Verb Classification in Australian Languages [Reprint 2013 ed.] 9783110870879, 9783110171419

Citation preview

Verb Classification in Australian Languages

w DE

G

Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 25

Editors

Georg Bossong Bernard Comrie

Mouton de Gruyter Berlin · New York

Verb Classification in Australian Languages

William B. McGregor

Mouton de Gruyter Berlin · New York

2002

Mouton de Gruyter (formerly Mouton, The Hague) is a Division of Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin.

© Printed on acid-free paper which falls within the guidelines of the ANSI to ensure permanence and durability.

Library of Confess — Cataloging-in-Publication-Data McGregor, William. Verb classification in Australian languages / by William B. McGregor. p. cm. — (Empirical approaches to language typology ; 25) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 3 11 017141 4 (cloth : alk. paper) 1. Australian languages — Verb phrase. 2. Australian languages — Semantics. 3. Grammar, Comparative and general — Syntax. I. Title. II. Series. III. Series: Empirical approaches to language typology ; 25 PL7003 .M34 2002 400'.15-dc21 2001059196

Die Deutsche Bibliothek - Catalogingin-Publication-Data MacGregor, William : Verb classification in Australian languages / by William B. McGregor. — Berlin ; New York : Mouton de Gruyter, 2002 (Empirical approaches to language typology ; 25) ISBN 3-11-017141-4

© Copyright 2002 by Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, 10785 Berlin. All rights reserved, including those of translation into foreign languages. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Printed in Germany.

Preface

The roots of this book go back a long way, perhaps to the early 1980s when I began working on Gooniyandi, and was confronted with the task of describing its unusual verbal construction. It seemed clear that a set of morphemes—that apparently derived historically from verbs— served as verbal classifiers, in basically the same way as nominal classifiers in standard systems of nominal classification. This observation sowed the seeds for a fascination in the verbal constructions in the languages of northern Australia, leading me to wonder about the extent to which verbal classification was exhibited in them, and to an interest in the typology and semantics of the phenomenon. It also led me to puzzle about how the phenomenon might be analysed grammatically, and whether there are psycholinguistic implications—does verb classification imply something about the perception of events or their representation in the minds of speakers? By the mid 1990s a sufficient number of descriptions of northern Australian languages had appeared that were rich enough in detail to permit a preliminary typological investigation of the phenomenon. A couple of linguists were also beginning doctoral research that targeted this aspect of the verb in particular languages, Edith Nicolas (Bardi and Bunuba), and Eva Schultze-Berndt (Jaminjung). This encouraged me to begin to think seriously about verb classification in the wider perspective, and to commence writing the present work. My first attempts in a typological investigation were in a presentation to the Association for Linguistic Typology Conference II, held in September 1997 at the University of Oregon. That conference also brought me an awareness of similar phenomena in other languages, specifically instrumental prefixes to verbs in some Amerindian languages. At about the same time I was fortunate enough to be supervising Xiaokang Zhou's doctoral research on Mandarin Chinese, which alerted me to the existence of a rather different type of verbal classification. The horizons were further widened in 1999 at the Association for Linguistic Typology Conference III in Amsterdam, where I con-

vi

Preface

ducted a workshop on verb classification. This workshop attracted presentations on a variety of languages, Australian, Sinitic, South American, and Chukotko-Kamchatkan. Many of the ideas elaborated in this book were previously presented in departmental seminars at University of Melbourne, Amsterdam University, and Max-Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, as well as at workshops and conferences, including (in addition to the above mentioned pair): Linguistics Association of Great Britain Spring Meeting (Lancaster University, 1998), Third International Workshop on Australian Aboriginal languages (Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, 1998), and Ideophones Conference (University of Cologne, 1999). I am grateful to the audiences of all of these occasions for their questions, constructive comments, and criticisms. In the Spring Semester 2000 Jan Rijkhoff and myself ran a course entitled Nominal and verb classification at the Department of Linguistics, Aarhus Universitet. I learnt a good deal about nominal classification and the noun phrase from Jan, and benefited considerably from presenting my ideas about verb classification in this course. I owe a considerable debt of gratitude to the many Australianist linguists who provided me data, answers to questions, access to unpublished manuscripts, and/or comments on draft sections of the book dealing with languages of their expertise, including Barry Alpher, Peter Austin, Barry Blake, Peter Carroll, Howard Coate, Nick Evans, Ian Green, Komei Hosokawa, Joyce Hudson, Emily Knight, Frances Kofod, Patrick McConvell, Graham McKay, David Nash, Edith Nicolas, Rachel Nordlinger, Rob Pensalfini, Nick Reid, Alan Rumsey, Thomas Saunders, Eva Schultz-Berndt, Janet Sharp, Margaret Sharpe, Bronwyn Stokes, Tsunoda Taskau, David Wilkins, Melanie Wilkinson, and Stephen Wilson. I benefited greatly from extended discussions on verb classification with Eva Schultz-Berndt, as well as from her excellent doctoral thesis on verbal constructions in Jaminjung (Schultze-Berndt 2000)—though we steadfastly maintain divergent views on the topic. Acknowledgement is also made to Hilary Chappell, Kari Fraurud, Steve Levinson, Stephen Matthews, David Wilkins, and Xiaokang Zhou for discussion of various issues relating to the topic of verbal and nominal classification. I am especially thankful to Jean-

Preface

vii

Christophe Verstraete for reading and commenting on the entire manuscript. Needless to say, I alone am responsible for any errors of fact or interpretation. My own fieldwork, which represents the ultimate data-base for this investigation, was funded by the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies, the National Aboriginal Languages Program, and the Australian Research Council (Grants A58930745 and A9324000). Many of my ideas about verb classification were formulated during my tenure of an Australian Research Council Research Fellowship (A59332055) held at the University of Melbourne, 19931997, and subsequently refined and revised under a Research Fellowship at the Catholic University of Leuven, during 1998, and a Guestship at the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen in 1999-2000.1 am grateful to all of these institutions for their financial support, and to the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics for intellectual stimulation. Ultimately the book would not have been possible were it not for the input from various Aboriginal people who I and other Australianist linguists worked with. I am personally grateful to |Jack Bohemia, fCarmel Charles, Reni Chestnut, jDave Lamey, Suzie Lamey, Maudie Lennard, f Freddy Marker, fBill Munro, David Street, Mervin Street, and fMagdalene Williams for their contributions to my language learning since 1980. The editor of this series, Georg Bossong, provided useful advice and comments on the penultimate draft; my editor at Mouton de Gruyter, Ursula Kleinhenz, has consistently and cheerfully answered my incessant formatting questions. W.B.McG. Arhus December 2001

Contents

Preface List of Figures List of Maps List of Tables Abbreviations and Conventions

ν xv xvii xix xxi

1. Introduction 1.1. What is verb classification? 1.2. Towards a typology of classification 1.2.1. Superclassification and subclassification 1.2.2. Classes and categories 1.2.3. Classifiers and classifying constructions 1.2.4. Concluding remarks 1.3. Understanding grammatical superclassification 1.3.1. A conceptual model 1.3.2. Distributional criteria for grammatical superclassification 1.3.3. An example: the Kija noun class system 1.4. Verb superclassification Australian style 1.5. Semantic basis of verb superclassification 1.5.1. Fundamental parameters 1.5.2. On class, category, and classification meaning 1.5.3. Prediction and explanation 1.6. Aims and organisation

1 1 4 4 5 7 8 10 10 16 22 25 29 29 34 35 38

2. The Gooniyandi verb classifier system 2.1. Structure of the verbal complex 2.2. The X morphemes as category markers 2.3. The semantics of Gooniyandi verb classifiers 2.3.1. Extendible classifiers 2.3.2. Accomplishment classifiers 2.3.2.1. Monovalent classifiers

41 41 44 54 60 64 64

χ

Contents

2.3.2.2. Avalentclassifiers 2.3.2.2.1. The reasonably well populated categories 2.3.2.2.2. The minor categories 2.3.2.3. The bivalent classifier 2.3.3. Parallelisms between extendible and accomplishment classifiers? 2.3.4. Exceptions 2.3.5. Concluding remarks 2.4. Two special cases 2.4.1. Classification of the most frequent verb roots 2.4.2. Classification of English borrowings 2.5. Remarks on verb classification in Bunuba

66 66 76 78 80 83 85 87 87 94 96

3. C VC-based verb category systems 3.1. Formal properties of CVCs 3.2. Nyulnyulanlanguages 3.3. Worrorran (NorthernKimberley) languages 3.4. Jarrakan languages 3.5. Jaminjungan languages 3.6. Wagiman 3.7. Daly River languages 3.8. Maran languages 3.9. Mangarrayi 3.10. Pama-Nyungan languages 3.11. Concluding remarks

101 101 107 117 120 122 125 128 137 138 13 9 145

4. Comparison of verb category systems 4.1. Degrees of grammaticisation 4.2. IVs recurrent in CVC-based category systems 4.2.1. Speech; avalent 4.2.2. Stance; monovalent 4.2.2.1.'Sit, be' 4.2.2.2. 'Stand' 4.2.3. Motion; monovalent 4.2.3.1. 'Go'

149 149 152 160 161 161 162 162 162

Contents

4.2.3.2. 'Fall' 4.2.3.3. 'Become' 4.2.4. Induced motion; bivalent 4.2.4.1. 'Carry' 4.2.4.2. 'Throw' 4.2.4.3. 'Put' 4.2.5. Acquisition; bivalent 4.2.5.1.'Catch, get' 4.2.5.2. 'Give' 4.2.6. Violence; bivalent 4.2.6.1. 'Hit' 4.2.6.2. 'Poke' 4.2.7. Perception; bivalent 4.2.8. Concluding remarks 4.3. Gooniyandi and Nyulnyul systems in contrast 4.3.1. Formal characteristics 4.3.2. System level comparison 4.3.3. Individual categories compared and contrasted 4.3.3.1. Atelic categories 4.3.3.2. The unmarked Nyulnyul category -J 'say, do' 4.3.3.3. Teliccategories 4.3.4. Categorisation of vocalisation/communication events 4.3.5. Categorisation of motion events 4.3.5.1. Motoric pattern 4.3.5.2. Nature of moving entity 4.3.5.3. Nature ofmedium 4.3.5.4. Location of carried item 4.3.5.5. Other types of motion events 4.3.6. Conclusion 5. Verb class systems: conjugations 5.1. Pama-Nyungan conjugation classes 5.2. Non-Pama-Nyungan conjugation classes 5.2.1. Nyulnyulan languages

xi

163 164 164 164 165 166 167 167 167 168 168 168 169 169 171 171 174 176 180 182 182 186 192 196 199 200 201 201 203 207 208 213 214

xii

Contents

5.2.2. Worrorran languages 5.2.3. Mindi languages 5.2.4. Wagimanand Wardaman 5.2.5. Gunwinjguanlanguages 5.2.6. Maran languages 5.2.7. Nunggubuyu 5.2.8. Anindilyakwa 5.3. Overlapping conjugation class membership 5.4. Other types of verb class system

219 221 222 223 224 225 227 228 236

6. The grammar of verb superclassifying constructions 6.1. Overview of approaches to verb classification 6.1.1. Conjugation by auxiliary 6.1.2. Compounding analysis 6.1.3. Semantic bleaching 6.1.4. Classifying analyses 6.1.5. Fusion and union analyses 6.1.6. CVCs as complex predicates 6.1.7. Grammatical relations in conjugation classes? 6.2. Grammatical relations in CVCs 6.3. Valency and transitivity in Nyulnyul CVCs

245 246 246 247 249 250 252 261 266 266 275

7. Related grammatical phenomena 7.1. Verb classification in a wider perspective 7.1.1. Non-CVC compound verb classifying constructions 7.1.1.1. The Ngiyambaa compound verb construction 7.1.1.2. The Hindi-Urdu compound verb construction 7.1.2. Categorisation by prefixes 7.1.2.1. Lexical prefixes 7.1.2.2. Instrumental prefixes 7.1.3. Categorisation with quantification 7.1.4. Other verbal constructions 7.1.4.1. Noun incorporation

283 284 284 284 287 290 290 292 293 295 296

Contents

xiii

7.1.4.2. Nominal argument classification 7.1.5. Concluding observations Other types of compound verb construction Other double-unit verb constructions 7.3.1. Auxiliary constructions 7.3.2. Serial verb constructions 7.3.3. Associated motion constructions 7.3.4. Final remark Marking of diathesis alternations Concluding remarks

298 300 301 307 307 309 312 316 317 319

8. Evolution of verb classification in Australia 8.1. Ideophone origins of UVs 8.1.1. Distinctive phonotactic features 8.1.2. Phonaesthesia 8.1.3. Use of UVs as expressives 8.1.4. Limited morphological modification 8.1.5. Syntactic properties 8.1.6. Comparison with recurrent features of ideophones 8.1.7. Motivations for historical change from ideophone to UV 8.2. Origins and historical development of the CVC 8.3. Origins of Pama-Nyungan conjugation markers 8.4. Evolution of meaning 8.5. Australia as a verb classification Sprachbund

323 324 324 327 330 332 333 333

9. Verb classification in discourse: a preliminary investigation 9.1. Category distribution in Gooniyandi narratives 9.2. A textual investigation 9.3. Interpretation and explanation

363 3 64 377 385

10. Conclusions 10.1. Overview 10.2. Comparatison of noun and verb classification 10.3. Directions for future research

391 391 398 404

7.2. 7.3.

7.4. 7.5.

334 339 351 354 358

xiv

Contents

Appendix 1. Basic information on Australian languages mentioned in this book Appendix 2. Australian phonologies and orthographies

413 43 5

Notes

441

References

473

Index of authors Index of languages Index of subj ects

507 513 517

List of Figures

Figure 1. Figure 2. Figure 3. Figure 4. Figure 5. Figure 6. Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure

7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13.

Figure 14. Figure 15. Figure 16. Figure 17. Figure 18. Figure 19. Figure 20.

Gross typology of grammatical classifying systems 8 Comparison of types of classification 9 Vectorial configuration for -KAL 'wander' category in Nyulnyul 30 Approximate representation of overlap of three main lexical collocation sets 47 Hierarchical cluster analysis of Gooniyandi verb categories 48 Approximate representation of distribution of verbs of violence 56 Vectorial configuration for +BINDI 65 Vectorial configuration for +ANI 65 Vectorial configuration for +DI 71 Vectorial configuration for +BINI 71 Vectorial configuration for+ARNI] 78 Vectorial configuration for +ARRI 80 Hierarchical cluster analysis of Nyulnyul verb categories 110 Vectorial configuration for category marked by -R 'poke' 114 Vectorial configuration for category marked by -NY 'get' 114 Degree of grammaticisation of CVC-based verb category systems 150 Rough comparison of Gooniyandi and Nyulnyul verb categories 177 Major correspondences between Gooniyandi and Nyulnyul verb categories 179 Comparison of category assignments of vocalisation events in Gooniyandi and Nyulnyul 189 Comparison of category assignments of motion events in Gooniyandi and Nyulnyul 193

xvi

List of Figures

Figure 21. Matrix representation of the lexical conceptual structure of the Wagiman CVC guk\-GE 'put to sleep' Figure 22. Grammatical marking relation in verb category and class systems Figure 23. Alternative representation of the marking relation in CVC systems Figure 24. Vectorial configuration for Nyulnyul -K 'carry' category Figure 25. Vectorial configuration for Nyulnyul -R 'poke' category Figure 26. Schema for development of CVC-based verb categories, and beyond Figure 27. Conflation patterns of grammatical roles of Semiotic Grammar

254 268 269 278 278 343 445

List of maps

Μάρ 1. Map 2. Map 3. Map 4. Map 5. Map 6.

Approximate locations of traditional Aboriginal languages referred to xxiv Approximate distribution of CVC superclassifying systems in Australia 26 Approximate distribution of verb conjugation classes 27 Numbers of conjugation classes in some Pama-Nyungan languages 210 Languages other than Australian languages referred to 288 Contemporary geographical and political map of Australia 414

List of Tables

Table 1.

Table Table Table Table

2. 3. 4. 5.

Table 6. Table 7. Table 8.

Table 9. Table 10. Table 11. Table 12. Table 13.

Table 14.

Table 15.

Table 16.

Major distinguishing characteristics of class vs. category (i.e. "classifier") systems, according to Dixon (1982,1986) 7 Overlap of sets of verb stems marked by each X 46 Collocational potential of Xs in Gooniyandi 57 Paradigm of Gooniyandi classifiers 58 Schematic characteristics of accomplishment classifiers in Gooniyandi 82 The most frequent Gooniyandi verb roots and stems 88-90 Bunuba classifying IVs 97 Relative frequencies by dictionary count of IVs occurring most frequently in CVCs in three Nyulnyulan languages 107 Collocational potentials of Nyulnyul IVs 111 Semantic characteristics of primary classifying IVs in Nyulnyul 112 Semantic basis of Ngarinyin system of verb superclassification 118 Ngan'gityemerri IVs 130 IVs commonly occurring in CVCs in some nonPama-Nyungan languages of the Kimberley region 154-155 IVs commonly occurring in CVCs in some non-Pama-Nyungan languages of the Northern Territory 156-157 IVs frequently occurring in superclassifying CVCs (and similar constructions) in some Pama-Nyungan languages 158-159 Comparison of categorisation of vocalisation/ communication domain in Gooniyandi and Nyulnyul 188

xx

List of Tables

Table 17. Comparison of categorisation of a selection of UVs of vocalisation in Gooniyandi and Nyulnyul 191 Table 18. Comparison of categorisation of motion events in Gooniyandi and Nyulnyul 194-195 Table 19. Open conjugation classes of Yingkarta 208 Table 20. Basic sets of Yawuru pronominal prefixes 216 Table 21. Pronominal prefixes to ambi-categorial -KAMA 'laugh'in Bardi 217 Table 22. Pronominal prefixes to -ANDI 'pick up' and -Ml 'look about'in Bardi 219 Table 23. Verbal inflections in Wambaya 222 Table 24. Paradigms of eight representative conjugation classes in Nunggubuyu 226 Table 25. Alternative prefixing IVs in Nyulnyul 230 Table 26. Argument sharing of monovalent UV and monovalent IV 256 Table 27. Argument sharing of bivalent UV and monovalent IV 257 Table 28. Fusion rules in Ngan'gityemerri 258 Table 29. Verb classification system of Ngiyambaa 286 Table 30. Paradigm for the inflectional category of associated motion in Mpantwe Arrernte 314 Table 31. Frequency of words of η syllables (0»> " ω ' S t-u c

ο ? o i ε.Ι * s»! I» •8 C > td 2S ο« HH Q C α ·" cd I s l ·'Ό u< cd pa

I i α. nj 1X 1 1fe ο ΙΟ — „ ο ι cd Ο υ ν, S Μ ·» Ο Im Ο? ο. Ό α S μ w0, C cd « « S Ä crt ρ ° S° cd cn Χ J3Ο cn U CA "

155

156

Comparison of verb category systems


< D < Ο Ο < D ο < ΟΖ %3 Χ κ ζ Q

5 d ο Ζ

·—»

&

3 < ο Ζ

^ δ- . •< < 5 ο 2 ÖΖ < Ο ζ

•—»

=

m 2 £

ι

2 3Ο .2 Οβ J2 ο 8cn

IVs recurrent in CVC-based category systems

υ Ό cd e •β ο α (Λ u ο t: ο ο cd w J3 u Λ υ « ' J3 * C υ Ο C δ* e

ω

3 3 Ο Τ3

c ο Ε

C υ τΛ 1> Ι—ι α. υ

χ> Ο Τ3 υ ε ΐΛ ο Μ υ

ft Χ

Ο

ω Μ

(Ν

m ά\ οο σ\

S

8 60 υ

u cd υ

ft Vi ω

Μ Ο

χ> -*-> ο α . Ο Ό > α υ ω ω C τ3 θ υ C ,ι ο s Γι ο Έ3 o ü cd 0 0 να.

C .23 60 § £ >

c C1 ° Ο · - > C

•p • s

3 »Ρ Ρ § > Ζ . 60 υ Χ)

3

I I 3 Ζ

60 §

§ Β ε Ό e S cd £

•β S « w ε 60 ^ Ζ ^ Ο c

J3 η

cd

Ε cd a 60 M C C ö cd cd

• Μ

cd

J3

υ ο •w

60 . „

2

υ J3

υ >

§

«ι 8 2 'S

05

cd J3 ι—ι „

Ο

3 Μ

a §> «

Ό υ

^ Β. ä « Ο t- £ υ ft Ja . ο

158

Comparison of verb category systems

< Η 3> a

,

I ζ

ο ζ

^ ο

> >




I

I

3

I

χ

I

«

i

2! i

i

> *

ί

j 3

I £

< Η ζ

< £
-

ζ ί

£

is ο

Μ

>< S

2

>- Κ

a.

fc ζ

IVs recurrent in CVC-based category systems υ •C 1

Ϊ

c

ε υ

§a

~^

i

s

C » 03 Ο Ζ

ο &

Ζ

-β 2

§ t

Μ

.

-s

~

. « Ή s) ^

ο


s η Ji §

5

a - g e 3 S μ Ja

Μ

|

Z

£

» ui e -a.

S

3

£

I

I

* ,ο

^ £

,

3 ^t

-g

ΙΛ " ü S « H S

« o Ζ

« » ' S g a 2 r 3 « -S > δ

? i ,2 Ο · r

· £ - F ι a 3

Τ

2

>-

Ά

·?

1

^

J,

>H

-s > A C -

159

160

Comparison of verb category systems

4.2.1. Speech; avalent The basic 'say' verb is an IV in nearly all languages, and can almost always occur in CVCs, äs might be expected given the origins of CVCbased category systems in an ideophonic construction (see Chapter 8). No exceptions occur in Tables 13-15, though Malakmalak and a few other Daly River languages with only half a dozen IVs lack this IV. The IV shows up in various forms across the languages, though it seems likely that most can be traced back to one of two proto-forms, *-MA and *-JU. Possible reflexes of *-MA exist in Bunuban, Worrorran, Jarrakan, Daly River, Katherine area (Mangarrayi and possibly Wagiman), Maran, and Pama-Nyungan languages. In fact, a 'say', 'tell', or 'make' verb with the form /ma/ occurs widely across Australia, and has been proposed as proto-Australian (Dixon 1980: 405).89 Possible reflexes of *-JU are discernible in Nyulnyulan, Worrorran (Worrorra and Yawijibaya), and Mindi (Jaminjung) languages, and at least two languages of the Katherine area (Wagiman and Wardaman). It may be that this IV is a reflex of *DHU-n 'put' (Dixon 1980: 405). In most languages the 'say, do' IV occurs with a considerable number of UVs. Daly River languages are among the few exceptions: their 'say, do' IV collocates with just a few UVs, and is non-productive. Ignoring these languages, the 'say, do' IV typically marks a semantically fairly non-specific category: Aktionsart and/or valency contrasts are often neutralised,90 and/or vectorial configuration is irrelevant. However, the category always involves a specific semantic component: it is never an arbitrary rag-bag. As in Nyulnyulan (§3.2) verbs assigned to the 'say, do' category are always activities—dynamic, non-stative events that change over time. This IV is often employed with UVs specifying particular qualities or manners of vocal activity such as calling out, whispering, crying, laughing, and so on, as well as animal-calls. It is also frequently used in delocutive constructions. The more interactively effective types of speech such as telling, ordering, questioning, and the like tend to be expressed by collocations involving less semantically neutral IVs. But (with few exceptions) the IV 'say, do' is not restricted to collocations with vocal activity UVs, and collocates with numerous UVs

IVs recurrent in CVC-based category systems

161

designating non-vocal activities. The lexical verb 'say' in many Australian languages also serves as a general 'do' verb (Rumsey 1990a; McGregor 1998b). Thus, that such an inclusive category should exist, and be marked by the 'say, do' verb is unsurprising. The 'say, do' IV often shows peculiarities separating it from other IVs. It is one of the most likely IVs to be grammaticised in environments other than the CVC—for instance, in quotative constructions, where it may serve as a quotative marker.

4.2.2. Stance; monovalent 4.2.2.1. 'Sit, be' If 'say, do' represents the most generic activity, 'sit, be' represents the corresponding generic state, and this IV is also attested in almost every CVC category system. The phonological forms are somewhat more varied than for 'say, do', but in many languages some plausible reflex of *-NYlI- 'sit' is found. Reflexes show up with an apical nasal in a fair number of non-Pama-Nyungan languages (Evans 1988: 102),91 and with a palatal nasal in Pama-Nyungan languages. About half the PamaNyungan languages with CVCs show an unrelated root with initial syllable /ka/. This IV also marks a fairly well populated category in many languages—only rarely is it not used as a classifier, and restricted to SVCs. The 'sit, be' category, however, tends to be semantically more specific than the 'say, do' category, and rarely shows neutralisation of either Aktionsart or valency. It is typically associated with events that are both atelic and monovalent;92 but if any feature is neutralised, it is likely to be valency rather than Aktionsart. Thus, in Nyulnyulan, Jarrakan, and Jaminjungan languages, derived continuous forms of certain UV roots assigned to bivalent categories, collocate with the 'sit, be' IV instead of the usual bivalent IV. The 'be, sit' IV sometimes has another grammatical use, as a copula. However, only in few languages has it achieved this degree of grammaticisation, though it may still serve as a full verb of stance in a

162

Comparison of verb category systems

SVC. The boundary between classifying and copular function is somewhat murky.

4.2.2.2. 'Stand' This is far less frequent as a classifying IV than 'be, sit'; in fact, it is one of the least likely of the fourteen basic verbs to be represented by an IV. In practically no Kimberley language does it show up as an IV; instead, 'stand' is expressed by a UV together with the general Stative IV 'be, sit'. Warrwa and Worrorra are exceptions. In Warrwa, however, 'stand' is normally expressed by a CVC involving the UV yaalu 'stand' and the (apparently synonymous) IV -JARRA 'stand'. All Daly River languages have a superclassifying IV 'stand'. About half of the Pama-Nyungan languages also show such an IV, though it is not clear in which languages it also occurs in classifying CVCs. Despite the small number of languages with separate 'stand' IVs, there is considerable diversity in their forms. Pama-Nyungan languages show two recurrent forms, that show little resemblance to the forms in non-Pama-Nyungan languages. The third general stance verb 'lie' is even less common than 'stand' as an IV in superclassifying languages—usually it is represented by a CVC involving the IV 'be, sit'. The main exceptions are again the Daly River languages, most of which have all three stance IVs, the categories they mark being constituted by verbs describing actions carried out by actors adopting that stance as they perform the action. Stance verbs in these languages thus provide vectorial configuration specification.

4.2.3. Motion;

monovalent

4.2.3.1. 'Go' This is another very widespread category-marking IV, found in all languages with the possible exception of the Bunuban family—though the form glossed 'be, sit' might as well be glossed 'go', or might derive

IVs recurrent in CVC-based category systems

163

historically from a 'go' IV. In almost all Pama-Nyungan languages the form is an obvious reflex of *ya- 'go'; reflexes are also fairly widespread in the non-Pama-Nyungan area. The 'go' category is often fairly large. UVs assigned to it usually denote events that involve change in location, state or condition over time—i.e. atelic monovalent events. In some languages (e.g. Nyulnyulan and Jaminjungan) this category includes inchoatives. Occasionally other monovalent IVs of motion occur in CVCs, whose meaning is not too distant from 'go'. Wagiman uses 'come' in addition to 'go', specifying deictic directionality, as do a few other languages. Many Daly River languages have a 'go' verb and a 'travel' verb—sometimes glossed 'go' and 'go*'—the latter category including more purposeful motion events. By contrast, Nyulnyul employs 'wander' to mark a category of aimless and uncontrolled activities.

4.2.3.2. 'Fall' This is also quite widespread as a classifying IV in CVCs, and only a handful of languages express the basic 'fall' meaning by a CVC. The forms, however, are quite varied. About a third of the languages show initial syllable wa, which may be a reflex of proto-Australia *BA- 'fall' (Dixon 1980: 405). These include about half of the verb categorising Pama-Nyungan languages, as well as a scattering of non-PamaNyungan languages: Worrorran and Jarrakan languages, and two Katherine area languages (Wardaman and Mangarrayi). The category marked by this IV varies considerably in size from just a few members (e.g. Nyulnyulan) to a fairly large number (e.g. Bunuban). The referent event is specified as telic and monovalent. Often it is a motion event with an inherent point of accomplishment. The path may be oriented vertically downwards, the point of accomplishment being the beginning of the event, as the initial position is exited from; the latter holds true for motion events with horizontal or unspecified paths. In some cases the event is one of uncontrolled motion (e.g. 'slip', 'slide'). The 'fall' category usually also includes change of state events that

164

Comparison of verb category

systems

specify entry into a new state, inchoatives. The act of sitting down is not infrequently assigned to this category. If there is also specific 'become' category in the language (see next section), inchoatives in that category will usually contrast with inchoatives assigned to the 'fall' category: 'become' events have end focus rather than beginning focus, and usually require input energy to achieve their point of accomplishment. Happenings that fall outside of human control (e.g. 'die', 'fall sick', etc.) are more likely to be assigned to the 'fall' category than the 'become' category. The 'fall' category may thus be regarded (in some languages) as the telic counterpart of the 'go' and/or 'be' category. This parallelism is, however, partial.

