Relational Succession in Kinyarwanda Possessor Ascension

ELSEVIER Lingua 101 (1997) 89-l 14

Relational succession in Kinyarwanda possessor ascension*

William D. Davies

Department of Linguistics, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242, USA

Received 20 January 1996; revised version 2 August 1996

Abstract

Perltnutter and Postal’s (1983) Relational Succession Law (RSL), meant to constrain raising constructions, has been challenged in two ways, both in the area of possessor ascension constructions. On the one hand, it has been proposed that in some languages possessors may raise to indirect object regardless of the grammatical relation of the host nominals; while on the other it has been proposed that possessors can only raise to direct object. Both types of structures have been proposed for Kinyarwanda (Bickford, 1986). The present paper adduces evidence that neither of these challenges to the RSL is empirically motivated. Rather Kin- yarwanda provides compelling evidence for the correctness of the RSL and also provides surprising evidence for possessor ascension from an oblique host. Kinyarwanda thus proves important to the typology of raising constructions.

1. Introduction

In one of the seminal papers of Relational Grammar, ‘The Relational Succession Law’,’ Perlmutter and Postal (1983a) noted that, following some of the then-current transformational analyses, in raising-to-subject and raising-to-object the raised element always adopts the grammatical relation (GR) of the clause out of which it raises. They formulated this generalization, the Relational Succession Law (RSL), as in (1).

* I am indebted to Alexandre Kimenyi for discussing some of the data from Kimenyi 1980, the book from which the majority of the data presented here is derived and, more importantly, for providing additional data and judgments crucially bearing on the analysis presented here. I would also like to thank Rob Chametzky, Chris Culy, Stan Dubinsky, Donna Gerdts, Lindsay Whaley, and audiences at the Uni- versity of Iowa and the 1994 meeting of the Eastern States Conference on Linguistics for comments on an earlier draft of this paper or discussion of some of the relevant issues. Errors and omissions are mine alone. ’ Although ‘The Relational Succession Law’ was not published until 1983, it was completed and began circulating in 1972.

0024-3841/97/$17.00 0 1997 EIsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved PI1 SOO24-3841(96)00037-X

90

(1)

W.D. Davies I Lingua 101 (1997) 89-114

Relational Succession Law (Perlmutter and Postal, 1983a: 35) An ascendee assumes within the clause into which it ascends the grammatical relation of its host NP (the NP out of which it ascends).

Stated simply, the RSL rules out any representation in which the NP raises to a GR other than that borne by the host. The RSL has figured prominently in many RG analyses of not only raising out of a clause but also raising out of an NP, specifically possessor ascension.

The RSL has been challenged in two ways, both of which are relevant to possessor ascension but not to ascension out of clausal hosts.* First, some have proposed that possessors in some languages ascend to indirect object regardless of the GR of its host (Aissen, 1979; Bickford, 1986; Davies, 1981; Harris, 1976). Working with Aissen’s (1987) data, Rosen (1987) proposes an alternative account for Tzotzil which does not involve ascension and thus may be irrelevant to the RSL. The second attack on the RSL arises from the contention that all raising is to direct object (which under the Unaccusative Hypothesis appears to be true for raising from clauses)’ regardless of the GR of the host (Richards, 1994).

Kinyarwanda potentially contains both challenges to the RSL. Bickford (1986) analyzes inalienable possessor constructions as ascension to indirect object. As I show below in Section 6, the type of analysis proposed by Rosen (1987) for Tzotzil works well for Kinyarwanda, thus fending off this challenge. However, Bickford’s (1986) account of alienable possessor ascension provides perhaps the more serious challenge. He claims that alienable possessors ascend to direct object regardless of the GR of the host, consistent with the claim that all raising is to direct object. Alien- able possessor ascension is the focus of what follows.

What I propose is that rather than providing counterevidence to the RSL Kin- yarwanda provides rather surprising confirmation of the strength of its predictions. Most striking is solid evidence of raising to an oblique grammatical relation, which has few if any precedents in the literature. The analysis has ramifications for Perl- mutter and Postal’s Host Limitation Law and their Oblique Law, and poses problems for an incorporation analysis of possessor ascension.

2. Alienable possessor ascension in Kinyarwanda

Kinyarwanda, a Bantu language of Rwanda, Zaire, and Uganda, has long been a focal point of seemingly intractable but interesting phenomena for Relational Gram- mar. Some have taken the properties of objects in the language as evidence against the Strata1 Uniqueness Law (Gary and Keenan, 1977; Kimenyi, 1980; Bresnan and

* Davies (1986) conjectures that the RSL may in fact only be strictly enforced for clausal ascension. ’ Perlmutter and Postal (1984) suggest that all raising-to-subject may in fact be raising-to-object in an

unaccusative clause. However, Herrarte (1995) proposes ascension to indirect object from a clause bearing the indirect object relation, which, while obeying the RSL, undermines the claim that all raising from

clausal hosts is to direct object.

W.D. Davies I Lingua IO1 (1997) 89-114 91

Moshi, 1990, and others), while others have argued against this position based on a close analysis of particular data (Perlmutter and Postal, 1983b; Dryer, 1983; Bick- ford, 1986; Gerdts and Whaley 1991, 1992). Particularly nettlesome has been providing a coherent analysis that accounts for the intricate co-occurrence restrictions on various applicative or ‘object creating’ constructions and the grammatical properties of their objects. The most successful account to date is that of Gerdts and Wha- ley (1991, 1992), which is assumed here and outlined below. Part of the purpose of this paper is to propose an analysis of possessor ascension which best accounts for the full range of data and fits into a coherent account of the interactions of the various applicative constructions.

Alienable possessor ascension (APA) is illustrated in (2)-(3), the (b)-clauses being related to the (a)-clauses by APA.

(2) a. Ingurube z-a-ri-iye ibiryo by’aabaana.

pigs they-PST-eat-ASP food of.children ‘The pigs ate the food of the children.’

b. Ingurube z-a-ri-ir-iye aba&ra ibiryo.

pigs they-PST-eat-APP-ASP children food ‘The pigs ate the children’s food.’

(3) a. UmuhuQngu a-ra-som-a igitabo cy’umukoobwa.

boy he-PRES-read-ASP book of.girl

‘The boy is reading the book of the girl.’ b. Umuhutingu a-ra-som-er-a umukobbwa igitabo.

boy he-PRES-read-APP-ASP girl book

‘The boy is reading the girl’s book.’

In (2b) and (3b), the applied suffix irler is present, the possessor precedes the possessed nominal, and the preposition marking the possessor in the non-ascension clauses (2a) and (3a) is absent. As Kimenyi (1980) shows, the possessor takes on the grammatical properties of objects - passivizability, pronoun incorporation, relativiz- ability, and topicalization - in APA clauses, while the possessed NP exhibits none of these.

The data in (4) show that the ascended possessor, cib&zna ‘children’, may be passivized, as in (4a), but that the possessed, ibiryo ‘food’, may not, as in (4b).

(4) a. Abaana ba-a-ri-ir-iw-e ibfryo n’ingurube. children they-PRES-eat-APP-PASS-ASP food by.pigs ‘The children were eaten (their) food by the pigs.’

b. *Ibiryo by-a-ri-ir-iw-e abaana n’ingurube. food it-PRES-eat-APP-PASS-ASP children by.pigs

‘The food of the children was eaten by the pigs.’

Likewise, the ascended possessor is incorporated as a pronoun, (5a), but the possessed cannot be, (5b).

92

(5) a.

b.

W.D. Davies I Lingua IO1 (1997) 89-114

Ingurube z-aa-ba-ri-ir-iye ibfryo.

pigs they-PST-them-eat-APP-ASP food ‘The pigs ate their food.’ *Ingurube z-aa-bi-ri-ir-iye Bbaana.

pigs they-PST-it-eat-APP-ASP children ‘The pigs ate the children’s (food).’

The data in (6) show parallel facts for relativization.

(6) a.

b.

abaana [ingurube z-aa-ri-fr-iye ibiryo] children pigs they-PST-eat-APP-ASP food ‘the children whose food the pigs ate’ *ibiryo [ ingurube z-aa-ri-fr-iye abaana]

food pigs they-PST-eat-APP-ASP children ‘the food the pigs ate of the children’

This constellation of facts points to a standard RG analysis of possessor ascension that follows the Relational Succession Law (RSL) - the possessor ascends to bear the relation of its host (a 2 in (2,3)), putting the host en ch6mage.4 This is captured in the representation of (2b) given in (7).

(7)

ri ingurube ibiryo 6b6ana ‘eat’ ‘pig’ ‘food’ ‘children’

The final GRs of possessor and possessed account for the grammatical properties briefly sketched above. The analysis just outlined is the one that I wish to propose here.

This analysis differs from the analysis assumed by Kimenyi (1980) and argued for by Bickford (1986). Bickford explicitly argues for a PA analysis in which the possessor always ascends to 2 regardless of the grammatical relation of its host. Such an analysis violates the RSL.

Of course, under Bickford’s analysis (henceforth the APA- analysis), (2b) would have the representation in (7) since the host is a 2 and APA is always to 2. However, when the PA host is not a 2, the two analyses will make different predictions. Consider the (for now) hypothetical case of APA from a 3 host. Under

4 Host refers to the nominal which in the initial stratum includes both the possessor and the possessed NP. The CR of the host after possessor ascension can be ascertained from the grammatical properties of

the possessed NP.

W.D. Davies I Lingua 101 (1997) 89-114 93

the RSL analysis, the representation of APA from a 3 host would include the partial RN in (8).5

(8)

Under the APA- analysis, the representation would include the partial RN in (9).

(9)

The two analyses clearly make different predictions about the grammatical status of the host of ascension: under the RSL analysis the host is a chomeur, as in (8) while under the APA- analysis the host is a 3, as in (9). On the one hand, the APA- 2 analysis predicts that the possessed nominal will exhibit the object properties discussed above, because it bears the 3-relation and 3s in the language exhibit object properties. On the other hand, the RSL analysis predicts that the possessed nominal will exhibit none of these properties, because it bears the chomeur relation and chbmeurs exhibit none of the object properties.

In Section 6, this structure will be removed from the hypothetical, demonstrating that the RSL analysis makes precisely the correct predictions.

3. Gerdts and Whaley’s account of Kinyarwanda applicatives

As stated above, Gerdts and Whaley (1992) provide the analysis of Kinyarwanda applicatives that most successfully accounts for the complex interactions of these constructions and the grammatical properties of their object NPs. Since their analysis is assumed, it is briefly outlined here.

Gerdts and Whaley focus on four of the ‘applicative’ constructions detailed by Kimenyi (1980): dative (IO), benefactive (1 I), locative (12), and instrumental (13).

( 10) Umuhufingu y-a-haa-ye umukoobwa igitabo.

boy he-PST-give-ASP girl book ‘The boy gave the book to the girl’

5 This is not intended to reflect the final GR of the ascended possessor.

W.D. Davies I Lingua I01 (1997) 89-114 94

(11)

(12)

(13)

Umukoobwa a-ra-som-er-a umuhuOngu igitabo. girl she-PRES-read-APP-ASP boy book ‘The girl read a book for the boy.’ Umugore a-ra-he-er-a-mu ishuuri umuhuttngu ibitabo. woman she-PRES-give-APP-ASP-in school boy books ‘The woman is giving the books to the boy in the school.’ Umugabo a-ra-andik-ii&-a ibartiwa ikaramu. man he-PST-Write-INST-ASP letter pen ‘The man is writing a letter with the pen.’

Gerdts and Whaley analyze the dative as a monostratal construction, the dative in (10) being represented as:

(14)

haa umuhufingu igitabo umuko6bwa ‘give’ ‘boy’ ‘book ‘girl

Kimenyi (1980) demonstrates that both the theme 2 and the goal 3 of ditransitive clauses can passivize, incorporate as pronouns, and relativize.

Gerdts and Whaley also treat the benefactive as a monostratal construction but introduce the innovation of an additional object term relation, benefactive object, which they identify as 4.6 Gerdts and Whaley justify this innovation on the basis of the unusual characteristics of benefactive clauses in Kinyarwanda - beneficiaries appear as bare NPs and the direct object, indirect object, and beneficiary all display the properties diagnostic of term objects (Kimenyi, 1980: 65-66). This is illustrated for passive and pronoun incorporation in (15) and (16) (which correspond to Gerdts and Whaley’s (21) and (22), respectively).

(15) a. Ibiryo bi-ra-he-er-w-a umugabo imbwa n’timugbre. food it-PRES-give-APP-PASS-ASP man dog by.woman ‘The food is given to the dog for the man by the woman.’

b. Imbwa i-ra-he-er-w-a umugabo ibiryo n’timugore.

dog it-PRES-give-APP-PASS-ASP man food by.woman ‘The dog is given food for the man by the woman.’

c. Umugabo a-ra-he-er-w-a imbwa ibiryo n’fimugore. man he-PRES-give-APP-PASS-ASP dog food by.woman ‘The man is given food for to the dog by the woman.’

6 Gerdts and Whaley’s 4 benefactive object should not be confused with Postal’s (1990) 4 sub-object.


( 16) Umugbre a-ra-bi-yi-mu-he-er-a. woman she-PRES-it-it-him-give-APP-ASP ‘The woman is giving it to it for him.’

