INTRODUCTION:
(Ki) Swahili is an agglutinative language which is derived from the immediate family of the Northeast coast Bantu languages in a broader sense. As a language from Afro-Asiatic (AA) group of languages it demonstrates a tendency towards inflection (Myachina 1981:22) Though spoken as a mother tongue in a wide ranges of places in an East African Urheimat; such as South Somalia, North Mozambique, Tanzania, Kenya (Pete, Lamu, Pemba, Zanzibar, and Mafia), Uganda, Congo, Burindi, Zambia, Malawi, Zaire, Mozambique, Madagascar, and the Comoro Islands – speakers are also found in Oman, included are the United Arab Emirates. It is spoken in many other places as a second language (Myachina, 2). There are some fifty-million (50,000,000) speakers of this language worldwide. As a Southern Cushitic subgroup (Heine 2000: 81,95) of Bantu language the term “Swahili” is derived from the Arabic term “Sahila” meaning “coast” and forms part of the proto-Bantu family of languages. Since it also belongs to the eastern group of Bantu languages which displays Myamweze as a language, and dialects such as those from the Iramba plateau, Pokomo, Taita, Taweta, including the Kilimanjaro Hill Tribes, Djaga, Mishi, Meru, Pare, included Asu from the Sambala dispensation, Bondei, Zigula, Zaramo, Sagra, Gogo, Hehe, Pogoro, Baena, especially Makonde, all form certain distinguishing patterns. Nurse and Spear (1985: 39) see the language though influenced mainly from Arabic through trade and other cultural contacts as one maintaining a technical vocabulary from proto-Bantu times in the Stone Age. A Latin script derived from proto-Sanaitic aleph-bet forms its backbone. MORPHOPHONEMICS FOCUS: SOME SWAHILI NOMINALS AND CONCORDIAL PREFIXES
Present day Swahili is mainly an S V O language. It shares this feature with most Romance Languages like, Latin, French, Italian, Romanian, and many others. This includes Chinese (cf. Hariehausen 1990, cf Dyer 2006:7) and Bulgarian. The example in (1) shows Swahili S V O word order.
(1) Ni - li - kul – a
s v o (ind) (c.f. Deen 2005:187)
“I ate it”
Proto-Swahili /Bantu used traditionally 22 noun clauses. Presently sixteen are in usage.
Some examples used in (2).
Noun classes, (1 & 2) ie. “persons/prefixes/m/mu/wa/ as in m-toto; “child”(sing.); wa-toto (pl.) “children” (3 & 4) “nature” /m/mu/mi/ as in m-to; “river” mi-to “rivers”. (5 & 6) “class” /ji/ma/ as in jitu; “giant”
ma-jitu “giants (7 & 8). “inanimate” /ki/ma/ as in ki-tabu, vi-tabu, “books”
( 9 & 11). Abstract nouns, mass nouns /n/u/as in n-gurumo, “thunder” U-zuri, “beauty” (zuri-beautiful) (15 & 16). “verbal nouns” /ku/pa/s/ in ku-soma “reading” pa-moja “together” ( 16 & 17) /ku/mu/ as in mu-ngu “god creator”.
When Bernstein (2008: 1250) constructs between NP and DP are applied in semantic and
a functional term to his predicate/arguments with regards Swahili lexical heads, nouns and verbs interesting data can be culled. Note Swahili contains no (null) determiners.
Thus determinerless nominals predicate rules the day. For example the following examples in (3):
(a) Omino amewasili leo (Omino has arrived today)
(b) Omino amewasili kuyu sika (Omino has arrived day)
The obvious Np in 3 (a) follows a reasoning of Stowell (1989) and Longobardi c.f
Bernstein 1994: 1251) as a predicate and not DP as an argument. Though mention is made of the DP function and the adjoining clause can assume a predicate as opposed to obvious argument. Whilst 3 (b) contains the recipe of “definitive nominal phrase” using the morpheme as a determiner phrase this day. (Bernstein, 1257) shows true argument.
