Riddle, Elizabeth

KnowledgeBank at OSU

Proceedings of the Sixth Conference on African Linguistics . OSU WPL 20.260-269 (1975) Relational Grammar and Some Aspects of Swahili Syntax* Elizabeth Riddle University of Illinois 1 . Introduction The theory of relational grammar developed by Postal and Perlmutter (Class Lectures, LSA Summer Institute, 1974) treats grammatical relations rather than constituents as the primitives of clause structure. The relations are SubJect (I), Direct Object (II) and Indirect Object (III). They are called terms . Only terms can trigger certain processes, such as verbal agree-ment, dative movement, and passivization. New terms can be created only by the operation of a cyclic transformation, and the replaced term loses its grammatical relation and becomes a chomeur. The chomeur is a non-term and cannot trigger any of the above mentioned operations. In order for a term to become a chomeur, some NP must assume its former grammatical relation to the verb. For example, the application of the passive trans-formation is said to convert a II into a I, with the old I becoming a chomeur. An examples of this in English is given in (1): (1) a. Jane found the book. I verb II 4 b . The book was found by Jane. I verb chomeur Postal and Perlmutter make a universal claim that only !I's can be passivized and that in order for a III to be passivized, dative movement must apply to change the III lnto a II. This is shown in (2). (2) a. Jane told the answer to her. I II III 4 b. Jane told her the answer. I II chOmeur ~ c. She was told the answer by Jane. r · chomeur chomeur The purpose of this paper is to examine some problematic syntactic phenomena in Swahili in the light of this theory. It will be shown that while relational grammar can offer a principled explanation for the behavior of certain constructions, it fails in other respects. The dialect of my informant was Bravanese Swahili, although standard grammars were consulted as well. 260 261 2, Phrasal Predicates The first case I will cover is the phrasal predicate which has been discussed by Harries (1970). This is a construction composed of either a verb+ noun, verb+ two nouns, verb+ verb, or noun+ verb which acts as a syntactic unit expressing a single predicative function. That is, the components of the phrasal predicate do not bear any grammatical relation to each other. Thus, in a noun + verb phrasal predicate, the noun will always fail to trigger object agreement with the verb, while a verb+ genuine direct obJect may agree. For example, consider (3) and {4). l (3) Tu---li---vunja jungu mwisho wa Ra.madhani. We-- tns. --break big cooking pot end of Ramadhan. 'We had a big celebration at the end of Ramadban.' (4) Tu---li---li---vunja Jungu mwisho wa We-- tns. - o.m.--break big cooking pot end of 'We broke the big cooking pot at the end of Ramadhani. Ramadban. Ramadban . ' These two sentences have totally different meanings, even though the lexical items are virtually the same. Tulivun,}a jungu i n (3) is a phrasal predicate, as evidenced by the fact that it does not trigger object agreement with the verb . The verb in (4), however, does contain the object marker li, which shows that jungu here is considered to be a direct object or a II. A further distinction between (3) and (4) is the fact that jungu in (3) is not passivi-zable, while it is in(~}. This is shown in (5) and (6). (5) *Jungu-li---li----- vunj---wa na sisi mwisho wa big -s.m. - tns.---break--pas. by us end of 'A big celebration was had by us at the end of Ramadhani . Ramadhan. Ramadhan.' (6) Jungu li----li---vunJ---wa na sisi mwisho wa 'The big cooking pit was broken by us at the end Ramadhani. of Ramadhan. ' In transformational grammar, where the structural description of passive takes into account the position of NP's in the sentence, the f'ailure of jungu to passivize in (5) would be unexplained. But this failure to passivize would follow from the principl es of relational gra,=ar, since it claims that only II's bearing a grammatical relation to the verb, as shown here by the agreement, can passivize. (7) nchi i----me---enea maji. country s.m.- tns.--cover water. ' The country is covered by water. ' 262 (8) Maji ya----me---enea nchi . Water s. m. --tns. --cover country. 'Water covers the country. 1 In sentence (7), the phrasal predicate is imeenea maji . Nchi is the subject of the sentence, as indicated by the subJect marker i on the verb . There is no obJect marker for maji, since it bears-no grammatical relation to the verb . Note t hat this sentence is not passive in Swahili. In (7), there is also subject agreement, this time between maji and the verb, but there is still no object agreement even though nchi appears to be the notional direct object. This is because nchi is not a II, but a locative, and therefore a non- term. The fact that ~ can occur alternatively with the locative suffix ni, e . g . nchini, or with a preposition in this sentence demonstrates this (Harries 1970). Another example of a phrasal predicate can be seen in (9) and (10). (9} a---li- --kufa maji. he-tns.