Morphologie (Ein internationales Handbuch zur Flexion und Wortbildung) || Circumstance concepts

1117106. Circumstance concepts

guistic Categorization. Amsterdam: Benjamins,245�265]

Uehara, Satoshi (1998), Syntactic Categories inJapanese: A Typological and Cognitive Introduction.Tokyo: Kurosio

Welmers, William E. (1973), African LanguageStructures. Berkeley, Los Angeles: University ofCalifornia Press


1. Introduction2. Types of circumstance concepts3. Head-marking expression of circumstantial

meanings4. Dependent-marking expression

of circumstance meanings5. Uncommon abbreviations6. References

1. Introduction

1.1. Delimiting the topicAll grammatical theories have some way ofrecognizing two kinds of semantic and/orsyntactic relationships that elements subordi-nated to a verb can have to their lexical head.Paired terms for expressing this oppositioninclude center/core/nucleus vs. periphery;complements vs. modifiers of the verb; sub-jects-and-complements vs. adjuncts; or actantrole/participant role vs. circumstantial role.This article deals with the kinds of semanticnotions that are typically associated with thesecond members of such lists.

The tradition that gives us the term cir-cumstantial goes back to the distinction madeby Lucien Tesniere (1959: 102 f.) between ac-tants and circonstants:

“Les actants sont les etres ou les choses qui, a untitre quelconque et de quelque facon que ce soit,meme au titre de simples figurants et de la faconla plus passive, participent au proces. (...) Les ac-tants sont toujours des substantifs ou des equiva-lents de substantifs. Inversement les substantifs as-sument en principe toujours dans la phrase la fonc-tion d’actants.” (Tesniere 1959: 102)

“les circonstants expriment les circonstances detemps, lieu, maniere, etc ... dans lesquelles se de-roule le proces. Ainsi dans la phrase fr. Alfredfourre toujours son nez partout (...), il y a deux cir-constants, un de temps (toujours) et un de lieu (par-

Wetzer, Harrie (1996), The Typology of AdjectivalPredication. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter

Wierzbicka, Anna (1986), “What’s in a Noun?”.Studies in Language 10, 353�389 [reprinted in:Wierzbicka, Anna (1988), The Semantics of Gram-mar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 463�497]

Sandra A. Thompson,Santa Barbara (U.S.A.)

tout). Les circonstants sont toujours des adverbes(de temps, de lieu, de maniere, etc.) ou des equiva-lents d’adverbes. Inversement les adverbes assu-ment en principe toujours dans la phrase la fonc-tion de circonstants.” (Tesniere 1959: 102 f.)

Two characteristics typical of most later dis-cussions of this topic are exhibited in thisquotation: (i) a tendency to blend syntacticcategories (actants are substantives) and se-mantic roles (actants participate in a pro-cess), and (ii) the incomplete list “time, place,manner, etc.” For our purposes it will be use-ful to begin the delimitation of our topic byreviewing four closely but imperfectly corre-lated ways of subdividing the components ofa clause and/or of its meaning, especially inrelation to a verb and its dependents.

The first is the extralinguistic distinctionbetween “things” and “circumstances”. Inthe interpretation of a given sentence one dis-tinguishes (i) those entities which are seen asparticipating in an event or state of affairsexpressed by the sentence, and (ii) circum-stances surrounding or accompanying thestate of affairs such as its time of occurrence,its general spatial setting, aspects of manner,the participants’ intentions, and the like.

The second is a distinction based on themeaning or semantic frame associated with aclause’s head verb, a distinction betweenframe-internal and frame-external elements.Certain verbs or verb-stems require the pres-ence of particular elements in their semanticvalence by virtue of their meaning. Such ele-ments are termed frame-internal. Other ele-ments that may be expressed in the sameclause are either optional embellishments ofthe scene (through a megaphone, with hisbrother) or indications of the scene’s spatialand temporal coordinates (in the garden, yes-

Brought to you by | University of Guelph (University of Guelph)Authenticated | 172.16.1.226

Download Date | 5/5/12 7:25 PM

1118 XIV. Sachverhalts-, Eigenschafts- und verwandte Begriffe

terday morning); these are frame-external.(Time of occurrence and spatial setting maybe a necessary part of an event in the realworld, but these features need not be specificand necessary to the meaning of any particu-lar verb which expresses that event.)

This second division is orthogonal to thefirst. Specifications of space, time, or manner(“circumstances”) can in fact be inherent tothe meanings of certain verbs and henceframe-internal (the troops occupied the chapel[place], we approached the entrance [goal], thewar lasted 100 days [temporal extent], I spentthe week-end finishing the manuscript [tempo-ral location], we worded our response care-lessly [manner]); and so on. Conversely,frame-external elements of a clause often in-clude reference to extralinguistic objects (onthe table, with a friend).

A third distinction is based on the gram-matical relations which syntactic constituentscan have in their clause. In particular, thisinvolves distinguishing expressions whichhave ‘direct’ syntactic relations to the verb(e.g., subject or object), from others whichhave indirect or ‘oblique’ relations with theverb (e.g., in English, adverbs and preposi-tional adjuncts). In familiar languages, thishas the effect of splitting constituent typesinto nominals vs. adverbials. The distinctioncorresponds generally to a traditional termi-nological distinction in descriptions of caselanguages separating grammatical cases fromconcrete cases. (There are no theory-neutralnames for this contrast.)

Fourthly, it is possible to make a distinc-tion between obligatory and optional elementsin a sentence. An obligatory element is onewhich cannot be omitted without disturbingeither the grammaticality of the sentence orthe nature of the syntactic and semantic rela-tions obtaining among the remaining constitu-ents. An optional element is one which couldbe missing without affecting such propertiesof the remaining sentence. This distinction ispartly orthogonal to the other three, and inparticular to the second (frame internal/ex-ternal), though of course elements which aresemantically unnecessary will also be syntac-tically optional.

The Tesnierean distinction between actantsand circonstants represents a confusing amal-gam of these four methods of sorting out thedependent constituents of a clause. All fourcan be problematic, and in those instanceswhere they are not problematic, they fre-quently yield different results. Such confu-

sion is possible precisely because in the sim-plest cases the criteria do overlap: the ele-ments of a clause which have circumstantialmeaning are frame-external rather thanframe-internal, have an oblique or adverbialrelation to their verb, and are syntacticallyoptional.

For this article we will take the first of theabove criteria as definitional. Circumstantialelements will be understood in terms of real-world semantics, as specifying conditions of“time, place, manner, etc.” independently ofquestions of semantic valence, syntactic verbgovernment, and optionality. This means, forexample, that place notions that are concep-tually and syntactically necessary dependentsof verbs of motion will be considered as partof our topic; this is necessary because manymorphological systems for expressing spatialnotions apply equally well whether the placespecification is a part of a verb’s valence ornot. Further, it also means that semanticallycircumstantial morphemes which occurwithin the verb itself are to be included inour topic.

