Copyright © and Moral Rights for This Thesis Are Retained by the Author And/Or Other Copyright Owners
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
R Poeta, Teresa (2017) Reference to objects in Makhuwa and Swahili discourse. PhD thesis. SOAS University of London. http://eprints.soas.ac.uk/26161 Copyright © and Moral Rights for this thesis are retained by the author and/or other copyright owners. A copy can be downloaded for personal non‐commercial research or study, without prior permission or charge. This thesis cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively from without first obtaining permission in writing from the copyright holder/s. The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders. When referring to this thesis, full bibliographic details including the author, title, awarding institution and date of the thesis must be given e.g. AUTHOR (year of submission) "Full thesis title", name of the School or Department, PhD Thesis, pagination. Reference to objects in Makhuwa and Swahili discourse Teresa Poeta A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Linguistics Department of Linguistics The School of Oriental and African Studies University of London April 2016 Declaration I have read and understood regulation 17.9 of the Regulations for students of SOAS, University of London concerning plagiarism. I undertake that all the material presented for examination is my own work and has not been written for me, in whole or in part, by any other person. I also undertake that any quotation or paraphrase from the published or unpublished work of another person has been duly acknowledged in this work which I present for examination. Signed:........................... Date:............ 1 Abstract The Bantu languages Swahili (G42, Tanzania) and Makhuwa (P31, Mozambique) show a high degree of structural similarity, but differ significantly with respect to their morphological systems of object marking; whereas Swahili has complex paradigm of object markers based on 15 noun class distinctions, in Makhuwa object markers ex- ist only for two classes (1 and 2). Based on original data from Makhuwa-Meeto and Swahili, the thesis explores the implications of this morphological difference for the discourse structures of the two languages. Object markers are a central part of anaphoric relations in Bantu languages, and the thesis shows how other elements interact with them in both languages. The results of the study show that the correlation between morphology and discourse is complex; while there are differences in referential density (the ratio between expressed and non- expressed verbal arguments) between Makhuwa and Swahili, both languages exhibit a high degree of object ellipsis. Pronouns fulfil focus-related and emphatic functions in both languages, and so are rarely used for anaphoric reference, but Makhuwa shows a stronger tendency to use full noun phrases in anaphoric contexts. More generally, the results of the thesis contribute to our understanding of Makhuwa and Swahili object expressions, as well as to a small but growing number of studies on discourse structures in Bantu languages, to the comparative study of Bantu mor- phosyntax, and to the expression of anaphoric relations in discourse more widely. 2 Contents Declaration 1 Abstract 2 Contents 3 List of Figures 10 List of Tables 11 Acknowledgements 13 Glossing and transcription 16 Abbreviations 17 1 Introduction 18 1.1 Introduction and motivation for the research . ..... 18 1.2 Researchquestions ........................... 24 1.3 Introduction to the languages . 25 1.3.1 Makhuwa............................ 27 1.3.1.1 Makhuwa language varieties . 29 1.3.1.2 Makhuwa linguistic material . 30 1.3.2 Swahili ............................. 32 1.3.2.1 Swahili language varieties . 33 1.3.2.2 Swahili linguistic material . 34 3 1.4 Thesisoverview............................. 35 2 Methodology 37 2.1 Introduction............................... 37 2.2 Fieldwork and data collection . 38 2.2.1 Fieldwork techniques and stimuli . 39 2.2.2 Makhuwa context . 41 2.2.3 Swahilicontext ......................... 44 2.3 Datacoding ............................... 46 2.3.1 Transcription and translation . 47 2.3.2 Prosodic segmentation . 49 2.3.2.1 Intonation units . 49 2.3.3 Syntactic segmentation . 53 2.3.3.1 Clauses........................ 54 2.4 Genres.................................. 55 2.4.1 Narratives............................ 55 2.4.2 Proceduraltexts. 56 2.5 Comparative qualitative approach . 57 3 Morphosyntactic theoretical background 60 3.1 Introduction............................... 60 3.2 Objects ................................. 61 3.2.1 Syntactictests ......................... 63 3.2.2 Semantic and pragmatic properties of objects . 64 3.3 Objectmarking ............................. 