Emai's Variable Coding of Adjuncts.
The adjunct/argument distinction is widely recognized in language description and explanation. It is most often associated with a syntactic criterion; nonetheless, the semantic nature of adjuncts and arguments has drawn some attention (Matthews 1981, 2007, Croft 2001). For the languages of sub-Saharan Africa, adjunct and argument have received minimal scrutiny. Watters (2000) notes that adjuncts (X) generally follow objects (O) in SVOX languages, while in SOV languages they either precede V (SXOV) or follow V (SOVX).
For this paper, we explore adjunct structures in Emai, a West Benue Congo language within southern Nigeria's Edoid group (Elugbe 1989, Williamson and Blench 2000). Typologically, Emai is relatively strict SVO with lexical and grammatical tone but little inflectional morphology and few prepositions (Schaefer and Egbokhare 1999, 2007, to appear). Word order is pervasive as a marker of grammatical relations. Regarding clause structure, Emai is characterized by simple predicates as well as complex predicates consisting of verbs in series, verbs in construction with postverbal particles, and verbs in series with verbs and postverbal particles (Schaefer and Egbokhare 2010). In addition, Emai shows an extensive array of preverbs (Schaefer and Egbokhare 2000), many of them adverb like, that affect interpretation of clausal event (che 'again,' ya 'almost,' duu 'for no reason,' kakegbe 'perseveringly,' kpao 'initially') or a core participant (zemi 'very many,' gba 'together'). (2)
2. Adjunct Character
Croft (2001) reviews a number of criteria proposed to distinguish adjuncts from arguments. The classic syntactic criterion holds that adjunct constituents are optional while arguments are obligatory. This seems relatively straightforward. In (1a-b), an adjunct (e.g. in the park) is peripheral to its associated verb, since it can be omitted without consequence to grammaticalness. In contrast, arguments (George, the dog) are obligatory relative to their predicate; argument omission results in ungrammaticality (1a-c).
(1a) George chased the dog in the park.
(1b) George chased the dog.
(1c) *George chased in the park.
Questions arising from Croft's analysis and illustration are no doubt multiple. Two, however, concern us. One is whether the distributional potential that characterizes locative (i.e. in the park), applies equally to other adjunct types, for instance those expressing temporality (for the afternoon in 2a) or manner (clumsily in 2b).
(2a) George chased the dog for the afternoon.
(2b) George chased the dog clumsily.
A second focuses on whether all adjunct types lead to consistent morphosyntactic expression across canonical and noncanonical clause types. (3)
Directing these questions toward Emai, we find that adjuncts in clause types differing as to discourse function attract nonuniform coding. Some adjunct types across canonical and noncanonical clauses occur as either head of a phrase or as complement in a phrase headed by a verb. Other adjuncts are coded more variably. In canonical declarative clauses, they appear in postverbal position unmarked by a verb, but in one or more noncanonical clause types, e.g. imperative, interrogative or contrastive focus, their clause requires a verb otherwise latent. As an initial sample of this variability, we present Table 1. It reveals that outside of manner, which is consistently unmarked by a verb, and reason, which is consistently verb marked (by re), adjuncts with a locative or temporal character require, in addition to a main verb, a latent verb such as re or za. (4)
3. Emai Adjuncts and Arguments
Argument types in Emai exhibit rather consistent distributional behavior compared to the more variable nature of adjuncts. A direct object argument (oran 'wood'), whose grammatical relation is morphologically unmarked but syntactically indicated by word order, follows a transitive verb such as hian 'cut' (3a). Verbs like hian also occur in series with a transitive verb such as re 'take,' which precedes its obligatory direct object argument (opia 'cutlass,' 3b-c). Both arguments relate to an overall event of cutting.
(3a) oje hian oran. / *oje hian. Oje PRP.cut wood Oje PRP.cut 'Oje cut wood. / Oje cut.' (3b) oje re opia hian oran. Oje PRP.take cutlass cut wood 'Oje used a cutlass to cut wood.' (3c) *oje re hian oran. Oje PRP.take cut wood 'Oje cut wood.'
