Property Concept Nominals in Bulu

Betsy Pillion 6 June 2016

1 Introduction

Bulu, 1 a Bantu language spoken in Southern Cameroon, has been noted to possess a pat- tern of nominal modification that is typologically rare. (Bates, 1926) The lexical category noun includes a subset of words that in many languages are realized as the lexical category adjective. These nominal adjectives are morphologically and syntactically realized as nouns, as they possess inherent noun class. Such a subset of nouns is not particularly unique among languages, however, morphological agreement of NPs with modifiers in Bulu is controlled by the modifier. An example of this can be seen below in (2).

(1) `es´ıNg`ı dZ`a w´ul`u cl5.cat cl5.subj walk ‘The cat is walking.’ (Unpublished fieldnotes, 2013: 63) (2) ´Nk´ok¯on `es´iNg`i w`a w´ul`u cl3.ill cl5.cat cl3.subj walk ‘The sick cat is walking.’ (Unpublished fieldnotes, 2013: 63)

A similar pattern occurs in a related language, Basa´a. This set of nominal adjectives in Basa´ahas been analyzed as having a substance denoting semantics behaving somewhat differently across two different classes of nominal modifiers (Jenks, et al., 2013). This paper seeks to describe the range of semantic and syntactic strategies we see in Bulu with respect to nominal modifiers, in addition to other strategies for expressing relations that are often typologically categorized as adjective-like in other languages. Additionally, this paper looks at the lexical semantics of property concept nouns in Bulu, and notes a subset of nominal forms analogous to Jenks et al. (2013)’s property nouns (PN) and adjectival nouns (AN) typology. An ambiguity found in Basa´aproperty nouns’ predica- tional behavior is also found in property nouns in Bulu, in addition to non-property concept nouns. Both property nouns and non-property nouns can take copular predication to indica- tive a possessive relationship, and unlike in Basa´athis does not appear to have emphatic interpretation. Here I adopt Francez and Koontz-Garboden’s (2015) quality characteriz- ing and individual characterizing property concept lexemes, and orient Bulu lexemes within

1Special thanks to Patrick Mv´eand Marie Needham for their consultations and translations. Any errors are my own.

1 these typologies. Unless otherwise indicated, Bulu data below is taken from the researcher’s field notes.

2 Background

There is a large debate in the literature concerning the nature of universals in semantics, specifically with regard to the connection between lexical category and semantic denotation. I give a brief overview of the literature with respect to the connection between semantics and lexical category, particularly with respect to the notion of property concepts as they have been interpreted following Dixon (1982). The review of the literature below seeks to describe the lexical semantics of different kinds of property concept lexemes. (Francez and Koontz-Garboden, 2015) Additionally, I review literature that this relates to the notion of time-stability, the idea that certain lexical categories may be more prone to representing properties that take place over certain periods of time. Time stability will be related to Africanist literature in particular, as many Bantu languages use morphosyntactically verbal and nominal lexical categories to denote the equivalent of English adjectives. This previous work will then be related to the current language of investigation, Bulu, and a related language Basa´a,as both exhibit similar patterns of modification, although Bulu has only weak evidence of class differentiation between two sets of adjectival nouns. This work stems from fieldwork conducted in Yaound´e,Cameroon in Summer 2015 and in Columbus in Winter and Spring 2013. Although speakers interviewed for this work have some differing judgments on correctness of forms, forms where disagreement exists is noted and can likely be attributed to dialectal variation. As the data in this work is taken from speakers who come from different cities, in addition to several different descriptions with data collected from different points points in time, one expects a certain degree of variation with respect to tonal properties or grammatical judgments. Where grammatical judgments vary across speakers with respect to the topic of this particular work, it is noted. Additional judgments were gathered via email from one speaker in Yaound´eduring Spring 2016. Much of the data in this work also comes from existing descriptions of the language, including Bates (1926), and Alexandre (1955, 1963, 1970). Bates (1926) provides a very thorough description of the language as spoken around Efulen, Cameroon during the early 1900s. Alexandre (1955) outlines the grammar of the language from a pedagogical per- spective, while Alexandre (1963) and Alexandre (1970) focus on specific elements of the grammatical system. Abomo-Maurin (2006) is modern a work intended to teach acquisition of the spoken language, while Yukawa (1992) and Clem (2014) detail aspects of the tonal system of the language with respect to the verb.

2.1 Bulu Bulu (A.74) is spoken by around 858,000 speakers as of 2007 and is used as an L2 by around 800,000 speakers. (Lewis, et al. 2016). Its use as a language of wider communication was facilitated by its adoption by missionaries in the country as a language of education and religion. It is spoken in Southern Cameroon around the cities of Sangmelima and Ebolowa

2 among others. It is part of the Beti-Fang language group, and is mutually intelligible with a number of nearby languages.

2.1.1 Phonology The vowel system of Bulu possesses 7 phonemic vowels.

(3) Vowel System of Bulu front central back high i u mid e o @O low a

The consonantal system is relatively typical for A group Bantu languages, and possesses a series of prenasalized stops and both voiced and voiceless labiovelar stops. The consonantal system of the language can be found in 4

(4) Consonantal System of Bulu bilabial alveolar palatal velar labio-velar b t d k g kp gb mb nd Ng m n ñ N f v s z tS dZ

w l j

Bulu is a tonal language and is proposed to have a three way opposition between high, low and mid tones, with falling and rising tones found non-phonemically. (Clem 2014) Bulu syllables are generally open, and there is a length contrast between vowels but not consonants. (Alexandre 1955)

2.1.2 Noun Classes Noun classes are a widely established grammatical classification within many Bantu lan- guages. In Bulu, certain noun classes are not overtly marked by phonological content on the nouns in that class. Many classes have several different prefixal markers on nouns of that class. Demonstratives, pronouns, verbs, and a restricted class of adjectives, show agreement with nouns based on class in Bulu. Singular and plural nouns occupy different classes under traditional classification methods for Bantu. Data below is from the author’s field notes, Alexandre (1955), and Bates (1926).

