Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Baker (1988) Natural Language
Baker (1988) Natural Language
Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Natural Language & Linguistic
Theory.
http://www.jstor.org
MARK BAKER
THETA
THEORY
OF
APPLICATIVES
1. INTRODUCTION:
INSTRUMENTAL
IN CHICHEWA*
BENEFACTIVE AND
APPLICATIVES
Mavuto a- na-
umb -a
mtsuko.
Mavuto a- na-
umb -ir
-a
mfumu mtsuko.
waterpot
* This paper could not have been written without Sam Mchombo,who has generously
sharedboth his native-speakerintuitionsand his linguistideas about Chichewasyntaxwith
me. My highest thanks go to him; he is not to be held responsiblefor my (mis?)interpretationsof what he has said. During the period when the researchfor this paper was
done, Mchombowas supportedby a grant from the System DevelopmentFoundationto
Kenneth Hale. In addition, I have benefited from comments and input from Noam
Chomsky, Ken Hale, Kyle Johnson, Richard Larson, Luigi Rizzi, Lisa Travis, and
audiencesat Brandeis,MIT, UC-Irvine,and the Universitedu Quebec 'aMontreal,as well
as the entirelinguisticscommunitiesof MIT and McGillUniversity.Finally,this articlehas
been improvedby the carefulattentionof the editorsand severalanonymousreviewersfor
NLLT.
354
MARK
(3)
BAKER
-a mpeni mtsuko.
umb -ir
Mavuto a- naMavuto SP PAST mold APPL ASP knife waterpot
(i)a.
b.
THE SYNTAX
(4)a.
OF APPLICATIVES
IN CHICHEWA
355
mtsuko (ana).
wa- umb -ir
-a
Mavuto a- naMavuto SP PAST OP mold APPL ASP waterpotchildren
Mavuto molded the waterpotfor them (the children).
b.
*Mavutoa- na-a
ana
(mtsuko).
u- umb -ir
Mavuto SP PAST OP mold APPL ASP children waterpot
-a
Mavuto a- na- i- umb -ir
mpeni (mitsuko).
Mavuto SP PAST OP mold APPL ASP knife waterpots
356
MARK
(8)a.
BAKER
b.
THE SYNTAX
OF APPLICATIVES
357
IN CHICHEWA
THETA
THEORETIC
ASYMMETRY
(9)a.
b.
PP
VP
NP
pat
obj
VP
P
\
NP
ben
obj
PP
VP
NP
\S,tt
obj
NP
ist
358
MARK
BAKER
VP
V + P NP
ben
obj
b.
NP
pat
VP
V + P NP
gat
obj
NP
instr
In this way, the thematic difference between benefactives and instruments projects into a difference in the syntax of the two types of
applicatives.
The basic generalizationderived from Marantz'sassumptionsis that in
benefactive constructionsthe applied object will have distinctive direct
object properties,whereas in instrumentalconstructionsthe basic object
will have such properties.5 The empirical basis of this claim comes
primarilyfrom the Niger-Congo language Fula: Sylla (1979) states that
in this language when a benefactive applicative verb is passivized, the
benefactive NP becomes the subject; when an instrumentalapplicative
verb is passivized,the patient NP becomes the subject.
Marantz'sempirical generalizationdoes not extend to the Chichewa
5 In fact, Marantz(1984, pp. 248-51) also allows for the possibilitythat instrumental
prepositionscan assignthematicroles in some languages,makingthem essentiallyidentical
to benefactives.In such languages,the instrumentratherthan the basic object will be the
direct object of the verb. Thus, the Chichewa instrumentscould be analyzedas being
ambiguousbetweenthese two possibilities,therebycapturingthe fact thateitherNP can act
like the object of the verb in essentiallyfree variation.I will develop a strongerposition,in
which there is no ambiguityin how thematicroles are assigned.
THE
OF APPLICATIVES
SYNTAX
IN CHICHEWA
359
PP
P
6
VP
NP
)n
ben
NP
iP)nP
instr
More precisely,the fact that the verb can agree with the instrumentis surprisinggiven
that it cannotagree with the basic object in a benefactiveapplicative:see (4b). If both (4b)
and (5a) were grammatical,one could simplysay that verbs in the languagecan have two
objects - i.e. two NPs which are assigned accusative Case. Then there would be few
differencesbetweenthe two NPs in eitherapplicativeconstruction,whichis consistentwith
Marantz'sassumptions.This state of affairsis found in some other Bantulanguages,such as
Kinyarwanda(Kimenyi1980; Marantz1984; Baker 1985), but not in Chichewa.
