Studies
in
African
Linguistics
Volume
16,
Number
3,
December
1985
FACTIVITY,
PRESUPPOSITION
AND
THE
RELATIVISED
PREDICATE
IN
KRIO*
Dudley
K.
Nylander
Universite
de
Grenoble
III
After
a
brief
review
of
the
literature
on
factivity
and
pre-
supposition,
the
paper
examines
a
case
of
asymmetry
in
the
interpretation
of
a
construction
known
as
the
relativised
predicate
(RP).
Whenever
the
main
verb
of
the
sentence
with
RP
is
mek
(=
'make'),
the
sentence
may
be
interpreted
in
two
ways,
including
one
with
"the
fact
that".
However,
if
the
matrix
verb
is
other
than
mek,
there
is
only
one
in-
terpretation
possible-without
"the
fact
that".
It
is
con-
cluded
that
the
dual
interpretation
is
possible
because
the
relative
particle
(which
is
also
a
complementizer
linked
to
factive
verbs)
associates
with
the
factive
mek.
1.
Factivity
and
Presupposition}
1.1.
Kiparsky
&
Kiparsky
[1968].
In
their
classic
paper,
Kiparsky
and
Kipar-
sky
[1968]
divide
predicates
into
two
categories,
factive
and
non-factive.
The
*1
wish
to
thank
an
anonymous
reviewer
for
Studies
in
African
Linguistics
for
comments on
an
earlier
version
of
this
paper.
Some
of
the
issues
raised
here
are
also
discussed
in
Nylander
[1983]
and
Williams
[1976,
1977].
Most
of
the
data
in
the
paper
are
from
Krio,
an
"English-based"
creole
language
spoken
in
Sierra
Leone and
elsewhere
in
West
Africa.
(The
variety
presented
here
is
from a
Sierra
Leone
dialect.)
On
pidgins
and
creoles
in
Africa,
see
Berry
[1971].
On
Krio
more
specifically,
see
Jones
[1971].
One
feature
of
Krio
is
that
it
is
a
tone
language-see
Berry
(1961),
Coker
(1977),
Coomber
[1969],
Fyle
and
Jones
[1980].
Johnson
[1974],
and
Nylander
[1979,
1983].
Tones
are
noted
as
follows:
'(low
tone),
(high
tone).
The
transcription
used
is
that
of
the
International
African
Institute
(IAI).
The
following
abbreviations
will
be
used:
NOM
=
nominal
ising
particle;
PERF
=
perfective
aspect;
PROS
prospective
mood;
REL
=
relativising
particle.
IThree
different
articles
will
be
discussed
in
this
section.
Since
it
would
take
us
too
far
afield
to
examine
all
the
points
made
in
each
article,
I
have
limited
myself
to
what
I
consider
most
relevant
for
the
discussion
at
hand.
324
Studies
in
African
Linguistics
16(3),1985
Kiparskys
point
out
a number
of
systematic
differences
between
the
two
types
of
predicates.
One
of
these
differences
is
that
only
factive
predicates
are
com-
patible
with
"the
fact
that".
Thus,
while
the
latter
can
combine
with
the
fac-
tive
predicate
"be
significant"
(la),
it
cannot
associate
itself
with
the
non-
factive
predicate
"be
likely"
(lb).
(1)
a.
The
fact
that
he
left
is
significant.
b.
*The
fact
that
he
left
is
likely.
The
Kiparskys
also
stress
the
relationship
between
factivity
and
presupposition.
Factive
sentences
presuppose
the
truth
of
the
embedded
clause,
whilst
non-fac-
tive
sentences
do
not.
Thus,
the
factive
(2a)
presupposes
(2b),
but
the
non-
factive
(3a)
does
not
presuppose
(3b}.2
(2)
a.
I
regret
that
it
is
raining
>
b.
It
is
raining
(3)
a.
I
suppose
that
it
is
raining
*>
b.
It
is
raining
1.2.
Kartunnen
[1971].
Since
the
Kiparsky
&
Kiparsky
paper,
two
other
extreme-
ly
important
papers
on
factivity
have
been
published.
