the morphological implications of two polysemous formatives in khmer

The morphological implications of two polysemousformatives in Khmer

Stephen SelfGIAL

1. AbstractWhile Khmer shows historical evidence of a rich prefixal and

infixal morphology, the modern language is most often treated synchroncially as strictly isolating (Gorgoniev 1966:46–7). Compounding is admitted as the one truly productive path to word formation (Gorgoniev 1966:50; Schiller 1989:280).

Yet two scholars, Gorgoniev and Haiman, have also observed what they categorize as synchronically productive derivational processes involving what appears to be prefixation. Gorgoniev (1966:54) refers to the formatives that participate in these processes as “semi-prefixes.”

Three of these ‘semi-prefixes’ are completely productive synchronically and derive from full lexical native Khmer words. Of these, two are used to derive abstract nouns from verbs: kaː ‘business,work’ and səckdəj ‘signification’ (Gorgoniev 1966:55; Haiman 2011:47–8).The third, neak ‘person’, is used to derive agentive-type nominals corresponding more or less to English nouns in -er (Gorgoniev 1966:55; Haiman 2011:43, 74). In a sampling of 4,500 lexical entries from a Khmer dictionary, Gorgoniev (1966:54–5) found 222 words formed with kaː, 36 words formed with səckdəj and 121 words formed with neak. On the productivity of derivation via kaː, Haiman (2011:48) remarks: “I have never encountered a case when this nominalization is rejected as ungrammatical, for any verb.” On that of neak, he writes: “So regular is this process that one is hesitant to categorize it with derivational morphological phenomena at all” (Haiman 2011:74).

For both Gorgoniev and Haiman, the temptation to view these three lexemes more as affixes than as full lexical words stems from the words’ reduced semantics in the ‘derived’ forms. Gorgoniev (1966:54) defines his category of ‘semi-affixes’ as “elements which have not lost their lexical meaning altogether, but recurring in a large numberof words have assumed the character of seminotional [sic] affixes, that is to say, of affixes with traces of lexical meaning.” Yet, whileGorgoniev’s designation of ‘semi-affix’ leaves one unsure as to the formatives’ precise lexical status, Haiman uses the same semantic criterion to establish a specific threshold for deciding between an independent syntactic word and a grammatical affix. He writes: “…[A] morpheme is a derivational affix if its meaning is no longer exactly

of 34

the same as the word that it sounds exactly like” (2011:43). Taking neak as an example, Haiman (2011:44) states that as long as the word maintains its principle independent lexical meaning, “it will be treated in the syntax as a head noun rather than in the morphology as an agentive prefix.” Haiman warns that his approach will seem insufficiently restrictive for skeptical readers. Indeed, Jacob(1993:54) had earlier expressed doubts about Gorgoniev’s similar analysis, noting: “The semiprefixes might equally be treated as noun-components used with high frequency in the first position in a compound….”

The purpose of this squib is to investigate Haiman’s and Gorgoniev’s claims for the (semi)prefixal status of the native Khmer formative neak. I argue that agentive neak constructions are not simply phrases formed in syntax, as is shown by the fact that they cannot take tense/aspect/modality (TAM) marking nor accommodate modifiers or determiners inserted between the core constituents and are restricted in what argument structure they can display by lexical,not syntactic, requirements. I also claim that while neak constructionsresemble verbal compounds in their internal structure and occasionallylexicalized semantics, they may yet be differentiated from such compounds by the high degree of semantic bleaching of neak, its use with nouns that are either inherently agentive or already possess their own agentive morphology, and its lexicalized use to distinguish the female practitioner of the given profession or activity named in the verb from her male counterpart.

The structure of the paper is as follows. In section 2., I considerthe peculiar nature of morphology in Khmer and the strangeness of claiming derivational morphology for an isolating language. Section 3.tackles the arguments for and against the syntactic formation of neak constructions, as well as something of the history of syntactic treatments of morphological phenomena. In section 4., I turn to arguments for and against viewing neak constructions as verbal compounds. The conclusion considers implications of the study for another formative in Khmer that seems to be have been largely grammaticalized to the status of a pluralizing prefix: puak. This particular word forms a nice counterpoint to neak since it functions tomark inflectional, rather than derivational, meaning. 2. Derivational morphology in an isolating language?

Aikhenvald (2007:3–5) structures much of her discussion of the typology of word formation around two parameters which she contends have been used in the linguistic literature since the nineteenth century to assess morphology from a typological perspective. They are

of 34

the transparency of word-internal boundaries and the internal complexity of words. Languages which display little-to-no internal boundaries or complexity in their words are classified as isolating and analytic. Aikhenvald singles out Chinese and Vietnamese as prototypical examples. In both languages, the only synchronically productive morphological process is compounding, which can be prolificindeed. It has been estimated that as much as 80% of the Modern Mandarin Chinese vocabulary consists of disyllabic words (Yuzhi 2002:71). Given the widely recognized near-total isomorphism between syllable and morpheme in Mandarin (Chao 1968:138–9), disyllabic words must by definition consist of two lexical morphemes. As a result, Mandarin has been described as “a language of compound words” (Arcodia2007:83).

Khmer is another language Aikhenvald (2007:43–4) singles out as being of the isolating type. She characterizes what non-compounding derivational morphology is apparent in Khmer as “fossilized,” comprising “just some relics of non-category-changing morphology.” In his recent reference grammar of Khmer, Haiman (2011:164) observes that Khmer lacks inflectional morphology as well. Schiller (1989:280) concludes similarly:

Essentially, Khmer words are all of the same morphological category, and cannot be inflected. Compounding is possible, however, and quite prolific. There are some items which appear to have affixes (prefixed and infixes), but these aresimply vestiges of morphology from the era of Old and MiddleKhmer, which had productive affixation.

Aronoff and Fudeman (2011:179) offer as a primary characteristic of isolating languages that they evidence “no derivational or inflectional processes of any kind.” The observations of Khmer by Aikhenvald, Haiman, and Schiller would seem to bear this generalization out.

Thus it comes as some surprise to find Haiman rather more sanguine about the possibility of non-compounding derivational morphology in Khmer. He writes: “Like most SE Asian languages, including Chinese, Khmer seems to rely heavily on positional syntactic criteria. However,more than most of these languages, Khmer also seems to have some derivational affixation” (2003:508). In introducing the third chapter of his grammar entitled “Derivational morphology and word formation,” Haiman (2011:43) observes: “A recurrent analytical problem when dealing with an isolating language like Khmer is the identification ofderivational morphemes as such.” Here he implies that negative assessments of the existence of derivational morphology in Khmer likely stem from a misapprehension of the true nature of morphology in

of 34

the language. “[O]ne man’s word,” he writes tellingly, “is another man’s affix” (Haiman 2011:43).

Haiman uses the example given in (1) to illustrate the analytical problem posed by the possible affix-word neak ‘person’.

(1) neak aːnperson read (Haiman 2011:43)

According to Haiman (2011:43), this string of just two words can beinterpreted in three rather distinct ways: i) as a complete sentence with unmarked SVO word order (2); ii) as a reduced relative clause(3); or iii) as a single, agentive NP (4).

(2) ‘(The) person reads.’(3) ‘(the) person (who) reads’(4) ‘reader’

A few background facts about Khmer are needed to clarify what at firstblush might seem a dubious or even outlandish claim.