Gerdts and Whaley represent the benefactive clause in (11) as in (17).’

(17)

Thus in the Gerdts and Whaley analysis the properties of passivization, pronoun incorporation, relativization, and topicalization accrue to term objects. However, as Gerdts and Whaley point out, the three term objects are distinguished in two ways: (i) typically, postverbal word order of bare NPs is 4 3 2 (followed by chomeurs), as in (1 l), and (ii) the order of incorporated pronouns in 2 3 4, as in (16).

Gerdts and Whaley analyze locative applicatives as Lot-3-2 advancement. Thus, ( 12) has the representation in (18).

’ Given the presence of the applicative morpheme -er in the benefactive applicative, one might well

suppose that the structure is not monostratal, as suggest by Gerdts and Whaley, but is actually a union-

type structure in which the benefactive element is introduced in a non-initial stratum. Benefactive union

has been proposed by Davies (1990) for Javanese and by Pelletier (1990) for Telugu. Using the mono-

clausal union representation of Davies and Rosen (1988) a benefactive union in Kinyarwanda would have the structure in (i).

(i)

er C t abo ‘boy’ ‘read ‘girl ‘book

In (i), the applicative morpheme -PT bears the P(redicate) relation in a second P(redicate)-sector in which

it introduces the beneficiary as Gerdts and Whaley’s 4-relation. I know of no evidence in favor of (i)

over (17), and as deciding between the two structures is not crucial to present concerns, consider the matter no further.


(18)

he umug6re ibitabo umuhutmgu ishufiri ‘give’ ‘woman’ ‘books’ ‘boy’ ‘school’

This representation is motivated by the fact that neither the initial 2 nor the initial 3 exhibit object properties. This is demonstrated for passives in (19) where only the locative results in a well-formed passive (19a) - neither the direct object ibitabo ‘books’ (19b) nor the indirect object umuhulin~u ‘boy’ (19~) may be the passive subject.

(19) a.

b.

C.

IshuQri r-i-ra-he-er-w-a-mo umuhuungu ibitabo n’umugore. school it-PREs-give-APP-PAss-Asp-in boy books by.woman

‘(In) school is given the boy the books by the woman.’ *Ibitabo bi-ra-he-er-w-a-mo ishuuri umuhutingu n’umugore.

books they-PRES-give-APP-PASS-ASP-in school boy by.woman

‘The books are given to the boy in school by the woman.’ *Umuhuungu a-ra-he-er-w-a-mo ishuuri ibitabo n’timugore.

boy he-PRES-give-APP-PASS-ASP-in school books by.woman

‘The boy is given the books in school by the woman.’

The lack of object properties provides evidence for the chomage of both ihituho and umuhutingu in (12/18). This chomage is ensured by having the locative advance to 3 and then to 2. It is thus necessary to stipulate in the grammar of Kinyarwanda that advanced locatives must bear the 2 relation or that advancement of locative includes advancement to 3 and subsequent advancement to 2.8

Finally, Gerdts and Whaley depart from earlier analyses of instrumental applicatives, proposing that they are unions rather than advancement structures (as hypoth- esized in Kimenyi, 1980; Perlmutter and Postal, 1983b; Perlmutter, 1989). They propose that the instrumental applicative in (13) has the structure in (20).9

iish umugabo andik I?cdrdmu iblniwa ‘man’ ‘wnte ‘pen’ ‘letter’

’ Below I briefly discuss the need for stipulations in the grammar of Kinyarwanda. 9 Gerdts and Whaley adopt Davies and Rosen’s (1988) proposal for the monoclausal analysis of

‘clause’ union.

W.D. Davies I Lingua IOI (1997) 89-114 91

Among the justifications for treating the instrumental applicative as a union is the fact that the instrumental applicative suffix-iish is identical to the causative morpheme. Thus Gerdts and Whaley take the position that instrumental applicatives are causatives with inanimate causees. Gerdts and Whaley state the instrumental revaluation rule as in (21).

(21) Instrumentals are revalued to the term relation that is the relation immediately below the relation of the lowest ranked nominal on the hierarchy 1 > 2 > 3 > 4.

The motivation for this condition is the fact that both 2s and 3s retain their object properties in instrumental applicatives, as is true of causatives.

It might be objected by some that the Gerdts and Whaley proposal for Kin- yarwanda is overly complex, introduces a new object relation, and contains stipulations regarding the advancement of locatives and the relation borne by the instrument in instrumental union. However, a large number of language-particular stipulations characterizes most previous accounts of Kinyarwanda. Within RG, this includes whether or not particular advancements induce chbmage, restrictions on the GRs certain elements must bear in final and non-final strata, whether particular advancements may put other specified elements en chbmage, and more (cf. Kimenyi, 1980; Perlmutter and Postal, 1983b; Bickford, 1986; Perlmutter, 1989). In non-RG treatments, it includes how many structural cases specific complex verbs may assign, whether or not incorporation is overt or abstract in specific instances, and the use of inherent case (Baker, 1988).

The advantage of the Gerdts and Whaley proposal over other proposals is its ability to account for all of the complex interactions of multiple applicative constructions. Some previous analyses have made no serious attempt to account for all of the phenomena and those that tackle this problem most directly fail in important respects. For these reasons, I adopt Gerdts and Whaley’s analysis and expand upon it by taking seriously the issue of the best analysis of APA and its interactions with other applicative constructions.

4. A constraint on APA

As just reviewed, one characteristic of all detailed work on Kinyarwanda is the inclusion of language-particular constraints on specific constructions. APA is unre- markable in this regard; it is necessary to state the following constraint on ascended alienable possessors:

(22) ,Final Nuclear Term Constraint

An ascension arc in the APA structure must be a nuclear term arc (i.e., with R-sign 1 or 2) in the final stratum.

Bickford (1986) formulates a similar though differently stated constraint which rules ill-formed any structure in which an ascendee is demoted or put en chbmage.

98 W.D. Davies I Linguu 101 (1997) 89-114

Bickford’s constraint has an effect similar to the Final Nuclear Term Constraint in (22) since his analysis stipulates that alienable possessors always ascend to 2; however, as will become apparent later, Bickford’s proposed constraint is too strong.

One of the motivations for this constraint is the fact that in APA structures the ascended possessor always has object properties (as will be demonstrated below). Additionally, APA is not iterative. With multiple alienable possessors, only the high- est possessor may ascend. Thus (23b), the APA counterpart of (23a), is fully grammatical, and has the representation in (24).

(23) a. Umukoobwa a-ra-som-a igitabo cy’utimwaana w’umugore. girl she-PRES-read-ASP book of.child of.woman The girl is reading the book of the child of the woman.’

b. Umukoobwa a-ra-som-er-a umwaana w’Qmug6re igitabo. girl she-PRES-read-APP-ASP child of.woman book ‘The girl is reading the book of the woman’s child.’

