelled ‘efferential’ as a general cover-term, inspired by Latin efferre ‘to carry out; bring out’, consisting of ex- ‘out’ and ferre ‘carry, bear, bring, tell’. I maintain that at least a subpart of the traditionally labelled causative-efferential markers are causative in meaning and function. Henceforth, whenever the –aC/CAUS suffix is mentioned, it refers to this subpart. Wherever the other meaning occurs, it will be specifically labelled ‘efferential’, when discussing this construction in relation to previous research, abbreviated ‘EFF’. I will not, however, use the term efferential in the sense of causative. This controversy is also secondary to the main issue, which is to investigate a potential polysemy relationship between causative and benefactive. In this work I relabel such ‘efferentials’ as the caused motion construction, abbreviated CMN. The claims regarding the CAUS-BEN polysemy matter are also linked to beliefs about the phonological nature of the -aC benefactive and the -aC causative markers: those who hold that they are phonologically different will consequently hold that these are two different morphemes. Those who claim that they are identical, on the other hand, will try to look for some grammatical function, which the benefactive and the causative may have in common. The second endeavour of this dissertation is thus to investigate the semantic-grammatical aspects of the -aC benefactive and the -aC causative markers. Here a particular emphasis will be placed on comparing the semantic roles associated with the dative object and the semantic role of the Causee in the two constructions. The problem of whether the -aC benefactive and the -aC causative are two different or one and the same morpheme has both a synchronic and a diachronic aspect. The present project comprises a synchronic analysis, and the greater part of the dissertation is devoted to presenting and analyzing my own synchronic data, and viewing it against a more general
3
linguistic background. In the process of working on this topic, I have also found a plausible explanation for the diachronic path through which this has developed, but for reasons of limitations on space, a fully-fledged and empirically well-founded argument of this hypothesis will have to be dealt with on a later occasion. The hypotheses which are related to these topics and which will provide the basis for this dissertation will be presented in the following paragraphs.
1. 2 The hypotheses In the following, the main hypotheses are indicated by H and a number, sub-hypotheses by H and a letter. Sub-hypotheses are placed directly under the main hypothesis that they relate to. Overall main hypotheses: H1: -aC benefactive and -aC causative in Hausa are one morpheme, not two morphemes. H2: One of the similarities between -aC benefactive and -aC causative in Hausa is related to the semantic roles of the dative object and the Causee, respectively. (H3: Phonological relatedness of causative and benefactive constructions exists in a number of unrelated languages.) Hypotheses about the phonology of -aC H4: The various realizations of -aC (-as, -a®, -an, -am) in Hausa are not sensitive to the distinction between causative or benefactive meaning. H4a): The suffix -as can be used as a benefactive, without an accompanying causative meaning. H4b): -an is not only a benefactive, but also a causative marker. H4c): Since the feminine pronoun in Hausa is t-, a variant -at of the -aC marker will exist synchronically, besides the already attested -as. Hypotheses about the semantics of BEN -aC and CAUS -aC: H5: BEN -aC and CAUS -aC have semantic characteristics which can be related in a polysemic structure.
4
H6: In Hausa, when the verb is marked by the morpheme -aC, the Causee of an intransitive causative clause is semantically similar to the dative object of a monotransitive sentence, and the Causee of a transitive causative clause is semantically similar to the dative object of a ditransitive sentence. Hypothesis about the syntactic structure of the -aC causative: H7: There exists independent and cross-linguistic motivation in support of the argument that the -aC/CAUS construction is monoclausal, such that this construction can be likened to the benefactive use of -aC. In the following I shall outline a few background assumptions, about polysemy versus homonymy, about aspects of transitivity in general, and about the causative and benefactive constructions as they apply to any language. In doing this, I shall refer to relevant literature on these topics and take a stand on the various positions where necessary.
1. 3 A principled debate on polysemy and homonymy 1. 3. 1 The isomorphism principle The isomorphism principle as stated by Bolinger (1977: x) says that: ‘[…] the natural condition of language is to preserve one form for one meaning, and one meaning for one form […]’ Bolinger (1977: x)
This principle can be seen in relation to the meta-assumption about language stated in the ‘iconicity principle’: ‘All other things being equal, a coded experience is easier to store, retrieve, and communicate if the code is maximally isomorphic to the experience’ (Givón 1985).
However, this statement relates to an ideal situation which ignores commonplace linguistic phenomena like synonymy (one meaning and several forms), homonymy and polysemy (several meanings and one form), zero morphemes (meaning, but no form), and, to the extent that one recognizes their existence, the phenomenon of empty morphemes (form, but no meaning). Whether languages actually ‘try to avoid’ aberrance from the isomorphism
5
principle is debated in Geeraerts (1997: 123-153) under headings like homonymiphobia and polysemiophobia, where both homonymy and polysemy are viewed as ‘pathological situations’ that call for curative devices. One question is whether languages strive to avoid homonymy and polysemy. Another matter we shall see below is that the recognition of what constitutes cases of homonymy and what should be counted as polysemy has much to do with the choice of scientific attitude and scientific approach. 1. 3. 2 What characterizes homonymy and how does this come about? Homonymy can be defined as a linguistic situation where unrelated meanings attach to the same phonological form. Homonymy can arise in either of the following ways: a) Related meanings of a once polysemous word can have drifted so far apart that there is no perceived relationship between them (Taylor 1989: 103)1. b) Unrelated words that were once phonologically distinct have been subject to the blind operation of sound change, and in the course of time become identical. The situation in a) is the case for instance with the English word pupil, which can have either of the meanings ‘scholar’ and ‘iris of the eye’. Both senses are derived from Latin pupillus/pupilla, diminutive of pupus ‘child’, where the sense ‘iris of the eye’ was extended from the meaning ‘small child’ because of the reflection of a small human being in the eye (ibid. 103). The situation in b) can be seen in e.g. the word die from English, where the sense ‘expire’ is derived from Old English dêegan, while the sense ‘cube thrown in games of chance’ is derived from Old French dé (example from Taylor 1989). Some may not recognize this example because they belong to different parts of speech. Another example of homophones would be [po:] as in paw, verb, (horse stamping its feet), and [po:] pour (let flow) in RP pronunciation. The /r/ would have been pronounced in an earlier stage of English. 1. 3. 3 When is an item polysemous and how does this come about? Polysemy is where one phonological form has two or more related senses. Taylor (1989) refers to the distinction between polysemy and monosemy as polycentric and monocentric
6
categories, where the former is just as common as the latter. In his definition, if a linguistic item has to be explained with reference to different domains, this is a strong indication that this linguistic expression is polysemous (ibid: 100). E.g. the word pig, which may be explained either with respect to classification of animals or to the eating habits of humans. In a diachronic perspective, a polysemous situation may arise out of variations of meaning within a monocentric category where ‘a non-central member’ ‘increases in salience to the point where it constitutes a secondary conceptual centre of the category‘ (ibid: 103). Polysemy may also be the result of a historical merger, or come about as a result of metaphorical extension. The word ear in English may be used to mean ‘organ of hearing’ or ‘grain-holding part of cereal plant’. Some speakers may see the similarity of meaning between these two used in present English, but in fact they are derived from different historical sources, which merged in Middle English (Lyons 1977: 550). Compare this example to the word eye, which means either ‘organ of sight’ or ‘aperture in needle’. It is not self-evident on the surface that the two meanings of ear is a case of historical merger, while the two meanings of eye are a result of metaphorical extension (examples from Taylor 1989: 103). 1. 3. 4 Criteria for establishing homonymic/polysemic status Lyons (1977: 551), in discussing whether knowledge about the etymology of words is relevant to their status as polysemous vs. homonymous, presents us with the problem of how far back we are prepared to go in order to establish an etymological relationship. Words may be derived from the same source yet be perceived as synchronically distinct by virtue of their semantic distinctness, e. g. English port1 ‘harbour’ and port2 ‘kind of fortified wine’. These are normally taken to be unrelated homonyms. Still the two lexemes port1 and port
2
can be
traced back to a common Latin origin: the meaning ‘harbour’ is derived from Latin portus, and the more recent English word used about the wine got its name from the Portuguese city Oporto from which the wine was exported (i.e. an instance of metonymy), which again was derived from the expression o porto ‘the harbour’. This is the situation described in a) above. Lyons argues that this kind of information about etymology is irrelevant in deciding whether items are polysemous or homonymous for the simple reason that it is unavailable to the native speaker, and the speakers’ interpretation of them will therefore be unaffected by it.
1 It is also common that nodes in a network have fallen into disuse, leaving no evidence of links between them (Thomas Egan, p.c. 2005).
7
The only relevant criterion, Lyons argues, is that of semantic relatedness. Taylor (1989) raises the problem of such relatedness of meaning, saying that this is both a gradient and subjective notion. While some native speakers may perceive a certain semantic connection, others fail to see it, and speakers’ intuitions therefore remain an uncertain and indecisive tool. Lyons suggests for these reasons that the linguist better leave the problem of the theoretical status of polysemy vs. homonymy unresolved (1977: 552). Furthermore, he argues that there are no readily available tests for diagnosing homonymy as opposed to polysemy within a single language. Taylor (1989), Croft (1990: 166), Haiman (1985) and others argue that the only currently appropriate method to establish whether some identical form is a case of homonymy or polysemy is cross-linguistic, typological comparison, on the basis of the second part of Dwight Bolinger’s (1977) isomorphic principle, which states that: • Recurrent identity of form must reflect identity of meaning (Haiman 1985: 30)
Homonymy, by contrast, is in a very real sense an accidental phenomenon, and thus highly language specific. If two identical forms were polysemous we would expect the phenomenon to recur in language after language, cf. (Taylor 1989: 104): ‘The attestation in different, and, especially historically unrelated languages, thus virtually rules out the possibility of chance homonymy, and strongly points to the presence of motivated, polysemous categories’. In trying to establish syntactic polysemy, a functional argument can successfully be used in combination with typological and semantic data. Functional arguments concern markers that have dual, seemingly different, grammatical functions, and where this constellation seems to be a cross-linguistic, recurring pattern. The potential polysemic status of such markers is debated in works by Haiman (e.g. 1985) on complex sentences such as conditional and relative sentences (discussed also in Croft 1990: 167), where it is argued that their commonality resides in their functioning as topic markers, i.e. the semantic unrelatedness is apparent, not real. The opposite, he argues, is the case in the recurring pattern of shared phonological marking of conditional protases (‘If it had been otherwise...’) and polar questions (‘‘Had it been otherwise...’), where he explains their cross-linguistic cooccurrence as ‘instrumental’ (or, I would say, metonymic): Questions are used to establish topics, but are not themselves topical (e.g. ‘You know Max, the barber? –Well, he died yesterday’). In that way, he says, question marking has no more to do with conditionals semantically than a spade with the ditch it is used to dig. This means that a recurring pattern
8
of phonological identical grammatical markers may, but need not necessarily, be taken as an indication that these markers are polysemous in virtue of sharing a semantic feature. The reason may also be solely functional. An additional method for deciding whether a linguistic element is a case of homonymy or polysemy which has been added to the linguist’s toolbox is magnetoencephalography, or MEG, within the field of cognitive neuroscience and neurolinguistics. For intance, a study was done by Pylkkänen, Llinás and Murphy (2006) on the representation of homonymy vs. polysemy in the mental lexicon based on mechanisms of semantic priming and phonological inhibition in language processing. However, such methods would be hard to employ in the case of Hausa dialectology given the necessity to travel around Hausaland. 1. 3. 5 Contrasting attitudes: maximize homonymy at the expense of polysemy or vice versa? Linguists have advocated different approaches to polysemy. One attitude is to maximize the homonymy at the expense of polysemy. Such a view is found in Kempson (1977: 82), cf. Lyons (1977: 553). Kempson envisages a ‘constant semantic value’ for each lexical item in the language. If a phonological form has more than one identifiable sense, each sense is characterized separately, irrespective of its relation to other senses. The idea that even polysemous items should share a meaning core is found in Allerton (1979: 51). Discussing variations of the meaning of ‘paper’ (newspaper, document, academic lecture) he says that ‘[…] despite this specialization, we recognize a retained core meaning of ‘important written or printed material for public use’. Such cases are referred to as POLYSEMY and the morpheme is described as “polysemous”’. This attitude is criticized by Taylor (1989: 106), who writes that ‘...to make the presence of a common semantic core is unduly restrictive’ and ‘This defeats any attempt to offer a motivated account of meaning extension’; that is, one should instead hold open the possibility of metaphorical extension and change of domain. The major risk run by the atomistic attitude is that of blindfolding ourselves to obvious semantic connections that may tell us something crucial about how languages work. It should also be said that the attitude that ‘homophony solves any problem’, which has been observed among leading Hausaists, is an easy way out and is also misguided in the sense that it chooses not to deal with obvious linguistic problems. Taylor (1989: 105) criticizes the maximizing of homonymy-view, saying that polysemy is then reduced to ‘an arbitrary,
9
unmotivated phenomenon, and the study of recurring patterns of category structure, both within a given language and across different languages, is rendered theoretically and descriptively inaccessible.’ The risk in the opposite direction, of course, is to see a semantic connection where there is none, that the linguist may simply become too ‘clever’ (for her own good). This is where typological data become essential as a disambiguating factor. This is why reference to other languages will be steadily made throughout this dissertation. 1. 3. 6 Category types and attitudes towards polysemy The requirement that all senses of a polysemous item share a core meaning is clearly related to the classical definition of a category in terms of a set of necessary and sufficient conditions for membership. As such, it can be seen as part of a structuralist approach to language. Prototype categorization, on the other hand, rules out the possibility that each individuated sense can be assigned a constant semantic value, since part of the speaker’s knowledge of language is the recognition of non-prototypical members in a category, which demands that knowledge of linguistic structures be flexible and adjustable. In Cognitive Grammar, category extension is a fundamental mechanism in language change, and language use is therefore a constant source of influence on language structures. Neither is linguistic meaning immune to and independent from encyclopaedic knowledge. On the contrary, semantic content is seen as always being defined against a set of background knowledge (known as frames, domains, or idealized cognitive models (ICMs)) without which its content cannot be understood. (Cf. the (by now) classical example of a hypotenuse, which is itself nothing more than a straight line, and can only be semantically defined with respect to the domain of a right-angled triangle). Structuralists, on the other hand, would argue that the structures of the language system remain constant, and that the assignment of non-prototypical members to a category is not part of the ‘system’ or ‘langue’ itself. Their approaches are based on a multi-level view of language where meaning variants are seen as derived from meaning invariants (Cosieru 1977: 8-10), whereas the opposite is not possible. Cosieru (1990), for instance, suggests a tripartite division where ‘system’ (which is specified at the level of language-determined significations) remains constant, and such abilities as being able to categorize a non-typical member like palm in the category of TREE are referred to as belonging to the ‘norm’. The ‘norm’ comprises established elaborations of significations. This ‘norm’, however, does not
10
affect the content and structures of the language system itself. Finally, in this three-division system, ‘discourse’ pertains to specific readings in a text (cf. Taylor 1999: 32). Another difference between structuralists and cognitivists is centred on contrastive value vs. semantic (positive) content. It has been customary among some traditions after Saussure to emphasize the ‘meaning’ of a linguistic item in terms of its place in the system, i.e. in terms of what features it does and does not possess, rather than to ascribe to it a certain positive meaning content. A consequence of such an approach to language is that meaning extension based on the already existing semantic content of a linguistic item will become futile and unfeasible, and even undesirable. In this view, language competence becomes a top-down system, where language use has to adapt to a pre-existent language system rather than vice versa. 1. 3. 7 Summary of background assumptions on polysemy In the preceding discussion I have shown that several aspects have to be taken into consideration when evaluating a possible case of polysemy. It shows that diachrony is not necessarily relevant and definitely not decisive, since a synchronic polysemous situation may not have developed from a previous stage of polysemy, and a previous polysemous situation may develop into a case of homonymy, judged by speakers’ intuition. However, speakers’ intuition may not be consistent and therefore not a reliable source. A way to get around this is to compare languages in a large scale, since homonymy is an accidental phenomenon but polysemy is not. Finally, one must recognize that identification of polysemy vs. homonymy to a certain extent is a matter of theoretical preference and scientific method of the linguist, where a homonymic analysis may be a safer choice, but less revealing. Choice of theory also comes into play in basic hypotheses about how languages are structured in terms of categories, and how categories are learned and stored in people’s minds. Assumptions on category structures are related to how one chooses to define polysemy, with one core meaning or allowing a chain of metaphorical extensions where extremes in the chain may not have anything semantically in common (the family resemblance model).
1. 4 A general discussion of argument structure and transitivity The present section serves to identify quite briefly what argument structure is and by what mechanisms grammatical relations can be identified, so as to provide a background for the identification of grammatical relations in Hausa in the next chapter. I will therefore not make
11
an in-depth analysis and comparison of the vast literature on argument structure and syntactic theories, but focus on relevant aspects for the problem at hand. I have found Farrell (2005) to be a sufficiently thorough, typologically comprehensive and up-to-date work, which also manages to relate to significant syntactic theories in terms of how they deal with grammatical relations in their own right. I will therefore make several references to this work. 1. 4. 1 Clausal participants A common way within syntactic typology to denote the participants of a clause is to say that S is the subject of an intransitive verb sentence, A is the subject of a transitive clause, and O the object of a transitive clause. Distinguishing between S and A facilitates discussions on ergative languages and accusative languages without favouring either of the systems; see for instance Farrell (2005). While accusative languages give syntactic privileges to the S/A arguments (e.g. in case languages it will be marked with nominative case, O by accusative case), ergative languages work along the axis of S/O (absolutive case if case marked, A by ergative case). Such syntactic privileges may include, apart from case marking of nominal arguments, verbal agreement phenomena, being the conjunction-reduction pivot (i.e. which argument can be left out in conjunction constructions), and ability to enter voice conversions such as active, passive, antipassive, inverse voice and applicative. This denotation is also apt to describe more complex situations in split-intransitive languages, where some characteristics point towards the accusative type and others towards ergativity. In such languages, the S, A and O categories are collapsed into two primary categories: A/Sa and O/So. The Sa is A-like and the So is O-like, the distinction being semantically motivated by the verb. It is suggested in Farrell (2005: 62) that the Sa is found where this participant is in control and where the verb designates an event; So, on the other hand, is used where this participant is not in control and with verbs designating states. 1. 4. 2 Identification of clausal participants Languages display various ways of indicating which entity plays which role in the sentence, so-called role-identifying mechanisms, such as who initiates and who is the target of an action. Variations along this line may be marked in three manners, either on the nominal participants themselves (the dependents of the verb), in which case a language is a dependent-marking language, or it may be marked on the verb, referred to as a head marking language (Nichols 1986, cited in Farrell 2005: 2). One example of dependent
12
marking can be taken from the Germanic group of languages, those that have different pronouns for subject and object as in she and her (but full nouns are not morphologically marked). In a head marking language the head verb or the auxiliary bear morphological indications of one or more of the participants in the process. An example would be the agreement between verb and subject in the English sentence He plays the piano vs. They play the piano. Other languages have more elaborate systems, where subject, direct object, and (more rarely) indirect object are agreement marked on the verb (Amharic, Abkhaz). A third and very common role-identifying mechanism is word order. One type of dependent marking is case marking (morphological marking on or within the noun phrase). Such marking gives information about grammatical relations. Case marking works together with various voice phenomena to identify the grammatical relations of the dependent arguments, where voice can be defined as ‘inflectional morphology on the verb or other morphosyntactic marking that functions to indicate which of two or more alternative interpretations of the grammatical relations of its dependents is intended’ (Farrell 2005: 9). However, although there are frequent correspondences between for instance the categories nominative and subject, accusative and direct object, and dative and indirect object, case marking alone is insufficient to depend on in determining grammatical relations. Exceptions to this correspondence include the direct object in Finnish, where accusative marks completely affected objects in perfective aspect sentences, and genitive case marks partially affected objects in imperfective aspect sentences. In addition, Finnish uses accusative case in adjunct adverbials. Another renowned example is dative subjects in Icelandic, where a class of psychological verbs allows Experiencer to be marked by dative case and stimulus by nominative case, but also vice versa (Farrell 2005: 15, 99-100), and dative case is also used for subjects of some passivized verbs. In Russian, two different cases are used after ordinal numbers following a set of rules. This means that some cases may be used for both for a wider and a narrower category than a certain grammatical relation category. Thus, although a common terminology is used cross-linguistically to describe grammatical relations, their identification has to be determined individually for each separate language or language type.
13
1. 4. 3 Verbs, arguments and constructional meaning Presentations and theories of argument structure and grammatical relations are abundant, and I shall not relate to all of them here. However, it can be justly stated that such presentations generally relate both to verbal semantics, to the number and type of arguments, including the distinction between core and oblique arguments. Relevant treatments of verbal semantics can be found i.a. in the Unaccusative Hypothesis (Perlmutter 1978) and subsequent works on the aforementioned phenomenon of split intransitivity. In any language, clauses are categorized according to the number of arguments in a clause, that is, i) intransitive verb clauses, which has one core argument, and ii) transitive verb clauses, with at least two core arguments, but which may be either monotransitive (one object, a direct object) or ditransitive (two objects, most often a benefactive construction containing an indirect and a direct object). There is a long tradition in ascribing the number of arguments in a felicitous sentence to inherent characteristics of the verb (Chomsky 1957 and later). In Goldberg (1995, 2006), however, this view is challenged in the hypothesis that constructions are grammatical units in their own right with independent semantic and phonological characteristics, and that verbal subcategorization as we know it from the Chomskian tradition is insufficient in determining the number of arguments in several constructions which are commonly used. Part of this discussion concerns which arguments are ‘necessary’ for the sentence to be grammatical. Goldberg argues that arguments that are not obligatory in the traditional sense, are still required in some constructions, an often cited example being She blew the napkin off the table, labelled the caused-motion construction, where blow is an intransitive verb which here requires both an object and an adverbial. A clarification on the distinction between the terms (syntactic) argument and semantic participant is in place. It is not always the case that there is a one to one relationship between the number of arguments and the number of participants. This means that in some languages, Hausa included, events involving one participant may have two arguments, a subject and a direct object, notably verbs like yi ‘do’ and ci ‘eat’, as in yi fushi ‘be angry, lit. do anger’ or ci gàba ‘continue, lit. ‘eat front’. If these expressions contain an indirect object, the mismatch will prevail, the difference being only the added argument/participant. Similar cases are reported for Ewe, as in fú du ‘run, lit. verb course’, and fú tsi ‘swim, lit. verb water’ (Essegbey 1999, cited in Goldberg 2006: 187). The issue is also raised by Goldberg, where argument is referred to as ‘overtly expressed complement’ and ‘argument’ is used in the sense of semantic participant. Norwegian and other Germanic
14
languages will have subjects which do not correspond to a semantic participant, cf. det regner/es regnet/it rains, while the corresponding sentences in Spanish llueve and Old Norse rignir are zerovalent. This lack of correspondence may also be in the sense of omitting semantic participants who can be inferred from context. Languages differ with respect to which arguments must surface as compulsory syntactic arguments. In English and Norwegian put/putte must have a locative, in Japanese it does not, cf. kare ga hon o oita ‘He put the book’. Hausa frequently leaves out pragmatically inferable arguments. 1. 4. 4 Core arguments Most theories of grammatical relations recognize subject and direct object as being the principal core arguments. These are often identified with reference to prototypical semantic roles, e.g. Dowty (1991). This work links the grammatical relations of subject and direct object to the proto-roles Actor and Undergoer hypothesizing that in active clauses, if there is a subject and object and if this clause also has a proto-agent and a proto-patient, then the proto-agent (proto-Actor) will be linked to the subject, and the proto-patient (Undergoer) will be expressed by the object. To the extent that grammatical relations justifiably are linked to such proto-roles, cognitive salience of such roles provide an additional argument that subjects and direct objects are core arguments. Research on human perception and attention has shown that Actors and Undergoers are salient (Goldberg 2006: 185-6). She refers to studies on prelinguistic infant and child perception of Actors; In Robertson and Suci (1980), Csibra et al. (1999), and Carpenter, Akhtar and Tomasello (1998), the attention of typical characteristics of Actors such as volition, sentience, perception and movement are observed both in visual and linguistic tasks. A wider characterization of the function of subject links this grammatical relation to a semantic phenomenon such as being the most topical argument in the clause (Li 1976), and being the syntactic pivot in grammatical phenomena such as being favoured in verbal agreement (head-marking and dependent marking), which again is indirectly associated with the notion of being topical, being able to undergo subject-Aux inversion in languages to which this phenomenon applies, or be the subject of raising verbs like seem, as in The children seemed [ØA to like the movie] (Farrell 2005: 98-9). Other criteria include being conjunction reduction (the phenomenon that subject can be omitted in the second clause of
15
conjunctions), and in controlled complement (omission in sentences equivalent of I hoped [Ø to be helped]). In a language like Icelandic, which has dative-subjects, identification of the subject may rest on a criterion such as this argument’s position in relation to the verb (conventional word order). However, the dative subject is neither agreement marked on the auxiliary nor carries nominative case marking, as regular subjects are. In this respect, it is more accurate to talk about subject properties than subjects, as it is argued in Farrell (2005: 98-104), who labels such cases ‘quasi-subjects’. Some languages defy the notion of subject as a category altogether, or at least; the notion of subject is not clearly relevant. These are notably ergative languages, where the S/O are pivots, not the S/A category. In addition, constructions such as passives and antipassives resist such linking. Direct objects are associated with the Patient semantic role, but also syntactically defined, e.g. as the participant which can be an S in a passive construction. Direct objects may be bare NPs, or they may be especially marked, either by case or a special affix, or head marked on the verb. They may also occupy a special position in the clause, such as immediately following the verb, in SVO languages, or preceding the verb, in SOV languages. They are often inanimate, but not necessarily so. According to Farrell (2005:105) morphological marking of objects may be sensitive to animacy values such that animate objects receive overt marking (Romanian, some Bantu languages), and definiteness (Hebrew and Turkish), reflecting some semantic dimension of objects (but not its syntactic function). Farrell (ibid.) also lists being the pivot in tough-movement and pseudocleft as valid criteria to define a direct object, as in equivalents of These houses are difficult to sell, and What I sold was a house, respectively. Objects that are not pivots in this sense are referred to as ‘quasiobjects’ in Farrell (2005: 105-6). These latter will sometimes distinguish between direct objects on the one hand, and indirect and oblique objects on the other. 1. 4. 5 Oblique arguments Non-core arguments are those arguments that do not have any of the primary syntactic relations, and are commonly referred to as oblique. Oblique arguments are recognized by the fact that they are marked by an adpostion or a case affix, that is, they will not be bare noun phrases. A major difference between core and non-core arguments is that while core arguments can be suppressed, added or exchanged in voice operations like passivization, antipassivization, incorporation and application, non-core arguments can simply be deleted
16
without grammatical adjustment, that is, they are not compulsory (though oblique arguments such as the instrumental, the benefactive and the locative can also be transformed into core arguments in a process like the applicative). Beneficiaries are in an intermediary position in relation to this definition: some verbs like give are trivalent; other verbs may have beneficiaries while not requiring it, such as buy. Furthermore, many languages require specific markers when beneficiaries are present in the clause, thus requiring grammatical adjustment. This division may therefore be too general to apply cross-linguistically. Oblique arguments appear as modifiers to other elements in the clause such as a verb (adverbial phrases like ‘walk without a stick’ and verbal particles as in ‘dispose of unwanted messages’), a noun (e.g. ‘the house around the corner’), adjectives and adverbs (‘attentive to their needs’ and ‘separately from the others’). As with core arguments, it may be argued that non-core arguments are best described in terms of a set of properties of which they may possess only a subset. Farrell (2005: 104111) discusses for Spanish, Brazilian Portuguese, and Indonesian what he labels ‘quasiobjects’. In Spanish, for instance, animate objects must be marked by the oblique marking a, for instance with the verb ver ‘see’, which aligns them with dative objects, but simultaneously fulfils the criteria for O’s in being able to be subject in passive constructions, and the pivot in tough-movement and pseudocleft constructions, unlike true indirect objects and obliques. Such differences in marking may reflect the fact that the presence of certain semantic distinctions (animacy, definiteness) is relevant to grammatical functions. Languages vary according to how many markers they have for oblique arguments. Jarawara has one generalized oblique marker (Dixon 2000), other languages have several prepositions for various oblique functions, and Hungarian has as much as sixteen case endings (Farrell 2005: 28). Just as case endings for core arguments, oblique markers may express more than one meaning. For example, the preposition with in English is not restricted to instrumental meaning (I hit it with a hammer), but also has the senses comitative or ‘do together with, in the company of’ (He danced with a clumsy woman), and more specialized comitative uses such as addressee (He spoke with his best friend about it), and locative (She lived with an abusive man). A language like Russian employs these and other uses, as much as seventeen are listed in Wierzbicka (1980), including ‘object in action sentences’, ‘agent in passive sentences’, ‘inexplicable force’, as well as adverbial functions like space, time, manner, duration, and transport.
17
1. 5 What does it mean to say that a construction is benefactive? A Benefactive construction may be defined semantically and syntactically. Semantically, a benefactive typically implies that in one unitary activity a) an agent who carries out an action, b) which is a favour directed to a beneficiary, and (when applicable) c) a transfer of an object (or action) to the beneficiary takes place. These meanings are all required elements in a benefactive construction. Syntactically, it typically corresponds to a construction that contains an indirect object, where this indirect object may be identified on a phonological basis as the argument that is in the dative case or is marked by a special indirect object marker. However, some languages, like English, have the beneficiary expressed as the first of two direct objects in a double object construction. Intuitively, one would not want to exclude such constructions from the definition of benefactive. Both cases, however, refer to those constructions in which beneficiaries are encoded as arguments rather than adjuncts. Constructions that encode beneficiaries as true adjuncts are excluded. In English that would be those expressed as oblique arguments with the prepositions to or for, such as Peter sent a package to Mary or Peter bought a book for Mary. 1. 5. 1 Distinguishing between applicatives and benefactives In the linguistic literature treatments of the benefactive construction often co-occur or overlap with discussions on the different uses and analyses of applicative constructions. These two constructions have generally been collapsed since Baker’s (1988) incorporation analysis2, and it is therefore necessary to distinguish the two in order to define the benefactive construction in Hausa. Shibatani (1996) maintains that these are definitely two different constructions; thus, while both terms applicative and benefactive are normally used in reference to specific grammatical elements, applicative refers to verbal affixes that increase valence and benefactive to nominal forms expressing beneficiaries. (Note, however, that this delineation does not work with languages that have both a benefactive verbal affix and a dative marker in the nominal argument, as does Hausa.) Shibatani argues that a major difference between
2 Baker’s incorporation analysis works within the Government and Binding Theory and seeks to do away with ‘grammatical function changing rules’ such as Passive, Causative, and Applicative. Instead, it is argued that the effects of these rules can be attributed to alternation processes which are involved in ‘creating complex predicates’, so-called incorporation processes, whereby movement transformations are applied to words rather than to full phrases (1988: 1).
18
applicatives and benefactives is that while applicatives generally allow intransitive bases, this is much more restricted with benefactives, which are barred many languages (ibid: 159-162). It is also the case that a language may disallow an intransitive based benefactive, while allowing the equivalent applicative instrumental, cf. this example from Chicheŵa taken from Alsina and Mchombo (1990), cited in Shibatani (1996: 161). (1) a) Mzōdzi a-ku-phík-ír-a 1-fisherman 1.SG-PRES-cook-APPL-FV ‘The fisherman is cooking with a ladle’ b) *Mzōdzi a-ku-phík-ír-a 1-fisherman 1.SG-PRES-cook-BEN-FV ‘The fisherman is cooking for the children’
mthîko 3-ladle aná 2-children
In works that do not distinguish the benefactive from the applicative, the term applicative may refer to the wider syntactic process of adding a new argument or incorporating a peripheral argument into a core function, where this argument may be either an instrumental (see, for instance, Martin 2000: 392), a beneficiary, or (more rarely) locatives and comitatives (Lehmann and Verhoeven 2006). All these can be said to be characterized as Undergoer-oriented transitivization processes or promotion processes (Lehmann and Verhoeven 2006: 475). Baker (1988: 236) defines applicatives as ‘when the NP thematically related to the applied affix bears one of the following semantic roles: dative/goal, benefactive/malefactive, instrumental, or locative (of various types)’, arranged in order of decreasing commonness syntactic regularity across languages. Shibatani (1996: 158) contrasts benefactives with applicatives saying that the latter type of construction are ‘locations, instruments, and other peripheral elements are coded as direct objects’. In Dixon and Aikhenvald (2000: 13-14), applicative is defined as either of the two prototypical schemas in A and B. A) APPLICATIVE APPLYING TO INTRANSITIVES
a) Applicative applies to an underlying intransitive clause and forms a derived transitive. b) The argument in underlying S function goes into A function in the applicative. c) A peripheral argument (which could be explicitly stated in the underlying intransitive) is taken into the core, in O function. d) There is some explicit formal marking of an applicative construction, generally by an affix or some morphological process applying to the verb.
19
B) APPLICATIVE APPLYING TO TRANSITIVES
a) Applicative applies to an underlying transitive clause and maintains transitivity, but with an argument in a different semantic role filling O function. b) The underlying A argument stays as is. c) A peripheral argument (which could be explicitly stated in the underlying transitive3) is taken into the core, in O function. d) The argument that was in O function is moved out of the core into the periphery of the clause (and may be omitted). d) There is some explicit formal marking of an applicative construction, generally by an affix or some morphological process applying to the verb. This definition refers to the O function, not specifying whether the O includes both direct and indirect objects. Others specifically speak of ‘dative-adding applicatives’ (Haspelmath and Müller-Bardey 2004: 1136), where an oblique argument is promoted to an indirect object position. In Lehmann and Verhoeven (2006: 475), this is referred to as a ‘broader concept of the applicative’. Still, the comprehensive approach can be justified acknowledging that some languages, for example Chicheŵa, employ the same verbal affix for both applicative and benefactive. It will also be necessary in the present work to relate to the term applicative since much of the literature comprises the benefactive as being part of it. 1. 5. 2 Semantic characterizations of the benefactive Semantically, the benefactive construction is most typically associated with a Beneficiary role, which may be understood as ‘person who the actor (intends to) affect by the action’ (Baker 1988: 239). However, in actual terms, benefactive constructions across languages display a wider array of semantic roles, the most common of which are Goal or Allative (move towards X), Recipient (give something to X), Beneficiary (do something for the benefit of X), Source (something or somebody leaves or is made to leave X), and Malefactive (do something that adversatively affects X). Some presentations specify these in more detail, and label e.g. ‘possessor of patient’ as a separate type (Farrell 2005: 89). Doing something ‘for the benefit of X’ has two interpretations that are sometimes confused, one where X is the intended Recipient, and one where the subject takes on the responsibility of doing something
20
which X was originally responsible for doing, phrased as an action done ‘in lieu of’ X. The syntactic expression of these may be identical in languages, see e.g. Baker (1988: 240) for Chicheŵa. I will suggest that these may also be subsumed under the heading of (noninitiating) Experiencer. Other works emphasize the human goal feature as a prototype and speak less of the others (e.g. Shibatani 1996). Dixon and Aikhenvald point out that languages will display various combinations of meanings in a given applicative construction, or, they may separate meanings that traditionally have been considered to be part of, say, the benefactive. Whereas in Creek (and many other languages), a common suffix expresses both Beneficiary and Malefactive semantic roles, Amharic, among others, employs different suffixes for these roles. Hausa has both these types of markers, one that marks Malefactive (suffix –ee, in the category 4 verbs, or v4, see 2. 4), and one that marks both (v5 -aC). Benefactive may also in some languages have its own marking, and other applicative functions another. In Amharic, -ll- puts a benefactive argument in O position, while the functions malefactive, instrumental, and locative are marked by -bb-. In Hausa, one suffix marks only Benefactive (v6 -oo, in some dialects). This shows that it is maybe not always possible to draw an altogether conclusive line between benefactive meanings and other applicative meanings. The fact that languages divide and categorize semantic roles associated with the applicative differently necessitates a definition of the benefactive in Hausa that is languagespecific. This is done in chapter 2. 1. 5. 3 Differences between benefactive and dative case As with the applicative, the dative in some languages is also used for a much wider domain than merely benefactive, for example subjects of some types of non-agentive verbs, such as see (Icelandic is a renowned case). Cf. also Hansen (2004: 45-48), who lists twenty different usages for dative in Japanese, only some of them directly involved in the benefactive. Most analyses of the dative, however, include the conception of a location or participant that is either at the end of path, i.e. a Goal or Recipient, or an Experiencer of some externally induced action (either by an Agent, a Causer, or agentive forces such as weather conditions or an illness), and therefore not being in control. It has been argued (see Janda: 1993) that the use of dative case is triggered only if a person is construed as being sufficiently
3The source says here intranstive. I have interpreted this as a cut-and-paste misprint and changed it to ‘transitive’.
21
affected by an action indirectly directed at her, the judgment of which may be a matter of culture (Wierzbicka: 1979). 1. 5. 4 Syntactic realizations of benefactive constructions Beneficiaries may be realized as primary objects in double object constructions, for example in English, Indonesian, Norwegian and Chicheŵa. In other languages, they are realized as indirect objects, such as Japanese, Chinese, German, Italian, Spanish and Hausa. Languages may use a verbal affix to mark benefactive (as in Indonesian and Chicheŵa), or they may not (as in English, German and Chinese). 1. 5. 5 Cross-linguistic variations in benefactive constructions There is considerable variation with respect to what real-world situation can subject to benefactive construal. According to Shibatani (ibid.: 171), the further one goes down on the list in (2), the less likely it is that a certain language codes the meaning as a benefactive construction. (2)
a) I bought Mary a book b) *I opened Mary the door c) *I closed Mary the door d) *I swept Mary the garden e) *I killed Mary the centipede (a-e: transitives) f) *I danced Mary g) *I sang Mary (f-g: intransitive cognate object verbs) h) *I went Mary to the market (true intransitive)
While English only allows a) as a benefactive, German, Japanese and Italian also allow b). Sinhala allows benefactive constructions corresponding to a)-d), and Indonesian a)-e), since intransitive bases cannot form benefactives in neither of these languages. Javanese, by contrast, can form benefactives on intransitive cognate object verbs. Shibatani points out that while the benefactive constructions which are based on the pattern in John gave Mary a book are consistently grammatical cross-linguistically, those that deviate further and further away from this pattern show a gradual decline in acceptability (1996: 173), and that in these lesser common patterns, no consistent cross-linguistic patterns
22
can be observed. He points out (ibid.: 177) that this observation is in line with Croft’s (1991) observation that ‘Prototype approaches to cross-linguistic patterning reveal that whereas those forms that closely conform to a prototype show cross-linguistic consistency, those that deviate from the prototype tend to exhibit a random pattern of cross-linguistic variation. 1. 5. 6 Benefactive by means of the give schema The give-schema for benefactive constructions: Structure: [NP1 NP2 NP3 GIVE] NP1 = coded as a subject NP2 = coded either as a primary object or as a dative indirect object NP3 = coded either as a secondary object or as a direct object Semantics: NP1 CAUSES NP2 TO HAVE NP3; i.e. NP1 =human agent, NP2 = human goal, NP3 = object theme NP2 exercises potential possessive control over NP3 NP1creates a possessive situation on behalf of NP2 Shibatani argues that the semantics of give-constructions play a crucial part in various senses. First, as in give-constructions, the NP2 of benefactive constructions is typically a human, as one can see from the fact that benefactive constructions in many languages are disallowed with inanimate beneficiaries. Secondly, in benefactive constructions, as in give-constructions, are associated with the beneficiary exercising a (potential) possessive control of some entity (the theme). That is, an important semantic aspect of the benefactive is that of recipiency. This fact may also explain why intransitive-based benefactives are rare cross-linguistically, and that some languages that do not allow cognate object intransitives in benefactive constructions do allow these when the object is explicitly expressed. For instance, it is harder to construe a recipient situation with the agent killing someone a centipede or cockroach than a chicken or a goat. The former focuses on the action, the latter may imply the giving of food. This does not mean that the construal of recipiency cannot be abstract, and that what is transferred to NP2 needs to be a physical object. In a sentence like (3), Mary somehow possesses the knowledge of French after the transfer has successfully taken place; or in (4), the dancing performance is transferred to the recipient just by her watching it. (3) Maurice taught Mary French (4) Maurice danced her a rumba
23
Also, speakers are reported to accept benefactive constructions if a metonymical possessive control of an action can be construed. Shibatani (1996: 179-80) describes how speakers of Japanese and Italian are more liable to accept ‘opening someone a window’ as a benefactive situation if this person wants to throw herself out of the window, or sneak in instead of using the door, than if this action is done for the purpose of getting some fresh air. The metonymic interpretation is successful because the Beneficiary is imagined to be given possessive control over a certain effect, in this case the passage created by the opening of the window. Conversely, it is argued that getting fresh air creates no such controllable effect. Similarly, the construal of a possessive relationship between NP2 and NP3 is implied in malefactive actions, where NP3 is removed from NP2’s possessive control. 1. 5. 7 Transitivity effects in the benefactive In describing the ditransitive construction in English, Goldberg (1995: 147) speaks about the importance of successful transfer. That is, the recipient must be willing to accept the transferred entity; otherwise the construction is not grammatical. In the same vein, Shibatani (1996: 181) discusses the acceptability of benefactive constructions cross-linguistically in terms of what he refers to as a semantic transitivity effect. He says that ‘When the expression conveys low transitivity in the sense that a particular effect, e.g. creation of an object, is not so strongly indicated, then the benefactive expression is not easily accepted in opposition to the counterpart form with high transitivity. The contrast seen below is brought about by the difference in verb meaning similar to that observed between the English shoot someone and shoot at someone’ (Shibatani 1996: 181).
He gives an example from German, cf. (5). (5) a) Otto
baut Emil ein Häuschen build one small.house ‘Otto builds Emil a small house’
b) *Otto baut Emil an einem Häuschen build at one small.house ‘(lit.) Otto builds at a small house for Emil’ Shibatani states that semantic transitivity also plays a role in the malefactive reading of German benefactives; as it is easier to form the construction with ‘verbs with strong
24
implications of resultative states than with those that emphasize process aspects’ (ibid.: 183). He compares the two German sentences Mir zerbracht die Vase ‘The vase breaks into pieces on me’ vs. *Mir brach die Vase ‘The vase broke on me’. See also Hansen’s (2004) analysis of the Japanese dative, in which resultative usage of the type Mary became a doctor-DAT/Mary changed from her pants into a shirt-DAT is envisaged as the final stage of Goal. Shibatani also wonders whether differences in acceptability of benefactive constructions in English in the two classes of motion verbs in a) verbs of instantaneous causation of ballistic motion (I threw him the ball), and b) verbs expressing accompanied motion (*I pushed him the box), resides in ‘the difference in the ease of ‘coercing’ the situation into the schema’ (ibid.:181). This, he suggests, might be because in the former group of verbs, the former possessor separates immediately from the object, whereas in the verbs of accompanied motion she does not. As a consequence, verbs of causation of ballistic motion are easier to construe with the transfer to a new owner. The general idea is that a benefactive expression is more plausible as the situation becomes easier to imagine within the schema of possession.
1. 6 What does it mean to say that a construction is causative? Causatives may be defined either according to their semantics, or according to their compositional structure and phonological representation. Perhaps the more basic or important of these relate to what causatives express in terms of meaning, which one may say that refers to: (6) An agent causing or forcing another participant to perform an action, or to be in a certain condition.
In this sense, a causative is an expression of a relation between two events, consisting of a causing or precipitating event, and a caused event. Cf. Shibatani (1976a: 1-2): (7) The relation between two events is such that the speaker believes that the occurrence of one event, the ‟caused event,” has been realized at t2, which is after t1, the time of the ‟causing event”. (8) The relation between the causing event and the caused event is such that the speaker believes that the occurrence of the caused event is wholly dependent on the occurrence of the causing event; the dependency of the two events here must be to the extent that it allows the
25
speaker to entertain a counterfactual inference that the caused event would not have taken place at a particular time if the causing event had not taken place, provided that all else had remained the same.
In the work of Goldberg (1995), the notion of causation is used in a specialized sense in the caused-motion construction. Goldberg’s caused-motion construction has the structure [SUBJ [V OBJ OBL]] in English, and requires that ‘the causer argument directly causes the theme argument to move along a path designated by the directional phrase’ (Goldberg 1995: 152), in short ‘X CAUSES Y TO MOVE Z’. This construction contributes causal and motion semantics that cannot be attributed to the lexical verb or to the preposition, and the causer argument cannot be an instrument. Further specifications are presented in 3. 6. 11. A subtype of the caused –motion construction is the Transfer-caused-motion construction found in give-type verbs (e.g. Bill handed the book to Mary) with a Recipient instead of a locative phrase as the final goal. 1. 6. 1 A classification on the semantics of causatives Dixon (2000: 61-74) presents an open-ended list of nine semantic parameters along which causatives may vary. According to Dixon, if a language has just one causative mechanism, this mechanism will have a wide semantic range, covering most, but less likely all, the semantic parameters below. If, on the other hand, a language has several causatives, there is always a semantic difference, and they may contrast according to one or more of these semantic parameters. Dixon makes the point that describing the causative in a language according to the syntax and the formal marking is insufficient. Causatives should also be categorized according to their meaning. The first two parameters relate to the verb, points 3-5 to the Causee, and 6-9 to the Causer. A. Relating to the verb. 1. State/action. Does a causative mechanism apply only to a verb describing a state (and process), or also to a verb describing an action? 2. Transitivity. Does it apply only to intransitive verbs, or to both intransitive and transitive verbs, or to all types of verbs - intransitive and simple transitive and also ditransitive? In
26
many languages a causative mechanism applies only to intransitive verbs. In other languages, the morphological causative applies only to intransitives, but there is also a periphrastic causative that applies to all verbs. There are a number of languages where a morphological causative applies freely to all intransitive verbs but only rather rarely to transitives and then just to a few verbs. (No causatives apply only to transitives and not to intransitives. The form of a causative may vary depending on whether it applies to an intransitive or to a transitive verb.) B. Relating to the Causee (original S or A) 3. Control. Is the Causee lacking control of the activity (e.g. if inanimate, or a young child) or normally having control? In particular languages where it is required that the Causee is in control inanimate Causees may not be permitted. 4. Volition. Does the Causee do it willingly (‘let’) or unwillingly (‘make’, is forced to do it)? 5. Affectedness. Is the Causee only partially affected by the activity, or completely affected? This distinction is reported only from one language. C. Relating to the Causer (in A function in the causative construction)? 6. Directness. Does the Causer act directly or indirectly? Event structure is part of the causative semantics. This refers to whether the ‘causing’ or ‘precipitating event’ and a consecutive ‘caused event’ or end state of the caused event are temporally and spatially independent or whether these are tightly connected in time and space. Direct causation may suggest that the causer personally directs the activity; indirect may involve acting through an intermediary. Indirect may also translate as a let-causative such as killing someone by not rescuing her. The contrast may also rely on direct action in terms of physical manipulation vs. indirect causation by issuing a command or a request. Indirect causation can refer to the Causer doing something that again had an effect on the Causee, that is, as two separate events, spatially and temporally independent.
27
7. Intention. Does the Causer achieve the result accidentally or intentionally? Languages may have one causative mechanism for each of these, or may have one to mark intentional action and one that is neutral to the distinction. (Marking only accidental causation is not attested.) 8. Naturalness. Does it happen fairly naturally (the causer just initiating a natural process) or is the result achieved only with effort (perhaps, with violence)? Natural causation may be in terms of no direct effort, by waiting and allowing things to happen. This may constitute the difference between plain transitivity and causation in some languages. While transitive action happens naturally, the causative signals some sort of special effort or force on part of the causer. Special effort may co-occur with unwillingness on part of the Causee. Force may include moral force. 9. Involvement. Is the Causer also involved in the activity (in addition to the Causee) or not involved? This point refers to whether the Causers join in with the activity which they make the Causee undertake, or not, e.g. stopping a canoe while being inside it or while being outside it. 1. 6. 2 Causatives and classes of base verbs Languages differ with respect to what causative constructions they allow. Some of these restrictions are related to properties of the base verb. Shibatani (2001: 6) classifies verbs into four categories, according to how susceptible they are to morphological causativization: 1) Inactive intransitives 2) Middle/ingestive verbs 3) Active intransitives 4) Transitive verbs This applies to whether or not they can enter causative conversion and if they do, how productively they causativize. As mentioned above, causative affixes are in general more productive with intransitive verbs than with transitive. Moreover, even if transitive verbs may be causativized, text-frequency of transitive based causatives appears to be lower than intransitive based ones (Shibatani 2001: 5). According to Shibatani and Pardeshi (2001), ‘no language morphologically causativizes only transitive verbs or allows morphological causativization of active predicates without permitting inactive predicates to enter the same
28
conversion’. There may also be differences within the transitive group. Transitive verbs denoting ‘abstract action’ such as ‘see/show’, ‘remember/remind’, and verbs of ‘consumption of food’ are more likely to be causativized than other transitive verbs if productivity is low (Nedyalkov and Sil’nitskij 1973: 16). The latter group is often referred to as ingestive verbs when it also includes verbs of information acquisition (e.g. seeing, knowing, learning). These are in Shibatani and Pardeshi expanded to include middle verbs like ‘going up’, ‘sitting down’, ‘shaving’, ‘dressing’, ‘combing one’s hair’, etc, since both involve situations where an Agent affects itself. Middle/ingestive verbs include both transitive (‘eat’, ‘learn’, ‘put on clothes’) and intransitive verbs (‘sit down’, ‘ascend’). Shibatani (2001) offers an explanation to the hierarchy of susceptibility to causativization in terms of the semantic role of the protagonist, which again has to do with the difficulty in bringing about the caused event. It is suggested that inactive intransitive verbs are easiest to causativize because ‘the agent introduced by causativization can just fill the vacant agent slot in the argument structure’, and that active intransitives and transitive verbs, on the other hand, need to introduce ‘a new agent to the argument structure in which the agentive role is already filled’, and that this requires an extra step in accommodating the new Agent. It is thus the agentive role of the protagonist that makes it more difficult to bring about the caused event and not the transitivity value per se. He argues that a patientive Causee does not pose much resistance to the causer compared to an agentive Causee, since the only counterforce it would have to overcome would be the Patient’s inertia, either in continuing to be at rest or in continuing to undergo a change. The Causee is therefore completely in the Agent’s (Causer’s) control. If the Causee is agentive, on the other hand, causation cannot happen without the volitional involvement and consent of the Causee, which requires a more delicate manipulation. Transitive events have to extend the action to a Patient, in addition to overcoming the volition of an agentive protagonist. This requires even more effort and elaboration and the expected resistance is greater, hence the hierarchy inactive intransitives > active intransitives > transitives, referring to the difficulty in bringing about a caused event. Shibatani argues that this hierarchy is reflected in the formal representation of a causative construction; the more difficult it is to bring about the caused event, the more explicitly the causative meaning must be indicated, and the more transparent the formal expression is. It may range from atomic lexemes and irregular morphemes, to more transparent, regular morphological expressions and periphrastic forms (Shibatani 2001: 8). Transparency of the causative formative thus correlates both with productivity and the
29
difficulty of bringing about the caused event. There are, for instance, indications that in some languages, productive morphological or periphrastic causatives express situations requiring ‘unusual, elaborate, and more involved efforts’, whereas lexical causatives represent ‘simpler, routine causative situations’ (ibid: 8). 1. 6. 3 When is an expression transitive and when is it causative? Causative formation sometimes borders on the phenomenon of transitivity. There is a need to clarify this borderline with respect to some disagreement among researchers in Hausa and related Chadic languages. Derivations that in these languages were earlier labelled causative have been relabelled transitive, without these concepts being defined or investigated independently. A clarification on the distinction between causative and transitive is therefore in place. Tariana (North Arawak, Brazil) may serve as an illustration. This language has a causative suffix which, in addition to causativizing some intransitive verbs, makes ambitransitive S =A verbs obligatorily transitive when added. The -ita suffix further indicates that a peripheral constituent such as a locative, purposive (do with a final purpose or end state), or comitative has to be obligatorily stated in the clause (Aikhenvald 1998: 56-57). The morpheme that marks causative with intransitive verbs thus has a purely argument-adding function when used with transitive verbs. Confer also Hausa, which has a category 1 verb that are normally transitive, but occasionally intransitive. Some category 1 verbs (HLH –aa) are used seemingly interchangeably with category 5 verbs (HHH –aC), but the latter makes them obligatorily transitive or causative, but with little change in semantic content. In the preceding section, a discussion of the causative lexemes that are involved in routine causative situations with patientive Causees was presented. Reference was made to Shibatani’s (2001) discussion of animate vs. inanimate Causees, and routine vs. more strenuous causative situations, and how that will affect i.a. the productivity of a causative formation, as well as by what means the causative is expressed: lexical, morphological, or periphrastic. Specifically, patientive Causees have been noted to be typical of direct causative types, approaching lexical expressions, see e.g. Zavala (2001: 245) for Olutec, where the sublexical causative (in contrast to the analytical causative) is likely to describe events where the Agent ‘is directly responsible for the change of state of the causee. The causee in this type of expression is always a patient’. This new research on causatives may shed some light on how to delineate a causative situation and a causative construction in any language.
30
Whereas the semantic roles in a transitive construction typically are Agent and a Patient, the parallel roles in a causative construction are Causer and Causee. What distinguishes an Agent from a Causer, and a Patient from a Causee? Treatments of causative have suggested that the difference between Causee and Patient is not absolute, and that Patient-like Causees also fall under the definition of Causees, and often can be found in lexical causatives. Confer, for instance Shibatani (2001: 3), who says that ‘[…] in all these instances of lexical causatives, the causee plays a patient role.’ as in die and kill. There seems to be no doubt that such verb pairs denote a causative relationship. However, recent research has shown that there may be restrictions on the semantics of the verbs which are encoded as lexical causatives, e.g. we do not frequently find events involving two agentive protagonists such as (make) swim, sing or read to be lexicalized as causatives (Shibatani 2001: 3). On the other hand, not all transitive verbs that have Patients are necessarily included in the category of causatives by all linguists. A prerequisite for some is that the event depicted by the verb brings about a change in the Patient, such as verbs meaning ‘kill’ or ‘frighten’, but not verbs meaning ‘hit’ or ‘thank’. See, for instance Tariana, where the causative suffix -ita ‘can be formed on stative verbs if the meaning of the verb presupposes a state changeable through the intervention of a causer’ and ‘verbs which refer to an inherently unchangeable state cannot form a morphological causative’ (Aikhenvald 1998: 49). Focus also tends to be on verbal events that are caused by an external Agent. However, no universal list has been made to say what verbs, in any language, will imply causation and which verbs are merely transitive. It therefore seems that the linguist will have to assess in each case to which category they should be assigned, based on a set of valid criteria relevant to the language in question. A relevant question for Hausa would be, for instance, can a morpheme be express transitivity in some cases and causation in others? Another issue is the semantic category of verbs, that is, whether the verb denotes a state, a process, an activity or an action. It was suggested above that inactive intransitives (corresponding to Perlmutter’s 1978 Unaccusative Hypothesis) are more susceptible to causativization than active intransitives (Perlmutter’s unergative predicates) (see Shibatani 2001: 6-7). It has, for instance, been established by Shibatani and Pardeshi (2001) that no language allows morphological causativization of active intransitives while not also allowing inactive intransitives to be causativized by the same means. A reason for why this is so is suggested in Shibatani (2001: 6): inactive intransitives have Patient protagonists, and therefore leaves an Agent slot open to be filled by a Causer, as noted in 1. 6. 2 above (see, for
31
instance, Launey 2001). In active intransitives, by contrast, an Agent is added to a construction in which the agentive role is already filled, which, in some languages may call for additional modification. While recognizing a difference in semantic roles on the basis of the active/inactive contrast, we may not want to exclude from the definition of ‘causative’ causal relationships because the base verb has a Patient role. Related to this is also the issue of the animacy value of the Patient/Causee as a separate phenomenon. Whereas an inanimate being is always non-volitional and passive, and does not relate mentally to the action induced on it, an animate participant is volitional and relates to whether he or she does something out her own free will, or whether she is forced into action. For such reasons, an inanimate participant may be less likely to be portrayed as a Causee than an animate participant. Whether the semantic role of an end state argument in a causal relation is conceived of as a Patient or a Causee is partly related to the direct-indirect causation parameter, having to do with temporal and/or spatial distance with respect to the relationship between cause and effect. If the effect of a causal relation is imminent, the role will be more Patient-like. For instance, if someone pushes a vase (cause) and it falls (effect), causation is direct. If, on the other hand, a person throws away her banana peelings on the ground, and later another person slips on it and falls and breaks a leg, this would be a case of indirect causation. However, such differences deals with types of causation, and not whether an event should be classified as a causative or not (cf. point 6. in 1.6.1). Such differences manifest themselves i.a. in the fact that direct causal relationships tend to be encoded lexically, that is, with a higher formal fusion than cases of indirect causation, which tend to be encoded morphologically or by periphrastic (syntactic) means. What we see is that whereas indirect action is more prototypically linked to causation, acting directly on another participant may be conceived of more as a transitive (directly transferring the action) than as a causative. 1. 6. 4 Means of expression of causatives Causation may be expressed lexically, by morphological expression, or syntactically (analytic or periphrastic causatives). In addition, there are intermediary cases of causal expressions like in French, where two separate verbs, faire + main verb, behaves like a single, complex verb. The variation of formal expression has led many investigators to exclude or include one or the other along these lines. A presentation which includes all types of causative expressions is Shibatani and Pardeshi (2001), who make a point of the formal and the semantic aspect to be
32
iconic in the sense that direct causation often will be expressed lexically, while less direct causation is expressed by less densely, i.e. either morphologically or periphrastically. It has been rather common, however, to include only morphological expressions of causatives as ‘real causatives’. One representative of this narrower definition is Dixon (2000: 32) who demands that a causative ‘must involve a morphological process, or a verb which only has an abstract, causative meaning’. Lexical items are only included to the extent that they constitute specialized verbs which do not refer to additional, lexical content (e.g. in English, make is accepted but order is not). A definition like the one in Dixon would not include serial verb constructions, where the causing verb is also often a regular lexeme (of the type ‘I speak and the child eats’). Recent research on valency changing derivations has come up with two sets of parameters according to which causatives may vary, syntactic and semantic, as well as their formal mechanisms that exist in forming causatives. In the following I shall present Dixon’s (2000: 30-78) typology of causatives, for the reason that this is based on the works of many other researchers in the field of causatives. The purpose of including Dixon’s typology of causatives is to place the causative constructions in Hausa in relation to these parameters, which I will elaborate on in chapter 2. 1. 6. 5 The syntax of causatives It is observed that for the majority of languages in which causative constructions are found, these are syntactically similar to an existing non-causative clause type, and that only occasionally does a causative form a new construction type which is not found elsewhere in the grammar (Dixon 2000: 46). Dixon also presents a survey of the actual range of syntactic forms that have been attested. Especially for the causatives of transitives, this survey is an important correction on the view on what are possible forms of causatives, and shifts the balance as to what are the most common shapes of causative constructions. Prior to this publication much attention was devoted i.a. to Comrie’s (1975) ‘paradigm case’ theory of causatives, where a special hierarchy originally intended for explaining relative clauses would predict the case marking of Causees (see below). Intransitive clauses causativize easily. According to Dixon, ‘[v]irtually every causative mechanism applies to intransitive verbs’ and ‘quite a few apply only to intransitives’ (2000: 45). With regard to the syntactic form of intransitive based causatives
33
(IC), the case marking of the Causee may be invariant, or it may vary to signify semantic differences (e.g. in accusative, dative, or instrumental case). With transitives and ditransitives, the options are more varied. In periphrastic causatives, the options are not so limited, since they consist of two clauses. The Causee can be marked either as the object of the causative clause or as the subject of the lexical verb in the second clause, or be included in both (Hausa has the two latter options). In morphological causatives of transitives, the arguments face more competition. In Dixon’s survey, there are five options as to what happens to the A and the O of the original transitive clause: Table 1.1 CAUSATIVE OF TRANSITIVE (TC) Type
Causer
Original A (Causee)
Original O
(i)
A
special marking
O
(ii)
A
retains A marking
O
(iii)
A
has O-marking
has O-marking
(iv)
A
O
non-core
(v)
A
non-core
O
In type (i), there is a special affix that marks the Causee that is not used elsewhere in the language (but Dixon mentions one case where it can be traced to a lexeme, in the Dravidian language Telugu). In type (ii), the Causee retains its A marking (ergative in the two languages Kabardian (North-west Caucasian) and Trumai (isolate, Brazil), where both Causer and Causee receive the same case). In another language, Qiang (Tibeto-Burman family, China), the Causer keeps one subject property, cross-reference with the verb, while the Causee receives another, the agentive suffix. In type (iii), the Causee is marked as an O, while the original O retains the same kind of marking. There is a difference, however, in the two kinds of objects, in that generally only the O that was the original A can be passivized. In Oromo (Cushitic branch of Afro-asiatic family, Ethiopia), neither of the objects in the causative of a transitive can be passivized (ibid. 2000: 51). Languages with double O marking in the transitive causative also vary according to whether these objects may be definite. Dixon remarks that the causative of a transitive in many ways is a kind of ditransitive clause, and that in many languages it will have essentially the same syntax as a non-causative ditransitive.
34
Type (iv) turns the original A into an O and the original O becomes a non-core, peripheral argument. In some languages, the original A takes O marking by taking over crossreference of the verb (Swahili , Bantu in East Africa and Jarawara, Arawá family in Brazil). In others, the original O may either be omitted or receive instrumental marking (Kammu, Austroasiatic, Laos and Babungo, Grassfields bantu, Cameroon). In the last type, (v), there are two subtypes. In the first, (v-a), the original A goes into the first empty slot according to a case hierarchy, first described by Comrie (1975): Subject > direct object > indirect object > oblique > genitive > object of comparison (In later works, the two latter are referred to as ‘other’.) This hierarchy was originally suggested to explain the syntax of relative clauses. Languages that comply with this prediction are referred to as instances of the ‘paradigm case’ (1975: 8, 1976: 263-264) or ‘the norm’ (1989: 174-183), or ‘a general tendency’ (1985: 342). It generated a pioneering debate, and Song (1991), among others, has argued against it. Dixon now concludes that although this theory has been made much of in the literature, it ‘is in fact rather rare’ (ibid. 2000: 54). It can be found in the Western Roman languages such as French and Italian. He also rules out Comrie’s prime example Turkish as a ‘paradigm case’, since there is mixed information about it in the literature, e.g. Kornfilt (1997: 331-332) who states that both transitive and ditransitive clauses will have dative Causees in Turkish, which means that the ditransitive will then have two dative arguments. Secondly, Dixon proceeds; this type is greatly outnumbered by the second subtype, (v-b). Thus, considering also the presence of the preceding types (i)-(iv), ‘there is no justification for attaching special attention to the pattern […]’ (ibid. 2000: 55). In the final type, (v-b), the original A goes into a fixed non-core function, and is not susceptible to the transitivity values transitive or ditransitive. These include six different options: dative, instrumental, locative, allative, addessive, or poss:essive. The languages that have the Causee invariably in the dative case allow two datives in a clause, the original dative of the ditransitive and the Causee. Several languages are mentioned for each of these options. When it comes to ditransitives, encoding of arguments may be limited as a result of a language’s general syntactic restrictions, such as limitations on two arguments with the same case marker. Options that are available for IC clauses, such as case alternations of the Causee for the purpose of semantic contrast, may therefore not be available for causatives of ditransitives. When languages have restrictions on same case marking for two arguments in a
35
clause, they resort to different strategies. One of them is to leave an argument unexpressed (omitted), which may render a sentence ambiguous. Another is to mark ‘superfluous’ arguments by preposition. However, data on causatives of ditransitives are not abundant. 1. 6. 6 Causatives and valency Causatives are classified according to valency and categorized among valency-increasing constructions (along with applicatives). That is, they will be labelled according to how they are composed with respect to a non-causative counterpart, the ‘base form’. Thus, a causative verb is ‘based on’ an intransitive verb or ‘based on’ mono- or ditransitive verbs, if one, by subtraction of the assumed ‘added argument’ can reach at the valency value of the base verb. An intransitive verb like ‘to go’ will often be turned into the meaning ‘lead’ (consisting of the meaning units make and go). A monotransitive (bivalent) verb like ‘buy’ will transform into ‘make buy’, which will then become trivalent; consisting of a Causer, instigating the precipitating event, the Causee, who performs the act of buying, and the object to be bought. A common view is that in relation to a non-causative base verb, the added or ‘new’ argument is equivalent to the Causer role, that is, the one who makes someone go or makes someone buy something, in other words, the instigator of the precipitating event. In fact, this is seen as one of the defining characteristics for a construction to be called a causative. See, for instance, this definition by Dixon and Aikhenvald (2000: 13) of a prototypical causative: (a) Causative applies to an underlying intransitive clause and forms a derived transitive. (b) The argument in underlying S function (the Causee) goes into O function in the causative. (c) A new argument (the causer) is introduced, in A function. (d) There is some explicit formal marking of the causative construction. Kemmer and Verhagen (1994) has challenged this view, suggesting that there is evidence that instead, the Causee can be seen as the added argument, and that this will explain, among other things, the similar use of case in simple and causative sentences with regard to the indirect object and the Causee, respectively. So far, I have not seen a definition of causative that does not speak of adding an argument. There are, however, in several languages, constructions that make use of the same phonological material as a causative construction, which does not increase valency. These will have meanings that obviously are related to the causative, but which are not they
36
themselves causative. Such meanings may relate e.g. to aspect or volitional Agents (see, for instance, Kalinina, Kolomatsky and Sudobina 2006 about two Finno-Ugric languages). Another example is where the presence or absence of an object leads to different semantic interpretations, such as Zulu enza ‘work’ in the derived causative enz-isa with a direct object means ‘force to work’ while the same derivation without a direct object means ‘work persistently’, that is, is used as an intenstive form (Nedyalkov and Sil’nitskij 1973: 17-20). My stand here is, however, that this is an empirical question and that there can be constructions that deviate from the prototypical schema with respect to valency increase, as is suggested by Dixon and Aikhenvald (2000) for the applicative. By this I mean that the semantic notion of causation as depicted in (1) above in principle should be given priority to the nature of the formal derivation process between the base verb and the causative. Dixon (2000: 47), even though including point (c) above, says that ‘It is almost always the case that a causative adds an argument’ (emphasis added). He mentions the language Mishmi (Bodic branch of Tibeto-Burman, north-east India), in which the causative of transitives have at most two arguments. For applicatives, there have been cases of ‘unusual applicatives’ in the languages Motuna, Dulong/Rawang, and Tariana, which behave in syntactically disparate ways (see Dixon and Aikhenvald 2000: 14). I would here also like to refer to Martin’s (2000) presentation of valency changing derivations in Creek, which presents valency change as one of several side-effects of voice alternations, where perspective is the primary function, not valency change.
1. 7 Organization of topics Chapter 2 introduces the reader to general background knowledge about Hausa that is considered relevant to the topics of the dissertation. This is related to the phonological sound system and the structure and typology of the causative and benefactive constructions. In chapter 3 I present the theoretical frameworks of Cognitive Grammar, the (Semantic) Transitivity Hypothesis of Hopper and Thompson (1980), and evaluate the relevance of an alternative cognitive approach, Goldberg (1995). It is my hope that these perspectives on language will enable us to look at the various meanings of the linguistic elements that are part of the causative and benefactive constructions in a unified way. For the causative construction this involves the -aC suffix (also referred to as any of the suffixes -a®, -at, -an¶[-a_], -as, -am) and the instrumental marker dà. In the benefactive, the -aC suffix is
37
combined with the dative marker ma-¶mVass- for pronouns, and maæ¶waæ for nouns (also referred to as MA, representing all variants). In chapter 4 I present the state of the art for phonological, semantic, and diachronic aspects that has been seen as relevant to a possible polysemous relationship between causative and benefactive. A rather extensive discussion is included on the semantics, this having caused considerable controversy in the case of Hausa. I point out some weaknesses of earlier analyses about causative and benefactive and suggest alternative explanations and perspectives to some of them (other issues demanding separate chapters). Chapter 5 starts out considering a possible pathway of the development of the –aC suffixes. This initial section is included here in support of the special semantics which is attached to this suffix. In the main core of this chapter earlier observations for the semantics of the benefactive as presented in chapter 3 are further corroborated and completed by test results from my own field data collected in 1994, along with issues on test construction and methodology. These data are then compared to my findings of similar semantic features of the causative. I then go on to suggest alternative and more universal explanations for linguistic observations that have been made for Hausa regarding the problem at hand. Having cleared the way of these problems, I will suggest an alternative semantic and structural approach beginning with an alternative way to look at the structure of causatives in chapter 6, applied to Hausa in chapter 7. Chapter 6 looks at the typological aspect and will serve as the motivator of a possible universal tendency, which favours a causative-benefactive polysemy, and as such will support a conceptual connection between the two constructions in Hausa as well. There may, however, be several reasons (pathways) to causative/benefactive (and applicative) syncretism, which I present and evaluate in turn with respect to their relevance to the situation in Hausa. One of these evaluations is a discussion the two alternative approaches to the structure of causatives, biclausal and monoclausal structure, with a view to arguing that monoclausal structure allows one to draw parallels between the semantic role of the Causee in causative constructions on the one hand, and the dative object of benefactive constructions on the other. It will also be argued that Hausa is a language in which it can be successfully argued that the morphological causative is monoclausal. An extensive semantic analysis of the linguistic elements expressing the dative and instrumental cases, the -aC/BEN and -aC/CAUS-CMN suffixes is presented in chapter 7, illustrated with selected examples from Hausa and with schemas representing each of the
38
senses. The senses will be connected in semantic networks of extensions and categorizing schemas. In chapter 8 I present the test results of my investigation on the phonology of causative/caused-motion and benefactive suffixes. This chapter will include methodological considerations regarding the test construction and the testing process for the phonology tests. For those who are primarily interested in the phonological aspects, this chapter may successfully be read by itself (or even first). The final chapter summarizes the set of syntactic, semantic, phonological and typological arguments presented in the course of the dissertation, and draws a conclusion about the likelihood of a polysemous relationship between the causative and benefactive constructions in Hausa.
39
CHAPTER 2
Relevant aspects of Hausa 2. 0 Introduction This chapter will introduce the reader to necessary background information about relevant aspects of the Hausa language, including a family tree presenting Hausa within the Chadic languages (section 2. 1), necessary information on the phonology of Hausa such as the phoneme inventory, syllable structure and phonotactic rules, tones, the use of epenthetic consonants, palatalization processes, dialectal variation on consonants, and relevant historical sound changes (section 2. 2). It will include an overview of the major dialectal divide, describing the two main dialects of Hausa, east and west, with emphasis on the phonological variation pertaining to the topic of this dissertation (section 2. 3). Then an overview of the Hausa derivational verbal system, known as the ‘grade system’, will be presented (section 2. 4). After that follows a presentation of the Hausa basic clause structure, describing the general word order and establishing a practice on terminology of objects and cases. This section also includes focus constructions, since these will appear in the phonology test (section 2. 5). A separate section is devoted entirely to a detailed description of the Hausa causative and benefactive sentences (section 2. 6). The latter will include the encoding of objects, besides relevant background knowledge for the two individual components of these constructions, the instrumental marker dà, and the dative markers ma-/mà/wà (represented as MA). Finally, a discussion and classification of the Hausa causative in relation to recent linguistic literature is provided (section 2. 7). This presentation takes the Standard Hausa dialect (SH), spoken in the Kano area, as a point of departure. If nothing is said about dialectal area, the examples given are from the Standard dialect. As a general convention, affixes will be segmented from the stem even if tone pattern is also part of the grammatical meaning. This applies, for example, to verbal derivation and noun plural formation.
40
2. 1 Hausa within Chadic Hausa is a Chadic language in the Afro-asiatic phylum. The groups in the Chadic language family again consist of several languages, presented as in the following in Newman (1990). Languages that are referred to in this dissertation are italicized. I. West Branch A. Subbranch West A 1. Hausa group: Hausa, Gwandara 2. Bole group a. Bole, Bele, Kirfi, Deno, Galambu, Gera, Geruma, Kwami, Maha, Ngamo; Karekare b. Kanakuru; Kupto, Pero, Tangale 3. Angas group a. Angas, Chip, Kofyar, Mapun, Sura; Goemai, Koenoem, Montol, Tal b. Gerka 4. Ron group a. Ron, Karfa, Kulere, Sha, Shagawu b. Fyer B. Subbranch West B 1. Bade group: Bade, Duwai, Ngizim 2. Warji group a. Warji, diri, Jimbin, Kariya, Mburku, Miya, Siri, Tsagu b. Pa’a (Pa’anci) 3. Saya group a. Saya, Dass, Geji, Polchi, Zeem b. Guruntum, Ju c. Boghom, Laar, Mangas II. Biu-Mandara Branch A. Subbranch BM-A 1. Tera group a. Tera, Jara b. Ga’anda, Hona 2. Bura group a. Bura/Pabir, Chibak, Putai b. Kilba, Margi 3. Higi group: Higi/Kapsiki, Bana, Hya 4. Mandara group a. Mandara, Dghwede, Glavda, Guduf, Gvoko; Podoko b. Lamang, Mabas 5. matakam group a. Matakam, Chuvok, Mefele; Balda, Gisiga, Gisiga-South, MofuGudur, Mofu-North; Dugwor, Merey, Zulgo; Mada, Moloko, Muyang, Ouldeme b. Muktile c. Mboku, Ndreme
41
6. Sukur group: Sukur 7. Daba group: Daba, Buwal, Gawar, Hina 8. Bata group a. Bata/Bachama; Gude, Holma, Nzangi b. Gudu, Ngwaba B. Subbranch BM-B 1. Kotoko group: Kotoko, Logone, Midah; Buduma 2. Musgu group: Musgu, Mbara C. Subbranch BM-C 1. Gidar group: Gidar III. East Branch A. Subbranch East-A 1. Somrai group: Somrai, Ndam, Tumak; Gadang, Miltu, Mod, Sarwa 2. Lele group: Lele, Nancere; Gabri, Kabalai, Tobanga 3. Kera group: Kera, Kwang B. Subbranch East-B 1. Dangla group a. Dangaleat, Bidiya, Jegu, Migama, Mogum b. Birgit, Kujarke, Mahwa, Mubi, Toram 2. Mukulu group: Mukulu 3. Sokoro group: Sokoro, Barain, Saba IV. Masa Branch 1. Masa group: Masa, Marba, Musey; Mesme, Peve, Zime
42
BRANCH
SUBBRANCH
A. I. WEST
B.
A.
CHADIC FAMILY
II. BIUMANDARA
III. EAST
IV. MASA
B.
GROUP 1. Hausa 2. Bole 3. Angas 4. Ron 1. Bade 2. Warji 3. Saya 1. Tera 2. Bura 3. Higi 4. Mandara 5. Matakam 6. Sukur 7. Daba 8. Bata 1. Kotoko 2. Musgu
C.
1. Gidar
A.
1. Somrai 2. Lele 3. Kera
B.
1. Dangla 2. Mukulu 3. Sokoro
A.
1. Masa
2. 2 Notes on phonology4 This section presents the necessary background notes on the phonological systems in Hausa. Dialectal differences concerning phonology is included here, other aspects of dialectal contrasts are presented in 2. 3. 4Much of the information in this section, including some of the illustrative examples, is drawn from Newman (2000: ch. 54). However, I am solely responsible for the claims made here.
43
2. 2. 1 Phoneme inventories The consonantal inventory of Standard Hausa is presented below. Where Standard Hausa orthography deviates from international phonetic signs, SH standard orthographic signs are given in bold types. TABLE 2.1: Standard labial
plosives
voiceless
(f, fj)
coronal
Hausa consonant phoneme inventory
palatal
t
. Note also the distinctive difference between the two rhotics, where is a retroflex flap, and is an apical tap or roll, marked by a tilde. The /f/ phoneme is most commonly pronounced [F], i.e. as a bilabial fricative, but variations (depending on dialect and phonological environment) include [p] (esp. Kano city, Eastern Hausa), [f], or [h]. The [h] pronunciation is allophonic, as it is pronounced (and written as such before back rounded vowels /u, o/, e.g. daæfuwaa ~ daæhuwaa ‘cooking’, and SH (Standard Hausa) foææotoo ~ WH (West Hausa) hoæotoo ‘photo’.
44
Palatalized and labialized velars are orthographically represented with a following or , respectively, cf. gw- in gwadaæa ‘measure’, and gy- in gyaæfiaa ‘ground nuts’, to contrast with velars with no secondary articulation, cf. gaædaa ‘duiker’. However, when /gw/ is followed by back rounded vowels, labialization is not marked, cf. goo®oæ [gw o:\o] ‘kolanut’, plural gwa®®aa ‘kolanuts’. Similarly, when the palatalized velars are followed by a front vowel, coarticulation is left unmarked in orthography, cf. geefeæe [gje: Fe:] ‘side’, plural gya]ffaa ‘sides’. Regarding the two R’s, the tap/roll /\/ and the flap /«/, these have an allophonic overlap. The /r/ phoneme has the rolled allophone [\], occurring ‘in certain postions’ (Newman 2000: 395), e.g. jinji®nìyaa [’in’i\nija:] ‘female infant’, cf. jinjirii [’in’i«i:] ‘infant’. In certain dialects, e.g. the northern dialect Ader, the difference between /«/ and /\/ has been lost, only the roll remains. The vowel inventory of twelve vowels, and two diphthongs is given in Table 2.2. Vowel length is distinctive. TABLE 2.2: Standard Hausa vowel inventory, incl. diphthongs: Short vowels
Long vowels
i
u e
o a
Diphthongs
i:
u: e:
o: a:
ai
au
In the transcription convention adopted here, vowel length is marked by double vowels, e.g. rìigaa ‘gown’ vs. rigaa ‘precede’. 2. 2. 2 Syllable structure and relevant phonotactic rules Hausa has three possible syllable structures, CV (light syllable) and CVV or CVC (heavy syllables). A CVV syllable may consist of a consonantal onset plus a long vowel nucleus, e.g. raa.naa ‘day, sun’, or a consonantal onset plus a diphthong nucleus (syllable borders marked by full stop symbol: . ), e.g. fiau.kaæa ‘pick up’. A CVC syllable is made up of a consonantal onset, a short vowel nucleus, and a consonantal coda, e.g. tsun.tsuu [s’un.s’u:] ‘bird’. All syllables have consonantal onsets: if orthographically starting with a vowel, they phonologically still start with a glottal stop, e.g. aæbookii [?a.bo:.ki:] ‘friend’. A syllable never
45
contains consonant clusters, abutting consonants always belong to different syllables, cf. ji®.gii ‘vehicle’. Most Hausa words end in a vowel. The range of possible consonants in codas is restricted, and word-final consonants hardly appear, apart from in recent loan-words and idiophones. Obstruents in word-final position (and other coda positions) are neutralized in relation to phonation, and voiced/voiceless/glottalized consonants in word-final position all become voiceless: cf. ®aæsôt = ®aæsiifiìi ‘receipt’. All consonants in Hausa can be, and are commonly, geminated in medial position, e.g. zo]bbaa ‘ring, PL’ < zoobeæe ‘ring’. Cf. also fisshe [fiSSe]
or fiddaæa ‘take out’, where
assimilation of stem final -t- (cf. fita® daæ ‘take out’) to the following consonant results in a geminate. Gemination is especially common in morphologically derived forms. 2. 2. 3 Tone Hausa has two distinctive tones, high tone (H) and low tone (L), besides a falling (F) contour tone, the latter occurring only on heavy syllables. High tones are unmarked in the transcription, low tones are marked by a grave accent, e.g. LL maæceæ ‘woman’. Falling tone is marked by a circumflex, e.g. ma]nyaa ‘big, PL’ and daawo]owaa ‘returning back, VN’. Only heavy syllables (CVV, CVC) can carry falling tones. 2. 2. 4 Epenthetic consonants The epenthetic glide consonants and are often inserted if two vowels conjoin, e.g. in the case of adding a suffix. Examples are kirawoo ‘call here, summon’ (kiraa ‘call’ + oo ‘VENTIVE’), biya® ‘subjugate’ (bi ‘follow’ + -a® ‘CAUSATIVE’), jìyu¶jìwu ‘be felt, be heard’ (ji ‘hear, feel’ + u ‘SUSTENATIVE’). 2. 2. 5 Palatalization rules When followed by either of the front vowels /i/ and /e/, the alveolar consonants /s/, /z/ and /t/ palatalize into /S/ , and the affricates /’/ < j >, and /tS/ < c>, respectively. Examples: s > sh ˚asaa ‘country’ z>j cìizaa ‘bite’
˚asaæashee ‘countries’ (Reduplicated consonant in plural ending -àaCredee) macìjii ‘snake (the one who bites)’
46
t>c mootaæa ‘car’
mootoocii ‘cars’ (Reduplicated consonant in plural ending -ooCredii)
The z > j rule is blocked by the presence of the nasal /n/, cf. kundii ‘thesis’, not *kunjii. Another palatalization rule concerns the alternation between /w/ and /j/, orthographically and . The semivowel will regularly palatalize to before front vowels /i, e/, cf. w>y kaæasuwaa ‘market’
kaasuwooyii ‘markets’ (Reduplicated consonant in plural ending -ooCredii)
2. 2. 6 Dialectal variations in consonants In western Hausa dialects (WH), /l/ is used in place of the rhotics in syllable-final position within a word, when the next consonant is not , e.g. WH haælbaa for SH haæ®baa ‘shoot’ (but not WH *mulnaæa for SH mu®naæa ‘joy’). The replacement concerns especially , and to a less extent . In still other dialects, the ® has changed further to /l/, e.g. in the Daura/Matameye area, cf. all attested forms SH bìya® = WH bìyat = WH bìyal ‘five’. In northwestern Hausa (e.g. Dogondoutchi dialect in Niger) SH /s’/ corresponds to /, cf. WH and SH ‘grain’. The distinction is thought to be partly allophonic (Newman 2000: 394), since < c’> is found before front vowels, but also contrastive, cf. WH and SH ‘expensiveness’. The /f/ phoneme corresponds to /h/, with accompanying secondary palatalization and labialization (/hw/ and /hj/). The is also pronounced [J] instead of SH [’]. The /f/ phoneme is pronounced and written as [hw] before /a/: hwaafiì ‘fall’ for SH faafiì, and as [h] in other environments, e.g. taæhi ‘go, travel’ for SH taæfi. 2. 2. 7 Historical sound changes One historical sound change is particularly relevant to claims on the diachronic origin of the a®/CAUS-CMN and -a®//BEN suffixes. It is referred to as Klingenheben’s law (Klingenheben 1928) and the relevant part of it describes a ‘rhotacism rule’ where syllable-final coronal obstruents /t, fi, d, s, z/ ⇒ /®/ /_ C. Examples: fa®.keæe ‘itinerant trader‘ < *fat.kee, cf. plural fa.taæa.kee fa®.kaæa ‘wake up’ = faæ.fia.kaæ ‘awake’
47
(preceded by a syncope of -a- and tonal change to *fafikaæ, Cf. Newman 2000: 599 for independently motivated tonal rule LHL > HL, and page 636 for syncope rule.) Later investigation has shown (Newman 2000: 233), however, that the application of Klingenheben’s original rule does not apply, or applies only to a lesser extent, to the sibilants /s, z/, cf. present day pronunciation of ‘numerous words’ that remained unaltered, e.g. the following words: /s.C/ kaskoo ˚yastaæa kwaæsfaa
‘earthen bowl’ ‘strike flint’ ‘shell, pod’
/z.C/ fizgaa ˚yaæzbii ˚azwaa
‘grab, snatch’ ‘skin disease on face & neck’ ‘scabies’
Rhotacism of /s, z/ > /®/ exists, but only in SH (Eastern dialects). It is phonologically conditioned, ‘primarily occurring’ when followed by the nasal /n/, e.g. SH a®naa
‘pagans’
cf. WH
SH gaæ®maa SH gu®fieæe
‘large hoe’
cf. WH
‘sprain’
aznaa
gaæsmaa cf. WH gusfieæe
This change is, however, lexically sporadic. Newman concludes that: ‘We can assume that in most cases the ® came historically from *t, *fi, or *d, even when there is no extant internal evidence.’ (2000: 233) The change of /t, fi, d/ to -® in coda position is a synchronically active process today, while the /s, z/ to -® in the same position is sporadic (cf. Jaggar 2001: 27). Regarding rhotacism in word-final position, Newman states that this is not an automatic process, as some words ending in /s/ allow an alternative pronunciation with a final /®/. Examples: With /t/ and /d/: ka]® kya® SH bìya®
< *ka]d (cf. kadaæ) = kyat = WH bìyat
With /s/: maraæ® = maraæs ma]® = ma]s (< masaæ) fita® = fitas [WH]
‘don’t’ ‘difficult’ ‘five’
‘lacking’ cf. plural ‘for him (DAT marker)’ ‘take out’
48
maraæsaa
takwaæ® (less common) = takwaæs waæ®wa® = waæ®was
‘eight’ ‘ideophone describing falling flat on one’s back’
Recent loanwords (especially from English and Arabic) do not allow such pronunciation. Examples: ìbìlôs
‘devil’ (Ar.)
oofìs
‘office’ (Eng.)
muæ®aabuæs aælhaæmôs
‘resignation’ (Ar.)
duæ®o]s ka®aæs
‘underpants’ (Eng.)
‘Thursday’ (Ar.)
‘carrots’ (Eng.)
2. 3 The main dialectal divide: Eastern and Western Hausa Here I will state briefly some dialectal differences that may surface in sample sentences from my data. Further dialectal differences specifically relating to final consonantism is presented in the phonology chapter (8. 4. 4). In Zaria (1982) Hausa dialects are distinguished on the basis of a) sound correspondences, and b) morphology and syntax, and divided into certain dialectal areas on which he focuses: Western Hausa Kurfey Dogondoutchi Sokoto Katsina
Eastern Hausa Daura Kano Bauchi Guddiri Zaria
Zaria (1982) does not cover all of the Hausa dialects. Apart from Kurfey and Dogondoutchi, none of the Hausa speaking areas in Niger, which include Tahoua, Marafii, Damagaram, and Diffa, are covered. Certain scattered references are made to some of these dialects. As is common among Hausa scholars, Zaria divides Hausa dialects into two main groups, Eastern and Western dialects. Zaria (1982: 15-16) lists some of the major dialectal differences between eastern and western Hausa, including: 1) A sound correspondence between /h(w)/ : /f/, as in: West hwarii hìta!
East farii fìta!
‘white’ ‘go out!’
49
2) An alternation between ma : wa as a dative marker in dative objects. West maæ baælaa
East waæ baælaa
‘to/for Bala’
3) Certain morphological differences in the use of masculine pronouns:
3.SG.M.POSS 3.SG.M.SJN 3.SG.M.CONT
West
East
-shì/-y shì shikà
-sà yà yakèe
4) Certain morphological differences regarding the use of relative perfective pronouns in the plural and impersonal forms:
SG.IMP.RL.PF 1.PL.RL.PF 2.PL.RL.PF 3.PL.RL.PF
West
East
ankà munkà kunkà sunkà
akà mukà kukà sukà
5) Gemination of consonants is found in the west where it is not found in the east: a) Within words
West zowwaæa¶zakkwaæa malla]m gahwakkaæa
East zuwaæa maala]m gafakaæa
‘coming’ ‘Mr./teacher’ ‘Leather case for the Koran’
b) In genitive constructions as a result of assimilation: West hwadaæs sa®kii rìigam mallaæm
East fada® sa®kii ‘the Emir’s palace’ rìiga® maalaæm ‘teacher’s shirt’
6) The copula alternates between naa/taa in the west and nee/cee in the east:
Feminine copula: Masculine copula:
West Marya]m taa Bellò naa
East Marya]m cee ‘It’s Maryam’ Belloæ nee ‘It’s Bello’
50
2. 4 The Hausa derivational verbal system (grade system) Anyone who wants to discuss matters relating to verbs in Hausa must make reference to the Hausa verbal derivation system. Before I delve into sentence structures, it is therefore necessary to give a brief introduction to this system. The Hausa verbal derivation system is conventionally referred to in terms of so-called ‘grades’, where each grade (gr) is associated with a certain phonological form (suffix and tone), and a certain meaning or set of meanings. Each grade is also specified for a transitivity value. Grades 1, 2, and 3 are referred to as basic or primary in the sense that they often serve as building blocks for the semantically more complex grades 4, 5, 6, and 7, which are referred to as derived or secondary. However, groups of the basic grades can also be characterized semantically. For a first introduction, see Parsons (1960 and 1971-72). In more recent dictionaries, for instance Awde (1996) and Newman (2007), the verbal grades are instead labelled with a v for verb and the number of the grade, e.g. v5, a convention I shall follow here for the sake of brevity when listing examples. The term grade, although deviating from general linguistic terminology, will also be used in discussions to follow, since this will reduce confusion when relating the discussion to Hausaist literature. Also, the grade system as such is not under debate here. 2. 4. 1 The phonology of the Hausa grade system Table 2.3 presents the suffixes and tone patterns of the various grades. Tone patterns for trisyllabic verbs are specified in the parentheses. In the case of four or more syllables, the tones spread to the left, e.g. the trisyllabic tone pattern HLH will become HHLH, etc. Only one verb is attested with as much as five syllables (mu˚addasanta® ‘appoint as deputy’). The suffix -ee occurs before pronominal accusative objects in two of the verb forms, gr2 and gr5. In gr2 LH -aa¶-ee¶-i, the -i suffix precedes full nominal (as opposed to pronominal) accusative objects. The generalization can be made for all verbs that their final vowels are short before nominal accusative objects (and sentential objects), excepting gr6 HH -oo, which is always long; and gr4C -ee where the long vowel adds an intensive meaning when contrasted with the short gr4C form -è. Certain monosyllabic verbs also have long C-forms (gr0 monosyllabic -aa and CiCaa verbs, see below). This has led some Hausaists (Newman 1973, 2000: 632) to choose the C-form as the lexical (‘underlying’) form, and instead postulate a lengthening rule, so as to be able to predict the quantity of the final vowel
51
of the C-form5. However, the A-forms have continued to function as citation-forms, and the practice of lexical C-forms has not been taken up.
5This ‘lengthening rule’ concurs with the fact that the instrumental particle dà and the dative marker mà sometimes become long, which may be taken to suggest that they are incorporated into the verb, which some have advocated (for incorporation of mà, cf. e.g. Munkaila 1990, for lengthening of dà and mà, see e.g. Abdoulaye 1996). The conditions under which they are lengthened, however, have not been investigated.
52
TABLE 2.3: The Hausa grade system: phonological form BASIC (primary)
A-form
DERIVED (secondary)
gr1
gr2
gr3
gr4
gr5
gr6
gr7
HL(H) -aa
LH(L) -aa
LH(L) -a
HL(H) -ee
HH(H) -a®¶-as
HH(H) -oo
(L)LH -u
HL(H)
(L)LH
–
HL(H)
HH(H)
HH(H)
–
-aa
-ee
-ee
-a®¶-as¶
-oo (daæ)
(before pause)
B-form
-ad daæ -Ø daæ
(before
-shee¶ -asshe
pronoun ACC)
C-form
HL(L) -a
(L)LH -i
–
(before
HL(H) -ee
HH(H) -a®¶-as¶
HL(L) -e
-ad daæ¶ -Ø daæ
HL(H) -ee
HH(H) -a®¶-am¶
HH(H) -oo (daæ)
–
HH(H) -oo
HH(H) -a®¶-am¶
noun ACC)
D-form
(before dative object)
HL(H) -aa
HL(H) -aa
HL(H) -aa
(L)LH
(H)HH
-ii HH(H)
-a®¶-am¶ -an¶(-as)
-a®¶am¶ -an¶(-as)
HL(H) -ee
-an¶-as
-an¶(-as)
HL(H) -ee HH(H) -oo In addition to these seven grades, a gr0 has been coined (Newman 2000, Jaggar 2001) to include monosyllabic verbs ending in -aa or -ii, as well as verbs of the shape CiCaa (e.g. shaa ‘drink’, ci ‘eat’, and kiraa ‘call’). Newman (2000) and Jaggar (2001) have also incorporated other small groups of verbs into this system, specifically a gr3a of intransitive HH -a verbs and a heavy first syllable, and a gr3b intransitive of HL tone and either an -i, -u,
53
or -a suffix. Grades 3a and 3b have deviant phonology in relation to the original grade, but share other features like the intransitivity value, common use of D-forms, and ways of forming verbal nouns. For the sake of simplicity, the tables are presented without the new grades 0, 3a, and 3b. Regarding the D-forms for gr2, 3, and 7, the -as suffix has been put in parentheses because of controversy regarding its existence (see ch. 4 ‘Literature review and discussion of issues related to –aC constructions’).
54
2. 4. 2 The meaning and transitivity of grades Table 2.4 presents by means of labels the meanings that are associated with each grade. Representative examples are provided in the two right-most columns. TABLE 2.4: The meaning and transitivity of grades Transitivity value
Meaning
Example
Translation
Basic Applicative
dafaæa nafiaæa
‘cook’
Agent-intrans.
daaraæa
‘laugh’
Basic
aæikaa
‘send s.o.’
Partitive
yaænkaa
‘cut off part of’
Basic intrans.
shìga
‘enter’
label BASIC (Primary) gr1
Transitive and intransitive
gr2 Transitive
gr3 Intransitive
‘wind onto’
(Agent¶Patient- cìka subjects)
‘(be) fill(ed)’
Totalityconclusive
sayeæe
‘buy up/all’
Separative-
˚waaceæe
‘take away’
deprivative
zubeæe
‘leak away’
Unaccusative
huujeæe
‘be pierced’
Causative
dur˚usa® daæ
‘bring to one’s
DERIVED (Secondary) gr4 Transitive and intransitive
gr5 Transitive
gr6
knees’
Caused-motion jeefa® daæ
‘throw away’
Transitive and
Ventive-
‘bring (pick up and
intransitive
centripetal
gr7 Intransitive
fiaukoo
come)’
Sustenative¶ Affected subject (incl. passive)
55
daawoo
‘come back’
kaæ®aæntu aæuku
‘be well read’ ‘happen’
2. 4. 3 The meaning of grades with OBJDAT When used with an OBJDAT, each of the grades adds a certain meaning to the semantic role of the dative object, see below. This meaning is relatable to meanings of the respective grades when used without an OBJDAT. However, not all meanings of the individual grades are exploited in grammaticalizing a certain semantic role of the OBJDAT, e.g. in gr4, only the separative-deprivative meaning (motion away from) is reflected in the meaning of these verbs before the OBJDAT. As a general convention, semantic roles are written beginning with a capital letter. In Table 2.5, the terms ‘Benefactive’ and ‘Malefactive’ are used specifically about positively and negatively affected OBJDATs, respectively.
56
TABLE 2.5: The meaning of grades when used before an OBJDAT (The ‘D-forms’ in table 2.3) Relevant
Semantic role
meaning
of OBJDAT
Example
label without OBJDAT BASIC (Primary) gr1
Applicative
Benefactive
Actor-intrans.
Taa fafiaæa masaæ laæabaa®ìi ‘She told him the news’
gr2
Partitive
(Not used)
gr3
(none)
(Not used)
DERIVED (Secondary) gr4
Kadaæ kaæ gujeæe manaæ! Separative-
Deprivative
‘Don’t run away from us!’
deprivative
Malefactive
Yaa \ooyeæe mataæ littaafìi. He hid the book from her.
gr5
Causative
Intensive
Za]i tsaya® mukuæ daæ mootaæa
Caused-motion
(Benefactive &
‘He will stop the car for you’
Malefactive)
Yaa ka®\a® mataæ daæ kufiii ‘He took money for/from her’
gr6
Ventive-
Benefactive
centripetal gr7
Affected
Naa zaa\oo mataæ zanneæe maæi kya]u ‘I have chosen some nice material for her’
(Not used)
subject (incl. passive)
57
2. 5 Basic clause structure 2. 5. 1 Terminology for objects and cases In this dissertation, the terms OBJ1 (immediately following the verb), and OBJ2 (immediately following OBJ1) will be used when referring to syntactic arguments in a purely syntactic sense of the word, e.g. in discussions of syntactic agreement and changes in word order. When case markers are relevant to the discussion, these terms will be supplied with specifications of case markings in the following way: (S-TAM-V) (S-TAM-V) (S-TAM-V)
OBJ1DAT OBJ1INST OBJ1ACC
OBJ2INST OBJ2ACC
The OBJ1 position may in addition have two case markers when followed by an OBJ2, as in OBJ1DAT.INST. In contexts where it is superfluous to distinguish between the OBJ1 and OBJ2 positions, the marking of position after the verb (1, 2) will be unspecified, as in e.g. OBJINST. In fact, this will apply in most cases, since the OBJINST is the only object that can occur in both positions 1 and 2 when both object positions are filled (e.g. V- OBJINST - OBJACC or VOBJDAT - OBJINST.) Dative case is marked by either a pronominal dative marker (mV-, where V is either /a/ or a regressively assimilated vowel), or by the nominal dative markers mà/wà, depending on dialect. Instrumental case is always marked by dà. Objects that are unmarked are considered true direct objects and are labelled OBJACC, and defined in terms of their syntactic position after OBJ1DAT or after the verb as OBJ1ACC and by the absence of formal (morphological) marking. When quoting passages from previous research, it will occasionally be necessary to use the traditional terms IO/i.o. (indirect object) and DO/d.o. (direct object). This should never be the cause of any misunderstanding, however, since IO always corresponds to a dative marked object. The term DO/d.o., on the other hand, has been used in previous research on Hausa to cover both OBJINST and OBJACC, since there has not been a tradition for distinguishing these among Hausa researchers.
58
2. 5. 2 General word order The word order in Hausa is SVO, with the dative object preceding the direct object. Neither of the objects is obligatory, thus the structure of a simple sentence is: (SNOUN)-TAM-V-(OBJ1DAT)-(OBJ1/2ACC). The Tense-Aspect marker (TAM) agrees in person and number with the subject noun and simultaneously carries verbal information. The syntactic status of the TAM is not unproblematic. Although its status is not to be resolved here, a few words of clarification are in place. Traditionally, the TAM is said to occupy the AUX position, which is not altogether wrong to say since it carries information about the verb. However, not all sentences contain a noun in the subject position, and a consequence of the AUX analysis would be to say that some sentences do not have a subject. This is intuitively not correct. In the absence of a noun subject, the obligatory (omnipresent) TAM (which immediately follows the noun when a noun is present) will, in practical terms, function as the subject. In view of the fact that a noun subject is not always present, a better analysis would probably be to say that TAM constitutes a part of the subject. However, consistent with tradition I shall adopt the practice of labeling it just ‘TAM’, and ask the reader to bear the discussion above in mind when reading the examples throughout the dissertation. Examples of simple declarative sentences are provided below. (9) a) SUBJ TAM VERB OBJ1 Mahaæifaa sun saæy-i aæbinci parent.PL they.PF buy-2B food.ACC ‘The parents bought food’
b) SUBJ TAM Mahaæifaa sun parent.PL they.PF
VERB say-aæa buy-1D
‘The parents bought food for Amina’
OBJ1 OBJ2 maæ Aminaæ aæbinci DAT Amina food.ACC
Adverbials follow both objects, as in (10). (10)
a) SUBJ TAM Mahaæifaa sun parent.PL they.PF
VERB say-aæa buy-1D
OBJ1 OBJ2 ADV ma-taæ aæbinci jiyaæ DAT-her food.ACC yesterday
‘The parents bought food for her yesterday’
2. 5. 3 Focus constructions Arguments that characteristically occur after the predicate in a clause may be shifted to prepredicate position for the sake of emphasis (focus), in which case the construction will use
59
relative tense-aspect markers (in non-relative sentences, the non-relative TAM is not marked for relativity). Preposed arguments may be i.a.: (i) Adverbial nominals (indicating time, place, manner, etc.) (11)
a) ADV TAM Jiyaæ sukaæ yesterday they.RL.PF
VERB saæy-i buy-2B
‘It was yesterday they bought food’
OBJ1 aæbinci food.ACC
(ii) Objects (usually accusative object, occasionally a dative object) b) ACC AÆbinci food
TAM sukaæ they.RL.PF
VERB say-aæa buy-1D
‘It is food they bought for Amina’
OBJ1 maæ Amiinaæ DAT Amina
(iii) Emphasized arguments using the copula nee (masc.)/cee (fem.) which have been moved to emphasis position from pre- or post-verbal position, post-verbal in the case of: Adverb: c) ADV COP Jiyaæ nee yesterday COP.M
SUBJ sukaæ they.RL.PF
‘It was yesterday they bought food’
VERB saæy-i buy-2B
OBJ1 aæbinci food.ACC
Accusative object: d) FOC¶OBJ1 AÆbinci food.ACC
COP neæe COP.M
‘It was food they bought yesterday’
TAM VERB sukaæ saæy-aa they.RL.PF buy-2A
ADV jiyaæ yesterday
Dative object (in this case, the dative marker stays behind): e) FOC¶OBJ1COP TAM VERB Amiinaæ cee sukaæ say-aæa Amina COP.F they.RL.PF buy-1D ‘It is for Amina we have bought food’
(OBJ1) OBJ2 maæ aæbinci DAT food.ACC
Pre-predicate in the case of focussed subject: f) FOC¶SUBJ COP suu neæe they.IND COP.M
TAM sukaæ they.RL.PF
‘It is they who bought food’
VERB saæy-i buy-2B
60
OBJ1 aæbinci food
2. 6 Formal structure of Hausa causative/caused-motion and benefactive sentences Stated simply, the causative/caused-motion construction in Hausa is expressed by the verbal suffix -a® and the nominal instrumental marker dà introducing the oblique object (often the Causee participant), and the benefactive construction is expressed by the verbal suffix -a® and a dative marker (DAT) introducing either a pronominal DAT (ma-) or a nominal DAT by wà/mà. This is shown in 2. 6. 1 and 2. 6. 2. In 2. 6. 3 through 2. 6. 5, the encodings of objects in the causative/caused-motion and the benefactive constructions are shown in more detail. Note that in this section, the term transitive refers to transitivity in the traditional sense, designating two- and three-participant clauses, and not in the sense of ‘high transitivity’ found in Hopper and Thompson (1980) and as it is presented and discussed especially in chapters 3 and 5. 2. 6. 1 The Benefactive construction The Benefactive construction consists of (SUBJ)-TAM-V-OBJ1DAT-(OBJ2ACC). The most complex matter in benefactive constructions concerns the choice of verbal suffix, which may alternate between any of the D-forms shown in 2. 4. Among these, only the form HHH -a®/¶BEN and the -am/BEN form are relevant to the topic of this dissertation. Benefactive sentences may either be monotransitive, cf. (12a), or ditransitive, cf. (12b). Naturally, benefactive sentences always contain a dative object, which, if pronominal, may be encoded by a set of dative pronouns, listed below, or mà/wà + noun, depending on the dialect: mà in WH and wà in SH/east Hausa. Benefactive constructions normally do not contain the instrumental marker dà, but see 2. 6. 5 for the recent development of marking dative objects with a sequence of wà dà. (12)
a)
SUBJ Hawaæayee tear.PL
TAM su-kaæ they-RL.PF
VERB OBJ1 zub-a®¶-am ma-saæ stream-BEN DAT-him
‘The tears streamed down his face (lit. streamed him down)’
b)
TAM VERB Yaa shig-a®¶-am he.PF enter-BEN
OBJ1 mi-nì DAT-me
OBJ2 gidaa house.ACC
‘He entered my house (lit. he entered me the house)’
61
Paradigm of dative pronouns: 1SG 2SG.M 2SG.F 3SGM 3SG.F
minì¶manì¶môn makaæ¶ maa mikì¶makì masaæ¶mishì¶ma]® mataæ
1PL 2PL
manaæ¶mamuæ mukuæ¶makuæ
3PL
musuæ¶masuæ
2. 6. 2 Causative/caused-motion constructions The causative/caused-motion construction is typically characterized by a verb form with a HHH tone and an -a® /-as suffix. (13)
a)
TAM VERB Yaa fit-a® he.PF go out-CAUS ‘He took (it) out’
The instrumental marker dà introduces and immediately precedes the oblique object. If this object is a pronoun, it will appear in the independent form after dà. b)
TAM VERB OBJ1 Yaa fit-a® daæ kufiii¶shii he.PF go out-CAUS INST money¶it.M.IND ‘He took the money/it out’
In sentences with a dative object (OBJDAT), this argument will intervene between the verb and OBJACC. It is debated whether dà is compulsory or not in causative/caused-motion sentences containing an OBJDAT (see i.a. Munkaila 1990: 170, Abdoulaye 1996). c)
TAM VERB OBJ1 Yaa fit-a® mi-nì he.PF go out-CAUS DAT-me ‘He took the money out for me’
OBJ2 (daæ) (INST)
kufiii money
Some 20 causative/caused-motion verbs may also appear in a ‘short form’.
This form
consists of the stem plus the instrumental marker dà, which is obligatory with short form the causative/caused-motion construction. (In cases when the stem ends in a consonant, this consonant may be subject to assimilation to -d under influence of the first consonant in dà.) d)
TAM VERB Yaa fid he.PF go out
‘He took money out’
OBJ1 daæ kufiii INST money
The -s in the -as suffix may surface in several ways. It is either used as an alternative of the -a® suffix, thus as fitas instead of fita®.
62
The -s also occurs before pronominal accusative objects of some, but not all, causative/caused-motion verbs in the form -shee and HHH tone. The -ee in the -shee suffix is relatable to the -ee in pre-pronominal gr2B forms (see 2. 4), e.g. Naa saæy-ee shì ‘ I bought it’. The change of -s- to -sh- follows from the general palatalization rule stated in 2. 2. 5. The instrumental marker dà is most often not used with -shee forms. The verb is directly followed by an accusative object pronoun (though exceptions occur6). Stem-final consonants, where they occur, assimilate progressively to the first consonant of the suffix (here -t to -sh), thus: e)
TAM VERB OBJ1 Yaa fis-shee shì he.PF go.out-CAUS it.M.ACC ‘He took it out’
Alternatively, with certain verbs, a longer suffix -asshee is added (e.g. san-asshee suæ ‘inform them’, cf. sanìi ‘know’). There are also two dialectal forms (not under discussion here), where the -s of the causative/caused-motion appears as -sii (-she before pronouns), in the eastern Guddiri dialect of the Azare area in Nigeria, and as -suwàa/-shee/-sà/-s in the A, B, C, and D forms, respectively, in the North-western Ader dialect of the Tahoua area in Niger. In neither of these forms is the instrumental marker dà used, as may be seen in (14). (14) Guddiri dialect: a) Rìigaa na gown I.RL.PF
‘It is a gown I sold’
sai-sii buy-CAUS
Ader dialect: b) Tuhwaæa-naa ya\ \as-suwaæa clothes-my he.PF get.lost-CAUS
(< \at-suwaæa)
‘It was my clothes he lost’
The causative/caused-motion and benefactive meanings may of course be combined, since a causative/caused-motion sentence may contain a dative object. In these cases I will refer to the construction with both headings. 2. 6. 3 Encoding of objects in benefactive sentences (containing OBJDAT ma-/wà (mà)) In many languages, benefactive constructions semantically overlap with Beneficiaries and Recipients being expressed as adjuncts, such as to and for in English. Hausa also has this
6 Note for example Kù gaishee minì dà suu ‘Greet them for me’ (Kano Hausa).
63
option. Recipiency may alternatively be expressed by the preposition gà(ree) ‘to, for, on’ (Jaggar 2001: 256). In Dogondoutchi, Niger, I have also heard the preposition sabòodà ‘for the sake of, for the benefit of’ used with adjunct Beneficiaries. Such constructions are not included in this study. 2. 6. 3. 1 The encoding of intransitive benefactives (IB) In an intransitive benefactive sentence (based on intransitive gr3 and gr7 verbs), the object will be encoded with a dative marker (DAT), i.e. the OBJDAT is the only object, thus: (SUBJ) TAM - VERB-a® - OBJDAT.
See the examples in (15).
Intransitive benefactive: (15) a) SUBJ TAM V OBJ1 Zaakìi yaa zaabu®-a® ma-saæ lion he.PF leap.up-BEN DAT-him
(cf. zaæabu®aæ
v3 ‘leap up’)
‘The lion sprang at him’
b)
SUBJ Hawaæayee tears
TAM sun they.PF
‘The tears streamed down on him’
c)
V zub-a® leak-BEN
V taar-a® gather-BEN
(cf. zuæba
v3 ‘leak’)
SUBJ Ya]ra-næ children-DEF.M
TAM sunaæa they.CONT
SUBJ TAM Meæe ya what he.RL.PF
V OBJ1 auk-a® waæ baabaæ-®-kì (cf. aæuku v7 ‘happen’) happen-BEN DAT mother-GEN-your.F
‘The children were gathering around him’
d)
OBJ1 ma-saæ DAT-him
OBJ1 ma-saæ (cf. taæaru v7 ‘meet, gather together’) DAT-him
‘What happened to your mother?’
2. 6. 3. 2 The encoding of the transitive benefactive (TB) Transitive benefactives appear in the shape of a DAT marked object and an OBJACC (not overtly marked) thus: (SUBJ) - TAM - VERB-a® - OBJDAT - OBJACC. Transitive benefactive: (16) SUBJ TAM V Maalaæm yaa neem-a® teacher he.PF seek-BEN
OBJ1 ma-taæ DAT-her
‘The teacher sought (and found) a house for her’
OBJ2 gidaa house.ACC
The transitive benefactive clause may be formally identical to the causative/causedmotion construction when containing an OBJDAT, cf. the causative sentence (21b) below.
64
2. 6. 4 Encoding of objects in causative/caused-motion sentences (containing INST dà) Causees in intransitive-based causatives (IC’s) are invariably encoded as instrumental objects. Transitive-based causatives (TC’s) may be subcategorized for one or two objects. Note that whenever the terms IC and TC are used, the values intransitive (in IC) and transitive (in TC) refer to the underlying root verb, i.e. the underived verb. When TC’s are subcategorized for two objects, the instrumentally encoded object (OBJ1INST) is usually a human/animate Recipient (Jaggar 2001: 255), and the inanimate object is unmarked (OBJ2ACC). When a transitive-based causative/caused-motion is subcategorized for only one object, the Recipient of the action is understood, but not expressed. 2. 6. 4. 1 The encoding of intransitive causatives (IC) The intransitive causative sentence in Hausa is expressed with a Causee in the instrumental case: (SUBJ) - TAM - VERB-a® - daæ OBJ. See examples below. Intransitive causative: (17) a) SUBJ Ciiwoæ-n disease-DEF.M
TAM yaa he.PF
V OBJ1 makant-a® daæ majìnyaæci-næ become blind-CAUS INST patient-DEF.M
TAM yaa he.PF
V makaænc-ee become blind-BASIC gr47
‘The disease blinded the patient’
(Jaggar 2001: 253)
cf. intransitive: SUBJ Majìnyaæci-næ patient-DEF.M ‘The patient went blind’
b)
SUBJ Na]s nurse
(Jaggar 2001: 253)
TAM zaa-taæ FUT-she
V kwant-a® lie.down-CAUS
TAM za]i he.PF
V kwa]nt-aa lie.down-BASIC gr1 INTR
‘The nurse will lay the boy down’
OBJ1 daæ INST
(Jaggar 2001: 253)
yaaroæ-n boy-DEF.M
cf. intransitive: SUBJ Yaaroæo boy
‘The boy will lie down’
(Jaggar 2001: 253)
7 The HL(H) -ee form of the verb is traditionally said to encode a totality meaning. However, it is thought to have become semantically bleached and today occurs with many intransitive counterparts of other derived ‘grades’/extensions.
65
2. 6. 4. 2 The encoding of transitive causatives (TC) and caused-motion constructions Transitive causatives are encoded with two objects, one instrumental and one accusative, thus: A)
(SUBJ) - TAM - VERB-a® - daæ OBJ - OBJACC
In TCs, the instrumental object has been characterized as usually being an animate/human Recipient (Jaggar 2001: 255). Alternatively, this instrument argument can be characterized as a Causee, discussion will follow in chapter 4. (18)
a) TAM V Yanaæa kooy-a® he.CONT learn-CAUS
OBJ OBJ2 daæ fiaæalìba-næ hausa INST students-DEF.M Hausa.ACC
‘He teaches the students Hausa’
b) SUBJ TAM V OBJ1 Likitaæ yaa shaay-a® daæ yaaroæ-n doctor he.PF drink-CAUS INST boy.DEF.M
OBJ2 maagaænii medicine.ACC
‘The doctor gave the boy some medicine to drink. (lit. made/let the boy drink medicine)’
Transitive based causative/caused-motion sentences often contain only one argument in addition to the subject, which is INST marked. This argument is then a theme (TH) of a caused-motion construction, alternatively construable as a mover (MVR). Such sentences have the structure in B), which is identical to the IC: B)
(SUBJ) - TAM - VERB-a® - daæ OBJ
Cf. the example in (19), which is provided with the non-causative, transitive counterpart. (19)
a) TAM V OBJ1 Yaa aur-a® daæ &ya-®-saæ he.PF marry-MVR¶TH INST daughter-of.F-his ‘He married off his daughter’
Cf. non-causative, 2-place transitive: b) TAM Taa she.PF
V aæur-i marry-BASIC gr2tr
‘She married the/a gentleman’
OBJ1 dattiijoæ gentleman.ACC
2. 6. 5 The encoding of sentences that combine DAT and INST case marking: causatives with an OBJDAT A causative sentence may contain a dative object, in which case the sentence may be encoded in four different ways (Newman, 2000: 659, Jaggar 2001).
66
If the OBJDAT of a causative-benefactive sentence is a pronoun, there is no variation of the form of the sentence: it consists of (SUBJECT) - TAM - V - DATPRO - OBJINST. Cf. (20). (20)
TAM Yaa he.PF
V tsay-a® stop-CAUS
‘He stopped the car for us’
OBJ1 manaæ DAT-us
OBJ2 daæ mootaæa (cf. tsayaæa ‘stop, intr.’) INST car
Causative-benefactive sentences with noun dative objects display considerable variation regarding the encoding of the OBJDAT. Firstly, they may differ from those with only instrumental objects in that the instrumental encoding of OBJ2 argument becomes facultative, with the option that this object is marked as a regular accusative object, cf. (21). Either of the options a) and b) are grammatical: (21) a)
TAM Yaa he.PF
V tsay-a® stop-CAUS
OBJ1 waæ maalaæm DAT teacher
OBJ2 daæ mootaæa INST car
TAM Yaa he.PF
V tsay-a® stop-CAUS
OBJ1 waæ maalaæm DAT teacher
OBJ2 mootaæa car.ACC
‘He stopped the car for the teacher’
b)
‘He stopped the car for the teacher’
In (21a) OBJ2 is encoded as an oblique, instrumental object, in (21b) as an unmarked direct object. The two options in (21a-b) also occur with an instrumental marking of the DAT ‘stacked on top of’ the dative object marker wà, yielding the two last varieties in c) and d): c)
TAM V Yaa tsay-a® he.PF stop-CAUS
OBJ1 waæ daæ maalaæm DAT INST teacher
OBJ2 daæ mootaæa INST car
TAM V Yaa tsay-a® he.PF stop-CAUS
OBJ1 waæ daæ maalaæm DAT INST teacher
OBJ2 mootaæa car.ACC
‘He stopped the car for the teacher’
d)
‘He stopped the car for the teacher’
This involves a double marking of the dative object, i.e. both as a DAT and as an INST argument. Note that in the case where the OBJ2 (‘car’) keeps its instrumental marking, both objects will be marked with dà. Other examples of the use of double marked OBJDATs in transitive causatives can be found in appendix F B).
67
2. 7 Classification of Hausa causative and benefactive types in relation to general linguistic literature 2. 7. 1 A characterization of semantics of the Hausa benefactive As was hinted at in the previous chapter, benefactive constructions vary across languages, both in terms of form and in terms of meaning. The form of Hausa benefactive construction was presented in 2. 6. 1. Benefactives based on transitive verbs are unproblematic in Hausa. The semantic roles that can be expressed by the –aC suffix with transitive base verbs are inanimate and animate Goal, Recipient of concrete object (e.g. a car), Recipient of abstract object (e.g. a job), Recipient of a benevolent or detrimental action, Experiencer of action on possessed object, including loss of possessed object. See the sentences in (22). Hausa equivalents are presented in 7. 5. 5. A tentative characterization is listed to the right of the sentences, to be analysed further in chapter 7. (22)
a) The soldier shot many bullets at his house. b) He threw a spear at him (at his foot) c) I sold my car to Audu. d) Do you find work for my son? e) I borrowed a plough for him. f) He beat my son. g) I stabbed his horse. h) Don’t barge into her room. i) He reared my child for me. j) The thief stole a horse from me. k) Did you receive money from/for her?
Inanimate Goal Animate human Goal Recipient of object Recipient of abstract object Recipient of action Experiencer possessor Experiencer possessor Experiencer controller/possessor Exper/possessor benevolent action Experiencer loss of property Experiencer of loss/recipiency
Hausa is one of the languages that can also form benefactive constructions out of intransitive base verbs, cf. the cross-linguistic study done in Shibatani (1996) that predicts that not all languages can. Cognate object verbs such as dance (a dance) are expressed by yi ‘do’ and an obligatory object expressing the lexical content, and this does therefore not apply. The types of semantic roles that can be expressed by this benefactive include inanimate and animate Goals, and Experiencer of action in interpersonal relations of various kinds. See the sentences in (23). (23)
a) We headed toward that country. b) The children were gathering around him. c) The lion sprang at the jackal. d) We will trust you.
68
Inanimate Goal Animate human Goal Animate Goal Experiencer of benevolent action
e) I repented to them/sought their pardon. f) He lodged on us (against our will). g) He appeared to Audu. h) God is sufficient for him. i) An accident befell him.
Experiencer of interpersonal action Experiencer of detrimental action Experiencer of sensory experience Experiencer Experiencer of action
As regards the give-construction in Hausa, the verb ‘give’ itself (baa) does not occur with a dative object when used with a pronoun Beneficiary, instead it has two accusative objects. A nominal Beneficiary will receive dative marking. It will therefore not serve well as a prototype. Notice, however, that all the sentences in (22) a) through d) imply some sort of recipiency, similar to a prototypical give-construction. Thus, we find that all of the semantic characterizations presented in 1. 5. 2, laid out by Dixon and Aikhenvald (2000: 14), and more than the prototypical benefactive meanings suggested by Shibatani (1996: 170) presented in 1. 5. 5 apply to the Hausa –aC/BEN suffix. 2. 7. 2 The Hausa -aC causative related to Dixon’s classification criteria In the following I shall relate the criteria of causative types in Dixon (2000: 61-74) to those aspects that are already known about the -aC causative suffix in Hausa, and support the survey with examples8. 2. 7. 2. 1 Aspects of the –aC causative relating to lexical verbal semantics The first point regarding verbs pertains to whether the causative mechanism applies only to verbs describing states and processes, or if it also can be used with verbs describing actions. The corresponding intransitive verbs of many causative verbs can be states, processes, or motion verbs, or denote activities. Very often, they denote changes of state or other internally caused processes, including motion (change of location or position). Activity verbs causativize, but seem to be less common. Many intransitive verbs in Hausa, often in gr4, but also gr3, do not distinguish between states and changes of state. They are often translated by ‘be/become X’. All lists below are samples, and not exhaustive of their groups. The verbs in (24) causativize states: (24)
Verbs of state that causativize: bukaataæ v3 ‘want, require, need’ bukaata® daæ daameæe v4 ‘be confused’ daama® daæ fiageæe v4 ‘stand on tiptoe, on one foot’ fiaga® daæ
‘necessitate’ ‘confuse’ ‘lever up’
8 Examples are drawn from the dictionaries Bargery (1934), Awde (1996), and Newman (2007).
69
‘be utterly startled or frightened’ fuæskantaæa v2 ‘face (in a certain direction)’ gaæbaataæa v1 ‘precede, be leader’ haæ˚uraæ v3 ‘be patient’ huutaæa v1 ‘rest, relax, be free from sth’
firgita® daæ
iyaæa v1 jìnki®taæ v3 ˚azaæncee v4 niisaæncee v4 sanìi shaægaalaæ v3 tunaæa v1
iya® daæ jinki®ta® daæ ˚azanta® daæ niisanta® daæ sana® daæ shagala® daæ tuna® daæ
firgìcee v4
‘be able’ ‘be tardy’ ‘be dirty’ ‘be distant from’ ‘know’ ‘be occupied’ ‘remember’
‘startle, scare, frighten’
fuskanta® daæ ‘turn sb.¶sth. towards’ gabaata® daæ ha˚ura® daæ huuta® daæ
‘promote, make sb. leader’ ‘enjoin patience on sb.’ ‘relieve sb. of duties, leave sb. in peace’ ‘convey, accomplish’ ‘delay’ ‘(make) dirty’ ‘remove afar’ ‘inform’ ‘distract’ ‘remind’
Verbs relating to processes are listed in (25). (25)
Verbs that may causativize denoting processes: duælmuyaæ v3 ‘sink, become immersed’ dulmuya® daæ ‘engulf (sb. crossing a river), be the cause of sb.’s downfall’ faæhimtaæa v2 ‘understand’ fahimta® daæ ‘make sb. understand’ gaæskataæ v3 ‘prove to be correct’ gaskata® daæ ‘verify’ gìigitaæ v3 ‘become panic-stricken’ giigita® daæ ‘flabbergast, confound’ koæoyaa v2 ‘learn’ kooya® daæ ‘teach’ nitseæe v4 ‘settle, sink, drown’ nitsa® daæ ‘sink sth.’ daskaæree v4 ‘coagulate, freeze (water)’ daskara® daæ ‘cause to coagulate, solidify, make freeze’ daakuæshee v4 ‘become blunt¶dull, daakusa® daæ ‘cause to deteriorate’ lose one’s looks¶mental sharpness’ dusaæshee v4 ‘lose sheen¶fresh appearance’dusasa® daæ ‘dull the brightness of sth.’ lafaæa v1 ‘settle, die down, decrease’ lafa® daæ ‘ease’
A variety of processes that is rather frequent with these causatives are motion verbs. Note that many motion verbs can be used metaphorically in abstract, non-spatial domains (such as religion in verbs like divert from), or with a static, spatial meaning of the type swing, swerve or reach/arrive. That is, they can be applied either as motion or as a shape. (26) Verbs that may causativize denoting patientive motion: faafiì v3b ‘fall, descend’ faafia® daæ ‘let¶cause to fall, drop’ faæntsamaæ v3 ‘be scattered, be spread’ fantsama® daæ ‘scatter, spread about’ baufieæe v4 ‘swerve from (road, religion)’ baufia® daæ ‘cause to swerve, (divert road)’ bulbuælee v4 ‘gush out (water from bulbula® daæ ‘pour away (fluid from small-mouthed vessel¶pus)’ small-mouthed vessel)’ \ingìree v4 ‘topple over, roll a little’ \ingira® daæ ‘cause to topple over’ zuæba v3 ‘leak’ zuba® daæ ‘pour out’
70
Finally, verbs denoting activities (actions) that causativize are shown in (27). (27)
Verbs that causativize denoting activities (actions) ba]utaa v1 ‘obey, serve faithfully’ bauta® daæ ‘enslave’ fakeæe v4 ‘take shelter, seek refuge’ faka® daæ ‘conceal’ hìmmantaæ v3 ‘do one’s best, put effort into’ himmanta® daæ‘cause sb. to put forth one’s best effort, do one’s best’ kaænga®aæ v3 ‘rebel, refuse, become defiant’ kanga®a® daæ ‘cause to become defiant’ magaæntaa v1 ‘speak, make a statement’ maganta® daæ ‘prompt sb what to say or do, govern’ rantseæe v4 ‘swear’ rantsa® daæ ‘put under oath’ shaa v0 ‘drink’ shaaya® daæ ‘water, irrigate, suckle’ waækiltaæa v2 ‘represent’ wakilta® daæ ‘appoint as representative’ Some motion verbs denote actions that require an agent initiating it; that is, they are
not patientive, as in (26) above. They are therefore categorised under verbs with an active subject. Note that verbs denoting body positions may also be construed as states, as well as initiated motion into the state. (28) Active verbs involving motion, including starting, stopping and change of body position: baakìtaa v1 ‘swing round quickly, gyrate’ baakita® daæ ‘cause to be turned (road)’ du®˚uæsaa v1 ‘kneel down’ du®˚usa® daæ ‘bring to one’s knees’ fìta v3 ‘go out, appear’ fita® daæ ‘take out, remove’ guæ®fanaæ v3 ‘get down on all fours’ gu®fana® daæ ‘make kneel down (camel)’ isaæ v1 ‘reach, arrive at’ isa® daæ ‘convey, deliver’ ˚eetaæraa v1 ‘cross over (river, road) ’ ˚eetara® daæ ‘ferry sb across, make cross’ tsayaæa v1 ‘stop, intr.’ tsaya® daæ ‘stop, delay sth.’ tsuguænaa v1 ‘squat’ tsuguna® daæ ‘settle, station to deploy’ 2. 7. 2. 2 Aspects of the –aC causative relating to transitivity of the verb The second issue relates to whether the causative applies to all types of transitivity values of the verb; intransitive verbs, transitive verbs, or also to ditransitive verbs. Hausa has two causatives, one periphrastic expressed by sâ ‘cause (lit. put)’, besides the morphological -aC suffix. This morphological causative, although not fully productive, is used with many intransitive bases; in transitive bases it is more restricted (cf. Taylor 1923, Parsons 1962, Gouffé 1962). Transitive bases are also reported to be used with the –aC suffix in non-causative meanings, prime examples being tuuràa ‘push’ > tuura® daæ ‘push away’ and zubàa ‘pour into’ > zuba® daæ ‘pour out or away’. It is claimed that in this usage they do not increase valency (cf. Jaggar 2001: 254). Note, however, that both these verbs have intransitive counterparts with internally caused change of state or change of location semantic roles in
71
the subject; cf. zùba v3 ‘leak, erode (of wall), fade (of colour), fall out (of hair)’ and tuuràa (v1 intr.) ‘be well advanced in the progress of sth.’ (Newman 2007: 212). This relegates them to the group in intransitive bases. The verb jeefa® daæ ‘throw away’, on the other hand, has the ‘away’ semantics but no intransitive counterpart. It therefore seems that the reported noncausative contribution of the semantics of the –aC suffix at least deserves a closer look. Dictionaries vary with respect to which gr5 verbs they list and how explicitly their meaning is described. The fact that a gr5 verb is not listed in either of the dictionaries by Awde (1996), Bargery (1934), or Newman (2007), does not necessarily imply that no Hausa speakers use a particular gr5 causative/caused-motion verb, or that they are not able to make sense of its meaning when encountering a gr5 that they themselves do not actively use. Transitive bases may causativize with the –aC suffix, but the types of verbs that may enter this conversion seems to be more restricted. To my knowledge, the morphological causative is not used with ditransitives. 2. 7. 2. 3 Aspects of the –aC causative relating to the Causee With respect to Dixon’s first typological point regarding the characteristics of the Causee, it can be stated that the –aC suffix in its causative uses implies a general intensive meaning, with the effect that the Causee generally lacks control of the activity. The question whether inanimate Causees are allowed does therefore not arise, as they also commonly occur. Compared to the transitive/applicative gr1 verbs, the Causee appears to be less volitional and more patient-like, and may involve physical manipulation, i.a. since many of their base verbs are motion verbs. Whereas the Causee in the periphrastic sâ causative are not as directly influenced by the Causer (cf. the iconicity principle in Shibatani and Pardeshi 2001), animate (mental) Causees in the mophological causative have a marked decreased autonomy and control. They are highly affected, and the construction may even add motion to inanimate Causees or Themes. This high degree of affectedness is accompanied by a sense of completedness of the verbal action and certainty that the action has actually happened. These aspects of the –aC causative are documented in 5. 3. 2. 2. 7. 2. 4 Aspects of the –aC causative relating to the Causer In Jaggar (2009) the –a® suffix is classified as a morphological, direct causative in contrast to the periphrastic and indirect sa]-construction. The first is described as introducing a new agential Causer to the base verb, carrying the caused event over the Causee (if animate), who
72
is typically a non-volitional patient. The direct causative ‘represents a single event/clause with a single agent in the subject role’ and the Causer is ‘directly/physically involved in the action’ (ibid: 16). It is remarked that since direct causatives express a situation where the Causee or Theme is non-volitional, this participant may be either animate or inanimate. Furthermore, it is stated that the whole situation is conceptualized as ‘a single unitary causeeffect event under the control of a single agent’ (ibid: 16). The indirect causative by contrast, is said to have two agential participants, Agent1 (the primary Causer) and Agent2 (the Causee), which both by definition must be animate. In the indirect causative, the Causee ‘retains some autonomy in respect of responding to the oral directive and executing the command/action’ (Jaggar 2009: 16-17). What regards the event structure of the morphological causative, two factors indicate that it should be classified as a direct causative. Firstly, the general condensed (intensive) semantics of this construction are indicative of the Causer not acting through an intermediary, but rather directly onto the Causee. Secondly, the lack of overt grammatical features of subordination points towards a monoclausal structure; that is, the second (caused) activity is not embedded within the first (causing) event in any way, but follows as a direct consequence of direct interpersonal interaction. In contrast to the periphrastic causative, which is indirect and two-event of the type ‘X cause Y do Z’ (cf. Jaggar 2009), the –aC suffix is used in a single event, causative action, the causing and caused event being tightly connected in time and space. The morphological causative therefore resembles causatives that are often expressed lexically in languages (cf. ligge ‘lie’ ⇒ legge ‘lay’ in Norwegian). The caused event is therefore less salient than in the indirect causative; a verb like fita® daæ (< fìta ‘go out’) would therefore be glossed ‘take out’ and not ‘make go out’, as in the periphrastic causative. Thus, there is no use of an intermediary, and the causer personally directs the activity. The co-occurring comitative-instrumental used interchangeably with some of the –aC causatives (fid dà ‘take out’) supports this (in a comitative ‘do with/together with‘ the Causer must necessarily be present in the causing act). It appears from the test results in 5. 3. 2 that the Causer achieves the result intentionally, as the subjects judged the subject (Causer) to display a high degree of subject force (effort, volitionality, power, involvement, etc.). Unfortunately, I have seen no study or claims being made of the periphrastic causative to say that the Causer achieves the caused event by accident. This will therefore have to be investigated. Regarding naturalness, it seems that the test results indicate that the caused event is achieved with effort and force, not just
73
initiating a natural process. This is contrary to the prediction in Aikhenvald (1998: 58)9 that it is periphrastic causatives that usually denote a special effort on the part of the Causer, not direct causatives, this being related to the fact that it is harder to ‘subdue’ autonomous, active Causees. Similar semantic features are found in the –aC benefactive suffix, where force is not restricted to physical force, but may also indicate moral dominance (cf. 5. 3. 1). The final issue concerns the question of involvement; that is, whether the Causer joins in with the activity which she makes the Causee undertake, or not. I have no material to suggest either of the two for the –aC causative, other than the assumption that direct, physical causation necessarily must involve the physical involvement of the Causer. It is interesting, however, that subject involvement is reported to be one of the semantic characteristics of the –aC benefactive suffix (see 4. 2. 2. 4, Munkaila 1990), which I hope to show is related.
2. 8 Summary In this chapter we have placed Hausa in relation to the Chadic language family in the Afroasiatic phylum, we have looked at relevant aspects of the Hausa phonological system and historical sound laws. The reader was presented with the verbal derivation system as a basis for the issues regarding a potential causative-benefactive polysemy. Further, the forms of benefactive and causative constructions were laid out, and both constructions were classified according to general linguistic literature on causative and benefactive constructions.
9 A case of causative contrast has been observed for Tariana, which distinguishes between two periphrastic causatives. The causative verb -ni ‘make’ implies ‘a special effort and/or unwillingness of the causee to bring about the activity’, as when a father brings his children to sleep through a special effort and action. Another causative suffix, -ima, is used when the result is achieved naturally, as when letting someone fall asleep by means of a cigar (Aikhenvald 1998: 52-53).
74
CHAPTER 3
Theoretical framework 3. 1 Basic concepts of Cognitive Grammar 3. 1. 1 Phonology, semantics and symbolic units A linguistic expression consists of a semantic and a phonological pole, and an analysis that considers one without the other is not acceptable in Cognitive Grammar. Like all linguistic units, grammatical units are claimed to be symbolic, and thus to have conceptual import. In Cognitive Grammar there are no dummy elements, no words, grammatical morphemes or other linguistic forms which are but meaningless forms. As Langacker (1991b:16) puts it ‘I maintain […] that grammatical morphemes, categories and constructions all take the form of symbolic units, and that nothing else is required for the description of grammatical structure’. Meaning is equated with conceptualization. The study of linguistic semantics thus requires the structural analysis of thoughts and concepts. Conceptualization is defined quite broadly; it encompasses ‘novel conceptions and fixed concepts; sensory, kinaesthetic, and emotive experience; recognition of the immediate context (social, physical and linguistic)’ (Langacker 1991b: 2). Cognitive Grammar takes an encyclopaedic view of semantics, where there is no sharp dividing line between strictly linguistic and other kinds of knowledge. In this work I assume, in line with the claims of Cognitive Grammar, that case carries meaning. The usage of a particular case is not blindly applied by the speaker according to meaningless linguistic ‘rules’ of grammatical correctness, but rather a means the language has for the speaker to choose between several ways of construing a situation. 3. 1. 2 Construal and conventional imagery Part of the semantic content in Cognitive linguistics is also the notion of conventional imagery, which deals with how semantic content is construed. Construal involves the speaker’s ability to view the same semantic content in alternative ways. Construal is relevant to linguistic structure in that it will directly affect the speaker’s choice of linguistic expression. Types of imagery include 1) a base and the imposition of a profile on a base, 2) the level of specificity, and 3) the scale/scope of a predication.
75
3. 1. 2. 1 Domain, base and profile, trajector and landmark A domain is ‘a coherent area of conceptualization relative to which semantic units may be characterized. Three-dimensional space, smell, colour, touch sensations, etc. are basic domains. A concept or conceptual complex of any degree of complexity can function as an abstract domain (e.g. human body, the rules of chess, a kinship network)’ (Langacker 1987: 488) . Quite often, it is necessary to refer to several domains to explicate the meaning of a concept, in which case the set of domains is referred to as a complex matrix. For instance, in explicating the concept of ‘knife’, one may have to refer to the spatial domain, the domain of cutting utensils, and the domain of silverware. Another example of the psychological reality of change of domains can be observed below, where speakers of unrelated languages (Tanganyika, as well as German and English) in ‘overwhelming majority’ associated the (meaningless) word or sound combination maluma with a shape similar to the one in a), and the sound combination takete with a shape like in b). The example is mentioned in Hörmann (1971: 219-220), cited from W. Köhler (1947)10. In Hörmann the case is explained as ‘isomorphism in auditory and visual organization (ibid: 221) and treated as a type of ‘sound symbolism’. A) maluma
B) takete
With the arrival of the notion of domains into linguistics, a new type of explanation to such a phenomenon can be offered. The reason why these sound combinations are associated with their respective drawings irrespective of mother tongue background may be found in the transition (metaphorical transfer) going from one domain to another; the drawings exist in two-dimensional space, the sound combinations belong to the domains of muscular movements and articulated speech. The relevant metaphor for takete would be interrupted continuity, the lines taking new directions thus providing new ‘starts’ in the domain of twodimensional space. In the domain of speech and articulation, complete closure of the airflow 10 In Norwegian conventionalized meaning would interfere, considering the fact that takkete means ‘tooth-edged, jagged’. The fact that conventionalized meaning is not a relevant explanation, however, becomes evident when one tries to apply the same to the English tacky.
76
in the plosives [t], [k], and [t] to start the articulation of a new syllable equals new ‘setoffs’, much like the interrupted directions in two-dimensional space. In the case of maluma, by contrast, the relevant metaphor would be ‘continuous airflow’ and ‘continuous sound’ relatable to the rounded shape, continuous line drawing in b), and continuous airflow of the lateral sound and nasal consonants, the latter letting the airflow pass through the nose at the complete closure of the lips. Grammatical and semantic concepts are explicated and related to each other using the notions of semantic base or domain and a profile which is imposed on that base. A base is an expression’s domain or domains, and represents the knowledge structure within which an expression is understood and defined. Parallels can be drawn to Fillmore’s (1976, 1982, 1985) and Goldberg’s (1995) notions of frame, and Lakoff’s (1987) idealized cognitive model (ICM). The profile of a linguistic expression is a prominent substructure within the base, elevated to a special level of attention, and comprises what the expression designates. The semantic value of a linguistic expression resides in the relationship between an expression’s base and its profile. For example, the meaning of the expression hypotenuse resides in both the profiled line in a right-angled triangle and in the conception of a right-angled triangle; the expression tip in an elongated object as its base and in the extreme end as its profile; for the expression uncle, the base would be a network of family relations, and its profile that male person. Different linguistic expressions may share the same base, but have different profiles, i.e. they have different meanings, such as uncle and niece. Cf. Figure 3. 1. Figure 3. 1: Profile and base (a)
RIGHT TRIANGLE HYPOTENUSE
(b)
(c)
ELONGATED OBJECT TIP
EGO KINSHIP NETWORK UNCLE
We also make use of the terms profile and base when explaining grammatical meaning. Consider for instance the relationship between go, away, and gone.
77
The meaning of go is relational, describing a relationship between two entities in the domains of space and time. Relational concepts are designated in terms of the concepts trajector and landmark, which both represent participants in the relational predication. The trajector, defined as the ‘figure within a relational profile’, is generally the moving participant within the relational profile suggesting a (spatial) process (though the term can also be used for non-relational and abstract predications). The landmark is another salient participant, whose function is to provide a point of reference for locating the trajector. Thus, in the relational expression go, the participant referred to as the trajector (tr) moves from a position in the neighbourhood of another participant (the landmark - lm), to a position outside of that participant’s neighbourhood. In Figure 3.2 (a), four states represent a continuous process. The expression away profiles the final state of go, where the trajector is situated outside the vicinity of the landmark. The participle gone profiles the same relationship as away, but with reference to the same semantic base as go, thus Figure 3.2: Figure 3. 2: Grammatical meanings as trajector and base (a)
(b) tr
lm
(c)
lm
lm
time GO
tr
tr
time AWAY
GONE
3. 1. 2. 2 Level of specificity A situation may be construed at several levels of specificity. In predications which differ according to specificity, the more general predication can be viewed as schematic for the more specific predications. The more specific a predication, the more elaborated the descriptive details and the more narrowly confined the possible values. The fact that lexical items vary in level of specificity is well-known, e.g. animal ⇒ mammal ⇒ monkey ⇒ chimpanzee. In a grammatical construction, one component expression typically elaborates a schematic substructure (which is more specific) within the other.
78
3. 1. 2. 3 Scale, scope of predication The scope of a predication is the extent of its coverage in relevant domains. It corresponds to those portions of a domain that a predication invokes and relies on for its characterization. For instance, the predications palm, thumb, and finger rely upon the predication hand for their characterization, which again rely upon the predication arm to be identified. Each largerscope body-part serves as the immediate scope for the identification of a body-part defined on a smaller scale. Central to Cognitive Grammar is the role of the conceptualizer. The conceptualizer, uttering a sentence, is highly selective about what to code linguistically. A conceived event typically involves a number of interactions and entities that may be chosen as actions and participants in the sentence. In each case only a few are chosen to be included and even fewer to be rendered prominent in the sentence. In Cognitive Grammar terms, the first stage implies selecting a scope for the predication, and secondly choosing among the various options of profiling (Langacker 1991b: 215). Profiling can be thought of as a window with a view of the scope of predication, but where only one part of it is visible, namely the profiled part.
3. 2 The network model Cognitive Grammar is a model of language that leaves the language user with room for the creative and novel uses of linguistic units. The basis for language development in this sense is the speaker’s own perception of language as composed of meaningful units. This pertains to lexical items, as well as grammatical units and grammatical constructions. Grammatical constructions are considered to be carriers of meaning on a par with lexical items (see for example Goldberg 1995). Polysemy is taken to be the normal situation for both lexical and grammatical units (see, for instance Langacker 1991a, 1991b: 211-212: 4, Dąbrowska 1997: 5). 3. 2. 1 The process of networking: mechanisms of category extension Linguistic networks are built by means of metaphorical extension, that is, an established, conventionalized linguistic unit is modified to encompass novel uses for which a language or the language user(s) needs an expression. The new comprehensive unit is then conventionalized and established as a part of the linguistic competence of the language user as a polysemous meaning chain. Such meaning chains have a prototypical category structure, where members of a category are related through relationships of partial similarity, metaphor,
79
metonymy, or image schema transformation (for an elaboration of image schema, cf. Johnson 1987, Lakoff 1987, and Langacker 1987: 399). The specific linguistic process that underlies synchronic polysemic grammatical structures is successfully described in grammaticalization theory (or grammaticisation). Grammaticalization deals with the language users’ creative response to the question of how to acquire labels for concepts for which no previous designations exist or for which new designations are required. It appears that the most commonly employed process is to extend the use of existing forms for the expressions of new concepts using strategies including analogical transfer, metonymy and metaphor (Heine, Claudi, and Hünnemeyer 1991: 27). This strategy, besides being commonly used in introducing new lexemes, is the primary means for creating grammatical expressions. Thus, one specific principle is held responsible for the creation of grammatical concepts, viz. the ‘principle of the exploitation of old means for novel functions’ (Werner and Kaplan 1963: 403). In terms of this principle, concrete concepts are employed in the understanding and description of less concrete phenomena, and it is egocentric and egodeictic in that domains of conceptualization that are close to human experience are transferred to more distant domains. Grammaticalization is a problem-solving device, which uses metaphor and metonymy as its primary means in the formation of new concepts. A metaphorical extension involves a transfer of a linguistic unit from one cognitive domain to another. This will account for a meaning chains organized in discrete and successive steps. However, such meaning chains may be continuous rather than discontinuous, which may be due to the phenomenon of context-induced reinterpretation. This can be defined as a discourse pragmatic manipulation whereby concepts are subjected to contextual factors in utterance interpretation, a process which may lead to metonymic extension (Heine, Claudi and Hünnemeyer 1991: 71). Consider the polysemous meaning of the Ewe word megbé ‘back’ below, which has overlapping meanings in the OBJECT > SPACE domains. (29)
Ewe épé
megbé fá be cold
3SG.POSS back ‘His back is cold’
(30)
e-kpO;
xO-a
pé
megbé
2SG.see house-DEF of back ‘Do you see that nice back wall of the house?’
80
nyúíé má nice that
a Q
(31)
xO-a house-DEF
megbé back
le be
nyúíé nice
‘The place behind the house is nice’
(32)
é-le xO-á 3SG-be house-DEF
megbé behind
‘He is at the back of the house’
(Heine, Claudi, and Hünnemeyer 1991: 67)
In (29), megbé refers to a persons back (OBJECT/PERSON domains), in (30) the back part of inanimate object (OBJECT domain), in (31) the place behind that house as an entity (OBJECT/SPACE domains), and finally in (32) to the place behind the house as a purely locative concept (SPACE domain) (ibid. 1991: 67). In a context-induced reinterpretation situation, referring to the interpretation of a linguistic entity being used in a particular (pragmatic and textual) context, distinct conceptual domains are bridged by means of metonymical understanding of the kind exemplified above for Ewe megbé ‘back’. Metonymical and metaphorical extensions are thus seen not as competing but rather as complementary processes in grammaticalization theory, which both help to put ‘old’ linguistic material to new use (ibid. 1991: 70). While metaphorical extension is essentially psychological in nature, metonymic extensions made according to a reinterpretation situation are essentially pragmatic. Such extension processes are used in the formation of novel lexemes, as well as in the formation of grammatical elements. However, the focus of grammaticalization theory has been on the latter. Grammatical concepts may be distinguished from other types of concepts in terms of a) being more abstract, b) being synsemantic rather than autosemantic (i.e. as having semantics by themselves), i.e. acquiring semantics in combination with other concepts, c) determining the structure of cognitive representation (rather than its content), d) being linguistically encoded by non-lexical forms such as auxiliaries, particles, clitics, affixes, suprasegmental units, or word order distinctions (Heine, Claudi, and Hünnemeyer 1991: 28). See also Heine and Claudi (1986), Heine and Reh (1984), and Hopper and Traugott (1993) on grammaticalization theory. Behind the theory of grammaticalization lies firstly the assumption that concept formation is prior to the naming process. These two are also distinct phenomena. Secondly, it is assumed that the use of a given linguistic term for a new concept involves a process of conceptual transfer whereby two different concepts are metaphorically equated, and that the term for one of these (the source concept) is extended to also refer to the other (the target
81
concept). Thirdly, such a conceptual transfer is a creative act performed by the language users of a particular language. Creativity is defined as the activity employed to establish a link between the source domain (typically concrete) and the target domain (typically more abstract) of the two concepts involved. Such creativity has also been described as the ability to bring something new into existence (Taylor 1975). It certainly involves the ability to see things in an original manner. The creative act should also fit a worthwhile purpose (it should come to good use), in order to be successful. In the words of Heine, Claudi, and Hünnemeyer (1991: 31), ‘creativity involves finding a solution that is both unusual and useful’ (emphasis added). It should be emphasized that even though the focus of grammaticalization theories has been to show how lexical items are employed in the process of forming grammatical elements, it is also the case that a grammatical unit may be exploited to form ‘yet another, more abstract grammatical function’ which is even more grammaticalized, such as a case function (Heine, Claudi, and Hünnemeyer 1991: 29, 154). In this manner, polysemous and multifunctional grammatical items will arise. Regarding case specifically, all instances of the transition from one case function to another involve a range of intermediate stages which are pragmatically determined. The stages are connected via conversational implicatures and context-induced reinterpretation (see Heine, Claudi, and Hünnemeyer 1991: ch.3). 3. 2. 2 Cognitive Grammar: a usage-based model The network model reflects Cognitive Grammar’s conception of language as ‘usage-based’ model, which implies that rather than involving a minimalist, reductive and top-down approach, language is seen as having a basically maximalist, non-reductive and bottom-up character. The first point concerns the fact that language systems do not behave according to a set of well-behaved, self-contained and general rules, as has been the practice to postulate in the generative tradition. Cognitive Grammar instead sees language systems in terms of a massive, highly redundant inventory of conventional units which range from ‘full generality to complete idiosyncrasy’, where no particular importance is attached to distinctions along this scale (Langacker 1991b: 264). Generalizations are sought and captured in schematic representations, but exceptionless rules are thought to be in minority. The maximalist view
82
also implies non-modularity in the sense that there is gradation between linguistic and extralinguistic knowledge. Cognitive Grammar is non-reductive in acknowledging both rules or patterns and knowledge of the specific structures that these rules apply to. These are referred to as schemas and their instantiations. These are both part of the grammar, having the status of conventionalized units (being deeply enough entrenched). This allows a linguistic unit to be more specific and detailed than the schema that represents it on a higher level of abstraction. Thus, the grammar is not a constructive device for producing a grammatically correct ‘output’, but rather an inventory of symbolic resources that the speaker can employ for the construction of new expressions. Schemas have a categorizing function and are not computational, i.e. they are not in any way ‘responsible’ for the linguistic output. A bottom-up approach implies a redistribution of emphasis from general rules to their various instantiations. Equally important is the schematization process, which can be studied in the interface between specific instances and the schemas that are abstracted from them. We do not necessarily know how abstract the schemas are that speakers draw from the use and handling of specific expressions. Evidently, it is from low-level schemas and knowledge of specific expressions that higher level-schemas and general rules can be abstracted. Thus, while high-level schemas can certainly be abstracted, they are of secondary importance. 3. 2. 3 The prototypical structure of categories In the network model, categories are structured with reference to prototypes, i.e. a category is defined in terms of a schematization of typical instances of that category. Entities that conform to the prototype are central members of the category, while entities judged to partly conform to the prototype are assimilated as peripheral members of the category. Because this model does not operate with a checklist of criterial necessary and sufficient attributes, class membership cannot be predicted but depends on the judgment of the categorizer. The prototype model is held to be more cognitively plausible than the classical criterial attribute model of categorization that has been dominant since Aristotle. It was pioneered by Eleanor Rosch (e.g. 1975) and further supported by a range of linguistic inquiries (including my own work, Lobben 1991).