First, Khmer orthography does not use spaces between words within phrases; spaces occur as punctuation only between sense units, as between a subordinate clause and the matrix clause for example (Smyth 2008:14). Thus, words with derivational morphology inherited from Palisuch as (5) and obvious native compounds such as (6) both appear as single orthographic words in Khmer.1

(5) eːk-phiapone-state‘unity, autonomy, agreement’ (Haiman 2011:51)

(6) koun prohchild male‘son’ (Smyth 2008:228, transcription regularized)

Second, native Khmer words all have either a monosyllabic or a so-called ‘sesquisyllabic’ pattern, the latter consisting of an initial unstressed half-syllable (the anacrusic syllable) followed by a main, stressed syllable (Haiman 2011:29; Huffman 1967:44–5; Huffman 1987:11;Gorgoniev 1966:30–5). While the sesquisyllabic syllable template has historically exerted intense pressure on words with inherited infixes and prefixes from earlier periods of the language, causing phonological reductions and deletions (Haiman 1998; Farmer 2009), compounds in modern Khmer consist of full disyllables: that is, each

1 For the notion of ‘orthographic word’ and the disconnect between it and other notions of wordhood, see Packard (2000:7–8) and Dixon (2009:5–7, 35).

of 34

word in the compound for the most part retains its full phonological shape and stress (Jacob 1968:198–9). Thus, there are no consistent phonetic cues to disambiguate single derived words from compounds(Haiman 2011:43).2

Third, relative clauses in Khmer are standardly introduced by the relativizer/complementizer dael, which also serves to introduce various types of complement clauses (Comrie & Horie 1995:73). Subjects, primary and secondary (i.e. indirect) objects, and possessors can all be relativized: subjects and secondary objects via the gap strategy orpronoun retention, objects by gap only, and possessors via pronoun retention only (Natchanan 2005:123). In addition, the relativizer dael can be dropped from most relative clauses without complication, givingrise to reduced relative clauses (Haiman 2011:313–4). While Haiman notes that “[t]here seems to be no clear rule regarding when the dael isrequired,” all of the examples he cites of situations where the clauseis attested without dael though his consultants reported the relativizer could be included, and vice versa, involve the subject as relativized function and the gap strategy as relativization strategy. Thus, the reduced relative clauses Haiman cites as attested appear identical in structure to example (1) above, with overt SV word order(7). Though Haiman cites these examples with the relativizer included as optional within parentheses, I give the phrases as attested, without the optional dael, so as to highlight their actual similarity to (1).

(7)a. kreː pɛːt miən kɑŋ ruɲbed hospital have wheel push‘hospital gurney’

b. miən plav ʔɑt mnuh daəhave path NEG person walk‘there is a path that is untraveled’

c. roːm toh knoŋ tiː sŋat kɑmpɑŋbody.hair grow in place secret secret‘body hair which grows in secret areas’ (Haiman 2011:313,

transcription regularized)Following Kroeger (2004:5), I take it to be axiomatic that the

structural ambiguities behind the variant readings in (2)-(4) disclosethe otherwise invisible structural relationships that exist between

2 Aikhenvald (2007:25) notes that this same problem exists in both Boumaa Fijian and Portuguese, where the components of compounds retain their independent phonological status (cf. Dixon 1988:226).

of 34

and among strings of words. These different interpretations arise fromdifferences in the actual linguistic structures that exist unseen in the understanding of users of the language; they are not simply semantic or pragmatic issues. Thus, to the interpretations in (2)-(4),we could assign the phrase structure representations in Figure 1-Figure 3, respectively.

Figure 1: Phrase structure for (2)

Figure 2: Phrase structure for(3)

Figure 3: Phrase structure for (4)

It is reading (4) which calls into question the lexical status of neak. That is, this interpretation prompts Haiman (2011:43, 164) to question whether neak might not evidence a pattern of grammaticalization in its use in the modern language that we might call ‘morphologization’ following Joseph and Janda (1988). Joseph and Janda (1988:195–6) define morphologization as a transition from a generalization that is non-morphological to one that is, involving movement of syntactic and phonological phenomena into the morphological domain.3

3 NB: This definition seems largely indistinguishable from that of simple ‘grammaticalization’, as discussed by Hopper and Traugott (2003:19, 21): they follow Meillet in applying the term to “the development of grammatical

of 34

Though isolating languages are sometimes claimed to lack morphology, morphologization in isolating languages is well documented; Mandarin Chinese provides a good example. At the conclusion of a 1971 study in which he offered an analysis of, among other morphologized syntactic phenomena, the formation of person-agreement affixes in Bantu from free pronouns, Givón paraphrases an analect variously attributed to both Confucius and Lao-tzu in which, on being informed that Chinese was an isolating language, the sage reportedly replied: “Weep not, my children, for today’s syntax is tomorrow’s morphology” (Givón 1971:413, n. 1). Both Li and Thompson(1989) and Packard (2000) include in their grammars of Mandarin significant discussions of bound morphology, most of it traceable historically to independent lexemes. And much work continues to be done on grammaticalization and morphologization in the language, involving such diverse phenomena as adverbs incorporating into verbs, resultative verb constructions morphing into aspect markers, and full lexical verbs being reinterpreted as prepositions (e.g. Sun 1996; Chui2000; Lord, Yap & Iwasaki 2002; Lim & Ansaldo 2002; Zhang 2011).

Matisoff (1991:392) cites an example of grammaticalization from theisolating Loloish language Lahu that is particularly apropos. An independent lexeme meaning ‘female proprietary spirit’ has a grammaticalized usage in Lahu on the basis of the semantic components of ownership and control as the feminine agentive nominalizer seen in(8). Other grammaticalized uses of this same word include as a feminine reflexive pronoun and a lexical noun meaning ‘female body’.

(8) yâ gä ga pɔ pî šɛ-ma3SG must help birth give female.spirit/NMLZ‘she who must help give birth, midwife’ (Matisoff’s transcription preserved)

Yao’an Lolo provides another example even closer to the Khmer neak construction once allowances are made for the differing word order parameters. In Yao’an Lolo, the independent lexeme su ‘person who’ is used to nominalize entire clauses in order to render an agentive reading (Merrifield 2010:26, 149–51). An example is given in (9).

(9) Niul varvur su ddei leil zzirbae gger nia. 1PL vegetables sell NMLZ CL to money give must ‘We must give the person who sells vegetables money’ (Merrifield 2010:151, practical orthography preserved)

Haiman suggests that neak is on its way to becoming less an independent

morphemes out of earlier lexical formatives.”

of 34

lexical item and more a grammatical affix in much the same way as the Lahu šɛ-ma and Yao’an Lolo su.

Were Haiman alone in his tentatively affixal analysis of neak, we might feel inclined to dismiss his musings as a sort of provocativeness for provocativeness’ sake, attempting to apply to a well-known isolating language categories and concepts appropriate to more heavily inflected languages such as those of the Austronesian or Indo-European families. Yet before him, Gorgoniev (1966:54–5; cf. Jacob 1993:54) had already classified neak in the group he designates as “semi-prefixes,” itself part of a larger category of “semi-affixes”that “play a very important part in the derivation of new words.” LikeHaiman, Gorgoniev was struck by the apparent productivity of the semi-affixal forms; he writes: “[Traditional affixes] are being replaced bywords formed by new means, in particular by ‘semi-affixes’…. The author of this book also had occasion to observe ordinary peasants in remote villages use words with new ‘semi-affixes’ in their speech rather than the words with the old infixes (e.g. kaːsaəc instead of sɑmnaəc ‘laughter’)” (1966:47). He likewise felt the semantics of affixes like neak attenuating in such coinages, in which the word attached closely to a following verb in the manner of a compound.

However, Gorgoniev’s initial observation in the subsection on ‘semi-affixes’ that they are “[c]losely linked with word composition by origin” (Gorgoniev 1966:54) brings us back to a central question in seeking to investigate the possibly valid intuition shared by both Gorgoniev and Haiman. Since modification and complementation both occur to the right in Khmer and relative clauses may occur without relativizer and often employ the gap strategy for the relativized function of subject, how can we distinguish between the three possibleinterpretations of agentive neak forms given in Figure 1-Figure 3 above? Furthermore, assuming we manage that disambiguation, how can weadditionally distinguish an affixal structure as in Figure 3 from a simple synthetic compound, especially given that Khmer makes frequent use of compounds?

In the next section, I examine the morphology-syntax interface and discuss diagnostic tests designed to tease the one apart from the other in Khmer.3. Morphology and Syntax

Spencer (2005:74) traces the tendency to view syntax and word-formation as indistinguishable to the early days of American Structuralist linguistics, when scholars like Bloomfield, Harris, Hockett, and Gleason came to view syntax as a concatenation of morphemes. In essence, both word order in more configurational

of 34

languages like English and the complex morphologies of Native Americanpolysynthetic languages could be reduced to representation in positionclass charts. The legacy of this approach, both in the work of Chomskyand that of generative linguists working in the tradition known as Word Syntax, has been to represent derivational or inflectional formatives as terminal nodes in syntax (Spencer 2005:74–5). A criticalsymmetry is thus created between phrase structure and word structure: both phrases and words are considered to be endocentric or headed by an element contained within them which determines the properties of the whole through a process of feature percolation. So in the case of an English derived agentive nominal in -er, it is the suffix that determines the category of the nominal as a whole (Beard 2001:48, 51; Bauer 2003:177–82). The same conclusion would hold true as well for synthetic compounds, in which the right-hand member is a derived nominal like the agentive -er form and the left-hand member is interpreted as its complement or internal argument (Fabb 2001:68–9, 75). A controversial proposal known as the Right-hand Head Rule(Williams 1981; Fabb 2001:70) has even maintained that the head of a compound or a derived word will always appear on the right. This claimhas proven controversial both due to the large number of apparent exceptions in English (e.g. bewitch, dethrone, overpass) and because it clearly cannot apply across languages (Bauer 2003:182).

