CALL 2016 Colloquium on African Languages and Linguistics

Maximilien Guérin [email protected]

Locative, Presentative and Progressive Constructions in Atlantic Languages

Outline  Atlantic Languages  Structure of the Construction(s)  Markers of the Construction(s)  A genetic inheritance?  Grammaticalisation hypotheses  Conclusion 2

Atlantic Languages Location

(Segerer 2010)

3

Atlantic Languages Classification

4

Atlantic Languages Locative, Presentative and Progressive Constructions  Atlantic languages Very distant (genetically) from each others

 In world's languages Generally, verbal morphology renews itself quickly (Creissels 2006)

↳ Verbal morphology displays a lot of differences within Atlantic languages  However, in most Atlantic languages:  Locative construction  May be used as Presentative or Progressive construction  Structure of the constructions & Form of the markers Specific to Atlantic languages

5

Outline  Atlantic Languages  Structure of the Construction(s)  Markers of the Construction(s)  A genetic inheritance?  Grammaticalisation hypotheses  Conclusion 6

Structure of the Construction(s)  Locative Construction: Subject (NP or disjunctive pronoun)

+

Marker

+

Locative Phrase

 Presentative/Progressive Construction: Subject (NP or disjunctive pronoun)

+

Marker

+

Verb Phrase

7

Structure of the Construction(s) Laalaa (Cangin)  Locative construction Mi yuu ga kaan. PRO1SG LOC PREP home 'I am at home.'

 Presentative construction Mi yuu tík cëen. PRO1SG PRST cook dinner 'I am cooking the dinner.'

8

Structure of the Construction(s) Joola Banjal  Locative construction Atejo umu búsol yaŋ yayu. Atejo COP behind house the 'Atejo is behind the house.'

 Presentative construction Atejo umu ni bu-rokk. Atejo COP PREP INF-work 'Atejo is working.'

9

Outline  Atlantic Languages  Structure of the Construction(s)  Markers of the Construction(s)  A genetic inheritance?  Grammaticalisation hypotheses  Conclusion 10

Marker of the Construction(s)  General form: Amalgam

Marker

Subject

Base

Link

S

DEIC1

CL

DEIC2

11

Marker of the Construction(s)  The marker may fuse with the subject pronoun (S)  The marker is constituted by:  a deictic marker (DEIC1) (which may be a link with the subject pronoun)

 a base, constituted by:  a noun class marker (CL)  another deictic marker (DEIC2)  CL usually agrees with the subject  DEIC1 usually agrees with DEIC2

12

Marker of the Construction(s)  Sereer Me-x-e PRO1SG-CL.HUM;SG-PX

ñaam-aa. eat-IPFV

'I am eating.'

 Laalaa Mi (i)

y-uu

tík cëen. PRO1SG (PX) CL.HUM;SG-PX cook dinner 'I am cooking the dinner.'

 Joola Banjal Atejo u-m-u Atejo DEIC-CL-PX

ni

bu-rokk. PREP INF-work

'Atejo is working.'

13

Marker of the Construction(s)

14

Outline  Atlantic Languages  Structure of the Construction(s)  Markers of the Construction(s)  A genetic inheritance?  Grammaticalisation hypotheses  Conclusion 15

A genetic inheritance ?  Most Atlantic languages display a locative-presentative construction  Structure of these constructions and marker's form are similar in most languages  Coherent with the actual classification:  All languages without specific marker belong to some groups (Tenda-Jaad, Manjaku, Balant, Bijogo)  In languages of the same group, markers have similar forms

 Attested in the two main branches (North and Centre) ↳ come from Proto-Atlantic 16

A genetic inheritance ?  In languages in contact with Atlantic languages:  Soninke & Mandinka (Mande) ↳ markers derive from perception verbs (see, look)

   

Jalonke (Mande) Casamancian (Portuguese-based Creole) Zenaga (Berber) Mel languages ↳ construction and marker formally different ↳ no link between Locative and Presentative

 One exception: Temne (Mel) ↳ Language contact ?

17

A genetic inheritance ?  Mandinka (Mande) Yír-óo be boy-óo tree-DET COP fall-DET

la. POSTP

'The tree is falling.'

 Casamancian (Portuguese-based Creole) I na kumé karna di purku. S3SG IPFV eat meat of pork 'He is eating some pork.'

 Temne (Mel) Ká-gbɛngbɛ kə CLk.DF-chili PRO.CLk

fúmpɔ fall

k-aŋ. CLk-DT

'The chili is falling.'

18

Outline  Atlantic Languages  Structure of the Construction(s)  Markers of the Construction(s)  A genetic inheritance?  Grammaticalisation hypotheses  Conclusion 19

Grammaticalisation  In several Atlantic languages, the marker is similar to demonstrative determiner.  Hypotheses:  Demonstrative grammaticalized into Locative Copula.  In some languages (Cangin, Sereer), Demonstrative first grammaticalized into Definite Determiner.  In some languages (Palor-Ndut, Buy, Wolof), the Determiner has frozen (human class).  Locative Copula has been used as Presentative Marker, and/or grammaticalized into Progressive Marker.

