2.0. General considerations
This chapter is about the major clause patterns that are related to the properties of both English and Mandinka verbs. In this connection, we shall describe the kinds of constructions required by different types of verbs with regard to syntax and semantics. We would also like to discuss the syntactic and semantic aspects of modifiers such as phrasal and non-phrasal adjuncts within such clause patterns of the two languages so as to seek similarities and differences between them.
2.1. Major clause patterns
In this part, we shall deal with core arguments the use of different types of verbs are associated with to convey complete and meaningful information. Then, we will be dealing with transitivity with great respect to the inherent meanings of verbs but also to macroroles and participant roles that are subsumed by those macroroles. RRG distinguishes between “Syntactic transitivity” (transitivity) and “Macrorole transitivity” (M-transitivity) (Narasimhan, 1998). S-transitivity is defined as the number of core arguments a verb or predicating element takes while M-transitivity is about the number of macroroles a verb or predicating element licenses. This distinction being made, RRG gives great importance to the notion of M-transitivity because this is compatible with the description of a large number of languages.
2.1.1. M-Intransitive verbs
We would like to start our analysis by intransitive verbs as is suggested by Mithun and Chafe (1999), who argue that to conduct an analysis related to transitivity within individual areas of grammar, one might begin by examining the single arguments of clearly intransitive verbs (p.
592). Thus, since in this section, we are going to deal with M-intransitivity, it is useful to specify
that, in the framework of RRG, prototypical intransitive verbs are verbs that mostly require the presence of one single macrorole to produce a complete utterance.
(48) a. Mary arriv-ed.
Mari naa-PRET Mari naata le.
b. The thief di-ed in the night.
DEF sùŋ fáa-PRET P DEF súuto Suŋó fáata súutóo la.
About the interpretation of (48a), we should say that the English verb arrived is an intransitive verb used in the active voice. Its single core argument Mary is the privileged syntactic argument (PSA). The logical structure to this construction is do′ (Mary, [arrive′
(Mary)]). Being an activity verb, the single core argument (Mary) of the intransitive verb arrived is interpreted as the Actor. From this perspective, one can say that, in English, intransitive activity verbs require the presence of a single core argument that must be virtually construed as Actor. M-intransitive verbs are not normally used in the passive voice in this language.
The presence of the core argument Mary is obligatory for the construction to be a complete message. Arrived on its own is an incomplete utterance the speech participants will find difficulties construing, for there is a gap that should be filled by the Actor that carries out the action. It is also important to say that the adding of any other core argument to the construction will render this meaningless or ungrammatical. For instance, if it is odd to produce an utterance like *Mary arrived the house, it is because, apart from its PSA that is the Actor at the same time, the intransitive verb arrived is incompatible with any other argument that would be interpreted as Undergoer. Accordingly, like most prototypical intransitive verbs, about the semantic valence of arrived, one should bear in mind that the number of argument this takes is one (1). This idea of completeness related to the realization and the non-realization of arguments is what is expressed through the Completeness constraint below:
All of the arguments explicitly specified in the semantic representation of a sentence must be realized syntactically in the sentence, and all of the referring expressions in the syntactic representation of a sentence must be linked to an argument position in a logical structure in the semantic representation of the sentence. (Van Valin, 2005, p. 233)
As is expressed within the logical structure do′ (Mary, [arrive′ (Mary)]) corresponding to the sentence Mary arrived, there is no argument position that should be filled by a missing element. Like most intransitive activity verbs, arrived is M-intransitive because it licenses a single macrorole. If the analysis is conducted with regard to thematic relations, the macrorole Actor Mary corresponds to the thematic relation the Agent. The presence of the Agent signals that the action is under control while the absence of a possible Undergoer shows that this is about the description of an action that does not happen to something or someone. With regard to some M-intransitive constructions, it is also important to mention that in the image of arrive, activity verbs denote the feature “dynamic”.