Vietnamese provides an example of a language where heads appear consistently on the left rather than on the right (Lieber 1980:99). Inthis respect, the language resembles its distant linguistic relative Khmer. Not surprisingly, Vietnamese also has an agentive-type construction that patterns similarly to the neak phrases in Khmer. In Vietnamese, the head word is người ‘person’ which is followed by a verband its dependents, exactly as in Khmer. An example is provided in(10).

(10) người hiếu lợiperson like profit‘greedy person’ (lit. ‘liker of profit’) (Thompson 1984:112–3)

Thus, both Khmer and Vietnamese seem amenable to a strict Word Syntax type of analysis with left-hand heads that determine the categories and features of the resultant phrases (cf. Jacob 1993:54–5). This conception ends up looking strikingly similar to the ‘phrase’ structure representation given in Figure 2 above. The problem is that the structure in (10) could also be represented as a full clause, as in Figure 1. Thompson (1984:126) writes: “In a language like Vietnamese, which is strongly syntactic or isolating (as opposed to synthetic languages like Latin or Russian or even English), it is not

of 34

surprising that the distinction between the word and the phrase is notas clear as in languages where word boundaries are unambiguous.” Notice that, for Thompson, syntactic is apparently another term for isolating, as though such languages had only syntactic means at their disposal with which to form words, phrases, or any other structure.4 This thinking likely underlies the frequent claim that compounding is the sole productive path to word-formation in languages like Khmer andVietnamese. Thompson goes on to point out, though, that even in English, ambiguous boundaries can be found, as is the case with nominals (NPs?) like jack-in-the-box and jack of all trades. Nevertheless, as far as so-called agentive nominals are concerned, the boundaries are seldom, if ever, fuzzy in English. In synthetic compounds, the complements line up on the left-hand, in unaccustomed preverbal position, derived agentive nominalizations require complements to appear on the right like normal complements though in the genitive(11).

(11) a. profit-loverb. lover of profit

This observation gets at a fundamental difference between the English and Vietnamese/Khmer agentive constructions that has prompted an interesting generalization from some generative linguists. On the basis of the structures in (10) and (11), Brousseau (1989:37; Fabb 2001:71) has claimed that synthetic compounds are only possible in languages where the direction of modification differs from the direction of complementation, as in English. According to Brousseau, languages like French, in which both modification and complementation occur to the right of the head, do not have synthetic compounds (cf. Fabb 2001:68, 71). Thus Khmer and Vietnamese, which also feature rightward complementation and modification, should likewise lack synthetic compounds. If this conclusion is correct, it would seem to mean that the structures in (1) and (10) can only be construed as syntactic phrases.5 Such appears to be conclusion Haiman (2011:44) himself reaches: “There is no doubt that neak is undergoing

4 Cf. Comrie and Horie (1995:74) and Song (2001:13–4): Since the relativizer dael is also a complementizer, there is no structural difference between relative clauses and complement clauses of a head noun; that is, relative clauses do not exist in Khmer as a separate construction. Song(2001:14) writes: “In other words, they [i.e. Comrie and Horie] suggest that languages which lack relative clauses, such as Japanese and Khmer, make use ofa general syntactic construction for relating subordinate clauses to head nouns, which is in turn subject to a wide range of pragmatic, not semantic, interpretations including that of relative clauses.”

of 34

grammaticalization here, but until there are more than a handful of examples [where neak can no longer be glossed as ‘person’], it will be treated in the syntax as a head noun rather than in the morphology as an agentive prefix.” This consideration, in turn, raises another interesting implication for the agentive constructions in isolating languages, one that makes testable predictions.

In 1970, Chomsky rethought the strictly transformational-generativeapproach to word-formation in the context of English deverbal nouns(Bauer 2003:167; Beard 2001). He realized there was a disconnect between derived nominals like destruction and gerunds like destroying. In particular, while both constructions have the external distribution ofNPs, derived nominals also have the internal structure of NPs, while gerunds have the internal structure of VPs (Chomsky 1970:189). Thus, derived nominals contain strictly NP elements like determiners, adjectives, potential for plural number, and complements marked by thepreposition of, while gerunds have strictly VP elements like adverbs, bare NP objects, and TAM marking (Kroeger 2004:46). In addition, if overtly expressed, the subject of a derived nominal is required to be in a genitive form, while that of a gerund may appear in either the accusative or genitive (Kroeger 2004:47). Chomsky’s realization of these facts resulted in the formulation of the Lexicalist Hypothesis, according to which derived nominals are formed in the Lexicon and are visible to syntax only as whole words while gerunds are constructed insyntax according to generative principles. If the agentive structures in Khmer and similar isolating languages are strictly syntactic constructions, then, we would expect them to display the same internalstructure of a VP evident with English gerunds. Such is not necessarily the case, however.

The evidence from a variety of isolating languages suggests that agentive nominalizations do not have the full internal structure of VPs. Instead, they tend to prohibit or express a strong dispreference for TAM marking and adverbial elements and occasionally permit a reduced argument structure. Merrifield (2010:150) notes that Yao’an Lolo agentive nominalizations with su cannot take aspect particles or mode words. Moreover, while they can take aspect auxiliaries, they

5 NB: I take it for granted that what is at stake in the discussion of thedirectionality of synthetic compounds transcends the trivial observation that languages without prenominal modification would have a different word order from English. Rather, what is in question is whether languages like Khmer might have verbal compounds in which what is interpreted semantically as the verbal complement is not a syntactically visible complement.

of 34

exhibit a clear preference not to include any TAM marking at all. She cites the example in (12) as an illustration.

(12) xiezi (*dae/ar/var/ddo/cexr/nia) su house build IPFV/PFV/can/able/capable/will NMLZ ‘person who builds house [sic]’ (Merrifield 2010:150)

On the other hand, there do not appear to be any restrictions as to the realization of arguments of the verb in agentive nominalizations in Yao’an Lolo nor on the complexity of the verb itself. Example (13) shows a serial verb construction and a three-place predicate inside anagentive nominalization.

(13) Ngo ngo leil xie vur gger su ssormaer hal-ddei leil mia ar1SG 1SG to house sell give NMLZ woman that-CL to

see PFV‘I saw the woman, the one who sold me the house.’ (Merrifield 2010:150–1)

We can contrast this behavior with that shown from Mandarin Chinese inexample (14). Here, the three-place predicate mài ‘sell’ is unable to take an indirect object. As Li and Thompson (1989:579) explain, when anominalization is used alone as a NP, it is always ungrammatical to include the secondary object.

(14) (*wo) mài qìche de1SG sell car NMLZIntended meaning: ‘car sellers to me’ (Li & Thompson 1989:579, transcription preserved)

Both the Yao’an Lolo and Mandarin examples demonstrate that agentive nominalizations do not have the full internal structure of normal VPs.By requiring a reduction in the number and realization of arguments and disallowing the full range of TAM marking, these structures display special internal structures intermediate between that of NPs and VPs. The neak constructions in Khmer exhibit a similar special internal structure.

Before reviewing the internal structure of Khmer neak constructions,it is necessary to establish through examples that their external distribution is that of a NP. This is shown in (15). Khmer uses the copula ciə ‘be’ only for equative clauses (Haiman 2011:212); for attributive and locative clauses, adjectives and the verb nɨw ‘be located at’ function as the respective primary predicates. If a construction can follow ciə in an equative clause, it must be considered a NP.

of 34

(15) a. cru:k ciə neak toh tiajpig be person predict prognosticate‘The pig is a prophet.’ (Haiman 2011:212)

b. ʔəjləw nih koətciə neak luək krih əŋ-tok-tuːnow DEM 3SG be person sell furniture‘Now, he’s a furniture salesman.’ (Huffman, Promchan &

Lambert 1970:103)Another reliable indication of the NP status of the neak constructions is their ability to stand in apposition to other NPs. Example (16) shows an agentive nominalization with adjectival modifier standing in apposition to the personal pronoun jəːŋ ‘we’.

