Kujireray: Morphosyntax, Noun Classification and Verbal Nouns
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Kujireray: morphosyntax, noun classification and verbal nouns Rachel Watson Thesis submitted for the degree of PhD in Field Linguistics 2015 Department of Linguistics SOAS University of London 1 Declaration for SOAS PhD thesis I have read and understood regulation 17.9 of the Regulations for students of the 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 I also undertake that any quotation or paraphrase from the published or unpublished work of another person has been duly acknowledged in the work which I present for examination. Signed: ____________________________ Date: _________________ 2 Abstract The thesis constitutes a first description of the Joola language Kujireray. In addition to a grammatical sketch, it comprises an analysis of the noun classification system in Kujireray, including a detailed treatment of verbal nouns and their interaction with this system. The analysis takes place within a Cognitive Linguistics framework. The noun classification system is shown to be semantically motivated along such parameters as number and physical configuration. The semantic analysis is carried out at the level of the noun class paradigm, which approach is able to draw a more fine-grained picture of the structure/organization of the system. However, it is recognized that noun classification operates on three distinct but interdependent levels – the paradigm, the noun class prefix, and the agreement pattern – all of which contribute meaning. The analysis also encompasses a detailed treatment of verbal nouns, as they interact within the noun classification system. It is shown that the formation of verbal nouns in various noun class prefixes is semantically motivated just as in the nominal domain, and furthermore that analogies can be drawn between the semantic domains in the nominal domain and the verbal one. The analysis is situated within a Cognitive Linguistics framework, whereby notions of embodied experience, encyclopaedic knowledge and metaphorical thought are invoked to account for the semantic organization of noun classification system. It is shown that noun formation in Kujireray is constructional, with individual components possessing underspecified semantics which are elaborated in combination with each other. Furthermore, it is the property of underspecification which accounts for the parallels between the nominal and verbal domains 3 Acknowledgments I begin by gratefully acknowledging all the organizations whose funding has facilitated this research. The Arts and Humanties Research Council provided a full scholarship for the PhD study, as well as funding one of my field trips. The Foundation for Endangered Languages provided a contribution towards my first exploratory trip to Senegal, and a small grant from the Endangered Languages Documentation Programme funded my first major field trip. The most recent trip was made possible by funding from the Mesospace project at the University of Buffalo led by Jürgen Bohnemeyer. On a more personal level, I must extend my most profound thanks to the people of Brin, the speakers of Kujireray, for so warmly welcoming me into their community, and granting me the honour of studying their language. Space does not permit me to mention every individual who has shown me kindness over the course of my time in Brin, but there are certain individuals who warrant a special mention. My hosts, Damien Sagna and Veronique Mendy, have shown such warmth and generosity in opening their home to me - paom ni jeom, emit eramben. I also wish to mention my sisters Hélène Mendy and Orgay for helping to look after me, and providing light relief and laughter when things promised to get too serious. My three chief consultants, Urbain Biagui, Raphael Biagui and William Diandy, have shown enormous tolerance with the tedious tasks of linguistic research, and patience with a sometimes lost and frustrated researcher. Their insightful comments have contributed in no small part to the analysis found in this thesis, and their friendship has been of great importance to me. Kupalom, emit esenul wo jimaŋe. My supervisor Professor Friederike Lüpke, has gone above and beyond the duties circumscribed by this role. She has provided academic support to exactly the right degree, guiding, but never prescribing, the analysis. Her passion is infectious, and I have never emerged from a supervision session less than inspired, no matter what in what state of despair I may have entered. In addition, I have benefited enormously from her wise advice regarding more personal challenges faced by a linguistic fieldworker. I consider myself immensely lucky to have as colleagues Dr. Alex Cobbinah and Dr. Abbie Hantgan. Alex has been a constant companion throughout my PhD, providing solidarity, exchange and fun along the way, in both London and Senegal. Many a meltdown has been avoided by a chat with Alex over a cold Gazelle. Abbie has become a firm friend in the relatively short time since she arrived at SOAS and has also provided invaluable advice on the PhD process (and beyond!). I must thank both Alex and Abbie for the comments they have made on numerous drafts of chapters in this thesis. 4 I am grateful to Prof. Peter Austin and Prof. Irina Nikolaeva for agreeing to sit on my supervisory committee. Prof. Nikolaeva has provided me with helpful feedback on a draft of Chapter 5. I am very happy to have Prof. Lutz Marten and Dr. Alain-Christian Bassène as my learned examiners, and thank them for taking the time to read this thesis in such detail and for their insightful comments and suggestions which have greatly improved both the final draft and my own understanding. I also wish to thank Dr. Mandana Seyfeddinipur for taking me under her statistical wing and showing me the ways of Excel. My parents, Sue and Rich Warner, and Brian and Debs Watson have been unfailing in their encouragement over the last four years and before, not to mention their considerable financial and domestic support. I couldn’t have done it without you. I would also like to thank my brothers and sisters, Louie, Ben and Laura Watson, and Fay and Pete Warner, for always being such cheerful and calming influences when I am mentally floundering. Last, but very far from least, are friends who have not only kept me sane over the last few years, but made it a very joyful time. Ruth McGinity, Antony Wilkinson, Jess Whitehead, Sarah Hickson, Tom Blanx, Sam Jackson, Annalisa Fagan – thank you so much for being there to talk, listen, put up with my nonsense and just generally have it all the time. 5 Contents Abstract .................................................................................................................................... 3 Acknowledgments .................................................................................................................... 4 Table of Tables ...................................................................................................................... 13 Table of Figures ..................................................................................................................... 16 Abbreviations ......................................................................................................................... 17 1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 19 1.1 Motivations for the research ........................................................................................ 20 1.2 Geographical, historical and cultural context............................................................... 23 1.2.1 Geographical context and physical surroundings ................................................. 24 1.2.2 History ................................................................................................................... 26 1.2.3 Society ................................................................................................................... 29 1.2.3 Economic activity ................................................................................................. 31 1.2.4 Spiritual beliefs and practices ............................................................................... 32 1.3 Language context ......................................................................................................... 36 1.3.1 Previous research on Joola languages ................................................................... 39 1.3.2 Multilingualism and language contact .................................................................. 41 1.3.3 Endangerment ....................................................................................................... 41 1.4 Field situation and consultants ..................................................................................... 43 1.5 Data collection and management ................................................................................. 46 1.5.1 Data management .................................................................................................. 46 1.5.2 Elicitation .............................................................................................................. 46 1.5.3 Staged communicative events ............................................................................... 47 1.6 Summary of Chapter 1 ................................................................................................