Functional categories

Table 1 sets out the functional SVC categories that exist in Kamtok (adapted from Muysken and Veenstra Reference Muysken, Veenstra, Arends, Muysken and Smith1995: 290–291). The fourth column of the table lists cross-referenced examples that illustrate each category. The shaded rows indicate those verbs that possibly originated as serial verbs in Cameroonian Pidgin English but are now fully grammaticalised into non-lexical categories.

Table 1:

SVC categories in Kamtok

Examples (1)–(3) illustrate locational SVCs containing the verbs go ‘go’, kam ‘come’ and rich ‘reach’.Footnote ² Any example for which an author is not named was provided by me, the present author.

1. (1) i ron go fo dokta yi haus

   he run go prep doctor 3s.poss house

   ‘He ran to the doctor's house.’ (Todd, Reference Todd1982: 128)

2. (2) sotei yu kam bring-am, na yu moni dis

   until you come bring-it cop your money dem

   ‘Until you bring it back, your money stays here.’ (Todd, Reference Todd1982: 133)

3. (3) Dem bi waka sotee kam rich fo hea

   They pst walk unti come reach prep here

   ‘They trekked until they reached this place.’ (Bamenda 1.txt)

Examples (4)–(8) illustrate various valency functions of SVCs in Kamtok. Example (4) illustrates the benefactive function of gif ‘give’. Example (5) illustrates the instrumental function of teik ‘take’, and example (6) illustrates the comitative function of the same verb. Examples (7) and (8) illustrate the causative functions of meik ‘make’ and gri ‘allow’.

1. (4) a bi go gif repot fo polis fo Fiango

   I pst go give report prep police prep Fiango

   ‘I went and reported to the police at Fiango.’

   (Sisters-in-law)

2. (5) yu go di teik am so gif am fo

   you fut impf take 3S so give 3S PREP

   pikin  yi  mop

   child  poss  mouth

   ‘You would be taking it and putting it into the child's mouth.’

   (Bamenda 2.txt)

3. (6) i teik mi go

   he take me go

   ‘He took me with him.’  (Todd, Reference Todd1982: 153)

4. (7) meik a komot fo moto

   make I come.out of car

   ‘Let me get out of the car.’  (Ayafor, 2004)

5. (8) if na mi, a no go gri meik i

   If cop me, I neg fut agree make s/he

   kam visit dat pikin  dem

   come visit dem child  pl

   ‘If I were the one, I would not let him come and visit the children.’

   (Radio Hot Cocoa.txt)

As the examples in (9) illustrate, sei (< ‘say’) no longer functions as a lexical verb in Kamtok (cf. 9a and 9b), but has fully grammaticalised into a complementiser (9b–9c). Example 9a and all other subsequent ungrammatical utterances are considered ungrammatical because such constructions are not found anywhere in the entire corpus of data used for this study, data collected from various speakers.

1. (9)

   1. a. *i bi sei plenty ting dem

      s/he  pst say many thing pl

      ‘S/he said many things.’

   2. b. sumo ting wei a wan tok bifo a

      small   thing   REL   Is want talk before 1s

      go tok fo  masef

      FUT talk  PREPmyself

      ‘The little thing that I want to say before I speak about myself …’

      (Bamenda 1.txt)

   3. c. Ardo Wami wi bi tok sei na

      Ardo Wami  we pst talk rel   cop

      pa for Sabga dem

      father  prep Sabga PL

Similarly, the examples in (10) illustrate that don (< ‘done) cannot function as a lexical verb in Kamtok, but is a fully grammaticalised TAM morpheme (perfective aspect).

1. (10)

   1. a. *i don  don yi wok

      s/he  pst  done  poss.3s work

      ‘S/he has done his/her work.’

   2. b. i don do  yi wok

      s/he  pf  do  poss.3s work

      ‘S/he has done his/her work.’

   3. c. i don si dokta

      s/he  pf  see  doctor

      ‘S/he has seen the doctor.’  (Ayafor, Reference Ayafor and Mesthrie2008: 41)

Example (11) illustrates the aspectual (perfective) function of finish in Kamtok.

1. (11)

   1. a. tifman kill-am  sotei  yi  dai finish

      thief  kill-him  until  he  die  finish

      ‘The thief killed him stone dead.’

   2. b. i don chop finish, i  di krai daso

      s/he pf eat finish s/he impf  cry  still

      ‘S/he has finished eating, yet s/he is still crying.’

