Download BINDING IN SWAHILI MORPHOLOGY AND SYNTAX. NAME

BINDING IN SWAHILI MORPHOLOGY AND SYNTAX.
NAME:
MWANGI PETER NDERITU
TASK:
FORMAL PROPOSAL
TITLE:
BINDING IN SWAHILI MORPHOLOGY AND SYNTAX
DATE:
NOVEMBER 23, 2010
1
BINDING IN SWAHILI MORPHOLOGY AND SYNTAX.
TITLE
Binding in Swahili morphology and syntax.
INTRODUCTION: RESEARCH AREA
This study focuses on Binding in Swahili morphology and syntax. Swahili is an agglutinative language
and its grammaticality is largely determined by the concord between its morphology and syntax.
Accordingly, binding in Swahili is twofold: in morphology and syntax. However, morphology and
syntax cannot work independently in the light of concordial agreement; this study will eventually
attempt to show how the two interact in deciding the grammaticality of sentences.
Key terms and concepts that will be commonly used in this study include: subject and object markers.
These two refer to the prefixes attached to the verb’s stem to indicate the subject and the object
pronouns conjugated in the verb. Another common term will be verbal complex. This will be referring
to the structure of a Swahili verb, which mainly consists of the subject, tense and object prefixes and
the verb’s stem. Keach (1995) points out that the subject and object prefixes may either serve the
purpose of agreement or pronoun incorporation. A Swahili verb may also include suffixes, which
indicate such features as voice, mood and persons. Also, connected to the concept of verbal complex is
the concept of concordial agreement. This will relate to the agreement among persons, numbers and
noun classes of the subjects and objects within a verbal complex. In addition, binding theory will be
mentioned often which according to Santorini and Kroch (2007) refers to the part of syntactic theory
that is concerned with how the interpretations of noun phrases is constrained by syntactic
considerations. Hence, my study will be attempting to investigate binding-like phenomena within the
Swahili verbal complex.
2
BINDING IN SWAHILI MORPHOLOGY AND SYNTAX.
The problem that I will be attempting to solve in this study then is how morphology and syntax interact
in binding in Swahili.
AIM/JUSTIFICATION
This paper is important because binding in Swahili differs from binding in English precisely because
unlike English, Swahili is an agglutinative language and binding is realized both in morphology and
syntax. Two articles, among the ones I have read on Swahili anaphors have generated a heated debate
on how Swahili anaphors determine the grammaticality in Swahili sentences. This debate relates to the
principles of binding theory, in particular, principles A and B. This study aims to shed some light on
this debate.
Woolford (1999) concurs with an earlier claim by Rizzi (1990). Rizzi (1990), on examining the
anaphoric relations in Italian and Icelandic languages concluded that all natural languages exhibit
anaphor agreement effect. However, Woolford (1999) reveals an important omission in Rizzi’s
generalization. She further brings to focus anaphors with objective agreement. Rizzi’s (1990) study
had only focused on the nominative anaphors. In doing this, Woolford (1999) investigates languages
with object agreement, among them, Swahili. Her investigation reveals that these languages too
conform to Rizzi’s (1990) generalization. Indeed, it is through the study of languages with object
agreement that she modifies Rizzi’s (1990) generalization.
On the other hand, Shiraki (2004) provides what he terms as, “Alternative explanation for the anaphor
agreement effect.” In so doing, he argues that if Rizzi’s (1990) generalization which Woolford (1999)
support is correct, reflexives in a Swahili verbal complex should not occupy the object marker’s
position. The Swahili’s -ji- reflexive does exactly this. He then analyzes the same sentences analyzed
by Woolford (1999) and concludes that Swahili does not exhibit the anaphor agreement effect.
3
BINDING IN SWAHILI MORPHOLOGY AND SYNTAX.
My study will be investigating the stances assumed by the above mentioned three authors from the
binding in Swahili morphology and syntax perspective with the aim of revealing any important
underlying anaphoric relations between the two which may provide a solution to the debate mentioned
above.
My paper will thus be important for the following two reasons: To begin with, it will reveal how
binding works in an agglutinative language such as Swahili and secondly, it will shed light in the
debate whether or not, Swahili exhibits anaphor agreement effect.
HYPOTHESES
i)
Subject and object marking in Swahili must be adhered to strictly in the light of binding
in Swahili morphology and syntax.
ii)
Binding principles must first be satisfied both at the morphology and syntax levels
separately
iii)
Binding at both morphology and syntax levels must be harmonized to give us
grammatical sentences.
LITERATURE REVIEW
My research topic is on Binding in Swahili morphology and syntax. This literature review is organized
as follows. The first part looks at the definition of binding theory and principles involved. Secondly, I
will look at Swahili pronouns, which are addressed by principle B of the binding theory. Thirdly, I will
look at Swahili reflexives, which are addressed by principle A of the binding theory. Fourthly, I will
look at two conflicting views of binding in Swahili, which deal with whether Swahili exhibits anaphor
agreement effect or not. Finally, I will look at subject and object marking in Swahili, which forms the
basis of binding in morphology. To achieve this, I will be guided by the previous works done by
4
BINDING IN SWAHILI MORPHOLOGY AND SYNTAX.
Carnie (2007), Santorin and Kroch (2007), Mohammed (2001), Kihole, Massamba and Msanjila
(2001), Krifka (1995), Vitale (1981), Keach (1995), Keith (1983), Woolford (1999) and Shiraki (2004)
Binding Theory
Santorini and Kroch (2007) define Binding Theory as that part of Syntactic Theory that is concerned
with how the interpretation of NPs is constrained by syntactic considerations. They further add that for
the purpose of binding theory, it is useful to distinguish several types of NPs such as:
i)
Full noun phrases for instance My Research Methods’ professor
ii)
Ordinary nouns for instance John, James, Ruth among others
iii)
Reflexive pronouns for instance myself, ourselves, yourself, yourselves him/herself and
themselves
iv)
Reciprocal pronouns such as each other.
In this exploration, I will start by looking at the Swahili pronouns and reflexives precisely because of
the debates surrounding each of them. Next, I will get into the debate surrounding whether Swahili
exhibits anaphor agreement effect. Finally, the issue of subject and object marking will be addressed.
While showing how binding theory can work in Swahili, I shall abide by the principles of Binding
Theory in giving all examples from Carnie (2007), particularly, principles A and B. Principle A of the
binding theory requires an anaphor to be bound in its binding domain while principle B requires a
pronoun to be free within its binding domain.
5
BINDING IN SWAHILI MORPHOLOGY AND SYNTAX.
Pronouns and pronominalization in Swahili
Mohammed (2001) defines pronouns as a set of items that can be used to replace or substitute nouns or
noun phrases. According to this definition, it appears like any set of items, which replaces a noun, or a
noun phrase is a pronoun.
Personal pronouns in Swahili
Mohammed (2001) identifies two groups of personal pronouns:
i)
Personal independent pronouns also referred to as self-standing pronouns. They are as follows:
Person
Singular
Plural
1.
Mimi ‘I/ me’
Sisi ‘we/us’
2.
Wewe ‘you’
Nyinyi ‘you’
3.
Yeye ‘he/him, she/her’
Wao ‘they’
Mohammed (2001) points out that independent pronouns can stand on their own and they are thus free
morphemes. In addition, they can serve as subjects.
Examples.
1a.
Mimi ni____ ta____ enda
shule___ni
I
school
1SUBJ FTR
go
‘I will go to school.’
b.
Wewe u____ me___ ni____ shtua.
6
LOC.
BINDING IN SWAHILI MORPHOLOGY AND SYNTAX.
You
2SUBJ PER
1OBJ scare
‘You have scared me’
1
c.
Yeye
a_____ na____ ondoka
sasa.
He/she
3SUBJ PRE
now
leave
‘He/she is leaving now’
Mohammed observes that personal independent pronouns can also serve as objects. Examples:
2a.
Jane
a_____ na____ ni____ita
(mimi).
Jane
3SUBJ PRE
me
1OBJ call
‘Jane is calling me’
b.
Ali
a_____ ta____ ku___ acha
Ali
3SUBJ FTR
‘Ali
will leave you’
(wewe).
2OBJ leave you
2
c.
Daktari
a_____ li____ m____ tibu
(yeye).
Daktari
3SUBJ PST
him/her
3OBJ treat
‘The doctor treated him/her’
However, when used this way, they make the sentences sound strange. Since the object markers in the
verbal complex have the same role as these pronouns, any native speaker will notice the oddness in
1
The items with dashes in the above sentences are bound morphemes within the verbal complex and
at the end of a noun for instance to show location.
2 Abbreviation used in the paper: INF = Infinitive, Numerals = personal pronouns or noun classes,
REFL= Reflexive, SUBJ = subject, OBJ = object, FTR = Future tense, HAB = Habitual, PRES= Present
tense, PRES = Present tense and PER=Perfect tense
7
BINDING IN SWAHILI MORPHOLOGY AND SYNTAX.
them. Even my advanced Swahili students told me that people do not speak this way last academic
year. This view is compatible with Keith’s (1983) opinion that such usage should make such sentences
ungrammatical in as far as the object NP and the cliticized object are supposed to be co-referential.
Krifka (1995, p. 1400) on the other hand notes that, free pronouns are only used as objects in special
instances such as for emphasis.
ii)
Mohammed identifies the second category of personal pronouns as that made of subject and
object prefixes. Thus, this second group of personal pronouns is made of bound morphemes,
which are attached to the verbal complex. Krifka (1995) points out that in this second category,
we find some differences between subject and object forms and this is the only trace in Swahili
of case system. These are:
I
Subject Markers (SM).
Person
Singular
Plural
1
Ni___(I)
Tu___(we)
2.
U___(you)
M/mw___(you)
3.
A___(he/she)
Wa___(they)
Examples of sentences.
3 a.
Ni_____ta____enda kulala
1SUBJ FTR
go
sleep
‘I will go to sleep.’
8
BINDING IN SWAHILI MORPHOLOGY AND SYNTAX.
b.
U_____na____penda ku____cheza.
2SUBJ PRES like
to
play
‘You like playing.’
c.
A_____na____soma maktaba____ni
3SUBJ PRES read
library
LOC.
‘He/she is reading in the library.
II.
Object Markers (OM).
Person
Singular
Plural
1
_ni____(me)
_tu___(us)
2.
_ku___(you)
_m/mw___(you)
3
_mw___(him/her)
_wa___(them)
Examples of sentences.
4a.
a_____li_____ni_____ita
usiku
3SUBJ PST
night
1OBJ call
‘He/she called me (at) night’
b.
ni_____ta____ku____chukua
kesho.
1SUBJ FUT
tomorrow
2OBJ pick
‘I will pick you up tomorrow’
9
BINDING IN SWAHILI MORPHOLOGY AND SYNTAX.
C.
tu____ li_____mw___alika kwenye
sherehe.
1SUBJ PST
party.
3OBJ invite to
‘We invited him/her to the party’.
Debate on Swahili pronouns
Kihole, Massamba and Msanjila (2001) claim that personal pronouns made by subject and object
prefixes as shown by Mohammed (2001) should not be considered as fully-fledged personal pronouns
due to the fact that they are not full words. They insist that personal pronouns are those words, which
stand independently or freely. They further insist that pronouns should be looked at as full words
which replace a noun and not otherwise. However, they absolutely acknowledge the fact that these
morphemes refer to nouns, but they are not complete words. Hence, they have considered
Mohammed’s personal independent pronouns as the only personal pronouns in Swahili.
My opinion regarding the debate raised here is that, while I concur with Kihole, Massamba and
Msanjila(2001), it is not possible to disregard the role of the subject and object prefix markers in the
Swahili verbal complex, especially in binding theory. This is because, as we shall see later, these
prefixes determine the grammaticality of Swahili sentences largely. I shall demonstrate this at a later
stage.
On the other hand, Mohammed (2001) suggests that independent personal pronouns can serve both as
subjects and as objects. However, Krifka (1995) observes that independent personal pronouns do not
distinguish between subjects and objects forms. I agree with Krifka’s (1995) claim because as I earlier
mentioned, there is a feel of redundancy when the independent personal pronouns are used as objects.
Swahili reflexives
Vitale (1981) considers two types of reflexives.
10
BINDING IN SWAHILI MORPHOLOGY AND SYNTAX.
I.
The –enyewe reflexive.
Vitale (1981) points out that this type of a reflexive anaphor, -enyewe ‘self, own’ has a prefix attached
to it, which shows agreement with the gender and number of the antecedent NPs.
Although Vitale (1981) mentions that the prefix that is attached to –enyewe shows agreement in gender
among other things, it is important to clarify here that Swahili does not make the kinds of gender
distinctions English makes through its system of pronouns. Indeed, the gender of a person in Swahili
pronouns depends on the context. Thus, all the three persons take mwenyewe (myself, yourself, and
himself/herself) in singular form and wenyewe (ourselves, yourselves, themselves) in plural form as
shown in the table below.
Person
Singular
Plural
1
Mwenyewe ‘myself’
Wenyewe ‘Ourselves’
2
Mwenyewe ‘Yourself’
Wenyewe ‘Yourselves’
3
Mwenyewe ‘him/herself’
Wenyewe ‘Themselves’
Possessive and anaphoric -enyewe
Caution should be taken when dealing with –enyewe because Swahili has two types of –enyewe: the
reflexive and the possessive one. While my discussion will focus exclusively on the reflexive –enyewe,
it is necessary to draw a distinction between the two forms here.
The English translation of the Swahili possessive –enyewe is ‘the owner’. Thus, it does not have any
anaphoric usage whatsoever. It is usually associated with animate nouns, human beings in particular,
as they are capable of owning other animate nouns such as pets and property such as car, house, and
11
BINDING IN SWAHILI MORPHOLOGY AND SYNTAX.
ornaments among others. It usually occupies the subject position especially if the referent is already
known, for instance:
5.
Mwenyewe
a_____ me___ i______chukua.
Owner
3SUBJ PER
9N
take.
‘The owner has taken it’
It can also appear at the end of the sentence in a passive sentence as shown below.
6.
I______me___
chuku_ liwa
na
9N
PAS
owners
PER
take
by
wenyewe.
‘It has been taken away by its owners’
The litmus test for whether the –enyewe in a sentence is anaphoric or possessive is to have an
agreeable noun or pronoun precede it. Only anaphoric –enyewe can take a noun or a pronoun. Indeed,
placing a noun or its pronoun right before the possessive form of –enyewe automatically changes it to
anaphoric one. For instance, example 5 repeated below as 7.
7.
Jamesi mwenyewei
a_____ me___ i______chukua.
James himself3SUBJ PER
9N
take.
‘James himself has taken it’
Examples of anaphoric –enyewe
8.
Wachezajii
wenyewei
wa____li_____cheza mpira vizuri.
Players
themselves
3SUB PST
Play
‘The players themselves played the ball nicely’
12
ball
nice.
BINDING IN SWAHILI MORPHOLOGY AND SYNTAX.
9.
Øi
Mwenyewei
SUB. Him/herself
a_____ me___ hama.
3SUB PER
move
‘he/himself/her/herself has moved’
Vitale (1981) calls this form of -enyewe the “emphatic” reflexive and states the following rule:
The reflexive anaphor –enyewe must agree with its antecedent in number and noun class (Mention of
the noun class is mine because Swahili pronouns do not make gender distinctions as mentioned above).
Vitale (1981,) further observes that while this rule is not very different from the English Reflexives’
rule, the semantic function of –enyewe seems to be one of emphasis or emphatic possession rather than
a true voice relationship. I have already shown this while discussing about the possessive –enyewe. He
adds that in the examples such as the ones shown above, the emphatic –enyewe unambiguously agrees
with the NP wachezaji ‘players’ and the deleted pronoun yeye ‘he/she’ (the feminine interpretation is
mine). This is a case of suppressed subject. He also argues when –enyewe occurs in construction with
two NPs of the same gender and number, ambiguity may result.
Examples:
10.
Hamisii
Hamisi himself
mwenyewei
a_____ li_____m____ penda
3SUB PST
3OBJ love
Asha.
Asha.
‘Hamisi himself loved Asha’
11.
Hamisi
a_____ li_____m____ penda
Ashai mwenyewei.
Hamisi
3SUB PST
Asha herself/himself (?)
3OBJ love
‘Hamisi loved Asha her/himself (?)’
It is apparent that unlike 10, example 11 is ambiguous because it is possible to come up with the
following two meanings without the coindexication:
13
BINDING IN SWAHILI MORPHOLOGY AND SYNTAX.
i)
Hamisi himself loved Asha (just like in 10 above).
ii)
Hamisi loved Asha herself, not any other girl. (Or put differently Hamisi loved Asha for
who she was, not what she had. This meaning is depicted).
The ambiguity in example 11 does not emanate from the issue of gender because the names used are
gender-specific. Hamisi is a male name while Asha is a female name. The positioning of the reflexive,
which is not gender specific at the end, mostly causes the ambiguity.