Even with this attempted semantic delimi-tation of circumstance concepts, there remainareas of uncertainty. It is not possible to di-vorce the specification of circumstances fromthe specification of things if only becausemany circumstances are most naturallystated with reference to specific things. Con-sider expressions which could be glossed as‘for you’ or ‘with one’s foot’. Each of thesecan easily be interpreted in “thing”-orientedfashion, as semantically inserting a new en-tity into the scene represented by the verb,augmenting the cast of characters or the setof props. If the morphological means for in-troducing these elements involves a head-marking device, e.g. verbal affixation, itwould be easy to see the process as an in-stance of incorporation (Art. 88) or valence-augmenting derivation (Art. 107). But sup-pose those same expressions were to beglossed respectively as ‘while having one’sinterlocutor’s interests in mind’ or ‘by mov-ing against [something] with one’s foot, in theprototypical way in which one moves orstrikes something with one’s foot’. In thatcase they would appear to metamorphoseinto something much less “thing”-like andmore immediately circumstantial, i.e., as di-rectly expressive of a participant’s attitude ora manner of acting. Since distinctions amonganalysts’ glossing practices need not be ac-companied by any real distinctions in the cat-




egories themselves, we have no recourse butto recognize inevitable areas of overlap be-tween the two domains.

In the end it is necessary to resort to a list.This article, then, will be concerned with theinflectional or derivational means of express-ing notions of the following types:

� the location in space of the participants inthe event or of the event as a whole;

� locations with reference to which a move-ment is understood � source, path, goal;

� the region of time within which the eventoccurs; the temporal extent of an event;

� the manner in which a process takes place;the intentions of the major actor in anevent and the effect on the event of suchintentions;

� the means or instrumentality by which anactor carries out an act;

� etc.

No such list can avoid the “etc”. It is reason-able and natural to believe that the numberof types of circumstantial elements is unlim-ited (cf. Tesniere 1959: 125).

1.2. Connections with other linguisticsystems

The affixal expression of circumstantial con-cepts links up with other components of alinguistic system in three ways. Problems ofdetermining the status of a given morphemeare touched on in 1.2.1; relations with deixis,tense, and aspect in 1.2.2; relations with va-lence phenomena in general in 1.2.3.

1.2.1. Affixes, clitics, particles or stemsCircumstantial information can be conveyedas part of the semantic structures of morpho-logically simple lexical heads, or through ad-positions, clitics, particles, and affixes. Mor-phologically simple verbs in English whichincorporate notions of place, time, or mannerinclude approach and surround [place], lastand endure [time], slap and crawl [manner].Morphologically simple adverbs containinganalogous semantic notions include here,then, fast, etc. Morphologically complex ad-verbs with circumstantial meanings includeslowly, downwards, etc. Phrases with circum-stantial meanings can be headed by simpleprepositions, as in toward the door, betweenher parents, with a pencil, etc., or by preposi-tional complexes, as in on behalf of the chil-dren, by means of trickery, etc.

Even within a single grammar, and evenwhen a language offers clear criteria for dis-

tinguishing affixes, clitics, and adpositions, adescription of the purely affixal devices forexpressing circumstance concepts cannot al-ways be kept apart from other componentsof a grammar. There are several reasons forthis. Multiple systems for expressing circum-stance concepts can coexist in the same lan-guage, often using the same or clearly relatedmorphological material; closely related lan-guages can differ from each other in respectto the morphosyntactic status of cognate ma-terial; and, in many cases, analysts reach, orcompeting frameworks lead to, different con-clusions on whether particular elementsshould count as affixes or clitics or lexicalheads.

In Rama (Chibchan, Nicaragua), for ex-ample, verb prefixes with circumstantialmeanings show clear relationships with post-positions used in the same language. The listof corresponding postpositions and prefixesis given in Tab. 106.1 (Craig & Hale 1988:320). It would be clearly misleading to de-scribe the two morpho-semantic systemsseparately.

post- prefixes meaningpositions

bang bu- ‘goal, purpose’u yu- ‘associative,

instrumental’kang k(a)- ‘ablative, source’su su- ‘locative’aak yaa-(y-a-) ‘dative’

Tab. 106.1: Rama postpositions and verb prefixes

In Stanley Newman’s reconstruction of spa-tial prefixes in Salishan, he finds the daughterlanguage cognates appearing variably as clit-ics, particles, stems, or true prefixes (New-man 1976: 237). Under the heading of head-ward migration, Johanna Nichols reviewscases of dependent elements and theirmarkers migrating historically to their verbalheads, perhaps through stages as clitics, tobecome affixes on the verb (Nichols1986: 84). Given such realities, there must becases of systems in transition for which it isin principle impossible to tell whether some-thing is or is not “really” an affix.

1.2.2. Other semantic systems:tense, aspect, deixis

Temporal locating expressions (e.g., tomor-row) can have specific co-occurrence relationswith given tenses (e.g., future), just as specific




kinds of temporal extent expressions canhave co-occurrence relations with specificcategories of verbal aspect (cf. Art. 109 onaspect, Art. 110 on tense). When such infor-mation is incorporated into a verb, it comesto belong to the study of tense or aspect.Morphological markings of tenses can some-times have quite specific meanings (‘yester-day’, ‘since the last full moon’), in paradig-matic alternation with simpler or more ab-stract tense notions (cf. Comrie 1985: 83�101). Such phenomena are dealt with in Art.110.

That part of deixis which appeals toknowledge of the location of the speaker orthe addressee, or of the time of speaking,overlaps with the spatial and temporal as-pects of circumstantials. In many cases suchfeatures are embedded in complex morpho-logical structures, sometimes in lexical verbs,and sometimes in adverbs, in which deicticinformation is just one among many mor-phosemantic systems operating together, intandem with such notions as recognition ofthe shape of a reference object, features ofthe local topography, etc. Further, manycomplex morphological systems in the struc-ture of verbs contain directional information,including information about identification ofthe speaker with the starting point or the des-tination of the motional aspects of the verb’smeaning. Description of such systems can befound in Art. 95, on deixis.

1.2.3. ValenceIn the study of verb valence the question canarise as to whether given circumstantial ele-ments are internal or external to the gram-matical valence of a given verb, or to verbsof a particular class, or to verbs in general inthe language. To the extent that such consid-erations, within a given theoretical frame-work, are equivalent to concerns about thedifference between central or peripheral ele-ments of the clause, certain concepts wouldappear to be at the borderline. The Papuanlanguages tend to register central constitu-ents affixally on the verb but peripheral con-stituents on nominals, by means of case suf-fixes; but the concept ‘recipient’ is repre-sented as central (with head-marking) insome languages and as peripheral (with de-pendent-marking) in others (Foley 1986: 96�99). For theory-specific reasons, to accountfor what they see as the incorporation ofpostpositions into the verb as prefixes,Craig & Hale (1988: 333�335) suggest that

instrumental, comitative, and benefactive re-lations are valence-internal in some lan-guages (governed by the verb) but not inothers � specifically not in languages forwhich a verb phrase constituent appears notto be justified. All of this variability is furtherreason for identifying circumstantial con-cepts independently of facts about theirgrammatical realization.

2. Types of circumstance concepts

In exploring the kinds of concepts that figurein the general area of circumstantials, wetreat notions of place in 2.1, and notions oftime � very sketchily � in 2.2. Circumstan-tial notions involving entities which are notspecifically sentient beings (manner, means,instrument) are dealt with in 2.3, and thosewhich do involve sentient beings are dis-cussed in 2.4 (beneficiary, recipient). Severaladditional circumstantial notions are simplylisted in 2.5.

2.1. Place categoriesA locating expression can be frame-internalor frame-external; i.e., it can identify a loca-tion that is relevant to a participant or a sub-event in the frame signalled by the verb, or aspatial setting for the event as a whole. Thisdistinction is reflected in the selection of Ko-rean locative postpositions: when speaking ofcooking eggs in a pot one chooses a differentpostposition than when speaking of cookingeggs in the garden. This distinction is shownin (1) (data from Jeong-Woon Park).

(1) Inho-kaInho-nom

cengwen-eysegarden-loc.exl

naympi-eytakapot-loc.inl

kyeklan-ulegg-acc

salm-ass-taboil-past-ind

‘Inho boiled eggs in a pot in the garden.’

Locating expressions in the sphere of move-ment can distinguish source (the region fromwhich a movement originated), goal (the re-gion toward which a movement is directed),and path (with reference to mid-points in atrajectory). In a common Bantu pattern forverbs of motion, the unadorned verb is seenas inherently, or by default, licensing a sourcecomplement, while a morphological exten-sion � through the applicative suffix � isneeded in order to refer to the destination.The following Luganda examples are fromAshton et al. (1954: 331). The ‘appl’ suffix in(2 b) and (3 b) has the effect of replacing asource complement with a goal complement.




(2) (a) abaanachildren

ba-dduk-asbj-run-fv

muloc

nnyumbahouse

‘the children are running out of thehouse’

(b) abaanachildren

ba-dduk-ir-asbj-run-appl-fv

muloc

nnyumbahouse

‘the children are running into thehouse’

(3) (a) entethose

zinocattle

zigob-edrive.away-imp

‘drive away those cattle’(b) ente

thosezinocattle

zibo-er-edrive.away-appl-imp

muloc

kiraalokraal‘drive those cattle into the kraal’

In some case systems, case markers alone,without accompanying adpositions, can dis-tinguish location, origin, and destination. Inthe Uralic languages, such distinctions com-bine with another system of contrasts havingto do with the topological character of thereference region, differences corresponding tothe distinctions represented in English within/into/out of (enclosure), on/onto/off of (sur-face), at/to/from (neutral or point) (see dis-cussion of Finnish in 4.1 below).

The simplest semantic notions needed toaccount for the less exotic of such systemscan be specified by referring to the Figure (lo-candum) and the Ground (the reference ob-ject or region with respect to which the Fig-ure’s location is specified). The Figure can bestationary or moving; when the Figure is sta-tionary, we speak of the Ground as place;when the moving Figure moves toward theGround, we speak of the Ground as goal;when it moves away from the Ground, wespeak of the Ground as its source; and whenit moves past the Ground we speak of theGround as the path. The Ground can be anenclosure, and the place, source, goal, orpath can be seen as either inside or outsidethe Ground; the Ground can be a physicalobject in space, and the place, source, goal orpath can be specified as being above or belowthe Ground; a physical-object Ground canadditionally have specific orientations inspace, and the place, source, goal, or pathcan be specified as being in front of, behind,or beside the Ground, given such orienta-tions. There can be two reference points, anexplicit primary one (the Ground) and an im-plicit one establishing a point of view (mosttypically that of the speaker); given the re-

cognition of such a perspective on a spatialscene, the place, source, goal, or path can bespecified as closer to the viewpoint centerthan to the Ground (citerior, ‘this side of’),or farther from the reference object than theviewpoint center (ulterior, ‘the other side of’).In any of the preceding configurations, theFigure might or might not be in contact withthe Ground. And to all this, we can add vari-ous possibilities about the general shape ofthe reference object (along the river, etc.) orthe relative orientations of the Figure and aGround (along vs. across, etc.) (cf. Comrie &Smith 1977: 31 f.).

In a number of highly elaborate morpho-logical systems for registering spatial infor-mation in demonstratives, adverbs, and verbs� cases famous for their complexity � a widerange of rather specific semantic factors cancomplicate the preceding list of fairly globalnotions and contrasts. For Inuktitut (Es-kimo) these include: a contrast between anextended or unextended reference region;contrasts represented by the paraphrases ‘up-there’, ‘down-there’, ‘in-there’, ‘out-there’,and ‘over-there’; and a distinction betweenregarding the speaker or someone other thanthe speaker as the deictic reference-point(Denny 1982: 360�363). Many such systemshave elaborate means for referring to localtopographic features or reference objects rel-evant to the local culture (Casad & Lan-gacker 1985; Hanks 1984).

2.2. TimeThere are numerous conceptual distinctionsto be made with respect to time as it is repre-sented in languages. Verbal coding of thetime of an event relative to speech time isdealt with in Art. 110 on tense, and indica-tions of time-span or such temporal schemanotions as continuous, interrupted, bounded,unbounded, etc. are taken up in Art. 109 onaspect and aktionsart. One finds occasionalmorphological structures for naming daysrelative to the day of speaking (structuredways of forming words meaning ‘today’, ‘to-morrow’, ‘the day before yesterday’, ‘the dayafter tomorrow’, etc.), but these are restrictedto special lexical sets. Expression of temporalnotions within case-marking systems is typi-cally parasitic on spatial uses of the samecase notions (see section 3.2 below).

2.3. Manner, means, instrumentThe concepts that go by the names manner,means, and instrument overlap considerably.Indeed, the English question-word how is am-




biguous between a manner interpretation anda means interpretation. This ambiguity un-derlies such jokes as “How do you push atiger into a telephone booth?” � “Very care-fully”. One understands the joke by recogniz-ing that the first speaker had ‘means’ in mindas the intended interpretation of how, the sec-ond speaker ‘manner’.

The three notions are naturally associatedin language for fairly obvious reasons: onecan use a hammer as a tool for working on aparticular task [instrument]; use of this toolenables one to accomplish the task [means];and one can use it in the standard way inwhich it was intended to be used � followingthe typical motor program, having the usualintentions, etc. [manner].

The category of manner is extremelybroad, including: accompanying stances orpostures (while sitting, standing, lying); cog-nitive-affective involvement of an actor in anact (willingly, knowingly, grudgingly); ac-companying production of visual or auditoryeffects (loudly, brightly); various spatio-tem-poral schemata (speedily, in an arc-like mo-tion), etc.