With some English M-intransitive verbs, it is also possible to interpret the single core argument that occurs as an Undergoer. This is possible when “the verb has no activity predicate in its LS” as is expressed by the macrorole assignment principles.69 In (48a), the verb died denotes no action as can be seen in its logical structure BECOME dead′ (thief). The M-intansitive verb died is an accomplishment verb that implies the interpretation of the core argument thief as an Undergoer. This substantiates that, in English prototypical M-intransitive verb constructions, the single core argument that completes the meaning of the verb can be interpreted as Actor or Undergoer depending upon the semantic interpretation of the intransitive verb that occurs. If a consideration is given to the thematic relation this Undergoer corresponds to, one can say that The thief is the Patient insofar as there is a change of state or condition from being alive to death.
With English prototypical M-intransitive verb constructions, we can have recourse to the precore slot (PrCS) for some pragmatic grounds. As such, there is a change of illocutionary force, for with the realization of the precore slot, the construction in question becomes an interrogation which asks about the referent of the missing argument. In this sense, Van Valin and Lapolla (1997) argue that “an argument in the semantic representation of the verb need not appear as a
69 See Van Valin and Lapolla, Syntax, 152.
syntactic core argument but may appear in the pre- or postcore slot” (p. 38). For example, in Who arrived? Or Who died in the night?, there is the wh-word who that occupies the position of the missing argument it is used to ask about. The wh-word who signals that the missing argument the question is about refers to a person, which is not the case with the use of what that is used to ask about an argument whose referent is a thing, object, and the like.
One can note that with most English M-intransitive verbs, the S-transitivity corresponds to the M-transitivity, which means that the number of syntactic argument (one core argument) is the same as the number of macrorole (one macrorole). Both in (48a and b), syntactically, there is the realization of one single core argument and it is this very argument that is construed as Actor or Undergoer depending upon the semantic interpretation of the intransitive verb in use. This correspondence between S-transitivity and M-transitivity is different from what happens with English three arguments verbs and M-atransitive verbs.
As far as the position of the core argument is concerned vis-à-vis the verb, we would say that with English M-intransitive verb constructions, the PSA (that can be either the Actor or the Undergoer) usually precedes the verb, something that is important in the production of the message. For instance, if both *arrived Mary and *died the thief in the night are meaningless, it is because the PSA in either sentence does not occur in the normal position. In this sense, we would say that the positions of constituents are of prime importance in the creation of meaning in English; this is tantamount to saying that the word order plays a crucial role in the distribution of arguments. An argument seems to be able to complete the meaning of a construction if and only if it occupies the right position the language in question accepts.
In the English language, besides some verbs whose use is exclusively M-intransitive, there are also verbs that can be both M-intransitive and M-transitive depending upon the context.
This means that, in certain situations, such verbs may require the presence of two macroroles while in others they take only one macrorole. These are verbs like continue, return, grow, move, change, close, open, stop, start, and so on. For instance, it is possible to say both the situation changed (M-intransitive) and Writers changed the situation (M-transitive). In the former, the situation, the single core argument required by the verb can be analyzed as an Undergoer, whereas in the latter there are two macroroles with as Actor the Writers and Undergoer the
Undergoer in both constructions, which seems to be the case with most verbs aforementioned.
After giving careful attention to the analysis of English M-intransitive verb constructions, now, we would like to devote the following paragraphs to the case of Mandinka M-intransitive constructions.
(49) a. Deenaan-óo ŋunuma-ta.
baby-DEF crawl-PF.POS
The baby crawled.
b. Landiŋ mbolaŋ ban-ta le séruŋ.
Landing finish-PF.POS FOCM last year (Lit. Landiŋ mbolaŋ was finished last year.) Landing mbolaŋ died last year.
