Skip to main content
×
Home
    • Aa
    • Aa

The causative–instrumental syncretism 1

  • KYLE JERRO (a1)
Abstract

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

Copyright
Corresponding author
Author’s address: Department of Linguistics, The University of Texas at Austin, College of Liberal Arts Building, Austin, TX 78712-1048, USA jerrokyle@utexas.edu
Footnotes
Hide All
[1]

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

Footnotes
References
Hide All
AckermanF., Malouf R. & Moore J.. 2017. Symmetrical objects in Moro: Theoretical challenges. Journal of Linguistics 53, 350.
AlsinaA. 1992. On the argument structure of causatives. Linguistic Inquiry 23, 517555.
AlsinaA. & Mchombo S.. 1993. Object asymmetries and the Chicheŵa applicative construction. In Mchombo S. (ed.), Theoretical aspects of Bantu grammar, 1745. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
AranovichR. 2009. Animacy effects and locative marking in Shona applicatives. In Butt M. & King T. (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG09 Conference, 6584. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
BakerM. 1988. Theta theory and the syntax of applicatives in Chicheŵa. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6, 353389.
BastinY. 1983. La finale verbale -ide et l’imbrication en Bantou (Sciences Humaines 114), Tervuren: Annales du Musée Royal de l’Afrique Central.
BastinY. 1986. Les suffixes causatifs dans les langue Bantoues. Africana Linguistica 10, 61145.
BaxA. & Diercks M.. 2012. Information structure constraints on object marking in Manyika. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 30, 185202.
BeaversJ. & Koontz-Garboden A.. 2013. Manner and result in verbal meaning. Linguistic Inquiry 43, 331369.
BostoenK. & Mundeke L.. 2011. The causative/applicative syncretism in Mbuun (Bantu B87, DRC): Semantic split or phonemic merger? Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 32, 179218.
BresnanJ., Asudeh A., Toivonen I. & Wechsler S.. 2016. Lexical functional syntax, 2nd edn. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
BresnanJ. & Mchombo S.. 1987. Topic, pronoun, and agreement in Chichewa. Language 63, 741752.
BresnanJ. & Moshi L.. 1990. Object asymmetries in comparative Bantu syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 21, 147185.
ByarushengoE., Duranti A. & Hyman L.. 1977. Haya grammatical structure. Los Angeles: University of Southern California Press.
de BoisK. 1975. Bukusu generative phonology and aspects of Bantu structure. Tervuren: Musée Royal de l’Afrique Central.
ComrieB. 1985. Causative verb formation and other verb-deriving morphology. In Shopen T. (ed.), Language typology and linguistic description III, 309348. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
ComrieB. 1989. Language universals and linguistic typology. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
CreisselsD. 2006. Encoding the distinction between location and destination: A typological study. In Hickmann M. & Robert S. (eds.), Space in languages: Linguistic systems and cognitive categories, 1928. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
CroftW. 1991. Syntactic categories and grammatical relations: The cognitive organization of information. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
DiercksM.2010. Agreement with subjects in Lubukusu. Ph.D. dissertation, Georgetown University.
DiercksM. 2012. Parameterizing case: Evidence from Bantu. Syntax 15, 253286.
DiercksM. & Sikuku J.. 2013. Object clitics in a Bantu langauge: Deriving pronominal incorporation in Lubukusu. Ms, Pomona College and Moi University.
DixonR. & 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, 71113. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
DixonR. M. W. 1977. A grammar of Yidiɲ. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
DowtyD. 1979. Word meaning and Montague grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
DowtyD. 1991a. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67, 547619.
DowtyD. 1991b. Towards a minimalist theory of syntactic structure. In Sijtsma W. & van Horck A. (eds.), Discontinuous constituency. Berlin: De Gruyter.
DryerM. 1983. Indirect objects in Kinyarwanda revisited. In Perlmutter D. (ed.), Studies in relational grammar, vol. 1, 129140. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