2.4. Recipient, beneficiary, comitativeCommon circumstantial role names involv-ing co-participants in an activity include ben-eficiary (one who benefits from an event), re-cipient (one who receives something), andcomitative (one who accompanies).

Recipient and beneficiary are frequentlyconflated with the spatial-motional notion ofgoal. Again, the reasons are easy to see: themovement of an object to a region [goal] canbe understood as resulting in a person lo-cated in that region coming into possessionof the object [recipient], and the person whoreceives this object might be seen as benefit-ing from having it [beneficiary]. These threenotions are sometimes separated from eachother linguistically, often combined into asingle category, sometimes split into two cat-egories.

Comitative is frequently associated withinstrumental, as for example with the Englishpreposition with.

2.5. Other circumstantial notionsThe following is a very partial list of circum-stantial notions that appear in certain gram-matical descriptions, with suggestive exam-ples from English. In each case, the preposi-tional phrase represents an instance of thecategory named: role (I’m doing this as a

friend); function (he used his shoe as a ham-mer); purpose (he does that in order to impressthe neighbors); motivation (you said that outof jealousy); cause (we acted from fear);reason (you did that for a good reason); mate-rial source (they made it out of wood); conces-sion (she married him in spite of your warn-ing); reference (they spoke about the acci-dent); negative instrument (she got the rightanswer without a calculator); etc.

3. Head-marking expression ofcircumstantial meanings

Our classification of circumstantial mor-phemes will be based on two considerations.Using the term ‘marker’ for the morphemeor morphological process which expresses acircumstantial notion, we will first recognizea distinction between the situation in whichthe marker is a part of the verb and one inwhich it is (a part of) a constituent which isdependent on the verb. The distinction hereis that between head-marking and dependent-marking structures (cf. Nichols 1986) with re-spect to verbal heads. The second distinction,orthogonal to the first, is between markerswhich express nothing more than the exis-tence of a type of circumstantial (or in somecases merely the presence of a circumstantialelement, uninformative as to the type), on theone hand, and markers which provide sub-stantive information about the circumstanceitself. This yields four sub-types. An applica-tive suffix in a verb signalling that a benefac-tive notion is present is an example of thefirst type. A verb prefix which indicates thata movement is outward is an example of thesecond type. A case suffix marking its nomi-nal host as a location is an example of thethird type. A morphologically complex ad-verb, with components indicating directionof movement and topographic features of theobject with reference to which the movementis characterized, provides an example of thefourth type.

This section deals with head-markingstructures. In section 3.1 we examine the flag-ging of circumstantial roles within the struc-ture of the verb; in section 3.2 we considersubstantive information marked in the verb.Dependent-marking structures will be exam-ined in section 4.

3.1. Marking circumstantial relationson the verbal head

Some verb-internal markers have the effect oflicensing the presence in the clause of a par-ticular circumstantial type (3.1.1). Some reg-




ister the information that a circumstantialmeaning is expressed by a constituent whichis syntactically nuclear in its clause (3.1.2).And some represent the anaphoric “record”of a circumstantial meaning, while the actualconstituent that the marker stands in for isnot found in the constituent directly built uparound the verb; this antecedent may bemissing altogether, or it may occupy a topicposition at the beginning of the sentence(3.1.3).

3.1.1. Licensing

In some cases an affix on a verbal head hasthe effect of licensing the presence in theclause of a constituent which otherwise couldnot occur at all. This is the effect of the ap-plied verb construction in some Bantu lan-guages: certain circumstantial elements maybecome a part of the clause only if the appli-cative suffix is chosen; without this mor-pheme, a sentence containing the element isungrammatical. The applicative suffix an-nounces that a new element is licensed; thesemantic role of the new element depends onthe limited number of possibilities for appli-cative semantics available in the particularlanguage and the meaning of the verb. A typi-cal sample of the possibilities for Lugandafollows (from Ashton et al. 1954: 330 f.): sen-tence (4) is plain; in (5) the ‘appl’ suffix licen-ses a beneficiary; in (6) it licenses a place; andin (7) it licenses a reason.

(4) ba-sekul-asbj-pound-fv

kasoolimaize

‘they are pounding maize’

(5) ba-sekul-ir-asbj-pound-appl-fv

omwamichief

kasoolimaize

‘they are pounding maize for the chief’


wanohere

kasoolimaize

‘they are pounding maize here’


kiwhy

kasooli?maize

‘why are they pounding maize’

In some languages, and for some circumstan-tial meanings, the newly licensed constituentbecomes a nuclear argument (e.g., direct ob-ject) of the clause; in other cases it does not.In the Runyambo examples in section 3.1.3,we see that the locative licensed by the ‘appl’morpheme is marked obliquely.

3.1.2. NuclearizingIn some cases an affix on a verbal head hasthe effect of nuclearizing a particular clauseelement: something which otherwise couldonly be expressed obliquely loses its obliquemarking, and the verb is now seen as directlygoverning that element. The case of the Win-nebago relational preverbs discussed inCraig & Hale (1988: 314) is different from theLuganda situation just described. Withoutthe hoo- prefix on the verb, the locative ele-ment is indeed possible, but it must be ex-pressed as an oblique adjunct. Compare (8)and (9).

(8) kook-ejabox-loc

naanzhin-jee-nanstand-aux-decl

‘it is standing in the box’

(9) kook-ejabox-def

ho-nanzhin-jee-naniness-stand-aux-decl

‘it is standing in the box’

Examples of the same phenomenon can befound in Ainu (Shibatani 1990: 65 f.). The ko-prefix in (10 b) renders the addressee of thestory-telling nuclear; the e- prefix in (11 b)and (12 b) nuclearizes static and dynamiclocative elements.

(10) (a) hucigrandmother

matkacigirl

orunto

upaskumatell.old.stories‘grandmother told old stories to thegirl’

(b) hucigrandmother

matkacigirl

ko-paskumaappl-tell.old.stories‘grandmother told old stories to thegirl’

(11) (a) porobig

cisehouse

tain

horarilive

‘he lives in a big house’(b) poro

bigcisehouse

e-horariappl-live

‘he lives in a big house’

(12) (a) a-kor1.sg-have

kotanvillage

tato

sirepa-anarrive-1.sg

‘I arrived at my village’(b) a-kor

1.sg-havekotanvillage

a-e-sirepa1.sg-appl-arrive

‘I arrived at my village’

The so-called focus system of Tagalog is of adifferent sort from the applicative markings




we have just seen. In Tagalog, as in otherAustronesian languages, there are preposi-tions that mark various nominal roles; one ofthese is the preposition ang, which identifiesone nominal per clause as syntactically privi-leged. This is called, variously and mislead-ingly, subject, topic, or focus. The semanticrole of that privileged nominal (within a lim-ited typology of semantic roles) is in turn ex-pressed in the verb by a complex system ofmarking that uses prefixation, suffixation, in-fixation, and reduplication in patterns thatcombine information about tense and othercategories with information about the seman-tic role of the focused constituent. Since thereis always a focused element, this system is notlimited to circumstantial roles; but circum-stantials do figure in the roles which can befocused. In the examples (from Schachter1987: 941) the category-label ‘trig’ stands fortrigger, from the fact that it marks the ele-ment whose semantic role triggers the verbform (Schachter 1987: 939 f.). (The substruc-ture of the verb stem is ignored. Focused con-stituents are italicized in the translation.)

