Multi-verb constructions in Edo

By Ota Ogie Ph.D Student. Department of Language and Communication Studies. NTNU E-mail:ota.ogie@hf.ntnu.no

Multi-verb constructions provide useful insight into the question of how languages distinguish between adjunction and complementation. The term multi-verb constructions is defined as consisting of verbs in series that can function as independent verbs in simple sentences, with at least one shared argument and no marking of syntactic dependency (cf. Amaka 2005:2).

Èdó

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

Òzó kòkó Àdésúwà mòsé

“Ozo raised Adesuwa to be beautiful”

Òzó

òzó

OzoSBJAGT

Np

kòkó

raisePAST

Vtr

Àdésúwà

àdésúwà

Adesuwa.AFFDO

Np

mòsé

be.beautifulPAST

Vitr

The template above the construction has the following structure: Area 1 gives the global labels, the number of verbs in series (ie sv, sv3, sv4 ) as well as identities 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 given in area 1. Sharing of these features across verbs in series is represented as with sharing of arguments. For example in the Akan example on overlapping construction below area 1 gives the following information from the construction label on covert reference subject sharing sv_suAspID_suAg_aspCompl. It states that the construction is a serial verb construction with the verbs in series sharing subjects and aspect values. The subject has an agent thematic role and the verbs in series have completive aspect. (see Hellan 2008 and Hellan and Dakubu 2009 and In-depth annotation of multi-verb constructions in Èdó for discussion on the labelling conventions. Also 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 and EVCs, the following global labels are introduced to account for the range of multi-verb constructions in my data. The background assumptions remains the same:

Global labels

consecutive construction - csc

covert coordination - cc

infinitival construction - ic

modifier construction - mc

negative resultative construction - nrc

overlapping construction - oc

complement/embedded clause - cec

empty subject construction - esc

The verbs in series in multi-verb constructions need not bear one/same marking for tense, aspect, mood or negation and need not share subjects. They include SVCs, consecutive constructions, covert co-ordination, overlapping constructions, V+ modifier constructions and V+ infinitival complement constructions.

Èdó

Consequential SVC

sv_suObID_suAg-v1tr-v1obThincrem-v2tr-v2obAff-TRANSFER

Òzó lé ìzẹ̣̣̣̣̣́ khiẹ̣̣̣̣́n

“Ozo cooked rice and sold”

Òzó

òzó

OzoSBJAGT

Np

lé

cookIVH

V

ìzẹ̣̣̣̣̣́

rice.AFFDO

N

khiẹ̣̣̣̣́n

sellIVH

V

Covert co-ordination cc_suID_suAg-v1tr-v1obAff-v2tr-v2obThincrem-CAUSE_RESULT

Òzó gbọ̣̣̣̣̀ọ̣̣̣̣́ ívìn , bòló òká

“Ozo planted cooconut and peeled corn”

Òzó

òzó

OzoSBJAGT

Np

gbọ̣̣̣̣̀ọ̣̣̣̣́

plantPASTH

Vtr

ívìn

coconut.AFFDO

CN

,bòló

peelPASTH

Vtr

òká

cornDOTH

CN

V+modifier constuctions

mc-vintr_suAg-ACHVMNT-MOTION_DIRECTED

Òzó rhùlé ̣rè làọ̣̣̣̣́ òwá

“Ozo ran into the house”

Òzó

òzó

ozoSBJAGT

Np

rhùlẹ̣̣̣̣́rè
rhùlẹ̣̣̣̣́	rè
run	IVRT
Vitr

làọ̣̣̣̣́

enter.V>P

PREP

òwá

houseGOAL

N

V+infinitival complement construction

ic_suID_suAg-v2tr-v2obThincrem-CAUSE_RESULT

Íràn kùgbé-rè tòbíràn rrí ízẹ̣̣̣̣̀

“They ate the rice together by themselves”

Íràn

íràn

They3PLNOMSBJAGT

Np

kùgbérè

kùgbé-rè

jointogetherPASTRT

Vtr

tòbíràn

by.themselves3PLREFLACC

rrí

eat

Vtr

ízẹ̣̣̣̣̀

riceDOTH

CN

Ewe

Consecutive constructions

cs3-v1intr-v1suAg-v2intr-v3intr-v3suAg-DIRECTED_MOTION

Mí-nɔ yi-yi-m má-vá

“You be going (and) I will come (i.e.follow)”

Mí

mí

2PLNOMSBJAGT

PN

nɔ

be.at

V

yiyim
yi	yi	m
		go
V

má

1SGNOMSBJAGT

PN

vá

come

V

Overlapping constructions

Akan

sv_suAspID_suAg_aspCompl-v1tr-v1obAff-v2intr-CAUSE_RESULT

Ama twee Kofi hwee fam

“Ama pulled Kofi and fell (Ama fell) (covert reference subject sharing) ”

Ama

ama

AmaSBJAGT

Np

twee
twe	e
pull	PAST
Vtr

Kofi

kofi

kofiDO

Np

hwee
hwe	e
fall	PAST
Vitr

fam

under

sv_AspID_aspCompl-v1ObIDv2su-v1tr-v1suAg-v1obAff-v2tr-v2suAff-CAUSE_RESULT

Ama twee Kofi hwee fam

“Ama pulled Kofi and he(Kofi) fell (Switch sharing) ”

Ama

ama

AmaSBJAGT

Np

twee
twe	e
pull	PAST
Vtr

Kofi

kofi

kofiDO

Np

hwee
hwe	e
fall	PAST
Vitr

fam

under

This study examines multi-verb constructions in (a Benue-Congo language) with the aim of identifying and classifying them and their argument sharing patterns.