20

Grammaticalisation  Grammaticalisation path(s): Demonstrative determiner Definite determiner Locative copula

Presentative marker

Progressive marker 21

Grammaticalisation  In Proto-Atlantic: *DEIC1-CL-DEIC2  Hypotheses:  DEIC2 = deictic marker of demonstrative or definite attested in all languages  DEIC1 = agrees with DEIC2 attested in some languages belonging to North (Wolof, Nyun, Cangin) and Centre (Joola) branches  CL = agrees (in noun class) with the subject attested in all languages [has frozen in default (human) class in some languages (Palor-Ndut, Buy)]

22

Outline  Atlantic Languages  Structure of the Construction(s)  Markers of the Construction(s)  A genetic inheritance?  Grammaticalisation hypotheses  Conclusion 23

Conclusion  In most Atlantic languages:  Locative construction, may be used as Presentative or Progressive construction Link between Locative, Presentative and Progressive not peculiar to Atlantic languages, but attested in a lot of languages (various families) (Heine & Kuteva 2002)

 Structure of the construction & Form of the marker  Specific to Atlantic languages  Not attested in languages in contact with Atlantic languages

24

Conclusion  A genetic inheritance  No typological convergence  No language contact

 Locative-Presentative Construction from Proto-Atlantic  Reconstruction: *DEIC1-CL-DEIC2  Marker grammaticalized from a demonstrative determiner  Marker has frozen in some languages

25

Thank you

for your attention

References  Alton, Paula D'. 1987. Le Palor. Paris: CNRS Éditions.  Arnott, David W. 1970. The Nominal and Verbal Systems of Fula. Oxford: OUP.  Bai-Sheka, Abou. 1991. Prédication non verbale en temne. Afrikanistische Arbeitspapiere 26. 113-126.  Bao Diop, Sokhna. 2013. Description du baynunk guñaamolo, langue minoritaire du sénégal : analyse phonologique, morphologique et syntaxique. PhD dissertation. Paris: Inalco & Dakar: UCAD.  Bassène, Alain-Christian. 2006. Description du jóola banjal (Sénégal). PhD dissertation. Lyon: Université Lyon 2.  Biagui, Noël Bernard. 2012. Description générale du créole afro-portugais parlé à Ziguinchor (Sénégal). PhD dissertation. Paris: Inalco & Dakar: UCAD.  Creissels, Denis. 2006. Syntaxe générale, une introduction typologique. Paris: Lavoisier.  Creissels, Denis. 2015. Copulas originating from ‘see / look’ verbs in Mande languages. Paper presented at the Symposium “Areal patterns of grammaticalization and cross-linguistic variation in grammaticalization scenarios”, Mainz, 12-14 March.  Creissels, Denis & Pierre Sambou. 2013. Le mandinka : Phonologie, grammaire, textes. Paris: Karthala.  Cover, Rebecca T. 2010. Aspect, Modality, and Tense in Badiaranke. PhD dissertation. Berkeley: UC.

27

References  Diagana, Ousmane M. 1995. La langue soninkée. Paris: L'Harmattan.  Dièye, El Hadji. 2011. Description d'une langue Cangin du Sénégal : le laalaa (léhar). PhD dissertation. Paris: Inalco & Dakar: UCAD.  Diouf, Jean-Léopold. 2009. Grammaire du wolof contemporain, Édition revue et complétée. Paris: L'Harmattan.  Diouf, Jean-Léopold & Marina Yaguello. 1991. J'apprends le wolof. Paris: Karthala.  Doneux, Jean Léonce. 1991. La place de la langue buy dans le groupe atlantique de la famille kongo-kordofan. PhD dissertation. Bruxelles: Université Libre de Bruxelles.  Ferry, Marie-Paule. 1991. Thesaurus tenda : Dictionnaire ethnolinguistique de langues sénégalo-guinnéennes (bassari, bedik, konyagi). Paris: Peeters.  Guérin, Maximilien. 2016. Les constructions verbales en wolof : Vers une typologie de la prédication, de l'auxiliation et des périphrases. PhD dissertation. Paris: Université Sorbonne Nouvelle.  Heine, Bernd & Tania Kuteva. 2002. World Lexicon of Grammaticalization. Cambridge: CUP.  Lüpke, Friederike. 2005. A grammar of Jalonke argument structure. PhD dissertation. Nijmegen: Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen.  Morgan, Daniel R. 1996. Overview of grammatical structures of Ndut: a Cangin language of Senegal. MA thesis. Arlington: University of Texas.

28

References  Ndao, Dame. 2011. Phonologie, morphologie et structures syntaxiques du pepel. PhD dissertation. Paris: Inalco & Dakar: UCAD.  Payne, Stephen. 1992. Une grammaire pratique de kwatay. Dakar: SIL.  Quint, Nicolas. 2015. Le système des classes nominales en nyun de Djifanghor. In Denis Creissels & Konstantin Pozdniakov (eds.), Les classes nominales dans les langues atlantiques, 407-443. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe.  Renaudier, Marie. 2012. Dérivation et valence en sereer : Variété de Mar Lodj (Sénégal). PhD dissertation. Lyon: Université Lumière Lyon 2.  Segerer, Guillaume. 2002. La langue bijogo de Bubaque (Guinée Bissau). Louvain: Peeters.  Segerer, Guillaume. 2010. The Atlantic languages: state of the art. Paper presented at the Workshop “Genealogical classification of African languages beyond Greenberg”, Berlin, 21-22 February.  Soukka, Maria. 2000. A Descriptive Grammar of Noon: A Cangin Language of Senegal. Munich: Lincom Europa.  Taine-Cheikh, Catherine. 2010. The role of the Berber deictic and TAM markers in dependent clauses in Zenaga. In Isabelle Bril (ed.), Clause-Linking and ClauseHierarchy, 355-398. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.  Trifkovič, Mirjana. 1969. Le mancagne. Dakar: IFAN.  Wilson, W. André. A. 1961. Outline of the Balanta language. African Language Studies 2. 139-168.

29