# GIVE constructions in Haitian

Patricia Cabredo Hofherr

► To cite this version:

Patricia Cabredo Hofherr. GIVE constructions in Haitian. Mélanges en ligne pour Léa Nash, 2022. hal-03592442

HAL Id: hal-03592442

https://hal.science/hal-03592442

Submitted on 7 Jan 2023

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
# GIVE constructions in Haitian

Patricia Cabredo Hofherr

UMR 7023 - Structures formelles du langage (CNRS, U. Paris-8, UPL)

## Abstract

Serial verb constructions involving a second verb GIVE can introduce recipients or beneficiaries, similar to datives in case-marking languages. The present paper examines the syntax and semantics of Haitian Creole *ba(y)* 'give' introducing a DP complement in a doubly comparative perspective, comparing Haitian *ba(y)* with its cognate *ba* in Martinican Creole and with core and non-core datives in French. In Haitian *ba(y)* 'give' + DP shows hybrid syntactic behaviour patterning simultaneously with prepositions and verbs for a range of syntactic tests. Semantically, the Haitian second verb *ba(y)* 'give' + DP is limited to animate recipients, unlike its cognate *ba* in Martinican Creole. Haitian has two semantically different *ba(y)* 'give' + DP constructions, one specifying the recipient of transfer verbs, the other adding a coercing beneficiary. While recipient-*ba(y)* resembles core datives insofar as it is linked to the argument structure of the main verb, command-*ba(y)* does not pattern with non-core datives in French.<fnref n="1" /> <fnref n="2" /> <fnref n="3" />

## 1 Introduction

It is well known that serial verb constructions involving a second verb GIVE can introduce recipients or beneficiaries, similar to datives in case-marking languages.

<footnote n="1">¹A look at dative-like constructions dedicated to Léa. 22 February 2022.</footnote>

<footnote n="2">²Thank you to Mideline Dragon, Herby Glaude, Renauld Govain and Emmanuel Rosena for their help with the Haitian data and to Loïc Jean-Louis, Stéphane Terosier and Vinciane Vauclin for their help with the Martiniké data. I am grateful to Loïc Jean-Louis and Emmanuel Rosena for detailed discussions of the data. Thank you to Muhsina Alleesaib, Mideline Dragon, Renauld Govain, Fabiola Henri, Loïc Jean-Louis, Alain Kihm, Emmanuel Schang, Stéphane Terosier for their comments and suggestions at the *Groupe de recherche Grammaires Créoles* and to Anne Zribi-Hertz for detailed comments and suggestions on a previous version of this paper.</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³Abbreviations HC = Haitian Creole, MQ = Martinican Creole, SVC = serial verb construction. Abbreviations in the glosses follow the Leipzig glossing conventions with the following additions: GIVE = HC *ba(y)* and MQ *ba*, NONP = non-punctual, RED = reduced pronominal</footnote>
(1) a. me-kyerɛw krata ma no (Akan)
   I-write letter give him
   'I write a letter to him.' (Lord et al., 2002)

b. mi wroko **gi** en (Sranan)
   1SG work **give** 3SG
   'I work for him' (Sebba, 1987, 73, ex 102)

Serial verbs often grammaticalise into adpositions and a central question in the analysis of complex verbal constructions is whether the putative serial verb behaves as a verbal element or has been reanalysed as an adposition (see e.g. Jansen et al. 1978; Sebba 1987; Lord 1993; Lovestrand 2021).<fnref n="4" />

The present paper addresses two questions regarding the syntax and semantics of **GIVE** constructions with Haitian Creole **ba(y)** 'give' introducing a DP complement (i) do the different uses of HC **ba(y)** behave as a verb or as a preposition syntactically? (ii) what is the semantic contribution of HC **ba(y)**

I approach the HC data in a doubly contrastive perspective. First, building on Jean-Louis 2019 for Martinican Creole (MQ), I compare HC *ba(y)* with MQ *ba* 'give' with respect to their syntactic and semantic properties. In a second step, I examine HC with the backdrop of French core and non-core-datives as studied in Boneh and Nash (2012).

The argument proceeds as follows. Section 2 introduces the main verbs HC *ba(y)* and MQ *ba* 'give' and different grammaticalised uses of HC *ba(y)* and MQ *ba*. I show that HC has different constructions with *ba(y)* 'give' as a second element. Section 3 compares the syntax of HC *ba(y)*+DP constructions with the MQ *ba*+DP constructions using syntactic diagnostics that distinguish verbs from prepositions in HC and MQ. While the MQ *ba*+DP construction patterns with prepositions (Jean-Louis, 2019), HC shows hybrid behaviour allowing both patterns characteristic of P and patterns characteristic of V. Section 4 examines the type of argument introduced by HC *ba(y)*+DP/ MQ *ba*+DP and shows that the HC *ba(y)*+DP contrasts with MQ *ba*+DP with respect to a range of semantic properties. Firstly, HC *ba(y)*+DP is limited to animate recipients while MQ *ba*+DP allows inanimate recipients in part-whole

(i) a. a shirt **with** a wild pattern / cut **with** a knife (PREP)

b. a shirt **sporting** a wild pattern / cut **using** a knife (VERB)

(ii) le long de la rivière / **longeant** la rivière (French)
the long of the river / alonging the river
'along the river' longeant = participial form of *longer X* "go along X".

<footnote n="4">⁴Languages without serial verbs also use verbs and prepositions to convey very similar content:</footnote>
configurations. Secondly, while MQ *ba+DP* can add a recipient or a beneficiary, HC *ba(y)+DP* appears in two distinct constructions: with verbs of transfer HC *ba(y)+DP* specifies the recipient, while with other verbs HC *ba(y)+DP* introduces a semantically marked coercing beneficiary. Semantically neutral beneficiaries in HC are introduced by the preposition *pou* 'for'. Section 5 compares the two types of HC *ba(y)+DP* with core and non-core datives in French and proposes an analysis of HC *ba(y)+ DP* constructions. Section 6 concludes.

## 2 GIVE constructions in HC and MQ

Both HC **ba(y)** and MQ **ba** are homophonous with a full verb meaning 'give':

(2) a. Jan **bay** Mari yon liv. (HC)
b. Jan **ba** Mari an liv. (Jean-Louis, 2019, ex 1) (MQ)
J give M a book
'Jean gave Marie a book.'

HC *ba(y)* is one of the few verbs in HC with more than one form<sup>5</sup> HC *ba(y)* takes three forms *bay*, *ba* and *ban* [bã] depending on the syntactic and phonological context. When *bay* appears without a complement (e.g. at the end of a sentence) only *bay* is possible (3). With a full DP complement the form *bay* and *ba* are both possible, nasalisation to *ban* is excluded (4). With a pronominal complement *bay* is excluded (5) and the form of the verb depends on the phonological form of the pronoun. With a pronominal beginning with a non-nasal C *ba* appear while with a nasal-initial pronoun both *ba* and the nasalised form *ban* [bã] can appear (6).

