Centre for Linguistics
CENTRAL INSTITUTE OF ENGLISH AND FOREIGN LANGUAGES
Hyderabad-500 007, India
OCCASIONAL PAPERS IN LINGUISTICS, Vol. 10
DEDICATED TO PROFESSOR K. A. JAYASEELAN
With Love and Admiration
HOME PAGE of LANGUAGE IN INDIA
CONTENTS
1. The Two Lives of -unnu in Malayalam: A Response to Amritavalli and Jayaseelan M. T. Hany Babu and P. Madhavan 2. The Order of the Inflectional Morphemes in Arabic Khaled Al-Asbahi 3. Serial Verbs With The Light Verbs ja: and de in ORIYA Bibhuti Bhusan Mahapatra 4. Multiple wh-fronting and Superiority: A Nested Movement Analysis Rahul Balusu 5. Stress and Tone in Punjabi K.G.Vijayakrishnan 6. The Prosodic Phonology of Negation in Assamese Shakuntala Mahanta 7. Phonological Awareness in Adult Illiterates: Onsets, Rimes and Analogies Abhra Jana *** *** ***
HOME PAGE of LANGUAGE IN INDIA
THE TWO LIVES OF -UNNU IN MALAYALAM: A RESPONSE TO AMRITAVALLI AND JAYASEELAN
M. T. Hany Babu
hany.babu@uni-konstanz.deP. Madhavan
pmadhavan@rediffmail.com
Abstract
This paper focuses on the nonpast suffix -unnu in Malayalam in the light of Amritavalli and Jayaseelan’s claim that what has been identified as tense in Dravidian is actually Aspect. Apart from providing arguments against AJ’s position, we also examine the two imperfective constructions of Malayalam, one of which is formed by the verb in -unnu form and an auxiliary verb. Our enquiry into constructions involving -unnu, also sheds light on certain fundamental properties of the two ‘be’ verbs of Malayalam aaN∂ and uNT∂ (which occur as auxiliaries in the imperfective constructions), in terms of the interpretation of noun phrases.
1. Introduction
The not so uncommon malady of mixing up meaning and form in taxonomy has handed down to us the following contradictory statements:[1]
(1) a. Malayalam has only two tenses, past and nonpast;
b. -unnu is the present tense morpheme; -um the future tense morpheme, and -i/u the past tense morpheme in Malayalam.[2]
The treatment of -um as a modal suffix has resolved this paradox partly.[3] Only partly, because, it still leaves us with present and past tenses, apart from the modal suffixes, which are neither present nor past. That is, if we take (1)a literally, there should not be a present tense in Malayalam and this has led to some confusion as to the status of the “present tense morpheme” -unnu. Thus we see that in Hany Babu 1996a, it is claimed rather tentatively that “-unnu is not just a tense morpheme”, but there is no further elaboration on this matter. Our present venture, however, is not to solely make explicit what was implicit in earlier work. This paper has two roots: on the one hand, it is a response to a more recent analysis of Tense in Malayalam (and Dravidian in general) by Amritavalli and Jayaseelan (henceforth AJ); on the other hand, it endeavours to look at the suffix -unnu and constructions involving it, namely the putative “present tense” and the “present imperfect” in Malayalam, in detail and bring to light certain fundamental properties related to clause structure.[4]
AJ’s claims can be summarized as follows:
(2) a. There is no Tense (and, hence, no Tense Phrase) in Dravidian.
b. What is conventionally called Tense is actually Aspect; perfective aspect has been (wrongly) analysed as past tense and imperfective/progressive aspect as present tense.
c. The locus of finiteness is Mood (as instantiated in MoodP(hrase)).
In this paper we are primarily concerned with data from Malayalam and we refute the claims (2)a and (2)b. Note that the primary question that we address is not whether Dravidian has Tense Phrase, but whether Tense exists as a category in Dravidian. In AJ's analysis, what was earlier called as Tense Phrase has been reanalysed as Aspect Phrase. We argue that such a renaming process misses out on certain basic properties of the languages in question. We, however, feel that the claim (2)c cannot be dismissed like the other two. In fact, the idea that finiteness is located within the Complementizer domain has gained wide acceptance ever since Rizzi’s (1997) fine-grained analysis of the Complementizer Phrase (CP). In Rizzi’s system, the Finiteness phrase (FinP) is the lowermost functional projection in the Complementizer system. Rizzi does not consider the existence of a MoodP within the CP layer. If we take the MoodP posited by AJ as part of the C-system, this fits in perfectly with the general understanding about finiteness. However, we take exception to AJ’s claim that there is no Tense in Dravidian. There has indeed been a lack of clarity in understanding the Tense-Aspect system of Dravidian properly. And our effort should be seen as a step taken towards unravelling some of the mysteries of this ill-understood system. The claims that we make pertain mainly to Malayalam. It would be a fruitful enterprise, we presume, to see how this would extend to other Dravidian languages.
Let us summarize our claims as follows:
(3) a. Malayalam has Tense (and thereby a Tense Phrase); and the tense distinction in Malayalam is between past and nonpast (i.e. there is no present or future tense).
b. The conjunctive participle does not essentially have a “perfective” reading.
c. There are two -unnus in Malayalam: an -unnu that is the imperfective aspect morpheme, and an -unnu that occurs in generic constructions.
d. The imperfective (nonprogressive) construction involves the aspectual -unnu and the auxiliary uNT∂, and it contrasts with the progressive construction that is formed by the auxiliary aaN∂ and the infinitive form of the verb in terms of
e. The two imperfective forms show different properties with regard to agentivity and specificity of their subject.
2. AJ’s analysis of tense
AJ’s claim is that “Dravidian clause structure does not project a Tense Phrase”. The immediate problem they address is: what constitutes finiteness in Dravidian? Morphologically, they say, it is seen that a combination of tense and agreement is responsible for finiteness in Dravidian. Their suggestion is that it is the presence of a Mood Phrase that is responsible for finiteness in Dravidian; and agreement morphology, according to them, is lodged in the Mood Phrase as a reflex of Indicative Mood. Identifying agreement with finiteness would, according to them, create a typological divide between Malayalam on the one hand and other major Dravidian languages like Tamil, Telugu, and Kannada on the other, since Malayalam does not exhibit agreement morphology on the verb. But if agreement morphology were a reflex of Indicative Mood, as they claim it is, positing “a null morphological reflex of Indicative Mood in Malayalam” would avoid this typological split. The obvious point that is being missed here is that, if positing a null morpheme were the solution to avoiding a typological split, one could as well posit a null agreement morpheme for Malayalam. AJ do not offer any arguments for not entertaining this solution. AJ also argue that the verbless copula sentences would be a problem for any analysis that identifies finiteness as a morphological property of the verb. But various analyses of verbless copula sentences convincingly show that the constructions without a copula are actually instances of "copula drop", since the null copula is to a large extent predictable.[5] This would mean that verbless copula clauses should have a copula in their underlying representation.
