Its Grammatical Constructions and Illocutionary Devices
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
EWE: ITS GRAMMATICAL CONSTRUCTIONS AND ILLOCUTIONARY DEVICES Felix Kofi Ameka A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy of the Australian National University January 1991 ii Except where otherwise indicated, this thesis is the original work of the author iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS It is a pleasure to thank all those who have helped me over the years in one way or another, directly or indirectly during the preparation of this thesis and in my training. Thanks are due to my supervisors Tim Shopen and Anna Wierzbicka for their intellectual and moral support throughout my study in Australia. They have commented on various parts of this work and the work would have been better if I were able to implement all their suggestions. I would like to thank my teachers both in Ghana and Australia for the training I have received from them. Special thanks are due to Alan Duthie of University of Ghana, Legon, Bob Dixon, and Anna Wierzbicka. Alan Duthie first introduced me to the rigours of Ewe linguistics and also encouraged me to view language from functional and semantic perspectives. He has continued to criticise, challenge, appreciate and encourage me in the work I do across the miles. Bob Dixon through his research continues to inspire and stimulate my interest in describing languages. Anna Wierzbicka enkindled my interest in empirical semantics, and taught me how to discover and state the meanings that are encapsulated in various linguistic devices. Anna’s approach to life and linguistics continues to fascinate and inspire me. I have benefited from discussions with many friends and colleagues on many aspects of linguistics and some of the topics investigated. I would like to thank Bob Bugenhagen, Nicholas Evans, Melanie Wilkinson, Enoch Iwamoto, David Wilkins, Cliff Goddard, Hilary Chappell, Bill McGregor, Patrick McConvell, David Nash, Jane Simpson, Helen Ludellen, Lisette Frigo, Yoshiko Sheard, Avery Andrews, and Chris Collins (of MIT). In the last two years of working on this thesis I have had several challenging discussions over cups of “Felix Specials” with my good friends Debbie Hill, Andy Butcher, Ian ‘P.’ Green, Nick P. Reid, and Nick B. Piper. For detailed comments on individual chapters (or parts there of) I am indebted to Bob Bugenhagen, Chris Collins (of MIT), Alan Duthie (of Legon) Mary Keleve (of Legon), David Wilkins, Cliff Goddard, Hilary Chappell, Bill McGregor, Lisette Frigo, Yoshiko Sheard, Debbie Hill, Ian ‘P.’ Green, Nick ‘B’. Piper, and Johanna Nichols. I was fortunate to have the opportunity to discuss some of the ideas expressed in this thesis with staff and students of the Linguistics Department of the University of Ghana, Legon during 1987-88 academic year. I would like to thank the participants in the course I taught on the ‘The Semantics of Ewe Grammar’ during that time. They are James Esegbey, Rose Gudu, Kafui Ofori, Comfort, and Osei Tutu. Discussions with several native speakers during that time, including Gilbert Ansre, Sami Seddoh, Francis Asilevi, Komla Tsey and especially Mary Keleve, helped to clarify some of my doubts. iv Many people, both in Australia and Ghana have given me a lot of support, moral and otherwise, over the years. I would like to give special thanks to the families of my friends mentioned as well as to the Banfuls, Evelyn Liz, Nii, Elaine and Ebenezer, the Agyemangs, Kate, Adrian and Augustus and other Ghanaian families in Canberra for their support. Thanks are also due to Amoo-Appau, Stephanie Short, and Helen Ludellen for being very good friends. I am grateful to my parents, brothers and sisters for bearing with my living far away from them and for their support and constant encouragement. For financial support, I am indebted to the Australian National University who offered me a PhD scholarship . The final production of this thesis could not have been possible without the collaborative effort of my special friends Debbie Hill, Ian Green, Helen Ludellen and Nick Piper. They read through the final drafts and saved me from saying what I did not intend to say (but they also helped me to say some things in slightly different ways). Helen also helped me to implement some of the changes on the computer. Ian and Helen helped me to do the final printing. To all these people, I say ‘ne´ me-ku´ la´, mi-ga-fa avi o’ ‘When I die, do not mourn for me.’ Felix Ameka Canberra, December 1990. v ABSTRACT This thesis primarily provides an overview of Ewe grammar and a detailed investigation of the meanings of specific grammatical constructions and illocutionary devices in the language. The basic idea behind the study is that every grammatical and illocutionary construction or device encodes a certain meaning which can be discovered and stated so that the meanings of different devices can be compared not only within one language but across language boundaries. An attempt is made to explain the usage of grammatical forms from different perspectives. Priority is given to semantic, functional and discourse-pragmatic concerns although formal constraints and diachronic considerations are also invoked in the explanations. A major concern throughout the thesis is to characterise the communicative competence of a native speaker of Ewe. Chapter 1 contains introductory material about the language, the theoretical and methodological assumptions and the aims and organisation of the thesis. The body of the thesis is divided into four parts. Part 1 is a brief overview of the structural grammar of Ewe. It consists of three brief chapters. Chapter 2 describes the phonology while Chapters 3 and 4 provide information on the basic morpho syntax of Ewe. The other three parts are organised on the basis of three (macro) functions (Halliday's semantic metafunctions) of language: propositional, textual and interpersonal. Part II is concerned with the grammatical coding of some cognitive domains: qualities or property concepts as coded by adjectivals (chapter 5); aspectual meanings, specifically the semantics of the ingressive and perfective aspect markers (chapter 6); and possession (chapter 7). Part III examines the grammatical resources available to the Ewe speaker for structuring and packaging information in a clause. The constructions investigated here encode the different perspectives a speaker can assume with respect to how to present the message being conveyed or with respect to how a participant in the situation is conceptualised. Chapter 8 deals with scene- setting topic constructions. Chapter 9 describes “nyá-inverse” constructions and presents them in a typological perspective. Chapter 10 investigates the different ways of conceptualising an 'experiencer' in Ewe through the different grammatical relations such an argument can assume in a clause. Part IV is concerned with the illocutionary devices and constructions used in interpersonal communication. The description of the illocutionary devices is preceded by two chapters that serve as background for the understanding of the other chapters. Chapter 11 discusses the ethnography of speaking Ewe. vi Chapter 12 explores some theoretical issues in the analysis of illocutionary devices. The illocutionary devices are described in the remaining three chapters. Chapter 13 describes the modes of address in Ewe. Chapter 14 analyses various interactional speech formulae. This part and the thesis ends with an investigation of the significance of interjections (Chapter 15). Each part is preceded by a short overview about the rationale for its organisation. vii ABBREVIATIONS A Actor ADD addressive prticle Adj adjective AdvER adverbialiser AP adverbial phrase AUGM augmentative COND conditional COMP complementiser COMPL completive compv comparative CQ content question markerDEF definite article DEMDemonstrative DET determiner DIM dimunitive aFOC argument focus marker FUT future HAB habitual INGR ingressive INDEF indefinite INT intensifier INV inversion marker IRR irrealis LOC locative LOG logophoric pronoun MOD modal N nominal NP nominal phrase NEG negative OBJ object OBLOBJ oblique object NER nominaliser NPRES non-present pFOC predicate focus PFV perfective PL plural marker POR (=X) possessor POSS(=Y) possessum poss possesive linker PRES present PRO pronomional PROG progressive purp purposive Q question RED reduplicative REL relativiser REP repetitive SBJV subjunctive segp segmental particle SER serialising connective SUBJ subject SG singular TP terminal particle TRIP triplication U Undergoer VP verbal phrase VS verb satellite 1 first person 2 second person 3 third person (*x) unacceptable if x included *(x) unacceptable if x omitted The following abbreviations are used for linguistic theories etc. GB Government and Binding GPSG Generalised Phrase Structure Grammar LFG Lexical Functional Grammar RG Relational Grammar NSM Natural Semantic Metalanguage viii I have also used the following general abbreviations: cf. confer cp. compare etc. et cetera e.g. for example i.e that is lit. literally In interlinear glosses fused morphesmes are indicated by a colon between them e.g. nE is gloosed as to:3SG ‘to him/her’ The Ewe examples are mostly produced in ipatimes. For this reason capitals are not used when they might be expected to achieve consistency. Because the Ewe examples appear in a distinct font, they have only been made bold or underlined when necessary. ix TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements iii Abstract v Abbreviations vii Table of Contents ix List of Tables xix List of Figures xx Map xxi Chapter 1 Introduction 1.1 Preliminaries...........................................................................................................1