‘Take’ Serial Verb Constructions (Feature 85)

From Apics

Feature Annotation

Take-serials (i.e. serial verb constructions with ‘take’ as the first verb,“he took knife cut meat”) are widespread in the languages of the world. In creole studies, mainly the instrumental function of such serials has been emphasized. However, the functional range of take-serials is broader, and the object of a ‘take’ serial may also be the theme of the second verb. For APiCS, we use the definition of a serial verb construction given by Aikhenvald 2006:
“A serial verb construction (SVC) is a sequence of verbs which act together as a single predicate, without any overt marker of coordination, subordination, or syntactic dependency of any other sort.” (Aikhenvald & Dixon 2006: 1; for a more complete definition, see the APiCS Glossary).
In some languages, the subject must be repeated, as in Guinea Bissau Creole:

I nada i bin li.
he swim he come here
‘He came swimming.’

These constructions are also considered as serial verb constructions here.
A problem arises if a language allows for constructions with or without a marker of syntactic dependency, as e.g. in the following Papiamentu examples which look like a take-serial with an instrumental meaning, where it is possible to say

El a kue un kuchú ___ kòrta un pida karni kom’=é.
he PFV take a knife cut a piece meat eat=it
’He took the knife, cut a piece of meat and ate it.’

as well as

El a kue e kuchú i kòrta e karni i kom’=é.
he PFV take the knife and cut the meat and eat=it
‘He took the knife and cut the meat and ate it.’ (Maurer 1988: 256)

In such cases, i.e. where the presence or absence of a marker of syntactic dependency is optional, neither construction is considered a serial verb construction. If in a given language one lect allows for a dependency marker and the other not, either disregard your non-default lect or duplicate the data set, describing two different lects.

Additional remarks

....

Values

Value		Value Annotation
1	No ‘take’ serials exist	There are no take-serials in the language.
2	‘Take’ object is theme of second verb, literal interpretation possible	Principense Ê tama inha pwê usan. [3SG take wood put ground] ‘He took the firewood and put it on the ground.’ ~ ‘He put the firewood on the ground.’ (Günther 1973: 142) Here, the agent can ’take’ the firewood in a literal sence.
3	‘Take’ object is theme of second verb, literal interpretation impossible	Principense Kasô pega ponta urabu mêtê pwê. [dog take point tail put put ubasu bwega. under belly] ‘The dog put its tail under his belly.’ In this sentence, the dog is not in a position to ’take’ its tail in a literal sense. (Thus, this type is more grammaticalized.)
4	‘Take’ object is instrument of second verb, with resumptive pronoun	It is not important whether the resumptive agrees with its antecedent or not (e.g. the antecedent may be plural and the pronoun may be invariably singular): Principense Ê tan lima da kompwe sê [3SG take file give friend POSS:3SG kôli na uwê. with:3SG LOC eye] ‘He took the file and blew his friend with it in the eyes.’ ~ ‘He blew his friend in the eyes with it.’ (Maurer)
5	‘Take’ object is instrument of second verb, no resumptive pronoun	Principense Ê tan lima da kompwe sê [3SG take file give friend POSS:3SG na uwê. LOC eye] ‘He took the file and blew his friend in the eyes.’ ~ ‘He blew his friend in the eyes with a file.’ (Thus, this type is more grammaticalized.)
6	Other	(Please give details in the “General comments” field.)

WALS No.

(None)