CALL 2016 Colloquium on African Languages and Linguistics Maximilien Guérin maximilien.guerin@univ-paris3.fr Locative, Presentative and Progressive Constructions in Atlantic Languages
Outline Atlantic Languages Structure of the Construction(s) Markers of the Construction(s) A genetic inheritance? Grammaticalisation hypotheses Conclusion 2
Atlantic Languages Location (Segerer 2010) 3
Atlantic Languages Classification 4
Atlantic Languages Locative, Presentative and Progressive Constructions Atlantic languages Very distant (genetically) from each others In world's languages Generally, 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 5
Outline Atlantic Languages Structure of the Construction(s) Markers of the Construction(s) A genetic inheritance? Grammaticalisation hypotheses Conclusion 6
Structure of the Construction(s) Locative Construction: Subject (NP or disjunctive pronoun) + Marker + Locative Phrase Presentative/Progressive Construction: Subject (NP or disjunctive pronoun) + Marker + Verb Phrase 7
Structure of the Construction(s) Laalaa (Cangin) Locative construction Mi yuu ga kaan. PRO1SG LOC PREP home 'I am at home.' Presentative construction Mi yuu tík cëen. PRO1SG PRST cook dinner 'I am cooking the dinner.' 8
Structure of the Construction(s) Joola Banjal Locative construction Atejo umu búsol yaŋ yayu. Atejo COP behind house the 'Atejo is behind the house.' Presentative construction Atejo umu ni bu-rokk. Atejo COP PREP INF-work 'Atejo is working.' 9
Outline Atlantic Languages Structure of the Construction(s) Markers of the Construction(s) A genetic inheritance? Grammaticalisation hypotheses Conclusion 10
Marker of the Construction(s) General form: Amalgam Subject Marker Link Base S DEIC1 CL DEIC2 11
Marker of the Construction(s) 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 12
Marker of the Construction(s) Sereer Me-x-e PRO1SG-CL.HUM;SG-PX 'I am eating.' ñaam-aa. eat-ipfv Laalaa Mi (i) y-uu tík cëen. PRO1SG (PX) CL.HUM;SG-PX cook dinner 'I am cooking the dinner.' Joola Banjal Atejo u-m-u ni bu-rokk. Atejo DEIC-CL-PX PREP INF-work 'Atejo is working.' 13
Marker of the Construction(s) 14
Outline Atlantic Languages Structure of the Construction(s) Markers of the Construction(s) A genetic inheritance? Grammaticalisation hypotheses Conclusion 15
Most Atlantic languages display a locative-presentative construction A genetic inheritance? Structure of these constructions and marker'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 16
A genetic inheritance? 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? 17
A genetic inheritance? Mandinka (Mande) Yír-óo be boy-óo la. tree-det COP fall-det 'The tree is falling.' POSTP Casamancian (Portuguese-based Creole) I na kumé karna di purku. S3SG IPFV eat 'He is eating some pork.' meat of pork Temne (Mel) Ká-gbɛngbɛ kə fúmpɔ k-aŋ. CLk.DF-chili PRO.CLk fall CLk-DT 'The chili is falling.' 18
Outline Atlantic Languages Structure of the Construction(s) Markers of the Construction(s) A genetic inheritance? Grammaticalisation hypotheses Conclusion 19
Grammaticalisation In several Atlantic languages, the marker is similar to demonstrative determiner. Hypotheses: Demonstrative grammaticalized into Locative Copula. In some languages (Cangin, Sereer), Demonstrative first 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. 20
Grammaticalisation path(s): Grammaticalisation Demonstrative determiner Definite determiner Locative copula Presentative marker Progressive marker 21
Grammaticalisation In Proto-Atlantic: *DEIC1-CL-DEIC2 Hypotheses: DEIC2 = deictic marker of demonstrative or definite attested in all languages DEIC1 = agrees with DEIC2 attested in some languages belonging to North (Wolof, Nyun, Cangin) and Centre (Joola) branches CL = agrees (in noun class) with the subject attested in all languages [has frozen in default (human) class in some languages (Palor-Ndut, Buy)] 22
Outline Atlantic Languages Structure of the Construction(s) Markers of the Construction(s) A genetic inheritance? Grammaticalisation hypotheses Conclusion 23
Conclusion 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 24
Conclusion A genetic inheritance No typological convergence No language contact Locative-Presentative Construction from Proto-Atlantic Reconstruction: *DEIC1-CL-DEIC2 Marker grammaticalized from a demonstrative determiner Marker has frozen in some languages 25
Thank you for your attention
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. 27
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. 28
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. 29