Difference between revisions of "Applying a Construction labeling code to Edo"

Revision as of 18:23, 16 June 2011

Language documentation is important as a tool for preservation of endangered languages and making data available to speakers and researchers of a language.The annotation scheme for verbal constructions used is currently being developed at the Department of Langauge and communication studies and is documented in Hellan and Dakubu (2009). Using the construction scheme I show below how syntactic, semantic and morphological properties of multi-verb constructions in Èdó (Benue-Congo) can be analyzed using the scheme. The analysis is extended to multi-verb constructions in the following languages of the Niger-Congo: Igbo and Yoruba (Benue-Congo), Gurenne (Oti-volta), Ga, Baule, Akan and Ewe (Kwa)(Ogie 2010) :

1. Èdó

sv-v1objIDv2su-v1tr-v1suAg-v1obAff-v2-int-v2suAff-CAUSE_RESULT

The template in bold above (example 1) (Hellan and Dakubu 2009, Ogie 2010) gives the construction labels and has the following structure: Area 1 gives the global labels, the number of verbs in series (ie sv, sv3, sv4 ) as well as argument sharing information and information about thematic relations holding across the verb in series. In the example above sv states that the construction is of type serial verb with 2 verbs, Area 2 gives the valence information as well as information about grammatical function and thematic roles. This is exemplified by v1objIDv2su-v1tr-v1suAg_v1obAff-v2-int-v2obAff in the example above. Here the object of v1 shares reference (ID) with the subject of v2 v1objIDv2su. Also v1 is transitive and its subject has an agent thematic role and the object an Affected role v1tr-v1suAg-v1obAff while v2 is intransitive with a subject having an Affected role v2-int-v2suAff. Information about the situation type of the construction is provided by Area 3 and this is exemplified by CAUSE_RESULT in the above example. Area 3 is written in capital letters.

In examples where there is token identity between arguments of the verbs in series, I have represented thematic relations for such examples only in area 1. Area 2 then gives information about valence, arguments that do not share thematic roles and arguments that are not shared. For example, in the consequential svc in the Èdó example below, the template reads as follows: Area 1:sv_suObID_suAg. The serial verb construction consists of two verbs in series and the verbs in series share reference across arguments. The subject argument is token identified and has an agent theta role. Area 2:v1tr-v1obThincrem-v2tr-v2obAff. V1 is transitive and has an incremental theme object. V2 is also transitive with an object bearing an affected theta role. Area 3: The situation type is a TRANSFER relation.

Information about Tense Aspect, Mood and Negation is also provided by area 1 in the construction labels. Sharing of these features across verbs in series is represented as with sharing of arguments. For example in the Akan example (example 2) on covert reference subject sharing in the clause chaining serial construction below , area 1 gives the following information sv_suAspID_suAg_aspCompl. It states that the construction is a serial verb construction with the verbs in series sharing subject and aspect values. The subject has an agent thematic role and the verbs in series have completive aspect.

With respect to the global labels in area 1, Hellan and Dakubu 2009 uses the global label ev to represent Extended Verb Complexes and the label pv for preverbs in EVCs. In addition, to the labelling conventions used by Hellan and Dakubu 2009 for SVCs (sv) and EVCs (ev, pv) , the following global labels are introduced to account for the range of multi-verb constructions in my data. The background assumptions remains the same (see Annotating Edo, Hellan 2008 and Hellan and Dakubu 2009 and In-depth annotation of multi-verb constructions in Èdó) and for discussion on the labelling conventions:

Global labels

cc – covert co-ordination

mvc- multi-verb construction

mc- modifier construction