S Amba-L R H M · Swahili’s agreement morphology takes the form of preﬁx es.4 2Zw art(Zw 1997)...

UCLA WorkingPapers in Linguistics,no. 8, March 2002Papers in AfricanLinguistics2—Torrence(ed.)

SWAHILI Amba-LESS RELATIVESWITHOUT HEAD MOVEMENT

LestonBuellUniversityof California,Los Angeles

[email protected]

Recent proposals have assumedthat syntactic representationsarecon-strained by sometypeof LinearCorrespondenceAxiom (LCA), asversionof which first appearedin Kayne(1994).Oneconsequenceof this assump-tion is theelimination of right-adjunction of oneovertelementontoanotherin thesyntax,which in somecasescanforcearemnant movementanalysis.This papershows that Swahili amba-lessrelatives,andprobably even verbforms in simplematrix clauses,areonesuchcase. Several typesof inde-pendentevidencearealsoexamined to theeffect that theseverbal andrel-ative formsaremaximalprojections ratherthan complex heads,includingthe fact that the prosodicsubconstituencies observed in the relative formscannotbeobtainedby headmovement. An analysisis thensketchedwhichrelieson remnantmovementrather thanheadmovement.

1. SWAHILI VERBAL FORMSAND THE L INEAR CORRESPONDA NCE AXIOM

Oneof the consequencesof the Linear Correspondence Axiom (LCA)proposedin Kayne(1994) is a banon theright adjunction (asfigured in(2)) of onenon-emptyheadontoanotherin thesyntax, while left adjunc-tion (asin (1)) is allowed:

(1) Left adjunction (allowed) X

Y

y

X

x

(2) Rightadjunction (disallowed) *Y

Y

y

X

x

Taken together with the stronghypothesisthat the linear ordering ofgrammatical morphology generally correspondsto syntacticstructure,theLCA suggeststhat theSwahili verb stemdoesnot raiseto Aux, but

Buell—Swahili RelativesWithoutHeadMovement 87

thatit stayssomewherebelow Aux (assumingthatSwahili tensemarkersareAux heads),asin (3):1

(3) JumaJuma

a-3s.subj-

li-past-

somaread

kitabu.book

‘Jumareada book’

AgrSP

Juma AgrS�

a AuxP

li VP

soma DP

kitabu

This is sobecauseif raisingwereto indeedtake place,with only leftadjunction availablewe would expect the subjectagreementandtensemorphology to appearassuffixesontheverb stem,asin (4):

(4) * Jumasoma-li- a kitabu.AgrSP

Juma AgrS�

((soma� + li) � + a) AuxP

t � XP

t � YP

t � kitabu

While in this simpleexample it doesnot appearto beproblematictoleave the subjectagreement andauxiliary in their base-generatedposi-tions while leaving the verb stemsomewhat lower, problems do arise1I would like to thank MasanguMatondo andDeogratias Ngonyani for valuable judge-mentsusedin writing thispaper.

88 UCLA WorkingPapers in Linguistics,no. 8

in morecomplex structureswherethe subjectfollows the verb (a phe-nomenon often termed‘subject postposing’). One context wherethisoccurs is in a typeof relative clauseform, heretermedthe ‘amba-less’relative:

(5) kitabu7.book

a-1.subj-

li-past-

cho-7.o-

ki-7.obj-

somaread

JumaJuma

shule-9.school-

niin

‘the book thatJumareadin school’

Undertheassumptionthatthesubjectagreementonthisform indicatesthat thesubjecthasmoved to Spec,AgrS, theverbal form alichokisomain (5) appearsto have moved acrossthe subject.2 Accounting for thistype of movement would be unproblematicin a framework which al-lowedmultiple right adjunction–theform would simply head-move pastthesubject.But if head-movement is not availablefor this form (duetothe fact that it is not a head), we facethe immediateproblem that themorphemestring a-li-cho-ki-somais not a constituentto the exclusionof shule-ni in (5) in thesameway thata-li-soma is not a constituenttothe exclusion of kitabu in (3). Sinceconstituency is a prerequisite tomovement,this problem must be solved by remnantification: a seriesof movementswhich renders therelevant stringa moveableconstituent.This paperwill presentevidenceagainst a head-movement analysisforbothSwahili tensedverbsandamba-lessrelativesandwill illustratewhatananalysiswithoutheadmovementwould entail.Specifically, it will beshown that suchan analysiswill require onecycle of remnantificationfor a matrix verb, andtwo suchcycles for an amba-lessrelative. Theanalysispursuedherewill alsobein line with recentattemptsto doawaywith headadjunctionmoregenerally.3