(16) neak cumliəh tmej jəːŋ person flee new 1pl‘We new refugees’ (lit. ‘fleers’) (Haiman 2011:146)

However, not all NP complements of ciə headed by neak are available for interpretation as agentive constructions. As example (17) shows, the inclusion of an adverbial phrase of comparison and the embedded clause after ceh ‘know’ is incompatible with the agentive interpretation of the neak construction.

(17) kɲom mih n ciə neak ceh sansɑːm-sɔmcaj doːcpuakkhmaɛ krahɑːm teː

1sg neg be personknoweconomize like group Khmer red neg‘I was not someone, like the Khmer Rouge, who knew how to economize.’ (Haiman 2011:228)

The inclusion of TAM marking likewise disturbs the agentive reading. Example (18) shows the same verb ceh ‘know’ without an embedded complement clause but with an explicit aspect marker, the postposed verb haəj ‘finish’. Again, no interpretation as an agentive nominalization is available for this sentence.

(18) kɯː thaː ciəsiəwphəwsɑmrap cuaj neak ceh khmaɛhaəj

FOC say be book forhelp person know Khmer PFV‘That is to say: it’s a book to help people who already know Khmer.’ (Haiman 2011:249)

Example (19) shows the inclusion of the modal verb trəw ‘hit’, which isused in Khmer as a primary marker of deontic modality (de Haan 1997:52–4). It, too, is incompatible with the agentive reading.

(19) haet əʋəj baːn ciə neak cɑmbɑc trəw kraleːtməːl adejtakaːl

causewhich get be person necessary must glance look

of 34

past time‘Why (is it that) people must pay attention to the past?” (Haiman 2011:235)

If markers of modality are to be included, a full relative clause construction is more common, as in (20) and (21).

(20) puəlləroət mneak-mneak trəw taɛ juəl thaː kluən ciəneak dael

citizen one.person-one.person must onlyunderstand say selfbe person REL

trəw twəː aoj prɑteːh daə tih w liən must do give country walk go fast‘Each and every citizen should understand that he is someone who should make the country progress.’ (Fisher 1988:30)

(21) neakdamnaə cumliəh tmej dael trəw tɯhvivaut tih w kan kanlæŋ

person journey evacuate new REL must task evolve go toplace

pseːŋ-pseːŋ tiətvarious other‘“New people” [lit. ‘new refugees’]6 who had to accept new assignments in different places.’ (Haiman 2011:314)

Finally, example (22) shows the combination of an aspectual predicate,pdaəm ‘start’, an embedded clause, bɑŋkaət phiasaː laəŋ teəŋ muːl ‘create allof language’, and an adverbial modifier, taɛ muaj dɑːŋ ‘only one time’. No agentive reading is possible.

(22) mih n mɛːn miənmnuhnaː ciə neak pdaəm bɑŋkaətphiasaː laəŋ teəŋ

NEG reallyhave person any be personstart create languageup all

muːl taɛ muaj dɑːŋentire only one time‘There is nobody who invented all of language all at once.’(Haiman 2011:251)

In a similar manner to the su nominalizations of Yao’an Lolo, however, Khmer agentive neak constructions can include serial verbs, asis shown in the phrase neak damnaə cumliəh ‘person journey evacuate’ from

6 The phrase ‘new people’ designated urban dwellers forcibly removed to perform manual labor in the countryside during the Pol Pot years (Smyth 2008:118–20).

of 34

(21) above. Thus, Khmer agentive neak constructions possess some unambiguous VP traits while disallowing others.

A further indicator that the internal structure of Khmer agentive neak nominalizations is not identical to that of normal VP stems from the fact that canonically transitive verbs can be used as modifiers for the head word neak without any explicit objects. In these cases, the verb indicates no particular instance of the denoted action but rather attributes to the head neak and its referent habitual or iterative engagement in the activity named by the verb. I give examples in (23).

(23) a. miənneak praə ciə craːən dael miən kaːcralɑm craboːk crabɑl klahhave person use be many REL haveNMLZ confuseconfuse busysome‘There are many users who experience confusion.’ (Haiman

2011:314)b. kawː nih w taɛ pibaːk dəːŋ thaː haetəʋəj baːn ciə neak

still be.at but difficult know say cause what get bepersondək-noəm baːn klaːj ciə vana meː kɑmlaŋlead become turn be caste masterstrength‘It is still difficult to know what turned the leadership

[lit. ‘leaders’] into a ruling class.’ (Haiman 2011:318)c. neak bɑmraə twəː rabiəp jaːŋ naː kawː koət

mih nperson serve make method kind any so 3SGnegpeɲ cət daɛfull heart also‘However the servant does it, he isn’t satisfied.’ (Jacob

1968:129; Haiman 2011:331)d. cam kɲom hawneak bɑmraə sən

wait.until1SG call person serve IMP‘Wait until I (just let me) call the waiter.’ (Huffman,

Promchan & Lambert 1970:173)e. daəmbəj tatual baːn nih w kaː cih ə tok cət rɔbɔh

neakso.that acquire get OBJ NMLZ be keep heart GENpersonaːn

of 34

read‘for acquiring the reader’s trust’ (Haiman 2011:247)

It is interesting to note that bɑmraə ‘serve’ in (23) is in fact the morphological causative of praə ‘use’ in (23). While the word can be used as a noun, its primary function is as a transitive verb (Haiman 2011:56, 202, 261, 392).

Insofar as the semantics of the agentive forms in the sentences in(23) do not entail a specific instance of the events denoted by the verbs, this usage of the Khmer neak construction closely approximates atrait of English agentive synthetic compounds that has been discussed by Rappaport Hovav and Levin (1992) and Van Hout and Roeper (1998)(Spencer 2005:90). Both teams of scholars notice that agentive synthetic compounds like life-saver and lawn-mower do not entail an actual event; they can be applied equally to a person who has yet to undertake the action denoted in the verb (as, for example, a person newly hired to the profession) or to the instrument of such a profession (as, for example, the physical objects designated as life-savers and lawn-mowers). On the other hand, the corresponding agentive derived nominals saver of lives and mower of lawns do entail a performance ofthe event and normally only refer to actual human agents of the actions involved (Rappaport Hovav & Levin 1992:133–4; Van Hout & Roeper 1998:175–6). Rappaport Hovav and Levin explain these interesting differences as resulting from a lack of complement structure inheritance and an empty event position in argument structure for the synthetic compounds; for the derived nominals, the event position is filled and the full complement structure of the underlying verb is inherited by the derived expression. Van Hout and Roeper invoke a complex minimalist view of verbal syntax where both full verbs and derived nominals contain a VP as well as tense, aspect,and event-voice phrase projections (i.e. TP, AspP, Voice-EventP). These projections lie above the level of VP and are missing in the synthetic compounds. Rather, synthetic compounds involve base-generated complements in object position that move via head-to-head movement to the preverbal position in an incorporation operation that blocks checking of event-related features like aspect and tense. Derived agentive nominalizations do not, however, have the complete internal structure of a VP, insofar as they cannot contain adverbs, voice-markers, aspect, or negation (Baker & Vinokurova 2009:517). Forthis reason, Baker and Vinokurova (2009:528) have suggested that derived agentive nominalizations are formed as Voice Heads, at the level of syntax directly above VP but below TP and AspP. Thus, these nominalizations combine directly with a bare VP and possess only so

of 34

much VP structure as the ability to assign objects and event entailment. Despite the fact that, as we saw above, languages like French and Spanish have been claimed to lack synthetic compounds, these two languages offer deverbal structures that exhibit these same semantic phenomena in a way that perhaps belies such claims.

Both Spanish and French have a verbal compound involving the third person singular present active indicative of a relevant verb followed directly by an apparent complement which is generally either written together with the verb or conjoined with it via a hyphen. This ‘object’ must be entirely lacking in specificity and thus can take neither indefinite nor definite article; instead, it appears either asa bare singular or bare plural. Examples of these constructions are given in (24).