Furthermore, it is apparent that binding relationship is very relevant even for emphatic use of
reflexives. This is because once the proper coindexication is done; we end up getting the only one
intended meaning. This way, the ambiguity is solved. Thus, binding theory is very crucial in languages
such as Swahili that do not have gender-specific anaphors.
Vitale (1981) notes that –enyewe may occur in different syntactic positions just as it is the case with
the English construction. For example
12.
Kamaui
mwenyewei
a_____ li_____cheza mpira.
Kamau
himself3SUB PST
Play ball.
‘Kamau himself played the ball’.
13.
Kamaui
a_____ li_____cheza mpira mwenyewei.
Kamau
3SUB PST
Play
ball
himself.
‘Kamau played the ball himself’
It is important to note that moving –enyewe to occupy the position shown in 13 above results in an
ambiguous sentence. For instance, it is possible to have the following interpretation from 13:
i) Kamau played the ball in person.
14
BINDING IN SWAHILI MORPHOLOGY AND SYNTAX.
ii) Kamau played the ball all alone.
On the other hand, we only have one meaning for sentence 12.
II. The –ji- reflexive
Vitale (1981) observes this second reflexive is one in which there is coreferentiality between the
subject and some other NP in the sentence, either the direct or indirect object. The major difference
between –ji- reflexive and –enyewe reflexive, he states, is that while transitivity is irrelevant in the –
enyewe constructions, it plays a crucial role in –ji- reflexives. This argument will be investigated at a
later stage.
It is important to point out here that –ji- reflexive is a bound morpheme and occupies the objects’ slot
in the verbal complex. For instance:
14.
Mwanasiasai a_____ li_____jii_____sifu.
Politician
3SUB. PST
REFL. Praise.
‘The politician praised him/herself’.
15.
Gaidii
a_____ li_____jii_____laumu.
Terrorist
3SUB. PST
REFL blame.
‘The terrorist blamed him/herself’.
Vitale (1981) suggests that examples to be considered under the –ji- reflexive should contain transitive
verbs since transitivity is a necessary condition. For example:
16.
Hans hu____m____chukia Johari.
Hans HAB 3OBJ hate
Johari.
‘Hans hates Johari’.
15
BINDING IN SWAHILI MORPHOLOGY AND SYNTAX.
17.
*Hansi hu____mi____ chukia Hans.
Hans HAB 3OBJ hate
Hans
‘Hans hates Hans’.
18.
*Hansi hu____ji_____chukia Hansi.
Hans HAB REFL hate
Hans
‘Hans hates himself Hans’
19.
Hansi hu____jii_____chukia
mwenyewe.
Hans HAB REFL hate
himself.
‘Hans hates himself’
20.
Hansi hu____jii_____chukia.
Hans HAB REFL hate.
‘Hans hates himself’
The ungrammaticality of such a sentence as 17 according to Vitale (1981) is caused by the fact that
both subject and object have the same reference, yet in derived structure, the verb is marked by -ji- as
in 20. However, in binding theory, the ungrammaticality of 17 above is more due to coindexing the
object marker, which is itself a pronoun, with the subject, Hans. This violates the principle B of the
binding theory, which requires a pronoun to be free in its binding domain. The similarity in the names
does not necessarily mean that they have the same referent.
On the other hand, the ungrammaticality of 18 can be explained with respect to principle C of the
binding theory, which according to Carnie (2007) states that an R-expression must be free. According
to this argument, it appears as if we had the two nouns, Hans, unbound, our sentence could have been
grammatical. However, this still would not be the case. It can only be grammatical when either the
second Hans is deleted or is replaced by a third person singular anaphor like in example 19. This is
16
BINDING IN SWAHILI MORPHOLOGY AND SYNTAX.
compatible with Vitale’s (1981) observation that no surface objects, except –enyewe can occur with
reflexive -ji-. While I concur with this observation, the presence of –enyewe as an object makes the
sentence redundant.
Mutual exclusivity between –ji- and the object marker.
Since reflexive -ji- occupies the object’s slot in a verbal complex; it is obvious that a verbal complex
cannot have both the ji-reflexive and an object prefix at the same time. Such a situation would make
any such sentences ungrammatical as Vitale (1981) points out. For instance:
21. *Hans a_____li_____ji_____ni_____piga.
Hans 3SUB PST
REFL 1OBJ beat.
