Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-ksp62 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-07T16:22:05.625Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Applied Objects and the Syntax–Semantics Interface

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 June 2020

KYLE JERRO Open the ORCID record for KYLE JERRO [Opens in a new window]
KYLE JERRO*
Affiliation:
University of Essex
*
Author’s address: University of Essex, Wivenhoe Park, Colchester CO4 3SQ, UK k.jerro@essex.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper investigates the syntax–semantics interface within the domain of the realization of applied objects in Bantu languages, and I argue that the syntactic structure and semantic contribution of a given argument-licensing functional head (here, the applicative) do not covary. Specifically, I show that in principle, both high and low applicatives can (and should) be available with any type of applicative and not tied to a specific semantics (such as transfer of possession) or thematic role, as proposed in earlier work. Furthermore, I reject the centrality of thematic roles as a component of grammar that determines the grammatical function of applied objects, and I propose instead a typology of Bantu applied objects based on their semantic and morphological properties. This approach makes several predictions about applied objects: (i) syntactic and semantic diagnostics for high and low applicatives need not pattern together, (ii) syntactic asymmetry (such as c-command) can arise for applied objects which pattern symmetrically with other diagnostics (such as passivization), and (iii) the type of an applied object does not universally capture symmetry properties cross-linguistically. The view put forward in this paper provides a framework that can better capture this type of variation with object symmetry in Bantu languages as well as language-internal facts about applied objects; more generally, this paper sheds light on the nature of the syntax–semantic interface by showing that the meaning of a functional head is not necessarily determined by its syntactic position.

Keywords

applicative morphologyargument realizationBantu languagesobject symmetrysyntax–semantics interface

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 57 , Issue 2 , April 2021 , pp. 365 - 403
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

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

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

I would like to thank John Beavers, Michael Everdell, Hannah Gibson, Lutz Marten, Stephen Wechsler, and three anonymous reviewers for their comments and discussion around the ideas presented here. Some of the ideas here had their origins in my Ph.D. thesis (Jerro 2016b), though these have been extensively refined and expanded. This research was funded in part by NSF Grant #1451566. I am indebted to countless people’s generosity, patience, and hospitality, especially: the Zinkanda family in Gowa, Malawi; Justine and Hellen Sikuku in Eldoret, Kenya and the Sifuna family in Bungoma, Kenya; and my second home at the Urukundo Children’s Home in Muhanga, Rwanda. For their Kinyarwanda judgments, thank you to: Habarurema Gilbert, Ingabire Félicité, Munyaneza Olivier, Kansiime Oliver, Nyiracumi Olive, Cyubahiro Tresor, and Uwonkunda Devine. For their Lubukusu judgments, thank you to: Benson Sindani, Krispinas Wafula, Tetas Wekesa, Rogers Wanjala, Benson Masai, Matthews Wekesa, Wekesa Wafula, Joseph Barasa, Sikuku Barasa, Obadiah Wafula, Antony Makokha, Christine Watoka, and especially Hesborn Sumba Wandabwa. For judgments on Chicheŵa, thank you to: Geoff Mlongoti, Nafe Mlongoti, Theo Dolozi, and Mwalimu Mackwell as well as Besta, Reyfus Hampton, Namayenda, Mike, Innocent, and Happy George. All errors are entirely my own. The interlinear glosses for the data use the Leipzig Glossing Conventions, with the exception that numbers are used to indicate noun class and fv indicates ‘final vowel’.