(24) a. le lave-vaisselleDET washes-dishes‘dishwasher’ (French)

b. el lavavajillasDET washes.dishes‘dishwasher’ (Spanish)

Though the complements vaisselle and vajillas occur to the right of the verbas though they were normal objects, the fact that they cannot take articles indicates that, to some extent, they are not syntactically visible objects but have been incorporated, or rather most likely pseudo-incorporated, into the VP.7 This fact can be demonstrated by thefailure of both constructions to accept modification of the apparent objects, shown in (25).

(25) a. *le lave-vaisselle-salledet washes-dishes-dirty*‘dirty-dishwasher’

b. *ellavavajillassuciasdet washes.dishes.dirty

Notice that, even in English translation, the collocation does not work: it is impossible to construe dirty as modifying dishes and not dishwasher. Notice, too, that in French and Spanish, as in English, the default interpretation of the correct forms in (24) is as referring toa machine that performs the job function, not to a human agent. Thus, to borrow the terminology of Rappaport Hovav and Levin (1992), not only do these forms lack inheritance of the complement structure of the base verbs, but they also do not entail an event interpretation.

7 On pseudo-incorporation, see Dayal (2011) and Baker (2011).

of 34

Except for the pseudo-incorporation of the objects, these structures are similar to the ‘headless relative clauses’ discussed by Baker and Vinokurova (2009:537–8) as being liable to confusion with agentive nominalizations (e.g. the [one who] manages the company). Some languages have both structures, such that it becomes crucial to be able to teaseapart the varying uses and structural properties. Indeed, French and Spanish both also have derived nominalizations with agentive suffixes as well. Examples of these constructions appear in (26) and (27).

(26) a. lavador de vajillas washer.M.SG GEN dishes‘dishwasher’

b. lavadora de vajillaswasher.F.SG GEN dishes‘dishwasher’

c. ?el/la lavador(a) de las vajillasDET.M/F washer.M(F) GEN DET dishes‘washer of dishes’ (Spanish)

(27) a. laveur vaissellewasher.M.SG dishes‘dishwasher (man)’

b. laveuse vaissellewasher.F.SG dishes‘dishwasher (woman)’

c. ?le/la laveur(-euse) de lavaisselle

DET.M/F washer.M(F) GEN DET dishes‘washer of dishes’ (French)

What is intriguing about these forms is that the a. and b. versions still lack both complement structure inheritance and an event interpretation: again, notice the conspicuous absence of articles and even the absence of the genitive-marking preposition de in French. These forms still refer to job titles that may be applied even to one newly hired who has yet to discharge the job function; in fact, their most common occurrence is in job notices. Moreover, the feminine Spanish form in (26) actually refers to the dishwashing machine again,its gender in agreement with the unexpressed noun máquina ‘machine’. The c. forms would, then, contrast with those in a. and b., having both true objects and event interpretations. The problem, though, is that these forms are little attested in actual use. The one usage of the masculine form of the French version in (27) that I can locate comes from a 1776 book of rules and order for the Frères Hermites of Mount Valérien near Paris. It occurs in a long list of titles of job

of 34

positions which the brother in charge of directing singing during worship is to select individuals to fill. The list includes “le Servant de la Messe Conventuelle, le Lecteur du Réfectoire, le Servantde Table, le Laveur de la Vaisselle” ‘server of the monastic Mass, reader in the refectory, table server, washer of dishes’ (Anonymous 1776:304–5). The one indication in this list that an event interpretation is perhaps intended are the specific time references included: the brother is to make the selections to fill these posts ‘every Saturday’, and these are the jobs that ‘are done weekly.’ However, given that this text is so old, there exists the possibility that this kind of usage has passed out of currency in the modern French and Spanish languages, which would explain the difficulty of finding attestations for it. Thus, somewhat contrary to expectation, what French and Spanish might lack are not synthetic compounds, but derived nominals of the type encoded in the English -er expressions with following genitive complements.

Returning to Khmer, we note that the presence or absence of overt complements appears to be the mechanism that controls the semantics ofevent interpretation. Thus, we can offer the following pairs of examples, illustrating the difference between agentive nominalizationsof the same verbs with and without express complements.

(28) a. neak miən kom aːl ɑ: neak krɑ: komaːlphih j

person have NEG yet happy personpoor NEG yet fear

‘Rich people [lit. ‘the haves’], don’t be in a hurry to be happy; poor people, don’t be in a hurry tofear.’ (Haiman 2011:268)8 b. təkhoː coan tej tiap liap baːn tih w neak

miən səriwater flow trample ground low luck

getgo person have fortune‘As water flows downhill, so luck goes to

those who (already) have good fortune.’ (Haiman 2011:375)

(29) a. sma:n thaː keː deɲ taːm neak luəkthink say 3PL chase follow person

sell

8 As Haiman explains, this is part of a Khmer Rouge proverb saying, in effect, that once the revolution comes, the last shall be first and the first shall be last.

of 34

‘He thought they were chasing after the salesman.’ (Haiman 2011:404)

b. keː miən deɲ viej neak luək phaom ɛnaː3PL have chase beat person sell fart

where‘No way did they chase and beat (you for

being) the person who had sold the farts.’ (Haiman 2011:231)

Apparently, Khmer never quite has the option of a structure analogous to the French and Spanish constructions in (24). Since Khmer lacks articles, there is no way of indicating the (pseudo)incorporation of an object: either the explicit object is present in the construction or not. Thus, as we might expect, the Khmer equivalent for ‘dishwasher’ with neak as head noun refers only to humans who perform the function. In order to indicate the instrument of washing the dishes, a different head noun is required, as indicated in (30).

(30) a. neak liəŋ caːnperson wash dish‘dishwasher’ (person)

b. maːsiːn liəŋ caːnmachine wash dish‘dishwasher’(machine)

Indeed, for a host of Khmer neak constructions, there is no available interpretation referring to anything other than a human agent of the action described. Moreover, many of these constructions necessarily contain objects in order to distinguish them from otherwise identical structures with different meanings. That is, whileone can be designated a ‘seller’ or salesman without reference to a specific object sold, such is not the case for furniture salesman, vegetable vendor, taxi driver, bus driver and so on (31).9

(31) a. neak twəː kaːperson do work‘worker’ (Huffman, Promchan & Lambert

1970:103)

9 It does still bear investigating whether these constructions will acceptmodification of the apparent objects as in the test applied in (25). As is shown in (16), an adjective to the right of an agentive neak construction is naturally interpreted as having scope over the entire construction. Thus, we might predict a structural ambiguity in strings such as person sell fruit new between the interpretations ‘new fruit seller’ and ‘seller of new fruit’. Thisissue will have to await future research.

of 34

b. neak twəː sraeperson do rice.field‘farmer’ (Huffman, Promchan & Lambert

1970:103)d. neak luək krih əŋ tok tuː

person sell accessory table cabinet ‘furniture salesman’ (Huffman, Promchan &

Lambert 1970:102–3)e. neak luək plae chɤ

person sell fruit tree‘greengrocer’ (lit. ‘fruit tree seller’)

(Jacob 1993:54)In addition, neak can form the same kind of apparent ‘agentive’ constructions even with unaccusative verbs like buah (32). As Haiman(2011:59, 65) notes, buah means ‘to undergo initiation as a monk’ and even has the transitive, ‘causal’ form bambuah ‘to initiate a monk’. The base form buah cannot, then, have an agent; its only argument is the patient/object of the action of initiation.10

(32) loːk tɑːp thaː neː æŋ kom thaː əɲcəŋaɲ ciə neak buah

monk answer say hey 2SG neg say thus 1SGbe person initiate

trəw taɛmust only‘The monk answered, saying: “Hey, don’t talk like that, I’m an initiated person and should.”’ (Haiman 2011:398)

As has been widely noted, true agentive nominalizations cannot be formed from verbs that correspond to events which cannot have agents(Baker & Vinokurova 2009:538; Rappaport Hovav & Levin 1992:129).

