APAL 5 (2007) 55-72

Orientational clitics and the expression of PATH in Tashelhit

Berber (Shilha)

Axel Fleisch

Abstract

Berber languages pose certain challenges to a twofold typology of

languages as either verb-framing or satellite-framing. Concen-
trating mainly on Tashelhit, with a few observations on other
varieties, it will be shown that they are predominantly verb-
framing, although certain constructions show satellite-framing
properties. Apart from these, a further complication is the
existence of orientational clitics, which add a notion of
DIRECTIONALITY to motion events (in addition to other functions
outside the domain of motion). In order to gain a fuller picture of
the construals of motion events and the difficulties encountered in
Berber varieties, these clitic elements which encompass notions of
PATH and GROUND besides DIRECTIONALITY, need to be illustrated
in some detail. In the concluding remarks, it will be outlined why,
despite their “mixed status”, it is not deemed an adequate
solution to simply view Berber varieties as equipollently-framing
languages.

1 Introduction

The notion of PATH is crucial in Talmy’s (1985) classification of

lexicalization patterns of motion verbs. In Berber languages, this PATH
notion intersects with that of DIRECTION/ORIENTATION. The latter is often
expressed by means of one of two orientational clitics. This contribution is
first and foremost an attempt at a proper description of the functions of
these clitics, because any statement concerning the predominant ways of
expressing motion in Berber that does not take these orientational clitics
into account will necessarily remain incomprehensive.
Therefore, this paper1 is structured into the following parts. This
introduction is followed by section 2 which illustrates the main syntactic
and semantic properties of the orientational clitics. Section 3 deals with a
frequency asymmetry between both clitics. Different factors which are
related to, and possibly responsible for this phenomenon, are discussed. In
section 4, I address the question whether Berber should be rather

1
I am indebted to the editors of this journal, an anonymous reviewer, and most importantly Hassan
Akioud. Of course, remaining shortcomings and errors are entirely my responsibility.
56 AXEL FLEISCH

characterised as verb- or satellite-framing in terms of Talmy’s two-way

distinction. A number of problems arise in connection with this question.
The phenomena related to the orientational clitics underline how
problematic the application of the strict dichotomy of verb-framed versus
satellite-framed to a particular language as a whole is.
It will be argued in 4.1 that Berber appears to be a language in which
motion expressions function more along the lines of a verb-framed pattern,
but evidence will be adduced showing that the construal and lexicalization
of motion events in Berber is far more complex. In addition to the interplay
of orientational clitics and verbs and its significance for a classification of
motion events into verb- versus satellite-framed constructions, in section
4.2 contradicting evidence is discussed in connection with the question into
which group of languages Berber belongs in terms of the two-way
distinction popularized by Talmy (1985) and Slobin (1996).
The conclusion of this paper is that Berber varieties clearly show properties
of verb-framing and satellite-framing languages. This, however, does not
mean that they constitute a mixed (= equipollently-framing) type. On the
level of specific constructions, Talmy’s dichotomy holds, and specific
constructions (even the problematic verb-clitic collocations!) can be
comprehensively characterized as either verb- or satellite-framing.

2 The syntax and basic semantics of orientational clitics

Throughout the Berber-speaking area two morphemes are widely found

which express two opposing spatial notions: =(i)d(d) for proximity and
=in(n) for distance. The brackets indicate allomorphic or regional variants.
I will not be concerned so much with their formal shape. What is more
pertinent here is their syntactic behaviour and the functions they bear.
Both these morphemes are often referred to as deictic or directional
particles. However, they are best characterized as clitics since they are not
syntactically independent. Instead they attach to the first element in the
verb phrase. This is often, but not invariably, the inflected verb itself as in
(1). In case there is pre-verbal material such as aspectual/modal markers
(e.g. ad for incompletive forms) or the negative morpheme ur, the
orientational morphemes cliticize to these, cf. (2). They are not the only
cliticizing elements in the Berber verb phrase, and can co-occur with other
clitics (e.g. pronominal objects).
Tamazight (El Mountassir 2000: 133)
(1) y-uška =d Brahim.
3sm-come.PFV =PROX Brahim
‘Brahim has come [here (to the actual position of the speaker)].’
ORIENTATIONAL CLITICS IN TASHELHIT BERBER 57

Tashelhit (own elicited data)

(2) ur =d y-uški Brahim.
NEG =PROX 3sm-come.PFV.NEG Brahim
‘Brahim has not come.’
As briefly mentioned above, =id is an allomorphic variant of =d occurring
in phonologically conditioned contexts, as e.g. after a consonant cluster as
in (3) for reasons of syllabification.
Tashelhit (Stroomer 2002: 32)
(3) […] ar yan wass t-ašk =id
until one day.AS 3sf-come.AOR =PROX

s dar =sn tfqqir […].

