Syntactic Representations of the Malagasy Reciprocal ... - Peter Hurst

Syntactic Representations of the Malagasy
Reciprocal Construction
Peter T. Hurst
The University of Melbourne
November 10, 2003
This thesis was submitted in partial fulfillment of a Post Graduate Diploma of
Arts (Linguistics) at the University of Melbourne, Linguistics Department.
1

Acknowledgments
I would like to thank my supervisor Rachel Nordlinger for her enthusiastic support and
encouragement for my topic. Thank you also Nick Evans and Leila Behrens for your insightful
comments during and after a presentation I made of this thesis. This thesis could not have been
written without the work of Edward Keenan and Jean Paulin Razafimamonjy whose research
provides the majority of the source material I have used. Thank you Elise Hurst, Peter Parbery,
Alastair Macphee and Jane Appleton for proof reading various drafts of this thesis. I would like to
specially thank my partner, Elise Hurst, for her support and insights over the past year.
2

Abbreviations
ACT active voice
AG agent
CAUS causative morpheme
CIRC circumstantial voice
PASS passive voice
POT potential
PRO pronoun
PT patient
REC reciprocal morpheme
3

Contents
Acknowledgments........................................................................................................................... 2
Abbreviations...................................................................................................................................3
Chapter 1................................................................................................................................ 8
1.1 Introduction................................................................................................................................8
Chapter 2.............................................................................................................................. 11
2.1 Reciprocals and Reciprocity.................................................................................................... 11
2.2 Semantic and Pragmatic Extensions to Reciprocity................................................................ 13
2.3 Malagasy Reciprocals.............................................................................................................. 14
2.3.1 Allomorph 1: -if-.............................................................................................................15
2.3.2 Allomorph 2: -ifamp-...................................................................................................... 15
2.3.3 Allomorph 3: -ifanka-..................................................................................................... 15
2.4 Conclusion.............................................................................................................................. 16
Chapter 3
Malagasy .............................................................................................................................. 18
3.1 Introduction..............................................................................................................................18
3.2 Verbal Morphology..................................................................................................................18
3.2.1 Voice................................................................................................................................ 18
3.2.2 Tense................................................................................................................................ 20
3.3 Sentence Structure................................................................................................................... 20
3.3.1 Basic Word Order............................................................................................................ 21
3.3.2 Prepositional Phrases....................................................................................................... 21
3.4 Determiners..............................................................................................................................23
3.5 Conclusion............................................................................................................................... 24
Chapter 4
Lexical Functional Grammar................................................................................................ 25
4

4.1 Introduction..............................................................................................................................25
4.1.1 Mapping between F- and C-structure...............................................................................26
4.2 Constraints in LFG...................................................................................................................28
4.2.1 Unification....................................................................................................................... 28
4.2.2 Completeness................................................................................................................... 29
4.2.3 Coherence.........................................................................................................................30
4.3 Argument Structure .................................................................................................................31
4.4 C-intransitive verbs..................................................................................................................32
4.5 Note Regarding C- & F-structures and Lexical Entries...........................................................34
4.6 Conclusion............................................................................................................................... 35
Chapter 5
Two Analyses of the Malagasy Reciprocal Morpheme......................................................... 36
5.1 Introduction..............................................................................................................................36
5.2 The F-intransitive Analysis of the Malagasy Reciprocal Construction................................... 36
5.3 The F-transitive Analysis of the Malagasy Reciprocal Construction...................................... 40
5.3.1 Semi-transitive Verbs......................................................................................................42
5.3.2 Ditransitive Verbs ........................................................................................................... 42
5.3.3 Extending the Domain of the Reciprocal Morpheme...................................................... 44
5.3.4 The F-transitive Analysis of Semi-transitive Verbs.........................................................44
5.3.5 The F-transitive Analysis of Ditransitive Verbs ............................................................. 47
5.3.6 Predicting Ungrammatical Reciprocal Constructions......................................................48
5.4 Linking Semantics to the F-transitive Analysis of the Malagasy Reciprocal Construction.....50
5.5 Conclusion............................................................................................................................... 53
Chapter 6
Evidence for an F-intransitive Reciprocal Construction...................................................... 55
6.1 Introduction..............................................................................................................................55
6.2 Chichewa................................................................................................................................. 55
6.3 Nominalization of Reciprocalized Verbs.................................................................................57
6.4 Object Comparisons of Reciprocalized Verbs.........................................................................58
6.5 Conclusion............................................................................................................................... 60
Chapter 7
Control Constructions.......................................................................................................... 61
7.1 Introduction..............................................................................................................................61
7.2 The Subject Condition............................................................................................................. 61
7.3 Control..................................................................................................................................... 62
5

7.4 Control Constructions in Malagasy......................................................................................... 63
7.4.1 Specific Objects in Control Clauses.................................................................................65
7.5 Introducing Reciprocals to Control Constructions.................................................................. 66
7.6 The F-intransitive Analysis of Reciprocals in Control Constructions..................................... 67
7.7 The F-transitive Analysis of Reciprocals in Control Constructions........................................ 70
7.8 Remarks................................................................................................................................... 71
7.9 Conclusion............................................................................................................................... 71
Chapter 8
Possession............................................................................................................................. 73
8.1 Introduction..............................................................................................................................73
8.2 Possession in Malagasy............................................................................................................73
8.3 The LFG Representation of Possession................................................................................... 74
8.4 Reciprocals and Possession..................................................................................................... 75
8.4.1 Is the Remnant Attached to the Subject NP?................................................................... 77
8.4.2 Is the Remnant part of a External Possession Construction?...........................................78
8.4.3 Comments........................................................................................................................ 81
8.5 F-intransitive Analysis of Reciprocal Constructions and Possession...................................... 82
8.5.1 F-structure Issues..............................................................................................................82
8.5.2 A-structure Issues.............................................................................................................84
8.5.3 Comments........................................................................................................................ 85
8.6 F-transitive Analysis of Reciprocal Constructions and Possession......................................... 85
8.6.1 Transitive Reciprocal Possessor Construction ................................................................86
8.6.2 Control Reciprocal Possessor Construction.....................................................................87
8.7 Conclusion............................................................................................................................... 89
Chapter 9
Reciprocal Expressions and Complement Clauses................................................................ 91
9.1 Introduction..............................................................................................................................91
9.2 Interactions between the Reciprocal Construction and Complements.....................................92
9.3 Conclusion............................................................................................................................... 94
Chapter 10
Binding of Circumstantial Reciprocal Expressions............................................................... 95
10.1 Introduction............................................................................................................................95
10.2 Reciprocalized Circumstantials............................................................................................. 96
10.3 Binding...................................................................................................................................99
10.4 Conclusion........................................................................................................................... 101
6

Chapter 11
Reciprocals and Causativization......................................................................................... 102
11.1 Introduction..........................................................................................................................102
11.2 Assigning Functions to NP's................................................................................................103
11.3 An LFG Analysis of Morphological Causatives..................................................................104
11.4 Causatives and Reciprocals ............................................................................................... 105
11.4.1 Causatives of Reciprocals (-amp-if-)........................................................................... 105
11.4.2 Reciprocals of Causatives (-if-amp-).......................................................................... 107
11.5 Conclusion........................................................................................................................... 111
Chapter 12
Nominalization of Reciprocal Expressions.......................................................................... 112
12.1 Introduction..........................................................................................................................112
12.2 Nominalization as a Lexical Rule........................................................................................112
12.3 Nominalization and Reciprocity.......................................................................................... 113
12.4 The F-intransitive Analysis of Nominalized Reciprocals....................................................118
12.5 Conclusion........................................................................................................................... 118
Chapter 13
Conclusion........................................................................................................................... 120
Bibliography........................................................................................................................ 122
7

Chapter 1
1.1 Introduction
This thesis investigates the principal reciprocal construction in Malagasy and proposes a new
formal approach to represent these constructions within Lexical Functional Grammar (LFG). I will
be concerned primarily with the syntactic representation of reciprocity in Malagasy although I will
briefly examine the semantics of reciprocal constructions in order to demonstrate how my
formalism may be linked with different theories of and approaches to reciprocal semantics.
Reciprocity raises interesting questions about the nature of verbal predicates. The state-of-affairs
described by reciprocity does not easily fit within the traditional notions of thematic roles put
forward by Jackendoff (1990). This is because each entity involved in a prototypical reciprocal
state-of-affairs usually acts in two distinct roles – first as the agent acting upon the other entities,
and secondly as a patient to every other entity, when they in turn act as the agent. Instead of a simple
agent acting upon a patient, reciprocity involves a set of agent/patient relations. This semantic
complexity is reflected in the considerable variation in the form of reciprocal constructions cross-
linguistically, with some languages such as English patterning reciprocal constructions with
transitive clauses, and others (such as Chichewa, Malagasy and Catalan) patterning them with
intransitive clauses. 1 I will describe reciprocal constructions that pattern with intransitive clauses as
“C-intransitive” because they are intransitive at the level of constituent structure. 2 Malagasy does
not make use of an overt NP (such as “each other” in English) to indicate a reciprocal construction.
Instead, a morpheme is prefixed to the verb to indicate that the verb should be understood as
1 Some languages, such as Badjala and Bunaba, allow the subjects of reciprocal constructions to be marked in either
nominative or ergative case – a situation not otherwise allowed in these languages. Thus, as far as case marking is
concerned, their reciprocal constructions are patterned after either transitive or intransitive constructions (Evans &
Nordlinger (2003)).
2 See chapter 4 for a full description of constituent structure (c-structure).
8

defining a reciprocal relation. Thus, a reciprocalized clause has lost a non-subject NP and is
interpreted as describing a reciprocal state-of-affairs.
Given this variation in how languages represent reciprocity, creating a framework to represent
them is a considerable challenge. Within the field of Lexical Functional Grammar (LFG), there is
only limited work on c-intransitive reciprocal constructions (by Alsina (1996), Mchombo & Ngunga
(1980), Mchombo (1991) and Dalrymple & Mchombo & Peters (1994)). This work is limited to the
examination of reciprocal constructions interacting with simple clauses in Bantu and Catalan. There
is no detailed investigation concerning reciprocals in conjunction with possession and control
constructions, nor discussion of languages in which reciprocal constructions may not be best treated
as intransitive at the level of functional structure (I will refer to this analysis as the f-intransitive
analysis, see below).
This thesis proposes a new approach within LFG for analyzing reciprocal constructions in
Malagasy. I will argue that the f-intransitive analysis which Alsina (1996) and Mchombo (1991)
describe for Catalan and Chichewa respectively cannot account for the reciprocal construction in
Malagasy when it interacts with the more complex constructions of possession and control. Instead,
I develop an analysis where verbs marked with the reciprocal morpheme are treated as transitive at
the level of functional structure, despite being intransitive at the level of constituent structure. 3
While my analysis has not been applied to reciprocal constructions before, it does have analogies
with the formalism Bresnan (2001:166) develops to account for 'missing' object pronouns in
Navajo; chiefly, that a morpheme incorporated into the verb may supply a pronoun that is accessible
to the syntax of the sentence. 4
The data presented in this thesis comes from a survey of the literature related to Malagasy. The
most important source of data is the work by Keenan & Razafimamonjy (2001) in their paper
“Reciprocals in Malagasy” which contains over 100 examples of reciprocals in various
constructions – most of which are used here. Pearson & Paul (1996) and Paul (1998) compiled two
volumes entitled “The structure of Malagasy – Volume I and II” which contain sixteen papers
related to the syntax of Malagasy, and I have referenced these and numerous other sources where
they appear in the text.
3 The term “F-transitive analysis” will also be applied to verbs that are ditransitive in f-structure, but transitive in c-
structure etc.
4 See section 4.4 for more details.
9

What follows then is an investigation into the evidence and issues related to my claim. Chapter 2
is an overview of reciprocity and chapters 3 and 4 provide background information on Malagasy and
LFG. Chapter 5 reviews the recent work conducted on c-intransitive reciprocals within LFG, and
presents my account of the Malagasy reciprocal construction. Chapters 7 and 8 explore reciprocal
constructions in more detail by examining how they interact with control and possession
constructions. In particular, I examine both the f-transitive and f-intransitive analysis of the
reciprocal construction to see whether they predict the grammaticality of the resultant clauses.
Finally, chapters 9 through 12 investigate how the f-transitive analysis works in conjunction with
complement clauses, circumstantialization and binding, causativization and nominalization.
10

Chapter 2
2.1 Reciprocals and Reciprocity
A reciprocal state-of-affairs (or in Lichtenberk's (1985:19) terminology, a “reciprocal situation”) is
one where a group of entities are, in some sense, acting upon the other individuals within the group.
Building on the work by Lichtenberk (1985), Kemmer (1993) proposes the following definition to
describe a prototypical reciprocal situation:
“The prototypical reciprocal context is a simple event frame expressing a two-participant
event in which there are two relations; each participant serves in the role of Initiator in
one of those relations and Endpoint in the other”
(Kemmer 1993:96-97)
Kemmer identifies two classes of reciprocal situations:
• Reciprocal proper.
• Naturally reciprocal events.
Naturally reciprocal events are ones like “kissing” or “quarreling”. They generally occur with
verbs related to interaction between people or objects where the action described is inherently
reciprocal. Reciprocal proper events are those situations that would not express a reciprocal
situation without the use of overt marking. For example, in (1b) below, if “each other” is omitted,
there is no sense that Rakoto and Mary might be seeing each other. This is not the case when using a
verb that describes a naturally reciprocal event such as “kiss”:
11

(1) Reciprocal Proper:
a. Rakoto and Mary saw each other.
b. *Rakoto and Mary saw.
(2) A naturally reciprocal event:
a. Rakoto and Mary kissed each other.
b. Rakoto and Mary kissed.
By examining reciprocal constructions in several languages, Kemmer notes that naturally
occurring reciprocal events will typically attract “light reciprocal” marking, while reciprocals proper
will be heavily marked (Kemmer 1993:103). Light and heavy marking refers to the relative number
of phonological segments used to create the reciprocal marker. For example, this situation is seen in
English if we allow (as Kemmer does) that light marking may include no overt marking at all. Thus,
in (2) above, “kissed” does not require a reciprocal marker to indicate the reciprocity that is intrinsic
to the situation described.
Kemmer also identifies other properties that pattern with semantic differences between naturally
reciprocal events and reciprocals proper. She groups these properties under the continuum of
“elaboration of events” (1993:97). In particular, the naturally reciprocal events have a low
elaboration of events - they are strongly associated with simultaneity of action, and participants
cannot be contrasted. Proper reciprocals, on the other hand, are temporally indifferent and are better
able to emphasis contrast. For example, the contrast in (3a) is only possible with the heavy
reciprocal marker:
(3) a. The boys quarreled with each other, not the girls.
b. ?The boys quarrelled, not the girls. (Adapted from Kemmer 1993:115)
Having identified two classes of reciprocals in English – a closed set of naturally reciprocal
events, and an open set of reciprocals that are associated with the heavy reciprocal marker, let us
now examine some of the semantic extensions to the core definition of reciprocity that frequently
occur cross-linguistically.
12

2.2 Semantic and Pragmatic Extensions to Reciprocity
Kemmer (1993:97) notes that the prototypical definition of reciprocity above can be extended by
varying degrees from language to language. An obvious feature to extend is the number of
participants taking part in the event; however other more complex extensions are common. For
example, cross-linguistically, a reciprocal construction is often used to express “chaining” e.g.,
“The graduates followed each other up onto the platform” (Kemmer 1993:100). 5 In the prototypical
definition of reciprocity, a participant serves in the role of Initiator in one relation and in the role of
Endpoint in the other. However, as Kemmer notes, in the case of chaining this semantic feature is
changed to “Each participant is the Initiator in one relation and the Endpoint of a second relation of
the same type.” (Kemmer 1993:100). The key difference lies in the fact that any two adjacent
entities will no longer be acting in the same two relations – instead they will be in identical
relations, but with different entities. 6
Dalrymple et al (1998:167) identify “loose interpretations” as a further means by which the
domain of situations described by a reciprocal construction may be increased. Loose interpretations
are those in which the finer details of a statement are irrelevant to its ultimate truth value. For
example, the sentence “The starving dogs ate each other” cannot logically represent a reciprocal
situation under a strict interpretation of reciprocity. Nevertheless, a reciprocal construction is used
in this sentence because the fact that one dog may not have been eaten is an unimportant detail to
the speaker and hearer. Loose interpretations are also required to account for the truth conditions of
chaining reciprocal situations. In (4) below, the coins at the bottom and the top of the stack do not
share the same semantic relations as all the other coins:
(4) The coins were stacked on top of each other.
Each coin in the middle of the stack has two relationships – as a coin that is acting on another coin
and also as a coin that is being acted upon by another coin. However, the coins at the extremes of
the stack engage in only one relation. This point of logic, however, is of no importance to the
overall interpretation of the sentence. 7
5 Lichtenberk (1985:25-26) gives examples of six languages that represent chaining using a reciprocal construction,
namely; English, Japanese, Manam, Menomini, Zulu and Hungarian.
6 Possession in a reciprocal situation occurs when each participant has a relationship with some entity another
participant possesses. The semantics of this state of affairs sits between prototypical reciprocity and chaining.
7 Note that when only two coins are considered, the sentence starts to take on a sense of simultaneous action: 'The two
coins were stacked on top of each other'.
13

Finally, another possible extension to reciprocal semantics occurs when the relationship between
the participants is not so much described by the verb, but rather by its associated pragmatics. For
example, to many English speakers the sentence below is acceptable, even when the thief leads the
officer all the way down the street:
(5) The officer and the thief chased each other through the winding lanes.
(Nick Evans, personal communication.)
Perhaps the reciprocal interpretation above is possible because of the extent that the thief is an
active participant in the situation described. That is to say, while the thief does not actually chase
the police officer, he is still an active participant in the state-of-affairs, constantly aware of the
officer, trying his utmost to escape. If the thief did not actively run away and keep track of the
officer's location, the thief and the officer would no longer be chasing each other. It seems here that
the predicate does not define the relationship between the participants; rather, the relationship they
share is defined by our understanding of the situation in which they find themselves.
2.3 Malagasy Reciprocals
This thesis examines the core reciprocal construction in Malagasy (Keenan & Razafimamonjy
2001:40), and is not concerned with natural reciprocals. The reciprocal proper construction is
encoded with the verbal prefix -if-, as shown in the contrast between (6a) and (6b):
(6) a. N-an-daka an-dRabe Rakoto
pst-act-kick acc.Rabe Rakoto
'Rakoto kicked Rabe'
b. N-if-an-daka Rabe sy Rakoto
pst-rec-act-kick Rabe and Rakoto
'Rabe and Rakoto kicked each other' (Keenan & Razafimamonjy 2001:47)
This sentence (and every sentence I will examine in this thesis) is representative of a proper
reciprocal construction; it has the heavy reciprocal marking associated with these constructions, and
may be productively applied to many verbs. Furthermore, it conforms to the prototypical definition
of reciprocity given by Kemmer (1993:96-97) – it involves two participants who are acting as both
the Initiator and Endpoint of a relation defined by the predicate “kick”. That is, Rabe kicked Rakoto
and Rakoto kicked Rabe.
14

Keenan & Razafimamonjy (2001) identify three allomorphs of the reciprocal morpheme (-if-,
-ifamp-, -ifanka-). The use of each depends on how the reciprocal morpheme attaches to the verb. I
have summarized their work below.
2.3.1 Allomorph 1: -if-
This is the most common allomorph of the reciprocal pronoun. It is used when the active prefix to
which it attaches is of the form -aN- and -ana-. 8 For example:
(7) a. M-an-aja an-dRabe Rasoa
pres-act-respect acc.Rabe Rasoa
'Rasoa respects Rabe'
b. M-if-an-aja Rabe sy Rasoa
pres-rec-act-respect Rabe and Rasoa
'Rasoa and Rabe respect each other' (Keenan & Razafimamonjy 2001:40-41)
2.3.2 Allomorph 2: -ifamp-
There exists a limited set of verbs which use an active prefix of -i- or have no overt marking to
indicate active voice (see Keenan et al 2001:44, Paul 1996:50). In this phonological environment
the epenthetic -amp- is added to the -if- morpheme. For example:
(8) a. M-i-jery ny trano Rabe
pres-act-look.at the house Rabe
'Rabe is looking at the house'
b. M-ifamp-i-jery Rabe sy Rakoto
pres-rec-act-look.at Rabe and Rakoto
'Rabe and Rakoto are looking at each other' (Keenan & Razafimamonjy 2001:45)
2.3.3 Allomorph 3: -ifanka-
This allomorph is used in two environments, firstly where an active marker is indicated using the
morpheme -a- and secondly where the verb to be reciprocalized has already been causativized with
the morpheme -aha-. For example:
8 Where N is some nasalized consonant.
15

(9) a. M-aha-laza azy aho
pres-pot/cause-know him I
'I know him'
b. M-ifanka-aha-laza isika
pres-rec-pot/cause-know we (inclusive)
'We know each other' (Keenan & Razafimamonjy 2001:45)
One possible ambiguity described by Keenan et al (2001:46, 67) occurs in relation to reciprocal
and causative constructions. The most productive morpheme used in causative constructions is
-amp- (as opposed to -aha- above). 9 This allows some constructions to be analyzed in two ways:
(10) a. M-if-amp-a-toky Rabe sy Ranaivo
pres-rec-caus-act-trust Rabe and Ranaivo
'Rabe and Ranaivo inspire trust in each other'
b. M-ifamp-a-toky Rabe sy Ranaivo
pres-rec-act-trust Rabe and Ranaivo
'Rabe and Ranaivo each have confidence in the other'
(Keenan & Razafimamonjy 2001:47)
In (10a), the morphology has been interpreted as a reciprocal of a causative construction, 10
whereas in (10b), the morphology is understood as indicating a reciprocalized version of the main
verb –toky 'trust'. Note that -toky actually uses the active morpheme -a-, so strictly we would expect
the straight reciprocal version of the verb to be m-ifanka-toky, not m-ifamp-a-toky. However, given
that the form -ifamp- exists as an allomorph of the reciprocal construction, it appears that speakers
are inclined to reanalyze it in this way.
2.4 Conclusion
As seen above, the semantics of reciprocal constructions can be varied and complex. The
particular semantics of reciprocal constructions in Malagasy are not pursued in this thesis beyond
the core prototypical interpretation of reciprocity given by Kemmer (1993) above. This is partly
because there is only limited data in the literature to make such a study, but the main reason is that
the semantics of a reciprocal state-of-affairs can, for the most part, be separated from the syntax of
the constructions from which they derive. For example, despite the fact that there are various
9 See chapter 11 for more details.
10 See chapter 11 for more details.
16

semantic models of reciprocity (such as those describing prototypical reciprocal situations, chaining
etc.), they are all linked to the syntax in the same way (see section 5.4).
This concludes the description of the morphology of Malagasy reciprocals and how they sit within
the more complex world of reciprocal semantics. Chapters 3 and 4 provide the requisite background
information on the Malagasy language and LFG before we begin the syntactic analysis of Malagasy
reciprocal construction.
17

Chapter 3
Malagasy
3.1 Introduction
Malagasy is the dominant language of Madagascar spoken by approximately 12 million people. It
consists primarily of 18 major dialects spoken in different regions throughout the island. 11 The
examples below by Keenan and Razafimamonjy (2001) are based on the “official dialect” which is
used by the government and is spoken in and around the capital Antananarivo (Keenan & Polinsky
1998:564). Malagasy is an Austronesian language, but because of its proximity to Africa its
phonology and syllable structure has been influenced by the Bantu languages.
This chapter is not intended to be a comprehensive introduction to Malagasy; rather it supports the
analysis of the various reciprocal constructions made in later chapters. For a generally accessible
introduction to Malagasy, see Keenan & Ochs (1979) and for a more comprehensive source,
particularly with regard to verbal morphology, see Keenan & Polinsky (1998).
3.2 Verbal Morphology
3.2.1 Voice
Verbs in Malagasy are required to indicate voice and tense, and may optionally indicate aspect,
reciprocity and causality. The voice system is complex and generally I will limit my analysis of
reciprocals to verbs with active voice – although chapter 10 discusses the circumstantialization of
reciprocals. Rabenilaina (1998:2) identifies three types of voice in Malagasy, summarized in table
11 See Keenan & Ochs 1979. For more information regarding different Malagasy dialects, see Rajaona 1977 (cited in
Keenan & Ochs 1979).
18