As well, intransitive verbs in series such as za 'be located' and se 'move up to, as far as, reach, extend to' precede their obligatory arguments marked by locative preposition vbi (4a-b).
(4a) oje za vbi afuze' shan se vbi oke. Oje PRP.be.located LOC Afuze walk move.up.to LOC Oke 'Oje walked from Afuze to Oke.' (4b) *oje za shan se vbi oke. Oje PRP.be.located walk move.up.to LOC Oke 'Oje walked to Oke.'
Emai adjunct types display some distributional consistency across clauses as well. In canonical declaratives they prototypically occupy postpredicate position following an intransitive verb or direct object of a transitive verb. As constituents adjuncts occur either unmarked or marked by preposition vbi. Unmarked are temporal deictic adjuncts (ode 'yesterday' 5a) and temporal quantity adjunct phrases (ikpede eea 'for three days' 5b). Marked by vbi are temporal ordinal adjunct phrases (ukpede li ozeea 'on the third day' 5c) and locative adjuncts (ime 'farm' 5d).
(5a) oje hian' oran ode. Oje PAP.cut wood yesterday 'Oje cut wood yesterday.' (5b) oje hian' oran ikpede eea. Oje PAP.cut wood days three 'Oje cut wood for three days.' (5c) oje hian' oran vbi ukpede li ozeea. Oje PAP.cut wood LOC day R third 'Oje cut wood on the third day.' (5d) oje hian' oran vbi ime. Oje PAP.cut wood LOC farm 'Oje cut wood on the farm.'
A distinguishing feature of adjuncts, as opposed to arguments, is their tonal impact on a preceding constituent. Relative to a preceding verb argument (oran), Emai adjuncts activate high tone spread starting at argument right edge, as in oran ode (5 a) versus oran (3 a). Nonadverb constituents following a verb argument do not activate high tone spread however. In (3b), where verb hian follows argument opia, high tone
spread is not activated. Verbs in series thus do not trigger high tone spread. In addition, postverbal particles that follow a direct object argument do not activate high tone spread (6a-c), as shown by right edge low tone of ui 'rope' preceding Terminative lee 'already, finish,' Change of Location o or Applicative li.
(6a) oje hian oli ui lee. Oje PRP.cut the rope TERM 'Oje finished cutting the rope / already cut the rope.' (6b) oje hian oli ui o vbi eva. Oje PRP.cut the rope CL LOC two 'Oje cut the rope into two.' (6c) oje hian oli ui li ohi. Oje PRP.cut the rope APP Ohi 'Oje cut the rope for Ohi.'
An important feature of nondeclarative clauses containing Emai adjuncts pertains to their potential for variable coding. In information question clauses, temporal deictic adjuncts represented by ode 'yesterday,' for example, correspond to an interrogative proform (eghe 'when'). Their predicate phrase requires the verb re 'take' as the initial verb in series (7), despite the fact that re never occurs in the corresponding declarative clause, cf. (5a). (5)
(7) eghe oje re' hian oli oran? time Oje PAP.take cut the wood 'When did Oje cut the wood?' ode. yesterday 'Yesterday.'
A similar condition holds for a vbi marked adjunct of place. In transitive declaratives, where a locative adjunct follows a verb and its direct object, place marking is signaled by preposition vbi (5d). In information questions, where the locative corresponds to a fronted interrogative proform, the verb za 'be located' occurs in the matrix clause and precedes other verbs in series. Thus in declarative (8a), ime 'farm' appears in postverbal position preceded by preposition vbi; no za marks it. However, when adjunct ime corresponds to an interrogative proform (ebe' 'where'), za is obligatory in the predicate phrase (8b).
(8a) oje hian' oran vbi ime. Oje PAP.cut wood LOC farm 'Oje cut wood on the farm.' (8b) ebe' oje za' hian oran? where Oje PAP.be.located cut wood 'Where did Oje cut wood?' ime. farm 'On the farm.'
