COMPARATIVE TENSE AND ASPECT IN THE MARA BANTU LANGUAGES: TOWARDS A LINGUISTIC HISTORY by JOHN B. WALKER A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES LINGUISTICS We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard ……………………………………………………. Jamin Pelkey, PhD; Thesis Supervisor ……………………………………………………. Sean Allison, PhD; Second Reader ……………………………………………………. Oliver Stegen, PhD; Third Reader TRINITY WESTERN UNIVERSITY October 24, 2013 © John B. Walker Abstract The Mara region of Tanzania is a densely populated area that contains at least 22 Bantu speech varieties in addition to the Nilotic languages Luo and Taturu (Hill et al. 2007; Mitterhofer & Robinson 2012). In Maho’s updated version of Guthrie’s geographically influenced classification system, the Bantu speech varieties of the region are divided into the JE25 and JE40 groups (Maho 2009). To a large degree this classification corresponds with the proposed genetic linguistic sub-groups of “Mara” (most of JE40) and “Suguti” (JE25), which are purportedly related to each other under the East Nyanza branch of Great Lakes (GL) Bantu based on lexical similarity in core vocabulary, shared lexical innovation/borrowing, and insight from other scientific fields like archaeology and palynology (Schoenbrun 1990). Additionally, Schoenbrun’s (1990) study on GL Bantu further subdivides “Mara” into North Mara and South Mara groups. More recent studies interested in comparative linguistics amongst the Mara languages have focused on vowel systems (Higgins 2011: 267-275) and discourse (Rundell 2012). The primary goal of this current research is to compare the TA systems amongst the Mara languages with the aim of finding any shared “individual-identifying” innovations (Nichols 1996); these can then serve as a basis for subgrouping linguistic varieties and gaining a better understanding of historical relationships between them. A secondary goal is to provide a preliminary linguistic description of the TA systems of the Mara languages, which is an area of study that has previously been lacking. The five core speech varieties under examination are Ikizu (JE402, [ikz]), Ikoma (JE45, [ntk]), Kabwa (JE405, [cwa]), Simbiti (JE431, [ssc]), and Zanaki (JE44, [zak]). Additional data is drawn from previous studies (Nurse 2007: 127-129 based on Whiteley 1960; Cammenga 2004; Mwita 2008) on two other Mara languages, Gusii (JE42, [guz]) and Kuria (JE43, [kuj]), to broaden the scope of the comparative analysis. The primary data for this study was gathered in each of the five core languages through the elicitation of 91 Swahili sentences and an oral text based on events in a short film called “Pear Story” (University of California at Berkeley 1975; Chafe 1980). Based on other TA studies in Bantu (Nurse 2008; Botne 2013; Botne & Kershner 2008), this data is presented and compared in three sections. The first section covers various degrees of past and non-past tenses, as well as referential tenses referring to sequential events in a narrative. Following this, a number of aspectual properties of Bantu (including Anterior/Perfect, Progressive/Continuous, Habitual, Persistive and Inceptive) are observed in the Mara languages. The third section looks at several modal categories (Subjunctive, Conditional, Hypothetical and Potential) and other related verbal categories (Negation and Relatives). This mass of data is then analyzed in light of other comparative studies in GL Bantu (Schoenbrun 1990; Nurse & Muzale 1999; Nurse 2008) to determine whether there is evidence from TA comparisons to support the hypothesized Mara genetic grouping and also to ascertain the relationship between the North Mara and South Mara languages. The final conclusion of the study is that, although the languages all show evidence of a TA system related to Proto-GL, there is not a sufficient base of shared individual-identifying innovations that unite the TA systems of all the Mara languages. Instead, there is stronger evidence for a split between the North Mara (Kuria, Simbiti, and Kabwa) and the South Mara (Ikizu, Zanaki, and Ikoma) sub-groups, with some overlap between the systems of Simbiti (North Mara) and Ikoma (South Mara). This lends favor to an interpretation of a short-lived Proto-Mara language that soon became a dialect chain with Proto-North and Proto-South varieties still in contact with each other. After a while these became distinct languages with their own internal dialect variation, but the varieties closest to the contact zone (pre-Simbiti and pre-Ikoma) shared some common features with each other. iv Acknowledgements The process of writing a thesis has been full of frustrations and joys, but the journey has also produced great personal growth. This study is by far the biggest