The syntax and semantics of applicative morphology in Bantu

References (220)

1. a. M-lenji 1-hunter a-na-u-dul-ir-a 1S-PST-3O-cut-APPL-FV m-nyumba. 18-9.house 'The hunter cut it in the house.
2. *M-lenji 1-hunter a-na-mu-dul-ir-a 1S-PST-18O-cut-APPL-FV m-kate. 3-bread Intended: 'The hunter cut the bread there.' c. *M-lenji 1-hunter a-na-i-dul-ir-a 1S-PST-9O-APPL-FV m-kate. 3-bread Intended: 'The hunter cut the bread there.' CHW (52) a. Umu-higi 1-hunter y-a-ha-tem-ey-e 1S-PST-16O-cut-APPL-PERF igi-ti. 7-tree 'The hunter cut the tree there.' b. Umu-higi 1-hunter y-a-gi-tem-ey-e 1S-PST-7O-cut-APPL-PERF mw' in i-shyamba. 5-forest 'The hunter cut it in the forest.' KR (53) a. Omu-hayi 1-hunter a-∅-ku-khal-il-a 1S-PST-3O-cut-APPL-FV mu-n-ju. 18-9-house 'The hunter cut it in the house.' b. *O-mu-hayi 1-1-hunter a-∅-mu-khal-il-a 1S-PST-18O-cut-APPL-FV ku-mu-kati. 3-3-bread 'The hunter cut the bread there.' LBK The passive diagnostic is symmetrical for all three languages. Note however that the locative clitic is obligatory with the Lubukusu passive. I return to this in §3.6. (54) a. M-nyumba 18-9.house mu-na-dul-ir-idw-a 18-PST-cut-APPL-PASS-FV m-kate. 3-bread 'In the house was cut the bread.' b. M-kate 3-bread u-na-dul-ir-idw-a 3S-PST-cut-APPL-PASS-FV m-nyumba. 18-9.house 'The bread was cut in the house.' CHW References
3. Ackerman, F. & Moore, J. (2001). Proto-properties and grammatical encoding: A corre- spondence theory of argument selection. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
4. Adams, N. (2010). The Zulu ditransitive verb phrase. PhD Dissertation, University of Chicago.
5. Aikhenvald, A. (2000). Transitivity in Tariana. In Dixon, R. M. W. & Aikhenvald, A. (eds.), Changing valency: Case studies in transitivity, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 312-331.
6. Alexiadou, A., Anagnostopoulou, E. & Schäfer, F. (2006). The properties of anti-causatives crosslinguistically. In Frascarelli, M. (ed.), Phases of interpretation, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 187-211.
7. Alsina, A. (1992). On the argument structure of causatives. Linguistic Inquiry 23. 517-555.
8. Alsina, A. & Mchombo, S. (1990). The syntax of applicatives in Chiche ŵa: Problems for a theta-theoretic asymmetry. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 8. 493-506.
9. Alsina, A. & Mchombo, S. (1993). Object asymmetries and the Chiche ŵa applicative construction. In Mchombo, S. (ed.), Theoretical aspects of Bantu grammar, Stanford: CSLI Publications. 17-45.
10. Amberber, M. (2002). Quirky alternations of transitivity: The case of ingestive predicates. In Amberber, M. & Collins, P. (eds.), Language universals and variation, Westport, CT: Praeger. 1-19.
11. Aranovich, R. (2009). Animacy effects and locative marking in Shona applicatives. In Butt, M. & King, T. (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG09 conference, Stanford: CSLI Publications. 65-84.
12. Asher, N. & Sablayrolles, P. (1995). A typology of discourse semantics for motion verbs and spatial PPs in French. Journal of Semantics 12. 163-209.
13. Ashton, E., Mulira, E., Ndawula, E. & Tucker, A. (1954). A Luganda grammar. Longmans, Green and Co.
14. Baker, M. (1988). Theta theory and the syntax of applicatives in Chiche ŵa. Natural Lan- guage and Linguistic Theory 6. 353-389.
15. Baker, M., Safir, K. & Sikuku, J. (2012). Sources of (a)symmetry in Bantu double object constructions. In Arnett, N. & Bennett, R. (eds.), Proceedings of the 30th west coast conference on formal linguistics, Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. 54- 64.
16. Bassa Vanrell, M. (2013). Preposition typology with manner of motion verbs in spanish. Master's thesis, University of Texas at Austin.
17. Bastin, Y. (1986). Les suffixes causatifs dans les langue bantoues. Africana Linguistica 10. 56-145.
18. Batibo, H. (1985). Le kesukuma (langue bantu de Tanzania): phonologie, morphologie. Paris: Centre de Recherches, d' Échanges et de Documentation Universitaire, Kenya.
19. Bax, A. & Diercks, M. (2012). Information structure constraints on object marking in Manyika. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 30. 185-202.
20. Beavers, J. (2010). The structure of lexical meaning: Why semantics really matters. Lan- guage 86. 821-864.
21. Beavers, J. (2011a). An aspectual analysis of ditransitive verbs of caused possession in English. Journal of Semantics 28. 1-54.
22. Beavers, J. (2011b). On affectedness. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 29. 335- 370.
23. Beavers, J. & Francez, I. (2012). Several problems for predicate decompositions. In Anti, Z., Chang, C. B., Hong, J., Houser, M., Sandy, C., Toosarvandani, M. & Yao, Y. (eds.), Proceedings of Berkeley linguistics society 32, Berkeley: University of California at Berkeley. 37-48.
24. Beavers, J. & Koontz-Garboden, A. (2013). Manner and result in verbal meaning. Linguis- tic Inquiry 43.
25. Beavers, J., Levin, B. & Tham, S. W. (2010). The typology of motion expressions revisited. Journal of Linguistics 46. 331-377.
26. Bittner, M. (1999). Concealed causatives. Natural Language Semantics 7. 1-78.
27. Bond, O. (2009). The locative applicative in Eleme. Transactions of the Philological Society 107. 1-30.
28. Bostoen, K. & Mundeke, L. (2011). The causative/applicative syncretism in Mbuun (Bantu B87, DRC): Semantic split or phonemic merger? Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 32. 179-218.
29. Bresnan, J. (1994). Locative inversion and the architecture of universal grammar. Language 70. 72-131.
30. Bresnan, J., Asudeh, A., Toivonen, I. & Wechsler, S. (2016). Lexical functional syntax, second edition. Wiley Blackwell.
31. Bresnan, J., Cueni, A., Tatiana & Baayen, R. H. (2007). Predicting the dative alternation. In Bouma, G., Kraemer, I. & Zwarts, J. (eds.), Cognitive foundations of interpretation, Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Science. 69-94.
32. Bresnan, J. & Kanerva, J. (1989). Locative inversion in Chiche ŵa: A case study of factor- ization in grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 20. 1-50.
33. Bresnan, J. & Mchombo, S. (1987). Topic, pronoun, and agreement in Chichewa. Language 63. 741-782.
34. Bresnan, J. & Moshi, L. (1990). Object asymmetries in comparative Bantu syntax. Lin- guistic Inquiry 21. 147-185.
35. Buell, L. (2006). Issues in zulu verbal morphosyntax. PhD Dissertation, UCLA.
36. Byarushengo, E., Duranti, A. & Hyman, L. (1977). Haya grammatical structure. University of Southern California Press.
37. Cann, R. & Mabugu, P. (2007). Constructional polysemy: The applicative construction in chiShona. Metalinguistica 19. 221-245.
38. Carstens, V. (2001). Multiple agreement and case deletion: Against φ-incompleteness. Syntax 4. 147-163.
39. Carstens, V. & Diercks, M. (2013). Agreeing how? Implications for theories of agreement and locality. Linguistic Inquiry 44. 179-237.
40. Chierchia, G. (2004). A semantics of unaccusatives and its syntactic consequences. In Alexiadou, A., Anagnostopoulou, E. & Everaert, M. (eds.), The unaccusativity puzzle: Explorations of the syntax-lexicon interfact, Oxford: Oxford University Press. 288-331.
41. Chomsky, N. (1995). The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
42. Chomsky, N. (2000). Minimalist enquiries: The framework. In Martin, R., Michaels, D. & Uriagereka, J. (eds.), Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 89-115.
43. Chomsky, N. (2001). Derivation by phase. In Kenstowicz, M. (ed.), Ken hale: A life in language, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 1-52.
44. Comrie, B. (1985). Causative verb formation and other verb-deriving morphology. In Shopen, T. (ed.), Language typology and linguistic description III, Cambridge: Cam- bridge University Press. 309-348.
45. Comrie, B. (1989). Language universals and linguistic typology. Chicago: Chicago Uni- versity Press.
46. Cooper, R. (1976). Lexical and non-lexical causatives in Bantu. In Shibatani, M. (ed.), Syntax and semantics vol. 6, New York: Academic Press. 312-24.
47. Creissels, D. (2004). Non-canonical applicatives and focalization in Tswana. Paper pre- sented at the symposium 'Syntax of the World's Languages', Leipzig.
48. Creissels, D. (2006). Encoding the distinction between location and destination: A typolog- ical study. In Hickmann, M. & Robert, S. (eds.), Space in languages: Linguistic systems and cognitive categories, Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 19-28.
49. Croft, W. (1991). Syntactic categories and grammatical relations: The cognitive organiza- tion of information. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
50. Croft, W. (1998). Event structure in argument linking. In Butt, M. & Geuder, W. (eds.), The projection of arguments: Lexical and syntactic constraints, Stanford: CSLI Publications. 21-63.
51. Davy, J. & Nurse, D. (1982). Synchronic versions of Dahl's Law: The multiple applications of a phonological dissimilation rule. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 157- 195.
52. de Blois, K. (1970). The augment in Bantu languages. Africana Linguistica 4. 85-165.
53. Diercks, M. (2010). Agreement with subjects in Lubukusu. Ph.D. dissertation, Georgetown University.
54. Diercks, M. (2011). Incorporating location in argument structure: The Lubukusu locative clitic. In Bokamba, E., Shosted, R. & Ayalew, B. (eds.), Selected proceedings of the 40th annual conference on african linguistics: African languages and linguistics today, Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. 65-79.
55. Diercks, M. (2012). Parameterizing Case: Evidence from Bantu. Syntax 15. 253-286.
56. Diercks, M. (2013). Indirect agree in Lubukusu complementizer agreement. Natural Lan- guage and Linguistic Theory 31. 357-407.
57. Diercks, M. & Sikuku, J. (2011). The alternative agreement affect in Lubukusu. Unpub- lished ms., Pomona College and Moi University.
58. Diercks, M. & Sikuku, J. (2013). Object clitics in a Bantu language: Deriving pronominal incorporation in Lubukusu. Unpublished ms., Pomona College and Moi University.
59. Dixon, R. & Aikhenvald, A. (1997). A typology of argument-determined constructions. In Bybee, J., Haiman, J. & Thompson, S. (eds.), Essays on language function and language type: Dedicated to T. Givón, Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 71-113.
60. Dixon, R. M. W. (1977). A grammar of Yidiñ. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
61. Dixon, R. M. W. (2000). A typology of causatives: Form, syntax, and meaning. In Dixon, R. M. W. & Aikhenvald, A. (eds.), Changing valency: Case studies in transitivity, Cam- bridge: Cambridge University Press. 30-83.
62. Donohue, M. (2001). Coding choices in argument structure: Austronesian applicatives in texts. Studies in Language 25. 217-254.
63. Dowty, D. (1979). Word meaning and montague grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
64. Dowty, D. (1989). On the semantic content of the notion 'thematic role'. In Chierchia, G., Partee, B. H. & Turner, R. (eds.), Properties, types, and meaning, Dordrecht: Kluwer. 69-130.
65. Dowty, D. (1991a). Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67. 547-619.
66. Dowty, D. (1991b). Towards a minimalist theory of syntactic structure. In Sijtsma, W. & van Horck, A. (eds.), Discontinuous constituency, Berlin: De Gruyter. 11-62.
67. Dryer, M. (1983). Indirect objects in Kinyarwanda revisited. In Perlmutter, D. (ed.), Studies in relational grammar vol. 1, Chicago: Chicago University Press. 129-140.
68. Engel, R. & Allhiser de Engel, M. (1987). Diccionario Zoque de Francisco Leon. México: Instituto Lingüístico de Verano.
69. Fillmore, C. J. (1968). The case for case. In Bach, E. & Harms, R. T. (eds.), Universals in linguistic theory, New York: Holt. 1-90.
70. Fillmore, C. J. (1970). The grammar of Hitting and Breaking. In Jacobs, R. & Rosenbaum, P. S. (eds.), Readings in English transformational grammar, Waltham: Ginn. 120-133.
71. Fodor, J. (1970). Three reasons for not deriving 'kill' from 'cause to die'. Linguistic Inquiry 1. 429-38.
72. Folli, R. & Harley, H. (2004). Consuming results in Italian and English: Flavors of v. In Slabakova, R. & Kempchinsky, P. (eds.), Aspectual inquiries, Dordrecht: Kluwer. 95- 120.
73. Folli, R. & Harley, H. (2007). Causation, obligation, and argument structure: On the nature of little v. Linguistic Inquiry 38. 197-238.
74. Folli, R. & Ramchand, G. (2005). Prepositions and results in Italian and English: an anal- ysis from event decomposition. In Verkuyl, H. J., de Swart, H. & van Hout, A. (eds.), Perspectives on aspect, Netherlands: Springer. 81-105.
75. Gary, J. & Keenan, E. (1977). On collapsing grammatical relations in universal grammar. In Cole, P. & Sadock, J. (eds.), Syntax and semantics: Grammatical relations, New York: Academic Press. 83-120.
76. Gazdar, G., Klein, E., Pullum, G. & Sag, I. (1985). Generalized phrase structure grammar. Harvard University Press.
77. Ginet, C. (1990). On action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
78. Givón, T. (1983). Topic continuity in discourse: An introduction. In Givón, T. (ed.), Topic continuity in discourse: A quantitative cross-linguistic study, Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 1-41.
79. Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
80. Goldberg, A. E. (2002). Surface generalizations: An alternative to alternations. Cognitive Linguistics 13. 327-356.
81. Goldberg, A. E. (2014). The information structure of the ditransitive informs its scope prop- erties and long-distance dependency constraints. In Bourns, S. K. & Myers, L. L. (eds.), Perspectives on linguistic structure and context: Studies in honor of Knud Lambrecht, Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 3-16.
82. Green, G. (1974). Semantic and syntactic regularity. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
83. Guerssel, M. (1986). On Berber verbs of change: A study of transitivity alternations. Cam- bridge, MA: MIT Press, Lexicon Project, Center for Cognitive Science.
84. Hale, K. & Keyser, S. (1993). On argument structure and the lexical expression of syntactic relations. In Hale, K. & Keyser, S. (eds.), The view from building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of sylvain bromberger, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 53-109.
85. Hale, K. & Keyser, S. (1997). The limits of argument structure. In Mendikoetxea, A. & Uribe-Etxebarria, M. (eds.), Theoretical issues at the morphology-syntax interface, Bilbao: Universida de País Vasco, Euskal Herriko Univertsitatca. 203-230.
86. Hale, K. & Keyser, S. (1998). The basic elements of argument structure. In Mit working papers in linguistics 32. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 73-118.
87. Hale, K. & Keyser, S. (2002). Prolegomenon to a theory of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
88. Harford, C. (1993). The applicative in ChiShona and Lexical Mapping Theory. In Mchombo, S. (ed.), Theoretical aspects of bantu grammar, Stanford: CSLI Publications. 93-111.
89. Harley, H. (1995). Sase bizarre: The structure of Japanese causatives. In Koskinen, P. (ed.), Proceedings of the canadian linguistic society meeting.
90. Harley, H. (2003). Possession in the double object construction. In Pica, P. & Rooryck, J. (eds.), Linguistic variation yearbook 2, Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 31-70.
91. Harley, H. (2008). On the causative construction. In Handbook of japanese linguistics, Oxford: Oxford University Press. 20-53.
92. Hemmings, C. (2013). Causatives and applicatives: The case for polysemy in Javanese. SOAS Working Papers in Linguistics 16. 167-194.
93. Henderson, B. (2006). The syntax and typology of Bantu relative clauses. PhD Dissertation, University of Illinois Urbana Champaign.
94. Hopper, P. J. (1985). Causes and affects. In Chicago Linguistic Society 21. 67-88.
95. Hyman, L. & Duranti, A. (1982). The object relation in Bantu. In Hopper, P. & Thompson, S. (eds.), Syntax and semantics 15: Studies in transitivity, New York: Academic Press. 217-239.
96. Ichihashi-Nakayama, K. (1996). The "applicative" in Hualapai: its fuctions and meanings. Cognitive Linguistics 7. 227-239.
97. Jackendoff, R. (1990). Semantic structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
98. Jeong, Y. (2007). Applicatives: Structure and interpretation from a minimalist perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
99. Jerro, K. (2013a). Argument structure and the typology of causatives in Kinyarwanda: Explaining the causative-instrumental syncretism. MA Report: University of Texas at Austin.
100. Jerro, K. (2013b). When quantifiers agree in person: Anomalous agreement in Bantu. In Studies in the linguistic: Illinois working papers. 21-36.
101. Jerro, K. (2015). Revisiting object symmetry in Bantu. In Ruth Kramer, O. T. B., Eliz- abeth Zsiga (ed.), The selected proceedings of the 44th Annual Conference on African Linguistics, Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. 130-145.
102. Jerro, K. (In Press). Locative applicatives and the semantics of verb class. In The selected proceedings of the 46th Annual Conference on African Linguistics.
103. Jerro, K. & Wechsler, S. (2015). Quantifiers and person morphology: The case study of Bantu. In Agreement from a diachronic perspective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 147- 164.
104. Jones, M. (1996). Foundations of French syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
105. Katamba, F. (2003). Bantu nominal morphology. In The Bantu languages, New York: Routledge. 103-120.
106. Kay, P. (2005). Argument structure constructions and the argument-adjunct distinction. In Fried, M. & Boas, H. C. (eds.), Grammatical constructions: Back to the roots, Amster- dam: John Benjamins. 71-98.
107. Kimenyi, A. (1979). Studies in Kinyarwanda and Bantu phonology. Carbondale: Linguistic Research Inc.
108. Kimenyi, A. (1980). A relational grammar of Kinyarwanda. University of California Press.
109. Kisseberth, C. & Abasheikh, M. I. (1977). The object relationship in Chi-mwi:ni, a Bantu language. In Cole, P. & Sadock, J. (eds.), Syntax and semantics: Grammatical relations, New York: Academic Press. 179-218.
110. Kittilä, S. (2005). Recipient-prominence vs. beneficiary-prominence. Linguistic Typology 9. 269-297.
111. Kittilä, S. & Zúñiga, F. (2010). Benefactives and malefactives: Typological perspectives and case studies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
112. Koenig, J.-P., Mauner, G., Bienvenue, G. & Conklin, K. (2008). What with? the anatomy of a (proto)-role. Journal of Semantics 25. 175-220.
113. Koontz-Garboden, A. (2007). States, changes of state, and the monotonicity hypothesis. PhD Dissertation, Stanford University.
114. Koontz-Garboden, A. (2009). Anticausativization. Natural Language and Linguistic The- ory 27. 77-138.
115. Koontz-Garboden, A. (2012). The monotonicity hypothesis. In McNally, L. & Demonte, V. (eds.), Telicity change and state: A cross-categorial view of event structure, Oxford: Oxford University Press. 139-161.
116. Koopman, H. (2000). Prepositions, postpositions, circumpositions and particles: The struc- ture of Dutch PPs. In Koopman, H. (ed.), The syntax of specifiers and heads, London: Routledge. 204-260.
117. Kratzer, A. (1996). Severing the external argument from its verb. In Phrase structure and the lexicon, Netherlands: Springer. 109-137.
118. Krejci, B. (2012). Causativization as antireflexivization: A study of middle and ingestive verbs. M.A. Report: University of Texas at Austin.
119. Kuroda, S.-Y. (1965). Causative forms in Japanese. Foundations of Language 30-50.
120. Kuroda, S.-Y. (1993). Lexical and productive causativesi in Japanese: an examination of the theory of paradigmatic structure. Journal of Japanese Linguistics 15. 1-83.
121. Ladusaw, W. & Dowty, D. (1988). Toward a non-grammatical account of thematic roles. In Wilkins, W. (ed.), Thematic relations, San Diego: Academic Press. 62-72.
122. Lakoff, G. (1965). On the nature of syntactic irregularity. Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana University Bloomington.
123. Levin, B. (1993). English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
124. Levin, B. & Rappaport Hovav, M. (1995). Unaccusativity: At the syntax-lexical semantics interface. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
125. Levin, B. & Rappaport Hovav, M. (2005). Argument realization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
126. Lewis, D. (1973). Causation. Journal of Philosophy 70. 556-567.
127. Lewis, M. P., Simons, G. F. & Fennig, C. D. (2016). Ethnologue: Languages of the world, nineteenth edition. Dallas, TX: SIL International. http://www.ethnologue.com.
128. Li, Y. (1990). X o -binding and verb incorporation. Linguistic Inquiry 21. 399-426.
129. Machobane, M. (1989). Some restrictions on the Sesotho transitivizing morphemes. Ph.D. dissertation, McGill University.
130. Maho, J. F. (1999). A comparative study of Bantu noun classes. Göteborg: Acta Universi- tatis Gothoburgensis.
131. Manning, C., Sag, I. & Iida, M. (1999). The lexical integrity principle of Japanese causatives. Studies in contemporary phrase structure grammar 39-79.
132. Marantz, A. (1984). On the nature of grammatical relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
133. Marantz, A. (1993). Implications of asymmetries in double object constructions. In Mchombo, S. (ed.), Theoretical aspects of Bantu grammar, Stanford: CSLI Publications. 113-148.
134. Marantz, A. (1997). No escape from syntax: Don't try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon. In U. Penn working papers in linguistics. vol. 4, 201-225.
135. Marlo, M. (2014). Exceptional patterns of object marking in Bantu. Studies in African Linguistics 43. 85-123.
136. Marlo, M. (2015). On the number of object markers in Bantu languages. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 36. 1-65.
137. Marten, L. (2003). The dynamics of Bantu applied verbs: An analysis at the syntax- pragmatics interface. In Lébikaza, K. K. (ed.), Acts du 3e congrès mondial de linguistique africaine lomé 2000, Köln: Köppe. 207-221.
138. Marten, L. & Kempson, R. (2002). Pronouns, agreement, and the dynamic construction of verb phrase interpretation: A dynamic syntax approach to Bantu clause structure. Lin- guistic Analysis 32. 471-504.
139. Marten, L., Kula, N. & Thwhala, N. (2007). Parameters of morphosyntactic variation in Bantu. Transactions of the Philological Society 105. 253-338.
140. Masica, C. (1976). Defining a linguistic area: South Asia. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
141. McCawley, J. (1978). Conversational implicature and the lexicon. In Cole, P. (ed.), Syntax and semantics vol. 9, New York: Academic Press. 245-59.
142. McGinnis, M. (2001). Variation in the phase structure of applicatives. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 1. 105-146.
143. McGinnis, M. (2004). UTAH at merge: Evidence from multiple applicatives. In Mit work- ing papers in linguistics 49: Perspectives on phases, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 183- 200.
144. McGinnis, M. (2008). Applicatives. Language and Linguistic Compass 2. 1225-1245.
145. McGinnis, M. & Gerdts, D. (2003). A phase-theoretic analysis of Kinyarwanda multiple applicatives. In Proceedings of the 2003 canadian linguistic association annual confer- ence department of linguistics, Université du Québec à Montréal. 154-165.
146. Mchombo, S. (2004). The syntax of Chiche ŵa. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
147. Meeussen, A. E. (1967). Bantu grammatical reconstructions. Africana Linguistica 3. 79- 121.
148. Miyagawa, S. (1984). Blocking and Japanese causatives. Lingua 64. 177-207.
149. Mohanan, K. (1983). Move NP or lexical rules?: Evidence from Malayalam causativiza- tion. In Levin, L., Rappaport Hovav, M. & Zaenen, A. (eds.), Papers in Lexical- Functional Grammar, Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club. 47-111.
150. Morolong, M. & Hyman, L. (1972). Animacy, objects, and clitics in Sesotho. Studies in African Linguistics 8. 199-218.
151. Mutonyi, N. (2000). Aspects of Bukusu morphology and phonology. PhD Dissertation, Ohio State University.
152. Myers, A. (1974). Phonology of Kikuyu. Unpublished ms., MIT.
153. Myers, S. (2003). F0 timing in Kinyarwanda. Phonetica 60. 71-97.
154. Nedjalkov, V. & Silnitsky, G. (1973). The typolgy of morphological and lexical causatives. In Kiefer, F. (ed.), Trends in soviet linguistics, Boston: D. Reidel. 1-32.
155. Ngonyani, D. (1996). The morphosyntax of applicatives. PhD Dissertation, UCLA.
156. Ngonyani, D. & Githinji, P. (2006). The asymmetric nature of Bantu applicative construc- tions. Lingua 116. 31-63.
157. Nikitina, T. (2008). Pragmatic factors and variation in the expression of spatial goals: The case of in vs. into. In Syntax and semantics of spatial P. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
158. Naess, Å. (2007). Prototypical transitivity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
159. Naess, Å. (2009). How transitive are EAT and DRINK verbs? In Newman, J. (ed.), The linguistics of eating and drinking, Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 27-43.
160. Nunberg, G., Sag, I. A. & Wasow, T. (1994). Idioms. Language 76. 833-858.
161. Nurse, D. (2008). Tense and aspect in Bantu. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
162. Overdulve, C. (1975). Apprendre la langue rwanda. The Hague: Mouton.
163. Parsons, T. (1990). Events in the semantics of English. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
164. Perlmutter, D. & Postal, P. (1983). Some proposed laws of basic clause structure. In Perlmutter, D. (ed.), Studies in relational grammar, vol 1., Chicago: Chicago University Press. 81-128.
165. Pesetsky, D. (1995). Zero syntax: Experiences and cascades. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
166. Peterson, D. (2007). Applicative constructions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
167. Pinker, S. (1989). Learnability and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
168. Pollard, C. (1984). Generalized phrase structure grammars. Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University.
169. Primus, B. (1999). Case and thematic roles: Ergative, accusative and active. Tübingen: Max Niewmeyer Verlag.
170. Pulleyblank, D. (1983). Tone in lexical phonology. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
171. Pylkkänen, L. (2000). What applicative heads apply to. In University of Pennsylvania working papers in linguistics 7.1.
172. Pylkkänen, L. (2008). Introducing arguments. Cambridge: MIT Press.
173. Ramchand, G. (2008). Verb meaning and the lexicon: A first phase syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
174. Rappaport Hovav, M. & Levin, B. (1998). Building verb meanings. In Butt, M. & Geuder, W. (eds.), The projection of arguments: Lexical and compositional factors, Stanford: CSLI Publications. 97-134.
175. Rappaport Hovav, M. & Levin, B. (2008). The English dative alternation: A case for verb sensitivity. Journal of Linguistics 44. 129-167.
176. Rappaport Hovav, M. & Levin, B. (2010). Reflections on manner/result complementarity. In Doron, E., Rappaport Hovav, M. & Sichel, I. (eds.), Syntax, lexical semantics, and event structure, Oxford: Oxford University Press. 21-38.
177. Reidel, K. (2007). Object marking in Sambaa. Linguistics in the Netherlands 24. 199-210.
178. Rissman, L. (2011). Instrumental with and use: modality and implicature. Proceedings of SALT 21. 532-551.
179. Rooryck, J. (1996). Prepositions and minimalist case-marking. In Thráinsson, H., Epstien, S. & Peter, S. (eds.), Studies in comparative Germanic syntax, vol. ii, Dordrecht: Kluwer. 226-256.
180. Rothstein, S. (2004). Structuring events. Blackwell Publishing.
181. Rude, N. (1986). Topicality, transitivity, and the direct object in Nez Perce objects. Inter- national Journal of American Linguistics 52. 124-153.
182. Rugemalira, J. M. (1993). Runyambo verb extension and constraints on predicate structure. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.
183. Rugemalira, J. M. (2004). Locative arguments in Bantu. In Proceedings of the 4th World Congress of African Linguistics, Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe Verlag. 285-296.
184. Schadeberg, T. (2003). Derivation. In Nurse, D. & Philippson, G. (eds.), The Bantu lan- guages, New York: Routledge. 71-89.
185. Schaefer, R. (1985). Motion in Tswana and its characteristic lexicalization. Studies in African Linguistics 16. 57-87.
186. Schlesinger, I. (1989). Instruments as agents: On the nature of semantics relations. Journal of Linguistics 25. 189-210.
187. Seymour, R. (2016). Kinyarwanda Dictionary. kinyarwanda.net.
188. Shibatani, M. (1973). Semantics of Japanese causativization. Foundations of Language 9. 327-373.
189. Shibatani, M. (1976). The grammar of causative constructions: A conspectus. In Shibatani, M. (ed.), Syntax and semantics vol. 6, New York: Academic Press. 1-40.
190. Shibatani, M. (2002). Introduction: Some basic issues in the grammar of causation. In Shi- batani, M. (ed.), The grammar of causation and interpersonal manipulation, Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 1-22.
191. Shibatani, M. & Pardeshi, P. (2002). The causative continuum. In Shibatani, M. (ed.), The grammar of causation and interpersonal manipulation, Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 85-126.
192. Simango, S. R. (1999). Lexical and syntactic casuatives in Bantu. Linguistic Analysis 29. 69-86.
193. Simango, S. R. (2012). The semantics of locative clitics and locative applicatives in ciCewa. In Connell, B. & Rolle, N. (eds.), Selected proceedings of the 41st annual conference on african linguistics: African languages and linguistics today. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. 141-149.
194. Sitoe, B. (1996). The semantics and syntax of the Tsonga verbs kuwà 'fall' and kuntlúlá 'jump', and their relatives. South African Journal of African Languages 16. 144-148.
195. Slobin, D. I. (1996). Two ways to travel: Verbs of motion in English and Spanish. In Shi- batani, M. & Thompson, S. (eds.), Grammatical constructions: Their form and meaning, Oxford: Oxford University Press. 195-219.
196. Smith, C. (1970). Jespersens 'move' and 'change' class and causative verbs in English. In Jazayery, M. A., Polomé, E. C. & Winter, W. (eds.), Linguistic and literary studies in honor of Archibald Hill vol. 2, The Hague: Mouton. 101-109.
197. Son, M.-J. & Cole, P. (2008). An Event-Based Account of -kan Constructions in Standard Indonesian. Language 84. 120-160.
198. Svenonius, P. (2007). Adpositions, particles, and the arguments they introduce. In Reu- land, E., Bhattacharya, T. & Spathas, G. (eds.), Argument structure, Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 63-103.
199. Swift, K. E. (1988). Morfología del Caquinte (arawak preandino). Yarinacocha: Perú: Instituto Lingüístico de Verano.
200. Talmy, L. (1975). Semantics and syntax of motion. In Kimball, J. P. (ed.), Syntax and semantics vol. 4, New York: Academic Press. 181-238.
201. Talmy, L. (1976). Semantic causative types. In Shibatani, M. (ed.), Syntax and semantics vol. 6, New York: Academic Press.
202. Tham, S.-W., Beavers, J. & Levin, B. (2012). Directional interpretations with locative prepositions. Paper presented at "The Meaning of P" in Bochum, Germany.
203. Thomas, E. (2004). On 'syntactic' versus 'semantic' telicity: Evidence from in and on. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 18. 145-166.
204. Tuggy, D. (1988). Náhuatl causative/applicatives in cognitive grammar. In Topics in cog- nitive linguistics, Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 587-618.
205. van Riemsdijk, H. (1990). Functional prepositions. In Pinkster, H. & Genee, I. (eds.), Unity in diversity: Papers presented to Simon C. Dik on his 60th birthday, Dordrecht: Foris. 229-241.
206. van Riemsdijk, H. & Huijbregts, R. (2008). Locations and locality. In Karimi, S., Samiian, V. & Wilkins, W. K. (eds.), Phrasal and clausal architecture: Syntactic derivation and interpretation. in honor of joseph e. edmonds, Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 339-364.
207. Van Valin, R. D. & Wilkins, D. P. (1996). The case for 'effector': Case roles, agents, agency revisited. In Shibatani, M. & Thompson, S. (eds.), Grammatical constructions: Their form and meaning, Oxford: Oxford University Press. 289-322.
208. Vasquez Soto, V. (2002). Some constraints on Cora causative constructions. In Shibatani, M. (ed.), The grammar of causation and interpersonal manipulation, Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 197-244.
209. von Heusinger, K. (2002). Specificity and definiteness in sentence and discourse structure. Journal of Semantics 19. 245-274.
210. Wald, B. (1998). Issues in the North/South syntactic split of East Bantu. In Maddieson, I. & Hinnebusch, T. J. (eds.), Language history and linguistic description in Africa, Trenton: AfricaWorld Press. 95-106.
211. Wasike, A. (2007). The left-periphery, wh-in-situ and A-bar movment in LuLubukusu and other Bantu languages. Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University.
212. Wechsler, S. (2005). What is right and wrong about little v. In Vulchanova, M. & Afarli, T. A. (eds.), Grammar and beyond -essays in honour of lars hellan, Oslo: Novus Press. 179-195.
213. Wechsler, S. (2015). Word meaning and syntax: Approaches to the interface. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
214. Welmers, W. E. (1973). African language structures. Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London: University of Califonia Press.
215. Wunderlich, D. (1997). Cause and the structure of verbs. Linguistic Inquiry 28. 27-68.
216. Zeller, J. (2006). Agreement and the EPP in Kinyarwanda applicatives. In Brandt, P. & Fuß, E. (eds.), Form, structure, and grammar, Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. 275-295.
217. Zeller, J. & Ngoboka, J. P. (2006). Kinyarwanda locative applicatives and the Minimal Link Condition. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 24. 101-124.
218. Zeller, J. & Ngoboka, J. P. (2014). On parametric variation in Bantu, with particular refer- ence to Kinyarwanda. Transactions of the Philological Society 1-26.
219. Zlatev, J. & Yangklang, P. (2004). A third way to travel: The place of Thai in motion-event typology. In Strömqvist, S. & Verhoeven, L. (eds.), Relating events in narrative, vol 2: Typological and contextual perspectives, Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum. 159-190.
220. Zwicky, A. (1986). Concatenation and liberation. In Farley, A. M. (ed.), Proceedings of the twenty-second regional meeting (general session) of the Chicago Linguistics Society. 65-74.