This post follows on from my previous post on light verbs and classifier constructions in Algonquian and Australian languages. For my current project, I’m very interested in which non-semantically empty light verbs different languages use, especially languages with small and/or closed verb classes. By non-semantically-empty, I mean those languages where the choice of light verb encodes more than just transitivity and aspect, or where a smallish closed verb class encodes more than just those dimensions.These verbs, under the analysis of my previous article, would be the finals of Algonquian languages, and the IVs (inflecting verbs) of Australian languages with productive CVCs (compound verb constructions).

To get some insight, I’ve compiled some data from the following micro-sample:

Language	Source
Kunbarlang	A Grammar of Kunbarlang, Ivan Kapitonov
Gurindji	A Grammar of Gurindji, Felicity Meakins and Patrick McConvell
Jaminjung	Simple and Complex Verbs in Jaminjung, Eva Schultze-Berndt
Murrinhpatha	Murrinhpatha Morphology and Phonology, John Mansfield
Gooniyandi	Verb Classification in Australian Languages, William B. McGregor
Nyulnyul	Verb Classification in Australian Languages, William B. McGregor
Ngarinyin	Verb Classification in Australian Languages, William B. McGregor
Ojibwe, Nishnaabemwin	Nishnaabemwin Reference Grammar, Randolph Valentine
Cree, Atikamekw	Atikamekw Morphology and Lexicon, Jean Pierre Beland
Kalam	Where have all the verbs gone? Remarks on the organisation of languages with small, closed verb classes, Andrew Pawley
Basque	Basque-English Dictionary, Aulestia

I have to be honest that this sample is a bit of a mess, for various reasons. Firstly, to a certain extent I am comparing apples with oranges: for some languages I have a complete list of all verbs if the verb class is small and closed, for others (Nyulnyul, Ngarinyin) I have a complete set of verbs used in CVCs but not of verbs which are not used as light verbs, for some (Kalam) I have a list of high frequency verbs which reportedly account >97% of verbs used in speech, and so on.

Secondly, the semantic contrasts of small to medium sets of light verbs are hard to fully understand from the English glosses provided. They are often more general than those glosses suggest. A good example is Gurindji nyangana, which covers both ‘see’, ‘look’, but also other forms of consumption including various kinds of perception like ‘eat’, ‘drink’, ‘hear’, and ‘know’. If glossed as ‘intake’, which may be more accurate, it may then treated as distinct to a verb in another sample language verb glossed ‘see’ or ‘eat’ which actually has identical semantics! I’ve therefore tried to catalogue major senses, not the verb roots per se, and I’ve tried to match based on approximately equivalent semantics instead of exact gloss equivalence in the source grammars.

Thirdly, in some of the sources it’s clear which verbs can be used as light verbs, but in others, while it’s clear which the most frequent or general IVs are, it’s a bit less clear which are never used as IVs.

Lastly, the Algonquian languages present a unique challenge because of the morphological complexity of the final domain. In most of the above languages, CVC constructions are strictly bipartite: they combine one inflecting verb with one coverb or initial. Algonquian languages, on the other hand, have some additional derivational complexity in their finals which makes counting them somewhat harder. An example is the way that both the grammars listed above have somewhat long lists of environmental finals which appear to be, historically if not productively synchronically, a combination of a medial or incorporand and a simplex final: be a kind of island, be a kind of rock, be a kind of hill, …. In such cases, I have focused on the general repeated morphological structure of ‘be a kind of X’.

Most Common Verbs

That being said, I think there are patterns which can be observed in the data. My own sample produces a list of 25 core senses which occur in at least four of the languages with a closed verb class and CVCs. They are, ordered from most to least common:

be – the copula, and also often the default locative predicate, although Basque splits these uses. In the Australian languages especially, it may also mean ‘sit’. In languages without a separate ‘go’ verb, may also be the IV used in basic motion constructions.

go – basic intransitive directed motion verb, with no manner encoded. May also be used with change of state events. In languages without a separate ‘come’ verb, it may be deictically neutral.

say, do – Speech and generic atelic activity. In Australian languages, these are often the same verb, and due to my sample being somewhat dominated by those languages, this polysemy dominates. It’s possible that with a wider sample these meanings would be more clearly split.

give – Literal or metaphorical transfer, may also be verbs/finals used to express benefactive or applicative senses if complex finals are possible in the given language.

see – The primary perception verb. If a language only has one in its closed verb class / light verb set, its primary meaning without further qualification is likely to be ‘see’. With a relevant coverb or initial, it may also cover other senses, and even consumption (eating, drinking).

eat – A consumption verb, may also cover drinking if there’s only one such verb in the set.

put, set – A generic transitive change of location verb, which describes causing an object to be in a location or locative relation. May also cover caused change of state.

throw, push – Application of centrifugal force (away from the agent) to an object.

hold, have, possess – In CVCs, a generic transitive IV with minimal semantic content. Often also expresses possession, but possession may be lexicalised separately, e.g. Basque.

lie (down) – be or enter into a horizontal orientation.