(13) (a) mag-aalisacr.trig-take.out

angtrig

tinderostorekeeper

ngpat

bigasrice

sadir

sakosack

para_saben

babaewoman

‘the storekeeper will take some riceout of a/the sack for a/the woman’

(b) aalisi-ntake.out-pat.trig

ngacr

tinderostorekeeper

angtrig

bigasrice

sadir

sakosack

para_saben

babaewoman

‘a/the storekeeper will take the riceout of the sack to a/the woman’

(c) aali-santake.out-dir.trig

ngacr

tinderostorekeeper

ngpat

bigasrice

angtrig

sakosack

para_saben

babaewoman

‘a/the storekeeper will take some riceout of the sack for a/the woman’

(d) I-pagaalisben.trig-take.out

ngacr

tinderostorekeeper

ngpat

bigasrice

sadir

sakosack

angtrig

babaewoman

‘a/the storekeeper will take somerice out of a/the sack for the woman’

(e) I-pangaalisinstr.trig-take.out

ngacr

tinderostorekeeper

ngpat

bigasrice

sadir

sakosack

angtrig

sandokscoop‘a/the storekeeper will take somerice out of a/the sack with the scoop’

The semantics and pragmatics of the focussystem are quite complicated. We may notethat the focused element is always translatedwith the definite article.

3.1.3. Anaphoric markingA third type of verbal marking of a circum-stantial relation is represented by the Runy-ambo (Bantu) locative verb-final suffix (orenclitic) which stands as an anaphoric ele-ment and requires that the locative elementbe missing from the clause proper, appearing,if at all, only as a topicalized element (cf. Ru-gemalira 1994). (The analogous morpheme inLuganda, as seen in examples (2) and (3), isnot subject to this same restriction.)

Some verb stems in Runyambo have va-lence structures which independently licenselocative complements; for many verbs,though, a locative can only be licensed by thepresence of the applicative suffix -ir-. In suchcases, the suffix (or enclitic) -mu (for enclo-sures) or -ha (for surfaces) is appended to theverb if a locative complement (valence-in-ternal or not) does not follow the verb. Thissame morpheme also occurs prefixed to anoun (after an “initial vowel”) to mark it ashaving locative role.

A two-word sentence meaning ‘she dancedin the house’, with the locative phrase occur-ring clause-internally in its normal post-ver-bal position and the verb containing the ap-plicative suffix, is shown in (14 b) (data fromJosephat Rugemalira). The expression mean-ing ‘(in) the house’ bears the locative prefixomu- (o- � initial vowel, mu- � locationmarker), hence, omunju.

(14) (a) a-ka-zaan-asbj-past-dance-fv‘he danced’

(b) a-ka-zaan-ir-asbj-past-dance-appl-fvo-mu-njuiv-loc-house‘he danced in the house’

An ordinary noun phrase valence element,when topicalized and represented pre-ver-bally, requires the verb to contain an object-marking verbal concord prefix. By contrast,a topicalized or fronted oblique locative is re-flected by a verb-final suffix, -mu or -ha, pro-ducing the sentence in (15).

(15) o-mu-njuiv-loc-housea-ka-zaan-ir-a-musbj-past-dance-appl-fv-loc‘he danced in the house’




The -ir- licenses the presence of a new valenceelement, a locative being one of the possibil-ities; the -mu indicates that the new elementis locative and that it is not instantiated post-verbally. But there is yet another possibility,and that is to recast the house as a topi-calized object, requiring an agreement prefixto be located in the object slot within the verbstem, as in (16). Here, the verb-internal prefixis ji-; note that mu- is still present.

(16) e-njuiv-housea-ka-ji-zaan-ir-a-musbj-past-obj-dance-appl-fv-loc‘he danced in the house’

In (16), the -ir- licenses the presence of a newvalence element; the -mu tells us that thatnew element has the semantic role ‘locative’and that it is not represented as a co-constitu-ent with the verb; and the concord marker-ji- indicates that the locative has the gram-matical role of direct object, allowing it toappear sentence-initially as a simple noun-phrase (enju) rather than as an oblique(omunju). This sentence, thus, exhibits allthree of the functions just considered: licens-ing, nuclearizing, and anaphoric.

3.2. Marking that conveys semanticallysubstantive information

In the examples in 3.1.1 through 3.1.3, anysubstantive information about the circum-stantial element was provided, or under-stood, outside of the verb. But the incorpora-tion of substantive circumstantial informa-tion into the verb itself is common, especiallyin certain languages of North America.

In Atsugewi (Hokan), circumstantial in-formation can be incorporated into a verb,often with sufficiently substantive informa-tion to require no further specification out-side of the verb. See examples (17) and (18)(Talmy 1985: 108 f.; for these examples, stan-dard morpheme-by-morpheme interlinearglossing is not particularly helpful).

(17) /m-w-phu-lup-mik·-a/ �[mphol·uphmik·a]

Analysis:instrumental prefix: /phu-/ ‘from the mouth,

working egressively’

root: /-lup-/ ‘for a small shiny object to moveor be located’

directional suffix: /-mik·/ ‘into the face oreyes of someone’

inflectional affix set: /m- w- -a/ ‘thou subject,3d person object (factual mood)’Analytic Translation: ‘you caused it that asmall shiny spherical object move into hisface by acting on it with your mouthworking egressively’Paraphrase for Context: ‘you spat yourcandy ball into his face’

(18) /’-w-ma-sst’aq’ -ipsnu-ik·-a/ �[m’ a·st’aq’ ıpsnuk·a]

Analysis:instrumental prefix: /ma-/ ‘from a person’s

foot/feet acting on patient’

root: /-sst’aq’ -/ ‘for runny icky material tomove or be located’

deictic suffix: /-ik·/ ‘hither’

directional suffix: /-ipsnu/ ‘into a volume en-closure’

inflectional affix set: /’- w- -a/ ‘3d person sub-ject (factual mood)’Analytic Translation: ‘He caused it thatrunny icky material move hither into avolume enclosure by acting on it with hisfeet’Paraphrase for Context: ‘he tracked upthe house (coming in with muddy feet)’

In these examples the instrumental prefix(phu- in (17), main (18)) is selected from aparadigmatic set expressing a variety of con-cepts of the type manner, means, cause, orinstrumentality. A partial selection is given inTab. 106.2 (cf. Talmy 1985: 112 f.).