(5) Noun Classes in Bulu

3 Class Prefix Word Gloss I N-, ∅ mot ‘person’ II b@- bot ‘people’ III N- mbu ‘year’ IV mi- mimbu ‘years’ V ∅- nda ‘house’ VI ∅-, m@-, b@- nda, m@nda ‘houses’ VII a-, d- dis ‘eye’ VIII m(@-), dZ- mis ‘eyes’ IX me- medim ‘water’ X bi- biˆom ‘things’

It should be noted that certain nouns take different singular/plural class pairings than expected, with many class 5 nouns taking their plural form from a different class such as 8, 9, or 10. Additionally, remnants of other classes that are no longer common in Bulu can be found in certain words in the language, but are not detailed here. It should be noted that many loan words are incorporated into classes 1 and 2 (Alexandre, 1955:11), making it the most productive class in the language.

2.1.3 Verbs Word order in sentences is typically SVO, with verbs taking agreement markers based on the noun class or person of the subject. Tense markers may be in the form of clitics or auxiliary verbs, depending on tense. Crucial to the analysis of the phenomenon under consideration is the copular verb - ne - which like a small subset of verbs in Bulu is suppletive.

(6) Copula positive verb tense negative verb tense ne present se present mbe remote past `mbe remote past abe remote past `abe remote past to general past nji general past

Future tenses and irrealis constructions make use of another verbal form bo ‘to do, make.’ The verb -te is used for both possession and copular constructions.

2.1.4 Contact Relationships Cameroon is a highly multilingual country which, in addition to use of colonial languages French and English, makes use of many different indigenous languages in across the country. Estimates by Ethnologue put the number of languages at 279 (Lewis, et al. 2016). Bulu is considered to be mutually intelligible with a number of these languages, including Fang, Eton and Ewondo. Additionally, migration to urban centers allows for the possibility of high levels of contact between speakers of many languages, including Basa´a(A.43) and Bulu speakers. Although little research has been done to assess the exact nature of the contact relationship between these two languages, it is evident from other related languages

4 that this phenomenon of nominal adjectives and their agreement is contact-induced. (Van de Velde 2015) Van de Velde (2015) provides evidence that this construction originated from Ubangian languages and spread to geographically proximate languages throughout the region. In Van de Velde’s modest sample, all Ubangian languages in this region of Central Africa exhibit the “dependency reversal in noun attributive” construction or DNRA, a term taken from Malchukov (2000). The dependency of the modified noun on the modifier is found in Bulu and Bas´aaas well, as exemplified by the agreement patterns associated with ANs in Bulu and Bas´aa,where the modifier controls agreement on verbs and other modifiers of the phrase. Evidence for the origin of DNRA in the Ubangian language family and subsequent spread to nearby languages comes from fact that all Ubangian languages have the DNRA construc- tion, while smaller numbers of languages in nearby Bantu, Sudanic and Chadic families reflect this construction. This analysis may not be born out with further research, but these type of dependency relations appear to be an areal feature.

2.2 Semantic universals Universals in the relationship between semantics and lexical items are thought to be few and far between, and many attempts to find semantic concepts that must exist across languages have failed. Although theoretical approaches to semantical universals, such as semantic primes (Goddard, 2010) rely on the notion that some concepts are universal, our only means of evaluating such universality with respect to language is through lexical items of these languages themselves. As claimed in von Fintel and Matthewson (2008), if we are to claim that every language as the semantic prime for white and black, we must also reconcile this with the fact that languages’ color terms for black and white might divide up differently from one another in the real world. Von Fintel and Matthewson (2008) claim that although there is often a high degree of overlap with respect to certain lexical categories and predicates, there has been no successful attempt in defining the core semantics of main lexical categories, N, V and A. This type of denotation contrasts with functional expressions in von Fintel and Matthew- son’s interpretation. Importantly, although some works claim that semantic universals proper are unlikely to be found, there are cross linguistic tendencies within lexical category, and semantics of a given lexeme are likely to be shaped by lexical category in some capacity. The question of whether or not there is universality in semantics is beyond the scope of this pa- per. This work, however, will add to the growing body of knowledge about the relationship between morphosyntactic/lexical category and semantics.

2.3 Time Stability Previous research has focused on the division of lexical category based on the notion of time stability (Giv´on,1979, 1984). Under this proposal, certain grammatical entities are more “time stable” than others, which is to say certain lexical categories potentially lend them- selves to semantics denoting states that are more concrete and lasting than others. Giv´on (1984:55) lays out a time stability scale of lexical categories, wherein nouns are considered

5 to be the most time stable category, verbs the least time stable, and lexemes in the adjec- tival category occupy middle ground. Their tendency towards stability or instability would, under Giv´on’s treatment, be contingent on if they were lexicalized through a noun or a verb originally. Moshi (1990) combats these claims by using data from KiVungo-Chaga, a Bantu language that possesses an adjectival category. She illustrates that nouns and verbs in the language vary greatly in time stability, and are not consistent with the scale set up in Giv´on(1984) with respect to ordering. As is the case with many languages, concepts that can be seen as similarly “time stable” can be expressed with a noun, adjective and a verb. The physical dimension of person can be expressed through an adjective, derived from a noun in KiVungo- Chaga, as can be seen below in (7).

(7) m-ndu m-leshi 1Np-person 1Np-tall ‘A tall person.’

Similarly, a person’s size can be expressed through a verbal form. (8) Ohany´ı n-´a-l´e-ng´an-´ı-a awu-ye John foc-2su-tm-big-appl-fv father-his ‘John was bigger than his father.’

This notion of time stability provides us a basis for viewing the different semantic roles of these different morphosyntactic categories. However, this type of division is difficult to support, considering the wide variety of lexical categories that time stable states and un- stable states are represented by.

2.4 Property concepts Dixon’s (1982) work ‘Where have all the adjectives gone?’ lays out the notion of property concepts. These notions consist of the semantic categories found in Figure 1 below, according to Dixon, and can be found in many different lexical categories cross-linguistically.