4.2.3.3. 'Become' Relatively few category systems employ an IV 'become' to mark an inchoative category. (It is included here under motion because change of state over time is involved.) In systems without a 'become' category, one or more of the categories marked by 'say, do', 'be', 'go', or 'fall', include inchoatives. Even systems with 'become' frequently assign certain types of inchoative events to one of these other categories. It is in Pama-Nyungan languages that we are most likely to find a productive 'become' IV, usually with the form (JA)RRI-. It is often amongst the few IVs that do not have the privilege of independent occurrence in SVCs; and, as discussed in §3.10 above, this IV appears to be well on the road to becoming grammaticalised as a derivational morpheme in Western Desert varieties.

4.2.4. Induced motion; bivalent 4.2.4.1. 'Carry' Almost every CVC-based category system deploys an IV with the basic meaning 'carry'; the only exceptions are among the languages of

IVs recurrent in CVC-based category systems

165

the Daly River region. Overwhelmingly this IV can be plausibly traced back to (proto-Australian?) *GAA- 'carry' (Dixon 1980: 404). The 'carry' category is prototypically bivalent and atelic; it is usually one of the least semantically specific of the bivalent categories, and sometimes no vectorial configuration is specified. UVs assigned to this category designate motion events (usually induced or accompanied), and changes of state or condition that lack a point of accomplishment. In some languages the category embraces the bulk of atelic bivalent events; occasionally a relatively small number of monovalent events are assigned to the category. If a UV can be classified by a monovalent IV such as 'be' or 'go' as well as 'carry', the semantic contrast is normally just in terms of valency. The correspondences are usually (though not always) nominative: the subject of the intransitive clause (with monovalent verb category) corresponds with the subject of the transitive clause (with bivalent verb category). On the other hand, if a UV can be dually classified by 'carry' and another bivalent IV, the contrast usually concerns either (i) Aktionsart, the collocation with 'carry' being atelic, with the other IV being telic, or (ii) vectorial configuration, the other IV specifying a more precise schema that the referent event satisfies.

4.2.4.2. 'Throw' Less widely represented by a category-marking IV in CVCs, this basic verbal meaning is quite often expressed by a CVC with IV 'put'. Where a distinct 'throw' IV exists, it shows diverse forms. Most languages distinguish throwing events according to the thing thrown (e.g. whether it be a stone, a spear, a boomerang, or whatever) and/or the manner of throwing (which of course differs according to the item thrown). But one expression is usually more generic than the others, and can be applied irrespective of the object thrown; this is the one that is most likely to be represented by an IV. If more than one IV designates a throwing action, only the most generic one will normally serve as a verbal category marker. The 'throw' category is usually smaller than the 'carry' one, and

166

Comparison of verb category systems

correspondingly its meaning tends to be more specific, invoking vectorial configuration. Its members are generally specified as bivalent and telic; monovalent CVCs with this IV are rare. As in the case of 'carry', many UVs assigned to this category denote induced motion events and changes of state. These UVs generally have a causative sense in the 'throw' category, and if they can be alternatively assigned to a monovalent category the correspondence tends to be ergative: the Undergoer/Medium of the transitive clause corresponds with the Actor/Medium of the intransitive.

4.2.4.3. 'Put' A 'put' IV is about as well represented in CVC category systems as 'throw', and shows about as much diversity in form. Only in PamaNyungan languages are there clear reflexes of *DHu-n 'put' (Dixon 1980: 405). Many languages have both 'put' and 'throw' categories. It is uncertain from most descriptions how they contrast semantically, both being bivalent, telic and causative. Some descriptions suggest that if a UV can be assigned to both categories, it will be assigned to the 'put' category when the actual means of causation is unknown or irrelevant, to the 'throw' category when a throwing action is responsible for the causation. The 'put' category is thus the less marked of the pair, both formally and functionally—it tends to be the larger and more semantically diverse category. However, there are also languages with just one of these two categorising IVs, and it is as likely to be—or derive historically from—a 'throw' as a 'put' IV. Indeed, it can be difficult (if not impossible) to determine which of 'throw' and 'put' is the best gloss for the single IV. Daly River languages with minimal sets of IVs lack both categories, though in some with larger sets (e.g. Ngan'gityemerri) the IV glossed 'shove' may perhaps approximate 'put'.

IVs recurrent in CVC-based category systems

167

4.2.5. Acquisition; bivalent 4.2.5.1. 'Catch, get' A 'catch, get' IV serves as a category marker in most languages, again with the exception of Daly River languages. It is widely represented by a plausible reflex of *MA-, which perhaps can be identified with (proto-Australian?) *MAA-n 'hold in the hand' (Dixon 1980: 405). CVCs involving this IV are generally bivalent and telic.93 They frequently have a causative sense, and designate achievement of a new state or condition for the entity acted on. The focus tends to be on the inchoative component of the event, and it is not necessary that an Agent be present (in the represented world) to bring it about: it may be a happening, brought about through an implied or impersonal agency—compare the passive sense of 'get' in English. In this respect the 'catch, get' category differs from the 'throw' category, in which agency appears to be invariably present, and never implicit. How it contrasts with the 'put' category is not so clear.

4.2.5.2. 'Give' This basic meaning is slightly less commonly expressed by an IV that can be used as a category marker in CVCs. Where it does exist as an IV, its form shows little cross-linguistic consistency. The 'give' category typically specifies the event as bivalent. Few descriptions have much to say about the meaning of this category, but those that do indicate that vectorial configuration is significant, and that the Undergoer is a patient that suffers as a result of contact with something, the contact being induced by an Agent. In this respect the 'give' category is akin to the 'carry' category: it perhaps represents the corresponding telic.

168

Comparison of verb category systems

4.2.6. Violence; bivalent 4.2.6.1. 'Hit' In most languages 'hit' is represented by an IV, usually a reflex of *BU 'hit'. There are two major exceptions. First, in a few languages the basic 'hit' verb seems to be a UV: this is the case in Daly River languages (§3.7), and the Eastern Nyulnyulan languages Warrwa and Nyikina. In these languages one or more IVs may designate specific types of hitting events. Second, in Nyulnyulan and Jaminjungan languages the 'hit' IV it is not usually a reflex of *BU- 'hit'. 94 This IV often serves a classifying function in CVCs, marking a fairly large, though usually not open, category. Again Nyulnyulan languages are exceptional: in the languages with this IV, it marks a rather small and marginal category. In any case, in most languages the 'hit' category is bivalent and telic. It often includes UVs of violent action, or otherwise when a UV is assigned to the category it may (as in e.g. Jaminjung and Wagiman) designate an event achieved by violent means. Usually nothing is specified about the material constitution of the referent event. Few causatives are assigned to the 'hit' category, and if they are, their causative component loses prominence. In some languages the 'hit' category does not specify valency, and telicity remains the primary defining feature. This occasionally results in the emergence of two distinct IV roots, one bivalent, the other monovalent, as in Jarrakan languages (where the monovalent counterpart means 'become') and in Bunuba (where it means 'fall').

4.2.6.2. 'Poke' A category-marking 'poke' or 'pierce' IV is slightly less widespread, but certainly not uncommon. 95 Its form, however, is quite varied, and cognates tend to be restricted to within families or groups. The 'poke' category is generally not among the largest in a language. It is usually fairly semantically specific, specifying a vectorial configuration for the referent event as well as telicity and bivalency.

IVs recurrent in CVC-based category systems

169

The vectorial configuration is usually characterised by a straight line vector that touches or intersects something in a point—see Figure 14. The straight line vector admits various interpretations including path of motion and shape of some entity prototypically involved in the event.

4.2.7. Perception;

bivalent

The only IV of perception or cognition found in CVC-based category systems is 'see'. It is not frequently represented: only about a quarter of the languages tabulated express 'see' in a CVC, while many others employ an IV that is restricted to SVCs. Most Pama-Nyungan languages have an IV NYA- 'see' (that only in some languages occurs in CVCs); non-Pama-Nyungan languages show just a few likely cognates in a form involving /na/ (e.g. Wardaman and Wagiman). Otherwise 'see' IVs take varied forms. The 'see' category is rarely well populated. It tends to show lexical semantic features, and to be materially constituted—specifically to designate perceptual or mental processes, or events that inherently involve these components in their performance. Thus the 'see' category is rarely, if ever, specifiable in abstract configurational terms.

4.2.8. Concluding remarks It will hardly have escaped the reader's notice that the large categories tend to correlate across languages, and tend to be marked by apparently cognate IVs even across quite deep genetic boundaries—family/stock boundaries, including the non-Pama-Nyungan-Pama-Nyungan divide. These are the categories associated with the six IVs 'say, do', 'sit, be', 'go', 'carry', 'catch, get', and 'hit'—although 'sit, be' and 'go' have collapsed in Bunuban. Few languages do not show a category corresponding to each of these, even if it is marked by an exceptional IVform. These are amongst the ten most frequent verbs in Gooniyandi— see Table 6 96 Either or both of the 'put' or 'throw' categories also tend to be large, although the forms of the marking-IVs are quite varied.

170

Comparison of verb category systems

On the other hand, smaller categories in one language tend to have either no corresponding category in most other languages, or to correlate with smaller categories. They tend to be marked by less widespread IV forms, that are restricted to families or groups within families. There is a greater likelihood that a language will not show such a category. With the exception of 'see' and 'put', the corresponding verbs in Gooniyandi are much further down the frequency list. The Daly River languages—particularly those with only half a dozen or so IVs—represent the main exceptions to these generalisations. The fourteen basic IVs discussed in this section are not the only ones that recur in CVCs across a number of languages, though they are amongst the most widespread. For instance, an IV 'have, hold' is found in CVCs in a fair number of languages, including Jaminjung and Warrwa; but many languages lack such an IV. The discussion of the present small selection of IVs has shown that there is a shared common core across the verb category systems of northern Australian languages. This is apparent both in terms of the items that serve the categorising function—they are (or derive historically from) verbs forming part of the basic core vocabulary of any language—and in terms of the semantic features that tend to define the categories they mark. There are obvious correlations between the lexical meanings of IVs in independent usage and the meanings associated with the categories they mark. These correlations go in the expected direction: the meaning associated with the category marked by a given IV tends to be more abstract and schematic than the meaning of the IV as an independent unit. This is often considered to represent bleaching of the semantic specification of an IV: specific aspects of its meaning as an independent verb are "bleached" or "leached" out when it occurs in a CVC. One final observation is in order. In just a few non-Pama-Nyungan languages a small set of specifically reflexive/reciprocal IVs mark reflexive/reciprocal voice; these cannot be analysed synchronically as derived forms of other IVs. These IVs are fewer in number than those marking bivalent categories. In Nyulnyulan languages, for instance, one IV—an irregular reflexive/reciprocal form of the 'give' IV meaning 'exchange'—occurs in almost every reflexive/reciprocal CVC, ir-

Gooniyandi and Nyulnyul systems in contrast

171

respective of the IV that would otherwise collocate with a UV. All Aktionsart and vectorial distinctions that are generally made in the verb category system disappear in the reflexive/reciprocal. In Gooniyandi, just two reflexive/reciprocal classifiers exist, which contrast in Aktionsart; all other distinctions are neutralised. But in a larger number of non-Pama-Nyungan languages (including Bunuba—Rumsey 2000: 93-94) there is a derived reflexive/reciprocal form for each bivalent IV, or at least most of them. In those languages (e.g. Jarrakan and some Daly River languages) in which a proper subset only of the category-marking IVs show reflexive/reciprocal forms that also serve as category-markers an important question arises. What motivates the choice between the (smaller number of) categories in the reflexive/reciprocal voice, and to what extent does the restricted category system resemble the normal categorisation system—are certain distinctions neutralised? If so, which?

4.3. Gooniyandi and Nyulnyul systems in contrast In this section we narrow our focus, and compare and contrast in some detail the verb category systems of Gooniyandi and Nyulnyul. We begin, in §4.3.1, by summarising the main differences in grammatical features of the systems. We then turn to the main task, to compare the systems of categorisation. Section 4.3.2 provides a broad-based comparison of the systems; after this, §4.3.3 attempts a comparison at category level; then in §4.3.4 and §4.3.5 we focus in turn on two eticsemantic domains, examining the ways the systems carve them up; §4.3.6 winds up the discussion with some concluding observations. The Gooniyandi verb complex will continue to be spoken of as a CVC; in addition, its Aktionsart types will be referred to as telic and atelic, avoiding the specific terms accomplishment and extendible.

4.3.1. Formal characteristics The main formal differences between the verb category systems in

172

Comparison of verb category systems

Gooniyandi and Nyulnyul can be summarised in the following terms: • Gooniyandi has a single type of finite verbal construction; Nyulnyul has two distinct types, SVCs and CVCs, of which SVCs are preferred in usage. • Structurally, there is a good deal of resemblance between the Gooniyandi finite verb complex and finite CVCs in Nyulnyul. However, it is a single distributional word in Gooniyandi, two in Nyulnyul. In both languages it constitutes at least two phonological and grammatical words, and a single lexical word. • Gooniyandi has hundreds of verb stems, corresponding to hundreds of UVs in Nyulnyul; both are open classes, whose members permit little morphological modification—no inflection, and just a little derivation. The partial Gooniyandi corpus mentioned in Chapter 2 shows just over 500 verbs (henceforth UVs), of which 324 are unanalysable roots, 109 are derived stems, and about 90 are words from other parts-of-speech or English borrowings. The entire Nyulnyul corpus (my own corpus, and the corpora of previous investigators) shows just short of 600 UVs; however, information on many is minimal, and it is uncertain how many belong to other parts-ofspeech. • Gooniyandi has around a dozen dedicated verb classifiers, that derive historically from IVs; these do not have the potential for independent occurrence. Nyulnyul has over two hundred IVs, including roots and derived stems. Of these, less than a tenth may occur in CVCs, and about a dozen habitually do so; all occur independently in SVCs. • The order of UV and classifier is fixed in Gooniyandi, with the former always preceding the latter; they can be separated by bound morphemes, but not by words. The corresponding items in Nyulnyul normally—though not invariably—occur in the same order; they may also be discontinuous, separated by full words. • In Gooniyandi no more than one UV may occur in any finite verb construction; in Nyulnyul CVCs occasionally show more than one UV. • Gooniyandi has two classifiers that mark categories with just a cou-

Gooniyandi and Nyulnyul systems in contrast

173

pie of members; one is very common in usage, the other is vanishingly rare. In Nyulnyul about a dozen IVs mark minor categories; all are infrequent in use in CVCs. (Three of them are, however, among the twenty most frequent IVs by virtue of their high frequency of use in SVCs.) The Aktionsart contrast is emic in Gooniyandi, etic in Nyulnyul. The contrast is sometimes neutralised in Nyulnyul, but never in Gooniyandi. In both languages only finite verbal complexes are the sites for classification; semantic distinctions effected by the categorisation system are not maintained in non-finite verbs. Derived UVs in the two languages are sometimes assigned to a category (or categories) different from the underived root. In Gooniyandi the root category remains overt, marked by the derivational morpheme itself; in Nyulnyul this information is lost. UVs in Gooniyandi can occur in the absence of classifiers (henceforth, in this chapter, IVs) in non-finite verb constructions, in derived nominals, when used ideophonically, and in foreigner talk. UVs enjoy marginally more freedom in Nyulnyul. The IVs themselves show few obvious cognates. The best are: Gooniyandi +MI 'effect' and +A 'extend' with Nyulnyul -M 'put' and -KA 'carry', 97 respectively. Aside from this, +1 'be, go' may be cognate with one of the Nyulnyul IVs, though which is uncertain.98 Both languages have classifying IVs glossable as 'get, catch'; 'be, sit' or 'go'; 'fall'; 'hit'; and 'throw'. There are also a number of IVs without close correspondent in the other language (e.g. +BIRLI 'consume' in Gooniyandi, and -KAL 'wander' in Nyulnyul). Despite these differences, the categories are surprisingly compara; in terms of statistical patterns in the assignment of UVs: In both languages it is rare for a category to show less than 40% of unique items. Uniquely categorised items represent a slightly larger proportion of the UVs in Nyulnyul than in Gooniyandi (78% vs. 70%). Overall, pair-wise similarity measures for the categories (see §2.2)

174

Comparison of verb category systems

are almost identical: for each language the mean is only 0.04." The standard deviation is high, and also almost the same: just under 0.03 for Gooniyandi, and just over 0.03 for Nyulnyul. • In both languages just under a third of all category pairs have similarity measures below 0.01 (i.e. are more than a standard deviation below the mean). Slightly more pairs show no collocates in common (0 similarity) in Gooniyandi (20%) than in Nyulnyul (16%). • Whereas in Gooniyandi only 12% of category pairs show a similarity measure above 0.07 (i.e. are more than a standard deviation above the mean), 20% in Nyulnyul do. The last two observations might suggest that the classifying elements in Gooniyandi form a tighter paradigm than in Nyulnyul, that they are more strongly opposed to one another—as is indeed the case. This conclusion is not, however, warranted from the statistics, since the disjoint sets are quite strongly associated with pairs that each have few members. And given the greater number of unique categorisations in Nyulnyul, it follows that more category pairs must show relatively higher similarity measures.

4.3.2. System level

comparison

With these preliminaries out of the way, let us get down to details of the comparison. In this subsection we compare the two systems as wholes, as sets of terms in paradigmatic opposition (see Tables 4 and 10). The non-productive categories (those with ten members or less) are ignored. To begin with, a UV is categorised as monovalent when the event it designates is immanent to the entity engaged in it, and—at event level—does not (or need not) extend beyond. In both systems we find a few specifically monovalent categories. In Gooniyandi, Aktionsart is also marked: each monovalent category simultaneously specifies telicity. In Nyulnyul the reflexive/reciprocal category is unspecified for this feature, though the two other monovalent categories are inherently atelic. Thus, in contrast with Gooniyandi, there is no way of cate-

Gooniyandi and Nyulnyul systems in contrast

175

gorising an event in Nyulnyul as monovalent and telic. To specify a monovalent referent event as telic is sometimes possible by categorising it as avalent and telic. For instance, the telic event of running away, designated by the UV junk 'run' is assigned to the -NY 'get' category, which is avalent and telic. By contrast, the atelic action of running along is assigned to the (monovalent) -N 'be' or -JID 'go' categories. Similarly, a monovalent referent event in Gooniyandi cannot always be assigned to a monovalent and telic category. The three categories that mark this combination mark other things as well, and many monovalent telic events do not fit the specifications, and are instead categorised as avalent and telic. Again the telic event of running away provides illustration: running does not satisfy the features for any of the three telic monovalent categories.100 Instead, girrara- 'run away' is assigned to the +MI 'effect' category. Both languages show a perfect match between the reflexive/reciprocal category and clause transitivity. In Gooniyandi a UV categorised as reflexive/reciprocal must occur in a reflexive/reciprocal clause; in Nyulnyul it occurs in an intransitive clause (unless applicativised), there being no emically distinct reflexive/reciprocal clause transitivity type (McGregor 2000a). Otherwise, UVs assigned to monovalent categories usually occur in intransitive clauses. Exceptions mostly involve marked clause types: quasitransitives in Nyulnyul, and middles in Gooniyandi (see §2.3.1 and §5.4). (UVs in middle clauses in Nyulnyul are always assigned to avalent categories.) UVs in ordinary transitive clauses are almost never categorised as monovalent in either language. A substantial number of avalent categories are found in both languages. There are statistical correlations between certain categories and transitivity, but these can be accounted for in terms of the lexical semantics of the source IV, the history of collocations of the two linguistic units, and the vectorial configurations specified by the category. Gooniyandi avalent categories consistently mark events as telic; there is no atelic avalent category. Nyulnyul has both telic and atelic avalent categories, and one, the -J 'say, do' category, is unspecified for both valency and telicitiy. Gooniyandi lacks such a generic category. UVs assigned to avalent categories tend to occur in clauses other than intransitives, generally transitives, ditransitives, and middles. The

176

Comparison of verb category

systems

strength of the association varies according to category and language. In Gooniyandi the avalent classifiers all derive from bivalent IVs (see Table 4) that presumably normally occurred in transitive clauses. But in Nyulnyul it is less certain that -J 'say, do' and -KAL 'wander' derive from bivalent IVs that normally occurred in transitive clauses—and indeed a higher proportion of UVs assigned to these categories occur in clauses of lower transitivity.101 Two categories in Gooniyandi are bivalent, +A 'extend' and +ARRI 'throw, put'; Nyulnyul, by contrast, has no bivalent category. UVs assigned to both Gooniyandi categories normally occur in transitive clauses. For +ARRI 'throw, put' the association is perfect: no UV assigned to this category occurs in anything but a transitive clause. The association for the +A 'extend' category is weaker; UVs assigned to this category occasionally occur in middle and intransitive clauses. The paradigms of Tables 4 and 10 give some indication of how the categories contrast with one another in the two languages. They are misleading to the extent that they represent only two of three dimensions of variation. The third dimension, vectorial Configuration, does not lend itself well to minimal oppositions: the vectorial configuration for one category rarely contrasts with the vectorial configuration for another in terms of presence or absence of a single feature. The tabulations are thus two dimensional representations of what should be three dimensional diagrams; the paradigmatic contrasts are not nearly as simple and binary as the representations suggest.

4.3.3. Individual categories compared and contrasted We now narrow focus down to individual categories, and compare the way the two languages categorise the universe of conceptual events, assuming (as seems reasonable) a high degree of inter-language lexical-semantic comparability. As a first step, Figure 17 attempts to represent schematically the way the two systems differentially divide up this universe. 102 The Gooniyandi system is used as the background, since it is exhaustive; the Nyulnyul divisions are overlain, and marked by various types of filling; uncovered regions represent uncategorised events.

Gooniyandi and Nyulnyul systems in contrast

Figure 17. Rough comparison of Gooniyandi and Nyulnyul verb categories

177

178

Comparison of verb category systems

It is clear from this representation that the systems are quite different in terms of the way they carve up the universe of conceptual events. Events assigned to the same category in one language are often assigned to different categories in the other.103 Whilst in most cases it is possible to represent the Nyulnyul categories as contiguous regions, there are a few cases where this is impossible in a two dimensional representation. The reality is actually more complex than shown in Figure 17, which represents the major correlations, ignoring minor associations manifested for only one or two events. Figure 17 provides no indication of why the event categories differ so strikingly in their extensions. Clearly it must be due in part to differences in the systems themselves, which deploy rather different semantic features. But is that all? Can the differences all be put down to systemic differences? The answer is no: some differences result from different implementations of the systems—recall that category assignments are not predictable, though they are almost always consistent and explicable. Relations between the Gooniyandi and Nyulnyul categories are many-to-many: corresponding to almost every Gooniyandi category we find more than one Nyulnyul category, and vice versa, to almost every Nyulnyul category there are two or more Gooniyandi categories. But the many-to-many relations are not as unconstrained as might appear from Figure 17. This can be seen from the alternative portrayal of Figure 18, which represents the relations between the categories by lines, and arranges the categories into natural classes according to Aktionsart and valency. (Broken lines represent associations between categories showing small intersections; where the intersections are very small—no more than a few—no connection is depicted. Single underlining indicates a monovalent category, double underlining a bivalent category, and no underlining an avalent category.) Inspection of Figure 18 reveals that there are strong associations between categories of the same Aktionsart values. Events assigned to atelic categories in Gooniyandi tend to be assigned to atelic categories in Nyulnyul, or to the unmarked category. Events assigned to telic categories in Gooniyandi tend to be assigned to telic or unmarked categories in Nyulnyul. Similar remarks hold for the opposite direction: telic

Gooniyandi and Nyulnyul systems in contrast Gooniyandi

179

Nyulnyul

+ARNI,

'extend-self' Reflexive/ Reciprocal

-BARNJ

'exchange'

+MARNI

'effect-self' Figure 18. Major correspondences between Gooniyandi and Nyulnyul verb categories

180

Comparison of verb category systems

categories in Nyulnyul correspond to telic categories in Gooniyandi, atelic with atelic. The complicating factor is the unmarked Nyulnyul category -J 'say, do', which, as expected, corresponds to Gooniyandi categories of both telicity values. Otherwise, it is within the two primary Aktionsart classes that associations are numerous, complex, and messy. Not as prominent are valency correlations. Monovalent categories in one language tend to correlate with monovalent or avalent categories in the other; reflexive/reciprocal categories correspond perfectly. Bivalent categories in Gooniyandi correspond with avalent categories in Nyulnyul. If, however, we were to map the categories according to their predominant valency associations, a more noteable set of associations would emerge: the predominantly bivalent categories in each language also correlate well, though again the unmarked Nyulnyul -J 'say, do' category corresponds to both valencies in Gooniyandi. The following subsections look more carefully at the extensional basis for the category correspondences, beginning with the atelic categories (§4.3.3.1), moving on to the unmarked category (§4.3.3.2), and finishing with the telic categories (§4.3.3.3).

4.3.3.1 Atelic categories The Gooniyandi category +i 'be, go', the second largest in the language, covers ongoing motion, states, changes of state in progress, communication and vocalisation, perceptual competence (ability to see, hear, etc.), and bodily functions. These semantic domains are covered by four categories in Nyulnyul: -N 'be', -JID 'go', -KAL 'wander' and -J 'say, do'. Effectively, the -N 'be' category contains only nondynamic states or modes of being, and continuing activities—in which the activity is categorised as a state the actor is engaged in. All Nyulnyul UVs in this category correspond to UVs categorised by +1 'be, go' in Gooniyandi. The other three categories contain events of ongoing motion: undirected or meandering in the case of -KAL 'wander'. The basis of the contrast between -JID 'go' and -J 'say, do' for motion UVs is unclear. The -JID 'go' and -J 'say, do' categories also cover

Gooniyandi and Nyulnyul systems in contrast

181

changes of state in progress, perceptual competence, and bodily functions of various types; the -J 'say, do' category also includes most communicative and vocalising events. Thus the two categories in Nyulnyul that are most comparable with +1 'be, go' in terms of their semantic characterisation are more restricted and specific semantically. Dynamicity—irrelevant to the Gooniyandi system—is relevant to the Nyulnyul system, and serves to distinguish between -N 'be' and -JID 'go'. The two Nyulnyul atelic categories -JID 'go' and -KAL 'wander' show some overlap with the Gooniyandi telic categories +BINDI 'become' and +ANI 'fall'. This is mainly in the domain of inchoatives (see §4.3.3.3). In addition, -KAL 'wander' categorises a few uncontrolled events such as slipping, categorised by +ANI 'fall' in Gooniyandi. Also in this Nyulnyul category are a few distributed events involving action of many individuals not acting in concert; the corresponding Gooniyandi categories are +BINI 'hit' and +A 'extend', depending on telicity. Thus meeting or assembling together (maroorr-) is assigned to the +BINI 'hit' category, while dancing (boorrij-) is assigned to the +A category. The largest category in Gooniyandi is +A 'extend'. Events from a wide range of semantic domains fall into this category, the proviso being that they are potentially continuable, and are not inherent to a single participant engaged in them. Included are events involving continued contact between two entities, ongoing activities involving induced change of state of an entity (no final state being in mind), holding and carrying, induced motion, bodily processes, perception and cognition, and communicative acts. The corresponding events in Nyulnyul are generally assigned to either: (i) the -K 'carry' category (accompanying and induced motion); or (ii) the -J 'say, do' category (the remainder). The Nyulnyul -K 'carry' category is much smaller than the Gooniyandi +A 'extend' category—which it almost certainly corresponds to etymologically—and is more specific in its semantic specification. Most UVs in both categories are bivalent and normally occur in transitive clauses; they are consistently atelic. Many events assigned to the Nyulnyul category are events of physical carrying; a few more can be interpreted as involving non-physical bearing of mental or emotional

182

Comparison of verb category systems

states necessary to the performance of an action. But as distinct from the +A 'extend' category, the -K 'carry' category does not include processes of cognition, perception and vocalisation that merely extend to an entity. (Most basic events of these types are expressed by IVs in Nyulnyul.) -K 'carry' events (almost) invariably correspond to +A events.

4.3.3.2. The unmarked Nyulnyul category -J 'say, do' The -J 'say, do' category is far and away the largest and least semantically specific in Nyulnyul: it specifies nothing more than that the event is dynamic. It is also rather larger and more diffuse than any Gooniyandi category, which is perhaps somewhat surprising in view of the fact that the Gooniyandi system is more highly grammaticalised. The semantic domains it encompasses include: vocalisations and noises; emissions; attention and cognition; emotions; bodily processes; motion; social activities; experiential inchoatives and induced states; and violence. Corresponding to categorisations by -J 'say, do' are categorisations by all Gooniyandi IV, with the exception of the two reflexive/ reciprocals. But only a portion of each of the Gooniyandi categorisations is covered; excluded are static events. Others that do satisfy the [+dynamic] characterisation are also excluded, being assigned to more specific categories.

