Abbreviations
We use the Leipzig abbreviations (www.eva.mpg.de/lingua/resources/glossing-rules.php), with the following additions:
- A
actor macrorole
- ARG
argument
- ASP
aspect
- CLM
clause linkage marker
- CONT
continuative aspect
- CORER
RP core
- DCA
direct core argument
- DEIC
deictic
- DN
DCA-non-macrorole
- DS
different subject
- DUn
DCA-undergoer
- DV
dependent verb
- EVQ
event quantification
- HORT
hortatory
- HABP
habitual past
- IF
illocutionary force operator
- IU
information unit
- INGR
ingressive
- IRIT
irregular iterative aspect
- IT
iterative aspect
- IVC
impersonal verb construction
- LS
logical structure
- MP
modifier phrase
- NEGF
negative future tense
- NMR
non-macrorole
- NUC
clause nucleus
- NUCR
RP nucleus
- NUM
numeral
- PNG
Papua New Guinea
- PP
postpositional phrase
- PoCS
post-core slot
- PoDP
post-detached position
- PrCS
pre-core slot
- PrDP
pre-detached position
- PRED
predicate
- PRO
pronoun
- PRSP
prospective tense
- PSA
privileged syntactic argument
- PSD
possessed
- PSR
possessor
- QNT
quantifier
- R(EAL)
realis status
- RG
regret particle
- REMP
remote past tense
- RP
reference phrase
- RPIP
RP initial position
- RRG
Role and Reference Grammar
- SEQ
sequential event
- SIM
simultaneous event
- SR
switch-reference
- SS
same subject
- STA
status operator
- SVC
serial verb construction
- TNS
tense operator
- TODP
today’s past tense
- U
undergoer macrorole
- YESTP
yesterday’s past tense
- -
morpheme break
- < >
infix
- =
clitic break
- ~
reduplication
- &
sequential conjunction
- {&}
seq conj in complex sentence
- ∧
overlapping conjunction
- {∧}
overlap conj in complex sentence
- *
ungrammatical
25.1 Introduction
Amele is a Papuan language spoken in Madang Province, Papua New Guinea (PNG). The Amele people inhabit an area of approximately 120 square kilometres between the Gum and Gogol rivers just south of the town of Madang in PNG. The area extends from the coast to about 14 kilometres inland. Amele is the largest of the Gum family of languages (Z’graggen Reference Z’graggen1975: 13) with a population of approximately 5,300 speakers (Lewis et al. Reference Lewis, Simons and Fennig2014).1
This chapter provides a linguistic description of the Amele language from a Role and Reference Grammar (RRG) perspective. Section 25.2 describes the basic syntax of the language and Section 25.3 examines serial verb constructions and the switch-reference system.Footnote *
25.2 Common Topics
Nominative-accusative agreement is suffixed to the verb stem and up to four core arguments can be marked on the verb. There are only two major lexical categories, nouns and verbs, with very little overlap between them. Alternative undergoer selection may be made for ditransitive verbs. There is no passive construction in the language and the only choice for privileged syntactic argument (PSA) is [S, AT]. Focus may be expressed morphologically and by incorporation of modifier elements into the verb word.
25.2.1 Basic Clause Patterns
Typologically, Amele has head-last syntax with OV order and postpositions.2 The language is also head-marking, and core arguments of the verb can be marked on the verb by cross-reference agreement. PSA agreement has one basic type of morphology and direct core argument (DCA) agreement has another basic type of morphology.3 The argument agreement morphology follows a nominative-accusative pattern. Therefore, the PSA argument agreement morphology is called nominative (nom) and the DCA agreement morphology is called accusative (acc).
The basic syntax of the clause is given in Figure 25.1. The PSA is the first element in the clause and the DCA occurs immediately preceding the verb. After the PSA is the slot for any adjunct reference phrase (RP) or postpositional phrase (PP). Following that is the slot where any argument-adjuncts occur. Typically, no more than two or three non-verbal elements are expressed in any one clause. However, up to four arguments can be encoded on the verb.
Figure 25.1 Basic syntax of the clause in Amele
There is also an order in which the different types of argument can be marked on the verb. Up to three arguments can be marked on the verb and the order is given in (1). The rightmost argument is the PSA agreement and this is obligatory on the finite verb. This is the nominative agreement morphology. The DCA-undergoer (DUn, where Un is undergoer) argument agreement attaches directly to the verb stem. This is obligatory for some verbs, optional for other verbs, and not allowed for others. Many verbs also allow optional DCA-non-macrorole (DN) argument agreement to be marked and this requires the applicative (applied object) marker. The form of the DUn and DN marking is the accusative agreement morphology in each case. It is possible to have a maximum of two DCA arguments marked on the verb, either DUn + DN or DN + DN. The linear order of argument marking on the verb in (1) is thus a mirror image of the ordering of arguments in the clause in Figure 25.1.
(1)
Order of arguments marked on the verb: verb stem ±DUn.Agr ±APPL+DN.Agr (±APPL+DN.Agr) +PSA.Agr
Verb agreement is formalized as in (2). nom agreement only applies to the finite verb form. acc agreement can apply to both the finite and infinitive verb forms, for example hel-ad-ec [throw-3pl.acc-inf] ‘to throw them’, hel-i-ad-ec [throw-appl-3pl.acc-inf] ‘to throw to them’. See Roberts (Reference Roberts1996, Reference Roberts and Newman1997c).
(2)
Verb agreement in Amele: nom agreement cross-references the highest-ranking macrorole argument in the finite verb. acc agreement can cross-reference any other macrorole or non-macrorole argument in the finite or non-finite verb.4
25.2.1.1 M-Intransitive Verbs
M-intransitive verbs have only one macrorole core argument. The main types of M-intransitive verbs are stative verbs and motion verbs. There is no copular verb like ‘be’ in Amele. Instead, the language uses several posture verbs in certain stative predications (i.e. bilec ‘to sit (down)’, nijec ‘to lie (down)’, tawec ‘to stand (up)’).5 As illustrated in Table 25.1, these posture verbs have a state function and an activity function. For the state function the single macrorole is undergoer. For the activity function the single macrorole is actor. An example of each function is given in (3).
(3)
Posture verb examples: a. Jo jobon gemo taw-ena. State: posture house village middle stand-3sg.nom.prs be-village middle′ (stand′ (3sg [jo])) ‘The house stands in the middle of the village.’ b. Dana ben taw-im-ei ma-g-en. Activity: assume posture man big stand-ss.seq-3sg.nom tell-1pl.acc-3sg.nom.remp do′ (3sg [dana], [stand′ (3sg [dana])]) … ‘The headman stood up and spoke to us.’ c. Cam qila gagadic=ca taw-ei-a. State: attributive sun today strength=add stand-3sg.nom-todp today′ (be′ (3sg [cam], [strong′])) ‘The sun is strong today.’
Table 25.1 M-intransitive posture verbs
| bilec | ‘sit’ | sit′ (x) | state: posture |
| ‘sit (down)’ | do′ (x [sit′ (x)]) | activity: assume posture | |
| ‘be’ | be′ (x) | state: attributive, identificational, specificational | |
| nijec | ‘lie’ | lie′ (x) | state: posture |
| ‘lie (down)’ | do′ (x [lie′ (x)]) | activity: assume posture | |
| ‘be’ | be′ (x) | state: attributive, identificational, specificational | |
| tawec | ‘stand’ | stand′ (x) | state: posture |
| ‘stand (up)’ | do′ (x [stand′ (x)]) | activity: assume posture | |
| ‘be’ | be′ (x) | state: attributive, identificational, specificational |
There are two basic types of M-intransitive motion verb: those that specify [move+path] and those that specify [move+manner]. [move+path] motion verbs are verb-framed and [move+manner] motion verbs are satellite-framed (Talmy Reference Talmy and Shopen2007). Each type of motion verb is M-intransitive and the single argument is actor in each case. However, there is a syntactic difference between these types of motion verb. The [move+path] motion verb allows an allative argument to be expressed either with a =ca ‘towards’ PP, as in (4a), or with an applied object marked on the verb, as in (4b). The applied object in (4b) is a non-macrorole direct core argument. The [move+manner] motion verb, on the other hand, does not allow an allative argument to be expressed, as illustrated in (5).
(4)
(5)
Allative argument disallowed with [move+manner] motion verbs: a. *Qa uqa=ca cob-oi-a. dog 3sg=towards walk-3sg.nom-todp b. *Qa cob-i-t-oi-a. dog walk-appl-3sg.acc-3sg.nom-todp
Other verbs that are M-intransitive include ededec ‘gleam’ do′ (x, [gleam′ (x)]), asalec ‘laugh’ do′ (x, [laugh′ (x)]), busuec ‘fart’ seml fart′ (x), silolec ‘ooze’ do′ (x, [ooze′ (x)]), fojec ‘vomit’ do′ (x, [vomit′ (x)]), tatiec ‘look up’ do′ (x, [look.up′ (x)]), bodoec ‘soften’ become soft′ (x), sanan mec ‘start’ ingr start′ (x).