(9) Property concepts as illustrated by English adjectives. Table adapted from Francez and Koontz-Garboden (2013b). Property Concept English Examples Dimension big, small, long, tall, short, wide, deep Age new, young, old Value good, bad, lovely, atrocious, perfect, proper Color black, white, red Physical hard, soft, heavy, wet, rough, strong, hot, sour Speed fast, quick, slow Human Propensity jealous, happy, kind, clever, generous, cruel, proud

Dixon uses the English words found in Figure 1 to explore how lexicons can divide parts of speech across these different property concepts, by looking at 17 languages. Several

6 languages in this sample are heavily verbal like Yurok and Samoan, which are claimed to have no adjective class at all. Others rely on an adjective class (English, Dyirbal), while still others rely on combinations of verbs, adjectives and some nouns. This cross-linguistic survey gives us insight into the types of properties that are typically associated with particular parts of speech or lexical categories. The properties age, dimen- sion, value, and color typically belong to an adjective class proper, however small this class may be. Human propensity is associated with nouns in some of the available languages, while others use adjectives. The properties speed and physical property typically pattern together, with Dixon stating that if physical property is associated with adjectives, that speed will also be adjective types. However, if physical property is associated with verbs, then speed type words will occupy the adverbial part of speech. These categorizations give us an avenue to explore the relationship between lexical category and semantics cross-linguistically. Bulu does not reflect this type of lexical alignment however, a there is only a very small set of adjectives proper. Many of these properties are found in modifying nouns, along with verb forms. Some examples of these forms can be found below.

(10) Bulu Property Concepts

Property Concept Bulu Word Gloss Lexical Category Dimension `ay`ap ‘tall’ noun Age -tˆol,nnˆom ‘old’ adjective, noun Value mv´ae ‘good’ noun Color ´evele ‘red’ noun Physical Ngul ‘strong’ noun Speed avˆol ‘fast’ noun Human Propensity vak, f`@k ‘happy’, ‘intelligent’ verb, noun

Of course it would be impractical to list all lexical items that meet these criteria, however it is the case that the majority of Bulu property concepts are expressed through nominals and verbal forms.

2.5 Lexical semantics of property concepts Francez and Koontz-Garboden (2015) claim that there are two different types of property concept (PC) lexemes, and that these categories correspond to different morphosyntactic treatments. They illustrate this difference in the language Ulwa, a Misumalpan language of Nicaragua. This particular distinction is found in what Francez and Koontz-Garboden call adjectivally denoting and substance denoting property concept lexemes. Substance denoting lexemes are claimed to have a mass denotation that motivates possessive morphosyntax in property concept predication. These lexemes consist of abstract substances, that “one might informally associate with English abstract mass nouns such as strength and beauty.” (Francez and Koontz-Garboden 2015:535; emphasis theirs). F&KG (2015) somewhat intuitively claim that adjectivally denoting lexemes are contrasted with substance denoting lexemes by not denoting substances, while remaining agnostic with respect to ongoing debates about the denotation of adjectives with respect to gradability and comparison.

7 2.6 Basa´aOverview F&KG (2015) include Basa´ain their discussion of PC lexemes as a system that differs from typical alignment in terms of morphosyntactic category and lexical semantics. Basa´ais a Zone A Bantu language (A.43) spoken in the Central and Litoral regions of Cameroon by 300,000 people. (Ethnologue, 2015) This section outlines the dichotomy between two types of nominal modification in Basa´awith respect to their syntax and proposed lexical semantics. This system is similar to Bulu, except with respect to use of the copular verb.

2.6.1 Syntactic Analysis of Basa´a Hyman, Jenks and Makasso (2012) looks at nominal modifiers in Basa´a,addressing the syntactic representation of these constructions. Basa´auses a similar system to Bulu with respect to the typical strategy for modification of nouns. Examples taken from Hyman, et al. (2012).

(11) min-lanNg´a m´ı d´ı-nun´ı cl4-black cl4.CON cl13-bird ‘black birds’ (12) m´ın-laNg´a m´ı d´ı-nun´ı m´ın´ı / *t´ın´ı cl4-black cl4.CON cl13-bird cl4.these / cl13.these ‘these black birds’

The control of agreement on Basa´anominal modifiers is clear, as demonstratives and verbs agree with the modifier noun (or adjectival nouns in their terms) and not what might normally be considered the head noun. Despite the fact that the gender of the nominal modifier is used for agreement, the number of the head noun controls agreement in that respect. Hyman, et al. propose deriving nominal modifier constructions using predicate inversion, which allows number and gender agreement to occur at different stages of the derivation. This analysis is consistent with previous treatments in the literature of similar phenomena as seen in Van de Velde (2011). Although at first glance it may appear that Bulu is left branching, morphosyntactic behavior within the language makes it clear that the modifying noun is clearly the head of this phrase. If we compare this with sentences where another class of modifying nominals is used, we see that the language is right branching and head-initial with respect to these constructions. As this is not the only means by which nouns may modify other nouns. The attributive construction for certain nominal modifiers, what Jenks et al. (2013) describe as property nouns (PNs), makes use of a different syntactic structure. The noun being modified is the semantic and syntactic head, controlling agreement and preceding the property noun. An example can be seen below in (13).

(13) di-nun´ı di k´EN´i Ngandak cl13-birds cl13.con big very ‘very big birds’ (Hyman, et al., 2013: 4)

8 (14) hi-nun´ıi h´ı Ngˆuy h´ı ´n!t´op h´emb´ı cl19-bird 19.con cl9.strength 19.subj sing cl19.song ‘The strong bird is singing’ (Jenks, et al., 2013: 14)

This syntactic difference has been claimed to be reflective of a semantic difference between these sets of nominal modifiers.

2.6.2 Semantic Analysis of Basa´a Jenks, et al.(2013) analyze the lexical semantics of Basa´aas possessing two different cate- gories of property concept lexemes, one being property nouns or PN and the other adjectival nouns or AN. In their treatment, ANs are shown to be count nouns while PNs are shown to be mass nouns. The difference in the semantics of these categories is determined by the singular/plural distinction found in ANs but not in PNs with respect to morphology and noun class markers. Additionally, ANs agree with the subject in number in predicational environments, but PNs do not.

(15) Differences between Property Nouns (PNs) and Adjectival Nouns (ANs) Property Nouns Adjectival Nouns Mass Nouns Count Nouns No plural forms Plural forms Don’t agree in number Agree in number

ANs are claimed to “not characterize sets of portions of substance” (Jenks, et al 2013: 18), but instead they “denote relations between individuals and portions of substance that they stand in the possessive relation to” (Jenks, et al. 2013: 19). Some examples of these adjectives can be seen below in (16).2

(16) di-nun´ı d´ı y´e min-laNg´a Ngandak cl13-bird cl13 COP cl4-black very/much ‘The birds are very black.’

Jenks, et al. (2013) align these semantic denotations with those of English adjectives. They state only that English adjectives do not have a semantics of substance possession, leaving the question of the the semantic denotation of adjectives in English unanswered. PNs, however, are substance denoting and possessive predicating.

(17)a gwee li-k´ENg´E 3sg have cl5-intelligence ‘She has intelligence’

2This same modifier can be used to modify Property Nouns (PNs) such as Nguy ‘strength’.

(1) kim a gwe´e Nguy Ngandak kim 3sg.subj have strength very/much ‘Kim has a lot of strength.’ ‘Kim is very strong.’

9 These same diagnostics are used to evaluate the presence of these two categories in Bulu. I propose that property nouns in Bulu similarly make use of a possessive predicational strategy, and that they conform to a similar nominal morphosyntactic environment by not controlling agreement on adnominal words like demonstratives, or verbs. ANs in Bulu make use of a copular predicational strategy, are individual characterizing, and control agreement in the attributive position. Crucially there is a difference with respect to the behavior of these categories in copular and possessive predication however. Despite the fact that PNs mainly make use of possessive predication in Basa´a,it has been claimed that copular predication can be used, but only in positions of emphasis.

(18)a ye li-k´ENg´E 3sg have cl5-intelligence ‘She is intelligent’

Bulu similarly allows for copular predication of PNs, but copular predication is not re- stricted to positions of emphasis. In fact, in addition to PNs, the copular verb can indicate relationships of possession with other types of nouns, including ANs and non-property con- cept nouns. Examples of this is detailed in sections 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4 below. The fact that the copular verb in Bulu is used additionally with other types of nouns, indicates that property nouns seemingly dual status in Basa´amay be explained by the existence of two different verbal forms of the copula. The same claim in Bulu is supported by evidence of use of the possessive verb and the copular verb with certain property nouns, and the copular verbs with non-property concept nouns (i.e. neither property nouns, nor adjectival nouns).

3 Modifying Expressions in Bulu

In this section I lay out the various modification strategies found in Bulu, including “true” adjectival modification and nominal modification.

3.1 True Adjectives The language possesses a small set of “true” adjectives, which take agreement morphology from the noun they are modifying. These behave similarly to other post-nominal words in the language that take agreement, like demonstratives and possessives. Examples of these true adjectives can be seen below. Form Gloss -nen ‘large’ (19) -tok ‘small’ -se ‘all’ -tˆol ‘ancient’

As stated above, these behave similarly to other types of non-PC adjectives such as demonstratives and quantifiers.

10 (20) bˆot @ be-se cl2.people epen. cl2-all ‘All people, everyone’ (Alexandre, 1955: 190)

However, these forms are very rarely used and in place of -nen and -tok in particular we find nominal forms indicating these property concepts instead of true adjectives. The adjective ‘all’ may be especially protected because of its status as a quantifier.

3.2 Adjectival Nouns (ANs) The most frequent way of expressing property concepts, however, is through use of a nominal form that takes noun class morphology and subordinates nouns it modifies in attributive environments. This behavior is similar to the distribution of ANs in Basa´a.In attributive environments, the AN appears first in the sequence and uses a connective marker in some noun classes between the AN and the N. Examples of this can be seen in (21) and (22), data is from Bates (1926).

(21) mfef´e dZˆom cl3.new cl5.thing ‘new thing’ (22) mi-mfef´e mi biˆom cl4-new cl4.agr cl10.thing ‘new things’

Adnominal words take morphological agreement from the AN and not the noun being modified.

(23) mfef´e dZˆome wu cl3.new cl5.thing cl3.this ‘this new thing’ (24) beta dZˆome nyˆo cl1.big cl3.thing cl1.this ‘this big thing’ (25) ˆojˆome dZˆome vi cl7.little cl5.thing cl7.this ‘this little thing’

Additionally, verbal agreement is with the noun class of the AN and not the N. For unmodified nouns, we see that the copula ne takes the noun class agreement of the noun.

(26)d Zˆom ´e-ne va cl5.thing cl5-cop here ‘The thing is here’

11 (27) mfef´e dZˆom ˆo-ne va cl3.new cl5.thing cl3-cop here ‘The new thing is here’ (28) beta dZˆom a-ne va cl1.big cl5.thing cl1-cop here ‘A big thing is here’ (29) ojˆome dZˆom ˆo-ne va cl7.little cl5.thing cl7-cop here ‘A little thing is here’ (30) minga a-ne abeñ cl1.woman cl1-cop cl7.beautiful ‘The woman is beautiful’ (31) abeñ@ mˆot e-wulu cl7.beautiful cl1.person cl7-walk.pres ‘Beautiful person walks’ (32) bˆote be-ne abui cl2.people cl2-cop numerous ‘The people are numerous’ (33) abui bˆot e-ne mu cl7.numerous cl2.people cl7-cop here. ‘Many people are here’

These agreement patterns are similar in nature to the possessive construction, which is outlined below. (34) Singular a. ˆotyeñ NdˆoNgˆo cl7.knife Ndongo ‘Ndongo’s knife’

b. mvu Bulu cl5.dog cl1.Bulu ‘Bulu dog’

c. nlame bˆot cl3.settlement cl2.people ‘settlement of people’

d. ´evese tit cl5.bone cl5.animal ‘bone of animal’

12 e. awˆom bˆot cl7.ten cl2.people ‘ten of people’, ‘ten people’ (35) Plural a. bives´e bi tit cl10.bone cl10.con cl5.animal ‘Bones of animals’ b. minlam mi bˆot cl4.settlement cl4con cl2.person ‘settlements of people’ c. mewom me bˆot meba´ecl8.ten cl8.con cl2.person cl8.two