(3) Without a complement:

Yo pote enfòmasyon an **bay**. (HC)
3PL carry news DET give

'They gave the information.' (Glaude, 2012, 165, ex 10a)
lit. "They brought the information (and) gave (it) (to sb)"

(4) With a full DP complement: ok *bay*, ok *ba*, *ban*

a. Jan **bay** / **ba** / **\*ban** / Mari yon liv. (HC)
J. give M. a book

<footnote n="5"><sup>5</sup>For verbs with two or more forms in HC see Hall (1953, 30, citing Sylvain 1936:103), DeGraff (2001, 74-75), Henri and Glaude (2012); Africot (2020) and references cited there.</footnote>
'J gave M. a book.'

b. Pote ba Wozli pou mwen !
carry give W. for me
'Take it to Wozli for me!' (Fattier, 2000, carte 2061,17)

(5) With a pronominal complement: *bay

Jan *bay/ okba li lajan an. (HC)

Jean give 3SG money DET

'J. gave him/her the money.' (Henri & Glaude 2012 : 16, Africot 2020, 30, ex 37b)

(6) With nasal-initial pronominal: ok *ba*, ok *ban* [bã]

Jan **ban/ba** mwen/ nou lajan an. (HC)

Jean give 1SG/ 1PL/2PL money DET

'J. gave me/ us / you.PL the money.' (Henri & Glaude 2012, Africot 2020, 28, FN1)

(7) Summary: Form of HC *ba(y)* 'give'

<table><thead><tr><th>COMPLEMENT</th><th>BAY</th><th>BA</th><th>BAN</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>no complement</td><td>+</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>full DP complement</td><td>+</td><td>+</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>pronominal DP complement</td><td>-</td><td>+</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>non-nasal initial C</td><td>-</td><td>+</td><td>+</td></tr><tr><td>pronominal DP complement with initial nasal</td><td>-</td><td>+</td><td>+</td></tr></tbody></table>

It is well-known that verbs meaning 'give' often grammaticalize as adpositions expressing a recipient or benefactive meaning (Foley and Van Valin 1984, 207-208, Sebba 1987, 174-180, Lord 1993, 31-45). This is also the case in HC and MQ: HC *ba(y)* and MQ *ba* appear as a secondary element introducing a nominal complement with a recipient meaning:

(8) a. Jan voye liv la **bay** Mari. (HC)

J. send book DET GIVE M.

'J. sent the book to M.'

b. Jan vann an liv **ba** Mari. (MQ)

Jean sell one book **ba** Marie

'Jean sold a book to Marie.' (Jean-Louis, 2019, ex 1)

HC *ba(y)* also has other uses as a secondary verb. As already illustrated in (3), *ba(y)* may
appear without a complement. The examples in (9) further show that *ba(y)* may introduce clauses.<fnref n="6" /> The clause introduced by *ba(y)* has to be interpreted as sharing two arguments with the main clause (for the Double Argument Sharing requirement see Baker (1989); Veenstra (1993), see Zribi-Hertz et al. (2019) for discussion). As illustrated in (9)-b/c, the second argument can be an oblique argument of the embedded predicate.<fnref n="7" />

(9) a. Li achte liv la **bay** Mari vann. (HC)
3SG buy book DET give M. sell
'S/he bought the book to give it to M. to sell.'

b. Li achte savon **bay** Mari lave men li.
3SG buy soap GIVE M. wash hands 3SG
'S/he bought soap and gave (it) to Mary to wash her hands (with it).''

c. Li achte yon liv **bay** Bouki fè kwochè.
3SG buy a book give B do crochet
'She bought a book and gave it to B to do crochet (with it) = a book about crochet.'

The discussion that follows examines the dative-like use of a cognate of *GIVE* introducing a DP with recipient/benefactive semantics as in (8).<fnref n="8" /> In what follows I will refer to this use as $V_2$-*ba(y)* as *ba(y)* is the second verb in these multi-verb constructions.

## 3 Syntax

The constructions with HC $V_2$-*ba(y)* / MQ *ba* introducing a recipient are most plausibly derived from a multi verb construction with HC *ba(y)* / MQ *ba* as a second verb.

(i) a. Kika bought this book **for** Pepi.
b. Kika bought this book **for** Pepi to read.

(ii) Kika compró el libro para Pepi. / Kika compró el libro para leerlo. (Spanish)
K bought the book for P. / K. bought the book for read-3SG.ACC
'Kika bought the book for Pepi / Kika bought the book to read it.'

(i) a. I achté zanm fè moun pè (MQ)
b. *Li achte zam fè moun pè. (HC)
3SG buy gun make people scared
'(S)he bought guns<sub>z</sub> and got people scared (with them<sub>z</sub>).' (Zribi-Hertz et al., 2019, 92, ex 38)

<footnote n="6">⁶The polysemy of recipient/beneficiary DP and a final clause is also found with English *for* (with a specified subject in the final clause) and Spanish *para* (with a controlled subject in the final clause):</footnote>

<footnote n="7">⁷Unlike MQ, HC does not allow left-adjoined multi-verb constructions of this type with other verbs than *bay*.</footnote>

<footnote n="8">⁸Note: *ba(y)* as a $V_1$ in HC also functions as a causative V (Glaude, 2012).</footnote>
In the literature, these multi verb constructions are discussed under the label *SERIAL VERB CONSTRUCTIONS* (SVCs), defined as "[...] sequences of verbs which act together as a single predicate, without any overt marker of coordination, subordination, or syntactic dependency of any other sort" (Veenstra and Muysken, 2017). As a diagnostic for behaviour as a single predicate it is generally assumed that the verbs of a SVCs only have one specification for Tense-Mode-Aspect (TAM) and polarity.

HC $V_2$-*ba(y)* fulfills the SVC criteria. HC $V_2$-*ba(y)* introducing recipients does not take TAM-marking and the TAM markers attach to the main predicate (*voye* in (10)):

(10) Kon sa, mwen **va** voye yo byen vit **bay** editè a. (HC)
like that 1SG MOD send 3PL well fast GIVE editor DET
'Like that I will (be able to) send them quickly to the editor.' (attested)

With HC $V_2$-BA(Y) the negation attaches to the main verb (11)-a.; $V_2$-*ba(y)* itself does not admit a marker of negation (11)-b.

(11) a. Jan voye liv la **bay** Mari. (HC)
Jan **pa** voye liv la **bay** Mari.
J. NEG send book DET GIVE M.
'Jan sent / did not send the book to Mari.'

b. \*Jan voye liv la **pa** bay Mari (men bay Pòl).
J. send book DET NEG GIVE M but GIVE P
Intended: 'Jan sent the book not to Mari but to Pòl.'

MQ BA+DP differs from its HC counterpart: MQ *ba* allows negation (Jean-Louis, 2019):

(12) Jan vann an liv **pa** ba Mari, men ba Aleks. (MQ)
J sell a book NEG GIVE M. but give Aleks.
'Jan sold a book not to Mari but to Aleks.' (Jean-Louis, 2019, ex 69c)

However, the definition of SVCs as sharing polarity and TAM values does not give rise to a syntactically uniform class of constructions (see e.g. Zwicky 1990; Ameka 2001; Zribi-Hertz et al. 2019; Zribi-Hertz and Jean-Louis to appear for references and discussion). In what follows I use the traditional term *SERIAL VERB CONSTRUCTION* as a descriptive cover-term for multi-verb constructions without markers of subordination allowing one single value for polarity and TAM marking.

