A Featural Typology of Bantu Agreement

The Bantu languages are in some sense remarkably uniform (SVO basic word order, noun classes, verbal morphology), but this extensive language family also show a wealth of morphosyntactic variation. Two core areas in which such variation is attested are subject and object agreement. The book explores the variation in Bantu subject and object marking on the basis of data from 75 Bantu languages, discovering striking patterns (the RANDOM and the AWSOM correlation), and providing a novel syntactic analysis. This analysis takes into account not just phi agreement, but also nominal licensing and information structure. A Person feature, associated with animacy, definiteness, or givenness, is shown to be responsible for differential object agreement, while at the same time accounting for doubling vs. non-doubling object marking – a hybrid solution to an age-old debate in Bantu comparative morphosyntax. It is furthermore proposed that low functional heads can Case-license flexibly downwards or upwards, depending on the relative topicality of the two arguments involved. This accounts for the properties of symmetric object marking in ditransitives (for Appl), and subject inversion constructions (for v). By keeping Agree constant and systematically determining which featural parameters are responsible for the attested variation, the proposed analysis argues for an emergentist view of features and parameters (following Biberauer 2018, 2019), and against both Strong Uniformity and Strong Modularity

A Featural Typology of Bantu Agreement

The Bantu languages are in some sense remarkably uniform (SVO basic word order, noun classes, verbal morphology), but this extensive language family also show a wealth of morphosyntactic variation. Two core areas in which such variation is attested are subject and object agreement. The book explores the variation in Bantu subject and object marking on the basis of data from 75 Bantu languages, discovering striking patterns (the RANDOM and the AWSOM correlation), and providing a novel syntactic analysis. This analysis takes into account not just phi agreement, but also nominal licensing and information structure. A Person feature, associated with animacy, definiteness, or givenness, is shown to be responsible for differential object agreement, while at the same time accounting for doubling vs. non-doubling object marking – a hybrid solution to an age-old debate in Bantu comparative morphosyntax. It is furthermore proposed that low functional heads can Case-license flexibly downwards or upwards, depending on the relative topicality of the two arguments involved. This accounts for the properties of symmetric object marking in ditransitives (for Appl), and subject inversion constructions (for v). By keeping Agree constant and systematically determining which featural parameters are responsible for the attested variation, the proposed analysis argues for an emergentist view of features and parameters (following Biberauer 2018, 2019), and against both Strong Uniformity and Strong Modularity

A typology of Bantu subject inversion

This study charts variation in subject inversion constructions in Bantu languages. It distinguishes between seven types of inversion constructions: formal locative inversion, semantic locative inversion, instrument inversion, patient inversion, (clausal) complement inversion, default agreement inversion and agreeing inversion. Based on a set of nine surface variables, a matrix of inversion constructions is developed which identifies characteristics of the set of constructions overall as well as of each individual construction type. The distribution of the different inversion constructions is documented with reference to a sample of 46 Bantu languages, from which geographical and typological generalisations are drawn. For example, languages with instrument inversion or with patient inversion always have locative inversion (but not vice versa), or if a language has at least one inversion construction, it always has at least either default agreement inversion or agreeing inversion. Finally, underlying parameters potentially accounting for the variation are discussed, such as the status of preverbal locatives as DP or PP, the agreement parameter and the syntactic and thematic restrictions on the preverbal element.Lutz Marten’s part of this research has benefitted from a British Academy UK-Africa Academic Partnership Scheme grant for ‘Language and Linguistic Studies of Southern African Languages’, and Jenneke van der Wal’s part is funded by the European Research Council Advanced Grant No. 269752 ‘Rethinking Comparative Syntax’, both of which are hereby gratefully acknowledged. Earlier version of this paper were presented to audiences at Durban, Lyon, Manchester, Paris, SOAS, and Surrey and we are grateful for 61 helpful comments and suggestions received on these occasions as well as from Oliver Bond, Leston Buell, Thilo Schadeberg, Oliver Stegen, Jochen Zeller and two anonymous referees. For information about specific languages we are grateful to Leston Buell (Zulu), Jean Chavula (Tumbuka), Denis Creissels (Tswana), Maud Devos (Makwe and Shangaci), Yussuf Hamad (Swahili), David Iorio (Bembe), Langa Khumalo (Ndebele), Ahmed Kipacha (Swahili), Heidrun Kröger (Mozambican Ngoni), Nancy Kula (Bemba), Michael Marlo (Tiriki), Ferdinand Mberamihigo (Kirundi), Peter Muriungi (Kîîtharaka), Minah Nabirye (Lusoga), Jean Paul Ngoboka (Kinyarwanda), Steve Nicolle (Digo), Malin Petzell (Kagulu), Eva-Marie Ström (Ndengereko), Nobuko Yoneda (Matengo), and Jochen Zeller (Zulu). All mistakes and shortcomings remain our own.This is the accepted manuscript of a paper published in Linguistic Variation 14:2. 2014. iii, 189 pp. (pp. 318–368), DOI: 10.1075/lv.14.2.04ma

Nominal licensing in caseless languages

This paper provides evidence for a kind of nominal licensing (Vergnaud licensing) in a number of morphologically caseless languages. Recent work on Bantu languages, has suggested that abstract Case or nominal licensing should be parameterised (Diercks 2012, Van der Wal 2015a). With this is mind, we critically discuss the status of Vergnaud licensing in six languages lacking morphological case and agreement. While Luganda appears to systematically lack a Vergnaud licensing requirement, Makhuwa more consistently displays evidence in favour of it, as do all of the analytic languages that we survey (Mandarin, Yoruba, Jamaican Creole and Thai). We conclude that, while it seems increasingly problematic to characterise nominal licensing in terms of uninterpretable/abstract Case features, we nonetheless need to retain a (possibly universal) notion of nominal licensing, the explanation for which remains opaque