The
common
denominator
of
both
papers
is
that
they
show
that
factivity
is
not
as
straightforward
an
is-
ue
as
is
usually
assumed.
The
first
of
these
papers
is
Kartunnen
[1971).
Kar-
tunnen
shows,
firstly,
that
presupposition
cannot
always
be
separated
from
the
main
sentence.
For
example,
(4a)
and
(Sa)
can
be
analysed
as
(4b)
and
(5b),
respe.ctive1y:
(4)
a.
Some
senators
regret
that
they
voted
for
the
SST
b.
For
some
senators
x,
x
regrets
that
x
voted
for
the
SST
(5)
a.
Some
senators
regret
that
some
senators
voted
for
the
SST
b.
Assertion:
"For
some
senators
y,
y
regrets
that
for
some
senators
x,
Unless
otherwise
stated,
the
examples
in
this
section
are
taken
from
the
arti-
cles
referred
to.
2The symbol > means
"presupposes
the
truth
of",
*>
means
"does
not
pre-
suppose
the
truth
of",
j means
"implies",
and
*;:)
means
"does
not
imply".
The
Relativised
predicate
in
Krio
325
x
voted
for
the
SST."
Presupposition:
"For
some
senators
x,
x
voted
for
the
SST."
However,
(4a)
and (Sa)
do
NOT
have
the
same
presupposition,
as
can
be
seen
by
comparing
(4a')
and
(Sa'):
(4a')
Some
senators,
perhaps
even
Yarborough,
regret
that
they
voted
for
the
SST.
(Sa')
Some
senators,
perhaps
even
Yarborough,
regret
that
some
senators
voted
for
the
SST.
Kartunnen
also
shows
that
the
mood
of
the
main
sentence
is
important.
Con-
sider,
firstly,
the
sentences
in
(6).
Both
sentences
presuppose
that
Harry's
wife
is
not
a
virgin.
In
short,
in
sentences
like
(6).
there
is
no
difference
in
presupposition
between
that-complements
and
poss-ing
structures,
in
the
in-
dica
tive
mood:
(6)
a.
That
his
bride
is
not
a
virgin
bothers
Harry.
b.
His
bride's
not
being
a
virgin
bothers
Harry.
Consider,
now,
both
sentences
in
the
subjunctive
mood.
3
Sentence
(7a)
presup-
poses
that
Harry's
wife
is
not
a
virgin,
as
confirmed
by
the
*
in
the
section
in
brackets,
but
(7b)
carries
no
such
presupposition.
In
fact,
(7b)
does
not
even
presuppose
that
Harry
is
married:
4
(7)
a.
That
his
wife
is
not
a
virgin
would
bother
Harry
if
he
knew
about
it.
(*Luckily,
she
is
a
virgin.)
b.
His
bride's
not
being
a
virgin
would
bother
Harry
if
he
knew
about
it.
(Luckily,
she
is
a
virgin.)
1.3.
Giv6n
[1973].
Giv6n
[1973]
makes a
distinction
between
cognition
verbs
(C-verbs)
and
modality
verbs
(M-verbs).
He
points
out
that
it
is
incorrect
to
3
T
he
term
subjunctive
mood
is
Kartunnen's.
conditional
tense/mood
rather
than
subjunctive
tences
in
(7).
It
might
be
better
to
talk
of
mood
in
reference
to
the
sen-
4Kartunnen
also
makes a
distinction
between
true
factive
verbs
and
factive
verbs.
True
factive
verbs
include
regret,
forget,
and
resent.
is
a
semi-factive
verb,
since
it
loses
its
factivity
in
conditionals.
like
discover,
find
out,
and
realise
are
also
semi-factive,
since
they
both
factive
and
non-factive
interpretation
in
questions.
semi-
Realise
Verbs
permit
326
Studies
in
African
Linguistics
16(3),1985
assume
that
presupposition
is
linked
to
C-verbs
only
and
implication
to
M-verbs
only.
Given
shows
that
C-verbs
are
not,
in
fact,
a
uniform
group
of
verbs.
Three
types
of
C-verbs
can
be
distinguished:
factive
(e.g.
regret),
negative-
factive
(e.g.
pretend)
and
non-factive
(e.g.
decide).
