When factivity meets the conjoint/disjoint alternation

Lisa Lai-Shen Cheng

doi:10.5842/62-0-895

Abstract

This paper examines the conjoint/disjoint alternation in matrix verbs which take clausal complements in Zulu. It shows that the typical verbs which by default take the disjoint form with a clausal complement are factive verbs, though it is also clear that other attitude verbs can also undergo the conjoint/disjoint alternation. The paper explores the connection between focus and the conjoint/disjoint alternation in Zulu under the Question Under Discussion (QUD) approach, to help understand the interpretations associated with the alternations in combination with clausal complements.

Highlights

The conjoint/disjoint alternation is one of the hotly discussed topics in Bantu linguistics
As summarised by Zeller et al (2016), the distinction in Zulu is generally analysed as a reflex of syntactic constituency: the conjoint form indicates that the verb is followed by material inside vP, while the disjoint form indicates that the verb is vP-final
The conjoint/disjoint alternation in Zulu has been shown in previous literature to be based on constituency, with focus as a side effect

Summary

Introduction

The conjoint/disjoint alternation is one of the hotly discussed topics in Bantu linguistics (see, e.g., the volume edited by Van der Wal and Hyman in 2016). The discussions of conjoint/disjoint alternation in Zulu have mainly concentrated on cases where the verb is followed by its nominal argument(s) as well as cases involving adjuncts. Halpert (2012) shows that both the conjoint and disjoint forms are possible with clausal complements, as we see in (5) with the verb ukucabanga ‘to think’ She shows that in the case of the disjoint form, the addition of the object marker ku (class 17) is possible, as in (6) (cf (5b) which does not have ku).. We should note that the cases mentioned in (11)-(13) involve subjunctive clauses, and extraction out of subjunctive clauses is possible in principle We know this because, firstly, all the (a)-sentences in (11)-(13) involve a wh-phrase, which can be thought of as being focused. Though this analysis can successfully account for cases with a wh-phrase/focus in the embedded clause (e.g., (7b) and (11b)-(13b)), it does not directly tell us why (10) needs to be in the disjoint form, and whether there is any interpretational difference between (5a) and (5b)

Factivity and extraposition

QUD and focus

Conclusion