single task I have ever set out to accomplish and its completion is due to the input, advice and encouragement of many people. First of all, I am very grateful to my thesis advisor, Dr. Jamin Pelkey, under whose tutelage I have had the privilege of learning many important lessons both in linguistics and in life. His teaching has provided me with a solid philosophy of language that undergirds a more holistic approach to my work in linguistics. Additionally, his advice on specific matters of detail on this thesis has improved the final product. I am also appreciative of the input I have received from my other readers, Dr. Sean Allison and Dr. Oliver Stegen. They have brought their distinctive areas of expertise to bear on this thesis, which has stretched me beyond where I would have otherwise gone. I thank Sean for his comments on descriptive linguistic standards and ideas for how to incorporate that into this research. I thank Oliver for his suggestions about academic writing as well as his wealth of knowledge on Bantu languages that far exceeds my own. I also am grateful to both men for their recommendations on further background research that has proven invaluable in increasing the academic quality of the thesis. I am incredibly thankful for the five Tanzanian language consultants I worked with from the Ikoma, Ikizu, Kabwa, Simbiti, and Zanaki language groups. Unfortunately, due to confidentiality agreements required by research ethics, I cannot disclose their names. Without their help there would be no thesis, so I look forward to working with them more in the future and giving them full credit for further input on their languages. v I also received input from linguistic experts on the Mara languages and I thank them heartily. I thank Holly Robinson ( née Higgins) for her general encouragement and also for her insight into the Ikoma language, which has proven difficult to analyze. I thank Hazel Gray for sharing her knowledge on the Ikizu and Zanaki languages, even in the midst of working on her own thesis. I also thank Tim Roth for spurring me on in the task and for giving input on how to integrate and apply theoretical insight to Bantu historical and comparative linguistics. Additionally, I want to thank those who were instrumental in facilitating different aspects of my Thesis Defense so that a teleconference could be held from three different locations on two continents. These people include Rod Casali, Dave Jeffery, Diane Beaton and Andrew Sweet. On the non-linguistic side of things, I have received invaluable emotional support from my family. My parents, Doug and Marilyn Walker, and my brother and sister-in-law, Kevin and Janelle, have continually shown an interest in my work and prayed for me. Most of all, I thank my dear wife, Ellen, for her unceasing support of me in the seemingly endless task. Though I know she was often tired of my busy schedule and ready for me to be finished, she still helped me to set aside time to work on the thesis. I love you dear and appreciate you more than you can imagine! Most importantly, abundant thanksgiving is due to the One, creator and king, who enabled me to think and write in the first place and to whom all true theoretical insight points. With His enabling, I hope that this is the foundation for a fruitful academic career in linguistics. vi List of Figures Figure 1: Nurse’s Conceptual Framework for Analyzing TA in Bantu (2008: 10-14) ................. 16 Figure 2: The Slots on the Bantu Verb (adapted from Nurse 2008: 40) ...................................... 19 Figure 3: The Hierarchical Structure of the Verbal Word (adapted from Nurse 2008: 42) .......... 20 Figure 4: Map of the Speech Varieties in the Mara Region of Tanzania ..................................... 28 Figure 5: Great Lakes Bantu and its Sub-groups (adapted from Schoenbrun 1990: 136) ............ 32 Figure 6: Possible Relationships between P 3 and P 4 in Kabwa and Gusii ................................... 66 Figure 7: Possible Links Between - a(a) - and - á- Formatives in Ha and Kabwa .......................... 90 Figure 8: Compounding/Inflection Cycle for Combined TA Forms ......................................... 114 vii List of Tables Table 1: Various Degrees of Past Reference in the Mara Languages .......................................... 59 Table 2: Various Degrees of Non-Past Reference in the Mara Languages .................................. 78 Table 3: Various Forms Related to the Present Tense in the Mara Languages ............................ 94 Table 4: Present, Past, and Future Progressives in the Mara Languages ................................... 103 Table 5: Persistive Marking in the Core Mara Languages .......................................................