Wistrand, Lila M.

English

KU ScholarWorks

CASHIBO VERB STEMS, CAUSATIVES, AND PROPOSITION CONSOLIDATION Lila M. Wistrand Kansas State University This paper is a pre 1 imi nary attempt to make th'e genera 1 i zati ons that {l) in Cashibo rather than one causative construction actualized in sur-face structure through verbs suffixed by the morpheme -mi, there are sev-eral types of causative constructions including other morphemes besides -mi-, all compounded with their respective classes of verb roots accord-ing to coocurrence with particular arrays of cases followin~ Fillmore's model; (2) these types of morphemes combine with the main verb roots through a rule similar to one proposed by Frantz (1970) for Blackfoot termed 'proposition consolidation'. As stated by Lyons (1968:433), it must be recognized that particular languages reflect in their vocabulary the culturally important distinc-tions of the societies in which they operate, a fact which commits us to a certain degree of linguistic and cultural 'relativity•. Not only in vocabulary (or lexicon}, but also in the syntax, certain items are overt morphemes and other items or categories are unmarked morphologically, or understood, though they may be included as specific morphemes in other languages. Complicated problems of translational equivalents arise when English is used to discuss the semantics of another language. We do not want an analysis to reflect more the principles of the analyst than the cultural (or linguistic) system studied {Thompson 1968:74). In Cashibo, a Panoan language of Central Peru, South America, differ-ent types of one, two, and three place verbs are marked more specifically, both morphologically and syntactically, than in English. Examples of these verbs and their different types of representation are as found in sets 1-V (Figure 1), arrived at by a taxonomic classification. These sets pose a problem for analysis to answer the question, "Why are there five different sets of intransitives, transitives, and causatives?" The sets could be explained simply by handling these as morphologically variant classes. The syntax of each type may be considered separately and described by separate rules with no attempt at cross-classification. Or the types may be cross-compared and classified for semantic and syn-tactic distinctions or similarities which may reveal generalization, and lead to reduction in number of necessary rules. It is essential to find the necessary and sufficient conditions for membership in each set, with their contrasting values. As Lyons noted for English, so also in Cashibo transitivity is bound up with the distinction of animate and inanimate nominals, marked overtly with case forms in surface structure of this Subject-Object-Verb language. Base rules from an earlier analysis of Cashibo (Wistrand, 1968) show a great similarity to English deep structure rules.· Cashibo surface case, or role, relationships, are similar to the situation found in Takelma (Fillmore 1968:54) having "one form for the pronominal NP of intransitive sentences, and two separate forms for the Agent and Object 204 CASHIBO VERB STEMS, CAUSATIVES, AND PROPOSITION CONSOLIDATION 205 1) sha1-ki-shai'-ka-2) choro-ki-choro-ka-1) chaka-ch aka-2) rat6-rato-l) chiki-chi kin-A. 1) bama-SET I 'move' 'move something 'untie by self' 'untie something' SET II 'bump, stumble' 'beat, hit (some-thing)' 3) chii-ki chii-ka-4) kii-ki-kii-ka-) k-~' 3 1 nQ-:. 'fear, be afraid' 4) choka-'scare (someone)' choka-SET II I 'go out' 'cause to go out' 'disappear' 'cause to dis-appear' SET IV 'die' 3) ·' nant-. , y nani n-:-4) tso6-tso6n-B. 1) hunan-'become mushy, rotten' 'mash up (something)' 'cry out' 'call (to someone)' 'finish, end (self)' 'finish, end (some-thing) I 'wash (self)' 'wash (something)' 'drown, submerge' 'cause to submerge' I Sit I 'seat someone' 'know' bama-mi- 'make die, kill' numan-mi- •make know, teach' 1) 2) 2) aba- 'run' ab a-mi - ;i 1 make run, chase away' SET V noo_o_ 'scare, make 3) 'enemy' 'make' afraid' nanka-o- 'err, miss the 4) 1 nrithing 1 'make, do' mark' Figure 1. 2) pi- 'eat' pi-mi- 'make eat, feed' nona-o- 'smoke meat' 'animals' 'make, do' mrni-o- 'straighten, clean' 'clean' 'make, do' 206 FIFTH KANSAS CONFERENCE of transitive sentences." (For example, see Figure 2). Loe-Dir, cop: ¢a¢a ka-a baka-no 1i-k1-n Vb: Means Vb: NP, Vb: NP, NP, Vb: fish Prt-they river-in be-Pres-Fin 'There are fish in the river.• noo-'~ we-Intr. ka-nanona Prt-we 'We are running.' aeat-i-n run-Pres-Fin koko- 1~ uncle-Intr ka-a nonti-'n kwan-'-i~n Prt-he canoe-by go-he-Pres-Fin 'Uncle (MoBro) is going by canoe.' , :ffi "." ~ n ka-na I- Tr Prt-I fiki corn 'I am eating corn.• pauti ka-na mii adornment Prt-I you · pi-i-n eat-Pres-Fin 'iinan-i-n give-Pres-Fin 1 1 am giving you an adornment.