1. Verbal Status and Serial Verb Constructions in Igala Gideon Sunday Omachonu gsomachonu@yahoo.com Georg Forster Post-Doctoral Fellow (AvH Stiftung/Foundation) Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin Institut für Asien- und Afrikawissenschaften Seminar für Afrikawissenschaften January 3, 2012. 1

2. Linguistic Map of Nigeria 2

3. Language Classification (Internal Structure of Niger-Congo) Proto-Niger-Congo Kordofanian Proto-Mande-Atlantic-Congo Atlantic Mande Proto-Ijoid- Congo Ijoid Proto-Dogon-Congo Dogon Ijo Defaka Proto-Volta-Congo North Volta-Congo South Volta-Congo =Proto-Benue-Kwa Nyo Left Bank West Ukaan East Benue Benue CongoCongo Oko Yoruboid Akokoid Nupoid Idomoid Igboid Kainji Ukaan Akpes Edoid Cross River Platoid Yoruba IGALA Itsekiri Bendi Delta Cross Bantoid 3

4. 1.1. Introducing the Igala Language Ígálà language belongs to the West Benue-Congo and more precisely one of the ‘Yoruboid’ languages in Nigeria. It is a dominant language in Kogi state spoken by over two million natives in nine Local Government Areas of Kogi East Senatorial District – North Central Nigeria. The language is equally spoken in some communities outside Kogi state: Èbú in Delta state, Ólóhí & Ìfèkwù in Edo State, Ógwúrúgwú, Ọ̀jọ́, Ìgá & Àsàbá in Enugu State, Òdòkpè, Ńjàm, Ìnọ́mà, Àlá, Ìgbédọ̀, Ónúgwá, Òdè, Ìgbòkènyi & Ìlá in Anambra State (See Omachonu 2011a&b). It is a register tone language with 3 basic tonemes (H,M,L), isolating with agglutinative features, basically SVO, marks aspect but no grammatical tense, major word classes are nouns & verbs. 4

5. 1.2.SVCs: Background Information(1) Although instances of SVCs (a sequence of verbs which appears in what seems to be a single clause) had been reported by Christaller (1875) and Westermann (1907, 1930) in Twi and Ewe (Kwa, Niger-Congo) languages in West Africa, the term ‘serial verb construction’ was first introduced by Balmer & Grant (1929) and then reintroduced by Stewart (1963). Even though a few alternative names for the phenomenon appear in the literature, ‘serial verb construction’ and ‘serial verb’ have gained more general acceptance. 5

6. 1.2. SVCs: Background Information(2) Serial verb construction (SVCs) are widely attested syntactic phenomenon in the languages of West Africa, Creole languages, languages of Southeast Asia, Amazonia, Oceania, and New Guinea ( Aikhenvald 2006, Bisang 2009) Serial verb constructions (SVCs) are not restricted to languages of a particular typological profile. They are widespread, clearly recognizable robust grammatical constructions found in nearly one-third (⅓) of the languages of the world (c. f. Dixon 2006). However, none in Europe, north or central Asia, and rather few in north America or Australia’ (Dixon 2006:338). 6

7. 1.3.The Three Major Phases of Research in SVCs(1) Three Major Phases of the Investigations on SVCS in Languages (1875-2011): Phase 1: 1875 to early 1960s – As part of the pedagogical issues on the grammar and initial description of some languages (Christaller 1875, Balmer & Grant 1929, Westermann 1907, 1930, Ward 1952, Westermann &Bryan 1952, Stewart 1963 and others). Phase 2: Late 1960s to the 1990s – Theorizing on the defining features, syntactic sources of SVCs and application of relevant theories to the syntactic representation of SVCs (Boadi 1968, 2000, Bamgbose 1973, 1974, 1982, Awobuluyi 1967, 1973, Schachter 1974, Baker 1989, 2002, Agbedor 1994, Yusuf 1997,very many others). 7

8. 1.3. The Three Major Phases of Research in SVCs/Sustained Interest in SVCs(2) Phase 3: Mid 1990s to the present – Semantics of SVCs, demarcation between SVCs and other verb sequence constructions, comparative studies, typological and cross- linguistic investigations of SVCs (Schiller 1990, Lord 1993, Bearth 1999, Baker 2002, Ameka 2005, 2006 Aikhenvald & Dixon (eds.) 2006, Bisang 2009 and very many others). A historical account of the studies on SVCs would reveal a period of 136 years of continued relevance and sustained interest. The question is why this sustained interest?  Interest in serial verb constructions (SVCs) persists because of the intricacies and the multi-dimensional nature of the issues surrounding the phenomenon in languages and the cross- linguistic variations identified with such constructions. 8

9. 1.3. The Three Major Phases of Research in SVCs/Sustained Interest in SVCs(3)  There are various types of serial verb constructions even in a single language and there are cross-linguistic variations such that the properties of SVCs in one language may not map whole sale onto those of another language (Lord 1993, Ameka 2005).  The descriptions of SVCs, in many instances, had appeared not quite adequate either because of the intricacies of the constructions or the tendency on the part of the researcher to address or concentrate on only one particular problem or a few of such problems in a language or across languages. Hence, the questions concerning the nature of verb serialization in languages arise again and again like the phoenix birds from the flames. 9

10. 1.4.SVCs in Igala: Previous Studies(1) In Igala, the description of SVCs appears almost like an unchartered terrain. The extant literature is very scanty. To the best of my knowledge, apart from Omachonu (2006) and Ejeba (2011), one hardly finds other studies in the literature on Igala linguistics with focus on serial verb constructions. Omachonu (2006): Verb Phrase Serialization in Igala:  A peculiar VP with unique characteristics such as only one expressed subject, shared NP object and aspect, no intervening coordinating and subordinating conjunctions.  Identified ten types/functions of SVCs based on only semantic considerations. 10

11. 1.4. SVCs in Igala: Previous Studies(2)  Serial verb constructions in Igala derive from single sentence in the D-structure (a kind of subordination)  In most cases; it is verbs of action (mainly transitive) that are serialized in the language.  That the productiveness of verb serialization in Igala, correlates with the fewness/scarcity of conjunctions and prepositions in the language. Ejeba (2011): Posits that there are two ways in which verbs in an SVC stand out from other verb forms; in structural complexity and in the functional expression of a composite notion. This marks out the serial verb as a unique exception to the requirement that a finite clause must have one and only one finite verb as the head of VP.  Identified two types of SVCs in Igala based on their structures namely; concomitant SVCs and coordinate SVCs and gave six functions of SVCs in the language. 11

12. 1.5. The Present Study:Goal & Structure Aim/Goal: Following up on the previous studies, the goal of the present study is to give a more comprehensive description of SVCs in Igala that goes beyond earlier studies of the phenomenon in the language both in scope and depth of analysis. The Structure of this Presentation:  section 2. Description of the phonology and morphosyntax of verbs in Igala to determine their verbal status.  Section 3. SVCs in Igala: (3.1) definition, (3.2) functions, (3.3) types and(3.4) derivations.  Section 4 attempts a distinction between SVCs and other multi-verb constructions in Igala.  Section 5 concludes the paper. 12

13. 2. The Phonology and Morphosyntax of Verbs in Igala : Determining the Verbal Status of Words (1) Most Igala verbs are monosyllabic in structure and many of the disyllabic or polysyllabic verbs are derived through incorporation and amalgamation. (1a)bí ‘to give birth’ pú‘to bend’ tà‘to sell’ dó ‘to call’ kó‘to write’nọ̀‘to grind’ Kó ‘to carry’ kpá‘to kill’gbẹ̀‘to sow’ mó ‘to drink’ nyí‘to wear’gọ́‘to swear’ hì ‘to cook’ chú ‘to defecate’jẹ ‘to eat’ (b) rúlé ‘to run’ (c) kpábíe ‘to destroy’ néjú ‘to expect’ kàjí ‘to block’ rákwú ‘to cry’ dáté̩ ‘consecrate’ Note: Tone in Igala is marked as follows: v́ for High, v̀ for Low but Mid tone is left unmarked. 13

14. 2. Determining the Verbal Status of Words(2) Apart from the phonology as seen above, determining the verbal status of words in syntactic constructions including SVCs, depends on three major criteria namely;  Function : ability of the word to occur in a simplex sentence.  Meaning: aspects of the meaning of verb characteristic of the usual semantic categories such as action, process, state, attribute, experience, and so on.  Morphology of the word. the ability of a word to take tense and/or aspect (Potsdam, 1997). Taking into account the following criteria: phonology, meaning, function and morphology, the words labeled as verbs (bold print) in (2), (3) and (4) are definitely verbs in Igala. 14

15. 2. Determining the Verbal Status of Words(3) 2. Áudù a là ọjẹ jẹ Audu ASP buy food eat ‘Audu buys/is buying food to eat’ 3. Àyè du ẹ́ja wá tà Aye carry fish come sell ‘Aye brought fish to sell’ 4. Idah nána tù Ugwo̩lawo lè (Omachonu 2006) Idah be: big surpass Ugwo̩lawo go ‘Idah is bigger/larger than Ugwolawo’ 15

16. 2.Determining the Verbal Status of Words(4) A related aspect of verbal meaning that is necessary to draw attention to is the contrast between the meaning of the verb in a simple sentence and its meaning in an SVC. For instance, in (4), the verb lè ‘go’ expresses, in that context, a meaning usually associated with adverbials than its primary meaning as a verb. Let’s also consider the meaning of du and bié̩ne̩ in (5) and (6). 5. Du únyi ́ lẹ ngà. (idiomatic) carry house DET show ‘Show the house’ 6. I fú=u gwó̩ bié̩ne̩ (adverb of manner, Lit. ‘irony’) 3SG MOD=3SG carve be.bad ‘He/She has carved it badly (lit., carved perfectly). 16

17. 2.Determining the Verbal Status of Words(5) Irrespective of whatever secondary function a verb is made to serve or the meaning attached to it, the most reliable indicator of its verbness or verbal status in SVC is its morphology (the ability to take tense and/or aspect) (c.f. Bamgbose, 1982: 7). Observe the Akan examples below. 7. Akan (a) Kofi yɛɛ adwuma maa Amma Kofi did work gave Amma ‘Kofi worked for Amma’ (b) Kofi gyee Amma dii Kofi receive Amma ate ‘Kofi believed Amma’ However, in Igala, where tense/aspect are not so overtly coded, verb morphology is of limited use in deciding the verbness of a word, hence we rely on the 4 criteria discussed earlier: meaning, function, phonology & morphology. 17

18. 3.1.SVCs in Igala: The Defining Features(1) The recognition of SVCs in most of the languages in which they occur is based on a combination of formal and semantic properties or criteria. Aikhenvald (2006:1) integrates a considerable number of these properties into her definition of SVC thus: A serial verb construction (SVC) is a sequence of verbs which act together as a single predicate, without any overt marker of coordination, subordination, or syntactic dependency of any sort. Serial verb constructions describe what is conceptualized as a single event. They are monoclausal; their intonational properties are the same as those of a monoverbal clause, and they have just one tense, aspect, and polarity value. SVCs may also share core and other arguments. Each component of an SVC must be able to occur on its own. Within an SVC, the individual verbs may have same or different transitivity values. 18

19. 3.1.SVCs in Igala: The Defining Features(2) SVCs in Igala are characterized by:  Two or more verbs acting together as a single predicate and marking a single event within a temporal frame.  Same syntactic subject for all VPs but expressed only once before VP1.  The verbs occur in sequence without an intervening conjunctions (subordination and/or coordination).  SVCs are monoclausal (allow no markers of syntactic dependency on their components)  They display intonational properties that equate with those of a monoverbal clause in that there are no intonation breaks and pause markers between the components. 19

20. 3.1.SVCs in Igala: The Defining Features(3) The following sentences illustrate frequent instances of SVCs of the above descriptions in Igala (Example 2 represented as (8), and example 9). 8. Áudù a là ọjẹ jẹ Audu ASP buy food eat ‘Audu buys/is buying food to eat’ 9. Ì che ómi gwẹ̀ éjú 3SG scoop water wash eju ‘He/She fetched water to wash his/her face ’ 20

21. 3.1.SVCs in Igala: The Defining Features(4) SVC cannot take separate markers of syntactic dependency. If an SVC is embedded, its components cannot be embedded independently. For instance, in (10) and (11), the clause makers or indicators, kí and kà only mark dependency once each in the SVCs (enclosed in squares brackets). 10. Ì dọ má [ki ́=i ́ du únyi ́ lẹ 3SG call 3PL COMP=3SGSCL.IND carry house DET ngà má.] show 3PL ‘He called them to show them the house’ 11. Ùmà ọ̀tákáda che ẹ́un [kà=à nyi ́ Knowledge book be thing REL=1PlSCL.IND go á du wá.] ASP carry come ‘Book knowledge is what we went to bring’ 21

22. 3.1.SVCs in Igala: The Defining Features(5) SVC codes or describes a single event, which means that verbs in series must code aspects of an action or state that can be associated together. 12.(a)i. du wá (b). i. Du ọ̀tákáda lẹ wá. carry come ‘(to) bring’ carry book DET come ‘Bring the book’ ii.du ngà ii. Du únyi ́ lẹ ngà. carry show ‘(to) show’ carry house DET show ‘Show the house’ iii. bò má iii. Bò ùchà lẹ má. cover tight ‘(to) cover’ cover pot DET tight ‘Cover the pot’ 22

23. 3.1.SVCs in Igala: The Defining Features (6) SVCs in Igala share arguments in the forms of both NP subject and object sharing. They also share grammatical categories such as aspect and mood except negation which applies to the entire SVC and occurs in sentence final position( Ex. 8 as 13). 13. Áudù a là ọjẹ jẹ. Audu ASP buy food eat ‘Audu buys/is buying food to eat’ 14. Áudù a là ọjẹ jẹ ń. Audu ASP buy food eat NEG ‘Audu does not buy food to eat’ 23

24. 3.1.SVCs in Igala: The Defining Features(7) If these features; subject, object, aspect and negation are repeated in the SVCs, some ungrammaticalities and/or semantically bizzare expressions will be generated as seen in (15. a, b and c): 15.a. *Áudù a là ọjẹ a jẹ ọjẹ b. *Áudù a là ọjẹ Audu jẹ (Two different persons, may be, but still ill-formed) c.*Áudù a là ń ọjẹ jẹ n * Ill –formed structures. 24

25. 3.1.SVCs in Igala: The Defining Features(8) In Igala, only a complete SVC can be questioned and interestingly, even the response to such a question cannot employ only one of the component verbs but the argument (shared object) remains constant as in (16. a & b) below. 16.a. Question: Eun Áudù là jẹ? what Audu buy eat ‘What did Audu buy and eat?’ b. Response: Áudù là ọjẹ jẹ. Audu buy food eat ‘Audu bought food and ate’ 25

26. 3.1.SVCs in Igala: The Defining Features(9) Lastly, most SVCs in Igala satisfy the requirement that each component of an SVC must be able to occur on its own with the same or different transitivity values. Hence, we can derive two simple sentences from (16b) as (17) and (18)respectively, and with the same transitivity values but not as SVCs any longer. 17. Áudù a là ọje.̣ Audu ASP buy food ‘Audu buys/is buying food’ 18. Áudù a jẹ ọjẹ. Audu ASP eat food ‘Audu eats or is eating food’ The beauty of SVC is that these two separate actions, when/where necessary, could be collapsed into sub-events under an overall single event of buying the food to eat it as in (16b). 26

27. 3.2.Functions of SVCs in Igala (1) i. Accompaniment(Comitative?): Accompaniment SVC has the meaning of ‘take along with’ where the subject NP of the initial verb takes the second NP (object) to some location. 19.Àdá kó ẹdà nẹ wá. Ada carry.PL shoe carry come ‘Ada brought shoes along’ This first sense of accompaniment differs slightly from another sense of it in SVC in Igala which, strictly speaking, is christened ‘comitative’. This expresses the notion ‘go/come along with’ instead of ‘take along with’. 20.Ẹ̀jẹ̀ lèbọ́ Ónú nyí Ánkpa. Eje go.with Onu go Ankpa ‘Eje accompanies Onu to Ankpa.’ 27

28. 3.2.Functions of SVCs in Igala (2) ii. Benefactive: This is an instance whereby the oblique object benefits from the action carried out by the subject of an SVC. 21. Ákwù là ẹdà che ọyà un ele. Akwu buy shoe do wife 3SGPOSS gift ‘Akwu bought shoes as gift for his wife’. iii. Cause - effect: V1 expresses the cause and the V2, the effect. 22. Ádẹ́jọ́ fú=ú gwó kpa. (gwó kwú) Adejo MOD=3SG beat kill ‘Adejo beat and killed it (i.e. Adejo beat it and it died)’ 28

29. 3.2.Functions of SVCs in Igala (3) iv. Causative: In Igala, the difference between causative SVCs and cause-effect is not so clear-cut because of the semantic overlap between them. However, in terms of composition, causative SVCs appear as asymmetrical constructions whereas cause-effect SVCs are mostly symmetrical. Besides, causative SVCs in Igala employs clearly causative verbs such as du ‘take/carry’ or jé̩ to mean, ‘let’, ‘allow’ ‘make’ and ‘order’ respectively depending on the context. Example (23) illustrates this. 23.Òun jé̩ wa che ò̩bata 3SG agree us do suffer ‘He/She caused/made us to suffer’ 29

30. 3.2.Functions of SVCs in Igala(4) v. Comparative: In comparative SVC, two NPs are compared to determine which of them has more or less of certain attributes than the other. 24. Ídáh nána tù Ùgwó̩láwó lè. (Omachonu 2006) Idah be. big surpass Ugwolawo go ‘Idah is bigger/larger than Ugwolawo’ vi. Direction or Motion: Such an SVC includes a verb which specifies motion that precedes an action or describes a direction in which the action occurs. This is mostly ‘deitic’ with the minor verb as a typical verb of motion or direction. 25. Mẹ lè ẹ́rẹ̀ wá. 2PL walk leg come ‘(You PL) come on foot.’ 30

31. 3.2.Functions of SVCs in Igala(5) vii. Instrumental: This kind of SVC is characterized by an instance where the object of the first verb is different from that of the second which is the actual recipient of the action of the subject NP. 26. Ákáchi ́ du ọ̀kpọ́ kpa ẹ́fà. Akachi carry boxing kill elephant ‘Akachi killed an elephant with boxing’ viii. Manner SVC: The second verb performs adverbial function with respect to the manner in which the action of the first verb is performed. Sometimes, manner SVCs in Igala are used as intensifiers to express adverbs of degree by repeating the first verb. Examples (27.a&b) and (28.a&b) below illustrate the first and the second explanations respectively. 31

32. 3.2.Functions of SVCs in Igala (6) 27.a. I fú=u gwó̩ kpábié̩. 3SG MOD=3SG carve destroy ‘He/She has carved it badly/destroyed it due to the manner in which it was carved’. b.I fú=u gwè̩ gbó. 3SG MOD=3SG wash tear ‘He/She/it has washed and torn it due to the manner in which it was washed’ 28.a. I fú=u gwo a gwo kpa (kwu) 3SG MOD=3SG beat ASP beat kill ‘He/She has beaten him/she/it mercilessly’. b.I fú=u kpa a kpa kwu (kpa) 3SG MOD=3SG beat ASP kill die ‘He/She has beaten him/she/it mercilessly’. 32

33. 3.2.Functions of SVCs in Igala (7) ix. Sequence of actions: SVC may describe two consecutive aspects of an event, not as series of clauses or actions but as a single overall event. 29. Áudù a là ọjẹ jẹ. Audu ASP buy food eat ‘Audu buys/is buying food to eat’ x. Expression of simultaneous actions: Compatible actions that can be associated together to show that the actions depicted by V1 and V2 occur at the same time. 30.a.Àpẹ́ dàchi ́ a ́ lẹ ólu. Ape lie.down ASP sleep sleep ‘Ape lay down sleeping’ b.Áudù dágo a ́ jẹ ọ̀jè.̣ Audu stand ASP eat food ‘Audu stood eating’ 33

34. 3.3.Types of SVCs in Igala (1) SVCs in languages have been classified based on two major criteria; semantics and formal properties of SVCs. The preceding section has taken care of the semantic classification of SVCs in Igala. In classifying SVCs in Igala based on formal features, the following parameters come to play (We take the explanations in ascending order):  composition,  contiguity,  wordhood of components and  marking of grammatical categories 34

35. 3.3.Types of SVCs in Igala (2) Marking of grammatical categories: Igala has mainly ‘single marking’ SVCs. Even though the language does not take inflection for tense, aspect, negation are, in most cases, marked just once per construction. 31. Áudù a là ọjẹ jẹ ń. Audu ASP buy food eat NEG ‘Audu does not buy food to eat’ 32.Ádẹ́jọ́ fú=ú gwó kpa. Adejo MOD=3SG beat kill ‘Adejo beat and killed it (i.e. Adejo beat it and it died)’ Double/concordant marking of any verbal category would connote two separate events or bring about ungrammaticality. Whereas it is not possible to duplicate the negation, double marking of aspect, for instance, will result in some coordinate construction with different temporal frames/meanings as in (33). 33.Áudù a là ọjẹ a jẹ. Audu ASP buy food ASP eat ‘Audu buys and eats/is buying and eating food ’ 35

36. 3.3.Types of SVCs in Igala (3) Contiguity: SVCs in Igala exhibit both contiguous and non- contiguous relationships as well as instances of V NP V NP and multi-verb SVCs. Examples (27) and (26) represented as (34 & 35) and example (36.a&b) illustrate these features. 34. I fú=u gwó̩ kpábié̩ 3SG MOD=3SG carve destroy ‘He/She has carved it badly/destroyed it due to the manner in which it was carved’. 35. Ákáchi ́ du ọ̀kpọ́ kpa ẹ́fà. Akachi carry boxing kill elephant ‘Akachi killed an elephant with boxing’ 36

37. 3.3.Types of SVCs in Igala (4) 36.a. Ákáchi ́kpa ẹ́la hì je̩ b. Àyè du ẹ́ja wá tà Akachi kill meat cook eat Aye carry fish come sell ‘Akachi killed an animal, cooked ‘Aye brought fish to sell’ and ate it’ Wordhood of components: Individual components of the SVCs have their own status as individual words capable of occurrence in simple sentences, e.g. du…wá ‘bring’, du…ngà ‘show’ can occur in other contexts thus: 37.a. Du eéwẹb. Íye un wá ọnálẹ carry you.POSS mother 3SG come yesterday ‘Take/carry yours’‘His/her mother came yesterday’ c. Ì ngà má ọnà 3SG show 3PL road ‘He/she led/showed them the way’ 37

38. 3.3.Types of SVCs in Igala (5) Composition: two broad groups, symmetrical and asymmetrical SVCs.  Symmetrical: usually consist of two or more verbs each taken from a grammatically and semantically open classes: the order of occurrence of the component verbs is, in most cases, iconic to reflect the temporal sequence of sub-events described in the construction and the verbs in such an SVC have equal status: Sequential SVCs (ex.29), cause-effect (ex.22), manner (ex.27,28).  Besides, symmetrical SVCs in Igala divide into three broad groups based on the status and the semantic reading of the components: concomitant (du…wa, du…nga used jointly to express a concept), coordinate (verbs of equal status with additive value, la…je̩, kpa…lo̩) and modifying SVCs (gwo kpa). 38

39. 3.3.Types of SVCs in Igala (6)  Asymmetrical SVCs must necessarily include a verb from a grammatically and semantically closed class or a verb from an open class which switches function to occupy a minor verb slot: Direction/motion SVCs,causative, benefactive, instrumental, accompaniment/comitative, etc.  An asymmetrical SVC is said to possess a head which usually is the main verb. With regard to the position of head in asymmetrical SVCs in Igala, there are two possibilities depending on the composition. -Head First : Left Hand Head Rule (LHHR)  Direction/orientation: (Ex. 25) Mẹ lè ẹ́rẹ̀ wá.  Comitative: (Ex.20): Ẹ̀jẹ̀ lèbọ́ Ónú nyí Ánkpa. 39

40. 3.3.Types of SVCs in Igala (7)  A more clearly productive set of examples for SVCs that maintain head first (LHHR) consistently like the endocentric nominal compounds in Igala include SVCs which contain a second verb from a set of verbs which equally function as prepositions in Igala, e.g. kwo, koji, tu, me̩ru and so on. 38.a. I ra kwô ajab. I kwô aja 3SG run leave market 3SG leave market ‘He/She ran (away) from the market’‘He/She has left the market’ 39.a. I che koji ma b. Oun koji ma 3SG do replace 3PL 3SG replace 3PL ‘He/She did (it) on their behalf’ ‘He represents them’ 40.a. Nà a lo tu unyi b. U tu unyi mè̩ 1SG ASP go reach house 1SG reach house already’ ‘I am going home’ ‘I have arrived home already’ 40

41. 3.3.Types of SVCs in Igala (8) -Head Last: Right Hand Head Rule (RHHR) e.g. Causative: (Ex.23 ) Òun jé̩ wa che ò̩bata A set of more productive examples of SVCs that maintain head last (RHHR) in Igala apart from the use of je̩ as in 23 above is the use of du ‘take/carry´ as in 41-43. 41. I du wawè. 3SG take liken ‘He/She used it as an analogy’ 42. I du che ùjìwe. 3SG take do example ‘He/She used it as an example’ 43. I du kpàilò̩. 3SG take exchange ‘He/She used it as an exchange’ 41

42. 3.4.Derivations of SVCs (1) The insight provided by Chomsky’s Transformational Generative Grammar (TGG) provoked a great deal of controversy on the origin(s) or syntactic sources of verb serialization (Chomsky 1957, 1965, 1981,1993,1995). Whereas some believe that SVCs (especially coordinate and modifying SVCs) derive from two different underlying structures, others hold that SVCs derive from single underlying structure. Thus, two propositions emerged from the controversy.  That SVCs are derived from multiple sentences in the base (underlying) structure.  That SVCs are derived from a single sentence in the underlying structure. 42

43. 3.4.Derivations of SVCs (2) Awobuluyi (1967, 1973) proposed a derivation of serial verb constructions in Yoruba from coordinate sources. Bamgbose (1973, 1974): Two sources: coordinating and embedding structures. Boadi 1968 and Williams 1971: Verb serialization in Twi emanates from both coordinating and embedding sources and in Freetown Krio, SVCs were said to subscribe to embedding structures only. Schachter (1974): SVCs derive from single underlying sentences hence he propounded single sentence rule for serial verb constructions. He argued that serial verb constructions behave, to a large extent, like idiomatic expressions whose meaning(s) do not depend only on the composition of the words in the expressions. 43

44. 3.4.Derivations of SVCs (3) Yusuf (1997:20) in agreement with Schachter (1974) proposed a rewrite PSR for serial verbs as: VP → VP (VP n ), where the superscript ( n ) means we may have any number of verb phrases. In this schema, even a bare verb is coded as verb phrase (VP) following the dictates of the projection principle which holds that every lexical verb has the potential to project maximally to at least the phrasal level. S Fig.1 NP VP (1) VP VP n Note:Thoroughout this period, the most favoured analysis on the structure of SVCs is that that sees it as a surbordination structure in which V2 is embedded in V1 (c.f.Johnson 2005). 44

45. 3.4.Derivations of SVCs (4) In all, it is to be noted (as argued earlier) that all the arguments or previous attempts at deriving SVCs from underlying complex structures or sentences were influenced by the theories of the time; TGG (with its later modifications). However successful some of these previous attempts might be, the argument for the monoclausal analysis of SVCs mooted in Foley & Oslon (1985) and consolidated by successive and current research on SVCs seems to have put to rest, the controversy on the derivations of SVCs (c.f. Aikkhenvald 2006, Bisang 2009, Pavey 2010). In what follows therefore, we shall adopt Pavey’s (2010) model for analyzing complex sentence structures including SVCs to derive the structure(s) of SVCs in Igala. 45

46. 3.4.Derivations of SVCs (5) Pavey (2010) gave an elaborate account of SVCs using the argument for monoclausal analysis. According to him, simple sentences contain one clause which contains one core, which in turn contains one nucleus. Each nucleus therefore corresponds to one semantic predicate as (Fig 2) below shows (Adopted from Pavey 2010:220). Fig 2. SENTENCE CLAUSE CORE NP NUC NP PRED Olivia heard the thunder 46

47. 3.4.Derivations of SVCs (6) A juncture refers to the level at which the linkage occurs and not necessarily the type of units that are joined. Three levels of connections/junctures: clause, core and nucleus  Clause: Where clauses combine; clause juncture constructions contain two or more independent clauses which all have their own arguments usually linked by clause linkage makers for subordination, coordination or cosubordination.  Core: The core juncture allows two cores to share one argument which means that an argument occurs in the semantic representation of both predicates but appears only once in the syntax. For instance, in a sentence such as ‘Gideon asked David to write the letter’, David is the shared argument; semantically, he is both the undergoer of the verb ‘ask’ and equally the actor of the verb ‘write’ but ‘David’ appears only once in the syntax. 47

48. 3.4.Derivations of SVCs (7)  Nucleus: the nuclear level represents a third level of connection where ‘in sentences with more than one nucleus, the nuclei combine to form a nuclear juncture with one set of arguments expressing a single, complex event’. In a sentence such as ‘Kerry [pushed]NUC [open]NUC the door, Pavey explains that, ‘The arguments Kerry and the door are syntactic arguments of the complex nucleus pushed open’(p.222). Figures (3. i, ii & iii) represent the three levels of connection in complex constructions (Culled from Pavey 2010:223). Fig 3.i. SENTENCEii. CLAUSE iii. CORE CLAUSE CLAUSE CORE CORE NUC NUC 48

49. 3.4.Derivations of SVCs (8) Essentially, SVCs are complex structures in which two or more verbs are used to express one complex event. Whereas this description excludes sentences that are biclausal and clause juncture constructions as in (Fig.3.i), some SVCs are core junctures while some are nuclear junctures as in (Fig.3.ii) and (Fig.3.iii) above respectively. The differences between the core level juncture and the nuclear level juncture in SVCs, Pavey explains:  First, at core juncture the argument (object NP) appears between the predicates. Second, there is only one argument (object NP) shared by the two or more predicates which is the undergoer of both predicates but the subject NP performing the action is not an argument to the second predicate.  But with the nuclear juncture SVCs, though the object NP argument is shared by both predicates, it is not allowed to come in-between them. 49

50. 3.4.Derivations of SVCs (9) The core and nuclear level junctures of this model can be used to explain the derivations of some SVCs in Igala thus (Fig 4 & Fig 5 represent core & nuclear levels). 44.Áudù là ọjẹ je̩. 45. Ádẹ́jọ́ fú=ú gwó kpa. Audu buy food eat Adejo MOD=3SG beat kill ‘Audu bought food to eat’ ‘Adejo killed it (i.e. Adejo beat it and it died)’ Fig. 4 Fig. 5 CLAUSE CLAUSE CORE CORE CORE NUC NUC NUC NUC Áudù là ọjẹ je Ádẹ́jọ́ fú=ú gwó kpa 50

51. 3.4.Derivations of SVCs (10) In (44) represented as (Fig. 4), the argument (object NP) ọjè̩ ̣ ‘food’ which occurs between the two predicates là ‘buy’ and je̩ ‘eat’ is the shared argument which is equally the undergoer of both predicates but the slight difference between this Igala example and Pavey (2010) explanation is that the subject NP performing the action(s) is an argument to both the first and the second predicate because Áudù does both the buying and the eating. Similarly, in (45) represented as (Fig. 5), the argument (object NP, 3SG) is not allowed to occur between the predicates but it is the shared argument. Unlike the separate actions of ‘buying’ and ‘eating’ in (44), even though the subject NP performing the action is an argument to both predicates, gwó ‘beat’ and kpa ‘kill’, the two are not to be interpreted as separate actions because it is the beating that leads to the killing (death). 51

52. 3.4.Derivations of SVCs (11) However, if we replace kpa with another word kwú ‘die’ to have ‘Ádẹ́jọ́ fú=ú gwó kwú’, the subject NP performing the action would cease to be an argument of the second predicate because of its intransitive nature. Also in Igala, there are instances where in SVCs, each of the verbs selects its own argument. In this case, the verbs only share one subject NP argument but have different NP objects as arguments. Example (46) illustrates this. 46. Ì che ómi gwẹ̀ éjú 3SG do water wash eju ‘He/She washed his/her face with water’ In (46), the predicates, che and gwẹ̀ have different NP object arguments, ómi and éjú respectively as different undergoers. The only shared argument is the NP subject (3SG) performing the actions of carrying the water to wash the face. 52

53. 3.4.Derivations of SVCs (12) It is important also to note that the argument sharing of symmetrical SVCs, for instance, is somewhat similar to that of splitting verbs in Igala where such verbs get split into two and the NP object comes in-between the fragments. Observe (47.a, b, c) below. 47. a. kọdá ‘to cut’ → Kọ ólí dá ‘cut the tree/stick’ b. kpanà ‘to break/split’→ Kpa íji nà ‘split the firewood’ c. gwújó ‘to burn’→ Gwú égbé jó ‘burn the grass’ The two fragments of each of the verbs are interpreted together as single lexical verbs in this context even though some of the fragments are capable of generating independent meanings in other contexts. For example, kpa could meaning ‘kill’ and nà ‘either to branch off or flay’ (c.f. amalgamated or lexicalized compound verbs in 1c). 53

54. 3.4.Derivations of SVCs (13) The slight difference(s) noticed between Pavey’s (2010) analysis and the analysis of data on SVCs in Igala are mere superficial variations (language specific) consequent upon the nature of the verbs involved in the construction. Pavey used data from Taba and Tukang Besi, Malayo- Polynesian languages spoken in Indonesia. He acknowledges these kinds of cross-linguistic variations when he posits that ‘we may sometimes find nuclear SVCs that also allow elements to appear between them’. This makes the distinction between the core-level juncture and nuclear-level juncture SVCs a bit difficult in some languages. All said, the position to hold is that SVCs involve both core- level juncture and nuclear-level juncture in most languages including Igala as we have seen from the foregoing analysis. 54

55. 4. Demarcation between SVCs and Other Multi-Verb Constructions (1) The question of how SVCs differ from other multi-verb constructions as well as other types of complex predicates such as converbal complex predicates and verb compounds, ‘remains one of the outstanding questions in both formal and typological studies’ (Shibatani 2009:255). Even though uncontroversial cases of serial verbs are found in Kwa languages and in the Benue-Congo family of languages to which Igala belongs, there is most of the time no obvious distinction between serial verbs and verb sequences in which each verb constitutes a distinct predicate. The result is that any sequence of verbs that does not show obvious coordination or subordination is loosely termed ‘serial verbs’. 55

56. 4. Demarcation between SVCs and Other Multi-Verb Constructions (2) Distinguishing SVCs from other multi-verb constructions or complex predicates in general has been somewhat difficult. As Ameka (2005:2) puts it: Apart from various verb sequence constructions not showing surface distinctions leading to some constructions being mistaken for others, progress in the analysis and typology of multi verb sequences has also been hampered by the fact that the different types of multi verb constructions are functionally similar. In addition, on the basis of their function they have been assimilated to constructions in which two or more elements jointly constitute the predicate of a single clause. Such constructions have been labeled complex predicates. 56

57. 4. Demarcation between SVCs and Other Multi-Verb Constructions (3) In what follows however, I shall attempt to make a distinction between SVCs and only two other verb sequence constructions: consecutive constructions and overlapping constructions/covert coordination. By this consideration, I concentrate on only those multi-verb constructions (including SVCs) which exhibit the following features (c.f. Ameka 2005:2):  With or without any marker of syntactic dependency  Typically, at least one argument is common to all the verbs in a sequence.  The VPs in the sequence are seen as related.  The individual verbs can function as independent verbs in simple clauses. 57

58. 4. Demarcation between SVCs and Other Multi-Verb Constructions (4) Consecutive constructions: Two or more verbal clauses which together represent related state of affairs that can be interpreted as successive, simultaneous or alternating in time. The different components exhibit properties of independent clauses either just juxtaposed or linked by a connector (See also Ameka 2005, 2006). Consecutive construction can even be multi-clausal as in (48c) 48.a.Mẹ gwẹ ọwọ́ ki ́=a jẹ e̩un. 2PL wash hand COMP=1PLSCL.IND eat thing ‘You (PL) wash your hands (and) let’s eat’ b.Mẹ hiéjúdé ki ́=a che àdùwa. 2PL close.eye COMP=1PLSCL.IND do prayer ‘You (PL) close your eyes (and) let’s pray’ c.Mẹ ló, nà á wá ki ́=a jẹ e̩un. 2PL go 1SG ASP come COMP=1PLSCL.IND eat thing ‘You (PL) go, I will come/am coming (so) that we eat’ 58

59. 4. Demarcation between SVCs and Other Multi-Verb Constructions (5) In (48a) and (48b), the referents of the subject of the first clauses are included in the subjects of the second clauses. The consecutive connector can be omitted but with a compulsory intonation break indicated with a comma as in (48c). The individual clauses can be marked for different aspect values as in (48c) where the VP in the second clause is marked for the future or progressive. In (48c), the referents of the subject arguments of the clauses are not the same. Each component of the consecutive constructions in (48a-c) can be independently negated. Example (48c) represented as (49.a.) and (49.b.) can illustrate the last point. 49.a.Mẹ ló n, nà á wá ki ́=a jẹ e̩un. 2PL go NEG 1SG ASP come COMP=1PLSCL.IND eat thing ‘You (PL) don’t go, I will come/am coming (so) that we eat’ b.Mẹ ló, nà á wá n 2PL go 1SG ASP come NEG ‘You (PL) go, I will not come’ 59

60. 4. Demarcation between SVCs and Other Multi-Verb Constructions (6) Overlapping Constructions / Covert Coordination: Overlapping constructions thought of as a kind of covert coordination since they cannot have any overt linker. Equally, a prosodic break is compulsory between the VP constituents (the two clauses). Even though overlapping constructions tend to be biclausal, there is no overt linker between the components but the subject argument of each clause must be obligatorily expressed. The object NP overlaps in both clauses. 50.a.Òun là ọtẹ, a mọ. 3SG buy wine 1PL drink ‘He/She bought wine and we drank’ b.Ma gwó ún, ì wọ ún. 3PL beat 3SG it pain 3SG ‘They beat him and it pained him’ 60

61. 4. Demarcation between SVCs and Other Multi-Verb Constructions (7) 50.c.I là ọjẹ̀, I fú=u jẹ. 3SG buy food 3SG MOD=3SG eat ‘He/She bought food and ate it’ Notice that in (50.c), ọ̀jẹ̀ ‘food’ is co-referenced with a referentially identical object u ‘3SG’ as an anaphoric pronoun. This is an important difference between the covert VP coordination structures and SVCs because in an overlapping construction or covert coordination structure, if the VPs have the same referentially identical object, its subsequent occurrence is signaled by an anaphoric pronoun (pronominal clitic). 61

62. 4. Demarcation between SVCs and Other Multi-Verb Constructions (8) In addition, unlike consecutive constructions, there is no overt linker between the components of overlapping constructions or covert coordination structures. But like the consecutive constructions, each verb can take different aspect, mood or modal marking and each can likewise be negated independently. Example (50. b) above is rephrased as ( 51) to account for separate marking of aspect and negation. 51.Ma a gwó ún, ì a wọ ún n. 3PL ASP beat 3SG it ASP pain 3SG NEG ‘They are beating him (but) it doesn’t pain him’ 62

63. 4. Demarcation between SVCs and Other Multi-Verb Constructions (9) The analysis of the demarcation between SVCs, consecutive constructions and overlapping constructions in Igala could be summarized and tabulated thus : Table 1: Multi-Verb Constructions in Igala FeaturesSVCsConsecutiveOverlapping i. Connectives as marker of syntactic dependency No Yes/but can be omitted No ii. The individual verbs can function as independent verbs in simple clauses Yes iii. Each verb can have different aspect and/modal markingNoYes iv. Each VP can be independently negatedNoYes v. Same subject for all the VPs in the constructionYessame/different vi. Subject argument of each verb is overtly expressedNoYes vii. The number of clausemonobi-/multi-bi- 63

64. 4. Demarcation between SVCs and Other Multi-Verb Constructions (10) From this summary, pictorial representations of the structures of these three constructions could be generated by adopting Pavey’s (2010) model for representing complex structures as used earlier for the derivations of SVCs in Igala (c.f. fig.4 represented as fig 6) and Figs 7 and 8 below. Consecutive Construction Fig. 6. SVCFig.7. CLAUSE CLAUSE CLAUSE. CORE CORE CORE CORE NUC NUC NUC NUC Áudù là ọjẹ je̩ Me̩ gwè̩ o̩wo̩ ki ́=a jẹ e̩̩un 64

65. 4. Demarcation between SVCs and Other Multi-Verb Constructions (11) Fig. 8. Overlapping Construction CLAUSE CLAUSE CORE NUCNUC O ̀ un la ̀ o̩te̩ a ̀ mo̩ 65

66. 5. Conclusion (1) SVCs are clearly recognizable and highly productive grammatical constructions in Igala. They are different from other closely related multi- verb constructions because they are monoclausal and the VPs in SVCs are construed as occurring in the same temporal frame (single marking of grammatical categories per SVC). There are many types of SVCS in Igala based on both semantic and formal classifications: symmetrical vs. asymmetrical (involving transitive, intransitive and stative verbs), contiguous vs. non-contiguous, etc. SVCs in Igala serve to convey a broad range of semantic notions which are in tandem with the culturally recognizable activities and worldview of the people. The versatility in function, which relates to the productiveness of SVCs in Igala, correlates with the scarcity of conjunctions and prepositions in the language. In addition, the functional motivation for SVCs in the language, one can argue, is predicated upon discourse organization and the information packaging efficiency of the construction(c.f. Aikhenvald 2006). For, instance, both the symmetrical and asymmetrical SVCs are employed as invaluable means of coherent information packing and simplification of complex events in Igala thereby avoiding some unnecessarily complex constructions. 66

67. 5. Conclusion(2) Also, serialization of synonymous and concomitant VPs could yield some idiomatic expressions and high-flown literary styles in the language. Lastly, in spite of the depth of coverage given to SVCs in this study, there may still be need to investigate the phenomenon further in Igala with respect to the following: Semantic overlaps between cause-effect and causative SVCs, manner and event-argument SVCs as well as switch function SVCs in Igala. More on headedness in asymmetrical SVCs and demarcation between SVCs and other compex predicates in Igala in relation to other (West)Benue - Congo lanuages. Frequency of the occurences of SVCs in discourse to determine whether SVCs in Igala occur more in one kind of discourse than another. Grammaticalisation and Lexicalisation of SVCs in Igala. 67

68. References (1) Agbedor, P.1994. ‘Verb serialization in Ewe’. Nordic journal of African studies 3(1), 115 – 135. Aikkhenvald, A. Y. 2006. ‘Serial verb constructions in typological perspective’. In A.Y. Aikkhenvald & R.M.W. Dixon (eds.). Serial verb constructions: a cross-linguistic typology, 1-68. New York: Oxfor University Press. Aikkhenvald A.Y. & Dixon R.M.W. (eds.) 2006. Serial verb constructions: a cross-linguistic typology. New York: Oxfor University Press. Ameka, F.K. 2005. ‘Multiverb constructions in a West African areal typological perspective’. In M. Vulchanova & T.Afarli (eds.). Grammar and beyond: essays in honour Lars Hellan.15-42. Oslo: Novus Press. Anagbogu, P. N. & Omachonu, G. S. Forthcoming. ‘Headedness and demarcation in nominal compounds: evidence from Ígálà, Ìgbò, Kọ̀ríng and Yorùbá’. Andrews, A.D. & Manning, C.D. 1999. Complex predicates and information spreading in LFG. Stanford: Centre for the Study of Language and Information Awobuluyi, O. A. 1967. ‘Studies in the syntax of the standard Yoruba verb’. PhD Dissertation, Columbia University. ---------------- 1971. Splitting verbs in Yoruba. Actes du huitieme congres international de linguistique Africaine vol. 1: 151-164. ----------------1973 ‘Modifying serial verbs: a critique’. Studies in African linguistics (S.A.L), 4.2.87-111. Awoyale, Y. 1987. ‘Perspectives on verb serialization’. In V. Manfredi (ed.). Niger-Congo syntax and semantics, 1:3-35. Baker, M. 1989. ‘Object sharing and projection in serial verb constructions’. Linguistic Inquiry, 20:513 – 553. Baker, M. & Stewart, O. T. 2002. ‘A serial verb construction without constructions’. Ms, Rutgers University. Balmer, W.T. & Grant, F.C.F. 1929. A grammar of the Fante-Akan language. London: Atlantic Press. 68

69. References (2) Bamgbose, A. 1972. ‘What is a verb in Yoruba?’ In A. Bamgbose (ed.). The Yoruba verb phrase. Ibadan: University of Ibadan Press. ---------------- 1973. The modifying serial verb construction: a reply. Studies in African linguistics (S.A.L), 4.2.207-217. ---------------- 1974. ‘On serial verbs and verbal status’. The journal of West African languages (J.W.A.L), 9.1:17- 48. ----------------1982. ‘Issues in the analysis of serial verb constructions’. The journal of West African languages, xii (2), 3-21. Bearth, T. 1999. The contribution of African linguistics towards a general theory of focus: update and critical review. Journal of African languages and linguistics. 20: 121-156. Bisang, W. 2009. ‘Serial verb constructions’. Language and linguistics compass 3, 1749-1818. Blench, R. 2004. ‘The Benue-Congo languages: a proposed internal classification’ (Ms).Cambridge, 24 th June, 2004. Boadi, L. A. 1968. ‘Some aspects of Akan deep syntax’. The journal of West African languages.5.2:83-90. ---------------- 2000. ‘Serial verb constructions’. Plenary lecture at the 22nd West African Languages Congress. Legon: University of Ghana. Chomsky, N. 1957. Syntactic structures. Mouton, The Hague. ---------------- 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge Massachusetts: MIT Press ---------------- 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dondnecht: Foris. ---------------- 1982. Some concepts and consequence of the theory of government and binding. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press ---------------- 1986. Barriers. Cambridge Mass: MIT Press --------------- 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Christaller, J. 1875. A grammar of the Assante and Fante language called Twi. Basel: Basel Evangelical Mission Society. 69

70. References (3) Dechaine, R. 1988. ‘Towards a typology of serial constructions in Haitian’. In V. Manfredi (ed.). Niger Congo syntax and semantics, 1:49-64. Durie, Mark. 1997. Grammatical structures in verb serialisation. In: Alsina, Alex, Joan Bresnan and Peter Sells eds. Complex predicates. Stanford: CSLI pp 289-354. Ejeba, S. O. 2011. ‘Aspects of Igala syntax: a transformational generative account’. In G. S. Omachonu (ed.). Igala language studies, 103- 151. Germany: LAMBERT Academic Publishing. Foley, W. A. & Oslon, M.1985. ‘Clausehood and verb serialisation’. In J. Nichols & A. C. Woodbury (ed.). Grammar inside and outside the clause, 17-60. Cambridge: CUP. George, I. 1975. ‘Typology of verb serialization’. Journal of West African languages (J.W.A.L) X,1.78-97. Givón, T. 1991. ‘Some substantive issues concerning verb serialization: grammatical vs cognitive packaging’, 137-84 Lefebvre (ed.). Johnson, S. 2005. Revisiting the structure of serial verb constructions. MS, Department of Linguistics, Michigan State University. Lord, Carol. 1993. Historical change in serial verb constructions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Omachonu, G. S. 2006. Verb phrase serialization in Igala. In O-M. Ndimele, C.I. Ikekeonwu & B.M. Mbah (eds.). Language & economic reforms in Nigeria. Port- Harcourt: M & J Grand Orbit Communications Ltd. &Emhai Press. 237-246. ------------------- 2011. (ed.). Igala language studies. Germany: LAMBERT Academic Publishing. Pavey, E. L. 2010. The structure of language: an introduction to grammatical analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pawley, A. P.1987. ‘Encoding events in Kalam and English: different logic for reporting experience’. In R. Tomlin (ed.). Coherence and grounding in discourse. 329-60. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Potsdam, E. 1997. English verbal morphology and VP ellipsis. In Proceedings of the 27th meeting of the North East linguistic society. Amherst, Mass.: GLSA, University of Massachusetts at Amherst, 353- 368, 1997. 70

71. References (4) Schachter, P. 1974. ‘A non-transformational account of serial verbs’. Studies in African linguistics’. Supplement 5: 253 –270. Schiller, E. 1990. ‘The typology of serial verb constructions’. Chicago linguistic society 26: 393- 406. Shibatani, M. 2009. ‘On the form of complex predicates: toward demystifying serial verbs’. In Johannes Helmbrecht, Yoko Nishina, Yong-Min Shin, Stavros Skopeteas, Elisabeth Verhoeven, (eds.). Form and function in language research: papers in honour of Christian Lehmann. Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs. Mouton de Gruyter. Stewart, J. 1963. ‘Some restrictions on objects in Twi’. JWAL, 1(2), 145-149. Yusuf, O. 1997. Transformation generative grammar: an introduction. Ijebu Ode: Shebiotimo Publications. Westeramnn, D. 1907. Grammatik der Ewe-sprache. Berlin: Diedrich Reimer. ------------------- 1930. A study of the Ewe language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Westermann, D. &Bryan,M.A. 1952. The languages of West Africa. London: Oxford University Press. Williams, W. 1971. ‘Serial verb constructions in Krio’. Studies in African linguistics, Supplement 2: 47-63. Williams, K. & Blench, R. 2000. ‘Niger-Congo’. In B. Heine & D. Nurse (eds.). African languages: an introducrion, 12-43. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Zwicky, A. 1990. ‘What are we talking about when we talk about serial verb constructions?’ 1-13, Joseph & Zwicky (eds:). 71