Clause Structure
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Chapter 6 Clause structure In this chapter I describe the basic structure ofclauses in Barupu. Out ofkeeping with polysynthetic typology, there is linear ordering ofgrammatical functions in the clause, but there is no strong evidence ofhierarchical structure within that ordering, see §6.2. Section 6.3 discusses the grammatical status ofverbal affixes and their interaction with overt NPs. In §6.4, I present an overview ofmechanisms for marking the pragmatic status ofparticipants, including deviations from canonical word order. Finally, in §6.5 I discuss non-verbal predicates. I begin with definitions and a summary ofgrammatical functions in Barupu. 6.1 Grammatical functions Every verb in Barupu shows agreement for at least one argument and some obligatorily show agreement for two. One consequence ofobligatory agreement is that there is no deletion ofarguments under identity conditions, or control of infinitives, meaning that many ofthe usual syntactic tests used for identifYing grammatical relations cannot be appealed to. This also means that there is no need to identifY a privileged 'grammatical subject' or 'pivot' function. In addition, any participant can be relativised in Barupu and there are no voice operations. The 167 Clause structure 16& functions I will identifY for Barupu have clause-internal definitions only. Another factor complicating the identification ofgrammatical functions in Barupu is the lack ofany NP marking. There are no case markers, adpositions or particles which give any information about the role an NP has in the clause. There are indications ofan NP's role (e.g. word order) but there is no overt marking. The lack ofNP marking, coupled with the lack ofcross-clausal operations targetting specific arguments, makes it difficult to define a class ofcore arguments and draw the familiar line between them and obliques. Following is a list ofthe seven possible functions an NP might be performing in a Barupu clause and their identifYing characteristics. Three ofthese can be instantiated in a simple or complex verbal word, the others are only identified by distributional characteristics such as word order and, in some cases, inherent meaning. • Subject: we can identifY the subject relation as encompassing the single argument ofan intransitive verb (5) and the most Actor-like participant ofa transitive verb (A). This argument is marked directly on the verb root by prefixes, as well as, in some conj ugation classes, infixes. Any NP co-referencing this argument must be pre-verbal. The words unake 'alone' and beku REFL have scope over this argument. Identifying an object relation is less straightforward. Non-subjects ofunderived clauses are the obligatory non-Actor-like participants ofmonotransitive verbs (P), and the Themes (T) and Recipients (R) ofditransitive verbs. These arguments have the following characteristics: • P: monotransitive verbs fall into two classes according to the morphological treatment oftheir Ps. As discussed in detail in §4.2.2, verbs with typically Clause structure 169 inanimate, unindividuated Ps do not cross-reference their Ps with suffixes. The NP representing an unindividuated P (Pu) always appears before the verb. Verbs with typically animate, individuated Ps obligatorily cross-reference their Ps on the verb with a suffix. The NP representing an individuated P (Pi) unrnarkedly appears pre-verbally but can appear after the verb in a pragmatically-marked construction (§6.4.1). • T: like Pu, this argument is not marked on the verb; its only instantiation in the clause is an NP, and again like Pu, the NP must be pre-verbal. • R: this argument is obligatorily cross-referenced on the verb by suffix and the NP unrnarkedly appears post-verbally. As well as the obligatory participants ofunderived clauses discussed above, the following NPs may also be found in the clause: • Instrument: an optional participant which is not case marked nor marked on the verb. An NP referencing this participant is most often pre-verbal but can also be found post-verbally. • Location/Reason: an optional participant which is not case marked nor marked on the verb. An NP referencing this participant is unrnarkedly post-verbal. When a nominal found here has inherently locational semantics e.g. bo 'place', it supplies a Goal/Source/Location role depending on the verb; when a nominal without any locational semantics is found here it supplies a sort of 'Reason' role, see below. • 'Adjunct' nominal: a nominal which, for reasons given in §6.2.6 below, I will argue fonus a complex predicate with the verb rather than acting as a participant. This nominal always appears directly before the verb. Clausestrucmre 170 • Added object: introduced into the clause by one oftwelve participant-adding suffixes or the Beneficiary/Possessor prefix. The added object is obligatorily marked by a suffix directly on the participant-adding morpheme. Added objects can play many different semantic roles, depending on the meaning ofthe participant-adding morpheme