• Figure 2 Transitives and causatives have only animate subjects in surface struc-ture. The agent is always an animate noun whereas instrument and means are always inanimate nouns. The relation between the agent and instru-ment is reflected by the fact that for inanimate nouns, which can never be the subject of transitive verbs, the instrumental suffix is the same morpheme as the agreement suffix -'n for animate subjects of transitive verbs, with phonological variations:- For example: Anim. Subj. of Vt Inanim. Instru. tita-'n 'mother ••• 1 bai -'n 'by path ( +V.)' -- - 1 . koko-'n · 'uncle ••• • ili -'n 'by, with arrow (+Vt)' -- -aintsi-'n 'relatives ••• • mikin -an 'by hand (+Vt) 1 The noun suffixes mark the surface subject and cross-reference the fea-tures of transitivity and intransitivity through a transformational rule. The feature [ +Anim] must be present on the subject noun for T4 to go into effect, s i nee· fnanimate nouns do not take the trans.i ti vi ty agreement suffix. The agreement suffix -~~ marks the active subject of an intransitive sentence in surface strccture. In the transitive sentence, the object consists of the unaffixed, simple noun or pronoun form. When the surface indirect object is included, it is also without CA8HIBO VERB STEMS~ CAUSATIVES~ A.ND PROPOSITION CONSOLIDATION 207 affix case form, but is recognized by syntactic order (that is, preceding the object unless the object is in emphasis position), or by the fact that it is always animate, whereas the object may or may not be animate. Both the instrument and agent cannot occur within the nuclear sentence preceding the verb in surface structure. One or both of two changes takes place: (1) the agent is indicated by a modal particle which has had its features copied onto it before agent deletion, or (2) an obli-gatory transformation moves one of the two to a peripheral position following the verb, and this is separated from the matrix sentence final verb by pause. In the sentence 'I am doing it by hand' we posit a para-phrase which assumes coreferentiality of the main and embedded actors (see Figure 3). mikin-nan ka-na hand-by Prt-I 1a-i-n do-Pres-Fin 11 I am do i n g i t by hand • ' mikin-an ka-a ?ii pai-o-i-n Prop ~Vt (0) A I hand-Tr Prt-it me pain-cause-Pres-Fin _____ s~ Mod- Prop ~Vt ~ E I 'My hand hurts (causes me pain).' s A M Prop /K V 0 E Figure 3. /. I \ cause (have) pain I me hand Iden. Besides Frantz's cases listed as Object, Agent, Patient, Experiencer, and Instrument (or Means, as mentioned above), a couple of other NP enti-ties must be considered as within the array of cases affecting the choice of verbs within frames, or the types of sentences. As mentioned by Fill-more concerning English, in Cashibo also the "locational and directional elements do not ,Fontrast, but are superficial differences determined either by the constituent structure or by the character of the associated verb" (Fillmore 1967:33). The location-direction element in Cashibo is an obligatory noun phrase followed by optional potentially complex loca-tive construction having an obligatory locative element and/or optional directional element, of which at least one of the two optional elements must be chosen. The noun phrase may contain a pro-form of N 'someplace' which is deleted by a transformational rule. eaka-no river-in, at misa manan table on-top-of ~ oeo-no -house-in (V;) nii tanain forest under, in s obo-no-s on house-in:(vt) agreement 208 FIFTH KANSAS CONFERENCE Direction is of two types, toward and away from, e.g.: eaka-mi eaka-no-a river-towar? river-at-away (Vt) baka-no-a~ river-at-away (Vi) Location and direction agree with the verb in transitivity through redundacy feature-adding rules. In keeping with his discussion on instrumentals, the manner category as one of the "other adverbials" has also been questioned by Lakoff (1967:29,38), who doubts its existence in deep structure, feeling that it is some other category which has this special relation-ship to the verb, a relationship which would be indicated by the posi-tion on the structural tree or in the rules. Here the manner is posited as NP-based and added to the array of NP's possible with the function or verb, in the proposition. Cashibo manner words are usually either adjectival or verbal forms modified for the manner relationship, which accounts for the obligatory NP either as subject of the verb or as noun modified by the adjective. The verbs become nominalized and/or occur with nominal suffixes; the adjectives add transitivity-agreement suffixes. Examples: aa-'~ ka-a bini-ti-isi he-intr. Prt-he quickly-nom-just 'He is going quickly.