Fronting of a locative adjunct in a contrastive focus clause leads to similar marking by za. When ime occurs in focus position and precedes positive focus (PF) morpheme li, za is required in the matrix clause as the initial verb in series.
(9) ime li oje za' hian oran. farm PF Oje PAP.be.located cut wood 'It was on a farm that Oje cut wood.'
In contrast, locative arguments of a verb do not give rise to za. As an argument of verb o 'enter' in declarative clauses, ime in postverbal position follows preposition vbi.
(10) oje o vbi ime. Oje PRP.enter LOC farm 'Oje entered the farm.'
In information question clauses, where ime corresponds to fronted interrogative proform ebe' 'where,' za is disallowed (11a-b). As well, occurrence of ime in contrastive focus position does not lead to a matrix clause predicate phrase with za as a verb in series (11c).
(11a) ebe' oje o'-i? where Oje PAP.enter-F 'Where did Oje enter?' (11b) *ebe' oje za' o? where Oje PAP.be.located enter 'Where did Oje enter?' (11c) ime me li oje o'-i. farm my PF Oje PAP.enter-F 'It was my farm that Oje entered.'
It is likewise the case for vbi marked locative arguments (e.g. udeken 'wall') with transitive verbs (e.g. fi 'hit,' 12a). Neither information question clauses (12b) nor negative contrastive focus clauses (12c) with such verbs lead to verb za in series.
(12a) oje fi ukporan vbi udeken. Oje PRP.hit stick LOC wall 'Oje hit a stick on the wall.' (12b) ebe' oje fi' ukporan? where Oje PAP.hit stick 'Where did Oje hit the stick?' (12c) Udeken ki oje fi' ukporan. wall NF Oje PAP.hit stick 'It wasn't on a wall that Oje hit the stick.'
This brief overview of Emai locative and temporal forms reveals adjuncts in nondeclarative clauses scaffolded by a latent verb. Scaffold structures framed by a latent verb in series also affect adjuncts of temporal quantity. In declarative clauses ikpede eea 'for three days,' for instance, is postverbal and unmarked by a preposition (13a). In information question clauses (13b), where the temporal quantity constituent corresponds to a fronted interrogative proform (ikpede eka 'how many days'), the verb re 'take' is obligatory and precedes other verbs in series.
(13a) oje hian' oran ikpede eea. Oje PAP.cut wood days three 'Oje cut wood for three days.' (13b) ikpede eka oje re' hian oran? day quantity Oje PAP.take cut wood 'For how many days did Oje cut wood?' ikpede eea. days three 'For three days.'
Imperative clauses with adjunct ikpede eea grammatically mandate re as well; re must occur in the matrix clause and in a position preceding other verbs in series (14a-b). Temporal quantity adjuncts, though, are not found in contrastive focus clauses.
(14a) re ikpede eea hian oran. take days three cut wood 'Take three days to cut wood. / Cut wood for three days.' (14b) *hian oran ikpede eea. cut wood days three 'Cut wood for three days.'
Another adverbial adjunct type utilizing latent verb re expresses temporal bounding for an event. In declarative clauses, ekein ikpede eea 'within three days' is marked by preposition vbi (15a) and occupies postpredicate position. In corresponding imperatives (15b), re is obligatory with ekein ikpede eea as complement; the resulting re ekein ikpede eea constituent precedes other verbs in series. Temporal bounding adjuncts articulate neither information question nor contrastive focus clauses.
(15a) oli omohe hian' oli oran lee vbi ekein ikpede eea. the man PAP.cut the wood TEMP LOC inside days three 'The man had finished cutting the wood within three days.' (15b) re ekein ikpede eea hian oli oran lee. take inside days three cut the wood TEMP 'Finish cutting the wood within three days.'
