Verbal Extensions and Valency in Limbum

Received: 16 October 2021 Accepted: 22 November 2021 Published: 15 December 2021 DOI: 10.32996/ijllt.2021.4.12.9 The objective of this paper is to examine the extent to which verbal extensions in Limbum affect valency. Limbum is a Grassfield Bantu language of the Northern group, spoken by the population who occupy a greater part of the Nkambe plateau in DongaMantung Division of the North West Region of Cameroon Binan Bikoi (ed) (2012). To attain my set objective, I carry out an analysis of those affixes (in the case of Limbum, they are suffixes), which are usually attached to verbs and the effect the addition of these suffixes has on the number of arguments in the sentence. Some of these suffixes have a valency decreasing effect, while some have a valency increasing effect on the verbs. The orientation of the discussions here centres on the description of the morpho-syntactic structure of the Limbum verb. In this regard, the analysis herein draws inspiration from the theory of Valency as proposed by Tesnière in 1959 and his followers and the Structuralist Framework as propounded by De Saussure and his disciples who hold that linguistic unit: words, phrases and sentences are perceived as a concatenation of smaller units which hold a close relationship between them. The structure of the Limbum sentence containing verbal extensions that express aspectual meanings have three consequences on the number of arguments that the verb takes: the discussions here show that, while the morphemes -ri, -i, and -se marking the attenuative, the pluractional, and the distributive aspects respectively have no effect on the number of arguments taken by the verb to which they are suffixed, the causative morpheme -si, has a valency increasing effect on the verb to which it is affixed. In the same light, the reciprocative -ni, the separative -ti and the iterative -ger, when suffixed to a verb, have the tendency of increasing the number of arguments that the verb takes. In a bid to clarify the structural cartography of verbal extensions in Limbum, the last part of this paper is dedicated to a presentation of some suffixes like -ri and si, which has, with the evolution of the language, fossilized with the verb root to the extent that they have become an integral part of the verb in a way that they cannot be detached from each other. Conclusively, the paper shows that verbal extensions in Limbum are, for the most part, suffixal morphemes. While some of these suffixes have no effect on the number of arguments the verb subcategorizes for, some have a valency decreasing effect on the verb while others, on the other hand, have a valency increasing effect. Others have outrightly merged with the verb root. KEYWORDS


Introduction 1
Valency is an important area of the description of a language. In the literature, different models have proposed a varied number of word classes to which the property of valency is ascribed. These range from the verb, the noun, adjectives, prepositions to adverbs (Hhuddleston and Pullum 2002, Herbst and Schuller 2008). That notwithstanding, the theory that underlies the discussions here is the Theory of Valency as discussed in Faulhaber (2011). In this theory, the verb is considered as the most central element of the sentence and the main determinant of its structure. In this regard, the analysis here will consider the verb as the valency carrier in that it is that element that determines the number of arguments that it takes.
In the following paragraphs, I explore the notion of valency in relation to the verb as it obtains in Limbum, a Grassfield Bantu language of the Northern group, Binam Bikoi (ed) (2012). Valency as used here refers to the number and type of bonds that a syntactic element may take or form with another. In this paper, valency refers to the type of bond that the verb forms with its arguments. I refer to subjects of sentences and verbal complements in my arguments here. In Limbum, when certain morphemes are affixed to the verb, they affect the valency originally attributed to the verb. Some of these affixes (in the case of Limbum, they are all suffixes) increase the number of arguments attributed to the verb, others have a decreasing effect on the number of arguments the verb would normally take, and yet others do not have any influence on the number of expressions assigned to the verb. It is, therefore, my aim in this paper to identify the various verbal extensions in Limbum and group them with regards to the impact they have on the number of arguments attributed to the verb as a result of the addition of these extensions. This paper is divided into seven (7) sections, with the first and the last sections being the introduction and the conclusion respectively. Section two (2) presents the theoretical frameworks that guide the analysis of the data. In section three (3), I present the structure of the Limbum sentence using the verbs that could potentially be open to the attribution of an affix. Section four (4) focuses on a discussion of suffixes that affect the valency of the verb. In section five (5), given that not all verbal extensions in Limbum affect the valency of the verb to which they are attached, I handle those verbal extensions that do not alter the number of arguments the verb has subcategorized for. In the sixth (6) section, in order to understand the Limbum data in its entirety, I present those extensions that, due to the evolution of the language, have been glued to the verbs in such a way that they are inseparable. If they are separated, no meaning can be ascribed to the verb root.