A recurrent problem with SVCs in languages without a morphological finiteness distinction is in particular that the serial verb criteria do not distinguish between SVCs and prepo-
sitions (see Lovestrand 2021, 112 and references cited there). For Saramaccan for example Veenstra and Muysken (2017) note for *pása* 'exceed' and *móo* "have lost almost all their verbal properties".

In order to establish whether V₂-*ba(y)* behaves as a verb, the following section therefore applies syntactic diagnostics that distinguish verbs from other word classes in HC.

**3.1 Syntactic diagnostics for word class**

For the Atlantic Creoles several tests have been proposed to determine the word-class of
elements. For Sranan (English lexifier Creole, Surinam), Jansen et al. (1978); Sebba (1987)
show that the extraction constructions – wh-extraction, relativisation and NP-clefting – are
limited to DPs and PPs excluding V+Obj sequences (13), while predicate cleft by predicate
copying is limited to verbs and adjectives (14).

(13) **Extraction constructions** Jansen et al. (1978)

a. wh-questions: P+NP constituents are fronted in wh-questions, V+obj is not

b. relatives: pattern with wh-questions

c. clefting: NP or PP can be extracted, V+obj cannot be extracted

(14) **Copying construction** Jansen et al. (1978)

**Emphatic predicate cleft:** possible for V and Adj but not for NP/PP

For São Tomé Creole, Maurer and the APiCS Consortium (2013a) proposes the possibility of fragment answers as a diagnostic for prepositional-syntax (15). Serial *da* ‘give’ in São Tomé it may be used in fragment answers like the preposition *pô*:

(15) **Fragment answers** (São Tomé) (Maurer 2013)

Da Pedu. / Pô Pedu. (São Tomé)

GIVE P / for P

‘(Whom did you buy this book for?) For Pedu.’

For MQ Jean-Louis (2019) shows that *ba* + DP can function as a main predicate with a recipient semantics (16), adding a further diagnostic for grammaticalisation of *ba* to a recipient/beneficiary marking preposition in MQ.

(16) **Use as main recipient/beneficiary predicate**
Liv ta -a sé ba Mari. (MQ)

Livre DEM -DET SÉ GIVE Marie

'This book is for Marie.' (Jean-Louis, 2019, ex 24)

We will first illustrate the diagnostics in (13), (14) and (15) with data from MQ and then apply
the diagnostics to HC.

In MQ, with questions and clefting the *ba+DP* complex behaves like a preposition+DP constituent: MQ *ba+DP* is fronted together (17) / (18):

(17) a. **Question**

ok [**Ba** kimoun] Maks pòté liv -la ? (MQ)

GIVE who Max bring book -DET

'For whom did M. bring the book?' (Jean-Louis, 2019, ex 69c)

b. Fronting *ba* with the wh-phrase is obligatory - compare:

(18) **Clefting**

a. Sé **[ba Mari]** Jan vann an liv (sé pa ba Aleks). (MQ)

SE **ba** Marie Jean sell a book. (it's NEG give Alex)

'It is to Marie that Jean sold a book (not to Alex).' (Jean-Louis, 2019, ex 69c)

b. Fronting *ba* with the DP is obligatory - compare:

In relatives like (19)-a MQ *ba* behaves like a preposition *épi* 'with' (19)-c: it cannot be stranded
and requires a resumptive 3sg pronoun 'y:

(19) a. Mari sé ti fi-a [Jòj vann kay-la ba'y] -la.(MQ)
M SE small girl-DET J. sell house-DET give-3SG -DET
'Mary is the girl that Jòj sold the house to.'

b. cf Jòj vann kay-la ba Mari.

c. Mari sé ti fi-a [Jòj chanté an chanson épi'y] -la.
M SE small girl-DET J. sing a song with'3SG-DET
'Mary is the girl that Jòj sings my favourite song with.'

In MQ *ba* does not allow the predicate cleft construction (20)-b (Jean-Louis, 2019).<fnref n="9" />

<footnote>*Kimoun Maks pòté liv -la **ba** ?</footnote>

<footnote>*Sé [**Mari**] Jan vann an liv **ba**.</footnote>

<footnote n="9">⁹As Sebba (1987, 67) points out in the absence of other criteria the impossibility of predicate clefting can be
due to a lack of contrasting items, rather than to a lack of verbal properties.</footnote>
(20) a. Jan vann an liv ba Mari. (MQ)
Jean vendre un livre ba Marie
‘Jean a vendu un livre à Marie.’ (Jean-Louis, 2019, ex 69a)

b. *Sé ba Jan vann an liv ba Mari.
SE ba Jean vendre un livre ba Marie
(* predicate cleft for BA) (Jean-Louis, 2019, ex 69b)

The MQ *ba+DP* can be a fragment answer to the question in (21) :

(21) a. Ba kimoun ou achté kado -a ? (MQ)
GIVE who 2SG buy present -DET
‘For whom did you buy the present?’

b. Ba Jòj.
‘For Georges.’

On the basis of the data in (16), (17), (18) Jean-Louis (2019) concludes that MQ *ba* introducing recipients has been reanalysed as a preposition. The behaviour of (12), (19) and (21) further supports this conclusion.

## 3.2 The syntax of V₂-*ba*(y) in HC

Applying the same diagnostics to HC V₂-*ba*(y) shows that this element differs from its MQ *ba* cognate. While MQ *ba* patterns like a preposition, HC V₂-*ba*(y) shows variable syntactic behaviour patterning with both verbs and prepositions.

With wh-questions (22) and relative clauses (23), HC V₂-*ba*(y) can be fronted with the wh-pronoun (like prepositions) or stranded (like verbs).<fnref n="10" /> <fnref n="11" />

(22) [**Bay** kiyès] li achte liv la ? (HC)
kiyès li achte liv la **bay** ?
give who 3SG buy book DET give

(i) (a) Jan **pran** liv la **montre** Mari. (HC)
Jan take book DET show M
‘Jan showed Mari the book.’

(b) Se **Mari** Jan **pran** liv la **montre**.
SE M. J. take book DET show
'It is Mari that Jan showed the book to.' (Glaude, 2012, 166, ex 14a./c.)

(c) Se **montre** Jan pran liv la **montre** Mari.
SE show J take book DET show M
‘Jan took the book to SHOW it to Mari.’ (Glaude, 2012, 167, ex 15b.)

<footnote n="10">¹⁰In serial verb constructions the complement of V₂ can be clefted (22)-b and V₂ allows predicate cleft (22)-c:</footnote>

<footnote n="11">¹¹Neither MQ nor HC has preposition stranding.</footnote>
'Who did s/he buy the book for?'

(23) a. [**Bay** moun] Jan voye kado a se Mari (HC)

b. Moun Jan voye kado a **bay** la se Mari
GIVE person J. send present DET GIVE DET SE M.

'The person Jan sent a present to is Mari.'

With nominal clefts some speakers accept both fronting of V₂-ba(y) +DP and stranding of the complement of HC V₂-ba(y), while other speakers reject stranding of V₂-ba(y), contrasting with wh-questions and relatives.<fnref n="12" />

(24) a. ok/* Se Mari li voye yon liv **bay** (HC)

b. ok/ok Se **bay** Mari li voye yon liv
SE give M. 3SG send a book GIVE

'It is to Mari that s/he sent a book to.'

