Applicative-Reciprocal-Applicative-Causative (A+R+A+C)

The co-occurrence of applicative, reciprocal, applicative and causative (A+R+A+C) is acceptable in Kuria language. In this set of extensions, the applicative recurs. In the examples below first and second applicatives have introduced the same thematic role two times. Consider the behaviour of the verb oghosea in (168) to (172) below:

168. Mokami a-ra-se-a u-bhu-ri

Mokami 3SG- PRES-grind-FV AUG-CL14-millet Mokami is grinding millet.

169. Mokami a-ra-se-er-a Nyangi u-bhu-ri

Mokami 3SG-PRES-grind-APPL-FV Nyangi AUG-CL14-millet Mokami is grinding the millet for Nyangi.

170. Mokami na Nyangi bha-ra-se-er-an- a u-bhu-ri

Mokami and Nyangi 3PL-PRES-grind-APPL-REC-FV AUG-CL14-millet Mokami and Nyangi are grinding the millet for each other.

171. Mokami na Nyangi bha-ra-se-er-an-er-a

Mokami and Nyangi 3PL-PRES-grind-APPL-REC-APPL-FV

o-mo-ona u-bhu-ri

AUG-CL1-child AUG-CL14-millet

Mokami and Nyangi are grinding the millet for each other and for the child.

153

172. Mwita a-ra-se- er-an-ir-i- a o-mo-ona

Mwita 3SG-PRES-grind-APPL-REC-APPL-CAUS-FV AUG-CL1-child Mokami na Nyangi u-bhu-ri

Mokami and Nyangi AUG-CL14-millet

Mwita is grinding the millet for Mokami and Nyangi on behalf of the child.

The applicative extension introduces Nyangi as beneficiary semantically in example (169) while in (170) the reciprocal suppresses Nyangi and raises it to the subject position to generate coordinated NP subject. In example (171) the second applicative introduces another argument omoona ‘the child’ as also a beneficiary for the second time to the same verb. The difference between the first argument Nyangi and omoona ‘the child’ is that Nyangi benefitted from Mokami’s action but now omoona becomes the beneficiary of the co-joint NP (who are also agent and beneficiary at the same time) Mokami and Nyangi, who are performing the action for each other and for the omoona ‘child’ at the same time. This implies that a verb can have two arguments which are beneficiaries but one should be an external argument playing two roles - agent and beneficiary such as Mokami and Nyangi - and one internal argument, i.e. omoona ‘the child’. As one can see in (171), the beneficiary omoona ‘the child’ has been introduced after the previous beneficiary Nyangi is suppressed by the first reciprocal in (170) and upgraded to subject position to form coordinated NP subject. The causative as a valency increasing extension in (172) has introduced one argument, but it has no meaning of causation and brings in double beneficiaries.

In 172 omoona ‘the child’ and (Mokami and Nyangi) are both beneficiaries; Mwita is doing the event action for Mokami and Nyangi on behalf of omoona ‘the child’, the benefactive and substitutive applicative as discussed by Marten and Kula (2014) respectively. They argue:

In Bantu languages, this distinction has not received much attention, in part because most languages do not formally distinguish between different readings of benefactive applicatives. In Bemba (Bantu M42, Zambia), by contrast, substitutive applicatives, where the action of the verb is performed by the agent instead of, on behalf of, or in place of someone else (2014, p. 1)

As I mentioned earlier in the discussion, this indicates that the causative has another semantic role known as beneficiary. This can be seen even in the co-occurrence of A+R+C where there are double beneficiaries which come in through the simultaneity of the event action after the suffixed causative to applicative and reciprocal ((A+R) +C) (see other examples in sub-section 5.2.2.1.1 in this chapter).

154 5.3.5 Applicative-Reciprocal-Applicative-Causative-Reciprocal (A+R+A+C+R)

The applicative, reciprocal, applicative, causative and reciprocal (A+R+A+C+R) is another set of extensions which can co-occur. In this combination, we have two extensions which appear together for the second time, namely, applicative and reciprocal. We have seen the applicative introducing two beneficiaries to a single verb; but sometimes the applicative extension introduces location to a verb, especially the second applicative. Taking the verb oghokebha ‘to cut’ as a case, I illustrate this pattern in the examples below.