2.1 The disappearance of tense and agreement in negative sentences
One interesting problem that AJ tackle is the disappearance of tense and agreement in negative sentences in Kannada (which is also found in other Dravidian languages like Telugu and Tamil). Consider, for instance, the following pair of affirmative and negative sentences.[6] ((4) = AJ’s 1b and 3b)
he come-past-3p.m.sg
‘He came.’
b. avanu bar-al(u) illa
he come-inf neg
‘He did not come.’
Apart from the disappearance of the agreement morpheme (-anu), the negative sentence has the main verb in the infinitive form (-al), whereas the affirmative one has the past tense morpheme (-d). There are two questions that AJ set out to answer:
(5) a. Since the main verb is in the infinitive form in (4)b, which element carries finiteness?
b. How does (4)b get past tense interpretation, given that there is no overt tense morpheme?
The answer to the first question is that it is the negative verb illa that carries finiteness in (4)b. AJ support their argument by showing that negation by illa cannot occur in “genuine nonfinite clauses, i.e. non-root gerundive and infinitive complement clauses”. AJ also show that the form bar-al is unarguably a nonfinite form, since it typically occurs in purpose adjuncts and in control complements to verbs like try, and can also carry an overt case morpheme. The second question is answered by positing an aspectual specification for the infinitive bar-al ‘come’. That is to say, the infinitive is specified for perfect aspect, and it is this aspectual specification that gives the sentence a past tense reading.
Another type of finite clauses where there is neither tense nor agreement is the clauses that have a modal. According to AJ’s analysis, both a modal and Agr can be the head of MoodP (which is the locus of finiteness). (Remember that Agreement, for them, is a reflex of Indicative Mood.) In the negative clauses, illa occurs in a NegP that is generated immediately below the MoodP and is raised to the MoodP (i.e. it incorporates both Negation and Mood). This solves the mystery of the complementary distribution of illa with Agr and Modals. Since there is no overt tense morpheme present in the negative sentences as well as the sentences with the modals, there need not, AJ argue, be a Tense Phrase. The complement of the MoodP would be an Aspect Phrase (AspP), which takes a VP complement. In the negative clauses, there would be a NegP between the MoodP and the AspP. AJ’s structure can be represented as: (AJ 26)
Neat as this solution might look, it raises another problem that is more related to theory internal questions like uniformity of clause structure. That is, as we saw in (4) above, unlike negative sentences, affirmative sentences are characterized by an overt tense morpheme. An easy solution might be to say that that is precisely the difference between affirmative and negative sentences. But this would mean that affirmative and negative clauses have different structures in Kannada. The question that worries AJ is: “why would a language have such a radical difference between its affirmative and other (negative, modal) sentences?” The solution that AJ offer is to refute the existence of a Tense Phrase (or rather, Tense as a category) first in Kannada, and then they go on to extend it to Malayalam. That is, they claim that instead of tense, what is manifested on the affirmative verb is nothing other than Aspect, and the argument they have in support of this claim is the homophony between the tense and aspect morphemes. Consider the following pair (AJ’s (1b) (repeated here from above) and (27b) respectively):
he come-past-3p.m.sg
‘He came.’
b. avanu ban-d-id-d-anu
he come-perfect-be-past-3msg
‘He had come.’
In (7)b id is the auxiliary verb (past tense of iru ‘be’) and the main verb is marked for perfect aspect. AJ claim that such homophony is not accidental and that the affirmative sentence (7)a should be analysed as having an aspect morpheme rather than a tense morpheme. AJ also show that -d- also occurs as the perfect aspect marker in the perfective gerund form ban-d-addu (come-perf-nom) ‘having come’ (AJ’s (14)). However, AJ do not draw any distinction between what they call "perfect aspect" in ban-d (the putative past tense form) and bar-al (the infinitive form) which occurs in the past negative sentences as in their (1b). Since the only difference between the two lies in the presence/absence of negation (which is brought about by the presence/absence of illa), one may safely assume that the aspect specification of the two verb forms has to be the same, which in turn leaves us wondering about the radical difference between affirmative and negative sentences.
The question, then, is: if there is no difference between the aspect specification of bar-al and ban-d what rules out the latter in negative contexts?[7] Note that it was the question about the radical difference between the structure of the clause in affirmative and negative clauses (in that there was a Tense Phrase in the former, but not in the latter) that drove AJ into this solution of positing an Aspect Phrase in the affirmative sentences instead of a Tense Phrase. We have seen that this solution does not explain why Kannada has after all decided to choose two different verb forms in affirmative and negative sentences. That is to say, positing the same structure for both the types of sentences amounts to nothing more than restating the problem. Moreover, the question about the radical difference between affirmative and negative clauses exists only insofar as one firmly holds on the position that clause structure is invariably signalled by overt morphology. In his monumental work, Cinque (1999) more or less convincingly argues for the strong position that the UG allows for just one invariant functional hierarchy in the clause structure. This means that there can be neither language specific nor construction specific variations in the clause structure. If we adopt this strong position advocated by Cinque, the question that AJ raises about the radical difference between affirmative and negative clauses in Kannada becomes informulable.
Another implicit assumption that AJ make is about the relation between overt morphology and syntax. By concluding that there can’t be a Tense Phrase in negative clauses and clauses that have a modal since they do not have overt tense morphology, AJ seem to assume that clause structure has to be signalled invariably by overt morphology. We, however, differ from AJ by arguing that lack of overt morphology is not a strong empirical argument against the existence of a Tense Phrase, in which case there ceases to be any “radical difference” between the structure of the affirmative and the negative clauses. All the same, AJ have shown convincingly that it could be the aspectual specification of the nonfinite forms that imparts a tense interpretation to the negative sentences. In the next section, we shall show with data from Malayalam that the attempt to extend AJ’s “no Tense” analysis to affirmative constructions makes it all the more untenable.