(24)

‘read’ umuko6bwa

timwiiana ‘child

umug6re ‘woman’

The representation in (24) predicts that it should be possible for the possessor umugbre ‘woman’ to ascend, since we have seen 2s can host APA and the complex Lmwbana w’dmugdre ‘the child of the woman’ bears the 2-relation. However, as (25) shows, such multiple ascension is ungrammatical.

(25) *Umukoobwa a-ra-som-er-er-a umugore umwaana igitabo. girl she-PRES-read-APP-APP-ASP woman child book

(‘The girl is reading the woman’s child’s book.’

The ungrammaticality of (25) can be accounted for by the Final Nuclear Term Constraint. If umugdre ‘woman’ ascends, the ascension arc headed by Lmwciana w’iimugdre will be put en chdmage and thus will not bear a nuclear term R-sign in the final stratum.


5. APA and locative advancement

Before proceeding to the more interesting and crucial cases for establishing the RSL analysis of APA, I demonstrate the interaction of APA and locative advancement. (26) illustrates a sentence with both a locative and possessor NP.

(26) Umwaana y-a-andits-e izina rye mu gitabo cy’umugabo. child he-PST-write-ASP name of.him in book of.man ‘The child wrote his name in the man’s book.’

The sentence in (27) illustrates the same proposition with both APA and locative advancement.

(27) Umwaana y-a-andik-i-ye-mo umugabo igitabo izina rye. child he-PST-write-APP-ASP-in man book name of-him ‘The child wrote in the man’s book his name.’

Note in (27) that both the locative igifubo ‘book’ and its possessor umugabo ‘man’ occur as bare NPs, that the preposition mo ‘in’ has been suffixed to the predicate, and the applicative suffix -i is also present.

Following Gerdts and Whaley’s proposal for locative advancement and the RSL analysis for APA, (27) has the representation in (28).

tgitabo ‘book

umugabo ‘man’

The representation in (28) asserts that only the possessor umugabo ‘man’ should exhibit object properties since both the initial 2 izid rye ‘his name’ and the possessed NP igitabo ‘book’ are chomeurs. Kimenyi (1980: 112-l 13) shows that this is correct: only the possessor can be passivized (29), incorporated as a pronoun (30), and relativized.

(29) a. Umugabo y-a-andik-i-w-e-mo igitabo izina n’tiumwaana. man he-psr-write-App-PAss-Asp-in book name by.child ‘The man had a name written in his book by the child.’

b. *Igitabo cy-a-andik-i-w-e-mo umugabo izina n’uumwaana. book it-PST-write-APP-PASS-Asp-in man name by.child

‘The book of the man had a name written in it by the child.’

100 W.D. Davies I Lingua 101 (1997) 89-114

c. *Izina ry-a-andik-i-w-e-mo umugabo igitabo n’diimwaana. name it-PST-write-APP-PASS-ASP-in man book by.child

‘The name was written in the man’s book by the child.’ (30) a. Umwaana y-a-mw-aandik-i-ye-mo igitabo izina.

child he-PST-him-write-APP-ASP-in book name ‘The child wrote a name in his book.’

b. *Umwaana y-a-cy-aandik-i-ye-mo umugabo izina. child he-PST-it-Write-APP-ASP-in man name

‘The child wrote in the man’s book a name.’ c. “Umwaana y-a-ry-aandik-i-ye-mo umugabo igitabo.

child he-PST-it-write-APP-ASP-in man book ‘The child wrote it in the man’s book.’

The RSL analysis thus makes the correct predictions with respect to the interaction of APA and locative advancement. However, Bickford’s APA- analysis does so as well. The following sections establish the superiority of the RSL analysis.

6. APA and the inalienable possessor applicative

6.1. The inalienable possessor construction

As stated above, in addition to the APA applicative, there is a construction in which inalienable possessors occur as bare NPs outside of the possessor-possessed construction. This is illustrated in (31b).

(3 1) a. Umugore y-a-shokoj-e umusatsi w’umugabo. woman She-PST-comb-ASP hair of.man ‘The woman combed the hair of the man.’

b. Umugbre y-a-shokoj-e umugabo umusatsi. woman she-PST-comb-ASP man hair ‘The woman combed the man’s hair.’

The inalienable possessor applicative differs from APA in that both the possessor and possessed NPs have the full range of object properties and the absence of an overt applicative affix. Thus, the possessed NP can be passivized (32) incorporated as a pronoun (33), relativized, and topicalized.

(32) Umusatsi w-a-shokoj-w-e umugabo n’ftmugore. hair it-PST-comb-PASS-ASP man by.woman ‘The man’s hair was combed by the woman.’

(33) Umugbre y-a-wu-shokoj-e umugabo. woman she-PST-it-comb-ASP man ‘The woman combed it the man’s (hair).’


Based on the fact that both NPs display term object properties, Bickford analyzes this construction as possessor ascension to 3, and assigns the structure in (34) to (31b).

(34)

‘hair’

Supporting evidence for the final GRs in (34) comes from word order facts. In (3 lb) the ascended possessor, umugabo ‘man’, precedes the possessed NP, umusafsi ‘hair’. This conforms to the general postverbal word order pattern of 4 3 2.

Although PA to 3 has been proposed for some languages (as in Aissen, 1979; Harris, 1976; Davies, 1981), Rosen (1987) has proposed a union analysis for the Tzotzil facts presented in Aissen 1987. Under Rosen’s analysis, the possessor and the possessed nominal form the internal P-sector of a union structure, the possessed nominal bearing both the P-relation and the 2-relation and the possessor bearing the l-relation. This structure, which accounts for a wide variety of effects in Tzotzil, is compatible with the Kinyarwanda facts. The Kinyarwanda inalienable possessor applicative clause in (31b) would have the union structure in (35).‘O

(35) shokoIJ umug6re umusatsi

‘comb ‘hair’ umugabo

‘woman’ ‘man’

In the final stratum in (35), the possessed nominal, umusatsi ‘hair’, is a direct object and the possessor, umugabo ‘man’, is an indirect object; therefore, these nominals bear the same relations in the union structure that they do in the PA to 3 structure, and the fact that both have object properties is accounted for.

I adopt Gerdts and Whaley’s use of the term applicative as a general cover term for constructions in which the valence of a verb appears to be extended, even then there is no overt applicative morpheme as such (as in the inalienable possessor construction).

102 W.D. Davies I Lingua IO1 (1997) 89-114

Importantly, the possessor union analysis can also account for two unrelated aspects of the inalienable possessor applicative construction. First, the construction is apparently limited to host 2s in Kinyarwanda - a fact that automatically follows from the analysis. Second, the inalienable possessor applicative is ungrammatical if there is another 3 in the structure. Thus, (36b) is starred.

