9 Africa's Verb-Final Languages
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
9 Africa’s verb-final languages Gerrit J. Dimmendaal 9.1 The verb-final type in a crosslinguistic perspective The position of the verb relative to other constituents within a clause has been claimed by a number of authors to be a predictor of an additional set of syntactic features. Thus, according to Greenberg (1966), verb-initial languages tend to be prepositional rather than postpositional, putting inflected auxiliary verbs before rather than after the main verb; with more than chance frequency, verb-final languages tend to use postpositions, with auxiliary verbs following the main verb. Such inductively based generalizations about the nature of language of course require further analyses and explanations, e.g. in terms of preferred parsing or processing structures for the human mind. In more recent correlative studies of this type, e.g. by Dryer (1992), a distinction is drawn between phrasal and non-phrasal elements. Whereas phrasal elements, such as subject and object phrases or adpositions appear to follow a more consistent right-branching or left-branching pattern cross- linguistically, the position of non-phrasal categories such as adjectives, demonstratives, negative particles, or tense–aspect markers does not seem to correlate with constituent order type, as argued by Dryer. Obviously, constituent order is but one of various factors determining the typological portrait of a language, morphological techniques used in expres- sing syntactic and semantic relations being another important parameter. This latter observation of course is not new; Sapir (1921:120–46) already pointed out that languages may differ considerably in the techniques used for the expression of syntactic relations. The Sapirian typology has been elaborated upon by Nichols (1986, 1992), who also shows that languages may mark dependency relations between categories either on the head or on the dependent constituent; alternatively, both elements may be marked or neither of the two. From the extensive survey by Nichols it also follows that dependent marking at the clausal level tends to favor a verb-final syntax, whereas head- marking tends to favor a verb-initial structure. We now know that languages may further differ considerably in the way they organize information structure within a clause as well as beyond the 272 Africa’s verb-final languages 273 clausal or sentential level, e.g. in narrative discourse. In his seminal study of the storyline in a variety of African languages, Longacre (1990) has shown that verb-initial languages in northeastern Africa investigated by him tend to use special subsecutive verb forms in order to enhance the storyline, whereas verb- final languages in the area tend to use converbs (i.e. morphologically reduced verb forms occurring in dependent clauses) for the same purpose. With these more recent advances in our understanding of language vari- ation, it seems a momentous time to reiterate the question of what constituent order typology is going to bring us, when we try to understand typological variation between languages. Below, I will focus on the question of whether verb-final languages on the African continent manifest a degree of typological consistency that would justify classifying them as exponents of a specific language type. The strategy followed here is the so-called “method of dynamic comparison,” as first proposed probably by Greenberg (1969) in one of his ground-breaking articles, involving a combination of intragenetic and inter- genetic processual comparison. In concrete terms, the application of this method below encompasses a comparison between African languages with a presumed verb-final order, first, on an intragenetic basis, in order to arrive at a proper understanding of the synchronic and diachronic variation between languages which are genetically related, followed by an intergenetic comparison, i.e. a comparison between different genetic groupings. To this end, I will investigate so-called verb-final languages belonging to Afroasiatic, Nilo-Saharan, the Ijoid group within Niger-Congo, and, finally, Central Khoisan languages.1 The somewhat harsh conclusion arrived at below is that, from a typological point of view, “verb- final” languages like the Ijo language Izon and the Omotic language Wolaitta _ _ in fact have very little in common. Typological similarities between African “verb-final languages” compared below appear to be due, first, to genetic inheritance, second, to areal contact, and as further argued below, to so-called “self-organizing principles” in these languages. Consequently, constituent order typology appears to be of relatively little importance if we try to understand where and how languages differ. The main purpose of the present contribution, however, is not to present a nihilistic, deconstructionist picture of constituent order typology. As a kind of alternative, I intend to show what (in my view) the more prominent morpho- syntactic and pragmatic properties of these various genetic groupings are. By presenting a typological portrait of these different genetic units, so to speak, I also intend to show what makes these genetic groupings so different from each other. In addition, I aim to focus on specific analytical issues of particular interest, I believe, for a historical understanding of these various genetic groupings, as well as for language typology in general. 274 Gerrit J. Dimmendaal 9.2 African languages with a presumed verb-final constituent order In his typological survey of constituent order types on the African continent, Heine (1976) arrived at a fourway division. In addition to the Greenbergian division between VSO, SVO, and SOV languages, Heine established a fourth type involving languages manifesting a variation between SAUXOV and SVO. These latter languages also tend to place the nomen rectum (genitive) before the nomen regens, using postpositions rather than prepositions (similar to many verb-final languages). This type is particularly common in West Africa, more specifically in the Mande area and neighboring zones; see, for example, Kastenholz (2003) for a detailed discussion of the so-called “split-predicate case” in Mande languages, where the verb as a functionally complex category is distributed variously over the sentence. Contrary to the more strict verb-final languages (called type D languages by Heine), for example, the verb precedes (rather than follows) the adverbial phrase or oblique constituents in the split- predicate type (referred to as type B by Heine 1976). Greenberg (1966) VSO SVO SOV Heine (1976) CABD In the discussion I will focus on languages for which it has been claimed that the main verb occurs in clause-final or sentence-final position, i.e. on Greenberg’s SOV languages, or Heine’s type D languages. As illustrated below, the actual identification of so-called verb-final languages as a type is already problematic in many cases, given the amount of freedom for constituent order in these languages. In line with more general traditions in typological research, I am taking “surface structures” at face value, i.e. I do not assume that there may be a disparity between “deep structures” and “surface manifestations” of constituent order. Where variation occurs within a language, one constituent order type may be argued to be more basic to the system on the basis of specific criteria such as frequency of occurrence or other criteria, as argued below. I will refrain, how- ever, from claims about one underlying (deep-structure) order in such cases, as is common in current Generative Grammar, where alternative manifestations of constituent order may be derived through movement rules. With respect to so-called verb-final (i.e. type D) languages, Heine (1976) draws a distinction between two subtypes, D1 and D2. In the former, the “consistent SOV type,” heads systematically follow their modifiers. Thus, not only the object, but also the obliques precede the verb; postpositions are used, Africa’s verb-final languages 275 and at the noun phrase level, all kinds of modifiers (including the genitival modifier) precede the head noun. In type D2 on the other hand, one finds the order modifier/head at the clause level, but the order head/modifier in the con- struction of noun phrases: objects and obliques precede the verb, whereas all kinds of noun modifiers follow the noun they modify. As we shall see below, the former (D1) pattern is common in Omotic (Afroasiatic) languages, whereas the latter (D2) is more widespread in Nilo-Saharan languages in the eastern Sahel region, although the two subtypes (modifier–head as against head–modifier) in actual fact are part of a continuum. As pointed out by Dryer (1992), on the basis of a worldwide survey of head/modifier relations at the clausal and phrasal (NP) level, similar discrepancies are found in so-called verb-final languages outside Africa. It is exactly these kinds of disparities between phrases and clauses which motivated Dryer to draw a distinction in his constituent order typology between phrasal and non-phrasal constituents. 9.2.1 Afroasiatic Some sixty years ago, Leslau (1945) pointed towards a set of properties which appeared to be shared between Ethio-Semitic languages and neighboring groups belonging to the Cushitic branch within Afroasiatic. These properties included phonological, but also morphosyntactic features as well as constituent order, such as a verb-final constituent order. Leslau (1945) further argued that substratum influence (or shift-induced interference and imposition from Cushitic, in more modern terms) lead to this convergence area.2 As argued by Tosco (2000), the notion of an “Ethiopian language area” as such is false, given the disparity of typological features found within the country. But the author agrees that SOV constituent order is a good example of an areal feature in fact “attested ...well outside Ethiopia ...” (2000: 344). As already observed by Heine (1976), there are also various Nilo-Saharan lan- guages mainly to the west of the Ethiopian region, and extending into Nigeria and Niger, which manifest a similar constituent order pattern.