Factive
verbs
presuppose
the
truth
of
the
embedded
clause,
as
shown
in
(8).
A
negative-factive
verb
pre-
supposes
the
falsity
of
the
complement
clause,
as
in
(9).
Non-factive
verbs
do
not
presuppose
the
truth
of
the
embedded
clause,
as
in
(10).
(8)
a.
I
regret
that
she
was
hurt
>
b.
She was
hurt
(9)
a.
She
pretended
that
she
was
sick
>
b.
She was
not
sick
(10)
a.
She
decided
to
go
*>
b.
She went
Given
also
divides
M-verbs
into
three
classes:
implicative
(e.g.
manage),
negative-implicative
(e.g.
forget),
and
non-implicative
(e.g.
want).
Implica-
tive
verbs
imply
the
truth
of
the
complement
clause,
as
in
(11).
Negative-im-
plicative
verbs
imply
the
falsity
of
the
complement
clause,
as
in
(12).
Non-
implicative
verbs
imply
neither
the
truth
nor
the
falsity
of
their
complement
clauses,
as
in
(13)
and
(14).5
(11)
a.
John
managed
to
kiss
Mary
:J
b.
John
kissed
Mary
(12)
a.
John
forgot
to
wash
the
dishes
~
b.
John
did
not
wash
the
dishes
(13)
a.
John
wanted
to
kiss
Mary
*~
b.
John
kissed
Mary
5
G
iv6n
also
examines
presupposition
and
implication
in
relation
to
what
he
calls
the
"time-axis
phenomenon".
An
examination
of
these
facts
is
unwarranted
for
the
purposes
of
this
paper.
Given
continues
his
1973
work
in
a
later
[1980]
article.
The
Relativised
predicate
in
Krio
(14)
a.
John
didn't
want
to
kiss
Mary
*::>
b.
John
didn't
kiss
Mary
2.
Factivit1
and
the
Relativised
Predicate
In
Krio,
the
form
I
acts
as
a
relative
we
(15)
a.
dl
man
w~
bin
kam
na
ml
padf
the
man
REL
PAST
come
be
my
friend
'the
man
who
came
is
my
friend'
b.
di
buk
w~
I bin
bay
bin
dfya
the
book
REL
he
PAST
buy
PAST
be
dear
'the
book
that
he
bought
was
dear'
(REL)
particle:
327
The
particle
w~
also
acts
as
a
relative
particle
in
a
construction
known
as
the
relativised
predicate
(RP).
The
particularity
of
RP
is
that
the
relativised
element
is
a copy
of
the
main
verb
of
the
relative
clause.
6
(16)
dl
ala
we
I bin ala bin
wek
61man
the
shout
REL
he
PAST
shout
PAST
awake
everyone
'his
shouting
(shouts)
awoke
everyone'
One
particularity
of
RP
in
Krio
is
the
following.
Whenever
the
matrix
verb
of
the
sentence
is
mek
'make'
as
in
(17a)
and
(17b),
there
are
two
possible
ways
of
interpreting
the
sentence,
one
with
and
the
other
without
"the
fact
that":
6
RP
is
attested
in
at
least
two
other
languages,
Haitian
Creole
(HC)
and
Yoruba.
On
RP
in
HC,
see
Dreyfuss
[1977],
Lefebvre
[1982],
Piou
[1982b],
and
Sylvain
[1938].
Example
(i)
below
is
from
HC
[Sylvain
1938].
On
RP
in
Yoruba,
see
Bamgbose [1975] and
Dreyfuss
[1977].
See
Williams
[1976,
1977]
for
a com-
parative
analysis
of
RP
in
Krio
and
Yoruba.
Example
(ii)
below
is
from Yorub.i
[Bamgbose
1975].
(i)
pu
mize
za
I-te
mize Ii te-dwe pote
lavale
kay-Ia
for
dawdle
kind
she-PAST dawdle
she
PAST-should
bring
value
house-the
'with
all
her
dawdling,
she
should
have
brought
enough
to
fill
the
house'
(ii)
rfra
tf
mo
ra
Iwe
dara
NOM-buy
REL
I buy book
be-good
'the
fact
that
I
bought
a book
is
good'