Theoretical orientation
The analysis in this paper is based on an eclectic approach: it uses the Theory of Valency as inspired by Tesnière (1959), Hollein (2020) and the Structuralist framework as put forth by Saussure and his followers.
The Theory of Valency holds that this: "…is a grammatical theory which focuses on the verb as its canter. …on the idea that verbs structure sentences by binding specific elements as atoms do." Hollein (2020:1). According to the Valency Theory, the verb is the valency carrier and it determines and creates a tight bond with its complements (complements here include subjects). Any other addable elements to the structure of the sentence are not determined by the verb. These include adjuncts. Because the verb is the valency carrier in language, the use of the assumptions of this theory justifies the discussion of the effects of the affixation of other morphemes to the verb to the structure of the sentence.
As stated earlier, I also use ideas of language put forth by Ferdinand de Saussure and his followers (Structuralism). Some of the tenets of this theory hold that language is a system and, as such, must be studied by its structure. As a system, every individual word is meaningless outside the confines of that structure. Hence every element in this system should be studied in its context of use. Therefore, in the present paper, I examine how, due to the addition of certain affixes to the verb, the structure of the construction may/may not be affected.

The structure of the Limbum sentence
In the following paragraphs, I present the structure of the Limbum sentence. In most of the cases, I will be using the verbs that can take extensions so that the presentations in subsequent sections will be rendered more visible.

Avalent constructions
An avalent verb refers to a verb or verb phrase whose valency is null. In other words, the verb or verb phrase does not subcategorize for any argument (agent). These are often said to be impersonal. In Limbum, there are no verbs that are impersonal. Considering the English sentence in (1) below,

1.
It is raining At first sight, one might be tempted to analyze the pronoun "it" as being the subject of the construction. This will not be correct because this pronoun, otherwise referred to as an impersonal pronoun, does not have an antecedent. While in the English language, avalent verbs like "rain" exists, this is not the case in Limbum. Take the construction in (1) above in Limbum; obligatorily, there must be a subject. The construction in (2) below is illustrative.
There is no way in this language that one can use a verb without either a phonetically realized or an implied subject except in the imperative.
Expressions in Limbum like those in (3a) and (b) below, though do not contain overt subjects, translate understood subjects. Let us consider them.
The constructions in (3a) and (b) above look like what can be described as avalent verbs. But this is not true, given the fact that these are in the imperative form. The only difference between the two constructions is that while the command in (3a) is addressed to a second person singular subject, that in (b) is addressed to a second person plural subject.

Monovalent constructions
In human language, there are certain verbs that do not subcategorize for a direct object by their very nature. This type of verb has been described in the literature as monovalent (a verb that subcategorizes for an agent subject that can be morphologically expressed or null but understood). In Limbum, some verbs are inherently monovalent in the sense that they subcategorize only for one argument, which is the agent of the action expressed by the verb. The examples below illustrate this fact.
The verbs su: "descend" and kwe "die" by their very nature and meaning, subcategorize for a subject. The verbs can, however, take adjuncts, as is evident in the construction in (4a). Verbs like the ones in (4a) and (b) are said to be monovalent.

Bivalent constructions
Talking about bivalent verbs, I refer to verbs which, by their inherent properties, cannot function in construction without a subject and a direct object. This class of verbs is traditionally known as mono-transitive verbs. Some examples of these verbs are used in the constructions below.
In the above sentences, the action expressed by the verb obligatorily, must be transmitted to a patient object. Unlike in languages like English, where an expression like I am eating is grammatical, in Limbum any attempt at removing the direct object renders the construction ungrammatical if the construction is uttered as a response to a question. For example, if one is asked: what are you doing with the food? The response: I am eating is acceptable as far as the English language is concerned. Contrarily, removing bye: "food" and w "you" from the constructions in (5a) and (b) renders the expressions senseless, except it is used in a specific context. In other words, within a specific discourse frame, the constructions as in (6a) and (b) below can be acceptable as situational sentences.
N.B. The question mark preceding the above constructions indicate that these sentences can be acceptable.

Trivalent constructions
Trivalent constructions refer to those constructions in which there is a verb that requires three arguments that are either phonetically represented or implied: an agent -subject, a patient -object and a theme/beneficiary -object. Examples of constructions with these verbs are given below.
The subcategorization frame of the verbs fa "give" and nse "put" demands that in construction, these verbs should form a bond with an agent subject, a patient object and a beneficiary indirect object for fa and a location indirect object for nse. These kinds of verbs are traditionally referred to as di-transitive verbs.
Other patterns of sentences that are found in Limbum result from the addition of adjuncts, or they are complex constructions or derived through movement in the syntax. Limbum is essentially an S.V.O. language.

Valency affecting verbal extensions
The notion of verbal extensions has been given varied definitions by different authors (Katamba 1993 As stated earlier, the sentence pattern, in terms of the number of arguments a verb subcategorizes for, might change when the said verb receives an affix. Some affixes do not affect the valency of the verb while some extensions influence the number of arguments of the sentence. In the following paragraphs, I undertake a discussion of those affixes which affect the verbal valency by increasing the number of arguments and those that contrarily decrease the number of arguments.

