MOVING ALONG THE GRAMMATICALISATION PATH: LOCATIVE AND ALLATIVE MARKING OF NON-FINITE CLAUSES AND SECONDARY PREDICATIONS IN AUSTRALIAN LANGUAGES

Patrick McConvell (Australian National University)
patrick.mcconvell@anu.edu.au
and 
Jane Simpson (University of Sydney )
jane.simpson@usyd.edu.au

DRAFT Version #20 28/12/08

0.	Abstract

This paper examines three grammaticalised instances of local case-marking in Indigenous languages of northern Central Australia, coded as follows:
(AN) Allative expressing object control on NP’s - the use of  allative instead of locative in the meaning of ‘locative’ in a secondary predication where the subject of that predication has the same reference as an object or oblique in the main predication; 
(LS) Locative marked subordination the use of locative case-marking on the verb and other elements to mark types of non-finite subordinate clauses;
(AS) Allative marked subordination expressing object control, combining features of A and LS, usually where LS is also present.

The  different distributions of these properties are plotted in a number of Central and northern Australian languages to provide a picture of current distribution and hypotheses about the origin of these constructions. The hypothesis proposed here is that the AN construction arose in a group of Pama-Nyungan languages in a restricted area of North-central Australia and partially overlapped with the presence of the LS construction in a wider grouping of Pama-Nyungan languages.  This cooccurrence produced the AS construction, which subsequently diffused to a few neighbouring languages, including some Non-Pama-Nyungan languages.   Both AN and AS can be called grammaticalisation since they depart from the semantic functions of the locational cases to mark control phenomena between predications. The marking of subordinate clauses by local cases, and particularly locative case, is relatively common cross-linguistically outside Australia and arguably maintains some cognitive metaphorical link with static location and motion, perhaps primarily through the near-universal ‘space=time’ metaphor. In AN, we see a much rarer development in which the metaphorical link between the concrete local meaning and the grammatical function is attenuated, although the possibility that AN involves ‘fictive motion’ as in Finnic languages is discussed. 

1. Grammaticalisation of local case

Local cases are primarily semantic, prototypically expressing the spatial position of an event or entity relative to other entities. In a number of languages around the world, locative and other local cases have also been grammaticalised to express various grammatical functions, with the original semantic locational functions usually retained as well. This is surveyed in section 3.1 below.  

Among the grammaticalisations of local cases to be found are those in which subordinate clauses are marked by a local case to express a type of subordination, with different local cases sometimes used to express temporal/aspectual features of the subordinate clause in relation to the main clause. The subordinate clauses are often but not always headed by non-finite forms of verbs. The extension of space expressions to time is a near-universal (Traugott 1978) and this is widely encountered in Australia,  e.g. using ablative ‘from’ on nominals for a previous time and locative for the same time, so the use of this extension in subordination is not so surprising. 

Another function which is particularly common in Australia is the use of local cases to express control phenomena. In clauses with transitive verbs, there are potentially at least three referents for what the locational phrase is predicated of - the subject, the object and the event itself. Languages vary as to the means used to pick out the referent, and to indicate whether there is vagueness as to the referent.  Word order is crucial in many languages - for example in English an initial locational prepositional phrase is commonly used to express the spatial position of the event.  But word order is used for information structure purposes rather than grammatical functional purposes in many Australian languages (Hale 1992, Austin and Bresnan 1996, Simpson 2007).  And so alternative means are needed for specifying what a spatial location expression is predicated of.  We focus here on (LS) Locative marked subordination, the use of locative case-marking on the verb and other elements to mark types of non-finite subordinate clauses, and (AS) Allative marked subordination expressing object control, combining features of A and LS, usually where LS is also present.
As well as the alternation of local cases and other suffixes usually discussed under the heading of ‘switch-reference’ (see section 3.3), there is also the use of double case-marking (discussed in section 3.2) in which the second case agrees with the case of the nominal that the location expression is predicated of.

This paper describes the expression of control phenomena in a set of languages mainly in Central Australia, but also in some northern Non-Pama-Nyungan languages as well as in the Pama-Nyungan outlier group of Yolngu in North-east Arnhem Land, signalling that this may be in part an areal phenomenon, and raising a number of historical questions. 

A distinguishing feature of these languages, the AN construction seems typologically very rare and perhaps non-existent outside this area of Australia (although parallels exist in Finnic discussed in 3.2.) This is the replacement of LOC by ALL in semantic locatives construed as being predicated of a grammatical object. In such languages one can say, as it were, ‘I saw the bird to the tree’ instead of ‘I saw the bird in the tree’ meaning the latter. The ALL case-phrase is a secondary predication with the understood subject of the secondary predication being ‘the bird’. AN is the third focus of our paper - the use of an ALL-marked expression instead of LOC in the meaning of ‘locative’ in a secondary predication where the subject of that predication has the same reference as an object or oblique in the main predication.

This is a clear grammaticalisation with the function of the nominal case-marking moving away from the strictly semantic. The paper discusses how this phenomenon relates to the issue of grammaticalised locational marking on subordinate non-finite clauses raised above (AS and LS).

2.	Types of locational case marking examined, in Central Australia

2.1 Terminology used

In this paper we are dealing with a number of phenomena in which the semantics of case do not line up with the form of case-marking, as with ‘Allative’ case being used in a ‘Locative’ meaning discussed above, so we need to be clear about which we are referring to. We shall refer to a set of ‘locational’ meanings which include locative, which refers to the static location of an entity, and allative, which refers to movement to a goal entity; where necessary we refer to these as ‘locative semantic function’ ; allative semantic function’ etc.  On the other hand, there are local case affixes which we shall refer to by capitalised abbrevations eg LOC for Locative case; ALL for Allative case. So in the situation referred to as AN, locative semantic function can be expressed by LOC or ALL, depending on control variables.

Another terminological issue is that of non-finite subordination. In these languages  there are typically non-finite verb forms which are variously referred to as ‘nominalised’, ‘gerunds’, ‘infinitives’ etc. by different authors. There may be good reasons for the choices in particular cases but these are not relevant to our purposes in this paper, so all such forms are referred to here as ‘non-finite’ (NFIN).  A related issue is that of ‘coverbs’ which form the main lexical content part of two-part complex verbs in a number of languages under consideration here. These are variously referred to in different languages as ‘preverbs’, ‘particles’, ‘main verbs’ etc. Again they have different morpho-syntactic properties in different languages but these are not particularly in focus in this paper, and so we shall refer to them all as ‘coverbs’. In some languages such coverbs occur in subordinate clauses in a similar role to non-finite forms of verbs. 

2.2 Local cases in Australian languages

Australian languages have systems varying from 3 to about 8 cases marked on nominals, generally as suffixes. These usually include ergative/instrumental and dative/benefactive especially in Pama-Nyungan languages. Most Australian languages have nominal local case suffixes, usually LOC (Locative: at, in etc); ALL (Allative: to, towards) and ABL (Ablative: from) with some additional ones in some languages. This is particularly true of languages of the Pama-Nyungan family, and in the case of this family at least two of these suffixes can be relatively confidently reconstructed to proto-Pama-Nyungan: LOC *-ngka,* -la (allomorphs determined by whether the host is bimoraic or polymoraic, respectively); ABL*-ngu(ru) (Alpher 2004); ALL is too variable across the family to be confidently reconstructed at this stage.

The prime functions of these local case suffixes are semantic, expressing ideas that in many languages would be expressed by adpositions, but are also grammaticalised in various ways in some languages. In this paper we discuss the three types of grammaticalised constructions listed and briefly exemplified below as AN, LS, and AS.

2.3 Construction AN: Allative expressing object control on NPs 

ALL is used instead of LOC in a secondary predication where the subject of that predication has the same reference as an object or oblique in the main predication. 

For instance in Gurindji one can say (1) with formal ALL marking on the object instead of LOC.

(1) 	ngu-rna 	karrap 	nya-nya	jurlak 	karnti-kurra
CAT-1sgS   	see  see-PAST 	bird     tree-ALL		
	‘I saw a bird on a tree’

2.4 Construction LS:  Locative marked subordination 

LOC case-marking on the verb and other elements is used to mark types of non-finite subordinate clauses. There is some variation in the elements which are case-marked in subordination in different languages, both in the LS construction and the AS construction below.  In most, non-finite forms of verbs receive the marking, but in addition other elements in the subordinate clause are also case-marked; in others, coverbs in addition or instead of the verb may be case-marked and in some, adverbs in main clauses are case-marked in a similar way. 