Like English, Mandinka prototypical M-intransitive verb constructions also appear with one single core argument that is essentially construed as Actor when the M-intransitive verb is an activity verb. The verb requires the presence of one core argument that is chiefly placed in the initial position of the construction, and the adding of the -ta suffix to the M-intransitive verb is obligatory if the illocutionary force of the said construction is declarative. In this language, it is nonsensical to produce utterances such as *ŋunumata deenaanóo “*crawled the baby” or *ta deenaanóo ŋunuma “Did the baby crawl?”. If these constructions are not understandable, it is because according to Dramé (1981), “there is a strict ordering between the subject, the intransitive verb and the tense/aspect marker” in the Mandinka language (p. 57). In Mandinka M-intransitive constructions, there is a strict order between the different elements (the core argument and the verb in -ta) and if this order is not respected, it is often difficult to convey meaningful information. The core argument always occurs in the initial position of the sentence while the verb taking the -ta inflection is placed in the final position.
As is indicated by the logical structure do′ (Deenaanóo, [ŋunuma′ (Deenaanóo)]), the M-intransitive verb ŋunuma does not react upon any other element that would be construed as Undergoer. In this situation, the verb asks only one core argument that is the external one, which can also be labelled as an Agent from a thematic relation perspective. Contrary to the M-transitive verbs, with Mandinka prototypical M-inM-transitive verbs, the fact of adding an element
upon which the Agent would react would make the sentence meaningless or odd. For instance, in this language, one cannot produce an utterance like *Deenaanóo bánkoo ŋunumata “*The baby the ground crawled”, this is impossible inasmuch as the verb ŋunuma “crawl” is a verb that requires only one core argument. It is impossible to use two macroroles with such a verb, especially when there is the presence of the -ta suffix at its end. In (49a), there is a situation that involves action hence the verb ŋunuma denotes the feature dynamic. In the image of ŋunuma, this is the case for most Mandinka prototypical M-intransitive verbs denoting actions and appearing with the -ta suffix.
Like English, Mandinka also boasts M-intransitive verbs that can be labelled as Undergoer. This is the case with the intransitive verb baŋ70 that can be called an accomplishment verb when it refers to the English verb “die”. Then, the logical structure to (49b) is BECOME dead′ (Landiŋ mbolaŋ). As such, if it takes two macroroles, the construction becomes nonsensical as is the case in, for instance, *Mansóo ye Landiŋ mbolaŋ baŋ “*God has finished Landiŋ mbolaŋ”. In the sense of “die”, baŋ does not allow the presence of an Actor; it requires the occurrence of one single core argument interpreted as Undergoer, and which is usually placed in the initial position of a simple sentence. The situation in which the verb baŋ can have an M-transitive reading is when we want to convey the idea of X finishing Y. In this sense, it takes both an Actor and an Undergoer as is shown in Musóo ye kínôo baŋ “The woman has finished off the rice” where Musóo is the Actor while kínôo is the Undergoer. In (49b), Landiŋ mbolaŋ the single core argument whose realization is required by the M-intransitive verb baŋ can also be interpreted as a Patient. To recapitulate, one should note that with Mandinka M-intransitive constructions, the single core argument required by the verb is either interpreted as an Actor like in (49a) or an Undergoer as is the case in (49b), depending upon the context or the semantic interpretation that is given to the verb in use.
In Mandinka, it is possible to see the realization of the PrCS with M-intransitive verbs.
As such, the illocutionary force signals that the modified utterance is rather interrogative. In doing so, the question word normally appears in the position of the missing core argument it is
70 The Mandinka verbs baŋ and fáa both refer to the English verb “die” but they are slightly different. Baŋ is
normally used to talk about the death of a childless person, whereas it is fáa that is normally used when it is about the death of a person who has got a child or children. Unlike baŋ, fáa means “kill” when it is used within a construction
used to ask a question about. This interrogative word can be jumáa “who” or múŋ “what”; the former is used in the PrCS when the missing argument the question is about refers to a person, and the latter is chosen when this is about a thing, object, and so forth. With such interrogative constructions, it is important to specify that the interrogative words jumáa and múŋ go obligatorily with the element le used for focus. This element is always put at the very right of the question word it goes with. For example, in Jumáa le naata? “Who has arrived?”, if the focus marker le is missing from the interrogation, this becomes odd. The question word Jumáa is distributed here as a core argument because it occupies the position of the missing element that would play here the role of subject (Actor). With Mandinka M-intransitive constructions denoting interrogative illocutionary force, it seems to be impossible to put the question words (jumáa and múŋ) replacing a core argument in the post-core slot (PoCS). This is the reason why constructions such as *Díndíŋo naata múŋ? “*the child has come what?”, *Suŋó fáata jumáa “*The thief died who?” are ungrammatical.
Creissels and Sambou (2013) demonstrate that, as a general rule, most Mandinka M-intransitive verbs become M-transitive when they take the suffix -ndí permitting so to express the notion of causative to some extent (p. 399). And they show that the exception to this is sǎa71. This is what they demonstrate through the examples Jíyo fajita “The water has boiled” and Musóo ye jíyo fájíndi “The woman brought water to the boil”; Kewó jaŋkáríta “The man has fallen ill” and Dómórí jáwóo ye kewó jaŋkarindi “The bad food has made the man ill”. We should specify that for one reason or another, one must essentially bear in mind that it is impossible to realize a transitive use of most M-intransitive verbs with the appearance of the -ta suffix that importantly serves to mark the intransitivity of such verbs. This means that to have a transitive use of such verbs, the -ta suffix has to be deleted if not the construction in question ends up an ungrammatical utterance. If constructions such as *Musóo ye jíyo fájítandi, *Musóo ye jíyo fájíndita, *Dómórí jáwóo ye kewó jaŋkartaindi, *Dómórí jáwóo ye kewó jaŋkarindita are meaningless, it is because the suffix -ta is an important element that indicates that the verb
71 Besides fáa and baŋ, Mandinka also uses the verb sǎa in the sense of “die”. Therefore, it is important to specify that this verb is usually an M-intransitive verb if there is no change in its form. Unlike Creissels and Sambou, we have found that in certain contexts, especially when the Undergoer is not a person or an animal, sǎa+-ndi taking two macroroles is possible in this language. As such, the Undergoer can be, for instance, a plant, a tree, some body parts, and so on.
requires one direct core argument for the construction to make sense, especially when the illocutionary force signals declarative.
To recapitulate, we can say that with both English and Mandinka M-intransitive verbs, the single core argument required by the verb can be interpreted as Actor or Undergoer depending upon the semantic interpretation of the verb used in the construction. In the two languages, the single core argument is placed in the sentence initial position while the verb occurs in the final position; the realization of any other core argument in the final position of the sentence renders this ungrammatical. When the illocutionary force is about an interrogation, both English and Mandinka M-intransitive verbs go with a pre-core slot to ask about the referent of the missing core argument whose referent is possibly unknown by the speaker.
Unlike English, Mandinka uses a suffix (-ta) that serves to mark the intransitive use of verbs. In this language, the -ta suffix at the end of a verb chiefly indicates that the said verb needs the presence of one single core argument to convey meaningful information. If, in English, there are some verbs that are both M-intransitive and transitive, in Mandinka, the presence or the absence of the -ta suffix at the end of verbs makes a big difference. After devoting paragraphs to the analysis of the characteristics of the core argument used with English and Mandinka intransitive verbs, let us turn to the case of M-transitive verbs.
2.1.2. M-Transitive verbs
Transitivity is about an activity that is “carried-over” or “transferred” from an Agent to a Patient (Hopper & Thompson, 1980, p. 251). As such, not only do we have two participants that are necessarily involved but there is also the expression of an action that is typically effective in some way. As such, in RRG terms, M-transitive verbs are verbs that normally require the presence of two core arguments to convey a complete message. These core arguments that are interpreted at the macrorole level as Actor and Undergoer may be realized in particular languages in similar or different ways depending upon the logical structure of the different M-transitive
verbs. Then, in the following lines, we shall devote our analysis to the case of English before that of Mandinka.
(50) The man hit the ball.
DEF kew fayi.PRET DEF Kaati Kewó ye kaatóo fayi.
In this English active sentence, The man is the Actor and the entity the ball is the
In this English active sentence, The man is the Actor and the entity the ball is the