Not all adjuncts with temporal significance require latent re. In fact, some evince no latent verb as scaffold. Adjuncts expressing temporal ordinal relations (e.g. ukpede li ozeea 'on the third day'), for instance, appear in postpredicate position marked by preposition vbi (16a). Nonetheless without latent re, they retain postpredicate position in imperative clauses (16b) and in contrastive focus clauses they occupy focus position (16c). (6)
(16a) oli omohe hian' oli oran vbi ukpede li ozeea. the man PAP.cut the wood LOC day R third 'The man cut the wood on the third day.' (16b) hian oli oran vbi ukpede li ozeea. cut the wood LOC day R third 'Cut the wood on the third day.' (16c) ukpede li ozeea li oli omohe hian' oli oran. day R third PF the man PAP.cut oli wood 'It was on the third day that the man cut the wood.'
Adjuncts expressing a temporal frequency relation (e.g. iseva 'twice') also occur in postpredicate position (17a), although not as a constituent marked by preposition vbi. Without re or any other latent verb in the matrix clause, temporal frequency adjuncts retain postpredicate position in imperative clauses (17b), correspond in information questions to an interrogative pronoun (iseka 'how often' in 17c) and occupy contrastive focus position (17d).
(17a) oli omohe e' oli emae iseva. the man PAP.eat the food twice 'The man ate the food twice.' (17b) e oli emae isokpa. cut the wood once 'Eat the food at once.' (17c) iseka oli omohe e' oli emae? how.often the man PAP.eat the food 'How often did the man eat the food?' iseva. twice 'Twice.' (17d) iseva li oli omohe e' oli emae. twice PF the man PAP.eat the food 'It was twice that the man ate the food.'
In stark contrast to these last two temporal types, adjuncts expressing reason exhibit a more consistent verb scaffold pattern. Adjunct reason constituents (e.g. ohio isi oje 'because of Oje') do not occur in postpredicate position in declarative clauses (18a). Instead, as complement they immediately follow verb re as the initial verb phrase in series in declaratives (18b), in imperatives (18c), and when they occupy contrastive focus position (18d), re is retained as the initial verb in series. (7)
(18a) *oli omohe gbe' ofe ohio isi oje. the man PAP.kill rat cause ASS Oje 'The man killed rats because of Oje.' (18b) oli omohe re' ohio isi oje gbe ofe. the man PAP.take cause ASS Oje kill rat 'The man killed rats because of Oje.' (18c) re ohio isi oje e oli emae. take cause ASS Oje eat the food 'Use Oje as the reason for eating the food.' (18d) ohio isi oje li oli omohe re' e oli emae lee. cause ASS Oje PF the man PAP.take eat the food TEMP 'It was because of Oje the man finished eating the food.'
Differing from reason adjuncts and exhibiting a distinct placement for their latent verb compared to temporal and locative types are adjuncts conveying aspectual and temporal extent. Adjuncts of aspectual extent (gbegbei 'completely') occur in postpredicate position in declarative (19a) and imperative (19b) clauses. In information questions, where adjuncts of aspectual extent correspond to interrogative proform (ebe' 'how') and an accompanying manner (MAN) preverb i, (8) their matrix clause requires the postpredicate verb se 'extend to, reach' as the final verb in series (19c). Aspectual extent adjuncts fail to occupy contrastive focus position.
(19a) oje anme' oi eto a gbegbei. Oje PAP.scrape her hair CS completely 'Oje scraped off her hair completely.' (19b) anme oi eto a gbegbei. scrape her hair CS completely 'Scrape off her hair completely.' (19c) ebe' oje i' anme oi eto se? how Oje PAP.MAN scrape her hair extend.to 'To what extent did Oje scrape her hair?' o i anme oi eto a gbegbei. he NEG scrape her hair CS completely 'He did not scrape off her hair at all.'
Other aspectual extent adjuncts include jaun 'completely, crisply' (20a-b) and sesese 'completely, neatly' (21a-b). In interrogative clauses they, too, give rise to latent verb se.