3.1 below:
Voice Morpheme
Active -ø-, -a-, -i-, -an-, -anka-, -aha
Passive a-,-ana,-ina
Circumstantial/Relative 12 ø-…-ana, a-…-ana, i-…-ana
Table 3.1 Malagasy Voice System
Circumstantial voice allows entities low on the thematic hierarchy (such as benefactives,
instruments etc.) to be made subject; for example:
(11) a. m-an-asa ny lamba (amin'ity savony ity) Rasoa
pres-act-wash the clothes (with.this soap this) Rasoa
'Rasoa washes the clothes with this soap'
b. anasan-dRasoa ny lamba ity savony ity
act-wash-circ-with.Rasoa the clothes this soap this
lit. 'This soap washes the clothes with Rasoa'
'This soap is used by Rasoa to wash the clothes' (Keenan & Ochs, 1979:125)
Causative constructions (see chapter 11) can occur with all types of voice, but there is
disagreement as to whether reciprocal morphology can occur with passive voice (see Rabenilaina
1998:4, Keenan et al 2001:56). This disagreement centers around the interpretation of the voice
morphology, as some circumstantial forms look identical to the passive. For example, Rabenilaina
(1998) gives the following sentences as evidence for the passivization of a reciprocal construction:
(12) a. m-if-and-efa
'send to each other'
b. if-an-efa-sana
'be sent to each other'
Rabenilaina (1998:4) notes that “these forms are clearly passive, and not relative ... as they contain
the passive suffix -ina, which never occurs in the relative (i.e., circumstantial) voice”. However,
there is some confusion here because the sentences he gives to support his argument use the -ana
and not the -ina suffix. 13 As table 3.1 above demonstrates, the -ana suffix is used to encode both
circumstantial and passive voice – so it seems then that the examples he gives are not clearly
12 The circumstantial voice is made from combining active and passive voice morphology.
13 Namely; examples 15a-d, page 4, Rabenilaina (1998). Also see his footnote bottom of page 5.
19

passive. Nevertheless, because the -ana suffix could be used to indicate either passive or
circumstantial voice there exists an ambiguity in how to analyze sentences like (12) above. Neither
paper presents data that definitively demonstrates whether the reciprocal construction may be
passivized or not.
3.2.2 Tense
Malagasy makes a three-way distinction with regard to tense. Morphologically, tense marking on
active verbs is straightforward:
(13) a. m-i-vory
pres-act-meet
b. n-i-vory
pst-act-meet
c. h-i-vory
fut-act-meet (Rabenilaina 1998:3)
The tense marking in conjunction with circumstantial voice is the same as active voice except for
the present tense, which is accepted as the default interpretation of the clause and so is unmarked.
Likewise, tense on passivized verbs is unmarked in the present tense:
(14) a. sitran-ina
cure-pass
'is cured'
b. no-sitran-ina
pst-cure-pass
'was cured'
c. ho-sitran-ina
fut-cure-pass
'will be cured' (Rabenilaina 1998:3-4)
3.3 Sentence Structure
Malagasy is a verb initial, subject final language. Languages, such as Malagasy, where the object
precedes the subject are rare (Keenan & Ochs 1979:117 suggest “no more than a dozen”). For
example, VOS languages do not even feature in Greenberg's “Universals of Grammar” (Greenberg
1963:77). However, as Keenan & Ochs (1979:117) point out, the subject is arguably more
20

prominent in Malagasy than in English, despite being clause final. This is demonstrated by the fact
that the subject must also be the topic of the clause – sentences making use of a nonspecific subject
(such as “some people”) are ungrammatical (see 3.4 below).
3.3.1 Basic Word Order
(15) VOS for transitive verbs:
M-an-aja an-dRabe Rakoto
pres-act-respect acc.Rabe Rakoto
Verb Object Subject
'Rakoto respects Rabe' (Keenan & Razafimamonjy 2001:40)
(16) VS for intransitive verbs:
M-i-jaly Rabe
pres-act-suffer Rabe
'Rabe suffers' (Keenan & Razafimamonjy 2001:70)
(17) V-OBJ-IDO-S for ditransitive verbs:
M-an-ome vola an-dRabe Rakoto
pres-act-give money acc.Rabe Rakoto
'Rakoto gives money to Rabe' (Keenan & Razafimamonjy 2001:49)
In example (17) above, overt accusative case marking appears on Rabe, but not vola. This is
because only pronouns and personal nouns mark for case. If vola were replaced with a pronoun, it
would be marked with accusative case. Despite both non-subject NP’s sharing the same marking,
they have different functions. Vola (the theme) is functioning as the object to the verb, while Rabe is
functioning as an oblique object (Malagasy does not mark oblique NP’s in ditransitive constructions
except through word order – see Andrianierenana 1996:70,74). Evidence for these different
functions comes from the passive morphology of ditransitive constructions that distinguish a
passivized object from a passivized indirect object. The morpheme -a is attached to the verb to
make the object subject and -ana is used to make the indirect object the subject. For a discussion of
reciprocals in ditransitive, causative constructions, see chapter 11.
3.3.2 Prepositional Phrases
Malagasy uses prepositions to form oblique phrases, and adjuncts (except in ditransitive clauses –
21

see above) and prepositional phrases sit to the left of the subject NP. In the examples below, the
adjunct is indicated with brackets: 14
(18) M-an-asa ny lambo (amin'ity savony ity) Rasoa
pres-act-wash the clothes (with.this soap this) Rasoa
'Rasoa washes the clothes with this soap' (Keenan & Ochs 1979:117)
Some simple clauses may lose a preposition when reciprocalized:
(19) a. M-an-dainga amin’i Be Ranaivo
pres-act-lie to.art Be Ranaivo
'Ranaivo lies to Be'
b. M-if-an-dainga i Be sy Ranaivo
pres-rec-act-lie art Be and Ranaivo
'Be and Ranaivo lie to each other' (Keenan & Razafimamonjy 2001:49)
The missing preposition in (19b) seems to be an exception. Keenan & Razafimamonjy (2001:50)
note that “Omitting prepositions in this way is far from free… more research is needed to determine
under just what conditions a preposition may be lost under reciprocal formation.” For example, the
same sentence in a possessive reciprocal construction (20b) allows (and possibly requires) the
preposition:
(20) a. M-an-dainga amin'ny vadin-dRakoto Rabe
pres-act-lie to.the spouse.of-Rakoto Rabe
'Rabe lies to the spouse of Rakoto'
b. M-if-an-dainga amim-bady Rakoto sy Rabe
pres-rec-act-lie to.spouse Rakoto and Rabe
'Rabe and Rakoto lie to each other's spouse' (Keenan & Razafimamonjy 2001:52)
Furthermore, prepositional phrases that carry heavy semantic context are ungrammatical if the
preposition is omitted in the reciprocal construction:
(21) a. M-i-petraka akaikin-dRabe Ranaivo
pres-act-sit near-Rabe Ranaivo
'Ranaivo is sitting near Rabe'
14 Note the use of ity 'this' to frame the right edge of the prepositional phrase. See Pearson (1998:108) for more details.
22

. Mifampipetraka akaikin Rabe sy Ranaivo
pres-rec-act-sit near Rabe and Ranaivo
'Rabe and Ranaivo are sitting near each other'
c. *M-ifamp-i-petraka Rabe sy Ranaivo
pres-rec-act-sit Rabe and Ranaivo
*'Rabe and Ranaivo are sitting near each other' (Keenan & Razafimamonjy 2001:50)
From the limited data available, it appears that the conditions under which a preposition may be
omitted in a reciprocal construction are related to whether or not the preposition carries any
semantic content. In (19a) the preposition carries only functional information – that is, it indicates a
grammatical relationship between Ranaivo and Be. In sentence (21a) above, the preposition akaikin
‘near’ carries significant semantic information and may not be omitted. This is to be expected
because without the preposition the relationship between Rabe and Ranaivo would be unclear.
However, when (20b) is combined with a possessor construction, the preposition is no longer
omitted, and consequently the situation may be more complex than simply whether the preposition
is semantically light or heavy. Given the limited data available, I will assume that semantically light
prepositions may be optionally dropped from syntactically simple reciprocal constructions.
3.4 Determiners
Determiners in Malagasy occur before the noun and are particularly relevant in determining the
grammaticality of the subject NP. Potsdam (2002) notes that declarative sentences in Malagasy
require a specific subject - that is to say, a subject that identifies specific entities in the world. The
following examples from Pearson (1996:113-4) illustrate this point; note the use of the determiner
to indicate specificity:
(22) a. Tonga ny entana omaly
pst-arrive det parcel yesterday
'The parcels arrived yesterday'
b. *Tonga entana omaly
pst-arrive parcel yesterday
'Some parcels arrived yesterday' (Pearson 1996:113-4)
However, for non-subject NP’s, the use of a determiner is optional (if we allow for the semantic
differences that they entail):
23

(23) a. M-an-ome vola an-dRabe Rakoto
pres-act-give money acc.Rabe Rakoto
'Rakoto gives (some) money to Rabe' (Keenan & Razafimamonjy 2001:49)
b. N-a-hita ny akoho ny vaolavo
pst-act-see the chicken the rat
'The rat saw the chicken' (Keenan & Ochs 1979:121)
Finally, note that the determiner in a reciprocal possessive construction disappears. This behavior
is investigated in more detail in section 8.4.2:
(24) a. M-aka ny vadin-dRabe Rakoto
pres-ravish the spouse-of-Rabe Rakoto
'Rakoto ravishes the spouse of Rabe'
b. M-ifamp-aka vady Rabe sy Rakoto
pres-rec-ravish spouse Rabe and Rakoto
'Rabe and Rakoto ravish the spouse of each other (each other’s spouse)'
(Keenan & Razafimamonjy 2001:51)
3.5 Conclusion
This concludes my overview of the basic grammatical constructions in Malagasy. The more
complex constructions of control, possession and complements will be provided in detail in chapters
7, 8 and 9. Finally, the interaction of the reciprocal morpheme with circumstantialization,
causativization and nominalization constructions is set out in chapters 10, 11 and 12.
24

Chapter 4
Lexical Functional Grammar
4.1 Introduction
The theoretical framework used in this thesis is Lexical Functional Grammar (LFG) (Bresnan
2001, Falk 2001 and Dalrymple 2001). Central to LFG is the idea that grammatical structure is best
represented by a system of parallel structures. Each of these structures represents a different aspect
of linguistic structure, and they are linked together by principles of correspondence.
The key syntactic structures are c-structure (constituent structure) and f-structure (functional
structure). C-structure encodes linear order and constituency. An understanding of the c-structure of
a language helps identify phrasal dominance, phrasal positioning and adverb placement, and so on.
The f-structure represents both the grammatical functions of a clause and the relations between the
grammatical functions through the use of argument structure. The c-structure and abbreviated f-
structure for (25) are given in figure 4.1 below:
(25) M-i-jaly Rabe
pres-act-suffer Rabe
'Rabe suffers' (Keenan & Razafimamonjy 2001:70)
C-structure F-structure
IP
VP NP
V N
Mijaly Rabe
éSUBJ êPRED ê
êTENSE ê
ëVOICE [ PRED 'Rabe']
ù
'suffer'ú
ú
PRES ú
ú
ACTIVE û
Figure 4.1 F- and C-structures for 'Rabe suffers'
25

As the f-structure above demonstrates, (25) contains one grammatical function – a subject, and a
verb mijaly “suffer” whose argument structure specifies that it requires a subject. Note that an f-
structure consists of attributes (e.g., SUBJ, TENSE among others) and values. A value may be a
property of the clause (such as “PRES”) or another f-structure.
4.1.1 Mapping between F- and C-structure
Equations called f-descriptions (functional-descriptions) are associated with the lexical
information in c-structure and provide the mapping between f- and c-structure. F-descriptions are
also generated by the phrase structure rules via annotations. For example, the annotated phrase-
structure rule for (25) is below:
(26) IP I', NP
↑ = ↓ (↑SUBJ) = ↓
I' I, VP
↑ = ↓ ↑ = ↓
VP V
↑ = ↓
The principle of Economy of Expression (see Bresnan 2001:91, Falk 2001:34) allows phrase
structure nodes that are not associated with lexical items or independent principles such as
completeness, coherence and semantic expressivity to be 'collapsed' so that they can be removed
from the c-structure. For example, the I' above is not associated with a lexical item, and so may be
removed from the c-structure. This is reflected by the phrase structure rule in (27) which can
summarize (26) as:
(27) IP VP NP
↑ = ↓ (↑SUBJ) = ↓
VP V
↑ = ↓
The vertical arrows refer to f-structures. ↓ refers to the f-structure associated with the current
node, while ↑ refers to the f-structure that is associated with the mother of the current node (See
Bresnan 2001:53, Falk 2001:71, Dalrymple & Kaplan 2000:761). So, the annotations in (27) can
therefore be read as:
26

(28)
↑ = ↓ The f-structure associated with this node in the c-structure is the same as the
f-structure associated with the node of my mother.
(↑SUBJ) = ↓ The f-structure associated with my mother's node has an attribute called
“SUBJ”. This feature has a value that is the f-structure associated with my
node.
Recall that in LFG, f-descriptions are associated with both lexical information and phrasal
annotations. The f-descriptions associated with the lexical items in (25) are listed below:
(29)
Rabe, NP (↑ PRED) = 'Rabe'
Mijaly, V (↑ PRED) = 'Suffer'
(↑ TENSE) = PRES
(↑ VOICE) = ACTIVE
Thus the c-structure for (25) receives f-descriptions from two sources, lexical (in italics) and
phrasal:
C-structure F-structure
IP f1
↑ = ↓ (↑ SUBJ) = ↓
VP f2 NP f4
↑ = ↓ ↑ = ↓
V f3 N f5
Rabe
(↑ PRED) = 'Rabe'
Mijaly
(↑ PRED) = 'Suffer'
(↑ TENSE) = PRES
(↑ VOICE) = ACTIVE
f
1,2,3
[ ]
éSUBJ f4,5 PRED 'Rabe' ù
ê
PRED 'suffer'
ú
­
ê ú
êTENSE PRES ú
ê ú
ëVOICE ACTIVE û
Figure 4.2 The Annotated C- and F- structures for 'Rabe suffers'
The c-structure annotations show that all of the lexical information from the verb must refer to the
outermost f-structure – and this is reflected in the f-structure of the sentence (see Figure 4.2). The
lexical information for Rabe requires that its mother's node's f-structure has a PRED feature.
However, instead of referring to the outermost f-structure, it refers to the f-structure associated with
the SUBJ feature – because the SUBJ feature's value corresponds to the node that is Rabe's mother.
27

4.2 Constraints in LFG
It is the constraints in LFG which make it a theory of syntax rather than just a description. There
are two types of constraints in LFG, those that are related to the mapping between structures and
those that are internal to a particular structure. Unification (see 4.2.1 below) is a constraint on how
information may be mapped from c-structure to f-structure, whereas coherence (4.2.3) and
completeness (4.2.2) are constraints that apply to f-structure. 15
4.2.1 Unification
If we consider an English sentence in present tense, the verb says something about its subject.
That is to say, the verb has some lexical information as part of its definition that defines some
values in the f-structure associated with its subject. For example, in (30) below, the verb “yawns”
has information about the number and person of its subject. This is reflected in its lexical entries
(see (31) below). In order for a sentence to be grammatical, the features and values that the various
lexemes define must unify (i.e., match). The lack of unification (or matching of values) explains
why (30) is ungrammatical: 16
(30) *I yawns.
(31)
I N (↑ PRED) = PRO
(↑ PERS) = 1
(↑ NUM) = SG
Yawns V (↑ PRED) = 'Yawn'
(↑ SUBJ PERS) = 3
(↑ NUM) = SG
(↑ TENSE) = PRES
15 Binding conditions also need to be met for a sentence to be grammatical. Binding in relation to reciprocal
constructions is discussed in sections 5.4 and 10.3.
16 Unification is described in detail by Dalrymple (2001:104).
28

C-structure F-structure
IP
(↑ SUBJ) = ↓ ↑ = ↓
NP VP
↑ = ↓ ↑ = ↓
PN V
I
(↑ PRED) = 'PRO'
(↑ PERS) = 1
(↑ NUM) = SG
yawns
(↑ PRED) = 'Yawn'
(↑ SUBJ PERS) = 3
(↑ SUBJ NUM) = SG
(↑ TENSE) = PRES
Figure 4.3 C- and F-structures for '*I yawns'
é éPRED PROù
ù
êSUBJ êPERS ??? ú ú
ê ê ú ú
ê êë NUM SG úû
ú
ê ú
PRED 'yawn'
ê ú
êë TENSE PRES úû
As there is no mechanism in LFG whereby one lexical entry may overwrite another, (30) is
ungrammatical because two differing values are being assigned to the PERS feature (see figure 4.3
above). However, if the two values were identical, then the f-structure may be unified and the
resulting sentence would be grammatical. PRED features have an additional constraint that
disallows them from even participating in unification. If two PRED values, even if they are
identical, are constructed in the same f-structure, the resulting sentence is ungrammatical.
4.2.2 Completeness
One of the key tests for a sentence to be grammatical is that its associated f-structure must be both
Coherent and Complete. For an f-structure to be complete, every function designated by a PRED
must be represented in the f-structure. Furthermore, if that function is an argument function (SUBJ,
OBJ, COMPL), then it must also include a PRED feature. 17 For example, in (25) above, the verb
mijaly has the following lexical entry:
(32)
Mijaly, V (↑ PRED) = 'Suffer'
(↑ TENSE) = PRES
(↑ VOICE) = ACTIVE
17 See Bresnan (2001:63).
29

This means the f-structure that contains the PRED feature of mijaly will also be required to
contain a SUBJ function. Looking again at figure 4.1 (repeated below) we see that it does:
[ ]
éSUBJ PRED 'Rabe' ù
êPRED 'suffer'ú
­
ê ú
êTENSE PRES ú
ê ú
ëVOICE ACTIVE û
Figure 4.1 (repeated) F-structure for “Rabe suffers”
If the SUBJ function were not present in the f-structure, or did not have a PRED value associated
with it, then the f-structure would be ungrammatical.
4.2.3 Coherence
For an f-structure to be coherent, every argument function (such as SUBJ, OBJ, etc.) in the f-
structure must be designated by a corresponding function in a PRED. 18 The ungrammatical sentence
below illustrates an incoherent f-structure using the intransitive verb mijaly 'suffering':
(33) *M-i-jaly an-Rabe Rakoto
pres-act-suffer acc.Rabe Rakoto
'*Rakoto is suffering Rabe'
(34)
Rabe, NP (↑ PRED) = 'Rabe'
(↑ CASE) = ACC
Mijaly, V (↑ PRED) = 'Suffer'
(↑ TENSE) = PRES
(↑ VOICE) = ACTIVE
Rakoto, NP (↑ PRED) = 'Rakoto'
18 See Bresnan (2001:63), Falk (2001: 61).
30

C-structure F-structure
IP
↑ = ↓ (↑ SUBJ) = ↓
VP NP
↑ = ↓ (↑ OBJ) = ↓ ↑ = ↓
V NP N
↑ = ↓ Rakoto
N (↑ PRED) = 'Rakoto'
Rabe
(↑ PRED) = 'Rabe'
(↑ CASE) = ACC
Mijlay
(↑ PRED) = 'suffer'
(↑ TENSE) = PRES
(↑ VOICE) = ACTIVE
[ ]
éSUBJ PRED 'Rakoto' ù
ê PRED 'Rabe' ú
ê
é ù
OBJ
ú
ê
êCASE ACC ú
ë û ú
ê ú
PRED 'suffer'
ê ú
êTENSE PRES ú
ê ú
ëVOICE ACT û
Figure 4.4 C- and F-structures for '*Rakoto is suffering Rabe'
The configuration of the c-structure above and its associated f-descriptions places 'Rabe' into an
object function. In the f-structure above the SUBJ function is designated by the main PRED,
however, the OBJ function is not. As a result, the f-structure is incoherent and the sentence is
ungrammatical.
4.3 Argument Structure
Argument structure (a-structure) is an intermediary structure that sits between the semantics of a
clause and the syntax. The argument structure encodes the predicate argument structure of a verb.
For example, the verb ‘see’ has two arguments (an agent and a patient) represented in a-structure.
Once again, a set of lexical mapping rules (specified by lexical mapping theory - LMT) links the
roles in the a-structure to their corresponding functions in f-structure. However, some syntactic
processes do take place at the level of a-structure – passivization for example (see section 5.2).
Manning (1996 a,b) argues that binding also takes place at the level of a-structure (traditionally,
binding takes place at the level of f-structure in LFG). 19
The mapping rules between a- and f-structure determine the grammatical role of each of the verbs'
arguments. The table below gives a simplified account of the mapping rules for active sentences: 20
19 I use Manning's (1996a,b) account of binding in my examination of circumstantial constructions. See chapter 10.
20 The mapping rules are much richer than this table suggests and can be used to account for passive and unaccusative
constructions. For a full description, see Bresnan (2001:302)
31

Thematic Role Maps To Functional Role
Agent ↔ Subject
Patient/Beneficiary ↔ Object
Location/Path ↔ Oblique Object
Table 4.5 Thematic Role to Functional Role Mapping in Active Sentences
In a passive construction, the patient becomes the subject. LFG captures this by suppressing the
agent thematic role in a-structure and in turn mapping the patient role to the subject. The rules
regarding this mapping behavior are not arbitrary, but follow from the general principles of LMT.
These principles are not discussed further here; see Bresnan (2001:302) and Falk (2001:104) for
more details. The diagram below from Falk (2001:105) demonstrates how the various structures in
LFG map to one another:
place:
θ-structure: 21 [Agent] ... [Patient/Theme] ... [Location]
a-structure: place
f-structure:
[ ]
4.4 C-intransitive verbs
éSUBJ ...
ù
êPRED 'place'ú
ê ú
êOBJ [ ... ]
ú
ê ú
ëOBL Loc [ ... ]
û
Figure 4.6 Mappings for the Verb 'place' (Falk 2001:105)
I will use the term “c-intransitive” to describe a verb that only has one NP in its c-structure. Recall
that c-structure reflects the linear order of constituents in a phrase. As a result of the economy of
expression principle, LFG cannot posit 'empty' phrases in c-structure. This is a fundamental
difference between LFG and Chomsky’s government binding theory (1981), which requires that
every semantic role (such as agent, patient and other roles) has exactly one argument role related to
it in the phrase structure, irrespective of whether the clause has any overt lexemes corresponding to
21 θ-structure represents the semantic roles intrinsic to the verb 'place'.
32

it (Saxon (1989:380-381) commenting on Chomsky (1981)).
In LFG it is possible to have grammatical function information in the f-structure that does not
correspond to a distinct node in the c-structure. Thus, it is possible for there to be a mismatch
between the number of overt NP arguments in the c-structure and the number of grammatical
functions in the f-structure. To take an extreme example, consider the Navajo sentences below:
(34) a. ashkii at'ééd yiyiiłtsá
boy girl 3O-3sgS-saw
'The boy saw the girl'
b. yiyiiłtsá
3O-3sgS-saw
'S/he saw him/her' (Speas 1990:260, also see Sandoval & Jelinek 1989)
Sentence (34a) is a simple transitive construction – there are two NP's, one for the object and one
for the subject. Sentence (34b) has no NP's, but is still interpreted as having a subject and an object
pronoun. The analysis Bresnan (2001:161) follows for sentence (34b) is straightforward, it allows
the person/number agreement morphemes to optionally define pronouns functioning as subject and
object of the clause:
(35) Lexical Information for sentence (34b):
yiyiiłtsá, V (↑ PRED) = 'see'
(↑ SUBJ PRED) = PRO
(↑ SUBJ PERS) = 3
(↑ SUBJ NUM) = SG
(↑ OBJ PRED) = PRO
(↑ OBJ PERS) = 3
C-structure F-structure
V
yiyiiłtsá
(↑ PRED) = 'see'
(↑ SUBJ PRED) = PRO
(↑ SUBJ PERS) = 3
(↑ SUBJ NUM) = SG
(↑ OBJ PRED) = PRO
(↑ OBJ PERS) = 3
é éPRED PROù
ù
êSUBJ êPERS 3 ú ú
ê ê ú ú
ê êë NUM SG úû
ú
ê ú
ê éPRED PROù
OBJ
ú
ê êPERS 3 ú
ë û ú
ê ú
êPRED 'see'ú
ê ú
ê ú
êë úû
Figure 4.7 C- and F-structures for 'S/he saw him/her'
33

Note that the predicate in the f-structure still selects for a subject and object function. I call verbs
such as these “f-transitive/c-intransitive” to reflect the different number of arguments they select at
the level of f- and c-structure. Truly intransitive verbs are those that are intransitive both at the level
of f-structure and c-structure. An example of such a verb is 'suffer' in sentence (25) - “Rabe suffers”.
Armed with this terminology, it is now possible to state with more precision the subject of this
thesis. The verb in (7a) is both c- and f-transitive, i.e., there are two arguments present in both the c-
structure and the f-structure. The reciprocalized verb in (7b) is clearly c-intransitive – but is it f-
transitive or f-intransitive?
(7) a. M-an-aja an-dRabe Rasoa
pres-act-respect acc.Rabe Rasoa
'Rasoa respects Rabe'
b. M-if-an-aja Rabe sy Rasoa
pres-rec-act-respect Rabe and Rasoa
'Rasoa and Rabe respect each other' (Keenan & Razafimamonjy 2001:40-41)
Analyses of similar reciprocal verbs in Bantu (Mchombo & Ngunga (1980), Mchombo (1991) and
Dalrymple & Mchombo & Peters (1994)) have argued that these verbs are also f-intransitive, like
regular intransitive verbs. In contrast, I argue that the analysis of the Malagasy reciprocal morpheme
interacting with possession and control constructions provides strong evidence that the reciprocal
construction in Malagasy is f-transitive.
4.5 Note Regarding C- & F-structures and Lexical Entries
The f-structures and lexical entries that appear throughout this thesis have been abbreviated to
include only those features that are relevant to the analysis at hand. Frequently, features such as
specificity, case, number, person, definiteness and determiners have been omitted. To the best of my
knowledge, the c-structures contained herein correctly describe the major constituents of the
Malagasy clauses. However, they might be inaccurate with respect to the actual structural position
of some determiners and adverbs. However, any such inaccuracy does not jeopardise the main
argument of this thesis that the Malagasy reciprocal construction should be treated as f-transitive.
34

4.6 Conclusion
I have given a brief account of the complexities and constraints that lie behind the different
structures represented within LFG. This introduction provides enough background information to
understand the different implications of treating the reciprocal morpheme as f-transitive or f-
intransitive.
In chapter 5, I present both analyses of the Malagasy reciprocal morpheme.
35

Chapter 5
Two Analyses of the Malagasy Reciprocal Morpheme
5.1 Introduction
In chapter 4 we identified that while the Malagasy reciprocal construction is c-intransitive, at the
level of f-structure it could be transitive or intransitive. Each of these interpretations has different
implications for the way we analyze the Malagasy reciprocal in LFG. In 5.2 below I summarize the
work by Alsina (1996), Mchombo & Ngunga (1980), Mchombo (1991) and Dalrymple et al (1994)
which treats similar c-intransitive reciprocal constructions in other languages as f-intransitive. 22 In
section 5.3 I present my f-transitive analysis of the reciprocal construction (the evidence for and
against each of these analyses is detailed in chapters 6-8). Finally, in section 5.4, I examine how the
semantics of a reciprocal situation are linked to my syntactic analysis of the reciprocal construction.
5.2 The F-intransitive Analysis of the Malagasy Reciprocal
Construction
In section 4.3 we saw that the a-structure of a clause represents the thematic roles that are intrinsic
to the verb. For example, the verb 'see' in (36) below has two thematic roles, regardless of whether it
is transitive or intransitive (at the level of f- or c-structure):
(36)
a. Peter saw the raven. Active voice: Two thematic roles, F-transitive, C-transitive.
b. The raven was seen. Passive voice: Two thematic roles, F-intransitive, C-intransitive.
22 Bantu (Mchombo & Ngunga 1980, Mchombo 1991 and Dalrymple et al 1994) and Catalan (Alsina 1996).
36

In (36b), the clause still has two roles in the a-structure, but now only has one in f-structure:
(37)
a. Peter saw the raven.
a-structure: See
f- structure: see
b. The raven was seen.
a-structure: See
f- structure: seen
The usual mechanism in LFG to model an argument present in a-structure but missing in f-
structure is through a process of argument suppression (Bresnan (2001:310), Falk (2001:94),
Dalrymple (2001:208)). Passive constructions in many languages have been successfully explained
using argument suppression, and because of the parallels between the passive construction in
English and the reciprocal constructions in Malagasy, I will use it to demonstrate how f-intransitive
reciprocals might be represented. In the examples below, note how the passive construction in
English structurally acts like the reciprocalized sentences in Malagasy insofar as it turns a bivalent
verb into a monovalent one:
(38) a. M-an-aja an-dRabe Rakoto
pres-act-respect acc.Rabe Rakoto
verb arg2 arg1
'Rakoto respects Rabe'
b. Peter sees the raven.
arg1 verb arg2
(39) a. M-if-an-aja Rabe sy Rakoto
pres-rec-act-respect [Rabe and Rakoto]
verb arg1
'Rabe and Rakoto respect each other'
b. The raven was seen
arg1 verb
37

The LFG analysis of the passive construction in English involves a lexical rule that is applied to
the argument structure of the verb 'see', suppressing its agent:
Active Voice Passive Voice
see Û see
[-o] [-r]
[ ]
[ ]
[-o] [-r]
¯ ¯ ¯ ¯
Subj Obj Æ Subj
éSUBJ PRED 'Peter' ù
êOBJ PRED 'The raven' ú éSUBJ [ PRED 'The raven']
ù
ê ú ê
PRED 'seen'
ú
ë û
êë PRED 'see'úû
Figure 5.1 A-structure and F-structure for the active and passive verb ‘see’.
The [-o] and [-r] parameters indicate whether the corresponding thematic role is ‘objective’ or
‘restricted’. Their exact definition is beyond the scope of this thesis: it will suffice for our purposes
to understand that a role marked [-r] can map to either an object or subject, depending on whether a
subject argument has already been filled. 23 The result of the lexical rule is that ‘see’ now has only
one argument in f- and c-structure (note however that the number of thematic roles represented by
belonging to the verb has not changed).
Malagasy reciprocal constructions could be represented analogously – only, instead of suppressing
the agent thematic role, the patient role is suppressed. The diagram below from Mchombo (1991:16)
(adapted to use the notation here) demonstrates how Mchombo analyzes the Chichewa word 'cook
each other': 24
phik-a 'cook' < ag pt>
[-o] [-r]
-an- ø
f-structure: cook_each_other
In the diagram above, the reciprocal morpheme -an- has been applied to the root verb phik-a
'cook'. The result is that the argument of the verb has been suppressed – and a new, reciprocalized
verb ('cook_each_other') has been created.
23 See Bresnan (2001:302-322), Falk (2001:93-114), Dalrymple (2001:195-216) for more details.
24 -an- is the reciprocal morpheme in Chichewa.
38

Another approach (equivalent in terms of the intransitivity of the f-structure) is to map both the
agent and patient of the verb to the same functional category (in this case, the SUBJ). This is how
Alsina (1996:260-263) represents reciprocal constructions in Catalan:
(40)
agent goal
| |
escriure's (write-RF) 25 '
SUBJ
Figure 5.2 A-structure for the Reciprocalized Verb 'write to each other' - Adapted from
Alsina (1996:262)
Whether an a-structure argument is suppressed, or whether two a-structure arguments map to the
same functional category in f-structure makes little difference to the f-intransitive analysis of the
reciprocal construction in Malagasy. In either situation, the valence of the verb has been reduced by
one – a transitive verb becomes intransitive and a ditransitive verb becomes transitive at the level of
f-structure. Sentence (39a) (repeated below) demonstrates the specifics of this analysis:
(39) a. M-if-an-aja Rabe sy Rakoto
pres-rec-act-respect [Rabe and Rakoto]
'Rabe and Rakoto respect each other'
According to this analysis, the reciprocal morpheme triggers a lexical process that changes the
argument structure of the verb manaja 'respect' to mifanaja 'respect_each_other<
(↑SUBJ)>'. This process occurs by either suppressing the patient argument (e.g., Mchombo (1991)),
or by linking to the patient and agent arguments (Alsina (1996)):
Mchombo's Analysis
A-structure: respect
25 RF – Reflexive morpheme. The reflexive morpheme is indicating reciprocal semantics here.
ø
39

Alsina's Analysis
A-structure: respect
Lexical Information:
Mifanaja, V (↑ PRED) = 'respect_each_other'
(↑ TENSE) = PRES
(↑ VOICE) = ACTIVE
C-structure F-structure
IP
↑ = ↓ (↑ SUBJ) = ↓
VP NP
↑ = ↓
V
Rabe and Rakoto
éSUBJ êPRED ê
êVOICE ê
ëTENSE [ "Rabe and Rakoto" ] ù
'respect_each_other'ú
ú
ACT
ú
ú
PRES
û
Mifanaja
(↑ PRED) = 'respect_each_other'
(↑ TENSE) = PRES
(↑ VOICE) = ACTIVE
Figure 5.3 The F-intransitive Analysis of 'Rabe and Rakoto respect each other'
Mchombo (1991:11) describes this process as “...a lexical derivation process that yields reciprocal
verbs that are syntactically intransitive” – the verb has been “detransitivized”. 26
5.3 The F-transitive Analysis of the Malagasy Reciprocal Construction
In the previous section we looked at the f-intransitive analysis put forward in the literature to
account for c-intransitive reciprocal constructions. My analysis of the reciprocal construction in
Malagasy is that the clause remains transitive at the level of f-structure. 27 I will argue in chapters 7
to 12, that the f-transitive analysis is able to capture the syntactic complexities of the reciprocal
morpheme in combination with control, possession, circumstantialization, causativization and
nominalization constructions. My analysis is similar to the way subject and object agreement
26 Mchombo applies the term “detransitivized” to ditransitive and semi-transitive verbs as well. For example, a
ditransitive verb, when reciprocalized, is detransitivized to a transitive verb.
27 That is, a transitive verb remains transitive when in a reciprocal construction, a semi-transitive verb remains semitransitive
and a ditransitive verb remains ditransitive etc.
40

pronouns are treated in head-marking languages like Navajo (see section 4.4) insofar as the
reciprocal morpheme creates a reciprocal pronoun that sits in the object function of the verb:
(41)
-if- (↑ OBJ PRED) = PROre c i p
The reciprocal morpheme -if- in this definition can be interchanged freely with any of its
allomorphs -ifamp-, -ifanka- as the morphological environment requires. The f-transitive analysis
for sentence (39a) is below:
(39) a. M-if-an-aja Rabe sy Rakoto
pres-rec-act-respect [Rabe and Rakoto]
'Rabe and Rakoto respect each other'
M-if-anaja, V (↑ PRED) = 'respect'
(↑ TENSE) = PRES
(↑ VOICE) = ACTIVE
(↑ OBJ PRED) = PROr e c i p
C-structure F-structure
IP
↑ = ↓ (↑ SUBJ) = ↓
VP NP
↑ = ↓
V
Rabe and Rakoto
éSUBJ ê
OBJ
ê
êPRED ê
êVOICE êë TENSE
[ "Rabe and Rakoto" ] ù
[ PRED PROrecip]
ú
ú
'respect'ú
ú
ACT
ú
PRES
úû
M-if-anaja
(↑ PRED) = 'respect'
(↑ TENSE) = PRES
(↑ VOICE) = ACTIVE
(↑ OBJ PRED) = PROrecip
Figure 5.4 The F-intransitive Analysis of 'Rabe and Rakoto respect each other'
The resulting f-structure is both coherent and complete. The f-structure associated with the SUBJ
is constructed via annotations on the NP node in the c-structure whereas the reciprocal pronoun in
the OBJ function is defined lexically through the definition of reciprocal morpheme contained in the
verb. Furthermore, note that the verb remains transitive in the reciprocal construction. The
reciprocal pronoun (glossed as PROrecip) is an anaphoric pronoun which finds its antecedent in the
41

plural NP that forms the entity set undergoing the reciprocal relationship. 28 Functionally, it is
equivalent to “each other” in English. It carries no semantic content, serving instead as a
placeholder in the syntax that helps to resolve the nature of the relationship between the participants
in any given reciprocal situation (see 5.4 below).
The lexical definition of the reciprocal morpheme given in (41) can account for transitive
reciprocal constructions. However, this definition must be extended to account for semi-transitive
and ditransitive reciprocal constructions. These constructions are examined below.
5.3.1 Semi-transitive Verbs
Semi-transitive verbs take both a subject and an indirect object. In Malagasy, an oblique object is
introduced with a preposition when not part of a ditransitive verb. 29 The sentences below show the
contrast between the non-reciprocal and reciprocal construction of a semi-transitive verb:
(42) Semi-transitive constructions
a. M-an-dainga amin’i Be Ranaivo
pres-act-lie to’art Be Ranaivo
'Ranaivo lies to Be'
b. M-if-an-dainga i Be sy Ranaivo
pres-rec-act-lie art Be and Ranaivo
'Be and Ranaivo lie to each other' (Keenan & Razafimamonjy 2001:49)
The lexical entry for “lie” in both (42a) and (42b) selects a subject and an indirect object:
(43) 'lie'
The lack of an NP in a oblique object position in (42b) suggests that the reciprocal pronoun can
reside in a non-subject function selected by the verb (i.e, OBLθ OBJ). This extension to the
definition of the reciprocal morpheme is left to section 5.3.3.
5.3.2 Ditransitive Verbs
The oblique function (which Keenan & Razafimamonjy 2001:49 call the “indirect object”) in a
ditransitive construction is marked with accusative case in Malagasy and is not introduced with a
28 Formally its antecedent is defined or located using binding theory. See section 10.3 for a discussion on binding with
respect to Malagasy reciprocals.
29 Recall section 3.3.1.
42

prepositional phrase. 30 As such, a ditransitive verb selects the oblique argument directly rather than
the object contained with it. Compare the lexical entries for the verb manome 'give' with mandainga
'lie':
(44) a. manome, 'give'
b. mandainga, 'lie'
The non-reciprocal and reciprocal constructions of a ditransitive verb are shown in (45):
(45) Ditransitive constructions
a. M-an-ome vola an-dRabe Rakoto
pres-act-give money acc.Rabe Rakoto
'Rakoto gives money to Rabe'
b. M-if-an-ome vola Rabe sy Rakoto
pres-rec-act-give money Rabe and Rakoto
'Rabe and Rakoto give money to each other' (Keenan & Razafimamonjy 2001:49)
Once again, the reciprocal construction is missing a non-subject argument – this time the oblique
argument. This suggests another function in which the reciprocal pronoun may reside.
Finally, Keenan and Razafimamonjy (2001:85) mention in a footnote a “weak” reciprocal
construction that can be formed using the reciprocal morpheme. They use the term “weak”, because
the truth conditions of a clause using this construction do not entail a reciprocal situation:
(46) N-if-an-daka t-amin-dRabe Rakoto
pst-rec-act-kick pst.with.Rabe Rakoto
'Rakoto was engaged in mutual kicking with Rabe'
lit. 'Rakoto kicked Rabe and Rabe might have kicked Rakoto'
(Keenan & Razafimamonjy 2001:85)
This construction has some parallels with the Chichewa reciprocal construction (see chapter 6). As
it does not entail reciprocal semantics, the reciprocal morpheme in the weak construction must be
analyzed differently from the core reciprocal morpheme. For this reason, it will not be included in
30 As accusative marking only appears overtly on pronouns and names in (45a) above, vola 'money' has no case
marking. However, vola can be replaced by a pronoun marked with accusative case. See Andrianierenana (1998:65)
for other example sentences containing verbs with overtly marked double accusatives.
43

the analysis of the reciprocal morpheme below. 31
5.3.3 Extending the Domain of the Reciprocal Morpheme
As the data above demonstrates, reciprocal clauses have one less NP than their non-reciprocal
counterparts. Although the specific argument that is lost changes depending on the verb type, when
considering the data in general, we see that one non-subject argument of the verb is lost in a
reciprocal construction. Thus, in order to be able to account for reciprocal constructions of verbs
with different arities, the definition of the reciprocal morpheme needs to be extended to:
(47) -if- (↑OBLθ)(↑OBJ) PRED = PROrecip
Functionally, this definition extends the domain where the reciprocal pronoun (PROrecip) may be
constructed to any non-subject function. The brackets indicate that the associated function is
optional. 32 This definition captures the generalization that Malagasy reciprocal pronouns can exist in
any non-subject function selected by the verb. It is shorthand for:
(48) a. (↑OBJ PRED) = PROr e c i p
b. (↑OBLθ PRED) = PROr e c i p
c. (↑OBLθ OBJ PRED) = PROr e c i p
Used with transitive verbs
Used with ditransitive verbs
Used with semi-transitive verbs
The remainder of section 5.3 is devoted to demonstrating how the lexical definition above of the
reciprocal morpheme accounts for the grammaticality of reciprocal constructions based upon verbs
of various arities, namely semi-transitive verbs (refer to section 5.3.4) and ditransitive verbs (refer
to section 5.3.5). Section 5.3.6 ensures that the f-transitive analysis is able to predict ungrammatical
reciprocal constructions.
5.3.4 The F-transitive Analysis of Semi-transitive Verbs
In this section, the f- and c-structures for both the non-reciprocal and reciprocal constructions of
(42) are presented below to demonstrate the f-transitive analysis of the reciprocal morpheme.
31 Before a full analysis of this construction can be undertaken, certain matters require clarification, such as where this
construction is used (if on the west coast of Madagascar, perhaps the construction is a borrowing from Mozambique)
and whether the construction can be used with complex constructions such as control and possession.
32 Should neither of the two optional arguments be used, the lexical definition reduces to (↑PRED) = PROrecip. This
lexical entry may be discounted because it cannot unify with the PRED defined by the verb.
44

(42) a. M-an-dainga amin’i Be Ranaivo
pres-act-lie to’art Be Ranaivo
'Ranaivo lies to Be'
b. M-if-an-dainga i Be sy Ranaivo
pres-rec-act-lie art Be and Ranaivo
'Be and Ranaivo lie to each other' (Keenan & Razafimamonjy 2001:49)
The lexical entries, c- and f-structures for the non-reciprocal construction (42a) are below:
Be NP (↑ PRED) = 'Be'
Ranaivo NP (↑ PRED) = 'Ranaivo'
amin’i P (↑PCASE) = OBLθ
Mandainja V (↑ PRED) = 'lie'
(↑ TENSE) = PRES
(↑ VOICE) = ACTIVE
C-structure F-structure
IP
↑ = ↓ (↑ SUBJ) = ↓
VP NP
↑ = ↓ (↑OBLθ)= ↓ ↑ = ↓
V NP N
Ranaivo
↑ = ↓ (↑OBJ) = ↓ (↑PRED) = 'Ranaivo'
P NP
amin’i
(↑PCASE) = OBLθ ↑ = ↓
N
Be
Mandainja (↑PRED) = 'Be'
(↑ TENSE) = PRES
(↑ VOICE) = ACTIVE
(↑ PRED) = 'lie'
éSUBJ ê
êOBLθ ê
ê
ê
PRED
êTENSE ê
ëASPECT [ PRED 'Ranaivo']
ù
PCASE OBL
ú
é θ ù
ú
êOBJ [ PRED 'Be']
ú
ë û ú
ú
'lie'
ú
PRES
ú
ú
ACT
û
Figure 5.5 C- and F-structures for 'Ranaivo lies to Be'
The reciprocal construction of (42a) is (42b). The clause is now missing an oblique object in c-
structure. As noted previously (see section 3.3.2), the preposition is omitted in this construction.
The status of the article -i- is unclear – it may either belong to the subject NP or be the residue of
the missing preposition. 33 In the absence of data to the contrary, I have assumed that it belongs to
33 Articles can proceed personal names in Malagasy – see Keenan & Razafimamonjy (2001:53).
45

the subject NP.
(42) b. M-if-an-dainga i Be sy Ranaivo
pres-rec-act-lie art Be and Ranaivo
'Be and Ranaivo lie to each other'
As noted in (48), my analysis allows three possible lexical entries for the reciprocal morpheme.
Two of these may be ignored because they create non-coherent, non-complete f-structures. For
example if the lexical definition '(↑OBJ PRED) = PROrecip' were used, an extra object, not selected
by the verb, would be created in f-structure. In a semi-transitive verb, the only lexical definition of
the reciprocal morpheme that could result in a complete and coherent f-structure is 34 :
(48) c. (↑OBLθ OBJ PRED) = PROrecip
The lexical entries, f- and c-structures for (42b) are then:
M-if-andainja V (↑ PRED) = 'lie'
(↑ TENSE) = PRES
(↑ VOICE) = ACTIVE
(↑ OBLθ OBJ PRED) = PROrecip
C-structure F-structure
IP
↑ = ↓ (↑SUBJ) = ↓
VP NP
↑ = ↓
V i Be sy Ranaivo
éSUBJ ê
OBLθ ê
êPRED ê
TENSE
ê
êë ASPECT
[ "Be and Ranaivo" ] ù
[ OBJ [ PRED PROrecip]
] ú
ú
'lie'ú
ú
PRES
ú
ACT
úû
Mandainja
(↑ TENSE) = PRES
(↑ VOICE) = ACTIVE
(↑ PRED) = 'lie'
(↑ OBLθ OBJ PRED) = PROrecip
Figure 5.6 C- and F-structures for 'Ranaivo and Be lies to each other'
34 See section 5.3.6 below for more details.
46

5.3.5 The F-transitive Analysis of Ditransitive Verbs
Using (48b) as the lexical entry for the reciprocal morpheme correctly predicts the grammaticality
of the ditransitive reciprocal construction in (45b):
(45) a. M-an-ome vola an-dRabe Rakoto
pres-act-give money acc.Rabe Rakoto
'Rakoto gives money to Rabe'
b. M-if-an-ome vola Rabe sy Rakoto
pres-rec-act-give money Rabe and Rakoto
'Rabe and Rakoto give money to each other' (Keenan & Razafimamonjy 2001:49)
(48) b. (↑OBLθ PRED) = PROrecip
The lexical entries, f- and c-structures for (45b) are then:
vola NP (↑ PRED) = 'money'
M-if-anome V (↑ PRED) = 'give'
(↑ TENSE) = PRES
(↑ VOICE) = ACTIVE
(↑ OBLθ PRED) = PROr e c i p
C-structure F-structure
IP
↑ = ↓ (↑SUBJ) = ↓
VP NP
↑ = ↓ (↑OBJ)= ↓
V NP Rabe and Rakoto
N
vola
(↑ PRED) = 'money'
Mifanome
(↑ TENSE) = PRES
(↑ VOICE) = ACTIVE
(↑ PRED) = 'give'
(↑ OBLθ PRED) = PROrecip
éSUBJ ê
OBJ
ê
êOBLq ê
êTENSE êVOICE ê
ëPRED [ "Rakoto and Rabe" ]
ù
[ PRED 'money']
ú
ú
[ PRED PROrecip]
ú
ú
PRES
ú
ACTIVE
ú
ú
'give'û
Figure 5.7 C- and F-structures for 'Rabe and Rakoto give each other money'
Note that my analysis predicts that the ditransitive analysis can be used with the transitive lexical
entry of the reciprocal morpheme. There were no attested sentences of this type in the literature,
47

however, it is likely that this is due to pragmatic factors – reciprocalizing the object of a ditransitive
verb in a meaningful way is difficult.
5.3.6 Predicting Ungrammatical Reciprocal Constructions
As noted above, the definition of the reciprocal morpheme is a shorthand description for three
lexical entries:
(47) -if- (↑OBLθ)(↑OBJ) PRED = PROrecip
Expands to:
(↑OBJ PRED) = PROr e c i p
(↑OBLθ PRED) = PROr e c i p
(↑OBLθ OBJ PRED) = PROr e c i p
The first issue to address is why must these lexical entries form a complementary distribution with
each of the different types of verb (i.e., why is the first lexical entry used with transitive verbs, the
second with ditransitive verbs etc?). What happens if the wrong lexical entry for the reciprocal
morpheme is used in a reciprocal construction? For example, how do we rule out a situation where a
transitive verb in a reciprocal construction uses the semi-transitive lexical entry for the reciprocal
morpheme? The short answer is that the principles of completeness and coherence would render
such an f-structure ungrammatical. Sentence (39) below illustrates this point. A transitive verb is
being used in conjunction with the lexical entry of the reciprocal morpheme for a ditransitive verb:
(39) a. M-if-an-aja Rabe sy Rakoto
pres-rec-act-respect [Rabe and Rakoto]
'Rabe and Rakoto respect each other'
Lexical Entries:
M-if-anaja, V (↑ PRED) = 'respect'
(↑ TENSE) = PRES
(↑ VOICE) = ACTIVE
(↑OBLθ PRED) = PROr e c i p
48

C-structure F-structure
IP
↑ = ↓ (↑ SUBJ) = ↓
VP NP
↑ = ↓
V
Rabe and Rakoto
éSUBJ ê
OBLq ê
êPRED ê
êVOICE êë TENSE
[ "Rabe and Rakoto" ] ù
[ PRED PROrecip]
ú
ú
'respect'ú
ú
ACT
ú
PRES
úû
M-if-anaja
(↑ PRED) = 'respect'
(↑ TENSE) = PRES
(↑ VOICE) = ACTIVE
(↑ OBLθ PRED) = PROrecip
Figure 5.8 An Incomplete and Incoherent F-structure for (39a)
The f-structure in figure 5.8 is both incomplete and incoherent. The predicate associated with the
verb constructs an OBJ function, but as the OBJ function has no PRED feature, the f-structure is
incomplete. Furthermore, the OBL function is not selected by any PRED, so the resulting f-structure
is also incoherent. This demonstrates that it is the principles of completeness and coherence that
ensure the lexical entry for the reciprocal morpheme corresponds to the type of verb with which it is
associated.
Having resolved how the different lexical entries of the reciprocal morpheme are associated with
different arities of verb, I will now demonstrate another basic feature of the f-transitive analysis: that
it predicts that a reciprocal morpheme cannot be used in a regular non-reciprocal construction.
Consider sentence (49):
(49) *M-if-an-aja an-dSoa Rakoto sy Rabe
pres-rec-act-respect acc.Soa Rakoto and Rabe
Verb Object Subject
'*Rakoto and Rabe respect each other Soa'
The lexical entries, c- and f-structure for sentence 49 follow:
Soa NP (↑ PRED) = 'Soa'
(↑ CASE) = ACC
M-if-anaja V (↑ PRED) = 'Respect'
(↑ TENSE) = PRES
(↑ VOICE) = ACTIVE
(↑ OBJ PRED) = PROr e c i p
49

C-structure F-structure
IP
↑ = ↓ (↑ SUBJ) = ↓
VP NP
↑ = ↓ (↑ OBJ) = ↓
V NP Rakoto sy Rabe
↑ = ↓
N
Soa
(↑ PRED) = 'Soa'
(↑ CASE) = ACC
Mifanaja
(↑ PRED) = 'Respect'
(↑ TENSE) = PRES
(↑ VOICE) = ACTIVE
(↑ OBJ PRED) = PROrecip
Figure 5.9 The Ill-formed F-structure for (49)
[ ]
éSUBJ "Rakoto and Rabe" ù
ê
*PRED 'Soa'
ú
ê
é ù
ú
êOBJ ê*PRED PRO ú recip ú
ê ê ú ú
CASE ACC
ê
êë úû
ú
êPRED 'respect'ú
ê ú
êTENSE PRES
ú
êë VOICE ACT
úû
The resulting f-structure for sentence (49) has two PRED features in the OBJ function. As noted
earlier in section 4.2.1, PRED values may not unify, and hence the f-structure is ill-formed. This
explains why sentence (49) is ungrammatical. 35
5.4 Linking Semantics to the F-transitive Analysis of the Malagasy
Reciprocal Construction
The semantic formalism I will use to describe reciprocal semantics is that developed by
Dalrymple, Kanazawa, Kim, Mchombo and Peters (1998) (hereafter Dalrymple et al 1998). They
develop a series of formulae that attempt to match the truth conditions of various types of reciprocal
semantics. For example, the formula in (50) below has the same truth conditions as the prototypical
reciprocal situation when applied to a set of entities:
(50)
A ³ 2 and " x, y Î A ( x ¹ y ®
Rxy)
(Dalrymple et al 1998:169)
35 Sentence (49) is actually grammatical in another sense where Soa is interpreted as being possessed by the reciprocal
pronoun (see section 8.3). However, with the lexical entries as defined above, (49) is strictly ungrammatical.
50

To demonstrate how this formula works, examine its operation on sentence (51) below:
(51) M-if-an-aja Rabe sy Rasoa sy Rakoto
pres-rec-act-respect Rabe and Rasoa and Rakoto
'Rasoa and Rabe and Rakoto respect each other'
• “A” is the set of entities – in this case Rabe, Rasoa and Rakoto.
• “|A| ≥ 2” is the requirement that there be at least two entities in the set.
• “x, y” are two variables that can represent any of the entities in the set.
• The rest of the equation states that for any two entities in the set (as represented by x,y), there is a
relationship, R, between them - unless the x and y happen to refer to the same entity.
If this formula is applied to sentence (51), it specifies the following relationships:
(52)
Relationship Between
Rabe, Rasoa
Rabe, Rakoto
Rakoto, Rabe
Rakoto, Rasoa
Rasoa, Rabe
Rasoa, Rakoto
When the reciprocal morpheme is present in a Malagasy sentence, it triggers the semantic
interpretation given by the formula in (50) (i.e, a reciprocal interpretation). The set of entities that
forms set “A” is the antecedent of the reciprocal pronoun generated by the reciprocal morpheme.
The antecedent of the reciprocal pronoun may be understood as being the subject of the clause
which contains the reciprocal pronoun. However, in order to explain the binding of more complex
constructions (such as circumstantials) I will introduce Manning's (1996 a,b) binding theory in
chapter 10. 36
Although the formula in (50) sets out the relationships between the entities, it does not specify the
36 Manning's (1996a,b) binding theory allows other grammatical functions to act as the antecedent to the reciprocal
pronoun – although the antecedent still must be in the same clause as the reciprocal pronoun.
51

nature of that relationship. In sentence (51) above, it is reasonable to assume that the relationship, R,
is defined as having the same semantics as the verb in the clause. Thus, the relationship between the
entities in (52) is 'RESPECT'. 37
The function of the reciprocal pronoun in the syntax of the clause also helps to define the
relationship between the entities. This is evident in the different truth conditions in the sentences
below:
(53) a. Rabe and David introduced each other to the Queen.
Rabe introduced David to the Queen and,
David introduced Rabe to the Queen.
b. Rabe and David introduced the Queen to each other.
Rabe introduced the Queen to David and,
David introduced the Queen to Rabe.
In both (53a) and (53b) the set of entities is the same – namely “Rabe” and “David”. It is the
relationship between them that changes. This change in relationship is triggered by the different
syntactic functions in which the reciprocal “each other” resides.
The advantage of this formalism is that the various non-prototypical cases of reciprocal situations
can be easily captured and incorporated into any syntactic model of reciprocity. For example,
Dalrymple et al (1998:171) give an example of “one-way weak reciprocity”:
(54) “The captain!” said the pirates, staring at each other in surprise.
(Dalrymple et al 1998:171)
The associated formula (55 below) describes the truth conditions where each pirate can only stare
at one other pirate:
(55) A ³ 2 and " x Î A $ y Î A ( x ¹ y Ù Rxy)
(Dalrymple et al 1998:171)
Dalrymple et al (1998:168-179) identify eight other different forms of reciprocity, although they
note that only five are attested in the languages they examined. The reciprocal morpheme in
37 'RESPECT' here is being used as label to represent the semantic sense of the word 'respect'.
52

Malagasy maps to any one of the formulae identified by Dalrymple et al (1998) depending on the
state-of-affairs described. The group of entities in the reciprocal situation is identified as the
antecedent of the pronoun that the reciprocal morpheme creates. The relationship between the
entities is represented by a combination of information from the main verb and the syntactic
relationship it shares with the reciprocal pronoun – this allows complex constructions such as
possession to be understood in a reciprocal context (see chapter 8).
5.5 Conclusion
In this chapter I investigated two analyses of the reciprocal construction in Malagasy. The f-
intransitive analysis was based upon argument mapping, through either the suppression of a
thematic role (Mchombo (1991)), or by linking two thematic roles to the same function (Alsina
(1996)). Both of these analyses resulted in the verb losing an argument in f-structure.
The analysis I propose is called the f-transitive analysis because the verb does not lose an
argument in f-structure when in a reciprocal construction. My analysis is made via lexical means
whereby a reciprocal pronoun is created in one of the non-subject functions selected by the verb by
using the following definition of the reciprocal morpheme:
(47) -if- (↑OBLθ)(↑OBJ) PRED = PROrecip
I will argue that only the f-transitive analysis can account for the behavior of reciprocal
constructions when they interact with the other elements of Malagasy syntax such as control and
possession.
Mchombo (1991) in his examination of Chichewa, a Bantu language that bears similar reciprocal
constructions to Malagasy, believes the reciprocal construction to be f-intransitive. 38 The approach
taken here is that the appropriate analysis for the Malagasy reciprocal construction is that the
reciprocal morpheme constructs a reciprocal pronoun in f-structure (meaning that although the
reciprocal construction is still c-intransitive, it remains f-transitive). My argument is based on the
following reasons:
38 This is my terminology. Mchombo (1991:11) uses the phrase “...a lexical derivation process that yields reciprocal
verbs that are syntactically intransitive.”
53

1. The evidence put forward supporting an f-intransitive analysis of the Chichewa
reciprocal construction does not apply to Malagasy (chapter 6).
2. The f-intransitive analysis requires that the syntactic representation of reciprocity takes
place through a-structure mapping rules. This creates considerable problems when trying
to account for the grammaticality of more complex reciprocal constructions involving
control (chapter 7) and possession (chapter 8).
54

Chapter 6
Evidence for an F-intransitive Reciprocal Construction
6.1 Introduction
In this chapter I examine the evidence Mchombo (1991) draws upon to support an f-intransitive
analysis of the Chichewa reciprocal construction. I will argue that the evidence Mchombo presents
for this analysis cannot be applied to Malagasy. The argument presented here follows and expands
upon the work by Keenan & Razafimamonjy (2001:72-76).
6.2 Chichewa
Chichewa is a Bantu language spoken in Malawi. Chichewa uses a reciprocal morpheme suffixed
to the verb to indicate reciprocity. For example:
(55) a. Galimoto inagunda njinga
car it-past-hit-fv bicycle (where car and bicycle have the same gender)
'The car hit a bicycle'
b. Njinga inagunda galimoto
bicycle it-past-hit-fv car
'A bicycle hit a car'
c. Galimoto ndi njinga zinagundana
car and bicycle it-past-hit-rec-fv
'A car and a bicycle hit each other' (Mchombo & Ngalande 1980)
When the conjoined nouns in the subject NP are of differing genders and no appropriate subject
agreement morpheme exists for the verb, an alternative construction is used where one of the nouns
55

to be conjoined is put into an oblique NP:
(56) a. mtengo unagwera munthu
tree it-pst-fall-on-fv person
'A tree fell on a person'
b. mtengo unagwerana ndi munthu
tree it-pst-fall-on-rec-fv with person
'A tree and a person fell on each other' (Mchombo & Ngalande 1980)
Mchombo (1991) shows that conjoined noun phrases of the same gender may also use the
construction shown in (56b):
(57) a. Nkhandwe zi-ku-meny-a mbidzi
10-foxes SM-pres-hit-fv 10-zebras
'Foxes are hitting zebras'
b. Nkhandwe zi-ku-meny-an-a ndi mbibzi
10-foxes SM-pres-hit-rec-fv with 10-zebras 39
'Foxes are hitting each other with zebras' (Mchombo 1991)
Mchombo (1991,1994) does not discuss whether there are any fine semantic differences in the
interpretation of the reciprocal constructions in (55c) and (57b). However, whatever the ultimate
semantic differences between these two reciprocal constructions, it is clear that the verb has lost an
NP as an object. Mchombo (1991) argues strongly for an intransitive reading of the main verb (or a
transitive reading of a previously ditransitive verb) in a reciprocal construction for three reasons:
1. Only verbs without incorporated objects may undergo nominalization, however
reciprocalized verbs readily nominalize (suggesting that reciprocalized verbs do not have
an object function present in f-structure).
2. Object comparisons can be made with transitive verbs, but not with reciprocal verbs.
3. Morphological arguments suggest the reciprocal morpheme cannot have been an object
pronoun that has been bound to the main verb.
The third reason Mchombo gives is relevant only to a transformational account of reciprocity. In a
transformational approach, if a morpheme attached to the verb can supply an object pronoun, then it
is usually assumed that the morpheme must have originated in object position in deep structure.
39 Abbreviations correspond to: SM – Subject Marker; fv – Final Vowel.
56

Mchombo (1991:5-9) is able to reject this analysis for various morphological and phonological
reasons. LFG is a lexically based theory, and so this argument may be ignored for our purposes
since a bound morpheme may act as subject or object pronoun without the assumption that it must
have once been in the usual subject or object NP position in the c-structure (see section 4.4).
However, I will examine Mchombo's first two arguments and consider their relevance and
applicability to Malagasy.
6.3 Nominalization of Reciprocalized Verbs
Mchombo (1991:10) notes that in Chichewa a verb is nominalized through a morphological
process where the final vowel of the verb is replaced with [o]. He notes that this process can only
take place when the verb does not have an object pronoun bound to it. For example:
(58) a. tsek-a
'shut'
b. chi-tsek-o
'door' (Mchombo 1991:10)
(59) a. ku-chi-tsek-a
15INF-7OM-shut
'To shut it'
b. *chi-chi-tsek-o
'*the one who shuts it 40 ' (Mchombo 1991:10)
Reciprocalized verbs, however, nominalize productively (subject to semantic considerations):
(60) a. pang-an-a
make-recip-fv
'plan together'
b. chi-pang-an-o
'promise'
Mchombo believes that reciprocal verbs may be nominalized because they do not contain “an
argument generated in post-verbal position and then head-moved to be incorporated into the verb
morphology”. He argues this on the basis that if reciprocals were initially generated in post-verbal
40 My gloss.
57

position, they would then share the same origin as object pronouns bound to the verb. If this were
the case, then it would not be clear why reciprocals may be nominalized but object pronouns may
not be.
Whether this test is genuinely indicative of the fact that reciprocal verbs are intransitive is
irrelevant to Malagasy, because as Keenan & Razafimamonjy (2001:73) note “…verbs of all arities,
including reciprocal ones, nominalize productively…”
6.4 Object Comparisons of Reciprocalized Verbs
Zec (1985, cited in Dalrymple et al 1994) proposes object comparisons as a defining test of
transitive constructions. To understand how object comparisons work, consider sentence (61a)
below. It has two possible interpretations, (61b) and (61c) respectively. (61b) is known as a subject
comparison because we are comparing how many fish the eagles (subject) and the bears (subject)
caught. In sentence (61c), we have an object comparison because we are comparing how many fish
(object) were killed with how many bears (object) were killed by the eagles.
(61)
a. Eagles kill more fish than bears.
b. Eagles kill more fish than bears kill fish. (Subject Comparison)
i.e, Eagles kill 100 fish a year.
Bears kill 90 fish a year
c. Eagles kill more fish than they (the eagles) kill bears. (Object Comparison)
i.e, Eagles kill 100 fish a year
Eagles kill 1 bear a year
Now, if we were missing an object, then we would expect an object comparison to be impossible:
(62)
a. Eagles kill more than bears.
b. Eagles kill more than bears kill. (Subject Comparison)
i.e, The eagles killed 200 times.
The bears killed 100 times
c. *Eagles kill more (?) than they (the eagles) kill bears. (*Object Comparison)
i.e., Eagles killed 100 ??
Eagles killed 90 bears
58

So, as expected, a missing object disallows an object comparison. In Chichewa, as noted by
Mchombo (1991:9), object comparisons are impossible for verbs carrying the reciprocal morpheme.
In the examples below, he compares verbs using the reciprocal morpheme and reflexive morpheme:
(63)
a. Alenje a-ma-dzi-kond-a ku-posa asodzi
2-hunters 2SM-hab-refl-love-fv exceeding 2-fishermen
'The hunters love themselves more than the fishermen'
b. Alenje a-ma-kond-an-a ku-posa asodzi
2-hunters 2SM-hab-love-recip-fv exceeding 2-fishermen
'The hunters love each other more than the fishermen' (Mchombo 1991:9)
Mchombo notes (1991:9):
“Although these two sentences are only minimally different, they are
interpreted non-uniformly. The second sentence, with the reciprocal, only
means that the hunters love each other more than the fishermen love each
other. Distinctly missing is the possible interpretation that the hunters love
each other more than they love the fishermen, or more than the fishermen
love them. These interpretations are not disallowed in the reflexive
construction.”
The first interpretation “that the hunters love each other more than the fishermen love each other”
is a subject comparison. The second, “(that) hunters love each other more than they love the
fishermen” is an object comparison, the final interpretation is one allowed by virtue of the
ambiguous nature of reciprocals and reflexives (i.e., the object of fishermen could be co-referential
with “the hunters”) and is neither a subject nor object comparison.
Because reciprocal constructions cannot be used with object comparisons, Mchombo argues that
the reciprocal morpheme is basically a valence decreasing morpheme which creates intransitive
verbs (Mchombo 1990:10). The situation in Malagasy is more complex. Like Chichewa, object
comparisons in sentences with reciprocal constructions are disallowed:
59

(64)
Mifanaja noho Rasoa sy Ravelo Rabe sy Rakoto
pres.rec.act.respect than [Rasoa and Ravelo] [Rabe and Rakoto]
'Rabe and Rakoto respect each other more than Rasoa and Ravelo'
Rabe and Rakoto respect each other more than Rasoa and Ravelo respect each other.
*Rabe and Rakoto respect each other more than Rasoa and Ravelo respect Rabe and Rakoto.
*Rabe and Rakoto respect each other more than they respect Rasoa and Ravelo.
(Keenan & Razafimamonjy 2001:74)
However as Keenan & Razafimamonjy (2001:74) note, the situation in Malagasy is muddied by
the fact that reflexives also disallow object comparisons. This would not be a problem if the
Malagasy reflexives were incorporated into the verb, but in fact they are ordinary pronouns
occurring in the usual object position:
(65) M-an-aja tena noho ianao Rabe
pres-act-respect self then you Rabe
'Rabe respects himself more than you respect yourself'
*Rabe respects himself more than you respect him
*Rabe respects himself more than he respects you (Keenan & Razafimamonjy 2001:75)
Keenan & Razafimamonjy (2001:75) conclude “It would seem then in Malagasy an anaphorically
bound object, regardless of how it is bound, precludes an object comparison reading.” Subject and
object comparisons differ again in English reciprocal sentences which also allow “strict” subject
comparisons. 41 This result challenges the universal applicability of Zec's (1985) object comparison
test as an indicator of transitivity – at least in the domain of anaphora. Given such variation across
just three languages, I am not convinced of the effectiveness of the object comparison test when
used with reciprocal constructions in Malagasy.
6.5 Conclusion
For different reasons the tests that support an f-intransitive analysis for the Chichewa reciprocal
construction do not clarify the identity of the reciprocal morpheme in Malagasy. In chapters 7 and 8,
I examine the behavior of reciprocal constructions in conjunction with control verbs and possession.
These more complex constructions provide evidence that the Malagasy reciprocal construction
should be analyzed as f-transitive.
41 For more details, see Keenan & Razafimamonjy (2001:74)
60

Chapter 7
Control Constructions
7.1 Introduction
The control construction in Malagasy provides strong evidence that the reciprocal construction
should be analyzed as f-transitive. The argument described here rests on the requirement that every
clause in a sentence requires a subject. This requirement, known as “the subject condition” has
motivated different accounts in transformational and lexical theories of syntax for control
constructions - both described briefly below.
By looking at control constructions in Malagasy in conjunction with reciprocalized verbs, we are
forced to assume either that the reciprocal argument is represented in f-structure or that the
reciprocal morpheme not only reduces the valency of the verb, but also changes the verb's syntactic
behavior (essentially transforming the verb from one that links the object of the main verb to the
subject of the lower verb, to one that links the subject of main verb to the subject of the lower verb).
I will argue for the former option (see 7.6 below).
7.2 The Subject Condition
In most theories of syntax, the notion of “Subject” occupies a key role (Luke et al 2001). Bresnan
(2000:311) identifies the Subject Condition in LFG as the requirement that every predicator must
have a subject. Alsina (1996:20) defines the subject condition as “An f-structure with propositional
content must include a subject (as one of its grammatical functions) and no f-structure may include
more than one subject.” An f-structure that expresses “propositional content” is one that is related to
any type of clause (matrix, embedded, etc.) that makes a statement about the world.
61

As a subject is usually required to be present (either overtly or covertly) for any verb, its absence
must be accounted for. Overt subjects frequently are missing in various languages of the world.
Latin, Navajo and Cantonese, for example, may all drop subjects under certain conditions: in Latin
and Navajo, the verbal morphology supplies the subject through lexical means by providing a
pronoun (see section 4.4 for an example), while in Cantonese, which lacks verbal morphology, the
subject could possibly be reconstructed through pragmatic means (Luke et al 2001).
7.3 Control
Malagasy and English both share a construction commonly known as control (or “raising to
object/subject” in transformational theories) in which the lower verb appears to be lacking a subject:
(66) a. Mary believed him to be lying.
b. *Mary believed he to be lying.
In (66a) above, “him” seems to be the object of “believed”. This is supported by the non-
grammaticality of (66b). However, if this were the case, then there is no functional subject for the
lower clause “to be lying”. As the subject condition requires that each clause must have a subject,
we still need to account for it not being present.
In transformational theories, the standard account of control constructions is that the subject of the
lower clause has been raised to be the object of the matrix clause (Huddleston 1976:120). Thus, in
(67) below, “Jason” is initially the subject of “to be lying”. At some stage, the lower subject is
promoted to be the object of the main clause, and it is at this time it is assigned case. 42
(67) Mary believed Jason to be lying.
The LFG account for control constructions is fundamentally different (see Bresnan 2001:270,
Dalrymple 2001:314, Falk 2001:131). It allows a single NP to act as both the object of the main
clause and as the subject of the lower clause without any movement. This is accomplished by
modifying the lexical definition of the main verb so that it says something about its complement’s
subject. For example, the verb 'believe' in (66a) above has a lexical entry that includes:
42 In English, proper nouns are not marked with case, but note that the pronoun in (66a) has accusative case. If case
were assigned before raising, we would expect the pronoun to have nominative case.
62

(68) Believe, v 'believe (↑OBJ)'
(↑XCOMP SUBJ) = (↑OBJ)
The lexical entry for 'believe' above has the OBJ function outside the angled brackets. This
notation is used to indicate that the OBJ function has no thematic role. In English, this is easily
tested by using the expletive 'there':
(69) a. Mary believed there to be no God.
b. Mary told *there/Jason to see the doctor.
Given the remaining lexical entries for sentence (66a), the f-structure follows: 43
Mary PN (↑ PRED) = 'Mary'
Jason PN (↑ PRED) = 'Jason'
believe V (↑ PRED) = 'believe(↑OBJ)'
(↑XCOMP SUBJ) = (↑OBJ)
lying V (↑ PRED) = 'lie'
Figure 7.1 F-structure for 'Mary believed Jason to be lying'
The line in the f-structure is simply a reminder showing which functions are being shared. It has
no theoretical significance.
[ ]
[ ]
éSUBJ PRED 'Mary'
ù
êOBJ PRED 'Jason'
ú
ê ú
ê éSUBJ ù
ú
êXCOMP êPRED 'lie'ú
ú
ê ë û
ú
êë PRED 'believe( ­ OBJ)'úû
7.4 Control Constructions in Malagasy
The control construction in Malagasy is very productive, Paul and Rabaovololona (1998) in their
article “Raising to Object in Malagasy” include an appendix which lists fifty common verbs (such
as mino 'believe', mandre 'hear', milaza 'say') that “raise” an object.
43 Furthermore, the f-structure is abbreviated insofar as it does not contain tense information among other things.
63