to at =3pm old_woman
‘[…] until one day, an old woman came to them.’
Concerning the function of these elements, it must be noted that they have
been termed in various ways according to what different scholars and
academic traditions have viewed as their principal meaning. I gloss =(i)d(d)
as ‘PROX’ (~ centripetal; rapprochement) and =n(n) as ‘DIST’ (~ centrifugal;
éloignement), with other designations commonly found in the literature
given in brackets.
I call the morphemes =(i)d(d) and =n(n) “orientational clitics”, rather than
“deictic” or “directional”, for the following reasons. In my view, the
designation “deictic” would imply a rather strict requirement that the
speaker at the time of utterance be the sole spatial anchor point. This claim
is too strong in the case of the Berber orientational clitics. While it is true
that in dialogue situations, their reference typically depends on the deictic
centre of the communicative situation, and is therefore truly deictic, in
other types of texts (e.g. longer narratives told by one speaker) this
characteristic does not necessarily hold. The designation “directional” is
equally problematic. It is often true that motion and transfer events are
characterized in terms of directionality by means of these clitics, but this is,
again, not consistently true. As will be shown below, there are many
instances in which the use of the orientational clitics cannot be understood
in terms of movement directed towards (= centripetal movement) or away
from (= centrifugal movement) a given reference point. This is also why I
prefer the somewhat more vague glosses “proximate” and “distant” over
centripetal and centrifugal, especially since the distant category also applies
in situations where there is no movement away from a reference point, but
rather to a reference point (in the distance).
One of the earliest systematic accounts concerning the use of these clitics is
that of Bentolila (1969). He distinguishes two usage domains in which
orientational clitics are typically used. The first of these entails a situation
in which there is a proper deictic centre coinciding with the speaker
position at the moment of utterance. The function of the clitics in this
58 AXEL FLEISCH

context is to express direction of motion as anchored in the actual

topological constellation built around the speaker. In an attempt to
formalize this situation, Bentolila defines three relevant notions enabling
him to characterize the trajectory of the event expressed by the verb: a
point of departure (C), a point of arrival (B), and the actual ‘here’ of the
speaker (A). If A and B coincide, =d is commonly used as illustrated in (4)
where the speaker is actually in Agadir.
Tamazight (Ayt Seghrouchen; Bentolila 1969: 88)
(4) i-rah =d Ugadir.
3sm-come.PERF =PROX to Agadir.AS
‘He came [here] to Agadir.’
If the position of the speaker is not identical to the endpoint of the
trajectory described by the verb, =dd2 can still be used whenever B is closer
to A than C (5a). (5b) is a deictically unspecific variant. The speaker
position does not come into play. The trajectory, corresponding to the
notion of PATH as described by Talmy (1985, 2000) and Slobin (1996), is
construed here solely by means of B and C (which would correspond to
GROUND components in Talmy’s approach). (5c) with distant =nn would be
used when the interlocutor is at the endpoint B of the trajectory (5c).
Tamazight (Ayt Seghrouchen; Bentolila 1969: 88)
(5a) i-rah =dd zi fas r mknas.
3sm-come.PERF =PROX from Fès to Meknès
‘He came from Fès [here] to Meknès.’

(5b) i-rah zi fas r mknas.

3sm-come.PERF from Fès to Meknès
‘He went from Fès to Meknès.’

(5c) i-rah =nn zi fas mknas.

3sm-come.PERF =DIST from Fès to Meknès
‘He came/went from Fès to Meknès.’
(e.g. talking to s.o. in Meknès, speaker elsewhere)
The second domain in which orientational clitics are used as analysed by
Bentolila concerns a use that he refers to as “actualisant”. He provides a
rather long list of examples which seem to fall into two slightly different
groups. What they have in common is that they are not construed around
the actual position of the speaker at the moment of the utterance. Instead,
some other reference point is emphasized. This can either be the position of
the speaker at some other point in time as in (6a), or simply a contextually
determined reference point as in (7).

2
Gemination is a variant; Bentolila is not explicit about conditioning factors.
ORIENTATIONAL CLITICS IN TASHELHIT BERBER 59

The example in (6a) comes closest to Bentolila’s notion of “actualizing”

use of the proximate clitic, since its use implies that the action expressed by
the verb is directed towards the speaker, even though the explicit mention
of i šawn ‘in Chaouen’ allows for the interpretation that the speaker’s
actual location is different from that at the time the described situation
unfolds: she is possibly, but not necessarily, in Chaouen at the time of
utterance. In the contrasting example in (6b), the dissociation of the actual
speaker position from her position during the described event is made clear
through the use of the distant clitic motivated by her actual position (here:
not in Chaouen).
Tamazight (Ayt Seghrouchen; Bentolila 1969: 93)
(6a) i-rah =dd r =i ibba i šawn.
3sm-come.PFV =PROX by =1s (my-)father in Chaouen
‘My father came to (visit) me in Chaouen.’

(6b) i-rah =nn r =i ibba i šawn.

