A. Carnie and E. Guilfoyle (Eds). The syntax of verb initial languages. ... The Nature of the Wordâ Essays in Honor of Paul Kiparsky. MIT Press. Zeller J. 2008.
Subject marking and preverbal coordination in Sesotho: A perspective from Optimality Theory Mark de Vos & Hazel Mitchley (Rhodes University) This paper is provided for convenience and scholarly archiving purposes only. Please cite published article. Publication: Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 30(2):155-170. DOI: 10.2989/16073614.2012.737591
Abstract Agreement usually operates in a one-to-one fashion where an agreement target is matched to a source of agreement. However, when there is more than one source (e.g. in preverbal coordination constructions) agreement mismatches occur. These may be resolved either through partial agreement with only a single source, or by various resolution strategies. Bantu languages with their rich noun-class system are an ideal domain to explore resolution strategies. This paper examines the phenomenon of subject-verb agreement with preverbal co-ordinated DPs in Sesotho (S33) and outlines an Optimality Theoretic analysis of the various strategies that speakers use to negotiate subject verb agreement.
1. Introduction In preverbal coordination, only the mother node, &P, is accessible to agreement; the features on &P are a combination of the features of the individual conjuncts (Voeltz 1971, Johannessen 1998 inter alia). This raises the question of how to resolve incompatible number and noun-class and/or gender features in preverbal subject co-ordination in Sesotho (S33) and the formal mechanisms by which resolution is achieved. This paper provides both a set of descriptive generalizations and a unified, Optimality Theory analysis of agreement resolution of conjoined NPs from different noun classes in Sesotho.
While languages like English have relatively impoverished agreement systems, Bantu languages, with their rich range of noun classes (henceforth NC), offer a valuable opportunity to explore the resolution of predicate agreement with co-ordinated noun phrases in detail. To illustrate the complexity of the problem consider the following examples.
In (1a,b),
coordination of [+HUMAN] plurals yields the expected subject markers (SMs) for the
relevant noun classes. However, coordination of NC8 [+HUMAN] plurals yields a default SM `ba’ (1c) and not SM `di’ as expected for NC8. These effects interact with (i) number because for coordination of [+HUMAN] singulars, a default SM is always used, (ii) animacy since the default changes for [–HUMAN] conjuncts and (iii) whether the conjuncts are `balanced’ (i.e. the noun class of the first conjunct is identical to the noun class of the second conjunct) since this also affects the choice of agreement strategy. (1)
a.
Banna
le
basadi
ba
(/*di)
sebetsa
NC2.man and NC2.woman SM2 (/*SM8)
work
‘The men and the women are working’
b.
Mashodu
le maphela
a
(/*ba) sebetsa
NC6.thief and NC6.cockroachii SM6 (/*SM2) work ‘The thieves and the cockroaches are working’
c.
Ditsibi
le dira
ba (/*di)
bua
NC8.expert and NC8.enemy SM2 (/*SM8/10) talk ‘The experts and the enemies are talking’ Several accounts in the literature suggest that coordinate structures are avoided by speakers (e.g. Schadeberg 1992, Voeltz 1971) especially when conjuncts are from different noun classes. Sesotho speakers seem to resolve noun class conflicts fairly freely, making Sesotho an ideal language in which to study the phenomenon of resolution.
ͷǤͷ
This paper uses Sesotho subject-verb agreement – also called subject marking -- in preverbal coordination constructions to unpack some of the complex strategies involved in agreement resolution. It will be demonstrated that a complex range of agreement resolution effects follow from a finite number of ranked, violable constraints within an Optimality Theory framework (Prince and Smolensky 1993, McCarthy and Prince 1993), interacting with the structure of coordination itself. The paper makes no attempt to analyse agreement in postverbal contexts for lack of space and because of the complexity of this construction (for example, first-conjunct agreement occurs in these contexts) (Marten 2000, Van Koppen 2005, Riedel 2009). Locatives and infinitives also fall outside the scope of this paper and are consequently left to future research.
The structure of this paper is as follows. Section 1 outlines the nature of the problem and section 1.2 the methodology to be used. Section 2 overviews some agreement resolution
strategies including partial, semantic and phonological resolution.
From this review of the
literature, it appears that resolution is by definition a problem of selecting an optimal morphophonological form from overdetermined data and this motivates our choice of Optimality Theory as an analytical framework. Section 3 starts with a set of empirical generalizations and introduces data motivating the proposed ranking. Key issues are number resolution (section 3.1), a faithfulness constraint on noun class resolution (section 3.2) and the role of animacy which will eventually play a central role in the analysis (sections 3.3 and 3.4). Having established the constraint ranking, section 3.4 applies it to the descriptive generalizations from section 3 including (un)balanced coordination of singulars and plurals. The section ends with a discussion of some interesting contrasts, and eventually argues for a binary animacy distinction between +-HUMAN rather than an animacy hierarchy per se.
ͷǤ The Sesotho data used in this study were collected over the course of several interviews with three Rhodes University students who volunteered for this study. All three respondents are mother-tongue speakers of Sesotho, and all three are in their early twenties. The interviews were conducted in informal environments in order to set the respondents at their ease, and counter-act any impression that they might have that they were being tested on their knowledge of Sesotho. They were also explicitly told that they were not being tested, and that the information that was being elicited from them could not be found in any textbooks. They were also encouraged to give any comments which they thought relevant to the structures being elicited. After having established the noun classes of various nouns for the speaker, we constructed a comprehensive list of possible combinations for each noun class. DP1 [SG] and DP2 [SG] DP1 [PL] and DP2 [PL] DP2 [SG] and DP1 [SG] DP2 [PL] and DP1 [PL] The first two constructions in this paradigm were designed to determine whether the number features on the conjuncts would influence the choice of SM, whilst the third and fourth constructions in the paradigm were used to determine whether the order of the conjuncts affected the choice of SM. The paradigm was repeated with conjuncts of varying animacy,
especially [+HUMAN] referents in noun classes other than NC1/2. After examining the responses the respondents were approached for follow up sessions to disprove hypotheses, and investigate anomalies and pragmatic effects.