Impersonal verbs also have to be treated as M-intransitive. A typical example of an impersonal verb construction (IVC) is given in (6). There is an optional free pronoun ija ‘1sg’ which corresponds to the subject pronoun in the English translation. However, in the Amele form this pronoun is cross-referenced on the verb with acc morphology. The nom agreement always codes 3sg in an IVC but the reference is unspecified. The agreement is dummy, neutral agreement which is part of the syntactic template for the construction and there is no actor argument with these IVCs. Such IVCs normally express a physiological or psychological experience and the 1sg.acc agreement refers to the experiencer argument.
(6)
Impersonal verb construction: (Ija) cucui-t-ei-a. (1sg) fear-1sg.acc-3sg.nom-todp feel′ (1sg, [afraid′]) ‘I am afraid.’
25.2.1.2 M-Transitive Verbs
M-transitive verbs have two macrorole core arguments: actor and undergoer. Amele has M-transitive state verbs, such as fec ‘see’ see′ (x, (y)), doc ‘know’ know′ (x, (y)), gawec ‘want’ want′ (x, y), meleec ‘believe’ believe′ (x, (y)), cucuiec ‘fear’ fear′ (x, (y)). With some M-transitive non-state verbs, expression of the undergoer argument on the verb is optional, with others this is obligatory. (7) illustrates an active verb, j-ec [eat-inf] ‘to eat’, with optional DUn marking on the verb. In (7a) this verb has the logical structure (LS) do′ (x, [eat′ (x, (y))]) with an optional second predicate argument. In (7b) this verb has the LS do′ (dana, [eat′ (dana, ha)]) with the second predicate argument position filled. This argument is realized in the syntax by the RP ha ‘sugarcane’. Since ha is neither animate nor a count noun, in this context it does not trigger acc agreement on the verb. The predicate is, therefore, an activity with a non-specific object. In (7c), on the other hand, ho ‘pigs’ is animate and a count noun and therefore triggers acc agreement ‑ad ‘them’ on the verbs qoc ‘hit’ and jec ‘eat’.6 In this case the object is also specific and ‘eat’ is an active accomplishment.
(7)
Active verb with optional DUn marking: a. Dana eu j-egi-na. man that eat-3pl.nom-prs do′ (3pl [dana], [eat′ (3pl [dana], (Ø))]) ‘Those men are eating.’ b. Dana eu ha j-ein. man that sugarcane eat-3pl.nom.remp do′ (3pl [dana], [eat′ (3pl [dana], ha)]) ‘Those men ate sugarcane.’ c. Dana eu age ho a-q-i je-ad-ein. man that 3pl pig 3pl.acc-hit-dv eat-3pl.acc-3pl.nom.remp [do′ (3pl [dana], [eat′ (3pl [dana], 3pl [ho])]) ∧ proc consume′ (3pl [dana], 3pl [ho])] & [ingr consumed′ (3pl [ho])] ‘Those men killed the pigs and ate them.’
The M-transitive verb cesul-d-oc [help-3sg.acc-inf] ‘to help him/her’ in (8) has obligatory DUn marking. In (8) the DUn marking ‑t ‘1sg.acc’ on the verb expresses the obligatory second argument. The 3pl.nom argument is actor and the 1sg.acc argument is undergoer.
(8)
Active verb with obligatory DUn marking: Age cesul-t-eig-a. 3pl help-1sg.acc-3pl.nom-todp do′ (3pl, [help′ (3pl, 1sg]) ‘They helped me.’
25.2.1.3 Three-Argument Verbs
Three-argument verbs have three core arguments in their LS. The ditransitive verb ihac-d-oc [show-3sg.acc-inf] ‘to show him/her/it’ is illustrated in (9). The LS of this verb is [do′ (x, Ø)] cause [become see′ (y, z)]. In (9a) the perceiver argument 1sg is selected as undergoer and is realized on the verb as 1sg.acc agreement attached directly to the verb stem. Because the perceiver argument has been selected as undergoer, there is no way of encoding the perceived argument, ho eu ‘that pig’, on the verb. In (9b) ho eu ‘those pigs’ is selected as undergoer and is realized on the verb as 3pl.acc agreement. In this case, the 1sg.acc perceiver is also marked on the verb as a DN applied object argument. (9c) shows that all three core arguments can be expressed as agreement marking on the verb alone. Without any clarifying RPs in the clause, (9d) is ambiguous between the first LS where 1sg is the perceiver argument and the second LS where 1sg is the perceived argument – although, the first interpretation would be deemed the more likely.
(9)
3-argument verb: a. (Uqa) ho eu ihac-t-ei-a. (3sg) pig that show-1sg.acc-3sg.nom-todp [do′ (3sg, Ø)] cause [become see′ (1sg, ho)] ‘He showed me that pig.’ b. Ho eu ihac-ad-i-t-ei-a. pig that show-3pl.acc-appl-1sg.acc-3sg.nom-todp [do′ (3sg, Ø)] cause [become see′ (1sg, 3pl [ho])] ‘He showed those pigs to me.’ c. Ihac-ad-i-t-ei-a. show-3pl.acc-appl-1sg.acc-3sg.nom-todp [do′ (3sg, Ø)] cause [become see′ (1sg, 3pl)] ‘He showed them to me.’ d. Ihac-t-ei-a. show-1sg.acc-3sg.nom-todp [do′ (3sg, Ø)] cause [become see′ (1sg, Ø)] or [do′ (3sg, Ø)] cause [become see′ (Ø, 1sg)] ‘He showed me something (unspecified).’ or ‘He showed me to someone (unspecified).’
25.2.1.4 A Four-Argument Verb
There is one verb which allows an additional fourth core argument to be marked. This is ‘give’, as illustrated in (10).7 Here the verb stem is realized as acc morphology which agrees with the recipient. The meaning of ‘give’ is constructional rather than lexical, and so there would be a constructional schema for it. Furthermore, Latrouite and Van Valin (2014) argue that constructional meaning should be represented differently from lexical meaning; the constructional meaning for ‘give’ would be [do′ (x, Ø)] CAUSE [INGR have′ (y, z)]. There is an infinitive form for each person and number (e.g. itec ‘to give me’, ihec ‘to give you (sg)’, utec ‘to give him/her’, etc.) The regular verb agreement morphology attaches to this derived stem. The first argument (recipient) of have′ (x, y) in ‘give’ logical structure is assigned the undergoer macrorole by virtue of being the argument encoded in the verb stem itself. Thus, the recipient argument is always the undergoer and there is no alternative construction where the second argument (theme) of have′ (x, y) is the undergoer. The ‘∧ feel.negatively.affected′ (z)’ represents the malefactive ‘on me’ argument. It is the LS proposed for the Japanese adversative passive (Imai Reference Imai1998; Toratani Reference Toratani2002).
(10)
The verb ‘give’: Eeta=nu ut-ad-i-t-ag-a? what=for 3sg.acc-3pl.acc-appl-1sg.acc-2sg.nom-todp be-for′ (eeta, [do′ (2sg, Ø)] cause [INGR have′ (3sg, 3pl)] ∧ feel.negatively.affected′ (1sg)) ‘Why did you give him them on me?’
25.2.1.5 Non-Verbal Predicates
Amele does not have non-verbal predicates as such. With descriptive and equational clauses a posture verb is used where it is necessary to specify a clausal operator category. However, if such specifications are not required then the posture verb is omitted. Examples are given in (11).
(11)
Stative non-verbal predicates: a. Mel eu hag=ca. Attributive boy that sickness=with ‘That boy is sick.’ a′. Mel eu hag=ca nij-en. boy that sickness=with lie-3sg.nom.remp ‘That boy was sick.’ be′ (mel, [sick′]) b. Misag uqa iwal-ad-ec. Identificational Misag 3sg teach-3pl.acc-nmlz ‘Misag is a teacher.’ b′. Misag uqa iwal-ad-ec bil-ol-oi. Misag 3sg teach-3pl.acc-nmlz sit-habp-3sg.nom ‘Misag used to be a teacher.’ be′ (Misag, [a teacher′]) c. Danben age wool-ad-ec. Specificational Danben 3pl surpass-3pl.acc-nmlz ‘Danben (village) are the winners.’ c′. Danben age wool-ad-ec nij-ein. Danben 3pl surpass-3pl.acc-nmlz lie-3pl.nom.remp ‘Danben (village) were the winners.’ be′ (Danben, [wooladec]) d. Mei ija=na cof-t-ec. Equational father.1sg.psr 1sg=of supervise-1sg.acc-nmlz ‘My father is my boss.’ d′. Mei ija=na cof-t-ec bil-en. father.1sg.psr 1sg=of supervise-1sg.acc-nmlz sit-3sg.nom.remp ‘My father was my boss.’ equate′ ([have.as.orientation.kin′ (1sg, mei-)], coftec)
25.2.2 Lexical Categories
Whereas English has four major word categories of verb, noun, adjective and adverb, which can be distinguished on morphological and syntactic grounds, Amele only has two: verbs and nouns. Words that function as nominal modifiers (adjectives in English) and verbal modifiers (adverbs in English) cannot be distinguished on morphological or syntactic grounds in Amele from words that function as the head of an RP (see Roberts Reference Roberts1987: 154–156, 158 for details). Therefore they are all categorized as ‘nouns’. In English, many words can belong to multiple lexical categories, such as break (verb and noun), red (noun and adjective), fast (adjective and adverb), round (adjective, adverb, noun, verb, preposition). By contrast, in Amele there is very little overlap between members of the verb class and those of the noun class. Only three instances of overlap have been observed: cad ‘enemy’ (noun) and cadec ‘to fight’ (verb), mele ‘truth’ (noun) and meleec ‘to believe’ (verb), and cucuiec ‘to fear’ (verb) and cucuian ‘his/her fear’ (inalienably possessed noun).