360
MARK
BAKER
I will call the relationshipbetween the circled NP and the verb in (1la)
one of INDIRECT 0-ROLE ASSIGNMENT, since the verb in fact 0-marksthe
PP and not the NP itself; the analogous relationshipin (1lb) I will call
DIRECT 0-ROLE ASSIGNMENT. Presumablythese two structures(together
with the familiarcase of PP adjuncts,in which the P assigns a 0-role to
the NP but receives none from the verb) exhaustthe possible D-structure
configurationsthat can correspondto S-structurePPs, given that the NP
must receive a 0-role by the Theta Criterionof Chomsky (1981). I will
show that the two must be distinguished,and that benefactives (and
goals; cf. note 3) are alwaysassociatedwith (lla), while instrumentsare
associatedwith (1lb).7
The mechanismsfor combiningthe verb and the appliedaffixare also
different from those assumed by Marantz. Rather than employing a
structure-destroyingprocess of merger, which combines the projections
of the merged elements, I will assume that combinationis the result of
INCORPORATION as in Baker (1985, 1988). Incorporationin this sense is
simply an instance of the generalizedtransformationMove a (Chomsky
1981, 1986a) that moves a word ratherthan a whole phrase (i.e. an X?
insteadof an Xm"), adjoiningit to anotherword. As with other instances
of Move a, the Projection Principle of Chomsky (1981) requires that
moved Xos leave tracesbehindwhen necessaryto preservethe categorial
expressionof argumentrelationships.Where and when such an X? can
move will then be restricted,because any trace it leaves behind must be
PROPERLY GOVERNED, in accordancewith the EMPTY CATEGORY PRINCIPLE (ECP) of Chomsky (1981) and subsequent work. For concreteness, I assume the following formulationsof these notions:
(12)
(ECP)
Every trace B must be governed by some element A, where
either
i. A is a lexical category that assigns B a 8-role, or
ii. A is coindexed with B by movement.
(13)
THE SYNTAX
(13)
OF APPLICATIVES
IN CHICHEWA
361
362
MARK
BAKER
PP, and thus must have a PP sister at every syntacticlevel. This tracewill
be properlygoverned by its antecedent,since the configurationdescribed
in (14) is satisfied.9In contrast, if the P in (llb) is moved, it need not
leave a trace, since it is not part of the lexically determined thematic
structureof the clause; here the verb 0-marksan NP rather than a PP,
and the P does not assign a thematicrole of its own. Thus, the Projection
Principleand the Theta Criterionguaranteethat the structuraldifference
between instrumentaland benefactive phrases shown in (11) will be
preservedat S-structureand LF, as follows:
(15)a.
BENEFACTIVE
b.
INSTRUMENTAL
VP
VP
PP
V+Pi
tj
NP
pat
V + P NP NP
instr pat
NP
ben
The VP in (15b) contains two NPs which are directly 0-markedby the
verb, whereas the one in (15a) has only one NP which is directly
0-marked. Thus, there is a technical sense in which instrumentalconstructions have two objects while benefactive constructionshave only
one: the relevant sense of object is a structuraland ultimatelya Thetatheoretic one. This suggests that this system is well suited to derive the
observed syntactic differences between the two Chichewa applicatives
described in section 1. Before showing in detail how this can be done,
however,we provide independentempiricalevidence for the assumptions
about 0-role assignmentlaid out in (11) and (15).
2.3. Evidence from Noun Incorporation
THE SYNTAX
OF APPLICATIVES
IN CHICHEWA
363
type of nominal can incorporate directly into the verb in some set of
languages. It then follows that (at least for those languages) such
nominalsare direct argumentsof the verb. Supposethat, in contrast,the
head of anothertype of nominaldoes not incorporateinto the verb in any
language. It would then be reasonableto assumethat this second type of
nominal is not directly 0-markedby the verb; its failure to incorporate
would then follow from knownprinciples.
