Bantu-Nilotic Borderland & Areal Grammaticalization 2000 Kuteva

8/9/2019 Bantu-Nilotic Borderland & Areal Grammaticalization 2000 Kuteva

1/18

Areal grammaticalization:The case of the Bantu-Nilotic borderland

Tania A. Kuteva

AbstractThe issue addressed in the present study is contact-induced change involving the appearance onew Hnguistic structures for the expression of grammatical categories.The paper builds a case for the existence of a particular type of grammaticalization, aregrammaticalization, in a particular language contact area, the Bantu-Nilotic borderland in EasterAfrica. In this area it is possible to observe "loan translation" on a large scale, which is not confined to lexical semantics; it relates to patterns that involve grammatical categories.My main concern is with two languages in the Bantu-Nilotic borderland area, Gusii (BantNiger-Congo) and Nandi (Southern Nilotic, Nilo-Saharan). A particular emphasis is put on thdomain of nominal classification in these languages.1. IntroductionIn this paper I will build a case for the existence of a particular type of grammaticalization, areal grammaticalization, in a particular language contact areathe Bantu-Nilotic borderland in Eastern Africa. My main concern will be wittwo languages in this area, Gusii, called also Kisii, (Bantu, Niger-Congo) anNandi (Southern Nilotic, Nilo-Saharan). In my examination of these languages will focus on an important domain of their grammars, nominal classificationDrawing upon the comparative work done by Dimmendaal (1995a) on the tenssystems of Nandi and Gusii as well as on individual publications on Nilotic anBantu languages, I will argue in favour of a massive, large-scale "loan translation" from Gusii to Nandi, which involves both lexical and grammatical categories.

It must be pointed out that investigation of external causes of grammaticalization is as welcome as it is needed in grammaticalization studies. In the main


2/18

268

remained largely neglected as an important driving force for conceptualisatio and grammaticalization processes, and it is only recently that a growinnumber of linguists have become aware of the importance of areal factors igrammaticalization (Dimmendaal 1995a, Aikhenvald 1996, Bisang 1996, Haas& Nau 1996, Chappell forthcoming, Heine & Kuteva forthcoming a; cf. alsprevious research on contact-induced change in Fisiak 1980, Kastovsky &Szwedek 1986, Weinreich, Labov & Herzog 1968).2. The Bantu-Nilotic borderland2.1 The Nandi-Gusii contact: Socio-historical settingI will consider two languages spoken in eastern Africa, Nandi and Gusii, whichave been in contact for several generations,

Nandi is a Kalenjin language, Kalenjin and Omotic-Datooga are the twbranches of Southern Nilotic (Rottland 1982). Gusii is a Bantu language withwhich the Kalenjin speaking people came first into contact during their expansion southward from Western Kenya. Thus oral tradition states that the Nandgroup left Mount Elgon and slowly moved south-south-east travelling until thereached lake Victoria. At this juncture they turned east and moving along thlake coast through a forest, reached an upland surface behind an escarpmen(Walter 1968:60-62). According to Walter (1968:62), the Nandi migration ttheir present homeland dates back to 1496. In the period following their settlement, the Nandi were left relatively undisturbed for a length of time. The Luoto the south and south-w est, came later. And so did the Bantu group on the wesThe oral literature indicates, however, that by 1850 the Nandi had started theiraids on Luo and Bantu peoples on the south and west. Out of all the Bantuspeaking groups with whom the Nandi got into contact, Walter (1968:94) givethe names of two, the Wanga, and the Kisii, i.e. the Gusii. While the writteevidence is extremely scanty, oral tradition and history provide enough information to indicate that there existed long-term intimate contacts between Kalenjin groups such as Nandi and speakers of Gusii as well as other related Eastern Bantu languages. These contacts are most likely to have involved both tradand intermarriage (Mwanzi 1977:85, cited in Dimmendaal 1995a). Dimmendaa(1995a) reports that during the nineteenth century Nandi wars with neighbouring peoples were punctuated by truces in times of famine. During such truce


3/18

26

On the basis of observations mainly from the tense-aspect systems of Nandand Gusii, in the following subsection, I will argue that a substantial part of thtense-aspect system of Nandi can best be explained as a result of the adaptatioof this language to its neighbouring Bantu languages, and in particular to Gusiby integrating part of the system of the donor language (cf. also Kuteva forthcoming).2.2 Tense-AspectA major characteristic of the Nandi-Gusii contact is the restructuring of thtense-aspect system of Nandi (Kalenjin, Nilotic) on the model of Gusii (BantuNiger-Congo). Dimmendaal (1995a) describes in detail the unidirectionality othe contact-induced change of the tense system of Nandi under the influence oGusii. More precisely, Dimmendaal shows that:

(i) N ilotic languages tend to be aspectual in nature (with a highly grammaticalized perfective vs. imperfective distinction); and

(ii) distinctions for time in these languages may be rendered by adverbof time, usually occurring as independent words sentence finally oinitially, depending on the information structure in a sentence.