(36) a. Umugore a-r-terek-a umuhuungu amagaru y’iimukoobwa. woman she-PRES-show-ASP boy legs of.girl ‘The woman is showing the legs of the girl to the boy.’

b. “Umugore a-r-Derek-a umuhuungu umukoobwa amagaru. woman she-PRES-show-ASP boy girl legs

‘The woman is showing the girl’s legs to the boy.’

Bickford (1986: 137) formulates the 10 ChSmeur Ban, which states that “PA cannot place an IO en chomage”, to account for this restriction. The union analysis makes this stipulation unnecessary. If there is to be a 3 introduced in the union stratum by the predicate of the second P-sector, it makes it impossible to revalue the inner 1 to 3, as required by possessor union. Either of the following situations obtains: (i) the resulting structure would contain two 3’s, in violation of the Strata1 Uniqueness Law, or (ii) one of the nominals cannot bear the 3-relation, which violates either the valence requirements of a verb such as ‘show’ or the requirement of the possessor union construction for 1 to 3 revaluation.

Thus, the alienable and inalienable possessor constructions have different constellations of syntactic characteristics:

(a) APA takes an overt applicative suffix, the possessor can be linked to an NP bearing a variety of object relations (under the appropriate conditions), and the construction is compatible with an indirect object in the same clause.

(b) Inalienable possessor applicatives take no overt suffix, the possessor can only be linked to a direct object NP, and the construction does not permit an indirect object in the same clause.

As argued above, these constellations of facts follow from the proposed structures. The monoclausal raising structure for APA follows the RSL; given the lack of any stipulation on ascension hosts (other than objecthood), independent indirect objects should not be ruled out. The union structure for inalienable possessor automatically accounts for the direct object restriction on the possessed NP and the incompatibil- ity of indirect objects with this structure. Furthermore, the lack of morphology can be explained by virtue of the facts that the possessed NP is also the predicate of the inner P-sector.

Therefore, one of the potential challenges of Kinyarwanda possessor constructions to the RSL is laid aside.


6.2. Evidence for relational succession

Clauses combining APA and the inalienable possessor applicative provide the first test of the competing APA analyses. Kimenyi (1980: 99) shows that both alienable and inalienable possessors may be bare NPs in a single clause, as in (37b).

(37) a. Umugabo y-a-vun-nye ukurugu k’dtimwaana w’umugbre. man he-PST-break-ASP leg of.child of.woman ‘The man broke the leg of the child of the woman.’

b. Umugabo y-a-vun-i-ye umugore umwaana ukurugu. man he-PST-break-APP-ASP woman child leg ‘The man broke the woman’s child’s leg.’

The RSL and APA- analyses provide different structures for the double possessor applicative in (37b). The RSL representation is given in (38) and the APA- analysis in (39).

(38) RSL

(39) APA-

limwAana ‘child’

umug6re ‘woman’

J dmwdana

‘child

umtig6re ‘woman’


In (38), the RSL structure, the inalienable possessor mw&~~a w’limugdre ‘child of woman’ revalues to 3. The alienable possessor umugdre ‘woman’ ascends to 3 and advances to 2 (so as not to violate the Final Nuclear Term Constraint). In (39), the APA- structure, the inalienable possessor revalues to 3, as in the RSL structure, but the alienable possessor ascends directly to 2. Thus, under the RSL account only the alienable possessor is a final object, while under the APA- account both the alienable possessor and the inalienable possessor are final objects.

The facts favor the RSL analysis. First, note that in (37b) the alienable possessor, umugdre ‘woman’, precedes the inalienable possessor, dmwciana ‘child’. Under the RSL analysis, this conforms to the stated word order rule for postverbal bare NPs since the alienable possessor is a 2 and the inalienable possessor is a chameur. Under the APA- analysis, the order of elements is 2 3, which is inconsistent with the expected word order. Second, Kimenyi (1980: 105) states “In the case of double possessor objectivization, . . . the inalienable possessor becomes a ch6meur. . . . The NP ‘woman’ has acquired all the properties of an initial DO . . . ; the NP ‘child’ bears no grammatical relation to the verb . . . “. In particular, only the alienable possessor umughe can be the subject of the passive, (40a). Attempts to passivize the inalienable possessor timwciana result in a different proposition, one in which cimwciunu is taken to be the alienable possessor of umugdre (40b).

(40) a. Umug6re y-a-vun-i-w-e timwiana ukuguru n’0mugabo. woman she-PST-break-APP-PASS-ASP child leg by.man ‘The woman was broken her child’s leg by the man.’

b. Umwaana y-a-vun-i-w-e umug6re ukuguru n’timugabo. child she-PST-break-APP-PASS-ASP woman leg by.man ‘The childi was broken heri woman’s leg by the man.“’ NOT: ‘The child (of the woman) was broken its leg by the man.’

Additionally, only the alienable possessor can be referenced by the incorporated object pronoun, as evident in the data in (41).

(4 1) a. Umugabo y-a-mu-vun-i-ye 6mwBana ukuguru. man he-PST-she-break-APP-ASP child leg ‘The man broke her (woman) child’s leg.’

b. Umugabo y-a-mu-vun-i-ye umug6re ukuguru. man he-PsT-she-break-APP-ASP woman leg ‘The man broke her (child) woman’s leg.’ NOT: ‘The man broke her (woman) child’s leg.’

These data demonstrate that only the RSL analysis is consistent with the facts.

” (40b) can only be interpreted as an inalienable possessor applicative in which umwciana ‘child’ is taken to be the possessor of umughe ‘woman’.


7. APA and the instrumental applicative

APA and the instrumental applicative can co-occur, as (42b) illustrates.

(42) a. UmuhuQngu y-a-andits-e tbaniwa n’iikaramu y’umukoobwa.

boy he-PST-write-ASP letter with.pen of.girl ‘The boy wrote the letter with the girl’s pen.’

b. UmuhuQngu y-a-andik-iish-ir-ije umukoobwa ibaniwa tkkamu.

boy he-PST-Write-INSTR-APP-ASP girl letter Pen ‘The boy wrote the letter with the girl’s pen.’

The RSL representation of (42b) is given in (43), and the APA- representation is given in (44).

(43) RSL

(44) APA-

iis

l&ir6mu ‘pen’

umukodbwa ‘girl’

II&r&mu ‘pen’

umuko6bwa ‘girl

The two analyses make different predictions with respect to the status of the instrument. The RSL account analyzes it as a chomeur, while the APA- account analyzes it as a final 3. In fact, when APA and the instrumental applicative co-occur, only the possessor object is active; the instrument and (here) the initial 2 display no object properties. This is clear in the data from passivization (45) and pronoun incorporation (46), where only the (a)-variants, in which the possessor passivizes or incor- porates, are grammatical.

