Studies in African Linguistics Volume 8, Number 3, December 1977
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Studies in African Linguistics Volume 8, Number 3, December 1977 SOUTH CENTRAL NIGER-CONGO: A RECLASSIFICATION Patrick R. Bennett and Jan P. Sterk University of Wisconsin A major revision is proposed of the genetic classification of the languages grouped by J. Greenberg under Niger-Kordofanian. Special attention is given to the groups traditionally called Kwa and Benue-Congo, which are now mostly reclassified under the single heading South Central Niger-Congo. Traditional comparative methods and lexicostatistical data based on a computer-aided study were used. Huch importance is given to lexical innovations and clusters of innovative isoglosses marking significant subgroupings. The greatest departures from previous classifications lie in the Central Niger group, where Idoma has been included, and among the Bantoid languages, now grouped under the heading Benue-Zambesi, where Guthrian Bantu does not appear to constitute a valid grouping. 1. Content and Hethodology This is a revised version of a paper presented to the 8th Conference on African Linguistics under the title "Benue-Kwa: Internal and External Relations". 1 Its purpose is to present the results of .a preliminary re evaluation of a part of the genetic classification of the languages 0f Africa proposed by Westermann [1927J and expanded and modified by Gret'n berg [1966J. We focus on the languages classified by Greenberg as Kwa and Benue-Congo, profitting from ongoine; research in the field, including comparative studies of individual subgroups, and from a larger corpus of language data than has been previously available, including unpublished materials. We have been able to reach some specific conclusions as to the position of these languages within the larger framework of Niger Congo (perhaps Niger-Kordofanian) and as to their interrelationships. lWe regret the inconvenience caused by the change of' title. How ever, we feel that the term "Benue-Kwa" still incorporates the tradi tional division between "Kwa" and "Benue-Congo" which we suggest should be abandoned. Hence: South Central. Niger-Congo, or SCNC. 242 It should be pointed out that the broad outlines of preceding class ifications are generally confirmed; the areas of controversy examined here are at the level of subgrouping. Any new insights gained in subgrouping are due not so much to improvement in comparative technique as to the more reliable data which permit refinement of cognate recognition. How ever, the technique of what Greenberg has called "mass comparison", while often adequate for demonstrating relationship, is not best suited for investigation of degrees of relationship and subgrouping. It is not the intention of the present paper to dwell on the methods used to arrive at our conclusions. A full account of the procedures followed and their theoretical justification is being prepared for pub lication elsewhere. However, some account of the methodological back ground is necessary here. The study of South Central Niger-Congo (SCNC) falls into two main subdivisions, one focussing on external, the other on group-internal re lationships. The former rests primarily on a number of lexicostatistical studies, including a short-list general survey of the languages classed by Greenberg as Niger-Kordofanian, a study of body-part vocabularly (some 60 items) in a group of about 45 languages covering Niger-Kordofanian, a large-scale study of lexical relationships within Benue-Congo, and a study covering Niger-Congo generally but focussing on Kwa and Benue-Congo. The last-mentioned was done specifically for the present investigation, and was a computer-aided weighted-count study of an 87-gloss list involving the fifty languages listed in Table 1 [Tables are in the Appendix at the end of this articleJ. Multiple entries from individual languages were in cluded, which allowed some compensation for ambiguous or overlapping items; 'arm' and 'hand' were treated as a single gloss even where languages dif ferentiated the two, as were 'bee' and 'honey'. In the latter case, some languages treat 'honey' as primary, with 'bee' equalling, for example, 'fly of honey'. In others, 'bee' is primary, with 'honey' equivalent to 'water (or fat) of bee'. In yet others, the two were distinct. Treatment of 'bee-honey' as a single gloss and admission of multiple entries permitted recognition of cognacy even with semantic skewing, while avoiding double recognition of cognacy as would frequently have occurred had the two been treated as separate glosses. The list of the 87 glosses is given in Table 2. Cognacy evaluation was on a three-level scale; the first level marked as cognate all items for which a probable common origin could reasonably be assumed. Wherever possible, the necessarily somewhat subjective assess ment of similarity was checked against the known or