--die water 'He was drowned. ' (10) a---li-----vunjika-------mguu he--tns . --break himself----leg 'He broke his leg. 1 In each of these sentences , a verb that doesn't normally take an object does so as a component of the phrasal predicate . But as in the other cases, the verb and object do not agree, since the so-called objects are actually non-terms rather than II's, as is shown by the fact that neither is passivizable. Sentence (11) is an ambiguous sentence which could be interpreted as either a phrasal predicate, as in (lla) or a I verb II construction, as in (llb). (11) Jurna---a---li---piga---- risasi Juma-s.m.-tos.-v.d.a.---bullet(s}. a. Juma shot b. Ju.ma shot (a) bullet(s). When alipiga risasi is interpreted as a phrasal predicate, the sentence is a pseudo- intransitive. As a component o'f the phrasal predicate, risasi is a non-term which can neither trigger agreement nor be passivized. In the (b} reading, on the other hand, risasi is considered t o be a II, and it can both be passivized and trigger agreement when it has a definite reference. The final example of a phrasal predicate I will mention is a problem for relational grammar. Consider sentences (12 ) and (13). (12} a----li----piga--mbio. he--tns. --v.d. a.-race, fast. 'He ran.' 263 (13) a----li----zi----piga mbio he---tns.--o.m.-v.d.a. race, fast . 'He ran very fast.' Sentence (12) is a typical verb + noun phrasal predicate where mbio fails to trigger agreement. In (13), on the other hand, verbal agreement occurs. Harries claims that the noun part of the phrasal predicate can never trigger agreement . Therefore, mbio is considered to be a direct object in (13), or in relationa:r-terms, a II . However, mbio cannot be given a separate meaning without the stems-~ or -enda nor can it be passivized. This behavior provides a counter example to relational grammar, unless one tries to claim that the agreement here denotes something other than a grammatical relation between the noun and verb. It is interesting to note here that according to Maw (1969), although agreement may provide evidence for grammatical relations, it doesn't in itself set up the categories. 3 . The interaction between direct and indirect objects The next problem I will discuss has to do with the interaction of so-called direct and indirect objects. In this section I will use the terms direct and indirect object as they are used in transformational grammar. I will use the terms II and III when referring to relational grammar. Sentence (14) is an active sentence with a direct object , sbati. (14) Wazee wa--- li----nunua shati . Parents s.m.--tns . --buy shirt 'The parents bought a shirt.' In (15), shati has been passivized. (15) Shati----li----li----OUnuliwa na wazee. shirt---s .m. --tns.---buy pas . by parents 'A shirt was bought by the parents .' Now consider sentences (16) through (18): (16) Wazee wa----11---m----nunulia shati mtoto. parents- s.m.--tns.-o .m.---buy-applied shirt child. 'The parents bought a shirt for the child .' (17) Mtoto a----li----nunuliwa shati na wazee. Child s.m.-tns . ---buy--p.a. shirt by parents 'The child was bought a shirt by the parents.' (18) "Shati----i---li---nunuliwa mtoto na wazee. Shirt--s.m.--tns.--buy-p.a. child by parents. 'A shirt was bought for the child by the parents.' As you can see by the grwrunaticality of (17) and the ungrammaticality of (18), when a sentence contains in traditional terms, both a direct and indirect object, only the indirect object can be passivized. Recall that relational grammar claims that only a 264 direct object, or II, can be passivized, and that dative movement first applies to change a III into a II, with the old II becoming an l.\llpassivizable chomew;-. aowever , there are several problems with this analysis for Swahili. The first is that Postal and Perlmutter assume that all so- called indirect objects are preceded by the preposition kwa in deep structure, although there is no actual evidence that such is the case since kwa and the applied form illustrated in (16) do not freely alt~ate on the surface . Nonetheless it might at first seem reasonable to assume that some kind of rule applies to change deep structure III's into II ' s causing the old II ' s to become chomeurs. otherwise one would be claiming that the occurrences of barua in (19) and (20) bear totally different grammatical relations to the verb in deep structure. (19) Mwalimu---a----li---andika barua. teacher--s.m.--tns.---write letter. ' The teacher wrote a letter.' (20) Mwalimu----a----li----w----andikia-------wazee teacher--s . m.--tns.