1 Introduction An applicative is a valency-changing morpheme that - PDF document

Kyle Jerro ACAL 46 Presentation University of Texas at Austin University of Oregon March 27, 2015 jerrokyle@gmail.com Locative applicatives and the interaction of verb class 1 Introduction • An applicative is a valency-changing morpheme that adds a new object to the argument structure of the sentence. • An example from Kinyarwanda (spoken by approximately 12 million people in Rwanda, Burundi and DR Congo), with the applicative morpheme –ir : 1 (1) a. Umu-gabo a-ra-ndik-a in-kuru ku mw-ana. 1 -man 1S-pres -write- imp 9- story for 1 -child ‘The man is writing the story for the child.’ b. Umu-gabo a-ra-ndik-ir-a umw-ana in-kuru. 1 -man 1S-pres -write- appl-imp 1- child 9- story ‘The man is writing the child the story.’ • Most of the literature has focused on the syntactic properties of applied object, espe- cially “object symmetry,” which looks at whether the thematic object and the applied object have equal access to objecthood operations like passivization and object incor- poration. • These approaches assume that the semantics of applicativization transparently adds a new object participant with a specific thematic role to the verb’s argument structure. • However, work on other languages has shown that the semantics of particular verb classes affects argument realization patterns (Fillmore 1970, Levin 1993, Rappaport Hovav and Levin 2008, Beavers 2011, inter alia ). • I show that verb class affects the argument realization of the applicative morpheme, introducing a four-way typology dependent on the nature of location encoded by the verb. • I analyze applicative morphology as an operation that adds a monotonically stronger lexical entailment to the meaning of the verb. • Roadmap – Previous approaches to applicative morphology 1 All Kinyarwanda data in this paper come from elicitations conducted by the author. This applicative form contrasts with the applicative described in Kimenyi (1980), i.e. –ho . For all the speakers I’ve consulted, –ir is the locative applicative, while –ho is one of a class of locational clitics (cf. § 4). 1

– Variation in applicative uses – Four separate verb classes – Analysis: Semantic strengthening 2 Previous Approaches • Previous work on applicative morphology has looked almost exclusively at the syntactic nature of the applied object in relation to the thematic object (i.e. the object licensed by the verb). • Crucially, the mainstay of research on applied objects has looked at their syntax, analyzing applicativization as an operation that adds an object to the argument struc- ture of the verb (see Baker 1988, Bresnan and Moshi 1990, Alsina 1992, Alsina and Mchombo 1993, Marantz 1993, Pylkk¨ anen 2008, McGinnis 2001, McGinnis and Gerdts 2003, Baker and Collins 2006, Zeller 2006, Zeller and Ngoboka 2006, Marten et al. 2007, Jeong 2007, Baker et al. 2012, Jerro in press, inter alia ). • Some researchers have noticed that the wholesale addition of an object is not sufficient, showing instances where the applicative affects the meaning of the thematic object instead of adding a new syntactic object (Marten 2003, Creissels 2004, Cann and Mabugu 2006, Bond 2009). • For example, Marten (2003) notes a use of the applicative in Swahili that indicates a pragmatically noteworthy property of the object encoded by the verb, as in (2). (2) a. Salma a-li-ka-a kiti-ni. Salma 1sgS-pst-sit- fv chair- loc ‘Salma was sitting on the chair.’ b. Salma a-li-kal-i-a kiti cha uvivu. Salma 1sgS-pst- sit- appl-fv chair gen laziness ‘Salma was slouching/sitting in a comfortable chair.’ (Marten 2003:8,(12)) • The data in (2) show that there is a semantic/pragmatic use of applicatives that lies outside the standard analysis of object addition. • Specifically, Marten argues for what he terms “concept strengthening,” where the ap- plicative is used to make a claim about the object of the sentence than what is available with the non-applied form. • Few studies have investigated the effect of verb class on the realization of applicative morphology (though see Cann and Mabugu (2006) for some discussion of this). • I explore the interaction of verb class and applicatives from the view of the semantic meanings that are available with and without applicative morphology. • In this talk, I use locative applicatives in Kinyarwanda as a case study for understand- ing the interaction of applicative meaning and verb meaning. 2

