Resultados esperados y lecciones aprendidas

96 constructions with distinct privileged syntactic argument, conflict need not arise. In examples 97a-i, the privileged argument is anî ‘1SG’ while 97a`-i` have ìtingā ‘anger’, mnâ ‘sleep’, ìmiyō’fear’, ̀àyibū ‘dizzy’, àyiwù ‘shame’, otse ‘sickness’, ɔ̀kwɔ̀ ‘cough’, èmbwà ‘hunger’and ìfu ‘stomach’.

Yuka and Agbo (2016) also observe this same phenomenom in Lamnso! experiential verbs.

According to them, it involves the swopping of syntactic positions between the subject and the object of a clause. They note that such verbs as kiísi ‘to cough’, yar jíŋ ‘to be affected by hunger’ and shwiy kiloŋ ‘to be angry’ permit the swopping of arguments.Their examples are shown in 98

98aKila Ø kiísí kighíísí Kila pres pro-cough cough Kila is coughing

b. Kighíísí ki Ø kiísí kila cough SM⁷ pres cough kila Kila is coughing.

Yuka and Agbo (2016:78)

As evident from the Etulo language examples and the example from Lamnso!, the two arguments of the verbs are retained in sentential construct. There are however some Etulo verbs that show evidence of alternation but in a rather partial way i.e, there ischange in argument position but the two arguments are not retained in sentential construct. These verbs are discussed under ergative verbs in the next section.

97 confirms that there is a partial alternation where the transitive objects correspond to intransitive subjects in sentential constructs.

99a.Àwo mì ɛ̀kwɔ̀ nwutā Wind give tree fall down Wind fell the house

a`. ɛ̀kwɔ̀ nwutā Tree fall down Tree fell

b. ɛyε mi ɛtɔ̀ lumbyè Soil do seed grow The soil grew the seed

b`.ɛtɔ̀ lumbyè Seed germinate The seed germinated c. m̀bwo gbobū òzû Rain collapse house The rain fell the house c`. Òzû gbobū

House collapse The house collapsed d..Efu kye òfè tukwû Efu take door close Efu closed the door

98 d`.Òfè tukwû

Door closed The door closed e.Àfè gbobu tasā Afe break plate Afe broke the plate

e`.Tasa gbobū Plate break The plate broke

f.Èfu kadzɛɛ̄ ìbuga Efu cracked wall Efu cracked the wall f`. Ìbuga kadzɛɛ̄

wall cracked The wall cracked

g. ɔ̀nɔ̀ nu ànwutò na ǹgwɔ̀ sun give cloth DET dry The sun dried the cloth

g` Ànwútò ná ǹgwɔ̀ cloth DET dry The cloth dried

99 h. M̀bwo nu angwɔ na bwà

Rain give yam DET decay Rain decayed the yam

h`. Angwɔ na bwà Yam DET decay The yam decayed

The basic clause structure for Etulo as earlier mentioned is SVO. In examples 99 a-h, the action depicted by the verb, which affect its internal argument, is instigated by the verb’s external argument. However 99 a`-h` show that the action still affects the only argument of the verb without any agent.That is to say that there is a dethematization of the subjects in examples 99a` -h`

Within the RRG framework, examples 99a-h are causatives while 99a`-h` are their non causative counterparts. For instance in 99e Àfè is the animate actor, which causes tasā ‘plate’

the undergoer, to break. It is also important to note that the difference between 99e and 99e` is in their logical structures shown in 100 and 100` below

100 Àfè gbobu tasā Afe break plate Afe broke the plate

[do` (Àfè, θ)] CAUSE [INGR break`(tasā)]

100` Tasa gbobū Plate break The plate broke INGR break’ (tasā)

Example 100 has a causative achievement logical structure while 100` has an achievement logical structure. Furthermore, the logical structure in 100 reveals the two arguments of the verb while that of 100` shows the verb’s single argument.

100 As earlier mentioned, RRG posits a bidirectional linking which, links the semantic representation of sentences to their syntactic representation and vice versa. We demonstrate bidirectional linking of the Etulo expressions in 100 and 100` in figures 8 and 8` below.

Figure 8 Bidirectional linking in (100)

Actor Undergoer NUC

do` (Àfè, θ)] CAUSE [INGR break` (tasā)]

SENTENCE

CLAUSE

CORE

PRED

V

Àfè gbobu tasā ARG ARG

101

Figure 8` Bidirectional linking in (100`)

Figure 8` Bidirectional linking in (100`)

The figures above illustrate bidirectional linking of examples 100 and 100`. Linking the semantics to syntax involves constructing the semantic representation of the sentences based on their logical structures, determining the actor and undergoer assignments and then relating the core arguments to the syntactic representation of the sentences. In this case, the arrow moves from the semantic representation up to the syntactic representation. The syntax to semantics linking involves identifying the verb and its voice, determining the PSA, retrieving the logical structure of the verb, assigning macrorole, and then linking the arguments from the sentence to the logical structure arguments hence the arrow moves from the syntactic representation down to the semantic representation.

In both cases, the completeness constraint is satisfied because all of the arguments explicitly specified in the semantic representation of the sentence are realized syntactically in the

ARG NUC

INGR break’ (tasā) PRED SENTENCE

CLAUSE CORE

V

Undergoer

Tasa gbobū

102 sentence and all of the referring expressions in the syntactic representation of the sentence are linked to an argument position in the logical structure in the semantic representation of the sentence.