(20a) oli ogo too' a jaun. the bush PAP.burn CS crisply 'The bush burned to a crisp.' (20b) ebe' oli ogo i' too se? how the bush PAP.MAN burn extend.to 'To what extent did the bush burn?' o too' a jaun. the PAP.burn CS crisply 'It burned to a crisp.' (21a) oli otoi fuan-i' sesese. the ground PAP.be.clean-F completely 'The ground was absolutely clean.' (21b) ebe' oli otoi i' fuan se? how the ground PAP.MAN be.clean extend.to 'To what extent was the ground clean?' o fuan-i' sesese. it PAP.be.clean-F completely 'It was absolutely clean.'
Another adjunct type, temporal extent (tititi 'long time'), occurs in postpredicate position in declarative (22a) clauses. In information questions, where adjuncts of temporal extent correspond to interrogative proform ebe' 'how' and its manner preverb i, their matrix clause requires not only the extent verb se in series but also the temporal verb tee 'be long' (22b). Temporal extent adjuncts do not appear in imperative clauses or occupy contrastive focus position. (9)
(22a) oli omohe muzan-i' tititi. the man PAP.wait-F long.time ' The man waited for a long time. (22b) ebe' oli omohe i' muzan tee se? how the man PAP.MAN wait be.long extend.to 'How long did the man wait?' o muzan-i' tititi. the PAP.wait-F long.time 'He waited for a long time.'
A distinct and final pattern characterizes adjuncts of manner. They reveal no evidence of a latent verb. Manner adjuncts (koikoi 'in a gulping fashion') occur in postpredicate position regardless of whether their clause is declarative (23a) or imperative (23b). When manner adjuncts in information questions correspond to interrogative proform (ebe' 'how') and manner preverb i (23c), their matrix clause fails to show a latent verb like se, re or za. Manner adjuncts of this type do not occupy contrastive focus position.
(23a) oli omohe o o e oli emae koikoi. the man SC C eat the food gulpingly 'The man is gulping the food / eating the food in a gulping fashion.' (23b) e oli emae koikoi. eat eat food gulpingly 'Gulp the food. / Eat the food in a gulping fashion.' (23c) ebe' oli omohe o o i e emae? how the man SC H MAN eat food 'How does the man eat food?' o o e oi koikoi. he H eat it gulpingly 'He eats it in a gulping fashion. / He gulps it.'
In the preceding section we called attention to Emai's latent verb coding patterns for some clause structures that incorporate adjuncts. For several adjunct types (locative, temporal bounded, deixis and quantity as well as aspectual and temporal extent), one or more of their noncanonical clauses, i.e. imperative, interrogative or contrastive focus, were coded with a latent verb, whereas their canonical declarative clause was not. Moreover, coding was not uniform across adjunct types, either by latent verb form (re, za, se, tee) or position (pre- versus post-matrix predicate). Still other adjunct types revealed either no latent verb (manner, temporal frequency and temporal ordinal) or consistently required a preceding verb (reason). As a summary of Emai adjunct behavior and its accompanying clausal coding we present Table 2.
At the outset we noted in passing Croft's (2001) comparison of adjunct and argument semantic character. His semantic analysis emphasizes adjuncts as relations relative to their associated predication, following theoretical arguments laid out by Langacker (1987: 214-216), who posits a relation as existing when the definition of one concept inherently requires reference to another concept. If adjuncts are inherently relations, they are functions, i.e. predicates, that take an argument. With reference to (24), in the park is then a predicate whose single argument is the event of chasing. One and the same semantic component, i,e, chase, can thus be a relation or a filler argument of a role in a relation. While chasing is a relation with George and dog as filler arguments, chasing is also a filler argument for the relation being-in-the-park.
(24) George chased the dog in the park.
Earlier, we identified two questions that derive from Croft's analysis and illustration. Do all adjunct types lead to consistent morphosyntactic expression across clause types? And do all adjuncts manifest similar distributional potential? More importantly for Croft's analysis is a third question: Is there morphosyntactic evidence to support the claim that an adjunct is a relation and so can take an associated event as filler argument?