All speakers I consulted allow fronting of *bay* with its complement (25)-a, only some of the speakers allow predicate clefting of HC V₂-*bay* by itself (25)-b.

(25) a. ok/ok Se [**bay** Mari] Jan voye yon liv. (HC)

b. ok/* Se **bay** Jan voye yon liv **bay** Mari.
SE GIVE (M.) J. send a book GIVE M.

'It is to give to Mary that Jan sent a book.'

In HC V₂-BA(Y)+DP can be fragment answers, depending on the form of the question

(26) **Bay** kiyès li achte liv la ? — **Bay** Mari (HC)
give who 3SG buy book DET — GIVE M.

'Who did s/he buy the book for? — For Mari.'

(27) **Kiyès** li achte liv la **bay** ? — **Mari** (HC)
who 3SG buy book DET GIVE — M.

Who did s/he buy the book for? — Mari.

(28) **Pou** kiyès li achte liv la ? - **Pou** Mariz. (HC)

Unlike MQ *ba* in (16), HC *bay+NP* cannot be an independent recipient/beneficiary predicate
(29)-a: to express a beneficiary, HC uses the preposition *pou* 'for, in order to' (29)-b.

<footnote n="12">¹²This lack of uniformity of the extraction constructions is also observed for Sranan *gi* 'give' by Jansen et al. (1978).</footnote>
(29) a. *Kado a **bay** Bouki (HC)
   *Kado a se **bay** Bouki
   present **DET** BAY B.

b. a. **ok/** *Kado a se **pou** Bouki
   b. **ok/** **ok**Kado a **pou** Bouki
   present **DET** for B.
   'This present is for Bouki.'

The following table summarises the syntactic contrasts between HC and MC:

(30)

<table><thead><tr><th>Diagnostic for HC V<sub>2</sub>-ba(y)/ MQ ba</th><th>MQC</th><th>HC</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>stranding in wh-questions</td><td>no (J-L 2019) (17)</td><td>yes (22)</td></tr><tr><td>fronting in wh-questions</td><td>yes (J-L 2019)</td><td>yes</td></tr><tr><td>stranding in relatives</td><td>no (19)</td><td>yes (23)</td></tr><tr><td>fronting in relatives</td><td>yes</td><td>yes</td></tr><tr><td>stranding in nominal clefts</td><td>no (J-L 2019) (18)</td><td>no (some speakers)(24)-a</td></tr><tr><td>fronting in nominal clefts</td><td>yes (J-L 2019)</td><td>yes</td></tr><tr><td>predicate clefting</td><td>no (J-L 2019)(20)</td><td>no for some speakers (25)<br>yes for some speakers</td></tr><tr><td>independent<br>recipient predicate</td><td>yes (J-L 2019) (16)</td><td>no (29)</td></tr><tr><td>fragment answers</td><td>yes(21)</td><td>yes(26)</td></tr></tbody></table>

### 3.3 The syntax of V<sub>2</sub>-ba(y) and pran X bay Y 'take X give Y' in HC

In HC *bay* frequently appears as a second verb in combination with a V<sub>1</sub> *pran* 'take'. In these cases V<sub>1</sub> *pran* introduces the theme of the V<sub>2</sub> and imposes volitionality on the part of the subject (as observed for TAKE-SVCs in other languages see Hagemeijer 2000, 117, ex. 22/23 for São Tomense, Maurer and the APiCS Consortium 2013b for Creolese, Zribi-Hertz et al. (2019) for MQ).<sup>13</sup>

(31) a. Jan **pran** liv la **bay** Mari. (HC)
   Jan take book **DET** GIVE M.
   'Jan took a book and gave (it) to Mary. ~ J. gave a book to M.'
   (Glaude, 2012, 152, ex 38b)

<footnote n="13"><sup>13</sup>In HC V<sub>1</sub> *pran* does not introduce instruments (Glaude, 2012, 168, FN14) contrary to languages like Angolar (see Maurer and the APiCS Consortium 2013b).</footnote>
b. **Pran** kreyon sa a **bay** Premis
take crayon DEM DET GIVE P.
'Take this crayon and give it to Prémice.' (Fattier, 2000, carte 2061)

Predicate clefting of HC *bay* shows that the *pran X bay Y* 'take X give Y' construction (31) has a different syntax from V₂-*bay* with verbs of transfer. All speakers agree that with V₁ *pran* 'take' in *pran X bay Y* predicate clefting is acceptable (32)-b, while with a full V₁ of transfer, not all speakers accepted predicate clefting of *ba(y)* (25)-b. Inversely, all speakers accept fronting of *bay*+DP in (25)-a with a V of transfer, while fronted *bay*+DP is not accepted for V₁ *pran* 'take' (32)-b.

(32) a. okSe **bay** Jan pran yon liv **bay** Mari. (HC)
b. *Se bay* Mari J. pran yon liv.
SE GIVE (M.) Jan take a book GIVE M.
'It is to give to Mary that Jan took a book.'

<table><thead><tr><th>DIAGNOSTIC</th><th>HC V<sub>2</sub>-ba(y)</th><th>HC pran X bay 'take X give'</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>predicate clefting</td><td>no for some speakers (25)<br>yes for some speakers</td><td>yes (32)-a</td></tr><tr><td>fronting bay+DP</td><td>yes (24)-b</td><td>no (32)-b</td></tr></tbody></table>

This suggests that *pran X bay Y* 'take X give Y' in (34)-a is an instance of a serial verb construction with light V₁ *pran* 'take' as in (34)-b and not on a par with light V₂ *ba(y)* (see Zribi-Hertz et al. 2019 for more details on TAKE-serial verb constructions in MQ and in HC).

(34) a. Li **pran** liv **bay** Mari. (HC)
b. Li **pran** liv **montre** Mari.
3SG take book show M.
'S/he showed Mari the book (intentionally).'

Summarising, the data in this section show that for some speakers HC V₂-BA(Y) shows mixed behaviour compatible with P or V status while for other speakers HC V₂-BA(Y) patterns as a preposition. In contrast, MQ BA behaves syntactically as a preposition (Jean-Louis, 2019). However, in contrast with MQ *ba*, even speakers that treat HC V₂-BA(Y) as a preposition do not allow a use as an independent recipient/beneficiary predicate.
b. Swété Mari bon vréyage (ba mwen).
    wish Marie good journey GIVE 1SG
    'Wish Mary a good trip (for /*to me).' (Jean-Louis, 2019, ex 58b)

(39) MQ *ba*-recipient + *ba*-beneficiary

Ajans-lan vann kay -la **ba** Pòl **ba** améritjen. (MQ)
agency-DET sell house -DET ba Pòl GIVE Americans
'The agency sold the house for Paul to some Americans.' (Jean-Louis, 2019, ex 141b)

In HC, the availability of V₂-*ba(y)* is much more restricted. The recipient meaning of HC *bay* is only available with verbs whose semantics includes transfer. The attested examples I found in HC texts occur with *voye* 'send' (10), *pote* 'take somewhere/carry' (4)-b, *transfere* 'transfer', *retounen/tounen* 'return' (40)-a, *achte* 'buy', *soumet* 'submit' except for two examples involving psychological transfer *vire do* 'turn one's back on' (41)-a and *ouvri kè* 'open one's heart to sb' (41)-b.