83
3. 2. 4 Schema and schematization Members of a linguistic category are analysed as nodes in a network, linked to each other by various categorizing relationships. One such categorizing relationship is extension from a prototype: meaning values in such a network are more or less prototypical, with the less prototypical being extensions from the prototypical ones. Dashed lines as in Figure 3.3 mark these (cf. Langacker 1987: 69-70). In Cognitive Grammar such network meanings are said to have a highly abstract schema as well, applying to all instantiations of the category. The term schema refers to an abstract characterization that is fully compatible with all the members of a category or subcategory. This second type of categorizing relationship is referred to as schematization, and holds between a schema and an expression that instantiates it. Cf. the Figure below (Langacker 1991b: 270): Figure 3.3: Prototype, schema, extension and instantiation
schema instantiation
prototype
extension
extension
In a network representation of a particular linguistic unit, the lower-level schemas are generalizations from speakers’ experiences. Ascending through the network the schemas gradually become more abstract to subsume the lower-level schemas. Higher-level schemas capture generalizations that speakers extract from the more local schemas. Solid arrows indicate senses in a network that are schematic for others, as in Figures 3.3. and 3.4. The basic-level schema is usually found somewhere in the middle, and is the most entrenched and cognitively salient schema (marked by bold type lines) which functions as the prototype and attracts new members to the category. The prototype is probably the sense acquired first, and is central in the neural network. It will typically be connected to many other schemas, but naturally not to all, since peripheral schemas can also extend to new schemas. Such extended senses are typically in some conflict with the sense they are extended from. Dashed-line arrows mark these in the Figures.
84
Extensions from a more deeply entrenched prototype will eventually become conventionalized and incorporated into the language. Figure 3.4 contains a representation of the meaning of run in English (adapted from Langacker 1991b: 267, and from Dąbrowska 1997: 6): Figure 3.4: Semantic network of the meaning of run RAPID MOTION
RAPID n-LEGGED LOCOMOTION
RAPID MECHANICAL MOTION (engine)
SUBJECTIVE MOTION (‘stretch’)
RAPID 4LEGGED LOCOMOTION (animal)
RAPID 2LEGGED LOCOMOTION (person)
COMPETITIVE POLITICAL ACTIVITY (candidate)
RAPID FLUID MOTION
RAPID 2LEGGED LOCOMOTION (race)
RAPID 4LEGGED LOCOMOTION (dog)
RAPID 4LEGGED LOCOMOTION (horse)
As the category grows outwards through semantic extension, it will also grow upwards, redefining the more abstract schemas as new members are added to the category (the schematization process). A third kind of category relationship is perceived in terms of mutual similarity. This type differs from the other two in the sense of lacking directionality. These relationships will be characterized by a conceptual distance, which has to be specified and elaborated for one schema to arrive at the neighbouring schema.
85
A network like this will contain a lot of redundancy, as it is not meant to be economic and reductionist, fully specifying representations of knowledge, formulated to generate and predict the language output. Rather, a semantic network is meant to serve as a representation of a usage-based model of learning and storing (linguistic) knowledge. In this usage-based model, the lower and intermediate-level schemas are the more important in processing language; interpreting other speakers’ utterances and assembling new expressions. Thus, the most significant meaning bearing schemas are not the higher-level abstract ones. In Cognitive Grammar these have more of an organizing function. 3. 2. 5 The nature of constructions, semantic overlap, and the redundancy issue Notably, new grammatical devices develop in spite of the fact that similar expressions already exist. There seems to be considerable redundancy regarding the number of linguistic units in a language to express one particular or overlapping grammatical meanings. This has been pointed out by Bybee (1985) for verbal tenses and moods in English, Dutch and French, Radden (1985) for spatial prepositions expressing causality in English, and by Heine, Claudi, and Hünnemeyer (1991: 30) in grammaticalization studies. In line with these findings, Cognitive Grammar also incorporates the linguistic situation where there is partial and complete semantic overlap, the latter of which grammatical agreement is a paradigm case. In order to see how this is done, one first needs to understand the notion of construction is understood in Cognitive Grammar. As mentioned above, in the ‘spirit of unification’, Cognitive Grammar relies exclusively on phonological expression, semantic content, or a combination of the two, the symbolic unit, as a means to describe and explain grammatical structure. Langacker argues that this position is not only logically coherent and workable, but also desirable given its stringent requirement; it rules out ‘any descriptive construct that is not derivable in a straightforward manner from data that is directly accessible’ (Langacker 1991b: 291). Syntactic tree structures as they are conceived in generative theory violate this content requirement. Instead it is argued that constituency is only a matter of simpler symbolic structures combining to form successively more complex symbolic structures. The mechanism by which a constituent is formed is that two component symbolic structures, [X/x] and [Y/y], are integrated at each pole (semantic pole signified by capital letters and phonological pole by lower case letters) to form a composite symbolic structure [XY/xy].
86
Accordingly, the expression yellow balloon is explained as follows: The component structure [YELLOW] profiles an atemporal relation at the semantic pole. (Atemporal relations stand in opposition to temporal relations, which denote processes, that is, verbs. In practical terms, atemporal relations correspond to the traditional categories of prepositions, adjectives, adverbs, infinitives and participles.) Its trajector is a physical entity of some sort, and its landmark is the yellow region of colour space (labelled Y). A coincidental profiled relationship exists between the landmark region and a colour sensation associated with the trajector. Further, the component prediction [BALLOON] denotes a certain kind of physical object; in Figure 3. 5, a sketch mnemonic of its shape designates its inherent characteristics. The dotted line between the trajector (tr) and the mnemonic sketch of the balloon indicate the correspondent relationship between these. The solid arrow indicates that [BALLOON] elaborates [YELLOW]’s schematic trajector. The composite structure merge the conceptual content of [YELLOW] and [BALLOON] so that the specific characteristics of the noun are associated with the trajector of the adjective. At the composite structure level, the balloon is profiled, while the colour specification is unprofiled facet of the semantic base. Figure 3. 5 Composite structure at the semantic pole yellow
Y
balloon w
w
T
lm
balloon
yellow
Y
w
tr T
w
w T
A similar integration of [yellow] and [balloon] exists at the phonological pole (see Langacker 1991b: 295), and involves the temporal order in which they are uttered as well as their adjacency. An arrow labelled T represents speech time. The correspondence identifies [balloon] as a phonological string that follows [yellow], yielding the composite phonological structure [yellow balloon]. The full construction is abbreviated [[YELLOW/yellow] [BALLOON/balloon]]. A constructional schema represents a conventionally established pattern of such bipolar integration.
87
Morphological and syntactic structures both follow this same principle, the only difference residing in whether the unit is smaller than or larger than the word. In principle, the full description of a grammatical construction is analogous to a description of a lexical item. The construction in Cognitive grammar is thus defined as such configurations: bipolar component and composite structures, along with the relationship among them. Constituency per se is therefore just a matter of step-by-step assembly through bipolar integration of progressively more elaborate symbolic structures (ibid. 1991b: 296). Thus, successive cycles of bipolar integration deriving composite structures from simpler components are formed. A network of a grammatical structure is therefore not one single structure, but a network of structures linked by categorizing relationships. Entrenchment through frequent use may cause an expression to be stored as an unanalyzed, fixed unit; the network will reflect this. Judgments of well-formedness are ensured by the notion of active node, by the assumption that only one structure (the active node) from a particular network is activated on each occasion to evaluate an expression. Langacker assumes that ‘an expression tends to activate a structure for this purpose to the extent that they overlap in content, and the node thus aroused compete in mutually inhibitory fashion for the privilege of effecting the categorization’ (1991b: 300-301). A structure is likely to be chosen as the active node if is salient and specific; lower-level schemas, when equally salient as a competing structure, are therefore better candidates for being an active node, because their more fine-grained specifications ensure better conditions for overlap with the expression in question (as designated by the higher-level schema). In order to demonstrate that the symbolic alternative to generative, autonomous grammar is a viable one, Langacker proceeds to show how even the extreme case of arbitrariness, grammatical agreement, can be described in terms of symbolic networks. While the traditional approach has been, firstly that grammatical and lexical morphemes are fundamentally different, and secondly that any morpheme which fails to exhibit a single, independent, and specific meaning in all occurrences is meaningless, Cognitive Grammar lists a number of properties as consistent with the idea that an element is meaningful (ibid: 302): 1. There is no single meaning that it displays in all its uses 2. Its primary conceptual import resides in construal (rather than conceptual content or truth conditions) 3. Its meaning is highly abstract (schematic) 4. Its meaning is fully overlapped by that of co-occurring elements 5. It serves an identifiable grammatical function 6. Its occurrence is obligatory
88
Among these, points 4, 5 and 6 are of particular relevance to this dissertation, since the dative morpheme MA and the –aC/BEN suffix display a certain degree (but not full) semantic overlap, and both elements are obligatorily present in the benefactive construction. Moreover, point 2 is relevant to the characterization of type of content associated with –aC/BEN. With respect to the first point then, Langacker argues, one cannot assume that this situation qualifies for meaninglessness unless one is also ready to accept that lexical items are also void of content, these being polysemous as the norm when occurring with any frequency. With respect to the next two points it is argued that even lexical items vary to a great extent in the level of specificity (e.g. mammal vs. Chihuahua), and there is therefore no reason to assume that grammatical morphemes should be any different. Meanings may be maximally schematic yet impose a construal on the construction which is essential to their content. A case in point would be the meaning of cases, as presented e.g. in Janda (1993). As for point 4, it is emphasized that meaningfulness does not equal non-overlapping meaning, since every construction display some degree of semantic overlap and that it is by virtue of this overlap that they merge to form coherent composite structures. A limiting case of this situation can be seen in expressions like puppy dog, oak tree and grizzly bear, where the second component (dog, tree, bear) does not contribute any meaning that the first does not also provide. That is, one semantic component is fully subsumed by that of the other, schematized as [A] merging with [AB] to form the (identical) composite structure [AB]. However, we would hesitate to say that because some information is redundant, it is also meaningless (that the lexical items dog, tree and bear do not have meaning in composite structures). For the last two points, it is argued that in a situation where a grammatical element is the obvious choice for a particular construction (e.g. for reasons of its content), its presence may become obligatory. It does not follow from this that the moment it becomes obligatory, it also becomes meaningless. For instance, that the use of by introducing the passive Agent in the passive construction in English (as in That newspaper is read by (*with, *from) half the population of London) is void of content and cannot be related to other, similar uses of by in non-passive constructions, as in That painting is by Giorgio Morandi or She managed to do that all by herself. Moreover, one would also miss the opportunity of generalizing recurring patterns of grammaticalization and polysemy patterns across languages, that is, recurring conceptual content used in various grammatical constructions.
89
By these standards, it is evaluated that archetypal examples of ‘empty morphs’ such as grammatical agreement, are also meaningful. The traditional argument is that agreement markers simply copy information from somewhere else in the structure, and are therefore not ‘independently meaningful’. Given the assumption in point 4. above, however, this argument is invalid. A grammatical agreement pattern is formalized as A+x…B+x′, where x is an inflection reflecting a property of A, and x′ agrees with x (but the latter two need not be identical in form). Redundancy implies that the primary motivation for the presence of x′ is not to provide additional information, but e.g. to signal grammatical relationships such as that B modifies A, or that A is an argument of B (ibid: 308), which is also the traditional conception. In line with point 5 above, the element would still be meaningful. An agreement structure like this is itself analysed as a bipolar construction of the type [[A/a][X/x]] for A+x, and [[B/b][X′/x′]] for B+x′, with the composite structure [[A/a][X/x]] [[B/b][X′/x′]] in the second level of constituency. Whether the pattern is optional or obligatory would depend on whether other constructional schemas were available to sanction combinations of A and B. If there were no competing overall schemas, this second level schema would be selected as the active node for sanctioning that e.g. A+x…B was ill-formed. In real language terms, this would imply that Spanish gato negro ‘black (male) cat’ is felicitous, but gato negr is ill-formed. As speakers of Spanish will know no such cases exist, but the opposite schema A…B+x′ is possible: flor roja ‘red flower’, and lápis corto ‘short pencil’. In cases where the –a/-o feminine/masculine contrast obviously reflects a distinction in
natural
gender,
conceptual
import
can
easily
be
ascribed
as
in
[[CAT/gat][MASCULINE/o]][[BLACK/negr][MASCULINE]/o]] for gato negro. It is pointed out that one needs to distinguish the kinds of structures existent in a language from the predictability of their behaviour, referred to as the ‘type/predictability fallacy’ (ibid: 290). Langacker argues that the fact that a certain grammatical pattern cannot be fully predicted does not entail the existence of an autonomous grammar. CG instead allows for the listing of symbolic units that cannot be predicted. Thus, although the -a/-o agreement of noun phrases in Spanish can be associated semantically with biological (natural) gender in most cases, this is not the case with inanimates. Langacker then opts for the solution that the whole unit, e.g. mesa ‘table’ is stored as an unanalysed unit in the mind. That is, that the speaker simply knows that the word for table is mesa and not meso, or mes (which rather means something else: ‘month’). In CG it is assumed that specific constructions may be
90
learned as fixed units even when they conform to regular patterns. Such endings, although they cannot be associated with the feminine/masculine semantic contrast, still carry meaning in the sense that they are noun-forming endings; thus, their structure at the semantic pole is [THING/-o] and [THING/-a], THING here being a theoretical unit in CG corresponding to a noun (see Langacker 1987). The situation in Hausa, however, would more resemble a case where the –aC/BEN suffix, although consistent with all the conceptual content of the dative marker MA, further specifies a certain content that is not part of MA: while MA signifies a set of semantic roles, aC/BEN largely signify the same set of roles11, but with a different construal on those roles, whereby it is pictured to what extent and in what way the participants of those roles are affected by the verbal action, along with some aspectual interpretations in some instances (cf. 4. 3. 4 and chapters 5 and 7). Confer these two examples given in Langacker (ibid: 308). In the English sentence The team {is/are} ready, the use of plural agreement on the verb implies (for some speakers) the construal of the team as individuals. The use of is on the other hand, can be used to signal a construal where the team is seen as a unit. Similarly, in the sentence Sweeping and dusting {is/are} hard work, singular is used if sweeping and dusting are seen as two facets of a single chore, and plural if they are seen as different kinds of activities. In such cases, Langacker says, x′ is not fully determined by x, and thus adds a nuance that would otherwise not be expressed. Interestingly, the situation is quite similar to Langacker’s examples in the sense that a Hausa speaker has a set of options when s/he wants to express a benefactive situation, since Hausa has a set of other benefactive markers: s/he may either use the gr1 –aa applicative, the gr4 –ee to express malefactive or motion away from OBJDAT, the gr6 –oo to express actions that are exclusively beneficiary (in some dialects), or the –aC/BEN for affectedness of OBJDAT and nuances related to that. The only difference from Langacker’s examples would be that in Hausa, the set of options for various construals are part of a derivational system, not inflectional (although it might have originated in an inflectional agreement system). I therefore applaud the Cognitive Grammar assumption that construal definitely is an important part of an expression’s meaning, as it is evident that speakers of Hausa whenever
11 The –aC/BEN suffix in addition signifies adversative action, defined as changing the value of the lexical stem to the opposite, e.g. haæ˚uraæ ‘be patient’ attains the meaning ‘give up on sb.’, that is, to loose patience with somebody in ha˚uraC MA.
91
they use the –aC/BEN suffix, they do not do so at random, but to convey certain conceptual construals of real life situations. This point will be generously illustrated in chapter 5.
3. 3 The action chain in Cognitive Grammar: a cognitive semantic account of transitivity and grammatical relations 3. 3. 1 The stage model and billiard ball model as ICMs for the finite clause As outlined above, meaning is characterized relative to cognitive domains. Many domains are what Lakoff (1987) refers to as idealized cognitive models, or ICMs. One such ICM is the stage model, which, it is suggested (Langacker 1991b), is the domain of reference for the identification of the finite clause. The main objective of the stage model is to bring in the observer/ conceptualizer. The stage model idealizes our ongoing experience of observing sequences of external events, involving the interactions of distinct participants within a stable setting. ‘Participant’ refers to an entity participating in a relationship with other (small, mobile, locational) entities in an action (contrasting with ‘setting’, which provides the larger and stable background for this interaction) (see Langacker 1991a: 550). Invoking the theatre metaphor, the speaker or conceptualizer is likened to the observer role of someone watching a play. In a canonical viewing arrangement, the viewer thus focuses her attention on some region external to herself, as on actions unfolding on a stage, or, in metaphorical terms, what happens on ‘the billiard ball table’, see next paragraph for details of the latter. Like actors interacting with objects and each other on a stage, the viewer conceptualizes interacting participants in an inclusive setting. The conceptualizer imposes on the events in this setting a temporal structure, organizing contiguous interactions into discrete events. The result is an event perceived by the conceptualizer where discrete objects (participants) interact energetically through physical contact. The billiard ball model (Langacker 1991b: 209-210) pertains to human beings’ experience as sentient creatures and as manipulators of physical objects (and other sentient creatures). This model conceives of participants in a clause in terms of billiard balls which have an impact on each other by way of transfer of energy in an action chain. It metaphorically describes participants in a conceived event, how they move about and transmit energy to each other. Some participants initiate this motion by supplying their own energy, and other participants receive the energy from outside sources. Interaction involves energy
92
transmittal, either in the form of physical energy, or an abstract analogue thereof (mental, intellectual, perceptual, or emotive), in an interactive network: Figure 3.5: An interactive network of the billiard ball model
setting
By combining these two cognitive models, the stage model and the billiard ball model, Langacker arrives at a complex conceptualization of
‘the normal observation of a
prototypical event’. In Figure 3.6 below, the V represents the viewer of the stage model, observing the action from a vantage point outside of her own setting. The billiard ball model supplies discrete objects that move about and interact energetically through physical contact. The prototypical action involves two central participants with the maximally opposed roles of Agent and Patient, where the Agent is her own energy source and volitionally carries out physical activity which results in physical contact with another entity, an inanimate Patient, which absorbs the transmitted energy and thereby goes through some change of state. In Figure 3.6, the double arrow symbolizes transmission of energy, the squiggly line depicts the Patients resultant change of state, and V represents the viewer of the prototypical event.
93
Figure 3.6: The normal observation of a prototypical action
setting
V A prototypical action chain can be illustrated with any transitive sentence where a volitional agent, initiating the action, functions as an energy source, and the Patient, receiving and being affected by the energy, functions as the energy sink (both notions to be elaborated below). 3. 3. 2 The action chain and the construal of grammatical relations In the following, an account is given of the notions action chain (Langacker 1991b: 215-21), energy flow and the grammatical relations ‘subject’ and ‘object’ as they are characterised in Cognitive Grammar. An action chain is defined as ‘A chain of interactions, such that each “link” involves one participant transmitting energy to a second, which is thus induced to interact energetically with the next, and so on. The initial energy source is the head of the chain, and the ultimate energy “sink” is its tail.’ (Langacker 1987: 543). This tail is identified by reacting in terms of further energy transmission. The process from the conceptualizer’s observing state to her choice of construal and choice of predication involves selection. An action chain can be found within an interactive network of the kind we saw in Figure 3.5, represented as in Figure 3.7.
94
Figure 3.7: An action chain within an interactive network
setting
A finite clause typically covers only part of the interactive network it invokes; it is limited to the scope of predication of that predication. Typically, parts of the action chain lie outside of the scope of predication, as shown in Figure 3.8. Figure 3.8: The scope of predication of a finite clause
scope
setting Cognitive Grammar is particularly interested in asymmetrical interactions where energy is transmitted from one participant in the clause to another, and aims to define the grammatical relation units ‘subject’ and ‘object’ semantically. In line with the view outlined in 3. 2, this is not done in terms of one specific meaning, but meaning is rather described in terms of a constellation of senses in a network. Subject is variously defined, going from the concrete schema to the more abstract, as ‘agent; head of an action chain; energetic participant; and finally ‘figure within the profiled relationship’ (Langacker 1991b: 224), where figure (within a scene) is defined as ‘a substructure’ which is ‘perceived as ‘standing out’ from the remainder (the ground) and accorded special prominence as the pivotal entity around which the scene is organized and for which it provides a setting’ (Langacker 1987: 120). A direct object, on the other hand, is defined as ‘tail of an action chain, whether this be a Patient, Mover, Experiencer, or some combination of these’. The prototypical value of the subject is the Agent, and the prototypical
95
value of the direct object is the Patient, consider the sentences in (33), which are both illustrated in Figure 3.9: (33) A woman crashed the Mercedes Floyd hit the glass Figure 3. 9: Prototypical values of subject and object
S
O
Such an action chain may have more than two participants, however. In between the Agent and the Patient there may be e.g. an instrument, consider the sentence in (34), corresponding to the schema in Figure 3.10, where the entire action chain is profiled, and the Agent is chosen as the subject: (34) a) A woman crashed the Mercedes with a truck b) Floyd broke the glass with the hammer c) Floyd hit the glass with the hammer Figure 3.10: Subject, object and instrument in the action chain
S
INST
O
The hierarchy AG>INST>PAT reflects the flow of energy in an action chain. This hierarchy is also in accordance with a hierarchy for the unmarked choice of subject proposed by Fillmore (1968: 33). However, not all sentences describe actions which involve an Agent and a Patient. The conceptualizer, having at her disposal the means of construal, may depart from the unmarked choice of subject by way of profiling. In (35), represented by the schema in Figure 3. 11, the subject is the Patient. (35)
a) The Mercedes crashed b) The glass broke (easily)
96
Figure 3.11: Illustration of the image schema instantiated in example (35)
S
Another possible sentence of the same action chain is (36), where the entity formerly construed as the instrument is profiled as the subject: (36)
a) The truck crashed the Mercedes b) The hammer easily broke the glass c) The hammer hit the glass
Figure 3.12: Illustration of the image schema instantiated in example (36)
S
O
An action instigated by an Agent may not necessarily result in a change of state in the Patient, or this change of state may not be profiled in the construed event, cf. (37): (37)
Floyd hit the hammer against the glass
Figure 3.13: Illustration of the image schema instantiated in example (37)
S
O
Therefore the definition of the subject and direct object needs to be more general and abstract to account for the more non-prototypical instances. All of the sentences above refer to the same event. The differences between them are imposed by the conceptualizer. The conceptualizer first chooses which participants in the conceived event she wants to include in the scope of the predication, for instance either a) the woman and the Mercedes, b) the woman, the truck and the Mercedes, c) the Mercedes, or d) the truck and the Mercedes. The second choice concerns how the conceptualizer chooses to profile the participants of the clause, and will determine the grammatical relations of each of the participants, that is, which participant will be the subject, the direct object, etc.
97
Thus it is seen that the action chain itself neither determines the profiling nor the choice of subject and object. This does not mean that these choices are random. Once the profile has been chosen, the assignment of grammatical relations can be predicted. The subject will always be the participant farthest upstream in the profiled portion of the energy flow, i.e. referred to as the ‘head of an action chain’. The object, by contrast, is maximally distinct from the subject in that it lies farthest downstream in the flow of energy, i.e. it is the tail of the profiled portion of the action chain. Note that the definition says profiled portion of the action chain. Thus, if in the action chain ‘the woman’ - ‘the truck’ - ‘the Mercedes’, the two latter are chosen for profiling, ‘the truck’ lies upstream in the flow of energy in relation to ‘the Mercedes’, and is predicted as head of the profiled portion of the action chain in the sentence ‘the truck crashed the Mercedes’ to be the subject of this clause. If, however, there was a profiled participant lying upstream in the energy flow to ‘the truck’, this would be the subject, as in the sentence ‘The woman crashed the Mercedes (with the truck)’. And, if only the participant lowest in the action chain, ‘the Mercedes’, is profiled, it will be the subject: ‘the Mercedes crashed’. This definition of subject and object describes the two grammatical relations as prototypically Agent and Patient, respectively. Profiling can lead to subjects and objects which do not share these prototypical values, say, if the Agent is not profiled, either the Instrument or the Patient may be the subject. Characterizing the grammatical relations subject and object as opposite extremes in the profiled portion of an action chain allows us to predict what the subject and object will be without restricting either of the grammatical relations to any particular semantic role. The tail of an action chain may, for example, be a Mover (She threw a ball), or an Experiencer (My brother kissed her). The two semantic notions necessary for defining subject and object in this model, then, are the idea of profiling and the conception of the action chain. The action chain has the status of a schematic cognitive domain, and profiling is an aspect of the conventional imagery which is fundamental to semantic structure in Cognitive Grammar. 3. 3. 3 The action chain as a conception of construed asymmetry In two cases complications arise with the definition ‘head/tail of an action chain’. Firstly, more than one semantic role can be fulfilled by one participant. Secondly, there are many transitive verbs where no transfer of energy either in physical or mental (metaphorical) space
98
takes place. In this regard, it may be useful to consider alternative ways in which an event may be organized in terms of energy supply. One way to construe an event is to abstract away the energy input and view the process autonomously. In such a case the event is construed as absolute. A schematic diagram may be seen in Figure 3.14 a). Another way is where the energy comes from the theme itself, as with the subjects of the verbs ‘meditate’ and ‘go’. The theme and the energy source are collapsed in one participant, as in Figure 3.14 b). A third way of accommodating the energy input is by way of an externally-driven source, as in Figure 3.14 c). The two first cases, absolute construal and self-induced energy input, will manifest themselves grammatically as intransitive verbs, while the latter, externally-driven inputs, applies to transitive verbs. Figure 3.14: Alternative construals of energy supply a) ABS
b) SELF-INDUCED
c) EXTERNALLY-DRIVEN
3. 3. 3. 1 The collapsing or spreading out of semantic roles in relation to grammatical relations To illustrate the first point, the tail of an action chain can be a combination of roles, as in ‘The sun burnt her skin’, where the object is both Patient and Experiencer, or in ‘She pushed him into the abyss’, where it is both Patient and Mover. There are also cases where one participant may comprise several roles. Consider for instance the sentence ‘The happy brother ran across the field to meet him’. ‘The happy brother’ in this case is the Agent, the Mover, and the Experiencer. A part of him, the legs, can also be said to serve as an instrument. In such cases the semantic roles for a participant are ‘nodes in an interactive network’, where one of the roles is a substructure functioning as an active zone (cf. Langacker 1987: 272), that is, figuring most directly in the interaction but without being individually mentioned itself. Cognitive Grammar maintains that such chunking of nodes in an interactive network is a natural part of cognitive linguistic coding, reflecting the salience of a whole in relation to its parts.
99
3. 3. 3. 2 Mental energy transitive clauses in asymmetric absolutive constructions The second point concerns transitive clauses where there is no transfer of energy in an action chain from subject to object, i.e. cases where either one or both participants has the absolutive role. One type of clause involves ‘perception or ideation’ and contains a subject-Experiencer, with verbs such as ‘see’, ‘notice’, ‘remember’, and ‘consider’. With these Experiencer roles, there is no necessary volitional, externally imposed control, and the subjects consequently do not lie in any downstream relation to any other participant. The objects of these verbs are also non-energetic, being neither the source nor the sink of energy, or simply absolute. The interaction between subject and object is still asymmetrical and energetic, because the Experiencer role of the subject involves some kind of mental approach towards the object that one might think of as an energetic activity. Thus the commonality between the Experiencer-subject and the Agent-subject is the asymmetry of being the initiator of either mental or physical energy. The difference, then, between the relation between subject and object in the prototypical AG ⇒PAT construction and the EXPER ⇒ ABS construction is that the former involves a transfer of energy (mental or physical), whereas in the latter the object is non-energetic and no transfer of energy occurs. Such constructions are maybe less typical in the use of the -aC/CAUS and the aC/BEN suffixes in Hausa, but there are a few instances where the construction -aC dà is used with less energetic verbs, such as verbs of cognition. Note that the label ‘action away’ will be less appropriate to such cases, e.g. luu®am mà NP dà NP ‘attend to sth for sb’, but nevertheless involves an asymmetry in terms of mental energy flow. Interestingly, the nonphysical energetic flow is reflected grammatically in Hausa in terms of the INST marker dà displaying less fusion with the verbal suffix, cf. Table 4.10. 3. 3. 3. 3 Construed asymmetry in symmetric absolutive constructions In another type of absolutive constructions, both subject and object have the absolutive role, for example with the verbs ‘resemble’, ‘meet’ or ‘intersect’. The content of sentences with these verbs neither provides a basis for ascribing an energetic nor an asymmetrical relationship between subject and object. Such static relations exclude any sort of energetic interaction between participants. Since the mutuality of such verbs inherently involves symmetry, there is also no basis in the meaning of the verbs for an asymmetrical relationship between the subject and object.
100
Nevertheless, the subject/object distinction is explained in terms of asymmetry. This asymmetry is imposed by the conceptualizer. The subject is sometimes thought to be the topic of the sentence, as in the ancient distinction between subject and predicate in Classical grammar. The subject or topic is ‘what the sentence is about’. Cognitive Grammar translates this ‘aboutness’ into the notion ‘figure within the profiled relationship’, that is, the subject is defined as the most prominent participant within the clause. The rest of the sentence provides the ground (corresponding loosely to the Classical notion of predicate). The object is the most prominent participant within the ground, and the second most prominent within the clause. Where the object is not the tail of an action chain ‘lying downstream from a participant subject’ in an energetic sense, then, it will be so in an abstract analogue of it, imposed by the conceptualizer’s subjectivity. In Hausa, the INST marker dà, which is, among other things, used for transitivizing purposes, has the function of imposing such an asymmetry, e.g. yi kàmaa dà ‘resemble’, and gàmu dà/hàfiu dà/sàaduu dà ‘meet’. 3. 3. 3. 4 Subjectivity and objectivity imagery explaining construed asymmetry in ABS ⇒ ABS clauses Subjectivity stands in contrast to objectivity, both concepts being part of the notion of imagery. In a situation where the conceptualizer (C) is performing a conceptual task (Q) (= the conceptualizer’s immediate mental experience), such as reciting the alphabet, and she is totally absorbed in this activity, losing the awareness of herself and the fact that she is engaged in a conceptualization process, the role of C is fully subjective, and the role of Q is fully objective. Full subjectivity and objectivity are maximally opposed ideal situations, where there is maximal asymmetry between the role of the conceptualizer and the object of conceptualization. If the conceptualizer becomes aware of herself performing Q, she will include C within Q, now having the role of C’. C is now the object of self-observation, and being observed, the role of C is consequently no longer subjective. There are now two levels of conceptualization, C and C’. The role of C’ is subjective. C and C’ may also be different individuals, with C’ observing or imagining someone else performing Q. (Langacker 1991b: 150-52.) The relevance of this on the grammatical relations subject and object in a sentence where both participants have absolutive roles is the role of the conceptualizer as construing the subject as figure in the profiled relationship, which is basically the same as saying that
101
one participant, the subject, is picked out and construed as more prominent than that of the object. The difference between a subject whose role is ABS ⇒ABS and one that is, say, AG ⇒PAT, is that the former is rendered prominent by the conceptualization process itself (i.e. subjectively), while the latter is inspired more by the content of the conceived relationship (i.e. objectively). In the Hausa sentence (dà) Abdù dà màata®shì sukà ràbu
‘Abdu and his wife
divorced’, for instance, the participants take part in a symmetric reciprocal action. In Màata® Abdù taa ràbu dà shii ‘Abdu’s wife divorced him’, however, the transitivizer dà imposes an asymmetry relationship on the action since it ‘implies more passivity for the referent of the NP object of dà’ (Abdoulaye 1996: 128). 3. 3. 4 Extension of the action chain to non-physical domains The conception of the action chain employs a physical metaphor to explain i.a. transitivity. It is suggested in Cognitive Grammar that the motion of physical objects through space is fundamental to our experience, and expressions describing spatial motion are frequently extended to ‘motion’ in other, abstract domains. The notion of action chain is extended metaphorically to non-physical domains, to be used with such verbs as ‘force’, ‘urge’ and ‘persuade’ (Talmy 1985, Langacker 1991b: 220). With verbs of transfer and communication (e.g. ‘send’, ‘give’, ‘tell’, ‘transfer’) the object will have a Mover role in relation to a Recipient, and can thus be said to be related to verbs of transfer and communication in terms of a metaphorically extended action chain. The subject instigates the movement of the object, and can therefore be seen as an abstract energy source. The -aC suffix in Hausa is used with numerous such examples. Spatial motion can be defined as change through time in the location of some entity (Langacker 1987: 167). The conception of spatial time involves the conceptualizer (C) conceptualizing a situation (S) in processed time (T). The conceptualization of movement involves the transformation of one configuration to another, in a continuous series of transformations. At the moment the conceptualizer observes a situation, this situation is retrievable in conceived time (t). Cognitive Grammar distinguishes between processing time and conceived time, a distinction relevant and important to linguistic analysis. They differ in the sense that processed time represents the present and can be thought of as an object. Conceived time, on the other hand, may vary in length and temporal location represents a medium of conceptualization rather than being an object.
102
If m stands for the moving object (that changes in processed time), and li for a conceived location, then a formula can be formulated which characterizes ‘the minimal set of cognitive events required for the conceptualization of spatial motion’: Figure 3.15: Formula for spatial and abstract motion (process)
[m/10]t0
C
>
[m/11]t1
T0
>
C
T1
[m/12]t2
>…
C T2
(Langacker 1987: 167)
This formula is apt to describe a spatial process like (38), (38) A train went through the tunnel. where the successive stages represent a continuous process of S0, S1, S2, and so on. However, the formula in Figure 3.15 can also represent sentences where the verb go is used in terms of abstract motion, as in (39). (39)
a) It takes only five seconds to go through the alphabet. b) I went through the book in just three hours. c) He can go quickly from one mood to another. d) This milk is about to go sour.
In interpreting such sentences, one has the choice of either saying that a spatial metaphor is used in construing something as spatial in non-spatial domains, or, as Langacker does (1987: 170), to think of the extension A⇒ B as a more abstract conception of motion, such that l0 may be not just a point in space but an entity of any sort, and m can refer not just to a physical object, but need only to be able to interact with the sorts of entities represented by l0, where the symbol / specifies the type of interaction. So, in the case of (39a), reciting the alphabet is an instance of such abstract motion, where m is the person reciting and l0 is the articulation of a particular letter, and [m/li] is the execution of the recitation process. In (39d), m represents the milk, which at each stage has a particular degree of freshness li on a graded scale. 3. 3. 5 Summary and conclusion The Cognitive Grammar model also predicts that a sentence will always have a subject, but not always an object, thus accounting for the existence of transitive vs. intransitive sentences.
103
An object only occurs where there happens to be a downstream participant. Verbs may appear as intransitive for several reasons. Firstly, the downstream participant may be removed by absolute construal, which means that the energy driving the event is not included in the predication and the process is viewed in isolation. This is the situation in ‘the ice melted’, as was illustrated in Figure 3.14 (c). Secondly, the participant supplying energy and the participant in the Recipient domain may be one and the same, as in the subjects of ‘swim’ (MVR), ‘think’ (EXPER) and ‘burst’ (PAT), as was illustrated in Figure 3.14 (b). To summarize, the grammatical relations subject and object are prominence-based, with a prototypical but secondary association to the archetypal roles AG and PAT.
3. 4 Semantic roles in Cognitive Grammar What are often referred to as semantic roles or notional roles are in Cognitive Grammar labelled role archetypes. Despite my sympathy with the Cognitive Grammar view, I shall elsewhere in this work use the more established term ‘semantic roles’. The term ‘role archetypes’ is chosen to reflect the status of semantic roles in Cognitive Grammar. Role archetypes are thought to derive from recurrent aspects of our everyday experience. In our everyday experience conceptions of participant interactions are established as deeply ingrained categories. Despite the significance of role archetypes in linguistic theory, they are not thought to be specifically linguistic notions, but rather a part of our general cognitive apparatus. Moreover, since role archetypes derive from our everyday experience and do not pertain to linguistic structure alone, there is no requirement that there be a finite, preferably small set of roles to which may be ascribed to the nominals in a sentence. Our experience is varied and allows for the generalization of many processes and participants’ actions, and as a consequence, Cognitive Grammar holds the number of role archetypes to be open-ended. However, many of these roles can be considered sub-roles and can be subsumed under more general, abstract schemas. The many role archetypes will also vary in cognitive salience. The role archetypes that are judged to be both cognitively salient and crosslinguistically significant are Agent, Instrument, Experiencer, Patient, Mover, and Absolute, which do not depart in any significant way from the traditional labels of semantic roles. An Agent (AG) is prototypically a human being, who volitionally exercises control and is an energy source directing her actions outward and is basically unaffected by these actions. An Instrument (INST) is used by an Agent to physically affect another entity. An
104
Experiencer (EXPER) is someone who is involved in some type of mental process, whether this process is intellectual, emotive or perceptual. A Patient (PAT) is defined as an entity, typically inanimate and non-volitional, which undergoes an internal change of state as a consequence of an externally initiated activity for which it serves as a target. A Mover (MVR) is an entity that changes position in relation to its surroundings. A participant with an absolute (ABS) role is not affected by or is seen in isolation from causal interactions with other participants and the energy flow. 3. 4. 1 Hybrid roles In some cases role archetypes are not clear-cut and easy to ascribe to any of the ones mentioned above. A less prototypical role consists of driving forces that are inanimate, but still autonomous, such as hurricanes, floods, earthquakes and falling trees. These are on the borderline between instrumental and agential, and Langacker (1991b: 237) labels this role hybrid. Other examples of hybrid roles are AG-MVR (as in the subject of ‘run’), EXPERPAT (as in the object of ‘tickle’), and AG-RECIP as in the subject of ‘eat’ or ‘borrow’. 3. 4. 2 Role archetype hierarchies Cognitive Grammar (Langacker 1991a, 1991b) relates role archetypes to two hierarchies, thought to reflect cognitively salient parameters. One is the ‘energy flow hierarchy’, which will be outlined further below. This hierarchy organizes role archetypes according to an action chain along the energy flow, going from AG via INST to PAT/MVR/EXPER. The conception of an action chain is a cognitive domain (Langacker 1987: 147-82). With respect to the energy flow, Cognitive Grammar distinguishes between source domain and recipient domain. Agents and instruments transmit energy to their downstream participants, whereas other participants, when present, will function as Recipients of the energy, although the PAT, MVR and EXPER roles can naturally also be construed as absolute. The commonality of the recipient domain pertains to the fact that these are often direct objects and also the fact that any of these roles may combine to form hybrid roles. The other hierarchy pertains to initiative, going from AG > EXPER > OTHER, reflecting the ability of participants to function as an original energy source, so that they can initiate contact with other participants. An Agent is the typical initiator, since it does not receive energy from any other external source, and directs physical action outward towards other entities. The Experiencer also has the capacity to initiate contact with other entities,
105
though only abstractly, through imagination or perception. Note, however, that the archetypical role of Causee exploits the potential initiative capacity of an Experiencer and extends from this more passive view of the Experiencer role, (see my analysis in 8. 3). The Experiencer still ranks lower than the Agent, since she is also affected by an externally induced energy flow. The active participants have in common the fact that they are both sentient creatures which is a prerequisite for both wilful control and mental experience. The initiative hierarchy is reflected in the fact that many languages have the word order SUBJECT > INDIRECT OBJECT > DIRECT OBJECT. Langacker mentions Turkish, Japanese and Newari, and I would add that the same is the case for Hausa. According to the initiative hierarchy, then, both the source and recipient domains are further divided into active and passive participants. The participants of a transitive sentence are thus classified as either active or passive, and either as belonging to the source domain or the to target domain. The source domain provides the energy flow, the target domain is where the energy is directed (the target), and the distinction between active and passive participants refers to whether a participant is capable of serving as an original source of energy or not. These two parameters yield the following system: Figure 3.16: Semantic roles in relation to the action chain
Active participant
Source
Target
domain
domain
AGENT
EXPER
PATIENT Passive participant
INST
MOVER ABS
In this dissertation I discuss potential similarities between the semantic role of the Causee and the semantic roles of Recipient/Beneficiary. It is interesting to note that in Cognitive Grammar (Langacker 1991a), both the Causee role, or Secondary agent, in Langacker’s terminology, and the indirect object/dative are described as active Experiencers in the target domain. For those languages which employ instrumental marking on Causees, however, additional specifications about the INST participant would have to be made. The
106
Secondary agent is defined as equivalent to the more commonly used term ‘Causee role’. In the present work I employ both as mere stylistic variants. In the action chain model (Langacker 1991a, 1991b) it is normal to view the instrumental encoding of Causees as an intermediary role of a TC clause. A transitive causative has three major participants, in Langacker’s terminology pictured like this: [AG1 ⇒ [AG2 ⇒ TH]]. AG1 refers to the Causer role; AG2 corresponds to the basic sentence subject, and TH to its object (Langacker 1991a: 410-411). The AG2 is neither the head of the action-chain nor its tail. With its agentive qualities, it serves to implement the action of the base verb, much like an instrument: AG ⇒ INST ⇒ TH. Accordingly, many of the world’s languages encode the Causee in the instrumental case. However, while Langacker draws a comparison of instrumental meaning, this does not influence his view of the basic structure of the causative, which is still that the subject is added to a less complex structure. He says that ‘[…] a causative construction expands an autonomous event conception (thematic or complex) to encompass the instigating force and the participant from which it emanates. Equivalently, we can see it as adding a link at the beginning of an action chain, thereby extending the scope of predication to include the original energy source.’ (1991a: 408). The semantic analysis in the present work relies heavily on the notion of the action chain. However, rather than using the symbols in the Cognitive Grammar model, I shall use iconic symbols for the semantic roles such as the Experiencer role, which distinguish clearly between animate and inanimate downstream participants. In addition I want to emphasize the fact that an OBJDAT participant is surrounded by a personal sphere (see 7. 2. 2 below), to define a border within which actions are relevant for this participant and which will invoke dative (Experiencer) encoding. The arrows pointing out from the EXPER role unit signify that this participant controls or tries to control her personal sphere. A subject is indicated by an action arrow emanating from this participant, symbolizing its status as head of the action chain. An OBJACC is indicated by being at the end of the arrow, symbolizing its status as the energy sink or the target of the energy which has emanated from the subject. See Figure 3.17.
107
Figure 3.17: Symbols representing the Experiencer role, the personal sphere, and subjectobject action chain EXPER/ HUMAN
! S(UBJ)
DAT
ACC
In the next section I shall present the Semantic Transitivity hypothesis as it was introduced by Hopper and Thompson (1980). The basic idea in this model is very much compatible with the Cognitive Grammar view on transitivity. It envisions transfer as basically a physical phenomenon, but which extends to non-physical domains. Having Langacker’s billiard ball model in mind certainly helps a lot when starting to imagine the various effects of transitivity in grammar. The two views are also complementary in the sense that Cognitive Grammar introduces a physically based model that also extends metaphorically to abstract domains, and the Semantic transitivity hypothesis, which fleshes out the actual effects of this image in the individual languages.
3. 5 Predictions of Hopper and Thompson’s Semantic Transitivity Hypothesis (STH) Hopper and Thompson’s Semantic Transitivity Hypothesis12 (STH) relates the phenomenon of transitivity to a wide number of sentential components, each having to do with the effectiveness with which an action is carried out. Transitivity is understood to be a ‘global property of an entire clause’. The effectiveness and intensity with which the action is transferred from one participant (the Agent) to another (object) is reflected in:
12The ‘Transitivity Hypothesis’ of Hopper and Thompson (1980) is in the present work relabelled ‘Semantic Transitivity Hypothesis’, so as not to confuse it with Comrie’s transitivity hypothesis relating to the choice of case marker on Causees. The term semantic transitivity is also used for this theory by Kibrik (1993: 47-67).
108
A) Participants: The number should be at least two for a transfer to take place. B) Kinesis: Actions can involve transfer from one participant to another whereas states cannot. Ex. I hugged Sally vs. I like Sally. C) Aspect: An action viewed from its endpoint (a telic action) is more effectively transferred to a Patient than one that does not have such an endpoint. Ex. I ate it up (action completed, telic) vs. I am eating it (partially carried out, atelic). D) Punctuality: Actions carried out instantaneously have a more marked effect on a Patient than actions that are inherently on-going. Ex. kick (punctual) vs. carry (on-going). E) Volitionality: The effect on the Patient is more apparent when the Agent is presented as acting purposefully. Ex. I wrote your name (volitional) vs. I forgot your name (nonvolitional). F) Affirmation: Affirmative vs. negative sentences. G) Mode: A ‘realis’ event, an action asserted to have happened in the real world, is more effective than an ‘irrealis’ event, presented as taking place in a non-real, contingent, world. H) Agency: Participants high in agency can effectuate the transfer of an action in a noticeable way, whereas those low in agency do this to a lesser extent. Ex. George startled me (perceptible consequences) vs. The picture startled me (might refer to an internal state). I) Affectedness of object: The degree to which an action is transferred to a Patient is a function of how completely that Patient is affected. Ex. I drank up the milk (more affected) vs. I drank some of the milk (less affected). J) Individuation: Actions will be more effectively transferred to objects that are individuated than to those that are not. Individuation concerns the distinctness of the Patient from the Agent (cf. reflexive objects are not individuated), or in terms of distinctness from the background (Highly individuated: proper names, human/animate, concrete, singular, count noun, referential/definite vs. Non-individuated: common name, inanimate, abstract, plural, mass noun, non-referential). Ex. Frank drank the beer (individuated and affected by the implication of having drunk all of it) vs. Frank drank some beer (non-individuated and less affected by the possible interpretation that some beer was left). Or, to summarize, it can be put simple as in table 3.2.
109
TABLE 3.2 High and Low transitivity features in Hopper and Thompson (1980) TRANSITIVITY
HIGH
LOW
A. PARTICIPANTS
2 or more participants, A and O
1 participant
B. KINESIS
action
non-action
C. ASPECT
telic
atelic
D. PUNCTUALITY
punctual
non-punctual
E. VOLITIONALITY
volitional
non-volitional
F. AFFIRMATION
affirmative
negative
G. MODE
realis
irrealis
H. AGENCY
A high in potency
A low in potency
I. AFFECTEDNESS OF O
O totally affected
O not affected
J. INDIVIDUATION OF O
individualtion of O
O non-individuated
(‘A’ refers here to Agent and ‘O’ to Object in a two-participant clause, as in Hopper and Thompson’s presentation. ‘Patient’ is here used as a receiver of an action.)
The basic idea in Hopper and Thompson is that these component features co-vary, and they show that they do so extensively and systematically in the languages that they have investigated. This instigated them to believe that transitivity must be a central notion in the languages of the world, as they say: ‘whenever an obligatory pairing of two Transitivity features occurs in the morphosyntax or semantics of a clause, THE PAIRED FEATURES ARE ALWAYS ON THE SAME SIDE OF THE HIGH-LOW TRANSITIVITY SCALE"
(1980: 254). This
leads them to formulate their transitivity hypothesis, which is meant to be a claim about the universal property of grammars: ‘If two clauses (a) and (b) in a language differ in that (a) is higher in transitivity according to any of the features 1A-J, then, if a concomitant grammatical or semantic difference appears elsewhere in the clause, that difference will also show (a) to be higher in Transitivity.’ (Hopper and Thompson 1980: 255)
The converse hypothesis about features in low-transitivity constructions is implicit in the above statement. Note also that it does not predict what features will be overtly expressed, only that if they are, they will be in accordance with the predictions of the Transitivity hypothesis. It also applies only to obligatory morphosyntactic markings. What the hypothesis predicts is that ‘the opposite type of correlation will not be found, where a high-Transitivity feature systematically co-varies with a low-Transitivity feature in the same clause’ (1980: 255). The transitivity features can be manifested either morphosyntactically or semantically.
110
It should be emphasized that the view defended in this article is that transitivity is a relationship that obtains throughout a clause, and is thus not restricted to one constituent or a pair of constituents. The idea is that transitivity can be broken down to its component parts, each focussing on a different aspect of the carrying of over of energy from A to O, implies that sentences can be more or less transitive. Thus, comparing the two sentences in (40), (40)
a) Jerry likes beer b) Jerry knocked Sam down
According to a traditional definition of transitivity (presence vs. absence of an object), both are equally transitive. In STH on the other hand, (40b) is more transitive than (40a), since (40b) displays the following values according to the table above: Kinesis: action Aspect: telic Punctuality: punctual Affectedness of O: total Individuation of O: high; referential, animate, proper 3. 5. 1 An example of typical high vs. low transitivity A construction that typically displays a number of high transitivity properties is the ergative construction. Conversely, the antipassive13 typically displays several low transitivity features. These constructions will often occur in the same language, and therefore serves well as an exemplification. According to Hopper and Thompson, the situation below is rather typical in ergative languages: (41)
ERGATIVE ANTIPASSIVE Verb codes two participants Verb codes only one participant Perfective Aspect Imperfective Aspect Total involvement of O Partitive O Definite O Indefinite O Kinetic/volitional V Stative/involuntary V Active participation of A Passive participation of A It is argued that the selection of the ergative as opposed to the antipassive construction
in some languages (e.g. Adyghe, NW Caucasian, Catford 1976) is conditioned by the degree 13Hopper and Thompson here uses the term antipassive to cover both the canonical case, where either A is in the absolutive case and O is oblique, and in an ‘extended sense’ where A appears in some case other than the ergative case, and O in some case other than how it is regularly marked when in the ergative construction (1980: 268).
111
of completeness, volition and thoroughness of the action. Thus, the ergative/antipassive constructions will be selected on the basis of verb pairs like kill/stab, see/look at, and read/write, where the first in these pairs will be opted for the ergative: killing is more drastic and has a final end state compared to stabbing; seeing means taking in a whole situation into consideration (cf. seeing is understanding) while looking at something suggests a partial and indirect effect on the O. Firstly, there seems to be a difference in the effect on O and the degree of completion of the action between the two constructions. According to Catford (1976: 45) (citing T. F. Turčaninov), the following example yields a contrast in how radical the changes in the object ‘the youth’ is14: (42) Adyghe a) Je‰edZakw’e-r ŝ’ale-m jewˆŝjˆaŝ teacher-NOM your-ERG admonished ‘The teacher admonished the youth’ (cited in Hopper and Thompson 1980: 270) ‘the action of admonishing only touched upon the youth, not producing any radical changes in him as an object’
b) Je‰edZakw’e -m ŝ’ale-r jˆwˆŝjˆaŝ teacher-ERG your-NOM admonished ‘The teacher admonished the youth’ (cited in Hopper and Thompson 1980: 270) ‘The admonishment produced an essential and radical change in the object’
Another example of the totality distinction comes from Kabardian (NW Caucasian), where the antipassive indicates that O is only partially affected (Hopper and Thompson: 268): (43) Kabardian a) ħe-m qwˆpsħe-r je-dza’qe dog-ERG bone-NOM bite ‘The dog is biting the bone’ (the dog bites the bone right through to the marrow) b) ħe-r qwˆpsħe-m je-w-dzaq’e dog-ERG bone-NOM bite ‘The dog is biting the bone’ (the dog is gnawing at the bone) Hopper and Thompson cite Anderson (1976: 22) with an example from the West Circassian dialect of Bzhedukh, and notes that ‘There are numerous such pairs, and they differ systematically in the following way: the "accusative" [i.e. antipassive] form in each case 14 All examples quoted from Hopper and Thompson 1980 appear in the original with ‘open’ [a]’s: a. It is not known whether this is intended as a back vowel or an accident because all their example
112
indicates that the action is carried out less completely, less successfully, less conclusively, etc., or that the object is less completely, less directly, less permanently, etc., affected by the action.’ (44) Bzhedukh a) č’'aaLa-m č’´g£-´r ya-ź£a boy-ERG field-ABS 3sg(-3sg)-plows ‘The boy is plowing the field’ (cited in Hopper and Thompson 1980: 268) b) č’'aaLa-r č’´g£-´m ya-ź£a boy-ABS field-OBL 3sg(3sg)-plows ‘The boy is trying to plow the field’ OR ‘The boy is doing some plowing in the field’ Secondly, it is argued that in some ergative languages, the notional O of the verb is referential in the ergative construction but not in the absolutive. Examples are mentioned from Avar (NE Caucasian) and Eskimo. (45) Eskimo a) Inu-up qimmiq-Ø taku-√-a-a person-ERG dog-ABS see-INDIC-TRANS-3/3 ‘The/A person saw the dog’ b) Inuk-Ø qimmir-MIK taku-√-UQ-Ø person-ABS dog-OBL see-INDIC-INTR-3 ‘The/A person saw a dog’ Thirdly, an ergative/antipassive distinction often reflects a difference in the degree of planned involvement of the A. Less active verbs, such as verbs of perception or sensory verbs, will elicit constructions characterized by low transitivity properties and vice versa, see, for instance, this sentence pair from Samoan: (46) Samoan a) Na fasi e le tama TENSE hit ERG the boy ‘The boy hit the girl’ b) Na va’ai le tama TENSE see the boy ‘The boy saw the girl’
e teine the girl
i OBL
le teine the girl
sentences are italicized. The same is the case for the letter v, [v], (the symbol being phonetically a fricative), which appear as the symbol of the approximant [√].
113
3. 5. 2 Number of participants Regarding the number of participants, the STH view is that a sentence with more participants is more transitive than one that has less, on the grounds that ‘no transfer at all can take place unless at least two participants are involved’ (1980: 252). Thus it is stated that e.g. causatives (and, I should say, benefactives) are highly transitive constructions (1980: 264), since they must involve at least two participants (and often have more). Reflexives has an intermediate status with respect to number of participants, since, when compared to one-participant clauses, they are more transitive, and when compared to two-participant clauses, they typically display properties of lower transitivity, as in this example from Chimwi:ni (Bantu language, Somalia) (ibid: 1980: 277-278, Abasheikh 1976). (47) Chimwi:ni a) Mw-a:na Ø-m-łumiłe child SP-OP-bit ‘The child bit Nuru’
nu:ru Nuru
b) Mw-a:na Ø-łumiłe ru:hu-y-e child SP-bit himself ‘The child bit himself In this and many other Bantu languages, an object prefix (OP) appears before the verb root if the O is definite. Reflexives, however, do not contain such a prefix, even though the object is definite. This can, they say, be interpreted as a signal of lower transitivity. Other constructions low in transitivity, such as antipassives and object incorporation constructions, encode clauses as intransitive, even if they have two participants. A consequence of the STH is that a sentence with only one participant may possess more HT features than one that has two: (48)
a) Susan left
b) Jerry likes beer
Kinesis: action Aspect: telic Punctuality: punctual Volitionality: volitional Participants: two
This situation is a consequence of the model itself, but is not seen as a problem as it is true that the absence of O will reduce transitivity. Thus, in ergative languages, the subject of intransitive verbs is marked in the same case as objects of transitive verbs (absolutive), thus correctly signalling a reduced transitivity. Moreover, many languages mark the patient in non-action verbs like (48b) as the subject of one-participant clauses, cf. Spanish Me gusta la
114
cerveza ‘me-DAT pleases the beer’. The beer, in this case, is not a receiver of action and therefore not very patient-like. A significant point in STH is that the presence of an O is only one of the defining properties which makes a sentence transitive. 3. 5. 3 Individuation of O An object is regarded as more individuated if it is: proper, human or animate, concrete, singular, count noun, referential or definite - as opposed to: common, inanimate, abstract, plural, mass noun and non-referential. This is grounded on the fact that "[a]n action can be more effectively transferred to a patient which is individuated than to one which is not" (1980: 253). A definite O is often perceived as more completely affected that an indefinite one, for instance when drinking a definite amount of something (She drank the juice), the probable implication is that all of the liquid was consumed as opposed to an indefinite amount (She drank (some) juice), where it is likely that some was left and only part of it was consumed. In the case of animacy or human O’s, the likeliness is that the effect on an animate or human participant is more in focus than an inanimate one (cf. He bumped into George vs. He bumped into the table). Correspondingly, some languages require that animate O’s be marked for referentiality or definiteness, where inanimate O’s do not have such a requirement. One example is Spanish, which marks human or human-like O’s with a, signalling that it is both definite and referential; (Busco a mi amigo ‘I am looking for my friend’) whereas inanimate O’s does not have such a requirement (Busco mi sombrero ‘I am looking for my hat’). The different but related features which make up the individuation category co-vary and may play a role in the definition of an O; in Sesotho (Bantu language), what constitutes the object is dependent on its values relating to a number of individuation features. The object is that non-subject NP: - Whose semantic case is highest on the hierarchy BEN>DAT>ACC>INS -Whose referent is highest on the personal hierarchy 1st>2nd>3rd human>3rd animal>3rd inanimate -Whose referent is more determined (given, old, definite, specific) (Morolong & Hyman 1977: 202)
The relevance of this to the STH is that O’s specially marked for individuation co-vary with other HT features, whereas O’s which are less individuated do not. In several languages, the verb will independently be assigned to the class of intransitive verbs when occurring in a clause where the O is indefinite or non-referential. Thus, in Chukchee, a non-referential O covaries with object incorporation, intransitive marking on the verb, and nominative case
115
marking on the A. Referential O’s on the other hand, have separate V and O, and co-occur with ergative case marking on the A, absolutive case on the O, and transitive marking on the verb. In the South Pacific language Tongan as well, definite O’s coalesce with ergative marking on A. An O may be marked as referential if it plays some part in the discourse (e.g. in Hungarian), contrasted with the situation where the activity itself is in focus and the O is (phonologically and notionally) conceived of as part of the verb. Being part of a verb-object nexus, an indefinite O might influence the word order in a clause, where a morpheme in a fixed position such as a tense-Aspect marker (Amwi, Austro-Asiatic language of Bangladesh) may ‘ignore’ an indefinite O that is incorporated into the verb. In Amwi, the regular word order is VSO (e.g. TENSE eat I the rice), but if the O ‘rice’ is indefinite, the subject will follow after the verb-object nexus and the word order will be VOS (TENSE eat rice I) (Weidert 1975: 187). In conclusion Hopper and Thompson states that ‘languages which morphologically distinguish between transitive and intransitive clauses, AND between definite and indefinite O’s, have a tendency to associate indefinite (i.e. characteristically unmarked) O’s with INtransitive
clauses. [...] Thus non-referential or indefinite O’s show striking correlation with
the verb morphology, case-markings, and word-order characteristic of ‘intransitive’ clauses in a number of languages’ (ibid. 1980: 259). 3. 5. 4 Affectedness of O (totality) Hopper and Thompson discuss both indirect objects and direct objects under this heading. They point out that indirect objects (often in the dative case) are strong markers of HT saying that ‘the arguments known to grammar as INDIRECT OBJECTS should in fact be called ‘Transitive O’s’ rather than what might be called ‘accusative’ O’s, since they tend to be definite and animate’ (ibid. 1980:259). Animate and definite O’s often get prominence over inanimate O’s, both in terms of position in the clause, and with respect to agreement (concord). In some Bantu languages, a human O will directly follow the verb; irrespective of semantic case (benefactive or accusative), before the inanimate O, and it will be dominant in terms of agreement. The latter appears to be a universal principle, according to Givón (1976, 1979) and Faltz (1978). Topic shifted IO’s are often perceived to be referential or definite: compare a) and b) in (49).
116
(49)
a) Clara wrote a letter to Santa Claus b) Clara wrote Santa Claus a letter
In a), where the O is adjacent to the verb (topic shifted), the O implies referentiality or prior existence, according to Hopper and Thompson. Along the same lines, they mention that dative morphemes are often reanalysed as a marker of definite and/or animate O (e.g. Spanish a, Hindi koo). Accordingly they claim that their ‘hypothesis predicts that clauses containing indirect O’s will indicate high Transitivity in some other respect’ (1980: 260). Sentences containing indirect O’s also tend to have animate A’s, adding to the HT effect. In Indonesian, the suffix -KAN is used, among other things, to signal a total effect on O, as opposed to the -I suffix, which signals a partial effect. Cf. (50). Note that b) might possibly more successfully have been glossed as ‘slam the door’: (50)
a) tutup pintu b) tutup-kan pintu
‘Close the door’ ‘Close the door’ (Hopper and Thompson1980: 261)
In addition to being a signal of affected object, it also marks completed action and that the action is done with more force (intensity). (Note also that the -KAN suffix is also used to make causatives and to transitivize dative verbs, see below.) Hopper and Thompson stress the importance of the total effect on O of the more transitive suffix, since, when ‘the O is more completely and radically affected by the action of a fully Transitive verb’ this is ‘universally […] of crucial importance since it can spill over into the semantics of Aspect in the clause. A high degree of Transitivity may signal a total effect of the action of the verb on O, and hence the COMPLETION of the action.’ (1980: 261). Moreover, a HT marker may, they say, signify that the O is ‘physically changed in some way, e.g. moved or altered’ (ibid), the two suffixes in Indonesian, -I and -KAN, are cited as examples. Another common way to encode differences in affectedness of O is by using case. Finnish is one well-known example where grammarians have been preoccupied with this in several works. Partitive case is used to mark a partially affected O, and accusative marks a totally affected O. Along this meaning distinction also follows a concomitant interpretation of a difference in Aspect or telicity; the accusative gives a totally affected O and a telic or perfective interpretation of the action, and the partitive case on O signals a partially affected O and an atelic or imperfective action. Cf. (51).
117
(51)
Finnish a) Liikemies kirjoitti kirjeen valiokunnalle businessman wrote letter (ACC) committee-to ‘The businessman wrote a letter to the committee’ b)
Liikemies kirjoitti kirjettä valiokunnalle businessman wrote letter (PART) committee-to ‘The businessman was writing a letter to the committee’ (Fromm & Sadeniemi 1956: 120-121, cited in Hopper and Thompson 1980: 262)
This distinction in affected O can also be expressed in the verb alone. In Trukese (Micronesian), the intransitive stem signals partitive O, and the transitive stem signals total O: (52) Trukese a) wúpwe wún ewe kkónik I will drink the water ‘I will drink some of the water’ b)
wúpwe wúnúmi ewe kkónik I will drink the water ‘I will drink up the water’ (Sugita 1973: 397)
Hungarian is another case where completed Aspect and a totally affected O seems to be connected. As in English (and Norwegian), the two constructions We sprayed paint on the wall vs. We sprayed the wall with paint, the latter indicates that the wall is completely affected, that is, covered with paint. In the Hungarian equivalent, however, this object is marked by accusative case and accompanied by the perfectivizing prefix be- to signal completion of the activity (Moravcsic 1978a, b). Conversely, partially affected O’s are accompanied by intransitive verbs or some other token if reduced transitivity. Languages with ergative/absolutive case marking will typically associate partitive O with the antipassive construction, as in Tongan (Polynesian). The antipassive clause in (53b) has no transitive marker on the verb, the A is marked with absolutive case, and the O with oblique case (typical of lesser affected O’s). The meaning of this canonical absolutive construction is partitive O. (53) Tongan a) Na’e kai-i ’a PAST eat-TRANS ABS ‘The boy ate the fish’ b)
e DEF
ika ’e he tamasi’i fish ERG the boy
Na’e kai ’a e tamasi’i ’i he PAST eat ABS DEF boy OBL the ‘The boy ate some of the fish’
ika fish
(Clark 1973: 600, cited in Hopper and Thompson 1980: 263)
118
3. 5. 5 Aspect According to Hopper and Thompson’s article, Aspect is systematically correlated with the degree of transitivity of the verb. If a clause is in perfective Aspect, it will also have other properties which makes it more transitive. If it is in the imperfective Aspect, on the other hand, it will independently be characterised by other, low transitive properties. An example from Finnish was mentioned above, in (51). (It is clarified that telicity does not equal perfectivity or Aspect. While telicity is a quality of the predicate, Aspect only emerges in discourse. Yet another concept, Aktionsart, which is determined on lexical grounds, overlaps with Aspect, but constitute a separate phenomenon.) Tense-aspect values are shown to correspond with case marking of the clause participants, both in high and low transitive constructions. It is stated that in ‘a considerable number of languages’, the ergative construction will only be used in perfective or preterit environments, contrasted with a non-ergative construction which is then used in imperfective or non-preterit environments. Examples are mentioned from Hindi and Georgian. In Hindi, the A is marked with ergative case in perfective Aspect, whereas in the imperfective or habitual it is not. In Georgian, for a class of verbs, ergative is used in the aorist and nonergative case in the present tense (Harris 1976). Other languages mentioned in this context are Burushaski, Tibetan, Yucatec, Chol (Mayan) and Samoan. (54) Samoan a) Na va’ai le tama i TENSE look at the boy OBL ‘The boy was looking at the fish’ b) Na va’ai-a TENSE look at-TRANS ‘The boy spotted the fish’
e ERG
le i’a the fish
le tama the boy
le i’a the fish
(Hopper and Thompson 1980: 272)
Blake (1976: 286) shows that for Kalkatungu (West Queensland) as well, there is a correlation between ergative case marking on A and perfective Aspect. He states that ‘an intransitive-type construction is favoured if reference is to an action that is being directed towards a goal, as opposed to one that has been successfully completed’. (55) Kalkatungu a) KupaNuru-t6u caa kalpin old man-ERG here young man ‘The old man hit the young man’
l2ai-n2a hit-PAST
119
b) KupaNuru caa kalpin-ku l2ai-min2a old man here young man-DAT hit-IMPF ‘The old man is hitting the young man’ (Hopper and Thompson 1980: 272-3) Hopper and Thompson refer to Chung 1977, 1978, Anderson 1977, and Hopper 1979 for similar cases from Polynesia where perfectivity is linked to ergativity. Conversely, the choice of case on A is shown to influence other, low transitivity values. In Pitta-Pitta (Queensland), the absolutive suffix has grammaticalised into a non-preterit tense marker. In the antipassive construction, the absolutive suffix -Nu on the A is reinterpreted as a future tense marker, as in (56). (56) Pitta-Pitta a) kan¢a-lu matjumpa-n2a man-ERG kangaroo-ACC ‘The man killed a kangaroo’
pit2i -ka kill-PAST
b) kan¢a-Nu matjumpa-ku pit2i man-FUT kangaroo-ACC kill ‘The man will kill a kangaroo’ (Hopper and Thompson 1980: 273) Similarly, detransitivizing affixes co-vary with continuous tense. In Yindiny (North Queensland) the suffix -:d7i-n has five functions (Dixon 1977) in the following way (Hopper and Thompson 1980: 276): a) In an antipassive clause, where A is marked as absolutive instead of ergative, and O is oblique. b) In a reflexive construction in which only one NP appears c) If the A refers to something inanimate which cannot exercise voluntary control over the action d) If the action is accidental rather than purposeful e) If the action is continuous It is pointed out that the detransitivizing suffix not only signals low transitivity with respect to the A and O arguments as described in a)-c), but also the verb-related semantic properties of volitionality, purposiveness and perfectivity. In still other cases, there seems to be a correspondence between properties of O and Aspect. In Fijian (Mulder 1978), Mordvin (Uralic, Comrie 1977), and Palauan (related to Fijian), the verb agrees with the O in the perfective aspect, but not in the imperfective. See the sentences in Paulauan in (57).
120
(57) Palauan a) A ngal¡k a mil¡nga a ngik¡l child eat(IMPF) fish ‘The child was eating the fish’ b) A ngal¡k a kill-ii a ngik¡l child eat (PERF)-AGREE fish ‘The child ate up the fish’ (Hopper and Thompson 1980: 275) 3. 5. 6 Intensity Another facet of high transitive constructions is that of intensity. Intensity is closely related to affected O’s, according to the STH. Some of the intensive forms are causatives. This, they say, is to be expected ‘since causatives are highly Transitive constructions’ (1980: 264) (emphasis added). Above we saw that the Indonesian suffix -KAN denotes highly affected O’s, the door in (50b) is closed with greater force and subsequently is more affected by the action, than when the suffix -I is used. Hopper and Thompson point out that the distinction between (58a) and (58b) is one of intensity, where b) is more intense. (58)
a)
Dia memanas-I air ‘He heated the water’ (gently and controlled, e.g. a test tube with a Bunsen burner. Heat is brought to the water or kindled after placing it) b)
Dia memanas-KAN air ‘He heated the water ’ (Hopper and Thompson 1980: 261) (more drastic heating, e.g. boiling water in a kitchen, water is placed over the heat) Similar examples of intensity are mentioned for Arabic, cf. (59), which geminates the second root consonant, and for Chicheŵa (Bantu language of Malawi), where the causative element –ETS- in (60b) attains an intensive meaning in (60c). (59)
Arabic birik ‘kneel’ birrik kasar ‘break’ kassar jamad ‘freeze’ (intr.) jammad
(60)
Chicheŵa a) Mw-ana’yu w-a-dy-a child this he-TENSE-eat-INDIC ‘The child has eaten’ b)
‘forced to kneel’ ‘smash’ ‘freeze’ (trans.) (Hopper and Thompson 1980: 264)
M-ai a-ku-dy-ETS-a mw-ana woman she-TENSE-eat-cause-INDIC child ‘The woman is feeding the child’
121
c)
Mw-ana’yu w-a-dy-ETS-a child-this he-TENSE-eat-cause-INDIC ‘The child has eaten too much’
3. 5. 7 Kinesis Kinesis or kinetic quality refers to the degree of directed physical activity. Part of this concept is the VOLITIONAL element, having to do with whether the A exerts a deliberate and conscious action, or if it is a spontaneous and accidental one. Thus, absence of voluntary participation will trigger low Transitivity features, whereas
presence of a more active
participation of the A will co-vary with high Transitivity, we say that the A is high or low in Agency. Examples come from Finnish where clauses with sentient verbs (e.g. see, hear), which are characterised by non-voluntary participation, have partitive O’s. In one-participant clauses, low vs. high Agency may be reflected in the degree of control of the action, cf. these sentences from Eastern Pomo (Hokan language of northern California): (61) Eastern Pomo WÍ ba¯ téċki¯ HA¯ ba¯téċki¯
‘I got bumbed accidentally’ ‘I got bumped on purpose’ (Hopper and Thompson 1980: 265)
This aspect of control is also present with two-participant clauses. In languages which alternate between ergative and antipassive constructions, the DEGREE OF PLANNED INVOLVEMENT OF A
may influence the selection of type of
construction. This relates to the meaning of the verb; sentient verbs will have A’s that are less volitionally involved. This is shown for Estonian and Samoan (1980: 270-71). In Estonian, a less active verb such as a verb of perception will induce a partitive O. 3. 5. 8 Punctuality Actions may be characterized as punctual, in opposition to states. Grammatical expressions of punctual actions co-vary with a number of other HT features. In Hungarian, the prefix meg- is used for a punctual and perfective action, the O is completely affected and may not be used in the partitive form, the O must be referential and with some verbs take accusative O’s with this prefix and oblique when it is not present. Contrast the situation where -meg is not present, the action may occur from time to time and does not necessarily affect the entire O. This contrast
122
is referred to as ‘effective’ vs. ‘descriptive aspect’, respectively, in Hopper and Thompson’s source (1980: 267). In Samoan, the ergative vs. antipassive constructions will encode punctual and less punctual actions, respectively, as in (62). (62) Samoan a) Sā manatu le tama i le teine TENSE think the boy.ABS OBL the girl ‘The boy thought about the girl’ (durative action) b) Sā manatu-a le teine e le tama TENSE think-TRANS the girl ERG the boy ‘The boy remembered the girl’ (punctual action) (Hopper and Thompson 1980: 269) 3. 5. 9 Negation and irrealis mode Some languages will have the O in the partitive case (as opposed to a totally affected O), or the O will have an indefinite or non-referential form. Examples of the first are found in Finnish and Estonian. Indefinite O’s in negated clauses can be found in English (any instead of some), and French uses partitive (Nous n’avons plus de pain ‘We have no more bread’). The effect of such encoding, they say, is that the action of the verb is deflected and less direct. 3. 5. 10 A criticism of the semantic transitivity model The semantic transitivity model is criticized in Lazard (2001). However, the criticism is one of methodology, and does not touch on the phenomenon of semantic transitivity itself. On the contrary, Hopper and Thompson (1980) are praised for their professional intuition about language, arising from long experience with research on various languages. What Lazard points out is that intuition about languages as a research method is insufficient and nonscientific. In order to be able to compare languages scientifically, linguists need a more stringent
method,
involving
an independent
standard
of
comparison
(tertium
comparationis), a fixed point. This standard, he suggests, could be the ‘notion of a prototypical action’, involving ‘an effective volitional discrete action performed by a controlling agent and affecting a well individuated patient’ (Lazard 2001: 152). The concept of transitivity itself is insufficient since languages employ their transitivity constructions for situations that are not prototypical actions (e.g. ownership ‘I have a book’, location as in French L’école jouxte la mairie ‘The school is beside the town hall’). Thus, although being sceptical to how Hopper and Thompson reach at their findings, Lazard really supports the outcome of their analysis.
123
3. 6
Presentation of Goldberg’s construction grammar for the purpose of
justification of choice of theoretical model While being among the most influential, Langacker’s Cognitive Grammar is but one among several cognitive approaches to language. A useful overview of which I took great pleasure in reading and on which I support part of the following presentation can be found in Evans and Green (2006). The other influential cognitive approach to grammar are referred to as the constructionists, whose models especially focus on syntactic constructions and can be categorized as construction grammars, among which Goldberg (1995, 2006) has been the most influential. Other constructionist approaches include Radical Construction Grammar (RCG), developed by Croft (2001) and Embodied Construction Grammar (ECG) presented in Bergen and Chang (2005). In order to justify my choice of Langacker (as represented e.g. in 1987, 1991a, 1991b) as a theoretical model, I shall in the following briefly present her model and evaluate to what extent her general insights would be valuable to the present topic. In addition, an evaluation of the specific constructions treated in Goldberg (1995), which might bear some resemblance to –aC constructions in Hausa are discussed in 6. 2. 5. 3. 6. 1 What makes Goldberg’s model cognitive? While Langacker focuses on the cognitive basis for conceptual structure in language, and set out principles of how sentences are built up of symbolic units in progressively increasing complexity (cf. e.g. Langacker 1991b: 296-299), Goldberg fleshes out how individual syntactic constructions in English can be understood in a structured inventory of interrelated senses, within each construction type, and between related constructions. She successfully argues in favour of understanding syntactic constructions as inherently meaningful. A number of underlying assumptions make Goldberg’s (1995) model a cognitive approach. Firstly, she assumes a lexicon-grammar continuum, which means that there is no strict division between syntax and the mental lexicon. Secondly, she views knowledge of language is a ‘highly structured lattice of interrelated information’ (1995: 5), compare Langacker’s position of looking at knowledge as a structured inventory. Third, Goldberg assumes that knowledge of language is no different from other types of knowledge, that is, not separate and distinct from other types of language and experience. On the contrary, the properties of language directly reflect human experience, conceptual organisation and construal. Fourth, this model is monostratal, which means that it contains only one level of
124
syntactic representations rather than a set of syntactic transformations. The representations contain both semantic and syntactic information in line with the symbolic enterprise in cognitive grammars. Finally, her model is usage-based as opposed to generative. 3. 6. 2 From generative to constructionist models A number of assumptions unite the cognitive models and contrasts them with generative models. In Evans and Green (2006), generative syntactic models are referred to as ‘words and rules’ models. ‘Words and rules’ models assume a bottom-up approach, where the meaning of the sentence arises from the meaning of the individual words, which are listed and characterized, e.g. for subcategorization values, in the lexicon. As such, it is lexically driven. ‘Words and rules’ models focus on explaining what is regular in language, and idiomatic units, less predictable constructions and idiosyncrasies are stored in the lexicon. Constructionist models, on the other hand, starting with Kay and Fillmore (e.g. 1999) set out to create a model where regular and idiomatic constructions should be accounted for by the same theoretical principles. Although being a generative approach itself, Kay and Fillmore changed the ‘words and rules’ basic principle of separation of rules and the lexicon, the modularity approach of the generative framework, and provided the empirical foundation for later constructionist models such as Goldberg (1995) (Evans and Green 2006). Focusing on idiomatic constructions motivated a unitary approach to explanatory principles. Constructions were allowed to be stored as wholes in the mental lexicon, while also being subject to syntactic description and explanation. They figured that once principles had been established to explain what is irregular in language, this same set of principles could be applied to the regular aspects. While Kay and Fillmore focussed on irregular constructions in language, Goldberg (1995) extended this approach to include regular constructions. 3. 6. 3 What is a construction in Goldberg’s model? Goldberg’s model thus departs from e.g. Chomsky (1981), where syntactic constructions are seen as ‘epiphenomenal’, arising from the interaction of general principles rather than having status as an independent phenomenon. By contrast, the basic tenet and maybe the most important contribution to syntax and linguistics is Goldberg’s assumption that syntactic constructions ‘themselves carry meaning, independently of the words in the sentence’ (Goldberg 1995:1). This means that syntactic constructions are in fact meaningful in and of themselves and are therefore considered to be independent linguistic primitives.
125
This is related to her definition of constructions: C is a construction iff C is a form-meaning pair such that some aspect of F or some aspect of S is not strictly predictable from C’s component parts or from other previously established constructions. (Goldberg 1995: 4)
That is, the meaningfulness of constructions is related to the fact that their meaning cannot be predicted from its parts, which justifies seeing them as independent units. Contrast Langacker’s notion of constructions as any unit with a complex symbolic structure, which can be a complex word, a polymorphemic phrase, or a sentence. 3. 6. 4 Meaningful constructions Construction grammar is partly a reaction to linguistic models where the lexical semantics of the verb is taken to predict what syntactic (subcategorization) frames it may occur in (e.g. Chomsky 1986, Levin & Rapoport 1988). An important motivation for Goldberg’s construction grammar is the fact that sentences may be perfectly grammatical without this being signalled by the specifications of the verb with regard to the number of arguments in the sentence. Consider, for example, the sentences below. (63)
a) He sneezed the napkin off the table b) She baked him a cake c) Dan talked himself blue in the face
(Goldberg 1995: 9)
In (63a) and (63c), the verbs sneeze and talk are intransitive, requiring only a subject (S) to form grammatical sentences. A model that does not accommodate these as being grammatical thus fails to describe and explain many sentences in English. Similarly, in (63b), the verb bake would in models that predict grammaticality on the basis of the transitivity values of the verb only specify a direct object; that is, it would fail to recognize (63b) as a regular instance of the ditransitive construction where him fills the indirect object slot. This sentence is basically no different from sentences containing the verb give, where both subject (A), indirect and direct objects (O) are obligatory for the sentence to be minimally grammatical. Goldberg solves this problem by letting the various constructions contribute arguments to the sentence, where this is not predicted by the transitivity value of the verb. This means that sentence-level constructions have their own schematic, conventionalized meaning which is independent both from the verbs and from other lexical items occurring in the sentence.
126
In this way she lifts the responsibility of grammaticality from the individual verbs to the sentence level, to the constructions themselves. 3. 6. 5 Motivations Goldberg brings a number of arguments in favour of this approach. First, by letting the constructions be responsible for contributing arguments, one avoids the listing of numerous implausible verbal meanings in the lexicon. In (63a) above, a lexicosemantic theory would have to say that the intransitive verb sneeze had a special meaning with three arguments ‘X causes Y to move by sneezing’. In (63b), one would have to posit a special meaning of the verb bake that has the three arguments Agent, Patient, and an intended Recipient and list the meaning ‘X intends to cause Y to have Z’. Finally, in (63c), a special sense of talk ‘X causes Y to become Z by talking’ would have to be posited. These verbal senses would be unique to these constructions, which is counterintuitive and not very explanatory. She argues that instead the semantic aspects of the final interpretation of caused motion, intended transfer, or caused results should be conceived of as skeletal information contributed by the constructions themselves. Her second argument is that circularity is avoided. In generative models such as Government and Binding Theory (Chomsky 1981) and Lexical Functional Grammar (Bresnan 1982), the verb predicts which kinds of and how many arguments the clause will have. That is, in order to explain why a verb occurs with a certain number of arguments, it is said to have an n-argument sense attached to it, while the justification for this n-ary sense also is the fact that it may occur with this particular number of arguments. This circular explanation is avoided in the constructional approach, where a ternary relation such as (63b) will be predicted by the ditransitive construction contributing the Agent, the Patient, as well as the Recipient roles. The verb itself is only is associated with a few basic senses that must be integrated into the construction, ensuring interaction between verbal meaning and constructional meaning. Thirdly, she argues that her model insures semantic parsimony because it places the burden of explanation on the construction rather than on the verb in cases where verbs may occur in several types of constructions. For example, there is no need to posit two meanings of the verb slide, one signifying a purely physical transfer and another change of ownership requiring an animate Recipient in the ditransitive construction, as in She slid the present to Susan/to the door and She slid Susan/*the door the present, respectively. A lexically driven
127
model, on the other hand, would have to posit different verb senses in order to account for this. Finally, Goldberg argues, her model preserves compositionality. There is disagreement among linguists about how much and what words contribute to the sentence. Some have formulated rather strict rules of correspondence between the compositionality of semantics in relation to the compositionality of syntax (Frege, Montague), as well as placing the burden of sentential structure on the main verb (e.g. the models LFG, GPSG and HPSG). Goldberg, on the other hand, argues that there are cases where the requirements of the construction are in conflict with the requirements of the main verb. She therefore advocates a model that preserves compositionality in a weakened form, recognizing meaningful constructions where ‘the meaning of an expression is the result of integrating the meanings of the lexical items into the meanings of constructions’ (1995:16). She suggests that the analysis should be top-down as well as bottoms-up (1995: 24). 3. 6. 6 Frame semantics Goldberg points out that meanings, such as that of verbs, are distinguished on the basis of the frames in which they are defined. They are relativized to the scenes or backgrounds in which they occur (1995: 25), akin to Langacker’s notion of relating a profile to a base, where a meaning (what is profiled) is understood with reference to its background or base. These frames provide useful chunks of encyclopaedic knowledge ‘rich with world and cultural knowledge’ against which we may understand the meaning of e.g. a noun or a verb. This view opposes the view that verbs capture the syntactically relevant aspects of verbal meaning. Goldberg admits to some verbs like give, do and make having primarily such skeletal meaning, but points out that these are limiting cases. Moreover, assuming a rich framesemantic knowledge explains linguistic phenomena like the felicitous use of adverbs and adjuncts (since some verbs give us information about the specifics of manner and movement), interpretation and translation, the process of pre-emption (‘blocking’) where reference to a rich semantic frame is needed to interpret and distinguish verbal meanings, and the making of correct inferences (ibid.: 29-31). Lexical profiling of participants is an option the language has to focus on a particular role; in verb pairs such as loan/borrow, buy/sell, and substitute/replace invoke the same semantic frame, but profile different participant roles. Another example is rob vs. steal, which both involve the participants thief, target and goods, but where rob profiles thief and
128
target, and steal profiles thief and goods, compare Jesse robbed the rich (of all their money) to Jesse stole money (from the rich) (ibid: 1995: 45-47). 3. 6. 7 Polysemous syntactic structures and their bases Goldberg argues (1995: 31-32) that a polysemous relationship between constructions is to be expected. Morphological polysemy has in several studies (from Wittgenstein 1958 to Sweetser 1990) been shown to be the norm rather than the exception, and since her constructionist model assumes a lexicon-syntax continuum and a rich frame semantic nature of linguistic expressions, constructions are in principle no different from morphemes. Therefore, constructions form a fluid network of interrelated and sometimes overlapping senses. As an illustration, she presents the ditransitive construction, which has all of the senses intention of giving, obligation to give, future having, permission of transfer, negation of transfer, and successful transfer. ‘Successful transfer’ is posited as the central or prototypical sense because the other senses can be extended economically from that sense, and because spatial origin is commonly seen as the more basic, being experientially based in human lives; On the basis of scenes assumed to be ‘humanly relevant’, Goldberg posits what she refers to as the scene encoding hypothesis, which says that ‘constructions which correspond to basic sentence types encode as their central senses event types that are basic to human experience’ (1995: 39).
These event types are rather abstract, and assumed to
constitute a finite set of experiences, which languages are expected to draw from in construction formation. Types of events that are mentioned include someone causing something, someone experiencing something, something moving, something being in a state, someone possessing something, someone causing a change of state or location, something undergoing a change of state or location, and something having an effect on someone (ibid.: 39). Not all constructions correspond to an event type, specifically those which serve to provide an alternative information structure of the clause, e.g. cleft constructions, question constructions, and topic constructions.
129
3. 6. 8 The integration of verb and construction The construction determines the types of senses possible and the verb determines which of these meanings is realized in each case. The verb’s meaning is associated with a frame semantic interpretation, and part of this is to delimit the participant roles of each verb. The construction, on the other hand, is associated with various argument roles, which are more general roles such as agent, patient and goal. Participant roles are instances of these more general argument roles and will also capture selection restrictions. Whereas argument roles are profiled only when linked to a direct grammatical relation such as a subject or an object (SUBJ, OBJ, OBJ2, OBL), all and only obligatorily expressed participant roles are profiled. Roles are defined as ‘semantically constrained relational slots in the dynamic scene associated with the construction or the verb’ (ibid.: 49). Constructions should specify and constrain the classes of verbs that can be combined with and integrated into them. This implies that the event type of the verb and the event type of the construction should be specified and must be of the same kind, e.g. a verb like put will be lexically compatible with the CAUSED-MOTION sense specified by the caused-motion construction (e.g. She put the phone on the desk) and the ditransitive construction being associated with acts of transfer will license verbs such as hand since it lexically denotes an act of transfer. The event type of the construction will be of a more general type than that of the verb, which instantiates the constructional event type. The general idea is that the verb must inherently designate a particular salient aspect of the semantic frame associated with the construction. Verbs which do not directly designate the event type specified by the construction will often denote the means by which an action is performed, for instance verbs of ballistic motion used in the ditransitive construction (Joe kicked Bob the ball), that is Joe transferred the ball to Bob by kicking it (ibid: 60-61). Alternatively, the construction employs precondition or manner for licensing the use of a particular verb. For instance, bake does not refer to an act of transfer, yet it is licensed in the ditransitive because baking a cake is a precondition for someone to receive it. Manner is exploited in cases like She kicked her way out of the room, where a particularly salient manner in which the subject moves licenses its use in the construction. Causative constructions are different in the sense that the verb designates the result of the meaning associated with the construction. The type of relations which may exist between the verbal semantics and the construction semantics may be one of
130
the following (where ec is an event type (E) designated by the construction and ev is an E designated by the verb (ibid: 65)): I.
A. ev may be a subtype of ec B. ev may designate the means of ec C. ev may designate the result of ec D. ev may designate the precondition of ec E. To a limited extent, ev may designate the manner of ec
II.
ev and ec must share at least one participant.
Among the points in I, A. is suggested to be prototypical and universal (ibid: 66). A verb which belongs to a class of verbs associated with a certain construction may be semantically fused with the argument roles of that construction. Certain principles apply to this fusion process (Goldberg 1995: 50): 1. The Semantic Coherence Principle. Only roles that are semantically compatible can be fused. Two roles r1 and r2 are semantically compatible with another if either r1 can be construed as an instance of r2, or r2 15can be construed as an instance of r1 . […] Whether a role can be construed as an instance of another role is determined by general categorization principles. 2. The Correspondence Principle. Each participant role which is lexically profiled and expressed must be fused with a profiled argument role of the construction. If a verb has three profiled participant roles, then one of them may be fused with a non-profiled argument role of the construction.
The symbolic nature of the model is reflected in the separation into one semantic (‘sem’) and one syntactic (‘syn’) structure in the diagram below, describing the ditransitive construction:
15There seems to be a misprint here in Goldberg’s (1995) book, where it says that ‘r1 can be construed as an instance of r1’, which does not make much sense. The quote is changed in Evans and Green (2006: 677) to ‘r2 can be construed as an instance of r1’ in the second case, which I have adopted.
131
Figure 3.18 Ditransitive construction Sem
CAUSE-RECEIVE
R
R= instance, PRED means
OBJ2
Fusion of roles
OBJ
The first line states the semantics of the construction, here represented by ‘CAUSERECEIVE . PRED is a variable that may be filled with individual verbs that are integrated into the construction. Solid lines between the construction’s argument roles and the verb’s participant roles indicate which roles the construction specifies to be obligatorily fused. In this case, rec is not obligatorily fused, which accounts for the fact that George baked Mary a cake and George baked a cake are equally grammatical. The dashed line indicates that a role is contributed by the construction but is not obligatorily fused. R stands for relation between the verb and the construction, that is, in what way the verb is integrated into the construction. In cases where the argument roles and the participant roles correspond, the verb simply adds the type of participant roles associated with its frame semantics. The roles associated with the verb hand, for instance, hander, handee and handed, fully correspond to the argument roles of the construction, they are just more specific as to the type of event involved. There are cases, however, where there is a mismatch between the argument roles and the participant roles, either in terms of which roles are profiled, or in terms of the number of roles. Such mismatches are specifically what motivate Goldberg’s theory. A case where the verb requires more semantic roles to be profiled than are obligatory in the construction is the caused-motion construction. In the sentence She put the book on the table ‘on the table’ is an oblique phrase, and is therefore not profiled in the construction. The verbal frame semantics, on the other hand, requires a goal or location, cf. *He put the candle, but He put the candle on the mantelpiece. Goldberg therefore builds into the model the option that The Correspondence Principle allows one participant role to be linked to a non-profiled argument role in cases where the verb lexically profiles three participant roles (ibid: 53).
132
This principle states that all participant roles must be accounted for by the construction. This principle is unidirectional in that the reverse is not true, it is not required that each argument role corresponds to a participant role, and the construction can add roles which are not contributed by the verb. In this manner the model will predict both that the sentence Joe kicked the ball, in which the verb kick contributes the participant roles agent and patient, and the sentence Joe kicked Bill the ball, containing in addition the recipient role provided by the construction, are grammatical, cf. the diagrams below. Figure 3.19 Composite structure: Ditransitive + kick Sem
CAUSE-RECEIVE
R
R: means
PRED
Syn
OBJ2
OBJ
Similarly, intransitive verbs like sneeze which only has one profiled participant role, the sneezer, may successfully be integrated into the caused-motion construction, because the construction contributes the argument roles goal and theme, as shown below for He sneezed the napkin off the table.
Composite structure: Caused-motion + sneeze Sem
CAUSE-MOVE
R
R: means Syn
SNEEZE
OBJ
In this manner, Goldberg successfully argues that constructional meaning exists independently of the meaning of the individual verbs. 3. 6. 9 Relations among constructions It is generally known that meaningful linguistic units display polysemy. In Goldberg’s model, syntactic constructions are meaningful in and of themselves. It is therefore not surprising that constructions that share certain grammatical properties also share semantic properties (see
133
also Evans and Green 2006: 681). In her model, constructions form a structured network of systematic generalizations linked by inheritance relations. Goldberg argues that even though relationships between constructions cannot be fully predicted, this does not necessarily imply that they are arbitrary. Making generalizations and simplifications in language is necessary given our limited memories. In between predictability and arbitrariness lies motivation, as a psychological principle. A given construction is said to be motivated to the extent that its structure is inherited from other structures in the language (Lakoff 1987).
The Principle of Maximized Motivation: If a construction A is related to construction B syntactically, then the system of construction A is motivated to the degree that it is related to construction B semantically […] Such motivation is maximized. (Goldberg 1995: 67)
Motivation is a kind of after-the-fact inferencing or abductive reasoning, which explains rather than predicts linguistic forms and meanings in the language (Goldberg 1995: 70-72). Diagrams are required to represent rather than to reproduce. This, she argues, brings into linguistics a kind of insight that has often been overlooked; the fact that elements in a system influence one another even when they do not directly interact. Inheritance is driven by motivation, and captures the fact that constructions may share certain aspects yet be distinct in others. Inheritance is inversely related to dominance, such that if C1 dominates and motivates C2, C2 is said to inherit information from C1. Inheritance from more than one node is allowed. Goldberg adopts ‘normal mode inheritance’ from Flickinger, Pollard and Wasow (1985), where ‘information is inherited from dominant nodes transitively as long as that information does not conflict with information specified by nodes lower in the inheritance hierarchy’ (Goldberg 1995: 73). Inherited information is represented by italics. Inheritance links are treated like objects, so that they themselves may have internal structure and form hierarchies. Thus they may also be subject to frequency judgments, and play a role in terms of productivity of extension from one type of construction to the next, or from one sense of a construction to another in a polysemous relationship. In this way a link is analogous to a productive rule. Goldberg sets out four principles that accounts for the relationships between constructions in which inheritance plays a part. These include Polysemy links (IP), Subpart links (IS), Instance links (II) and Metaphorical extension links (IM).
134
Different senses of a particular construction are captured in terms of polysemy links. These links describe the meaning of a particular construction and semantic extensions from that sense. Syntactic characteristics remain the same in the inherited extensions and need only to be specified in the dominating node. Such links may be productive. The central sense is chosen on the basis of being the sense from which other senses may be most economically described (Goldberg 1995: 162). In networks of related senses, there are two ways of allowing extensions to happen, either all extended senses are derived from one central sense, which can be referred to as the satellite model, or new senses can be extended from a sense which itself is an extension, referred to as the family resemblance model. Polysemy links in Goldberg’s model works by a satellite structure since they are defined as capturing ‘the nature of the semantic relations between a particular sense of a construction and any extensions from this sense’ (ibid: 74). It appears that this restriction also applies to metaphorical inheritance links, cf. the statement that ‘metaphorical extensions have as their source domain the central sense of the construction (ibid: 84). Her examples (the ditransitive construction and the caused-motion construction) work by extensions from a construction’s central sense, as shown in Figure 3.21, cf. Goldberg (1995: 38 and 75-76), yet she says that ‘the ditransitive syntactic pattern is associated with a family of related senses, rather than a single abstract sense’ (emphasis added) (ibid: 75). When it comes to relationship between constructions, constructions extended by Instance links and Subpart links may again extend to metaphorically to new constructions, but in no case (to my knowledge) is a metaphorically extended construction the base for another metaphorical extension (see Goldberg 1995: 109), which is different from Cognitive Grammar networks. This, of course, is important when it comes to the specific elaboration of the semantic networks. Contrast Cognitive Grammar (see 3. 2. 4 and Figure 3.4), where peripheral schemas can also extend to new schemas, although the prototype is central in the network and will typically be connected to many (but not all) the other schemas. Also, economy principles of extension as a selective basis for the choice of prototype are unknown in Cognitive Grammar. When one construction is a proper subpart of another construction and exists independently, these constructions are related by a subpart link. Proper subpart means that the syntactic and semantic specifications for the participants involved in both constructions
135
are the same. For example, the intransitive resultative construction is a proper subpart of the transitive resultative construction. In (64a), She is the CAUSE, him is the THEME, and unconscious is the GOAL, in Goldberg’s analysis. In (64b), him is the THEME, and thus a proper subpart of (64a). (64)
a) She kissed him unconscious. b) He became unconscious.
Similarly, the intransitive motion construction is a proper subpart of the caused-motion construction. When a construction is a more fully specified version of another, it is considered a special case of that construction, and instance links are posited. For example, an idiomatic expression like drive someone crazy is a special case of the resultative construction as in He hammered the metal flat. Crazy is understood as a kind of result, and may be exchanged with other expressions carrying this particular meaning (mad, bonkers, bananas, over the edge), but cannot be replaced by other adjectives signifying other types of states (silly, dead, angry, sick). Both the syntax and the semantics of the resultative construction is inherited by this particular instance of the construction. It is therefore lexically determined by this special sense of drive to be more fully specified than its dominating node. In Evans and Green (2006: 682) these are referred to as substantive idioms, that is, expressions that have fixed lexical items as part of their composition where the meaning is intrinsic to the idiom and not determined by its syntactic frame (ibid: 644). Since an instance link always entail an inverse subpart link, only instance links are marked in the diagrams. The final type of inheritance link, metaphorical extension links, relates to metaphorical extension, and describes this special kind of semantic relationship between two constructions. This type of relationship is illustrated by comparing the resultative construction to the caused-motion construction, as in (65). (65)
a) He hammered the metal flat. b) He threw the metal off the table.
Interpreting the adjective phrase flat in (65a) as a metaphorical goal, comparable to the physical goal in (65b) off the table explains why the two types of goal cannot be combined within the same sentence. Goldberg posits the Unique Path Constraint (UP constraint), which says that an argument denoting a physical object cannot be said to move along more than one single path within the same sentence, meaning either to two locations or moving within more
136
than one single landscape. Single landscape refers to the fact that two goals are not permitted, either two physical goals (cf. *Sally sailed into the kitchen into the garden), or the combination of a literal and a metaphorical goal (cf. *The vegetables went from crunchy into the soup). Goldberg also suggests that resultative constructions like the one in (65a) may be understood by the metaphor change of state is change of location, broken down to the two subparts in (66). (66)
Motion Location
change state
I should like to add on my own account that this metaphor is supported by an archetypal change of state verb like become, which consists of be (a state) plus come (a motion verb). The significance is that while the state is pictured to be at rest (not move), being in motion signifies a change. The order of the segments be + come would also not be accidental. Goldberg exemplifies this metaphor by expressions such as The jello went from liquid to solid in a matter of minutes and She slid into madness. Allowing resultatives to metaphorically encode a change of location, and applying the UP Constraint explains why sentences which combine the caused-motion and the resultative constructions are not felicitous: (67)
*Sam tickled Chris silly off the chair.
Given this metaphor, the change of state designated by the resultative implies that the theme already follows a certain path. The UP constraint then predicts that the two cannot co-occur.
3. 7 Summary and discussion This chapter has looked at three different ways to view the phenomenon of transitivity, grammatical relations, and semantic roles in language. Each of these approaches contributes slightly differently to the understanding of the organization of the clause, but they also have certain perspectives in common. What the three models have in common is that they view physical transfer as the human basis by which the grammatical phenomenon of transitivity and sentence constructions are to be understood, Langacker in terms of the action chain and billiard ball models as ICMs, Hopper and Thompson in the concept of explaining phenomena related to transitivity in terms of kinesis, the efficient transfer of energy from one participant to another, and Goldberg in terms of humanly relevant event types and the selection of physical transfer and motion as a
137
basis for explanation of more specific grammatical constructions. In that respect, these models have more in common than what separates them. (In fact, Langacker’s billiard ball model would be well suited to describe what happens in Goldberg’s caused motion construction.) All models extend from the physical to more abstract domains and assume a real world experience as a foundation for conceptualization. However, the models may be said to be complementary in that they all have a slightly different focus. Langacker’s model focuses on the cognitive base for grammar, how people construe and make sense of the world. It also (together with grammaticalization theory) has its strength explaining meaning change and complex semantic situations by relating meanings in a network. In explaining syntactic relations he focuses on the language user and her available choices in the language to express her thoughts, that is, the transition from thought to maximum mode of expression. Hopper and Thompson, on the other hand, have as their agenda to explain language variety, all the typological variations present in the languages of the world, in a unified way. Finally, Goldberg takes it all a bit further when it comes to syntax. While Langacker says that polysemy is the normal situation, she actually carries out the work of finding out how sentences are constructed and how they are related. Basing herself on the general cognitive assumptions that language users exploit metaphors for necessary meaning extensions and judgments of similarity between meanings to maintain their grammatical systems, she proceeds to demonstrate that in order to maintain that sentences are polysemous, they actually have to have independent meanings. That is, she diagnoses and puts on the agenda a problem that no one so far has paid much attention to. Her model has sufficient level of detail, allowing the specificity of participant roles inherent in verbal meanings, while at the same time being general enough to make room for autonomous grammatical constructions. This kind of flexibility also solves the problem of potential discrepancies between verbal valency and valency values defined at the constructional level. Her model should therefore be seen as complementary rather than competing to Langacker’s Cognitive Grammar, since this latter challenge is not covered in CG to a sufficient extent. To be more specific, certain assumptions of Goldberg’s model may be seen as advantageous for explaining syntactic polysemy in Hausa. Certain of the points below, contrasted with CG or STH, may not necessarily be advantageous but merely different: 1. The understanding of constructions as independent and meaningful units are in line with the understanding of syntactic meaning as being a global quality of the entire clause.
138
This is also an assumption of the Semantic Transitivity Hypothesis and the views are therefore mutually supportive in this respect. This notion of what a construction is, may in certain cases be taken to be an advantage that construction grammar has over Langacker’s Cognitive Grammar, where the notion of construction is defined as a step-by-step build-up and more abstract meaning units have merely a categorizing function. 2. The raising of argument structure to the sentence level does away with valency issues, and present e.g. the benefactive construction as a unitary structure, not based on the apparent idiosyncrasies of the individual verb. If constructions are units, they can also be extended from each other. There are certain benefits to comparing constructions to each other rather than strictly to their base verbs, which is a much more atomistic, and possibly a less revealing approach. 3. It is not always easy to determine which segment of a construction contributes what semantic content. This might lead one to analyse the components of a construction as overlapping or redundant, which could well be an epiphenomenon if speakers store the constructions mentally as units. Raising the semantics to a sentence level avoids this problem. CG, on the other hand, sees semantic overlap as the normal situation and redundancy as merely the limiting case of that situation. 4. Relationships between constructions are sufficiently and satisfactorily dealt with, since 1) the model assumes polysemy relations between constructions as the normal situation and provides mechanisms for meaning extensions between constructions, and 2) subpart links provide a mechanism for describing the regular relation between transitive-intransitive verb pairs. 5. There is flexibility with respect to relating semantic roles to grammatical relations. 6. The flexibility of valency issues makes constructions more autonomous. This is an additional focus not covered by Cognitive Grammar. Furthermore, both the meanings of verbs and that of constructions are given sufficient attention since both are integrated into the model as autonomous cognitive units. 7. The Unique Path constraint may explicate why the –aC/CAUS-CMN construction either has a Mover or a Change-of-State Theme, but not both simultaneously. However, there are also a few issues that make Goldberg’s model less apt. 1. Goldberg, although maintaining an overall cognitive profile, preserves the generative idea of the economy principle when it comes to selection of the central prototype.
139
This is not in line with the usage-based tenets of Cognitive Grammar, where prototypes are related to which schemas are learnt first and how frequently they are used. As such, her model is less credible in terms of being a linguistic model with psychological reality; some linguists would say that the economy principle is more of a convenience for the linguist than a psychologically real representation of how the mind works. 2. Although a number of factors make Goldberg’s model cognitive, she includes in her model a number of concepts that are known from generative grammar: inheritance, dominance, and constraints, in addition to the economy principle. To use her model implies to accept the belief that the language faculty is driven by and works in terms of these principles. At present I am not convinced that it does. 3. Goldberg seems not to allow for non-prototypical senses to extend to novel senses, i.e. she does not include the family resemblance model of category structure (chain extension) as a possible model of semantic extension within each construction type (Wittgensteinian model). She does, however, extend constructions in chains. 4. When it comes to the specific constructions, Goldberg’s descriptions of the English corresponding constructions differ from Hausa in certain respects. This pertains to her focus on the path metaphor of the benefactive construction somewhat at the expense of a focus on e.g. the Experiencer role. In her analysis, the RECIP role is taken to be the basic one, from which the other semantic varieties of benefactive are derived. As a result, the link between her Caused-motion construction [SUBJ [V OBJ OBL] and the Ditransitive construction (via the Transfer-Caused-Motion construction) appears to be stronger than the subvarieties of the benefactive construction itself, which is rather counterintuitive (see Goldberg 1995: 96). Furthermore, the fact that very few verbs within each language require the RECIP role speaks against making this role central in the benefactive construction (but see analyses by Shibatani 1996 and Hansen 2004 of the give-schema, and Janda 1993). 5. Goldberg offers no explanation as to why dative constructions vary across languages and cultures with respect to when the dative case is triggered in benefactive-like constructions, nor does she talk about the special construal of benefactives. This is much better preserved by the concept of the personal sphere (to be elaborated in chapter 7). 6. This model does not discuss any equivalent of hybrid roles and their relation to grammatical relations. Hybrid roles may play a role in some –aC constructions in Hausa, such as AG-RECIP of the subject in transitive clauses (in verbs such as ci ‘eat’, àraa ‘borrow’).
140
7. The main reason, however, for not choosing Goldberg’s model, is the fact that transitivity as a gradient semantic, and grammatical phenomenon is not treated in this model. In order to account for such effects in the Hausa –aC constructions, as we will see in chapter 5 that indeed exist, transitivity as a semantic phenomenon would have to be built into construction grammar in line with the principles of that model. All in all, Goldberg simply has a slightly different focus than what is needed to account for –aC/CAUS-CMN and –aC/BEN constructions in Hausa.
141
CHAPTER 4
Issues relating to –aC constructions: literature review and discussion 4. 0 Conflicting claims about Causative and Benefactive in Hausa Attempts to solve the questions relating to the benefactive vs. the causative in Hausa have for the most part been made within the structural (Parsons 1971-72), the comparative/historical (Newman 1973, 1977, Jaggar and Munkaila 1995), and the generative (Munkaila 1990, Tuller 1984) paradigms. One analysis by Frajzyngier is based on the idea of grammaticalization of a pleonastic (redundant) pronoun (also referred to by some as a functional analysis), and is also based on historical data. The last contributions are Frajzyngier and Munkaila (2004) on the –a® morpheme, and Jaggar (2009) on the causative. A debate started with Parsons (1971-72) article on whether the causative and the benefactive are the same or different suffixes. Among those who claim they are the same are Pilszczikowa (1969: 20), Parsons (1971-72), and Frajzyngier (1985). Among those who think that they are different suffixes are Newman (1977, 2000), Munkaila (1990) and Jaggar & Munkaila (1995). Swets (1989: 42) acknowledges that there has been controversy in this matter but chooses not to address the problem, as her informants from Dogondoutchi do not use this form productively as a benefactive. In this section I will present the arguments in both camps, and try to reach a preliminary evaluation on the conclusiveness of the arguments. The presentation will be structured in the following way: 1) Earlier claims about phonology, 2) Historical reconstructions as a synchronic argument, and 3) Earlier claims about semantics. The last point requires most space and is seen in relation with certain morphosyntactic properties, which are treated at the end. For the sake of presentational clarity my own views on the various matters are in most cases presented in conjunction with former claims. For presentational purposes I shall also refer to gr5 in this section as causative until the discussion of the semantics of this grade is brought up.
142
4. 1. Earlier claims about phonology This section presents earlier claims concerning the phonological aspects of –aC/CAUS and –aC/BEN constructions. These claims are met in chapter 8. 4. 1. 1 Phonology without semantics: the ‘borrowed Grade 5’ In presenting the Hausa ‘grade system’ in chapter 2, we touched upon the notion of ‘D forms’, i.e. the verb forms as they appear before dative objects. As may be recalled, there are certain grades that are not used before dative objects, specifically grades 2, 3, and 716. This led Parsons to suggest that whenever these grades needed a pre-dative form, they simply ‘borrowed’ any of the other D-forms available, specifically from grades 1, 4, and 5 (associated at the time with the meanings ‘neutral base form’, ‘totality’ and ‘causative’, respectively). The noteworthy assumption, which later gave rise to serious criticism, was the idea that these forms were ‘borrowed’ void of semantic content, i.e. the borrowing involved only the phonological form, not it’s meaning. Nevertheless, the circumstances that instigated Parsons’ hypothesis are not unimportant. It pointed to the overlapping or partly overlapping phonological shape of the causative and the benefactive in Hausa, which started off a controversy not yet settled. Parsons (1972) was not alone in suggesting a connection between the causative and the benefactive at an early stage. Although Pilszczikowa gives no detailed analysis, she actually preceded Parsons’ 1971-72 article in saying that ‘it seems, however, that the -R form is just a variant of the causative form (grade 5) before Indirect Object’. However, the identity between ‘grade 5’ (causative) and the benefactive HH(H) -® form is also indirectly assumed in Parsons (1962: 259), which Pilszczikowa (1969) was aware of. The causative and the benefactive forms share the (H)HH tonal pattern. This is an undisputed fact. The final consonant, however, varies (-as, -a®, or -am). This fact can be explained, Parsons suggests, by assuming that the -as and -a® suffixes were subject to various assimilation processes. Firstly, the -as suffix may be subject to complete regressive assimilation, yielding e.g. sayam matà from sayas matà (my example). This would be supported by the fact that this
16 Although it is true that speakers are sometimes reluctant (especially in the Eastern dialects) to use ‘grade’ 2 -ii suffix before an OBJDAT, it does happen, but with the rather specialized meaning ‘for the subject’s own benefit (‘self-benefactive’)’ (Source: my own field data). The -ii suffix is also reported in such use by Swets (1989), but without any reference to its meaning. Pilszczikowa (1969: 34), however, labels it ‘unbenefactive’. An explanation is suggested in 5. 3. 3. Cf. also Frajzyngier (2004).
143
assimilation process of final -s occur in other words as well, e.g. maràs ‘lacking’ which is subject to complete regressive assimilation in maràk kyaù ‘without beauty’, and maràl laafiyàa ‘without health, sick’. Regular complete assimilation also occurs in the ‘5B form’ (causative followed by a pronominal object), e.g. yaa hawan ni/hawad dà nii/hawas shi dookìnsà ‘he mounted me/him on his horse’. Secondly, it was claimed, the -a® suffix could be accommodated by assuming a ‘partial assimilation to -®’, as in: maràr hankàlii ‘without intelligence’, maràr wàayoo ‘without cleverness’. This is maintained while also stating the reservation that there seems to be differences in the assimilation patterns between assimilation to -am and assimilation to -ad. Parsons says (note 58) that assimilation of the -a® to the m- of the dative phrase is less regular than to the (socio-instrumental preposition) dà of the ‘5B form’. The idea that the -am suffix is an assimilated -a® preceding the m- of the dative phrase is also shared by Abraham (1959: 28), and Kraft & Kirk-Greene (1973: 78). Parsons was himself aware of a point of criticism (also made by Parsons’ later critics) which concerns the fact that the ‘historically original’ -as ending is never used as ‘an original or a suppletive 5D form’ (i.e. a benefactive) (Parsons 1972: 203). Parsons responds to this problem by saying that: 1) In the dialects using the -as causative the pre-nominal particle is mà, never wà, and 2) Whereas the medial consonant cluster -sw- is present in other Hausa words, the cluster *-sm- or *-zm- is used neither in loanwords nor native Hausa words17. The implication of this is that since phonology would rule out a -sm- sequence, the causative -as form before a dative object would never be pronounced. Parsons recognizes the causative -as ending as presumably being older than -a®, following ‘traditional works on Hausa’ which often relate it to a ‘pan-Hamitic – if not Afro-asiatic – causative morpheme’. Thus, Parsons strongly argues that the benefactive and causative forms are identical. Nevertheless, in contrast with this argument he says in a note that
17 Parsons cites the exception of the Arabic compound bìsmillàa, ‘in which bìs- is pretonic and proclitic, and the religious aura of the word has doubtless tended to preserve the pronunciation’. I would also add here that according to one Kano Hausa speaker (p.c., Indiana 1994), the pronunciation of this word is more commonly heard with an epenthetic -i- breaking up the -sm- cluster, yielding bìsimillàa.
144
‘these borrowed 5D forms [benefactives] tend to assimilate more than do the original ones, though not before wà. It might be held that this is a sufficient distinction for them to constitute another autonomous form.’ (Emphasis added) (Parsons 1972: 80).
which makes his argument less than conclusive. The argument that the [sm] consonant cluster does not occur in Hausa, or is only common in loanwords, is repeated as late as in Frajzyngier and Munkaila (2004: 53-54), but also adding statements for the [sw] cluster. The authors claim that this has nothing to do with the function of the construction or with the origin of the morpheme, but rather is a constraint on phonetic sequences in contemporary Hausa. As evidence they claim that no occurrences either word-internally or across word boundaries were found in an electronic check of three volumes of Hausa prose, each at one to two hundred pages, besides dialectal texts from Sokoto and Katsina. One original Hausa word was found: gàsmaa, Northern dialectal form for gaæ®maa ‘large hoe’. They also mention that the epenthetic use of –i- in the Arabic loanword bìsmillàa as bisimilla (no tones given). (Obviously, we both read Parsons on this point.) On the other hand, they cite Abraham (1959) who gives the example muna baayaswa ‘we’re giving’ in favour of their approach, making their phonological argument somewhat inconsistent (arguing that it exists where they need it but is otherwise rare). 4. 1. 2 Only partly overlapping phonology 4. 1. 2. 1 Benefactive -a®¶-am is derived from a destinative *in suffix Unlike Parsons, Newman claims that ‘there is little reason to relate the -®//¶-m D-forms to the causatives’. He argues that ‘the theory of ‘borrowed grade 5’s’ should be rejected and that an alternative explanation be sought for these special benefactive forms’ (1977: 291). Newman’s phonological arguments are: 1) Regarding assimilation, the fact (observed by Parsons 1972: 74, 80) that the assimilation to the following ma- dative object is ‘much less general in the case of real Gr. 5’s’ (causatives) than with ‘the putative borrowed 5D forms’ (benefactives), which ‘almost always assimilate to the mà- dative marker’ (1977: 290), 2) Regarding restrictions on the -as suffix, that dialects which have the -as variant of the causative suffix will not use this in ‘borrowed’ benefactive forms. 3) Parsons’ phonological argument is not valid because the cluster -sm- and -zm- is attested in the relevant context before m-dative object phrases.
145
This attestation is found in older works by Mischlich (1906) and Taylor (1923). Importantly for Newman, these -(a)s/-(a)z forms are all ‘true causatives’, i.e. Parsons’ 5D forms, not 2D, 3D, or 7D (i.e. the latter are causative sentences which ‘happen to have’ a dative object). The relevant examples are given in (68) (without markings for tone and vowel length). (68)
Ina 1sg.CONT
bayas give.5D
ma talaka DAT poor
‘I am giving money to the poor’
Sayas sell.5D
mini da DAT.me PRT
‘Sell me a horse’
Ka 2SG.M.SJN
gayaz greet.5D
‘Greet your family for me’
Aka sayas 3.SG.IMP.RL sell.5D ‘One sold it to them’
kurdi money
(Mischlich 1906: 50)
doki horse
(Mischlich 1906: 444)
mini da DAT.me PRT
gida-n-ka house-GEN-POSS.2SG.M
musu da DAT.me PRT
ita IND.3SG.F
(Taylor 1923: 77)
(Taylor 1923: 77)
Newman’s alternative analysis relates the -a®¶-am benefactive forms to a reconstructed Chadic destinative *in suffix. Contrary to the traditional analysis where -® is assimilated to -m before ma-/mà dative objects, Newman argues that the underlying or original form of the verb is -n, which is automatically assimilated to -m. The -® would then be ‘a secondary variant’. However, Newman is vague about how the change from -n to -® could have happened. According to this analysis, the -® would have developed from -n as a result of ‘recent historical developments, partly phonological, partly analogical’, though no explanation is given as to exactly how. Later Newman concedes that ‘the circumstances under which -® developed remain unclear’ (1977: 294). Criticism was also later made of Newman’s analysis by Jaggar & Munkaila (1995) who maintain that there is no motivation for a phonological rule n > ® in Hausa, and on these grounds they suggest that it should be abandoned as incorrect. In accordance with this, Newman (2000: 283) later states that ‘we have no solid indication of what was the original final consonant of the -aC ending used as the pds [predative suffix]’, and that neither Jaggar’s *t > ® nor his own n > ® solution are convincing. Nevertheless, some support in favour of the existence of an -n suffix is given by some examples from Taylor and Mischlich. Newman’s point is that this -n is a nasal which could not have originated from assimilation to the ma-/mà dative object markers. The examples from Taylor and Mischlich are listed below. (I have added the verbs in the brackets.)
146
(69)
gudun wa zaaburan wa sanan wa taasan wa
= run away from = spring upon = inform = approach
(cf. guduæ ‘run’) (cf. zaæabu®aæ ‘spring up’) (cf. sanìi ‘know’) (cf. taashì ‘stand up’)
An additional part of the argument examines the assumption that the original prenominal dative marker is wà and the assumption that -® is the original benefactive ending. Such a combination of assumptions would, according to Newman, have difficulty in explaining the transition from *taasa® waæ to the present taasam-maæ ‘approach, attack’, and it would be a lot easier to explain this transition if there were already a nasal present in the verb, which presumably would change to -m under the influence of the place of articulation of w-. Newman’s argument is based on the assumption that waæ is the original pre-nominal dative marker, which was subject to analogical levelling pressure from the dative pronouns beginning in ma- (= DAT). However, as Newman also notes, Eulenberg (1972: 33-36) suggested that instead mà is the original form, and wà came about as a result of a general process of lenition in Standard (Kano) Hausa, presumably turning mà into wà. Eulenberg’s argument may be supported by the fact that Klingenheben’s law was mostly active in the Eastern dialects (Kano area). This sound law, it may be recalled, was a weakening process which made t, d, fi, s, and z > ®/ /–C. Western dialects, which all have the mà dative object marker, never wà, are also generally thought to be the more conservative ones. However, it appears, at least for Newman’s presumed original *-n suffix that there is no problem getting from *-n maæ to -m maæ. In conclusion, one still has to deal with the restrictive use of the -as suffix, since it apparently would ‘surface’ even if used as a benefactive form. One would also have to consider a putative imbalance regarding assimilation patterns of the causative vs. the benefactive usages. However, as Newman concedes and later critics point out, there would still be no way to get from -® to -n in Hausa, and Newman’s analysis thus only accounts for the -am variant of the benefactive (H)HH -a®¶-am forms. The new piece that has to be fit into the picture of the causative/benefactive complex, however, concerns an apparent benefactive use of the -an suffix.
147
4. 1. 2. 2 Evidence against the proposal that the Hausa pre-datival final -® verb = the ‘Grade 5’ -®/-as verb Regarding the ever-controversial -as suffix, Munkaila (1990) conducted a test ‘by using a sample of verbs from both the supposedly «borrowed» grade 5 D-form [benefactive] and the original grade 5 (causative) with a view to seeing whether speakers may accept final -s in both constructions’ (1990: 169). He found that all the speakers he tested (no mention of how many or from what area) rejected ‘final -s’ (= -as) in ‘the so-called borrowed D-forms [benefactives]’. The sentences/verbs that he used were the following (original glossing on verbs including ‘throw away’ as causative, translation into English of derivational verbs in brackets is mine): (70) ‘Benefactive’: a) Yaa kooyam¶•kooyas masaæ kaæ®aæatuu (< gr. 2 koæoyaa ‘learn’) he.PF teach DAT.him reading ‘He taught him how to read’
b) Yaa jeefam¶•jeefas masaæ kufiii he.PF throw DAT.him money
(< gr.
2 jeæefaa ‘throw at’)
‘He threw his money away’
c) Yaa zaabu®a®¶ •zaabu®as he.PF spring ‘He sprang at Audu’
waæ Auduæ (< gr. 3 zaæabu®aæ ‘spring/leap up’) DAT Audu
d) Yaa shigam¶•shigas he.PF enter
mataæ gidaa DAT.him house
(< gr.
3 shìga ‘enter’)
e) Yaa harbam¶•harbas he.PF shoot
masaæ zaakìi DAT.him lion
(< gr.
2 haærbaa ‘shoot)
‘He entered his house’
‘He shot a lion for him’
f) Hawaæayee sukaæ tears they.PF
zubam¶•zubas stream
‘Tears streamed down his face’
masaæ (< gr. 3 zuæba ‘leak’) DAT.him
Munkaila’s point is that while the benefactive (or, in his own terminology, ‘borrowed grade 5 D forms’) usage of these verbs was not accepted by his informants with the -as suffix, the same informants accepted both -a® and -as in the causative, demonstrated by Munkaila in the examples below. Note also that the element dà is referred to as a ‘particle’ and not given any specific meaning or function.
148
(71) Causative: a) Yaa kooyam¶kooyas he.PF teach.CAUS
masaæ (daæ) DAT.him PRT
b) Yaa jeefam¶jeefas he.PF throw.CAUS
masaæ kufiii DAT.him money
‘He taught him how to read’
‘He threw his money away’
c) Yaa zaabu®a®¶ zaabu®as he.PF spring.CAUS
‘He made his horse spring at him’
d) Yaa shiga®¶shigas he.PF enter.CAUS
kaæ®aæatuu reading
masaæ (daæ) dookìi DAT.him PRT horse
masaæ (daæ) DAT.him PRT
‘He put the car into the garage for him’
(< gr.
5 kooya® ‘teach’)
(< gr.
2 jeefa® ‘throw away’)
(< gr. 5 zaabu®a® ‘make spring/leap at’)
mootaæa ga®eejì (< gr. 3 shiga® ‘put in’) car garage
A rather important point should be made about the benefactive usages in (70a) and (70b): Munkaila translates these as ‘teach’ and ‘throw away’, which are identical to his causative meanings in (71a) and (71b). Since he also does not gloss the (‘grade 2’) verbs which they are supposed to have derived from, it remains unclear whether he actually means ‘learn’ and ‘throw at’ (which may be used with a benefactive meaning) rather than ‘teach’ and ‘throw away’ (which semantically are a causative and an ‘efferential’, respectively). The only difference between the benefactive and causative sentences thus appears to be in phonological form; that the causative may (but must not) include the particle dà. (I have used the same verbs in my phonology test, cf. 5. 3. 1. 1, but with a correction of this ambiguity.) Munkaila concludes that these examples refute Parsons’ (1971-72) and Frajzyngier’s (1985) claims that benefactive and causative suffixes coincide. Rather, he says, the examples above confirm Newman’s (1977) and Jaggar’s (1985) views that ‘the two morphemes are etymologically unrelated’. Munkaila’s phonological claim is repeated in Jaggar & Munkaila (1992), who maintain the claim that the benefactive (H)HH -a®¶-am forms and the causative (H)HH -a®¶-as are not the same. However, in addition to the problem of the -as suffix upheld by i.a. Newman, Jaggar & Munkaila gives a series of morphosyntactic reasons (first presented in Munkaila 1990: 177 onwards) why these suffixes must be different morphemes. These are elaborated in 4. 3. 7. 1. They also repeat Newman’s point that in the dialects where the causative suffix is -s, this is not used in benefactive environments with ‘grades 2, 3, and 7’, and poses the requirement that for the suffixes to be equated, they should be isomorphic in all contexts.
149
4. 1. 3 The causative and benefactive have identical phonology Another analysis which relates 3.SG (3rd person singular) pronouns to the benefactive is Frajzyngier (1985), which probably also inspired Jaggar & Munkaila’s analysis. The two analyses differ, however, on one important point: Frajzyngier also relates the benefactive and 3.SG pronouns to the causative marker, although in doing so, he has been criticized (Jaggar & Munkaila 1995) for ignoring the fact that the -as suffix is restricted by some speakers to the causative. Frajzyngier provides analyses of a selection of languages from the West Chadic and Biu-Mandara branches of Chadic to show that the 3.SG pronoun (masculine or feminine), the benefactive morpheme, and the causative morpheme are the same within each language. The term ‘the same morpheme’ is here used in two senses, one diachronic, indicating historical relatedness, and one synchronic, suggesting that the morphemes are identical (1985: 35). Thus, his analysis is comparative-diachronic, and further implications of this analysis are therefore elaborated in 4. 2. 1. Table 4.1 shows the phonological correspondences within each of the languages, as given in Frajzyngier (1985)18. TABLE 4.1: Survey of benefactive and causative markers, and 3p pronouns in some Chadic languages (Frajzyngier 1985) Language
‘Benefactive marker’
‘Causative marker’
3p pronoun
Bolanci (Bole)
-in
-t
taa (f)
Pero
-n
-n
-ni
Kanakuru
–
-nu
-n(i)
Ngizim
-d, -naa
-d, -naa
da (subj)
Ga’anda
-an-
-an-
-an-
Higi
–
-na
Bachama
–
-dI
ndu
Masa
ta
ta
ta (f)
Hausa
-s
-s
sV
A slightly altered19 and, in some ways20, more complete version of this table (adding i.a. tones for Bolanci, Kanakuru, and Bachama) is provided by Jaggar & Munkaila (1995: 293), when summarizing Frajzyngier’s article:
150
TABLE 4.2: Survey of benefactive and causative markers, and 3p pronouns in some Chadic languages (Jaggar and Munkaila 1995, revised from Frajzyngier 1985) Language
‘Benefactive marker’
‘Causative marker’
3p pronoun
Bolanci (Bole)
÷n
-t
-nì (m), ta (f)
Pero
-n
-n
-ni (m)
-nu
-n(ì) (m)
-an-
-an- (m)
Kanakuru Ga’anda
-an-
Higi
-na
Bachama
–
-d©æ
nda (m)
Masa
ta
ta
ta (f)
Hausa
-s
-s
sV (m)
Languages from two out of the four Chadic branches were considered, since no sufficient syntactic description was available for the Masa group and since languages from the East Chadic group did not support the hypothesis; they do not have a causative marker (at least not in the recorded data). Frajzyngier still provides ‘some information available for Masa’, one of the Masa group languages. Languages which otherwise were excluded in the chart include languages where no marker occurs in the causative construction and where no marker occurs in sentences with a benefactive argument. In the case of Hausa, Frajzyngier states that whenever ‘grades 2, 3, or 7’ occur with a dative object, ‘the verb has the marker -s to indicate that there is one more argument following it. [...] This constitutes the synchronic evidence for the function of the causative morpheme in Hausa’ (1985: 39) (emphasis added). Frajzyngier does not make clear whether this -s is actually attested in these contexts, or whether he simply assumes it as an underlying form. A consequence of Frajzyngier’s analysis is that Newman’s (1977) analysis of the benefactive as originating from a distantive morpheme *in which is historically and synchronically different from the causative, is rejected. Frajzyngier also points out, like
18 Participants at the Fifth Biennial International Colloquium on the Chadic languages in Leipzig 2009 have stated that not all details of this chart are correct. The data here therefore stand as Frajzyngier’s claim at the time, and do not form part of my argument in the present form. 19 The table is revised ‘in line with corrections and suggestions provided by Paul Newman and Russel Schuh (pc.)’ (Jaggar and Munkaila (1992: 11). 20 For some unknown reason, Ngizim is left out in Jaggar and Munakaila’s chart.
151
Jaggar & Munkaila, that the benefactive -a® forms are not accounted for, since there is no way to get from n > ® in Hausa. Instead Frajzyngier suggests that the change is from ® > n, which he states was assumed formerly by Parsons and other scholars. Frajzyngier argues that the change from ® > n is possible because such a change is attested independently in Hausa, both internally within the word and across word boundaries, e.g. mu®naæa > munnaæa ‘joy’ and mutuwaæ® nan > mutuwaæn nan ‘this death’.21 He does note however, that ‘there are environments in which the variant [n] may not be explained by assimilation’.
4. 2 Historical reconstructions as synchronic argument 4. 2. 1 Chadic comparisons In this section Frajzyngier’s (1985) historical-comparative, but also synchronic, analysis is presented. Using the chart in table 4.1 and analyses of Ga’anda, Hona, Pa’anci (Pa’a), Ngizim and Hausa, Frajzyngier hopes to show retentions of this morpheme in these modern Chadic languages and also its functions in Proto-Chadic. He hypothesizes that: ‘whenever the ‘benefactive’ and the ‘causative’ functions are marked by the same morpheme, this morpheme is invariably derived from the 3p. sing. pronoun. In most of the languages the pronoun is masculine but in Masa it is feminine’. (Frajzyngier 1985: 35)
Frajzyngier argues that it is not necessary for these forms to be phonological cognates to be taken as evidence for his analysis. On the contrary, he says, the lack of phonological cognates is an additional argument for his analysis. In the case of Hausa, the fact that the causative marker cannot be cognate with other causative markers listed in the chart is not a problem. Frajzyngier claims that the fact that the 3.SG pronoun is not a cognate with the same pronoun in other closely related West Chadic languages only makes it more likely that there is a connection between the 3.SG pronoun and the causative and benefactive markers, since it cannot have originated from other related languages. That is, his argument is typological. This, then, in addition to establishing the connection between these forms, ‘explains the origin of the verbal ending’ (1985: 40). 21It is not clear, however, where this assimilation rule would be needed, since the verbs in question (Taylor 1959: 101) precede wà, not n-. Frajzyngier does not explain this explicitly; neither does he give any examples where an -an form would precede n-. Nevertheless, I was able to dig up one
152
In Ga’anda, the morpheme considered by Frajzyngier has the form of dative object pronouns, which for 1p is -i-, 2p -u-, and for 3p is -an-. Frajzyngier compares intransitive to transitive, transitive to causative (where he suggests an Agent is added), and non-benefactive sentences to sentences containing a dative/benefactive. The following examples of the use of -an- is given, where (72) is an illustration of intransitive going to transitive. Intransitive > transitive (72) a) © fin wata PAST ignite fire ‘The fire ignited’
(Frajzyngier 1985: 27)
b) © fin-an- -fee wata PAST ignite CAUS someone fire ‘Someone ignited the fire’
(Frajzyngier 1985: 27)
(73b)-(77b) are causative constructions, where an Agent is added to a sentence which already has an Agent. Frajzyngier does not explain his way of thought in great detail. It appears from the cited examples that an ‘added’ argument may be implied, that is, not overtly expressed, as in (73b). In (75), the verb is a verb of transfer, and this type of semantics changes the directionality of the transferral from a subject/Recipient to an implied Recipient/Causee (the person who buys), while the object does not alter its semantic role. This special type of semantics on verbs is also present in Hausa, as we shall see later. Transitive > causative (added Agent) (73) a) © r©k nda naffia PAST chase 3PL man.DEM.PRO ‘They chased the man away’
b) © r©k- -an- -nda PAST chase CAUS 3PL
‘They had the man chased away’
(74)
(Frajzyngier 1985: 28)
naffia man-DEM.PRO
(Frajzyngier 1985: 28)
a) s©n- -m©n naffii know we man.DEM.PRO ‘We know that man’
(Frajzyngier 1985: 28)
b) s©n- -an-m©n naffii know CAUS we man.DEM.PRO ‘We informed that man’
(Frajzyngier 1985: 28)
example in support of his argument: yaa baayan nì ‘he gave me’ (from Newman 1983: 400), where the verb baa ‘give’ takes an OBJACC pronoun.
153
(75)
a) © xiyPAST buy
-inc© 1SG
b) © xiyPAST sell
-anCAUS
‘I bought a horse’
‘I sold the horse’
p©rsa horse
(Frajzyngier 1985: 28)
-i 1SG
p©rsa kafi© horse away
(Frajzyngier 1985: 28)
(76) is a sentence containing a benefactive argument. Benefactive sentence (76) a) © mbu& inc© PAST 1SG news DEF
‘I told the news for the chief’
ndikt& an tell BEN
i-kutiran PREP chief
(Frajzyngier 1985: 28)
In the case of Pa’anci, the causative marker is -ei (-e before consonant initial complements). Skinner (1979: 133) wonders whether the causative and the benefactive suffixes are the same: ‘Since returning from the field, I have wondered whether or not it is mere co-incidence that the benefactive and causative markers are identical in form. I can find no textual example of their co-occurrence, and since their identity of form struck me only after I had left the range of informant query, I failed to elicit an example with both’. (Skinner 1979: 133)
Sentences given by Frajzyngier include (77), where the suffix is used with a benefactive, and (78b-79b), where it has a transitivizing or causative function. Benefactive (77) ma; k©r-e Binta tin I-COMPL steal-BEN Binta it ‘I stole it for Binta’
Transitive/causative (78) a) na; mba
‘He went out’
b) na; mb-e dla
‘He took the boy out’
(79)
a) â
zaa
b) â
zei
‘She entered’
‘She put in’
(Frajzyngier 1985: 30)
(Frajzyngier 1985: 30)
(Frajzyngier 1985: 30)
(Frajzyngier 1985: 31)
(Frajzyngier 1985: 31)
154
4. 2. 2 The causative and Benefactive derive from different sources Jaggar & Munkaila (1995) criticizes earlier analyses (Parsons 1971-72, Newman 1977, and Frajzyngier 1985). They seek in their own alternative analysis to argue that the -a® /CAUS and the -a®/BEN suffixes are synchronically dissimilar through demonstrating that these suffixes can be traced to different historical sources. They relate the -® in the -a® suffix of benefactive verbs of ‘grades 2, 3, and 7’ to a 3rd person to a singular feminine pronoun (3.SG.F) *ta, the same t that occurs in 3.SG.F of present Hausa22. The grade 5 -a®¶-as, on the other hand, is claimed to derive from a 3.SG masculine pronoun *sV. The phonological path by which this is thought to have developed is in agreement with Klingenheben’s law (1928), which claims among other things that there was a weakening process which made t, d, fi, s, z > ®/ /_ C, and thus would explain that *t > ® for the syllable-final feminine formative, and the ‘historically older’ *-s causative into ® (but note reservations for s > ® made in 2. 2. 7). Support for this analysis is drawn from related Chadic languages (Kanakuru, Dangaleat (Newman 1982), Ga’anda (Newman 1977)), some of which ‘typically possess an IO-suffix set, attaching IO pronouns directly onto the verb’ and others that ‘use a pleonastic 3ps [= 3rd person singular] IO pronoun clitic when an IO NP is directly expressed’ (Jaggar & Munkaila 1995: 296). (80)
Kanakuru: a) aæ joæ\-roæ he washed-3SG.F IO PRO
la;ndaæi robe
b) aæ joæ\-roæ he washed-3SG.F IO PRO
la;ndaæi g©æn ta;mno; robe PREP woman
‘He washed the robe for her’
(Jaggar & Munkaila 1995: 296)
‘He washed the robe for the woman’
(81)
(Jaggar & Munkaila 1995: 296)
Dangaleat, East dialect: a) no\ b©ær-dyê a\maæy I gave-3SG.M IO PRO water ‘I gave him water’
b) dya\mên elder
(Jaggar & Munkaila 1995: 297)
l°æ°-æ dyê a\taæy pour-3SG.M IO PRO poison
‘The elder gave poison to her son’
ku\ ro;ntê PREP her son
(Jaggar & Munkaila 1995: 297)
22 The -t- of this pronoun is still retained in certain conservative dialects in final position, e.g. bìyat = bìya®/ ‘five’, and rìiga-t = rìiga-®/ Àli ‘Ali’s gown’ (Schuh 1974: 97). The -t- is also present in the feminine possessive pronoun -taa.
155
The claim is that Hausa -® [[-a®] benefactive is a construction almost identical to the ones in these languages. (82) shows ‘the canonical Chadic structure for IO pronouns and IO NP’s’ according to Jaggar & Munkaila following Newman (1982): (82)
a) IO pronoun: b) IO NP:
V-IO PRO V(-IO PRO)
DO DO PREP IO-NP
For Hausa specifically this would manifest itself as in (83) (the asterisk indicating that this is a reconstructed form): (83)
a) V+IO pronoun: *neema-t V- 3SG.F IO PRO b) V+IO NP:
*neema-t V- 3SG.F IO PRO
DO DO DO gà IO NP DO PREP IO NP
This kind of analysis indicates that there was a double marking of the benefactive or the Recipient as in e.g. “he washed-to him1 the gown for Audu1”. Their conclusion is thus that ‘pre-datival [benefactive] and Grade 5 [causative] formations were sufficiently similar that they were handled by the same anaphoric pronominal strategy to mark a valency increase, but exploited different pronouns to relate the verb to the additional argument’ (1995: 298). 4. 2. 3 Reconstructing the -an suffix Frajzyngier’s explanation for the marginal -(a)n benefactive forms is that they are ‘a remnant of the demonstrative or some other type of pronoun in Hausa’. He says this is not an ad hoc solution, since there are other traces in present-day Hausa of demonstrative pronouns in -n: nan¶can ‘here/there’ and the masculine definite nominal marker -n. Frajzyngier argues that the 3.SG.M pronoun is more likely to be reconstructed with -n than with -s in West Chadic. Thus according to this analysis, the -as/-a®/-am forms are derived from a 3.SG.M pronoun sV, and the more seldom -n would be derived from a 3.SG.M pronoun *nV (Frajzyngier does not formulate explicitly this latter part of the hypothesis).
156
4. 3 Earlier claims about semantics: homonymy or not? 4. 3. 1 All instances of –C have a common function 4. 3. 1. 1 -C is a transitivity marker Frajzyngier hypothesizes for Hausa and Proto-Chadic that ‘whenever the ‘benefactive’ and the ‘causative’ functions are marked by the same morpheme, this morpheme is invariably derived from the 3p. sing. pronoun.’ (1985: 35). The function of this morpheme is thought to be to mark the fact that the verb had one more argument than in its unmarked form, i.e. whenever an argument was added, whether this argument was an Agent, Patient, or a benefactive/dative. In Proto-Chadic, this would not be marked on the verb, but rather by a preposition and/or word order. From this main function of marking an added argument followed a set of sub-functions, stated in a) through d) below. a) Intransitive verbs adding this causative morpheme would become transitive. Cf. the sentences Yaa fìta sàrautàa ‘he has quitted his official position’, and An fitad dà shii sàrautàa ‘he has been turned out of office’. b) Transitive verbs with Agent and Patient would add another Agent. E.g. Hausa Naa hau dookìi ‘I mounted the horse’ > Naa hawar dà Audù dookìi ‘I made Audu mount the horse’. c) The morpheme would signal an argument not overtly specified, but presumed to be known to the hearer. This argument could be either Patient or dative. d) A mono-transitive verb expanded by one argument would do this by one of two constructions: (i) Verb – Patient – Prep-Benefactive (ii) Verb-Caus. – Benefactive – Patient Such a use of a 3.SG pronoun is a natural way to add an argument, says Frajzyngier, since ‘addition of a pronoun is addition of an argument’ (1985: 35). Frajzyngier and Munkaila later (2004) analyzes another common function of the -® suffix, claiming that it marks the presence of an affected second argument. For presentational purposes I discuss this work after intermediary claims made by Newman, Jaggar, and Jaggar and Munkaila. 4. 3. 2 A clear case of homonymy – arguments relating to the causative (Newman) 4. 3. 2. 1 A causative/benefactive alignment lacks semantic motivation Another of Newman’s (1977) arguments as to why the causative and the benefactive cannot be related is semantic. He thinks there is absolutely no semantic relatedness between the two
157
meanings, and thus no reason why a ‘grade 2 or 3’ should borrow ‘a highly marked causative form’ in benefactive position, and that this form should ‘lose all of its original semantic attributes’ (1977: 291). This semantic argument seems to be a rather important one, since Newman easily accepts the switch to ‘grade 1’ ‘since the formal change is accompanied by the addition of the applicative sense proper to that grade’ (1977: 291). It is important to see the difference between Newman’s arguments in relation to Parsons’ earlier claim that the causative was ‘borrowed’ into benefactive use, void of semantic content (cf. 4. 1. 1), on a principle of ‘functional load’ (i.e. that the ‘Grade 5’ was not used so much and the form was therefore free for other usages). Newman therefore found it necessary to analyse the benefactive in a way that allowed semantic motivation. In his own analysis, he relates the -an benefactive suffix to a destinative *in form, ‘which relates the action to a person, beneficiary, or otherwise affected party’ (1977: 275). The function of this morpheme in Proto-Chadic was presumably to ‘indicate that the action of a verb was destined for, done for the benefit of, or otherwise affected or pertained to someone’ (ibid: 281). The original meaning is thought to have been ‘"destination" in a purposive rather than a locative sense’ (presumably because the locative meaning is reserved for a ventive *(a)wa morpheme, which later mingles in suppletively with the destinative morpheme in a number of Chadic languages). It is further assumed that the morpheme was most commonly used in sentences containing a dative object. The morpheme is reconstructed with support from other Chadic languages: Ngizim, Bole, and Pero (West Branch), and Ga’anda, Daba, and Margi (Biu-Mandara Branch), as in Table 4.3: TABLE 4.3: Chadic languages cited to support Newman’s destinative analysis of the -an suffix in Hausa West Branch
Biu-Mandara Branch
Ngizim Bole
-én/-ìiná -N
Ga’anda Daba
ín -e_
Pero
-ínà
Margi
-©ri
In this analysis, a directional (destinative) meaning develops into a grammatical benefactive meaning much like the word to in English; ‘I gave it to her’. This type of analysis would be supported by the fact that the Chadic languages seem to have had parallel developments, where both the distantive morpheme, which developed ventive meaning, and the destinative
158
morpheme, which served to refer to a person as the destination of some action, also have benefactive meanings. Newman’s analysis has for the most part been criticized on phonological grounds. Other kinds of criticism include Frajzyngier (1985), which criticizes Newman for comparing the benefactive suffix with the ventive suffix in other Chadic languages, e.g. the suffix -ínà in Pero, rather than the ‘causative’ suffix -n. He argues that the verbal forms should be regarded within their syntactic environment, and claims that this is not done in Newman (1977). 4. 3. 2. 2 The ‘causative’ is not a causative (Newman) The term ‘causative’ was accepted and used by Bargery (1934: xxxii), Abraham (1959: 68), Gouffé (1962), Bagari (1977: 2), Jungraithmayr & Möhlig (1976: 141), Kraft & Kirk-Greene (1973), and Cowan & Schuh (1976: 260), the latter two with some reservations. Newman (1983) points out, however, that Parsons (1962) questions the term ‘causative’ explicitly, also in his (1971-72) article, by consequently putting the term ‘causative’ in quotation marks and by referring to it as the ‘so-called causative’. In Wolff (1993), Newman (2000), and Jaggar (2001), the term causative is dropped altogether, and replaced by the term ‘efferential’. In Jaggar (2009) the term causative is reclaimed for a subpart of these verbs. Newman refutes the idea that this is a causative morpheme, and argues that with verbs like the ones in (84), the HH(H) -C verbs (= -aC verbs) cannot be described as a causative. (84)
jeefad daæ zuba® tuura®
‘throw away’ (cf. jeæefaa ‘throw at’) ‘pour away’ (cf. zuæba ‘stream, leak’) ‘push away’ (cf. tuuraæa ‘push’)
Another example which, it is claimed, does not translate easily as a causative is shaaya® daæ ‘to water’, as in (85). (85)
riijìya-® naæn well-GEN this
taa shaaya® 3SG.F.PF water
‘This well waters our town’
daæ PRT
gaæri-m-muæ town-GEN-our
Newman points out that this sentence would not mean ‘caused the town to drink’. It is nevertheless admitted that ‘some gr. 5 verbs [...] translate easiest using the causative type of phraseology’, like in the phrase jii daafiii ‘feel happy’ and jiiya® daafiii ‘make happy’ (1983: 408). It is further pointed out that other HH(H) -C verbs (= ‘Grade 5’) are ‘semantically empty’, where the meaning of these verbs is the same as some other verb form, often the
159
HL(H) -aa (‘grade 1’). The addition of the -a® suffix does not add a causative meaning. This would particularly apply to verbs derived from nouns ‘and other derived stems’. Examples are: (86)
Related noun toæofii ‘medical spitting’ rìkicii ‘causing trouble’ tsoæoroo ‘fright’
‘Grade 1’ toofaæa rikìtaa tsooraætaa
‘Grade 5’ toofa® rikita® tsoorata®
Meaning of ‘grades 1 &5’ ‘spit’ ‘tangle, muddle up’ ‘frighten’
A second argument put forward is the fact that Hausa also has a periphrastic causative sâa ‘put’ + sentence/direct object, which Newman considers a ‘real causative’ (see also Newman 2000). Newman contrasts the periphrastic and the morphological causatives in sentences like (87). (87)
a) Yaa sa] he.PF put
maalaæm scholar
yaæ ci he.SJN eat
‘He made the scholar eat dog meat’
b) Yaa ciyad daæ he.PF feed PRT
baayii slave.PL
‘He fed the slaves dog meat’
naamaæ-n meat-of
naamaæ-n meat-of
kaæree dog
kaæree dog
He argues that these are different in meaning and function. In support of this he makes the point that they are combinable. Cf. (90c). c) Naa I.PF
sa] shi yaa maya® daæ put¶cause him.OBJ he.PF replace.CAUS PRT
‘I made him return the book’
(Newman 2000: 82)
littaafìi book
Furthermore, Newman (1983) claims that Hausa causatives are aberrant in the sense of being unproductive. He repeats Parsons’ claim (1971-72) that causatives are few in number, but without adding the information that this is only so if verbs derived from nouns are not included. This claim is supported with his own observations that ‘there are numerous 1-place intransitive verbs that lack a corresponding 2-place gr. 5 verb (=HH(H) -C verbs) and numerous 2-place transitive verbs that lack a corresponding 3-place transitive verb. Thus one has tsìma ‘soak, steep’, but no tsima® ‘soak sth., cause to steep' (1983: 403). The transitive counterparts are not HH(H) -C verbs , but are instead gr1 HL(H) -aa verbs, as is seen in (88): (88)
cìka daællasaæ fiìga jì˚a kaæntaraæ
‘be filled’ ‘become blunt’ ‘drip’ ‘get wet’ ‘be crooked, bent’
cikaæa dallaæsaa fiigaæa ji˚aæa kantaæraa
160
‘fill sth.’ ‘blunt sth.’ ‘pour out in drops’ ‘moisten, make wet’ ‘bend sth.’
taæfasaæ tsìma zuæba
tafaæsaa tsimaæa zubaæa
‘boil (intr.)’ ‘soak, steep’ ‘spill, leak’
‘boil sth.’ ‘soak, steep sth.’ ‘pour’
Newman argues that there is no semantic reason why certain verbs lack a causative, since they can be easily formed with the periphrastic causative construction. Therefore one would get (89a) but not (89b). (89)
a) Yaa sa] naa he.PF put I.PF
®ubuæutaæ write
‘He made me write a letter’
b) •Yaa he.PF
®ubuutad daæ write.5C PRT
‘*He made me write a letter’
takaæ®daa letter nii 1SG.IND
takaæ®daa letter
The opposite is true, however, of the very similar verb ka®aæntaa ‘read’ which he admits has a causative meaning in a HH(H) -C form, ka®anta® ‘teach’. Nevertheless, Newman argues that this is not a causative, since the -aC suffix lacks the high productivity of the causative type in (92a). Newman then argues that the causative is irrelevant to the addition of a third argument to 2-place verbs (see Frajzyngier’s claim in 4. 3. 1). Newman’s claim is illustrated by the 2-place verb saæyaa ‘buy’, which in the causative form sayad daæ ‘sell’ also has 2 arguments. Furthermore, it is said that causative verbs, which are mostly 2-place, will use a grade 1 ‘applicative’ if a third argument is added, such that: (90)
a) Naa I.PF
aæri littaafìi borrow.2C book
b) Naa I.PF
arad lend.5C
daæ PRT
c) naa I.PF
araæa lend.1D
masaæ DAT.him
‘I borrowed a book’
‘I lent a book’
‘I lent him a book’
(Newman 1983: 404)
littaafìi book
(Newman 1983: 404)
littaafìi book
(Newman 1983: 404)
In (93), a) has a 1-place gr2 (L)LH -aa/-ee/-i verb, b) a 2-place HH(H) -aC verb, and c) a gr1 3-place HL(H) -aa. Finally, Newman says that ‘the normal pattern is for the embedded subject to function as a dative object in the derived structure’ (referring to Comrie (1976: 268)). He gives examples showing that this is not the case in Hausa. Rather than having a ma-¶maæ¶waæ marked
161
dative phrase, Hausa would have two direct objects (double DOs) in a sentence with an ‘embedded subject’, e.g. (91)
a) Yaa cishee he.PF feed.CAUS ‘He fed them food’
b) Naa I.PF
suæ aæbinci them.ACC food
gaanad daæ show.CAUS PRT
‘I showed her the photograph’
(Newman 1983: 404)
itaa 3SG.F.IND
foæotoo photo
(Newman 1983: 404)
In (91a), the “Agent” or ‘embedded subject’ is a ‘direct object pronoun’; in (91b) it is an independent pronoun, which is required after the ‘particle’ daæ. Moreover, Newman argues, dative phrases formally marked with ma-¶maæ¶waæ tend to be benefactive in meaning rather than being ‘embedded subjects’, i.e. the dative object is not the embedded Agent/Causee (see 6. 2. 6. 1 for an explanation of this term). Thus the sentence in (92) means ‘I raised a roof on the house for Audu’ and not ‘*I caused Audu to mount the room’. (92)
Naa I.PF
hawa® waæ Auduæ fiaakì-n-saæ rise¶raise3¶5D DAT Audu roofhouse-of-his
‘I raised a roof on the house for Audu’’
(Newman 1983: 404)
The ideas which initially seem to have instigated Newman to reject the HH(H) -aC verbs as causative were semantic. Abraham (1934: 126) says that ‘causals sometimes add to the sense of the simple verb, the idea of "rejection"’. The examples illustrating this point are feesa® daæ ‘spray, spurt out (e.g. water)’ and jeefa® daæ ‘throw away’. Parsons (1962: 268) argues that most ‘so-called causatives’, specifically a group of verbs which he refers to as ‘the projective-applicative class’, have a meaning of disposal or riddance. Such verbs are often translated into English with away or off, for instance aurad daæ ‘marry off’, baayad daæ ‘give away’, jeefad daæ ‘throw away’: Parsons (1962: 267-268) divides Hausa verbs into two classes, ‘projective-applicative verbs’ and ‘transactional verbs’. He says that the former of these two contains more than 300 verbs, the latter around 12. In both classes, ‘the use of the basic grade 1 [=HL(H) -aa verbs] of the verb correlates with a temporal, psychological, or sociological precedence in the context of situation, i.e. the ‘medium object’ preceding the ‘target object’, the lender/teacher/giver in marriage, etc. preceding the borrower/learner/marrier, etc.’ In the ‘projective-applicative class’ grade 2 has a different function than in the ‘transactional class’. It ‘transfers the psychological emphasis on to the target object, whereas with the ‘transactional verbs’ it ‘correlates with a shift of focus on to the other party in the
162
transaction’ (emphasis added). Examples given for the former are jeef- ‘throw (at, away)’, harb- ‘shoot (at), kick (out, off)’, and of the latter are ar- ‘borrow/lend’, kooy- ‘learn/teach’. Parsons notes that the riddance/disposal meaning is not confined to these two classes of verbs. Fitad daæ can either have the causative meaning ‘take out’ (cf. fìta ‘go out’), or the disposal/riddance meaning ‘oust’. Similarly, huutad daæ¶huutasshee can be causative ‘save, cause to rest’ (cf. huutaæa ‘rest’) or disposatory ‘pension off, dismiss’. In responding to Gouffé (1962) who uses the term causative without reservation, Parsons replies that:
‘ [...] though it might be possible to consider the transactional examples as having some sort of causative meaning (e.g. ‘I have caused a horse to be borrowed [for araæa, arad daæ ‘lend’]’ ‘I am causing Hausa to be learnt [for kooyaæa, kooyad daæ ‘teach’]’, no amount of ‘argutie de traduction23’ could turn those of the projective-applicative class cited into semantic causatives, without at least violating the facts of life, since stones are incapable of selfprojection except in an earthquake or suchlike [...]. But the real semantic significance is the same in both cases, viz. disposal, or riddance.’
