Draft for comments (2015) - Do not cite without author’s permission 1 The neuter suffix -ik- in Bantu 2 Sebastian Dom 3 KongoKing Research Group, Department of Languages and Cultures - Africa, 4 Ghent University, Belgium 5 6 1. Introduction 7 The agglutinative system of verbal suffixes is a fairly well-known grammatical feature of Bantu 8 languages among (typological) linguists. One would thus assume that in the tradition of Bantu 9 linguistics, these suffixes have been extensively analyzed and described. Unfortunately, this 10 can only be said to be true for a small number of all verbal suffixes reconstructed for Proto- 11 Bantu. The few verbal suffixes that have been the topic of a large number of detailed syntactico- 12 semantic studies are the applicative (Alsina & Mchombo 1990, 1993; Baker 1988, 1990; 13 Bostoen & Mundeke 2011; Bresnan & Moshi 1990; Cann & Mabugu 2007; Creissels 2004; 14 Dammann 1961; Demuth 1998; De Kind & Bostoen 2012; Harford 1993; Kähler-Meyer 15 1966)(Marten 2003, 2011, Marten & Kula 2014, Nakamura 1997, Ngonyani 1998a, 1998b, 16 2000, Ngonyani & Githinji 2006, Port 1981, Zeller & Ngoboka 2006), the passive (Biloa 1994, 17 Fleisch 2005, Givón & Kawasha 2006, Kawasha 2007, Kimenyi 1988, Kula & Marten 2008, 18 Stappers 1967, Trithart 1979, Woolford 1994) and the reciprocal (Dammann 1954, Dom et al. 19 forthcoming, Maslova 2000, 2007, Mchombo 1990, 1999, Mchombo & Ndunga 1994, 20 Mchombo & Ngalande 1980, Mudzingwa 2008, Mugane 1999, Ndayiragije 2002). Quite many 21 suffixes found in (the?) Bantu languages are still poorly described both from a syntactic and 22 semantic viewpoint, e.g. the extensive, the neuter, the positional, the repetitive, the separative, 23 and the tentive.1 A first aim of this article is to provide an in-depth analysis of one such suffix, 24 the neuter (the term used in Schadeberg 2006). To my knowledge, there are only few studies 25 dedicated specifically to this suffix (Dubinsky & Simango 1996, Khumalo 2009, Mischke 1994, 26 Mchombo 1993, Seidl & Dimitriadis 2002), including one unpublished and unfinished draft 27 (Schadeberg 2004). In other articles, the middle suffix is concisely treated as part of a bigger 28 study, e.g. of an investigation of the verbal suffix inventory in some Bantu languages (e.g. 29 Ondo-Mebiame 2007, Westphal et al. 1974), and often neither a semantic description nor 30 syntactic analysis is provided. Many grammars of Bantu languages (of which most date back 31 to the first half of the 20th century) have a section on this middle marker. However, these never 32 exceed the length of a paragraph, often including only (some) lexical examples. 33 As I will show in the following sections, the middle suffix -ik- in Bantu languages marks (i) 34 anticausative constructions, (ii) ‘agentless passive’ construction, (iii) potential constructions; 35 when suffixed onto perception verbs it can mark (iv) stimulus constructions and/or (v) 36 evidential constructions. The majority of the specialized articles on this suffix is written in a 37 generative framework and only treat functions (i)-(iii). Therefore, the second main objective of 38 the article is to provide the first typologically-oriented description of this middle marker in 39 Bantu, and to highlight the additional functions (iv) and (v). Typological works on 1 I use the names of the suffixes proposed by Schadeberg (2006). 1 Draft for comments (2015) - Do not cite without author’s permission 40 anticausativity, potentials (also termed ‘potential passives’, ‘middles’, ‘middle passives’ or 41 ‘medio passives’; Haspelmath 1987: 9), perception verbs or evidentiality generally do not 42 provide much information on Bantu languages (if any at all, besides Swahili; but see Botne 43 1995, 1997, on evidential markers in Lega). The present study thus provides typologists with 44 an extensive account on the expression of these categories and constructions in a variety of 45 Bantu languages. Moreover, the previous studies on the middle suffix have only been concerned 46 with syntactic properties of the constructions marked by this verbal morpheme, generally 47 focusing on the differences between the (anticausative) middle and passive. In addition to a 48 description of the syntactic behavior of these middle constructions in Bantu, I will also give a 49 semantic and pragmatic analysis of the middle marker and its functions. 50 The study is based on a language sample of 117 Bantu languages. It is a convenience sample 51 (Bakker 2011: 106) in that the data consist of all the information that was available to me. The 52 sources of the data can be categorized in three types. The first are descriptive grammars. The 53 body of descriptive grammars consulted for this study represents the entire collection of 54 descriptive grammars of Bantu languages of the library of African Languages and Literature of 55 the University of Ghent. The second type are articles either dedicated to or summarily reporting 56 on the middle suffix. The third type consists of corpus material. New data has been extracted 57 from (i) the Luganda corpus of Deo Kawalya, a PhD student at Ghent University and native 58 speaker of Luganda, with whom I have closely collaborated for the interpretation of the 59 Luganda examples and elicitation of additional examples, and (ii) from the Kikongo corpus of 60 the KongoKing research group, located at the University of Ghent. A full list of the Bantu 61 languages included in the sample is provided in appendix. 