3sm-come.PFV =DIST by =1s (my-)father in Chaouen
‘My father came to (visit) me in Chaouen.’
In (6a), reference to ego is made explicit by means of the prepositional
phrase =i ‘to me’. While this is not fully required in (6a) where ego’s
position at the time would be understood as the default spatial anchor point
for the situation described by the verb, explicit mention of the reference
point is generally preferred (even with ego), and required, if another
participant represents the anchor point as in (7). The “actualizing” quality
of =d(d) results from the use of an originally proximate element in a
spatially and/or temporally remote context.
Tamazight (Ayt Seghrouchen; Bentolila 1969: 93)
(7) i-n fad izm y-awd =dd =s.
3sm-kill.AOR thirst lion.FS 3sm-come.AOR =PROX by =3s
‘Thirst was killing the lion, and he went to him
[= the protagonist of the story].’
El Mountassir (2000: 146) draws attention to cases where the verbal
situation does not imply directionality. This is most evident with stative
verbs. When used with the proximate clitic, they gain an inchoative reading
which contrasts with a construction using the plain verb without an
orientational clitic. The latter expresses stative meaning. No examples with
stative verbs and the distant clitic =nn are attested in the corpus.
Tashelhit (El Mountassir 2000: 146)
(8) isggan =d =ad.
3sm.black.PERF =PROX tissue.AS =PROX.DEM
‘This tissue has become black.’
(interpretation without =d: stative reading ‘it is black’)
60 AXEL FLEISCH

Another important factor is visibility/familiarity underlying the use of

either of the clitics. Examples in Bentolila (1969: 92) include secretion of
bodily fluids expressed by a verb + =d.
Tamazight (Ayt Seghrouchen; Bentolila 1969: 92)
(9) imt t =idd zggw alln =inu
tears.FS 3pm-ooze.IMPF =PROX from eyes =POSS.1s
‘the tears running from my eyes’
Tamazight (Ayt Seghrouchen; Bentolila 1969: 92)
(10) tidi din =aš =dd ittff n zggw hid
sweat.FS REL =IO.2sm =PROX appear.PTCP from skin
‘sweat that comes out of your skin’
Notions like “surfacing, coming into the visual field” outrank their
“centrifugal” character which might have been expected to trigger the use
of =nn rather than =dd, if any orientational clitic was to be used at all.3 It is
interesting to note that =nn appears never to be used with regard to the
domain of “familiarity/visibility” – also not as the opposite of =dd as
illustrated in examples (9), (10), and (11), which show a similar use of =dd,
although it does not refer to the secretion of bodily fluids:
Tashelhit (Stroomer 2002: 32)
(11) t-ssuf =d azrg =nns
3sf-CAUS.appear.PFV =PROX mill.FS =POSS.3s from

ddu udrbal.
under clothing.AS
‘She took her mill from under her clothes.’
In many instances, the combination of a given verb with an orientational
clitic (this holds in particular for =dd) must be regarded a fixed expression.
The verb ‘go out; appear’ (cf. 10 and 11) typically occurs with the
proximate clitic. This can be explained by the “visibility criterion”. The
same is perhaps true for the rising of the sun in (12a), but the same verb
‘lift, rise’ together with =dd is used to describe other meteorological
phenomena where such an explanation is less likely. It thus appears that at
least in some instances, the use of the clitics is due to lexicalized
collocations.

3
An anonymous reviewer suggested that the examples explained as relying on the “visibility” in
connection with oozing body fluids could be explained in terms of the general directionality with =dd
being used when the tears, sweat, etc. come into the visual field of the perceiving person. On the basis
of examples as (9), with ego as the deictic centre shedding tears, the explanation that the secretion of
body fluids as a semantic domain represents a conventional trigger for the use of =dd (rather than =nn)
appears more likely in my opinion.
ORIENTATIONAL CLITICS IN TASHELHIT BERBER 61

Tashelhit (El Mountassir 2000: 141)

(12a) t- li =d tafukt.
3sf-rise.PFV =PROX sun
‘The sun has risen.’
(12b) t- li =d tagut.
3sf-rise.PFV =PROX fog
‘The fog has cleared off.’
That usage patterns of orientational clitics are often verb-specific can be
gleaned from the different behaviour of ašk, ddu and ftu, all of which have
a rather general core meaning referring to movement, here glossed as ‘to
go’: ašk requires one of the clitics (yielding the meanings ‘coming or going
to’); ddu can never occur with either of them, but requires an explicit
locative complement; ftu can, but does not have to occur with one of the
clitics. The fact that ddu does not allow the use of the clitics indicates that
in addition to verb-clitic combinations as fixed expression with specific
lexicalized meanings, some verbs show strict co-occurrence restrictions.
In summary, the use of the orientational clitics depends on several factors.
These include a spatial reference point, which is often, but not necessarily,
the speaker. When used in a more strictly deictic sense, they express either
relative distance from the speaker, or directed motion/orientation
towards/away from the speaker. A non-deictic use relies on a reference
point other than the speaker. An important property of the orientational
clitics concerns familiarity or visibility entailed by the situation a speaker
intends to express. This property is capable of “overruling” strict
directionality, as illustrated above by the examples concerning secretion of
bodily fluids. The interaction of different meaning facets and properties
leads to a rather intricate situation. Orientational particles do not
exclusively reflect a PATH notion understood against the backdrop of a
plain topological GROUND constellation. This is most evident when looking
at the substantial number of verb-particle combinations that must be viewed
as fixed expressions with conventional (not simply compositional)
meaning. The fact that the latter are so common casts serious doubt on the
widespread assumption that the orientational clitics are completely
productive. Another piece that relates to this question will be dealt with in
the next section: their disparate frequency of occurrence.