As a result of these particulars, the Khmer ‘agentive’ neak constructions begin to appear less and less like phrasal constructionsand more and more like verbal compounds. In the next section, we will look at those aspects of the neak constructions that appear compound-like and attempt to distinguish an affixal character of neak from that of a mere component in compounds.4. Compounding and affixation

In his Vietnamese grammar, Thompson (1984:121, 129–30) notes that Vietnamese constructions such as those in (33) pose similar difficulties of analysis to those encountered in the Khmer neak

10 For more on unaccusativity, see Perlmutter (1978).

of 34

constructions. In particular, these structures seem to straddle the line between compounds and syntactically constructed descriptive phrases.

(33) a. người ởperson be.located/reside‘servant’

b. nhà thươngestablishment be.wounded‘hospital’

c. làmviệcdo matter/affair‘to work’

d. làmruộngdo rice.field‘to farm’ (Thompson 1984:129–30; Lieber

1980:99)Thompson lists four criteria to which an analyst can appeal in order to differentiate such constructions from phrasal material. First, compounds have a heavier stress on the second constituent. Second, they contain only two constituents. Third, no modifying constituent may intervene between them. Fourth, their meanings are somewhat lexicalized (cf. Lieber 1980:99). As an illustration of what is meant by criterion three that no modifying constituent may intervene, Thompson cites the example in (34).

(34) a. Nhà này không có người ởhouse dem neg be person

be.located/reside‘There is no one living in this house.’ or

‘There is no servant in this house.’b. Nhànày không có người nào ở

house dem neg be person dembe.located/reside

‘There is no one at all living in this house.’

*‘There is no servant in this house.’(Thompson 1984:121)

Here, the intervention of the demonstrative nào forces a differentiation between what would otherwise be a structurally ambiguous sequence. On its own, người ở can be interpreted either as a kind of reduced relative clause meaning ‘person (who) resides’ similarto that in (3) or as a lexicalized compound meaning ‘servant’ with

of 34

internal structure close to that given for the Khmer neak construction in Figure 3 above. As soon as the demonstrative intervenes, however, the reduced relative interpretation becomes obligatory.

As we saw above, Jacob’s (1993:54) complaint against Gorgoniev’s designation of neak and like words as ‘semi-prefixes’ was that a simpler analysis would involve treating them simply as initial components of compounds that occur with high frequency in first position. Two facts arising out of the discussion in section 3. above lend weight to this position: first, that Khmer ‘agentive’ neak constructions exhibit special syntactic features which clearly differentiate them from normal VPs; and second, that they can construewith unaccusative verbs that cannot take true agents. Borrowing from the criteria Thompson applies to his Vietnamese data, we can offer a few additional ways in which a compound analysis better suits the Khmer neak construction as well.

Just as with the Vietnamese construction in (34), insertion of modifying material into a Khmer neak construction alters the meaning and renders an agentive reading impossible. In (35), the indefinite modifier naː occurs after the entire neak structure, taking scope over the whole of it to mean ‘any traveler.’ In (35), by contrast, naː interrupts the neak construction and takes scope only over the head noun neak, forcing a reduced-relative-clause interpretation for the structure as a whole.

(35) a. prasən ciə neak damnaənaː mɔːkvɔːŋveːŋ plawif be person journey indef come get.lostroad‘If any traveler should lose his way.’ (Haiman 2011:309)

b. prasən ciə neak naː damnaə mɔːk vɔːŋveːŋ plawif be person indef journey come get.lost road‘If anyone (who is) traveling should lose his way.’

In example (36), the occurrence of aetiət ‘other’ between neak and the verb produces the same effect.

(36) neak aetiət nih w phuːm Paunariajperson other be.at village Paunariaj‘some more people (who are) from the village of Paunariaj’ (Haiman2011:390)

In addition, just as the Vietnamese compound người ở from example(34) may have a special, lexicalized meaning ‘servant’ when no modifiers intervene to force the relative-clause interpretation, some neak constructions in Khmer have acquired a similar special, lexicalized meaning. A good example is neak leːŋ ‘person + play’ which

of 34

has acquired the meaning of ‘gangster’ in the modern language (Haiman 2011:158).

Another strong indicator that neak constructions comprise compounds as opposed to phrasal constituents stems from the fact that the head noun neak can construe with nouns and adjectives as well as verbs to form constructions which appear identical to the agentive structures we have been analyzing thus far but which are clearly not agent-related at all. Examples are given in (37).

(37) a. neak cəmnuəɲperson commerce‘merchant’

b. neak riəcckaːperson government.service‘civil servant’ (Huffman, Promchan &

Lambert 1970:103; Gorgoniev 1966:70)c. neak toːc

person small‘kiddy’ (Gorgoniev 1966:55)

d. neak Pnom-Peɲperson Phnom Penh‘person from Phnom Penh’ (Haiman 2011:165)

e. neak taːperson grandfather‘ancestral spirits’ or ‘statue of ancestral

spirits’ (Haiman 2011:366, 373)11 Notice that (37) involves clearly lexicalized meaning as well: seemingly meaningless on the surface, the combination ‘person + grandfather’ refers to spirits of the ancestors or iconic representations of them in the form of statues.

It would appear, then, that the case for the compound interpretation is fairly strong, and we might be inclined to grant Jacob her point. However, there is clear evidence of grammaticalization or morphologization of neak in its compounding function that pushes the use of the head noun beyond the status of simply the first position in a purely compositional compound.

11 There are many more examples of this type of construction than be cited here. For more, see (Headley 1977:s.v. 97).

of 34

First, as Haiman (2011:43–4) recognizes, there are a few cases where an agentive neak construction refers to non-humans. In (38), the phrase describes an octopus whose behavior while feeding was felt to be an accurate predictor of World Cup soccer matches.

(38) neak toh tiajperson predict prognosticate‘prognosticator’ (Haiman 2011:43 cf. ex. (15) above)

More tellingly still, (39) shows the application of a neak constructionto an abstract inanimate concept. This is one of what Haiman (2011:74)calls “a handful” of situations in which an agentive neak construction refers to an inanimate. One wishes he had provided examples in his grammar of the other such situations.

(39) neak cuaj pdɔl nejperson help impart meaning‘(grammatical) modifier’ (Haiman 2011:74)

Beyond the examples Haiman specifically cites as cases in point, wecan recognize still more signs of the morphologization of neak in the remainder of his data. For example, doubtless as a result of its consistent use in transparent compounds referring to the titles of occupations, neak is also found prefixed to nouns denoting occupations that either already have their own agentive derivations or inherently denote the person who performs a job or duty. I provide a list of examples in (40).

(40) a. neak səl-kɑːperson skill-NMLZ‘artist’ (Haiman 2011:263)

b. neak kruː-pɛːtperson teacher-hospital‘doctor’ (Haiman 2011:212)

c. neak kruːperson teacher‘teacher’ (Natchanan 2005:123)

In (40), the internal nominalizer -kɑː is one of Gorgoniev’s ‘semi-suffixes’ (1966:57), a bound form that is no longer productive in the modern language and ultimately derives from the Pali participle kara ‘doing’(Haiman 2011:44). In (40) and (40), the word kruː is a Khmer rendering of the Pali guru ‘teacher’ (Haiman 2011:36). All three of these instances would seem to suggest that neak is becoming generalizedas a prefixal marker associated with the titles of professions.

of 34

Finally, related to this last use with already agentive nouns, neak has acquired a further grammaticalized function: that of distinguishing between male and female practitioners of the named profession (Haiman 2011:158, 186). In a situation in which both male and female teachers are being addressed or discussed, the male may be referred to as loːk kruː ‘monk + teacher’ and the female as neak kruː ‘person + teacher’. The word loːk derives from the Pali loka ‘world’ and has come to be used in modern Khmer as a formal second person pronoun.The word neak may be used as its less formal counterpart. Thus, Haiman(2011:186) traces the use of neak in its gender-distinguishing role as stemming from this V/T or vous/tu breakdown between the uses of loːk and neak as independent personal pronouns, where men are referred to more formally than women. However, in the examples in (40), there is no indication of gender-specification in the use of the neak-marked terms.Indeed, in the context in which neak səlkɑː is used, the form is a collective or plural, lessening the likelihood of its intended referent being solely a group of females. For the purposes of comparison, I give the whole sentence in example (41) below.