natural forces

ca- ‘from the wind blowing on patient’cu- ‘from flowing liquid acting on patient

(a river on a bank)’ra- ‘from a substance exerting steady pres-

sure on patient (gas in the stomach)’uh- ‘from the weight of a substance bear-

ing down on patient (snow on a limb)’miw- ‘from heat/fire acting on patient’

objects in action

uh- ‘from a linear object acting circumpi-votally (swinging) on patient (inpounding, chopping, batting)’

ta- ‘from a linear object acting within a li-quid patient (in stirring, paddling)’

mi- ‘from a knife cutting into patient’




body parts in action

tu- ‘from the hand(s) moving’ma- ‘from the foot/feet acting on patient’ti- ‘from the buttocks acting on patient’wi- ‘from the teeth acting on patient’pri- ‘from the mouth working ingressively

on patient (sucking, swallowing)’phu- ‘from the mouth working egressively

on patient (spitting, blowing)’

sensations

sa- ‘from the visual aspect of an object act-ing on experiencer’

ka- ‘from the auditory aspect of an objectacting on experiencer’

tu- ‘from the feel of an object acting on ex-periencer’

pri- ‘from the taste/smell of an object act-ing on experiencer’

Tab. 106.2: Atsugewi instrumental prefixes

The directional suffixes (-mik in (17) and-ipsnu in (18)) are chosen from a paradigmthat identifies what Talmy calls path andground, simultaneously specifying informa-tion about both the direction and the con-crete nature of the destination of the motionor action. A sample is given in Tab. 106.3.

directional suffixes

-ic’t ‘into a liquid’-cis ‘into a fire’-wam ‘down into a gravitic container (a

basket, a cupped hand, a pocket, alake basin)’

-ikn ‘over the rim into a volume enclosure(a gopher hole, a mouth)’

-mik· ‘into the face or eye, or onto the headof someone’

Tab. 106.3: Atsugewi directional suffixes

Additionally, the system requires mention oftwo other paradigmatic sets: (i) the root inthe analyses of (17) and (18) � i.e., the sys-tem of ‘patient’ indicators, where the movingor located object itself is characterized interms of various qualities involving size,shape, feel, etc., and (ii) a two-way system ofdeictic directional indicators, the ventive -ik‘hither’ and the itive -im ‘thither’.

4. Dependent-marking expression ofcircumstance meanings

With dependent-marking morphologies forrepresenting circumstantial notions, the pri-mary conceptual split parallels that seen withhead-marking morphologies. On the onehand, nominal elements may bear a mark, acase affix, indicating simply that the nominalfills a particular circumstantial role (4.1). Onthe other hand, we have morphologicallycomplex adverbial constituents which pro-vide detailed substantive information aboutthe circumstance (4.2).

4.1. Dependent marking of circumstantialrelations

In general the categories in a case paradigmin a given language cannot always be cleanlydivided into non-overlapping sets accordingto whether they have nuclear or circumstan-tial functions. Some case categories have pri-marily a nuclear function but in certaincontexts can have circumstantial functions aswell; e.g., the Latin accusative, centrallydedicated to expressing the direct objectfunction, can express the meaning ‘placewhither’ with nouns that name “towns, smallislands, and home” (Hale & Buck 1903: 236):domum redierunt ‘they went home again’.And many case categories which are capableof signalling circumstantial meanings withoutthe help of adpositions can be found in othercontexts where they appear governed by spe-cific verbs or prepositions.

A typical set of circumstantial relation-ships recognized in a case-marking system ispresented by William A. Foley for Papuanlanguages (New Guinea):

“instrumental (instr), the relation of an object ma-nipulated by the actor used as a secondary causein bringing about a change of state in the un-dergoer, as in John cut the tree with an axe; causal(cause), the relation of an uncontrolled, unmanipu-lated, but also nonvolitional entity bringing abouta change of state or experience in the undergoer,as in I’m shivering from the cold; locative (loc), therelation of the place at which the action occurs, asin I saw him at the store; ablative (abl), the relationof the place or entity from which the action pro-ceeds, as in light emanates from the sun; allative(all), the relation of the place or entity towardwhich an action proceeds, as in I walked to thehouse.” (Foley 1986: 98 f.)

Systems described as having very large num-bers of contrasting categories in their caseparadigms usually achieve this by elaboration




of spatial notions, thus combining relationalwith substantive information. In addition todistinguishing static (‘at a place’) from dy-namic relations (‘to a place’, ‘from a place’),they may encode contrasts within each ofthese that convey various spatial figure-ground schemata, expressing relations of thesort picked out by the English prepositionsat, on, in, to, onto, into, from, off of, out of.Rasmus Rask in 1819 (discussed in Hjelmslev1935: 64) described the local suffixes in Fin-nish nouns as a system of cases, and assignedthem names that for the most part are cur-rent today: nominative, genitive, partitive,accusative, essive, absolutive, allative, ades-sive, ablative, illative, inessive, elative. Thelast 6 case categories are given schematically(ignoring vowel harmony) in Tab. 106.4.

exterior interior

static -lla -ssaadessive inessive

to -lle -Vnallative illative

from -lta -staablative elative

Tab. 106.4: Finnish local cases

This system in fact embodies a considerableamount of polysemy; but the basic sortingout and naming of the categories is based onwhat is considered their primary, locativefunctions, as illustrated with the followingexamples (ignoring vowel harmony):

illative talo-on ‘into the house’elative talo-sta ‘out of the house’ablative maa-lta ‘from the country’allative tuoli-lle ‘onto the chair’inessive talo-ssa ‘in the house’adessive kato-lla ‘on the roof’

Tab. 106.5: Examples of Finnish local cases

As Tab. 106.4 shows, the Finnish system oflocal cases involves two intersecting sets ofopposition, one case-like and one more topo-logical or “configurational”. The case-likenotions are represented by the rows (motionto – allative and illative; location at – ades-sive and inessive; motion from – ablative andelative), and they cross-cut a second distinc-tion, represented by the columns, involvingtopological spatial relations between Figure

and Ground, with Ground schematized aseither surface (adessive, allative, ablative) orenclosure (inessive, illative, elative). Theselatter, configurational, distinctions frequentlyexhibit considerable idiomaticity and poly-semy of their own. Fred Karlsson’s (21987:100�104) description of the inessive and illa-tive, for example, notes that in Finnish onespeaks of wearing gloves, hats, and shoes ‘in’one’s hands, head, and feet, and similarly ofputting gloves, hats, and shoes ‘into’ one’shands, head, and feet. Here the locative(more ‘case-like’) functions are preserved butthe configurational schemata depart fromthose which motivated the case names.

Within the Finnish case system, depen-dency relations of nouns expressing timeunits or time periods are expressed with thesame cases, parasitically on the locational no-tions. As can be seen in the following exam-ples, from Karlsson (21987: 100�107), thespatial-metaphor motivation is sometimeseasy to see, sometimes not.