By this it seems that Parsons requires that for a construction to be considered a causative construction the Causee must be animate and automotive, i.e. physically caused motion with inanimate Causees are not considered to be Causees. Newman has expressed a similar view, namely that the Causee in a causative construction should be animate (p.c. 1994). Newman (1983) picks up on Parsons’ point of diposal/riddance and re-labels the causative ‘efferential’, (from Latin efferre ‘carry away’). Newman thinks Parsons was on the right track in labelling this derivation riddance/disposal, but claims instead on the basis of comparison with other Chadic languages that the meaning is directional indicating ‘action away’. Alongside this semantic connotation there would be a grammatical function of transitivizing inherently intransitive verbs. The function of the ‘efferential’ is according to Newman (1983: 405): (93)
‘to reverse the direction of the action, so that what originally affects the subject in the 1-place intransitive verb emanates from the subject to the object in the related 2-place verb’.
The efferential meaning of ‘action away’ is illustrated with the transitive verbs below.
163
(94)
tuuraæa rabaæa wu®gaæ zubaæa
‘push’ ‘divide, distribute’ ‘throw’ ‘pour’
tuura® raba® wu®ga® zuba®
‘push away’ ‘distribute (to others), divorce’ ‘throw away’ ‘pour out’
aæuraa baa baæa˚untaæa
‘marry’ ‘give’ ‘be a guest of’
aura® baaya® baa˚unta®
‘marry off’ ‘give away, betray’ ‘(be expelled from town and) be made a stranger (in another town)’
Newman argues that both sets of verbs in (94) involve the same kind of meaning, viz. ‘action away’ (slightly at variance with Chadic directional derivations, denoting ‘motion away’), and that the transition between these two groups would be continuous rather than dichotomous. Verbs in the first set carry a literal action away meaning, whereas verbs in the latter have a more figurative sense of the same notion. Another sense of ‘action away’ applies to verbs where ‘the effect or impact of the action is shifted away from the subject to the object’ .
These are transitive verbs not changing their valency. The following verbs serve as an illustration: (95)
aæraa koæoyaa ka®aæntaa saæadu saæyaa tunaæa sanìi saamuuæ
‘borrow’ ‘learn’ ‘read, study’ ‘meet, reach’ ‘buy’ ‘remember’ ‘know’ ‘get’
ara® kooya® ka®anta® saada® saya® tuna® sana® saama®
‘lend’ ‘teach’ ‘teach’ ‘deliver’ ‘sell’ ‘remind’ ‘inform’ ‘supply’
Newman argues that these are not causatives and that a more proper translation for e.g. saya® ‘sell’ is not ‘cause to buy’ but ‘buy away’. The case of Turkana, a Nilotic language of northern Kenya, is mentioned in support of this view. Turkana has a ‘real’ morphological causative, but does not use it in the buy/sell pair. Instead, a derivation meaning ‘motion or action away’ is used. Thus, in this language, a morpheme of motion/action away is distinct from the causative morpheme (cf. Dimmendaal 1982).
23 “Argument over details in translation”. In a response to Gouffé, Parsons (1971-72) suggests that Gouffé arrives at the causative meaning from his translation into French.
164
Examples of transitivizing include the ones below, some of them supposedly having ‘an element of away/riddance/disposal’. (96)
\ataæ faafiì guæ®faanaæ ˚aara wa®keæe
‘get lost’ ‘fall’ ‘kneel’ ‘cry, complain’ ‘get well’
\ata® fafia® gu®faana® ˚aara® wa®ka®
‘lose, spend, squander’ ‘drop, throw down’ ‘bring to one’s knees’ ‘cry out, disseminate’ ‘cure’
These arguments will be discussed and refuted in 4. 3. 3. They are also criticized on the basis of Chadic by Frajzyngier (1985), discussed in the next section. 4. 3. 2. 3 Frajzyngier’s criticism of Newman’s ‘action away’ hypothesis Frajzyngier (1985) refutes the claim of Newman (1983) that one morpheme in Proto-Chadic represented both the meaning ‘motion/action away’ (= efferential) and a ‘transitivizing function’. The meaning ‘motion/action away’ is not compatible with Frajzyngier’s proposal (see 4. 2. 1), since no such meaning can be attached to an added 3.SG.M pronoun. As an alternative to Newman’s proposal, Frajzyngier suggests that ‘action away’ and ‘transitivizer’ were two different morphemes in Proto-Chadic, and that the connection between the meanings ‘action away’ and ‘transitivizer’ are lexical, since such a meaning will ‘pragmatically involve motion away’ (emphasis added) (1985: 36), e.g. to sell, to inform, or to teach. Such verbs would appear in Hona and Ga’anda with the suffix denoting ‘action away’. Frajzyngier proposes that for functional reasons these resulted in a merger of two originally separate morphemes. Higi is mentioned as an example of such a ‘functional merger’. Two Chadic languages that have separate morphemes for these are Ga’anda and Hona: TABLE 4.4: Separate morphemes for ‘action away’ and ‘causative’ in Ga’anda and Hona Causative
Motion away
Ga’anda
-an-
kafi©
Hona
-n
-fi
Frajzyngier claims that ‘virtually the same situation obtains in several other languages in which the direction markers occur at the end of the sentence rather than as suffixes to the verb’ (1985: 36). Among the languages mentioned by Newman (1983) in support of the efferential/transitivizer morpheme in Proto-Chadic, Frajzyngier only accepts Margi as a valid case. Thus Karekare, Ngizim, Pa’a, Gisiga, Kotoko, Kapsiki, and Bachama are rejected as having a morpheme expressing these two meanings.
165
Neither Newman (p.c. 1994) nor Frajzyngier thinks that Newman’s transitivizer/action away-hypothesis explains the use of the ‘causative’ morpheme in sentences with a benefactive argument. Frajzyngier claims, however, that his own analysis deriving the causative marker from the 3.SG.M pronoun explains both the transitivizing function, the causative meaning, and the occurrence before benefactive arguments. 4. 3. 3 A look at the arguments that the causative is not a causative24 Before analyzing a potentially polysemous relationship between causative and benefactive in Hausa, it is necessary to establish what semantic label or labels should be attached to the nonbenefactive instances of the -aC suffixes. As a first step, the arguments that the meaning of the -as/-a®/-am suffixes is efferential and not causative will be scrutinized and evaluated against a wider linguistic literature on causatives. 4. 3. 3. 1 Languages may have more than one causative Newman (1983) argues that the -aC suffix cannot be a causative since Hausa already has another causative, the periphrastic one which employs sa] ‘put, cause’. This argument is not a convincing one, since it is quite common for languages to have more than one causative construction. This is a typological fact that is common knowledge to those who work on the typology of causatives, cf. e.g. Nedyalkov and Sil’nitskij (1973: 8), where it is mentioned as background knowledge for a more specified statement about causatives. ‘If a language has several causative affixes, the means for deriving Vj [causative derivation] from Vin [intransitive base verb] are more varied than those for forming Vj from Vtr [transitive base verb].’ (Emphasis added)
(Nedyalkov and Sil’nitskij 1973: 8)
See also Aikhenvald (2000: 169): ‘It is not unusual for a language to have more than one mechanism for forming causatives, or to use different techniques depending on the transitivity value of a verb […]’ (Aikhenvald 2000: 169)
24 These arguments are largely unaltered from my 2006 submission. The fact that some of them are supported in Jaggar (2009) further corroborates their correctness and relevance. Changes from the first submission include the addition of some references to Dixon and Aikhenvald (2000). Section 4. 3. 3. 5 on the ‘two senses of action away’ has also gone through some elaboration with respect to the question on valency and additional exemplification of the two types.
166
Among the languages mentioned in Nedyalkov and Sil’nitskij which have more than one causative affix is Telugu (Krishnamurti 1961), which has five affixes deriving a causative verb from an intransitive base verb (-pu, -cu, -ncu, -ccu, and -incu), and two deriving causatives from transitive base verbs (-incu, -(i)pincu). Yakut (Xaritonov 1963) has four suffixes deriving causatives from intransitive base verbs (-ar, -yar, -t, -tar), where the two latter also turn transitive verbs into causatives. Hungarian (Majtinskaja 1959) has nine suffixes to make a causative from intransitives (-l, -al (-el), -lal, -t, -ít, -dít, -aszt (-eszt), -at (-et), -tat (-tet)); the two latter apply to transitive base verbs as well. Komi (Lytkin 1957) has two suffixes making causatives out of intransitives (-t, -öd), where the latter is also used for transitive base verbs. In addition come all those languages which have a periphrastic causative in addition to a morphological one (of which Hausa is one). For Tariana (North Arawak language spoken in Upper Rio Negro, Brazil), Aikhenvald describes four mechanisms for marking causative, one morphological, two periphrastic, and one serial verb construction (Aikhenvald 2000: 164). 4. 3. 3. 2 Double causatives The second argument concerns the fact that causative -aC in Hausa and the periphrastic causative are combinable. However, double morphological causatives are documented in several languages, and there are many languages where one causative construction is made on top of another, either by repeating the same causative affix, or by selecting another causative formation (cf. Nedyalkov and Sil’nitskij 1973: 9-10). Consider for example these examples where causative verbs are made from already causative verbs: Turkish öl- ‘die’ > öl-dür ‘kill’ > öl-dür-t ‘command to kill’; Keshua huañu- ‘die’ > huañu-chi ‘kill’ > huañu-chi-chi‘command to kill’. In fact, it is the case that when a language has restrictions on how many causative affixes it can stack on top of each other, they will turn to periphrastic causatives, cf. Abkhazian (a-š-ra (intr.) ‘come to a boil’ > a-r-š-ra ‘bring to a boil’, but the meaning ‘order to boil’ can only be given by a periphrastic causative. The situation is the same in Burjat Mongolian, where no second causative can be added after the -uul- suffix: bajarla ‘be glad’ > bajarl-uul ‘make glad’, but the meaning ‘command to make glad/gladden’ can only be rendered periphrastically (in spite of the fact that this possibility exists with other causative affixes in Burjat Mongolian, e.g. zogso ‘stop, come to a stop’ > zogs-oo ‘stop, bring to a stop’ > zogs-oo-lgo ‘make, induce sb. to stop sb./sth’.). See also Dixon’s (2000: 59-61) treatment of double causatives.
167
4. 3. 3. 3 The productivity of causative constructions Newman’s third argument concerns the fact that the -aC suffix seems not to be fully productive compared to the periphrastic causative. Again, it is a known fact that causatives vary to a great extent in terms of degree of productivity; see for instance Song (1996: 172), who says that ‘the degree of productivity (or acceptability) of morphological causatives may decline, as one moves from intransitive to transitive and on to ditransitive’, or Palmer (1994: 215), see below: In Tigrinya, the causative is a regular and productive grammatical formation, in the sense that causatives can be formed from any verb by the addition of the prefix ’a-, with other minor but regular changes, and with the simple meaning of causing someone to perform the relevant action. In other languages, however, the causative is not equally regular and productive. (Palmer 1994: 215) (Emphasis added)
Of the latter type, Palmer mentions the Amharic a-/as- prefix. The difference between regular/productive causative formation and irregular/less productive causative formation resides in the inflectional/derivational contrast rather than in the type function of a specific grammatical category (cf. also Palmer 1994: 215). Considering the fact that the causative -aC suffix is part of a derivational verb system (the ‘grade system’) in Hausa, where the existence of a verb base with any of the seven derivational forms (grades) is far from predictable, it would in fact be surprising if the -aC suffix were the only one to behave inflectionally. In addition, it is generally known that cross-linguistically, intransitive base verbs causativize much more easily (and productively) than transitive base verbs. It does not follow from this that causative formations that apply to transitive base verbs are not causatives. 4. 3. 3. 4 Instrumental and dative case in the -aC construction The sixth argument against -aC being a causative marker concerns the fact that the ‘embedded subject’ (i.e. the Causee) is not a dative object. Instead, Newman suggests, Hausa has two direct objects. As an illustration, he brings up one case which is followed by a direct object pronoun (ACC), (91a), but which does not have the -aC suffix. (91’) (Repeated) a) Yaa cishee he.PF feed.CAUS ‘He fed them food’
suæ aæbinci them.ACC food
(Newman 1983: 404)
168
b) Naa I.PF
gaanad daæ show.CAUS PRT
‘I showed her the photograph’
itaa 3SG.F.IND
foæotoo photo
(Newman 1983: 404)
I suggest that the -shee suffix on this causative verb form should be treated as a separate suffix, although it shares the causative meaning and although it has been suggested that the -s- is etymologically related to the causative -as suffix, since the -ee element evidently is related to an accusative set of pronouns. This leaves the sentence type in (91b), Naa gaanad daæ itaa foæotoo ‘I showed her the photograph’, which has not two direct objects, but one instrumental (daæ itaa ‘with/INST her’) and one DO/accusative object. This pattern of marking the Causee argument in a transitive based causative construction an instrumental and the Patient a DO/ACC shows that the Hausa causative aligns with a major proportion of the world’s languages with morphological causatives, since the cases dative and instrumental are the ones most commonly used to mark the Causees of transitive based causatives. Newman refers to Comrie (1976: 268) that ‘with causatives of transitive verbs, the normal pattern is for the embedded subject to function as an indirect object’ (1977: 404). Comrie’s statement was that ‘…the paradigm case predicts that the embedded subject should stand as indirect object in derived structure. […] a large number of languages from different language groups do show an indirect object here.’ (ibid). However, it has since been shown that this type of encoding (‘the paradigm case’) ‘has been made much of in the literature, but is in fact rare’ (Dixon 2000: 54). See distribution of syntactic causative types in 1. 6. 5. 4. 3. 3. 5 Two senses of ‘action away’ The argument in Newman (1983) which needs most attention is maybe the one saying that the -aC suffix is not a causative morpheme is that it rather expresses a different meaning, viz. ‘action away’. In Frajzyngier (1985), this sense is rejected as lexical and irrelevant to the grammatical description of the -aC suffix because it belongs to the realm of pragmatics. However, in view of the fact that a sharp dividing line between linguistic and encyclopaedic knowledge (see 3. 1) is difficult to justify, I would maintain that the ‘action away’ sense in some cases is actually present and should still be given a linguistic explanation. I will not satisfy with the ‘efferential’ as a general cover term, though. I will argue that instead, the various senses in which the term efferential is used needs to be identified and further analysed. First of all, Newman’s analysis conflates two different grammatical phenomena in the term ‘action away’. This confuses and disguises the picture of the exact cause and the nature
169
of these phenomena. One phenomenon concerns the shifting of semantic roles and arguments in base verbs in relation to the causativized verbs, see the verbs in Group A below. This corresponds to Parsons’ ‘transactional class’, which impose ‘a shift of focus on to the other party in the transaction’. I assume that also group B below would belong to this class. Cf. also Newman’s generalization in (96), which says that what happens to the subject in the intransitive base verb happens instead to the object in the -aC derivation, and further that ‘the effect or impact of the action is shifted away from the subject to the object’. This is a very accurate description of many of these verbs. Accordingly, some verbs will distinctly express the Causee role, viz. GROUP A Causative (animate Causees) tunaæa ‘remember’ tuna® sanìi ‘know’ sana® guæ®faanaæ ‘kneel’ gu®faana® ka®aæntaa ‘read, study’ ka®anta® wa®keæe ‘get well’ wa®ka® Causative (inanimate Causees) \ataæ ‘get lost’ faafiì ‘fall’
\ata® fafia®
‘remind’ ‘inform’ ‘bring to one’s knees’ ‘teach’ ‘cure’ ‘lose, spend, squander’ ‘drop, throw down’
These examples also illustrate the fact that whether the -aC suffix expresses a prototypical animate Causee role or a less prototypical inanimate Causee role, is largely a result of the semantic limitation imposed on the object by the lexical semantics of the verb. These verbs will increase the valency by one. Another group of verbs, which I shall refer to as Group B verbs, include -aC verbs describing subjects with Recipient roles in the underived (often gr2) verbs. GROUP B Recipiency aæraa v2 ‘borrow’ aæuraa v2 ‘marry sb.’ gaæadaa v2 ‘inherit’ koæoyaa v2 ‘learn’ saæadu v7 ‘meet, reach’ saæyaa v2 ‘buy’ saamuæu v2 ‘get’
ara® daæ aura® daæ gaada® daæ kooya® daæ saada® daæ saya® daæ saama® daæ
‘lend’ ‘marry off’ ‘bequeath’ ‘teach’ ‘deliver’ ‘sell’ ‘supply, deliver’
These verbs naturally express recipiency and ‘transfer to/of X’ when the -aC suffix is added, because the corresponding non-derived verbs all lexically express an (abstract or concrete) object coming into the subject’s possession, i.e. the subject acquires or receives something. The -aC suffix may profile the transferred object (TH), the Recipient, or both. The transfer
170
semantics and the potential Recipient role of an added object pronoun thus seem to be predicted by the lexical semantics of the verb. Both the underived and the derived verbs are bivalent, but differ in terms type of semantic role that are possible in each construction; in gr2 verbs the OBJACC is the obtained object (TH). Gr5, on the other hand, opens up the possibility that optionally the derived verbs may add a third argument, the Recipient, in addition to the Theme. Like in group A, the effect of adding the -aC suffix is to mark a semantic role of a downstream participant and the effect of the verbal action on that participant. If the object present is a Theme, the -aC suffix marks the effect of the action on the Theme, and if the object is an indirect one with a Recipient or Experiencer role, the -aC suffix marks the effect of the action on that participant. This is why it does not suffice to answer the question of valency blindly with reference to the number of syntactic arguments only; what type of argument and semantic role changes occur will have to come into consideration. Quite naturally, a Theme involved in an action of transfer such as these will obtain the role of a Mover, while Recipients are animate. This semantic facet will be further supported by the dative and instrumental formal marking of the participants, where e.g. an instrumentally encoded animate participant may be construed as a Mover and not a Recipient as in aura® daæ ‘marry off’. In some respects, such constructions can justifiably be characterized in terms of Goldberg’s (1995) caused-motion semantics, the only difference being that in Hausa, the Goal is optionally left out. (A comparison of caused-motion constructions in Hausa and English is provided in chapter 6.) There are cases, however, where it is the Mover theme which is left out, and the only object present is the OBJDAT. In such cases it becomes difficult to talk about this construction as caused-motion, which becomes even clearer when the –C in the –aC suffix agrees with the benefactive argument, in sentences like Taa kooyas masà ‘She taught him’. In this case, a causative label is more accurate, because the ‘transfer’ of the act of learning to the Recipient makes this role resemble that of a Causee, one who has to be involved for the transfer to take place. Thus, a transfer may involve ‘cause to do’, as in this case or ‘cause to have’, ‘cause to receive’, in an action of physical transfer, e.g. in Yaa saya® masaæ daæ mootaæa ‘he sold him a car’). In the literature on dative case (Wierzbicka 1986, Goldberg 1995: see 6. 2. 5. 2 for a presentation) acts of giving have been described as causality in this sense. It makes sense for the –aC morpheme in the sense that transfer is successful: there is a reaction and an altered state on part of the OBJDAT participant. Note however, that the transfer may happen with or without this participant’s consent: the
171
condition ‘willing recipient’ cannot be used for Hausa (as is done by Goldberg 1995 for English), since –aC is also used for the malefactive. Here the –aC suffix is also valency increasing, cf. (97), where the derived sentences in the second column can be seen as being based on those in the first. (97) a)
Taa she.PF
‘She learnt’
b)
koæoyaa learn.2A
Taa koæoyi she.PF learn.2C
‘She learnt English’
Taa kooya® masaæ she.PF learn-CAUS DAT.him
⇒
‘She taught him’
tuurancii English
⇒
Taa kooya® masaæ tuurancii she.PF learn-CAUS DAT.him English ‘She taught him English’
Traditionally, one would have labelled the –aC suffix benefactive because of the dative marking. I have glossed it causative here to illustrate that once one looks that the semantics, the distinction between causative and benefactive is not so clear. Having discussed potential problems with this group of verbs, I shall nevertheless subsume it under the label causative, despite its problematic and transient status. The other phenomenon that Newman attributes to the ‘action away’ meaning touches on a phenomenon already named by Parsons as the ‘projective-applicative’ class, whereby ‘grade 2 verbs transfer the psychological emphasis onto the target object’, as in jeefa® daæ ‘throw away’ cf. jeæefaa ‘throw at’. I suggest here that this sense is attributable to High Transitivity effects (see chapter 3 for theory, chapter 5 for data). High transitivity is here used as described in Hopper and Thompson (1980), and refers to the efficiency with which energy is transferred from the subject to the object(s). Recall that one of the components relating to this efficiency concerns a sense of intensity or force (efficiency of transfer). In replacement for the somewhat imprecise label ‘efferential’ as a cover term for both causative and other senses proposed by Newman (1983), I will instead suggest that the ‘action away’ meaning associated with the Hausa -aC suffix is a grammaticalized feature which is related to the general High Transitivity values of this suffix. In the wider scope of transitivity effects present in both the benefactive and causative -aC suffixes, to be shown in chapter 5, it is much more likely that the MVR role of the object is but a concomitant feature of the more basic function of indicating a high degree of semantic transitivity. Thus, I would instead argue that the riddance/disposal factor applies to the motion of the object as a result of the subject’s efficient acting on it. This is a different phenomenon, which should not be confused or conflated with the shifting of semantic roles with regard to the base verb described above.
172
Note that these are not categorized as causatives in the traditional sense, but are semantically related to causatives (and benefactives) by way of their high transitivity values. Above I mentioned the feature of intensity. Another of the features of semantic high transitivity is related to the number of arguments (participants) in the clause, where a sentence containing more arguments is more transitive than a sentence with fewer arguments25. This, we saw, applies to verbs in group A, and to group B in terms of changing the type of arguments and roles. But obviously, this does not apply to a derivational process where both the underived verb and the derived -aC verb are transitive, such as is the case between many grade 1 and grade 5 verbs (if a base verb in gr2, 3 or 7 is not available). However, as Parsons already has touched upon by the term ‘psychological emphasis’, the point is not to add an argument, but to emphasize the effect of the action on a particular argument already present, here the Theme. This is what creates the semantic effect that has inspired researchers of Hausa to characterize this by a semantic label of disposal or riddance. Several facts support this analysis, which are elaborated in 5. 5. 2 through 5. 5. 4, which seems to link the -C in the -aC suffix to an agreement phenomenon of redundancy with semantic implications of attention, focus and emphasis on the agreeing argument (the argument source). Some Hausa speakers with gender awareness on the –aC suffix employ this technique, presently most prominent among speakers from Tahoua, cf. 5. 1. 2. This being so, it appears that valency increase alternatively can be seen as a consequence rather than as a causing or defining criterion for the use of the –aC causative/caused-motion derivation. It may therefore be argued that this emphasis factor on one of the arguments contributed to the high transitivity effect just as much as the actual adding of an argument. Moreover, agreement is, as we know, per definition a redundancy phenomenon (but which does not amount to being meaningless in Cognitive Grammar), hence the general consensus among Hausa researchers to reconstruct the -C as a pleonastic pronoun. Adding a pronoun referring to an object already present would thus not pose a problem, since this pleonasm allows dual reference of the same participant. For example, a transitive verb like rabaæa ‘divide up’ with an object mentioned twice could have looked like in (98), where the emphasis effect of the -C has altered into being a general marker of semantic high transitivity.
25The complete picture of semantic characteristics resulting from such a high transitivity effect will be dealt with in its entirety in 5. 2. 2, where a discussion on the benefactive is also included.
173
(98)
Stage 1 Agent V a) Sun rabaæ they.PF divide.gr1 ‘They divided the meat’
Theme naamaæa meat
Stage 2 Emphasis effect of pleonastic pronoun b) Sun rabaæ -C1 naamaæa1 they.PF divide.gr1 OBJ.PRO meat ‘They divided it, the meat’
Stage 3 High transitivity effect of pleonastic pronoun> Mover effect on Theme Agent V Mover b) Sun rabaæ -C1 naamaæa1 they.PF divide.gr1 meat ‘They distributed/divided out the meat’
Similarly, a transitive motion verb like tuu®aæa ‘push (a bit further)’, would attain the meaning ‘push (‘away’, or ‘all the way to the endpoint’) by adding the -aC suffix, see data in 5. 1. 1. I should emphasize that I suggest that the developmental stage in (103b) to be plausible, not proven, considering i.a. the variation of agreement sources in my data on agreement (see 8. 5). It does, however, fit in nicely with general theories on agreement and with the Hopper and Thompson (1980) transitivity model, as well as with the fact that causatives and benefactives in general are thought to be transitivity increasing devices (see for instance, Dixon and Aikhenvald 2000). The ‘action away’ meaning in non-motion verbs may thus have arisen as a by-product of the High Transitivity effect. A view on transitivity which combines Langacker’s action chain model with Hopper and Thompson’s (1980) Semantic Transitivity Hypothesis will account for a Mover role on the object, even if motion is not part of the lexical stem, given that any transfer of action, whether literal or abstract, involves construing a contact between subject and an object. Cf. the examples below. GROUP Ci baæa˚untaæa
Non-motion based verb ‘be a guest of; be a stranger’ Cf. baæa˚oo ‘guest, visitor, stranger’
baa˚unta®
‘(be expelled from town and) be made a stranger (in another town)’
haækuntaæ
’exercise jurisdiction (by an office holder)’ ‘pronounce judgement against’
hakunta®
‘dispose of an article (at a price agreed upon after trial offers)’
or:
hakuæntaa
High transitivity effects like the one just described may have a synergy effect when combined with lexical content expressing motion. In general, there seems to be a dependency on the lexical content of the verb when it comes to the semantic role of the object. To express
174
the ‘action away’ meaning in a literal sense, verbs need to lexically convey some sense of physical motion, as in the verbs cited in support of the action-away hypothesis in (97) above, repeated below. (It should be noted, however, that tuu®aæa and zubaæa have intransitive counterparts as well, and therefore are causative in gr5 in addition to having MVR objects. I employ the same verbs as Newman for the sake of argument.) GROUP Cii Grade 1 (low transitivity) tuuraæa ‘push’ wu®gaæ ‘throw’ zubaæ ‘pour’
Grade 5 (high transitivity) tuura® ‘push away’ wu®ga® ‘throw away’ zuba® ‘pour out’
The grade 1 verbs in the left column are already transitive and also have Mover objects. Adding an object pronoun (as in the -aC suffix) in such cases will not alter the semantic role of the object, but will only demarcate a general high degree of affectedness in terms of added motion, as the HT value increases the efficiency with which the energy is transferred from the subject to the object. Thus, in motion-based verbs, the object will have a natural role as a Mover (MVR) that is more affected than its gr1 counterpart. There is a difference, then, between group Ci and group Cii verbs: In the examples in group Ci, the verb stem itself does not express motion. For the group Cii verbs, the added energy adds to the motion already present. For group Ci of non-motion based verbs, the acting on the object is in a metaphorical sense, not physical. This caused-motion construction is further elaborated in chapter 6. Recall Langacker’s billiard ball model (chapter 3), where the subject is seen as the initiator acting on a downstream object. It was shown in 3. 3. 4 that Langacker’s model of transitivity in terms of the action chain accounts for the use of abstract motion in transitive sentences, where the action chain metaphorically extends to non-physical domains. The subject instigates the movement of the object and is thereby seen as the abstract energy source. Further analysis is developed in chapter 7. Note in this connection Hopper and Thomson’s (1980: 261) discussion of the causative-benefactive suffix -KAN in Indonesian which also signifies intensive and High Transitivity meanings: ‘...A high degree of transitivity […] can imply that the O[bject] is physically changed in some way, e.g. moved or altered.’ (Emphasis added) (Hopper and Thompson 1980: 261)
The statement is illustrated with the sentences below from Indonesian, which contrast the -KAN suffix (which is thought to be related to the preposition akan ‘towards’) with the low transitivity suffix -I (believed to be derived from a locative preposition ‘at’).
175
(99)
a)
Kami mendekat-KAN gunung-nya we near mountain-DEF ‘We brought the mountain close’
b)
Kami mendekat-I gunung-nya we near mountain-DEF ‘We approached the mountain’
The up to now clear division between motion and non-motion verbs, and causative vs. noncausative gr5 verbs may be looked at in further detail. Note that the -aC suffix in baa˚unta® above (group Ci) does not only refer to the MVR object, since the verb is made transitive and an argument, a new object, is added. What the -aC suffix does in such cases is to add a MVR role to the new argument, in addition to the transitive (or causative) process. Note also that another meaning than ‘be expelled and made a stranger in another town’ is possible; this verb is noted to have a causative meaning with one Dogondoutchi speaker who says that the meaning of ba˚untad daæ is ‘to make someone a guest in his or her own house’, as in (100), for instance if someone comes unexpectedly to see you. The meaning ‘expel’ was rejected as impossible. (100) Naa I.PF
ba˚unt-ad be.a.guest-CAUS
daæ Ali gidaanaa jiyaæa INST Ali house.my yesterday
‘I made Ali my guest at my house yesterday’(SM28, Dogondoutchi)
The example in (100) shows that the picture is complex and that different senses of the same verb coexist. Recall also that Parsons (1962: 268) noticed that the grade 5 could be paraphrased either with a causative meaning in verbs like fitad daæ (< fìta ‘go out’) or with an intensive meaning ‘oust’ (which can also subsumed in labels like ‘riddance, disposal’). Verbal meanings may also focus on literal motion, or on the causative aspect, as in biya® daæ ‘lead along’ but also ‘subdue, tame’ (< bi ‘follow, obey’). On the other hand, there are also cases where the base verb designates motion, but the corresponding gr5 has grammticalized not the motion itself, but the entire path traversed by the object (the trajector), as in (101). This meaning is also present in the gr4 unaccusative. (101) dìra v3 direæe v4
‘jump down, swoop (bird)’ ‘jump down, extend all the way (gown to the ground)’
dira® daæ
‘extend to its farthest limit (e.g. wall)’
It seems, then, that gr5 verbs may express at least either of the options 1) only causation, 2) recipiency in verbs of transfer, 3) causation and High-Transitivity Mover object
176
(HTR-MVR), 4) only HTR-MVR. The construction in 4) may be referred to as causedmotion in a strict definition of the causative. In conclusion, subgroups A, B, and C consist of both causative and OBJMVR verbs, where they seem to have taken on different meanings and functions. I have suggested that, in addition to lexical semantics of the verb stem, high semantic transitivity may play a role here. Confer the following statement by Hopper and Thompson; after having discussed various High Transitivity features like total effect on object, completion of the action, moved or altered object, and intensity being associated with transitivity markers, Hopper and Thompson conclude that: ‘It is not at all unusual to find that morphosyntactic processes involving Transitivity move fluidly among simultaneous meanings or implications of this kind – and that often enough, one or the other becomes grammaticised (semanticized) into the prime meaning.’ (Hopper and Thompson 1980: 262)
4. 3. 4 Comparison with Chadic
Newman (1983: 411-414) brings in as an argument for a directional characterization of the -aC suffix his understanding of a selection of parallel morphemes in related Chadic languages. The meanings represented in his examples are ‘transitivizer’ and ‘action away’. Newman’s argument in favour of a directional analysis has two major points: • The meaning of these morphemes is transitive and not causative • A proportion of the derived verbs adds the meaning ‘action away’ With respect to the first, previous characterizations of Chadic derivations as ‘causative’ are rejected and instead labelled transitive, e.g. Lukas (1971: 3) which labels the t- affix in Karekare ‘die Kausative Erweiterung’, or Skinner (1979: 130-132) characterizing the -ei suffix in Pa’a as causative. Newman’s argument is brought in the form of paraphrasing into English, as shown in the examples from Bachama table 4.5 (Chadic IIA8), and the distinction between what is causative and transitive is not defined or analysed semantically. However, whether one chooses to call a derivation a (direct) causative or a transitivizer is a matter of definition, as we saw in 1. 6. 3.
177
Table 4.5: Bachama suffix -d©æ Intransitive
Transitive
Causative
nda d¨~m©æ
nda d¨~md©æ nzei
He went out
He took the boy out
or He caused the boy to go out
nda \wa;a He became tired
lyeænt© a \wa;ad©æ Pweædd©æn The work made Pweddon tired nda ng©¬l nzei He pulled the boy
nda ng©æld©æ nzei saælaækei He made the boy pull the rope
With respect to the second point, we see that some verbs are just rendered transitive (e.g. fall -throw down in Karekare), some are transitivized as well as given Mover object (bathe - wash off/away in Kapsiki), and some only add a Mover role to an already transitive verb (rub - rub off in Kapsiki). The data referred to in Newman (1983) is reproduced in table 4.6.
Table 4.6. Data from Chadic to show the verbal derivational meanings transitivizer and ‘action away’ Transitivizer Karekare tIA2
Bole t-
‘Action away’
nzaæ\u;
nzaæ\tu;
raæku;
Y raækaætu;
fall
throw down
drive away
drive away
d©ænu;
d©æntu;
d©æbaætu;
become warm
warm up sth
sell
geær\u;
g©ær\aætu;
wake up
awaken s.o.
nzaæra;a
nzaæraæatu;
nzaæraæatu;
drip
pour away
pour away
fia;nu;
fiaæntu;
isi
be saved
save, rescue
gusho)
yi
kuti
(ga isi yaatu gusho He threw away the
He threw at the dog stone (with a stone) IA2
yaæwwu; get down
yaæutu; take down
fiyo;ru; stop (intr)
fiyoærtu; stop sth.
178
daæaru
daæarìtu;
get well
cure
Ngizim
Kwaana a;a kalakta
Kwaana a;a kalakta- -
-duæ IB1
Kwana will return
du Kwana will return
-
(it) Bade
aci ji d©-k am©n
-d© IB1
He went with water He took water
Pa’a
na; mba He went out
na; mbe dla He took the boy out
Gisiga
me return
’i m©-de I returned (it)
d©, d(©)
b-o come out
b-o-de Take it out!
IIA5
s-o come
& i s-a_-d© le I brought him
-ei
aci ji d(©) am©n
(e - ey) IB2
fì rub
f;âmte;Ù rub off
-mte;…
k©;le; take (one thing)
k©;l©;mteÙ; take away (one th.)
IIA3
b©;te; pour
b©æt©æmteÙ; pour away
pa;
pa;mteÙ;
buy
sell
Higi, Kapsiki dialect
peæ
peæmteÙ;
peæ
peæmteÙ;
take a bath, bathe
wash off/¶away
take a bath, bathe
wash off/¶away
ndaæl
ndaælnaæ
throw
throw away
fi©æl
fi©ælnaæ
buy
sell
Margi -na IIA2
ngy©æ burn (itr)
ngy©ænaæ burn sth.
179
With the precaution of the limitations of the material presented in Newman’s article, and the insurance that I myself do not pretend to be a Chadicist, I would like to present a different perspective on the Chadic data, while also taking into account a couple of unexplained examples from Newman. In Kotoko (Newman’s personal field notes), two examples contain the suffix -d© (unproductive). The meaning is not labelled. (102) a) b)
hàl yì_
‘burn, intr.’ ‘know’
haæld© yì_d©
‘burn sth.’ ‘know how, be able’
In a), the derivation has a transitivizing function, in b) it might, if there were more examples, be interpreted as having an agentivizing function, similar to the agentivizing suffix -ł- in Athapaskan (Navajo), see 4. 3. 6. 2 below. If such a generalization could have been made, a high transitivity characterization would explain why a transitivizing suffix also functions as an agentivizer. In the Kapsiki dialect of Higi, the primary meaning of the -mté suffix is, according to Newman, ‘action away’, as in the examples in (103). (103) fì k©;le; b©æte; peæ pa;
rub take (one thing) pour take a bath, bathe buy
f;âmteÙ k©;l©;mteÙ; b©æt©æmteÙ; peæmteÙ; pa;mte;Ù
rub off take away (one th.) pour away wash off/¶away sell
The second major meaning of the -mte;Ù suffix in the Kapsiki dialect of Higi is to ‘indicate that the object is consumed or used up completely in the action’ cf. these examples: (104) taæ s©;re;
cook fry
taæmteÙ; s©;r©;mteÙ;
use up in cooking fry up (e.g. all the meat)
Newman emphasizes the cases in (103) as supportive of his efferential hypothesis, but does not relate the meaning in (104) to his general characterization of this derivation as ‘action away’. Note, however, that if the examples in (103) are interpreted as objects completely affected by the verbal action in a high transitive construction, the transitive and the affected object functions can be seen as semantically related. (Note also that Hausa –aC/BEN has been noted to be subject to a perfective aspect restriction associated with object affectedness; see 4. 3. 4 below). Moreover, the verb pairs rub-rub off, take - take away, and pour - pour away can
180
be characterized as turning ordinary Patient objects into Mover objects. The verb pair bathewash off both applies the action to a new object and gives the object a Mover role. Thus, whereas Newman’s directional hypothesis both fails to relate the transitive function to the efferential function, and to explain such meanings as is exemplified in (103) and (104), these are all logical consequences which are semantically related within the semantic transitivity hypothesis. These ideas are summed up in table 4.6, where data from the two languages, Kapsiki and Kotoko are given a label which is in accordance with the high transitivity hypothesis. The two last columns are equipped with a question mark, however, to signal that this is a case for future research and cannot be established on the basis of the scarce data available. Interestingly, however, we see that while all nine languages have the function transitivizer, only three or four have the function action away. In two of them the action away sense positively does not occur, according to Newman (1983). This suggests that an explanation which takes transitivity as a point of departure is more viable than one that takes the action away as the basic or original meaning. At the very least, an analysis should relate the ‘action away’ meaning semantically to the transitivizing function of these derivations. Table 4.6 Chadic verbal derivations Language Affix/particle Transitivizer Chadic branch tKarekare yes IA2 tBole yes IA2 -duæ Ngizim yes IB1 -d© Bade yes (cf. INST d©) IB1 -ei, e - ey Pa’a yes IB2 d©, d(©) Gisiga yes IIA5 *d© Kotoko yes IIB1 Higi-Kapsiki -mte;… yes dialect IIA3 -na Margi yes IIA2
181
‘Action Agentivizer? away’- Mover object yes -
Object affectedness/ completed action? -
(yes)
-
-
-
yes
-
yes
-
yes
no no -
yes
4. 3. 5 ‘Change of orientation’ and ‘point of view’ 4. 3. 5. 1 What is a central sense? In the debate on the –aC suffix various claims are made as to what meaning is basic or central. It is therefore useful to be concious of what one means by saying that a sense of a morpheme is central. There are least four possibilities. 1) The central sense is the sense which is sufficiently abstract and generic to be applicable to all instances of the category. 2) The central sense is the sense from which, in a prototypical structure, the other senses can be semantically extended. 3) A central sense is the sense which is most type frequent. That is, more verbs will have this sense as opposed to other senses. 4) The central sense is the historically original sense. Both Newman (1983) and Jaggar (2009) attempts to find a cover term which is abstract and generic enough to be applicable to all members of the category, Newman by the terms ‘efferential’ and ‘action away’ and Jaggar by the term ‘source-oriented transactional’. What is the usefulness of a generic cover term? Cognitive Grammar allows for semantic characterizations of a morpheme at different levels of abstraction, but it is not necessarily the most abstract schema, which comprises all of the category members that is most relevant to the speakers of the language in learning and maintaining language competency. Such generic descriptions correspond to what Cognitive Grammar labels higher-level schemas. These have a categorizing role in relation to lowerlevel schemas. Since their basic function is to apply to all instantiations of the category and is fully compatible with all the members of a category, it cannot at the same time serve as the meaning from which a other senses are extended. Generic cover terms are often too abstract to tell us anything of the actual usage, and it does not specify important subgroups which the speakers are likely to relate to as meaningful prototypes. It can therefore be justified to operate on a lower level (basic level categories) with respect to language description. Point 2) refers to the central sense as a prototype. There is a difference in the two directional analyses of the grade 5. What Newman does is to provide a cover term for the whole class of verbs (but then fails to acknowledge that some of them are causative). Jaggar, as we shall see, in addition assumes that the directional sense functions as a basis for extension to other senses. Prototypes also relate to what schema is the most type frequent.
182
With respect to type frequency, it is perfectly possible that what translates into English as ‘away’, ‘off’ and ‘out’ meanings would be type frequent in relation to the whole group of gr5 verbs. The problem is that in the absence of a substantial and representative language corpus we do not know, and any suggestions so far are based on the impressionistic assumptions of the researcher. A comprehensive statistical account would have the potentials of revealing some tendencies, but the usefulness of Hausa dictionaries (e.g. Bargery 1934, Awde 1996 or Newman 2007) is limited, since they vary to a great extent both in terms of which gr5 verbs they include and how explicit their meanings are elaborated. Bargery abundantly exemplifies the gr5, but generally focuses on the caused-motion semantics of gr5 verbs (and, as we saw, the same verb may be used as causative in some instances, and as a caused-motion construction in others). On the other hand, many of Bargery’s gr5 verbs are not included in e.g. Awde (1996) or Newman (2007). Newman in many cases instead includes the gr1 verb with a meaning similar to the corresponding gr5. Secondly, there is the issue of individual and dialectal variation. A Hausa speaker may accept many gr5 verbs that are not listed in dictionaries. In a sample of gr3 intransitives, one speaker (SM28 in my fieldwork) accepted and explained the meaning of several corresponding ‘constructed’ gr5 verbs. A basic experience in fieldworks is that speakers’ statements always differ, and sometimes conflict when explaining and evaluating linguistic forms. Regarding the relevance of the historically original sense, this may be elucidating in understanding of the grammaticalization path to a synchronically relevant chain of meanings, and additionally so if similar meaning chains have been observed in other languages. A reconstruction of a grammaticalization path should have a transparent semantic motivation. 4. 3. 5. 2 The base verbs One issue reflects on the ability to select or even to find an intransitive root verb, which the gr5 verb is derived from. Cf. the following statement: ‘– the interpretation of the surface output depends on the lexical semantics of the root verb, some are causative (e.g. the lie down/lay down, learn/teach, get/deliver subclasses), some are not (the deictic-directional push/push away subclass). (Jaggar, pc 2006)
We have already established that the meaning of gr5 varies. The issue here concerns the fact that the ‘root verb’ could be from either of the grades 1, 3 or 4, which creates an impression that both the choice of an intransitive root verb is not systematic, or at least its
183
documentation, if it exists; for instance, the prime example of an ‘action away’ gr 5 verb such as tuura® daæ ‘push away’, claimed to be derived from the gr1 tuuraæa ‘push’, has a subjectpatientive, intransitive equivalent in gr1; tuuraæa ‘be well advanced in the progress of sth.’ as in Aikìnmuæ yaa tuuraæa ‘Our work is well advanced’ (Newman 2007: 212). This only shows that it takes careful studies which include the use of Hausa informants to be able to conclude what the root verb is, and to establish whether an intransitive equivalent exists. In Newman (2007), and in Bargery (1934), several gr5 verbs are listed without other corresponding (transitive or intransitive) grades with a contrast in meaning. Their meaning nevertheless complies with other gr5 verbs, they may involve transfer of goods (1), involve transitive caused-motion (2, 3), or be causative/transitive (4, 5). From Newman (2007), sample: 1. furfura® daæ (= gr2, gr1) ‘barter, exchange’ 2. hara® daæ ‘vomit up’ 3. kaaka® daæ (= gr4) ‘spit out phlegm from one’s throat’ 4. katara® daæ Used in: Allah yaa katara® daæ shii ‘he has good luck’
(literal meaning not given, but Allah is the subject, he is the INST object)
5. kawaata® daæ (= gr1)
‘beautify, adorn’
Another issue with base verbs is the tendency of some scholars to select gr1 as base verbs when intransitive equivalents exist. This creates an impression of making a random selection on the basis of one’s predilections. An alternative presentation of the Hausa verbal derivation system is given by Frajzyngier and Munkaila (2004)26, where this system as a whole is divided into two, the meaning of suffixes being separated from the meaning of the tonal patterns: 1) verbal derivations representing ‘point of view of the subject’ (grades 2, 3 and 7, all with a L tone on the first syllable) on the one hand, and 2) those with a neutral point of view on the other (all verbs with a H tone on first syllable, grades 1, 4, 5 and 6). The latter excludes the point of view of the subject, but include the option of orienting themselves to ‘the second argument’ in the clause, or objects, in my terms. While certain aspects of this analysis may be debatable, it has the strength of establishing a systematic and consistent relationship between verbal derivations applying to downstream participants and those that orient themselves toward the subject. Grades 3 and 7 are all intransitive, but grade 2 is an all transitive grade and require a more extended analysis, which I will provide with some supportive data in 5. 3. 3.
26
I am grateful to Joseph McIntyre for calling this work to my attention.
184
4. 3. 5. 3 Is –aC a basically directional or an argument oriented morpheme? Frajzyngier and Munkaila (2004: 70) argue that directionality is secondary to the emphasis on one of the clausal participants: ‘With verbs of motion and displacement, verbs that code the point of view of the subject imply movement toward the subject. A suffix that codes the affectedness of the second argument automatically changes the point of view. Given the change in the point of view, it is not surprising that it may imply a change of direction as a by-product of its main function.’ (Frajzyngier and Munkaila 2004: 70) (Emphasis added)
Both Newman (2000) and Jaggar (2001, 2009), however, maintain that the directional sense is primary, and that any grammatical, more abstract functions can be derived from that. Jaggar (2009), attempts to characterize grade 5 (where benefactive –aC is excluded) in terms of a central sense as ‘a source-based transactional’, consisting of two subgroups, causative and non-causative. Causatives are valency-increasing derivations adding a new argument, the Causer, to the base verb. Examples are inactive intransitive verbs like \ataæ ‘be lost’ ⇒ \ata® daæ ‘lose, tr.’, and active base verbs like tsayaæa ‘stop, intr.’ ⇒ tsaya® daæ ‘stop, tr.’. The causatives also include cognitive verbs like sanìi ‘know’ ⇒ sana® daæ ‘inform’. Noncausative grade 5s include the two subgroups literal motion away from source, as in zubaæa ‘pour’ to zuba® daæ ‘pour away’, tuu®aa ‘push’ ⇒ tuura® daæ ‘push away’ and metaphorical motion away from source as in saæyaa ‘buy’ ⇒ saya® daæ ‘sell’ and aæuraa ‘marry s.o.’ ⇒ aura® daæ ‘marry off’. It is suggested that the literal directional sense is primary and that metaphorical uses are extended from these. Cf. the following statements: ‘these [i.e. grade 5] verbs represent a natural class of relatable functions which derive from the core source-oriented meaning of Grade 5, i.e., the deictic-directional ‘away, off etc.’ construal (Newman’s ‘efferential’). All Grade 5 verbs ultimately inherit their seemingly diverse surface interpretations from this underlying ontological feature […]’ (Jaggar 2009: 46). ‘One possibility might be to characterize the properties they do share in terms of a unified ‘change-of-orientation/perspective’, i.e. transfer from initial source to final goal […], all flowing naturally from the basic deictic change-of-direction (‘away’) semantics exemplified in pour/pour away. This approach - basically a directional strategy underlying a transfer event or transaction - is one possible way of handling both the causative and non-causative efferential Grade 5’s’ (Jaggar, pc 2006).
185
In this respect, Jaggar’s analysis differs from Newman (1983) in that is acknowledges that some gr5 verbs are causatives, but upholds and explicitly supports (2009: 5) the general characterization of this derivation as ‘source-oriented’, i.e. basically a directional concept. ‘I still think Newman’s directional characterization is essentially correct and can be applied to all Grade 5 verbs, and is illustrated in its central form in non-causative pairs such as ‘push/push away’ […]. (Jaggar, pc 2006)
By contrast, Frajzyngier and Munkaila (2004), in defence of their new analysis, argue that the –® suffix neither has a transitivizing nor an efferential meaning. In the first case, it is argued that there is no reason for a language to have a marker on the verb which turns inherently intransitive verbs into transitive ones ‘when the additional argument is already marked by a preposition’ (ibid: 62). Presumably, the preposition referred to is the INST marker dà. They disagree with the view that the ‘synchronic description that explains the form of the verb as a result of the presence of various types of arguments […]’. The grounds that this claim is based on is the fact that -® is added to patientive subjects like \ataæ ‘get lost’ or faafiì ‘fall’, not only or mainly with ‘inherently intransitive verbs with a non-patient subject’, which Newman (2000: 656) claims. The point brought forward concerns the fact that if a subject patient is affected in the underived verb, the form derived by adding –® cannot be a transitivized verb. It is argued that for Newman’s list of transitivizing verbs, most of them can be used with a ‘controlling subject’ such as in tsayaæa ‘stop, intr.’, and that in the form derived by -® this instead codes the ‘affected object’, e.g. tsaya® ‘stop, tr.’ Finally, they argue that the ‘stacking’ of the dative marker wà plus the ‘associative’ marker dà between the -® suffixed verb and a nominal indirect object is evidence that the -® codes an argument further down the clause, and that these would constitute emerging verbal extensions27. For the efferential function, they argue that this sense is based on translations into English of Hausa verbs in isolation using ‘away’ or ‘off’. They point to the methodological constraints implied in coding the semantics of one language, the language of study, in terms of another, and then analyzing the latter. A better method, they suggest, it to determine the function of the form within the grammatical system of the language in which the form occurs. They go on to discuss examples previously used by Newman in favour of the efferential analysis and attempt to demonstrate that these in fact do not have a literal-physical movement away sense. When it has been shown that such a meaning in fact does not exist, they argue, a 27
An alternative analysis of the co-occurrence of wà + dà is provided in 7. 1. 3. 3.
186
metaphorical extension to the grammatical, abstract ‘action away’ senses become superfluous. In their own analysis, Newman’s list of efferential verbs denote the object’s affectedness rather than ‘action away’. Any directionality present in Hausa speakers’ translation is explained as a by-product of the main function, viz. changes in point of view. As verbs coding the point of view of the subject may imply a movement towards the subject, it is natural that this changes with verbs coding the affectedness of an object. 4. 3. 5. 4 Is –aC a source oriented or endpoint oriented morpheme? What motives exist to assume that this construction is source-oriented? First of all, the obvious counterargument to viewing the –aC construction as source-oriented is the fact that this description far better covers some gr2 verbs, which often emphasizes subject recipiency. To name both the gr2 and the gr5 source-oriented, which stand in a dialectic relationship to one another, fails to grasp a systemic contrast. Secondly, there is a relevant iconic relationship or parallelism in viewing the transitive action from its endpoint (energy sink) and the completed aspect interpretations (which again relates to object affectedness). This is not captured in a source-oriented analysis. Jaggar’s characterization of the gr5 as a source-oriented directional must be seen in relation to the fact that he also adheres to the traditional definition of causative formation, which sees this construction as adding a new source, the Causer, to the base verb. Cf. these citations: ‘the seemingly diverse uses of grade 5 can be uniformly accounted for by positing a core meaning ‘away from source’ or ‘source oriented’ – these coverterms are essentially equivalent to Newman’s original ‘efferential’ notion, but are more transparent and have the advantage of capturing the various (non-movement) metaphorical usages’ (Jaggar 2009: 5).
[…] extension Grade 5 can also express the more abstract derivative notion of transfer or transaction, again from the subject referent/source […]’ (Jaggar 2009: 9)
Frajzyngier and Munkaila (2004) suggest instead an analysis focussing on the endpoint argument, where –aa- in the verbal system is to be understood as a general goal marker, and that the -® is attached to this goal marker to code the affectedness of ‘the second argument’. This analysis, they suggest, provides a unitary semantic explanation to all the usages of -®, that is, it is a monomorphemic analysis. Frajzyngier and Munkaila claim
187
that former analyses of Newman (2000) and Jaggar (2001) are actually trimorphemic, not bimorphemic, since they in actual fact consist of both benefactive, transitive (causative, in my terms), and efferential. Frajzyngier and Munkaila question how proponents of the trimorphemic analysis can distinguish these three functions, since they have the same form. They speculate (2004: 52) whether the benefactive is to be identified by the postverbal presence of a dative argument, but states that neither Newman nor Jaggar provide a method for distinguishing the distinction between the efferential and the transitivizing morphemes on formal grounds. The analysis is part of a more comprehensive approach where it is suggested that Hausa does not encode the grammatical category ‘object’, but rather the grammatical categories ‘point of view’, ‘goal’ and ‘affected object/second argument’. Grades 2, 3, 3a, 3b, and 7 are characterized by the ‘point of view of the subject’, by the fact that 3, 3a, 3b and 7 are intransitive and that the all transitive grade 2 pertain to objects that are not affected or only partially affected by the action. The -® of grade 5 would then be one of the grades where this is altered, that is, the grammatical feature ‘point of view of the subject’ is altered to a default point of view not encoding any particular view, which enables it to focus on the affectedness of objects. The function of -® is suggested to be: 1) 2) 3)
To encode affectedness of the argument after the indirect object in benefactive constructions (that is, the OBJACC in my terms) To encode affectedness of the second argument added to intransitive verbs (the OBJINST in my terms) To encode an affected second argument that is present in the proposition, but not in the clause, that is, when the verb is not followed by an argument.
For benefactive construction they generalize that this construction ‘disallows the point of view of the subject’, and therefore must use a form with a default point of view, formally identified by having a H tone on the first syllable28. The arguments brought in favour of such an analysis are firstly, that there is a semantic difference between verbs ending in –aa (grade 1) and those ending in –a®, and that this difference is downplayed or ignored in Newman (2000: 640) and Jaggar (2001: 273). One of the differences is that –a® encodes a malefactive role, noted in Munkaila (1990). They propose that the -® suffix signifies that the clause has a second argument which is ‘in the scope of the result of the event’, an affected object. By this
28 The generalization is invalid for grades 3a and 3b, which they suggest have an underlyingly L tone on the first syllable, pointing to Pilszczikowa’s (1969) rule of ‘polarity of tones’. This rule, however, cannot be shown to work throughout the verbal system, in which case they argue that the tone is instead carried by the individual suffixes.
188
they mean that the action applies to the entire Theme, so that if for instance corn is harvested (for someone), there would not remain any corn that had not yet been harvested. The form ending in –a, by contrast, does not explicitly indicate that this argument ‘is in the scope of the result of the event’. The evidence would be the essential claim that ‘[t]he form -® can be added only if the clause has a second argument’ (ibid: 57). They provide examples to show that with the verbs tsayaæa/tsaya-® ‘stop’ and zaunaæa/zauna-® ‘sit’ the suffix -® cannot be added to intransitive verbs in clauses with only a OBJDAT and no OBJACC. This, however, is positively wrong; in chapter 7 I provide examples with –aC/BEN made from intransitive base verbs where the OBJDAT is the only argument. If the examples they cite are ungrammatical, the cause should be sought elsewhere. Frajzyngier and Munkaila also relate the total affectedness of the ‘second participant’ to the fact that suffixes corresponding to -® in other Chadic languages behave like an object definite marker. The motivation of the -® suffix is argued to be that in the benefactive construction the position immediately after the verb, which normally encodes that an object is affected, is occupied by the dative object. The argument denoting the Theme then occurs after the dative object and therefore ‘needs’ a marker on the verb to signal that it is affected. At the same time it is argued that this suffix codes the presence of a dative argument, while also encoding the affectedness of the ‘second argument’ in the same sentence. The past tense restriction of the benefactive -® is questioned, saying that the claim is based on judgement, not language use, and that it should be understood in terms of the affectedness semantics, not merely as a syntactic form. 4. 3. 5. 5 Comments on the directional approach One point speaks in favour of the idea that a physical-directional is a primary meaning and the abstract-grammatical meaning is derived, namely the fact that grammaticalized linguistic units tend to develop abstract senses from concrete meanings in physical space. This is, however, a general statement, and it remains to be seen whether there is cause to suspect that this is what has happened in the case of the –aC morpheme. As well as the general tendency, there needs to be semantic motivation for such a grammaticalization path. Cf. the statement below: Spatial orientations like ‘away’ provide a natural basis for the emergence and organization of concepts such as causation, […] (Jaggar 2009: 9)
189
As for causatives in general, confer Croft’s (1994: 94) description of causation: ‘causation is interpreted as transmission of force, that is, a process that ‘flows’ from one participant to another’. Parts of this definition resembles Jaggar’s ‘all flowing naturally from the basic deictic change-of-direction (‘away’) semantics’. There is a basic difference between this definition of causation and a source-based directional understanding, however, viz. that causation is a relation between units or participants, and that a description of directionality without taking this relationship as a primary conception, it is not possible to arrive at causation as a directional notion. Admittedly, Jaggar mentions ‘transfer’ and ‘goal’ in his analysis, but this becomes a loose end since this observation is not followed by the natural consequence of emphasizing the endpoint. Thus the most serious challenge for an analysis which takes direction as primary resides in how to arrive at an interactional scene from a purely directional meaning alone. Motion emanating from a fixed point cannot cause a change unless it encounters something. Confer for instance the purely directional ventive grade 6, which designates a reference point of origin and motion towards another reference point, which it has not reached. Consequently, no causation or influence on another participant occurs. Importantly, such directional meanings may develop abstract senses such as temporal reference, goal and benefactive, but not affectedness of another participant. A description of the –aC derivation as a source-based directional, without including in the analysis any reference to the role of downstream participants, is therefore unapt to explain the semantic roles Mover, Causee and Beneficiary that typically characterize –aC constructions. Another challenge for a basic spatial directional analysis of –aC is semantic motivation in relation to its assumed origin as a pleonastic pronoun. Firstly, why should a pronoun grammaticalize into a directional meaning, and secondly, how would the directional meaning link up to transitivity and causation? In particular, the most recent suggestion of the grade 5 as ‘source oriented’ face some challenges here. A purely directional analysis says nothing about the relationship between the directional meaning and the claim that the suffix presumably has arisen from a pronoun: it does not explain why a pronoun placed in an object position should develop into a directional morpheme in Hausa. Furthermore, the semantic motivation, if any, of the reconstruction of the -aC/BEN from a feminine pronoun *-t, and the ‘efferential’ from a masculine pronoun *-s, both having changed into present-day -®, is also neither explicitly stated nor attempted to be explained.
190
A note in passing should also be made to a difference between Newman’s original understanding of the conceptual source of the action/motion and subsequent analyses. In my analysis, as well as in Jaggar (2009) and in the point of view analysis, the energy flow is directed from the subject/Agent of the clause. The directional analysis describes the motion as being directed from the speaker (Newman 1983, repeated in Jaggar 2001: 252). The two are not the same, since a speaker (or writer) obviously may also choose a 2nd or 3rd person in any sentence s/he utters. This is an essential point of clarification in the following semantic transitivity analysis. 4. 3. 5. 6 Comments on the affected object analysis This analysis considers an important aspect of –aC constructions, the affectedness of objects, and explains this semantico-grammatical feature with reference to systematically opposing features of gr2 verbs, for which the –aC/BEN is used as a predative form, a phenomenon which previously has not been explained (why a transitive verb cannot precede a dative object). This is an achievement. However, the affected object analysis is made to the exclusion of other empirically demonstrated facts. With respect to this work’s denial of the existence of any sense of action or motion away, to the benefit of object affectedness alone, I wish to point out that there is no contradiction implied in the two senses. In the action chain model of transitivity, adding (more) motion or adding a transitive action to an entity amounts to the same thing, but in different domains, cf. Goldberg’s metaphor change of state is change of location in combination with her Unique Path constraint described in 3. 6. 1. 9. Therefore, in motion verbs it is actually not a bias of the English language to translate tuuràa as ‘push’ and tuura® as ‘push away’ or more accurately ‘push a long stretch further (all along to the endpoint)’. Empirical evidence for this distinction will follow in chapter 5. Provided that Goldberg’s hypothesis can also be said to work for Hausa, this caused-motion sense can therefore be combined with an affected object role which goes through a change of state. Affecting a unit in terms of causing a change of state also comprises change of location in the space domain. Neither is an affected object contradictory of a transitivizing or causativizing function. Downstream participants such as Causees and affected objects both share that they are acted on by an external force, an Agent or Causer. As a result, they are affected. Another fundamental challenge for this analysis is the claim that the -® suffix codes the affectedness of an argument that is not present in the clause (only in the proposition). This
191
is a claim that is repeated from Frajzyngier (1985) and not underpinned by arguments or evidence. One should, at least, in the absence of such evidence look for alternative explanations. Regarding explanation to the function of -® as a replacive means for the position immediately following the verb to encode object affectedness, the authors are in need of an explanation to why other transitive grades do not need a special marker when preceded by an indirect object. The resultative (in their terms) gr4, for instance, is not marked differently in the two positions (the B- and D-forms) despite the fact that, in their analysis, it overlaps in function with -® in encoding the event from the point of view of the result of the event. Finally, this analysis faces a challenge in claiming that a verbal marker in a benefactive construction characterizes an argument other than the dative argument. 4. 3. 5. 7 Change of orientation as the creation of or emphasis on a transitive relation There are certain common features in the two, apparently opposing views of the function of the –aC suffix, implied in the notions ‘change of orientation’ and ‘point of view’, specifically the relationship created by the focus on particular participants in the clause and the relationship between these. However, these analyses emphasize different extremes of the construction. The analyses both contribute to the understanding of these constructions, but they are not complete. The purely directional analysis misses out on the affectedness semantics of downstream participants, and do not relate to or try to explain this important semantic aspect. The proponents of the affected second object analysis, on the other hand, see it as crucial that both causality and the motion away semantics of the object are refuted. Both descriptions of the semantics of the -aC suffix are compatible with the Cognitive Grammar definition of transitivity (the billiard ball model, defining subject and object in terms of energy source and energy sink) and to the idea of semantic transitivity found in Hopper and Thompson (1980). The semantic transitivity hypothesis has the advantage of relating an element which is grammatically identified, a pronoun (irrespective of grammatical gender), to the subsequent semantic content in present-day Hausa, namely that of various features associated with high semantic transitivity. This hypothesis analyzes the basic function of the -aC suffix as • viewing a grammatical transfer of energy from an established endpoint, represented by an object pronoun referent.
192
The aforementioned change-of-orientation thereby consists of a grammatical element altering the endpoint (energy sink) when a new participant is added to an underived clause, and/or • emphasizing the effect of energy transfer on that downstream participant. This use, however, does include not only the causative and ‘action away’ uses of the -aC suffix, but also the benefactive. In this sense, ‘the basic change-of-direction (‘away’) semantics’ suggested by Jaggar (2009) is accounted for, while identifying the phenomenon in a slightly different manner which differs from the purely directional analysis in having a basis in its assumed pronominal origin. Let us consider the following scenario. The -C in the -aC suffix is likely to have been an object pronoun added after the verb, and for reasons of its unstressed character developed into a suffix. If the verb in question was intransitive, the addition of this pronoun created a transitive relation between a subject and an object, and consequently there would be ‘a change in perspective or orientation’ where what happened to the subject of the intransitive verb (the lexical content) now applies to the new object (even many zero derivation verbs attain transitive values when an argument is added, such as the intransitive jump in I jump vs. Jump me to the sky). The subject of the original underived verb now becomes the energy source, and the added object becomes a downstream participant further down the action chain, the energy sink, to which the action depicted in the verb now applies. The directionality, then, is the transitive energy flow between participants in this transitive/causative relationship. If the ‘new’ participant of this relationship is assumed to be a downstream participant and not a new Causer, the derivations align with the affected second argument analysis in creating a semantic emphasis on an object. Hence, there is no contradiction. As explained above, in cases where the underived verb in the alternation is transitive, the addition of such a pronoun would not alter the valency value, but serves to emphasize an effect on the object, such that it may have attained a semantic role like Mover by way of being highly affected. The potential motivation behind such a usage requires more space and is therefore treated below, in 5. 1.
193
4. 3. 6 Valency, voice and multifunctionality of causative morphemes Causative constructions may have semantically related functions which are not themselves causative and which behave differently in terms of syntax. Cf. also Hansen (2004), who says that marking Beneficiary and Causee is one of several other functions of the Japanese dative. The discussion in the two following sections concerns the issue whether bivalent verbs which do not increase their valency qualify as high transitivity causatives. At this point it should be emphasized that in Hopper and Thompson’s (1980) Semantic Transitivity Hypothesis it is not so that a highly transitive construction necessarily increases valency. What the hypothesis predicts is that if two or more features typical of high transitivity characterize a construction, these will be on the same side of the high-low transitivity scale. Valency increase alone is therefore not a precondition for a construction to be highly transitive. It is specifically mentioned in Hopper and Thompson that a sentence containing one argument, the subject, is more transitive than a sentence with two arguments if the verb is more kinetic. A question which is separate from that is whether a construction can be defined as a causative if it does not increase valency. The answer to that is that yes, it may, but I would assume that it is unusual or at least typologically rare. As mentioned in chapter 1, Dixon (2000: 47) mentions the language Mishmi (Bodic branch of Tibeto-Burman, north-east India) where the causative of a transitive appears to have at most two arguments. The two causative suffixes –bo and –siyg behave differently; if the Causer is explicitly stated, the Causee must be left out, and the –bo suffix is used. If, on the other hand, the Causee is one of the arguments, the –siyg suffix is employed and the Causer cannot be mentioned. If one wishes to specify both the Causer and the Causee, the verb must be stated twice, using their respective suffixes. In terms of number of arguments this situation is quite parallel to the –aC verbs in Hausa which are derived from gr2 verbs, where both the derived and the underived verbs are bivalent. 4. 3. 6. 1 An alternative view on valency and voice We commonly think of VOICE as the grammatical category which comprises constructions such as active, passive, and middle. However, according to Martin, causatives and applicatives are sometimes included in, and sometimes excluded from, the range of voicerelated phenomena. This should make it relevant to look at what alternative perspectives are offered in the treatment of these constructions in terms of voice. Martin (2000: 375-402) offers an entirely different approach to the question of valency changing derivations,
194
exemplified by Creek. Rather than taking valency as the primary function of such derivations, he offers an analysis where valency is seen as a concomitant side-effect of the derivations rather than its primary function. Martin suggests that the older tradition which only distinguishes between the two predicate classes TRANSITIVE and INTRANSITIVE and the category of VOICE better preserves the descriptive facts of, in this case, valency alternations in Creek. Voice is understood as altering the point of view or centre of interest of a construction, yielding the following kinds of shifts of interest in a clause for Creek: Table 4.8: Derivations in Creek in terms of change of orientation Type of construction
Shift of attention
CHANGE IN CLAUSE-LEVEL ORIENTATION (EXTERNAL)
Middle
from cause to effect
Impersonal plural
away from subject)
Indirect causative
from cause to a primary cause
Direct causative
from effect or state towards cause
the
cause
(backgrounding
CHANGE IN PREDICATE-LEVEL ORIENTATION (INTERNAL)
Applicative (benefactives and instrumental from an effect to a secondary effect or objects) manner This kind of approach, he says, leads to the conclusion that changes in valency are sideeffects of changes in point of view29 (2000: 378), a view that supports and extends the conception of voice found in Croft (1994). The following terminology is used on the effects of the various derivations in Creek:
29 Martin’s argument has a weakness. The theory of valency predicts that there will be four distinct grammatical classes of predicates, viz. zero-, one- two- and three-place predicates. Given this classification, he says, one might expect that grammatical processes would be susceptible to these valency distinctions, e.g. that ‘only one-place verbs would be allowed as complements of causatives in a particular language […]’ ((2000: 376). This is exactly what commonly happens to a lot of causative affixes, there are restrictions on causativization as valency increases. In Martin’s footnote 2 (p. 376), the languages Sonrai, Basque, and Abkhaz are mentioned. These are not exceptions, however, but following a common tendency.
195
Derivational effects EXTERNAL ORIENTATION - the orientation of the subject or starting point at the clause level INTERNAL ORIENTATION - the orientation of the object or endpoint at the predicate level CAUSE AVOIDANCE - mention or no mention of an explicit, external cause ASPECT - activity, resulting state, inchoative SUBJECT AFFECTEDNESS - change in subject affectedness VALENCY - n + 1 argument, n - 1 argument, or no change TRANSITIVITY - intransitive > transitive, transitive > ditransitive, or ditransitive
transitive and transitive > intransitive
>
External vs. internal orientation refers to the traditional voice distinctions, where an active or base form is oriented towards the subject (the cause or the actor), and the derived form is oriented towards the effect or the undergoer. The base form will typically be an activity and there will be mention of an explicit, external cause. The derived form will avoid mention of this cause (e.g. passive). Middles will shift the attention from cause to effect, such that the subject is seen as affected, and will also reduce transitivity and valency. This kind of shift in viewpoint, he says, may effect changes in valency, transitivity, aspect and affectedness, even though none of these may be obligatory. The relevance of this to gr5 in Hausa resides in the possibility that valency might be one out of several similar characteristics that are relevant in the description of –aC constructions. It should be mentioned however, that in trying to define causatives and applicatives as having different points of view, Martin fails to recognize to a sufficient extent that causatives and benefactives often have a common form, and that his particular suggestion of point of view in Creek would not solve causative-benefactive polysemy in Hausa. A parallel may be drawn to the point of view analysis of the -® morpheme made by Frajzyngier and Munkaila (2004). In the next section I illustrate the fact that languages have causative morphemes which in semantically related meanings do not increase valency. 4. 3. 6. 2 Multifunctionality in causative morphemes The situation in Hausa can be seen as one of multifunctionality. In the following, I shall look into this phenomenon in causative morphemes in a couple of other languages and reinforce it with statements made by other researchers on causative morphemes. The following statement made by Nedjalkov and Sil’nitskij (1969: 35, cited in Golovko 385, translated version) may serve as a backdrop: causative morphemes ‘absorb a number of other meanings, non-causative or not only causative, which are connected in different ways with proper causative meanings’. This suggests that a morpheme may have a
196
causative meaning in addition to other meanings, and that it will also have functions (meanings) other than the causative, but where these meanings evidently belong to the same morpheme. I will refer to two presentations. One is the Athapaskan languages30, represented by Kibrik (1993) and Rice (2000); the other Aleut, discussed in Golovko (1993). Athapaskan languages display an array of transitivity increasing functions, Aleut several phenomena that can be subsumed under the labels Aspect and Aktionsarten. Kibrik (1993) describes for Athapaskan languages a situation where the causative suffix -ł- is used for different semantic derivations; all of which, he says, have to do with semantic transitivity increase of the kind described in Hopper and Thompson (1980). Apart from its causative meaning, -ł- also signals possessivization of verbs of state and positional verbs, agentivization in the sense of ‘acting with the mind’, action perfectivization/patient affection (affectedness, in my terms), action intensification, and comparative. See examples below (TI stands for Transitivity Indicator). The -ł- causatives are derived from intransitive verbs, mainly from verbs denoting states, processes and (experiential) achievements (not agentive verbs). Causation is of a direct and physical type (other types of causation being expressed by other means). Kibrik gives numerous examples31 of subtypes (based on whether the base verb describes a process, an achievement, or is agentive), but here I shall only give one. (105) Causativization diní-Ø-niih Aff:2sg/A-TI-hurt ‘you are in pain’ ni-Ø-di-ł-niih 2/G-3/A-Aff-TI-hurt ‘it makes you ache’ (Kibrik 1993: 53) Possessives are derived from states indicating motionless location or existence, designating possessing the object in a certain state and the subject’s control over the object. 30Spoken in Northwest America - Alaska and Canada; along the South Pacific coast in Northern California and Oregon; and in the Southwest of the United States. Languages mentioned in the study include Navajo, Hupa, Sarcee, and Slave. 31 Abbreviations in glosses: A[ctor], G[oal], H[uman], Imp[ersonal], Aff[ix], Ind[efinite]. Slash connects the person-number characteristics of a pronominal morpheme and its role. Only the morphemes that are relevant to the discusision are glossed. A colon connects the glosses of morphemes that are segmentally indivisible. Examples are written in the existing practical orthoraphies. (Kibrik 1993: 65)
197
(106) Possessivization Ø-sa-Ø- …a:n 3/A-Aff-TI-lie ‘it (a handy object) is lying’ Ø-s-eh-ł- …a: 3/G-Aff-1sg/A-TI-lie ‘I have it lying there’ (Kibrik 1993: 55) Agentivization is a non-valency increasing derivation found in Navajo, where it creates Agent-Patient structures in two-place, experiential verbs. The Experiencer is reinterpreted as an Agent, and imposes the meaning of the original Experiencer subject acting with the mind, (recall the examples from Chadic in 4. 3. 4 above) i.e. the subject becomes a volitional actor (in my terms). Similar examples are given for the verb pairs hear/listen and want/get faith in. (107) Agentivization yoo-Ø-…į 3/G:3/A:Aff-TI-see ‘S/he sees him/her’ Ø-disí-ní-Ø-ts’a@a@ 3/G-3/A-Aff-TI-see ‘S/he looks at (examines) him/her’ The same suffix expresses semantic transitivity in terms of patient affectedness and perfectivity of action in such a way that these semantic components ‘are very closely intervoven’ and ‘can be hardly distinguished’ (Kibrik 1993: 57), see (108). (108) Ø-k’i-wing-Ø-ya…n 3H/A-3Imp/G-Aff-TI-eat ‘S/he ate (it)’ ch’i-Ø-neh-ł- ya:n 3H/A-3/G-Aff-TI-eat ‘S/he ate it up’ The -ł- suffix has two more functions: action intensification and comparative. The first is exemplified by the contrast ‘S/he licks it’ vs. ‘S/he is licking it (a continuum of repeated licks)’. The comparative increases valency by one, such as in the sentences meaning ‘it is long, tall’ vs. ‘it is as long as that’. It appears, then, that: -
a causative morpheme may have several other grammatical functions, and that it is plausible that these are related.
198
Many of these HT functions can also be found with the -aC suffix in Hausa: causation, volitional Agent, affected object, perfectivity of action and intensification (see chapter 5). Next, I will answer the question: • Can the -aC suffix in Hausa have both a causative and another meaning simultaneously? This question is relevant for cases like zuæba ‘leak, stream (of water or other liquid)’ > zuba® ‘pour away’32. In the examples below, I demonstrate that cases exist where: 1) Causatives both keep its causative meaning and have a secondary meaning, or 2) have only the secondary meaning with no causative meaning (or only the causedmotion sense). In Aleut, some morphemes combine a causative meaning with other meanings relating to aspectual characteristics of the described situation in different causative morphemes, viz. inchoative (-ni-, -t-, -dgu-), distributive action (-dgu-), and multiplicative action (-ya-, -chri). In their regular causative functions, these suffixes signal different types of causation: ‘factitive (contact) causation’ (-t- and -dgu-); factitive (distant) causation’ (-ni-); permissive causation (-chri-); and -ya- ‘try to make, try to cause’. While the -t- suffix describes a single causative action, the -dgu- suffix implies distributive action, i.e. a series of micro-situations where the direct object is treated as a multitude of arguments rather than as a totality, and plural marking of the direct object is triggered, as in (109c). A plural direct object with the -t- causative, however, does not yield the same interpretation of distributive action, despite the presence of a plural DO as shown in (109d). (109) a) Non-causative igluqa-r qaka-u-r hide-SG dry-NONFUT-3SG ‘The hide is dry’
32Those who argue that the -aC suffix is purely efferential consequently analyzes the meaning of zuba® in relation to the already transitive zubaæa ‘pour’, where only the meaning ‘away’ distinguishes the two verb forms, but brings no argument against deriving zuba® directly from the intransitive zuæba ‘leak, stream’ (of water or liquid). A possible argument could be the fact that a large number of trisyllabic verbs in gr3 which have transitive counterparts in gr1, e.g. gr3 fuæsaataæ ‘become/be angry’ gr1 fusaæataa ‘anger someone’, these stand in a transitivizing relationship to the gr1verbs and should be related to these. However, one would then have to argue that derivation builds on an already derived verb form (gr3 > gr1 > gr5). Alternatively, both gr1 and gr5 –aC could be seen as directly derived from the intransitive gr3 (gr3 >gr1, and gr3 >gr5).
199
b) Causative -tayaga-r igluqar qaa-t-i-ku-r woman-SG hide-SG dry-CAUS-Epenth-NONFUT-3SG ‘The woman is making the hide dry’ c) Distributive causative ayaga-r igluqa-s qaka-dgu-ku-r woman-SG hide-PL dry-CAUS-NONFUT-Epenth-3SG ‘The woman is making/made the hides dry’ d) Causative -t- with plural DO ayaga-r igluqa-s qaka-t-i-ku-r woman-SG hide-PL dry-CAUS-NONFUT-Epenth-3SG ‘The woman is making/made the hides dry’ (Golovko 1993: 386) When occurring with a singular second argument, distributive causative has a different effect, which Golovko refers to as ‘quasi-distributivity’: (110) tayaRu-r kuum taanga-r hyu-dgu-ku-r man-SG on-3Refl water-SG pour-SG pour-CAUS-NONFUT-3SG ‘The man is spilling/spilled water all over himself’ (Golovko 1993: 387) Here, the meaning of the causative -dgu- ‘make, put into a state, position or motion’ is combined with the distributive plurality of causative situations (Golovko 1993: 386). That is, the causative meaning does not, in this case, preclude the morpheme from also having another, related meaning. The following examples serve to illustrate that causative morphemes may shift away from their causative function and have only a meaning which may have evolved from a causative, but is no longer, or in particular context is not causative. The suffix -chri in Aleut normally has a permissive causative meaning, but is in two cases found to have a multiplicative function, as in hatar- ‘slip, start’ vs. hatar-chri ‘bounce (a ball)’ and higi‘throw (spear, stone)’ vs. higi-t- ‘make a jump’, and higi-chri- ‘jump (several times)’ (Golovko 1993: 388). Another case is where causative morphemes in Aleut shift from causative to solely aspectual use. The three suffixes -ni-, -dgu-, and -t- have, in addition to their causative meaning, the function of being a base for reflexives (where the reflexive pronoun precedes the verb). These derivations will then get an inchoative meaning33, as in saxta- ‘be lazy’ >
33This happens to ‘interminative verbal stems’. The term is not explained, but from the examples it seems that the verbs denote continuous actions and states (walk, tremble, ache, sleep, be lazy).
200
txin saxta-ni- ‘start being lazy, become lazy’, txin aygax-t- ‘start walking’ (< aygax- ‘walk’), txidix aygax-dgu- ‘start walking (distributively)’. Last, I shall look at whether meanings attached to causative morphemes can coexist with and occur in the same construction with specialized morphemes expressing the same meaning. Is the fact that a morpheme is represented by a separately and independently occurring morpheme relevant in arguing that a causative morpheme does not have the same meaning, and can the two be combined? In 4. 3. 2. 3 we saw that Frajzyngier (1985) suggests that ‘action away’ and ‘transitivizer’ were two different morphemes in Proto-Chadic, and that the connection between the meanings ‘action away’ and ‘transitivizer’ are lexical, since such a meaning will ‘pragmatically involve motion away’, pointing to the fact that the meaning ‘away’ in the Chadic languages Ga’anda and Hona is expressed by the separate elements (kafi© and -fi, respectively) and that these languages also have separated the causative morphemes (-an- and -n, respectively). The same line of thought is found in Newman’s (1983) argument that since Hausa already has a periphrastic causative, the meaning of the -aC suffix cannot be causative. It is attested, however, that causative morphemes which have a subsidiary meaning may coexist with a specialized morpheme expressing the same meaning. We saw above that the -t- suffix in Aleut, which normally expresses ‘factitive (contact) causation’, sometimes has an inchoative meaning, as in slaRu- ‘blow hard’ > slaRu-t- ‘starts to blow’. This causative morpheme coexists with a specialized inchoative morpheme -qali/-kali-/-xali- ‘begin, start’ and may even be combined with it, cf. a-t-i-ku-r = a-t-xali-ku-r ‘it starts burning’ (Golovko 1993: 389). Golovko refers to this as two kinds of inchoativity, an overt one in the specialized morpheme -qali/-kali-/-xali-, and one covert in the causative suffixes which is ‘a side effect of causativity’ (causation entails the rise of a new situation, hence the inchoative marking). The other two meanings derived from causatives, distributive and multiplicative, also compete with specialized morphemes. These, however, cannot be combined. In conclusion, what the preceding cases indicate is that it is not unusual for causative morphemes to grammaticalize into (or display polysemy/multifunctionality, not to say anything about the direction of meaning change) other meanings, both in keeping the causative meaning in a particular derivation and shifting to a different meaning which can be traced in an understandable manner to the causative. I shall not here go into the specific paths of grammaticalization, however, this would go far beyond the space allocated for discussing the causative in Hausa.
201
The above is to be perceived as a principled discussion of how causatives may behave. 4. 3. 6. 3 Valency change Can bivalent verb pairs be analysed as causatives if they do not increase valency by one? That depends on how one chooses to define causation. In traditional definitions, a new Agent/Causer is added to the underived verb, and the ‘original Agent’ is demoted. Descriptions of causatives as valency increasing derivations can be found in e.g. Kibrik (1993); see also the wealth of presentations on valency changing derivations in Dixon and Aikhenvald (2000). If however, by causation is meant also such constructions as Goldberg (1995) refers to as ‘caused-motion’, valency increase is not a necessary precondition, since this model does not rely on any underived verbs to be able to characterize these constructions in semantic terms. I will first make a note on the correspondence between semantic transitivity and valency increase. As we saw above with Navajo (Athapaskan), constructions can be found in languages that are associated with semantic high transitivity, but which do not increase valency, including constructions that are semantically related to causative constructions. Recall that according to Hopper and Thompson (1980), high transitivity characteristics covary within the same construction. Basically, this means that if two such characteristics are present in the same construction, they will be on the same side of the high-low transitivity scale, not that certain features are obligatorily present. One of these HT characteristics is increase in valency, and partly for this reason, causatives sometimes display features of semantic high transitivity (see e.g. Hopper and Thompson 1980: 264). But does this does not equal to say that all -aC verbs have to add an argument in order to signal a semantic transitivity increase. In discussing the relationship between the traditional definition of causatives and valency increase; I shall refer to some of the multifunctional (or polysemic) causative morphemes mentioned in the preceding paragraph (4. 3. 6. 1). For one thing, linguists have shown that in various languages, causative morphemes will have syntactic functions which can clearly be related to the causative, but which do not have an effect on valency, that is, they do not increase the number of arguments by one. Similarly, there are typical transitivity decreasing morphemes, such as certain functions of middles which do not, in fact, decrease valency. In 4. 3. 6. 2 we saw that Athapaskan languages have a number of HT functions of the
202
-ł- derivation, and that one of these, the agentive construction, while imposing a typical HT feature, that of a volitional subject, does not increase the number of arguments. Due to the variety of functions and meanings of this suffix, Kibrik chooses to define the -ł- derivation a ‘transitivity indicator’ instead of labelling it a valency increasing derivation, as the effects on the clause does not necessarily entail valency increase. These languages also have a transitivity decreaser, d, referred to as middle voice. This element, Rice argues, ‘has no effect on argument structure but reduces transitivity’ (2000: 178). A second case where causative morphemes have related functions which do not increase valency is the Aleut suffix -ya-. This suffix, while being categorized as one of Aleut’s four causative morphemes with the meaning ‘try to cause, try to make’ can, in a couple of instances, also be found to have a ‘pure aspectual’ meaning, where it ‘does not trigger valency change but only changes the aspectual characteristic of the verb’ (Golovko 1993: 388). Another of the causative morphemes, -t-, does not change valency (‘does not execute its causative (transitivizing) function’) when it occurs in subjectless sentences. Instead it has only an inchoative meaning as in chiRdu- ‘high tide’ > chiRdu-t- ‘[water] begins to rise’ and saalu- ‘be dry weather’ > saalu-t- ‘stops raining, dry weather begins’ (Golovko 1993: 389). The relevance of the -ł- suffix in Athapaskan to the Hausa -aC suffix is that meanings/functions associated with these suffixes seems to have a semantic transitivity increasing effect without necessarily increasing the valency of the verb in all of its functions. Similarly, in Aleut, causative morphemes have developed aspectual meanings and have departed from its causative meaning in some instances, while at the same time giving up its valency increasing characteristics. A parallel may be drawn to applicatives, which also have as one of their defining criteria that it increases transitivity by one. Cf. the definition of applicatives in Dixon and Aikhenvald (2000: 13-14) quoted in 1. 5. 1. Despite the fact that applicatives on the whole are categorised as valency increasing derivations, there are exceptions. Onishi (2000: 137) says about applicatives in Motuna: ‘…although applicative derivation increases valencies in general, the movement of core arguments cannot be defined as transparently as in the case of causative derivation. Semantico-pragmatic factors, i.e. affectedness and topicality of the (new) O or SO argument, often regulate the whole derivational process’. Martin (2000: 375-402) shows that in Creek (Muskogean language family, southeastern United States), derivations traditionally thought of as primarily valency changing do
203
not have this as their primary function. He argues that such an analysis is insufficient in explaining exactly what these derivations do. Firstly, while the middle construction in Creek, the -k- affix, generally decreases valency by one, it is not always the case, since it is occasionally added to one-place predicates without reducing valency. Therefore, Martin argues, ‘[w]hile valency reduction is thus a common side-effect of the Creek middle, it is not a necessary consequence of it’ (2000: 382). Secondly, the ‘impersonal plural’ -ho- has as one of its primary functions to background the subject and increase prominence to the Patient. However, Martin argues that ‘a description of the impersonal plural as ‘valency-reducing’ would capture only a small part of its grammar’ (2000: 388-389). The instrumental applicative in Creek, is-, often adds an argument to the clause. In one type, however, it does not increase valency: the is- prefix is added to the verb if the Patient or Theme of the verb is ‘complex’ in the sense of consisting of salient parts. Again Martin argues that point of view in terms of ‘shifting the internal orientation towards the manner in which the event takes place’ is a better way to describe this construction since valency increase does not always hold. Creek has both a direct and an indirect causative. Both make intransitives into transitives, and transitives into ditransitives. Martin offers an alternative view based on change of perspective. Another case in which characteristics typically associated with HT constructions may follow a derivation even when an object is not present, is Gorum (a Munda language). Croft (1994: 108) cites a description of this language by Zide (1972: 212) where ‘an objectively unitary valency verb in the active/transitive form, ye-u ‘run away, escape’’ which ‘takes the -u active/transitive but of course no direct object’. Croft suggests that the action of escaping may be construed as one with a controlling subject (as opposed to an affected subject), but the action is directed away from the subject to some other entity. A parallel in Hausa is ˚aara® ‘cry out, disseminate’ (< ˚aara ‘cry, complain’) (cited in Newman 1983: 409). In the preceding I have pointed to languages where derivations which are traditionally categorized according to their ability to change the valency of a clause which does not necessarily increase or decrease the number of arguments in the derived sentence. These may be non-typical or specialized instances of these derivations, but still semantically motivated members of the same morpheme. This will enable us to include all uses of the -aC verbs in Hausa as part of the same morpheme, even if they do not increase valency. If causatives are defined in terms of valency increase alone, group B verbs in Hausa may be argued not to have a causative function. From the documentation above, however, it
204
is unreasonable to say that where the -aC suffix has functions other than the causative, their phonological resemblance to the causative is accidental (homonymous), or, that this is a valid cause for characterizing the whole group of -aC verbs as non-causative, as was done by Newman (1983) and his successive followers. Moreover, from the above discussion, it also seems that causativity is a central notion in morphemes that display semantic high transitivity, since this is the recurrent grammatical meaning in all of the above instances of clusters of HT. 4. 3. 7 -aC/BEN and –aC/CAUS-EFF as a clear case of homonymy: arguments relating to the benefactive (Jaggar, Munkaila) Munkaila (1990) and Jaggar and Munkaila (1995) both argue that the causative and the benefactive are not the same for reasons relating to the meaning and morphosyntax of the benefactive -am¶-a® suffixes, presented below. All of these implications will be dealt with: I discuss the implications of an apparent phonological cohesion between verb and OBJDAT in the benefactive after the discussion of the instrumental dà; differences relating to perfective aspect restrictions in the benefactive are met in 5. 4. 1. A different understanding of the special semantics associated with –aC/BEN is offered in chapter 5, especially 5. 3. 4. 3. 7. 1 Morphosyntactic differences between benefactive and causative in Hausa Munkaila points to several characteristics of the -am¶-a® benefactive. Firstly, some speakers restrict the use of the -am¶-a® benefactive to perfective aspect. With these speakers, the –am ¶-a® benefactive cannot co-occur with future tense or continuous aspect. He cites examples to show that the same thing is not the case with the grade 1 HL(H) -aa suffix. Thus, he claims, the choice between the -am¶-a® or the gr1 -aa benefactive ‘is partially determined by the tense/aspect used’. He mentions that other Chadic languages, specifically Bole and Pero, have the same kind of aspect restrictions with the benefactive markers -n and -ina, respectively. He specifically mentions the perfective aspect restriction as a relevant argument that benefactive and causative are homonymic. The former, but not the latter, is subject to the tense/aspect restriction, cf. the causative sentence in (111): (111) zaa suæ¶sun¶sunaæa FUT they¶they.PF/¶they CONT
tsay-a® stop-CAUS
manaæ DAT.us
(daæ) (PRT)
‘They will make/have made/are making the car stop for us’ (Munkaila 1990: 181)
205
mootaæa car
Jaggar & Munkaila (1992: 16) argue that another reason for not aligning the gr5 with the benefactive is the fact that ‘the -® predatival verb [benefactive] seems to be more closely bound to its IO [= OBJDAT] than is the -®¶-s Grade 5 [causative] verb’ (emphasis added). There are two indications suggesting such a nexus. Firstly, there seems to be a difference between causative and benefactive in allowing insertion of the emphatic modal particle fa ‘indeed, really’ between the verb and the dative object. This insertion is allowed in causatives with IOs (‘Grade 5 -a®¶-as’), as well as with other verbs used ‘pre-datively’ (‘D-forms’ or benefactives from other grades). See examples (112)-(114). (112) ‘Grade 1/Applicative -aa’ benefactive: AÆli yaa aikaæa fa waæ Laadì waæsii˚aæa Ali he.PF send PRT DAT Ladi letter ‘Ali did send a letter to Ladi’
(Jaggar and Munkaila 1995: 295)
(113) ‘Grade 4 -ee’ benefactive: Sun rufeæe fa waæ Maalaæm they.PF close PRT DAT teacher ‘They did close the door for the teacher’
˚oofaæa door
(Jaggar and Munkaila 1995: 295)
(114) ‘Grade 5 -a®/-as’ benefactive (a causative with an IO): a) Naa may-a® fa waæ Auduæ¶masaæ (daæ) kufiinsaæ I.PF return-CAUS PRT DAT Audu¶DAT.him (PRT) money.his ‘I really did return the money to Audu/him’ (Jaggar and Munkaila 1995: 295)
b) Za]n I.FUT1
say-a® buy-CAUS
fa PRT
‘I shall indeed sell you a wrapper’
mikì DAT.you.SG.F
daæ PRT
zanneæe wrapper
(Jaggar and Munkaila 1995: 295)
In addition, an example with saya® + dative object pronoun ‘sell’ is given that will allow fainsertion. Examples cited which do not allow fa-insertion are: (115) Yaa neem-a® he.PF look for-BEN34
‘He looked for a job for Audu’
(116) Mun tambay-am we-PF ask-BEN
(•fa) PRT
(Jaggar and Munkaila 1995: 295)
(•hwa Y fa) PRT
‘We asked for money for her’
(117) Naa I.PF
waæ Auduæ aikì DAT Audu work
saam-a® (•fa) get-BEN PRT
mataæ kufiii DAT.her money
(Jaggar and Munkaila 1995: 295)
waæ Auduæ¶masaæ DAT Audu¶DAT.him
‘I really did get work for Audu’
aikìi work
(Jaggar and Munkaila 1995: 296)
34‘BEN’ is my own term and is glossed differently in Jaggar and Munkaila, in accordance with their own analysis: ‘pre-dataval final -® forms’ (Benefactive -®) are glossed Pro1, and ‘(real) grade 5 -®/-s’ (causative/caused-motion verbs) are glossed Pro2, reflecting their belief that these suffixes have different pronominal origins.
206
One informant only allows fa-insertion with noun IOs, not with pronominal IOs in benefactives. Secondly, it is reported, some speakers may leave out the IO in the causative when it is understood from the context. The benefactive, however, will never occur without an overt IO (cf. also Abraham (1934: 79). The sentences in (118) below show that an overt IO with benefactives is obligatory, and (119) shows that an overt IO with causatives is optional: (118) Question: Kaa kar\a® waæ Auduæ ¶masaæ (IO) kufiinsaæ ‘Did you receive the money for Audu/him?’
Answer: Ii, naa yes I.PF
kar\a® •(masaæ) (IO) receive.BEN DAT.him
‘Yes, I received (it) for him.’
‘receive’)
(Jaggar and Munkaila 1995: 301, fn. 15)
(119) Question: Kaa maya® waæ Audu¶masaæ (IO)
‘Did you return the money to Audu/him?’
Answer: Ii, naa yes I.PF
(cf. kaær\aa
may-a®¶ -as replace-CAUS
‘Yes, I returned (it) to him’
(daæ)
kufiinsaæ
(masaæ) (IO) (cf. maæyaa DAT.him
‘replace’)
(Jaggar and Munkaila 1995: 301, fn. 15)
This they take to support the idea that causative and benefactive are two, altogether different morphemes, both synchronically and diachronically. They further argue that this assumption is correct by providing a diachronic analysis where causative and benefactive are derived from different sources; a masculine pleonastic pronoun and a feminine pleonastic pronoun, respectively. That is, what they do is to provide a diachronic analysis to explain synchronic differences in present-day Hausa. 4. 3. 7. 2 Semantic differences between benefactive and causative in Hausa Secondly, Munkaila (1990) says that the -am¶-a® benefactive signifies ‘a greater degree of completion in the action’, and that this distinguishes it from the gr1 -aa benefactive (1990: 184-5), cf. the sentences in (120). (120) a)
Yaa neemaæa he.PF seek
masaæ aikìi DAT.him job
Yaa neemam he.PF seek
masaæ aikìi DAT.him job
‘He sought a job for him’
b)
(Munkaila 1990: 184)
‘He sought a job for him (and got it)’
207
(Munkaila 1990: 184)
The sentence in (120a) means that the job was sought but not necessarily that the person got it, whereas the sentence in (120b) signifies that the action has actually materialized, i.e. the job has been found and the ‘affectee’35 has presumably already started working. In the sentence (121a) below, it is implied that ‘he has just received the affectee’s money and he is yet to give it to him’ (1990: 187), whereas (121b) means that he received the affectee’s money and he has already given it to him. (121) a) Yaa kar\aæa he.PF receive
masaæ kufiinsaæ DAT.him money.his
‘He received his money for him (but has not given it to him yet)’
b) Yaa kar\am he.PF receive
masaæ DAT.him
kufiinsaæ money.his
‘He received all his money for him (and already gave it to him)’
(Munkaila 1990: 187)
(Munkaila 1990: 187)
Munkaila relates the perfective aspect restriction to the semantics of the constructions. He says that ‘even those speakers that do not have the tense/aspect restrictions […] agreed that there is a meaning difference between the final /-aa/ and /-a®/-am/ D-form’, referring to the kind of difference displayed in (121) (1990: 185). Thirdly, Munkaila observes that the -am¶-a® benefactive is associated with a higher degree of certainty than the gr1 -aa benefactive, which is rather characterized by a certain degree of uncertainty (1990: 187). When inserting the word wata˚iilaæ ‘perhaps’, the -aa suffix is more acceptable than the -am¶-a® suffix. Furthermore, this certainty seems to be related to the completion of the action encoded by the verb (1990: 184). For example, whereas in a sentence like (120a), using the -aa suffix, the verb neem- ‘seek’ simply means ‘seek’, the change of suffix to -am implies that that the job was both sought and found, i.e. the seeking has been completed, and with a successful outcome. Thus the semantic interpretation ‘certainty in the completion of the action’ (1990: 184) is a natural one. Furthermore, the -am¶-a® benefactive is characterized by a greater degree of involvement in the completion of the action, a meaning that is not present with the gr1 -aa benefactive suffix (1990: 188), cf. (122). (122) a) Yaa ya®daæa minì ìn taæfi he.PF agree DAT.me 1SG.SJN go ‘He agreed to my going (uncertain)’
(Munkaila 1990: 188)
35Munkaila uses the term ‘affectee’ in the sense of the person referred to by the OBJ . I will use DAT ‘affectee’ in a rather different sense in chapter 6, referring to the direct object in three-participant causative constructions, cf. Figure 6.10. This should not be confused with Munkaila’s usage.
208
b) Yaa ya®dam he.PF agree
minì ìn taæfi DAT.me 1SG.SJN go
‘He completely agreed to my going’
(Munkaila 1990: 188)
In (122a) there is thus no certainty such that can be found in (122b), and the high degree of involvement in the completion of the action present with -am¶-a® is not present with the gr1 -aa benefactive suffix. Munkaila does not distinguish between ‘a high degree of involvement in the completion of the action’ and ‘a greater degree of completion in the action’. Both are related to the perfective aspect restriction (ibid: pp. 189 and 185, respectively). Implicitly, i.e. without specifically naming the phenomenon, Munkaila also touches on the effect on the OBJDAT36 that is signified by the -a®¶-am suffix. He says that a semantic distinction can be observed between the -aa and the -a®¶-am suffixes in the verbs kooyaæa¶kooyam ‘teach’, where the latter implies that the affectee has already learnt what is being taught, whereas in kooyaæa there is no such implication. Similarly, with the verbs tambaæyaa¶tambayam ‘ask (sth. for sb.)’, the person referred to by the subject has already passed on the knowledge of his inquiries to the affectee. Cf. sentences (123) and (124). (123) a) Yaa kooyaæa masaæ Hausa he.PF teach DAT.him Hausa ‘He taught him Hausa’
b) Yaa kooyam he.PF teach
(Munkaila 1990: 190)
masaæ Hausa DAT.him Hausa
‘He taught him Hausa (and he has learnt it already)’ (Munkaila 1990: 190)
(124) a) Yaa tambaæyaa masaæ laæabaa®ìn gaærinsuæ he.PF ask DAT.him news.of town.their ‘He asked for news of their town for him’
(Munkaila 1990: 191)
b) Yaa tambayam masaæ laæabaa®ìn gaærinsuæ he.PF ask DAT.him news.of town.their
‘He asked for news of their town for him (and has already told him the news)’ (Munkaila 1990: 190)
Another sentence that encodes an effect on the dative object is (125), where the use of the -am¶-a® suffix indicates that ‘the affectee [OBJDAT] accepted the selection and is happy with it’, whereas the use of the -aa suffix indicates that it is not even sure that the ‘affectee’ has seen what was chosen for him.
36 The term ‘effect on the OBJDAT’ is my own. However, it seems to capture what Munkaila indirectly expresses with these examples.
209
(125) a) Yaa zaa\aæa masaæ mootaæa he.PF select DAT.him car
‘He selected a car for him (which he [the affectee] has not seen yet)’ (Munkaila 1990: 189)
b) Yaa zaa\am he.PF select
masaæ mootaæa DAT.him car
‘He selected a car for him (that he [the affectee] has received and is happy with)’ (Munkaila 1990: 189)
Munkaila is interested in finding out what semantic role will be ‘assigned to’ the OBJDAT when using the various pre-dative suffixes (including HL(H) -aa, HH(H) -a®¶-am, HH(H) -oo, and HL(H) -ee). Thus he restricts his generalizations about semantic roles to verbs that can be assumed to be ‘semantically neutral’, defining such verbs as ‘those verbs the lexical semantics of which do not explicitly indicate a benefactive or malefactive reading’ (1990: 192). He specifically mentions the verbs fiaukaæa gr1 ‘take’, fiiibaæa gr1 ‘draw’, goæogaa gr2 ‘rub’, daæn˚aa gr2 ‘grasp’, tsìnkaa gr2 ‘pick’, and saæaraa gr2 ‘cut’. Cf. the sentences in (126) (suffixes outside the scope of this dissertation are excluded). (126) a) Yaa tsinkaæa he.PF pick
manaæ DAT.us
leæemoo lemon
manaæ DAT.us
leæemoo lemon
‘He picked the lemon for us’
b) Yaa tsinkam he.PF pick
‘He picked off our lemon’
(Munkaila 1990: 193)
(Munkaila 1990: 194)
Even though Munkaila makes the generalization that the -a®¶-am benefactive will give a malefactive semantic role to the OBJDAT (1990: 192), the dative object in many of his examples has a Beneficiary (as opposed to a malefactive) role when occurring with the -a®¶-am suffix, even where the verbal semantics seems to be neutral, cf. (127): (127) a) Yaa kar\am¶kar\aæa he.PF receive
masaæ kufiii DAT.him money
‘He received all his/some money for him’
(Munkaila 1990: 187)
b) Yaa neemam¶neemaæa masaæ aikìi he.PF seek DAT.him work ‘He sought a job for him’
(Munkaila 1990: 184)
Without pursuing this in greater detail here, we shall only remark that these examples suggest that the -a®¶-am benefactive need not always give the OBJDAT a malefactive role. The semantic characteristics of the -a®¶-am benefactive and the grade 1 benefactive, as presented by Munkaila (1990), is summarized as in Table 4.9:
210
TABLE 4.9: Semantic characteristics of HL(H)-aa and HH(H) -a®¶-am benefactive suffixes -aa
-a®¶-am
Aspect/tense restriction
No restriction
Perfective aspect
Totality/completion
No totality or
Totality/
of action
completion
completion
Certainty
Uncertain
Certain
Involvement
Less involvement
Involvement
Effect on OBJDAT
Less effect
Effect on OBJDAT
Semantic role
Benefactive role
Malefactive role
Semantic characteristics
The crucial point here is what conclusions Munkaila draws from these data. The main conclusion he draws is that the -a®¶-am benefactive is not at all related to the causative morpheme -a®. The two forms, he says, do not have the same semantic attributes (in spite of the methodological weakness that he chooses to systematically compare the -a®¶-am benefactive to another grade rather than to contrast it with the -aC/CAUS morpheme). Munkaila thus adheres to the earlier analyses by Newman (1977) and Jaggar (1985). He further concludes that since the perfective aspect restriction is related to the ‘involvement in the completion of action’ semantics, the causative will not have such semantic attributes attached. In 4. 3. 6 I shall provide an explanation to the closer attachment that the OBJDAT seems to have to the verb in the benefactive. Before that, however, we need to include the element dà as part of the discussion. 4. 3. 8 What others have said about dà As with the debate on the -aC suffix, the attitude that ‘homonymy solves the problem’ is maintained in the case of the ‘separable particle’ dà, which is part of the causative construction. The general assumption is that this linguistic element as used in the causative bears no relation to how dà is used elsewhere in Hausa. Relating the dà of the –aC construction to other uses of dà, facilitates the understanding of phonological status of being
211
closely attached to the –aC suffix (cf. 4. 3. 9. 2). Before we can do that, however, we need to look at former approaches to the status and meaning of certain uses of dà. 4. 3. 8. 1 The homonymy view Jaggar (2001: 433) refers to dà used with sociative verbs as a ‘transitive preposition’, referring to its ability to increase valency from 1 ⇒ 2 with intransitive-based sociative verbs from gr3 and gr7. E.g. luæu®a daæ ‘take notice of, look after ’(< gr3itr luæu®a ‘take notice’), and raæbu daæ ‘separate from, divorce’ (< gr7itr raæbu ‘separate, divorce’). He associates this dà with the preposition ‘with’: ‘Stems in both primary (0, 1, 3) and derived (4, 6, 7) grades can also function as sociative verbs, extended with the prepostion dà ‘with’. ’ (2001: 213). Jaggar distinguishes clearly between this ‘preposition’ which he associates exclusively with the ‘soc-verbs’, and the dà used together with ‘gr5 verbs’, which contain the -a® suffix, to the extent that he postulates homonymy between them: ‘When governing an overt oblique object, gr5 verbs are extended with the separable particle dà (homophonous with the comitative-instrumental preposition dà ‘with’)’ (2001: 249). However, Jaggar admits that the distinction between causative (gr5) and sociative is not always so clear: ‘Because of the finite form surface identity and close semantics, the gr6/5 and sociative gr6 construction seem to be merging for some speakers’ (2001: 269). Further tendencies of slight inconsistency in this regard can be seen in the citation: ‘Derivative gr5 efferential verbs with the particle dà –– possibly the ‘with’ preposition–– govern an obligatory oblique object ((2001: 424) (emphasis added). The homonymy view is shared by Newman (2000: 657) who writes: ‘When followed by a semantic object, the particle dà, which phonologically is homophonous with the preposition dà ‘with’, is inserted between the -a® verb stem and the oblique object.’ Abdoulaye (1992, 1996) detaches the dà from the -a® suffix, showing that dà has causative, efferential, and ‘effectiveness’ meanings also when used with other suffixes than -a®. However, he maintains the homonymy view regarding the distinction between dà used with action and motion verbs on the one hand, and dà used with cognitive, and association/dissociation verbs on the other, supposedly to fortify his argument that dà is the causative marker and not the -a® suffix. Thus, he distinguishes between the ‘efferential dà’ on the one hand, and the prepositional dà ‘with’ or ‘dummy case marker’ on the other. The ‘efferential dà’ is suggested to be a ‘(defective) auxiliary verb […] in a construction where the lexical verb and dà constitute a complex predicate [vV + dà]’ (1996: 117).
212
Further, Abdoulaye (1996) subscribes to the homonymy view in saying that: ‘[...] the meaning is really causative. For example, the purpose of the action is to move the goods themselves. In the homophonous associative constructions, moving the goods would not be the primary purpose of the action’.
(Aboulaye 1996: 122) (Emphasis added)
‘[…] to ascertain the fact that there are other verb + dà + NP constructions which semantically have no relation with the efferential constructions. In these constructions, dà is a dummy case marker or it stands as the associative preposition meaning ‘with, and’.’ (ibid: 125) (Emphasis added)
However, Abdoulaye’s view contrasts with that of Newman (2000) and Jaggar (2001) in what they classify as sociative and causative verb constructions. The latter two consider all instances of verb + dà which do not have the -a® suffix or otherwise belong to the gr5 verbs to be sociative verb constructions, regardless of verbal semantics or constituency behaviour. Examples include aikàa dà ‘send sth’ and wucèe dà ‘take inside’ (cf. wucèe ‘pass by’), which are listed as sociative verbs in Newman (2000: 689), but which have a clear causative meaning, and are specifically mentioned as examples of ‘efferential’ semantics in Abdoulaye (1996: 118). They thus disregard Abdoulaye’s (1996) findings which suggest that causative, efferential and effectiveness meanings can be attached to dà when the -a® suffix is not present. 4. 3. 8. 2 Non-semantic explanations: dà is void of content The understanding of the presence of dà in the causative construction is not always related to its semantics; Newman (2000: 657) suggests the following phonological explanation why dà is used with the gr5 causative -a® suffix:
‘The introduction of dà into the verb system with gr5 verbs was undoubtedly due to the phonological “accident” that resulted in a consonant-final grade suffix (-as/ -a®). (Originally, all verbs of whatever grade must have ended in a vowel.) The motivation for adding dà was clearly to avoid a consonant-final verb from being followed immediately by a direct object.’ (Newman 2000: 657)
Other views imply seeing the dà as an ‘empty morph’. In Abdoulaye (1996), the associative use of dà is seen as ‘a dummy case marker’:
213
‘The particle dà also functions as a dummy case marker for NPs following cognition verbs, NPs that may be viewed as notional direct objects.’ (Abdoulaye 1996: 114)
In Newman (2000: 657) the presence of causative dà is viewed as an ‘empty morph’ in the context of a transformational-generative analysis discussing whether dà should be considered to be part of the underlying representation or not: in response to Abraham (1959: 68ff) who suggests that dà after -a® verbs has suffixal status which is ‘deleted’ when no object follows (e.g. sun saya®daæ naamaæa ‘they sold meat’ > *//naamaæa sukaæ saya®daæ// > naamaæa sukaæ saya® ‘It was meat they sold’, Newman replies that: ‘I would view the matter in reverse fashion, i.e. treat the verb qua verb as not containing dà, the dà only being inserted by a late rule if and only if it is required by the surface syntactic structure. […] Viewed in this perspective, dà is neither a semantically specified preposition nor a grade formative, but rather an “empty morph’ inserted by a late, morphophonological adjustment rule.’
(Newman 2000: 657)
4. 3. 8. 3 The polysemy view The variety of meanings and functions of the particle dà have been described by several scholars, although the term polysemy has maybe not been mentioned explicitly by all of them. Abdoulaye (1996), although advocating the notion of homophony between the causative/caused-motion and other uses of dà, speaks of dà as ‘a multipurpose particle […] which functions, among others’ as a coordinator of conjunct NPs, as a preposition for comitative, associative, and instrumental NPs and as a marker of some adverbial phrases’, along with the function of introducing the direct objects of cognitive verbs (1996: 114). Hutchison (1980: 322), in support of his own analysis of the ‘associative’ in Kanuri, says that ‘In Hausa, the morpheme dà has all (and more) of the comitative meanings at the phrase level, including associative, instrumental, means, existential, and also a variety of crucial functions at the clause/sentence level. The latter include the introduction of relative clauses, temporal completive ‘when’ clauses, certain ‘since’ and ‘because’ type clauses, and other roles as well [Abraham 1968: 153-55].’ 4. 3. 8. 4 Summary Newman (2000: 689) says that in spite of Abdoulaye’s arguments that the -a® daæ be a complex verb plus object construction, there are ‘good morphological and syntactic reasons for etymologically equating the sociative dà with the preposition ‘with’’. They are likely to
214
both be right (cf. 7. 4, and Janda 1993); however, none of them allows for a polysemous situation between the less grammaticalized dà of the sociative construction, which has retained more clearly the meaning of dà as ‘with’ or ‘together with’, and the more grammaticalized dà of action sentences, which has attained causative meanings and also a number of syntactic characteristics of its own. In their linguistic models, one linguistic unit either is or is not the same as another, i.e. if it is not exactly the same in function and meaning, it automatically follows that it is totally different and unrelated. Thus the situation is described as homonymic or accidental. It is my hope that the network model of Cognitive Grammar will provide a better tool for the analysis of these phenomena. 4. 3. 9 Cohesion between causative/caused-motion and benefactive -aC and their respective objects In this section I will discuss briefly the cohesion of the -aC/BEN and the -aC/CAUS suffixes with their respective object arguments and argue that these processes should be seen as one and the same phenomenon since they constitute fixed and phonologically frequent constellations. Generally speaking, the fact that causative and benefactive behave differently in terms of morphosyntax is not a problem for a polysemous relationship between causative -aC and benefactive -aC: to say that a linguistic element is polysemous is not to say that it is identical. It suffices that there be some sort of semantic motivation for a transfer from one area or domain to another. In the case of the causative and benefactive -aC suffixes in Hausa, the suffixes combine with instrumental-marked and dative-marked arguments, respectively, and will be expected to adhere closely to the kind of argument that they are associated with. Since these are fixed constellations which are freqently pronounced, they would be expected to fuse phonologically. 4. 3. 9. 1 The verb-dative marker nexus in the benefactive Two ‘idiosyncrasies’ which has to do with the verb-dative marker nexus in the benefactive vs. the causative is described in Jaggar and Munkaila (1995). See also Munkaila (1990: 102106), where a number of linguistic ‘tests’ are performed to show that the dative (‘indirect object’) markers ma-/mà /wà seems to be more closely attached to the verb in the -aC/BEN construction than causatives with an OBJDAT, and demonstrate a possible enclitic status of the benefactive -aC suffix.
215
These facts do not pose a problem, but should be held together with the way in which the -aC/CAUS suffix fuses with the OBJINST. It has been observed for a long time that the causative -aC suffix phonologically and semantically merges with the instrumental marker dà, to the extent where it is about to become a part of the verb. Similar tests as for that of the dative marker performed by Munkaila (1990) are performed for the INST marker in Abdoulaye (1996). See table 4.10. It seems that the dative markers in the benefactive construction adhere phonologically to the benefactive verbal suffix -aC, much in the same way as the instrumental adheres to the causative suffix: fronting of dà in the causative construction, and fronting of ma-/mà /wà in the benefactive construction are both disallowed, the reason supposedly being their closer attachment to the -aC suffixes as a result of the grammaticalization process. Note also that the different synchronic behaviour of the causative and benefactive suffixes in relation to the following OBJDAT does not support Jaggar and Munkaila’s (1995) historical analysis. They observe a difference, but the difference is not explained by their analysis. It therefore seems that the observed morphosyntactic differences between causative and benefactive need another type of linguistic explanation. 4. 3. 9. 2 Syntactic traces of the grammaticalization process of INST dà into Secondary agent: fusion of INST with -aC The fact that dà plays an important part in the -aC causative construction has been known for a long time. It is even included in the lexical entries of some Hausa dictionaries. What has not been thought about before is that dà actually is a marker of instrumental case, and that this is part of a universal tendency in causative constructions. Information on the uses of dà has been accessible, but the differences in usage has not been interpreted as a result of grammaticalization processes, where one of the uses of INST is exploited in the causative construction and has become an integral part it, as I believe it has. It has been observed (Abdoulaye 1996) that dà displays different syntactic behaviour when used marking: Group: (1) Objects following the -aC suffix, (2) Objects of motion verbs in grades 1, 4, and 6 (initiating motion of INST), (3) Objects with verbs of cognition, and (4) Objects in verbs of association/dissociation.
216
The different syntactic behaviour arises from the fact that dà when used in groups 3 and 4 forms a constituent with the oblique object, V + [dà OBJ]PP, whereas the dà when used in a causative construction, forms a constituent with the verb: [V dà]VP + OBJ. This manifests itself syntactically in a number of ways, listed in table 4.10. An outline of differences phonological and syntactic behaviour, and the idea that this reflects differences in word boundary is discussed in Abdoulaye (1996) and Newman (2000: 691-692)37. The inferences that these differences are the result of a grammaticalization process are my own novel invention. I have also in table 4.10 categorized the three first groups according to my semantic analysis of the conduit senses of INST in 7. 4, and classified group four as a comitative INST (for a similar analysis of INST in other languages, see Janda (1993)). From Abdoulaye’s material it appears that the constituent border is not an either-or question. Rather, the attachment of dà to the verb is a matter of degree, or at least a three- (or four-) way distinction, where dà is most closely attached to the verb in the -a® daæ construction, less attached with causative uses of dà in other verb forms (viz. gr1, gr4, and gr6), and least attached with verbs of cognition and verbs of association/dissociation. Cf. the survey in table 4.10 of syntactic properties of dà (adapted from Abdoulaye 1996: 146). For illustrative examples I refer to Abdoulaye (1996).
37Abdoulaye’s point regards the fact that dà seems to express causality (‘efferential’, in his terms), also when not accompanied by the -a® suffix. Newman’s point is to argue that dà in grade 5 (causative/caused-motion verbs) and dà in ‘sociative’ (groups 3 and 4) are homophones (2000: 657).
217
TABLE 4.10: INST dà: degree of fusion of with preceding verb vs. object constituency status Conduit INST Group 1 Syntactic property
INST
Comitative INST Group 2
of INST object
Group 3
Group 4
INST object
verbs
Degree of fusion of INST with V Secondary
(motion verbs)
reflected in the allowance/disallowance agent (causative)
-aa¶-ee¶-oo ± cognition) daæ + daæ
-a® ± daæ
gr1/4/6
of:
(verbs
of
of association/ dissociation +
daæ
gr5 1. Repetition of dà in paraphrases
no
no
optional
yes
2.
no
no
yes
yes
no
no
yes
yes
yes
yes?
no
Example
Insertion
between
V
of
linguistic
-
dà
material
(parentheticals,
locatives and adverbs) 3. Fronting of dà together with OBJ in focus constructions 4. V + mâa + dà + OBJ + OBJ
missing 5. Presence of nominalizer -`waa in gr1,
no
yes/
gr4 verbs, lengthening of final vowel in
yes
yes
gr6 optional
gr3 verbs 6. Omitted/stranded dà in OBJ focus
yes
no
no
no
yes
no
Example
no
construction (i.e. without co-referent copy pronoun) 7. V + dàa + mà +OBJ + OBJ
missing
An even further progression of fusion can be observed in Western Hausa (e.g. Dogondoutchi), where one can hear such causative forms as ka®antaddaæa ‘teach’, ciyaddaæa ‘feed’, where dà has become an integral part of the verb and lengthens the final vowel as a regular suffix (see also Newman 2000: 660-661). It thus seems that the use of INST in the Secondary agent sense (i.a. in -aC/CAUSCMN sentences) appears to have grammaticalized into its special usage, and therefore have developed a certain idiosyncratic behaviour pointing to a closer fusion between INST and the verb. This is a common phenomenon in grammaticalization processes, and should not be
218
taken as an argument for homonymy, as has been claimed by Jaggar, Newman, and Abdoulaye. Nor is INST in any case a ‘dummy case marker’ (cf. Abdoulaye 1996: 125), void of content, but in all its uses motivated by its semantic content, which also is in line with the Cognitive Grammar basic tenet.
4. 4 Summary of arguments In this chapter I have discussed in turn former claims on several issues relating to a potential causative-benefactive polysemy. First, I outlined former claims on phonology: Parsons was the first to note that there is some sort of connection between the tones/suffixes of the causative and the benefactive. However, working within the structuralist paradigm, he assumed that only the forms were identical and the meanings different, the forms being distributed according to a principle of ‘functional load’, where the verb forms not already in use in the verbal system would be “free” for benefactive use. Subsequently, much energy was spent on discussing whether the causative/‘efferential’ verb form and the similar benefactive form were the same or different, in discussing the phonological nature of these suffixes, possible morphosyntactic differences, and in relating them to similar constructions in Chadic. Discussion continued up to the 1980ies, when with the arrival of two major Hausa grammars: Newman (2000) and Jaggar (2001), the homonymy view appeared to gain the upper hand, though without the appearance of substantial new data in its favour. I have offered a plausible explanation to why the benefactive is closely attached (and often assimilated) to the following dative marker, and argued that this is natural since these frequently co-occur. A similar pattern exists between the –aC suffix and the INST marker. In evaluating claims regarding the semantic arguments pro et contra a causativebenefactive polysemy, a major obstacle was the claim that the –aC suffix is not used as a causative. I therefore had to devote a major part of this chapter to this and related issues; questions regarding what a causatives are, their typology, to valency increasing derivations, to grammaticalization patterns of causatives, and the like. With respect to claims about the nature of the semantics of the benefactive suffix, these will be confirmed, not disputed, and explained as part of a more comprehensive phenomenon in chapter 5. In conclusion, there has been no semantic investigation apart from the historical/ comparative claims that the form originated from the use of a redundant 3rd person pronoun, whose function was to signal the addition of another argument. In terms of phonology, one needs to know more about the exact nature of these suffixes, perhaps especially in the
219
Western dialects, which are generally thought to be the more conservative ones, and where Klingenheben’s law has not effected changes like those which have happened in the east. The problem suffers both from the lack of semantic research, and from lack of typological comparison, which has been totally absent.
220
CHAPTER 5
Sharing a semantic feature: high transitivity effects in the causative/caused-motion and the benefactive 5. 0 Introduction In this chapter I will shed light on some of the semantic aspects of –aC constructions. In the first part I discuss certain functions of the benefactive and causative/caused-motion markers in relation to new data I collected. These suggest 1) that the –C of the –aC suffix is sporadically used as an agreement marker in several dialects of Hausa, and 2) that some speakers associate this with a certain attention or emphasis on the participant that agrees with this suffix. I interpret the new data in a manner that complies with former observations made by Parsons on the two ‘classes’ of causative/caused-motion constructions, with some former observations on Chadic, and with reference to a linguistic hypothesis on how grammatical agreement comes about. In the second part of this chapter I show that the semantic and morphosyntactic characteristics that have been observed in the -aC/BEN and -aC/CAUS-CMN suffixes can be related to the fact that both the benefactive and the causative/caused-motion constructions are highly transitive. This means that these constructions in Hausa share a semanticogrammatical feature. Consequently, the presence of the semantic aspects of High Transitive effects in -aC/CAUS-CMN and -aC/BEN does not count as evidence that these constructions are unrelated, as it has previously been argued. In fact, this makes it all the more likely that the -aC/BEN suffix and the -aC/CAUS-CMN suffix are polysemous. The type of characteristics that is typical of such high transitivity constructions were outlined in chapter 3 and should be conferred with those. Recall from the previous chapter that Parsons characterized the gr5 as the ‘projectiveapplicative’ class, whereby ‘grade 2 verbs transfer the psychological emphasis onto the target object’ (emphasis added). This is congruent with the following: 1. The –C of the –aC suffix is presently used as an agreement marker in many Hausa dialects 2. The argument that agrees with the –C is semantically at the centre of attention, and displays relative topicality 3. General linguistic models predict that arguments competing in topicality will receive agreement marking 4. Other languages than Hausa relate agreement markers to high semantic transitivity 5. The –aC suffix in present-day Hausa is characterized by high transitivity features in both its benefactive and its causative/caused-motion uses.
221
5. 1 Causative/caused-motion and benefactive as endpoint emphasis 5. 1. 1 -C/BEN and -aC/CAUS-CMN as redundant (= agreement) pronouns It is uncontroversial that the -C in the -aC suffix originated from a redundant pronoun. As may be recalled from chapter 4, the controversy concerns which of the pronouns, masculine *-s or feminine *-t, was exploited in each case. Recall also that languages which are related to Hausa are reported to behave in this way, mentioned in Frajzyngier (1985). One of the findings from my fieldwork with Hausa speakers (most distinctly in Tahoua) was that the -C in the -aC suffix agrees in gender with one of the clausal arguments. See the examples in (128)-(130). Agreement with OBJINST/CAUSEE (128) a) Dookìi nee ya zaabu®-as horse.M COP he.RL.PF spring at-CAUS.M ‘It was the horse he made attack’
b) Goofiìyaa ceæe mare.F COP.F
daæ shii INST IND.M
(Speaker AI28, Tahoua in Niger)
ya zaabu®-at daæ itaa he.RL.PF spring at-CAUS.F INST IND.F
‘It was the mare he made attack’
(Speaker AI28, Tahoua in Niger)
Agreement with OBJINST/Theme, focussed (129) a) Dookìi nee ya say-as horse.M COP.M he.RL.PF transfer.commercially-TH.M ‘It was a horse he sold’
b) AÆkuyaæa goat.F
(Speaker AI28, Tahoua in Niger)
cee ya say-at (daæ itaa) COP.F he.RL.PF transfer.commercially-TH .F (INST IND.F)
‘It was a goat he sold’
(Speaker AI28, Tahoua in Niger)
Agreement with OBJINST/Causee, non-focussed (130) a) An zub-as daæ hatsii IMP.3SG stream-CAUS¶CMN.M INST grain.M ‘One has poured the grain away’
(Speaker AI28, Tahoua in Niger)
b) An zub-at IMP.3SG stream-CAUS¶CMN.F
daæ furaa INST millet porridge.F
‘One has poured the millet porridge away’ (Speaker AI28, Tahoua in Niger)
Similar cases of agreement was found in the benefactive, see (131). The agreement feature points to the benefactive dative argument.
222
Agreement with OBJDAT (131) a) Taa kooy-as masaæ kaæ®aæatuu she.PF learn-CAUS38 DAT.him reading.M ‘She taught him to read’
changed to:
b) Taa she.PF
kooy-at learn-CAUS
‘She taught her to read’
(cf. koæoyaa v2 learn)
(Speaker MA28, Gusau in Nigeria)
mataæ kaæ®aæatuu DAT.her reading.M
(Speaker MA28, Gusau in Nigeria)
The agreement data are presented in full in 7. 5 and in appendix E. The data are not consistent in terms of which argument governs verbal agreement (the fact that there are also instances of subject agreement is a complicating factor), although the OBJDAT type of agreement is in majority, 55,5% of the cases from elicited and spontaneously produced cases, cf. table 5.8. TABLE 5.8: Percentage of type of argument to be the source of agreement Agreement type
SUBJECT
OBJDAT
OBJINST/ACC
Total
Spontaneous
35
68
39
142
Elicited data
4
38
7
49
Total
39 = 20,4%
106 = 55,5%
46 = 24,1%
191 = 100%
data
The agreement phenomenon was geographically dispersed: TABLE 5.9: Geographical distribution of agreement cases Village
Number
of Number
of Masculine
Feminine suffix
speakers
instances
suffix
Tahoua
2
96
-s
-t
Dogondoutchi
1
15
-s
-t
Dutsin Ma
2
15
-s
-t, -d
Sabon Birni
1
7
-m
-t
Gusau, Magarya 2
2
-s
-®
These numbers are not the results of a systematic testing process and thus too scarce to be interpreted as saying anything definite about agreement frequency in the various areas. Nevertheless, it is a fact that the cases of agreement existent in this material does not happen locally in one geographically confined area, but is rather a phenomenon to be found 38 Formally this is a benefactive construction, and -aC should therefore be glossed BEN. However, as previously discussed, the verb kooya® ‘teach’ requires a cognitive action (not just reaction) on part of the Recipient, and is therefore not only an act of receiving. The causative-benefactive ambiguity here,
223
incidentally in several dialect areas. This may be interpreted to suggest that agreement is a phenomenon that exists (and/or existed) in several dialect areas rather than just one or two contiguous areas: There are speakers who are aware of and more or less actively using verbal agreement in areas as far north as Tahoua, as far west as Dogondoutchi, as far south as Gusau and Dutsin Ma, and as far east as Magarya (see dialect map in chapter 8). In the case of benefactives there is typological evidence in unrelated languages which appear to have similar systems in benefactive constructions. The following paradigm is from Creek, where ‘the dative applicative agrees with the object it adds to a verb’s argument structure’ (Martin 2000: 390): (132) Creek dative applicative ‘s/he is singing for me’ án-yaheyk-ís cín-yaheyk-ís ‘s/he is singing for you’ ín-yaheyk-ís ‘s/he is singing for him/her (another)’ pón-yaheyk-ís ‘s/he is singing for us’ (Martin 2000: 390)
5. 1. 2 Agreement and topical arguments in Hausa Elicited agreement data (test forms in appendix A4) collected from Tahoua speakers in a follow-up fieldwork in December 1994 show that agreement directs the attention towards the agreement source (the argument with which the suffix agrees). Some examples suggest that the choice of agreeing argument is not accidental, but brings along contrasting interpretations of meaning. In the corpus of agreement data where the subject and the OBJDAT are of a different gender, some cases appeared where both the -at/FEM and -as/MASC suffixes were accepted, but with different semantic implications. The test left open an option of either subject or OBJDAT agreement, but in each case the agreement source argument was seen as the owner of OBJACC, cf. (133) a) and b). The function of agreement seems to be to direct the attention towards a particular argument. (133) S V a) Yaa ka®y-as he.PF break-AGR.M
OBJ1 OBJ2 mataæ masaæ®aa DAT.her maize (F)
‘He broke his own maize for her’
(Source: Speaker AU26, Bada Gishiri, Kartela, Tahoua)
S V OBJ1 OBJ2 b) Yaa ka®y-at mataæ masaæ®aa he.PF break-AGR.F DAT.her maize (F) ‘He broke her maize for her’
(Source: Speaker AU26, Bada Gishiri, Kartela, Tahoua)
however, is interesting, suggesting that ‘apply learning to X’ means ‘teach’ when ‘X’ is animate and dative marked.
224
In (133b), agreement with OBJ1DAT suggests that the action is detrimental to this participant (malefactive meaning), and focuses on the effect on the dative object. Conversely, in the corresponding sentence with subject agreement in (133a), the accompanying meaning is that it is the subject who is the owner of OBJACC. In this case, there is no indication that the action has a negative effect on the dative participant. Rather, the interpretation would be ‘break and give to’, i.e. a beneficiary-recipient role of OBJDAT and a focus on the subject’s benevolent action. If both subject and OBJDAT are of the same gender, speakers responded that the OBJACC might belong to either of them, as in (134): (134) a) Yaa ka®y-as •-at he.PF break-BEN¶SUBJ.AGR
mishì masaæ®aa DAT.him maize.F
b) Taa ka®y-at •-as she.PF break-BEN¶DAT.AGR
mataæ masaæ®aa DAT.her maize.F
‘He1 broke his1 maize for him/He broke his2 maize for him2’
‘She1 broke her1 maize for her (and gave it to her)/She broke her2 maize for her2’
As in (133), if OBJDAT is the owner of OBJACC, the action is seen as negative for OBJDAT participant. The semantic interpretation ‘OBJDAT is owner of OBJACC’ does not in itself imply a malefactive role of the OBJDAT. This is an implication added by the informants. The malefactive role interpretation could be a pragmatic consequence: being the energy source, the subject will not be affected in the same way as a dative participant, since s/he is the active party and acts of his or her own free choice. The dative participant, on the other hand, is a passive receiver of the action, and an effect, negative or positive, is passively received. The same shift in masculine or feminine suffix, accompanied by a shift of focus to the argument that the verb agrees with is also found in causative constructions, see (135). (135) a) Abduæ yaa shig-at ¶*-as ma-taæ daæ kaayantaæ Abdu he.PF enter-CAUS¶DAT.AGR DAT-her INST luggage.her ‘Abdu put her luggage in the sack for her’
buæhu sack
(Speaker AU26, Kartela, Tahoua)
b) Abduæ yaa shig-as ma-taæ daæ kaayaa Abdu he.PF enter-CAUS¶SUBJ.AGR DAT-her INST luggage ‘Abdu put his luggage in the sack for her’
buæhu sack
(Speaker AU26, Kartela, Tahoua)
225
The informant explains that the -as suffix is only possible without -n-tà ‘of-hers’ attached to the OBJACC. It then means ‘his’, i.e. the subject’s luggage, not hers (OBJDAT’s). Similarly, with feminine subject agreement, the same speaker provided these examples: (136) a) Aminaæa Amina
taa shig-as¶*-at mishì daæ kaayanshì she.PF enter-CAUS¶DAT.AGR DAT.him INST luggage.his
b) Aminaæa Amina
taa she.PF
‘Amina put his luggage in the sack for him’
(Speaker AU26, Kartela, Tahoua)
shig-at mishì daæ kaayaa enter-CAUS¶SUBJ.AGR DAT.him INST things
‘Amina put her things in the sack for him’
(Speaker AU26, Kartela, Tahoua)
buæhu sack buæhu sack
The speaker informs that the -at suffix is incorrect in a), unless it means that Amina (the subject) tries to give him (OBJDAT) a gift: it then implicates that it is her things. The masculine possessive pronoun on the OBJACC -n-shì ‘his’ is then left out, cf. the sentence in b). Thus we see that the speaker’s choice of argument source of the verbal suffix is not accidental. Rather, it carries a certain function and a certain meaning, which, it seems, is compatible with the idea that a certain amount of attention is directed towards the agreeing argument in the communicative situation, such as being the affected and/or topical participant: in the subject agreement cases, the agreement source argument is topical because it is interpreted as the owner of the OBJ2, when the OBJDAT is the agreement source, s/he is both topical and affected, by virtue of being the owner of OBJ2 and being the (less voluntary) recipient of the action. Similar cases were found in the case of fronting constructions. A Dogondoutchi speaker produced a sentence where feminine OBJACC agreement is allowed only when OBJACC is at the focus of attention, overriding agreement with the masculine OBJDAT, cf. (137). The feminine -at suffix in sentence (137a) was not accepted as grammatical, because of the masculine OBJDAT. However, if the feminine OBJACC was fronted, the -at suffix was also judged to be grammatical. The speaker gave as a reason that when the feminine OBJACC was fronted, there was more emphasis on the OBJACC, and the verb could thus be agreement marked with it. Again, a consequence of this is that in the cases where the –aC suffix agrees with the direct object (the car), it must be glossed CAUS (from shìga v3 ‘enter’ + -aC, marking an inanimate Causee role). When agreeing with the dative object, by contrast, it needs to be marked BEN (but note that the causative meaning is then left out, even though the verbal meaning is the causative ‘put’ and not merely benefactive as in ‘enter for’).
226
(137) a) •Yaa shig-at he.PF put.BEN.F
maæ Auduæ mootaæa DAT Audu (M) car (F)
ga®eejì garage
b) Mootaæa car (F)
ya shig-at he.RL.PF enter.CAUS.F
maæ Auduæ DAT Audu (M)
‘He put the car in the garage for Audu’
taa COP.F
daæ itaa ga®eejì INST IND.F garage
‘It was the car he put in the garage for Audu’
(cf. shìga v3 enter)
(Source: Speaker SM28, Dogondoutchi)
(Source: Speaker SM28, Dogondoutchi)
Thus, in this example from Hausa, the neutral word order in (137a) favours agreement with OBJDAT, but once the OBJINST is given prominence, as in (137b), it is also favoured in terms of agreement marking39. The sentence in (137) is a focus construction, which involves ‘the fronting of an NP, adverb, or prepositional phrase, in order to emphasize it or to contrast it with some other comparable constituent’ (Newman 2000: 187). Linguistic accounts of other languages exist for agreement markers of pronominal origin which are related to relative topicality. Now topic constructions and focus constructions are different types of constructions and therefore differ in a number of respects in Hausa as well as in other languages, syntactically and semantically (for an account of Hausa, see Newman 2000: 187195, and 615-621). As such, the example in (137) cannot be directly related to theories of agreement markers of pronominal origin and how they relate to topicality. Nevertheless, it is interesting to note that in both types of constructions, one argument is singled out for attention and given prominence. Newman (2000: 187) says about these two constructions in Hausa that ‘[f]ocus shares a number of features with topicalization’ and that they ‘both involve fronting a constituent in order to give it prominence’ (ibid: 615). A better description of why the inanimate OBJACC in (137) can be favoured above both the animate subject and OBJDAT participants for agreement marking might therefore be that this argument by being fronted becomes competitive in terms of relative prominence, not relative topicality. Deane (1991) gives an account of how focus constructions and topic constructions both relate to and are intimately connected phenomena in a theory of attention, arguing that attention is the critical variable for a cognitive theory of extraction from a clause (and not island constraints as claimed by defendants of generative, autonomous syntactic models). Specifically, what topic and focus have in common is that they represent two distinct ways in which a concept 39The caution should be made however, that while it seems safe to conclude that OBJDATs are favoured in terms of the question of what constitutes the agreement source in the present material, the material on the whole is not at all unambiguous in this respect.
227
may receive cognitive salience, but by different mechanisms: A topical concept achieves salience by virtue of its associations with other concepts in working memory through activation spread. A focus, by contrast, is a concept that is salient as a result of an act of concentration, selectively controlling the attention (Deane 1991: 4, 38). It is suggested in Givón (1976: 166) that arguments competing in topicality also compete about being agreement marked: ‘Since datives are normally definite and accusatives much more frequently indefinite, the definitization of an accusative object increases its topicality way above the normal pattern, so
that now it competes with the dative successfully for topicality and agreement’. (Givón 1976: 166)
A parallel situation for Amharic is presented below in (144a) and (144b-c). The speaker’s intention by using a pleonastic would be to direct the hearer’s attention to the topic-shifted or focussed argument. This argument receives the listener’s attention and is therefore emphasized. Note in this regard that the –C agreement marker is chosen to agree with arguments already present in the clause, and that the speakers choose freely among them for purposes of different semantic construals. This further supports the idea that valency increase may not be the primary function or even a necessary precondition of the –aC suffix. Similarly, it has been suggested that the Chinese ba-construction, which has the primary effect of fronting an O, eludes structural description unless one assumes that it is a highly transitive construction: ‘it must show an A acting actively, volitionally, and totally upon a definite or referential O’ (Hopper and Thompson 1980: 274). Furthermore, in the baconstruction, action verbs like DA* ‘hit’ are grammatical, but verbs like yo*u ‘have’ are not. A transitive sentence with A and O like *wo* ba* ta@ DA* ‘I hit him’ is ungrammatical, but when put in the perfective aspect, it is: wo* ba* ta@ DA*-LE ‘I hit him (PERF)’. Confer also the languages mentioned in 3. 5. 5 (Palauan, Fijian and Mordvin) where it is stated that only perfective verbs agree with O, not the imperfective ones. 5. 1. 3 Ideas on the rise of verbal agreement 5. 1. 3. 1 Overuse and reanalysis of anaphoric pronouns Givón’s (1976) argues that all verbal agreement arises out of anaphoric pronoun paradigms. The idea that pronouns are topics is natural because pronouns are topics by definition, i.e. they occur in context where the noun is presupposed to be known to the hearer.
228
Pronouns may develop into agreement markers when being used in either of the following ‘discourse devices’: 1. Anaphoric pronominalization (AP) 2. Topic-shift (TS) 3. After-thought topic-shift (AT) The choice of either of these constructions depends on what the speaker finds as felicitous and useful for her purpose, depending on the communicative situation. Anaphoric pronominalization is used felicitously when the topic has been mentioned directly before, and there can be no ambiguity as to the referent of the pronoun. Topic-shift, on the other hand, serves its purpose when there is an ‘intervening gap between the first and subsequent mention of the topic’ (1976: 153). Their difference in usefulness to a particular communicative situation is illustrated by Givón as in the following: A. Context:
‘Once there was a wizard.
AP:
‘He lived in Africa’
TS:
?‘Now the wizard, he lived in Africa.
B. Context: ‘Once there was a wizard, he was very wise, rich, and was married to a beautiful witch. They had two sons. The first was tall and brooding, he spent his days in the forest hunting snails, and his mother was afraid of him. The second was short and vivacious, a bit crazy but always game. AP: ?‘He lived in Africa. TS: Now the wizard, he lived in Africa.
The infelicitous use of TS in A. is rooted in the fact that it is superfluous, unnecessary, and a more powerful tool than the communicative situation requires. Thus it represents a wasteful over-use of a ‘more marked discourse device in a less-marked context’. The oddity of B., on the other hand, is derived from the fact that it is insufficient, and results in ambiguity and confusion, since in this case, the natural antecedent of ‘he’ is the last mentioned son, not the wizard. Such over-use of TS may nevertheless be useful in situations where ‘the channel of communication is noisy, or when the communicative system is relatively frail’, ‘to ensure that the hearer knows what the speaker talks about’ (1976: 154). A third communicative situation represents in a way the intermediate case between TS and AP. Here, the speaker starts out assuming that the hearer knows what she is talking about, and uses AP. Then she changes her strategy to ensure that the topic really is understood by
229
the hearer, and repeats the topic: she uses after-thought topic-shift, which also in a sense implies a certain amount of wasteful over-use. AT is illustrated in C below. C. Context:
AT:
‘Once there was a wizard.
‘He lived in Africa, the wizard did.’