‘two tens of people’ d. mise me fˆon cl8.grain cl8.con cl8.corn ‘grains of corn’ e. b´esa Bulu cl2.father cl1.Bulu ‘Fathers of the Bulu’ The first noun in the phrase controls agreement in both possessive constructions and in AN-of-N constructions, and as a result we can conclude that ANs are morphosyntactially the head of their phrase when they modify nouns. Predicational and attributive environments indicate that these Bulu PC nominals behave similarly to adjectival nouns (ANs) as laid out in Jenks, et al (2013) in Basa´a.As we can see, these ANs are the head of their phrase, they are non-substance denoting and instead rely on a semantics of characterizing individuals and are non-possessive predicating. They make use of the copular verb, and no examples of these nouns have been found with possessive predication. Examples can be found below of ANs in the predicational environment, illustrating the use of the copular verb. (36) M`@l´ı`a `a n`@ `ab`@N. Maria 3sg.subj cop.pres cl7.beauty ‘Maria is beautiful.’ (Marie Needham, pc)3 (37) `mf`ef`e dZ´om ´o n`@ `ab`@N. cl3.new cl5.thing cl3.subj cop.pres cl7.beauty ‘The new thing is beautiful.’ (38) `a n`@ `nk´uk´um 3sg.subj cop.pres cl3.wealthy ‘He is wealthy.’ 3This form was disprefered by one speaker who felt it would be incomplete without a nominal afterward, such as minga, ‘woman.’ This difference is detailed in Section 3.5 below.

13 (39) k´al´at `a n`@ `mf`ef`e cl1.book cl1.subj cop.pres cl3.new ‘The book is new.’ However, ANs cannot take both possessive predication, as exemplified in the AN ´ab`@N. (40) *M`@l´ı`a `a b`ıl´ı `ab`@N. Maria 3sg.subj have.pres cl7.beauty Intended: ‘Maria has beauty.’ (41) *Patrick `a b`ıl´ı `nk´uk´um Patrick 3sg.subj have.pres cl3.wealthy Intended: ‘Patrick is wealthy.’ Based on the evidence provided in this section, we can conclude that ANs in Bulu behave similarly to ANs in Basaa. However, the evidence that is provided below in section 3.3 shows how although PNs in Bulu behave similarly to Basa´ain the attributive position, they are copular predicating, much like ANs. This difference from Basa´amay be able to be attributed to the extended use of the copular verb in Bulu as opposed to Basa´a,which is discussed in Section 3.4.

3.3 Property Nouns (PNs) There are a subset of property concept nominals in Bulu that contrast with the above ANs with respect to their morphosyntactic patterns and semantics. The examples in (42) are from Bates (1926: 29). (42) Property Nouns Adjectival Noun Class Gloss ab´e iv badness mva´e iii goodness adit iv heaviness ´eveves v lightness ayet iv hardness akon iv smoothness ngul iii strength ´eles v laziness ntyel ii prudence akut iv foolishness Interestingly, Bates claims that these nouns are seen very rarely in attributive position. This is not supported by data from other sources, but may point to an earlier syntactic restriction reflected in a prescriptive standard. Additionally most of these PNs do not have plural pairs in their noun classes, much like those in Basa´a.These are indicators of strong differences between the behavior of two classes4 of PC nouns in the language. Bates gives

4This is not meant to invoke the noun class system of Bantu languages, but rather the difference between these two categories of nominal modifiers.

14 only one example of these nouns in attributive position, but claims that in fact, this is considered to be a shortening of the predicative form. The longer form which includes the relative clause is found in (43), in addition to the shortened form.

(43) mˆot a ne mva´e cl1.person 3sg.subj COP.pres good ‘Person who is good’ (Bates, 1926: 29) (44) mˆote mva´e cl1.person good ‘Good person’ (Bates, 1926: 29)

Further work will be required to see if this construction is in fact rare or if instead contemporary forms of Bulu allow for the non-relative version of this attribution in at least some PN nouns. This construction does not appear to be rare or disprefered based on Alexandre (1955). Additionally, these PN nouns are found to use copular predication when not in relative clauses, as can be seen in examples (45) and (46).

(45) ab´e ´esa´e cl4.bad cl5.job ‘bad job’ (Alexandre, 1955: 155) (46) nale a ne ab´e it 3sg cop cl4.bad ‘It’s bad’ (Alexandre, 1955: 155)

This divide among adjectival behaviors is similar to Basa´a,where a subset of nominal modifiers requires a similar morphosyntactic specification to those above. These Property Nouns (PNs) are contrasted with Adjectival Nouns (ANs). PNs in Basa´aare proposed to take possessive predication, and only take copular predication in cases where the property concept is emphasized. However, as we can see above in (46) and (43), copular predication is allowed for these forms in Bulu. Possessive predication is not permitted for these forms, but copular predication is permitted.

(47) M`@l´ı`a ´a´a n`@ mv´a`e Maria 3sg cop cl3.good ‘Maria is good.’ (48) *M`@l´ı`a ´a´a b´ıl`ı mv´a`e Maria 3sg have cl3.good Intended: ‘Maria has goodness.’

This behavior is unexpected based off of knowledge from Basa´a.If this were a Basa´a-like system, we would expect that PNs can be used with the possessive verb, but not with the copular verb, excepting perhaps an emphatic interpretation. Instead, we find that both PNs and ANs are copular predicating, and that a potential subset of ANs are possessive and copular predicating. We can attribute this difference to several different possibilities.

15 Primary among them is the extended use of the copular verb in Bulu beyond that seen in Basa´a. The use of the verb ne and its relevance to the possessive construction will be discussed below in Section 3.4, and reasons for why this might influence this difference in alignment of PC nominals in Bulu will be discussed in Section 3.9.

3.4 Possession Possessive predication in Bulu makes use of the verbs ne ‘to be’ and b`ıl´ı ‘to have.’ There is strong evidence that choice of the verb is related to the nature of the relationship between the possessor and the possessed. Examples of possession using the verb b`ıl´ı can be found below.

(49) m`@ b`ıl´ı ´nti`ıl`ı 1sg.subj have cl3.book ‘I have a book.’ (Patrick Mve, pc) (50) M`@l´ı`a `a b`ıl´ı g´ol`ot Maria 3sg.subj have cl1.gold ‘Maria has gold.’ (Patrick Mve, pc) (51) Patrick `a b`ıl´ı `ab¯u¯i b´@k´al´at. Patrick 3sg.subj have many cl1.book Patrick has many books. (Patrick Mve, pc)

(52) `nl`am ´o b`ıl´ı m`@d´ım cl3.settlement cl3.subj have cl9.water ‘The settlement has water.’