2. 2. AJ's arguments about Malayalam
AJ begin by noting that unlike Kannada, Malayalam looks straightforward in that there is no striking difference between the affirmative and negative sentences. Consider the pairs of sentences below: (AJ's 2 and 4)
he come-present
‘He comes.’
b. avan van-nu[8]
he come-past
‘He came.’
he come-present- neg
‘He does not come.’
b. avan van-n(u) illa
he come-past- neg
‘He did not come.’
AJ reject the analysis that suggests itself: namely, the main verbs var-unnu and van-nu are marked for tense and, hence, finiteness, and illa is a negative marker (very much like not in English). The principal objection that AJ raise against this “commonsensical” analysis is that illa cannot occur in nonfinite constructions, that is, gerundive and infinitival complements in Malayalam. This restriction in the distribution of illa leads AJ to conclude that in constructions like (9) above, illa should be the finite element. This conclusion, however, does not necessarily follow from the distributional restriction of illa. The use of different strategies for finite and nonfinite negation is widely attested among the languages of the world, and the fact that illa cannot negate nonfinite verbs need only be taken as a reflex of this property in Malayalam.[9] AJ’s suggestion, however, is that illa occurs in a Mood Phrase in Malayalam (just as in Kannada), which means that it should be illa that is the finite element in (9).[10] Now, if illa is the finite element, then what about the verb forms like var-unnu and vannu? Given the line of thought AJ pursued for Kannada, one would say that they are nonfinite forms. And indeed forms like var-unnu and van-nu do occur with other finite verbs, just as their counterparts in Kannada. The nonpast var-unnu occurs in imperfective constructions with the auxiliary uNT∂. The past form is more notorious, since its occurrence as the conjunctive participle that occurs in certain aspectual as well as serial verb constructions is widely discussed in literature on Dravidian. Consider the following pair, where var-unnu and van-nu occur as verb forms marked for aspect rather than tense. (AJ’s 33)
he come-present- be(exis.)(present)
‘He is coming.’
b. avan van-n(u) irun-nu
he come-perf- be-past
‘He had come.’
In (10) uNT∂ and irun-nu are the finite verbs respectively, and hence var-unnu and van-nu have to be nonfinite. AJ convincingly argue that both these forms are marked for aspect and not for tense, but then they go on to claim that even when there is no auxiliary verb present (as in (8) above), these verbs carry aspect and not tense, and, hence, there is no need at all for a projection of tense in Malayalam. Traditionally a distinction is made between the form van-nu when it occurs as the past tense form (as in (8)b above) and when it occurs in constructions like (10)b. When it occurs in constructions like (10)b, it is called the conjunctive participle. This terminological distinction is based on the fact that the former, but not the latter, is finite. The acid test for finiteness is the use of illa negation. The negative marker illa can negate finite verbs, but not nonfinite verbs.[11] An illustrative example would be the following:
(11) a. avan maaŋŋa cetti-ttinnu
he mango cut-ate
‘He cut the mango and ate it.’
b. *avan maaŋŋa cetti-(y)illa-tinnu
he mango cut-neg-ate
Intended: ‘He ate the mango without cutting it.’
c. avan maaŋŋa cett-aa-te-tinnu
he mango cut-neg-aug-ate
‘He ate the mango without cutting it.’
There are two verbs cetti ‘cut’ and tinnu ‘ate’ in (11), out of which the latter, as shown by our gloss, is in past tense. cetti is homophonous with the past tense, but it has totally different syntactic properties from the past tense in that it can only negated by the negative morpheme -aa, which characteristically occurs in nonfinite constructions, and not by illa, which negates the past tense form. In the approach outlined by AJ, finiteness is a property of the abstract Mood feature, located in the MoodP, in which case, there would be no difference between the past tense form and the conjunctive participle. Since illa has to move to MoodP, the lack of MoodP in the case of the conjunctive participle would, for them, explain the unavailability of the illa negation.
We shall look at the past tense form and the conjunctive participle in the next section try to tease out the differences between them. The -unnu form will be taken up in section 3 below.
2. 3. The past tense and the conjunctive participle: The question of perfectivity
Based on the homophony of the past tense form and the conjunctive participle, AJ argue that there is no difference between them (apart from finiteness). But homophony, a fairly widespread phenomenon, doesn’t force us to conclude that whatever is homophonous is the same. Consider the homophony of the plural morpheme of nouns and the third person singular agreement morpheme on the verbs, or the -ed in the past tense and the past participle form of the regular verbs in English. Imagine a scenario in which English did not have any irregular verbs, in which case the difference between the past participle form and the past tense form would not be visible on the surface. Following AJ, we would then be forced to analyse it as follows: the perfective is formed in English with an auxiliary verb (have) and the form of the verb marked for perfect aspect (i.e. -ed); and more importantly, there is no past tense in English, what gets interpreted as past tense is the perfect aspect of the verb.[12] It doesn’t need to be pointed out that we are indeed dealing with such a language, namely Malayalam. The aim of this thought experiment was to drive home the point that homophony need not be taken too seriously. At best, it can only be corroborative evidence, not the starting point of the hypothesis. Moreover, the claim that there is no Tense in Dravidian also raises ontological questions of wider significance, which we do not intend to address here.
AJ claim that the conjunctive participle and the past tense form are marked for perfective aspect. We would like to show that the conjunctive participle does not essentially have “perfective” meaning. Consider the following pair of sentences:
(12) a. suni waNTi ooTicc-u pooy-i
Suni vehicle drive-past go-past
‘Suni went away driving a vehicle.’
b. abu biiDi waliccu rasiccu
Abu beedi smoke enjoyed
‘Abu enjoyed himself, smoking a beedi.’
The first verb in both the cases in (12) is the conjunctive participle, but in neither of the instances can it be said to have a "perfective" meaning. On the contrary, what it has is an interpretation that is relative to the finite verb in the sense that the action denoted by the conjunctive participle is in some sense prior to that denoted by the finite verb. “Prior,” however, need not be taken in a strictly temporal sense. For instance, in the act of going away by driving a vehicle (as in (12)a), the act of going actually begins simultaneously with the action of driving. However, there is a “causal priority” that one can think of here, in the sense that it is the driving causes the act of going away, and not vice versa. [13] And, in fact, this is precisely the intuition captured by Rajarajavarma (1895) in one of the most celebrated traditional grammars of Malayalam, Keralapanineeyam. Rajarajavarma treats the conjunctive participle as one of the five nonfinite forms of a Malayalam verb and calls it munvinayeccam. mun- can be translated as ‘pre-‘ or ‘prior’ and vinayeccam is a verbal or adverbial participle. A vinayeccam by definition is a nonfinite form and can occur only with a finite verb.[14] That is to say, the action denoted by the munvinayeccam, i.e., the conjunctive participle is “prior” to the action denoted by the finite verb; or in other words it can only be interpreted only as relative to the finite verb, and not absolutely.[15]
We hope to have, thus, shown that the meaning of perfectivity cannot be attributed to the conjunctive participle. While the past tense can be said to have a perfective interpretation, the conjunctive participle is, at best, a nonfinite form of the verb that has an adverbial usage. Its temporal interpretation is dependent on the finite verb. In AJ's system where both the past tense form and the conjunctive participle have the same aspectual specification, this distinction cannot be captured. Now let us turn to the other suffix in question, namely the "present tense" marker -unnu.
