Applicatives

One possibility is that there is a dedicated morpheme which spells out the shells. Thus, consider two examples from Chichewa, a Bantu language dis-cussed in Baker (1988). Just like in Mokilese cited above, the instrument in Chichewa can be preceded by an instrumental preposition, ndi in (34a).

In (34b), a phrase which is interpreted as an instrument occurs without this preposition, an instance of Peeling in the approach pursued here.

(34) a. asilikali

‘The soldiers stabbed the elephants with spears.’

b. asilikali

‘The soldiers stabbed the elephants with spears.’ (Chichewa, Baker 1988)

20The class of morphemes thus delimited as potential candidates are functional prepositions and postpositions, see§1.8.1 and§2.6.2 for examples.

The disappearance of the instrumental preposition is accompanied by the ap-pearance of the so-called applicative markerir on the verb, glossed as ‘with’ by Baker. Similarly to Baker’s incorporation theory, the Peeling theory analyzes the marker on the verb as the spell out of features of the oblique preposition.

Unlike in Baker’s theory, however, the features do not move from the KP* to the verb themselves (head-movement), but they are rather stranded by the sub-extraction of the KP* mikondo in (35b). The reason why they appear glued on the verb is that verb movement is phrasal, and carries the stranded features along. (Such a theory has been worked out in detail by Muriungi (2008:ch.6) for a different Bantu language, Kiitharaka. Muriungi proposes that the stranded shells in fact undergo a phrasal remnant movement in Ki-itharaka.)

What is now in the focus is the distinction between the form of the applica-tive in (34b) and the functional preposition in (34a). To get a more tangible picture of the situation, let me schematically depict what the derivation of (34b) looks like. As highlighted above, instruments are base-generated in the instrumental, and when they appear bare, this is the result of Peeling. I show this in (35):²¹

21The analysis presupposes that the applied object ends up in the accusative, which leads to the question what spells out the features A and B on the KP* ‘spears.’ As in English, nominative and accusative are unmarked in Bantu, and the following options thus come into play. (i) A and B are spelled out as a part of the class prefix; (ii) A and B are spelled out as a zero marker; (iii) A and B are spelled out as a part of the final vowel.

I leave this open here, noting that (i) appears to be a promising option in view of certain facts discussed in Taraldsen (2009c:ex.25-34). For instance, some noun classes (in at least some Bantu languages) change the shape of the class prefix depending on the morphosyntactic environment; the shape of the prefix is distinct in the vocative, and in the scope of negation. The latter fact recalls the genitive of negation in some Slavic languages.

(35)

Acc

B Nom

A DP

spears

S-Acc ...

InsP

E DatP

D GenP

C AccP

spears VP

...

Now assuming that the Chichewa preposition ndi ‘with’ spells out all of the instrumental features, as shown in (36a), it cannot spell out the stranded features in (35): first, the stranded features do not form a sub-constituent of the entry, and second, the Anchor condition requires that the feature A is matched, which is impossible to achieve. Instead, Chichewa must make use of the applicative morpheme ir, the entry of which is given in (36b). As is apparent, the applicative morpheme is a perfect match for the stranded features.

(36) a. Case preposition: /ndi/⇔ InsP

E DatP

D GenP

C AccP

B NomP

A b. Applicative marker /ir/⇔ InsP

E DatP

D GenP C

Thus, in the present theory, the difference between case morphemes and ap-plicatives is that apap-plicatives have a distinct ‘bottom.’²²

This account leads to a prediction. If it is true that applicatives spell out the same features as case markers or functional prepositions, then we predict that applicative syncretism is governed by the same laws as the syncretism of case markers; in other words, applicative syncretism targets contiguous regions in the Case sequence. Chichewa instantiates one such syncretism, namely the syncretism between instrumental and dative. I show the data below:

(37) a. Ndi-na-tumiz-a

‘I sent a calabash of beer to the chief.’

b. Ndi-na-tumiz-ir-a

‘I sent the chief a calabash of beer.’ (Chichewa, Baker 1988) In (37a), the recipient KP*mfunu is introduced by the dative prepositionkwa (distinct from the instrumental ndi). In (37b), the KP* strands the oblique case shells, and surfaces as a bare KP*. This is accompanied by the emergence of the applicative ir on the verb, i.e., the same morpheme which introduces the instrumental applicative.

The relevant Peeling step is shown below:

(38)

With the derivation in place, we see that the applicative morphemeir, whose entry I repeat in (39b), can spell out the DatP left behind by sub-extraction of the KP*. However, the functional preposition kwa cannot do that, since it does not match the DatP in (38).

22This is different from Baker’s theory, where both the applicative and the prepo-sition spell out the same head. The reasons for the distinct shapes of the applicative and the preposition are thus clearer under the present account.

(39) a. Case preposition: /kwa/ ⇔ DatP

D GenP

C AccP

B NomP

A b. Applicative marker /ir/⇔ InsP

E DatP

D GenP C

Generalizing beyond Chichewa, the present system predicts that syncretisms of various applicative constructions respect the Universal Contiguity in the same way as case. That is because applicatives spell out the same ingredients as case markers, a possibility available under Peeling. I spell out the prediction in (40):

(40) Universal Contiguity (Applicatives):

a. Only adjacent applicative markers show systematic syncretism in the Case sequence.

b. The Case sequence: nom – acc – gen – dat – ins – com While I am not aware of any counterexamples, my knowledge of the applicative data at this point is too limited to make general conclusions.²³ If the prediction is borne out, we get an interesting confirmation of the approach to syncretism developed here, as well as for the Peeling approach.