25.2.2.1 Verbs
There are six morphosyntactic forms of the verb: regular verb, impersonal verb, reciprocal verb, light verb, serial verb, and dependent switch-reference verb. Serial verbs are described in Section 25.3.1. They are not marked for tense or for nom agreement. Dependent switch-reference verbs are described in Section 25.3.2. They are not marked for tense either. Amele also has an interrogative verb adec ‘to when’, as illustrated in (12).
(12)
Interrogative verb: A~ad-eb uqa h-ugi-an? dur~when-3sg.nom.ds.sim.irr 3sg come-3sg.nom-fut ‘Whenever will he come?’
25.2.2.2 Nouns
Amele has three morphological classes of nouns: regular nouns with uninflected stems, inalienably possessed nouns with possessor agreement inflection, and deverbal nouns, derived from the infinitive form of a verb. Inalienably possessed nouns are described in Roberts (Reference Roberts1987: 171–175, 2015b). They comprise kin terms,8 body-part terms and personal attribute terms. Deverbal nouns are formed from the infinitive form of the verb. The infinitive suffix, ‑ec/‑oc, on the verb functions as a nominalizing suffix on the noun (e.g. cob-oc [walk-inf] ‘to walk’ or [walk-nmlz] ‘a walk’).
25.2.2.3 Postpositions
Postpositions are an important minor word class in Amele (Roberts Reference Roberts1987: 160–161). They are clitic words which must attach to a preceding host element and they may not be stranded (Roberts Reference Roberts1991c, Reference Roberts1992, 1996). They can be predicative or non-predicative, and we return to this in Section 25.2.4.2.
25.2.3 The Layered Structure of the Clause
In this section syntactic templates and operators are described and illustrated.
25.2.3.1 Syntactic Inventory
The basic structure of the clause in Amele is given in Figure 25.2 and Amele-specific clause-internal linear precedence rules are given in (13). Amele has pro-drop verb agreement which functions as the argument (ARG) of the predicate. The only obligatory element in the active clause is the verb.
(13)
Amele-specific clause-internal linear precedence rules: a. XP* > CORE (verb final) b. RP (PSA) > RP/PP (Adjunct) > RP/PP (Arg-Adjunct) > RP (DCA) > NUC
Figure 25.2 The layered structure of the clause
Templates for optional syntactic structures are given in Figure 25.3. The pre-detached position (PrDP) is for topical established information and the post-detached position (PoDP) is for additional information, such as clarification. The pre-core slot (PrCS) is for focal new information or ‘heavy’ constructions, such as a nominal modified by a relative clause. The post-core slot (PoCS) is for postposed clausal elements.
Figure 25.3 Optional syntactic structures
PrDP example
Example (14) illustrates a clause-external topic caja eu ‘that woman’ in the pre-detached position. There is a resumptive pronoun uqa ‘she’ in the clause for the argument in the PrDP.
(14)
Clause-external topic in PrDP: Caja eu, uqa me qee. woman that 3sg good not ‘That woman, she is no good.’
PoDP example
In (15) the RP dana eu ‘that man’ in the PoDP adds clarifying information to the identity of the PSA eu ‘that’ in the clause. This pronoun is resumptive for the argument in the PoDP.
(15)
Clarifying information in PoDP: Eu uqa jeje-g=ca m-en, dana eu. that 3sg voice-3sg.psr=with put-3sg.nom.remp man eu ‘He got his voice back, that man.’
PrCS examples
In the unmarked form, temporal adjuncts (RP or PP) occur after the PSA RP, as in (16a). Alternatively, the temporal adjunct can be placed in the PrCS as focal new information, as in (16b).
(16)
Temporal adjunct in PrCS: a. Ija cum ceta gug filfil cabi=na ceh-ig-an. 1sg yesterday yam kind different garden=in plant-1sg.nom-yestp ‘I planted different types of yam in the garden yesterday.’ b. Cum ija ceta gug filfil cabi=na ceh-ig-an. yesterday 1sg yam kind different garden=in plant-1sg.nom-yestp ‘Yesterday I planted different types of yam in the garden.’
Arguments and adjuncts with a relative clause are typically placed in the PrCS, as shown in (17).
(17)
Locative adjunct with a relative clause in the PrCS: Cudun dan ben taw-ena eu=na ija jahun-d-ug-a. place fig big stand-3sg.nom.prs that=at 1sg hide-3sg.acc-1sg.nom-todp ‘I hid it at the place where the big fig tree is.’
PoCS example
In (18) there is an instrumental argument-adjunct PP dubin=na ‘with stalk’ and a goal argument-adjunct PP camac ta=na ‘into the sago scrapings’ in the final clause. The second argument-adjunct PP is located in the PoCS.
(18)
Goal argument-adjunct PP in the PoCS: Age wa wet-i dubin=na basec-d-ogi-na camac ta=na. 3pl water scoop-dv stalk=with pour-3sg.acc-3pl.nom-prs sago scrapings=in ‘They scoop up the water and pour it in with the stalk into the sago scrapings.’
25.2.3.2 Operators
Illocutionary force
Illocutionary force (IF) is the outermost operator and the form of expression of different types of IF in Amele is illustrated in (19)–(23). Statement (19) is expressed by a declarative sentence. Command (20) is expressed by the imperative form of the verb. The imperative is identical in form to the today’s past tense form. A yes/no question (21) is expressed with the sentence-final question particle =fo. An information question (22) is expressed by an interrogative word, such as in ‘who’, eeta ‘what’, cel ‘which’. Exhortation (23) is expressed by the hortative form of the verb.
(19)
IF: statement Age aluh=na bel-ein.9 3pl mountain=to go.nsg-3pl.nom.remp ‘They went to the mountain.’
(20)
IF: command Age aluh=na bel-eig-a! 2pl mountain=to go.nsg-2pl.nom-imp ‘Go to the mountain!’
(21)
IF: yes/no question Age aluh=na bel-ein=fo? 3pl mountain=to go.nsg-3pl.nom.remp=q ‘Did they go to the mountain?’
(22)
IF: information question In aluh=na nu-i-an? who.sg mountain=to go-3sg.nom-yestp ‘Who went to the mountain (yesterday)?’
(23)
IF: exhortation Ege aluh=na bel-ec=nu! 1pl mountain=to go.nsg-inf=hort ‘Let us go to the mountain!’
Evidentials
Amele does not have evidentials.
Status
Amele expresses realis/irrealis status on the switch-reference verb (see Roberts Reference Roberts1990, Reference Roberts1994 for a wider study of this phenomenon in Papuan languages). The simultaneous ds nom agreement has different forms depending on the realis/irrealis status of the clausal operator category marked on the final verb in the linked clauses, traditionally called a clause chain in Papuan linguistics. The clausal operator categories with realis status are: present tense, today’s past tense, yesterday’s past tense, remote past tense, habitual past tense/aspect, negative past tense. The clausal operator categories with irrealis status are: future tense, prospective (about to) tense, negative future tense, and imperative, prohibitive, hortative, optative, counterfactual, apprehensive IF categories. An example of realis status is given in (24a) and an example of irrealis status is given in (24b).
(24)
a. Marking of realis status: Ho bu~busal-en age q-oig-a. pig dur~run out-3sg.nom.ds.sim.r 3pl hit-3pl.nom.todp ‘They killed the pig as it ran out.’ b. Marking of irrealis status: Ho bu~busal-eb age q-oqag-an. pig dur~run out-3sg.nom.ds.sim.irr 3pl hit-3pl.nom-fut ‘They will kill the pig as it runs out.’
Tense
The tense categories in Amele are metrical. Metrical tenses mark degrees of temporal remoteness from the deictic centre. Amele has a present tense (3a) and three degrees of past tense: today’s past tense (3c), yesterday’s past tense (22), and remote past tense (3b), as well as a negative past tense and a past habitual tense/aspect (11b′).10 The language has a regular future tense (25), a negative future tense (38), and a prospective (about to/intentional) (26) tense.11 The event referred to in the prospective tense is nearer to the deictic centre than the event referred to in the regular future tense. It is therefore metrical.
(25)
Future tense: Age cabi=na bel-oqag-an. 3pl going=to go.nsg-3pl.nom-fut ‘They will go.’
(26)
Prospective tense: Age cabi=na bel-oqag-a bil-i taw-eig-a. 3pl going=to go.nsg-3pl.nom-prsp aux-dv stand-3pl.nom-todp ‘They stood about to go.’
Modality
Categories of deontic modality, such as ability, permission and obligation are expressed lexically in Amele (Roberts Reference Roberts1987, 2001).
