Though the Kuria language has been researched by a number of scholars dealing with different linguistic topics, previous research on verb extensions in Kuria is relatively limited. There are some issues in this dimension which require more investigation. The different aspects of Kuria which have been researched include: The structure of Kuria verbs by Whiteley (1955), tense and aspect system in Kuria by Rose (2001), Igikuria phonology and morphology by Cammenga (2004), verbal tone in Kuria by Mwita (2008) and verb extensions and co-occurrence and ordering restrictions in Kuria by Zacharia (20116). However, there is need for more clarification particularly on the aspect of verb extensions especially with regard to the reordering and repetition of extensions morphosyntactically and semantically due to their complexity in Bantu in general and in the Kuria language in particular. This need had already been evoked by Whiteley (1955, p. 97)
6 Zacharia (2011) is my MA study.
21 who acknowledged that the list of extensions which he provided might not be exhaustive but was rather representative of the most commonly occurring patterns (see extensions in the following paragraphs). Since this study deals with verb extensions, my review below is restricted to previous studies which focus on verb extensions or other issues related to verb extensions such as arguments, thematic roles, and their implications.
2.2.1 Whiteley (1955)
Whiteley (1955) deals with Kuria verb structure. He shows how the root of a verb can be extended by using suffixes and analysed in a specific group of meaning. He explains that “extended radicals are treated in traditional grammars as ‘derived forms of the verb’ and are normally grouped under such headings as ‘applied (prepositional), causative, reciprocal, tenacious’” (Whiteley, 1955, p.
96). In his analysis, Whiteley demonstrates that the causative form includes compulsive, permissive, persuasive and helpful causation as well as simple causation. He also argues that, “on a semantic level, it may be noted that in general multiple extended radicals are further removed from the simple radical than simple extended radicals, and all such may cover an extremely wide range of meaning” Whiteley (1955, p. 96). His argument appropriately captures the status of radical extensions but it is too general. Since it is generally accepted that the semantics of any derived verb is rooted in the meaning of a verb; we need an analysis which elaborates this argument on a step by step basis, so as to examine the contribution of each extension to the verb and how they affect each other in a set of multiple extensions. This is because the number of extensions (multiple extensions) can be seen at the syntactic level as if they were suffixed at once, which is not true. Verb extension is a systematic process which goes together with syntactic and semantic changes. This is what the ongoing study intends to show (see more clarification in Chapters Five and Six of this study).
Whiteley (1955, p. 97) shows the summary of occurrence of simple7 and multiple extensions respectively, with examples (-er-), (-i-), (-an-), (-u-), (-ek-), (-or-) such as: (Examples from Whiteley 1955, p. 97)
7 Whiteley does not explain what does he mean by ‘simple’, but in simple extensions he shows that extensions involve one morpheme while in ‘Multiple’ he shows extensions more than one (Whiteley, 1955, p. 97).
22 2. -er- (from the verb hika ‘arrival’)
a) abhagheni bhane wao hano bareehekera My guests will arrive here at your place b) omokari arabararogera abaan(a) ibiakorea
The woman is cooking food for the children
Multiple extensions are (-erer-), (-iri-), (-eran-), (-eru-), (-ibu-), (-erani-), (-anu-), (-eker-), (-ekan-), (-ekani-), (-oru-), (-uri-). Example -er-u- from (Whiteley, 1955, p. 100).
3. -eru-
nakwerua na taata
I’m bereaved of my father.
Having examples without an explanation is like an incompletely delivered message. Linguistically, examples support arguments (explanation) and vice versa. One of the weaknesses of Whiteley’s work is that he did not explain the extensions and what they mean. He did not name the extensions neither single (which he calls simple extension) nor multiple extensions. Apart from that, his study did not explain the effects of the co-occurrence of extension syntactically and semantically; and this is one of the issues tackled by the present study. There is need to explain the meaning and functions of simple and multiple extensions. As I have stated in Chapter One, one of my objectives is to analyse the effects of multiple extensions on the basis of morphosyntactic and semantic categories (see section 1.4 of this study).
Whiteley acknowledged that the list of extensions above may not be exhaustive, but is representative of the most recurrent extensions. However, in his analysis he did not explain in detail the ordering and semantic behaviour of these extensions in spoken and written Kuria but only concentrated on their common occurrence. Therefore, there is need to examine the multiple extensions to see in which way they co-occur and how they behave in these two forms of communication. Apart from that, the on-going study clarifies both simple and multiple extensions and their possibility of reordering and repetition to the same verb.