In Gurindji LOC can mark a clause of simultaneous action on the gerund of a verb as in (2), with the subordinate object also marked LOC ,  or on a coverb with the verb omitted as in (3).  In both instances the subject of the gerund (NFIN) or coverb and the subject of the main clause are identical.

(2) 	Ma-rna-ni 		jarrak-ap kurrupartu-la      yinka-rnu-la
say-IMPF-PAST	talk-ACT boomerang-LOC scrape-NFIN-LOC 
	‘He was talking while planing a boomerang’	

(3) 	Pulwarr-kuk      	 jiya-wu	talwirr-a-ma
dry-INCHOAT 	burn-FUT	hang-LOC-TOPIC	 
‘It will dry hanging up

2.5 Construction AS: Allative marked subordination expressing object control 

AS combines features of AN and  LS, usually where LS is also present in the language.  

Gurindji also exemplifies this type:  if the verb of the main clause is transitive and the subject of the subordinate clause is the same as the object of the main clause, then the ALL may be used.

(4) 	Ngu=rna 	karu  pura nya-nya	yunpa-rnu-yirri.
      	 CAT=1sgS 	child  hear see-PAST	sing-NFIN-ALL	
	‘I heard a child singing’

(5) 	Ngu=rna 	nya-nya	lilaj-jirri	warrija.
       	CAT=1sgS 	see-PAST	swim-ALL	crocodile	
	‘I saw a crocodile swimming’

Thus the fact that this construction involves a subordinate clause links it to the LS construction, and the fact that the subject of the subordinate clause is controlled by the object of the main clause links it to the AN construction.  

3. Other treatments of grammatical uses of local cases 

3.1 Outside Australia

Case-markers or adpositions denoting allative areconsidered ‘notorious’ for both theirpolysemy and their heterosemy (crossing over to other word classes), which has been the subject of attention in recent work, including within grammaticalisation frameworks (Rice and Kabata 2007:451). Rice and Kabata’s survey shows that it is not only the extension of the local case-form ALL to other functions (e.g. purposive: 2007:459) which is at stake here, but moves in the opposite direction from more abstract grammatical functions to the local ALL. While the function of marking non-finite subordination is not central to their article, they note the significance of:

the extensions or case syncretisms affecting allatives in particular, especially in languages where there is overlap between spatial goal-marking function and the marking of purpose or clausal subordination, as happens with English to, German zu, or French à – all classic allatives and all infinitive markers as well. (Rice and Kabata 2007:453)

Haspelmath (1989) also suggests the following source-to-target extension hierarchy:

allative > purpose > infinitive > complementizer

However, while the extension of ALL via a purposive use to non-finite clause marking can be found in Australia, the subject of the current paper suggests a quite different type of pathway linking allative to non-finite clause marking which is not purposive in current manifestations, or in origin.

The use of local case-marking to indicate clausal subordination is well attested outside Australia.  Finnic languages are replete with such patterns (eg Tamm 2008 and p.c.) as are Daghestanian languages of the Caucasus (Forker 2008 and p.c.). Anderson (2002), as well as discussing case-marked clausal subordination in Burushaski, provides a brief survey of similar phenomena in other languages. The case-marked clausal subordination strategy is, he says, relatively common in morphologically rich SOV languages of Eurasia which make use of nominal cases. He exemplifies the construction from Munda languages, and mentions that it also occurs in  Tibeto-Burman, Turkic, native languages of Siberia (macro-areal feature) such as Ket (Grishina 1979), Basque, and Yimas (New Guinea). He implies that it may have been even more widespread in the past but that it is relatively easily lost through contact with other languages which allow importation or calquing of a subordinator element. 

3.2  ‘Fictive motion’ in Finnic languages

The AN phenomenon has parallels with another phenomenon in Finnic languages know as ‘directional locatives’ (eg Fong 2003) and ‘fictive motion’ (Humoo 2006, 2007, to appear).  In some cases the allative (or the corresponding ‘interior’ case illative) is used for the static location of objects, not the directional path, as with the AN construction in Australia. For instance,  consider the (i) interpretation of (6)  in Finnish (Fong 2003:223-4): in this case the illative ( ILL, the ‘interior’ version of the allative) is used. 

(6)	Metsästäjä		ampu-i 	karhu-n	metsä-än 
hunter.NOM		shoot-past.3s	bear-ACC	forest-ILL
      
(i) ‘A/the hunter shot a/the bear in (lit. ‘into’)  a/the forest.’ 
     	 (ii) ‘A/the hunter shot a/the bear into a/the forest (i.e. the bear was
      ejected/propelled into the forest).’

Actual motion of the object into the location can be involved in the meaning of such examples (as in interpretation ii of 6) but commonly there is no real motion. The common element seems to be that the object remains in the location in the ultimate phase of the event. The allative and illative are commonly used for the location  of objects with verbs of ‘leaving’ in Finnish, where the subject is separated from or moves away from the object entity (Huumo 2006: 48; 2007:85).

This is similar to the AN constructions in some Australian languages where both the subject and object can be in the location in a general sense but the key point is that the ultimate location of the object is the Allative marked NP, as in the Wakaya sentence (33) below,  ‘the dog drowned the kangaroo in(to) the water’.

Fong attributes this unusual usage in Finnish to the diphasic nature of the event structure involved, and the fact that Finnish directional cases can represent one phase – in this case the ultimate location – rather than inherently Path. She relates the phenomenon in Finnish not to grammatical object control but to the semantics of the verbs involved, and the occurrence of the allative and illative for location in intransitives seems to bear this out e.g. (7). 

Finnish
(7) 	Karhu		kuol-i		metsä-än
	bear.NOM	die-past.3s	forest-ILL 
	‘A/the bear died in (lit. ‘into’) a/the forest.’

Also in the Finnic languages is the construction where the location of the object is marked ablative (or elative, the ‘interior’ equivalent). This is found with a wide range of transitive verbs including perception and possession. The subject is understood as outside the location and some property of the object fictively ‘moves’ to the subject’s dominion of possession or consciousness (Huumo to appear:12) . 

Finnish
(8)	Löys-i-n	seinä – stä	halkeama – n
find-PST.3sg	wall – ELA	crack- ACC
	‘I found a  crack in [lit. ‘from’] the wall’	

Fong (2003) gives other examples where the explanation that a property of the object moves into the domain of the subject does not appear appropriate. In (9) the resultant broken pieces of the vase can be understood to remain on the shelf.

Finnish
(9)	Kissa		rikko-i			maljako-n	hylly-ltä
cat.NOM	break-PAST.3s	vase-ACC	shelf-ABL 
	‘A/the cat broke a/the vase off a/the shelf.’

In all the cases of uses of ‘directional locatives’/’fictive motion’ the subject and object of the verb are perceived as being in separate places, with the subject outside the place, at least at the end of the process. We return to the relevance of the Finnic data to the Australian cases at the end of the paper.

3.2  Double case–marking in Australia 

Double case marking or Suffixaufnahme (Plank ed. 1995) refers mainly to addition of a genitive marker following another case marker, but it is extended to include other types of addition of the case of a controlling NP to other items such as NPs with local case marking. In some Australian languages, this kind of double case-marking  (Dench and Evans 1988)  is used to specify more precisely the referent.  For example, if an Object has Dative or Accusative case, adding Dative or Accusative case to a local-case-marked phrase indicates that the phrase expresses the spatial position of the object rather than the event.  An example follows from Ngarluma, a Pama-Nyungan language spoken on the coast of Western Australia.

Ngarluma  (Kenneth Hale's fieldnotes (Hale 1960a, Simpson 1981)

ACCUSATIVE on locational modifier of ACCUSATIVE-marked OBJECT

(10) 	Wanji-la-ku  		nyinta 		marrparnta-nha.
     	where-LOC-ACC 	you.NOM 	find-PAST
	‘Where did you find it?’

(11) 	Ngayi marrparnta-nha yanthan-ta-ku 	thurnu-ngka-ku.
    	I.NOM find-PAST 	swag-LOC-ACC 	under-LOC-ACC
	‘I found it under the swag’

The double-case-marked phrase here is referred to as a secondary predication with the understood subject of the secondary predication being ‘it’. 

Double case marking is found in some of the languages below such as Warlpiri.  Since double case has parallel functions in marking control to AN/LS/AS systems one might attempt to trace a historical connection between them but this line of enquiry has not been productive.

3.3  Switch reference in Australia

Some of the phenomena in Central Australia have been noted before by Austin (1981 cf. Blake 1993) and Dixon (2002:239) and subsumed under the heading of ‘switch reference’. In a northern area which corresponds approximately to the area examined in this paper, Austin claims that the LOC signals ‘same subject’, i.e. the subject of the subordinate clause is the same as the subject of the main clause. Over most of this northern area the LOC is complemented by the ALL which is used to signal different subject. Austin and Blake cite the languages Wanyi, Garrwa and Wakaya as exhibiting the common pattern which is for a marker originally denoting a locative meaning to indicate same subject (SS) while a marker originally denoting an allative meaning  indicates different subject (DS).

The use of the ALL on the object of the ALL-marked subordinate clause follows a common areal property whereby the object of a non-finite verb bears the same case as the verb.  Relevant to the AN use is the fact that some of these languages allow case-marked nominals to appear in clauses without a corresponding nominalised verb, but with an understood action 'involved with, doing something with' e.g. 'I've been watching the white fellow involved with a bullock.'

Switch reference marking typically signals the identity or nonidentity of the referent of the subject of one clause, with the referent of the subject of another clause.  The definition may be extended to include prominent argument. It is often seen as an information structure property - signalling a change of topic. But the ALL construction AS in these Central and Northern Australian languages appears to be doing something slightly different: marking the identity of the referent of the object of a main clause with the referent of the subject of a subordinate clause, (or, in the case of Gurindji, the identity of the referent of a non-subject argument of a main clause with the subject of a subordinate clause). In Gurindji too, LOC is used to mark clauses where there is no identity of NPs between the clauses, so ‘same subject’ is not a correct characterization of the function of LOC in this case (see 4.1 below).

Austin (1981: 325) makes clear that the Warlpiri  and Warlmanpa system of cross-clausal control marking is not of the classic ‘switch reference’ type. The Warlpiri system does not involve only a simple binary contrast (SS vs.DS); it is based upon the binary contrast of whether the subordinate subject is coreferential or non-coreferential with a grammatical argument of the main clause verb, with additional subdivisions in the former category.

Austin (1981: 330) canvasses the idea that switch-reference in Australia is a case of indirect (structural) diffusion, and this idea is taken up and extended by Dixon (2002). 
But the nature of the Ngumpin-Yapa and probably other systems in this area casts into doubt the claim that the areal pattern of what we will be discussing as ‘object control’ marked by ALL (AS) is caused by diffusion of a ‘switch reference’ pattern, in an abstract sense. Rather in many cases the relevant object control systems are mainly inherited, and merged together when they co-occur. Particular uses of the distinction between LOC,  and in contrast ALL for object control, arising from such a merger seem to have diffused to some other neighbouring languages.

4. Related systems in Northern and Central Australia

In this section we review the control constructions which use local case-marking for several languages, in terms of the typology of AN, LS and AS introduced above. There are additional features which occasionally have a bearing on whether LOC or ALL case is used. For the subordinate clauses, relative time of the main and subordinate clause is relevant, at least in Warlpiri. Further, the distinction between whether the subject is in the same location as the object or not can have a bearing on the choice of ALL or LOC in AN constructions, with ALL used in some languages when subject is not in the same location as object or where the emphasis in secondary predication is not on the whole event but just the object (cf. Austin 1981: 332). Although it may be thought that the semantics of the verb (e.g. whether motion is involved) could affect choices in the AN construction, there is no solid evidence for this in the languages being considered. 

We have not found the AN and AS patterns outside the language area described here although LS is found in some other Pama-Nyungan languages. In the Non-Pama-Nyungan languages of the Top End of the NT and Arnhem Land, e.g. Ngalakgan and Mangarrayi, there is a neutralisation of the distinction between Locative and Allative in their basic semantic function anyway, so no grammaticalisation of the distinction would be expected.

We consider here twelve languages, in four groups:
A.	Languages of the Ngumpin-Yapa sub group of Pama-Nyungan in the Tanami Desert and southern Victoria River District (VRD) of the Northern Territory, and the southern Kimberley region of Western Australia. These include Gurindji (4.1); a closely related Ngumpin language to its west, Jaru (4.2);  and Warlpiri to the south (4.3)
B.	Languages of several other Pama-Nyungan sub-groups to the east and south of Ngumpin-Yapa: Warumungu (4.4); Wakaya, a Warluwarric language of the Barkly Tableland (4.5); and Kaytetye, an Arandic language to the south, which is also compared to Alyawarre another more southerly Arandic language (4.6). These languages, in contrast with Ngumpin-Yapa, share a property of not  distinguishing between LOC and ERG (i.e. the case-suffixes denoting ergative and locative meanings). The reasons for this and the implications for the history of the constructions in focus here are discussed below in this section.
C.	The Yolngu subgroup of languages in North-East Arnhem Land, which are an outlier of Pama-Nyungan separated from the rest of the family by some hundreds of kilometres (4.7).
D.	Several Non-Pama-Nyungan languages neighbouring the Pama-Nyungan languages in A & B sets, which also have aspects of the AN, LS and/or AS constructions: Garrwa-Waanyi (4.8) two closely related languages around the Northern Territory- Queensland border north-east of Wakaya; to the west, Wambaya (4.9) and  Jingulu (4.10) two languages of the Mirndi family in the Barkly Tablelands (Harvey 2008); Wardaman, north of the eastern Ngumpin languages (4.11); and Gooniyandi in the Kimberley of Western Australia (4.12).

One of the allomorphs of proto-Pama-Nyungan LOC was *-la, and in Ngumpin-Yapa this (or the form with the retroflex lateral –rla), remains the form for vowel-final nominals of more than two morae. The languages of set B above appear to have retained this LOC suffix but it has been subject to sound changes and morphological augmentation. Another consequence of the sound changes was the loss of the formal distinction between suffixes denoting locative and ergative meanings in these languages since the proto-Pama-Nyungan form of the ERG suffix for multimoraic vowel-final nominals was *-lu, differing only in the vowel from the LOC. The relevant changes are as follows:
i.	the reduction of final vowels in Arandic to a central vowel /e/, neutralising the distinction between –la (LOC) and –lu (ERG) and yielding -le;
ii.	the loss of final vowels in Wakaya, (and possibly Warumungu), yielding –(r)l respectively for the LOC/ERG
iii.	progressive vowel assimilation in Warumungu, neutralising final vowels, yielding -ngkV, -jjV and -CV;
iv.	the augmentation of the –l by a preceding ligature –kV- or –ngV- These ligatures are also present including with LOC and ERG in Ngumpin-Yapa, e.g. Gurindji -kula LOC, -kulu ERG following non-coronal consonants. 

4.1 Gurindji (Ngumpin-Yapa, Pama-Nyungan)

Gurindji has all the types AN, LS and AS as noted and illustrated above in section 2. It is not a switch-reference system, as it uses LOC to mark subordinate clauses where there are no coreferential arguments as in (12): in this case the subject of the subordinate clause is marked LOC.  

(12)	Ngayi-ny-ja     wart-ta        		ngu=n          	yuwa-rru wajarra
      	me-DAT-LOC come_back-LOC  	CAT=2sgS 	put-FUT  play
 	‘You will put on a corroboree when I get back’

ALL marking on the non-finite verb or coverb forms and objects is also found where the controller is an indirect object as in (13).

(13) 	IO = A
Ngu=rla   paka-p  -karra 	       ma-rni       yalu-wu-ma           muk-jirri
CAT=IO  challenge-ACT-MANN say-PAST that-DAT-TOPIC be_silent-ALL
 	‘He challenged that (man) but he  (the man) stayed silent’ 

The Allative alternative is very common with other oblique functions as controllers e.g. (14).

(14) Comitative (DAT-LOC)=A
Ngu=rna-rla  	Jangala-wu-nyja 	karr-inyan-i  		kurrupartu-yirri  
	CAT=1sgS-IO J.-DAT-LOC  	be-IMPF-PAST 	boomerang-ALL
	pirrka-p-jirri
	make-ACT-ALL
	‘I was sitting with Jangala while he made a boomerang’

Use of ALL instead of LOC under object/oblique control (the AN construction) is optional, although more common than LOC. There is some evidence that the spatial location of the subject entity does have some bearing on the choice here (and also in the AS subordination), with ALL being preferred in the case where the subject and object/oblique are perceived as being in different locations, but the distinction is not so clear-cut as in some other languages to be reviewed below. In addition to LOC and ALL marking of subordinate clauses, Gurindji can optionally mark a clause with the ERG case-suffix instead of LOC if the subordinate subject is coreferential to a main clause transitive subject. This ERG marking possibility bears a resemblance to the ‘double marking’ discussed above, where there is a kind of ‘case agreement’ between the subject of the main clause and the subject of the non-finite verb form (or in these examples, coverb)

4.2 Jaru (Ngumpin-Yapa, Pama-Nyungan) 

In the Kimberleys and Pilbara, Pama-Nyungan languages of the Ngumpin-Yapa and Marrngu sub-groups have LOC marked subordination (LS) but no switch to ALL under object control either in nominals or subordinate clauses (neither AN nor AS). 