2. THE DATA

As is typical of Bantulanguages,Swahili hasa rich systemof tenseandaspectanda systemof grammaticalgender basedon a largesetof nounclasses.Swahili’s agreement morphology takes the form of prefixes.4

2Zwart (Zwart 1997)proposesthatSwahili subjectmarkersarepronounsratherthan AgrSheads.Underthatassumption, thesubject agreement factscannotbeusedasanargumentfor movementof the subject through AgrSP. Even so, other reasonscould be found tosupportmovementof thesubject.3See, for example, Koopmanand Szabolcsi (2000) , Mahajan (2000) , and Sportiche(1997).4Except, arguably, thedistributive suffix -(e)ni.


Examples (6) through (9) serve to demonstratethe form which subjectagreement, tense,negation, andmoodgenerally take in Swahili. In theglosses,numbers will referto personagreementonly whenfollowedby‘s’ or ‘p’ (‘1s’ = ‘first personsingular’, ‘2p’ = ‘second personplural’,etc.),whereasbarenumberswill referto nounclass(‘1’ = ‘noun class1’,etc.).Nounclassagreementona verbimpliesthird person.

(6) tu-1p.subj-

na-pres-

ki-7.obj-

somaread

‘we’re readingit’

(7) ha-neg-

tu-1p.subj-

ki-7.obj-

som-read-

ineg

‘we don’t readit’

(8) kitabu7.book

ha-neg-

ki-7.subj-

ta-fut-

som-read-

w-pass-

adefault.vowel

‘the book won’t beread’

(9) iliin.order

tu-1p.subj-

si-neg-

ki-7.obj-

som-read-

esubj

‘so thatwe not readit’

Two typesof relative clausesexist in Swahili, which we shallcall theambarelativeandtheamba-lessrelative,depending onwhether theformcontains the overt complementizeramba. Among the propertiesthesetwo broadtypesof relative clauseshave in common is the presence ofanagreeing affix, which in thispaperwill becalledano-form andwhichwill beglossedmerelyaso. Hereis anexample of anambarelative,withtheo-form,appearingas-cho (bearing noun class7 agreementfeatures)asa suffix on thecomplementizeramba:

(10) kitabubook

amba-comp-

cho7.o

a-1.subj-

li-past-

(ki-)7.obj

somaread

shule-9.school-

niloc


This paperis concernedwith the secondtype of relative clause,theamba-lessrelatives,which arefurtherdividedinto whatwe will call the‘infix edrelatives’, which exhibit anovert auxiliary, andthe‘affirmativetenselessrelative’, which doesnot. Theinfixedrelativesexhibit thefol-lowing surfaceorder, with the relative pronoun suffixed onto the Aux


(but writtenasaninfix in thestandardorthography): 5

(11) noun+ subjectmarker+ Aux + o-form + (objectmarker)+ V + (subject)+ everythingelse

(12) kitabu7.book

a-1.subj-

li-past-

cho-7.o-

(ki-)7.obj-

somaread

JumaJuma

shule-9.school-

niloc


while in the positive tenselessform the relative pronoun appears as asuffix on theverbstem:

(13) noun + subjectmarker + (objectmarker) + V + o-form + (subject)+everythingelse

(14) kitabu7.book

a-1.subj-

(ki-)7.obj-

soma-read-

cho1.o

JumaJuma

shule-9.school-

niloc

‘the book thatJumareadsin school, thebook readby Jumainschool’

Notethatanovertsubjectin anamba-lessrelativeclauseis postverbal6

(except whenit is thesubjectitself which is relativized):

(15) a. kitabu7.book

a-1.subj-

li-past-

cho-7.o-

ki-7.obj-

somaread

JumaJuma

shule-9.school-

niloc

‘the bookthatJumareadin school’

b. * kitabu7.book

JumaJuma

a-1.subj-

li-past-

cho-7.o-

ki-7.obj-

somaread

shule-9.school-

niloc

‘the bookthatJumareadin school’

The [AgrS + Aux + o] sequence must immediatelyprecedethe [ob-ject marker + V] sequence;nomaterialcanintervene:

5For thesake of simplicity, relativizedsubjects will not bediscussed, althoughtheir treat-mentis straightforward regardlessof theanalysisadopted.6The subjectcan appear postverbally (as in (15b)) if it is stressed,as noted in (Bar-rett Keach 1985). SincetheSVO orderseemsto entail focus,we will assumethat it hasasomewhatdifferentstructure thantheneutral formsdiscussed in this paper.