2. Agreement resolution strategies The primary focus of the interviews was agreement resolution. Agreement resolution occurs when the resulting agreement on a constituent is not identical to the controller of agreement, but is derived from it, for example, by semantic means: “a resolution rule derives the agreement features of a coordinate NP on the basis of the features of all the individual conjuncts” (Wechsler 2002:1). In (2), number agreement on the predicate is plural although each of the DP conjuncts is singular. Semantically, it is quite plausible to suggest that the set consisting of a boy and a girl constitute a plural set, which in turn triggers agreement. (2) The boy and the girl are reading While number has a truth-value, grammatical gender is entirely formal and language specific. Consequently, it is less plausible to invoke resolution on universal semantic grounds, and languages differ significantly about which strategies they use to resolve gender mismatches (Corbett 1983; Acuña-Fariña 2009 inter alia). For instance, French uses masculine as a default gender in these contexts (3). (3) Le garçon et la fille sont intelligents (m.pl) / * intelligentes (f.pl) The boy and the girl are intelligent.
(French)
As we can see from French there often tends to be a “default gender” (c.f. Corbett & Fraser 2000) - in this case it is masculine. However, in the case of languages where there are more than just two or three genders, the issue of gender agreement becomes considerably more complex when conjuncts of different genders are co-ordinated.
The Bantu languages are a case in point. Although they do not necessarily have gender in the Indo-European sense of the word, they utilize noun classes where odd-numbered nounclasses represent singulars and even-numbered noun classes represent plurals. iii Example (4a,b) illustrates this. (4) a. Ntja
e loma leshodu
NC9.dog SM9 bite thief The dog bites the thief
b. Dintja di loma leshodu NC10.dog SM10 bite thief The dogs bite the thief
(Sesotho)
Although there may be as many as twenty three noun classes in the Bantu languages (Meinhof, 1948), no language contains all twenty three. Sesotho (S33), for example, has NC1–10 and NC14 – 18 (see table 1iv), and isiXhosa (S41) has NC1–11 and NC14–15. Noun classes for the singular
Noun classes for the plural
Class
Noun
Subject
Class
Noun
Subject
number
prefix
marker on
number
prefix
marker on
verb
verb
1
Mo-
O
→
2
Ba-
ba
3
Mo-
o
→
4
Me-
e
5
Le-
Le
→
6
Ma-
a
7
Se-
Se
→
8
Di-
di
9
N-
E
→
10
Di-
di
14
Bo-
Bo
→
6
Ma-
a
Table 1: Sesotho Noun Classes and their morphological reflexes
The literature identifies a number of agreement strategies (Corbett & Mtenje 1987, Marten 2000, Riedel 2006, Schadeberg 1992, Voeltz 1971 inter alia), including avoidance of the construction, default agreement, partial agreement, phonological resolution and proximity agreement, which differ dialectally and even idiolectally. Although some treatments of resolution exist for other languages (e.g. Corbett & Mtenje 1987 (Chichewa)), there is no unified explanation for the Sesotho agreement patterns.
2.1 Partial Agreement In addition to resolution, another eesponse to agreement mismatch contexts is partial agreement. This occurs when the predicate is inflected with agreement features for only one of the conjuncts in a coordinated phrase. Corbett (1991) offers two diagnostics to distinguish between resolution and partial agreement: (i) Gender is resolved if, and only if, number is also resolved, it is otherwise most likely a case of partial agreement; and (ii) Partial
agreement is sensitive to the order of the conjuncts, whereas resolution is not. Badecker (2007:1544) points out that partial agreement is more likely to occur when the target of agreement (e.g. the verb or the predicate) precedes the controller – this is known as ‘targetsource order’. In such cases the target usually agrees with the highest conjunct – thus also resulting in an instance of closest conjunct agreement (henceforth CCA) (see also Riedel 2006, Sambaa; Marten 2000, Kiswahili).
CCA tends to be most common in source-target configurations although there are exceptions e.g. Slovene (Marušič & Nevins, 2009), Ndebele and Kiswahili (Marten, 2000) and it exists as a systematic `error’ in English under certain conditions (Eberhard 1997).