The exception is in Jaru in the east where the AS pattern described above for the closely related and neighbouring language Gurindji is marginal and may be specialized for situations of motion. Tsunoda  (1981:173) states that in this construction "The agent [subject of transitive or intransitive clause] of the gerund phrase is identical with D[irect]O[bject] (rather than Subject) of the matrix sentence whether the gerund phrase is reduced from a transitive sentence or an intransitive sentence."  That is, there is LOC subordination on the verb involving the object of the matrix clause, not the subject, and there is normally no shift to ALL under object control. 

(15) 	Ngumbirr-u	mawun	 	nyang-an	yan-u-ngga.
       	woman-ERG	man		see-PRES	walk-NFIN-LOC
	‘A woman sees a man walking’ (ex. 296, p.173)

(16) 	Ngumbirr-u	mawun		 nyang-an	ngaba-ngga	ngarn-u-ngga.
        	woman-ERG	man		see-PRES	water-LOC	drink-NFIN-LOC
	‘A woman sees a man drinking water’. (ex. 299, p.173)

However Tsunoda does say (1981:174) ‘in a few instances a gerund phrase is allative rather than locative’ and suggests (1981:175) that in such cases  ‘agents of the gerunds [non-finite verb forms] are moving’. (17)  and (18) illustrate the Allative type.
 
(17) 	Mawun-du	nga=yi		luwarn-i	yan-u-nggawu
        	man-ERG	CAT=1sgO	shoot-PAST	walk-NFIN-ALL
	‘A man shot me while I was walking’. (ex.307 p.174)

(18) 	Nga=anunggula dilygurr yaan-i     	ganydjurra wana     gang-u-nggawu     	CAT=3plLOC       shoot    do-PAST down           roll    take-NFIN-ALL
	‘He shot (the rifle) down at them as/when they were rolling (Spinifex grass)

As in Gurindji, coverbs (or at least some of them) can occur in non-finite subordination without the accompanying inflected verb gerunds. On coverbs, it seems that simultaneous action is expressed by -gu+LOC if the Object is the controller, and gu+ERG if the Subject is the controller.

(19)	Mawun-du	yambagina	nyang-an	yud-gu-la
	man-ERG	child		see-PRES	sitting-gu-LOC
	‘A man sees a child sitting’ (ex.373 p.192)

(20)	Mawun-du	yambagina	nyang-an	yud-gu-lu
	man-ERG	child		see-PRES	sitting-gu-ERG
	‘A man, while sitting, sees a child’ (ex.373 p.192)

There is no indication of the AN pattern in nominals,  or of double case-marking in Jaru. 

4.3 Warlpiri (Ngumpin-Yapa, Pama-Nyungan) 

In Warlpiri the plain LOC is often used for location of objects which have no explicit case-marking (i.e. Absolutive case).

 (21) 	Manu kala-lu-nyanu karnta-ngku+ju    ngapa+ju  	ka-nyi 		kartaku-rla 
       	and USIT-3pl-REFL woman-ERG+EU water+EU	carry-NPST bucket-LOC
jalangujalangu-rlu+ju
today-ERG+EU
	‘And nowadays women carry water for themselves in buckets’ [written text, 	Nyurruwiyi kuja kalalu malikikirlirli]

If the object has Dative case, then double case-marking LOC+DAT is used, as in (22).

Modifying DATIVE argument
(22) 	Ngula=rla	rdipi-ja 	janganpa-ku	wilypiri-rla-ku.
then=3DAT	meet-PAST 	possum-DAT	tree_hollow-LOC-DAT
	‘He came across a possum in a hollow in a tree’ [written text, 	Yarlpurrurlangukurlu]

This contrasts with specifying the location of the subject by double case-marking with Ergative (Hale 1982). In example (23) the subject is on the bank, but the object (tadpoles) are in the water.

Modifying ERGATIVE argument
(23) 	Kalwa-ngku 	ka-rla	jirri-ki	 pirntinyarra-rla-rlu 	
crane-ERG 	PRES-IO	tadpole-DAT bank-LOC-ERG 
jaala-nya-nyi.
up.and.down-seek-NPST
	‘The crane looks for tadpoles up and down the bank’ [Warlpiri dictionary 	jaala-nyanyi, modified from Hale 1966 notes p.590]

Location of the event is often done by the plain LOC. However, the ALL is also found for location of the object (the AN construction), as in the following  example in which the object (a lizard) is on the fire.

(24) 	Warlu-kurra-ji wita-kurra-yijala     ka-rnalu       purra	
       	fire-ALL-EU	 small-ALL-also       PRES-1eplS cook.NPST   
	wardapi-piya-yijala.
	sand.monitor-like-also
	‘We cook it on a small fire as we do with the sand monitor as well’. 	[HN:1681-2]

What conditions the choice or whether it just reflects dialect variation is not known.

AS and LS are both attested in Warlpiri, but they occupy different places in the elaborate system of subordinate clauses headed by nominalised verbs marked with different case-markers and complementiser suffixes (Hale 1982, Simpson 1988, 1991, Laughren 1992, Hale et al 1996).  

The LOC is used for subordinate non-finite clauses of prior action under subject control ("after doing X").

(25) 	Purra-nja-rla		kala		rdipi-ja
cook-NFIN-LOC 	PASTCOMP	set_off-PAST
wirrkardu-ku-warnu	   ngurra-ku-warnu
several-FREQ-ASSOC  camp-FREQ-ASSOC
	‘Having cooked it, he set off again after several days’ (Hale et al 1996)

There is no contrasting non-finite form for prior action by controllers other than the subject.

The ALL is used for subordinate non-finite clauses of simultaneous action under object control ("while doing X").

(26) 	Wati-ngki	 marlu	     nya-ngu      nguna-nja-kurra.
       	man-ERG	 kangaroo see-PAST	lie-NFIN-ALL
	‘The man saw the kangaroo while it was lying down’. (Hale et al 1996)

ALL in this subordinative use forms a system with three other suffixes, also expressing simultaneous action but differing as to whether the controller is the subject (a complementiser suffix -karra), the subject in a reflexive construction (a suffix identical with the Comitative -rlajinta, which is built on the LOC), or whether the controller is an adjunct or overtly present (a complementiser suffix -rlarni which is built on the LOC) .

4.4 Warumungu (Pama-Nyungan) 

In Warumungu, as in Wakaya and the Arandic languages discussed in the following sections, the Ergative, Locative and Instrumental have the same form. In Warumungu this is due to complete vowel assimilation to the preceding vowel.  This suffix (LOC/ERG) is used for location in intransitive sentences (27), while the ALL suffix on the object is used for location in transitive sentences (the AN construction), regardless of whether the object only (28), or the subject and the object (29) are at the location (examples from Simpson 2002).

(27)	Karnanti	nyi-nta		warlukun-jju.
	mother		sit-PRESENT	fire-LOC/ERG
	‘Mother sits by the fire’

 (28) 	Ngulya-kana	ajjul	kupunta		kuyu	maraji.
	hole-ALL	3plS	cook-PRESENT	meat	euro
	‘They  (more than two) cook euro in holes in the ground.’

(29) 	Karttingki	ngurraji-kina	kayin		karta-nta.
	man-Actor	camp-ALL	boomerang	trim-PRESENT
	‘The man is trimming a boomerang at home. ’

LS is not found in Warumungu, but note remarks below about the possible historical origin of the ‘same subject’ form in an LS construction.

AS is found with object control subordination in Warumungu.

(30)	Nya-nyi	arnangkku	kanyi-nji-kina.
	see-PAST	1sgS.2sgO	step-NFIN-ALL
	‘I saw you stepping (on it).’

This contrasts with a complementiser suffix, -kil/-kul,  used just for subject control (glossed here ‘while’). This is not the same as the current Warumungu LOC/ERG case suffix (various allomorphs including –ngkV, -njjV) but historically the –l could descend from proto-Pama-Nyungan *–la  LOC with a preceding ligative element; see 4.4 below for a possible cognate form ligative +rl in Wakaya.

(31) 	Kirriji		wangka-n	 warlukun-kul	parrpi-nji-kil.
       	woman		talk-PRESENT fire-while	light-NFIN-while
	‘The woman is talking while lighting the fire’

4.5 Wakaya (Warluwarric, Pama-Nyungan) 

Wakaya, south-east of the Eastern Mindi languages of the Barkly Tablelands, has the AN construction. In contrast to Warumungu above, in Wakaya  the AN construction (ALL on object-controlled secondary locative predication) is reportedly only found where only the object is in the location, not where both subject and object are.  In  (32)  and (33), the subject agent and the object are in the same location and physically interacting but only the object ends up in the specific location ‘ground’ and ‘water’ specifically.

(32) 	Kurrerniy pulu, ngintuwerniy miingkert
       	die-PAST that,   bury-PAST   ground-ALL
 	‘He died and they buried him. ’ [Eastern Wakaya]

(33) 	Inkapurl           wera 	ngurrungunta 	yukarrirt.  
       	kangaroo-ERG dog    drown-PAST	water-ALL
	‘The kangaroo drowned the dog in the water’

The use of ALL to mark object controlled and spatially separated objects contrasts with the use of the LOC for events seen as wholes. Whether the criterion for selection of LOC is lack of physical separation between subject or object or predication of the location on the whole event rather than the object needs further investigation, but examples like (32) and (33) suggest some version of the former (where ultimate location of the object separate from the subject invokes ALL).

Regarding non-finite subordination, Breen writes: "Simultaneous action and immediate consequence are expressed by a nominalised form of the verb marked with the operative [ergative]/locative case suffix if the subjects of the two actions are the same, or the allative case if they are different." That is, Wakaya also has the LS pattern where LOC  -rl is attached to the verb following a ligative –nge- and is used for simultaneous action "if the subjects of the two actions are the same". (34) illustrates LOC/ERG as same-subject marker.

(34) 	Wirriwirriyarn penkangerl		   	marniy   	yungkumet
       	along-1sgS        go- NFIN-LIG-LOC/ERG 	kill-PAST bluetongue.lizard
	‘I killed a lizard while I was going along’

If the two subjects are not the same, then there are several possibilities.  Breen states that the ALL is used if the two subjects are different (i.e. the AS pattern). 
    
ALL as different subject marker

(35) 	Jirrewenhthariyarn, nguninhthangert.
       	spear-PURP-1sgS   sleep- NFIN-LIG-ALL
	‘I'll spear him while he's asleep’ (E Wakaya)

(36) 	Ingentiyarn    		kerewul 	therremanhthangert.
       	see-PRES-1sgS 	child-PL	 play- NFIN-LIG-ALL
	‘I'm watching the kids playing’

(37) 	Wayipalarrarn     ingenyji  	kilyalirt    nenkerrangert.
        	white.man-1sgS   see-IMPF 	meat-ALL cut-NFIN-LIG-ALL
	‘I've been watching the white fellow cutting up a bullock’

Note the use of the ALL on the subordinate object as well as the verb in (37), as in other languages like Gurindji. All the examples Breen gives are of object control, not of control by non-objects.

4.6 Kaytetye (Arandic, Pama-Nyungan) 

It is unclear if Kaytetye has a full-blown AN construction. Turpin (2000:48) gives the following example where the LOC could be used in other languages rather than the allative –(w)arle, but on the other hand it does involve a ‘putting’ action which may be conducive to use of allative. 

(38)	Weye (re) eletnhenke 	apmere kwereyeng-arle
meat (he) puts.down 	camp 	his-ALL
	‘He puts the meat down in his camp’ 

The allomorphs -le, -nge are used for both ERG and LOC (due to neutralisation of an original difference in vowels in Arandic). Object control does not cause LOC to be changed to ALL in (39), but this is a case perhaps of the whole event being in the scope of the location, which takes LOC in some languages with AN constructions.

(39) 	Elye-nge-pe 		atanthe-pe 	pweyayne-ee
Shade-in-FOCUS  	they-FOCUS  cook.used.to-CONTINUE
	‘They would cook (the meat) in the shade for a long time  (Turpin 2000:83)

-le following a ligative ­nge-  (like Wakaya) is used for same subject ­ Locative subordination (glossed as ‘same actor’ by Turpin 2000:116-117)

(40) 	Ayenge  ane-nge-le  	angkerrane
I.ABS   sit-LIG-LOC  talking
	‘I am sitting talking’

(41) 	Atye 	aherre 		are-nge-le 	aytnenyerre
I.ERG  kangaroo 	saw LIG-LOC speared
	‘When I saw the kangaroo I speared him’ 

ALL ­warle  following a ligative ­nge  is used ‘where the doers of the two
sentences are different’. (Turpin 2000:117).  Turpin glosses them as ‘same and different actor’, but the form is identical to ligative+LOC/ERG (LS) and ligative+ALL (AS).

(42) 	Artweye 	atye 	arenherre 	ape-nge-warle
man 		I   	saw 		go-LIG-ALL
	‘I saw a man going’

(43) 	Artweye atye 	arenherre 	ape-nge-le
man 	  I   	saw 		go-LIG-LOC
	‘I saw a man as I was going’  

In other Arandic languages such as Alyawarre (Yallop 1981) a form which is otherwise used to denote dative case can be used as in (45)-(46) instead of LOC as in (44). The contrast between LOC and DAT in this language may be making a similar distinction as that between LOC and ALL in other languages including perhaps the northern Arandic language Kaytetye: LOC indicates the whole event is in the scope of the location but ALL restricts it to the main clause object alone.  However (47) casts doubt on this interpretation, since DAT is used where both subject and object are in the same location.

Both S and O at location:

(44) 	Amulya 	akngirra 	plain-ila 	atuna.
	lizard 		many.NOM 	plain-LOC 	kill-PCON
	‘(We)  killed a lot of lizards on the plain’

DATIVE as locational OBJECT only

(45) 	Antimirna 		arrpmila 	arika, 		atnkirrika
	sugarbag.NOM 	again 		see.PAST 	coolibah-DAT
	‘(I) saw a sugarbag again, in a coolibah tree’

(46) 	Aylinapa 		line-irnima 		kwatjika-ntiya 		 iwulalpika
	we (du nom 1)+but 	line+SOME+NOM 	water+DAT+STILL leave+PAST
	‘But we left the lines by the water’

DATIVE with both SUBJECT and OBJECT in location

(47) 	Artula 		arrpiyla 	ayliyla 			apmirika.
	man+ERG 	carve+PRES	boomerang+NOM 	camp+DAT
	‘The man is carving a boomerang in camp’

The reasons for choosing DAT over LOC are not entirely clear in Alyawarre, and we may be dealing with a degree of pure optionality here, as is the case in the choice between ALL and LOC in a number of languages where AN occurs. This connection is all the more salient because of the frequent overlap in function between DAT and ALL case-markers in many languages: DAT used for destinations and ALL used for purpose etc. The difference between the northern and southern Arandic languages in this regard requires explanation; possibly Kaytetye has been affected by structural diffusion from its non-Arandic northern neighbours, but this requires more research.

4.7 Yolngu (Pama-Nyungan) 

The AN pattern is also found in the Yolngu languages. The change to ALL only seems to occur when the subject and object are not co-located as in (48); when they are, as in (49) the case-marking remains LOC.

Yolngu   (Schebeck, 1976:356)

(48) 	Yuul=ngu-thu 	taykka-nha 	puu-ya-n	 pala-nga.
man-ERG 	woman-ACC 	hit-Afs-Afv 	house-LOC
	‘The man hit the woman in the house’

(49) 	Yul=ngu-thu 	warakkan-nha  nhaa-ngal 	tharppa-li.
man-ERG 	bird-ACC 	see-Afv 	tree-ALL
	‘The man saw the bird in the tree’.

Morphy, writing of the Djapu dialect of Yolngu  (1983:100) characterises the difference in use as follows:

(locative) locational function is clause wide in scope: a location function case marker (LOC or zero) may only be used if all the participants enumerated are in the same place therefore a sentence like [50] can only mean that he was there and I was there too. If the subject is in one place and the object is in another, the local NP is always marked from the perspective of the subject. Thus  [51] would be appropriate if the man was in the shade and I was outside looking in

(50) 	Ngarra nhaa-ma 	rdarramu-n 	waanga-ngur
1-NOM see UNM 	man-ACC 	camp-LOC
	‘I saw the man in the camp’ [both I and the man in the camp]

(51) 	Ngarra nhaa-ma 	rdarramu-n 	ngurrnggitj-lil
1-NOM see UNM 	man-ACC 	camp-ALL 
	‘I saw the man in the shade’ [I outside shade]

There is no LS or AS pattern in Yolngu.

