Intra-paradigmatic variation in Eleme verbal agreement

Abstract

Mismatches in the morphosyntactic features of controllers and targets in the Eleme (Ogonoid, Niger-Congo) participant reference system allow for a subject agreement paradigm in which the person of the grammatical subject is indicated by a verbal prefix, while plural number is marked by a suffix on different targets — either lexical verbs or auxiliaries — based on the person value of the controller. I examine the distribution of Eleme ‘Default Subject’ agreement affixes and the intra-paradigmatic asymmetry found between second-person plural and third-person plural subjects in Auxiliary Verb Constructions (AVC) and Serial Verb Constructions (SVC). I argue that the criteria by which the various agreement affixes select an appropriate morphological host can be modelled in terms of agreement prerequisites even when distributional variation is paradigm internal.

Negation through reduplication and tone: implications for the Lexical Functional Grammar/Paradigm Function Morphology interface

“…An informal characterisation of this can be achieved by exploring the order in which morphological exponents are realised. In Eleme, rules relating to the realisation of person and number values of the subject and negation given in (21) and (22) apply after the rules in (17) and (18), as demonstrated by the examples in (28), from Bond (2006: 187, 195, 189). The reason for positing two separate TAM rule blocks (TAM1 and TAM2) is made clear by (28c), where the habitual suffix and periphrastic anterior stem co-occur.…”

“…Given the potential complexity of the analysis, I will not discuss the distribution of the third-person clitic here, instead see Bond (2010) for a detailed account. For clarity, the negative and affirmative verb forms that complete the paradigm are given in (27), with their feature specifications and translations.…”

“…Eleme has a vast array of subject agreement prefixes discussed in detail in Bond (2006), Bond (2008) and Bond (2010).…”

“…Similarly, it does not have the same distribution as the clitic =ri used to mark third-person plural subjects. For detailed discussion of the distribution of the plural subject agreement markers and their different properties, see Bond (2010). (25) Rule block for Default Subject Agreement 2 (Agr2)…”

The locative‐applicative in Eleme1

“…9 9 Eleme has a particularly complex system of participant reference, discussed at length in Bond (2006a) and Bond (forthcoming). Some of this complexity is represented in the examples below.…”