We draw main background assumptions from the following sources; implemented Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammars for Norwegian (Hellan 2003) and Ga (Hellan 2007) a Kwa language spoken in Ghana; an HPSG account of argument realization patterns (Beermann, Hellan and Sætherø 2003); and a theory of event structure template (Pustejovsky 1995, 2006).

Èdó is spoken in Èdó state in Mid-Western Nigeria and belongs to the Edoid language group (Elugbe1979). It is a head initial SVO language with an open syllable system with no consonant clusters.

With respect to verbal morphology, verbs can be inflected for the purpose of pluralizing nouns they occur with and to mark iteration.

Simple sentence: V+plural suffix

v-tr-suNom_ag_obThincrem-COMPLETED_MONODEVMT

Ọ̣̣̣̣̀ gbẹ̣̣̣̣̀n-nẹ̣̣̣̣́ èbé

“He/she wrote books”

Ọ̣̣̣̣̀

ọ̣̣̣̣̀

3SGSBJNOMAGT

PN

gbẹ̣̣̣̣̀nnẹ̣̣̣̣́
gbẹ̣̣̣̣̀n	nẹ̣̣̣̣́
write	PLIVH
V

èbé

bookDOTH

CN

Tense and transitivity are marked on the verb either through tonal changes or by affixation of a past tense suffix –rV under appropriate licensing conditions. With plural verbs,the order is the plural suffix before the past suffix.

Simple sentence: Present tense

v-intrImplobj-suNom_ag-NONCOMPLETED_MONODEVMT

Ọ̣̣̣̣̀ gbẹ̣̣̣̣́n

“He/she is writing”

Ọ̣̣̣̣̀

ọ̣̣̣̣̀

3SGSBJNOMAGT

PN

gbẹ̣̣̣̣́n

writePRESH

Vtr

Simple sentence: Past tense

v-intrImplobj-suNom_ag-COMPLETED_MONODEVMT

Ọ̣̣̣̣̀ gbẹ̣̣̣̣̀n-nẹ̣̣̣̣́-rè

“He/she wrote several times”

Ọ̣̣̣̣̀

ọ̣̣̣̣̀

3SGNOMSBJAGT

PN

gbẹ̣̣̣̣̀nnẹ̣̣̣̣́rè
gbẹ̣̣̣̣̀n	nẹ̣̣̣̣́	̣̣̣̣̣rè
write	PL	IVRT
Vtr

11 multi-verb constructions in Èdó are shown to pattern into four structural types with respect to the distribution of the past tense suffix –rV, an infinitival marker yá, a floating anaphor tòbórè 'by him/her/it self ', VP adverbs and argument sharing patterns:

1. V+ modifier constructions: durational, directional, locational, manner constructions: -rV licensed, infinitival yá not licensed. One verb in the series is reanalyzed as adverb.

2. V (P) +V (P) constructions: resultatives, negative resultatives, consequential and covert co-ordination constructions: -rV not licensed, infinitival yá not licensed. The verbs in series have the same values for Tense, Aspect and Mood (TAM).

3. V + mood constructions: purpose constructions: -rV licensed, infinitival yá not licensed. V2 has a positive value for MOOD.

4. V+ infinitival complement constructions: comitative and instrumental constructions: -rV licensed, infinitival yá licensed and V2 is non-finite.

The –rV suffix also interacts in an interesting way with the temporal structures of multi-verb constructions. Overlapping events license –rV while non-overlapping events do not

The study also examines 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) and situate properties of Èdó multi-verb constructions within typology common to these languages.