With this in mind, I observe that there is an asymmetrybetween
instrumentsand benefactives/goalswith respect to noun incorporationin
polysyntheticlanguages. Instrumentsdo incorporatein some such languages, just like direct objects. The following data illustratethis in the
Austronesianlanguage Niuean, and in Nahuatl:
NIUEAN: (Seiter 1980)
(16)
kai tiimau a mautolu
a. Ne
fa
aki e
tau lima.
Ne
fa
mautolu.
with knife
ABS I
to
PL person
tutala tagata a
PAST talk
au (ke he).
person ABS I
to
364
MARK
(19)
a.
BAKER
Benefactive and goal arguments are conspicuously absent from this list of
possible incorporated elements. The same researcher states explicitly that
benefactive/goal incorporation is impossible in Tuscarora (Iroquoian;
(Mithun) Williams 1976, p. 56). Thus, I conclude that instrumental
incorporation is not uncommon,10 whereas benefactive incorporation
and goal incorporation do not exist in natural language.
This difference in incorporation possibilities between superficially
similar phrases supports the hypothesis about theta marking stated in
(11): instruments incorporate, showing that they receive their thematic
roles directly from the verb; benefactives do not incorporate because the
projection of the P required for 0-role assignment blocks movement.
Example (19) is particularly instructive in this regard, inasmuch as the
benefactive phrase looks superficially like a direct object: it appears
without adposition or Case marking and it triggers object agreement on
the verb. Nevertheless incorporation is still impossible. Our fundamental
10 A stronger statement- that instrumentscan incorporatein every language in which
noun incorporationis productive- is false; cf. SouthernTiwa (Allen, Gardiner,and Frantz
1984). I have no explanationfor this, but speculate that the reason may be due to Case
theory,along the lines of Baker(1988, sec. 3.4.4). A less attractivealternativewouldbe to
parameterize0-role assignmentto instruments;see note 5 and section 6.2.
THE SYNTAX
OF APPLICATIVES
IN CHICHEWA
365
*Tahliawra1-wia -0i
-ban [pp ti[Np tiJ].
lsS:AIA woman give APPL PAST
The moved N hli"wr 'woman'does not govern its trace, since there are
two maximalprojections (PP and NP) that contain the trace but not the
moved N. Hence, the structureis ruled out by the ECP. Our assumptions
about Theta theory guarantee that this will always be the case with
benefactives, unlike instruments.
Note that this difference in incorporationis not immediatelyexplained
by Marantz'sapproach.For him, instrumentsare like subjectsratherthan
like objects inasmuchas they are sisters of the VP rather than the V.
Structuralsubjects never incorporate(Baker 1988), and it is not obvious
why instrumentsshould be different.On the other hand, benefactivesare
structurallyidentical to direct objects after merger (cf. (lOa)), and it is
unclear why they do not incorporate like direct objects.t Thus, the
pattern of polysyntheticphenomena supports the revision of Marantz's
hypothesis over the original, as well as over various other imaginable
possibilities.12
3.
CASE
ASSIGNMENT
AND
OBJECT
PREFIXES
IN APPLICATIVES
366
MARK
BAKER
THE SYNTAX
OF APPLICATIVES
IN CHICHEWA
367
Here, the subject of the infinitive is governed but not 0-markedby the
head in question. Example (22a) is thus grammaticalbecause the V
assignsstructural(accusative)Case, but (22b) is blocked: the N can only
assign inherent Case (here genitive, realized as the preposition of), and
the embeddedsubject does not meet the thematic condition on inherent
Case assignment. Significantly,even verbs cannot exceptionally Casemarka second NP, as shown in (23b):
(23)a. I told John [NPthe answerto question three].
b. *1 told John [s [NPMary]to have won the prize].
(cf. I told John that Maryhas won the prize.)
Here the verb's structuralCase is assigned (necessarily)to the adjacent
object John, leaving only inherent Case available. This inherent Case
can be assigned to an NP argumentof the verb (23a), but it cannot be
assigned to an NP which is not an argumentof the verb, as in (23b).
Example (23b) is thus ruled out parallel to (22b), confirmingthe hypothesis that ditransitiveverbs assign an inherentCase.