Recall Croft's position that adjuncts are relations taking as their filler argument a matrix clause event. The facts from Emai suggest that not all adjunct constituents are relations vis-a-vis the matrix predicate, i.e. predicates that take a matrix event as filler. Instead, a number of adjunct types appear to be filler arguments for a latent verb that under varying discourse conditions appears in series in the matrix predicate phrase. It is these filler adjunct types, locative and temporal deixis for example, and their latent verbs, za and re respectively, that as a relation could take the matrix clause event as filler.
Not all adjunct expressions serve as filler argument for a latent verb however. Some appear to be relations that could directly take the matrix predicate as filler. The clearest example of this adjunct type is manner; adjuncts expressing temporal frequency and temporal ordinal sequence also appear to be examplars of this type.
Based on these distribution facts from Emai, one could formulate a relation-filler cline for adjuncts in which the propensity to serve as a filler argument increases while the propensity to serve as a relation decreases. The most comprehensive filler adjunct would be REASON, which requires the verb re in all clauses where its exponents occur. The next most filler-like adjunct would be LOCATIVE, which requires latent verb za in contrastive focus and interrogative clauses. The least filler-like and most relation-like adjunct would be MANNER, which revealed no latent verb. TEMPORAL would clearly be the most inconsistent class since temporal frequency and temporal ordinal evince no latent verb, while temporal deixis, temporal quantity and temporal bound lead to latent verb re in either interrogative or imperative clauses or both.
MANNER < TEMPORAL < LOCATIVE < REASON
Extent adjuncts, however, exhibit unique properties, as shown by their interrogative frame. They manifest a correspondence relation to not only an information question word (ebe' 'how') and its preverb i but also a latent verb (se) or verbs (se, tee) in postpredicate position, neither of which surfaces in imperative or contrastive focus clauses. The syntactic position of latent verbs associated with extent adjuncts thus contrasts with the position of latent verbs for locative and temporal adjuncts.
Extent adjuncts would be troublesome for a relation-filler cline. They consistently require a latent verb (or verbs) in interrogative clauses but position it after, not before, the matrix predicate. Where would extent adjuncts best fit on a relation-filler cline? Moreover, one wonders whether there might be other linguistic evidence that would identify structural affinities between or among Emai adjunct types. One fact to consider in this regard is shape of adjunct response frame relative to its information question. In question-answer discourse contexts, many adjunct types occur in response to an information question as phrases isolated from clause structure, i.e. ex situ as summarized in Table 2 and exemplified in (7), (8b), (13b) and (17c). Three adjunct types, aspectual extent, temporal extent and manner, fail this test however; each requires an in situ frame in which the respective adjunct follows its matrix verb, as in (19c), (22b) and (23c), repeated here as (25), (26) and (27).
(25) ebe' oje i' anme oi eto se? how Oje PAP.MAN scrape her hair extend.to 'To what extent did Oje scrape her hair? o i anme oi eto a gbegbei. he NEG scrape her hair CS completely 'He did not scrape her hair completely. (26) ebe' oli omohe i' muzan tee se? how the man PAP.MAN wait be.long extend.to 'How long did the man wait?' o muzan-i' tititi. he PAP.wait-F long.time 'He waited for a long time.' (27) ebe' oli omohe o o i e emae? how the man SC H MAN eat food 'How does the man eat food?' o o e oi koikoi. he H eat it gulpingly 'He gulps it.'
In situ responses as well as interrogative proform in information questions (ebe' andi) thus suggest that adjuncts with a postpredicate latent verb are similar to adjuncts that reveal no latent verb; both are more relation like than filler like. Clearly, a simple correlation between morphosyntactic properties and adjunct status as relation or filler is not straightforward. (10) Nonetheless, it does appear that while all adjunct expressions may be relational, not all adjuncts are relations. Some adjuncts are fillers that require a latent verb, especially in clause types outside the canonical declarative.
Croft, William. 2001. Radical construction grammar. New York: Oxford University Press.
Elugbe, Ben. 1989. Comparative Edoid: Phonology and lexicon. Port Harcourt: University of Port Harcourt Press.
Langacker, Ronald. W. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar, Vol I: Theoretical perspectives. Standford: Stanford University Press.
Matthews, Peter H. 1981. Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
--. 2007. Syntactic relations. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Schaefer, Ronald P. and Francis O. Egbokhare. 1999. Oral tradition narratives of the Emai people, Part I and Part II. Hamburg: LIT Verlag.
--. 2000. Emai preverb order. Proceedings of the 2nd World Congress of African Linguistics, Lepzig 1997, ed. by H. Ekkehard Wolff and Orin D. Gensler, 733-746. Cologne: Rudiger Koppe Verlag.
--. 2007. A dictionary of Emai: An Edoid language of Nigeria. Cologne: Rudiger Koppe Verlag.
--. 2010. On Emai ditransitive constructions. Studies in ditransitive constructions: A comparative handbook, ed. by Andrej Malchukov, Martin Haspelmath and Bernard Comrie, 115-145. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
--. To appear. A reference grammar for Emai: A Nigerian Edoid language. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Watters, John. R. 2000. Syntax. African languages: An introduction, ed. by Bernd Heine and Derek Nurse, 194-230. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Williamson, Kay and Roger Blench. 2000. Niger Congo. African languages: An introduction, ed. by Bernd Heine and Derek Nurse, 11-42. New York: Cambridge University Press.
(1) Data incorporated in this paper derive from research sponsored by the National Science Foundation, (BNS #9011338 and SBR #9409552), the U.S. Department of State (College and University Affiliations Program grant ASJY 1333), Southern Illinois University Edwardsville, particularly its Distinguished Research Professor award, and the University of Ibadan, Nigeria, particularly its Inaugural Lecture series. We thank these institutions for their continued support, while not extending to them any responsibility for our data interpretation.
(2) Orthographic conventions for Emai generally reflect Schaefer and Egbokhare (2007), where o represents a lax mid back vowel, e a lax mid front vowel, and vb a voiced bilabial approximant. For tone, acute accent marks high, grave signals low, and acute followed by an apostrophe designates high downstep. Abbreviations for grammatical morphemes used in this paper include: APP = applicative, ASS = associative, C = continuous, CL = change of location, CS = change of state, F = factative, H = habitual, ID = identity pronoun, IND = indicative, LOC = locative, MAN = manner, NEG = negative, NF = negative focus, PAP = past perfect, PF = positive focus, PRP = present perfect, R = relator, SC = subject concord, TEMP = temporal perspective.
(3) It is worthwhile to note that English adjuncts differ in morphosyntactic expression as well, e.g. noun preceded by a preposition (in the park) versus lexical adverb (clumsily).
(4) Evidence that za and re are verbs and not preverbs emerges from tonal behavior in Present Perfect aspect (Schaefer and Egbokhare to appear), where verb phrase initial monosyllabic preverbs like Additive gbo 'too, also' (in addition to auxiliaries) show a high low falling tone (oje gboo hian oran [Oje ADD PRP.cut wood] 'Oje has cut wood too') but phrase initial monosyllabic verbs do not (oje gbe ofe [Oje PRP.kill rat] 'Oje has killed a rat' not *oje gbee ofe).
(5) Temporal deictic adjuncts occur in contrastive focus position, ode li oli omohe e' oli emae [yesterday PF the man PAP.eat the food] 'It was yesterday that the man ate the food,' although not with a latent verb in series. Temporal deictic dde does not occur in imperative clauses; other deictic adjuncts, e.g. akho 'tomorrow' and eena 'today,' do, though not with a latent verb.
(6) Temporal ordinal adjuncts occur in information question clauses with a complex structure, although not one involving a latent verb in series. Ordinal adjuncts correspond to a question frame marked by the identity pronoun i ID and the verb yi 'identify' and its complement noun ede 'day.' Ordinal adjuncts thus do not correspond to eghe re interrogatives, as temporal deictic adjuncts do.