(40) a. Fo m mennen machin nan **tounen ba** li. (HC)
    MODAL 1sg take car DET return GIVE 3SG
    'I have to return the car to him.' French: Il faut que je lui ramène la voiture.
    (Fattier, 2013, ex 49-260, citing Valdman et al. 1996: 152)

b. Al chache mango mi an **pòt ban** mwen
go get mango ripe DET carry GIVE 1SG
'Go get the ripe mango and bring it to me.' (Fattier, 2000, carte 2061,16)

(41) a. Men, anvan liv la te gen tan disponib nan libreri yo, Rimbaud te deja **vire do bay** literati ansanm avèk lavi literè a. (HC)
'Before the book had time to be available in the bookshops, Rimbaud had already turned his back on literature and literary life.'
In: Benjamin Hebblethwaite, Mathilde Lala & Audrey Viguier 2009. *Une saison en enfer / Yon sezon matchyavèl* Traduit du créole haïtien en français. Classic Editions, United Kingdom.

b. Mwen **ouvri kè** m **ba** ou.
    1SG open heart 1SG GIVE 2SG
    'I have opened my heart to you.'
    (Fattier, 2013, ex 49-262, citing Desmarattes 1983: 51)

HC V₂-*ba(y)* cannot introduce a beneficiary with verbs that do not include transfer (42)-a/b
or that include another recipient in a Double object construction (43)-a/b. In these cases the
beneficiary has to be introduced by a preposition *pou* 'for', contrasting with the MQ examples
in (37) and (38).

(42) a. Li chache apatman **pou** Mari / *bay* Mari. (HC)
3SG look-for flat FOR Mari / GIVE Mari.
'S/he is looking for a flat for Mari.'

b. Mwen konstwi yon bel kay **pou** mwen / *ban* mwen.
1SG build a nice house for 1SG / GIVE 1SG
'I built a nice house for myself.'

(43) a. Ofri Mari liv la **pou** mwen / *ban* mwen (HC)
give-as-present M. book DET for 1SG / GIVE 1SG
'Give Mari the book as a present for me.'

b. Li pote lèt la lapòs **pou** mwen / *ban* mwen.
3SG take letter DET post-office for 1SG / GIVE 1SG
'S/he took the letter to the post office for me.'

Some examples in the literature seem to exemplify HC V₂-ba(y) introducing a Beneficiary as in (44)-a. However, these sentences are all rendered with *pou* by my informants (44)-b:

(44) a. Fè travay la **ban** mwen! (HC)
do work DET GIVE 1SG
'Do the work for me!'
(Fattier, 1998) https://apics-online.info/sentences/49-261

b. Fè travay la **pou** mwen! (HC)
do work DET for 1SG
'Do the work for me!' (translation of *Fais ce travail pour moi!*)
(speaker comment *pour me rendre service* 'to do me a favour')

According to my informants there is a semantic difference between (44)-a and (44)-b. The sentence (44)-a with HC V₂-ba(y) is an order that does not allow contradiction<fnref n="15" /> while *pou* in (44)-b introduces a neutral beneficiary reading corresponding to *for me/ to do me a favour*.

As pointed out by Fattier (2013), Valdman (ed.) (2007: 72) notes this use and describes it as "often emphasizing a command".<fnref n="16" /> Note, however, that for a subgroup of speakers V₂-ba(y) with command semantics is not limited to imperatives as in (44). It may appear with declarative sentences with transitive and intransitive verbs:<fnref n="17" />

<footnote n="15">¹⁵Speaker comments "ne permet pas de contradiction" / "c'est un ordre".</footnote>

<footnote n="16">¹⁶See https://apics-online.info/sentences/49-261sel</footnote>

<footnote n="17">¹⁷There is interspeaker variation wrt to this: for one of the speakers command-*bay* is only acceptable with imperatives.</footnote>
(45) a. Achte pen an ba papa ou. (HC)
buy bread DET GIVE father 2SG
'Buy the bread for your father!'

Li pale ak Mariz ban mwen. (HC)
3SG speak with M GIVE 1SG
'S/he spoke to M. (I forced her/him).<fnref n="18" />'

The data discussed here show that HC has two different types of $V_2$-ba(y): recipient- ba(y) and command- ba(y). Recipient- ba(y) is limited to combine with verbs of transfer specifying a recipient that is already present in the argument structure of the verb. In contexts without an available recipient in the argument structure only HC command- ba(y) introducing a command-giver is licensed. The two types of $V_2$-ba(y) differ with respect to wh-questioning. While recipient- ba(y) can be questioned for all speakers (46)-a, questioning command- ba(y) is unacceptable (46)-b for certain speakers.

(46) a. ok/ok **Bay** kiyès li achte liv la ? (HC)
kiyès li achte liv la **bay** ?
give who 3SG buy book DET give
'Who did s/he buy the book for?' (= (22))

b. ok/*Bay* kimoun li fè travay ?
GIVE who 3SG do work
Intended: 'Who did s/he do the work for?'

For one speaker, HC recipient- ba(y) and HC command- ba(y) contrast with respect to nasalisation. As shown previously, the full HC verb *bay* 'give' has a nasal form *ban* (7). For the speaker consulted, when the complement is a nasal-initial pronoun with HC recipient- ba(y) nasalisation is optional (47)-a/b, while with HC command- ba(y) nasalisation is obligatory (48)-a/b.

(47) a. Li voye liv la **bay** Mariz / **ba** mwen / **ba** nou (HC)
b. Li voye liv la *ban* Mariz / ok**ban** mwen / ok**ban** nou
3SG sent book DET give M. / give 1SG / give 1PL/2PL
'S/he sent the book to Mariz/ to me/ to us /you.PL.' (recipient- ba(y))

(48) a. Li fè travay **ban** mwen / **ban** m. (HC)
b. Li fè travay *ba* mwen / *ba* m
3SG do work GIVE 1SG / GIVE 1SG.RED
'S/he does the work for me (I forced him/her)' (command- ba(y))

<footnote n="18">¹⁸Speaker comment: Fr. *moi je l'ai obligé* 'I forced him'.</footnote>
Summarising, HC has two types of $V_2$-ba(y). HC recipient-ba(y) specifies a recipient in the argument structure of verbs of transfer HC command-ba(y) introduces a semantically marked COERCING BENEFICIARY. Semantically unmarked beneficiaries are introduced by HC pou 'for'. This contrasts with MQ ba (Jean-Louis 2019): MQ ba introduces recipients (36) and beneficiaries (37). MQ ba can combine with double object verbs containing a recipient adding a beneficiary (38).<fnref n="19" />

## 4.2 Inanimate recipients

MQ ba introduces recipients and beneficiaries. However, MQ ba differs from beneficiaries introduced by French *pour* with respect to the availability of inanimate recipients. When used with inanimate complements, MQ ba is limited to part-whole and possessive-like relationships between the two DPs (49). In particular, MQ ba cannot link a participant with an event (50). This contrast is particularly clear for the quasi-synonymous examples in (51) (suggested by F. Henri).

(49) a. I achté tjuil **ba** kay-la. (MQ)
3SG buy roof-tiles give house-DET
'S/he bought tiles for the house.'

b. I achté né **ba** loto-a.
3SG buy tyres give car-DET
'S/he bought tyres for the car.'