2.2.2 Rose (2001)
Rose dealt with tense and aspect in Kuria. In her study, she acknowledged that Kuria verb morphology is complex:
Two factors make the morphological analysis of Kuria especially challenging. It is a highly agglutinative language, with up to 13 morphemes per word: (ex.
/o-ko-tᴐɾ-eɾ-i-a-tᴐɾ-eɾ-i-23 an-i-βo-a/ ‘to be chopped repeatedly, while something else is going on or being done simultaneously’). As well as morphological fusion (sometimes called “imbrication” in Bantu linguistics) involving the “extension suffixes, the perfective tense suffix and the final vowel” (2001, p. 66).
Her acknowledgement that Kuria has a complex verb morphology especially at the level of combination of suffixes inspired me to investigate the multiple extensions.
2.2.3 Cammenga (2004)
In the same way as Whiteley (1955) and Rose (2001), Cammenga (2004, p. 243) also showed that Kuria verb morphology is complex due to its highly agglutinative structure and morphological fusion that may occur in post-root domain. In his investigation of Kuria phonology and morphology, he showed that verbal derivation is affected primarily through suffixation, except in the case of the reflexive extension (which is an infix in pre-root position).
Cammenga (2004, pp. 247-258) dealt with verb derivation in the Kuria language and argued that as many as five extension affixes may co-occur in a verb form. He dealt with the following extensions: reflexive -i-, stative -ek-, reversive-transitive -or-, intransitive -ok-, applicative -er-, reciprocal -an-, causative -i-, synchronizing -er-an-i- and passive -(β)o- (he called it grammatical suffix which functions as passive voice) (Cammenga, 2004, pp. 247-258). He went forward to argue, as seen in the example below, that “the order in which extension suffixes occur is fixed”
(Cammenga, 2004, pp. 247-258):
Table 2.7 Order of Extension Suffixes in Kuria
x2-4 x5 (x5) x6 x7 x8
-ek -er (-er) -an -i -(β)o
-or -ok
Source: (Cammenga, 2004, p. 257)
From the table above, the symbols refer to the following extensions as taken in Cammenga (2004, p. 247).
x2 stative -ek x3 reversive-transitive -or x4 intransitive -ok x5 applicative -er x6 reciprocal -an x7 causative -i x8 passive -(β)o
Source: (Cammenga 2004, p. 247)
24 The order/slots of extensions in Kuria given by Cammenga above require some modification and clear explanation because not all extensions are fixed i.e. er-an-i- can change their positions such as, -er-i-an, -an-er-i- and -i-an-er-, the same extensions can be reordered to give different meanings (see Chapters Five and Six). His claim needs further investigation and exemplification because he does not conceive the possibility of the extensions being reordered (reversive orders).
In addition to that, he showed that there is a possibility of the applicative to recur though he did not state the function of the second applicative or the argument which is introduced by this extension. Moreover, he did not show the repetition of other extensions and their syntactic and semantic implications. This observation is addressed in the present study in Chapter Five.
Cammenga (2004, p. 297) categorised verb derivation into two kinds of processes. First, primary derivation through affixation to the basic verb. The second is the secondary derivation which can be done through derivation of verbal stems from adjectival roots through inchoative suffix /-(V) h/; reduplication of (part of) the stem; and the last is the extension affixes x1-7 (reflexive, inchoative, reversive, applicative, reciprocal, causative and passive [grammatical suffix]) (Cammenga, 2004, p. 297).
In view of the above, Cammenga (2004) did not explain in detail about Kuria verb extensions, as he simply showed some of the extensions which occur in the Kuria language. He called for further research on the syntax and semantics of Kuria verb extensions. He concluded that, “it may be observed in conclusion that at least the following aspect of Kuria invites further research: the semantic and valency effect of verbal extension, its tense system, the full extent and limits of primary and secondary morphological derivation, the history of the language, …, its syntax, …”
(Cammenga, 2004, p. 334). From Cammenga’s conclusion one can see the necessity of the present study which seeks to capture some recommended issues like the effect of multiple extensions syntactically and semantically. More importantly, the present study also explores how the structures under investigation are actually used in spoken and written forms of Kuria.