4.3.3.3.Telic categories The two monovalent telic categories in Gooniyandi find no corresponding monovalent primary category in Nyulnyul. The + B I N D I 'become' category consists mainly of inchoatives and changes of location requiring input of energy to achieve accomplishment. Most of these are assigned to the -J 'say, do' category in Nyulnyul, a few to the -R 'poke' and -JID 'go' categories. By contrast, events assigned to the + A N I 'fall' category typically require input of energy to prevent their happening, once initiated. These are usually assigned to the -J 'say, do' category in

Gooniyandi and Nyulnyul systems in contrast

183

Nyulnyul; a few motion events are categorised by -KAL 'wander', -JID 'go', and -W 'give'. The +MI 'effect' category is the largest and least semantically specific telic category in Gooniyandi. +MI 'effect' probably derives from a 'say, do' IV, and marks a category that shows many similarities with that marked by Nyulnyul -J 'say, do'. Although it is semantically more specific, and thus covers only a subset of the range of the latter, the semantic domains covered by the two categories are nevertheless quite similar. Excluded from the Gooniyandi category are the not insignificant number of atelic events from the shared domains that are found in the Nyulnyul category—including events of motion, e.g. warr-kaj (walk-CONT) 'be walking (away)' and junk 'be running'. To convey these senses the corresponding Gooniyandi UVs are assigned to the +1 'be, go' category. The Gooniyandi IV +MI 'effect' and Nyulnyul IV -M 'put' are possible cognates. Interestingly, the categories they mark have approximately the same cardinality, cover similar semantic domains, and agree in telicity. However, whereas the -J 'say, do' category is less semantically specific than the +MI 'effect' one, the -M 'put' category is more specific; the Gooniyandi category falls somewhere in between the two Nyulnyul categories in semantic specificity. The intermediate status of the Gooniyandi category is underlined by valency distribution. More UVs assigned to the +MI 'effect' category are monovalent than UVs assigned to the -M 'put' category, while fewer are monovalent than UVs assigned to the -J 'say, do' category. This pattern is replicated at clause rank. Gooniyandi UVs classified by +MI 'effect' frequently occur in transitive and middle clauses, infrequently in intransitive clauses. By contrast, Nyulnyul UVs classified by -M 'put' often occur in transitive clauses, rarely in intransitive and middle clauses. But UVs classified by -J 'say, do' frequently occur in intransitive and middle clauses, less often in transitive clauses.104 Clearly comparable are Gooniyandi +DI 'catch' and Nyulnyul -NY 'get' categories. Both are telic, populated mainly by bivalent UV tokens, and invoke the vectorial configuration of making or breaking contact as a central part of their semantics. There is also little difference in their cardinalities. Granted their intensional similarity, their ex-

184

Comparison of verb category systems

tension is surprisingly divergent, highlighting the earlier observation that predictability of category assignment is weak. Certainly, events of removal, acquisition, establishment of physical contact, and initiation of motion are found in both categories. But only Gooniyandi categorises giving, establishment of perceptual contact, and prevention of engagement events in the +DI 'catch' category, while only Nyulnyul assigns induced motion, caused change of state, violent actions (resulting in a change of state or condition of the patient), and painful bodily experiences to the -NY 'get' category. The Gooniyandi category marked by +BINI 'hit' shares the notion of a straight line vector and point-contact with the Nyulnyul -R 'poke' category. 105 It is considerably larger, however, and is somewhat less semantically specific. Both categories contain a fair number of verbs of violence, almost all of which involve a straight line vector—either a long thin instrument, or motion in a straight line leading up to the point of violent contact. The ambient event of raining, especially when it is heavy, can be assigned to both +BINI 'hit' and -R 'poke' categories. In both languages a few events of motion are assigned to the corresponding category, where the motion inherently intersects a domain at a point; but the actual events show little overlap. Nyulnyul daarr 'emerge' is often categorised by -R 'poke', though Gooniyandi bij'emerge' is never assigned to the +BINI 'hit' category. The only other motion UVs assigned to the Nyulnyul category are ngurrngurr 'submerge' and jul 'kneel'; different UVs are involved in Gooniyandi, e.g. doorloog- 'come to surface', bird- 'climb up', and gawoorrg- 'fall to ground'. The Gooniyandi, but not Nyulnyul, category also includes bivalent UVs of motion in which the intersected "domain" is the patient—e.g. marraj- ' p a s s \ j a l b a - 'meet up', etc.. In Gooniyandi nonphysical violence such as scaring someone can be categorised by +BINI; this option does not seem to be available in Nyulnyul. Peculiar to Nyulnyul is the -W 'give' category. Gooniyandi UVs corresponding to Nyulnyul UVs assigned to this category are assigned to various categories according to other schematic features the referent events display. The inherent semantics of the -W 'give' category may be characterised as follows: (i) something suffers as a patient, undergoing a general change of state or condition; and (ii) this is brought about

Gooniyandi and Nyulnyul systems in contrast

185

by an agent that makes physical contact with the patient, usually via an intermediary. UVs assigned to this category fall into the semantic domains of violence, grasping and grabbing, induced or uncontrolled motion, and bodily actions. These UV tokens are normally bivalent, occurring in transitive clauses. In the few cases where they occur in an intransitive clause the event is not under the control of the Actor, and might be construed as happening as the result of influence of an external agency. Most violent events in the -W 'give' category correspond to events assigned to +BINI 'hit', +MI 'effect', or +DI 'catch' categories in Gooniyandi, depending on their vectorial configuration. Grasping and grabbing events generally fall into Gooniyandi +DI 'catch' or +MI 'effect' categories; induced motion into +ARRI 'throw, put' and +A 'extend' categories; the few of uncontrolled motion into +ANI 'fall'; and the few bodily actions into +ARRI 'throw, put' or +MI 'effect'. The only surprise here is the atelic categorisation of induced motion events as +A 'extend' in Gooniyandi. In fact, however, the induced motion UVs are 'ride', 'piggy-back', and 'pull', for which the Gooniyandi categorisation requires no explanation; rather, it is the Nyulnyul categorisation that is unexpected. Perhaps it is because the Aktionsart distinction is not emic in Nyulnyul, and primary weight is assigned to vectorial configuration. Alternatively, the Nyulnyul lexemes might profile the beginning phases of the events, where contact is established (so 'mount and ride' might be a better gloss than 'ride', etc.), while the Gooniyandi lexemes (like their English counterparts) might profile the later phase. No Nyulnyul category even remotely resembles the Gooniyandi +ARNI] 'emerge' category in semantic specification. The only frequent UV in this small category is bij- 'arrive, emerge'; the corresponding Nyulnyul daarr 'arrive, emerge' is, when used in this sense, usually categorised by -R 'poke', sometimes (especially in my own corpus) -J 'say, do'. Other Nyulnyul UVs corresponding to Gooniyandi UVs assigned to this category are generally categorised with -J 'say, do'; a few with -NY 'catch'. Although there are two Nyulnyul categories whose IVs take the glosses of the Gooniyandi category +ARRI 'throw, put', there is little in common between either Nyulnyul category and the Gooniyandi one in

186

Comparison of verb category systems

intension or extension. The Nyulnyul -NGUL 'throw' category is minor, with only a few members; nothing is shared with the Gooniyandi category.106 On the other hand, the -M 'put' category is a major one, the second most productive in Nyulnyul; only about half a dozen UVs, almost all denoting induced motion, correspond between this category and the Gooniyandi +ARRI 'throw, put' category: Nyulnyul widijirr balabal balngar(r) (balqar) duly (dolj) kur dub

Gooniyandi gininygininybändigbilyiglawoojard-

'mix'; 'mix, stir'; 'spread out'; 'burst'; 'hug, embrace'; and 'set something alight'.107

These account for only about 16% of the Gooniyandi category, and less than 5% of the Nyulnyul category. By contrast, about three times as many Gooniyandi UVs categorised by +ARRI 'throw, put' correspond with Nyulnyul UVs categorised by -J 'say, do'. The above discussion reveals that the Gooniyandi and Nyulnyul verb category systems differ considerably in terms of how they categorise the universe of events. This is to a large extent due to systemic differences. Some differences, however, can only be attributed to differences in the ways the principles of categorisation are implemented—as where categories with almost identical intensional characterisations differ extensionally. Knowledge of an event's categorisation in one language does not facilitate prediction of its categorisation in the other.

4.3.4. Categorisation of vocalisation/communication events In this subsection and the next we change focus from the categories to two etic-semantic domains—vocalisation/communication and motion—and examine how events from these domains are differentially categorised, at similarities and differences in the ways the systems parcel up events in these semantic domains.

Gooniyandi and Nyulnyul systems in contrast

187

The corpora for both languages show significant numbers of UVs designating events of vocalisation/communication (by means of sound—for the sake of brevity, other modalities are ignored). It is convenient to divide this semantic domain into four etic subdomains, with the usual qualification that the boundaries are fuzzy: (i) animal communication noises; (ii) manners of production of human speech; (iii) interactive types of human speech; and (iv) non-specific or generic vocal activities. The corpora for both languages show almost exactly the same number of distinct verbal expression types designating vocalisation/communication events: 75 in Gooniyandi, and 73 in Nyulnyul. In Nyulnyul, however, about a quarter are IVs occurring in SVCs, and hence fall outside of the CVC-based category system.108 Significantly, it is the basic or generic vocalisations that tend to be represented by SVCs. The two most general verbs of vocalisation are SVCs with IVs -J 'say, do' (the most common IV in SVCs) and -NGANK 'speak, say'. Otherwise, the majority of IVs in SVCs designate type (iii) interactive vocalisations of the most fundamental types (e.g. -JABAL 'ask', -JULNG 'tell', -JULNGJULNG 'tell', -WARD 'mock', -BURDUWA 'argue', and ? -JANG 'insult'). Just three basic type (ii) manner of production are represented by IVs in SVCs: -KANM 'laugh', -NGALK 'cry', and -WALM 'call out'; those represented by CVCs tend to be less basic manner types. Just one IV in a SVC designates a type (i) animal vocalisation, the poorly attested -LIJ 'yelp'. Vocalisation/communication events represented by CVCs tend to be less basic, to involve more marked manners, and/or more specific speech interaction types. The 75 lexical UVs in Gooniyandi form a total of 113 different combinations with IVs, indicating a high degree of multiple categorisation compared to Nyulnyul, where the 56 UVs make only 62 different collocations with IVs. Figure 19 shows graphically the proportional assignment of UVs of vocalisation to categories in both languages. Notice that a single category in Nyulnyul accounts for about 60% of the UVs—roughly the same relative size as the union of the two largest Gooniyandi categories. Let us now examine the ways that UVs from the various subdomains of vocalisation are assigned to categories. The associations

188

Comparison of verb category systems

are shown in Table 16, which also shows the proportion of each subdomain assigned to the categories. Table 16.

Comparison of categorisation of vocalisation/communication domain in Gooniyandi and Nyulnyul

Type (i) animal vocalisation

(ii) manner of vocalisation

(iii) interactive type

(iv) general

Gooniyandi Category No.

% Category

Nyulnyul

+1 'be, go' +A 'extend'

23 1

96 4

-J 'say, do'

15

100

+l 'be, go' +A 'extend' +MI 'effect' +ARNI2 'extend self

9 5 2 3

47 26 11 16

-J 'say, do' -K 'carry' -M 'put' -NGANK 'speak' -R 'poke' -N 'be'

13 1 2 4 1 1

59 5 9 18 5 5

+1 'be, go' +A 'extend' +MI 'effect' +BINI 'hit' +DI 'catch' +ARNI2 'extend self +MARNI 'effect self

6 19 12 4 4 8

11 33 21 7 7 14

-J 'say, do' -K 'carry' -M 'put' -R 'poke' -W 'give' -BARNJ 'exchange

10 4 4 1 1 3

43 17 17 4 4 13

4

7

+1 'be, go' +MI 'effect' +MARNI 'effect self

5 4 4

38 31 31

-M 'put' -BARNJ 'exchange'

1 1

50 50

No.

%

The most striking characteristic is that in both languages animal noises (type (i)) are almost invariably assigned to a single category: +1 'be, go' in Gooniyandi, -J 'say, do' in Nyulnyul. The UV tokens normally occur in intransitive clauses, occasionally in middle clauses, and rarely in transitive clauses. (Significantly, dogs are the only animal that produce vocalisations represented in transitive clauses—excluding cases of anthropomorphisation of animals as speaking beings in mythological narratives.) Type (ii) may be seen as the human subdomain corresponding to an-

Gooniyandi and Nyulnyul systems in contrast Gooniyandi

189

Nyulnyul

+BINI 'hi +DI 'cat -BARNJ 'exchange'^

p Τ -NGANK 'speak'

Figure 19. Comparison of category assignments of vocalisation events in Gooniyandi and Nyulnyul

imal noises: the verbal lexemes specify manner of vocalisation—they construe vocalised noises in terms of physical qualities of the sound. The single category in each language that animal vocalisations are almost invariably assigned to again predominates in type (ii), though to a lesser extent, accounting for only around half of the lexical UVs. In both languages we see the emergence of categories associated with higher valency: bivalent categories in Gooniyandi, and avalent categories in Nyulnyul with higher proportions of bivalent UVs. Correspondingly, in both languages these UVs occur with greater frequency in middle and, to a lesser extent, transitive clauses. A strong association with atelic categories remains, though around a tenth of the subdomain in each language is assigned to the +MI 'effect' and -M 'put' categories, respectively. The association with higher transitivity increases as we move to type (iii) interactive vocalisations. So too does the association with telicity: about 40% of these UVs are categorised as telic in Gooniyandi, about 25% in Nyulnyul. It is also in vocalisation events from this subdomain that we begin to see significant numbers of assignments to reflexive/reciprocal categories. General UVs of vocalisation in both languages admit multiple classification. In Gooniyandi they fall into the three categories +1 'be, go', +MI 'effect', and +MARNI 'effect-self; in Nyulnyul they are assigned to

190

Comparison of verb category systems

-M 'put' or -BARNJ 'exchange'. The discrepancy occurs because corresponding to categorisations by +1 'be, go' in Gooniyandi are SVCs with generic IVs -J 'do, say' and -NGANK 'speak, say' in Nyulnyul.109 Returning to Table 16, it seems that we have further support for some of the category associations mentioned in §4.3.3: Gooniyandi +1 'be, go' with Nyulnyul -J 'say, do'; +A 'extend' with -K 'carry'; +MI 'effect' with -M 'put'; +BINI 'hit' with -R 'poke'; and +ARNI 2 'extend-self and +MARNI 'effect-self with -BARNJ 'exchange'. Are these correspondences more than skin-deep? That is, when we look at a particular subdomain, do we find much comparability in terms of the categorisation of corresponding events or UV tokens? This is not an easy question to answer, in part because the corpora show different sets of UV types in the two languages, at least according to the glosses. In addition, some of the best associations involve Nyulnyul IVs occurring in SVCs. Even in the most comparable domain, animal vocalisations, there are significant gaps—and other than the barking of dogs, vocalisations of few animals are represented in both corpora. As the final step in this comparison, we consider the small number of UVs that do correspond between the languages, and compare how they are categorised. Table 17 presents a summary revealing a good degree of correspondence between the two languages (with more extensive data it might well turn out even better). Especially clear are the correspondences between Gooniyandi +1 'be, go' and +A 'extend', and Nyulnyul -J 'say, do', and between the reflexive/reciprocal categories in both languages. There are of course some unexpected differences, for instance, the categorisation of'accuse' by +A 'extend' in Gooniyandi, but by -R 'poke' in Nyulnyul. This may or may not be associated with lexical meaning differences. Possibly it merely reflects different construals of a single event type: that accusations may be uttered in sequence (Gooniyandi), and that they may be considered to impact on the accused person at a point (Nyulnyul).110 It can be concluded that although the two languages differ somewhat in regard to specific details of how—indeed whether—they categorise vocalisations in CVCs, one general principle is shared: events are assigned to categories associated with higher transitivity features as we move from subdomain (i) to (iii).

Comparison of Gooniyandi and Nyulnyul systems

191

uΒ SΟ ο β •C ja

·3

~

•Β

ϊ

ο. 2

Η υ D

£

5

J

£

•

Pi

κ

'S

Ö

Ε

1 s >> 'Ξ ο ο Ο

(J υ u

^ ω ο ~ .ω «Ο


'ω

SΜ I>

•α ε S Ο +

•α Β a Χ 4)
· y to apply (except where blocked by a consonant from another prefix). 129 It is equally obvious that in the plural a deletion rule applies to the initial consonant of the IV in the η class, but not of the 0 class. This can be accounted for by postulating a second allomorph for the η class marker, namely a (as in Eastern Nyulnyulan languages), together with the sandhi rule a-ka -*• a (where the first a is the class marker). In the 0 class, no class marker occurs, and the initial consonant is unaffected since it follows rr rather than a vowel. 130 This analysis generalises readily to IVs with other initial segments. For illustration, consider the paradigms for -ANDI 'pick up' and -MI 'look about' provided in Table 22: the situation is clearly fundamentally the same as just described for ^-initial IV roots. 131 The situation in Nyulnyul is similar: two conjugation classes, na and 0, can be distinguished. Nyulnyul, however, shows fewer sandhi rules than Bardi, and they have less effect on the IV. Again, the na class is typified by the presence of na (sometimes ni, nu or n) in the singular number, a in the plural, contrasting with the absence of such a segment in the 0 class. Similar remarks apply to other Western Nyulnyulan languages—see Nekes and Worms (1953: Chapter 5). In all Nyulnyulan languages a strong correlation obtains between the two major conjugation classes and IV valency—and ultimately clausal transitivity (see also §5.3). In Nyulnyul around 97% of the 0class are monovalent, while about the same percentage of the na- class are bivalent (McGregor 1998c). Although Metcalfe (1975) does not

Non-Pama-Nyungan conjugation classes Table 22.

219

Pronominal prefixes to -ANDI 'pick up' and -MI 'look about' in Bardi (based on Metcalfe 1975: 170-172) η

0

Non-future

lsg 2sg 3sg 1&2 lpl 2pl 3pl

nga-n-andimi-n-andii-n-andia-n-andia-rr-andiku-rr-andii-rr-andi-

nga-mi-1 mi-mii-mia-mia-rr-miku-rr-mi i-rr-mi

Future

lsg 2sg 3sg 1&2 lpl 2pl 3pl

nga-n-k-andaa-n-andau-n-k-andaa-n-k-andaangka-rr-andaa-rr-andaungka-rr-anda-

nga-ngki-minga-miu-ngki-mia-ngki-miangki-rr-mia-rr-mi ungki-rr-mi

Note to Table 22 1. Metcalfe (1975: 170) gives the form a-mi-nj for the first person singular; this is presumably a typo.

discuss this issue, it would seem from his account that an equally strong association exists in Bardi. In Yawuru the association between the na- class and transitive is perhaps even stronger, although for the 0class the association with intransitives falls to about 70% (Hosokawa 1991: 121-123). Nyikina also shows strong correlations (Stokes 1982: 265-266), as does Warrwa.

5.2.2. Worrorran languages Due to the paucity of detailed grammatical descriptions, the extent to which viable conjugation classes are exhibited in Worrorran languages remains uncertain, though Capell and Coate (1984: 213) aver that they are distinguished throughout the family.

220

Verb class systems: conjugations

According to Rumsey (1982a: 80), the rather substantial set of IVs in Ngarinyin fall into seven conjugation classes, defined in terms of the choice of tense-mood suffix allomorphs for the present and past indicative, and past irrealis. (Coate and Oates 1970: 42-43 and Capell and Coate 1984: 213, however, identify just five classes, based on solely the past tense forms.) No obvious conjugation markers are discernible. The distribution of IVs into conjugation classes seems to be roughly as follows (there are uncertainties). Eight of the fourteen IVs with the potential of occurring in CVCs fall into a single class, while the remaining six each belongs to one of other six classes. All derived reflexive/ reciprocal stems fall into one of the latter classes, the one that contains the intransitive IV root -YiINDE 'fall' (Rumsey 1982a: 81; Saunders 1997). The remaining hundreds of IVs fall, according to Saunders (1997), into a single class this being the class containing the eight IVs that occur in CVCs (see also Capell and Coate 1984: 213). However, examination of Coate and Elkin (1974) falsifies this claim, though unfortunately information provided for IVs in that dictionary is insufficient to permit determination of their conjugation class membership, and the approximate sizes of the other conjugation classes cannot be ascertained. Correlations between verb class and valency, or transitivity are unlikely to be highly significant. The best case can probably be made for the class containing -YiINDE 'fall' and all reflexive/reciprocal IV stems: if it contains no other IV, it will be entirely monovalent. Correlations exist between the fourteen IVs that may occur CVCs and valency: four classes are entirely transitive, two entirely intransitive, and one mostly transitive (Rumsey 1982a: 83). But since all but one of the 1 classes has a single member, the association is unremarkable. Furthermore, assuming that most IVs restricted to SVCs fall into the class containing eight of the IVs occurring in CVCs, is unlikely that this class will be strongly associated with valency. Regarding the other classes, nothing can be said. As regards Worrorra, there is disagreement as to whether inflectional patterning of verbs warrants setting up conjugation classes. Love (1934) (published as Love 2000) provides sample paradigms for a small selection of IVs, but does not specify how widespread their pat-

Non-Pama-Nyungan conjugation classes

221

terns of inflection are; nor does he distinguish conjugation classes. Capell and Coate (1984: 213) maintain that five classes are distinguished according to the form of the past tense suffix, though "operating on rather different principles" to Ngarinyin. Their brief discussion seems to suggest that they are primarily phonologically based, the past tense allomorph being determined by the phonological form of the verb. Clendon (2000) does not identify conjugation classes, although it would seem that as good a case can be made as for Ngarinyin. The approximately dozen intransitive IVs usually select the past tense allomorph -na (sometimes -nya) and present tense -ng (Clendon 2000: 3033). The larger set of transitive verbs show more variation in past tense forms (-na ~ -nga ~ -rla ~ -ma), though the present tense is consistently marked by 0 (or nothing) in the relevant order-class (Clendon 2000: 84). It might thus be possible to establish two superclasses on the basis of the present tense allomorph, and perhaps subconjugations and/ or irregularities according to the past tense allomorph. That derived reflexive/reciprocal IVs consistently inflect according to the regular pattern for intransitive IVs suggests in favour of conjugation classes. In the best case scenario, it might be possible to distinguish two superclasses with strong valency associations. Even more sketchy information is available for the other twenty or so Worrorran languages. My own fieldwork on Unggumi and Gunin/ Kwini reveals that there do exist differences in tense inflections of IVs, though the data is too restricted to allow one to ascertain the viability of conjugation classes. In any event, the evidence from Ngarinyin and Worrorra suggests that conjugation classes have at best a low functional load in Worrorran languages, certainly lower than in Nyulnyulan languages.

5.2.3. Mindi languages The languages of the western group of this family, the Jaminjungan languages, show small classes of only 30 or so IVs that inflect fairly idiosyncratically, with insufficient regularity to warrant grouping them into conjugation classes. The situation is different in the eastern block,

222

Verb class systems:

conjugations

where large open classes of IVs are found. According to Nordlinger (1998: 157-160), most Wambaya IVs fall into two primary conjugation classes, j and 0; ten or so are irregular. As shown by the inflectional forms in Table 23, there is a conjugation marker j that occurs consistently throughout the inflectional paradigm forj verbs, except in the non-future tense, where the class-distinction is effected by other means. In the 0 class, the same inflections appear (except in the nonfuture), though without the conjugation marker. Class membership is phonologically conditioned: j class IVs all have final vowels, while 0 class IVs all have final consonants.133 Table 23.

Verbal inflections in Wambaya (after Nordlinger 1998: 157) j class

0 class

Non-future Tense

0

-bi

Future Tense

-j-ba

-ba ~ -wa 1

Infinitive

-j-barda

-barda ~ -warda1

LOC

-j-ini

-ini

DAT

-j-inka

-inka

ABL

-j-innga

-innga

Note to Table 23 1. The allomorphs with initial w appear after stems having a final liquid.

5.2.4. Wagiman and Wardaman Wagiman has a small class of some forty IV roots, with a variety of different inflectional patterns: no less than sixteen past tense allomorph sets; three past perfectives; and two present allomorphs. It is not clear from Wilson's description to what extent these allomorph sets correlate, and whether it makes sense to distinguish conjugation classes. It seems that when UVs are verbalised they invariably show a single inflectional pattern: present tense -n; past tense -yi; and past perfective -ny (Wilson 1999: 83). This could perhaps be regarded as the regular

Non-Pama-Nyungan conjugation classes

223

open conjugation class, alongside perhaps fifteen (less regular) closed classes. Alternatively, it might be taken to be the regular means of verb marking in a system without conjugations, the other patterns being irregularities. The fact that three past tense allomorphs account for over half of the IVs would seem to count in favour of the first alternative, though lacking information on correlations with the other tense, mood, and aspect suffix allomorphs this remains a guess. Nearby and perhaps distantly related Wardaman has at least 130 IVs, including a number of monomorphemic roots, and a number that are morphologically analysable into a variable initial element and a final thematic, as in Mayali (§3.11 above) and perhaps Mangarrayi (§3.9). Verb morphology is quite regular. It seems from Merlan (1994: 177) that it might be possible to distinguish three conjugation classes, into which all but two irregular verbs fall. These are characterised by the past and present tense suffix allomorphs: most verbs have present tense -n and past tense -rri\ around twenty-five (mostly involving the thematic -ma ~ -ba) have the present tense -0 and past - r a ; and less than twenty have the present tense -n and the past tense -ndi.

5.2.5. Gunwinjguan

languages

The languages of this large and diverse family tend to show a fair number of conjugation classes, defined in terms of sets of tense, mood and aspect affixes. It is not usually possible to identify conjugation markers recurrent through large portions of the paradigms. Many Gunwinjguan languages—including Mayali and Ngalakgan—show both simple and compound verb constructions (see §3.11), where the latter differ in crucial respects from CVC-based verb category systems. Simple verb constructions consist of an inflected verbal root or thematic (Evans in press); these number only about thirty. The compound verb construction involves two or more components that together form a stem that is inflected as a whole, by affixes surrounding the entire compound unit. Thus this type of compound verb construction is characterised by a closer bond between the two elements than in CVCs. The second element in the compound construction is the the-

224

Verb class systems:

conjugations

matic or auxiliary, which may or may not have the potential of independent occurrence. Both simple verb roots and compound verb stems are assigned to conjugation classes, the class of a compound stem being determined by the verb root. Mayali shows about a dozen conjugation classes, some with subconjugations (Evans in press); Ngalakgan has half as many (Merlan 1983: 115). In both languages statistical correlations obtain between conjugation class and transitivity, for both simple roots and compound stems: most conjugation classes are either predominantly transitive or predominantly intransitive. Some other languages in the Gunwinjguan family have much larger sets of unanalysable inflecting verb roots. Around three hundred and fifty have been recorded in Ndjebbana (McKay 2000: 244-245), and some four hundred in Gurr-goni (Green 1995: 203). Both languages distinguish eight major conjugation classes, most dividing into subconjugations—23 in Ndjebbana, and 26 in Gurr-goni. Members of various classes show recurrent final syllables, suggesting that many synchronically unanalysable roots derive historically from compounds of the Mayali type (as both McKay 2000: 244-245 and Green 1995: 203-204 observe). Again in both languages relatively strong statistical associations are found between conjugation classes and transitivity. And although some conjugation classes show phonological segments recurrent across much of the paradigm, there seems to be insufficient regularity to motivate identification of conjugation class markers.

5.2.6. Maran languages The thirty to forty IVs found in each Maran language inflect quite idiosyncratically, though there are sufficient regularities to motivate recognition of conjugation classes in Alawa (Sharpe 1976: 710) and Mara (Heath 1981a: 247). The limited information on Warndarrang verbs in Heath (1980a) does not permit us to decide whether the establishment of conjugation classes is worthwhile. However, the situations are borderline. For Mara Heath (1981a: 247) distinguishes eight conjugation classes, and fully twenty-one sub-

Non-Pama-Nyungan conjugation classes

225

conjugation classes for only about twice this number of IVs! Some subconjugations are minimally distinct from one or more others. Fourteen have just a single member; the other seven have between two and five members.134 Most conjugation classes can be characterised in terms of a triplet of suffixed allomorphs; in a few cases, one or two forms suffice. However, none of the conjugation or subconjugation classes show any segment that could be regarded as a diagnostic, that recurs across a significant portion of the inflectional forms.