carry – induced motion of patient along same path as agent, agent in contact with patient. May be used as a generic atelic transitive IV with minimal semantic content.

fall – Motion downwards under influence from gravity. Frequently used as a change of state verb, especially for changes of state which are the natural course of events.

affect – Generic causative verb with minimal semantic content.

cook – Application of heat to effect a change of state. Quite a few languages in the sample contrast this with other burning events via a separate ‘burn’ verb.

burn – If present, covers fire events not covered by cook, including smoking, possibly also shining or emission of light.

cut, chop – Application of an edge, action using an object applied laterally to the patient.

hit – Violent action, somewhat non-specific about the exact dynamics or nature of the instrument.

get, catch – Acquisition of an object or property by the agent. Often also acts as a fairly genetic causative/transitive, ‘become’, etc. See English for an example of the semantic range of get.

stand – be or enter into a vertical orientation

bite – action with teeth or mouth. May also metaphorically apply to other kinds of gnawing action, e.g. cutting through a tree with an axe.

stab, pierce, poke – Action by the end of an elongated object or body part.

hear – Second most frequent verb of perception, tends to only be present if ‘see’ is already available.

wander, travel – Undirected motion within an area. Contrasts with ‘go’, a much more common verb type, by being more or less atelic and focusing on motion as an activity instead of as a state change.

take – Transport object from one location to another. In some languages with small verb classes, there is no deictic distinction here so the same verb means ‘take (to)’ and ‘bring’. Distinguished from carry by telicity and goal directedness.

wet – action by application of water.

This list covers pretty well the major semantic groups that recur in such closed light verb classes. The groups are:

Locative and Stance Verbs: stand, sit, lie, be

Intransitive Motion Verbs: go, wander, fall

Induced Motion Verbs: put, carry, take

Generic Valency: affect, give

Manner of Action: cook, burn, bite, cut, hit, poke, throw, wet

Acquisition and Possession: have, catch/get

Speech, Atelic Activity: say/do

Bodily Function and Perception: see, hear, eat

It’s also broadly compatible McGregor’s list of most common IVs from Verb Classification in Australian Languages. McGregor’s list is ‘sit/be’, ‘stand’, ‘go’, ‘fall’, ‘become’, ‘carry’, ‘throw’, ‘put’, ‘catch/get’, ‘give’, ‘hit’, and ‘poke’. The only verb on his list which does not really occur in my sample at all is ‘become’, which tends to be covered by ‘be’, ‘go’, or ‘fall’. And McGregor himself comments that a separate ‘become’ verb is often not present and mostly restricted to Pama-Nyungan languages.

The Algonquian Outliers

The Algonquian languages in the sample do have many of the verbs (finals) listed above, and some of them appear to be highly frequent. Where the Algonquian languages differ is in additional categories that are well populated compared to IVs and CVCs elsewhere:

Manner of Motion – Algonquian appears to have large numbers of manner of motion verbs like ‘walk’, ‘run’, ‘swim’, ‘fly’, …. These are not really present in Australian languages with CVCs, which, to the extent their motion verbs encode anything except the fact of motion, encode path and relegate manner to the satellites/coverbs. Algonquian, on the other hand, is clearly like English in encoding manner within the verb root/final and path within the initials/coverbs.

Manner of Action – Although Australian languages do tend to distinguish manner of transitive action (cook, hit, poke, cut, …) in their IVs, Algonquian languages have many more finals encoding manner.

Larger sets of semantically specific finals – This could be an artifact of the data for Australian languages with larger closed verb classes being incomplete, but Algonquian appears to have a larger number of finals with specific meanings like ‘sew’, ‘wear’, ‘fight’, ‘hunt’ and so on. Additionally, Algonquian has derivational finals which combine with medial-like elements or incorporated nouns to derive large numbers of more specific finals, whereas Australian languages seem to lack this level of derivational productivity. Their IV classes are more firmly closed to new members.

Setting aside the miscellanea, the core difference is that Algonquian seems to have a much firmer focus on manner of action and motion, and relegates outcomes (including path) and expressions of telicity to initials (coverbs in Australian terminology). Whereas Australian IVs, while they do sometimes encode manner of action, are often more likely to specific generic action type (intransitive motion, …) and telicity and not that much else.

In a way, the Algonquian division of labour reminds me of the Slavic aspectual system in reverse. In Slavic, verbs stems are perfective or imperfective, with morphological means to derive members of the opposite category. I believe the dominant pattern is for simple verb stems to be imperfective, and for perfective verbs to be derived from them by prefixes which are historical or synchronic prepositions or path markers. The system is in some ways similar to phrasal verbs in English, which may also mark differences in telicity, but heavily grammaticalised to create two separate aspectual classes.

The point is that in Slavic, the open class (verbs) is imperfective and then there is a closed class of bounders (the prefixes) which typically derive telic, perfective equivalents. Whereas in Algonquian, the more closed class (the finals) most often expresses aspectually neutral to atelic manner information, and the initials, which form a more open class (?), often encode end state (path etc.) and mark telicity, although initials and medials may also add additional manner information.

This is based on first impressions and a limited understanding, so take it with a pinch of salt.