-- o.m. --write-applied-parents ' The teacher wrote the parents a letter.' barua. letter Assuming grammatical relations to be semantically based, this woul.d be a very strange claim. Let us look at some more examples to determine what the constraints are on which NP's may be passivized and also of what exact s ignificance is the notion "indirect object" for Swahili . It is important to remember that there is no a priori reason why the rel ation of indirect object in Swahili should be identical to that in English and other languages. This js the crunch. What functions syntactically as a single category of indirect object in English does not seem to do so in Swahili. Consider the sentences in (21) through (23). (21) Mwalimu---a--- li----ni----onyesba kitabu. teacher--s.m.-tns. ---me----show book 'The teacher showed me a book. 1 (22) Ni----li---onyeshwa kitabu na mwalimu I---tns.-sbow-pas. book by teacher 1 I was shown a book by the teacher.' (23) *kitabu---ki---li---ni---- onyeshwa na mwalimu book------s .m.--tns .--me----show-pas. by teacher ' The· book was shown to me by the teacher. ' As we saw before in (16) through (18), only the NP traditionally called the indirect object can be passivized when there is also a direct object present. Besi des the relational grammar approach, one possible explanation is that only animate NP ' s can be passi vized. But consider what happens in sentences (24) to (26) where both object NP's are animate: 265 (24) Mfalme a----li----wa---pa maaskari mtumwa king s.m. ---tns. --o.m.-give soldiers slave. 'The King gave the soldiers a slave .' (25) Maaskari wa----li----pewa mtumwa na mfalme soldiers s.m. ---tns.-give-pas. sla.ve by king 'The soldiers were given a slave by the king.' (26) *Mt=a a---li-----pewa maaskari na mfalme. slave s.m .-tns.-give-pas. soldiers by king. 'The slave was given to soldiers by the king.' In sentence (24) maaskari triggers t he presence of the object agreement marker wain the verb. Maaskari has been acce?tably passivized in (25)and the wigrammatical (26) demonstrates that mtur.iwa, 'slave', cannot be passivized, even though it is an animate NP. (26) is fine on the reading 'soldiers were given to the slave by the king ' where slave has been topicalized, but this reading comes from a source other than that of (25). I will call NP ' s such as maaskari in (24) to (26) which express the notion of being the recipient of some action ' dooatives'. They are similar to :J..Q-datives in English. Another type of indirect object is the benefactive, which expresses the idea that an action is performed for the NP in question . This was illuscrated in (16) and (17) and can also be seen in (27). (27) Mwalirnu a----li---ni--onyeshea Ali ki tabu. teacher s . m.-tns.--me--show appl . Ali book ' The teacher showed Ali a book for roe .' In (27), the only passivizable NP is the benefacti ve ni meaning ' for me' . This is sho"11 in (28). (28) Mi--l i---onyeshe~ Ali k itabu na mwalimu I --tns.--show--pas . Ali book by teacher 'For me was shor,,m to Ali a book by the teacher .' Passivization of either Al i, the donative, or kitabu, the direct object, results in an ungrammatical sentence . This is shown in ( 29} and (30) . (29) *Ali ni---li---onyeshewa kitabu na mwalimu Ali I---tns.--show-- p.a. book by teacher 'Ali was shown the book for me by the teacher.' (30) "Kitabu ki----li---ni---onyesh~ Ali na mwalimu. book s.m.-tns.-me--~how--p.a. AJ.i by teacher. 'The book was shown to Ali for me by the teacher.' Consider another set of examples: (31) Juma---a---li---wa-----pelea wazee mtoto mbwa . Jwna--s . m. --tns .--o.ro. - give-appl. parents chila dog . 'Jwna gave the dog to the child for the parents.' 266 (32} Wazee wa----li---pel---~ mtoto mbwa na Juma. parents s . m.--tns. --give--p. a . child dog by Juma ' For the parents was given the dog to the child by Juma. ' (33) *Mtoto---a--li---- pel---ewa wazee mbwa na Juma Child--s . m.-tns ,--give--p .a. parents dog by Jwna ' The child was given a dog for the parents by Juma . 1 "Mbwa-----a----li---pel---ewa wazee mtoto na Juma. the dog- s.m.-tns. --give-p.a . parents child by Juma . ' The dog was given to the child for the parents by Juma , I As these sentences show, when the benefactive, donative, and direct object co- occur, only the benefactive may be passivized. This can-not be due to the animacy of the benefactive, since all three NP ' s in question are animate. Now let us consider a third type of object ~IP which is illustrated in (35) , (35} Mtoto a----li--m----kimbilia mama wake. Child s.m.-tns.--o.m. --run mother his. 'The child ran towards his mother . 1 (36) Mama----a--li--kimbiliwa na mtoto. Mother-s .m.-tns.--run--p.a. by child ' The mother was run towards by the child. ' Mama in (35) is an example of a directional object, and it is passivizable, as shown in (36). It is the object in whose direction a particular action is performed. (37) illustrates the situation where there is both a direct and a directional object . (37) Yule mchawi---a--li----wa----tup-- ia watoto the wizard--s.m.- tns.-o.m.-throw-appl.children ' The wizard threw a rock at the children.' majabali rock . Watoto is the directional object and it triggers the object agree-ment marker vain the verb. In this sentence, only the directional object is passi vizable . Majabali, the direct object; is not . This is sho•.m in (38) and (39) . (38} Watoto----wa----li------tupiwa--majabali na yule children-s.m.