Marten (2000) found that in Kiswahili CCA is conditioned by animacy/humanness and by linear order. Source-target CCA is not allowed if the conjuncts are both from NC1/2 (5a,b), whereas when the coordinated phrase (henceforth &P) follows the predicate, CCA is allowed with NC1/2 conjuncts, as (5c,d) illustrates. (5) a. Haroub
na
Naila wa-li-kuja
NC1.Haroub and NC1.Naila SM2-past-come
‘Haroub and Naila came’ [NC1 & NC1 SM2] b. *Haroub
na Naila
a-li-kuja
NC1.Harou and NC1.Naila SM1-past-come
Int.: Haroub and Naila came’ [NC1 & NC1 SM1]
c. Wa-li-kuja
Haroub
na Naila
SM2-past-come NC1.Haroub and NC1.Naila
‘Haroub and Naila came’ [SM2 NC1 & NC1] d. A-li-kuja
Haroub
na
Naila
SM1-past-come NC1.Haroub and NC1.Naila
‘Haroub and Naila came’ [SM1 NC1 & NC1] (Kiswahili, Marten 2000:9--11) This asymmetry has parallels in other languages: English also allows for partial agreement when the subject follows the verb (e.g.: There is [a cat and a dog] in the house). This seems to indicate that resolution is more likely to occur with preverbal subjects (See also Marten 2000). It is for this reason that this study focuses on preverbal subject constructions v
2.2 Semantic resolution Corbett & Mtenje (1987) point out that semantic qualities such as animacy play a role in agreement paradigms in Chichewa. When both conjuncts have a [+HUMAN]
feature,
agreement is resolved to the plural of NC1/2, regardless of which noun class the conjuncts are from, and whether or not the conjuncts are NC-balanced, as examples (6a,b) show. (6) a. Mkazi
ndi mwana
a-ku-yenda
NC1.woman and NC1.child SM2-pres-walk The woman and child are walking b. Mbala
i-modzi ndi chitsilu chi-modzi a-ku-meny-ana
NC9.thief ag9-one and NC7.fool ag7-one SM2-pres-hit-recip One thief and one fool are fighting (Chichewa, Corbett & Mtenje 1987:30-32) Similarly, when two singular non-human conjuncts of the same noun class are co-ordinated the target does not agree with the plural of that noun class (7a) but with a default plural marker that tends to denote semantically non-human entities (7b). (7) a. *Mpeni
ndi mphika
i-ku-sowa.
NC3.knife and NC3.pot SM4–pres–missing Knife and pot are missing. b. Mpeni
ndi
mphika zi-ku-sowa.
NC3.knife and NC3.pot SM8/10–pres–missing Knife and pot c. Mipeni
are missing
ndi miphika
i-ku-sowa.
NC4.knife and NC4.pot SM4 –pres–missing Knives and pots
are missing. (Chichewa, Corbett & Mtenje 1987:20)
Similar results occur when conjoining two singular entities as well as two plural entities from different nouns classes: again, agreement resolution comes into operation, and the target takes the default agreement zi-. However, if two plural conjuncts from the same noun class are coordinated, then no resolution rule needs to operate, and so the target took the plural agreement of that noun class, as shown in (7c).
For mixed conjuncts, Corbett & Mtenje (1987) found that when conjuncts with the [+HUMAN] feature were co-ordinated with conjuncts with the [-HUMAN] feature, no
satisfactory resolution could be found; no matter which subject marker was used, the resulting sentence would be viewed as ungrammatical or, at the very least, not quite right. Rather, this sort of co-ordination tended to be avoided, and the comitative construction was used instead. Avoidances of this type of structure have also been reported by Schadeberg (1992). However, Corbett & Mtenje (1987) found that if co-ordination was forced, the subject marker for the non-human conjunct was preferred (1987:33).
Consequently, it appears the semantic notions such as animacy affect the availability of default agreement. Moreover, this is contingent on number. In a nutshell, the generalizations of Corbett & Mtenje (1987) are that for singular conjuncts and NC-unbalanced plural conjuncts agreement resolves to a default SM (SM2 for [+HUMAN] conjuncts; SM8/10 for [–HUMAN] conjuncts). For NC-balanced plural conjuncts, no resolution tends to take place and the SM is the plural SM corresponding to the noun classes of the conjuncts.vi It will be seen in section three that a similar pattern occurs in Sesotho.
2.3 Phonological resolution Another resolution strategy used in some Bantu languages is phonological resolution (Voeltz 1971). The literature on gender agreement seems to indicate that isiXhosa is far more restrictive than Chichewa in terms of what classes of conjuncts it allows to be co-ordinated. Like Chichewa (c.f. section 2.2), when two singular conjuncts of the same noun class are coordinated, the target cannot take the plural agreement of that noun classvii (9). (8) *Umlambo no-mjelo river3
i-bon-w-a
ngu-ye
and-water3 SM4-see-PASS-FV by-him
The river and water were seen by him. (isiXhosa, Young 2005:5, cited in Zeller 2008:233) Unlike Chichewa, however, Voeltz (1971) seems to indicate that there would be no satisfactory resolution strategy, such as default agreement (c.f. (7b) above), claiming: “in isiXhosa it is not possible to resolve agreement conflict of conjoined nouns of different genders” (1971:41). Rather, the comitative structure tends to be used. There is, however, one circumstance in which he finds that is possible: resolution under phonological identity. Phonological resolution refers to when the resolution of two conflicting features is licensed by the fact that the relevant features share the same phonological form (Pullum & Zwicky 1986). Voeltz (1971) found that phonological resolution does in fact occur in isiXhosa, in
three particular circumstances; two of these circumstances will not be discussed here, as they relate to adjectival concord. With regard to subject-verb agreement, however, phonological resolution is employed only when the conjuncts are plural nouns from NC7/8, NC9/10 and NC11/10; this is because these noun classes all share the plural concord marker ‘zi-’ (9). (9) Izibonda
n-eenjingalwazi
zi-ya-thetha
NC8.mayor and-NC10.profesor SM8/10-pres-talk The mayors and the professors are talking Voeltz claims that, in isiXhosa, phonological resolution of subject-verb concord will only occur in this context; furthermore, he goes on to claim that this context is in fact the only context where any type of resolution of verbal concord can occur (at least, on this level of the agreement hierarchy – further along on the hierarchy the situation changesviii). In the course of this study the possibility of phonological resolution also occurring in Sesotho is investigated.
2.4 Optimality Theory and resolution The previous sections have outlined some existing approaches to agreement resolution. By definition, resolution applies in contexts where the morphophonological form of agreement is underdetermined by the data. This is precisely the domain where Optimality Theory (OT) (Prince and Smolensky 1993) has traditionally been used to analyse the process of choosing the most optimal of a set of competing candidates and it is for this reason that we have chosen to analyse our data within this framework.