BIBLIOGRAPHYAnderson, S.R., “Inflectional Morphology” ed. Shopen, Timothy, Language Typology and Syntactic Descriptive: Grammatical Categories and Lexicon, Vol. II, 1985, p. 250 -2001.
Bernstein, Judy B., Reformulating the Determiner Phrase Analysis, Language and Linguistics Compass, Blackwell Publishing, 2008, p. 1246-1270.
Deen, K., The Acquisition of Swahili, J. Benjamin Publishers Co, Aneston Philadelphia,
2005, p.185.
Dyer, M.S. World Order Clause Structure, Language Typology and Syntactic Descriptions, Vol. I, ed. by Shopen, Timothy, Cambridge University Press, 2006, p. 7.
Haman, E., Early Productivity in Derivation Case Study of Diminutives in Acquisition of Polish, Psychology of Language and Communication, Vol. 7 No. 1, 2003, p. 39.
Heine, B., A, African Languages An Introduction, ed. Nurse, D., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge MA, 2000, p. 81 & 95.
Myachina, E.N., Swahili Language: A Descriptive Grammar, Trans. Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd., London, 1981, 2 & 22.
Nurse, D. &, Spear T.T., Swahili Reconstructing The History and Language of An African Society 800-1500, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, 1985, p. 39
Y.T. MODEIRE
Saturday, October 24, 2009
APPLICATIVE CONSTRUCTIONS IN BANTU-SWAHILI IN LIGHT OF MARTHA McGINNIS' "APPLICATIVES"
APPLICATIVE CONSTRUCTIONS IN BANTU-SWAHILI IN LIGHT OF MARTHA McGINNIS "APPLICATIVES"
Maria Polinsky(2005) studied theLinguistic phenomena of Applicative Construction and mapped its distribution in the global language order.She believes that this kind of construction is based on what as object arguments the predicate selects in construction. This position might seem flimsy and lacking in buoyancy when McGinnis’s theory (2008, 125) on Applicatives proposes that syntactically extra elements added to a clause, basically (non-core objects) be viewed as applicative constructions. Both of their positions may seem a clearer river measured across the global spectrum of languages landscapes which portray morphemic and agglutinative- rich, affixional, and especially verb medial language elements apt for such constructions. It may not be the whole story though when Polinsky expresses that an applicative marker (usually) takes two objects,especially the theme which she demonstrates in data obtained from (Tukang Besi, 1999, p. 231; cf Polinsky in Hasplemeth et al 2005 sec 109). Note the control between the basic construction or 2-place predicate viewed in A and the supposed applicative construction or 3 place predicate noted in B of 1.
1. a. no-ala te kau
fetch the wood
b. no-ala-ako te ina-su te kau
fetch the mother my the wood
What do applicatives themselves really emphasize and convey? In the free range yet constrained word order of syntactic acquisition noticed in old world language speakers do these applicatives evince convenient morphophemic developments?.Or are they new playthings of overzealous lexicalists and othe theorists? McGinnis whose interest is in the architecture of human languages throughout her paper on Applicatives points out the data rich Bantu languages especially Kinyarwanda thoroughly discoursed (Kimenyi 1980 c.f Mc Ginnis 2008,1225-1229) in context serves not only as sound inflectional examples but as syntactic movement in MLC. In this instance Applicative Morphemes, affix, and especially suffixes as syntactic elements adds especially to the clausecoupled with movement to the sbject position. Applicative Morphemes such as –ir/-er applicative morphemes also –iish,and locative applicative suffix –ho appear as thematic categories to compensate different arguments limited to the verb which need not be replicated here as a demonstration in context (cf McGinnis 1225).
Benefactive Data
In this regard one can note the identification of benefactive/instrumental applicative marker in Bokusu language (2007,7)as four allomorphs example.Note that in 2. Bokusu is a key to only Swahili lexis but syntax,mrhology and all those other linguistic spectrum observed in Bantu-Swahili configuration.