3 Frequency asymmetries between =d and =nn

An important characteristic of the orientational clitics concerns their

unequal frequency. Both in terms of type and token, the proximate clitic =d
is far more frequent than its distant counterpart =nn. The proximate clitic
occurs with more different verbs (which implies that there are certain verbs
that can take the proximate clitic only), and its overall frequency is
considerably higher than that of the distant clitic (cf. also Mettouchi 1997
on Kabyle Berber). In addition to this, a number of languages, e.g. varieties
62 AXEL FLEISCH

of the Rif, Figuig, and perhaps certain Kabyle varieties (Bgayet?), show
only the proximate clitic, but not the distant one, while there is no case
attested in which a language would have =nn ‘DIST’ only. These
asymmetries call for an explanation and a number of significant proposals
have been made by scholars working on Berber varieties.
Dealing with motion verbs in particular, Heath has also made the obser-
vation that the use of the centrifugal (= distant) clitic is less common than
the use of the centripetal (= proximate) clitic. He suggests the reason for
this is that many motion verbs inherently imply motion away from a deictic
centre by default, irrespective of whether the deictic centre is made explicit
(Heath 2005: 601). Bentolila (1969: 103) argues along similar lines.
Although intuitively this may seem plausible, to my knowledge there have
not been any systematic analyses of a representative group of lexical verbs
expressing motion events. Therefore, we need to be cautious about
frequency (is it really true for many or even most motion verbs?), and care
must be taken not to make a circular argument. If one takes the restriction
that a given verb may only occur with =d as indicative of its inherent
“centrifugality” as part of its core meaning, and then goes on to argue that
the lexical semantics are responsible for the occurrence of =d in given
contexts, there is at least the danger of circularity. One would have to have
proper semantic analyses of motion verbs with indicators other than the
occurrence of =d motivating their status as “inherently centrifugal”.
For the time being, the argument that motion verbs tend to be intrinsically
more prone to code movement away from some reference point cannot be
discarded, and the hypothesis that lexical semantics is responsible for the
asymmetry may turn out to be robust. Yet, a few observations point at
different explanations. One of these concerns the fact that a considerable
number of verbs with no apparent inherent “centrifugal” semantic
component overwhelmingly often occur with =d; cf. examples such as af
‘find’. Perhaps the fact is also pertinent that verbs containing a path
component with an inherent endpoint (kšm ‘enter’) do not show any
obvious tendency for or against the use of either of the clitics.
Because there is at least reasonable doubt concerning the appropriateness of
the reasons suggested by Bentolila and Heath, two further explanations are
explored in the following.

3.1 A semantic asymmetry

Apart from the asymmetry in frequency, there is also a significant
difference in meaning between the two orientational clitics. While
superficially it may appear as if they were each other’s respective exact
inverse, the distant clitic =nn can refer to two substantially different
constellations.
ORIENTATIONAL CLITICS IN TASHELHIT BERBER 63

Figure 1. Schematic representation of directional notions

coded by =d (left) and =nn (right)

These are depicted in the two schemas on the right side of Figure 1, while
the only constellation within a properly deictic scenario (where the use of
the clitics depends on the actual position of the speaker) for the proximate
clitic =d is the one on the left. What figure 1 illustrates is that PROX =d is
less ambiguous because due to the egocentric deixis the notions of move-
ment toward a reference point, and ego as the deictic centre forming the
endpoint of the trajectory converge. Contrary to that, DIST =nn is more
problematic in this regard because of the two potentially very different
concepts: (a) away/far from ego; (b) towards/close to a distant reference
point.

3.2 Alternative explanation: Subjectification

An important clue on the way to explaining the observed asymmetry lies in
the twofold characteristic of the distant clitic. An obvious question is
whether one of both distinct readings can be derived from the other, and if
so, which of both is diachronically primary. Both morphological markers
occur in deictically marked pronominal terms such as Tashelhit xtid and
xtinn (pl. wid and winn) ‘this (those) one(s) here/there’, Ntifa wind, win and
anaphoric winnagh (Dray 2001), and also the Tamashek demonstrative
postnominal particles dí ‘Near-Distant’ versus én ‘Distant’ (Heath 2005:
242). These pieces of evidence suggest that the sense ‘at a distant location’
diachronically precedes that of the directional notion ‘away from (deictic
centre)’. Such a development is also more likely considering that subjectifi-
cation would then explain in a rather straightforward way how the meaning
shift may have come about, namely by means of a reinterpretation of the
‘location at a distant point’ to ‘movement away from deictic centre/ego’.
Such a development is highly plausible following Traugott and Dasher’s
(2002) reasoning that historical pragmatics, and in particular the tendency
to subjectify, is one of the main driving forces behind any language change.
At the same time, the proximate clitic =d originally codes location at and
movement toward ego. Possibly in combination with the development of
the distant clitic described in the previous paragraph, =d could then also be
used to refer to a movement in which the figure approaches a spatially
and/or temporally remote reference point, which constitutes the endpoint of
64 AXEL FLEISCH

the PATH, cf. (7). In the end, this leaves the proximate =d with more distinct
functions which may have led to its higher frequency.
In my view, a clear advantage of this explanation is that it does not rely so
much on the lexical semantics of the verbs which, at least synchronically,
do not seem to pattern in sufficiently systematic ways with the use of the
orientational clitics. This is not meant to say that lexical semantics are
unimportant. Actually, I am convinced that a comprehensive account of
how the orientational clitics grammaticalised will have to rely on exactly
that: a systematic analysis of which verbs may or may not occur with which
of the particles in various Berber varieties. Yet, from a synchronic
viewpoint, I cannot see how a semantically-based subcategorisation of
verbs could explain the occurrence of the clitics.

4 Satellite-framed constructions in a mainly verb-framed language

In this last section of the paper, I want to illustrate in how far the properties
of the orientational clitics are relevant for the characterization of Tashelhit
Berber in terms of Talmy’s and Slobin’s approach to the expression of
motion, and its larger significance for entire conceptual domains in a given
language.
In cases in which orientational particles combine relatively freely with a
given verb, this verb-external element could be interpreted as adding a
PATH notion. If one was willing to accept that the binary opposition
encoded by the orientational clitics qualifies as belonging to the domain of
PATH, and if the clitics themselves were therefore analysed as satellites, this
would imply that we are dealing with a satellite-framed expression type for
these constructions. This characterization has its problems. Particularly
challenging are those cases in which combinations of verbs and
orientational particles are lexically determined. Whether or not a clitic can
be used and its actual meaning when used with a particular verb is, to a
large extent, an idiosyncratic lexical property of each verb. Therefore, PATH
(including DIRECTIONALITY) appears to be lexically determined by the verb,
and the dominant lexicalization pattern would thus be ‘verb-framing’. This
assumption receives support by several facts that will be sketched in the
following.4

4
El Aissati (2001) discusses word order changes in the language of two contrasting groups of speakers
of Tarifit, one from Morocco, the other from the Netherlands. What is interesting about his
contribution is that he uses Mercer Mayer’s storybook “Frog, where are you?” (1969) for elicitation.
While el Aissati is not explicit about the verb-framedness of Tarifit, it is interesting to note that his
examples are overwhelmingly reminiscent of strategies used in Spanish, Hebrew and other
predominantly verb-framing languages (cf. Slobin 2004): emphasis is placed on spatial settings, and
MANNER verbs are not used in combination with external PATH-coding satellites.
ORIENTATIONAL CLITICS IN TASHELHIT BERBER 65

I will first discuss the predominantly verb-framed character of motion

constructions in Tashelhit Berber in 4.1. After suggesting that the
directionality expressed by orientational clitics intersects with the PATH
notion (as outlined in the previous section), it will be discussed to what
extent these constructions should be viewed as satellite-framed. Examples
for an additional construction type with satellite-framed status will be
given, and thus it is argued in section 4.2 that the converging
grammaticalisation of different construction types draws the verb-framed
character of Tashelhit Berber as a whole into question.

4.1 Describing Berber: tendency toward verb-framedness?

If one takes a look at the lexical make-up of motion verbs, all possible com-
binations of MOTION, PATH and MANNER are attested. Some motion verbs
(in certain varieties ddu ‘walk, go, move’) code MOTION, but neither PATH
nor MANNER. More motion verbs code PATH than MANNER (e.g. kšm ‘enter’,
‘come out, appear from’), but both types exist (cf. Nefusi ugur ‘walk’;
azzl ‘run’ (Beguinot 1942);5 Tashelhit ntg ‘jump, leap, bounce’, sbidir
‘limp’, štutl ‘crawl’, tskal ‘sneak, creep’, etc.). Motion verbs coding
MANNER cannot easily be complemented by prepositional phrases which
would serve as satellites expressing PATH; confer example (13).
Tashelhit (own data)
(13) *amxar i-uzzl =d tddart.
FS.thief 3sm-run.PFV =PROX in AS.house
Intended meaning: ‘The thief ran into the house.’
If all three components are to be made explicit, they are usually distributed
over more than one lexical verb. Subsequent verb forms are sometimes
neutralized in terms of aspect (occurring in the aorist), and can thus be
argued to be less finite than the main verb. This is not necessarily the case,
as forms with fully inflected second verbs show (14a, b). Example (14c)
illustrates another option, namely to have the secondary verb nominalised.
Tashelhit (own data)
(14a) amxar i-ffu =d tggurt ar ittazzal.
FS.thief 3sm-emerge.PFV =PROX to AS.door IMPF 3sm-run.IMPF
‘The thief came out the door running.’
(14b) […] yat tflut lli =d iuškan ddu
one AS.wood REL =PROX come.PTCP from bottom
n lqandert t-rggig waman.
of bridge 3sf-float.PFV in AS.water
‘[…] a piece of wood that came from under the bridge,
it floats on the water.’
5
Given that Romance languages tend to follow a verb-framing pattern, it is interesting, but not
surprising, to note that bilingual French/Berber or Italian/Berber wordlists and dictionaries contain
hardly any entries for verbs combining motion with manner. Most likely, this is due to the effects
described by Slobin (2005).
66 AXEL FLEISCH

(14c) amxar i-ffu =d tggurt s tizzla.

FS.thief 3sm-come_out.PFV =PROX to door by run.NOM
‘The thief came out the door running.’
In instances as in (14c) where the main verb codes MOTION and PATH, the
resultant construction could be compared to participles characteristic of
predominantly verb-framing languages in similar contexts and would thus
serve as evidence in favour of the view that regards Berber as verb-
framing.6 Before discussing the problems attached to this, I will first have a
look at a second indicator of verb-framedness.
The orientational clitics originate as indicators of GROUND rather than
DIRECTION or PATH. While the proximate clitic expresses that a situation is
located in the proximity of the speaker, and can therefore also be expected
to be easily identifiable by the addressee(s), the distant clitic expresses that
a situation is spatially and/or temporally removed from the immediate and
familiar setting of the speech situation. Sometimes the notion of visibility
overrules directionality (cf. examples above referring to the secretion of
body fluids). More typically though, in a language in which verbs tend to
express MOTION together with PATH, these clitics have come to bear
especially directional meaning. While logically PATH and DIRECTION are
independent notions, in a language with a major conceptual contrast
between a proximate and a distant domain constituting the backdrop of
most situations, it is evident how a correlation of PATH and DIRECTION
would have come into being, namely through a strong tendency of
expressing passage toward or into the GROUND entity (= landmark) as a
boundary-crossing movement from distant to proximate, and vice versa.
The use of these particles is restricted to motion verbs which contain PATH
information in their lexical makeup (e.g. typically Tashelhit kšm ‘enter’,
lkm ‘reach’, but also, perhaps slightly less expected, ntg ‘jump, leap’, azzl
‘run (to)’). Verbs expressing plain motion or combining motion and
manner such as štutl ‘crawl’ are not typically used with orientational
particles; cf. example (15).
Tashelhit (own data)
??
(15) azzan i-štutul =d gh= taddart.
baby 3sm-crawl.PFV =PROX in= room
‘The baby crawled into the room.’
This would, again, be in line with the assumption that Berber is
predominantly verb-framing.

6
This is not without problems, however, because the “work division” between main and subsequent
verb forms in Berber is not quite as straightforward: sometimes a verb combining MANNER and
MOTION serves as main verb, and PATH is coded in the subsequent, dependent verb form. For a brief
discussion of the significance of these observations for the satellite-/verb-framing dichotomy, see
below.
ORIENTATIONAL CLITICS IN TASHELHIT BERBER 67

4.2 Arguments against verb-framedness in Berber

Despite the evidence in favour of a typological characterization of Berber

as verb-framing, illustrated in 4.1, there are certain pieces of evidence
opposing such an analysis. It is typical of verb-framing languages to use a
non-finite (or a less finite) verb form in order to express manner of a
motion event, e.g. participles modifying the finite verb in many Romance
languages. As to Berber, the evidence in this regard is still sparse and the
following statements must be considered preliminary. It is noteworthy in
any case, that comparable structures in Tashelhit and closely related Berber
varieties are rather rare in the source texts that were consulted (cf. editions
by Stroomer), as well as in the literature concerned with the topics under
discussion (Bentolila 1969, El Mountassir 2000).7 Verb phrases can be
chained, and it is possible to use an aspectually neutralized form (often
referred to as aorist) in subsequent predicates, or a nominalization (as in
14b). It is rather debatable, in any case, to what extent these clause
sequences should actually be considered a chaining construction. After all,
in addition to constructions with aorist or nominalized verb forms, fully
finite subsequent verbs are also common (cf. 14a). For these, it is far more
difficult to argue that two subsequent finite verbs correspond to the type of
construction with a less finite second verb depending on the preceding,
supposedly main, verb. In addition to this, it is by no means always the case
that the first verb codes MOTION and PATH, and the subsequent one
8
MANNER. In (16), the motion verb azzl ‘run’ precedes the PATH-denoting
verb kšm ‘enter’.
Tashelhit (own data)
(16) amxar i-uzzl =d s= tggurt i-kšm =d.
thief 3sm-run.PFV =PROX to= door 3sm-enter.PFV =PROX
‘The thief ran into the room.’ [speaker also in the room]
Talmy (forthcoming) suggests to determine main verb status first, and to
characterize a given construction then on the basis of whether PATH is
coded as satellite (or subordinate) structure. This is an attempt to restrain
the application of the ‘equipollently-framing’ category suggested by Slobin
(2004) in reaction to the important observation that for example, languages
with verb-serialising constructions are apparent counterexamples to the
strict dichotomy (Ameka and Essegbey forthcoming). If one follows
Talmy’s attempt to save the original typology by determining main verb
status first, one will have to argue that the predicate-chaining constructions
in Tashelhit Berber as in (16) are satellite- rather than verb-framing; the
first (= main?) finite verb expresses MANNER in addition to MOTION.

7
An anonymous reviewer pointed out that this may, of course, not be equally true for other varieties,
such as Northern Moroccan varieties, or Tuareg varieties.
8
I am indebted to an anonymous reviewer who suggested this point be emphasized more strongly than
in an earlier draft version of this paper.
68 AXEL FLEISCH

Further evidence in favour of satellite-framing constructions in Berber

might come from the fact that consecutive prepositional phrases (‘he went
through the forest, over the river, into the desert, up the mountain’) occur.
These subsequent prepositional phrases are typically used in satellite-
framing languages to construe more complex paths which, in a verb-
framing language, would usually require several verbs. Speakers of
Tashelhit Berber have shown some reluctance in elicitation, though, and
relevant examples are to a certain extent dubious. A common strategy to
avoid longer chains of subsequent prepositional locative phrases is to insert
a semantically relatively unspecific motion verb (e.g. ftu ‘go’) in the aorist
form. The evidence from such examples with chained locative phrases is
thus not too strong.
Apart from these remarks concerning the construal of motion events
beyond the clause unit, another observation is significant here. There are
verbs which one would probably not want to classify as motion verbs on
the basis of their core meaning, but which can still be used in constructions
relating to motion. This is the case in caused motion constructions which
exist in Tashelhit Berber (17). This suggests, again, that this variety is of
satellite- rather than verb-framing character.
Tashelhit (own data)
(17) i-sud a f iggi n tabla.
3sm-blow.PFV dust on top of table
‘S/he blew the dust off [< (from) on top of] the table.’
In this example, the verb is clearly not a motion verb. The sense of removal
is brought about by the construction in which it is used. With a human
agent as the subject blowing dust off the table this is fully acceptable. With
less typical nouns in the respective functions, there is, again, a tendency to
insert another verb ((18): ‘carry [away]’) in order to yield the removal
meaning.
Tashelhit (own data)
(18) i-sud adu i-awi tibratin f iggi n t
3sm-blow.PFV wind 3sm-carry.PFV letter on top of table
‘The wind blew the letters (from) on top of the table.’
While the example in (18) suggests that the possibility of having caused-
motion constructions is perhaps limited, one should probably not discard
these examples as irrelevant. The fact that they do exist (even if their
functional range may be more restricted than, for instance, in English), and
another noteworthy construction, illustrated in (19), support the view that
Tashelhit bears a significant amount of traits typically found among
satellite-framing languages.
ORIENTATIONAL CLITICS IN TASHELHIT BERBER 69

Tashelhit (own data)

(19) mani trit? adrar!
where want.PFV.2s mountain.FS
‘Where do you want (to go)?’ ‘(To) the mountain!’
(cf. German: Wohin willst du?)
It is true that this construction with iri is idiomatic and restricted to a very
narrow range of contexts. Therefore, one might be tempted to categorize
this use as a lexicalized sense of the verb iri ‘want’. It has probably come
into existence by means of a wh-raising construction of a longer version of
this sentence, cf. (20).
(20) mani trit ad =sis tftut?
where want.PFV.2s that =to.3s go.AOR.2s
‘Where do you want to go to?’ (< where do you want that you go?)
If this hypothesis about the origin is correct, ellipsis led to the construction
in (19). As in the caused-motion examples above, certain semantic notions
do not reside in the verb, but rather in the construction. It is only in
combination with mani ‘where’ that the verb can serve to express MOTION
and a specific PATH (note that mani trit is never interpreted as ‘where do
you want to be?’ or ‘where do you want to come from?’).
One may argue that the existence of this construction is purely accidental.
Yet, it is undebatably an example for a verb that does not originally encode
any notion of PATH (actually, iri ‘want’ does not even encode MOTION at
all). The PATH notion is conveyed by its combination with a specific
question word, mani ‘where’, and it can thus be argued to be external to the
verb. Even if one wanted to argue that, synchronically, iri should be
considered polysemous (characterized with at least two senses, 1. ‘want’; 2.
‘intend to go to’), it is quite clear that the second (PATH/MOTION) sense was
only acquired at a later point in the semantic history of that verb. For this to
have been possible, the respective Berber varieties must have allowed for a
construal of PATH as a semantic component external to the verb. This is an
argument in favour of satellite-framedness of Tashelhit. More investigation
of the frequency and the distribution of similar constructions across other
Berber varieties could be very instructive. Also, the elliptical construction
is reminiscent of a construction type in some Germanic languages allowing
modal verbs to take on a motion meaning (cf. the remark added to the gloss
in 19). Future research should look into the question whether satellite-
framedness is to some extent a pre-requisite for such grammaticalisations,
or whether accidental language-historical developments of this kind
actually have a cumulative effect leading to a more general satellite-
framing character of a given language.

5 Conclusion

Despite the fact that Berber languages do not clearly fall into one of both
categories, verb- versus satellite-framing languages, it is possible to use
70 AXEL FLEISCH