(16) * kitabu7.book

a-1.subj-

li-past-

cho7.o

JumaJuma

ki-7.obj-

somaread

shule-9.school-

niloc


3. THE Amba-LESS RELATIVE AS AN XP

Wehavealready discussedwhy analyzing theamba-lessrelativeform asa complex headis problematicin that its morphemesoccurin anunex-pectedlinearorder if Kayne’s (Kayne1994) proposalis assumed.Thissectiondiscussessomeevidence independentof theseconcernswhichalsosupports theclaim thatthis form is not a head, but anXP (maximalprojection). Two new termswill beusefulhere.Theterm‘Aux substring’will referto thesubstringof averbal formoramba-lessrelativeformcon-sistingof thesubjectmarker, theauxiliary, and(in thecaseof a relative)theo-form. The‘V substring’ will referto thesubstringconsistingof theobjectmarkerandtheverbstem.Thus,in theform alichokisoma ‘whichheread’,theAux substringis a-li-choandtheV substringis ki-soma.

3 � 1. TheSyntactic Statusof theV Substring

Notethatbareverbs andverbswith objectmarkershavedistinctimpera-tive formsin Swahili. Thebareverbappears with thedefault final vowel-a while averbwith anobject markerprefixendsin thesubjunctivemor-pheme -e:7

(17) a. Soma!read

‘Read!’

b. Ki-7.obj-

som-read-

e!subjunct

‘Read!Readit!’

Thesituationis similar in at leastsomeotherBantulanguages,suchasSukuma (Masangu Matondo,p.c.):

7Verbswhosestemin the indicative form endsin a vowel other than-a do not exhibit anyfinal-vowel alternation for any moodor tense.


(18) a. Som-read-

ag-imper-

a!default.vowel

‘Read!’

b. Gi-7.obj-

som-read-

ag-imper-

e!subjunct

‘Readit!’

Thisalternation canbetakenasevidencethatthesurfaceV substringisnotacomplex head(suchasaverbandanincorporatedpronoun), for thefollowing reason.Let us suppose(contrary to what I am arguing here)that the objectmarker and the verb do, in fact, form a complex head.Both intuition andtheLCA tell usthatacomplex headin (19) will beofthecategory verb (V), just like soma.

(19) V

D

ki

V

soma

Assume,asis customary, thata trueimperative verbmustmove to theC domain,andsupposealsothatthis is whathappens to somain thebareverb imperative in (17a). If this takesplacevia headmovement, thenthesequestionsremainto beanswered:

a. If thecomplex headkisomhasmovedto C andthe -e suffix is anallomorphof animperativemorpheme(ratherthanthesubjunctivemorpheme), thenwhy hasthe morphology beenable to look in-sidethis complex headandchosetheallomorph according to thesyntacticcomposition kisom?

b. If the complex headkisomhasnot moved or hasmoved to a po-sition somewhat lower thanC andthe -e suffix is thesubjunctivemorphemeit appears to be(making the form a surrogateimpera-tive), thenwhathaspreventedit (but not theanalogousbareverbstem)from moving all theway to C?

Conversely, if we take kisomto beanXP, it is plausiblethat thebareverbstemimperative form head-moves to theC domain, while the [ob-ject marker + V] imperative stemkisomacannot move in thesameway,


becauseit is nota head.8

3 � 2. WordsWithin Words

Thissectionwill examinethecompositionof Swahili tensedverbal formsand of amba-lessrelative forms. Thereare several typesof evidencesuggestingthat theboth theAux substringandtheV substringof theseforms arewords in andof themselves.