• bini"ti y k . t " kwan-i-n go-Pres-Fin = 'to be in a hurry' noo-~ a-a op1 - a-s strangers-Intr Prt-they good-nom-intran 'The strangers (foreigners) live well.' ¢oot-i-n live-Pres-Fin The time category is one further NP which may be added to the array of NP's following the verb in English ordering, or preceding the verb in Cashibo surface ordering, though the full relationship to the previously-mentioned cases remains to be fully explored. As seen here, surface case forms of NP's are not very elab-orately developed. Diffe~ing combinations in arrays of cases, cross-classified with features of transitivity-intransitivity and other semantic features, yield the five verb stem classes mentioned above which contrast in the total semantic-syntactic system. In each class, although the overt expression of intransitivity/transitivity/causativity is different in the surface structure, all may be.handled as dependent verb roots of the matrix proposition in the system of generative rules following Fillmore's model. Elements of the embedded proposition must be moved into the matrix proposition in order to combine the verbs (e.g. CAUSE and main verb root) through a rule similar to one termed 'Proposition Consolidation' by Frantz (1970) in his description of Blackfoot. We maintain the standard order of Modal and Proposition, and under the Proposition the following basic underlying order in which all the nominal elements follow the verbal element(s): CASHIBO VERB STEMS~ CAUSATIVES:> AND PROPOSITION CONSOLIDATION 209 s ~ M Prop ~V 0 E I M = Modal Prop = Proposition I = Instrument E = Experiencer 0 = Object P = Patient A = Agent Although this is a fixed order posited for English, in Cashibo surface structure all the nominal elements precede the verbal elements in a mirror image order relationship to the verb. All transitivizing (-ki/-ka) or causative (-mi, -~~ -'nJ morphemes are treated as the second part of compound roots, the first part being the main root. The main verb root is embedded or dependent root, has the feature [ +dep ]. The generalized proposition conso.lidation rule would be as follows: [ X - [ +dep] Prop2 v1 v1 l 2 3 ] Prop1 )1 2+3 By a rule of this type the compound roots of varying kinds are formed. The main verb root may be intrinsically neuter and attributive (a state) as in Set I examples (see Figure 4) made either transitive or intransitive through proposition consolidation. It may be basically transitive, by which the proposition consolidation is not needed, but made to appear reflexive in surface structure because the instru-ment is implied as a cause, as in Set II (see Figure 5). The latter form of Set II requires the proposition consolidation to bring the inanimate cause root to a position immediately adjacent to the main root. The main verb root may be basically intransitive and oblig-atorily occuring with location/directionals, as in Set III (see Figure 6), but with an added animate agent must go through proposition con-solidation to bring the causative root to a position immediately adjacent to the main root. Set IV (see Figure 7), previously considered the only causative construction, because they include the causative morpheme -mi-, may occur in conjunction with a transitive or intran-sitive roo-:r-having obligatory agent and patient. The agent can only induce the patient to perform the action or assume the state by an act of the patient's will. Persuasion, instead of force as in Sets I and II, is the essence of the verb (see discussions of the verb persuade by Fillmore 1968:28 and Chomsky 1965:94). The proposition consolidation rule again in this case brings the causative -mi- to a pas iti on fo 11 owing the primary root. In Set V (see Figure 8), the inanimate cognate object construction may not require proposition consolidation, though the object is brought into form by the agent. Something brought into a new type or order of state through this type of causative does require the Proposition consolidation to bring the root together with this type of causative. Related questions of this type of construction (such as example V,2) have been discussed for English, such as 'He hit the target with the arrow', 'He missed the target', etc. 210 FIFTH KANSAS CONFEH~NCE (Involves continuing movement.) -ki-cause s ~ Mod Prop1 ~V2 0 I *~·. Mod P~ x~ v2 0 v/, " sa i - nonanti 'shake' 'sack' [something] 'The sack shakes.' (something causes the sack to shake) Figure 4. , -v-cause s ~ Mod Prop2 ~ I # s # ~ Mod Prop2 ~V2 0 E / I I caka- x oni 'hit, bump'+ + x = some body part of E 'The man bumped himself.' (or tripped) [something] Figure 5. s ~ Mod Prop1 V~A 2 I # s # ~ Mod Prop2 v~o I~ "\ -ka- s a1- copa cause 'shake' 'cloth' oni •man' 'The man shakes the cloth. 