3 Typology of Locative Meanings • I lay out four kinds of locative meanings added to a verb, contingent upon the class of the base predicate. 1. general location 2. goal 3. path 4. sub-location • The first category are verbs where the applicative adds a general location, as in (3). (3) a. Yohani a-ri ku-vug-a. John 1S- be inf -talk- imp ‘John is talking.’ b. Yohani a-ri ku-vug-ir-a mu nzu. John 1S- be inf -talk- appl-imp in house ‘John is talking in the house.’ • In (3a), the verb ku-vuga ‘to talk’ is intransitive, while in (3b), there is a new locative PP, licensed by the applicative morpheme, indicating the location of the talking event. • The second category is where a goal is added to the meaning of the verb. (4) a. Yohani a-ri kw-iruk-a. John 1S- be inf -run- imp ‘John is running.’ b. Yohani a-ri kw-iruk-ir-a kw’ isoko. John 1S- be inf- run- appl-imp to market ‘John is running to the market.’ • In (4b), the new location licensed by the applicative is not a general description of where the event took place, but rather the goal of the running event. • Third, the applicative may add a path to the event, as in (24). (5) a. N-di kw-injir-a mu nzu. 1 sg-cop inf- enter- imp in house ‘I entered the house.’ b. N-di kw-injir-ir-a mu muryango. 1 sg-cop inf- enter- appl-imp in door ‘I entered through the door.’ • Here, the applied object describes the path through which the motion event occurs. 3

• Finally, the applied object may describe a “sub-location” — some small item that is positioned beneath the subject. (6) a. N-icay-e mu bitaro. 1sg -sit- perf in hospital ‘I sat in the hospital.’ b. N-icar-iy-e terefoni. 1sg -sit- appl-perf telephone ‘I sat on the telephone.’ 3.1 Evidence for the Typology 3.1.1 Interpretive Differences • One indication of the differences between the applied and non-applied variants is the interpretive difference of the locational phrase. • For example, consider the following context: John is cooking, and he’s talking about needing to run back to the store to get some things he forgot. I leave the room, but when I get back, he’s gone. I ask someone where he went. (7) Question: Where did John go? (8) a. Y-iruk-iy-e kw’ isoko. 1- run- appl-imp to store ‘He ran to the store.’ b. *Y-irutse-e kw’ isoko. 1- run- imp to store ‘He ran to the store.’ • Consider another scenario: I’m standing in front of my house, and I see a lion. I want to run inside to get away from it. (9) a. N-iruk-iy-e mu nzu. 1-run- appl-perf in house ‘I ran into the house.’ b. N-iruts-e mu nzu. 1-run- perf in house *‘I ran into the house.’ ‘I ran in the house.’ • Positional verbs also show interpretive differences between the applied and non-applied variants. Locations can be used with both variants, but the interpretations differ: 4

(10) a. N-icay-e ku mazi. 1sg- sit- perf in water ‘I sat in the water. (e.g. in a lake or a pool).’ b. N-icar-iy-e amazi. 1sg- sit- appl-perf water ‘I sat in the water. (e.g. a puddle of water on a bench after it rained).’ 3.1.2 Locational Clitics • Kinyarwanda has three locational clitics that serve as pronouns for locative PPs/NPs. – =yo : goals – =mwo/mo : inside of something – =ho : at or on something • For verbs that acquire a goal with the use of an applicative, it is acceptable to use the =yo clitic with the applied variant, but not the non-applied variant. (11) kwiruka : to run a. *N-iruts-e=yo. 1sg- run- perf=loc ‘I ran (to) there.’ *Goal b. N-iruts-e=mwo. 1sg- run- perf=loc ‘I ran inside of somewhere (e.g. the house). General Location (12) kwiruk-ir-a : to run to a. N-iruk-iy-e=yo. 1sg -run- appl-perf=loc ‘I ran (to) there.’ Goal b. N-iruk-iy-e=mwo. 1sg -run- appl-perf=loc ‘I ran into there.’ Goal • The clitic =yo is only available when there is a goal, which is absent in (11), meaning that (11a) is ungrammatical. It is acceptable in (12a), where the locative applicative licenses a goal. • The clitic =mwo is permissible for both applied and non-applied variants but with different interpretations. With the non-applied verb, it describes that the running is happening inside of a single location (e.g. inside the gym). • When the applicative is present, the =mwo clitic indicates that there is a change in location. In (12b), there is a change in location from outside to inside, cf. (9). 5