Syntax Masters 2018-19

Assignment 2
Event linking constructions in Amazonian languages

Discuss the main syntactic and semantic differences between Clause Chaining, Subordinate
Clauses (e.g. control clauses, complement clauses, relative clauses) and Serial Verb
Constructions. Illustrate your answer with examples from different languages.

This essay will explain various event linking constructions, and discuss the main
syntactic and semantic differences between them, using examples from various Amazonian
languages. Subordinate Clauses (specifically complement clauses and relative clauses) will
be explored first, outlining their key syntactic and semantic features. Secondly, Serial Verb
Constructions will be similarly explained. Clause chaining will be detailed last with specific
reference to its difference from Serial Verb Construction.
Although the examples used are from a variety of language families, all will be
Amazonian languages which utilise a wide array of event linking constructions and in
varying ways (Aikhenvald, 2015).

SUBORDINATE CLAUSES

Subordination is a multi-clausal construction consisting of an independent clause and

a dependant clause. Subordination requires that one clause, the subordinate, is dependent on
the main or Matrix clause (Kroeger, 2004). In this sentence from Warekena there are two
clauses. The subordinate clause has been bracketed:

(1) Warekena (Aikhenvald, 1998: 271)

Nu-meta-ha tʃinu [yapa-wa pani-siwe]
1sg-forbid-PAUS dog enter-NONACC house-NPOSS+LOC
‘I forbid the dog to enter the house.’

The verb in the matrix clause, -meta-, describes the main event in the sentence. Words which
play this role in a sentence are known as Predicates (Tallerman, 2011: 39). Predicates can
express actions, processes, situations and states. In (1) the predicate expresses the act of
‘forbidding’. However, to define what is forbidden another element is required.
This element, known as an Argument, constitutes the action, event, or state named by
a predicate (Tallerman, 2011: 39). The subordinate clause in (1) functions as the argument of
the predicate preceding it in the matrix clause, and specifies what is forbidden. In this way the
meaning of the sentence is completed by the subordinate clause
The subordinate clause is not only semantically dependant but also syntactically, since
it is embedded within the matrix clause:

(2)
[ Nu-meta-ha tʃinu [yapa-wa pani-siwe] ]

Subordinate clause
 Matrix clause

We can see that the subordinate clause of (1) and (2) functions as an argument of a verb and
that it is contained within the main clause. Subordinate clauses which act in this way are
known as Complement clauses (Kroeger, 2004: 41)
A complement clause is also used to complete the meaning of the verb ‘want’, -
weya-, in Warekena. Another argument is necessary in order to specify what the Subject of
the matrix clause ‘wants’:

(3) Ya-nu-weya-pia [pe-na]

NEG-1sg-want-NEG 2sg+eat-1sg
‘I don’t want you to eat me.’

Again, the subordinate clause follows the verb which selects it and is embedded within the
matrix clause. In Warekena a complement clause does not require any particular words or
strategies. Simply juxtaposing one clause to another is sufficient to link them (Aikhenvald,
2015: 336).
However, in many languages the complement clause must be indicated via other
strategies. In Tariana affixation is used to introduce the complement clause:

(4) Tariana (Aikhenvald, 2003: 549)

Unlike Warakena the complement clause precedes the predicate and is marked by the
complementizing suffix -ka.
It is also interesting to note that in (4) the subject of the complement clause is the
same as the subject of the matrix clause, for this reason the personal pronoun (usually
obligatory in Tariana) has been omitted (Aikhenvald, 2003: 549). This sharing of the same
subject by different clauses is known as Coreference (Crystal, 1997:94).
While complement clauses are arguments selected by a predicate, it is also
possible for a subordinate clause to modify a head noun within a noun phrase (NP). We see
this is in the following example from Nanti:

(5) Nanti (Aikhenvald, 2015: 337)

No=kamoso-aki [ ige [obbik-an-tsi hanta] ]NP
1sg=visit-PERF brother drink-ABL-REL there
‘I visited my brother who was drinking there.’

The NP in (5) consists of three basic elements: a head noun (ige/brother), a modifying clause
(obbik-an-), and a Relativizing suffix (-tsi) which links the modifying clause to the head. This
construction, an NP containing a clausal modifier, is known as a Relative clause (Kroeger,
2005: 230)
In (5) a suffix is used to mark the modifying clause in a relative clause construction.
However other relativisation strategies are employed across the Amazon. In Canela-Krahô
the relative clause is indicated by a demonstrative (ita) functioning as a relative pronoun
corresponding to the head noun (Popjes, 1986: 171).
 (6) Canela-Krahô (Popjes, 1986: 171)
i-te humre [te rop curan ita] pupun
1sg-PAST man PAST dog kill DEM see
Ί saw the man who killed the dog.'

It is also possible for a main clause to be juxtaposed with a relative clause without the use of
a conjunction:

(7) Apalai (Koehn E. & S., 1986: 75)

“ku- akuoh- ko tarn” t- yka-se
2S1O- take across-IMP grandfather NF-say-CMPL

mokyro, kuto n-akuoty- hpyry

that one frog 3-take across-NOMLZR +PAST

' "Take me across the water, grandfather," said the one whom the
frog had taken across.'

In example (7) the nominalized form kuto nakuotyhpyry, 'the one whom the frog had taken
across', follows the pronoun mokyro 'that one'. There is no relativizer to link them, there are
no relative pronouns and the main verb is not marked by a relativising affix. This
juxtaposition of syntactic units without conjunctions is known as Parataxis (Noonan, 1985:
76) and is another relativizing strategy.
In all examples given so far, the head noun is found outside the modifying
clause, meaning that they are externally headed relative clauses (Kroeger, 2005: 232). A few
Amazonian languages allow the head noun to do the opposite and appear within relative
clauses, for example Mẽbengokre:

(8) Mẽbengokre (Salanova, 2011: 66)

[kukryt a-je pi kuri omunh] ne wa
Tapir 2-ERG tree near 3.see that
‘That is the tapir which you saw near the tree.’

In (8) the head noun, kukryt, occurs within the relative clause. This is known as an internally
headed relative clause (Kroeger, 2005: 233). In Yaguan the head noun can occur
simultaneously inside and outside the modifying clause:

(9) Yagua (Payne, 1990: 347)

[Tíí-tiy jiya-sara tóó-va sa-súúy] coodiy-ntiy-níí
Whoever-REL go-HAB jungle-DAT 3sg-bite snake-REPET-3sg
‘Whoever goes to the jungle, the snake bites him too.’

This is known as a Correlative clause (Kroeger, 2005: 234). The head noun, the snake in (9),
appears inside the relative clause and outside it.

From this brief overview of subordination in Amazonian languages three things are
clear. Firstly, both complement and relative clauses are multi-clausal constructions which are
syntactically dependant on their matrix clause. Secondly, it is evident that subordinate clauses
feature a high (though not complete) degree of syntactic integration between the events they
express; this integration can be achieved via a wide variety of strategies. Thirdly, subordinate
clauses serve to expand or complete an independent clause semantically. Next, we will look
at Serial Verb Constructions and see that unlike subordinate clauses, they are mono-clausal
and that there is full syntactic integration between events.

Serial Verb Constructions

Serial verb constructions (SVCs) consist of a sequence of verbs combined together to

form a single predicate (Aikhenvald, 2005: 4). In example (10) four verbs act together to
communicate one event. The SVC is bracketed:

(10) Tariana (Aikhenvald, 2015: 304)

Hipada-nuku [dhita di-nu di-thake di-sita-pidana]
Stone-TOP 3sg+take 3sg-come 3sg-go.across 3sg-finish-PAST.REPORTED
‘He already brought the stone across, it is said.’ (lit. he-took he-come he-
made.go.across he-finished reportedly)

Each verb in (10) contributes to the overall meaning of the event. The verb ‘come’ designates
the direction of the event towards the speaker, ‘go across’ provides further information about
the action of carrying a stone (across a river for example), ‘finish’ denotes that the action has
been completed. The verbs have been inflected for person, and the final verb has only one
specification for tense and evidentiality. They all share the same semantic argument and refer
to the same single event. In other words, they behave collectively as a single predicate.
The following SVC, also from Tariana, combines verbs describing ‘sub-events’ which
then create a single event referring to a conventionalised activity. Thus ‘eat’, ‘sleep’, and
‘walk around’ are merged to mean ‘go on a long hunting trip’:

(11) (Aikhenvald, 2015: 310)

Dima di-hna di-emhani-pidana
3sg+sleep 3sg-eat 3sg-walk.around-REM.PAST.REP
‘He went on a hunting or fishing trip for several days (lit. he-slept he-ate he-walked
around)

While in (10) the SVC expanded the semantic values of the event by expressing direction and
completion, in (11) verbs are combined to form a lexicalised expression. (11) is an example
of a symmetrical SVC. This means that it contains verbs from an open semantic class and that
none of the component verbs determines the semantic or syntactic properties of the whole
SVC. Example (10) is an asymmetrical SVC because it contains one verb from an open class
which indicates the event, while additional information (e.g. direction, completion) is
provided by verbs from a closed class (Aikhenvald, 2003: 424). However, in both examples
we still see some of the typical characteristics of SVCs:

i. Reference to a single event

ii. Only one specification for tense, aspect and mood
iii. Sharing one semantic argument
iv. Containing only one grammatical subject
(Kroeger, 2004: 229)
 In Addition to providing semantic information about an event’s direction or
completion, SVCs can also express the duration of an action or event. In the following
example the verb -ema, ‘stand’, indicates a prolonged completed action:

(12) (Aikhenvald, 2003: 431)

In this case the verbs ‘sit’ and ‘stand’, which would otherwise be semantically contradictory,
combine to create a new meaning: ‘to stay somewhere for a long time’. In this way SVCs can
specify aspect.
Since SVCs constitute a single action, event, or state, they can be a predicate of a
complement clause:

(13) (Aikhenvald, 1998: 271)

Neda [i-tapa-ha keʃuka wabupi]
1sg+see 2sg-go-PAUS cross spring
‘I saw him go across the spring.’
This example shows the SVC as a complement of the verb neda, ‘see’, and demonstrates that
it is mono-clausal.

We can thus define an SVC as a sequence of inflected verbs which together form a
single predicate, without marking for syntactic dependency. SVCs act as a single clause with
full syntactic integration with the events they express. Semantically, SVCs provide further
information to the event they describe, and can even create a new meaning such as in (11).
Since there is no marking or conjunction to indicate subordination or coordination, the verbs
involved are not dependent on each other. Finally, we will examine the phenomenon of
Clause-Chaining which involves sequences of clauses, as opposed to sequences of verbs.

Clause Chaining

Clause chains (CC) consist of several clauses linked together in a “chain”. None of
the clauses in the chain has to be subordinated (Kroeger, 2004: 242) and

As discussed above, SVCs must share the same grammatical subject. This is not a
necessity for CCs. The following sentences from Cavineña show both possibilities can be
done with CCs; in (14) we can see an example of clause chain constructions sharing subjects
and in (15) each clause contains its own distinct subject:

(14) Cavineña (Aikhenvald, 2015: 340)

Tudya=tatse amena kwaba=ju ani-bute-tsu tsura-kware.
Then=3dual BOUNDARY canoe=LOC sit-GO.DOWN go.up-REM.PAST
‘Then they sat (down) in their canoe and went up (river).’ (lit. Having sat down in
their canoe, they went up.)
 (15)
Tu-ra mare-wa=ju=tu pakaka-wa
3sg-ERG shoot.at-PERF=DS=3sg fall-PERF
‘He shot at it, (and) it fell down.’ (lit. He having shot at it, it fell down)

In (15) we see different subjects: the first clause denotes who ‘shot’ and is marked with the
affix -ju- which indicates it has a different subject (DS) from the next clause. In (14) each
clause shares the same subject.
Another of the main characteristics of SVCs is that they must refer to a single event.
However, CC allows for each clause to refer to a distinct event:

(16) Tariana (Aikhenvald, 2015: 341)

na-kama=nisawa na-siwa-kaka na-nalita=pidana
3pl-be.drunk=while 3pl-do.to.each.other-REC 3pl-quarrel=REM.P.REP
‘While they (men) got drunk, they (their wives) quarrelled with each other.’

In (16) there are clearly two separate clauses, each describing a different event. The men ‘got
drunk’ and the women ‘quarrelled’. We are told by the enclitic =nisawa that both these
events occur at the same time, though neither event is prioritised.
It is, however, possible to partition a CC construction into foreground and background
events. The foreground clause narrates the action, while backgrounded clauses support or
comment on the narration (Hopper 1979: 215). In example (17) from Mbyá Guarani clausal
enclitics, rã and ramo, are used to identify which clauses have a different Subject. These
clauses act as a background to the main event clause which is not marked by enclitics.

(17) Mbyá Guarani (Dooley, 2010: 4)

Xe-r-u-a py re-vae rã i-vai ramo
1SG-R-father-NMLZ in 2SG-arrive DS 3-angry DS

e-mombe'u eme a-ju-a-gue.

2SG.IMP-tell NEG.IMP 1SG-come-NMLZ-PST

‘when you get to my father's place, if he is angry, don't tell him that I came.’

background foreground

The two background clauses in this construction provide different types of information
regarding the main event: temporal/locational in the first clause, conditional in the second.
This is background information for the third clause which is foregrounded as the main event.
Each clause provides a background for its following clause, culminating in the final clause
which (in this example) is foregrounded by virtue of not being marked by a DS enclitic
(Dooley, 2010: 5).

Clause-chaining thus serves to enhance semantic properties of an utterance by

allowing clauses to interact with each other; particularly when creating a narrative, and often
with attention to temporal relations, specifically chronological overlap (‘while’) versus
chronological succession (‘and then’) (Longacre, 1994: 264). We have seen how each clause
connected together can have its own distinct subject, or share subject with the other clauses.
We also saw that each clause can refer to a distinct event, and these events can be
‘foregrounded’ or ‘backgrounded’ to suit the semantic needs of the sentence.

None of the clauses in a CC are necessarily subordinate to others

Conclusion

Bibliography

Aikhenvald, A. (1998) ‘Warekena’ in Handbook of Amazonian Languages: Volume 4. Berlin;

New York: Mounton de Gruyter

Aikhenvald, A. (2003). A Grammar of Tariana, from Northwest Amazonia (Cambridge

Grammatical Descriptions). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Aikhenvald A. and Dixon, R. M. W (2005) Serial Verb Constructions: A Cross-Linguistic

Typology, Oxford University Press

Aikhenvald, A, Muysken, P, & Birchall, J. (2011). Multi-verb constructions: A view from the
Americas. Leiden ; Boston: Brill.

Aikhenvald, A. (2015). The Languages of the Amazon. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Crystal, D. (1997). A dictionary of linguistics and phonetics (4th ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.

Dooley, R. (2010). Exploring clause-chaining. SIL. Accessed online:

https://www.sil.org/system/files/reapdata/13/04/21/1304213603115691603062352017388763
75986/silewp2010_001.pdf

Guillaume, A. (2008). A Grammar of Cavineña. Berlin ; New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Hopper, P. J. (1979). Aspect and foregrounding in discourse. In Talmy Givón (ed.), Syntax
and semantics, vol. 12: Discourse and syntax. New York: Academic Press: 213-241.

Koehn E. & S. (1986). ‘Apali’ in Handbook of Amazonian languages: Volume 1. ed. by

Derbyshire, D. C., & Pullum, G. K. Berlin ; New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Kroeger, P. R. (2004). Analyzing Syntax: A lexical-functional approach. Cambridge

University Press.

Kroeger, P. R. (2005). Analyzing Grammar: An introduction. Cambridge University Press.

Longacre, R. E. (1994). ‘Sentences as combinations of clauses’ in Languages Typology and

Syntactic Description: Complex Constructions ed. by Shopen, T. Cambridge University
Press: 235-284

Noonan, M. (1985). ‘Complementation’ In Language typology and syntactic description. ed.

by Shopen, T. Cambridge ; New York: Cambridge University Press.

Payne D. L. (1990). ‘Yagua’ in Handbook of Amazonian Languages: Volume 2. Berlin; New

York: Mounton de Gruyter

Popjes, J. (1986). ‘Canela-Krahô’ in Handbook of Amazonian languages: Volume 1. ed. by

Derbyshire, D. C., & Pullum, G. K. Berlin ; New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Salanova, A. P. (2011). ‘Relative clauses in Mẽbengokre’ in Subordination in Native South

American Languages. ed. By van Gijn R., Haude K. & Muysken, P. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins Publishing Company: 45-78

Tallerman, M. (2011). Understanding Syntax (Third edition.). London: Routledge.