An Afro-Asiatic perspective on the definition of Serial Verb Constructions Daniel Ross (University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign) djross3@gmail.com / danielrosslinguist.com

June 2nd, 2018: North Atlantic Conference On Afroasiatic Linguistics (NACAL) 46, California State University, Long Beach, California

Introduction 3. Grammaticalization in Colloquial Arabic 5. Berber Clause-Chaining

1. Serial Verb Constructions

2. Multi-verb constructions in Afro-Asiatic Summary & Outlook

4. Egyptian & Coptic Multi-Verb Phrases References

(Ross et al. 2015; Ross forthcoming)

Ø  Afro-Asiatic languages in particular often difficult to categorize

(Composite working definition based on traditional use of the term)

SVCs are: •  two or more juxtaposed verbs •  with no marker of dependency or linking element •  expressing a single event in a single clause •  with shared values for Tense-Aspect-Modality and negation •  and shared arguments (subject and/or object)

SVCs found in about 125 languages in sample of 325

•  Afro-Asiatic family as important laboratory of diversity & change •  Both diachronic and synchronic dimensions in available data

•  This allows us to observe borderline cases that test our definitions •  Non-concatenative morphology is especially challenging

•  SVCs similar to other multi-verb constructions, properties overlap •  Most common cross-linguistic types represented in Afro-Asiatic

•  Over its nearly 5,000 year history, Egyptian/Coptic drifts toward SVC-like forms •  Not a typical ‘serializing’ language, limited range of types and usage •  Grammaticalization of this type is recurrent as if it wants to be serializing

•  Unfortunately data is quite limited due to lack of colloquial/spoken corpora •  Genuine instances of verifiable SVCs are difficult to pin down, but there are

several relevant cases (Reintges 1995, 1997; Grossman 2009, p.c.) (4.1) Egyptian (Reintges 1995:90) (4.2) Coptic (Grossman 2009:102) ᶜħᶜ-n ħpt-n kjj kjj a-s-ouô a-s-mou stand.up-PRF embrace-PRF other other PST-3SG.F-finish PST-3SG.F-die ‘Then one embraced the other.’ ‘She has died.’

•  Perhaps these are more like Agreeing Verb Constructions (Hock & Ross 2016) •  the form of SVCs but not (necessarily) the same structure/function

•  Semitic: widespread pseudocoordination (Ross 2016, f.c.), as in (2.1) •  Emergence of SVCs in some modern colloquial varieties (Section 3) •  Ethiopian Semitic: converbs in multi-verb sequences, as in (2.2)

(2.1) Egyptian Arabic ra:ħ w za:kir go.PRF.3.SG.M and study.PRF.3.SG.M ‘He went and studied.’

(2.2) Amharic (Amha & Dimmendaal 2006a:412) k’om-ó tänaggärä go-CNV.3.SG.M speak.PST.3.SG.M ‘He got up and talked.’

•  Chadic: typical SVCs attested in several languages in the West Africa region where SVCs are common (Frajzyngier 2016; Lovestrand f.c.)

•  Cushitic: converbs (dependent-marked verb forms) are typical in multi-verb constructions (Amha & Dimmendaal 2006a) •  A particularly unusual mixed type is found in Dullay (Section 6)

•  Omotic: converbs similar to Cushitic (Amha & Dimmendaal 2006b)

•  Berber: clause chaining with default aorist non-initial verbs (Section 5) •  Egyptian: an apparent drift toward SVC-like constructions (Section 4)

A broad overview of the family:

•  SVCs reported variously for colloquial Arabic varieties, but descriptions sparse across dialects and definitions inconsistent; classification controversial •  See among others: Versteegh (1984, 2008, 2009), Hussein (1990), Brustad

(2000), Fischer (2002), Woidich (2002), Ryding (2005), Drozdík (2008), Persson (2013), Edzard (2014), Di Caro (2015), Gamliel & Mar’I (2015), Ouali & Al Bukhari (2016), Pospíšil (2017)

•  They are not found in Modern Standard Arabic or Classical Arabic •  Apparently developing in parallel in the modern colloquial varieties

•  Research questions: •  Are these genuine SVCs? In which varieties are they found? •  What is the source of grammaticalization?

•  One source for grammaticalization may be omission of wa ‘and’ in pseudocoordination (verbal hendiadys) constructions, as in (2.1)

•  However, another likely influence is the imperfective complement construction, which is sometimes considered a type of SVC:

(3.1) Jordanian Arabic (Ouali & Al Bukhari 2016:174) ʔaʕad ji-ħki sit.PRF.3.SG.M 3.M-talk.IMPF.SG ‘He kept talking.’

•  This type is excluded by definition: both verbs must exhibit a single tense/aspect •  Either parallel inflection on both, or one inflected and the other in a bare form; for more

on this Agreeing vs. Sharing distinction, see Ross (2017, f.c.) •  Given that the Arabic verbal system has no truly bare form, even tough the

imperfective may behave as if it is, the definition does not apply

•  IMPF-IMPF examples are actually ambiguous between SVCs and the type in (3.1) •  The true test for SVCs in Arabic varieties then is PRF-PRF examples •  This distribution is found in Egyptian Arabic (Abdel-Massih et al. 1979: 272-4)

I thank Zainab Hermes for providing the following data and grammaticality judgments:

PRF-IMPF ra:ħ yiza:kir (not SVC) < imperfective complementation

PRF-PRF ra:ħ za:kir < ra:ħ (w) za:kir (pseudocoordination) IMPF-IMPF yiru:ħ yiza:kir (ambiguous) < yiru:ħ (w) yiza:kir (pseudocoordination) (or

IMPF-PRF *yiru:ħ za:kir

•  Therefore, at least some Arabic varieties have genuine SVCs, but among a network of related constructions, with some complexities related to inflection

•  The distribution across Arabic varieties is left for future research •  Additionally, not yet known whether different semantic types pattern similarly

•  Gamliel & Mar’i (2015) report rare/emerging omitted ve ‘and’ in Modern Hebrew

•  Afro-Asiatic provides a wide range of variation and borderline cases •  SVCs and similar constructions can appear or change rapidly

•  ‘Serial Verb Constructions’ unnecessarily limited in form & function •  Broader category Multi-Verb Predicates recommended to account for

variation in form but unite similar functions (Ross 2017, f.c.) •  Extensive research recommended on variation in colloquial varieties

Abdel-Massih, Ernest T., Zaki N. Abdel-Malek, El-Said M. Badawi & Ernest N. McCarns. 1979. A Comprehensive Study of Egyptian Arabic. Vol. 3: A Reference Grammar of Egyptian Arabic. Ann Arbor: Center for Near Eastern and North African Studies, The University of Michigan.

Amborn, Hermann, Gunter Minker & Hans-Jürgen Sasse. 1980. Das Dullay: Materialien zu einer ostkuschitischen Sprachgruppe. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer Verlag. Amha, Azeb & Gerrit Jan Dimmendaal. 2006a. Converbs in an African perspective. In Felix K. Ameka, Alan Charles Dench & Nicholas Evans (eds.), Catching language: the standing challenge of grammar

writing, 393–440. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Amha, Azeb & Gerrit Jan Dimmendaal. 2006b. Verbal Compounding in Wolaitta. In Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald & R. M. W. Dixon (eds.), Serial Verb Constructions: A Cross-Linguistic Typology, 319–337.

Oxford: Oxford University Press. Belkadi, Aicha. 2013. Aspect and mood in Berber and the aorist issue. SOAS Working Papers in Linguistics 16. 127–150. Bentolila, Fernand. 1981. Grammaire fonctionnelle d’un parler berbère: Aït Seghrouchen d’Oum Jeniba (Maroc). Paris: Société d’études linguistiques et anthropologiques de France. Brustad, Kristen. 2000. The syntax of spoken Arabic: a comparative study of Moroccan, Egyptian, Syrian, and Kuwaiti dialects. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press. Di Caro, Vincenzo Nicolò. 2015. Syntactic constructions with motion verbs in some Sicilian dialects: a comparative analysis. Università Ca’Foscari di Venezia M.A. thesis. http://hdl.handle.net/10579/6229 Drozdík, Ladislav. 2008. A search for serial verb constructions in Arabic. Asian and African Studies 17(1). 3–16. Edzard, Lutz. 2014. The finite-infinite dichotomy in a comparative Semitic perspective. In Ronny Meyer, Yvonne Treis & Azeb Amha (eds.), Explorations in Ethiopian Linguistics: Complex Predicates,

Finiteness and Interrogativity, 205–223. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Fischer, Wolfdietrich. 2002. Unterordnende und nebenordnende Verbalkomposita in den neuarabischen Dialekten und im Schriftarabischen. In Werner Arnold & Hartmut Bobzin (eds.), „Sprich doch mit

deinen Knechten aramäisch, wir verstehen es!“: 60 Beiträge zur Semitistik: Festschrift für Otto Jastrow zum 60. Geburtstag, 147–163. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Frajzyngier, Zygmunt. 2016. Motivations for Serial Verb Constructions. Unpublished manuscript. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/292239865 Gamliel, Ophira & Abed al-Rahman Mar’i. 2015. Bleached Verbs as Aspectual Auxiliaries in Colloquial Modern Hebrew and Arabic Dialects. Journal of Jewish Languages 3(1–2). 51–65. Grossman, Eitan. 2009. Periphrastic Perfects in the Coptic Dialects. Lingua Aegyptia 17. 81–118. Hock, Hans Henrich & Daniel Ross. 2016. South Asian “Agreeing Verb Constructions”: Serial Verbs, Compound Verbs, Pseudocoordination, or what? Linguistic Analysis 40(3–4). 337–376. Hussein, Lutfi. 1990. Serial Verbs in Colloquial Arabic. Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics 39. 340–354. Lovestrand, Joseph. forthcoming. Serial verb constructions in Barayin: description, typology and Lexical-Functional Grammar. University of Oxford Ph.D. dissertation. Mauri, Simone. 2017a. A typological analysis of the Chained-Aorist construction in Ayt Atta Tamazight (Berber). Studies in Language 41(1). 198–222. Mauri, Simone. 2017b. Clause chaining across the Sahara. In Ilaria Micheli (ed.), Cultural and Linguistic Transition Explored: Proceedings of the ATrA closing workshop : Trieste, May 25-26, 2016, 274–

290. Trieste: Edizioni Università di Trieste. Ouali, Hamid & Juman Al Bukhari. 2016. The syntax of motion light verbs in Jordanian and Moroccan Arabic. In Youssef A. Haddad & Eric Potsdam (eds.), Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics XXVIII, 173–

191. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Persson, Maria. 2013. Asyndetic clause combining in Gulf Arabic dialects Auxiliary, adverbial and discourse functions. Zeitschrift für Arabische Linguistik / Journal of Arabic Linguistics 57. 5–39. Pospíšil, Adam. 2017. Serial verb constructions in Arabic [Konstrukce sériových sloves v arabštině]. Prague: Univerzita Karlova [Charles University] M.A. thesis. http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11956/93272 Pullum, Geoffrey K. 1990. Constraints on intransitive quasi-serial verb constructions in modern colloquial English. Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics 39. 218–239. Reintges, Chris. 1995. Verbal Tenses in Older Egyptian - A Reichenbachian Approach. Göttinger Miszellen 149. 83–98. Reintges, Chris. 1997. Passive Voice in Older Egyptian: A Morpho-Syntactic Study. The Hague: Holland Institute of Generative Linguistics. Ross, Daniel. 2016. Between coordination and subordination: Typological, structural and diachronic perspectives on pseudocoordination. In Fernanda Pratas, Sandra Pereira & Clara Pinto (eds.),

Coordination and Subordination: Form and Meaning — Selected Papers from CSI Lisbon 2014, 209–243. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Ross, Daniel. 2017. Pseudocoordination, Multiple Agreement Constructions, and Morphosyntactic Variation. Presented at the Workshop on Pseudo-Coordination and Multiple Agreement Constructions,

Venice, Italy. Ross, Daniel. forthcoming. Pseudocoordination, serial verb constructions and multi-verb predicates: The relationship between form and structure. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Ph.D. dissertation. Ross, Daniel, Ryan Grunow, Kelsey Lac, George Jabbour & Jack Dempsey. 2015. Serial Verb Constructions: a distributional and typological perspective. Presented at Illinois Language and Linguistics

Society (ILLS) 7, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, Illinois. http://hdl.handle.net/2142/88844 Ryding, Karin C. 2005. A Reference Grammar of Modern Standard Arabic. New York: Cambridge University Press. Savà, Graziano. 2005. A Grammar of Ts’amakko. Köln: Rüdiger Köppe Verlag. Tosco, Mauro. 2008. Between coordination and subordination in Gawwada. In Zygmunt Frajzyngier & Erin Shay (eds.), Interaction of morphology and syntax: case studies in Afroasiatic, 207–226.

Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Versteegh, Kees. 1984. Pidginization and creolization: the case of Arabic. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Versteegh, Kees. 2008. Some remarks on verbal serialization in Arabic dialects. In Georgine Ayoub & Jérôme Lentin (eds.), Linguistique arabe, 49–69. (Cahiers de Linguistique de l’INALCO 5

(2003-2005)). Paris: Cercle de linguistique de l’INALCO. Versteegh, Kees. 2009. Serial Verbs. In Kees Versteegh (ed.), Encyclopedia of Arabic language and linguistics, vol. 4, 195–199. Leiden: Brill. Woidich, Manfred. 2002. Verbalphrasen mit asyndetischem Perfekt im Ägyptisch-Arabischen. Estudios de Dialectologia Norteafricana y Andalusí 6. 121–192. Yoshino, Hiroshi. 2016. Event Integration and the Consecutive Construction in ’Ale. Asian and African Languages and Linguistics 10. 113–137.

6. Dullay para-hypotactic verb sequences •  The Dullay dialect continuum features an unusual para-hypotactic

mixed construction with a dependent verb plus an independent-word conjunction ‘and’ functioning together to link verbs (Ross 2016) •  This is a complex mixed pseudocoordination and converb strategy •  Found in several varieties of Dullay/Gawwada/‘Ale (Amborn et al.

1980, Tosco 2008, Yoshino 2016) and Ts’amakko (Savà 2005):

(6.1) Dullay (Amborn et al 1980:123) ašša pa kasˤad’-a go.IMP and ask-2SG.DEP ‘Go and ask!’

•  Notice in Section 3 that Arabic is considered to have SVCs only when they are fully productive across the tense/aspect paradigm

•  Compare also English go get (*goes gets), limited to bare forms where inflection adds no morphology (Pullum 1990, Ross f.c.)

•  Berber exhibits a ‘chained-aorist’ construction: an initial fully inflected verb followed by one or more aorists (e.g. Bentolila 1981:151-71) •  Found in most or all Berber languages (Mauri 2017a,b) •  Belkadi (2013:144-6) discusses this within the range of aorist functions •  Mauri (2017a,b) discusses this construction from a typological perspective

•  The chaining order is unusual: finite before dependent (head-initial) •  Typically biclausal, but sometimes apparently tighter relationships:

(5.1) Ayt Atta Tamazight (Mauri 2017a:213) t-wt=ttit t-Ø-srdun-t t-mmt 3SG.F.hit.PRF=3SG.F.ACC F-DPST-mule-F 3SG.F-die.AOR ‘A mule hit her, she died.’

•  Given that the aorist acts as a sort of default, even ‘bare’ verbal inflection, could this construction meet the SVC criteria? •  The ‘aorist’ is not a tense/aspect form (vs. imperfective & perfective) and

may be the base for other inflections (Belkadi 2013, Mauri 2017a,b) •  But can root-and-pattern morphology even have bare forms?

imperfective complementation)