(41) niəŋ kmiən tumloːp nɯŋ twəː kaː rəh kaundɔl neak səlkɑː

woman not.have custom fut do nmlz slandercriticize arrive person artist

‘She is not in the habit of slandering artists.’ (Haiman 2011:263)We can also note that the forms in (40) do not involve direct address (i.e. vocatives) but a simple NPs: neak is not part of a title, but rather part of the nouns themselves.

Simpson (2008:272) observes that formatives used frequently in the creation of transparent compounds that refer to a “connected class of items” are particularly prone to grammaticalization. Both he and Haiman (2011:43) cite the example of -man in such English words as doorman, policeman, fireman, and so forth, where the word-cum-suffix man undergoes both phonetic reduction to something like [mən] and semantic bleaching insofar as women may often be the referents of suchexpressions. Iwasaki and Ingkaphirom (2005:43) describe a class of nouns that appear with special frequency as the initial member and left-head of compounds in Thai that function similarly. Among them is the word /phûu/ ‘person’ that occurs in such compounds as ‘manager’ (<person + manage) and ‘representative’ (<person + represent). Iwasakiand Ingkaphirom note that such formatives resemble prefixes that serveto create derived nominals; they even classify such forms into a groupof “semi-prefixes.” Indeed, in languages as diverse as English, Japanese, Burmese, Thai, Vietnamese, and Khmer, the headedness of

of 34

compounds and the linear position of nominalizers relative to the material nominalized consistently correlate: on the right in English, Japanese, and Burmese; on the left in Thai, Vietnamese, and Khmer. These facts suggest a historical linkage between productive compounding and grammaticalized nominalizers in these languages.

An indication that neak is perhaps particularly prone to grammaticalization in Khmer through over-frequent use in a variety of contexts comes from the fact that, in the classifier phrase piː neak ‘twopeople’, neak has also acquired a use as a simple conjunction meaning ‘with’ (42).

(42) kɲom piː neak pdej prapun1sg two personhusband wife‘the couple and I’ (Haiman 2011:182,n. 2)

Note especially the position of piː neak relative to the first person pronoun: numerical classifiers in Khmer routinely occur to the right of their head noun like other modifiers. Thus, the syntactic phrase kɲom piː neak is, strictly speaking, nonsensical. The meaning here is entirely grammatical, not lexical. 5. Conclusion

In this squib, I have attempted to analyze from a critical perspective the claims of Gorgoniev and Haiman to the effect that the formative neak in Khmer either has already attained or is in the process of attaining the status of a derivational affix. I have arguedthat agentive neak constructions may be distinguished from syntactic structures such as reduced relative clauses which they resemble in many particulars by virtue of the fact that the neak constructions do not permit the full panoply of verbal trappings; in particular, TAM marking is incompatible with the agentive neak reading. In addition, nomodifying material, such as adjectives or determiners, may be insertedinto the agentive neak construction without disrupting the agentive reading. I have maintained that neak often has the character of an initial formative in semantically compositional compounds but that it may ultimately be distinguished from a free noun used frequently in compounds by virtue of its redundant use with already agentive and agentivized nouns, its secondary use to distinguish male and female practitioners of a given profession named by the agentive structure, and its semantic bleaching and subsequent ability to participate in agentive structures that refer to animals and inanimates. In this way,data on Khmer provide additional confirmation for Simpson’s musings onthe historical relation between heads of frequent compounds and nominalizing affixes in Asian languages.

of 34

In this connection, one additional application of the ideas developed in this squib that bears mention involves the Khmer word puak‘group’. Like neak, puak participates as a head noun in the frequent formation of apparent compounds. Unlike neak, however, puak construes exclusively with nouns and acts to pluralize them (Haiman 2011:43, 164–5). While some instances of the construction are ambiguous as to whether the head noun retains its full lexical meaning of ‘group’(43), often enough it is quite clear from context that its function can only be as a mere marker of pluralization (44).

(43) veːc-bandət eun sokhom trəw puak khiak-kɑ:doctor Eun Sokhom hit group kill-er‘Doctor Eun Sokhom was the victim of a gang of killers.’ (Haiman 2011:290)

(44) a. puak ɑh nih sot-taɛ ciə puak khmaɛkrahɑːmgroup exhaust DEM exclusive be group Khmer red‘All of them were Khmer Rouge.’ (Haiman 2011:165)

b. puak krom samŋat baːnmantəl saŋsaj dɔl keckaːrɔbɔh jəːŋgroup society secret get suspicioussuspicious arrivematter GEN 1PL‘The secret service have gotten suspicious of our activities.’

(Haiman 2011:346)c. dom teəŋ nuh baːn trəw puak kmeːŋ voət jɔːk twəː

piece all DEM gethit group youth temple take dociə opakɑ: praə-prah ɑh ciə craəndamnɑ:be instrument use exhaust be many generationnah mɔːk haəjvery come PFV‘All of these pieces were used [as toilet paper] by

generations of temple youths up to now.’ (Haiman 2011:289) In (44), even if we granted that the first use of puak instantiated itscustomary lexical meaning of ‘group’, we would be forced to admit thatthe second use must at best be construed as a collective plural of thekind common in British English, whereby a collective singular term construes with plural agreement (e.g. The committee have decided…). (44) issimilar, indicating not a group of secret societies that have grown suspicious, but rather the plurality of the members of the one Secret Service. Finally, in (44), the reference to multiple generations of temple youths guarantees that puak is referring not to a single group

of 34

of young people, but rather to their numbers over the years. A further evidence of the morphologization of puak stems from its

recruitment to create an exclusive first person plural personal pronoun: puak jəːŋ, lit. ‘group + 1PL’ (Huffman, Promchan & Lambert 1970:219). This novel form contrasts with simple jəːŋ or even the more intimate puak kɲom, lit. ‘group + 1SG’, both of which convey a sense of inclusivity. Example (45) provides an illustration of the exclusivewe.

(45) baəjih ːt bəntəc tiət puak jəːŋ tih w caolhaəj

if late a.little again group 1pl goabandon pfv

‘If [you] had been a little later, we’d have gone without [you].’(Huffman, Promchan & Lambert 1970:219)

What makes the example of puak so interesting is the fact that its evolution seems identical to that of neak, beginning as a full lexical head noun and ending up as a grammaticalized affix. Yet, rather than functioning to signal derivational morphological properties, puak markswhat is usually classified as an inflectional category. Perhaps, then,modern Khmer, with what paltry morphological material it has, is one language for which the distinction between inflection and derivation is not as meaningful as it might be in more familiar languages. 6. Abbreviations

The abbreviations used in this squib conform in the main the Leipzig Glossing Conventions as published by the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. The following will serve as a key to the abbreviations found in my interlinear glosses:1 FIRST

PERSON2 SECOND

PERSON3 THIRD

PERSONCL CLASSIFIER

DEMDEMONSTRATIVE

DET DETERMINERF FEMININEFOC FOCUSGEN GENITIVEIMP IMPERATIVE

of 34

IPFVIMPERFECTIVE

M MASCULINENEG NEGATORNMLZ NOMINALIZEROBJ OBJECTPFV PERFECTIVEPL PLURALREL RELATIVIZERSG SINGULAR

7. ReferencesAikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2007. Typological distinctions in word-

formation. In Timothy Shopen (ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Description, vol. 3, 1–65. Second edition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Anonymous. 1776. Règles et constitutions des Frères Hermites du Mont-Valérien près Paris.Paris, France: Cl. Simon.

Arcodia, G. F. 2007. Chinese: a language of compound words? In F. Montermini, G. Boyé & N. Hathout (eds.), Selected Proceedings of the 5th Décembrettes: Morphology in Toulouse, 79–90. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. http://www.lingref.com/ cpp/decemb/5/paper1617.pdf (22 January, 2013).

Aronoff, Mark & Kristen Fudeman. 2011. What is Morphology. Second edition.Chichester, West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.

Baker, Mark C. 2011. Pseudo noun incorporation as covert noun incorporation: Linearization and crosslinguistic variation. Academia Sinica, Taiwan. http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~mabaker/PNI-adjacency-Taiwan.pdf (1 June, 2013).

Baker, Mark C. & Nadya Vinokurova. 2009. On agent nominalizations and why they are not like event nominalizations. Language 85(3). 517–556.

Bauer, Laurie. 2003. Introducing Linguistic Morphology. Second Edition. Georgetown University Press.