Now considerChichewabenefactive applicatives.These are associated
with the D-structurein (1la) and the S-structurein (15a). At S-structure,
the trace of the prepositiongoverns the applied object, but traces have
no lexical properties.In particular,they have no Case features and thus
cannot assign Case to the applied object."4 Furthermore,this applied
object is not 0-marked by the verb at D-structure; hence it cannot
receive inherent Case from the verb either. Therefore, benefactive
applicative constructions will only be possible if the benefactive NP
receives the verb's structuralCase. StructuralCase assignmentto this NP
is legitimate,since the only requirementis that the verb govern the NP at
S-structure;governmentholds because only one maximalprojection(PP)
contains the NP and not the V, and this category is 0-markedby V. 15 It
14 The traces of verbs which incorporateinto INFL do appear to assign Case to their
complements(cf. Chomsky1986a; Travis 1984). Baker (1985, 1988) shows that this is the
exception (possiblyrelatedto the nonlexicalnatureof INFL),ratherthan the generalrule.
Baker also shows that traces of moved XOscannot transmitCase from the Xo itself to an
NP governedby the trace.These facts can be relatedto a PF conditionon Case assignment
relationships.
15 This accountmustbe complicatedslightlyif Chomsky(1986a, p. 42) is correctin adding
a.MINIMALITY
CONDITION
tp a statementof governmentsuch as that given in (13). The
idea of this condition is that a given head prevents its complements from being governed by
any other head. If so, a verb does not usually govern the object of a preposition. Structure
(24) is potentially an instance of this configuration, with the preposition trace blocking the
368
MARK
BAKER
then follows that the basic object in this constructionmust receive the
inherentCase. This is permittedbecause the basic object is 0-markedby
the verb at D-structure. Thus, the S-structure for benefactive applicatives is (24), with Case relationshipsas indicated:
(24)
S
NP
VP
Mavuto
NP
PP
Pj
umb
-ir
t,
NP
mfumu mtsuko
THE
SYNTAX
369
IN CHICHEWA
OF APPLICATIVES
(25)a.
S
NP
VP
Mavuto
NP
NP
umb
ir
mpeni
mtsuko
structural
nherent
OR
b.
S
VP
NP
Mavuto
NP
NP
umb
ir
mpeni
mtsuko
/------inherent
stuctural
370
MARK
BAKER
-a
Anyani a- na- kwapul-ir
ndodo agalu.
baboonsSP PAST whip APPL ASP sticks dogs
In benefactive applicatives, however, the order is fixed, the applied
object necessarilycoming before the basic object:
-a
atsikanamauta
(28)a. Anyani a- ku- pang -ir
baboonsSP PRES make APPL ASP girls
bows
The baboons are makingbows for the girls.
b.
THE SYNTAX
OF APPLICATIVES
IN CHICHEWA
371
-a
ana
(29)b. *Ndi- na- i- phik -ir
(usima).
1sS PAST OP cook APPL ASP childrencommush
I cooked it (cornmush)for the children.
zi- bay -ir
-a
(30)a. Asilikaria- nasoldiers SP PAST OP stab APPL ASP
mikondo (njovu).
spears elephants
The soldiersstabbed them (the elephants)with spears.
b.
Following Borer (1984, pp. 36-37) and related GB work, the object
prefixes, like other clitics, can be taken to be spell-outs of the Caseassigning features of the verbs that they are attached to. More
specifically,it is naturalto stipulate that they are manifestationsof the
structuralCase features of the verb, rather than of the inherent Case
features, just as lo 'him' and la 'her' are manifestationsof accusative
Case but not dative Case in Spanish.Now, given that the structuralCase
of the verb is used up by the object prefixin (29) and (30), the sentences
will only be grammaticalif the remainingNP can receive inherentCase
from the verb. We have just seen that in instrumentalapplicativesthe
verb can assigninherentCase to either NP; thereforeboth possibilitiesin
(30) are acceptable. In contrast, the applied object in benefactive constructions cannot get inherent Case because it is 0-marked by a preposition and not the verb; hence (29b) is ungrammatical.This difference
in object prefixpossibilitiesis thus a second visible type of evidence that
Case assignmentis freer in instrumentalapplicativesthan in benefactive
applicatives, confirming the Theta-theoretic distinction between benefactives and instrumentalsproposedin section 2.
Before leaving this section, it is desirable to clarify the assumptions
about the role of prepositionalelements in instrumentalconstructions.
The basic hypothesis is that they are not 0-role assigners. The other
major reason for having a P appear in the structure in GovernmentBinding Theory is to satisfy Case Theory requirements.Specifically,Ps
can have the following functions:
372
(31)
MARK
BAKER
16 It is not clear why no P is needed to realize inherent Case in English dative shift
sentences like (21). Unlike the Chichewa applicatives,the English constructionis only
possiblewith a semanticallyrestrictedclass of predicates;these restrictionsmay make the P
dispensibleat PF. Indeed, even in Chichewa the applied affix does not appear with a
handfulof canonicaldative shift verbs, such as -pats- 'give'.
Probablyrelated is the problem, raised by an NLLT reviewer, of why English verbs
cannot assign inherentCase to the patient NP in instrumentalconstructions,making the
prepositionwithoptional:
(i)
Here one might say that (for some reason) in English there are no canonicalinstrument
verbs whose lexical semanticsmake the realizationof inherentCase by a P unnecessary,
even though there are canonicaldative verbs. This gap is probablynot accidental,since
Chichewaalso lacks verbs which (parallelto -pats-) allow the appliedaffixto be omitted
when an instrumentNP appears. As to why with cannot realize Case assignmentto a
figurineinsteadof to theputtyknifein (i), see note 17.
17 There is a furtherdifferencebetweenndi and -ir beyondthe fact that one is an affix:ndi
but not -ir is limitedto realizinginherentCase on the instrumentNP. Thus, (i) is ungrammatical:
THE SYNTAX
(32)a.
OF APPLICATIVES
IN CHICHEWA
373
Mavuto
c.
Mavuto [a-na-umb-ir-a]mtsukompeni
APPL
Mavuto molded the waterpotwith a knife.
In this regard,ndi is like English with. This differenceI attributeto the well-knownfact
that prepositionsvary in how broador narrowa rangeof thematicroles they are consistent
with, some languagesmakingmore lexical distinctionsthan others. This is independentof
whetherthe P appearswith the N or on the V; in Eskimo,instrumentalCase can appearon
patientsas well as on instruments,unlikendi.
The Fula data analyzedin Marantz(1982, 1984) may be taken as the conversesituation.
Fula is unlike Chichewa in that it has a distinct instrumentalapplied morpheme,which
appearsonly in instrumentalconstructions.Supposethat this morphemeis like Chichewa
ndi rather than Chichewa -ir; it can realize the assignment of inherent Case to an
instrumentbut not to a patient. The effect will be that with respect to grammatical
processesinvolvingstructuralCase, such as passive,the patientand not the instrumentwill
act like a canonicalobject - which is true.This showshow the currenttheorycan subsume
the data that motivatedMarantz'stheory.
18 Baker (1985, 1988) suggests an alternativeto the analysisin this section, in which there
is no inherentCase and NPs pass the Case Filterwhen theirheadsincorporateinto the verb
at LF. The theoryof incorporationimpliesthat thereare two waysin which this can happen
374
MARK BAKER
Ndi- nanen -a
kuti Mavuto a- nathyol -er
lsS PAST say ASP that MavutoSP PAST break APPL
-a
mfumu/ndodo mpando.
ASP chief stick chair
I said that Mavuto broke the chair for the chief/withthe stick.
(34)
(35)
THE SYNTAX
OF APPLICATIVES
IN CHICHEWA
375
vin -ir
-a
mfumu/mikondo.
Atsikanaa- naSP PAST dance APPL ASP chief spears
girls
The girls danced for the chief/withspears.
(36)
(37)
-a
vin -ir
dance APPL ASP
This is the chief whom I think they danced for.
a- nalyi ndi mikondo imene ndi- ku- ganiz -a
this is spears which lsS PRES think ASP SP PAST
(38)
-a
vin -ir
dance APPL ASP
These are the spears that I think they danced with.
Our analysisof Chichewaapplicativesimpliesthat there is a systematic
structuraldifferencebetween (34) and (37) on the one hand, and (35) and
(38) on the other: the trace of the relative pronounis governed by a null
prepositionin the former,but not in the latter:
(39)a.