Event quantification
Event quantification (Roberts Reference Roberts2015a) is marked on the verb by distributive inflection that is homonymous12 with the acc agreement, ‑ad ‘plural’ and ‑al ‘dual’. Some examples are given in (27). In (27a) the motion verb belec ‘to go’ is intransitive and the ‑ad ‘plural’ marker indicates a multiple event of each woman going her own way. In (27b) and (c) calec ‘to arrive’ is intransitive. The ‑ad ‘plural’ marker in (27b) indicates multiple events of men arriving, while in (27c) the ‑al ‘dual’ marker indicates two events of men arriving.
(27)
Plural and dual event quantification: a. Caja age bud-u bel-ad-ein. woman 3pl disperse-dv go.nsg-distr.pl-3pl.nom.remp ‘The women dispersed in all directions / each to her own place.’ b. Dana age cal-ad-ein. man 3pl arrive-distr.pl -3pl.nom.remp ‘The men all arrived.’ c. Dana ale cal-al-esin. man 3du arrive-distr.du-3du.nom.remp ‘The men both arrived.’
The EVQ marker ‑ad can also indicate an exclusive action, as in (28).
(28)
Ija saen cecelac sum-i-h-ig-a qee=nu 1sg time long wait-appl-2sg.acc-1sg.nom-todp not=for ija cu~cul-h-i l-im-ig nu-ad-ig-a=da. 1sg dur~leave-2sg.acc-dv go-ss.seq-1sg.nom go-excl-1sg.nom-todp=rg ‘I waited for you for a long time but in vain. So regretfully I left and went without you.’
Aspect
There are three types of aspect that can be expressed by reduplicating some part of the verb word: durative aspect, regular and irregular iterative aspect.
Durative aspect is marked on the simultaneous ss/ds verb and conveys the idea that there is an extended temporal overlap of events. Without this marking the temporal overlap is punctiliar. Durative aspect is expressed by different kinds of CV~ or V~ reduplication of the verb stem (Roberts Reference Roberts1991a). See (24a, b), (28), for examples of CV~ reduplication and (12) for an example of V~ reduplication. With some verbs, the reduplicative (C)V~ marking of durative aspect applies to the nom agreement suffixation rather than to the verb stem, as illustrated by (29). If there is accusative marking on the verb then the reduplicative marking for durative aspect applies there, as in (30).
(29)
Durative aspect marked on nom agreement: Co-Ø a-e~en lips-3sg.psr open-dur~3sg.nom.ds.sim.r ija dunuh meci-d-ug-a. 1sg inside observe-3sg.acc-1sg.nom-todp ‘While he opened his mouth I looked inside.’
(30)
Durative aspect marked on acc agreement: Age eu cunug ihac-te~t-eig 3pl that all show-dur~1sg.acc-3pl.nom.ss.sim sa-t-ein. explain-1sg.acc-3pl.nom-remp ‘As they showed me everything they explained it to me (lit. explained me).’
The meaning of the regular iterative is a repeated, regular action. This aspect is expressed by rightward reduplication of the whole stem if the verb does not have an acc marker, otherwise the acc marker is reduplicated either in place of, or in addition to the reduplication of the verb stem (Roberts Reference Roberts1987: 252–256). For some minimal stem verbs, such as l-ec ‘to go’, the reduplicated stem is of the serial verb form (e.g. li~li-ec ‘to go repeatedly’; see Section 25.3.2). An example of regular iterative aspect is given in (31a).
(31)
a. Regular iterative: Gow-ec eu fale~fale-ei-a. light-nmlz that flash~it-3sg.nom-todp 〈IF DECL 〈TNS TODP 〈ASP IT seml flash′ (gowec) 〉〉〉 ‘That light flashed repeatedly.’ b. Irregular iterative: Gow-ec eu fale~fule-ei-a. light-nmlz that flash~irit-3sg.nom-todp 〈IF DECL 〈TNS TODP 〈ASP IRIT seml flash′ (gowec) 〉〉〉 ‘That light flashed intermittently.’
The meaning of the irregular iterative is a repeated action that is irregular in some way (i.e. haphazard, spasmodic, intermittent, etc.). This form involves reduplication of the verb stem but with a disharmonic vowel change in the reduplicated formant. There are eight types of disharmonic vowel change possibilities, which are determined by phonological factors.13 An example of irregular iterative is given in (31b).
The aspectual notions of continuative and completive can be expressed periphrastically with a serial verb construction (see examples (45) and (46) in section 25.3.1).
25.2.4 The Structure of RPs and PPs
25.2.4.1 RP Structure
The various structures of the RP are given in (32). The head noun in the RP can be a regular noun, an inalienably possessed noun or a deverbal noun. The modifier can be a noun, such as dana caub [man white] ‘white man’, dana me [man good] ‘good man’, or a modifier (a small class of words that only function as modifiers), such as dana bahic [man very] ‘real man’, dana qee [man not] ‘not a man’, or a phrase, such as dana mel iwal-ad-ec [man child teach-3pl.acc-nmlz] ‘school teacher’.
(32)
Reference phrase structures: a. noun ± modifier ± (numeric) quantifier ± deictic/indefinite article ± universal quantifier b. interrogative deictic + noun c. PP/RP + noun
A mass noun can be modified by a general quantifier, such as leih ‘some’ or geh ‘much’. A count noun can be modified by a numeric quantifier, such as lecis ‘two’ or cijed ‘three’. Amele has a pental counting system and the cardinal numbers are: osahic/osol ‘one’, lecis ‘two’, cijed ‘three’ wal oso ‘four’, ebum oso ‘one hand (≈10)’. Ordinal numbers can be formed by adding the nominalizing suffix ‑doc to the numeral (e.g. osahic-doc ‘first’, lecis-doc ‘second’, cijed-doc ‘third’). There are also a number of relationship terms that can function as ordinal numbers, for instance matu ‘firstborn/first’, milum ‘secondborn/second’, subig ‘lastborn/last’.
The quantifier can be followed by a deictic element, such as eu ‘that’ or ceheleg ‘up there’, or the indefinite article oso ‘a/one’. The article can co-occur with a deictic element, as in dana eu oso [man that art] ‘one of those men’. The universal quantifier cunug ‘all’ occurs at the end of the RP, as in jo nag cijed eu cunug [house small three that all] ‘all those three small houses’.
With respect to (32a), the head noun can be questioned with an interrogative, such as eeta ‘what’ or in ‘who’, for example Hina ija-in in? [2sg name-2sg.psr who.sg] ‘What (lit. who) is your name?’ The numeric quantifier can be questioned with an interrogative, such as ganic ‘how much/many’, for example jo ganic? [house how many] ‘how many houses?’, saab ganic? [food how much] ‘how much food?’. However, when the deictic is questioned, the interrogative form, such as cel ‘which’, is placed in the RPIP, which is the pre-core slot in the RP, as in (32b). Thus the interrogative form is cel dana [which man] ‘which man?’.
With respect to (32c), the preceding PP/RP expresses the possessor of the noun or a specification of the noun. (33) illustrates the difference in how alienable and inalienable possession is expressed.14 Alienable possession in (33a) is expressed with a possessive PP preceding the possessed noun. The possessive PP functions as an argument of the possessed noun, which is the head of the nucleus of the possessive noun phrase. The possessive PP is therefore non-predicative. Inalienable possession in (33b) is expressed by suffixal agreement in person (first, second or third) and number (singular, dual or plural) with the possessor noun phrase. The possessor need not be expressed by an overt RP or pronoun. Thus the possessor agreement functions as the argument (ARG) of the inalienably possessed head noun.15 Semantically, inalienably possessed nouns are kinship terms, body-part terms or personal attributes. In (33b) cuduni means ‘my personal place’ or ‘the place that belongs to me in some way’, whereas in (33a) ijana cudun simply means ‘my place’ without the connotations of personal ownership.
(33)
a. Alienable possession: ija=na cudun ‘my place’ 1sg=of place have′ (1sg, cudun) b. Inalienable possession: (ija) cudu-ni ‘my (personal) place’ 1sg place-1sg.psr have.as.attribute′ (1sg, cudu-)
When the modifier follows the head noun it has an attributive function. In (34a) jo us nijec describes a house where people are sleeping. When the modifier precedes the head noun it has a specificational function. In (34b) us nijec describes the type of house. Adjectival-cum-nominal modifiers are represented as predicates which take the item in the NUCR as an argument (underlined).
(34)
a. Modifier with attributive function: jo us nij-ec ‘sleeping house (i.e. a house that is asleep)’ house sleep lie-nmlz be′ (jo, [asleep′]) b. Modifier with specificational function: us nij-ec jo ‘sleeping house (i.e. a house for sleeping in)’ sleep lie-nmlz house be′ (jo, [PURP sleep′])
The basic structure of the RP is given in Figure 25.4. Most modifying elements in the RP can occur on their own as referring expressions. Some examples are given in (35). Thus, such modifiers are represented in the syntactic structure as well as in the operator projection.
(35)
a. Ben/eu/oso h-ona. big/that/one come-3sg.nom.prs ‘The big (man) is coming.’/ ‘That (man) is coming.’/ ‘Someone is coming.’ b. Cijed h-ogi-na. three come-3pl.nom-prs ‘The three (men) are coming.’