What Givón wants to illustrate is how the two over-use strategies, TS and AT, ‘underlie the diachronic development of subject and object agreement from topic agreement’. Left-dislocated topic-shift will result in subject agreement by being over-used in a weaker context, and at the realization that the context is too weak for the use of TS, speakers will reanalyze it as the neutral syntax, i.e. demarking it. Thus the erstwhile topic-subject is reanalyzed as a plain subject, while the anaphoric pronoun in the original main sentence attaches to the verb as verbal subject agreement. Thus: (138) TS (marked) The man, he came TOPIC PRO
NEUTRAL (reanalyzed) The man he-came SUBJ AGR
Such pronouns will easily cliticize for reasons of their general unstressed character, semantic decrease in informational load as a result of the topic-shift, and subsequent phonological attrition. As for object agreement, objects are clearly less topical than subjects. They are more frequently non-human and indefinite, and therefore less likely to be topics. Givón suggests that this is also likely to be the reason why object agreement is less common in the world’s languages. Object agreement (accusative case) makes use of the same demarking of over-used topic-shift, but instead uses right-dislocating after-thought topic-shift. This would manifest itself as in (139). (139) TS (marked)
AT (semi-marked) I saw him, the man PRO TOPIC
The man, I saw him TOPIC PRO
NEUTRAL (reanalyzed) I saw-him the man AGR TOPIC
Consider the example in (140) from New Guinea Highland Pidgin, where the object agreement suffix -im has become a signal of transitive verbs: (140) em i-har-im him he-hear-him ‘He heard John’
John John
230
5. 1. 3. 2 Dative vs. accusative object agreement and relative topicality Givón suggests that dative objects are more topical than accusative objects because they are more frequently definite and human, apart from also having a ‘higher degree’ of ‘contribution in events’. It is shown how, in some languages which already have a system of subject agreement, object agreement markers arisen from AT have come to be markers of definite objects. Further development in a related language include spreading to indefinite human objects. Syntactic
processes
that
are
strongly
linked
to
topicality
(passivization,
pronominalization, dative-shift and topic-shift) respond to a hierarchy as in (141), supported in a study done by Hawkinson and Hyman (1975 [cited as 1974 in Givón 1976: 160]): (141) Agent > benefactive > dative > accusative In all these four processes, dative takes primacy over accusative, where agreement is one of topicality related phenomena reported to spread down in this order, and where object agreement is sensitive to the ‘relative topicality of the dative and accusative’ . The precedence of dative agreement over accusative may also combine the agreement device with positional marking of the OBJDAT. Thus, in Swahili, Shona, and Zulu, dativebenefactive objects are not marked by a preposition. Rather, the OBJDAT is placed close to the verb, as in this example from Swahili in (142). (142) Swahili ali-m-pa mkewe he-PAST-her-give wife-his ‘He gave the children to his wife’
watoto children
Agreement with the OBJACC is then ungrammatical, cf. *ali-wa-pa mkewe he-PAST-them-give wife-his
watoto children
Likewise, in Zulu, dative-benefactive objects are marked via object agreement, cf. (143). (143) Zulu a) u-yi-nige intoombi isiinkwa he-her-gave girl bread ’He gave the girl the bread’
231
Cf.
*u-si-niga he-it-gave
intcombi40 girl
isiinkwa bread
Thus it is suggested that dative objects take agreement primacy over accusative objects. The few counterexamples (Hungarian, Ge’ez, the Zakho dialect of Neo-Amharic) are met by Givón by making the reservation that dative and accusative objects should be equally case marked or be unmarked. 5. 1. 3. 3 Arguments competing in topicality Neutral word order commonly favours dative agreement over accusative agreement, as is the case for both Spanish and Amharic. However, topicalization-shifting of any object argument may change the agreement in favour of the topicalized constituent. Therefore, changes in topicality due to topic-shift of a lesser topical argument, such as the accusative, will favour or add object agreement of this argument, as in these examples from Amharic (Semitic language) (taken from Givón 1976: 162). (144) Amharic a) Neutral word order: Kassa lä-Mulu däbtarocc-u-n Kassa to-Mulu notebooks-the-OBJ ‘Kassa gave Mulu the notebooks’
sät’t-at gave-her
b) Topic-shifted accusative argument: bet-u-n Almaz bämäträgiyaw tärrägä-cc-Iw house-the-OBJAlmaz with-broom-the swept-she-it ‘The house Almaz swept (it) with a broom’ c) Topic-shifted instrumental argument: bämäträgiyaw Almaz bet-u-n tärrägä-cc-Ibb-at with-broom-the Almaz house-the-OBJswept-she-with-it ‘With the broom Almaz swept the house’ Overt case marking of the dative argument and not the accusative object will give agreement primacy to definite or topic-shifted accusatives. Thus, the topicality hierarchy is only seemingly overridden.
40 This word is accurately rendered from the source as intcombi. Three other occurrences of the word for ‘girl’ is spelt intoombi. The c here could therefore be a misprint.
232
5. 1. 3. 4 Topic-shifted arguments in Chadic There are indications that left dislocated topic-shift (TS) and right-dislocated topic-shift (AT) will have a similar effect on the topic-shifted argument. In this example from Kanakuru (a Chadic language related to Hausa), the use of a pleonastic pronoun and left-dislocated topicshift is reported to have the same semantic function, namely that of emphasis. According to Newman (1982: 62), if one wants to emphasize a pronominal OBJDAT in Kanakuru, there are two ways in which this can be accomplished. One way is by means of regular fronting to the beginning of the sentence. This is the ‘normal preferred process’, according to Newman. Compare the regular word order in (145a) with the fronted pronoun in (145b): (145) a) aæ he
wuæpeæ la;ndaæi g©æn shâre; sold cloth PREP her
'He sold the cloth to her.’
b)
shâre; shâi her
wuæp©æ-raææ sold
'It was she he sold the cloth to.’
la;ndaæi cloth
If, however, ‘one wants to emphasize a pronoun i.o. without fronting it […] one uses the prenoun i.o. marker plus an independent pronoun’, in which case ‘the i.o. phrase occurs after the d.o. and, like a noun i.o., allows the use of a pleonastic pronoun immediately following the verb’. Cf. (145c) below. c)
aæ he
wuæp©æ-roææ la;ndaæi g©æn shâre; sold-3.SG.F cloth PREP her
'He sold the cloth to her.’
This suggests that, semantically speaking, fronting and using a pleonastic OBJDAT pronoun serves the same purpose in Kanakuru. In Hausa, the primary semantic effect of the -aC/BEN suffix is the emphasis on the special effect on OBJDAT, where the action is done especially for the dative participant, or done as a special favour, see (146). As we will see later in this chapter, such cases are quite numerous and typical of this construction. (146) Sun they.PF
say-am buy-BEN
ma-taæ DAT-her
‘They bought kolanut (especially) for her’
goo®oæo kolanut
Speaker‘s semantic explanation: It is for her [OBJDAT] (especially) they bought kolanuts.
233
5. 1. 3. 5 Implications for the Hausa material All in all, given the examples from Hausa (although few), the examples from Chadic and other unrelated languages, and Givón’s assumption that agreement arises out of an AT construction, it is therefore possible that: • (Over-use of) AT topic-shift created a semantic emphasis on the topic-shifted argument in Hausa. In addition, the general High Transitivity values described below adds to the general effect of object affectedness. In the light of Givón’s topicalization model, which predicts agreement primacy of topicalized arguments, one would also expect that agreement follows the most topical argument. The -C benefactive marker in Hausa may have been derived from an agreement system that arose out of an AT topic-shift and a subsequent reanalysis. It is further possible that a dative-shift has moved the IO to a position before the DO as a result of the relatively higher topicality of the IO in relation to the DO. This may have had two effects on the -C marker: Firstly, it relates the -C benefactive marker to topicality. Secondly, it serves to give emphasis and attention to the agreeing argument. Observations made by Newman about Chadic support this assumption, as seen in the next section. 5. 1. 4 Newman about IO constructions in Hausa and Chadic The following is a presentation of Newman’s research and hypotheses, and not my own assumptions or anything I can confirm or disconfirm. The observations are included for their contribution to the general picture of the observations made about agreement and topicality above, but will have to be confirmed or disconfirmed in a separate, future study on Chadic. According to Newman (1982: 71), the typical way of forming indirect objects in Chadic is to suffix indirect object pronouns directly to the verb and to express noun indirect objects by a prepositional phrase. The noun indirect object typically shifts to the right of the direct object, leaving a pronominal trace behind, as in this example from Kanakuru: (147) Kanakuru: a) aæ joæ\-roæ la;ndaæi he washed-3psf IO PRO robe ‘He washed the robe for her’
b) aæ joæ\-roæ la;ndaæi g©æn ta;mno; he washed-3psf IO PRO robe PREP woman ‘He washed the robe for the woman’
234
He therefore identifies two typical Chadic indirect object word order patterns, one for pronouns as in (148a), and one for noun indirect objects, cf. (148b). Not all Chadic languages have the pleonastic pronoun, and where it occurs, this pronoun may not be obligatory, signalled by the parenthesis around PRO.AGR. in (148a). (148) Typical Chadic system a) Pronoun IO: ...V- IOPRO b) Noun IO : ...V(PRO.AGR)
- DO - DO
- PREP IONOUN
Newman (1982) proposes that the OBJDAT in Hausa (and Chadic) moved from its position behind the verb to be extraposed behind the direct object, and then (in Hausa) back into its original position behind the verb. This corresponds to these three historical stages: Stage 1. Hausa and Chadic word order in benefactive constructions: a) *Pronoun IO: ...V- IOPRO - DO b) *Noun IO : ...V- IONP - DO Stage 2. *Hausa and Chadic word order in benefactive constructions: a) Pronoun IO: ...V - IOPRO - DO b) Noun IO : ...V(PRO.AGR) - DO - IONP Stage 3. Hausa word order in benefactive constructions: a) Pronoun IO: ...V - IOINDEP.PRO - DO b) Noun IO : ...V - IONP - DO Stage 3 for Hausa does not include a pleonastic pronoun since Newman (1982) does not relate the situation in Stage 2 to the -aC suffix. Stage 1a) is attested in an archaic construction in Hausa with the high-frequency verb baa ‘give’, cf. (149), besides being the prevalent structure in many Chadic languages. (149) TAM Taa she.PF
V baa give
OBJDAT nì¶taæ¶shì me¶her¶him
OBJACC tukunyaa¶ itaa pot¶ IND.F (it)
‘She gave me/her/him the pot/She gave it to me/her/him’
Regarding Stage 1b), it is presumed but not attested by Newman that the nominal benefactive constructions had the indirect object in postverbal position (Newman 1982: 71): cf. ‘I regard the typical Chadic word order with noun i.o.’s after the d.o. as being due to a shared extraposition rule that moved the i.o.’s to the right of the d.o. In underlying structure, the word order was presumably the same whether the i.o was nominal or pronominal, namely V –
235
i.o. –d.o.’. The motivation for moving the indirect object behind the direct object is suggested to be that it was ‘heavy’ or ‘cumbersome’ and that counted as such would be a language specific matter. Stage 2 reflects the structure of many Chadic languages today, e.g. Kanakuru, Ngamo (Gashinge-dialect), Kera, Dangaléat, and Ga’anda, but represents an earlier stage of Hausa. For Hausa specifically, Stage 2 would have manifested itself as in (150): (150)
V+IO NP:
*neema-t DO gà IO NP V -3.SG.F IO PRO DO PREP IO NP
This kind of analysis indicates that there was a double marking of the benefactive or the recipient as in e.g. “he washed-to him1 the gown for Audu1”. Furthermore, Newman (1982) reports that Schön (1862, 1885) presents data from the mid-nineteenth century where a ‘northern dialect’ speaker Dorugu consistently uses the preposition gà as an IO marker, and has the IO argument after the DO, as in (151). (151) PAM V Yaa gwafiaæa he.PF show
IO (nominal) gaæ fia-n-saæ IOP son-of-his
'He showed (it) to his son’ (tone, V length and implosives are added to the original transcription)
Gà ‘in/on/near, in the presence of, to s.o., in the possession of, in relation to’ is still in general use in Hausa today as a preposition, and is also used to mark indirect objects of some complexity, and complex noun phrases as in (152), where extraposition of IO after the DO is optional. (152)
S TAM V Kaæree yaa yaa˚eæ dog he.PF bare.4C
DO haa˚oæoransaæ teeth.his
'The dog bared his teeth at the important visitor’
IO gaæ IOP
baæbba-n big-of
baæa˚oo guest
(Newman 1982: 65)
Stage 3 describes the present benefactive system in Hausa. The present word order in Hausa benefactive constructions is this (exemplified here with a feminine pronoun): (153) a) V+IO pronoun: neemat DO V3.SG.F IO-PRO DO as in: b) S TAM V -3SG IO DO Kaawuæu yaa neema -t mataæ aikì uncle he.PF seek-3.SG.F DAT.her work ‘The uncle sought work for her’
236
5. 1. 5 Possible implications of Newman‘s stage 2: after-thought topic-shift in OBJDAT constructions and reanalysis? The present Hausa benefactive -aC construction is similar to Chadic in one respect: it uses a pleonastic pronoun. Although Newman (1982) does not relate the situation in Stage 2 to the -aC suffix, he states elsewhere (1977: 286) that the situation where the benefactive suffix is ‘a pleonastic IO pronoun co-occurring with the noun IO’ is ‘a grammatical phenomenon extremely common in Chadic’. Let us consider this possibility: • the change from stage 1a) to 2a) came about as as result of after-thought topic-shift • the change from stage 2 to 3 came about as a result of topic-fronting of the noun IO due to the relatively higher topicality of IO in relation to DO - as in a dative-shift. The Stage 2 position for Hausa nominal OBJDAT’s was after the OBJACC. Still being in this position, it was agreement marked with a pronominal trace suffixed to the verb. At this stage, the OBJDAT construction resembles a Givónian after-thought topic-shift. Cf. this hypothesized example: (154) TAM VOBJDAT PRO OBJACC, •Naa zaa\a -t zaneæe, I-PF choose-3PSGF dress.PL ‘I chose a dress for her, for the girl’
OBJOBL gaæ yaarinyaæa PREP girl
If this was an AT topic-shift, it follows that Newman’s assumed original Stage 1 position for the OBJDAT (before being extraposed behind the OBJACC) must have been exactly where we find the pleonastic pronoun today: Between the verb and the OBJACC. According to Givón’s model, if a noun indirect object may have been repeated after the OBJACC for reasons of communicative clarity, leaving a pronominal trace after the verb. This, however, would have happened only in the case of nouns, since only the mention of the noun can serve to disambiguate the referent of the pronoun. Thus there was no reason for pronoun OBJDAT’s to move to the right of the OBJACC, as was precisely the case. As Givón’s model predicts, this construction would then be reanalyzed (demarked) as the normal syntax, and an agreement system arose out of that situation. There is one basic difference between Newman’s explanation and the one offered in Givón’s model. According to Newman, noun OBJDATs moved to the right of the OBJACC because it was ‘cumbersome’ or ‘heavy’. In Givón’s model, the noun phrase would not have been moved from after the verb, but added after the core sentence as an apposition, because it
237
had a disambiguating function. The fact that Stage 1b) is assumed and not attested would support this analysis. Newman (1982) is also vague about what would count as cumbersome enough to have gone through this change, he refers to this ‘a language specific matter’ (1982: 71). The advantage of explaining this in terms of a reanalyzed after-thought construction lies in the universal aspect of how agreement systems may develop. Heaviness might explain why Chadic languages have noun OBJDATs in this position, but not why it leaves an agreement mark on the verb. Now to the transition from Stage 2 to Stage 3: Newman (1982) assumes that noun indirect objects have moved back to the position between the verb and the direct object and that this change was specific for Hausa, but does not indicate why this may have happened. In Givón’s model the element of agreement related to relative higher topicality values an OBJDAT would rank higher on the topicality value than a OBJACC, being prototypically human and definite (from discourse). Although an OBJDAT has no overt definite marker, the idea that the OBJDAT could be interpreted as definite from context is supported e.g. by the following generalization by Givón, pointing out the very close association between the features human and definite: ‘Since human objects are much more likely to be topics and thus are mostly definite in discourse ,
speakers could quite easily re-interpret definite-object agreement as human-object agreement, with relatively little loss in the predictability of the model, given the high co-occurrence of these two features.’ (1976: 159-60).
Again I should emphasize that the above is a theoretical discussion of a Chadicist’s view on the indirect object constructions in Hausa, held together with a general linguistic model on topicality and the rise of agreement. In light of my findings on the –C consonant in the –aC suffixes, this has become an interesting view, especially since other Chadic languages are reported to display this type of agreement. However, it should be stressed that for this to be further corroborated one needs additional empirical comparative data from within the Chadic languages. The relevance of this discussion for my own analysis is that it supports the idea that the function of the –C in the –aC suffix is one of semantic emphasis and attention on a clausal participant.
238
5. 1. 6 Agreement markers as transitivizers and exponents of transitivity effects in other languages Hausa is not the only language which seems to have grammaticalized agreement markers (see 7. 5 and appendix E) into transitivity markers with concomitant semantic attributes of degrees of transitivity. Givón (1976: 167-172) found that agreement markers may have a diversity of functions, among which agreement markers may signal ‘syntactic type’ relating to transitivity (1976: 168). Examples include New Guinea Highland Pidgin, where the object agreement suffix -im has become a signal of transitive verbs, also used in citation forms (cf. har-im ‘hear’). Payne (1982) shows that in Chickasaw (a Muskogean language spoken in Oklahoma and parts of the south-eastern United States), different sets of agreement affixes are used as a function of involvement and correspond to different degrees of transitivity, where the notion of transitivity is used as in Hopper and Thompson (1980). The specific transitivity components which correlate with the use of one set of affixes over another in Chickasaw include a) number of participants, b) kinesis, c) volitionality, d) individuation of O[bject], and e) affectedness of O[bject] (Payne 1982: 360). Chickasaw appears to be a language where object agreement uses Patient affixes to mark more involved and more affected object participants, and where dative marks relatively less involved and less affected object participants. The relevant parallel to Hausa (although the system in Hausa is not as elaborate as the one in Chickasaw) resides in the (for Hausa potential) grammatical origin of the set of markers, and in terms of the semantic effect of these markers with respect to degrees of transitivity. In the following I shall present how, as predicted by the work of Hopper and Thompson, the High Transitivity of -aC/BEN and -aC/CAUS-CMN is reflected in clusters of features, showing how these suffixes are used and understood by Hausa speakers. The High Transitivity value which is the result of an added or the focus on a relatively topical argument is a semantic aspect of all the variants of the -aC suffix. Exactly how the High Transitivity value is manifested in each of the constructions will, however, vary. Indonesian is another language that bears similarity to Hausa in terms of having a causative-benefactive marker that is also a marker of increased transitivity in the verb. As we saw above, the suffix -KAN in Indonesian has many of the same functions as -aC in Hausa: it marks causative, benefactive, intensive meaning, completed aspect, and affected object.
239
These constitute a cluster of HT features, whose composition is not accidental, according to Hopper and Thompson. The remainder of this chapter is devoted to presenting the data from the semantics tests and in discussing the implications of these findings. Enjoy!
5. 2 Methodology in the testing process In order to find out more about the -aC/BEN and the -aC/CAUS suffixes, I conducted a number of tests on Hausa speakers in the course of fieldwork in Niger and Nigeria in 1994. This section will present the test construction process, describe how the actual testing was performed and explain how the data were systematized afterwards. 5. 2. 1 Testing semantics of the benefactive The semantics of the -aC/BEN suffixes were tested by comparing these suffixes to the other verbal suffixes of the grade system. This was done by constructing a number of benefactive sentences and varying only the grades of the verbs. Subjects were then asked to contrast the sentences and describe the particular meaning of each sentence. See test 2 in appendix A. All grades were included in this test because the original objective was to discuss all benefactive forms of the grade system. In addition, the L..H -ii/BEN form was included, since it had been reported by Swets (1989) and Pilszczikowa (1969). In the course of writing, however, it was decided for reasons of space and focus that only the -aC/BEN vs. the -aC/CAUS-CMN suffixes should be the topic of the dissertation. Two varieties of the -aC/BEN suffix, -at and -an were not included in the semantics test. The -at/BEN suffix was not included because its existence was not known to the society of (non-native) Hausa researchers at the time of test construction. The -an/BEN suffix was mentioned only in a few older descriptions of Hausa, and I did not expect to encounter it to the extent that I did. 5. 2. 1. 1 Test construction in benefactive semantics test Some of the verbs in the test were included to check on previous research on the semantic roles of the dative object (see Munkaila 1990), specifically fiaukaæa gr1 ‘take’, fiiibaæa gr1 ‘draw’, goæogaa gr2 ‘rub’, daæn˚aa gr2 ‘grasp’, tsìnkaa gr2 ‘pick’, and saæaraa gr2 ‘cut’. Munkaila included these verbs on the basis of their neutrality of meaning, that is, that the meaning of the stem was not liable to trigger only a malefactive or only a benefactive role of the dative object. The remaining verbs in my test are commonly used in Hausa linguistic
240
literature and everyday language. Both motion verbs, transactional verbs and activity verbs were included. 5. 2. 1. 2 Methodological issues in the interviewing process Subjects were first asked to translate the sentences into French (Niger) or English (Nigeria). In cases where the subject could not express himself or herself well in any of these languages, the interpreter would ask him or her to paraphrase the meaning in Hausa and these paraphrases would then be translated by the interpreter. Questions would be asked in English by me and translated to Hausa by the interpreter. The interpretation process could to some extent be monitored by myself. The choice of making use of an interpreter instead of posing the questions directly myself was also grounded on the possible linguistic interference which could be caused by awkwardness and lack of fluency, besides an obvious foreign accent. I did not wish the informant in any way to simplify his or her language, since I was particularly interested in semantic nuances. In general, I judged communication to be enhanced and possible sources of error to be diminished if subjects could relate to a native speaker. 5. 2. 1. 3 Systematization of the semantic data The responses from both the benefactive and the causative semantics tests were systematized in a Filemaker program and the various semantic explanations given by the speakers were categorized according to semantic labels which seemed to do justice to the data, viz. Subject effort, Object affectedness, completed aspect, certainty, direction, distance, and so forth. The data were evaluated in a qualitative manner rather than quantitatively, since the questionnaires did not encourage uniform answers, but rather urged the individual informant to give his or her subjective explanation of the semantics of the sentences. To present a questionnaire with discrete meanings for a yes/no response could have provided uniform, countable responses. However, this would have involved influencing the responses, and such data would be far less interesting and less reliable. Despite the qualitative method, the semantic explanations given by the speakers display clear convergences. It was therefore evaluated as not necessary or desirable to present each informant’s responses separately, but rather to extract individual responses and organize them to illustrate particular linguistic phenomena.
241
5. 2. 1. 4 Cross-comparison of the -aC/BEN and -aC/CAUS suffixes In order to reach a satisfactory semantic analysis, the -aC/BEN and -aC/CAUS were systematically compared to the gr1 -aa/BEN and gr1 -aa/TRANS suffixes, respectively. That is, their meanings were established independently and in isolation from each other. An extract of these results can be found in appendix B (benefactive) and appendix C (causative), along with lists of the informants. 5. 2. 2 Testing semantics of -C/CAUS for possible transitivity effects A number of High Transitivity components were applied in the causative/caused-motion construction, contrasting the form -aC with corresponding low transitive gr1 HL(H) -aa verb forms. The components to be contrasted were chosen partly on the basis of what was known about the -aC/CAUS beforehand, and partly on the basis of what was known to be typical of the -aC/BEN construction. It was assumed that if the features which were known to be typical of -aC/BEN were rejected by the informants, this would not have further strengthened the hypothesis that the ‘action away’ meaning of -aC/CAUS was but one of several HT semantic features. However, this did not happen. 5. 2. 2. 1 Test construction in the causative semantics test The test consisted of sentence pairs contrasting verbs in the -aC/CAUS and the gr1 -aa low transitive forms. One working hypothesis was that there would be a difference in meaning between animate/inanimate OBJ/Causees, similar to the difference in OBJDAT of the benefactive and the OBJINST of the causative/caused-motion construction (see analysis in 5. 4. 1 on incremental theme). Some sentence pairs with alternating animate/inanimate OBJINST were therefore included in the test, specifically numbers 4/5 and 8/9 below. Since all the test sentences are causative in meaning, I refer to the –aC suffix in this section as causative. The test sentences were: 1. Yaa ciisaæ he.PF eat.gr141 ‘He fed the girl’
yaarinyaæa ¶ Yaa ciisad daæ yarinyaæa girl
2. Yaa tumaæasaæ dawaakii he.PF mate.gr1 horses
(cf. ci ‘eat’)
¶Yaa tumaasad daæ daawaakii (cf. tuæmaasaæ ‘to mate’)
‘He interbred the horses’
41The -s- in ciisàa may come from an -s causative, that is, historically a pronoun. In that case, ciisad dà has a double marking of causative. This, however, has not been confirmed.
242
3. Yaa hasaælaæ maæataa he.PF be.angry.gr1 woman
¶Yaa hasalad daæ maæataa (cf. haæsalaæ
‘be angry’)
‘He made the woman angry’
4. Taa \angaælaæ kwaanoæo ¶Taa \angalad daæ kwaanoæo (cf. \angaælee ‘turn over’ intr.) she.PF turn.over.gr1 pot ‘She turned over the pot’
5. Yaa \angaælaæ he.PF be.let.down.gr1
yaarinyaæa ¶Yaa \angalad daæ yaarinyaæa girl (cf. \aængalaæ ‘be let down (person)’)
‘He let the girl down’
6. Yaa taasaæ he.PF rise.gr1
rìgimaæa unrest
¶Yaa taasad daæ rìgimaæa (cf. taasaæa ‘be adult, mature; lit. stand up’)
‘He aroused (i.e. created) trouble’
7. Taa shii˚aæ she.PF winnow.gr1
hatsii grain
¶Taa shii˚ad daæ hatsii
8. Naa I.PF
waasaæ be.sharp.gr1
yu˚aa knife
¶Naa waasad daæ yu˚aa
9. Naa I.PF
waasaæ be.flattered.gr1
‘She winnowed the grain’
‘I sharpened the knife’
‘I flattered the man’
muætu]m man
(cf. waæasu ‘be sharp’)
¶Naa waasad daæ muætu]m (cf. waæasu ‘be flattered’)
5. 2. 2. 2 The interviewing process The test was conducted on 9 Hausa speakers from Dogondoutchi, where speakers were asked to compare the sentence pairs for each value. The interviewer was a native speaker of the Dogondoutchi dialect. 5. 2. 2. 3 Evaluation of reliability In contrast to the benefactive test, this test does not ask the subjects to elaborate freely on the meaning of the -aC/CAUS morpheme. Instead, the questions were posed as ‘which one of these two sentences carry characteristic X’, presupposing that one of them actually did possess this feature. The general impression was that the responses were quite unanimous, and speakers had no difficulty in understanding the general idea. They answered promptly and with intonational emphasis and conviction in the majority of cases. This was true in all but one question on tense/aspect restrictions on the near/distant future, which none of the 9 speakers confirmed. I therefore assume that no such restrictions apply.
243
5. 2. 3 Photographs from the fieldwork
Fieldwork in Niger and Nigeria, 1994
1. First row top: I make soup in a compound in Dogondoutchi. First row middle: At the marketplace in Dogondoutchi. Standing from the left: camel owner, Muhammed Askiya (informant) and me. First row down: Adamou Cibau is interviewed in Dogondoutchi. Second row top: Research assistant Sahabi Mahaman on the top of the mountain Maatar Duu’cii in Dogondoutchi. Second row middle: Myself on a camel outside Dogondoutchi Second row down: Mountain Maatar Duu’cii in Dogondoutchi.
244
Fieldwork in Niger and Nigeria, cont.
2. First row top: The mountain Toozon Bijimi (‘Calf’s back’) in Dogondoutchi at sunset. First row middle: Break after interviewing at Giginya Hotel in Sokoto, Nigeria. Sitting from the left are Sahabi Mahaman and two of my Sokoto informants. First row down: The ACAL conference in the US, 1994, Hausa linguist Pascal Kampo from Magarya and me. Second row top: Work place in Dutsin Ma, Nigeria (local hotel). Sahabi Mahaman on the steps. Second row middle: Interviewing Fati from Dutsin Ma. Second row down: Sahabi Mahaman and informant Abba Sidi from Dutsin Ma at Giginya hotel in Sokoto, both are ” ‘Dan sarkii” (sonof-king).
245
5. 3 Systematized test responses 5. 3. 1 High transitivity effects in the -aC/BEN The following characteristics of the Hausa benefactive relates to Hopper and Thompson’s transitivity hypothesis, presented in chapter 3. For the benefactive, increased transitivity is reflected in the sense of: 1. A general meaning of intensity (cf. point B in 3. 5, Kinesis, and effective transfer of energy) 2. The subject is volitional in displaying a high degree of effort/involvement in the completion of the action (cf. point E, Volitionality, point H, high agency) 3. The OBJDAT participant (along with other objects) is highly affected (positively or negatively), i.a. through loss of integrity/autonomy (cf. point I, Affected objects) 4. The action is thought of as having been completely finished and even as having happened long ago, (cf. point C, telic action) 5. A sense of certainty accompanies the completive aspect. (cf. point G, Realis mode). Some of these facts have been pointed out by other hausaists (cf. Munkaila 1990, Jaggar and Munkaila 1995), but they are further elaborated by my own field data. A few examples are mentioned below, and further documentation can be found in appendix B. Note also that it is argued independently in Hopper and Thompson that dative object constructions should be considered highly transitive constructions on grounds of the general individuation value of dative objects (1980: 260). In the examples below, slash (/) in transcribed examples indicates ‘new informant’. In each semantic explanation, reference is made to the test sentence number and suffix in that particular response, for example 7/-am (meaning test sentence 7, using the -am suffix). Translation of the test sentence is included, because the translation given by the informants may deviate from the standard translation in the test. ‘Semantic explanation’ is abbreviated SE. Pronouns in the semantic explanations are identified by the syntactic functions they had in the original test sentences. These are indicated as [S] (subject), [OBJDAT] (dative object), or [OBJACC] (accusative object). 5. 3. 1. 1 Test sentences for the benefactive The test sentences are included below in order to facilitate the reading of the test results of the benefactive test.
246
1.
Naa I.PF
aiksend-(BEN)
mataæ daæ shii DAT.her INST IND.M
‘I sent it to her at the market’
2.
kaæasuwa market
Kin amsmataæ kufiii@ he.PF receive-(BEN) DAT.her money
‘Did you take the money from her?/ Did you receive the money for her?’
3.
Sun they.PF
saymataæ goo®oæo buy-(BEN)DAT.her kolanut
-am: ‘They bought kolanut from her/ They bought some kolanuts for her’
4.
Naa I.PF
zaa\mataæ zannuwaæa choose-(BEN) DAT.her wrappers
‘I chose wrappers for her’
5.
Taa haifmishì tagwaæayee she.PF give birth-(BEN) DAT.him twins ‘She gave birth to twins for him’
6.
Yaa neemhe.PF seek-(BEN)
mataæ aikì DAT.her work
Yaa ka®\he.PF receive-gr1
musuæ kufiii DAT.them money
‘He sought work for her’
7.
‘He received the money for them/ He took money from them’
8.
Bankì yaa bank he.PF
rantlend-(BEN)
mataæ kufiii DAT.her money
‘The bank lent money to her/ The bank borrowed money from her’
9.
Haædiizaæa taa fieebHadiza she.PF draw-(BEN)
maæ fiantaæ DAT son.her
Yaa saamhe.PF find-(BEN)
gidaa house
‘Hadiza drew water for her son’
10.
‘He found us a house’
11.
Sun They.PF
manaæ DAT.us
ruwaa water
ya®dmasaæ yaæ aæuree taæ agree-(BEN) DAT.him he-SUBJ marry.2B her
‘They agreed that he could marry her’
12.
Maalaæmaa Aminaæa Teacher Amina
taa kooymanaæ she.PF teach-(BEN) DAT.us
‘Teacher Amina taught us Hausa’
13.
Ma aìkaæci yaa fiaukworker he.PF pick.up-(BEN) ‘The worker picked up the sack for me’
14.
Yaa he.PF
googrub-gr1
minì buæhu DAT.me sack
mataæ ma]n-kìshi DAT.her moisture.cream
‘He rubbed cream onto her/ He rubbed her cream (on himself)’
247
Hausa Hausa
15.
Kuæ you.SJN
tsinkpick-(BEN)
Yaaroæo child
yaa dam˚he.PF seize-(BEN)
‘Pick us some mangos!’
16.
munaæ DAT.us
‘The child seized her clothes’
17.
An saa®one.PF cut-gr1
mikì DAT.you.F
mangwaroæ mango
mataæ tufaafì DAT.her clothes naamaæa meat
‘One has cut meat for you / One has cut off your meat (to use for oneself)’
18.
Yaa karymataæ aæ®aæke he.PF break-(BEN) DAT.her sugarcane
‘He broke her sugarcane/ He broke her sugarcane for her’
19.
Ya twallmataæ rìigaa he.PF tear-(BEN)DAT.her dress ‘He tore her dress’
20.
Naa I.PF
tuu®push-(BEN)
musuæ DAT.them
mootaæa car
mataæ DAT.her
rìigaa dress
‘I pushed the car for them’/‘I pushed their car’/ ‘I sent them a car’
21.
Yaa keethe.PF tear-(BEN) ‘He tore her dress’
5. 3. 1. 2 A general meaning of intensity In general, -aC/BEN is associated with more intensity than corresponding gr1 sentences. Intensity refers to the degree of effectiveness with which transitive energy is transferred from the Agent to the object(s); it is reflected in the amount of mental or physical energy put into having the transitive action accomplished, and its effect on the objects. See the examples (155a-b) below, both produced by the same speaker: (155) 9¶-am: ‘Hadiza drew water for her son’. Speaker’s SE: ‘More devotion. More effort (than gr1 -àa) because of the large quantity of water, real labour: She [S] spent an hour doing it, she was really sweating. She put more energy into it, more intensity. She needs a lot of water for her son [OBJDAT], for a bath, for washing his clothes etc.’
9/-àa: ‘Hadiza drew water for her son’. Speaker’s SE: ‘He [OBJDAT] is only going to have water for drinking (no water for bathing, washing clothes, etc.). [She (S) yields] little effort, just a hand-movement. She [S] drew just a little water, maybe just a cup. Spent just one minute doing it (cf. -am/BEN she was working hard for an hour).’
248
5. 3. 1. 3 Agentive and volitional subject in -aC/BEN Point 2 states that subjects of this construction are volitional and highly agentive. Subvariations based on speakers’ SE include (high degree of) a) Effort, b) Physical force, c) Mental force, d) Power-control, and e) Planned involvement. a) The label ‘Effort’ refers to positive actions which were performed with more effort or more energy. This is related to the amount of mental or physical energy yielded by the subject, to doing something wholeheartedly, or doing more than was expected, as in (156158) below. (156) 20¶-am: ‘I pushed the car for them’. Speaker’s SE: ‘The car is pushed longer than [when the suffix] -aæa [is used], and with more effort.’ (157)
11¶-as, -am: ‘They agreed that he could marry her’. Speakers’ SE: [Parents completely agreed]: ‘He
[OBJDAT] could get married right now, the road is opened for him. Parents [S] are pleased. /It was the parents’ idea. Total agreement of [both] families.’
(158)
8¶-am: ‘The bank lent money to her’. Speaker’s SE: ‘A special favour [by the bank]. One would not
normally expect the bank [S] to lend money to her [OBJDAT].’
The notion of effort was also related by Hausa speakers to taking a particular initiative and responsibility for an action, often implying doing something as a special favour or doing more than is expected, as in (159) and (160). (159) 12/-a®,
-as: ‘Teacher Amina taught us Hausa’. Speakers’ SE: ‘[It is] thanks to her [S] that we [OBJDAT]
know Hausa so well. She is the only one who taught us.’/‘It is her [S] initiative to teach us [OBJDAT].’/‘If today we [OBJDAT] are speaking Hausa, it is because of her [S].’ (160) 20/-a®: ‘I will send a car for them (over there in the field)’. Speaker’s SE: ‘Responsibility, i.e. I [S] am responsible for sending them [OBJDAT] the car [OBJACC]. They are my workers.’
Being particularly energetic also involved the subject/Agent going a long distance to get something, or that the OBJACC she provided for the OBJDAT was of a particularly big quantity or good quality, typically a subject doing her utmost, as seen in (161) and (162) below. The examples show that there is a correlation between the energy input of the subject and the quantity or amount of the OBJACC. (161) 4/-a®: I chose wrappers for her’. Speaker’s SE: ‘I [S] chose wrappers for her from far away.’
4¶-am: Speaker’s SE: ‘I [S] have chosen from my own shop the best wrappers [OBJACC] for her [OBJDAT].’
249
(162) 9/-am: ‘Hadiza drew water for her son’. Speaker’s SE: ‘She [S] draws a lot of water [OBJACC].’
b) High agency is also visible in the cases where the subject/Agent uses an increased amount of physical, muscular force, e.g. when holding something. The use of force by the subject was very frequently perceived as involving negative action or violence towards the dative object, such as stealing or destroying the OBJDAT’s property, even with neutral semantics of the verb. In inherently negative actions, addition of the -aC/BEN suffix yielded the synergetic meaning ‘use of excessive violence’, that is, fortifying the effect that is already lexically present. (163) Direct, physical force vs. no physical force 16¶-a®, -am: ‘The child seized her clothes’. Speaker’s SE: ‘The child [S] holds her [OBJDAT’s] clothes and doesn’t want to let go. Even though he [S] is small (a child), he tries to control her (e.g. his mother), e.g. she [OBJDAT] wants to go to the market and he [S] doesn’t want to be left alone. / He [S] uses more force […] and thus has more control of her [OBJDAT] . He holds her back, he makes her stay.’
16¶-aæa: ‘The child seized her clothes’. Speaker’s SE: ‘There is not much use of force, no intensity.’ The use of force by the subject was very frequently perceived as involving negative action or violence towards the dative object, with the result that neutral verbs such as saa®‘cut’, ams- and ka®)- ‘receive’, goog- ‘rub’, dam˚- ‘seize’ were given the interpretation of stealing or destruction of OBJDAT’s property when used with the -am, -as, or -a® suffixes. Cf. the b) sentences in (164) through (166) below, contrasting the -aC/BEN suffixes with the gr1 -aa suffix. Force as a negative, forcible action vs. neutral meaning (164)
a) 17¶-aæa: ‘One has cut meat for you’ b)
17¶-as: ‘One has dispossessed you of your meat’. Speaker’s SE: ‘Someone [S] came and
dispossessed her [OBJDAT] of her meat. (165) b)
a) 7¶-aæa : ‘He received money for them’ 7¶-as, -a®: He took money from them’. Speakers’ SE: He [S] took money from them [OBJDAT].
Use of violence, not [stolen] with [the use of] smartness. /He [S] snatched their [OBJDAT’s] money with force. (166)
a) 14¶-aæa: ‘He (accidentally) rubbed cream onto her’. Speakers’ SE: ‘Rubs lightly/Walking and he [S]
rubbed on her [OBJDAT] because he bumped into her. /He [S] rubbed the cream onto her at random, maybe while dancing.’
250
b)
14¶-am, as: ‘He used (rubbed) her cream for himself’. Speakers’ SE: ‘She [OBJDAT] had put
her cream aside. He [S] came and rubbed her cream on his own body. Intensity because he [S] stole it. /He [S] destroyed her cream.’
Amplification of negativity vs. moderate negative meaning (167)
a)
21¶-aæa: ‘He (accidentally) tore her dress’. Speaker’s SE: ‘He [S] accidentally tore her dress.
Accidentally: He did not aim to do it, but did it in a stressed situation, e.g. they are fighting.’ b)
21¶-a®, -am, -as: ‘He tore her dress’. Speaker’s SE: ‘Use of excessive violence. More strength
used and damage done […]. More negative […]/ He [S] seized the dress with strength.’
The fact that the primary meaning is fortification of the lexical-verbal effect explains why the same suffix, e.g. -am, may have both a malefactive and a benefactive dative object with the same sentence with the same speaker, cf. (168): (168)
a)
16¶-am : ‘The boy snatched her cloth’. Speaker’s SE: ‘The boy [S] has snatched her
[OBJDAT’s] own cloth, a special cloth that she likes. He did it to her especially. He destroys the cloth with a dirty hand.’ b)
16¶-am: ‘The boy took some clothes and gave to her’. Speaker’s SE: ‘He [S] used his whole
energy in order to be nice, good intention. It is his own initiative, to be nice. He did it especially for her [OBJDAT], and she did not expect it. There is no friction, just satisfaction.’
c) If the subject participant uses mental force towards the OBJDAT participant, the subject typically is in a powerful position and the dative object in a correspondingly more vulnerable position with little control of the situation, typically a superior/inferior relationship. This unequal relationship is explained as being due to both situational and social circumstances. One type of social relationship that may cause such an imbalance is an intimacy relationship between the subject/Agent and the OBJDAT participants where there is mutual trust, but where the subject abuses this trust to gain some advantage. Other inequality relationships may be grounded in social inequality relating to age or sex, or potential abusive relationships between office holders and laymen. There are also examples where the subject forces someone to act with her mind rather than by physical action, e.g. by outsmarting someone. Intimacy and abuse of trust (169) 7¶-a® : ‘He took money from them (by smartness)’. Speakers’ SE: ‘He [S] violates their [OBJDAT’s] integrity by trying to win their trust.’
251
(170)
17¶-am: ‘One has cut off your meat (to use for oneself)’. Speaker’s SE: ‘[S is an] aggressor [who]
breaks/abuses [OBJDAT’s] trust.’
Superiority/inferiority relationships (171)
7¶-am: ‘He took money from them (by force or smartness)’. Speaker’s SE: ‘Not legal. He [S] has bad
intentions. [He is] someone with power to control, e.g. a policeman or customs agent [who may typically be corrupt and abusive in Niger/Nigeria].’
Mental influence (172) 6¶-a® : ‘He sought (and found) work for her’. Speaker’s SE: [Force from S towards OBJDAT]: ‘the force (causation) of making her [OBJDAT] work is stronger […]. She [OBJDAT] is obliged to do the work, and is thus less autonomous. The force (causation) of making her work is stronger […]. [He (S)] controls her. (173)
2¶-a®: ‘Did you take the money from her (by smartness)?’ Speakers’ SE: ‘He [S] took her
[OBJDAT’s] money by deception, no physical proof ("with smartness", contrary to gr4 -èe "with physical force from OBJDAT’s hand") /Did you [S] take the money [OBJACC] from her [OBJDAT] (by intelligence)?’
d) High agency may also be reflected in the subject/Agent’s exerting a certain amount of control or power over the OBJDAT participant, hence the label ’Power-control’. The use of mental or physical force is closely related to this superior position. The subject/Agent may be socially superior, someone that the OBJDAT participant respects a lot, typically an elder relative (in Hausa society, power is strongly related to age, and to behave respectfully toward someone who is older than you is a social ‘must’). Alternatively, she could exert power and control through the influence given by physical proximity, such as living in the same compound. Power may also be exerted in terms of physical size and physical strength, or by using a powerful instrument (e.g. pushing a car with a big truck). The non-equal relationship can also be situational. A socially unequal relationship is often accompanied by situational circumstances, such as physical proximity, giving the subject additional influence, as in (174). (174)
6¶-am : ‘He sought work for her’. Speaker’s SE: [Power-Control]: ‘He [S] is someone she [OBJDAT]
respects a lot, her parent, uncle, elder brother, etc. There is no possibility for her to say no (not accept the job). /A notion of forcing her [OBJDAT] to work: causation. He [S] controls her [OBJDAT], she is in his compound: physical proximity.’
The comparison in (175) shows that three elements are interrelated: 1) Subject PowerControl, 2) physical proximity (‘intimacy’) and 3) dative object dependence (‘(Non)-
252
autonomy’). That is, the power and influence that the subject participant has over the OBJDAT participant seems to be founded on the intimacy relationship or the physical proximity situation. (175)
a)
11¶-am, -a® : ‘They consented to him that he could marry her’. Speaker’s SE: [Power-Control]:
‘They [S] have power to refuse (more than with -aæa). [Non-autonomous]: He [OBJDAT] is obliged to have their [S] agreement (less so in -aæa). In -aæa he can do the marriage on his own, without their agreement. In -am he has to have the agreement in order to marry her. The family [S] must contribute materially.’ [Intimacy]: ‘He lives with his parents.’ b)
11¶-aæa: ‘They agreed to him that he could marry her’. Speaker’s SE: [No Power-Control]: ‘They [S]
do not have much power to refuse him [OBJDAT]. He is less obliged to have their permission. He can marry her on his own, without their consent.’ [No intimacy]: ‘He [OBJDAT] lives far away from his parents [S] and only needs their verbal agreement.’ [Autonomous]: He [OBJDAT] is less obliged to have their [S] permission. He can marry her on his own, without their consent.
An example of powerful subjects related to physical size and physical strength can be seen in (176)-(177). (176)
18¶-a®: ‘He broke her sugarcane’. Speaker’s SE: [Force]: ‘He [S] broke her [OBJDAT] sugar-cane to
be nasty (not to eat himself).’ [Cf. -aæa "He broke his own sugar-cane to give her"]. [Power-control]: ‘He [S] is bigger than her [OBJDAT] so she cannot defend herself.’ (177)
20¶-as : ‘He (intentionally) pushed their car away’. Speaker’s SE: [Power-control]: He [S]
intentionally pushed their [OBJDAT’s] car [OBJACC] away. He is annoyed and has power to push it away, whether they are present or not. He may have a big car [to push it with]. Maybe they have parked the car in the way.’
Furthermore, the subject participant may have Power-control in being seen as the only
person able to perform the beneficiary action for the OBJDAT participant, with the result that the latter is completely dependent on the former. One example of such superior/inferior relationships is (178): (178)
7¶-am: ‘He received the money for them’. Speaker’s SE: [Power-control]: ‘Only he [S] could do it for
them [OBJDAT]. They are dependent on him.’
In some cases, the subject participant is not in himself socially or physically superior, but the implication of the -aC/BEN suffix is that he tries to gain such superiority or influence over the dative object. In one of the sentences I constructed, the subject participant was a boy,
253
in another a worker. In both, they would be socially inferior participants, the boy also physically weaker. Consider sentences (179) and (180): (179)
16¶-a® : ‘The boy seized her clothes (trying to hold her back)’. Speaker’s SE: [Physical force]: The
child [S] holds her [OBJDAT’s] clothes and doesn’t want to let go. [Power-control]: ‘Even though he [S] is small (a child), he tries to control her (e.g. his mother), e.g. she [OBJDAT] wants to go to the market and he doesn’t want to be left alone.’ (180)
13¶-am: ‘The worker picked up the sack for me’. Speaker’s SE: [Effort, Power-control]: ‘The worker
[S] insisted that he should take my [OBJDAT’s] sack, even though I refused at the beginning, but finally he convinced me. The worker has a certain control over me, to the extent that he causes me to/makes me accept his help.’
Thus, even though the sentences were not constructed with a potentially powerful subject, it seems that the meaning of the -am¶-a® suffixes leads the informants to interpret the sentence in this way. This is a very strong indication that a powerful/forceful subject is actually part of the meaning of the -a®¶-am suffixes. e) ‘Planned involvement’ indicates that the subject/Agent acts deliberately, intentionally, and with some foresight. The subject is characterized by a high degree of initiative and responsibility, performs the action with more energy and conviction, and displays a marked active attitude. A nice example of a pre-meditated act is (181), where the subject has an ulterior motive. Another typical case is when the subject reserves something for the dative participant, e.g. a piece of meat or some water which is set aside for a person. In other cases the subject/Agent was described as acting deliberately, to be 100 percent involved, and to act on purpose. By contrast, in corresponding sentences with gr1 -aa sentences, the subject/Agent does not act purposefully, but aimlessly or at random, and the action is carried out on impulse or in a hurry. The intention to act appears on the spur of the moment and is not premeditated or planned ahead. The subject participant of gr1 sentences was sometimes said not to have initiated the action, but acted on the OBJDAT participant’s request, or because s/he was under pressure. That is, the action is less intended. Contrast a) and b) in (181)-(183). Planned involvement (181)
a)
3¶-am : ‘They bought some kolanuts for her’. Speaker’s SE: [Planned involvement]: 1) ‘They [S]
do it deliberately, maybe because she [OBJDAT] is pretty and they want to be introduced to her. They are 100 percent involved.’ 2) ‘[Planned involvement]: They [S] did it on purpose, they planned to do it.’
254
b)
3¶-aæa: ‘They bought her some kolanuts’. Speaker’s SE: [No planned involvement]: ‘No planning
to do it, at random: "By the way, let’s buy some kolanuts for her." They [S] are not 100 percent involved.’ (182)
a)
17¶-am : ‘One has cut meat (and reserved it especially) for you’. Speaker’s SE: [Planned
involvement]: ‘They planned to do it: e.g. when killing a sheep, they planned to reserve a big part for her.’ b)
17¶-aæa: ‘They have cut off (a small part of) meat for you’. Speaker’s SE: [No planned
involvement]: ‘Done as an impulse. Done in a rush.’
In (182a), the subject participant planned to give the OBJDAT participant a piece of meat already when slaughtering the animal, whereas in (182b), the intention to act is simultaneous with the moment of action. In yet other examples where the gr1 -aa suffix was used, there was no intentionality at all present on the part of the subject participant, i.e. the action happened by accident, completely without intentionality or planning on the part of the subject: (183)
a)
14¶-am : ‘He (deliberately) rubbed the cream (all over) her body’. Speaker’s SE: [Force/planned
involvement]: ‘He [S] did it deliberately […], and with more force. He rubbed her [OBJDAT] carefully.’ b)
14¶-aæa : ‘He (accidentally) rubs cream on her’. Speakers‘ SE: [No planned involvement]: ‘He [S]
rubbed the cream from his arm onto her [OBJDAT] at random, maybe [while] dancing. /Accidentally. He didn’t intend to do it. /Walking and he [S] rubbed on her [OBJDAT] by accident because he bumped into [her].’
The planning of an action will often precede its deliberate exertion. In (183c), the verb stem signifies ‘to give birth’, in which case the subject participant would wait for the birth to happen and the action would be initiated naturally. With the use of the -aC/BEN suffix, by contrast, the subject actively takes measures to get the foetus out of her womb: she aborts the children, for example, by taking drugs. That is, the subject participant plans the action, performs it deliberately, and is actively involved in its completion. (183)
c)
5¶-as: ‘She aborted his twins’. Speaker’s SE: ‘[Planned involvement/force]: She [S] took medicine
to have an abortion.’
Differences in subject initiative and responsibility for action are contrasted in (184ab). In (184a), the subject takes the initiative and is responsible for the realization of the action, sending ‘him’ ‘especially to go and see her’, indicating that he does it purposefully.
255
(184)
a)
1¶-am: ‘I sent him (especially) to (go and see) her at the market’. Speaker’s SE: [Planned
involvement]: ‘It is my [S] responsibility and initiative to send someone to her [OBJDAT]. I took the freedom to send someone to her.’ b)
1¶-aæa: ‘I recommended him to go (and see her) at the market/I sent it to her at the market’.
Speaker’s SE: [No planned involvement]: ‘She [OBJDAT] might have sent someone to me [S], to get what she wanted. I just sent it [OBJACC] to her and don’t care if she is going to get it or not. Maybe I [S] didn‘t want to do it, but am under pressure, just want to get rid of it [OBJACC]’
In (184b), the initiative is not even attributed to the subject, but rather to the OBJDAT participant or some other person who gives the subject participant orders to act in a certain way. He himself is even reluctant to perform the action. The translation ‘I recommended him to go’ instead of ‘I sent him’ also indicates that the action of sending the boy is done with much less force. Finally, the example in (185) shows that effort, planning ahead, and initiative are elements which may all be present in one explanation: all of them reflect the subject/Agent’s active attitude: (185)
6¶-am : ‘He sought (and found) work for her’. Speaker’s SE: [Effort/planned involvement]: ‘He [S]
put more energy into finding a job [OBJACC] (than with ‘neemaæa’). He took the responsibility to do it, on his own initiative. He tried several times, until he found it.’
Thus, ‘Planned involvement’ means that the subject participant has a willingness and ability to yield a lot of energy; he or she is the true source of energy. The result would be a goal oriented, purposive action, and an action with a definite aim. In conclusion, with respect to the subject/Agent, we have seen that this participant is characterized by a strong willingness and ability to apply a lot of energy, and actually does so. The application of this energy may either be seen as positive for the OBJDAT participant (‘Effort’), or as some kind of violation of the OBJDAT participant (‘Physical/mental force’), since ‘Effort’ mainly refers to the increased amount of positive, mental or physical energy expended by the subject and ‘Physical force’ often involves a negative, often physical use of increased energy. ‘Mental force’ refers to the subject’s mental influence over the dative object in a superior/inferior relationship, and Power-Control describes the nature of such a superior/inferior relationship: it can be rooted in both social circumstances (social ranking and intimacy relationships) and physical size or strength. Finally, if the subject is labelled
256
‘Planned involvement’, it will typically be more actively involved in the action, and itself be the true source of energy. All the above features describe the subject/Agent’s determined use of intensive energy, in other words this participant’s high agentive value. 5. 3. 1. 4 Object affectedness with -aC/BEN Point 3 in 3. 5 concerns the degree to which objects are affected. In the case of affectedness of OBJDAT, my data was classifiable according to variations in (high degree of) a) Impact, b) Intimacy, c) (Non)-autonomy, d) Violation of the dative participant’s privacy. Additional examples may be found in appendix B.2 and B.3. a) ‘Impact’ refers to the fact that the affectedness of the subject participant’s action is relatively high on the OBJDAT participant. A very common characterization was that the action is carried out especially for the dative participant, or done as a special favour. An especially interesting case is when object affectedness is related to perfective aspect: dative objects were considered more affected if the action was completed to the extent that the OBJDAT participant(s) were affected by the action. If the dative participant is the intended Recipient of an object (OBJACC), the -aC/BEN suffix will imply that she has received it already, and gr1 that she has not (cf. examples (123)-(125) and table 4.9). That is, the degree of affectedness is directly related to the completed (perfective) aspect. The impact on the OBJDAT was also explained in terms of a particular need which made the benefactive action particularly welcome. In yet other cases, she was highly affected because the damage done to her property was greater. Examples (186-192) illustrate these various interpretations. Special favour (186)
a)
4¶-am : ‘I chose (the best) wrappers for her’. Speaker‘s SE: [Affected]: ‘A special favour for her
[OBJDAT], normally she would have to do it herself. /She [OBJDAT] is more affected (than with ‘zaa\aæa’). I [S] chose them especially for her [OBJDAT]. I chose good wrappers, she will be surprised and happy. She did not expect it.’ b)
4¶-aæa : ‘I am choosing some wrappers for her’. Speaker’s SE: [Less affected]: ‘She [OBJDAT] is
less affected. I [S] yields less effort, he is less involved, just choosing at random without taking the time to choose good ones. He did it just like this, to be in peace.’
257
Perfective aspect and affectedness (187)
a)
12¶-a® , -am: ‘Teacher Amina taught us Hausa (and we speak it fluently)’. Speakers’ SE:
[Affected]: ‘We [OBJDAT] know it [Hausa] well. /Our [OBJDAT’s] Hausa is now perfect, and we are very happy. We are now fully independent in speaking Hausa.’ b)
12¶-aæa: ‘Teacher Amina taught us Hausa (and we speak it just a little)’. Speakers’ SE: [Less
affected]: ‘We [OBJDAT] do not know Hausa very well. It is suggested that we will learn more later. /We [OBJDAT] don’t know it [the language Hausa] well, but are on our way.’
Perfective aspect and affected Recipient (188)
a)
17¶-am: ‘Someone has cut (and given) you the meat’. Speaker‘s SE: [Affected]: ‘She [OBJDAT]
has been given the meat.’ b)
17¶-aæa: ‘Someone has cut the meat for you’. Speaker‘s SE: [Less affected]: ‘The meat [OBJACC] is not
given to her [OBJDAT].’
Affectedness as a particular need (189)
13¶-am: ‘The worker picked up (and carried home) my sack for me’. Speaker’s SE: [Affected]: A
request from me [OBJDAT] because I need it very much (e.g. [there is] no food at home).
Similarly, if the OBJDAT participant had not actually received, but was certain to receive the OBJACC, it was still considered more affected. See (190). Affectedness as certainty (190)
15¶-am: ‘Pick us some mangos!’. Speaker’s SE: [Affected]: ‘They [OBJDAT] are certain to get the
mangos, and thus they are more affected.’
Affectedness as physical force (191)
a) 16¶-am: ‘The boy seized her clothes (that she was wearing)’. Speaker’s SE: [Affected]: ‘[He (S) is]
fighting, holding firmly, she [OBJDAT] can’t move. She is fighting to get loose, struggling.’ b)
16¶-aæa: ‘The boy seized her clothes (that she was wearing)’. Speaker’s SE: [Less affected]: ‘She
[OBJDAT] could easily get away, he [S] does not hold firmly.’
Affectedness as physical damage (192)
a)
19¶-am: ‘He tore up her dress’. Speaker’s SE: [Affected]: ‘They [S & OBJDAT] are fighting. He
[S] tears up her [OBJDAT’s] dress [OBJACC] and really does damage, it [OBJACC] is not repairable.’ b)
19¶-aæa: ‘He tore her dress’. Speaker’s SE: [Less affected]: ‘A part is torn, not all. Only a bit. First
time the dress is torn. Only a small part is torn.’
258
In (192), it is, of course, not really the dative but the accusative object that is more affected. However, the fact that the OBJDAT participant is the owner of the OBJACC, makes her more affected than if her property was less damaged. This close connection between the OBJDAT and the OBJACC participants does not appear to be accidental, but rather part of the meaning of these suffixes. In 124 out of 126 sentences with either of the suffixes -a®, -am or -as, where it was specified by the informant whether the OBJDAT participant was the owner of the OBJACC or not, the OBJDAT participant was considered to be the owner of OBJACC. b) ‘Intimacy’ refers to the relationship between the subject and the OBJDAT participants. It implies that there is a particularly close relationship between these two participants, such as a close friendship, a lovers’ relationship, or kinship. The relationship is described by the Hausa speakers as one of trust and mutual involvement. If gr1 -aa, on the other hand, is used, the relationship is often described as professional, accidental, platonic or a business relationship. The relevance of this is that the dative participant is going to be much more affected by actions initiated by an Agent with whom she has an intimate relationship than in a more accidental and less personal relationship. For example, a gift from someone the dative participant does not know, is described as having less impact (where she accepts it politely) than a gift from a close friend (who might show special concern). Examples (193)(195) illustrate this usage. Intimacy in professional relationships (193)
8¶-am: ‘The bank lent money to her’. Speaker’s SE: [Intimacy]: ‘More than a professional
a)
relationship. She [OBJDAT] is a special customer. She has been faithful to the bank for years.’
8¶-aæa: ‘The bank lent money to her’. Speaker’s SE: [No intimacy]: ‘She [OBJDAT] is just a
b)
regular customer. The bank [S] just lent her the money because she has a right to it. Just according to standard procedure. They did it just because she qualified according to the rules.’
Intimacy in personal relationships (194)
a)
6¶-am: ‘He sought (and found) work for her’. Speaker’s SE: [Intimacy]: ‘Close relationship
[between S and OBJDAT], maybe lovers.’ b)
6¶-aæa : ‘He sought for work for her’. Speaker’s SE: [No intimacy]: ‘He [S] hardly knows her
[OBJDAT].
The next sentence pair provides a nice example of a meaning bordering on the transgression of privacy.
259
Attempting to gain intimacy (195)
a)
3¶-am: ‘They bought kolanut from her’. Speaker’s SE: [Intimacy]: ‘She [OBJDAT] is pretty.
They [S] buy it to be introduced to her, not because they need the kolanut. They may not even eat it. Just to be nice to her so that she will be interested.’ b)
3¶-aæa : ‘They bought her a kolanut’. Speaker’s SE: [No intimacy]: ‘She [OBJDAT] does not know
them [S]. She receives it and is polite, but there are no deep feelings.’
This difference between ‘Intimacy’ on the one hand, and ‘No intimacy’ on the other may also refer to physical proximity, although the social interpretation was definitely more common. c) ‘Violation of privacy’ is a special kind of intimacy relationship in which the subject participant is an active aggressor. It is therefore semantically more complex than b) which just encodes the presence of an intimate relationship: the presence of an active aggressor brings about a slightly different role for the OBJDAT participant where he or she is being violated. It is described by Hausa speakers as abuse of trust, where the subject/Agent typically violates the dative participant’s integrity by trying to win his or her trust and later abuses it. Other cases involved stealing, i.e. transgression of the OBJDAT participant’s property, often without this participant’s knowledge. This stealing is done in ways and from places that are considered particularly private and safe from intruders. Such cases are described as violation of privacy under false pretences, as a ‘huge breach of trust’, e.g. taking money out on somebody’s bank account under a false name. See examples (196)-(199). (196)
7¶-a® : ‘He took money from them (by smartness)’. Speaker’s SE: [Violation of privacy]: Violation of
integrity by trying to win their [OBJDAT] trust. They [OBJDAT] cannot do anything to prevent it because they don’t know that he [S] will misuse their trust.’
However, even though violation of trust was a common explanation, there are cases where only the violator/violated roles were present, and no relationship of trust, as in the explanation below: [Violation of privacy]: ‘They [OBJDAT] know, but they don’t trust him [S]. They didn’t ask him to. They don’t think he will give it to them, he will spend it. So they went to his place to get it.’
260
Violation of privacy by stealing and abuse of trust (197)
14¶-am: ‘He rubbed her cream (on his own body)’. Speaker’s SE: [Violation of privacy]: ‘She
[OBJDAT] was not present when he [S] took the cream from her. He has access to her room and is allowed to go in and out, but not to touch her things: violation of trust and of integrity.’ (198)
17¶-as: ‘One dispossessed you of your meat’. Speaker’s SE: [Violation of privacy]: Someone [S] came
and dispossessed her [OBJDAT] of her meat [OBJACC] (which she had stored with someone else’s). Someone came and bought all the meat that was stored, including her own share. She was not present, the action was done without her knowledge and plans, she thought she was safe.’ (199)
8¶-am: ‘The bank borrowed (all) your (mikì DAT.F) money’. Speaker’s SE: [Violation of privacy]:
‘There is a huge breach of trust because the bank [S] didn’t pay interest to her [OBJDAT] in the end. She may receive her money back, but later. Not on time. She used to be rich and wealthy but now her money [OBJACC] is gone.’
The essential meaning in these cases is not the fact that the things are stolen, but that the subject participant transgresses on the OBJDAT participant’s private property (personal sphere, see the analysis of dative case in 7. 3). In all cases it is the violation of integrity that is being portrayed, not just the fact that something has been stolen42. An essential part of the meaning of the -am, -a® and -as suffixes is thus the vulnerable and victimized role of the OBJDAT participant. d) ‘(Non)-autonomy’ of a dative participant refers to the degree to which the OBJDAT participant has or does not have control of his or her own situation or whether he or she is under the subject participant’s control and influence. Whereas an autonomous OBJDAT participant has a large degree of control, a ‘Non-autonomous’ dative participant is dependent on and subordinate to the subject/Agent. A dependency situation described in the data is when a subject acts as someone’s representative (e.g. in business matters), where the dative participant is conceived of as losing some of her autonomy. A non-autonomous dative participant can to a lesser extent refuse an offer, is bound by a lower social status than the subject/Agent. This role of the dative participant is attached to the kind of power/control 42Note that stealing can also be expressed with the deprivative gr4 -èe/BEN suffix, but without the semantic implication of violation of privacy. When using the -èe suffix, the meaning of (210), (211) and (212) simply becomes ‘He rubbed away her cream’, ‘He cut away your meat’, and ‘The bank borrowed money from her’, referring to taking it (physically) away from the OBJDAT participant,
261
exerted by the subject/Agent described above. The -aC/BEN suffix is also applicable in situational non-autonomy cases, such as the dative participant being persuaded into accepting something against his or her will. Non-autonomy also relates to social obligation in intimate friendships, and can simultaneously be related to a social relationship and to physical proximity, both being tokens of dependency. Finally, non-autonomy of an OBJDAT participant may be related to a physical inequality, e.g. in a tug of war or struggle. As before, the semantic opposites of all of these attributes of the -aC/BEN suffix are encoded by the gr1 -aa suffix. Non-autonomy by dependency (200)
7¶-a®: ‘He received the money for them’. Speaker’s SE: [Non-autonomous]: ‘He [S] controls them
[OBJDAT]. They lose a bit of their autonomy, because he can do things as their representative. They have absolutely no control over themselves.’
Non-autonomy by inability to refuse an object (201)
a)
17¶-a®: ‘Someone has cut meat for you’. Speaker’s SE: [Non-autonomous]: ‘Because of the
relationship, she [OBJDAT] cannot refuse to take the meat. They [S] make her take it, forcing her (mentally, not physically).’ b) 17¶-aæa: ‘Someone has cut meat for you’. Speaker’s SE: [Autonomous]: ‘She [OBJDAT] can refuse the meat. The meat is cut, she has to come and see whether she wants it.’
Non-autonomy by inability to refuse mental recipiency (202)
a)
12¶-a®: ‘Teacher Amina taught us Hausa’. Speaker’s SE: [Non-autonomous]: ‘We [OBJDAT]
have to learn it [Hausa], it is on our time table, we cannot escape. It is an obligatory course. She made us know it, caused us to.’ b)
12¶-aæa : ‘Teacher Amina taught us Hausa’. Speaker’s SE: [Autonomous]: ‘We [OBJDAT] learn
Hausa [OBJACC] because we want to and not because we have to.’
Non-autonomy by inability to refuse access (203)
14¶-a® : ‘He rubbed (all ) her cream (on himself)’. Speaker’s SE: [Non-autonomous]: ‘She [OBJDAT]
is obliged to give him [S] the cream [OBJACC] because of the degree of intimacy in their relationship. If she refused, it would be an insult to him. So he really controls her a bit.’
who is present when the action is done and not in such a vulnerable and victimized position, i.e there is no presupposition of an intimate relationship.
262
In (204a), the OBJDAT participant’s non-autonomous role is not due to a static social relationship, but rather to the subject participant’s active role in trying to win influence over him or her. Situational non-autonomy (204)
a) 13¶-am: The worker picked up the sack for me’. Speaker’s SE: [Non-autonomous]: ‘The worker [S]
insisted that he should take my [OBJDAT’s] sack, even though I refused at the beginning, but finally he convinced me. The worker has a certain control over me, to the extent that he causes me to/makes me accept his help.’ b)
13¶-aæa: ‘The worker picked up the sack for me’. Speaker’s SE: [Autonomous]: ‘My [OBJDAT’s]
initiative, the worker [S] has no control over me.’
Note that there is a similarity in this case with the inability to deny discussed above, but in this case it affects the action of helping rather than the object to be received, cf. schemas 2A and schema 4A in the semantic analysis in 7. 5. The OBJDAT participant’s non-autonomous role may also be related to a social relationship and to physical proximity at the same time, as in (205). Contrast the comments on (205b) by the same speaker. (205)
a)
11¶-am : ‘They consented to him that he could marry her’. Speaker’s SE: [Non-
autonomous/intimacy]: ‘He [OBJDAT] is obliged to have their [S’s] agreement in order to marry her. His family contributes materially, [dependence]. He [OBJDAT] lives with his parents [and is thus under their control].’ b)
11¶-aæa : ‘They agreed to him that he could marry her’. Speaker’s SE: [Autonomous]: ‘He
[OBJDAT] is less obliged to have their [S] permission. He can marry her on his own, without their consent. He [OBJDAT] lives far away from his parents [S] and only needs their verbal agreement.’
In (206) the OBJDAT is non-autonomous by virtue of being dependent on the subject/Agent. (206)
7¶-am: ‘He received the money for them’. Speaker’s SE: [Non-autonomous]: ‘They [OBJDAT] are
too shy to get their money. Only he [S] could do it. They [OBJDAT] are dependent on him [S].’
Finally, a non-autonomous OBJDAT participant can be directly related to the subject participant’s use of physical force, as is the case in (207):
263
(207)
16¶-am: ‘The boy seized her clothes’. Speaker’s SE: [Non-autonomous]: ‘He [S] holds her [OBJDAT]
back, he makes her stay, e.g. because she got sth. from him and didn’t pay. He uses more force than […], and thus has more control of her.’
Affectedness of OBJACC relates to either a) this participant’s general high degree of affectedness, often involving destruction (individuated objects), to the object’s affected quantity/amount (mass nouns), or to the MVR role added as a High Transitivity effect. In the Semantic Transitivity Hypothesis this is referred to as ‘TOTALITY’ (Hopper and Thompson 1980). Note that affecting the OBJACC to a higher extent leads to the OBJDAT being more affected (and vice versa), since a dative participant is affected through her relationship to the accusative object. a) The label Affected object refers to a relatively stronger effect or impact on objects which are neither Movers nor mass nouns. One type signifies a forcible, negative action which involves destruction of the OBJACC, related to the amount of force used by the subject participant. Compare (208) a) and b). The object may also be affected in the sense that the action is completed, as in c) (same informant). Destruction resulting from high-energy action (208)
a)
20¶-a®, -am: ‘I collided/knocked out/crashed their car’
b)
20¶-aæa: ‘I pushed their car’
Affected in terms of completed action c)
20¶-am: ‘I pushed their car (up to the destination)’. Speaker’s SE: Pushed it [OBJACC] until it started
or to a particular place.’
Visible affectedness of the OBJACCs may be directly related to completedness of the action, as in (209), but not always. Cf. (210), where the gr1 -àa suffix signals positive, beneficiary action, and the -am suffix rather signifies a forcible, negative action which involves destruction of the OBJACC. Affected in terms of completed action (209)
a)
18¶-am: ‘He broke her sugarcane for her’. Speaker’s SE: [Affected]: Sugarcane [OBJACC] is
completely broken. b)
18¶-aæa: ‘He broke the sugarcane for her’. Speaker’s SE: [Less affected]: Not completely broken
[OBJACC].
264
Affected in terms of destructive action (210)
a)
16¶-am: ‘The boy snatched her (own) cloth (a special cloth that she likes)’. Speaker’s SE:
[Affected]: He [S] destroys the cloth [OBJACC] with a dirty hand. b)
16¶-aæa: ‘The boy grasped (and gave) her the clothes’.
Affected OBJACC may be related to intentional destruction, where negativity is not a lexical component of the verb: (211)
14¶-as: ‘He rubbed her cream somewhere else’. Speaker’s SE: [Affected]: ‘He [S] took her
[OBJDAT’s] cream [OBJACC] and rubbed it somewhere else, e.g. on a wall. He took it away from her.’
A special case of ‘destruction’ or negative action can be seen in (212), where the subject participant gives birth to children who then die: (212)
5¶-as: ‘She gave birth to twins for him (who died)’. Speaker’s SE: [Affected]: ‘a) After giving birth,
the sons [OBJACC] died. Negative. b) The birth was premature - and the children are dead.’
b) ‘Affected amount’: The high agency meaning of -aC/BEN is accompanied by a sense of the entire object being affected, or, if the OBJACC is a mass noun, a big quantity is affected. The gr1 -aa suffix, by contrast, is characterized by a weaker subject agency, which has the semantic effect that the OBJACC is partially affected or affected with respect to a small quantity. The totality of affectedness of OBJ seems also in some cases to be related to perfective aspect; compare for instance a) and b) in (213). Affected amount, mass noun (213)
a)
9¶-am: ‘Hadiza drew (a lot of) water for her son’. Speaker’s SE: [Larger Amount Affected]: ‘A lot
of water [OBJACC]. /Large quantity of water; with the large amount of water he [OBJDAT] will be able to both drink, wash, and have clean clothes.’ b)
9¶-aæa: ‘Hadiza drew (a small quantity of) water for her son’. Speaker’s SE: [Smaller Amount
Affected]: ‘A small quantity of water [OBJACC]. /She [S] drew just a little water, maybe just a cup. He [OBJDAT] is only going to to have water for drinking (no water for bathing, washing clothes, etc.).’
With count nouns or definite amounts, the action was often said to affect all of the OBJACC with either of the suffixes -a®, -as, or -am Cf. (214) and (215).
265
Affected amount with definite quantity (214)
a)
17¶-as: ‘One has dispossessed [cut away] you of (all) your meat’. Speaker’s SE: [Larger Amount
Affected]: ‘All the meat [OBJACC] is taken from her [OBJDAT].’ b) 17¶-aæa: ‘One has cut (a small part of) meat for you’. Speaker’s SE: [Smaller Amount Affected]: ‘A small part of meat [OBJACC].’
Affected amount with count noun (215)
a)
19¶-am: ‘They tore up her dress’. Speaker’ SE: [Larger Amount Affected]: ‘He [S] tears up her
[OBJDAT’s] dress [OBJACC] and really does damage. It [OBJACC] is not repairable.’ b)
19¶-aæa : ‘They tore her dress’. Speaker’ SE: [Smaller Amount Affected]: ‘A part is torn, not all.
Only one tear. First time the dress is torn. Only a small part is torn.’
c) Affected Mover: the MVR role of OBJACC involves its physically moving away. This role is frequently a consequence of the subject participant’s application of increased force, energy or intentionality. See examples (216)-(217). (216)
20¶-as: ‘He (intentionally) pushed their car away’. Speaker’s SE: [Planned Involvement]: ‘He [S]
intentionally pushed their [OBJDAT] car [OBJACC] away. A help. e.g. the car was in the sun, and he [S] pushed it in the shade, or there is not enough fuel, a breakdown. [Affected Mover]: ‘The car is pushed away from a certain place.’
5. 3. 1. 5 Completed action and certainty with -aC/BEN It has been considered a problem by, for example Jaggar and Munkaila (1995), that the aC/BEN in Hausa is associated with completed action (‘perfective aspect’). This has been taken to indicate that the -aC/BEN and the -aC/CAUS are different morphemes. However, seen in the perspective that this construction is also a marker of increased transitivity, the completedness of action aspect is a well-known phenomenon which would rather be expected to be a characteristic of a high-transitivity construction. The syntacto-semantic connection between completedness of an action and affectedness of objects is discussed in Dowty (1991), where the concept ‘incremental theme’ basically says that when, for example, one has finished eating an apple, the apple is going to be more affected by the action than if the process of eating just started. Similar correlations between completedness of the action and affectedness of the object exist in Finnish, in the choice of case on objects (partitive-genitive vs. accusative case) (cf. Heinämäki 1994). We see here that the same phenomenon can be found in Hausa.
266
An action with the -aC/BEN suffix is typically completed to the extent that it has affected the OBJDAT participant and the situation has materialized. This effect is clearly related to subject intentionality, cf. (217): (217)
11¶-am : ‘They consented to him that he could marry her’. Speaker’s SE: ‘The ceremony has already
taken place, they are married. Total agreement of [both] families.’
Point 4 above concerns the action being thought of as completed/telic vs. incomplete/atelic. It was found that speakers judged -aC/BEN to be a completed action in the (distant) past, contrasted with the gr1-aa suffix, which was categorized as completed43, but present or recent. See (218), which suggests that an action can be conceived of as more or less complete: (218)
2¶-am : ‘Did you take the money from her?’. Speaker’s SE: ‘More complete than -aæa. She [S] has
already hidden the money at home, whereas in -aæa, she stole the money right now and just put it in her pocket.’
Speakers indicated that an action was ‘already done’, ‘completed’ or described this sense in more detail like in (219): (219)
20¶-am : ‘I pushed the car for them’. Speaker’s SE: ‘I [S] pushed the car until it started or up to a
particular place. Work is done until it is finished.’
A frequent and typical explanation of a completed action was that the OBJACC is already put aside for storage: (220)
9¶-am: ‘Hadiza drew water for her son (and put it aside)’. Speaker’s SE: ‘She [S] puts water
[OBJACC] aside.’
5. 3. 1. 6 Certainty and realis mode Point 5 states that the -aC/BEN construction is associated with a sense of certainty. Speakers often attributed this certainty to the successful outcome of the action. It can therefore be argued that this reflects a ‘realis mode’ sense as pointed out in the Semantic Transitivity Hypothesis (Hopper and Thompson 1980: 252). See (221-222). A frequent explanation given by the speakers was that the person uttering the sentence is a ‘first witness’, ‘one can see the
43The test sentences had tense-aspect markers in perfective aspect.
267
result’ or he or she ‘has seen it himself’ and ‘one can go and check if what is said is true and the speaker will not be ashamed’. Certainty of outcome (221)
5¶-am : ‘She gave birth to twins for him’. Speakers’ SE: ‘She has already given birth to twins and one
can go and see them. [...] both mother and children are healthy [i.e. successful outcome]./ It is indicated that the children are healthy / the children [OBJACC] are present./ Successful birth. Possible that other children are born after these.’ (222)
10¶-am: ‘He found us a house’. Speaker’s SE: ‘Insistence is in the certainty of having found it [the
house, OBJACC]’
5. 3. 1. 7 Other explanations of completed action In testing the meaning of sentences with the suffixes of the verbal system, explanations were given which suggest certain grammaticalized tenses. Speakers predominantly referred to the aC as past or distant past, and to the -aæa suffix as present or recent past, the important dividing line apparently being between present/recent past on the one hand, and past/distant past on the other. Typical explanations for the gr1 -aæa suffix would be: ‘It is now’, ‘It is present’, ‘right now’, or as in (223). Similar explanations were also given for the -as suffix: suggesting it happened 1 or 2 years ago, phrases like ‘long ago in the past’, ‘most distant past, and ‘far in time’. (223)
20¶-aæa : ‘I sent them a car’. Speaker’s SE: ‘it is present or almost present, said at the moment of
finishing.’ (237)
5¶-aæa : ‘She gave birth to twins for him’. Speakers’ SEs: ‘Recent, maybe this morning/Recent past, up
to one hour/Very recent, even the same day./ ‘The last twins she has got/The last she gave birth to/She has no twins after these’.
(238)
1¶-a®: ‘I sent it to her at the market’. Speaker’s SE: ‘Long time ago I [S] did it, maybe I have already
forgotten it’.
The intersection between tense and aspect may seem confusing: although these explanations refer to temporal expressions, the aspectual completed/incomplete distinction may not be irrelevant, cf. (224) below. It may also be that all the tense data really deal with aspect, and that the explanations were given with references to temporal expressions because
268
speakers have taken the moment of speech (the time of the interview) as their point of departure. (224)
10¶-aæa : ‘He (just) got a house for them (musù DAT) (right now)’. Speaker’s SE: ‘A bit incomplete,
they (OBJDAT) have not seen the house, but they know, and the house is ready to move into, no repairs to be done.’
5. 3. 1. 8 Individuation and -aC/BEN The STH predicts that ‘clauses containing indirect O[bject]’s will indicate high Transitivity in some other respect’ (Hopper and Thompson 1980: 260). This is related i.a. to the fact that dative objects in the majority of cases are animate/human and definite. That is, they are highly individuated. In fact, Hopper and Thompson suggests that dative objects should be relabelled ‘Transitive O’s’ for that reason. They also point to the fact that dative morphemes ‘are often re-analysed as a marker of definite/and /or animate O[bject]’s’, e.g. Spanish a (referential/human marker) and Hindi koo (animate/definite marker) which, they say, etymologically are dative markers. It should therefore hardly be surprising that Hausa -aC/BEN would display other increased transitivity characteristics such as marking completed action, affected object, and increased ‘involvement in the completion of the action’ by the subject/Agent, as has been observed by Munkaila (1990) and others. 5. 3. 1. 9 A note on HT effects in imperative sentences The High Transitivity effect of the -aC/BEN suffix is manifested somewhat differently in imperative sentences. In this case, the ‘increased energy flow’ involves a semantic characteristic which I label ‘Speaker force’. This label implies a much stronger command than if the gr1 -aa suffix is used, in which case I label the sentences ‘Speaker less force’. Contrast (225a) with (225b) for differences in HT effects. (225)
a)
15¶-am: ‘Pick us some mango (right now)!’. Speakers’ SEs: [Speaker force]: "Do it RIGHT
NOW." We [speakers/OBJDAT] own the field, and are present. We control it. / Said to children [S] who cannot refuse. More force in the order […]. / An order. Insistence. [Cf. -aæa "a wish"] / More insistence than -aæa: GO!, You have to.They [S] cannot deny. Obligatory. Urgent. / A need for the mango - insistence. We [speakers/OBJDAT] requested the mango and are sure that we will get it.’ b)
15¶-aæa: ‘(Please) could you pick us some mangos?’ Speakers’ SEs: [Speaker less force]: ‘You [S] can
refuse to pick mangos for us [OBJDAT] because we [OBJDAT] own the field. [I.e less force in the command.]/"Please could you pick us some mangos?" No force, no order, but a wish. We [speakers/OBJDAT]
269
ask to have mangos, we do not own the field. / "Go and see if there are some mangos for us!" They [S] do not need to pick. / "If you see any mangos by chance, pick some for us." A wish, not an order./ You [S] can pick it and leave it there. They [S] can do something after it, before they give us [OBJDAT] the mango" [i.e. not urgent]./ (While we are absent) pick the mango for us." [I.e. speakers are not present to control S]. ’
The essence of these explanations is that with the gr1 -àa suffix there is little pressure on the subject participant to perform the action, and the subject participant is thus not very likely to put much energy into doing it and may even leave the job half done. 5. 3. 2 High transitivity effects in the -aC causative With regard to the -aC/CAUS-CMN suffix, it has been described as ‘action directed out and away (from the speaker)’ (Newman 1983). In his (2000) work, Newman distinguishes between ‘action away in a fairly literal directional sense’, and ‘action away in a conceptual sense’. Similarly, Jaggar (2001: 254) states that transitive-based causatives (‘gr5s’), indicate ‘efferential (centrifugal) action directed out and away’, and that while with intransitive-based causatives and efferential reading is not necessary (all his examples show a transitive/ causative meaning), it correlates with the efferential meaning. The action away meaning is often accompanied by a notion of riddance or disposal (of the object), cf. i.a. Parsons (197172), Newman (2000: 655). These generalizations about the causative/caused-motion do not contradict my own findings on the special semantics of the -aC/CAUS, but can be put in a frame which 1) further specifies the ‘efferential’ characteristics, and 2) explains these characteristics as High Transitivity features. The test on the -aC/CAUS revealed that this construction typically has: 1. a general intensive meaning 2. a high degree of subject force (effort, volitionality, power, involvement, etc.) 3. a high degree of object affectedness (inanimates: movement away (cf. ‘riddance’); animates/humans: decreased autonomy, control of mental Causee) 4. a preference for individuation of OBJINST with -aC/CAUS (use of referential -tæ¶-® Æ/ (F), -næ (M)) 5. completedness of verbal action 6. a sense of certainty (‘first witness’)
270
The similarity of these effects with transitivity effects already observed with the -aC/BEN construction is striking. Again, some examples are included below. Further documentation may be found in appendix C. The tense/aspect question is left out of the table below since it was not possible to draw any conclusions on the basis of the answers obtained. The responses are surveyed in tables 5.1 and 5.2. TABLE 5.1: Informants’ responses for causative -ad dà contrasted with low transitive gr1 -aa suffix in 9 minimal pairs. Semantic characteristic
More
Less
Intensive meaning
52
0
Subject effort, volitionality, etc.
55
0
Object affectedness
48
0
Object definiteness
50
1?
Completedness of action
54
0
Certainty
59
0
Total number of responses
318
1
(individuation of OBJINST)
The table for the low transitive gr1 -aa suffix is nearly the mirror image of the causative table, because of the way the questions were asked, where the subjects were asked to compare two sentences with contrastive suffixes with respect to the relevant features. Where numbers differ (e.g. for ‘certainty’ 59 vs. 58) one informant has not responded or the answer was unintelligible. In this section and in the appendix C, answers are transcribed as they were pronounced. This means that part of the sentence is sometimes in French. However, a translation into English of both the Hausa and the French linguistic material immediately follows in brackets.
271
TABLE 5.2: Informants’ responses for the transitive gr1 -aa contrasted with causative -ad dà. Semantic characteristic
more
less
Intensive meaning
0
51
Subject effort, volitionality, etc.
0
54
Object affectedness
0
49
Object individuation
1?
50
Completedness of action
0
54
Certainty
0
58
Total number of responses
1
316
In the transcriptions below, Q stands for ‘question’ and is pronounced by the tester, R stands for ‘response’ and is the informant’s answer. Informant 9 speaks English and his responses are not translated from Hausa. 5. 3. 2. 1 The intensity component of -aC/CAUS The general intensity of the whole construction was unanimously said to be higher for the aC/CAUS than for the corresponding gr1 transitive sentences. In some cases, this intensity (Hausa: jiddaæda]waa) refers to the subject/Causer putting more emphasis on the action, or that the action is carried out more intensively, such that ‘there is more intensity deployed’ or the subject/Causer ‘spent more time doing it’. Cf. these examples. 6¶-ad daæ vs. -aæa: ‘He aroused trouble’ INFORMANT 2: Q: Waneæenaa ya fii jiddaæda]waa@ [Which is more intense?] R: Yaa taasad daæ (226)
rìgimaæa. [‘He arousedVCAUS trouble’] INFORMANT 4: Q:
Waneæenaa kumaa ka ga aælaæamuu an fi bun˚aæsaa@ [And in which one have you
seen signs that one emphasized more strongly? (cf. buæn˚aasaæ ‘become a serious matter’)] R: Yaa
tumasad daæ dawaakii. [‘He interbredVCAUS the horses’]
272
5. 3. 2. 2 The subject volitionality/agency component of -aC/CAUS The volitionality/agency component for the subject/Causer participant was characterized by Hausa speakers as being done ‘wholeheartedly’, with a notion of ‘extra strength’, and putting more energy into the task. In other cases the force induced by the subject is seen as making an effort in terms of a mental, positive energy, e.g. when sharpening a knife, feeding a girl, or flattering a person. The -aC/CAUS suffix may also be used to express mental energy being exerted in a negative (malefactive) manner, when the lexical content of the verb allows such a meaning, e.g. in letting somebody down. (227) demonstrates volitionality and effort. 1¶-ad daæ vs. -aæa: ‘He fed the girl.’ INFORMANT 1 Q: Kaæman yaænzu kumaa, gaæme daæ aæbincôn, daæ zuucìyaa guæda yaa baa daæ shii koo (227)
daæ zuucìyaa biyu@ [And like now, regarding the food, did he give it with his whole heart or just halfheartedly?(lit. with one heart or with two hearts)] R:
wandaæ ya ceæe yaæ ciisad daæ shii, shii neæe yaa baa daæ daæ zuucìyaa guæda. [The one who said he
fedVCAUS him, he gave with his whole heart.] INFORMANT 2 Q:
To], waneæenaa ka ga aælaæamuu ka]n gaæskiyaa ankaæ baa taæ aæbinci baæ daæ faafiin
ra]i ba@ Keæe nan daæ zuucìyaa guæda ankaæ baa taæ. [OK, which one have you seen signs that truly someone gave her food without pride/holding back? That is, someone gave her wholeheartedly (lit. with one heart).] R: Yaa
ciisad daæ yaarinyaæa. [‘He fedVCAUS the girl.’]
Mental energy is used in a negative (malefactive) fashion in (228): (228) 5¶-ad
daæ vs. aæa: ‘He let the girl down’
INFORMANT 4 Q:
Waneæenaa ka ga aælaæamuu ka]n gaæskiyaa yaa yaudaæree taæ@ [In which case have
you seen signs that he truly fooled her?] R: Yaa
\angalad daæ yaarinyaæa. [‘He let the girl downVCAUS’]
In (229), the interviewer paraphrases the meaning, using the verb bun˚aæsaa ‘to make someone important/serious‘, to give the verb ‘flatter’ a more generous meaning. (229)
9¶-ad daæ vs. -aæa: ‘I flattered the man’
INFORMANT 4 Q:
Waneæ ka ga aælaæamuu lallee an bun˚aæsaa ˚warai@ [In which one have you seen
signs that indeed, someone really made (him) important/serious?] R: Naa
waasad daæ muætumìn. [‘I flatteredVCAUS the man’]
273
INFORMANT 9 R:I [S] talked about his [OBJINST] ancestors44 to really flatter him.
Finally, the subject/Causer was described as taking a special responsibility and planned involvement in the affair: (230)
9¶-ad daæ vs. -aæa: : ’He fed the girl’
INFORMANT 9 R: He [S] is making a real effort, he [S] is really taking care of her [OBJINST]. He planned to do it. He has a special responsibility towards this girl.
5. 3. 2. 3 Object affectedness In general, the OBJINST (Causee) of the causative construction is conceived of as more affected than the corresponding OBJACC of the transitive gr1 -aa suffix: e.g. when feeding a girl, the girl would be more full, when sharpening a knife, the knife will be sharper, in letting someone down, the person will be more disappointed, and when causing trouble, the -ad/CAUS indicates creating a lot of chaos, whereas the gr1 -aa verb form implies having a small quarrel, and so on. See (231). (231)
8¶-ad daæ vs. -aæa: ‘I sharpened the knife’
INFORMANT 4 Q: To],
waneæ ka ga aælaæamuu yu˚aa taa waæasu@ [OK, in which case have you seen signs
that the knife is well sharpened?] R: Naa
waasad daæ yu˚aa. [‘I sharpenedVCAUS the knife’]
INFORMANT 2 Q:
To], waneæenaa yaa fi zama...Yu˚a]t, taa waæasu daæ kya]u@ [‘OK, in which case is it
most... the knife, it is well sharpened?’] R: Naa
waasad daæ yu˚aa. [‘I sharpenedVCAUS the knife’] Some verbs were included in the test with both animate/human and inanimate
Causees, viz. the verbs \angalad daæ ‘let down/turn over’ and waasad daæ ‘sharpen/flatter’. The effect was that the human/animate Causees/objects turned out to be more completely affected in mental terms, whereas the effect on inanimate Causees/objects can be physically observed. Compare the semantic explanations in (232) to (234) below.
44 This semantic explanation might require some extra knowledge of Hausa culture to be understood; talking about someone’s ancestors, and how grand they are, serves to boost a person’s value and respectability.
274
5¶-ad daæ vs. -aæa: ‘He let the girl down’
(232)
INFORMANT 1 Q:
Waæneæ ka ga aælaæamuu aæbôn yaa ci mataæ ra]i ˚warai@ [In which case does the thing
really get into her (lit. eat her life)?] R: Wandaæ
ya \angalad daæ itaa. [The one who let her downVCAUS.]
INFORMANT 9 5¶-ad
daæ R: She [OBJINST] is more disappointed; she has no chance of getting together with
him [S] again. Before breaking up, they were more intimate (than with -aæa), very close. INFORMANT 9
5¶-aæa R: She [OBJACC] is less affected because it is possible for her to convince him [S] to
reverse the action. Less intimate than -ad dà, they are not very close, it could be just a flirt.
The abstract analogue of physically transferred energy can be observed in the fact that there is a conceived intimacy between the subject/Causer and the Causee, exemplified in one case as that between husband and wife. With non-human animate Causees, the intimacy was ascribed to an ownership relationship between Causer and Causee, which did not exist in the corresponding gr1 sentence. Note the parallel intimacy component with -aC/BEN (human) dative objects, described in point b) in 5. 3. 1. 4, examples (193)-(194). As would be expected, the ‘more intimate’ feature goes together with other more affected features, and vice versa, cf. (233a-b). 1¶ ‘He fed the girl’, INFORMANT 9 a) 1¶-ad daæ R: More affected, he [S] is really taking care of her [OBJINST], she is more full. They [S &
(233)
OBJINST] are more close (than -àa), they have an intimate relationship.
1¶-aæa R: He [S] gave her [OBJACC] just a small quantity, she is not full. He [S] is not close to her
b)
[OBJACC].
In the case of an inanimate Causee, the force exerted by the Causer may result in a motion of the Causee, as in (234) below. There are no cases of motion away with the gr1 -aa suffix. 4¶ ‘She turned over the pot’
(234)
-ad daæ INFORMANT 2 Q: Waneæenaa ka ga lallee kwaanoæo an \angalad daæ shii yaa
a)
faafiì@ [In which one have you seen that the pot was really pushed overVCAUS so that it fell? R: Taa
\angalad daæ kwaanoæo [‘She turned overVCAUS the pot’]
INFORMANT 9 R: More affected, the pot [OBJINST] has already hit the ground, it is completely unbalanced, and could even roll away. b)
-aæa INFORMANT 9 R: Less affected because there is less use of force to turn over the pot [OBJACC]
and it has not hit the ground. Maybe one cannot even see that the pot has fallen because someone arranged it to stand up again.
275
However, it seems that the motion away interpretation may have to be implied by the lexical semantics of the verb, since the other verb pair, waasad daæ ‘flatter/sharpen’ did not have such entailments for the inanimate Causee. Finally, speakers responded positively to the idea that animate Causees are more controlled and less autonomous than transitive gr1 objects, see (235). (235)
2¶ ‘He interbred the horses’
INFORMANT 5 Q:
ìna kaa ga aælaæamuu que les chevaux sont vraiment assujetis? [Where (in which case)
have you seen signs that the horses are indeed under his control?] R: Yaa
tumaasad daæ daawaakii . [‘He interbredVCAUS the horses’]
INFORMANT 6 Q: Dans lequel des cas les chevaux sont controllés? [In which of the cases are the horses (more) controlled?] R: Yaa
tumaasad daæ daawaakôn. [‘He interbredVCAUS the horses’]
5. 3. 2. 4 Object individuation On the basis of observations made in a number of languages, the STH proposes that individuated objects, i.e. which are specially marked for definiteness, referentiality or animacy, co-vary with other features relating to a higher degree of transitivity (1980: 257). Indefinite and non-referential objects, by contrast, are associated with low transitivity or with intransitive verbs (where the object is incorporated into the verb). In the causative test, speakers were asked which sentence they preferred to have the referential marker (fem: -tæ¶-®Æ, masc: -næ) attached to, the one with the causative or the transitive gr1 verb. When presented with such sentence pairs, both of which contained an overt referentiality marker, the informants consistently chose the -aC/CAUS as the preferred one. Cf. the example below. 8¶-ad daæ vs. -aæa: ‘I sharpened the knife’ INFORMANT 1 Q: Naa waasad daæ yu˚a]t koo Naa waasaæ yu˚a]t, waneæenaa ka keæe yaæ®daa daæ shii@ (236)
[‘I sharpenedVCAUS the knife’ or I sharpenedVTRANS the knife’, which one do you agree with?] R: Naa
waasad daæ yu˚a]t dai. [‘I sharpenedVCAUS the knife’, indeed.] Speakers were also asked in which of the sentences one would know or be certain
which OBJINST/ACC was referred to. There was an overwhelming tendency to interpret the OBJINST of the causative construction as referential (known from the context). This applied to
276
animate as well as to inanimate objects, as in the following example with an animate OBJINST/Causee. (237)
1¶-ad daæ vs. -aæa: ‘He fed the girl’
INFORMANT 1 Q: Waneæenaa
ka ga aælaæamuu kaæman yaarinyaæa an san daæ itaa? [In which case have
you seen signs that the girl, one knows her (i.e. which girl it is)?]. R:
Waddaæ na cee makaæ yaa ciisad daæ yaarinyaæa shii neæe akaæ san daæ ya tabbaætaa daæ hakaæ nan.
[This girl I told you about, that he fedVCAUS the girl, it is this that one knows he is sure about.]
For animate Causees/objects, animacy would also add to the individuation of the OBJINST. 5. 3. 2. 5 Completed action and certainty When compared to gr1, speakers unanimously responded that the action in the -ad/CAUS sentence is more completed, as in examples (238)-(239). (238)
2¶-ad daæ vs. -aæa: ‘He interbred the horses’
INFORMANT 1 Q:
Waæneæ ka ga aælaæamuu yaa aikaætaa@ [In which case have you seen signs that he
(actually) did the job?] R: Yaa
tumaasad daæ daawaakôn. [‘He interbredVCAUS the horses’]
(239)
3¶-ad daæ vs. -aæa: ‘He made the woman angry’
Kumaa yaæayaæa ka ceæe> Yaa hasaælaæ maæataa daæ Yaa hasalad daæ maæataa. Waneæenaa ka ga lallee... taa fi ˚aareæewaa@ [And how are you going to say: ‘He made the woman INFORMANT 1 Q:
angryVTRANS’ and ‘He made the woman angryVCAUS’. In which case have you really seen that is most finished?] R: Yaa
hasalad daæ maæataa. [‘He made the woman angryVCAUS’] It appeared that certainty was also a relevant characteristic for the informants of the
causative test. Some examples are presented below. Some of these also relate the idea of certainty to completed action. (240)
1¶-ad daæ vs. -aæa: ‘He fed the girl’ Waæneæ ka fi taæbbataæa daæ ya lalle-lallee yaa yi aæbôn. [In which case are you
INFORMANT 1 Q:
absolutely sure that he did it?] R: Yaa
ciisad daæ yaarinyaæa. [‘He fedVCAUS the girl’]
INFORMANT 2 Q: Qu’est que tu prefères parmis cettes phrases là, à ton avis, quelle est la phrase plus complette:
Yaa ciisaæ yaarinyaæa daæ Yaa ciisad daæ yaarinyaæa@ Dans laquelle des phrases tu es sûre que
an yi aæbôn? Waneæenaa ka fi...que l’action est complette? Waæneæ kanaæa daæ waæneæ fian shaækku koo baa
277
yaæ yi ba@ [Which one do you prefer among these sentences, according to you, which is the more complete sentence: ‘He fedVTRANS the girl’ or ‘He fedVCAUS the girl’? In which of the sentences are you sure that he did it? In which one is the action more complete? In which one is there a small doubt or none at all?] R:
Yaa ciisad daæ yaarinyaæa, wannaæn baabuæ waætaæ shakkaæa ciki. [‘He fedVCAUS the girl’, in this one
there is no doubt whatsoever.] INFORMANT 9 R: More certain because one could see the result. (He fedVCAUS the girl)
In other cases, the certainty was linked to the speaker being ‘first witness’ (which was also frequent explanation for -aC/BEN, see section 5. 3. 1. 6), and in yet another, because of the subject’s habitual practices (possibly a pragmatic, non-recurring, explanation of the notion of certainty). (241)
2¶-ad daæ vs. -aæa: ‘He interbred the horses.’
INFORMANT 9 R: More certain. Outcome is more certain because he watched it happen. (He interbredVCAUS the horses.) (242)
6¶-ad
daæ vs. -aæa: ‘He aroused trouble’
INFORMANT 9 R: More certain because it is not a surprise that he [S] did it – he is a hot-tempered person. Everyone knows that he used to do it. (He arousedVCAUS trouble)
The test results above have shown the most typical characteristics of the various uses of the –aC suffix. Now that the semantics of this derivation is better understood, its semantics can be related to certain characteristics of one of the ‘suppliers’ of base verbs for this derivation, the grade 2 verbs. 5. 3. 3 Middle characteristics of Grade 2 base verbs 5. 3. 3. 1 A previous approach to grade 2 In the previous chapter we saw that gr2 was characterized as having ‘the point of view of the subject’ in the grammatical category ‘point of view’, established in Frajzyngier and Munkaila (2004). The ‘cost’ of this analysis is that the category object is excluded as a relevant grammatical category in Hausa. Initially this work discusses whether gr2 could be characterized as a middle. However, this idea is abandoned since the term middle in the literature is applied to a wide variety of phenomena ‘belonging to different functional domains’ (inter alia co-referent iality, inceptive, subject affectedness, and valency change). Instead they opt for coining the category ‘point of view’, which in the case of subjects
278
basically directs the hearer to consider what effect the event has on the subject. It is nevertheless specified that this category does not code subject affectedness. The idea in Frajzyngier and Munkaila’s work that gr2 and –aC suffix serve complementary functions is compatible with my own suggestion of the semantic composure of these two grades, and the fact that I came up with it before I came across the ‘point of view’ analysis mutually supports our impression of the make-up of gr2. However, at present I see no reason to abolish the direct object category, as long as unmarked and instrumental objects are seen as different. 5. 3. 3. 2 Some semantic characteristics of grade 2 and their effects on the dative object Certain semantico-syntactic features of grade 2 verbs display features consistent with what has been described as middle constructions in other languages. The traditional definition in Greek was ‘that the “action” or “state” affects the subject of the verb or his interests’ (Lyons 1968: 373). Kemmer (1993: 243) says i.a. that ‘The middle is a semantic area comprising events in which […] the Initiator is also the Endpoint, or affected entity […]’. This is said to be a sub-aspect of a low elaboration of the event, in terms of collapsing two semantic roles in the same referent. In Hausa, the gr2 verb construction always contains a direct object, and as such distinguishes between A/Agent and O/Patient. However, in cases where the gr2 verb lexically denotes transfer, the Agent is at the same time the Recipient, as in àuraa ‘marry’, kòoyaa ‘learn’, gàadaa ‘inherit’. This means that the Subject argument has a hybrid role. This is reminiscent of a middle construction, where the subject/Agent is at the same time the Patient (as in He washed himself), that is it involves two participants which are not differentiated. Middle constructions are known to have transitivity decreasing characteristics, for instance, if semantic roles are merged in one clausal participant, this implies that they are less individuated, cf. also Hopper and Thompson’s hypothesis. Other descriptions of middles, e.g. as valency decreasing devices, can be found in Dixon and Aikhenvald (2000). The difference between this middle construction situation and the Hausa gr2 verbs is that it is not the Patient role that is shared, but the Recipient. In a benefactive transfer situation, however, it is the Recipient who is the final endpoint (the energy sink) and not the Patient. Further characteristics show that in spite of the gr2 being a consistently transitive grade, some of its members actually display certain features consistent with low transitivity. Firstly, in verbs of directed motion of this grade, they are consistently rendered into English using the
279
preposition ‘at’, as in haæ®baa v2 ‘shoot at’, (cf. to gnaw at an apple, the apple is not much affected). Secondly, a large proportion of gr2 verbs (though not all) are used with a partitive meaning, where the verbal action affects only a part of the direct object, e.g. àikatàa ‘finish part of’m tòoyaa ‘fry some of’, yànkaa ‘cut off a little piece of’ (for more examples, see Jaggar 2001: 235, Newman 2000: 642-3). (Compare the similar distinction in Finnish case marking of accusative vs. partitive/genitive objects, with concomitant aspectual interpretations, cf. 3. 5. 5). These facts may be seen in relation with some data from my fieldwork in Niger. While many speakers in Dogondoutchi rejected the use of the gr2 (L)LLH -ii form (same shape as a ‘C-form’, but with a long vowel45) before dative objects, those who accepted it attached a special type of semantics to these forms. Firstly, it made some informants interpret the sentences as ‘self-benefactive’, in the sense described in Rice (2000: 182-183) for the Athapaskan languages, in which the Agent performs an action for his or her own benefit, defined in terms of ‘the initiator and recipient not [being] differentiated’. For the selfbenefactive, see also Thompson (1996: 356). Pilszczikowa (1969: 34) observed this and refers to the phenomenon as ‘unbenefactive’. My informant Muhammed Askiya (27) from Dogondoutchi, for instance, rejected the sentence Naa zaæa\ii mataæ zannuwaæa ‘I chose wrappers for her’ on the grounds that the suffix –ii means ‘for oneself’, referring to the subject/Agent. There were also instances of the gr2 in the LH –aa form (the ‘A-form’) with such specialized senses. These were found around Magarya, that is, in the eastern dialect area. Confer these examples below of both ‘A’ and ‘C’ types (test senences are the same as in the benefactive test presented in 5. 3. 1). In (259), the sentence is interpreted as the subject being not just the Agent, but the endpoint Recipient of OBJACC. By this mechanism, the construction becomes ‘unbenefactive’ when an OBJDAT is present. In pragmatic or real life terms, the subject/Agent recipiency is explained with reference to the notion of selfishness in these examples:
45 The classification of the L..H –ii form as a grade 2 is discussed both by Pilsczcikowa (1969) and Parsons (1971.72: 75). Parsons cites Pilsczcikowa saying that ‘a distinct form, similar to form 2C, but with a lengthened –ii termination is regularly used by Grade 2 verbs before a Dative’. Parsons is somewhat sceptical to the frequency of its use, and labels is ‘sub-standard’. However, he concedes that insofar as the final vowel is long, it conforms to other regular D-forms.
280
(243) a) Kin aæmsaa mataæ kufiii? you.F.PF receive.2D(A) DAT.her money Lit: Did you receive money for her? Semantic explanation: She [OBJDAT] suspects that [the participant] ‘you.F’ [S] is going to keep her [OBJDAT’s] money, so she [OBJDAT] sends someone to her [S’s] place to ask this question. (Mamman Saidu (22) Magarya)
b) Yaa kaær\ii musu kufiii he.PF receive.2D(C) DAT.them money
‘Il a récuperé leurs argents [He has got their money back]’ Semantic explanation: He has received their money in order to give them. […] But he may keep the money for himself. (Ali Kallamu (25) Dogondoutchi)
In Cognitive Grammar terms, such a non-linguistic concept would be relevant to semantic interpretation of the construction’s meaning, given the encyclopaedic view on semantics. In (244), the informant prefers the interpretation borrow to the alternative lend (in the latter case OBJDAT would be the Recipient). By contrast, this informant attaches the lend sense to the corresponding gr1 –aa sentence. (244) Bankìi yaa bank 3M.SG.PF
raæntaa mataæ kufiii borrow2D(A) DAT.her money
‘The bank borrowed her money’ (Mamman Saidu (22) Magarya) Semantic explanation: She [OBJDAT] is present and agrees, not all the money [OBJACC].
A special interpretation I came across is where the subject does a benefactive action for the OBJDAT, but with an ulterior motive of getting something in return: (245) Sun they.PF
saæyaa buy.2A
mataæ goo®oæo DAT.her kolanut
‘They bought kolanut for her’ Semantic explanation: They [S] expect something in return; if they are men, to have sex with her [OBJDAT ]. (Mamman Saidu (22) Magarya)
Compare this usage of the gr2 to the middle construction in Athapaskan languages (Rice 2000: 182-183), which in addition to i.a. reflexive, reciprocal, anticausative and passive has the function self-benefactive, e.g. the affixes –d-…-l- in Ahtna for He killed it for his own benefit vs. He killed it, and the –d- affix in Slave for You sew for yourself vs. You sew. Similarly, LaPolla (2000: 292) describes for Rawang the reflexive/middle marker –shì, where this affix produces contrasts such as He is brushing the snow off (himself) vs. He is brushing the snow off (something), He is killing a mosquito on him vs. He is killing a mosquito, and finally He is buying clothing for himself g vs. He is buying clothing. It is stated that ‘[i]n these cases, the sense of the reflexive/middle is more like a benefactive, doing something FOR oneself rather than TO onelself. There is still an overlapping of roles on one referent, but
281
instead of the two roles being A and O, they are A and Benefactive’ (emphasis added). Rawang also has the option to distinguish between a high tone direct reflexive (A acts on A) and a mid tone indirect reflexive (A acts on something/somebody other than the actor, but which is ‘closely related to the actor’, such as his own child. The last is also used to express the actor as a Benefactive (as in You did it for yourself). In Hausa, the orientation towards the subject/Agent may also be a mere emphasis function, as in (246). (246) Taa haæifii masaæ tagwaæayee she.PF give.birth.2D DAT.him twins
‘She gave birth to twins for him’ Semantic explanation: Emphasis on her [S]; it was her that gave birth to twins for him, for instance as a reply to the question Who? (Mamman Saidu (22) Magarya)
The emphasis on the subject also has temporal implications with some speakers, who associated the gr2 –ii or the gr2 LH –aa used before OBJDAT with future tense. In these cases, the TAM would either be kept in perfective aspect or the informant would ask me to change it to FUT2 (distant future). Note that future tense meaning is compatible with perfective aspect since TENSE and ASPECT are different morphosyntactic categories (will have done/completed something at a certain time ahead of the time of the utterance), while also changing the action to irrealis mode, a notion compatible with lower transitivity values according to Hopper and Thompson’s semantic transitivity hypothesis. In addition, one informant associates the gr2 LH –aa forms are with uncertainty whether the action will be carried out, cf. (247b). In this regard, contrast the high transitive certainty feature associated with the –aC constructions. As we saw in 5. 3. 2, the –aC suffix, as a highly transitive derivation, is associated with completive aspect, certainty and something that was paraphrased as having ‘happened long ago’. (247) a) Naa I.PF
aìkii send.2D(C)
mataæ daæ shii DAT.her INST 3M.IND
kaæasuwa market
‘Je le lui envoyerai au marché [I will send it to her at the market]’ (Musa Mudi (29) Dogondoutchi)
b) Na]a I.FUT2
zaæa\aa mataæ zannuwaæa choose.2D(A) DAT.her wrappers
‘I will choose wrappers for her’.
Semantic explanation: Future. Not certain because I [S] say yes under pressure, and may forget it. [It is] my duty but I don’t take it seriously, although it is my duty and people urge me to do it. (Mamman Saidu (23) Magarya)
282
c) Ya]a neæemaa he.FUT2 seek.2D(A)
‘He will seek work for her’
mataæ aikìi DAT.her work
Semantic explanation: Future [Perfective aspect form *Yaa néemaa matà aikìi is ungrammatical]. Uncertain that he will find work. (Mamman Saidu (23) Magarya)
Speaker Musa Mudi (29) in (247a) has similar future tense interpretations on test sentences 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 12, and 18; other speakers were aware of the –ii FUT form, but did not use it themselves (Adamu Cibau (29), Ibrahim Musa (23), both from Dogondoutchi). Other examples combine future tense interpretation with a certain activity (here: learning) and a recipiency role on part of the subject: (248) Maalaæmaa Amiinaæa teacher Amina
taa koæoyii she.PF learn.2D
manaæ DAT.us
hausa Hausa
Semantic explanation: Teacher Amina [S] will come and speak nice Hausa and we [OBJDAT] will be surprised. Lit: ‘Teacher Amina will have learnt Hausa for us (to our surprise)’ (Musa Mudi (29) Dogondoutchi)
The effect on the OBJDAT is that they will be surprised at what the subject/Agent does. That is, they are affected as bystanders using their sensory apparatus, not in terms of Recipiency of an object or action, as would be the case in a typical benefactive construction. All in all, these characteristics of the gr2 verbs makes their basic semantics the direct opposite of the –aC derivation: – orientation toward subject/Agent (Agent/Recipient hybrid role sustains energy flow) – partially affected OBJACC/Theme – ‘Unbenefactive’ when used with OBJDAT – Irrealis mode All these characteristics are compatible with the idea that the transitive energy flow is sustained. As such, the above characteristics can be seen as interrelated. A more extensive investigation of the gr2 lexical semantics and semantic interpretation as it is used in sentence construction would be able to further corroborate or disconfirm this idea. For now, it has to be suggestive. It does, however, fit in nicely in the general picture of –aC/BEN replacement, where –aC/BEN can be seen as (re)directing attention on the effect of a downstream participant. This is also a plausible explanation to why the –aC/BEN suffix is used as a replacement for a gr2 when a Hausa speaker wants to express the effect of an action on a Beneficiary; the semantics of a grade 2 verbs as demonstrated by the above examples suggest
283
that grade 2 is not apt to emphasize an effect on a downstream participant such as a Causee, Mover, or Beneficiary (cf. also the ‘point of view’ analysis). Note, however, that the low transitivity features of gr2 has different causes and characteristics from the gr1 low transitivity: whereas gr2 sustains and reverses the energy flow, the gr1 energy flow is merely weaker than that of the –aC suffix, while both having the same direction – from subject/Agent towards downstream participants. The subject/Agent of the grade 2 is an active role, and therefore does not overlap or coincide with the grade 7 affected subject derivation, in which the subject typically is either an affected patient or an affected Experiencer (for treatments of gr7, see Jaggar 1988, 2001: 262-267, Newman 2000: 664-668). In the light that I here argue that –aC constructions are semantically highly transitive, it is interesting that Martin (2000) describes the –k– derivation in Creek as ‘middle’, when, according to Dixon and Aikhenvald (2000: 12), it corresponds to what the other contributors of this work refer to as anticausative. That is, it appears that constructions with middle and anticausative characteristics stand in a contrastive relationship to highly transitive construction such as the causative. This particular semantics of some gr2 verbs and their interpretations with OBJDAT arguments further supports the view that transitivity is not an either or matter, but a gradient semantic phenomenon that needs to be called upon to explain certain linguistic phenomena, like why, as Parsons put it, one verb grade ‘borrows’ another before indirect objects. A pictorial diagram for some of the gr2 senses is provided in 7. 5. 2.
5. 4 Plausible inferences drawn from transitivity effect findings The High Transitivity components which are shared by both causative and benefactive include: • Intensive meaning • Subject effort/volitionality • Object affectedness • Completedness of action • Certainty One could add ‘object individuation’ since referential objects were preferred in the causative, and dative objects in the benefactive are highly individuated by virtue of being animate.
284
There seems to be no significant difference in terms of how the above effects are manifested in -aC/BEN and -aC/CAUS-CMN. Especially interesting was the finding that object affectedness implied intimacy on part of the human/animate objects of both the OBJDAT of the benefactive and the OBJINST of the causative construction. This suggests that the manner in which object affectedness is manifested may be related to animacy of the object (as well as to the lexical content of the verb in terms of motion vs. non-motion verbs). The fact that the MVR role never applies to OBJDAT participants supports this type of explanation. 5. 4. 1 A suggested explanation of the perfective aspect restriction The prototypical human/animate value of OBJDAT participants may also explain why the benefactive is sometimes restricted to perfective aspect. This is not the case for the causative: • the relevant object referred to by -aC/BEN is the dative object, not any potential additional accusative (direct) objects. • the dative object is never a Mover, but instead typically characterizes a high degree of affectedness in the OBJDAT participant, when contrasted with other types of benefactive suffixes in Hausa. I would suggest that the dative object here behaves as an incremental theme (Dowty 1991: 567), where object affectedness and perfective aspect are semantically interdependent characteristics. The objects of the causative, on the other hand, are equally frequent in the form of both animate and inanimate participants, and to the extent that the MVR role can be associated with inanimate objects, it will induce a MVR role rather than an increasingly affected (stationary) Patient role, viz. • A Mover cannot be an incremental theme because it transmits energy rather than absorbing it. Consequently, this difference can be seen as rooted in animacy values, where animate objects typically absorb the transferred energy by virtue of yielding mental resistance, and inanimate objects fail to provide such resistance and instead become transmitters of energy. Being the last entity in the action chain (see 3. 3), the natural consequence is to become a MVR. The
285
reason why such causative objects are not subject to the perfective aspect restriction may be precisely this; because it is a weaker participant in relation to the subject/Causer, it does not absorb the induced energy, and therefore does not become an incremental theme. The Figures below may serve as an illustration (the plus/minus signs are taken from Talmy 1988). (A) Subject inducing a MVR role on Object
+
–
AG
MVR
(B) Subject inducing an Incremental theme role on Object
+ AG
INCR.TH (ANIMATE)
The fact that animate Causees are not affected by the perfective aspect restriction may be explained like this: Causees are active participants, induced to act by the Causer. Thus they are not passive receivers of energy, like the OBJDAT of the -aC/BEN, but rather transmitters of action, which is also a type of redirection (non-absorption) of energy. Their role can be pictured as in the Figure below: (C) Subject inducing a Causee role on Object
+ AG
– CAUSEE (ANIMATE)
Note that in a TC clause, the figure in (C) is extended with an accusative object, which will then be the endpoint and the energy absorbing entity, cf. (D). (D) Subject acting on an accusative Object via a Causee
+ AG
– CAUSEE (ANIMATE)
TH
286
This means that it is the High Transitivity values which induce the particular semantics of both of -aC/BEN and -aC/CAUS, but that these High Transitivity values are manifested differently in the two cases. In many cases, however, the lexical semantics of the verb does not encourage the MVR interpretation of the INST object. I am thinking, for instance, of the object in sentence (231) above, where a knife is seen as well sharpened, in contrast to the corresponding object of the low transitive gr1 verb. Recall the classification of verbs that causativize in relation to lexical semantics of the base verbs presented in 2. 7. 2. 1. The figure in C) evidently apply to the two groups of active verbs, activities and actions exemplified in (27), and active motion verbs of starting, stopping and change of body position exemplified in (28). By contrast, the Causees of inactive verbs, verbs of state in (24), processes in (25), and patentive motion in (26) typically go through a change of state. Evidently, this meaning is a contribution of and can be predicted by the lexical meaning of the base verbs. This means that the change of state role of the Causee is an ‘accident’ of the verb and not a contribution of the construction. However, it might be that speakers of Hausa would not be able to make this distinction if tested. A logical consequence of that would then be that these are incremental themes and could be subject to a similar perfective aspect interpretation. No data are available to confirm or disconfirm such a difference. I pick up on the contribution of the various elements of –aC constructions in chapter 7, for the issue of differences in lexical and constructional semantic contribution specifically in 7. 4. 1. 6. In conclusion, I would suggest that the incorporation of the ‘action away’ meaning into a coherent network of predictable semantic effects related to increased transitivity makes the characterization of the -aC as ‘efferential’ as a cover term for all non-benefactive usages of –aC superfluous. This is not to claim that all instances of the -aC dà construction are causative, what they all have in common are the semantic HT characteristics. What I offer here is a terminology which also identifies the phenomena and which is a much more precise terminology than the general cover term ‘efferential’. In order to align Hausa research with general linguistic terminology, which will also render studies on Hausa accessible to the general linguist, I suggest these non-causative instances of the -aC dà construction to be labelled the caused-motion construction, abbreviated CMN throughout the dissertation. The choice of this term is inspired by Goldberg (1985), but is not entirely similar to the causedmotion construction in English. These differences are discussed in 6.
287
The fact that the syntactico-semantic characteristics of the causative and the benefactive can be related to the overall phenomenon of High Transitivity does not preclude the two types of construction having grammaticalized such characteristics differently. Evidently, the suffixes have specialized according to their own specific functions, in terms of 1) Semantic idiosyncracies, and 2) Phonological fusion with their respective objects (viz. OBJDAT and OBJINST). 5. 4. 2 What conclusions can be drawn from High Transitivity findings? The phenomenon of High Transitivity as described in Hopper and Thompson (1980) relates to transitivity in a general sense, and not to the relationship between causative meaning and benefactive meaning in particular. Therefore, in order to understand the motivation for the polysemous relationship between causative and benefactive in a universal linguistic sense, i.e. a sense which will potentially be a valid explanation also for other languages displaying such a relationship, one needs to consider the High Transitivity phenomenon expressed by the Hausa -aC suffix as a semantic side-effect that accompanies the emphasis on the Causee/Beneficiary arguments. Consequently, I will look to other arguments than those relating to the High Transitivity phenomenon to explain the unity of form of -aC/BEN and aC/CAUS. This being said, it is also evident that the intensity component of efficient transfer of action associated with –aC/BEN as well as with –aC/CAUS (and –aC/CMN) is part of the special semantics of these suffixes as used by Hausa speakers. The point made here is that while one cannot use the High Transitivity effects alone to argue that -aC causative and -aC benefactive suffixes are semantically related, they cannot, as done in Newman (1983, 2000) and Jaggar (2001; and Jaggar and Munkaila 1992), be used to argue that these suffixes are unrelated homophones. 5. 4. 3 Affectedness of an oblique argument; a complication? In the preceding I have analysed the -aC dà construction as having high transitivity as its overall semantico-syntactic characteristic. In this regard, an apparent complication needs to be discussed. In contrasting this construction with gr1, it appears that an oblique object appears to be more affected by the verbal process than an accusative object. Crosslinguistically, though, it is common knowledge that accusative or direct objects as core participants of the clause are universally more affected and more directly involved in the
288
verbal action than oblique arguments, which rather tend to be backgrounded or peripheral. Cf. also Croft (1994: 96), who says that ‘In many languages, a participant that is objectively considered to be a patient may be assigned to an oblique case role if the patient is not directly or completely affected by the action […]’. As an illustration, see the sentences in (249) from Tongan. (249) Tongan a) na’e kai -i ’a PAST eat -TRANS ABS ‘The boy ate the fish’ b) na’e kai ’a e PAST eat ABS DEF ‘The boy ate some of the fish’
te DEF
ika ’e fish
tamasi’i boy
he ERG
’i OBL
tamasi’i the boy
he ika the fish
(Hopper and Thompson 1980: 263)
Oblique arguments may have the function of adding an argument to an event that is seen as a self-contained; instrumental marking is, for instance, associated with intransitive or less transitive constructions. This applies e.g. to the gr7 sustenative constructions in Hausa (see e.g. Newman 2000: 664-670), which functions as a kind of voice mechanism where the subject is construed as self-contained, grammatically independent unit, isolating it from the rest of the causal chain. In this construction, the optional INST-marked argument functions as a sort of retransitivizer, but where the semantic focus is on the state or effect of the subject (Musa), not on the instrumental object. See examples in (250). (250) a) Muusaa Musa Compare:
yaa gaæmsu daæ jaæwaabìn he.PF be.satisfied.7AINST speech
‘Musa was satisfied with the speech’
b) Jaæwaabìn yaa speech 3SG.M.PF
‘The speech satisfied Musa’
(Newman 2000: 670)
gaæmshi Muusaa satisfy.2C Musa
(Newman 2000: 670)
This peripheral status of the instrumental has been exploited even in causative constructions. Croft (1994: 97-98) discusses an example from Newari (taken from Delancey 1984: 195) which contrasts two causative types: one direct, with ‘distinctive transitive subject (‘ergative’) marking’ and one indirect with oblique marking. The oblique case marker has the function of breaking up a causative event into two events, cf. (251a). This type is used for instance if the Causer delayed calling a doctor, or if she brought bad news which induced a
289
shock from which the Causee died as a result of a heart attack, or if the Causer told a third party to murder her. It could not be used if the Causer herself perpetrated the murder directly, in which case, a direct causative would have to be used, cf. (251b). (251) Newari a) harsha -nO@-yana wo misa Harsha -CAUSE the woman ‘Because of Harsha, the woman died’
sit -O die PF
b) harsha -nO@- wo misa -yatO siat -O harsha -ERG the woman -DAT kill-PF ‘Harsha killed the woman’ Here, oblique marking of an argument sets this participant off from the rest of the causal chain, it ‘makes a pause’ between the oblique argument and the rest of the clause. Thus, in Cognitive Grammar terms, an oblique would be seen as a hindrance to the energy flow. In my analysis of INST dà, I show that one of the usages of the instrumental in Hausa is the via-function (the conduit sense), which means that this argument is backgrounded; see 7. 4, and especially fn. 72 in 7. 4. 1. 4, where instrumental objects in general are related to intransitivity, rather than highly affected objects in HT constructions. What needs to be answered is thus: 1) How can it be that an oblique object like the instrumental object in Hausa appears to be more affected by the verbal process in the -aC dà construction than an accusative object in gr1, and 2) How can this affectedness be explained when the instrumental is characterized as a peripheral participant in the verbal action? The situation does not concern the many cases where OBJINST is a Mover, since the object is then a transmitter of energy as depicted in 5. 4. 1. and not an absorber (as is typical of an endpoint or energy sink marked by accusative case). That is, the Mover neither changes its state nor is penetrated, but only changes location, and therefore complies with the general conception of ‘with’ senses in instrumental objects. Nevertheless, the collected data irrefutably demonstrate that objects are conceived of as more affected if the -ad dà form was used than when gr1 HL(H) -aa form was used. The
290
actual fact that these objects are more affected, has received independent support, as seen from Abdoulaye (1996: 119), whose mother tongue is Hausa, (glossing is my own): (252) a) Dookìi horse
yaa tsooraætaæ he.PF frighten.1C
yaaroæo boy
‘The horse frightened the boy (but not too much)’
(aæmmaa baæa ˚warai ba) but NEG much NEG
b) dookìi yaa tsoorat-a® daæ yaaroæo (•aæmmaa baæa ˚warai ba) horse he.PF be.afraid-CAUS INST boy but NEG much NEG ‘The horse completely frightened the boy (*but not too much)’
The simple answer to this apparent paradox is that the fact that the –aC causative/caused-motion and the –aC benefactive constructions are semantic high transitivity constructions is not a characteristic of any individual argument, but rather characterizes all arguments of the clause, in addition to adding various morphosyntactic features like perfective aspect, verb-object coherence, preferences for referential marking of the causative/caused-motion, and the like. The constructions should therefore be understood more as Goldbergian constructions, in terms of contributing semantic features to the whole construction (much like a suprasegmental feature), rather than as consisting of isolated grammatical units that contribute semantic content quite independently and with no consequences for the other segments of the construction. This is also the essential implication of Hopper and Thompson’s model. In the semantic data of section 5. 3 above, it was shown that both subjects, indirect objects, and the objects referring to Theme carry semantic features displaying semantic high transitivity. Thus, while these constructions certainly can be broken down to high (the –aC suffix, ACC marking) and low (the LH(L) –aa gr1 derivation, INST marking) transitivity contributors, these should not be understood in isolation but as integral parts of specific constructions. This is exactly why both elements of the causative/caused-motion, the –aC suffix and the instrumental marking of the downstream participant, need to be seen as combined elements, not as an accidental assembly of high and low transitivity contributors. In the following I shall elaborate on some consequences of the Givónian model, which was presented at the beginning of this chapter. It is generally assumed among Hausaist that –C/BEN and –C/CAUS-CMN are a result of pleonasm. The agreement data in the present work support this, since agreement is per definition a pleonastic, redundancy phenomenon. It may therefore be that the present situation in Hausa arose as a result of the redundancy implied in the double reference of the added (cf.
291
Parson’s ‘transactional class’) or emphasized (cf. Parson’s ‘projective-applicative class’) participant: both the -aC suffix and the instrumental argument refer (or, in some dialects, referred) to the same participant (referent) in the real world. For the moment, let us hypothesize the following situation: constructions with instrumental objects was at one stage expressed as in A, benefactives as in B, in (253). (253) A.
TAM V DO DO •An zuba -t , daæ furaa IMP.3SG pour-3.SG.F INST millet porridge.F ‘One has poured it out, the millet porridge’
B.
TAM V IO DO, IO •Naa zaa\a -t zaneæe, gaæ yaarinyaæa I-PF choose-3.SG.F dress PREP girl ‘I chose a dress for her, for the girl’
We saw above that the structure in B. has been suggested by Newman (1982), and will not be argued for per se here, but is presented as a supportive argument for the structure in A. In the sentences in A. and B, the pronominal sentence before the comma is in itself self-sufficient, a self-contained event, and the repeated nominal object argument (after the comma) functions as a specification or an additional piece of information, cofererent with the redundant pronoun. These sentences fit the schema in B". B" TAM (subject)
VERB
DIRECT OBJECT
INST OBJECT
An
zuba
-t
daæ furaa
The object noun would have been marked in oblique case because it was an apposition conceptualized as separate from the main event. The pronominal direct object argument is directly affected by the verbal action, and does not violate any universal tendencies of less affected oblique arguments. Hence it is also the carrier of the high transitivity values, in accordance with the Cognitive Grammar conception of energy sink, and in accordance with case marking of such participants. Because of the dual reference situation, though, the direct object pronoun is co-referent
with the instrumental object, which means that the two
arguments will refer to the same individual in the real world. As a pragmatic consequence, and because of the emphasis on this participant that is associated with the –aC dà CAUSCMN (or the –aC/BEN) construction, this participant is seen as someone who is particularly affected or emphasized when the -aC suffix is used, in spite of this being marked by oblique case(s).
292
The affectedness semantics of the -aC construction may be a result of the emphasis on the added participant, and the fact that these arguments (dative or instrumental) are oblique, not core partcipants, would then have been part of the general picture where the –CAGR served to topicalize or emphasize this argument. This explanation is in line with Parsons observation that: a) the causative/caused-motion of the ‘projective-applicative class’ derived from gr2 verbs typically • transfers the psychological emphasis on to the target object [the Theme, in our terms] or, b) in the ‘transactional class’ the gr5 causative/caused-motion verbs: • correlated with a shift of focus on to the other party in the transaction [a Recipient, Causee, Secondary agent, in our terms] The preceding could well serve as an explanation to why the oblique instrumental in Hausa behaves differently from, say Newari, when it comes to how this case has been exploited in a causative construction. While in Newari, it is only the instrumental marking that is exploited, which yielded a less transitive causative construction, Hausa has exploited an instrumental together with a redundancy pronoun, which is an entirely different situation. Ironically, it is precisely the oblique status of the dative and instrumental arguments that made them good candidates for such a topicalization device, which, in turn created or emphasized the transitive relationship between subject and object. This might also explain why some of the derivations do not increase valency in terms of an added argument while still being high transitivity constructions. I evaluate the above discussion to be plausible, but is here only claimed to have theoretical status, since none of the hypotheses here are underpinned by historical (or comparative) data.
5. 5 Summary In this chapter we have looked at the possibility that the –C in the –aC suffix has arisen out of an agreement marker and possible paths of grammaticalization related to how verbal agreement may evolve which imply topicality and emphasis. This discussion was conferred with a previous suggestion on the historical development of dative objects in Hausa. Then data were presented which relate both the –aC/BEN and the –aC/CAUS to semantic High Transitivity as it is hypothesized in Hopper and Thompson (1980). Some data were also presented where the semantics of the gr2 as used by some speakers as a predative form
293
complies with the general understanding of the gr2 as having middle characteristics relating to a reversed or sustained energy flow and other low transitivity characteristics. After that followed a suggestion to the perfect aspect restriction of the –aC/BEN and an explanation to why the –aC/CAUS-CMN construction behaves differently. It is suggested that dative objects, for reasons of their general animacy value, behave like incremental Themes, whereas inanimate INST marked objects behave like Movers. This is clearly underpinned by results relating to animacy in the causative test where animate Causees are stationary, but inanimate INST objects are Movers even when used with the same verbs. Although a largely viable explanation there is some incertainty attached to whether INST marked animate Causees with inactive verbs, who are not Secondary agents in causative construction but rather Patient-like, will also have perfect aspect restrictions attached to them and behave like incremental Themes. Finally, I provided an explanation to the apparent contradiction to universal tendencies that INST objects in the –aC construction are more affected by the action than ACC objects. I emphasized that the present analysis does not violate this tendency. Firstly, synchronically, the High Transitivity semantics is a global phenomenon which affects the whole construction, not the individual arguments. Secondly, looking at the plausible agreement marker origin of this suffix, this possibly created a double reference to the agreement marked argument. The affectedness would therefore in an earlier phase have been represented by an accusative pronoun. This, however, will have to be confirmed.
294
CHAPTER 6
Typological and general linguistic perspectives on causative and benefactive 6. 0 Introduction Languages of various genetic origins and geographic distributions exhibit a polysemic relationship between a causative and a benefactive construction. Cf. e.g. Shibatani and Pardeshi (2001: 116) who say that ‘In a fair number of languages, causative morphemes are associated with the applicative function of introducing a comitative, instrumental, or benefactive argument’ (emphasis added). Aikhenvald (1998: 58) says that ‘In many languages, if a causative derivation has another meaning, this is most likely to be applicative’. It is the aim of this section to firstly, point at some of the languages which have common expressions (suffix or case) for causative and benefactive. I will then go on to discuss some typological perspectives on causative and benefactive constructions, referring to recent analyses that have been suggested to explain such syncretisms. Because this chapter not only reviews former analyses, but also evaluates them with respect to their aptitude for the special semantics of the Hausa causative and benefactive, it follows rather than precedes the treatment of my semantic test results.
6. 1 Languages with common causative-benefactive phonology Phonological similarity between causative and benefactive constructions is attested in a variety of unrelated languages of the world. Some languages make use of a common suffix; others share the use of a particular case or pre-/postposition. Still others have expressions of causative and benefactive which are phonologically different but which are parts of the same morphological system, often related to transitivity increasing operations. Many of these languages also have alternative causative constructions (e.g. syntactic) with no relationship to the benefactive (as is the case also with Hausa). However, this does not affect the argument, since it is rather common for languages to have more than one causative construction (cf. 4. 3. 3. 1). 6. 1. 1 A common affix for benefactive and causative The languages which have a common suffix for causative and benefactive include Bella Coola, Wolof, Indonesian/Malay, Hualapai, and Fula. In Creek and Yidiny ,
295
causative/benefactive meanings alternate with the type of verb. Among the Chadic languages I have chosen Ga’anda as a representative, although examples could also be mentioned from Pero (cf. Frajzyngier 1989: 169-176), Ngizim, and Masa. In Bella Coola (a Salishan language, spoken on the north central coast of British Columbia) (Saunders and Davis 1982, Palmer 1994: 238), causative and benefactive share the suffix -tus and are otherwise also identical in form. (254) Bella Coola: -tus/CAUS/BEN marker tx-a-tus mat …aleks
x-ti-`qlsxw-tx
cut-INTR-CONTROLhe/him Matt Alex PREP-DEIX-rope-DEIX (i) ‘Matt made Alex cut the rope’ (ii) ‘Matt let Alex cut the rope’ (iii) ‘Matt cut the rope for Alex’ (Saunders and Davis (1982), Palmer 1994: 238)
In Wolof, (an Atlantic language), the suffix -al, described in Comrie (1981: 183), an indicator of increased valency, is used as a marker of the causative and as a marker of an indirect object. (255) Wolof: -al/CAUS, -al/INDIRECT OBJECT, marker of increased valency a) Di naa toog-al nenne bi FUT 1SG sit-CAUS child the ‘I will make the child sit’ (Comrie 1981, Nussbaum, Gage, and Varre 1970) b) Mungi dyàng-al eleew yi tééré-ém he read pupil the.PL book-his ‘He is reading his book to the pupils’ One should note, however, that Comrie’s point is not to promote a semantic explanation of causative constructions. On the contrary, his general point is that ‘the same morphology as is used to indicate causative is used as a general indicator of increase in valency’, and he concludes that formal explanations therefore are as necessary as semantic ones (1981: 183). In Indonesian, (cf. Hopper and Thomson 1980: 260-261), the suffix -kan is used to express the benefactive and to make causatives out of intransitive verbs and adjectives, besides generally expressing High Transitivity values. The suffix -kan is used when the indirect object directly follows the verb, but not when the indirect object is expressed by a prepositional phrase. (256) Indonesian benefactive: prepositional object a) Hasan menjual kambing itu kepada saya Hasan sell goat the to me ‘Hasan sold the goat to me’
296
Indonesian benefactive: expressed with the suffix -kan b) Hasan menjual-kan saya kambing Hasan sell me goat ‘Hasan sold me a goat’ (Hopper and Thompson 1980: 260) (257) Indonesian: causatives made from adjectives and verbs with the suffix -kan verb/adjective causative jalan ‘to go’ jalankan ‘to make go’ murah ‘cheap’ murahkan ‘to cheapen’ Note also the transactional verb pairs in (258), where the addition of -kan is used to mark a Recipient or benefactive participant. (258) Indonesian sewa pinjam
‘to rent from’ ‘to borrow’
sewakan pinjamkan
‘to rent out to’ ‘to lend’
Interestingly, these verb pairs parallel corresponding verb pairs in Hausa using the -aC suffix, as well as other transactional verb pairs like buy/sell. (259) Hausa aæraa ‘borrow’ raæntaa ‘borrow (e.g. money)’ saæyaa ‘buy’
ara® ‘lend’ ranta® ‘lend’ saya® ‘sell’
Whether one should label such suffixes causative (translating them as ‘make borrow’, etc.) or benefactive (emphasizing the Recipient role) is maybe less compelling once their polysemous character is acknowledged. Additional examples of the –kan suffix is given by Shibatani and Pardeshi (2001: 116-117, taken from Yap (1996: 5)) (where language is labelled Malay). (260) Malay a) dia beli kereta baru 3SG buy car new ‘He/she bought a new car’ b) dia beli-kan saya 3SG buy-APPL me ‘He bought me a new car’
kereta baru car new
(261) a) bilek itu besar room the large ‘The room is large’ b) dia besar-kan bilek itu 3SG large-CAUS room the ‘He/she enlarged the room’
297
In Ga’anda, (Chadic language, Biu-Mandara A, Tera group), the suffix -an- is used for both causatives and benefactives. cf (262)-(264). (262) Ga’anda: -an/BEN marker Benefactive -an© shiy -a;n-nda yata BEN-1SG thief ‘I told on the thief for the chief’
i-kutiran PREP-chief
(Frajzyngier 1985: 28)
(263) Ga’anda: -an/CAUS marker a) © r©k- an-nda naffia CAUS-3PL man ‘They had the man chased away’
(Frajzyngier 1985: 28)
Ga’anda: Non-causative equivalent b) © r©k-nda naffia 3PL man ‘They chased the man away’
(Frajzyngier 1985: 28)
(264) Ga’anda: -an/CAUS marker a) s©n-a;n-m©n naffii ‘We informed that man’
b)
(Frajzyngier 1985: 28)
Non-causative equivalent s©n-m©n naffii
‘We know that man’ (Frajzyngier 1985: 28)
Another language cited by Shibatani and Pardeshi (2001: 116-117) with common causative/benefactive suffix is Hualapai (Hokan language of Arizona, North America); cf. the verbal suffix -wo from Ichihashi-Nakayama (1996). (265) Hualapai nya-ch wàmiye:-yu I-SUBJ I.be.mad-AUX ‘I am mad’ bos nya nyi-háda-ch cat I REL-pet-SUBJ ‘My cat makes me mad.’ (266) nya-ch he’ I-SUB dress ‘I made a dress’
wà-nyi-miye:-wo-k-wi (be.mad)-3/1-be mad-APPL-3-AUX (Shibatani and Pardeshi 2001: 116-117)
yo: v-wi-ny 1/3.make-AUX-PAST
nya-ch he’ nyi-yo:v-ò-wi-ny I-SUBJ dress 1/2-make-APPL-AUX-PAST ‘I made you a dress’
298
In Creek (Muskogean, south-eastern United States), the direct causative suffix -ic- (with some
phonological
variants)
in
two
or
three
instances
adds
an
object
with
benefactive/applicative rather than a causative meaning, such as apil-itá ‘to laugh’ and the related form apileyc-itá which means ‘to laugh at’ rather than ‘to make laugh’ (Martin 2000: 396). In Yidiny (Australian), the verbal suffix -,a has an applicative effect with some verbs (such as intransitive ma,ga- ‘laugh’ and applicative ma,ga-,a ‘laugh at’), and causative with others (intransitive warr,gi- ‘turn around’ and causative warr,gi-,a ‘turn (something) around’) (Dixon 2000: 31). Finally, in Fula (Atlantic, West Africa), a common etymology is reconstructed for causative suffix -(i)n and the benefactive sufix -an (Endresen 1994). In his work, Endresen reconstructs a Pre-Fula causative-benefactive suffix *Wn (where *W represents a vowel identical to the vowel in the following syllable). The argument is based on a general regressive vowel assimilation rule between the oldest stage, Pre-Fula, and an intermediary stage, Common Fula, which made an opposition between in and an impossible when these were followed by conjugational suffixes. It is argued that the distinction in/an in present-day Fula therefore must be of recent date. It is then shown that a phonological and a semantic split which applied also to several other suffixes changed the benefactive-causative suffix into two phonologically different suffixes. Cf. (267)-(268). (267) East Fula (present-day): -an/BEN marker a) Mi wadd-an-ii mo fayannde I bring-BEN-PF him/her cooking.pot ‘I brought her/him the cooking-pot’ Non-benefactive equivalent: b) Mi wadd-ii fayannde I bring-PF cooking.pot ‘I brought the cooking-pot’
(Endresen 1994)
(268) East Fula (present-day): -(i)n-/CAUS marker a) Mi hipp-in-ii mo fayannde I turn.upside.down-CAUS-PF her/him cooking.pot ‘I made her/him turn the cooking-pot upside-down’ (Endresen 1994) Non-causative equivalent: b) Mi hipp-ii fayannde I turn.upside.down-PF cooking.pot ‘I turned the cooking-pot upside-down’
299
6. 1. 2 Adjutative and causative polysemy In some languages, the causative morpheme may express the meaning of assistance or help (‘adjutative’, cf. Palmer 1994: 232) along with more typical causative meanings of factitivity and permission. While still being characterized as causative, such a meaning strongly resembles that of a benefactive construction, as it does in Georgian (Kartvelian, Caucasus) (cf. Nedyalkov and Sil’nitskij 1973: 13), see (269). (269) Georgian: adjutative and causative Mama švils c1erils a-c1er- -in-eb-s father his.son letter CAUS write CAUS ‘Father tells/allows/helps his son write a letter’ (Nedyalkov and Sil’nitskij 1973: 13) Palmer reports his own research (and Leslau 1941: 104) on Tigrinya (Semitic language of Afro-Asiatic, Ethiopia and Eritrea), where the suffix -nE functions grammatically in the same manner as the causative, and is used in the sense of helping someone carry out an action. Interestingly in relation to my own analysis based on the Experiencer roles of the causative and of the benefactive (7. 5), Palmer glosses this suffix by the term ‘animate’. (270) Tigrinya: -nE causative/animate/adjutative a) Bärh1e s1ärih1u Berhe work.PAST.3SG ‘Berhe worked’ (Palmer 1994: 233) b) MEsgenna -nE-bärh1e ’as1rih1u-wo Mesghenna ANIM-berhe work.CAUS.PAST.3SG-him ‘Mesghenna made Berhe work’ (Palmer 1994: 233) c) MEsgenna -nE-bärh1e ’as1s1arih1u-wo Mesghenna ANIM-berhe work-ADJ-PAST-3SG-him ‘Mesghenna helped Berhe work’ (Palmer 1994: 233) In Aymara (Aymaran, South America), the factitive and permissive causative suffix ya(aa) is part of the morpheme meaning ‘to help’ jaya (jaa) (Nedyalkov and Sil’nitskij 1973: 13, Middendorf 1891: 148). It is suggested by Nedyalkov and Sil’nitskij that such a relationship between ‘assistive and other causative meanings’ is characteristic. Zulu (Bantu) is mentioned as another language where the causative morpheme expresses both factitivity and assistiveness, and Japanese (Japanese) (in addition to Georgian) as a language in which it expresses factitivity, permissiveness and assistiveness (ibid. 1973: 14).