3. -unnu
From a historical perspective, it is argued that the formation of a present tense as distinct from future tense is a later development among Dravidian languages.[16] Bybee and Dahl (1989) have noted that the development of the present from present progressive is widely attested among the languages of the world.[17] The case of Malayalam seems to corroborate this observation. That is, it is likely that the -unnu was merely an imperfective aspectual marker and is in the process of acquiring the meaning of present tense. Note that we say “is in the process”, since we believe that the process is not entirely over. Contemporary Malayalam, we claim, has two types of constructions involving -unnu:
b. an -unnu that is used in generic sentences, which can neither be followed by uNT∂, nor be negated by illa.
We have already seen two types of contexts in which -unnu occurs: as the finite element and as the nonfinite (aspect) element (AJ's (2a) and (33a) respectively), which we repeat below:
he come-present
‘He comes.’
he come-present- be(exis.)(present)
‘He is coming.’
The translation of (14)b clearly indicates that var-unnu has an imperfective interpretation, but what about (14)a? It is actually interesting to note that a sentence like (14)a would occur only in grammars of Malayalam as an illustrative example for the present tense. As we shall see in the discussion following, the actual use of the “present tense” in Malayalam is relatively unexplored. Asher and Kumari (1997) state that the “present tense” is used in generic statements, “for events that recur at regular intervals”, and “for an event in the very close or immediate future”. Unless modified by an adverbial, (14)a can have none of these interpretations.[18] In the next section, we shall illustrate that the -unnu in generic sentences is different from the other -unnu, but before that let us consider another of AJ’s objections to analysing -unnu as a tense morpheme:
AJ note the occurrence of -unnu in gerunds as seen below: (AJ’s 34a)
(15) [avan var-unn-at]-ine patti nannaL samsaari-ccu
he come-nonpast-nomin.-acc about we talked-past
‘We talked about his coming.’
AJ argue that if -unnu were a tense morpheme, one has the “embarrassment of tense inside gerunds.” The solution (again) is to say that -unnu is an aspect morpheme. The presence of tense becomes an embarrassment only if one takes "no tense within nonfinite clauses" as a gospel truth. It is indeed crosslinguistically well attested that nonfinite clauses are capable of exhibiting tense distinctions. Amritavalli (2000) mentions the case of Hebrew nominal clauses occurring in the present tense, citing Shlonsky 1997. If this is the case, it need not be an embarrassment to have tense within nonfinite clauses. All the more so, if we agree to the fact that tense is not finiteness, as AJ also conclude.
3. 1. -unnu: The generic
In (13) above, we noted that apart from the -unnu with imperfective aspectual specification, there is another -unnu that occurs in generic sentences.[19] The use of -unnu in generic sentences seems to be a recent development in the history of Malayalam. Rajarajavarma (1895) attributes this tendency to the influence of the Indo-Aryan languages. The modal suffix -um seems to have been the only form available earlier in generic sentences. Whatever be the history, we would like to point out that -unnu and -um are not fully interchangeable in contemporary Malayalam. Consider the following pairs of sentences:
(16) a. chennai-yil daivaŋŋal tiŋŋi-ppaarkk-unnu (Jayamohan 2001)
Chennai-loc gods dense-dwell-nonpast
‘Gods dwell densely in Chennai.’
b. *chennai-yil daivaŋŋal tiŋŋi-ppaarkk-um
Chennai-loc gods dense-dwell-modal
(17) a. *ii paatratt-il naalu litter veLLam koLL-unnu
this vessel-loc four liter water hold-nonpast
b. ii paatratt-il naalu litter veLLam koLL-um[20]
this vessel-loc four liter water hold-modal
‘This water can hold four liters of water.’
The contrast in the above pairs shows that judgements regarding the use of either of the generic tense forms are pretty sharp. However, it is beyond the scope of this paper to go into its intricacies.
Hany Babu 1996b notes an interesting property about such sentences; namely, such sentences cannot be negated with illa, the usual negative marker in finite contexts. So we have the following contrast:
(18) a. suuryan kizhakk∂ udikk-unnu
sun east rise-nonpast
‘The sun rises in the east.’
b. *suuryan kizhakk∂ udikk-unn-illa
sun east rise-nonpast-neg
Intended: ‘The sun does not rise in the east.’
A correlation between the occurrence of the -unnuNT∂ and illa was also noted in Hany Babu 1996b. That is to say, -unnu form can be negated by illa, only in those cases in which -unnuNT∂ form can occur. So (18) above can be contrasted with sentences in (19) below.
(19) a. avan naaLe var-unnu-(uNT∂)
he tomorrow come-nonpast-(aux)
‘He is coming tomorrow.’
b. avan naaLe var-unn-illa
he tomorrow come-nonpast-neg
‘He is not coming tomorrow.’
c. *suuryan kizhakk∂ udikk-unn-uNT∂
sun east rise-nonpast-aux
Intended: ‘The Sun rises in the East.’