106 W.D. Davies I Lingua 101 (1997) 89-114

(45) a. Umukoobwa y-a-andik-iish-ir-ij-w-e ikaramu ibaniwa

girl she-PST-Write-INSTR-APP-ASP-PASS-ASP pen letter n’umuhuungu. by.boy ‘The girl had her pen used by the boy to write a letter.’

b. *IbCiwa y-a-andik-iish-ir-ij-w-e umukoobwa Ikaramu

letter she-PST-Write-INSTR-APP-ASP-PASS-ASP girl pen n’0muhu0ngu. by.boy ‘The letter was written with the girl’s pen by the boy.’

c. *Ikaramu y-a-andik-iish-ir-ij-w-e umukobbwa Ibaniwa

Pen She-PST-Write-INSTR-APP-ASP-PASS-ASP girl letter

n’umuhuungu. by.boy ‘The pen of the girl was used to write a letter by the boy.’

(46) a. UmuhuQngu y-a-mw-aandik-iish-ir-ije ibar$Iwa ikaramu.

boy he-PST-her-write-INSTR-APP-ASP letter pen ‘The boy wrote the letter with her pen.’

b. *UmuhuQngu y-a-y-aandik-iish-ir-ije umukoobwa Ikaramu.

boy he-PST-it-write-INSTR-APP-ASP girl Pen ‘The boy used the girl’s pen to write it.’

c. *Umuhuungu y-a-y-aandik-iish-ir-ije umukoobwa Ibaniwa.

boy he-PST-it-write-INSTR-APP-ASP girl letter

‘The boy wrote the letter with the girl’s pen.’

Once again the RSL analysis proves superior to the APA- analysis.

8. APA from locatives

The final test of the two APA analyses is the most theoretically significant. Before considering it fully, it is necessary to briefly discuss the characteristics of locatives in Kinyarwanda.

8.1. Locatives as arguments

Locatives are unusual in Kinyarwanda in that they exhibit properties associated with term objects. Based in part on Kimenyi’s (1980) description and in part on their own work with a consultant, Gerdts and Whaley detail the term like properties that distinguish prepositional locatives from other obliques.

First, unlike other obliques, a prepositional locative may incorporate as a pronoun, as illustrated in (47) (from Gerdts and Whaley).

(47) Ba-ra-ki-ha-shir-a. they-PRES-it-there-put-ASP ‘They put it there.’

W.D. Davies I Lingua IO! (1997) 89-114 107

The fact that the pronoun ha refers to an unadvanced locative is evident from the absence of a locative preposition suffixed to the verbal complex in (47).

Second, as Kimenyi (1980: 129-130) shows, prepositional locatives can be directly passivized.

(48) Kw’iiposita h-ooherej-w-e ibartiwa n’timugabo. to.post.office it-send-PASS-ASP letter by.man ‘To the post office was sent the letter by the man.’

The lack of prepositional suffix on the verb, the presence of the locative in subject position with its preposition, and the presence of the locative agreement prefix h(a)- on the verb indicates that the locative has directly passivized in (48). This parallels the ‘locative inversion’ discussed in detail by Bresnan and Kanerva (1989) for Chichewa.

Third, prepositional locatives participate in what Kimenyi calls object/subject reversal. In this construction the order of object and subject NPs is switched without passive morphology and without the prepositional marking typical for agents of passives.‘* The construction is limited to verbs with a single postverbal object and, according to Kimenyi (1980: 141), renders a passive meaning. (49b) provides an example.

(49) a. UmuhuQngu a-ra-som-a igitabo.

boy he-PRES-read-ASP book ‘The boy is reading a book’.

b. Igitabo cyi-ra-som-a umuhuungu. book it-PRES-read-ASP boy ‘The book is being read by the boy.’

Again, locatives, but not other obliques, participate in this construction,

(50) Kw’iishuQri ha-gii-ye umtiyeeshutiri. to.school it-go-ASP student ‘To school went the student.’

Fourth, locatives, unlike other obliques are topicalized like other term objects. The topicalized element is fronted and the cross-referencing incorporated pronoun occurs in the verbal complex. This is illustrated for a direct object in (51).

(5 1) Igitabo, limwaana a-ra-gi-som-ye. book child he-PRES-it-read-ASP ‘The book, the child has just read it.’

‘* Rhodes (1990) reports that Perlmutter and Rhodes (n.d.) propose a subject-object reversal structure

for Ojibwa. Whaley (1995) presents evidence that there is actually no change of grammatical relation in this construction, which he analyzes as a form of topicalization.

108 W.D. Davies I Lingua IO! (1997) 89-114

When the locative is topicalized, it appears with its preposition and is cross-referenced on the verb by the locative incorporated pronoun.

(52) Ku6 ntebe, Bbaana ba-ra-h-iic-ye. on chair children they-PRES-there-sit-ASP ‘On the chair, the children are sitting on it.’

The distinctive behavior of unadvanced locatives leads Gerdts and Whaley to analyze locatives as arguments and other obliques as adjuncts in Kinyarwanda, an assumption made by Baker (1988). This view is adopted here.

8.2. APA and prepositional locatives

A further term-like characteristic which Gerdts and Whaley cite for the argument status of Kinyarwanda locatives is hosting APA. This is illustrated in (53b).

(53) a.

b.

Umugore a-r-iicar-a ku6 ntebe y’timugabo. woman She-PRES-Sit-ASP on chair of.man ‘The woman is sitting on the chair of the man.’ Umugore a-r-iicar-ir-a umugabo kuu ntebe. woman she-PRES-sit-APP-ASP man on chair ‘The woman is sitting on the man’s chair.’

In (53b) the possessor, umugabo ‘man’, occurs in immediate postverbal position, the applicative suffix -ir occurs in the verbal complex, and the locative, ntebe ‘chair’, take the preposition ku ‘on’. Evidence that the possessor has ascended and is now an object comes from the familiar object diagnostics such as passives, as in (54).

(54) Umugabo a-r-iicar-ir-iw-a kud ntebe n’umugore.

man he-PRES-sit-APP-PASS-ASP on chair by.woman ‘The man’s has his chair sat on by the woman.’

The RSL proposal and the APA- proposal provide different analyses for APA from a prepositional locative host. These differences are evident in the structure each

assigns to (53b).