300
Relating such meanings to the transitivity value of the base verb, a number of languages are reported to have assistive and factitive causative meanings in both IC and TC constructions: Avarian, Amara, Georgian, Kechua (Quechua), Lezghin, Mongolian languages, Nanaian, Gilyak, Turkish languages, Evenki, Japanese, Zulu and Swahili (ibid. 1973: 14). 6. 1. 3 The same case or adposition for benefactive and causative When it comes to using the same case or preposition/postposition for expressing causative and benefactive, it seems that this situation is rather common. Such languages include e.g. Basque, French, Japanese, Hebrew, Hindi, Kannada, Turkish, and Quechua. In French (Italic, Indo-European), the preposition à is associated with indirect objects and is also used to mark the Causee in the TC construction. (271) French: the preposition à in causative and benefactive a) Causative J‘ai fait manger les pommes à Paul I-have made eat the apples to Paul ‘I made Paul eat the apples’ (Kemmer and Verhagen 1994: 124) b) Benefactive J‘ai expliqué le problème à Paul I-have explained the probem to Paul ‘I have explained the problem to Paul’ In Basque, (Basque) (Mejías-Bikandi 1989, Kemmer and Verhagen 1994: 123), the Causee of the TC construction is dative, which is also the case used for indirect object. (272) Basque: dative case marking of Causee and indirect object Haikek Letona-ri liburu-a galdu erazi zioten they-ERG Letona-DAT book-ABS lose make AUX ‘The made Letona lose the book’ (Kemmer and Verhagen 1994: 123) In Hebrew (Canaanite branch of North-Western Semitic, Afro-asiatic), the dative case in non-causative sentences is associated with non-agentive noun phrases expressing possession such as ‘I (DAT) had two books’. Non-agentive and Experiencer-based Causees are similarly marked with the dative. (273) Hebrew: dative case for non-agentive noun prases a) Hayu li shnei sfarim were-3PL DAT.me two books.NOM ‘I had two books’ (Cole 1983: 122)
301
Hebrew: dative case for Experiencer-based Causees b) Hizkarti le-Miriam et Arnon I.caused.to.remember DAT.Miriam ACC Arnon ‘I reminded Miriam of Arnon’ (Cole 1983: 122) Note also this sentence from Hebrew which is glossed as a causative, but translated as a benefactive (this meaning would no doubt correspond to a straight forward benefactive in many other languages). (274) Hebrew Hishmati latalmidim et hataklit (I) caused-hear DAT.the.pupils ACC the.record ‘I played the pupils the record’ (Cole 1983: 115) In Turkish (Altaic), the Causee of TC is in the dative, and the dative is also used for the indirect object. (275) Turkish: dative case for Causee and indirect object Causative (TC) a) Mektub-u müdür-e imzala-tı-t-m letter-ACC director-DAT sign-CAUS-PAST-1SG ‘I got the director to sign the letter’ (Lewis 1967) Benefactive b) Hizmetçi-ye bir palto al-acağ-ız servant-DAT one coat buy-FUT-1PL ‘We are going to buy a coat for the servant’ (Lewis 1967) When the dative case or an adposition associated with an indirect object is used in causative constructions, the Causee is affected experientially, i.e. as humans are affected. This can be seen from the fact that dative marking of the Causee in some languages is limited to a set of predicates relating to human experience (e.g. see, hear, read, learn, notice, remember). Such a language is e.g. Bolivian Quechua (Quechuamaran branch of Andean Equatorial grouping) (Cole 1983: 119), where the suffix -man is used for such Causees. Other such languages include Hindi, Dutch, and Kannada (Kemmer and Verhagen 1994: 135). (276) Bolivian Quechua: experientially affected Causee (in verbs of experience) Nuqa runa-man rikhu-či - ni I man-DAT see-CAUS-1SG ‘I showed it to the man’ (Cole 1983: 119)
302
Nuqa wawa-man yaca-či - ni I child-DAT know-CAUS-1SG ‘I taught it to the child’ (Cole 1983: 119) Nuqa warmi-man mikhu-či - ni I woman-DAT eat-CAUS-1SG ‘I fed it to the woman’ (Cole 1983: 119) Nuqa kurandero-man yuya-či - ni I medicine.man-DAT remember-CAUS-1SG ‘I reminded the medicine man of it’ (Cole 1983: 119) It is noted in Kemmer and Verhagen (1994: 135) that when a language allows for both dative and instrumental marking of the Causee in a transitive based causative construction, ‘the dative consistently gets associated with the experiential causees’. This association recurs in unrelated languages. In languages where there exists a choice between e.g. dative and instrumental marking of the Causee, the choice is determined on the basis of the semantic role of the Causee (cf. e.g. Cole 1983). This suggests that case is used as a means of construal and that the choice of case marking is determined by the speaker in the various language use situations (cf. also Ackerman and Moore 1995). Take the case of Bolivian Quechua, where the Causee of TC constructions in addition to receiving dative case, may be in the accusative (when the Causee has little control; a coercive causative) or in the instrumental (when the Causee has more control; is more agentive). Similar contrasts are found in Hindi, Kannada, Hebrew, and Japanese. In Hindi (Indic, Indo-European), the dative case is used with Causees who benefit from the action. This case marking contrasts with instrumental marked Causees: the latter are non-topical, and the primary aim is to get the action done rather than to profile the Causee participant as an Experiencer. (277) Hindi a) Mai-nee raam-koo masaala cakh-vaa-yaa I-AGT Ram-DAT spice taste-CAUS-PAST ‘I had Ram taste the seasoning (for his own benefit)’ (Kemmer and Verhagen 1994: 131, explanation in parenthesis added))
b) Mai-nee raam-see masaala cakh-vaa-yaa I-AGT Ram-INST spice taste-CAUS-PAST ‘I had Ram taste the seasoning (for someone else’s benefit)’ (Kemmer and Verhagen 1994: 132, explanation in parenthesis added)
303
The use of the dative case implies that the tasting is for Ram’s benefit, while the use of the instrumental case suggests that the intention is to have the food tasted and that this was done for someone else’s benefit (say for a king who needs to have the food tasted by the cook). (Saksena 1980, Kemmer and Verhagen 1994: 131). In Kannada (Dravidian), the dative is used with non-agentive Causees, and the instrumental is used for agentive Causees (Cole 1983: 120). Dative case is used in contexts where the Causee is not imputed to have a high degree of volition, for instance an animal or a child. The instrumental, on the other hand, is appropriate where the Causee is a mature adult, and is generally associated with agentivity (Cole 1983: 121). The dative case is associated in Kannada with ‘nonagentive noun phrases’ in non-causative sentences. This suggests that the dative case highlights a downstream Experiencer role (that is, an Experiencer in a syntactic position other than subject/Agent) in both the causative construction and non-causative constructions. (278) Kannada: dative case for non-agentive Causees, INST for agentive Causees a) Avanu nanage bisketannu tinnisidanu he.NOM me.DAT bicuit.ACC eat.CAUS.PAST ‘He fed me a biscuit’ b) Avanu nanninda bisketannu he.NOM me.INST bicuit.ACC ‘He caused me to eat a biscuit’
tinnisidanu eat.CAUS.PAST (Cole 1983: 120-121)
In Hebrew, the accusative case is associated with agentive Causees, and the dative with non-agentive. In a test performed to make causatives from verbs without corresponding causatives, Cole discovered that speakers of Modern Hebrew strongly preferred accusative marked Causees when the verb litpos ‘catch, grasp’ was used agentively (e.g. cause s.b. to catch a ball), and dative marked non-agentive Causees with the same verb (e.g. cause s.b. to grasp an idea). Cole explains the semantic difference in terms of the Causee in the first case actively participating in the action, whereas the sentence in the last case suggests that the Causee experiences the action through exposure. The dative is thus used to forefront mental affectedness, as in an Experiencer role. (279) Hebrew: accusative case for agentive Causees, dative case for non-agentive Causees a) Hitpasti et hayeled et hakadur (I).caused.to.catch ACC child ACC ball ‘I caused the child to catch the ball’ (Cole 1983: 123)
304
b) Hamore hitpis latalmid et haraayon teacher caused.to.catch DAT.pupil ACC idea ‘The teacher caused the pupil to grasp the idea’ (Cole 1983: 123) In Japanese, it is the dative case that is used for agentive Causees, where the Causee consents to the action, and the accusative that is used for non-volitional Causees, where consent is irrelevant. The dative is associated in Japanese with the roles Goal, Recipient, benefactive, addressee, Causee, passive Agent and giver of verbs of receiving (Tomoko Okazaki Hansen p.c., cf. also Hansen 2004). (280) Japanese: dative case for agentive Causee, accusative for non-volitional Causee a) Taro ga Ziroo-o ik-ase-ta Taro NOM Jiro.ACC caused.to.go ‘Taro caused Jiro to go’ (Causer is indifferent to Causees consent) b)
(Hansen 2004)
Taro ga Ziroo-ni ik-ase-ta Taro NOM Jiro.DAT caused.to.go ‘Taro caused Jiro to go’ (Causee carries the action out willingly) (Hansen 2004)
In French, too, the choice of marking of the Causee signals a difference in the semantic role of the Causee. If the Experiencer role is to be profiled, the dative case is used. If the Causee is less essential to the event as a whole, a passive Agent marking expressed by a by-phrase, par, is used. (281) French: dative case for agentive Causee, passive Agent marked by par a) J’ai fait nettoyer les toilettes au général I.have made clean the.PL toilets to general ‘I made the general clean the toilets’ (Hyman and Zimmer 1976: 199-200) b) J’ai fait nettoyer les toilettes par le général I.have made clean the.PL toilets by the.M general ‘I had the toilets cleaned by the general’ (Hyman and Zimmer 1976: 199-200) 6. 1. 4 Languages where causative and benefactive are part of the same (morphological) system In some languages, causative and benefactive receive different marking, but are linked in terms of belonging to the same morphological system. In Ngiyambaa (Pama-Nyungan, Australian), the phonological forms that express causative and benefactive are different, ‘but belong to the same system’ (Palmer 1994: 233). According to Palmer, Donaldson (1980: 163-164) ‘links the benefactive and causative
305
markers together in that both add an argument to turn an intransitive into a transitive’ (ibid. 1994: 233). (282) Ngiyambaa a) bura>dhu-nu yu_a-y-ba-«a child.ERG-2OBL cry-CM-TRANSR-PRES ‘The child is crying at you’
(Donaldson 1980: 163, cf. also Palmer 1994: 233)
b) _adhu-na bura>y _ura_-ga I.NOM-3ABS child.ABS camp-LOC
yuwa-y-miyi lie-CM-CAUS-PAST
‘I laid the child down on the bed’ (Donaldson 1980: 163, cf. also Palmer 1994: 233)
In (282a), ‘a NP in O[bject] function is introduced to indicate the person or thing the action is directed towards’ (Donaldson 1980: 163), i.e. a common benefactive meaning. The suffix -ba-l is labelled a ‘transitivizer’ (e.g. ginda-y-ba-l ‘laugh at’). In (282b), the suffix -ma-l (forms are conjugation-dependent at the suffix boundary, cf. Donaldson 1980: 164) expresses causative where the Causer is directly responsible for the event’s taking place (not where the Causee performs an act of her own free will) (ibid. 1980: 165). In Guererro Aztec, causative and benefactive meanings are also part of a transitivity increasing system: there is an ‘effective causative’ affix (-a), a ‘compulsive causative’ (-tia, -ltia), and a ‘benefactive’ affix (-lia) (Bartholomew and Mason 1980, cf. also Palmer 1994: 234). The effective causative is added to verbs which indicate a change of state. The compulsive causative is used where a volitional Agent does something to influence another volitional Agent to do something. The benefactive is added to transitive verbs and indicates a malefactive/benefactive role of a person or a possessor. (283) Guerrero Aztec Effective causative: verbs indicating a change of state a) patlahui ‘to become wide’ > qui-patlahu-a ‘he widens it’ b) cualani ‘he is angry’ > qui-qualani-a ‘he angers him’ Compulsive causative: a volitional Agent influences another volitional Agent c) choca ‘he cries’ (intr.) > qui-choc-tia ‘he makes him cry’ d) nequi ‘want’ (tr.) > nec-tia/ nequi-ltia ‘make sb. want’ Benefactive: indicates malefactive/benefactive role of person or possessor e) qui-pohua ‘he counts it’ > qui-pohua-lia ‘he counts it for him’ f) qui-caqui ‘he hears it’ > qui-caqui-lia ‘he hears his voice’ (i.e. he listens to him’)
306
Finally, in Sierra Popoluca (Mexico), causative and benefactive are derivations belonging to one morphological system (but may be combined) (Palmer 1994: 234, Lind 1984). (284) Sierra Popoluca: causative and benefactive belong to the same morphological system (but may be combined) Transitive: ikocpa ‘he hit him’ Benefactive ditrans. aNkoca?y ‘I hit his thing/I hit it for him’ Causative ditrans. anakkoc ‘I caused him to hit it’ Benefactive tritrans. aNkoca?ya? ‘I hit his thing for another’ Causative tritrans. anakkoca?y ‘I caused him to hit another’s thing/ I caused him to hit it for another’
6. 2 Typological and general linguistic perspectives on causative-benefactive syncretism The above documentation of shared phonological expressions for causative and benefactive constructions in unrelated languages has certain implications. The existence of sufficiently many languages with such a pattern requires the linguist to search for explanations. The fact that not all languages have grammaticalized their causative constructions into a shared phonology with the benefactive, or vice versa, (some, like Hungarian, do not use cases in the causative associated with the benefactive), does not preclude others from having done so. There may be several pathways to such a situation, but it is likely that the motivation for such a grammaticalization process has been semantic. Grammaticalization paths are traceable once they have happened. They are motivated but not strictly predictable. Regarding case languages, it appears that the choice of case in Causee constructions is not arbitrary, but is grammaticalized within the individual language. It seems that a semantic explanation based on grammaticalization theory is well suited to covering the variety of Causee case markings in the world’s languages, since, unlike Comrie’s case hierarchy (Comrie 1976), it does not purport to have predictive power. Comprehensive approaches to causative constructions are presented in the compilations by Shibatani (2001) and for causative and applicative in Dixon and Aikhenvald (2000) with interesting new perspectives on these constructions. Shibatani provides an integrated perspective on causatives arguing for a continuum along the semantic and formal dimensions where sociative (comitative) meaning is an intermediate category between direct and indirect causation, where direct causation consists of two events which have a spatiotemporal overlap and indirect have independent spatiotemporal profiles. Direct
307
causation is prototypically expressed by lexical, non-productive elements, and indirect by productive morphemes. That is, there is iconicity to the relationship between form and meaning. As a part of this argument, he touches on causative-benefactive syncretism. In the following, I shall present and comment on various explanations to causative/applicative syncretism. 6. 2. 1 Directionality of development between causative and applicative While Shibatani and Pardeshi (2001) argue that applicative meanings (benefactive, instrumental, and sociative) have evolved from the causative via overlapping semantics, and not vice versa, they note that the reverse is equally plausible (2001: 123). They refer i.a. to Payne (2001: 501-504) for Asheninka, where the –akag causative is argued to be derived from a reciprocal ⇒ sociative source (based on comparative data in the broader Maipuran Arawakan languages). An associative sense ⇒ sociative causative is also argued by Valenzuela (2001: 417-479) for Shipibo-Konibo. Zavala (2001: 247-9) argues that the comitative ‘We are going to take a walk with the grandfather’ becomes causative in ‘we are going to take grandfather for a walk’, and the benefactive meaning ‘That woman is dancing for him’ becomes the causative ‘He is making that woman dance’. 6. 2. 2 From sociative to causative Shibatani
and
Pardeshi
(2001:
85-126)
suggest
a
semantic
explanation
to
causative/applicative syncretism (ibid: 116-122) where applicative meanings such as comitative, instrumental and benefactive are linked to sociative causatives. This phenomenon is used in support of the establishment of sociative causative as an intermediate category between direct, lexical causatives on the one hand, and indirect, syntactic causatives on the other. In Yidiny, the derivational suffix –nga-l is used in six different senses, three of them being instrumental, comitative, and causative. In some languages, they say, (Marathi, Japanese), ‘causatives involve the causer’s active participation in the execution of the event – in many cases to the extent of the causer’s performing an act identical to that of the caused event’ (ibid. 2001: 118); that is, to make someone do something by doing it together with him or her. Typical examples would be activity verbs susceptible to either joint action or assistive causation such as to walk or to go, to play, run, sit, stand or lie. Accordingly, the causative of to go in some languages would take on the meaning to lead (e.g. Svan ka\tzela\lne
308
walk.CAUS.AOR, but note also Hausa taæfi ‘go, travel’ > tafii daæ ‘administer, manage’, or the causative short form using only INST zoo dà, lit. ‘come with’, but also ‘bring out’ Mustafa Ahmad, p.c. 1994). It is argued that comitative meaning can be derived from this type of causative meaning, since the former is an entailment of the latter. This observation is interesting, cf. also the fact that involvement of the Causer in the performed action is listed as a separate type of causative in Dixon and Aikhenvald (2000), cf. point 9 in 1. 6. 1. It is further pointed to a parallel connection between a causative expression and an instrumental applicative meaning; in a causative meaning such as ‘he caused the knife to cut the meat’ the (inanimate) causee is in fact an instrument, because the knife cannot cut independently from its Agent causer. However, while this analysis is certainly typologically interesting and may hold for a number of languages, it cannot explain the –aC/CAUS-BEN suffixes in Hausa, which has arisen out of a pronoun, not a sociative marker. For the use of INST dà, especially as it is used with causative meaning in the short forms (without –aC), however, this type of approach would be relevant. 6. 2. 3 From causative to adjutative benefactive The relationship between causative and benefactive is similarly explained through the sociative causative in Shibatani and Pardeshi (ibid: 119). It is further suggested that a sociative causative can be construed with an ‘assistive’ or ‘benefactive’ meaning. E.g. in Marathi tsaal-aw-Ne ‘to make walk’ as in ‘I walk with someone (e.g., a small child) by holding his hand, so that he will be able to walk’ (2001: 119) (emphasis added). The examples that I have listed with an adjutative meaning in 6. 1. 2 would support this. On the other hand, I would like to point out that with respect to Hausa, the assistive meaning of the benefactive is only one out of many different benefactive meanings which need to be explained, as my analysis in chapter 7 shows; similar benefactive semantics would also be common in other languages. Furthermore, this explanation seems to be related only to certain types of verbs, such as activity verbs, and may not function with all semantic classes of verbs (e.g. what of verbs of internal change and cognitive verbs). It is also difficult to imagine how the assistive meaning would be combine with coercive or direct types of causatives. It will thus only partly have solved the problem of why many languages express causative and benefactive by the same means. Shibatani and Pardeshi also mention the fact that verbs like laugh and cry, where the causative forms add a nominal with the resulting
309
meaning laugh at someone and cry over something, cannot be explained by association with the sociative causative. Instead there seems to be a kind of realignment of the Causer and the Causee with regard to grammatical relations. 6. 2. 4 Type of construction is decided by verbal semantics Another explanation is offered by Ichihashi-Nakayama (1996), presented in Shibatani (2001: 119). According to this analysis, causative and benefactive split arises as a consequence of available role slots; if the verb is inactive, the slot for the agentive affecting participant is open and the verb will be causative. If, on the other hand, the base verb is active, this will result in a benefactive role being added, this being an affected participant. Verbs of state/emotion like ‘be mad’, ‘be angry’, ‘be mean’, and ‘cry’ yield a causative interpretation, and agentive verbs like ‘sing’, ‘work’, ‘make’, ‘drive’, ‘buy’, ‘wash’ and ‘tell’ result in a benefactive meaning (Ichihashi-Nakayama 1996: 232, cited in Shibatani and Pardeshi 2001: 117). Shibatani and Pardeshi (ibid.: 117-118, from Yap 1996: 4-5) report similar strong tendency for Malay, where the suffix –kan produces benefactive if the verb is agentive, and causative with non-agentive verbs. Agentive verbs are causativized by syntactic means with the verb buat ‘make/do’ or bagi ‘give’. That is, there is a strong tendency to avoid morphological causativization of active verbs, where the added argument will rather be interpreted as a benefactive form. This observation fits in nicely with the general definition of causatives and applicatives, where the former adds a new A (subject) argument, and the latter a new O (object). That is, they are both valency increasing operations, but these are diametrically opposed. Shibatani and Pardeshi (2001) argue that while this explanation may be suitable for the Hualapai –wo suffix, it cannot be a universal explanation, since indirect causatives in many languages allow two agents, e.g. the Quechua –či suffix and the Japanese –sase suffix. As for applying this type of analysis to Hausa, it may be descriptive of a large proportion of the causatives, since many of the base verbs, but not all, describe changes of state or changes of location (motion verbs) in the subject, see 2. 7. 2. 1. A further argument in disfavour is that benefactive meanings like ‘He died on us’ are perfectly possible in Hausa, i.e. where the subject is inactive and describes a change of state.
310
6. 2. 5 Benefactive (ditransitive) as derived from a basic directional meaning Goldberg (1995) ascribes an element of causation both to the ditransitive and to the causedmotion construction in English. She also selects physical transfer as the central sense of the ditransitive (benefactive) construction, and her analysis thereby allows for a semantic relatedness between the ditransitive and the English caused-motion construction: "The metaphor allows the caused-motion construction to be used to encode the transfer of possession. This is just the semantics associated with the ditransitive construction […]." (Goldberg 1995: 90)
In chapter 4 we saw that some Hausaists have suggested that the basic and overall meaning of the non-benefactive usages of the –aC suffix is directional. In this regard, a relevant question is: can the semantics of the English caused-motion construction be alikened to any of the ‘action away/efferential’ semantics of some of the –aC verbs in Hausa? Secondly, does the ditransitive in English resemble the way in which the –aC/BEN suffix is used or are these semantically different? Finally, and most importantly, does the semantic link that Goldberg posits between the caused-motion and the ditransitive have any relevance for the situation in Hausa? 6. 2. 5. 1 The English caused-motion construction The English caused-motion construction is defined as the form [SUBJ [V OBJ OBL]], where the verb is a non-stative verb and OBL is a directional phrase (a prepositional phrase). It is set up with a family of related senses (Goldberg 1995: 76). The central sense in (285) 1. entails manipulative causation and actual movement, the extensions in 2.-5. are related to various force-dynamic verb groups. (285) 1. ‘X CAUSES Y TO MOVE Z’ (central sense) Example: Pat pushed the piano into the room. 2. Conditions of satisfaction imply ‘X CAUSES Y TO MOVE Z’ Example: Pat ordered him into the room. 3. ‘X ENABLES Y TO MOVE Z’ Example: Pat allowed Chris into the room. 4. ‘X CAUSES Y not to TO MOVE from Z’ Example: Pat locked Chris into the room. 5. ‘X HELPS Y to TO MOVE Z’ Example: Pat assisted Chris into the room.
311
It is semantically described as a construction where ‘the causer argument directly causes the theme argument to move along a path designated by the directional phrase’ (ibid: 152), captured in ‘X CAUSES Y TO MOVE Z’. The construction is related to the Intransitive Motion Construction in sentences like The bottle floated into the cave by a Subpart link. The theme is then linked to the SUBJ function and the cause is removed. This construction is further characterized by the semantic properties claimed to be unique to this construction: 1. It contributes causal and motion semantics that cannot be attributed to the lexical verb. 2. It contributes motion semantics that cannot be attributed to the preposition. 3. The causer argument cannot be an instrument. Goldberg argues that in fact many verbs that do not encode motion outside of this construction receive a motion interpretation when used in the caused-motion construction, e.g. squeeze in Frank squeezed the ball through the crack. In the same vein, verbs where causal semantics cannot be attributed to the verb receive causal interpretation when used in the caused motion construction, as kick in Joe kicked the dog into the bathroom. In fact, the direct object may receive a Mover role instead of a Patient role when used in this construction, as in (286) (adapted from Goldberg 1995: 154). (286)
a) Sam stirred/mixed the paint thinner. b) Sam stirred/mixed the paint thinner into the paint.
(direct object is a Patient) (direct object is a Mover)
Goldberg demonstrates that although many prepositional phrases themselves signify motion (e.g. across, towards) motion semantics is present also when the preposition does not signify motion (e.g. inside, in, under), cf. She coaxed Fred under the table. In fact, neither the verb nor the preposition needs to encode motion in order to receive a caused-motion interpretation, as seen in Sam urged Bill outside the house. The directional interpretation should therefore be ascribed to the construction itself, which coerces this directional reading. This happens because the location depicted by the locative term is interpreted as the endpoint of a path to that location. Furthermore, verbs that are normally intransitive may be used with direct objects in this construction; cf. The audience laughed the poor guy off the stage. A restriction is that there can only be one single caused event per clause, which is also typical of lexical causatives, often expressing direct causation. An intermediate cause is still allowed if the event by convention is cognitively packaged as a single event, e.g. in
312
having one’s hair cut, where it is common knowledge that even though the patient formally is the subject-agent, the hairdresser actually performs the job. The direct causation type can be observed in the ungrammaticality of verbs that allow the participant denoted by the direct object to make a cognitive decision about following the path or not, cf. (287). In (287b), the verbs refer to psychological states, but do not entail a cognitive decision. This is supported by the fact that a phrase like willingly cannot refer to the direct object (the causee, Bob) in (287) (ibid: 166). (287)
a) Sam coaxed/frightened/lured Bob into the room. b)*Sam encouraged/convinced/instructed Bob into the room.
A further constraint is that the Theme’s direction must be presumed to be one completely determined by the subject (the causal force), and if the theme does not actually move, it must be presumed that it will. Still another characteristic is that a direct object can either be affected as a Patient, or as a Mover, but not both; a verb like shoot, which allows both a trajectory and an impacted entity as direct object, do not allow both simultaneously. Goldberg notes that ‘If the action denoted by the verb implies an effect other than motion, then a path of motion cannot be specified (ibid: 170). The effect on the Patient/Mover is explained as varying according to semantic verb class; Goldberg specifies two groups of verbs of forceful impact, the hit-class and the strikeclass. Whereas verbs in the strike-class require that the entity denoted by the direct object be affected, verbs aligning with hit, allow the impacted entity to be generally unaffected, or affected in terms of motion only. Change-of-state verbs can be used in the caused-motion construction if the action performed on the theme implies some predictable path of incidental motion in a neutral context, like falling down as in Joey grated the cheese onto a serving plate. This incidental motion must also be intended, and the motion must occur as the result of the action. The path of motion must be completely determined by the action denoted by the verb. 6. 2. 5. 2 The ditransitive construction in Goldberg’s model: successful transfer The ditransitive construction in Goldberg (1995) refers to the double object construction with the syntactic frame [SUBJ [V OBJ OBJ] in sentences like Sally baked her sister a cake. In line with Goldberg’s requirement for defining a construction, the ditransitive construction is characterized in terms of a set of unique properties. The ditransitive is unique in terms of permitting two objects, and in terms of being the only one which links the semantic role
313
Recipient to the OBJ function. Deviations from the central sense are explained by a set of metaphors which she shows to be operative in English. The ditransitive is associated with intended transfer, this has to be part of the meaning of the construction, since verbs of creation such as the verb bake by itself does not imply transfer and this can therefore not be attributed to the lexical verb. Furthermore, the goal argument has to be animate. For instance, if OBJ is a location, it is interpreted to mean the people inhabiting the location and not the place itself (cf. The president sent Florida a happy message). Another semantic property is that it needs to have a volitional subject argument who intends the transfer signified by this construction. This requirement of intentionality and volitionality is excepted if the subject is construed in terms of the systematic conventional metaphor causal event as transfer. The transferred event is construed as an object, thereby causing an effect in another entity (She gave me the flu). Some verbs involve a metaphorical transfer of effect, for instance bring, buy, get, give, lend, and hand. In such cases the subject causally affects the first object by transferring the second object, who is then ‘affected in some way’ by receiving it. Another semantic constraint is that the Recipient should be willing to accept the transfer. The central meaning of the ditransitive is therefore an intended transfer between a volitional Agent and a willing recipient. This explains why (288a), but not (288b), is acceptable. (288)
a) *Sally burned Joe some rice. b) Sally fried Joe some rice.
The normal interpretation of (288a) is that Joe does not like burnt rice and therefore will not willingly eat it. Willingness does not necessarily imply that the recipient will benefit from the transfer, as she might be ignorant of the consequences, as in (289). (289) Jack poured Jane an arsenic-laced martini. Goldberg remarks, however, that this willingness is one of the prerequisites of the central meaning of successful transfer, which sometimes, but not always, requires a willing recipient, cf. the sentence The policeman gave the driver a speeding ticket. The semantic role of the indirect object is often that it possesses the transferred object. However, Goldberg focuses on reception rather than possession, since receiving an object often subsequently entails possessing it. Furthermore, it is argued that focusing on the
314
Recipient role rather than the possessor role promotes the understanding of the dynamic aspect of this construction. Other metaphors called upon for the ditransitive are 1) the conduit metaphor, which pictures communication travelling across from the stimulus to the listener in verbs of communication and thought (She quoted Jo a passage); 2) perceptions are entities in transfer, (He gave Bob a glimpse) and 3) actions are entities in transfer (She threw him a parting glance). Yet another metaphor is 4) facts and assumptions are objects which are given, from the speech act domain (I’ll give you that assumption). Finally, the metaphor 5) actions are objects can be seen in cases like They’re going to kill Reagan a commie. This concerns actions which are performed for the benefit of someone. Goldberg (1995: 75) suggests that the English ditransitive is associated with a family of related senses, where subtypes can be understood as extensions from a central type, as presented below. 1. ‘X CAUSES Y TO RECEIVE Z’ (central sense) Example: Joe gave Sally the ball. 2. Conditions of satisfaction imply ‘X CAUSES Y TO RECEIVE Z’ Example: Joe promised Bob a car. 3. ‘X ENABLES Y TO RECEIVE Z’ Example: Joe permitted Chris an apple. 4. ‘X CAUSES Y not TO RECEIVE Z’ Example: Joe refused Bob a cookie. 5. ‘X INTENDS to CAUSE Y TO RECEIVE Z’ Example: Joe baked Bob a cake. 6. ‘X ACTS to CAUSE Y TO RECEIVE Z at some future point in time’ Example: Joe bequeathed Bob a fortune. The common denominator of these examples is transfer. It is argued that the various subtypes of the ditransitive can be related by various metaphors, linked to the central sense by Metaphorical Extension links (IM). The various senses of the ditransitive are captured in a network like the one in Figure 3.1 (Goldberg 1995: 38).
315
E. Agent enables recipient to receive patient Verbs of permission
F. Agent intends to cause recipient to receive patient Verbs involved in scenes of creation Verbs of obtaining
D. Agent acts to cause recipent to receive patient at some future point in time Verbs of future transfer
A. Central sense: Agent successfully causes recipient to receive patient Verbs that inherently signify acts of giving Verbs of instantaneous causation of ballistic motion Verbs of continuous causation in a deictically specified direction
B. Conditions of satisfaction imply that agent causes recipient to receive patient Verbs of giving with associated satisfaction conditions
C. Agent causes recipient not to receive patient Verbs of refusal
Figure 6.1 Because Goldberg selects successful transfer as the central sense, benefactive senses where actions are involved rather than actual transfer are seen as extensions from the ‘X CAUSES Y TO RECEIVE
Z’ sense. In order to do that, she posits the metaphor actions performed for the
benefit of a person are understood as objects, where these actions are transferred to the Recipient rather than a physical object (ibid: 150). The source domain in this case is ‘X CAUSES
Y TO RECEIVE AN OBJECT (not necessarily designed Z)’.
6. 2. 5. 3 A synonymy relation between the Transfer-caused-motion construction and the ditransitive The English caused-motion construction is extended to what Goldberg labels the transfercaused-motion construction, since both these construction have the syntactic frame [SUBJ [V OBJ OBL], where OBL is a prepositional phrase. The relevant metaphor is Transfer of
316
ownership as Physical Transfer, whereby for example a sentence like Joe kicked the bottle into the yard is extended to Joe gave his house to the Moonies. The abstract transfer in the latter sentence is motivated by the prototypical sense in verbs like give which imply physical transfer from the giver to the Recipient. The diagram in Figure 6.2 shows the mapping of argument roles and syntactic functions in this extension.
Caused-motion construction Sem
CAUSE-MOVE
SUBJ
OBL
V
‘Joe kicked the bottle into the yard’
OBJ
IM: Transfer of ownerhip as physical transfer
CAUSE-RECEIVE
SUBJ
OBL
‘Joe gave his house to the Moonies’
OBJ
Figure 6.2 This extension is motivated by a metaphor by which one understands ownership in terms of physical proximity to the owner. Physical transfer of an object to a person is equivalent to transferring (the abstract) relationship of being owner of that object. Conversely, removing the object from the vicinity of a person is alikened to depriving the person of ownership status. The preposition phrase headed by to in Joe handed the bag to Pat also designate the path of the transferred object. In Goldberg’s analysis, the transfer-caused-motion construction is S(emantically) synonymous to the Ditransitive construction via an S-link. This link is not a motivation link, since the syntax of the ditransitive is different in terms of being a double object construction. The dashed line in Figure 6.3 indicates this synonymous relationship (ibid: 91).
317
Transfer Caused-motion construction Sem
CAUSE-RECEIVE PRED
Syn
SUBJ
OBL
‘Joe gave his house to the Moonies’
OBJ
S-synonymous Ditransitive construction Sem
CAUSE-RECEIVE ‘Joe gave the Moonies his house’
PRED Syn
V
SUBJ
OBJ
OBJ2
Figure 6.3 6. 2. 5. 4 Comparison of the English caused motion constructions in English and the Hausa causative-CMN The most common form of the Hausa causative/caused-motion is [S V OBJINST]. The less common transitive variant is [S V OBJINST OBJACC]. These resemble the English caused motion construction in being single event causative constructions, which imply causation in a semantically
condensed
manner,
that
is,
the
Causer
acts
directly
onto
the
Causee/downstream participant and not via an intermediate cause or participant. Below I will also argue that their structures are based on single sentence structures that can be shown to consist of linguistic elements (-aC, dà) found elsewhere in Hausa, cf. the iconicity principle in Shibatani and Pardeshi (2001), which argue that there is a form-meaning continuous correspondence in causatives in relation to density. With respect to whether the Causee is allowed to make a cognitive decision before or not with respect to the action, I refer to 6. 3. 2 where showed that for the [S V OBJINST] construction, animate Causees have little autonomy and are conceived of as controlled by the Causer. This might suggest that the Hausa construction resembles the English construction also in this matter. The [S V-aC OBJINST] construction is semantically characterized by a Causer-Agent acting on an OBJINST, which, as a result, moves or is heavily impacted/goes through a change
318
of state. This motion may be part of the lexical verb, as in waatsèe v4 ‘be spread, scattered’/waatsàa v1 ‘spread, scatter’ ⇒ waatsad dà ‘reject, dispose of, dismiss’. Compared to the gr1 verb waatsàa, in which the object is also a Mover, the CMN construction adds extra motion to the object. In other cases, the Mover role is not part of the lexical verb, as in aunàa v1 ‘weigh, measure’ aunad dà ‘weigh and take away’, or kaasàayee v4 ‘cover in excrement’ ⇒ kaasayad dà ‘expel in excrement’. In such cases, all the motion is supplied by the construction itself. Within Goldberg’s model, which requires a construction to contribute unique semantic content not attributable to either of its subparts, the existence of such cases does not impair the present analysis but rather strengthens the status of [S V-aC OBJINST] as a separate construction. In figures 6. 4 and 6. 5 below, the plus/minus signs indicate relative strength, and an arrow below a circle indicate intrinsic propensity of the unit to move and a line to be at rest (cf. Talmy 1988). Figure 6. 4 Caused motion in motion verbs
+ Causer
– Causee/Mover
Figure 6. 5 Caused motion in non-motion verbs
+ Causer
– Causee/Mover
In yet other examples, the impact is not in the form of motion, but in terms of an effect that alters the state in some crucial manner of the impacted entity, the object: tsumbùree v4 ‘be incompletely developed, be(come) stunted’ tsumburad dà ‘stop growth (usually of plants)’. In the Golbergian way of thought, such a difference may be explained by invoking the metaphor change of state is change of location (ibid.: 83). Goldberg uses this metaphor to explain her Unique path constraint of the Resultative construction in English, which entails that a moving Theme cannot be a Mover and go through a change of state at the same time.
319
(290)
a) Sam tickled Chris silly (resultative, change of state) b) Sam tickled Chris off the chair (resultative, Mover object) c) *Sam tickled Chris silly off the chair (two ‘results’, motion and change of state)
She further argues that in English, ‘many verbs of directed motion can be used metaphorically to code changes of state’ (ibid.: 83), cf. The jello went from liquid to solid in a matter of minutes, but not *The vegetables went from crunchy into the soup. Hansen (2004) shows that the same metaphor is operative in Japanese. Supposedly, such metaphors are languagespecific, but it is likely that it can also be successfully applied to the –aC/CAUS-CMN construction in Hausa, since I have found no cases where the OBJINST goes through a change of state while also changing its location. As may be recalled from 4. 3. 2. 2, there are gr5 verbs which may have either a causative or a motion away meaning, cf. fitad dà ‘take out’ (causative) or ‘oust’ (HTR-MVR object); huutad dà ‘save, cause to rest’ (causative) or ‘pension off, dismiss’ (HTR-MVR object); and \aakunta® ‘make someone a guest in one’s own home’ (causative) or ‘(expel and) make a guest (in another town)’ (HTR-MVR object). Ideally, however, the establishment of this metaphor in Hausa should be further corroborated by additional linguistic evidence independently of this construction. A difference between the English caused-motion construction and the Hausa ‘causative-efferential’ is that in English, the Goal is obligatorily expressed by an oblique locative phrase. In Hausa, the presence of a Goal is facultative, and is expressed as a dative object, e.g. in verbs of transfer such as the transitive gàadaa v2 ‘inherit’ gaadad dà ‘bequeath’ in the [S V OBJDAT OBJINST] construction. Verbs of transfer in gr2 imply that the subject comes into possession of some entity, which, in the causative/caused-motion derivation is transferred away or to some other participant. A complication of the –aC/CAUS-CMN construction in Hausa with respect to the transfer analysis is the fact that in some cases, this suffix adds not just motion away or a change of state of the Causee, but also that this participant is more seriously affected than in the corresponding gr1 derivation. Cf. the examples in (291). (291)
gurgùntaa46 v1 ‘weaken, cripple’ gurguntad dà ‘bring to dire straits’ hòoraa47 v2 ‘train in conduct/moral’ hoorad dà ‘discipline/punish (by whipping/beating)’ ‘yântaa v1 ‘emancipate (a slave)’ ‘yantad dà ‘liberate (a country)’
46 This verb also has an intransitive gr3 verb gùrguntà ‘go badly, not turn out as planned’. 47 According to Newman (2007), this gr2 verb may also have the meaning of the gr5, but note, not vice versa.
320
Thus, in relation to the gr1 derivation, the –aC/CAUS-CMN construction brings about, not just a change of state, but also an implication of increased affectedness. This would supposedly make the Semantic Transitivity Hypothesis more accurate and viable explanation, in some respects. Notably, the STH also involves transfer as a general understanding of what transitivity is all about, but includes a notion of degree of intensity or force as an additional ingredient. 6. 2. 5. 5 Comparison of the English ditransitive construction and the Hausa benefactive The Hausa –aC benefactive comprises a wider set of meanings than the English ditransitive as described by Goldberg (1995). On one side of the scale, the Goal sense of –aC/BEN does not have to be animate. On the other, the Experiencer senses (including ‘owner of Theme’, and various malefactive and affectedness readings) are much more prevalent and common than the allative (directional) sense, this often being taken over by the gr1 –aa suffix; in action verbs such as àraa v2 ‘borrow’, there is with some speakers a preference for the meaning ‘action done instead of OBJDAT’ and not Recipient as in ‘lend to’. Furthermore, all the examples I have come across denoting inanimate Goal are motion verbs, which might suggest that the transfer semantics is a symbiosis between the verb and the –aC marker. This, however, is not conclusive. Nevertheless, this might indicate that the central sense of the –aC/BEN suffix is more towards endpoint focus than on directionality. To the extent that directionality is present, this might be a result either of lexical motion semantics of the verb, or the creation of a subject - OBJDAT relationship in terms of the addition of a pronoun referring to the downstream participant. This interpretation better harmonizes with the affectedness semantics associated with –aC/BEN that we saw in 5. 3. 1. This does not mean that metaphors used in Goldberg like ‘actions are objects in transfer’ are irrelevant to the Hausa benefactive, just that typologically, the range of meanings associated with the Hausa benefactive is wider compared to the English ditransitive. Another point in case is the fact in Goldberg’s analysis of the ditransitive; she focuses on a willing Recipient as part of the successful transfer semantics. In Hausa, by contrast, the –aC/BEN rather seems to imply the opposite, that actions are (especially when malefactive) done to the OBJDAT participant against her wishes, and that it presupposes an inequality relationship between subject/Agent and the OBJDAT participant for the action to come about (be successful). In both analyses, successful transfer is crucial, but the semantic mechanism behind it is different.
321
An important reason why I have not found Goldberg’s treatment of the benefactive construction sufficient in my analysis of Hausa benefactives is the fact that she altogether lacks an equivalent of the concept of Personal Sphere (elaborated in 7. 2. 2) (or Recipient’s dominion in Langacker 2002: 15) as a basis for understanding the use of semantic roles associated with the dative or indirect object in many other languages, and subsequently in the dative and the –aC/BEN suffix in Hausa. This is an obvious weakness to her model as applied to Hausa. It is also important that the Personal Sphere be a base, in the Cognitive Grammar understanding of this concept, since the actual area covered by benefactives (and indirect object using dative case), since what is subsumed under a Personal Sphere varies from culture to culture. I have not found coverage for this in Goldberg’s model. On the other hand, I concede that the fact that that there are differences in the Hausa –aC/CAUS-CMN compared to the English caused-motion construction, and the fact that the –aC/BEN suffix covers a different range of semantic roles than the English ditransitive does not itself preclude one from employing the general principles of Goldberg’s constructionist model to Hausa. Focus would then be on semantic classes of verbs and their licensing abilities, to look for characteristics unique to the two types of constructions, etcetera. The fact that the concrete constructions treated in Goldberg deal with motion is an accident not dependent on the principles of the model itself, which, I am certain, could accommodate other features as well. Employing Goldberg’s model, however, would entail a very differently designed fieldwork than the present one, with a different focus. For now, I have found that a focus on semantic roles, the STH and Cognitive Grammar, suffice. 6. 2. 6 Causative/benefactive syncretism is caused by the extension of semantic roles Another perspective, then, is to look at the semantic roles, specifically of the Causee and the Beneficiary in each individual causative construction, for the following reasons. Firstly, in geographically and genetically unrelated languages, the case marking of the Causee coincides with that of the indirect object within the specific language. Secondly, where there exists a choice of case marking of the Causee, the specific semantic attributes of the dative marked Causee bear close similarities to the semantic role of the dative marked participant in the benefactive construction. The definition of a downstream Experiencer will cover both these roles; as someone who is more or less in control of her actions, who by virtue of her animacy possesses some degree of agency, but where full agency is prevented by the participant in the Causer/Agent role. This points towards a strong association between aspects of the Causee
322
role in causative constructions and semantic roles associated with indirect object in benefactive constructions. This idea is elaborated in Kemmer and Verhagen (1994), where a basic idea is semantic extension of the Experiencer role from benefactive to the causative. In this analysis they presuppose a monoclausal approach to the causative. Whereas the traditional biclausal approach compares a causative construction to non-causative base verbs with one argument less, the monoclausal approach extends from regular simple to causative clauses with an equal number of participants. This sort of approach is also maintained in Song (1991, 1996), and Palmer (1994: 236-239). Song (1991, 1996) provides independent arguments in favour of the monoclausal approach to causatives. He points to the fact that there seems to be a constraint on the number of ‘core NP arguments’ allowed in each causative sentence, and that this number corresponds to the number of core NP arguments in a simple sentence in the same language (a language particular principle). Before I present this idea I will offer a brief review on what ideas were predominant prior to Kemmer and Verhagen’s alternative view on causatives. 6. 2. 6. 1 The basic idea of the biclausal approach to the causative In many theories (e.g. Relational Grammar, cf. Davies and Rosen 1988), it is held that the underlying structure of all causatives are like the periphrastic ones, that is, they consist of two clauses where one is subordinate to the other in an underlying biclausal structure. This means that morphological causatives are seen as constructions that are the result of a derivation process going from an underlying to a surface structure. This process involves adding an argument, viz. a new subject, to the sentence it is thought to be derived from (see Comrie 1975, 1976, 1981, Cole 1983). In the 1970s, generative semantics even applied this view to lexical causatives, such that a verb like kill was analysed as ‘cause to die’. See (292). (292) NON-CAUSATIVE: n ∅ CAUSATIVE: n + 1 Here, one addresses the problem of segmenting the causative construction into building blocks such that one building block is the basis for the formation of a causative sentence. Causative sentences consist of a matrix sentence and an embedded sentence, in an underlying structure, as in the structure in Figure 6.6, showing the syntactic elements of a sentence like (293) from Turkish.
323
(293) Turkish dişçi hasan-a mektub-u müdür tarafından ğöster-t-ti dentist Hasan-IO letter-DO director by show-CAUS-PAST ‘The dentist made the director show the letter to Hasan’ Figure 6.6: Biclausal structure in causatives, deep structure S MS
CAUSE
S
ES
Dentist
cause
director
V
EDO
EIO
show
letter
Hassan
MS refers to the ‘Matrix Subject’ and corresponds to the Causer role. ES refers to the ‘Embedded Subject’ (more commonly referred to as the Causee role, and also referred to as the complement subject (Cole 1983)), EDO to ‘Embedded Direct Object’, and EIO to ‘Embedded Indirect Object’. In Surface structure, the causative construction will appear as in the structure in Figure 6.7, illustrated by the Turkish sentence in (294): Figure 6.7: Biclausal structure in causatives, surface structure (294) S
MS
Dentist
CAUS-V
ES
EDO
CAUSE-show director
letter
EIO
Hasan
It is generally assumed that the new role added is the Causer, which assumes the grammatical form of (matrix) subject (MS) in the derived causative sentence. Comrie shares this common
324
view with many others, for example Cole (1983), and Langacker (1991a: 408). The basic non-causative sentence corresponding to (293/294) would thus be (295). (295) Turkish müdür hasan-a mektub-u director Hasan-IO letter-DO ‘The director showed the letter to Hasan’
ğöster-di show-PAST
In a biclausal approach it is imagined that a new participant is added to the corresponding non-causative (basic) sentence. The original subject is then demoted to a position further down in the sentence, and assumes the role of a Causee, in this model referred to as the embedded subject (ES). Emphasis is placed on the fact that many languages seem to demote the embedded subject in a certain way, according to the transitivity value of the non-causative base verb. This hypothesis, commonly known as ‘The transitivity hypothesis’, was suggested as a universal by Perlmutter and Postal (1974), and a basic idea in Comrie (1976). Biclausal view: The Causer-subject is added to a simple, non-causative sentence, and the ‘original’ subject is demoted to the first position not already occupied in the hierarchy Subject > Direct object > Indirect object > Other oblique. In other words, the model predicts that: • If the non-causative base verb is intransitive (has no direct object), the embedded subject will take the form of a direct object. • If the non-causative base verb is monotransitive (has a direct object, but no indirect object), the embedded subject will take the form of an indirect object. • If the non-causative base verb is ditransitive (has both a direct and an indirect object), the embedded subject will take the form of an oblique constituent (i.e. neither subject, direct object, or indirect object). Languages that comply with the predictions of how the Causee/embedded subject will be demoted are referred to as instances of the paradigm case. Exceptions to this hypothesis occur in cases of syntactic doubling, where one syntactic position such as subject, direct or indirect object is doubled to make room for the new participant, and in cases of extended demotion, where the Causee is demoted further than what is required by the hierarchy. For many years, this view was dominant, and studies on causative constructions related to it. Presently it has been shown, however, that this type of encoding is not as common cross-linguistically as once believed (cf. Dixon 2000: 48). In addition to having
325
problems with explaining non-paradigm cases (of which Hausa is one), the demotion model fails to account for languages which encode the Causee in alternate ways according to the semantic role of the Causee. 6. 2. 6. 2 A semantic explanation to the encoding of Causees within the biclausal paradigm The transitivity hypothesis has proved insufficient to explain the use of alternating case markings within the same language. Cole (1983) provides a modified approach which is based on the semantic notion of degree of agency of the Causee. Cole, assuming a general underlying biclausal structure for causatives, suggests that it is the semantic role of that NP in the complement clause that will determine how the ‘complement subject’ or embedded subject (Causee) is encoded: in terms of grammatical relations (direct or indirect object) and in terms of case (instrumental, dative, or accusative case). It is generally predicted that languages will follow a hierarchy of agency where Experiencers are midway between Agents and Patients: Agent > Experiencer > Patient The particular system of case is, of course, language specific, but the hierarchy predicts that languages will be consistent in using a particular case or grammatical relation corresponding to the degree of agency of the Causee. Thus, in causative constructions expressing direct, coercive causation, the Causee will be encoded with a case/grammatical relation expressing a more Patient-like, less volitional Causee, having little control over the situation (in some languages the accusative may be used here). An Experiencer-like Causee may be perceived as being more agentive, for instance as possessing agent-like characteristics such as animacy, but being less agentive in the sense that they are receivers of energy rather than energy producers, being used with verbs of experience, which do not require active action (in some languages encoded by dative case). More agentive Causees would have even more agent-like qualities, such as having a higher degree of control and volition, as may be the case in less coercive, indirect causation types (in some languages expressed by the instrumental case). Cole’s understanding of the transitivity hypothesis is that the linguistic data that have inspired it are a result of a grammaticalization process. This pattern has come about, he suggests, because subjects of transitive verbs are prototypically Agents, and the subjects of intransitive verbs are prototypically Patients. See, however, Shibatani’s more recent research on the active/inactive distinction with respect to causativization (2001: 6) presented in 1. 6. 2.
326
Cole’s point is that although the use of grammatical relations and the case of the Causee role vary from language to language, it is the same distinction that is upheld in all languages, namely that of degree of agency. Another, more recent approach to variable Causee encodings within the same language is Ackerman and Moore (1999). 6. 2. 6. 3 Independent typological indications in favour of monoclausal causatives No claims are made here that all types of causatives are monoclausal. Draye (1998), for instance, argues that causatives in German and Dutch have biclausal structure and are not modelled on simple constructions. Hansen (2004: 148) also remarks this. But it needs to be recognized that causative constructions that do not display specific biclausal features of, e.g. subordination of the second clause, can be claimed to have simple sentence structure. One of the points of criticism in Song (1991) is that the Case Hierarchy (CH) postulated in Comrie (1975, 1976) presupposes an otherwise unmotivated complex underlying structure. The postulation of the relevance of CH for causatives enforces the assumption of an abstract underlying biclausal structure of morphological causatives, and precludes a simplex underlying structure along the lines of non-causative sentences. Song maintains that there is no independent motivation for positing a complex underlying structure when the morphological causative is composed of a single verb. The assumption of a simplex underlying structure makes CH superfluous since there is only one subject in each case. Song claims it to be a fact that ‘the causative sentence is no different from any other non-causative sentence in terms of the number of core NPs permitted’ (1996: 175). Besides mentioning in support of his own hypothesis a number of techniques which languages employ to prevent ‘overdensity’ of core NPs in the causative, Song maintains that ‘There is no need to recognize the case marking of causatives (i.e. via the CH) as different from that of noncausatives’ (1996: 176). Here I would like to point out that there is cross-linguistic evidence suggesting that the structural composition of some causatives is monoclausal. For example, agreement systems of two-component and serial verb causatives (i.e. complex causative structures) indicate that these behave grammatically as single predicates. Another relevant situation is where certain grammatical processes such as object-raising and the addition of instruments (an applicative function) associated with causation in some languages. The first point concerns verbal agreement systems in serial verb and complex verb causative constructions. Serial verb causatives (Crowley 1987, Aikhenvald 1998) are serial
327
verb constructions where the object of one verb is co-referential with the subject of another. In terms of verbal agreement (‘reference’), two types exist: either the causative verb and the ‘main’ verb receive ‘cross-reference’ inflection from their respective semantic subjects, or, in the case of ‘concordant dependent inflection’ (Durie 1982), all of the verbs in the serial verb construction are inflection marked with the same subject. In the latter type, the two verbs receive the same subject marker which corresponds to the subject of the verb of causation. Concordant dependent inflecting causatives are described by Aikhenvald (1998) for Tariana (a North Arawak language spoken in North West Amazonia, Brazil). In (296), all verbs agree with the Causer, ‘I’ (‘1SG’), the verb of causation ‘bring’, as well as the verb of action ‘enter-come’ which is performed by the Causee ‘you’ (‘2PL-OBJ’). (296) Tariana i-na
nhuta nhue 1SG.bring 1SG.enter ‘I usually get you to come in’ 2PL-OBJ
nu-nu 1SG-come
nu-yã-ka 1SG-stay-DECL
Aikhenvald (1998) argues that this serial causative construction behaves like a single verb construction in that all verbs share markings on tense/aspect, modality, evidentiality, and polarity; the individual verbs of this serial verb construction cannot receive independent marking for any of these categories. They can further be distinguished from subordination, coordination, and complex predicates, since they contain no markers of syntactic dependency. Periphrastic causatives in Tariana, in contrast, receive independent tense/aspect/aktionsart marking, and are marked with two different semantic subjects (corresponding to Causer and Causee) on the respective verbs, besides being dependency marked by the suffix -ka on the causative verb. Confer also this example from Haruai48 (Comrie 1993), where the agreement pattern suggests a monoclausal structure of a causative construction which consists of two separate verbs. Intransitive verbs are causativized by adding p ‘get, take’ before the main verb in a serial verb construction, as in (297b). (297) Haruai a) ha öby-ön-a child rise-FUT (-3SG)-DEC ‘The child will get up’ 48A non-Austronesian language spoken in the south-west of the Madang province in Papua New Guinea. Abbreviations used for Haruai grammatical terms: FUT future, DEC declarative, SG singular, PL plural, PRS present-past.
328
b) an ha p öby-n-I-a we child get rise-FUT-1PL-DEC ‘We will get the child up’ (Comrie 1993: 320) The only finite verb, öby ‘rise’, agrees with the subject ’we’ in the first person plural. The simple verb to which the first person plural is attached is the intransitive verb ‘rise’, although the Secondary agent is the child. Attaching the subject agreement to p, the causative element, would yield an ungrammatical sentence. Even though the subject agreement is attached to the intransitive verb ‘rise’, its scope is the whole of the verbal phrase, including the causative marker p (Comrie 1993: 320). As a consequence, the whole sentence must be seen as a single syntactic unit, in spite of the fact that the verbs are separable elements, each having their own logical (semantic) subject. One might infer from this that it is the Causer who is responsible for and controls all the actions of the clause, carrying out the action through the Secondary agent. As an additional note on whether the Causer or the Causee is conceived of as added to the base verb, consider this sentence from Norwegian (Germanic, Indo-European), a language which makes extensive use of instrumental (direct) objects, just like Hausa: (298) Norwegian a) Moren leser Mother.the reads ‘the mother is reading’ b)
Moren leser med barna Mother.the reads with children.the ‘the mother is reading with the children (i.e. she listens to them reading)’
On one interpretation, the mother (the Causer) is responsible for the action being carried out, but it is the children who carry out the content of the lexical verb. Grammatically, the mother is the Agent of the lexical verb, and the addition of an instrumental yields the causativecomitative meaning. A pragmatic inference with the verb tisse ‘pee’ makes the causativecomitative meaning even more evident, since this is usually not something one would do in a group. Norwegian does not have any morphological causative. Regarding the second typological indication of monoclausal causatives, Kinyarwanda (a Bantu language) has a set of suffixes whose function is to promote oblique arguments to object position (Kimenyi 1988: 381). One of these, the suffix -iish-, is used to promote instrumental arguments to object position. This suffix is also used as a causative:
329
(299) a) Non-causative, transitive sentence: ábanyéeshuûri ba-ra-som-a ibitabo students they-PRES-read-ASP books ‘The students are reading books’ b)
Causative sentence: umwáalímu a-ra-som-eesh-a ábanyéeshuûri teacher he-PRES-read-INST-ASP students ‘The teacher is making the students read books’
ibitabo books
Palmer (1994: 237) argues that in the b) sentence, the object related to the presence of -iish(-eesh-) represents ‘the entity by means of which the action is achieved, either the instrument or the Secondary agent/Causee’, with the Causer being the principal Agent. Palmer concludes that the implication of this is that the causative ‘does not add a new role, that of the Causer, in the Subject position originally held by the Agent, but adds a new role in the Object position, indicating the person by means of whom the action was achieved, the Causee being [...] a kind of instrumental (or conversely, the instrumental being seen as a Secondary agent or Causee)’ (1994: 237). Palmer suggests the following literal translation of the sentence in (299b), which treats the Secondary agent as an instrumental, and thus points out the similarity between the causative and the ‘promotion-to-object construction: ‘The teacher is reading (causing reading of) the books by means of the students’. Palmer concludes from this that it then follows that the sentence translated as ‘The teacher is making the students read the books’ is not derived from ‘The students are reading the books’, with an added Causer (‘the teacher’) in subject position, but from ‘The teacher is reading the books’, with an added role of Causee/instrumental that has been promoted to object. Similarly, in Haruai, the same process that is used for causativization is also employed for adding downstream participants such as instruments. In this case, the participant is added to a transitive verb construction (Comrie 1993). This argument presupposes a more peripheral status of the intermediate participant, i.e. the indirect object/dative marked and the instrumental marked participants. In the following I shall elaborate briefly on this. There are a number of syntactic arguments pointing to the peripheral status of these objects. Cross-linguistically, one can see that they are peripheral in the senses that: 1) They are peripheral participants in the action chain 2) They may be omitted 3) They may be seen as participants added to a more basic construction with more central participants
330
In addition, whereas many verbs in any language can be part of a benefactive construction, relatively few verbs in the same languages require a Recipient (Recipients being obligatorily present and predicted by the valency value of the verb). Regarding 1), while the subject (nominative) and direct object (accusative) participants are central to the verbal action, instrumentals and datives are less integrated. In a prototypical transitive situation, the subject (an Agent or other force) directly affects (or effects) a direct object (a Patient), see Figure 6.8, S and ACC are ‘central participants’ in the event: Figure 6.8: An S acts on an OBJACC in a setting
S
ACC Setting
In this approach, it is this construction that is perceived as the point of departure for extending the sentence with other participants. Thus, extending the sentence with an indirect object (maximally externalized) would yield the semantic structure in Figure 6.9:
Figure 6.9: An S acts on an OBJACC in an OBJDAT ’s personal sphere in a setting
(!)
S
ACC
DAT
Setting
331
Extending the sentence in Figure 6.8 with an instrumental participant yields the structure in Figure 6.10. Figure 6.10: A S acts on an OBJACC via an instrumental in a setting
S
INST
ACC Setting
It can be seen that in both cases, the subject participant’s objective is to act on an OBJACC. In neither case is the intermediary participant the direct goal or primary target of the action. To regard the dative and instrumental cases as peripheral cases was observed as far back as the celebrated Roman Jakobson (1936/1971): ‘[…] bezeichne ich den I[nstrumental] und D[ativ] als Randkasus und den N[ominativ] und A[kkusativ] als Vollkasus, und für den Gegensatz der beiden Gattungen verwende ich im folgenden die Bennenung Stellungskorrelation. Der Randkasus gibt an, daß das bezügliche Nomen im gesamten Bedeutungsgehalte der Aussage eine periphere Stellung einnimmt, wogegen ein Vollkasus nicht angibt, um welche Stellung es sich handelt.’ (Jakobson 1936/1971: 46)
Regarding point 2) above, if a syntactic participant in a clause is omitted for grammatical or other reasons, the omitted participant often is peripheral. In the case of benefactive constructions including a ‘free dative’, the indirect object can commonly be omitted freely; the term ‘free dative’ (see Janda 1993: 81-95) even implies its status as a participant whose presence is not obligatory, e.g. ‘She moved the car’ vs. the equivalent of ‘She moved the car for me’ in a case language (‘She moved me.DAT the car’). The indirect object is a ‘loose’ participant. Omission of the Causee is not as frequent, but see for instance Nedjalkov and Sil’nitskij (1973). Furthermore, Song (1991: 79) mentions i.a. Afar (an Eastern Cushitic language), where the Causee (the ‘original’ subject NP) often is omitted in causativized
332
transitive verbs. Normally the number of NPs in a causative sentence is no more than two, regardless of the transitivity of the root verb. (300) Afar ’oson ’garca gey-siis-e-’ni they thief find-CAUS-they.PF-PL ‘They caused the thief to be found/they caused someone to find the thief’ Other examples are from French and Italian. In French, this option exists with par-causatives (Palmer 1994: 222). (301) Italian Ho fatto scrivere una lettera I.have made write.INF a letter ‘I got a letter written’ (Lepschy and Lepschy 1977: 205, Palmer 1994: 221) (302) French J’ai fait nettoyer les toilettes (par le général) I.have made clean the.PL toilets (by the.M general) ‘I had the toilets cleaned (by the general)’ (Hyman and Zimmer 1976: 200) In English, the have-construction suggests causation, where the Causee can be specified as in (303a), or be left unspecified as in (303b). Contrast (303c), which shows that a transitive causative have-sentence, which leaves out the direct object, is not grammatical. (303) a) b) c)
I had Peter wash the car/ I had the car washed by Peter I had the car washed *I had Peter wash
For other languages, the omission of peripheral participants has had a peculiar and interesting effect on causative-benefactive sentences: it erases the distinction between them, making it ambiguous whether they are to be understood as causative or as benefactive. When the causative suffix -ndi in Songhai (a Nilo-Saharan language) is added to a ditransitive verb, such as neere ‘sell’ in (304), either the Causee NP or the indirect object must be left out (Song 1991: 80). (304) Songhai garba neere-ndi bari di musa se Garba sell-CAUS horse the Musa IO ‘Garba had Musa sell the horse’, or ‘Garba had the horse sold to Musa’ (Song 1991: 80)
333
Regarding point 3), the fact that more oblique, peripheral arguments of the clause seem to be dispensable fortifies the centrality of other non-dispensable arguments, such as the subject (nominative) and direct object (accusative) participants, and would seem to support Figure 6.8 as being basic, also for causative and benefactive sentences. Note also Langacker’s term focal participants, referring to the subject and direct objects as the central participants of the clause (1991a: 300-301). If the indirect object/Causee roles are more easily omitted than more central participants, they must also be seen as the roles that are ‘added’ to a more basic construction. As in these languages, Hausa displays structural indications of having monoclausal structure in the -aC causative, outlined in the next chapter. 6. 2. 6. 4 A monoclausal view on causatives enables comparison of semantic roles across construction types Typical of monoclausal approaches is the matching of the participants of the causative construction onto corresponding participants in a simple sentence within a particular language. Basic to this concept of similarity is the linguistic-cognitive notion of extension (see 3. 2. 1). Extension refers here to an asymmetric synchronic relationship where a simpler concept or construction serves as a basis for the extension of a more complex concept or construction. In this view, the specific similarities between two constructions are an apparent focus of interest. Kemmer and Verhagen (1994: 128) refer to Lakoff (1987: case study 3) and Goldberg (1992) for further elaboration of such ‘based-on’ relationships. The patterns found to be the most common by Kemmer and Verhagen are for intransitive causatives to have the Causee formally expressed (e.g. by case) as a direct object, and for transitive causatives to have the Causee expressed as an indirect object or instrumental. This is one of the motivations for Kemmer and Verhagen’s suggestion that intransitive causatives (IC) are extensions from transitive sentences, and that transitive causatives (TC) are extensions from ditransitive sentences, in the following way: Figure 6.11: Extensions from simple transitive clause to Intransitive Causative (IC) in Kemmer and Verhagen (1994) Simple transitive Clause:
IC clause:
Agent
Patient
|
|
Causer
Causee
334
Vtr | [Vcaus Vitr]
Figure 6.12: Extensions from ditransitive clause to Transitive Causative (TC) in Kemmer and Verhagen (1994) Simple 3-Participant Clause:
TC clause:
Vitr
= Intransitive verb
Vcaus = Causative verb
Agent
Dative/Instrumental
|
|
Causer
Causee
Vtr
= Transitive verb
V3
= 3-participant verb
Patient | Affectee
V3 | [Vcaus Vtr]
This can be summarized as in the following: Monoclausal view: No participant is added, but in an IC clause, the Causer and Causee are mapped onto the Agent and Patient in a Simple Transitive clause, respectively, and in a TC clause, the Causer, Causee, and Affectee are mapped onto the Agent, the Dative/Instrumental, and the Patient, respectively, of a Simple 3-participant clause.
What makes Kemmer and Verhagen’s approach different from earlier approaches is the fact that their emphasis is not so much on purely syntactic arguments aiming to predict the formal marking of the Causee, as to try to see the semantic motivation for the common marking of the Causee as a direct object, indirect object or instrumental in such constructions. This is done in relation to a ‘prototypically transitive event’, following the work of Givón (1984) and Hopper and Thompson (1980). Note also, that the fact that this model compares similarities in semantic roles across construction types make the analysis less dependent on the base verb ⇒ derived verb process, and that valency increase therefore is downplayed. What they do is rather to compare sentences with an equal number of participants. This approach therefore treats syntactic constructions as cognitive templates rather than as dynamic syntactic processes. When it comes to the IC clause being likened to a simple transitive clause, it is relevant to compare the Causee marked as a DO in an IC and the DO of a monotransitive clause. These differ in the sense that the IC Causee is typically animate and thus has some amount of initiative capacity, while the prototypical DO in a simple clause is an inanimate participant simply absorbing the energy. They are similar in terms of affectedness and direct causation, as simple monotransitive clauses are also seen as essentially causal (Kemmer and Verhagen 1994: 127): the constructions are similar in terms of ‘one participant exerting force, or some abstract analogue of force on another entity’. The Causee in an IC is also the
335
‘endpoint of energy’, just like an ordinary DO, a quality not present in Causees of TCs, where this quality rather characterizes the affectee. Various types of evidence are presented by Kemmer and Verhagen to justify this claim, such as the fact that diachronically, causative markers expressing direct, physical causation have been observed to have merged with verb stems to form transitive verbs. When it comes to the TC clause and 3-participant clauses, attention is in Kemmer and Verhagen drawn to the fact that the Causee role is often encoded as either indirect object (e.g. dative case) or as an instrumental in transitive causatives. Accordingly, the semantic qualities of this Causee are compared first to the semantic role of Beneficiary and Recipient, which are the roles most often associated with the indirect object. The Causee role is here similar in terms of animacy, since the most typical Causees are animate. These roles are also similar in the sense of having Experiencer-like properties. The two Experiencer roles associated with causative and benefactive constructions are compared in Kemmer and Verhagen (1994: 129) who say that: ‘[…] we observe that indeed the causee in the TC construction is certainly not the same as a recipient or beneficiary, the prototypical semantic roles associated with indirect objects. Although we are not dealing with the same semantic role from the point of view of the sentence as a whole, we nevertheless argue that there are fundamental similarities between the two participants which motivate the similarity of marking. There is, for example, a clear semantic similarity in terms of animacy.’
(Kemmer and Verhagen 1994: 129)
Regarding the instrumental encoding, Causees of TCs, as well as ordinary instrumentals, are causal intermediaries on the path of energy flow in the clause, (the affectee referring to the entity which is the endpoint of the verbal energy). They differ, however, in terms of animacy; an instrument is prototypically inanimate. The Causee is then viewed as a metaphorical instrument which the Causer employs to implement the verbal action. A final similarity between indirect objects and instrumentals on the one hand, and their causative clause counterparts on the other, is the fact that they are third, ‘extra’ participants which are less essential to the action than the subject and direct objects. They are both syntactically and semantically more peripheral. This is reflected in individual languages by their being syntactically dispensable or optionally present in the clause. For more examples, see Song (1991). Table 6.1 summarizes differences and similarities between causative and simple sentences:
336
TABLE 6.1: Survey of similarities and differences in causative and simple sentences Difference
Similarity
Simple monotransitive clause – Inanimate DO Intransitive causative
(absorbs energy)
– Affectedness
– Animate DO
– Direct causation
(initiative capacity)
– One participant (energy source) affects another (energy sink)
Simple ditransitive clause
– Instrumental is inanimate – Both Causee and IO are animate and Experiencer
Transitive causative
– Instrumental Causee is animate
– Causee/instrumental are causal intermediaries in action chain – Instrumental/IO are semantically &
syntactically
peripheral
participants in the action chain
Kemmer and Verhagen’s approach has the advantage of offering a coherent analysis where the various encodings of the participants in causative constructions across the world are semantically motivated. The use of case or other formal markings of participants in causative constructions thus becomes a linguistically motivated and integrated part of the individual formal systems in the various languages, rather than bothersome exceptions to a postulated universal. Differences between ‘original’ and extended uses of case as portrayed by this table may be accommodated through mechanisms of category extension (see 3. 2. 1). Ideas in line with Kemmer and Verhagen can be found in Langacker (1991a: 413) , where the instrumentally or dative encoded Causee of TC constructions is construed as a ‘Secondary agent’. It is ‘secondary in the sense of being downstream from the original energy source, yet agentive in the sense of having some initiative role’. It is further argued that this meaning represents ‘a plausible semantic extension with respect to the prototypical values of both instrumental and dative case’ (emphasis added). It is also argued that a Secondary agent is directly analogous to an instrument ‘by virtue of being an intermediary in the flow of energy from the (primary) agent to the theme’ (1991a: 413). The Secondary agent is also analogous to dative case because of the mental experience facet which is central to this case. Specifically relevant to the Causee role is the notion of volitionality: while the
337
Experiencer role may be entirely thematic, it also has the potential for initiative capacity (see also Janda 1993: 54-56 for the dative participant’s potential as an Agent). In Cognitive Grammar, the dative participant is defined as ‘an active Experiencer in the target domain’ (see 3. 4. 2). Langacker points out that this definition would be equally applicable to a Secondary agent. Here one needs to view the choice of case as involving the faculty of construal. 6. 2. 7 Causative/benefactive syncretism as both path and semantic roles In Japanese, dative case broadly signifies i.a. a set of meanings in the category of human Goals (Recipient, Adressee, Benefactive) as well as a set of meanings related to Secondary agent and extensions from those (Causee, Passive Agent, Giver in verbs of receiving) (Hansen 2004). Hansen describes the various uses of the Japanese dative in the following way, of which in the transition from Benefactive to Causee is one extension in a chain of extensions. It is argued that the basic sense of the dative is Goal, where it designates an end point of an action denoted by various semantic classes of verbs. That is, the Goal of an action is actually reached, literally in terms of motion or in terms of an accomplished state, as in Mary-NOM Tokyo-DAT/sleep-DAT arrived ‘Mary arrived at Tokyo/fell asleep’ (ibid.: 60). According to Okuda (1983: 297-8, cited in Hansen 2004: 58-9) these verbs of inherently directed motion (either movement from one location to another, or the goal of a movement) constitute the most concrete sense from which other senses are extended. Verbs of inherently directed motion have caused-motion counterparts, either lexically or morphologically (e.g. go-send). According to Hansen (ibid.: 62-63), the caused motion constructions describe direct causation without a mediating Agent who can choose to consent or not consent to the action. The Goal sense extends to purpose in verbs of agentive motion, as in (305), which is quite common cross-linguistically, she argues, citing e.g. Heine, Claudi and Hünnemeyer (1991, ch. 6). (305) Japanese John-ga hon-o-kai-ni itta/kitta John-NOM book-ACC-buy-DAT went/came ‘John went/came in order to buy a book’ (Hansen 2004: 65) Hansen further relates purpose to human Goals (Recipient and Benefactive) in several languages (Croft 1991: 237-9, cited in Hansen 2004). Another sense of Goal present in the
338
Japanese dative is Resultative goal with intransitive verbs of change of state, as in JohnNOM teacher-DAT became ‘John became a teacher’. Hansen argues with reference to the directional basic meaning of the dative that ‘Though the directionality is less obvious in [such sentences] than is the change of location with DAT goals, these sentences can be conceptualized as showing John moving metaphorically along a path into the state of being a teacher […]’ (ibid.: 69)
Here an entity moves into another state, a conceptual Goal, involving a semantic shift from the spatial domain to the conceptual or perceptual domain. Hansen also invokes Goldberg’s (1995: 83) conception of the metaphor ‘change of state is change of location’ in these cases. The fact that some verbs of inherently directed motion is used as verbs of change of state is taken as evidence of the metaphorical extension from change of location to change of state (ibid.: 70), e.g. (306). (306) Japanese Kare-no-byooki-ga sukoshi he-GEN-feeling-NOM a little ‘He calmed down a little’
ochi-tsuita fall-arrived
In reciprocal expressions, one of the participants may be DAT-marked (e.g. John-NOM met Mary-DAT), and in comparative expression the standard of comparison is DAT-marked (e.g. John-NOM resemble Mary-DAT). Firstly, this is taken to mean that there is some kind of interaction between these participants (in contrast to cases where the object is ACC marked). Secondly, imposing a directional construal of the relationship the NOM to the DAT participant, where the NOM NP is conceptualized as moving, physically or abstractly, to the DAT NP. Relational verbs like obey, react, oppose, and answer to require the source of mental reaction to be DAT-marked, as in Eye-NOM light-DAT react ‘The eye reacts to light’. Here there is no motion involved, Hansen argues, but still a sense of mental path from NOM NP to the DAT NP in order to assess the reaction of the former towards the latter. Hansen argues that ‘the NOM-DAT construction imposes a force-dynamic construal on the scene’ and that ‘[a] sense of directionality and goal is […] present in DAT participants even in stative predicates’ (2004: 90). The abstract schematic meaning for all of the Goal senses is assumed to be ‘entity moving along a path to goal’. The prototype from which the other senses are extended is set to be ‘entity moving along a path to DAT physical local goal’ (ibid.: 113). She notes that the
339
act of giving itself implies directionality and that the give-schema in Shibatani (1996) should be taken as a basic sense of the benefactive (see 1. 5. 5) and provides a template for the benefactive. Cf. also the directional analysis in Goldberg’s caused-motion construction, which is easily extends ‘X causes Y to move Z’ (She sneezed the napkin off the table) to ‘X causes Y to have Z’ (John gave the money to Mary). However, as noted above, the latter only has a synonymy link to the double object benefactive construction in English (John gave Mary the money), since the two are not identical in terms of structure. With respect to the transition which is of particular interest here, that from the benefactive to the causative, Hansen argues that the Secondary Agent is extended from the caused-motion construction. By caused-motion she here refers to NOM-DAT-ACC constructions that designate interpersonal relations, in which the DAT participant must be animate (which is not, one may recall, a requirement of the adjunct to-construction in English). Animacy of the DAT participant results in a change of the canonical word order from NOM-ACC-DAT of the goal senses. This is only natural, since animacy here will entail that the speaker views the dative participant ‘as more crucially involved in the action or more significantly affected by the action than the patient’ (Hansen ibid.: 114, referring to Goldberg 1995 and Wierzbicka 1988). I would like to comment that this may be surprising in terms of actual affectedness and degree of integration in the action, which should rather be the Patient or ACC marked participant. The DAT participant will also always be less integrated in the event than the direct object. Nevertheless, with verbs of interpersonal relations, this perspective makes sense, and probably borders on the phenomenon of topicality. The caused-motion construction in Japanese is used to express the meanings of giving and saying, which means that the DAT participant in theses cases will be either a Recipient, a Benefactive or an Addressee, human Goals that differ from passive participants in terms of their capacity of mental experience, volition, and the ability to carry out an action (such as receiving something). The extension to Causee involves downplaying the fact that these constructions differ with respect to energetic interaction in the action chain. In a prototypical act of giving, the energy flow goes from the Agent via the Theme to the Recipient; in the causative event, the order is reversed so that the Agent (Causer) energetically interacts with the other animate participant, the DAT marked Causee, not the Theme, thus: Event of giving: Agent ⇒Theme ⇒ Recipient Causative event: Causer ⇒ Causee ⇒ Theme
340
Hansen argues that the human Goal and the Causee are semantically related because ‘[a]lthough the roles of human goals are not the same as that of the causee, they all designate an agent that is secondary with respect to the primary agent (i.e. the subject) in the accomplishment of the event of the main verb’. In fact, all the DAT participants are secondary in terms of prominence and in terms of topicality, and not in terms of the order of participants in the action chain or the ‘truth value of the conceived event’ (ibid.: 117). In this analysis, the DAT participant is secondary because: • DAT presupposes NOM • DAT lies downstream from NOM in a path of building up an entire conceptualization of the event Another important assumption in this argument is that the structure of the causative construction is monoclausal, so that NOM and ACC are the core participants and DAT is less integrated; the skeletal meaning of the causative becomes ‘the NOM participant, with the aid of the DAT participant, accomplishes the event denoted by the verb or the verb stem’. This is argued to be similar to the skeletal meaning of the caused-motion construction in acts of giving, which presupposes that the Beneficiary actually accepts the thing given in order to be grammatical, since ‘[a]successful event of giving presupposes an active recipient as the secondary agent’ (Hansen 2004: 126) (cf. also Goldberg’s analysis for English, diagnosing its felicitous status by adding the word willingly). Thus, in a benefactive, ‘[t]he NOM agent, with the aid of the DAT benefactive, accomplishes the act of doing a favour’ (Hansen 2004: 134). 6. 2. 8 Evaluation of directional and semantic roles’ analyses for Hausa With respect to evaluating the usefulness of this analysis of the Japanese dative to Hausa causative-benefactive syncretism, one should note that there are both similarities and differences. The similarities concern the fact that there is a directional ‘Goal’ sense present in both the –aC/BEN and the –aC/CAUS senses in terms of an abstract schematic meaning of an entity towards which an action is directed and reached. In the benefactive, the effect of this action is clearly noticeable, in contrast to other benefactive suffixes in Hausa (e.g. the applicative gr1 and the malefactive/deprivative gr4). Similarly, in the causative an effect reaches the downstream participant to the extent that it brings about a change in the Causee/Patient. A potential difference between Hausa and Japanese in this case is the range of semantic roles associated with the benefactive in Hausa. In Japanese, the Goal senses are
341
much more emphasized because ablative case and the suffix –kara is used for the meaning ‘take sth away from sb’ where there is movement away from possessor. In Hausa, by contrast, the –aC/BEN suffix denotes both deprivative and allative ‘give to’ senses. Moreover, while the allative senses are certainly present in the –aC/BEN suffix, emphasis is more towards what effect the action has on the DAT participant as an Experiencer, and less on the motion. An important obstacle for this analysis to be successful for Hausa is the fact that one cannot add phrases like willingly or invoke an accepting attitude on the part of the benefactive participant in cases of malicious or forced actions which are detrimental to and which involves a non-autonomous dative participant. This latter difference is also the reason why the Goldbergian analysis, which extends the Beneficiary/benefactive from caused-motion construction, is maybe less apt to explain the situation in Hausa. 6. 2. 9 Summary of typological perspectives on causative and benefactive In this section I have presented various suggested explanations to why benefactive and other applicative constructions may be related to causatives and causation. Among the various potential causes of such syncretism I found that neither of the suggested developments comitative ⇒ causative, causative ⇒ adjutative, role availability according to the active/inactive verb distinction of the base verb, or analyses which focus on solely on directionality and motion are sufficient in explaining causative/caused-motion and benefactive meanings of the –aC suffix in Hausa. The comitative meaning may be involved where the INST dà is used as the sole causative marker, but is not related to any recognizable features of the –aC suffix. The meanings associated with the adjutative only faintly resemble the meanings associated with the –aC/BEN suffix. The role availability explanation falls short in the cases where the a-aC/CAUS suffix is used to derive active verbs. Finally, while directionality is certainly a part of all the uses causative, caused-motion, and benefactive, that alone does not explain the special intensity and affectedness semantics that is associated with this suffix.
6. 3 Summary In this chapter it was demonstrated that many unrelated languages display common marking of causative and applicative (including benefactive) constructions. For this reason, there is reason to suspect that, also when it comes to the situation in Hausa, this is not an accidental
342
phenomenon. Several other options were discussed and evaluated for the purpose of explaining causative-benefactive syncretism in general. In some languages there is evidence that applicative meanings, such as the comitative, have developed into causative. In others, the directionality of development appears to have been the contrary, that benefactive; specifically the adjutative, has developed into causative meaning. In many languages, however, the issue of directionality is unresolved. Then various approaches to explaining what the benefactive is all about were presented and evaluated. Specifically, attention was paid to whether the benefactive in particular, but also causation, is best explained in terms of the path metaphor, or whether the comparison of semantic roles is a better option, particularly focusing on the intermediary roles of the Beneficiary and the Causee. As part of that discussion it was argued that for some causative constructions, the monoclausal approach has some advantages when it comes to explaining various types of common encoding with simple clause structures. In support of that argument several independent typological evidence was brought to the fore, including the peripheral status of the Causee and the Beneficiary (both being omissible in many languages), the animacy value of those participants, single clause morphological marking of causative construction in serial verb languages, and the lack of subordinate markers in causative constructions. The basic conclusion to this discussion is that, in the case of Hausa, there is a particular semantic emphasis on the downstream participant as an affected endstate and that the (transitive) path from subject to object is insufficient in explaining the particular semantics of –aC constructions alone. In the case of the Causee, the animacy value contributes to this participant’s relevance and topicality as an essential secondary participant in relation to the subject/Agent in the interactional, communicative situation. That is, this value counts more to the construal of causatives in relation to benefactives, than the fact that in terms of energetic interaction, Causees are second in the action chain and not the energy sink, as benefactives are. This is likely to be the basis for the particular construal that underlies the common marking of causatives and benefactives in many languages.
343
CHAPTER 7
A semantic analysis of Hausa -aC sentences 7. 0 Introduction In this chapter I will first present a set of arguments why the –aC/CAUS, as well as the –aC/BEN constructions are monoclausal, simple sentence structures. Having established a such a basis for semantic comparison of the semantic roles of causative and benefactive –aC constructions, I will go on to analyze these constructions in detail.
7. 1 The monoclausal model applied to Hausa The question of monoclausal vs. biclausal structure of the causative -aC dà construction in Hausa has never been addressed, for two reasons: 1) the general assumption that causatives have biclausal structure has, to my knowledge, never been questioned by any Hausaist, (Newman 1983, Munkaila 1990: 159-160), and/or 2) the question was not relevant because the general solution to the semantics of this construction was to claim that it is not a causative, but instead signifies ‘action away’ (e.g. Newman 2000: 81). Biclausal structure is assumed by Munkaila, for instance, saying that ‘…where the causative morpheme is attached to the verbs, the external arguments [subjects] become the internal arguments while new external arguments are introduced’ (Munkaila 1990: 160). The principal consequence of relating the -aC suffix as it is used in the benefactive to the -aC suffix as it is used with the causative is the necessity of defining the causative as a monoclausal structure in Hausa. Evidently, the benefactive is a simple sentence structure in which the function of -aC is to mark the semantic role(s) played by the dative object. It is my suggestion that the function of -aC in the causative is to mark a similar clausal participant, corresponding in semantic role to the benefactive dative object. This similar participant is the Causee/Secondary agent. As a consequence, it also corresponds to the composite clausal structure of the benefactive construction. Such a composite structure is incompatible with a biclausal approach in which it is assumed that the addition of a causative marker will require the addition of a new subject, along with the demotion of an original subject.
344
7. 1. 1 Arguments in favour of monoclausal -aC/CAUS sentences in Hausa A number of factors constitute additional and independent support for a monoclausal causative structure in Hausa. One of them is the fact that Comrie’s case hierarchy relating to demoted subjects does not work with any of the Causees in Hausa, since both the IC construction (where the hierarchy predicts accusative case), and the TC construction (where dative case is predicted), use instrumental case to mark the Causee. In Comrie’s terminology, Hausa is a case of ‘extended demotion’ (1976: 266) . Another fact is that instrumental case alone is used to express causative meaning. The instrumental element dà is in its other conduit senses (see 7. 4) used only in simple sentence structures, and an assumption that the causative is the only construction in Hausa where this is not so is in need of justification. Moreover, the meaning and function of the instrumental and the dative cases in Hausa as they are analysed in this dissertation support the idea that these cases mark non-central participants. This is especially true of the instrumental case, and it is argued that for Hausa, peripherality is its most predominant semantic feature. The novel import of INST to marking OBJDAT participants in Hausa argued below further corroborates this view. It is further pointed out that agreement data collected for this dissertation show that the pronoun(s) which came to develop into the -aC suffix in the overall majority of cases tend to agree with the dative object, more rarely with the subject (and OBJACC). This suggests that a downstream participant is added rather than a new subject. In addition, the consonant in the -aC suffix is placed after the verb, which is also the object position of pronouns in presentday Hausa. Finally, additional support comes from the plausible path of historical development presented in chapter 5, where a right-dislocation (after-thought topic construction) may have developed into causative and benefactive markers via an (object) agreement marking system. This idea is consistent with my analysis but has yet to be supported by additional comparative-historical evidence. I will point to certain structural facts which indicate a monoclausal rather than a biclausal structure of the -aC/CAUS construction. It is shown that the morphological causative -aC dà construction has, on the ‘surface’, a simple sentence structure. When comparing it to the analytical causative in Hausa formed with sa] ‘put, cause’, it becomes evident that this construction lacks any of the biclausal markers that characterize the sa] causative. This factor weakens the a priori idea that the structure is biclausal, and such an argument would therefore require more support. My argument is supported by independent
345
typological information presented in the previous chapter, which points towards a monoclausal structure of some causative constructions in other languages. It is therefore a reasonable claim that the causative in Hausa is a monoclausal structure where the INST marked participant is so marked because of its status as a peripheral mediating participant added to an S-V or S-V-OBJACC structure in the process of forming the causative, as it is when used as an INST of instrument. 7. 1. 2 The lack of biclausal markers in the Hausa morphological causative Evidently, the structure of the periphrastic causative in Hausa is biclausal, as it carries a number of the characteristics of two sentences. It might be assumed that similar grammatical devices to reveal its underlying structure would accompany an underlying biclausal structure of the morphological causative. However, no such devices are found. Firstly, the morphological causative has one single verb, not two like the periphrastic causative, since the causative element is in the form is a suffix. Secondly, the morphological causative has one Tense Aspect Marker (TAM) co-referent with the subject noun, not two. Third, the morphological causative is negated in the same manner as a simple clause. Thus, there are no formal features to suggest that this construction is biclausal. The periphrastic causative, by contrast, is formed by means of sa] ‘put, cause’ and a content verb in a sequence of two full clauses (see presentations in Newman 2000: 81-87, Jaggar 2001: 552-559). The periphrastic causative: 1) Has two TAMs, one for the Causer and one for the Causee. 2) Allows the Causee pronoun (PRO2) to be expressed as an object of the first clause (but it may also be left out) if the Causee is a pronoun (TAM2) in the second clause. The Causee is thus represented in both clauses by a pronoun. 3) Allows negation of the first clause, the second clause, or both, i.e. they are negated separately. In the periphrastic causative, a noun Causee may be conceived of as the object of the first clause or it may belong to the second ‘lower’ clause, in which case the verb sa] would add the weak verbal noun suffix - æwaa in the continuous aspect (sa]waa). However, it is only in the continuous aspect (and focus constructions) that one can tell whether a noun Causee should
346
be conceived of as being part of the first or second clause, since it is only here that the verbal noun sa]waa will be used49 (see Newman 2000: 82, analytical note). The second Tense Aspect Marker (TAM2) can have either the same grammatical form as TAM1 (‘copy TAM’), or be in the subjunctive (with a slight meaning difference), but for our purposes this is of less importance here than the actual presence of TAM2. (307) Sarkii yaa sa] *yammaataa chief he.PF cause girls ‘The chief caused the girls to dance’
sun¶suæ yi raawaa they.PF¶SJN do dancing
(Newman 2000: 83)
Still, in two respects, the periphrastic causative behaves like a single sentence unit: first, if both clauses are negated, the last negation functions for both. Second, constituents that are fronted for the purposes of wh-question, relativization, focus, or left-dislocation, will move to the left of the first clause, also when moved out of the second clause (for examples, see Newman 2000: 85-86, or Jaggar 2001: 556-557). Examples and sentence schemas for both causative types can be found in appendix F, A). 7. 1. 3 OBJINST and OBJDAT as ‘extra’ participants in Hausa 7. 1. 3. 1. Base verbs and morphological modification by -aC The function of the -aC suffix can be seen as directing the attention to a downstream participant. The Causee of the direct causative in Hausa has Undergoer characteristics, affected by an external cause beyond her control. This affectedness is also what typically characterizes the dative participant of the –aC/BEN construction. In Kemmer and Verhagen’s model, the essential point is comparison of sentence structures with the equal number of participants, but explains similarity in terms of built-on relationships of the following kind, illustrated with the implications this has for Hausa. It should be kept in mind that this is not a transformational process of the kind known from generative linguistics, but an inference about certain structural and semantic parallels between structures - in line with the general ideas of Cognitive Grammar. 1. Two-place (= intransitive, active base verbs) -aC sentences are built on an S-V structure, as in schema A below, to which either an INST or DAT argument may be added to form the two constructions S-V-OBJINST or S-V-OBJDAT, respectively, see schema A1 and A2 in Figure 7.1. 49Constituency is also detectable with Hausa speakers who use the alternative form sa]nyaa for sa], which has the form sa]nyaæ before noun accusative objects.
347
Figure 7.1 : Addition of OBJDAT or OBJINST to an intransitive clause SCHEMA A, intr base: A subject acts in a setting
S
Setting
SCHEMA A1, BENEFACTIVE (added OBJDAT): A subject acts on a OBJDAT’s PS in a setting
S
DAT
Setting
SCHEMA A2, CAUSATIVE (added OBJINST): A subject acts via an OBJINST in a setting
S S
Setting
INST
Example of schema A: a) Sun kau daægaæ na]n they.PF withdraw from here
‘They have removed from here (and moved to another place)’ (Bargery 1934)
348
Example of schema A1: b) Sai kaæ must you.M.SJN
kaw-am withdraw-BEN
‘Just move away from me a bit!’
minì kaæfian!50 DAT.me a.little
(Parsons 1971-72: 189)
Example of schema A2: c) Sun kaw-a® daæ kujeæeraa they.PF withdraw-CAUS INST chair ‘They moved the chair out of the way’
(Bargery 1934, adapted)
(cf. kawa® daæ, kau daæ ‘shift/alter position of sth’) 2. Three-place (= transitive based) -aC sentences are built on an S-V-OBJACC structure, labelled schema B (see Figures 6.8, 6.9, and 6.10 in 6. 2. 6. 3), to which either an OBJINST or OBJDAT argument may be added to form the constructions S-V-OBJDAT-OBJACC or S-VOBJINST-OBJACC, respectively. These differ from those in Figure 7.1 only in terms of having an OBJACC entity at the end of the action arrow. Examples are given below, as schema B, B1 and B2, corresponding to A, A1, and A2 above. Example of schema B: a) Maalaæm¶ka]n saæa˚oo teacher¶head.of message
‘The teacher/message reached us’
Example of schema B1: b) Maalaæm yaa is-am teacher he.PF reach-BEN
yaa ìshee he.PF reach.gr2C
muæ us.ACC.PRO
(Dogondoutchi speaker SM28)
manaæ DAT.us
(daæ) (INST)
ka]n saæa˚oo head.of message
‘The teacher delivered us a message/ the teacher delivered a message to us’ (Dogondoutchi speaker SM28)
Example of schema B2: c) Maalaæm yaa is-ad daæ yaaroæo teacher he.PF reach-CAUS INST boy
ka]n saæa˚oo head.of message
‘The teacher made the boy deliver the message’ (Dogondoutchi speaker SM28)
7. 1. 3. 2 Indications of -C being a remnant of a downstream participant The following facts suggest the possibility that historically, too, the -aC suffix may have represented a downstream participant, i.e. an object rather than a subject: 1) Exceptional suffix. The causative-benefactive is the only verb in the Hausa verbal system to end with a consonant.
50Strictly speaking, the schema used here is Schema 4D of -aC: ‘EXPER affected by S leaving PS’, see 7. 5. 1. 4. But the significance here is the general idea that the subject/Agent acts on the OBJDAT’s personal sphere (cf. 7. 2. 1).
349
2) Pronominal origin. It is generally accepted that the -C of the causative and benefactive -aC suffixes originate from pronouns (but there is disagreement about from which ones). 3) Post-verbal position. The position of accusative object pronouns (both ‘weak’ and ‘strong’, see Newman 2000: 478-480), in present-day Hausa is immediately after the verb. E.g. Naa buægee-shì ‘I beat him’, alternatively (fast speech): Naa buæga]s or Naa buæga]® (Newman 2000: 480). The low tone of the weak object pronoun (clitic) falls on the final syllable as a falling tone. However, in Sokoto, it is erased: Yaa buægan ‘He beat me’. Subject pronouns (TAMs) are positioned before the verb. To consider it a matter of accident that the (pronoun which developed into the) CAUS-CMN/BEN suffixes and present-day object pronouns are both positioned after the verb would seem to be to ignore a relevant fact. 4) Dative object position. If the sentence contains a dative object pronoun, this will come between the verb and the accusative object (which then will be an independent pronoun and not a clitic). E.g. Naa bugaæa mataæ shii ‘I beat him for her’. 5) Concord with object. Agreement data presented in this work show that the added pronoun or causative/caused-motion/benefactive morpheme tends to agree with the dative object in benefactive constructions in dialects where the agreement system is maintained (see 8. 5 and appendix E). In addition, a few speakers (in my own data) make a causative/causedmotion -aC suffix agree with the accusative object if a (more topical) dative object is not present, especially if this object is focussed (confer example (137) in 5. 1. 2). (See a suggested explanation for the cases of subject agreement below.) These facts may be taken to support the idea that historically, the consonant of the -aC suffix was a (dative or accusative) object agreement marker (especially since the subject is already agreement marked in TAM). Regarding the rise of this situation, it is relevant to look at Givón’s (1976) theory on After-thought Topic-shift (AT) as a universal source of object agreement, a possibility that was discussed in 5. 1. In the case of the Hausa causative, this pronoun suffix is in present-day Hausa followed by an oblique object (INST), which makes it a non-nuclear argument, and, Givón’s model would predict, an added topic constituent. It would be topical for the reason of being preceded by a co-referent pronoun, which by definition is topical or considered as known from context. The most schematic meaning of the –aC suffix would be ‘(lexical content of) verb applies to X’, where ‘X’ is a downstream participant (not a Causer). If this suffix at one
350
point served as a topicalizer, it is only natural that the semantic role of the topicalized participant was the source of semantic meaning extension, not the more neutral and semantically simplex Causer role. The complication with the instances of subject agreement in my material could be explained as in the following. In 5. 1 we saw that with some speakers from Tahoua, a shift to subject agreement is not without semantic consequence. It appears that these speakers have a choice when it comes to selecting which argument should the agreement source. However, they do this as a part of different construals in the sense that this argument is then emphasized or brought to the listener’s attention. The fact that OBJACC arguments, which are typically less animate and less topical, are sometimes favoured as an agreement source when fronted supports this idea. In causatives, caused-motion and benefactive constructions, the argument that are typical of and essential to the definition of these constructions are the Causee, the Mover theme, and the Beneficiary, respectively. No other construction than the causative has a Causee in its array of semantic roles, and no other construction than benefactives are characterized by the presence of a dative object. A caused-motion construction like this must necessarily contain a Mover theme (although Movers may also be found elsewhere, depending on the lexical semantics of the verb). It is therefore not unreasonable to assume that the canonical (unmarked) interpretation of these constructions is to attend to these participants, while at the same time, speakers have other options of construal at their disposal, such as selecting the subject/Agent, the subject/Causer, or a fronted object when they want to express a particular meaning. Importantly, the mechanism would still be the same, namely to give semantic emphasis to one particular argument and its semantic role. Hence also the tendency to select the OBJDAT as the agreement source whenever present. Nevertheless, a more thorough investigation of how this may have come about that includes the relevant comparative data is beyond the scope of this dissertation. For now, I will bring up another interesting feature of benefactive constructions in Hausa, the use of the dative marker wà in the intermediate role. 7. 1. 3. 3 A shift to marking OBJDAT as a peripheral Experiencer A second argument is the development of INST to mark the dative object (Parsons 1962: 259, Newman 2000, Jaggar 2001), as shown in (308).
351
(308)
TAM Dooleæe muæ necessary we.SJN
V waay-a® be.enlightened-CAUS
‘We must enlighten the masses’
OBJ1 OBJ2 waæ daæ talakaawaa ka]i DAT INST commoner.PL head
(Newman 2000: 287)
The ‘stacking’ of DAT and INST markers on the dative object is not dependent on the presence of the -aC suffix, since it also co-occurs with the ventive grade 6, see (309). It thus relates to the structure of benefactives, irrespective of the -aC/CAUS-BEN constructions. (309) TAM Tanaæa she.CONT
V ka®kat-oo swerve-gr6
OBJ1 waæ daæ mijìntaæ DAT INST husband.LK.her
‘She is tilting the lamp for her husband’
(Newman 2000: 664)
OBJ2 fìtilaæ® lamp.the (ACC)
The development of marking the dative object with INST dà, in addition to marking it as a dative object (by MA), has puzzled all those who have described the phenomenon, and up to this day it has not been given a plausible explanation51. Consider the structural varieties in (310): (310) 1) 2) 3) 4)
(SUBJ) - TAM - VERB-aC - waæ daæ OBJ1 - OBJ2ACC (SUBJ) - TAM - VERB-aC - waæ daæ OBJ1 - daæ OBJ2 (SUBJ) - TAM - VERB-aC - waæ OBJ1 - OBJ2ACC (SUBJ) - TAM - VERB-aC - waæ OBJ1 - daæ OBJ2
(most preferred)
(least preferred)
An analysis of this phenomenon is attempted in Frajzyngier and Munkaila (2004: 64), who suggest that wà and dà in structures such like 1) ‘code the grammatical and semantic roles of the noun phrases occurring farther down in the clause’. That is, in the sentence Yaa tsaya® waæ daæ maalaæm mootaæa ‘He stopped the car for the teacher’, the occurrence of wà encodes the OBJDAT maalàm ‘teacher’, and dà encodes mootàa ‘car’ (and not the dative object). This is not likely to be correct; firstly because they run into problems in analyzing the alternative structure in 2), where there are two occurrences of INST dà. They would then not only have to explain this unique occurrence of non-consecutive case marking of arguments, but also why an INST argument should be marked twice. Secondly, the same type of wà + dà marking 51The first to notice the phenomenon for the -aC/CAUS construction was Parsons (1962): ‘First, it must be made clear that, both morphologically and syntagmatically, the ‘causative’ grade of the verb in Hausa is quite sui generis. […] I am not now referring to the peculiar syntax of these verbs vis-àvis a direct (in the notional sense) object […], but to their additional vagaries when an indirect object is interposed’ (final emphasis added) (Parsons 1962: 259). And: ’[…] these […] forms, which are uniquely anomalous in the language inasmuch as there is no other example of two ‘case’ markers (wà and dà) appearing in juxtaposition […] and quite incapable of normal grammatical analysis, are quite often to be seen in print, especially in the newspapers.’ (Parsons 1962: 259).
352
occurs in cases like (309), where another suffix than the –a® suffix is used. Finally, the present analysis is a better option because it explains the two uses of dà as different, but semantically related. This demonstrates its semantic motivation and preserves consecutive marking of the arguments. In option 4), the thematic object is marked as INST and the OBJINST argument either has a role as a MVR or a Causee, or is conceived of as a means, depending on the semantics of the verb, see (311). (311) a) Yaa jeef-a® (waæ yaarinyaæa) daæ duutseæe he.PF throw-CAUS DAT girl INST stone
(MOVER/MEANS)
‘He threw stones at the girl’
b) Yaa tsay-a® he.PF stop-CAUS
(waæ maalaæm) DAT teacher
‘He stopped the car for the teacher’
daæ mootaæa INST car
(CAUSEE)
(Newman 2000: 659)
The option in 2) marks both downstream participants with INST, exemplified in (312). These two functions of dà are not the same. The thematic object (‘oil’) is a conduit INST of the Causee type (or a Mover), and the INST in the dative object rather makes the sentence resemble an instantiation of the TC. Note, in this regard, that it has been observed for English (Farrell 2005: 32) that two occurrences of the same instrumental sense is disallowed in a clause (as the two simple instrumentals in *I am going to fill the glasses with a funnel with a pitcher), but different senses of with in the same clause are grammatical: I am going to fill the glasses with wine with a funnel (the first is an instance of a moving Theme and the second a simple instrumental), or I am going to fill the glasses with wine with my brother (moving Theme and comitative INST). For Hausa, the case in (312) is similar in having two senses of INST dà with different, but related senses. (312) Sunaæa they.CONT
zub-a® leak-CAUS
ªwaæ daæ tsoohuwaaº DAT INST old.woman
‘They are pouring out oil for the old woman’
ªdaæ ma]iº INST oil
The transition from structure 4) in (310) to either of the structures 1) or 2) suggests a shift of focus from INST marking the thematic role to INST marking the intermediary participant. The extension of INST dà to the OBJDAT argument in ditransitive benefactives emphasizes the speakers’ interpretation of the OBJDAT argument as a non-central participant. I suggest that what this novel use of INST does is to mark the participant which is the most peripheral participant in the canonical ditransitive event. In benefactive sentences, this is the OBJDAT argument.
353
The two types of objects are peripheral in slightly different ways. The OBJDAT is a peripheral participant in the sense that it is actually external to the action chain, and is only affected in terms of its relation to an OBJACC. An INST marked Causee, on the other hand, is not external to the action chain. Rather, it is an integral part of it. An INST marked Causee is peripheral in terms of relative prominence in the action chain, i.e. it is not considered conceptually significant. INST is used in causative sentences like (313). (313)
Likitaæ yaa shaay-a® daæ yaaroæn doctor he.PF drink-CAUS INST boy ‘The doctor gave the boy some medicine to drink (lit. the doctor had the boy drink medicine)’
maagaænii medicine.ACC
From a Causer’s point of view, the objective is to have an action completed, and the focus is consequently on the action and on the ACC argument. The use of INST marking human Causees will extend the basic conception of what an instrument is to encompass the Experiencer role. The MA element marks this participant as an Experiencer. Interestingly, in some sentences, the difference between mental Causee and dative object Experiencer is completely levelled out, as in (314). (314)TAM V Yaa tabbat-a® he.PF be sure-CAUS
OBJ1 OBJ2¶complement waæ daæ manoæomaa zaa aæ baa suæ gudduæmawaa DAT INST farmers FUT.3p.IMP give them assistance
‘He assured the farmers they would be given assistance’
(Jaggar 2001: 255)
This argument about the structural status of the DAT and INST marked arguments is synchronic, i.e. it concerns the present state (or fairly recent developments) of the Hausa usage of INST. 7. 1. 4 Semantic borrowing from simple sentence structures in Hausa Here it will be suggested that the causative -aC dà construction in Hausa has made use of (‘borrowed’) linguistic material from simple sentence structures, viz. the instrumental preposition dà, and from the benefactive construction -aC MA, as illustrated in Figure 7.2.
354
Figure 7.2: The extension of MA dative and dà INST from simple sentences to the causative in Hausa Benefactive phonological material (all dialects):
-as -at -an -a®
Creation of causative construction (new usage):
-as -at -an -a®
daæ
daæ
It will also be argued that this phonological material marks a downstream participant, the Causee, and not a Causer in the subject position. Among Hausa researchers (e.g. Parsons 1962), to say that it is the benefactive that extends to (‘lends to’) the causative and not vice versa (the benefactive borrows from the causative) represents a new approach. However, the fact that causative constructions are generally more marked constructions, that is, more complex and perhaps less common crosslinguistically than benefactives, may be taken in support for the idea that the simple and very common benefactive exports to the causative rather than the other way around. In addition, the fact that the TC construction in Hausa is possibly less frequent (see fn. 78 in 7. 5. 5. 1) lends support to the idea that it may be less firmly established, and therefore more recent than the corresponding transitive benefactive. However, I should also say that determining the directionality of this extension is subordinate to establishing the existence of a semantic and structural relationship between the causative and benefactive in Hausa. 7. 1. 4. 1 Semantic relatedness between causative -aC and benefactive -aC The ditransitive benefactive construction using the linguistic elements MA and -aC is a simple 3 participant clause that contains subject, verb, and dative and accusative objects. The TC construction consists of subject, verb, Causee and accusative object. If the -aC suffix was extended from marking the Experiencer role of a dative object to marking the Experiencer
355
role of a Causee, it is reasonable to consider the causative clause to be a simple sentence structure also, and that the function of -aC was to mark the Causee argument as the ‘extra’ argument added to a S-V-OBJACC structure. That is, the arguments would match as presented in Figure 7.3. Figure 7.3: Correspondence between 3 participant benefactive -aC and TC -aC in Hausa. EXPER = EXPERIENCER; EXPER’ = EXTENDED EXPERIENCER Simple 3 participant clause:
Agent
Beneficiary (EXPER)
| TC clause:
Causer
Patient
|
V-aC3tr
|
Causee- (EXPER’)
|
Affectee
[Vtr-aCcaus]
It is argued that ‘experiencer-like properties’ shared by these two participant types motivate the shared marking of benefactive and causative. Such Experiencer-like properties are illustrated for Hausa below. The most prototypical meaning of benefactive -aC is the downstream Experiencer associated with a dative object (schemas 3 and 4 in 7. 5). A transition to the Experiencer role associated with a Causee does not require much modification. The Recipient/Experiencer roles in transitive benefactive sentences like (315a-b) bear close similarities to the Experiencer roles of OBJINST in sentences like the ones in (316a-b), respectively. The a) sentences are Recipient roles; the b) sentences are Experiencer roles. (315) Benefactive -aC a) Kunaæa neem-a® you.PL.CONT seek-BEN(RECIP)
waæ yaaroæonaa aikìi@ DAT boy.my work
‘Are you seeking work for my boy?’ (Newman 2000: 283)
b) Kaære dog
yaa ciiz-am he.PF bite-BEN(EXPER)
mataæ hannuu DAT.her hand
‘The dog bit her hand’
(316) Causative -aC a) Bafillatani yaa shaay-a® daæ saanìya®saæ Fulani.man he.PF drink-CAUS INST cow.her ‘The Fulani man let his cow drink water’
ruwaa water
(Andrew Haruna, p.c. 2003)
b) Maalaæmôn yaa fahimt-a® teacher he.PF understand-CAUS
daæ Iisaæ INST Isa
laæabaa®ìi news
‘The teacher made Isa understand the news’ (Andrew Haruna, p.c. 2003)
The benefactive and causative uses of -aC differ mainly in the sense that -aC used as a benefactive relates to a human participant who passively experiences an action which is brought about by the subject/Agent, whereas the causative sense of -aC implies some sort of
356
(mental of physical) activity or process by the downstream INST marked Experiencer, such as drinking water, in (316a) or understanding a piece of news, in (316b). This, of course, relates to the fact that whereas in the benefactive, it is the subject (‘you.PL’, ‘the dog’) who performs the lexical content of the verb, it is the INST marked Experiencer (‘the cow’, ‘Isa’) who performs it in the causative. The same passive vs. active Experiencer role can be observed for the IC construction when compared to the monotransitive (S-V-OBJDAT) benefactive construction. (317) Yaa sauk-am he.PF lodge-BEN
manaæ DAT.us
‘He lodged on us (against our wishes)’
(318) Mun sauk-ad daæ shii we.PF lodge-CAUS INST 3.SG.M.IND
‘We provided lodging for him (lit. We made/let him lodge/descend)’ (Bargery 1934)
One may object that since the causative co-occurs with the instrumental and the benefactive with the dative marker, this difference in Experiencer roles should be ascribed to the different uses of case. However, this analysis would be deficient in cases of front-shifting where the instrumental marking of causatives is deleted (see the deletion rules in Newman 2000: 692), and the -aC suffix alone marks causative meaning (e.g. Mootaæa cee na shiga® ‘It is the car I put in/made enter’. The correspondence in Figure 7.4 therefore pertains to the semantic roles profiled by the -aC suffix and not the case marking of the OBJDAT and OBJINST participants. Figure 7.4: Correspondence between 2 participant benefactive -aC and IC -aC in Hausa Simple 2 participant clause:
Agent
TC clause:
Causer
|
Beneficiary (EXPER) | Causee- (EXPER’)
V-aC2tr | [Vtr-aCcaus]
7. 1. 4. 2 Extensions of INST dà relevant to -aC sentences In the case of dà, the extension to mark the Causee (see schemas for ‘Secondary agent’ 1C in 7. 4. 1. 5 and 1Di in 7. 4. 1. 6) depends on the use of instrumental in (transitive and intransitive) simple sentence structures, the conduit instrumental. The two uses are not, however, identical, and involve similarities as well as discrepancies which have to be overcome by mechanisms of semantic extension. One similarity between INST of instrument and INST of Secondary agent is the fact that they are both causal intermediaries in the action chain, i.e. the path of energy flows from
357
the subject (the energy source) via the Secondary agent to the ACC object (see Kemmer and Verhagen 1994: 129). Another similarity is that an instrument is typically used by an Agent to manipulate an object, and in that sense is a participant who actively takes part in the verbal action. The extension in this case implies that a case marker that prototypically denotes inanimate referents expands to a usage which covers animate (human) beings. Thus sentences like ‘I tied him with a rope’ extend to ‘I taught Hausa with the students’, where the argument ‘with the students’ is a Causee or Secondary agent. Along the same lines, simple intransitive conduit instrumental sentences like ‘He returned by (with) car/She writes with a pen’ would be the basis for intransitive based causative sentences like ‘I made him tired (lit. I be.tired-CAUS via/with him)’. The connection between instrumental Causees and IC to instrumental objects (see SCHEMA 1G ‘Conduit INST of instrumental object’ in 7. 4. 1. 4) is also worth mentioning, considering the frequency of instrumental objects in Hausa, besides the fact that instrumental objects are also conduit instrumentals. The difference is sometimes hard to determine, since they may not even be possible to differentiate on phonological grounds (see 2A and 3A in Table 7.5). The extensions involving the use of INST in -aC sentences are surveyed in Table 7.5. TABLE 7.5: Extensions of INST dà relevant to -aC sentences Basic
Extension (modification)
1A
Extended 1B
INST of instrument, tr.
Extends to encompass animate INST of Secondary agent/Causee
Naa fiaæuree shì daæ igiyaæa
participants
Naa kooya® daæ fiaæalìbai hausa
‘I tied him with a rope’
‘I taught the students Hausa’
2A INST of instrument, intr.
Yaa koomaæa daæ mootaæa
2/3B
‘He returned by car’
Extends to encompass
INST of Secondary agent/Causee
3A
animate participants
Naa gajiyad daæ shii
INST object
‘I tired him/made him tired’
Yaa koomaæa daæ mootaæa ‘He returned the car’
The arguments match as shown in Figures 7.6 and 7.7.
358
Figure 7.6: Correspondence between INST of instrument and INST of Secondary agent/Causee in simple 3-participant clauses Simple 3 participant clause:
Agent |
TC clause:
Causer
Instrumental | INST Causee- (EXPER)
Patient
V3tr
|
|
Affectee
[Vcaus]
Figure 7.7: Correspondence between INST of instrument and INST of Secondary agent/Causee in simple 2-participant clauses Simple 2 participant clause:
Agent |
IC clause:
Causer
Instrumental | INST Causee- (EXPER)
Vtr | [Vcaus]
7. 2. Some preliminary issues regarding the semantic analyses of the linguistic elements in –aC constructions In preceding discussions I have made several references to the types of –aC constructions as making independent semantic contributions; it consists of global features that influence all arguments of the clause, and the caused-motion construction was described as in a few cases contributing independent motion not present in the base verb. As such, one may argue that the –aC/BEN and the –aC/CAUS-CMN constructions behave as unanalyzable semantic units. This being so, I still consider it necessary to offer semantic analyses of the linguistic elements which these constructions consist of. The case elements also occur elsewhere; the INST marker dà has a number of other usages, and the DAT markers ma-/mà /wà are used in all other benefactive constructions as well. However, as one may expect, there will be some degree of semantic overlap. 7. 2. 1 Semantic overlap and the meaningfulness of oblique cases The semantic analysis of the linguistic elements ma-/mà /wà (represented here as MA), -aC, and dà , in this chapter allows for a certain degree of semantic overlap. Thus the –aC suffix may invoke a knowledge structure while co-occurring with the dative marker, which is also part of the dative marker base. Similarly, there will be certain meanings related to the Causee role, which can be expressed both by the -aC suffix alone and by dà alone (the former in focus constructions where dà may be omitted, the latter in causative ‘short forms’, where the bare verbal stem is used).
359
Such an analysis based on semantic overlap is supported by linguistic data from Hausa, since dà can be used with causative meaning without -aC, and MA can be used with benefactive senses in combinations with benefactive suffixes other than -aC, in addition to being used without any verbal benefactive marker at all (e.g. in monosyllabic verbs like baa¶bai ‘give’, kai ‘carry’, yi ‘do’, cii ‘eat’, jii ‘(make) feel’, fiau ‘lift’, sai ‘buy’, etc.). The limiting case of semantic overlap is redundancy. Although I believe that none of the linguistic elements discussed here are completely redundant, it is worth noting what Cognitive Grammar says about this. The fact that a linguistic unit is redundant does not mean that it is semantically empty, as was discussed in 3. 2. 5. As Langacker (1991a: 379) puts it: ‘A morpheme’s failure to contribute independent semantic content does not imply that it is semantically empty, but only that its contribution is redundant; all composition involves semantic overlap, and full overlap is an expected limiting case’ (emphasis added). Considering the fact that the most schematic meaning of the –aC suffix is analyzed here as emphasizing the effect of a verb on a particular clausal participant, which may already be present or already case marked, semantic overlap is not surprising. In addition, the fact that there is a chance that the –aC is related to an agreement phenomenon, the ultimate redundancy case, makes an analysis which includes potential redundancy acceptable and natural. The semantic categories I am about to present are internally complex and polysemous, which is the normal situation for lexical as well as grammatical units of some frequency. To cite Langacker: ‘Polysemy represents the normal situation for both lexical and grammatical morphemes; in neither instance does the absence of a single semantic value accounting directly for all of a morpheme’s uses entail that it has no meaning at all’ (1991a: 379-380). Furthermore, with respect to oblique cases such as e.g. dative and instrumental he states that: ‘It is quite evident that the oblique cases make a definite semantic contribution in many (if not all) of their uses […] – only through extraordinary theoretical gymnastics could one analyze them as being consistently meaningless. Semantically the oblique cases are typical complex categories, comprising networks of related senses each centered on a prototype’. (Langacker 1991a: 379-380)
360
7. 2. 2 The personal sphere In my analysis of the –aC constructions the concept of the personal sphere (PS) is central. A human Experiencer is surrounded by a personal sphere, conceivable as a mental and/or physical space, which she tries to control52. The benefactive construction profiles the affectedness of the Beneficiary/Malefactive individual through actions on or within the OBJDAT participant’s PS (a process, object or human being is located within the PS)53. In the case of intransitive OBJDAT constructions, the Experiencer qualities of OBJDAT are evoked by the subject participant’s action directly on or within the PS. In the case of transitive OBJDAT constructions, the OBJDAT participant experiences the action via her relationship to participants/objects situated within the PS, to which she has a possessive or other type of close relationship. A PS contains the persons, objects, locations and facts closely enough associated with an individual that any changes in them are likely to affect the individual as well (cf. Dąbrowska 1997: 16-48). What is at any time included in a PS is firstly a matter of subjective assessment on part of the speaker. She must judge whether she herself considers there to be, and whether the addressee is able to establish, a sufficient link between the OBJDAT and the OBJACC/INST participants. It may also depend on cultural knowledge shared by the members of a speech community (Wierzbicka 1979, 1986). Finally, it is an open-ended category, since such relationships may come into being or cease to exist. The PS is structured in terms of five ‘subspheres’: the sphere of awareness (relating to ideas, feelings, thoughts, etc.), a sphere of empathy (including e.g. children, pets), a private sphere (personal space, personal possessions), a sphere of influence (territory, objects available for use, subordinates) and a sphere of potency (events in the world), which all centre around and include the OBJDAT participant’s body. Figure 7.8, ‘Map of the PS’, pictures overlapping and intersecting areas of the PS54.
52 The analysis is inspired by the work on dative case in Janda (1993) on the Czech dative, and Dąbrowska (1997) on the Polish dative. The idea of a personal sphere originated in Bally (1926), and was taken up in Wierzbicka (1986) for the Polish dative, to be maximally elaborated in Dąbrowska (ibid.). Cf. also the similar concept of the recipient’s dominion in Langacker (2002: 15, 17), by which is understood ‘sphere of access, control and influence’. 53Janda’s (1993: 16) definition of the dative participant (‘target person’, in her terminology) as ‘an individual who is perceived as affected by an action, process, or state taking place within or impinging upon his PS’ is in accordance with the parts of the network of MA which can be subsumed under the EXPERIENCER superschema, but does not cover purely allative uses. 54Adapted from Dąbrowska’s (1997: 65) analysis of the Polish dative.
361
Figure 7.8: A map of the personal sphere, showing five subspheres and interesections of these. SPHERE OF EMPATHY
Children
Pets
Subordinates SPHERE OF INFLUENCE
SPHERE OF AWARENESS
Other possessions
BODY Air bubble
Clothes Territory Personal possessions
actions
Objects available for use
SPHERE OF POTENCY
Events in the world
PRIVATE SPHERE
The structuring of the PS also involves the division into cognitively more basic and more abstract regions: the sphere of influence is more basic since it is directly linked to our experiential world. The sphere of awareness and the sphere of empathy, on the other hand, are more abstract, and are partially understood in metaphorical terms (see Dąbrowska 1997: 198). The dative marker MA in Hausa does not always itself profile the PS, but the PS can be conceived of as the base, a part of the knowledge structure with respect to which OBJDAT marking like MA can be defined. The meaning of MA presupposes the concept of the PS. MA also potientially covers constructions referring to all of the PS, since it co-occurs with all the benefactive forms of the grade system (D-forms, in Hausaist terminology). In the case of the various benefactive markers in gr1, gr4, gr6 and the –aC/BEN suffixes themselves, by contrast, these only partly overlap with MA in the sense that they relate to the personal sphere in slightly different ways. The gr4, for instance, is known to have a deprivative meaning when used with OBJDAT arguments. This equals saying that objects within PS leave or are made to leave PS when this derivation is used. Other malefactive readings of the gr4 predative can be perceived as a natural extension from this sense (although objects leaving PS can also have the effect of potency increase). In dialects where the gr6 –oo ventive suffix is used as a benefactive marker, the exclusively Beneficiary
362
interpretation55 very likely can be attached to the ‘coming towards’ meaning of this grade, as in the sense of giving. Such semantics would disqualify for deprivative or malefactive interpretations (unless, of course, the give sense is completely grammaticalized as a general benefactive construction, see Fagerli (2001) of malefactive by means of give in Fulfulde). The High Transitivity effects are not captured by the personal sphere as it was previously developed. However, there are reasons to believe that such features are relevant for benefactive constructions. We have seen that it is for Hausa, possibly for the –kan suffix in Indonesian, and in 1. 5. 7 we saw that there are indications of such effects also in German. In the analysis of –aC/BEN I shall therefore add a new concept to the PS, that of degree of relevance of the action to the OBJDAT participant, represented in the schemas by physical space. In the schemas below, the closer an object or action is to the centre of the PS (the OBJDAT’s body), the more it is seen as relevant to and affecting this participant. In these terms, the gr1, as documented in chapter 5, works on the outer part of the PS, in the sense that actions on objects are either seen as moving towards PS or if within PS are not seen as as closely attached to the OBJDAT participant as when the –aC/BEN suffix is used. The intrinsic meaning of the –aC/BEN suffix is therefore that it typically affects the innermost circles of the PS, affecting the OBJDAT participant much more severely than when other benefactive markers are used. The uniqueness of this benefactive marker is precisely this; what Hausa speakers refer to as jiddàdâawa.
7. 3 The semantic network of the Hausa DAT markers The dative markers (DAT) ma-/mà /wà , represented here as MA, introduce the OBJDAT argument. Dative objects in Hausa express a number of semantic roles, such as Beneficiary, Goal, and Recipient. MA is not used exclusively with the -aC suffix, but can be found with any other verb grade as well. In Hausa, as in other languages, a prototypical OBJDAT is a human being, with the potential for being indirectly or directly affected by way of being a sentient creature. A participant marked by MA will thus typically be a downstream EXPER, i.e. an Experiencer who is acted on by an external force such as a subject/Agent. More marginally, MA signifies an inanimate participant or location. Both types differ from an OBJACC in terms of being capable of resisting integration in the action chain, i.e. not going through a change of state.
55
See Swets (1989). The statement is also based on my own unpublished fieldnotes.
363
In the schemas for MA presented below, the non-profiled parts of the schema constitute the semantic base in relation to which the semantic content of the predication MA is defined. The profiled portion (semantic content) is in boldline. 7. 3. 2. The allative/inanimate Goal schema In some uses, MA does not profile the Experiencer role, but simply the notion of motion towards an inanimate Goal, referred to here as allative. An inanimate OBJDAT is not an Experiencer, and thus requires its own higher-level schema based on a path metaphor. It resists integration in the action chain because the Goal has not yet been reached. The path metaphor pictures a participant S (the trajector) moving in a purely spatial sense towards and ending up in the vicinity of another participant (the landmark), represented as a MA marked OBJDAT. The circle and arrow representing the subject/OBJACC and its movement signifies the path this participant has traversed (or is in the process of traversing). In the transitive version of the allative, an object is made to move along a path targeting the OBJDAT inanimate participant, as exemplified in (319)-(320), and represented by schema 1A. (319) Naa I.PF
jeefaæa waæ mootaæa duutseæe throw.gr1 DAT car stone
‘I threw a stone at the car’
(320) Îan saændaa policeman
yaa halb-am he.PF shoot-BEN
The policeman shot a bullet at the house’
maæ gidaa haæ®saashì DAT house bullet
Schema 1A of MA: Inanimate Goal of moving OBJACC
S
DAT/lm ACC/tr
Setting
Prose schema: OBJDAT is the landmark towards which an affected object moves and in whose vicinity it is in the process of coming to rest in a setting.
The intransitive equivalent sentences with inanimate Goal dative objects are exemplified in (321)-(322) below, and are represented by schema 1B below.
364
(321) Yaa taas-am maæ gidaa he.PF rise up-BEN DAT house ‘He set out for home’
(322) Yaa koomaæa waæ aikìnsaæ he.PF return.gr1 DAT work.his ‘He returned to his work’
The circle around OBJDAT delimits the vicinity around the OBJDAT participant (but is not, in this case, conceived of as a PS). MA profiles the configuration resulting from the trajector’s (the subject’s) movement. Schema 1B of MA: Inanimate OBJDAT - Goal
DAT/lm S/tr Setting
Prose schema: OBJDAT is the landmark towards which a trajector moves and in whose vicinity is in the process of coming to rest in a setting.
Schema 1B is also apt to describe the abstract analogue of the spatial sense of motion towards a goal, see examples (323)-(324): (323) Yaa dir-am maæ aikì he-PF jump down-BEN DAT work ‘He set out to work (with a will)’
(324) Yaa cim he.PF achieve (lit. eat56-BEN)
maæ buurìnsaæ DAT goal.his
‘He achieved his goal’
Extensions: SCHEMA 1A ‘Inanimate Goal, trans.’ is extended to SCHEMA 1B ‘inanimate Goal, intrans.’ by the extension ‘Removal of OBJACC’. It is, of course, possible to view Schema 1B as central, and to extend Schema 1A from 1B by adding ACC. I have no objection against such an analysis. In doing it this way, however, I
365
simply follow Janda’s (1993) analysis. Furthermore, the fact that intransitive based benefactives are claimed to be less common cross-linguistically (Shibatani 1996) favours this analysis. 7. 3. 3 The animate Goal/Recipient schema While the allative/inanimate Goal sense of MA only involves a traversed path and a goal, animate Goal/Recipient schemas involve a traversed path and a potential Experiencer at the end of this path. The insertion of a human or animate OBJDAT will inevitably invoke the concept of the PS, and the idea of a potentially affected OBJDAT participant. This particular type deals with verbs of transfer where the path metaphor is still very much in focus, and the higher-level Experiencer schema may be, but is not always inferred by the language user. This schema thus combines a focus on the physical nature of an action with the Experiencer role typical of a human Goal. It constitutes a transitional type to schema 3AB, where the allative meaning is less in focus and the Experiencer role is even more emphasized. An exclamation mark symbolize affectedness of the OBJDAT landmark. Parentheses are used in schemas 2A-B to indicate that the inference of affectedness is potential and not always drawn (see also Dąbrowska 1997: 52-53). 7. 3. 3. 1 Recipient (physical transfer of object) The schema 2A ‘Animate Goal’ profiles MA when the subject physically acts on an object so that it moves into the OBJDAT participant’s PS, either by bringing (moving along with) the OBJACC or by setting it in motion. (Acting on sphere of influence and potency (325)-(326)) (325) Naa dan˚aæa ma-saæ maæbuæufian fiaakìi I.PF hand.over.gr1 DAT-him keys.of room ‘I handed him the keys to the room’
(326) Sun they-PF
rarraæbaa waæ mutaæanee goo®oæo distribute.gr1 DAT people kolanut
‘They distributed kolanuts to the people’
Actions of physical transfer are characterized by an OBJACC which is set in motion, with the potential of reaching a final endpoint further down the action chain: the OBJDAT. The 56The verb ci ‘eat’ is used in many Hausa idiomatic expressions, in which the schematic meaning can
366
OBJDAT is the indirect Goal and final endpoint (energy sink), i.e. the entity absorbing the energy. Schema 2A of MA: Recipient of physically transferred object, potentially affected OBJDAT
(!)
S
ACC/tr DAT/lm
Setting
Prose schema: An animate OBJDAT landmark is about to be reached by an OBJACC brought to his PS by S in a setting.
7. 3. 3. 2 Animate Goal The intransitive equivalent of schema 2A can be seen in (327)-(328), in which MA profiles the OBJDAT participant’s potential role as an Experiencer, signified by ‘(!)’ in schema 2B. These examples constitute transitional examples to schema 3B of ‘intransitive Experiencer’, where the subject acts directly on the dative object’s PS. (Acting on private sphere (territory) (327)-(328)) (327) Zaakìi yaa zaabu®-a® waæ dilaa lion he.PF leap up-BEN DAT jackal ‘The lion sprang at the jackal’
(328) Ya]ra-næ sunaæa children-DEF they.CONT
taar-a® gather-BEN
‘The children were gathering around him’
be paraphrased as ‘motion’, or simply ‘activity’.
367
ma-saæ DAT-him
Schema 2B of MA: Recipient - animate Goal, potentially affected
(!)
S/tr
DAT/lm
Setting
Prose schema: OBJDAT is the animate landmark towards whom a trajector moves and in whose vicinity it comes to rest in a setting.
Extensions: SCHEMA 1A ‘Inanimate Goal, trans.’ is extended to SCHEMA 2A ‘Animate Goal/Recipient, trans.’ by the extension ‘Goal is animate’. SCHEMA 2A ‘Animate Goal/Recipient, trans.’ is extended to SCHEMA 2B ‘Animate Goal, intrans.’ by the extension ‘Removal of OBJACC’. 7. 3. 4 Beneficiary Recipient of action or object 7. 3. 4. 1 Beneficiary Recipient In the case of a transitive Recipient action, MA profiles the effect on the experiencing OBJDAT participant that results from an OBJACC coming into the dative object’s PS as a piece of new property or an item made available for use or benefit, as in (329)-(330). (Acting on sphere of influence and potency (329)-(330)) (329) Naaæ zaa\-a® mi-kì zannuwaæa I.FUT2 choose-BEN DAT-you.F wrappers ‘I will choose some wrappers for you’
(330) Yaa bifi-oo he.PF seek-gr6
mi-nì aikìi DAT-me work
‘He looked for a job for me’
MA also encodes a Recipient where the subject makes available or creates an object intended for the dative object’s use or benefit, as in (331) and (332), or makes available a particular desirable situation, as in (333). These meanings of MA are represented by schema 3A. (331) Sun they.PF
ginaæa ma-naæ build.gr1 DAT-us
‘They built us a house’
gidaa house
368
(332) Amiinaæa Amina
taa dafaæa ma-saæ kaæazaa she.PF cook DAT-him chicken
‘Amina cooked him chicken with peanut sauce’
(333) An amìncee 3SG.IMP.PF agree
daæ with
miyaæn gyaæfiaa peanut.sauce
waæ Belloæ yaæ zama DAT Bello he.SJN become
‘It was agreed to Bello that he should become director’
daæa®aktaæa director
Schema 3A of MA: affected Recipient
!
S
ACC/tr DAT/lm
Setting
Prose schema: OBJDAT is the animate landmark affected by an OBJACC being brought to his PS by S in a setting.
While verbs of transfer (2A) make internal reference to an OBJDAT as the energy sink, sentences instantiating schema 3A do this to a lesser extent, as the conceptualizer makes use of encyclopaedic knowledge to interpret the actions as potentially beneficiary to a future user. Still, it is not required that the Beneficiary be specified, and the action per se may be conceived of as relatively autonomous. The meaning of schema 3A is transitional between schemas 2A and 4A in that it refers to a potential or future relationship of possession or availability. 7. 3. 4. 2 Intransitive actions on the PS MA is used in cases where the subject acts on the dative object’s PS from a position outside the PS, i.e. the PS does not extend to include the subject (contrast schema 4A-B). Consider the sentences below. (Acting on sphere of awareness) (334) Sunaæa ˚auraæcee mi-nì they.CONT harass.gr4 DAT-me ‘They are harassing me’
Here, the lexical verb expresses the subject’s active involvement in an action directed towards a human Experiencer’s PS. This is also the case with the verbs sha]idaa waæ ‘inform’, daafiaæfiaa waæ ‘make happy’, and kya]utaa waæ ‘treat kindly’.
369
A very common construction in Hausa consists of yi ‘do, make’ plus an activity (dynamic or verbal) noun, e.g. (335) (see Newman 2000, Jaggar 2001). Although this construction is technically transitive, it semantically belongs to schema 3B, since the meaning of yi + verbal noun corresponds to an intransitive verb, cf. former discussion on discrepancies between number of participants and number of arguments in chapter 1. (Acting on sphere of awareness) (335) Taa yi mi-nì aælkawaæ®ii she.PF do DAT-me promise ‘She promised me’
Schema 3B includes a large number of verbs commonly referred to as ‘dative verbs’57 (e.g. Newman 2000, Jaggar 2001), i.e. two-participant clauses of subject and OBJDAT, where each human referent is surrounded by a PS, and each of them possesses the same potential ability for agency. Typically, these verbs involve a mental action on a dative object’s PS, and a power struggle between the two participants, which makes them identifiable as verbs of subordination, domination, or confrontation58: e.g. yabaæa waæ ‘panegyrize, praise’; tsaawaætaa waæ ‘scold, give a warning to’; and )ulloo waæ ‘confront’. These verbs either add to, diminish or otherwise affect an OBJDAT participant’s PS. Schema 3Bof MA: affected Recipient of action Prose schema: OBJDAT experiences and action impinging on her PS in a setting.
!
S/tr
DAT/lm
Setting
In the schemas 3A-B type of benefactive, MA profiles even more distinctly the Experiencer role of the OBJDAT participant. The transitive and intransitive schemas share the notion of something (object or action) ‘moving into’ the dative object’s PS. The effect on the OBJDAT participant is primarily mental.
57 They are also referred to as ‘Governed dative’, e.g. Czech (Janda 1993). 58Cf. Andersen (1970), for a similar categorization of Baltic/Russian/Slavic languages, and Janda (1993: 69-74) for Czech.
370
Extensions: SCHEMA 2A ‘Animate Goal, trans.’ is extended to SCHEMA 3A ‘Affected animate Recipient of object, trans.’ by the extension ‘Approach is mental’. SCHEMA 3A is extended to SCHEMA 3B ‘Affected animate Recipient of action, intrans.’ by the extension ‘Removal of OBJACC’. 7. 3. 5 Fully externalized OBJDAT (EXPER based) In the case of a fully externalized OBJDAT, the action is performed autonomously and detached from the OBJDAT participant. Nothing is transferred to the OBJDAT participant in any physical sense, there is no physical path from the subject to the OBJDAT, and OBJDAT is not part of (is external to) the action chain. MA profiles, in this case, only the dative object’s qualities as a mental Experiencer, and what is transferred is of a purely abstract character. The concept of PS becomes crucial in explaining the fully externalized EXPER benefactive, since it involves acting on (and not just moving into) a sphere that is conceived of as a mental and abstract space. 7. 3. 5. 1 The transitive EXPER benefactive In combination with the –aC/BEN suffix, MA may profile an Experiencer’s affectedness via the presence of a relationship between this human participant (the OBJDAT) and an inanimate or animate OBJACC. The OBJDAT is thus indirectly affected by the subject’s action on an OBJACC through an already existing relationship with the OBJACC, corresponding to schema 4A. The affected Experiencer is invoked purely as a result of the dative object’s (mental and/or physical) relationship to the OBJACC. These relationships between OBJDAT and OBJACC may take the form of personal possessions, or they may consist of emotional ties between the OBJDAT and a human being59. The OBJDAT participant is also indirectly mentally affected by actions performed directly towards objects which are part of or immediately close to herself, such as a body part or a piece of clothing worn on the body. MA therefore marks an Experiencer affected via: – – –
Body part/clothes on the body (inalienable possession) A relationship of possession/ disposal (animate/inanimate) A relationship between humans
59Even if human relations do not involve ownership in the same sense, one still uses possessive pronouns to describe such emotional relationships, e.g. Sun bugam mataæ æfiìyattaæ they.PF hit.BEN DAT.her child.GEN.hers translates into English as ‘They hit her child’.
371
Note that the –aC/BEN has its own semantic contribution in relation to MA in terms of added intensity and affectedness, signified by double exclamation marks, (!!), in 7. 5. I am aware of the fact that ideally, one should be able to separate MA from –aC/BEN to establish this contribution for MA here. I make the claim on the basis of the general affectedness semantics of –aC/BEN, and the fact that MA co-occurs with other benefactive D-forms with Experiencer semantics. (Acting on the private sphere) (336) Kaæree yaa ciiz-am mi-nì hannuu dog he.PF bite-BEN DAT-me hand ‘The dog bit me in the hand’
(Acting on private sphere and sphere of influence) (337) Yaaroæo yaa fiauk-a® ma-taæ tufaafìi boy he.PF seize-BEN DAT-her clothes ‘The boy seized her clothes (that she was wearing)’
(Acting on sphere of influence) (338) Kuæ sak-am mi-nì aækuyaæataa! you.PL.SJN release-BEN DAT-me goat.my ‘Let go of my goat!’
(Acting on sphere of empathy) (339) ganneæenaa yaa maar-am mi-nì fiìyaataa younger.brother.my he.PF slap-BEN DAT-me daughter.my ‘My younger brother slapped my daughter’
The transitive EXPER benefactive also includes doing something in lieu of the OBJDAT, that is, so that the OBJDAT participant will not have to do it. What is passed on to the OBJDAT, i.e. what is transferred, is the abstract ‘gift’ of not having to do something. Consider (340). (Acting on sphere of potency) (340) Kuæ fiauk-a® waæ leebu®aæ you.SNJ lift-BEN DAT labourer ‘Lift the load for the labourer!’
kaaya]n! load.DEF
Schema 4A below represents the transitive EXPER benefactive:
372
Schema 4A of MA: fully externalized EXPER OBJDAT
!
S/tr
ACC/tr
DAT/lm
Setting
Prose schema: OBJDAT experiences an action performed on an OBJACC within her PS in a setting.
Within the network of MA, schema 4A is a natural extension from schema 3A ‘Affected Recipient’, since an object which is about to come into someone’s possession or PS, will end up in this participant’s vicinity and establish a relationship with the OBJDAT participant. 7. 3. 5. 2 The intransitive EXPER benefactive: action within PS In the intransitive equivalent of schema 4A , the subject is construed as an Agent acting directly within the PS and thus affecting the OBJDAT Experiencer. The verbal action either happens to (in the case of Patient subjects, (341)) or is exhibited by the other participant (in the case of Agent subjects, (342)). The subject’s action is fully autonomous, and is not conceptually dependent on the presence of an OBJDAT.60 All Hausa sentences below are grammatical also without the OBJDAT.61 Schema 4B of MA: Experiencer OBJDAT of EXPER intransitive benefactive Prose schema: OBJDAT experiences an action within her PS in a setting.
!
S/tr DAT/lm
Setting
60Janda (1993: 83) labels this type (intransitive expressions of) free dative because the dative (IO) participant enters into and modifies the sentence as a whole and is not a grammatically obligatory argument. 61But the verb may change to an intransitive form, cf. mutuæ ‘die’, saæukaa ‘descend, lodge’.
373
(Acting within sphere of empathy (341)-(342)) (341) Yaa maceæe ma-naæ he.PF die.gr4 DAT-us ‘He died on us’
(Acting within private sphere) (342) Yaa sauk-am ma-naæ he.PF lodge.BEN DAT-us
‘He lodged with us (against our wishes)’
Extensions: SCHEMA 3A ‘Affected animate Recipient of object, trans.’ is extended to SCHEMA 4A
‘Experiencer of action on object within PS, trans.’ by the extension ‘OBJDAT is a
possessor/controller’. SCHEMA 4A is extended to SCHEMA 4B ‘Experiencer of action within PS, intrans’ by the extension ‘Removal of OBJACC’. 7. 3. 6 Deprived EXPER 7. 3. 6. 1 Deprived EXPER possessor The relationship holding between the OBJDAT and the OBJACC participants in schema 4A is that of a possessor or controller OBJDAT, with affectedness arising out of this relationship. A natural extension from this meaning is affectedness arising out of the OBJDAT participant being deprived of such a relationship, as captured by schema 5A below. Typically, with verbs of taking, the OBJACC may as a result of the subject’s action be removed from the dative object’s PS in an (intentional or accidental) deprivative action. (Action on sphere of influence (343)-(344)) (343) ıaæaraawoæo yaa saaceæe waæ Muusaa raæa˚umii thief he.PF steal.gr4 DAT Musa camel ‘The thief stole Musas camel’
(344) Ya\ \ass-am mi-nì tuhwaæa62 he.PF lose-BEN DAT-me clothes ‘He lost my clothes’
62Ader dialect.
374
Schema 5A of MA: OBJDAT is a deprived EXPER possessor
! DAT/lm
ACC/tr S/tr
Prose schema: OBJDAT is affected by an action that removes the OBJACC from her PS in a setting.
Setting
7. 3. 6. 2 EXPER of intransitive loss The intransitive equivalent of schema 5A ‘deprived possessor’, is 5B, where the subject trajector leaves the PS, without this movement being instigated by an external source. The subject may be agentive and capable of initiating the movement herself, as in (345), or be a Patient subject, where the external source is outside the scope of predication, as in (346). (Action on sphere of influence (345)-(346)) (345) Saraunìyaa taa tseereæe waæ *yan mulkìn maællakaæa queen she.PF escape.gr4 DAT colonialists ‘The queen escaped the colonialists’
(346) Makullii key
yaa 3SGM.PF
\aaceæe lose.gr4
‘She lost her keys (lit. Key got-lost on her)’
ma-taæ DAT-her
Schema 4D of MA: deprived possessor of intransitive action
Prose schema: OBJDAT is affected by a S leaving her PS in a setting.
!
S/tr
DAT/lm Setting
Extensions: SCHEMA 4A ‘Experiencer of action on object within PS, trans.’ is extended to SCHEMA 5A
‘Experiencer of provoked loss of OBJACC from PS, trans.’ by the extension
375
‘Action results in loss’. SCHEMA 5A is extended to SCHEMA 5B ‘Experiencer of loss of S from PS, intrans.’ by the extension ‘Removal of OBJACC’. 7. 3. 7 Summary network Going from the allative, path substructure to the affected Experiencer (via affected Recipient) involves gradually defocusing the path image and concomitantly increasing the focus on the OBJDAT participant’s PS and her affectedness as a result of an action relating to that area. Schemas 1A-B represent the one extreme, schemas 4A-B the other. As was demonstrated in the preceding sections, schemas 1A-B merely involve motion towards a Goal, whereas schemas 4A-B do not involve any motion towards the OBJDAT participant at all, abstract or physical: in the case of a transitive action (schema 4A) a Patient goes through a change, and this affects the OBJDAT participant because of her relationship to that object (shown schematically by its presence within the confines of the PS). The network is summarized in Figure 7.7. Figure 7.7: Summary semantic network of MA SCHEMA 1A
SCHEMA 2A
Inanimate Goal, trans.
Animate Goal, trans.
Removal of OBJACC
Goal is animate
Removal of OBJACC
SCHEMA 1B
SCHEMA 2B
Inanimate Goal, intrans.
Animate Goal, intrans. Goal is animate
SCHEMA 3A
SCHEMA 4A
SCHEMA 5A
Affectd animate Recipient of OBJ, trans.
Experiencr of action on OBJ within PS, trans.
Experiencr of provoked loss of OBJACC from PS, trans.
Approach is mental
Removal of OBJACC
OBJDAT is a possessor/ Removal of controller OBJACC
Action results in loss
Removal of OBJACC
SCHEMA 3B
SCHEMA 4B
SCHEMA 5B
Affected animate Recipient of action, intrans.
Experiencr of action within PS, intrans.
Experiencr of loss of S from PS, intrans.
OBJDAT has a close relationship to S
Approach is mental
Action results in loss
Regarding reference to a Recipient or Beneficiary we have seen that such information may reside in the verbal semantics or is inferred from our encyclopaedic knowledge of the world. While some verbs inherently make reference to a Recipient or Beneficiary, others do this to a lesser extent. The difference between schema 2A ‘Potentially affected Recipient’ (verbs of transfer) and schema 3A ‘Affected Recipient’ (verbs of making available and verbs of preparation) is grounded in such a distinction. However, while reference to a potential
376
OBJDAT in part requires extra-linguistic knowledge in schema 3A, the Beneficiary interpretation is also encouraged by the verbal semantics. Even more autonomous actions (e.g. driving cars, dancing) do not imply a future user or Beneficiary, but draw on purely encyclopaedic knowledge (schemas 4A-B). 7. 3. 8 The directionality of extensions Regarding the directionality of extensions in the MA semantic network, I have in the preceding chosen to trace these from an allative (path) meaning to those designating the Experiencer role. This is the direction which is generally considered to be most plausible cross-linguistically. In grammaticalization theory, space is considered to be conceptually prior to more abstract conceptions, such as that of the semantic role of Experiencer. This approach is also ingrained in Cognitive Grammar theory, for example as it manifests itself in the billiard ball model. However, once abstract conceptions are established, they are strengthened through their relevance in our daily lives. In Hausa, this seems evident in that examples of purely allative meanings are less frequent and are much harder to find than the Experiencer based benefactive sentences of schemas 3 and 4. Considering this fact, a much more plausible synchronic network would take schema 4 as the overall prototype and extend less common meanings from this schema. This directionality of extension may also be more plausible in psychological terms. In addition, schemas 1-4 would be organized by higher-level schemas which extract the essential commonality of the subschemas. Allative meaning is present in schemas 1-2, Experiencer meaning is present in schemas 2-4, i.e. the higher-level schemas overlap in schema 2, which will then constitute the semantic link of the category. Such an EXPER based prototype network may be represented as in Figure 7.8.
377
Figure 7.8 : Synchronic semantic network of MA. DOWNSTREAM PARTICIPANT resisting integration in action chain
EXPERIENCER resisting integration in action chain by animacy
GOAL resisting integration in action chain by being a future target
SCHEMA 1A Inanimate Goal, trans.
Removal of OBJACC
SCHEMA 2A Animate Goal, trans. Goal is animate Removal of OBJACC
SCHEMA 3A Affected animate Recipient of OBJ, trans.
Approach is physical Removal of OBJACC
SCHEMA 5A Experiencer of provoked loss of Action OBJACC from Removal of PS, trans. Removal of results OBJACC in loss OBJACC
SCHEMA 4A Experiencer of action on OBJ within PS, trans. OBJDAT is not a possessor
SCHEMA 1B
SCHEMA 2B
SCHEMA 3B
SCHEMA 4B
Inanimate Goal, intrans.
Animate Goal/ Recipient, intrans.
Affected animate Recipient of action, intrans.
Experiener of action within PS, intrans.
Goal is animate
Approach is physical
S acts from outside PS
378
SCHEMA 5A Experiencer of loss of S from PS, intrans.
Action results in loss
7. 4 A semantic network of instrumental dà in the conduit senses The present analysis proposes that the predominant meaning of INST is to encode a peripheral or backgrounded participant.63 While this seems to be the meaning in Hausa (and certainly many other languages), I am aware that this is not the only semantic characteristic cross-linguistically that has been exploited in marking the Causee of causative constructions. Other languages use instrumental case to mark a Causee who is highly volitional, active and enjoying more control than, for instance, a dative marked Causee. In Hausa too, the OBJINST Causees and Movers may also be seen as active participants in relation to the (relatively speaking) more passive OBJDAT participant. This does not necessarily preclude the idea that they are syntactically peripheral. 7. 4. 1 INST dà as a conduit metaphor Among the various uses of INST dà in Hausa, the conduit INST (Cf. Janda 1993) is the one which is of particular relevance to the topic of this dissertation. A conduit INST is integrated in the action chain, but peripheral in the sense of being internally peripheral to the event. This is the basis for my interpretation of the role of INST dà in Hausa causative sentences. The conduit instrumental mediates an action. The INST participant is the vehicle by means of which an action is accomplished. It expresses the entity (participant) by means of which subject expresses the verb. The conduit instrumental comprises a number of types: the INST of instrument, the INST of Causal agent,64 the INST of manner, the INST object, and the INST of Secondary agent (Causee), each represented by a separate schema.
63 In order to support further the idea of peripherality as the semantic contribution of INST to causative sentences, I carried out an analysis which demonstrated that all uses of INST dà in Hausa can be subsumed under the highest-level schema ‘peripheral participant’. However, the results of this analysis have had to be left out. The other uses of dà include: A. Comitative and proximate instrumental B. Instrumental of setting 1. Comitative (co-action) 8. Time (introducing temporal 2. Relational location sentence, time of the clock) 3. Possession and attribute (be with) 4. Relative clause (that, which, who) 5. Comparison (rather than) 6. Existential (there is/are) 7. Conjunction (and) The analysis was inspired by Janda’s (1993) case analysis. 64In Janda (1993: 144) this schema is also taken to represent the notion of ‘passive agent’.
379
All schemas recognize the marginality of the INST participant in the action chain with a concomitant focus on the verbal process or on more central participant(s) as the main objective. 7. 4. 1. 1 INST of instrument The INST of instrument expresses the idea by means of. It can be exemplified in Hausa by the transitive sentence in (347). (347) a) Soojaæ yaa haæ®bee shì soldier he.PF shoot.gr1C him ‘The soldier shot him with a rifle’
daæ bindigaæa INST gun
In action chain terms, the action in (347) is initiated by the subject (soldier), who is the energy source, the initiator, and who applies a certain amount of energy to the INST participant (the gun), which in turn directly affects the OBJACC (him), the energy sink. The two central participants are the subject and the person shot, the INST is a peripheral participant through which the energy flows, and is consequently marked by the oblique preposition dà. The gun is internally peripheral to the event. The sentence in (364) may be illustrated as in schema 1A, as a conduit instrumental. Schema 1A Conduit INST of instrument, transitive (S-V-OBJACC -OBJINST )
S
INST
ACC
Prose schema: A subject acts on OBJACC via an inanimate OBJINST in a setting. Setting
The conduit instrumental can also be extended to intransitive sentences through the loss of OBJACC, in which case it will also resemble an adverbial of manner, as in the sentences in (365) and schema 1B.
380
(348) a) Yanaæa taæfiyaæa daæ bo]s he.CONT travel.VN INST bus ‘He travels by bus’
b) Tanaæa ®uæbuæutuu daæ bii®oæo she.CONT write.VN INST pen ‘She writes with a pen’
Schema 1B INST of instrument, intransitive (S-V-OBJINST )
Prose schema: A subject acts via an inanimate OBJINST in a setting. S
INST
Setting
Extension: SCHEMA 1A ‘Conduit INST of instrument, trans.’ is extended to SCHEMA 1B ‘Conduit INST of instrument, intrans.’ by the extension ’Loss of OBJACC’. 7. 4. 1. 2 INST of Causal agent Dà is used with intransitives to indicate the OBJINST as the Causal agent. The INST participant is peripheral to the event in the sense that it is used with grammatically autonomous, intransitive verbs and can optionally be left out.65 In Hausa, the ‘affected subject’ construction of the intransitive gr766 verb forms (L...H, final -u), besides some instances of stative (L...H, final -e), will enable a Causal agent interpretation of the OBJINST as in (349).67 (349) a) Ali Ali
yaa daæamu he.PF be.bothered.gr7
‘Ali is bothered by Aliyu’
daæ AÆliyuæ INST Aliyu
65Kemmer and Verhagen (1994: 135) note that ‘languages frequently use the same case on causees of TCs as they use on passive agents‘, given that ‘passive agents are also rather non-topical, fairly dispensable participants’. See also Hansen (2004) for Japanese. 66Partly corresponding to the passive in other languages. 67This usage of INST has been associated with passive constructions (Janda 1993: 192) and with stative constructions (ibid.:152), both associated with patient subjects.
381
In (349), the INST participant is an Agent directly responsible (the cause) for the state of the subject participant, while also characterizing the manner in which the subject is affected. Some similar constructions are: gaæji daæ ‘be tired of’ (cf. gaæji ‘be tired’), gaæmsu da ‘be pleased with’ (cf.
gaæmsu ‘get on well’), fasheæe daæ (kuukaa) ‘burst out from (crying)’, shaægaltaæ daæ ‘be carried away
with’.
The INST of Causal agent marks as a special case the means (material) by which a particular state has come into being, as in (350). The absence of a subject Agent makes the INST participant eligible as the semantic Causer, now being the participant highest up in the action chain. (350) Haædiizaæ Hadiza
tanaæa she.CONT
fiaæure tie.STV
daæ zaneæe INST wrapper
‘Hadiza is wearing a wrapper (lit. H. is tied with a wrapper)’ (Newman 2000)
Schema 1H: instrumental of Causal agent
INST
S/Pat
Prose schema: An OBJINST seen as an Agent act on a Patient subject in a setting. Setting
Extension: SCHEMA 1C ‘Conduit INST of Secondary agent , trans.’ (see 7. 4. 1. 5) is extended to SCHEMA 1H ‘INST of Causal agent/means’ by the extension ‘Loss of (agent) Subject’. 7. 4. 1. 3 INST of manner The usage dà as an adverb of manner is a type of construction where the particular manner in which an action is accomplished can be seen as a conduit of the action.68 The difference from mere instrumental meaning is that in addition to conveying the action, it characterizes it. Consider example (351), representing adverbs of manner which employ the preposition dà plus a nominal or adverbial expressing quality. 68The instrumental of manner is commonly considered a special abstract case of the INST of instrument, or of forming a proximate continuum with the INST of instrument (see Janda 1993: 149, Staniševa 1958, Schlesinger 1979, Mrázek 1964).
382
(351) S-V-OBJACC-OBJINST Yaa fiaureæ igiyaæa daæ hankaælii he.PF tie.gr4 rope INST care ‘He tied the rope carefully’
Some more examples of such constructions are: daæ gaggaawaa ‘hastily (lit. with haste)’, daæ ˚arfii ‘strongly (lit. with strength)’, with haste)’,
daæ yawaæn gaæske ‘truly a lot (lit. with quantity.of truth), daæ saurii ‘quickly (lit.
daæ kya]u ‘well’, daæ niyyaæa ‘intentionally’, and daæ kya® ‘with difficulty’.
In addition, the special case where an adverb of manner expresses the idea of speaking or writing in a particular language employs dà: (352) S-V-(OBJDAT)-OBJINST Zaataæ bayyaænaa she.FUT1 explain.gr1
mukuæ daæ Tuu®ancii DAT-you.PL INST English
‘She will explain (it) to you in English’
(Newman 2000)
Clearly, a language can be conceived of as a vehicle or instrument by means of which, or as a channel through which, linguistic content is conveyed. It thus constitutes a special case of the conduit instrumental. Prose schema 1E: ‘A subject acts on an OBJACC via an abstract instrumental characterizing the action in a setting.’ Extension: SCHEMA 1A ‘Conduit INST of instrument, trans.’ is extended to SCHEMA 1E ‘Conduit INST of manner, trans.’ by the extension ‘INST is abstract and characterizes the action’. The intransitive equivalent is exemplified in (353) below. Note, too, the fact that the means (instrument) by which someone travels is also the manner in which she travels, see (348a) above, and the special case when a body part is used as a means of transportation in (353): (353) S-V-OBJINST Yaa zoo daæ ˚afaæ69 he.PF come INST foot ‘He came on foot’
(Jaggar 2001)
Prose schema 1F: ‘A subject acts via an instrumental characterizing the action in a setting.’ Extension: SCHEMA 1B ‘Conduit INST of instrument, intrans.’ is extended to SCHEMA 1F ‘Conduit INST of manner, intrans.’ by the extension ‘INST characterizes the action’, or: 69According to Newman (2000: 45) this sentence would rather be used with the preposition à ‘at, in’. However, Jaggar (2001: 669) specifically mentions daæ ˚afaæ ‘on foot’ as one of the uses of dà.
383
SCHEMA 1E
‘Conduit INST of manner, trans.’ is extended to SCHEMA 1F ‘Conduit INST of
manner, intrans.’ by the extension ‘Loss of OBJACC’. 7. 4. 1. 4 INST of instrumental object An instrumental object is peripheral to the verbal event in that it is not itself seen as the goal of the action, but as a participant who serves to manifest it.70 An instrumental object is not penetrated or altered, nor does it go through a change of state, and it is not acted on for that purpose. In this sense, the instrumental object contrasts with accusative objects such as the ones following gr2 verbs, in which the object is the direct goal of the action (and a central participant, along with the subject). This object is typically penetrated by it (that is, they are true Patients), cf. the semantic label ‘separative-intrusive’ (Lukas 1963), which points at a certain effect of the action on the OBJACC (although sometimes partially affected, cf. the middle characteristics of gr2 suggested in 5. 3. 3). The instrumental, on the other hand, denotes objects which are seen as essentially unaffected by the verbal action, and where the subject-verb process can be conceived of as relatively autonomous. The semantic focus is rather on the state of the subject or on the activity in which the subject is involved. In Hausaist literature (e.g. Newman 2000: 689) these are commonly referred to as ‘sociative’.71 Cognition verbs illustrate how the verb depicts an autonomous cognitive process, where the primary focus is on the process going on in the subject participant rather than on a potential effect on the instrumental object: (354) Sarkii yaa tunaæa daæ Abduæ emir he.PF remember.gr1 INST Abdu ‘The emir remembered Abdu’
(Abdoulaye 1996)
70Janda (1993: 159, 215) states that ‘It is commonly agreed that the instrumental object is a variant of the instrumental of instrument’, citing Gibson (1984: 26), who states that the entity marked as an instrument object ‘is clearly the means used to bring about the motion specified by the verb’. She also refers to Mrázek (1964) and Wierzbicka (1980) who ‘identify the instrumental object as bearing the closest possible relationship to the instrumental of instrument’. Further, Běličová (1982: 70) states that the instrumental object is a means for the realization of the action. 71This class is more comprehensive than my own INST object category, as Newman’s classification includes INST of Causal agent and verbs of association/dissociation.
384
Similar examples include: San daæ ‘know about’, luæu®a daæ ‘take notice of’, daaceæe daæ ‘be suitable for’, ji daæ ‘feel about’, ˚aaraæa daæ ‘do more of’, saabaæa daæ ‘be accustomed to’, yabaæa daæ ‘praise’, yaæ®da daæ ‘agree with’, kuælaa¶
kulaæa daæ ‘attend to’, faæhimtaæ daæ ‘understand’, ma]ntaa daæ ‘forget’.
The role of the INST participant in these expressions is to assist in or be a background to self-contained and autonomous activities or states. This function is fully exploited in expressions where dà marks the standard of comparison, as in shaa bambam daæ ‘differ from’, yi kaæma daæ ‘resemble’, which distinctly promote the centrality of the subject (the single central participant). Further support for this analysis comes from the fact that the instrumental object marker dà is associated with inherently intransitive verbs,72 and is in Hausa obligatorily present in introducing objects with verbs of cognition and association/dissociation, while being disallowed with the inherently transitive gr2 verbs. Moreover, in grades which can be either transitive or intransitive INST marking of objects is facultative (Abdoulaye 1996). The difference between schema 1B and 1G is that whereas an INST of instrument is actively involved in the action at which it assists, an instrumental object assists the action by its mere presence, i.e. it is not itself involved in the action. Prose schema 1G: ‘ A subject acts via an INST which is seen as peripheral to the verbal action (i.e. not penetrated or altered) in a setting. The INST assists the verbal action by being present.’ Extension: SCHEMA 1B ‘Conduit INST of instrument, intrans.’ is extended to SCHEMA 1G ‘Conduit INST of instrumental object’ by the extension ‘INST assists action by being present’. 7. 4. 1. 5 Conduit INST of Secondary agent, transitive ‘Schema 1A ‘Conduit INST of instrument, trans’, is extended to transitive Causees in sentences like (355). (355) a) Likitaæ yaa shaa(ya®) daæ yaaroæn maagaænii doctor he.PF drink(.CAUS) INST boy medicine ‘The doctor let the boy drink some medicine’
b) Maalaæmaa tanaæa teacher.F she.CONT
kooya® learn.CAUS
‘The teacher teaches the students Hausa’
daæ fiaæalìbai INST students
hausa Hausa
72This generalization is also made for Russian in Janda (1993), where she relates the use of instrumental objects to intransitivity. She argues that ‘accusative constructions are transitive, whereas instrumental constructions are intransitive’, since evidence shows that inherently intransitive verbs can take instrumental objects (1993: 160).
385
In (355a-b) the secondary human agents (Causees) yaaroæo ‘boy’ and fiaæalìbai ‘students’ are encoded as OBJINST. By metaphorical extension from inanimate to animate INST, they can be subsumed by the conduit INST, if monoclausal structure of the causative is assumed. The structural-literal translation may be paraphrased as ‘The doctor had the medicine drunk by (means of) the boy’, and ‘The teacher had Hausa learnt via/by the students’. (Recall that INST in schemas 1Di and 1Dii have the word boundary after dà (Abdoulaye 1996, Newman 2000, Jaggar 2001). See 4. 3. 9. 2.) Prose schema: ‘A subject acts on an OBJACC via a human/animate instrument in a setting’. Schema 1C Conduit INST of Secondary agent, transitive. (S-V-OBJINST-OBJACC)
S
INST
ACC
Setting
Prose schema: A subject acts on an OBJACC via an human/animate OBJINST in a setting.
Extension: SCHEMA 1A ‘Conduit INST of instrument, trans.’ is extended to SCHEMA 1C ‘Conduit INST of Secondary agent, trans.’ by the extension ‘INST is human/animate’. 7. 4. 1. 6 Conduit INST of Secondary agent, intransitive The Secondary agent of intransitive causatives is likewise encoded with INST dà. The Secondary agent may be animate, as in (356a), or, by further extension, inanimate, as in (356b). (356) a) Na]s zaataæ kwant-a® nurse FUT1.she lie.down-CAUS ‘The nurse will lay the boy down’
b) Di®eebaæ driver
daæ yaaroæn INST boy.the
yaa tsay-a® he.PF stop.(INTR)-CAUS
‘The driver stopped the car’
daæ mootaæa INST car
In this usage of INST, the subject/Causer initiates an action, and implements it by means of the Secondary agent (the boy, the car). In this sense, this usage resembles the sentences in
386
(347) and is extended from schema 1B. It is also the intransitive equivalent of schema 1C ‘Secondary agent, trans.’. Motion verbs without causative marking frequently occur in a function where the addition of an INST argument shifts the Agent from subject to the INST participant, for instance gusaæa daæ ‘move sth away from’ (cf. gusaæa ‘shift slightly, intr’), isoo daæ ‘convey, bring’ (cf. ìsa ‘reach, arrive at’),
juuyaæa daæ ‘turn sth (over)’ (cf. juuyaæa ‘turn, rotate, intr.’, Phrasal expression: yi waæatsii
daæ ‘throw away, reject’ (cf. waæatsii¶waatsìi N. ‘scattering, broadcast’). These verbs have a looser word boundary between the verb and INST than grade 5 causatives (see 4. 3. 9. 2 above). The INST comitative resembles the INST Secondary agent (Causee) in that both impose a notion of relative passivity on a human INST participant. This passivity implies for the Secondary agent simply not to be the initiator. In the comitative INST the initiative role is suppressed. Consider the comitative verb in (357), which suggests that the wife initiated an otherwise equal co-action. (357) Maæata-® wife-of
Abduæ taa raæbu Abdu she.PF be.divorced
‘Abdu’s wife divorced him’
daæ with
shii him.IND
(Abdoulaye 1996: 128)
In the comitative schema, however, both the subject and INST participants participate in the action. In the Secondary agent schema, on the other hand, the subject’s role (the Causer) is not to participate in the action as the most active participant but rather to initiate it, and the process described by the verb is on the whole performed by (in active verbs) or pertaining to (in process verbs and verbs of state) the INST participant (the Secondary agent). Intransitive Secondary agents (Causees) also resemble instrumental objects in being not the goal of the action, but the means serving to manifest the action of the verb, or, as in (356b), to bring about the motion specified by the verb. The INST may also be ambiguous with respect to the INST of instrument and inanimate Secondary agent senses, see meanings (358) a. and b. below. This supports the idea that the INST of instrumental object schema is closely related to schema 1B INST of instrument. (358) Sun they.PF
koomaæa return
daæ mootaæa INST car
a. ‘They returned the car (INST object)’b. ‘They returned by car (INST of instrument)’ (Newman 2000)
The Causer’s role is only to initiate the action denoted by the verb without herself participating, and the semantic role relevant to the subject in the base verb instead pertains to the Secondary agent. Thus, the ‘by means of’ sense here rather refers to the Causer initiating
387
and getting accomplished an action via/by the Secondary agent in the sense that the action applies to or is performed by the Secondary agent. One point here deserves a closer look. On the face of it, there appears to be a difference between instrumental objects and the INST of Secondary agent when it comes to the definition ‘aids action merely by being present’ and ‘is not penetrated or altered’. As we saw in the examples (24) through (28) in chapter 2, the Secondary agent typically goes through a change of state, if this is what the base verb designates. The types of verbs which may causativize include both states, processes, motion including the change of body positions, and active actions. See the examples below: jìnki®taæ v3 ‘be tardy’ ⇒ jinki®ta® daæ ‘delay’ (goes through a change of state) daskaæree ‘coagulate’ ⇒ daskara® daæ ‘cause to coagulate, solidify’ (goes through process) bulbuælee ‘gush out (from small-mouthed vessel)’ ⇒ bulbula® daæ ‘pour away (from small-mouthed vessel)’ (goes through motion) guæ®fanaæ v3 ‘get down on all fours’ ⇒ gu®fana® daæ ‘make kneel down (camel)’ (goes through action/change of state as a result of imposed action) The key to understanding this apparent exception to the characterization of INST can be found by looking at the verbal semantics: • In the cases where the Secondary agent goes through a change of state, this is meaning is also present in the base verb (inchoative, patientive motion, etc.) and is therefore contributed by the lexical semantics of the verb, not by INST dà. In this manner, the characterization of INST of Secondary agent as a conduit instrumental is preserved. It is the Secondary agent meaning of dà which allows causative ‘short forms’ in Hausa, i.e. causative meaning in sentences where no -aC suffix is present and which only contain the verb stem + dà .73 These are commonly used in a limited number of causatives, as in the following contrastive sentences, where b) and c) are identical in meaning: (359) a) Yaa haawa dookìi he.PF mount horse ‘He mounted the horse’
73 The causative short forms differs formally from their intransitive counterparts by having all high tones (as does the long form), e.g. táfi (intr.) ‘travel, go’ vs. tafii dà ‘move sth. along’.
388
b) Yaa hau daæ Haædiizaæ he.PF mount INST Hadiza ‘He mounted Hadiza on the horse’
dookìi horse
c) Yaa haw-a® daæ Haædiizaæ he.PF mount-CAUS INST Hadiza ‘He mounted Hadiza on the horse’
dookìi horse
Additional examples of this type include: biya® daæ Y bii daæ ‘control, conquer’ (cf. bii ‘follow’) \ata® daæ Y \ad daæ ‘lose, waste’ (cf. \ataæa ‘get lost’) ciya® daæ Y cii daæ ‘feed’ (cf. cii ‘eat’) fita® daæ Y fid daæ ‘take out’ (cf. fìta ‘go out’) gajiya® daæ Y gajii daæ ‘tire, bore’ (cf. gaæji(yaæa) ‘become tired’) iya® daæ Y ii da74æ ‘implement, finish, accomplish.’ (cf. iyaæa ‘be able’) isa® daæ Y ii75 daæ ‘deliver, convey’ (cf. ìsa ‘reach, arrive at’) jiya® daæ Y jii daæ ‘make feel sth.’ (cf. jii ‘feel’) kawa® da Y kau daæ ‘move sth. away/aside, divert.’ (cf. kau ‘move aside (itr)’) maya® daæ Y mai daæ ‘return, put back, repatriate’ (cf. maæyaa ‘replace (itr)’) rawa® daæ Y rau daæ ‘shake’ (cf. rawaa (noun) ‘dance, dancing’) shaaya® daæ Y shaa daæ ‘water, irrigate’ (cf. shaa ‘drink’) taaya® (da)æ Y taa daæ ‘raise up’ (cf. taashì ‘get up’) tafiya® daæ Y tafii daæ ‘lead, move sth. along, administer, run’ (cf. taæfi(yaæa ) ‘go’) tsaya® daæ Y tsai daæ ‘stop sth./s.o.’ (cf. tsayaæa ‘stop (itr), stand’) zuba® daæ Y zub daæ ‘pour away/out’ (cf. zuæba ‘leak’) wahala® daæ Y wahal daæ ‘cause s.o. trouble’ (cf. waæhalaæ ‘have trouble’) Besides being used in short forms, the Secondary agent meaning of INST is used in combination with grade 6, in which case the syntactic restriction of fronting INST together with a focussed NP (which is characteristic of causative meaning, se point 3 in Table 4.10) also applies to this construction. According to Newman, these verbs ‘incorporate efferential semantics and function syntactically as efferential dà verbs’ (illustrated in Newman 2000: 693), which basically points to the Secondary agent function of INST dà. (360) Sunaæa they.CONT
\ulloo daæ daæbaa®aæa appear.gr6 INST plan
‘They are introducing a plan’
(Newman 2000: 693)
Prose schema 1Di: ‘A subject acts via a human/animate instrumental who is a Secondary agent in a setting. ’
74 The long forms iya® daæ and isa® daæ have identical short forms: ii daæ (Source: Bargery 1934, Jaggar 2001: 251) 75 In this short form, the -s- in the long form stem is not a part of the short form.
389
Schema 1Di intransitive INST of Secondary agent (S-V-OBJINST)
S
Prose schema: A subject acts via a human/animate OBJINST in a setting. INST
Setting
It has also been observed for languages other than Hausa that comitative-causative meaning is naturally related to motion verbs, cf. in the language Yukaghir (spoken in Yakutia and the Kamchatka peninsula, Russia) described by Maslova (1993) comitative-causative verbs will have an action away meaning attached to them. In Yukaghir, the suffix -tê- is used for a group of statives and for a group of motion verbs. It has a mere causative meaning when added to a stative verb like modo- ‘sit, be seated’, but an action away meaning when it is combined with verbs of motion like qon- ‘go, depart’ (1993: 274): (361) Yukaghir Intransitive stative modo- ‘to sit, be seated’
Intransitive motion verb qon- ‘to go, depart’
Causative modo-tê
‘to seat somebody’
Comitative-causative qon-tê ‘to lead somebody away’
Note that the meaning ‘to lead somebody’ alone would cover the causative meaning. This suggests that motion verbs acquire or may acquire an action away or motion away meaning when they are combined with a causative element. Abdoulaye (1996: 123) has observed for Hausa that among the verbs which do not have the causative suffix -a®¶-as, but still carry both a causative and an efferential meaning with the addition of the instrumental-comitative particle dà, are motion verbs: ‘As the majority of efferential grade 1, grade 4, and grade 6 involve verbs of motion, it is not always easy to separate the efferential “action away” sense from the causative sense.’ (Abdoulaye 1996: 123)
390
Abdoulaye demonstrates in his (1996) article that causative/caused-motion meaning can be related to the particle dà alone, i.e. that the presence of the -a®¶-as suffix is not a necessary precondition for the expression of causative meaning. That is, what he observes is: 1. Verbs are causativized by the addition of the instrumental-comitative particle dà-. 2. These verbs are motion verbs. Consider (362) where the motion expressed in the lexical verb implies a concomitant motion on part of the Secondary agent/object in the b) sentence. (362) Hausa a) Abduæ yaa zoo Abdu he.PF come ‘Abdu came’
b) Yaa zoo daæ fiansaæ he.PF come COM¶CAUS son.his
maka®antaa school
‘He has brought his son to school’ (Abdoulaye 1996: 123)
Extensions: SCHEMA 1B ‘Conduit INST of instrument, intrans.’ is extended to SCHEMA 1Di ‘Conduit INST of Secondary agent, intrans.’ by the extension ’INST is human/animate’. / SCHEMA 1C
‘Conduit INST of Secondary agent, trans.’ is extended to SCHEMA 1Di ‘Conduit
INST of Secondary agent, intrans.’ by the extension ’Loss of OBJACC’. Prose schema 1Dii: ‘A subject acts via an inanimate instrument which is seen as a Secondary agent in a setting.’ Extension: SCHEMA 1Di ‘Conduit INST of Secondary agent, intrans.’ is extended to SCHEMA 1Dii
‘Conduit INST of inanimate Secondary agent, intrans.’ by the extension ‘Secondary
agent is inanimate’. A network of interrelated senses of the Conduit INST is provided in Figure 7.9.
391
Figure 7.9. Summary network of the Conduit INST CONDUIT INST: PERIPHERAL PARTICIPANT mediating an action
– internally peripheral to the event
SCHEMA 1E
Conduit INST of manner, trans.
Loss of OBJACC
Conduit INST of instrument, trans. OBJINST is abstract and characterizes the action
Loss of OBJACC
SCHEMA 1H
SCHEMA 1C
SCHEMA 1A
OBJINST is human/ animate
Conduit INST of Secondary agent (animate), trans.
Conduit INST of causal agent/ means Loss of Subject
Loss of OBJACC
SCHEMA 1F
SCHEMA 1B
SCHEMA 1Di
Conduit INST of manner, intrans.
Conduit INST of instrument, intrans.
Conduit INST of secondary agent (animate), intrans.
OBJINST is abstract and characterizes the action
OBJINST is human/ animate
OBJINST assists action by being present
Secondary agent is inanimate
SCHEMA 1G
SCHEMA 1Dii
Conduit INST object (not penetrated)
Conduit INST of Secondary agent (inanimate)
Mutual reinforcement of schemas
7. 4. 2 Summary of the characterization of INST in Hausa In the preceding we have seen that there is a broad empirical basis for the characterization of INST as a ‘peripheral participant’. This analysis has the advantage of characterizing all the usages of INST in terms of one, unifying concept. In addition, it further supports the claim that Hausa is one of the languages where monoclausal structure of causative construction can be assumed where S-V-OBJACC and S-V are the basic structures to which an INST Secondary agent (Causee) is added.
392
7. 5 The semantic network of -aC 7. 5. 1 The general function of -aC: emphasis on effect of a downstream participant In chapter 3 we saw how transitivity can be described as entities transferring energy to other entities in their vicinity, either in physical or in abstract terms. We also saw that some entities have the capability of providing their own energy (self-propelled, that is, they may function as energy sources) and to affect other entities. Speakers may include a proportion of realworld entities interacting in an action chain, and choose to exclude others. The selection will constitute the linguistic ‘scope of predication’. Sometimes, a speaker may select one entity, or participant, as more prominent than the others within the scope of predication, which will then be the topic. Often this is an Agent, which in unmarked sentences in nominative languages corresponds to the subject. At other times, she may wish to say something about the effect on downstream participants. Languages have several kinds of grammatical devices for making (the effect on) a downstream participant more prominent: passivization, topicalization, or S = O verbs. In Creek, there is the impersonal plural construction, which directs the attention towards the effect of the activity while deemphasizing the Agent (without deleting it). In Hausa, the -aC suffix on the surface seems to have a variety of functions, and it appears to be difficult to find a unitary way of describing all of them. It eludes descriptions based on valency, as it does not always increase valency. Neither is the meaning unanimous. Nevertheless, we saw in a chapter 5 that there are common denominators in terms of semantic transitivity. In the following analysis the -aC suffix is used to direct or redirect attention towards a downstream participant, viewing the transitive action from its endpoint and where the endpoint is further specified by an OBJDAT or OBJINST participant. If a new participant is added to the clause, attention is shifted or redirected to this new participant. If the valency does not change, the suffix emphasizes the effect on a downstream participant already present. In (363) a) and b), the added –aC suffixes take a pronominal form which agrees with the added dative participant of the clause. These pronominal markers are added to a verb form when the new participant, here dative objects, are introduced in the verbal action. (363) a) Taa she.PF
koæoyi learn.2C
‘She learnt to read’
kaæ®aæatuu reading
393
b) Taa she.PF
kooy-as learn-CAUS
masaæ kaæ®aæatuu DAT.him reading.M
c) Taa she.PF
kooy-at learn-CAUS
mataæ kaæ®aæatuu DAT.her reading.M
‘She taught him to read’
‘She taught her to read’
(Speaker from Gusau, MA28)
(Speaker from Gusau, MA28)
Those -aC verbs which are derived from intransitive or monotransitive verbs, may increase valency by one. The technique of adding a downstream OBJDAT or OBJINST participant, with no morphological modification of the verb, to express the idea of transferring the effect of the lexical verb to this participant is used in present-day Hausa, as in (364). (364) a) Taa she.PF
jii feel
daafiii pleasure
‘She felt good’
b) Yaa jii he.PF feel
daæ nii INST me.IND
‘He made me feel good’
c) Taa she.PF
jii feel
‘She injured Ladi’
daafiii pleasure
(Bargery 1934)
waæ Laadì ciiwoæo DAT Ladi injury (Newman 2000: 282)
The high transitivity value of the -aC suffix in present-day Hausa will bring attention to and accentuate the effect of whatever semantic role the downstream participant has. When the -aC directs attention to the benefactive roles Goal, Recipient or Experiencer, it also signifies a high degree of affectedness of this participant in the senses described in chapter 5. Below I present a network of interrelated senses of all the roles associated with the benefactive uses of the -aC suffix to show in a systematic way in which the OBJDAT is affected. When the -aC suffix is used to mark either of the semantic roles Secondary agent or Mover, it marks an added affectedness in one of two ways. In some cases, it marks motion away (the caused-motion sense); in others, it emphasizes an affected Causee. The same intensity present with the –aC/BEN suffix in the direct causative and caused-motion usages and can explain the Mover and affected Causee roles. In the light of the examples from various languages in chapter 6 on the typology of causative and benefactive constructions, a major point here is that while the –aC suffix may refer to several semantic roles, the fact that roles associated with the benefactive construction (Goal, Recipient, Beneficiary and Malefactive, including deprived possessor), and the Causee role is among this range is not likely to be an accidental.
394
Figure 7.10: Network of main senses of -aC DOWNSTREAM PARTICIPANT
GOAL
EXPERIENCER
ALLATIVE
ALLATIVE
Inanimate Goal
Animate Goal
MOVER
RECIPIENT
BENEFICIARY
MENTAL CAUSEE
PHYSICAL CAUSEE
Affected Recipient
Affected passive Experiencer
Affected active Experiencer
Affected inanimate Mover
MOVER
Affected Mover in transitive verbs
7. 5. 2 The function of the benefactive in relation to the base verb As we saw earlier, Martin (2000) understands the benefactive in terms of a type of perspective or orientation, in which benefactives are recognized by shifting the effect of a verb to a secondary effect, viz. to the effect on the OBJDAT participant. This is not something that happens exclusively to the –aC/BEN construction, but is a feature of benefactive constructions in general. In benefactive constructions derived from intransitive sentences, the effect is shifted from the subject to the dative participant, or the dative participant defines an endpoint for the subject’s action (a Goal). In a two participant clause, the attention is shifted from the effect on an object to a secondary object, the Beneficiary which is now the final endpoint. In my analysis of –aC/BEN below, this new participant is the OBJDAT, as shown in the contrasting sentence pairs below. In verbs of transfer, like some gr2 verbs are, the addition of –aC results in a shift from a focus on the Agent/subject recipiency (cf. 5. 3. 3) of the OBJACC towards the effect of the transfer on one of the downstream participants; if only a
395
Theme is present, this participant will attain the role of a Mover in a caused-motion construction, and if a dative object is present, there will be emphasis on the effect of recipiency for that participant. For comparison with the –aC derivation, observe this suggested schema of some gr2 constructions: Schema 1 of gr2: Subject/Agent-Recipient
S/tr
ACC/lm Setting
(365) Taa koæoyi she.PF learn.2C ‘She learnt Hausa’
hausa hausa
Prose schema: A subject/Agent landmark acts on a OBJACC for the sake of her own recipiency in a setting.
(cf. kooya® v5 ‘teach’)
When used with an OBJDAT, gr2 may attain an unbenefactive sense, cf. Schema 2:
Schema 2 of gr2: Unbenefactive
DAT S
ACC
Prose schema: A subject/Agent landmark acts on a OBJACC within OBJDAT’s PS for her own benefit in a setting.
Setting
(366) a) Kin aæmsaa mataæ kufiii? you.F.PF receive.2D(A) DAT.her money Lit: Did you receive money for her (and keep it yourself)?
I will not provide a full analysis and semantic network for the gr2, since this would go beyond the scope of this work. I therefore restrict my analysis of the gr2 to to issues especially related to the –aC constructions. This includes the view which I presented in 5. 3. 3 that some middle characteristics, known to have detranstitivizing effects, makes the gr2 a
396
direct opposite of the high transitive –aC constructions. For instance that the irrealis mode (future tense) examples are related to the idea of the suspension of the energy flow, which again is related to the subject/Agent’s acting on a downstream participant for the purpose of self-recipiency and consequently the unbenefactive as it is used in Dogondoutchi and Magarya. 7. 5. 3 -aC in the sense of a highy affected Beneficiary In chapter 5 we saw that the –aC/BEN construction has implications for the semantic interpretation of all the participants in the clause, in addition to being associated with certain temporal/aspective notions. In that sense, the semantics of this construction cannot be delimited to just one of the arguments, the dative object, in isolation. Nevertheless, it can still be claimed that this suffix serves primarily to mark a particular effect, an impact, on the OBJDAT participant, simply because it is being used in a benefactive construction. This impact subsumes all the various positive and negative effects that we saw was typical of this construction in chapter 5. The fact that semantically neutral verbs may attain both benefactive and malefactive interpretations, sometimes with the same verb and the same speaker, supports the idea that these are not primary, but only the result of a focus on affectedness of OBJDAT as a superordinate schema. Furthermore, the –aC/BEN construction is the only one where an adversative interpretation has been observed, which could be part of the same phenomenon; that a heavy impact on someone could easily be seen as negative, e.g. for loss of integrity. The data in chapter 5 also show, that the character of the interpersonal relationship between the Agent and the OBJDAT, which equals the other human participant, is an important aspect of the meaning of the –aC/BEN construction. Any effect on a third participant, the direct object, is secondary to the communicative situation, and serves just as a means to explicate the relationship between these two and the nature of the action. Confer also statements like Givon (1976), which says that dative objects (in contrast to accusative objects), have a ‘higher degree’ of ‘contribution in events’, and therefore rank higher in topicality. The relationship between the two human participants is characterized by physical or mental intimacy (wanted or unwanted). This affects the OBJDAT participant’s degree of autonomy, to the extent that her role approaches that of a Causee. That is, the kind of influence the Agent has over this participant is such that this participant accepts the action (because of being non-autonomous), in terms of being made to act or to make a certain decision; recall this example from chapter 5:
397
(204’)
a) 13¶-am: The worker picked up the sack for me’. Speaker’s SE: [Non-autonomous]: ‘The worker [S]
insisted that he should take my [OBJDAT’s] sack, even though I refused at the beginning, but finally he convinced me. The worker has a certain control over me, to the extent that he causes me to/makes me accept his help.’
The Agent also resembles the role of a Causer in the sense that she has the power to allow or disallow further action on part of the Beneficiary, cf (205’): (205’)
a)
11¶-am : ‘They consented to him that he could marry her’. Speaker’s SE: [Non-
autonomous/intimacy]: ‘He [OBJDAT] is obliged to have their [S’s] agreement in order to marry her. His family contributes materially, [dependence]. He [OBJDAT] lives with his parents [and is thus under their control].’
The Beneficiary role also resembles a Causee of direct causatives as the –aC/CAUS in the sense that she is heavily impacted as a result of the action (e.g. has learned the subject taught, has become the owner of the object given). This is not the case with the other benefactive constructions in Hausa that are note associated with perfective aspect. These facts support the idea that the human facet of the Beneficiary and the Causee roles are essential in understanding the common marking of these two downstream participant roles. In the following analysis, double exclamation marks, !!, signify the typical sense of emphasis and affectedness of the OBJDAT participant where appropriate. A blue arrow beginning with truncated parts signify intensive action, thus contrasting with the analysis of the dative marker MA above. This action is part of the semantic base of the –aC/BEN suffix. Black, thin arrows signify path along which a participant moves or has moved. 7. 5. 3. 1 -aC profiles inanimate Goal of moved OBJACC The added participant may be a location or other inanimate participant, in which case the meaning of -aC is to define a final endpoint (his house), which in this case is an inanimate Goal, assumed to be reached (the black arrow signifies path traversed by MVR, the blue arrow the Agent’s action on the MVR). Compared to (367a), the attention is redirected from an OBJACC (the bullet) towards the Goal participant. See the sentences in (367) and schema 1A. (367) a) Soojaæa yaa haælbi haæ®saashìi soldier he.PF shoot.2C bullet ‘The soldier shot many bullets’
398
daæ with
yawaæ abundance
b) Soojaæa yaa halb-am soldier he.PF shoot-BEN
maæ gidanshì haæ®saashìi daæ DAT house.his bullet with
‘The soldier shot many bullets at his house’
(Dutsin Ma speaker)
yawaæ abundance
Schema 1A: ‘Inanimate Goal of moved OBJACC. (S-V-OBJDAT-OBJACC)
DAT/lm
S
ACC/tr Setting
Prose schema: OBJDAT is the landmark towards which an affected object moves and in whose vicinity it has come to rest in a setting.
7. 5. 3. 2 -aC profiles inanimate Goal of moved S In the intransitive equivalent, the OBJACC is not present and the sentence does not specify a final end state for the motional verb, as ‘the bullets’ in a) above. In the corresponding derived sentence, the -aC suffix marks a final end state (a Goal) and the subject moves directly into the location demarcated by the dative object, cf. schema 1B. Compare (368a) to (368b):
Inanimate Goal, intransitive (368) a) Mun taashì we.PF rise up.INTR ‘We got up’
b) Mun taas-am maæ ˚asa]® nan we.PF rise.up-BEN DAT country.DEF that ‘We headed toward that country’
(Newman 2000: 277)
Schema 1B ‘Inanimate Goal of moved S’. (S-V-OBJDAT)
DAT/lm S/tr
Setting
399
Prose schema: OBJDAT is the landmark towards which a trajector has moved and in whose vicinity it has come to rest in a setting.
Extension: Schema 1A ‘Inanimate Goal of moved OBJACC’ is extended to schema 1B ‘Inanimate Goal of moved S’ by the extension ‘Loss of OBJACC’. 7. 5. 3. 3-aC profiles effect on animate Goal of OBJACC The -aC suffix may also redirect attention to an animate Goal in motion verbs, as in (369)(370). The schema is otherwise identical to adding an inanimate Goal as final endpoint. (369) a) Soojaæa yaa haælbi haæ®saæasai soldier he.PF shoot.2C bullets ‘The soldier shot bullets’
b) Soojaæa yaa halb-am soldier he.PF shoot-BEN
manì haæ®saæasai (aæ ˚afaæataa) DAT.me bullets at foot.my
‘The soldier shot bullets at me (at my foot)’ (Dutsin Ma speaker)
(370) a) Yaa jeæefi maashìi he.PF throw.2C spear ‘He threw a spear’
b) Yaa jeef-a® he.PF throw-BEN
‘He threw a spear at him’
mashì maashìi DAT.him spear
(Dutsin Ma speaker)
Schema 2A of –aC as Affected animate Goal of OBJACC. (S-V-OBJDAT-OBJACC)
!! DAT/lm S
ACC/tr Setting
Prose schema: OBJDAT is the animate landmark affected by an OBJMVR brought towards her by S in a setting.
Extension: The schema 1A ‘Inanimate Goal of moved OBJACC’ is extended to SCHEMA 2A ‘Affected animate Goal of OBJACC’ by the extension ‘Goal is animate’. 7. 5. 3. 4 -aC profiles effect on Animate Goal of S The -aC suffix is used in defining a final endpoint when an S moves directly towards an animate OBJDAT, where the endpoint is an animate Recipient of action, as in (371)-(372). This benefactive construction is built on intransitive motion verbs with a single subject (S-V), cf. the a) sentences in (371) and (372).
400
Animate Goal (371) a) Ya]ranæ children.the
sunaæa they.CONT
taæaru gather.7A
b) Ya]ranæ children.the
sunaæa they.CONT
taar-a® gather-BEN
‘The children were gathering’
‘The children were gathering around him’
masaæ DAT.him
(Newman 2000: 283)
(372) a) Zaakìi yaa zaæabu®aæ lion he.PF leap.up.gr3 ‘The lion leaped up’
b) Zaakìi yaa lion he.PF
zaabu®-a® waæ dilaa leap up-BEN DAT jackal
‘The lion sprang at the jackal’
(Newman 2000: 283)
Schema 2B of –aC as Affected animate Goal of S (S-V-OBJDAT)
!!
S/tr
DAT/lm
Setting
Prose schema: OBJDAT is the affected animate landmark towards whom a trajectory S has moved and in whose vicinity it has come to rest in a setting.
Extension: SCHEMA 2A ‘Affected animate Goal of OBJACC’ is extended to SCHEMA 2B ‘Affected animate Goal of a moved S’ by the extension ‘Loss of OBJACC’. 7. 5. 3. 5 -aC profiles Affected Recipient of OBJACC The –aC suffix is frequently used in the sense of adding a Recipient of OBJACC as a final endpoint, derived from an autonomous action directed towards OBJACC. In verbs of transfer the –aC suffix reverses the Recipient of OBJACC from subject/Agent to OBJDAT when a dative participant is present, as in (373)76. It therefore redirects the attention 76Compare a similar Recipiency function in Pero -n, e.g. pílù ‘buy’ vs. pílù-n ‘sell’, where it is suggested in Frajzyngier (1989: 175), comparing this derivation to the ‘buy-sell’ verb pair in Hausa, that ‘Perhaps a better explanation [than saying that ‘sell’ is ‘cause-to-buy’] would be to consider the -n here as indicating a change of the role of the subject, which is not any more the one who receives the thing purchased. The meaning of the verb pílù would have to be described in different terms, perhaps something like obtain, receive, etc.’. The basic functions of the -n suffix in Pero are described as
401
from subject recipiency to the dative participant as a Recipient, and emphasizes the effect of the verbal action on the OBJDAT participant. According to the completive interpretation of many Hausa speakers, the Theme has already reached the Recipient, and is no longer in motion, but at rest within the dative participant’s personal sphere. This contrasts with the gr1 applicative verbs, and with the inherent meaning of MA, where there are no such implications. See schema 3A for all examples. (Acting on sphere of influence, sphere of potency (373)-(375)) (373) a) Naa saæyi mootaæa I.PF transfer.commercially.2C car ‘I bought a car’
b) Naa I.PF
say-a® waæ Auduæ mootaæataa transfer.commercially-BEN(RECIP) DAT Audu car.my
‘I sold my car to Audu’
(374) a) Naa I.PF
(Ma Newman 1990: 239)
aæri gaæ®maa borrow.2C plough
‘I borrowed a plow (for myself)’
b) Naa I.PF
ar-am masaæ gaæ®maa borrow-BEN DAT.him plough
‘I borrowed a plow for him’
(375) a) Kunaæa neæemi you.PL.CONT seek.2C
(Newman 2000: 284)
aikì@ work
‘Are you seeking work (for yourself)?’
b) Kunaæa neem-a® waæ yaaroæonaa you.PL.CONT seek-BEN DAT boy.my ‘Are you seeking work for my boy?’
aikìi@ work
(Newman 2000: 283)
As in schemas 1A-B and 2A-B, this benefactive type is built on the structure S-V-OBJACC of grade 2 verbs. The added OBJDAT will benefit from the result of an autonomous action, in which the lexical verb only makes external (encyclopaedic knowledge) reference to a potential user of an acquired or created OBJACC. In the absence of the -aC suffix, which points to the effect on a downstream participant, the Beneficiary is interpreted as the subject participant, who then receives and benefits from the acquisition of OBJACC. As in the previous cases, the effect of adding -aC is to redirect the final endpoint (the energy sink) and stress the effect on the new participant, the dative. The black arrow here may, but does not necessarily entail motion. Rather, it is more to be understood as a metaphorical transfer, e.g. of rights or control over the transferred entity. Moreover, this transfer is done with a strong ‘anaphora with respect to benefactive and patient arguments and role changing’ (1989: 175)
402
intention on part of the Agent, such that the effect on the dative participant is either particularly good or bad. Schema 3A of -aC: Affected Recipient of OBJACC in acts of transfer. (S-V-OBJDAT-OBJACC)
Prose schema: An animate OBJDAT landmark is affected by an OBJACC brought to his PS by S in a setting.
!!
S
ACC/tr
DAT/lm Setting
Such a transferred entity does not have to be a concrete object, it can also be abstract. In cognitive verbs, such as koæoyaa – kooya® ‘learn – teach’, the ‘transferred object’ is abstract. Moreover, successful transfer implies that the OBJDAT participant is an incremental Theme, which could be pictured as in schema 2Ai. Vertical stripes indicate complete affectedness implied by the mental change of state. Subschema 3Ai: -aC profiles cognitively affected Recipient of OBJACC
!!
S
ACC/tr
DAT/lm Setting
Prose schema: An animate OBJDAT landmark is cognitively affected by an OBJACC brought under his control by S in a setting.
As an illustration, see this example, repeated from chapter 5. (187’)
a)
12¶-a® , -am: ‘Teacher Amina taught us Hausa (and we speak it fluently)’. Speakers’ SE:
[Affected]: ‘We [OBJDAT] know it [Hausa] well. /Our [OBJDAT’s] Hausa is now perfect, and we are very happy. We are now fully independent in speaking Hausa.’
(emphasis added), that is, very similar to the functions of the -aC suffix in Hausa.
403
Extensions: SCHEMA 2A ‘Affected Animate Goal of moved OBJACC’ is extended to SCHEMA 3A
‘Affected Recipient of OBJACC’ by the extension ‘Transfer implies that OBJDAT
controls OBJACC’. SCHEMA 3A ‘Affected Recipient of OBJACC’ is extended to subschema 3Ai ‘cognitively affected Recipient’ by the extension ‘Approach is mental’. It should be mentioned that schema 3A is reported to be more common with grade 1 benefactive verbs than with -aC forms, note the contrastive meanings in (376) below, which, according to Newman (2000: 284), are representative for some but not all speakers. That is, the -aC forms are more frequently used in the sense of schema 4 below. This may be taken to indicate that it is the Experiencer role that is more prevalent in the –aC/BEN suffix, and that allative (directional) meanings are less common or prominent, as was discussed in chapter 6. Note in this regard that in all the examples of the Goal senses the lexical meaning implies motion or transfer. (376) a) Naa I.PF
araæa lend.gr1
‘I lent him a plough’
b) Naa I.PF
masaæ gaæ®maa DAT.him plough
(Newman 2000: 284)
ar-am masaæ gaæ®maa borrow-BEN DAT.him plough
‘I borrowed a plough for him’
(Newman 2000: 284)
7. 5. 3. 6 -aC profiles Affected Recipient of action Some verbs denote autonomous processes within the subject. These are intransitive verbs which is in no need of an end point to be semantically autonomous. In such verbs, -aC may add a dative participant who then becomes a Recipient of such an action. The added OBJDAT experiences an action performed by an S that impinges on her PS, requiring her to react mentally to this action as an Experiencer in terms of her interpersonal relationship to the Agent. See (377-378) and (379). (Acting on sphere of awareness (377)-(378)) (377) a) Zaamuæ yaæ®daa FUT1 we agree.2A ‘We will agree’
b) Zaamuæ FUT1
ya®d-am we agree-BEN
‘We will trust you’
muku DAT.you.PL
(Newman 2000: 285)
404
(378) a) Naa I.PF
tuuba repent
‘I was sorry/I repented’
b) Naa I.PF
tuub-am repent-BEN
musuæ DAT.them
‘I sought their pardon (lit. I repented to them)’
(Newman 2000: 285)
Furthermore, -aC/BEN may further extend to an adversative meaning, adding an antonymic sense to the verb. That is, a verb will change its meaning to the opposite used with the – aC/BEN suffix. In (379) below, the verb haæ˚uraæ ‘be patient’ used with a OBJDAT encodes the meaning ‘give up on sb.’, that is, not be patient. The antonymic meaning is unique to this benefactive construction, and may be attributed to the HT effect associated with this suffix. It does not arise from the dative marker MA, since it does not add such a meaning when cooccurring with any of the other benefactive markers. (These have either an exclusively positive effect on OBJDAT (gr6 ventive), a negative effect (gr4 deprivative), or generally follow lexical verbal meaning (gr1).) (Acting on sphere of potency) (379) Yaa haa˚ur-am he.PF be.patient-BEN ‘He gave up on her’
ma-taæ DAT-her
Schema 3B of -aC: affected Recipient of action. (S-V-OBJDAT)
!! DAT/lm
Prose schema: An OBJDAT experiences an action impinging on her personal sphere in a setting.
S/tr Setting
Extension: Schema 3A ‘Affected Recipient of OBJACC’ is extended to schema 3B ‘Affected Recipient of action’ by the extension ‘Loss of OBJACC’. SCHEMA 3B ‘Affected Recipient of action’ is then extended to SCHEMA 3C ‘Adversatively affected animate Recipient of action, intrans.’ by the extension ‘Heavy impact is bad’.
405
7. 5. 3. 7 -aC profiles affected Experiencer via relationship to OBJACC This benefactive use of -aC implies emphasis on the increased effect of the dative participant via actions on an OBJACC preexisting within the dative object’s PS, i.e. not brought there by the Agent, and with whom the dative participant has especially close-knit ties. This very frequent sense of –aC/BEN profiles OBJDAT only as an Experiencer, not as a Recipient who is in any way part of the action chain (externalized EXPER). (380) a) Yaa buægi he.PF beat.2C ‘He beat the boy’
yaaroæo boy
(Acting on sphere of empathy) b) Yaa bug-am minì fiaa he.PF beat-BEN DAT.me son ‘He beat my son’
(381) a) Naa I.PF
soæoki stab.2C
‘I stabbed the horse’
(Newman 2000: 286)
dookìi horse
(Acting on sphere of influence) b) Naa sook-am masaæ dookìi I.PF stab-BEN DAT.him horse ‘I stabbed his horse’
(Newman 2000: 285)
(382) a) Kadaæ kaæ do.not you.SG.M.SJN ‘Don’t enter the room’
shìga enter.3A
fiaakìi room
(Acting on sphere of privacy, territory) b) Kadaæ kaæ shig-am mataæ fiaakìi do.not you.SG.M.SJN enter-BEN DAT.her room ‘Don’t barge into her room’
(Newman 2000: 286)
The last example may require some cultural explanation to be fully understood. Women’s premises are strictly forbidden for men and boys in Hausa culture, and this is where the notion of intimacy associated with the –aC/BEN suffix arises. Hence the translation of enter as barge into, the intensity is derived from –am/BEN. Recall the examples from chapter 5 saying that an action such as stealing, which involves transgression of the OBJDAT participant’s property, is done without this participant’s knowledge and in ways and from places that are considered particularly private and safe from intruders, described as a ‘huge breach of trust’. Similarly, acts of borrowing an object may be done without the dative participants knowledge and with great consequences for her, since it may be destroyed. These
406
are all descriptions of the interpersonal relationship between Agent and the OBJDAT participant, and hence an essential part of its meaning. One type of OBJDAT – OBJACC relationship for objects situated within the PS is that of possession. Interestingly, response numbers in a test performed to check out the semantics of -aC may be taken as an indication that schema 4 based on the Experiencer role is prototypical or central in the semantic network of -aC, and that the path metaphor is somewhat more peripheral (whereas the opposite is the case for the gr1 benefactive).77 In addition, the ‘high transitive’ or ‘intensive’ meaning known to be characteristic of the -aC benefactive would be especially apt to express the idea of intrusion into a personal sphere, and portray the dative participant as an affected Experiencer of actions on objects within her PS. Schema 4A of -aC: Affected externalized EXPER OBJDAT. (S-V-OBJDAT -OBJACC)
!!
S
ACC/tr
DAT/lm Setting
Prose schema: An animate OBJDAT experiences an action performed on an OBJACC already within her personal sphere in a setting and with whom/with which she has a special relationship.
Extension: SCHEMA 3A ‘Affected Recipient of OBJACC’ is extended to SCHEMA 4A ‘Affected Experiencer of action on OBJACC already within PS’ by the extension ‘OBJDAT has a close relationship to OBJACC’. 7. 5. 3. 8 -aC profiles affected Experiencer of action within PS In addition, -aC adds a new endpoint which is an OBJDAT experiencing an action within her personal sphere, as in (383)-(386).
77In my semantics test on the benefactive (appendix A, test 1), speakers pointed out the semantic characteristic ‘owner of OBJACC’ of the -aC/BEN verb forms in 98.4% (or 126 instances) of the responses. By contrast, with gr1 benefactives in the same set of sentences, 72.2% (or 26 instances) of the responses were specified as ‘owner of OBJACC’, with 27.8% (or 10 instances) where OBJDAT was specifically characterized as not being the owner of OBJACC.
407
(383) a) Yaa saæukaa aæ gidammuæ he.PF arrive.3A at house.ours ‘He arrived at our house’
(Acting within private sphere) b) Yaa sauk-am he.PF lodge.BEN
ma-naæ DAT-us
‘He lodged with us (against our wishes)’
(384) a) Raanaa sun
taa \ulloo daæ wurii 3SGF.PF appear.6A early
‘The sun has appeared early’
(Acting within sphere of awareness) b) Yaa \ull-am maæ Auduæ he.PF appear-BEN DAT Audu ‘He appeared to Audu’
(Munkaila 1990: 141)
(Acting within sphere of potency and influence (385b)-(386b)) (385) a) Yaa ìsaa hakaæ nan 3SGM.PF be.sufficient like this ‘That’s enough’
b) Allaæh yaa is-am masaæ God he.PF be.sufficient-BEN DAT.him ‘God is sufficient for him’ (Munkaila 1990: 147)
(386) a) Hafiaæ®ii accident
yaa 3SG.M.PF
aæuku cikin happen.7A in
b) Hafiaæ®ii accident
yaa 3SG.M.PF
auk-am masaæ happen-BEN DAT.him
‘An accident happened in the village’
˚auyeæe village
‘An accident happened to him’ (Newman 2000: 283/Munkaila 1990: 141 (adapted))
Schema 4B: -aC profiles affected EXPER of intransitive action within PS. (S-V-OBJDAT)
!!
DAT/lm S/tr
Setting
408
Prose schema: An animate OBJDAT is affected through experiencing an action within her PS in a setting.
Extension: SCHEMA 4A ‘Affected Experiencer of action on a OBJACC already within PS’ is extended to SCHEMA 4B ‘Affected Experiencer of action within PS’ by the extension ‘Loss of OBJACC’. 7. 5. 3. 9 –aC as affected EXPER of provoked loss of close-knit OBJACC (via lexical meaning or antonymic extension) The -aC suffix generally profiles both Malefactive and Beneficiary semantic roles of OBJDAT (Cf. e.g. Swets 1989, Munkaila 1990). The benefactive/ malefactive effect on the OBJDAT is normally a function of the lexical meaning of the verb, as in examples in (387a) and (388a), respectively (but note that specialized contexts could reverse this interpretation). (387) a) Yaa hoæori he.PF rear.2C
‘He reared the child’
yaaroæo child
b) Yaa hoor-am minì yaaroæo he.PF rear-BEN DAT.me child ‘He reared my child for me’
(388) a) ıaæraawoæo thief
(Magarya speaker, UU31)
yaa saæaci he.PF steal.2C
‘The thief stole a horse’
dookìi horse
b) ıaæraawoæo yaa saat-am manì dookìi thief he.PF steal-BEN DAT.me horse ‘The thief stole a horse from me’
(Dutsin Ma speaker, UA30)
(Note that (388b) also may mean ‘steal for’ when given the right context.) However, the malefactive/benefactive distinction is also present in verbs whose lexical content is semantically neutral, such as fiaæukaa ‘pick up’, kaæ®\aa ‘receive’, or aæmsaa ‘receive, accept’, which despite their lexical content may profile both doing for/giving to and taking from the dative participant, as in (389). (Acting on sphere of potency and influence) (389) Kin ams-am¶-a® mataæ kufiii you.F.PF receive-BEN DAT.her money
‘A. Did you receive money for her (i.e. to give to her later)? (Dogondoutchi and Magarya speakers) B. Did you take/receive money from her (by force)?’ (Gusau and Magarya speakers)
The malefactive ‘taking’ interpretation in B. represents an extended meaning of -aC, since this meaning is not part of the lexical meaning of the verb. In such cases, the action results in the removal of the possessed object from the dative object’s PS via antonymic extension of schema 4A to schema 4C below.
409
Schema 4C of -aC: Affected deprived EXPER possessor
!!
S/tr
ACC/tr
DAT/lm
Prose schema: OBJDAT is affected by an intensive action that removes a closeknit OBJACC from her PS in a setting.
Setting
Extension: SCHEMA 4A ‘Affected EXPER of action on OBJACC already within PS’ is extended to SCHEMA 4C ‘Affected EXPER of provoked loss of close-knit OBJACC’ by the extension ‘Heavy impact is bad/ ‘Action results in loss’. Schema 4C represents both lexically motivated and antonymic instances of benefactive marking that result in an OBJACC leaving the PS. It should be noted that the malefactive role does not always equal motion away from the dative object’s PS, since 1) objects/participants within PS may be unwanted by the OBJDAT, thus their removal may be seen as increasing the dative object’s potency and sphere of influence (see (390)-(391) below), and 2) a malefactive action need not result in the removal of the OBJACC from PS (see (336), (339) in 7. 3. 5. 1 above). In that sense, schema 4C (as well as 4A above) is required to cover both role types, i.e. be neutral with respect to the malefactive/benefactive distinction, their common denominator being the accentuated effect on the OBJDAT participant. 7. 5. 3. 10 –aC as affected EXPER of S leaving PS Likewise, -aC profiles a dative participant who is affected, either positively or negatively, by an S leaving her PS. Note that in (390)-(391), the sphere of influence is actually increased by a participant leaving it, since it yields OBJDAT her personal space. Interestingly, both these examples portray situations where the sentence is uttered by the OBJDAT participant and where the subject/Agent is considered to be too close to her. The use of the –aC/BEN suffix is appropriate because the intimacy is unwanted. Note that the loss of the OBJACC results in the subjects moving into the intimate position, thus maintaining intensity.
410
(Acting on private sphere (390)-(391)) (390) Kaæ fit-am you.SG.M.SJN go.out-BEN ‘Get out of my house!’
minì gidaa! DAT.me house
(391) Kì kaw-am minì kafian you.SG.F.SJN move.away-BEN DAT.me a.little ‘Move away from me a little’
(Parsons 1962)
Schema 4D of -aC: EXPER affected by physically close S leaving PS
!!
S/tr
DAT/lm
Prose schema: An animate OBJDAT is affected by a physically close S leaving her PS in a setting.
Setting
Extension: SCHEMA 4C ‘Affected EXPER of provoked loss of close-knit OBJACC’ is extended to SCHEMA 4D ‘Affected EXPER by a close S leaving PS’ by the extension ‘Loss of OBJACC’. 7. 5. 4 Summary network of benefactive -aC and transition to causative In all of the senses in which -aC profiles affectedness of an animate benefactive role (Goal, Recipient, Experiencer), the dative participant is a passive (though potentially active) experiencing participant. She is a goal of some unspecified action which she responds to mentally, but not in terms of physical action.
411
Figure 7.11: Semantic network of benefactive senses of -aC GOAL
EXPERIENCER
SCHEMA 1A ALLATIVE
SCHEMA 2A ALLATIVE
Inanimate Goal of moved OBJACC
Affected animate Goal of moved OBJACC
Goal is animate
Loss of OBJACC
SCHEMA 3A/3Ai RECIPIENT
Affected animate RCP
OBJDAT of OBJACC controls OBJACC/ Approach Loss of Loss of may be OBJACC OBJACC mental
SCHEMA 4A BENEFACTIVE OBJDAT has a preexisting close relationship to OBJACC
Affected Experiencer of action on OBJACC within PS Loss of OBJACC
SCHEMA 4C
Heavy impact is bad: Verb attains opposite meaning/ action results in loss
Experiencer (possessor) affected by provoked loss Loss of OBJACC
SCHEMA 1B
SCHEMA 2B
SCHEMA 3B
SCHEMA 4B
SCHEMA 4D
ALLATIVE Inanimate Goal of moved S
ALLATIVE Affected animate Goal of moved S
Affected animate Recipient of action
Affected Experiencer of action within PS
Affected Experiencer of physically close S leaving PS
Goal is animate
Approach is mental
OBJDAT has a close relationship to S
Heavy impact is bad: Verb attains opposite meaning
Action results in loss
SCHEMA 3C
Adversatively affected Recipient of action
In the next section we shall see that the high transitivity effect profiled by -aC on the passive Experiencer in the benefactive is portrayed differently when combined with an INST marked human participant, a Causee. When profiling the high transitivity effect on a Causee role, the initiated action is also experienced by a downstream participant, but this Experiencer is in addition an externally motivated participant who is part of the action chain, who plays a more active role in the event, that is, she is a co-actor. This transfer of meaning is accompanied by a shift from using dative to using instrumental case. The dative vs. instrumental case has been exploited contrastively in causative constructions in other languages as well (for example in Kannada), to distinguish a passive Recipient of the action (dative marking) from a participant who is induced to do something within her power and who has more autonomy of action (instrumental marking), that is, who is more active (Kemmer and Verhagen 1994: 133, Cole 1983: 120).
412
7. 5. 5 -aC in the sense of Secondary agent (Causee) In combination with an INST marked participant, when no OBJDAT is present, the -aC suffix will profile high transitivity effects on the semantic roles held by the OBJ1INST in the TC and the IC constructions. These roles will be susceptible to the lexical content of the verb, regarding the distinction action vs. motion verb, and among the action verbs, whether it signifies active verbs or inactive change of state verbs. The distinction animate vs. inanimate OBJ1INST is also likely to be relevant, as we saw in chapter 5, where a certain verb used with inanimate objects would yield a Mover interpretation, and animate or human would rather be otherwise affected. Causation per se implies a before and after situation, in the sense of the rise of a new situation. For this reason, causative constructions have been noted to grammaticalize e.g. into inchoative meanings. In Hausa, inchoative base verbs, that is, those who inherently designate a change of state in the subject participant, also transfer this semantic role to the Causee when causativized. However, when the –aC dà construction is used to increase motion as a result of high transitivity effects, this can also be seen as a type of change of state (in the sense of change of location), but one that is added by the construction, not the lexical content of the base verb. All the semantic roles profiled by INST in combination with the -aC suffix have in common that they are the second participants in the action chain, i.e. they are directly acted on by the subject. 7. 5. 5. 1 Causative meaning with mental Causees In verbs where the INST marked downstream participant is animate, the -aC suffix may profile an added Experiencer in a Causee role. The causative in the S- OBJINST- OBJACC construction is based on a transitive verb, as in (392-416).78 The example in (398) shows that the -aC suffix profiles more than just recipiency or experience of an externally caused action, since the Causee actively carries out the action encoded by the lexical verb. The suggestion that one of the functions of the -aC suffix is to render a verb transitive (Newman 2000: 656) 78The general impression of some Hausaists is that this type of construction is not frequent in Hausa (Paul Newman, p.c. 2003, Andrew Haruna, p.c. 2003). However, this is said with the reservation that the matter has not been looked into and examples may be few for that reason. The construction is described, however, in two larger grammars (Jaggar 2001: 255 and 424, Newman 2000: 660). It is
413
is thus insufficient, since the OBJINST in (398) does not hold a Patient role. (This type is more amply exemplified here than other types because it is thought by some to be a less common sentence type than schema 5B, see fn. 78.) (392) SUBJ Gwamnatì government
TAM zaa taæ FUT1 3SGF
V OBJ1 san-a® daæ jaæma*aæa know-CAUS INST people
‘The government will inform the people about the new law’
(393) Yaa he.PF
nuu®-ad find.out-CAUS
OBJ2 ¶ACC saabuwa® doæoka]® new.of law
(Jaggar 2001: 424)
daæ shii hanyaæa INST 3.SG.M.IND road
‘He showed him the road (lit. made him find the road)’ (Dogondoutchi speaker, SM28)
(394) Naa I.PF
gaan-ad daæ kuu understand-CAUS INST you.PL.IND
(395) Naa I.PF
ciy-a® daæ dookìinaa daawaæa eat-CAUS INST horse.my guineacorn
wuæya® maæganaæ® hausa difficulty.of speaking.of hausa
‘I have explained to you, caused you to understand, how difficult the Hausa language is’ (cf. gaaneæe ‘understand, realize’, gaanoo ‘discover’) (Bargery 1934)
‘I fed my horse guineacorn’
(396) Dattiijoæ senator
(Jaggar 2001: 424)
yaa gad-a® daæ *yan ˚auyeæe he.PF inherit-CAUS INST sons.of village
a®zìkinsaæ fortune.his
‘The senator bequeathed his fortune to the villagers’ (Dogondoutchi speaker, SM28)
(397) Allaæh yaa may-a® daæ Auduæ taajì®ii God he.PF replace-CAUS INST Audu rich.man ‘God turned Audu into a rich man’
(398) Maalaæm teacher
(Andrew Haruna, p.c.)
yaa is-ad daæ yaaroæo he.PF reach-CAUS INST boy
ka]n saæa˚oo carrying.of message
‘The teacher made the boy deliver the message’ (Dogondoutchi speaker, SM28)
The active action carried out by these OBJINST participants are specifically that: the people knew the law (392), he found the road (393), you understood the difficulty of speaking Hausa (394), the horse ate the guinea-corn (395), the villagers inherited the fortune (396), and the boy delivered the message (398). The actions trigger an active mental response. The -aC suffix profiles the Secondary agent in the same manner as in so-called ‘dative languages’, that is, when the shared phonological material of the causative construction is the Causee being encoded with dative case. Considering Langacker’s description of the Secondary agent as a mental level participant capable both of experiencing an externally caused action and of reacting to it in terms of further action (1991a: 413), it seems clear that a
also confirmed by a Dogondoutchi speaker that this construction is commonly used in Niger (Dogondoutchi, Tahoua, and Bi®nin gonni).
414
dative marked Causee differs from a Beneficiary in one important respect: its place in the action chain. While many languages, like Hausa, express causative and benefactive by a common affix, some languages have no other means to express the Causee role in causative constructions than dative case. Although this is not explicitly stated by Langacker, I would suggest that one logical consequence of his description of the Secondary agent is the following: • Secondary agents that are dative marked are second in the action chain, exactly like instrumentally marked ones. The difference between instrumental and dative Secondary agent lies in the point of departure of the original (unextended) schema. In a prototypical dative schema as used in the benefactive, the dative participant is external to the action chain (or it is the final end-point, as in some analyses of the Recipient role, e.g. Janda 1993: 55)). In a language with common marking of the Beneficiary and the Causee, on the other hand, this phonological material only exploits the mental Experiencer qualities in the corresponding causative construction, not its position in the action chain. In a causative, it is the Causee who relates to the OBJACC, not the subject/Causer. This is illustrated in Schema 5A. Schema 5A: -aC profiling transitive action mental Causee – (S-V-OBJINST-OBJACC) Prose schema: A Subject acts on an EXPER to make her act in relation to a OBJACC in a setting. S
EXPER’
ACC
Setting
This schema can in principle be extended from any of the benefactive schemas below the high-level Experiencer schema. However, since a reaction to the Causer’s initiative in terms of further action by the Causee would presumably imply a certain degree of affectedness, schema 4A would appear the more plausible one. Extensions may therefore be formulated like this:
415
Extensions: SCHEMA 4A ‘Affected Experiencer of action on close-knit OBJACC already within PS’ is extended to ‘Affected Active Experiencer mediates action on OBJACC’ by the extension ‘OBJDAT is second in the action chain, OBJDAT experiences S’s action and reacts to it by acting on OBJACC’. Additional examples of this construction include79: fahimta® ‘cause s.o. to understand sth.’, nuu®ad daæ ‘show; make find out’, ciya® ‘feed, provide for’ (< ci ‘eat’), kooya® ‘teach’ (< koæoyaa ‘learn’), shaaya® ‘water; irrigate; suckle’ (< shaa ‘drink’), huutad daæ ‘relieve s.o. of necessity of doing sth.’ (< huutaæa ‘relax, rest’).
It is not uncommon in other languages that Causees that are seen as Beneficiaries or Recipients along with being made to do something are encoded with the dative case, e.g. in Hindi (cf. example (277a)) and Spanish (Ackerman and More 1995). Hausa would be another example where phonological material associated with a Beneficiary role extends to causative usage while the Recipiency/ Experiencer aspect is still present, as in Naa shaaya® daæ dookìinaa ruwaa ‘I let my horse drink water’. Extension: SCHEMA 4A ‘Affected Experiencer of action on close-knit OBJACC already within PS’ is extended to SCHEMA 5A ‘Secondary agent mediating action in relation to OBJACC’ by the extension ‘EXPER actively takes part in action on OBJACC’. The -aC suffix may also profile a mental Causee in a causative construction based on an intransitive verb. In (399), an intransitive action (‘to wake up’) is mediated via an INST Causee, who is also the endpoint and experiences the action directly. This type appears to be much more frequent than its transitive counterpart (examples in grammars and dictionaries are numerous). (399) SUBJ Abôn nan thing.DEF this
TAM V yaa fafiak-ad 3SG.M.PF wake.up-CAUS
OBJ1 daæ INST.SEC.AG
nii me.IND.PRO
‘This thing has reminded me/brought me to my senses’ (Bargery 1934) (cf. faæfiakaæ ‘wake up, understand’)
79Although INST dà is included in dictionaries following instances of causative/caused-motion (grade 5) verbs, it is superfluous to repeat it each time here with the -a® suffix. For the sake of naturalness, however, it will still be included when a source of assimilation in the assimilated -ad variant.
416
Intransitive based causatives are also commonly combined with an adverb of place, such that the number of arguments will be the same as in schema 5A: (400)
SUBJ a) Amiinaæa Amina
TAM taa she.PF
V shig-a® enter-CAUS
OBJ1 daæ ya]rantaæ INST children.her
‘Amina made her children enter the room’ (Andrew Haruna, p.c. 2003)
b) Aikìn yaa work 3SG.M.PF
ciy-a® daæ Baælaa gaæba eat-CAUS INST Bala front
ADV fiaakìi room
(cf. ci gaæba ‘continue’)
‘The work has made Bala progress (in his career)’ (Andrew Haruna, p.c. 2003)
c) Laulaæyii sickness
yaa 3SG.M.PF
koom-a® daæ yaaroæn baaya return-CAUS INST boy.theback
‘The sickness has made the boy not make progress (e.g. in school)’ (Andrew Haruna, p.c. 2003)
Notice the passive ⇒ active transition of the EXPER in these examples. Whereas the dative marking of the downstream participant in benefactives serves to delimit and confine action, making them less free to act, instrumental case has an enabling effect on the downstream participant. The instrumental marking, by contrast, signals that the Experiencer is free to act. This is not surprising, since a Causee (as well as an instrumental) is part of the action chain. Metaphorically speaking, energy thus flows through this participant, and it does not have the role of an energy sink, as does the Beneficiary. (401)
Yaa sauk-am he.PF lodge.BEN
ma-naæ DAT-us
Yaa sauk-a® daæ he.PF lodge-CAUS INST
⇒
‘He lodged on us (against our wishes)’
(402)
aæbinci yaa God
is-am
mataæ
muu us.IND
‘He let us stay at his house (lit. He lodged us)’
⇒ Yaaroæo yaa
he.PF reach-BEN DAT.her
‘The food was enough for her’
boy
is-a®
daæ
saæa˚oo
he.PF reach-CAUS INST message
‘The boy delivered the message’
Moreover, it was found with one Hausa speaker (the only one asked) that dative case may be used in causative constructions with the special interpretation (construal) that dative marked Causee is forced to act against her will. That is, the use of dative case delimits the Causee’s choices rather than having an enabling effect on the intermediary participant. Confer the examples in (403), provided by informant SM28. (403) a)
Amiinaæ Amina
taa ciy-a® masaæ tuwoo she.PF eat-CAUS DAT.him porridge
Amiinaæ Amina
zaa taæ ciy-a® daæ shii (daæ) tuwoo FUT1 she eat-CAUS INST him.IND (INST) porridge
1) ‘Amina ate his porridge (took it from him)’ 2) ‘Amina forced him to eat porridge (against his will)’
b)
‘Amina will feed him (with) porridge’
417
BENEFACTIVE construal CAUSATIVE construal
CAUSATIVE construal
Schema 5B -aC profiling intransitive action mental Causee – (S-V-OBJINST)
S
EXPER’
Setting
Prose schema: A Subject acts on an EXPER to make her act or go through a verbal process in a setting.
Additional examples of this construction include: kawaita® ‘silence sb.’ (< kaæwaitaæ ‘be/become silent’),
gajiya® ‘tire, bore’ (< gaæji ‘become tired’), tafiya® ‘run, administer’ (< taæfi ‘go’), tsiira® ‘rescue’
(tsiira ‘escape’), warka® ‘cure’ (< warkeæe ‘get well’), rantsa® ‘swear into office’ (< rantseæe ‘swear, take oath’),
fanfiarad daæ ‘cause someone to become apostate’ (< fanfiaæree ‘deviate, hold opinion different from
that of others, be an apostate’), at the head of’),
gabatad daæ ‘promote someone; make someone leader’ (< gaæbaataæ ‘be/become
hala®tad daæ ‘summon someone into presence of someone’ (< haæla®taæ come/go into the
presence of someone, visit’),
himmanta® ‘cause someone to put forth his best efforts, do his best’
(< hìmmantaæ ‘do one’s best’), jiifiad daæ ‘lodge someone’ ( -am /__ m-) between the causative and benefactive -aC. 5. In one dialect, Tahoua, variations of the -aC suffix (-as, -at) works by agreement, primarily with the dative object (OBJDAT), and irrespective of whether the verbal meaning is causative/caused-motion or benefactive. Scattered incidents of such an agreement pattern are found throughout Hausaland. It therefore aligns with many other Chadic languages in this respect.
428
8. 1 Testing phonology 8. 1. 1 Test construction This section will present the construction of the phonological tests, which were designed to give an answer to the question: is there a phonological difference between causative/causedmotion -aC and benefactive -aC in Hausa? The phonology test consists of sentences made with seven different verbs, each of which has one benefactive and one causative and/or caused-motion sense. Caused-motion here refers to sentences with Mover objects. Verbs participating in transfer actions are likewise labelled caused-motion, since they imply motion of the transferred object. The verbs included in the test were: (411)
shigaC (daæ) zaaburaC (daæ) kooyaC (daæ) jeefaC (daæ) harbaC (daæ) zubaC (daæ) sayaC (daæ)
Benefactive
Causative/caused-motion
‘enter’ ‘spring/leap up’ ‘learn’ ‘throw at’ ‘shoot’ ‘stream’ ‘buy’
‘put in’ - CAUS ‘make spring/leap at/up, make attack’ - CAUS ‘teach’ – CAUS/CMN ‘throw away’ - CMN ‘kick off’ - CMN ‘pour (away)’ – CAUS/CMN ‘sell’ – CAUS/CMN
(The instrumental marker dà may occur with the causative but not the benefactive sense.) The test was designed with these questions in mind: 1) what suffixes are used to express causative/caused-motion meanings? 2) what suffixes are used to express benefactive meaning? Despite the main grouping into ‘benefactive’ and ‘causative/caused-motion’, there are subvariations of the semantic roles within each type due to the varying lexical semantics of the verbs. The sentences with similar semantic roles will be presented in groups, with reference to the respective schemas in the semantic analysis (7. 5). The verbs zaaburaC ‘spring at’ and jeefaC ‘throw at’ are used in an allative sense (alternatively: Goal), and involve motion towards the OBJDAT. In the transitive variant, the OBJACC is set in motion by S and moves towards the OBJDAT participant, as in 1. and 2. below. Cf. the schema 2A of -aC ‘Affected animate Goal of moved OBJACC’ in 7. 5.
429
Allative (transitive): 1. Taa jeef-aC she.PF throw-BEN
‘She threw money at him’
2.
Taa jeef-aC she.PF throw-BEN
masaæ kufiii DAT.him money maæ¶waæ Hamidu DAT Hamidu
‘She threw his money at Hamidu’
kufiinsaæ money.GEN.his
In the intransitive variant, the subject itself moves towards the OBJDAT, as in 3. and 4. Cf. schema 2B ‘Affected animate Goal of moved S’ in 7. 5. Allative (intransitive): 3. Zaakìi yaa zaabur-aC lion he.PF spring.up-BEN ‘The lion sprang at Audu’
4.
Zaakìi yaa zaabur-aC lion he.PF spring.up-BEN ‘The lion sprang at him’
maæ¶waæ DAT
Audu Audu
masaæ DAT.him
The sentences in 5. and 6. are ambiguous in the sense that the OBJDATs could be interpreted either as externalized Experiencers in the sense that the action was done on behalf of the OBJDAT (cf. schema 4A Affected externalized EXPER), or in the sense that OBJDAT is a Recipient of OBJACC (cf. schema 3A Affected Recipient of OBJACC in 7. 5). This ambiguity was not foreseen when making the test and can therefore not be distinguished in the test results. However, both types are commonly associated with the benefactive crosslinguistically, and this would therefore not affect the conclusion. Affected Recipient of OBJACC: 5. Sun say-aC minì dookìi they.PF buy-BEN DAT.me horse ‘They bought a horse for me’
6.
Sun they.PF
say-aC maæ¶waæ buy-BEN DAT
‘They bought a horse for their parents’
mahaæifansuæ parents.their
dookìi horse
The sense that the action is done for the benefit of or on behalf of the dative participant is represented in 7. through 10. Cf. schema 4A Affected externalized EXPER in 7. 5. Externalized Experiencer of transitive action: 7. UÆæbansaæ yaa baa shì kufiôn kaæ®aæatuu. Yaa kooy-aC father he.PF give him money.GEN reading He.PF learn-BEN uæbansaæ father.GEN.his
lissaafì. accounting
‘His father gave him money to study. He learnt accounting for his father(’s sake)’
430
maæ¶waæ DAT
8.
UÆæbansaæ father
yaa baa he.PF give
shì him
kufiôn kaæ®aæatuu. Yaa kooyaC money.GEN reading He.PF learn
masaæ lissaafì. DAT.him accounting
‘His father gave him money to study. He learnt accounting for him (i.e. for his sake)’
Action done by subject in lieu of OBJDAT: 9. Yaa harb-aC minì zaakìi he.PF shoot-BEN DAT.me lion ‘He shot a/the lion for me’
10.
Yaa harb-aC he.PF shoot-BEN
maæ¶waæ DAT
di®eebaæ driver
‘He shot a/the lion for the driver’
zaakìi lion
In 11. and 12, the OBJDAT participant is affected through her relationship to the OBJACC. In 13. and 14. she is an Experiencer of an intransititive action. Affected possessor of OBJACC: 11. Yaa shig-aC mataæ gidaa he.PF enter-BEN DAT.her house ‘He entered her house’
12.
Macìjii yaa shig-aC snake he.PF enter-BEN
maæ¶waæ DAT
‘The snake entered the teacher’s room’
Maalaæm teacher
fiaakìnsaæ room.GEN.his
Externalized Experiencer of intransitive action: 13. Hawaæayee sukaæ zub-aC masaæ tears they.RL.PF stream-BEN DAT.him ‘The tears streamed down on him’
14.
Hawaæayee sukaæ tears they.RL.PF
zub-aC stream-BEN
‘The tears streamed down on Mustafa’
maæ¶waæ Mustafaæ DAT Mustafa
The same verb stems as were used in the benefactive were included with a causative/causedmotion meaning of the -aC suffix, with and without a dative object. They can be subclassified as follows. Intransitive based, causative meaning, no OBJDAT. The verb shigaC (daæ) ‘put in (‘make enter’)’: 15. Yaa shig-aC daæ mootaæa he.PF enter-CAUS INST car ‘He put the car in the garage’
16.
Mootaæa cee car COP.F
ga®eejì garage
ya shig-aC he.RL.PF enter-CAUS
‘It was the/a car he put in the garage’
431
ga®eejì garage
17.
Mootaæa car
cee COP.F
‘It was the/a car he put in’
ya shig-aC he.RL.PF enter-CAUS
The verb zaabu®aC (daæ) ‘make spring at/up, make attack’: 18.
Dookìi horse
nee COP.M
ya zaabur-aC daæ shii he.RL.PF spring.up-CAUS INST IND.him
Dookìi horse
nee COP.M
ya zaabur-aC he.RL.PF spring.up-CAUS
‘It was the horse he made spring at/attack (him)81’
19.
‘It was the horse he made spring up/attack’
Transitive based, transactional causative/caused-motion with MVR object (potentially extendable with a Recipient/Causee): The verb kooyaC (daæ) ‘teach’: 20. Kaæ®aæatuu neæe ta Reading COP.M she.RL.PF
kooy-aC learn-CAUS
‘It is reading she has taught’
The verb sayaC (daæ) ‘sell’: 21. Yaa say-aC he.PF transfer.commercially-MVR ‘He sold a horse’
22.
Dookìi horse
nee COP.M
‘It was a horse he sold’
daæ dookìi INST horse
ya say-aC he.RL.PF transfer.commercially-CMN¶TH
Motion verbs may be combined with a causative meaning in the sense that the lexical motion described in the base verb is shifted from the subject to the INST object, which is now the Secondary agent, or Mover, in practical terms, cf. zubaC (daæ) ‘pour away’ above (cf. intr zuæbaa ‘stream, leak’). I addition, there is an caused-motion ‘away’ semantic component caused by the HT effect. Motion verbs that do not participate in such shifting of roles (that is, no intransitive base verb can be found where the subject is matched onto the MVR role) include jeefaC daæ ‘throw away’ (contrasted with gr2 jèefaa or jeefaC ‘throw at’) and harbaC (daæ) ‘kick off’ (compare gr2 hàrbaa or harbaC ‘shoot’; sting (of insect bites)’. 81 Other possible meanings of these sentences (for which the informants were not tested, but which are attested by a Dogondoutchi speaker, SM28) are: a) It was the horse he frightened it /him with, or b) It was the horse he frightened with it/him. In the first case the horse is an instrumental and ‘it/him’ is the patient, in the latter case ‘it/him’ is the instrumental and the horse is the patient. A final meaning is to view the final independent pronoun shi as a resumptive (dummy) pronoun where OBJINST is co-
432
Causative meaning with added motion effect on MVR objects: The verb zubaC (daæ) ‘pour (away)’: 23. An zub-aC 3SG.IMP.PF leak-CAUS-CMN
daæ hatsii INST grain
‘The grain was poured away (lit. One poured away grain)’
24.
Hatsii neæe grain COP
sukaæ they.RL.PF
‘It was the grain they poured away’
zub-aC leak-CAUS-CMN
Transitive motion verbs with added effect on MVR objects: The verbs jeefaC daæ ‘throw away’ and harbaC (daæ) ‘kick off’: 25. Taa jeef-aC daæ kufiii she.PF throw-CMN INST money ‘She threw away money’
26.
Kufiii money
neæe COP.M
ta she.RL.PF
‘It was money she threw away’
27.
Saaniyaæa taa harb-aC cow she.PF shoot-CMN
daæ igiyaæa INST rope
‘The cow kicked off the rope’
28.
Igiyaaæ rope
cee saaniyaæa COP.F cow
‘It was the rope the cow kicked off’
jeef-aC throw-CMN
ta harb-aC she.RL.PF shoot-CMN
The following are causative/caused-motion verbs that occur with a simultaneous benefactive role on OBJDAT. The semantic roles of OBJDATs in the CAUS/CMN-benefactive sentences below include Goals, Recipients and Beneficiaries. The INST marked objects are Causees or Movers. Causative (inanimate Causee – ‘car’) and externalized Experiencer OBJDAT: The verb shigaC (daæ) ‘put in’: 29. Yaa shig-aC masaæ daæ mootaæa he.PF enter-CAUS DAT.him INST car ‘He put the car in the garage for him’
30.
Yaa shig-aC he.PF enter-CAUS
maæ¶waæ DAT
‘He put the car in the garage for Audu’
Auduæ mootaæa Audu car
ga®eejì garage ga®eejì garage
referent with the horse (the preposition dà cannot be stranded), yielding the meaning ‘It was the horse he frightened (made spring up)’.
433
Causative/caused-motion (inanimate Causee/HT-MVR object - ‘water’) with externalized Experiencer OBJDAT: The verb zubaC (daæ) ‘pour away’: 31. Aminaæa taa zub-aC maæ¶waæ Amina she.PF leak-CAUS-CMN DAT ‘Amina poured away the water for his mother’
32.
Aminaæa Amina
uæwa®saæ mother-his
daæ ruwaa INST water
taa zub-aC mataæ daæ ruwaa she.PF leak-CAUS-CMN DAT.her INST water
‘Amina poured away the water for her’
Transitive based, transactional causative with overt Recipient/Causee, and transferred MVR INST object (alternatively construable as a benefactive demarcating effect on Recipient OBJDAT): The verb sayaC (daæ) ‘sell’82: 33. Yaa say-aC musuæ he.PF buy-CAUS DAT.them
daæ dookìi INST horse
The verb kooyaC (daæ) ‘teach’ 34. Taa kooy-aC she.PF learn-CAUS
Suleman Suleman
‘He sold them a horse/he sold the horse for them’
maæ¶waæ DAT
‘She taught Suleman how to read’
35.
Taa she.PF
kooy-aC learn-CAUS
‘She taught him how to read’
kaæ®aæatuu reading
masaæ kaæ®aæatuu DAT.him reading
Causative and allative: 36.
Yaa zaabu®-aC masaæ daæ dookìi he.PF spring.up-CAUS DAT.him INST horse ‘He made the horse spring at him/attack him’
Externalized Experiencer OBJDAT and HT-MVR object: 37.
Taa she.PF
jeef-aC throw-CMN
‘She threw his money away’
masaæ daæ kufiii DAT.him INST money
82 The Hausa sentence is actually ambiguous and may have either of the meanings ‘He sold them a horse’ or ‘He sold the(ir) horse for them’. The French translation which was presented to the Hausa speakers from Niger is ambiguous in the same way: Il leur a vendu un cheval. Ambiguity in the responses may arise among the French speaking Hausas, including the dialects of Dogondoutchi and Tahoua, whereas in Sokkoto, Gusau, Sabon Birni and Dutsin Ma the Hausas are English speaking, and this ambiguity would not arise.
434
The test forms as they were presented to the informants are listed in appendix A. The total number of test sentences was 42, that is, a higher number than these 37 sentences. This is due to some sentences occurring twice, one with the mà and one with the wà noun dative marker, according to dialect. 8. 1. 2 The selection of informants The fieldwork was done as a dialectal survey, covering the major areas of Hausaland in both Niger and Nigeria, that is, testing dialects on both sides of the West/East divide. The informants were found and selected on a roundtrip in Hausaland, going from Dogondoutchi in Niger, down south crossing the border to Nigeria, where the first stop was Sokoto, then passing Gusau on the way to Dutsin Ma, from there a short stop in Kano, before going back north via Katsina to Niger, to the town of Magarya in the easternmost part of Hausa-speaking Niger. The reason for including a large proportion of informants from Dutsin Ma was to test the controversial -as/BEN suffix in an area close to where former scholars have collected their data: Dutsin Ma lies right in between Kano and Katsina (one hour’s drive in each direction), which are two major cities whose dialects are well known among Hausaists, and which have been the basis for their hypotheses about Hausa. A full list of informants can be found in appendix A, section 4. Regarding sex, all informants except one (Fatima) are male. The reason for mainly working with male informants is mainly practical/cultural. Regarding geographical distribution, about half of the speakers are from Dutsin Ma, 10 are from various villages around Sokoto state (Mainio, Tangaza, Zanfara, Maradun, Mafara, Gidan Madawa, gaura Namoda, Sabon Birni), 2 from Gusau, which is halfway between Sokoto and Kano, and 5 are from Dogondoutchi in the westernmost part of Hausaspeaking Niger. See dialect map in 8. 2. A note should be made about the speakers from around Sokoto State: these were all interviewed in Sokoto town, where some of them went to school, others were teachers. The idea was to get a sample from the Sokoto district, and I was careful to take down the village or town they were from. However, after return from fieldwork I discovered that there were six different "Sabon Birni"s (a common name meaning ‘new town’) - four of which can be found in the Sokoto State, the largest one North-East of Sokoto town close to the Niger border and the closest one just north of Sokoto town. This means that I cannot be exact as to the
435
whereabouts of these speakers. This being so, I do not think it will have a bearing on the overall results from this dialectal area, since the other villages are also scattered about in the Sokoto State area. Another note concerns the Zanfara and Mainio (Mainiyo) villages. I have not been able to find these on the map. However, I assume that Zanfara would not be far from the Zamfara river, which runs south of Sokoto town, past the towns of Jega and Gunmi/Gummi. The villages Satko and Tambuwal were reported to be situated in Zanfara/Zamfara, but I have not been able to locate them exactly (unless "Tambuwal" is a local pronunciation of Tambawel, which may well be the case). The Zamfara district can be found South-East of Sokoto town. This being said, the fact that these villages have not been pointed out on the map does not mean that they do not exist, more likely, the resouces at my disposal (available maps) after returning from the fieldwork were only too limited. 8. 1. 3 The testing process The phonology test was performed on a total of 49 speakers. Each of the test sentences was presented to the informants by my research assistant (who was a native speaker of Hausa) with each of the alternative suffixes -a®, -as, -am (-aw before w-), -at and -an (ª-a,º), and informants were asked which of these suffixes they used themselves, in their own variant of Hausa. The process was supervised and directed by myself, and I took down the responses in writing on a separate questionnaire for each informant. With some, but not all, a tape recording backup was made. The reason why recording was not done with all of the informants were partly practical (batteries or tapes unavailable on location), or cultural (informants resisted having their voices on tape). However, the responses were carefully noted down on the spot and asked to be repeated if I was in doubt about the quality. The total number of responses for the phonology test summed up to 3,108. These were transcribed into a Filemaker program for future counts, based on my written documentation of the responses. 8. 1. 4 Evaluation of reliability The phonology test was an acceptance test, not a production test. Regarding the reliablity of the responses, there was generally a firm attitude and considerable degree of certainty in accepting or discarding sentences, and informants often repeated the sentence to see if it ‘felt
436
good’, keeping the sentence meaning in mind (causative/caused-motion or benefactive). Informants would often, if they discarded a suffix, refer me to ‘another part of Hausaland’, with the explanation that ‘we don’t say that here’: baa aæ ce] hakaæ nan’. A frequent situation for some informants, though, was to accept more than one suffix, especially in the Dutsin Ma area. I take the fact that such variation was accepted in a particular geographical area rather than being a general result in all dialect areas as an indication that the responses were indeed accurate and according to the real usage of these suffixes, rather than to be due to some methodological flaws in the testing process.
8. 2 Establishing a dialectal map of the Hausa -aC suffixes During the course of my fieldwork, it appeared that the use of the various suffixes is distributed according to dialectal areas. Thus, in the following, I will present the occurrences of the various suffixes and relate them to geographical areas. It must be said as a general comment on establishing these dialects that the survey does not cover all of the Hausa-speaking area with respect to this matter. Consequently, the presentation will be more like loosely suggested dialectal areas than the establishment of precise isoglosses. Something also needs to be said about a certain bias in the data. This bias concerns 1) How many speakers represent each dialect area, and 2) The specific number of responses from each speaker. Regarding the first point, it should be noted that the survey was done with the primary objective of covering the east and the west Hausa-speaking areas, where the traditional general divide between Hausa dialects is demarcated. Furthermore, no previous knowledge was available regarding the behaviour or the geographical distribution of these suffixes. Discoveries were therefore made partly at random. The result of this survey is nevertheless decisive in the debate on causative and benefactive in Hausa. Regarding the second point, all informants used the exact same questionnaire. However, the number of responses from each informant is sometimes uneven. The most frequent cause of this bias is that some speakers accepted only one suffix for each test sentence in the questionnaire, whereas others accepted two or more of the suffixes. Another reason is that some speakers, for whatever reason, have not responded to all 42 sentences in the questionnaire. A third and final reason is that on some occasions, speakers have altered and added sentences which I have judged interesting and relevant to the test results. In presenting the data, I have therefore presented the numbers as mean values for each speaker (MRN: Mean Response Number).
437
Some background knowledge on Hausa dialectology was presented in 2. 3, and a survey of final consonantism for other grammatical constructions is presented in 8. 4. 2. All -aC forms have HH(H) tones, even where this is not mentioned in discussion.
438
Mainio (Sokoto)
Satko (Zanfara)
¤ Sabon Birni
¤ Marafa
¤ Sabon Birni
Zamfara
¤ Tambawel
¤ Sabon Birni
¤ Tangaza ¤ Sabon Birni
ZAMFARA
¤ Maradun
¤ Sabon Birni
¤ Madawa
¤ Dutsin Ma
¤ Magarya
Dialect map with the CAUS/BEN aC isogloss based on fieldwork findings
The fieldwork revealed that when considering how the CAUS/BEN -aC morpheme is used, there are at least 4 or 5 different dialect areas, which all use these suffixes in a certain manner: in what is referred to as the -an¶ª-a,º area, the -an¶ª-a,º suffix is used in the overall cases both to express causative and to express benefactive meaning. Other suffixes are used to a lesser degree or are non-existent. Similarly, in the -at area, it is the -at suffix which is predominantly used for these purposes, in the -as area, it is the -as suffix which is mostly used, and in the -a® area, these meanings are expressed by the -a® suffix. In addition, this survey contains an area which I labelled the agreement area. Here, no single suffix is used predominantly; instead the CAUS/BEN suffixes are evenly distributed according to the grammatical function of agreement with one of the sentential arguments. Finally, the material shows that in two cases, the tendency of one predominant system among speakers was broken. One is a particular interview location which seems to have fallen in a transitional area between the -at and the -as dialects, which I for that reason have labelled the transitional –as /-at area. Another case is a Sokoto speaker of standard Hausa, who breaks the geographical continuum in the -at area. Considering this person’s social status I have interpreted this aberrant behaviour as a sociolect. As to the bias in the number of speakers representing each dialect area, the -an area is represented by 5 speakers, as is also the agreement area, the -at area by 10 speakers, the -a® area by 2 speakers, and the -as area is very well represented by 25 different speakers. In addition, there are 3 speakers from a village which appears to be a transitional -at/-as area. I should also note that I am aware of the possible existence of another area where an -al suffix is used (centred around the village of Matamey in Niger and Daura in Nigeria). However, despite my efforts to cover this area, I did not succeed in getting any informants using the -al suffix. The dialect areas will be presented starting out from west going east (cf. dialect map). These areas seem to roughly coincide with some of the dialectal areas presented in Zaria (1982): Area Dogondoutchi (in Arewa) Sokoto Katsina Daura Kano
Dialect Arewanci Sakkwatanci Katsinanci Dauranci Kananci
main CAUS/BEN suffix -an¶ª-a_º -at -as -al@ -a®
440
The agreement area (Tahoua) is not covered by Zaria. The -a® area is represented in my material by speakers from Gusau, but the use of -a® as a CAUS-CMN/BEN marker in Kananci is a non-controversial and well-known fact. 8. 2. 1 The -an¶ª-a↵º area 5 speakers represent the village of Dogondoutchi in western Niger. In table 8.1 we may observe that the -an¶ª-a,º suffix accounts for 88.27% of the responses, making this the default choice -aC causative/caused-motion/benefactive marker (CAUS-CMN/BEN) for this area. In relation to the distinction between /m/ and /n/ in final position, where both supposedly may be pronounced as [_], note the following: all instances of the -an CAUSCMN/BEN suffix in these data were either pronounced as [n] or [_], in most cases as [_], and all occurrences of [_] pronunciation were recorded as /n/, i.e. the -an suffix. All instances of the -aC CAUS-CMN/BEN suffix which were pronounced [m], on the other hand, were recorded as /m/, i.e. the -am suffix. The -an¶ª-a,º suffix will hereafter be referred to as the -an suffix. TABLE 8. 1: Distribution of CAUS-CMN/BEN suffixes in -an¶ª-a_º area Village Suffix
-a®
N. of responses Distribution in Maximum percentage score 0 0.0% 210
-as
3
1.85%
210
-at83
1
0.62%
210
-an¶ª-aIº
158
97.53%
210
Total number
162
100%
840
Explanations to the table: The maximum score number (MSN) is a theoretically calculated number for the maximum possible number of responses. It is calculated for each table by multiplying the number of informants by the number of the relevant type of responses (which is 42 for the tables in this chapter = the total number of test sentences in the phonology questionnaire). Regarding the total number of responses (MRN), these deviate from the Total number of maximum score for the following reasons: in most dialect areas, speakers will mostly choose the predominant suffix for
83 In addition to the one instance of -at in this area, there were 17 instances where the -at suffix was used to mark feminine agreement. All 17 responses were provided by the same informant, and only after having been urged to do so. I.e. the answers first given contained no -at suffixes, but when made especially aware of the agreement issue, -at was accepted in some of the cases where feminine participants were included. However, the -at was not accepted as a general causative/benefactive marker; whenever used, it referred particularly to a feminine participant.
441
this dialect area (which is -an in this case), and possibly add some assimilated forms. The total number of responses is thus more likely to be close to the maximum score for one of the suffixes than for the total of all the suffixes (in this case 210). If the total number of responses is lower than this number, it means that not all questions were answered by all informants. If this number is higher than the maximum score for one suffix, this means that more than one suffix was accepted on at least one test sentence.
8. 2. 2 The -at area This area comprises a number of villages all situated in the south-west of Hausaland. The 10 speakers representing the -at area come from various villages scattered in the western region of Nigeria: Tangaza, Sabon Birni, Mainio, Mafara, Maradun, Gidan Madawa (around Gusau), Zanfara, and Tambuwal. Table 8.2 presents the responses for the area which mostly uses the suffix -at. TABLE 8.2: Distribution of CAUS-CMN/BEN suffixes for the -at area Suffix
-a®
N. of responses Distribution in Maximum percentage score 14 4.27% 420
-as
6
1.83%
420
-at
291
88.72%
420
-an¶ª-a_º 17
5.18%
420
Total number
100%
1680
328
This table indicates clearly that the most common variant of the -aC suffix in this area is -at. In the city of Sokoto in the heart of the -at area, I interviewed a speaker who predominantly used the -as suffix. This speaker uses the -as suffix in 59.09% of his responses, while the -at and the -a® suffixes are each represented by 20.45%. Consequently, this is an aberrant pattern for the -at area. A possible explanation for this use of suffixes in the -at area is the fact that this speaker represents the educated class of Sokoto, working as a university teacher, and thus probably speaks a language closer to an eastern standard rather than the local dialect84. Moreover, it is a commonplace of sociolinguistics that city dialects often have features in common with each other which are not shared by the surrounding area.
84Strictly speaking, only the -a® CAUS-CMN/BEN suffix is counted as a feature of standard Hausa. In that case, the social status argument is not relevant here. However, the fact that the -as suffix is also present in dialects that also regularly use the -a® suffix, plus the fact that this dialect area is geographically contiguous to the -a® area, may suggest that there is at least no clear demarcation between the -as and the -a® areas.
442
This speaker is the only one in this material who is from the rather big city of Sokoto and the only one with higher education. Thus, because of the isolated and deviating character of this speaker, his responses will not be included in the discussion in section 8. 3. In any case, because of the unequivocal character of the numbers in table 8.2, this single speaker will not affect the general conclusion that the western region of Nigeria uses the -at suffix as a CAUS-CMN/BEN marker. 8. 2. 3 The -as area Having established that there is an -at dialect and an -an¶ª-a,º dialect, it remains to be seen whether there is also an -as dialect. The responses in table 8.3 contain a high percentage of -as, although it is beyond doubt that the use of the CAUS-CMN/BEN marker in these areas is more diverse. The -as area is represented by 25 speakers, of which 24 speakers are from the village of Dutsin Ma, and 1 is from Katsina (Sabon Lahi). TABLE 8.3: Distribution of CAUS-CMN/BEN suffixes in the -as area Suffix
-a®
N. of responses Distribution in Maximum percentage score 391 30.05% 1050
-as
678
52.13%
1050
-at
124
9.53%
1050
-an¶ª-a_º
108
8.3%
1050
Total number
1301
100%
4200
It can be seen that both -a® and -as are represented with a fairly high percentage, 30.05% and 52.13%, respectively. Although the numbers for these dialects are not as clear as the -at and the -an¶ª-a,º dialects, there is nevertheless a majority of -as. 8. 2. 4 A possible -a® area Supposedly, there ought to be an -a® dialect too, since it is generally known among Hausaists and Chadicists that Kano Hausa and neighbouring areas use -a® with both causative/causedmotion and benefactive. Since this was not a controversial point, these dialects were not especially tested for the -aC CAUS-CMN/BEN phonology, although I realize that they should have been included for completeness of the data. Regarding the -a® suffix, two speakers from Gusau had a majority of this suffix. The responses are shown in table 8.4.
443
TABLE 8.4: Distribution of CAUS-CMN/BEN suffixes in the -a® area Suffix
N. of responses Distribution in Maximum percentage
score
-a®
49
69.01%
84
-as
11
15.49%
84
-at
6
8.45%
84
-an¶ª-a_º
5 71
7.04% 100%
84 336
Total number
In this area, there is a high percentage of the -a®, nearly 70 percent. The -as suffix is also represented, but far less than -a® at 15.49%. As with the -as dialects, all of the other suffixes are represented to some degree, without leaving any doubt which is the predominant suffix. It should also be noted that these speakers are high school teachers and thus belong to a social class where it would not be uncommon to adapt the language to the Kano standard, where the CAUS-CMN/BEN marker is -a®. On the other hand, Gusau is not very far from the Kano area, and the use of -a® could thus also be geographically determined. My material on the -a® suffix is small. I have therefore chosen to include some data from another test, which was designed to test the semantics of the suffixes -a®, -as and -am (benefactive meaning only). Testing the semantics naturally also included an acceptance test for those suffixes. Although incomplete regarding -at, -an¶ª-a,º, and the remaining assimilated forms, table 8.5 does say something about the acceptance of i.a. the suffix -a®. Five speakers from Magarya in Niger, north-east of Kano, were subject to this test. The numbers from this test are not included in the summary table 8.7. TABLE 8.5: Usage of the suffixes -a® and -as in benefactive (eastern dialect) Suffix
-a®
N. of responses Distribution in percentage 68 62.39%
-as
41
37.61%
Total number
109
100%
8. 2. 5 An -at/-as borderline area The village of gaura Namoda seems to constitute a borderline area. Among the three speakers interviewed from this village, two showed a clear tendency to use the -as suffix (-as was used in 81.63% of the total amount of responses), while one speaker predominantly used the -at suffix (-at was used in 86.67% of the cases). This, along with the fact that this village
444
is situated geographically between the -as and the -at areas, qualifies for labelling it a borderline area. The table below shows the answers for the gaura Namoda speakers. TABLE 8.6: Distribution of CAUS-CMN/BEN suffixes in the -at/-as borderline area Suffixes
-a®
N. of responses Distribution in Maximum percentage score 1 1.06% 126
-as
42
44.68%
126
-at
48
51.06%
126
-an¶ª-a_º
3
3.19%
126
Total number
94
100%
504
We can see from this table that the -at suffix accounts for more than half and the -as suffix nearly half of the total number of responses. 8. 2. 6 Summary of dialects with one predominant suffix Table 8.7 is presented as a conclusion to this section. It contains the responses from tables 8.1 through 8.6 above, except table 8.5. TABLE 8.7: Summary table of dialects with one predominant CAUS-CMN/BEN suffix Suffix
-an area
-at area
-as area
-a® area
-a®
0.0%
4.27%
30.05%
69.01%
-as
1.68%
1.83%
52.13%
15.49%
-at
10.05%
88.72%
9.53%
8.45%
-an¶ª-a_º
88.27%
5.18%
8.3%
7.04%
100%
100%
100%
328
1301
71
100% = 100% N. of responses 179
We see in table 8.7 that the -an dialect and the -at dialect are the clearest cases of a predominant suffix: with 88.27% and 88.72%, respectively. The large portion of -at in the -an area is due to feminine agreement. The -as area is much less clear with a 52.13% for the -as suffix. The numbers from the -a® area are a bit higher again with 69.01% for the -a® suffix. It should be noted again as a precaution that the total number of responses varies greatly between the various groups.
445
8. 2. 7 The agreement area One dialect remains to be presented: the Tahoua dialect of Niger. The reason why this dialect has been neglected up to now is that it is an especially clear case85 of agreement, and choice of -at vs. -as is thus based on agreement rather than preference for one of the suffixes. As a consequence, it can be seen that the numbers are rather evenly distributed among the suffixes (except for -a® which is not really in general use in this dialect): TABLE 8.8: Distribution of CAUS-CMN/BEN suffixes in the agreement area N. of responses Distribution in Maximum Suffix -a®
3
percentage 1.39%
score 126
-as
70
32.56%
126
-at
72
33.49%
126
-an¶ª-aIº
70
32.56%
126
Total number
215
100%
504
The phenomenon of agreement will not be commented upon here, but will be discussed in a separate section (8. 5), where more material is presented on the matter. 8. 2. 8 Conclusion In conclusion, the data presented above reveal first and foremost the fact that the use of the various -aC suffixes is primarily determined on the basis of geographical dialects. Secondly, one dialect suggests that choice of suffix is related to verbal agreement. (This will be further confirmed with data from the remaining dialects, to be presented in 8. 5.) The question of the extent to which the choice of -aC CAUS-CMN/BEN suffixes may be determined by other criteria will be addressed in section 8. 4.
8. 3 The main controversial issue: acceptance vs. non-acceptance of benefactive -as Regarding the use of benefactive -as, the overall majority of responses from the phonology test suggest that speakers accept and use -as as a benefactive marker. This also includes data from the phonology test which reject the idea that Hausa speakers, when confronted with a benefactive -as, will alter this form to alternative benefactive verb forms, such as the gr1
85 Tahoua is presented as an ‘agreement dialect’, in spite of the fact that most Hausa speakers seem to be aware of the fact that these suffixes are related to agreement (but do not use the system actively).
446
HL(H) -aa form, as has formerly been suggested (Newman 1977). These data will be presented below. However, there are some indications that a few speakers do not accept the use of benefactive -as. In my semantics test86 the following cases appeared in the village of Magarya (within the eastern area where also the -a® suffix is extensively used): TABLE 8.9: Usage of the -as suffix in benefactive in Magarya (eastern dialect) Magarya
-as
Accepted N. % 41 73.21%
Refusals N. % 15 26.79%
Total number 56
The percentages of refusals refer to the percentage of rejected -as suffixes out of all the -as/BEN suffixes presented to the informants. We see that 15 out of the total of 56 -as suffixes were rejected, which corresponds to 26.79% refusals, and acceptance in 73.21% of the cases of the benefactive -as suffixes. The following individual case represents an illustration of how a speaker may reject the -as suffix as a benefactive marker: an informant from Magarya (UU45) demonstrates a denial of the use of benefactive -as, where the benefactive -as is not grammatical in (412a), unless the particle dà is added, cf. sentence (412c). The -as suffix is thus made into a causative/caused-motion verb, i.e. not a benefactive. Notice also the concomitant difference in meaning between (412a-b) on the one hand and (412c) on the other. Further, it is interesting to see that the meaning in (412c) can be either causative, as in (412ci) where the OBJDAT is a Causee, or be a caused-motion construction, i.e. have a benefactive OBJDAT role with a MVR role on the INST object as in (412cii). (412) a) •Naa zaa\-as musuæ I.PF choose-BEN DAT.them ‘I chose wrappers for them’
zannuwaæa wrappers
86The reason why responses from the phonology test are not presented here is that subjects of the phonology test were asked which suffixes they accepted, not which ones were ungrammatical. Therefore, the phonology test does not reveal any incidents of ‘ungrammatical’ -as/BEN, although one could, of course, hypothesize that lack of a positive answer regarding the use of a particular suffix suggest the denial of its use. The responses from the semantics test, on the other hand, included positive, explicit denials of the grammaticality of -as/BEN. The reason for the choice of Magarya is similar. This is the only eastern dialect where the semantics test was performed. A second reason why it is safer to use data from the semantics test on this crucial point is that acceptance of those incidents of -as/BEN also implied explaining their meaning in great detail (see appendix F, section C). This turns the data into a type of production test rather than merely acceptance, which increases the reliability of the data.
447
b) Naa I.PF
zaa\-a® musuæ choose-BEN DAT.them
c) Naa I.PF
zaa\-as musuæ daæ zannuwaæa choose-CAUS¶BEN DAT.them INST wrappers
‘I chose wrappers for them’
zannuwaæa wrappers
(i) ‘I made them (convinced them to) choose the wrappers’ (CAUSATIVE) (ii) ‘I chose and took away their wrappers’ (BENEFACTIVE CMN/MVR, OBJINST/)
The above data suggest that the denial of benefactive -as does indeed occur. However, my own data also suggest the following: 1) That the majority of speakers accept and use -as as a benefactive suffix. The incidental non-use of benefactive -as is restricted to a particular dialectal area in the East. 2) That the non-use of -as is not necessarily linked to benefactive meaning. Regarding point 1), the evidence supporting this claim will be presented in 8. 4. 1. When it comes to point 2), the following will serve as an illustration. Newman
(Newman 1977, p.c 1994, 2000) claims that when confronted with a
benefactive -as, speakers will rather switch to gr1 HL(H) -aa to avoid using -as as a benefactive. If Newman’s observation is correct, we would expect the following predictions: 1C
(i)
If a Hausa speaker chooses to use another verb form such as gr1 HL(H) -aa
when confronted with the -as/BEN suffix because the use of -as here is ungrammatical, s/he would not at the same time accept the same sentence with the -as suffix. 1C
(ii)
If -as is only ungrammatical in the benefactive and not in the causative/caused-
motion, a Hausa speaker would not need to change the -as into HL(H) -aa on sentences with causative and/or with caused-motion (MVR object) meanings. 1C
(iii)
If speakers change the -as suffix into the gr1 HL(H) -aa form, we would
expect that this is done only, or at least primarily, in benefactive sentences. 1C
(iv)
We would expect such speakers never to accept benefactive -as.
448
1C
(v)
We would not expect that speakers who do not have the -as suffix in their
dialect would need to switch to the gr1 HL(H) -aa form. My data on this are presented in full in table 4 in appendix D. These data show that as many as 33 out of 49 of my informants suggested using the gr1 HL(H) -aa verb form on their own initiative when confronted with the -aC suffix. First, regarding point (i), my data shows that as many as 14 speakers (on 17 diverse verbs) accept an -as suffix in the very same sentence in which they suggested to use the gr1 HL(H) -aa form. By ‘same sentence’ is meant both phonological and semantic identity (i.e. a sentence with identical structure and meaning, but with a phonological difference such as wvs. m- is not included, even though both may be for example causatives with an OBJDAT). Second, regarding points (ii) and (iii), the data show that in fact most of the sentences which are suggested with the HL(H) -aa verb form are causative/caused-motion, in fact as much as 85 instances, while 34 are benefactive. (A methodological precaution should be made regarding these numbers: considering the fact that the number of causative/causedmotion sentences in the test – with and without an OBJDAT participant– number 28, while benefactive sentences number half that amount, 14, numbers become more even: around 42 for causative/caused-motions and 34 for benefactives.) Contrary to Newman’s predictions that it is the *-as/BEN suffix which triggers changes from the HH(H) -aC verb form to the HL(H) -aa form, the data in fact show that a change from -aC/BEN to gr1 is more common with causative/caused-motion constructions than with benefactives. Third, regarding point (iv), we can observe that in the group of informants regularly using the -as suffix in their dialect, there are 20 cases of benefactive -as and 18 cases of the gr1 HL(H) -aa form, which is about even (verbs not changed to HL(H) -aa are not included, which makes the total percentage of accepted benefactive -as even higher). Finally, regarding point (v), it seems that changing to the HL(H) -aa verb form is just as common in dialects not using the -as suffix: 17 cases of changes in the benefactive and 45 with causative/caused-motion meaning. Again, dividing the causative/caused-motion group in two, we get 17 benefactives and about 22 causative/caused-motion verbs. This suggests that the change to use an alternative verb form, such as HL(H) -aa, cannot be explained by the non-acceptance of the -as suffix as a benefactive form. A plausible alternative explanation is that speakers chose verb forms according to the specific meanings of the -aC suffix and of the HL(H) -aa verb forms, respectively. That is,
449
speakers chose a particular verb form because of its specific content, not to avoid another verb form. So, no unambiguous conclusion can be drawn from speakers’ behaviour about their motivation for this behaviour. In conclusion, this shows 1) that even among speakers who reject -as/BEN, there will be cases in which -as/BEN is acceptable, 2) even in a non-acceptance area there will be individual variation, and 3) in no dialect are the -aC/BEN and the -aC/CAUS-CMN senses totally separated. Even if we were to look at the non-accepting -as/CAUS-CMN dialect area as homogenous, the limited use of -as/BEN can be presented as a subset of the uncontroversial common expression -a® for causative and benefactive, as in the following diagram: Figure 8.1a : CAUS-CMN as a subset of CAUS-CMN/BEN in dialects that reject -as/BEN
-as/CAUS-CMN
-a®¶BEN -a®¶CAUS-CMN
A non-accepting and an accepting dialect areas can be presented like this, where they share one usage of the -as suffix: Figure 8.1b: intersection between accepting and non-accepting dialects regarding the feature -as/BEN
Dialect A
Dialect B
-as/BEN -as/CAUS-CMN -as/CAUS-CMN
450
In other words, the situation is never like in the diagram below: Figure 8. 2: Non-occurrence of total separation of causative/caused-motion and benefactive
-aC/BEN
-aC/CAUS-CMN
In the following, a presentation of the phonological test results will be given, each of the main questions being organized within the domain of the dialectal areas.
8. 4 Evidence that the causative and the benefactive cannot be distinguished on phonological grounds This section will present the results from the phonology tests, designed to give an answer to the question: can causative/caused-motion and benefactive be distinguished on phonological grounds? The tests comprise the general phonology test and a test designed for the phenomenon of agreement. Both tests as they were presented to the informants can be seen in appendix A. The section on agreement (8. 5) will also contain some material on agreement that was produced spontaneously by the speakers. As was mentioned in chapter 4, causative/caused-motion verbs that occur with OBJDAT have been claimed to be phonologically no different from other causative/causedmotion verbs. That is, whether they occur with an OBJDAT participant or not is irrelevant to the phonology. What is relevant, it is claimed, is the labelling of verbs as benefactive and ‘efferential’ (where efferential covers both CAUS and CMN meanings). The specific claims about the respective groups are repeated below for convenience: 1A) The -an suffix is a benefactive marker, possibly historically derived from a nasal expressing distantive (*-in). The -an suffix is not used as a causative marker. 1B) The so-called ‘assimilated’ -am form occurs much more frequently in the benefactive than with causative sentences containing a dative object, and is therefore an autonomous
451
form. (This may also suggest that the -m in the -am suffix is a remnant of the distantive marker *in related to present benefactive/ventive use in Chadic languages). 1C) The -as suffix is a ‘(causative-)efferential’ marker, which is never used as a marker of benefactive. 1D) The /®/ in the causative -a® suffix is derived from *-s (-as is in present use), cf. Klingenheben’s sound law that weakens syllable-final alveolar obstruents /t, d, fi, s, z/ to /®/. The -a® in the benefactive -a® suffix, however, is historically derived from *-t. Presumably, then, the -at suffix would never occur as a causative suffix. Causative and benefactive thus have different origins and must be different suffixes. Contrary to these claims we will see in this section: • Regarding claim 1A) above, we will see that the -an¶ª-a,º suffix is used as a a causative marker, as well as a benefactive marker. • Regarding claim 1B), that the percentage of assimilation to -am before ma-/mà dative object markers is equally high. We also see that assimilation to -aw before the wà dative object marker does occur, but infrequently. • Regarding claim 1C), that the -as suffix is used as a benefactive marker, as well as a causative marker. However, there are cases of refusals of benefactive use of -as, cf. 8. 3 above. • Regarding claim 1D), that the -at suffix is in present use (not just as a reconstructed form *at), and is used both as a causative and as a benefactive marker. Since the use of the various suffixes depend on the dialectal areas, the presentation must be made for each topic under discussion within the individual dialect areas. The dialectal presentation will therefore be made according to the distribution of suffixes: 1. In relation to the CAUS-CMN/BEN distinction, 2. In relation to phonological environment, 3. In relation to assimilation frequencies, 4. In relation to agreement.
452
Note here that I will use the term “dialect” to refer to the isogloss which pertains to various forms of the -aC CAUS-CMN/BEN suffix. I am aware of the fact that dialect borders may be drawn differently for other dialectal features. 8. 4. 1 The distribution of suffixes within the dialects according to the CAUS-CMN/BEN distinction In the following the responses will be presented according to the CAUS-CMN/BEN distinction within each of the dialects. 8. 4. 1. 1 The CAUS-CMN/BEN distinction in the -at area The table below shows that in the -at area, the -at suffix is used both for benefactive, for the causative/caused-motion with an OBJDAT, and for causative/caused-motion verbs without an OBJDAT, in a frequent and regular manner. The percentage is highest for causative/causedmotion verbs without an OBJDAT and lowest for benefactives. The altogether lower percentage for benefactives and causative/caused-motion verbs with OBJDATs is probably due to the higher assimilation rate before OBJDATs beginning with m-. TABLE 8.10a: Responses for the CAUS-CMN/BEN distinction in the -at area Suffix -a® -as -at -an -am -aw -ad -ag Label
5
0
80 (140) 68.97%
11
19 (120) 16.38%
1
_
_
116
6
3
92 (140) 73.6%
4
20 (110) 16.0%
0
_
_
125
3
3
129 (140) 90.2%
2
1
_
4
1
143
BEN CAUS-CMN + OBJDAT CAUS-CMN (No OBJDAT)
Total num.
The maximum score numbers (MRN) (that is, the numbers in parentheses) are calculated like this: 10 speakers times 14 benefactives = 140 MRN, 10 speakers times 14 causatives with an OBJDAT = 140 MRN, and 10 speakers times 14 causatives without an OBJDAT =140.
453
TABLE 8.10b: Use of the -at suffix in the -at area according to the CAUS-CMN/BEN distinction Suffix: -at Label BEN
N. of responses Distribution in Maximum percentage score 80 68.97% 140
CAUS-CMN + OBJDAT CAUS-CMN (No OBJDAT)
92
73.6%
140
129
90.2%
140
8. 4. 1. 2 The CAUS-CMN/BEN distinction in the -an area Similarly, in the -an area, the -an suffix is used for all sentences types; for the benefactive, for the causative/caused-motion with an OBJDAT, and for causative/caused-motion verbs without an OBJDAT. The percentage is about equal for the causative/caused-motion verbs without an OBJDAT and the benefactives, and a bit lower for the causative/caused-motion verbs with an OBJDAT. TABLE 8.11a: Responses for the CAUS-CMN/BEN distinction in the -an area Suffix -a® -as -at -an -am -aw -ad -ag Label BEN
CAUS-CMN + OBJDAT CAUS-CMN (No OBJDAT)
0
1
4
0
1
4
0
0
6
55 (70) 55.55% 35 (70) 48.61%
37 (60) 37.37% 32 (55) 44.44%
2
_
_
0
_
_
54 (70) 58.7%
3
_
29
0
Total num. 99 100% 72 100% 92 100%
TABLE 8.11b: Use of the -an suffix in the -an area according to the CAUS-CMN/BEN distinction Suffix: -an Label BEN
N. of responses Distribution in Maximum percentage score 55 55.55% 70
CAUS-CMN + OBJDAT CAUS-CMN (No OBJDAT)
35
48.61%
70
54
58.7%
70
8. 4. 1. 3 The CAUS-CMN/BEN distinction in the -as area As was seen in the section on establishing dialect areas, the situation in the -as area is a bit more complex. All four suffixes are represented in fairly large numbers, although with -as as the overall most frequent suffix.
454
The table shows that all four suffixes are used for all purposes. With the -as suffix, percentages are about even for the benefactives and the causative/caused-motion verbs with OBJDATs, whereas the causative/caused-motion verbs without an OBJDAT are 6-9 percent higher. This may be due to the higher rate of assimilation in the two first cases (assimilation to -am). It is, however, important to note that this is not necessarily so, since speakers have the opportunity to accept both the assimilated and the non-assimilated suffix, they are not mutually exclusive. Both the -a® and the -at suffixes show a similar tendency, the percentage between the groups with an OBJDAT is very even. The gap between the OBJDAT and the groups without an OBJDAT participant, however, is smaller. Finally, the percentage with the -an suffix is highest with the benefactive, somewhat lower on causative/caused-motion verbs with OBJDATs, and lowest on causative/caused-motion verbs without OBJDATs, but with only very small variation in the percentages. TABLE 8.12a: Responses for the CAUS-CMN/BEN distinction in the -as area Suffix -a® -as -at -an -am -aw -ad Label BEN CAUSCMN + OBJDAT CAUSCMN (No OBJDAT)
-ag
Total num.
114 (350) 173 (350) 26 (350) 21.97% 33.33% 5.01%
42 (350) 8.09%
135 (200) 26.01%
29 (150) 5.59%
_
_
519
138 (350) 233 (350) 38 (350) 21.66% 36.58% 5.97%
37 (350) 5.81%
163 (250) 25.59%
28 (100) 4.39%
_
_
637
139 (350) 271 (350) 60 (350) 21.72% 42.34% 9.38%
29 (350) 4.53%
30 4.69%
-
106 5 (25) 150) 0.78% 16.56%
640
TABLE 8.12b: Use of the -as suffix in the -as area according to the CAUS-CMN/BEN distinction Suffix: -as Label BEN
N. of responses Distribution in Maximum percentage score 173 33.33% 350
CAUS-CMN + OBJDAT CAUS-CMN (No OBJDAT)
233
36.58%
350
271
42.34%
350
8. 4. 1. 4 The CAUS-CMN/BEN distinction in the -a® area The numbers for the -a® area are small. Still it can be seen that the -a® suffix is used with all three construction types. Again, causative/caused-motion verbs without OBJDATs are highest in percentage, but also lowest with respect to assimilation.
455
TABLE 8.13a87: Responses for the CAUS-CMN/BEN distinction in the -a® area Suffix -a® -as -at -an -am -aw -ad -ag Label
BEN. CAUSCMN + OBJDAT CAUSCMN (No OBJDAT)
11 (28) 35.48%
0
0
3
11 (16) 35.48%
6 (12) 13.04%
_
_
15 (28) 32.61%
5
4
2
12 (20) 26.09%
8 (8) 17.39%
_
_
23 (28) 62.16%
6
1
0
_
_
6 (12) 16.22%
1
Total num. 31 46
37
TABLE 8.13b: Use of the -a® suffix in the -a® area according to the CAUS-CMN/BEN distinction Suffix: -a® Label BEN
N. of responses Distribution in Maximum percentage score 11 35.48% 28
CAUS-CMN + OBJDAT CAUS-CMN (No OBJDAT)
15
32.61%
28
23
62.16%
28
8. 4. 1. 5 The CAUS-CMN/BEN distinction in the agreement area In the agreement area, the numbers are evenly distributed on the three suffixes -as, -at, and -an, and equally evenly distributed on the three sentence types, cf. table below. TABLE 8. 14: Responses for the CAUS-CMN/BEN distinction in the agreement area Suffix -a® -as -at -an -am -aw -ad -ag Label
Total num.
BEN
3
24 (42) 24.24%
23 (42) 23.23%
24 (42) 24.24%
24 (36) 24.24%
0
1
_
99
CAUSCMN + DAT
0
21 (42) 23.33%
25 (42) 27.78%
18 (42) 20.0%
26 (33) 28.89%
0
_
_
90
CAUS0 CMN (No DAT)
24 (42) 24.74%
24 (42) 24.74%
28 (42) 28.87%
2
_
16 (18) 16.49%
3 3.09%
97
8. 4. 1. 6 The CAUS-CMN/BEN distinction in the border area In the -at/-as border area, both the -at and the -as suffixes are used equally frequently in the benefactive and with causative/caused-motion verbs with OBJDAT. For causative/caused87 Only the Gusau numbers (Magarya is excluded, since these numbers are from the semantics test).
456
motion verbs without an OBJDAT, the percentages are a bit higher. The percentage of assimilation to -am is about equal in benefactive and in causative/caused-motion verbs with OBJDAT. TABLE 8.15: Responses for the CAUS-CMN/BEN distinction in the -at/-as border area Suffix -a® -as -at -an -am -aw -ad -ag Total Label num. BEN.
1 (42) 2.0% 0 (42)
CAUSCMN + OBJDAT CAUS0 (42) CMN (No OBJDAT)
13 (42) 26.0% 13 (42) 26.53%
12 (42) 24.0% 14 (42) 28.57%
2
(42)
0
(42)
16 (42) 31.37%
21 (42) 41.18%
1
(42)
18 (24) 36.0% 19 (27) 38.78%
4
(18)
-
-
3
(12)
-
-
-
-
12 (18) 23.53%
1
50 100% 49 100% (3)
51 100%
The next section deals with distribution of suffixes according to phonological environment within and across the dialect areas. 8. 4. 2 The distribution of suffixes within and across dialects in relation to phonological environment This section will present the percentages of responses for the suffixes -a®, -as, -at, -an¶ª-a,º, and the assimilated variants -am, -aw, -ad and -ag according to phonological environment. The phonological environments include before pause, before (dative object beginning with) m-, before (dative object beginning with) w-, and before the instrumental marker dà. The fifth row shows the number of responses before g-, which is not a grammatical function word of frequent occurrence, but a word picked at random which was included to see the automaticity of assimilation. Including this word gives a background for finding out if the assimilation rate is higher in fixed grammatical constellations than otherwise. A count in relation to phonological environments will generally reveal if any suffix is particularly frequent in a certain phonological environment. 8. 4. 2. 1 Suffixes according to the phonological environment in the -at area The table below shows that the predominant -at suffix used in this area is used evenly in all phonological environments. Variation in the percentage of the use of -at can be observed before m-, where it is a bit lower, possibly due to a higher percentage of assimilation, and possibly also due to the use of the -an suffix in this environment.
457
TABLE 8.16: Distribution of suffixes in relation to the phonological environment for the -at area Suffix/ Phonol. envir. Before pause
-a®
Before m-
9 (180)
3 (180)
Before w-
2 (100)
Before dBefore g-
No. % 1 (70)
-as
No. % 3 (70)
-at
No. % 64 (70) 91.43%
-an¶ª-a_º -am
-aw
No. % -
-ag No. % -
Total no.
No. % 2 (6088)
132 (180) 68.39%
13 (180) 6.74%
36 (180) 18.65%
-
-
-
193 100%
0 (100)
30 (100) 85.71%
2 (100)
2 (100)
1 (100) 2.13%
-
-
35 100%
2 (60)
0 (60)
57 (60) 87.69%
2
-
-
4 (60) 6.15%
-
65 100%
0 (10)
0 (10)
8 (10) 88.89%
0 (10)
-
-
-
1 (10) 11.11%
9 100%
(60)
No. % -
-ad
No. % 0 (70)
70 100%
8. 4. 2. 2 Suffixes according to the phonological environment in the -as area The situation in the -as area is more complex, and I have chosen to compare the use of the suffixes in phonological environments in relation to the average percentage for the -as area for all the phonological environments. This percentage is 40.79% for the use of -as, 23.52% for the use of -a®, 7.86% for the use of -at, and for the -an suffix, 6.14%. We then see that the use of the -as suffix is highest before a pause, and somewhat lower before g-, with both above the average value. The remaining environments are all below average, but variations are small. The use of the -a® suffix is very even, in the twenties, but with a slightly lower percentage before d- (again the assimilation rate is a possible cause). The average percentage for the -at suffix is low, only 7.86%, but reflecting well the percentages in the various phonological environments, which vary from around 5 up to around 9 percent. The even lesser used -an suffix does not move far from its average value of 6.14% in any of the environments, with the exception of the environment ‘before g-’ which does not have any instances of -an. The variations in the use of the -an suffix are minor.
88 Although the -am suffix is traditionally not thought of as a suffix in its own right occurring outside its assimilating environment, 6 sentences were included in the test where -am occurs before pause. Cf. also 8. 6 below on the independent status of assimilated forms in fixed grammatical constellations.
458
TABLE 8.17: Distribution of suffixes in relation to the phonological environment for the -as area Suffix/ Phonol. envir.
-a®
Before pause
72 (175) 25.0%
143 (175) 26 (175) 49.65% 9.03%
No. % 16 (175) 5.56%
Before m-
182 (450) 297 (450) 49 (450) 20.82% 33.98% 5.61%
55 (450) 6.29%
291 (450) 33.29%
Before w-
70 (250) 25.0%
109 (250) 15 (250) 38.93% 5.36%
24 (250) 8.57%
Before d-
55 (150) 110 (150) 30 (150) 17.52% 35.03% 9.55%
Before g-
12 (25) 29.27%
No. %
-as
No. %
19 (25) 46.34%
-at
No. %
4 (25) 9.76%
-an¶ ª-a_º
-am
-aw
-ad
-ag
Total no.
30 (150) 10.42%
-
1 0.35%
-
288 100%
-
-
874 100%
5
57 (250) 20.36%
-
280 100%
13 (150) 4.14%
2
-
104(150) 33.12%
314 100%
0
-
-
1
(25)
No. %
No. %
No. %
No. %
5 (25) 41 12.19% 100%
In conclusion, we may say that there is some variation in the -as area according to phonological environment, but no variation strikes one as major in the sense that we may conclude non-occurrence of a particular suffix or that any environment possesses just one suffix. It might still be worth noting that -as before pause is the most frequent suffix in this position. The non-occurrence of -an before g- seems insignificant since this is a very infrequent environment – one sentence per informant. 8. 4. 2. 3 Suffixes according to the phonological environment in the -an area In the -an area, the -an suffix is used in all environments except before w-, which is due to the fact that wà is not used as a nominal DAT marker in this area (the two cases of -aw before w- were produced by a university teacher teaching Hausa abroad, using the standard Kano dialect). The average value for the -an suffix in this area is 55.28%. We can then observe that the percentage is higher than this in the environment ‘before pause’, and slightly lower in the environments ‘before m-’ and ‘before d-’, possibly again because of higher assimilation values in these environments. The environment ‘before w-’ is irrelevant since this dialect uses the mà DAT marker, and the high percentage before g- can hardly be trusted because of the very few responses.
459
TABLE 8.18: Distribution of suffixes in relation to the phonological environment for the -an area Suffix/ Phonol. envir. Before pause
-a®
Before m-
0 (115)
3 (115) 1.42%
Before w-
0
Before dBefore g-
No. % 0 (35)
-as
No. % 0 (35)
-at
No. % 1 (35)
-an¶ª-a_º -am
-aw No. % -
-ad No. % -
-ag
Total no.
No. % 27 (35) 87.1%
No. % 3 (30)
No. % -
11 (115) 5.21%
104 (115) 49.29%
92 (115) 44.08%
-
-
-
211 100%
089
0
0
-
2 (50)
-
-
2 100%
0
0
6 (30) 10.0
24 (30) 40.0%
-
-
30 (30) 50.0
-
60 100%
0
0
0
3 (5) 100%
-
-
-
0
31 100%
(5)
3 100%
MRN number for the m- environment: In this dialect wà is hardly used. I have therefore calculated the maximum responses for the environment ‘before m-’ to be 23 times number of informants, which is 5. The increase of m- environments is at the expense of w- environments. In the case of the w- environment, only one informant has the wà form. This particular informant has lived in Kano and was teaching Hausa to foreign students in the US. He is therefore influenced by the standard Kano dialect, and was aware of the fact that the wà forms are not really his own dialect.
8. 4. 2. 4 Suffixes according to the phonological environment in the -a® area The average value for the -a® suffix in this area is 46.08%. In relation to this value, the percentage of the -a® suffix is higher in the environments ‘before pause’ (nearly 65%). The environments ‘before m-’ and ‘before w-’ are just above half the amount of the one before pause. The environment ‘before d-’ is again higher than the average value (nearly 48%). Numbers for the environment ‘before g-’ are too small to say anything about it. The lower percentages in the environments ‘before m-’ and ‘before w-’ could possibly, but not necessarily, be explained by the high percentage of assimilated forms, but that would also leave the high percentage of -a® suffixes before d- unexplained, since this environment also has a high rate of assimilation. Otherwise, we may notice that the other non-assimilating suffixes -as and -at are used in all of the environments ‘before pause’, ‘before m-’ and ‘before d-’, and -an only before m. None of these are used before w-.
89 The two cases of use of the -`swa suffix are disregarded.
460
TABLE 8.19: Distribution of suffixes in relation to the phonological environment for the -a® area Suffix/ Phonol. envir. Before pause
-a®
-as
-at
-an¶ª-a_º -am No.
No.
-aw
-ad
-ag No.
Total no.
11 (14) 64.71%
3 (14)
2 (14)
0 (14)
0
-
-
-
17
Before m-
19 (46) 34.55%
5 (46)
3 (46)
5 (46)
23 (46) 41.82%
-
-
-
55
Before w-
7 (20) 33.33%
0 (20)
0 (20)
0 (20)
-
14 (20) 66.67%
-
-
21
Before d-
11 (12) 47.83%
3 (12)
1 (12)
0 (12)
-
-
8 (12) 34.78%
-
23
Before g-
1 (2) 0 50.0%
0
0
-
-
-
1 (2) 50.0%
2
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
MRN number for the m- environment: In this area, both the wà and the mà DAT markers are accepted and used, and wà is also altered into mà, and MRN numbers for the environment ‘before m-’ therefore include both the instances of the nominal marker mà as well as the pronominal ones, despite the fact that all of the wà sentences are also included. The maximum number of m- environments for each speaker thus makes out 23 cases.
8. 4. 2. 5 Suffixes according to the phonological environment in the agreement area In the agreement area, all of the non-assimilating suffixes -as, -at and -an are equally frequent. They occur with approximately equal frequency in the environment ‘before pause’. The same is the case in the environment ‘before d-’, and in the environment ‘before m-’ , including the assimilated -am. All assimilated forms, -ad, -ag, and -am have an even percentage: around 30 percent. We may notice that there is no assimilated form -aw in this data sample, because wà is not used as a nominal DAT marker in this dialect.
461
TABLE 8.20: Distribution of suffixes in relation to the phonological environment for the agreement area Suffix/ Phonol. envir. Before pause
-a®
Before m-
2 (69)
42 (69) 23.33%
Before w-
1 (30)
Before dBefore g-
No. % 0 (21)
-as
-at
No. % 13 (21) 30.23%
-an¶ª-a_º -am
-aw
-ad No. % -
-ag No. % -
Total no.
No. % 13 (21) 30.23%
No. No. % % 2 (18) -
45 (69) 25.56%
40 (69) 22.22%
49 (69) 27.22%
1
-
180 100%
0 (30)
0 (30)
2 (30)
-
0 (30)
-
-
3 100%
0 (18)
11 (18) 21.15%
11 (18) 21.15%
13 (18) 25.0%
1
-
16 (18) 30.77%
-
52 100%
0
2 (3) 22.22%
2 (3) 22.22%
2 (3) 22.22%
-
-
-
3 (3) 33.33%
9 100%
(3)
No. % 15 (21) 34.88%
43 100%
MRN for the m- environment: In the agreement area, it is the mà DAT marker which is used and all instances of wà in the test were changed to mà (apart from one speaker who has 3 cases of wà). The MRN for the menvironment is therefore calculated to be 23 for each of the informants.
In conclusion for this dialect area, we may say that the three suffixes in active use, -as, -at and -an, are very evenly distributed in all the phonological environments. 8. 4. 2. 6 Suffixes according to the phonological environment in the -at/-as border area Regarding the border area, we can see that the two dominating suffixes, -at and -as, are used fairly evenly in all phonological environments. As usual, the percentages are higher in the environment ‘before pause’.
462
TABLE 8.21: Distribution of suffixes in relation to the phonological environment for the border area Suffix/ Phonol. envir. Before pause
-a®
-as
-at
-an¶ª-a_º -am
-aw
-ad
-ag
Total N.
0
(21)
9 (21) 37.5%
13 (21) 54.17%
1
(21)
-
-
1
-
24
Before m-
0
(54)
20 (54) 25.97%
18 (54) 23.38%
1
(54)
38 (54) 49.35%
-
-
-
77
Before w-
1
(30)
6 (30) 26.09%
8 (30) 34.78%
1
(30)
-
7 (30) 30.43%
-
-
23
Before d-
0
(18)
6 (18) 25.0%
7 (18) 29.17%
0
(18)
-
-
11 (18) 45.83%
-
24
Before g-
0
(3)
1
1
0
(3)
-
-
-
1
(3)
(3)
(3)
3
8. 4. 2. 7 Summary and concluding remarks In conclusion, it may be said that the predominant suffix(es) within each dialect area are generally used in all phonological environments, and that where percentages go down, this may be related to a higher rate of assimilation in this particular environment and dialect. Minor variation is also in some cases related to agreement, as we saw in the -an dialect. I have not attempted to explain all minor variation of the percentages in this material. 8. 4. 3 Assimilation within the dialects Another question concerns the frequency of assimilation in relation to dialects. The phenomenon of assimilation can be viewed in terms of: 1. Frequency of assimilation in relation to dialect 2. Frequency of assimilation in relation to dialect and the CAUS-CMN/BEN distinction (semantics). Point 1 is relevant because the material I have collected turned out to be organized according to dialect areas, and it is therefore expected that there will be some further differences in relation to how the various dialects behave. Point 2 is relevant because it has been claimed that the benefactive forms assimilate more frequently than causative/caused-motion verbs before dative objects. This assumed difference has lead to a conclusion that because the
463
benefactive -aC suffix behave differently in this respect, it is not related to the causative/caused-motion construction. A note has to be made regarding the numbers on non-assimilated forms in Tables 8.22, 8.23, 8. 24 and 8.25 . As may be recalled, each sentence in the questionnaire consists of the options -an, -as, -a®, and -at, in addition to the assimilated forms -ad, -am, and -aw. For the numbers of the two groups to be comparable, the MRN (Maximal Response Number) should be the same for both assimilated and non-assimilated forms when measured against each other. The numbers in brackets indicate how many instances were theoretically possible to give in each case, taken into account the number of test sentences relevant to a particular phenomenon in the questionnaire and the number of informants tested in each dialect area. The number of responses of non-assimilated forms therefore comprises only the predominant suffix within each dialect. This means that for example for the -an¶ª-a,º area, the instances of -at, -as, and -a® suffixes are not included, only the instances of -an¶ª-a,º, even though there are several responses with other suffixes. This is made so because the MRN percentages, or the total potential of possible positive responses, have to be the same for the assimilated and non-assimilated groups. 8. 4. 3. 1 Assimilation and dialect Starting with the first point, Table 8.22 below contains information on assimilation and dialects according to percentage, i.e. in this case it answers the question How much do the speakers use assimilated forms in relation to their co-occurring non-assimilated forms? Only responses which are in accordance with the relevant assimilation environment are included (excluding the environment ‘before pause’). Table 8.22 shows that assimilation is on the whole nearly as common as nonassimilation. The assimilated forms make up 796 or 43.12% of the total number of responses, which is 1 846.
464
TABLE 8.22: Rate of assimilation for all dialects in all assimilating environments. Phonol. envir. >
Before m-
Before w-
Before d-
93
2
30
Before g-
Dialect area
-an¶ª-aIº
ass.
(115)
area
47.21%
(nonass = -an non-ass.
104
suffix)
52.79%
Total N.
197
-at area
ass.
=
-at non-ass.
100%
132
0
(5)
0
(50)
24
(30)
3
(5)
100%
3
100%
(70)
1
(10)
44.45%
(180)
21.43% (nonass
(30)
55.56% (115)
36
(50)
2
100%
54
1
(100)
4
3.23% (180)
30
6.56% (100)
12.5% (70)
(10)
78.57%
Total N.
168
100%
31
100%
61
100%
8
100%
291
(450)
57
(250)
104
(150)
5
(25)
ass.
49.49% (nonass =
-as non-ass.
297
suffix)
50.51%
Total N.
588
-a® area
ass.
23
34.34% (450)
=
-a® non-ass.
19
100% (36)
(36)
45.24%
Total N.
42
100%
49
(69)
ass.
(250)
166
100%
14
(20)
7
0
(20)
-as non-ass.
42
214 8
19
(25)
79.17% 100%
24
100%
(12)
1
(2)
11
(12)
1
(2)
57.89% 100%
19
100%
2
100%
(30)
16
(18)
3
(3)
(18)
2
(3)
53.85% (nonass =
(150)
42.11%
33.33% 21
110
20.83%
51.4%
66.67%
suffix)
Agr. area
109
87.5%
48.6%
65.66%
54.76% (nonass
93.44%
7
suffix)
-as area
96.77%
57
59.26% (69)
0
(30)
11
suffix)
46.15%
40.74%
Total N.
91
100%
0
100%
27
100%
5
100%
Border area ass.
38
(54)
7
(30)
12
(18)
1
(3)
(18)
2
(3)
100%
3
100%
50.67% (nonass = -at/-as non-ass.
37
suffixes90)
49.33%
Total N.
75
33.33% (54)
14
50.0% (30)
66.67% 100%
21
12 50.0%
100%
24
90The predominant suffix from each of the informants is counted: the -as suffix with those who have the -as suffix as the predominant suffix and the -at suffix with the one who has -at as a predominant suffix.
465
In table 8.22, each square, which is a crossing between a phonological environment and a dialectal area, constitutes 100%, e.g. the environment ‘before m-’ in the ‘-at area’ (38 + 177 = 215 = 100%). Thus it is possible to compare the percentage of assimilation in a specific environment for each dialect. In the environment ‘before m-’, the -a® area assimilates the most (54.76%), then follows the agreement area (53.85%), the border area (50,67%), the -as area (49.49%), the -an¶ª-a,º area (47.21%), and finally the -at area (21.43%). If we look at the least assimilating and the most assimilating dialect, the difference in percentage is more than thirty percent. However, one dialect, the -at area, stands out in having a very low percentage of assimilation. Among the dialects where assimilation is rather common, the gap is considerably less, between 7-8 percent. In the environment ‘before w-’, the agreement area and the -an¶ª-a,º area are not interesting since these dialects use the mà dative marker instead of wà. There are no reponses in this environment in the former and an occasional two in the latter dialect area. The distribution in the remaining dialects is as follows: most assimilation to -aw before w- in the -a® area (66.67%), about half as much in the -as area (34.34%), and nearly non-existent in the -at area (one case, or 3.23%). The interesting fact here is that the -aw form exists altogether as one of the -aC suffixes. Its occurrence has not been mentioned much in the literature. Munkaila (1990: 173) mentions Jaggar (1985: 132), who describes this as an optional assimilation rule91. In the environment ‘before d-’, the agreement area has the highest percentage of assimilation (59.26%). Then follows the -an¶ª-a,º area (55.56%), closely followed by the -as area (48.6%), and the -a® area (42.11%). The -at area again assimilates the least, with only 6.56%. In the environment ‘before g-’ the only substantial assimilation is in the -as area, where 5 out of 24 cases, or 20.83%, were assimilated. In the agreement area 3 out of 5 assimilated, and in the -at area, again low in percentage, 1 out of 8 assimilated. The -a® area has too few responses to draw any conclusions from (2 responses, where one is assimilated), and none of the three responses in the -an¶ ª-a,º area are assimilated (in an area where fixed constellation structures (before d- and before m-) assimilate around fifty percent, though again the material is too meagre to draw any conclusions from). 91 This is in itself interesting in relation to the question whether the -am form is an assimilated or independent ancient verb form; if the phonological environment w- creates a verb form
466
Table 8.23 sums up the assimilated and non-assimilated forms, i.e. suffixes -a®, -as, -at, and -an¶ª-a,º, answering the question which dialect assimilates the most? We can see, by contrasting rows A and B in the table, that all areas except the -at area assimilate within the range of 46 to 55 percent: the agreement area assimilates the most (55.28%), closely followed by the -a® area (54.76%), then follows the-an¶ª-a,º area (48.83%), the border area 47.15%, and the -as area (46.07%), and finally the -at area is the odd one out with a percentage of 15.67%. The percentages are all calculated from ‘Total no. of responses’ in the last row . TABLE 8.23 (summary table): Assimilation rate in all dialects (environment not specified) -an¶ª-a_º -at area -as area -a® area Agr. area -at¶-as Dialect: area area Non-ass. - 131 226 535 38 55 65 A B
aC Ass. -aC Total number
51.17% 125 48.83% 256
84.33% 42 15.67% 268
53.93% 457 46.07% 992
45.24% 46 54.76% 84
44.72% 68 55.28% 123
52.85% 58 47.15% 123
In conclusion to Tables 8.22 and 8. 23 we see that: – Percentages show that it is roughly as common to assimilate as not to assimilate in all dialects except the -at area, where assimilation is not as extensive. 8. 4. 3. 2 Assimilation rate related to the CAUS-CMN/BEN distinction within dialects In this final section on dialect and assimilation we will look at assimilation and the benefactive/causative/caused-motion distinction. I will seek to answer the question ‘Are there any differences in terms of the frequency of assimilating benefactive vs. causative/causedmotion verbs before dative objects within the dialects?’ The two relevant phonological environments are before m- and before w-. Among these, the more important is the environment ‘before m-’, since this is where specific claims have been made (that benefactives assimilate more frequently than causative/caused-motion verbs with an OBJDAT, see Parsons 1972: 80, and 3. 1. 1). One table is provided for each environment. From table 8.25 on assimilation to -am, we can conclude the following: there is no difference in assimilation frequency between causative/caused-motion and benefactive.
-aw, it is likely that the phonological environment m- can do the same. This, then, could be interpreted as increasing the likelihood that -am is an assimilated form and not a remnant of *in.
467
Consequently, a difference in assimilation is not a relevant argument to analyse the benefactive and causative/caused-motion -aC suffixes as being different. TABLE 8.24: Percentage of assimilation before m- in benefactive and causative/causedmotion constructions For the percentages, e.g. in the -an¶ª-a,º area, out of the total of responses with benefactive verbs, 102 (47 + 55), the 47 assimilated ones make out 46.08%, etc. The total number of responses refers to all benefactive and causative/caused-motion responses within each dialect area.
Dialect -an¶ª-a_º area
CAUSATIVE-CAUSED MOTION BENEFACTIVE Ass. Non-ass. Ass. Non-ass. 46 (55) 49 (55) 47 (60) 55 (60) 48.42%
Total N.
95
-at area
19
51.58%
(90)
76
20.0% Total N.
95
-as area
161 335
-a® area
12 23
Agr. area
25
(225)
44
Border area
20 47.62%
Total N.
42
174
73 (225)
11
(18)
100% 19
(33)
43.18%
22
56
11
100% (200)
123
100% (16)
(27)
19
100%
18 52.94%
100%
8 42.11%
(36)
34
23
(16)
(36)
48.94%
47
52.38%
(200)
48.62%
57.89%
24
(80)
76.71%
51.06%
100% (27)
130 253
47.83%
(33)
(80)
51.38%
100% (18)
17
53.92% 100%
23.29%
51.94%
56.82% Total N.
(90)
100%
52.17% Total N.
102
80.0%
48.06% Total N.
46.08%
100%
100% (24)
16
(24)
47.06% 100%
Table 8.24 shows that the percentages of assimilation to -am before m- is indeed very close when benefactive and causative/caused-motion verbs are compared within the dialect areas: in the -an¶ª-a,º area causative/caused-motion accounts for 47.92% vs. 46.08% in the benefactive; in the -at area. 20.0% of the causative/caused-motion verbs assimilate vs. 23.29% in the benefactive; in the -as area 48.06% are assimilated with the causative/causedmotion verbs vs. 49.35% in the benefactive; in the -a® area the numbers are 52.17% vs. 57.89%.; in the agreement area 56.82% vs. 51.06%, and finally, in the border area 47.62% vs. 52.94%. The percentages show that the percentages vary according to dialect within the range
468
of 1-5%, that is, in no dialect is the difference higher than five percent. What we see, then, is that the assimilation rate in the causative/caused-motion and in the benefactive co-vary within each of the dialects. Table 8. 25 below shows the same kind of responses in the phonological environment ‘before w-’, which is really only relevant for the -as and -a® areas, and due to the very few responses, the only percentages which can be trusted in this table are those in the -as area. The general assimilation rate for both causative/caused-motion and benefactive is lower in this environment than before m-. Again, there is little difference between benefactive and causative/caused-motion verbs when it comes to the percentage of assimilation, i.e. they, too, co-vary within the relevant dialects: in the -as area the percentage of assimilation is 32.18% for the causative/caused-motion vs. 36.71% for the benefactive. In the -a® area both the benefactive and the causative/caused-motion assimilate in 66.67% of the cases (but note here that the number of responses is low). TABLE 8.25: Percentage of assimilation before w- in benefactive and causative/causedmotion constructions Dialect -an¶ª-a_º area
CAUSATIVE-CAUSED MOTION BENEFACTIVE Ass. Non-ass. Ass. Non-ass. 0 (20) 0 (20) 2 (30) 0 (30)
Total N.
