Noun classes in Kafire (Senufo): Between a semantic and a formal - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Noun classes in Kafire (Senufo):

Between a semantic and a formal category

Tatiana Nikitina (CNRS-LLACAN) - Lacina Songfolo Silué (INALCO) POSTER - LFG20 June 20, 2020

Introduction

Noun class systems of Senufo languages present a challenge to formal treatments, because of the non-trivial interaction between the agreement features of the noun phrase and the noun class specification on the head noun. In Kafire (Senufo, Côte d’Ivoire), demonstratives normally agree with the head noun, independent of the determiner’s position and of the presence or absence of adjectives: (1) a. wè this.cl1 pɔ̰̄=w dog=cl1.def ‘this dog’ b. wè this.cl1 pɔ̰̄ dog wɔ́=w black=cl1.def ‘this black dog’ (2) a. túbɛ́rɛ́=g shoe=cl2.def gè this.cl2 ‘this shoe’ b. túbɛ́rɛ́ shoe ʃɛ̰́-wó-g two-adjvz-cl2.def gè this.cl2 ‘this second shoe’ Some adjectives, however, are exceptions to the general rule: in their presence, the demonstrative appears in Class 2 or 3 (depending on the adjective), and fails to agree with the head noun: (3) a. lè this.cl3 pɔ̰̄ dog bí=l little=cl3 ‘this little dog’ pɔ̰̄ dog gbóló=j big=cl2.pl ‘these big dogs’ In this study we address the exceptional behavior of such adjectives with respect to agreement and provide a first formal account of the noun class system of Kafire.

1

b. jè this.cl2.pl

Kafire noun class markers

There are five noun classes in Kafire, corresponding to the noun classes of other Senufo languages ( Welmers 1950, Carlson 1994, Baron 2016, Traoré & Féry 2018, Yéo 2012). The actual realization of the marker depends on the last vowel of the stem. (4) Noun class markers of Kafire (indefinite) Singular Plural Class 1 nà̰=wà ‘man’ nà̰=bélè ‘men’ tèfálá=wá ‘farmer’ tèfálá=bélè ‘farmers‘ Class 2 cí=gē ‘tree’ cí=jē ‘trees’ kpá=ʔā ‘house’ kpá=jā ‘houses’ Class 3 cɛ̰́=nɛ̰̀ ‘egg’ cɛ̰́=gélè ‘eggs’ jédá=là ‘foot sole’ jédá=gélè ‘foot soles’ Class 4 tā=rà ‘land(s)’ sú=rò ‘food(s)’ Class 5 sṵ̀=mɔ̰̀ ‘oil’ ɲṵ̀brí=mɛ̰̄ ‘brain’

2

Definite class markers derive, historically, from a combination of the indefinite (or the unmarked) class marker with the vowel -i. That relationship is not entirely regular, so we take them to be synchronically non-decomposable. (5) Noun class markers of Kafire (definite) Singular Plural Class 1 nà̰=w(ì) ‘the man’ nà̰=bèlè ‘the men‘ tèfálá=w(ì) ‘the farmer’ tèfálá=bèlè ‘the farmers‘ Class 2 cí=g(ì) ‘the tree’ cí=j(ì) ‘the trees’ kpá=g(ì) ‘the house’ kpá=j(ì) ‘the houses’ Class 3 cɛ̰́=n(ì) ‘the egg’ cɛ̰́=gélè ‘the eggs’ jédá=l(ì) ‘the foot sole’ jédá=gélè ‘the foot soles’ Class 4 tā=r(ì) ‘the land(s)’ sú=r(ì) ‘the food(s)’ Class 5 sṵ̀=m(ì) ‘the oil’ ɲṵ̀brí=m(ì) ‘the brain’

3

Claim 1: Noun phrase markers are determiners

Contrary to the traditional assumption (Carlson 1994; Yéo 2012; Manessy 1996), we argue (together with Baron 2016) that the noun class markers are not nominal suffjxes, but clitics of category D. Their obligatoriness explains why they have been mistaken for nominal suffjxes in previous studies. (6) a. DP DP D’ D cl1.def NP dog Dem this.cl1 b. DP DP D’ D cl1.def NP AP black NP dog Dem this.cl1

4

If the noun is modified by more than one adjective, the class marker follows them all, making the alternative analysis of the marker as a suffjx problematic. (7) a. túbɛ́rɛ́ shoe wɔ́ black cɛ̰̀ pretty vɔ̰́=ʔɔ̰̄ new=cl2 ‘a beautiful black new shoe’ b. túbɛ́rɛ́ shoe cɛ̰̀ pretty wɔ́ black vɔ̰́=ʔɔ̰̄ new=cl2 ‘a pretty black new shoe’ (8) a. túbɛ́rɛ́ shoe vɔ̰́ new wɔ́ black cɛ̰̀=gɛ̰̀ pretty=cl2 ‘a beautiful black new shoe’ b. túbɛ́rɛ́ shoe vɔ̰́ new cɛ̰̀ pretty wɔ́=ʔɔ̰̄ black=cl2 ‘a pretty black new shoe’ The order of adjectival modifiers is defined by information-structure considerations: adjectives conveying new information and adjectives that are in focus are placed before adjectives conveying discourse-old information.