The long and short of verb alternations in Mauritian Creole and Bantu languages

AbstractMauritian Creole displays an alternation between a short and a long form of the verb, which is reminiscent of the conjoint–disjoint alternation found in some eastern Bantu languages. Based on comparison with other French-based creoles and socio-historical evidence, we conclude that the Bantu substrate must have had an impact on the grammatical system of Mauritian Creole. We compare the synchronic properties of the alternations in Mauritian Creole and the most likely substrate Bantu languages of northern Mozambique and examine two possible scenarios for the influence of Bantu on the Mauritian verbal alternation, concluding that probably only the (syntactic) basics of the Bantu alternation motivated the persistence of the alternation in Mauritian Creole.This is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available from De Gruyter via http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/flin-2015-000

Diagnosing focus

Many tests have been used in eliciting focus constructions and determining what type of focus a certain linguistic strategy expresses. This paper provides an overview of the various diagnostics for focus, indicating how they show the size of the focused constituent and what semantic-pragmatic type of focus is expressed. These types range from simple pragmatic focus to semantically more complex focus, signalling exclusivity or exhaustivity either as an inherent semantic part of the focus, or merely an implicature. The discussion of these diagnostics brings to light how some diagnostics are flawed, and whether the linguistic strategy tested is actually a dedicated strategy for focus at all.This paper is part of the research project ‘Rethinking Comparative Syntax’, funded by the European Research Council Advanced Grant No. 269752.This is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available from the John Benjamins Publishing Company via https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.40.2.01va

Movement from the double object construction is not fully symmetrical

A movement asymmetry arises in some languages that are otherwise symmetrical for both A- and A-bar movement in the double object construction (DOC), including Norwegian, North-West British English, and a range of Bantu languages including Zulu and Lubukusu: a Theme object can be A-bar-moved out of a Recipient (Goal) passive, but not vice versa. Our explanation of this asymmetry is based on phase theory, more specifically a stricter version of the Phase Interpretability Condition proposed by Chomsky (2001). The effect is that, in a Theme passive, a Recipient object destined for the C-domain gets trapped within the lower V-related phase by movement of the Theme. The same effect is observed in Italian, a language in which only Theme passives are possible. Moreover, a similar effect is also found in some Bantu languages in connection with object marking/agreement: object agreement with the Theme in a Recipient passive is possible, but not vice versa. We show that this, too, can be understood within the theory that we articulate

Preface

1. The issue The present special issue is developed from a workshop entitled Bantu Universals and Variation at the 10th World Congress of African Linguistics (WOCAL10) held online at Leiden University in June 2021. It includes a selection of papers presented at the workshop, as well as papers submitted in response to an open call for papers. The resultant special issue brings together new perspectives on universals and variation in the Bantu language family, with regards to morphosyntax, sema..

Bantu word order between discourse and syntactic relations

Discourse function has often been noticed to be a strong factor in conditioning Bantu word order. The importance of discourse function for determining the word order of Bantu languages is visible for example in locative inversion and dedicated focus positions. As a result of such phenomena, it has been proposed that Bantu word order is best captured by reference to discourse roles, e.g. Topic-Verb-Nontopic. Nevertheless, we typically see statements describing Bantu word order in relation to grammatical roles (e.g. “SVO”), and the notions “subject” and “object” remain core in analyses of Bantu. In this paper we present the result of a study reconsidering Bantu word order from a discourse-configurational perspective, asking how far we can get without reference to grammatical roles. We use a parametric approach to investigate this syntactic variation, presenting new discourse-oriented field data collected on 9 Bantu languages. We show how these parameters highlight variation within the family, with each language sitting at a different point on a continuum between grammatical role-oriented and discourse role-oriented. We therefore argue against a one-size-fits-all account of Bantu word order and advocate for approaches that include both grammatical and discourse roles.La fonction discursive a souvent été identifiée comme un facteur important dans le conditionnement de l’ordre des mots en bantou. L’importance de la fonction discursive dans la détermination de l’ordre des mots des langues bantoues est visible par exemple dans l’inversion locative et les positions du focus. À la suite de tels phénomènes, il a été proposé que l’ordre des mots en bantou est mieux représenté par les rôles discursifs, par ex. Topique-Verbe-Non-topique. Néanmoins, nous observons généralement des déclarations décrivant l’ordre des mots bantou par rapport aux rôles grammaticaux (par exemple « SVO »), et les notions de « sujet » et « objet » restent au cœur des analyses du bantou. Dans cet article, nous présentons les résultats d’une étude reconsidérant l’ordre des mots bantou dans une perspective des configurations discursives, en nous demandant jusqu’où nous pouvons aller sans référence aux rôles grammaticaux. Nous utilisons une approche paramétrique pour étudier cette variation syntaxique, en présentant de nouvelles données de terrain, axées sur le discours, recueillies sur 9 langues bantoues. Nous montrons comment ces paramètres mettent en évidence la variation au sein de la famille, chaque langue se situant à un point différent sur un continuum entre les rôles grammaticaux et les rôles discursifs. Nous nous opposons donc à une description unique de l’ordre des mots bantou et préconisons des approches qui incluent à la fois les rôles grammaticaux et discursifs