Dimmendaal then goes on to demonstrate how Kalenjin, and Nandi in particular, differs from its genetic "sister" languages. Thus Nandi stands out againsthe background of Nilotic languages with its separate set of past tense markers. Moreover, this set involves an extensive past tense marking, which is notably absent from Nilotic. That is, in addition to the basic dichotomy betweeperfective and imperfective aspect in the indicative, there are one non-past tensand three past tenses: hodiernal, hesternal, and distant (Creider & Creider 1989Cognate forms for the Nandi past tense markers, hodiernal, hesternal, and distant are also found in a closely related variety of Kalenjin, Kipsikiis. Thereforit is entirely justifiable to accept Dimmendaal's argumentation that the tensmarking system in Nandi (and other Kalenjin dialects) is an innovation afteOmotic-Datooga and Proto-Kalenjin had emerged as separate Southern Nilotigroups. This innovation can be readily explained in terms of areal diffusion ancontact-induced change. As shown in Dimmendaal (1995a), the way Nandi differs from other Nilotic languages is precisely the way in which it is the "sameas its neighbouring non-Nilotic, Bantu languages like Gusii. Thus, typologically


4/18

270

In Kuteva (forthcoming), I argued that in addition to the tense-system restructuring, particular conceptual-semantic patterns in the aspectual domain oNandi, too, were the result of borrowing from Gusii. I studied in particular thcategory of the proximative. The proximative has been defined as a purely aspectual category which involves a temporal phase located close before the initial boundary of the situation described by the main verb (Heine 1992, Hein1994a, b, c, Heine 1997, Konig 1993, Kuteva 1998, Romaine 1999).

The Nandi proximative structure involves the auxiliary verb eku 'become(in the 3rd person singular past tense form). There are a number of languagespecific characteristics which mark the Nandi proximative as rather "unusual"Firstly, the auxiliary eku can be employed in the proximative construction onlin its past tense form, even though the meaning of the Nandi proximative doenot involve any time reference and the interpretation of a sentence containinthe proximative structure can be either past or non-past. Secondly, the form iwhich the main verb is employed within the proximative structure is rather unusual, too, namely the relative. Note that in Nandi the relative marked by nefor the singular and che- for the plural is sometimes used instead of the personal prefixes. Hollis (1909) provides examples of the Nandi proximative awell as literal translations of the respective Nandi sentences:(1) Nandi (Nilotic, Nilo-Saharan; Hollis 1909:22 7)

Ka- koi- ek ne- rarok- toi asistaPA ST l- 3- becom e REL- fall- ITP/E.IPFV sun.NO M(lit. It has beco m e which descends thither the sun)'The sun is or was on the point of setting' (emphasis in the original)

(2) Nandi (Nilotic, Nilo-Saharan; Hollis 1909: 22 7)Ka- koi- ek ne- nget- e chiito mukuleldoPA ST l- 3- become REL- snap- IPFV person heart.NOM(lit. It has become which he breaks the man the heart)'The man is or was on the point of death' (emphasis in the original).

Thirdly, the employment of the auxiliary verb 'become' is rather rare in AfricaMoreover, an investigation of the most common grammaticalization processein the languages of the world (Heine & Kuteva, forthcoming b) shows that thuse of the verb 'become' for the expression of the proximative is not a crosslinguistic characteristic, either; that is, it is not a pattern attested in languageoutside Africa, either.


5/18

27

The above "rarities'', described for the Nandi proximative, apply in very similar way to the proximative in Gusii, too. Whiteley (1960:63) describes the Gusii proximative as a grammaticalised structure ("a compountense with RADICAL - VERBAL PREFix-fl-[5-/re ko-R^DlC^L-a, 15-" in Whiteleyterminology) consisting of two word forms, and pointing to "[n]o time reference, but rather to a state of affairs 'being about to come into ex istence '":(3) Gusii (Bantu, Niger-Congo; W hiteley 1960:63; glosses with thanks toBernd Heine, p.c.)

A. Kw amanyire eke Gusii?'Do you know G usii?'B. Yaaya, tindaamanya kegfma!

'No, not yet!'A. Korende kw- a- is- ire ko- many- abut PREF- PER F- come/become- PER F INF- learn/know- a'But you've almost learnt it.'-is-, comes from

orpheme meaning (i) 'come', and (ii) 'become' (Mohlig forthcoming). Ither words, the Gusii proximative can be regarded as being based on either th

MOTION {X comes/goes to Y), or the one o(A" becomes Y).The morphological shape of the first component of the Gusii proximativ

-is- (which comes from the morpheme 'come, become') in Gusieku 'become

sii. like in Nandi, this does not restrict the use of the proximativ

owing the auxiliary. Thus, just like in N andi, the secon

VERBAL PREFIX + ko + R O O T + a\n Whiteley (1965:67).


6/18

272

speakers with imperfect knowledge of Gusii) understood the source structurei.e. the Gusii proximative as being based on the CHANGE-OF-STATE pattern {Xbecomes Y). This is, indeed, a plausible scenario because of the fact that therexist two alternative possibilities for the conceptualisation of the Gusii proximative: either in terms of the MOTION pattern {X comes/goes to Y) or in terms othe CHANGE-OF-STATE one (X becomes Y) since the auxiliary involved in thGusii proximative derives from a morpheme with the meanings 'come' on thone hand, and 'become', on the other. In other words, the Nandi-Gusii bilinguals may well have:

(i) interpreted the radical -is- in the Gusii proximative to contribute thinceptive semantics of 'become' within the proximative structure, andthen(ii) "translated" the Gusii proximative structure into Nandi.

Note that the 'become'-proximative in Nandi, described by Hollis (1909), habeen replaced by a new proximative structure in the present-day language, spoken in Kapseret (which is considered to be solidly in the middle of Nandi dialect-wise) which like the proximative in most Bantu languages is based onthe VOLITION pattern {X wants Y):(4) Nandi (with thanks to Chet Creider and Jane Creider, p.c.)ma- ko- rarak- ta asf:s(ta)

want- 3- fall- ITIVE sun.NOM'the sun is about to set'

This recent development, however, does not eliminate the fact of the existencof the first, 'become'-proximative, which as I have proposed is a borrowing from Gu sii.2.3 Nominal classificationMy main concern in the present study of the Nandi-to-Gusii language adaptationis with an important domain of the grammars of the two contact languagesnamely nominal classification.

A traditional treatment of nominal classification systems involves the distinction between the following types:

(a) Gender: Indo-European (Erench, German, Russian)(b) Noun classe s: Bantu, Australian (Dyirbal)


7/18

27

Corbett (1991) has shown, however, that there is no essential distinction between type a), i.e. "gender", and type b), i.e. "noun class systems": "gendercould conveniently include types of nominal classification traditionally referreto as "noun-class systems". Here, I will be using "gender" as Corbett (1991does, i.e. as a cover term for type a) and type b) systems. At this point it must bpointed out that in African linguistics, the term "gender" tends to be used onlwhen sex figures among the bases of classification. One of the few exceptionto this tradition is Heine (1982), who treats both type a) and type b) systems agender systems, sex-based, and nature-based ones, respectively (see the discussion below). In addition to the cover term gender, here I am using another termmuch more general in scope nominal classification to comprise all kindof phenomena related to gender.In the remainder of this paper, I will speak of the nominal classificatiosystem of Nandi as juxtaposed to the nominal classification system of Gusii.

For my present purposes, the issue of exactly how the nom inal classificatiosystem of the one language (Gusii) can be mapped on to the nominal classification system of the other language (Nandi) is irrelevant. What I will be interestein is how these two languages, with initially incompatible nominal classificatiosystems, come to be more similar to each other in the way they classify particular lexemes into particular classes or groups of words.2.3. J Nominal classification systems in African languagesBefore taking a closer look at the nominal classification systems of Nandi anGusii, a short description of nominal classification systems in African languageis due. Heine (1982) identifies three types of such systems all of which halso calls gender systems in the languages of Africa, sex-based, naturebased, and mixed ones.A sex-based system involves the distinction MAS CUL INE (M ) / FEMININE (Fwhere MASCULINE is associated in one way or other with male sex. FEMININbeing associated with female sex. Apart from expressing distinctions of naturasex with animate nouns, the gender systems of many African sex-based languages have a secondary meaning with inanimates: the MASCULINE gendetends to denote big and strong, the FEMININE small and weak items (Hein1982:190-191).A nature-based system has a distinction H U M A N / N O N - H U M A N or ANIMATE


8/18

274

Semantic Characteristics:Human, Non-HumanAnim ate, InanimateKinshipAnimalsPlantsTreesFruitsToolsWooden objectsLiquidsMassesCollective itemsPaired itemsIndividuativesAbstract conceptsCustoms/MannerElongated objectsAugmentative conceptsDiminutive conceptsParts of the bodyPlace: Inside, Definite, Indefinite, Outside

Depending on which particular distinctions are realised in a particular languagewe can speak of particular genders' in that particular language. The genders ardistinguished by nominal affixes (prefixes, suffixes). Swahili is one such language with a nature-based gender system; it has 16 genders. Let us exemplifhow this works by means of the noun for 'tree', which belongs to the gender oliving but non-human entities, and has a nominal affix (prefix) m- for the singular and mi- for the plural:(5) Swahili (Ashton 1959:10)

m- tiPREF.SG- tree'a tree'

vs. mi- tiPREF.PL- tree'trees'

Importantly, each gender has also agreement affixes on the demonstrative, threlative, the verb, and other forms in the sentence. For instance, the agreemenaffix of the gender to which m-ti 'tree' belongs with the demonstrative and thverb in Swahili is M-, cf.:


9/18

272.3.2 Nom inal classification in Nan di and GusiiWhat is characteristic of the nominal classification systems of a number oNilotic languages is the presence of sex-denoting nominal affixes, i.eMASCULINE vs. FEMININE (vs. NEUTER); Nandi is no exception to this. Accordinto Creider & Creider (1989:32), Nandi distinguishes by the morphemes kip ance.'p two large groups of nouns corresponding to masculine and feminine. Holl(1909:158) refers to these as "the particles kip and chep", and states that thformer signifies big, strong, or masculine; the latter something of a small, weakor feminine nature. These morphemes are prefixed to certain substantives anoften form a part of the word, which would be unintelligible without them; thexamples that he gives are summarised below:(7) Nandi (Hollis 1909:158 )Kipsikosiek, the Lumbwa people.Kipsjrochet, the rhinoceros.Kipsoiyet, the cock .Cheptirgichet, the gazelle.Chepkeswet, the small knife.Chepkildet, the little finger.

(Hollis 1909 :158, see also Tucker & Bryan 1966:13).The morphemes kip- and ce:p- are regularly used to draw a distinction betweethe sexes:(8) Nandi (Hollis 1909:15 9)

Kongak vs. Kip-kongak vs. Chep-kongak'one-eyed' 'one-eyed (man)' 'one-eyed (wom an)'

Not only can they be used with nouns; they can also be attached to adjectivesverbs, verb phrases, and even clauses:(9) Nandi (Creider & Creider 1989:5 5-56)

(a) kip- sam is- ngalakip- rotten- words'male who only says bad things'

(b) ce:- ri:reitce:- she.is.crying'girl who cries'


10/18

276

20 years of further research, our know ledge about the distribution of this type onominal classification system does not yield a very different picture: accordinto Creissels (forthcoming: 19), it is a system "encountered in all major brancheof the Niger-Congo phylum, with the only exception of Mande, and in NortherKhoisan". Against this background of our knowledge about the genetic distribution of the nature-based gender systems the following particularity abouNandi is really impressive, and suggests that here we might be dealing with thdiffusion of an important part of nature-based gender systems to the North, i.eto Nilotic languages. Thus we can readily identify a particular structural featurwhich involves the noun olto 'the place' in Nandi. Whereas Nandi nouns do noshow agreement with demonstratives, relatives, etc., and cannot therefore bconsidered to belong to a gender system (see Heine 1982 on the criteria foidentifying gender systems), there exists one noun, olto 'the place', which ca"be classed by its e lf (Hollis 1909:159), i.e. which forms a gender with a singlmember because the demonstrative pronoun and the relative pronoun assumspecial forms when agreeing with it.

The demonstrative pronoun has four forms, one for objects near at handanother for objects at a distance, and two more for objects previously mentioned, cf. (Hollis 1909:186):

for objects at no great distanceNi/I 'this'Chu 'these'referring to things a t a distanceNin/In 'that'Chun 'those'this or those, mentioned beforeNo/0 ' this 'Cho 'these'that/those/yonder, mentioned beforeNon/On 'that'Chon 'those'

The example in (10) below illustrates how the demonstrative for objects at ngreat distance (which has the form -il-ni) is used with nouns in the singular:


11/18

27

(10) Nandi (Hollis 1909:178-179)Chep-iArtan-niKif-iPeny-iTany-iKfrk-i

'this girl''this goat''this thing''this meat''this ox'this bull'

Aiyu6n-ni 'this axe'Ma-i 'this fire, gun'Korkon-ni 'this woman'

It is only for the noun olto 'the place' that the demonstrative pronoun has a special set of agreement forms (Hollis 1909:186):for objects at no great distanceYu 'this'Uli 'these'

referring to things at a distanceYun 'that'Ulin 'those'this or these m entioned beforeYo 'this'Ulo 'these'that/those/yonder, m entioned beforeYon 'that'Ulon 'those'

The example in (11) shows that the sequence noun + demonstrative (which ithe canonical word order for a noun and a demonstrative in Nandi) with oh'the place' stands out as something exceptional against the background of thway all the other nouns combine with demonstratives in the language:( U ) Nandi (Hollis 1909:178)

olio yuplace this'this place'

With the relative pronoun, again, the Nandi language treats olto 'the place' in very "special way". Whereas the form for the relative pronoun is ne in the sin


12/18

278

(13) Nandi (Hollis 1909:187)Piik che-kororon'the men who are beautiful'

(14) Nandi (Hollis 1909:187)Olto ye-kararan'the place which is beautiful'

(15) Nandi (Hollis 1909:187)Oltosiek ye-kororon'the places which are beautiful'

In other words, there exist clear indications that the noun olto constitutes a gender by itself in the nominal classification system of Nandi. Here a series oquestions arise. Even though we are justified to treat olto as a gender in its ownwhy should this be significant for the structure of Nandi? After all, we ardealing with a feature which involves a single item, the word for 'place' in thlanguage. Most likely, it was this very argument a single item in a gender that can explain why linguists working on the language (Tucker & Bryan 1966Toweett 1975) ignore the fact altogether. Another question is: how does thfeature under discussion bear upon the issue of Gusii-Nandi contact and areagrammaticalization in the first place?

What gives us the right to ascribe a special value to the above feature oNandi is the existence in the neighbouring Bantu languages, Gusii in particularof a special gender which consists of a single item. This item is exactly the samas the one in Nandi, namely the word for 'place'. Thus in gender 16 of the nature-based system of Gusii, there is only one word aase 'place'. The verbal prefix is a- and the demonstratives are aa, aaria, agwo ...: aase aaria 'that place(Whiteley 1965:38).

Note that here we are not dealing with a transfer of a morphological form; iis the concept, or rather the exceptional position/status that a particular concephas in the system of nouns in both Gusii, a Bantu language, and Nandi, a Nilotilanguage in contact with Gusii and other Bantu languages.

Note also that we could assume that the Nandi 'place' gender results fromborrowing from Maasai (an Eastern Nilotic language), which, too, has a 'placegender prefix along with masculine and feminine prefixes. Tucker & Mpaaye(1955:3) begin their grammar of Maasai with the statement that nouns are usually found preceded by a prefix ... Thus:


13/18

27

that e-wueji (PREFix-place.SG) with the plural form being i-weji-tin (PREFIXplace-PL), and kaji? (where?=which place?) "seem to be the only two words" ithe 'place' gender. One could then imagine a scenario where the nominal classfication system of Maasai has influenced the nominal classification system oNandi by transferring to it the "idea" that the word for 'place' deserves a gendepartition for itself. While such a possibility cannot be ruled out a prioi, therexist at least three arguments in favour of a Gusii-to-Nandi rather than Maasato-Nandi feature transfer. Firstly, it is much more plausible to assume that Gusis the donor of the Nandi feature under discussion since Gusii but not Maasacan be said to have been the donor of a number of features (lexicaphonological, tense distinctions, aspectual patterns) for Nandi. It is a widelyobserved phenomenon in contact situations that the more features n a languagA has borrowed from language B, the more likely it is for a feature ^ + 7 to bborrowed from that same language B rather than from a third language C.

Secondly, it is much more likely that the direction of borrowing the featurgender consisting of the word for 'place' as a single member is from Bantu languages like Gusii to Nilotic languages like Nandi and Maasai rather than vicversa because (i) it is a feature much more frequent with Bantu languages thawith Nilotic ones; and (ii) Maasai has a similar history of contact with Bantspeakers. In other words, whereas it is true that both Nandi and Maasai have like many other Nilotic languages sex-denoting nominal affixes, it is alstrue that the only Nilotic languages where we come across a 'place' gender arexactly Nandi and Maasai. So Nandi, and Maasai, with their 'place' genderstand out as "the odd men out" against the background of other Nilotic languages. At the same time, this very "oddness" makes them similar to their contact Bantu languages such as Gusii.

Thirdly, the Nandi 'place' gender, with the word for 'place' as its singlmember, corresponds more clearly to the Gusii 'place' gender (which also hathe word for 'place' as a single member) rather than to the Maasai one, whicaccording to Tucker & Mpaayei (1955) consists of two members, the form fo'place' and for 'where?' (='which place?').

Note, however, that, given the fact that languages seldom borrow agreemenpatterns, one may possibly raise an objection to the present analysis: whshouldn't the unusual behaviour of the word 'place' in Nandi and Maasai battributed to retention of a genetically inherited pattern rather than areal diffu


14/18

280

ered on a par with the 'place' gender in Nandi and Maasai, As was argueabove, the 'place' gender in Nandi and Maasai involves a particular way of conceptualising the objective world as divided into three groups of entities, femnine, masculine, and 'place' as the single member entity of its own gender. ThTurkana language, on the other hand, employs a set of locative morphemes iorder to mark common nouns or mass nouns which may be either masculinor feminine as locative complements indicating a place, direction or sourcTherefore Dimmendaal (1983:215-217) treats the set of locative morphemes iTurkana as locative case markers. The examples in (19) and (20) below demonstrate the feminine singular noun mositj 'rhinoceros' in the locative case (witlocative case marker na-), and the masculine singular noun kdrl 'giraffe' (witlocative case marker Id-), respectively:(16) Turkana (Dimmendaal 1983:215)na-mosir)'towards the rhinoceros'(17) Turkana (Dimmendaal 1983:215)16-k6ri'towards the giraffe'To sum up, in this section I have argued that it is very plausible to assume thawe are dealing here with a transfer of a particular grammatical feature fromGusii into Nandi. This feature also happens to constitute a particular gender bitself. Of course, it is too far-fetched to assume that this might be the beginningthe "penetration point", of a process which may lead to appearance of an oveall, coherent, nature-based gender system in Nandi. It is justifiable, however, tassume that the nominal classification system of Bantu languages like Gusii hainfluenced the nominal classification system of Nandi by transferring to it th"idea" that the word for 'place' deserves a gender partition for itself. How exactly has this "idea" been transferred from Gusii to Nandi? What are the precismechanisms? At the present stage of research, this question is too difficult tanswer, and it remains a subject for a future study.3. Concluding remarksIn the previous sections of this work, I have discussed intense areal diffusiophenomena in a particular language contact situation involving Nandi (Niloti


15/18


16/18

282

Dimmendaal, Gerrit. 1995b. "Language shift and morphological convergence in the Nilotic area.Sprachc in der Geschichte in Afrika. 15,Dimmendaal, Gerrit. 1995c. "Do some languages have a multi-genetic or non-genetic origin.'' Aexercise in taxonom y". In: Nicolai & Rottland (eds.), 357-72 .Ehret, Christopher. 1971. Southern N ilotic history: Linguistic approaches to the study of the pasEvanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.Fisiak, Jacek (ed.). 1980. Historical morphology. Trends in Linguistics, Studies and Monograph17. The Hague - Paris - New York: Mouton.Haase, Martin & Nicole Nau (eds). 1996. Sprachkontakt und Grammatikalisierung. A speciaissue of STUF, 49.1.Heine, Bernd. 1982. "African noun class system s." In: Seiler & Lehmann (eds.), 189- 216 .Heine, Bernd. 1992. "Grammaticalization chains." Studies in Language 16/2, 335-368.Heine, Bernd. 1994a. "On the genesis of aspect in African languages: The proximative." Papepresented at the annual m eeting of B LS, Berkeley, 1994.Heine, Bernd. 1994b. "Gram maticalization as an explanatory param eter." In: Pagliuca (ed.).Heine, Bernd. 1997 "Grammaticalization theory and its relevance for African linguistics." In

Robert Norbert (ed.), African linguistics at the crossroads: Papers from Kwaluseni. KolnKoppe, 1-15.Heine, Bernd, Ulrike Claudi & Friederike Hunnemeyer. 1991. Grammaticalization: A conceptuaframework. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Heine, Bernd & Mechtild Reh. 1984. Grammaticalization and reanalysis in African languagesHamburg: Buske.Heine, Bernd & Tania Kuteva. Forthcoming a. "Convergence and divergence in the developmenof African languages: Some general observations." In: R. M. W. Dixon & Alexandra Aikhenvald (eds.), Areal diffusion and genetic inheritance: Problems in comparative linguisticsOxford: Oxford University Press.Heine, Bernd & Tania Kuteva. Forthcoming b. Common grammaticalization processes in thlanguages of the world. Submitted for publication with Cambridge University Press.Hollis, A. C. 1909. The N andi. Their language and folk-lore. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Kastovsky, Dieter & Alexander Szwedek (eds.). 1986. Linguistics across historical and geographical boundaries. Volume 1. Berlin - New York - Am sterdam: Mouton de Gruyter.Kingston, John. 1983. "The expansion of the Gusii tense system." In: J. Kaye, H. Koopman, DSportiche & A . Dugas (eds.): Current Approaches to African Lingu istics, Vol. 2, 1983, 3 156.Konig, Christa. 1993. Aspect im Maa. [AMO, Afrikanistische Monographien 3], Cologne: Unversity of Cologne.Kuteva, Tania. 1998. "On identifying an evasive gram: action narrowly averted." Studies in Language 22: 1, 113-160.Kuteva, Tania. 1998. "Large linguistic areas in grammaticalization: Auxiliation in Europe." Language Sciences 20/3, 289-311.Kuteva, Tania. Forthcoming. "On diachronic stability of grams".Marchese, Lynell. 1986. Tense/aspect in the development of auxiliaries in Kru languages. TliUniversity of Texas at Arlington: Summer Institute of Linguistics.Mbhiig, Wilhelm. Forthcoming. On reconstructing Bantu languages.Moravcsik, Edith. 1978. "Language contact." In: Joseph H. Greenberg, Charles A. Ferguson &Edith Moravcsik (eds.). Universals of human language Vol. I. Stanford University Press. 93123.


17/18

28Seiler, Hansjakob & Christian Lehmann. 1982. Apprehension. Das sprachliche Erfassen voGegenstanden. Teil I.: Bereich und Ordnung der Phanomene. Tubingen: NarrThomason, Sarah Grey & Terrence Kaufman. 1988. Language contact, creolisation, and genetlinguistics. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.Toweett, Taaitta. 1975. Kalenjin nouns and their classification with notes on phonology and noun list appendix. M.A. Thesis, The University of Nairobi, Kenia.Tucker, Archibald Norman & Margaret Bryan. 1966. Linguistic analyses. The non-Bantu languages of North-Eastern Africa. With a supplement on the Ethiopic languages, by WoLeslau. London, Oxford University Press for International African Institute.Tucker, A.N. & J. Tompo ole Mpaayei. 1955. A Maasai grammar with vocabulary. LondonLongman, Green & Co.Walter, Bobbie Joe. 1968. The territorial expansion and organization of the Nandi, 1850-1905: Astudy in political geography. Ph.D. Dissertation. The University of Wisconsin.Weinreich, Uriel, William Labov & Marvin Herzog 1968. "Empirical foundations for a theory olanguage change." In: Winfred P. Lehmann & Jakov Malkiel (eds.). Directions for historica

linguistics: a symposium. A ustin/London : University of Texas Press, 95-195.Whiteley, W. H. 1960. The tense system of Gusii. (East African Linguistic Studies, 4.), KampalEast African Institute of Social Research.Whiteley, W. H. 1965. A practical introduction to Gusii. Nairobi: East African Literature Bureau.Wills, Christopher. 1993. The runaway brain: The evolution of human uniqueness. New YorkBasic Books.Zima, Petr. 1995. Time in languages. Prague: Institute for Advanced S tudies at Charles Univesity and the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic.


18/18

Documents

Bantu-Nilotic Borderland & Areal Grammaticalization 2000 Kuteva