3 � 2.1. Minimal Word Condition on theVerbSubstring

In anumberof matrix tensesandin all theamba-lessrelative formscon-taininganovert auxiliary, theV substringshows a morphological alter-nationapparently corresponding to a constraint on minimal wordhood.In theseforms, whenthe V substringconsistsof only a monosyllabicverbstem(suchasla ‘to eat’), theinfinitive prefix ku- is added, makingtheV substringdisyllabic.9 Thisalternationis illustratedin thefollowingpairs,where in the(a)examplestheV substring(bracketed)is disyllabicby virtue of the fact that it containsanobjectmarker in additionto themonosyllabic verb stem,whereas in the (b) examples, the V substringmustbeaugmentedwith theinfinitiveprefixku- to make it disyllabic:

(20) Matrix tense:

a. a-1.subj-

li-past-

[ki-7.obj-

la]eat

‘he ateit’

b. a-1.subj-

li-past-

[ku-inf -

la]eat

‘he ate’

c. * a-1.subj-

li-past-

[la]eat

‘he ate’8Suchanargumentraisesquestions about thestatusof theplural imperative (e.g.someni,kisomeni, which usesthe otherwise distributive suffix -(e)ni. Is a plural imperative acomplex head? Is -(e)ni inserted in the syntax or the lexicon? Unfortunately, becauseSwahili formswith -(e)ni never exhibit mood-vowel alternations,it is impossibleto deter-mine whether a plural imperative suchassomeni) is analogousto a barestemimperative(e.g. soma) or a prefixed imperative (e.g. kisome) with regardsto mood or imperativeallomorphy.9A similar alternation occurs with onevowel-initi al bisyllabic verb, enda‘to go’, whichbecomeskwenda (which is alsoits infinitive form) underthesamecircumstances.


(21) Amba-lessrelative:

a. kitu7.thing

a-1.subj-

li-past-

cho-7.o-

[ki-7.obj-

la]eat

‘the thingwhichheate’

b. kitu7.thing

a-1.subj-

li-past-

cho-o-

[ku-inf -

la]eat

mnofu3.flesh

wake3.its

‘the thingwhosefleshheate’

c. * kitu7.thing

a-1.subj-

li-past-

cho-o-

[la]inf -

mnofueat

wake3.flesh3.its

‘the thingwhosefleshheate’

3 � 2.2. Stress

Secondary stressin infixedrelativesis calculatedasif theAux substringwerea domainof stress.Primarystressin Swahili generally falls on thepenultimatesyllableof theword:

(22) MımiI

na-1s.pres-

pendalike

ku-inf-

somaread

vitabu.8.books

‘I like to readbooks.’

Wordsto whichano-formhasbeensuffixed arenoexception:

(23) a. nı-1s.subj-

nawith

‘I have’

b. ni-1s.subj-

na-with-

cho7.o

‘I have it.’

(24) a. a-1.subj-

li-past-

ku-inf-

wabe

‘he was’

b. a-1.subj-

li-past-

ku-inf-

wa-be-

ko17.o

‘he wasthere’


In an infixed relative, the Aux substringservesas a domainof sec-ondary stress.In otherwords, thesecondarystressof theinfixedrelativeis calculatedby treatingthis substringasa word, calculatingits stress,thendemoting thatstressto secondarystresswithin thelarger word.Herearetwo examplesof infixedrelatives,with secondary stressesindicated.Bracketshave beenincludedto circumscribethe domain of secondarystress:

(25) kitabu7.book

[ni-1.subj-

lı-past-

cho-]7.o

ki-7.obj-

somaread

‘the book which I read’

(26) kitabu7.book

[ni-1.subj-

taka-fut-

cho-]7.o

ki-7.obj-

somaread

‘the book which I will read’

Onewouldexpect thisphonologicalconstituency to correspondto asyn-tacticconstituency, or at leastto notcontradictasyntacticconstituency.

3 � 2.3. NativeSpeaker Intuitions

As notedin Barrett-Keach(1986) , at variancewith thestandardorthog-raphy, nativespeakersfrequentlywrite theAux substringandV substringof anamba-lessrealtive form asseparatewords.For example, insteadofwriting nilichokisoma‘which I read’asa singleword, asprescribedbytheorthography, speakerssometimeswritenilichokisoma. Thisindicatesthatnative speakerssometimes think of theseformsasbeingcomposedof two words.

