22.2.1 Basic Morphosyntactic Properties of Cheyenne

Cheyenne is a polysynthetic language which, like other Algonquian languages, is believed to exhibit a pragmatically influenced word order (Leman Reference Leman1999: 37), which is concerned with the way in which the message is formulated, rather than with the identification of semantic roles or syntactic functions. In accordance with the concept of ‘newsworthiness’ (Mithun Reference Mithun and Tomlin1987), which appears to imply importance and unpredictability, the language tends to place any elements expressing relevant information preverbally and any elements expressing trivial information postverbally.

Owing to the pronominal-argument and head-marking nature of Cheyenne, verbs have an extremely complex templatic structure, which not only includes bound forms covering the grammatical information of the core arguments of the predicate, but also derivational stems and particles expressing grammatical categories like aspect, tense, modality, etc., which are treated as operators modifying the different layers of the clause, as shown in Figure 22.1 (modified from Corral Esteban Reference Corral Esteban, Nolan and Diedrichsen2017: 310).

Figure 22.1 Verb structure in Cheyenne

(modified from Corral Esteban Reference Corral Esteban, Nolan and Diedrichsen2017: 310)

The relative ordering of the elements within the verbal complex is as follows. The person cross-referenced on the verbal prefix of a main clause always refers to the most pragmatically salient participant, in accordance with the Person Hierarchy 2 > 1 > 3 > 4 > I(inanimate).¹

The preverbal operators between the prefix and the verb stem express the realis/irrealis distinction, past or future tense, epistemic modality, event quantification, negation, deontic modality, direction,² and the different aspectual distinctions.

Predicates can be simple or complex, depending on whether they comprise one single stem or more than one stem. The morphemes constituting a complex predicate, which incorporate adverbial, nominal and verbal meanings into the verb, are commonly referred to as initial, medial and final, in accordance with their relative position within the verbal complex (Bloomfield Reference Bloomfield, Osgood and Hoijer1946).

The theme marker indicates voice or, more accurately in Algonquian terminology, whether the construction is direct or inverse. In broad terms, the direct construction is used when the subject of the transitive clause outranks the object in the Person Hierarchy, and the inverse is used when the object outranks the subject.

Following the theme marker – and sometimes merged with it in a portmanteau – a number of suffixes that function as pronominal affixes appear, as they cross-reference the core arguments of the predicate and cover grammatical information about them in terms of person, number, animacy, and proximate/obviative status.

The two outermost operators, the clausal operators of evidentiality and illocutionary force, follow the pronominal suffixes. To summarize, in Cheyenne operators realized as bound morphemes occur on both sides of the nucleus.

1. (1)

   (tns - neg -  mod  - asp   - dir  - V -    neg - evid - if)

   É - s - sáa - tónėše – éne - e’e-óo’ó’t(a)-ȯ-hé-nȯse-Ø

   3-pst-neg-be.able.to-stop-up.in-look.fti-3>I.3sg.a.Isg.u-neg-evid.3sg.a.Isg.u.rep-decl

   ho’honáevose.

   mountain

   ‘He is said to have not been able to stop looking up the mountain.’

Example (1) and its representation in Figure 22.2 indicate that, in Cheyenne, the order of the morphemes expressing operators with respect to the nucleus reflects their relative scope and, consequently, confirms the validity of the principle governing this ordering (Van Valin and LaPolla Reference Van Valin and LaPolla1997: 49–52), since core operators such as internal negation,³ and (deontic) modality occur closer to the verb than two clausal operators like tense and evidentiality, but are positioned further from the verb than are nuclear operators, such as aspect or directionals.

Likewise, example (1) shows that the verb in Cheyenne exhibits pronominal affixes, in the form of a prefix such as é- ‘3’, and suffixes, namely ‑ȯ- and ‑nȯse, which cross-reference the different arguments in the clause. Thus, all the grammatical relations are coded in the verb, rather than in the reference phrases (RPs), which occur freely in the clause (Corral Esteban Reference Corral Esteban2014: 381).

Figure 22.2 Layered structure of the clause with constituent and operator projections

The person cross-referenced by the prefix refers to the most pragmatically salient direct core argument in terms of the Person Hierarchy 2 > 1 > 3 > 4 > I, which gives preference to local participants over animate non-local participants, and to animate non-local participants over inanimate entities. In intransitive constructions, the prefix always cross-references the only argument of the verb. However, in transitive constructions, a choice is made regarding which of the arguments of the verb is more pragmatically salient in terms of the aforementioned ranking. Furthermore, in transitive predications, the Person Hierarchy works closely with a Semantic Function Hierarchy based on animacy and topicality, whereby agent outranks recipient and benefactive, and recipient and benefactive outrank patient and theme. A harmonic alignment between the two hierarchies is said to reflect a direct construction, whereas a disharmonic alignment between them is said to exhibit an inverse construction.

1. (2)

   Né-méhót-o.	→ Direct construction
   2-love.vta-2>3.2sg.a.3sg.u4
   ‘You love her.’
   love′ (2sg, 3sg.f)

1. (3)

   Né-méhót-a.	→ Inverse construction
   2-love.vta-3>2.3sg.a.2sg.u
   ‘She loves you.’
   love′ (3sg.f, 2sg)

In these two transitive constructions, the verb has two semantic arguments – a second-person singular argument and a third-person singular argument. As second person outranks third person in the Person Hierarchy, both constructions select the prefix né- ‘2’, regardless of the semantic function of the argument in each construction. However, despite having the same prefix, each construction exhibits different relations between the verb and its arguments, as indicated by the suffixes ‑o and ‑a, which reflect a direct and an inverse construction respectively. In (2), the person cross-referenced by the prefix né- indicating a second-person participant, corresponds to the higher semantic macrorole, namely the actor, so the Person and Semantic Function hierarchies are in proper alignment, and the construction is then marked as direct. In (3), by contrast, the hierarchies are not properly aligned, as the same person prefix né- corresponds to the lower semantic macrorole, that is to say, the undergoer, so the construction is marked as inverse.

22.2.2 Basic Clause Types

Cheyenne, like the other Algonquian languages, exhibits three major divisions of verb forms, commonly named ‘orders’ following Bloomfield (Reference Bloomfield, Osgood and Hoijer1946: 97–103): Independent, Conjunct and Imperative. The Independent order includes all verb forms other than imperatives that can stand alone, and the Conjunct order is used for all dependent verb forms. Hence, while the former generally occurs in main clauses (4), the latter appears in subordinate clauses (5–9).

1. (4)

   Hetane	é-mane-Ø	ma’xemené-mahpe.
   man	3-drink.vti-3>I.3sg.a.Isg.u	apple-water
   ‘That man drank the apple juice.’
   [do′ (hetane, [drink′ (hetane, ma’xemené-mahpe)]) & ingr consumed′ (ma’xemené-mahpe)]

1. (5)

   […]	tsé-x-heše-manė-se	ma’xemené-mahpe.
   	cnj-pst-thus-drink.vti-3>I.3sg.a.Isg.u.ind	apple-water
   ‘[…] that he drank apple juice.’

1. (6)

   […]	tsé-’-éše-manė-se	ma’xemené-mahpe.
   	cnj-pst-already-drink.vti-3>I.3sg.a.Isg.u.ind	apple-water
   ‘[…] after he drank apple juice.’

1. (7)

   […]	tsé-x-homá’xe-manė-se	ma’xemené-mahpe.
   	cnj-pst-because-drink.vti-3>I.3sg.a.Isg.u.ind	apple-water
   ‘[…] because he drank apple juice.’

1. (8)

   […]	vé’-manė-stse	ma’xemené-mahpe.
   	cnj-drink.vti-3>I.3sg.a.Isg.u.sbjv	apple-water
   ‘[…] if he drank apple juice.’

1. (9)

   […]	momȯxe-manė-stse	ma’xemené-mahpe.
   	cnj-drink.vti-3>I.3sg.a.Isg.u.sbjv	apple-water
   ‘[…] I wish he drank apple juice.’

The main difference between the two verbal orders lies in the function of their prefix: whereas in the Independent order the prefix serves to express the most pragmatically salient person, in the Conjunct order it indicates the grammatical mood, namely realis (e.g. indicative tsé- (5–7)) or irrealis (e.g. conditional vé’- (8), optative momȯxe- (9), etc.). The prefix in a dependent clause functions as a clause linkage marker and is usually accompanied by a preverbal particle that identifies the type of subordinate clause (e.g. ‑heše- in complement clauses (5), ‑éše- in temporal adverbial clauses (6), ‑homá’xe- in adverbial clauses of reason (7), etc.), which can lead to an instance of either daughter subordination (5) or ad-subordination (6–8).

The RRG notion of clause structure is based on two fundamental contrasts: the contrast between predicating and non-predicating elements, and the one between those non-predicating elements that function as arguments and those that do not. Regarding the first contrast, Cheyenne sentences have two major types of predicate, namely verbal (10) and non-verbal, which can be nominal (11 and 12) or adjectival (13).⁵

1. (10)

   Néhe	hetane	é-ónėstán-a	he’nétoo’o.
   deic.end.prox.an	man	3-open.vti-3>I.1sg.a.Isg.u	door
   ‘This man opened the door.’
   [do′ (néhe hetane, Ø)] cause [become opened′ (he’nétoo’o)]

1. (11)

   Tá’tóhe	ma’háéso	é-ma’heónė-hetane-(é)ve-Ø.
   deic.exo.dist.an	old.man	3-holy-man.n-be.fai-3sg.a
   ‘That old man is a holy man.’
   be′ (tá’tóhe ma’háéso, [ma′heónėhetane′ ])

1. (12)

   Muhammad Ali	é-cassiusclay-h-eve-Ø.
   Muhammad Ali	3-Cassius.Clay.in-epen-fai-3sg.u
   ‘Muhammad Ali is Cassius Clay.’
   equate′ (Muhammad Ali, Cassius Clay)

1. (13)

   Na-né’ame	é-pėhév-ȧhe-o’o
   1.poss-parents.pl	3-good.in-fai-3pl.a
   ‘My parents are good.’
   be′ (na-né’ame, [good′ ])

Unlike a verbal predicate, such as ónėstán ‘open’ in (10), the formation of a non-verbal predicate requires an initial nominal or adjectival stem and a final verb stem, which functions as a copula. This is evidenced by ma’heónėhetane ‘holy man’ and ‑eve ‘be’ in the identificational construction in (11), Cassius Clay and ‑eve in the equational construction in (12), and pėhév- ‘good’ and ‑ȧhe ‘be’ in the attributive construction (13).⁶

The final stem, by contrast, does not occur in specificational predications, which are expressed in Cheyenne through a different syntactic construction involving the presence of a relative clause.

1. (14)

   Naa’háanéhe	hetane	tsé-ama’én-o
   deic.ana.dist.an	man	clm-drive.vti-3>I.3.a-I.u
   heóve-amȧho’hestȯtse.
   yellow-car
   ‘That man is the schoolbus driver.’ (lit. ‘That man is the one who drives the yellow car.’)
   be′(naa’háanéhe hetane, [drive′ (naa’háanéhe hetane, heóve-amȧho’hestȯtse)])

The post-copular element in a specificational construction is realized syntactically through a relative clause, such as tsé-ama’én-o heóve-amȧho’hestȯtse ‘who drives the yellow bus’ in (14). This relative clause includes a lexical verb, so it is able to express more easily the second participant of a specificational predication, as this is the more referential element of the construction, unlike in a predicational sentence where the second participant is less referential or not referential at all.

22.2.3 Verb Valence and Transitivity

Verbs in Cheyenne are divided into four types according to the criteria of syntactic transitivity, based on the number of direct core arguments, and animacy: inanimate subject + intransitive verb (II), animate subject + intransitive verb (AI), animate subject + transitive verb + inanimate object (TI), and animate subject + transitive verb + animate object (TA).⁷

The number of macroroles of a verb corresponds closely to its characterization according to the notion of syntactic transitivity in Cheyenne, as the number of direct core arguments is generally the same as that of macroroles, provided the arguments refer to a particular entity. Thus, single macrorole verbs are usually intransitive:

1. (15)

   Peter	he-mėšemo	é-máse-am(e)-ėhn(e)-óho.
   Peter	3.poss-grandfather.obv	4-happily-asp.in-walk.fai-4sg.a
   ‘Peter’s grandfather is walking happily.’
   do′ (Peter he-mėšemo, [walk′ (Peter he-mėšemo)])

The activity verb ēhne ‘walk’ occurs in an intransitive construction including an animate participant that is lexically realized by the obviative RP argument Peter he-mėšemo ‘Peter’s grandfather’. This argument appears in the logical structure (LS) of the verb and is cross-referenced on the verb through the prefix é- ‘4’ and the pronominal affix óho, which refers to a fourth person / obviative singular animate patient. As this single direct core argument of each verb is referential, the verb can be considered to have one macrorole.

An exception to such a correlation between the number of direct core arguments and macroroles in intransitive constructions is provided in Cheyenne, like in other languages, by ‘weather’ verbs.

1. (16)

   É-ho’ééto-Ø.

   I-snow.vii-Isg.a

   ‘It is snowing. (lit. ‘It snows.’) snow′(Ø)

The direct core argument of an II verb such as ho’ééto ‘snow’ is cross-referenced on the verb by the prefix é- ‘I’ and a null pronominal suffix if their argument is singular, or the suffix ‑nėstse if it is plural. This is not actually a semantic argument of the predicate (Van Valin Reference Van Valin2008: 8). Therefore, even though these verbs are classified as intransitive in syntactic terms, semantically speaking they are atransitive.

There are other intransitive constructions showing a mismatch between the syntactic valency of a verb and its semantic transitivity, owing to the influence of referentiality on Cheyenne.

1. (17)

   É-h-ma’xe-mané-stove	taa’é-va.
   3-tns-much.drink.vai-imper	night-temp
   ‘There was a lot of drinking at night.’
   do′ (Ø, [drink′ (Ø, Ø)])

This impersonal construction in (17) exhibits an intransitive verb stem: mane ‘drink’. This, along with the presence of the prefix é- ‘3’, implies the presence of an animate argument. However, the occurrence of an impersonal suffix such as ‑htove/stove/nove in this construction does not allow the addition of a pronominal affix cross-referencing the single argument of the verb, which prevents the prefix from being referential. Thus, the only direct core argument of the verb – only coded in the prefix – is not a macrorole in an impersonal construction, and the verb must be considered atransitive, which shows non-identity between S-transitivity and M-transitivity.

The fact that Cheyenne only cross-references referential arguments can also be evidenced in intransitive verbs corresponding to a two-place predicate whose second argument is only implied:

1. (18)

   Ná-mané-me.

   1-drink.vai-1pl.a

   ‘We drink.’

   do′ (1pl, [drink′ (1pl, Ø)])

The activity verb mane ‘drink’ in (18) has one direct core argument that is coded on both the prefix ná- ‘1’ and the pronominal affix ‑me and cross-references a first-person plural animate argument, namely the first argument in the LS. However, no reference is made to the second semantic argument of the verb; hence the verb mane ‘drink’ in (18) can be said to take one macrorole, which is assigned to the only direct core argument of the verb.

Arguments with generic reference are generally cross-referenced on the verb in Cheyenne.

1. (19)

   Vé’hó’e	é-ohkė-šénetam-ovo	xamaevo’ėstan(e)-oho.
   white.people	3-eq-loathe.vta-3>4.3pl.a.4sg.u	Indian.obv
   ‘White people usually find Indians repulsive.’ (Fisher et al. Reference Fisher, Leman, Pine Sr and Sanchez2006: 257)
   loathe′ (vé’hó’e, xamaevo’ėstanoho)

In this example, both the prefix é- ‘3’ and the pronominal affix ‑ovo cross-reference two arguments – a third-person/proximate plural animate argument and a fourth-person/obviative singular argument. However, despite being cross-referenced on the verb, the two arguments are not macroroles since they are non-specific.

There is, however, a context where an argument with a generic reference is not coded on the verb in Cheyenne. This occurs when there is a close semantic relationship between the verb and the argument, which would be a typical object of the verb. In such cases, the object RP is incorporated into the verb.

1. (20)

   a.	É-o’ene-mēna-Ø.
   	3-pick.in-berry.fai-3sg.a
   	‘He is berry picking.’	(Fisher et al. Reference Fisher, Leman, Pine Sr and Sanchez2006: 215)
   	do′ (3sgM, [pick′ (3sgM, o’ene)])
   b.	É-o’en-anȯtse	menȯtse.
   	(3) -pick.vti-3>I.3sg.a.Ipl.u	berry.pl
   	‘He is picking the berries.’
   	do′ (3sgM, [pick′ (3sgM, menȯtse)]) & ingr picked′ (menȯtse)

The difference between activities and their telic version, that is to say active accomplishments, is observed syntactically in Cheyenne. Unlike the active accomplishment transitive verb o’en ‘pick’ in (20b), the activity intransitive verb o’enemēna ‘berry-pick’ in (20a) is formed by the initial stem of the verb ‘pick’, o’ene, and a final stem of the noun ‘berry’, mene. Also, while o’en ‘pick’ has two direct core arguments, cross-referenced by the prefix é- ‘3’ and the suffix ‑anȯtse, which indexes a third-person singular animate agent and a plural inanimate patient, the bipartite verb stem o’ene-mēna ‘berry-pick’ has only one direct core argument – a third-person singular animate agent, which is coded by the prefix and the null suffix. Additionally, as only the first argument of the activity verb in (20a) is specific, the verb only takes one macrorole. Conversely, the active accomplishment verb in (20b) has two specific arguments and, therefore, takes two macroroles.

Except for these examples showing the influence of referentiality, the number of direct core arguments and macroroles also tends to coincide in Cheyenne transitive constructions provided the arguments are referential. Consequently, two macrorole verbs are usually transitive.

1. (21)

   Ná-ono’átam-oo’o	tsé-héstoo’éšeeh-ae-se.
   1-respect.vta-1>3.1sg.a.3pl.u	cnj-raise.vta-3>1.3pl.a-1sg.u.ptcp
   ‘I respect my parents.’ (lit. ‘I respect who raised me.’)
   respect′ (1sg, tsé-héstoo’éšeehaese)

The two-place verb ono’átam ‘respect’ has two arguments, namely a first-person singular animate experiencer and a third-person plural animate theme, which are cross-referenced on the verb by the prefix ná- ‘1’, the theme marker ‑o- and the pronominal affix ‑o’o. The second argument is also realized by a full lexical RP, namely tsé-héstoo’ éšeehaese ‘my parents’ (lit. ‘those who raised me’). As both direct core arguments are referential, the verb can be said to have two macroroles.

Finally, unlike other Algonquian languages (e.g. Blackfoot, Plains Cree or Ojibwa), Cheyenne ditransitive verbs have a very complex system of suffixes (Corral Esteban Reference Corral Esteban2014: 419–422), which vary with respect to the animacy and number of the theme argument. Thus, verbs such as the stems mét ‘give’, véestomev ‘ask for’, nomáhtseh ‘steal’, véstomev ‘promise’, or vóo’seh ‘show’ behave like true ditransitive verbs, since they cross-reference the three core arguments morphologically.⁸

1. (22)

   Né-nomáhtsėh-aenóvo	mo’éhno’hāme.
   2-steal.ditr-3>2>4.3pl.a.2sg.u.4.nmr	horse.obv
   ‘They stole the horse from you.’
   [do′ (3pl, Ø)] cause [become not have′ (2sg, mo’éhno’hāme) & become have′ (3pl, mo’éhno’hāme)].

The predicate nomáhtsėh ‘steal’ in (22) shows an instance of causative accomplishment where an activity is carried out by a third-person plural animate actor, cross-referenced by the suffix ‑aenóvo. This activity leads to a change of possession whereby the former participant manages to appropriate something, which is represented by the fourth-person/obviative participant mo’éhno’hāme ‘horse’, which previously belonged to the addressee. These three arguments are coded on the prefix né- ‘2’ and the pronominal suffix ‑aenóvo.

The influence of referentiality on the cross-reference of core arguments in Cheyenne (Corral Esteban Reference Corral Esteban2014: 409–410) can also be observed in ditransitive verbs not including a reference to some of their semantic arguments. In such cases, the arguments are not cross-referenced on the verb morphology, which means that both the syntactic transitivity of the verb and the number of macroroles is reduced:

1. (23)

   Ná-mét-onóneo’o	nėstámane
   1-give.ditr-1>3>I.1pl.a.3pl.u.Isg.nmr	12.poss.food
   na-nésonėhaneo′o.
   our.children
   ‘We give our children our food.’
   [do′ (1pl, Ø)] cause [become have′ (nanésonėhaneo’o, nėstámane)]

1. (24)

   Ná-méa(’tov)-noneo′o	na-nésonėhaneo′o.
   1-give.vta-1>3.1pl.a.3pl.u	12.poss.children
   ‘We give away our children to somebody.’
   [do′ (1pl, Ø)] cause [become have′ (Ø, nanésonėhaneo’o)]

1. (25)

   Ná-mé(a’e)-ánóne	nėstámane.
   1-give.vti-1>I.1pl.a.Isg.u	12.poss.food
   ‘We give our food to somebody.’
   [do′ (1pl, Ø)] cause [become have′ (Ø, nėstámane)]

1. (26)

   Ná-méa(‘e)-ēme.

   1-give.vai-1pl.a

   ‘We give something to somebody.’

   [do′ (1pl, Ø)] cause [become have′ (Ø, Ø)]

Although the three-place predicate ‘give’ requires three semantic arguments, in Cheyenne these are only coded on the verb when they refer to specific participants. The pronominal affixes ‑o-nó-ne-o’o in (23) cross-reference the three semantic arguments of the logical structure, namely a first-person plural agent, a third-person plural recipient nanésonėhaneo’o ‘our children’, and an inanimate singular theme nȧhtámáne ‘our food’. However, the pronominal affixes ‑no-ne-o’o in (24) code only a first-person plural agent and a third-person plural theme nanésonėhaneo’o ‘our children’; the pronominal affixes ‑á-nó-ne in (25) code only a first-person plural agent and the inanimate theme nėstámane ‘our food’; and finally, the pronominal affix ‑ēme in (26) only cross-references the first-person plural agent.

The role of referentiality is not only noticed on the pronominal affixes, but also in the verb stem, which adopts different forms depending on the number of macroroles the verb takes. Thus, in Cheyenne, the predicate ‘give’ can be expressed through a ditransitive stem mét, a TA stem méa’tov, a TI stem méa’e, or an AI stem méa’e (23–26). As regards the correlation between the number of direct core arguments and macroroles, in the intransitive verb in (26) the only direct core argument of the verb is a macrorole. The same correlation holds in (24) and (25), as the two transitive verbs have two direct core arguments and both are macroroles. Since only two macroroles are allowed in RRG, in the ditransitive construction in (23) only two of the direct core arguments are macroroles – the first-person plural agent and the recipient nanésonėhaneo’o ‘our children’, the other – the theme nėstámane ‘our food’ – being the non-macrorole core argument. They are all identified through cross-referencing.⁹

To summarize, except for cases such as constructions including ‘weather’ verbs¹⁰ and impersonal constructions, and the problem posed by generic reference, which can be coded on the verb via either pronominal affixes or noun incorporation, M-transitivity closely corresponds to S-transitivity in Cheyenne, due to the effect of referentiality on the coding of arguments and, most importantly, on the form of the syntactic core template: the presence of a non-referential argument in a transitive construction affects not only the pronominal affixes but also the form of the verb stem, since the non-referential argument is not cross-referenced on the verb and is, therefore, not represented within the core. Finally, the Cheyenne examples also show that the number of macroroles that a verb takes is less than or equal to the number of semantic arguments in its logical structure.¹¹

A particularly challenging case is a typical Algonquian transitive construction, commonly referred to as the ‘unspecified actor’ construction (Hockett Reference Hockett, Nichols and Ogg1996), as it includes no reference to the agent of the action denoted by the verb.

1. (27)

   Ná-éno’eéh-án-e	na-vénótse.
   1-heal.vta-X>1–1sg.u	1.poss-tepee.loc
   ‘I was healed at home.’ (lit. ‘Someone healed me in my tepee.’)
   be-at′(home, [do′(Ø, Ø)] cause [become healed′ (1sg, Ø)]])

The two-place predicate éno’eéh ‘heal’ occurs in a transitive construction including an unspecified argument that corresponds to the first argument in the LS. Bearing in mind that non-referential participants are not coded on the verb in Cheyenne, it is not surprising that the unspecified agent in this construction is not cross-referenced on the verb. This assumption appears to be supported by the fact that, while the verb stem is transitive, the suffixal morphology resembles that of the AI paradigm. Furthermore, the presence of a lexicalized agent in this construction would entail changing the form of the suffixal morphology. However, we might come to a different conclusion if we take into account that this construction uses a different theme marker (e.g. ‑án or ‑Ø) depending on whether the specified argument is local or non-local. A possible explanation for this could be that the theme markers in this construction indicate direct and inverse morphology, which means that these bound markers cross-reference an unspecified participant.¹² In summary, it is difficult to gauge whether this construction reveals an identity between S-transitivity and M-transitivity or not.

Finally, the transitivity of the verb shows an important difference between the unspecified actor construction and the impersonal construction illustrated by example (17), for, unlike the impersonal construction, which is built on an intransitive verb stem and eliminates any cross-reference to the single argument on the verb suffix, the unspecified actor construction involves a transitive verb but AI morphology, which implies that at least one argument is coded on the verb.

22.2.4 Argument Coding on the Verb

Only two different types of argument can be distinguished in Cheyenne: direct core arguments and argument-adjuncts, as core arguments can be direct but not oblique in this language. Direct core arguments must be referential to be cross-referenced on the verb. However, if they are third-person RPs, they can be morphologically marked or unmarked, since Cheyenne uses a reference-tracking system to establish a clausal disjoint reference between multiple third-person participants. Thus, in situations involving more than one third-person RP, the most pragmatically salient RP (i.e. the proximate) is left unmarked, and any other less pragmatically salient RP is marked with an obviative marker.

The proximate/obviative system cannot be considered to be a type of case marking, as the notions of proximate and obviative are not associated with any semantic role in particular, as is illustrated by the following constructions involving two third-person referents.

1. (28)

   Náhe	ka’ėškóne	é-ohke-véstȧhém-óho
   deic.end.dist.an	boy	3-eq-help.vta-3>4.3sg.a.4sg.u
   néhe	ma’háhkėse-ho.
   deic.end.prox.an	old.man-obv
   ‘That boy always helps this old man.’
   do′ (náhe ka’ėškóne, [help′ (náhe ka’ėškóne, néhe ma’háhkėseho)])

1. (29)

   Néhe	ma’háhkése	é-ohke-véstȧhém-áá’e
   deic.end.dist.an	old.man	3-eq-help.vta-4>3.4sg.a.3sg.u
   náhe	ka’ėškóne-ho.
   deic.end.prox.an	boy-obv
   ‘That boy always helps this old man.’ / ‘This old man is always helped by that boy.’
   do′ (náhe ka’ėškóneho, [help′ (náhe ka’ėškóneho, néhe ma’háhkése)])

Despite the fact that these sentences include the same arguments and are semantically equivalent, the arguments show a different proximate/obviative status. Thus, whereas in (28) the agent is the proximate náhe ka’ėškóne ‘that boy’, and the benefactive is the obviative néhe ma’háhkėseho ‘this old man’, in (29), there is a shift with respect to the proximate marking. Now, the agent náhe ka’ėškóneho ‘that boy’ is obviative and the benefactive néhe ma’háhkése is proximate.

A representation of direct core arguments (28) is provided in Figure 22.3 for a subsequent comparison with that of incorporated arguments in applicative constructions in Figure 22.4 and argument-adjuncts and adjuncts in Figure 22.5.

Figure 22.3 Representation of direct core arguments

(cf. 28)

Figure 22.4 Representation of an applicative construction with a derived two-place verb

Figure 22.5 Representation of a clause including an argument-adjunct and an adjunct

As there is no correlation between the proximate/obviative distinction and semantic roles or syntactic functions, it is necessary to take into account the information provided by the nominal morphology and the prefix and pronominal suffixes on the verb. Thus, the difference between these two examples of transitive predication lies in that, while in the direct construction in (28) the proximate argument náhe ka’ėškóne ‘that boy’ is the actor and the obviative argument néhe ma’háhkėseho ‘this old man’ is the benefactive, the opposite occurs in the inverse construction in (29), as the obviative argument náhe ka’ėškóneho ‘that boy’ is now the actor and the proximate argument néhe ma’háhkése ‘this old man’ is the benefactive.

Cheyenne has a number of applicative constructions where the addition of a relative root in the form of an initial stem increases the syntactic valence of the verb and, consequently, allows it to take one more direct core argument.

1. (30)

   Nȧ-htse-vést-ȯhomó’hem-óho	vého	he-stóna-ho
   1-fut-with.in-dance.fta-1>4.1sg.a.4sg.a	chief	3.poss-daughter-obv
   tsé-h-móheeohtsé-stove-tse.
   cnj-pst-meet.vai.imper-ptcp
   ‘I will dance with the chief’s daughter at the meeting.’
   do′ (1sg, [dance′ (1sg)]) ∧ do′ (vého hestónaho, [dance′ (vého hestónaho)])

While the predicate ‘dance’ requires only one semantic argument, the complex verb véstȯhomó’hem ‘dance with’ in (30), formed by an adpositional initial vést- ‘with’ and a transitive verb stem ȯhomó’hem ‘dance’, cross-references two arguments, namely a first-person singular agent and a third-person singular comitative vého hestónaho ‘the chief’s daughter’, through the prefix ná- ‘1’ and the pronominal affix ‑o, which also includes a reference to the argument vého hestónaho ‘the chief’s daughter’. Thus, although it does not refer to a participant semantically required by the predicate ‘dance’, the RP vého hestónaho ‘the chief’s daughter’ is treated as an argument of the complex verb véstȯhomó’hem ‘dance with’, yielding a derived two-place verb.

Likewise, unlike argument-adjuncts (see Section 22.2.5), this RP is cross-referenced on the verb, and, unlike adjuncts, it is not marked as an oblique.¹³ The fact that the cross-reference of the RP vého hestónaho ‘the chief’s daughter’ is subject to the addition of the adpositional initial vést- ‘with’ makes this argument the closest equivalent to an oblique core argument. The only difference is the fact that the adpositional initial is not determined by the verb. Rather, it is predicative and, consequently, it contributes its own predicate to the clause. It is also of note that the possessor RP in the genitive phrase is represented like an element branching from the RP node that agrees in person with the prefix designating the possessor, namely he- ‘his/her’, which behaves as a core argument and is, consequently, represented as a daughter of the nominal core.

22.2.5 Adjuncts, Argument-Adjuncts and Adpositional Marking

Adjuncts in Cheyenne can appear in very different guises, for example: verbal premodifiers (e.g. ‑ohke- ‘usually’ in (31)), nominal phrases (e.g. méó’ne ‘on the road’ in (31)), free particles (e.g. hó’ótova ‘sometimes’ in (31)), or dependent clauses (e.g. tséhmóheeohtséstovetse ‘at the meeting’ in (30)). They function as optional modifiers because they are never cross-referenced on the verb or incorporated with an adpositional initial into the verb. Furthermore, they may receive oblique (e.g. locative (31), temporal (17) or instrumental (see example in note 13)) case marking through the nominal suffixes ‑va, ‑e, or ‑o, when they are realized through nominal phrases.

1. (31)

   Hó’ótóva	ná-ohke-ameváen-one	méó(’o)-n-e.
   sometimes	(1)-eq-pass.vta-1>3.1pl.a.3sg.u	road-epen-loc
   ‘Sometimes we pass him on the road.’ (Fisher et al. Reference Fisher, Leman, Pine Sr and Sanchez2006: 11)
   [do′ (1pl, Ø)] cause [ingr overtaken′ (3sgM)]

The locative adjunct méóne ‘on the road’ is formed by the noun méó’o ‘road’ plus the oblique nominal suffix ‑e, which denotes location. This locative adjunct is neither cross-referenced on the verb nor incorporated into the verbal complex as a stem-forming element.

Despite their reference to one obligatory argument of a verb, argument-adjuncts in Cheyenne are not cross-referenced on the verb, which makes them resemble adjuncts syntactically. Cheyenne also does not distinguish adjuncts from argument-adjuncts in terms of marking, as the same oblique suffixes, ‑va, ‑e or ‑o, are added to both adjuncts and argument-adjuncts regardless of their syntactic function.

1. (32)

   Ná-ést-o’tse-nȯtse	mȯxe’ėstóonȯtse	hoo’hénó-va
   1-in.in-put.fti-1>I.1sg.a.Ipl.u	books	bags-loc
   éše-ē-va.
   day-epen-temp
   ‘I put the books in the bags yesterday.’
   [do′ (1sg, Ø)] cause [ingr be.in′ (hoo’hénóva, mȯxe’ėstóonȯtse)]

The verb ‘put’ in (32) requires three obligatory arguments – an agent, a patient, and a locative. However, táho’tsé ‘put’ only has two direct core arguments, the agent and the patient, as can be evidenced from the TI stem and the verbal suffix ‑nȯtse, which codes only two arguments – a first-person singular animate agent and an inanimate plural patient – but does not reflect the presence of any marker representing the location. The location is expressed by an RP, hoo’heno ‘bags’, which is marked as oblique by the nominal suffix ‑va,¹⁴ but is not coded on the verb, which results in its being marked as a peripheral oblique. However, unlike adjuncts, such as éšeēva ‘yesterday’, argument-adjuncts appear to be complemented by a locative adpositional initial particle such as ést- ‘in’ in (32). This is an adpositional nucleus incorporated into the nucleus of the core functioning as an applicative marker that licenses the third core argument, the argument-adjunct hoo’hénóva ‘the bags’. The stem-forming element reflects the presence of a locative argument and it is this adpositional element, rather than the locative RP, that is obligatory in the sentence. The locative particle is an important component of the meaning of the sentence, and its form is not determined by the verb – the particle ést- ‘in’ can be replaced by ‑táh(o’k)- ‘on’, ‑áhto’- ‘under’, etc. This incorporated particle must therefore be considered to be an adpositional nucleus that functions as an applicative marker.

Finally, this construction also shows that not all three-place predicates are realized through a ditransitive construction in Cheyenne.

22.2.6 The Linking Algorithm in Cheyenne

The study of the interaction between the various components of grammatical structure generally shows language-specific variation. Bearing this in mind, for an examination of systematic relationships in the semantic content of a predicate, the syntactic behaviour it exhibits, and the pragmatic background that surrounds the act of communication, a bidirectional analysis of the linking system based on example (33) is presented in Figures 22.6 and 22.7, illustrating how the syntax–semantics–pragmatics interface works in Cheyenne.

1. (33)

   Na-né’ame	ná-met-aenóvo	mȯxe’ėstoo’o.
   1.poss.parents	1-give.ditr-3>1>I.3pl.a.1sg.u.Isg.nmr	book
   ‘My parents gave me a book.’

Figure 22.6 Linking from semantics to syntax in Cheyenne

ACS = accessible; ACV = activated

Figure 22.7 Linking from syntax to semantics in Cheyenne

This linking procedure from semantics to syntax starts with the construction of the semantic representation of the sentence, which is drawn from the logical structure of the predicate.

As is the case with other languages, the selection of the actor and undergoer arguments in monotransitive constructions presents no difficulty in Cheyenne, as the highest-ranking argument in the logical structure is selected as the actor and the lowest-ranking argument is selected as the undergoer. Ditransitive constructions indicate that Cheyenne represents an instance of what Dryer (Reference Dryer1986) called a ‘primary object language’, that is to say a language where the only pattern that occurs with three-argument predicates corresponds to the marked selection for undergoer.¹⁵ Thus, when a verb has three arguments, the second-highest, rather than the lowest-ranking argument in the logical structure is selected as the undergoer macrorole and, consequently, the lowest-ranking argument is the non-macrorole direct argument. In example (33), therefore, the leftmost argument in the logical structure of na-né’ame ‘my parents’ is selected as the actor, and the second leftmost argument – the participant referring to the speaker – is chosen as the undergoer instead of the expected rightmost argument mȯxe’ėstoo’o ‘book’, which now becomes the non-macrorole argument.

The determination of the morphosyntactic coding of the arguments shows an interesting specific feature of Algonquian languages, as the choice of a specific argument on the prefix shows the existence of a privileged syntactic argument (PSA) in these languages. This PSA involves a pragmatically determined neutralization of semantic roles for syntactic purposes, as the choice of the prefix is pragmatically determined – it is only determined by the Person Hierarchy – and can correspond to different semantic roles depending on the ranking of the participants on the hierarchy (e.g. agent (4), patient (19), experiencer (1), recipient (33), etc.). In a direct transitive construction, the PSA corresponds to the actor, and in an inverse transitive construction the PSA matches the undergoer. Thus, in example (33), bearing in mind that it is an instance of inverse construction, the PSA is the undergoer cross-referenced on the prefix ná- ‘1’.

As regards the syntactic representation of the sentence, the syntactic template for a three-place predicate like mét ‘give’ must contain a core including three argument positions, which will be filled by the pronominal arguments cross-referencing the core arguments, namely the prefix ná- ‘1’ and the portmanteau verbal suffix ‑aenóvo, which cross-references the three semantic arguments of the verb.

Finally, the linking of arguments to positions in the syntactic template is also an interesting feature of Cheyenne. The fact that word order in this language is pragmatically determined allows for greater flexibility when it comes to selecting the syntactic template of the sentence because of the positions (e.g. pre-core slot (PrCS) or any extra-core slot (ECS)) to which the independent RPs are assigned.

The direction of the linking process from syntax to semantics involves the interpretation of the overt morphosyntactic form of a sentence and the deduction of the semantic functions of the elements in the sentence deriving from such an interpretation, as shown in Figure 22.7.

The information provided by the verbal affix ‑aenóvo reflects the fact that, in this inverse construction, the verb is ditransitive and has three direct core arguments – a third-person plural agent, a first-person singular recipient, and an inanimate singular theme. The prefix also enables us to identify which constituent acts as the PSA, since, according to the ranking of the Person Hierarchy, which favours first person over third and inanimate person, ná- ‘1’ acts as the PSA of the construction. As regards the identification of the semantic macroroles of the core arguments, a ditransitive verb like mét ‘give’ has three possible candidates for only two macroroles. However, taking into account the accurate grammatical information provided by the bound markers ná- ‘1’ and ‑aenóvo, and considering that Cheyenne invariably shows the marked undergoer selection in ditransitive constructions, we can then select the proximate participant na-né’ame ‘my parents’ as actor (‘x’) and the first-person participant as undergoer (‘y’), whereas the third and last core argument, namely the inanimate participant mȯxe’ėstoo’o ‘book’, becomes the non-macrorole argument (‘z’).

The linking of the core arguments to the corresponding slots in the semantic representation of the sentence may be problematic in Cheyenne due to the fact that the number of pronominal affixes in the verb does not necessarily correspond to the number of direct core arguments. This is mainly because the verbal suffix is generally a portmanteau that cross-references all the direct core arguments of a verb, and the prefix only codes one of these core arguments, which does not allow for a one-to-one correspondence between direct core arguments and semantic arguments. Thus, it is necessary to bear in mind what type of stem the verb presents and what kind of grammatical information is provided by each of the pronominal affixes in order to gauge its number of direct core arguments. It would therefore seem logical to assume that the portmanteau cross-references all the arguments and the prefix cross-references one of them again, as represented in Figure 22.7.

The linking algorithm shows the important role played by pragmatics in the interaction between semantics and syntax in Cheyenne and reveals a series of grammatical properties: the variable word order exhibited by RPs, the pragmatically determined PSA, the cross-referencing of arguments through a portmanteau, and even the lack of correlation between the proximate/obviative status of referents and their semantic function in non-local contexts.

22.3.1 Word Order and Focus Structure

As discussed in Section 22.2.1, word order in Cheyenne encodes pragmatic factors rather than argument relations. Therefore, the language exhibits a wide range of variation in word order, which appears to be sensitive to the notion of newsworthiness. Specifically, the information is distributed in descending order of importance and unpredictability in the sentence. Importantly, the fact that word order in Cheyenne is not as strict as in other languages, English for example, does not necessarily mean that it is completely free, since it may be constrained by focus structure.

Before explaining the fundamentals of Cheyenne word order from the perspective of RRG, it is necessary to examine the way in which the arrangement of discourse functions fits into the RRG model of sentence structure.

The arrangement of the pragmatic categories in a specific linear order has a functional explanation. The leftmost category (see Figure 22.8), which includes topic particles and adverbials, equates to the pre-detached position (PrDP) in syntax, whose position is set off from the clause-internal elements by a pause. The next category, a focused constituent occupying the pre-core slot (PrCS) within the clause, corresponds to elements introducing discourse topics expressing a non-contrastive change of discourse topic. Alternatively, the same position can host an element introducing a contrast, regardless of whether this element has been previously mentioned in the discourse (in which case it is a contrastive topic) or is newly asserted (contrastive focus).¹⁶ Unless it is considered newsworthy, the verbal complex follows the focused element, forming the core of the clause and serving as the point of reference for the placement of the other clausal elements within the template. Both new information and easily inferable, already evoked or predictable, information, which serves to recover background information, occupy the postverbal position. Finally, the rightmost element, called a familiar topic in Figure 22.8, can also be used for an afterthought, which is included in order to reiterate its referent by a way of summary or to help to maintain the reference.¹⁷ This is also separated from the previous clause-internal constituents by a pause, meaning that it is located in the post-detached position (PoDP).

Figure 22.8 Information structure-based sentence template

The availability of two different positions for informational focus can be explained with reference to the concept of newsworthiness. Indeed, the positioning of informational focus before or after the verbal complex appears to be related to the significance given by the speaker to this information. However, the fact that word order in Cheyenne is governed by the principle of newsworthiness and that this notion is not entirely comparable to the pragmatic notions of assertion and presupposition that underlie the discourse-pragmatic statuses of focus and topic in RRG, makes it difficult to integrate the information structure of Cheyenne into the layered structure of the clause. Nevertheless, the tendency towards verb-initial word order,¹⁸ and the identification of the preverbal position (PrCS) as the most pragmatically marked position within the clause (it is the position occupied by the elements considered more informationally prominent in terms of newsworthiness) are suggestive of a correlation between word order and the different focus types proposed in RRG.

Cheyenne appears to use a verb-initial order for predicate focus, the universally unmarked type of focus structure.

1. (34)

   Q:	É-tóneto’omenehe-Ø(-he)		Richard?
   	3-what.happen.vai-3sg.u(-if)		Richard
   	‘What happens to Richard?’
   A:	É-sáa-mé’ov-ó-he-ho		neše
   	3-neg-find.vta-3>4.3sg.a.4sg.u-neg-4sg.u		two
   	mo’éhno’hāme	(Richard).
   	horse.obv	Richard
   	‘Richard/He does not find two horses.’

The pragmatic presupposition in this type of focus structure includes knowledge of a certain topic, and the assertion expresses a comment about the topic. The most common sentence type in Cheyenne in this context is a comment–topic structure where the predicate mé’ov ‘find’ and the patient neše mo’éhno’hāme ‘two horses’ constitute the focus (marked with small caps), and the agent Richard corresponds to the topic. It is important to remember, however, that it is very difficult to find examples of constructions containing given or familiar topics occupying a postverbal position, so that leaving the topical referent Richard unspecified appears to be more common, unless this previously mentioned information deserves to be reiterated in order to specify or clarify the reference. Figure 22.9 represents the focus structure of (34).

Figure 22.9 Unmarked predicate-focus structure in Cheyenne

The actual focus domain (the heavy solid line in Figures 22.9 to 22.11) in the unmarked type of predicate-focus structure comprises the core verbal constituent, if the verb is intransitive, and, additionally, the postverbal ECS, when there is (are) some overt RP argument(s). Furthermore, as expected, prosodic prominence falls on the focal constituents é-sáaméevóheho and neše mo’éhno’hāme ‘two horses’ in decreasing order. If the sentence included the familiar topic Richard, it would be represented as a clause-external topic at the PoDP. In that case, this topical constituent would be out of the potential focus domain (the broken line in Figures 22.9 to 22.11) and those that follow), which is coextensive with the clause in Cheyenne.

Figure 22.10 Unmarked sentence-focus structure in Cheyenne

Figure 22.11 Unmarked narrow-focus structure in Cheyenne

While it is not so common, the positioning of a topic such as Richard in the pragmatically marked preverbal position – where it would be activated as the discourse topic – would illustrate an instance of a marked SV(O) word order for this focus type. It is of note that, due to its newsworthy nature, this constituent would be given greater prominence than the verbal complex.

The second type of focus structure is sentence focus, where no pragmatic presupposition is evoked, and all information is new and, therefore, in focus.

1. (35)

   Q:	É-ta-tónėsóotse-Ø	éše-ē-va?
   	I-trans-what.happen.vii-Isg.u	day-epen-temp
   	‘What happened yesterday?’
   A:	É-onénėše-otse-Ø	na-amȧho’héhame.
   	I-broken.in-become.fii-Isg.u	1.poss-car
   	‘My car broke down.’

The most common word order pattern in this situation, which places the verb in clause-initial position and the RP in postverbal position, represents the unmarked structure of this focus type because there is no element occupying the PrCS slot. Figure 22.10 represents the focus structure of (35).

As there is no presupposition in this structure, the assertion extends over the entire proposition, as is indicated by the actual focus domain in Figure 22.10. Both the core and the subject RP in the ECS are associated with special intonational realization, although its intensity decreases as it approaches the clause-final position.

Placing the argument RP na-amȧho’héhame ‘my car’ in the pragmatically marked preverbal position would also be acceptable in this focus structure, but the word order would represent a case of marked sentence focus. In this case, the argument RP na-amȧho’héhame ‘my car’ would be highlighted by the speaker, possibly due to the fact that it represents the new discourse topic.¹⁹

The difference between predicate-focus and sentence-focus structures is therefore both syntactic and prosodic. Unlike sentence focus sentences, predicate focus sentences (34) have at least one topical element, which is preferably only cross-referenced by the pronominal affixes on the verb, but can also occur in the PoDP slot when overtly realized.²⁰ In the latter case, this topical element is not stressed, unlike the postverbal RP in the sentence focus construction (35).

The third type of focus structure is narrow focus, where the focus domain is limited to a single constituent.

1. (36)

   Q:	É-onénėše-otsé-nėse	ne-no’ka’éesó’hestȯtse.
   	I-broken.in-become.fai-Isg.u.infr	2.poss-motorbike
   	‘I heard / It is said that your motorbike broke down.’
   A:	na-amȧho’héhame	é-onénėše-otse-Ø.
   	1.poss-car	I-broken.in-become.fii-Isg.u
   	‘My car broke down.’

The narrow-focus construction generally includes an element in the PrCS, for example na-amȧho’héhame ‘my car’ in (36). Unlike English, Cheyenne tends to mark narrow-focus constituents both syntactically and prosodically, with the narrow-focus constituent generally occurring in preverbal position – as the information it provides is normally considered by the speaker to be essential to the hearer – where it receives special prosodic prominence. Figure 22.11 represents the focus structure of (36).

The constituent under narrow focus is the only one that is prosodically stressed; hence, the actual focus domain does not generally extend into the core in Cheyenne. Thus, in Cheyenne, the unmarked narrow-focus position for single constituents with focal properties is the PrCS. However, when such focal material occurs in other positions, the marked narrow-focus structure is called for. This situation is rather infrequent, as the narrow-focus constituent provides the most important information and, consequently, the information it provides is generally considered newsworthy, but it might still occur in constructions including a transitive verb and two overt argument RPs where either the verb or either of the RPs could be considered by the speaker to convey more newsworthy information. In that case, the actual focus domain would move elsewhere within the clause. Thus, narrow focus on a newsworthy element is a case of unmarked narrow focus, while narrow focus on a non-newsworthy element is a case of marked narrow focus.

To summarize, while in Cheyenne the influence of the discourse-pragmatic concept of newsworthiness on the syntactic arrangement of constituents within a clause is paramount, the word order is not free, as it also appears to encode discourse-pragmatic functions such as focus and topic. Cheyenne selects verb-initial order as its unmarked word order in the predicate- and sentence-focus structures. The default interpretation of elements in the PrCS in these constructions is that of marked focus, for example contrastive narrow focus (but note that contrastive topics can also occur there, see Shimojo Reference Shimojo, Guerrero, Cerda and Belloro2009, Reference Shimojo2010, Reference Shimojo and Nakamura2011 and Chapter 11 on information structure). Finally, prosodic prominence is always associated with the placement of focal elements in the PrCS or, in the absence of an RP occupying such a slot, in the core-initial position.²¹ Thus, assuming that in predicate- and sentence-focus structures the unmarked focus position for RPs in Cheyenne is postverbal and the marked focus position for RPs is preverbal – more specifically in the PrCS – the potential focus domain extends over the entire clause in all types of focus structure, but the actual focus domain is: (1) from the core to the end of the clause in unmarked predicate- and sentence-focus structures; or (2) just the PrCS in the unmarked narrow-focus type.

Finally, while the notion of newsworthiness fails to correspond to the dichotomies topic vs. focus or even given vs. new information (Leman Reference Leman1999), a correlation between newsworthy information and focus emerges from the analysis, as evidenced by the fact that, excluding the variable positioning of informational focus, the preferred constituent order in Cheyenne is one where focal material (informationally prominent or contrastive) precedes the verbal complex, and the topic material (known or presupposed) appears after the verbal complex.²²

22.3.2 The Proximate/Obviative System

Now that the link between word order and information packaging in Cheyenne has been established, this section turns to an analysis of the proximate/obviative system. According to Aissen (Reference Aissen1997: 709), this marking serves as a reference-tracking system whereby the language is able to differentiate multiple non-local participants in such a way that, in a discourse span involving two or more third-person animate arguments,²³ only one of them is unmarked and placed in the foreground (the proximate) and all others are morphologically marked and relegated to the background (the obviative).

When a discourse span begins, the most pragmatically salient participant, the proximate, is usually promoted to a preverbal position, and the obviative, which refers to the other participants, tends to occupy a postverbal position. Taking into account the fact that the preverbal position is generally reserved for newsworthy information and receives special prosodic prominence in Cheyenne, it might be logical to assume a certain correlation between the notions of proximate and focus, on the one hand, and those of obviative and topic, on the other. This correspondence is not absolute, however, as it is possible to place an obviative argument in clause-initial position even when this position has inherently focal properties, as is the case with an obviative interrogative pronoun, for example. As discussed in Section 22.2.4, there is no correlation either between the distinction between proximate and obviative marking, which differentiates two non-local participants in terms of discourse salience, and semantic roles or syntactic functions (cf. 28–29).

While it is not completely clear what factor determines the choice between proximate and obviative, discourse salience must be one such factor, in the sense that the proximate is the most prominent participant of the text or the topic of discourse. The first thing a speaker must do before formulating a message is decide which of the third-person referents is the central participant in the text. Subsequently, they will leave this proximate argument, which tends to appear in preverbal position, unmarked, and mark all other third-person animate participants, which generally occupy postverbal positions, as obviative.

Indeed, it is very common to find long stretches of narrative text where the same referent, considered by the speaker as the most important participant, is left unmarked as proximate.

The fact that the proximate/obviative distinction serves to track topic continuity across a discourse span can be observed in (37), an extract from an oral narrative. The main discourse topic, kȧsovááhe ‘a young man’, is established from the very outset, as it is placed in preverbal position, a pragmatically important position in Cheyenne. Once a referent has been chosen as the main character in the story, it becomes the proximate argument, and all other third-person participants receive obviative marking – which can be observed in the nominal suffix (e.g. nevá’ėsesto [obv] ‘someone’) and in the verbal suffix, (e.g. é-xhetaehoono ‘he [obv] said to him [prox]’). Thus, for example, the argument nevá’ėsesto ‘someone’ (s. 4) is introduced as new information in sentence 4, but, very possibly owing to its indefinite character, is not considered by the speaker to have pragmatic salience. Thus, it is marked as obviative and placed in postverbal position (note that the proximate counterpart would be nevá’ėsėstse [prox] ‘someone’). This implies that there is no shift in the discourse-pragmatic status of these two referents and, consequently, that the proximate status of the argument kȧsovááhe ‘a young man’ remains unaltered throughout the stretch of discourse under examination (the obviative form would be kȧsováaheho [obv] ‘a young man’), as can be observed in sentences 2 and 3, and in the dependent clause in sentence 4.

However, it is also possible to find texts where the proximate referent changes very frequently, even from clause to clause.

In this different story, shifts of proximate/obviative status occur very frequently because the speaker selects two discourse topics, rather than only one as in the previous story. The speaker considers the two referents, vé’ho’e ‘white man’ and xaa-vo’ėstane ‘Indian’, as equally important. This is supported by the first sentence of the story, where both referents appear in preverbal position forming a complex RP. From this moment onwards, whenever the speaker refers separately to either of them in the story, the referent being referred to receives the proximate status and occupies the preverbal position, for example tsé’tóhe xaa-vo’ėstane ‘this Indian’ in sentence 2 and vé’hoé ‘the white man’ in sentence 3. This leads to a rapid series of changes of discourse topic and of the discourse-status of the arguments, so that xaa-vo’ėstane ‘Indian’ is the proximate argument in sentences 2, 6 and 8, whereas vé’ho’e ‘white man’ is the proximate argument in sentences 3 and 7. Each of these two referents also receives obviative marking in one sentence, that is to say xaa-vo’ėstan(e)-óho [obv] ‘Indian’ in sentence 4 and vé’ho’e [obv] ‘white man’ in sentence 8. The fact that they are not considered pragmatically important in these two sentences is supported by their obviative marking – reflected both in the nominal suffixes and the verbal suffixes – and their placement in the postverbal position.

The analysis of the proximate/obviative distinction in these two texts shows that the main topic of discourse in Cheyenne tends to be proximate, and that the proximate/obviative status of referents remains unaltered until a new discourse topic (most commonly, a new focal element or an old topical element that is reintroduced into the discourse) is established, generally bringing about a shift in the discourse span and leading to a new proximate/obviative assignment.

However, as the proximate and obviative distinction is not invariably tied to macrorole assignment, it cannot by itself help us to determine which macrorole corresponds to each argument. This can be observed, for example, in sentences like 5, 7, 8, 9 and 10 in (37) or 5 in (38), where verbs cross-reference two third-person animate arguments with non-overt RPs, whose interpretation may confuse the hearer.

22.3.3 The Direct/Inverse System

As seen in Section 22.2.1, the Person Hierarchy and the Semantic Function Hierarchy work together as a single unified system in order to establish the link between syntactic and semantic information, as shown in Figure 22.12 (see also Wolvengrey Reference Wolvengrey2011: 57–63).

Figure 22.12 Interaction between the Person and Semantic Function hierarchies

The interaction between the two hierarchies establishes a correspondence between actors and local participants, on the one hand, and undergoers and non-local participants, on the other, in such a way that a harmonic alignment between the two hierarchies leads to a direct construction, and a disharmonic alignment between the two scales results in an inverse construction.

Both the Person Hierarchy and the Semantic Function Hierarchy rank their elements in terms of their inherent pragmatic salience or prominence. However, each hierarchy appears to be based on a different notion of salience or prominence. While the Semantic Function hierarchy is sensitive to the degree of animacy of the participants,²⁴ the Person Hierarchy may be governed by several pragmatic factors, such as animacy or topicality, as it ranks local over non-local participants and animate arguments over inanimate arguments.²⁵

As discussed in Section 22.2.1, the person represented by the prefix in an intransitive sentence always corresponds to the only direct core argument of the verb, so that the suffixal morphology is only concerned with the distinction between singular and plural number (see examples 11 and 13) or obviative marking (see 15). However, in transitive constructions, where more than one participant is involved, the prefix only cross-references the most pragmatically salient argument in terms of the Person Hierarchy.

1. (39)

   Né-vóom-ȧtse.

   2-see.vta-1>2.1.sg.a.2sg.u

   ‘I saw you.’

1. (40)

   Né-vóom-e.

   2-see.vta-2>1.2sg.a.1sg.u

   ‘You saw me.’

In these examples the prefix né- ‘2’ is selected as the prefix heading the verbal complex, thereby acquiring a special syntactic status, namely the PSA of the construction. Neither the prefix né- ‘2’ nor the pronominal suffix ‑ȧtse or ‑e can determine the semantic roles of the arguments of the verb by themselves. The prefix cross-references only the higher-ranking person, but is not indicative of semantic role on its own – it cross-references the undergoer in (39) and the actor in (40) – and the portmanteau formed by the theme marker plus the pronominal affixes tends to provide information about the direction of the construction, and to cross-reference the direct core arguments of the verb, but is sometimes ambiguous, especially in the Conjunct order. An examination of both elements, therefore, becomes necessary in order to link arguments and semantic roles. Thus, the prefix in both examples is a second-person participant; the portmanteaus -ȧtse and ‑e indicate that (39) and (40) are an inverse and a direct construction respectively, and that these constructions include a first-person singular actor and a first-person singular undergoer, respectively.

The direct/inverse mechanism is especially useful when the point of view changes for pragmatic reasons, and the core arguments are not lexicalized as RPs.

1. (41)

   Ná-mó’ot-óneo’o	Heévȧhetaneo’o
   1-invite.vta-1>3.1pl.a.3pl.u	Oklahoma.Cheyennes
   ‘We invited Oklahoma Cheyennes.’
   naa	ná-vés(e)-e’hanám-aeneo’o.
   and	1-with.in-eat.fta-3>1.3pl.a.1pl.u
   ‘… and they ate with us.’ (Leman Reference Leman1980a: 71)

In this example, the pronominal affixes ‑ae-ne-o’o, which provide unambiguous grammatical information about each of the core arguments of the verb, help us to identify that the clause ná-vés(e)e’hanámaeneo’o is an inverse construction, as it involves a third-person plural animate participant acting on a first-person plural animate participant.

To summarize, as the morphology of Cheyenne has no case distinctions, the only way to distinguish actor from undergoer in a transitive construction – see examples 5, 7, 8, 9 and 10 in (37) or 5 in (38) – is through the joint analysis of the direct/inverse system, the Person and Semantic hierarchies and the proximate/obviative status. The direct/inverse system provides a successful link between the arguments of a predicate and their semantic roles by encoding the interaction between these hierarchies. Thus, this efficient direct/inverse system, supported by the proximate/obviative distinction in non-local environments and without recourse to a fixed syntactically oriented rigid word order, plays a similar role to case marking in other languages in order to link semantic arguments with specific semantic functions in Cheyenne.

Finally, once macroroles have been assigned to semantic arguments, the speaker must select an appropriate word-order pattern following the principle of newsworthiness. In accordance with this pragmatic principle, the preverbal position in Cheyenne clauses is considered newsworthy, as it is here that discourse-prominent material is placed, and, by contrast, less discourse-salient information is placed in postverbal position.

23.7.1 Non-Finite Nominalizations

Yimas contrasts with many Papuan languages and in particular with those of the Trans New Guinea family like Amele (Roberts, this volume, Chapter 25) in preferring subordination rather than the cosubordination by extensive clause chaining as its favourite clause linkage device. It accomplishes subordination through nominalizations, both non-finite and finite. Yimas completely lacks the category complementizer; all nominalizations are simply complex nouns, and as nouns, all must be marked for noun class and, if relevant, number. The formal template is easiest to see with non-finite agentive nominalizations, such as irut ampa-r-mprum mat.ix.pl weave-nfn-ii.dl ‘two female mat-weavers’; a parallel full finite clause would be: irut imp(a)-ampa-wat mat.ix.pl 3dl.nom-weave-hab ‘they both weave mats.’ Note first of all that the nominalization makes a distinction in noun class, here noun class II, the class for female humans, that the corresponding finite verbal prefix impa- 3dl.nom cannot; this is in keeping with its status as a noun, distinguishing the full range of classes that nouns do. The finite tense marker ‑wat hab is replaced by the non-finite marker ‑ru (with a number of allomorphs). All core argument marking by bound verbal affixation beyond the realization of the agent that the entire nominalization refers to is now completely prohibited; the undergoer of the finite clause can be carried over into the nominalization, but it cannot ever be realized by a bound RX: *irut w(a)-ampa-r-mprum mat.ix.pl ix.pl.nom-weave-nfn-ii.dl, *w(a)-ampa-r-mprum ix.pl.nom-weave-nfn-ii.dl. Nor can the undergoer be genitivized as a modifier of the nominalization, as it can in English: *irut-ɲa ampa-r-mprum mat.ix.pl-poss weave-nfn-ii.dl ‘the two female weavers of mats’. This indicates that the undergoer must remain inside the core of the nominalization to satisfy the Completeness Constraint for the verb. But the whole nominalization can be modified, for example by an adjective: irut ampa-r-mprum yua-mprum mat.ix.pl weave-nfn-ii.dl good-ii.dl ‘two good female mat-weavers’. The concordial pattern here tells us that the head of the nominalization is the noun class and number suffix. The non-finite verb is embedded underneath it as a core, with its subcategorized arguments. Because this is an agentive nominalization, the actor is actually bound by the head of the nominalization, the noun class and number suffix, and therefore prohibited from occurring. This all suggests the structure in Figure 23.4 for this construction.

Figure 23.4 Constituent structure of a non-finite nominalization in Yimas

All non-finite nominalizations in Yimas have the structure of Figure 23.4. As we shall see, the structure of finite ones is very similar except that the node of clause is introduced with its operators, modifiers and inflectional possibilities. The nucleus of a non-finite nominalization can be as complex as a finite verb, simply lacking tense and verbal pronominal agreement, and can consist of incorporated adverbials, applicative derivations or verbs in a serial verb construction, that is, verbs linked in a nuclear juncture, as in these examples: kpa-nti-pramuŋ-tu-mat big-adv-sleep-nfn-i.pl ‘men who sleep too much’, taŋkway-cakal-cu-mprum watch.over-feel-nfn-ii.dl ‘the two women looking after (the kids)’, namtamparawt-ɲan api-c-awt foot.ix.dl-obl put.in-nfn-sg ‘a sock (that which puts inside at the feet)’. The different kinds of non-finite nominalizations in Yimas cover the midrange of the Interclausal Semantic Relations Hierarchy (Van Valin Reference Van Valin2005: 208), psych action, jussives, etc. What distinguishes the different types of non-finite nominalizations are the different heads or noun class markers they take (or head noun, as in complements of desire), but they all have the structure of Figure 23.4. When they function as complements, that is, as core arguments of a matrix verb, they can and usually do trigger agreement with that verb, the noun class marker of the nominalization matching the affix on the verb. Beside agentive nominalizations, there are four other types of nominalization that function as complements, exemplified in (17). These are marked by specific noun class marker suffixes utilized only for this function, or in the case of complements of desire by a bound noun wampuŋ, literally ‘heart’. Furthermore, as true complements they function as core arguments of the complement-taking verb of the core of the main clause and are therefore commonly (17a, b, c), though not obligatorily (17d), indicated there by a corresponding bound verbal affix of the same noun class.

1. (17)

   a.	complement of words or thought (thinking is internal speech)
   	patn	wayk-r-mpwi	pia-ka-i-c-mpun
   	betelnut.v.sg	buy-nfn-talk	talk.nom-1sg.erg-tell-perf-3pl.dat
   	‘I told them to buy betelnut.’
   b.	complement of activity
   	nam	wark-t-nti	tia-ka-ira-karŋkra-t
   	house	enclose-nfn-act	act.nom-1SG.erg-appl-tired-perf
   	‘I’m tired of building houses.’
   c.	complement of customary or habitual action
   	yaki	am-t-wal	ntak-na-k
   	tobacco.v.pl	eat-nfn-custom.v.sg	leave-imp-V.sg.nom
   	‘Stop smoking!’
   d.	complement of desire
   	tpuk	am-t-wampuŋ	kpa-n	ama-na-t-n
   	sago.x.sg	eat-nfn-heart.v.sg	big-v.sg	1sg.nom-pres-feel-pres
   	‘I really want to eat sago.’ (‘I have a big desire to eat sago’)

Note in (17d) that the adjective kpa ‘big’ modifies the nominalization.

Core arguments of non-finite nominalizations may be the pivot of control constructions and when they are, the pivot is strictly S/A; undergoers may never be controlled. Otherwise, genitivization applies, again strictly under an S/A pivot, illustrated above in (15) and in this example.

1. (18)

   patn	kpuc-t-wal	mpu-na-kn
   betelnut.v.sg	chew-nfn-custom.v.sg	3pl-poss-v.sg
   ‘their (manner of) chewing betelnut’

The controllers of the S/A pivot in control constructions can be any of the three core arguments, and what determines which is the Theory of Obligatory Control (Foley and Van Valin Reference Foley and Van Valin1984: 307–311; Van Valin Reference Van Valin2005: 243): (1) causative and jussive verbs have undergoer control and (2) all other transitive verbs have actor control. In control structures in Yimas the nominalized complement always functions as an undergoer, so with simple transitive complements there is no issue: the controller can only be the actor, the only other macrorole, as in (17b, d) above and in the examples below.

1. (19)

   a.	patn	wayk-r-mpwi	pia-ka-kacapal
   	betelnut.v.sg	buy-nfn-talk	talk.nom-1sg.erg-forget
   	‘I forgot to buy betelnut.’
   b.	yaki	am-t-wampuŋ	na-na-t-n
   	tobacco.v.pl	eat-nfn-heart.v.sg	3sg.nom-pres-feel-pres
   	‘He wants to smoke.’

Ditransitive verbs are more complicated as there are two potential controllers, the actor or the second undergoer. In accord with the Theory of Obligatory Control, if the complement is a causative or jussive one, there is undergoer control, as in (17a) and (20).

1. (20)

   impram	pay-c-mpwi	na-kra-kankantakal
   basket.vii.sg	carry-nfn-talk	3sg.nom-1pl.acc-ask
   ‘He asked us to carry a basket.’

Note that crucially the jussive or causative semantics is necessary; just because a verb of saying is ditransitive does not mean it will have undergoer control.

1. (21)

   kay	yamal-c-mpwi	pia-mpu-ŋa-taŋ-tmi
   canoe.viii.sg	carve-nfn-talk	talk.nom-3pl.erg-1sg.acc-appl-talk
   ‘They talked with me about (my, their or someone else’s) building a canoe.’

Here, although the verb is ditransitive through derivation with an applicative, there is no obligatory control, because the semantics is not causative or jussive. Ditransitive verbs that do not have causative or jussive semantics can have, as expected, actor controllers.

1. (22)

   tpuk	am-t-mpwi	pia-mpu-ŋa-taŋkway-cmi
   sago.x.sg	eat-nfn-talk	talk.nom-3pl.erg-1sg.acc-appl-talk
   ‘He told me (while looking at me) about (his) eating sago.’

In addition to functioning as complements, non-finite nominalizations can function as peripheral adjuncts and as modifiers, essentially non-finite relative clauses. Let us look at the latter first as they are simpler. All relative clauses in Yimas, finite and non-finite, are simply juxtaposed in apposition to the noun or referring expression they modify, just as adjectives can be (17d), They are adjoined (Hale Reference Hale and Dixon1976) and not embedded, as in this example.

1. (23)

   pu-k	namat	pu-ŋkl-awl-k
   3pl-prox	person.i.pl	3pl.nom-3pc.erg-get-irr
   [nampt	wark-r-mat]
   house.pl	enclose-nfn-i.pl
   ‘They few got these people who build houses.’

The structure of (23) is essentially that of a non-finite nominalization nampt wark-r-mat house.pl enclose-nfn-i.pl ‘the ones (masculine) building houses’ as in Figure 23.4 modifying a core argument pu-k namat 3pl-prox man.i.pl ‘these men’, in the same way as kamta-k-wa empty-irr-ix.sg ‘empty’ modifies parwa-n dock.ix.sg-obl ‘at the dock’ in Figure 23.1. Non-finite relative clauses differ from the nominalizations that we have seen thus far only in the noun class marker they take. Instead of the specialized noun class markers for complements in (17), non-finite relative clauses just use the basic adjectival concord set for the various noun classes and numbers of the nouns the modify: awruk [awt yara-t-uŋ] torch.x.sg [fire yara-nfn-x.sg] ‘a torch for picking up fire’, with just some exceptions for those modifying nouns denoting human males or females.

Non-finite nominalizations functioning as peripheral adjuncts always occur with the oblique suffix ‑n ~ ‑nan. They have a very specialized semantic function, indicating two events which are simultaneous. Such a semantic relation is quite low on the Interclausal Semantic Relations Hierarchy (Van Valin Reference Van Valin2005: 208), lower, for example, than circumstances, reasons, conditionals and concessives, but this is inaccurate for Yimas, as all of these latter are expressed by finite nominalizations, while simultaneous events must be expressed with non-finite nominalizations. While oblique non-finite nominalizations have final noun class and number markers as their heads, require ‑ru and have the basic structure of Figure 23.4, they differ in two crucial respects: first, their actors, if overt (and they are always actors, as I have no examples of states, achievements and accomplishments occurring in this construction), must occur as bare RXs like undergoers and may not be genitivized (24c). In this feature, oblique non-finite nominalizations are more like clauses than the ones previously presented, though formally they are still clearly cores attached to a nominal nucleus which is a noun class and number suffix, which is then inflected for oblique case. And second, the noun class and number suffixes do not show concord with an external RX, but rather mark those features for the actor of the nominalization, as in these examples.

1. (24)

   a.	[mpa	irm-kia-r-ŋkt-ɲan]
   	now	stand-night-nfn-pc-obl
   		paŋkra-na-ma-ŋka-pu-kia-k
   		1pc.nom-pres-in-go.by.land-away-night-irr
   	‘Standing now, we few walk inside.’
   b.	[wark-r-mat-ɲan		nam]	kumpwi	mnta
   	enclose-nfn-i.pl-obl		house	boy.I.pl	then
   		numa-mpu-ntak-t
   		village.nom-3pl.erg-leave-perf
   	‘While building a house, the boys left the village.’
   c.	arm	nampt	ya-mpu-tawɲcak-kia-k
   	water	house.pl	house.pl.nom-3pl.erg-flood-night-irr
   		[m-um	pay-kia-r-mat-ɲan		num-un-mat]
   		nr.dist-i.pl	lie-night-nfn-i.pl-obl		village-obl-i.pl
   	‘The water flooded the houses, while they, the villagers, slept.’

In (24a, b) the actor of the nominalizations is the same as that of the matrix verb, and being such, it can be elided. But such control is not obligatory, as (24c) demonstrates. There the actor of the nominalization is num-un-mat village-obl-i.pl ‘villagers’, while that of the matrix verb is arm ‘water’, which is always formally plural in Yimas, hence the bound prefix mpu- 3pl.erg. Any core argument can be the controller of an elided actor of an oblique non-finite nominalization.

1. (25)

   pu-kra-ant-t	pan-t-mat-nan
   3pl.nom-1pl.acc-hear-perf	pound.sago-nfn-i.pl-obl
   ‘They heard us when pounding sago.’ (Either they or we could be pounding sago.)

Finally, these oblique non-finite nominalizations can be used to describe locations. In that case, the noun class and number marker is invariably ‑a ix.sg, but there is no known synchronic noun of that class in Yimas that the affix could refer to. It seems to be fossilized, but the overall structure is typical of a non-finite nominalization: mawrun tu-r-a-n enemy.i.sg kill-nfn-ix.sg-obl ‘a place for killing the enemy, battlefield’, awŋkw-cpaŋ-t-a-n go.down.into.water-bathe-nfn-ix.sg-obl ‘a bathing place’.

23.7.2 Finite Nominalizations: Relative Clauses

Finite nominalizations occur with tense suffixes and bound verbal pronominal affixes for core arguments. Finite nominalizations are used in relative clauses and oblique (i.e. adverbial-type) clauses as peripheral adjuncts of the matrix clause, but they may never be used as complements (i.e. core arguments of the matrix verb). All finite nominalizations essentially have the structure of relative clauses, and the formation of relative clauses is somewhat complicated in Yimas, so I can only give a brief overview here. Their formation is complicated as they often involve yet another linear rearrangement of bound pronominal affixes for core arguments, the complexities of which, due to the split case system and the direct-inverse system, are considerable. Relative clauses are adjoined, not embedded, so the noun being modified does not form a constituent with it and, if recoverable from context, can be elided. The relative clause itself is headed by a noun class and number suffix on its verb that is in concord with the noun that it modifies or, if missing, that is recoverable from the context. This bound noun class and number suffix indexes one of the core arguments of the verb, actor or undergoer, that is the relativized noun, and in that sense, relative clauses in Yimas can be seen as internally headed, as the external modified noun, if present, is always resumed in the relative clause by a bound verbal affix according to its noun class and number. That noun class and number suffix, like those in non-finite nominalizations, occurs at the end of the verb of the relative clause and heads it, though not necessarily at the end of the relative clause, as constituents, especially peripheral adjuncts, but not restricted to them, can follow the verb. The noun class and number marker binds the missing relativized noun in the relative clause and provides its referent. The very simplest relative clauses are just of this structure; generally they do not co-occur with a noun and so function as RXs on their own: mal-k-n die-irr-i.sg ‘a corpse’, ŋa-t-ø give-perf-v.sg ‘a gift’, kalc-k-n strengthen-irr-i.sg ‘a strong person’, wa-kia-k-ra go-near-irr-v.pl ‘means/route of going’. Their structure is represented in Figure 23.5. These simple relative clauses function as kinds of patientive nominalizations in opposition to the agentive nominalizations described earlier.

1. (26)

   tu-r-awt	tu-t-Ø
   kill-nfn-i.sg	kill-perf-i.sg
   ‘killer’	‘someone killed’
   amp-r-awt	amp-(r)-ra
   kindle-nfn-i.sg	kindle-perf-v.pl
   ‘fire lighter’	‘firewood’
   kalc-r-awt	kalc-k-n
   strengthen-nfn-i.sg	strengthen-irr-i.sg
   ‘hard worker’	‘a strong person’
   am-t-awt	am-t-ra
   eat-nfn-i.sg	eat-perf-v.pl
   ‘eater’	‘food’

Figure 23.5 Constituent structure of a simple finite nominalization in Yimas

Most relative clauses are rather more elaborate than this. The verb of the relative clause (and many are just the verb) is typically suffixed as a whole to the near distal deictic stem m- ‘that’. Further, they can have bound pronominal affixes for their subcategorized core arguments. Consider these examples.

1. (27)

   a.	namat	[m-na-taw-nt-um	mnti]
   	person.i.pl	nr.dist-pres-sit-pres-i.pl	there
   	‘the people who are sitting there’
   b.	namat	[m-kra-tpul-c-um]
   	person.i.pl	nr.dist-1pl.acc-hit-perf-I.pl
   	‘the people who hit us’
   c.	namat	[m-kay-tpul-c-um]
   	person.i.pl	nr.dist-1pl.erg-hit-perf-i.pl
   	‘the people who we hit’

Example (27a) illustrates a case where the head and relativized argument is the intransitive subject. This single core argument is realized solely by the head suffix, the verb bearing no other bound pronominal bound affix. In (27b) the relativized noun and head is the actor of a transitive verb, realized by the final head suffix, while the undergoer is realized by its proper prefix. Finally, in (27c) the relativized noun and referent of the final head suffix corresponds to the undergoer argument of a transitive verb, while the actor appears now as a prefix in its proper position.

All types of core arguments and even peripheral adjuncts are relativizable (though recipient undergoers with difficulty due to morphological complications (see Foley Reference Foley1991: 417–418)); here are some examples.

1. (28)

   a.	on actor
   	Elias	[m-kra-pay-pra-kia-ntuk-ŋkt-ø	mota-nan]
   	pn	nr.dist-1pl.acc-carry-toward-near-rm.past-pc-i.sg	motor-obl
   	‘(It was) Elias who brought us few by motor.’
   b.	on undergoer
   	anti	[God	m-n-papk-ntuk-i]
   	ground.viii.sg	God	nr.dist-3sg.erg-carve-rm.past-viii.sg
   	‘the world which God made’
   	panmal	m-n-tpul-c-(n)ak	narmaŋ
   	man.i.sg	nr.dist-3sg.erg-hit-perf-i.sg	woman.ii.sg
   	‘the man which the woman hit’
   c.	on theme undergoer
   	impram	[m-(n)-nan-(n)a-ampa-ŋa-nt-m]
   	basket.vii.sg	nr.dist-3sg.erg-2pl.acc-pres-weave-appl-pres-vii.sg
   	‘the basket which she is weaving for you’
   d.	on peripheral location (again the fossilized suffix ‑a ix.sg is employed)
   	[maramara	m-mpu-t-r-a-n]
   	goods.v.pl	nr.dist-3pl.erg-lay.down-perf-ix.sg-obl
   	m-ra	ya-kay-ɲa-tacay-kulanaŋ
   	nr.dist-v.pl	v.pl.nom-1pl.erg-pres-see (red: tay-)-walk
   	‘Where they laid out the goods, we walked around looking at them.’ (Literally ‘at the place that they laid out the goods…’)
   e.	as possessor
   	[awt	m-nanaŋ-pampay-caw-na-ntut- ø]	na
   	fire	nr.dist-dur-appl-sit-dur-rm.past-i.sg	poss
   	kalakn	na-n-tay-mpi-yara-k
   	child.i.sg	3sg.nom-3sg.erg-see-seq-pick.up-irr
   	‘The son of him who was tending the fire found it.’
   f.	as possessed
   	manm	p-ka-tay	m-ɲa
   	cult.house.vii.sg	vii.sg.nom-1sg.erg-see	nr.dist-poss
   	[m-mpu-tkam-r-m]
   	nr.dist-3pl.erg-show-perf-vii.sg
   	‘I saw the cult house, yours, which they showed.’

Figure 23.6 illustrates the proposed representation for the relative clause of the second example in (28b).

Figure 23.6 Constituent structure of a relative clause (28b) in Yimas

What is unusual about Yimas in comparison to more familiar languages is that the entire relative clause, with the exception of the ‘leaked’ core argument narmaŋ ‘woman’, corresponds to a single word, and such words can be quite complex (28a, e). But that is entirely in keeping with the polysynthetic typological profile of the language; the word is its favoured grammatical unit and structures above that are very weakly syntactically developed. This fact should again caution us against building grammatical theories solely on the basis of what is familiar to us, such as constituency: they blind us to other possibilities.

The final type of relative clause to consider are those in which the relativized noun is a temporal expression. These are obliquely case-marked like relative clauses on locative adjuncts, and, also like them, the head of these temporal relative clauses is a fossilized noun class and number suffix, of the form ‑mp vii.sg. But in this case we know the noun to which it refers because it is still synchronically in the language: pucm ‘part, piece, time’. All the semantic relations on the Interclausal Semantic Relations Hierarchy that are expressed typically by adverbial subordinate clauses in more familiar languages, circumstances, reasons, conditionals and hypotheticals and concessives, are expressed by this type of temporal relative clause in Yimas. The differences between them are captured in the choice of tense and mood for both the relative clause and the matrix clause. For example, for temporal circumstances, the verb of the relative clause occurs with one of the past or present tenses or that of the definite future.

1. (29)

   [m-mpu-ŋa-na-tay-ɲc-mp-n]

   nr.dist-3pl.erg-1sg.acc-pres-see-pres-vii.sg-obl

   pu-ka-apan-kt

   3pl.nom-1sg.acc-spear-rm.fut

   ‘When they see me, I will spear them.’

But conditionals and hypotheticals are marked with mood affixes that mark unreal or as yet unrealized events.

1. (30)

   [m-mpu-ya-kr-mp-n		Wamur-mat]
   nr.dist-3pl.erg-come-rm.fut-vii.sg-obl		Wambramas-i.pl
   mambayŋki	wunt	kantk
   banana.vi.pl	sago.grub.v.pl	with
   pay-pra-kt	ama-na-ra
   carry-toward-rm.fut	1sg-poss-v.sg
   ‘If the Wambramas people will come, they can bring my bananas and sago grubs.’

Counterfactuals are slightly different. They require the potential modality prefix ant-, which expresses that an event is unlikely to happen, to co-occur with a past- or present-tense marker on the verbs of both the relative clause and the matrix clause. As the potential modality marker is a prefix, it triggers rearrangement on verbs of the matrix clause of the normally leftmost bound nominative pronominal prefix to right edge.

1. (31)

   [tuŋkuruŋ	ant-ka-tay-c-mp-n]
   eye.vi.sg	pot-1sg.erg-see-perf-vii.sg-obl
   ant-ka-tu-r-(n)ak
   pot-1sg.erg-kill-perf-iii.sg.nom
   ‘If I had seen the eye (of the crocodile), I would have killed it.’

Finally, concessives are formed by having the polarity of the relative clause being positive, and that of the matrix clause, negative.

1. (32)

   [kay	i-ka-ak-r-mp-n]
   canoe.viii.sg	viii.sg.nom-1sg.erg-push-perf-vii.sg-obl
   arm-n	ta-ka-wul-c-i
   water-obl	neg-1SG.erg-put.down-perf-viii.sg
   ‘Although I pushed the canoe, I didn’t put it down into the water.’

24.2 Lexical Categories

Avatime has the distinct lexical categories of noun, verb, adjective, ideophone, adverb, preposition and postposition. Nouns are morphologically distinguished by their noun-class prefixes (see Section 24.5.1) and can be modified by adjectives, numerals and determiners. Nouns are used as referring expressions. They cannot function as predicates or modifiers and there is no way to derive other lexical categories from nouns.

Verbs are distinguished from other lexical categories by their ability to be marked with a subject prefix and aspect, modality, negation and direction markers (see Section 24.4.2). Verbs are used as predicates. They can be used as referring expressions only when they are nominalized. To fully nominalize a verb, the verb is reduplicated and optionally marked with the noun-class prefix ku-/kụ-. There are two constructions where the verb is marked with a noun-class prefix without being reduplicated: in non-finite complement constructions, where it is marked with the prefix ku-/kụ- and in the focus construction (see Section 24.7), where it is marked with the prefix ki-/kị-. In these cases, the verb appears to be nominalized to a certain extent, but it cannot function as a full noun in this form.

Avatime has a small class of non-derived and non-ideophonic adjectives. These modify nouns and cannot be used by themselves as predicates or referring expressions. They do not share any morphological properties to distinguish them from other lexical categories. The majority of property words are not adjectives, but verbs or ideophones. Verbs which include a property or a state as part of their meaning can be turned into adjectives by reduplication, such as kpakpa ‘dry’ from the verb kpa ‘to dry’. Adjectives can be nominalized by prefixing them with a noun-class prefix. For instance, the adjective sị̀sàmi ‘small’ can be turned into ɔ-sị̀sàmi ‘small one’ (referring to something of class 1 singular).

Avatime also has a small class of non-ideophonic adverbs. Like the adjectives, they do not share any morphological properties, but they are distinguished by their function as modifiers of predicates or clauses. These adverbs cannot be used as predicates, referring expressions or modifiers of nouns. Some examples are nyafɛ ‘maybe’, àbla ‘now’ and kóko ‘already’.

There is a large class of ideophones that overlaps in function with the classes of adjectives and adverbs. Ideophones are ‘marked words that depict sensory imagery’ (Dingemanse Reference Dingemanse2012, see Chapter 9 of this volume). They can be used to modify nouns, predicates and clauses, but they cannot be used as predicates or referring expressions. Ideophones are distinguished from other word classes by their marked phonology (e.g. long words, repeated syllables, long final vowels). Some examples are pịtịtị ‘white’, hãããã ‘intensely’ and trátrátrátrá ‘very neat’.

Finally, Avatime has small sets of prepositions and postpositions. There are only two prepositions: locative ní and comitative (a)nì. There are five postpositions, four of which have evolved from nouns. An example is ese ‘under’, which comes from the noun kese ‘ground’ (for examples of adpositions see Section 24.5.2). As we show in Section 24.5.2, the postpositions are very noun-like in their use and can be analysed as heading referential phrases (RPs). Nevertheless, they are a separate lexical category on both morphological and syntactic grounds. Morphologically, they are distinct from nouns as they have lost their noun-class prefixes. Syntactically, they cannot be modified with nominal modifiers such as definite articles and can only occur in the position following another referential phrase.

24.3 Predicate Classes and Logical Structure

We distinguish four main Aktionsart classes in Avatime: states, activities, semelfactives and accomplishments. The primary distinguishing factor is their interpretation with progressive and perfective aspects. For more detail about Avatime Aktionsart classes, see Defina (Reference Defina2009, Reference Defina2018).

States are interpreted as present in the perfective, as can be seen in the example in (1). They can be marked as progressive, where they are interpreted as persistent states (e.g. ‘the building is still in Vane’).

1. (1)

   lịgba=lὲ	lị-lị́	ní	ɔ̀ʋanɔ̀
   c3.sg-building=def	c3.sg.sbj.pfv-be.at	loc	Vane
   ‘The building is in Vane.’
   Logical Structure: be.at′ (ɔ̀ʋanɔ̀, lịgbalὲ)

Activities are dynamic events without an inherent endpoint. They are generally interpreted as occurring in the past in the perfective, as in example (2), and as occurring in the present in the progressive (e.g. ‘Afua is eating rice’).

1. (2)

   àfua	a-tá	kị-mịmị
   Afua	c1.sg.sbj.pfv-chew	c4.sg-rice
   ‘Afua ate rice.’
   Logical Structure: do′ (Afua, [eat′ (Afua, kịmịmị)])

Accomplishments are state-change events with internal duration. Like states, they are typically interpreted as present in the perfective, as can be seen in example (3), but they are interpreted like activities in progress with the progressive (e.g. ‘the door is opening’).

1. (3)

   ò-pópo=lò	ɛ-drà
   c2.sg-door=def	c2.sg.sbj.pfv-open
   ‘The door is open.’
   Logical Structure: BECOME open′ (òpópo)

Semelfactives are events that lack duration. Like activities, they are interpreted as past actions in the perfective (e.g. ‘she came’). However, unlike activities, they cannot be modified by duration adverbials such as ‘for 5 minutes’ and ‘quickly’. They can be used with the progressive, in which case they are interpreted as iterative or repeated actions, as in example (4).

1. (4)

   o-ne=e	ὲέ-ba
   c2.sg-mother=def	c1.sg.sbj.prog-come
   ‘The mother comes regularly.’
   Logical Structure: SEML come′ (one)

As yet, no clear diagnostic for the classes achievement and active accomplishment has been found for Avatime. The typical test using the modifiers ‘for X time’ or ‘in X time’ is not applicable as this specific semantic distinction is not consistently made. There is, however, a group of atomic telic predicates where the endpoint is reached in a single step rather than gradually (Caudal and Nicolas Reference Caudal, Nicolas, Maienborn and Wöllstein2005), which can be distinguished based on their incompatibility with the adverb petee ‘completely’, as in example (5).

1. (5)

   osófo=e	a-trɛ	ní	òholò	(*petee)
   pastor=def	c1.sg.sbj.pfv-go	loc	Ho	(*completely)
   ‘The pastor went to Ho (*completely).’
   Logical Structure: do′ (osófo, [go′ (osófo)]) & INGR be.at′ (Ho, osófo)

In addition to the Aktionsart predicate classes discussed above, it is worth mentioning causative predicates. Some verbs, such as trɔ ‘put on’ and bàsị ‘show’ are always causative. Other verbs have a non-causative reading when they are used intransitively and a causative reading when they are used transitively, such as dra ‘open’ in example (6) (see also (3) above).

1. (6)

   ɔ-dɔ̀bàsị=ɛ	a-dra	ò-pópo=lò
   c1.sg-teacher=def	c1.sg.sbj.pfv-open	c2.sg-door=def
   ‘The teacher opened the door.’
   Logical Structure: do′ (ɔ̀dɔ̀bàsi, Ø) CAUSE [BECOME open′(òpópo)]

24.4 Clause Structure and Operators

24.4.1 Clause Structure

Canonical constituent order in Avatime is SVO: the privileged syntactic argument (‘subject’; PSA) precedes the verb, and other arguments (‘direct/indirect object’) follow the verb. Adverbial phrases follow the postverbal arguments. There is head-marking of the PSA on the verb. A canonical transitive sentence with an adverbial phrase in Avatime can be seen in example (7) and the syntactic structure of this example is shown in Figure 24.1. Following Van Valin (Reference Van and Valin1985) and Van Valin and LaPolla (Reference Van Valin and LaPolla1997), we analyse the PSA-indexing prefix on the verb as an argument in the core, whereas the RP with which this prefix is coreferential is analysed as occurring outside the core, but inside the clause. This captures the observation that a lexical RP or independent pronoun is not necessary, and example (7) remains grammatical when leaving out the RP ɔ́dzɛɛ ‘the woman’.

1. (7)

   ɔ́-dzɛ=ɛ	á-ta	á-ʋa=nà	ní	lị-gba=le
   c1.sg-woman=def	c1.sg.sbj.pfv-chew	c3.pl-bean=def	loc	c3.sg-room=def
   mὲ
   inside
   ‘The woman ate beans in the room.’

Figure 24.1 The layered structure of the sentence in example (7)

Avatime makes use of the pre-core slot (PrCS) for question formation and focus marking (see also Section 24.7 and Van Putten Reference van Putten2016). The question word or focused RP is placed in the pre-core slot and marked with a final extra-high tone, as shown in examples (8) and (9).

1. (8)

   egé	ɔ́-dzɛ=ɛ	a-ta
   what	c1.sg-woman=def	c1.sg.sbj.pfv-chew
   ‘What did the woman eat?’		(elic-QUIS-foc_100714_SO)

1. (9)

   á-ʋa=ná	ɔ́dzɛ=ɛ	a-ta
   c3.pl-bean=def:foc	c1.sg-woman=def	c1.sg.sbj.pfv-chew
   ‘The woman ate [the beans]FOC.’		(elic-QUIS-foc_100714_SO)

The pre-detached position is frequently used to host topical expressions or expressions encoding spatial or temporal background information (see Van Putten Reference van Putten, van Gijn, Hammond, Matić, van Putten and Galucio2014b). When an argument that is not the PSA is pre-detached, a resumptive pronoun occurs in its regular postverbal position, as shown in example (10). Example (11) shows a sentence with both focus-marking and a pre-detached element. The syntactic structure of this example is shown in Figure 24.2. Note that the PrCS is not the same structural position as the regular position for PSA RPs, in that it is also within the clause but outside the core. Focused elements always precede the PSA RP.

1. (10)

   á-ʋa=nà,	ɔ́-dzɛ=ɛ	a-ta	na
   c3.pl-bean=def	c1.sg-woman=def	c1.sg.sbj.pfv-chew	c3.pl
   ‘The beans, the woman ate them.’

1. (11)

   kivoe	á-ʋa=ná	ɔ́-dzɛ=ɛ	á-ta
   yesterday	c3.pl-bean=def	c1.sg-woman=def	c1.sg.sbj.pfv-chew
   ‘Yesterday, the woman ate [the beans]FOC.’

Figure 24.2 A sentence with pre-detached position and pre-core slot (example 11)

24.4.2 Operators

In this section, we give an overview of the operators that have scope over the different layers of the layered structure of the clause. The Avatime verb is usually marked with a prefix that indexes the PSA. This prefix (henceforth referred to as the PSA prefix) also encodes aspect or mood. It is optionally followed by other aspect, mood and directionality prefixes. There is no tense marking. An overview of the categories marked on the verb and the order in which they occur can be seen in (12) and an example with all slots occupied can be seen in (13).

(12)

PSA + Perfective/Progressive/Habitual/Potential/Subjunctive + (Negation) – (Intentive) – (Recurrent) – (Directional) – Root

1. (13)

   mɔ́-tá-zɛ̌-zɛ-panị̀	wɔ
   1.sg.sbj.pfv.neg-int-rec-it-talk	2.sg
   ‘I will not be going to talk with you.’		(R0811291)

There are five paradigms of PSA prefixes, as shown in Table 24.1. For the sake of brevity, the forms for the noun classes other than class 1 singular and plural have been omitted (a full table can be seen in Van Putten Reference van Putten2014a or Defina Reference Defina2016a). As the table shows, there is no one-to-one correspondence between each paradigm and an aspect/mood category. It is also clear that the prefixes are formally related to each other; it is likely that they have evolved from combinations of a prefix indexing the PSA plus an aspect/mood marker, but they cannot be synchronically analysed as such.

Table 24.1 Paradigms of PSA prefixes (most noun classes omitted)

Person/ number/ noun class	Set 1 Perfective (most verbs)	Set 2 - Negative (with extra-high tone) - Subjunctive (some verbs) - Perfective (locative and copula verbs)	Set 3 - Subjunctive (some verbs) - Habitual (with zɛ̌- prefix)	Potential	Progressive
1s	me-/ma-	mo-/mɔ-	mi-/mị-	máà-	mèé-/mὲέ-
1p	ki-/kị	ku-/kụ-	ki-/kị-	kị́à-	kìí-/kị̀ị́-
2s	wo-/wɔ-	wo-/wɔ-	wu-/wụ-	wáà-	wèé-/wὲέ-
2p	mle-/mlɛ-	mla	mli-/mlị-	mláà-	mlèé-/mlὲέ-
C1.SG	e-/a-	o-/ɔ-	i-/ị-	áà-	èé-/ὲέ-
C1.PL	be-/bɛ-	ba	bi-/bị-	bị́à	bèé-/bὲέ-
…

We will now briefly discuss the operators one by one. For more detail about these markers and their semantics, see Defina (Reference Defina2018).

Given that aspect marking modifies the internal temporal structure of the event itself, the aspect markers are considered to be nuclear-level operators (Van Valin and LaPolla Reference Van Valin and LaPolla1997; Van Valin Reference Van Valin2005). Avatime has four aspectual categories: perfective, progressive, habitual and recurrent. Their forms are described in (14).

(14)

(14) Aspect marking

• The perfective is marked with a PSA prefix from set 1 or, in the case of locative and copula verbs, set 2. It is the most frequently occurring verb form in Avatime, some examples of which have already been presented in (7)–(11).

• The progressive has its own paradigm of PSA prefixes, as shown in Table 24.1.

• The habitual uses a PSA prefix from set 3, combined with the prefix zě-/zɛ̌-, see example (15).

• The recurrent is one of the two optional aspect/mood prefixes and indicates repeated or recurring actions and situations. It is marked with the prefix zě-/zɛ̌-,² which is always combined with one of the obligatory aspect/mood categories, see example (16).

1. (15)

   mí-zě-do	mawùye	li-bo=lè	ní	sɔ̀lὲ	mὲ
   1sg.sbj.hab-hab-say	God	c3.sg-word=def	loc	church	inside
   ‘I preach the word of God in church.’ (life_100614_WE)

1. (16)

   ma-zɛ̌-wà	a-xwὲ=na	ní	cocoa marketing board
   1.sg.sbj.pfv-rec-do	c3.pl-work=def	loc	cocoa marketing board
   ‘I used to work at the cocoa marketing board.’			(life_AB)

There are two directionals: the itive (‘away’), marked with the prefix ze-/zɛ- and the ventive (‘towards’), marked with the prefix bá-/bé-, shown in example (17). These forms express orientation or motion away from or towards the deictic centre. This means they are core-level operators (see Van Valin and LaPolla Reference Van Valin and LaPolla1997: 45).

1. (17)

   a-bá-feke	télefòn=ye
   c1.sg.sbj.pfv-ven-pick.up	telephone=def
   ‘He came and picked up the telephone.’		(finsto_100716_DQ)

Another core operator is the intentive, which indicates the intention of the actor to carry out the action expressed by the verb. The intentive is marked with the optional prefix tá- which combines with either the perfective aspect or the subjunctive mood. For an example of the former, see (13).

Negation is expressed by a PSA prefix from set 2 with an extra-high tone. An example can be seen in (13). When the progressive is negated, this PSA prefix is followed by the prefix li-/lị-. When the habitual is negated, the prefix zě-/zɛ̌- is deleted, leaving only its tone and lengthening the vowel of the PSA prefix. Negation marking can be used for both core-level and clause-level negation.

Avatime has three clause-level operators marked on the verb: potential, subjunctive and imperative. Their properties are described in (18).

(18)

(18) Clause-level operators marked on the verb

• The potential has its own PSA agreement paradigm as shown in Table 24.1. The potential PSA prefix cannot be combined with negation marking. For a negative potential interpretation, the negative perfective intentive is used.

• The subjunctive is marked with a subject prefix from set 2 for some verbs and for other verbs with a subject prefix from set 3. An example is shown in (19). When the subjunctive is negated, a prefix ku-/kụ- is added while the PSA prefix remains the same. The subjunctive has irrealis and illocutionary force interpretations.

• The imperative is marked by the absence of a PSA prefix, as in ba ‘Come!’. It is only used for second-person singular commands. For other commands, the subjunctive is used. To negate imperative clauses, the negative subjunctive is used.

1. (19)

   mla-trɛ

   2.pl.sbj.sbjv-go

   ‘You (pl) should go.’ / ‘Go! (to multiple people)’

The final operator to be discussed here is question marking, an illocutionary force operator. Polar questions are marked with a clause-final particle na or, more frequently, with intonation only. Content questions are marked with a question word in the pre-core slot (see example (8) in Section 24.4.1).

According to RRG (Van Valin and LaPolla Reference Van Valin and LaPolla1997; Van Valin Reference Van Valin2005), the order of operators in a given language always follows the same pattern whereby clausal operators occur furthest from the verb, core operators closer than clausal operators, and nuclear operators are the closest to the verb. In Avatime, this prediction is mostly borne out, but there are two exceptions: (i) the (core) directional markers occur closer to the verb than the (nuclear) aspect markers, and (ii) the (core) intentive marker also occurs closer to the verb than the (nuclear) perfective marker. The directional markers have clearly grammaticalized from motion verbs (ba ‘come’ and za ‘pass’). Before grammaticalization, they would have occurred as the first verb in a serial verb construction (SVC), directly followed by the second verb (see Sections 24.9 and 24.10 for more information about serial verb constructions). As all aspect and mood marking in SVCs is on the first verb, it now precedes these directional prefixes. A similar explanation could account for the intentive following the perfective: the intentive tá- is also likely to be the result of a grammaticalization process from a serial verb construction, probably from the verb trɛ ‘go’ or tráà ‘come’. Another possible explanation for the intentive following the perfective is the hypothesis that the perfective forms used to be the bare subject agreement markers unmarked for aspect/mood, as is the case in many related languages (Welmers Reference Welmers1973). Through language change, the default PSA prefix came to be used solely for perfective marking and thereby turned into a nuclear-level operator, which happened to occur in a position preceding the intentive marker.

Figure 24.3 shows the sentence in example (13), repeated here as (20), with both constituent and operator projections.

1. (20)

   mɔ́-tá-zɛ̌-zɛ-panị̀	wɔ
   1.sg.sbj.pfv.neg-int-rec-it-talk	2.sg
   ‘I will not be going to talk with you.’	(R0811291)

Figure 24.3 Sentence from example (20) with constituent and operator projections

24.5 Referential and Adpositional Phrases

24.5.1 Referential Phrases Headed by Nouns

Like clauses, referential phrases (RPs) have a layered structure. The nucleus of the Avatime RP can be either a noun or a postposition. When it is headed by a postposition it functions as an adpositional phrase, and this type of RP will be discussed in Section 24.5.2. This section will instead discuss RPs headed by nouns.

Avatime nouns, like those in many Niger-Congo languages, take part in a noun-class system. Each noun (with the exception of some loanwords) carries a noun-class prefix which indicates its gender and number. Within the referential phrase, there is agreement on numerals, articles and demonstratives (see example (24)). For more detailed information on the noun-class system and the various nominal modifiers, see Schuh (Reference Schuh1995), Van Putten (Reference van Putten2014a) and Defina (Reference Defina2016a).

The constituent order in Avatime RPs is shown in (21). Adjectives are considered to occur in a periphery of the nucleus, following Van Valin (Reference Van Valin2005), whereas the other nominal modifiers are operators on different layers of the RP.

(21)

noun – adjectives – numeral – determiner – particles

The only operator on the nuclear level is number, which is marked on the noun class prefix (e.g. ɔ̀-klị ‘leg’ vs. ị̀-klị ‘legs’). The numerals are operators on the core level, as they provide quantification. The determiners are operators on the RP level, as they ground the RP in discourse. The class of determiners contains the elements shown in (22), of which only one can occur in a given RP.

(22)

(22) Determiners

• The definite article, which is a monosyllabic enclitic and agrees with the noun class of the head noun.

• The indefinite article tɔ, prefixed with a noun-class agreement prefix. This article has a specific indefinite interpretation (e.g. ‘some’, ‘a certain’). For a non-specific indefinite interpretation, the determiner slot is unfilled.

• The proximal demonstrative yà and distal demonstrative lɔ̀, both prefixed with a noun-class agreement prefix.

The class of particles contains words such as tsyɛ ‘also’, kɔ ‘by contrast’ and kò ‘only’. Like definiteness and deixis markers, they ground the RP in discourse and are therefore considered to be RP-level operators.

Possession in Avatime is mostly indicated by juxtaposition with a possessor–possessed word order. The regular independent pronouns are used as possessor pronouns. For possessed kinship terms, there is a slightly more complex construction in which the possessor pronoun fuses with the noun-class prefix of the possessed kinship term.³ With a nominal possessor, this fused possessor pronoun is also present, and, thus, in these cases there is head-marking of the possessor on the possessed noun. Examples of kinship and non-kinship terms with nominal and pronominal possessors can be seen in (23).

1. (23)

   yɛ	‘c1.sg’	+ ɔ̀-mà-nɔ ‘the town’	→ yɛ ɔ̀-mà-nɔ ‘her town’
   yɛ	‘c1.sg’	+ o-ne ‘mother’	→ ye-ne ‘her mother’
   ɔ-nùvɔ̀-ɛ ‘the child’		+ li-kuto-lɛ ‘the hat’	→ ɔnùvɔ̀-ɛ li-kuto-lɛ ‘the child’s hat’
   ɔ-nùvɔ̀-ɛ ‘the child’		+ o-ne ‘mother’	→ ɔnùvɔ̀-ɛ ye-ne ‘the child’s mother’

The possessor occurs in the RP initial position (RPIP), analogous to both the pre-detached position and pre-core slot in the layered structure of the clause (see Van Valin Reference Van Valin2005: 26).

An example of a complex RP in Avatime can be seen in (24). The constituent and operator projections of this example are shown in Figure 24.4.

1. (24)

   bá-dzɛ	kpekpe	tia-bà=a	ke-pe=à
   c1.pl.woman	short	c1.pl-two=def	c6.sg-house=def
   ‘The house of the two short women.’

Figure 24.4 Complex RP with constituent and operator projections (example 24)

24.5.2 Adpositional Phrases

As mentioned in Section 24.2, there are both prepositions and postpositions in Avatime. Both of Avatime’s prepositions – the comitative preposition (a)nì ‘and/with’ and the general locative preposition ní – are predicative prepositions. This means they occur in the nucleus of a prepositional phrase (see Figure 24.5 and Chapter 10 of this volume). The five locative postpositions are indicators of what Ameka (Reference Ameka1995) calls the search domain, that is, the part of the reference object where something is located. Postpositional phrases are not locative by themselves but behave like noun phrases; they can, for instance, serve as arguments of a verb. Because of this, we analyse the postpositional phrase as an RP with the postposition as its nucleus and the noun expressing the location in an RP-initial position, analogous to possessive constructions. This makes sense from a historical perspective, as most postpositions have evolved from nouns which would have combined with the locatum in a possessive construction (e.g. ‘the upper surface of the table’ → ‘on the table’, see also Section 24.2).

In locative phrases, a postpositional phrase must be combined with the preposition ní, as shown in example (25). The constituent projection of this example is shown in Figure 24.5. Instead of a postposition, a noun can also be used to indicate the search domain, as in example (26). This follows from the analysis presented above: in this case the two nouns occur in a possessive construction, as the situation with the prepositions would have been before grammaticalization was complete. Thus, example (26) literally translates as ‘located at the back of the car’.

1. (25)

   ní	ɔ̀-kplɔ=nɔ̀	abà
   loc	c2.sg-table=def	on
   ‘on the table’

1. (26)

   ní	ò-hui=lò	ke-de=à
   loc	c2.sg-car=def	c6.sg-back=def
   ‘behind the car’

Figure 24.5 Constituent projection of a PP (example 25)

24.6 Macroroles, Arguments and Linking from Semantics to Syntax

In this section, we discuss how logical structure is linked to syntactic structure, including how semantic macroroles are assigned in Avatime and how the privileged syntactic argument is selected.

Macrorole selection in Avatime simple sentences follows the Actor-Undergoer Hierarchy (AUH) shown in (27). The highest-ranking argument is selected as the actor. When it comes to the selection of the undergoer, Van Valin (Reference Van Valin2005) shows that, across languages, there are two possible principles: either the lowest-ranking or the second-lowest-ranking argument is selected as the undergoer. When a verb has only two core arguments, the two principles will always select the same undergoer. However, a difference emerges with three-place predicates. In Avatime three-place predicates, the two non-actor arguments always follow the verb with the ‘indirect object’ preceding the ‘direct object’, as shown in example (28). The logical structure of this sentence is shown in (29) and makes clear that the highest-ranking argument is Kofi, the second-highest is the first-person singular pronoun and the lowest-ranking argument is egumena ‘the cows’. Given that there is no case marking and no indexing of either of the two arguments on the verb, there doesn’t seem to be clear evidence for which of the two is the undergoer and therefore which of the two principles applies.

1. (27) The Actor-Undergoer Hierarchy (based on Van Valin and LaPolla Reference Van Valin and LaPolla1997 Fig. 4.2)

   ACTOR				UNDERGOER
   ----------------------------------------------------->
   		<-------------------------------------------------------------
   Arg. of DO	1st arg. of do′ (x,…)	1st arg. of pred′ (x, y)	2nd arg. of pred′ (x, y)	Arg. of state pred′ (x)
   [‘------------>’ = increasing markedness of realization of argument as macrorole]

1. (28)

   kòfi	a-bàsị	mɛ	e-gume=nà
   Kofi	c1.sg.sbj.pfv-show	1.sg	c3.pl-cow=def
   ‘Kofi showed me the cows.’

After assigning macrorole status, the PSA is selected. In Avatime, the PSA is the argument that is indexed on the verb. Avatime has a nominative-accusative alignment pattern: if there is only one macrorole argument, this is selected as the PSA, and if there are two macroroles, the actor is selected as the PSA. The PSA is invariable: there is no passive construction in Avatime and non-macrorole PSAs are not allowed. In example (28), the actor, Kofi, is selected as the PSA.

After the selection of the PSA, the appropriate syntactic template is selected. The syntactic template for a canonical Avatime sentence has one core slot before the verb for a head-marked argument and up to two core slots for RP arguments after the verb (see Section 24.4.1). In the case of example (28), a syntactic template with two core slots after the verb is chosen, as there are three arguments in the logical structure. The preverbal head-marking slot is linked to the PSA, which is Kofi. This slot can only contain PSA-indexing prefixes and does not allow referential phrases. Therefore, it is filled with a PSA-indexing prefix of noun class 1 singular (class 1 is used for people) and the RP Kofi is placed in the pre-core position (see also Section 24.4.1). The undergoer and non-macrorole arguments are linked to the two postverbal core-internal slots.

24.7 Focus Structure

In addition to the constituent projection and operator projection, RRG posits a third component of grammar, representing the information structure of the sentence: the speech-act projection (see Chapter 11 of this volume). In this section, we briefly discuss focus marking in Avatime. For more detail, see Van Putten (Reference van Putten2016).

The potential focus domain in Avatime canonical clauses coincides with the entire clause, that is, any element of a clause can potentially be in focus. Focused elements in canonical clauses are not marked as such with intonation; the focus interpretation comes purely from the context.

To make clearer which part of the sentence is in focus, a syntactic focus construction can be used (see also Section 24.4.1). This construction is often used when the focus is contrastive. In this construction, a constituent is placed in the pre-core slot and marked with a final extra-high tone. This structure is most frequently used for narrow focus, that is focus on the constituent in the pre-core slot only, as was shown in example (9) in Section 24.4.1. To mark narrow focus on the verb, a copy of the verb root, prefixed with the noun class prefix ki-/kị- is placed in the pre-core slot and marked with the final extra-high tone, while the inflected verb remains in its normal position. An example is shown in (30), where the focus is on the lexical content of the verb, but the same construction can also be used to mark focus on an aspect, modality or status operator (see also Van Putten Reference van Putten2016).

1. (30)

   ki-hɔ́	bɛ-tá-hɔ	lɔ
   c4.sg-grind:foc	c1.pl.sbj.pfv-int-grind	c3.sg
   ‘Will they [grind]FOC it (or pound it)?’			(illness_100616_SO-DS)

The focus construction may also be used for sentence focus or predicate focus (focus on the verb + argument that is not the PSA or PP). A sentence focus interpretation is possible when the PSA is marked for focus and a predicate focus interpretation is possible when an argument that is not the PSA or a peripheral PP is marked for focus. An example of the latter can be seen in (31).

1. (31)

   (One speaker is telling a story in which a boy riding a bicycle meets a girl. The listener asks a clarification question.)
   yɛ	tsyɛ,	gasɔ́	ὲέ-kpɛ
   c1.sg	too	bicycle:foc	c1.sg.sbj.prog-put
   ‘Is she also [riding a bicycle]FOC ?’ (pear_100630_GoD-FB)

For the linking from semantics to syntax, the use of the focus construction means that a syntactic template with a pre-core slot will be chosen (see also Section 24.4.1). If the element to be placed in the pre-core slot is a non-PSA argument, the number of postverbal core slots will be reduced by one. PSA indexing on the verb is obligatory, so the preverbal core slot which contains the verb prefix cross-referencing the nominal PSA argument is always filled, irrespective of whether the PSA occurs in the pre-core slot or in its regular pre-core position.

24.8 Summary

In Part I of this grammatical sketch, we have discussed the grammar of Avatime simple clauses. Avatime is a language with a clear distinction between nouns and verbs, small lexical categories of adjectives, adverbs and adpositions and a large category of ideophones. It has a rather rigid constituent order, in which the PSA precedes the verb and other arguments follow the verb, followed by adverbial phrases. The PSA is indexed on the verb with head-marking. Question words and optionally focused elements occur in the pre-core slot.

Referential phrases can have either a noun or a postposition as their nucleus. If a noun heads the RP, it can be followed by a number of modifiers, most of which agree in noun class with the head noun. Possession is indicated by juxtaposition with possessor–possessed word order. When a postposition heads the RP, no modifiers are possible and the postposition is always preceded by another RP that functions like a possessor. Locative phrases are formed with the locative preposition ní.

Most operators of the layered structure of the clause are marked on the verb by the choice of PSA prefix out of several possible paradigms and/or a specialized prefix. The order of operators does not always follow the expected clausal-core-nuclear order. This may be due to the origin of some prefixes as verbs in serial verb constructions and to the change from an unmarked to a marked perfective.

24.9 Serial Verb Constructions

Serial verb constructions are sequences of two or more finite verbs in one clause without overt marking for coordination or subordination. In Avatime, only the first verb is fully inflected. Subsequent verbs are either bare, as in example (32) or marked with a reduced agreement prefix, as in example (33). These reduced prefixes are specific to SVCs (for more information, see Defina Reference Defina2016b). All verbs share their PSA and may also share another argument, as is the case with example (33).

1. (32)

   o-di	ŋwὲ
   c1.sg.sbj.pfv-sit	drink
   ‘S/he sits drinking.’

1. (33)

   a-ŋwya	ki-dítɔ	a-kpέ
   c1.sg.sbj.pfv-throw	c4.sg-thing:indf	svm.c1.sg.pfv-put.in:loc
   ɔ-kà=ɛ
   c1.sg-father=def
   ‘She threw something to the father.’		(contrexp-28_120912)

Avatime SVCs can be divided into three subtypes: nuclear, core and sequential, based on a number of morphosyntactic differences. In what follows we briefly describe the properties of the different types of SVC and show how they can be analysed in RRG. For a more elaborate account, see Defina (Reference Defina2016b).

The different subtypes can be distinguished by examining their behaviour with operators at different levels. Negation and most aspect and mood markers are fused to some degree with the PSA agreement markers (see Section 24.4.2) and can only be marked on the first verb of an SVC. These markers always have broad scope over the whole SVC. Even the intentive, which is the only morphologically separate mood marker, can only occur with the first verb and scopes over the whole construction. This suggests that the verbs in all Avatime SVCs are linked below the clause level.

Aspect and aspectual adverbials are nuclear-level operators and can be used to distinguish a set of nuclear-level SVCs from the rest. Many SVCs allow aspectual adverbials between the verbs with narrow scope over a single verb, as can be seen in example (34). The recurrent aspect can also be used to mark each verb in these SVCs individually, as can be seen in example (35). Neither of these is possible with the nuclear-level SVCs. While aspectual adverbials are occasionally accepted between the verbs of these nuclear SVCs, they always have broad scope over the whole construction and the recurrent aspect can only be marked on the first verb, as can be seen in examples (36) and (37). This indicates that these SVCs are formed through nuclear co-subordination while the other Avatime SVCs are joined at a higher level.

1. (34)

   e-bu	àgbèlì=ye	ì-dru=lè	kóko	kị́	Kwami
   c1.sg.pfv-remove	cassava=def	c2.pl-mound=def	already	give	Kwami
   ‘He already dug cassava mounds for Kwami.’ (But may keep them for himself)

1. (35)

   a.	mà-zɛ̌-dzɛ	Òholò	a-wà	à-xwὲ=na
   	1.sg.pfv-rec-go	Ho	svm.1.sg.pfv-work	c3.pl-job=def
   	‘I was going (repeatedly) to Ho and working.’
   b.	mà-dzɛ	Òholò	a-zɛ̌-wà	à-xwὲ=na
   	1.sg.pfv-go	Ho	svm.1.sg.pfv-rec-work	c3.pl-job=def
   	‘I went to Ho and was working.’ (moved to Ho for some time)

1. (36)

   ba-dị́	koko	gu	ku-nugu=yò
   c1.pl.pfv-sit	already	talk	c5.sg-mouth=def
   ‘They already sat talking.’

1. (37)

   a.	ba-zɛ̌-dị́	ŋwὲ	kù-gòda
   	c1.pl.pfv-rec-sit	drink	c6.sg-palmwine
   	‘They were sitting drinking palmwine.’
   b.	*ba-dị́	zɛ̌-ŋwὲ	kù-gòda
   	c1.pl.pfv-sit	rec-drink	c6.sg-palmwine

Directional prefixes and locational and temporal adverbials are core-level operators and their scope properties distinguish the final two subtypes. Sequential SVCs can occur with distinct locational and temporal adverbials modifying each verb phrase, as can be seen in example (38). These SVCs also allow the directional prefix to occur on the second verb with narrow scope, as can be seen in example (39). This suggests these SVCs consist of distinct cores with their own peripheries and so we analyse them as core coordinations.

1. (38)

   ma-tsà	tomatoes=ye	ní	lị-vlɛ=lὲ
   1.sg.sbj.pfv-cut	tomatoes=def	loc	c3.sg-morning=def
   à-kpɛ	ní	kè-zi=a	mὲ	áblà
   svm.1.sg.pfv-put	loc	c6.sg-bowl=def	inside	now
   ‘I cut the tomatoes in the morning and put them in the bowl now.’

1. (39)

   ma-kɔ̀	kà-wɛ=a	zɛ-tsà	ò-se=lò
   1.sg.sbj.pfv-take	c6.sg-axe=def	it-cut	c2.sg-tree=def
   ‘I took the axe to go cut the tree.’

The other non-nuclear SVCs also allow locational and temporal adverbials between the verbs. However, in these cases there can be only one adverbial and it has broad scope over the whole construction, as in example (40). This suggests these SVCs share a single periphery and are joined via core co-subordination. Nuclear SVCs do not allow locational or temporal adverbials to occur between the verbs, consistent with their nuclear juncture.

1. (40)

   a.	mà-dzɛ	Òholò	kivòe	kị́	Akosua
   	1.sg.sbj-go	Ho	yesterday	give	Akosua
   	‘I went to Ho for Akosua yesterday.’
   b.	*mà-dzɛ	Òholò	kivòe	kị́	Akosua	òmonò
   	1.sg.sbj-go	Ho	yesterday	give	Akosua	today

The distinguishing properties of these three subtypes of Avatime SVCs are summarized in Table 24.2.

24.10 Semantic functions of SVCs and the Interclausal Relations Hierarchy

24.10.1 The Interclausal Relations Hierarchy

There are striking tendencies across languages in how semantic functions are expressed by syntactic constructions: closer semantic functions tend to be expressed by syntactic constructions that more closely resemble a single clause and have a stronger link between their elements, while looser semantic relationships tend to be expressed by syntactic constructions with a looser, or weaker, link between their elements. This is known as the Interclausal Relations Hierarchy, which was first proposed by Silverstein (Reference Silverstein and Dixon1976), in his study of split case marking in ergative languages, as well as by Givón (Reference Givón1980), in a more direct and detailed proposal. It has since been further extended and solidified within the theory of RRG (Foley and Van Valin Reference Foley and Van Valin1984; Van Valin Reference Van Valin2005). The hierarchy is presented in Figure 24.6.

Figure 24.6 The Interclausal Relations Hierarchy

(Van Valin Reference Van Valin2005: 209)

The alignment of semantic functions and syntactic constructions is not one to one. Not all languages make use of all the listed syntactic construction types. Each construction type may express multiple semantic functions and, vice versa, a given semantic function may be expressible through several different constructions. This leads to rather complex instantiations of the interclausal relations hierarchies in individual languages (e.g. Casti Reference Casti2012; Kockelman Reference Kockelman2003) and a full consideration of the Avatime interclausal relations is beyond the current paper. However, Avatime SVCs and related semantic functions present some intriguing cases for this hierarchy, which are worth discussing here. The primary prediction of the Interclausal Relations Hierarchy is that the tightest syntactic construction used to express a semantic function should be tighter than or equal to the tightest syntactic construction used to express a looser semantic function. There are two cases involving SVCs where there is an apparent deviation from this prediction in Avatime. By examining how Avatime SVCs fit within and deviate from the predictions of this hierarchy, we can gain a better understanding of the hierarchy itself, Avatime SVCs, and their place within the wider ecology of Avatime grammar.

24.11 Summary

This part has surveyed the semantic functions and syntactic properties of SVCs in Avatime, showing how they constitute three distinct juncture–nexus types, see Table 24.3.

Each subtype of Avatime SVC poses a question for the Interclausal Relations Hierarchy and its predicted links between syntactic constructions and semantic functions. The argument-adding and marking functions of the core co-subordination SVCs are not included within the hierarchy, but should arguably be listed below the modifying functions. The grammaticalization of SVCs indicating motion away from or towards the deictic centre has created a deviation from the hierarchy’s predictions, with the tighter directional prefix construction expressing a function that is looser than the manner function expressed by nuclear SVCs. The use of core coordinating SVCs to combine certain types of sequential actions presents another deviation. Both of these deviations relate only to more restricted semantic functions and can be resolved through separating the specific semantic functions expressed with the tighter syntactic construction from the more general motion and sequential action semantic functions.

This review of Avatime SVCs within the context of the Interclausal Relations Hierarchy provides a clearer understanding of the internal structure of Avatime SVCs and complex sentences more generally. It also suggests that the list of semantic functions expressed by syntactic linkage is far from final and may need further language-specific or general modifications or additions. This is not an entirely new finding, and the point was made by Van Valin (Reference Van Valin2005: 211) that the syntactic side of this hierarchy is better understood than the semantic side, which should not be taken as an exhaustive list of semantic functions.

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. (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).

1. (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

25.2.2 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).

25.2.3 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.

1. (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.

1. (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.

1. (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).

1. (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).

1. (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.

1. (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.’