Nuba Mountain Languages Conference, Leiden University Centre for Lingusitics, September 2-4, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________ The data presented here have been elicited by the authors and other researchers over the past several years during extensive interviews with two Moro consultants under the auspices of the UCSD Moro Project. We express our deep gratitude to Elyasir Julima and Ikhlas Elahmer for sharing their language with us. This work is supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 0745973 ‘Moro Language Project’. Any opinions, findings and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation (NSF). We thank Sharon Rose and George Gibbard for discussion and assistance with elicitation and transcription. All errors and shortcomings are our responsibility.

Objects in Moro Farrell Ackerman and John Moore, University of California, San Diego 1. Introduction This talk will describe some of the complexities found with respect to grammatical objects in Moro. • In previous work we have argued that Moro allows multiple objects in a single clause; in other work we have also argued that Moro

extends these multiple objects to the domain of adjuncts. • Here we show the data that motivate these two claims. In particular, we will describe nine types of Moro objects: (1) Unmarked objects – no morphological marking on noun or an accusative suffix on proper nouns: a. Patient/theme arguments of transitive predicates b. Goal arguments of ditransitive predicates c. Beneficiary arguments of predicates will beneficiary applicative morphology d. Causee arguments of predicates with causative morphology (2) Locative objects – noun is either marked with a locative prefix or co-occurs with a locative adposition: a. Locative arguments of ‘put’ predicates b. Unselected locatives – based on their semantics, these should be adjuncts, but behave like syntactic objects c. Locatives selected by predicates will locative applicative morphology (3) Instrumental objects – noun is marked with an instrumental suffix: a. Instrumental arguments selected by particular predicates b. Unselected instrumentals – based on their semantics, these should be adjuncts, but behave like syntactic objects • For each of these categories we should evidence that they are primary objects, based on object markers and passivization. • These different object types result in several complexities in the verbal morphology. • Several of these objects can co-occur, yielding complex, multi-object constructions. 2. Moro • Moro is a Kordofanian language spoken in the Nuba mountains of Sudan. • Thetogovela dialect • As Kordofanian languages are generally classified as part of the larger Niger-Congo family. • It has a basic SVO* word order. • Nouns can co-occur with pre-nominal and post-nominal affixes (and particles) to convey a number of spatial and case relations. • Partial verbal morphotactics:1

{SM1ST&2ND-}CL3RD-CLAUSE-[OM-ASP-ROOT-EXT-ASP/MOOD] MACROSTEM-OM-OM-OM.INST-OM.LOC • Morphotactics: The position of OM (i.e., before or after verb stem) depends on various conditions, including value of Aspect/Mood,

P(erson)/N(umber) of OM and tone

1 The verb template represents a subset of Moro verbal morphology, containing only elements cited in this work. We use the following inter-linear glosses and conventions: SM ‘subject marker’, CL ‘noun class’, MAIN ‘main clause verb’, SUBJ.EXT ‘subject extraction’, DUR ‘durative’, ITER ‘iterative’, PFV ‘perfective’, IMPFV ‘imperfective’ REL ‘relative’, OM ‘object marker’ (1SG, 3SG, 3PL, etc.), PART ‘particle’, and ACC ‘accusative’. The clause markers (CLAUSE in the template) are MAIN ‘main clause’ and SUBORD ‘subordinate clause’. The verbal extensions (EXT in template) include CAUS ‘causative’, APPLBEN ‘beneficiary applicative’, APPLLOC ‘locative applicative’, and PASS ‘passive’. Particular noun classes are identified by their agreeing prefix (e.g., CLg, CLɲ, etc.). Occasional morphemes whose analysis remains elusive are glossed ‘?’. Lexical tone is marked, but not the effects of tone sandhi (Jenks and Rose 2011); high tone is marked with an acute accent; low tone is unmarked. Finally, the effects of certain phonological and morphophonological processes have been undone in order to show the morphological structures more clearly.

• Noun class: Approximately 24 classes, with singular/plural reflected in prefixes (and suffixes) on nouns and concord markers on agreeing categories such as verbs and adjectives (Gibbard, Rhode, and Rose 2009).

• Phonology: Two tone system (with few lexical minimal pairs) and height harmony (Rose and Jenks 2011) 3. Bare Objects • Simple transitive clause: (4) kúku g-a-ləәvəәtʃ-ó ɲogopájá CLg.Kuku CLg.SM-MAIN-hide-PFV CLɲ.cup ‘Kuku hid the cups.’ • When the OBJ is realized by a proper name, it optionally bears the case suffix: (5) ŋálːo g-ʌrːʌŋəәtʃ-ú kúku-ŋ CLg.Ngallo CLg.SM-teach-PFV CLg.Kuku-ACC ‘Ngallo taught Kuku.’ • Pronominal object arguments are realized by inflectional markers on the verb: these too reflect person/number properties of the OBJ, but

not noun class; these are in complementary distribution with overt nominals: (6) kúku g-a-ləәvəәtʃ-ə́ә-lo CLg.Kuku CLg.SM-MAIN-hide-PFV-3PL.OM ‘Kuku hid them.’ • Objects can passivize, indicated on the verb by the passive suffix -əәn: (7) ɲogopájá ɲ-ʌ-ləәvəәtʃ-əәn-ú CLɲ.cup CLɲ.SM-MAIN-hide-PASS-PFV ‘The cups were hid.’ (8) Object properties – an object will: a. occur post-predicate position, if it is an overt, non-pronominal nominal b. bear accusative case, if it is a proper name c. be realized by an object marker, when pronominal d. be able to undergo passivization 3.1 Underived ditransitive predicates (9) é-g-a-natʃ-ó óráŋ ŋeɾá 1SG.SM-CLg-MAIN-give-PFV CLg.man CLŋ.girl ‘I gave the girl to the man.’ / ‘I gave the man to the girl.’ • Note that (9) is ambiguous – either nominal can bear either semantic role. This is generally true when both arguments are human.

However, there are oredering restrictions and probably a default order – see 3.4. • Both internal arguments of natʃ ‘give’ exhibit the full range of object properties: (10) accusative marking é-g-a-natʃ-ó ŋál:o-ŋ kóʤa-ŋ 1SG.SM-CLg-MAIN-give-PFV CLg.Ngallo-ACC CLg.Kodja-ACC ‘I gave Ngallo to Kodja.’ / ‘I gave Kodja to Ngallo.’ (11) represented as object markers é-g-a-natʃ-ə́ә-lo ŋeɾá 1SG.SM-CLg-MAIN-give-PFV-3PL.OM CLŋ.girl ‘I gave them to the girl’ / ‘I gave the girl to them.’ (12) passivization óráŋ g-ʌ-nʌtʃ-əәn-ú ówːá CLɡ.man CLg.SM-MAIN-give-PASS-PFV CLg.woman ‘The man was given a woman.’ / ‘The man was given to a woman.’

2

• (A)symmetric Typology (Harford 1991 and Alsina 1996 and 2001): (13) a. Non-alternating asymmetric: Only one particular internal argument can show primary object properties (e.g. object marking and

passive). (e.g. Chicheŵa, Bresnan and Moshi 1990, Alsina and Mchombo 1993). b. Alternating asymmetric: Either internal argument may display primary object properties, but no two can do so simultaneously.

(Kitharaka, Harford 1991). c. Symmetric: both internal arguments may exhibit primary object properties simultaneously (Kinyarwanda, Kimenyi 1980, Bresnan

and Moshi 1990). • Moro is a symmetric language: (14) a. é-g-a-natʃ-ə́ә-ŋó-lo multiple object markers 1SG.SM-CLg-MAIN-give-PFV-3SG.OM-3PL.OM ‘I gave him to them.’/ ‘I gave them to him.’ b. óráŋ g-ʌ-nʌtʃ-əәn-ə́ә-ŋó object marking cum passivization CLg.man CLg.SM-MAIN-give-PASS-PFV-3SG.OM ‘The man was given to her.’ / ‘She was given to the man.’ • In (14a) the object markers are ordered according to a person and number hierarchies. Note that the sentence is ambiguous – hence, object

marker order has no bearing on which pronominal bears which semantic role (Ackerman 2009, Ackerman, Gibbard, Jenks, Kertz, and Rose 2010).

3.2 Beneficiary Applicatives • The Beneficiary applicative extension suffix -əәt̪ increases the predicate's valence by adding an obligatory beneficiary argument: (15) a. é-g-alaŋ-ó 1SG.SM- CLg-sing-PFV ‘I sang.’ b. í-g-ʌləәŋ-əәt̪-ú owːá 1SG.SM- CLg-sing-APPLBEN-PFV CLg.woman ‘I sang for the woman.’ • Applicative arguments behave as other bare objects: (16) a. accusative marking í-g-ʌləәŋ-əәt̪-ú káka-ŋ 1SG.SM- CLg-sing-APPLBEN-PFV CLg.Kaka-ACC ‘I sang for Kaka.’ b. represented as object marker í-g-ʌləәŋ-əәt̪-ə́ә-ŋó 1SG.SM- CLg-sing-APPLBEN-PFV-3SG.OM ‘I sang for him.’ c. passivization káka g-ʌləәŋ-əәtʃ-əәn-ú CLɡ.Kaka CLg.SM-sing-APPLBEN-PASS-PFV ‘Kaka was sung for.’ • When applicative arguments co-occur with a transitive verb, the result is a double object construction: (17) k-ʌ-wːʌð-it̪-ú ŋerá umːiəә CLg.SM-MAIN-find-APPLBEN-PFV CLg.girl CLɡ CLg.boy ‘He found the boy for the girl.’ / ‘He found the girl for the boy.’ • Both internal arguments exhibit object properties: (18) accusative marking a. í-g-ʌ-rr-əәt̪-ú káka-ŋ ŋóréðá 1SG.SM- CLg-MAIN-pound-APPLBEN-PFV CLg.Kaka-ACC CLŋ.sesame ‘I pounded sesame for Kaka.’ b. í-g-ʌ-rʌb-it̪-ú emeɾt̪á ŋál:o-ŋ

1SG.SM-CLg-MAIN-pick up-APPLBEN-PFV CLg.horse CLg Ngallo- ACC ‘I carried Ngallo for the horse.’