5

Claim 2: Demonstratives are adjuncts to a DP

Demonstratives appear in a position external to the noun class marker, either before

• r aħter the NP (the ordering difgerence corresponds to a difgerence in discourse

status). The demonstrative agrees with the DP rather than with the head noun: (9) a. DP Dem this.cl2 DP D’ D cl2.def NP AP second NP shoe b. DP DP D’ D cl2.def NP AP second NP shoe Dem this.cl2

6

There are two demonstratives in Kafire, a proximal and a distant one. (10) The proximal demonstrative Singular Plural class 1 pì=w wè ‘this child’ pì=bèlè bèlè ‘these children’ class 2 túbɛ́rɛ́=g gè ‘this shoe’ túbɛ́rɛ́=j jè ‘these shoes’ class 3 cɛ̄=l lè ‘this calabash’ cɛ̄=gèlè gèlè ‘these calabashes’ class 4 tā=r dè ‘this land’ class 5 sṵ̀=m bè ‘this oil’ (11) The distal demonstrative Class 1 pì=w wàá ‘that child’ pì=bèlè bàlàá ‘those children’ Class 2 túbɛ́rɛ́=g gàá ‘that shoe’ túbɛ́rɛ́=j jàá ‘those shoes’ Class 3 cɛ̄=l làá ‘that calabash’ cɛ̄=gèlè gàlàá ‘those calabashes’ Class 4 tā=r dàá ‘that land’ Class 5 sṵ̀=m bàá ‘that oil’

7

Claim 3: Noun class specification is optional on nouns

Some adjectives are inherently specified for noun class: when such an adjective modifies a noun phrase, the DP agrees in Class 2 or Class 3, irrespective of the class of the head noun. In other words, the agreement value contributed by the head noun can be overruled by the agreement value contributed by its modifier. (12) a. pìcá young.girl kpé=lē short=cl3.sg ‘a short young girl’ b. pìcá young.girl kpé=l short=cl3 lè this.cl3.sg ‘this short girl’ (13) a. pìcá young.girl kpèr=gélè short=cl3.sg ‘short young girls’ b. pìcá young.girl kpér=gèlè short=cl2.pl gèlè this.cl3.pl ‘these short young girls’ To account for this we suggest that noun class specification is optional on nouns,

• bligatory on some adjectives (such as ‘little’ , ‘big’ , ‘short’), and absent from others.

8

We define agreement of determiners in noun class by a constraining equation such that the controller NP must bear a specific agreement value:

• In the absence of class-marked adjectives, the determiner must agree with the

head noun (despite the optionality of its class feature).

• When a class-marked adjective is present, its obligatory agreement feature
• verrules the one of the head noun.

As a result, the agreement value on the determiner could come either from the head noun or its adjectival modifier. The difgerent agreement mechanisms are illustrated in the structure below, for ‘this little black dog’:

• the demonstrative and the DP it modifies must agree in their noun class;
• the determiner agrees with its NP by a constraining equation;
• the noun class information is optional on the head noun (‘dog’),
• the noun class information is obligatory on one of the adjectives (‘little’),
• no noun class information is contributed by the other adjective (‘black’).

9

(14) ‘this little black dog’ DP ↑ = ↓ DP ↑ = ↓ D’ ↑ = ↓ D l (↑cl) =c 3 ↑ = ↓ NP ↓ ∈ (↑adj) AP wɔ́ (↑ pred) = ‘black’ ↑ = ↓ NP ↓ ∈ (↑adj) AP bí (↑ pred) = ‘little’ ((adj ∈ ↑) cl) = 3 ↑ = ↓ NP pɔ̰̄ (↑ pred) = ‘dog’ ((↑ cl) = 1) ↑ = ↓ Dem lè (↑ prox) = + (↑ cl) = 3