5.2.7. Nunggubuyu Nunggubuyu has some hundreds of synchronically monomorphemic IV roots, falling into a considerable number of conjugation classes according to patterns of tense suffixation (Heath 1984: 407); in addition, there are a number of irregular high frequency IVs. Heath (1984) distinguishes 8 main conjugation classes, most with subclasses, giving a total of 18 distinct patterns of inflection. Table 24 illustrates with one subconjugation from each of the main classes. Three major classes (embracing nine subconjugations) are characterised in terms of the final vowel of the IV, which in most cases remains unchanged throughout the paradigm of inflected forms. These Heath designates according to the root-final vowel. The other five classes are characterised by a conjugation marker that appears in a subset of the inflected forms; these markers are, with one exception, syllabic: -ya-, -nga- (four subclasses), -ma- (two subclasses), -ra-, and -n. The IV forms for these classes can be described as Prefixes-Root(Conjugation Marker)-Suffix (Heath 1984:412). Interestingly, the sets of suffixes to classes marked by conjugation markers resemble sets of suffixes associated with unmarked classes. Thus,_ya, nga and ma class IVs select suffixes associated with class a ly at least in those forms in which the conjugation marker shows up, while ra class IVs take a2 suffixes. (The forms that don't show the conjugation marker can also be linked to forms in the formally unmarked classes.) The formally unmarked a and i classes are large. The largest is a2, which is apparently open and includes many English and Kriol loans

226

Verb class systems: conjugations

κ β 60 S ά Χ

ι S

bo

«

ά Χ

Χ

ε ά Χ

κ ά Χ

χ

ι "Λ Χ

£ ά Χ

.δ Χ

κ

£

> •Ι ^ β Χ

, ι ε 3 Χ

bo κ ά Χ

α

ε

Ϋ « *Ρ 3 χ

£ ARG2

ARQ1 :ARGI

•'· Placed

c o n t e n t : :: : Φ : : : : A - MARK: : : : YES :

ARG2 •

TYPE; : ; PLACE

::::::::::::

FUNC ' · AT· ·

···· · · · • •·

:FIELD; ; d e n t ; ; ; ! ; ; ; ! ; ; ; ] ; TYPE ; · ; ; Property·' :ARGI : ; CONTENT : : ASLEEP::

Figure 21. Matrix representation of the lexical conceptual structure of the Wagiman CYC guk\-GE 'put to sleep' (after Wilson 1999: 148)

Overview of approaches to verb classification

255

in a unique fixed place, identical for all UVs and I Vs. Rather, it can go anywhere it fits within the IV's lexical conceptual structure, anywhere within the lexical conceptual structure that it does not conflict with extant specifications. Schultze-Berndt (2000: 147-209) proposes a Construction Grammar inspired analysis of transitivity in Jaminjung. Unlike the Lexical Functional Grammar analysis (and most other fusion analyses), this analysis does not assign everything to the lexicon, but recognises in addition independent argument-structure constructions that exist on the morpho-syntactic (grammatical) rather than lexical level. The lexical and morpho-syntactic levels are linked by associations between their respective argument slots, manifested by mappings from the former to the latter. In this approach, it should be observed, clausal transitivity is not determined by lexical valency. Central to Schultze-Berndt's account is a distinction between semantic arguments or participants (such as recipients, themes, instruments, figures, and the like) and morpho-syntactic arguments, the argument roles of the grammatical constructions (e.g. Actors and Undergoes) (Schultze-Berndt 2000: 150ff). There are two distinct sets of argument-structure constructions, one defined by the ergative-absolutive system of NP case-marking, the other by the nominative-accusative system of cross-referencing bound pronominals in the IV. The UV and IV each contribute to the semantic argument structure of the CVC in terms of semantic roles they specify;152 in contrast to Wilson's Lexical Functional Grammar analysis their lexical entries do not specify morpho-syntactic arguments. There are certain requirements of argument sharing between UVs and IVs, which differ for different UVs and IVs; and mappings associate the shared items with morpho-syntactic arguments. Thus, for instance, monovalent IVs normally combine with monovalent UVs, the single participant of each being mapped onto both argument-structure constructions, the one marked by pronominal prefixes to the IV, and the one marked by case-marking. This is illustrated by example (67), with monovalent IV -RUMA 'come' and monovalent UV bul 'emerge'. Table 26 shows the argument sharing involved in this example, and indicates the loci of the argument structures involved.

256

Grammar of verb

superclassification

(67) ngidbud-biyang bul ga-ram night-now emerge 3sgNOM-come:PRES 'Nightfalls.' (Schultze-Berndt2000: 192) Table 26.

Argument sharing of monovalent UV and monovalent IV (SchultzeBerndt 2000: 193, adapted for terminological consistency) ngidbud night

ABS

bul emerge

UV

NOM

ga-ram 3sgNOM-come:PRES IV

NP(ABS)

CVC

INTRANS

Jaminjung

IV

bul -RUMA

Intransitive IV root

Some monovalent IVs—specifically -YU 'be' and -IJGA 'go'— combine not only with monovalent UVs but also with bivalent UVs. One participant from the semantic argument structure of each lexical item is mapped onto both the bound cross-referencing nominative pronominal of the IV and an absolutive NP. The second participant, contributed only by the UV, is mapped onto a second absolutive NP; it is not cross-referenced in the IV. This is illustrated in (68), which involves the most frequent IV in this context, -YU 'be'. Table 27 shows the argument sharing and mappings involved in this example. (68) en janyungbari burlug-mayan ga-yu Jaminjung and another drink-CONT 3sgNOM-be:PRES gugu water 'And the other one is drinking water.' (Schultze-Berndt 2000: 195)

Overview of approaches to verb classification

Table 27.

ABS

Argument sharing of bivalent UV and monovalent IV (Schultze-Berndt 2000: 195, adapted) janyungbari

gugu

burlug-mayan

ga-yu

another

water

drink-CONT

3sgNOM-be:PRES IV

NP(ABS)

ABS

IV

NP(ABS)

PROG

UV-mayan

IV

burlug-mayan -YU

Intransitive IV root

It seems that in Jaminjung the conditions on sharing are relatively simple. The UV and IV either show identical arguments (including fillers), or one (usually, though not always, the UV) is fully contained within the other (Schultze-Berndt 2000: 209). The CVC thus typically shows the semantic argument structure of one of its components, normally the IV. Only in restricted circumstances does the UV add an additional argument, as was the case in (68) above.153 Though not cast in any particular grammatical theory, and neither uses the term "fusion", proposals by Green (1989) and Reid (2000) for the Daly River languages Marrithiyel and Ngan'gityemerri amount to fusion analyses, though with a slight twist (see below). Reid (2000) is the more comprehensive account, so I discuss it. Reid proposes that both UV and IV are independently assigned valency. For IVs this is the valency they show in independent use, if permitted; for UVs it is more difficult to establish valency independently, since they do not have the privilege of independent occurrence. Reid (2000: 341-342) distinguishes three valencies for IVs, intransitive, transitive, and reflex-

258

Grammar of verb

superclassification

ive/reciprocal, and three for UVs, monovalent, bivalent low transitive, and bivalent high transitive (Reid's labels). Of the nine possible combinations of UV and IV transitivity, eight are attested. (Unattested is the combination of reflexive/reciprocal IV and low transitive UV.) According to Reid (2000: 343), the transitivity of the CVC can be derived from that of the UV and IV by eight rules of combination—which can be equally construed as rules of fusion—as shown in Table 28. Table 28.

Fusion rules in Ngan'gityemerri (based on Reid 2000: 343)

IV valency

U V valency

CVC transitivity

Intransitive

monovalent

intransitive

bivalent & low transitive

(in)transitive, subject focus

bivalent & high transitive

intransitive anticausative

monovalent

transitive causative

Transitive

Reflexive

bivalent & low transitive

low transitive with object focus

bivalent & high transitive

high transitive

monovalent

intransitive, causative/reflexive

bivalent & low transitive

—

bivalent & high transitive

intransitive, reflexive

To illustrate, the following three examples show combinations of intransitive IVs with the three different types of UV, monovalent, bivalent low transitive, and bivalent high transitive, respectively: (69) ngi-ni-tyutytyurr-tye Ngan'gityemerri 1 sgNOM-sit-swim-PA Ί was swimming.' (intransitive IV, monovalent UV, intransitive CVC) (Reid 2000: 343) (70) ngi-rim-(0)-pup (palayin) Ngan'gityemerri 1 sgNOM-sit-(3sgACC)-rub firestick 'I'm rubbing firesticks.' (intransitive IV, bivalent low transitive UV, intransitive CVC, focus on subject posture/activity) (Reid 2000: 344)

Overview of approaches to verb classification

259

(71) kuru di-m-purrngpurrng nyine Ngan'gityemerri water 3sgNOM-sit-boil FOC 'The water is boiling now.' (intransitive IV, bivalent high transitive UV, intransitive anticausative CVC) (Reid 2000: 347) Knight (2001: 291-305) proposes a similar model for Bunuba CVCs, also distinguishing three valencies for UVs (monovalent, low transitive bivalent, and high transitive bivalent), along with three valencies for IVs (intransitive, transitive, and reflexive/reciprocal). Rules of fusion operate on the combinations of UVs and IVs in a similar way to Ngan'gityemerri; thus, for instance, from a monovalent UV and intransitive IV an intransitive CVC results, while from a low transitive bivalent UV and a transitive IV we get a low transitive CVC with Undergoer focus. An important characteristic of the last discussed fusion analysis is that it is the IV itself that determines the basic argument-structure features of the CVC: as can be seen from Table 28, the number of arguments of a CVC is always identical with the valency of the IV, which may be presumed then to contribute the arguments. The UVs may be presumed to be categorised according to valency—i.e. fall into valency classes—but do not come with argument slots. Proposals such as those discussed in this section go a long way towards demonstrating the viability of fusion approaches to argument structure, and complex predicate analyses of the CVC. In particular, they show the extent to which clausal argument structure can be dependent—in some languages—on the argument structure of the verbal complex, and ultimately of its component verbs. (Though recall that in Schultze-Berndt's model of Jaminjung argument structure the two levels, lexical and grammatical, are independent but linked.) They provide a plausible account of argument structure in the target languages, in particular, languages of the Daly River region and surroundings. Fusion approaches run into more substantial problems as one moves into the Kimberley region, to Bunuban (certainly Gooniyandi—I suspect Bunuba as well) and Nyulnyulan languages. Nevertheless, it seems to me that there are difficulties with fusion

260

Grammar of verb superclassification

approaches in general, that necessitate rejection of the complex predicate analysis of CVCs that they presume. CVCs are not, and historically never were, complex predicates—see next subsection, and Chapter 8. One disadvantage of the argument fusion approach, is that it is not analytically parsimonious, if we simultaneously assume a classification analysis such as adopted in this book. A fusion mechanism is postulated that is specific to argument structure or valency at some level, lexical or grammatical, and thus is completely unrelated to the classifying analysis. The IV is accorded a categorising function within the CVC, and at the same time is considered to be, or function as, a predicate within a complex predicate construction, in respect of its argument-contributing capabilities. 154 There seems to be no way of avoiding the conclusion that transitivity must be ultimately irrelevant to the system of event categorisation within these approaches. I certainly do not deny that simultaneous dual analyses are required for certain grammatical structures. For instance, I agree with Schultze-Berndt (2000: 154-156) that a dual analysis of transitivity in terms of (at least) two different argument structure constructions, each associated with different types of formal marking, is necessary for an adequate account of transitivity—though we differ somewhat in our conceptualisations of these constructions, and their loci within the scheme of grammar (see also McGregor 1997b: 113ff, forthcoming-a). However, dual analyses must not be postulated willy-nilly, and one needs to consider whether both are necessary. If it can be demonstrated that one will suffice, that analysis is preferable. In §6.3 I illustrate how a classification analysis might account for valency and transitivity phenomena by showing how it can be used to account for the situation in Nyulnyul. There are other potential problems with argument fusion analyses. It sometimes happens that the transitivity of a CVC is less than the maximum valency of the {UV, IV} pair. For instance, in Nyulnyul many collocations involving the IV -R 'poke'—which is bivalent in SVCs, and occurs only in transitive clauses—are monovalent; 155 and in Ngan'gityemerri combinations involving intransitive IVs and high transitivity UVs give rise to intransitive CVCs (Reid 2000: 347). Fusion approaches in which IVs and UVs are lexically specified for arguments (whether semantic or syntactic) will have some argument (slot)

Overview of approaches to verb classification

261

that is unused, presumably deleted. However, there is something unattractive about approaches that admit deletions, and in recent years an increasing number of linguists have adopted the view that once an element is present in a structure it must remain there. This problem is circumvented in Reid's fusion model by not specifying argument slots for UVs. But clearly even this refinement will not work in Nyulnyul, where IV valency does not determine transitivity.

6.1.6. CVCs as complex predicates Complex predicate constructions have become fashionable in recent years, and a variety of diverse phenomena have been grouped together under the rubric, sometimes with analytical and explanatory gains. For instance, it seems that certain types of serial verb construction can be accounted for insightfully in these terms. As indicated in the previous subsection, however, I do not believe that the complex predicate framework provides a useful way of understanding CVC verb category systems of Australian languages. In this section I outline my reasons. Of course, it depends on what is meant by the term complex predicate. According to one influential source, "[cjomplex predicates can be defined as predicates which are multi-headed; they are composed of more than one grammatical element (either morphemes or words), each of which contributes part of the information ordinarily associated with a head" (Alsina, Bresnan, and Sells 1997: 1). There are serious problems with this characterisation. Crucial to it is the notion of multiheadedness, yet we are given at best a vague indication of the vexed notion of headedness (see e.g. Zwicky 1985; Hudson 1987; McGregor 1998f for discussion of some problems). Furthermore, it seems that we must compare the complex construction with corresponding "normal" constructions and determine whether the targeted grammatical information is conveyed by a single head—though on what empirical and/or theoretical basis normality is to be ascertained remains unspecified. 156 Do CVCs satisfy these criteria for complex predicates? The answer is a definite "No". There is no evidence that both IV and UV constitute heads in a CVC, unless one employs mixed criteria. If we stick—as I

262

Grammar of verb

superclassification

have argued we must (McGregor 1997b: 64,1998f)—with a single criterion, one or the other, or neither, emerges as head, never both, (i) If we take the criterion of inflectional locus the IV obviously emerges as the head, (ii) According to distributional criteria, the head would consistently be the UV. For although it is true that CVCs can be replaced by SVCs, this demonstrates merely that CVCs and SVCs share the same distribution within clauses: both may serve in the same grammatical relation in the clause. But in general a UV-IV collocation cannot be replaced by its IV. In non-finite clauses (as mentioned previously), for instance, if a single unit replaces the collocation it is the UV, not an infinitival form of the IV. (iii) The notion of headedness advocated by Hudson (1987) is that the dependent specifies the 'kind of the head—it subcategorises the head. Assuming the categorisation analysis of the CVC, the UV would be the best candidate for head, categories representing the 'kinds' of events they denote. However, closer examination reveals problems: the 'kind of relation is not always obvious, at least given the lexical meanings of the UV and IV. For instance, it is not obvious that in the Nyulnyul daarr\-R (arrive|poke) 'arrive' the IV -R 'poke' indicates the 'kind of arriving, or even the kind of event arriving is.157 Nor does the 'kind of relation work better in the reverse direction, in any meaningful interpretation of it. (iv) According to the criteria of Semiotic Grammar, neither UV nor IV emerges as head, since there is no evidence of a grammatical relation of dependency between the two units, a necessary condition for headedness (see further §6.2 below). The construction is headless—exocentric in Bloomfieldian terminology (see also Schultze-Berndt 2000: 126-127). Not all investigators, however, include headedness as a defining feature of complex predicates. Hinrichs, Kathol, and Nakazawa (1998), for instance, make no such stipulation, and seem to take argument compositionality as criterial. Mohanan (1997) adopts a similar view, that there must be two semantically predicative units, and that these jointly determine clause structure. Do CVCs satisfy the latter condition? We discussed some difficulties with this notion in §6.1.5 in regard to argument fusion accounts of the transitivity of CVCs. We did not, however, explore carefully the question of determination of clausal transitivity from the valency fea-

Overview of approaches to verb classification

263

tures of UV and IV, and rules of fusion—between transitivity at clausal and CVC levels. It turns out that the correlations are not always deterministic. In Nyulnyulan languages the two semantically predicative units do not jointly determine clause structure. Although there is a good correlation between CVC and clause transitivity, it is imperfect. CVCs can be found that have the potential of occurring in clauses of different transitivity values, and hence clausal transitivity cannot be determined from the valency of the semantically predicative units. For instance, Nyulnyul examples (72) and (73) show the same CVC first in an intransitive clause, then in a transitive clause. Yawuru examples (74), (75) and (76) show the same CVC in intransitive, transitive, and medio-active clauses (see §5.4 above), respectively—indeed, any CVC that can occur in a medio-active clause can also occur in an intransitive clause (and often a transitive one also). In none of these examples is there any formal indexatin in the CVC of the transitivity difference. (72) wirlawirl rdirdird i-n-j fishing: line twist 3minNOM-TR-say 'The fishing line got tangled.'

Nyulnyul

(73) rdirdird wa-n-j-0 twist 2minNOM/FUT-TR-say-3 minACC 'Squeeze it!'

Nyulnyul

(74) laar i-ny-ju-n wubardu-jina Yawuru crack 3sgNOM-EN-say-IMPFV little-GEN 'It (the spear) has a small crack in it.' (Hosokawa 1991: 209) (75) laar i-ny-ju-n-ngayu nyamba-ni Yawuru crack 3 sgNOM-EN-say-IMPFV-1 minACC this-ERG dila wanangarri hard stone 'The stony surface (of the path) cracked me (i.e. hurt my feet).' (Hosokawa 1991: 209)

264

Grammar of verb superclassification

(76) laar nga-ny-ju-nda munyu dila-ni wanangarri crack 1 sgNOM-EN-say-PF knee hard-ERG stone Ί got my knees hurt by the hard stone (i.e. the stony surface of the path).' (Hosokawa 1991:209) Yawuru The best we can hope for in Nyulnyulan languages is to account for the predominant transitivity associations between CVCs and clauses; complete predictability is impossible. The extent to which this is the case for other languages is uncertain, partly because available descriptions do not often distinguish between transitivity on the two levels. But even if not, there are reasons to doubt the viability of the complex predicate interpretation. Another approach, advocated by Mohanan (1997: 432), invokes the requirement that the two elements involved must both be semantically predicative. But what counts as semantically predicative? In CVCs in most languages both UV and IV are usually predicates semantically in the sense that they can, given appropriate circumstances, designate events, and this may be a part of their lexical semantic specification. One problem is that it is not uncommon to find in a language one or a few IVs that lack the privilege of independent occurrence, and for them it is difficult to argue for their status as semantically predicative. Similarly for UVs: in the absence of empirical evidence that they can independently designate events one cannot be sure that they are semantically predicative. Worse, as we have seen, words from other partsof-speech—especially nominals and adverbials—occur in CVCs in many languages. Assuming that they are not semantically predicative, we would have to conclude that collocations involving them are not complex predicates. Yet there is no reason to believe that all such collocations are grammatically distinct from collocations involving UVs. Assuming that they are semantically predicative is even worse: we would be forced to the position that every open class word is in principle semantically predicative, and thus their combinations (e.g. mird baab (male child) 'boy' in Nyulnyul) would be complex predicates. The question is: how can we determine whether an item is semantically predicative? Is it the inherent semantics of an item or its use in a particular construction that is crucial? If we go by the part-of-speech

Overview of approaches to verb classification

265

classification of the item collocating with the IV, we are forced to exclude—for no satisfactory reason—all CVCs involving nominals and adverbials from the class of complex predicates. If we rely on the functional criterion—the possibility that the item be used independently to refer to an event—we have the problem of IVs that do not have this potential, and thus the exclusion of their collocations from the class of complex predicates. And if we do admit such IVs as predicative, how can we exclude the Gooniyandi classifiers? Their glosses also suggest predicative status—as do glosses for derivational morphemes such as inchoatives ('become') in various languages. It is thus necessary to distinguish between three interpretations of predicative: according to part-of-speech, by inherent (etic) semantics, and by use in constructions. In the best case scenario an item will be predicative on all three counts. This is the case for the Nyulnyul rdirdird 'twist' in (72) and (73). Yet -J 'do, say' in the same examples seems predicative on just two counts: its part-of-speech classification as an IV, and its inherent semantics. There is no reason to believe that it functions referentially, designating an event. The analysis of the CVC proposed in the next section hinges on just this point. The upshot is that CVCs do not satisfy the second set of criteria for complex predicates (which focuses on their separate statuses as predicates) any better than they do the first (which focuses on their joint headship). The above is not an argument against complex predicate analyses in general, and I do not adopt the position of Hale and Keyser (1997) and Baker (1997) who argue that candidate constructions can always be accounted for as complement constructions. My claim is merely that CVCs do not fit the bill for complex predicates. Nor is there any reason to believe that a complement analysis of the CVC is any better than a complex predicate analysis. Ultimately, it must be concluded that the complex predicate analysis provides no better understanding of the grammatical and semantic features of CVCs than does the compound analysis. It provides a means of preserving some aspects of semantic compositionality, and possible mechanisms for accounting for the meaning of the construction in terms of the meanings of the components parts. Mostly, how-

266

Grammar of verb

superclassification

ever, analyses of complex predicate constructions have focussed on mechanisms required to preserve compositionality of arguments, to the exclusion of other equally important characteristics (e.g. Aktionsart). So also has the question as to what grammatical relations are involved been largely ignored; rules of fusion are no replacement for grammatical relations. Putting things in a slightly different way, it can be useful to analogise CVCs in chemical terms as molecular combinations of atoms, each with inherent valency dispositions. But this provides at best a partial understanding of the CVC, which may be misleading in certain respects. More important is the nature of the bond between the two units.

6.1.7. Grammatical relations in conjugation classes? As for conjugation classes, the general assumption in Australianist linguistics is that they represent morphological complications, with no functional or semantic significance (Dixon 1980: 382). No one seems to have thought to enquire as to whether "serious" grammatical relations might be involved. My position is that they are, and that a reappraisal of the phenomenon is called for.

6.2. Grammatical relations in CVCs What is required for the grammatical description of superclassifying constructions is not, in my view, combinatorial mechanisms such as rules of fusion, but rather specification of the semiotically significant grammatical relations that they enter into. Thus we seek explication of the structural-semantic relations that underpin the attested combinations, not mechanisms for specifying acceptable combinations. This approach is motivated by the grammatical theory that underpins the present account, Semiotic Grammar, according to which the goal of linguistic theory and description is to understand the grammar of a language as a semiotic resource, as a resource for making meaning. Fundamental to overt verb superclassifying constructions is a mark-

Grammatical

relations in CVCs

267

ing relation (McGregor 1997b: 71, 340-346): a grammatical relation whereby some element in the construction marks or specifies the category to which another belongs.158 Systems of superclassification serve to establish a set of categories or classes, to one of which a verb and/or its referent event will be assigned, or be a member of. The means by which this is achieved in overt systems is through a marking relation, that specifies the association between a verb (and/or event) and a category or class. Marking relations are one of a number of types of linking relations that together constitute the semiotic resources of grammars of human languages that accord texture to stretches of language-instantiations, distinguishing them from mere conglomerations of linguistic units (McGregor 1997b: 284ff). Semiotically, marking relations serve to provide structure to the utterance and give shape to an otherwise amorphous mass of linguistic units, and thus are also designated textural, where this label accords focus to their signifieds. Marking relations, that is, serve similar functions to the glue and nails that hold a wooden chair together and distinguish it from a pile of pieces lying on the floor. How can verbal superclassification be understood as a textural phenomenon? The unit that serves the marking relation is the conjugation marker in prototypical verb conjugation class systems, and the classifier in verb superclassifying systems such as are found in Gooniyandi. In CVCs the IV root serves this role. This unit has, as discussed previously, grammaticalised in the construction: it serves a purely grammatical function—it is the marker in a marking relation. It has no predicative or event-denoting function. Figure 22 provides a simple diagrammatic representation of this proposal, where the hand-held pencil indicates the marking of an association between the verb or UV and its category. An alternative way of conceptualising this proposal in regard to a CVC category system is shown in Figure 23. Here the marker is conceived of as a label attached to verbal lexeme tokens, specifying the category to which it is assigned (recalling the library catalogue model discussed in §1.3.1). A similar representation is possible for a class system: then the label would normally be attached to types in the lexi-

268

Grammar of verb

superclassification

Catego ry A

Category Β

Category C Category F

Category D Categ ory Ε

Verb or UV

Conjugation marker, Classifier, or IV

Figure 22. Grammatical marking relation in verb category and class systems

con, not to instantiated tokens. The label specifies in the one case 'is assigned to category C\ in the other, 'belongs to class C", where C is the form of the marker itself. To the extent that the category can be assigned an intentional semantic characterisation, the formal label may be replaced by, or augmented by, a semantic label or gloss, and the semantic specification may be taken to be the "meaning" of the marker. There are a number of consequences of this analysis. First, according to the Relational Grammar analysis of CVCs, the UV ultimately acquires chömeur status, while the IV serves in a predicative relation. All of the substantive evidence, however, points to the contrary: it is the IV if anything that is a chömeur, its role in the CVC being purely grammatical. It is only the morphological characteristics of the IV—the fact that they inflect like verbs in familiar languages—that are suggestive of a predicative status for this unit. But this is illusory. All morphemes that constitute the fully inflected IV are markers of one type or an-

Grammatical

Category A (IVj

mm uv,

ι; IV,

uv.

IV:: :

IV,

uv,

IV

uv,

269

Category Β (IVJ IV,

uv,

relations in CVCs

uv,

I:. IV^; UV,

mm

ii® uv 7

Category C (IV)

uv,

Figure 23.

Alternative representation of the marking relation in C VC systems

other—marking some verbal or clausal category or relation—they cannot be construed as evidence for the function or grammatical relation that the IV root serves. The inflected IV in CVCs, that is, is no more than a complex configuration of grammatical markers. At best inflectional potential can be taken as evidence for part-of-speech category membership; it indicates nothing concerning the grammatical relations the unit may enter into. Second, and more importantly, since IVs serve as category markers in CVCs, it follows that: • the inherent lexical-semantic and grammatical characteristics of IVs are to all intents and purposes synchronically irrelevant in CVCs; and • what is crucial are the properties of the categories that the IVs mark, these being logically independent of the properties of the IVs alone, as evidenced by their behaviour in SVCs. This is not to say that there is no connection between IVs and the categories they mark. Rather, the claim is that whatever connections obtain

270

Grammar of verb

superclassification

are etymological and historical, not semiotic-grammatical—etic not emic. It is thus unnecessary to invoke the metaphor of bleaching of IV semantics in the C VC at least in a synchronic account of inherent semantics. Appearances to the contrary, the lexical semantics of an IV is not bleached when it occurs in a CVC. Rather, it is simply not accessed—it lies dormant—the IV not serving a predicative function. Once we adopt the view that the construction itself, including grammatical relations that compose it, as well as the categories themselves convey meaning, there is no need to postulate lexical-semantic bleaching. As a lexeme, an IV such as -W 'give' in Nyulnyul means 'give' irrespective of whether it occurs in a CVC or a SVC. At best, bleaching is relevant to the non-inherent contextual senses of a lexical token. An analogy might be helpful. Consider subclassification in the English NP, as in steam train, electric train,personal computer, etc.. Here the first Ν (adjective, adverb, or whatever) subclassifies the second, specifying a subcategory of the type of entity denoted by the second N. Clearly steam, electric, and personal do not designate either entities or qualities displayed by the NP referents. A steam train need not be in steam, indeed may never have been in steam; an electric train need not be connected to electric power; and a personal computer might be employed by a group of people, none of who consider it in any way personal to them, their personal property or for their exclusive use. It does not follow that the lexeme types steam, electric, and personal are semantically bleached in these collocations. Steam still means 'steam', electric means 'electric', and personal means 'personal'; there is no need to postulate distinct senses for these words peculiar to the collocations. A dictionary entry for steam need not specify a sense that is unique to the collocation; rather, what it must specify is that this word can occur in collocation with Ns such as train, tram, boat, and so forth, and that these collocations designate vehicles that would employ steam as their motive-power. It is the collocations, that is, that are accorded separate senses, not the subclassifying lexemes themselves. Correspondingly, a grammar would distinguish between referential and classifying usage of words such as steam, and need not invoke semantic bleaching to account for the collocations.

Grammatical

relations in CVCs

271

In a similar way the pronominal it in English has, aside from its regular referential uses, dummy uses as in it is raining. There is no need to presume that the inherent meaning of it is not still 'third person singular neuter'. This inherent meaning remains in the highly grammaticalised dummy usage, though in limbo. Nor is it justified to proceed in the reverse direction, from the apparent vacuous meaning of it as a dummy item, to the position that the pronominal has no inherent meaning—respectively, that the meaning of lexemes such as steam in compounds defines their inherent semantics. In short, the grammatical and inherent semantics of linguistic units are in principle independent and should not be confused. Our search for a common denominator of meaning invariant across all uses of a linguistic unit must, that is, be restricted to uses in comparable domains: lexical or grammatical. Returning to CVCs, it is only when the process of grammaticalisation has reached the point that the erstwhile IV no longer has the ability to serve a referential function in an SVC that it becomes necessary—or useful—to speak of change to the inherent specifications of that unit. Its part-of-speech classification may now be considered to have changed, as may its inherent semantics. The semantic features previously associated with the category it marked can now be reassigned to the morpheme that once was an IV root. A related point is the observation alluded to at various points in the exposition that the valency of the IV in an SVC is irrelevant to the transitivity of a CVC in which that IV occurs. As will be demonstrated in the following section, it is the valency characteristics and vectorial configuration of the indexed category that are the primary considerations. Third, the category marker—the IV in a CVC, the classifier in a Gooniyandi-type verb classifier system, the conjugation marker in a class system—is neither a head nor a dependent; indeed, there is no evidence that it enters into a dependency relation with any linguistic unit. In all constructions these units serve essentially the same marking function, irrespective of their inherent nature, their part-of-speech classification, or morpheme class. At the most general level the formal character of the marking unit is functionally irrelevant. This is not to say that the formal characteristics are totally irrelevant, since quite ob-

272

Grammar of verb

superclassification

viously there are strong associations between marking type and categorisation type, as well as differences in terms of other uses the markers may be put to. Fourth, Nichols' influential typology of grammatical marking that distinguishes between head marking and dependent marking (Nichols 1986) is not useful to understanding the marking relations in verb classification systems. As we have seen, it is not obvious that the unit the marker is attached to is the head of the construction. In verb classifier and class systems the marker is attached to the verb (not necessarily directly). Although this is the clausal head according to many dependency theories, the evidence is not compelling (McGregor 1997b: 62, 1998f). On the other hand, in CVCs in many languages the marking unit, whilst being distributionally bound, is not attached to a unit that is indisputably a head. Of course, the marking relation is not the only grammatical relation in a verbal construction that serves as the locus for a category- or class-marking system of verb superclassification. In a category system such as the CVC the categorised lexical root or stem token also serves a grammatical relation: it specifies the event itself, the process, activity, happening, state, or whatever, that unfolds over time. According to Semiotic Grammar, this lexical unit serves an experiential role within the VP; this I label Process (McGregor 1997b: 123-124), since it contributes to the constitution of the VP as a grammatical unit designating a "chunk" of the world of experience. It enters into a constituency relation in the VP. The experiential role Process is not however restricted to the categorised lexical item, the UV in a CVC. Precisely the same function is served within a finite SVC by the IV root or stem, and the UV (sometimes an infinitival IV or CVC) in a non-finite VP (in a nonfinite clause).159 These units provide specification, in their respective constructions, of the event-tokens designated, as is evident from a comparison of Nyulnyul examples (77), (78), and (79): clearly -K 'carry' specifies the referent event of carrying in (77), while jarrbard 'lift' designates it as one of lifting in (78) and (79).160 (Underlined items serve marking functions in the verbal constructions (bolded); double underlining indicates category- or class-marking units.)