(19) represented as object markers a. í-g-ʌ-rː-əәt̪-əә-ŋó ŋóréðá 1SG.SM- CLg-MAIN-pound-APPLBEN-PFV-3SG.OM CLŋ.sesame ‘I pounded sesame for him.’ b. í-g-ʌ-rː-əәt̪-ə́ә-lo káka-ŋ 1SG.SM- CLg-MAIN-pound-APPLBEN-PFV-3PL.OM CLg.kaka-ACC ‘I pounded them for Kaka.’ (20) passivization a. káka g-ʌ-rː-əәtʃ-əәn-ú ŋóréðá CLg.Kaka CLg.SM-MAIN-pound-APPLBEN-PASS-PFV CLŋ.sesame ‘Kaka was pounded sesame for.’ b. ŋóréðá ŋ-ʌ-rː-əәtʃ-əәn-ú káka-ŋ CLŋ.sesame CLŋ.SM-MAIN-pound-APPLBEN-PASS-PFV CLg.Kaka-ACC ‘The sesame was pounded for Kaka.’ • Simultaneous object properties: (21) a. k-ʌ-wːʌð-it̪-ə́ә-ɲə́ә-lo CLg.SM-MAIN-found-APPLBEN-PFV-1SG.OM -3PL.OM ‘He found me for them.’ / ‘He found them for me.’ b. í-g-ʌ-wːʌð-itʃ-əәn-ə́ә-lo 1SG.SM-CLg-MAIN-found-APPLBEN-PASS-PFV-3PL.OM ‘I was found for them.’ / ‘They were found for me.’ 23.3 Causatives • Moro causatives also involve a valence increase, where a causee argument is added: (22) a. í-g-ʌləәŋ-í kúku-ŋ 1SG.SM-CLg-sing-CAUS.PFV CLg.Kuku-ACC ‘I made Kuku sing.’ b. k-ʌ-buɡ-í ŋál:o-ŋ kúku-ŋ CLg.SM-MAIN-hit-CAUS.PFV CLg.Ngallo-ACC CLg.Kuku-ACC ‘He made Ngallo hit Kuku.’ / ‘He made Kuku hit Ngallo.’ • When a transitive predicate is causativized, the result is a double object construction, as in (22b). • Both internal arguments exhibit object properties; as seen in (22), they can bear accusative case. (23) represented as object markers í-g-ʌ-buɡ-í-ŋó umːiəә 1SG.SM-CLg-MAIN-hit-CAUS.PFV-3S.OM CLg.boy ‘I made him hit the boy.’ / ‘I made the boy hit him.’ (24) passivization umːiəә g-ʌ-bug-i-n-ú ogómá CLg.boy CLg.SM-MAIN-hit-CAUS-PASS-PFV CLg.thief ‘The boy was made to hit the thief.’ / ‘The thief was made to hit the boy.’ (25) a. Double object markers k-ʌ-buɡ-í-ɲə́ә-lo CLg.SM-MAIN-hit-CAUS.PFV-1SG.OM-3PL.OM ‘He made me hit them.’ / ‘He made them hit me.’ b. Passive with object marker í-g-ʌ-buɡ-i-n-ə́ә-lo 1SG.SM- CLg-MAIN-hit-CAUS-PASS-PFV-3PL.OM ‘I was made to hit them.’ / ‘They were made to hit me.’ 3.4 Word order restrictions • The ambiguities found in double object constructions suggest that the word order is free: (26) é-g-a-natʃ-ó óráŋ ŋeɾá 1SG.SM-CLg-MAIN-give-PFV CLg.man CLŋ.child ‘I gave the child to the man.’ / ‘I gave the man to the child.’ • However, there is evidence that the goal-theme order is a default that can be altered stylistically when discourse conditions allow it.

3

• When the theme-goal order is pragmatically unlikely, the sentence is odd or rejected: (27) a. é-g-a-natʃ-ó kóʤa-ŋ díəә

1SG.SM-CLg-MAIN-give-PFV CLg.Kodja-ACC CLr.cow ‘I gave the cow to Kodja.’

b. # é-g-a-natʃ-ó díəә kóʤa-ŋ 1SG.SM-CLg-MAIN-give-PFV CLr.cow CLg.Kudja-ACC ‘I gave Kodja to the cow.’

• Further evidence consistent with a default status for goal-theme comes from the impossibility of an inanimate argument preceding an animate one:

(28) a. é-g-a-natʃ-ó óráŋ ád̪ámá 1SG.SM-CLg-MAIN-give-PFV CLg.man CLg.book ‘I gave the book to the man.’ b. * é-g-a-natʃ-ó ád̪ámá óráŋ 1SG.SM-CLg-MAIN-give-PFV CLg.book CLg.man • There is also a preference for the non-theme argument to come immediately after the verb in both applicative and causative constructions.

This is the only order possible when the theme is inanimate: (29) Applicatives a. í-g-ʌ-rː-əәt̪-ú ówːá ŋóɾéðá 1SG.SM-CLg-MAIN-pound-APPLBEN-PFV CLg.woman CLŋ.sesame ‘I pounded sesame for the woman.’ b. * í-ɡ-ʌ-rː-əәt̪-ú ŋóréðá ówːá 1SG.SM- CLg-MAIN-pound-APPLBEN-PFV CLŋ.sesame CLg.woman (30) Causatives a. í-g-ʌ-kʌ d̪-í óráŋ ŋoana 1SG.SM-CLg-MAIN-plant-CAUS.PFV CLg.man CLŋ.grain ‘I made the man plant the grain.’ b. * í-g-ʌ-kʌ d̪-í ŋoana óráŋ 1SG.SM-CLg-MAIN-hit-CAUS.PFV CLŋ.grain CLg.man • There is an extensive typological literature that notes a strong cross-linguistic tendency for goals and the like to be ordered before themes,

particularly when neither are overtly case-marked (see Dryer 1986, Malchukov, Haspelmath, Comrie 2010, and Primus 1998 and 2004, among others).