Thus, a generic sentence with -unnu can neither be negated with illa nor does it allow the use of the auxiliary uNT∂, while the nongeneric -unnu allows both. Hany Babu (1996b) did not go beyond capturing this fact related to distribution. We shall go one step further and claim that the -unnu that occurs in generic sentences does not have aspect specification, unlike the -unnu that occurs with the auxiliary uNT∂. We would argue that the -unnu that occurs in generic contexts actually occupies a different slot from that of the -unnu with aspectual specifications. Since the generic -unnu, the modal suffixes, and the negative illa are in complementary distribution, it stands to reason to assume that they vie for the same syntactic slot. Following the line of reasoning pursued by AJ, we shall tentatively propose that the syntactic slot in question is the MoodP. In AJ’s story the negative illa originates in the NegP and moves to the MoodP. Let us also assume that an -unnu form of the verb originates in a lower projection and moves on to the MoodP to incorporate the finiteness feature. We shall remain noncommittal about the nature of the projection in which the -unnu form originates.[21]
4. The two imperfectives of Malayalam
As we mentioned earlier, the tense-aspect system of Malayalam seems to be rather ill understood. Descriptive grammars do not go beyond a cursory listing of the various forms. Thus Asher and Kumari (1997) note that there are two imperfectives in Malayalam, but fail to notice any significant difference in meaning between the two.[22] The two imperfectives in question are:
b. Another form var-uka (y)aaN∂ 'is coming' which is formed by addition of the infinitival suffix -uka to the verb stem and the addition of the auxiliary aaN∂, the equative copula.
As shown in (20), these two forms translate as the present progressive in English. For the sake of convenience let us refer to the form in (20)a as the -unnuNT∂ form and the one in (20)b as the -ukayaaN∂ form. We are unaware of any attempt at teasing out the subtle distinctions between these two forms. Asher and Kumari (1997) regard the -ukayaaN∂ form as "essentially progressive", but do not consider it necessary to classify these two imperfectives further. We shall show below that this form is indeed "progressive" and differs in rather significant ways from the -unnuNT∂ form. The primary difference is, of course, as Asher and Kumari point out, in the intrinsic “progressive” meaning of the -ukayaaN∂ form, which makes it incompatible with stative verbs. We also find other differences: the -ukayaaN∂ form cannot be modified by an adverb of manner; certain types of arguments are excluded from its subject position. The subjects that are excluded from the subject position of the -ukayaaN∂ fall into two categories: nonagentive subject of intransitive verbs (i.e. not the subject of unaccusatives, but that of unergatives) and indefinite subjects that get a non-specific interpretation. We shall show that all these apparently disparate surface phenomena can be explained by the different properties of the auxiliary verbs in question, namely the equative copula aaN∂ versus the existential copula uNT∂.
4. 1. Stative verbs
A well-known property of the stative verbs is that they can't occur in the progressive aspect. Thus forms like *She is loving him and *I am knowing that are unavailable in most native varieties of English. We can see that out of the two imperfectives we identified in (20) above, the -unnuNT∂ form can occur with stative verbs, but the -ukayaaN∂ form cannot:
(21) a. maňju diliipan-e sneehikk-unn-uNT∂
Manju Dileepan-acc love-nonpast-aux
‘Manju loves Dileepan.’
b. nii paraňň-a kaaryam ňaan oorrkk-unn-uNT∂
you said-rel.p. matter I remember-nonpast-aux
‘I remember what you said.’
(22) a. *maňju diliipan-e sneehikk-uka-(y)aaN∂
Manju Dileepan-acc love-inf-aux
‘*Manju is loving Dileepan.’
b. *nii paraňň-a kaaryam ňaan oorkk-uka-yaaN∂
you said-rel.p. matter I remember-inf-aux
‘*I am remembering what you said.’
The fact that the stative verbs cannot occur in the -ukayaaN∂ form proves that we have to treat it as the progressive aspect. The -unnuNT∂ form, though it is imperfective, is not "progressive". What is common between the two forms is that both of them are used to talk about incomplete actions and states as is evident from the term “imperfective” that can be used to cover both. The sharp contrast in their behaviour with respect to stative verbs shows that they have to be further classified.[23]
4. 2. Manner adverbs
An intriguing contrast can be observed in the behaviour of the manner adverbs with respect to the two kinds of imperfectives:
(23) a. omana nannaayi paaT-unn-uNT∂
Omana well sing-nonpast-aux
‘Omana is singing well.’
b. omana (*nannaayi) paaT-uka-yaaN∂
Omana (*well) sing-inf-aux
‘Omana is singing (*well).’
As shown by the ungrammaticality of the adverb of manner nannaayi ‘well’ in (23)b, the -ukayaaN∂ imperfective seems to be intolerant to modification by a manner adverb. This looks indeed puzzling. We are not aware of any correlation that has been noted in any language between Aspect and modification by adverb. One of the features that make the generative enterprise an exciting one is the possibility of unearthing connections between phenomena that are disparate on the surface. If modification by manner adverbs is unlikely to be affected by the choice of the aspect of the verb, it has to be related to some other property of the verb. And we do indeed find such a property, to which we go directly below.[24]
4. 3. The nonagentive subject and auxiliary selection
There are certain constructions in which the syntactic subject does not get an agentive reading. The contrast between the (24) and (25) below shows that such verbs can occur in the -unnuNT∂ imperfective, but not the -ukayaaN∂:
(24) a. ente vaacc∂ naTakk-unn-uNT∂
my watch walk-nonpast-aux
‘My watch is working.’ (Literally ‘My watch is walking.’)
b. aa peena ezhut-unn-uNT∂
that pen write-nonpast-aux
‘That pen writes.’
(25) a. *ente vaacc∂ naTakk-uka-yaaN∂
my watch walk-inf-aux
‘My watch is walking.’
b. *aa peena ezhut- uka-yaaN∂
that pen write-nonpast-aux
‘That pen is writing.’
The English translations in (25) show that the subject obligatorily gets an agentive interpretation when -ukayaaN∂ form is used, which makes the sentences odd.[25] Though the contrast between (24) and (25) above might suggest that the choice between the -unnuNT∂ imperfective and the -ukayaaN∂ imperfective is a matter of agentive interpretation of the subject, we would like to point out that a deeper property of the language is involved here. Consider the following construction:
(26) awiTe paNi (uSaaraayi) naTakk-uka-yaaN∂
there work (energetically) walk-inf-aux
‘Work is going on very well there.’
On the face of it, (26) seems to be a counterexample to the claim that we made above about the -ukayaaN∂ form: i.e. they do not tolerate modification by manner adverbs; and they do not allow nonagentive subjects. As can be seen, the verb is in the -ukayaaN∂ form and, still, the subject paNi ‘work’ is not agentive, and a manner adverb is possible. However, a closer look would show us that such constructions are not counterexamples. That is to say, though paNi ‘work’ is the overt subject in (26), it can be shown that it is the underlying theme of naTakk-uka ‘walk’. Consider, for instance, its transitive counterpart:
(27) avan paNi naTatt-uka-yaaN∂
he work walk.caus.-inf-aux
‘He is managing the work.’