173. O-mo-ona a-ra-kɛbh-a i-nyama

AUG-CL1-child 3SG-PRES-cut-FV AUG-CL9-meat The child is slicing the meat.

174. 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 the child.

175. 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 the meat for each other.

176. A-bha-ana bha-ra-kɛbh-er-an-er-a i-nyama ke-bhara

AUG-CL2-child 3PL-PRES-cut-APPL-REC-APPL-FV AUG-CL9-meat CL16-outside The children are slicing the meat for each other outside.

177. u-mu-kungu a-ra-kɛbh-er-an-ir-i-a a-bha-ana

AUG-CL1-woman 3SG-PRES-cut-APPL-REC-APPL-CAUS -FV AUG-CL2-child i-nyama ke-bhara

AUG-CL9-meat CL16-outside

The woman is slicing the meat for herself and for the children outside.

178. A-bha-ana na u-mu-kungu bha-ra-kɛbh-er-an-ir-i-an-a

AUG-CL2-child and AUG-CL1-woman 3PL-PRES-cut-APPL-REC-APPL-CAUS-REC-FV

i-nyama ke-bhara

AUG-CL9-meat CL7-outside

The children and the woman are slicing the meat for each other outside.

155 The applicative as valency increaser performs two functions. First, in example (174) it has introduced one argument which is omoona ‘the child’ and for the second time the applicative introduces another argument which is the locative kebhara ‘outside’ in (146). The causative introduces umukungu ‘the woman’ in (177). Also, the reciprocal as valency decreaser appears twice and suppresses two arguments; the first reciprocal suppresses omoona ‘the child’ in example (175) and raises it to the subject position to combine with the agent omoona ‘the child’, forming a plural argument abhaana ‘the children’, the syntactical subject. In the second occurence, the reciprocal suppresses umukungu ‘the woman’ in example (178) and the order of extensions reflects the order of the affixation processes. As I have shown in the various preceding sub-sections in this study, verb extension in Kuria is procedural and it follows a pattern. The extension which is closer to the root is the first to be attached to the root. On the other hand, the extension far from the root among the multiple extensions is the last extension to be attached to the root and the first outcome is the input²⁷ of the next extension. The last extension has semantic scope over the proceeding ones. Therefore, my analysis shows that the repetition of an extension in Kuria is possible. For instance, in the (A+R+A+C+R) pattern, the arguments introduced by the two valency-increasing extensions are those suppressed by those two reciprocals.

The analyses also show that Kuria allows multiple extensions to be attached to the verb root. The language allows up to five extensions to a single verb root while some extensions can re-appear, for instance: Applicative, reciprocal, applicative, causative and reciprocal (A+R+A+C+R) can be attached to one verb root. The analysis and discussion demonstrate that every extension has performed its function as shown in the relevant examples except the causative which has introduced the argument but seems to have applied meaning rather than causative meaning.

Furthermore, the analyses show that the applicative causative and reciprocal extensions can re- occur except for the stative and passive. The process of repetition of extension goes together with the balancing process. That is why, wherever there is a recurrence of valency increasers, there are also valency decreasers to regulate the weight of the number of arguments to a verb.

27 By input in this context, I mean that the first extension combines with the core verb root to form one unity which is used as a single unity (as input) ready for affixation in the second extension.

156 5.4 Conclusion

The analyses in this chapter show that the argument structure changing suffixes modify the number of arguments of a verb by adding or reducing arguments by one. A sentence is a core syntactic structure projection of the verb’s argument structure representation. This means that the arguments which appear in a sentence are introduced by the argument structure representations which attach to a verb root and core argument of the verb. These arguments should follow the order of the morphemes which are represented. Accordingly, the argument introduced by the first extension tends to be the first to appear in the sentence, followed respectively by the second, third, up to the last, extension. The order of morphemes reflects the semantic scope of the suffixes; the first extension combines with the verb root and the last extension combines with the verb root and the first extension as a unit while the extension furthest from the root has semantic scope over the ones closer to the root. The suffixes are functioning at both morphological and syntactical levels; the affixation process in morphological derivation goes together with the introduction and suppressing arguments from the verb which reflect the syntactic derivation. Therefore, the order of the syntactic elements in the surface structure depends on what is contained by a final verb’s argument structure representation and the syntactic elements are organised hierarchically.

