Structure building and thematic constraints in Bantu inversion constructions

Abstract

Bantu inversion constructions include locative inversion, patient inversion (also called subject–object reversal), semantic locative inversion and instrument inversion. The constructions show a high level of cross-linguistic variation, but also a core of invariant shared morphosyntactic and information structural properties. These include: that the preverbal position is filled by a non-agent NP triggering verbal agreement, that the agent follows the verb obligatorily, that object marking is disallowed, and that the preverbal NP is more topical, and the postverbal NP more focal. While previous analyses have tended to concentrate on one inversion type, the present paper develops a uniform analysis of Bantu inversion constructions. Adopting a Dynamic Syntax perspective, we show how the constructions share basic aspects of structure building and semantic representation. In our analysis, cross-linguistic differences in the distribution of inversion constructions result from unrelated parameters of variation, as well as from thematic constraints related to the thematic hierarchy. With some modification, the analysis can also be extended to passives.

Variation and Grammaticalisation in Bantu Complex Verbal Constructions: The Dynamics of Information Growth in Swahili, Rangi and SiSwati

“…It is also motivated by the DS analysis of the so-called subject marker in constructions such as locative inversion and subject object reversal, as well as of Bantu passives (cf. Marten and Gibson 2015). In the case of wa-, this locally unfixed node is decorated with the pronominal metavariable Fo(U WA ), reflecting the class restriction of the possible referents to class 2 (human plural).…”

Building meaning in context: A dynamic approach to Bantu clause structure

“…Marten & Gibson () propose that a unified account of Bantu inversion constructions can be developed. They examine locative inversion, subject‐object reversal, semantic locative inversion and instrument inversion across a number of Bantu languages.…”

“…The details of the distributional properties and the interpretations with which all of these constructions are associated are beyond the scope of the current study. However, the interested reader is referred to Marten & Gibson () for the details of the formal account and Marten & van der Wal () for a typology of inversion constructions across the Bantu language family. The key elements for the current discussion involve the formal means employed to represent these constructions, which draw heavily on the concepts of underspecification and update.…”

The Bantu-Romance-Greek connection revisited: Processing constraints in auxiliary and clitic placement from a cross-linguistic perspective

“…The pointer moves to the root node via anticipation and parsing the subject marker projects a locally unfixed node annotated with a restricted metavariable. The analysis of Bantu subject markers as projecting a locally unfixed node is developed on the basis of analogy with the analysis of Romance clitics developed in Cann et al (2005), as well as the observed behavior of subject markers in inversion and passive constructions (see Marten & Gibson 2015). The restricted metavariable limits the possible referents from which the metavariable can receive interpretation, along the lines of noun class and person/ number.…”

“…The subject marker a-is the first element to be parsed. This is modeled as being projected onto a locally unfixed node (following previous accounts of subject markers across Bantu, see for example Kempson et al 2011;Marten 2011;Marten & Kula 2011;Marten & Gibson 2015;Seraku & Gibson 2015; as well as for Rangi Gibson 2012;2016). In fact, this unfixed node account is in part motivated by observed parallels between Bantu subject markers and clitics in Romance (Cann et al 2005;Bouzouita 2008a) and dialects of modern Greek (Chatzikyriakidis 2010) which are modeled in similar terms.…”