10

Besides regular anaphoric pronouns, noun class is reflected in the choice of what is known as emphatic pronouns. (15) Anaphoric pronouns Singular Plural Class 1 wí ‘he, she’ bé ‘they’ Class 2 gí ‘it’ jí ‘they’ Class 3 lí ‘it’ gé ‘they’ Class 4 dí ‘it, they’ Class 5 bí ‘it’ (16) Emphatic pronouns Singular Plural Class 1 wéè ‘him(self), her(self)’ pélè ‘them(selves)’ Class 2 kéè ‘it(self)’ jéè ‘them(selves)’ Class 3 léè ‘it(self)’ kélè ‘them(selves)’ Class 4 téè ‘it(self), them(selves)’ Class 5 péè ‘it(self)’

10

Claim 4: Noun class markers have optional semantic content

Cross-linguistically, formal agreement classes develop from systems of semantically motivated genders or classifiers (Nicole 1999; Aikhenvald 2000). Some of the noun class markers in Kafire still retain traces of their original lexical

• meaning. This explains a certain degree of flexibility in class assignment. Classes 2

and 3, for example, are associated with the augmentative and the diminutive meanings, respectively: (17) a. kácélé=ʔè ‘bone’ (bone=cl2) → kácélé=lē ‘little bone’ (bone=cl3) b. cí=gē ‘tree’ (tree=cl2) → cí=lé ‘little tree’ (tree=cl3) Class 4 markers are asociated with the collective meaning, and can be used to derive collective nouns from certain count nouns: (18) a. cí=gē ‘tree’ (tree=cl2) → cí=rē ‘trees’ (tree=cl4) b. pjā=lā ‘seed’ (seed=cl3) → pjā=rā ‘seeds’ (seed=cl4) To account for such uses, we assume that the markers for Classes 2 and 3 are associated not only with a formal agreement value but also with the optional semantic features augm and dimin, respectively.

11

The determiners can either be licensed by a controller NP of the appropriate class or, in cases of a mismatching NP, they contribute a semantic value, along with a class value (in accordance with Wechsler’s 2011 Agreement Marking Principle): (19) a. DP ↑ = ↓ D’ ↑ = ↓ D lé (↑dimin) = + (↑cl) = 3 ↑ = ↓ NP ↑ = ↓ N cí (↑ pred) = ‘tree’ ((↑ cl) = 2)     pred ‘tree’ dimin + cl 3     b. DP ↑ = ↓ D’ ↑ = ↓ D gē (↑cl) = 2 ↑ = ↓ NP ↑ = ↓ N cí (↑ pred) = ‘tree’ ((↑ cl) = 2)   pred ‘tree’ cl 2   The flexibility in class assignment is only possible due to the optionality of the class value in the lexical specification of nouns; unlike that optional value, the value assigned by the determiner is available for DP-external agreement.

12

Conclusion

• The proposed analysis accounts for the synchronic distribution of noun class

markers in Kafire as well as allows us to explore the way they have been evolving.

• The multi-level architecture of LFG deals successfully with the combination of the

noun class markers’ rigid syntax (they behave as obligatory determiners) and their semantic flexibility (they sometimes agree with the NP and sometimes contribute their own values).

• In Kafire, agreement in noun class is a heterogeneous phenomenon, comprising

both the optional (and to some extent meaning-based) “agreement” of determiners with NPs and the rigid form-based DP-external agreement, i.e. the agreement of demonstratives and anaphoric pronouns.

• Multiple formal tools developed within the LFG framework need to be used

together to account for this complexity, including several types of lexical specification (obligatory for demonstratives, optional for nouns, specification by means of inside-out expressions for adjectives), as well as constraining equations.

13

References

Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2000. Classifiers: A typology of noun categorization devices. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Baron, Bertille. 2016. The syntax of nafara dp. Southern Illinois University at Carbondale. Carlson, Robert. 1994. A grammar of Supyire. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Manessy, Gabriel. 1996. Observations sur la classification nominale en sénoufo. Afrika und Übersee 79(1). 21–35. Nicole, Jacques. 1999. Les classes nominales dans les langues voltaïques: esquisse d’un cadre de description. Lome: SIL Togo. Traoré, Yranahan & Caroline Féry. 2018. Nominal classes and phonological agreement in tagbana. Folia Linguistica 45(2). 237–244. Wechsler, Stephen. 2011. Mixed agreement, the person feature, and the index/concord

• distinction. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 29(4). 999–1031.

Welmers, William E. 1950. Notes on two languages in the senufo group i: senadi. Journal of West African Languages 26(1). 126–146. Yéo, Kanabein O. 2012. Etude comparative de la morphologie nominale de six langues sénoufo. Université Félix Houphoët Boigny Thèse Unique de Doctorat.

14