ÈDÓ

Infinitival complement construction

ic_suID_suAg-v2tr-v2obThincrem-CAUSE_RESULT

Íràn kùgbé-rè kó!kó ìzẹ̣̣̣̣̣́

“They joined together and gathered the rice”

Íràn

íràn

3PLNOMSBJAGT

PN

kùgbérè
kùgbé	rè
join	IVRT
Vtr

kó!kó

gather

Vtr

ìzẹ̣̣̣̣̣́

riceDOTH

N

Consequential SVC

sv_suObID_suAg-v1tr-v1obAff-v2intr-v2obThincrem-CAUSE_RESULT

Òzó lé ìzẹ́ ré

“Ozo cooked rice and ate”

Òzó

òzó

OzoSBJAGT

Np

lé

cookPASTH

Vtr

ìzẹ́

riceDOTH

CN

ré

eatPASTH

Vtr

IGBO

Commutative SVC

sv_suID_suAg-v1tr-v1obTh-v2intr-DIRECTED_MOTION

Ó wè-re ìte byá

“S/he came with a pot”

Ó

ó

3SGNOMSBJAGT

PN

wère
wè	re
take	ØASP
V

ìte

potDOTH

CN

byá

come.ASP

V

AKAN

Clause chaining SVC (CCSVC)

sv-Implobj_suObAspID_suAg-v1tr-v1obAff-v2tr-v2obThincrem-CAUSE_RESULT

Ama noa di

“Ama cooks and then eats”

Ama

ama

AmaSBJAGT

Np

noa

cook

Vtr

di

eat

Vtr

YORUBA

Commutative SVC

sv_suID_suAg-v1tr-v1obTh-v2intr-DIRECTED_MOTION

Ó mú ìwé wá

“He brought the book”

Ó

ó

3SGNOMSBJAGT

PN

mú

take

V

ìwé

bookDOTH

CN

wá

come

V

EWE

Complement/embedded clause construction

cec-v1intr-v1suAg-v2tr-v2suAff-v2obThincrem-CAUSE_RESULT

Kofí ná (bé) wò-ɖu nú-á

“Kofi made him/her eat the thing”

Kofí

kofí

KofiSBJAGT

Np

ná

give

V

bé

COMP

wò

AFF3SGACCSBJ

PN

ɖu

eat

V

núá
nú	á
thingDOTH	DEF
CN

BAULE

Empty Subject Constraint (ESC)

esc_suID_suAg-v1tr-v1obThincrem-v2tr-v2obAff-CAUSE_RESULT

ɔsi-li aliɛ-`n sɔkɔ-li tro`n

“S/he pounded the futu and prepared the sause”

ɔ

3SGNOMSBJAGT

PN

sili
si	li
pound	COMPL
V

aliɛ`n
aliɛ	`n
foodDOTH	DEF
CN

sɔkɔli
sɔkɔ	li
prepare	COMPL
V

tro`n

sause.AFFDEFDO

CN

GURENNE

Theme SVC

sv-suObID_suAg_obTh-v1tr-v2tr- PLACEMENT

Bà diki mà tá`asi zí'à ná

“They sent me to that place”

Bà

bà

3PLNOMSBJAGT

PN

diki

take

V

mà

1SGACCDOTH

PN

tá`asi

send

V

zí'à

placeENDPNT

CN

ná

DEF

Ga

Extended Verb Construction

ev_ditr_suObID_suAg_obTh-pv1tr-vditr-iobEndpossessor-TRANSFER

E kɛ wolo lɛ ha mi

“He gave me the book”

E

e

3SGNOMSBJAGT

PN

kɛ

move

V

wolo

bookDOTH

CN

lɛ

DET

ha

give

V

mi

1SGGOAL

PN

Multi-verbs identified include SVCs in all the languages discussed, consecutive constructions and overlapping constructions in Ewe and covert co-ordination in Èdó, Igbo and Baule. Typological features used for identification include: tense, mood, aspect, negation, adverb distribution, predicate cleft and argument sharing patterns. The findings show that the typological features of a language determine the type of multi-verb construction it licenses. Also while, inflection may demarcate multi-verb types within a language, the pattern observed for a language may not map onto another language.

With respect to argument sharing, the following types are discussed; token sharing of subjects; switch sharing; overt reference sharing of subjects; covert reference sharing of subjects; token sharing of objects ; overt reference sharing of objects and covert sharing of objects. The patterns found in the languages studied support the claim that languages with rich verbal agreement features allow recoverability of unexpressed arguments and tend to license null subjects and objects. Object sharing patterns show asymmetry with respect to switch sharing and reference sharing. Languages that have overt reference subject sharing patterns do not have switch sharing (Ewe, Ga and Baule) while those that do not, tend to employ token/covert reference sharing of subjects and switch sharing (Èdó, Yoruba and Akan).This is buttressed by data from Attie and Likpe closely related languages to these languages. With respect to object sharing, these languages that do not have switch sharing all have covert sharing of objects, while those that have, do not have covert sharing of objects. Èdó belongs to the type that does not have overt reference sharing of subjects and tend to employ token sharing of subjects and switch sharing. For object sharing, Èdó does not have covert sharing of objects and employs mainly token sharing of objects.In particular, object sharing in multi-verb constructions in Èdó is analyzed as token sharing by grammatical function.

Two schemas are posited to account for Èdó multi-verb constructions:

1.Verb-serial-compl (ement)-phrase with a complementation structure for the V (P) +V (P) resultative and V+infinitival complement constructions.

2.Serial-mod-phrase with an adjunction structure for V+mood constructions, V+modifier constructions and V (P) +V (P); consequential, purpose, and negative resultative constructions.