Figure 25.4 The basic structure of the RP in Amele
The structure of the alienably possessed PP and inalienably possessed RP are given in Figure 25.5. Ija cebinami ‘my brother’ is the inalienably possessed RP with cebinami as the head noun. Caja ‘woman’ is the head noun of the alienably possessed RP and ija cebinamina functions as the possessor PP. It is clear from the reference that ija ‘1sg’ is a woman.
Figure 25.5 The structure of the possessive RP in Amele
Amele uses a pronominal copy strategy where an RP is immediately followed by a personal pronoun. The pronoun indicates the person and number of the RP, as illustrated in (36). The pronoun functions as appositive to the RP and since it is not possible for other clausal elements to occur between the RP and the pronoun, it forms a constituent with the RP.
(36)
Pronominal copy strategy: Caja eu uqa/ale/age qaj-ei/-esi/-eig-a. woman that 3sg/3du/3pl cry-3sg.nom/3du.nom/3pl.nom-todp ‘That/those (du)/those (pl) woman/women cried.’
25.2.4.2 PP Structure
Amele only has postpositional phrases (PPs). They can be predicative or non-predicative. Predicative PPs occur with temporal or locative adjuncts (e.g. Mande=na [Monday=on] ‘on Monday’, be-on′ (Mande, x) or jo=na [house=in] ‘in the house’ be-in′ (jo, x)), or with goal, path, source, or instrument argument-adjuncts, as described in Section 25.2.7. The possessor-marking postposition =na ‘of’, described in Section 25.2.4.1, is non-predicative.
25.2.5 Constraints on A and U Selection
With a ditransitive verb like ihacdoc ‘to show him/her’ in (9), either the perceiver x-argument in see′ (x, y) or the perceived argument y can be selected as undergoer. The latter is the unmarked choice. When the perceived argument is selected as undergoer it is coded on the verb with acc marking attached directly to the verb stem and the perceiver argument can also be marked as a non-macrorole applied object. However, if the perceiver is selected as undergoer it is coded on the verb with acc marking attached directly to the verb stem and the perceived argument cannot be marked on the verb.
The verb ‘give’ is exceptional in that the undergoer argument functions as the stem of the verb. The first argument of have′ (x, y) (recipient) in ‘give’ LS is thus the only choice for undergoer assignment and there is no alternative argument-marking construction where the second argument of have′ (x, y) (theme) is the undergoer. An example of this was given in (10).
When the goal argument in an argument-adjunct PP is a person, an applied object construction may be used as an alternative expression, as illustrated in (4). This is also the case for the source adjunct PP argument, and the benefactive adjunct PP argument, illustrated in (37). For the malefactive argument shown in (38) there is only the applicative form and there is no corresponding argument-adjunct PP form.
(37)
Benefactive argument-adjunct applied object: a. Uqa age=nu jo eu ceh-al-ei-a. 3sg 2pl=for house that plant-3du.acc-3sg.nom-todp ‘He built both those (two) houses for you (plural).’ b. Uqa jo eu ceh-al-i-ad-ei-a. 3sg house that plant-3du.acc-appl-2pl.acc-3sg.nom-todp ‘He built both those (two) houses for you (plural).’ c. [do′ (3sg, [build′ (3sg, 3du [jo])]) ∧ proc create′ (3du [jo])] & ingr exist′ (3du [jo]) purp [become have′ (2pl, 3du [jo])]
(38)
Malefactive argument-adjunct: Ene cain salal-i-t-ag-aun. here proh slide-appl-1sg.acc-2sg.nom-negf NOT [be-here′ (2sg, [do′ (2sg [slide′ (2sg)]] ∧ feel.negatively.affected′ (1sg)] ‘Don’t slide here and annoy me (coll. don’t slide on me here).’
25.2.6 Postposition Assignment
The only non-predicative postposition assigned by rule is =na, which is assigned to the possessor in the alienable possession RP (cf. 33a).
(39)
Rule assigning =na ‘possessor’: Assign =na to the x-argument in the RP logical structure segment: have′ (x, y)
25.2.7 Coding of Adjuncts
Temporal adjuncts can be an RP, such as cum ‘yesterday’, uqadec ‘tomorrow’, qila ‘today/now’, cel saen ‘what time’, or a PP, such as Mande=na ‘on Monday’, Ogas=na ‘in August’. Locative adjuncts can be an RP, such as ene ‘here’, ono ‘there’, ceheleg ‘up there’, ana ‘where’, or a PP, such as jo=na [house=in] ‘in the house’, na=na [tree=on] ‘on the tree’, eeta=na [what=in] ‘in what’.
25.2.8 PSA Alignment(s)
In Amele the only choice for PSA with a transitive verb is [AT] as there is no passive construction in the language. However, IVCs have exceptional PSA verb agreement coding. Although the undergoer is the only DCA in an IVC and therefore the highest-ranking DCA, it is coded as acc, contrary to (2). This is because 3sg.nom is assigned by default in an IVC.
25.2.9 Information Structure
The pre-detached position is outside the potential focus domain. The information structure of (14) is illustrated in Figure 25.6. The RP caja eu ‘that woman’ is a clause-external topic in the pre-detached position and, as a topic, it is outside of the potential focus domain of the proposition. Uqa ‘she’ is the resumptive pronoun in the clause. The potential focus domain (dotted line) is the attributive clause uqa me qee ‘she (is) no good’ and the actual focus domain (solid line) is the predication me qee ‘(is) no good’.
Figure 25.6 The PrDP and the potential focus domain
Similarly, the post-detached position is outside the potential focus domain. The information structure of (15) is illustrated in Figure 25.7. The RP dana eu ‘that man’ is in the post-detached position and clarifies the identity of eu ‘that’ in the main clause. As clarifying information, it is outside of the potential focus domain of the proposition. The potential focus domain is the statement eu uqa jejegca men ‘he got his voice back’. Here eu ‘that (man)’ functions as a resumptive pronoun for dana eu ‘that man’. The actual focus domain is the predication uqa jejegca men ‘got his voice back’.
Figure 25.7 The PoDP and the potential focus domain
Amele has a range of particles that can attach to the end of the sentence which qualify the proposition, such as da ‘but, however, nevertheless’, do ‘be encouraged, let’s do it’, fo ‘yes/no question’ fa ‘dubitive question, maybe’, ijom ‘certainly’, le ‘permission granted’, and mo ‘supplication, pleading’ (Roberts Reference Roberts1990). Some of the sentence particles, such as the question particles, fo and fa, can occur either at the end of the sentence or they can be focused on a particular constituent in the sentence. In (40a) the yes/no question particle, fo, occurs at the end of the sentence. It has scope over the whole proposition and therefore expresses sentence focus. In (40b–c) the question particle is focused on a particular sentence constituent and expresses marked narrow focus on that constituent. (40d) illustrates the use of the question word in ‘who’. It is ungrammatical to have the question particle fo at the end of the sentence in this case since the question word expresses narrow focus and the particle at the end of the sentence would express sentence focus. However, as illustrated in (40e), it is possible to focus on the question word with the question particle. This expresses marked narrow focus.
(40)
Focus expressed morphologically: a. Ija aide-ni cabi=na nu-i-a=fo? [unmarked sentence focus] 1sg wife-1sg.psr garden=to go-3sg.nom-todp=q ‘Did my wife go to the garden?’ b. Ija aide-ni=fo cabi=na nu-i-a? [marked narrow focus] 1sg wife-1sg.psr=q garden=to go-3sg.nom-todp ‘Was it my wife that went to the garden?’ c. Ija aide-ni cabi=na=fo nu-i-a? [marked narrow focus] 1sg wife-1sg.psr garden=to=q go-3sg.nom-todp ‘Was it to the garden that my wife went?’ d. In cabi=na nu-i-a(*=fo)? [unmarked narrow focus] who.sg garden=to go-3sg.nom-todp(=q) ‘Who went to the garden?’ e. In=fo cabi=na nu-i-a? [marked narrow focus] who.sg=q garden=to go-3sg.nom-todp ‘Who is it that went to the garden?’
It is possible to incorporate certain modifier constituents into the verb word to express emphatic focus for the purposes of contrast or correction, or closer specification, for instance. For example, the intensifier bahic ‘very, must, really’ can occur either preceding the verb, as in (41a), or be incorporated into the verb between the verb stem and the verb suffixation, as in (41b). Other modifiers which can be focused in this way are the limiters dih ‘just’ and himec ‘only’, and the negators qee ‘not’ and cain ‘don’t’.
(41)
Emphatic focus: a. Age Anut bina-n bahic sul-eig-a! 2pl God fame-3sg.psr really lift up-2pl.nom-imp ‘Really praise God!’ b. Age Anut bina-n sul<bahic>eig-a! 2pl God fame-3sg.psr lift up<really>2pl.nom-imp ‘REALLY praise God!’