3 � 2.4. WordhoodConditionof theAuxSubstring

There are only four tenseswhich can form infixed relatives: the napresenttense,the li pasttense,the ta future tense(the allomorph of tausedbefore the o-form is taka, which is homophonouswith the verbmeaning ‘to want’), and the tenselesssi form (which does not have acounterpartmatrix tense):


ni-1s.subj-

li-past-

cho-7.o-

ki-7.obj-

somaread

‘the bookwhich I read’


b. kitabu7.book

ni-1s.subj-

na-pres-

cho-7.o-

ki-7.obj-

somaread

‘the bookwhich I amreading’

c. kitabu7.book

ni-1s.subj-

taka-future-

cho-7.o-

ki-7.obj-

somaread

‘the bookwhich I will read’

d. kitabu7.book

ni-1s.subj-

si-neg-

cho-7.o-

ki-7.obj-

somaread

‘the booknot readby me’

This restrictionis interestingbecauseothertensesexist which canberelativized usingan amba construction, but which cannot appearin aninfixedform, anexample of which is themeperfective,


amba-comp-

cho7.o

ni-1s.subj-

me-perf-

ki-7.obj-

somaread

b. * kitabu7.book

ni-1s.subj-

me-perf-

cho-7.o-

ki-7.obj-

somaread

‘the bookwhich I haveread’

Thegrammaticality of an infixed relative form seemsto berelatedtotheability of its Aux to form anindependent wordwith asubjectmarkerandano-form. All of theauxiliarieswhichcanform amba-lessrelativeshavethisproperty, while, conversely, only onetensewhichhasthisprop-ertycannot form aamba-lessrelative.10 Following this line of reasoning,thefactthataformsuchas(27b)ninachokisomais grammaticalis relatedto the fact that ninacho is a word, while the ungrammaticalityof (28b)*nimechokisomafollows from thefactthat*nimecho is notaword:11

(29) a. ninacho ‘I have it’ � ninachokisoma‘which I’m reading’

10That auxiliary is ngali (conditional, pastconditional, and still-ative), which can forma [AgrS+Aux+o] word of the type Ungalipo? ‘Are you still there?’, but which cannot berelativized(*ningalichokisoma) ‘which I wouldhaveread/am still reading’. If thisauxiliaryis bimorphemic, which maybe thecase,its inability to form anamba-lessrelative canbeexplainedby a constraint on thecomplexity of theremnant moved(Buell 2000).

11Exceptpossiblyfor the negative Aux si, the meaning of the Aux in conjunction with averb is not a semantic composition of themeaning of theverbandthatsameAux asusedindependently. For example, whennot usedin conjunction with a verb, the presenttenseAux na hasthemeaning ‘to have; and,with’. But this is alsothecasein English–comparethematrix andauxiliary meaningsof ‘have’, for example.


b. *nimecho � *nimechokisoma‘I have readit’

This is not to say that this notion of a wordhoodcondition is com-pletelystraightforwardor unproblematic. GettingthepasttenseAux li tofit thispatternrequires laxingtheconstraintto include‘potentialwords’,whereby a form nilicho is a potentialword by virtue of thefact thatnil-imi ‘I amindeed’ is aword,12 with mi belonging to aclassof pronominalaffixeswhichpatternscloselywith o-forms.

Although this constraint hasits complications,it canexplain theonecaseof allomorphy in theverbal paradigm, thatof the future tenseaux-iliary ta/taka. Theallomorph takaoccursexclusively in amba-lessrela-tives,while theta allomorphoccurs elsewhere:

(30) a. ni-1.subj-

ta-past-

ki-7.obj-

somaread

kitabu7.book

‘the bookwhich I read’

b. kitabu7.book

ni-1.subj-

taka-future-

cho-7.o-

ki-7.obj-

somaread

‘the bookwhich I will read’

The idea of a wordhood constraint fits nicely with this allomorphy,becausethe allomorph taka is homophonous with the lexical verb taka‘to want’ (to which it is etymologically related),which, like any lexicalverb may take an o-form suffix in a tenselesspositive relative. Usingthe wordhood constraint to explain this alternation, nitakachokisoma isgrammaticalby virtueof thefactthatnitakacho ‘(that which)I want’ is aword,whereas *nitachokisomais ungrammaticalbecausetheallomorphta, beingunableto form anindependentwordwith a subjectmarker andano-form, *nitacho is nota word.