Grammatical relations in CVCs

(77)

VP

273

Nyulnyul

Process IV I kinyingk-uk varr-a-k-in jarrad this-LOC laugNOM-TR-carry-PRES laugOBL may kinyingk-uk food this-LOC 'We carry our food in this (i.e. a coolamon).' (78)

VP

Nyulnyul

Process UV war-in baab jarrbard i-na-ng-k kumbarr one-ERG child lift 3minNOM-TR-EN-carry stone 'One child lifted the rock.' (79)

VP I

Nyulnyul

Process UV I kinyingk jarrbard-ung bindany malbul this lift-ALL big thing 'This is for lifting big things.' Where are the categories marked by IVs, conjugation markers, and the like—what is their ontological status? Clearly the situation is quite different from that for case-marking suffixes or enclitics, for which what is marked are grammatical relations that exist in the grammatical

274

Grammar of verb superclassification

structures of clauses: for instance, in (78) the ergative postposition -in marks the NP war baab 'one child' as Agent. Verb categories and classes identified in Chapters 2-4 clearly do not exist anywhere in grammatical structure—any more than do nominal categories and classes. But this does not imply that they are not a part of the grammatical systems of a language. As has been stressed at various points in the preceding discussion, the categories and classes are at base distributionally defined. This suggests that they might enjoy an ontological status comparable to part-ofspeech categories. Whatever that might be, few linguists would deny the existence of parts-of-speech simply because they are not items of form. In addition to this, in some category-marking languages at least, I have argued that a corresponding categorisation of conceptual-referent events exists parallel with the distributionally based one. Hence, perhaps, the categories may also have existence in conceptual structure, which may exist somewhere in the minds of speakers. In any event, it is not unreasonable to presume the categories actually exist somewhere in the semantic or conceptual structure of a language, not just in linguists' analyses or imaginations. Summing up, it has been proposed that two grammatical relations characterise verbal constructions involving verb classification: (a) Process, an experiential/constituency relation in the VP; and (b) category marking, a linking/textural relation that assigns the lexical verb, an instantiation of the lexical verb, and/or its conceptual referent to a category. These relations are not present in other verbal constructions (e.g. serial verb constructions) that are frequently also considered to be complex predicates. In my view, these constructions at best share aspects of grammatical substance, not form: whatever resemblances there are among them result from limitations in realisational possibilities (see also next chapter). I have objected to compositional accounts that characterise the meaning (and transitivity) of CVCs in terms of the inherent meanings (transitivity) of the IV, UV, and construction itself. This does not rule out all compositional approaches. But instead of the inherent meaning of the IV as a lexical item, we need to take into account its external or non-inherent meaning in the CVC: the meaning of the category it

Valency and transitivity

in Nyulnyul CVCs

275

marks. This can be determined in the usual way, by filtering out what is common to the senses associated with CVCs involving the IV (ignoring SVCs with the IV). The processes of composition are, however, not exclusively additive ones in which the meanings of the components are simply toted up; some sort of classificatory mechanism (the nature of which is not clear to me) must also be admitted.

6.3. Valency and transitivity in Nyulnyul CVCs We have already seen that transitivity in Nyulnyulan languages is a feature of the clause, not of verbal items, UVs, IVs, or CVCs. There is a mismatch between transitivity types distinguished for clauses and valency types for verbs (see §5.4). Furthermore, the same CVC can sometimes occur in clauses of different transitivity values (see (72)(76) above). Nevertheless, there is a degree of mutual predictability between verbal valency and clausal transitivity that motivates an attempt to link the two, even granted it will never be one hundred percent. In this section we examine this association between IV and UV valency and clausal transitivity in Nyulnyul. We begin with IV roots, the valency of which must be determined by restricting attention to their use in SVCs. Three primary covert classes can be defined as follows (cf. §5.4). Bivalent IVs must take an accusative pronominal enclitic, unless either they are marked by the reflexive/reciprocal derivational affixes, or the accusative enclitic has been displaced by an oblique pronominal enclitic. Monovalent IVs, by contrast, cannot host an accusative enclitic. Ambivalent IVs may host an accusative enclitic, but need not, depending on the clausal context.161 No IV with the potential of occurring in CVCs is ambivalent according to this criterion; in fact, none is even ambi-categorial. In general the valency of an IV corresponds with its conjugation class membership—and both correspond with clausal transitivity.162 The ease of categorising IVs according to valency is matched by virtual impossibility of independently categorising UVs: not only do they display no formal markers of valency, but they rarely occur in the absence of IVs, and when they do, are rarely encountered with a full

276

Grammar of verb

superclassification

complement of NPs in argument roles. Hence, an account of CVC transitivity based on rules of fusion can be at best motivated on grounds of workability and internal consistency; it cannot be independently motivated. Fusion rules based purely on (presumed) valency of the IV and UV run into problems that limit their descriptive usefulness. For instance, mijal 'sit' and dibirr 'turn' both collocate with monovalent IVs giving rise to intransitive CVCs, and with bivalent IVs giving rise to transitive CVCs. By contrast, jurnk 'run' in collocation with both monovalent and bivalent IVs results in intransitive CVCs. If we put the difference down to different valencies of the UVs, we would have to conclude that mijal 'sit' and dibirr 'turn' are (contrary to what their glosses suggest) bivalent, jurnk 'run' monovalent. But a bivalent UV plus a monovalent IV does not always give rise to an intransitive CVC. For instance, dujul 'pound, hammer' and duk 'wipe' both collocate with the monovalent -J 'say, do' forming transitive CVCs. Clearly for a fusion account to work it will be necessary to distinguish subclasses of UVs which combine with IVs according to different parameters, for example, along the lines suggested by Reid (2000) for Ngan'gityemerri, or SchultzeBerndt (2000) for Jaminjung. Such an account could doubtless be fabricated. However, the following considerations (many of which have already been mentioned) count against it. (i) It is difficult to independently motivate the valency assigned to the UV, and to distinguish and motivate covert valency subclasses is even more problematic, (ii) It is not clear what the treatment of the not infrequent collocations involving words of other partsof-speech should be. For instance, should nominals that occur in CVCs be assigned a valency? Or should such words be treated as homophonous with nominals, but actually (zero-derived) UVs? (iii) When the CVC is intransitive but one or other of the UV or IV is bivalent we are left with the worry of the additional valency slot. Perhaps this can be understood as a simple unused potential. But if so, why can't the same bivalent IVs in independent usage also admit an unused potential? (iv) No significance is accorded to the fact that the transitivity of some CVCs is entirely determined by the IV while that of others is not. (v) The analysis is independent of the classification analysis, and fails to

Valency and transitivity in Nyulnyul CVCs

277

suggest reasons why a given UV should collocate with more than one IV of the same valency; it lacks generality. The classification approach I am now going to outline avoids these difficulties, with the exception of (i): for Nyulnyul there is no way around the problem of lack of independent motivation for grammatical features of the UVs. All CVCs involving IVs -BARNJ 'exchange', - N 'be', -JID 'go', and -KAL 'wander', seem to be intransitive, and occur in either intransitive or quasitransitive clauses—that is, in clauses with a single inherent participant role. 163 Accordingly, it is proposed that a part of the semantic specification of the categories marked by these IVs is intransitivity of the referent State-of-Affairs (SoA) of the CVC. The UV does not need to be taken into account. The other I V s — R 'poke', -NY 'get', -K 'carry', -W 'give', -M 'put', and -J 'say, do'—occur in both transitive and intransitive CVCs. Thus the categories they specify are unmarked for transitivity. Is this all there is to say? How can the statistical differences in transitivity distribution for CVCs with these IVs be accounted for? Why, for instance, are most CVCs with -K 'carry' transitive, whereas CVCs involving -R 'poke' are mainly intransitive, and those involving -J 'say, do' show a more even distribution? This fact—accounted for in the fusion approach by differences in the valencies of the UVs—demands explanation. I submit that the vectorial configurations associated with the categories can be invoked to account for the statistical preferences in transitivity on the one hand, and for the transitivity values of particular CVCs on the other. For illustration let us consider the categories marked by the IVs -K 'carry' and -R 'poke'. Diagrammatic representations of their vectorial configurations are provided respectively in Figures 24 and 14, the latter repeated here for convenience as Figure 25. The abstract schematic shapes specified in the vectorial configurations represent part of the categorisation system. A conceptual event that displays such a configuration can potentially be classified accordingly. What it is precisely in this event that is represented by the various aspects of the schemata is unspecified. There is leeway in the interpretations. The circle in the schema for the -R 'poke' category can be

278

Grammar of verb

superclassification

Figure 24. Vectorial configuration for Nyulnyul -K 'carry' category

Figure 25. Vectorial configuration for Nyulnyul -R 'poke' category

interpreted either as an entity or a spatial domain. More often than not the latter interpretation prevails, perhaps because of the relative size and shape of the circle, and the fact that there is just one, making it the only natural choice of landmark; this is why a high proportion of CVCs involving this IV are intransitive, despite expectations based on the etically highly transitive appearance of -R 'poke'. CVCs involving the etically apparently less transitive -K 'carry', by contrast, are more often transitive. This is consistent with the vectorial configuration schema, which specifies a pair of more entity-like items, that are naturally instantiated as entities serving in participant roles. Perhaps the most common UV to collocate with -R 'poke' is daarr 'emerge, arrive'. The schema of Figure 25 (b) clearly applies, under the interpretation of the circle as the domain into which the moving entity enters, moving in a prototypically straight trajectory. By contrast, one of the few transitive CVCs involving -R 'poke' has UV kad 'bite'. It is

Valency and transitivity in Nyulnyul CVCs

279

not difficult to see how 'bite' can be interpreted as satisfying the vectorial configuration schema: it is prototypically performed by the action of a set of elongated entities, sharp teeth, impacting on a body, as in (80). Whereas for daarr 'emerge, arrive' the straight line represents the trajectory of moving entity, the circle, a spatial domain, for had 'bite' the straight line represents the instrument deployed in the action, the teeth, and the circle, the Undergoer. (80) yel-en gäd in-ar yil-in kad i-na-r dog-ERG bite 3sgNOM-TR-poke 'The dog bit the child.' (Nekes and

bäb Nyulnyul baab child Worms 1953: 533)

The lack of specificity or vagueness in interpretation counts in favour of the present approach. For it is not the case that the lexical valency features of the UV and IV together specify the transitivity of the CVC. As examples such as (72) and (73) above and (81) and (82) below illustrate, even for a single UV-IV pair different transitivity values are possible. (81) i-ny-jalk-uk wul-uk ngurrngurr 3minNOM-EN-fall-LOC water-LOC submerge i-na-r 3 minNOM-TR-poke 'When he fell into the water he drowned.'

Nyulnyul

(82) ηοΓ ηοΓ qan-ar yel ngurrngurr nga-na-r-a yil submerge lminNOM-TR-poke-3minACC dog Ί drowned the dog.' (Nekes and Worms 1953: 810)

Nyulnyul

In the present account these differences are accounted for under different possibilities in the interpretation of the components of the vectorial configuration schema.164 The intransitive CVC of (81) invokes the approximate straight line trajectory of the person and the intersection of a body of water at a point. The transitive CVC of (82) invokes a some-

280

Grammar of verb

superclassification

what different interpretation of the vectorial configuration. Here the crucial straight line vector represents an elongated instrument involved in the achievement of the event, namely the arms. The longish instrument makes contact with the Undergoer—represented by the circle in the vectorial configuration schema—in a point or set of points (the fingers). What is crucial is the salience of the end of the elongated instrument in effecting the action—endpoint contact of the arms, rather than contact along their length. This observation holds true more generally for transitive CVCs (see also Green 1989: 338-339). We have already seen this for kad 'bite (with sharp incisors)' ((80) above); other similar examples include 'bump someone with leg, effecting contact with lower part of leg and with a lateral movement', 'tickle someone' (where the fingers make contact with the Undergoer, moving laterally), 'press, squeeze, wring' (significant contact via the fingers), 'carve' (invoking conceptualisation in terms of repeated stabbing insertions of a knife), and so forth. And in each case the landmark, the circle, represents the Undergoer. As observed in §1.5.1, a vectorial configuration may be satisfied in more than one way: it is not necessarily the case that each component must have a unique interpretation in the conceptual referent event. In the case of transitive 'drown' in (82), another event component might also be mapped onto the straight line vector, the downwards pushing action of the person, and the resulting path of motion of the dog that intersects the body of water at a point. There is no grounds on which to choose between the alternative interpretations; both are admissible, and reinforce one another. The above should be sufficient to illustrate how the vectorial configuration specification of a category can be relevant to CVC transitivity, while not determining it. (Further discussion is included in McGregor in preparation: chapter 11.) To conclude, it may be worth observing that this proposal resembles in some respects the Lexical Functional Grammar approach advocated by Wilson (1999), though in other ways it is quite different. Like Wilson's Lexical Functional Grammar account, it is the specification associated with the IV that is crucial. But whereas according to Lexical Functional Grammar that specification represents the lexical meaning

Valency and transitivity

in Nyulnyul CVCs

281

of the IV, in the Semiotic Grammar approach it represents the inherent meaning of the category marked by the IV, which is at best indirectly associated with the IV. Second, in the Lexical Functional Grammar account the UV specification may be slotted into the specification of any IV that it is compatible with. In my approach it is not a matter of slotting the UV into the semantic specification of the category, but rather of determining whether the two are consistent. If they are—if the abstract specification inherently associated with the category is consistent with the UV's etic semantics—then the two may be combined. This does not imply that the meaning is actually shared (though it may be), and thus that the system is inherently redundant. Rather, the specification for the category typically provides some sort of abstract configurational meaning that is not expressed in the UV's inherent lexical semantics—but is rather exhibited by prototypical referent events— thus augmenting its inherent meaning. Rather than slotting the UV specification into that of the IV as per the Lexical Functional Grammar approach, it seems to me preferable to invoke a metaphor of overlaying: the semantic specification of the category marked by the IV is overlain onto the UV's conceptual referent, thereby adding precision to or reiterating the instantiated semantic specification of the UV. This must, of course, be understood with the proviso that each of the components of the specification of the category marked by the IV must be filled. In neither approach is it presumed that any permissible UV-IV pairing actually will occur. The grammatical description gets us partway to accounting for the compound verb construction, not all the way. It accounts for the systematic patterning. We still need particularistic collocational specifications for a complete account that includes what is non-systematic. These must be specified in the dictionary entries for the lexical items; they cannot be accounted for in the grammar itself.

Chapter 7 Related grammatical phenomena

In order to adequately appreciate the various grammatical constructions that serve as loci for overt systems of verb superclassification in Australian languages, they need to be seen in the context of related grammatical phenomena. They must be compared and contrasted with grammatical phenomena that they resemble in one way or another. To achieve this end is the primary intent of this chapter. In doing so, we will have occasion to elaborate further on phenomena that have already been introduced, as well as to broach new ones. We begin, in §7.1, by discussing other types of verb classification systems. Following this, in §7.2, we turn attention to the range of grammatical structures in Australian languages that have been referred to as compound verb constructions, and show that not all of them represent the same sort of phenomena as CVC category systems. That is to say, some grammatical constructions constituted by a UV and an IV are not superclassifying CVC systems. This discussion provides a cautionary tale to typologists and theoreticians, who are apt to group together under evocative labels such as "serial verb construction", "noun incorporation", "complex predicates" diverse grammatical phenomena that merely show superficial resemblances of etic form. At the same time it highlights the need for circumspection in the application of the label "verb classification". Sections 7.3 and 7.4 cast a wider net, and situate verb classification within a wider context of grammatical categories that resemble it either formally or functionally. Section 7.3 discusses a variety of complex verb constructions in Australian languages—basically verbal constructions that involve more than a single lexical item. Then §7.4 turns briefly to grammatical phenomena deployed for marking diathesis alternations. Section 7.5 winds up the chapter with comparative remarks on covert systems of verb classification, and restrictions on the domains of applicability of verb classification. The brief treatments of re-

284

Related grammatical

phenomena

lated grammatical phenomena in sections 7.1-7.4 are in places oversimplified; nevertheless, they should be sufficiently accurate for broad comparative purposes. The discussion of this chapter pretends to be neither complete nor comprehensive. Other grammatical phenomena might have been included in the comparison, but have not been, whether by oversight, because of my lack of familiarity with the relevant literature, or because they have not been described in such a way that their relevance is apparent. Verb conjugation classes have been excluded deliberately because they are so widely described that adequate treatment of the range of formal and semantic variation would be impossible in the limited space available.

7.1. Verb classification in a wider perspective Chapter 1 has already introduced some parameters of variation among verb classification systems. In this section I turn things around, and view them from the perspective of the grammatical constructions themselves, in an attempt to come to some appreciation of both the range of formal means deployed in verb classification systems, and the types of classification they effect.

7.1.1. Non-CVC compound verb classifying construction? 7.1.1.1. The Ngiyambaa compound verb construction Ngiyambaa shows a type of verb category system that is not located in a CVC, or anything that appears to derive historically from a CVC (Donaldson 1980: 203-209). According to Donaldson (1980: 205), a small set of compounding verbs in Ngiyambaa serve as verbal classifiers when they occur in apposition to other verbs. Äs in CVC systems, the verbal elements serving the classifying function are finite inflecting verbs. In contrast with CVCs, however, in the Ngiyambaa system both verbal elements are finite, and, although the classifying verb is itself

Verb classification in a wider perspective

285

part of a compound, this construction is not the locus of the categorisation system—the verbal element does not categorise the element it forms a compound with, but rather an external finite verb. Compound verbs consist of a bound modifier followed by a bound verb root. The twenty one bound modifiers fall into three groups: action-oriented, object-oriented, and result-oriented. Bound verb roots number thirteen: eight transitive, and five intransitive. Only in compounds formed by the eight transitive verb roots and one of the five intransitive roots—predictably, the least specific one semantically—together with any of the ten action-oriented or object-oriented bound modifiers (but not a result-oriented bound modifier) do the bound verb roots serve as verb classifiers. And what they classify is the following inflecting verb. In (83), for instance, the compound verb gunung-ga-l 'pierce energetically' classifies the action referred to by the following verb, baga-l 'dig', as being of the type involving piercing. All of these compounds may occur independently as main verbs, and hence are not dedicated classifiers. (83) winar-u mingga-0 gunung-giyi Ngiyambaa woman-ERG burrow-ABS with:energy-pierce/PA bagiyi dig/PA 'The woman dug a burrow energetically.' (Donaldson 1980: 204) As this example illustrates, the compound verb does not only specify the type of action involved, indicated by the bound root, but it also provides information on the manner of its performance, indicated by the bound modifier. The two go hand-in-hand in Ngiyambaa: verbs are categorised only when modifying information is provided, and conversely whenever modifying information is provided by a bound modifier the action must be categorised. In none of the systems discussed previously was there any such association between classification and modification. A parallel exists in the verb categorisation system of some Sinitic languages, which (like the numeral classifier system for nominals) is invoked only when an event is quantified (see §7.1.3).

286

Related grammatical

phenomena

According to Donaldson (1980:205) the semantic basis for the Ngiyambaa verb category system is quite transparent. Table 29 displays the system. From Donaldson's description it seems that valency is more central than is often the case in CVC-based systems, and that it is unambiguously marked by each bound verb root. For intransitive verbs, Aktionsart is also relevant: an active class is distinguished from a non-active class according to whether or not the verb can occur in apposition with a compounding verb, which must be the intransitive -MA->\ An assortment of features are involved in the subclassification of transitive verbs, though most seem to fall under the rubric of vectorial configuration. The semantic specifications resemble those encountered in CVC-based classification systems: instrumental types are comparable with those of the Daly River family, and in addition the ubiquitous 'say' is represented. Table 29.

Verb classification system of Ngiyambaa (after Donaldson 1980: 206) Intransitive

Transitive

Non-active

(Unmarked)

—

Active

-MA-y

-MA-/ -MA-/ 'do (with hand)' -GIYAMA-/ 'heat' -DHINMA-/ 'hit'

-Bl-/ 'move away' -DHA-/ 'do with mouth' -DHL-/ 'do with foot' -GA-/ 'pierce' -YA-/ 'speak'

It will be observed that -MA-/ occurs in two places in the system, and represents two categories. The explanation for this is that some transitive verbs occur with both -MA-/ and one of the other transitive bound verbs, while others occur with -MA-/ only (Donaldson 1980: 207). For the former, -MA-/ indicates only that the verb belongs to the transitive category, while for the latter, it identifies a subcategory of transitive

Verb classification in a wider perspective

287

verbs, basically residual, but also susceptible to some positive semantic specification: verbs assigned to this category are generally associated with action by the hand. Unlike CVC-based systems, the Ngiyambaa verb category system shows very restricted potential for multiple category assignment, this being confined to binary alternations involving transitive -MA-/ and one of the seven other transitive roots. In this respect the system is more a verb class system, though in most other respects (including its mode of realisation) it tends more towards the category-marking type. The third class of bound modifiers, result-oriented modifiers, form independent compound verbs that do not enter into apposition with other finite verbs. What is interesting about these compounds is that the bound verb root appears to again serve a categorising function, but in this case of the bound modifier, and as a consequence, the event referred to by the compound verb itself. This is, however, a very restricted system, there being only eleven result-oriented bound modifiers. As in CVC verb category systems multiple classification is the order of the day. For instance, the modifier ga- 'break' collocates with at least the following three bound verb roots: transitive -MA-/, intransitive -MA-y, and -DHl-/ 'do with foot', with predictable meaning differences (Donaldson 1980: 220-221). One wonders whether this might be the historical remnant of a once viable CVC category system.

7.1.1.2. The Hindi-Urdu compound verb construction Hindi-Urdu exhibits a compound verb construction quite similar to the CVC of northern Australian languages (e.g. Hook 1974; Agha 1994). It involves a bare verb stem, followed by an inflecting verb (referred to as "auxiliary", "vector verb", "operator", etc.). Inflecting verbs form a small class, variously estimated as containing between eight and fifty members; Hook (1974: 119-120) distinguishes 24, most of which are strikingly similar to the IVs occurring in CVCs in Australian languages (see Tables 13-15 above):

288

Related grammatical

phenomena

Verb classification in a wider perspective

a baith cal chor (de) chuk dal de dhar fi

khara ho le

'come' 'sit down' 'walk' 'leave behind' 'run out, be used up, be paid off 'throw' 'give' 'put, throw, keep' 'go' 'stand up' 'take'

leja mar mar nikal nikal pa par rah rakh (de) sak uth

289

'take away' 'strike, kill' 'die' 'take out' 'come out, go out, turn out' 'find, get, manage' 'fall' 'stay, remain' 'put down' 'can, be able' 'get up, rise'

There are restrictions on collocations of these inflecting verbs with the uninflected initial elements in compounds. Agha (1994) argues that the inflecting verb roots serve as a semantically-based system of verb classifiers. Agentivity (ability to occur in the imperative mood) and Aktionsart (±durative and ±punctuate) are the primary semantic features involved in this classificatory system (Agha 1994: 23; see also Hook 1974: 160). Agha does not, however, provide semantic specifications for the categories. Rather, what he does is show that the inflecting verb roots collocate differently with the members of nine emic semantic classes defined by the three previously mentioned semantic features, together with valency. This suggests that it may prove possible to characterise the categories semantically in terms of the features proposed for Australian languages: valency, vectorial configuration, and Aktionsart.165 However, there are some notable differences between the compound verb construction in Hindi-Urdu and northern Australian CVCs. In particular, in Hindi-Urdu, corresponding to most compound verb constructions are simple verb constructions that contrast semantically with them (Hook 1974:18). Indeed, Hook (1974: 314) suggests that the two constructions are in privative opposition, with the compound construction expressing completion of the event. Thus compare the following agnate pair:

290

Related grammatical phenomena

(84) larkä bhag-a-a boy:NOM run-PF-3sgNOM 'The boy ran.' (Agha 1994: 15)

Hindi-Urdu

(85) larkä bhag ga-y-a Hindi-Urdu boy:NOM run go-PF-3sgNOM 'The boy ran (away).' [abrupt, unexpected action, motion 'away'] (Agha 1994: 15) The contrast may also depend on definiteness or indefiniteness of the associated NPs (Hook 1974:316; Agha 1994:20-21), a feature that (as is well known) interacts with aspect. Thus, the classificatory system in Hindi-Urdu is deployed only when the event shows a certain aspectual character; otherwise the verb is not categorised.

7.1.2. Categorisation by prefixes 7.1.2.1. Lexical prefixes Some Austronesian languages show constructions involving lexical prefixes that can be analysed as superclassifying prefixes, distinguishing overt verb categories. For example, the Bunun language of central Taiwan has a rich set of lexical prefixes expressing meanings like 'die', 'dream', 'burn', 'run', 'hit', 'give', etc..166 When attached to adverbial roots the lexical prefixes categorise the event designated by the verb that is modified by the adverbial (Nojima 1996). Thus compare the following three examples, which show different choice of lexical prefix (bolded) according to the following lexical verb: (86) pit-utmag-un ma-pit'ia tastu-tilas Bunun LP/cook-carelessly-PO AO-cook one-uncooked:rice '(She) carelessly cooked a grain of rice in one piece, without breaking it apart.' (Nojima 1996: 16)

Verb classification in a wider perspective

291

(87) via tu mati-tmag m-astabal tu Bunun why COMP AO:LP/cut-carelessly AO-cut ?? 'Why (are you) carelessly cutting (bamboo)?' (Nojima 1996:17) (88) vanu-an habas hai, nitu mahtu Bunun honey-PV:this old:times CONJ not can ku-tmag-un m-aun LP/eat-carelessly-PO AO-eat 'In old times, honey couldn't be eaten without any specific reason.' (Nojima 1996: 17) Nojima (1996: 17) remarks that "the choice of lexical prefix ... depends largely on the semantic property of the following 'lexical' verb, just as the choice of classifier in Mandarin Chinese is generally determined by the lexical type of the head noun". However, as in verb category systems generally, the lexical verb does not always select a unique prefix, and the different choices appear to be semantically motivated (Nojima 1996: 21). To illustrate the semantic basis of the categorisation system, let us consider verbs of cutting (Nojima 1996: 18-19). Most of these—including verbs such as m-astabal 'cut (trees, branches, grass) with a sword or scythe in quick motion' ((87) above), m-atistub 'cut o f f , ma-tuktuk 'chop (e.g. wood) with axe', and ma-valval 'mow'—are found in collocation with the lexical prefix pati- 'cut'. However, the verb ma-kulut 'saw' collocates with si- 'get, pull', not pati- 'cut', while kis-laupa 'stab' collocates with kis- 'stab'. The first set of verbs clearly involve cutting events that prototypically involve lateral movement of a blade in a direction perpendicular to its length, while the two others involve motion in the direction of the blade: in one case highlighting the pulling action associated with sawing, in the other, the stabbing action. The Australian system that the Bunun system most resembles is the Ngiyambaa system discussed in §7.1.1.1 above. In both languages it is when, and only when, the verb is modified by an adverbial that the system of verb categorisation is deployed.

292

Related grammatical

phenomena

7.1.2.2. Instrumental prefixes Other than Bunun, various Austronesian languages show systems referred to as classificatory prefixes. These include, among others, many Papuan Tip Cluster Austronesian languages (Capell 1943: 237; Bradshaw 1982; Ezard 1978, 1992; cf. Margetts 1999: 115), and the Tinrin language of New Caledonia (Osumi 1995). These prefixes—which seem to have mostly derived historically from verbs—are attached to verbs and specify the instrumental means by which the action is effected, and/or the manner in which the action is performed, and thus might better be referred to as instrumental prefixes. Tawala, a Papuan Tip Cluster Austronesian language, for instance, possesses five prefixes specifying the instrumental means by which the action is effected—by biting, by the feet, by a sharp knock, by hands, or just happening. Another two prefixes specify speech quality—proclaim, speak, and three specify the nature of movement—change of visibility status, small or cessation of motion, or movement over a significant front (Ezard 1978: 1164-1165). It is impossible to determine from Ezard's discussion whether these prefixes really are classificatory in the sense invoked in the present book, although they are reasonable candidates. It seems from the examples he provides that the prefix may—at least etically-semantically—subdivide the set of events designated by a verb into types. There is no grammatical environment in which the system is obligatorily employed; rather, it is lexically based: certain lexical verbs admit the classificatory prefixes, while others do not (Ezard 1978). In these respects the system of classificatory prefixes seems likely to be subclassifying. However, in contrast with the prototypical subclassifying system, the markers form a small and closed set. Similar qualifications apply to other Austronesian languages with systems of classificatory prefixes. Various languages of North America also have instrumental prefixes (e.g. Sapir 1930; Silver and Miller 1997: 4 3 ^ 4 ) , specifying the means or manner whereby an action is effected—the kind of action or action-gesture typically associated with an instrument (rather than the instrument itself per se). For instance, in Northern Paiute -pajui 'split apart, break' takes the following instrumental prefixes (the glosses in

Verb classification in a wider perspective

293

the final column indicate the meaning of the entire prefixed unit): (89) ki- 'bite' ma- 'hand' mu- 'nose' to- 'fist' tsa- 'grasp' tsi- 'sharp' wi- 'long'

'break in mouth' Northern Paiute 'break with hand (as in karate)' 'break with the nose' 'break logs with a sledge' 'split up with the hand using the fingers' 'poke something (e.g. ice on a pond) to break it' 'split up with a small hatchet' (Thornes 1997)

Northern Paiute has about twenty such prefixes, distinguishing among: body part employed in the action (e.g. hand, foot, nose, head, face, bum); shape of the instrument and its manner of contact (e.g. long with edge use, long with point use); and natural forces (e.g. the sun). Systems like this are referred to in the Amerindianist literature as instrumental prefixes, and a classificatory analysis is not invoked. However, it would seem to be as viable—and problematic—as for the Austronesian languages just discussed.