References

Ackerman, F., Malouf, R. & Moore, J.. 2017. Symmetrical objects in Moro: Challenges and solutions. Journal of Linguistics 53.1, 3–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adams, N. 2010. The Zulu ditransitive verb phrase. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Alsina, A. 1996. Passive types and the theory of object asymmetries. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 14.4, 673–723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alsina, A. & Mchombo, S.. 1990. The syntax of applicatives in Chicheŵa: Problems for a theta-theoretic asymmetry. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 8, 493–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alsina, A. & Mchombo, S.. 1993. Object asymmetries and the Chicheŵa applicative construction. In Mchombo, S. (ed.), Theoretical aspects of Bantu grammar, 17–45. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Anagnostopoulou, E. 2003. The syntax of ditransitives. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Arad, M. 2005. Roots and patterns: Hebrew morpho-syntax. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Aranovich, R. 2009. Animacy effects and locative marking in Shona applicatives. In Butt, M. & King, T. (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG09 conference, 65–84. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Baker, M. 1988a. Incorporation: A theory of grammatical function changing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Baker, M. 1988b. Theta theory and the syntax of applicatives in Chicheŵa. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6, 353–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, M., Safir, K. & Sikuku, J.. 2012. Sources of (a)symmetry in Bantu double object constructions. In Arnett, N. & Bennett, R. (eds.), Proceedings of the 30th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 54–64. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Barss, A. & Lasnik, H.. 1986. A note on anaphora and double objects. Linguistic Inquiry 17, 347–354.Google Scholar
Bastin, Y. 1983. La finale verbale -ide et l’imbrication en Bantou. Sciences humaines, vol. 114. Tervuren: Annales du Musée Royal de l’Afrique Central.Google Scholar
Batibo, H. 1985. Le kesukuma (langue bantu de Tanzania): phonologie, morphologie. Paris: Centre de Recherches, d’Échanges et de Documentation Universitaire, Kenya.Google Scholar
Beavers, J. 2010. The structure of lexical meaning: Why semantics really matters. Language 86, 821–864.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beavers, J. 2011. An aspectual analysis of ditransitive verbs of caused possession in English. Journal of Semantics 28, 1–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beavers, J., Everdell, M., Jerro, K., Kauhanen, H., Koontz-Garboden, A., LeBovidge, E. & Nichols, S.. 2020. States and changes-of-state: A cross-linguistic study of the roots of verbal meaning. Unpublished ms. University of Texas at Austin, University of Essex, University of Manchester, University of Konstanz, University of Washington.Google Scholar
Beavers, J. & Koontz-Garboden, A.. 2017. The semantic contribution of idiosyncratic roots to ditransitive verbs. Proceedings of the 34th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Summerville: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Beavers, J. & Koontz-Garboden, A.. 2018. The roots of verbal meaning and the meaning of verbal roots. Unpublished book ms., The University of Texas at Austin and University of Manchester.Google Scholar
Beavers, J. & Koontz-Garboden, A.. 2020. The roots of verbal meaning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Bois, K. F. 1975. Bukusu generative phonology and aspects of Bantu structure. Tervuren: Musée Royal de l’Afrique Central.Google Scholar
Bond, O. 2009. The locative applicative in Eleme. Transactions of the Philological Society 107, 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, J. 1980. Polyadicity: Part I of a theory of lexical rules and representations. In Hoekstra, T., van der Hulst, H. & Moortgat, M. (eds.), Lexical grammar, 97–121. Dordrecht: Foris Publication.Google Scholar
Bresnan, J. 1994. Locative inversion and the architecture of universal grammar. Language 70, 72–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, J., Cueni, A., Nikitina, T. & Baayen, R. H.. 2007. Predicting the dative alternation. In Bouma, G., Kraemer, I. & Zwarts, J. (eds.), Cognitive foundations of interpretation, 69–94. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Science.Google Scholar
Bresnan, J. & Kanerva, J.. 1989. Locative inversion in Chicheŵa: A case study of factorization in grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 20, 1–50.Google Scholar
Bresnan, J. & Mchombo, S.. 1987. Topic, pronoun, and agreement in Chicheŵa. Language 63, 741–782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, J. & Mchombo, S.. 1995. The lexical integrity principle: Evidence from Bantu. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 13.2, 181–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, J. & Moshi, L.. 1990. Object asymmetries in comparative Bantu syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 21, 147–185.Google Scholar
Bruening, B. 2010. Ditransitive asymmetries and a theory of idiom formation. Linguistic Inquiry 41.4, 519–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buell, L. 2006. Issues in Zulu verbal morphosyntax. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Byarushengo, E., Duranti, A. & Hyman, L.. 1977. Haya grammatical structure. University of Southern California Press.Google Scholar