4.8 Garrwa-Wanyi (Non Pama-Nyungan) 

There is no AN construction in these two closely related languages.

There is LS/AS however. The suffix indicating different subject in (52) is the ALL indicating object control while the suffix glossed indicates same subject in (53) incorporates the LOC suffix, -n(V )following a verbal suffix -j and an epenthetic vowel –i- (Austin 1981; Mary Laughren p.c; Breen 2003:447-9).

(52) 	Manku ngayu 	yanypa-kurri 		yalu-ngi.
hear     I-PRES talk-ALL		they-DAT
	‘I hear them talking’

(53) 	Jungku yali		 ningki-jina		 payakarta 	juka.
sit 	they-PAST	1ook_at-LIG-LOC	small 		boy-ABS
	‘They sat looking at the small boy’

As Austin (1981:328) notes,

Of particular interest is the fact that Garawa-Wanyi -jina REL(SS) contains -nu,
the nominal locative-case suffix (cf. 983.24, 3.3, 3.4), while -kurril-kyurri contains
-rri, which is the allative suffix attached to nouns ending in -a and -u.

In other words the same-subject construction may be related to a LOC suffix  (i.e. LS), and the object or different subject control construction may be related to an Allative (i.e. AS).  Further support comes from Wanyi, where -kurri is a form of the ALL and –nV is the LOC attached to a verbal element –ji in this construction (Mary Laughren p.c.).

4.9 Wambaya (Non-Pama-Nyungan, Mirndi Family, Eastern Branch) 

There is no AN construction in Wambaya.

There is LS in Wambaya. Nordlinger (1998:213) writes that Wambaya marks same subject non-finite clauses with the LOC –ni as in (54). If the subject is different, the ‘infinitive’ suffix –barda/-warda (glossed INF) is used as in (55). 

(54) 	Bungmaji gi-n		 mirra yandu-ji-ni 	barrawu
old_man   3sg-PROG 	sit 	mind-TH-LOC house
	‘The old man is staying looking after the house’

(55) 	Nganki ngiy-a 		lurrgbanyi wardangarringa-ni alaji 	gulug-barda.
this  	3sg-PAST  	grab             moon-LOC/ERG  child	sleep-INF
	‘The moon grabbed her sleeping child’

While there is a division here similar to the AN case, -barda-warda is not used to denote allative meanings.. In Wambaya the ALL is –nmanji and in Gudanji – nma. Nordlinger notes that -barda may also be used for same subject in prior and purposive clauses. However her example 8.14 (56) exhibits -barda on a secondary predicate which is predicated of the object.

(56) 	dulanymi ngiya 	nganki 	gulug-barda.
raise         3sg PAST 	this   	sleep-INF
	‘She awoke him from sleep’

The purposive examples are, however, same subject, like 

(57) 	Yarru 	g-any 	yany-barda 	managanymi-nka
go	3sgS   	get-INF      	food-DAT
	‘I am going to get food’

This duality of use of the -barda suffix is reminiscent of the duality of use of ALL in Warlpiri for purposive and simultaneous action. Note that the subordinate object of the purposive clause is marked with DAT, not ALL. This may be related to the fact that there is no AN.

4.10 Jingulu (Non Pama-Nyungan, Mirndi family) 

No AN construction is mentioned for Jingulu and an example where it could apply in languages with it (5.68 e in Pensalfini 2003:186) LOC is found.

Jingulu has an LS construction and an AS construction according to Kenneth Hale’s field-notes (1960b)  but Pensalfini (2003:127) finds it rare and marginal.

(58) 	Mankiya-nga-ju 	nguk-ajku-mbili
sit-1sg-do          	cry-NOM-LOC
	‘I sit down crying’

(59) 	Ngaja-nga-ju	 mankiya-ju-ngka
see-1sg-do 	sit-do-ALL
	‘I see him sitting, ’

4.11 Wardaman (Non-Pama-Nyungan) 

In  Wardaman, a Non-Pama-Nyungan language north-east of Gurindji, both
LOC and ALL-marked subordinate coverbs and adverbs are found, ALL expressing object control, but the equivalent construction on nominal locative secondary predications (AN) is absent.

Merlan (1994:287-290) reports on ALL and LOC ‘particle complements’. ‘Particle’ is roughly what we are calling ‘coverb’ here for other languages. ALL is found where the complement is of the object of the clause (only direct objects are exemplified). She says ‘adverbs’ like far, close are also ALL marked if they are attributes of the object, but does not indicate whether plain LOC marked phrases as secondary predications have ALL instead if linked to objects (and her example on page 76 indicates they do not), or whether nominalised verbs as well as coverbs behave this way (the implication is that they do not).

(60) 	Mugurn-garr nga-lawu-rri 		borlgob
sleep-ALL    3sg/1sg-reach-PAST   	sneaking
	‘He caught up to me on the sly while I was sleeping’

ALL can also be a marker of purposive as a goal of verb of motion (Merlan 1994:282-3). In this case it can be used with nominalised (non-finite) forms of verbs in contrast to the above marginal AN type which can apparently only be used with ‘particles’ (coverbs). 

(61) 	gurrg-bi-warr 		nganja 	yiwarna-warr lagla-warr
sleep-NFIN-ALL 	1sg-go-PRES	other -ALL      camp-ALL
	‘I’m going to sleep in another place’

4.12 Gooniyandi (Non Pama-Nyungan) 

At least one of the Non-Pama-Nyungan languages in contact with Pama-Nyungan languages in the Kimberley, Gooniyandi, a central Kimberleys Non-Paman-Nyungan language, has LOC subordination (McGregor 1990: 405). The LOC, but not the ALL, can attach to verbs to denote an event going on at the same time as the main clause, regardless of whether this subordinate clause is subject controlled or object controlled.

(62) 	Waranggooddoo	jijag-goowa-ya
they:sit			talk-PROG-LOC
	‘They're sitting talking’ (ex. 5-320 p.407)

(63)  	Danymiliyiddra	jijag-goowa-ya.
we:hear:them		talk-PROG-LOC
	‘We hear them talking’ (ex. 5-317 p.406)

Gooniyandi therefore has the LS pattern, but not AN or AS.

5. History and explanations of the constructions 

In this section we present a summary of the distribution of the types surveyed: AN, LS and AS,  which are also shown on the map  (numbers on the map represent the locations of the languages, as numbered in the table below in 5.1). We then attempt a preliminary explanation of how these patterns developed. 

5.1 Summary of distribution of types 

	PATTERNS	AN	LS	AS	NOTES	
A. NGUMPIN-YAPA	
1	Gurindji	yes	yes	yes	AN where S & O not co-located?	
2	Jaru	no	yes	marginal	AS ‘only with motion’ ?	
3	Warlpiri	yes alternative exists	yes	yes	some complications	
B. OTHER PAMA-NYUNGAN TO THE EAST (with LOC/ERG neutralised)	
4	Warumungu	yes	no	yes	AN applies whether or not S & O co-located	
5	Wakaya	yes	yes	yes	S & O co-location for A not confirmed	
6	Kaytetye	?marginal	yes	yes	other Arandic languages have an AN type construction but use DAT	
C. YOLNGU (Pama-Nyungan, to the north)	
7	Yolngu	yes	no 	no		
D. NON-PAMA-NYUNGAN	
8	Garrwa-Waanyi	no	yes	yes		
9	Wambaya	no	yes	no	different suffix for object-control,not ALL	
10	Jingulu	no	yes	yes		
						
11	Wardaman	no	no	marginal	AS only with coverbs & adverbs	
12	Gooniyandi	no	yes	no		

5.2 Origins of the AN construction 

One of the striking things about AN is that it is found in Pama-Nyungan languages across the VRD and the Barkly Tablelands and in the Yolngu group far to the north, with as far as we know, no occurrence in between.  This could suggest inheritance of this pattern from fairly deep within the Pama-Nyungan family. However the feature is also absent in the western Ngumpin-Yapa languages and is not present in any Non-Pama-Nyungan languages. This suggests that this is perhaps an areal feature, whose origin may be in Tablelands-Gulf Pama-Nyungan, perhaps Warluwarric. The areal spread of the feature must have developed at a time when Yolngu was still in touch with this area: this scenario avoids the unlikely hypothesis of independent invention in two areas.

Apart from its distribution we need to look at how it may have evolved. As noted, this is a rare type of grammaticalisation of a semantic category meaning ‘motion towards’. One conjecture could be that initially this began in contexts which combined motion and transitive objecthood. 