25.2.10 Linking
In this section the semantics-to-syntax linking for some two-place and three-place predicates is illustrated. Figure 25.8 shows the semantics-to-syntax linking in a transitive sentence with acc (DUn) marking. Here 3pl [dana] is the first argument in the active predicate LS do′ (3pl, [eat′ (3pl [dana], 3pl [ho])]), and is assigned the actor macrorole. 3pl [ho] ‘pigs’ is the second argument in this LS and also the only argument in the stative predicate LS ingr consumed′ (3pl [ho]). This argument is assigned the undergoer macrorole. The actor argument, 3pl [dana], is selected as PSA and coded as nom agreement on the verb. The undergoer argument, 3pl [ho], is coded as acc agreement on the verb in order to indicate the plurality of the animate referent.
Figure 25.8 Semantics-to-syntax linking in a transitive sentence with acc marking
Figure 25.9 illustrates the semantics-to-syntax linking in an IVC. The 1sg argument in feel′ (1sg, [afraid′]) is assigned the undergoer macrorole according to the Actor-Undergoer Hierarchy (AUH). The IVC is coded as 3sg.nom agreement by default. There is therefore no linking between this argument marking in the syntax and the logical structure.
Figure 25.9 Semantics-to-syntax linking in an impersonal verb construction
Figure 25.10 illustrates the semantics-to-syntax linking for a three-place predicate, ihacdoc ‘to show him’. The leftmost argument, 3sg ‘he’, is assigned the actor macrorole and the rightmost argument, 3pl [ho] ‘pigs’, is assigned the undergoer macrorole. The actor is selected as PSA and coded as nom agreement on the verb. The undergoer is coded as a DUn by acc agreement attaching directly to the verb stem. The non-macrorole core argument, 1sg ‘me’, is coded as a DN by the applicative marker and acc agreement marking on the verb.
Figure 25.10 Semantics-to-syntax linking in a ditransitive predicate
25.3 Language-Specific Topics
The language-specific topics discussed in this chapter are serial verb constructions in Section 25.3.1 and switch-reference in Section 25.3.2.
25.3.1 Serial Verb Constructions
Kroeger (Reference Kroeger2004: 229–230) shows that prototypical serial verb constructions (SVCs) have the following syntactic and semantic properties:16
(42)
Characteristic properties of SVCs: a. A prototypical SVC contains two or more morphologically independent verbs within the same clause, neither of which is an auxiliary. b. There are no conjunctions or other overt markers of subordination or coordination separating the two verbs. c. The serial verbs belong to a single intonation contour, with no pause separating them. d. The entire SVC refers to a single (possibly complex) event. e. A true SVC may contain only one specification for tense, aspect, modality, negation, etc., though these features are sometimes redundantly marked on both verbs.17 f. The two verbs in the SVC share at least one semantic argument. g. Obligatory non-coreference: a true SVC will not contain two overt NPs which refer to the same argument. h. A prototypical SVC contains only one grammatical subject.
SVCs in Amele do not have all of the prototypical properties listed in (42). In an SVC the non-final verb in the series is marked with ‑i or ‑u. Verbs with an ‑ec infinitive form take ‑i, while verbs with an ‑oc infinitive form take ‑u. The ‑i/‑u marking indicates the verb is dependent (dv).18 This contravenes principle (42b) as the dv marker indicates a nexus relationship. The PSAs of the verbs in an SVC typically have the same referent.19 There are two basic types of SVC. In one type, illustrated in (43a), the verbs are in a cosubordinate relationship. In the other type, illustrated in (44a), the verbs are in a superordinate–subordinate relationship. By comparison, the verb manimei in (43b) is fully inflected with switch-reference morphology and is therefore not a serial verb. Similarly, ehimeig in (44b) is not a serial verb.
(43)
Cosubordinate SVC: a. Caja uqa ceta man-i j-ei-a. woman 3sg yam roast-dv eat-3sg.nom-todp 〈IF DECL 〈STA REAL 〈TNS TODP [[do′ (3sg [caja], Ø)] cause [become roasted′ (ceta)] {&} [[do′ (3sg [caja], [eat′ (3sg [caja], ceta) ∧ proc consume′ (3sg [caja], ceta)] & [ingr consumed′ (ceta)]])] 〉〉〉 ‘The woman roasted and ate yam.’20 b. Caja uqa ceta man-im-ei j-ei-a. woman 3sg yam roast-ss.seq-3sg.nom eat-3sg.nom-todp 〈IF DECL 〈STA REAL 〈TNS TODP [do′ (3sg [caja], Ø)] cause [become roasted′ (ceta)] {&} [[do′ (3sg [caja], [eat′ (3sg [caja], ceta) ∧ proc consume′ (3sg [caja], ceta)] & [ingr consumed′ (ceta)]])] 〉〉〉 ‘The woman roasted yam and ate it.’
(44)
Subordinate SVC: a. Age ja eh-i n-eig-a. 3pl firewood take-dv come down-3pl.nom-todp 〈IF DECL 〈STA REAL 〈TNS TODP 〈DIR COME DOWN [[do′ (3pl, Ø)] cause [do′ (3pl, [move.away.from.ref.point′ (ja)])] 〉〉〉〉 ‘They brought firewood down.’ b. Age ja eh-im-eig n-eig-a. 3pl firewood take-ss.seq-3pl.nom come down-3pl.nom-todp 〈IF DECL 〈STA REAL 〈TNS TODP [do′ (3pl, Ø)] cause [do′ (3pl, [move.away.from.ref.point′ (ja)])] {&} [do′ (3pl, [move.down.to.ref.point′ (3pl)])] 〉〉〉 ‘They brought firewood and came down.’
In (43a) the verbs mani ‘roast’ and jeia ‘she ate’ describe a series of closely related events. Compare (43b) in which manimei is the fully inflected ss.seq form. Here the roasting and eating are interpreted as separate consecutive events and they are separate clauses in the syntactic representation. The arguments caja ‘woman’ and ceta ‘yam’ in (43a) are shared in the LS for the two predicates. In the syntax for (43a) illustrated in Figure 25.11 the argument caja is represented by an RP in the clause and by 3sg.nom agreement on the verb jeia ‘she ate’. The argument ceta is represented as a core RP argument of mani ‘roast’. It is not coded on the verb by acc agreement as it is inanimate and a mass noun. The SVC is a cosubordinate CORE [[CORE] [CORE]] juncture because it is not possible to have temporal or locative clausal adjuncts applying separately to either core. By comparison, in (43b) it would be possible to qualify jeia ‘she ate’ with the temporal adjunct hibna ‘later’ because it is a separate clause.
(44a) describes a single event of ‘take down’. The verb n- ‘come down’ is a directional modifier of the verb ehi ‘take’ and is coded in the LS as such. There is no shared argument between the verbs as n- is represented in the LS as a directional operator. (44a) therefore contravenes principle (42f). Compare (44b), where ehimeig is fully inflected for ss.seq. Here the event ehimeig ‘they took’ is linked to the event neiga ‘they came down’ by {&} in the LS. They are separate consecutive events in the LS and are separate clauses in the syntactic structure. In the syntactic structure for (44a) in Figure 25.12 the verb n- is in a subordinate relationship to ehi. This is ad-nuclear subordination. The 3pl.nom argument agreement ‑eig attaches to n- as the final verb in the series.
Figure 25.11 SVC with cosubordinate core juncture
Figure 25.12 SVC with nuclear subordination
With respect to the characteristic SVC properties detailed in (42), a particular SVC may not necessarily belong to a single intonation contour (cf. 42c). Compare the sentence in Figure 25.13. The li ‘go’ verb is a directional modifier of ehi ‘take’. The first two cores form one intonational unit and the last core is a separate intonational unit. However, the dv coding marks this as describing a series of linked events which should be interpreted as a unified complex event.
Figure 25.13 Extended coordinate SVC
The subordinate SVC has a range of modifying functions in addition to expressing directionality. Examples are given in (45)–(49). In each case the modifying verb follows the verb that is modified. (45)–(46) express aspect periphrastically. (45) illustrates how continuative aspect is expressed by a posture verb: bilec ‘to sit’, nijec ‘to lie’, tawec ‘to stand’, and (46) illustrates how completive aspect is expressed with the verb hedoc ‘to finish it’. (47)–(49) illustrate some other common forms of this type of subordinate SVC.
(45)
Continuative aspect expressed with a posture verb: Age nu-i bil-egi-na. 3pl go-dv sit-3pl.nom-prs ‘They go continuously.’
(46)
Completive aspect expressed with the verb hedoc ‘to finish it’: Age jo ceh-i he-d-oig-a. 3pl house plant-dv finish-3sg.acc-3pl.nom-todp ‘They finished building the house.
(47)
Investigative modification expressed with the verb fec ‘to see’: Uqa wehuc j-i f-ei-a. 3sg soup eat-dv see-3sg.nom-todp ‘She tasted the soup.’
(48)
Superlative modification expressed with the verb cuhadoc ‘to excel’: Caja uqa ola-Ø cus-i cuha-d-on. woman 3sg face-3sg.psr scrub-dv excel-3sg.acc-3sg.nom.remp ‘The woman cleaned her face well.’
(49)
Enumerative modification expressed with a numeral:21 Q-u lecis-d-oig-a. hit-dv two-3sg.acc-3pl.nom-todp ‘They hit it twice.’