2.2.4 Mwita (2008)
Mwita (2008) dealt with verbal tone in Kuria. In his analysis, he also explained about suffixes which can be used to extend a verb that he referred to as the post-root morphemes. Mwita (2008,
25 p. 50) presents eight extensions which consist of seven single extensions (different extensions involving one extension morpheme) and one pattern of multiple extensions. See examples taken from Mwita (2008, p. 50):
4. a. /-ek/ stative (st)
b. /-oɾ/ reversive-transitive (rt) c. /-ok/ reversive-intransitive (ri) d. /-er/ applicative (ap)
e. /-an/ reciprocal (rec) f. /-i/ causative (cau) g. /-erani/ synchronizing (syn) h. /-(β)o/ passive suffix (pas)
Mwita (2008, p. 50) posited that the order in which the extension suffixes occur is fixed as shown in Table 2.8 below:
Table 2.8 Order of Extension Suffixes in Kuria root st, rt, ri ap rec cau pas
-ek -er(er) -an -i -(β)o
-oɾ -ok
Source: Mwita (2008, p. 50)
The same problem can be noticed in the works of Cammenga (2004, p. 257) and Mwita (2008, p.
50) when they described Kuria verb extensions, considering the Kuria extension order as a fixed one. Their arguments can be valid to some extent because it is fixed for some extensions like stative and passive, which always occur in the first and last positions respectively in the co-occurrences, while other extensions are free to move to different positions in the multiple extensions. I argue in the theoretical analysis of the co-occurrences of extensions that Kuria extensions allow variant orders and this goes together with semantic re-adjustment (see Chapters Five and Six of this study).
Apart from that, I have established another problem with Mwita’s approach in relation to his definition of stative and passive. Mwita (2008, p. 51) defined the stative suffix as ‘agentless passive’, a statement with which I agree. However, he contradicts this meaning when stating that, it is when the speaker is “avoiding naming the agent of action or if the agent is unknown to the speaker” (Mwita, 2008, p. 51). This statement shows that there is an agent and it is not agentless;
26 because, the main difference between passive and stative is that in their process, the passive needs an agent for the event action while the stative does not need the agent because it is a state of being (like a situation). Although Mwita tried to explain the meaning and functions of each extension (Mwita 2008, pp. 50-58), he did not investigate multiple extensions in the way the extensions co-occur and their implication with the exception of one combination of the applicative, reciprocal and causative (-erani-) known as synchronizing suffix. Mwita explained that “when they occur together they express simultaneity of the action expressed by the core meaning of the root and some other action or event” (2008, p. 56). The present study intends to bring out further clarifications on this phenomenon. (See Chapters Five, Six and Seven of this study for more clarification.)
2.2.5 Zacharia (2011) (The same person as Charwi)
I examined five verb extensions namely, causative, applicative, reciprocal, passive and stative in Kuria, with a focus on the co-occurrence and ordering restrictions of extensions in my MA thesis (2011) which was based on the Morphocentric Approach/CARP Template proposed by Hyman (2003) and Mirror Principle (MP) by Baker (1985). The findings of the study showed that different extensions guarantee different numbers of arguments, which in turn correspond to semantic roles.
In general terms, valency increaser extensions viz. causative, applicative tend to have more arguments than the valency decreasers extensions, i.e. passive and stative.
I also showed that there are possibilities of certain extensions to recur on the same verb after the intervention of other extensions. This means that Kuria does not seem to totally subscribe to the CARP template, as only some cases attest to the assumption while others violate it as evidenced by the combination involving the applicative-reciprocal-causative ARC, which allows free ordering, hence ACR, and RAC. However, the concept of reciprocity in Kuria seems to present some challenges when it occurs in certain extension suffixes in that it relates mostly to the simultaneity of events rather than to co-action between two participants. The language tends to accommodate up to four extensions (such as applicative, reciprocal, causative, and passive) to a single verb, but with repetition, the number of extensions can go beyond four depending on the number of extensions which recur. In my previous study (Zacharia, 2011), I did not, however, examine the effect of different orders of the same extensions, i.e. applicative-reciprocal-causative
27 (ARC) to the same verb morphosyntactically and semantically. Neither did I show to what extent the verb extensions were used in two forms of communication (spoken and written Kuria) nor explain which extensions are more likely to co-occur with and to what extent. This applies to five extensions (causative, applicative, reciprocal, passive and stative) which are productive. Therefore, these issues are expected to be taken up by this study.
As I announced earlier, I use my previous study as the basis on which to build the present study by examining aforementioned issues (see Chapter One) which are still begging for answers.