Perhaps the bridging context is verbs of putting. Many of the languages use an ALL case-marker on the locative goal of verbs of 'putting'.   For Alyawarre, Yallop (1981:80) has some interesting examples where he interpolated a "and put "

"I got it (and put it) into a pannikin"
"we dug yams (and put them) into a piece of bark"
"We were cutting bush bananas (and putting them) into a baby carrier”

The situation in Jaru where Tsunoda reports the parallel subordinative use of ALL only in contexts of motion is also suggestive, but the evidence is rather sparse.

Another feature which is found in a number of languages with AN, either categorically or as a tendency, is the requirement that the subject and object be in a different location to trigger a change to AN marking. Alternatively LOC can be seen as marking scope of location as being over the whole clause and ALL functioning to mark restricted scope of the location to the object NP. This may well have been important in the semantic matrix leading to the grammaticalisation, even though it is less clear-cut or even absent in some contemporary languages. The action by the agent on the patient may be conceptualised as motion-like since they are in two locations. This seems to relate typologically  to the ‘directional location’/’fictive motion’ phenomenon in Finnic languages, and this is further commented on in the Conclusions below.

This construction is absent in other western and central Pama-Nyungan languages but there are other constructions which may have played a role in its development, such as the use of Dative in Alyawarre described in 4.6. 

5.3 Origins of LS 

LOC case marking is used not only for spatial location but also for temporal location.  It is thus not surprising that a LOC case can attach to a non-finite verb to produce a subordinate clause with a temporal relation to the main clause. Exactly what the temporal relation is (simultaneous or  preceding) varies from language to language, probably as a result of pressure from other affixes.  The control of the subject of the locative clause is either specifically the subject of the main clause, or can be more general, as in Gurindji.  Forms such as the Warlpiri -rlarni which is built on the LOC case form may reflect earlier stages with other types of marking specifying controllers.

LS may be more widespread than it at first appears. Forms which play a role like LS elements but are not LOC in present-day languages like –kil in Warumungu may be related to more common Pama-Nyungan locatives and specifically forms which have a kV or ngV ligative preceding the old LOC suffix.  In Pama-Nyungan more generally the common subordinating suffix –inyja may be composed of a verbal suffix with the LOC allomorph –ja, historically. 

Dench & Evans (1988:30) observe that in their survey the LOC suffix used to mark same subject only occurs in languages in which the LOC suffix also denotes or has denoted an ergative meaning.  Nordlinger (1998:213) points out that this is not borne out in all languages with LOC subordination, like Wambaya. Gurindji and Jaru discussed here, and other Ngumpin-Yapa languages are also counterexamples, although LOC is not strictly a ‘same subject’ marker in these languages. Pensalfini (2003:128) however follows the general line of argument of Dench & Evans.

Wambaya has a split pattern of marking of subordinate non-finite clauses, but the object control suffix -barda~-warda is not the ALL form in the current language. One possibility though is that this is related to the Wakaya  ALL form –ert .

5.4 Origins of AS and its relationship to AN 

The use of the ALL as marker of the location of the object is almost certainly linked to the use of the ALL as a marker of the control of a non-finite clause by the object of the clause.  One possibility for the bridging semantics is perhaps the extension of locational meaning of the Allative "OBJECT is at the fire" to a more general associative meaning "OBJECT is involved with the fire", and from then on to an explicit verbal meaning "OBJECT is doing something with the fire", which can be represented explicitly by a non-finite verb.  Some evidence for this comes from the fact that in Gurindji, Warlpiri, Warumungu  and Wakaya at least the object of the non-finite verb can, or must, take the same ALL case-marking.

It is noteworthy that all of these languages also have the AN construction, so transfer of object ALL marking to the verb when it has a nominal non-finite form is not a great leap. If both LS and AN exist in a language it might be simply a regular natural process for the ALL marking on nominals to be extended to nominalised non-finite forms of verbs as well as their objects, under object control.

Yolngu stands out as the language with AN but no local marking of non-finite subordination (LS or AS). This indicates that AN was a separate matter from subordination at some early stage across a putative linguistic area including Warluwarric, Ngumpin-Yapa, pre-Warumungu and Yolngu.  It is worthy of note that most of these languages also show the semantic split whereby LOC signals co-location of subject and object and ALL spatial separation of them, fully or to some degree. It seems likely that this was an old feature of AN,  declining in the non-core area – Ngumpin-Yapa and Warumungu. In Warumungu this feature is entirely absent.

The distribution of the AS pattern is generally within the LS area except in one case, Warumungu (and even in this case LS may have existed in the past, as we have noted).   The AN construction area intersects with LS in Warluwarric and eastern Ngumpin-Yapa so it looks likely that the object-control feature inherent in the alternation to ALL in secondary predications on object NPs became transferred to the subordinate non-finite clauses.  This yielded the hybrid AS pattern, which is found across the area of intersection of AN and LS.

5.5 Diffusion of LS and AS outside the core area 

Where LS/AS is found outside the immediate Pama-Nyungan area of overlap of LS and AN, as in Wardaman,  Jingulu, and Garrwa-Wanyi it is likely that the pattern has diffused from the core Pama-Nyungan area to Non-Pama-Nyungan neighbours, since all these languages are adjacent to Pama-Nyungan languages with LS and AS. Wambaya, which also abuts on to Pama-Nyungan languages, has only LS in an obvious form, with a different object control form which may have an etymological link to an ALL form. It seems probable that LS in Gooniyandi is also a case of structural diffusion from Pama-Nyungan neighbours: here the neighbours, like Walmajarri, do not have AS so that would explain its absence in Gooniyandi. Structural diffusion may have been involved in Ngumpin-Yapa because only the eastern languages have the pattern fully; Kaytetye as discussed above, similarly falling together with northern neighbours; and possibly in Warumungu where LS is not clearly present (although it may have been historically as discussed).

6. Conclusions 

We have described three patterns of grammaticalised local case-marking involving Locative and Allative in languages between northern and central Australia. The LS pattern of locative marking of non-finite subordinate clauses is widely distributed on a world scale, but the AN pattern whereby a locative secondary predication can take ALL marking just in case it is controlled by an object in the clause is highly unusual, perhaps unique, and its explanation remains somewhat elusive. These two phenomena have overlapped and created a hybrid, the AS construction which combines these two patterns to provide a means of distinguishing between subject and object control in non-finite subordination.

Rather than regarding all these phenomena as a result of the diffusion of some high-level general conceptual scheme of ‘switch-reference’ it is better to try to chart the effects of particular types of scheme for distinguishing control in their linguo-genetic descent and diffusion within areas, and how they affected each other.

A preliminary conclusion is that the AN construction was an areal feature in a number of Pama-Nyungan languages which are in part discontinuous today but may have been contiguous in the past. This construction intersected with, and affected the LS subordination pattern to yield the AS construction.

This then leaves the issue of why and how the AN construction itself arose. This means of marking of secondary predications on object NPs is typologically rare as a type of grammaticalisation of local case-marking.  In some of the languages in which this occurs it has the special function of singling out the object NP alone as being in the location, rather than the whole event and all the participants. Thus in a certain sense the action ‘moves’ from the agent to a patient literally as they are in different spatial positions and it may be a form of this Path metaphor which is encoded in the AN and eventually AS constructions. This however is unsatisfactory as an explanation of how this construction actually arose and more research is needed on this question.

Another possible approach to AN could take into account that an apparently similar phenomenon is found in ‘directional locatives’ in Finnic languages. The semantics of these directional locatives seems quite different from what occurs with AN in the Australian languages we have been discussing however, e.g. ‘see’ ‘hear’, ‘spear’ etc. There is no implication in the Finnish  example (6) cited earlier that the hunter (subject) is outside the forest (where the object ‘bear’ is) for instance, which would be the case in the most clear-cut cases of semantic differentiation between AN and Locative marking e.g. in Yolngu. However, the common element between AN and the directional locative/fictive motion constructions may be that there is physical separation of the subject and the location of the object at some phase of the event.

There is some evidence in Wakaya, a Warluwarric language, cited above, that a second-phase resultative location of the object separate from the subject is a key element in the motivation of the AN construction. It is possible that the original form of AN in the area formed by Warluwarric and Yolngu at least did embody the use of an ALL form for secondary predication indicating locations of grammatical objects which are perceived as being in a separate location from the subject of the clause. If this results from a biphasic event structure, then this event structure is different from what it is generally thought to be for verbs like ‘see’.  A process which may have resulted in AN of this type is analogical extension of the pattern of verbs which do involve a kind of biphasic event structure - motion of the object as with  ‘put’ - to other transitive verbs. 