Cann, R. & Mabugu, P.. 2007. Constructional polysemy: The applicative construction in chiShona. Metalinguistica 19, 221–245.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1973. Conditions on transformations. In Anderson, S. & Kiparsky, P. (eds.), A festschrift for Morris Halle. New York City: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Kenstowicz, M. (ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Creissels, D. 2004. Non-canonical applicatives and focalization in Tswana. Paper presented at the symposium ‘Syntax of the World’s Languages’, Leipzig.Google Scholar
Croft, W. 1991. Syntactic categories and grammatical relations: The cognitive organization of information. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Cruse, D. A. 1973. Some thoughts on agentivity. Journal of Linguistics 9, 11–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diercks, M. 2011. Incorporating location in argument structure: The Lubukusu locative clitic. In Bokamba, E., Shosted, R. & Ayalew, B. T. (eds.), Selected proceedings of the 40th Annual Conference on African Linguistics: African languages and linguistics today, 65–79. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Diercks, M. 2012. Parameterizing Case: Evidence from Bantu. Syntax 15.3, 253–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diercks, M. & Sikuku, J.. 2011. The alternative agreement affect in Lubukusu. Unpublished ms., Pomona College and Moi University.Google Scholar
Dixon, R. & Aikhenvald, A.. 1997. A typology of argument-determined constructions. In Bybee, J., Haiman, J. & Thompson, S. (eds.), Essays on language function and language type: Dedicated to T. Givón, 71–113. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dowty, D. 1979. Word meaning and Montague grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dowty, D. 1989. On the semantic content of the notion ‘thematic role’. In Chierchia, G., Partee, B. H. & Turner, R. (eds.), Properties, types, and meaning, 69–130. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dowty, D. 1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67, 547–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dryer, M. 1983. Indirect objects in Kinyarwanda revisited. In Perlmutter, D. (ed.), Studies in relational grammar, vol. 1, 129–140. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Dunbar, E. & Wellwood, A.. 2016. Addressing the ‘two interface’ problem: Comparatives and superlatives. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 1.1, 1–29.Google Scholar
Embick, D. 2009. Roots, states, and stative passives. Talk given at the 2009 Roots Workshop, Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. 1968. The case for case. In Bach, E. & Harms, R. T. (eds.), Universals in linguistic theory, 1–90. New York: Holt.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. 1970. The grammar of Hitting and Breaking . In Jacobs, R. & Rosenbaum, P. S. (eds.), Readings in English transformational grammar, 120–133. Waltham: Ginn.Google Scholar
Fortune, G. 1977. Shona grammatical constructions. Department of African Languages, University of Rhodesia [sic].Google Scholar
Gary, J. 1977. Object formation rules in several Bantu languages: Questions and implications for Universal Grammar. Chicago Linguistic Society, vol. 13, 125–136. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Gary, J. & Keenan, E.. 1977. On collapsing grammatical relations in universal grammar. In Cole, P. & Sadock, J. (eds.), Syntax and semantics: Grammatical relations, 83–120. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. 2014. The information structure of the ditransitive informs its scope properties and long-distance dependency constraints. In Bourns, S. K. & Myers, L. L. (eds.), Perspectives on linguistic structure and context: Studies in honor of Knud Lambrecht, 3–16. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Good, J. 2005. Reconstructing morpheme order in Bantu: The case of causativization and applicativization. Diachronica 22, 3–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grimm, S. 2010. Semantics of case. Morphology 21.3, 515–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grimm, S. 2011. The bounds of subjecthood: Evidence from instruments. Berkeley Linguistic Society 33.1, 178–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grohmann, K. 2003. Prolific domains. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gruber, J. 1976. Lexical structures in syntax and semantics. North-Holland.Google Scholar
Guérois, R. 2016. The locative system in Cuwabo and Makhuwa (P30 Bantu languages). Linguistique et langues africaines 2, 43–75.Google Scholar
Haddican, W. & Holmberg, A.. 2012. Object movement asymmetries in British English dialects: Experimental evidence for a mixed case/locality approach. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 15, 189–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haddican, W. & Holmberg, A.. 2015. Four kinds of object asymmetry. In Veselovská, L. & Janebová, M. (eds.), Complex visibles out there. Proceedings of the Olomouc Linguistics Colloquium (2014): Language use and linguistic structure, 145–162. Olomouc: Palacky University.Google Scholar