1. a. n-a-lim-il-a luu-saala
1stper-tense-cultivate-APP-FV CL11-stick
"I cultivated with the stick."
b. n-a-keend-el-a omu-xasi
1stpers-tense-walk-APP-FV CL1-woman
"I walked for the woman."
c. n-a-ar-ir-a e-nyuungu luu-saala
1stpers-tense-break-APP-FV CL9-pot CL11-stick
"I broke the pot with the stick."
d. wanjala er-er-er-a en-goxo e-yaywa
wanjala thirdperson-tense-kill-APP-FV CL9-chicken CL9-axe
"Wanjala killed the chicken with the axe."(c.f Peterson,7)
These structures of applicative construction above shows multiple applicatives such as provided in the Kinyawanda data but DOC carefully avoided. Though we must accept McGinnis’s (1226) certitude of such thematic categories of applicatives themselves,reflecting the usual suspects,of benefactors, malefactives, recipients, sources, locatives, including instrumentals and others. Multiple applicatives are not replicated in this instance. But detransitive verbs accompanied by theme and argument form benefactive/instrumental applicatives from a to d of the above required distance of applicative construction unlike references to DOC as quite suited for the argument movenent discoursed. Whence, it is duly noted, that (1227) DOC configuration though involve as "applicative" "lacks overt applicative morphology".It is quite possible that further discussion on lower applicative (would accompanying IO with DO) and constructed high applicatives (McGinnis and Gerdts, 2004, 155-156) require no direct relation between two in semantic interpretation and movenents or bindings in internal documentations will serve to clarify the entire matter. That depth is beyond the scope of the present discussion.
Conclusion
Though polemics of applicative constructions has been conducted by linguists. The certitude that they spring from the constraints to affixes in verb phrases is possible .That they make their appearance in the free range word order language societies. Perhaps the observance is adequate enough. However, when Spanish grammarians became aware of this feature in South America other places for example Austronesia, Western Pacific, Mesoamerica, Salish, Abkhaz, Abaz, Georgia, Russia, Cacos, and also Bantu-Swahili languages they featured prominently to Linguists. McGinnis et al, have gone on to demonstrate benefactive/instrumental applicative serve to portray according to Peterson "symmetrical treatment of their object".
BIBLIOGRAPHY
D. Haspelmath et al, The World Atlas of Language Structure, Dolinsky, cf Haspelmath et al, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2005, p.109.
McGinnis, Martha and Gerdts, Donna. 2004. A phase theoretic analysis of Kinyarwanda multiple applicatives. Proceedings of the 2003 Canadian Linguistic Association Annual Conference, ed. by
Sophie Burelle and Stanca Somesfalean, 154-65. Montreal, Canada: Cahiers Linguistiques de L’Universite du Quebec a Montreal.
Peterson, David A., Applicative Construction, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2007, p.9.
Y.T. MODEIRE
Maria Polinsky(2005) studied theLinguistic phenomena of Applicative Construction and mapped its distribution in the global language order.She believes that this kind of construction is based on what as object arguments the predicate selects in construction. This position might seem flimsy and lacking in buoyancy when McGinnis’s theory (2008, 125) on Applicatives proposes that syntactically extra elements added to a clause, basically (non-core objects) be viewed as applicative constructions. Both of their positions may seem a clearer river measured across the global spectrum of languages landscapes which portray morphemic and agglutinative- rich, affixional, and especially verb medial language elements apt for such constructions. It may not be the whole story though when Polinsky expresses that an applicative marker (usually) takes two objects,especially the theme which she demonstrates in data obtained from (Tukang Besi, 1999, p. 231; cf Polinsky in Hasplemeth et al 2005 sec 109). Note the control between the basic construction or 2-place predicate viewed in A and the supposed applicative construction or 3 place predicate noted in B of 1.
1. a. no-ala te kau
fetch the wood
b. no-ala-ako te ina-su te kau
fetch the mother my the wood
What do applicatives themselves really emphasize and convey? In the free range yet constrained word order of syntactic acquisition noticed in old world language speakers do these applicatives evince convenient morphophemic developments?.Or are they new playthings of overzealous lexicalists and othe theorists? McGinnis whose interest is in the architecture of human languages throughout her paper on Applicatives points out the data rich Bantu languages especially Kinyarwanda thoroughly discoursed (Kimenyi 1980 c.f Mc Ginnis 2008,1225-1229) in context serves not only as sound inflectional examples but as syntactic movement in MLC. In this instance Applicative Morphemes, affix, and especially suffixes as syntactic elements adds especially to the clausecoupled with movement to the sbject position. Applicative Morphemes such as –ir/-er applicative morphemes also –iish,and locative applicative suffix –ho appear as thematic categories to compensate different arguments limited to the verb which need not be replicated here as a demonstration in context (cf McGinnis 1225).
Benefactive Data
In this regard one can note the identification of benefactive/instrumental applicative marker in Bokusu language (2007,7)as four allomorphs example.Note that in 2. Bokusu is a key to only Swahili lexis but syntax,mrhology and all those other linguistic spectrum observed in Bantu-Swahili configuration.
1. a. n-a-lim-il-a luu-saala
1stper-tense-cultivate-APP-FV CL11-stick
"I cultivated with the stick."
b. n-a-keend-el-a omu-xasi
1stpers-tense-walk-APP-FV CL1-woman
"I walked for the woman."
c. n-a-ar-ir-a e-nyuungu luu-saala
1stpers-tense-break-APP-FV CL9-pot CL11-stick
"I broke the pot with the stick."
d. wanjala er-er-er-a en-goxo e-yaywa
wanjala thirdperson-tense-kill-APP-FV CL9-chicken CL9-axe
"Wanjala killed the chicken with the axe."(c.f Peterson,7)
These structures of applicative construction above shows multiple applicatives such as provided in the Kinyawanda data but DOC carefully avoided. Though we must accept McGinnis’s (1226) certitude of such thematic categories of applicatives themselves,reflecting the usual suspects,of benefactors, malefactives, recipients, sources, locatives, including instrumentals and others. Multiple applicatives are not replicated in this instance. But detransitive verbs accompanied by theme and argument form benefactive/instrumental applicatives from a to d of the above required distance of applicative construction unlike references to DOC as quite suited for the argument movenent discoursed. Whence, it is duly noted, that (1227) DOC configuration though involve as "applicative" "lacks overt applicative morphology".It is quite possible that further discussion on lower applicative (would accompanying IO with DO) and constructed high applicatives (McGinnis and Gerdts, 2004, 155-156) require no direct relation between two in semantic interpretation and movenents or bindings in internal documentations will serve to clarify the entire matter. That depth is beyond the scope of the present discussion.
Conclusion
Though polemics of applicative constructions has been conducted by linguists. The certitude that they spring from the constraints to affixes in verb phrases is possible .That they make their appearance in the free range word order language societies. Perhaps the observance is adequate enough. However, when Spanish grammarians became aware of this feature in South America other places for example Austronesia, Western Pacific, Mesoamerica, Salish, Abkhaz, Abaz, Georgia, Russia, Cacos, and also Bantu-Swahili languages they featured prominently to Linguists. McGinnis et al, have gone on to demonstrate benefactive/instrumental applicative serve to portray according to Peterson "symmetrical treatment of their object".
BIBLIOGRAPHY
D. Haspelmath et al, The World Atlas of Language Structure, Dolinsky, cf Haspelmath et al, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2005, p.109.
McGinnis, Martha and Gerdts, Donna. 2004. A phase theoretic analysis of Kinyarwanda multiple applicatives. Proceedings of the 2003 Canadian Linguistic Association Annual Conference, ed. by
Sophie Burelle and Stanca Somesfalean, 154-65. Montreal, Canada: Cahiers Linguistiques de L’Universite du Quebec a Montreal.
Peterson, David A., Applicative Construction, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2007, p.9.
Y.T. MODEIRE
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)