7.1.3. Categorisation with quantification Many, if not all, Sinitic languages show a system of verb categorisation that kicks in only when the verb is quantified. The item serving the categorising function occurs within a separate quantity phrase, a reduced NP consisting of a number word plus a word serving as a classifier; in contrast with normal quantified NPs, no nominal classifier occurs in this phrase. The categorising phrase is normally restricted to post-verbal position, directly following the verb or aspect marker, although if the clause has a pronominal "object" the categorising NP may follow it (Matthews and Yip 1999; Zhou and McGregor 1999). Consider the following Mandarin Chinese examples:167 (90) Lisi da-le wo Hang qu'an Lisi hit-PF me two fist 'Lisi hit me twice.'

Mandarin Chinese

294

Related grammatical phenomena

(91) tä ma-le hang sheng he scold-PF two voice 'He scolded (him) twice.'

Mandarin Chinese

The phrase expressing the frequency of occurrence of the event shows a different "head" in each case: quart 'fist' in (90), and sheng 'voice' in (91). This "head" serves as the verbal classifier, categorising the event as one involving the use of the fist (in (90)) or the voice (in (91)). The final NP in (90) specifies the body part prototypically used to effect the hitting action, namely the hand; it does not serve in the grammatical role of instrument: the meaning is not 'hit with two fists'. Mandarin Chinese shows some fifty verbal classifiers that categorise events according to such features as: the instrumental means by which they are prototypically effected, both body part and artefact; generic nature of the event (type of motion, quality of verbal activity, or whatever); and Aktionsart. In addition, there are two generic classifiers, ci 'times' and hut 'times' that can be used with (almost) any verb. Zhou and McGregor (1999) argue that in this construction these words do indeed constitute a system that satisfies the characteristics of a classification system, as specified in §1.3.2. It is clearly a category, rather than class, system. Sometimes a verb collocates with more than one classifier, and then the semantic basis of the system becomes most apparent. The verb da 'hit' occurs with a particularly wide range of classifiers, depending on the nature of the hitting action designated. As shown in (92), different classifier choices correspond to different types of referent or conceptual events of hitting, depending either on the means by which they are effected (body part vs. artefact) or on their internal temporal constitution (Aktionsart). (92) Instrumental: Body part: ba 'hand' dun 'mouth' ba-zhang 'palm'

Mandarin Chinese 'hit with palm of hand' 'give a proper beating' 'hit with palm of hand'

Verb classification in a wider perspective

Artefact:

Aktionsart:

chui 'hammer' pao 'cannon' qiang 'gun' bang 'club' ban 'board' bian 'whip' gun 'rod' ζhen 'needle' xia 'down' zhen 'true, genuine' hui 'times' ci 'times' zhang 'battle'

295

'hit with hammer' 'hit with cannon-fire' 'shoot and hit with gun' 'hit with club' 'hit with board' 'strike with whip' 'hit with stick or rod' 'give an injection' 'hit for a short while' 'hit for a period of time' 'one round of fighting' 'hit once, one round of fighting' 'fight'

The system of verbal classification in Sinitic languages closely resembles the system of numeral classifiers for nominals; both are invoked in the environment of quantification, although nominal classification is also employed when the phrase is determined. Thus both systems go hand in hand with referent (event or entity) individuation. It seems that the system of verb classification is a more recent development from nominal classification (Matthews and Yip 1999). No Australian language is known to have a system of quantifying verbal classification, and Anindilyakwa is the only Australia language that perhaps displays a system of numeral classifiers for nominals (Aikhenvald 2000: 101).

7.1.4. Other verbal constructions Two other types of verbal construction involve classification, though they do not count as verb superclassifying constructions: the verb/ event is not assigned to one of a delimited number of categories. They are discussed in the following two subsections.

296

Related grammatical

phenomena

7.1.4.1. Noun incorporation It was suggested in §1.2.1 that some types of noun incorporation (NI) are functionally subclässifying: the incorporated noun (IN) distinguishes subtypes within the general event specification associated with the lexical verb. I have argued elsewhere (McGregor 1997a) that this is the case for Mithun's Type I NI (Mithun 1984), which involves lexical compounding of an Ν and a V, which "are joined to form a single lexical item denoting an institutionalized, unitary concept" (see also Sapir 1911; Rosen 1989; Velazquez-Castillo 1996). Illustration is provided by Guarani examples (93) and (94), in contrast with their non-incorporated agnates (95) and (96): (93) a-mba'e-jogua-ta ko-ka'aru Guarani 1 AC-thing-buy-FUT this-afternoon 'I'll go shopping this afternoon.' (Velazquez-Castillo 1996:107) (94) a-vaka-ami-ta ko-pyhareve Guarani lAC-cow-milk-FUT this-morning 'I'll do some milking this morning.' (Velazquez-Castillo 1996: 107) (95) a-jogua-ta petei mba'e Guarani lAC-buy-FUT one thing Ί will buy something.' (Velazquez-Castillo 1996: 107) (96) a-nami-ta pe-vaka moroti Guarani lAC-milk-FUT that-cow white 'I'll milk that white cow.' (Velazquez-Castillo 1996: 107) As Velazquez-Castillo (1996: 121), puts it, the examples involving NI should be understood in terms of frames that evoke... a social scene of some kind beyond the combined meaning of their individual components.... Events that are not associated with established activity patterns cannot be labeled with NI. For example, using NI to report the event of carrying a basket or digging a hole would be awkward because it

Verb classification in a wider perspective

297

would suggest a routine or institutionalised status that is not intended. The same events could be named with NI if they were seen as part of a socially significant and routinized activity. For instance, if basket-carrying was part of a religious tradition or a traditional context, NI would be appropriate.

Similarly, according to Sapir (1911:264), NI in Paiute is used for characteristic activities in which an object is prototypically found with the action, while accidental and occasional activities are more likely to be represented by clauses with external object NPs. My point is that in examples (93) and (94) the IN serves a classificatory function, specifying the type of event designated, in contrast with examples such as (95) and (96) in which the external NP serves a referential function. This is effectively in agreement with Mithun, who— while recognising the relevance of categorisation—does not incorporate this relation into the grammatical structure of Type I NI: The sentences with independent objects would be used if the objects were noteworthy in their own right; but those with incorporated objects indicate unitary, institutionalized activities The objects do not refer to specific [entities] ... but simply modify the type of activity under discussion. As Harrison notes ([1976:] 162), "The addition of the noun refines the meaning of the verb in question, limiting its application to the set of objects named by the noun". (Mithun 1984: 850)

In some languages incorporated body part Ns—Mithun's Type II NI—can serve a classifying function. Thus, Velazquez-Castillo (1996: 122) proposes that body part NI in Guarani has a similar "lexicalising" function as non-body part incorporation. The following pair of agnates provides illustration of the classifying effect of an incorporated body part N, in contrast with its non-incorporated counterpart: (97) ha'e o-ne-mbe-su'u o-mana yvy-re hase-ta Guarani s/he 3AC-REF-lip-bite 3AC-look ground-at 3INTR-cry katu-ete almost 'He bit his lip, looked at the ground on the verge of crying.' (Velazquez-Castillo 1996: 153)

298

Related grammatical

phenomena

(98) o-karu-aja oi-su'u hembe Guarani 3AC-eat-while 3AC-bite his:lip 'While eating he bit his lip.' (Velazquez-Castillo 1996: 153) In (97) not only is the person more emotionally affected than in (98), but also the IN specifies a particular type of biting, lip-biting, which indicates that the person is in a certain emotional state (VelazquezCastillo 1996: 153). This is clearly not the case in (98). (See also Mithun (1984: 646), who suggests that incorporated body part Ns in Mohawk narrow the scope of the V, and Harvey (1995:146), who comments that in Warray they "modify" the verb.) Not all Type II NI constructions, however, involve verb classification. And the two other types distinguished by Mithun (1984)—Type III "The manipulation of discourse structure" and Type IV "Classificatory noun incorporation"—do not fit the bill at all.

7.1.4.2. Nominal argument classification Another type of classificatory system located in the verbal construction of some languages of America and New Guinea categorises not so much the verb itself as one of its arguments, usually the subject if the verb is intransitive, object if it is transitive. This type of classifying system will be referred to as nominal argument classification, in order to maintain a clear terminological distinction from systems that classify verbs. Cherokee has such a system: a verbal infix indicates a typespecifying characteristic of the patient, as illustrated by examples (99)—{103) involving 'give'. (99) weesa gä-kää-nee'a cat 3 sg-»· 3 sg-LI VING-gi ve: PRES 'She is giving him a cat.' (Blankenship 1997: 92)

Cherokee

(100)äma gä-neeh-nee'a water 3sg->3sg-LIQUID-give:PRES 'She is giving him water.' (Blankenship 1997: 92)

Cherokee

Verb classification in a wider perspective

299

(101 )ähnäwo gä-η-ηέέ'α shirt 3 sg-> 3 sg-FLEXIBLE-give: PRES 'She is giving him a shirt.' (Blankenship 1997: 92)

Cherokee

(102)gäsda

Cherokee

äa-d-ee'a

stick 3sg-+3sg-LONG-give:PRES 'She is giving him a stick.' (Blankenship 1997: 92) {\02>)kwäna äa-h-ηέέ'α Cherokee peach 3sg^3sg-COMPACT-give:PRES 'She is giving him a peach.' (Blankenship 1997: 92) Around forty verbs in Cherokee take these classificatory markers. Most designate activities involving handling physical objects—e.g. 'give', 'have', 'hold', 'handle', 'carry', 'hang up', etc.. A few designate states ('lie'), non-volitional motion ('fall'), and dropping ('drop') (Blankenship 1997: 96). The association of this type of classification with verbs of handling is usual, and also found in Athapaskan languages (Hoijer 1945; Carter 1976; Young and Morgan 1980; Silver and Miller 1997: 32-34), Muskogean languages, and some languages of the Andean region, South America. In Athapaskan languages it is the verb root itself that serves the classificatory function: there is typically a set of about a dozen verb roots that classify objects according to shape, and have general meanings 'to handle objects of a certain shape' (Silver and Miller 1997: 32). Like Cherokee, the Papuan languages Waris and Imonda show a system of classificatory prefixes to certain verbs of handling (Brown 1981; Merlan, Roberts, and Rumsey 1997). Some Papuan languages show nominal argument classification systems associated with existential and possessive verbs. In languages such as the highland languages Enga, Ku Warn, and Imonda (Lang 1975; Merlan, Roberts, and Rumsey 1997), and the Rossel Island isolate Yeli Dnye (Levinson 1999), different existential or positional verbs are employed according to the nature of the entity whose existence is asserted or that is located (the same construction is used for each).168 Ku Warn has four verbs used in this way: pe- 'lie, sleep' is employed with subject Ns denoting abstract entities; mal- 'live' with

300

Related grammatical

phenomena

Ns denoting most animates, liquids, and plants; ngaly- 'stand' with Ns denoting body parts and artefacts; and le- 'lie prostrate' with Ns denoting inanimates (Merlan, Roberts, and Rumsey 1997: 63). Human Ns occur with all four existential verbs, with semantic differences; for non-human Ns, however, the choice depends on the state that the referent prototypically finds itself in. As Levinson observes in relation to Yell Dnye (Levinson 1999: 220):169 when you say "The cup stands on the table" you are not asserting the standing, you are asserting the location, and presuming that cups are said to 'stand'— your statement will not necessarily be false if the cup is on its side. Positional-verbs have a sortal nature: they classify the nominal concepts according to canonical position.

It could be said that in languages with systems of nominal argument classification, verbs—or at least their referents—are implicitly categorised as a result of the classification of an argument. For instance, one would perform the act of handing over a cat in a different way to giving water, a shirt, a peach, and so forth. However, these systems do not satisfy the conditions for verb classification laid out in §1.3.2 above.

7.1.5. Concluding observations It seems from the above discussion that CVC-based verb categorisation systems of northern Australian languages are rather more thorough-going than other verb categorisation systems. A typical CVCbased system is in principle employable in any finite context. No systematic semantic value is associated with the use of a simple rather than a compound verb construction. In other languages we discussed, the classificatory system is invoked only under certain conditions, primarily when the event is most highly individuated—when it displays a quality (Bunun and Ngiyambaa), when quantified (Sinitic), when completed (Hindi-Urdu), or when a certain arguments are definite (HindiUrdu). The cursory survey of this section does not claim to exhaust the

Other types of compound verb construction

301

range of grammatical phenomena that might fall under the rubric of verb classification. Nor, as we have seen, need every phenomenon touched on be best treated as verb classification; in many cases further investigation is required to determine whether a candidate construction is or is not an instance of verb classification. And of course it may well be that apparently formally identical constructions (e.g. instrumental prefixes) require different structural-functional analyses in different languages, perhaps even within a single language. The main point has been to demonstrate that overt verb categorisation as construed in this book is not peculiar to the Australian continent. Nor are the semantic dimensions they distinguish exotic. As we have seen, almost every system deploys one or more of the following characteristics: instrument or manner of its deployment, generalising to the vector prototypically associated with it; Aktionsart; and to a lesser extent, valency.

7.2. Other types of compound verb construction Various types of compound verb constructions are found in Australian languages that show grammatical differences from CVC-based verb classifying systems. Some Arnhem Land languages, for instance, display compound verb constructions that seem, on the basis of the available descriptions, not to be thorough-going verb classifying systems. (Unfortunately, many descriptions are insufficiently detailed to permit one to determine whether or not classification is involved.) Ndjebbana (north-east Arnhem Land), for instance, shows a marginal compound verb construction involving a UV and IV (along with other types of compound verb construction that need not concern us here). In this construction—referred to as a "particle phrasal verb" (McKay 2000: 268-270)—a non-verbal word, usually uninflecting (and never inflected with ordinary finite verb inflections), precedes one of about a dozen IVs including the usual ones associated with CVCs ('take', 'do', 'get', 'throw', 'hold', 'spear', 'put', 'hit', 'move', and 'sit'). However, the number of collocations of this type is very small— just over twenty with indigenous UVs, most of the IVs collocating with

302

Related grammatical

phenomena

just one or two of them. Furthermore, the bulk of these particles appear to be Ns, although a few are ideophones (e.g. bordolbbordol 'rub, roll'). The system is marginally productive: all verbs borrowed from English are treated as uninfected particles, and are restricted to CVCs, usually with the IV 'sit' (McKay 2000: 270). This is at best a marginal superclassifying system. Even in languages that show categorising CVCs it is possible that certain UV-IV combinations represent different, non-categorising constructions. This seems to be the case in Jaminjung: UVs are sometimes found on their own intonation contour, following the intonation contour that contains the IV (example (104)) and possibly another UV as well (examples (105) and (106)). (104) gurrany guny-bu-ruma yirrag, jarubaj, Jaminjung not 2duNOM-FUT-come lpl:exc return 'You two didn't come to us, back.' (Eva Schultze-Berndt, pers. comm.) (105) ngiyi-biya wurlgba gan-antha, Jaminjung here-now carry:on:shoulder 3sgNOM/3sgACC-take-PRES burdurdubba gallop 'Here it is carrying him away, galloping.' (Schultze-Berndt 2000: 139) (106) jamang ngarrg burr-angga-m; Jaminjung finally strangle 3plACC/3sgNOM-get-PRES digirrij; die 'Finally they strangle it dead.' (Schultze-Berndt 2000: 139) Schultze-Berndt proposes that UVs in such examples function as "semi-independent predicates", in a construction type distinct from the "canonical" CVC (Schultze-Berndt 2000: 144-145). The semantic interpretation of this construction is largely left up to context, linguistic and extralinguistic: for instance, examples (105) and (106) admit both

Other types of compound verb construction

303

depictive and resultative secondary predicate interpretations. In Wagiman too, compound verb constructions appear to include both category-marking CVCs (examples (37)-(39) above) and noncategory-marking construction types ((107) and (108) below). It remains uncertain, however, how these should be distinguished. One possibility is that the order of UV and IV is criterial: the categorising construction may involve the UV immediately preceding the IV;170 when the UV follows the IV, or is discontinuous with it—possibilities available only for semantically "full" IVs—the construction might be non-superclassifying (Wilson 1999: 69-71, 149-150 fn.16 and pers. comm.). In some cases a grammatical relation of enhancement— roughly embellishment or circumstantiation (McGregor 1997b: 137— 138)—is perhaps involved between UV and IV, which may designate separate contemporaneous events, as in (107). In other cases it is possible that subclassification is involved, as suggested by Wilson's remark on (108): "wilh 'walk' restricts -ya- 'go' by specifying the manner of motion" (Wilson 1999: 70). (107)wahan ga-di-n mele-ma Wagiman water 3sg-come-PRES be:black-ASP 'Black storm clouds are coming.' [More literally, 'Storm clouds are coming up black.'] (Wilson 1999: 98) (108) nguynguy ga-ba-ya wilh-ma mamin Wagiman night 3-pl-go:PRES walk-ASP ghost 'Ghosts go walking about at night.' (Wilson 1999: 69) A number of descriptions of northern Pama-Nyungan languages make what amounts to the same distinction between "light" and "full" IVs, and remark on grammatical differences between them. This is the basis for Tsunoda's division of Jaru CVCs into "loose" and "close" complexes (Tsunoda 1981: 185). As in Wagiman it is only "full" IVs that permit UVs to either precede or follow them, or be discontinuous with them; "light" IVs always immediately follow the UV. Perhaps in Jaru the marked word order also represents enhancing CVCs: see (109) and (110), in both of which a resultative sense is apparent.

304

Related grammatical

phenomena

(109) nga-rna wandiny-a yud-balu Jaru AUX-lsgNOM fall-ΡΑ sit-EMP Ί stood on foot.' [More literally: Ί fell (from a horse), to a sitting position.'] (Tsunoda 1981: 186) (110) nga-lu-nyanda ngirndi yunbarn-i duj Jaru AUX-3plNOM-3sgLOC tail sing-ΡΑ' break:off 'They took the tail off (him) by singing (magical songs).' [More literally: 'They sang his tail, breaking it off.'] (Tsunoda 1981:186) A similar situation may obtain in closely related Bilinara, where the few examples provided in Nordlinger (1990) show the order IV-UV only for "full" IVs; this also has the appearance of a non-categorising CVC: (111 )ya-ni-rni lungkarra go-PA-hither cry 'He came crying.' (Nordlinger 1990: 106)

Bilinara

McConvell (forthcoming) distinguishes three main types of CVC in Gurindji as does Jones (1994) in Ngarinyman: (i) semantically predictable combinations, in which the IV is semantically "full"; (ii) CVCs in which the IV is a hypernym for the entire CVC; and (iii) restricted CVCs, in which the combination is semantically unpredictable. Again, only type (i) appears to admit the reverse order, with the UV following the IV; it may perhaps (as in other languages discussed above) represent a non-categorising compound verb construction. Type (ii) perhaps represents a subclassifying construction, in which the UV subclassifies the IV. Such a construction is also found in Warlpiri, where the corresponding CVCs involve what Nash (1982) refers to as productive UVs—UVs that are virtually unrestricted in terms of the IVs they may collocate with—as well as some apparently derived historically from nominals, and some that are infinitival forms of IVs.171 In all such collocations the CVC appears to be a genuine hyponym of the IV. Consider the following productive UVs that collocate

Other types of compound verb construction

305

with the IV YI- 'give' to give CVCs with the meaning shown in the final column (from Nash 1982: 186): (112) kutu 'anything' nganjini 'on arrival' yarda 'more' pina 'back' yajarri 'gift'

'give anything at all' 'give on arrival' 'give some more' 'give back to' 'exchange something freely'

Warlpiri

In each case it is clear that an event of giving is being referred to. The IV clearly does not categorise the referent event, but rather designates it, thus serving the grammatical role of Process in the VP (see §6.2). The UV evidently subclassifies the IV: in (112) it distinguishes different subtypes of giving events. This emerges particularly clearly when (112) is compared with (113), which lists UVs that enter into categorising constructions with the same IV, YI- 'give' (Nash 1982: 186-189). These do not refer to events of giving. (113) rduul 'expand rapidly' jakuru 'farewell' (?) jinjin 'request favour' rdungkurr 'dislodge' juta 'hit ground' mirrmirrparlu 'shine'

'light/fan fire' Warlpiri 'take leave of, announce one's departure' 'request favour of 'dislodge' 'hit ground to determine presence of yams' 'make something shine'

There may also be grammatical differences between superclassifying and subclassifying CVCs in Warlpiri, attesting to their status as separate constructions. First, as mentioned already, different sets of UVs are involved in each; so also are different sets of IVs: categorising CVCs must employ one of a set of about fifty IVs, whereas any IV can occur in a subclassifying CVC. Second, productive UVs may "combine with a verb which is itself a non-lexical preverb-verb combination" (Nash 1982: 180); this distinguishes them from lexical and semiproductive UVs, which cannot. Third, productive UVs may follow the

306

Related grammatical

phenomena

IV, and may even be discontinuous with it, whereas lexical and semiproductive UVs must precede the IV (Nash 1982: 181), and at best be separated from it by directional enclitics or the auxiliary (§7.3.1 below). In other words, in a categorising CVC the UV is more tightly bound distributionally to the IV. Another grammatical difference is that in subclassifying CVCs the IV and the whole construction are almost always identical in valency/transitivity; this does not hold for superclassifying CVCs (see §6.3 above). Thus, subclassifying CVCs involving YI- 'give' are almost always found in ditransitive clauses, whereas categorising CVCs with this IV typically occur in transitive clauses. Superclassifying and subclassifying constructions also exhibit distinct patterns of agnation. Subclassifying CVCs agnate with SVCs involving the same IV, these being less semantically specific than the CVC; such agnates do not normally exist for superclassifying CVCs. Additionally, for subclassifying CVCs, there frequently exist alternative more complex means of expressing (almost) the same meaning by means of a clause involving the IV in a SVC, together with some modifier of the object NP, or an additional clause. Thus, kutu-YI- 'give anything at all' could be rephrased as a SVC with a complex object NP listing a set of possible gifts, together with the enclitic 'etcetera'; nganjini-Yl- 'give on arrival' as a complex sentence involving a clause referring to the Actor's arrival, and a clause involving YI- as a simple verb; and pina-Yl- 'give back to' as a biclausal construction with two clauses referring to the event of giving, roughly, 'X gave Y to Z, and Ζ gave Y' to X (in return)'. Such alternative modes of expression do not exist for superclassifying CVCs—they cannot be rephrased as biclausal constructions with main clause having YI- 'give' as a simple verb. Further types of CVC are perhaps distinguishable in Warlpiri. Nash (1982:183) identifies a small set of about half a dozen "dative adjunct" UVs that add a dative adjunct to the clause, e.g.jurnta 'away from' in (114). The CVCs they occur in seem to be both formally and functionally distinct from both superclassifying and subclassifying CVCs. What grammatical relations are involved remain to be determined.172

Other double-unit verb constructions

307

(114) pirlangkiti-ji jurnta-kuju-rnu yarda Warlpiri blanket-lsgOBL away:from-throw-PA again 'He threw off (from me) my blanket again.' (Nash 1982: 180) It must be cautioned that it is not always easy to distinguish between SVCs with modifying adverbials and CVCs. In Warrwa, for instance, the adverbial way 'away' often occurs preceding a verb of motion in what looks very much like a CVC. More careful research is required on compound verb constructions in Australian languages before we can draw boundaries and precisely emplace superclassifying CVCs within the range of constructions that resemble them formally. We must not be misled by superficial similarity of form, and fail to distinguish between what are genuinely distinct constructions that merely share formal realisation.

7.3. Other double-unit verb constructions Compound verb constructions are not the only type of verb construction in Australian languages that involve a pair of lexical verbs in a single clause referring to a single referent event. Any such double-unit verb construction will be referred to here for convenience as a complex verb construction.

7.3.1. Auxiliary constructions Languages of the Lake Eyre region show an auxiliary construction consisting of a pair of inflecting verbs, one of which serves as an auxiliary. In Diyari and Thirrari, according to Austin (1981: 88-92), a nonfinite (participial or future tense) form of a verb is paired with the present (usually) or past (occasionally) tense of one of six verbs functioning as auxiliaries conveying tense and mood information. For instance, when used as an auxiliary, WANTHl-_y/ 'search-PRES' indicates the event occurred in the distant past:

308

Related grammatical phenomena

(115)ngathu ngara-rna wanthi-yi karna-li warru Diyari lsgERG hear-PART search-PRES person-ERG long:ago warrapa-rnanhi relate-IMPFV:DS Ί heard people telling about (it) long ago.' (Austin 1981: 89) The other five lexical verbs that admit auxiliary use are: WAPA-^a 'go-ΡΑ', which (used as an auxiliary) indicates intermediate past (e.g. some months ago); WAPA -yi 'go-PRES', specifying habitual aspect; PARRHA-ya 'lie-ΡΑ', indicating recent past; WlRRHl-^z 'enter-PRES', indicating very recent past; WARRA-_yz 'throw-PRES', indicating earlier today; and NGANA-yi 'be-PRES', indicating future time. The auxiliary verbs in Diyari are fully grammaticalised, and are phonologically linked to the co-occurring lexical verb. Less well developed systems are found in the neighbouring languages Ngamini, Yarluyandi and Yandruwandha (Austin 1981: 91). The beginnings of a similar system are discernible far away in the Mantharta language of Gascoyne region of coastal Western Australia. According to Austin (1998a), the lexical root KUMP A- 'sit' shows signs of emergent grammaticisation as a marker of continuous aspect. In the following Jiwarli example, for instance, the verb is clearly not being used with its full lexical meaning, and its combination with the following verb designates a single conceptual event: (116) ngatha kumpa-artu tharla-rnu papa-jaka lsgNOM sit-USIT feed-IMPFV:SS water-COMIT Ί used to feed him with water.' (Austin 1998a: 24)

Jiwarli

A quite different type of auxiliary construction involves an auxiliary—sometimes referred to as a catalyst—that is not a lexical verb synchronically, but a grammatical unit marking certain clause-level grammatical distinctions, and that serves as host for pronominal enclitics. This system is found in a number of northern and north-western Pama-Nyungan languages with CVC-based category systems, including Ngarinyman, Gurindji, Warlpiri, Walmajarri, Jaru, among others (indicated very approximately by stippling on the sketch map at the be-

Other double-unit verb constructions

309

ginning of this section). Jaru is typical. Two elements, nga- and ba- ~ wa-, serve as bases to which bound pronominal enclitics can be attached (Tsunoda 1981: 124-125). These auxiliaries usually (though not invariably—see (118)) occur in Wackemagel's position. The choice between them depends on mood: nga- occurs in declaratives, ba- ~ wa- in non-declaratives. Illustrative examples are: (117) kartiya-lu nga-ngku nyuntu nyang-an Jaru white:person-ERG AUX-2sgACC 2sg see-PRES minyirri-la shame-LOC Ά white man sees you (in a) shamed state.' (Tsunoda 1981:59) (118) wa-nda yunku yan-i AUX-2plNOM far go-PA 'Did you go far?' (Tsunoda 1981: 124)

Jaru

This type of auxiliary construction shows little in common with CVCs. Nor does the auxiliary exhibit verbal characteristics, though in some languages—e.g. Wambaya (Nordlinger 1998: 138)—they may have historical origins in verbal elements.