these characterizations in order to describe the relevant expressions in this

language. While PATH is most often expressed lexically by an adequate
verb of this lexicalization pattern, certain pieces of evidence argue against a
description of Berber as purely verb-framing. Several factors come into
play. One is the complexity of the orientational clitics, which intersect with
the notions of PATH and GROUND. Since they can be used in combination
with verbs that do not express motion their function is not simply
directional or PATH-denoting. Interestingly, while they can be used with
verbs of other semantic categories (verbs of quality as shown in (8), but
also transfer verbs, etc.), with which they do not lead to a directional, PATH-
related interpretation, their use with motion verbs typically yields a
directional component. Since in these cases, the clitics co-occur with a
(arguably) PATH-denoting verb, they do not represent strong evidence for
the assumption that at least part of the PATH-related information is coded by
an external element.
This, however, is exactly what must be assumed in connection with
constructions containing verbs for which it can be excluded that they
contain an inherent PATH-notion, as is the case with iri ‘want’ in certain
contexts.
Since other properties, such as the occurrence of subsequent prepositional
phrases to express complex paths, also represent rather atypical traits of a
verb-framing language, Berber must at least be regarded as a non-typical
representative of that category, if it belongs there at all.
Slobin (2004) proposes that certain languages fall into a third type:
equipollently-framing languages. In these languages there is no clear
preference for the expression of PATH in either way. A major problem here
will be that most (if not all!) languages do show constructions of both
types. There is a good chance that an overwhelming number of languages
would have to be regarded as belonging to the third type. If that third type
of equipollently-framing languages is simply defined as “neither purely
verb-, nor purely satellite-framing”, and the majority of languages end up
in that category, the validity of the overall typology is at stake!
What examples such as those from Tashelhit (and other Berber varieties)
show is that the dichotomy may be very valid, only not applicable to entire
languages. At the level of specific constructions, their characterization as
verb- or satellite-framed was rather easy, although not fully unproblematic
as the discussion of the orientational clitics shows.
An interesting question for future research that results from the present
paper concerns the diachronic dynamics of different construals of motion
events. If the dichotomy between verb- and satellite-framing languages has
far-reaching consequences on how speakers construe motion events, one is
tempted to assume that a rather profound and stable mechanism is at work.
ORIENTATIONAL CLITICS IN TASHELHIT BERBER 71

If, however, specific constructions can develop or disappear from the

grammar together with their particular ways of coding PATH, then, the
overall system does not have to be all that stable. A diachronic approach to
different Berber motion constructions might shed some light on this
interesting question, but is beyond the scope of the present paper.

Abbreviations
3sm 3rd person singular masculine IMPF imperfective aspect
3sf 3rd person singular feminine IO indirect object clitic
3pm 3rd person plural masculine NEG negative
2s 2nd person singular NOM nominalization
AOR aorist PERF resultative perfect (in
AS annexation state (= marked connection with stative verbs)
nominative case) PFV perfective
CAUS causative POSS possessive
DEM demonstrative PROX proximate
DIST distant PTCP participle
FS free state (= absolute/ REL relative
unmarked accusative case) SG singular

References
Ameka, Felix K. and James Essegbey (forthcoming). Serialising languages: verb-
framed, satellite-framed, or neither? In: Larry Hyman and Ian Maddieson (eds.),
African comparative and historical linguistics. Proceedings of the 32nd Annual
Conference on African Linguistics. Lawrenceville, N.J.: Africa World Press. Pp.
1-12.
Bentolila, Fernand 1969. Les modalités d’orientation du procès en berbère. Linguistique
5, 1: 85-96; 5, 2: 91-111.
Beguinot, Francesco 1942. Il berbero nefusi di Fassato: grammatica, testi raccolti dalla
viva voce, vocabolarietti. Rome: Istituto per l'Oriente.
Dray, Maurice 2001. Dictionnaire berbère-français: dialecte des Ntifa. Paris:
L’Harmattan.
El Aissati, A. 2001. Word order change in Berber. Frankfurter Afrikanistische Blätter
13: 35-44.
El Mountassir, Abdallah 2000. Langage et espace. Les particules d’orientation -d/-nn en
berbère (tachelhit). In: Salem Chaker (ed.), Études berbères et chamito-sémitiques.
Mélanges offerts à Karl Prasse. Leuven: Peeters. Pp. 129-54.
Heath, Jeffrey 2005. A grammar of Tamashek. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Mayer, Mercer 1969. Frog, Where are You? New York: Dial Books.
Mettouchi, Amina 1997. La Particule D en berbère (kabyle): transcatégorialité des
marqueurs énonciatifs. In: Bernard Caron (ed.), Proceedings of the 16th
International Congress of Linguists, Paris 20-25 juillet 1997. Oxford: Pergamon,
Paper nr. 0270.
72 AXEL FLEISCH

Slobin, Dan I. 1996. Two ways to travel. Verbs of motion in English and Spanish. In:
Masayoshi Shibatani and Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), Grammatical constructions:
their form and meaning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pp. 195-217.
____2004. The many ways to search for a frog. Linguistic typology and the expression
of motion events. In: Sven Strömqvist and Ludo Verhoeven (eds.), Relating events
in narrative. Typological and contextual perspectives. Mahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum.
Pp. 219-57.
____ 2005. Relating narrative events in translation. In: Dorit Ravid and Hava Bat-Zeev
Shyldkrot (eds.), Perspectives on language and language development. Essays in
honor of Ruth A. Berman. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Pp. 115-29.
Stroomer, Harry 2002. Tashelhiyt Berber folktales from Tazerwalt (South Morocco).
Cologne: Köppe.
Talmy, Leonard 1985. Lexicalization patterns: semantic structure in lexical forms. In:
Timothy Shopen (ed.), Language Typology and syntactic description. Vol. 3:
Grammatical categories and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pp. 57-149.
____ 2000. Toward a cognitive semantics. 2 volumes. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
____ (forthcoming). Main verb properties and equipollent framing. In: Jian-Sheng Guo
et al. (eds.), Crosslinguistic approaches to the psychology of language: research
in the tradition of Dan Isaac Slobin. Mahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum.
Traugott, Elizabeth and Richard E. Dasher 2002. Regularity in semantic change. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press.