Upload
others
View
2
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Maximilien Gué[email protected]
Locative, Presentative and Progressive Constructions in Atlantic Languages
CALL 2016Colloquium on African
Languages and Linguistics
2
Atlantic Languages
Structure of the Construction(s)
Markers of the Construction(s)
A genetic inheritance?
Grammaticalisation hypotheses
Conclusion
Outline
3
Atlantic LanguagesLocation
(Segerer 2010)
4
Atlantic LanguagesClassification
5
Atlantic languagesVery distant (genetically) from each others
In world's languagesGenerally, verbal morphology renews itself quickly (Creissels 2006)
↳ Verbal morphology displays a lot of differences within Atlantic languages
However, in most Atlantic languages: Locative construction May be used as Presentative or Progressive construction Structure of the constructions & Form of the markers
Specific to Atlantic languages
Atlantic LanguagesLocative, Presentative and Progressive Constructions
6
Atlantic Languages
Structure of the Construction(s)
Markers of the Construction(s)
A genetic inheritance?
Grammaticalisation hypotheses
Conclusion
Outline
7
Locative Construction:
Presentative/Progressive Construction:
Structure of the Construction(s)
Subject(NP or disjunctive
pronoun)+ Marker +
LocativePhrase
Subject(NP or disjunctive
pronoun)+ Marker +
VerbPhrase
8
Locative constructionMi yuu ga kaan.PRO1SG LOC PREP home'I am at home.'
Laalaa (Cangin)
Structure of the Construction(s)
Presentative constructionMi yuu tík cëen.PRO1SG PRST cook dinner'I am cooking the dinner.'
9
Locative constructionAtejo umu búsol yaŋ yayu.Atejo COP behind house the'Atejo is behind the house.'
Joola Banjal
Structure of the Construction(s)
Presentative constructionAtejo umu ni bu-rokk.Atejo COP PREP INF-work'Atejo is working.'
10
Atlantic Languages
Structure of the Construction(s)
Markers of the Construction(s)
A genetic inheritance?
Grammaticalisation hypotheses
Conclusion
Outline
11
Marker of the Construction(s)
General form:
Amalgam
Subject Marker
Link Base
S DEIC1 DEIC2CL
12
The marker may fuse with the subject pronoun (S)
The marker is constituted by: a deictic marker (DEIC1)
(which may be a link with the subject pronoun) a base, constituted by:
a noun class marker (CL) another deictic marker (DEIC2)
CL usually agrees with the subject DEIC1 usually agrees with DEIC2
Marker of the Construction(s)
13
Sereer
Me-x-e ñaam-aa.PRO1SG-CL.HUM;SG-PX eat-IPFV
'I am eating.'
Laalaa
Mi (i) y-uu tík cëen.PRO1SG (PX) CL.HUM;SG-PX cook dinner'I am cooking the dinner.'
Joola BanjalAtejo u-m-u ni bu-rokk.Atejo DEIC-CL-PX PREP INF-work'Atejo is working.'
Marker of the Construction(s)
14
Marker of the Construction(s)
15
Atlantic Languages
Structure of the Construction(s)
Markers of the Construction(s)
A genetic inheritance?
Grammaticalisation hypotheses
Conclusion
Outline
16
Most Atlantic languages displaya locative-presentative construction
Structure of these constructions andmarker's form are similar in most languages
Coherent with the actual classification: All languages without specific marker belong to
some groups (Tenda-Jaad, Manjaku, Balant, Bijogo) In languages of the same group,
markers have similar forms
Attested in the two main branches (North and Centre)↳ come from Proto-Atlantic
A genetic inheritance ?
17
In languages in contact with Atlantic languages:
Soninke & Mandinka (Mande)↳ markers derive from perception verbs (see, look)
Jalonke (Mande) Casamancian (Portuguese-based Creole) Zenaga (Berber) Mel languages
↳ construction and marker formally different↳ no link between Locative and Presentative
One exception: Temne (Mel)↳ Language contact ?
A genetic inheritance ?
18
Mandinka (Mande)
Yír-óo be boy-óo la.tree-DET COP fall-DET POSTP
'The tree is falling.'
Casamancian (Portuguese-based Creole)
I na kumé karna di purku.S3SG IPFV eat meat of pork'He is eating some pork.'
Temne (Mel)Ká-gbɛngbɛ kə fúmpɔ k-aŋ.CLk.DF-chili PRO.CLk fall CLk-DT
'The chili is falling.'
A genetic inheritance ?
19
Atlantic Languages
Structure of the Construction(s)
Markers of the Construction(s)
A genetic inheritance?
Grammaticalisation hypotheses
Conclusion
Outline
20
In several Atlantic languages,the marker is similar to demonstrative determiner.
Hypotheses:
Demonstrative grammaticalized into Locative Copula.
In some languages (Cangin, Sereer), Demonstrativefirst grammaticalized into Definite Determiner.
In some languages (Palor-Ndut, Buy, Wolof),the Determiner has frozen (human class).
Locative Copula has been used as Presentative Marker, and/or grammaticalized into Progressive Marker.
Grammaticalisation
21
Grammaticalisation path(s):
Grammaticalisation
Demonstrativedeterminer
Definitedeterminer
Locativecopula
Presentativemarker
Progressivemarker
22
In Proto-Atlantic: *DEIC1-CL-DEIC2
Hypotheses:
DEIC2 = deictic marker of demonstrative or definiteattested in all languages
DEIC1 = agrees with DEIC2attested in some languages belonging to North(Wolof, Nyun, Cangin) and Centre (Joola) branches
CL = agrees (in noun class) with the subjectattested in all languages[has frozen in default (human) classin some languages (Palor-Ndut, Buy)]
Grammaticalisation
23
Atlantic Languages
Structure of the Construction(s)
Markers of the Construction(s)
A genetic inheritance?
Grammaticalisation hypotheses
Conclusion
Outline
24
In most Atlantic languages:
Locative construction,may be used as Presentative or Progressive construction
Link between Locative, Presentative and Progressive not peculiar to Atlantic languages, but attested in a lot of languages (various families)
(Heine & Kuteva 2002)
Structure of the construction & Form of the marker Specific to Atlantic languages Not attested in languages
in contact with Atlantic languages
Conclusion
25
A genetic inheritance
No typological convergence
No language contact
Locative-Presentative Construction from Proto-Atlantic
Reconstruction: *DEIC1-CL-DEIC2
Marker grammaticalized froma demonstrative determiner
Marker has frozen in some languages
Conclusion
Thank you
for your attention
27
References
Alton, Paula D'. 1987. Le Palor. Paris: CNRS Éditions. Arnott, David W. 1970. The Nominal and Verbal Systems of Fula. Oxford: OUP. Bai-Sheka, Abou. 1991. Prédication non verbale en temne. Afrikanistische
Arbeitspapiere 26. 113-126. Bao Diop, Sokhna. 2013. Description du baynunk guñaamolo, langue minoritaire du
sénégal : analyse phonologique, morphologique et syntaxique. PhD dissertation. Paris: Inalco & Dakar: UCAD.
Bassène, Alain-Christian. 2006. Description du jóola banjal (Sénégal). PhD dissertation. Lyon: Université Lyon 2.
Biagui, Noël Bernard. 2012. Description générale du créole afro-portugais parlé à Ziguinchor (Sénégal). PhD dissertation. Paris: Inalco & Dakar: UCAD.
Creissels, Denis. 2006. Syntaxe générale, une introduction typologique. Paris: Lavoisier.
Creissels, Denis. 2015. Copulas originating from ‘see / look’ verbs in Mande languages. Paper presented at the Symposium “Areal patterns of grammaticalization and cross-linguistic variation in grammaticalization scenarios”, Mainz, 12-14 March.
Creissels, Denis & Pierre Sambou. 2013. Le mandinka : Phonologie, grammaire, textes. Paris: Karthala.
Cover, Rebecca T. 2010. Aspect, Modality, and Tense in Badiaranke. PhD dissertation. Berkeley: UC.
28
References
Diagana, Ousmane M. 1995. La langue soninkée. Paris: L'Harmattan. Dièye, El Hadji. 2011. Description d'une langue Cangin du Sénégal : le laalaa
(léhar). PhD dissertation. Paris: Inalco & Dakar: UCAD. Diouf, Jean-Léopold. 2009. Grammaire du wolof contemporain, Édition revue et
complétée. Paris: L'Harmattan.
Diouf, Jean-Léopold & Marina Yaguello. 1991. J'apprends le wolof. Paris: Karthala. Doneux, Jean Léonce. 1991. La place de la langue buy dans le groupe atlantique de
la famille kongo-kordofan. PhD dissertation. Bruxelles: Université Libre de Bruxelles.
Ferry, Marie-Paule. 1991. Thesaurus tenda : Dictionnaire ethnolinguistique de langues sénégalo-guinnéennes (bassari, bedik, konyagi). Paris: Peeters.
Guérin, Maximilien. 2016. Les constructions verbales en wolof : Vers une typologie de la prédication, de l'auxiliation et des périphrases. PhD dissertation. Paris: Université Sorbonne Nouvelle.
Heine, Bernd & Tania Kuteva. 2002. World Lexicon of Grammaticalization. Cambridge: CUP.
Lüpke, Friederike. 2005. A grammar of Jalonke argument structure. PhD dissertation. Nijmegen: Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen.
Morgan, Daniel R. 1996. Overview of grammatical structures of Ndut: a Cangin language of Senegal. MA thesis. Arlington: University of Texas.
29
References
Ndao, Dame. 2011. Phonologie, morphologie et structures syntaxiques du pepel. PhD dissertation. Paris: Inalco & Dakar: UCAD.
Payne, Stephen. 1992. Une grammaire pratique de kwatay. Dakar: SIL. Quint, Nicolas. 2015. Le système des classes nominales en nyun de Djifanghor. In
Denis Creissels & Konstantin Pozdniakov (eds.), Les classes nominales dans les langues atlantiques, 407-443. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe.
Renaudier, Marie. 2012. Dérivation et valence en sereer : Variété de Mar Lodj (Sénégal). PhD dissertation. Lyon: Université Lumière Lyon 2.
Segerer, Guillaume. 2002. La langue bijogo de Bubaque (Guinée Bissau). Louvain: Peeters.
Segerer, Guillaume. 2010. The Atlantic languages: state of the art. Paper presented at the Workshop “Genealogical classification of African languages beyond Greenberg”, Berlin, 21-22 February.
Soukka, Maria. 2000. A Descriptive Grammar of Noon: A Cangin Language of Senegal. Munich: Lincom Europa.
Taine-Cheikh, Catherine. 2010. The role of the Berber deictic and TAM markers in dependent clauses in Zenaga. In Isabelle Bril (ed.), Clause-Linking and Clause-Hierarchy, 355-398. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Trifkovič, Mirjana. 1969. Le mancagne. Dakar: IFAN. Wilson, W. André. A. 1961. Outline of the Balanta language. African Language
Studies 2. 139-168.