25.3.2 Switch-Reference
Switch-reference (SR) in Amele is judged to be a local syntactic device for monitoring the referentiality of PSA arguments between adjacent clauses as to whether they have identical or non-identical reference (Roberts (Reference Roberts, Aikhenvald and Dixon2017). Dependent SR verbs occur most commonly in a clause chain.22 A clause chain comprises a string of linked clauses with only the final clause in the chain marked for clausal operator categories, such as tense or illocutionary force. The non-final clauses are dependent on the final clause for clausal operator designation. The operator-dependent clauses are also typically marked with switch-reference morphology. Amele has two basic types of ss/ds morphology. One codes sequential events and the other codes simultaneous overlap of events. The sequential verb is marked with either ‑im ‘ss.seq’ or ‑ec/‑oc ‘ds.seq’ followed by nom agreement morphology. The simultaneous verb is marked with nom agreement morphology which indicates either ss.sim or ds.sim. The ds.sim morphology is further divided into that which indicates realis status and that which indicates irrealis status of the tense or IF category marked on the final clause in the clause chain.23 The ds.sim verb agrees in status value with the status value of the final clause. ss/ds clauses are most commonly in a cosubordinate relationship with other clauses (see Chapter 13). However, ss/ds clauses can also have a subordinate function.
25.3.2.1 Cosubordinate Switch-Reference Clauses
A typical clause chain of four linked clauses in a cosubordinate relationship is illustrated in (50). The verbs neceb and tobocomin are marked for ds.seq and the verb series sumudi bibiligin is marked for ds.sim.r since the tense category of the final verb is realis status. The final verb in the chain is belowan and this verb is marked for yesterday’s past tense and declarative illocutionary force. Sequential events are indicated by ‘{&}’ in the LS and simultaneous events by ‘{∧}’. The clauses … sumudi bibiligin, neceb, tobocomin and belowan in (50) are in a cosubordinate relationship as the tense, status and IF categories marked on belowan have scope over all the clauses in the chain. Sumudi bibiligin is a continuative SVC. The verb bibiligin modifies sumudi as a continuative event and the durative marking on bi~biligin indicates the ‘waiting’ event overlapped for a period of time with the ‘came down’ (neceb) event.
(50)
Dependent switch-reference verbs: 1. Ija Malolo uqa=na ka jic anag ono=nu 1sg Malolo 3sg=of car road mother there=for sum-ud-i bi~bil-igin wait-3sg.acc-dv dur~sit-1sg.nom.ds.sim.r 2. n-ec-eb come down-ds.seq-3sg.nom 3. tob-oc-omin ascend-ds.seq-1sg.nom 4. bel-ow-an. go.nsg-1du.nom-yestp 〈IF DECL 〈STA REAL 〈TNS YESTP 〈ASP CONT 〈ASP DUR be-loc′ (ono, [be-loc′ (jic anag, do′ (1sg, [wait′ (1sg, become be-loc′ (jic anag, [have′ (Malolo, ka))])〉〉 {∧} do′ (3sg, [come.down′ (3sg)]) {&} do′ (1sg, [ascend′ (1sg)]) {&} do′ (1du, [move.away.from.ref.point′ (1du)])〉〉〉 ‘While I waited for Malolo’s car there on the main road, he came down, I climbed in and off we (du) went.’
Note that the final clause in a clause chain need not be finite. In (51) the purpose clause ho bubusaleb qoc ‘to kill the pig as it runs out’ is a clause chain with qoc ‘to kill’ as the final clause. The verb bubusaleb in the dependent clause is marked for ds simultaneous irrealis nom agreement morphology as the understood PSA of qoc is ‘those men’, and qoc, being infinitive, has irrealis status.
(51)
Infinitival final clause: Dana eu ho bu~busal-eb q-oc=nu h-oig-a. man that pig dur~run out-3sg.nom.ds.sim.irr hit-inf=for come-3pl.nom-todp ‘Those men came to kill the pig as it runs out.’
A diagram of the syntax of (50) is given in Figure 25.14. The clausal operators of tense, status and IF apply to all the dependent clauses, whereas the core and nuclear operators apply only to a particular verb. The ss/ds markers are treated as clause linkage markers. The rules for how the SR system works are set out in (52) and (53). In terms of Comrie’s (Reference Comrie, Arnold, Atkinson, Durand, Grover and Sadler1989) different types of reference-tracking systems, SR in Amele is local and interclausal.
(52) Protocol for selecting switch-reference controlling clause:
For a dependent clause in a cosubordinate relationship ({&} or {∧}), select the next cosubordinate clause as the controlling clause for switch-reference marking.
(53) Amele switch-reference coreferentiality rule:
Check the pivot of the dependent clause against the pivot of the controlling clause for coreferentiality of identity. If the referent is identical, mark ss; if not, mark ds.
Figure 25.14 Cosubordinate clause chain structure, example (50)
With respect to (53), there are complexities in determining referential identity.24 For example, Amele SR is asymmetrical where there is referential overlap between the pivot referents of the controlling clause and the pivot referents of the dependent clause. Where the pivot referent(s) of the controlling clause is (are) properly included in the set of pivot referents of the dependent clause then ss is marked. However, when the pivot referent(s) of the dependent clause is (are) properly included in the set of pivot referent(s) of the controlling clause then ds must be marked. For example, in (50) 1sg.nom in [3] is properly included in 1du.nom in [4] and in this case ds must be marked. If it was the other way around (‘we (du) climbed in and off I went’) and 1sg.nom was the controlling referent and 1du.nom was the dependent referent then ss would be marked.25
Stirling (Reference Stirling1993) suggests that SR in Amele tracks events rather than the main participant(s) in the event. As already mentioned, Amele has asymmetrical ss/ds marking when there is referential overlap between the PSA of the controlling clause and the PSA of the marked clause. When a plural number of participants controls a singular number of participants then ds must be marked. In (54) a multiple (plural) event budu beladeiga with multiple participants controls a singular dependent event age cajimeig with multiple participants. If the SR tracked events, as suggested by Stirling (Reference Stirling1993), then it would be expected that a move from a singular event to a multiple event should trigger ds marking. However, ss is marked. This shows that the Amele SR system tracks the coreferentiality of participants across clauses (both plural in this case) rather than the coreferentiality of events.
(54)
Event quantification and SR marking: Dana caja=ca age caj-im-eig bud-u bel-ad-eig-a. man woman=add 3pl arise-ss.seq-3pl.nom disperse-dv go-distr-3pl.nom-todp ‘The people got up and dispersed in all directions (multiple events).’
Further evidence that SR in Amele tracks participants rather than events is provided by the reciprocal verb form, as illustrated in (55). Here a pair of ds-marked verbs functions as the predicate in the nucleus.26 The 3pl.nom agreement at the end of the predicate refers to the whole group of women (caja). The ds-marked verbs express the notion of one womani hitting another womank and this being reciprocated by womank hitting womani. Thus the ds marking refers to individual participants in the overall event of women hitting.
(55)
Reciprocal verb and SR marking: Caja q-oc-ob q-oc-ob egi-na. woman hit-ds.seq-3sg.nom hit-ds.seq-3sg.nom 3pl.nom-prs 〈IF DECL 〈STA REAL 〈TNS PRS do′ (3pl [caja], [seml do′ (3sg [caja]i, [hit′ (3sg [caja]i, 3sg [caja]k)]) {&} seml do′ (3sg [caja]k, [hit′ (3sg [caja]k, 3sg [caja]i)])]〉〉〉 ‘The women are hitting each other.’
25.3.2.2 Subordinate Switch-Reference Clauses
Switch-reference clauses can also have a subordinate function. The following functions are described below:
core subordinate object clause of perception verbs
An SR clause may function as the object of a perception verb.27 In (56a) the second argument of the perception verb perceive′ is a proposition become arise′ (dedeman) ‘a smell had arisen’. Therefore in the syntax dedeman waseceb occupies the DUn position in the clause between the PSA caja eu ‘that woman’ and the verb don ‘she perceived’. In Roberts (Reference Roberts1988a) it is shown that overtly coordinate clauses in Amele, such as a qa ‘but’ clause, cannot be embedded within another clause. Therefore dedeman waseceb cannot be in a coordinate relationship with don. It is core subordinate, as illustrated in Figure 25.15. Since become arise′ (dedeman) is an accomplishment (ending in a result state) it is interpreted as being in a sequential relationship with the matrix predicate perceive′, that is, the smell arose before the woman perceived it. Therefore, the verb waseceb is marked for ds.seq.
Figure 25.15 Core subordinate DUn clause, example (56a)
Similarly, in (56b) the second argument of the perception predicate see′ is the proposition lie′ (3sg [ma susul] ‘the taro peelings are lying (on the ground)’. Consequently, ma susul eu ninijen occupies the DUn position in the clause between the PSA mala uqa ‘chicken he’ and the verb fen ‘he saw’. Here ma susul eu ninijen is in a core subordinate relationship with fen. Because the proposition lie′ (3sg [ma susul]) is a state it is interpreted as occurring simultaneously with see′. The verb ninijen is therefore marked as ds.sim.r.