In addition to b`ıl´ı, Bulu also makes use of the verb ne to indicate the possessive relation. However, there is a restricted set of circumstances under which this verb can be used. These relations are more likely to be those of body parts or family members. As a result, it may be the case that the possessive relation is indicated by the copular verb only when the relation is one of inalienable possession.5

(53) be to d´ıse da 3pl.subj COP.pst cl7.eye one ‘They had one eye.’ (Bates, 1926: 68)

(54) me mbe b´one bela 1sg.subj COP.past cl2.child cl8.three ‘I had three children.’ (Bates, 1926: 69) (55) mˆot@ ny´o a ne b´On@ b´eba´e cl1.man cl1.there 3sg.subj COP.pres cl2.child cl8.two

5A paradigm of the verbal forms of ne can be found above in Section 2.1.3.

16 ‘This man has two children.’ (Alexandre, 1963: 163)

This type of distinction, between possessive relationships that are somehow inherent, such has that of a body part to a human being, and a child to a part, are found relatively commonly among the world’s languages. WALS finds a category of obligatorily possessed nouns in 43 of 244 languages (Bickel & Nichols 2013). However, this distinction is not grammaticalized in the language elsewhere. As such this is a preliminary hypothesis to account for this difference. Additionally, we must account for the behavior of the copular verb in predicational en- vironments with respect to property concept nominals, both ANs and PNs. The existence of both of the possessive relation and the predicational relation might indicate that there is a semantic ambiguity to this verb, with there being two different lexical items which are simply homophonous. Further evidence for the existence of this alienable/inalienable morphosyntactic specifi- cation comes from the lack of sentential minimal pairs. Although the verb ne can be used to indicate a copular relation in example (56), in (57) we see that it cannot be used to indicate a possessive relation. Instead, as might be expected, the verb bili is used in (58). (56) Patrick a ne nye’ele Patrick 3sg.subj COP.pres cl1.teacher ‘Patrick is a teacher’

(57) *Patrick a ne nye’ele Patrick 3sg.subj COP.pres cl1.teacher Desired: ‘Patrick has a teacher’

(58) m`@ b`ıl´ı `ny´@P´@l`@ 1sg.subj have.pres cl1.teacher ‘I have a teacher.’

As we can see above in (56) and (57), the verb ne’s use as a copula could potentially interfere with its interpretation as a possessive verb in situations where possession is alien- able. However, even based on the possession of eyes and children, it could be concluded that ne has two different contextually determined lexical semantics which allow for either a possessive or copular interpretation. A more controversial interpretation might be that in fact the verb ne does in fact have the same denotation across all contexts but it is instead the nouns that have different interpre- tations. This interpretation does not account, however, for non-property concept nominals like “children” and ”eyes.” A much clearer solution in these contexts is to claim the existence of two different verbs both of the phonological form ne. The frequency for the usage of these two alternatives for possession is not yet known. Elicitation often indicates to the speaker the need to disambiguate two possible verbs in English in the language being translated into. Further study will be necessary to see if ne

17 is used more exclusively in the copular sentences while bili is preferred in the possessive sentences. Functionally, we might presume this to be the case, as disambiguation of these two relations might be preferred in everyday conversation for non-inherently possessed nouns. In fact, when asked to translate from English, a speaker of Bulu provided the possessive verb and the copular verb in order to disambiguate the English meanings of these two sentences.

(59) m`@ n`@ `ny´@P´@l`@ 1.sg cop cl1.teacher ‘I am a teacher’ (60) m`@ b`ıl´ı ´ny´@P´@l`@ 1.sg have cl1.teacher ‘I have a teacher.’

As a result, we might imagine that although the use of the verb ne is restricted in terms of its use as a possessor, that bili is not similarly restricted. However, this asymmetry is not yet established by speakers. If bili is kept from certain possessive relations, it might be due to the pragmatic oddity of possessing two children who are also biologically your children, or owning a eye that is not your eye, attached to your body in some way. Further study will be required to see if this asymmetry exists, or if both verbs are restricted. At least one sentential minimal pair illustrates the overlap of the domain of these verbs. The word, ´ak´um can be used with the copular verb and the possessive verb in the predicational position. As can be seen below.

(61) `a n`@´ak´um `ab¯ui 3sg.subj COP.pres wealth much ‘He has much wealth’ (Bates, 1926: 69)

(62) `a s`e ´ak´um `ab¯ui 3sg.subj COP.pres.neg wealth much ‘He has not much wealth’ (Bates, 1926: 69)

(63) `a b`ıl´ı ´ak´um 3sg.subj have cl5.wealth ‘He has wealth.’ (Patrick Mve, pc)

(64) Patrick `a n`@ `ak´um Patrick 3sg.subj cop.pres cl5.wealth ‘Patrick has wealth.’ (Patrick Mve, pc)

As the relationship of a person to wealth can take many different forms, the usage of both the copular and possessive verbs to represent this relationship is not entirely unexpected. Wealth may be possessed by a family or instead a person may be in a transient state of wealth.

18 It is unknown however if these presuppositions are in fact activated by these different verbal uses. Leaving the exact nature of the divide between the possessive and copular verb sphere of use for later research, we can explore the implications of this wider usage of the verb ne with respect to predication of PC nominals. Recall that ANs in Basa´aare copular predicating, and PNs in Basa´aare possessive predicating. In Bulu, however, both ANs and PNs are copular predicating. However, because we find that the copula serves a roll as a verb indicating possession in certain sentences, it is not necessary to conclude that all PC nominals in Bulu are individual characterizing. As seen above in (61) and (63), the substance ‘wealth’ can be considered to be possessed through the verb ne. As such I conclude that PNs are in a possessive relation with the semantic head nominal of the type found in inalienably possessed nouns like ‘children’ and ‘eye.’