(19) luinI.read

kirjanbook

tunni-ssahour-iness

‘I read the book in an hour’

(20) tulenI.go

Norjaanto.Norway

ensinext

kuu-ssamonth-iness

‘I’m coming to Norway next month’

(21) viiko-staweek-elat

viikko-onweek-ill

‘from week to week’

(22) enI

olenot.be

nähnytseen

häntähim

pari-incouple-ill

tunti-inhour-ill‘I haven’t seen him for a couple ofhours’

In laying out comparative descriptions ofcase systems, especially those of closely re-lated languages, it is useful to start from arepertory of functions and to line up the lan-guage-specific morphological means for speci-fying or contrasting these functions. Com-mon to the Papuan languages of NewGuinea, Foley (1986: 99 f.) finds, are the fivecircumstantial notions listed in the quotationabove: instrumental, causal, locative, abla-tive, and allative. Foley describes the ways inwhich these are represented in a number ofrelated languages. In Yimas all are functionsof a single suffix; Iatmul has two suffixes, onewith allative function, the other covering theremaining four. Fore combines allative and




locative functions in one case category, put-ting the remaining three in another. Kewacombines instrumental and causal into onecategory, the remainder in another. Alamblakseparates all of them except for ablative andcausal, which are united in one category.

The New Guinea examples demonstrateclearly that the ability to make useful gener-alizations about case systems, in their typo-logical and diachronic aspects, depends on anappeal to a language-independent repertoryof circumstantial concepts. Foley’s report ofthe Papua New Guinea situation points fur-ther to the importance of a distinction betweenthe central and peripheral cases: the basicnuclear functions in these languages are han-dled by head-marking devices, while clearlycircumstantial functions are expressed bycase (‘dependent-marking’). The ‘recipient’function, however, is intermediate: it is han-dled by head-marking in some languages andby case in others. Foley also points out thatwhen the recipient is identified by head-marking, its formal exponent also covers thefunction of beneficiary, but that when it ismarked with a case it often includes the alla-tive function. Such groupings and regroup-ings seem to fit recurring patterns of form-function mappings in the domain of gram-matical functions � patterns characteristi-cally linking beneficiary with recipient, recip-ient with allative, allative with locative, in-strumental with ablative, ablative with cause,and many others. Such patterns of conflationwould appear to be independent of whetherthe language’s particular marking system in-volves cases, adpositions, head-marking, con-stituent order, or combinations of these.

4.2. Morphologically complexcircumstantial adverbs

Some languages have morphologically com-plex adverbs with distinct structural slotsdedicated to different semantic domains anddifferent semantic oppositions. In some casessuch a morphological system is not dedicatedpurely to the expression of circumstantial oradverbial meanings but extends beyond suchfunctions. For example, the morphologicalstructure of deictic and interrogative wordsin Japanese, known as the ko-so-a-do system,combines in the first position deictic elementsko- (proximal), so- (medial), and a- (distal)with an interrogative marker do- (interroga-tive), while the second position is occupiedby a head morpheme that determines thegrammatical function of the word as a whole:

an inanimate demonstrative pronoun -re, de-terminer -no, a place adverb -ko, a directionadverb -tira, manner adverb (phonemiclength), and a few others. For the circum-stantials, this yields examples like do-ko‘where’, so-o (so- plus length) ‘in that man-ner’, ko-tira ‘in this direction’. Deictic and in-terrogative adverbs of place, direction-to-ward, and manner thus emerge from thiscross-categorial morphological system.

A number of languages have a class ofmanner adverbs, typically with subtle buthighly specific semantics, which appear toembody iconic or phonosymbolic compo-nents. Such forms can be morphologically in-teresting in numerous ways: they may be con-strained to fit particular phonological tem-plates, for instance, or involve reduplicationor other semantically iconic patterns of vowellength, consonant gemination, etc. (Some as-pects of such systems are taken up in Art. 30on iconicity.) They also may involve segmentsnot found in the language’s regular inventory,or segments that violate the language’s regu-lar combinatory patterns. For the languagesof West Africa a common term for this classof words is ideophones; for Austro-Asiaticlanguages (the Mon-Khmer family andMunda), expressives; for Japanese and Ko-rean, mimetic adverbs. In some languages,like Japanese, they appear to be rigorouslylexicalized; in others, they are sometimes de-scribed as independent of the lexicon. Igbo,for example, is said to be “rich in ideo-phones, which have been analyzed as beinggenerated directly from meaning-related pho-nemes, or even from features slotted intotemplates, rather than being fixed items inthe lexicon” (Williamson & Emenanjo 1992:198). Regarding the Austro-Asiatic expres-sives, the following is said:

“Adverb-like, but without predicative force, thesewords are similar in some ways to African ideo-phones. They rely primarily on iconic means toevoke sensations of all kinds, especially in the do-main of visual patterns, their rich morphology ismade of iconic diagrams � e.g., partial reduplica-tions, substitution, infixed copying and systematicdistortions � often akin to deliberate languagegames.” (Diffloth & Zide 1992: 140)

A common templatic pattern for the Japa-nese mimetic adverbs is a C1V1C2V2 structure,e.g., pata, which may be subject, inter alia, tothe following modifications: reduplication ofthe whole (patapata), suffixation by -ri (pa-tari), suffixation by -ri and gemination of C2(pattari), suffixation by -tto (patatto), suffixa-




tion by moraic -n (patan), suffixation of thelast-named pattern by -to (patanto), redupli-cation of the nasal-augmented form (patan-patan). Meanings conveyed by such words in-clude the mood of the actor (cheerful andenergetic vs. sad and listless), luminosity(gleaming, sparkling), producing an accom-panying sound, various patterns of move-ment, a variety of ways of modifying specifickinds of activities such as eating, smiling,walking, and many others.

Japanese mimetic adverbs show many in-stances of morphophonemic alternationslinking h, p, and b: ‘moving in a flutteringway’ � hatahata, patapata, batabata; ‘flow-ing, as of tears’ � horohoro, poroporo, boro-boro, ‘twitching nervously’ � hikuhiku, pikup-iku, bikubiku). The different forms apparentlyconvey subtle semantic differences. There arefrequent instances of sub-morphemic regular-ities, such as is suggested by the frequency ofpalatal stops and fricatives in words imitativeof water sounds: pityapitya, bityabitya, paty-apatya, batyabatya, potyapotya, botyabotya,syaasyaa, zyabuzyabu. Several adverbs ofsmiling begin with ni-: nikoniko (positivelyevaluated, ‘beamingly’), nitanita, niyaniya(negatively evaluated, ‘snidely’). Several ad-verbs indicating unsteady walking begin withyo-: yotiyoti, yotayota, yoroyoro. The struc-tures of this family of words do not lendthemselves to “ordinary” morphology: but,at least in Japanese, they involve more thanlanguage play.