(50) I achté dé boutèy diven *ba/ okpou* piknik-la. (MQ)
3SG buy two bottle wine give/ for picnic-DET
'S/he bought two bottles of wine for the picnic.'

(51) Minimal pair: individual recipient vs. participant in an event

a. I achté flé **ba/ pou** maman'y. (MQ)
3SG buy flower give/ for mother-3SG
'S/he bought flowers for his/her mother.' (individual recipient)

b. I achté flé *ba/ okpou* lafètdémè.
3SG buy flower give for Mothers' Day
'S/he bought flowers for Mothers' Day.' (participant in an event)

The restriction to part-whole relationships for inanimate recipients in MQ distinguishes MQ ba from French *pour* 'for', as *pour* allows participant-event relationships (52).

<footnote n="19">¹⁹Jean-Louis (2019, p. 25) notes that in MQ *pou* does not introduce beneficiaries.</footnote>
(52) Kim a acheté des fleurs **pour** sa mère / la fête des mères. (French)
Kim AUX buy INDEF.PL flowers for 3SG.POSS mother / Mothers' Day
‘Kim bought flowers for his/her mother / for Mothers' Day.’

HC recipient-**bay** does not allow inanimate recipients. In the HC equivalents of MQ (49) HC recipient-**bay** is impossible and only **pou** is acceptable:

(53) a. Li achte tuil **pou** do kay la. (HC)
3SG buy roof-tiles for back house DET
‘S/he bought roof-tiles for the roof.’

b. Li achte kat kawoutchou **pou** machin nan.
3SG buy 4 tyres for car DET
‘S/he bought 4 tyres for the car.’

In (54)-a/b both HC recipient-**bay** and HC **pou** are possible but with a meaning difference.
HC recipient-**BA(Y)** implies a giving event with an animate recipient (an institution (54)-a or
a collective *ekip* ‘team’ (54)-c).

(54) a. Li achte liv **bay** bibliyotèk la. (HC)
3SG buy book give library DET
‘S/he bought books and gave them to the library.’
ok donation, *the librarian buying books on behalf of the library*

b. Li achte liv **pou** bibliyotèk la.
3SG buy book for library DET
‘S/he bought books for the library.’
ok donation, ok the librarian buying books for the library

c. Li achte mayo **bay** ekip la.
3SG buy team-t-shirt give team DET
‘S/he bought team-t-shirts for the team.’

In the example (55) with an event-denoting noun *piknik* ‘picnic’ HC recipient-*bay* is ex-
cluded. Note that the restriction on inanimate recipients for HC recipient-*ba(y)* is not due to
selectional restrictions associated with the main verbs HC *ba(y)* / MQ *ba* ‘give’: both allow
inanimate subjects (55)-a and inanimate recipients (55)-b. This is noted for MQ by (Jean-
Louis, 2019, p 5) as illustrated in (55) and it is also true for HC (56):

(55) a. Bri a ba mwen an mal tet (MQ)
bruit DET donner 1SG INDEF ache head
‘The noise gave me a headache.’
b. Pol ba masonn tala an kout lapenti (MQ)
P. GIVE room DEM INDEF stroke paint.
'P. gave the room a lick of paint = painted the walls of the room.'

(56) a. Bri a **ban** mwen mal tèt. (HC)
noise DET give 1SG headache
'The noise gave me a headache.'

b. Jan **bay** mi an yon bon kou penti.
J. GIVE wall DET a good stroke paint.
'P gave the wall a good coat of paint.'

MQ *ba* behaves semantically halfway between a preposition like Engl. *for* / Fr. *pour* and a dative recipient. Like the prepositions (57)-a/(58)-a MQ *ba* allows part-whole relationships but unlike the prepositions MQ *ba* does not allow participants in an event (51). In contrast, the HC recipient-*ba(y)* (even for the speakers that analyse as a preposition) patterns with dative recipients in Fr. /Ge barring a non-animate recipient (53).

(57) a. Kim a acheté des pneus **pour** le vélo. (preposition) (Fr)
b. Kim a acheté des pneus #au vélo. (dative)
'Kim bought new tyres for the bike/# Kim bought the bike new tyres.'

(58) a. Kim hat neue Reifen **für** das Fahrrad gekauft. (Ge)
b. #Kim hat **dem Fahrrad** neue Reifen gekauft.
'Kim bought new tyres for the bike/# Kim bought the bike new tyres.'

## 5 HC recipient-BA(Y): comparison with core and non-core datives in French

HC has two different structures: recipient-*ba(y)* with verbs of transfer and command-*ba(y)* with other verbs (restricted to the imperative for some speakers). Both HC recipient-*ba(y)* and HC command-*ba(y)* introduce an argument with a recipient/beneficiary-type meaning in the syntax, like datives in many case-marking languages. In what follows I compare the contrast between HC recipient-*ba(y)* with verbs of transfer and command-*ba(y)* with the contrast between core and non-core datives in French.

Like HC with *ba(y)*-structures, French shows a differentiation between two types of dative constructions, **CORE** and **NON-CORE** datives. Boneh and Nash (2012) give the following summary of contrasts between core and non-core datives in French:
(59) Differences core/ non-core datives in Fr. (Boneh and Nash, 2012)

a. core datives can appear in nominalizations, non-core datives cannot (B& N 2012: 25)

b. pronoun/ full *à*-DPs for core datives, pronoun only for non-core datives

c. non-core datives in French cannot appear with bare intransitives (B& N 2012: 23)

d. non-core datives differ from core datives in that they imply a notion of affectedness:
the extra non-core participant is taken to be affected by the underlying event (B& N 2012: 25)

Like French core datives, HC recipient-*ba(y)* can appear in nominalisations (60), while command-*ba(y)* cannot (61), like French non-core datives (59)-a:

(60) a. [Voye kado ba li a] pa fasil ditou. (HC)
send present GIVE 3SG DET NEG easy at.all
'Sending him/her presents is not easy at all.'

b. [Transfere lajan bay fanmi li an] pa fasil ditou.
transfer money GIVE family 3SG DET NEG easy at.all
'Transferring money to his/her family is not easy at all.'

(61) *Fè travay ba li a pa fasil ditou. (HC)
do work give 3SG DET NEG easy at.all*

However, the contrast (59)-b between core and non-core datives in French does not have an
analogue for HC recipient-*ba(y)* and command-*ba(y)*. Both HC recipient-*ba(y)* and command-
*ba(y)* allow pronouns and DPs (62).

(62) HC command-*ba(y)*: DP and pronouns ok

Fè travay ban **mwen** / ba **li** / bay **Jann** / bay **direktè a!** (HC)
do work GIVE 1SG / give 3SG / give J. / give director DET

'Do the work for me/ for him/her / for Jann / for the director!'

Regarding the contrast (59)-c, HC command-*ba(y)* - that introduces an extra argument without transfer - does allow bare intransitives (63), unlike French non-core datives that bar bare intransitives (64).<fnref n="20" /> HC recipient-*ba(y)* requires verbs implying transfer and all the examples I found are with ditransitive main verbs taking a lexical theme.

<footnote n="20">²⁰English prepositional malefactives with *on* and German malefactive datives allow unaccusatives:</footnote>
(63) HC command-*ba(y)*: bare intransitives ok

Li chante / danse / travay ban mwen. (HC)
3SG sing / danse / work GIVE me

'S/he sang/ danced / worked. (I forced her/him)"

(64) French non-core datives: bare intransitives *

a. Marie lui a bu *(trois pastis). (Fr)
Marie 3SG.DAT drank (three pastis)
"Marie drank three glasses of pastis (on her/him)."

b. *Jean lui a chanté tout l'après-midi.
Jean 3SG.DAT sang all afternoon long. (Boneh and Nash, 2012, 23)

Boneh and Nash (2012, 22) propose that the differences between French core and non-core datives arise from different underlying structures:

(65) a. core datives originate as the complement of a MOTION subevent of transitive verbs,

b. while the non-core datives are “second” subjects of a stative predicate, either base-generated in this position or raised out of the theme, when the theme contains a Part-noun. (Boneh and Nash, 2012, 22)

Core datives are essentially the datives that appear with ditransitive verbs. According to Boneh and Nash (2012) French dittransitives like *donner X à Y* 'give X to Y' are structurally analogous to *CAUSED-MOTION* events with cause and motion events temporally concomitant. I adopt the analysis into two subevents for transfer-verbs in HC. However, HC recipient-*bay* differs from dative prepositions in English and French. While the dative prepositions *to* in English and *à* in French have cognates with directional uses (66)-a,<fnref n="21" /> HC V₂-*ba(y)* 'give' is

<footnote>(ii) a. Ihm ist letztes Jahr der Hund gestorben. (German)
3MSG.DAT be3SG last year DET.NOM dog died.
'Last year, his dog died on him.'

b. Mir ist das Glas runtergefallen.
1SG.DAT is the glass fall-down
'I dropped the glass by mistake.' lit 'To me the glass fell down.'</footnote>

<footnote n="21">²¹Synchronically the dative preposition and the directional preposition differ wrt to pronominalisation:</footnote>

<footnote>(i) Il lui a envoyé la lettre. / Il y a envoyé quelqu'un. (Fr)
3MSG 3SG.DAT AUX sent the letter / 3MSG CL LOC AUX sent Paul
'He sent the letter **to him/her**. / He sent Paul **there**.'</footnote>
restricted to transfer events to an animate recipient (67)-a (unlike full verb HC *ba(y)* see (56)). For a directional use directional verbs have to be used (67)-b (see Zribi-Hertz and Jean-Louis (to appear) on directional serial verb constructions in Martinican).

(66) Il a envoyé la lettre à Mari. / Il a envoyé Mari à Paris. (French)
3MSG AUX sent the letter to Mari / 3MSG AUX sent Mari to Paris
‘He sent the letter to Mari.’ / ‘He sent Mari to Paris.’

(67) a. Li voye let la **bay** Mari. (HC)
3SG send letter DET GIVE M.
‘S/he sent the letter to Mari.’

b. Li voye Mari **ale** Pòtoprens. (HC)
3SG send M. GO Port-au-Prince.
‘S/he sent Mari to Port-au-Prince.’

HC recipient-*bay* is interpreted as denoting an abstract transfer of possession to a human recipient. I propose that HC recipient-*bay*+DP is not generated as a complement of the verb of transfer but as an adjunct adapting the right adjunction structure in Zribi-Hertz and Jean-Louis (to appear, ex. 55), as in Figure 1 below.

HC recipient-*bay*+DP makes two contributions to the interpretation (i) HC recipient-*bay* restricts the underspecified goal/recipient role of the verb to a human recipient of transfer and (ii) DP specifies the identity of the argument that is already present as the goal/recipient of the lower subevent in the argument structure. The role of HC recipient-*bay* is analogous to agentive phrases in passive constructions that allow them: agentive phrases add information as to the identity of the implicit agent of the passive construction, they do not add an agent to an agentless construction.

The syntactic tests suggest that two analyses are available for HC *ba(y)*+DP: as a preposi-
tion and as a verb in a serial verb construction. The semantic contribution of HC recipient-
*ba(y)* is independent of the syntactic analysis of HC recipient-*ba(y)* by the speakers as either
P or V. The restrictions to human recipients of HC V2-*ba(y)* holds for all speakers, indepen-
dently of the analysis that they assign to V2-*ba(y)* as P or V. I propose that under the verbal
analysis the *ba(y)*+DP is right adjoined to the main VP sharing the agent and theme argu-
ments with the V1 adopting the proposal in Zribi-Hertz and Jean-Louis (to appear, ex 56)
while under the prepositional analysis *ba(y)*+DP is a PP right adjoined to the V1P.<fnref n="22" />

Recipients introduced by HC V₂-*ba(y)* have to be animate. I propose that this restriction

<footnote n="22"><sup>22</sup>I leave the exploration of parallels between the prepositional analysis of HC recipient-*bay* and prepositional particles in particle verbs like Ge. *aufräumen* 'tidy up' for further research.</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /><figcaption>Figure 1: Right-adjunction structure of verbal HC recipient-*ba(y)*</figcaption></figure>

goes back to the core use of *give* with an inanimate theme and an animate recipient. While main-verb HC *ba(y)* synchronically allows inanimate recipients, I propose that the grammaticalised HC V₂-BA(Y) preserves the animacy constraint on the recipient from an earlier stage of the full verb HC *ba(y)* 'give'. This is in contrast with the MQ cognate *ba* that allows inanimate recipients with part-whole interpretation. One possible explanation of the contrast between HC and MQ could lie in differences in the competing preposition *pou* 'for'. HC *pou* has wide-ranging uses as preposition, complementiser and pre-verbal modal (see Koopman and Lefebvre 1982, Valdman 2015, 239-341) while in MQ *pou* 'for' is a lexical preposition. In HC *ba(y)* is less semantically bleached than HC *pou* while this is less clear for the opposition MQ *ba* vs. MQ *pou*.

For non-core datives in French Boneh and Nash (2012) propose that they are attached to an event by a type of possession relation with the Theme. This proposal does not carry over to HC command-*ba(y)*, as the restriction on bare intransitives that motivates this analysis is not applicable for the HC informants that accept command-*ba(y)* with intransitive verbs.

I propose that for those speakers that accept it, HC command-*ba(y)* is a separate grammaticalisation of *bay* adjoined higher at CP as an additional argument that is affected by the
event denoted by the main predicate. HC command-*ba(y)* is subject to greater inter-speaker variation than HC recipient-*ba(y)* and it is plausible that HC command-*ba(y)* is a more recent grammaticalisation of the multi-verb construction with V₂-*bay*.

# 6 Conclusion

The data discussed here show that HC V₂-BA(Y) clearly differs from its cognate MQ BA with respect to its syntactic and semantic properties.

Syntactically, MQ BA has been reanalysed as a preposition: it allows negation and patterns like a preposition wrt to extraction and predicate clefting. In addition it can function as full predicate with recipient/beneficiary semantics. For HC V₂-BA(Y) speakers fall into two groups: for one group HC BA(Y) behaves as a preposition for extraction and predicate clefting constructions while for the second group both the prepositional and the verbal pattern are available for V₂-BA(Y). Unlike MQ BA, for all speakers HC V₂-BA(Y) does not admit negation or use as a full recipient-introducing predicate.