In addition, when the order of extensions in a set of multiple extensions differs from the other sets of extensions, then the order of the arguments will also be different. For instance, relevant examples have shown that a set which tends to affix the reciprocal before the applicative (R+A) will be different from the one which starts with the applicative and is followed by the reciprocal (A+R). This is because in the first one, we have applicativized the reciprocal while in the second we have reciprocalised the applicative. This indicates that if there are any variations/different orders of the extensions then they will go together with the variations of the syntactic argument (different arguments) in a sentence. This means that there is a direct relationship of the verb’s argument structure representation to the syntactic structure of a sentence. This conclusion is consistent with Babby’s view where he states that,

a sentence’s core syntactic representation is the direct projection of the main verb’s final argument representation, which entails that there is an isomorphic mapping relation between the positions in argument-structure representation and the corresponding position in its syntactic projection, and that the former determine the latter” (2009, p. 1).

157 Therefore, the possibility of reordering and repeating extensions in a set of extensions reflects the variability of the extensions in the Kuria verb system. This means that the order of Kuria extensions is not fixed. As the examples above reveal, the reordering and repetition of extensions in Kuria are possible and lead to different meanings depending on different orders of extensions. It has been noted that the order of extension morphemes in Kuria has features of both: some accept the order according to the CARTP Template in Bantu while others defy the Bantu suffix template. The analyses have further revealed that in Kuria up to five extensions are allowed to be affixed to one verb root and these processes involve the two valency increasers, namely, causative and applicative. Among five productive verb extensions in Bantu, only three extensions, namely, applicative, reciprocal and causative, can be reordered in Kuria, while the remaining stative and passive are fixed to their positions whenever they co-occur with other extensions. In the latter case, they cannot be shifted to any other position. In other words, they are fixed in the first and last position respectively in a set of combinations of other suffixes.

I argue that it is not the case in all instances that the valency-increasing extensions introduce the meanings (roles) expected from the basic verb meaning. But sometimes when attached to the verb root with other extensions, these provide special meanings to the verb and at other times they introduce an argument though this does not reflect the underlying extension meaning. For instance, the extra meaning of simultaneity of action is brought by the suffixation of the causative extension in the set of other extensions such as in the ((A+R) +C) pattern; and in this combination/co-occurrence pattern the causative loses its ‘original’ function of ‘to cause to’.

The findings show that when extensions co-occur with other extensions, they tend to be conditioned by the adjacent extensions and become selective. This means that an extension can introduce any argument to the verb; but when it occurs with other extensions, they must agree with one another since they are adjacently positioned.

I realize that when the instrument is used as a subject of the passive sentence, the user of the instrument has to be retained (as argument and not as adjunct) as part and parcel of the verb or expression. This also reveals that not only can the patient argument be topicalised by the passive in a passive sentence but also that the instrument argument can be passivized.

158

CHAPTER SIX

Multiple Extensions and Argument Relations under Theoretical Concepts

This chapter brings together various issues discussed in Chapter Five, presenting them in a summative form through the deployment of certain theoretical concepts. This is supposed to make the reader easily comprehend and see the main issues which I am trying to clarify in this study.

This chapter as such only highlights the main issues as a lot has already been discussed within the other substantive chapters of the study. This chapter has two main sections which all show the argument relations under the theoretical framework. While the first section deals with argument relations on reordering, the second part deals with repetition.

One of the objectives of this study is to examine the effects of reordering and repetition of extensions to the same verb in the Kuria language morphosyntactically and semantically. In Chapter Five, I have shown how reordering and recurring of extensions in Kuria verb extension system lead to semantic re-adjustment as a result of the extensions being in different position among a combination of extensions. This behaviour has contradicted with Cammenga (2004, p.

257) and Mwita (2008, p. 50) who argue that Kuria has a fixed order of extension morphemes.

Furthermore, the study adopted theoretical concepts which do not pay much attention to the verb extension system in Bantu in order to find out how the main precepts of these theories and the Kuria data on verb extensions complement each other. The main point here is to focus on the effects/impacts of extensions in a certain order rather than what guided them and how this was done. This is because scholars such as Baker (1985), Rice (2000), Hyman (2003) and others have already illustrated the latter aspect.