62 The paper is structured as follows: in section 2 an introduction is provided regarding the 63 middle marker, including a discussion of the terminology and the various present-day forms of 64 the suffix attested in the Bantu domain. Section 3 discusses the first function of the middle, 65 which is to mark anticausative constructions. Section 4 treats agentless passive constructions, 66 which have the same argument structure as anticausatives, but do not have anticausative verbs 67 as their predicate. In section 5, the anticausative/agentless passive constructions are compared 68 with passives, with regard to certain syntactic and semantic features such as oblique agentive 69 phrases, instrumental phrases, agent-oriented adverbs, and resultative vs. perfective aspect. 70 Section 6 treats the potential construction, providing an in-depth semantic analysis unifying the 71 interrelated concepts of force dynamics, modality and subjectivity. The seventh section 72 discusses two specialized functions of the middle marker when combined with perception 73 verbs, i.e. stimulus constructions and evidentiality. Conclusions are summarized in section 8. 74 2. The middle marker in Bantu 75 A first point worthy of discussion is the terminology used to label this marker. The following 76 list sums up the commonest terms found in the sources to refer to one and the same verbal 77 suffix. Some labels are only attested once, others are more recurrent, ‘neuter’ being the most 78 frequently used term. 79 Labels used for the middle marker 2 Draft for comments (2015) - Do not cite without author’s permission ‘Capable’ form neutro-passive derived intransitive passive Impositive potential neutrale/mediale Form (German) reflexive impositive intransitif positif (French) resultative Intransitive spontaneous intransitive Subjectivform (German) static medio-passive stative neuter tolerative neuter passive neuter-directive neuter-stative 80 Schadeberg (2006: 75) comments on the term ‘neuter’ that it “has the disadvantage that it 81 suggests a general syntactic function (closer to passive than to active voice).” Schadeberg (ibid.) 82 continues that the suffix combines most often with verbs of destruction and experiencer verbs, 83 and thus that the label ‘neuter’ “does not express the specific link with the two semantic 84 categories mentioned.” However, the alternative Schadeberg proposes, namely ‘neutro- 85 passive’, does not seem to solve the problem even though he writes that it is “a more precise 86 semantic-syntactic label.” Several studies have shown that there are fundamental differences 87 between anticausative and passive constructions (among others Alexiadou et al. 2006, Kallulli 88 1999 for Indo-European languages, and Dubinsky & Simango 1996 and Seidl & Dimitriadis 89 2002 for Bantu languages). In this sense, it would be misleading to add ‘passive’ to the label. 90 From a typological perspective ‘neuter’ can be confusing in that it is often used in the context 91 of gender for languages with a tripartite gender distinction based on sexes (male, female and 92 neuter gender). Schadeberg (2006: 75) does convincingly argue that other labels such as stative 93 or intransitive are too abstract or better suited for other Bantu suffixes. Terms such as 94 ‘potential’, ‘stative’, ‘medio-passive’, ‘spontaneous’ or ‘resultative’ cover only one part of the 95 functions of the middle marker. I therefore opt to label the suffix with the more general term 96 ‘middle marker’ in the sense that it encodes a number of ‘deagentivized syntactic patterns’ 97 (Kulikov 2013: 265). 98 The middle marker has been reconstructed for Proto-Bantu as *-ɪk-, with a second-degree 99 closed front vowel (and even further back for Proto-Niger-Congo as *-ke; Voeltz 1977 in 100 Hyman 2007: 151). The Proto-Bantu form has evolved into a variety of manifestations in 101 present-day languages due to the diachronic 7-to-5 vowel merger and sonorization and lenition 102 of the consonant *k. Some Bantu languages have lost the opposition between [ɪ] and the first- 103 degree vowel [i] with the subsequent omission of the former. This process, in which the seven 104 vowel system of Proto-Bantu has been reduced to five in some present-day languages, is also 105 called the 7-to-5 Vowel Merger (Schadeberg 1995). Other Bantu languages have retained a 106 seven vowel system, either in its initial or in a modified form. However, in very few grammars 107 of languages having retained the aperture opposition, are the vowels [ɪ] and [ɛ] distinguished 108 from [i] and [e] by the authors.