(55) RSL

ntebe ‘chair’

umugabo ‘man’

W.D. Davies I Lingua IO1 (1997) 89-114 109

(56) APA-

ti ntebe ‘chair’

umugabo ‘man’

The RSL structure in (55) derives from the interaction bf three separate parts of Kin- yarwanda grammar. First, APA follows the RSL; therefore, the possessor ascends to bear the LOC relation out of its LOC host. Second, following the Final Nuclear Term Constraint, the ascended possessor must head a nuclear term arc in the final stratum. Third, when locatives advance, they advance to 3 then to 2; therefore, following APA, the possessor, umugabo ‘man’ advances to 3 prior to advancing to 2.

The APA- structure in (56) is clearly less complex. Since alienable possessors are stipulated as ascending to 2, umugabo simply ascends to bear the 2 relation in the final stratum of the clause.

There is a significant difference between the competing analyses. In the RSL analysis, the possessor locative ntebe ‘chair’ is a chGmeur, while under the APA- analysis, it bears the LOC relation in the final stratum. As shown in Section 8.1, prepositional locatives exhibit term object characteristics. Thus, the APA- analysis predicts that the possessed prepositional locative in APA clauses should exhibit these term object characteristics. Conversely, the RSL analysis predicts that the possessed prepositional locative will exhibit no object properties since it is a ch6meur.

The data consistently conform to the predictions of the RSL analysis: the possessed prepositional locative exhibits no term object properties. First, it cannot be incorporated as a pronoun, as (57) shows.

(57) Umug6re a-ra-h-iicar-ir-a umugabo. woman she-PRES-it-sit-APP-ASP man ‘The woman is sitting on it for the man.’ NOT: ‘The woman is sitting on the man’s (it).’

Notice that (57) is not an ungrammatical Kinyarwanda sentence. However, crucially, it is not an APA clause; it is a benefactive clause. Recall that the benefactive construction takes the same applicative suffix, irler, as APA; the ir suffix in (57) marks the presence of a beneficiary. The appropriate representation of (57) is provided in (58) - a monostratal structure including a locative and a beneficiary.


(58)

iicar ‘sit

umug6re ha ‘woman’ ‘it’

umugabo ‘man’

The impossibility of the APA reading here supports the RSL analysis and contradicts the prediction of the APA- analysis.

It might be objected that the impossibility of the APA reading in (57) does not constitute evidence for the RSL analysis. It might be argued that the impossibility of incorporating the possessed prepositional locative in (57) derives not from its chomage but from unacceptable ambiguity. That is, the benefactive reading is possible and takes precedence, and the need to avoid ambiguity accounts for the lack of an APA reading. This position proves untenable when faced with the systematic ambiguity that exists between APA and benefactive clauses. This is illustrated in (59) and (60).

(59) Umugabo a-ra-som-er-a umugore igitabo. man he-PRES-read-APP-ASP woman book ‘The man is reading a book for the woman.’ ‘The man is reading the woman’s book.’

(60) Umugabo y-iicar-i-ye umugore kuti ntebe. man he-sit-APP-ASP woman on chair ‘The man is sitting on the chair for the woman.’ ‘The man is sitting on the woman’s chair.’

Given the acceptability of ambiguity in (59) and (60), the avoidance of ambiguity explanation of (57) collapses, and (57) stands as evidence for the RSL analysis of APA.

One might argue that the systematic ambiguity in (59-60) and the fact that the benefactive and APA constructions take the same morphology provide evidence against the ascension analysis. In fact, the ambiguity between benefactive and possessive meanings in (59-60) is reminiscent of the ambiguity one finds in some possessive constructions of Chichewa, a Bantu language of Malawi. In recent work, Simango (1995) has argued that some applicative clauses that have been analyzed as possessor ascension are in fact examples of benefactive to 3 to 2 advancement and do not involve possessor ascension at all. Like the Kinyarwanda APA clauses exam- ined here, the applicative affix -er is used and in many instances the clauses can have either a possessive or benefactive interpretation. Whatever the merits of Simango’s proposal for Chichewa, Kinyarwanda is not open to the same kind of analysis. First, homophony of morphemes is not rare in the world’s languages and cannot constitute a priori evidence for the identity of syntactic structure. However, the homophony


does lead to the systematic ambiguity. Second, and more important, as has been demonstrated in various parts of this paper, the benefactive applicatives and the APA clauses have different syntactic properties. As shown above, direct and indirect objects in benefactive clauses are active nominals, displaying all the relevant object properties of passivizability, pronoun incorporation, topicalization, and so on. Con- versely, as we have seen, in APA clauses only the ascended possessor is active.

Further evidence for the ch6mage of the possessed prepositional locative in APA clauses comes from the fact that it can be neither passivized (61) nor topicalized

(62).

(61) Ku15 ntebe ha-r-iicar-ir-iw-a umugabo n’umugore. on chair it-PRES-sit-APP-PASS-ASP man by.woman ‘On the chair is sat for the man by the woman.’ NOT: ‘On the man’s chair is sat by the woman.’

(62) Kuli ntebe, umugore a-ra-h-iicar-ir-a umugabo. on chair woman she-PRES-it-sit-APP-ASP man ‘On the chair, the woman is sitting (on it) for the man.’ NOT: ‘On the man’s chair, the woman is sitting (on it).’

The fact that the possessed prepositional locative consistently behaves as a chomeur provides empirical support for the RSL analysis of APA and provides yet more evidence against the APA- analysis.

9. Conclusion

Granting the correctness of the analysis sketched above, the Kinyarwanda alienable possessor ascension facts have implications for two proposed laws of Relational Grammar and the typology of raising constructions.

First, the Oblique Law (Perlmutter and Postal, 1983b) as originally formulated rules out the possibility of any element first bearing an oblique relation in a noninitial stratum, as is clear in (63).

(63) Oblique Law (Perlmutter and Postal, 1983b: 90) We say that B is a Ci arc, if B is an arc one of whose coordinates is Ci,, Then: If A is an oblique arc, A is a ci arc.

The Oblique Law requires that any element that bears an oblique relation in a clause do so in the initial stratum of that clause.

Possessor ascension from a locative, as proposed here, violates this formulation of the Oblique Law in an obvious way. In the subnetwork in (64), the element a bears the oblique LOC relation for the first time in stratum Ci+l, a noninitial stratum.


(64) b

e

The Kinyarwanda facts provide empirical justification for a reformulation of the Oblique Law arrived at independently by Joseph (1982) and Davies (1985), stated in

(65).

(65) Oblique Law (Davies, 1985) If an RN contains an arc of the form [Obl, (a,b) < ciCz], then the RN contains no arc of the form [GR, (a,b) < c,Ci_I].

The intent of (65) is that an element may first bear an oblique relation in a nonitial stratum so long as it is the first relation that that element bears in a particular clause; that is, if A first bears an oblique relation to B in stratum ci, it bears no relation to B in the previous stratum, ci_,.

