The Bantu relative agreement cycle

Linguistics ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 59 (4) ◽  
pp. 981-1015
Author(s):  
Mark L. O. Van de Velde

Abstract This article presents the Bantu relative agreement (BRA) cycle, a scenario of recurrent morphosyntactic change that involves the emergence of relativizers, which are subsequently integrated into the relative verb form, where they can ultimately replace the original subject agreement prefix. All logical outcomes at every stage of the cycle are amply attested in the languages of the Bantu family. The BRA cycle makes sense of many of the puzzling characteristics of relative clause constructions in the Bantu languages, especially in the domain of agreement.

Linguistics ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 53 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-52 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jenneke van der Wal ◽  
Jacky Maniacky

AbstractIn several Bantu languages in the regions where Kikongo and Lingala are spoken, we encounter sentences where the word ‘person’ can appear after the subject of a canonical SVO sentence, resulting in a focused interpretation of the subject. Synchronically, we analyze this as a monoclausal focus construction with moto ‘person’ as a focus marker. Diachronically, we argue, the construction derives from a biclausal cleft, where moto functioned as the head noun of the relative clause. This is a crosslinguistically rare but plausible development. The different languages studied in this paper show variation in the properties indicative of the status of the ‘moto construction’, which reflects the different stages of grammaticalization. Finally, we show how contact-induced grammaticalization is a likely factor in the development of moto as a focus marker.


2010 ◽  
Vol 53 ◽  
pp. 1-6
Author(s):  
Laura J. Downing ◽  
Annie Rialland ◽  
Cédric Patin ◽  
Kristina Riedel

The papers in this volume were originally presented at the Bantu Relative Clause workshop held in Paris on 8-9 January 2010, which was organized by the French-German cooperative project on the Phonology/Syntax Interface in Bantu Languages (BANTU PSYN). This project, which is funded by the ANR and the DFG, comprises three research teams, based in Berlin, Paris and Lyon. [...] This range of expertise is essential to realizing the goals of our project. Because Bantu languages have a rich phrasal phonology, they have played a central role in the development of theories of the phonology-syntax interface ever since the seminal work from the 1970s on Chimwiini (Kisseberth & Abasheikh 1974) and Haya (Byarushengo et al. 1976). Indeed, half the papers in Inkelas & Zec’s (1990) collection of papers on the phonology-syntax interface deal with Bantu languages. They have naturally played an important role in current debates comparing indirect and direct reference theories of the phonology-syntax interface. Indirect reference theories (e.g., Nespor & Vogel 1986; Selkirk 1986, 1995, 2000, 2009; Kanerva 1990; Truckenbrodt 1995, 1999, 2005, 2007) propose that phonology is not directly conditioned by syntactic information. Rather, the interface is mediated by phrasal prosodic constituents like Phonological Phrase and Intonation Phrase, which need not match any syntactic constituent. In contrast, direct reference theories (e.g., Kaisse 1985; Odden 1995, 1996; Pak 2008; Seidl 2001) argue that phrasal prosodic constituents are superfluous, as phonology can – indeed, must – refer directly to syntactic structure.  


2010 ◽  
Vol 53 ◽  
pp. 261
Author(s):  
Laura Downing ◽  
Annie Rialland ◽  
Jean-Marc Beltzung ◽  
Sophie Manus ◽  
Cédric Patin ◽  
...  

All of the papers in the volume except one (Kaji) take up some aspect of relative clause construction in some Bantu language. Kaji’s paper aims to account for how Tooro (J12; western Uganda) lost phonological tone through a comparative study of the tone systems of other western Uganda Bantu languages. The other papers examine a range of ways of forming relative clauses, often including non-restrictive relatives and clefts, in a wide range of languages representing a variety of prosodic systems.  


2009 ◽  
Vol 38 (2) ◽  
pp. 131-154
Author(s):  
Rose Letsholo

Demuth and Harford (1999) contend that in Bantu relatives, the verb raises from I-C if the relative morpheme is a bound morpheme while the subject remains in spec-IP resulting in subject –verb inversion. Ikalanga, a Bantu language spoken in Botswana has no subject verb inversion in relatives although the relative morpheme appears to be a bound morpheme. This observation challenges the conclusion reached in Demuth and Harford (1999). This raises the question, What then is the structure of the relative clause in languages like Ikalanga and Luganda? This paper argues that Ikalanga relative clauses differ from other Bantu relative clauses in that the projection that houses the relative feature (RelP) projects below TP while in Bantu languages where subject verb inversion is observed such as Shona it projects higher than TP. Thus, the variation in the structures of Bantu relative clauses can be accounted for if we understand that there is a parametric variation in the position in which RelP projects; lower than TP or higher than TP.


2006 ◽  
Vol 43 ◽  
pp. 161-187
Author(s):  
Yukiko Morimoto

Agreement is traditionally viewed as a cross-referencing device for core arguments such as subjects and (primary) objects.1 In this paper, I discuss data from Bantu languages that lead to a radical departure from this generally accepted position: agreement in a subset of Bantu languages cross-references a (sentential) topic rather than the subject. The crucial evidence for topic agreement comes from a construction known as subject-object (S-O) reversal, where the fronted patient agrees with what has uniformly been taken to be a `subject marker'. The correct analysis of S-O reversal as a topic construction with `topic agreement' explains a range of known facts in the languages in question. Furthermore, synchronic variation across Bantu in the presence/absence of S-O reversal and in the properties of the (topic/subject) agreement marker suggests a diachronic path from topic to subject marking. The systematic variation and covariation in the syntax of Bantu languages and the historical picture that it offers would be missed altogether if we continue to reject the idea that the notion of topic can be deeply grammaticized in the form of agreement.  


2010 ◽  
Vol 53 ◽  
pp. 243-250
Author(s):  
N. N.

This questionnaire is intended as an aid to eliciting different relative clause types – restrictive, non-restrictive, free, cleft. We have taken care to include examples where the head plays a variety of grammatical functions in the relative clause (subject, object, indirect object, possessor, adjunct). We have also taken care to include examples where the relative clause is in different positions in the sentence: initial, medial and extraposed. The questionnaire is intended as a guide, only, as every language will have its own set of possibilities and complications. At the end of the questionnaire is a checklist, as well as some illustrative examples in English and Swahili of the basic relative clause types. While we had Bantu languages in mind in devising the questionnaire, we hope it could also be useful to linguists with an interest in other languages.  


Author(s):  
Carlos De Cuba

A number of recent papers (Kayne 2008, 2010, Arsenijević 2009, Haegeman 2012, among others) have argued that so-called noun complement clauses should be analyzed as a type of relative clause. In this paper I provide evidence from a number of languages that presents some challenges to any strong claim that a relative clause strategy for noun complement clauses is universal. Evidence comes from Basque, Bulgarian, Durban Zulu, English, Finnish and Swedish, and includes data involving complementizer choice, complementizer-drop and subject agreement patterns.


2007 ◽  
Author(s):  
Isabel Fraga ◽  
Ana Pineiro ◽  
Carlos Acuna ◽  
Jaime Redondo
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document