1 s ~ Mod Prop2 V~D) / 2 \ ~ (for x) ~aka- ~opa Mand ~ano 'hit 1 1 clothes• 'woman 1 (wash) 'The woman washes clothes (for something)' (possible benefactive) CASHIBO VERB STEMS3 CAUSATIVES3 AND PROPOSITION .CONSOLIDATION 211 DIRECTION OBLIGATORY IN DEEP STRUCTURE s s ~ ~ Mod Prop1 Mod Prop V~A V~-D X Ci l _ oL soCaas Mod Prop2 •go out• 1man 1 • 1 house-rrom 1 V~D 'The man went out of the house.' -n cause r:.l; ,Jlti ~oaS oni-(fi) 'go out• 1 dog 1 'house' 'out of' 1man 1 'The man made the dog go out of the house.• Figure 6. A. INTR OBLIG. ANIM. AGENT s ~ Mod Prop1 v~"""i\-1 mi-cause I x # s # ~Mod ~ v1 E " I /. bama- on1 1die 1 1man 1 aa(-n) 1 he 1 B. TRAN. s ~ Moo Prop1 V«A # s # ~Mod~ )1 ~ ~. -mi- kuci :ta¢a p1 -cause 1 hog 1 1 cassava 1 oni(-~) 'eat' 1man 1 'He caused a man to die.• 'The man fed the hog cassava root. 1 (Oblig. means/instr. in deep struc.) Figure 7. 212 Cognate Object-Factitive s ~ Mod . Prop1 V~A 2 I # s # v~ \ I -o- pia cause (do,make) 1 be 1 'arrow• oni(-n) 1man 1 Figure 8. FIFTH KANSAS CONFERENCE These hypotheses must be checked out with many more verbs, and the mechanics worked out to fit in with the rest of the grammar. In summary, the hypothesis has been made here that various taxonomic morpheme classes, specifically compound verb stems involving intran-sitivity/transitivity, causative and reflexive, are not randomly occur-ring in the language system simply for phonological or morphological variety. The separate sets, or classes, reflect different possible arrays of cases, or roles, with which that particular set of verbs may occur, according to the basic set of features within the nature of the verb itself. The noun and verb semantic feature cross-class-· ification and verb frame occurrence possibilities are more clearly seen through the tree or generative rules of the proposition-case array approach. It has been suggested here that a rule termed prop-osition consolidation by Frantz may apply to make the further different semantic features and different cooccurrence restrictions hold, there are at least two propositions involved, of which one including the second morpheme of a compound stem is a causative of one type or another. Universal semantic primitives for verb and noun cross-classification and cooccurrence apply to a great extent in deee structure (e.g. Cashibo and English identical rule N ~ [ +anim J/A,D [X Y]; Cashibo and English identical frame features 1 see 1 (+ 0 D ) is:-1 see 1 versus 'show' (+ 0 DA ) ismi- 'show (cause to seeT'). In--:rhe latter example the-surface structure frame features are identical whereas deep structure must show that in Cashibo the Agent 'Causes' (-mi-) whereas the D 'sees', such that the proposition consolidation must take place. In spite of the universals or similarities, there is bifurcation at certain points of the grammar due to difference in Cashibo logic and 'understood' features versus those features which are overtly distinguished in surface structure through morpheme class realization or suprasegmentals such as stress, tone, intonation, etc. In English we assume 'bump oneself, stumble' or 'wash' are intransitive and CASIIIBO VERB STEMS, CAUSATIVES, AND PROPOSITION CONSOLIDATION 213 reflexive; in Cashibo the body parts are looked on as separate objects, and one does not 'just end', simply 'bump' or one's heart simply 'become afraid', but some outside instrument or force {agent) must cause these apparently reflexive actions to take place. Even in grammar the influence of the spirit world as causation, or the identi-fication of humans as animals in the past, and such changes in semantic features and syntactic cooccurrence of roles must be recognized. BIBLIOGRAPHY Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press. Fillmore, Charles J. 1968. "The Case for Case, 11 in Emmon Bach and Robert T. Harms (eds.), Universals in Linguistic Theory. N.Y.: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc. pp. 1-88. Frantz, Donald. 1970. Toward a Generative Grammar of Blackfoot (With Particular Attention to Selected Stem Formation Processes). Ph.D. Thesis, University of Alberta, Spring, 1970. Lakoff, George. 1967. "Instrumental Adverbs and the Concept of Deep Structure. 11 Dept. of Linguistics and the Computation Laboratory, Harvard University. Lyons, John. 1968. Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics. Cambridge: The University Press. Thompson, Richard A. 1968. "Transformational Theory and Semantic Analysis," in Journal of Linguistics 4:73-77. Wistrand, Lila M. 1968. Cashibo Relative Clause Constructions. Unpublished M.A. Thesis, University of Texas at Austin. (Xerox copy available through Center For Applied Linguistics). 

CASHIBO VERB STEMS, CAUSATIVES, AND PROPOSITION CONSOLIDATION

https://kuscholarworks.ku.edu/bitstream/1808/22749/1/MALC_1971-204-213_Wistrand.pdf

CASHIBO VERB STEMS, CAUSATIVES, AND PROPOSITION CONSOLIDATION

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

KU ScholarWorks