(31) a. nitakacho ‘(the thing) that I want’ � nitakachokisoma‘which I will read’

b. *nitacho � *nitachokisoma‘I will readit’

Withoutthisconstraint onthewordhoodof theAux substring,theta/takaallomorphy is completelyarbritrary.

12On analogy with uliwe ‘you areindeed’, encountered in a poeticexample in McWhorter(no date).


3 � 3. ConstituencyUnobtainablebyHeadMovement

By thispoint it shouldbeclearthat,regardlessof whethertheV andAuxsubstringeachhave thestatusof word, eachof themhasthecharacter-istics of a constituent. We will now seethat any constrainedtheoryofheadmovement cannotobtain thatconstituency, evenif right adjunctionis allowed.

Let usconsidertheamba-lessrelative alichokisoma ‘which he read’.Thedesiredconstituency for this form is asin (32):

(32) [ [ a- li- cho-] [ kisoma] ]

Assumethat this is a complex head.Sinceki is assumedto be mergedvery low in the tree,where it incorporatesinto the verb soma, we willconsiderwhathappensafterthis incorporationhastakenplace.Now ob-servethetreein (33)whichomitsall specifiersandirrelevant projectionsandwhich, to abstractaway from the syntacticlabels,simply numberseachprojection:

(33) 1

a 2

li 3

cho 4

6�

[ �� ki+soma]

5

...t �

Thetaskof building acomplex headwith thedesiredconstituency canbedividedinto threesubtasks:

(34) Subtasksto obtainthedesiredconstituency of alichokisoma:

a. Make theV substringki-somaa constituent.

b. Make theAux substringa-li-choa constituent.

c. Make theentireform a-li-cho-ki-somaa constituent.


Subtask(34a) is assumedto have alreadybeencompletedby sometypeof headmovement(head-to-headadjunction to theleft or right). Wearenow facedwith animmediateproblemwith regardsto subtask(34b).If kisomais to (right-)adjoin to the next highesthead, the constituentobtained is chokisoma, preventingus from ever gettingalicho to be aconstituent. If we do not take that step,thenwe canget a constituentalicho, of course, by moving cho to adjoin to li and then moving theheadlicho to right-adjoin to a asin (35):

(35) 1

a + (li+cho� ) 2

t 3

t � 4

6

ki+soma

5

But now the only way to perform subtask(34c) is to right-adjoin ki-somato alicho, skipping two nodes(namely, thenodesoccupied by thetracesof theheads of 2 and3) in theprocess.Thus,obtaining thecon-stituency [[alicho][kisoma]] via headmovementforcesusto usenotonlyrightadjunction,but long-distanceheadmovementaswell. Notethatthisproblem arisesregardlessof therelativeorderingin thetreeof theheadsforming theAux substring.13

4. SAMPLE DERIVATIONS

Our motivations against a head-movement analysisfor Swahili verbalformsandamba-lessrelativeclausescannow besummarizedasfollows:

a. An analysisin whichtheseformsarecomplex headsleadstoacon-tradiction if it is assumedthattheLCA holdsandthatthemorpho-logical arrangementof theseforms directly corresponds to theirsyntacticstructures.

13Suchrelative ordering considerationswould becomerelevant if there wereevidenceforthegeneration of theo-form cho in theC domain,above a andli .


b. Becauseof thepeculiar morphology of theimperativeverb, theob-jectmarkerandverbstemappearto formanXP ratherthanahead.It is assumed(asis maintainedin (Kayne1994)) thatXP’s cannotadjointo headsto form complex heads,precluding thepossibilityof this XP adjoining to ahigherhead.

c. The amba-lessrelative forms appearfor several reasonsto con-sistof two subwordswhoseconstituent statuscontradictsany con-stituency obtainable by headmovement,even if right adjunction isavailable.

At this point we can illustrate what an analysisof the forms wouldentail without resortingto headmovement. Suchan illustrationshouldstartat thelevel of thesimpleclause,suchasthatin (36):

(36) JumaJuma

a-1.subj-

li-past-

ki-7.obj-

somaread

kitabu7.book

shule-9.school-

ni.loc

‘Jumareadthebookin school.’