The following diagrams compare the kind of event structures involved and how they are handled in the Finnic languages and in those Australian languages which have AN which is not purely driven by grammatical control phenomena but which has a semantic element related to the relative locations of subject and object also. In these diagrams A indicates the transitive subject and O the transitive object. The circles represent the place which is of relevance to the discourse; if A is outside, that means that the subject entity is not perceived as being in the same location as whatever is in the circle.

While clearly the Australian and Finnic phenomena differ in some parameters, they both reflect ways in which a locational case system can be adapted to a particular metaphorical or ‘fictive’ extension of notions of space and co-location in relation to syntactic arguments.  It seems likely that when the AN phenomenon in Australia arose in certain Pama-Nyungan languages it did express this kind of differentiation of co-location and separation of subject and object. But as the grammaticalisation of this phenomenon expanded to expressing types of control in subordination, it also began to lose some of its original semantic character at least in some languages. The subordination strategies, once grammaticalised, were then able to spread by structural diffusion to neighbouring Non-Pama-Nyungan languages.

Comparison of locative and allative secondary predication in Finnic and some Australian languages

References 
Alpher, Barry (2004) Pama-Nyungan: phonological reconstruction and status as a phylogenetic group. In Claire Bowern and Harold Koch (eds) Australian languages: classification and the comparative method, 93-126. Philadelphia/Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Anderson, Greg (2003) Case-Marked Clausal Subordination in Burushaski Complex Sentence Structure Studies in Language 26 (3): 547-571.
Austin, Peter (1981) Switch-reference in Australia. Language. 57: 309-334.
Austin, Peter (1995) Double case-marking in Kanyara and Mantharta languages, Western Australia. In Plank ed. 363-379.
Austin, Peter and Bresnan, Joan (1996) Non-configurationality in Australian Aboriginal languages. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 14:2:215-26
Blake, Barry (1993) Verb affixes from case markers. La Trobe Working Papers in Linguistics. 6:33-58.
Breen, J. Gavan (1974) Wakaya Grammar: informant: Willy Clegg: copy at AIATSIS. 
Breen, Gavan (2003) Wanyi and Garrwa comparative data. In Evans ed, 425-462.
Dench, Alan and Nicholas Evans (1988). Multiple case-marking in Australian languages. Australian Journal of Linguistics, Vol.8 No.1:1-7. 
Dixon, R.M.W  (2002) Australian Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 
Evans,  Nicholas ed. (2003) The Non-Pama-Yungan languages of Northern Australia: comparative studies of the continent’s most linguistically complex region. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics 552.
Fong, Vivienne  (2003) Resultatives and depictives in Finnish. In Diane Nelson and Satu Manninen (eds.) Generative Approaches to Finnic and Saami Linguistics. 201-233. Stanford: CSLI.
Forker, Diana (2008) Non-local use of local cases in Daghestanian languages. Pionier Workshop on Locative case, Radboud University, Nijmegen.
Hale, Kenneth (1960a) Ngarluma fieldnotes. Consultant: Bob Churnside. Roebourne, W. A. AIATSIS Library, MS 966
Hale, Kenneth (1960b) Djingili field notes. AIATSIS MS 869  AIAS tape nos. A4529-30
Hale, Kenneth (1982) Some essential features of Warlpiri verbal clauses. In  S. Schwartz ed. Papers on Warlpiri grammar in memory of Lothar Jagst. 217-315. Darwin: SIL-AAB.
Hale, Kenneth (1992)  Basic word order in two 'free word order' languages. In Doris Payne ed. Pragmatics of word order flexibility, 63-82. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Harvey, Mark (2008) Proto Mirndi: a discontinuous language family in northern Australia. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.
Haspelmath, Martin (1989). From purposive to infinitive: A universal path of grammaticization. Folia Linguistica Historica 10: 287–310.
Grishina, N.M  (1979) Padehnye pokazateli i sluzhebnye slova v strukute slozhnogo predlzheniia ketskogo iazyka. [Case markers and function words in the Ket complex sentence], Candidate degree dissertation abstract, 
Huumo, Tuomas (2006) “I woke up from the sofa”: Subjective directionality in Finnish expressions of a spatio-cognitive transfer In: Helasvuo, Marja-Liisa and Lyle Campbell (eds.), Grammar from the Human Perspective: Case, space and person in Finnish. 41–65, Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Huumo, Tuomas (2007) Force Dynamics, fictive dynamicity and the Finnish verbs of ‘remaining;. Folia Linguistica. 41,2:73-98.
Huumo, Tuomas (to appear) Is perception a directional relationship? – On directionality and its motivation in Finnish expressions of sensory perception. Linguistics.
Laughren , Mary (1992). ‘Secondary predication as a diagnostic of underlying structure in Pama-Nyungan languages’, in Iggy Roca (ed.), Thematic structure: its role in grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 199-246.
---- (in press). ‘Some Warlpiri Non-Finite Clauses Reviewed’, in Rachel Nordlinger (ed.), Australian Journal of Linguistics, Special Issue.
McConvell, Patrick (1983) ‘Only’ and related concepts in Gurindji. Unpublished ms.
McConvell, Patrick (2004) A Short Ride On A Time Machine: Linguistics, Culture History And Native Title. In S.Toussaint ed. Crossing Boundaries: cultural, legal, historical and practice issues in native title. 34-49. Melbourne University Press.
McConvell, Patrick (2006) The grammaticalization of demonstratives as subordinate complementizers in Ngumpin-Yapa. Australian Journal of Linguistics  26.1:107-137.
McConvell, Patrick (in press) ‘Where the spear sticks up’: the variety of locatives in placenames in the Victoria River district, Northern Territory In Luise Hercus and Harold Koch eds.  Place names, old and new. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. 
McConvell Patrick and Mary Laughren (2004) Ngumpin-Yapa Languages. In H.Koch and C.Bowern eds. Australian Languages: Classification and the Comparative Method 151-178.Amsterdam: Benjamins.
McGregor, William (1990) A functional grammar of Gooniyandi. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 
Merlan, Francesca. (1994)  A grammar of Wardaman: a language of the Northern Territory of Australia. In Mouton Grammar Library 11. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
 Morphy, Frances (1983) Djapu, a Yolngu dialect Handbook of Australian Languages Volume 3 1-188
Nordlinger, Rachel (1998) A grammar of Wambaya NT Australia PL   C-140. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics
Pensalfini, Robert (2003) A grammar of Jingulu: an Aboriginal language of the NT PL 536. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.
Plank, Frans ed. (1995) Double Case: Agreement by Suffixaufnahme.  Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rice, Sally and Kaori Kabata (2007)  Crosslinguistic grammaticalization patterns of the allative.  Linguistic Typology. 11.3: 451–514. 
Schebeck, Bernhard. (1976). Yuulngu. In R.M.W. Dixon (ed.) Grammatical Categories in Australian Languages. 350-352 Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies. Simpson, Jane (1981) Ngarluma as a W* language. ms 100p., Massachusetts Institute of Technology. [TO ADD: URL] Simpson, Jane (1988) Case and complementiser suffixes in Warlpiri. In Complex sentence constructions in Australian languages, ed. Peter Austin, 205-218. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Co.
Simpson, Jane (1991) Warlpiri morphosyntax: a lexicalist approach. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Simpson, Jane (2002) A learner's guide to Warumungu: Mirlamirlajinjjiki Warumunguku apparrka. Alice Springs: IAD Press.
Simpson, Jane (2007)  Expressing pragmatic constraints on word order in Warlpiri. In Architectures, rules, and preferences: Variations on themes by Joan W. Bresnan, Annie Zaenen et al. (ed.), 403-427. Stanford CA: CSLI. 
Tamm, Anne (2008) The Finnic Locative Cases and Non-Finite Forms. Pionier workshop on Locative case. Radboud University, Nijmegen.
Tomioka,  Naoko (2008) The distribution and interpretation of adjunct locative PPs. In Asbury, Anna,  Jakub Dotlačil, Berit Gehrke and Rick Nouwen eds. Syntax and Semantics of Spatial P 253–272 Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 120. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. (1978) On the expression of spatio-temporal relations in language.  In Joseph H. Greenberg, Charles A. Ferguson, and Edith A. Moravcsik, eds., Universals of Human Language, Vol. III. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 369-400.
Tsunoda, Tasaku. 1981. The Djaru language of Kimberley, Western Australia: Pacific Linguistics Series B. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.
Turpin, Myfany (2000) A learner's guide to Kaytetye. Alice Springs: IAD Press.
Yallop, Colin (1977) Alyawarra : an Aboriginal language of central Australia Canberra : Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.

[MAP]