Phrasal Movement in the Bantu Verbal Complex: Deriving Affix Scope and Order in Kîîtharaka

Abstract

This paper investigates multiple suffixation in Kîîtharaka, an SVO Bantu language spoken in Kenya (code E54 in the Guthrie classification). Assuming as a starting point that semantic scopes are encoded in syntax such that if an affix A scopes over an affix B, A asymmetrically c‐commands B, this paper argues that linearization from the base semantic scope to the phonological form is easily derived by phrasal movement. The novelty in the paper is the presentation and discussion of semantic scopes between suffixes and the overt assumption that scopes are encoded in the syntax. Furthermore, this paper breaks from the Bantu tradition of examining the scopes between argument‐related suffixes such as the causative, applicative, reciprocal and passive, and goes further to include aspectual morphemes such as the perfective and the habitual and adverbial‐like suffixes such as the erratic. This paper shows that the verbal complex containing argument‐related, aspectual, and adverbial‐like suffixes arises from the syntactic hierarchy determined by scope via restricted phrasal movement.

Zulu ngani ‘why’: Postverbal and yet in CP

“…This would be contrary to the claim that Bantu verb words consist partially of multiple in-situ heads (Muriungi, 2008;Buell, 2005;Julien, 2003), but more importantly, head movement makes wrong predictions for object marking. Consider a clause with an undoubled direct object, as in (50) .…”

On the number of object markers in Bantu languages

“…*n-àlíí-yà-mù[péél-à] 1sg-pst- 1-6[give-fv] 1sg-pst- In Marlo (2014), I propose that the exceptional licensing of an additional OP by the 1sg and reflexive in most of these contexts is a consequence of the inner placement of the 1sg and reflexive markers, which itself may be a result of person-number hierarchy effects. The 1sg and/or reflexive may occupy distinct structural positions from other OPs and thus not be competing for the same morphosyntactic slot as other OPs (Buell 2005;Muriungi 2008;Sikuku 2012;Woolford 2000).…”

“…Bakweri (Hawkinson 1986: 151-152 (Ashton et al 1954: 225-226;Polak 1986: 404) Giryama (Lax 1996: 46, 172) Havu (Polak 1986: 404) Jita (Downing 1996 Kikuyu (Barlow 1951: 266) Kwanyama (Halme 2004: 74) Libinza (Polak 1986: 404) Lozi (Marten et al 2007: 263;Polak 1986: 404) Luba (Cocchi 2000: 86) Luba-Kasai (Kuperus and Mpunga wa Ilunga 1990: 34) Lulua (Polak 1986: 404) Lungu (Bickmore 2007: 30) Lwena (see (77b); Polak 1986: 404) Marachi (Marlo 2007: 12) Mongo (Polak 1986: 404) Ndengese (Polak 1986: 404) Ndonga (Fivaz and Shikomba 1986: 145) Nyala West (Marlo 2007: 12) Nyaturu (Hualde 1989: 183-185;Olson 1964;Polak 1986;Schlindwein 1986) Nyole (Doug-Jolene Wicks, p.c.) Punu (Polak 1986: 404) Ruri (Massamba 1982: 51) Saamia (Botne et al 2006: 71;Chagas 1976: 235;Poletto 1998a: 342) Shi (Polak-Bynon 1975: 210-212) Soga (Yukawa 2000: 288-290) Suku (Nurse 2007;Polak 1986: 404) Taabwa (see (77c); Polak 1986: 404) Tharaka (Muriungi 2008: 90, 121-122) Tiriki (Marlo field notes) Umbundu (Polak 1986: 404) Wanga (Marlo field notes)…”

Suppletion and morpheme order: Are words special?

“…For instance, Julien (2002) argues that units which qualify as words by standard tests do not always correspond to complex heads. Koopman (2005), Muriungi (2008) and Kayne (2010) suggest that traditional words correspond to phrasal objects quite regularly.…”

“…I suggest here instead that the insufficiency of head movement tells us that phrasal movement may be used to order morphemes inside words (see Koopman & Szabolcsi 2000, Julien 2002, Muriungi 2008, including morpheme orders in suppletive forms. If correct, these findings support the conclusion reached in the previous section, namely that there is no need to postulate special morphological domains (domains with suppletion) that are subject to some specific set of rules distinct from the rules of phrasal syntax.…”