However, as in English, verbs that permit control constructions in Malagasy can also take regular
complements 44 . Paul and Rabaovololona (1998) use three criteria by which the difference between a
regular complement and control construction may be identified in Malagasy. However, as they
approach their analysis from a transformational point of view, I have recast their criteria to be
relevant to LFG. In a control construction:
1. The embedded clause appears between the object and subject of the main clause.
2. The embedded clause has no subject.
3. The complementizer ho is used instead of fa.
As noted in section 3.3.1, the normal word order for Malagasy is VOS. However, most speakers
will not allow a complete sentence between the verb and subject, so for a complement construction,
the word order is VSX where X is a full complement (Keenan & Ochs (1979:133-137)). Compare
the full complement and control constructions below:
(70)
a. N-i-laza Ravelo fa namboly vary i Soa
pst-act-say Ravelo Comp pst-cultivate rice Art Soa
[ V Subj ] [Comp V Obj Subj ]
'Ravelo said that Soa cultivated rice' -- Complement Construction
b. N-i-laza an-dRasoa ho namboly vary Ravelo
pst-act-say acc. Rasoa Comp pst.cultivate rice Ravelo
[ V O [Comp V O] S ]
lit. 'Ravelo said Rasoa to have cultivated rice'
'Ravelo said Rasoa has cultivated rice' -- Control Construction
(Keenan & Razafimamonjy 2001:50-51)
Like English, the case of the shared argument in (70b) is accusative in a control context. Unlike
English however, the lower clause in Malagasy control constructions may be finite.
In (70a) and (70b) above we see the change of complementizer and the marked change of word
order identified by Paul and Rabaovololona (1998). As noted earlier, the standard LFG analysis for
control constructions involves the use of an XCOMP where the main verb specifies the XCOMP’s
44 i.e, “Mary believes Jason to be lying.” vs. “Mary believes that Jason is lying.”
64

subject. An XCOMP is the LFG grammatical function representing a complement that does not
have a subject at the level of c-structure. A COMPL is the grammatical function used to represent a
full complement. Note that in the Malagasy control verbs below, I have assumed that the shared
OBJ is themeless, and so have placed it outside the angled brackets. Compare the f-structures for
(70a) and (70b) below:
(71a) Example f-structure for a complement construction:
[ ]
SUBJ [ PRED 'Soa']
[ ]
éSUBJ PRED 'Ravelo'
ù
ê ú
ê é ùú
êCOMPL êOBJ PRED 'rice'
úú
ê
ê ú
ú
PRED 'cultivate'
ê êë úû
ú
êë PRED 'say' úû
(71b) Example f-structure for a control construction:
[ ]
[ ]
éSUBJ PRED 'Ravelo'
ù
ê
OBJ PRED 'Rasoa'
ú
ê ú
ê éSUBJ ùú
ê
XCOMP êOBJ [ PRED 'rice']
úú
ê ê úú
ê êë PRED 'cultivate'úû
ú
ê ú
ëPRED 'say( ­ OBJ)' û
Figure 7.2 F-structures for COMPL and XCOMP Constructions
7.4.1 Specific Objects in Control Clauses
In chapter 3 we saw that the Malagasy subject is required to be specific in order for a sentence to
be grammatical:
(72) *M-an-asa zaza vehivavy
pres-act-wash child woman
*A woman is washing children (Keenan & Ochs 1979:128)
For sentence (72) to be grammatical, the subject NP must either be specific (i.e, a determiner
might be added to change the subject to “The woman”) or the entire clause must be expressed as an
existential construction (see Keenan & Ochs 1979:128).
65

According to the LFG analysis of control constructions, the object of the main verb should also be
party to this subject condition because it is simultaneously acting as the subject to the lower verb.
As Paul & Rabaovololona (1998) note, this is the case:
(73) a. *M-i-hevitra zanaka [ho hendry ] aho
pres-act-think child comp wise 1sg(nom)
lit. '*I think some child to be wise'
'*I think some child is well behaved' (Paul & Rabaovololona 1998:55)
7.5 Introducing Reciprocals to Control Constructions
When a reciprocal is added to the main verb, the structural effect is analogous to the other clause
types we have seen, the clause remains largely unchanged, but one of the non-subject NP’s
disappears. Sentence (78b) shows the effect of adding the reciprocal morpheme to the main verb:
(78)
a. N-i-laza an-dRasoa ho namboly vary Ravelo
pst-act-say acc. Rasoa Comp pst-cultivate rice Ravelo
[ V O [Comp V O] S ]
lit. 'Ravelo said Rasoa to have cultivated rice'
'Ravelo said Rasoa cultivated rice'
b. N-ifamp-i-laza ho namboly vary Rasoa sy Ravelo
pst-rec-act-say Comp pst-cultivate rice Rasoa and Ravelo
[ V [Comp V O ] S ]
lit. 'Rasoa and Ravelo said each other to have cultivated rice'
'Rasoa and Ravelo said of each other that s/he cultivated rice'
'*Rasoa and Ravelo said "we cultivated rice"' 45
(Keenan & Razafimamonjy 2001:50-51)
How reciprocal control constructions are represented in f-structure is dependent upon which
analysis of the reciprocal construction we pursue. In sections 7.6 and 7.7 below, the control
construction is examined with both the f-intransitive and f-transitive analysis of the reciprocal
morpheme.
45 Keenan & Razafimamonjy (2001:50) specifically rule out the shared reciprocal reading in control verbs.
66

7.6 The F-intransitive Analysis of Reciprocals in Control
Constructions
Recall that the f-intransitive analysis of the reciprocal construction requires that the reciprocal
morpheme acts as a valence-reducing operator – in the case of transitive (and control) constructions,
the object function is not present at the level of f-structure. For simple clauses this analysis is largely
unproblematic, as the verb itself can be understood as entailing the reciprocal semantics required
(i.e., respect → respect_each_other(SUBJ)).
However, the lack of an object in the f-structure for a control verb is highly problematic for the
lower clause, since it is this argument that acts as the subject of the embedded clause. In the f-
intransitive analysis of reciprocal constructions, not only has the main verb lost an object, but now
the embedded verb is also missing a subject. If we assume that the reciprocal morpheme is a
valence-reducing operator, then applying the standard LFG analysis to a control construction
predicts (incorrectly) that the resulting sentence is ungrammatical:
(78)
b. N-ifamp-i-laza ho namboly vary Rasoa sy Ravelo
pst-rec-act-say Comp pst-cultivate rice Rasoa and Ravelo
[ V [Comp V O ] S ]
lit. 'Rasoa and Ravelo said each other to have cultivated rice'
'Rasoa and Ravelo said of each other that s/he cultivated rice'
[ ]
éSUBJ "Rasoa and Ravelo"
ù
ê
SUBJ
ú
ê é ùú
êXCOMP ê
OBJ [ PRED 'rice']
úú
ê
ê ú
ú
ê êë PRED 'cultivate'úû
ú
êë PRED 'say_each_other' úû
Figure 7.3 Incomplete F-structure for (78b).
In figure 7.3 the main verb has had its valency reduced (losing its object). The result is that the
XCOMP no longer has a subject. Given that sentence (78b) is grammatical, and that we wish to
observe the subject condition, if we are to pursue the f-intransitive analysis of the reciprocal
construction we are forced to conclude that the subject for the lower clause is generated elsewhere.
67

The only likely analysis available to us is that the reciprocal morpheme changes another lexical
entry of the verb so that in reciprocal constructions, the XCOMP’s SUBJ is linked to the main
verb's SUBJ. That is to say, in the f-intransitive analysis of the reciprocal morpheme, the missing
subject is provided by the subject of the main verb (this is analogous to the English verb “keep” in
“Susan kept eating marshmallows”). 46 The lexical change for nilaza 'say' is described below:
(79)
a. Nilaza v (↑PRED) = 'say(↑OBJ)'
(↑XCOMP SUBJ) = (↑OBJ)
(↑TENSE) = PAST
(↑VOICE) = ACT
b. Nifampilaza v (↑PRED) = 'say_each_other'
(↑XCOMP SUBJ) = (↑SUBJ)
(↑TENSE) = PAST
(↑VOICE) = ACT
Using the lexical definition for Nifampilaza above, the f-structure for sentence (78b) becomes:
[ ]
éSUBJ "Rasoa and Ravelo"
ù
ê
SUBJ
ú
ê
é ù
ú
êXCOMP ê
OBJ [ PRED 'rice']
ú
ú
ê
ê ú
ú
ê
êë PRED 'cultivate'úû
ú
êë PRED 'say_each_other' úû
Figure 7.4 F-structure for sentence 78b
This analysis is implausible on semantic grounds because its does not match the semantic
interpretation of reciprocity in Malagasy reciprocal constructions. For the sake of this argument, I
will use the Malagasy verb mifampino ‘believe’ because it has a control verb counterpart in English:
(80) a. Mino an-dRasoa ho namboly vary Ravelo
pst-act-say acc. Rasoa Comp pst-cultivate rice Ravelo
lit. 'Ravelo believes Rasoa to have cultivated rice'
'Ravelo believes Rasoa cultivated rice'
46 See Bresnan (2001:270)
68

. M-ifamp-ino ho namboly vary Rasoa sy Ravelo
pst-rec-act-believe Comp pst.cultivate rice Rasoa and Ravelo
lit. 'Rasoa and Ravelo believe each other to have cultivated rice'
'Rasoa and Ravelo believe of each other that s/he cultivated rice'
If the XCOMP shares its subject with the subject of the main verb, then the subject of the lower
verb is also “Rasoa and Ravelo”:
[ ]
éSUBJ "Rasoa and Ravelo"
ù
ê ú
SUBJ
ê
é ù
ú
êXCOMP ê
OBJ [ PRED 'rice']
ú
ú
ê
ê ú
ú
ê
êë PRED 'cultivate'úû
ú
êë PRED 'believe_each_other'úû
This functional structure implies the following semantics for the reciprocal construction (see 81
below; the associated truth conditions are given in 82):
(81) Ravelo and Rasoa believe_of_each_other that [[Ravelo and Rasoa] have cultivated rice.]
(82) Ravelo believes [Ravelo & Rasoa] have cultivated rice.
Rasoa believes [Ravelo & Rasoa] have cultivated rice.
However, recalling (78b) – the shared reading of reciprocals in control constructions is
disallowed. The correct truth conditions for a reciprocal control construction are given in (83) below
(see Keenan & Razafimamonjy 2001:50-51):
(83) Ravelo believes Rasoa to have cultivated rice.
Rasoa believes Ravelo to have cultivated rice.
Thus, it appears that linking the main verb's subject with the subject of the lower verb will not
account for the semantics of a reciprocalized control construction.
We have seen that in order for the f-intransitive analysis of reciprocals to account for the
grammaticality of reciprocal control constructions - the reciprocal morpheme is required to take on
an additional, and somewhat unlikely role. This role is an additional lexical rule that changes the
XCOMP’s SUBJ to be linked to the main verb's subject instead of its object. 47 The semantics that
47 There is additional evidence that the subject of the main verb is not linked to the subject of -- continued on page 70
69

such a syntactic analysis requires are contrary to what Malagasy speakers accept as the state-of-
affairs described by a reciprocal control construction.
7.7 The F-transitive Analysis of Reciprocals in Control Constructions
If we assume an f-transitive analysis of the reciprocal construction, we can already predict the
grammaticality of reciprocal control sentences. Using the lexical definition for the reciprocal
morpheme given in (84), the f-structure for (78b - repeated below) is easily generated:
(84)
(78b)
-if- (↑ OBJ PRED) = PROre c i p
N-ifamp-i-laza ho namboly vary Rasoa sy Ravelo
pst-rec-act-say Comp pst-cultivate rice Rasoa and Ravelo
[ V [Comp V O ] S ]
'Rasoa and Ravelo said of each other that s/he cultivated rice'
(85) Lexical entries for sentence (78b):
N-ifamp-i-laza v (↑PRED) = 'say(↑OBJ)'
(↑XCOMP SUBJ) = (↑OBJ)
(↑ OBJ PRED) = PROrecip (from the rec. morpheme)
Namboly v (↑PRED) = 'cultivate'
Vary n (↑PRED) = 'rice'
[ ]
[ recip]
éSUBJ "Rasoa and Ravelo"
ù
êOBJ PRED PRO
ú
ê ú
ê éSUBJ ùú
ê
XCOMP êOBJ [ PRED 'rice']
úú
ê ê úú
ê êë PRED 'cultivate'úû
ú
ê ú
ëPRED 'say( ­ OBJ)' û
Figure 7.5 F-structure for 'Rasoa and Ravelo said each other to have cultivated rice'
The advantage of the f-transitive analysis is that the f-structure remains unchanged with the
introduction of the reciprocal morpheme. This means that the control construction does not require
the lower verb in the analysis of nominalized reciprocal control constructions. See section 12.3
70

the invention of new syntactic rules to account for its reciprocal counterpart - reciprocal control
constructions can be treated just like regular control clauses.
7.8 Remarks
Control constructions are always going to introduce complexity into a syntactic theory that utilizes
the subject condition as a constraint. In particular, any analysis that detransitivizes the main verb
while still allowing it to participate in a control construction needs to account for the missing
subject of the embedded verb. This point is briefly raised by Mchombo (1991:15) when considering
suppressed roles in Chichewa. As noted earlier, Mchombo supports the f-intransitive analysis of the
reciprocal construction where the reciprocal morpheme is treated as a valence-decreasing operator.
In his analysis of reciprocal control constructions, there is no object in f-structure (as the patient role
it represents has been suppressed in a-structure). However, Mchombo notes:
“The suppressed role cannot be a target of other lexical rules although
it may still remain syntactically active, participating in such processes as
binding or control.” Mchombo (1991:15)
Let us consider what it means for a suppressed argument (one that by definition does not appear in
f-structure) to be “syntactically active, participating in such processes as binding or control.” For the
purpose of binding, it may well be possible for a suppressed argument to be able to act as
antecedent. This would mean allowing binding to take place at the level of a-structure, a not
unreasonable requirement and one that Manning (1996 a,b) has investigated.
However, in the case of reciprocal control constructions, binding (which is a theory that describes
how an anaphor finds its antecedent) must not be thought of as an explanation for the missing
subject in the lower clause. The LFG account of control constructions is that the subject of the lower
clause is the same as the object of the main verb. Mchombo (1991) does not provide any details as
to how a suppressed argument in a-structure could act as the subject to a verb in f-structure.
7.9 Conclusion
The f-intransitive analysis of the Malagasy reciprocal construction is not able to capture the
complexities of control constructions without resorting to a special lexical rule that changes the
71

main verb so that its subject is linked to the subject of the lower clause. This rule requires that
reciprocal control constructions be treated differently from other reciprocal constructions in
Malagasy. Furthermore, the reciprocal semantics implied by such a construction are disallowed by
Malagasy speakers. The f-transitive analysis of the reciprocal construction on the other hand is
easily able to capture the complexities of reciprocal control constructions – and it does so without
requiring a new syntactic analysis of control verbs in Malagasy. In chapter 8, even more complex
reciprocal clauses are examined by combining the reciprocal expressions so far studied with the
possession construction.
72

Chapter 8
Possession
8.1 Introduction
In chapter 7, I argued that the f-intransitive analysis of reciprocal constructions was unable to
account both syntactically and semantically for reciprocity arising from control constructions. I now
turn to the interaction of the reciprocal morpheme with the possession construction (or POSS). The
works by Mchombo & Ngalande (1980), Mchombo (1991, 1999), Mchombo & Ngunga (1994) and
Dalrymple, Mchombo & Peters (1994) examine Bantu reciprocals in syntactically simple situations.
However, I believe the study of reciprocals in the more complex construction of possession helps to
pin down the nature and function of the Malagasy reciprocal. After demonstrating the problems that
possession raises for the f-intransitive analysis of reciprocal constructions, I will then show how
easily the f-transitive analysis can capture the interaction of the reciprocal and possession
constructions.
8.2 Possession in Malagasy
Syntactically, the POSS construction is easily formed in Malagasy; however, the effected NP’s do
undergo some complex (but well understood) phonological changes (Paul 1996). The construction
itself is formed by simply inserting the possessor noun to the right of the noun possessed:
(86) orona + olona oron’olona
nose person nose of a person / a person’s nose (Paul 1996:77)
The phonological conditioning for proper names is more complex and is described in detail by
73

Paul (1996:81). Briefly, the Ra at the beginning of most names is a determiner that marks respect. In
possessive constructions, it triggers the deletion of the final vowel and optional subsequent deletion
of the final consonant from the noun possessed (from Paul 1996:81):
(87) tongotra + Rakoto tongotry Rakoto
tongo-dRakoto
foot Rokoto 'the foot of Rakoto / Rakoto’s foot' (Paul 1996:77)
This operation is complicated by the fact that the Ra determiner is often reanalyzed to be simply
part of the name of the possessor. In these situations, another determiner i may be prefixed to the
possessor noun. For our purposes though, the important point is that the -d phoneme so commonly
attached to the possessor noun is not a case marker, but rather the result of a phonological operation.
8.3 The LFG Representation of Possession
The traditional analysis of possession in LFG is represented entirely at the level of f-structure. As
such, possessor constructions are understood to be lexically derivational processes that add an
argument to the possessor noun. In the example below, vady ‘spouse’ undergoes a lexical alteration
to become vadin ‘spouse.of’: 48
(88) a. M-aka ny vady Rakoto
pres-ravish the spouse Rakoto
'Rakoto ravishes the spouse'
b. M-aka ny vadin-dRabe Rakoto
pres-respect the spouse.of-Rabe Rakoto
'Rakoto ravishes the spouse of Rabe' (88b from Keenan & Razafimamonjy 2001:51)
The lexical transformation that a noun (such as vady 'spouse') undergoes in a possession
construction is detailed below. Note the addition of a new possessor argument to the noun's
predicate:
48 The main verb 'ravish' – sometimes glossed as 'take', has no active prefix. The voice of this verb is understood to be
defined by the root.
74

(89)
Vady, N
(↑PRED) = ‘spouse’
↔
Vadin, N
(↑PRED) = ‘spouse_of(↑POSS)’
The lexical entries, c- and f-structure for sentence (88b) are below:
M-aka v (↑PRED) = 'ravish'
Rabe n (↑PRED) = 'Rabe'
Rakoto n (↑PRED) = 'Rakoto'
Vadin n (↑PRED) = 'spouse_of(↑POSS)'
C-structure
IP
↑ = ↓ (↑ SUBJ) = ↓
VP NP
↑ = ↓ (↑OBJ)= ↓ ↑ = ↓
V NP N
Rakoto
↑ = ↓ (↑POSS) = ↓ (↑PRED) = 'Rakoto'
N NP
vadin
(↑PRED) = 'spouse_of' ↑ = ↓
N
Rabe
Maka (↑PRED) = 'Rabe'
(↑ TENSE) = PRES
(↑ VOICE) = ACTIVE
(↑ PRED) = 'ravish'
F-structure
[ ]
éSUBJ PRED 'Rakoto'
ù
ê PRED 'spouse_of' ú
ê
é ù
OBJ
ú
ê
êPOSS [ PRED ' Rabe ']
ú
ë ûú
ê ú
ëPRED 'ravish' û
Figure 8.1 C- and F-structures for 'Rakoto ravishes the spouse of Rabe'.
Examining the c-structure above, note how the possessor, Rabe, receives its function from f-
descriptions associated with the phrase structure rules (i.e., Rabe is in a POSS function by virtue of
75

its location in the clause).
8.4 Reciprocals and Possession
Below is a list of four Malagasy possessor sentences with their reciprocal counterparts. Note that
the reciprocal construction loses the possessor noun, but the possessed noun (and sometimes a
preposition) remains. Following Keenan & Ralalaoherivony (1998) I will call these remaining
lexemes the “remnant”. That is to say, the remnant is what is left of the possessor NP after the
sentence containing it has been reciprocalized. For example, the remnant of sentence (90b) is vady.
(90) Transitive Verb
a. Maka ny vadin-dRabe Rakoto
pres-take the spouse.of-Rabe Rakoto
'Rakoto ravishes the spouse of Rabe'
b. M-ifamp-aka vady Rabe sy Rakoto
pres-rec-take spouse Rabe and Rakoto
'Rabe and Rakoto ravish each other’s spouse' (Keenan & Razafimamonjy 2001:51)
(91) Ditransitive Verb
a. M-an-ome vola ny zanan-dRavelo Rasoa
pres-act-give money the child.of-Ravelo Rasoa
'Rasoa gives money to the children of Ravelo'
b. M-if-an-ome vola zananaka Rasoa sy Ravelo
pres-rec-act-give money child Rasoa and Ravelo
'Rasoa and Ravelo give money to each other's children' (Keenan & Razafimamonjy 2001:52)
(92) Semi-transitive Verb
a. M-an-dainga amin’ny vadin-dRakoto Rabe
pres-act-lie to.the spouse.of-Rakoto Rabe
'Rabe lies to Rakoto’s spouse'
b. M-if-an-dainga amin-baby Rakoto sy Rabe
pres-rec-act-lie to.spouse Rakoto and Rabe
'Rakoto and Rabe lie to each other’s spouse' (Keenan & Razafimamonjy 2001:52)
(93) Control Verb
a. M-i-laza ny ray aman-drenin'i Rabe ho mamboly vary i Rakoto
pres-act-say the parents'.art Rabe comp cultivate rice art Rakoto
lit. 'Rakoto says the father and mother of Rabe to be cultiviating rice'
'Rakoto says Rabe's parents are cultivating rice'
76

. M-ifamp-i-laza ray aman-dreny ho mamboly vary i Rabe sy Rakoto
pres-rec-act-say the parents comp cultivate rice art Rabe and Rakoto
'Rabe and Rakoto say each other's parents are cultivating rice'
(Keenan & Razafimamonjy 2001:52-53) 49
The next section of this chapter examines what role the remnant plays in the (b) sentences above,
and what function to assign to it (e.g., OBJ, COMPL etc.). For the greater part, the analysis of the
remnant will be dependent upon whether we analyze the reciprocal construction as being f-
intransitive or f-transitive. However, there are two possible analyses of the remnant that can be ruled
out immediately, namely:
a. That the remnant is attached to the subject NP.
b. That the remnant is attached to the verb as part of a external possession 50 construction.
After ruling out these two analyses (see sections 8.4.1 and 8.4.2) I will examine how the f-
intransitive and f-transitive analyses of reciprocal possession can account for the remnant.
8.4.1 Is the Remnant Attached to the Subject NP?
Interpreting the remnant as part of the subject NP is problematic for many reasons. Firstly, if the
remnant were part of the subject NP, we would expect the attendant phonological operation that is
always found in possessive constructions to be present as well (see section 8.2). For example,
compare (94) where the subject NP is in a possessor construction with (90b) (repeated below):
(94) N-if-an-lainga ny vadin-dRavelo sy Rosoa
past-rec-act-lie the spouse-of-Ravelo and Rosoa
'The spouses of Ravelo and Rasoa lie to each other' (Keenan & Ralalaoherivony, 1998:84)
(90) b. M-ifamp-aka vady Rabe sy Rakoto
pres-rec-take spouse Rabe and Rakoto
'Rabe and Rakoto ravish each other’s spouse'
*Rabe and Rakoto’s spouses ravish each other. (Keenan & Razafimamonjy 2001:51)
If vady in (90b) were possessed by the subject, then we would expect the phonological operation
49 For clarity I have changed the names of the participants in these examples.
50 Known as “possessor raising” in transformational literature.
77

that is evident in (94).
Secondly, in all the reciprocal constructions so far examined, the entities that form the reciprocal
relation are defined by the subject NP. Thus, if the remnant were to form a possessor relationship
with the subject NP, then we would expect a different semantic interpretation of the reciprocal
relationship than the one that actually occurs. If the subject NP in (90b) were “Rabe and Rakoto's
spouse(s)” then the correct semantic interpretation (as demonstrated by (94) above) would be “Rabe
and Rakoto’s spouses ravish each other”. However, this interpretation is unavailable to Malagasy
speakers unless accompanied by the phonological operation that binds vady to Rabe sy Rakoto.
Thus we can conclude that the remnant in reciprocal sentences does not belong to the subject NP.
8.4.2 Is the Remnant part of a External Possession Construction?
Another account for the remnant is to assume that it is bound to the verb. Malagasy, like many
languages of the world 51 has an “External Possession” (PossR) construction that under some
circumstances allows the possessee to be incorporated into verb. At first glance treating such
possessive reciprocals as PossR constructions looks promising because sentences like (90b)
resemble reciprocal possessor constructions. Ultimately however, such an account for the remnant is
untenable for the reasons described below.
Keenan and Ralalaoherivony (1998:65) provide the following example of the PossR construction:
(95)
Maty ny vadin-dRabe
[died [the spouse-of-Rabe]]
'Rabe’s spouse died/is dead'
Regular Possession PossR
(Keenan and Ralalaoherivony 1998:65)
↔
Maty vady Rabe
[[died spouse] Rabe]
'Rabe was widowed' or
'Rabe underwent spouse death'
The PossR construction is characterized by several features (see Keenan and Ralalaoherivony
1998). Among them are:
51 See Payne 1999.
78