      (Bamenda 2.txt)

   3. c. dei wei a go maket fain, a go sel am finish

      day rel Is go market fine, 1s go sell it finish

      ‘When business is good, I would sell it all.’

      (Bamenda 7.txt)

As the examples in (12) illustrate, Kamtok does not have a synchronic SVC with a modality function. The form fit (< ‘fit’) does not function as a lexical verb; speakers instead use koret ‘fit’, ‘be correct’ (12a); fit is a fully grammaticalised modality morpheme (12b).

1. (12)

   1. a. dis kova koret fo dis botel

      dem  lid  fit  prep  dem  bottle

      ‘This lid fits this bottle.’

      I  len som wok o  i  du som

      s/he learn sid work or  s/he do sid

      ting wei i go koret  yi

      thing REL it fut correct 3S

      ‘S/he learned a trade or did something that would fit her.’

      (Bamenda 7.txt)

   2. b. a fit  kuk rais

      I  mod  cook  rice

      ‘I can cook rice.’  (Ayafor, Reference Ayafor and Mesthrie2008: 439)

Finally, examples (13)–(14) illustrate the degree-indicating functions of the verbs pas ‘pass’ and (neg) rich ‘(not) reach’ in Kamtok.

1. (13)

   1. a. Susana di bay nyanga tin dem pas

      Susana  impf buy beauty thing pl pass

      Mary

      Mary

      ‘Susana buys beauty products more than Mary.’

      (Ayafor, Reference Ayafor and Mesthrie2008: 447)

   2. b. John yi fut dem bik rich Peter yi

      John poss foot pl big reach Peter poss

      on dem

      own pl

      ‘John's feet are as big as Peter's.’

      (Ayafor, Reference Ayafor and Mesthrie2008: 447)

2. (14) orenj  no swit rich banana

   orange neg be.sweet reach banana

   ‘Oranges are less sweet than bananas.’

   (Bellama et al., Reference Bellama, Nkwelle and Yudom1983: 71)

In sum, the examples provided in the present section illustrate that Kamtok has SVCs that perform the functions of indicating location, argument, aspect and degree.

Structural properties

In this section, we set out the structural properties of SVCs in Kamtok. First, as the examples in (15) demonstrate, the SVC is restricted to a single subject, indicating a mono-clausal construction.

1. (15)

   1. a. *i ron i  go fo dokta yi

      s/he run s/he go prep doctor 3s.poss

      haus

      house

      ‘He ran to the doctor's house.’ (Todd Reference Todd1982: 128)

   2. b. *a wan  a  go a rich Bamenda

      I  want    I  go  I  reach  Bamenda

      ‘I want to get to Bamenda.’

   3. c. *yi sista bai klos i  gif yi

      poss.3s   sister    buy    clothes she give him

      ‘His sister bought clothes for him.’

Second, each verb that occurs in a SVC must be able to function as an independent lexical verb in order for the construction to meet the criteria set out for SVCs in the literature. As the examples in (16) illustrate, this is the case for all the serial verbs illustrated in the preceding section, but recall the discussion of examples (9), (10) and (12) above.

1. (16)

   1. a. dat pipul wei dey di go fo

      dem  people  REL  3P impf go prep

      Mecca

      Mecca

      ‘Those people who go to Mecca.’

      (Bamenda 1.txt)

   2. b. waitman don kam fo insait kontri

      whiteman PST come PREP inside country

      ‘A European has come to our land.’

      (Bamenda 6.txt)

   3. c. a no  nou wusai yu don waka rich,

      Is  negknow where you pst walk reach,

      bot a wan meik yu tel wi…

      butIs want make you tell we…

      ‘I don't know how far you've travelled but I want you to tell us…’

      (Bamenda 5.txt)

   4. d. dey gif yu wata yu dring

      3Pl give you water you drink

      ‘They gave you water and you drank.’

      (Sisters-in-law)

   5. e. as yu teik am yu ton fo bak sai

      as you take it you turn PREP back side

      yu trow am

      you throw it

      ‘As you took it, you turned around and threw it behind the house.’

      (Yaoundé5.txt)

   6. f. a di meik ma koki sotei ma

      1s  IMPF make poss koki  until poss

      masa  kam   dai

      master  come die

      ‘I kept making bean cakes until my husband died.’

      (Bamenda 2.txt)

   7. g. wuman dem wuna gri?

      women  Pl  3Pl  agree

      ‘Women, do you agree? (Radio Hot Cocoa)

   8. h. so wuna finsih nomal sikul fo

      so  3pl  finish  normal  school  prep

      aftanun?

      afternoon?