(i) i yi ede li o hian' oli oran? ID identify day R he PAP.cut the wood 'On which day did he cut the wood? ukpede li ozeea. day R third 'On the third day.'
(7) Reason adjuncts correspond to the complex interrogative frame eme' o ze khi 'why,' which does not involve a latent verb in series. Instead, the erstwhile matrix clause occurs in an embedded indicative marked clause (indicative complement khi) under a cause verb, i.e. ze. It is this matrix cause verb that syntactically corresponds to the reason adjunct.
(i) eme' o ze-i' khi oli omohe e' oli emae lee? what it PAP.cause-F IND the man PAP.eat the food TEMP 'What caused the man to finish eating the food? ohio isi ohanmi. cause ASS hunger 'Because of hunger.'
(8) That manner i is a synchronic preverb, not a verb, is supported by its distribution. It never occurs as a simple predicate, transitive or intransitive, or as one constituent of a complex predicate. It arises only in manner expressions where a manner related constituent has been fronted, e.g. manner demonstrative adjunct (iya 'that way,' ina 'this way') or with information question word ebe' 'how.' In contrast, se, za and re occur as simple predicates or as constituents of complex predicates (Schaefer and Egbokhare to appear).
(9) Temporal extent adjuncts fail to occur in contrastive focus and imperative clauses, as the examples below illustrate.
(i) *tititi li oli omohe muzan'-i. long.time PF the man PAP.wait-F 'It was for a long time that the man waited.' (ii) *muzan tititi. wait long.time 'Wait a long time.'
(10) The correlation between position of latent verb relative to matrix verb, i.e. preceding vs following matrix predicate, and shape of interrogative response allowed, i.e. in situ vs ex situ, suggests that a more complex parameter than relation/argument may be operating. For the moment, however, we leave this notion unexplored.
Author's Contact Information (corresponding author):
Ronald P. Schaefer
Center for International Programs
Southern Illinois University Edwardsville
Edwardsville, IL 62026-1616
Francis O. Egbokhare
Department of Linguistics and African Languages
University of Ibadan
Table 1: Emai adjunct (AD) occurrence with main verb and latent verb (za or re) across clauses that are canonical, i.e. declarative (DECL), and noncanonical, i.e. imperative (IMP), interrogative (INTER) and contrastive focus (CF). DECL IMP INTER CF MANNER verb AD verb AD TEMPORAL verb AD verb AD re verb AD verb DEIXIS TEMPORAL verb AD re AD verb BOUND TEMPORAL verb AD re AD verb re verb QUANTITY LOCATIVE verb AD verb AD za verb AD za verb REASON re AD verb re AD verb AD re verb Table 2: Coding of Emai adjunct (AD) types (where A is Aspectual and T is Temporal) by verbs se, tee, re, and za relative to clause types declarative (DECL), imperative (IMP), interrogative (INTER), contrastive focus (CF) and response to information question (R-Q). DECL IMP INTER CF MANNER verb AD verb AD ebe' i verb A EXTENT verb AD verb AD ebe' i verb se T EXTENT verb AD ebe' i verb tee se T FREQ verb AD verb AD iseka verb AD li verb T ORDINAL verb vbi AD verb vbi AD AD li verb T DEIXIS verb AD verb AD eghe re verb AD li verb T BOUND verb vbi AD re AD verb T QUANT verb AD re AD verb ikpede eka re verb LOCATIVE verb vbi AD verb vbi AD ebe' za verb AD li za verb REASON re AD verb re AD verb AD li re verb R-Q MANNER in situ A EXTENT in situ T EXTENT in situ T FREQ ex situ T ORDINAL ex situ T DEIXIS ex situ T BOUND T QUANT ex situ LOCATIVE ex situ REASON ex situ
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Author:||Schaefer, Ronald P.; Egbokhare, Francis O.|
|Date:||Jun 1, 2014|
|Previous Article:||Arguments and Adjuncts as Language-Particular Syntactic Categories and as Comparative Concepts.|
|Next Article:||A Canonical Approach to the Argument/Adjunct Distinction.|