Hale, K. & Keyser, S.. 1993. On argument structure and the lexical expression of syntactic relations. In Hale, K. & Keyser, S. (eds.), The view from building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, 53–109. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hale, K. & Keyser, S.. 1997. The limits of argument structure. In Mendikoetxea, A. & Uribe-Etxebarria, M. (eds.), Theoretical issues at the morphology-syntax interface, 203–230. Bilbao: Universida de País Vasco, Euskal Herriko Univertsitatca.Google Scholar
Halpert, C. 2012. Argument licensing and agreement in Zulu. Ph.D. dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Harford, C. 1993. The applicative in ChiShona and Lexical Mapping Theory. In Mchombo, S. (ed.), Theoretical aspects of Bantu grammar, 93–111. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Harley, H. 2003. Possession in the double object construction. In Pica, P. & Rooryck, J. (eds.), Linguistic variation yearbook, vol. 2, 31–70. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Harley, H. 2012. Lexical decomposition in modern syntactic theory. In Hinzen, W., Machery, E. & Werning, M. (eds.), The oxford handbook of compositionality, 328–350. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Harley, H. & Stone, M. S.. 2013. The ‘no agent idioms’ hypothesis. In Folli, R., Sevdali, C. & Truswell, R. (eds.), Syntax and its limits, 251–275. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkinson, A. & Hyman, L.. 1974. Hierarchies of natural topic in Shona. Studies in African Linguistics 4, 147–170.Google Scholar
Henderson, B. 2006. The syntax and typology of Bantu relative clauses. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Illinois Urbana Champaign.Google Scholar
von Heusinger, K. 2002. Specificity and definiteness in sentence and discourse structure. Journal of Semantics 19, 245–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Higginbotham, J. 1989. Elucidations of meaning. Linguistics and Philosophy 12, 465–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodges, K. 1977. Causatives, transitivity, and objecthood in Kimeru. Studies in African Linguistics 7, 113–125.Google Scholar
Hodges, K. & Stucky, S.. 1979. On the inadequacy of a grammatical relation referring rule in Bantu. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 9, 91–99.Google Scholar
Holmberg, A., Sheehan, M. & van der Wal, J.. 2019. Movement from the double object construction is not fully symmetrical. Linguistic Inquiry 50.4, 677–722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hornstein, N. 1999. Movement and control. Linguistic Inquiry 30.1, 69–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyman, L. 1995. Minimality and prosodic morphology of CiBemba imbrication. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 16, 3–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyman, L. & Duranti, A.. 1982. The object relation in Bantu. In Hopper, P. & Thompson, S. (eds.), Syntax and semantics 15: Studies in transitivity, 217–239. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. 1972. Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. 1976. Toward an explanatory semantic representation. Linguistic Inquiry 7.1, 89–150.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. 1983. Semantics and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. 1990. Semantic structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. 1996. The proper treatment of measuring out, telicity, and perhaps event quantification in English. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 14, 305–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jeong, Y. 2007. Applicatives: Structure and interpretation from a minimalist perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jerro, K. 2015. Revisiting object symmetry in Bantu. In Boyer, O. T., Kramer, Ruth & Zsiga, Elizabeth (eds.), The selected proceedings of the 44th Annual Conference on African Linguistics, 130–145. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Jerro, K. 2016a. Locative applicatives and the semantics of verb class. In Payne, D., Pacchiarotti, S. & Bosire, M. (eds.), The selected proceedings of the 46th Annual Conference on African Linguistics, 289–309. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Jerro, K. 2016b. The syntax and semantics of applicative morphology in Bantu. Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar
Jerro, K. 2017. The causative-instrumental syncretism. Journal of Linguistics 53, 751–788.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jerro, K. 2018. Change-of-state paradigms and the middle in Kinyarwanda. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 36.3, 235–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jerro, K. 2019. Ingestive verbs, causatives, and object symmetry in Lubukusu. Linguistic Inquiry 50.1, 219–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jerro, K. 2020a. Locative orientation and locative arguments: A case study from Kinyarwanda. Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America 5, 118–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jerro, K. 2020b. The semantics of applicativization in Kinyarwanda. Unpublished ms. University of Essex.Google Scholar