      ‘So you finshed normal schooling in the afternoon?’

      (Sisters-in-law)

   9. i. dog no di pas fo pleis wei

      dog neg impf pass prep place rel

      i pikin dei

      poss child there

      ‘A dog does not pass near where his/her child is’

      (Yaoundé 2.txt)

The third property of the Kamtok SVC is that it does not permit subordinating complementisers, conjunctions, infinitival particles or prosodic pauses indicating covert coordination. Therefore, the examples in (17) provide further evidence that the SVC is a mono-clausal construction, and it does not contain coordination, overt or covert. These are not found in the corpus since they are ungrammatical so not usually used. That is why they have no reference. They are my creations.

1. (17)

   1. a. *go fain-am an/sei/fo bring-am nau

      go  find-it  conj/comp/inf bring-it  now

      ‘Go and look for it and bring it (here) at once.’

   2. b. *i ron an/sei/fo go fo dokta yi

      herun  conj/comp/inf go prep doctor 3s.poss

      haus

      house

      ‘He ran to the doctor's house.’

   3. c. *i tek me an/sei/fo go America

      he  take  me conj/comp/inf  go America

      ‘He took me to America.’

   4. d. *ticha bi kam an/sei/fo tok fo

      teacher pst come conj/comp/inf talk prep

      Papa.

      Papa

      ‘The teacher came and talked to Papa.’

   5. e. *a wan waka an/sei/fo rich

      I  want  walk  conj/comp/inf   reach

      Mokolo   Maket

      Mokolo  market

      ‘I want to walk to Mokolo Market.’

   6. f. *i teik mi an/sei/fo go

      he  take  me  conj/comp/inf  go

      ‘He took me with him.’

   7. g. *yu di chop an/sei/fo pas mi

      you  impf  eat  conj/comp/inf  pass me

      ‘You eat more than me.’

The fourth property of the Kamtok SVC is that the order of the verb phrases cannot be reversed. Example (18) illustrates that the order of coordinated VPs can be reversed, a well-known test for coordination structures. (As these examples show, Kamtok rarely requires overt coordination between VPs.) In contrast, the order of constituents in an SVC cannot be reversed as in (19)–(20) which shows that the SVC is distinct from a covert coordination construction (Sebba, Reference Sebba1987: 96–102).

1. (18)

   1. a. i bi brok fayawud kuk chop  bifo

      s/he pst split firewood cook food before

      i  go maket.

      s/he  go market

      ‘S/he split the firewood and cooked the food before she went to the market.’

   2. b. i bi kuk chop brok fayawud bifo I go

      s/he pst cook food  split firewood…

      maket

      ‘S/he cooked the food and split the firewood…’

   3. c. meik wuna kam si som man weh

      make 3Pl come  see SID man REL

      e don tok ol ting  dem weh

      3S  PST talk all thing  PL REL

      a don du-am

      1S PST do-it

      ‘Come and see a man who told me everything I ever did!’

   4. d. *meik wuna si kam som man weh ..

      make  3Pl  see  come  SID man REL

      (John 4:29 in GUD NYUS fo Ol Pipul)

2. (19)

   1. a. Susana di bay nyanga tin dem pas

      Susana  impf  buy beauty thing pl pass

      Mary

      Mary

      ‘Susana buys more beauty products than Mary.’

      (Ayafor, 2004: 447)

   2. b. *Susana di pas Mary  bay nyanga

      Susana IMPF pass Mary buy beauty

      tin dem

      thing PL

3. (20)

   1. a. weikop teik yua mat bigin waka

      stand up take POSS mat begin walk

      ‘Stand up, pick up your mat and walk.’

      (John 5:8 in Gud NYUS fo Ol Pipul)

   2. b. * weikop bigin waka teik yua mat

      stand up  begin  walk  take  POSS  mat

The fifth structural property of the Kamtok SVC concerns object extraction, further evidence against covert coordination. It is well known that coordinated VPs create an island for extraction as illustrated by example (21), which shows that objects cannot be wh- extracted from co-ordinated phrases. The fact that SVCs allow object extraction (22) indicates that they do not contain covert coordination structures (Sebba, Reference Sebba1987).

1. (21)

   1. a. John washed the dishes and changed the sheets

   2. b. *What did John wash and change the sheets?

   3. c. *What did John wash the dishes and change?