[NP
chair]]]]
b.
[NP
376
MARK
BAKER
NonobliqueTrace Filter:19
*[?Pi ... V+Xj
[-V] (N or P).
...
[xp tj tij...]
at S-structure, where X is
Here 'Op' stands for an operator phrase in COMP. From this perspective, the contributionof the Chichewadata is primarilyone of contrast:it
shows that precisely when Theta theory and the ProjectionPrincipledo
not imply the existence of an empty P - namely in instrumentalconstructions- the difficultyin extractingan appliedobject disappears.This
is exactly what an analysisalong the lines of Czepluch (1982) predicts.20
This type of analysis also explains the fact that the basic object is
extractablein both type of applicatives,since in neitheris it governed by
a null P (cf. (39)):
(42)
kuti
nen -a
Uwu ndi mpandoumene ndi- naThis is chair which 1sS PAST say ASP that
-a
Mavuto a- namfumu/ndodo.
thyol -er
Mavuto SP PAST break APPL ASP chief stick
This is the chair which I said that Mavuto broke
{forthe chief.l
with a stick. S
THE SYNTAX
OF APPLICATIVES
IN CHICHEWA
377
5.
VERB
TRANSITIVITY
AND
APPLICATIVES
378
MARK
BAKER
(44):21
(43)
-a
*Mkangou- ku- yend -eranyani.
SP PRES walk APPL ASP baboons
lion
The lion is walkingfor the baboons.
(44)
sek -er
-a
*Kalulua- naatsikana.
hare SP PAST laugh APPL ASP girls
The hare laughed for the girls.
It also holds for verbs which are usuallytransitive,but which may appear
without an object when the understoodpatient of the action is indefinite,
generic, or prototypical.Examplesof such verbs are:
(45)a. Mlimi a- ku- sem -a
(mtondo).
farmer SP PRES carve ASP mortar
The farmeris carving (a mortar).
b.
Benefactive applicatives are systematicallypossible based on the transitive uses of these verbs but not on the intransitiveuses:
(46)
THE SYNTAX
(47)
OF APPLICATIVES
IN CHICHEWA
379
-a
ndodo.
Msangalatsia- ku- yend -er
entertainer SP PRES walk APPL ASP stick
The entertaineris walkingwith a stick.
(50)
Instrumentalapplicatives are also possible with both transitive and intransitiveinstancesof an optionallytransitiveverb root:
(51)
(52)
380
MARK
BAKER
(54)
(i)
THE SYNTAX
OF APPLICATIVES
IN CHICHEWA
381
....
carving a
mortar. . .')
(56)
'..
.slashed
a snake
with.. .')
Examples (55) and (56) are surprisinginasmuchas it is in the structure
with less apparent competition for object status that the instrument
cannot have the object propertyof showing up as an object prefix.
More generally,this section shows that the Theta-theoreticdistinction
between benefactivesand instrumentsexplainsdifferencesin their syntax
which go beyond what would be expected given only the informal
generalizationthat clauses with instrumentsare more double-object-like
than clauses with benefactives.
6.
IMPLICATIONS
AND
CONCLUSIONS
In closing, I would like to draw from this analysis of Chichewa applicatives two specific implications about the nature of linguistic
representation:one concerning the role of grammaticalrelations, and
one concerning the role of thematic relationsin determiningunderlying
syntactic structure.
382
MARK
BAKER
6.1. GrammaticalRelations
Some researchers have claimed that the grammar must make direct
reference to grammaticalrelations such as subject, object, and indirect
object. For example, they take alternations in the expression of
arguments,such as those found in applicatives,to be explicit functions
defined over these grammaticalrelations(e.g. Perlmutter1983; Perlmutter and Rosen 1984; Bresnan 1982). In these terms, an applicative
process makes a benefactive oblique into a direct object (BEN-TO2-ADVANCEMENT in RG terminology;see Chung 1976; Aissen 1983).
The analysisof Chichewa calls this into question.