As discussedabove, thereis evidencefrom imperativesthat the sur-face[object marker+ V] sequenceis notacomplex head(suchasa verbandincorporatedpronoun). (And for this reason,theobjectmarkerswillbe treatedhereasheadsof a projection CliticP, roughly asin Sportiche(1995).) If this is true,thena headmovementanalysisis ruledout evenfor simple clauses. In (37), the direct objectkitabu andthe adverbialphraseshuleni areshown having moved to FP projections,arbitrary la-belsfor functionalprojectionsat thetopof theV domain. Thepurposeofthesetwo moves,whichtogether constitutewhatwearecallingonecycleof remnantification,seemsto beto render theV substringmoveable.14

(37) FP

DP�

kitabu

FP

PP

shuleni

Cliti cP

t � Clit ic�

ki VP

t t � soma14I assumesomeversionof theVP-InternalSubject Hypothesis,but for thesake of simplic-ity, this is not reflectedin any of thetreesin this paper.


TheV substringis now a constituent(specifically, a CliticP remnant)which canbemoved. Theentireclauseis shown in (38), with AgrS andAux in situ. No V-to-I movementhasoccurred.

(38) JumaJuma

a-1.subj-

li-past-

ki-7.obj-

somaread

kitabu7.book

shule-9.school-

niloc

‘Jumareadthebookin school.’

AgrSP

DP�

Juma

AgrS�

a AuxP

li FP

CliticP�

ki t t � soma

FP

DP

kitabu

FP

PP�

shuleni

t �

5. Amba-LESS RELATIVES

Wewill assumethatanamba-lessrelativeclauseis derivedfrom astruc-tureidenticalto (38) exceptthatit containstheo-form (appearing hereascho). We shallmerge theo-form just below Aux in a projection arbitrar-ily labeledXP. (Alternativesto this approachareto generate theo-formin theC domain,whichwill notbecompatible with theanalysisto bede-velopedhere,or to generate it with therelativizednounphrase,strandingit just below Aux.)


(39) AgrSP

DP�

Juma

AgrS�

a AuxP

li XP

cho FP

CliticP�

ki t t � soma

FP

DP

kitabu

FP

PP�

shuleni

t �

Recallthat thesubjectis postverbal in amba-lessrelative clausesandthat this is takento indicatethat theverb hasmoved acrossthesubject.looking at (39), it is obvious that the form alichokisomacannot be im-mediatelymoved becauseit doesnot form a constituent.This fact willrequire usto performanadditional cycleof remnantificaiton.

5 � 1. InfixedRelatives

Wewill now derivetheassociatedinfixedrelativein (40), whichwetaketo bederivedfrom (40).

(40) kitabu7.book

a-1.subj-

li-past-

cho-7.o

ki-7.obj-

somaread

JumaJuma

shule-9.school-

niloc

‘the book whichJumareadin school’

The tree in (41) shows the structure at the endof the secondcycle ofremnantification,wherethe PP, theobjectNP, andthe subjectDP havebeenstacked at the top of the structure,rendering the Aux substringamoveableAgrSPremnant:


(41) FP

Clit icP�

kisoma

FP

DP�

Juma

FP

NP

kitabu

FP

PP�

shuleni

AgrSP

t � AgrS�

a AuxP

li XP

chot � t t �

Thetreein (42)shows theentirerelativeclause.

(42) NP

NP�

kitabu

CP

AgrSP�

t � alichot t � ...

FP

CliticP

kisoma

FP

DP�

Juma

FP

t � FP

PP�

shuleni

t �

This analysisobtains the correct constituency for both the Aux sub-stringalicho andtheV substringkisoma, but not for theentireword ali-chokisoma. Giventhefluctuation in nativespeakerintuitionsdiscussedin3 � 2.3onwhethersucha form comprisesoneor two phonologicalwords,thisconstituency mightnotseemcrucial.But thetreein (42) fails to cap-turea very basicintuition: that themovementof this relative form overthesubjectcloselyresemblesI-to-C movement,suchasfound in English


non-subjectquestions,in whichonly theauxiliary, andnotthemainverb,inverts with thesubject:

(43) a. Fredwill eatanenchirito today.

b. Whatwill Fredeat today?

c. * Whatwill eatFredtoday?