Our argument is that the verb naTakk-uka in (26) is an unaccusative verb. In the approach to unaccusative verbs outlined by Levin and Rappaport Hovav (1995), unaccusative verbs do not have an external argument. The D-structure object becomes the subject. So, our claim is that paNi is the internal argument at an underlying level and has moved on to the subject position. (26) should be contrasted with (25) above, where we had the construction vaacc∂ naTakk-uka (watch walk). In the latter case naTakk-uka ‘walk’ is not an unaccusative verb, but an unergative verb, which means that the argument vaacc∂ ‘watch’ is its external argument. As we saw above, this construction cannot occur in the -ukayaaN∂ form. We suggest that it is this property that distinguishes (26) from (25). That is to say, the contrast is between subjects that are external arguments at an underlying level and those that are not. What the -ukayaaN∂ form does not tolerate is not nonagentive subjects, but subjects that are nonagentive external arguments. We can put forth our prediction as follows:
b. A nonagentive internal argument (i.e. subject of an unaccusative verb) can occur in both the imperfective forms, i.e. the -ukayaaN∂ and the -unnuNT∂ imperfectives.[26]
At best, (28) is a descriptive statement. It would, again, be puzzling why the choice of the aspect interacts in this manner with the semantics of the verb or the interpretation of the subject. The explanation we offer is that this property is a reflex of the interaction of the lexical semantics of verbs and the syntactic property of the auxiliary verbs involved in these constructions.
As we already pointed out, apart from the difference in the verb stem, the imperfective constructions also differ in the use of the auxiliary verb. The -uka form takes the auxiliary aaN∂ and the -unnu form the auxiliary uNT∂, and these two are the equative and existential copulas in Malayalam, respectively. We would like to point out that the sensitivity of auxiliary selection to the semantics of the verb is not an isolated phenomenon. Italian offers an interesting parallel to Malayalam in this regard. Consider the following pair of Italian sentences from Rosen (1984:45, as cited in Levin and Rappaport Hovav 1995). The point at issue is about the choice of the auxiliary essere ‘be’ and avere ‘have’. Essere is taken to signal unaccusativity, while avere signals unergative status.[27]
(29) a. Mario ha continuato. (*è)
Mario has continued (is)
‘Mario continued.’
b. Il dibattilo è continuato. (*ha)
the debate is continued (has)
‘The debate continued.’
Here we see that though the predicate is the same (i.e. continuato ‘continued’), the choice of the auxiliary depends on the agentive/nonagentive reading of the subject. Thus in (29)a the subject Mario gets an agentive interpretation and can be taken to be an external argument and the auxiliary chosen is ha ‘has’, while il dibattilo ‘the debate’ in (29)b would not be an external argument (i.e. an unaccusative construction) and hence the auxiliary is è ‘be’.
Another instance where auxiliary selection is sensitive to the lexical semantics of the verb is reported by Mahapatra (2002) in Odia, where the selection of the auxiliaries ja ‘go’ and di ‘give’ seems to be determined by unaccusativity. Unaccusatives, thus, would occur with ja, while their transitive counterparts would have di as the auxiliary. Consider the following pair of sentences, where ja ‘go’ occurs with the intransitive use of cir ‘tear’, while de ‘give’ occurs with its transitive use:[28]
(30) a. citra-Ta: cir-i-ja:-i-th-il-a:
picture-class tear-conj-go-conj-be-past-agr
‘The picture had (got) torn.’
b. ra:ma citra-Ta:-ku cir-i-de-i-thi-il-a:
Rama picture-class-to tear-conj-give-conj-be-past-agr
‘Rama had torn the picture.’
Coming back to the Malayalam example, if the subject is a nonagentive external argument, the auxiliary chosen is uNT∂, whereas if the subject is not an external argument (i.e. in the case of an unaccusative verb), there is no restriction on the auxiliary. That is to say, Malayalam seems to differ from Italian in not having any restriction on the auxiliary selection in the case of unaccusative verbs.
The import of our discussion is that, the choice between the imperfective forms -ukayaaN∂ and -unnuNT∂ seems to be governed by deeper properties in the mapping of syntax-semantics relationships. And the fact that the latter, but not the former, can be modified by adverbs of manner seems to be a corollary of this property as can be seen from the fact that both of them go hand in hand as in (26) above, where a manner adverb is possible with -ukayaaN∂ when the subject gets a nonagentive reading. We have thus shown that our hunch that these two phenomena are related at a deeper level seems to be essentially on the right track.
We would like to wind up our discussion about agentivity and unaccusativity by discussing a type of construction brought to our notice by KJ Pramod (personal communication). Consider (31) below, where var-uka occurs with a nonagentive subject and still permits the -ukayaaN∂ construction:
(31) avan vallaate moośam-aayi var-uka-yaaN∂
he very.much bad-become come-inf-aux
‘He is becoming very weak.’
Note that var-uka is not a verb of motion here, but a verb denoting a change of state. Change of state verbs are taken to be prototypical examples of unaccusatives. Treating var-uka as an unaccusative verb here makes it fit well into our analysis, as unaccusatives would be able to occur with the -ukayaaN∂ form.
4. 4. Indefinite NPs[29]
Indefinite NPs behave in an interesting way with respect to the two kinds of imperfectives. Compare:
(32) a. puratt∂ or∂ aaL nilkk-unn-uNT∂
outside one man stand-nonpast-aux
‘There is a man standing outside.’
b. *puratt∂ or∂ aaL nilkk-uka-yaaN∂
outside one man stand-inf-aux
Intended: ‘There is a man standing outside.’
(33) a. or∂ aaL puratt∂ nilkk-unn-uNT∂
one man outside stand-nonpast -aux
‘One (of the men) is standing outside.’/
‘There is a man standing outside.’
b. or∂ aaL puratt∂ nilkk-uka-yaaN∂
One man outside stand-nonpast-aux
‘One (of the men) is standing outside.’