The subnetwork in (64) is consistent with the formulation in (65). a bears no relation to clause node b until the ci+, stratum. Therefore, the fact that a heads an Obl arc

in ci+l, which is not an initial stratum, does not violate the Oblique Law in (65). The fact is that oblique arcs not originating in an initial stratum can only arise through ascension and union, thus advancement and demotion to oblique relations is still ruled out - prohibiting such advancement and demotion was the intent of the origi- nal Oblique Law (Perlmutter and Postal, 1983b: 91).

The Kinyarwanda facts also have implications for the Host Limitation Law, stated informally in (66).

(66) Host Limitation Law (Perlmutter and Postal, 1983a: 53) Only a term of a grammatical relation can be the host of an ascension.

The intent of this law is that NPs may ascend only from elements that bear the 1, 2, or 3 relations (the term relations). Clearly, if the above analysis is correct, ascension from a locative provides counterevidence to this law. However, minor modification brings the Kinyarwanda data into conformity with the Host Limitation Law. There are two options here. First, we can take ‘term’ to be parameterized within a given language, so that in Kinyarwanda LOC is taken to be a term relation. Second, we can modify the Host Limitation Law slightly so that rather than restricting hosts of ascension to terms, hosts of ascensions must be arguments of the predicate. In either case, the Kinyarwanda facts are consistent with the Host Limitation Law.

Finally, we must consider the question of typology. The fact that Kinyarwanda APA can occur from hosts that bear the 2 relation, the 3 relation, and the LOC rela-

W.D. Davies I Lingua I01 (1997) 89-114 113

tion challenges any attempt to restrict ascension hosts to a smaller set of GRs. For example, Baker (1988) proposes that possessor ascension is a kind of N reanalysis, an abstract noun incorporation, and that since noun incorporation is limited to direct objects, possessor ascension is likewise limited. Evidence that indirect objects and locatives can host APA in Kinyarwanda casts doubt on this restriction (as does apparent possessor ascension from unergative subjects in Choctaw (Davies, 1981) and Chickasaw (Carden et al., 1982)). Additionally, given evidence for the ‘non- term’ status of 3s and LOCs in clauses containing APA, any typology that restricts all raising to 2 is empirically inadequate. Kinyarwanda alienable possessor ascension provides data important to the typology of raising constructions.

References

Aissen, J., 1979. Possessor ascension in Tzotzil. In: L. Martin (ed.), Papers in Mayan linguistics. Colum- bia, MO: Lucas Bros.

Aissen, J., 1987. Tzotzil clause structure. Dordrecht: Reidel. Baker, M., 1988. Incorporation. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Bickford, J., 1986. Possessor ascension in Kinyarwanda. CLS 22, 129-143. Bresnan, J. and J. Kanerva, 1989. Locative inversion in Chichewa: A case study of factorization in

grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 20, l-50. Bresnan, J. and L. Moshi, 1990. Object asymmetries in comparative Bantu syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 21,

147-186. Carden, G., L. Gordon and P. Munro, 1982. Raising rules and the Projection Principle. Presented at the

annual meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, San Diego. Davies, W., 1981. Possessor ascension in Choctaw. NELS 11, 38-57. Davies, W., 1985. A new formulation of the Oblique Law. Manuscript, University of Iowa. Davies, W., 1986. Choctaw verb agreement and universal grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel. Davies, W., 1990. Chomeur, control, and union in Javanese. Presented at the First Annual Meeting of the

Formal Linguistic Society of Midamerica, University of Wisconsin, Madison. Davies, W. and C. Rosen, 1988. Unions as multi-predicate clauses. Language 64, 52-88. Dryer, M., 1983. Indirect objects in Kinyarwanda revisited. In: D. Perlmutter (ed.), Studies in Relational

Grammar 1. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Gary, J. and E. Keenan, 1977. On collapsing grammatical relations in universal grammar. In: P. Cole,

J. Sadock (eds.), Syntax and semantics, Vol. 8: Grammatical relations. New York: Academic Press. Gerdts, D. and L. Whaley, 1991. Locatives vs. instrumentals in Kinyarwanda. BLS 17s: Special session

on African languages. Gerdts, D. and L. Whaley, 1992. Kinyarwanda applicatives and some universal laws. Working papers in

linguistics, Simon Fraser University. Harris, A., 1976. Grammatical relations in Modem Georgian. Ph.D.-dissertation, Harvard University. Herrarte, B., 1995. Causatives, raising, and union: A new Relational Grammar analysis of causatives.

Ph.D.-dissertation, University of Iowa. Joseph, B., 1982. A note on the Oblique Law. Ohio State University working papers in linguistics 26,

93-101. Kimenyi, A., 1980. A Relational Grammar of Kinyarwanda. University of California Publications in

Linguistics 91. Berkeley. Pelletier, R., 1990. Light verbs in Telugu: A clause union analysis. In: K. Dziwirek, P. Farrell, E.

Mejias-Bikandi (eds.), Grammatical relations: A cross-theoretical perspective. Stanford, CA: CSLI. Perlmutter, D., 1989. Demotions to object, the Successor Demotion Ban, and the class of careers. Man-

uscript, University of California, San Diego. Perlmutter, D. and P. Postal, 1983a. The Relational Succession Law. In: D. Perlmutter (ed.), Studies in

Relational Grammar. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.


Perlmutter, D. and P. Postal, 1983b. Some proposed laws of basic clause structure. In: D. Perlmutter (ed.), Studies in Relational Grammar. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Perlmutter, D. and P. Postal, 1984. Impersonal passives and some relational laws. In: D. Perlmutter, C. Rosen (eds.), Studies in Relational Grammar 2. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Perlmutter, D. and R. Rhodes, nd.. Thematic-syntactic alignments in Ojibwa: Evidence for subject- object reversal.

Postal, P., 1990. French indirect object demotion. In: P. Postal, B. Joseph (eds.), Studies in Relational Grammar 3. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Rhodes, R., 1990. Ojibwa secondary objects. In: K. Dziwirek, P. Farrell, E. Mejias-Bikandi (eds.), Grammatical relations: A cross-theoretical perspective. Stanford, CA: CSLI.

Richards, N., 1994. Adpositions and the English pseudo-passive. Manuscript, Cornell University. Rosen, C., 1987. Possessors and the internal structure of nominals. Presented at the 3rd Biennial Con-

ference on Relational Grammar and Grammatical Relations, University of Iowa. Simango, S., 1995. True vs. pseudo possessor ascension in Chichewa. Manuscript, University of South

Carolina. Whaley, L., 1995. Kinyarwanda topics and subject-object reversal. Presented at the annual meeting of

the Eastern States Conference on Linguistics. Dartmouth College.

Relational Succession in Kinyarwanda Possessor Ascension

Documents

Transcript of Relational Succession in Kinyarwanda Possessor Ascension