Both MQ BA and HC BA(Y) can appear in fragment answers like prepositions.

The variation between HC speakers wrt to the syntactic properties is not reflected in a change of semantics for HC *ba(y)*+DP to extend to beneficiaries. I propose that this is due to a reanalysis of a right-adjoined multi-verb construction to a construction with a single verb with a VP-adjoined PP. In both cases the constituent introduced by *ba(y)* is in a low position related to to the VP, while benefactive complements are typically higher in the structure (cf. Boneh and Nash 2012 and references cited there).

Semantically, both full verbs MQ *ba* 'give' and HC *ba(y)* 'give' synchronically allow semantically bleached uses without concrete transfer.

However, as second predicates MQ *ba* and HC V₂-*ba(y)* differ with respect to their semantics. MQ *ba* introduces both recipients and beneficiaries and allows inanimate recipients in possession relations. In contrast, HC recipient-*ba(y)* only introduces recipients with verbs of transfer. With other types of verbs HC V₂-*ba(y)* introduces a **command-giver** and beneficiary semantics has to be expressed by the preposition HC *pou* 'for'. In addition, HC recipient-*ba(y)* only allows animate recipients, unlike MQ *ba*.

According to the analysis proposed here, HC recipient-*ba(y)* modifies a goal/recipient argument position already introduced by the argument structure of the verb restricting the argument to a recipient role and specifying the referent associated with the goal/recipient argument of the underlying verb. In contrast with MQ *ba*, HC recipient-*ba(y)* does not add a
recipient/beneficiary-argument by itself. In HC, beneficiaries are added by the preposition *pou* 'for'.

## References

Africot, Judith, 2020. *L'alternance de formes verbales en créole haïtien : approche morphologique, syntaxique et discursive*. Master's thesis, Université d'Etat d'Haiti, Faculté de linguistique appliquée & U. Paris-8.

Ameka, Felix K., 2001. Multverb constructions in a West African areal typological perspective. In *Online Proceedings of TROSS Trondheim*.

Baker, Mark, 1989. Object sharing and projection in serial verb constructions. *Linguistic Inquiry*, 20:513–553.

Boneh, Nora and Léa Nash, 2012. Core and noncore datives in French. In Fernández, Beatriz and Ricardo Etxepare (eds.), *Variation in Datives: A Microcomparative Perspective*, pp. 22–49. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

DeGraff, Michel, 2001. Morphology in Creole genesis: Linguistics and ideology. In Kenstowicz, Michael (ed.), *Ken Hale: A Life in Languages*, pp. 51–121. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.

Fattier, Dominique, 1998. *Contribution à l'étude de la genèse d'un créole: L'Atlas Linguistique d'Haïti, cartes et commentaires*. Ph.D. thesis, Université de Provence, Diffusion ANRT (Atelier National de Reproduction des Thèses).

—, 2000. *Contribution à l'étude de la genèse d'un créole: L'Atlas Linguistique d'Haïti, cartes et commentaires*. Villeneuve d'Ascq: Presses Universitaires du Septentrion.

—, 2013. Haitian Creole structure dataset. In Michaelis, Susanne Maria, Philippe Maurer, Martin Haspelmath, and Magnus Huber (eds.), *Atlas of Pidgin and Creole Language Structures Online*. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.

Foley, William A. and Robert D. Van Valin, 1984. *Functional syntax and universal grammar*. Cambridge University Press.

Glaude, Herby, 2012. *Aspects de la syntaxe de l'haitien*. Paris: Editions Anibwé.

Hagemeijer, Tjerk, 2000. *Serial Verb Constructions in São-Tomense*. Master's thesis, Faculdade de Letras da Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon.

Hall, Jr., Robert A., 1953. (with the collaboration of Suzanne Comhaire-Sylvain, H. Ormonde McConnell and Alfred Métraux) *Haitian Creole. Grammar Texts Vocabulary*, vol. 55, No. 2, Part 2 of *The American Anthropologist*. The American Anthropological Association.
Henri, Fabiola and Herby Glaude, 2012. L'alternance de formes verbales en mauricien et haïtien. Talk at *Conférence Internationale des Études Créoles*, Paris.

Jansen, Bert, Hilda Koopman, and Pieter Muysken, 1978. Serial verbs in the Creole languages. *Amsterdam Creole Studies*, 2:125–159.

Jean-Louis, Loïc, 2019. *Les constructions ditransitives de transfert en créole martiniquais*. Master's thesis, Université Paris-8, St Denis, France.

Koopman, Hilda and Claire Lefebvre, 1982. Pou : marqueur de mode, préposition et complémenteur. In Lefebvre, Claire, Hélène Magloire-Holly, and Nanie Piou (eds.), *Syntaxe de l'haïtien*, pp. 64–91. Ann Arbor: Karoma Publishers.

Lord, Carol, 1993. *Historical Change in Serial Verb Constructions*. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Lord, Carol, Foong Ha Yap, and Shoichi Iwasaki, 2002. Grammaticalization of ‘give’. African and Asian perspectives. In Wischer, Ilse and Gabriele Diewald (eds.), *New Reflections on Grammaticalization*, pp. 217–235. John Benjamins.

Lovestrand, Joseph, 2021. Serial verb constructions. *Annual Review of Linguistics*, 7:109–130. doi:10.1146/annurev-linguistics-031920-115317.

Maurer, Philippe and the APiCS Consortium, 2013a. 'Give' serial verb constructions. In Michaelis, Susanne Maria, Philippe Maurer, Martin Haspelmath, and Magnus Huber (eds.), *Atlas of Pidgin and Creole Language Structures Online*. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.

———, 2013b. 'Take' serial verb constructions. In Michaelis, Susanne Maria, Philippe Maurer, Martin Haspelmath, and Magnus Huber (eds.), *Atlas of Pidgin and Creole Language Structures Online*. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.

Sebba, Mark, 1987. *The Syntax of Serial Verbs. An investigation into serialisation in Sranan and other languages*. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Valdman, Albert, 2015. *Haitian Creole. Structure, Variation, Status, Origin*. Sheffield, UK/ Bristol, CT: equinox.

Veenstra, Tonjes, 1993. Serial verb constructions, parameter settings and thematic restrictions on argument sharing. In Dijkoningen, Frank and Kees Hengeveld (eds.), *Linguistics in the Netherlands*, pp. 153–164. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Veenstra, Tonjes and Pieter Muysken, 2017. Serial verb constructions. In Everaert, Martin and Henk van Riemsdijk (eds.), *The Wiley-Blackwell Companion to Syntax*. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

Zribi-Hertz, Anne and Loïc Jean-Louis, to appear. The syntax of directional Serial Verb Constructions in French-based creoles. *Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages*.
Zribi-Hertz, Anne, Loïc Jean-Louis, and Moles Paul, 2019. Left-adjoined bi-valent predicates in two Caribbean French-based creoles: Martinican and Haitian. *Revista Letras*, 99:75–100.

Zwicky, Arnold, 1990. What are we talking about when we talk about serial verbs? In Joseph, Brian and Arnold Zwicky (eds.), *When Verbs Collide: Papers from the Ohio State Mini-Conference on Serial Verbs (Columbus, Ohio, May 26-27, 1990)*, vol. 39, pp. 1–13. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio Working Papers in Linguistics.