The spatial semantic system for Cora(Uto-Aztecan, Mexico) includes a set of quiteregularly constructed three-part adverbswhich in their basic meanings locate objectsin respect to landmarks in a mountainousterrain (Casad & Langacker 1985). Withinthese forms, the first morpheme indicates the“distance” of the reference object relative tothe speaker’s real, or assumed, vantage point;the categories are proximal (‘prox’), medial(‘med’), and distal (‘dist’). The second mor-pheme locates the Figure as being “inside”or “outside” the Ground, there being severalmetaphorical extensions of this contrast, Theoptional third morpheme situates the Figurewith respect to the slope of the Ground ob-ject, as “top”, “face”, or “foot”. Thus m-a-h‘away up there to the side in the face of theslope’ is glossed ‘med-outside-face.of.slope’and y-u-u ‘right here at the foot of the slope’is glossed as ‘prox-inside-foot.of.slope’ (Ca-sad & Langacker 1985: 258).

(23) u-h-tyeeinside-vertical-be.long

m-uprox-inside

ci?i-tahouse-in

Example (23) shows the interaction and inte-gration of three separate locative systems ina single three-word sentence. The verb has acomplex prefix-set u-h-, with u- ‘on insidesurface’ and h- ‘on vertical surface’, thus ‘ona vertical inside surface’. These prefixes com-bine with a verb root tyee glossed as ‘it belong’ yielding uhtyee expressing the idea thatsomething extends far upward on an insidesurface. The locative adverb m-u is made upof the medial prefix m- in combination withthe -u- element ‘inside’, thus ‘there inside’.The noun ci?i-ta is made up of the noun ci?i‘house’ and the locative case suffix -ta ‘in’,thus ‘in the house’. The entire sentence, then,is u-h-tyee m-u ci?i-ta, is translated as ‘it’s along way up to the ceiling inside that house’(Casad & Langacker 1985: 255).

We saw in the Runyambo example (16) in3.1.3 a sentence which used the three meansof exhibiting circumstantial roles discussed inthat section: the licensing, nuclearizing, andanaphoric functions. In this Cora sentencetoo we see multiple means of conveying loca-tive notions, this time distributed across ele-ments of the clause: in head-marking pre-fixes, in a morphologically complex locativeadverb, and in case-marking on the noun.

5. Uncommon abbreviations

fv final voweliv initial vowelloc.exl frame-external locativeloc.inl frame-internal locativetrig trigger

6. References

Ashton, Ethel & Mulira, E. M. K. & Ndawula,E. G. M. & Tucker, A. N. (1954), A Luganda Gram-mar. London etc.: Longmans Green

Casad, Eugene H. & Langacker, Ronald W. (1985),“‘Inside’ and ‘Outside’ in Cora Grammar”. In-ternational Journal of American Linguistics 51.1,247�281

Comrie, Bernard (1985), Tense. Cambridge: Cam-bridge University Press

Comrie, Bernard & Smith, Norval (1977), “LinguaDescriptive Studies: Questionnaire”. Lingua 42,5�71




Craig, Colette & Hale, Ken (1988), “RelationalPreverbs in Some Languages of the Americas: Ty-pological and Historical Perspectives”. Language64.2, 313�344

Denny, J. Peter (1982), “Semantics of the Inuktitut(Eskimo) Spatial Deictics”. International Journal ofAmerican Linguistics 48.4, 359�384

Diffloth, Gerard & Zide, Norman (1992), “Austro-Asiatic Languages”. In: Bright, William (ed.), In-ternational Encyclopedia of Linguistics, Vol. I.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 137�142

Foley, William A. (1986), The Papuan Languagesof New Guinea. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress

Hale, William Gardner & Buck, Carl Darling(1903), A Latin Grammar [reprinted (1966): Tusca-loosa: University of Alabama Press (Alabama Lin-guistic and Philological Series 8)]

Hanks, William F. (1984), Referential Practice:Language and Lived Space Among the Maya. Chi-cago: University of Chicago Press

Hjelmslev, Louis (1935�1937), “La categorie descas: Etudes de grammaire generale”. Part I (1935):Acta Jutlandica 7.1, i�xii, 1�184; Part II (1937):Acta Jutlandica 9.2, i�vii, 1�88

Karlsson, Fred (21987), Finnish Grammar, trans-lated by Andrew Chesterman. Helsinki: WernerSöderström [11982; translation of: Suomen Per-

107. Valency change

1. Introduction2. Valency-decreasing categories3. Valency-increasing categories4. General features of valency-changing

morphology5. Diachronic sources of valency-changing

morphology6. Uncommon abbreviations7. References

1. Introduction

The valency of a lexical item is its inherentrelationality that allows it to govern a particu-lar number of arguments (or actants, Tesniere1959) of a particular type. The grammaticalmeaning of certain morphological categoriesconsists in changing the valency of a lexicalitem, and it is such categories that we will

uskielioppi. Helsinki: Suomalaisen KirjallisuudenSeura]

Newman, Stanley (1976), “Salish and Bella CoolaPrefixes”. International Journal of American Lin-guistics 42.3, 228�242

Nichols, Johanna (1986), “Head-marking and De-pendent-marking Grammar”. Language 62, 56�

119

Rugemalira, Josephat Muhozi (1994), RunyamboVerb Extensions and Constraints on Predicate Struc-tures. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California

Schachter, Paul (1987), “Tagalog”. In: Comrie,Bernard (ed.), The World’s Major Languages. Ox-ford: Oxford University Press, 936�958

Shibatani, Masayoshi (1990), The Languages of Ja-pan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Talmy, Leonard (1985), “Lexicalization Patterns:Semantic Structure in Lexical Forms”. In: Shopen,Timothy (ed.), Language Typology and SyntacticDescription, Vol. III: Grammatical Categories andthe Lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress, 57�149

Tesniere, Lucien (1959), Elements de syntaxestructurale. Paris: C. Klincksieck

Williamson, Kay & Emenanjo, E. Nolue (1992),“Igbo”. In: Bright, William (ed.), International En-cyclopedia of Linguistics, Vol. II, 195�199

Charles J. Fillmore, Berkeley (U.S.A.)

deal with in the present article. (In this arti-cle, we use the term category in the sense of“grammatical morpheme” or “grammeme”;thus, notions like genitive or future are gram-matical categories, while sets of categorieslike case or tense are termed supercategories.)

We will refer to the configuration of argu-ments that are governed by a particular lexi-cal item as its valency pattern (in other ter-minologies: argument structure (Grimshaw1990), predicate frame (Dik 1978: 15), govern-ment pattern (Russian linguistics, e.g. Mel’-cuk 1988: 69)). Valency is characteristic of allthe major word classes (verbs, nouns, adjec-tives) and of certain types of function words(in particular, adpositions and auxiliaryverbs). However, it is verbs that show by farthe most diverse and interesting valency pat-terns, as well as the most interesting valency-



Documents

Morphologie (Ein internationales Handbuch zur Flexion und Wortbildung) || Circumstance concepts