Valency increasing extensions
The Limbum data has revealed only one extension that affects the valency of the verb. The extension that has the tendency of increasing the number of arguments which the verb subcategorizes is the suffix -si. Discussions on the functioning of this morpheme in relation to verb valence are carried out in the paragraph below.

causative -si
When the morpheme -si is suffixed to a verb that is intransitive by its very nature, it automatically subcategorizes for a following direct object. Let us examine sentences (4a) and (b), repeated here as (8a) and (b).
There is no direct object in both (8a) and (b) above. The valence of the verbs in the constructions is one. But when the suffix -si is added to the above verbs, the verbs obligatorily sub-categorize for a following direct object. This is shown in the sentences below.
A comparison of the sentences in (8a) and (b) above with their corresponding causative counterparts in (9a) and (b) reveal that this suffix causes an increase in the number of arguments: the intransitive verbs have now become transitive because of the suffixation of the morpheme -si. This is the reason for the ungrammaticality of the constructions in (10) below.
N.B. the presence of the asterisk indicates ungrammaticality.
As can be seen, the ungrammaticality of the above constructions is because the verbs without the causative suffix cannot take a direct object. In other words, these verbs can only become transitive if they are put in the causative form. In this regard, I have referred to this extension as a valency increasing extension.

Valency decreasing extensions
A number of extensions in Limbum have the capacity to cause the number of arguments subcategorized by the verb to decrease. These extensions include the reciprocative -ni, the separative -ti, and the iterative -ger. Discussions of each of these are carried out in the following paragraphs.

Reciprocative -ni
When one talks of reciprocity, one refers to a relation of mutual dependence, action or influence. This, in Limbum is expressed by the suffixation of the morpheme -ni to the verb root.
I discuss the influence of this morpheme on the structure of the sentence regarding valency using the following examples.
In (11a) and (12a) above, the verbs k "like" and bà "hate" are void of any affix. In this state, the verbs are obligatorily transitive and take two arguments: an agent subject and a theme object. When the morpheme -ni is suffixed to the verbs, as can be seen in (11b) and (12b), the direct objects disappear. A construction in Limbum with the verbs k and bà without direct objects is ruled out as ungrammatical, except they are uttered within a specific discourse frame. In the same light, if the direct object is inserted when the reciprocal marker is suffixed to the verb roots k and bà, the resulting constructions are considered as illformed. These facts are illustrated below.
While (13a) and (14a) may be acceptable in Limbum in the case of a specific discourse situation in that the utterances point to the fact that there is an implied or understood object, (13b) and (14b) are ruled out completely as ungrammatical.

Separative -ti
When the morpheme -ti is suffixed to a group of verbs, the verb expresses the separative aspect. This means the patient of the action expressed by the verb denotes an activity that expresses the notion of putting apart. The addition of this morpheme also renders divalent verbs to become monovalent. The sentences below are demonstrative.
In the constructions in (b) above, the objects of the verbs kep and sa: which are nta and t respectively no longer appear in post-verbal position. They all appear as the syntactic subjects of the corresponding sentences. Hence the number of arguments in the constructions in (b) are reduced to one as a result of the suffixation of -ti as opposed to the two arguments in the (a) sentences. In other words, while the constructions in (a) have agent subjects, those in (b) are agentless.

Iterative -ger
To some verbs, the suffix -ger can be added to express the action of repetition. Most of the verbs to which this iterative morpheme can be added are monovalent verbs. But when the suffix -ger is affixed to the verbs, they become bivalent. The following constructions illustrate this.
The verbs in sentences (17a) and (18a) have a valency of two (2): a subject and a direct object. With the suffixation of the iterative morpheme -ger, the valency changes. It can be noticed from the sentences in (b) above that with the presence of the iterative aspectual morpheme, the valency of the verbs become one (1): the subject only. This points to the fact that the iterative morpheme -ger in Limbum is a valency decreasing extension.

Extensions with no effect on valency
As noted in an earlier section, not all verbal extensions in Limbum have an incidence on the number of arguments that the verb takes. There are some verbal extensions which when affixed to the verb, do not change the number of arguments that the verb subcategorizes for. In this section, I discuss these verbal extensions and show that their presence has no effect on the valency of the verb to which they are attached.

Attenuative -ri
When the morpheme -ri is suffixed to a verb, the meaning changes in the sense that the action or state expressed by the verb is considered reduced or lessened. This morpheme is often affixed only to verbs that have to do with colour. I present examples of sentences with verbs void of this morpheme and those which contain it in the examples that follow.
All the verbs in the above examples subcategorize for two arguments: an agent subject and a patient object, as shown by the constructions in (a) above. In the sentences in (b), the suffix -i has been added to the verbs, but the valency remains two (2). Hence the -i extension does not affect the valency of the verb to which it is affixed.
This aspect is also attested in some other Grassfield Bantu languages like the Kom language (a Grassfield Bantu Language of the Ring group). In this language, the pluractional marker is the morpheme -l.
The following examples taken from Mba and Chiatoh (2003) are illustrative.

Distributive -se
When the morpheme -se is affixed to verbs, the verb's meaning denotes an action carried out by several people separately or by several persons individually. Just like the iterative -ger, this suffix has the peculiarity that it is affixed only to monosyllabic verbs and never to verbs of any other syllable type. We illustrate its use with the examples in (27) and (28) below.