7.3.2. Serial verb constructions Serial verb constructions are constructions that involve sequences of two or more verbs that together designate single conceptual events; the verbs all belong to the same part-of-speech and each verb construes a different component of the event (Durie 1997). Serial verb constructions are found in a scattering of Australian languages, including the Western Desert varieties Pitjantjatjara and Yankunytjatjara (Goddard 1985: 98-107). In Yankunytjatjara verb serialisation is very common in language use, and generally involves a single finite or nominalised verb indicating the status of the clause as a whole, along with serial forms of the other verbs, consisting of the verb stem followed by a serial suffix. Goddard (1985: 99) distinguishes four main types of serial

310

Related grammatical

phenomena

verb constructions: (a) loose, in which each verb may have its own arguments and modifiers, as in (119); (b) two types of tight serialisation, periphrastic and non-periphrastic, in which the verbs must be contiguous with one another, and are uttered on a single intonation contour, as in (120) and (121) respectively; and (c) adverbial serialisation, as in (122). (119) apu panta-wanu ngalya-wala-ringku-la, tjarpa-ngu rock lap-PER hither-fast-INCH-SER enter-PA nyanga palu-la Yankunytjatjara this DEF-LOC '(The birds) having sped this way along the side of the hill and entered, came into right here.' (Goddard 1985: 101) (120)paluru nyiinyii yanku-la ura-nu Yankunytjatjara DEF(ERG) zebra: finch go-SER get-PA 'She went and got zebra finch (droppings).' (Goddard 1985:103) (121 )puluka tjuta ngara-la wani-nyi Yankunytjatjara cattle many stand-SER throw-PRES 'There are cattle standing scattered around.' (Goddard 1985: 105) (122 )yaaltjinga-ra marlu Yankunytjatjara do:what:kind:of:thing:to-SER kangaroo pawu-ni roast-PRES 'How does one roast a kangaroo?' (Goddard 1985: 106) As these examples illustrate, the finite verb form generally occurs in final position. Only in type (a) loose serialisation may the reverse order occur. According to Goddard (1985: 103), loose serialisation "presents a series or combination of distinct but related actions", whereas tight non-periphrastic serialisation "presents a single 'compound action'". Tight periphrastic serialisation involves just three verbs that serve as

Other double-unit verb constructions

311

auxiliaries, and provide aspectual-like modification, much as in the Diyari auxiliary construction discussed above. The verb WANl-0 'throw' indicates a distributive event, involving a number of entities spread or scattered around (as in (121)); ΝΥΙΝΑ-0 'sit' indicates customary aspect; and WANA-/ 'follow' indicates an event carried out following some path. Like tight non-periphrastic serialisation, periphrastic serialisation clearly represents single simple events, 173 as does type (c) adverbial serialisation. Thus types (b) and (c) are good exemplars of verb serialisation, while type (a) might be considered not to count as genuine verb serialisation (Durie 1997: 320). There is little in common either formally or functionally between Yankunytjatjara serial verb constructions and CVC verb classifying constructions. Formally, Yankunytjatjara serial verb constructions involve two or more inflecting verbs belonging to the same part-ofspeech, rather than two items from distinct parts-of-speech, a noninflecting UV and an inflecting IV, as in CVCs. Functionally, classification is not apparent in the serial verb constructions of the Western Desert varieties: neither verb in examples such as (119)—{122) serves to establish a verb category. Type (b) serialisation most resembles CVC classifying construction: the verb taking the tense inflection in that construction perhaps serves a marking function, like the IV in a CVC. So also does the tense-inflected verb in the auxiliary verb construction in Diyari and nearby languages. The difference lies in what is marked: tense, mood and/or aspect, or category membership (which may in part be determined by Aktionsart). In the other types of Yankunytjatjara serial verb construction the finite verb clearly serves a referential rather than a marking function. Serial verb constructions come in many shapes and forms, some quite unlike the Western Desert types (see Durie 1997 and references therein). It is beyond the scope of the present work to provide an account of the range of serial verb constructions or a detailed typological and grammatical account of the phenomena. Suffice it to say that amongst the grammatical phenomena generally considered as serial verb constructions few, if any, appear to involve verb classification as their primary sense or function. 174

312

Related grammatical

phenomena

7.3.3. Associated motion constructions To conclude the discussion of complex verb constructions we shift gear somewhat and compare verb classification not with a formally constituted construction type, but rather with another functionally/semantically characterised grammatical system, frequently referred to in the Australianist literature as associated motion. Systems of associated motion involve reference to two events, one being an event of motion that is backgrounded with respect to the other, and thus construed as associated with it. Various formally distinct modes of expression of associated motion exist in Australian languages, including auxiliaries, verb compounding, serial verb constructions, verbal inflections, verb derivation, and so on (Koch 1985, cited in Wilkins 1991: 209). For instance, in Bularnu we find a few verb compounds of the form V-BAGA- 'to V while going', where Β AGA- is the verb 'go'. Clearly there is little in common semantically or functionally between associated motion and verb classification, although both may have grammatical loci in formally similar construction types. However, the grammatical relations involved in the apparently similar construction types are generally different. As we have seen, CVCs encoding verb classification involve a marking relation, the IV marking the category membership of the UV. In complex verb constructions encoding associated motion, by contrast, the verbs are presumably related by an enhancing dependency relation (McGregor 1997b: 13 ΤΙ 38). The following focusses on associated motion constructions that are either complex verb constructions or seem likely to have derived historically from complex verb constructions. The category of associated motion is found in perhaps its most highly developed and grammaticised form in the Arandic languages of Central Australia e.g. Kaytetye (Koch 1984) and Mparntwe Arrernte (Wilkins 1989, 1991), and adjacent languages of Queensland and South Australia, including Diyari (Austin 1981), Adnyamathanha (Tunbridge 1988), and Arabana-Wangkangurru (Hercus 1994). Since the character of the phenomenon is revealed most clearly in its most grammaticalised forms, we begin with Mparntwe Arrernte. In Mparntwe Arrernte, according to Wilkins (1989, 1991), associ-

Other double-unit verb constructions

313

ated motion is expressed by means of a system of verbal inflections, many (if not all) of which derive historically from independent verbs. There are fourteen such inflectional morphemes, which form the paradigm shown in Table 30. As the tabulation shows, the inflectional forms contrast with one another by and large in terms of features concerned with the nature of the motion event involved, and the way it relates to the foregrounded event. A primary distinction is made according to whether or not the performer of the event designated by the verb is the moving entity or not. If not, the motion must be directed and prior—'do on Z's arrival'. Where the two entities are the same, more possibilities are available, according to whether or not the motion is concurrent with the event. If it is, a choice is available between deictic and oriented motion: whether or not the motion is directed with respect to a deictic centre. If it is not, the motion can be specified as prior or subsequent; a simultaneous distinction is made according to whether or not the motion is directed back to a prior location. Examples (123) and (124) illustrate deictic associated motion. (123) lhere-le re reihe Mparntwe Arrernte creek:bed-LOC 3sgNOM woman ikwere-nge n-tntye-ke; nhenhe-werne petye-me-le 3sgDAT-ABL sit-do:coming-pc here-ALL come-npp-SS 'He (stopped and) sat in a creek-bed with that woman on his way here.' (Wilkins 1991: 221) (124) nthenhe arrantherre arlkw-irtne-tyenhe Mparntwe Arrernte where 2plERG eat-do:going:back-npc Thursday-nge Thursday-ABL 'Where will you eat on your way back on Thursday?' (Wilkins 1991:223) Less grammaticalised systems are found elsewhere on the continent. Not infrequently, in the less grammaticalised systems the construction expressing associated motion also expresses other meanings

Related

grammatical

phenomena

ο •Ο Τ3 §

CL α Μ

ο (β Β J0 υ ο fc Ο Ο ε ο ο

β ο ο ε •Ό ω ο ο

fr ο

ο Ο Τ3 60 Ό Τ3 C § Λ

Ο

60 Ό

Ο

ε

60

J3 60 3 Ο J3

ο 60 Ο Τ3 tu S

"ο Μ

υ 04 Χΐ •8

Other double-unit verb constructions

315

as well, often associated stance. That is, in addition to indicating an event of motion associated with a particular event, the stance adopted by the Actor while performing the action may be specified. Burarra (Arnhem Land) shows a system that marks both associated motion and stance, as well as aspect (Glasgow and Garner 1980: 47; Glasgow 1994: 912-913). Two or three IVs agreeing in inflection may occur in sequence, the second and third being verbs of stance and motion serving as auxiliaries. These auxiliaries all specify durative aspect (because the associated motion or stance must be concurrent); the choice concerns the stance or motion (example (125)) adopted by the actor whilst performing the action: (125) m-ba-rr a-ni-0 a-bamu-na Burarra 3sg->3sg-eat-PUNCT 3sg-be-PF 3sg-move:along-PF 'He was eating it moving along.' (Glasgow 1994: 913) Nearby and possibly related Ndjebbana and Nakkara show similar systems (McKay 2000: 286-289). Ndjebbana has an auxiliary construction involving two fully (and by and large identically) inflected IVs, the second of which is one of the three basic stance verbs ('stand', 'sit', and 'lie') or the two motion verbs ('go', 'move'). The choice between stance verbs relates to the characteristic posture of the subject as it is engaged in the event—e.g. 'eat' collocates with the auxiliary IV 'stand' in reference to buffaloes, and with 'sit' in reference to persons (McKay 2000: 287). Again, as in Burarra, the auxiliaries also mark aspect: stance auxiliaries basically indicate that the referent event has temporal extent, and generally indicate imperfective, progressive, continuous or habitual aspect; the motion auxiliaries generally mark durative and extensive senses. This is illustrated by (126) and (127), respectively. (126) nga-lawäya nga-no-ra Ndjebbana 1 minNOM/3min MA s ACC-know 1 minNOM-sit-CONTEMP 'I'm worrying about him [that man].' (McKay 2000: 287)

316

Related grammatical

phenomena

(127) marlemarla ka-wü-ni-ba Ndjebbana fish:poison 3minNOM/3minMAsACC-give-REM-EXT ka-be-na 3 minNOM-go-REM 'He applied fish poison right through the water [by dragging].' (McKay 2000: 288) It seems from McKay's description that the auxiliary system is somewhat more grammaticised in Ndjebbana than in Burarra: aspect seems to play a more significant role, and the associated stance/motion components appear less prominent. A similar system is found in many Yolqu varieties. In Djinang, for instance, eight inflecting verbs of motion and stance are used as auxiliaries (Waters 1989). These follow other inflecting verbs (which they agree with in inflection) and indicate aspect and associated motion or existential state—either the stance adopted by the subject during the performance of the action, or the animacy of the subject: the 'sit' auxiliary for animates, the 'stand' auxiliary for inanimates (Waters 1989: 283). The following example shows the verb WALI- 'crawl' used as an auxiliary indicating associated arbitrary motion from place to place: (128) galiwilim bil ngurri-ny wali-ny Djinang together 3duNOM sleep-RPC crawl-RPC 'They slept together in various places.' (Waters 1989: 136) Very similar constructions are found in Djinba (Waters 1989), Djambarrpuyqu (Wilkinson 1991), Djapu (Morphy 1983), and other Yolqu varieties, though there are differences in the sets of auxiliaries exhibited.

7.3.4. Final remark The discussion of this section, brief and selective though it is, is sufficient to demonstrate that there is an enormous range both formally and functionally within constructions that might be labelled complex verb

Marking of diathesis alternations

317

constructions. Moreover, a variety of grammatical relations are involved in the constructions, most notably marking and dependency relations (in the Semiotic Grammar sense). The main purpose has been to demonstrate the need for particular caution in analysing verbal constructions, that their recognition requires more than just knowledge of their realisation-substance.

7.4. Marking of diathesis alternations Asked how diathesis alternations are encoded grammatically, most linguists would immediately think of voice alternations indicated derivationally or periphrastically. In the context of Australianist linguistics, most would think of valency-changing derivational suffixes (e.g. Dixon 1980: 43Iff). Typical examples are intransitivising derivational categories such as antipassives (languages of north Queensland), passives (Ngayarda languages), and reflexives and reciprocals (languages from most parts of the continent); and transitive derivational categories such as applicatives (Gunwinjguan languages), causatives (Central Australian languages), and transitivisers (north Queensland languages). Such devices have enjoyed a prominent place in theoretical discussions inspired by Australian languages. As seen in §6.3, verb class and category systems can also be deployed in marking diathesis alternations through alternative classifications of verbal lexemes. A good case is provided by reflexive/reciprocal categories: various languages with superclassifying CVCs show one or a few markers that specifically index assignment to a reflexive/ reciprocal category. A verb so categorised will almost always be restricted to intransitive clauses (or reflexive/reciprocal, if formally distinguished). It is almost always the case that such a verb will also have the potential to be assigned to a bivalent or ambivalent category, under which assignment it will occur in a transitive clause.175 Elsewhere the situation is messier. Even if there is a perfect association between a particular verbal class/category and clausal transitivity, in most languages it is impossible to predict whether the categorised verbal item (UV or IV) can be alternatively categorised, and if so, by

318

Related grammatical

phenomena

which classifiers. Diathesis alternations are there in the lexicon, but not formally-grammatically indexed. They are "available" only once one knows the range of categories the particular lexeme may be assigned to—and from this, perhaps, the covert category to which it belongs, these being defined in a similar way for UVs as for IVs (as discussed in §6.3). (See Schultze-Berndt (2000: 421-528) for an account of covert UV categories in Jaminjung.) It is not as though a language may show just a single type of marker of diathesis alternations. Nyulnyulan languages, for instance, have rather complex mixtures. For IVs we find a reflexive/reciprocal derivational circumfix, as well as lexically restricted possibilities of indicating transitivity distinctions by alternative assignment to conjugation classes. For UVs, alternative categorisation is the primary means of indicating diathesis alternations (although this represents only a small portion of the work alternative categorisation normally performs). Nyulnyulan languages also have an applicative marker that sometimes, though inconsistently, marks valency distinctions for both SVCs and CVCs; but it is not a derivational affix (Stokes 1982: 304-319; Hosokawa 1991: 176-180; McGregor 1998d). Similarly, in Ngan'gityemerri the major means of marking diathesis alternations is by means of alternative categorisation, although there are two relatively minor derivational strategies, presentative and locative applicatives (Reid 2000). Wardaman also employs alternative categorisation as the major means of indicating diathesis alternations, along with a morphologically marked causative construction (Merlan 1994: 206-208). Derivational morphemes and periphrastic constructions usually discharge the function of marking diathesis alternations more consistently than category alternations; they normally apply to any verb root of a specific valency value, deriving a verb stem of a consistent and predictable valency. Category alternations typically do so inconsistently, and usually it is stretching things to say that their function is to mark diathesis alternations. Admittedly, we have encountered the occasional language in which category alternations are consistently deployed to index diathesis alternations—Warrgamay being a case in point (§5.3 above). A less extreme situation obtains in Nyulnyulan languages, at least in the restricted domain of SVCs. Perhaps significantly, in both

Concluding remarks

319

cases just two overt categories are involved, one monovalent, the other bivalent. Nevertheless, it is only in Warrgamay that a reasonable case can be made for treating one of the categorisations as basic.

7.5. Concluding remarks This chapter has attempted to situate verb classification systems of Australian Aboriginal languages within a wider grammatical context, comparing them with other verb classification systems both in respect of the formal constructions that serve as their loci, and the nature of the categories marked. An attempt has also been made to situate them within a range of formally and functionally comparable grammatical phenomena. A few concluding observations are in order. First, it is clear that there are striking semantic parallels between systems of overt and covert verbal classification. In particular, valency and Aktionsart dimensions are quite often deployed in covert verbal classification: in many languages it is possible to distinguish between intransitive and transitive verbs not by formal marking on the verbs themselves, but by their behaviour. And distinctions between telic and atelic verbs—perhaps even finer distinctions—are not infrequently made covertly, as per the Vendlerian classifications of event types (Vendler 1967). Vectorial configuration may sometimes be relevant to covert categories. I suspect that a combination of the three may be relevant to the covert category of verbs in English that show the locative alternation, including spray and load—e.g. spray paint on the wall vs. spray the wall with paint (Levin 1993; Laffut 1998). An important difference is that only overt systems can actually be exploited by speakers to make meaning via alternative classification. This is not possible in covert systems, which do not constitute a part of the deployable meaning-making resources of a language, even though alternative categorisations may well exist—e.g. spray belongs to the class of transitive verbs in English, as well as to the class of verbs admitting the locative alternation. Furthermore, both types of system change over time, albeit in different ways. Speakers of languages with overt systems of classification often make new classifications to

320

Related grammatical

phenomena

achieve marked semantic and pragmatic effects (see Chapter 9). Covert systems of classification change as the result of speakers deploying overt categories for new or unusual effects. For instance, a certain English verb restricted to the syntactic frame [Χ V Y on Z] might be innovatively inserted in the frame [Χ V Ζ with Y] for some marked effect, resulting—if it catches on—in change to the covert system. In a language with a system of overt verb classification a new categorisation may perturb the covert categories defined by potentials of verbs to be assigned to ranges of overt categories. Second, many (though certainly not all) systems of overt verb classification—especially CVC-based category systems—are restricted to finite clauses (see also Silverstein 1986). Systems of numeral classifiers such as are found in languages of South East Asia are frequently restricted to NPs with determiners or quantifiers—NPs that are grounded in the sense of Langacker (1987). Granted that finiteness at clause level serves a comparable grounding function (Davidse 1997, pers.comm.; Verstraete 1998) there is a clear parallelism between these types of verbal and nominal classification. Only grounded instances are categorised. This makes sense granted that these systems function primarily as referent classifiers, assigning actual instances of use of lexical items to categories, the classificatory effect on the lexeme types themselves being a visible distributional consequence. It tends to be in the more grammaticalised systems of verb classification—principally verb class systems—that the restriction to finite contexts is relaxed. As was seen in Chapter 5, verb conjugation systems in many Pama-Nyungan and Nyulnyulan languages are not thus restricted. The conjugation marker usually appears irrespective of the verb's finiteness. The reason might have to do with the fact that these systems function in the first instance to classify lexical verb types, rather than tokens and their referents (which may be categorised as a consequence of the type-classing). Third, an interesting problem is posed by CVCs in avoidance styles in some languages, the marked speech varieties used in the presence of certain kindred one is expected to maintain respectful and non-intimate relations with. Some languages employ a single IV in CVCs in this speech style. In Bunuba, it will be recalled from §2.5, this IV is pecu-

Concluding remarks

321

liar to the avoidance style, though it appears to be constructed from an everyday IV by addition of an augment. In some nearby PamaNyungan languages the avoidance style IV is identical with an everyday IV. Thus in Jaru and Gurindji the IVs LUWARN- and LUWA-, respectively, meaning 'shoot' in everyday speech, are used in all avoidance style CVCs. In avoidance speech, that is to say, these IVs collocate with any UV: they are neutral in terms of transitivity, Aktionsart, vectoral configuration, and lexical semantics (Tsunoda 1981: 182, 215-217; Nash 1982: 201; McConvell 1982). This is consistent with the fact that avoidance styles in Australian languages are characteristically vague: avoidance lexemes frequently correspond to a number of everyday lexemes—in this case, the IV corresponds with any IV in a CVC. The use of this IV effectively marks the utterance as respectful. This raises the question: are avoidance CVCs involving such IVs constructionally distinct from the ordinary category-marking CVCs of everyday speech? Clearly they are pragmatically and semantically peculiar: an avoidance IV cannot effect a categorisation of events. On the other hand, it is possible to regard the IV as categorising UV tokens— and consequently the whole utterance—as respectful. Thus, assuming that CVCs involving the avoidance IV cannot be distinguished grammatically from ordinary CVCs, they might be understood as verb categorising constructions. Unfortunately, few descriptions discuss this aspect of avoidance styles, and the extent to which the Jaru and Gurindji systems are characteristic of avoidance style CVCs is not known.176

Chapter 8 Evolution of verb classification in Australia

This chapter attempts to draw together various features alluded to in previous chapters, and link them together to provide a coherent set of proposals concerning the origins and development of verb superclassification systems in Australian languages.177 Of course, time depth is shallow—at most just over two centuries—and for most languages of the far north-west of the continent, a century or less. Hence, any proposal can be at best hypothetical, and beyond direct tests of empirical evidence. Linguists do, of course, have at their disposal—in the methods of historical and comparative linguistics—means of reconstructing earlier forms of languages, including their lexical and grammatical features. In addition, a growing body of research into grammaticisation and lexicalisation can be invoked in an attempt to distinguish between probable and improbable diachronic pathways of change.178 I adopt as a working assumption the widely accepted hypothesis that diachronic change has its roots in synchronic variation (e.g. Labov 1994)—in this case variation across linguistic systems, rather than within a single system. The range of synchronic consistency and variation in formal modes of expressing verb classification in Australia languages provides clues to the possible origins and development of the systems. We begin in §8.1 by proposing an ideophone origin for a subset of the UV lexicon in languages with CVC-based category systems. Following this, §8.2 outlines some suggestions concerning the historical development of these systems. In §8.3 the argument is expanded to encompass the conjugation systems of Pama-Nyungan languages. The final section, §8.4, concludes the discussion of diachrony by outlining a historical scenario of cyclic development of verb classification in Australia. Before we begin, a comment on terminology is in order. Like many investigators, I do not distinguish rigorously and consistently between

324

Evolution of verb classification in Australia

grammaticisation (diachronic processes whereby grammatical forms and constructions come into being and develop further grammatical functions) and lexicalisation (processes by which morphologically unanalysable lexical items arise from morphologically complex sources). The term grammaticisation is generally used in this monograph as a cover term for processes of both types, except where it is important to maintain the distinction. In fact, both types are involved in the evolution of verb classification systems in Australian languages, and interact in complex ways.

8.1. Ideophone origins of UVs At least five features characteristic of UVs in northern Australian languages are indicative of the origin of at least a substantial subset of words of this part-of-speech in ideophones: phonotactic peculiarities; phonaesthesia; independent usage as expressives; limited morphological potential; and syntactic restrictions (Voeltz and Kilian-Hatz 2001; Schultze-Berndt 2001b; McGregor 2001). The following subsections deal with these features in order.

8.1.1. Distinctive phonotactic features UVs in most (if not all) languages display distinctive phonotactic properties separating them from words of other parts-of-speech. They are shorter on average than words of other parts-of-speech, and exhibit a tendency towards fewer syllables. This generalisation is quite robust, and applies to languages of different genetic affiliations. Table 31, compares the percentage of UVs with «-syllables (1 3

£

ω C

ω τ3

2 α ft Ο u 3

= υ ο. U -ο e

Ο Ο ο CS

3 α

jo

*

> έ Ο ο

Ε SJ S ~

£

. S Ό Βί) a υ ο Ο CO ω e ο J3

^

•ο

i3

ft § «

. δ

344

Evolution of verb classification in Australia

olas Reid began his fieldwork on Ngan'gityemerri the two units had fused together into a single distributional word, with fixed order of units. Let's start with sequence (B), which begins with an increase in the number of ideophones, representing the initial source for some UVs. The class of UVs typically includes more than reflexes of original ideophones, which are unlikely to have numbered in the several hundreds. It will be recalled that words of other parts-of-speech, especially nominals and adverbials, can occur in CVCs. However, doing so does not necessarily affect their part-of-speech membership—they need not be reclassified—and other parts-of-speech need not have contributed significantly to the fund of UVs. Borrowing from nearby languages—typically with more highly grammaticalised CVCs—is an obvious source of UVs. Thus, according to McConvell and Schultze-Berndt (2001), the Pama-Nyungan language Gurindji borrowed large numbers of UVs from nearby nonPama-Nyungan Jaminjung. Conversely, Jingulu (a distant relative of Jaminjung) appears to have borrowed virtually the entirety of its UVs from the nearby Pama-Nyungan language Mudburra (Pensalfmi 2001: 391). Neologisms represent another likely source. Concomitant with the expansion of the set of ideophonic items might well have been emergent onomatopoeic stylisation, and the appearance of relatively systematic phonaesthesia and ultimately phonaesthemes.185 That is to say, certain patterned regularities could have emerged in the relation between ideophonic elements and the events they designated. Moreover, this crystallisation of phonaesthesia to particular loci in the emergent expressive lexicon would naturally have been accompanied by generalisation or schematisation of the meanings demonstrated.186 This could have enabled more common events (lacking distinctive sounds) to be represented by ideophonic-like elements. Although this would never have constituted a systematic grammatical word-building resource, it may have been adequate for fairly large-scale development of neologisms over periods of time, particularly in combination with other resources. Concrete illustration of utilisation of such resources in the creation

Origins and historical development of the CVC

345

of neologisms can be provided from Gooniyandi. A number of verbal stems clearly derive from nominals and adverbials by non-productive lexical processes, invoking phonaesthesia: either by addition of a phonaestheme, as in nyamanig- 'make big' (from nyamani 'big'), boolgany- 'get old' (from boolga 'old man'); or by truncation, exposing a phonaestheme, as ingoorrg- 'make hole' (from goorrgoo 'hole'), ngalarr- 'roll onto back, roll over (of log)' (from ngalarra 'back'), wangmarr- 'go mad' (from wangmarra 'mad'), ganybil- 'be shy' (from ganybili 'shy'), and others (McGregor 1996b). Granted that the initial slot also represents a possible site of phonaesthemes, it is possible that many lexemes emerged as partly regular nonce formations, that caught on owing to their expressiveness. Sequence (C) is concerned with changes to the syntagmatic potential of ideophones, and ultimately other items that come to join the same lexical class. The proposed scenario has ideophones initially as independent items occurring exclusively in their own minor clause. This minor clause might occur adjacent to a major clause referring in an arbitrary-symbolic way to the same event that the minor clause demonstrates—a well attested situation cross-linguistically. Over time, the hiatus between the two clauses may wear down, with the result that the ideophonic element loses its independent status, being uttered on the same intonation contour as the IV, and ultimately forms part of a single clause with it. Initially, perhaps, the limited range of biclausal tokens involved relatively synonymous verbs and ideophones. But over time, as the class of expressive elements expanded, a propensity to employ a restricted set of high frequency IVs—such as 'say, do', 'go', 'hit', 'fall', 'sit', 'put', 'catch', 'give' that either commonly frame quotes, or might be consistent with a variety of different noises—may have emerged. As these alternative expressions became available for a large number of events, the IVs more frequently used in them may have come to dominate, ultimately replacing many restricted to a few UV-like units. The emergence of neologisms based on more stylised and abstract iconic representation of events in sequence (B) was perhaps contemporaneous with their increasing incorporation into major clauses. These neologisms might be less likely to occur independently in minor ex-

346

Evolution of verb classification in Australia

pressive clauses, and were perhaps never restricted to that environment. They could demonstrate a range of events, including abstract ones, but perhaps with less affect. The increase in number of such items, together with their high frequency of occurrence in major clauses with IVs, may have promoted an increase in frequency of ideophones in the same environment. The result would have been an ever increasing tendency for such expressive items to be incorporated in major clauses in collocation with IVs, and an accompanying decrease in frequency of their independent occurrence. Simultaneously, the IVs they collocated with would show increased frequency in these combinations, decreased frequency in usage as the sole designating item in VPs. Parallelling sequence (C) of ever increasing collocations of expressives and IVs is sequence (D) of increasing frequency of usage. These collocations became the most common way of referring first to events with accompanying distinctive noises, such as the less usual manners of locomotion (e.g. swimming, flying, running, crawling, etc.); manners of vocalisation (e.g. crying, laughing, moaning, mumbling, barking, growling, etc.); and changes of state brought about by violent means (e.g. snapping, ripping, busting, cracking; and so forth). This mode of expression overtook the earlier means of designating these events by simple referring verbal expressions, which lacked vitality. With the emergence of increasing numbers of expressive lexemes, a wider range of events could be designated by these collocations, not just events associated with noises that were demonstrated by ideophones. These more abstract expressive lexemes demonstrated less concrete, more schematic, attributes of the events they denoted, until in principle any event could be represented by such demonstrative means. This mode of expression started to become the most frequent means of representing soundless events. Nyulnyul evidence attests to this expansion in event representation from concrete to more abstract. As discussed in sections 4.3.4 and 4.3.5 above, in the domains of vocalisation and communication, and motion, it is the manner-specified event types that show the greatest tendency to be represented by CVCs. More abstract event types, such as oriented motion, have a greater propensity for representation by SVCs.

Origins and historical development of the CVC

347

Sequence (D) correlates closely with (A). Languages of the northern and western Kimberley provide illustration of CVCs gradually increasing in frequency, ultimately replacing SVCs and resulting in loss of IVs. Both modes of expression can be available for particular events for considerable periods of time, until the CVC ultimately wins out. Examples of co-existence abound in Nyulnyulan and Worrorran languages. For instance, in Nyulnyul the usual means of designating the event of asking is by an SVC with the IV -J AB AL 'ask'; however, it may also be designated by the CVC ngank\-M (word|put) 'put words (a question) to, ask'. Indeed, ngank 'word, speech, speak' can itself also occur as an IV, -NGANK 'speak, talk to'. As a UV it may also take the instrumental postposition -ang and occur in a CVC with either -BARNJ 'exchange', conveying the meaning 'speak/talk together' or -M 'put', meaning 'talk to'. Examples can also be found of almost complete replacement of SVCs by CVCs. In Warrwa the CVC muk\-n (hit|say/do) 'hit' exists alongside the SVC -NKA 'hit', which it has all-but replaced in speech, though speakers still feel the SVC to be the "correct" form. The CVC is a borrowing from neighbouring Nyikina, where SVCs with -ALKA 'beat, hit' and -BOO 'hit' are rare. The latter—a reflex of protoNyulnyulan *-BU 'hit' (Stokes and McGregor forthcoming)—has disappeared completely from Warrwa; given a little time, it seems likely that -NKA 'hit' and -ALKA 'beat, hit' would also be lost in both languages (assuming their survival). Similarly, as remarked on page 117 above, the Bardi IV -JIID 'go' has recently been virtually replaced by the CVC arr\-JOO 'move|say'. But in this case the result would not be complete loss of the IV, since it survives in CVCs. It is not being suggested that when both modes of expression exist they are synonymous: the claim is merely is that they can usually designate the same referent events. They might for instance differ in expressiveness and immediacy, the CVC having more evocative connotations than the SVC. Over time, with increase in frequency of use, of course, this becomes attenuated, until the CVC conveys little more than the SVC. Alternatively, the CVC may encode a manner component that the SVC does not. If that manner happens to be the normal manner associated with events designated by the SVC, that component

348

Evolution of verb classification

in Australia

has the potential to "wear out" over time, just like evocative senses. This is presumably what happened with Bardi warr\-iOO 'move|say' and -JIID 'go'. InNyulnyul warr-(kaj) means 'walk-(CONT)', suggesting that warr was originally a manner-representing ideophonic element designating walking (or maybe something more specific like 'tramp', or 'step'). But walking is the normal means of locomotion, and with frequent usage of the UV it could have lost the manner sense, resulting in the meaning 'go', and paving the way for replacement of -JIID ' g o ' .