Beard, Robert. 2001. The Handbook of Morphology. In Andrew Spencer & Arnold M. Zwicky (eds.), The Handbook of Morphology, 45–65. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Brousseau, Anne-Marie. 1989. Les noms composés en haïtien : pour une définition intrinsèque de tête morphologique. Revue québécoise de linguistique 18(2). 11–39.

Chao, Yuen Ren. 1968. A grammar of spoken Chinese. Berkeley: University of California Press.

of 34

Chomsky, Noam. 1970. Remarks on nominalization. In R. Jacobs & P. Rosenbaum (eds.), Readings in English Transformational Grammar, 184–221. Waltham, MA: Blaisdell. http://babel.ucsc.edu/~hank/mrg.readings/Chomsky1970_Nominalization.pdf (30 May, 2013).

Chui, Kawai. 2000. Morphologization of the degree adverb HEN. Language and Linguistics 1(1). 45–59.

Comrie, Bernard & Kaoru Horie. 1995. Complement clauses vs. relative clauses: some Khmer evidence. In Werner Abraham, Talmy Givón & Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), Discourse grammar and typology: Papers in honor of John W. M. Verhaar, vol. 27, 65–75. (Studies in Language Companion Series). Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Dayal, Veneeta. 2011. Hindi pseudo-incorporation. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 29(1). 123–167.

Dixon, R. M. W. 1988. A Grammar of Boumaa Fijian. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Dixon, R. M. W. 2009. Basic Linguistic Theory Volume 2: Grammatical Topics. Oxford:Oxford University Press.

Fabb, Nigel. 2001. Compounding. In Andrew Spencer & Arnold M. Zwicky (eds.), The Handbook of Morphology, 66–83. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Farmer, Stephanie. 2009. On the Possibility of Metathesis as a Source for Infixation in Khmer. International Conference on Southeast Asian Languages / Colloque International sur les langues d'Asie du Sud-Est XIV. Paris, France.

Fisher, Karen. 1988. Agreement and the distribution of anaphora. In Michael Hammond, Edith Moravcsik & Jessica Wirth (eds.), Studies in syntactic typology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 25–36. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Givón, Talmy. 1971. Historical syntax and synchronic morphology: an archaeologist’s field trip. Proceedings of the 7th regional meeting of the Chicago linguistics society 7. 394–415.

Gorgoniev, Iuri A. 1966. The Khmer language. (Trans.) V. Korotsky. Nauka Publishing House.

Haan, Ferdinand de. 1997. Khmer and the theory of modality. (Ed.) M. Clark. Papers in Southeast Asian Linguistics No. 16 16. 47–66.

Haiman, John. 1998. Possible Origins of Infixation in Khmer. Studies in Language 22(3). 597–617.

Haiman, John. 2011. Cambodian: Khmer. (London Oriental and African Language Library 16). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.

of 34

Haiman, John & Noerng Ourn. 2003. Nouns, verbs and syntactic backsliding in Khmer. Studies in language 27(3). 505–528.

Headley, Robert Kirk. 1977. Cambodian-English Dictionary. Catholic University of Amer Press. http://sealang.net/khmer/ (23 May, 2013).

Hopper, Paul J & Elizabeth Closs Traugott. 2003. Grammaticalization. Cambridge; New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Hout, Angeliek Van & Thomas Roeper. 1998. Events and aspectual structure in derivational morphology. MIT working Papers in Linguistics 32. 175–220.

Huffman, Franklin Eugene. 1967. An outline of Cambodian grammar. Cornell University Ph.D. Dissertation. http://purl.org/sealang/huffman1967outline.pdf (23 May, 2013).

Huffman, Franklin Eugene. 1987. Cambodian System of Writing And Beginning Reader. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.

Huffman, Franklin Eugene, Charan Promchan & Chhom-Rak Thong Lambert. 1970. Modern spoken Cambodian. SEAP Publications.

Iwasaki, Shōichi & Preeya Ingkaphirom. 2005. A Reference Grammar Of Thai. Cambridge University Press.

Jacob, Judith M. 1968. Introduction to Cambodian. London: Oxford UniversityPress.

Jacob, Judith M. 1993. Linguistics in Cambodia and on Cambodian. In David A. Smyth (ed.), Cambodian linguistics, literature and history: Collected articles, 43–63. London: School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London. http://purl.org/sealang/jacob1993linguistics.pdf (23 May, 2013).

Joseph, Brian D. & Richard D. Janda. 1988. The how and why of diachronic morphologization and demorphologization. Theoretical morphology: Approaches in modern linguistics. 193–210.

Kroeger, Paul. 2004. Analyzing Syntax: A Lexical-Functional Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Li, Charles N. & Sandra A. Thompson. 1989. Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Reference Grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Lieber, Rochelle. 1980. On the organization of the lexicon. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Thesis. http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/15976 (29 May, 2013).

Lim, Lisa & Umberto Ansaldo. 2002. Prosodic erosion as a diagnostic ofgrammaticalisation in isolating languages: Tone and stress in Sinitic. Speech Prosody 2002, International Conference. http://www.isca-speech.org/archive_open/sp2002/sp02_459.pdf (30 May, 2013).

Lord, Carol, Foong Ha Yap & Shoichi Iwasaki. 2002. Grammaticalization of ‘give’. In Ilse Wischer & Gabriele Diewald (eds.), New reflections

of 34

on grammaticalization, vol. 49, 217–235. (Typological Studies in Language (TSL)).

Matisoff, James A. 1991. Areal and universal dimensions of grammatization in Lahu. In Elizabeth Closs Traugott & Bernd Heine(eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization. Volume 2: Focus on types of grammatical markers, vol. 2, 383–453. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Merrifield, Judith. 2010. Yao’an Lolo grammar sketch. Dallas, TX: Graduate Institute of Applied Linguistics (GIAL) MA Thesis. http://www.gial.edu/images/theses/Merrified_Judith-thesis.pdf (29April 2013).

Natchanan, Yaowapat. 2005. Pronoun retention in Khmer and Thai relative clauses. (Ed.) Paul Sidwell. SEALS XV Papers from the 15th Annual Meeting of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society 2003. 121–132.

Packard, Jerome L. 2000. The Morphology of Chinese. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Perlmutter, David M. 1978. Impersonal passives and the Unaccusative Hypothesis. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 4. http://elanguage.net/journals/bls/article/view/2131 (3 June, 2013).

Rappaport Hovav, Malka & Beth Levin. 1992. -Er nominals: Implications for the theory of argument structure. Syntax and semantics 26: Syntax andthe lexicon, vol. 26, 127–153. (Syntax and Semantics 26). San Diego:Academic Press, Inc.

Schiller, Eric. 1989. Syntactic Polysemy and Underspecification in theLexicon. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 15. 278–280.

Simpson, Andrew. 2008. The grammaticalization of clausal nominalizers in Burmese. In Maria Jose Lopez-Couso & Elena Seoane (eds.), Rethinking Grammaticalization: new perspectives, 265–88. (Typological Studies in Language (TSL) 76).

Smyth, David. 2008. Colloquial Cambodian. London and New York: Routledge.Song, Jae Jung. 2001. Linguistic typology: morphology and syntax. (Longman

Linguistics Library) Harlow, UK: Longman.Spencer, Andrew. 2005. Word-formation and syntax. In Pavol Štekauer &

Rochelle Lieber (eds.), Handbook of word-formation, 73–97. (Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 64). Springer Netherlands.

Sun, Chaofen. 1996. Word Order Change and Grammaticalization in the History of Chinese. Stanford University Press.

Thompson, Laurence C. 1984. A Vietnamese grammar. The Mon-Khmer Studies Journal 13-14. 1–367.

Williams, E. 1981. On the notions “lexically related” & “head of a word.” Linguistic Inquiry 12(2). 245–274.

of 34

Yuzhi, Shi. 2002. “The” establishment of modern Chinese grammar: The formation of theresultative construction and its effects. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.

Zhang, Bin. 2011. Serial verb constructions or verb compounds? : a prototype approach to resultative verb constructions in Mandarin Chinese. Virtual Press. http://cardinalscholar.bsu.edu/handle/handle/182229 (30 May, 2013).

of 34

the morphological implications of two polysemous formatives in khmer

Documents