65 3.3.1 Morphology of object markers . 66 3.3.2 Agreement vs. pronominal theory . 67 3.3.3 Object marking in relative contexts . 68 3.3.4 Semantic and pragmatic hierarchies . 69 3.4 Issuesinrecognisingobjects . 72 4 3.4.1 Double object constructions . 72 3.4.1.1 Symmetric vs. asymmetric languages . 74 3.4.2 Locatives ............................ 77 3.4.3 Transitivity ........................... 81 3.5 Information structure . 83 3.6 Bantu languages : relevant grammatical features . ..... 85 3.7 Summary ................................ 88 4 Discourse theoretical background 89 4.1 Introduction............................... 89 4.2 Textstructure .............................. 90 4.2.1 Coherenceandcohesion . 90 4.2.2 Paragraphs ........................... 93 4.3 Discourse referents/participants . 95 4.3.1 Participant tracking . 96 4.3.1.1 Anaphora . 97 4.3.1.2 Ellipsis........................ 98 4.3.2 Discourse topicality . 98 4.3.3 Activation status of participants . 101 4.4 Application of discourse factors . 102 4.4.1 Bantucontext.......................... 103 4.4.1.1 Object marking and discourse . 104 4.4.2 Referential density (Bickel 2003) . 105 4.5 Discourse analysis coding method . 110 4.5.1 Inherent properties . 111 4.5.2 Activation status of referents . 111 4.5.3 Context ............................. 113 5 Makhuwa grammatical background 115 5.1 Introduction............................... 115 5 5.2 Tone................................... 116 5.3 Referringexpressions. 117 5.3.1 Lexicalnouns.......................... 117 5.3.2 Subjectmarkers. 122 5.3.3 Objectmarkers ......................... 123 5.3.4 Personal pronouns . 128 5.3.5 Demonstratives . 130 5.3.6 Possessives ........................... 133 5.4 Notes on argument structure . 136 5.4.1 Conjoint/disjoint alternation . 136 5.4.2 Double object constructions . 137 5.4.3 Objectellipsis ......................... 139 5.4.4 Information structure . 139 5.5 Makhuwadiscourse. 139 5.5.1 Demonstratives in discourse . 140 5.6 Summary ................................ 147 6 Swahili grammatical background 149 6.1 Introduction............................... 149 6.2 Referringexpressions. 149 6.2.1 Lexicalnouns.......................... 150 6.2.1.1 Subject markers . 152 6.2.2 Objectmarkers ......................... 154 6.2.2.1 Personal pronouns . 160 6.2.2.2 Demonstratives . 164 6.2.3 Notes on the argument structure . 168 6.2.3.1 Double-object constructions . 168 6.2.3.2 Locatives. 171 6.2.3.3 Object ellipsis . 173 6.2.4 Swahili discourse . 175 6 6.2.4.1 Topic and focus . 175 6.2.4.2 Swahili demonstratives in discourse . 181 6.2.4.3 The development of the Swahili object marker (Wald 1979)184 6.3 Summary ................................ 187 7 The discourse properties of Makhuwa and Swahili texts 189 7.1 Introduction............................... 189 7.2 Textstructuring ............................. 189 7.2.1 Prosodic patterns . 190 7.2.2 Semantic-pragmatic evidence . 197 7.2.3 Genres ............................. 199 7.3 Referentialdensity . 201 7.3.1 Referential density: pilot study . 204 7.3.2 Referential density: wider results . 205 7.3.3 Referential density: lessons learned . 208 8 Coding of referents in Makhuwa and Swahili texts 212 8.1 Introduction............................... 212 8.2 Referring expressions paradigms . 213 8.2.1 SubjectMarker(SM). 214 8.2.1.1 Narrative infinitive . 215 8.2.2 Possessives ........................... 220 8.2.3 Objectellipsis ......................... 222 8.3 Discoursefactors ............................ 224 8.3.1 Activation status of referents . 224 8.3.1.1 Introduction: new referents . 225 8.3.1.2 Subsequent mentions: given referents . 228 8.3.2 Referent coding and textual structure . 231 8.3.2.1 In-paragraph progression . 232 8.3.3 Discourse topicality . 235 7 8.3.3.1 Topic chains . 237 8.4 Referring expressions revisited . 242 8.4.1 LexicalNPs........................... 242 8.4.2 Personal pronouns . 243 8.4.3 Demonstratives . 245 8.5 Notes on referring expressions in genres and styles . 250 8.5.1 Commentary vs. narrative . 250 8.5.2 Idiolect ............................. 252 8.6 Summary ................................ 252 9 Object marking and other ways to denote objects in Makhuwa and Swahili texts254 9.1 Introduction............................... 254 9.2 OccurrenceofOMsintexts. 255 9.3 Tracking objects in Swahili texts . 259 9.3.1 Paradigm of referring expressions . 260 9.3.1.1 NP .......................... 264 9.3.1.2 NP+DEM ...................... 266 9.3.1.3 OM+NP ....................... 266 9.3.1.4 OM.......................... 268 9.3.1.5 Object ellipsis . 269 9.3.2 OM vs. object ellipsis . 272 9.3.3 The use of OM + NP in Swahili texts . 281 9.3.4 Discourse topicality . 284 9.3.5 Comparison of commentary and retelling texts . 286 9.3.6 Swahili object tracking: a summary .