Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Journal of African Languages and Linguistics

Ed. by Ameka, Felix K. / Amha, Azeb

2 Issues per year


IMPACT FACTOR 2017: 0.800

CiteScore 2017: 0.76

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2017: 0.327
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2017: 1.126

Online
ISSN
1613-3811
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 39, Issue 2

Issues

Applicatives in Ya̧g Dii: Morphological and syntactic implications

Lee Bohnhoff / Mary Dalrymple
Published Online: 2018-11-12 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/jall-2018-0006

Abstract

Ya̧g Dii (Niger-Congo/Adamawa-Ubangi, Cameroon) has two applicative constructions: a benefactive/malefactive construction, and a comitative/instrumental (‘accompaniment’) construction. The benefactive/malefactive construction licenses the addition of an indirect object with a benefactive, malefactive, or other goal-like role. The construction is often marked by the verbal extension -D; notably, however, an indirect object with a benefactive/malefactive role can appear even if the applicative extension is absent, with a tendency for a benefactive reading to be associated with the presence of the affix, and a malefactive reading with the absence of the affix. The accompaniment applicative construction is always marked by the verbal extension -N, which attaches to an intransitive or transitive stem and marks the presence of an accompanier of the applied clause subject. Unlike the usual situation with applicatives, where the ‘applied’ argument bears a core argument role, the applied argument in the accompaniment applicative construction appears as an oblique dependent of the verb. We discuss the complicated verbal morphology used to express benefactive and comitative/instrumental applicatives, and the syntactic realization of the applied argument in each type.

References

  • Alsina, Alex & Sam A. Mchombo. 1990. The syntax of applicatives in Chicheŵa: Problems for a theta theoretic asymmetry. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 8(4). 493–506.Google Scholar

  • Bentley, Mayrene. 1998. The marking of grammatical relations in Swahili. Studies in African Linguistics 27. 177–198.Google Scholar

  • Bohnhoff, Lee E. 1986. Yag Dii (Duru) pronouns. In Ursula Wiesemann (ed.), Pronominal systems, 103–129. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.Google Scholar

  • Bohnhoff, Lee E. 2010. A description of Dii: Phonology, grammar, and discourse. Ngaoundéré, Cameroon: Dii Literature Team.Google Scholar

  • Bohnhoff, Lee E., Mathieu Kadia & Marthe Asmaou. 2014. Dictionnaire de la langue dii (duru). Mbé par Ngaoundéré, Cameroun: Equipe de Littérature Dii.Google Scholar

  • Boyd, Raymond. 1989. Adamawa-Ubangi. In John Bendor-Samuel & Rhonda L. Hartell (eds.), The Niger-Congo languages: A classification and description of Africa’s largest language family, 178–215. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.Google Scholar

  • Boyd, Raymond. 1995. De l’expression à l’expressivité en morphologie: analyse comparée de la dérivation verbale en zande et en nzakala. Afrikanistische Arbeitspapiere 43. 5–36. https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00321166/document.Google Scholar

  • Claudi, Ulrike. 1993. Die Stellung von Verb und Objekt in Niger-Kongo-Sprachen: Ein Beitrag zur Rekonstruktion historischer Syntax, volume 1. Köln: Institut für Afrikanistik, Universität zu Köln.Google Scholar

  • Donohue, Mark. 1996. Variation in applicative structures: Case marking, agreement, and grammatical relations. Unpublished manuscript, Australian National University.Google Scholar

  • Elders, Stefan. 2000. Grammaire mundang. Leiden: Research School of Asian, African, and Amerindian Studies.Google Scholar

  • Fortescue, Michael. 1984. West Greenlandic Croom Helm descriptive grammars. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar

  • Gensler, Orin D. 1994. On reconstructing the syntagm S-Aux-OV-Other to Proto-Niger-Congo. In S. Gahl, A. Dolbey & C. Johnson (eds.), Proceedings of the 20th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: Special session on Historical Issues in African Linguistics, 1–20. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar

  • Harris, Alice. 1981. Georgian syntax. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Heine, Bernd. 1980. Language typology and linguistic reconstruction: The Niger-Congo case. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 2(2). 95–112.Google Scholar

  • Hyman, Larry M. 2004. How to become a ‘Kwa’ verb. Journal of West African Languages 30(2). 69–88.Google Scholar

  • Hyman, Larry M. 2007. Niger-Congo verb extensions: Overview and discussion. In Doris L. Payne & Jaime Peña (eds.), Selected proceedings of the 37th Annual Conference on African Linguistics, 149–163. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. http://www.lingref.com/cpp/acal/37/paper1605.pdf.

  • Hyman, Larry M. 2014. Reconstructing the Niger-Congo verb extension paradigm: What’s cognate, copied or renewed? In Martine Robbeets & Walter Bisang (eds.), Paradigm change in the transeurasian languages and beyond, Studies in Language Companion Series, vol. 1, 103–125. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Margetts, Anna & Peter K. Austin. 2007. Three-participant events in the languages of the world: Towards a crosslinguistic typology. Linguistics 45(3). 393–451.Google Scholar

  • Marten, Lutz. 2003. The dynamics of Bantu applied verbs: An analysis at the syntax-pragmatics interface. In Kézié K. Lébikaza (ed.), Actes du 3e Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Africaine Lomé 2000, 207–221. Köln: Köppe.Google Scholar

  • Marten, Lutz & Nancy C. Kula. 2014. Benefactive and substitutive applicatives in Bemba. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 35(1). 1–44.Google Scholar

  • Marten, Lutz & Maarten Mous. 2017. Valency and expectation in Bantu applicatives. Linguistics Vanguard 3(1). DOI: CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Matasović, Ranko. 2010. A short grammar of East Circassian (Kabardian). Ninth version. Translated from Croatian with the help of Tena Gnjatović.Google Scholar

  • Peterson, David A. 2007. Applicative constructions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Raen, Konstanse. 1981. Aperçu sur la phonologie et la grammaire p&‘r&‘. Ngaoundéré, Cameroun: K. Raen. Two volumes, mimeo.Google Scholar

  • Tadadjeu, Maurice & Etienne Sadembouo. 1979. Alphabet général des langues Camerounaises. Yaoundé: Département des Langues Africaines et Linguistique, FLSH, Université de Yaoundé. [PROPELCA, 1].Google Scholar

  • Wiering, Elisabeth. 1994. The indicative verb in Doyayo. In The Doyayo language: Selected studies, 53–85. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar

  • Williamson, Kay. 1989. Niger-Congo overview. In John Bendor-Samuel & Rhonda L. Hartell (eds.), The Niger-Congo languages: A classification and description of Africa’s largest language family, 3–46. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.Google Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2018-11-12

Published in Print: 2018-11-06


Citation Information: Journal of African Languages and Linguistics, Volume 39, Issue 2, Pages 153–200, ISSN (Online) 1613-3811, ISSN (Print) 0167-6164, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/jall-2018-0006.

Export Citation

© 2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.Get Permission

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in