2. (22)

   1. a. Susana di bai nyanga tin dem pas

      Susana impf buy beauty thing pl pass

      Mary

      Mary

      ‘Susana buys more beauty products than Mary.’

      (Ayafor 2004:447)

   2. b. weiti Susana  di  bai  pas  Mary?

      what  Susana impf buy pass Mary1

      ‘What does Susana buy more of than Mary?’

   3. c. hu Susana di  bai nyanga tin

      who Susana impf buy beauty thing

      dem pas?

      pl pass

      ‘Who does Susana buy beauty products more than?’

The sixth structural property of the Kamtok SVC is that the construction only permits one tense/aspect/modality/negation morpheme. These must precede the first verb (23)–(26).

1. (23)

   1. a. yu go kam si som ting dem weh

      3S fut  come see sid thing pl rel

      dem pas dis wan

      3Pl pass dem one

      ‘You will see greater things than this.’

      (John 1:50 in GUD NYUS Fo OL Pipul)

   2. b. *yu kam go si som ting dem weh

      3S  come FUT see SID thing PL REL

      dem pas dis wan

      3Pl pass DEM one

2. (24)

   1. a. a no bi chop  rich yu

      I  neg pst  eat  reach  you

      ‘I didn't eat as much as you.’

   2. b. *a  chop no bi  rich yu

      I  eat  neg  pst  reach  you

      ‘I didn't eat as much as you.’

3. (25)

   1. a. *yu go kam go si som ting dem

      3S FUT come FUT see SID thing PL

      weh dem pas dis wan

      REL 3PL pass DEM one

   2. b. *a no chop no rich yu

      I  neg  eat  neg  reach  you

      ‘I don't eat as much as you.’

4. (26) *yu di chop  don  pas mi

   you impf eat  pf pass me

   ‘You eat more than me.’

The seventh structural property of the Kamtok SVC is that each verb can take its own adverbial modifiers, which are typically post-verbal in Kamtok. This is illustrated by examples (27)–(28). However, I observe that adverbials cannot intervene between a transitive verb and its NP complement (28b).

1. (27)

   1. a. i  bi kam kwik-kwik  tok  fo  Papa

      s/he  pst come quickly talk prep Papa

      ‘S/he came quickly and talked to Father.’

   2. b. i  bi kam  tok kwik-kwik  fo  Papa

2. (28)

   1. a. i bi  kam  kwik-kwik  hol  mi

      s/he  pst come quickly hold  me

      ‘S/he came quickly and held me.’

   2. b. *i  bi kam  hol  kwik-kwik  mi

   3. c. i  bi  kam  hol  mi  kwik-kwik

Finally, the SVC is characterised by argument sharing. Two main types of argument sharing have been identified in the Kamtok SVC: Type I, where the subject is shared between two or more verbs, and Type II, where the object of a transitive V₁ simultaneously functions as the subject of V₂. Table 2 summarises the argument sharing constructions in Kamtok SVCs.

Table 2:

Argument sharing in Kamtok SVCs

1. (29)

   1. a. wan pikin ron go

      one child run go

      ‘One child ran away.’ (Bamenda 7.txt)

   2. b. a kam teik pikin i oya

      I  come  take  child  poss  oil

      ‘I came and took the child's oil.’ (Bamenda 2.txt)

   3. c. yu teik galon go na blak bush wata

      3S take gallon go COP black bush water

      wan taim fo ron go

      one time prep run go

      kari water

      carry water

      ‘Yu take a gallon and went instead to the black bush immediately to go and fetch water.’

      (Yaoundé 2.txt)

   4. d. wi di chop nyamangoro pas ol man

      1PL IMPF eat snails pass all man

      ‘We eat snails more than everybody else.’

      (Yaounde 2.txt)

   5. e. man go kari wan tin oya pass go sel-am

      man fut carry one tin oil pass go sell-it

      ‘A person would carry a tin of oil and go and sell it.’

      (Bamenda 6.txt)

   6. f. ano nou weiti meik mi fol

      1S neg know what make me fall

      ‘I don't know what made me fall.’

      (Bamenda 7.txt)

   7. g. i  bi meik  de  pikin chop  de  chop

      s/he  pst make def child eat def food

      ‘S/he made the child eat the food.’