EngelR. & Allhiser de Engel M.. 1987. Diccionario Zoque de Francisco Leon. Mexico: Instituto Lingüístico de Verano.
GaryJ. & Keenan E.. 1977. On collapsing grammatical relations in universal grammar. In Cole P. & Sadock J. (eds.), Syntax and semantics: Grammatical relations, 83120. New York: Academic Press.
GazdarG., Klein E., Pullum G. & Sag I.. 1985. Generalized phrase structure grammar. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
GerdtsD. B. & Whaley L.. 1993. Kinyarwanda multiple applicatives and the 2-AEX. Chicago Linguistic Society (CLS) 28, 186205.
GoldbergA. E. 1995. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
GoldbergA. E. 2002. Surface generalizations: an alternative to alternations. Cognitive Linguistics 13, 327356.
HaleK. & 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, 53109. Cambridge: MIT Press.
HarleyH. 2003. Possession in the double object construction. In Pica P. & Rooryck J. (eds.), Linguistic variation yearbook 2, 3170. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
HemmingsC. 2013. Causatives and applicatives: the case for polysemy in Javanese. SOAS Working Papers in Linguistics 16, 167194.
HymanL. 1995. Minimality and prosodic morphology of CiBemba imbrication. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 16, 339.
HymanL. & Duranti A.. 1982. The object relation in Bantu. In Hopper P. & Thompson S. (eds.), Syntax and semantics 15: Studies in transitivity, 217239. New York: Academic Press.
Ichihashi-NakayamaK. 1996. The “applicative” in Hualapai: its functions and meanings. Cognitive Linguistics 7, 227239.
JackendoffR. 1990. Semantic structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
JerroK.2013. Argument structure and the typology of causatives in Kinyarwanda: Explaining the causative–instrumental syncretism. MA Report: University of Texas at Austin.
JerroK. 2015. Revisiting object symmetry in Bantu. In Kramer Ruth, Zsiga Elizabeth & Boyer One Tlale (eds.), The Selected Proceedings of the 44th Annual Conference on African Linguistics, 130145. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
JerroK.2016a. The syntax and semantics of applicative morphology in Bantu. Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX.
JerroK. 2016b. Locative applicatives and the semantics of verb class. In Payne D., Pachiarotti S. & Bosire M. (eds.), Diversity in African languages: Selected papers from the 46th Annual Conference on African Linguistics (Contemporary African Linguistics 2), 289309. Berlin: Language Science Press.
JerroK. & Wechsler S.. 2015. Person-marked quantifiers in Bantu. In Fleischer J., Rieken E. & Widmer P. (eds.), Agreement from a diachronic perspective, 147164. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
KayP. 2005. Argument structure constructions and the argument–adjunct distinction. In Fried M. & Boas H. C. (eds.), Grammatical constructions: Back to the roots, 7198. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
KimenyiA. 1979. Studies in Kinyarwanda and Bantu phonology. Carbondale: Linguistic Research Inc.
KimenyiA. 1980. A relational grammar of Kinyarwanda. Berkeley: University of California Press.
KimenyiA. 2006. Kinyarwanda. In Encyclopedia of language and linguistics, 2nd edn. 217223. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
KittiläS. 2005. Recipient-prominence vs. beneficiary-prominence. Linguistic Typology 9, 269297.
KittiläS. & Zúñiga F.. 2010. Benefactives and malefactives: Typological perspectives and case studies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
KoenigJ.-P., Mauner G., Bienvenue G. & Conklin K.. 2008. What with? the anatomy of a (proto)-role. Journal of Semantics 25, 175220.
KratzerA. 2005. Building resultatives. In Maienborn C. & Wöllstein-Leisten A. (eds.), Event arguments: Foundations and applications, 177212. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
KulaN. 2001. Imbrication in Bemba. In Hume E., Smith N. & van de Weijer J. (eds.), Surface syllable structure and segment sequencing, 102116. HIL Occasional Papers.
LakoffG.1965. On the nature of syntactic irregularity. Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana University Bloomington.
LevinB. & Rappaport Hovav M.. 1995. Unaccusativity: At the syntax–lexical semantics interface. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
LewisM. P., Simons G. F. & Fennig C. D.. 2016. Ethnologue: Languages of the world, nineteenth edition. Dallas, TX: SIL International; http://www.ethnologue.com.
MartenL. 2003. The dynamics of Bantu applied verbs: An analysis at the syntax–pragmatics interface. In Lébikaza K. K. (ed.), Acts du 3ème congrès mondial de linguistique africaine lomé 2000, 207221. Köln: Köppe.
MartenL., Kula N. & Thwhala N.. 2007. Parameters of morphosyntactic variation in Bantu. Transactions of the Philological Society 105, 253338.
McGinnisM. & Gerdts D.. 2003. A phase-theoretic analysis of Kinyarwanda multiple applicatives. In Proceedings of the 2003 Canadian Linguistic Association Annual Conference Department of Linguistics, 154165. Montréal: Université du Québec á Montréal.
MchomboS. 2004. The syntax of Chicheŵa. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
MeeussenA. E. 1967. Bantu grammatical reconstructions. Africana Linguistica 3, 81121.
MorolongM. & Hyman L.. 1972. Animacy, objects, and clitics in Sesotho. Studies in African Linguistics 8, 199218.
MyersS. 2003. F0 timing in Kinyarwanda. Phonetica 60, 7197.
OverdulveC. 1975. Apprendre la langue Rwanda. The Hague: Mouton.
PetersonD. 2007. Applicative constructions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
PollardC.1984. Generalized phrase structure grammars. Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University.
PylkkänenL. 2008. Introducing arguments. Cambridge: MIT Press.
RamchandG. 2008. Verb meaning and the lexicon: A first phase syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rappaport HovavM. & Levin B.. 1998. Building verb meanings. In Butt M. & Geuder W. (eds.), The projection of arguments: Lexical and compositional factors, 97134. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
ReidelK. 2007. Object marking in Sambaa. Linguistics in the Netherlands 24, 199210.
RissmanL. 2011. Instrumental with and use: modality and implicature. SALT 21, 532551.
RissmanL. & Rawlins K.. To appear. Ingredients of instrumental meaning. Journal of Semantics.
RugemaliraJ. M.1993. Runyambo verb extension and constraints on predicate structure. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.
SchadebergT. 2003. Derivation. In Nurse D. & Philippson G. (eds.), The Bantu languages, 7189. New York: Routledge.
SchlesingerI. 1989. Instruments as agents: On the nature of semantics relations. Journal of Linguistics 25, 189210.
ShibataniM. 1996. Applicatives and benefactives: A cognitive account. In  & (eds.), 157194.
ShibataniM. & Thompson S. (eds.). 1996. Grammatical constructions: Their form and meaning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
ShibataniM. & Pardeshi P.. 2001. The causative continuum. In Shibatani M. (ed.), The grammar of causation and interpersonal manipulation, 85126. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
SimangoS. R. 1999. Lexcial and syntactic causatives in Bantu. Linguistic Analysis 29, 6986.
SonM.-J. & Cole P.. 2008. An event-based account of –kan constructions in standard Indonesian. Language 84, 120160.
SwiftK. E. 1988. Morfología del Caquinte (arawak preandino). Yarinacocha, Perú: Instituto Lingüístico de Verano.
TalmyL. 1976. Semantic causative types. In Shibatani M. (ed.), Syntax and semantics, vol. 6. New York: Academic Press.
TuggyD. 1988. Náhuatl causative/applicatives in cognitive grammar. Topics in cognitive linguistics, 587618. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Van ValinR. D. & Wilkins D. P.. 1996. The case for ‘effector’: Case roles, agents, agency revisited. In  & (eds.), 289322.
WaldB. 1998. Issues in the North/South syntactic split of East Bantu. In Maddieson I. & Hinnebusch T. J. (eds.), Language history and linguistic description in Africa, 95106. Trenton: AfricaWorld Press.
WunderlichD. 1997. Cause and the structure of verbs. Linguistic Inquiry 28, 2768.
WunderlichD.To appear. Valency changing operations, with a special emphasis on Bantu.
ZwickyA. 1986. Concatenation and liberation. Chicago Linguistics Society (CLS) 22, 6574.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Journal of Linguistics
  • ISSN: 0022-2267
  • EISSN: 1469-7742
  • URL: /core/journals/journal-of-linguistics
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 11
Total number of PDF views: 99 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 499 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 24th May 2017 - 23rd October 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.