• This is often tied to the fact that goals are typically human and have greater topicality than themes. • An account of default word order based on topicality would potentially account for alternative word orders: when the theme is human, it

can be moved to the position immediately following the verb to signal increased topicality; this is impossible when it inanimate. 3.5 Multiple objects • Moro allows several simultaneous objects. • Since ditransitive predicates select two objects and applicative constructions add an additional object, the two can be combined to yield a

total of three object arguments: (31) í-g-ʌ-nʌʤ-əәt̪-ú aljásəәr-o kúku-ŋ ŋál:o-ŋ 1SG.SM-CLg-MAIN-give-APPLBEN-PFV CLg.Elyasir-ACC CLg.Kuku-ACC CLg.Ngallo-ACC • This sentence was judged to be six-ways ambiguous: any of the three objects could be aligned with each of the three semantic roles:

theme, goal, and beneficiary: (32) a. 'I gave Elyasir to Kuku for Ngallo.' b. 'I gave Elyasir to Ngallo for Kuku.' c. 'I gave Kuku to Elyasir for Ngallo.' d. 'I gave Kuku to Ngallo for Elyasir.' e. 'I gave Ngallo to Kuku for Elyasir.' f. 'I gave Ngallo to Elyasir for Kuku.' • Again certain orders are preferred and the ambiguity is delicate. • As seen in (31), all three internal arguments are accusative marked.

• Further evidence for simultaneous object status in triple-object constructions: (33) Object marking (goal or beneficiary): í-g-ʌ-nʌdʒ-əәt̪-ə́ә-ŋó kúku-ŋ ád̪ámá 1SG.SM-CLg-MAIN-give-APPLBEN-PFV-3SG.OM CLg.Kuku-ACC CLg.book ‘I gave a book to him for Kuku,’ / ‘I gave a book to Kuku for him.’ (34) Passivization of theme: ád̪ámá g-ʌ-nʌdʒ-əәtʃ-əәn-ú ŋálːo-ŋ kúku-ŋ CLg.book CLg.SM-MAIN-give-APPLBEN-PASS-PFV CLg.Ngalo-ACC CLɡ. CLg.Kuku-ACC ‘The book was given to Ngalo for Kuku.’ / ‘The book was given to Kuku for Ngalo.’ (35) Passivation of theme with object marker: ád̪ámá g-ʌ-nʌdʒ-əәtʃ-əәn-ə́ә-ŋó ŋerá CLg.book CLg.SM-MAIN-give-APPLBEN-PASS-PFV-3SG.OM CLŋ.girl ‘The book was given to him for the girl.’ / ‘ The book was given to the girl for him.’ • Ditransitive predicates can be causativized, again, yielding three objects. In this instance, we did not find six-way ambiguity; rather, there

was a strong preference for the first object to be interpreted as the causee and the last object could not be interpreted as the cause: (36) í-g-ʌ-nʌtʃ-í kúku-ŋ ŋálːo-ŋ káka-ŋ 1SG.SM-CLg-MAIN-give-CAUS.PFV CLg.Kuku-ACC CLg.Ngallo-ACC CLg.Kaka-ACC 'I made Kuku give Ngalo to Kaka.' / ? 'I made Ngallo give Kuku to Kaka.' • Each of the internal arguments exhibit object properties: (37) Causee or goal passivizes; causee or theme as object marker: kúku ɡ-ʌ-nʌtʃ-i-n-ə́ә-ŋó káka-ŋ CLg.Kuku CLg.SM-MAIN-give-CAUS-PASS-PFV-3SG.OM CLg.Kaka-ACC ‘Kuka was made to give him to Kaka.’ ‘Kaka was made to him to Kuku.’ ‘He was made to give Kuku to Kaka.’ ‘He was made to give Kaka to Kuku.’ • For unknown reasons, it seems to be impossible to create a three object construction with a causative and an applicative; instead, the

beneficiary argument must be realized as a ta-adjunct: (38) a. * í-g-ʌ-gəәɲ-i-t̪-ú umːiəә ðamala kúku-ŋ 1SG.SM-CLg-MAIN-kill-CAUS-APPLBEN-PFV CLg.boy CLð.camel CLg.Kuku-ACC b. i-ɡ-ʌ-ɡəәɲ-í umːiəә ðamala ta kúku 1SG.SM-CLg-MAIN-kill-CAUS.PFV CLg.boy CLð.camel PART CLg.Kuku ‘I made the boy kill the camel for Kuku.’ • This cannot be due to a restriction against three objects, as this is allowed in (36). • Nor can it be due to incompatibility between causatives and applicatives, as (39) shows causatives and applicatives are compatible when

the base predicate is intransitive (yielding two objects in total): (39) k-ʌ-rəәtʃ-i-t̪-ú ŋerá umːiəә CLg.SM-MAIN-dance-CAUS-APPLBEN-PFV CLŋ.girl CLg.boy ‘He made the girl dance for the boy.’ 3.5. Summary –bare objects • Bare/accusative objects come in four varieties: (i) patient/themes in transitive predicates (ii) goal arguments of ditransitive predicates (iii) beneficiary arguments of predicates with beneficiary applicative morphology (iv) causee arguments of predicates with causative morphology • Each of these exhibits primary object behaviors – they can be object markers and passivize. • Relatively free word order and the lack of semantically-driven case-marking yields considerable ambiguity • These bare objects can combine, modulo certain restrictions, yielding up to three bare objects.

4

4. Locative objects • Locative elements are marked with either a locative prefix (i-) or co-occur with a locative particle (e.g. ékə́әrél ‘beside’): (40) a. k-a-kə́әl-a eða CLg.SM-MAIN-cut-IMPV CLj.meat ‘He is cutting the meat.’ b. k-a-kə́әl-a eða i-lugi CLg.SM-MAIN-cut-IMPV CLj.meat LOC- CLlPL.tree ‘He is cutting the meat in the tree.’ c. k-a-kə́әl-a eða lugí ékə́әrél CLg.SM-MAIN-cut-IMPV CLj.meat CLlPL.tree beside ‘He is cutting the meat beside the trees.’ 4.1. Selected locative objects • Some predicates, such as ʌg ‘put’ select an obligatory locative argument: (41) a. k-ʌ-v-ʌ́kk-ʌg-iəә eða í-ðə́әdí CLg.SM-MAIN-?-ITER-cut-IMPV CLj.meat LOC-CLð.hole ‘He is putting the meat in the hole.’ b. * k-ʌ-v-ʌ́kk-ʌg-iəә eða CLg.SM-MAIN-?-ITER-cut-IMPV CLj.meat ‘He is putting the meat.’ • These locative arguments, despite their locative marking, behave as primary objects; they can be realized as object markers and can

passivize: (42) a. Objects marker (note 3rd singular inanimate object markers are -∅): k-ʌ-v-ʌ́kk-ʌg-iə́ә-∅-u eða CLg.SM-MAIN-?-ITER-put-IMPV-3SG.OM-LOC CLj.meat ‘He is putting the meat in it.’ b. Passive: ðə́әdiə́ә ð-ʌ-v-ʌ́kk-əәg-əәn-iə́ә-u eða CLð.hole CLð.SM-MAIN-?-ITER-put-PASS-IMPV-LOC CLj.meat ‘The hole is being put the meat into.’

• Passivized element is a subject – not a topic – it participates in an extraction strategy reserved for subjects:

(43) ŋwəә- ́ðə́әdíʌ-ði ð-i-v-ʌ́kk-ʌg-əәn-iə́ә-u eða CLEFT-hole-CLð CLð.SM-SUBJ.EXT-?-ITER-put-PASS-IMPFV-LOC CLj.meat ‘This is the hole that was put the meat into’

• Locative objects participate in simultaneous object properties: (44) eða j-ʌ-v-ʌ́kk-ʌg-əәn-iə́ә-∅-u meat CLj.SM-MAIN-?-ITR-put-PASS-IMPFV-3SG.OM- LOC ‘The meat is being put in it.’

• Perhaps because the nominal locative marker i- is lost under object marker incorporation and passivization, the verb requires a locative suffix –u to indicate that there is locative argument.

• The verbal locative suffix (-u) is not a locative applicative: (i) Unlike applicatives, it does not increase valence (the ‘put’ predicate already predicate intrinsically selects a locative argument). (ii) There is no –u suffix when the locative is a null NP, as in (41). (iii) The verbal locative –u suffix co-occurs with the locative applicative (see section 4.3). 4.2. Unselected locatives

• Locatives like those in (40) are not entailed by the verbs’ lexical semantics and are, thus, unselected. They normally would be treated as adjuncts:

(45) k-a-kə́әl-á ot̪eá (í-lúgi) CLg.SM-MAIN-cut-IMPFV CLg.branch LOC-CLlPL.tree ‘He is cutting the branches (from the tree).

• However, these locatives, like selected locatives, exhibit primary object behaviors – they can be realized as object markers and they can passivize:

(46) a. Object marker: k-a-kə́әl-á-l-u ot̪eá CLg.SM-MAIN-cut-IMPFV-3PL.OM-LOC CLg.branch ‘He is cutting the branches from them.’ b. Passive: lugi l-ʌ-kʌ́l-n-iə́ә-u ot̪eá CLlPL-tree CLlPL.SM-MAIN-cut-PASS-IMPFV-LOC branches ‘The trees are being cut branches from.’ • Some specialized locative meaning is conveyed through adpositions: (47) k-a-kə́әl-a eða (lugi ́ ékə́әrél) CLg.SM-MAIN-cut-IMPFV CLj.meat CLlPL.tree beside ‘He is cutting the meat (beside the trees).’ • These locatives can passivize – either stranding or pied-piping the adposition: (48) a. Stranded adposition: lugi l-ʌ-kəәl-n-iəә-u eða ékə́әrél CLlPL.tree CLlPL.SM-MAIN-cut-PASS-IMPFV-LOC CLj.meat beside b. Pied-piped adposition: lugi ékə́әrél l-ʌ-kəәl-n-iəә-u eða CLlPL.tree beside CLlPL.SM-MAIN-cut-PASS-IMPFV-LOC CLj.meat ‘The trees were being cut the meat beside.’

• The adpositions do not form a constituent with the NP they follow – rather, they can take scope over multiple NPs, leading to ambiguity:

(49) í-g-ʌ́-ssʌtʃ-iəә ŋ́ndrí əәdíəә éðə́әpé 1SG.SM-CLg-MAIN see-IMPFV CLŋ.bull CLr.cow on-top-of ‘I see the bull on top of the cow.’ / ‘I see the cow on top of the bull.’

• This ambiguity is maintained under passivization, as long as the –u locative suffix is added:

(50) ŋ́ndrí ŋ-ʌ́-ssʌtʃ-in-iəә-u əәdiəә éðə́әpé CLŋ.bull CLŋ.SM-MAIN-see-PASS-IMPFV-LOC CLr.cow on-top-of ‘The bull is being seen on top of the cow.’ / ‘The cow is being seen on top of the bull.’

• When there is no –u suffix, the passivized NP is not identified as a locative, and the sentence is not ambiguous:

(51) ŋ́ndrí ŋ-ʌ́-ssʌtʃ-in-iəә əәdiəә éðə́әpé CLŋ.bull CLŋ.SM-MAIN-see-PASS-IMPFV CLr.cow on-top-of ‘The bull is being seen on top of the cow.’

4.3. Locative applicatives • In addition to the selected and unselected locative objects discussed in 4.1-4.2, Moro has the locative applicative verbal extension –át̪.

5

• This valence-increasing element derives predicates that require an additional locative argument: (52) a. k-a-kə́әl-át̪-a eða ík-úgi CLg.SM-MAIN-cut-APPLLOC-IMPFV CLj.meat LOC-CLg.tree ‘He is cutting the meat in the tree.’ b. k-a-kə́әl-át̪-a eða ugi ékə́әɾél CLg.SM-MAIN-cut-APPLLOC-IMPFV CLj.meat CLg.tree beside ‘He is cutting the meat beside the tree.’ c. * k-a-kə́әl-át̪-a eða CLg.SM-MAIN-cut-APPLLOC-IMPFV CLj.meat ‘He is cutting the meat.’ • The locative arguments of locative applicative predicates exhibit primary object properties; e.g., they can passivize, just as non-applicative

locatives do: (53) a. ugi k-ʌ-kəәl-ʌtʃ-in-ú-u eða CLg.tree CLg.SM-MAIN-cut-APPLLOC-PASS-IMPFV-LOC CLj.meat ‘The tree was cut meat in.’ b. ugi k-ʌ-kəәl-ʌtʃ-in-ú-u eða ékə́әrél stranded adposition CLg.tree CLg.SM-MAIN-cut-APPLLOC-PASS-IMPFV-LOC CLj.meat beside c. ugi ékə́әrél k-ʌ-kəәl-ʌtʃ-in-ú-u eða pied-piped adposition CLg.tree beside CLg.SM-MAIN-cut-APPLLOC-PASS-IMPFV-LOC CLj.meat ‘The tree was cut meat beside.’ • Notice that the verbal locative suffix –u appears to register the passivization of the locative argument. The fact that this co-occurs with the

valence-increasing locative applicative confirms that –u is not a valence increaser; rather, it helps identify that a passivized argument or an object marker bears a locative role.

• There are a number of lexical restrictions and lexical semantic effects associated with locative applicatives – these are poorly understood

at present. • When there is a locative element, some predicates do not allow locative applicatives, while others appear to require them: (54) Locative applicative impossible: a. k-a-dáŋ-á ík-úgi CLg.SM-MAIN-sit-IMPFV LOC-CLg.tree ‘He is sitting in the tree.’ b. * k-a-dáŋ-át̪-a ík-úgi CLg.SM-MAIN-sit-APPLLOC-IMPFV LOC-CLg.tree ‘He is sitting in the tree.’ (55) Locative applicative required: a. * g-a-v-áláŋ-a ík-úgi CLg.SM-MAIN-?-sing-IMPFV LOC-CLg.tree ‘He is singing in the tree.’ b. g-a-v-áláŋ-at̪-a ík-úgi CLg.SM-MAIN-?-sing-APPLLOC-IMPFV LOC-CLg.tree ‘He is singing in the tree.’

• The locative applicative seems to be optional with most predicates. When there is this option, locative arguments without and with

locative applicatives exhibit subtle aspectual contrasts, sometimes related to telicity: (56) Telicity contrast: a. k-abə́әtw-a n-alét̪a CLg.SM-climb-IMPFV LOC.on-CLj.wall ‘He is climbing on the wall.’ (He is simply climbing on the wall) b. k-abə́әdw-at̪-a n-alét̪a CLg.SM-climb-APPLLOC-IMPFV LOC.on-CLj.wall ‘He is about to climb the wall.’ (He will clamber over up the wall, e.g. to avoid danger)

(57) Directionality contrast: a. é-g-a-və́әdað-a ŋəәɾá é-ŋə́әná 1SG.SM-CLg-MAIN-sweep-IMPFV CLŋ.trash LOC-CLŋPL.room ‘I am sweeping the trash from the rooms.’ b. é-g-a-və́әdað-at̪-a ŋəәrá é-ŋəәna 1SG.SM-CLg-MAIN-sweep-APPLLOC-IMPFV CLŋ.trash LOC-CLŋPL.room ‘I am sweeping the trash from the rooms.’ 4.4. Summary – locative objects • Three types of locative objects: (i) Selected locatives by ‘put’ predicates (ii) Unselected locatives (iii) Locatives selected by predicates with locative applicative morphology • All exhibit primary object properties – object markers and passivization • When a locative element – of any type – is realized as an object marker or passivizes, the verb takes a locative –u suffix • Nominal locative prefixes disappear under passivization. Locative adpositions are either stranded or pied-piped. • Locative applicative morphology, which increases valence, is subject to lexical restrictions and alters the aspectual lexical semantics. 5. Instrumental objects • Instrumental elements are marked with an instrumental suffix; it reduplicates the noun-class prefix: (58) a. k-a-kə́әl-á eða CLg.SM-MAIN-cut-IMPFV CLj.meat ‘He is cutting the meat.’ b. k-a-kə́әl-á eða ndə́әrt̪ə́ә-ná CLg.SM-MAIN-cut-IMPFV CLj.meat CLnpl.knife-INSTR.CLn ‘He is cutting the meat with knives.’ 5.1. Selected instrumental objects • The predicate ‘love’ is formed from ʌww ‘be hot’ with a selected instrumental argument: (59) a. eða j-ʌww-ʌ CLj.meat CLj.SM-hot-IMPFV ‘The meat is hot.’ b. k-ʌww-ʌ ŋerá-ŋá CLg.SM-hot-IMPFV girl-INSTR.CLŋ ‘He loves the girl.’

• This selected instrumental argument exhibits primary object behaviors: (60) a. Object marker: k-ʌww-ʌ-ŋó-ja CLg.SM-hot-IMPFV-3SG.OM-INSTR ‘He loves her.’ b. Passivization: ŋerá ŋ-ʌβ-əәn-iə́ә-ja CLŋ.girl CLŋ.SM-hot-PASS-IMPFV-INSTR ‘The girl is loved.’ • Note the verbal instrumental suffix –ja. Its distribution is identical to the locative –u suffix (section 4). It is required when an

instrumental element is an object marker or passivizes – it registers that an unmarked element is instrumental.

6

5.2. Unselected instrumentals • The instrumental element in (58) is unselected – it is not part of the predicate’s lexical semantics and would normally be treated as an

adjunct. • However, even unselected instrumentals exhibit primary object properties: (61) a. Object marker: k-a-kə́әl-á-lí-ja eða CLg.SM-MAIN-cut-IMPFV-3PL.OM-INSTR CLj.meat ‘He is cutting the meat with them.’ b. Passivization: ndə́әrt̪í n-ʌ-kə́әl-n-iəә-lí-ja eða CLnpl.knife CLnpl.SM-MAIN-cut-PASS-IMPFV-3PL.OM-INSTR CLj.meat ‘The knives are being cut the meat with.’ • In addition to the verbal instrumental suffix, the verb seems to require an object marker that agrees with the passivized locative; while this

is obligatory in this example, this is not always the case – the nature of this phenomenon is poorly understood. 5.3. Summary – instrumental objects • Two types of instrumental elements: (i) Selected (e.g. with verbs like ‘love’) (ii) Unselected • Both exhibit primary object properties. • When an instrumental object is realized as an object marker or passivizes, the verbal instrumental suffix –ja is required to register that an

unmarked argument has an instrumental role. • In some cases, a passivized instrumental (unselected?) requires an agreeing object marker. • Unlike locatives, there does not seem to be a valence-increasing instrumental applicative.

6. Interactions • Given four bare object types, three locative objects, and two instrumental objects, we might expect several interactions. • While we have not tested all possibilities, the following examples show some possible interactions; note that these interact with object

markers and passivization in the expected manner: (62) locative + instrumental a. k-a-ńdr-a (í-rəә́dí) (ɲivə́әɾðiəә-ɲa) CLg.SM-MAIN-sleep-IMPFV LOC-CLrPL.crevices CLɲPL.blanket-INSTR.CLɲPL ‘He is sleeping (in the crevices) (with the blankets).’ b. ŕdíəә r-ʌ́-ndr-əәn-iəә- ́u (ɲivə́әɾðiəә-ɲa) CLrPL.crevices CLrPL.SM-MAIN-sleep-PASS-IMPFV-LOC CLɲPL.blanket-INSTR.CLɲPL ‘The crevices are being slept in (with the blankets).’ c. ɲivə́әɾðiəә ɲ-ʌ́-ndr-əәn-iə́ә-(li)-ja (í-rəә́di)

CLɲPL.blanket CLɲPL.SM-MAIN-sleep-PASS-IMPFV-(3PL.OM)-INSTR LOC-CLrPL.crevices ‘The blankets are being slept with in the crevices.’ d. ŕdíəә r-ʌ́-ndr-əәn-iə́ә-li-já-u CLrPL.crevices CLrPL.SM-MAIN-sleep-PASS-IMPFV-3PL.OM-INSTR-LOC ‘The crevices are being slept in with them.’ e. ɲivə́әɾðiəә ɲ-ʌ́-ndr-əәn-iə́ә-já-l-u CLɲPL.blanket CLrPL.SM-MAIN-sleep-PASS-IMPFV-INSTR-3PL.OM-LOC ‘The blankets are being slept with in them.’