• The loss of the determiner (see ny above).
• The newly formed verb+noun acts as a prosodic word – question particles and adverbs cannot be
inserted between the verb and noun (for examples, see Keenan and Ralalaoherivony 1998:76).
• A semantic shift where the subject in a PossR construction becomes more involved in the
situation described. For example, Keenan and Ralalaoherivony (1998:65) point out that in the
regular possession construction in (95) above, Rabe may not be aware of the death of his spouse
– however, it is entailed that Rabe is aware of his spouse's death in the PossR construction.
The reciprocal possession construction shown in sentence (90b) looks similar to a PossR sentence.
Compare (90b) (renumbered below) with (96b):
(96) a. M-ifamp-aka vady Rabe sy Rakoto
pres-rec-take spouse Rabe and Rakoto
'Rabe and Rakoto ravish each other’s spouse'
b. Maty vady Rabe
dead spouse Rabe
'Rabe is widowed'
Despite the similarity of these two sentences (note that both (96a) and (96b) lack a determiner)
there are several compelling reasons (detailed below) as to why the reciprocal possessor
construction is not the result of a PossR construction.
1. It is possible to insert a preposition between the verb and noun.
The external possession construction binds the verb and noun into a single prosodic word –
disallowing the insertion of question particles and adverbs (Keenan & Razafimamonjy 1998:80).
However, as sentence (92b) attests (repeated below), a preposition may be inserted between the verb
and noun in the reciprocal possession construction. While this is not a test used by Keenan &
Ralalaoherivony (1998) to rule out external possession constructions, it demonstrates that the verb
and noun are not phonologically bound together in reciprocal possession constructions:
(92) b. M-if-an-dainga amin-baby Rakoto sy Rabe
pres-rec-act-lie to-spouse Rakoto and Rabe
'Rakoto and Rabe lie to each other’s spouse' (Keenan & Razafimamonjy 2001:52)
2. Control verbs in regular constructions may not undergo external possession
Control verbs such as mihevitra “think” may not appear in a PossR construction. Compare the
79

egular control construction (93a below) with the ungrammatical PossR form (93b):
(93) Regular Control Construction
a. M-i-hevitra ny zana-Rakoto ho mpangalatra Rabe
pres.act.think the child-of-Rakoto comp thief Rabe
'Rabe thinks Rakoto's child is a thief'
b. *M-i-hevi-janka an-dRakoto ho mpangalatra Rabe
pres.act.think-child acc.Rakoto comp thief Rabe
(Keenan & Ralalaoherivony 1998:82)
Keenan & Ralalaoherivony (1998:84) also note that RTS verbs do not participate in external
possession. An RTS verb is a control verb that links its subject to the subject of its lower verb (see
section 7.3). The f-intransitive analysis of reciprocal control verbs has difficulty in accounting for
the missing subject of the lower verb. One possible solution was to link the subject of the main verb
to subject of the lower verb (see section 7.6). Thus, a reciprocalized control verb effectively acts as
a RTS verb. However, as noted above, RTS verbs do not host external possession. So, even if a
reciprocalized control verb such as mihevitra “think” is understood to have lost an object argument
in f-structure (such as the f-intransitive analysis claims), the resulting RTS verb it has formed is still
not able to host external possession. Thus we would not expect control verbs, whether
reciprocalized or not, to participate in external possession.
Even though I have argued that reciprocalized control verbs do not participate in external
possession, sentences (90b) to (93b) show that the reciprocalized possessive control construction
patterns identically with the other verb types:
(90b – 93b) Possessive Reciprocal Constructions
Transitive (90b)
M-ifamp-aka vady Rabe sy Rakoto
pres-rec-take spouse Rabe and Rakoto
'Rabe and Rakoto ravish each other’s spouse'
Ditransitive (91b)
M-if-an-ome vola zananaka Rasoa sy Ravelo
pres-rec-act-give money child Rasoa and Ravelo
'Rasoa and Ravelo give money to each other's children'
80

Semi-Transitive (92b)
M-if-an-dainga amin-baby Rakoto sy Rabe
pres-rec-act-lie to.spouse Rakoto and Rabe
'Rakoto and Rabe lie to each other’s spouse'
Control (93b)
M-ifamp-i-laza ray aman-dreny ho mamboly vary i Rabe sy Rakoto
pres-rec-act-say the parents comp cultivate rice art Rabe and Rakoto
'Rabe and Rakoto say each other's parents are cultivating rice'
The close patterning between the different verb types suggests that one process can explain the
remnant (in bold above) for all of the constructions above. The remnant in sentence (93b) cannot be
accounted for as the result of an external possession construction. This means that external
possession is unable to provide an account for the remnant in all possessive reciprocal
constructions. In contrast, the f-transitive analysis of possessive reciprocals is able to do so easily
(see section 8.6 below).
8.4.3 Comments
Keenan & Ralalaoherivony note that the likelihood of a verb hosting external possession decreases
with the complexity of the clause. Ditransitive, semi-transitive and control verbs are unable to host
external possession at all. While intransitive verbs undergo PossR productively, transitive verbs
only do so in a limited fashion – frequently with idiomatic interpretations (Keenan &
Ralalaoherivony 1998:79). They add:
“In almost all the excluded cases [of external possession] the Pn
[predicate] is syntactically and semantically “complex”, where containing
two or more content words counts as complex, as does causative and
reciprocal morphology.” Keenan & Ralalaoherivony (1998:82) - My
emphasis.
Keenan & Ralalaoherivony do note, however, that it is possible that future work may uncover
some examples of external possession constructions that they may have overlooked – it remains
possible that genuine examples of reciprocals in external possession constructions may yet be
found. However, based on the reasoning above, and the work and conclusions by Keenan &
Ralalaoherivony in their paper “Raising from NP in Malagasy” (1998), I believe it is clear that the
remnants in the examined reciprocal possessor constructions are not bound to the verb as part of an
81

external possession construction.
Two possible accounts of the remnant have been ruled out: namely that the remnant is not the
result of a external possession construction, and it is not part of the subject NP. Given these
constraints upon the function of the remnant, I will now consider how the f-intransitive and f-
transitive analyses of the reciprocal constructions work in conjunction with possession.
8.5 F-intransitive Analysis of Reciprocal Constructions and Possession
Assuming an f-intransitive analysis of the reciprocal construction, as Mchombo (1991) does for
Chichewa, has considerable consequences both for our syntactic analysis of possessor sentences, but
also for how we interpret the a-structure of reciprocal verbs in a possessor relation. These
consequences are discussed in 8.5.1 and 8.5.2 below.
8.5.1 F-structure Issues
At this stage there is still no account of the syntactic function of the remnant in the possessor
constructions above. However, one must be found if the f-intransitive analysis of reciprocal
constructions is to predict the grammaticality of sentences like 94 below:
(94)
M-ifamp-aka vady Rabe sy Rakoto
pres-rec-take spouse Rabe and Rakoto
'Rabe and Rakoto ravish each other’s spouse'
Since (94) is a grammatical sentence, if we are to assume that mifampaka is intransitive, how are
we to account for the extra noun in each sentence? For example, in (94) above, what function do we
assign to vady – 'spouse'? Furthermore, how can we semantically construe vady as being in a
possessor relationship?
To understand these issues further, consider the f-structure below. It assumes a valence reducing
interpretation of the reciprocal morpheme:
82

(94)
M-ifamp-aka vady Rabe sy Rakoto
pres-rec-take.each.other spouse Rabe and Rakoto
'Rabe and Rakoto ravish each other’s spouse'
[ ]
[ ]
éSUBJ PRED 'Rabe and Rakoto' ù
ê??? PRED 'spouse' ú
ê ú
êë PRED 'ravish_each_other'úû
Figure 8.2 Non-coherent F-structure for (94)
Previously we ascertained that vady does not belong to the subject and that it is not bound to the
verb. This denies the possibility that vady could be forming a complex predicate such as
“ravish_each_other's_spouse”.
If we wish to maintain that the verb is intransitive, there are two possibilities open to us, each of
which is discussed in turn below:
1. That the remnant is a sentential adjunct.
2. That the remnant is a non-object function licensed by the verb.
1. The remnant is a sentential adjunct
F-structures may contain as many sentential adjuncts (such as “yesterday” or “in a hurry”, etc.) as
required without affecting their coherence or completeness (Bresnan 2001:63). However, while this
solution makes our f-structure grammatical, it is not semantically plausible. Adjuncts typically add
non-core information to a clause, whereas vady 'spouse' is integral to the interpretation of the
reciprocal. This analysis leaves unanswered exactly how the semantics of a possessive reciprocal
situation would be interpreted.
2. The remnant is a non-object function licensed by the verb
If the verb in (94) is intransitive, then by definition the remnant cannot be considered as a direct
object. By assuming that the remnant is an oblique object, we could make the sentence grammatical.
e.g., the lexical entry for the verb would become:
(95) ravish_each_other
83

However, this analysis fails to account for the possessor relationship in which vady 'spouse'
participates. Syntactically it would be useful to put our oblique NP into some sort of possessor
relation (perhaps by positing the existence of an unexpressed possessor pronoun). This would have
the advantage of loosely matching the syntax of the NP with the ultimate semantic role it must play,
although it would introduce additional complexity into the f-intransitive analysis.
Comments
If we are to maintain an f-intransitive analysis of the reciprocal construction where the reciprocal
morpheme reduces the valence of the verb to which it is attached, then we must deal with the
considerable syntactic contortions that would be required to account for the resulting sentence’s
grammaticality. It is probably not impossible to find and assign functions to the remnant so that the
possessor reciprocal sentences remain grammatical. However, it is clear that such an approach will
have to be complex and quite different from the type of grammatical and semantic analysis that we
have used for the other types of Malagasy constructions. For example, reciprocal possessor
sentences, despite looking very similar to their non-reciprocal counterparts, will require a radically
different syntactic structure.
8.5.2 A-structure Issues
The f-intransitive analysis of the reciprocal possessor construction creates considerable problems
when required to create an account of the accompanying a-structure. Recalling section 5.2, we saw
how suppressing the patient argument (or linking the patient and the subject together) could account
for a reciprocal interpretation of a sentence with the result that the reciprocalized verb has lost an
argument in f-structure.
However, in possessor constructions, it is not possible to simply suppress the patient role, as at
least part of it still exists in the c-structure. For example in (96b) below, the patient is in some way
connected to “the spouse”. If we were to suppress the patient then we would not expect vady
“spouse” to appear in the resulting reciprocal sentence at all:
(96) a. Maka ny vadin-dRabe Rakoto
pres-take the spouse.of-Rabe Rakoto
'Rakoto ravishes the spouse of Rabe'
84

Suppressing or conjoining the patient role leaves:
b. Mifampaka Rabe sy Rakoto
pres-rec-take Rabe and Rakoto
'Rabe and Rakoto ravish each other'
Note that although (96b) is grammatical, the analysis does not account for the existence of
sentence (94) (repeated below as 97):
(97) M-ifamp-aka vady Rabe sy Rakoto
pres-rec-take spouse Rabe and Rakoto
'Rabe and Rakoto ravish each other’s spouse'
The fact that vady is still acting as a partial patient of the verb is indicative that in possessor
constructions at least, the patient argument is not wholly suppressed in a-structure.
8.5.3 Comments
The examination of possessor reciprocal sentences demonstrates the complexity required to
maintain that reciprocalized verbs in Malagasy are intransitive. In terms of the standard mappings
from a-structure to f-structure, the presence of a remnant that is in a possessor relationship is
difficult to account for; both grammatically and semantically. Grammatically, because we would
expect the remnant to be mapped to an OBJ function; and semantically because any other type of
functional account (OBL etc.) is not used to represent possessor constructions. While it is possible
to argue for an f-intransitive account of reciprocal constructions when examining simple sentences,
a closer examination of reciprocalized verbs in possessor constructions reveals a more complex
situation. The f-intransitive analysis fails on two accounts – it cannot explain the presence of what
appears to be a half suppressed patient in the c-structure of the sentence, and it cannot assign a
semantically sensible function to the remnant.
8.6 F-transitive Analysis of Reciprocal Constructions and Possession
Having argued that the f-intransitive account of the reciprocal construction is grammatically
implausible in both f- and a-structure, I will now consider the f-transitive analysis of the Malagasy
reciprocal possessor construction. As nouns may be modified via a lexical rule to require a POSS
function, the lexical definition of the reciprocal morpheme must be extended in the same way. This
extension is straightforward; an optional POSS function is added to the end of the function chain:
85

(100) -if- (↑OBLθ)(↑OBJ) (↑POSS) PRED = PROr e c i p
This is all that is required to account for the possession forms of all the reciprocal constructions
so far examined. Below are two examples of reciprocal possessor constructions, the first example
demonstrates the analysis with a transitive verb; the second example examines a control verb.
8.6.1 Transitive Reciprocal Possessor Construction
Using the f-transitive analysis of the reciprocal construction in conjunction with the lexical entry
of the reciprocal morpheme given in (101), we can already predict the grammaticality of transitive
reciprocal possession sentences:
(101) -if- (↑ OBJ POSS PRED) = PROr e c i p
(102) M-ifamp-aka vady Rabe sy Rakoto
pres-rec-ravish spouse.of Rabe and Rakoto
'Rabe and Rakoto ravish each other's spouses'
(103) The lexical entries, f- and c-structure for (102) are then:
M-ifamp-aka v (↑ PRED) = 'ravish'
(↑ OBJ POSS PRED) = PROre c i p
(↑ TENSE) = PRES
(↑ VOICE) = ACT
Vady n (↑ PRED) = 'spouse_of'
86

C-structure F-structure
IP
↑ = ↓ (↑ SUBJ) = ↓
VP NP
↑ = ↓ (↑ OBJ) = ↓
V NP Rabe sy Rakoto
↑ = ↓
N
Vady
(↑ PRED) = 'spouse'
Mifampaka
(↑ PRED) = 'ravish'
(↑ TENSE) = PRES
(↑ VOICE) = ACTIVE
(↑ OBJ POSS PRED) = PROrecip
Figure 8.3 C- and F-structures for (102)
[ ]
éSUBJ "Rabe and Rakoto"
ù
ê
PRED 'spouse_of ' ú
ê
é ù
OBJ
ú
ê
ê
POSS [ PRED PROrecip]
ú
ë ûú
ê ú
êTENSE PRES
ú
êVOICE ACTIVE
ú
ê ú
ëPRED 'ravish' û
The function of the remnant is easily explained in an f-transitive analysis of reciprocity. In (102)
above, the remnant sits in the regular object position of the verb. Vady 'spouse' has had the
possession lexical rule applied to it and become vady 'spouse_of'. The usual attendant phonological
changes are not present because it has entered into a possession relationship with the unexpressed
reciprocal pronoun.
Next, I examine the reciprocal control construction in conjunction with possession.
8.6.2 Control Reciprocal Possessor Construction
The f-transitive analysis of the reciprocal constructions can already account for complex sentences
such as (104) below:
(104)
M-ifamp-ilaza ray aman-dreny ho mamboly vary Rabe sy Rakoto
pres-rec-act-say father and mother.of comp pres-cultivate rice Rabe and Rakoto
lit 'Rabe and Rakoto say each other's parents to be cultivating rice'
'Rabe and Rakoto say each other's parents are cultivating rice'
Using the same lexical entry for the reciprocal morpheme as (101) above, the c- and f-structures of
87

the control reciprocal possessor construction are easily constructed:
(101) -if- (↑ OBJ POSS PRED) = PROre c i p
(105)
M-ifamp-i-laza v (↑PRED) = 'say(↑OBJ)'
(↑XCOMP SUBJ) = (↑OBJ)
(↑TENSE) = PRES
(↑VOICE) = ACT
(↑OBJ POSS PRED) = PROr e c i p
mamboly v (↑PRED) = 'cultivate'
(↑TENSE) = PRES
(↑VOICE) = ACT
ray aman-dreny NP (↑PRED) = 'parents_of'
vary n (↑PRED) = 'rice'
C-structure
IP
↑ = ↓ (↑ SUBJ) = ↓
VP NP
↑ = ↓ (↑OBJ)= ↓ (↑XCOMP) = ↓
V NP CP Rabe sy Rakoto
↑ = ↓ ↑ = ↓
ray aman-dreny C VP
(↑PRED) = 'parents_of'
ho
↑ = ↓ (↑OBJ)= ↓
V NP
mamboly
(↑PRED) = 'cultivate'
(↑ TENSE) = PRES
Mifampilaza ( ↑ VOICE) = ACTIVE ↑ = ↓
(↑ PRED) = 'say(↑OBJ)' N
(↑ TENSE) = PRES
(↑ VOICE) = ACTIVE
(↑ OBJ POSS PRED) = PROrecip vary
(↑ XCOMP SUBJ) = (↑ OBJ) (↑PRED) = “rice”
88

[ ]
POSS [ PRED PROrecip]
éSUBJ
"Rabe and Rakoto"
ù
ê
ú
ê
é ù
OBJ
ú
ê êPRED 'parents_of'ú
ë û ú
ê
ú
ê éSUBJ ùú
ê ê
OBJ [ 'rice']
úú
êXCOMP ê úú
ê êTENSE PRES
úú
ê ê ú
ëPRED 'cultivate'û
ú
ê ú
êTENSE PRES
ú
ê
VOICE ACTIVE
ú
ê ú
ëê
PRED 'say( ­ OBJ)' úû
Figure 8.4 F-structure for (104)
The advantage of the f-transitive analysis is that the f-structure of a clause remains unchanged
with the introduction of the reciprocal morpheme. In particular, this means that the control
construction does not require the invention of new syntactic rules to account for its reciprocal
counterpart: reciprocal control constructions can be treated just like regular control clauses.
8.7 Conclusion
Both reciprocal possessor constructions and reciprocal control constructions in Malagasy provide
considerable challenges to the f-intransitive analysis of reciprocal constructions. Any theory wishing
to pursue this analysis must deal adequately with a host of issues, namely that:
The reciprocal constructions, while looking almost identical to their non-reciprocal
counterparts, require very different syntactic interpretations to the Malagasy norm.
Furthermore, these new syntactic interpretations are not consistent across different
construction types (i.e., POSS and control above).
A description is needed of the syntactic function assigned to the remnant in POSS
constructions that is semantically concordant with the actual role they play in the
sentence.
Why the patient role is only partially suppressed in POSS constructions needs to be
explained.
An account is needed for the missing subject in control constructions (if we want to
maintain the subject condition in our theory of syntax).
89

The challenges these issues raise may not be insurmountable – I have outlined some approaches
that could possibly be used to address some of these issues. However, these obstacles can simply be
avoided if we allow that the reciprocal morpheme constructs a reciprocal argument in the
appropriate syntactic context within the f-structure of the clause.
The f-transitive analysis of reciprocal constructions uses the same syntactic analysis for a complex
clause regardless of whether or not it contains the reciprocal morpheme. This explains the ease with
which complex reciprocal constructions can be accounted for. The unexpressed reciprocal pronoun
acts as the missing subject in control constructions and allows for syntactically reasonable
assignments of NP’s in relation to the semantic role they ultimately play. Finally, the f-transitive
analysis is able to account naturally for the remnant in reciprocal possessor constructions – it is
assigned the function of object by the usual phrase structure rules and engages in a possessor
relationship with the reciprocal pronoun. Given that the semantic tests used to determine
intransitivity in Chichewa were inconclusive for Malagasy, I believe these facts strongly support the
analysis I have proposed, which is that the reciprocal morpheme creates a reciprocal pronoun in the
f-structure of the clause.
In chapters 9-13 I will examine how the f-transitive account of reciprocal constructions that I have
proposed interacts with other aspects of Malagasy syntax such as full complement clauses,
circumstantialization, causativization and nominalization.
90

Chapter 9
Reciprocal Expressions and Complement Clauses
9.1 Introduction
As seen in section 7.4, some verbs select either a complement clause or a controlled clause:
(70)
a. N-i-laza Ravelo fa namboly vary i Soa
pst-act-say Ravelo Comp pst-cultivate rice Art Soa
[ V Subj ] [Comp V Obj Subj ]
'Ravelo said that Soa cultivated rice' -- Complement Clause Construction
b. N-i-laza an-dRasoa ho namboly vary Ravelo
pst-act-say acc.Rasoa Comp pst-cultivate rice Ravelo
[ V O [Comp V O] S ]
lit. 'Ravelo said Rasoa to have cultivated rice'
'Ravelo said Rasoa has cultivated rice' -- Control Construction
(Keenan & Razafimamonjy 2001:50-51)
Keenan & Razafimamonjy (2001:54) briefly mention reciprocal constructions involving verbs
selecting complement clauses and interestingly these sentences behave differently than their control
counterparts. Such sentences (see 106b below) are judged to be grammatical, but uniformly less so
than their control counterparts (106c). In this chapter, I will show that this difference in
acceptability can be explained by considering the binding constraints placed upon the reciprocal
pronoun and its antecedent.
91

(106)
Non-reciprocal Complement
a. Mino Rabe [fa mpangalatra Rakoto]
pres-believe Rabe [comp thief Rakoto]
'Rabe believes that Rakoto is a thief'
Reciprocal of Complement Clause Construction
b. ?Mifampino Rabe sy Rakoto [fa mpangalatra]
?pres-rec-believe Rabe and Rakoto [comp thief]
'Rabe and Rakoto each believe the other to be a thief'
'Rabe and Rakoto believe “we are thieves”'
Reciprocal of Control Construction
c. Mifampino ho mpangalatra Rabe sy Rakoto
pres-rec-believe comp thief Rabe and Rakoto
lit. 'Rabe and Rakoto believe each other to be thieves'
'Rabe and Rakoto believe the other to be a thief'
(Keenan & Razafimamonjy 2001:54)
Note that Malagasy does not use a verb in copular constructions – thus mpangalatra Rakoto above
reads “Rakoto is a thief”.
9.2 Interactions between the Reciprocal Construction and
Complements
The diagram below shows the f-structure for sentence 106a:
[ ]
SUBJ [ PRED 'Rakoto']
éSUBJ PRED 'Rabe'
ù
ê ú
ê é ù
COMPL
ú
ê
êPRED 'be_thief< ­ SUBJ>'ú
ë û ú
ê ú
ëPRED 'believe' û
Figure 9.1 F-structure Associated with the Complement Construction for (106a)
Recall that the f-transitive analysis of the reciprocal construction adds a reciprocal pronoun into an
object or oblique object function selected by the verb. This analysis predicts that sentence (106b)
should be ungrammatical, since a grammatical function is being created by the reciprocal morpheme
that is not selected by the verb. The f-structure below demonstrates this – the reciprocal morpheme
92

in this case has created an object function, but equally an oblique object could have been used:
[ "Rabe and Rakoto" ]
éSUBJ ù
ê ú
*OBJ [ PRED PROrecip
ê ] ú
ê éSUBJ [ ? ] ù ú
êCOMPL êPRED thief< ­ SUBJ> ú ú
ê ë û ú
êPRED 'believe'ú
ê ú
êë úû
Figure 9.2 Non-coherent F-structure Associated with the Complement Construction for
(106b)
However, as Keenan & Razafimamonjy (2001:54) note, some speakers find constructions like
(106b) acceptable. I think the partial acceptance of reciprocal complement constructions like (106b)
can be explained by two competing processes.
The first process is a generalization of the reciprocal morpheme's function. As we have seen, the
reciprocal morpheme creates an object (or oblique) grammatical function in the f-structure, selected
by the verb. Some speakers of Malagasy could well extend the domain of the reciprocal pronoun
from just these two functions to the subjects of complements. Thus, the lexical definition of the
reciprocal morpheme would be extended to:
(107)
-if- (↑OBLθ)(↑OBJ)(↑POSS) PRED = PROr e c i p
(↑COMPL SUBJ PRED) = PROr e c i p
Should such a definition of the reciprocal pronoun be used, the resulting f-structure for (106b)
would be:
[ ]
SUBJ [ PRED PROrecip]
éSUBJ "Rabe and Rakoto" ù
ê ú
ê
é ù
COMPL
ú
ê
êPRED 'thief< ­ SUBJ>' ú
ë û ú
ê ú
ëPRED 'believe'û
Figure 9.3 Complete and Coherent F-structure for (106b)
However, while such a definition creates complete and coherent f-structures, it violates the
93

inding principle that the antecedent of the reciprocal pronoun must be bound in the same clause as
the reciprocal pronoun (e.g., the reciprocal pronoun must be locally bound – see chapter 10 for a
description of Manning's (1996a,b) universal binding theory).
In figure 9.3 above, the COMPL grammatical function represents a complete clause. As such, the
reciprocal pronoun within it is required to find its antecedent within the same clause. However,
clearly it cannot do so because there is no plural antecedent within the allowed domain.
Pragmatically the antecedent is easily identified as the subject of the main verb – even though this
violates the binding conditions of the reciprocal pronoun.
9.3 Conclusion
The lexical definition of the reciprocal pronoun may be easily extended to accommodate
complement constructions where the subject of the complement is a reciprocal pronoun. The
uncertainty which speakers feel with this construction could well be because the reciprocal
complement clause construction violates the binding principles that require an anaphor to be locally
bound within its own clause. Usually such violations result in ungrammatical sentences, however in
the (106b) above, the antecedent is still easily identified through pragmatic means as being the
subject of the main verb. In contrast, reciprocalized control verbs are able to bind to the subject of
the main verb because the reciprocal pronoun does not sit within a complete clause. 52 This explains
why speakers uniformly prefer the reciprocalized control constructions to their complement clause
counterparts.
52 See Bresnan's (2001:231) definition of a minimal nucleus for more details.
94