Foremost, my previous study granted some insight into how some extensions in a certain combination can be reordered. These are aspects that were not adequately analysed so as to establish their morphosyntactic and semantic impacts on the same verb. That is why this phenomenon has been selected and the present study elucidates these issues (see Chapters Five and Six of this study). One of the contributions of this study to Bantu linguistics is to demonstrate that there are some theories which cannot adequately cover some issues in languages due to their specificities. The second contribution is to show how extended verbs behave in spoken and written in Kuria (see Chapter Seven).
2.2.6 Ranero, Diercks and Paster (2013)
Ranero, Diercks and Paster (2013) worked on Kuria double object marking. In their analysis they use two valency increasers namely, applicative and causative. They found out that arguments which have been introduced by the suffixes such as applicative and causative, i.e. beneficiary, instrument, goal, causee, theme, patient, can be all marked on the verb. See examples (5) and (6) as taken from in Ranero, Diercks and Paster (2013, p. 8):
5. Omo-óná n-aa-ráágír:- ííy- í ómo-kamá i-nyáámú áma-bέέre 1-child FOC-1SA.PST-eat.APPL-CAUS-FV 1-chief 4-cat 6-milk ‘The child fed the cat milk for the chief.’
6. Omo-óná n-aa-mu-gé-gá-ráágír:- ííy- í
1-child FOC-1SA.PST-1OM-4OM-6OM-eat.APPL-CAUS-FV
‘The child fed it (the cat) it (the milk) for him (the chief).’
28 Ranero, Diercks and Paster (2013) found out that in Kuria it is possible to have double object to the same verb. They argue that: “it is possible to double an object in a ditransitive if the doubled object corresponds to the inner OM and an additional (undoubled) OM is present on the verb”
(Ranero, Diercks and Paster, 2013, p. 6). Furthermore, they showed that Kuria language is among the Bantu languages which allow free order of arguments, and not only lexical argument which can be re-ordered and made to appear in any order but also the OMs within the verb structure can be re-ordered. See example below for free OM and lexical arguments to a verb, as taken from (Ranero, Diercks and Paster, 2013, pp. 8, 24) respectively).
7. Omo-óná n-aa-mu-gá-gé-ráágír:- ííy-í Omo-óná n-aa- gé-mu-gá-ráágír:- ííy-í Omo-óná n-aa- gé-gá-mu-ráágír:- ííy-í Omo-óná n-aa-gá-mu-gé-ráágír:- ííy-í Omo-óná n-aa-gá-gé-mu-ráágír:- ííy-í
‘The child fed it (the cat) it (the milk) for him (the chief).’
8. Omo-óná n-aa-ráágír:- ííy- í ómo-kamá i-nyáámú áma-bέέre 1-child FOC-1SA.PST-eat.APPL-CAUS-FV 1-chief 4-cat 6-milk
Omo-óná n-aa-ráágír:- ííy- í ómo-kamá áma-bέέrέ i-nyáámú Omo-óná n-aa-ráágír:- ííy- í i-nyáámú ómo-kamá áma-bέέrέ Omo-óná n-aa-ráágír:- ííy- í i-nyáámú áma-bέέrέ ómo-kamá Omo-óná n-aa-ráágír:- ííy- í áma-bέέrέ ómo-kamá i-nyáámú Omo-óná n-aa-ráágír:- ííy- í áma-bέέrέ i-nyáámú ómo-kamá ‘The child fed the cat milk for the chief.’
They showed that it is possible for the ditransitive and tritransitive8 verb to have doubled object corresponding to the inner OM but not to the transitive verb. The argument introduced by applicative is doubled in the example below as taken from Ranero, Diercks and Paster (2013, p.
8).
9. Omo-óná n-aa- gá-mu-gé- ráágir:-ííy- í ómo-kamá i-nyáámú áma-bέέre
1-child FOC-1SA.PST-6OM-1OM-eat.APPL-CAUS-FV 1-chief 4-cat 6-milk9
‘The child fed it (the milk) to the cat for the chief.’
8 Tritransitive verbs are verbs which have more than three arguments. In this study I call them super transitive verbs.
9 Ranero, Diercks and Paster (2013) used SA to refer subject agreement, PST as past.
29 As we have seen in this language the objects can be arranged in a free order and not only the object but also the object marker within the verb can be re-ordered. In their literature, Ranero, Diercks and Paster (2013) have only used two extensions (applicative and causative) while we have at least five productive extensions (causative, applicative, reciprocal, passive and stative) in Bantu languages.