(56)
Core subordinate DUn clause of perception verbs: a. Caja eu dedeman was-ec-eb d-on. woman that smell arise-ds.seq-3sg.nom perceive-3sg.nom.remp 〈IF DECL 〈STA REAL 〈TNS REMP perceive′ (3sg [caja], [become arise′ (3sg [dedeman])])〉〉〉 ‘That woman perceived that a smell had arisen.’ b. Mala uqa ma susul eu ni~nij-en f-en. chicken 3sg taro peelings that dur~lie-3sg.nom.ds.sim.r see-3sg.nom.remp 〈IF DECL 〈STA REAL 〈TNS REMP see′ (3sg [mala], [〈ASP DUR lie′ (3sg [ma susul])〉])〉〉〉 ‘Chicken saw those taro peelings lying (there).’
A switch-reference clause can function as a modifier of a following clause. (57) is a sentence containing five clauses. Clauses [1, 3, 5] describe the mainline events, while clauses [2, 4] provide background information. Clause [2] says ‘when the yams ripened …’ and clause [4] says ‘when the yams dried …’. The secondary nature of clause [2] is indicated by the ss marking on clause [1]. In this case, clause [3] is the controlling clause for the ss marking on clause [1]. Clause [3] is also the controlling clause for the ds marking on clause [2]. Thus clause [2] functions as a temporal modifier to clause [3]. Similarly, the ss marking on clause [3] is controlled by clause [5] and clause [4], marked for ds, functions as a temporal modifier to clause [5]. There are thus layers of cosubordination, which can be schematically represented as in (57a).
(57)
Layered cosubordination in a clause chain: a. [Clause-1]SS [[Clause-2]DS Clause-3]SS [[Clause-4]DS Clause-5] 1. Ceta bahim m-i he-d-um-ei yam store put-dv finish-3sg.acc-ss.seq-3sg.nom 2. ceta wal m-ec-eb yam ripe put-ds.seq-3sg.nom 3. ceta eu hun-im-ei yam that bore-ss.seq-3sg.nom 4. gulden h-oc-ob dried come-ds.seq-3sg.nom 5. ceta bahim=na tac-en. yam store=in fill-3sg.nom.remp b. 〈IF DECL 〈STA REAL 〈TNS REMP 〈ASP COMPL [do′ (3sgi, [make′ (3sgi, ceta bahim)]) ∧ proc create′ (ceta bahim)] & ingr exist′ (ceta bahim)〉 {&} [[ become ripened′ (ceta)] {&} [do′ (3sgi, [dig.up′ (3sgi, ceta)]]] {&}[[become dried′ (ceta)] {&} [do′ (3sgi, Ø)] cause [become be-in′ (ceta bahim, Ø)] cause [ingr full′ (ceta bahim)]])〉〉〉 ‘He finished making the yam store and, when the yams had ripened, he dug up those yams and when they dried he put them in the yam store.’
The syntactic structure of (57) is diagrammed in Figure 25.16. The modifying clauses [2] and [4] are in a cosubordinate relationship to the following matrix clause. The matrix clause is the controlling clause of the ‘sub-cosubordinate’ clause for the purposes of switch-reference marking. The PSA in the sub-cosubordinate clause is different to the PSA in the matrix clause in each case, so ds is marked.
Note that this produces an anomalous SR marking between clause [1] and the immediately following clause [2], and between clause [3] and the immediately following clause [4]. The verb in clause [1] is marked for ss when the PSA of clause [2] is different to the PSA in clause [1]. The verb in clause [3] is also marked for ss when the PSA of clause [4] is different to the PSA in clause [3]. This shows that the switch-reference marking system takes account of the layers of cosubordination. For clauses signalling the mainline events, such as clauses [1, 3, 5] in (57) and the four clauses in (50) the SR-marking system selects the next cosubordinate clause as the controlling clause for SR marking. For an SR clause indicating background information, such as [2, 4] in (57), it is interpreted being relevant to the following ‘mainline event’ expressing clause, and the SR-marking system selects that clause as the controlling clause for SR marking. A translation of (57) directly reflecting its structure would be ‘He finished making the yam store; the yams ripened, and then he dug up those yams; the yams dried, and then he put them in the yam store’.
Figure 25.16 Layered cosubordination in (57)
The protasis (condition clause) in a conditional sentence modifies the apodosis (consequence clause). The condition clause in the protasis can be a switch-reference clause. ss.seq marking for the condition clause is ‑if/‑uf followed by the regular ss.seq nom agreement morphology. For all other ss/ds marking the conjunction fi ‘if’ is cliticized to the switch-reference verb. An example of an ss condition clause is given in (58a) and of a ds condition clause in (58b). In (58a) the ss marking actually indicates the certainty of the consequence. In both cases, the ss/ds condition clause can be postposed after the consequence clause and it is ad-clausal subordination.
(58)
Ad-clausal subordination in a conditional clause: a. Qee j-i he-d-uf-eg qaga-h-ig-en. not eat-dv finish-3sg.acc-ss.cond-2sg.nom kill-2sg.acc-1sg.nom-fut ‘If you don’t eat it all (lit. finish) I will kill you.’ b. Ija ja hud-ec-emin=fi uqa saab man-igi-an. 1sg fire open-ds.seq-1sg.nom=if 3sg food cook-3sg.nom-fut ‘If I light the fire she will cook the food.’
The fact that switch-reference in Amele occurs in subordinate clauses as well as cosubordinate clauses requires a revision of the protocol for selecting the controlling clause; (52) has therefore been modified as follows.
(59)
Protocol for selecting switch-reference controlling clause: 1. For a dependent clause in a cosubordinate relationship, select the next cosubordinate clause as the controlling clause for switch-reference marking. 2. For a dependent clause in a subordinate relationship, select the superordinate matrix clause as the controlling clause for switch-reference marking.
25.3.2.3 Grammatical Functions and Switch-Reference
The coreferentiality rule as stated in (53) applies in most cases. However, it does not apply in a straightforward way when the dependent or controlling clause is an IVC. In (60a) cucuiimig ‘I feared something’ is a state verb with two arguments. It is M-transitive. The actor (emoter) argument is marked with 1sg.nom agreement and the undergoer (target) argument is unspecified. Here, cucuiimig functions as the controlling clause for ija cocobig ‘as I walked’ and the dependent clause to busali nuiga ‘I ran away’. With respect to (53), the pivot of ija cocobig is 1sg.nom and is coreferential with the 1sg.nom pivot of cucuiimig. Thus, cocobig is marked ss. Then the 1sg.nom pivot of cucuiimig is coreferential with the 1sg.nom pivot of busali nuiga and cucuiimig is marked ss. Adherence to (53) is straightforward.
(60)
a. State verb cucuiec fear′ (x, y) ‘to fear something’: Ija co~cob-ig cucui-im-ig 1sg dur~walk-1sg.nom.ss.sim fear-ss.seq-1sg.nom busal-i nu-ig-a. run away-dv go-1sg.nom-todp ‘As I walked along, I was afraid, and I fled.’ b. Impersonal verb cucuidoc feel′ (x, [afraid′]) ‘to be afraid’: Ija co~cob-ig cucui-t-ec-eb 1sg dur~walk-1sg.nom.ss.sim fear-1sg.acc-ds.seq-3sg.nom busal-i nu-ig-a. run away-dv go-1sg.nom-todp ‘As I walked along, I became afraid, and I fled.’
Now compare (60b). Here, cucuiteceb ‘I was afraid’ is an IVC.28 In this case, the verb has a 1sg.acc ‘experiencer’ argument and a 3sg.nom ‘empty’ argument. When cucuiteceb functions as the controlling clause to ija cocobig this verb is marked ss. Thus, the 1sg.acc argument in the IVC functions as pivot when it is the controlling clause. However, when cucuiteceb functions as the dependent clause to busali nuiga it is marked ds. This shows that the pivot arguments are not being compared between these clauses. Instead, the controller 3sg.nom argument in the IVC is compared with the pivot in the non-IVC controlling clause. Thus, the coreferentiality rule in (53) needs to be modified to (61). (61) applies to both regular verbs and IVCs. With a regular verb the pivot and controller are one and the same argument so monitoring either function does not select a different argument. However, in an IVC, the pivot and controller are different arguments, so it makes a difference which argument is monitored when the IVC functions as controlling clause or dependent clause.
25.3.2.4 Pragmatic Functions of the SR System
Often in Amele text, there occur what appear to be ‘anomalous’ ds markings where ds is indicated but the PSA of the marked clause and the controlling clause are the same. These ds markings are, in fact, not anomalous but are indicating a change in discourse theme. The thematic changes are primarily in the area of time, place and possible world setting (real vs. unreal). Thematic changes of time and place are often accompanied by temporal and locative modifier expressions and a ds thematic change of place is most commonly marked on a motion verb. Thematic changes in a possible-world setting are normally a switch from the real world to an intended or proposed action or vice versa, a switch from intended/proposed action to the real world. Examples of this phenomenon are given in Roberts (Reference Roberts1987: 303–305, 1988b). However, these are pragmatic extensions of the SR system. At core, the switch-reference system in Amele is syntactically motivated. It is a local device for monitoring the referentiality of PSA arguments between adjacent clauses as to whether they have identical or non-identical reference.