A consequence of the Warrwa and Bardi examples just discussed is that in (D) it is not the case that conventionalisation of collocations designating events with accompanying sounds must be completed before conventionalisation of collocations designating other events. The situation is much messier than the representation in Figure 26 indicates: the best that can be said is that conventionalisation would have begun with the former. Similar remarks hold for the stages in sequences (B) and (C). Is reduction in the number of IVs always an effect (as seems to be the case in Nyulnyulan languages) rather than a cause? The contrary case can perhaps be made for eastern Kimberley and Daly River languages, which tend to have fewer IVs, rarely more than forty. It is possible that in these languages a drift towards loss of IVs forced the systems further to the right along (B), (C) and (D). This could account for the fact that in many of them all IVs have the potential to occur in CVCs: fairly rapid, drastic loss of IVs might force all the remaining ones to shoulder a share of the workload in CVCs. The scenario outlined above focuses on circumstances that could give rise to a CVC-based system of verb categorisation. When does the CVC emerge as a distinct and viable construction? Any fully fledged system such as discussed in Chapter 3 must have moved beyond the stage of just employing ideophones in collocation with IVs. It must have made inroads into a wider class of events than those amenable to ideophonic representation. The left-most crosses on the scales in Figure 26 represent notional points at which CVCs may be said to have arisen—where (A) is interpreted as representing not the absolute number of IVs, but the number that collocate with UVs. By the time these

Origins and historical development of the CVC

349

stages are reached, the emerging mode of expression would have developed into a monoclausal grammatical construction. It would no longer be a mere expression type, a biclausal configuration of a minor clause in syntagm with a major clause. The right-most crosses indicate points where the processes culminate, and the complex mode of expression encompasses all events, including the most basic ones; the two erstwhile lexical items have become bound together in a single distributional unit; and only ten or so reflexes of the former verbs remain. This is the final state of Figure 26, which differs only in a minimal respect from the initial state—the (new) verbs do not yet take inflections: the material distributionally bound to the verb does not yet cohere tightly enough to it. But what was a CVC is now a fully grammaticised verbal construction, the only finite verbal construction in the language; this is a point of discontinuity, where the gradual changes in the CVC have accumulated to the point that a sudden structural reanalysis occurs—the IV loses its lexical characteristics, and the CVC is no longer a compound. This is the stage Gooniyandi has reached. Subsequently inflections and conjugation classes may develop, as described in the next section, taking us back to the initial state. The thicker lines joining the crosses represent the range of internal variation within CVCs. The verbal construction in most languages of the north-west of the Australian continent fall somewhere in these intervals. Aside from the gradual continuation of the four processes, the construction is ripe for other processes that affect it formally. As the two elements become more and more distributionally dependent, their pairings become sites for processes such as rigidification of order, tightening of the bond between the items so that they come to form single units (e.g. not separable by other words, by pauses, and so forth), and sandhi phenomena. These are relatively natural and expected developments, and there is little call for explanation for anything other than the order that won out. One potential source of the almost universal UV-IV order lies in the dominant order in collocations involving expressives and the 'say, do' IV. Evidence from at least one modern language suggests that ideophonic and sound-mimicking elements generally precede the framing

350

Evolution of verb classification in Australia

verb of speech: in Gooniyandi representations of animal noises normally precede the verb root jijag- 'say, speak'. Furthermore, it is with the 'say, do' verb that we generally find the strongest preference for UV-IV order, even in the few languages in which, like Ngan'gityemerri, the UV generally follows the IV verb: typically the 'say, do' IV is exceptional, and follows the UV. Given that the 'say, do' IV is usually highly productive and frequent in CVCs, it is not surprising that its characteristic order generalised to other pairings of UV and IV.187 In various languages ideophones may occur both pre- and postverbally (see §8.1.6 above). But there seems to be a difference: in post-verbal position an ideophone frequently occurs independently, on its own intonation contour; in pre-verbal position it is more likely to be integrated into the intonation contour that also contains the verb. Preverbal position would thus seem to be more strongly associated with integration into the clause, thus also motivating the dominant UV-IV order of CVCs. Crucial to the grammaticisation scenario proposed in this section is expressiveness. The success of most developments was contingent on the novelty of the new ways of saying old things, and the greater expressive potential afforded by the new fashions of speaking. It was not that the pre-existing system of inflecting verbs was inadequate to the task of designating the full range of events people wanted to talk about. Arthur Capell made basically this point some twenty years ago: "Compound conjugation is [sic] Australia developed first of all as a syntactic matter, a device probably for vividness and clarity of expression, certainly not for any grammatical reasons" (Capell 1979: 294). It was not that the emergent system served the same event-signifying purposes more economically than the existing system. This could not have been "known" in advance. And although as a means of expression the C VC has the advantage of lexical economy, it comes at a cost: considerable complexity in collocations, which are essentially unpredictable, and have to be learnt by rote. Like the genetic mutation that results in a successful variant, it worked. But it might not have, and teleological purposes should not be read into the events that did occur: neither communicative needs nor any of the potentially useful characteristics motivated the emergence of the construction in the first place.

Origins of Pama-Nyungan conjugation markers

351

The spread of CVCs over a large part of the Australian continent was by areal diffusion; it is not the result of genetic retention from temporally a remote proto-language. Modern languages show a wide range of different degrees of grammaticalisation in their CVCs. The grammaticalisation scenario sketched in this section has it that it was not fully grammaticised systems of classificatory CVCs that diffused. 188 Rather, each language independently followed the postulated developmental stages. Diffusion must have taken place in the early stages of development in one language, spreading rapidly to nearby languages, before the system became opaque. The result has been parallel developments within nearby languages, which tend to exhibit comparable stages of development, though they remain slightly out of phase. 189 This accounts for the diversity in terms of detail of the systems of classification, within the larger matrix of constructional similarity. McConvell and Schultze-Berndt (2001) suggest that code-switching in the traditionally multilingual speech communities may have played a role in the development and spread of CVCs, observing that the construction is reminiscent of the 'bare form' strategy often reported for verbs in code-switching (e.g. Romaine 1989: 120-164; Myers-Scotton 1993: 112-116). The unpredictability of collocating IVs for any given UV—even between nearby languages with CVCbased category systems—makes the situation somewhat different to the standard 'bare form' strategy, which involves a single auxiliary verb. Nevertheless, the hypothesis seems promising, and would repay further investigation.

8.3. Origins of Pama-Nyungan conjugation markers The "received" view, expounded in detail in Dixon (1980: 408-426), has it that proto-Australian verbs had canonical shape root plus inflectional suffixes, like inflecting verbs in most modern Pama-Nyungan languages. Verb roots could end in a vowel, or one of six consonants, y, ng, m, η, I, or rr. According to this story, these final consonants precipitated out from the roots as a result of the operation of phonological processes, and were ultimately reanalysed as conjugation markers. Corre-

352

Evolution of verb classification

in Australia

spondingly, 0 emerged as the conjugation marker for vowel-final roots, being in paradigmatic contrast with the six consonants.190 As hinted in §5.1, an alternative account of the historical development of verbs in Pama-Nyungan languages, and the origins of conjugations is possible, indeed preferable. Merlan (1979) provides evidence that the verbal construction characteristic of Pama-Nyungan languages derives historically from a compound verb construction in what I will for convenience call proto-Pama-Nyungan.191 This could well have been a CVC-based category system, and the conjugation markers may have derived not from root final consonants, but from inflected forms of IVs, that served as category markers. Historical phonological processes drastically affected their phonological shapes, obscuring their sources in IVs. Pama-Nyungan languages have thus grammaticalised the construction a step further than Gooniyandi, in which the classifiers have not yet reached the point of being analysable synchronically as conjugation markers. Evidence for the alternative historical scenario postulating a grammatical rather than a phonological source for conjugation markers comes from various sources. One obvious factor is the statistical correlation between conjugation classes and valency, commented on in §5.1. This association goes unexplained in the received scenario, but is expected in the alternative account advocated here. Another consideration concerns phonotactics. Word-final ng and m are frequently precluded in Australian languages, which—as Dixon (1980: 410) himself recognises—presents a problem for his account, since it requires these to have been permissible in proto-PamaNyungan. Syllable-final^ is also precluded in a many languages, especially in the western part of the continent. A third consideration is that Dixon's scenario presumes compound verb constructions in the proto-language anyway, to account for the strong tendency in Pama-Nyungan languages for verb roots to be disyllabic or longer. Dixon (1980: 418-419) suggests that perhaps the major source of polysyllabic verb roots in modern languages is the fusion of compound verb structures into single lexical items. Another source is original disyllabic roots, as in the case of *BAGA-/ 'pierce, spear' (Dixon 1980: 418). Merlan (1979: 52ff), however, argues con-

Origins of Pama-Nyungan conjugation markers

353

vincingly for a source in a compound verb construction involving *GA'pierce', which is also represented in a number of other verb roots in modern Pama-Nyungan languages showing meanings relating to piercing or spearing. Merlan also proposes that the widespread PamaNyungan verb BAJA-/ ~ BATHA-/ 'bite' derives from a compound involving *JA ~ *THA 'eat', and that the recurrent segment n(a) of many verbs of motion and stance may be the relic of an IV. In some cases this formative appears as part of the verb root, while in others it shows up as the conjugation marker n. Not all instances of this form need necessarily derive from the same source: it seems that the η conjugation marker for monovalent verbs may be different from the η conjugation marker for bivalent verbs (Merlan 1979: 70-71). It is natural to wonder whether plausible cognates of PamaNyungan conjugation markers can be found in non-Pama-Nyungan (or Pama-Nyungan) IVs. There are some suggestive possibilities, including the conjugation markers ng and m with GA(A)- 'carry' and BU'hit'. 192 Not only are the conjugation classes they belong to predominantly bivalent, but also the conjugation marker is the nasal corresponding to the initial consonant of the verb. Why nasals? Possibly they result from fusion of the earlier roots with inflectional material such as tense or aspect suffixes—possibly even pronominal prefixes.193 Significantly, in many modern Pama-Nyungan languages the two corresponding verbs, generally reflexes of *GAA- 'carry' and *BU'hit', are assigned to the ng and m conjugations respectively.194 Even more strikingly, in Mayali the IVs KAA- 'carry' and PU- 'hit' belong to conjugations marked by ng and m in the past-perfective (Evans 2000b). It is not implausible that the η conjugation marker derives from an IV *NI or *NA 'be, sit', reflexes of which are widespread in non-PamaNyungan languages; the common Pama-Nyungan NYII-« ~ NHII-n 'sit' is probably also a cognate. At least this is one reasonable source for the conjugation marker. Perhaps, as Merlan (1979: 70-71) suggests, there is another source for this conjugation marker, associated with bivalent verbs, and the two may have fallen together in many paradigmatic forms, which might account for the relatively weak correlation between this conjugation class and transitivity. Even more speculatively, the conjugation marker I, encountered a

354

Evolution of verb classification in Australia

little while ago in the context of possible reflexes of a verb GA-/ 'pierce' in various Pama-Nyungan languages, may itself represent the remnants of a previous IV meaning something like 'pierce'. Not only do we find evidence of an IV 'pierce' in modern Pama-Nyungan languages with an initial lateral (e.g. LA-«- 'spear' in Jaru and Walmajarri), but also we find not entirely implausible cognates in various non-Pama-Nyungan languages, involving initial r, rarely I (e.g. Nyulnyulan -RI ~ -RA 'poke', Wagiman -RE 'spear', Ndjebbana RÄ 'spear, pierce, shoot', Lardil LATHA 'spear, pierce, poke', 195 Kayardild RAAJA 'spear, inject, sew', and many others). Of course, the remarks of the previous few paragraphs are highly speculative, and given the conjugation markers are single consonants, and the IVs often monosyllabic almost anything could be suggested. Much detailed basic-level reconstruction is essential before any proposals can be tested.

8.4. Evolution of meaning I have objected at various points in the foregoing pages to the commonly invoked metaphor according to which, as they adopt grammatical uses and become auxiliaries restricted to CVCs, IVs become semantically "bleached". My objection was that, in their classificatory use, the lexical meaning of IVs need not be accessed (§6.2). As markers of verbal categories they may maintain their inherent semantic specifications as lexical items, but do not invoke these meanings when used as category markers. This is not a claim that there is no connection between the inherent semantics of an IV and the semantics of the category it marks. If the diachronic scenario suggested in this chapter is valid there ought to be such a connection. Indeed, at minimum the categories ought to have more general, more schematic, semantic specifications than the lexical IVs. This is what we have consistently found. But none of this implies diachronic change to the lexical semantics of the IVs. Category meaning emerges over time primarily from the UV-collocations the marking IV enters into, which are in turn partly motivated

Evolution of meaning

355

by the semantics of the IV. But this is abstracted from the UV-IV collocations rather than through direct modification of the semantics of the IV itself. Diachronic lexical semantic processes are thus largely irrelevant. The well-populated categories in each language—the category markers of which one would expect to show the highest degrees of grammaticalisation—exhibit the most schematic semantic specifications; the most restricted categories show the most lexical-like meanings. Thus, the two smallest Gooniyandi categories, those marked by +BILI and +ARNI1, have the most lexical-like meanings: 'consume completely' and 'emerge', respectively. For none of the other Gooniyandi categories is it possible to provide such concrete lexical meanings. The other categories involve various mixtures of Aktionsart, valency, and vectorial configuration. And, as has been seen, it is quite artificial to provide lexical glosses for the markers of these categories—their glosses represent the presumed historical sources of the classifiers in verbs more than the meanings of the categories themselves. For instance, little of the lexical meaning of the IV *-BU 'hit' is retained by the +BINI 'hit' category: Aktionsart (accomplishment, telic) and a vectorial configuration component specifying contact at a point. Similarly, only a small fraction of the lexical meaning 'carry' originally associated with *-GAA remains in the +A 'extend' category: effectively only the two most abstract components, valency (bivalent) and Aktionsart (extendible). What would be surprising—and would count as evidence against the historical scenario adumbrated here—would be for the meanings of these two categories to be reversed: for +A to mark accomplishments involving contact at a point, and for +BINI to mark extendible bivalent actions. There would be no reason why the proto-IVs from which these two classifiers derive would have collocated with UVs (or their historical sources) showing these incompatible semantic features. Furthermore, the meanings show a tendency to become more schematic as the IVs, and ultimately the categorisation system itself, become more grammaticalised. Illustration can be found by comparing the semantic descriptions for Gooniyandi, Nyulnyul, and Ngarinyin categories. Many of the categories in Nyulnyul and Ngarinyin require

356

Evolution of verb classification

in Australia

more lexical-like specification than do Gooniyandi categories. The same goes for the categories marked by IVs in Jaminjung (SchultzeBerndt 2000: Chapter 5). By the time the remnants of CVCs have become inflecting verbs, the resulting conjugation class markers show no lexical semantics whatever, and all that remains are statistical associations with valency—and perhaps, one might speculate, Aktionsart. An important question remains: how did the classificatory semantics of the CVC emerge—how did the IV come to serve as a category marker? In the case of nominal categorisation systems in Australian languages the answer seems fairly uncontrovertial: they developed from constructions involving apposition of a generic and specific lexeme of the same part-of-speech (see §10.2). The generic nominal clearly represents the taxonomic type of the specific nominal, and it is just a small step to analyse the construction as a system of categorisation of the specific nominal. As we saw in §8.2, CVC-based verb category systems come from very different sources, ultimately from collocations of ideophones and verbs, lexemes of quite different parts-ofspeech. It is not obvious how such expressions might acquire classificatory semantics. One possibility is that it evolved from the relation between the major and minor clauses in the biclausal construction that represented the initial point in the development of the CVC. It is not too implausible to suppose that this was the grammatical relation of elaboration—whereby one element explicates the other by restating it in different terms (McGregor 1997b: 61): the ideophone/minor clause as it were restates the information conveyed by the major clause, providing that clause with more evocative designation. The increase in number of expressive elements and reduction in the number of IVs did not initially affect this relation, though the minor clause increasingly came to provide a good deal of additional information not conveyed in the major clause. With the reanalysis of the biclausal construction as a single clause, came reanalysis of the relation as obtaining between the expressive element, the UV, and the IV. Granted the order UV-IV, the former would need to elaborate anti-iconically on the latter. Instead, the elaborative relation was as it were semantically inverted, resulting quite plausibly in reinterpretation as a categorising relation.

Evolution of meaning

357

It is also possible that certain lexical-semantic features that are perhaps characteristic of IVs in Australian languages render them suitable for use as category markers in CVCs, and perhaps predispose them to such usage. Some IVs commonly employed in CVCs express generic meanings as their lexical semantics—thus the designation generic verbs (Schultze-Berndt 2000). We have already seen that in Nyulnyul both generic motion and vocalisation/communication events are expressed by SVCs the IVs of which occur in CVCs (§4.3.4 and §4.3.5); the same holds in other Nyulnyulan languages. However, it is not clear that in languages where the classifying IVs also have the potential to occur in SVCs effect a taxonomy of events in the way that generic nouns seem to do in languages with nominal categorisation systems. And (in my scenario) this semantic feature never drove the emergence and development of systems of verb categorisation, as it appears to have driven the emergence and development of systems of nominal categorisation; it merely promoted their emergence, constituting a part of the background facilitating circumstances. There may also be a tendency for IVs to exhibit a lexical orientation to the abstract dynamic activity path that the event traces rather than manner of action—that is, to the specification of an event's vectorial configuration rather than its manner of performance. We have seen synchronic reflexes of this in the domains of motion (§4.3.5) and vocalisation/communication (§4.3.4) in Nyulnyul, where IVs in SVCs tend not to specify manner, but rather vectorial configuration; the same holds true of the motion domain in Warrwa (McGregor forthcoming-b) and Jaminjung (Schultze-Berndt forthcoming). In his careful investigation of the semantics of percussion and impact verbs, Riemer (1999: 115) speculates that Warlpiri IVs and English verbs from these domains show different orientations in their lexical semantics. English tends to distinguish percussion and impact verbs according to manner, whereas this is largely irrelevant to Warlpiri IVs. For instance, the Warlpiri IV PAJI- can denote a range of events that must be referred to in English by a variety of different verbs including cut, rip, and break, depending on the manner in which a surface has been riven. Similarly, PANTI- denotes production of point like depressions in a surface irrespective of the instrumental means by

358

Evolution of verb classification in Australia

which this is brought about. Riemer (1999: 115) interprets these facts as indicating result orientation of Warlpiri percussion and impact IVs. An equally plausible case can be made for treating them as indicative of an orientation to event vectorial configuration: it is not just the result that is important, but the abstract action configuration that leads to it, as emerges clearly from Riemer's discussion of many Warlpiri percussion and impact IVs. This is consistent with the diachronic scenario outlined in this chapter: UVs infiltrate the verbal lexicon beginning with demonstration of sounds, and extending into manners of performing events. The first SVCs to be replaced by CVCs would be expected to be those expressing manner, leaving as a result an IV lexicon with a strong orientation to vectorial configuration. The remarks of this section are admittedly tentative, speculative, and in need of further explication. They suggest possible ways of viewing the semantics of CVCs within a diachronic perspective that does not focus exclusively on the lexical semantics of the IV—nor completely ignore it.

8.5. Australia as a verb classification Sprachbund While observing that UVs in languages with CVCs sometimes have sources in ideophones, Alpher (1994: 167) does not consider the evidence sufficient to indicate which is historically prior, the ideophone constructions of languages like Yir-Yoront, or the CVCs of northwestern Australia languages.196 More information is now available, and I hope to have shown that a plausible scenario can be made for the historical derivation CVCs in northern Australian languages from expressions involving ideophones, and that ideophones represent the initial driving force and an important historical source of UVs. Constructions involving ideophones formed the analogical basis for CVCs. This scenario further illustrates the fact that ideophones actually do constitute a "normal" part of languages; they are not entirely separate and peculiar. If my proposals are on the right track, grammaticisation and renewal—a creative process—are both involved in the evolution of

Australia as a verb classification Sprachbund

359

CVCs. Creativity is represented by the initial stage of using ideophones non-ideophonically, in certain environments, and subsequently large scale borrowing and/or invention of neologisms on a nonarbitrary, non-mechanical, basis. These phases are followed by periods of grammaticisation—wearing down of the material base of the constructions, wearing down of their semantics, and loss of expressiveness—until the stage is reached represented by many present-day Pama-Nyungan languages. It may not be accidental that the largest numbers of ideophones tend to be found in languages with the most grammaticised verbal constructions, with simple inflecting verbs. In a language like Gooniyandi, whose verbal construction has grammaticised to a lesser degree, we find a fair number of ideophones—though not as many as YirYoront—and they are used comparatively infrequently. Rather more are found in Nunggubuyu, in which the verbal construction shows evidence of a fair amount of grammaticisation. Wangkajunga and other northern Western Desert varieties, which have highly grammaticised SVCs, and are only just beginning to acquire a new CVC, also have a large number of ideophones. At intermediate stages are Jaminjungan and Nyulnyulan languages. However, the former languages show a fair number of UVs that can be used ideophonically, while the latter show few. This indicates that the associations are tendencies, not rules. The sequence of processes described in this chapter may well have occurred not once but many times in the history of Australian languages: at least one—and possibly more—complete cycles of grammaticisation could have occurred in various languages. Thus verbs in many Pama-Nyungan languages have grammaticised from CVCs, meaning that CVCs are historically prior to the ideophone constructions of languages such as Yir-Yoront. Moreover, Pama-Nyungan languages of the northwest abutting on the non-Pama-Nyungan region exhibit early phases of a new wave of CVCs—whilst the remnants of the previous phase are still discernible in the conjugation classes. Similarly in Jingulu, as remarked above (see also note 71), it seems that a CVC has been recently borrowed of from neighbouring Mudburra (Pensalfini 2001: 391), and that this coexists with the relic of a former indigenous CVC. The latter is highly grammaticised, and involves an

360

Evolution of verb classification in Australia

uninflecting root element (referred to as a preverb by Pensalfini) followed by cross-referencing bound pronominals, and an inflected element, the relic of a former IV; these items form a single distributional word, as shown in (145). It seems that only three of the former IVs remain, 'come', 'go', and 'do', and at least the former two may occur without a preceding UV—that is, in a SVC—as in (146). (145) ngirriki-nya-jiyimil hunt-2sgNOM-come 'Are you coming hunting?' (Pensalfini 2001: 387)

Jingulu

(146) ya-ardu kardarda ya-jiyimi Jingulu 3sgNOM-go always 3sgNOM-come 'He's always coming and going.' (Pensalfini 2001: 388) The more recently acquired CVC involves a UV in collocation with either an IV (example (147)) or one of the highly grammaticalised preverb-IV collocations (example (148)). These are less tightly bound constructions, the UV retaining its distributional dependence. (147)nam wunyu-ju stick 3duNOM-do 'They're stuck together.' (Pensalfini 2001: 388)

Jingulu

(148) dang wardka-nu dead fall-did 'It dropped dead.' (Pensalfini 2001: 391)

Jingulu

It follows that a simple-minded interpretation of my proposals as claims that in terms of their verbal constructions Pama-Nyungan languages are more innovative than non-Pama-Nyungan languages is on the wrong track completely—cf. Dixon (1980: 226), who sees a sharp dichotomy between the 'least-innovatory' Pama-Nyungan and the 'most-innovatory' non-Pama-Nyungan. It makes little sense to align languages on a scale from most conservative to most innovative in regard to their verbal constructions. Rather, languages are at different

Australia as a verb classification Sprachbund

361

points on overlapping grammaticisation cycles that are out of phase. Just how many such cycles might have been completed during say the last ten or twenty thousand years is anyone's guess. In the not unlikely event that it was more than one, it is clear that reconstruction of protoAustralian verbal morphology will be an impossible task, unless this putative language was spoken much more recently than most linguists think. 197 Another consequence of these proposals is that virtually the entire continent may be regarded as a verb classification Sprachbund. 198 The phenomenon seems to be deeply etched into the languages of the continent; few languages show no evidence whatever of it. It is at least as pervasive in Australia as nominal classification, if not more so. I conclude with two observations. First, it is not being suggested that CVCs in Australian languages inevitably grammaticise into verbal constructions with segmental conjugation class markers. This is just one possible outcome; in some languages (as we have seen) IVs in CVCs ended up as derivational morphemes, in other languages as verbal thematics. Nor is it claimed that conjugation class systems always derive historically from CVCs. The Nyulnyulan conjugation classes could hardly have arisen in this way: almost certainly the conjugation marker na- ~ a- is the reflex of a pronominal prefix—the third person singular accusative, probable cognates of which can be found across many non-Pama-Nyungan languages (e.g. Evans 2000b). Presumably at some point in the historical development of Nyulnyulan languages the system of accusative prefixes fell out of use, the third person singular remaining as the sole representative of the system—as happened subsequently with the system of pronominal prefixes to body part nominals (McGregor 1995). And second, a general observation: it is not just the unit that grammaticises from lexical to grammatical item that needs to be taken into account, but also the entire construction and the bits that make it up. It is only because of the confluence of various grammaticisation and lexicalisation strands that CVC-based verb category systems resulted from the initial states. Moreover, semantic schematisation is by no means restricted to the item that actually undergoes the major grammaticisation processes: as we have seen, this was as much a feature of

362

Evolution of verb classification in Australia

the concomitant expansion in the class of expressives analogised on ideophones, as it was of the grammaticisation of the IVs to category markers. The construction itself underwent radical grammatical and semantic changes. It probably began life as a biclausal construction, perhaps involving the dependency relation of elaboration. In any event, it consisted of a minor clause in syntagm with a major clause that designated the same referent event, the minor clause demonstrating it, the major clause denoting it symbolically. It ended up as a monoclausal construction in which the major clause incorporated the minor clause, which became the event-referring unit, the verb of erstwhile major clause a marker of the category to which it was assigned.

Chapter 9 Verb classification in discourse: a preliminary investigation

Systems of nominal classification are frequently used for reference management or phoric purposes, including tracking and instantiation of referents in discourse (e.g. Heath 1983,1984: 604-605; Craig 1994; Aikhenvald 1994, 2000: 320-333; Sands 1995: 259; Merlan, Roberts, and Rumsey 1997; and many others). This calls to mind the possibility that verbal classification systems might have similar discourse uses. Perhaps they can be used for instantiating or tracking events. It is easy to imagine employment of a category marker instead of a full VP to denote an event that has already been mentioned. Such a system might be used to connect events in situations like He arrived at Fitzroy Crossing. Having arrived, he ate and went to sleep. After sleeping, he woke up and.... Instead of using full verbal constructions as linkers, the category marker could be used alone, the lexical verb being omitted. Similarly, in gapping contexts such as late meat, Jane ate pizza the second VP could be reduced to an inflected category marker.199 Such usage of verb classification systems is highly unusual in Australian languages: it is usually impossible to ellipse UVs from CVCs, and whenever an IV occurs alone, it normally represents a SVC, not an elliptical CVC. The only convincing illustration of this type of use comes from Jingulu, where it is attested for both types of compound verb construction (see §8.5 above, and Pensalfini 2001: 388), as illustrated by the following examples.200 However, the status of these constructions as sites for verb category systems is uncertain—one system (exemplified in (149)) is very recent, and may not have fully acquired categorising semantics; the other (example (150)) is very ancient, and may well have lost its categorising semantics, as happened in other eastern Mindi languages. (149) A: ajuwara manyan nya-nyu where sleep 2sgNOM-did

Jingulu

364

Verb classification in discourse

B: ngindi-mbili nga-nu DEM-LOC lsgNOM-did A: 'Where did you sleep?' Β: Ί did it there.' (Pensalfini 2001: 388) (150) ngini-mbili mankiya-nga-yi, ngawu nga-yi Jingulu DEM-LOC sit-1 sgNOM-FUT home lsgNOM-FUT 'I'll stay here, I'll [stay] home.' (Pensalfini 2001: 388) Even if the overwhelming majority of CVC-based verb category systems do not exhibit such uses, this not mean that they can't have discourse-related uses, only that these do not necessarily closely parallel uses of nominal classification systems. This chapter undertakes a preliminary examination of ways resources of verb classification can be deployed in discourse. For various reasons Gooniyandi makes a good choice of target language. On the practical side, not only is my narrative corpus most extensive in this language, but also the analysis of the verb category system in this language is in the most advanced stage. On the analytical side, every finite verb is categorised according to one and the same system. Moreover, Gooniyandi lies on the border between CVC-based category systems characteristic of languages of north-west Australia and the highly grammaticised conjugation class systems of Pama-Nyungan languages: the system is grammaticalised to the point where we might reasonably expect to find crystallisation, but not yet erosion, of uses. The chapter is organised as follows. First, §9.1 describes large-scale patterns of distribution of verb categories in the texts. Following this, §9.2 undertakes a detailed examination of a sample text. Finally, §9.3 outlines the broader relevance of the findings.

9.1. Category distribution in Gooniyandi narratives Not only do Gooniyandi verbal categories differ markedly in cardinality, but they differ just as strikingly in terms of their occurrence in discourse, in the frequency that verb stem tokens are assigned to them, and

Category distribution in Gooniyandi narratives

365

thus the frequency whereby the categories themselves are indexed. For simplicity, I will (in this section) normally speak of patterns of distribution of classifiers, rather than categories. It should be borne in mind, though, that what is of primary importance is the distribution of categories, rather than their formal indexes. Let us begin with the basic facts of distribution. Table 32 shows the numbers of classifier tokens in the same textual corpus as was employed in the investigation of Chapter 2. Table 32.

Frequencies of assignment of verbs to categories in the Gooniyandi text corpus

Category

Freq.

%of total

% of Aktionsart set

Size

%

+1 'be, go'

2865

37

60

125

17

+A 'extend'

1867

24

39

200

27

30