and the meaning ofthe verb. They fulfil most of the functions ofadpositions and semantic cases in other languages (see Chapter 7). NPs co-referencing these participants are unrnarkedly post-verbal. Leaving out the non-participant adjunct nominals and the objects added by extra morphology, we can list the possible participants ofsimple clauses and schematise their characteristics as in Table 6.1. Table 6.1 Participants and tbeir coding verb agreement NP position subject prefix/infix pre-verbal P (individuated) suffix pre/post-verbal P (unindividuated) pre-verbal R suffix post-verbal T pre-verbal Instrument pre/post-verbal Location/Reason post-verbal As is shown in the Table there are only two ways - verb agreement and word order to potentially group the obligatory sub-categorised arguments (subject, Ps, T and R), and distinguish them from the optional non-subcategorised adjuncts (Instrument and LocationlReason). Turning first to the obligatory arguments set and the difficulty ofuniquely identifYing the object relations, we can see that unindividuated Ps ofmonotransitive verbs receive the same treatment as Ts ofditransitive verbs. Neither is cross-referenced on the verb and both must appear pre-verbally. Rs ofditransitive verbs receive the same morphological marking as individuated Ps ofmonotransitive Clause structure 171 verbs but the two argument types have different word order distributions in the clause; individuated Ps are unmarkedly pre-verbal while R;; are unmarkedly post-verbal. In establishing object systems Dryer (1986:29) shows that a system which treats P and T in the same way in contrast to R, has a direct/indirect object distinction like that found in English. A system which treats P and R in the same way in contrast to T has a primary/secondary object distinction. This can be seen in Figure 6.1. 3. direct vs. indirect object b. primary "'S. secondary object Direct Object Primary Object Monotransitive Ditransitive Ditransitive R Indirect Object Secondary Object Figure 6.1 Groupings ofP, T and R. Source: Dryer (1986:29) Adapting this system to Barupu is not straightforward. For example, in Barupu, we must identify two different Ps ofmonotransitive verbs: individuated (Pi) and unidividuated (Pu). The Barupu groupings are shown in Figure 6.2. Pre or post ,,<bat Pre-verbal Obligatory wffix Monoltansitive Oiuansitive Post-verbal No marking a. Word order possibilities b. Verb Agreement Figure 6.2 Barupu groupings ofPu, Pi, T and R Clause structure 172 We can see from Figure 6.2 that the Barupu object system is mixed. Word order treats Pu in the same way as T in contrast to both R and Pi.! Verb morphology, on the other hand, treats Pi and R the same in contrast to Pu and T- yielding something similar to a primary/secondary object distinction. There does not seem to be a simple way ofreducing the object relations to grammatical functions - Pu and T can be conflated to one function, which I will call secondary object. However, Pi and R cannot be grouped into the one function of primary object, because oftheir different positions in the clause. I will refer to the suffix on the verb as the object slot even though it seems more closely related to individuation/animacy than to a grammatical function, but I will continue to make a distinction between Pi and R in discussions ofword order. I tum now to the agreement and word order characteristics ofthe optional participants and the difficulty ofgiving a clear morpho-syntactic statement about the difference between core and oblique participants in Barupu. Neither Instruments nor Location/Reason participants are cross-referenced on the verb. Instruments are unmarkedly pre-verbal and LocationlReason participants are unmarkedly post-verbal. One argument might be that lack ofverb agreement indicates non-core status. The problem with this is that Pu and T are not marked on the verb and yet they are obligatory. Ifthese participants could be shown to be non-arguments (e.g. incorporated) then this analysis would hold. However, they do seem to have all the characteristics offull arguments (e.g. they can be full NPs). Another argument might be that the post-verbal position occupied by Location/Reason is the oblique position because all other arguments in simple clauses have the potential to appear pre-verbally. This grouping would mean singling out I It is interesting to consider the pragmatic permubility ofPi in terms ofBarupu's incipient polysyn thetic typology. For example, we could speculate that it is a sign ofmovement away from fixed word order to a more discourse·figurational clause structure. At the same time, the lack ofverbal agreement and fixity ofthe Pu could be a movement towards incorporation ofthese arguments. Clause structure 173 Instrument for special treatment because it can appear before the verb, but that may be alright because it is not always clear whether Instruments are sub-categorised or not (Andrews 1985:91-92). However, Rs also appear post-verbally and these are obligatorily marked on the verb and clearly obligatory sub-categorised arguments.