Word order in multiple object constructions in KiVunjo-Chaga

Moshi, Lioba

doi:10.1515/jall.1998.19.2.137

Cited by 61 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Furthermore, the order of two non-benefactive objects is generally much less restricted (e.g. Moshi 1998). It is quite likely that this holds true more or less also for the languages discussed in this section.…”

Section: Yesmentioning

confidence: 87%

“…In both strategies, the promotion of theme to subject is less acceptable than the promotion of benefactive. Bresnan and Moshi (1990), Moshi (1998) Parameter 1: Can the object marker and the lexical object NP co-occur? NO Parameter 2: Is co-occurrence of object marker and object NP required in some contexts?…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The chief sent him there with it' (Moshi 1998) Even among the languages which allow multiple object markers there is variation, as some are reported to allow (at least structurally) up to five or six object markers, e.g. Kirundi (Sibomana 1974), Kinyarwanda (Kimenyi 1978), or KiVunjo-Chaga (Moshi 1998), while others are reported to have multiple object marker less frequently, e.g.…”

Section: Parameters Concerned With Object Markersmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Kirundi (Sibomana 1974), Kinyarwanda (Kimenyi 1978), or KiVunjo-Chaga (Moshi 1998), while others are reported to have multiple object marker less frequently, e.g. Ha (Harjula 2004) or Tswana (Cole 1955).…”

Section: Parameters Concerned With Object Markersmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Parameters of morphosyntactic variation in Bantu¹

Marten¹,

Kula

Thwala

2007

Trans of the Philol Soc

101

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bantu languages are fairly uniform in terms of broad typological parameters. However, they have been noted to display a high degree or more fine-grained morpho-syntactic micro-variation. In this paper we develop a systematic approach to the study of morpho-syntactic variation in Bantu by developing 19 parameters which serve as the basis for cross-linguistic comparison and which we use for comparing ten south-eastern Bantu languages. We address conceptual issues involved in studying morpho-syntax along parametric lines and show how the data we have can be used for the quantitative study of language comparison. Although the work reported is a case study in need of expansion, we will show that it nevertheless produces relevant results.

show abstract

Section: Yesmentioning

confidence: 87%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Parameters Concerned With Object Markersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Parameters Concerned With Object Markersmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Parameters of morphosyntactic variation in Bantu¹

Marten¹,

Kula

Thwala

2007

Trans of the Philol Soc

101

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…in Kimenyi 1995, Moshi 1998. The reason for the absence of more systematic treatments is that in most Bantu languages, there is no formal, morphosyntactic difference between these different types of benefactive applicatives, and so the distinction is not included in grammatical analyses of the construction.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Benefactive and substitutive applicatives in Bemba

Marten

Kula

2014

Journal of African Languages and Linguistics

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