likely to be topic.
Only when there is a grammatical constraint on the function of a topic NP do we use the label ‘pivot’. Some languages have an S/A pivot, some an S/O pivot, and some combine the two varieties of pivot in different areas of grammar. As mentioned before, a language may have clear marking of what is a topic, without there being any pivot constraints.
Some languages have what is called ‘switch-reference’. This involves a choice between two markings, typically on the verb. ‘Same subject’ indicates that this clause has identical S or A argument to the preceding clause, and ‘different subject’ states that their subjects differ. Whereas pivots can be of S/A or S/O variety, all instances of switch-reference marking relate only to S and A. No language is known which has both a pivot constraint on clause combining and also switch-reference marking.
There is also the concept of ‘contrastive focus’, sometimes confused with ‘topic’. Whereas topic is a discourse strategy, serving to link together succes- sive clauses, focus involves one argument (or the predicate) being accorded prominence within a single clause. For example:
(14) (a) Johns got to the office late, (b) __s did [his work]o sloppily, (c) __cs was rude [to the office boy], (d) then hea insulted [the boss]o, (e) and __s went home early.
John is the topic of this sequence of five clauses. The boss is accorded stress and is thus accorded focus status in (14d). Note that the NP the office boy is not placed in focus; it is, perhaps, unexceptional to be rude to the office boy. But
3.22 argument identity: reflexives and reciprocals 175 one should be careful how one treats the boss, and the significance of the NP the boss as O for insult is brought out by putting it in focus.
Some of the methods summarized above for marking an argument as topic (constituent order, use of bound pronoun, inclusion of a classifier, etc.) may alternatively be used to indicate an NP in focus. They must be assessed for each grammar, on an individual basis.
There will be fuller discussion of pivots, switch-reference, and focus in Volume3.
3.22 Argument identity: reflexives and reciprocals
A transitive clause has two core arguments, generally referring to different people or things, as John hid the money, and Mary burnt Jane. However, under- lying A and O may have the same referent—this is a ‘reflexive’ construction. A language generally uses one of three techniques for dealing with this.
I. Maintain the transitivity of the clause, and place a reflexive pronoun in O slot; this may be a bound form, for a language which has bound pronouns, or a free pronoun, as in English John hid himself, Mary burnt herself. In English the reflexive pronoun reflects the person, number, and gender of the subject. (Indeed, it shows number even when the subject pronoun doesn’t, for2nd person, as in I see you cut yourself and I see you cut yourselves.) Some languages have a single reflexive pronoun for all persons, numbers, and genders—‘I cut self ’, ‘John cut self ’, etc. II. Derive an intransitive stem. Since A and O coincide in reference, there
is in effect one argument. A morphological process is applied to the verb that derives a reflexive stem which is intransitive, and takes a core argument in S function (this is the underlying A = O). For example, in Dyirbal we get simple transitive clause (1) and derived intransitive reflexive (2).
(1) Mani-øo
money-absolutive Jani-Johnny-ergativeNgua buyba-nhide-past Johnny hid the money
(2) Jani-øs
Johnny-absolutive buyba-yirri-ñuhide-reflexive-past Johnny hid himself
The suffix -yirri- derives an intransitive stem which has reflexive mean- ing. (Note that -n and -ñu are allomorphs of the past tense suffix.) III. Do nothing at all. Just state the A and O arguments in the normal way,
for1st and 2nd person pronouns, but may lead to ambiguity in the case of3rd person. Thus, in John burnt him, the him may refer back to John or to someone else. Some languages have a reflexive pronoun just for 3rd person. Others have to bring in something like a relative clause to resolve the ambiguity (if, indeed, this is not achieved by the discourse context). For example, in Fijian one can say, literally ‘John, who relates to himself, cuts him’, which provides a reflexive meaning.
If we have two clauses with the same two predicates interchanging A and O functions—John hit Bill and Bill hit John—a ‘reciprocal’ construction can be formed from them. Languages employ techniques which are similar to the first two for reflexives.
I. Maintain transitivity, and place a (bound or free) reciprocal pronoun in O slot; for example John and Bill hit each other/one another in English.
II. Derive an intransitive stem, with reciprocal meaning, by applying a morphological process to the verb. It takes an S core argument, which is the coordination of the underlying A and O. For example, in Dyirbal we find:
(3) Jani-øo
Johnny-absolutive Bili-Billy-ergativeNgua bara-npunch-past Billy punched Johnny
(4) Bili-øo
Billy-absolutive Jani-Johnny-ergativeNgua bara-npunch-past Johnny punched Billy
(5) [Jani-garra-ø
Johnny-one.of.a.pair-absolutive Bili-garra-ø]Billy-one.of.a.pair-absolutives baral-baral-nbarri-ñu
redup-punch-reciprocal-past Johnny and Billy punched each other
Suffix -nbarri-, plus reduplication of the root (a double-barrelled morpho- logical process), derives an intransitive stem, baral-baral-nbarri, which takes an S argument, the NP Jani-garra Bili-garra—literally ‘Johnny, being one of a pair, and Billy, being one of a pair’ (that is ‘Johnny and Billy’).
A reciprocal construction is not confined to a situation of just two partici- pants. One can say The boys punched each other, where there is an indetermi- nate number of boys. This does not imply that every boy punched and was punched by every other boy. One would infer that most of the boys punched
3.23 comparative constructions 177 some other boys, and that most of them were punched by some other boys, or something along these lines.
The majority of languages use similar techniques for reflexive and reciprocal— maintaining transitivity with reflexive and reciprocal pronouns, as in Eng- lish, or deriving intransitive stems, as in Dyirbal. Sometimes reflexive and reciprocal are marked identically, the construction being taken to be reflexive when the subject is singular—as in (2)—and reciprocal when the subject is plural—as in (5). In a number of languages, a reciprocal marker is based on the reflexive (never the other way round). For example, in Korafe, from New Guinea, the reflexive pronoun is tofo and the reciprocal one tofotofo.
There are, however, some languages which employ different techniques. For example, Swahili has a reflexive bound pronoun in the prefix slot reserved for an O argument, but an intransitivizing derivational suffix -na- for reciprocal. Volume3 will deal in more detail with reflexive and reciprocal construc- tions, including discussion of further grammatical mechanisms. And it will describe some of the secondary senses of reflexive and reciprocal pronouns and processes (such as that of myself in I myself hid the money in English).
3.23 Comparative constructions
A comparative construction is often a rather unusual feature of the grammar, for languages in which it occurs.
There are three basic elements in a prototypical comparative scheme: the two participants being compared, and the property in terms of which they are compared. Consider the English sentence:
(1) Johncs
comparee is [moreindex handsome]parametercc [thanmark Felix]standard The participants are: