The coming apart of case and focus in Bantu

Abstract

The paper presents an argument for structural case in a Bantu language, Ndebele. Bantu languages notoriously lack typical signs of case licensing, which has led to the proposal that they lack case altogether. A recent claim to the contrary, put forth in Halpert (2012, 2015), has been challenged by Carstens and Mletshe (2016), who argue that the patterns Halpert describes fall under the umbrella of focus licensing, thus undermining the need for an independent case licensing mechanism. Ndebele data invalidate this challenge, revealing a purely syntactic nature of the phenomenon in question.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. 1.

    Due to space limitations, this section cannot do justice to all existing claims about potential case phenomena in Bantu languages. For a more detailed overview see Halpert 2015; Diercks and Carstens to appear.

  2. 2.

    All Ndebele data were collected during interviews with members of a Ndebele diaspora in the United States and in South Africa (Johannesburg and Durban). All speakers (14, aged 21–60), are native speakers of Ndebele and most of them identify Ndebele as their primary language.

  3. 3.

    I follow the Leipzig Glossing convention with the following additions: 1 – class 1 nominal prefix (etc.), 1s – class 1 subject agreement (etc.), 1o – class 1 object agreement (etc.), a – augment vowel, cnj – conjoint, dsj – disjoint, fv – final vowel.

  4. 4.

    Van der Wal (2015) argues that Matengo and Makhuwa are languages with abstract Case. Crucially, however, evidence for this claim comes from the fact that these two languages show the familiar abstract case phenomena that most other Bantu languages famously lack.

  5. 5.

    It is worth noting that, under this view, augmentless nouns are expected to have a wider distribution than augmented ones, which does not appear to be the case, in Kinande or other Bantu languages. For instance, Baker’s account incorrectly predicts that [−Aug] nouns should be licit in Spec,TP since that position is caseless in this analysis.

  6. 6.

    Here, I rely on Halpert’s theory which stipulates that licensing takes place after movement.

  7. 7.

    Some speakers of Ndebele allow dislocation of low adverbs. For those speakers, adverb placement is not a reliable diagnostic for object dislocation. An additional diagnostic for dislocated objects is the so called disjoint form of the verb (here, the prefix ya). Disjoint forms appear when there is no phrasal material in the vP (Buell 2006; Halpert 2012). Negative forms of the verb do not have a separate disjoint form, however.

  8. 8.

    Zulu has a fourth context: in expletive ditransitives (V-S-IO-DO), the indirect object cannot be augmentless or narrowly focused (Halpert 2012, 2015; Carstens and Mletshe 2016). I do not consider this configuration since Ndebele speakers find expletive ditransitive constructions significantly degraded, irrespective of focus/augment. Regardless, the present goal is to show that there exist positions in which [−Aug] and focus do not overlap. Another instance of an overlapping distribution does not change this fact.

  9. 9.

    In fact, the augment is obligatory there since the sentences lack negation (and these are not wh-items).

  10. 10.

    Carstens and Mletshe briefly discuss one potential problem for their claim, also observed in Buell (2009), Halpert (2012). While objects in VSO sentences cannot be augmentless, they can, at least for some speakers, be wh-items. Halpert interprets this asymmetry as evidence that [−Aug] DPs do not have the distribution of focused DPs. Carstens and Mletshe view it as weak evidence since the speakers who accept wh-items in this position report an emphatic/echo reading of such as wh-questions. They tentatively assume that wh-items in echo questions do not have a focus feature, and thus don’t constitute counterevidence to their claim that augmentless DPs are a type of focused DPs.

  11. 11.

    A reviewer suggests a different interpretation of the impossibility of augmentless nominals in (31)–(33), namely that augmentless nominals are not compatible with all types of focus, and the type(s) of focus they are compatible with is unavailable in the preverbal position. An observation along these lines was made by Van der Wal and Namyalo (2016), who show that [−Aug] is compatible with exhaustive, exclusive and indentificational focus, but not with additive focus (particle even). Such an alternative is ruled out for Ndebele due to the following facts. We know that augmentless nominals are compatible with exhaustive focus—an augmentless noun can be associated with kuphela ‘only’.

    1. (i)
      figuread

    We will see shortly that preverbal subjects in these three clause types can be exhaustively focused (38)–(40). If the distribution of [−Aug] is governed by type of focus and [−Aug] is compatible with exhaustive focus, we incorrectly predict that [−Aug] should be allowed in all positions that can host exhaustive focus, including embedded preverbal subjects (see also the discussion of (38)–(43)).

  12. 12.

    The impossibility of augment drop in these contexts is not due to the absence of clausemate negation: if the embedded subject stays in situ, it can be augmentless, despite negation being in the higher clause:

    1. (i)
      figurean

    Based on a similar observation in Zulu and Xhosa, Carstens and Mletshe conclude that the contrast is not due to non-local negation but due to the preverbal position being incompatible with focus (2016:792–793).

    In earlier work, Carstens and Mletshe proposed that [−Aug] nominals must undergo A′-movement to be licensed as NPIs (2015:213). The impossibility of augmentless embedded subjects was attributed to a ban on movement of the embedded subject to a local A-bar position as it would trigger the that-trace effect (following Kayne’s 1981 account of the French personne-NPI). This account of Ndebele would be challenged by the following fact: embedded subjects in subjunctive clauses can be augmentless iff the complementizer is augmentless itself, i.e. kuthi rather than ukuthi (see Pietraszko 2019 for an account of the complementizer augment):

    1. (ii)
      figureao

    Carstens and Mletshe (2015) would be forced to make the odd stipulation that that-trace effect doesn’t arise if the complementizer is augmentless. In contrast, (ii) resembles cases reported in Rackowski and Richards (2005) where agreement/licensing of a phasal category (here CP) voids its phasehood, allowing interaction with embedded material. Thus, (ii) can be viewed as further supporting the case-licensing view. Moreover, since wh-items are not licensed by negation, Carstens and Mletshe (2015) do not explain why augmentless wh-items cannot appear in the preverbal subject position either (a gap they eliminate in the later, focus-based account). Note that the complementizer form is kept constant throughout the paper (ukuthi) to avoid any confounds.

  13. 13.

    In a more articulated clause structure, the adjunction site may be an aspect-related projection between TP and LP.

  14. 14.

    A reviewer points out that similar adjuncts in Zulu may be interpreted as part of vP-focus. This potentially suggests an interesting point of microvariation, which falls outside of the scope of this paper. See discussion in Poulus and Msimang (1998), Halpert (2016).

  15. 15.

    If it turns out that temporal adjuncts are indeed outside of the vP in Ndebele, conjoint morphology in this language would not indicate the absence of vP internal material, as previously proposed for Zulu (Van der Spuy 1993; Buell 2005, 2006; Halpert 2012, 2015).

  16. 16.

    The topicality of preverbal subjects in Bantu has been shown to be different than the topicality of unambiguously dislocated phrases (including dislocated subjects). For instance, Van der Wal (2009), Halpert (2012) show (for Makhuwa and Zulu, respectively) that quantified DPs can appear as preverbal subjects, but cannot be dislocated. This is true in Ndebele as well. Preverbal subjects in these languages are then perhaps better characterized as resisting narrow focus (cf. Zeller’s 2008 antifocus feature). This means that Spec,TopP, the subject position in indicative clauses, is not a dislocated position. It’s a position that always attracts the subject DP, bringing it out of the focus field. See Bliss and Storoshenko (2009), Pietraszko (2017) for an analysis of Top0 as an agreement probe which, due to locality, always attracts the subject to its specifier. See Erlewine and Lim (2019) for a similar view of clefts in Bikol.

  17. 17.

    See Buell (2005), Pietraszko (2018) for analyses of negation in Zulu and Ndebele respectively, proposing two ΣPs/NegPs: one in the left periphery and the other below T.

  18. 18.

    The relative marker a (and its class-covarying variants) has been analyzed as the relative complementizer (Khumalo 1992; Demuth and Harford 1999; Zeller 2004, 2006; Cheng 2006; Henderson 2006, 2007, among others). For a different treatment of the a marker, namely as a nominal linker, see Pietraszko (2019). This analytical choice is not important here.

  19. 19.

    The only construction that resembles focus fronting is in fact a cleft, in which the focused phrase follows an existential predicate.

References

  1. Adams, Nikki. 2010. The Zulu ditransitive verb phrase. PhD diss., University of Chicago.

  2. Asiimwe, Allen. 2014. Definiteness and specificity in Runyankore-Rukiga. PhD diss., Stellenbosch University.

  3. Babby, L. H. 1980. Existential sentences and negation in Russian. Ann Arbor: Karoma Publisher, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Babyonyshev, Maria. 1996. Structural connections in syntax and processing: Studies in Russian and Japanese. PhD diss., MIT.

  5. Baker, Mark. 2003. Agreement, dislocation, and partial configurationality. In Formal approaches to function in grammar, eds. Heidi Harley Andrew Carnie and MaryAnn Willie, 107–132. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Baker, Mark. 2008. The Syntax of Agreement and Concord. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Bittner, Maria, and Ken Hale. 1996. The structural determination of Case and Agreement. Linguistic Inquiry 27(1): 1–68.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Bliss, Heather, and Dennis Ryan Storoshenko. 2009. Grammaticization of topic in Shona. Paper presented at the 3rd International Conference on Bantu Linguistics (BANTU 3), Tervuren, Belgium.

  9. Bobaljik, Jonathan David. 2008. Where’s phi? Agreement as a post-syntactic operation. In Phi theory: Phi-features across interfaces and modules, eds. Daniel Harbour, David Adger, and Susana Béjar, 295–328. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Bresnan, Joan, and Sam A Mchombo. 1987. Topic, pronoun, and agreement in Chichewa. Language 63(4): 741–782.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Buell, Leston Chandler. 2005. Issues in Zulu verbal morphosyntax. PhD diss., University of California Los Angels.

  12. Buell, Leston Chandler. 2006. The Zulu conjoint/disjoint verb alternation: Focus or constituency? ZAS Papers in Linguistics 43: 9–30.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Buell, Leston Chandler. 2009. Evaluating the immediate postverbal position as a focus position in Zulu. In Annual Conference on African Linguistics (ACAL) 38, 166–172.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Buell, Leston Chandler, and Merijn de Dreu. 2013. Subject raising in Zulu and the nature of PredP. The Linguistic Review 30(3): 423–466.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Carstens, Vicki. 2001. Multiple agreement and case deletion: Against φ-incompleteness. Syntax 4(3): 147–163.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Carstens, Vicki. 2010. Grammatical gender and the theory of uninterpretable features. In Exploring crash proof grammars, ed. Michael Putnam, 31–57. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Carstens, Vicki. 2011. Hyperactivity and hyperagreement in Bantu. Lingua 121(5): 721–741.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Carstens, Vicki, and Michael Diercks. 2013. Parameterizing case and activity: Hyper-raising in Bantu. In North East Linguistic Society (NELS) 40, eds. Michael Diercks, Seda Kan, Claire Moore-Cantwell, and Robert Staubs, 99–118. Amherst: GLSA.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Carstens, Vicki, and Loyiso Mletshe. 2015. Radical Defectivity: Implications of Xhosa expletive constructions. Linguistic Inquiry 46(2): 187–242.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Carstens, Vicki, and Loyiso Mletshe. 2016. Negative concord and nominal licensing in Xhosa and Zulu. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 34(3): 761–804.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Carstens, Vicki, and Jochen Zeller. 2020. ‘Only’ in Nguni: A phrase-final particle meets antisymmetry theory. Linguistic Inquiry 51(2): 199–235.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Cheng, Lisa Lai-Shen. 2006. Decomposing Bantu relatives. In North East Linguistic Society (NELS) 36, eds. Amy Rose Deal, Christopher Davis and Youri Zabbal, 197–216. Amherst: GLSA.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Cheng, Lisa Lai-Shen, and Laura Downing. 2009. Where’s the topic in Zulu? The Linguistic Review 26: 207–238.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Current studies in linguistics. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, eds. Roger Martin, David Michaels, and Juan Uriagereka, 89–155. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A life in language, ed. Michael Kenstowicz, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Oxford studies in comparative syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  28. de Dreu, Merijn. 2008. The internal structure of the Zulu DP. Master’s thesis, Universiteit Leiden.

  29. Demuth, Katherine, and Carolyn Harford. 1999. Verb raising and subject inversion in bantu relatives. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 20: 41–62.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Diercks, Michael. 2012. Parameterizing case: Evidence from Bantu. Syntax 15(3): 253–286.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Diercks, Michael, and Vicki Carstens. to appear. Bantu syntax. In The Oxford guide to the Bantu languages, eds. Ellen Hurst, Nancy Kula, Lutz Marten and Jochen Zeller. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/003902.

  32. Erlewine, Michael Yoshitaka, and Cheryl Lim. 2019. Bikol clefts and topics and the Austronesian extraction restriction. Ms., National University of Singapore.

  33. Giusti, Giuliana. 1997. The categorial status of determiners. In The new comparative syntax, ed. Liliane Haegeman, 95–124. London: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Haegeman, Liliane. 2006. Conditionals, factives and the left periphery. Lingua 116: 1651–1669.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Haegeman, Liliane. 2010. The internal syntax of adverbial clauses. Lingua 120: 628–648.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Halpert, Claire. 2012. Argument licensing and agreement in Zulu. PhD diss., MIT.

  37. Halpert, Claire. 2015. Argument licensing and agreement. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Halpert, Claire. 2016. Prosody/syntax mismatches in the Zulu conjoint/disjoint alternation. In The conjoint/disjoint alternation in Bantu, eds. Jenneke van der Wal and Larry M. Hyman, 329–349. Berlin: de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Harford Perez, Carolyn. 1985. Aspects of complementation in three Bantu languages. PhD diss., University of Wisconsin, Madison.

  40. Henderson, Brent. 2006. Multiple agreement and inversion in Bantu. Syntax 9(3): 275–289.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Henderson, Brent Mykel. 2007. The syntax of agreement in Bantu relatives. Texas Linguistics Society 9: 167–184.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Hyman, Larry, and Francis Katamba. 1993. The augment in Luganda: syntax or pragmatics. In Theoretical aspects of Bantu grammar, ed. Sam Mchombo, Vol. 1, 209–256. Stanford: CSLI Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Kayne, Richard. 1981. Two notes on the NIC. In Theory of markedness in generative grammar, eds. Luciana Brandi, Adriana Belletti, and Luigi Rizzi, 317–346. Pisa: Scuola Normale Superiore.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Khumalo, James SM. 1992. The morphology of the direct relative in Zulu. In African linguistic contributions, ed. D. F. Gowlett, 210–226. Pretoria: Via Africa.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Kornfilt, Jaklin, and Omer Preminger. 2015. Nominative as no case at all: An argument from raising-to-acc in Sakha. In Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics (WAFL 9), eds. Andrew Joseph and Esra Predolac. MIT working papers in linguistics, 109–120. Cambridge: MITWPL.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Letsholo, Rose Meleko. 2002. Syntactic domains in Ikalanga. PhD diss., University of Michigan.