2
-at area
0
Total N.
16
-as area
28
(40)
16
(40)
100%
(100)
Total N.
87
-a® area
8
59
(100)
66.67%
(150)
33.33%
6
(150)
100% (12)
66.67%
100%
50 63.29%
79 (8)
(60)
100%
36.71%
100% 4
29
14 93.33%
15
67.82%
(8)
(60)
6.67%
100%
32.18%
1
3
(12)
33.33%
Total N.
12
9
100%
Agr. area
0
(12)
0
(12)
0
(24)
0
(24)
3
(12)
5
(12)
4
(24)
9
(24)
Total N.
Border area
37.5% Total N.
8
62.5%
30.77%
100%
13
469
69.23% 100%
8. 4. 3. 3 Summary and conclusion In conclusion, we have seen firstly that in all dialect areas, with the exception of the -at dialect, assimilation is roughly as common as non-assimilation. Secondly, it was found that a presentation of assimilation within the individual dialects shows clearly that assimilation is just as frequent with causative/caused-motion verbs before dative objects as with benefactives. 8. 4. 4 Use of -aC suffixes in relation to phonological dialectal variation in other grammatical constructs The following is a presentation of some grammatical constructions which display phonological features which might be relevant to the -aC suffixes of the various dialects. We will look at consonants in word-final position in masculine/feminine linker with enclitic possessive pronouns, feminine linker in the genitive construction (the masculine is invarably -n), and the feminine definite article. The information is taken from Zaria (1982). Tahoua is excluded here because Zaria does not include this area in his survey. 8. 4. 4. 1 Phonological correspondences in the -an area In the -an area, the suffix -an was used as the general CAUS-CMN/BEN marker. In addition, -at was used as a combined CAUS-CMN/BEN and feminine agreement marker by one informant when specifically asked. Comparing this to what is otherwise known about the phonology of Arewanci (Dogondoutchi dialect), we see that -t is generally used in word-final position, cf. bìyat ‘five’, kaæmat ‘like/as/about/as if’, and …aæsabaæt ‘Saturday’. The feminine definite article (post-posed after the noun) is -`t, cf. miyaæt ‘the soup’, and daæbaa®aæt ‘the plan’. As for the pronunciation of final nasals in this area, Zaria gives two examples which are both pronounced ª-_º: hay˚aæI¶hay…aæI ‘exceedingly’ and hayraæI ‘good deed’. According to the information available in Zaria (1982), there is no variation in the pronunciation of final ª-_º across dialects. Zaria does not list the final -m for Arewanci, but I was able to get an informant from Dogondoutchi (SM28) to verify the pronunciation of Maalaæm ‘scholar in Islam’ with final [m]. However, the alternative pronunciation [maalaæ_] was also commonly used, but with the difference in meaning ‘Monsieur/Mr.’. The final [m] pronunciation thus points to being a loan word with exceptional phonotactic status. Both the masculine linker used in possessive enclitic pronouns and genitive linker of nouns is -n-, cf. wa]ndo-n-shì ‘his pants’ and gidan Abduæ ‘Audu’s house’.
470
To summarize, there is independent motivation for word-final -t and word-final ª-_º in Arewanci, and there is motivation for associating -t with feminine and -n with masculine gender. 8. 4. 4. 2 Phonological correspondences in the -at area The general -aC CAUS-CMN/BEN marker in the Sokoto area is -at. Final -t is also generally found in word-final position in this area, cf. bìyat ‘five’, …aæsabaæt ‘Saturday’, and bìfiat ‘seek (vb.)’. The word kaæmat¶kaæmas ‘like/as/about/as if’ is listed with both final -t and final -s in Zaria (1982). Regarding the masculine/feminine divide, -ta- is used as a feminine linker with possessive enclitic pronouns, cf. rìigaa-ta-y ‘his shirt’ (along with the -aCass variant rìiga-shshì); contrast masculine -n- in gidaa-na-y ‘his house’ (or gida-n-shì). Further, the feminine definite article is -t, as in taæ®zoæomaæt ‘the battle’, kaæmaæt ‘the resemblance’, or matsalaæt ‘the issue’, but Zaria (1982) reports a couple of words where -s is used (where the masculine marker has taken over both genders), cf. yaarinyaæt¶-s ‘the girl’, rìigaæt¶-s ‘the shirt’. This means that /t/ may safely be taken as an exponent of feminine gender in this area, which supports the idea that the -aC CAUS-CMN/BEN marker may be related to the feminine pronoun. 8. 4. 4. 3 Phonological correspondences in the -a® area The general marker of CAUS-CMN/BEN in the -a® area is -a®. Although my own data are from around Gusau, considering the geographical closeness, I shall use Zaria’s description for Kano to compare the -aC CAUS-CMN/BEN marker to other instances of -®. This section may also be considered to compare the -a® CAUS-CMN/BEN marker of Kano itself, since it is an uncontroversial matter to sholars of Hausa that the -a® suffix is a marker of both causative/caused-motion and benefactive in Kano (standard) Hausa. In Kano, -® is used in word-final position where other dialects use -t or -l, cf. bìya® ‘five’, kaæma® ‘like/as/about/as if’, …aæsabaæ® ‘Saturday’, bìfia® ‘seek (vb.)’, ha® ‘as far as/up to’. As for the /®C/ : /lC/ alternation within words, the Kano dialect uses /®C/ in this position, cf. ha®sheæe ‘tongue/language’, mafa®kii ‘dream’, ha®bìi ‘shooting’, and maæ®kaa ‘period of constant rain’. In all grammatical constructions, the -® is used to represent feminine gender and -n masculine gender. The linker with possessive pronouns is -®- in feminine, cf. mootaæ-®saæ ‘his car’, and buædu®wa-®-saæ ‘his girlfriend’, and -n- in masculine, cf. gida-n-saæ ‘his house’,
471
and …aikì-n-saæ ‘his job’. The feminine linker in genitive construction is -® , cf. rìiga® baælaa ‘Bala’s shirt’ and miyaæ® kaæazaa ‘chicken soup (lit. soup-of chicken)’. Masculine is -n: zaækaraæn wuyaæ ‘Adam’s apple (lit. rooster-of neck)’. The feminine definite article is -æ® , cf. yaarinyaæ® ‘the girl’, ˚aryaæ® ‘the lie’, and miyaæ® ‘the soup’. Masculine is -`n: jaæakô-n naæawaa ‘the donkey of mine’. To summarize; first, in this area, -® is used in word-final positions where other dialects use -t. An additional ‘eastern feature’ is the /®C/ cluster, which is absent in WH. Second, the -® in all grammatical constructions is systematically associated with feminine gender, not masculine. This should suffice to relate the -a® CAUS-CMN/BEN marker to a feminine gender pronoun. Recall from 4. 2. 2 that Jaggar and Munkaila (1995) reconstructs the -a®/BEN suffix to be historically derived from *-at and -a®/CAUS-CMN to be derived from -as. However, a hypothesis which relates the causative/caused-motion suffix to masculine gender would appear ad hoc in view of the fact that-® is generally used as a feminine marker (but see 2. 2. 7 for sporadic lexical alternations with -s). 8. 4. 4. 4 Phonological correspondences in the -as area The -as area is represented in my data by the village of Dutsin Ma. In the -as area, most of the other possible variants of the -aC suffix can also be found: -a®, -at, and -an¶ª-a,º. It is likely that the Hausa spoken in Dutsin Ma cannot be aligned with the Katsina dialect. However, since it is the geographically closest one which is represented in previous research on Hausa dialectology, I will compare the phonology of this dialect to the findings of Dutsin Ma, but with some uncertainty as to value of inferences which may be drawn. In word-final position, -t is used in Katsina in the sampled words, but variants with -l are also listed (this area borders on Daura, which uses -l): bìfiat ‘seek (vb.)’,…aæsabaæt ‘Saturday’, bìyat¶bìyal ‘five’, and kaæmat¶kaæmal ‘like/as/about/as if’. With respect to final nasals, Katsina behaves like the other dialects, with both pronunciation of final ª-_º and final -m represented: mallaæm ‘teacher’, hay˚aæI ‘exceedingly’, hayraæI ‘good deed’. In the /®/ : /l/ alternation, Katsina differs from Kano in having the /lC/ rather than the /®C/ variant, as in halsheæe ‘tongue/language’, mahwalkii ‘dream’, halbìi ‘shooting’. Whether this is also the case in Dutsin Ma is not known, but this may not be critical, since Katsina is known to use both the -a® and -as variants of the -aC suffix, the situation thus being comparable to the one in Dutsin Ma. It seems that the use of /lC/ is a WH feature, but that this consonantism does not necessarily preclude the existence of -a® in a dialect.
472
The feminine linker used with possessive pronouns would not be affected by the rhotacism rule, since the -t- precedes a vowel and not a consonant, cf. maæataa-ta-y ‘his wife’, and the nature of the consonant in the other variant is concealed by assimilation: maæata-shshì. Neither could the feminine genitive linker help us, since this is also assimilated, and the feminine definite article is -`y, not -`t, as in yaarinyaæy ‘the girl’ (/y/ is generally a masculine marker in other contexts and dialects). In conclusion, it appears that at least word-final ª-,º and -t are attested elsewhere than in the -aC suffixes, but that grammatical constructions are not able to help us determine the use of any of the -aC suffixes. 8. 4. 4. 5 Phonological correspondences in the -al area? If it is true that the CAUS-CMN/BEN marker in Daura/Matameye is -al, it would be extremely interesting to see whether this consonantism follows the rest of the tendencies in this dialect area, which I believe it does. The Hausas of Niger frequently talked to me about this feature while I was there. In terms of final consonants in the words where other dialects have -t or -®, these are all final -l in Daura, cf. bìyal ‘five’, kaæmal ‘like/as/about/as if’, …aæsabaæl ‘Saturday’, bìfial ‘seek’, hal ‘as far as/up to’. Along with other WH dialects, Daura has /lC/ in the /®C/ : /lC/ alternation, cf. halsheæe ‘tongue/language’, mapalkii ‘dream’, halbìi ‘shooting’. A feature peculiar to Daura is that the feminine marker is -l (instead of -t or -®), as in the linker with possessive pronouns: goona-l-hì ‘his farm’ and …aækuyaæ-l-hì ‘his goat’, and in the feminine linker in the genitive: …aækuyaæl paæatii ‘Fati’s goat’, maæatal baælaa ‘Bala’s wife’, and buædu®wal …aæli… ‘Ali’s girlfriend’. Similarly, the feminine definite article is -l, as in yaarinyaæl ‘the girl’, taæ®zoæomaæl ‘the battle’, kaæma]l ‘the resemblance’, rìigaæl ‘the shirt’, and matsalaæl ‘the issue’. A phonetically plausible explanation for the -l feminine marker is that the original feminine /t/ > /®/, according to Klingenheben’s law, and that the final stage of this is /®/ > /l/, considering that these are liquids which frequently interchange on a cross-linguistic basis, making the transition /t/ > /®/ > /l/ a plausible one.
473
8. 4. 4. 6 Summary of arguments What has been shown in 10. 1. 3 is firstly that the variants of the -aC suffix all occur in wordfinal position within the dialects they occur. They are thus not phonologically aberrant, but can be shown to comply with the phonological inventories of the dialects in question. Secondly, the phonological nature of grammatical markers within each dialect supports the idea that the main -aC CAUS-CMN/BEN marker can be related to the grammatical marker within each dialect. See the summarizing table 8.27 for details. The corresponding masculine markers are not given by Zaria, supposedly because they do not vary across dialects. However, in standard Hausa the masculine definite article is -`n, and masculine linker in genitives is -n. (Where an assimilated -aC occurs, confirmation cannot be made, and is marked ‘-’ .) TABLE 8. 27: Summarizing table: Correspondence between predominant CAUS-CMN/BEN markers and other grammatical markers in dialects -an¶ª-a_º
Dialect Grammatical construction CAUSCMN/ BEN marker F. linker in poss. pron. F. linker in genitive F. definite article M. linker in poss. pron.
area -at area (Sokoto -as area (Katsina, -al area? (Dogondoutchi, state) Dutsin Ma) (Daura, Arewa) Matameye)
-a® area
-an (-at)
-at
-as (-at, -a_, -a®)
-al@
-a® (-as)
-
-ta-
-ta-
-l-
-®
-
-
-
-l
-®
-t
-t
-y
-l
-®
-n-
-n(a)-
-n(a)-
-_-
-n-
(Kano, Gusau)
From this survey it seems that the areas Sokoto, Daura and Kano show a clear correspondence between the predominant -aC CAUS-CMN/BEN suffix and a feminine marker of the three grammatical constructions mentioned. Regarding the -an/ª-a_º suffix, the word-final nasal ª-_º is used in all dialects of Hausa discussed here. What might pose a possible problem with the ª-a_º variant of the -aC suffix is to determine whether the nasal [_] is an allophone of /n/ or of /m/. On the basis of the phonological material available here, there is no water-proof way of doing this, since both phonemes in principle may be pronounced [_] in word-final position (and before morpheme border, cf. Daura gida-I-hì ‘his house’). There are, however, non-phonological arguments to associate [_] with /n/ rather than with the /m/ phoneme.
474
Considering the systematic association described above of the -at, -a® (and -al) suffixes with the feminine markers in grammatical constructions, it would seem reasonable to associate the [_] of the ª-a_º suffix with the same grammatical constructions, whether this be the 3.SG.M or 1.SG pronoun. Importantly, this grammatical element is in all of its occurrences the /n/phoneme. To suggest that [_] in the grammatical suffix ª-a_º is an allophone of /m/ would therefore require additional arguments.
8. 5 Causative/caused-motion and benefactive as agreement markers: additional evidence of phonological unity While conducting the phonology test, the speakers urged me on several occasions and on their own initiative to change either the subject (S), dative object (OBJDAT), or instrumental/accusative objects (OBJINST/ACC) to masculine/feminine gender when being presented with a sentence where an argument was not in accordance with a particular suffix. Other examples were made up by the informants themselves to illustrate their points about agreement. The independently produced cases made up by the speakers of their own initiative are presented in 8. 5. 2 below in the form of summarizing tables with some illustrations. The sentences are given in full in appendix E. The fact that choice of suffix was sometimes done according to the gender of one of the sentential arguments urged me to perform a second, but shorter fieldwork pursuing this idea. This fieldwork was done on two speakers from Tahoua in Niger. Results are presented in section 8. 5. 3. 8. 5. 1 What is agreement in Hausa? Agreement occurs in Hausa when a verbal suffix (the agreement target) agrees with a sentential argument (the agreement source). The suffixes found to function as agreement markers are -at, -as, and -a®. In addition we find a few cases where speakers seem to associate the assimilated forms -am and -ad with gender agreement. Regarding the status of these assimilated forms; it is true that a linguist would not consider them to be agreement markers. I have nevertheless included them in the presentation below, because these speakers are linguistically naïve, and the initiatives taken by the speakers to explain agreement reveal their consciousness about such a phenomenon in their own language.
475
The various types of agreement can be seen in (413) through (416) below. A typical agreement source is a dative object. However, INST/ACC objects and subjects may also be an agreement source, although less frequently. In (413b), the OBJDAT matà is the agreement source for the agreeing suffix -at, which is the agreement target in this case. (413) a) S Zaakìi lion
TAM yaa he.PF
V OBJ1¶DAT zaabu®-as masaæ spring up-BEN.M DAT.him TARGET (M)
SOURCE 3SG.M
‘The lion sprang at him’
b) S TAM Zaakìi yaa lion he.PF
V zaabu®-at spring up-BEN.F TARGET (F)
OBJ1¶DAT mataæ DAT.her SOURCE 3SG.F
‘The lion sprang at her’
In (414a-b), the agreement source is an OBJINST, displaying masculine and feminine agreement, respectively. (414) a) TAM Yaa he.PF
V
OBJ1¶DAT
OBJ2¶INST
say-as buy-CMN.M
musuæ DAT.them
daæ INST
TARGET (M)
dookìi horse (M) SOURCE noun, M
‘He sold them a horse’
b) TAM Yaa he.PF
V say-at
OBJ1¶DAT OBJ2¶INST musuæ daæ goofiìyaa
buy.CMN.F
DAT.them
TARGET (F)
INST mare (F) SOURCE noun, F
‘He sold them a mare’
In (415), the OBJINST is focussed. The instrumental marking is not moved together with the object, because of cohesion with the verb, which requires it to either be deleted or to remain
476
after the verb with a resumptive pronoun co-referent with the fronted object. (Cf. 4. 3. 9. 2, point 6 in table 4.10) (415) a) Hatsii neæe sukaæ grain (M) COP they.REL.PF SOURCE (noun, M)
zub-as stream.CAUS.CMN.M TARGET (M)
‘It was the grain they poured away’
b) Daawaæa guinea-corn (F)
taa COP
sukaæ they.REL.PF
zub-at stream.CAUS.CMN.F
SOURCE (noun, F)
TARGET (F)
‘It was the guinea-corn they poured away’
Finally, the subject may function as the agreement source, the opposite gender of the INST object in each case ensuring that these are not cases of OBJ agreement: (416) a. Aminaæa
taa
Amina (F)
zaabur-at
daæ
raæagoo
she.PF spring up.BEN.F INST ram (M)
SOURCE (noun, F)
TARGET (F)
‘Amina sprang at the ram’
b. Abduæ
yaa
Abdu (M) he.PF
zaabur-as
daæ
tumkìyaa
spring up.BEN.M INST ewe.(F)
SOURCE (noun, M)
TARGET (M)
‘Abdu sprang at the ewe’
8. 5. 2 Agreement – independently produced cases This section will present the sentences which were produced independently by speakers of various dialects during the original fieldwork in the summer of 1994. The data will be organized and presented according to type of agreement (i.e. which syntactic argument is the agreement source) and into dialect areas. A positive case of agreement is registered as such if one or more of the following criteria are fulfilled:
477
1) An argument is changed by the informant to conform to a particular suffix, 2) The informant states that a certain suffix is used because it agrees with a particular argument, 3) A sentence is produced on the informant’s initiative to illustrate how agreement works. In a few cases, it cannot be decided which of two arguments a suffix agrees with. The information that can be read from each of the tables in 8. 5. 2 is: a) From which dialect area the speaker in question comes from (not all tables), b) What kind of sentential argument the verbal suffix agrees with, c) If it is a case of masculine or of feminine agreement, d) What suffix expresses this agreement, and finally, e) If the sentences have a benefactive or causative/caused-motion meaning. 8. 5. 2. 1 OBJDAT agreement From the table on OBJDAT agreement we will see that gender based agreement with OBJDAT is a phenomenon that applies to both to benefactive and to causative/caused-motion sentences in the same manner. This suggests that they are phonologically homophonous. Table 8.28 shows that agreement occurs both with benefactive and with causative/caused-motion sentences. We can see that feminine OBJDAT agreement is represented by the -at suffix in 38 cases, and by -a® in one case. Masculine OBJDAT agreement is represented by the -as suffix in 26 cases and by the assimilated form -am in 3 cases. TABLE 8.28: Summarizing table for OBJDAT agreement in independently produced data Type marker BEN
of Masc. suffix N. -as 10 -am 1? CAUS-CMN -as 16 -am 2? Total amount 26 (29)
Fem. suffix -at
-a® -at
N. 18 1 20 39
Total amount 30 38 68
Table 8.29 below illustrates the point that the 8 informants come from all the dialect areas: the -at area (one speaker), the -as area (two speakers), the -an area (one speaker), the -a® area (one speaker), and from the agreement area (two speakers).
478
TABLE 8.29 : Instances of OBJDAT agreement in independently produced data presented according to speaker and dialect area Type marker BEN CAUSCMN
of Agrees with...
OBJDAT OBJDAT
Masc. suffix N. -am 1 -am 2
Fem. suffix -at -at
N. 1 3
Dialect area -at area
Village
Speaker
Sabon Birni
MA19
-a® area
Gusau
MA28
-as area
Sabon MU16 Lahi, Katsina Dutsin Ma IM45
CAUSCMN BEN
OBJDAT
-as
2
-at
2
OBJDAT
-as
1
-at
1
CAUSCMN BEN
OBJDAT
-as
1
OBJDAT
-as
1
-a®
1
-a®/-as area
Magarya
UU31
BEN CAUSCMN BEN CAUSCMN BEN CAUSCMN Total amount
OBJDAT OBJDAT
-as -as
6 10
-at -at
6 9
agr. area
Tahoua
AI28
OBJDAT OBJDAT
-as -as
4 3
-at -at
7 4
agr. area
Tahoua
DKA28
OBJDAT OBJDAT
-as -as
1 1
-at -at
3 3
-an area
Dogondoutchi
SM28
BEN: 34 CAUSCMN: 39
-as: 30 -am: 3
-as area
-at: 40 -a®: : 1
8. 5. 2. 2 Agreement with OBJINST/ACC92 As was the case with OBJDAT agreement, it is shown here that gender based agreement with OBJINST and OBJACC behaves in the same way in both benefactive and causative/causedmotion sentences. There are 9 cases of OBJACC agreement with benefactive sentences and 29 cases of OBJINST/ACC agreement in causative/caused-motion sentences. As in the above cases, feminine arguments agree with the -at suffix, and masculine with the -as suffix. The cases of agreement with OBJINST/ACC are fewer than in the case of agreement with OBJDAT. In some cases, OBJINST/ACC agreement is also accompanied by subject agreement, i.e. it is preferred that both the subject and the objects agree with the verbal suffix. 92 The distinction between INST and ACC case marking on objects is not relevant to the agreement issue and are not separated in this presentation. In the tables, OBJINST and OBJACC are both marked as OBJ for the sake of simplicity. The material contained six cases of accusative objects which were nonfocussed (Examples 57, 59, 61, 64, 65 and 67 in appendix E). The remaining non-focussed objects were INST marked. With focussed objects there is no way of telling if the object is INST or ACC because the INST marking may be deleted when an INST object is fronted. This is an additional argument for not separating the two categories here.
479
This section will only present the cases where the suffix agrees solely with the OBJINST/ACC. For the ‘double agreement’ sentences, see the section on subject agreement below (8. 5. 2. 3). Examples are from the agreement area, the -as area, and the -an area. TABLE 8.30: Instances of agreement with OBJINST/ACC (both listed as OBJ) in independently produced data Type marker
of Agrees with... Masc.
Fem.
Dialect area
Village
Speaker
BEN CAUSCMN BEN CAUSCMN
OBJ F.OBJ/OBJ
suffix -as -as
N. 2 5
suffix -at -at
N. 2 6
agreement area
Tahoua
AI28
OBJ F.OBJ/OBJ
-as -as
2 6
-at -at
2 6
agreement area
Tahoua
DKA28
-as area F.OBJ
-at
1
Dutsin Ma
IM 45
CAUSCMN BEN CAUSCMN
OBJ F.OBJ/OBJ
-at -at
1 6
-an area
Dogondoutchi
SM28
8. 5. 2. 3 Subject agreement The subject agreement data also show that the distinction between causative/caused-motion meaning on the one hand, and benefactive meaning on the other, is not relevant to gender based verbal agreement. The table below shows the instances of agreement organized according to the CAUS-CMN/BEN distinction. TABLE 8.31: Instances of subject agreement according to the CAUS-CMN/BEN distinction Type marker BEN
of Masc. suffix N. -as 7
CAUS-CMN
-as -a® -ad
8 2 2 19
Fem. suffix -at -at -as?93 -ad
N. 7 6 2 1 16
Total amount 14 21
35
93 The fact that -as is here used for feminine agreement is somewhat surprising. A possible explanation could be this: some dialects have systematically merged feminine and masculine pronouns, now using the masculine form for both. Specifically this applies to Guddiri, Bauchi, and Zaria. In Sokoto, the feminine definite marker is sometimes the masculine form -`s, along with the more frequent -`t suffix. The particular speaker who produced these feminine -as suffixes is from Dutsin Ma, which does not have such a merger, but he also works in and was interviewed in Sokoto. It must be stressed, however, that such a gender merger has not happened in any of the dialects where agreement data were collected.
480
In this material, there is a total of 35 cases of subject agreement, of which 19 are agreement with a masculine subject, and 16 are agreement with a feminine subject. Masculine agreement is in 15 cases expressed by -as, in two cases by -a®, and in another two cases by the assimilated form -ad. Feminine agreement is in 13 cases expressed by the -at suffix, in one case by the assimilated form -ad, and, perhaps surprisingly, in two cases by -as (but see fn. 93). As with the other agreement types, subject agreement is not restricted to one dialect, but this time the speakers are found in two rather than all of the dialect areas: the agreement area and the -as area. These areas are found in the two extremes of the investigated area: far north-west in Niger and far south-east in Nigeria. This might suggest that subject agreement is not a local phenomenon. TABLE 8.32: Instances of subject agreement in independently produced data presented according to dialect and speaker Type marker BEN BEN CAUSCMN BEN CAUSCMN CAUSCMN BEN CAUSCMN CAUSCMN CAUSCMN CAUSCMN Total amount
of Agrees with...
Masc.
Fem.
Dialect area
Village
Speaker
agreement area
Tahoua
AI28
S S or OBJ S
suffix -as -as -as
N. 1 2 2
suffix -at -at -at
N. 2 2 1
S S
-as -ad
3 2
-at
2
agreement area
Tahoua
DKA28
-at
1
-as area
F20
-as area
Dutsin Ma Dutsin Ma
S or OBJDAT S -as FS (or -as FOBJ94) -as S
1 1
-at -ad
1 1
3
-at
2
-as -a®
1 2
-at -as ?95
1 2
S (2nd p.) S
BEN: 11 CAUS: 22
-as: 13 -ad: 2 -a® : 2
AS23
-at: 12 -ad: 1 -as?: 2
94 This sentence has the same surface structure whether it is interpreted as having a focussed subject or as having a focussed OBJINST. 95See comment in footnote 93.
481
8. 5. 2. 4 Summary of gender agreement systems The table below shows the individual systems of the speakers in the three preceding paragraphs. Regarding the CAUS-CMN/BEN distinction, five of the speakers have agreement both with causative/caused-motion verbs and with benefactive sentences; three have agreement only with causative/caused-motion sentences, and two only with benefactive sentences. However, it should be borne in mind that these data were not collected by way of any systematic testing, and the absence of either CAUS-CMN or BEN can therefore not be interpreted as their being rejected by the informant. The table further shows that OBJDAT agreement is the most common type of agreement, being used by 8 out of the 10 speakers. Agreement with OBJINST/ACC (focussed and non-focussed) is displayed by 5 of the speakers, and subject agreement with 4 speakers. We see furthermore that -as generally expresses agreement with a masculine argument, and -at expresses agreement with a feminine argument.
TABLE 8.33: Summary table of individual speakers’ agreement cases in independently produced data Type of marker Agreement type BEN , CAUS-CMN CAUS-CMN
OBJDAT
Masc. suffix -am?
OBJDAT
-as
-at
BEN
OBJDAT
-as
-at
CAUS-CMN
OBJDAT, FOBJ
-as
-at
CAUS-CMN
S & OBJ
BEN, CAUS-CMN BEN, CAUS-CMN
S
BEN, CAUS-CMN
OBJDAT,
BEN, CAUS-CMN
OBJDAT, FOBJ
BEN
OBJDAT
OBJDAT,
Fem. suffix -at?
-at -as
-at, -ad
Village/ dialect area Sabon Birni/ -at area Gusau/ -a® area Sabon Lahi/ -as area Dutsin Ma/ -as area Dutsin Ma/ -as area Dutsin Ma/ -as area Tahoua/ agreement area
Speaker MA19 MA28 MU16 IM45 F20 AS23
FOBJ, -as, -ad
-at
FOBJ, -as
-at
Tahoua/ agreement area
AI28
-as
-at
SM28
-as
-a®
Dogondoutchi/ -an area Magarya/ -a®/-as area
OBJ, S OBJ, S
482
DKA28
UU31
8. 5. 3 Evidence of phonological unity from elicited data The elicited data on agreement are scarcer, although that was certainly not the intention, as data from 3 speakers was lost. These data are from two speakers from Tahoua (agreement area). The sentences corresponding to the tables in this section can be found in appendix E, part 2. It might appear from the discussion below that agreement is much more common in benefactive than in causative/caused-motion sentences. However, the fact that the benefactive examples are more numerous only reflects a bias in how the test was constructed. The test contained 72 benefactive, but only 21 causative/caused-motion sentences, since the aim was to find out which syntactic argument triggered agreement, not about the CAUS-CMN/BEN distinction. Nevertheless, a by-product of this test was that the results actually support the findings in the independently produced material, i.e. that there is no difference between causative/caused-motion and benefactive regarding agreement. The test form can be found in appendix A. 8. 5. 3. 1 Agreement with OBJDAT With OBJDAT agreement, again the most frequent type, there are cases of agreement in both benefactive and causative/caused-motion sentences, 34 and 4, respectively. TABLE 8.34: Summary table of OBJDAT agreement in elicited data Agrees with...
OBJDAT OBJDAT OBJDAT/OBJACC OBJDAT/ S OBJDAT/ S/OBJACC OBJDAT
Masc. suffix N. -as 14
-as
1
-as
2
Fem. suffix -at
N. 15
-a® -at¶-a® -at -at
1 1 1 1
-at
2
Type of Total marker number BEN 34 BEN BEN BEN BEN BEN CAUSCMN
4
Total number 17 21 38 Note: Where more than one argument is listed in the ‘agrees with’ column, it could not be decided which argument determined the use of a certain suffix.
8. 5. 3. 2 Agreement with focussed and non-focussed OBJACC Among the cases of OBJACC agreement, there are 3 cases of agreement in benefactive and 4 cases of agreement in causative/caused-motion sentences. Feminine agreement amounts to 6 cases and masculine 1 (less certain) case.
483
TABLE 8.35: Summary table for FOBJACC and OBJ agreement in elicited data Agrees with...
Masc. suffix N.
FOBJACC FOBJACC/ OBJDAT OBJACC FOBJACC FOBJACC/ S FOBJACC/ OBJDAT FOBJACC
-as?
Total number
1
1
Fem. suffix -at -at -at
N. 1 1 1
-at?96
1
-at? -at?
1 1
Type marker BEN BEN BEN
of Total number 3
CAUSCMN CAUSCMN CAUSCMN CAUSCMN
4
6
7
8. 5. 3. 3 Agreement with subject Subject agreement is the rarest type in this material, barely documented by 2 cases of agreement in benefactive sentences and also 2 in causative/caused-motion. As for the masculine/feminine distinction, there are 2 cases of masculine agreement expressed by the -as suffix, and one case of feminine agreement expressed by the -at suffix. TABLE 8.36: Summary table for subject agreement in elicited data Agrees with... S
Masc. suffix N. -as 1
Fem. suffix -at
N. 1
S
-as
-at
1
Total number
1 2
2
484
Plural suffix N
Type marker BEN CAUSCMN
of Total number 2 2 4
8. 5. 4 The geographical distribution of agreement in Hausa It was shown in Table 8.33 that instances of agreement were found in the areas/villages listed in Table 8. 37: TABLE 8.37: Geographical distribution of agreement cases Area
Village
agreem. area
Tahoua
Number speakers 2
of Number instances 96
of Masculine suffix -as
Feminine suffix
-an area
Dogondoutchi
1
15
-as
-at
-as area
Dutsin Ma
2
15
-as
-at, -ad
-at area
Sabon Birni
1
7
-am
-at
-a® area
Gusau, Magarya 2
2
-as
-a®
-at
Since these numbers are not the results of a systematic testing, they cannot be interpreted as saying anything definite about agreement frequency in the various areas. Nevertheless, it is a fact that the cases of agreement in this material are restricted to one particular area. Rather, agreement appears to be a phenomenon found incidentally in several dialect areas. This may point to agreement as a phenomenon which exists or existed in several dialect areas rather than in just one or two contiguous areas: there are speakers who are aware of and more or less actively using verbal agreement in areas as far north as Tahoua, as far west as Dogondoutchi, as far south as Gusau and Dutsin Ma, and as far east as Magarya. We have seen in this chapter that even though different suffixes seem to have grammaticalized into and now function as causative/caused-motion and benefactive markers in the various Hausa dialects, speakers from all these dialects have one thing in common: an awareness of the -aC/CAUS-BEN suffixes as agreement markers. Further research would have to be carried out in order to establish whether a verbal agreement system was the source of the causative/caused-motion and benefactive markers as we know them today, or if these traces of agreement constitute recent linguistic innovations in Hausa. There are many indications which point towards the former being the case, the major one being comparison with other Chadic languages. However, for reasons of limitations on space and time, to discuss this in sufficient detail would be to go beyond the scope of this dissertation.
96The question mark signifies less certainty about this being a positive case of agreement: The suffix noted in the table was judged to be the most frequent one, but not the only one allowed: i.e. for -at
485
8. 5. 5 Conclusion on agreement data In conclusion, the agreement data in 8. 5 have shown that agreement is a phenomenon that applies equally to both benefactive and causative/caused-motion sentences. From this one can conclude that, at least synchronically, there is evidence of phonological unity between causative/caused-motion sentences on the one hand, and benefactive sentences on the other.
8. 6 Assimilated forms -ad and -am gaining unit status? Some informants used -am and -ad suffixes in an environment where these could not be explained by assimilation, viz. the suffix -am occurring before pause, before w-, and before d-, and the suffix -ad occurring before pause and before g-. See examples in (417). (417) a) Causative Mootaæa cee car COP.F
‘It was the car he put in.’
ya shigad he.PF enter.CAUS
b) Benefactive Sun sayam waæ mahaæifansuæ they.PF buy.BEN DAT parent.PL.LK.their ‘They bought a horse for their parents.’
dookìi horse
This phenomenon does not seem to be accidental or restricted to a few exceptional cases which can be disregarded, since it was represented in all dialect areas, by 29 different speakers (the -am suffixes was used by 25 different informants, and the -ad suffix by 4 different informants). A plausible explanation to such forms may be that the suffixes -ad and -am have gained their independence as a result of frequently and regularly co-occurring with grammatical elements in fixed grammatical structures, -am with the DAT prefix/marker ma-, and -ad with the instrumental marker dà. It is exactly the most frequently assimilated forms, -ad and -am, which are found as assimilated forms outside their conditioning environment. Conversely, a similar tendency for the suffixes -aw and -ag does not exist, which also correlates with the substantially lower assimilation rate in the environments before w- and efore g-. This supports the hypothesis that forms which by frequent repetition in one particular phonological environment may come to be perceived as independent suffixes with unit status (cf. Langacker 1987: 57).
suffixes, -as is marginally allowed and vice versa.
486
This phenomenon may profitably be read in conjunction with the section which describes a general cohesion 1) between -aC/BEN verbs and the DAT markers ma-/mà: non-allowance of the insertion of the modal particle fa and non-allowance of omitting the OBJDAT when understood from context (cf. 4. 3. 7. 1 and 4. 3. 9. 1), and 2) between -aC/CAUS-CMN verbs and the instrumental marker dà (cf. 4. 3. 9. 2 on the grammaticalization of dà).
487
CHAPTER 9
Discussion and summary of arguments 9. 0 Introduction In this chapter I will first discuss briefly the influence of theories of linguistics on hypothesis making, and state what I consider an adequate solution to the problems addressed in this dissertation. I will then go on to summarize the main findings and analyses regarding the semantic, phonological, and typological arguments.
9. 1 Considerations on linguistic theories, hypothesis making, and the adequacy of analyses 9. 1. 1 Different assumptions about syntax lead to different types of explanation The topic of this dissertation has been to explain apparently coincidental phonological form in terms of semantic relatedness of two syntactic constructions. However, in order to find syntactic polysemy one needs to recognize that syntactic elements in fact have meaning, and consequently to reject explanations which are based on a view of syntax as consisting of technical, operative devices, which blindly apply or do not apply according to a set of predefined rules of grammar. In the present approach, the focus is shifted away from the alleged task of syntax to formulate universal principles which are able to predict grammatically correct sentences, to the task of explaining the structure of sentences by way of semantically motivated, conventionalized structures. The cognitive approach is the result of the belief that grammatical rules are not just passed on from one generation to the next, but also in fact reinterpreted by each new generation in a way that makes sense cognitively to the language speaker in terms of meaning. These approaches differ in basic ways when it comes to what syntax is like; while some schools have had a tradition of arguing that syntactic rules should be maximally general, automatic, and separate from semantics, others emphasize not just that semantics influences syntactic rules, but indeed that syntactic structures carry meaning just like any other linguistic unit. It is evident that looking for syntactic polysemy in the former type of model would not be considered a relevant task. It is important to be aware of the fact that the kind of linguistic models one chooses, with their respective implicit assumptions, will yield very different answers. Indeed, they will
488
sometimes make us ask entirely different questions. The kind of regularities depicted e.g. in Comrie (1976) (cf. 6. 2. 6. 1) no doubt is very valuable to acknowledge, and it is important to recognize that his critics indeed stand on his shoulders. I believe, however, that there is a basic difference between the kind of approach advocated by those who want to predict languages and those who want to explain them, in so far as prediction does not necessarily entail explanation. 9. 1. 2 What constitutes a plausible explanation? Linguists are interested in language as a cognitive phenomoneon. Therefore, an analysis which is valid for more than one language is scientifically more interesting than a languageparticular one. In that sense, typological evidence should influence the type of explanation that we would be ready to accept. The challenge in this regard is that although there seems to be a recurring pattern of shared phonology of the causative and benefactive, these patterns are also language-specific. Should we then aspire to find an explanation which would be valid for all such languages? Or could we settle for a less universal solution, which would only explain the language-specific usages of encoding such constructions? I would argue that the second view should not preclude the first, or vice versa. Rather, when studying the details of a specific language, one should keep in mind the overall picture while making hypotheses and analyses about one particular language. At the same time, thorough knowledge of the grammar of individual languages will help us make the right assumptions. We have also seen, in 6. 2, that there is more than one semantic path to a shared causative-benefactive phonology. When investigating the specific problem at hand, the potential polysemy of the causative and benefactive, the distinction between those languages which share phonology in terms of case marking and those that share phonology in terms of a separate affix, used entirely or mainly for these purposes, becomes relevant. In languages that share causative-benefactive phonology by way of using the same case (e.g. the dative) to mark the grammatical relation of the Beneficiary in benefactive constructions and the Causee in transitive causative constructions, it is natural to look for an explanation in terms of the prototypical meaning of this case elsewhere in the language; one of which could be semantic roles associated with dative case/indirect objects, the patient-like energy sink role attached to the accusative, or the comitative or instrumental meanings associated with instrumental case.
489
In languages that make use of a special causative-benefactive suffix, on the one hand, this solution may not be equally obvious. For such languages, other types of arguments have been promoted, viz. those that stress the syntactic aspect of ‘adding an extra argument’, but without specifying the type of argument or attaching any semantics to it, e.g. Frajzyngier (1985) for Hausa. Regarding possible types of explanation, there is thus a distinction between those that emphasize 1) syntactic arguments on the one hand, and 2) semantic arguments relating to semantic roles and the core meanings of cases on the other. In this dissertation I have tried to argue that we need both. I shall now look into whether it is possible to adopt one explanation for both case languages and affixal languages, and whether or not it can be maintained that both types of languages are motivated by similar principles. 9. 1. 2. 1 The analysis of Secondary agents in case languages The extension of a case to the Secondary agent role is likely to be motivated by the original meaning of this particular case, and the unextended schema will therefore influence what type of semantic role the Secondary agent has when marked with that particular case, and also what type of causation is involved. It appears that various languages have exploited the core meanings of cases differently: in some languages, the motivation for extending the instrumental case is to have a Causee which is highly volitional and active and enjoys more control (Bolivian Quechua, Kannada). This type of grammaticalization focuses on the instrumental argument’s position in the action chain which ranks it above a dative in terms of control and initiative capacity (it belongs to the source domain, in Langackerian terms), and the fact that an instrument is often physically operative (it moves). Other languages exploit the fact that instrumental case signals peripherality and non-topicality (Hindi, Finnish, Hungarian). This use of the instrumental is comparable to the function of ‘passive agent’ causative constructions employing the equivalent of ‘by’: e.g. French par, and Spanish por, (for Spanish examples, see Ackerman and More 1995, 1999). These two functions are also present in the Hausa instrumental, where it is employed to signify ‘passive (causal) agent’ in passive and stative constructions (cf. 7. 4. 1. 2), as well as marking the Secondary agent. These languages have exploited the fact that instrumentals are typically inanimate, and thus less relevant to humans (less topical) (but note that the –aC suffix in Hausa has the opposite effect).
490
When it comes to what semantic characteristics have been exploited in dative marked Secondary agents, it appears that these are of two different kinds: firstly, the fact that datives are mental Experiencers. Many languages use the dative with a lexically limited set of causative verbs, viz. those referring to mental states and ‘psych verbs’ (Ackerman and More 1995). This is the case in Bolivian Quechua (Cole 1983: 119), as well as Hindi, Dutch, and Kannada (Kemmer and Verhagen 1994: 135). Secondly, the core meaning of humans as potential Agents seems to be extracted from the dative case in some languages. The fact that languages do not behave consistently and predictably in this respect (e.g. in language X dative signals agentivity, in language Y it is a marker of non-agentive Causees), may be grounded in what type of core meaning has motivated the extension. In languages that have the option of several encodings of the Causee, this contrast can be observed more easily. In Kannada and Hebrew, for instance, the dative is reported to mark non-agentive Causees, in Japanese, it marks agentive Causees. This, of course, must also be seen in relation to the kind of case marker it is contrasted within each language. In Kannada where the dative signals a non-agentive Causee, the contrasting case is instrumental. As mentioned above, instrumentals belong to the source domain, and dative to the target domain; an instrumental thus ranks above the dative in the action chain. In Japanese, on the other hand, the alternative to dative Causee encoding is the accusative, which signals a more patient-like Causee even less in control than the dativemarked one. Where such alternative Causee encodings exist within the same language it is particularly evident that the use of case involves alternative semantic construals. 9. 1. 2. 2 Arguments against analysing affixal languages as different Let us consider an analysis which maintains that the semantic ‘content’ of the -aC suffix is merely to signal the presence of an added argument. Suppose, in other words, the -aC suffix was really just a ‘transitivizer’. There are at least five objections to this position; if the ‘meaning’ of -aC was to signal the presence of an added, unspecified argument, 1) there would be no reason to link the -aC/BEN to the -aC/CAUS semantically. The suffix could just as well relate to a subject/Agent as to a downstream Experiencer.
491
2) we would not expect this suffix to associate this closely with the dative and instrumental case particles, as indeed we have seen it does, both semantically, and phonologically in terms of fusion. 3) If the -aC suffix did not have an independent meaning, we would not expect Hausa speakers to exchange it for other benefactive markers such as gr6, gr4, or gr1 to convey the particular meaning that they want. There is, however, no doubt that they do just this. 4) We would not be able to relate a CAUS/BEN affix in any language to the recurring use of dative case in the causative constructions in the languages of the world. 5) The function of the -aC suffix would come to resemble that of an ‘empty agreement marker’ (as adjectives agree with a head noun), merely announcing the presence of another compositional linguistic unit in the clause, viz. the indirect and direct objects. However, linguists such as Langacker (1987: 53-54 on ‘content requirement’) have argued pervasively against the existence of linguistic units totally void of semantic content. We have also seen that Hausa speakers attach certain meanings to the –aC suffix. I consider these objections to be so weighty that I have chosen to ascribe a certain meaning content to the -aC suffix, and relate the uses in a semantic network. I have done this by assuming a certain degree of redundancy of expressions. I suggest that schema 5A: ‘-aC profiling transitive action mental Causee’, is as valid in affixal as in case languages. The intransitive equivalent in schema 5B of -aC (see 7. 5. 5. 1) would similarly be able to describe those languages which encode the Causee in IC as OBJDAT. Affixal languages exist which do not have additional (redundant) case markings on the Causee/Beneficiary argument, like Hausa has, but that still display an organization in terms of semantic roles expressed by causative and benefactive constructions. Ga’anda and Pa‘anci appear to be two such languages; cf. Ga‘anda, examples (75)-(79) and Pa’anci, examples (80)-(82)) in the present work. This points to the affix/case contrast being of lesser importance than the fact that same form expresses related meanings. Compare, for instance, Goldberg’s (1995) analysis of the English ditransitive to Hansen’s (2004) dative case analysis in Japanese; both invoke and emphasize the path metaphor to explain benefactive meanings. This being said, I should also stress the fact that there appears to be more than one way in which causative and benefactive constructions have come to be semantically and syntactically related, as laid out in chapter 6. This is in line with the Cognitive Grammar
492
assumption, where meaning extensions are motivated (and can be traced once they have happened), but not predicted. I will in the following give a summary of the arguments and findings of this dissertation concerning problems of previous observations of the -aC suffix, to its semantics, and to its phonology. I will also point out the relevance of typological evidence.
9. 2 Summary of discussion on previous research 9. 2. 1 Problems of meaning Before starting to discuss a potential polysemous relationship between causative and benefactive it was necessary to establish that a subset of the ‘non-benefactive’ uses of the -aC suffix were in fact causative. The position that this is actually not a causative meaning has been and is still maintained by such leading scholars of Hausa as Wolff (1993), Newman (1983, 2000), Jaggar and Munkaila (1995) and Jaggar (2001). It was argued in 4. 3. 3 that the purported efferential meaning of the -aC/CAUS-CMN suffix was imprecise and that it disguised two fundamentally different functions of this suffix; viz. the changing of semantic roles, which relates to the basic causative function, on the one hand, and a concomitant MVR role of the OBJINST, on the other, and that the latter is rooted partly in the semantics of motion verbs and partly in the High Transitivity effects. The discussion ‘is –aC a causative?’ relates to two positions: the first is the hypothesized comprehensive position that all non-benefactive instances of –aC are causative (contrasted with the opposite option represented by Newman that all are efferential, i.e. that none of them are causative). Secondly, it relates to the weaker position that ‘a subset of nonbenefactive instances of –aC are causative’. In this connection, it was desirable to clarify whether –aC constructions which do not increase valency can be claimed to be causatives. In response to the first, comprehensive position I responded that: 1)
Causatives (as well as applicatives) that do not increase valency are reported to exist in other languages (Dixon and Aikhenvald 2000). Thus, although indicative, valency increase is not an absolute criterion.
2)
Martin (2000) provides an alternative view on voice alternations where perspective is the primary function. Valency increase or decrease thus becomes side-effects which may or may not be a consequence of a change
493
in perspective. Causative and benefactive are included as types of such voice alternations. 3)
One of the construction types most elaborately described in Goldberg’s constructionist model is the caused-motion construction, where the construction itself provides the trajectory semantics. This construction is not explained in terms of valency increase as one of its major features. The Hausa caused-motion construction, as well as the ditransitive, bear certain features in common with the English caused-motion construction. To say that the Hausa caused-motion is not at all about causation is a position that may therefore have to be defended.
Secondly, in defence of the second position, it was stated that even if one were to conclude that caused-motion usages cannot be defined as causative, it can be shown that causative formations in general do occur with semantically related, non-causative meanings belonging to the same morpheme, as was the case in Aleut and in the Athapaskan languages. It is thus not a problem to claim that there is both a group of –aC/CAUS verbs and a group of – aC/CMN verbs in Hausa, and that these are semantically related. That is, it is not necessary to assume that they are unrelated homonyms. It was further argued from a data corpus collected for the present investigation that the caused-motion meaning is a single component of a set of High Transitivity effects that apply to the causative as well as to the benefactive meanings of the -aC suffix. Most of these HT effects are shared by both -aC/BEN and -aC/CAUS-CMN (high subject agency, high object affectedness, kinesis, completed action, individuation of object). There are, however, distinct differences. Some of these relate to the fact that HT effects have grammaticalized differently in the causative/caused-motion and in the benefactive usages of -aC. I proposed that the fact that the benefactive (but not the causative/caused-motion construction) has been reported to be restricted to perfective aspect can be understood in terms of the OBJDAT behaving like an incremental theme, where perfective aspect and object affectedness are interdependent grammatico-semantic aspects of -aC/BEN. It contrasts with -aC/CAUS-CMN in that sense, since a common role of OBJINST is a MVR which transmits energy down the action chain rather than absorbs it. This contrast between the semantic roles of the objects of -aC/CAUSCMN and -aC/BEN was further suggested to be rooted in the prototypical animacy difference between OBJDAT and OBJINST.
494
A potiential complication was discussed in relation to the HT effect on the OBJINST participant when constrasted with the low transitive gr1 –aa construction. On the face of it, it would appear to be contradictory of a universal fact that an accusative marked argument, which is a core participant of the transitive clause, is less affected by the verbal action than an instrumental case marked, oblique argument, which universally is not part of the sentence core and obviously would be less relevant to the verbal action. This apparent contradiction was explained by the fact that affectedness is not a semantic characteristic of the OBJINST alone, but a global feature sifting through the whole sentence. Thus, all participants of –aC constructions display semantic high transitivity, and the instrumental marking on this argument is therefore not an exponent of affectedness per se, as it first would seem. A semantic explanation was suggested to why the grade 2 base verb shifts to the –aC/BEN form when used with an OBJDAT. While the –aC construction typically orient themselves towards the effect of an action on downstream participants, some gr2 verbs are oriented towards the subject/Agent-Recipient hybrid role. This has a special semantic effect for those (restricted) cases that can be found of gr2 used before an OBJDAT, namely as ‘self-’ or ‘unbenefactive’. I suggested that this feature also can be construed in terms of energy flow properties, where energy is first directed towards a downstream participant, but then reversed. These features are known from other languages, where the phenomenon is classified as variations on middle constructions, especially relating to non-elaboration of the event implicit in not distinguishing between Initiator (Agent) and Endpoint (Recipient or Patient). 9. 2. 2 Problems of syntax The fact that the dative marker adheres closer to the -aC/BEN suffix than to the -aC/CAUS-CMN suffix is in the present work not taken as an indication that these suffixes cannot be polysemous. Rather, it is seen as a natural consequence of a grammaticalization process that the dative marker displays cohesion with the OBJDAT. This cohesion is manifested through the disallowance of phonological material (emphatic particles) between -aC/BEN and ma-/mà/wà, while at the same time such interference is allowed between -aC/CAUS-CMN and the same dative markers when a causative/caused-motion construction contains an OBJDAT. By the same token, it is reported from other researchers that the OBJDAT in the causative/caused-motion may be left out when it is understood from the context, while the benefactive would never occur without an overt OBJDAT.
495
It is natural to see this formerly observed close connection between -aC/BEN and the dative markers ma-/mà/wà in connection with the fusion of INST dà to -aC/CAUS-CMN. In 4. 3. 9. 2 it was shown that the -aC/CAUS-CMN suffix adheres to the instrumental marker in a similar fashion, with the closest possible cohesion compared to different, but similar functions of the instrumental marker: Instrumental case in Hausa has grammaticalized into a verbal particle, closely associated with causative meaning. Phonologically, dà has fused with the -aC suffix, such that dà forms a syntactic constituent with the verb ([V dà]VP + OBJ) when used in the Secondary agent sense, and with the following object when used as an instrumental object (V + [dà OBJ]PP). Moreover, it was demonstrated that there is a gradient transition going from the closest possible fusion between the -aC/CAUS suffix and dà, through less fusion in motion verbs which attain a causative meaning in combination with dà, to an even looser connection where dà is used as an instrumental object of verbs of cognition, to being completely disassociated from the verb in verbs of association/ disassociation. Interestingly, the three former belong to the Conduit INST, and the last one is a Comitative INST (see Janda 1993 for a pictorial diagram of the Comitative INST and other INST types). The type of meaning associated with dà is thus reflected in its syntactic behaviour. This syntactic behaviour confirms the fact that the instrumental meaning is essential to the causative, which corroborates the semantic analysis of INST in 7. 4, where INST in causatives is a via function where this participant is seen as internally peripheral to the action. It is also proposed (7. 6) that this cohesion (fusion) should be seen in relation to the usage of the -am/BEN and -ad/CAUS-CMN suffixes as these are used outside their assimilating environment, since the entity status of these suffixes evidently indicates the attrition of the -as, -a®, -an and -at suffixes in frequently used phonological environments (phonological entrenchment).
9. 3 Inferences of typological arguments Section 6.1 presented a collection of languages where the phonological expression of causative and benefactive is the same, either in terms of a common affix or by using the same grammatical case or adposition to mark the Beneficiary and the Causee semantic roles. Some cases were also shown where causative and benefactive belong to the same derivational system. The hypothesis on typology was included for the general support of the main hypothesis, and was not to be tested per se. The relevance of this section concerns what
496
inferences can be drawn from the typological data for the kinds of assumptions that can be made about the Hausa polysemy issue. H3: Phonological relatedness of causative and benefactive constructions exists in a number of unrelated languages. The typological argument is significant in two respects. Firstly, it serves to arouse our suspicion that the shared marking of causative and benefactive is a recurring pattern, and not a phonological accident in one or just a few languages. That is, in linguistic terms, this would be a phenomenon which is worth looking into and which requires a linguistic explanation. Taylor (1989: 104) discusses the problem of how to distinguish between homonymy and polysemy. He stresses the point that homonymy is a language-specific phenomenon, saying that ‘homonymy is in a very real sense an accidental phenomenon, and is thus highly language specific’, and we would ‘certainly not expect the phenomenon to recur in language after language’. Thus, while looking at one single language, it is in some cases difficult to decide whether something is a case of homonymy or a case of polysemy, positive supportive evidence of a polysemous situation would appear if we were to find that this is a crosslinguistic phenomenon. Furthermore, as part of the general linguistic approach (as opposed to a languagespecific one) I have throughout the dissertation referred to works on related topics in other languages (i.a. the typology of causatives in other languages, agreement as a source of high transitivity semantics, linguistic phenomena which support a monoclausal view on causatives, and a hypothesis for the rise of grammatical agreement). I have done this out of a belief that linguistic phenomena should not be seen in isolation if we want to understand their cause or motivation. Hausa is no more special or idiosyncratic than any other language, and I have striven to demonstrate that it is so. In section 6. 2 I addressed and discussed possible explanations to causativebenefactive syncretism as it occurs in other works on the matter. It appears that there is more than one path to the development of causative-benefactive syncretism, and that each explanation has to be sought for the language in question (but of course with reference to universal tendencies and mechanisms of language change). This also applies to the directionality of change. While in some languages, it has been argued that the causative has
497
developed into benefactive related usages; in others the contrary is the case, that assistive/benefactive meanings have developed into (sociative) causative. A somewhat lengthy discussion was included on the to approaches directional explanation (the path metaphor) vs. explanations that focus more on the comparison of semantic roles. There is not doubt that both are required in order to explain the phenomena implicit in both the causative and the benefactive, and I therefore renounced explanations which focus primarily or solely on the path metaphor (e.g. Goldberg). Proceeding from that stance, it was required to choose a model that could compare the semantic roles typically associated with these constructions. As part of that project it was argued that the –aC/CAUS construction in Hausa is monoclausal, with references being made both to causatives in general as they appear in other languages, as well as language-specific features relating to Hausa alone.
9. 4 Summary of and conclusions on semantic arguments My hypotheses about the semantics of BEN -aC and CAUS -aC stated in 1. 2 were (note that the caused-motion uses as part of the meaning chain are excluded here): H2: One of the similarities between -aC benefactive and -aC causative in Hausa concerns the semantic roles of the dative object and the Causee, respectively. H5: BEN -aC and CAUS -aC have semantic characteristics which can be related in a polysemous structure. H6: In Hausa, when the verb is marked by the morpheme -aC, the Causee of an intransitive causative clause is semantically similar to the dative object of a monotransitive sentence, and the Causee of a transitive causative clause is semantically similar to the dative object of a ditransitive sentence. 9. 4. 1 Conclusion on the semantics of the -aC suffix I have tried to show that the -aC BEN/CAUS-CMN suffix marks the presence of a special kind of argument in the causative/caused-motion and benefactive constructions. It does not mark the presence of just any kind of grammatical relation. As it is defined in relation to the action chain, it marks a downstream participant. That is, this participant is not herself
498
initiating the action; she is not the energy source. The usages of the -aC suffix demonstrated in my semantic analysis cover the meaning chain GOAL > RECIPIENT > BENEFACTIVE > MENTAL CAUSEE > PHYSICAL CAUSEE > MOVER.
The first three are comprised by the
benefactive; the latter three are encoded by the causative/caused-motion construction. In the most characteristic of its uses, the -aC suffix marks an animate participant, a sentient being who is capable of experiencing the impact of the action initiated by a subject/Agent or a subject/Causer. The extension chain will, in the case of Hausa, also include the MVR role of OBJINST in motion verbs, which is a logically plausible role with instrumental arguments (since, as instrumental objects, they are typically not penetrated or altered, but instead perpetuate the energy down the action chain). This role, however, is not particularly relevant to the more universal CAUS/BEN polysemy chain as they are displayed in e.g. case marking languages; although this would suggest that causatives in some languages are related to and they themselves are constructions characterized by semantic high transitivity. 9. 4. 1. 1 Change of domains The participant profiled by the -aC suffix may in both the benefactive and causative uses be defined with reference to the domain of the action chain, and to the domain of the animacy hierarchy. In the -aC/BEN suffix, the emphasis is on the intermediary participant’s mental experience of an action that she does not herself control and that is initiated by the subject/Agent. The -aC/CAUS suffix, on the other hand, profiles an active Experiencer, who responds to the energy imposed on her in terms of further action. This shift is analysed in terms of an extension involving a change of domains. In 1. 3. 3 it was stated that a strong indication that a linguistic expression is polysemous is that it has to be explained with reference to different domains. The prototypical meanings of -aC/BEN and -aC/CAUS contrast in terms of the mental level participant’s position in the action chain, which entails this participant’s status as a (more passive) Recipient of an action or object, contrasted with her ability or wish to act in relation to an externally adduced action. As such, the participant profiled in the -aC/BEN construction may be seen as belonging to the target domain, and the participant profiled in the -aC/CAUS as belonging to the source domain. This equals the main extension from benefactive to causative -aC (cf. H2, H5). Recall that these domains relate to the energy flow
499
hierarchy, which organizes role archetypes according to an action chain along the energy flow, going from AG via INST to the PAT/MVR/EXPER roles. Now this analysis seems at first sight to depart slightly from Langacker’s (1991a: 413) definition of a Secondary agent, where both the Secondary agent and the indirect object/dative are described as ‘active Experiencers in the target domain’. However, the present analysis of these as belonging to different domains does not seem unwarranted for the following reasons: Firstly, Secondary agents are defined as ‘secondary in the sense of being downstream from the original energy source, yet agentive in the sense of having some initiative role’. Furthermore, this meaning represents ‘a plausible semantic extension with respect to the prototypical values of both instrumental and dative case’ (ibid: 413). Thus, the Secondary agent is directly analogous to an instrument ‘by virtue of being an intermediary in the flow of energy from the (primary) agent to the theme’. It is also analogous to dative case because of the mental experience facet which is central to this case. In Figure 3.16 in 3. 4. 2, we saw that INST is characterized as belonging to the source domain, in virtue of being a transmitter of energy rather than a Recipient of energy, such as is typical of the EXPER, PAT/MVR roles; Agents and instruments transmit energy to their downstream participants. In Schema 5A of –aC profiling a transitive action mental Causee (cf. 7. 5. 5. 1) we saw that the Secondary agent’s position in the action chain is analogous to Schema 1C Conduit INST of Secondary agent, with the only observable difference between the two being in terms of the viasignification of INST in the latter. On the basis of these apparent similarities I therefore suggest that the Secondary agent sense of the -aC suffix can be conceived of as belonging to the source domain. The participant profiled by -aC/BEN, on the other hand, is clearly in the Recipient domain, in virtue of either being the energy sink, or by being completely detached from the action chain when activated only through the personal sphere. An alternative way of analysing this would be to let the active/passive contrast be part of the EXPER role itself, and not to relate this to the source vs. target domains. In that case, the view on polysemy would prevail which allows a ‘common semantic core’ (see discussion in 1. 3. 5), and where variations would be deducible only from its use in contrasting syntactic contexts.
500
9. 4. 1. 2 Transfer from simple transitive to TC and simple intransitive to IC The -aC/BEN-passive EXPER and -aC/CAUS-active EXPER roles apply equally to transitive and intransitive structures, where the -aC/BEN-intr contrasts with -aC/CAUS-intr in the sense of having the same number of participants in the clause and in the sense of typically designating downstream EXPER roles relevant to each construction. For the transitive counterparts, the -aC/CAUS-tr suffix compares the semantic role of OBJ1INST to the passive EXPER role of the OBJDAT of -aC/BEN-tr correspondingly (cf. H6). 9. 4. 1. 3 The ambivalence of -aC In -aC sentences containing both an OBJDAT and an OBJACC/INST it is in some cases impossible to say which of these the -aC suffix designates (where phonologically the same). It may apply equally to the MVR role of an OBJINST, as to the Experiencer role of the dative object. This ambivalence is part and parcel of the polysemy approach, however, and need not be considered problematic. 9. 4. 1. 4 The semantic effect of high transitivity in the –aC suffixes Semantic high transitivity is a semantic factor present with all of the usages of the –aC suffix. In the benefactive, this materializes as a high degree of affectedness of all the downstream participants, with a special emphasis on the OBJDAT participant in terms of the action being especially favourable or effective, or as having an especially severe negative effect on this participant. This is what motivates the use of this BEN suffix contrasted with other types of benefactive suffixes in Hausa, and constitutes the Hausa speaker’s set of linguistic resources for different construals of a benefactive situation. Such construal is in Cognitive Grammar seen as a valid part of an expression’s meaning. With respect to the causative usage, the –aC suffix denotes a direct action semantics on the Causee, who typically goes through a change of state, or is made to be in a certain state, situation or body position, much like a Patient, as was shown by the examples in 2. 7. 2. 1. As for the caused-motion construcition, semantic high transitivity is a plausible explanation for the MVR role imposed on the OBJINST participant, whether the verb denotes motion and HT has a synergy effect on it, or if the verb is a non-motion verb and literal or abstract motion is a result of construed intensive kinesis effect. However, Mover roles as the result of HT effects in verbs which do not denote motion seems to be rare, at least from the
501
collection in Bargery’s dictionary. More data seem to be necessary to further evaluate the proportion of such verbs in relation to causative and motion based meanings. In addition, it is known that the same –aC verb may both be used with a ‘riddance/rejection’ semantics while also being used in a purely causative sense without such connotations. The advantage of explaining these various semantic variations of the –aC suffix in this manner is, of course, that they can all be related to the same global phenomenon; a phenomenon that has also been shown to exist in a number of other, unrelated languages of the world. 9. 4. 2 Conclusion on the semantics of MA (dative) and dà (INST) The semantic argument also highlights the advantage of understanding case marking of Causees and Beneficiaries as a semantically motivated phenomenon, where cases, in causative as well as in simple sentence clauses, can be understood in terms of systems of interrelated senses, and where novel uses of a case can be understood as semantically motivated extensions from established core meanings. The meanings of a case relate to the semantic roles typically expressed by this case, or to a grammatical relation which has been grammaticalized on the basis of such semantic roles. This dissertation presents polysemy networks for the dative case and for some uses of the instrumental case in Hausa, because of their central role in the causative and benefactive constructions. Recall that in CG, the semantic value of a linguistic expression resides in the relationship between an expression’s base and its profile, base referring to an expression’s domain or domains, representing the knowledge structure within which an expression is understood and defined. It was seen that the dative case was understood in relation to two cognitive concepts, that of the path metaphor (Goal) and that of an Experiencer inhabiting a personal sphere. The two concepts may be invoked separately at each end of the polysemy chain, at the one extreme is allative use with inanimate Goals, on the other is the EXPER role which is detached from the action chain. In the transient uses, the two concepts will blend. In terms of understanding the dative as used with reference to different domains, the path metaphor can be ascribed to the domain of space, whereas the EXPER role is understood with reference to the base of the animacy hierarchy. In the polysemy network of the conduit instrumental it was shown that the characterization of dà could be subsumed under the heading ‘peripheral participant of the
502
event’. In this sense, the instrumental in Hausa can be explained by the kind of linguistic approach that states that a polysemous expression should be amenable to one semantic core. However, it was demonstrated in 7. 4 that this alone is not sufficient to give a satisfactory characterization of the various uses of dà: for this analysis to reach a level of descriptive conviction, subschemas and lower-level schemas had to be elaborated. In that respect, the common semantic core characteristic of a high-level schema is too abstract to be of any use. The conduit INST is profiled against the background of the internal structure of the event. Relative prominence is the overall characterization of INST, considering the fact that figure/ground alignment is relevant to all types if INST97. In the present work, the characterization of the conduit INST as a peripheral participant in the action chain is essential to the view on the structure of causatives as monoclausal, rather than biclausal. The monoclausal view of causatives allows us to compare the downstream participants of the Beneficiary and the Causee. It was also suggested that the shift from DAT in the benefactive construction to INST in the causative/caused-motion accompanies a meaning extension of the –aC suffix from a more passive to a more active Experiencer role. This was shown in contrasting examples in (401) and (402). It is also shown (example (403)) that it is possible to use a dative case marked Causee, but only in a marked interpretation where the Causee is forced to act against her will, that is, when the Causee is portrayed as a non-autonomous Experiencer. This suggests that case is not used as a technical device related to automatic rules of grammar, but is a resource the speaker has at her disposal to select a particular construal. 9. 4. 3 Syntactic morphemes as construal of encyclopaedic knowledge Causatives and benefactives have a lot to do with social organization, human interaction and perspective, which are part of a larger non-linguistic cognitive apparatus enabling speakers to make sense of these concepts. The monoclausal analysis of causatives preserves both the perspective of the Causer and of the Causee. The Causer sees a causative action as a way of influencing the course of events. She wants to get something done and takes the necessary actions. The Causer sees it as necessary to subdue the human aspect of the Causee in terms of this participant’s personal integrity and self-determination. If not, no causation will take place. The Causee, on the other hand, will inevitably be found in a role where she carries out
97Similarly, the comitative INST is profiled against the background of another participant, and the INST of setting to the background of the event as a whole. See Janda (1993).
503
and experiences an action not initiated by herself. She may experience loss of integrity, transgression of her personal sphere, and mental influence/dominance by the Causer. Thus she sees herself as a person whose wishes and needs are set aside (she is peripheral) and who is not entirely in control. In terms of social organization, then, she is very much like the Experiencer of an external impact (a dative), or her experiential abilities may not even be considered relevant, as long as she does what is expected (she is an instrument).
9. 5 Summary and conclusion on syntactic arguments The pivotal point in understanding why Hausa, like many other languages, shares a phonological expression for the causative and benefactive constructions has involved comparing the Causee role of the causative to the roles associated with the dative object of the benefactive construction. Cf. the syntactic hypothesis: Hypothesis about the syntactic structure of the -aC causative: H7: There exists independent motivation and cross-linguistic motivation to argue that the structure of the -aC/CAUS construction is monoclausal, such that this construction can be likened to the benefactive use of -aC. 9. 5. 1 Summary of arguments for the monoclausal structure of causatives in a crosslinguistic perspective In the monoclausal approach (see 6. 2. 6. 3, 6. 2. 6. 4 and 7. 1), comparison of the transitive Causee and Beneficiary roles in a ditransitive sentence is rendered possible, since the subject/Causer is matched with the subject/Agent of the benefactive construction, and the accusative object (Affectee) of the causative is matched with the accusative object. This implies seeing the subject/Causer as the original subject in causative constructions, and the Causee as the argument which extends a non-causative sentence to a causative one. In a cross-linguistic perspective, a number of independent syntactic characteristics of causative constructions support this as a valid alternative view. These include languages where causativization is carried out by the same syntactic process as object raising (Kinyarwanda), and languages where the Causee can be omitted in a causative sentence (Afar, Italian, French, English, Songhai). Furthermore, Causees receive case marking that is associated with peripherality (instrumental case). There is also typological evidence from serial verb causative constructions which shows that these are treated syntactically as
504
monoclausal units, since all verbs, including the non-causal ones, are agreement marked with the subject/Causer (Haruai, Tariana). In a cognitive analysis where underlying structures are not acknowledged, biclausal structure can only be justified where the causative construction contains some overt expression of its being constituted by two clauses, e.g. markers of subordination or where the two clauses have their own set of core arguments. It is true that causatives display different degrees along the scale of periphrastic vs. single verb expressions, and that sometimes it might be hard to decide whether a causative is biclausal or monoclausal. As we saw in the serial verb examples of the ‘concordant dependent inflection’ type in 6. 2. 6. 3, there is no doubt that the causal element is a separate word, but the construction as a whole is nevertheless treated syntactically as a single predicate by being agreement marked in a unitary fashion. Inference about monoclausal status can also be drawn in terms of the absence of markers of subordination: in several languages, all verbs in the construction are agreement marked with the subject/Causer, even if the Causee is the logical subject of the noncausational verbs. 9. 5. 2 Summary of arguments for monoclausal structure in the Hausa causative When it comes to the monoclausal structure of Hausa causatives, several arguments were advanced in 7. 1 to support this idea. Firstly, it was suggested that both the phonological elements -aC and dà are extensions from (are ‘borrowed’ from) simple sentence structures, viz. the benefactive and the instrumental constructions, respectively, and that it is therefore plausible that the borrowing structure will be of the same kind. Secondly, it has been pointed out by other Hausaists that the -aC/CAUS-CMN suffix is often added to underived verbs that already have an Agent subject (in gr2 this would be likely), and that it is therefore logical that this suffix relates to a downstream participant, to an object. The third argument relates to the fact that the INST marker dà, in addition to regularly marking the Causee, has developed into marking the dative object argument, thus ‘stacking’ the instrumental marker on top of the dative marker (waæ + daæ), both when the -aC/CAUSCMN suffix is present, and when other grades are used, e.g. with the ventive grade 6. The significance of this development is that the dative objects, as well as the Causees, are understood as peripheral participants in the causative and benefactive constructions. This
505
particular use of dà strongly confirms the analysis of the basic meaning of INST as marking peripherality. The fourth argument put forward brings together several synchronic facts regarding the causative, to argue that the consonant of the -aC/CAUS suffix (as well as the other functions of –aC) might have originated from an object pronoun, whose function was to agree with a downstream participant, possibly the most topical one. The significance of this argument concerns the fact that the ‘added’ pronoun was an object (dative or accusative), which means that the verb already has a subject/Agent, who becomes the Causer in the causative. The synchronic facts supporting this view concern the position of object pronouns immediately after the verb, combined with the fact that the -aC suffix is the only one in the verbal system to end with a consonant. This idea is confirmed by the use of object pronouns in present-day dialects of Hausa (especially in fast speech), where so-called weak object pronouns behave like clitics, and the low tone may be erased. The causative meaning of -aC/CAUS (and -aC/BEN) would then have arisen out of the semantic role attributed to this pronoun in each particular syntactic context (which includes i.a. the lexical meaning of the verb, and case marking of downstream participants). The agreement data presented in 8. 5 further supports the suggestion that the consonant of the -aC suffix is object related with respect to a tendency to agreement mark the dative object. In 7. 1. 2 the morphological causative was compared to the syntactic causative in Hausa, to emphasize the fact that the latter, but not the former, has distinct biclausal markers which can justify a biclausal analysis. It is implicitly assumed that case marking alone is not a sufficient argument to assume an underlying biclausal syntactic structure. The morphological and the syntactic causatives differ in the following senses: firstly, the morphological causative has one TAM, the periphrastic has two, one referring to the Causer and one to the Causee. Secondly, the periphrastic causative allows the Causee pronoun to be expressed as an object of the first clause if the Causee is a pronoun, while at the same time representing it as a subject in the second clause. That is, both clauses may have a separate set of arguments. Thirdly, the periphrastic causative negates the two clauses separately, while the morphological causative negates like a regular simple sentence. These facts may seem selfevident, but nevertheless serve to remind us that there is actually a difference in form between simple and complex sentence structures which is disregarded, or at least blurred, by those who analyse morphological causatives as biclausal.
506
While the entry of Dixon and Aikhenvald’s new research on causatives has rendered it less compelling to classify Hausa according to Comrie’s transitivity hypothesis, it is worth noting that in terms of the case marking of Causees, Hausa does not support the predictions of this hierarchy. With the Causees of both TC and IC encoded in instrumental case, Hausa is a case of ‘extended demotion’, where a case further down the hierarchy than would be predicted by this hypothesis.
9. 6 Summary and conclusion on phonological arguments My main hypothesis about the various phonological realizations of the -aC suffix which were previously known (-as/CAUS-CMN, -a®, -an/BEN, -am) was that these were not dependent on the distinction of causative/caused-motion vs. benefactive meaning (cf. hypotheses about the phonology of -aC, H4 in 1. 3). In particular, I was interested in finding out whether the suffix -as can be used as a benefactive, without an accompanying causative meaning (cf. H4a). I also wanted to investigate the specific usage of the -an suffix, which was previously thought to be only a benefactive suffix (cf. H4b). One hypothesis was inspired by the phonological reconstruction of the *-at suffix: H8a): Since the feminine pronoun in Hausa is t-, a variant -at of the -aC marker will exist synchronically, besides the already attested -as. The discussion below will show that these hypotheses have been verified, with the exception of certain restrictions on -as/CAUS in one dialect. 9. 6. 1 Organization in dialect areas The first major finding (see 8. 2), however, was not previewed by any of the hypotheses; viz. that variations of the -aC suffix have grammaticalized according to dialect areas. This was particularly clear in the Northern region around the Dogondoutchi area, where -an is used as a general marker of both causative/caused-motion and benefactive, mostly realized as [-a_]. This was also particularly clear in the south-western area surrounding Sokoto, where a previously unrecorded -at suffix is the general and nearly unique marker of both causative/caused-motion and benefactive.
507
Going east to Dutsin Ma the number of suffixes multiplied, and the picture became more complex. While all four suffixes -as, -a®, -an, and -at were in use, the one suffix -as predominated, and the -a® suffix was also extensively used. The two latter suffixes were also the ones that were previously known to and discussed among Hausaists. The remaining two, an and -at were only known through older works of Hausa (Mischlich 1906 and Taylor 1923 for -an) or a had the status of a hypothetical reconstruction (*-at). A smaller number of informants also confirmed the use of the non-controversial -a® suffix as the predominant CAUS-CMN/BEN marker in the city of Gusau (west of Kano). In the north of Niger, in Tahoua, the -at, -as and -an suffixes were equally common, and the -at and -as suffixes were used extensively as agreement markers for feminine and masculine gender, respectively. 9. 6. 2 The discovery of a previously unattested suffix A major finding of my fieldwork was the discovery of the up to now unattested -at suffix in present use both as a marker of causative/caused-motion and of benefactive. This suffix had previously only been a theoretical construct among Hausaists. The usage was in the northern regions (Tahoua and Dogondoutchi) primarily known as a feminine agreement marker, which at the same time marked causative/caused-motion and benefactive. In the area around Sokoto, the -at suffix has grammaticalized into a pure causative-caused-motion/ benefactive marker, and has largely lost its function as a feminine agreement marker. 9. 6. 3 The distribution of -aC suffixes 9. 6. 3. 1 The distribution of -aC suffixes in relation to the CAUS-CMN/BEN distinction After having found that the choice of -aC suffix among Hausa speakers was in part dialectally determined, I was in particular interested in what other criteria they used in choosing the various alternatives of -aC suffixes. Against the background of the research history on this topic, it might have been thought likely that one of them was the causative/caused-motion vs. benefactive distinction. I found that in four out of five areas it was not, the exception being some speakers in the Eastern region, specifically in Magarya. Apart from this dialect, numbers for the other dialect areas (tables 8.10- 8.15) show that the use of a particular suffix, once established as a dialectal variant, was used indiscriminately for both benefactive and for causative/caused-motion verbs
508
with a dative object in about even numbers. The same dialectally determined suffixes were also used for causative/caused-motion verbs without a dative object, but with an overall higher percentage than if the sentence had a dative object (with the exception of the agreement area). This somewhat higher number for sentences without a dative object may be attributable to the fact that speakers chose the assimilated form -am if the sentences contained a dative object, at the expense of the unassimilated variant. 9. 6. 3. 2. The distribution of -aC suffixes in relation to phonological environment It was found (tables 8.16-8.21) that the various -aC suffixes were used in all of the phonological environments ‘before pause’, ‘before m-’, ‘before w-’, ‘before d-’, and ‘before g-’, where the environments before m-, w-, and d-, are considered grammatical environments, in the sense that suffixes would frequently be found in these environments. One variation in occurrences regarded the environment ‘before pause’, where numbers were generally somewhat higher than in the remaining environments. The significant conclusion which can be drawn from these numbers is that there was no one environment in which a suffix never occurred, and I consequently conclude that the choice of -aC suffix does not seem to be phonologically conditioned. It was also shown in the survey of phonological correspondences in 8. 4. 4 that the variants of the -aC suffix all occur in word-final position within the dialects where they occur and can be shown to comply with the phonological inventories of the dialect in question. Agreement data was observed from as widely dispersed villages as Tahoua, Dogondoutchi, Dutsin Ma, Sabon Birni, Gusau, and Magarya. The wide geographical extension points towards, but does not confirm conclusively, that these instances of agreement are remnants of a previous linguistic system, rather than being a locally innovated linguistic feature with subsequent spreading. The presence of similar systems in related Chadic languages supports this idea. The prototypical Chadic dative object pattern suffixes a dative object pronoun directly onto the verb (S-VDAT.PRO-OBJACC), and in some languages such a pleonastic pronoun is also used with postposed nominal dative objects (S-VDAT.PRO-OBJACC-OBJDAT). 9. 6. 3. 3 The distribution of -aC suffixes in relation to assimilation frequencies The statements in research history (Parsons 1972: 80, later taken up by Newman) about benefactives assimilating much more frequently to the following dative marker (ma-/mà) than causative/caused-motion verbs with a dative object made it relevant to look at assimilation
509
frequency numbers. Parsons proposed that such an imbalance in assimilation frequency numbers could possibly suggest that the benefactive constituted an ‘autonomous form’. In relation to this question I wanted to find out firstly, how common it is to assimilate within each of the dialects, and secondly, whether the rate of assimilation frequency numbers is related to the causative - caused-motion/benefactive distinction. In answer to the first question, it was found that with the exception of the -at area, percentages showed that it is just about as common to assimilate as not to assimilate (see Tables 8. 22-8.23). Furthermore, it was found that the data on assimilation frequencies did not support Parsons’ observation that benefactives assimilate more frequently to ma-/mà than causative/caused-motion verbs with a dative object (see Table 8.24). There was no systematic difference in assimilation frequencies between causatives and benefactives. Consequently, according to this investigation, a difference in assimilation is not a relevant argument for analysing the benefactive and causative -aC suffixes as being phonologically different. It should be emphasized, however, that such a difference would not necessarily have weakened the hypothesis that -aC/CAUS and -aC/BEN are polysemous. Consider the discussions on a general cohesion of causative to INST dà, and benefactive to the dative marker ma-/mà in 4. 3. 9 and the data on autonomous assimilated forms -ad and -am in 8. 6. 9. 6. 3. 4 The distribution of -aC suffixes when used as an agreement marker in causative/caused-motion and benefactive In section 8. 5 on agreement it was shown that agreement is a phenomenon which applies equally to both benefactive and causative/caused-motion sentences. The general feminine agreement marker was -at (in sporadic instances -a®), and the masculine marker was -as. The most common agreement sources were dative objects, but instances of agreement with OBJINST/ACC and subject also occurred. This phenomenon applied to speakers of Hausa from geographically disparate areas. On the basis of the agreement data I suggest that the following conclusions can be drawn. 1) These data may be taken as additional synchronic evidence that there is phonological unity between causative/caused-motion sentences on the one hand, and benefactive sentences on the other. 2) The areal distribution of instances of agreement indicates that this is a remnant of a formerly existing agreement system, which now seems to be disappearing, rather than novel
510
linguistic innovations. The fact that related Chadic languages also have such agreement further corroborates this view. 9. 6. 3. 5 The potential unit status of -am/BEN and -ad/CAUS-CMN In 8. 6. I suggested the possibility that the -am/BEN and -ad/CAUS-CMN variants of the -aC suffix are about to gain unit status as benefactive and causative/caused-motion markers, respectively, on the following grounds. A frequently used assimilated form occurring in a fixed grammatical constellation in one particular phonological environment may develop into an autonomous suffix with unit status. This suggestion was made because of the evidence that -am and -ad suffixes are used to a non-negligable extent ouside their conditioning environment. It was also noted that the frequency of occurrences of these forms correlates with the frequency of present assimilation rates. The phenomenon can be related to the concept of entrenchment as described in Langacker (1987: 59). I further suggested in 8. 6 that the usage of these suffixes be seen in relation to the general cohesion, described in 4. 2, that has been observed between -am/BEN and the dative markers ma-/mà on the one hand, and between -ad/CAUS and the INST marker dà on the other. 9. 6. 4 The status of the -as suffix 9. 6. 4. 1 The use of -as as a combined CAUS-CMN/BEN marker in several areas It was found that the -as suffix is extensively used for marking benefactive meaning, as well as for causative/caused-motion construction. Speakers from as far north as Tahoua in Niger, and as far south-east as Dutsin Ma in Nigeria used -as as a benefactive marker without reservations. It seems relevant to note that in the areas where the use of -as/BEN is restricted (but not totally absent), all speakers generally use -a®, both as a causative and as a benefactive marker, and thus no dialect seems to have separated the two functions completely. 9. 6. 4. 2 Patterns of the non-use of -as/BEN and possible explanations However, some speakers in the eastern region rejected the -as suffix as a benefactive marker. My own data shows that this specifically applies to Magarya, Niger, which I chose as a representative for the eastern dialects. It is also likely that a larger area in the east will have
511
such restrictions, since this has formerly been found by other researchers with Katsina and Kano speakers. The interpretation of these data, however, should accommodate the fact that even though Magarya speakers rejected some benefactive -as clauses, they accepted other instances of -as/BEN. My data did not support the hypothesis that Hausa speakers who prefer an alternative benefactive marker to -as/BEN, do this because they reject the -as suffix as a benefactive marker, for the following reasons: 1) Speakers who suggest an alternative BEN marker (gr1, gr6) may at the same time allow -as/BEN. 2) Speakers who changed the -as suffix to a gr1 HL(H) -aa form, did this on benefactives as well as on causative/caused-motion verbs. 3) Speakers who speak a dialect where the -as suffix occurs, use this suffix to mark benefactive meaning. Even speakers who turn down some instances of -as/BEN, will accept it on other verbs. 4) Changing an instance from -aC/BEN to another grade was just as common in dialects where the -as suffix is never used. These facts show that one should be careful not to draw conclusive inferences from a speakers’ suggestion to use another verb form (see table in appendix D.1). Their motivation may not necessarily be that a certain variety of -aC/BEN is ungrammatical. I observed that in some sentences, Hausa speakers tended to choose a verb form for its specific content rather than to avoid the suggested form. E.g, during my fieldwork, in a sentence such as Hawaæayee sukaæ zubam masaæ ‘The tears poured down on him’, they would choose gr6 ventive zuboo ‘leak this way’ presumably to emphasize the coming out of the tears. In yet other verbs, they would choose gr4 HL(H/L) -ee to mark the negative effect on the OBJDAT participant. The non-use of -as/BEN has formerly been explained by suggesting that causative/caused-motion and benefactive are totally unrelated meanings. The semantic analysis and typological evidence presented in this dissertation have invalidated this idea. The reason why -as/BEN is restricted in some areas must therefore be a different one. To say that causative and benefactive are totally unrelated, however, is a very different thing to saying that there has been an increase in semantic distance, cf. 1. 3. 3 on the development of a secondary conceptual centre within a monosemous category as a result of a shift in salience
512
(Taylor 1989). In the total picture of Hausa dialects, an explanation which leaves room for relating the present use of the -as suffix in the eastern and western dialects might be preferable to one that explains the differences in terms of independent innovations. The latter is certainly also possible, but perhaps less likely. Newman (2000: 655) mentions another dialectal example from Ader, where an -s/CAUS suffix is reported to co-occur with an -am/BEN suffix in the verb his-s-am ‘take out for’ (< hìta ‘go out’). Cf. also Ya) )as -s-am min tuhwaæa ‘He lost my clothes’ (Newman 2000: 654). This example is cited to demonstrate that -aC/BEN is entirely different from and totally unrelated to the -aC/CAUS-CMN suffix. The problem with this kind of thinking is the application of an either/or dichotomy; either -aC/BEN and -aC/CAUS-CMN is totally unrelated in all dialects or they must be shown to be used in exactly the same manner, with exactly the same meaning content, in all dialects, throughout the course of time. The reasons for these patterns of behaviour may of course be complex and one could also imagine them to be different for each dialect. A normal linguistic situation is that of a dialectal continuum, with local innovations and a consecutive spreading of features. Thus one must expect that what is a valid statement about one dialectal area, may not necessarily hold in another. One can easily imagine that while the -as suffix is commonly used to mark the Experiencer role of a (masculine) dative object in one dialect (say, Dutsin Ma or Tahoua), it may have grammaticalized to mark other (but related) features in another dialect (say, Magarya). An adequate explanation would also have to accommodate why, for instance, the speakers from Magarya who rejected some sentences where -as/BEN occurs, accepted others. Could this be lexically determined? Unfortunately, I have insufficient data to give an unambiguous answer to this question, and it will therefore have to await future research. The reason why a certain instance of -as/BEN is not accepted may reside in a host of factors. 9. 6. 5 A note on the relevance of diachrony for the -aC suffixes: phonological mergers are compatible with synchronic polysemy analyses In discussions on the sameness or difference of the -aC/BEN and -aC/CAUS-CMN suffixes, Hausaists have seen it as important to reconstruct the -® in the -a®/CAUS and in the -a®/BEN suffixes as being derived from different historical sources. Cf. Newman (2000: 283), who says that ‘Unlike the gr5 -a®, which we know derives historically from *-as, we have no
513
solid indication of what was the original final consonant of the -aC ending used as the pds [pre-dative suffix]; but there is nothing to suggest that it was /s/’. While it is certainly interesting, and a source of potential additional support to find out the historical source of these suffixes, a purely synchronic analysis (like the present one) is not dependent on it. In a situation where e.g. the -a® suffix in causative/caused-motion and benefactive became phonologically identical as a result of a historical merger, speakers could still reanalyse them as being cognitively related in a synchronic perspective. See the discussion in Lyons (1977: 551) where he states that ‘[…] whatever information is available about the origins and history of particular words, this information is, or should be, irrelevant in the synchronic analysis of languages’. Recall the word ear in English, cited in 1. 3. 3, which may be used to mean ‘organ of hearing’ or ‘grain-holding part of cereal plant’. These two words are not etymologically related. On the other hand the word eye, with either of the two meanings ‘organ of sight’ or ‘aperture in needle’ acquired its meanings as a result of metaphorical extension and the two are thus both etymologically and synchronically related (examples from Lyons 1977: 551 and Taylor 1989: 103). Studies within grammaticalization theory have shown that similar processes apply to grammatical linguistic units. If anyone were to prove that the consonant in -aC/BEN derived from a different source (say, from *t) than the consonant in -aC/CAUS-CMN (say from *s), this would in principle not influence a synchronic analysis which made a semantic connection plausible. In such an evaluation, typological evidence weighs heavier than historical data. 9. 6. 6 Conclusion on the phonological argument: are -aC/CAUS-CMN and -aC/BEN the same or different? The data collected in my fieldwork and presented in this dissertation show that the dialects in all areas included in this sample except one, viz. the eastern dialect represented by Magarya, Niger, have identical consonantism on -aC/BEN and -aC/CAUS-CMN. From a phonological point of view, it can therefore not be argued that -aC/BEN and -aC/CAUS-CMN are different morphemes in these dialects. In the dialects where the causative/caused-motion and benefactive -aC suffixes have been shown to be only partly overlapping, or where these occur in a sequence on the same verb, there is reason to believe that these meanings have either originated as the same morpheme (employed the same affixing technique with a similar semantic motivation) and then grew apart in terms of semantic distance, or, alternatively, as suggested by Jaggar and
514
Newman, they may have innovated differently in terms of which pronouns they exploited for the causative/caused-motion and benefactive meanings. Both possibilities would have to explain why speakers who reject some instances of -as/BEN will use it freely in others, as is documented here for the Magarya speakers, i.e. there would either have to be a semantic distancing or a semantic merger.
9. 7 Has the main hypothesis been falsified of verified? To conclude, I would like to state that the overall main hypothesis (H1): that -aC benefactive and -aC causative/caused-motion in Hausa is one morpheme with distinct, but related senses, and not two unrelated morphemes, has been confirmed for those dialects where this phonology is shared. There are however, synchronic differences in the usage of the -as/CAUS suffix in some eastern dialects. However, the semantic features of the -as/CAUS can, in this area too, be related to the general High Transtitivity features which can be observed in all the -aC suffixal varieties. A possible explanation could be that this suffix has followed a slightly different grammaticalization path. It can therefore not be seen as a challenge to the overall conclusion.
515
References Abasheikh, Mohammed Imam 1976 Reflexivization in Chimwi:ini. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences, University of Illinois, 6: 2.1-22. Abdoulaye, Mahamane L. 1992
Aspects of Hausa morphosyntax in role and reference grammar. Unpublished Ph.D dissertation, State University of New York at Buffalo.
1996 Efferential “verb + dà” construction in Hausa. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics, vol. 17/2. Abraham, Roy Clive 1934 The Principles of Hausa. Kaduna, Nigeria: The Government Printer. 1959 The Language of the Hausa People. London: University of London Press Ltd. A reprint of his (1941) grammar. 1968 Dictionary of the Hausa language. London: University of London Press. Ackerman, Farrel and John Moore. 1995 Proto-properties, grammatical relations, and case marking. Paper at Colloque de Syntaxe et Semantique de Paris, Oct. 13, 1995. 1999 Syntagmatic and paradigmatic dimensions of causee encodings. Linguistics and Philosophy 22: 1-44. Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 1998 Transitivity Increasing operations in Tariana. Leonid Kulikov and Heinz Vater (eds.), Typology of Verbal Categories. Papers presented to Vladimir Nedjalkov on the occasion of his 70th birthday. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. Linguistische Arbeiten Series.
.
2000 Transitivity in Tariana. In: Dixon, R. M. W. and Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald (eds.) 2000. 145-172.
516
Allerton, D. J. 1979 Essentials of Grammatical Theory. A Consensus View of Syntax and Morphology. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Alsina, A and S. Mchombo 1990 The syntax of applicatives in Chicheŵa: Problems for a Theta Theoretic Assymetry. Natural Languages and Linguistic Theory 8. 493-506. Andersen, Henning 1970 The dative of subordination in Baltic and Slavic. Thomas F. Magner & William R. Schmalstieg (eds.), Baltic Linguistics: 1-9 University park: Pennsylvania State University Press. Anderson, Stephen R. 1976 On the notion of subject in ergative languages. In: Li, Charles N. 1976. 1977 On mechanisms by which languages become ergative. In Li, Charles N. 1977: 317363. Awde, Nicholas 1996 Hausa-English English-Hausa Dictionary. (Hippocrene Practical Dictionary) New York: Hippocrene Books. Bagari, Dauda 1977 Reanalyzing the Hausa causative morpheme. Paul Newman and Roxana Ma Newman (eds.), Papers in Chadic Linguistics: 1-11. Leiden: Afrika-Studiecentrum. Baker, M. 1988 Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Bally, Charles 1926 L’expression des idées de sphère personelle et de solidarité dans les langues indoeuropéennes. Festschrift Gauchat. Aarau. Bargery, G. P. 1934 A Hausa-English Dictionary. London: Oxford University Press.
517
Bartholomew, D. and D Mason 1980 The registration of transitivity in the Guerrero Aztec verb. International Journal of American Linguistics 46: 197-204. Běličová, Helena 1982 Sémantická struktura veˇty a kategorie pádu. Prague: Academia. Bergen, Benjamin K. and Nancy Chang 2005 Embodied construction grammar in simulation-based language understanding. In J.O. Östman and M. Fried (eds.), Construction Grammars: Cognitive Grounding and Theoretical Extensions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 147-190. Blake, Barry 1976 On ergativity and the notion of subject. Lingua 39: 281-300. Bolinger, Dwight 1977 The Form of Language. London: Longmans Bresnan, Joan 1982 The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Bybee, Joan L. 1985 Morphology: A Study of the Relation Between Meaning and Form. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Carpenter, P., N. Akhtar, and M. Tomasello 1998 Fourteen-through-18-month-old infants differentially imitate intentional and accidental actions. Infant Behaviour and Development 21. 315-30. Catford, Ian 1976 Ergativity in Caucasian language. Montreal Working Papers in Linguistics 6 (NELS 6), 37-48. Chomsky, Noam 1957 Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton.
518
1981 Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris. 1986 Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin and Use. New York: Praeger. Chung, Sandra 1977 On the gradual nature of syntactic change. In: Li, Charles N. 1977: 3-55. 1978 Case marking and grammatical relations in Polynesian. Austin: University of Texas Press. Clark, Ross 1973 Transitivity and the case in Eastern Oceanic languages. Oceanic Linguistics 12: 559606. Cole, Peter 1983 The grammatical role of the causee in universal grammar. International Journal of American Linguistics Vol. 49, No 1. Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press. Comrie, Bernard 1975 Causatives and universal grammar. Transactions of the Philological Society 1974: 1-32. 1976 The system of causative constructions: Cross language similarity and divergencies. Shibatani: The grammar of causative constructions. Syntax and semantics 6 series. New York: Academic Press. 1977 Subject and direct objects in Uralic languages: A functional explanation of casemarking systems. Études Finno-Ougriennes 12. 5-17. 1981 Language Universals and Linguistic Typology. Basil Blackwell. [1989] Oxford. 1993 Some remarks on causatives and transitivity in Haruai. Comrie, Bernard and Maria Polinsky (eds.), Causatives and Transitivity. Studies in languages companion series, vol. 23. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
519
Cosieru, Eugenio 1977 L’étude fonctionelle du vocabulaire: Precix de lexématique. Cahiers de Lexicologie 29: 5-23. 1990 Semántica estructural y semántica “cognitiva”. Manual Alvar et al. (eds.), Profesor Francisco Marsá: Jornadas de Filología, 239-282. (Col·leció homenatges 4.) Barcelona: Publicacions Universitat de Barcelona. Cowan, J. Ronayne and Russel G. Schuh. 1976 Spoken Hausa. Ithaca, New York: Spoken Language Services. Croft, William 1990 Typology and universals. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. 1991 Syntactic Categories and Grammatical Relations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 1994 Voice: beyond control and affectedness. Voice – Form and Function. Typological Studies in Language 27: 89-117. Ed. by Fox, Barbara and Paul J. Hopper. 2001 Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Crowley, Terry 1987 Serial verbs in Paamese. Studies in Language 11-1: 35-84. Csibra, G., G. Gergely, S. Bíró, O, Koós, and M Brockbank 1999 Goal attribution without agency cues: the perception of ‘pure reason’ in infancy. Cognition 72. 237-67. Dąbrowska, Ewa 1997 Cognitive Semantics and the Polish dative. Cognitive Linguistic Research 9. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Davies, W. D. and C. Rosen 1988 Unions as multi-predicate clauses. Language 64: 52-88.
520
Deane, Paul 1991 Limits to attention: A cognitive theory of island phenomena. Cognitive Linguistics 2-1. 1-63. DeLancey, Scott 1984 Notes on agentivity and causation. Studies in Language 8. 181-214. Dimmendaal, Gerrit J. 1982 The Turkana Language. Ph. D. dissertation, University of Leiden. Dixon, Robert M. W. 1977 A grammar of Yidiny. Cambridge: University Press. 2000 A typology of causatives: form, syntax and meaning. In: Dixon and Aikhenvald 2000: 30-83 Dixon, Robert M. W. and Alexandra Aikhenvald (eds.) 2000 Changing Valency. Case studies in transitivity. Cambridge University Press Donaldson, T. 1980 Ngiyambaa: the language of the Wangaaybuwan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dowty, David 1991 Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language. Journal of the linguistic society of America. Vol 67: 3. Draye, Luk 1998 The case of the causee, on the competition between dative and accusative in Dutch laten and German lassen constructions. W. van Belle and W. van Langendonck (eds.) The dative Vol. 2, Theoretical and Contrastive Studies, 75-112. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Durie, Mark 1982 Clause crunching in Oceanic. Canberra: Department of Linguistics, Faculty of Arts, The Australian National University (unpublished paper).
521
Endresen, Rolf Theil 1994. The etymological relationship between the benefactive and causative suffixes in Fula." Paper presented at The 2nd Nordic Seminar on African Linguistics, University of Trondheim, Norway, February 1994. Working Papers in Linguistics, University of Trondheim, 22 (1994): 41-59. Essegbey, J. 1999 Inherent complement verbs revisited: towards an understanding of argument structure in Ewe. Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, Max Planck Institute, Nijmegen. Eulenberg, John B. 1972 Complementation phenomena in Hausa. Doctoral dissertation, University of California at San Diego. Evans, Vyvyan, and Melanie Green 2006 Cognitive Linguistics. An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press Ltd. Fagerli, Ole Torfinn 2001 Malefactive by Means of Give. A Cognitive Approach to the Verb: Morphological and Constructional Perspectives. Hanne Gram Simonsen and Rolf Theil Endresen (eds.). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Faltz, Leonard M. 1978 On indirect objects in universal syntax. CLS 14: 76-87. Farrell, Patrick 2005 Grammatical Relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Fillmore, Charles J. 1976 Frame semantics and the nature of language. S. Harnad, H. Steklis, and J. Lancaster (eds.), Origins and Evolutions of Language and Speech. New York: New York Academy of Sciences. 1968 The case for case. Emmon Bach and Robert T. Harms (eds.), Universals in Linguistic Theory, 1-88. New York: Holt, Reinhart and Winston.
522
1982 Frame semantics. Linguistic society of Korea, ed., Linguistics in the Morning Calm, 111-138. Seoul: Hanshin. 1985 Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni de Semantica 6 (2): 222253. Flickinger, Daniel, Carl Pollard, and Thomas Wasow 1985 Structure-Sharing in Lexical Representation. In Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Meeting of the Asociation for Computational Linguistics, 262-267. Chicago: Association for Computational Linguistics. Frajzyngier, Zygmunt 1985 ‘Causative’ and ‘Benefactive’ in Chadic. Afrika und Übersee 68, 1: 23-42. 1989 A Grammar of Pero. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer Verlag. Frajzyngier, Zygmunt and Mohammed Munkaila 2004 Grammatical and Semantic Relations in Hausa. ‘Point of View’, ‘Goal’ and ‘Affected object’. Cologne, Rüdiger Köppe Verlag. Fromm, Hans, and Matti Sadeniemi 1956 Finnisches Elementarbuch. Heidelberg: Winter Geeraerts, Dirk 1997 Diachronic Prototype Semantics. A contribution to Historical Lexicology. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Gibson, Margaret I. 1984 Some changes in the use of instrumental case. Russian Language Journal 38: 25-35. Givón, Talmy 1976 Topic, Pronoun, and Grammatical Agreement. Charles N. Li (ed.), Subject and Topic: 149-188. New York: Academic Press. 1979 On Understanding Grammar. New York: Academic Press.
523
1984 Syntax: A functional-Typological Introduction. Vol. 1. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. 1985 Iconicity, Isomorphism and Non-arbitrary Coding in Syntax. John Haiman (ed.), Iconicity in Syntax. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Goldberg, Adele E. 1992 Argument Structure Constructions. Doctoral dissertation, University of California at Berkeley. 1995 Constructions. A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press. 2006 Constructions at Work: the Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Golovko, Evgeniy V. 1993
On non-causative effects of causativity in Aleut. Causatives and Transitivity. Studies in Language Companion Series 23. Bernard Comrie and Maria Polinsky (eds.). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Gouffé, Claude 1962
Observations sur le degré causatif dans un parler haoussa du Niger. Journal of Africal Linguistics 1: 182-200.
Haiman, John (ed.) 1985 Iconicity in Syntax. (Proceedings of a symposium on Iconicity in syntax, Stanford, June 24-26, 1983). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Hansen, Tomoko Okazaki 2004 The Japanese Dative: A Cognitive Analysis. Doctoral dissertation, Department of East European and Oriental Studies, Factulty of Arts, University of Oslo. Harris, Alice 1976 Grammatical Relations in Modern Georgian. Harvard dissertation.
524
Haspelmath, Martin and T. Müller-Bardey 2004 Valence Change. In Morphology. Volume 2. G. Booij, Ch. Lehmann, and J. Mugdan (eds.), pp. 1130-1145. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter. Hawkinson, A. and L. Hyman 1975 (1974) Hierarchies of natural topic in Shona. Studies in African linguistics 5. 147-70. Heine, Bernd, Ulrike Claudi and Friederike Hünnemeyer 1991 Grammaticalization - A Conceptual Framework. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press. Heine, Bernd, and Ulrike Claudi 1986 On the Rise of Grammatical Categories. Some examples from Maa. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer Verlag. Heine, Bernd, and Mechthild Reh 1984 Grammaticalization and Reanalysis in African Languages. Hamburg: Helmut Buske Verlag. Heinämäki, Orvikki 1994 Aspect as Boundedness in Finnish. Carl Bade, Hans Basbøll, and Carl-Erik Ludberg (eds.), Tense, aspect and action. Empirical and theoretical contributions to language typology: 207-233. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Hopper, Paul 1979
Some disourse origins of ergativity. Paper presented at the 4th International Conference of Historical Linguistics, Stanford Unviversity.
Hopper, Paul and Sandra A. Thompson 1980 Transitivity in Grammar and Discourse. Language 56: 251-99. Hopper, Paul, and Elisabeth Closs Traugott 1993 Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
525
Hutchison, John P. 1980 The Kanuri associative postposition: A case for subordination. Studies in African Linguistics, vol. 11, number 3. Hyman, L. M, and K. E. Zimmer 1976 Embedded topic in French. Charles N. Li (ed.), Subject and Topic: 189-211. New York: Academic Press. Hörmann, Hans 1971 Psycholinguistics: an introduction to research and theory (translated version; original title: Psychologie der Sprache 1970). Berlin: Springer-Verlag. Ichihashi-Nakayama, K. 1996 The ‘applicative’ in Hualapai: its functions and meanings. Cognitive Linguistics 7 (2). 227-239. Jaggar, Philip John 1985 Review of D. M. Bagari, W. R. Leben, and F. M. Knox, Manual of Hausa Idioms, 2nd Ed. Journal of West African Languages XV. 2: 125-133. Bloomington: Indiana: Indiana University Linguistics Club. 1988 Affected subject (‘grade 7’) verbs in Hausa: What are they and where do they come from? Passive and voice. Masayoshi Shibatani (ed.) Typological Studies in Language 16. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 2001 Hausa. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 2009 The causative continuum in Hausa: from source-oriented (‘away’) directional to direct causative. Studies in Language. Jaggar, Philip John, and Muhammed Munkaila 1995 Evidence against the proposal that the Hausa pre-datival final -® verb = the “Grade 5” final -®¶-s verb (and an alternative analysis). Dymitr Ibriszimow and Rudolf Leger (eds.), Studia Chadica et Hamito-Semitica, 289-303. Köln: Rüdiger Köppe. 1992 (Earlier version of Jaggar and Munkaila 1995)
526
Jakobson, Roman O. 1936/1971 Beitrag zur allgemeinen Kasuslehre. Gesamtbedeutungen der russischen Kasus. Selected Writings II: 23-71 The Hague: Mouton. Janda, Laura A. 1993. A Geography of Case Semantics. The Czech Dative and the Russian Instrumental. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Johnson, Mark 1987 The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination and Reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Jungraithmayr, H. and W. J. G. Möhlig 1976 Einführung in die Hausa-Sprache. MSAA, A, 7. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer. Kalinina, Elena and Dmitriy Kolomatsky, Alexandra Sudobina 2006 Transitivity increase markers interacting with verb semantics. In: Kulikov, Leonid, Andrej Malchukov and Peter de Swart 2006. Kay, Paul and Charles Fillmore 1999 Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The What’s X doing Y construction. Language 75, 1-34. Kemmer, Suzanne 1993 The middle voice, Typological Studies in Language 23. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Kemmer, Suzanne, and Arie Verhagen. 1994. The grammar of causatives and the conceptual structure of events. Cognitive Linguistics. Vol. 5 (2). Mouton de Gruyter. Kempson, R. M. 1977. Semantic Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kibrik, A. A. 1993 Transitivity increase in Athapaskan languages. B. Comrie and M. Polinsky (eds.), Causatives and Transitivity, 47-67. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
527
Kimenyi, A. 1988 Passives in Kinyarwanda. Masayoshi Shibatani (ed.), Passive and voice, 355386. Amsterdam and Philadelpia: Benjamins. Klingenheben, August. 1928.
Die Silbenauslautgesetze des Hausa. Zeitschrift für Eingeborenen Sprachen 31: 272-297.
Kornfilt, J. 1997 Turkish. London: Routledge. Kraft, C. H. and A. H. M. Kirk-Greene. 1973 Teach yourself Hausa. Kent: Hodder and Stoughton Ltd. Krishnamurti, Bh. 1961 Telugu Verbal Bases: A comparative and Descriptive Study, 194-202. Berkley. Kulikov, Leonid, Andrej Malchukov and Peter de Swart. 2006
Case, Valency and Transitivity. Language Companion Series 77. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Köhler, W. 1947 Gestalt Psychology. New York: Liveright 1947. Lakoff, George 1987 Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Langacker, Ronald W. 1987 Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 1 Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press. 1991a. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 2 Descriptive applications. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
528
1991b. Concept, image and symbol. The cognitive basis of grammar. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 2002 Constructional integration, grammaticization, and serial verb constructions. In Yuchau E. Hsiao (ed.), Language and Cognition: Proceedings of the First Cognitive Linguistics Conference, 1-22. Taipei: National Chengchi University and Academia Sinica. LaPolla, Randy J. 2000 Valency-changing derivations in Dulong/Rawang. In: Dixon and Aikhenvald 2000: 282-311. Launey, Michel 2001 On some causative doublets in Classical Nahuatl. In: Shibatani, Masayoshi 2001, pp. 301-318. Lazard, Gilbert 2001 Transitivity Revisited as an Example of a More Strict Approach in Typological Research. Folia Linguistica XXXVI/3-4. Societas Linguistica Europaea. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Lehmann, Christian and Elisabeth Verhoeven. 2006 Extraversive transitivization in Yucatac Maya and the nature of the applicative. Kulikov, Leonid, Andrej Malchukov and Peter de Swart (eds.), Case, Valency and Transitivity. Studies in Language Companion Series 77. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Lepschy, A. L. and G. Lepschy 1977 The Italian language today. London: Hutchison. Leslau, W. 1941 Documents tigrinya (éthiopien septentrional): documents et textes. Paris: Klincksieck. Levin, Beth, and T. Rapoport 1988 Lexical Subordination. CLS 24, Part 1, 275-289.
529
Lewis, G. L. 1967 Turkish Grammar. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Li, Charles 1976 Subject and Topic. New York: Academic Press 1977 Mechanisms of syntactic change. Austin: University of Texas Press. Lind, J. O. 1984 Clause and sentence level syntagmemes in Sierra Popoluca. International Journal of American Linguistics, vol. 30: 341-354. Lobben, Marit 1991 Pluralization of Hausa nouns, viewed from psycholinguistic experiments and child languages data. Unpublished M. Phil. thesis, University of Oslo. Lukas, J. 1963/4. Der II. Stamm des Verbums in Hausa. Afrika und Übersee 48: 162-86. 1970/71 Die Personalia und das primäre Verb im Bolanci (Nordnigerien), Mit Beiträgen über das Karekare. Afrika und Übersee 54: 237-286, 55: 114-139. Lyons, J. 1977. 1968
Semantics. Vol. II. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Introduction to theoretical linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lytkin, V. I. 1957 Ponuditel’nyj zalog v permskix jazykax. Uč. zap Udmurtskogo NII IELJa, vyp. 18, Iževsk, p 111. Ma Newman, Roxana 1990 An English-Hausa Dictionary. New Haven and London: Yale University Press. Majtinskaja, K. E. 1959 Vengerskij jazyk. II. M.: 96-102. Martin, Jack B. 2000 Creek voice: beyond valency. In: Dixon and Aikhenvald 2000: 375-403
530
Maslova, Elena S. 1993 The causative in Yukaghir. Comrie, Bernard and Maria Polinsky (eds.), Causatives and Transitivity. Studies in languages companion series; vol. 23. Amsterdam: John Benjamins publishing company. Mejías-Bikandi, Errapel 1989 Causative constructions in Basque. Ms., University of California, San Diego. Middendorf, E. W. 1891 Die Aymara-Sprache, p. 141. Leipzig. Mischlich, A. 1906 Wörterbuch der Hausasprache. Berlin: Reimer. Moravcsik, Edith 1978a On the distribution of ergative and accusative patterns. Lingua 45: 233-79. 1978b On the case marking of objects. Universals of human language, ed. By Joseph Greenberg et al., 4: 249-89. Morolong, Malillo, and Larry Hyman 1977 Animacy, objects, and clitics in Sesotho. Studies in African Linguistics 8: 199-217. Mrázek, Roman 1964 Sintaksis russkogo tvoritel’nogo. (Opera Universitatis Purkynianae Brunensis. Facultas Philosophica 94). Prague: Státní pedagogické nakladatelství. Mulder, Jean 1978 Universal grammar and diachronic syntax: the case of the Finnish negative. Master’s thesis UCLA. Munkaila, Muhammed 1990 Indirect object constructions in Hausa. Ph. D. thesis, SOAS, University of London.
531
Nedyalkov, Vladimir P. and Georgij G. Sil’nitskij (Silnitsky) 1973 The typology of morphological and lexical causatives. Ferenc Kiefer (ed.) Trends in Soviet Theoretical Linguistics. Foundations of Language, Supplementary series 18: 1-32. Dordrecht: Reidel. 1969 Tipologija morfologičeskogo i leksičeskogo kauzativov. Xolodovič, A. A. (ed.) Tipologija kauzativnyx konstrukcij. Morfologičeskij kauzativ. 5-20. Leningrad: Nauka. Newman, Paul 1973 Grades, Vowel-tone classes and extensions in the Hausa verbal system. Studies in African Linguistics 4: 297-346. 1977 Chadic extensions and pre-dative verb forms in Hausa. Studies in African Linguistics 8: 275-297. 1982 Grammatical Restructuring in Hausa: Indirect objects and possessives. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 4: 59-73. 1983 The efferential (alias ‘causative’) in Hausa. Ekkehart Wolff and Hilke MeyerBahlburg (eds.), Studies in Chadic and Afroasiatic Linguistics: 397-418. Hamburg: Helmut Buske. 1990 Nominal and Verbal Plurality in Chadic. Publications in African Languages and Linguistics 12. Dordrecht: Foris Publications. 2000 The Hausa Language. An Encyclopedic Reference Grammar. New Haven and London: Yale University Press. 2007 A Hausa-English Dictionary. New Haven: Yale University Press. Nichols, J. 1986 Head-marking and dependent-marking grammar. Language 62: 56-119. Nussbaum, Loren V., William W. Gage, and Daniel Varre. 1970 Dakar Wolof: a basic course. Washington D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics.
532
Okuda, Yasuo 1983 Ni-kaku no meishi to dooshi tono kumiawase. S. Suzuki andY. Suzuki (eds.) Nihongo Bunpo, Rengoron (Shiryoohen), 281-324. Tokyo: Mugi Shoboo. Onishi, Masayuki 2000 Transitivity and valency-changing derivations in Motuna. In: Shibatani, Masayoshi 2001. 115-144. Palmer, Frank Robert 1994 Grammatical Roles and Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Parsons, F.W. 1960 The verbal system of Hausa. Afrika und Übersee 44:1-36. 1962 Further observations on the ‘causative’ grade of the verb in Hausa. Journal of African Languages 1 (3): 253-272. 1971-72 Suppletion and neutralization in the verbal system of Hausa. Afrika und Übersee 55: 49-97, 188-208. Payne, David 2001 Causatives in Asheninka: The case for a sociative source. In: Shibatani, Masayoshi 2001. 485-505. Payne, Doris L. 1982 Chickasaw agreement morphology: a functional explanation. Paul J. Hopper and Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), Syntax and Semantics 15 Studies in Transitivity. New York: Academic Press. Perlmutter, David M. 1978 Impersonal passives and the unaccusative hypothesis. Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society. University of California, Berkely. 157-89. Perlmutter, David M., and Paul M. Postal 1974 Lectures on relational grammar. Amherst, MA: Summer Linguistics Institute of the LSA, unpublished notes.
533
Pilszczikowa, Nina 1969 The Changing Form (Grade 2) of the Verb in Hausa. Warsaw: Panstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe. Pylkkänen, Liina, Rodolfo Llinás, and Gregory L. Murphy 2006 The representation of polysemy: MEG Evidence. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 18: 1. 97-109. Radden, Günter 1985 Spatial metaphors underlying prepositions of causality. Paprotté, Wolf and René Dirven: The ubiquity of metaphor, 177-207. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Rice, Keren 2000 Voice and valency in the Athapaskan family. In: Dixon and Aikhenvald 2000: 173-235 Robertson, S. S. and G. J. Suci 1980 Event perception in children in early stages of language production. Child Development 51 (1). 89-96. Rosch, Eleanor 1975 Cognitive representations of semantic categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 104:192-233. Saksena, Anhuradra 1980 The affected agent. Language 56: 812-825. Saunders, R. and P. W. Davis 1982 The control system of Bella Coola. International Journal of American Linguistics 48: 1-15. Schlesinger, Izchak 1979 Cognitive structures and deep structures: The case of the instrumental. Journal of Linguistics 15: 307-324.
534
Schuh, Russel G. 1974 Sound change as rule simplification? A study of consonant weakening in Kanakuru and Hausa. Erhard Voeltz (ed.), Proceedings of the Third Annual Conference on African Linguistics, 95-101. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Schön, J. F. 1862 Grammar of the Hausa Language. London: Church Missionary House. 1885 Magána Hausa. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge. [Nendeln/Lichtenstein: Kraus Reprint, 1970] Shibatani, Masayoshi 1976a The grammar of causative constructions: A conspectus. In: Shibatani, M. (ed.) (1976b). 1976b The grammar of causative constructions. In series: Syntax and Semantics 6. New York, Academic Press. 1996 Applicatives and benefactives: a cognitive account. Masayoshi Shibatani and Sara A. Thompson (eds.), Grammatical Constructions: Their Form and Meaning, 157-194. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2001 (ed.) The Grammar of Causation and Interpersonal Manipulation. Typological Studies in Language 48: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Shibatani, Masayoshi and Prashant Pardeshi 2001 The causative continuum. In: Masayoshi Shibatani (ed.) 2001. 85-126. Skinner, Margaret Gardner 1979 Aspects of Pa’anci Grammar. Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA and London, England: Published on demand by University Microfilms International. Song, Jae Jung 1991 Causatives and universal grammar: An alternative explanation. Transactions of the Philological society. 1996 Causatives and Causation. A Universal-Typological Perspective. London and New York: Addison Wesley Longman Ltd..
535
Staniševa, D. S. 1958 Tvoritel’nyj instrumentalnyj. B. Bernštejn (ed.) Tvoritel’nyj padež v slavjanskix jazykax:193-200. Moscow: Izdatel’tvo Akademii Nauk SSSR. Sugita, Hiroshi 1973 Semitransitive verbs and object incorporation in Micronesian languages. Oceanic Linguistics 12: 393-406. Sweetser, Eve 1990 From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Swets, Francine 1989 Grade 2 verbs with indirect objects in the Dogondoutchi dialect of Hausa. M.A thesis, University of Leiden. Talmy, Leonard 1985 Force Dynamics in language and thought. William H. Eilfort et al (eds.), Papers from the Parasession on Causatives and Agentivity: 293-337. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. 1988 Force Dynamics in Language and Cognition. Cognitive Science 12: 49-100. Taylor, F. W. 1923 A Practical Hausa Grammar. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1959 A Practical Hausa Grammar. 2nd edition. London: Oxford University Press. Taylor, I. A. 1975 A retrospective view of creativity investigation. Taylor, I. A. and J. W. Getzels (eds.), Perspectives in creativity 1-36. Chicago: Aldine. Taylor, John R. 1989 Linguistic Categorization. Prototypes in Linguistic Theory. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
536
1999 Cognitive Semantics and Structural Semantics. Andreas Blank and Peter Koch (eds.), Historical Semantics and Cognition. Cognitive Linguistics Research Series. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Thompson, C. 1996 The Na-Dene middle voice: an impersonal source of the D-element. International Journal of American Linguistics 62. 351-378. Tuller, Laurice 1984 Datives in Hausa. C. Jones and P. Sells (eds.), Proceedings of NELS 14. Valenzuela, Pilar M. 2001 Causativization and transitivity in Shipibo-Konibo. In: Shibatani, Masayoshi 2001. 417-483. Weidert, Alfons 1975 I tkong amwi: Deskriptive Analyse eines Wardialekts des Khasi. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Werner, Heinz and Bernard Kaplan 1963 Symbol-formation: An organismic-developmental approach to language and the expression of thought. New York, London and Sydney: Wiley. Wierzbicka, Anna 1979 Ethnosyntax and the Philosophy of Grammar. Studies in Language 3. 3: 313383. 1980 The Case for Surface Case. (Linguistica Extranea Studia 9) Ann Arbor: Karoma. 1986 The meaning of a case: A study of the Polish dative. Richard D. Brecht & James S. Levine (eds.), Case in Slavic, 386-426. Columbus: Slavica. 1988 The Semantics of Grammar. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
537
Wittgenstein, Ludwig 1958 Philosophische Untersuchungen, trans, G. E. M. Anscombe as Philosophical Investigations, 3rd edition. 1999. Harlow, London: Prentice Hall. Wolff, H. Ekkehard 1993 Referenzgrammatik des Hausa. Hamburger Beiträge zur Afrikanistik, 2. Münster: LIT. Xaritonov, L. N. 1963 Zalogovye formy glagola jakutskom jazyke. M.-L.: 53-58. Yap, F. H. 1996 Causative and benefactive ‘give’ constructions in Malay, Thai and Chinese. Unpublished paper, UCLA. Zaria, Ahmadu Bello 1982 Issues in Hausa Dialectology. Doctoral dissertation at Indiana University. Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA. Zavala, Roberto 2001 Olutec causatives and applicatives. In: Shibatani, Masayoshi (ed.) 2001. Zide, Arlene R.K. 1972 Transitive and causative in Gorum. Journal of Linguistics 8: 201-215.
538
Appendices A. Questionnaires: 1. Benefactive (semantics) test 2. Causative/caused-motion test (HT effects) 3. Phonology test, list of informants for phonology test 4. Agreement test B. Selected data on High Transitivity effects in -aC/BEN, incl. list of informants C. Selected data on High Transitivity effects in -aC/CAUS-CMN, incl. list of informants D. Tables and surveys
1. Use of grade 1 replacement for -as/BEN
E. Agreement data -
1. Spontaneous cases 2. Elicited cases
F. Additional examples: 1. Examples of the structure of periphrastic and morphological causatives 2. Sentences with double case marking of Beneficiary/Causee 3. Accepted -as/BEN sentences (with semantic explanations given by informants). 4. Examples from other languages; causative and benefactive with shared phonology or which belong to the same morphological system
Appendix A. Tests/questionnaires 1. Semantics test (benefactive) Problem:
a) Which suffixes are accepted? b) What do they mean?
Method:
a) Ask for acceptability.
b) Compare use of suffixes with the translation to check meaning of suffix in relation to semantic role of dative object. Informant’s name/ le nom d’informateur: Sex/sexe: F [ ] M [ ] Age/âge: Education: Dialect:
539
Verb
Sentences: Hausa
Naturalness
English (French)
1
2
3
4 5
w nw uns nr r
aæikaa
Naa aæikee shi kaæasuwaa
send
I sent him/it to her at the market
1a
Naa aikaæa mataæ daæ shii kaæasuwaa
1b
Naa aikeæe mataæ daæ shii kaæasuwaa
1c
Naa aika® mataæ daæ shii kaæasuwaa
1d
Naa aæikii mataæ daæ shii kaæasuwaa
1e
Naa aikam mataæ daæ shii kaæasuwaa
1f
Naa aikoo mataæ daæ shii kaæasuwaa
1g
Naa aikas mataæ daæ shii kaæasuwaa
aæmsaa
Kin aæmshi kufiii@
receive
Did you receive money for her?
2a
Kin amsaæa mataæ kufiii@
2b
Kin amsheæe mataæ kufiiiæ@
2c
Kin amsa® mataæ kufiii@
2d
Kin aæmshii mataæ kufiiiæ@
2e
Kin amsam mataæ kufiii@
2f
Kin amsoo mataæ kufiii@
2g
Kin amsas mataæ kufiii@
saæya\
Sun saæyi goo®oæo@
buy
Did they buy kolanut for her?
3a
Sun sayaæa mataæ goo®oæo.
3b
Sun sayeæe mataæ goo®oæo.
3c
Sun saya® mataæ (daæ) goo®oæo.
3d
Sun sayas mataæ (daæ) goo®oæo.
3e
Sun saæyii mataæ goo®oæo.
3f
Sun sayoo mataæ goo®oæo.
3g
Sun sayam mataæ (daæ) goo®oæo.
I sent him/it to the market
Did you receive money?
Did they buy kolanut?
zaæa\aa Naa zaa\i zannuwaæa. I chose (some) (woman’s) wrappers. choose I chose (some) wrappers for her. 4a
Naa zaa\aæa mataæ zannuwaæ.
4b
Naa zaa\a® mataæ zannuwaæ.
540
4c
Naa zaa\eæe mataæ zannuwaæ.
4d
Naa zaa\oo mataæ zannuwaæ.
4e
Naa zaa\am mataæ zannuwaæ.
4f
Naa zaæa\ii mataæ zannuwaæ.
4g
Naa zaa\as mataæ zannuwaæ.
haæifaa
Taa haæifi tagwaæayee. She gave birth to twins.
give
She gave birth to twins for him.
birth 5a
Taa haifaæa masaæ tagwaæayee.
5b
Taa haifa® masaæ tagwaæayee.
5c
Taa haifas masaæ tagwaæayee.
5d
Taa haifoo masaæ tagwaæayee.
5e
Taa haifeæe masaæ tagwaæayee.
5f
Taa haifam masaæ tagwaæayee.
5g
Taa haæifii masaæ tagwaæayee.
neæema Yaa neæemi aikìi. He sought work. a seek
He sought work for her.
6a
Yaa neema® mataæ aikìi.
6b
Yaa neemaæa mataæ aikìi.
6c
Yaa neema® mataæ aikìi.
6d
Yaa neemeæe mataæ aikìi.
6e
Yaa neæemii mataæ aikìi.
6f
Yaa neemoo mataæ aikìi.
6g
Yaa neemas mataæ aikìi.
kaær\aa Yaa kaær\i kufiii. He received money. receive
He received money for them.
7a
Yaa kar\aæa musuæ kufiii.
7b
Yaa kar\am musuæ kufiii.
7c
Yaa kar\eæe musuæ kufiii.
7d
Yaa kar\a® musuæ kufiii.
7e
Yaa kar\oo musuæ kufiii.
7f
Yaa kaær\ii musuæ kufiii.
7g
Yaa kar\as musuæ kufiii.
raæntaa
Taa raænci kufiii gaæ bankìi. She borrowed money at the bank.
541
borrow/
The bank lent her money.
lend 8a
Bankìi yaa ranta® mataæ kufiii.
8b
Bankìi yaa rantaæa mataæ kufiii.
8c
Bankìi yaa ranceæe mataæ kufiii.
8d
Bankìi yaa rantam mataæ kufiii.
8e
Bankìi yaa rantoo mataæ kufiii.
8f
Bankìi yaa rancii mataæ kufiii.
8g
Bankìi yaa rantas mataæ kufiii.
fiiibaæa Haædiizaæa taa deæe\i ruwaa aææ riijìyaa. Hadiza drew water from the well. draw,
Hadiza drew water for her son.
dip out 9a
Haædiizaæa taa deæe\ii waæ fiantaæ ruwaa.
9b
Haædiizaæa taa dee\am waæ fiantaæ ruwaa.
9c
Haædiizaæa taa dee\aæa waæ fiantaæ ruwaa.
9d
Haædiizaæa taa dee\oo waæ fiantaæ ruwaa.
9e
Haædiizaæa taa dee\eæe waæ fiantaæ ruwaa.
9f
Haædiizaæa taa dee\a® waæ fiantaæ ruwaa.
9g
Haædiizaæa taa dee\as waæ fiantaæ ruwaa.
saamuæ Yaa saæami gidaa. He got a house. get
He got a house for us.
10a
Yaa saama® manaæ gidaa.
10b
Yaa saameæe manaæ gidaa.
10c
Yaa saæamii manaæ gidaa.
10d
Yaa saamam manaæ gidaa.
10e
Yaa saamoo manaæ gidaa.
10f
Yaa saamaæa manaæ gidaa.
10g
Yaa saamas manaæ gidaa.
yaæ®daa Sun yaæ®jee nì. They agreed to me. agree
They agreed to me that I marry her.
11a
Sun ya®daæa masaæ yaæ auree taæ.
11b
Sun ya®dam masaæ yaæ auree taæ.
11c
Sun ya®jeæe masaæ yaæ auree taæ.
11d
Sun ya®doo masaæ yaæ auree taæ.
11e
Sun yaæ®jii masaæ yaæ auree taæ.
542
11f
Sun ya®da® masaæ yaæ auree taæ.
11g
Sun ya®das masaæ yaæ auree taæ.
koæoya
Mun koæoyi Hausa. We have learnt Hausa.
a learn
Malama Amina taught us Hausa.
12a
Maalaæmaa Amiinaæa taa kooyaæa manaæ Hausa.
12b
Maalaæmaa Amiinaæa taa kooya® manaæ Hausa.
12c
Maalaæmaa Amiinaæa taa kooyoo manaæ Hausa.
12d
Maalaæmaa Amiinaæa taa kooyeæe manaæ Hausa.
12e
Maalaæmaa Amiinaæa taa koæoyii manaæ Hausa.
12f
Maalaæmaa Amiinaæa taa kooyam manaæ Hausa.
12g
Maalaæmaa Amiinaæa taa kooyas manaæ Hausa.
fiauka
Ma&aæikaci yaa fiaæuki buæhu. The worker picked up the sack.
a take
The worker picked up the sack for me.
13a
Ma&aæikaci yaa fiaæukii minì buæhu.
13b
Ma&aæikaci yaa fiaukam minì buæhu.
13c
Ma&aæikaci yaa fiaukaæa minì buæhu.
13d
Ma&aæikaci yaa fiaukeæe minì buæhu.
13e
Ma&aæikaci yaa fiaukoo minì buæhu.
13f
Ma&aæikaci yaa fiauka® minì buæhu.
13g
Ma&aæikaci yaa fiaukas minì buæhu.
goæoga
Yaa goæogi ma]n jìkii aæ fuskaæ®taæ. He rubbed moisture cream on her face.
a rub
He rubbed moisture cream on her.
14a
Yaa googam mataæ ma]n jìkii.
14b
Yaa googeæe mataæ ma]n jìkii.
14c
Yaa googa® mataæ ma]n jìkii.
14d
Yaa googoo mataæ ma]n jìkii.
14e
Yaa goæogii mataæ ma]n jìkii.
14f
Yaa googaæa mataæ ma]n jìkii. Yaa googas mataæ ma]n jìkii.
tsìnkaa Kuæ tsìnki mangwaroæ. Pick the mango! pick
Pick us the mango!
15a
Kuæ tsinkam manaæ mangwaroæ.
543
15b
Kuæ tsinka® manaæ mangwaroæ.
15c
Kuæ tsinkoo manaæ mangwaroæ.
15d
Kuæ tsìnkii manaæ mangwaroæ.
15e
Kuæ tsinkeæe manaæ mangwaroæ.
15f
Kuæ tsinkaæa manaæ mangwaroæ.
15g
Kuæ tsinkas manaæ mangwaroæ.
daæn˚aa Yaaroæo yaa daæn˚i tufaafì. The boy grasped the clothes. grasp
The boy grasped her clothes.
16a
Yaaroæo yaa dan˚oo mataæ tufaafì.
16b
Yaaroæo yaa dan˚eæe mataæ tufaafì.
16c
Yaaroæo yaa dan˚a® mataæ tufaafì.
16d
Yaaroæo yaa dan˚aæa mataæ tufaafì.
16e
Yaaroæo yaa dan˚am mataæ tufaafì.
16f
Yaaroæo yaa daæn˚ii mataæ tufaafì.
16g
Yaaroæo yaa dan˚as mataæ tufaafì.
saæaraa
An saæari naamaæa. Meat was cut off.
cut
One has cut off meat for you.
17a
An saaraæa mikì naamaæa.
17b
An saareæe mikì naamaæa.
17c
An saaram mikì naamaæa.
17d
An saaroo mikì naamaæa.
17e
An saæarii mikì naamaæa.
17f
An saara® mikì naamaæa.
17g
An saaras mikì naamaæa.
kaæ®yaa Yaa kaæ®yi aæ®aækee He broke the stick/cane. break
He broke the stick/cane for her.
18a
Yaa ka®yaæa mataæ aæ®aækee
18b
Yaa ka®ya® mataæ aæ®aækee
18c
Yaa ka®yam mataæ aæ®aækee
18d
Yaa ka®yeæe mataæ aæ®aækee
18e
Yaa ka®yoo mataæ aæ®aækee
18f
Yaa kaæ®yii mataæ aæ®aækee
18g
Yaa ka®yas mataæ aæ®aækee
twaælla a
Naa twaælli zanneæe I tore the wrapper.
544
tear
He tore her wrapper.
19a
Yaa twalleæe mataæ rìigaa.
19b
Yaa twallaæa mataæ rìigaa.
19c
Yaa twalla® mataæ rìigaa.
19d
Yaa twallam mataæ rìigaa.
19e
Yaa twalloo mataæ rìigaa.
19f
Yaa twaællii mataæ rìigaa.
19g
Yaa twallas mataæ rìigaa.
tuu®aæa
Naa tuæu®i mootaæa I pushed the car.
push
I pushed the car for them.
20a
Naa tuu®aæa musuæ mootaæa.
20b
Naa tuu®oo musuæ mootaæa.
20c
Naa tuu®a® musuæ mootaæa.
20d
Naa tuæu®ii musuæ mootaæa.
20e
Naa tuu®eæe musuæ mootaæa.
20f
Naa tuu®am musuæ mootaæa.
20g
Naa tuu®as musuæ mootaæa.
545
2. High Transitivity effects in -aC/CAUS-CMN Semantic components to be tested with the causative: - completedness of verbal action - definiteness of object - affectedness of object (for animates/humans: autonomy, control) - volitionality/power/involvement/effort of subject - certainty, first witness - intensive meaning - tense/aspect (restrictions on near furure, distant future?) Verbs: 1. ciisaæa, ciisad daæ ‘feed’ (™ ci ‘eat’) 2. tumaæasaa, tumaasad daæ ‘interbreed’ (™ tuæmaasaæ ‘to mate’) 3. hasaælaa, hasalad daæ ‘make angry’ (™haæsalaæ ‘be angry’) 4. \angaælaa, \angalad daæ ‘turn over’ (™ \angaælee ‘turn over’ intr.) 5. \angaælaa, \angalad daæ ‘let sb. down’ (™ \aængalaæ ‘be let down (person)’) 6. taasaæa, taasad daæ ‘arise (tr.)’ (™ taasaæa ‘be adult, mature; lit. stand up’) 7. shii˚aæa, shii˚ad daæ ‘winnow’ 8. waasaæa, waasad daæ ‘sharpen’ (™ waæasu ‘be sharp’) 9. waasaæa,
waasad daæ ‘flatter’ (™ waæasu ‘be flattered’) A. completedness of action
1a Yaa ciisaæa yaarinyaæa ‘He fed the girl’
1b Yaa ciisad daæ yarinyaæa
‘He fed the girl’
2a Yaa tumaæasaæ dawaakii
‘He interbred the horses’
2b Yaa tumaasad daæ daawaakii
‘He interbred the horses’
3a Yaa hasaæla maæataa ‘He made the woman angry’
B. object definiteness
yaarinyaæt¶-®@ yaarinyaæt¶-®@
C. object affected -ness/ control
D. E. subject certaint effort, y volitionality
F. intensity (action away?)
G. aspect, tense (= past / present?)
za]i... ya;aæ... za]i... ya;aæ...
dawaakôn@
za]i... ya;aæ...
dawaakôn@
za]i... ya;aæ...
maæata]t¶-®@
za]i... ya;aæ...
546
3b Yaa hasalad daæ
maæata]t¶-®@
za]i... ya;aæ...
kwaanoæn@ kwaanoæn@
zaa taæ... ta;aæ... zaa taæ... ta;aæ...
yarinyaæt¶-®@
za]i... ya;aæ...
yarinyaæt¶-®@
za]i... ya;aæ...
6a Yaa taasaæ rìgimaæa
rìgimaæt¶-®@
za]i... ya;aæ...
6b Yaa taasad daæ
.rìgimaæt¶-®@
za]i... ya;aæ...
7a Taa shii˚aæ hatsii
hatsôn@
7b Taa shii˚ad daæ hatsii
hatsôn@
8a Naa waasaæ yu˚aa
yu˚a]t¶-®@
zaa taæ... ta;aæ... zaa taæ... ta;aæ... za]n... na;aæ...
8b Naa waasad daæ yu˚aa
yu˚a]t¶-®@ muætumìn@ muætumìn@
za]n... na;aæ... za]n... na;aæ... za]n... na;aæ...
maæataa
‘He made the woman angry’
4a Taa \angaælaæ kwaanoæo ‘She turned over the pot’
4b Taa \angalad daæ kwaanoæo
‘She turned over the pot’
5a Yaa \angaælaæ yaarinyaæa
‘He let the girl down’
5b Yaa \angalad daæ yaarinyaæa
‘He let the girl down’ ‘He aroused (i.e. created) trouble’
rìgimaæa
‘He aroused (i.e. created) trouble’ ‘She winnowed the grain’ ‘She winnowed the grain’ ‘I sharpened the knife’
‘I sharpened the knife’
9a Naa waasaæ muætu]m ‘I flattered the man’
9b Naa waasad daæ muætu]m
‘I flattered the man’
547
3. Phonology test Method: Hausa.
1) Read English or French sentence, ask for translation to 2) Assure that informant agrees with the translation and that one really deals with a benefactive or causative sentence.
Informant’s name/le nom d’informateur: Age/âge: Sex/sexe: F [ ] M [ ] Education: Dialect: wrong nearly wrong
unsure nearly
correct
Verb
OK
He entered her house.
ben 3
Il est entré dans sa maison.
shìgaa
Yaa shiga® mataæ gidaa
enter
Yaa shigas mataæ gidaa Yaa shigam mataæ gidaa Yaa shigat mataæ gidaa Yaa shigan mataæ gidaa The snake entered the Malam’s room.
ben 3
Le serpent est entré dans la chambre du Malam.
shìgaa
Macìjii yaa shiga® waæ Maalaæm fiaakì(nsaæ).
enter
Macìjii yaa shigas waæ Maalaæm fiaakì(nsaæ). Macìjii yaa shigam waæ Maalaæm fiaakì(nsaæ). Macìjii yaa shigat waæ Maalaæm fiaakì(nsaæ). Macìjii yaa shigan waæ Maalaæm fiaakì(nsaæ). The snake entered the Malam’s room.
ben 3
Le serpent est entré dans la chambre du Malam.
shìgaa
Macìjii yaa shiga® maæ Maalaæm fiaakì(nsaæ).
enter
Macìjii yaa shigas maæ Maalaæm fiaakì(nsaæ). Macìjii yaa shigam maæ Maalaæm fiaakì(nsaæ). Macìjii yaa shigat maæ Maalaæm fiaakì(nsaæ). Macìjii yaa shigan maæ Maalaæm fiaakì(nsaæ).
548
He put the car in the garage for him.
caus
Il lui a mis la voiture dans le garage.
shiga®
Yaa shiga® masaæ (daæ) mootaæa ga®eejì.
put in
Yaa shigas masaæ (daæ) mootaæa ga®eejì. Yaa shigam masaæ (daæ) mootaæa ga®eejì. Yaa shigat masaæ (daæ) mootaæa ga®eejì. Yaa shigan masaæ (daæ) mootaæa ga®eejì. He put the car in the garage for Audu.
caus
Il a mis la voiture dans le garage à Audu.
shiga®
Yaa shiga® waæ Auduæ mootaæa ga®eejì. Yaa shigas waæ Auduæ mootaæa ga®eejì. Yaa shigaw waæ Auduæ mootaæa ga®eejì. Yaa shigat waæ Auduæ mootaæa ga®eejì.
wNP
Yaa shigan waæ Auduæ mootaæa ga®eejì. He put the car in the garage for Audu.
caus
Il a mis la voiture dans le garage à Audu.
shiga®
Yaa shiga® maæ Auduæ mootaæa ga®eejì.
put in
Yaa shigas maæ Auduæ mootaæa ga®eejì. Yaa shigam maæ Auduæ mootaæa ga®eejì. Yaa shigat maæ Auduæ mootaæa ga®eejì.
mNP
Yaa shigan maæ Auduæ mootaæa ga®eejì. He put the car in the garage.
caus
Il a mis la voiture dans le garage.
shiga®
Yaa shiga® daæ mootaæa ga®eejì.
put in
Yaa shigas daæ mootaæa ga®eejì. Yaa shigad daæ mootaæa ga®eejì. Yaa shigat daæ mootaæa ga®eejì. Yaa shigan daæ mootaæa ga®eejì. It was the car Audu put in the garage.
caus
C’était la voiture qu’il a mis dans le garage.
shiga®
Mootaæa cee ya shiga® ga®eejì.
put in
Mootaæa cee ya shigas ga®eejì. Mootaæa cee ya shigag ga®eejì. Mootaæa cee ya shigat ga®eejì. Mootaæa cee ya shigan ga®eejì. @@@
549
It was the car Audu put in.
caus
C’était la voiture qu’il a mis.
shiga®
Mootaæa cee ya shiga®.
put in
Mootaæa cee ya shigas. Mootaæa cee ya shigat. Mootaæa cee ya shigan. The lion sprang at Audu.
ben 3
Le lion a attaqué Audu.
zaæabu®aæa
Zaakìi yaa zaabu®a® waæ Auduæ.
spring
Zaakìi yaa zaabu®as waæ Auduæ.
up
Zaakìi yaa zaabu®aw waæ Auduæ. Zaakìi yaa zaabu®at waæ Auduæ.
wNP
Zaakìi yaa zaabu®an waæ Auduæ. The lion sprang at Audu.
ben 3
Le lion a attaqué Audu.
zaæabu®aæa
Zaakìi yaa zaabu®a® maæ Auduæ.
spring
Zaakìi yaa zaabu®as maæ Auduæ.
up
Zaakìi yaa zaabu®am maæ Auduæ. Zaakìi yaa zaabu®at maæ Auduæ.
mNP
Zaakìi yaa zaabu®an maæ Auduæ. The lion sprang at him.
ben 3
Le lion lui a attaqué.
zaæabu®aæa
Zaakìi yaa zaabu®a® masaæ.
spring
Zaakìi yaa zaabu®as masaæ.
up
Zaakìi yaa zaabu®am masaæ. Zaakìi yaa zaabu®at masaæ.
PRO
Zaakìi yaa zaabu®an masaæ. He made the horse spring at him.
caus
Il a fait le cheval l’attaquer.
zaabu®a®
Yaa zaabu®a® masaæ (daæ) dookìi.
make
550
Yaa zaabu®as masaæ (daæ) dookìi.
spring
Yaa zaabu®am masaæ (daæ) dookìi.
up
Yaa zaabu®at masaæ (daæ) dookìi.
PRO
Yaa zaabu®an masaæ (daæ) dookìi. It was the horse he made spring up/attack.
caus
C’était le cheval qu’il a fait attaquer.
zaabu®a®
Dookìi nee ya zaabu®a®
make
Dookìi nee ya zaabu®as
spring
Dookìi nee ya zaabu®am
up
Dookìi nee ya zaabu®at
Ø
Dookìi nee ya zaabu®an It was the horse that he made attack it.
caus
C’était le cheval qu’il a fait l’attaquer.
zaabu®a®
Dookìi nee ya zaabu®a® daæ shii
make
Dookìi nee ya zaabu®as daæ shii
spring
Dookìi nee ya zaabu®ad daæ shii
up
Dookìi nee ya zaabu®at daæ shii
daæ
Dookìi nee ya zaabu®an daæ shii His father gave him money to study. He learnt accounting
ben 2
for his father.
koæoya
Son père lui a donné l’argent pour étudier. Il a appris
a
l‘accontenance pour son père.
Uæbansaæ yaa baa shì kufiin kaæ®aæatuu. Yaa kooya® waæ uæbansaæ lissaafì. Uæbansaæ yaa baa shì kufiin kaæ®aæatuu. Yaa kooyas waæ uæbansaæ lissaafì. Uæbansaæ yaa baa shì kufiin kaæ®aæatuu. Yaa kooyaw waæ uæbansaæ lissaafì. Uæbansaæ yaa baa shì kufiin kaæ®aæatuu. Yaa kooyat waæ uæbansaæ lissaafì. Uæbansaæ yaa baa shì kufiin kaæ®aæatuu. Yaa kooyan waæ uæbansaæ lissaafì.
551
wNP
His father gave him money to study. He learnt accounting
ben 2
for his him.
koæoya a
Son père lui a donné l’argent pour étudier. Il a appris l‘accontenance pour lui.
Uæbansaæ yaa baa shì kufiin kaæ®aæatuu. Yaa kooya® masaæ lissaafì. Uæbansaæ yaa baa shì kufiin kaæ®aæatuu. Yaa kooyas masaæ lissaafì. Uæbansaæ yaa baa shì kufiin kaæ®aæatuu. Yaa kooyam masaæ lissaafì. Uæbansaæ yaa baa shì kufiin kaæ®aæatuu. Yaa kooyat masaæ lissaafì.
PRO
Uæbansaæ yaa baa shì kufiin kaæ®aæatuu. Yaa kooyan masaæ lissaafì. She taught him how to read.
caus
Elle lui a enseigné de lire.
ko\ya®
Taa kooya® masaæ kaæ®aæatuu. Taa kooyas masaæ kaæ®aæatuu. Taa kooyam masaæ kaæ®aæatuu. Taa kooyat masaæ kaæ®aæatuu.
PRO
Taa kooyan masaæ kaæ®aæatuu. She taught Suleman how to read.
caus
Elle a enseigné de lire à Suleman.
kooya®
Taa kooya® waæ Suleman kaæ®aæatuu. Taa kooyas waæ Suleman kaæ®aæatuu. Taa kooyaw waæ Suleman kaæ®aæatuu. Taa kooyat waæ Suleman kaæ®aæatuu.
wNP
Taa kooyan waæ Suleman kaæ®aæatuu. She taught Suleman how to read.
caus
Elle a enseigné de lire à Suleman.
kooya®
Taa kooya® maæ Suleman kaæ®aæatuu. Taa kooyas maæ Suleman kaæ®aæatuu. Taa kooyam maæ Suleman kaæ®aæatuu. Taa kooyat maæ Suleman kaæ®aæatuu.
mNP
Taa kooyan maæ Suleman kaæ®aæatuu.
552
It is reading she has taught.
caus
C’ést de lire qu’elle a enseigné.
kooya®
Kaæ®aæatuu ne ta kooya® Kaæ®aæatuu ne ta kooyas Kaæ®aæatuu ne ta kooyam. @@@ Kaæ®aæatuu ne ta kooyat Kaæ®aæatuu ne ta kooyan. @@@ She threw his money away.
ben 2
Elle a gaspillé son argent.
jeæefaa
Taa jeefa® masaæ kufiii. Taa jeefas masaæ kufiii. Taa jeefam masaæ kufiii. Taa jeefat masaæ kufiii.
PRO
Taa jeefan masaæ kufiii. She threw Hamidu’s money away.
ben 2
Elle a gaspillé l’argent de Hamidou.
jeæefaa
Taa jeefa® waæ Hamidu kufiinsaæ. Taa jeefas waæ Hamidu kufiinsaæ. Taa jeefaw waæ Hamidu kufiinsaæ. Taa jeefat waæ Hamidu kufiinsaæ.
wNP
Taa jeefan waæ Hamidu kufiinsaæ. She threw Hamidu’s money away.
ben 2
Elle a gaspillé l’argent de Hamidou.
jeæefaa
Taa jeefa® maæ Hamidu kufiinsaæ. Taa jeefas maææ Hamidu kufiinsaæ. Taa jeefam maæ Hamidu kufiinsaæ. Taa jeefat maæ Hamidu kufiinsaæ.
mNP
Taa jeefan maæ Hamidu kufiinsaæ. She threw his money away.
caus
Elle a gaspillé son argent.
jeefa®
Taa jeefa® masaæ daæ kufiii. Taa jeefas masaæ daæ kufiii. Taa jeefam masaæ daæ kufiii. Taa jeefat masaæ daæ kufiii.
PRO
Taa jeefan masaæ daæ kufiii.