3.5 Preferred Constructions Despite the fact that adjectival nouns (ANs) can appear in predicative position bare, some speakers prefer usage of another noun in the attributive position. (65) M`@l´ı`a `a n`@ `ab`@N m`ıng´a Maria 3.sg cop cl7.beauty cl1.woman ‘Maria is a beautiful woman.’ (66) M`@l´ı`a `a n`@ ´ang`ondo´o yˇa `ab`@N m`ıng´a Maria 3.sg cop very con cl7.beauty cl1.woman ‘Marie is a very beautiful woman.’ Although it is clear that ‘Marie is beautiful’ is licit syntactically in Bulu, this use of the attributive construction when in the predicative position may signal a dispreference for these ANs to be attributed to a noun, in order to disambiguate from interpretations of possession. Further research will need to determine if this tendency is born out with PNs as well as ANs, as we might expect.

3.6 Comparatives The comparison of adjectives in Bulu does not rely on morphology but rather use of a paraphrastic construction.As per data from Bates (1926), by mentioning two things and then indicating the possession of a quality by one of those things indicates that that one thing possesses that quality to a larger degree. The example below is taken from Bates. (67) Ako’ a ´ety´e, ´ety´e ´e ne adit cl7.stone and cl5.iron, cl7.iron cl7.subj cop cl7.heavy ‘Stone and iron, iron is heavy.’ Iron is heavier than stone. (Bates, 1926: 34) (68) Bˆote be-ba´e ba, NdˆoNgˆo ayap, MedZˆo ´etun cl2.people cl2.two cl2.there, Ndongo cl7.tall, Mejo cl5.short ‘These two people, Ndongo tall, Mejo short.’ Ndongo is taller than Mejo.(Bates, 1926: 35)

19 A non-copular verb can also be used to express this comparative, whereby one thing can ‘surpass’ (dañ) another in a quality.

(69) NdˆoNgˆo a daNe MedZˆo ayap Ndongo 3sgsubj pass Mejo cl7.tall ‘Ndongo passes Mejo tall.’ Ndongo is taller than Mejo (Bates, 1926: 35)

It remains to be seen if these types of constructions can be used for other adjectival nouns that are claimed to be syntactically restricted. If there were a difference in the patterns found across adjectival nouns and property nouns with respect to comparatives on a larger scale, this would further support the differentiation of these two categories based on their underlying semantics. However, there may be a minor difference with respect to the property noun adit ‘heav- iness,’ as we find that there is not a comparative “opposite” PN with which it is compared. Unlike the example using ajap ‘tall’ and ´etun ‘short’, two ANs, where both taller and short are evoked instead of just tall. However this claim will need to be supported by negative evidence.

3.7 Comparative Subdeletion Under Jenks et al. (2013)’s analysis, comparative subdeletion should allow for comparisons across the AN and PN categories. As such, this is not a diagnostic for potentially differenti- ating the two sets of nouns, but instead a basic indicator that this morphosyntactic difference does not prevent comparative subdeletion. However, Bulu appears to only allow use of the verb ne with comparative subdeletion, as can be seen below in (70) and (71).

(70) Patrick `a n`@ f`@k `ad`aN`@ ´av´al ´a n´@ `ay¯ap AN than AN name 3sg.subj cop cl5.smart pass than 3sg.subj cop cl7.tall ‘Patrick is smarter than he is tall’ (Patrick Mve, pc) (71) Patrick `a n`@ `ak´um `ad`aN`@ ´av´al ´an´@ ng`ul PN than PN name 3sg.subj cop cl5.wealth pass than 3sg.cop cl5.strength ‘Patrick has more wealth than he has strength.’ (Patrick Mve, pc)

The extent to which these two types of PC nouns can be combined in this construction provides us insight into the different lexical specifications of these types that might restrict their cooccurrence. If this is a Basa´atype system, then we would expect that both verb taking forms can occur in this construction. However, Bulu requires use of the verb ne for both PN and AN in this construction. Much like English requires the same verb, as can be seen in examples (72)- (75) below.

(72) Mary is more beautiful than she is wealthy. (73) Mary has more beauty than she has wealth. (74) *Mary has more beauty than she is wealthy. (75) *Mary is more beautiful than she has wealth.

20 3.8 Summary Jenks, et al. (2013) outline the class of adjectival noun (AN) in contrast to property nouns (PN). I argue that Bulu has evidence for the existence of both of these classes. ANs vary slightly from those found in Basa´ain their morphosyntactic and semantic behavior. Criteria that Jenks, et al. (2013) use to distinguish the class AN include:

• ANs are morphosyntactically the head of their phrase

• ANs are non-substance denoting

• ANs are non-possessive predicating

This same set of criteria is met in Bulu for this class. As we have seen above, ANs are morphosyntactically the head of their phrase, as they control agreement on the the verb when they are in the attributive position with the noun they are modifying. Additionally, ANs are not substance denoting, but instead refer to attributes possessed by individuals. They cannot be used to refer to a substance alone.They are individual characterizing. The existence of the category of individual characterizing nouns gives us a better idea of the wide variety of relationships lexical category and semantic denotations can have cross-linguistically. Bulu makes use of one highly suppletive copular verb, ne, which can be used to indi- cate both a copular relation and a possessive relation in certain contexts. However, most instances of possession in the language make use of the verb b`ıl´ı for possessive relationships, to distinguish it from copular relationships. Although the overlap in this usage of the cop- ular verb for both possessive and copular relationships might be indicative of the potential collapse of these categories at an earlier stage in the language, the historical nature of this trajectory has not been determined. Additionally, based on the distribution of the copular possessive, there is evidence that this is reflective of a distinction between alienable and inalienable possession of the possessed noun, where the inalienably possessed nouns take the copular verb ne and alienably possessed nouns take the possessive verb b`ıl´ı. Similarly, ANs and PNs both take the verb ne, differing from Basa´a. Jenks, et al. (2013)’s criteria for the PN class is listed below.

• PNs are not morphosyntactically the head of their phrase

• PNs are substance denoting

• PNs are possessive predicating

There is indeed evidence that a potential PN class is Bulu is morphosyntactically re- stricted to not controlling agreement, fulfilling Jenks, et al. (2013) requirement that they not be the head of their phrase. There is evidence that these forms are substance denot- ing, however we cannot rely on the existence of a verbal difference between these forms in predication, as PNs in Bulu are copular predicating. But due to the existence of possession of non-PC nouns through the copular verb, we can preserve our hypothesis that PNs are substance denoting.