  47. Ndayiragije, Juvenal. 1999. Checking Economy. Linguistic Inquiry 30: 399–444.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Pietraszko, Asia. 2017. Clause size and transparency in Ndebele. In Poster presented at 91st annual meeting of the lsa, Austin.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Pietraszko, Asia. 2018. Auxiliary vs INFL in Bantu. The syntactic and phonological complexity of Ndebele verbs. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 36(1): 265–308. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-017-9373-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Pietraszko, Asia. 2019. Obligatory CP nominalization in Ndebele. Syntax 22: 66–111.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Poulus, George, and Christian T Msimang. 1998. A linguistic analysis of Zulu. Cape Town: Via Africa/Collegium Educational Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Preminger, Omer. 2014. Agreement and its failures. Linguistic inquiry monographs. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Progovac, Ljiljana. 1993. Non-augmented NPs in Kinande as negative polarity items. In Theoretical aspects of Bantu grammar, Vol. 1, 257–270. Stanford: CSLI.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Rackowski, Andrea, and Norvin Richards. 2005. Phase edge and extraction: A Tagalog case study. Linguistic Inquiry 36(4): 565–599. https://doi.org/10.1162/002438905774464368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Sabel, Joachim, and Jochen Zeller. 2006. Wh-question formation in Nguni. In Annual Conference on African Linguistics (ACAL) 35: African Languages and Linguistics in Broad Perspective, 271–283.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Schneider-Zioga, Patricia. 2000. Anti-agreement and the fine structure of the left edge. In Working papers in linguistics, eds. Maki Irie Ruixi Ai Francesca Del Gobbo and Hajime Ono, Vol. 6, 94–114. Irvine: Department of Linguistics, University of California.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Schneider-Zioga, Patricia. 2007. Anti-agreement, anti-locality and minimality. The syntax of dislocated subjects. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25(2): 403–446.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Sheehan, Michelle, and Jenneke Van der Wal. 2018. Nominal licensing in caseless languages. Journal of Linguistics 54: 527–589.

  59. Taraldsen, Knut Tarald. 2010. The nanosyntax of Nguni noun class prefixes and concords. Lingua 120(6): 1522–1548.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Van der Spuy, Andrew. 1993. Dislocated noun phrases in Nguni. Lingua 90(4): 335–355.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Van der Wal, Jenneke. 2009. Word order and information structure in Makhuwa-Enahara. PhD diss., Universiteit Leiden.

  62. Van der Wal, Jenneke. 2015. Evidence for abstract Case in Bantu. Lingua 165: 109–132.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Van der Wal, Jenneke, and Saudah Namyalo. 2016. The interaction of two focus marking strategies in Luganda. In Diversity in African languages, eds. Sara Pacchiarotti, Doris Payne, and Mokaya Bosir, 355–377. Berlin: Language Science Press.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Vergnaud, Jean-Roger. 1977. Open letter to Chomsky and Lasnik. Available at http://ling.auf.net/lingBuzz/000461.

  65. Visser, Marianna. 2008. Definiteness and specificity in the isiXhosa determiner phrase. South African Journal of African Languages 28(1): 11–29.

    Google Scholar 

  66. von Staden, P. M. S. 1973. The initial vowel in Zulu. African Studies 32(3): 163–181.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Zeijlstra, Hedde. 2008. Negative concord is syntactic agreement. Ms., University of Amsterdam.

  68. Zeller, Jochen. 2004. Relative clause formation in the Bantu languages of South Africa. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 22(1–2): 75–93.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Zeller, Jochen. 2006. On the relation between noun prefixes and grammaticalisation in Nguni relative clauses. Studia Linguistica 60(2): 220–249.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Zeller, Jochen. 2008. The subject marker in Bantu as an antifocus marker. Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics 38: 221–254.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Ziervogel, Dirk. 1967. A handbook of the Zulu language. Pretoria: J.L. van Schaik.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the National Science Foundation (BCS-1551787). I would like to thank my Ndebele consultants, as well as three anonymous reviewers for valuable feedback.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Asia Pietraszko.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pietraszko, A. The coming apart of case and focus in Bantu. Nat Lang Linguist Theory 39, 579–599 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-020-09481-z

Download citation

Keywords

  • Case
  • Focus
  • Bantu
  • Ndebele
  • Zulu
  • Xhosa