553
It was money she threw away.
caus
C’était de l’argent qu’elle a gaspillé.
je\fa®
Kufiii neæe ta jeefa® Kufiii neæe ta jeefas Kufiii neæe ta jeefam Kufiii neæe ta jeefat
Ø
Kufiii neæe ta jeefan She threw away money.
caus
Elle a gaspillé de l’argent.
jeefa®
Taa jeefa® daæ kufiii. Taa jeefas daæ kufiii. Taa jeefad daæ kufiii. Taa jeefat daæ kufiii.
daæ
Taa jeefan daæ kufiii. He shot a lion for me.
ben 2
Il m’a tué/abattu un lion.
haæ®baa
Yaa harba® minì zaakìi.
shoot
Yaa harbas minì zaakìi. Yaa harbam minì zaakìi. Yaa harbat minì zaakìi. Yaa harban minì zaakìi. He shot a lion for the driver.
ben 2
Il a tué/abattu un lion au chauffeur.
haæ®baa
Yaa harba® waæ di®eebaæ zaakìi.
shoot
Yaa harbas waæ di®eebaæ zaakìi. Yaa harbaw waæ di®eebaæ zaakìi. Yaa harbat waæ di®eebaæ zaakìi.
wNP
Yaa harban waæ di®eebaæ zaakìi. The cow kicked off the rope.
caus
La vache a ...
ha®ba®
Saaniyaæa taa harba® daæ igiyaæa.
kick
Saaniyaæa taa harbas daæ igiyaæa.
off
Saaniyaæa taa harbad daæ igiyaæa. Saaniyaæa taa harbat daæ igiyaæa. Saaniyaæa taa harban daæ igiyaæa.
554
It was the rope the cow kicked off.
caus
..
ha®ba®
Igiyaæa cee saniyaæa ta ha®ba®.
kick
Igiyaæa cee saniyaæa ta ha®bas.
off
Igiyaæa cee saniyaæa ta ha®bam. Igiyaæa cee saniyaæa ta ha®bat.
Ø
Igiyaæa cee saniyaæa ta ha®ban. The tears streamed down his face.
ben 3
Les larmes lui a ...
son visage.
zuæba
Hawaæayee sukaæ zuba® masaæ.
pour
Hawaæayee sukaæ zubas masaæ. Hawaæayee sukaæ zubam masaæ. Hawaæayee sukaæ zubat masaæ.
PRO
Hawaæayee sukaæ zuban masaæ. The tears streamed down Mustafa’s face.
ben 3
Les larmes a
le visage de Mustafa.
zuæba
Hawaæayee sukaæ zuba® waæ Mustafa.
pour
...
Hawaæayee sukaæ zubas waæ Mustafa. Hawaæayee sukaæ zubaw waæ Mustafa. Hawaæayee sukaæ zubat waæ Mustafa.
PRO
Hawaæayee sukaæ zuban waæ Mustafa. The grain was poured away.
caus
zuba® An zuba® daæ hatsii.
pour
An zubas daæ hatsii.
away
An zubad daæ hatsii. An zubat daæ hatsii.
daæ
An zuban daæ hatsii. It was the grain they poured away. C’était le
qu’ils ont
caus .
zuba®
Hatsii neæe sukaæ zuba®.
pour
Hatsii neæe sukaæ zubas.
away
Hatsii neæe sukaæ zubam. @@@ Hatsii neæe sukaæ zubat.
Ø
Hatsii neæe sukaæ zuban.
555
Amina poured away the water for her mother.
caus
Amina a versé l’eau pour sa mère.
zuba®
Aminaæa taa zuba® waæ uæwa®saæ (daæ) ruwaa.
pour
Aminaæa taa zubas waæ uæwa®saæ (daæ) ruwaa.
away
Aminaæa taa zubaw waæ uæwa®saæ (daæ) ruwaa. Aminaæa taa zubat waæ uæwa®saæ (daæ) ruwaa.
wNP
Aminaæa taa zuban waæ uæwa®saæ (daæ) ruwaa. Amina poured away the water for her.
caus
Amina lui a versé l’eau.
zuba®
Aminaæa taa zuba® mataæ daæ ruwaa.
pour
Aminaæa taa zubas mataæ daæ ruwaa.
away
Aminaæa taa zubam mataæ daæ ruwaa. Aminaæa taa zubat mataæ daæ ruwaa.
PRO
Aminaæa taa zuban mataæ daæ ruwaa. He sold them a horse.
caus
Il leur a vendu un cheval.
saya®
Yaa saya® musuæ daæ dookìi.
sell
Yaa sayas musuæ daæ dookìi. Yaa sayam musuæ daæ dookìi. Yaa sayat musuæ daæ dookìi.
PRO
Yaa sayan musuæ daæ dookìi. It was a horse he sold.
caus
C’était un cheval qu’il a vendu.
saya®
Dookìi nee ya saya®.
sell
Dookìi nee ya sayas. Dookìi nee ya sayam. Dookìi nee ya sayat.
Ø
Dookìi nee ya sayan. He sold a horse.
caus
Il a vendu un cheval.
saya®
Yaa saya® daæ dookìi.
sell
Yaa sayas daæ dookìi. Yaa sayad daæ dookìi. Yaa sayat daæ dookìi.
daæ
Yaa sayan daæ dookìi.
556
They bought a horse for me.
ben 2
Ils ont acheté un cheval pour moi.
saæyaa
Sun saya® minì dookìi.
buy
Sun sayas minì dookìi. Sun sayam minì dookìi. Sun sayat minì dookìi.
PRO
Sun sayan minì dookìi. They bought a horse for their parents.
ben 2
Ils ont acheté un cheval pour leur parents.
saæyaa
Sun saya® waæ mahaæifansuæ dookìi.
buy
Sun sayas waæ mahaæifansuæ dookìi. Sun sayam waæ mahaæifansuæ dookìi. Sun sayat waæ mahaæifansuæ dookìi.
wNP
Sun sayan waæ mahaæifansuæ dookìi.
557
List of informants for phonology test Nr.
Code
Name
Village/town
Age
Education
1.
AS23
Abba Sidi
Dutsin Ma
23
Univ. 2 yrs.
2.
AO16
Abdu Ousman
Dutsin Ma
16
Islamic school
3.
AY15
Abduraman Yusuf
Dutsin Ma
15
-
4.
AA15
Abubakar Amadu
Dutsin Ma
15
Secondary School
5.
AU65
Abubakar Umar
Dutsin Ma
65
-
6.
AB13
Alu Balla
Dutsin Ma
13
Secondary school
7.
BA25
Bello Abubakar
Dutsin Ma
25
Medical clinic worker
8.
F20
Fatima
Dutsin Ma
20
-
9.
HA60
Haruna Amadu
Dutsin Ma
60
-
10.
IA17
Ibrahim Abdulahi
Dutsin Ma
17
Non-educated
11.
IM45
Ibrahim Mahaman
Dutsin Ma
45
-
12.
IL70
Ibrahim Lawali
Dutsin Ma
70
-
13.
IA13
Issa Ali
Safana (Dutsin Ma)
13
-
14.
IR18
Issiaku Rabiu
Dutsin Ma
18
Secondary
15.
MA18 Mahamadu Abubakar
Dutsin Ma
18
S. school
16.
MII65
Dutsin Ma
65
-
17.
MUB60 Mallam Usseini Bakano
Dutsin Ma
60
18.
MAU60 Malam Almu Usmanu
Dutsin Ma
60
-
19.
SB47
Sabiu Balla
Dutsin Ma
47
-
20.
SC28
Saïdu Chaïbu
Dutsin Ma
28
Arabic Studies
21.
SM40
Saïdu Mati
Dutsin Ma
40
Arabic school
22.
TA50
Tahiru Ado
Dutsin Ma
50
Non-educated
23.
UA30
Umaru Ali
Dutsin Ma
30
-
24.
MIA37 Mallam Issa Abdu
Dutsin Ma
37
High school
25.
MU16 Musa Usman
Sabon Lahi (Katsina) 16 -
26.
UA16
Umaru Alio
Mainio (Sokoto) 16
-
27.
AA35
Abubakar Atiku
Tambuwal (Zanfara)
35
-
28.
SA43
Sani Abdulaye
Satko (Zanfara)
43
-
29.
AM45 Adamu Maradou
Maradun
45
-
30.
UC17
Mafara
17
-
31.
UM15 Umaru Mahaman
15
-
Mallam Inusa Ibrahim
Umaru Cheffu
Tangaza (Sokoto Local Gvt)
558
32.
IM30
Ibrahim Muhammed
Sokoto town
ca. 30-35 University
33.
IS30
Isa Suleman
gaura Namoda
30
Polytechnic Diploma
34.
MA24 Muhammadu Awali
gaura Namoda
24
Higher Inst. (College)
35.
NA9
Nassiru Abubakar
gaura Namoda
9
Islamic, traditional
36.
AI13
Ado Ibrahim
Sabon Birni
13
Secondary
37.
MA19 Muhammed Adamu
Sabon Birni
19
Secondary
38.
IDM18 Isiaka Dan Malam
Sabon Birni
18
Secondary (beggar)
39.
GB37
Gidan Madawa 37
-
25
College of Education
(high school)
Garba Bello
(around Gusau) 40.
IS25
41.
MA28 Mustafa Abdullahi
Ibrahim Sado
Gusau
Local Gvt.)
28
-
42.
SM28
Sahabi Maman
Dogondoutchi
28
Baccalaureat
43.
AD24
Abdou Dangana
Dogondoutchi
24
44
CM24
Chaïbou Mahaman
Dogondoutchi
24
45.
HB34
Hamidou Boukary
Dogondoutchi
34
46.
UIA28 Umaru Ibro Na Allah
Dogondoutchi
28
47.
SY27
Suley Yakouba
Tahoua
27
48.
AI41
Adamou Ibrahim
Tahoua
41
49.
DKA28 Dan-kassuwa Amadou
Tahoua
28
Gusau (Sokoto
559
BPC (10 yrs)
4. Agreement test Agreement test, questionnaire 7 Problem:
What does the causative marker agree with? What does the benefactive marker agree with? Agreement with...
1a Sun ya®d-as¶-at¶-an¶-am¶-a®
mishì yaæ auree taæ.
1b Sun ya®d-as¶-at¶-an¶-am¶-a®
mataæ taæ auree shì.
1c Sun ya®d-as¶-at¶-an¶-am¶-a®
mikì kì auree shì.
1d Sun ya®d-as¶-at¶-an¶-am¶-a®
makaæ kaæ auree taæ.
1e Maæata®shì taa ya®d-as¶-at-an¶-am¶-a®
mishì yaæ auree taæ
1f Baæabanshì yaa ya®d-as¶-at¶-an¶-am¶-a®
mishì yaæ auree taæ
1g Maæata®shì taa ya®d-as¶-at-an¶-am¶-a®
mishì yaæ auree taæ
1h Maæata®taæ taa ya®d-as¶-at-an¶-am¶-a®
mataæ taæ auree shì
1i Baæabantaæ yaa ya®d-as¶-at¶-an¶-am¶-a®
mataæ taæ auree shì
1j Mahaæifammuæ sun ya®d-as¶-at¶-an¶-am¶-a®
mamuæ muæ yi
auree 1k Mahaæifansuæ sun ya®d-as¶-at¶-an¶-am¶-a®
musuæ suæ yi auree
1l Mahaæifankuæ sun ya®d-as¶-at¶-an¶-am¶-a®
mukuæ kuæ yi auree
1m Yaa ya®d-as¶-at¶-an¶-am¶-a®
musuæ suæ yi auree
1n Taa ya®d-as¶-at¶-an¶-am¶-a®
musuæ suæ yi auree
2a Naa zaa\-as¶-at¶-an¶-am¶-a®
mataæ taguæwaa
2b Naa zaa\-as¶-at-an¶-am¶-a®
mataæ aæ®aæke
2c Naa zaa\-as¶-at¶-an¶-am¶-a®
mishì taguæwaa
2d Naa zaa\-as¶-at¶-an¶-am¶-a®
mishì aæ®aæke
2e Taa zaa\-as¶-at¶-an¶-am¶-a®
mishì aæ®aæke
2f Yaa zaa\-as¶-at¶-an¶-am¶-a®
mishì aæ®aæke
2g Taa zaa\-as¶-at¶-an¶-am¶-a®
mataæ aæ®aæke
2h Yaa zaa\-as¶-at¶-an¶-am¶-a®
mataæ aæ®aæke
2i Taa zaa\-as¶-at¶-an¶-am¶-a®
mishì taguæwaa
2j Yaa zaa\-as¶-at¶-an¶-am¶-a®
mishì taguæwaa
2k Taa zaa\-as¶-at¶-an¶-am¶-a®
mataæ taguæwaa
2l Yaa zaa\-as¶-at¶-an¶-am¶-a®
mataæ taguæwaa
560
2m Taguæwaa ceæe na zaa\-as¶-at¶-an¶-am¶-a®
mataæ
2n Taguæwaa ceæe na zaa\-as¶-at¶-an¶-am¶-a®
mishì
2o A®aæke neæe na zaa\-as¶-at¶-an¶-am¶-a®
mataæ
2p A®aæke neæe na zaa\-as¶-at¶-an¶-am¶-a®
mishì
3a Yaaroæo yaa dam˚-as¶-at¶-an¶-am¶-a® mataæ tufaafì 3b Yaaroæo yaa dam˚-as¶-at¶-an¶-am¶-a® mishì tufaafì 3c Yaarinyaææa taa dam˚-as¶-at¶-an¶-am¶-a® mataæ tufaafì 3d Yaarinyaæa taa dam˚-as¶-at¶-an¶-am¶-a® mishì tufaafì 3e Yaaroæo yaa dam˚-as¶-at¶-an¶-am¶-a® mataæ naamaæa 3f Yaaroæo yaa dam˚-as¶-at¶-an¶-am¶-a® mishì naamaæa 3g Yaarinyaæa taa dam˚-as¶-at¶-an¶-am¶-a® mataæ naamaæa 3h Yaarinyaæa taa dam˚-as¶-at¶-an¶-am¶-a® mishì naamaæa 3i Littaafì nee taa dam˚-as¶-at¶-an¶-am¶-a® mishì 3j Littaafì nee taa dam˚-as¶-at¶-an¶-am¶-a® mataæ 3k Littaafì nee yaa dam˚-as¶-at¶-an¶-am¶-a® mishì 3l Littaafì nee yaa dam˚-as¶-at¶-an¶-am¶-a® mataæ 3m Taguæwaa ceæe taa dam˚-as¶-at¶-an¶-am¶-a® mishì 3n Taguæwaa ceæe taa dam˚-as¶-at¶-an¶-am¶-a® mataæ 3o Taguæwaa ceæe yaa dam˚-as¶-at¶-an¶-am¶-a® mishì 3p Taguæwaa ceæe yaa dam˚-as¶-at¶-an¶-am¶-a® mataæ 4a Yaa ka®y-as¶-at¶-an¶-am¶-a®
mataæ aæ®aæke
4b Yaa ka®y-as¶-at¶-an¶-am¶-a®
mishì aæ®aæke
4c Taa ka®y-as¶-at¶-an¶-am¶-a®
mataæ aæ®aæke
4d Taa ka®y-as¶-at¶-an¶-am¶-a®
mishì aæ®aæke
4e Yaa ka®y-as¶-at¶-an¶-am¶-a®
mataæ masaæ®aa
4f Yaa ka®y-as¶-at¶-an¶-am¶-a®
mishì masaæ®aa
4g Taa ka®y-as¶-at¶-an¶-am¶-a®
mataæ masaæ®aa
4h Taa ka®y-as¶-at¶-an¶-am¶-a®
mishì masaæ®aa
4i A®aæke neæe Isa ya ka®y-as¶-at¶-an¶-am¶-a® mataæ 4j ÆA®aæke neæe Isa ya ka®y-as¶-at¶-an¶-am¶-a® mishì 4i A®aæke neæe Fati ta ka®y-as¶-at¶-an¶-am¶-a® mataæ 4k A®aæke neæe Fati ta ka®y-as¶-at¶-an¶-am¶-a® mishì
561
5a Macìjii yaa shig-as¶-at¶-an¶-am¶-a® mataæ fiaakìi 5b Macìjii yaa shig-as¶-at¶-an¶-am¶-a® mishì fiaakìi 5c Macìjii yaa shig-as¶-at¶-an¶-am¶-a® mataæ mootaæ®taæ 5d Macìjii yaa shig-as¶-at¶-an¶-am¶-a® mishì mootaæ®shì 5e Macìjii yaa shig-as¶-at¶-an¶-am¶-a® munaæ makarantaa 5f Kuænaamaæa taa shig-as¶-at¶-an¶-am¶-a® mataæ fiaakìi 5g Kuænaamaæa taa shig-as¶-at¶-an¶-am¶-a® mishì fiaakìi 5h Kuænaamaæa taa shig-as¶-at¶-an¶-am¶-a® mataæ mootaæ®taæ 5i Kuænaamaæa taa shig-as¶-at¶-an¶-am¶-a® mishì mootaæ®shì 5j Kuænaamaæa taa shig-as¶-at¶-an¶-am¶-a® munaæ makarantaa 5k Abduæ yaa shig-as¶-at¶-an¶-am¶-a® mishì daæ kaayanshì buæhu 5l Abduæ yaa shig-as¶-at¶-an¶-am¶-a® mataæ daæ kaayantaæ buæhu 5m Aminaæa taa shig-as¶-at¶-an¶-am¶-a® mishì daæ kaayanshì buæhu 5n Aminaæa taa shig-as¶-at¶-an¶-am¶-a® mataæ daæ kaayantaæ buæhu 5o Takaæ®da®taæ cee yaa shig-as¶-at¶-an¶-am¶-a® 5p Takaæ®da®taæ cee yaa shig-as¶-at¶-an¶-am¶-a® mataæ 5q Takaæ®da®shì cee yaa shig-as¶-at¶-an¶-am¶-a® 5r Takaæ®da®shì cee yaa shig-as¶-at¶-an¶-am¶-a® mishì 5s Takaæ®da®taæ cee taa shig-as¶-at¶-an¶-am¶-a® 5t Takaæ®da®taæ cee taa shig-as¶-at¶-an¶-am¶-a® mataæ 5u Takaæ®da®shì cee taa shig-as¶-at¶-an¶-am¶-a® 5v Takaæ®da®shì cee taa shig-as¶-at¶-an¶-am¶-a® mishì 5w Takaæ®da®suæ cee yaa shig-as¶-at¶-an¶-am¶-a® musuæ 5o Littafìntaæ nee yaa shig-as¶-at¶-an¶-am¶-a® 5p Littaafìntaæ nee yaa shig-as¶-at¶-an¶-am¶-a® mataæ 5q Littaafìnshì nee yaa shig-as¶-at¶-an¶-am¶-a® 5r Littaafìnshì nee yaa shig-as¶-at¶-an¶-am¶-a® mishì 6a Yaa goodeæe makaæ saboda ka halb-as¶-at¶-an¶-am¶-a® mishì dilaa. 6b Taa goodeæe makaæ saboda ka halb-as¶-at¶-an¶-am¶-a® mataæ dilaa. 6c Yaa goodeæe makaæ saboda ka halb-as¶-at¶-an¶-am¶-a® mishì zaakìi.
562
6d Taa goodeæe makaæ saboda ka halb-as¶-at¶-an¶-am¶-a® mataæ zaakìi. 6e Saanìyaa taa halb-as¶-at¶-an¶-am¶-a® daæ igiyaæa. 6f Saaæ yaa halb-as¶-at¶-an¶-am¶-a® daæ igiyaæa. 6g Saanìyaa taa halb-as¶-at¶-an¶-am¶-a® daæ bookitì. 6h Saaæ yaa halb-as¶-at¶-an¶-am¶-a® daæ bookitì.
563
Appendix B. High Transitivity effects in -aC/BEN – Additional examples from benefactive test and list of informants The examples below are additional examples to 5. 3. 1 about High Transitivity Effects in the -aC/BEN suffix. Sentences are referred to by numbers and can be found in 5. 3. 1. 1. List of informants for ‘Semantics test’: Nr.
Code
Name
Sex
Village/town
Age
1.
AC29
Adamu Cibau
M
Dogondouthci
29
2.
AM25
Adamu Maman
M
Magarya
25
Education/profession
5 yrs, no French skills (butcher)
3.
AK25
Ali Kallamu
M
Dogondouthci
25
4.
DH24
Djimma Hammadu
F
5.
HD26
Habibu Danladi
M
Dogondoutchi
26
6.
IM23
7.
MS22
Ibrahim Musa
M
Dogondoutchi
23
Mamman Saïdu
M
Magarya
22
8.
MA27
Muhammed Askiya
M
Dogondoutchi
27
9.
MM29
Musa Mudi
M
Dogondoutchi
29
10.
MA28
Mustafa Abdullahi
M
Gusau, Sokoto
28
11.
SM28
Sahabi Mahaman
M
Dogondoutchi
28
Baccalauréat
12.
USM37
Umaru Sanda M
Magarya
37
13 yrs (French
Muhammad
teacher) 13.
UU31
Umaru Usman
M
Magarya
31
14 yrs in school
14.
ZY27
Zanaidu Yau
M
Magarya
27
École normale
1. HT effects associated with the subject
(teacher)
1. 1 Effort (1)
6¶-am: ‘He found work for her’. Speaker’s SE: ‘He [S] puts in a lot of effort in the task. He has really
been trying hard to find her [OBJDAT] a job.’
(2): Amount of physical energy yielded by the subject.
564
(2)
20¶-am: ‘I pushed the car for them’. Speaker’s SE: ‘The car is pushed longer than [when the suffix] -aæa [is
used], and with more effort.’
(3): Effort: Doing more than was expected, more than one was obliged to do, doing something as a special favour: (3)
3¶-am: ‘They bought kolanut (especially) for her’. Speaker’s SE: ‘They [S] bought kolanuts especially for
her [OBJDAT].’
1. 2. Physical/negative force (4): Direct physical force or a forcible action applied by the subject. Interpretation of stealing/destruction of OBJDAT’s property with neutral verbs such as saa®‘cut’, ams- and ka®\- ‘receive’, goog- ‘rub’, dam˚- ‘seize’: (4) a) 2¶-am: ‘Did you steal the money from her?’. Speaker’s SE: ‘She [S] has stolen the money from her [OBJDAT].’ b)
2¶-aæa: ‘Did you receive the money for her?’
(5-6): Violation of OBJDAT participant by stealing or destroying her property: (5)
16¶a®, -as: ‘The child stole/destroyed her clothes’. Speaker’s SE: ‘He [S] took her clothes in order to sell
it. A theft. She [OBJDAT] will not agree to it. /He [S] destroyed her [OBJDAT’s] clothes.’
(6) a)
16¶-aæa : A. ‘The child seized her clothes (in order to give to her)/ B. The boy seized the clothes (that
she was wearing). ’. Speaker’s SE: ‘There is not much use of force. No intensity. / She [OBJDAT] could easily get away, he [S] does not hold firmly.’
1. 3 Mental force (7): Mental force by outsmarting OBJDAT (7)
18¶-as: ‘He broke her the (price on) sugarcane’. Speaker’s SE: ‘He [S] is ‘breaking’ the price of her sugar-
cane that she [OBJDAT] is selling. E.g. she has been trying to sell canes since morning at F10 each, and in the evening he comes and suggests to buy all her canes at F5 each. There is a loss for her. He is approaching her with bad intentions and tries to make her act according to his will.’
565
1. 4 Power-Control (8): Co-occurrence of physical/mental force and Power-Control. The subject is in a powerful situation because of the intimate relationship between him and the dative object participant. This power is used to violate the privacy of the dative object, using force to deprive him/her of his/her goods. (8)
13¶-a®: ‘The worker stole my sack’. Speaker’s SE: [Power-control]: ‘The worker [S] has a certain control
of the situation, he is allowed to come and go without being suspected.’ [Force]: -a® = "stole" vs. -aæa "take for". ‘He [S] stole my sac, my own sac. I [OBJDAT] know the person [S]. There is violation of trust.’
(9): Subject Power-Control, an intimacy relationship between the subject and OBJDAT participants, and dative object dependence is interrelated. (9)
10¶-a®: ‘He found us a house’. Speaker’s SE: [Power-control]: ‘He [S] is controlling their [OBJDAT’s]
situation. He is the one responsible (French: la base) of their having a house. Without him they would not be able to find a house. He is controlling their situation.’ [Non-autonomous]: ‘They [OBJDAT] are dependent on him [S]. He causes them to have a house.’ [Intimacy]: ‘A relationship, close, between them [S and OBJDAT].’
2. HT effects associated with the OBJDAT 2. 1 Impact (10)
5¶-am: ‘She gave birth to twins for him’. Speaker’s SE: [Affected]: Beneficiary for him [OBJDAT]
(more than with -aæa), it is HE who wants the twins [OBJACC].
(11): The action is done especially for the OBJDAT participant, or done as a special favour: (11) a)
3¶-am: ‘They bought kolanut (especially) for her’. Speaker‘s SE: [Affected]: It is for her [OBJDAT]
(especially) they bought kolanuts. b)
3¶-aæa: ‘They bought some kolanuts for her’. Speaker’s SE: [Less affected]: She [OBJDAT] is less
affected (than in ‘sayam’).
(12-13): A high degree of OBJDAT affectedness where a normally positive (benefactive) action gets a negative (malefactive) interpretation.
566
(12) 6¶-am: ‘He sought (and found) work for her’. Speaker’s SE: [Affected]: ‘A little NEGATIVE. The pay is too low, and she [OBJDAT] may stop working after 1-2 months.’ (13) 6¶-am: ‘The sold (all) her kolanut’. Speaker’s SE: [Affected]: ‘A negative sense. All of the kolanut [OBJACC]. She [OBJDAT] gave them [S] kolanut, but not to sell it.’
2. 2 Intimacy (14-15): Social intimacy between the subject and the OBJDAT participants. (14) a)
20¶a®: ‘I sent them a car’. Speaker’s SE: [Intimacy]: ‘Close relationship.’ b) 20¶-aæa: ‘I sent them a car’. Speaker’s SE: [No intimacy]: ‘They [S & OBJDAT] have an
accidental relationhip.’ (15) a)
7¶-am: ‘He received money for them’. Speaker’s SE: [Intimacy]: ‘They [S & OBJDAT] are very
close friends. He [S] shows them [OBJDAT] special concern.’ b)
7¶-aæa: ‘He received money for them’. Speaker’s SE: [No intimacy]: ‘No intimate connection, they
[S & OBJDAT] are just colleagues. They [OBJDAT] do not expect this person [S] to be nice to them, and he is not either.’
(16): An intimacy relationship involving mutual trust. (16) a)
8¶-a®: ‘The bank lent her money’. Speaker’s SE: [Intimacy]: ‘They [S & OBJDAT] are partners, she
[OBJDAT] used to borrow money from this bank [S]. A close relationship and trust.’
2. 3 Autonomy (17): Dependence on the subject participant. (17) 14¶-am: ‘He rubbed moisture cream on her’. Speaker’s SE: [Non-autonomous]: ‘She [OBJDAT] requested to have him [S] rub on her back, she can’t do it. Maybe she has no choice.’
3. HT effects associated with the OBJACC 3. 1 Affected Amount (18)
a) 3¶-am¶-as : ‘They sold (all) her kolanut’. Speakers’ SE: [Larger Amount Affected]: ‘All of the
kolanut [OBJACC]./All her kolanut [OBJACC].’
567
3. 3 Affected MVR object (19): Motion of the OBJACC away from the scene. (19) a)
18¶-a®: ‘He broke her sugarcane (and threw it away)’. Speaker’s SE: [Affected Mover]: He [S] broke
her [OBJDAT’s] sugarcane [OBJACC] to be nasty (not to eat himself), and then throws it away.’ b)
18¶-as: ‘He broke her a sugarcane (which she took away)’. Speaker’s SE: [Affected Mover]: He
[S] broke (his own) sugarcane [OBJACC] and gave her [OBJDAT] [which she took away with her].
4. Tense and aspect 4. 1 Aspect Completed action completed to the extent that it has affected the OBJDAT participant. (20): Affected recipient (20) 1¶-am: ‘He sent it/him to her at the market’. Speaker’s SE: ‘[Completed]: ‘He /it [OBJACC] is already with her at the market.’ [Subject force]: ‘It is my [S] responsibility and initiative to send someone to her [OBJDAT]. It is my [OBJDAT] responsibility that he/it [OBJACC] reaches her [OBJDAT] at the market.’
4. 2 Tense (21): Gr.1 -aa as recent past: (21) 3¶-aæa: ‘They bought her a kolanut’. Speaker’s SE: Present or almost present, recent.’
(22): Past/distant past. (22) 11¶-a®: ‘They agreed to him that he could marry her’. Speaker’s SE: ‘Emphasis on the long procedure, he [OBJDAT] requested it long ago, finally they [S] said yes’.
568
Appendix C. High Transitivity effects in -aC/CAUS-CMN – Transcription sample from causative test List of informants for causative test: Code
Name
Village/town
Age
Dogondoutchi
55
INFORMANT 2 Adamou Cibau
Dogondoutchi
30
INFORMANT 3 (unknown)
Dogondoutchi
24
INFORMANT 4 (unknown)
Dogondoutchi
(unknown)
INFORMANT 5 Ibrahim Alhassan
Dogondoutchi
(unknown)
INFORMANT 6 (unknown)
Dogondoutchi
(unknown)
INFORMANT 7 Ibrahim Adamu
Dogondoutchi
(unknown)
INFORMANT 8 (unknown)
Dogondoutchi
(unknown)
INFORMANT 9 Sahabi Mahaman
Dogondoutchi
32
INFORMANT 1 Soumana Ousmane
Education
Alhadi
Étudiant de géographie
Baccalauréat
Below is a sample of responses from the causative test data, organized according to the grammatical concepts outlined in 5. 3. 2. The English translation of the causative sentences is marked by VCAUS after the verb or after the preposition which is part of the verbal meaning, to distinguish it from the translation of a sentence with the gr1 -aa suffix, which is marked by VTRANS. The letter Q is mnemonic for ‘question’ and introduces the question asked by the interviewer. ‘R’ stands for ‘response’ and introduces the informant’s response. 1. Volitionality, planned involvement, effort and power of Subject/agent Examples to show that the subject in the causative construction in Hausa is characterized by yielding a high degree of energy, strength, force and effort, and may also be seen as someone with a particular responsibility to perform the action, and also planning to involve herself in it (focus of energy).
569
(1): The action is done wholeheartedly with the addition of the notion of strength: (1)
2¶-ad daæ vs. -aæa: ‘He interbred the horses.’
INFORMANT 1 Q: Kaæman
˚arfii an yi daæ zuucìyaa guæda an kai shì@ [Like with strength one did with the whole heart?] R: Daæ zuucìyaa guæda an kai shì. [With the whole (lit. one) heart one has done it.] INFORMANT 4 Q:
Waneæenaa ka ga aælaæamuu an fi baa daæ ˚arfii@ [In which one have you seen signs that one yields
more strength?] R: Yaa
tumasad daæ dawaakii. [‘He interbredVCAUS the horses’]
(2): The subject puts an extra amount of energy into the action, making life really miserable for the OBJINST, not just making her angry, but destroying her life: (2)
3¶-ad daæ vs. -aæa: ‘He made the woman angry’
INFORMANT 1 Q:
To] waæneæ lalle-lallee ka]n gaæskiyaa ya \aataæa mataæ ra]i@ [OK. In which case did he really, truly
destroy her life?] R: Shii
daæi halaæu. Yaa hasalad daæ itaa. [This one again. He made her angryVCAUS.]
(3)-(4): The sentences shows that an extra amount of energy or strength is put into the action, only in this case, the concept of force is not circumscribed: (3)
7¶-ad daæ vs. -aæa: ‘She winnowed the grain’
INFORMANT 1 Q: Waneæenaa
ka ga aælaæamuu aikìn yaa yi ˚arfii@ [In which case did you see signs that the force is strong
(lit. the work made strength)?] R: Shii
dai (-VCAUS). [That one (-VCAUS).]
(4) 4¶-ad daæ vs. -aæa: ‘She turned over the pot’ INFORMANT 4 Q: Waneæenaa
an yi aikìi, ka]n gaæskiyaa@ [In which one has one really done (a piece of) work?] R: Taa \angalad daæ kwaanoæo [‘She turned overVCAUS the pot’]
570
(5)-(6): The force induced by the subject is seen as effort; mental, positive energy. (5)
8¶-ad daæ vs. -aæa: ‘I sharpened the knife’
INFORMANT 2 Q:
Waneæenaa ka ga an yi sa]\ effort ... waasad daæ itaa@ [In which case have you seen one put effort...
sharpeningVCAUS it (the knife)?] R: Naa
(6)
waasad daæ yu˚aa. [‘I sharpenedVCAUS the knife’]
1¶-ad daæ vs. -aæa: ‘He fed the girl’
INFORMANT 4 Q: Où est-ce que tu as l’impression qu’il y a plus d’effort deployé pour la nourrir, dans la première fois ou la seconde? [Where do you have the impression that there is more effort deployed to nourish her, in the first case or in the second?] R: Yaa
ciisad daæ yaarinyaæa. [‘He fedVCAUS the girl’]
(7) The subject is deeply involved and engaged in what he is doing. (7) 6¶-ad daæ vs. -aæa: ‘He aroused trouble’ INFORMANT 4 Q:
To], waneæenaa ka ga aælaæamuu lallee, yaa taddaæa rìgimaæa ˚warai-˚warai@ [OK, in which case
have you seen signs that he really-really aroused trouble?] R: Yaa
taasad daæ rìgimaæa. [‘He arousedVCAUS trouble’]
(8): The subject plans the action ahead of time, and is seen as having a special responsibility to perform this action. (8)
2¶-ad daæ vs. -aæa: ‘He interbred the horses’
INFORMANT 9 R: More effort, it is his [S] responsibility to do it. Maybe he wants a special kind of offspring.
2. Affectedness of OBJINST; inanimate: movement away, animate: mental Causee Sample sentences which show how the OBJINST (Causee) of the causative construction is affected, compared to the OBJACC of the transitive gr1 -aa suffix. Examples illustrating the difference between the type of affectedness characterizing animate and non-animate Causees.
571
(9): The Causee is really affected; after being fed she is completely full. (9) 1¶-ad daæ vs. -aæa: ‘He fed the girl’ INFORMANT 1 Q:
Waneæenaa ka tabbaætaa kaæ ga aælaæamuu taa yi ˚oæoshi. [In which case are you certain you have seen
the signs that she is full]. R: Yaa
Kaæmat c’est definitif. [Like it is definitive.]
ciisad daæ yaarinyaæa. [‘He fedVCAUS the girl’]
INFORMANT 2
To], waneæenaa ka ga aælaæamuu wæataækiilaæ yaarinyaæa an ciisad daæ itaa, kumaa taa ˚oæoshi, baabuæ shaækku@ [OK, which one is it you have seen signs that maybe one fedVCAUS her, and there is Q:
absolutely no doubt that she is full? ] R: Yaa
ciisad daæ yaarinyaæa. [‘He fedVCAUS the girl’]
INFORMANT 3 Q: Et dans laquelle des cas.. donc la fille qui est donc nourri, est elle rassasiée? Tu es sure qu’il n’y a pas de doubte... qu’elle est rassasiée? [And in which of the cases.. that is, the girl, who is then nourished, is she full? You are sure ... that she is full?] R: Yaa
ciisad daæ yaarinyaæt. [‘He fedVCAUS the girl’]
(10)-(11): There is a particular emphasis on the Causee. (10) 2¶-ad daæ vs. -aæa: ‘He interbred the horses’ INFORMANT 1 Q:
Waæneæ ka ga aælaæamuu suu dawaakôn aækwai jiddaæda]waa bisaæ gaæree suæ ˚warai@ [In which case
have you seen signs that there is really emphasis on the horses?] R: Wandaæ
ya ciisuwaæd dai. [The one (where) he fedVCAUS, indeed.]
(11): The angry woman [Causee], is not just a bit annoyed, she has her life destroyed. (11) 3¶-ad
daæ vs. -aæa: ‘He made the woman angry’
INFORMANT 1 Q:
To] waneæenaa ka ga aælaæamuu kaæma lalle-lallee aæbôn yaa \aataæa mataæ ra]i@ [Well, in which case
have you seen signs like the thing really destroyed her (OBJINST) life?] R: Wandaæ
ya hasalad daæ itaa. [The one where he made the woman angryVCAUS]
572
(12): The object is affected the sense of a huge riot or a real chaos being created. a) 6¶-ad daæ: ‘He aroused trouble’
(12)
INFORMANT 1 Q:
To] waneæenaa ka ga aælaæamuu aæbôn lallee rìgimaæa taa fi! [Well, which one have you seen signs that
really the fighting is strongest?] R: Shii
dai. [That one (VCAUS).]
INFORMANT 9 R: He [S] made a real chaos [OBJINST].
b) 6¶-aæa: ‘He aroused trouble’ INFORMANT 9 R: Just a small quarrel.
(13): When winnowing grain, the grain will be more stirred, more severely winnowed. 7¶-ad daæ vs. -aæa: ‘She winnowed the grain’
(13)
INFORMANT 1 Q: Waneæenaa
ka ga aælaæamuu taa fi...an fi... hac&ii sun fi taæ\uwaa@ [In which case have you seen signs
that she is more... one is more...the grains are more touched/stirred?] R: Taa
shii˚ad daæ. [She winnowedVCAUS]
(14)- (15): The gr7 ‘affected subject suffix’ -u was used in explaining how the OBJINST of the causative is well and completely affected by the action. 7¶-ad daæ vs. -aæa: ‘She winnowed the grain’
(14)
INFORMANT 4 Q: Tooæ,
waneæ ka ga aælaæamuu hac& ôn sun shìi˚u@ [OK, which one have you seen that there are signs that
the grain is well winnowed?] R: Taa
(15)
shii˚ad daæ hac& ii [‘She winnowedVCAUS the grain’] 4¶-ad daæ vs. -aæa: ‘She turned over the pot’
INFORMANT 4 Q:
Waneæenaa an ga aælaamaæa taa baængaælu@ [In which case has one seen the sign that it is indeed turned
over?]
573
R: Taa
\angalad daæ kwaanoæo [‘She turned overVCAUS the pot’]
(16): The ‘action away’ meaning is dependent on the semantics of the verb. If the lexical meaning of the verb does not invite the action away interpretation, the Causee will simply bee seen as more affected, even though it is inanimate. (16)
a) 8¶-ad daæ : ‘I sharpened the knife’
INFORMANT 9 R: The knife [OBJINST] is really sharp. No movement away.
b) 8¶-ad daæ : ‘I sharpened the knife’ INFORMANT 9 R: The knife [OBJACC] is less sharp.
Animate Causees Relationship between Causer and animate Causee: intimacy; lack of autonomy and control on part of the Causee. Human Causees may be seen as being controlled. (17)
1¶-ad daæ: ‘He fed the girl’
INFORMANT 6 Q: Dans lequel des cas la fille est controllée? [In which of the cases is the girl (more) controlled?] R: Yaa
ciisad daæ yaarinyaæa [‘He fedVCAUS the girl’]
INFORMANT 5 Q: Dans lequel des cas le sujet est plus controllé? [In which case is the subject more controlled?] R:
Yaa
ciisad daæ yaarinyaæa [‘He fedVCAUS the girl’] Intimacy The Causee is influenced by the subject through intimacy. ‘Less intimate’ goes together with other less affected features, and vice versa. (18)
a) 3¶-ad daæ: ‘He made the woman angry’
INFORMANT 9 R: He [S] is close to her [OBJINST]. The woman [OBJINST] is his own wife.
b) 3¶-aaæ: ‘He made the woman angry’ INFORMANT 9 R: He [S] doesn’t even know her [OBJACC], no intimacy between them.
574
(19)
5¶-aaæ: ‘He let the girl down’
INFORMANT 9 R: She [OBJACC] is less affected because it is possible for her to convince him [S] to reverse the action. Less intimate than -ad dà, they are not very close, it could be just a flirt.
Intimacy and mutual obligation: (20)
a) 1¶-ad daæ: ‘I flattered the man’
INFORMANT 9 R: He [OBJINST] is more flattered, and obliged to give me [S] presents and money so I will be able to provide for my wife. [Cultural explanation: Musicians flatter the royalties with songs and stories, in return the royalties are expected to provide for the musicians. (This informant is a royal person in Hausa society)] I [S] know all his [OBJINST] family, ancestors and his history very well!
b)
1¶-aaæ: ‘I flattered the man’
INFORMANT 9 R: He [OBJACC] is not very flattered. Maybe I [S] play for a stranger, no intimacy. [Cultural explanation to ‘play’: A typical situation where someone is flattered is when musicians/storytellers flatter the royalties with personal songs and histories about their ancestors.]
Intimacy between Causer and non-human, animate Causee: (21)
a) 2¶-ad daæ: ‘He interbred the horses’
INFORMANT 9 R: He [S] is closer to the horses [OBJINST] [than with -aa], they are his own horses.
b) 2¶-aaæ: ‘He interbred the horses’ INFORMANT 9 R: No closeness between him [S] and the horses [OBJACC]. Not his own horses, he did it for someone else.
3. Individuation of OBJINST/OBJACC (referentiality, focussed OBJ) Tendency for the Causees (OBJINST) to be conceived of as more definite (referential or known from context) than the direct objects of the transitive gr1 -aæa construction. Facultative marking of referentiality. Expressed by -t (feminine NPs) and -n (masculine NPs) in the Dogondoutchi dialect, West Hausa (investigated below). For East dialects, the feminine marker will be -®. When presented with the two verb forms, -aC and gr1 -aa, both sentences
575
containing an overt referentiality marker, the informant would choose the -aC/CAUS as the one which had the best ring in his ears. a) 2¶-ad daæ dawaakôn: ‘He interbred the horses’
(22)
INFORMANT 1 Q: yaæayaæa
zaa kaæ cee> Yaa tumasad daæ dawaakôn.. Kanaæa ce] hakaæ nan, koo@ [How are you going to
say: ‘He interbred the horses’, you say it like this, don’t you?] R: I
maænaæ [Yes, indeed]
Q: Keæe R:
nan dawaakôn, an san daæ suu@ [that is, the horses, one knows them?] An san daæ suu! An san daæ dawaakôn tundaæ shii dai ya tumasad daæ suu. [One knows them! One
knows the horses since it is him who has interbredVCAUS them.]
1¶-ad daæ kwaanoæn: ‘She turned over the pot’
(23)
INFORMANT 1 Q: To]
yaæayaæa ka ce], waneæenaa ka san daæ kwaanoæo@ [Well, how are you going to say, in which case do
you know the pot?] R: Wandaæ
(24)
taa \angalad daæ shii, ba. [The one (in which) she turned it overVCAUS, right.]
6¶-ad daæ rìgimaæt vs. -aæ rìgimaæt: ’He aroused the trouble’
INFORMANT 2 Q:
Yaa taasad daæ rìgimaæt daæ Yaa taasaæ rìgimaæt, waneæ ta fi ankaæ... an san daæ rìgimaæt@ [He
arousedVCAUS the trouble’ and ‘He arousedVTRANS the trouble’... in which case does one more... has one heard of (lit. does one know) the trouble?] R: Yaa
taasad daæ rìgimaæa. [‘He arousedVCAUS trouble’]
4. Intensity meaning of the causative construction The most typical explanation of what characterized the benefactive construction was that there was ‘intensity’ in it. This lead me to investigate whether this also might be a semantic feature of the causative. It overwhelmingly proved to be so; So much so that I would nearly have preferred to have some counter-examples, which on the whole rather seems to be the normal fieldwork situation. (25) 1¶-ad
daæ vs. -aæa: ‘He fed the girl’
INFORMANT 2 Q: Waneæenaa
ka ga wandaæ ya baa daæ aæbincôn ya sa] intensité? [In which case have you seen that the one
who gave the food put intensity?] R: Yaa
ciisad daæ yaarinyaæa. [‘He fedVCAUS the girl.’]
576
(26)
6¶-ad daæ: ‘He aroused trouble’
INFORMANT 7 Q: Dans laquelle phrase tu as l’impression qu’il y a plus d’intensité deployé? [In which case do you have the impression that there is more intensity deployed?] R: Yaa
ciisad daæ yaarinyaæa [‘He fedVCAUS the girl’]
(27)
8¶-ad daæ: ‘I sharpened the knife’
INFORMANT 9 More intensity, I [S] spent more time doing it.
5. Completedness of action (past tense/completive aspect restriction) A characteristic of the benefactive construction was that there seemed to be an accompanying meaning of completed action. Below are some data samples which point to the -aC/CAUS having the same associations when contrasted with the transitive gr1 HL(H) -aa. (28)
1¶-ad daæ vs. -aæa: ‘He fed the girl’
INFORMANT 1 Q: Alors...Yaa
ciisaæ yaarinyaæa daæ [and] Yaa ciisad daæ yaarinya, la phrase plus complete, c’est..? [That
is, ‘he fedVTRANS the girl’ and ‘he fedVCAUS the girl’, the sentence that is most complete is...?] R: Yaa
ciisad daæ yaarinyaæa. Taa yi ˚oæoshi [‘He fedVCAUS the girl’. She (OBJINST) is full]
(29) 2¶-ad daæ vs. -aæa: ‘He interbred the horses’ INFORMANT 2
Kumaa daæ Yaa tumaasaæ daawaakii daæ Yaa tumaasad daæ daawaakii, waneæ ka fi fian tsaæmaanìn baabuæ shaækku la phrase que ta fi... c’est complete? [And ‘He interbredVTRANS the horses and Q:
‘He interbredVCAUS the horses’, which one do you think there is no doubt that the phrase... is complete?] R:Yaa
tumaasad daæ daawaakii. [‘He interbredVCAUS the horses’.]
(30) 1¶-ad daæ vs. -aæa: ‘He fed the girl’ INFORMANT 3 Q:
Yaa ciisaæ yaarinyaæa et Yaa ciisad daæ yaarinyaæa, à ton avis quelle est le meilleur des phrases... qui
semble plus complette? Il y a aucun doute? [‘He fedVTRANS the girl’ and ‘He fedVCAUS the girl’, according to you which of the sentences are best.. seems to be more complete?] R: Yaa
ciisad daæ yaarinyaæa, baabu waæneæ doute naa. [‘He fedVCAUS the girl’, there is no doubt in it.]
577
Q: Donc la phrase ‘Yaa
ciisad daæ yaarinyaæa ’elle est plus complete part rapport à...? [That is, the sentence
‘He fedVCAUS the girl’ is more complete compared to...?] R: Elle est plus complete par rapport à ‘Yaa
ciisaæ yaarinyaæa ’. [It is more complete compared to ‘He
fedVTRANS the girl’]
6. Certainty of action Certainty was also a relevant characteristic for the informants of the causative test. Some examples also relate the idea of certainty to completed action. (31)
4¶-ad daæ vs. -aæa: ‘She turned over the pot’
INFORMANT 1 Q:
Kumaa aæ ce]> Ta \angaælaæ kwaan oæo daæ Ta \angalad daæ kwaanoæo, waneæenaa ka tabbaætaa
tabbaæt-tabbaæt taa \angalad daæ kwaanoæo@ Waæneæ ka ga aælaæamuu daæ ya lallee... [Also one could say: ‘She turned overVTRANS the pot’ and ‘She turned overVCAUS the pot’. In which case are you absolutely sure that she turned overVCAUS the pot? In which case have you seen signs that really...] R: Taa
(32)
\angalad daæ shii. [‘She turned overVCAUS the pot’] 2¶-ad daæ: ‘He interbred the horses’
INFORMANT 5 Q: Où c’est que tu es plus sûre que l’action a eu lieux? [In which case are you more certain that the action took place?] R: Yaa
tumaasad daæ dawaaki [He intebredVCAUS the horses’]
(33)
3¶-ad daæ: ‘He made the woman angry’
INFORMANT 9 R: More certain because it is complete (He made the woman angryVCAUS)
(34)
9¶-ad daæ: ‘I flattered the man’
R: More certain because you could see the result, the presents etc. We [S & OBJINST] are at his home, where everyone can see it. (I flatteredVCAUS the man)
578
D. Tables and surveys 1. Table D.1 Use of grade 1 replacement for -as/BEN Informant
DKA28 AU65 F20 IM45
IL70 IR18 MA18 MII65 MAU60 SB47 SM40 UA30 MIA37 MU16 MA28 IM30-5 MA24 HA60
UC17 IS30 AA35 AI13
HL(H) -aa (gr1) verb
CAUS
jeefaæa daæ kooyaæa zubaæa daæ kooyaæa zaæabu®aa jeefaæa kooyaæa zaæabu®aæa daæ zubaæa daæ halbaæa daæ jeefaæa kooyaæa harbaæa halbaæa kooyaæa zaæabu®aæa shigaæa kooyaæa zaæabu®aæa (daæ) kooyaæa zaæabu®aæa daæ kooyaæa zaæabu®aæa (daæ) jeefaæa kooyaæa kooyaæa kooyaæa kooyaæa jeefaæa kooyaæa zaæabu®aæa daæ zaæabu®aæa kooyaæa harbaæa daæ kooyaæa kooyaæa zubaæa jeefaæa kooyaæa
1 2 1 2 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1
2 3 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 5 1 2
HH(H) -as BEN
1
2
1 1 2 1 2 2 2
1 1 2
1 1
1
verb
CAUS
BEN
jeefas (daæ) kooyas zubas None zaabu®as jeefas daæ kooyas zaabu®as daæ zubas (da)æ halbas daæ jeefas kooyas harbas None kooyas None shigas (daæ) None None
4 2 1
1
Y
Total num. of -as
Y
33 14
3
1
1
Y
6
3
Y
30 17
kooyas zaabu®as daæ kooyas None
3 1 3
2
Y
30
2
Y
25
jeefas kooyas kooyas kooyas kooyas None kooyas None None None None None None
3 3 3 1 3
2
Y Y Y
25 32 11 26 39 9
None None
579
1
2
Y Y
39
3 4 2 1 3 2 1 1 2
Y Y Y Y Y
2 2
19
15 25 25 19
Y 0 1 2 0
GB37
IS25 SM28 AD24 CM24 HB34
OINA28 SY27 SA43 AY15
UA16
halbaæa kooyaæa zaæabu®aæa (daæ) kooyaæa kooyaæa kooyaæa kooyaæa zubaæa halbaæa jiifaæa daæ kooyaæa zaæabu®aæa kooyaæa kooyaæa kooyaæa shigaæa daæ zaæabu®aæa kooyaæa jeefaæa harbaæa zubaæa zudaæa kooyaæa zaæabu®aæa (dæaæ)
3 2 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 3 1 1 3 1 1 2
1 2
1 1
1 2 1 2 1
2
None None None
0
None None None None None None None None None None None None shigas daæ None None jeefas daæ None None None None None
0 0 0 3
580
0
1
Y
0 3 0 2
1
0
Appendix E. Agreement data In this appendix the term ‘Informant’s info’ refers to whatever relevant information is provided by the informant. The term ‘Agreement’ is used when stating what suffixes are used for masculine and/or feminine agreement, and what argument they agree with. When this term is used below ‘Informant/village/dialect area’ it refers to the kinds of agreement this informant generally has; when it is used under a particular example, it refers to what agreement there is in that example. The relevant argument and the agreeing suffix are highlighted in bold type. The term ‘Changes’ refers to how the informant has changed arguments to accommodate agreement with a particular argument. The term ‘Additional info’ is used i.a. when comparing the example to other examples of agreement that this informant has given. Information about the sentences is given before each sentence, and is marked by the same number (e.g. 1. /(1)). An asterisk (*) marks ungrammatical usage of suffixes.
1. Spontaneously produced cases 1. 1. OBJDAT agreement Informant: MA19 Village: Sabon Birni Dialect area: -at area Agreement: -at suffix agrees with feminine OBJDAT, -am with masculine OBJDAT. 1. Informant’s info: The gender distinction (-at/-am) is only valid in his home dialect; when using the standard dialect at school there is no gender distinction. Changes: He changes the OBJDAT in (1a) and (2a) to accommodate agreement to the -at suffix to which he was exposed (and the standard masculine OBJDAT masaæ to ma]i in order to adjust it to his own dialect) Agreement: -at suffix for feminine OBJDAT, -am for masculine OBJDAT. (1) a) Zaakìi yaa zaabur-at mataæ lion.M he.PF spring at-BEN DAT.her ‘The lion sprang at her’
Contrast: b) Zaakìi yaa zaabur-am lion.M he.PF spring at-BEN ‘The lion sprang at him’
ma]i DAT.him
581
2-3. Informant’s info: -at is used for feminine and -am for masculine agreement. Changes: In the b) cases, the informant changed the original masculine OBJDAT masaæ, which he was presented to, to the feminine OBJDAT mataæ. (2)
a) Taa jeef-am she.PF throw-CMN
ma]i kufiii DAT.him money.M
b) Taa jeef-at she.PF throw-CMN
mataæ kufiii DAT.her money.M
‘She threw his money away’
‘She threw her (= OBJDAT’s) money away’
(3)
a) Yaa he.PF
shig-am enter-CAUS
ma]i daæ mootaæa DAT.him INST car.F
gareejì garage.M
‘He put the car in the garage for him’
b) Yaa shig-at he.PF enter-CAUS
mataæ daæ mootaæa DAT.her INST car.F
‘He put the car in the garage for her’
gareejì garage.M
4-5. Informant’s info: (Counterstatement, cf. (1)): The -am form can be used with either masculine or feminine OBJDAT. Additional info: Besides, -am suffix is used both with a masculine and feminine OBJDAT as a benefactive marker in the sentence: Hawaæayee sukaæ zub-am mishì¶mataæ ‘The tears streamed down on him/her’. Changes:
The masculine OBJDAT is changed to feminine with the -at verbal ending.
Agreement:
-at agrees with feminine OBJDAT.
(4)
Yaa he.PF
zaabur-am¶•-at spring at-CAUS
ma]i DAT.him
Yaa he.PF
zaabur-at spring at-CAUS
ma]t daæ dookìi DAT.her INST horse.M
a)
‘He made the horse spring at him’
(5)
‘He made the horse spring at her’
daæ dookìi INST horse.M
6. Informant’s info: (Counterstatement, cf. (1-3)): He says that the -at can be used with both masculine and feminine OBJDATs (kooyat ‘teach’), cf. (6). (6)
Taa kooy-at mataæ¶mashì she.PF teach-CAUS DAT.her¶DAT.him ‘She taught her/him how to read’
kaæ®aæatuu reading
Additional info on MA19: Among the remaining responses there was no claim made about gender distinction, and the -at suffix was used generally as a benefactive marker (in 6 cases
582
out of 8 cases) and as a causative (in 23 out of 28 cases). This suggests that even though agreement is a familiar phenomenon to some speakers, suffixes that function as agreement markers can also simultaneously have a more general function. Informant: MA28 Village: Gusau Dialect area: -a® area 8. Informant’s info: The -at suffix changes the meaning to ‘Someone sprang the woman’s horse’, i.e. the OBJDAT has to be feminine. Changes: Masculine OBJDAT changed to feminine when -at is used. Additional info: This speaker also produced some sentences which suggest that masculine gender agreement (subject and OBJDAT) overrides feminine agreement. The -as suffix is registered as masculine OBJDAT agreement because of the paradigmatic contrast to (8b). The -as suffix is the only one accepted by this informant in (8a) as being used in his home dialect, the -a® suffix is sometimes used ‘because he is educated’. Agreement: -at is used for feminine OBJDAT, -as for masculine OBJDAT. (8)
a) Yaa zaabur-as¶•-at masaæ daæ dookìi he.PF spring up-CAUS DAT.him INST horse changed to: b) Yaa he.PF
zaabur-at mataæ daæ dookìi spring up-CAUS DAT.her INST horse
‘He made her horse spring up’
9.Changes: (9) a) Taa
Masculine OBJDAT changed to feminine OBJDAT with -at. kooy-as she.PF learn-CAUS
‘She taught him to read’
masaæ kaæ®aæatuu DAT.him reading.M
changed to:
b) Taa kooy-at she.PF learn-CAUS ‘She taught her to read’
mataæ kaæ®aæatuu DAT.her reading.M
Informant: MU16 Village: Sabon Lahi, Katsina Dialect area: -as area 10. Informant’s info: The speaker said that the -as suffix was to be used with masculine. Changes: He changed the masculine OBJDAT to feminine.
583
Agreement: Gender distinction between -as and -at, -as being a marker for masculine OBJDAT and -at for feminine OBJDAT. (10)
a) Hawaæayee sukaæ tears they.RL.PF
zub-as masaæ pour-BEN DAT.him
b) Hawaæayee sukaæ tears they.RL.PF
zub-at mataæ pour-BEN DAT.her
‘The tears streamed down on him’
‘The tears streamed down on her’
Informant: IM45 Village: Dutsin Ma, IM45 Dialect area: -as area 11. Informant’s info: He explains that -as is a masculine form, thus (11a), which has to be changed into (11b) where -as agrees with a masculine OBJDAT. Changes: (11a) was accepted only with the modification of adding a masculine OBJDAT. Agreement: -as suffix used with masculine OBJDAT. (11)
a. Mootaæa car.F
cee COP
ya shig-at¶•-as he.RL.PF enter-CAUS
cee COP
ya shig-as he.RL.PF enter-CAUS
‘It was a car he put in’
changed to:
c) Mootaæa car.F
‘It was a car he put in for him’
mashì DAT.him
Informant: UU31 Village: Magarya, East Niger Dialect area: -a®/-as area 12. Changes: (12a) was rejected as ungrammatical, unless the OBJDAT is changed to masculine; i.e. -as as an OBJDAT marker is grammatical only with a masculine OBJDAT. Alternatively, the -as suffix could be replaced by the feminine marker -a®, as in (12c). Agreement: The -a® suffix
agrees with a feminine OBJDAT, and the -as suffix with a
masculine OBJDAT. (12)
a) •Naa zaa\-as mataæ zannuwaæa I.PF choose-BEN DAT.her wrappers Changed to: b) Naa I.PF
zaa\-as masaæ zannuwaæa choose-BEN DAT.him wrappers
‘I chose wrappers for him’
584
Or:
c) Naa I.PF
zaa\-a® mataæ zannuwaæa choose-BEN DAT.her wrappers
‘I chose wrappers for her’
13. Changes: -as was not judged to be grammatical in (13a), unless the particle dà was added, cf. sentences (13c), which makes the sentence a causative. This example confirms the non-use of -as/BEN with this speaker, since -as signifies either a Causee OBJDAT (13cA) or a benefactive with MVR object (13cB). Note, however, that -as/BEN is allowed with a masculine OBJDAT in (12b) above. Agreement: -a® with plural OBJDAT pronouns, cf. (13b). (13)
a) •Naa zaa\-as musuæ zannuwaæa I.PF choose-BEN DAT.them wrappers ‘I chose wrappers for them’
b) Naa I.PF
zaa\-a® musuæ zannuwaæa choose-BEN DAT.them wrappers
c) Naa I.PF
zaa\-as musuæ daæ zannuwaæa choose-CAUS¶CMN DAT.them INST wrappers
‘I chose wrappers for them’
‘A. I made them (convinced them to) choose the wrappers/ B. I chose and took away their wrappers’
Informant: Village: Dialect area: Agreement:
AI28 Tahoua Agreement area -at is a feminine OBJDAT marker, and the -as a masculine OBJDAT marker.
14. Changes: (14) was presented with a masculine OBJDAT, but the informant accepted the at suffix only if the OBJDAT was changed to feminine. (14)
a) Yaa shig-as he.PF enter-CAUS
mishì daæ mootaæa ga®eejì DAT.him INST car garage
b) Yaa shig-at he.PF enter-CAUS
mataæ daæ mootaæa ga®eejì DAT.her INST car garage
‘He put the car in the garage for him’
‘He put the car in the garage for her’
15. Changes: In (15), the original sentence presented to the informant was without an OBJDAT. A masculine OBJDAT was added with -as and a feminine OBJDAT was added with -at. Informant’s info: The informant said that the -as ‘must be in relation with a masculine person/man’, and the -at ‘must be in relation with a woman’ or must be female.
585
Agreement: -as with masculine OBJDAT, -at with feminine OBJDAT. (15)
a) Mootaæa car
cee COP
ya shig-as he.RL.PF enter-CAUS
mishì DAT.him
b) Mootaæa car
cee COP
ya shig-at he.RL.PF enter-CAUS
mataæ DAT.her
‘It was a car he put in the garage for him’
‘It was a car he put in the garage for her’
16. Changes: The informant changed the nominal OBJDAT to feminine when using the -at suffix by changing the man’s name to a woman’s name. No such changes were made with the -as and the -am suffixes. (16)
a) Zaakìi yaa zaabu®-as¶zaabur-am maæ Auduæ lion he.PF spring at-BEN DAT Audu.M ‘The lion sprang at Audu’
b) Zaakìi yaa zaabu®-at maæ Raabi lion he.PF spring at-BEN DAT Rabi.F ‘The lion sprang at Rabi’
17-18. Changes: OBJDAT is changed to feminine when -at is suffixed to the verb (17)
a) Zaakìi yaa zaabu®-as¶zaabu®-am¶zaabu®-a_ masaæ lion he.PF spring at-BEN DAT.him ‘The lion sprang at him’
b) Zaakìi yaa zaabu®-at mataæ lion he.PF spring at-BEN DAT.her ‘The lion sprang at her’
(18)
a) Zaakìi yaa zaabu®-as¶zaabu®-am¶zaabu®-a_ masaæ daæ dookìi lion he.PF spring.up-CAUS DAT.him INST horse ‘He made the horse spring at him’
b) Zaakìi yaa zaabu®-at lion he.PF spring at-CAUS ‘He made the horse spring at her’
mataæ daæ dookìi DAT.her INST horse
19. Informant’s info: -as has to be in relation with masculine gender, and the -at suffix in relation with feminine gender, e.g. by adding an OBJDAT. (19)
a) Dookìi horse
nee COP
ya zaabu®-as he.PF spring at-CAUS
(mishì daæ shii) DAT.him INST IND.M
b) Dookìi horse
nee COP
ya zaabu®-at he.PF spring at-CAUS
(mataæ daæ shii) DAT.him INST IND.M
‘It was the horse he made spring at him’
‘It was the horse he made spring at her’
586
20. Changes:The gender of OBJDAT is changed with the -at suffix, the informant accepts the original masculine gender of OBJDAT with -as: (20)
a) Yaa kooy-as maæ uæbansaæ he.PF learn-BEN DAT father.GEN.his ‘He learnt accounting for his father’
lissaafì accounting.M
b) Yaa kooy-at maæ uæwa®shì lissaafì he.PF learn-BEN DAT mother.GEN.his accounting.M ‘He learnt accounting for his mother’
21. Changes: ‘Suleman’ (a man’s name) is changed to ‘Rabi’ (a woman’s name) with the at suffix. (21)
a) Taa she.PF
kooy-as¶kooy-am¶kooy-a_ learn-CAUS
‘She taught Suleman how to read’
b) Taa kooy-at she.PF learn-CAUS
maæ Suleman DAT Suleman.M
kaæ®aæatuu reading
maæ Raabi kaæ®aæatuu DAT Rabi.F reading
‘She taught Rabi how to read’
22-23. Changes: Masculine OBJDAT is changed to feminine OBJDAT with the -at suffix. (22)
a) Taa jeef-as¶jeef-am¶jeef-a_ she.PF throw-(BEN)¶CMN ‘She threw his money away’
b) Taa jeef-at she.PF throw-(BEN).CMN ‘She threw her money away’
(23)
mishì daæ kufiii DAT.him INST money
mataæ daæ kufiii DAT.her INST money
a) Kufiii neæe money COP
ta jeef-as she.RL.PF throw-BEN
mishì daæ suu DAT.him INST them.IND.
b) Kufiii neæe money COP
ta jeef-at she.RL.PF throw-BEN
mataæ daæ suu DAT.her INST them.IND.
‘It was money she threw for him/it was money she threw at him’
‘It was money she threw at her’
24. Changes: The informant added a masculine OBJDAT with the -as suffix. Originally, the sentence did not contain an OBJDAT. Additional info: Notice that the sentence originally contained only feminine arguments. Thus, -as was not acceptable.
587
(24)
Igiyaæa cee rope.F COP
saaniyaæa cow.F
ta ha®b-as mishì she.RL.PF kick-(BEN)¶CMN DAT.him
‘It was the rope the cow kicked off for him’
25. Changes: The masculine OBJDAT in (25a) was changed into a feminine OBJDAT pronoun, cf. (25b). (25)
a) Hawaæayee sukaæ tears they.RL.PF
zub-as¶zub-am¶zub-a_ stream-BEN
b) Hawaæayee sukaæ tears they.RL.PF
zub-at stream-BEN
‘The tears streamed down on him’
‘The tears streamed down on her’
mishì DAT.him
mataæ DAT.her
26. Changes: The nominal, masculine OBJDAT in (26a) (a man’s name, ‘Mustafa’) is changed into the feminine name ‘Rabi’ in (26b). (26)
a) Hawaæayee sukaæ tears they.RL.PF
zub-as¶zub-a_ maæ Mustafaæ stream-BEN DAT Mustafa.M
b) Hawaæayee sukaæ tears they.RL.PF
zub-at stream-BEN
‘The tears streamed down on Mustafa’
‘The tears streamed down on Rabi’
maæ Raabi DAT Rabi.F
27. Changes: OBJDATs were added to the -as and -at suffixes. Informant’s info: The OBJDATs were added with the comment that -as must be in relation with a man, and -at must be in relation with a woman. (27)
a) Hatsii neæe grain COP
sukaæ they.RL.PF
zub-as (mishì) stream-CAUS.CMN DAT.him
b) Hatsii neæe grain COP
sukaæ they.RL.PF
zub-at (mataæ) stream-CAUS.CMN DAT.her
‘It was the grain they poured away (for him)’
‘It was the grain they poured away (for her)’
Additional info: In the preceding examples, masculine OBJDATs has been accepted by this informant with both -as, -am, and -an¶[-a,]. However, for two reasons, it appears that -an¶[a,] and -am are not really masculine markers, but rather general benefactive and causative markers. Firstly, when the informant has explicitly stated that a suffix must be masculine, this only concerns the -as. Secondly, an OBJDAT is never changed or added with the -an¶[-a,] and -am suffixes: e.g. a masculine OBJDAT is not added in the sentence in (28).
588
(28)
c) Hatsii neæe grain COP
sukaæ they.RL.PF
‘It was the grain they poured away’
zub-aI stream-CAUS.CMN
If the sentence originally was presented with a feminine OBJDAT, it is only the -as suffix which is changed by the informant and not the -an¶[-a,] or -am suffixes, i.e -an¶[-a,] and am also occurs with feminine OBJDAT: (29)
a) AÆminaæa Amina
taa zub-at¶zub-am¶zub-aI she.PF stream-CAUS.CMN
b) AÆminaæa Amina
taa zub-as mishì daæ ruwaa she.PF stream-CAUS.CMN DAT.him INST water
‘Amina poured away the water for her ’
mataæ daæ ruwaa DAT.her INST water
‘Amina poured away the water for him’
I therefore conclude that this speaker has masculine OBJDAT agreement with the -as suffix, and feminine OBJDAT agreement with the -at suffix. Informant: DKA28 Village: Tahoua Dialect area: Agreement area Agreement: This speaker has -at as a feminine OBJDAT marker, for masculine OBJDATs, both -as, -an¶[-a,], and -am are accepted, but no claims made about either of them being exclusively a masculine gender marker. However, where -as is accepted, it will be registered as an agreement case, with a paradigmatic contrast to -at. 30. Changes: OBJDAT is changed to feminine with the -at suffix by replacing the original masculine noun with a woman’s name. (30)
a) Macìijii snake
yaa shig-as¶-am¶-a_¶•-at maæ maalaæm he.PF enter-BEN DAT teacher.M
b) Macìijii snake
yaa shig-at he.PF enter-BEN
‘The snake entered the teacer’s room’
maæ Aminaæa DAT Amina.F
‘The snake entered Amina’s room’
fiaakìi room.M
fiaakìi room.M
31. Changes: The original masculine OBJDAT was changed into a feminine OBJDAT when using the -at suffix. (31)
a) Yaa he.PF
shig-as¶shig-am enter-CAUS
maì daæ mootaæa ga®eejì DAT.him INST car.F garage
‘He put the car in the garage for him’
589
b) Yaa shig-at he.PF enter-CAUS
mataæ daæ mootaæa ga®eejì DAT.her INST car.F garage
‘He put the car in the garage for her’
32. Changes: The nominal masculine OBJDAT was changed to a feminine OBJDAT when using the -at suffix. (32)
a) Yaa shig-am¶-a_ he.PF enter-CAUS
maæ Auduæ DAT Audu.M
‘He put the car in the garage for Audu’
b) Yaa shig-at he.PF enter-CAUS
mootaæa ga®eejì car.F garage
maæ Aminaæa mootaæa ga®eejì DAT Amina.F car.F garage
‘He put the car in the garage for Amina’
33. Changes: With the -at suffix, the original masculine OBJDAT was changed to a feminine OBJDAT using the woman’s name ‘Amina’. (33)
a) Zaakìi yaa zaabu®-as¶-am¶-a_ lion he.PF spring at-BEN ‘The lion sprang at Audu’
maæ Auduæ DAT Audu.M
b) Zaakìi yaa zaabu®-at maæ Aminaæa lion he.PF spring at-BEN DAT Amina.F ‘The lion sprang at Amina’
34. Changes: Masculine OBJDAT changed to feminine OBJDAT with the -at suffix. (34)
a) Zaakìi yaa zaabu®-as¶zaabu®-am¶zaabu®-a_ mishì lion he.PF spring at-BEN DAT.him ‘The lion sprang at him’
b) Zaakìi yaa zaabu®-at mataæ lion he.PF spring at-BEN DAT.her ‘The lion sprang at her’
35. Changes: Masculine OBJDAT pronoun was changed to feminine OBJDAT pronoun when using the -at suffix. (35)
a) Yaa zaabu®-as¶zaabu®-am¶zaabu®-a_ mishì daæ dookìi he.PF spring at-CAUS DAT.him INST horse ‘He made the horse spring at him’
b) Yaa zaabu®-at he.PF spring at-CAUS
mataæ daæ dookìi DAT.her INST horse
‘He made the horse spring at her’
590
36. Changes: The nominal masculine OBJDAT in (36a) was changed to feminine OBJDAT when -at was suffixed to the verb. (36)
a) Yaa kooy-as¶kooy-a_ maæ uæbanshì he.PF learn-BEN DAT father.GEN.his ‘He learnt accounting for this father’
lissaafì accounting.M
b) Yaa kooy-at maæ uæwasshì lissaafì he.PF learn-BEN DAT mother.GEN.his accounting.M ‘He learnt accounting for this mother’
37. Changes: Masculine OBJDAT changed to feminine OBJDAT with the -at suffix. (37)
a) Taa she.PF
kooy-as¶kooy-am¶kooy-a_ learn-CAUS
b) Taa she.PF
kooy-at learn-CAUS
‘She taught him how to read’
‘She taught her how to read’
mishì kaæ®aæatuu DAT.him reading.M
mataæ kaæ®aæatuu DAT.her reading.M
38. Changes: The masculine OBJDAT was changed to feminine with the -at suffix, cf. (38b) and (39b). Informant’s info: However, DKA28 also accepted the sentence with a masculine OBJDAT because the sentence had a feminine subject, cf. (38a) and (39a). (38)
a) Taa jeef-as¶jeef-am¶jeef-at she.PF throw-BEN¶CMN
maæ Hamidu DAT Hamidu.M
kufiinshì money.GEN.his
‘She threw his money at Hamidu/she threw Hamidu’s money away’
b) Taa jeef-at maæ Aminaæa kufiintaæ she.PF throw-BEN¶CMN DAT Amina.F money.GEN.her ‘She threw her money at Amina/she threw Amina’s money away’
(39)
a) Taa jeef-am¶jeef-at she.PF throw-(BEN)¶CMN
mishì daæ kufiii DAT.him INST money
b) Taa1 jeef-at she.PF throw-(BEN)¶CMN
mataæ2 daæ kufiii DAT.her INST money
‘She threw his money away’
‘She1 threw her2 money away’
Informant’s info: In (40), there was no feminine subject, and thus only a feminine OBJDAT is permitted in (40b).
591
(40)
a) Hawaæayee sukaæ tears they.RL.PF
zub-as¶zub-am mishì stream-BEN DAT.him
b) Hawaæayee sukaæ tears they.RL.PF
zub-at stream-BEN
‘The tears streamed down on him’
‘The tears streamed down on her’
Informant: Village: Dialect area: Agreement:
mataæ DAT.her
SM28 Dogondoutchi -an area -as agrees with masculine OBJDAT, -at agrees with feminine OBJDAT.
41. Changes: The feminine OBJDAT was substituted by a masculine one as a condition for the -as suffix being accepted as grammatical. (41)
a) Yaa shig-am¶shig-a_¶shig-at mataæ gidaa he.PF enter-BEN DAT.her house ‘He (forcingly) entered her house’
b) Yaa shig-as he.PF enter-BEN
mishì gidaa DAT.him house
‘He (forcingly) entered his house’
42. Changes: (42a) was changed into the sentence containing a feminine OBJDAT in (42b). (42)
a) Yaa shig-as¶shig-am he.PF enter-CAUS
mai¶mishì daæ mootaæa DAT.him INST car.F
ga®eejì garage
‘He put the car in the garage for him (negative)’
b) Yaa shig-at he.PF enter-CAUS
mataæ daæ mootaæa DAT.her INST car.F
‘He put the car in the garage for her’
ga®eejì garage
Additional info: The OBJDAT agreement is not overridden by agreement with other arguments. Cf. (42c), where the fact that the OBJACC is masculine does not affect the feminine agreement marking of OBJDAT. The speaker was asked about the equivalent sentence to (42b), exchanging the feminine OBJACC mootaæa with the masculine OBJACC jaæakii (M) ‘donkey’. c) Yaa shig-at he.PF enter-CAUS
mataæ daæ jaæakii DAT.her INST donkey.M
‘He brought the donkey into her farm for her’
goona®taæ farm.GEN.her
43. Informant’s info: However, in another case, the speaker said that having both OBJDAT and OBJACC of the same gender, i.e.feminine, «helps» making the sentence more grammatical
592
with the -at suffix; (43a) was changed into (43b), although the sentence is also grammatical with a masculine OBJACC, as in (43c). (43)
a) Yaa zaabu®-am¶zaabu®-a_ he.PF spring at-CAUS
mishì daæ dookìi DAT.him INST horse.M
‘He made the horse spring at him’
b) Yaa zaabu®-at he.PF spring.up-BEN
mataæ daæ gaahìyaa DAT.her INST axe.F
c) Yaa zaabu®-at he.PF spring.up-CAUS
mataæ daæ dookìi DAT.her INST horse.M
‘He attacked her with an axe’
‘He frightened her with the horse/ he frightened her horse (lit. made her horse spring up)’
44. Informant’s info: SM28 also indicates the function of agreement; to put emphasis on the argument which agrees with the verbal suffix. In (44), SM28 preferred to change the OBJACC to feminine in order to make the -at suffix grammatical. However, if the purpose was to put emphasis on the fact that it is the OBJDAT’s money, the OBJDAT had to be changed to feminine, and the OBJACC could be left masculine as it was (see the section on OBJACC agreement for the case where OBJACC is changed). Additional info: SM28 was also tested for subject agreement, which he did not have in this sentence, cf. (44b). (44)
a) Taa jeef-am¶jeef-a_ she.PF throw-CMN
maæ Hamidu DAT Hamidu.M
kufiinshì money.M.GEN.his
‘She threw Hamidu’s money away’
b) Taa¶yaa jeef-at she¶he.PF throw-CMN
maæ Aminaæa kufiintaæ DAT Amina.F money.M.GEN.her
‘She/he threw Amina’s money away’
593
Table E.1 Summary table for OBJDAT agreement in spontaneously produced data Speak Village er MA Sabon 19 Birni
MA 28
Gusau
MU 16
Sabon Lahi, Katsina IM45 Dutsin Ma UU31 Magarya AI28 Tahoua
DKA 28
Tahoua
SM28 Dogondoutchi
Dialect area -at area
Agrees with... OBJDAT
Masc. suffix N. -am 1
Fem. suffix -at
N. 1
Type of Sentence type marker BEN S-OBJDAT
OBJDAT OBJDAT
-am -am
1 1
-at -at
1 1
CMN CAUS
OBJDAT OBJDAT
-as
1
-at -at
1 1
CAUS CAUS
OBJDAT
-as
1
-at
1
CAUS
OBJDAT
-as
1
-at
1
BEN
-as area OBJDAT -a®/-as area OBJDAT Agreement OBJDAT area OBJDAT OBJDAT OBJDAT
-as -as -as
1 1 4
-a® -at
1 4
-as -as -as
3 4 2
-at -at -at
2 4 2
OBJDAT OBJDAT
-as -as
1 1
-at -at
1 1
Agreement OBJDAT area OBJDAT OBJDAT
(-as)
1
-at
1
BEN CAUS/ CMN BEN
(-as)
1
-at -at
1 1
CAUS CAUS
OBJDAT OBJDAT OBJDAT OBJDAT OBJDAT
(-as) -as -as -as
2 1 1 1
-at -at -at -at -at
2 1 2 1 1
BEN CMN BEN CMN BEN
OBJDAT OBJDAT
-as -as
1 1
-at -at
1 2
BEN BEN
OBJDAT
-as
1
-at
2
CAUS
OBJDAT
-at
1
BEN
OBJDAT
-at
1
CMN
-a® area
-as area
-an area
594
CAUS BEN CAUS/ CMN CMN BEN CAUS/ CMN
S-OBJDAT-OBJACC S-OBJDAT-OBJINSTADV S-OBJDAT-OBJINST S-OBJDAT-OBJINST S-OBJDAT/CSEEOBJACC S-OBJDAT F.OBJACC-S-OBJDAT S-OBJDAT-OBJACC S-OBJDAT-OBJINST F.OBJACC-S-OBJDAT S-OBJDATF.OBJ(INST)-SOBJDATOBJINST/resumptive S-OBJDAT-OBJACC S-OBJDAT-OBJACC S-OBJDAT-OBJACC S-OBJDAT-OBJINST S-OBJDAT-OBJACCADV S-OBJDAT S-OBJDAT-OBJINST S-OBJDAT-OBJACC S-OBJDAT-OBJACC S-OBJDATOBJINST/MVR S-OBJDAT S-OBJDAT-OBJACC S-OBJDAT-OBJINSTADV S-OBJDATOBJINST/instrument S-OBJDAT-OBJINST
1. 2. Agreement with focussed OBJACC/INST Informant: AI28 Village: Tahoua Dialect area: Agreement area Agreement:
-at with feminine F.OBJACC/INST.
45. Changes: The OBJ(INST) was substituted by a noun which is in accordance with the gender of the OBJACC (according to the informant’s statement). In (45), the F.OBJACC is changed from masculine, (45a), to feminine, (45b). (45)
a) Dookìi horse.M
nee COP
ya zaabu®-as¶zaabu®-ad¶zaabu®-a_ he.RL.PF spring at-CAUS
‘It was the horse he made attack’
b) Goofiìyaa ceæe mare.F COP
ya zaabu®-at he.RL.PF spring at-CAUS
‘It was the mare he made attack’
daæ shii INST IND.M
daæ itaa INST IND.F
46. Informant’s info: The speaker comments on (46) was “it is correct!”. The sentence has an -at suffix with feminine F.OBJACC and a feminine subject. (46)
Igiyaæa rope.F
cee COP
saaniyaæa ta ha®b-at cow.F she.RL.PF kick-CMN
‘It was the rope the cow kicked off’
47. Changes: Masculine F.OBJACC (47a) is changed to feminine with -at in (47b). (47)
a) Dookìi horse.M
nee COP
‘It was a horse he sold’
b) AÆkuyaæa goat.F
cee COP
‘It was a goat he sold’
ya say-as¶say-a_ he.RL.PF buy-CMN
ya say-at he.RL.PF buy-CMN
(daæ itaa) INST IND.F
Informant: DKA28 Village: Tahoua Dialect area: Agreement area Agreement:
-at agrees with feminine F.OBJACC/INST, -as with masculine F.OBJACC/INST.
48-49. Changes: Masculine F.OBJACC/INST was changed to feminine with the -at suffix. (The resumptive pronoun (daæ shii¶itaa) in (49) does not alter the meaning)
595
(48)
a) Dookìi horse.M
nee COP
ya zaabu®-as¶zaabu®-a_ he.RL.PF spring.up-CAUS
‘It was the horse he made attack’
b) Goofiìyaa ceæe mare.F COP
ya zaabu®-at he.RL.PF spring.up-CAUS
a) Dookìi horse.M
ya zaabu®-as¶zaabu®-a_¶zaabu®-ad daæ shii he.RL.PF spring at-CAUS INST IND.M
‘It was the mare he made attack’
(49)
nee COP
‘It was the horse he made attack’
b) Goofiìyaa cee mare.F COP
ya zaabu®-at he.RL.PF spring at-CAUS
‘It was the mare he made attack’
daæ itaa INST IND.F
50-51. Changes: A feminine F.OBJACC was inserted in (50b) and (51b) instead of a masculine one. (50)
a) Hatsii grain.M
neæe COP
sukaæ they.RL.PF
‘It was the grain they poured away’
b) Daawaæa taa guinea-corn.F COP
zub-as¶zub-a_ stream-CAUS.CMN
sukaæ they.RL.PF
‘It was the guinea-corn they poured away’
(51)
a) Dookìi horse.M
nee COP
zub-at stream-CAUS.CMN
ya say-as¶say-a_ he.RL.PF buy-CMN
‘It was a horse he sold’
b) Goofiìyaa cee mare.F COP
ya say-at he.RL.PF buy-CMN
‘It was a mare he sold’
Informant: Village: Dialect area: Agreement:
IM45 Dutsin Ma -as area -at agrees with feminine F.OBJACC.
52. Informant’s info: (52a) , where the -at suffix functions as an agreement marker for the topicalized, feminine OBJACC mootaæa, was accepted, and explained by IM45 as a feminine form. (52b) was not accepted. Changes: Suffix -as is changed to -at with feminine focussed OBJ. (52)
a. Mootaæa cee b. •Mootaæa cee car.F COP
‘It was a car he put in’
ya shig-at ya shig-as he.RL.PF enter-CAUS
596
Informant: SM19 Village: Sabon Birni Dialect area: -at area 53. Informant’s info: (Counterstatement, cf. (1-3)): In one set of sentences (without an OBJDAT) he says that the -at suffix can be used with both masculine and feminine OBJ(INST) (zaaburat). (53)
a) Dookìi horse.M
nee COP
ya zaabu®-at he.RL.PF spring at-CAUS
daæ shii INST IND.M
b) Tunkìyaa ceæe goat.F COP
ya zaabu®-at he.RL.PF spring at-CAUS
daæ itaa INST IND.F
‘It was the horse he made attack’
‘It was the goat he made attack’
Informant: Village: Dialect area: Agreement:
SM28 Dogondoutchi -an area The -at suffix agrees with feminine F.OBJ(INST).
54. Additional info: This speaker has OBJACC agreement only when the OBJACC is focussed. The original sentence in (54a) was not accepted as grammatical with a feminine suffix, with OBJACC as the only feminine argument, but non-focussed. When the OBJACC is focussed, however, the -at suffix is accepted as grammatical. The speaker’s explanation was that in the F.OBJACC construction there was more emphasis on the OBJACC, and the verb could thus be agreement marked with it, cf. (54b). (54)
a)
•Yaa he.PF
shig-at enter-CAUS
maæ Auduæ DAT Audu.M
‘He put the car in the garage for Audu’
b) Mootaæa car.F
taa COP
ya shig-at he.RL.PF enter-CAUS
mootaæa car.F
ga®eejì garage
maæ Auduæ DAT Audu.M
daæ itaa ga®eejì INST IND.F garage
‘It was the car he put in the garage for Audu’
54c. Additional info: The -at suffix is also grammatical in the same construction without OBJDAT, as in (54c). (54)
c) Mootaæa car
taa COP
ya shig-at he.RL.PF enter-CAUS
‘It was the car he put in’
597
daæ itaa INST IND.F
Table E.2 Summary table for F.OBJ agreement in spontaneously produced data Speak-
Village
er
AI28
Dialect
Agrees with... Masc.
Fem.
Type of Sentence type
area
Tahoua
Agree-
marker
F.OBJACC
suffix N.
suffix
N.
-as
-at
2
1
ment area
DKA28 Tahoua
Agree-
CAUS/
F.OBJ(INST)-S-
CMN
OBJINST/resumptive
F.OBJACC
-as
1
-at
1
CMN
F.OBJACC-S
F.OBJACC
-as
3
-at
3
CAUS
F.OBJACC-S
F.OBJ(INST)
-as
1
-at
1
CAUS/
F.OBJ(INST)-S-
CMN
OBJINST/resumptive
ment area
IM 45
Dutsin
-as area
F.OBJACC
-at
1
CAUS
F.OBJACC-S
-an area
F.OBJ(INST)
-at
1
CAUS
F.OBJ(INST)-S-
Ma SM28
Dogon-
OBJDAT-
doutchi
OBJINST/resumptive F.OBJ(INST)
-at
1
CAUS
F.OBJ(INST)-SOBJINST/resumptive
AS23
Dutsin
-as area
F.OBJ(INST)
-as
Ma
598
1
CAUS/
F.OBJ(INST)-S-
CMN
OBJINST/resumptive
1. 3. OBJINST agreement (non-focussed) Informant: Village: Dialect area: Agreement:
AI28 Tahoua Agreement area -as agrees with masculine OBJINST, -at with feminine OBJINST.
55. Changes: The masculine noun hatsii ‘grain’ is changed to the feminine furaa ‘porridge of millet’. (55)
a) An zub-as¶zub-a_¶zub-ad IMP.3SG stream-CAUS.CMN ‘One has poured the grain away’
daæ hatsii INST grain.M
b) An zub-at daæ furaa IMP.3SG stream-CAUS.CMN INST millet porridge.F ‘One has poured the millet porridge away’
56-57. Changes: The masculine noun dookìi ‘horse’ in the OBJINST is changed to the feminine goofiìyaa ‘mare’ when the -at suffix is used. Note that the OBJDAT is plural and cannot be agreement marked according to gender. (56)
a) Yaa say-as¶say-am musuæ daæ dookìi he.PF buy-CMN DAT.them INST horse.M ‘He sold them a horse’
b) Yaa say-at he.PF buy-CMN
‘He sold them a mare’
(57)
musuæ DAT.them
daæ goofiìyaa INST mare.F
a) Sun they.PF
say-as¶say-a_ maæ mahaæifansuææ buy-BEN DAT parents
b) Sun they.PF
say-at maæ mahaæifansuææ buy-BEN DAT parents
‘They bought a horse for their parents’
‘They bought a mare for their parents’
dookìi horse.M
goofiìyaa mare.F
58-59. Changes: The masculine noun is substituted by the feminine nouns aækuyaæa ‘goat’ and raaganyaæa ‘she-goat’. (58)
a) Yaa say-as¶say-ad daæ dookìi he.PF buy-CMN INST horse.M ‘He sold a horse’
b) Yaa say-at he.PF buy-CMN ‘He sold a she-goat’
daæ aækuyaæa INST she-goat.F
599
(59)
a) Sun they.PF
say-as¶say-am¶say-a_ minì dookìi buy-BEN DAT.me horse.M
b) Sun they.PF
say-at minì raaganyaæa buy-BEN DAT.me she-goat.F
‘They bought me a horse’
‘They bought me a she-goat’
Informant: Village: Dialect area: Agreement:
DKA28 Tahoua Agreement area -as agrees with masculine OBJINST, -at with feminine OBJINST.
60-61. Changes: The masculine OBJINST noun was replaced by a feminine OBJINST when using the -at suffix. (60)
a) Yaa say-as¶say-am musuæ he.PF buy-CAUS DAT.them
daæ dookìi INST horse.M
b) Yaa say-at he.PF buy-CAUS
daæ goofiìyaa INST mare.F
‘He sold them a horse’
‘He sold them a mare’
(61)
musuæ DAT.them
a) Sun they.PF
say-as¶say-a_ maæ mahaæifansuææ buy-BEN DAT parents
b) Sun they.PF
say-at maæ mahaæifansuææ buy-BEN DAT parents
‘They bought a horse for their parents’
‘They bought a mare for their parents’
(62)
dookìi horse.M
goofiìyaa mare.F
a) Yaa say-as¶say-a_¶say-ad daæ dookìi he.PF buy-CMN INST horse.M ‘He sold a horse’
b) Yaa say-at he.PF buy-CMN ‘He sold a goat’
(63)
daæ aækuyaæa INST goat.F
a) Sun they.PF
say-as¶say-am¶say-a_ minì dookìi buy-BEN DAT.me horse.M
b) Sun they.PF
say-at minì aækuyaæa buy-BEN DAT.me goat.F
‘They bought me a horse’
‘They bought me a she-goat’
600
Informant: Village: Dialect area: Agreement:
SM28 Dogondoutchi -an area -at agrees with feminine OBJACC, -as with masculine OBJACC.
64. Changes: With the -at suffix, a feminine noun saatæaa was preferred to the original masculine OBJACC kaæ®aæatuu ‘reading’. (64)
a)
Taa kooy-am¶kooy-a_ she.PF learn-CAUS
maæ Suleman DAT Suleman.M
kaæ®aæatuu reading.M
‘She taught Suleman how to read’
b)
Taa she.PF
kooy-at learn-CAUS
maæ Suleman DAT Suleman.M
‘She taught Suleman how to steal’
saataæa stealing.F
65-66. Changes: Masculine OBJACC/INST is changed to feminine with -at. (65)
a) Taa jeef-am¶jeef-a_ she.PF throw-CMN¶BEN
maæ Hamidu DAT Hamidu
kufiinshì money.M.GEN.his
‘She threw Hamidu’s money away/She threw his money at Hamidu’
b) Taa she.PF
jeef-at throw-CMN
maæ Hamidu DAT Hamidu
‘She threw Hamidu’s shoe away’
(66)
a) Taa jeef-am¶jeef-a_ she.PF throw-CAUS¶BEN
‘She threw his money away/at him’
b) Taa she.PF
jeef-at throw-CMN
‘She threw his pestle away’
(67)
taæakalmaæa shoe.F
mishì daæ kufiii DAT.him INST money.M
mishì daæ taFaryaa DAT.her INST pestle.F
a) Yaa halb-am¶halb-a_ minì zaakìi he.PF shoot-BEN DAT.me lion.M ‘He shot the lion for me’
b) Yaa halb-at he.PF shoot-BEN
minì Faæreewaa DAT.me antelope.F
‘He shot the antelope for me’
68. Additional info: In one case, SM28 prefers instrumental object to dative object constructions when agreement is involved (but note that this informant has as many as 7 cases of OBJDAT agreement. (68)
a) •Taa kooy-at she.PF learn-CAUS
mataæ kaæ®aæatuu DAT.her reading
601
b) Taa kooy-at she.PF learn-CAUS
daæ itaa kaæ®aæatuu INST IND.F reading
‘She taught her how to read’
602
Table E.3 Summary table for OBJACC/INST agreement in spontaneously produced data Speak-
Village
er
AI28
Tahoua
Dialect
Agrees
area
with...
Agree-
Masc.
Fem.
Type of Sentence type marker
suffix
N.
suffix
N.
OBJINST
-as
2
-at
2
CMN
S-OBJINST
OBJINST
-as
1
-at
1
CMN
S-OBJDAT/PL-OBJINST
OBJACC
-as
1
-at
1
BEN
S-OBJDAT/PL-OBJACC
OBJINST
-as
1
-at
1
BEN
SPL-OBJDAT/1SG-
ment area
OBJINST DKA28 Tahoua
Agree-
OBJINST
-as
1
-at
1
CMN
S-OBJDAT/PL-OBJINST
OBJINST
-as
1
-at
1
BEN
S-OBJDAT/PL-OBJINST
OBJINST
-as
1
-at
1
CMN
S-OBJINST
OBJACC
-as
1
-at
1
BEN
S-OBJDAT/1SG-OBJACC
OBJACC
-at
3
CAUS
S-OBJDAT/M-OBJACC
OBJINST
-at
1
CMN
S-OBJDAT-
ment area
SM28
Dogon- -an area doutchi
OBJINST/MVR OBJACC
-at
1
BEN
S-OBJDAT/1SG-OBJACC
OBJ1INST
-at
1
CAUS
S-OBJ1INST-OBJACC
603
1. 4. Subject agreement Informant: Village: Dialect area: Agreement:
AI28 Tahoua Agreement area -as agrees with masculine subject, -at with feminine subject.
General info: In all the sentences in 69 through 75 the subject was changed to adapt to a particular suffix. This speaker also changed the subject according to the suffix along with changing the OBJACC. These will be presented below where other speakers have done the same thing. 69. Changes: In (59b) the subject is changed to feminine because of the -at suffix. (69)
a) Macìijii snake
yaa shig-am¶shig-a_ he.PF enter-BEN
‘The snake entered the teacher’s room’
b) Maciijìyaa she-snake.F
taa she.PF
maæ Maalaæm DAT teacher
shig-at enter-BEN
fiaakìinai room.GEN.his
maæ Maalaæm DAT teacher
‘The snake entered the teacher’s room’
fiaakìinai room.GEN.his
70. Changes: In (70b) the subject was changed to masculine because of the -as suffix. In (70a), the -at suffix is accepted because of the feminine subject. Additional info: In (70b) it is not enough that the OBJDAT and OBJACC are already masculine. It is required that the subject is also masculine. (70)
a) Taa jeef-at maæ Hamidu she.PF throw-BEN¶CMN DAT Hamidu.M
kufiinshì money.GEN.his
b) Yaa jeef-as maæ Hamidu he.PF throw-BEN¶CMN DAT Hamidu.M
kufiinshì money.GEN.his
‘She threw his money at Hamidu/she threw Hamidu’s money away’
‘She threw his money at Hamidu/she threw Hamidu’s money away’
71-72. Changes: Here the subject is also changed to masculine with -as, but the sentences have a feminine OBJACC (71) or OBJDAT (72). (71)
a) Saaniyaæa taa cow she
ha®b-ad¶ha®b-a_ kick-CMN
‘The cow kicked off the rope’
b) Saaæ bull
yaa he
daæ igiyaæa INST rope.F
ha®b-as daæ igiyaæa kick-CMN INST rope
‘The bull kicked off the rope’
604
(72)
a) Aminaæa Amina
taa zub-at maæ uæwa®taæ daæ ruwaa she.PF stream-CAUS.CMN DAT mother.GEN.her INST water
‘Amina poured away the water for her mother’
b) Abduæ yaa zub-as maæ uæwa®shì daæ ruwaa Abdu he.PF stream-CAUS.CMN DAT mother.GEN.his INST water ‘Amina poured away the water for her mother’
73-74. Changes: Both the subject and the OBJACC were changed to suit a particular suffix, where the a) sentences are as originally presented to the informant, with the suffixes that he accepted for these sentences. (73)
a) Yaa he.PF
halb-as¶halb-am¶halb-a_ minì zaakìi shoot-BEN DAT.me lion.M
b) Taa she.PF
halb-at shoot-BEN
‘He shot the lion for me’
‘She shot the chicken for me’
(74)
a) Yaa halb-as¶halb-a_ he.PF shoot-BEN
‘He shot the lion for the driver’
b) Taa halb-at she.PF shoot-BEN
minì kaæazaa DAT.me chicken.F maæ di®eebaæ DAT driver
maæ di®eebaæ DAT driver
‘She shot the chicken for the driver’
zaakìi lion.M kaæazaa chicken.F
Informant: DKA28 Village: Tahoua Dialect area: Agreement area 75. Changes: In (75), the sentence is accepted with both feminine and masculine OBJDAT, because it already contains a feminine subject. (75)
a) Taa jeef-at mataææ¶mishì she.PF throw-BEN¶CMN DAT.her¶DAT.him
kufiii money
‘She threw the money at her/him/She threw away her/his money’
76-77. Changes: The subjects were changed from masculine to feminine with the suffix -at. (76)
a) Yaa ha®b-as¶ha®b-am minì zaakìi he.PF shoot-BEN DAT.me lion ‘He shot the lion for me’
b) Taa she.PF
ha®b-at shoot-BEN
‘She shot the lion for me’
minì zaakìi DAT.me lion
605
(77)
a) Yaa ha®b-as he.PF shoot-BEN
maæ di®eebaæ DAT driver
zaakìi lion
b) Taa ha®b-at ahe.PF shoot-BEN
maæ di®eebaæ DAT driver
zaakìi lion
‘He shot the lion for the driver’
‘She shot the lion for the driver’
78-79. Changes: The informant changed the original feminine subject to masculine with the -ad suffix, suggesting that he sees this assimilated form as an exponent of masculine, cf. (78)(79). (78)
Yaa he.PF
jeef-ad throw-CMN
‘He threw away the money’
(79)
Saaæ bull
yaa ha®b-ad he.PF kick-CMN
‘The bull kicked off the rope’
daæ kufiii INST money.M daæ igiyaæa INST rope.F
Informant: F20 Village: Dutsin Ma Dialect area: -as area 80. Changes: The informant preferred to change the subject as well as the OBJDAT from masculine to feminine when using the -at suffix. (80)
Taa kooy-at mataæ lissaafì she.PF teach-CAUS DAT.her accounting ‘She taught her accounting’
Informant: AS23 Village: Dutsin Ma Dialect area: -as area Agreement: Gender distinction on the accusative object between -ad/-as, -ad denoting feminine (before the INST marker dà, and -as masculine. The gender distinction is related to the focussed subject. Additional info: When being tested further, it appeared that this speaker had clear preferences for the final consonant according to several variables: a. Gender of subject b. Gender of F.OBJ(INST) c. Masculine gender of F.OBJ(INST) is outrules gender of feminine subject
606
Inspired by these sponaneous cases, I tested this speaker for a whole paradigm to find the variables. 81. Changes: Subject (or OBJACC, see fn. 98) changed to feminine with the -ad suffix. Masculine subject (or OBJACC, see fn. 99) co-occurs with the -as suffix. (81) a. Tumkìyaa ceæe ewe COP.F
ta98 zaabu®-ad she.RL.PF spring.up-CAUS¶BEN
b. Dookìi horse
ya99 zaabu®-as daæ shii he.RL.PF spring.up.CAUS¶BEN INST IND.M
daæ shii INST IND.M
‘It was the ewe that she made attack him/it was the ewe that attacked him’
nee COP.M
‘It was the horse that he made attack him/it was the horse that attacked him’
82. Agreement: Agreement with subject, where -at marks feminine subject and -as marks masculine subject. It seems to be insensitive to the gender of the F.OBJ(INST), since the verbal endings were the same when changing the F.OBJ(INST) to feminine ‘tumkìyaa’ in (82d). Changes: The feminine subject in (82a) was changed to masculine (82b), and the speaker changed the verbal ending from -at to -as. (82) a. Dookìi horse.M
nee COP.M
Aminaæa Amina
b. Dookìi horse.M
nee COP.M
Abduæ ya zaabur-as Abdu he.RL.PF spring up-CAUS
ta zaabur-at she.RL.PF spring up-CAUS
daæ shii INST IND.M
‘It was a horse Amina made attack (it100)’
daæ shii INST IND.M
‘It was a horse Abdu made attack him/it was a horse Abdu attacked him with’
c. Tumkìyaa cee ewe.F COP.F
ta zaabur-at she.RL.PF spring up-CAUS¶BEN
‘It was a ewe she made attack her/it was a ewe she attacked with101/ it was a ewe that attacked her102’
daæ itaa INST IND.F
98 This pronoun can either be coreferencial with tumkìyaa or it can refer to another participant, e.g. a woman. In the latter case there are three participants: the ewe, the woman and the masculine participant referred to by ‘shii’. The sentence then has the meaning ‘She (i.e. the woman) is using the ewe to fight or frighten him’. Tumkìyaa, in this case, is not a subject. 99 The structure is the same as described in previous footnote. 100 The sentence may have two meanings, one with two participants and one with three: Including ‘it’ in the translation implies that the independent pronoun is not interpreted as a resumptive pronoun ‘shii’. Excluding ‘it’ means that the independent pronoun ‘shii’ is a resumptive pronoun co-referent with dookìi ‘horse’. 101 In this case, the independent pronoun itaa is resumptive, co-referent with tumkìyaa.
607
d. Tumkìyaa ceæe ewe.F COP.F
Abduæ ya zaabur-as daæ itaa Abdu he.RL.PF spring up-CAUS INST IND.F
‘It was a ewe Abdu made attack (it103)’
83. Gender dominance of F.OBJINST: The speaker is inconsistent with respect to agreement with the focussed OBJINST. In spite of the example in (82a), he later gives the sentence in (83b) (to contrast with (83a)) where gender of the F.OBJINST overrides the gender of the subject, but only if it is masculine: If the subject is masculine, it is irrelevant if the focussed OBJINST is feminine, but if the focussed OBJINST is masculine, it overrides a feminine subject, cf. (83). (83) a. Tumkìyaa ewe.F
ceæe Abduæ ya zaabur-as COP.F Abdu he.RL.PF spring up-CAUS
‘It was a ewe Abdu made attack (it)’
b. Raæagoo ram.M
neæe COP.M
Aminaæa Amina
‘It was a ram Abdu made attack (it)’
ta zaabur-as she.RL.PF spring up.CAUS
daæ itaa INST IND.F daæ shii INST IND.M
84. Agreement: The OBJINST does not influence the verbal ending if it is not fronted. In these cases it is the subject which determines the verbal ending, cf. (84). Note especially that the meaning is not causative when the subject is agreement marked, despite the instrumental marking on the object. The normal meaning would be ‘Amina frightened (i.e. made spring up) the ram’ and ‘Abdu frightened the ewe’, where the OBJINSTs are Causees. Instead the meaning here is allative, i.e benefactive. (84)
a) Aminaæa Amina
taa zaabur-at she.PF spring up-BEN
‘Amina sprang at the ram’
b) Abduæ yaa zaabur-as Abdu he.PF spring up-BEN ‘Abdu sprang at the ewe’
daæ raæagoo INST ram.M
daæ tumkìyaa INST ewe.F
85. Agreement: Another paradigm with the same speaker shows that the subject gender agreement is also present with 2.SG (cf. the subjects kin ‘you.F’ and kaa for ‘you.M’ below). 102 In this case, tumkìyaa is a focussed subject, co-referent with the subject ta. The independent pronoun itaa is an OBJACC.
608
(85)
a) Kin jeef-at you.F.PF throw-CMN(BEN)
daæ kufiinkì INST money.M.GEN.your.F
b) Kaa jeef-as you.M.PF throw-CMN(BEN)
daæ kufiinkaæ INST money.M.GEN.your.M
‘You threw away your money’
‘You threw away your money’
86. Agreement: The same distinction is made in 3.SG, -at for feminine subject and -as for masculine subject. (86)
a) Taa jeef-at she.PF throw-CMN
daæ kufiintaæ INST money.M.GEN.hers
b) Yaa jeef-as he.PF throw-CMN
daæ kufiinsaæ INST money.GEN.his
‘She threw away her (own) money’
‘He threw away his (own) money’
87. Agreement: This informant uses the -a® suffix as a plural marker (according to his own statement). The -a® suffix is preferred, but -at and -as are also acceptable, yielding the options -a®/-as/-at for mun ‘we.PF’, kun ‘you.PL.PF’, and sun ‘they.PF’. However, the speaker uses the same range of suffixes with 1.SG (naa ‘I.PF’ neutral to gender). Thus the -a® suffix should be labelled a default marker rather than a plural marker with this speaker. AS23 explained the choice of suffix in these cases by saying that one cannot know whether it is masculine or feminine. He was tested also for a possible gender distinction with the gender of the OBJINST, exchanging the masculine kufiimmuæ ‘our money.M’ with the feminine takaæ®dammuæ ‘our sheet/paper.F’, but without change in verbal suffix. (87)
a. Naa I.PF
jeef-a®\¶-at¶-as throw-CMN
‘I threw away my money’
daæ kufiiinaa INST money.M.my.M
b. Mun jeef-a®\¶-at¶-as daæ kufiimmuæ we.PF throw-CMN INST money.M.GEN.our ‘We threw away our money’
c. Kun you (PL).PF
jeef-a®\¶-at¶-as daæ kufiinkuæ throw-CMN INST money.M.GEN.your.PL
‘You threw away your money’
d. Sun they.PF
jeef-a®\¶-at¶-as daæ kufiinsuæ throw-CMN INST money.M.GEN.their
‘They threw away their money’
103 The sentence has the same meaning and structure as (72a).
609
88. Agreement:The same speaker produced two sentence pairs, where the -a® suffix is used for masculine subject and -as for feminine subject! The addition of a focussed OBJACC of either gender did not influence the choice of suffixes, cf. (88). In light of the counterintuitive character of these sentences, and the speaker’s explanation that their function is to refer to action (i.e. not to function as agreement markers), these sentences are not counted as instances of agreement. Informant’s info: The explanation given by the speaker of why these exponence relationships were different from those he already gave above was that -as¶-a® feminine/masculine suffixes here are used when referring to action (e.g. kicking off insects or a rope). Additional info: The same distinction is used with the verb sayaC ‘sell’ in exactly the same kind of construction, but here the verbal ending is sensitive to the focussed OBJACC and also to whether the subject is plural or not. With plural, the ending -a® is used, though -as is marginally accepted. (88)
a. @ gwaæaroo neæe insect.M COP.M
saanìyaa ta cow.F she.RL.PF
b. gwaæaroo neæe insect.M COP.M
saaæ ya ha®b-a® bull.M he.RL.PF shoot, kick-CMN
c. @ Igiyaæa rope.F
ceæe COP.F
saanìyaa ta cow.F she.RL.PF
b. Igiyaæa rope.F
ceæe COP.F
saaæ bull.M
‘It was (an) insect the cow kicked off’
ha®b-as shoot, kick-CMN
‘It was (an) insect the bull kicked off’
‘It was (a) rope the cow kicked off’
‘It was (a) rope the bull kicked off’
ha®b-as shoot, kick-CMN
ya ha®b-a® he.RL.PF shoot, kick-CMN
610
Table E.4 Summary table for SUBJECT agreement in independently produced data Speak-
Village
er
Dialect
Agrees
area
with...
Masc.
Tahoua
Type of Sentence type marker
suffix AI28
Fem.
N.
Agreemen SUBJ
suffix
N.
-at
1
BEN
-at
1
BEN or S-OBJDAT/M-
S-OBJDAT-OBJACC
t area SUBJ
-as
1
SUBJ
-as
1
SUBJ
-as
1
SUBJ/
-as
2
-at
1
CMN
OBJACC/MVR
CMN
S-OBJINST/MVR
CAUS/
S-OBJDAT/F-
CMN
OBJINST/MVR S-OBJDAT-OBJACC
-at
2
BEN
-at
1
BEN or S-OBJDAT-OBJACC
OBJACC DKA28 Tahoua
Agreemen SUBJ
-as
t area
F20
AS23
CMN SUBJ
-as
2
SUBJ
-ad
2
Dogon- -an area
SUBJ/
doutchi
OBJDAT
Dutsin Ma
-as area
SUBJ/
-as
1
-at
2
BEN
S-OBJDAT-OBJACC
CMN
S-OBJINST/MVR
-at
1
CAUS
S-OBJDAT-OBJACC
-ad
1
CAUS
F.OBJ(INST)-S-
OBJINS
OBJINST
T
SUBJ
-as
3
-at
2
CAUS
F.OBJ(INST)-SOBJINST/resumptive
SUBJ
-as
1
-at
1
BEN
S-OBJINST/GOAL
SUBJ
-as
2
-at
2
CMN
S-OBJINST/MVR
611
2. Elicited agreement data In this appendix, the term ‘other arguments’ is used in addition to the ones explained at the beginning of section A ‘Agreement data’. ‘Other arguments’ introduces a comment on the influence of the gender of syntactic arguments other than the one that the informant has picked out for agreement with the verb. (I.e. if i.a. the -at suffix is used for agreement with a feminine OBJDAT, one may test for whether the presence of a masculine subject or OBJACC will influence this choice.), or, vice versa, if the presence of another suffix than the one chosen would be allowed if the gender of these other arguments were changed (e.g. if -as would be allowed if the subject and/or OBJACC/INST were masculine, when the speaker has chosen -at for feminine OBJDAT agreement). In a few cases, the term ‘Semantic interpretation’ is used. It refers to a particular semantic interpretation that the informant gives to the use of a particular suffix. 2. 1. OBJDAT agreement Informant: SM23 Village: Bada Gishiri in Kartela (45 kilometer from Tahoua) Dialect area: Agreement area Agreement: -at and -a® agree with feminine OBJDAT, -as agrees with masculine OBJDAT. In the majority of cases (5 certain instances, and 2 less certain ones) this informant has OBJDAT agreement, but also showed one clear case of OBJACC agreement (cf. (28)). 1a. Agreement: The -at suffix is used with a feminine OBJDAT. Other arguments: The suffix is insensitive to the gender of the OBJACC; it agrees with the feminine OBJDAT regardless of whether the OBJACC is feminine or masculine. (1)
a) Naa I.PF
zaa\-at¶-a_¶-am choose-BEN
mataæ taguæwaa¶ kareæn aæ®aæke DAT.her blouse.F sugarcane-stalk.M
‘I chose her a blouse/ a sugarcane-stalk’
1b-c. Informant’s info: It is stated that for (1b) and (1c) below, both with masculine OBJDATs, that the use of the -at suffix is wrong. Other arguments: It makes no difference if the gender of OBJACC changes.
612
b) Naa I.PF
zaa\-as¶-a_¶-am¶•-at maì taguæwaa choose-BEN DAT.him shirt.F
c) Naa I.PF
zaa\-as (@)¶-a_¶-am¶•-at maì kareæn aæ®aæke choose-BEN DAT.him sugarcane-stalk.M
‘I chose him a shirt ’
‘I chose him a sugarcane-stalk’
2. Informant’s info: In (2), the informant specifically said that both the suffixes -at and -a® are used to mark the feminine gender of OBJDAT. Other arguments: For (2b) it was said that the use of -as would be wrong, despite the fact that the sentence has both a masculine subject, and a masculine OBJACC, which could be candidates for masculine agreement marking. In other words, this is a positive case of OBJDAT agreement. (2)
a) Taa zaa\a-a_¶-am¶-a® mataæ kareæn aæ®aæke she.PF choose-BEN DAT.her sugarcane-stalk.M ‘She chose her a sugarcane-stalk’
b) Yaa zaa\-at¶-a_¶-am¶-a® ¶•-as mataæ kareæn aæ®aæke he.PF choose-BEN DAT.her sugarcane-stalk.M ‘She chose her a sugarcane-stalk’
3a. Agreement: OBJDAT/OBJACC. (3a) is also a case of object agreement, although it cannot be disregarded that in this case both OBJDAT and OBJACC are feminine, and therefore no conclusive statement can be made about which argument triggers the agreement. (3)
a) Yaa zaa\a-at¶-a_¶-am mataæ taguæwaa he.PF choose-BEN DAT.her blouse.F ‘He chose her a blouse’
3b. Agreement: S/OBJDAT/OBJACC. The sentence is obviously also marked for feminine agreement, since the informant specifically says that -as cannot be used. However, in this case, all arguments, including OBJDAT, are feminine. (3)
b) Taa zaa\-at¶-a_¶-am¶-a®¶•-as mataæ taguæwaa she.PF choose-BEN DAT.her blouse.F ‘She chose her a blouse’
613
Informant: Village:
AU26 Bada Gishiri in the village of Kartela, 45 km from Tahoua
Agreement: -at agrees with feminine OBJDAT, -as agrees with masculine OBJDAT. OBJDAT agreement takes precedence over topicalized arguments. Cf. (15). The data from this speaker covers agreement in both benefactive and causative sentences. 4. Agreement: The -at suffix is agreement marked with the feminine OBJDAT. Other arguments: Gender of OBJACC does not influence choice of suffix. (4)
a) Naa I.PF
zaa\-at¶-am mataæ taguæwaa choose-BEN DAT.her blouse.F
b) Naa I.PF
zaa\-at¶-am mataæ kareæn aæ®aæke choose-BEN DAT.her sugarcane-stalk.M
‘I chose her a blouse’
‘I chose her a sugarcane-stalk’
5. Agreement:When compared to (5b), it can be seen that the gender of OBJDAT is decisive for the agreement marker: -as marks masculine OBJDAT and -at marks feminine OBJDAT. Other arguments: In (5a) it can be seen that the gender of subject is irrelevant. Informant’s info: In (5a), the semantic interpretation ‘the woman is wearing the dress’ is given, in the sentence with a masculine subject [i.e there is emphasis on OBJDAT (violation/stealing her property)]. (5)
a) Yaarinyaæa¶ yaaroæo taa¶yaa girl¶ boy she¶he.PF ‘The girl/boy seized her clothes’
dam˚-at¶-am mataæ tufaafì seize-BEN DAT.her clothes.PL
b) Yaarinyaæa taa dam˚-as¶-am mishì tufaafì girl she.PF seize-BEN DAT.him clothes .PL ‘The girl seized his clothes’
5c. Other arguments: A change of plural OBJACC to feminine OBJACC, as can be seen in (5c), does not affect the agreement marking. The gender of subject does not affect the agreement marker, cf. (5c). Informant’s info: Semantic interpretation that the -as suffix in (5c) (feminine subject) indicates ‘near mishì [=OBJDAT] [meat is] maybe on a plate, [the girl] take[s] and go[es] away’.
614
(5)
c) Yaarinyaæa¶ yaaroæo taa¶yaa dam˚-as¶-am mishì naamaæa girl¶ boy she¶he.PF seize-BEN DAT.him meat.F ‘The girl/boy seized his meat’
d) Yaaroæo boy
yaa dam˚-at¶-am mataæ tufaafì he.PF seize-BEN DAT.her cloth.PL
‘The girl/boy seized her clothes’
6. Agreement: -at agrees with feminine OBJDAT, -as with masculine OBJDAT. -as with feminine OBJDAT and -at with masculine OBJDAT are ungrammatical, cf. (6b, 6d). Other arguments: OBJACC does not influence choice of suffix, cf. (6a, c), where both -at and -as occur with masculine OBJACC. Subject does not influence choice of suffix, cf. (6a, c). (6)
a) Taa¶ yaa ka®y-at¶-a_¶-am she¶he.PF break-BEN ‘He broke her sugarcane-stalk’
cf.
b) •Taa ka®y-as she.PF break-BEN
mataæ kareæn aæ®aæke DAT.her sugarcane-stalk.M
c) Taa¶Yaa ka®y-as¶-a_¶-am she¶he.PF break-BEN ‘He broke his sugarcane-stalk’
cf.
d) •Yaa ka®y-at he.PF break-BEN
mataæ kareæn aæ®aæke DAT.her sugarcane-stalk.M
mishì kareæn aæ®aæke DAT.him sugarcane-stalk.M
mishì kareæn aæ®aæke DAT.him sugarcane-stalk.M
7. Agreement: The -at suffix agrees with a feminine OBJDAT, and the -as suffix with a masculine OBJDAT. -at is ungrammatical with a masculine OBJDAT, cf. (7b), and -as is ungrammatical with a feminine OBJDAT, cf. (7d). (7)
a) Macìjii yaa shig-at¶-a_¶-am snake he.PF enter-BEN ‘The snake entered her room’
cf.
b) *Macìjii
yaa shig-as mataæ fiaakìi snake he.PF enter-BEN DAT.her room.M
c) Macìjii yaa shig-as¶-a_¶-am snake he.PF enter-BEN ‘The snake entered his room’
cf.
mataæ fiaakìi DAT.her room.M
d) *Macìjii
snake
mishì fiaakìi DAT.him room.M
yaa shig-at mishì fiaakìi he.PF enter-BEN DAT.him room.M
8. Agreement: The same sentences as in (7) with a feminine OBJACC still agree with OBJDAT, as can be seen in (8).
615
(8)
a) Macìjii yaa shig-at¶-a_¶-am snake he.PF enter-BEN
mataæ mootaæ®taæ DAT.her car.F.her.POSS
b) *Macìjii
mataæ mootaæ®taæ DAT.her car.F-her.POSS
‘The snake entered on her in her car’
cf.
yaa snake he.PF
shig-as enter-BEN
c) Macìjii yaa shig-as¶-a_¶-am snake he.PF enter-BEN
mishì mootaæ®shì DAT.him car.F.his.POSS
‘The snake entered on him in his car’
cf.
d) *Macìjii
snake
yaa shig-at mishì mootaæ®shì he.PF enter-BEN DAT.him car.F-his.POSS
9. Other arguments: The sentences (7) and (8) were also tested with a feminine subject, but with no change in agreement marking; agreement is still with OBJDAT, cf. (9) which has a masculine OBJACC and which has a feminine OBJACC: (9)
a) Kuænaamaæa scorpion.F
taa shig-at¶-a_¶-am she.PF enter-BEN
b) *Kuænaamaæa
taa shig-as mataæ fiaakìi she.PF enter-BEN DAT.her room.M
c) Kuænaamaæa scorpion.F
taa shig-as¶-a_¶-am she.PF enter-BEN
cf.
d) *Kuænaamaæa
taa shig-at she.PF enter-BEN
(10)
a) Kuænaamaæa scorpion.F
taa shig-at¶-a_¶-am she.PF enter-BEN
b) *Kuænaamaæa
taa shig-as mataæ mootaæ®taæ she.PF enter-BEN DAT.her car.F-her.POSS
c) Kuænaamaæa scorpion.F
taa shig-as¶-a_¶-am she.PF enter-BEN
d) *Kuænaamaæa
taa shig-at she.PF enter-BEN
‘The snake entered her room’
cf.
scorpion.F
‘The snake entered his room’
scorpion.F
‘The snake entered her car’
cf.
scorpion.F
‘The snake entered his car’
cf.
scorpion.F
mataæ fiaakìi DAT.her room.M
mishì fiaakìi DAT.him room.M
mishì fiaakìi DAT.him room.M mataæ mootaæ®taæ DAT.her car.F.her.POSS
mishì mootaæ®shì DAT.him car.F.his.POSS
mishì mootaæ®shì DAT.him car.F.his.POSS
11. Semantic interpretation:In some cases, where subject and OBJDAT are of different gender, both -at and -as were accepted, but with different semantic interpretations. The agreeing argument is seen as the owner of OBJACC, cf. (11) and (12). In (12a) agreement with OBJDAT suggests that the action done to OBJDAT is one of damage. In the identical (12b), the verb
616
instead agrees with the subject, with the accompanying meaning that the subject is the owner of OBJACC. It is not suggested that this is a negative action for the OBJDAT participant. (11)
a) Yaa ka®y-as he.PF broke-BEN
mataæ masaæ®aa DAT.her maize.F
b) Yaa ka®y-at he.PF broke-BEN
mataæ masaæ®aa DAT.her maize.F
a) Taa ka®y-as she.PF broke-BEN
mishì masaæ®aa DAT.him maize.F
b) Taa ka®y-at she.PF broke-BEN
mishì masaæ®aa DAT.him maize.F
‘He broke his own maize for her’
‘He broke her maize for her’
(12)
‘She broke his maize’
‘She broke her own maize for him’
13. Semantic interpretation: If both subject and OBJDAT are of the same gender, the agreement suffix may suggest that OBJACC belongs to either of them, thus (13): (13)
a) Yaa ka®y-as¶ •-at mishì masaæ®aa he.PF broke-BEN DAT.him maize.F
‘He1 broke his1 maize for him/He broke his1 maize for him1’
b) Taa ka®y-at¶ •-as mataæ masaæ®aa she.PF broke-BEN DAT.him maize.F
‘She1 broke her1 maize for her (and gave it to her)/She broke her2 maize for her2’
14. Semantic interpretation: If OBJDAT is the owner of OBJACC, the action is seen as negative for OBJDAT. Cf. (14): (14)
c) Yaa ka®y-as he.PF broke-BEN
‘He1 broke his2 maize.’
mishì masaæ®aa DAT.him maize.F
15. Agreement: In (15), where a masculine OBJACC is focussed, the informant points out that -at is used because of the feminine OBJDAT, and -as because of the masculine OBJDAT: (15)
a) Kareæn aæ®aæke sugarcane-stalk.M
neæe COP
na I.RL.PF
zaa\-at¶-am mataæ choose-BEN DAT.her
b) Kareæn aæ®aæke sugarcane-stalk.M
neæe COP
na I.RL.PF
zaa\-as mishì choose-BEN DAT.him
‘It was a sugarcane-stalk I chose for her’
‘It was a sugarcane-stalk I chose for him’
617
16-18. Informant’s info: In these cases the evidence of agreement is particularly clear, since the informant explicitly states that a particular suffix (-at or -as) is incorrect in a particular sentence. (16)
a) Littaafì book.M
nee COP
taa¶yaa dam˚-at¶-am mataæ she¶he.PF seize-BEN DAT.her
*Littaafì
nee COP
yaa dam˚-as he.PF seize-BEN
mataæ DAT.her
nee COP
yaa dam˚-as he.PF seize-BEN
mishì DAT.him
nee COP
yaa dam˚-at he.PF seize-BEN
mishì DAT.him
‘It was a book she/he seized from her’
cf.
book.M
and (16b): b) Littaafì book.M
‘It was a book he seized from him’ *Littaafì
cf.
book.M
17-18. Agreement: It is the OBJDAT and not the focussed OBJACC which triggers the agreement. (17)
a) Taguæwaa ceæe shirt.F COP
taa¶yaa fiam˚-as¶-am mishì she¶he.PF seize-BEN DAT.him
It was a shirt she/he seized from him’
cf.
*Taguæwaa
shirt.F
ceæe COP
b) Taguæwaa ceæe shirt.F COP
yaa fiam˚-at he.PF seize-BEN
mishì DAT.him
taa¶yaa fiam˚-at¶-a_¶-am mataæ she¶he.PF seize-BEN DAT.her
‘It was a shirt she/he seized from her’
cf.
*Taguæwaa
shirt.F
ceæe COP
yaa he.PF
fiam˚-as seize-BEN
mataæ DAT.her
18a-b. In these sentences the subject is masculine. (18)
a) Kareæn aæ®aæke sugarcane-stalk.M
neæe COP
Isa ya ka®y-at¶-a_¶-am Isa he.RL.PF break-BEN
•Kareæn aæ®aæke sugarcane-stalk.M
neæe COP
Isa ya ka®y-as Isa he.RL.PF break-BEN
b) Kareæn aæ®aæke sugarcane-stalk.M
neæe COP
Isa ya ka®y-as¶-a_¶-am Isa he.RL.PF break-BEN
•Kareæn aæ®aæke sugarcane-stalk.M
neæe COP
Isa ya ka®y-at Isa he.RL.PF break-BEN
‘It was a sugarcane-stalk Isa broke for her’
‘It was his1 sugarcane-stalk Isa2 broke’
cf.
618
mataæ DAT.her
mataæ DAT.her mishì DAT.her
mishì DAT.her
18c-d. In these sentences the subject is feminine. 18d. Informant’s info: The sentence is not accepted with an -at suffix even when picturing that the OBJACC belongs to the feminine subject. With this meaning the informant suggests using another derivation, ka®yaæa and an alternative masculine OBJDAT form maì. Other arguments: I interpret c) not to be a possible case of subject agreement (in spite of the feminine subject) because of the ungrammaticality of the asterisk form in d), which shows that this speaker does not use subject agreement in this paradigm of sentences. c) Kareæn aæ®aæke neæe sugarcane-stalk.M COP
Faatii ta Fati she.RL.PF
ka®y-at¶-a_¶-am break-BEN
•Kareæn aæ®aæke neæe sugarcane-stalk.M COP
Faatii ta Fati she. RL.PF
ka®y-as break-BEN
d) Kareæn aæ®aæke neæe sugarcane-stalk.M COP
Faatii ta Fati she. RL.PF
ka®y-as¶-a_¶-am break-BEN
•Kareæn aæ®aæke neæe sugarcane-stalk.M COP
Faatii ta Fati she. RL.PF
ka®y-at break-BEN
‘It was a sugarcane-stalk Fati broke for her’
cf.
‘It was a sugarcane-stalk Fati broke for him’
cf.
mataæ DAT.her
mataæ DAT.her mishì DAT.her
mishì DAT.her
19. Agreement: -as agrees with masculine OBJDAT. (19) Abduæ yaa shig-as¶-a_¶-am¶-a®¶*-at Abdu he.PF enter-CAUS ‘Abdu put his luggage in the sack for him’
mishì daæ kaayanshì buæhu DAT.him INST luggage.GEN.his sack
20. Agreement: -at agrees with feminine OBJDAT. (20)
Abduæ yaa shig-at ¶-a_¶*-as Abdu he.PF enter-CAUS
‘Abdu put her luggage in the sack for her’
mataæ daæ kaayantaæ DAT.her INST luggage-her
buæhu sack
21. Agreement: -as agrees with masculine OBJDAT. Informant’s info: In (21) the -as suffix is OK, but only marginally so. Semantic interpretation: The -at suffix is incorrect in a), unless it means that Amina (subject) tries to give him (OBJDAT) a gift: It then implies that they are her things (it is then a case of subject agreement). The possessive pronoun on the OBJACC -nshì ‘his’ is then left out. Thus the sentence in (22). (21) Amiinaæ Amina
taa shig-as@ ¶-a_¶-am¶-a®¶*-at mishì daæ kaayanshì buæhu she.PF enter-CAUS DAT.him INST load.GEN.his sack
‘Amina put his luggage in the sack for him’
619
22. Agreement: -at agrees with feminine OBJDAT. Informant’s info: The -am suffix indicates that they are Amina’s (subject) things (OBJACC), and it is the most frequent suffix. The -as suffix is incorrect in a). (22)
Amiinaæ Amina
taa shig-at¶-a_¶-am¶-a® ¶*-as mataæ daæ kaayantaæ buæhu she.PF enter-CAUS DAT.her INST load.GEN.her sack
‘Amina put her luggage in the sack for her’
TABLE E.5 Summary table of OBJDAT agreement in elicited data Speaker SM23
AU26
Village
Agrees with...
Bada Gishiri OBJDAT (Kartela, Tahoua) OBJDAT Bada Gishiri (Kartela, Tahoua) OBJDAT/S
Masc. suffix N. -as 2
Fem. suffix -at
-a® -as
13
-at
-as
2
-at
N. 3
Type of marker BEN
3 14
BEN BEN BEN
2. 2. Focussed OBJACC agreement Informant: SM23 Village: Bada Gishiri, Kartela, Tahoua Dialect area: Agreement area 23. Informant’s info: In both cases, the informant says that the use of -as in these sentences is wrong. Agreement: (23b) is a clear case of focussed OBJACC agreement, where the feminine FOBJACC agrees with the -at suffix. In (23a), the feminine OBJDAT makes in uncertain whether this is FOBJACC or OBJDAT agreement, although contrasted with (23b) FOBJACC agreement is more likely. (23)
a) Taguæwaa ceæe blouse.F COP
na I.RL.PF
zaa\-at¶-a_¶-am¶-a®¶ •-as mataæ choose-BEN DAT.her
b) Taguæwaa ceæe shirt.F COP
na I.RL.PF
zaa\-at¶-a_¶-am¶-a®¶ •-as mishì choose-BEN DAT.him
‘It was a blouse I chose for her’
‘It was a shirt I chose for him’
620
Informant: AU26 Village: Bada Gishiri, Kartela, Tahoua Dialect area: Agreement area 24. Agreement: The -at suffix agrees with a feminine FOBJACC. The -as suffix is not judged to be wrong, only less frequent. Informant’s info: The -at suffix is most frequent. If the suffix -am is used, it refers to an OBJDAT musù ‘for them’, which is not expressed. The -a® suffix can be used in the -a® daæ itaa construction (i.e. with a feminine independent resumptive pronoun). (24)
Takaæ®daa ceæe paper.F COP.F
‘It is the paper he put in’
ya shig-at ¶-a_¶-am¶-a®¶-as he.RL.PF enter-CAUS
25. Agreement: Since both the F.OBJACC and the subject are masculine, the judgment that the -as suffix is best may reflect both F.OBJACC and subject agreement. The -as suffix is not judged to be wrong, only less frequent. Informant’s info: The -as suffix is most frequent. The -am suffix refers to an understood OBJDAT musù ‘for them’. (25)
Littaafì book.M
nee COP.M
‘It is a book he put in’
ya shig-as¶-at¶-a_¶-am¶-a® he.RL.PF enter.CAUS
26. Agreement: F.OBJACC feminine agreement overrides OBJDAT masculine agreement. The as suffix is not judged to be wrong, only less frequent. Informant’s info: The -at suffix is better than the -as suffix. (26)
Takaæ®da®shì paper.F.GEN.his
cee ya shig-at ¶-a_¶-am¶-a®¶-as COP.F he.RL.PF enter-CAUS
‘It is his paper he put in for him’
mishì DAT.him
27. Agreement: The -at suffix agrees with either a feminine F.OBJACC or a feminine OBJDAT. Informant’s info: The -am suffix is most frequent. The -at suffix is more frequent than the -as suffix. (27)
Takaæ®da®taæ paper.F.GEN.her.POSS
cee ya shig-at ¶-a_¶-am¶-a®¶-as COP.F he.RL.PF enter-CAUS
‘It is her paper he put in for her’
621
mataæ DAT.her
2. 3. OBJACC agreement (non-focussed) Informant: SM23 Village: Bada Gishiri, Kartela, Tahoua Dialect area: Agreement area 28. Agreement: In this case, OBJACC was agreement marked at the expense of OBJDAT. Informant’s info: The informant stated that the use of -as here would be wrong. Even though the feminine gender of the subject here also would allow for subject agreement. However, the informant attributed the use of -at to the OBJACC argument. (28)
Taa zaa\-at¶-a_¶-am¶ •-as mishì taguæwaa she.PF choose-BEN DAT.him shirt.F
Table E.6 Summary table for FOBJACC and OBJACC agreement in elicited data Speaker
Village
SM23 AU26 SM23
Tahoua Tahoua Tahoua
Agrees with... Masc. suffix N. F.OBJACC F.OBJACC -as? OBJACC
Fem. suffix -at -at -at
Type marker BEN CAUS BEN
N. 2 3 1
of
2. 4. Subject agreement in elicited data Informant: AU26 Village: Bada Gishiri, Kartela, Tahoua Dialect area: Agreement area 29. Agreement: -as agrees with masculine subject, -at agrees with feminine subject or OBJACC. Informant’s info: This is not explained by the informant himself as a case of subject agreement. His explanation is for the masculine agreement that OBJDAT must be a flock of men, and for the feminine agreement that the OBJACC is a women’s school. However, the sentence in (29a) was not accepted with an -at suffix even if the OBJDAT was pictured to be a flock of women. Gender is not formally marked on plural OBJDATs in Hausa. In (29) below, then, the -as suffix is used with a masculine subject, and -at with a feminine subject. (29)
a) Macìjii snake.M
yaa shig-as ¶-a_¶-am munaæa he.PF enter-BEN DAT.us
‘The snake entered our school’
cf.
*Macìjii
snake.M
yaa shig-at he.PF enter-BEN
munaæa DAT.us
622
maka®antaa school.F
maka®antaa school.F
b) Kuænaamaæa scorpion.F
taa shig-at ¶-a_¶-am she.PF enter-BEN
munaæa maka®antaa DAT.us school.F
‘The scorpion entered our school’
30a. Informant’s info: If without -ntà ‘hers’ attached to the OBJACC, the -am suffix is used. The -as suffix is only possible without -ntà ‘hers’. It then means ‘his luggage’, not hers (OBJDATs). The -a® suffix is also used meaning ‘his luggage’. (30) a) Abduæ yaa shig-as¶-a®¶-am Abdu he.PF enter-CAUS
mataæ daæ kaayaa DAT.her INST luggage.PL
‘Abdu put his luggage in the sack for her’
buæhu sack
30b. Informant’s info: The -at suffix is only correct if it means that Amina (subject, F) tries to give him (OBJDAT) a gift: It then implies that they are her things. The enclitic possessive pronoun on the OBJACC -nshì ‘his’ is then left out. Thus the sentence in (30b). b) Amiinaæ Amina
taa shig-at she.PF enter-CAUS
mishì daæ kaayaa buæhu DAT.him INST things sack
‘Amina put her things in the sack for him’
Table E.6 Summary table for subject agreement in elicited data Speaker
Village
Agrees
Masc.
with...
suffix
N.
Fem. suffix
N.
Type marker
SM23
Tahoua
S
-as
1
-at
1
BEN
AU26
Tahoua
S
-as
1
-at
1
CAUS
623
of
Appendix F. Additional examples 1. Examples of the structure of periphrastic and morphological causatives (1) a) Monoclausal structure in morphological causative (intransitive) Single clause (SUBJ1 CAUSER)
TAM1 VERBaC
OBJINST¶ (OBJACC)
Allaæh
yaa
bar-ad
daæ Aminaæ
God
he.PF
prove.innocent-CAUS INST Amina
‘God caused Amina to be cleared of the charge’ (Bargery 1934, adapted) Cf. Taa
baæraa ‘She has justified herself/ proved innocent’
b) Monoclausal structure in morphological causative (transitive) Single clause TAM1 VERBaC
OBJINST
OBJACC
Maalaæmii
yaa
fahimt-ad
daæ Isaa
laæabaa®ìn
teacher
he.PF
understand-CAUS INST Isa
(SUBJ1 CAUSER)
news.the
‘The teacher made Isa (completely) understand the news’ (Dogondoutchi speaker SM28)
c) Negation of simple causative sentence Single clause TAM1 VERBaC
OBJINST
OBJACC
Maalaæmii
baæi
fahimt-ad
daæ Isaa
laæabaa®ìn ba
teacher
he.PF.
understand-CAUS INST Isa news.the NEG
(SUBJ1
NEG
CAUSER)
NEG ‘The teacher didn’t make Isa (completely) understand the news’
624
d) Negation of simple sentence Single clause TAM1 VERBGr2C
OBJACC
Maalaæmii
baæi
faæhìmci
laæabaa®ìn ba
teacher
he.PF. NEG
undertand
news.the NEG
(SUBJ1
NEG
CAUSER)
‘The teacher didn’t understand the news’
(2) Biclausal structure in periphrastic causative a) Object pronoun Causee in periphrastic causative 1st (‘higher’) clause
2nd (‘lower’) clause
TAM1 sa]
(PRO2) TAM2 VERB
(OBJACC)
Belloæ
yaa
sa]
(ta)
taa
fiaakìn
Bello
he.PF
caus e
her
she.PF sweep
(SUBJ1 CAUSER)
shaareæe
room
‘Bello had her sweep the room’
b) Noun Causee: object or subject in periphrastic causative 1st (‘higher’) clause
2nd (‘lower’) clause
(SUBJ1 CAUSER)
TAM1
sa]
(OBJ2)
TAM2 VERB
OBJACC
(Belloæ)
yaanaæa
sa]
Kaænde
taa
fiaakìn
Bello
he.CONT caus e
Kande
she.PF sweep
shaareæe
room
‘Bello was having Kande sweep the room’
c) Subject noun Causee in periphrastic causative 1st (‘higher’) clause (SUBJ1
TAM1
2nd (‘lower’) clause sa]
(SUBJ2)
TAM2
VERB
CAUSER)
OBJA CC
(Belloæ)
yaanaæa
sa]wa a
Kaænde
Bello
he.CONT cause Kande
‘Bello was having Kande sweep the room’.
625
tanaæa
shaareæe fiaakì n
she.CONT
sweep
room
(3) a) Negation of first clause in periphrastic causative 1st (‘higher’) clause
2nd (‘lower’) clause
(SUBJ1
NEG
sa]
CAUSER)
TAM1
Auduæ
baæi
Audu
NEG.he.PF caus e
OBJ.
TAM2 VERB
OBJACC
NEG
mun
côn zaæa\ee
ba
win election
NEG
PRO2 sa]
mu
kaasaæ
us.OBJ we.PF be.unabl e
‘Audu didn’t cause us to fail to win the election.’
(Newman 2000: 84)
b) Negation of second clause in periprastic causative 1st (‘higher’) clause
2nd (‘lower’) clause
(SUBJ1 CAUSER)
TAM1
sa]
NEG VERB TAM2
NEG
Allaæh
yaa
sa]
baæi
ba
Audu
NEG.he.PF caus e
mutuæ
NEG.P die
NEG
F
‘God willed (caused) that he didn’t die.’
(Jaggar 2001: 557)
c) Negation of both clauses 1st (‘higher’) clause
2nd (‘lower’) clause
(SUBJ1
NEG
sa]
CAUSER)
TAM1
Tankoæ
baæi
Tanko
NEG.he.PF caus
TAM2
VER
OBJACC NEG
B sa]
baæi
fiinkaæ ®ìiga]®
NEG.he.PF sew
gown
ba NEG
e ‘Tanko didn‘t cause him not to sew the gown’
(Newman 2000: 85)
2. Sentences with double case marking of Beneficiary/Causee (4)
a) TAM V OBJ1 An waay -a® waæ daæ talakaawaa 3.SG.IMP become clear-CAUS DAT INST common.people.PL ‘The people have been enlightened’
(Jaggar 2001: 255)
626
OBJ2 ka]i head.ACC
b) TAM V Yaa tabbat-a® he.PF be sure-CAUS
OBJ1 OBJ2-complement waæ daæ manoæomaa zaa aæ baa suæ gudduæmawaa DAT INST farmers FUT.3p.IMP give them assistance
‘He assured the farmers they would be given assistance’ (Jaggar 2001: 255)
c) TAM Sunaæa they.CONT
V OBJ1 OBJ2 say-a® waæ daæ Iæ®aa˚ì (daæ) buy-CAUS DAT INST Iraq (INST)
‘They are selling weapons to/for Iraq’
maækaæamai weapons
(Jaggar 2001: 256)
d) TAM V OBJ1 Sunaæa zub-a® waæ daæ tsoohuwa they.CONT stream-CAUS DAT ‘They are pouring out oil for the old woman’
OBJ2 (daæ) maì INST old.woman(INST) oil (Newman 2000: 659)
e) TAM V OBJ1 Yaa lazumt-a® waæ daæ &yaa&yansaæ he.PF be.incumbent.on-CAUS DAT INST children
OBJ2-complement ®uæbuæutuu daæ hannun daama writing with hand right
‘He made it compulsory for his children to write with the right hand’ (Newman 2000: 659)
f) SUBJ TAM Wasu likotoocii sunaæa some doctors they.CONT
V OBJ1 OBJ2 zub-a® waæ daæ maataa cikìi stream-CAUS DAT INST women belly ‘Some doctors perform abortions on women’ (cf. zuba® daæ cikì, lit pour away belly’) (Newman 2000: 659)
g) TAM Yaa he.PF
V say-a® buy-CAUS
‘He sold it to/for Musa’
OBJ1 waæ daæ Muusaa DAT INST Musa
OBJ2 ita 3SG.F.IND
(Newman 2000: 659)
627
3. Sample of -as/BEN examples (Selected examples from semantics test. Full list of informants in appendix B). HT-MVR here corresponds to caused-motion. MAL stands for malefactive. –as/BEN typically denote meanings like negativity (malefactive), MVR Themes, temporal and spatial distance. USM37 (Magarya) (5) Sun say-as mataæ (daæ) they.PF buy-BEN.HT-MVR DAT.her (INST)
goo®oæo kolanut
[MVR OBJ]: ‘They sold away all her kolanut.’
(6) Naa I.PF
aik-as send-BEN(RECIP)
mataæ daæ shii kaæasuwaa DAT.her INST 3.SG.M.IND market
‘I sent it to her at the market.’ Definite: Precise, the thing I sent is a particular known thing. Certain because I [S] did it myself. More precise and certain than with the suffix -a®.
(7) Taa haif-as mishì tagwaaæyee she.PF give.birth-BEN(MAL).HT-MVR DAT.him twins
[MVR OBJ]: 1) ‘She gave birth to twins for him’ (after first having tried to have an abortion). 2) ‘She aborted his twins’. She had an abortion because of premature birth.
(8) Taa she.PF
kooy-as learn-BEN(RECIP)
manaæ DAT.us
[Temporal distance]: ‘She taught us Hausa (long ago).’
(9) Yaa goog-as he.PF rub-BEN (MAL).HT-MVR
hausa Hausa (alternatively Causee)
mataæ ma]n kìshii DAT.her moisture-cream
[MVR OBJ+ negativity]: ‘He took her cream and rubbed it somewhere else’, e.g. on a wall ( a notion of damage). He took it away from her. (Lit. he rubbed away her cream)
(10)
An saar-as mikì 3.SG.IMP cut-BEN (MAL) DAT.you.F.SG
naamaæa meat
‘Someone came and dispossessed her of her meat’ (which she had stored with someone else’s). ‘Someone came and bought all the meat that was stored, including her own part’.
(11)
Yaa kary-as he.PF break-BEN (MAL)
mataæ aæ®aæke DAT.her sugar-cane
‘He is ‘breaking’ the price of her sugar-cane that she is selling.’ E.g. she has been trying to sell canes since morning at F10 each, and in the evening he comes and suggests to buy all her canes at F5 each. There is a loss for her.
(12)
Naa I.PF
tuu®-as musuæ push-BEN(MAL).HT-MVR DAT.them
mootaæa car
[Intentionality + negativity, MVR OBJ]: ‘He intentionally pushed their car away.’
UU14 (Magarya) (13)
Kin ams-as you.SG.F.PF receive-BEN
mataæ kufiii@ DAT.her money
[Temporal distance]: ‘Did you already receive the money for her?’
628
(14)
*Naa zaa\-as I.PF choose-AS
mataæ zannuwaæa DAT.her wrappers
[Feminine object]: No meaning with feminine OBJDAT.
(15)
Yaa neem-as mataæ aikìi he.PF seek-BEN DAT.her work
[Temporal distance]: ‘He found work for her (which she has started).’
(16)
Yaa he.PF
ka®\-as musuæ seize-BEN(MAL) DAT.them
[Negativity]: ‘He took money from them.’
(17)
Haædiizaæa taa Hadiza she.PF
daæ kufiii INST money
fieeb-as waæ fiantaæ dip.out-BEN DAT son.GEN.hers
ruwaa water
[Temporal distance]: ‘Hadiza has already drawn water for her son, (she has already given the water [OBJACC] and he [OBJDAT ] has used it).’
(18)
Yaa saam-as he.PF get-BEN
manaæ DAT.us
gidaa house
[Temporal distance]: [He has found a house for us], and we have moved in, 2 months. We [OBJDAT] have moved in.
MS22 (Magarya) (19)
Sun they.PF
say-as mataæ daæ goo®oæo buy-BEN DAT.her INST kolanut
Taa she.PF
haif-as give.birth-BEN(MAL)
[MVR obj + geographical distance, total affectedness of OBJINST]: ‘They bought all the kolanut from her.’ Positive for her, movement away from her, they are taking the kolanut. They have left the place with the kolanut.
(20)
mishì tagwaæayee DAT.him twins
[MVR OBJ + Negativity]: ‘She took medicine to have abortion.’
(21)
Naa I.PF
zaa\-as mataæ zannuwaæa choose-BEN DAT.her wrappers
[Effort/affectedness, temporal distance]: I have already chosen [wrappers] especially for her. Very certain that the thing is going to her.
(22)
Yaa neem-as mataæ aikìi he.PF seek-BEN DAT.her work
[Geographical distance]: ‘He sought work for her far away, somewhere - not in the same town, and she must move to get it.’
(23)
Bankì yaa bank 3.SG.M.PF
rant-as mataæ kufiii borrrow-BEN(MAL) DAT.her money
[MVR OBJ+ negativity + total affectedness of OBJ]: ‘Bank borrowed all her money.’ Negative (but she is certain to get the money back).
(24)
Yaa kar\-as he.PF receive-BEN(MAL).HT-MVR
musuæ DAT.them
kufiii money
[MVR OBJ + negativity]: He took their money and ran away (but there is a chance that they will get it back later).
629
ZY27(Magarya) (25) @ Naa zaa\-as mataæ zannuwaæa I.PF choose-BEN DAT.her wrappers
[Geographical and temporal distance]: Already done, completely finished. Far in time and space. (Not frequently used, to say what it means is difficult, nearly incomprehensible.)
(26)
Taa *aif-as she.PF give.birth-BEN(MAL)
masaæ tagwaæayee DAT.him twins
[MVR obj + negativity]: a) son is dead, negative; b) the birth is premature, child is dead. ; c) pejorative, a bastard, she doen’t know who is the father, outside marriage. ; d) She tried to have an abortion, but failed, and finally gave birth.
(27)
Taa she.PF
dee\as waæ fiantaæ ruwaa dip.out-BEN DAT son.GEN.hers water
[Temporal distance]: More past than with dee\a®.
AM25 (Magarya) (28)
Naa I.PF
aik-as send-BEN(RECIP)
mataæ daæ shii kaæasuwaa DAT.her INST 3.SG.M.IND market
‘I sent it to her at the market’. It is far away, more than [with the] -a® [suffix].
(29)
Kin ams-as mataæ kufiii@ you.F.SG.PF receive-BEN DAT.her money
‘Did you receive the money for her?’ The person asking is almost certain that ‘kin’ [S] has received it. Certain that ‘kin’ has it. No particular distance (= -a®).
(30)
Yaa neem-as mataæ aikìi he.PF seek-BEN DAT.her work
‘He (seems to have) found work for her’ (but it is not sure, he may lose it). She knows it. Here on the spot, not far away. 2 years ago.
(31)
Naa I.PF
zaa\-as mataæ zannuwaæa choose-BEN DAT.her wrappers
‘I chose wrappers for her.’ Short time ago. I [S] have it in my hand but she [OBJDAT] doesn‘t yet. On the place, no distance.
(32)
Taa she.PF
*aif-as give.birth-BEN
mishì tagwaæayee DAT.him twins
‘She gave birth to twins for him’ She gave birth over there, 5 hours by car, far away. Also long time ago, 1 year ago.
(33)
Yaa kar\as musuæ he.PF receive-BEN DAT.them
kufiii money
‘He received money for them’. He has received it. It is sure that he received it. = -am.
(34)
Yaa saam-as manaæ he.PF get-BEN DAT.us
gidaa house
‘He found a house for us’. Uncertain whether he [S] has found it. We [OBJDAT] have not seen it, we don’t know where it is.
630