This resemblance to otherI-to-C phenomena,andthefactthatno ma-terial canintervenebetweentheAux andV substrings,suggeststhattheAux substring andthe V substringactuallymove to the C domain asasingleconstituent. This is theoption takenin (44):

(44)

NP

NP�

kitabu

CP

AgrSP�

t � AgrS�

a Aux

li XP

cho CliticP

kisomat � ...

FP

CliticP�

kisoma

FP

DP�

Juma

FP

t � FP

PP�

shuleni

t �

This refinement forcesus to retreat from thesuggestionmadeearlierthat theAux substringcorrespondsto a syntacticconstituent;this is nolonger the casein (44). However, the prosodic subdomain of the Auxsubstringcouldeasilybeobtainedby thephonology, andthephonolog-ical constituency of this substringstill hasthe desiredproperty of notcontradicting thesyntacticconstituency. This analysishastheadditionaleffect of ruling out thepossibilityof generating theo-form in theC do-mainratherthensomewhere below Aux.


5 � 2. ThePositiveAffirmativeRelative

Theaffirmative tenselessrelativeform resemblestheinfixedform in thatit lacksanovert auxiliary andthe [obj marker + verb] sequence (theVsubstring) precedesratherthanfollows theo-form:

(45) kitabu7.book

a-1.subj-

ki-7.obj-

soma-read-

cho7.o

JumaJuma

‘the book (being)readby Juma’

If the [object marker + V] sequence,which in our accountis actuallyaCliticP remnant, is thoughtof astakingtheplaceof theovertauxiliary,thepositive tenselessrelativecanbeeasilyaccountedfor. Thefollowingtreeshows anunderlying structurewith a phonetically null Aux, to thespecifierof which theremnantCliticP hasmoved:

(46) AgrSP

DP

Juma

AgrS�

a AuxP

Clit icP�

ki t t � soma

Aux �

e XP

cho FP

t � FP

DP

kitabu

FP

PP�

shuleni

t �

Fromthispoint thederivation contiuesexactlyasfor theinfixedformsdiscussedin theprevioussection.


6. COMMENTS AND CONCLUSION

In this paper, various typesof evidence werepresented,of both theo-retical andempiricalnature,which leadto the conclusion that Swahiliconjugatedverbsandamba-lessrelative clausesarenot complex heads.Suchaconclusionforcesananalysiswhichemploysremnantmovement.Thesketchpresentedhereof whatsuchananalysismight entailshowedthata matrixverbform will requireonecycleof remnantification,whileanamba-lessrelative form will require two.

REFERENCES

BarrettKeach,C. N. (1985). TheSyntaxandInterpretation of theRel-ative ClauseConstructionin Swahili. Ph. D. thesis,University ofMassachussetts.

Barrett-Keach, C. N. (1986). Word-internalevidence from Swahili forAux/Infl. LinguisticInquiry 17(3), 559–564.

Buell, L. C. (2000). Swahili relativeclauses.Master’s thesis,Universityof California,LosAngeles.

Kayne,R. S. (1994). TheAntisymmetryof Syntax. Cambridge, Mas-sachussetts:MIT Press.

Koopman,H. andA. Szabolsci(2000). Verbal Complexes. Cambridge,Massachussetts:MIT Press.

Mahajan, A. (2000). Wordorderand(remnant)vp movement:Eliminat-ing headmovement.Unpublishedmanuscript.

Sportiche, D. (1995). Clitic constructions. In L. Zaring andJ. Rooryck(Eds.),PhraseStructure andtheLexicon. Dordrecht: Kluwer Aca-demicPublishers.

Sportiche, D. (1997). Reconstructionandconstituent structure. Classlecturesgivenat UCLA andtalk givenat MIT.

Zwart, J.-W. (1997). A shortnoteon relative constructionsin LegaandSwahili. Available at: http://odur.let.rug.nl/ zwart.

S Amba-L R H M · Swahili’s agreement morphology takes the form of preﬁx es.4 2Zw art(Zw 1997)...

Documents

Transcript of S Amba-L R H M · Swahili’s agreement morphology takes the form of preﬁx es.4 2Zw art(Zw 1997)...