Causative and reciprocal (C+R)

Causative and reciprocal (C+R) is another order of the previous order (R+C). Let us examine examples (73) to (84) to see how it works on the verbs hoocha ‘bring back’, hancha ‘love’, ghoota

‘catch’ and kebha ‘cut/slice’. Let us start with the verb hoocha ‘bring back’.

121 73. Mwita a-ra-hooch-a a-bha-ana

Mwita 3SG- PRES-bring back- FV AUG-CL2-child Mwita brings back the children.

74. Nyangi a-ra- hooch-i- a Mwita a-bha-ana Nyangi 3SG- PRES-bring back-CAUS-FV Mwita AUG-CL2-child Nyangi causes Mwita to bring back the children.

75. Nyangi na Mwita bha-ra- hooch-i-an- a a-bha-ana Nyangi and Mwita 3PL- PRES-bring back-CAUS-REC-FV AUG-CL2-child Nyangi and Mwita cause each other to bring back the children.

The presence of causative and reciprocal in (75) leads the verb to maintain the number of arguments as in the basic form in (73). As can be seen, what is added by causative in (74) which is Nyangi affects the previous agent Mwita in (73), making it to become causee and patient of the causative action. Then in (75) the causee has been taken away by the reciprocal and upgraded to the subject position. The verb remains with the two arguments syntactically as in the basic sentence in (73) but with other meanings which have been brought by the causative and reciprocal ‘cause each other to bring back’. This is due to the presence of co-events (to cause and to bring back) among the subject argument syntactically and co-agents semantically who now are causer and causee at a time. The results show that during reciprocalization, whenever there are two arguments i.e. causee and patient as internal arguments, the causee argument is the one which is suppressed and upgraded. This implies that the argument which is closer to the verb is the one subjected to reciprocalization. The next illustrations focus on the verb hancha ‘love’ with C+R pattern.

76. Mwita a-hanch-a Robhi Mwita 3SG-love-FV Robhi Mwita loves Robhi.

77. Nyakorema a-hanch-i-a Mwita Robhi Nyakorema 3SG-love-CAUS-FV Mwita Robhi Nyakorema causes Mwita to love Robhi.

122 78. Nyakorema na Mwita bha-hanch-i-an-a Robhi

Nyakorema and Mwita 3PL-love-CAUS-REC-FV Robhi Nyakorema and Mwita cause each other to love Robhi.

The information in example (77) shows that the causative introduces the causer or initiator Nyakorema who causes Mwita to love Robhi. In (78) the addition of the reciprocal extension leads to the reciprocalization of the causative. Here it should be noted that reciprocity exists between Nyakorema and Mwita while Robhi is a stimulus of the mental event.

As can be seen in the examples above, when we compare (67) to (69) and (76) to (78) we can see that syntactic relations of subject and object accumulate different semantic roles when the order of extension changes. For instance, in the case of R+C (67) to (69) in (39) the subject is the causer of the causing event while the object is the causee of causing event and also the experiencer and stimulus of the reciprocal mental/emotional event. Meanwhile in the C+R of example (78), the subject is both causer and causee of the reciprocal causing event and experiencer of the mental event. The object is the stimulus of the mental event. Let us consider another example of the verb ghoota ‘catch’ with causative and reciprocal (C+R) pattern:

79. Mwita a-ra-ghoot-a Robhi Mwita 3SG-PRES-catch-FV Robhi Mwita catches Robhi.

80. Nyakorema a-ra-ghoot-i-a Mwita Robhi Nyakorema 3SG-PRES-catch-CAUS-FV Mwita Robhi Nyakorema causes Mwita to catch Robhi.

81. Nyakorema na Mwita bha-ra-ghoot-i-an-a Robhi Nyakorema and Mwita 3PL-PRES-catch- CAUS-REC-FV Robhi Nyakorema and Mwita cause each other to catch Robhi.

In example (81), the reciprocal has scope over the causative because the reciprocal follows the causative. The causative as a valency increaser introduces the causer Nyakorema, in (80) and the reciprocal as a valency decreaser suppresses one argument, semantically causee Mwita, by taking it to subject position which makes it a co-joint subject NP in (81). Nyakorema and Mwita as a

123 coordinated subject NP plays a dual role: as a causer and causee of the causation action to perform the event action (catch).

In brief, C+R (-i-an-) conveys the meaning that the subject syntactically (coordinated NP [causer and causee]) or plural NP semantically, cause each other to do the event action. The subject is the doer of all action causation and event action. While in R+C (-an-i-) the subject (syntactically) and causer (semantically), causes the object which is a coordinated NP to catch each other. In this order the action is done differently: when the causer is there for causative action the object is there for event action.

The co-presence of several extensions is the encoding of co-events, in (81) for instance: causation event which is particular because it is both reciprocal and a mental/emotional event. The issue of reordering extensions and the arguments can also be seen in Chapter Seven on how projection principles and theta role assignment function. The order of extensions varies according to the semantic roles associated with subject and object. Consider the causative and reciprocal (C+R) pattern on the verb kebha ‘cut/slice’ in the sentence below:

82. O-mo-ona a-ra-kɛbh-a i-nyama AUG-CL1-child 3SG-PRES-cut-FV AUG-CL9-meat The child slices meat.

83. O-mo-ona a-ra-kɛbh-i-a o-mo-ona i-nyama AUG-CL1-child 3SG-PRES-cut-CAUS-FV AUG-CL1-child AUG-CL9-meat The child causes the child to slice meat.

84. A-bha-ana bha-ra-kebh -i-an-a i-nyama AUG-CL2-child 3PL-PRES-cut-CAUS-REC-FV AUG-CL9-meat The children cause each other to slice meat.

The basic sentence in (82) has two arguments, i.e. omoona ‘the child’ and inyama ‘the meat’, the same as arguments in the last sentence in example (84). The causative introduces one argument while the reciprocal suppresses one argument, making the sentence remain with two arguments,

124 same as in example (82). However, the sentences differ in meaning because the examples have undergone morphosyntactic processes initiated by the extension morphemes.

This reveals that the different orders assign different meanings because the extension process is procedural (follows a certain procedure or steps), although finally they appear together on the surface structure as if they were produced by a single process. Some verbs like in (82) cannot accept reciprocal because the reciprocal extension needs arguments which can act upon each other.

But in some instances (e.g. 84), there is no difficulty because the causative in (83) introduces the new argument which gets influenced by the reciprocal and eventually becomes reciprocalised. It therefore appears that different extension orders lead to different processes and these processes in turn lead to different roles and different meanings.