The crucial difference between the pairs of sentences in (32) and (33) is in the positioning of the indefinite or∂ aaL ‘one man’ with respect to the adverbial puratt∂ ‘outside’ and the reading of the indefinite expression. In (32)a or∂ aaL ‘one man’ occurs after the adverb and gets an existential reading, while it cannot get any interpretation in (32)b, where it occurs with the -ukayaaN∂ construction. However, (33)b shows that the indefinite can precede the adverbial and get a partitive reading in an -ukayaaN∂ construction. Enc (1991) argues “partitives are necessarily specific,” citing evidence from Turkish, where partitives in the object position have to be obligatorily marked for accusative case. (A nonspecific object in Turkish surfaces without overt case marking.) Thus we can say that the difference in the grammaticality contrast obtained between (32)b and (33)b impinges upon specificity effect. The ambiguity of (33)a shows that both the specific and nonspecific readings are available even when the indefinite precedes the adverbial in an -unnuNT∂ construction. One may, again, wonder why the choice of aspect should interact with the interpretation of the indefinite in such a way. We would like to show that this contrast actually stems not from any difference in the intrinsic aspectual property of the two different forms in question, but from the different properties of the auxiliaries themselves.[30] Compare the following pair of sentences:
outside one man be(exist.)present
‘There is a man outside.’
b. *puratt∂ or∂ aaL aaN∂
outside one man be(equat.)present
Intended: ‘There is a man outside.’
one man outsidebe(exist.)present
‘One man is outside.’ (Also ‘One (of the men) is outside.’)
b. or∂ aaL puratt∂ aaN∂
One man outside be(equat.)present
‘One (of the men) is outside.’
As is evident, the same contrast is obtained in (34) and (35), even without the presence of the -uka or -unnu forms. Thus or∂ aaL ‘one man’ in (34)a gets an existential reading while its preferred reading in (35)a is as a specific. aaN∂, as shown by the contrast between (34)b and (35)b does not tolerate a nonspecific subject.
Let us recapitulate the differences between the two imperfective forms that we have discussed till now:
b. -ukayaaN∂ is excluded in contexts where the subject is a nonagentive external argument (i.e. it is excluded in intransitives, in which the subject gets a nonagent theta role), while -unnuNT∂ has no such restrictions.
c. -ukayaaN∂ cannot be modified by adverbs of manner, except when the subject is an internal argument, as in the case of unaccusative verbs.[31]
d. -ukayaaN∂ cannot have a nonspecific subject, while -unnuNT∂ can.
The statement (36)a is about an intrinsic property of -ukayaaN∂, while all the rest are descriptive statements that need to be explained. The true spirit of generative enterprise would call for a unificatory analysis of these three apparently unrelated phenomena. We have already pointed out that these are indeed reducible to the interaction of the difference in the properties of the auxiliary verbs in question and the lexical semantics of the predicates.
5. Summary
In this paper we have reviewed AJ’s proposal that there is no Tense in Dravidian. We have put forth conceptual as well as empirical arguments against such a position. Tense as a category may not exist in Kannada negative clauses, but the question whether tense exists as a syntactic category cannot be answered by looking at just morphological facts. With respect to Malayalam, AJ have claimed that the past tense form and the nonpast -unnu forms in Malayalam are marked for aspect, and not for tense. The crucial piece of evidence they presented was the homophony of the finite and the nonfinite verb forms. Thus the past tense form is homophonous with what is traditionally called the conjunctive participle and the nonpast -unnu form occurs in certain constructions that are clearly imperfective. AJ suggest that it is the imperfective aspect that gets interpreted as present tense, and perfect aspect as the past tense. We have claimed that this may, at best, point towards the evolution of past and present tenses in the language. We have presented both syntactic as well as semantic evidence against such a reductionist treatment of tense and aspect in Malayalam. With respect to the conjunctive participle we showed that it does not necessarily have a perfective meaning. In our investigation of the -unnu form, we found that there are actually two types of constructions involving -unnu in contemporary Malayalam: the generic -unnu and the aspectual -unnu, both of which seem to differ in their syntactic as well as semantic properties. We also looked at the two imperfective constructions in Malayalam and showed that they differed in terms of aspect (that is progressive versus nonprogressive). Our investigation has brought to light certain interesting ways in which the lexical semantics of the verb interacts with aspect as well as interpretation of indefinite expressions. We have tried to show that some of these properties can be reduced to the properties of the two different auxiliary verbs, namely the existential and the equative copulas that occur with the imperfective constructions. A detailed look at the properties of the copulas involved in these constructions was however, beyond the scope of our paper.
References
Amritavalli, R. 2000. Kannada clause structure. In Rajendra Singh ed. The yearbook of South Asian languages and linguistics. New Delhi: Sage.
Amritavalli, R and KA Jayaseelan. (This volume). Finiteness and negation in Dravidian. CIEFL occasional papers in linguistics 10, CIEFL, Hyderabad.
Asher, RE and Kumari TC. 1997. Malayalam. New York: Routledge.
Athialy, John P. 1987. The semantics of modality: A study based on Malayalam and English. Tiruvananthapuram: Dravidian Linguistics Association.
Bybee, Joan and Oesten Dahl. 1989. The creation of tense and aspect systems in the languages of the world. Studies in Language. 13:51-103.
Comrie, Bernard. 1976. Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Comrie, Bernard. 1985. Tense. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and functional heads: A cross-linguistic perspective. New York: Oxford University Press.
Dahl, Oesten. 1995. The episodic/generic distinction in tense-Aspect systems. In Gregory N. Carlson and Francis Jeffry Pelletier eds. The generic book. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Enc, Mürvet. 1991. The semantics of specificity. Linguistic Inquiry 22:1-25.
Filip, Hana. 1999. Aspect, eventuality types and nominal reference. New York: Garland Publishing.
Finch, Shannon. 2001. Copular elements in Bengali and stage-/individual-level distinction. Talk given at SALA XXI, October 8-10, University of Konstanz.
Hany Babu, MT. 1996a. The binarity of Malayalam tense system: Some preliminary remarks. PILC Journal of Dravidic Studies 6:1-10.
Hany Babu, MT. 1996b. The syntax of Malayalam sentential negation. International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics 25:1-15.
Jayamohan. 2001. NeTumpaatayooram. Thrissur: Current Books.
Jayaseelan, KA. 1984. Control in some sentential adjuncts of Malayalam. Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistic Society 10, 623-633. Berkeley, California: Berkeley Linguistic Society.
Kratzer, Angelika. 1989. Stage-Level and individual-level predicates. In E Bach, Angelika Kratzer and Barbara Partee eds. Papers on Quantification. NSF Report, Amherst, Massachusetts. [Also published in Gregory N. Carlson and Francis Jeffry Pelletier eds. 1995. The generic book. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.]
Levin, Beth and Malka Rappaport Hovav. 1995. Unaccusativity: At the syntax-lexical semantics interface. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
Mahapatra, Bibhuti Bhushan. 1999 The four copulas in Odia. Talk given at the first Asian GLOW, CIEFL, Hyderabad.