(63) beneficiary + locative + instrumental

a. í-g-ʌ-ŋʌ́-ndr-əәt̪-iəә (í-rəә́dí) (ɲəәvə́әɾðiəә-ɲa) 1SG.SM-CLg-MAIN-2SG.OM-sleep-APPLBEN-IMPFV LOC-CLrPL.crevice CLɲPL.blankets- INSTR.CLɲPL ‘I am sleeping for you (in the crevices) (with the blankets).’ b. ʌ- ́g-ʌ́-ndr-əәtʃ-in-iəә (í-rəә́dí) (ɲəәvə́әɾðiəә-ɲa) 2SG.SM-CLg-MAIN-sleep-APPLBEN-PASS-IMPFV LOC-CLrPL.crevice CLɲPL.blankets- INSTR.CLɲPL ‘You are being slept for (in the crevices) (with the blankets).’ c. ɲəәvə́әɾðiəә ɲ-ʌ-ŋʌ́-ndr-tʃ-in-iəә-lí-ja (í-rəә́dí) CLɲPL.blankets CLɲ.SM-MAIN-2SG.OM-sleep-APPLBEN-PASS -IMPFV-3PL.OM-INSTR LOC-CLrPL.crevice ‘The blankets are being slept with for you (in the crevices).’ d. ðə́әdíəә ð-ʌ-ŋʌ́-ndr-tʃ-in-iəә-li-já-u CLð.crevice CLð.SM-MAIN-2SG.OM-sleep-APPLBEN-PASS -IMPFV-3PL.OM-INSTR-LOC ‘The crevice is being slept in for you with them.’ e. ʌ- ́g-ʌ́-ndr-tʃ-in-iəә-li-já-u 2SG.SM-CLg-MAIN-sleep-APPLBEN-PASS-IMPFV-3PL.OM-INSTR-LOC ‘You are being slept for with them in it/them.’

7. Conclusion • Moro shows a striking dissociation between surface encodings, arguments, adjuncts, semantic roles, and grammatical function encodings • Moro allows many semantic roles to function as primary objects; this is independent of whether they are selected by the predicate, a

product of valence increasing morphology, or unselected: (64) obj*

ag | {causee | beneficiary | goal | instrumental | patient/theme | locative} • This system may be the result of two characteristics of Moro syntax: (i) The possibility of multiple objects (ii) The ability of several semantic roles to behave as syntactic arguments • Combined with fairly free word order, this allows for multiple combinations and multiple ambiguities. • The interactions between objects, object markers, passivization, applicatives, and causatives lead to a number of questions for future work

– despite the complexity of the data presented here, we see a clear systemeticity, yet, we also feel we have just scratched the surface. References Ackerman, Farrell. 2009. Affix ordering and the morphosyntax of object marking in Moro. Invited talk, LFG 2009. Cambridge University. Ackerman, Farrell, George Gibbard, Peter Jenks, Laura Kertz, and Sharon Rose. 2010. Affix ordering and the morphosyntax of object marking

in Moro. Manuscript, University of California, San Diego. Alsina, Alex. 1996. The role of argument structure in grammar: Evidence from Romance. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA. Alsina, Alex. 2001. On the non-semantic nature of argument structure. Language Sciences 23, 355-389. Alsina, Alex and Sam A. Mchombo. 1993. Object asymmetries and the Chicheŵa applicative construction. In Sam A. Mchombo, ed.,

Theoretical aspects of Bantu grammar, 17-45. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA. Bresnan, Joan and Lioba Moshi. 1990. Object asymmetries in comparative Bantu syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 21, 47-85. Dryer, Matthew S. 1986. Primary objects, secondary objects, and antidative. Language 62: 808-45. Harford, Carolyn. 1991. Object asymmetries in Kitharaka. Proceedings of the seventeenth annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society:

Special session on African language structures, 98-105. Kimenyi, Alexandre. 1980. A relational grammar of Kinyarwanda. University of California Publications in Linguistics, vol. 91, University of

California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles. Malchukov, Andrej L., Martin Haspelmath, and Bernard Comrie. 2010. Ditransitive constructions: A typological overview. In Andrej L.

Malchukov, Martin Haspelmath, and Bernard Comrie, eds., Studies in ditransitive constructions: a comparative handbook, De Gruyter, Berlin.

Primus, Beatrice. 1998. The relative order of recipient and patient in the languages of Europe. In Anna Siewierska, ed., Constituent order in the languages of Europe, 421-473. de Gruyter, Berlin.

Primus, Beatrice. 2004. The role-semantic function of basic order and case. In Tinothy Colleman and Bart Defrancq, eds., Contrastive analysis and linguistic theory. Proceedings of the 2nd International CoLLaTE Colloquium, 89-133. Palgrave Macmillan.

Rose, Sharon and Peter Jenks. 2011. High tone in Moro: effects of prosodic categories and morphological domains. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 29, 211-250.