Chapter 10
Binding of Circumstantial Reciprocal Expressions
10.1 Introduction
Many Austronesian languages make use of voice alternations in which different thematic roles are
given grammatical prominence. In Malagasy, the contrast is between active, passive and
circumstantial voice. In a circumstantial construction, some circumstance of the action described by
the verb is made the subject. In (108a) below, the agent and patient of the verb is 'Rasoa' and
'clothes' respectively, whereas as 'the soap' is an instrument of the action:
(108)
a. M-an-asa ny lamba (amin'ity savony ity) Rasoa
pres-act-wash the clothes (with.this soap this) Rasoa
'Rasoa washes the clothes with this soap'
b. Anasan-dRasoa ny lamba ity savony ity
act-wash-circ-with.Rasoa the clothes this soap this
lit. 'This soap washes with Rasoa the clothes'
'This soap is used by Rasoa to wash the clothes' (Keenan & Ochs, 1979:125)
The prepositional phrase in (108a) 'with this soap' becomes the subject of the verb – even though
it is a non-nuclear, non-core argument. The agent of the verb in a circumstantial construction is
represented by an optional genitive phrase that is encliticized to the verb (see Keenan & Ochs,
1979:125): 53
53 Keenan & Ochs (1979:125) mention only that the genitive phrase “tacks onto the end of the verb in a characteristic
and rather complicated way”. However, as complete NP's may be attached to a verb in this way, I will assume the
analysis above is correct.
95

(108) c. Anasana ny lamba ity savony ity
act-wash-circ the clothes this soap this
lit. 'This soap was washed the clothes'
'This soap is used to wash the clothes'
10.2 Reciprocalized Circumstantials
Reciprocal clauses in Malagasy productively undergo circumstantialization:
(109)
a. N-if-an-tao farafara amin'ity vy ity Rabe sy Rakoto
pst-rec-act-do bed with.this metal this Rabe and Rakoto
'Rabe and Rakoto made each other beds from this metal'
b. N-if-an-tao-van-dRabe sy Rakoto farafara ity vy ity
pst-rec-act-do-circ.Rabe and Rakoto bed this metal this
lit. 'This metal was made by Rabe and Rakoto beds for each other'
'This metal was made into beds for each other by Rabe and Rakoto'
(Keenan & Razafimamonjy 2001:56)
In active voice nantao 'do' (from this point forwards, glossed as 'make') is a ditransitive verb with
the form below:
(110) make
The reciprocal morpheme adds the following lexical information to the verb (see section 5.3):
(111) (↑OBLb e n PRED) = PROr e c i p
My understanding is that in (109b) above, the prepositional phrase is an adjunct that is not
selected by the verb. The evidence supporting this claim is both semantic (the information 'with this
metal' is not critical to the interpretation of the verb 'make') and syntactic, as the adjunct is
represented by a full prepositional phrase (recall that oblique arguments selected by the verb appear
in accusative case). This is reflected in the (simplified) f-structure associated with sentence (109a):
96

[ ]
[ ]
[ recip]
[ "with this metal" ]
éSUBJ "Rabe and Rakoto"
ù
êOBJ PRED 'bed'
ú
ê ú
êOBLben PRED PRO
ú
ê ú
ê
ADJ
ú
ê ú
ëPRED make
û
Figure 10.1 F-structure Associated with (109a)
To understand how the reciprocal construction interacts with circumstantial voice, we must first
understand how circumstantials are represented in LFG.
The analysis of the circumstantial construction I follow assumes that a new entity is introduced
into the a-structure in a manner that parallels the standard analysis of causative constructions
(Manning 1996b, Alsina 1996, Alsina 1997, see chapter 11). I will treat the demoted agent as being
selected by the verb in accordance with Bresnan's (2001:116) account of passivized agents.
Manning (1996a,b) and Alsina (1996,1997) treat the causative construction as adding an entirely
new entity to the a-structure of the verb. Following their analysis, I will represent the circumstantial
construction as a lexical rule that adds a new entity to the a-structure of the verb. The sentences for
the above verb 'make' (109) demonstrate how the a-structures and their corresponding mapping to
their f-structure changes when a verb is cirumstantialized:
(112)
Ag Pt Ben
make
| | |
SUBJ OBJ OBLben
Instr Ag Pt Ben
CIRC
| | | |
SUBJ (OBLag) OBJ OBLben
The vertical line represents the division between direct and oblique arguments (Manning
1996b:42). As per Bresnan (2001:116), the agent now maps to an oblique function. Now that the a-
structure of the verb has been resolved, its lexical entries for sentence (109b - repeated below) can
be described:
97

(109) b. N-if-an-tao-van-dRabe sy Rakoto farafara ity vy ity
pst-rec-act-do-circ.Rabe and Rakoto bed this metal this
lit. 'This metal was made by Rabe and Rakoto beds for each other'
'This metal was made into beds for each other by Rabe and Rakoto'
(113)
Nifantaovan v (↑PRED) = ‘is_made’
(↑TENSE) = PAST
(↑VOICE) = CIRC
(↑OBLb e n PRED) = PROr e c i p
C-structure
IP
↑ = ↓ (↑SUBJ) = ↓
VP NP
↑=↓ (↑ OBLag) =↓ (↑OBJ)=↓
V NP NP ity vy ity
“this metal”
dRabe sy Rakoto
“Rabe and Rakoto”
↑=↓
N
farafara
(↑PRED) = ‘bed’
Nifantaovan-
(↑PRED) = ‘was_made’
(↑TENSE) = PAST
(↑VOICE) = CIRC
(↑OBLbenif PRED) = PROrecip
F-structure
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ "Rabe and Rakoto" ]
éSUBJ "this metal"
ù
êOBJ PRED 'bed'
ú
ê ú
êOBLben PRED PROrecip
ú
ê ú
OBLag
ê ú
êVOICE CIRC
ú
ê ú
ëPRED is_made
û
Figure 10.2 F-structure associated with (109b)
98

10.3 Binding
While the f-structure above is complete and coherent, it does not explain how the reciprocal
morpheme finds its antecedent, since it is clear that the subject (being singular) cannot fulfil this
function. The simple theory of binding proposed in section 5.4 stated that the reciprocal pronoun
finds its antecedent in the subject of the verb. Whatever other restrictions might be added to such a
theory, the usual assumption is that binding takes place at the level of f-structure (Bresnan
2001:212). Manning (1996 a,b) proposes that binding takes place at a-structure – and it is this
theory I will use to explain binding in circumstantial reciprocal constructions. 54 Manning (1996a:2)
defines the term “A-subject” to describe an argument structure subject. A-subjects are “the class of
all arguments that are first on some level of argument structure”. There are several theories that
order arguments such as agent, patient etc. according to various properties (see Jackendoff 1990,
Dowty 1991). For simplicity, I will follow Falk's (2001) thematic hierarchy:
(114)
Agent > Patient/Ben > Instrument > Theme > Path/Location/Ref Obj
(Falk 2001:104)
Given this hierarchy, Manning's theory predicts that an agent, if present, will always be an a-
subject because it is highest on the thematic hierarchy. Manning (1996b:50) notes that accounts of
binding generally make use of some sort of command relationship based upon some form of
hierarchical structure intrinsic to the clause. Using this concept and his definition of a-subjects,
Manning proposes the following approximation of a universal binding theory (Manning 1996b:50):
(115)
a) Command is defined on a-structure.
b) If antecedence is restricted, it is restricted to a-subjects.
c) If antecedence depends on obliqueness, it is obliqueness at the level of a-structure.
With respect to anaphora (such as reciprocals and reflexives) he adds in his (1996a) paper:
54 Although Manning's theory explains binding in exotic constructions, in simple constructions (such as those
previously examined) it is equivalent to the binding theory we have been using (see section 5.4).
99

• Principle A. A locally a-commanded anaphor must be locally a-bound.
(Manning 1996b:50, 1996a:10)
Principle A applies at the level of a-structure and it states that an anaphor must be bound by a
local a-subject. 55 Turning now to the binding of reciprocal constructions in circumstantial voice, if
we examine the a-structure of the complex verb nifantaovan 'is made' we see that it generates two a-
subjects because it has more than one level of a-structure (namely the instrument and the agent):
(116)
Instr Ag Pt Benif
CIRC
| | | |
SUBJ (OBLag) OBJ OBLbenif
| |
A-subject A-subject
Using Manning's theory of binding, at the level of a-structure the reciprocal pronoun is able to
bind to the agent of the verb (i.e., “Rabe and Rakoto”), even though the f-structure function
assigned to this entity is an oblique object. Furthermore, the reciprocal pronoun may not bind to the
instrument a-subject because it must be locally a-bound.
Defining binding at the level of a-structure, effectively nullifies an argument made by Dalrymple,
Mchombo & Peters (1994:149) that the reciprocal morpheme in Chichewa cannot be an anaphor.
Their argument is situated within a configurational approach to syntax that requires an antecedent to
be defined at the correct location within a tree; whether it be D-structure, S-structure or LF (Logical
Form). 56 By allowing binding to take place at the level of a-structure – the argument put forward by
Dalrymple et al (1996) cannot be applied to Malagasy.
55 Manning notes that some languages allow anaphora to be bound by any a-commanding a-subject (Manning
1996a:10). This does not appear to be the case in Malagasy, as demonstrated by the peculiarity of reciprocalized
complement clauses like those examined in chapter 9.
56 Dalrymple, Mchombo & Peters (1994:147-152).
100

10.4 Conclusion
At the level of f-structure, reciprocal constructions in circumstantial voice are easy to account for
using the f-transitive analysis of reciprocal constructions. However, simplistic models of binding
cannot account for the grammaticality (or lack thereof) of the compound predicates generated by
circumstantialization. The use of Manning's (1996a,b) theory of binding at the level of a-structure
allows the more subtle interaction of compound predicates with the reciprocal morpheme to be
captured.
101

Chapter 11
Reciprocals and Causativization
11.1 Introduction
In this chapter, we turn to the interaction of the reciprocal construction with causativization.
Causative constructions take regular sentences and add to them an entity that causes the event
described to happen. For example:
(117)
a. Soa ate the peas. Simple sentence
b. Ravelo made Soa eat the peas. Causative construction
Ravelo in (117b) is the causer, and Soa is causee. Cross-linguistically, the forms of causative
constructions fall into two main categories: morphological and periphrastic (i.e., constructed with
two verbs, like the English example above). Malagasy makes use of both types of construction, but
the most productive and unmarked is the morphological causative construction that uses the -amp-
prefix (see Andrianierenana 1996). To form a causative, the -amp- prefix is inserted directly after
the tense morpheme in the verb. The examples below from Andrianierenana (1996:64) demonstrate
how causatives are formed in Malagasy for intransitive, transitive and ditransitive verbs:
(118) a. M-i-homehy Rabe
pres-act-laugh Rabe
'Rabe is laughing'
b. M-amp-i-homehy an-dRabe aho
pres-caus-act-laugh acc.Rabe 1sg.nom
'I am making Rabe laugh'
102

(119) a. N-an-didy mofo Rabe
pst-act-cut bread Rabe
'Rabe was cutting bread'
b. N-amp-an-didy mofo an-dRabe aho
pst-caus-act-cut bread acc.Rabe 1sg.nom
'I made Rabe cut bread'
(120) a. N-an-droso sakafo ny vahiny Rabe
pst-act-serve meal the guests Rabe
'Rabe was serving a meal to the guests'
b. N-amp-an-droso sakafo ny vahiny an-dRabe aho
pst-caus-act-serve meal the guests acc.Rabe 1sg.nom
'I was making Rabe serve a meal to the guests' (Andrianierenana 1996:64)
11.2 Assigning Functions to NP's
The following terms are used to describe the various functions and roles in a causative
construction:
1. Higher Object (OBJ1): The old subject – 'Rabe' in the (b) sentences above.
2. Lower Object (OBJ2): The object of the verb before causativization becomes the lower object
after causativization takes place. In (119b), the lower object is mofo “bread”, in (120b) it is
sakafo “meal”. Note that (118b) does not have a lower object.
Causatives pose interesting challenges to any syntactic analysis because they require the original
agent to be assigned a non-subject function. Just what this function is varies from language to
language, however, Andrianierenana (1996:65) demonstrates that the lower agent in Malagasy is
assigned an object function: 57
(121) N-amp-an-asa an’i Koto an-dRasoa aho
pst-caus-act-wash acc.Koto acc.Rasoa 1sg.nom
'I made Rasoa wash Koto'
(122) N-amp-an-ao io azy aho
pst-caus-act-do that 3.acc 1sg.nom
'I made him build that'
57 Andrianierenana believes sentence (123) to be questionable because it violates a like-form constraint upon pronouns
(1996:65) rather than because of the accusative marking of azy.
103

(123) ??N-amp-an-ao azy azy aho
pst-caus-act-do 3.acc 3.acc 1sg.nom
'I made him build it' (Andrianierenana 1996:65)
Andrianierenana (1996:65) notes that even in causatives of ditransitive verbs (which have three
non-subject arguments selected by the verb) the causee is always presented as an object and is not
marked by a prepositional phrase. The functional groups for (120b) are then:
(120) b. N-amp-an-droso sakafo ny vahiny an-dRabe aho
pst-caus-act-serve meal the guests acc.Rabe 1sg.nom
OBJ2 OBL OBJ1
'I was making Rabe serve a meal to the guests'
11.3 An LFG Analysis of Morphological Causatives
I assume the standard LFG approach to morphological causatives in which causativization takes
place in a-structure where two predicates are merged into one causative predicate (Manning 1996a,b
Alsina 1996, 1997). Alsina's (1996) analysis of causative constructions is similar to his analysis of
reciprocals insofar as he makes use of the idea that two roles in a-structure may be represented by
one function in f-structure. To understand how the theory works in practice, I have included an
analysis of “make think”, “make cut” and “make serve” below. I have modified Alsina’s notation to
match that which is used here:
(124) Causative Construction of “think”:
Base Verb: think
|
SUBJ
Causative Construction: CAUSE
|
SUBJ OBJ
(125) Causative Construction of “cut”:
Base Verb: cut
| |
SUBJ OBJ
104

Causative Construction: CAUSE
| |
SUBJ OBJ OBJ
(126) Causative Construction of “serve”:
Base Verb: serve
| | |
SUBJ OBJ OBL
Causative -
Construction: CAUSE
| | |
SUBJ OBJ OBJ OBL
Interestingly, Alsina's analysis of the grammatical functions for the causative construction of a
transitive verb, while having three arguments, is different from that of a straight ditransitive verb. A
regular ditransitive verb selects a subject, object and an oblique argument, whereas a transitive verb
in causative construction selects a subject and two objects. There is morphological evidence for this
analysis in Malagasy. Ditransitive verbs undergoing passivization allow both the theme and the goal
to be made subject, however, different morphology is used to do this: -a and -ana respectively. 58
Causative constructions on the other hand, use the same morphology -ina to passivize either the
lower or higher object. This suggests that the non-subject arguments in causative constructions both
have the same function.
11.4 Causatives and Reciprocals
The order in which the causative and reciprocal morphemes are applied to the verb has
implications for the resulting meaning. Both causatives of reciprocals (-amp-if-) and reciprocals of
causatives (-if-amp-) are discussed below.
11.4.1 Causatives of Reciprocals (-amp-if-)
Reciprocal constructions may readily undergo causativization (if semantically appropriate). For
example:
58 The examples I've found to demonstrate this fact unfortunately use the verb “give” which has two distinct forms
(Atoloko and Tolorako) depending on whether the theme or patient is passivized respectively. See Andrianierenana
(1996:70) for more details.
105

(127) a. N-if-an-daka Rabe sy Rakoto
pst-rec-act-kick Rabe and Rakoto
'Rabe and Rakoto kicked each other'
b. N-amp-if-an-daka an-dRabe sy Rakoto aho
pst-caus-rec-act-kick acc.Rabe and Rakoto 1sg.nom
'I made Rabe and Rakoto kick each other' (Keenan & Razafimamonjy 2001:67)
Following Alsina's analysis of causative constructions, and the f-transitive analysis of reciprocal
constructions, the f-structures for sentences (127a) and (127b) are:
F-structure of (127a) F-structure of (127b)
éSUBJ êOBJ ê
êTENSE ê
VOICE
ê
êë PRED
[ "Rabe and Rakoto" ] ù
[ PRED PROrecip]
ú
ú
PST
ú
ú
ACTIVE
ú
'kick'úû
éSUBJ êOBJ 1
ê
êOBJ2 ê
TENSE
ê
êVOICE ê
ëPRED [ PRED 'I']
ù
[ "Rabe and Rakoto" ]
ú
ú
[ PRED PROrecip]
ú
ú
PST
ú
ACTIVE
ú
ú
'make_kick'û
Figure 11.1 F-structures with and without Causativization
Manning (1996b:7) notes that both the causee and causer in causative constructions are a-subjects.
This means that in theory both the subject and the higher object in a Malagasy causative
construction could bind to the reciprocal pronoun. However, as Keenan & Razafimamonjy
(2001:68) point out, the subject may not act as the antecedent to the reciprocal pronoun:
(128) *M-amp-ifank-aha-lala an-dRabe ny mpampianatra
pres-caus-rec-cause.to.know acc.Rabe the teachers
'The teachersi are making Rabe get to know each otheri'
(Keenan & Razafimamonjy 2001:68)
I believe this restriction to be the result of the sequential application of the causative and
reciprocal morphemes. While the subject of the causative might be a valid binder for the reciprocal
morpheme, if we allow that the causative morpheme is applied after the reciprocal construction,
then binding of the reciprocal is already established. The incrementally built causative of reciprocal
constructions below clarify this point: 59
59 In fact, as Hyman (2002) has shown for Bantu languages, the situation may be more complex than this suggests.
However, a fuller discussion of this issue is beyond the scope of this thesis.
106

(129) Grammatical causative of reciprocal construction
a. M-aha-lala azy Rabe sy Rakoto
pres-pot/cause-know him Rabe and Rakoto
'Rabe and Rakoto know/get to know him'
b. M-ifanka-aha-lala Rabe sy Rakoto
pres-rec-pot/cause-know Rabe and Rakoto
'Rake and Rakoto get to know each other'
c. M-amp-ifanka-aha-lala an-dRabe sy Rakoto aho
pres-cause-rec-pot/cause-know acc.Rabe and Rakoto aho
'I made Rake and Rakoto get to know each other'
(130) Ungrammatical causative of reciprocal construction
a. M-aha-lala azy Rabe
pres-pot/cause-know him Rabe
'Rabe knows/gets to know him'
b. *M-ifanka-aha-lala Rabe
pres-rec-pot/cause-know Rabe
'Rabe gets to know each other'
c. *M-amp-ifanka-aha-lala an-dRabe Rakoto sy Ranaivo
pres-cause-rec-pot/cause-know acc.Rabe Rakoto and Ranaivo
'Rakoto and Ranaivo made Rabe get to know each other'
(Sentences (129) and (130) are based on the examples provided by Keenan & Razafimamonjy
2001:45,68)
Additional evidence that the causative and reciprocal constructions are applied sequentially can be
seen simply by considering the different syntactic and semantic behavior of reciprocals of causatives
(see below) compared with causatives of reciprocals. Note that the entity which the reciprocal
pronoun binds to remains the same when the reciprocal pronoun is causativized – although the
function to which it binds changes (i.e., from SUBJ to OBJ). This is in concordance with Manning's
arguments that binding should occur at the level of a-structure, and not at the level of f-structure.
11.4.2 Reciprocals of Causatives (-if-amp-)
The reciprocalization of causative constructions exhibits different behavior depending upon
whether the initial verb is transitive or intransitive. Both are investigated below.
107

Reciprocals of causatives of intransitive verbs
Clauses containing intransitive verbs that are subsequently causativized (and so become transitive)
may be productively reciprocalized. The sentences below demonstrate the a-structure associated
with each step in the process of creating a reciprocal causative construction:
(131)
a. M-i-jaly Rabe
pres-act-suffer Rabe
'Rabe suffers'
Suffer
|
SUBJ
'Rabe'
b. M-amp-i-jaly an-dRabe Rasoa
pres-caus-act-suffer acc.Rabe Rasoa
'Rasoa makes Rabe suffer'
CAUSE
| |
SUBJ OBJ
'Rasoa' 'Rabe'
c. M-if-amp-i-jaly Rabe sy Rasoa
pres-rec-caus-act-suffer Rabe and Rasoa
'Rabe and Rasoa make each other suffer'
CAUSE
| |
SUBJ OBJ
'Rabe and Rasoa' recip
(Keenan & Razafimamonjy 2001:70)
Note that in (131c) the reciprocal pronoun is both acting as the agent of 'suffer' and as the patient
of 'cause'. This allows the reciprocal pronoun to be bound by the causative agent. Given the f-
transitive analysis of reciprocal constructions, sentence (131c) may be easily accounted for using the
lexical entry of the reciprocal morpheme that places a reciprocal pronoun in the object position of
the verb:
108

(132)
M-if-amp-i-jaly v (↑PRED) = ‘make_suffer’
(↑TENSE) = PRES
(↑VOICE) = ACTIVE
(↑OBJ PRED) = PROr e c i p
[ ]
[ recip]
éSUBJ "Rabe and Rasoa"
ù
êOBJ PRED PRO
ú
ê ú
êTENSE PRES
ú
ê ú
VOICE ACTIVE
ê ú
êë PRED 'make_suffer'úû
Figure 11.2 F-structure for the sentence “Rabe and Rakoto made each other suffer”
As the f-structure above demonstrates, the f-transitive analysis of the reciprocal construction treats
a causativized intransitive verb as a regular transitive verb. Furthermore, the binding is
straightforward – the pronoun finds its antecedent in the subject.
Reciprocals of Causatives of Transitive Verbs
The f-transitive analysis of reciprocal constructions cannot make a clear prediction as to the
grammaticality of the reciprocalized causatives of transitive verbs. Examine the sentences below
and their corresponding a-structures:
(133)
a. M-an-daka an-Rabe Ranaivo
pres-act-kick acc.Rabe Ranaivo
'Ranaivo kicks Rabe'
Kick < [Agent] [Patient] >
| |
SUBJ OBJ
'Ranaivo' 'Rabe'
b. M-amp-an-daka an-dRabe an-dRasoa Rakoto
pres-caus-act-kick acc.Rabe acc.Rasoa Rakoto
'Rakoto made Rasoa kick Rabe'
109