observable patterns of regular correspondence. Thus such recurrent sound shifts2 as that of assumed original *t in some environments to r- in Yoruba-Igala, or the shi ft of assumed original *ku to fL in certain Ijo items, were used to confirm or in some cases deny impressionistic evaluations of cog~ nacy. The second level divided cognate sets into subgroups. Thus in the case of the gloss 'tongue' a reflex of th= pattern *mel would be marked at this level as different from items matching a pattern *Iem, though the assumed original connection between the two alternants was reflected in their first level evaluation as cognate. The third level was used to distinguish subdivisions of finer detail, as for example, separating nom inals with identical stem but non-corresponding class. The computer program (designed by P. Bennett) analyzes the data in different ways, the two most important being a calculation of the per centage of entries from each language shared with each other (the results given in Table 3) and the determination for each language of the ten lan guages sharing the most cognates (results given in Table 4).3 Both calcu lations were done at the first and second level of cognacy. However, for 2It should be remembered that in our present state of knowledge there are only a few groups where it is as yet safe to speak of truly regular correspondences. 3This chart should be read as follows: following the names of the languages are ten columns (numbered from 1 through 10). The fig ures in the first column indicate the closest languages, those in the second column the second closest languages, etc. Figures are given in pairs separated by a colon: the first figure of the pair indicates the language (numbered from 1 through 50 as in Table 1), the second figure of the pair indicates the number of cognates shared by the two languages. A and B are the two levels of cognacy. For example: the language closest to Grebo (number 1) is number 2 (Newole). The two share 36 cognates at the first level of cognacy (A), and 21 at the second level (B). The language which is second closest to Grebo is Yoruba at the first level of cognacy with 26 items in common, at the second level of cognacy it is Kassene with 7 items shared, etc. 244 the percentage chart a 18% cut-off level was chosen as a minimcilll below which any distinctions become meaningless. 4 Blanks in Table 3 indicate that the degree of cognacy dropped below the cut-off level. Because of this procedure the run-through of this part of the program at the second level of cognacy was only marginally interesting: almost all relations fell below the 18% mark and the print-out was nearly com pletely blank except within closeknit subgroups. A third level run through was not therefore attempted. The percentages in Table 3 are not presented in the usual form of a lower matrix without the diagonal. The reason is that although the number of glosses for each language is the same, the total number of entries may vary since some languages may have more than one entry for one gloss, while other languages may lack entries for particular glosses (see above). Therefore it usually happens that the percentage of items in language A shared with language B may be different from the percentage of items in language B shared with A. The figures in Table 3 should be read horizontal ly to obtain the figures each language (listed in the lefthand column by its number assigned in Table 1) shares with each other language (listed in the top row, also by number). For the second calculation, that of the ten closest languages (Table 4) actual numbers of cognates are given, not percentages, and no cut-off point was chosen. This permits a calculation at first (A) and second level (B) of cognacy (third was again omitted). The tabulation of the second level, B, gives evidence for closeknit subgroupings within the clusters indicated at the more generous level A. 5 4The precise figure of 18% was chosen rather arbitrarily. Depend ing on the languages and data, cut-off at anywhere from 15% to 25% is normally reasonable. The 18%, while a little low, seemed appropriate to the diversity of the languages studied. 5For example: both on the percentage chart and even more clearly on the "10 closest" chart (on both levels of cognacy) Idoma patterns consistently as a regular Niger-Kaduna language. The decision to include Idoma as a subgroup with Niger-Kaduna under a common Central Niger node was made primarily on the basis of these data. Compared to Idoma, Yoruba, (looking at the "10 closest" chart) although close to the Central Niger languages at the first or most generous level of Table 5 shows the geographical location of the fifty languages and the isoglosses for the word for 'head' which is diagnostic for the overall classification. Lexicostatistics, while useful for preliminary gross subgrouping, is not--if used alone--adequate for indication of fine degrees of relation ship.