Kimenyi, A. 1980. A relational grammar of Kinyarwanda. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Kisseberth, C. & Abasheikh, M. I.. 1977. The object relationship in Chi-mwi:ni, a Bantu language. In Cole, P. & Sadock, J. (eds.), Syntax and semantics: Grammatical relations, 179–218. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kittilä, S. 2005. Recipient-prominence vs. beneficiary-prominence. Linguistic Typology 9, 269–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koenig, J.-P. & Davis, A.. 2006. The key to lexical semantic representations. Journal of Linguistics 42.1, 71–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koopman, H. 2000. Prepositions, postpositions, circumpositions and particles: The structure of Dutch PPs. In Koopman, H. (ed.), The syntax of specifiers and heads, 204–260. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kratzer, A. 1996. Severing the external argument from its verb. In Rooryck, J. & Zaring, L. (eds.), Phrase structure and the lexicon, 109–137. Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kula, N. 2001. Imbrication in Bemba. In Hume, E., Smith, N. & van de Weijer, J. (eds.), Surface syllable structure and segment sequencing, 102–116. HIL Occasional Papers.Google Scholar
Ladusaw, W. & Dowty, D.. 1988. Toward a non-grammatical account of thematic roles. In Wilkins, W. (ed.), Thematic relations, 62–72. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G.1965. On the nature of syntactic irregularity. Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana University Bloomington.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. 1977. Linguistic gestalts. Chicago Linguistic Society 13, 236–287.Google Scholar
Levin, B. & Hovav, M. Rappaport. 1995. Unaccusativity: At the syntax-lexical semantics interface. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Levin, B. & Hovav, M. Rappaport. 2005. Argument realization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maho, J. F. 1999. A comparative study of Bantu noun classes. Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.Google Scholar
Marantz, A. 1984. On the nature of grammatical relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Marantz, A. 1993. Implications of asymmetries in double object constructions. In Mchombo, S. (ed.), Theoretical aspects of Bantu grammar, 113–148. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Marlo, M. 2014. Exceptional patterns of object marking in Bantu. Studies in African Linguistics 43, 85–123.Google Scholar
Marlo, M. 2015. On the number of object markers in Bantu languages. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 36.1, 1–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marten, L. 2003. The dynamics of Bantu applied verbs: An analysis at the syntax-pragmatics interface. In Lébikaza, K. K. (ed.), Acts du 3e congrès mondial de linguistique africaine lomé 2000, 207–221. Köln: Köppe.Google Scholar
Marten, L. 2010. The great siSwati locative shift. In Breitbarth, A., Lucas, C., Watts, S. & Willis, D. (eds.), Continuity and change in grammar, 249–267. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marten, L. & Kempson, R.. 2002. Pronouns, agreement, and the dynamic construction of verb phrase interpretation: A dynamic syntax approach to Bantu clause structure. Linguistic Analysis 32, 471–504.Google Scholar
Marten, L., Kula, N. & Thwhala, N.. 2007. Parameters of morphosyntactic variation in Bantu. Transactions of the Philological Society 105, 253–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marten, L. & Kula, N. C.. 2014. Benefactive and substitutive applicatives in Bemba. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 35.1, 1–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGinnis, M. 2000. Phases and the syntax of applicatives. In Kim, M.-J. & Strauus, U. (eds.), Proceedings of North East Linguistic Society 31 (NELS 31). Amherst: University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
McGinnis, M. 2001. Variation in the phase structure of applicatives. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 1, 105–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGinnis, M. & Gerdts, D.. 2003. A phase-theoretic analysis of Kinyarwanda multiple applicatives. Proceedings of the 2003 Canadian Linguistic Association Annual Conference, Department of Linguistics, 154–165. Université du Québec à Montréal.Google Scholar
Meeussen, A. E. 1967. Bantu grammatical reconstructions. Africana Linguistica 3, 79–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morolong, M. & Hyman, L.. 1972. Animacy, objects, and clitics in Sesotho. Studies in African Linguistics 8.3, 199–218.Google Scholar
Ngoboka, J. P. 2016. Locatives in Kinyarwanda. Ph.D. dissertation, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban.Google Scholar
Ngonyani, D. 1998. Properties of applied objects in Kiswahili and Kinendeule. Studies in African Linguistics 27.1, 67–95.Google Scholar
Ngonyani, D. & Githinji, P.. 2006. The asymmetric nature of Bantu applicative constructions. Lingua 116, 31–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nunberg, G., Sag, I. A. & Wasow, T.. 1994. Idioms. Language 76.4, 833–858.Google Scholar
