The great siSwati locative shift

Marten, Lutz

doi:10.1075/la.159.12mar

Cited by 52 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A particular development is the 'Great siSwati Locative Shift' in which locative classes have been reanalysed as prepositional, and so locative phrases function as PPs, not as DPs (Marten 2010 In our sample, there is indeed an overall complementarity between formal and semantic locative inversion. As noted above, languages without locative DPs, such as the Nguni languages siSwati and Zulu, tend to have semantic locative inversion (Buell 2007), and/or default agreement inversion with a preposed locative adjunct (Demuth 1990, Creissels 2011) (see Section 5,above).…”

Section: The Status Of Locative Phrases As Nominal or Prepositionalmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…The construction closely resembles formal locative inversion, except for the absence of locative coding of the grammatical subject. In southern Bantu languages, the historic locative classes have been lost (Marten 2010), and the presence of semantic locative inversion in Zulu and siSwati shows that locative inversion is independent of the morphosyntax of locative marking. However, semantic locative inversion appears also to be found in languages with do have formal locative marking, such as Swahili and Olutsootso, which in addition also have formal locative inversion.…”

Section: Semantic Locative Inversionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A typology of Bantu subject inversion

Marten¹,

Wal²

2014

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study charts variation in subject inversion constructions in Bantu languages. It distinguishes between seven types of inversion constructions: formal locative inversion, semantic locative inversion, instrument inversion, patient inversion, (clausal) complement inversion, default agreement inversion and agreeing inversion. Based on a set of nine surface variables, a matrix of inversion constructions is developed which identifies characteristics of the set of constructions overall as well as of each individual construction type. The distribution of the different inversion constructions is documented with reference to a sample of 46 Bantu languages, from which geographical and typological generalisations are drawn. For example, languages with instrument inversion or with patient inversion always have locative inversion (but not vice versa), or if a language has at least one inversion construction, it always has at least either default agreement inversion or agreeing inversion. Finally, underlying parameters potentially accounting for the variation are discussed, such as the status of preverbal locatives as DP or PP, the agreement parameter and the syntactic and thematic restrictions on the preverbal element.

show abstract

Section: The Status Of Locative Phrases As Nominal or Prepositionalmentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Semantic Locative Inversionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A typology of Bantu subject inversion

Marten¹,

Wal²

2014

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In these cases, locative marking has typically spread beyond clearly locative contexts and is used as a, sometimes optional, marker of clause subordination in general. This is part of a wider tendency in southern Bantu languages to use class 17 agreement forms in default and impersonal contexts (Buell 2012, Marten 2010, and this presents, in terms of details, a different situation from the one found in Bemba substitutive marking, with less obvious similarity than the first example. The final example we present here is the case of (historic) locative markers being used to mark clausal negation, for example in Kikongo:…”

Section: Related Locative Grammaticalisation Processes In Bantumentioning

confidence: 89%

Benefactive and substitutive applicatives in Bemba

Marten

Kula

2014

Journal of African Languages and Linguistics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Benefactive applicative constructions can encode a range of different meanings, including notably recipient, substitutive and plain benefactive readings, which are often distinguished in cross-linguistic studies. In Bantu languages, this distinction has not received much attention, in part because most Bantu languages do not formally distinguish between different readings of benefactive applicatives. In Bemba (Bantu M42, Zambia), by contrast, substitutive applicatives, where the action of the verb is performed by the agent instead of, on behalf of, or in place of someone else, are formally marked by applicative morphology in addition to a post-verbal clitic -kó, based on a grammaticalised locative demonstrative clitic. The paper provides a detailed discussion of the construction and proposes that the interpretation of substitutive applicatives results from the interaction of abstract applicative and locative semantics and depends on underlying metaphors of spatial and abstract location. Bemba benefactive applicatives thus provide an illustration of the complex function and interpretation of Bantu applicatives and locative markers more widely. The construction is interesting from a historical-comparative and typological perspective because of the particular grammaticalisation process from a locative source involved in the historical development of the construction, and because substitution is marked in addition to applicative marking.

show abstract

“…17 Locative enclitics are also found in object relative forms such as Mahali wa[fika]po... 'the place where they arrived... ' (Marten 2013: 32). See Henderson (2006), Marten (2010), , and Riedel and Marten (2012: 284-285) for discussion of resumptive pronouns in relative clauses in Bantu languages. 18 Machobane (1989: 21, 73) claims that locatives do not control object agreement in Southern Sotho.…”

Section: (36) Languages With Locative Opsmentioning

confidence: 98%

On the number of object markers in Bantu languages

Marlo

2015

Journal of African Languages and Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper describes the morphosyntactic diversity among Bantu languages in the number of pre-stem and post-stem object markers (OMs) that are allowed and discusses the factors responsible for this diversity. The number of OMs is sometimes highly restricted and sometimes seemingly unrestricted. Some languages have only pre-stem marking of objects; some have only poststem marking; and some have both pre-stem and post-stem marking. Personnumber, animacy, and locative noun classes are the basis for a number of morphosyntactic asymmetries in individual systems in whether objects are marked before or after the stem, though other factors such as grammatical relations are also involved. A handful of types of OMs, including locatives and the 1sg and reflexive markers, commonly allow languages to circumvent restrictions on object marking, allowing one more OM than usual. The number of OMs is also restricted by certain syntactic configurations such as passivization. A number of other issues that are important general considerations in the syntax of Bantu languages are shown to have at most a secondary role in determining the number of OMs that are allowed.

show abstract

The great siSwati locative shift

Cited by 52 publications

References 5 publications

A typology of Bantu subject inversion

A typology of Bantu subject inversion

Benefactive and substitutive applicatives in Bemba

On the number of object markers in Bantu languages

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About