Cause < [Agent] [Patient] Kick < [Agent] [Patient] > >
| | |
SUBJ OBJ1 OBJ2
'Rakoto' 'Rasoa' 'Rabe'
If (133b) were to be reciprocalized, the following f-description for the reciprocal morpheme is
added to the information provided by the verb:
(↑OBJ PRED) = PROr e c i p
In the presence of two OBJ functions, it is not clear how the lexical definition of the reciprocal
morpheme should be applied. Does it add a reciprocal pronoun to both object positions, just one or
none? The most natural analysis would be to assume that the reciprocal pronoun could be added to
either OBJ function – (assuming that the reciprocal pronoun has access to a plural NP as an
antecedent). However, examining the a-structure of (133b) above, we see that a reciprocal pronoun
acting as the patient of 'kick' cannot be bound by the agent of 'cause' because it is required to be
locally bound. Having ruled out that the possibility of the reciprocal pronoun acting as the patient of
'kick', (133c) demonstrates the other alternative where the reciprocal pronoun is in the OBJ1
position:
(133)
c. #M-if-amp-an-daka an-Rabe Rakoto sy Ranaivo
pres-rec-cause-act-kick acc.Rabe Rakoto and Ranaivo
'Rakoto and Ranaivo made each other kick Rabe' (Keenan & Razafimamonjy 2001:70)
Cause < [Agent] [Patient] Kick < [Agent] [Patient] > >
| | |
SUBJ OBJ1 OBJ2
'Rakoto and Ranaivo' PROrecip 'Rabe'
However, while sentence (133c) is considered grammatical by Malagasy speakers 60 – its
interpretation is “enigmatic” and speakers are unsure on reflection how to interpret it (Keenan &
Razafimamonjy 2001:70). Andrianierenana notes (1996:72):
“One can apply successively the interpretative schemata for reciprocals
60 Sentences like (134c) even appear in Malagasy grammars (Keenan & Razafimamonjy 2001:70)
110

and causatives and get a coherent result, but native speakers don’t really
understand them. Their attempts to give a quick meaning usually don’t
follow the expected schemata, even those given in grammars.”
This result is surprising – and one that has yet to be accounted for in the literature. Upon further
investigation, Keenan & Razafimamonjy (2001:72) find that a reflexive pronoun is ungrammatical
in the higher object position. They suggest that an explanation of this might lie with some aspect of
binding rather than reciprocals per se:
(134) a. M-amp-a-mono ilay omby Rakoto Rabe
pres-caus-act-kill that cow Rakoto Rabei
'Rabe made Rakoto kill that cow'
b. *M-amp-a-mono ilay omby tena Rabe
pres-caus-act-kill that cow selfi Rabei
'Rabe made himself kill that cow' (Keenan & Razafimamonjy 2001:72)
However, the reciprocalization of causative constructions based upon intransitive verbs
demonstrates that binding to the subject of the causative construction is possible. Another avenue
worth investigation is that causatives of transitive verbs are not identical in a-structure to regular
ditransitive verbs because they select different arguments (the former selecting a subject, object and
oblique object while the latter selecting a subject and two objects). For present purposes, I will
follow the analysis by Keenan & Razafimamonjy (2001) that assumes that these constructions are
grammatical – as predicted by the f-transitive analysis presented here, but are ruled out by other
semantic and/or pragmatic constraints.
11.5 Conclusion
The f-transitive analysis of the reciprocal morpheme successfully predicts the grammaticality of
causatives of reciprocal constructions, and reciprocals of causative constructions. While reciprocals
of causatives of transitive verbs are grammatical, native speakers of Malagasy do not have a clear
conception of their interpretation. To account for this fact, Keenan & Razafimamonjy (2001:72)
suggest that some binding constraint is being violated, although if this were the case, the fact that
causatives of intransitive verbs may be reciprocalized productively would still need to be explained.
I will assume that a clear interpretation of these constructions is ruled out by some other semantic
and/or pragmatic constraints.
111

Chapter 12
Nominalization of Reciprocal Expressions
12.1 Introduction
Nominalization is a process whereby nouns are derived from verbs. For example:
drive (v.) driver (n.)
Malagasy nominalizes verbs by replacing the tense morpheme with mp-. This process is very
productive, forming either lexicalized nouns or simple derivative interpretations. Keenan &
Razafimamonjy (2001:61) give examples of both:
(135)
a. mianatra 'studies' mpianatra 'student'
b. mandeha 'goes' mpandeha 'one who goes'
(Keenan & Razafimamonjy 2001:61)
Keenan & Razafimamonjy describe mpianatra as a lexicalized nominal – presumably it now has
meanings in addition to 'one who studies'. However mpandeha 'one who goes' is used naturally to
describe any one participant in the event described by mandeha 'goes'.
12.2 Nominalization as a Lexical Rule
The LFG account of nominalization that I assume, treats nominalization as a purely lexical
process. The result of nominalization is that the verb becomes a noun. It loses its subject, but its
112

other arguments remain. For example:
go one_who_goes
visit one_who_visits
give one_who_gives
12.3 Nominalization and Reciprocity
I have argued that the reciprocal morpheme simply introduces a reciprocal pronoun into the f-
structure of a clause. This analysis was motivated in part by the fact that reciprocal constructions
behave syntactically like their non-reciprocal counterparts. 61 Given this analysis then, and provided
that the semantics are acceptable, we would expect that reciprocalized verbs should nominalize
productively. This is the case, and the f-transitive analysis of the reciprocal morpheme can account
for the grammaticality of some very complex constructions. To demonstrate this, consider example
(136) below (the nominalized expression is in bold):
(136)
M-if-am-angy matetika ireo mpifanantena zanaka ho salama ireo
pres-rec-act-visit often these nom-rec-act-hope children comp healthy these
'Those people who hope(d) each other’s children were healthy visit each other often'
(Keenan & Razafimamonjy 2001:62)
There are two reciprocal expressions in (136). The nominalized expression, which contains a
reciprocal construction, is acting as the subject to the main verb mifamangy “visit each other”. So
the structure of the sentence is:
61 Nominalized reciprocals create an interesting issue with respect to the binding of the reciprocal pronoun. When a
Malagasy verb is nominalized, the non-subject arguments selected by the verb are retained by the nominalized
expression. This means the reciprocal pronoun actually binds to the noun that hosts it. In other words, the antecedent
of the reciprocal pronoun is the nominal itself. I'm not aware of any work on binding within nominalized expressions
in the literature – however, if required, such an extension to binding theory should be straightforward. Semantically,
the binding of nominalized reciprocal expressions fits with our perceptions of the reciprocal situations described. For
example, in a sentence such as 'Those ravishers of each other’s spouses', the set of entities participating in the
reciprocal situation is the group of ravishers. The relationship they share with each other's spouses is retrieved
pragmatically – ravishing is what ravishers do.
113

(137)
M - if - amangy matetika ireo mpifanantena zanaka ho salama ireo
14444244443 1444444444442444444444443
VP
64444744448
visit each other often
Subject NP
6444444444447444444444448
those people who hope each other's children to be healthy
The following points should be noted with respect to the subject NP:
The ho complementizer shows that the nominalized verb is in a control construction. See
section 7.4. This is reflected in the lexical definition of mpifanantena.
The presence of the reciprocal morpheme in mpifanantena 'hoper' requires that zanaka
'children' be in a possessor relation with the reciprocal (otherwise the related f-structure
would be incoherent – see section 4.2.3).
salama 'healthy' is the controlled clause. It is in a copular construction with the object of
the lower verb. 62
The determiners ireo 'those' are not only used to make the subject specific (a subject
requirement in Malagasy – see section 3.4), but also aid in framing the right-edge of the
nominalized expression (see Pearson 1998:108). For simplicity, they will not be
represented in either the c- or f-structure below.
Now we can see the inner structure of the subject NP. The arrows below indicate the arguments of
the nominalized verb:
(138)
ireo mpifanantena zanaka ho salama ireo
those rec-hopers (children) ( comp healthy ) those
Det N NP XCOMP Det
lit. 'those hopers each other's children to be healthy those'
'those people who hope each other's children are healthy'
Note that when a verb in Malagasy is nominalized, the arguments that it selects (with the
exception of the subject argument) remain selected by the newly formed noun. The lexical entries
for constituents in sentence (136) are given below:
62 Recall that the Malagasy copular construction does not require a verb.
114

matetika adv (↑PRED) = ‘often’
mp-if-an-antena n (↑PRED) = ‘hoper(↑OBJ)’
(↑XCOMP SUBJ) = (↑OBJ)
(↑OBJ POSS PRED) = PROr e c i p
zanaka n (↑PRED) = ‘children_of’
salama adj (↑PRED) = ‘healthy(↑SUBJ)’
I have sketched in an approximation of the c-structure for sentence (136). It does not include
determiners, and the position of the adverb matetika 'often' might need to be moved depending on
whether it is acting as a sentential or verbal adverb:
IP
C-structure
↑ = ↓ ↑ = ↓ (↑SUBJ) = ↓
VP AP NP
↑ = ↓ matetika ↑ = ↓ (↑OBJ) = ↓ (↑XCOMP) = ↓
V (↑PRED) = 'often' N NP CP
Mifamangy ↑ = ↓ ↑ = ↓
(↑PRED) = ‘visit’ ↑ = ↓ C AP
(↑TENSE) = PRES N ho
(↑VOICE) = ACTIVE zanaka
(↑OBJ PRED) = PROrecip (↑PRED) = ‘children_of’
↑ = ↓
mpifanantena A
(↑PRED) = ‘hoper(↑OBJ)’
(↑XCOMP SUBJ) = (↑OBJ)
(↑OBJ POSS PRED) = PROrecip salama
(↑PRED) = ‘healthy(↑SUBJ)’
Figure 12.1 C-structure for sentence 135
To understand how the lexical entries build the corresponding f-structure, I will build the f-
structure incrementally. To begin, let us examine the XCOMP argument of mpifanantena above.
The XCOMP requires a subject in order for the sentence to be grammatical. Recall that adjectives in
Malagasy enter into copular constructions with an NP without the presence of a copular verb. The
LFG representation of this copular construction follows:
115

(139)
XCOMP
[ ]
éSUBJ ù
êPRED 'healthy'ú
ë û
The OBJ NP of mpifanantena 'hopers' contains the reciprocal pronoun created by the reciprocal
morpheme. Recall that the reciprocal pronoun can be created in several different non-subject
positions. In figure 12.2 below, I have contrasted the two most likely positions (OBJ and OBJ
POSS) with zanaka (which is either 'children' or 'children_of'). Given the presence of the
reciprocal pronoun, the only grammatical interpretation for zanaka is that it is in a possessor relation
with the reciprocal pronoun since all other possibilities result in ungrammatical f-structures:
Lexical Entries Resulting OBJ F-structure
Zanaka, n (↑PRED) = ‘children’
Mpifanantena, n
(↑PRED) = ‘hoper’
(↑XCOMP SUBJ) = (↑OBJ)
(↑OBJ PRED) = PROr e c i p
Zanaka, n (↑PRED) = ‘children’
Mpifanantena, n
(↑PRED) = ‘hoper’
(↑XCOMP SUBJ) = (↑OBJ)
(↑OBJ POSS PRED) = PROr e c i p
Zanaka, n (↑PRED) = ‘children_of’
Mpifanantena, n
(↑PRED) = ‘hoper’
(↑XCOMP SUBJ) = (↑OBJ)
(↑OBJ PRED) = PROr e c i p
Zanaka, n (↑PRED) = ‘children_of’
Mpifanantena, n
(↑PRED) = ‘hoper’
(↑XCOMP SUBJ) = (↑OBJ)
(↑OBJ POSS PRED) = PROr e c i p
*OBJ
éPRED 'children'ù
ê ú
ëPRED PROrecip
û
This f-structure is ungrammatical because it
contains two PRED features.
*OBJ
éPRED 'children' ù
ê ú
[ recip]
ëPOSS PRED PRO û
This f-structure is incoherent because the
POSS function is not selected by the PRED.
*OBJ
éPRED 'children_of< ­ POSS>'ù
ê ú
ëPRED 'PRO recip'
û
This f-structure is ungrammatical because it
contains two PRED features.
OBJ
éPRED 'children_of< ­ POSS>'ù
êPOSS [ PRED PROrecip]
ú
ë û
This f-structure is grammatical because it is
both complete and coherent.
Figure 12.2 F-structures Resulting from Different Lexical Definitions of the Reciprocal
Morpheme and Zanaka.
116

Now that we have grammatical f-structures for each of the arguments that is selected by
mpifanantena 'hopers', we can put them together:
é éPRED 'children_of'ùù
êOBJ êPOSS [ PRED PROrecip]
úú
ê ë ûú
ê éSUBJ [ ]
ù ú
êXCOMP êPRED 'healthy'ú
ú
ê ë û ú
êPRED 'hoper( ­ OBJ)' ú
ê ú
ë û
Figure 12.3 F-structure for 'Those people who hope each other’s children are healthy'
Finally, we need to create the f-structure for the main verb mifamangy “visit”. This is a
straightforward transitive reciprocal construction (see section 7.7), and thus I will present the
completed f-structure below:
é é éPRED 'children_of'ùù
ù
ê êOBJ êPOSS [ PRED 'PROrecip'] úúú
ê ê ë ûúú
ê ê éSUBJ [ ]
ù úú
êSUBJ êXCOMP ê
PRED 'healthy'
ú úú
ê ê ë û úú
ê êPRED 'hoper( ­ OBJ)' úú
ê ê úú
ê ë ûú
êOBJ [ PRED PROrecip]
ú
ê ú
êADJ [ PRED 'often']
ú
ê ú
TENSE PRES
ê ú
êVOICE ACT
ú
ê ú
ëPRED 'visit'
û
Figure 12.4 F-structure for 'Those people who hope each other’s children are healthy visit
each other often'
As demonstrated above, we can account for the grammaticality of complex nominalized reciprocal
constructions. Furthermore, this analysis was accomplished using only the definition of the
reciprocal morpheme given in section 8.6 and the standard LFG analysis of control and possession -
no additional rules or exceptions were required to account for nominalized reciprocal expressions.
117

12.4 The F-intransitive Analysis of Nominalized Reciprocals
The f-intransitive analysis cannot account for the grammaticality of nominalized control verbs in
reciprocal constructions. Recalling section 7.6, the f-intransitive analysis of reciprocalized control
verbs I suggest takes the OBJ to be suppressed, and the subject of the XCOMP to be controlled by
the subject of the main verb. Thus, the lexical entry for mpifanantena above might be: 63
(140)
mpifanantena n (↑PRED) = ‘hoper_each_other’
(↑XCOMP SUBJ) = (↑SUBJ)
However, since the nominalized verb no longer selects a subject – and has suppressed its object, it
is not clear what grammatical function could be controlling the XCOMP. As the f-structure below
indicates, the XCOMP's f-structure is incomplete because the PRED selects a subject function that
is not present within the f-structure: 64
Figure 12.5 Incomplete F-structure for nominalized reciprocal control verb 'hope'
This is further evidence of the inadequacy of the f-intransitive analysis when trying to account for
complex reciprocal constructions in Malagasy. Furthermore, it demonstrates the importance of
applying an analysis of reciprocals in Malagasy to a variety of different constructions.
12.5 Conclusion
SUBJ
é éPRED 'healthy'ù
ù
êXCOMP ê ?
ú ú
ê
ë û
ú
êë PRED 'hoper_each_other'úû
The f-transitive analysis of the reciprocal morpheme accounts for nominalization of reciprocal
constructions in Malagasy and it does so using only the standard LFG analysis of control and
63 Assuming the nominalization process is as I described in 12.1, where its only effect is to remove the subject from the
verb's a-structure.
64 The copular construction could be replaced with a regular predicate (such as 'to have cultivated rice') in order to
demonstrate that salama 'healthy' does indeed select a subject, and is not acting as a modifier.
118

possession. In contrast, the f-intransitive analysis, if it could be used to account for such a complex
sentence, would require a new analysis to account for reciprocals in control, possession and
nominalization constructions.
119

Chapter 13
Conclusion
In this thesis I have examined two analyses of the principle reciprocal construction in Malagasy.
Both analyses treat the reciprocalized verb as having lost an argument at the level of c-structure, but
they differ in how they treat the verb in f-structure. The f-intransitive analysis proposed in the
literature for similar constructions in Bantu (Alsina (1996), Mchombo & Ngunga (1980), Mchombo
(1991) and Dalrymple & Mchombo & Peters (1994)) treats the reciprocalized verb as having lost an
argument at the level of f-structure. In contrast, I have proposed the f-transitive analysis which
leaves the verb unchanged and instead requires that the reciprocal morpheme creates a reciprocal
pronoun in the f-structure as one of the non-subject arguments of the verb.
I have shown that while the f-intransitive analysis of reciprocals can account for simple reciprocal
constructions, no serious attempt has been made in the literature to show how this analysis could
still account for the syntax of reciprocals in more complex constructions. When examining
reciprocals in conjunction with control, possession and nominalized control constructions, I have
argued that the f-intransitive analysis could not be extended in a theoretically plausible or consistent
manner to account for their grammaticality. Given that other language independent arguments
supporting the f-intransitive analysis (such as the object comparison test among others) either do not
apply to Malagasy, or are indeterminate in their application, I proposed the f-transitive analysis of
the reciprocal construction in Malagasy.
The f-transitive analysis of reciprocal constructions requires that the reciprocal morpheme creates
a reciprocal pronoun in the f-structure as a non-subject argument of the verb. The distribution of the
120

eciprocal pronoun is captured by the following lexical definition:
-if- (↑OBLθ) (↑OBJ) (↑POSS) PRED = PROr e c i p
I suggested a possible extension to this definition during the examination of complements. The
semi-grammaticality of the resulting clauses might well be attributed to a tension between the desire
to generalize the domain of the reciprocal morpheme even further and constraints on binding.
I have shown that the f-transitive analysis naturally accounts for a range of complex data,
including possession and control constructions with a variety of different verb types. In combination
with Manning's (1996a,b) universal theory of binding, this analysis also accounts for the
grammaticality of the reciprocal morpheme in circumstantial, causativization and nominalization
constructions with all arities of verbs. In contrast, I have demonstrated the difficultly of accounting
for this range of data using the f-intransitive analysis of the reciprocal construction.
This analysis of the reciprocal morpheme in Malagasy has expanded our understanding of the
interaction between reciprocal and other syntactic constructions. Furthermore, the f-transitive
analysis has contributed to the framework of LFG by providing an alternative analysis of c-
intransitive reciprocal constructions.
121

Bibliography
Andrianierenana, C. 1996. Morphological causatives in Malagasy. In, Pearson, M. & Paul, I. 1996.
pp 58-75.
Alsina, A. 1996. The role of argument structure in grammar. CSLI lecture notes 62. Stanford,
California: CSLI Publications.
Alsina, A. 1997. Causatives in Bantu and Romance. In Alsina, A. & Bresnan, J. & Sells, P. (eds)
1997. Complex Predicates. CSLI Publications.
Bresnan, J. 2001. Lexical-functional syntax. Blackwell.
Chomsky, N. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
Cook, E. & Rice, K. (eds.) 1989. Athapaskan Linguistics: current perspectives on a language
family. Trends in Linguistics, State-of-the-art reports, 15. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Dalrymple, M. 2001. Syntax and semantics: Lexical functional grammar. Academic Press.
Dalrymple, M. & Kaplan, R. 2000. Feature indeterminacy and feature resolution. In Language,
Vol 76, Number 4. pp 759-798.
Dalrymple, M. Mchombo, S. & Peters, S. 1994. Semantic similarities and syntactic contrasts
between Chichewa and English reciprocals. Linguistic Inquiry, Vol 25, Number 1, Winter
1994:145-163
Dalrymple, M. & Kanazawa, M. & Kim, Y. & Mchombo, S. & Peters, S. 1998. Reciprocal
122

Expressions and the concept of reciprocity. Linguistics and Philosophy 21:159-210.
Dowty, D. 1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67:547-619
Evans, N. & Nordlinger, R. 2003. Compromising transitivity: the problem of reciprocals.
Departmental Seminar, University of Melbourne, August 2003.
Falk, Y. 2001. Lexical-Functional Grammar – An introduction to Parallel Constraint-Based
Syntax. CSLI Lecture notes number 126. CSLI Publications
Greenberg, J. S. 1963. Some universals of grammar with paticular reference to the order of
meaningful elements. In Greenberg, J. ed. Universals of Language. (2 nd ed.) pp. 73-113. MIT Press.
Huddleston, R. 1976. An introduction to English Transformational Syntax. Title 10, Reader in
Linguistics, University of Queensland. Longman.
Hyman, L. 2002. Suffix Ordering in Bantu: A Morphocentric Approach. (ms: Berkeley, University
of California)
Jackendoff, R. 1990. Semantic structures. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press
Kaplan, R. & Bresnan, J. 1982. Lexical-functional grammar: a formal system for grammatical
representation. In Bresnan, J. (ed.) 1982. The mental representation of grammatical relations.
Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Keenan, E. L. & Ochs, E. 1979. Becoming a competent speaker of Malagasy. In, Shopen, T (ed.)
1979. Languages and their speakers. Winthrop:Massachusetts. pp 113-160.
Keenan, E. L. & Polinsky, M. 1998. Malagasy (Austronesian). In, Spencer, A. & Zwicky, A. (eds.)
1998. The handbook of morphology. Blackwell. pp 563-623.
Keenan, E. L. & Razafimamonjy, J. P. 1996. Malagasy Morphology: Basic Rules. In Pearson, M.
& Paul, I. 1996. pp 31-48.
123

Keenan, E. L. & Razafimamonjy, J. P. 2001. Reciprocals in Malagasy. In Torrence, H. 2001. pp
40-90.
93.
Keenan, E. L. & Ralalaoherivony, B. 1998. Raising from NP in Malagasy. In Paul, I. 1998. pp 65-
Kemmer, S. 1993. The Middle Voice. John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia
Lichtenberk, F. 1985. Multiple uses of reciprocal constructions. In: Australian Journal of
Linguistics 5, pp. 19-41
Luke, K. & Bodomo, A. & Nancarrow, O. 2001. The subject condition in Cantonese. Proceedings
of LFG01 Conference, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong 2001. Available at: http://csli-
publications.stanford.edu/LFG/6/lfg01lukeetal.pdf
Manning, C. D. 1996a. Argument structure as a locus for binding theory. In Miriam Butt & Tracy
Holloway King (eds.) Proceedings of First Conference on LFG. Online at CSLI Publications.
Manning, C. D. 1996b. Ergativity – Argument structure and grammatical relations. CSLI
publications.
Mchombo, S & Ngalande, R. M. 1980. Reciprocal verbs in Chichewa: a case for lexical
derivation. Bulletin of the school of Oriental and African studies, University of London, Vol 45.
1980
Mchombo, S. 1991. Reciprocalization in Chichewa: A lexical account. Linguistic Analysis, 21:3-
22 1991.
Mchombo, S. & Ngunga, A. 1994. The syntax and semantics of the reciprocal construction in
Ciyao. Linguistic Analysis, 24:3-31 (1994)
Mchombo, S. 1999. Quantification and verb morphology: The case of reciprocals in African
languages. Linguistic Analysis, 29:182-213, 1999
124

Paul, I. 1996. The Malagasy Genitive. In, Pearson, M. & Paul, I. 1996. pp 76-91.
Paul, I. (ed.) 1998. The Structure of Malagasy – Volume 2. UCLA Occasional papers in
linguistics, number 20.
Paul, I. & Rabaovololona, L. 1998. Raising to object in Malagasy. In Paul, I. 1998. pp 50-64.
Payne, D. & Barshi, I. (eds.) 1999. External possession. Amsterdam ; Philadelphia : John
Benjamins
Pearson, M. 1996. Domain phrases and topic arguments in Malagasy Existentials. In, Pearson, M.
& Paul, I. (eds.) 1996. pp: 113-141.
Pearson, M. & Paul, I. (eds.) 1996. The Structure of Malagasy – Volume 1. UCLA Occasional
papers in linguistics, number 17.
Pearson, M. 1998. Predicate raising and 'VOS' order in Malagasy. In Paul, I. 1998. pp 94-110.
Potsdam, Eric 2002. Evidence for Semantic Identity under Ellipsis from Malagasy Sluicing. Paper
presented at NELS 33, available at : http://web.clas.ufl.edu/users/potsdam/papers/NELS33.pdf
Rabenilaina, R. 1998. Voice and diathesis in Malagasy: An overview. In Paul, I. 1998. pp 2-10.
Rackowski, A. 1998. Malagasy Adverbs. In Paul, I. 1998. pp 11-34.
Rajaona, S. 1977. Problemes de morphologie malgache. Fianarantsoa: Ambozontany.
Sandoval, M. & Jelinek, E. 1989. The bi- construction and pronominal arguments in Apachean. In
Cook, E. & Rice, K. (eds.) 1989. pp 335-377.
Saxon, L. 1989. Lexical versus syntactic projection: the configurationality of Slave. In Cook, E. &
Rice, K. (eds.) 1989. pp 379-406.
Speas, M. 1990. Phrase structure in natural language. Boston: Kluwer.
125

Torrence, H. (ed.) 2001. Papers in African Linguistics 1, UCLA Department of Linguistics,
Number 6, May 2001. UCLA working papers in linguistics.
Zec, Draga. 1985. Objects in Serbo-Croatian. In Proceedings of the eleventh annual meeting of
the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 358-371. Berkeley Linguistics Society, University of California,
Berkeley.
126