O’Grady, W. 1998. The syntax of idioms. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 16.2, 279–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pacchiarotti, S. 2017. Bantu applicative construction types involving *–id: Form, functions and diachrony. Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Oregon, Eugene.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, D. & Postal, P.. 1983. Some proposed laws of basic clause structure. In Perlmutter, D. (ed.), Studies in relational grammar, vol. 1, 81–128. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Peterson, D. 2007. Applicative constructions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Primus, B. 1999. Case and thematic roles: Ergative, accusative and active. Tübingen: Max Niewmeyer Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pylkkänen, L. 2008. Introducing arguments. Cambridge: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramchand, G. 2008. Verb meaning and the lexicon: A first phase syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rappaport, M. & Levin, B.. 1988. What to do with 𝜃-roles. In Wilkins, W. (ed.), Syntax and semantics, vol. 21, 7–36. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Rappaport Hovav, M. & Levin, B.. 1998. Building verb meanings. In Butt, M. & Geuder, W. (eds.), The projection of arguments: Lexical and compositional factors, 97–134. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Rappaport Hovav, M. & Levin, B.. 2008. The English dative alternation: A case for verb sensitivity. Journal of Linguistics 44, 129–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riedel, K. & Marten, L.. 2012. Locative object marking and the argument-adjunct distinction. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 30, 277–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Riemsdijk, H. 1990. Functional prepositions. In Pinkster, H. & Genee, I. (eds.), Unity in diversity: Papers presented to Simon C. Dik on his 60th birthday, 229–241. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
van Riemsdijk, H. & Huijbregts, R.. 2008. Locations and locality. In Karimi, S., Samiian, V. & Wilkins, W. K. (eds.), Phrasal and clausal architecture: Syntactic derivation and interpretation. in honor of Joseph E. Edmonds, 339–364. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Rooryck, J. 1996. Prepositions and minimalist case-marking. In Thráinsson, H., Epstien, S. & Peter, S. (eds.), Studies in comparative Germanic syntax, vol. ii, 226–256. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rugemalira, J. M. 1993. Runyambo verb extension and constraints on predicate structure. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Rugemalira, J. M. 2004. Locative arguments in Bantu. Proceedings of the 4th World Congress of African Linguistics, 285–296. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe Verlag.Google Scholar
Schadeberg, T. 2003. Derivation. In Nurse, D. & Philippson, G. (eds.), The Bantu languages, 71–89. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Schaefer, R. 1985. Motion in Tswana and its characteristic lexicalization. Studies in African Linguistics 16, 57–87.Google Scholar
Sibanda, G. 2016. The Ndebele applicative construction. In Payne, D., Pacchiarotti, S. & Bosire, M. (eds.), The selected proceedings of the 46th Annual Conference on African Linguistics, 309–333. Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Sitoe, B. 1996. The semantics and syntax of the Tsonga verbs kuwà ‘fall’ and kuntlúlá ‘jump’, and their relatives. South African Journal of African Languages 16, 144–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Svenonius, P. 2007. Adpositions, particles, and the arguments they introduce. In Reuland, E., Bhattacharya, T. & Spathas, G. (eds.), Argument structure, 63–103. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Valin, R. D. & Wilkins, D. P.. 1996. The case for ‘effector’: Case roles, agents, agency revisited. In Shibatani, M. & Thompson, S. (eds.), Grammatical constructions: Their form and meaning, 289–322. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
van der Wal, J. 2016. Diagnosing focus. Studies in Language 40.2, 259–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van der Wal, J. 2017. Flexibility in symmetry: An implicational relation in Bantu double object constructions. In Sheehan, M. & Bailey, L. (eds.), Order and structure in syntax II: Subjecthood and argument structure, 115–152. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
van der Wal, J. & Namyalo, S.. 2016. The interaction of two focus marking strategies in Luganda. In Payne, D., Pacchiarotti, S. & Bosire, M. (eds.), The selected proceedings of the 46th Annual Conference on African Linguistics, 355–377. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Wechsler, S. 2005. What is right and wrong about little v . In Vulchanova, M. & Afarli, T. A. (eds.), Grammar and beyond — essays in honour of Lars Hellan, 179–195. Oslo: Novus Press.Google Scholar
Welmers, W. E. 1973. African language structures. Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Wood, J. 2015. Icelandic morphosyntax and argument structure. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, J. & Marantz, A.. 2017. The interpretation of external arguments. In D’Alessandro, R., Franco, I. & Gallego, A. (eds.), The verbal domain. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wunderlich, D. 1997. Cause and the structure of verbs. Linguistic Inquiry 28, 27–68.Google Scholar
Zeller, J. 2015. Argument prominence and agreement: explaining an unexpected object asymmetry in Zulu. Lingua 156, 17–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zeller, J. & Ngoboka, J. P.. 2018. Agreement with locatives in Kinyarwanda: a comparative analysis. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 39.1, 65–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zúñiga, F. 2010. The grammar of benefaction: A crosslinguistic study. Habilitation dissertation, University of Zürich.Google Scholar
Zúñiga, F. & Kittilä, S.. 2010. Benefactives and malefactives: Typological perspectives and case studies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zubizarreta, M. L. 1987. Levels of representation in the lexicon and in the syntax. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar