6.1 Co-occurrences of Verb Extensions and Argument Relations
6.1.1 Co-occurrences of Two Extensions Morphemes
6.1.1.1 Applicative-Reciprocal (A+R) and Reciprocal-Applicative (R+A)
This section shows how the suffixes lead to the alternation of the arguments in one process after another and the semantic re-adjustment, starting with the pattern with the co-occurrences of two extensions in different orders. The applicative-reciprocal (A+R) and reciprocal-applicative (R+A) in (48) and (57) respectively (as mentioned in Chapter Five) have different meanings due to the extensions being in different position. As seen in these examples, they have the same number of arguments in the same order but have different meanings due to the different order of the extensions.
A-bha-ana bha-ra-kɛbh-er-an-a i-nyama. (48)
AUG-CL2- child 3PL-PRES-CUT-APPL-REC-FV AUG-CL9-meat The children are cutting meat for each other.
Abhaana bha-ra-kɛbh-an-er-a i-nyama. (57) Children 3PL-PRES-cut-REC-APPL-FV AUG-CL9-meat The children are cutting each other because of meat.
The verb kebha ‘cut’ is transitive and requires two arguments. Then, from the argument structure representation, we have two roles, i.e agent role and the patient role. Verb extension is amongst morphosyntactic operations that create new words from the basic ones and modify the argument structure of a verb. For instance, verb extension has its own argument structure and when it combines with the argument structure of a verb, it tends to be modified by generating a new argument structure representation, as Babby calls it “the main final verb’ argument structure representation” (2009, p. 1). In his view, Babby means that, what we can see at the syntactic structure is projected by the final representations as the verb’s requirements. The applicative and reciprocal have different functions, i.e. when the applicative increases the verb argument by one, the reciprocal accordingly reduces one argument of the verb. Therefore, this makes the verb (in
162 final) to have the same number of arguments with the basic one but with different meanings. The basic sentence is shown below.
O-mo-ona a-ra-kɛbh-a i-nyama. (46)
AUG-CL1-child 3SG-PRES-cut-FV AUG-CL9-meat A child is slicing meat.
The verb kebha ‘cut/slice’ in (180) is a transitive verb, and Babby calls it monotransitive verb (2009, p. 19). The representation of such kind of verb has external argument and one internal argument shown below and their argument relations.
180. S1
‘Argument of’ relation
NP1 VP
N1Agent V NP2
N2 Patient
O-mo-ona a-ra-kɛbh-a i-nyama
AUG-CL1-child 3SG-PRES-cut-FV AUG-CL9-meat A child is slicing meat.
Below is the function of the applicative and the projection structure that indicates the introduction of the new argument, omoona ‘the child’ in NP3, which was not in the first structure. As can be seen, the applicative has modified the verb’s argument structure by introducing one extra argument. See the structure in (181) below.
O-mo-ona a-ra-kɛbh-er-a o-mo-ona i-nyama. (47)
AUG-CL1-child 3SG-PRES-cut-APPL-FV AUG-CL1- child AUG-CL9-meat The child is slicing the meat for another child.
163 181. S2
NP1 VP
N1Agent V NP3
N3Beneficiary NP2
N2Patient
O-mo-ona a-ra-kɛbh-er-a o-mo-ona i-nyama
AUG-CL1-child 3SG-PRES-cut-APPL-FV AUG-CL1- child AUG-CL9-meat
The child is slicing the meat for another child.
Then, in (182) the reciprocal as last extension, has a semantic scope over the applicative, it has reciprocalised the applicative. This means that the reciprocal works on the applied meaning together with the core meaning of the verb, as the main function of the reciprocal is to reduce the number of arguments from the verb. Consider the example below.
A-bha-ana bha-ra-kɛbh-er-an-a i-nyama. (48)
AUG-CL2- child 3PL-PRES-cut-APPL-REC-FV AUG-CL9-meat The children are slicing meat for each other.
164 182. S2a
NP1 VP
N (1+3) Agent + Beneficiary V NP3
N3….t…. NP2
N2Patient
A-bha-ana bha-ra-kɛbh-er-an-a …....t……. i-nyama
AUG-CL2- child 3PL-PRES-cut-APPL-REC-FV AUG-CL9-meat The children are slicing meat for each other.
The process of suppression of one argument leads to different structures see (183) below. As I argued in Chapter Five, reciprocal has double functions, one is to reduce verb argument by one syntactically, and the second is to upgrade the reduced argument to the subject position semantically. In this sense, syntactically, the number of arguments has been reduced from three to two namely, abhaana ‘children’ as subject of the sentence and inyama ‘meat’ as direct object of a verb. Semantically, the sentence still has three thematic roles because there are two arguments in the subject position, namely, agent and beneficiary (abhaana) who are playing double roles at a time. The third argument is the patient (inyama). This implies that the reciprocal is multifunctional which differs in its realization.
My argument above on reciprocal contradicts the Theta Theory under Theta Criterion principle, which states that “each argument bears one and only one θ-role, and each θ-role is assigned to one and only one argument” (Chomsky, 1981, p. 36). This is manifested in the sense of having double
165 roles in one argument as one i.e. abhaana ‘the children’ who are both agent and beneficiary. See the syntactic structure of the transitive verbs in (183).
183. S2b
NP1 VP
N1 (1+3) Agent + Beneficiary V NP2
N2Patient
A-bha-ana bha-ra-kɛbh-er-an-a i-nyama.
AUG-CL2- child 3PL-PRES-cut-APPL-REC-FV AUG-CL9-meat The children are slicing meat for each other.
The main difference between the reciprocal and other valency-decreaser extensions is that, after suppressing the argument, it takes it to the subject to form coordinated NP or plural subject in which they act upon each other. See example (182) and (183) above.
After having a look at the A+R let us examine the reversed order R+A of the same extensions to the same verb to see how extensions affect one another. The underlying verb in example (184) has two arguments which are subject and object (syntactically) and agent and patient (semantically).
The first extension now to be affixed to the verb root is reciprocal. In the processes of affixation, the reciprocity action needs two roles which can act upon each other at a time. In this case we need two entities with the same status or ones with the ability of doing something.
166 184. S
‘Argument of’ relation
NP1 VP
N1Agent V NP2
N2 Patient
O-mo-ona a-ra-kɛbh-a i-nyama (16)
AUG-CL1-child 3SG-PRES-cut-FV AUG-CL9-meat A child is slicing meat.
In example (184), the underlying verb (the basic verb without extensions) has two arguments with different status: one is animate and the other is an inanimate. Therefore, the affixation of reciprocal suffixes on the verb kebha ‘cut/slice’ will render the sentence ungrammatical due to the argument inyama ‘meat’ being inanimate.
185. *O-mo-ona na i-nyama bha-ra-kɛbh-an-a *AUG-CL1-child and AUG-CL9-meat 3PG-PRES-cut-REC-FV
*The child and the meat are cutting each other
The source of the ungrammaticality/lack of meaning is the reciprocal extension and the argument inyama ‘meat’ (which is inanimate) while the reciprocity action needs the animates or entities which have the same status to act upon each other. It is in this sense that I view suffixes as selective operations because they have their own requirement, and are not acceptable to all verbs. Therefore, let us change the argument to see the impact of the reciprocal extensions. Let us assume that the children were playing with a knife and one cut the other. Consider example (186) below.
O-mo-ona a-ra-kɛbh-a o-mo-ona (55)
AUG-CL1- child 3SG-PRES-cut-FV AUG-CL1-child
A child is cutting the child.
167 186. S1
‘Argument of’ relation
NP1 VP
N1Agent V NP2
N2 Patient
O-mo-ona a-ra-kɛbh-a O-mo-ona
AUG-CL1-child 3SG-PRES-cut-FV AUG-CL1-child A child is cutting another child.
Then, from the example (186), we have the same argument which is animate as a requirement of the reciprocal. The reciprocal as a valency-reducing suffix has made the sentence to have one argument. See example in (187).
A-bha-ana bha-ra-kɛbh-an-a (56) AUG-CL2-child 3PL-PRES-cut-REC-FV
The children are cutting each other.
187. S2
NP VP
N(1+2) Agent +Patient V
Abhaana bha-ra-kɛbh-an-a Children 3PL-PRES-cut-REC-FV
The children are cutting each other.
168 In example (186) the agent and patient are both omoona ‘child’ then after affixation of reciprocal, the two arguments combine and create the coordinated NP in (187) which now is a plural entity abhaana ‘children’. It acts as a single argument, the syntactical subject of the sentence, but semantically it doubles as agent and patient.
The next process is to affix the second extension ‘applicative’ to the same verb root with the reciprocal ((verb root +R) + A) to the same verb kebha ‘cut/slice’. The applicative adds one argument inyama ‘meat’ to a verb as the latter’s requirement. In this case, the applicative introduces the reason for cutting.
A-bha-ana bha-ra-kɛbh-an-er-a i-nyama. (57) Children 3PL-PRES-cut-REC-APPL-FV AUG-CL9-meat
The children are cutting each other because of meat.
Therefore, the reciprocal-applicative (R+A) is a reversed order of the same applicative-reciprocal (A+R) extensions to the same verb. The pattern provides the meaning of cutting each other because of the meat. See the structure (188) below for example from Chapter Five.
188. S3
NP VP
N1 (1+2) Agent +patient V NP3
N3Reason
Abhaana bha-ra-kɛbh-an-er-a i-nyama Children 3PL-PRES-cut-REC-APPL-FV AUG-CL9-meat The children are cutting each other because of meat.
169 The pattern of reciprocal-applicative (R+A) -an-, -er- is revealed in Kuria. This pattern runs counter to the view of Hyman who argues that,
[a]ll of the Bantu languages I have looked at obey most of the CARP template. I know of no Bantu language that requires an opposite order of the inherited PB suffixes, e.g. no language requires -il-its-, -an-il- etc (Hyman, 2003, p. 258).
As it can be seen, Hyman’s position contradicts examples (188) above since in Kuria language it is possible to have (R+A). Similarly, not only the applicative-reciprocal can be re-ordered but also reciprocal-causative (R+C).
In examples (183) and (188) one can see the same arguments with the same order but different meaning brought in by the different processes with different order of extensions which Babby called “the internal structure of the diathesis” (2009, p. 13). As can be seen, there were different processes which lead to the same syntactic structure with the different meaning.