OT is a theoretical framework approaches
morphosyntactic competition by positing the existence of a finite set of universal, violable constraints.
The universality of language is captured by the universal constraints. The
parametric variation of language is captured by their language-specific rankings. In addition, OT is desirable from a meta-scientific perspective. To the extent that every analysis is also a description at some level, it also provides a metalanguage to express descriptive generalizations.
Moreover these have predictive force for the language in
question and therefore constitute an analysis too. OT makes testable and falsifiable claims about possible rankings as well as the typologies resulting from a set of constraints which, ultimately pending future research, may help to explain the range of variation across other Bantu languages.
3. An analysis for the Sesotho data Based on our informants’ responses to more than 170 exemplars which tested a wide range of possible conjunctions of different noun classes, we have identified the following descriptive generalizations. (10a/b) are somewhat similar to the results reported for Chichewa by Corbett & Mtenje (1987) and probably represents a broad typological pattern in many Bantu languages (including Chichewa, and isiXhosa to some extent). (10c) shows that Sesotho differs from what Corbett & Mtenje (1987) report for Chichewa. The pattern in (10d) is common to many Bantu languages. (10) For NC-balanced conjuncts: a. Coordinated singular DPs take a “default” plural SM i.e. either `di’ (nonhuman) or `ba’ (human) depending on animacy of conjuncts. b. Coordinated plurals take the expected plural SM for the relevant NC. c. Exceptions are NC-balanced [+HUMAN] coordination for NC8 and NC10 which are expressed as `ba’, instead of `di’ which is the expected SM for these noun classes. For NC-unbalanced conjuncts: d. Singulars and plurals express “default” agreement i.e. either `di’ or `ba’ depending on animacy of the conjuncts. Conjunctions of [+HUMAN] and [-HUMAN], however yield inconsistent results and/or ineffability. The question that arises is how speakers know when to employ which strategy? And if two strategies are both possibly applicable to the same situation, is there a systematic preference for one over the other? Thus any analysis proposed for such a data set should explain the following: (11) a) what the various constraints on agreement are, and b) in which order they apply. The constraints that we will draw upon are listed here for convenience but will be discussed in more detail as the paper progresses. (12)
a. Resolve number: Number must be resolved for coordinated phrases in preverbal position i.e. conjoined NPs yield a plural SM. b. Max Noun Class For every noun class in the input, there must be a corresponding SM in the output. c. Dep Animacy: The ±HUMAN contrast expressed by the SM output, must be expressed semantically by each conjunct in the input.
d. Max Animacy: The semantic ±HUMAN contrast expressed by each conjunct must be expressed morphologically by the SM in the output.
3.1
Number resolution as a prerequisite for gender resolution.
Our data show that if two singular entities are conjoined in preverbal position, they must undergo number resolution, so that a plural SM is used, even if both conjuncts are individually singular. (13) Monna
le
mosadi
ba / *o
sebesta
NC1.man and NC1.woman SM2 / SM1 work ‘The man and the woman is working’. By contrast, when the conjuncts are both plural, number resolution does not have to occur, as the target can simply copy the plural features directly from both conjuncts, as (1a) shows.
It is a property of coordination that when singular DPs are coordinated, the feature value on the &P maximal projection is plural i.e. that the feature value is resolved for number. When &P is in preverbal position, then only &P c-commands the probe and consequently, first conjunct agreement is disallowed, effectively ensuring that number resolution is the only available agreement strategy (cf. Aoun, Benmamoun and Sportiche 1994, Munn 1999, Doron 2000, Soltan 2006, Van Koppen 2005 and Johannessen 1998).
(14)
The requirement that after a co-ordination the SM must reflect plural features may be expressed by the following rule which is grounded in the behaviour of coordination generally as explained above.
(15) Resolve Number Number must be resolved i.e. conjoined DPs in preverbal position yield a plural SM.ix (16) e.g.14 1[HUMAN] & 1[HUMAN]
Resolve Number
a. b.
*!
SM2 (ba) SM1 (o)
(17) e.g.1a 2[HUMAN] & 2[HUMAN]
Resolve Number
a. b.
*!
SM2 (ba) SM1 (o)
In both (16) and (17), SM2 expresses plurality as required by &P whereas SM1 does not and therefore incurs a violation. Note that in (17), number resolution applies vacuously.
It should be noted, that this is probably a deep property of the structure of coordination itself. Some might argue that it is consequently not necessary to include it as a separate constraint in a tableau since this would imply it has an ontological status. We will not take a position on this issue in this paper: it is simply convenient to treat this as a constraint as we feel that failing to do so would obscure the generalizations we are trying to make.
3.2
Do not resolve Noun Class
Unlike Resolve Number, the next constraint expresses a desire for continuity with respect to noun class. (18) Max Noun Class (“Do not Resolve Noun Class”): For every noun class in the input, there must be a corresponding SM in the output. This faithfulness constraint militates against partial agreement and resolution. Resolution means that the output is not identical to the input; partial agreement means there will be one conjunct whose noun class is not reflected in the SM. Where the conjuncts are NC-balanced, this constraint ensures that the SM reflects the noun class of both of the conjuncts x . A
violation is incurred if the potential SM does not reflect the noun class of both of its conjuncts. (19) Menwana le
melala
e
bohloko
4.finger and 4.neck SM4 be.sore ‘The fingers and the necks are sore’ (20) 4[INANIMATE] &4[INANIMATE]
Resolve Number
MAX Noun Class
a. SM4 (e) b. SM8/10 (di) *! c. SM2 (ba) *! d. SM3 (o) *! Tableau (20) represents NC-balanced coordination of inanimate conjuncts from NC4. Candidate (d) violates Resolve Number.xi Candidates (b,c) have SMs that do not express NC4 and thus violate Max Noun Class. However, in candidate (a), each conjunct’s noun class is reflected by the same SM4 “e”.
The same arguments apply to tableau (21) which
represents NC-balanced coordination of +HUMAN conjuncts (cf 1b). It will be noted this explains the descriptive generalization in (10b). (21) e.g. 1b
6[HUMAN] & 6[HUMAN]
a. b. c.
SM6 (a) SM2 (ba) SM8/10 (di)
Resolve Number
Max Noun Class *! *!
Tableau (23) represents a slightly different possibility. Candidate (b) violates Max Noun Class because of noun class of neither conjunct is expressed by SM2 “ba”. With respect to candidate (a), however, it should be noted that NC8/10 have a morphologically identical SMs “di”. Thus, for candidate (a) the noun classes of both conjuncts are expressed by the same SM “di” under morphological identity and no violation is incurred. This constraint thus favours two particular classes of conjoined subjects: (i) where the conjuncts both come from the same plural noun class, and thus have the same SM and (ii) where the conjuncts come from two different noun classes which happen to have phonologically identical plural SMs. This constraint thus subsumes “phonological” resolution (Voeltz 1971).
(22) Diipone le dihempe di
feili
8.mirror and 10.shirt SM8/10 dirty ‘The mirrors and the shirts are dirty’ (23) 8 [INANIMATE] & 10[INANIMATE]
a. SM8/10 (di) b. SM2 (ba)
3.3
Resolve Number
Max Noun Class *!
The ±HUMAN contrast
One feature which appears to be particularly significant in determining the form of the resolved agreement features is that of animacy in general and the ±HUMAN contrast in particular. When two human-denoting nouns from any noun class are conjoined, the gender features always resolve to the plural concord from NC2. The reason for this may be that since most [+HUMAN] nouns are in NC1/2, and since this noun class consists exclusively of human-denoting nouns, SM1/2 may have come to denote animacy more generally through grammaticalization. We therefore consider the subject marker from this class (ba-) as the default subject marker for human referents.
Similarly, speakers tend to feel a sense of great discomfort at the prospect of using the di- SM for human conjuncts – even if both conjuncts come from a noun class which would call for this form – because they feel that it expresses “non-humanness”. Following explicit remarks along these lines by our informant, we postulate that SM8/10 “di” has come to be seen as the default concord for non-human entities (i.e. animals and inanimate objects).
The animacy restrictions in Sesotho can be captured by two constraints on animacy from the Dep/Max group of constraints. Dep constraints require that for every X in the output, there is a corresponding Y in the input; Max constraints require that for every Y in the input, there is a corresponding X in the input (Kager 1999: 205). (24) Dep Animacy: The ±HUMAN contrast expressed by the SM output, must be expressed semantically by each conjunct in the input, where ba- expresses ‘[+HUMAN]’, and di- expresses ‘[-HUMAN]’. This constraint demands that when the SM2 “ba” appears in the output, each conjunct must denote a [+HUMAN] entity; when the SM8/10 appears in the output, then each conjunct must
denote a [–HUMAN] referent. Importantly, when any other SM (e.g. SM6 “a”) appears on the predicate, then that SM is underspecified with respect to ±HUMAN and thus no violation is incurred for human or non-human conjuncts. (25) e.g.22 8 [INAMINATE] & cont. 10[INANIMATE]
SM8/10 (di) SM6 (a) SM2 (ba)
a. b. c.
Resolve Number
Dep Animacy
Max Noun Class
*!
*! *
In tableau (25), candidate (c) violates Dep Animacy because SM2 “ba” expresses [+HUMAN] and there is no corresponding human referent in either conjunct. Candidate (b) does not violate Dep Animacy because SM6 “a” is underspecified for humanness and thus incurs no violations. However, candidate (b) violates Max Noun Class because the noun classes of neither conjunct are expressed by SM6. The optimal candidate is (a); SM8/10 “di” expresses [–HUMAN] which corresponds to each conjunct. Moreover it does not violate Max Noun Class because each conjunct’s noun class is expressed by the SM by phonological identity.
The previous subsection explored one type of animacy constraint. The second type of animacy constraint from the Dep/Max class of constraints is Max Animacy. (26) Max Animacy: The semantic ±HUMAN contrast expressed by each conjunct must be expressed morphologically by the SM in the output, where ba- expresses ‘[+HUMAN]’, and di- expresses ‘[-HUMAN]’.
The following tableau demonstrates how Max Animacy contrasts with Dep Animacy. (27) e.g. 1b cont. a. b. c.
6 [HUMAN] & 6[HUMAN] SM6 (a) SM2 (ba) SM8/10 (di)
Resolve Number
Dep Animacy
Max Noun Class
Max Animacy *!
*!
*! *
*
In tableau (27), each conjunct of the input denotes a [+HUMAN] referent and this is not explicitly expressed in SM6 “a” (for candidate (a)) or by SM8/10 “di” (for candidate (c)). Candidates (a) and (c) therefore incur violations of Max Animacy. This contrasts with Dep
Animacy where crucially, as explained in section 3.3.1, the output SM6 “a” for candidate (a) is underspecified with respect to humanness. Consequently under Dep Animacy, candidate (a) does not incur a violation. Tableau (27) also shows that Max Noun Class dominates Max Animacy; if the ranking were inverted, candidate (b) would be optimal.xii
Ǥͺ
Having introduced the necessary constraints, we will now proceed to show how they account for the generalizations in (10).
It will be noted that (27) accounts for generalization (10b). Tableau (27) can be compared to (29) which has inanimate conjuncts; the same logic applies. These two types of animacy constraints in conjunction with the MAX Noun Class constraint work together in Sesotho to derive the generalization in (10b): NC-balanced coordinated plurals yield the expected SM for their noun class (as opposed to singulars which have resolved SMs, either “di” or “ba” depending on their animacy status). (28) Mahapu
le Mahe
a
tafoleng
6.watermelon and 6.egg SM6 table.LOC ‘The watermelons and the eggs are on the table’. (29) 6 [INAMIMATE] & 6[INANIMATE] a. b. c.
SM6 (a) SM8/10 (di) SM2 (ba)
Resolve Number
Dep Animacy
Max Noun Class
*!
*! *
Max Animacy *! *
When singulars are conjoined (31), these constraints conspire to ensure that unlike (27) and (29), the SM expresses a default marker according to the animacy status of the conjuncts i.e. SM2 for [+HUMAN] conjuncts and SM8/10 for [–HUMAN] conjuncts. Thus these constraints capture generalization (10a). (30) Lehapu
le lehe
di
tafoleng
5.watermelon and 5.egg SM8 table.LOC ‘The watermelon and the egg are on the table’. (31)
5[INANIMATE]&5[INANIMATE] Resolve Number
a. SM8/10 (di) b. SM6 (a) c. SM2 (ba) d. SM5 (le)
Dep Animacy
Max Noun Class * * *
*! *
*!
Max Animacy *! * *
The same analysis can also account for the “exception” in (10c cf 1c): contrary to (10b), coordination of [+HUMAN] NC8 and NC10 in any combination yields a resolved SM2 “ba” instead of what generalization (10b) predicts, namely SM8/10 “di”. xiii (32) e.g. 1c
8 [HUMAN] & 8[HUMAN]
a. b. c.
SM2 (ba) SM4 (e) SM8/10 (di)
Resolve Dep Number Animacy
Max Noun Class * *
*!
Max Animacy *! *
Tableau (32) shows a configuration where human conjuncts from NC8 are coordinated. Candidate (c) incurs a violation of Dep Animacy because the output SM8/10 “di” expresses [–HUMAN] which does not match that [+HUMAN] status of the conjuncts. Candidate (b) is underspecified with respect to humanness and does not incur a violation of Dep Animacy as a result. Both candidates (a) and (b) violate Max Noun Class because neither SM output matches the noun class of the conjuncts. Finally, candidate (b) incurs a violation of Max Animacy because the +HUMAN status of the conjuncts is not reflected in SM4 “e”, whereas candidate (a) does.
xiv
The same effect as in (32) is seen with NC-unbalanced [+HUMAN] conjuncts from NC8/10. (33) Dingaka
le ditsibi
10.doctor and 8.expert
ba bua SM2 talk
‘The doctors and the experts are talking’. (34) 10[HUMAN] & 8[HUMAN] a. SM2 (ba) b. SM4 (e)
Resolve Number
Dep Animacy
Max Noun Class * *
Max Animacy !*
c. SM8/10 (di) *! * In (34), the argumentation is the same as for (32) with respect to Dep Animacy and will not be re-explained here. However, only in candidate (c) are the noun classes of the conjuncts expressed in the SM. In both candidates (a,b) the noun classes of the conjuncts are not expressed by the SM and incur violations of Max Noun Class.
With respect to Max
Animacy, the [+HUMAN] character of the input is explicitly expressed by (a) but by neither candidate (b,c).
In this way, generalization (10b) and the putative ‘exception’ to it (10c) are captured from the same set of constraints. This is powerful evidence in favour of the proposed analysis.
Other types of unbalanced coordination are also captured by the analysis. Generalization (10d) states that NC-unbalanced conjuncts resolve to SM8/10 “di” if they are [–HUMAN] and SM2 “ba” if they are [+HUMAN]. (35) Melomo le diledu
di bohloko
4.mouth and 8.chin SM8/10 sore ‘The mouths and the chins are sore’. (36) 4[INANIMATE] & 8[INANIMATE]
Resolve Number
Dep Animacy
Max Noun Class
Max Animacy
a. SM8/10 (di) * b. SM4 (e) * !* c. SM2 (ba) *! * * In tableau (36), SM2 expresses animacy which is not reflected in the conjuncts thereby incurring a violation of Dep Animacy. All candidates violate Max Noun Class: neither NC4 nor NC8 is corresponds to SM2 “ba” (candidate (c)); for candidates (a) and (b), one conjunct’s noun class is not expressed in the SM and thus incur violations: they are SM4 and SM8 respectively.
With respect to Max Animacy, both inanimate conjuncts have a
correspondent in SM8/10, but not in candidates (b) and (c). Consequently, candidate (a) is the optimal candidate.
Tableau (38) demonstrates that the same effects apply to [+HUMAN] NC-unbalanced coordination; the result is resolution to SM2 “ba”.
(37) Dingaka le basadi
ba bua
10.doctor and 2.woman SM2 talk ‘The doctors and the women are talking’. (38) 10[HUMAN]&2[HUMAN] a. SM2 (ba) b. SM4 (e) c. SM8/10 (di)
Resolve Number
Dep Animacy
Max Noun Class
Max Animacy
*!
* * *
!* *
Finally, although animals are potentially problematic as conjuncts in some languages, the postulated ranking gives the correct results on the assumption (made earlier) that Sesotho has a binary animacy system where SM8/10 “di” expresses [–HUMAN] and is consistent with both animal and inanimate referents. xv The generalization is that coordination involving animals always yields SM 8/10 regardless of whether the conjuncts are singular or plural. (39) Letata le ntja
di
ya tsamaya
5.duck and 9.dog SM8/10 pres. walk ‘The dog and the duck are walking’. (40) 5 [ANIMAL] & 9[ANIMAL]
a. b. c.
SM8/10 (di) SM2 (ba) SM4 (a)
Resolve Number
Dep Animacy *!
Max NC * * *
Max Animacy * *!
In (40), since number resolution has occurred all candidates violate Max NC. With respect to Max Animacy, [+ANIMAL] conjuncts are both expressed in candidate (a) SM8/10 “di” since both are [–HUMAN].
The conjunction of [+HUMAN] and [–HUMAN] conjuncts (i.e. animals and inanimates) will yield no clear winners with this constraint ranking.
Consequently, it is predicted that
informants will tend to use other strategies as a last resort, including ineffability. This is exactly the case: these examples are ineffable. The accuracy of this prediction speaks to the strength of this analysis.
(41) *Monna le njta ba/di
ya teropong
2.man and 9.dog SM2/10
go town.loc
Int.: ‘The man and the dog are going to town’. (42) 2[HUMAN] & 9[ANIMAL]
a. b. c.
SM8/10 (di) SM2 (ba) SM4 (a)
Resolve Number
Dep Animacy
Max NC
Max Animacy
* * *
* * *
Ǥͻ
The constraint ranking argued for here was tested with OTSOFT (Hayes, Tesar and Zuraw 2003) and shown to be the only possible ranking for the data. However, there are a few specific instances where the analysis gives the wrong prediction.
The exceptions are systematic insofar as they are classifiable: they are all instances of NCunbalanced coordination of plural referents from NC4 and NC6. However, our language informant sometimes gave contradictory data and no pattern seems discernible. The respondent used a number of strategies. In (43) she chose SM6, regardless of which was the closer conjunct. In (44), the informant systematically chose SM4 regardless of linear order. In (45), she seemed to use Closest Conjunct Agreement. (43) a. Melomo le matsoho a bohloko 4.mouth and 6.hand SM6 sore ‘The mouths and hands are sore’ b. Matsoho le melomo a bohloko 6.hand and 4.mouth SM6 sore ‘The hands and mouths are sore’ (44) a. Meropa le
matata e
ka kamoreng
4.drum and 6.duck SM4 in room.LOC. ‘The drums and the ducks are in the room’. b. Matata le meropa e ka kamoreng 6.duck and 4.drum SM4 in room.LOC. ‘The ducks and the drums are in the room’.
(45) a. Meropa le
maphela
a
ka kamoreng
4.drum and 6.cockroach SM6 in room.LOC. ‘The drums and the cockroaches are in the room’. b. Maphela
le meropa e ka kamoreng
6.cockroach and 4.drum SM4 in room.LOC. ‘The cockroaches and the drums are in the room’. We will leave this group of systematic exceptions to future research. It is notable that NC4/6 are the only plural noun classes in the Sesotho paradigm where the SM is not phonologically identical to the noun prefix and this may be exploited in a future analysis.
ͶǤ
This paper has argued for a constraint ranking that accounts for almost all agreement patterns in Sesotho conjoined DPs. The system validates, for Sesotho, the claims by Voeltz (1971) that phonological resolution plays a role in isiXhosa and Chichewa respectively (cf. Max Noun Class). It also argues for a binary animacy system in Sesotho (cf. the interaction between Max/Dep Animacy). CCA and partial agreement play no role other than as surfacelevel descriptions of data such as (45).
The analysis also correctly predicts the
generalizations in (10a-d). Interestingly, the analysis breaks down in the same contexts where the informant found difficulty in providing judgements, namely coordination of humans and inanimates.xvi This strongly suggests the accuracy of the analysis.
Bibliography Acuña-Fariña J. 2009. The linguistics and psycholinguistics of agreement: A Tutorial Overview. Lingua 119: 389–424. Aoun, J. Benmamoun E. and Sportiche D. 1994. Agreement, word order and conjunction in some varieties of Arabic. Linguistic Inquiry 25: 195--220 Badecker W. 2007. A Feature Priciple for Partial Agreement. Lingua 117: 1541-1565. Corbett G. 1979. The Agreement Hierarchy. Journal of Linguistics 15: 203-224. Corbett G. 1983. Resolution Rules: Agreement in Person, Number, and Gender. In: Gazdar G, Klein E & Pullum G (eds), Order, Concord and Constituency: pp. 174-206. Dordrecht: Foris Publications. Corbett G. 1991. Gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Corbett G & Fraser N. 2000. Default Genders. In Unterbeck B & Rissanen M (eds) Gender in Grammar and Cognition, Vol. 1. Approaches to gender, Vol. 2. Manifestations of gender pp. 55-97. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Corbett G & Mtenje A. 1987. Gender Agreement in Chichewa. Studies in African Linguistics 181: 1-38. De Swart P, Lamers M & Lestrade S. 2008. Animacy, Argument Structure, and Argument Encoding. Lingua 118: 131-140. Doron, E. 2000. VSO and left-conjunct agreement: Biblical Hebrew vs. Modern Hebrew. In A. Carnie and E. Guilfoyle (Eds). The syntax of verb initial languages. Oxford Studies in comparative Syntax. pp75--96. Eberhard K. 1997. The marked effect of number on subject-verb agreement. Journal of Memory and Language 36: 147—164. Hayes
B,
Tesar
B
&
Zuraw
K. 2003. "OTSoft 2.3.1," software package,
http://www.linguistics.ucla.edu/people/hayes/otsoft/ (accessed November 2011) Hristov B. 2011. Animacy and Agreement with Conjoined Noun Phrases. In Bulgarian. Language at the University of Essex 2010 Proceedings, pp. 51-63. Johannessen J-B. 1998. Coordination. Oxford University Press, New York. Kager R. 1999. Optimality Theory. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. Marten L. 2000. Agreement with conjoined noun phrases in Swahili. Afrikanistische Arbeitspapiere: Swahili Forum VII, 64: 75-96. Marušič F & Nevins A. 2009. Two Types of Neuter: Closest-Conjunct Agreement in the Presence of ‘5 and ups’. Paper presented at Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 18: May 15-17 , Cornell University. http://dash.harvard.edu (Accessed 10 November 2011) Meinhof C. 1948. Grundzüge einer Vergleichenden Grammatik der Bantusprachen. Hamburg: Eckardt & Messtorff. Munn, A. 1999. First conjunt agreement: against a clausal analysis. Linguistic Inquiry 30: 643--668. Prince A & Smolensky P. 1993. Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar. Technical report no. 2, Rutgers University Center for Cognitve Science. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press . Pullum G & Zwicky A. 1986. Phonological Resolution of Syntactic Feature Conflict. Language 624: 751-773.
Riedel K. 2009. The Syntax of Object Marking in Sambaa: A comparative Bantu perspective. PhD dissertation. Leiden University, The Netherlands. Schadeberg T. 1992. A sketch of Swahili morphology. Köln: R. Köppe. Soltan, U. 2006. Standard Arabic subject-verb agreement asymmetry revisited in an Agreebased minimalist syntax. Agreement systems. Cedric Boeckx (Ed), 239–265. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Van Koppen M. 2005. One Probe, Two Goals: aspects of agreement in Dutch dialects. Phd dissertation. Leiden University, The Netherlands. Voeltz E. 1971. Surface Constraints and Agreement Resolution: Some Evidence from Xhosa. Studies in African Linguistics 21: 37-60. Wechsler S. 2002 draft. ‘Elsewhere’ in Gender Resolution. In Hanson K & Inkelas S (eds) The Nature of the Word— Essays in Honor of Paul Kiparsky. MIT Press Zeller J. 2008. The subject marker in Bantu as an antifocus marker. Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics 38: 221-254.
NOTES i
Thanks are due to the NRF for their financial support, as well to our language consultants for their input, and finally to three anonymous reviewers and the audience of the Rhodes Linguistics Departmental Research Seminar for their comments. Authors are listed alphabetically. ii
Used in a metaphorical sense here: a derogatory term for a shady individual
iii
There are exceptions however: nouns from noun classes 14-18 in Sesotho tend to denote entities for which the languages recognise no plural, such as bread (NC14).
iv
NCs 15-18 are not shown in Table 1, and nor will they be discussed, as they relate to infinitives, and locatives.
v
Kiswahili is not the only language to prohibit partial agreement when the conjoined noun phrases denote animate entities, whilst allowing for partial agreement with inanimate/non-human entities: Hristov (2011) found that in co-ordination in Bulgarian, animate conjuncts exhibit a strong preference for resolution, whilst inanimate conjuncts tend to result in closest conjunct agreement; he thus argues that animacy is relevant to Bulgarian syntax. The same may be argued for Kiswahili, especially when one considers that it appears to be the case that only singular conjuncts from NC1/2 can result in full feature resolution (i.e. the predicate would show NC2 agreement), whereas singular conjuncts from all other noun classes must either resort to default agreement, or partial agreement, even if both conjuncts are from the same noun class (Marten 2000). vi
It is interesting to note however, that although no resolution rules needed to operate in these contexts, the default agreement zi- was still often considered acceptable when the conjuncts are non-human, although the plural subject marker of the relevant noun class was usually preferred. vii
The exception to this is noun class 1/2, which contains human entities. This already then seems to be an indication that animacy (or at least a [+HUMAN] feature on the conjuncts) plays a role in the grammar of IsiXhosa.
viii
The Agreement Hierarchy, as proposed by Corbett (1979), posits that cross-linguistically the different positions for agreement in a sentence may be arranged in a hierarchy: the further to the left of the hierarchy the position occurs, the stronger the likelihood is that syntactic agreement is used; the further to the right the position occurs, the more likely it is that semantic agreement is allowed. The hierarchy goes as follows (1979:204): attributive - predicate - relative pronoun - personal pronoun
x
The exception mentioned in (10c) will be explained by other constraints, discussed below
xi
For convenience and space, candidates violating Resolve Number will not be mentioned in the following tableaux.
xii
xiii
An anonymous reviewer points out that this would be the case in Kiswahili
For inanimate conjuncts from NC8 and NC10, generalization (10c) may apply vacuously since the output of (10b) and (10c) would be identical. xiv Incidentally, (32) also provides evidence that Dep Animacy dominates Max Noun Class. If the order were inverted, then candidate (c) would be the optimal candidate.
xv
We suspect that this may be a point of parametric variation: languages may differ on how to categorize animals and even within languages Pragmatic factors may also be implicated e.g. in many languages “cat” and “dog” agree differently. In Ritharngu, Australian language, for example, ‘higher’ animals (e.g. dogs) pattern more like humans, whilst ‘lower’ animals (e.g. insects) pattern more like inanimate; thus animacy appears to be something of a “gradient notion” (de Swart et al, 2008). As an anonymous reviewer suggests, the constraints in this analysis preclude partial and closest-conjunct agreement patterns. Since these patterns are not dominant in the seSotho data this is a moot point for this analysis. We take it as given that constraints priviledging CCA are simply low-ranked in seSotho and nothing prevents these from being ranked more highly in languages which rely on CCA as a consistent strategy (yet another possibility is that CCA may, for at least some languages such as English, be a parsing error and not part of linguistic competence). These issues remain for future research.