First, the Chichewa applicativessuggest that there is no single notion
of direct object that plays a central role in the grammar;ratherNPs are
simply grouped into naturalclasses in different ways depending on the
specific concerns of the different modules of the grammar,such as X'
theory, Government,and Case theory. Benefactive applied objects, for
example, are objects in the Case and Governmenttheory senses, but not
in the structuralsense. Instrumentalapplied objects, on the other hand,
are objects in the structuralsense and in the Governmenttheory sense,
but may or may not be in the sense defined by Case theory. The simple
term 'direct object' is thus not refined enough to be useful in this
situation,even if one distinguishesbetween deep and surfacesenses. This
suggests that 'object' is not a basic notion of linguistic theory,but rather
a convenient term which can be used in a variety of related senses
defined by the more fundamentalprinciplesof the grammar.
In addition, we have shown that there is no need to analyze the
Chichewa applicativesas involving functions defined over grammatical
relations.Instead, their propertiescan for the most part be derived from
an interplayof more general principles,including those of Case assignment and the movement of X? level categories. The current article is
thus a case studyof how the hypothesisthat such functionsdo not exist in
natural language (articulatedin Marantz (1984), Williams (1984), and
Baker (1985, 1988)) can be worked out over a range of complex data.
The two Chichewa applicatives are a particularlyinteresting test case,
because one must account for their differences without the luxury of
attributing them to two different rules of applicative formation. This
problem is solved by appealing to a universaldifference between benefactives and instrumentalsthat affects how principlesoperate.
This solution does not imply that exactly the same differencesbetween
benefactive and instrumentalapplicativeswill appearin every language;
for example, if languages differ in their Case-assigningproperties,these
THE
SYNTAX
OF APPLICATIVES
IN CHICHEWA
383
384
MARK BAKER
Jackendoff 1987; Foley and Van Valin 1984) state that instrumentsare
like themes/patientsin that both are manipulatedby the actor in the
course of the action. Benefactives, on the other hand, are like locatives
in that they express the goal or destination(in an abstractsense) toward
which the action progresses.If somethinglike these statementsis true of
human conceptual structures, and if underlying syntactic structure is
projected from these conceptual structures,then it is natural that both
patient/themesand instrumentsshould be directly 0-markedat D-structure, while both benefactive/goalsand (many)locatives are 0-markedvia
a prepositionin additionto the verb.
A variety of work, particularlyin GB, has suggested that in basic
transitive clauses agent 6-roles are consistently assigned in one
configuration(outside the verb phrase),while patient roles are assigned
in another (inside the verb phrase), this asymmetrybeing the projection
of an asymmetrybetween the two in compositionalsemantics (Marantz
1984; Chomsky 1981). The difference between benefactives and instrumentalsargued for here is a second example of this same type. The
unclear cases are no doubt more numerousthan the clear ones; nevertheless, if universalstatementscan be made about how agents, patients,
instruments,benefactives,and goals are representedin syntax,we may be
optimisticthat the rest of the patternwill fall into place as well.25
APPENDIX:
APPLICATIVES
AND DETRANSITIVIZATION
Sections 3 and 5 of this article show that the Case theory propertiesof
verbs affect the expression of benefactive phrases and instrumental
phrases differently. It is natural to ask as well how detransitivizing
THE SYNTAX
OF APPLICATIVES
IN CHICHEWA
385
nkhumba.
meny -a
(57)a. Nkhuku zi- nachickens SP PAST beat ASP pigs
The chickens beat the pigs.
(ndi
b. Nkhumbazi- na- meny -edw -a
SP PAST beat PASS ASP with
pigs
PASSIVE
nkhuku).
chickens
The pigs were beaten (by the chickens).
c.
-a.
Nkhumbazi- na- meny -an
SP PAST beat RECIP ASP
pigs
RECIPROCAL
386
MARK
BAKER
get inherent Case from the verb and the verb's structural Case is
eliminated by the detransitivizingmorpheme, the benefactive NP must
move to the subject position to get nominative Case. The basic object
remains in the VP, with inherent Case. In instrumentalconstructions,
however, either the instrumentor the basic object may receive inherent
Case, and either can move to the subjectposition and receive nominative
Case. Therefore, there should be two possible passives and two reciprocals with instrumentalapplicatives,but only one of each with benefactives.
The data only partially supports the theory in this domain. The
benefactive applicativeswork as expected. The examples in (59) show
that the benefactive alone can become the subject in a passive:
-a
(59)a. Ndi- na- phik -ir
ana
nsima.
1sS PAST cook APPL ASP childrencornmush
I cooked cornmushfor the children.
b.
Ana
a- na- phik -ir
-idw -a
nsima.
childrenSP PAST cook APPL PASS ASP commush
The childrenwere cooked cornmush.
Ana
a- na- meny -er
-an
-a
zigawenga.
childrenSP PRES hit
APPL RECIP ASP ruffians
a. OK The childreniare beating the ruffiansfor each otheri.
b. *The childrenare beating each other for the ruffians.
THE SYNTAX
b.
OF APPLICATIVES
IN CHICHEWA
387
(i)
388
MARK
BAKER
the behavior of detransitivizingprocesses in Chichewa is generallyconsistent with the basic structuraland thematic distinctionbetween benefactive and instrumentalNPs which is established in the body of this
article.
REFERENCES
Aissen, Judith: 1983, 'IndirectObject Advancementin Tzotzil', in D. Perlmutter(ed.),
Studiesin RelationalGrammar1, Universityof Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 325-366.
Allen, Barbara, Donna Gardiner, and Donald Frantz: 1984, 'Noun Incorporationin
SouthernTiwa', IJAL 50, 293-311.
Andrews,J. Richard:1975, Introductionto ClassicalNahuatl, Universityof Texas Press,
Austin.
A Theoryof GrammaticalFunctionChanging,unpubBaker, Mark: 1985, Incorporation:
lished Ph.D. dissertation,MIT.
A Theoryof GrammaticalFunctionChanging,Universityof
:1988, Incorporation:
Chicago Press.Chicago.
Baker, Mark, Kyle Johnson, and Ian Roberts: to appear, 'Passive ArgumentsRaised',
LinguisticInquiry.
Belleti, Adriana:1988, 'Unaccusativesas Case Assigners',LinguisticInquiry19, 1-34.
Belletti, Adriana and Luigi Rizzi: 1986, 'Psych-Verbsand TH-Theory', LexiconProject
WorkingPapers# 13, Center for Cognitive Science, MIT; publishedin NLLT 6, 3 (this
issue).
Borer, Hagit: 1984, ParametricSyntax: Case Studiesin Semiticand RomanceLanguages,
Foris,Dordrecht.
Bresnan, Joan: 1982, The Mental Representationof GrammaticalRelations,MIT Press,
Cambridge,Mass.
Bresnan,Joan and Sam Mchombo:1987, 'Topic, Pronoun,and Agreementin Chichewa',
Language63, 741-782.
Chomsky,Noam: 1980, 'On Binding',LinguisticInquiry11, 1-46.
:1981, Lectureson Govemmentand Binding,Foris,Dordrecht.
1986a, Barriers,MIT Press,Cambridge,Mass.
1986b, Knowledgeof Language:Its Nature,Origin,and Use, Praeger,New York.
Chung,Sandra:1976, 'An Object-CreatingRule in BahasaIndonesia',LinguisticInquiry7,
1-37.
Czepluch,H.: 1982, 'Case Theory and the Dative Construction',The LinguisticReview2,
1-38.
Foley, Williamand Robert Van Valin: 1984, FunctionalSyntaxand UniversalGrammar,
CambridgeUniversityPress,Cambridge.
Jackendoff,Ray: 1987, 'The Statusof ThematicRelationsin LinguisticTheory',Linguistic
Inquiry18, 369-412.
Jackendoff,Ray and Peter Culicover: 1971, 'A Reconsiderationof Dative Movements',
Foundationsof Language7, 397-412.
Johnson, Kyle: 1987, 'Clausal Gerunds, the ECP, and Government',unpublishedms.
UCLA.
Kayne, Richard:1984, Connectednessand BinaryBranching,Foris,Dordrecht.
Kimenyi, Alexandre: 1980, A Relational Grammar of Kinyarwanda, University of Cali-
forniaPress,Berkeley.
Kisseberth,Charlesand MohammadAbasheikh:1977, 'The Object Relationshipin ChiMwi:ni,a BantuLanguage',in P. Cole and J. Sadock (eds.), Syntaxand Semantics,Vol.
8: GrammaticalRelations,AcademicPress,New York, pp. 179-218.
IN CHICHEWA
389