Mahapatra, Bibhuti Bhushan. 2002. The four copulas in Odia. Manuscript, Central Institute of English and Foreign Languages, Hyderabad.
Rajasekharan Nair, N. 2002. Temporal notions in Malayalam and Tamil. Talk given at the Architecture of Grammar, January 2002, CIEFL, Hyderabad.
Rajarajavarma, AR. 1895. Keralapanineeyam. Reprinted by the Sahitya Pravarthaka Cooperative Society and distributed by National Book Stall, Kottayam.
Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Liliane Haegeman ed. Elements of Grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
Rosen, C. 1984. The interface between semantic roles and initial grammatical relations. In DM Perlmutter and C Rosen eds. Studies in Relational Grammar 2, Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press.
Shlonsky, Ur. 1997. Clause structure and word order in Hebrew and Arabic: An essay in comparative Semitic syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Subrahmanyam, PS. 1971. Dravidian verb morphology: A comparative study. Annamalainagar: Annamalai University.
NOTES
[1] Though most traditional grammars make a three-way distinction in the tense system of Malayalam, one very often comes across statements about a two-way distinction in the tense system. For instance, Rajarajavarma (1895) begins the discussion on verbs by illustrating the three tense forms, goes on to claim that the present is formed by an auxiliary and hence there are only two tenses, namely past and future, and then finally states that only past tense is a “pure tense form” in Malayalam. And this is precisely the claim that we want to reiterate. See Hany Babu 1996a for further references.
[2] A statement made as recently as in 1997 by Asher and Kumari. See Asher and Kumari 1997 for a discussion of the morpho-phonological processes that determine the selection of the past tense form.
[3] See, for instance, Athialy 1987 and Hany Babu 1996a.
[4] The position that Kannada has no tense is advocated in Amritavalli 2000. Amritavalli and Jayaseelan extend the proposals to Malayalam as well.
[5] Thus, Mahapatra (1999) and Finch (2001) convincingly show the interaction of null copula with distinctions like Stage/Individual-level predicates as made by Kratzer (1989).
[6] AJ also discuss the nonpast form and its negative counterpart (in which the gerundive form of the verb occurs), which we leave out from the discussion as everything that is said about the past tense carries over to the nonpast as well. The aspectual specification that AJ attribute to the gerundive form is “imperfect”.
[7] AJ admit that their account does not say why "verb forms with similar aspectual specifications are excluded from the negative clause". See AJ, footnote 10.
[8] Actually the morphology of vannu 'came' is more complex than shown here. We are being faithful to AJ in the representation. Moreover, it does not affect the arguments in any manner.
[9] However, there is a lexical illa (the negative existential verb) that is the past equivalent of uNT∂ (the affirmative existential verb) that has nonfinite forms like the relative participle. See Hany Babu 1996b for a discussion.
[10] Actually it occurs in NegP and moves to MoodP to incorporate the finiteness feature.
[11] See footnote 9 above.
[12] Actually this seems to be a very common way in which past tense is formed in natural languages. Bybee and Dahl (1989) note that the development of past from a perfect form and present from an imperfective form is a very frequent path of grammaticalization in the languages of the world (reported in Dahl 1995).
[13] The actual temporal interpretation will depend, among other things, on the Aktionsart of the verb in question. Thus maaŋŋa cetti-ttinnu (mango cut-ate) ‘cut the mango and ate it’ as in (11) above will be interpreted as the action described by the nonfinite cetti ‘cut’ as being (in the temporal sequence) prior to the action of eating.
[14] The other type of nonfinite form is the peereccam, the form of the verb that modifies a noun (literally a name, as is evident from the word peer(∂) ‘name’). In Dravidian tradition, the peereccam is called the relative participle as it occurs in relative clauses and functions as an adjective.
[15] Comrie’s (1976 and 1985) notion of “relative tense” could be used to capture this dependency relation between the finite and nonfinite verb. According to Comrie, the nonfinite verbs like the present participle in English exhibit relative tense, in the sense that their temporal interpretation depends on that of the finite verb.
[16] Subrahmanyam 1971:239.
[17] Reported in Dahl 1995.
[18] The presence of an overt adverbial like naaLe ‘tomorrow’ would give it the reading of something that is going to happen in the “near future” as in:
avan naaLe var-unnu
he tomorrow come-nonpast
‘He is coming tomorrow.’
[19] See also Bybee and Dahl 1989 on the development of present tenses crosslinguistically.
[20] This sentence is due to Nair (2002).
[21] It is unclear to us whether this projection should be a functional projection at all. It might as well be the VP.
[22] According to Asher and Kumari (1997:296) "[w]ithin the area of imperfective, there are separate forms that are primarily concerned with habitual actions and with continuous actions, and in the latter area, there is a form that one may regard as essentially progressive." Obviously the one that is concerned with habitual action is the -unnu form and the other one the -uka form. Asher and Kumari label the two forms as imperfective1 and imperfective2.
[23] We would like to point out that the tendency to overuse the progressive aspect (with the stative verbs, for instance) in many varieties of Indian English could be attributed to the lack of precision in identifying the subtle variations in the imperfectives available in Indian languages. Thus the English translations in (22) would be perfectly acceptable in many varieties of Indian English.
[24] A manner adverb can be forced in the -ukayaaN∂ construction, if there is a subject-oriented adverb. Consider:
avan karutikkuuTTi moośamaayi paaT-uka-yaaN∂
he deliberately badly sing-inf-aux
‘He is deliberately singing badly.’
We are unable to account for this contrast.
[25] The sentences in (24) are akin to the middle constructions in English. A well-known property of the middle constructions is that they are infelicitous without a manner adverb. Compare:
i. This knife cuts easily.
ii. *This knife cuts.
Though a manner adverb is not obligatory in the sentences in (24), the fact that they tolerate manner adverbs, whereas the -ukayaaN∂ forms in (25) don’t, suggests that there is something parallel going on here. However, we are not able to offer a satisfactory explanation for this property at this stage.
[26] Agentivity seems to be just one of the parameters that govern the choice between the two imperfectives. While it seems to be true that nonagentive external arguments cannot occur with a verb in the -ukayaaN∂ form, whether or not the subject of an unaccusative can occur with a verb in the -ukayaaN∂ form seems to be also governed by factors like the Aktionsart of the verb. It should also be noted that causatives seem to behave differently from agentive constructions in crucial ways. A detailed investigation of all these finer points is beyond the scope of our paper.
[27] Rosen, however, does not ta