21 4 Conclusion

Recall that in Basaa’s system, we see a divide between PNs and ANs in Jenks, et al. (2013)’s treatment. ANs are morphosyntactically the head of their phrase when they are modifying a noun and they control agreement. Bulu appears to possess a similar system, however both PNs and ANs are copular predicating. This does not reflect a difference with respect to substance denoting versus individual characterizing status of these classes, as we find a class of nouns that takes the copular verb to indicate a possessed relation. As such, we can extrapolate that substance denoting property nouns are similarly syntactically restricted in their cooccurrence. As we find the same verb used for both possession and copular predicates, we might conclude that there is a semantic ambiguity for the verb ne. It is unlikely that speakers are unaware of the distinction between “Patrick has two children” and “Patrick is two children,” but instead rely on contextual information to disambiguate these two possibilities. However, as we see use of the verb bili, we may conclude that ne is less preferred by certain speakers. The Lexical Semantic Variation Hypothesis, as laid out in Francez & Koontz-Garboden (2015a), states that:

(76) Substance-denoting PC lexemes require possessive semantics to achieve the truth conditions of PC constructions. Adjectivally denoting PC lexemes do not. Possessive morphosyntax contributes possessive semantics, and hence surfaces only with PC constructions built on substance-denoting PC lexemes.

Crucially, this hypothesis relies on an assumption that there is a strong link between lexical category and lexical semantics, and that PC’s nominal encoding has a substance type denotation. (JKG&MM, 2013). We show above that these AN PC nominals do not possess a substance type denotation, while PN PC nominals do. These types of patterns provide us greater insight into the possible and probable relationships found between the morphosyntactic patterns of lexical items and their lexical semantics. In conclusion, I have shown a preliminary analysis of modification behavior in Bulu. This analysis shows the diversity of lexical categories that may be used to convey “adjec- tival” semantics. This language shows potential to support the Lexical Semantic Variation Hypothesis, as proposed by Francez and Koontz-Garboden (2015a). This account expands the number of languages proposed to possess individual charac- terizing PC nouns (Francez and Koontz-Garboden, 2015b). Although Basa´aand Bulu are areally proximate and typologically similar, a growing body of evidence from Bulu and re- lated languages that this type of semantic alignment is not dispreferred, and may in fact have spread from another language family. The patterns found in Bulu lexical semantics and morphosyntactic patterns offer us further insight into the typological possibilities of language.

22 5 References

Abomo-Maurin, Marie-Rose. Parlons boulou: langue bantou du Cameroun. Editions L’Harmattan, 2006. Alexandre, Pierre. Manuel El´ementaire´ de Langue Bulu. Centre de Hautes Etudes´ d’Administration Musulmane, 1955. Alexandre, Pierre. Syst`emeverbal et pr´edicatifdu bulu. Ecole pratique des hautes ´etudes. Centre d’´etudesafricaines, 1963. Alexandre, Pierre. Pre-initial in Bulu (A.74) nominals. African Language Studies. Pages 5-11. 1970. Bates, George Latimer, and Silas Franklin Johnson. Handbook of Bulu. publisher not identified, 1926. Beckman, Mary, and Atsuko Shoji. 1984. “Spectral and perceptual evidence for CV coar- ticulation in devoiced/si/and/syu/in Japanese.” Phonetica 41.2: 61-71. Balthasar Bickel, Johanna Nichols. 2013. Obligatory Possessive Inflection. In: Dryer, Matthew S. & Haspelmath, Martin (eds.) The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. Available online at http://wals.info/chapter/58. Clem, Emily. The Interaction of Lexical and Grammtical Tone in the Bulu Verb System. Unpublished honors thesis. 2014. Den Dikken, Marcel. Relators and linkers: The syntax of predication, predicate inversion, and copulas. Vol. 47. MIT Press, 2006. Dixon, Robert MW. Where have all the adjectives gone?: and other essays in semantics and syntax. Vol. 107. Walter de Gruyter, 1982. Francez, Itamar, and Andrew Koontz-Garboden. Semantic variation and the grammar of property concepts. University of Chicago and University of Manchester, ms. 2015. http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/001833. Goddard, Cliff. The Natural Semantic Metalanguage approach. In Bernd Heine and Heiko narrog (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 459-484. 2010. Hyman, Larry, Peter Jenks, and Emmanuel-Moselly Makasso. “Adjectives as nominal heads in Basa´a.”Handout of talk presented at 43rd ACAL, New Orleans (2012). Hyman, Larry. Basa´a(a43). In The Bantu languages, ed. D. Nurse and G. Philippson, 257?282. New York: Routledge. 2003. Jenks, Peter, Andrew Koontz-Garboden, and Emmanuel-Moselly Makasso. “Basa´aand the lexical semantics of property concept nouns.” (2013). Lewis, M. Paul, Gary F. Simons, and Charles D. Fennig (eds.). 2016. Ethnologue: Languages of the World, Nineteenth edition. Dallas, Texas: SIL International. Online version: http://www.ethnologue.com.

23 Malchukov, Andrej. Dependency reversal in noun-attribute constructions: towards a ty- pology. (Lincom studies in Language Typology, 3). Munchen: LINCOM EUROPA. 2000. Moshi, Lioba. ”Time-stability: The case of adjectives in KiVunjo-Chaga.” Amsterdam Stud- ies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science Series 4 (1993): 141-141. Towo-Atangana, Gaspard, and Marie-Rose Abomo-Maurin. “Aj`on`o` Al´a` : Les Trois Oy- ono (Un mvet boulou (Cameroun)), de Asomo Ngono Ela.”´ Paris, Classiques Africains (2009). Van De Velde, Mark. “Dependency Reversal” in Northern Sub-Saharan Africa. Undated Presentation. (2015) Van de Velde, Mark. A grammar of Eton. Vol. 46. Walter de Gruyter, 2008. Yukawa, Y. A tonological study of Bulu verbs. In Studies in Cameroonian and Zairean Languages, volume 3, pages 67?94. Institute for the Study of Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa (ILCAA), Tokyo University of Foreign Studies, Tokyo. 1992. Von Fintel, Kai, and Lisa Matthewson. “Universals in semantics.” The Linguistic Review 25.1-2 (2008): 139-201.

24