--tns.--throw-p .a. - rock by the 'The children were thrown a rock at by the wizard. 1 mchawi. wizard (39) *Majabali-ya---li----tup- iwa---watoto na yule mchawi. rock----s.m.-tns .--throw-p.a.-children by the wizard ' A rock was thrown at the children by the wizard.' 267 Again , to demonstrat e t hat this situation is not mer el y the r esult of the animacy distinction , consider sent ences (40) t o (42), whi ch have t wo inanimate object NP' s . (40) Mtu---a- - --- l i ----tup---- ia mlango jiwe Man--s . m.--t ns .--throw-appl. door stone ' A man t hr ew a stone at the door . 1 (41 ) Mlango---u----li---tup-- - i wa· jiwa na mtu. door ---s .m. --tns .-throw-p-:-;:- s t one by man ' A door was thro..,n a stone at by a man. ' (42) *Jiwe li----li---tup- --i..,a mlango na mtu. stone s .m.--tns .-throw--p .a. door by man ' A stone was thrown at a door by a man .' As (41) and (42) show, only the direct i onal obj ect can be passivized when it co-occurs with a direct object . Further exampl es are given in (43) to (45) . (43) Mtu- --a--- - li--- - m----tup-ia paka panya . Man--s .m.--tns . -o .m.-throw- appl . cat mouse ' The man threw a mouse to the cat. 1 (44) Paka a----li- - - tup-iwa panya na mtu. cat s .m. - tns . -throw- p . a . mouse by man ' The cat ..,as t hrown a mouse by the man .' (45 ) *Panya a----li----tupiwa. paka na mtu. mouse s. m. - tns. - throw-p . a . cat by man ' A mouse ..,as thrown to the cat by the man. 1 I n these sentences with two inanimate NP ' s , again only the direct i onal obj ect is passivizable. 4. The passivization hierarc~ We have looked at four different types of ob,jects : direct , donative, benefactive , and dir ections.!. The latte r three have in common the fact that they may generally be expr essed by the applied form , although this is not appar ent in all t he examples, since when there are two or more indirect- type obj ects, onl y one may be expressed by the applied. It is possible to form a hierarchy of what is passivizable in Swahili as shown in (46) . (46} benefactive {donative directional direct object When two or more NP ' s are present in a sentence , the NP highest on the hierarchy t akes precedence for t he purpO$eS of passivization . Tbe donative and t he directional are grouped together on the hierarchy because they seem to be mutually e xclusive . It is 268 pragmatically impossible to perform a.n action such that its recipient and its directional goal refer to different things. 'I'he benefactive and the directional CM co-occ>.ll', but in tbis case, the benefactive, which is the NP higher up on the hierarchy, takes the applied form. The directional shows up as the obJect of the preposition kwa. In this position the directional cannot be passivized. 5. Conclusion . What these facts make clear is that the benefactive, donative, and directional are semantical ly and syntactically distinct categories and that for at least the purposes of passivization, they cannot be lumped together in a single category of "indirect obJect." One could try to save the relational grammar approach by positing a rather abstract rule or rules which would convert the differ<;nt "indirect obJects" to II ' s in surface structure, but this runs into problems . The sole motivation for positing this type of rule is the desire to maintain the universal claim that only !I 's passivize. Also, in order to determine which NP this type of rule would apply to in sentences with more than one object NP , i t would still be necessary to refer to the hierarchy . It seems much more reasonable to assume that what passivization itself applies to is determined by the hierarchy . A task for further research will be to see if there is any substantive semantic or pragmatic basis for this hierarchy, other than the animacy distinction, which is not significant in all cases . Footnotes *I am deeply indebted to my informant, Mohammed I . Absheikh for his grammaticality Judgments and helpful collllllents . I am also indebted to Peter Cole, Gerry Dalgish, and Aleks Steinbergs for their comments and suggestions.1Abbreviations: s.m. subject marker o.m. object marker tns . tense pas. passive appl. applied form p . a. passive applied v.d.a. verb denoting action References Ashton, E. 0 . 1944. Swahili Cr>ammar. London: Longmans, Green and Co., Ltd. Harries, Lyndon . 1970. The phrasal predicate in Swahili. African Language Studies IX:191-210. 269 Krapf, Rev. D. S. 1882. A Diationa:r,y of the SwahiU Language. London : Trukner and Co . Reprinted 1969. New York: Negro Universities Press. Maw, Joan. 1970. Some problems in Swahili clause structure. African Language Studies XI :257-265. 1969. Sentences f.n SvJahiU. London : Luzac and Company, Ltd. 

Relational Grammar and Some Aspects of Swahili Syntax

https://kb.osu.edu/bitstream/1811/81372/1/WPL_20_September_1975_260.pdf

Relational Grammar and Some Aspects of Swahili Syntax

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

KnowledgeBank at OSU