   8. h. Wen yu tok som ting meik yu du

      When 3S talk sid thing make 3S do

      de ting

      def thing

      ‘Do what you say you would do’. (Yaounde 3.txt)

   9. i. So dat kana ting di meik am

      So DEM kind thing impf make it

      hair di gro

      hair IMPF grow

      So that kind of thing makes hair grow. (Yaounde 4.txt)

Interim summary: a definition of the SVC in Kamtok

In sum, the Kamtok SVCFootnote ³ can be defined as having the following properties:

• • Single subject

• • Each verb can function as an independent lexical verb

• • No overt conjunctions or subordinating complementisers

• • No covert coordination: no pauses, no possibility of word order change

• • Object extraction is possible

• • One tense/aspect/modality/negation morpheme preceding the first verb

• • Each verb can take its own adverbial modifiers

• • Argument sharing (subjects, but not always objects)

Distinguishing SVCs from other multi-verb sentence types in Kamtok

In this section we show how SVCs are distinct from other multi-verb sentence types in Kamtok. First, subordination is characterised either by a complementiser like sei (declarative), if or weda (interrogative), or by the infinitive particle fo (30). Recall from example (17) that SVCs do not tolerate complementisers or infinitival particles.

1. (30)

   1. a. i tok sei i no go kam

      he say comp he neg fut come

      ‘He says that he's not coming.’

   2. b. i as if/weda a go laik fo folo

      s/he ask if/whether I fut like inf follow

      i go

      him go

      ‘He asked if I would like to go with him.’

   3. c. dat man sabi fo meik yi

      dem man know inf make poss.3s

      wuman veks!

      wife be.upset

      ‘That man knows how to upset his wife!’

Second, implicative verbs like trai ‘try, manage’ and mimba ‘remember’ show the greatest superficial similarities to SVCs (31). However, these verbs permit infinitive particles, an overt marker of subordination (32). Thus, sentences in (31) and (32) mean exactly the same thing. The verbs in these constructions can be negated independently (33) (Sebba, Reference Sebba1987: 88–90), another disqualifier for verb serialisation. Recall from examples (23)–(26) that SVCs only tolerate a single negation morpheme, which must precede the first verb.

1. (31)

   1. a. i bi  trai  finish  yi  wok

      s/he pst try finish poss.3s work

      ‘She managed to finish her work.’

   2. b. i  bi  mimba  finish  yi  wok

      s/he pst remember finish poss.3s work

      ‘She remembered to finish her work.’

2. (32)

   1. a. i bi  trai  fo finish  yi  wok

      s/he pst try inf finish poss.3s work

      ‘She managed to finish her work.’

   2. b. i  bi  mimba  fo finish  yi  wok

      s/he pst remember inf finish poss.3s work

      ‘She remembered to finish her work.’

3. (33)

   1. a. i no bi  trai  finish  yi  wok

      s/he neg pst try finish poss.3s work

      ‘S/he didn't manage to finish his/her work.’

   2. b. i bi trai no finish yi wok

      s/he pst try neg finish poss.3s work

      ‘She managed not to finish her work.’

   3. c. i no bi trai no finish yi wok

      s/he neg pst try neg finish poss.3s work

      ‘She didn't manage not to finish her work.’

Finally, control verbs like want ‘want’, promis ‘promise’ and convins ‘convince, persuade’ take overt markers of subordination (34), unlike SVCs. The verbs in these constructions also allow independent negation (35) (Sebba, Reference Sebba1987: 90–94). Therefore, they are different from SVCs.

1. (34)

   1. a. Thomas want fo wok farm

      Thomas want inf work farm

      ‘Thomas wants to work the farm.’

      (Mbangwana and Sala Reference Mbangwana and Sala2009: 226)

   2. b. i bi  promis  sei  i  go finish

      s/he pst promise comp s/he fut finish

      de wok

      def work

      ‘He promised to finish the work.’

   3. c. i  bi  convins  mi  sei  mek  a  finish

      s/he pst convince me comp make I finish

      de wok

      def work

      ‘He persuaded me to finish the work.’

2. (35)

   1. a. i no bi  promis  sei  i  go

      s/he neg pst promise comp s/he fut

      finish  de   wok

      finish def work

      ‘He didn't promise to finish the work.’

   2. b. i bi promis sei  i no go

      s/he pst promise comp s/he  neg fut

      finish  de  wok

      finish  def work

      ‘He promised not to finish the work.’

   3. c. i no bi  promis  sei  i  no

      s/he neg pst promise comp s/he  neg

      go finish   de

      fut finish  def

      wok

      work

      ‘He didn't promise not to finish the work.’

In sum, it is evident from the examples discussed in this section that SVCs show clearly distinct structural properties from other multi-verb constructions in Kamtok.