‘Hans beat himself me up’
22. *Maria a_____ ta____ ji_____ku____jibu.
Maria 3SUB FTR
REFL 2OBJ answer.
‘Maria will answer herself you’
In explaining the mutual exclusivity of reflexives and pronominal prefixes, Vitale (1981) argues that
the features [+pro] [+refl] would be included as part of the object NP. To this end, it is apparent that
binding relations in Swahili are realized in both morphology and syntax. This is especially clear with
the reflexive -ji- that is within the verbal complex and for the sentence to be considered grammatical in
the light of the binding theory; this reflexive must be bound to its antecedent, which is an independent
NP. It may also be argued that the subject marker is a pronoun and can thus be used to bind such a
reflexive but this matter will be investigated later.
The above phenomenon is further compounded in the following section that looks at languages with
object agreement.
17
BINDING IN SWAHILI MORPHOLOGY AND SYNTAX.
Languages with object agreement.
Woolford (1999) states that there are many examples of languages without object agreement that allow
anaphors in object position such as English. However, she gives examples of languages that have
object agreement such as Swahili, Inuit and Nez. She notes that the latter group of languages does not
allow agreeing objects to be anaphors with one well-defined exception, which is objective anaphors,
can agree just in case a special anaphoric form of agreement is present. In addition, she points out that
in Swahili, objects agree in person, number and noun class. The object agreement morpheme is always
inside the verbal complex just before the verb stem.
I have already given some examples that show this but for the sake of the argument that is raised here,
I will look at a few more examples.
23. Juma a______na____mw___ita
Asha
Juma 3SUB PRES 2OBJ call
Asha.
‘Juma is calling Asha’
Woolford (1999) observes that pronominal objects can be overt if they are contrastively stressed, as
shown in (24), but they are normally null (pro) as in (25). However, she adds that null objects trigger
agreement just as overt objects do.
24. Yusuf a_____ li_____m_____penda yeye.
Yusuf 3SUBJ PST
3OBJ Love her.
‘Yusuf loved her’
Woolford (1999) cites Hoekstra and Dimmendaal (1983) as having stated that the above sentence is
grammatical with contrastive stress on her.
18
BINDING IN SWAHILI MORPHOLOGY AND SYNTAX.
25. Yusuf a_____ li______m____penda.
Yusuf 3SUBJ PST
3OBJ Love.
‘Yusuf loved her’
Woolford (1999) further notes that reflexive pronouns can also be overt when emphasized, but they are
normally also null. She points out that the morpheme –ji- occupies the object agreement position in
the verbal complex as we have already seen elsewhere.
Examples:
26. Ednai aj_____na____jii_____penda mwenyewej.
Edna 3SUBJ PRES REFL love
herself
(coindexication mine)
(emphatic reflexive)
‘Edna loves herself.
27. Ednai a_____na____jii_____penda
Edna 3SUBJ.PRES. REFL. Love
‘Edna loves herself’
Debate on languages with object agreement.
Shiraki (2004) starts by concurring with Woolford (1999) that Swahili has object agreement.
Following this, he attempts to refute Rizzi’s (1990) generalization, which has been supported by
Woolford (1999) above, by arguing that if it is correct, we should not expect reflexives to appear in the
object positions in Swahili. However, as I have previously shown in all my examples, the reflexive
prefix –ji- occupies the object’s position.
Rizzi’s (1990) generalization according to Woolford (1999) is about the universality of anaphor
agreement effect. Following his analysis on the Italic and Icelandic languages, he concluded that all
natural languages exhibit anaphor agreement effect.
19
BINDING IN SWAHILI MORPHOLOGY AND SYNTAX.
Shiraki (2004) further notes that Woolford’s (1999) analyses of Swahili reflexive data concludes that
Swahili displays the anaphor-agreement effect, precisely because normal object agreement never
occurs with anaphoric objects. He shows that indeed, a reflexive in object position triggers the
presence of the reflexive object morpheme –ji- on the verb. He cites the following examples from
Woolford (1999) article:
28. Juma a______li______m_____busu
Juma 3SUBJ PST
3OBJ
yeye
kiss
her
‘ Juma kissed her’ (Hoekstra and Dimmendaal 1983, p.55)
29. Ahmed
Ahmed
a______na_____m_____penda
Halima.
3SUBJ PRES 3OBJ love
Halima
‘Ahmed loves Halima’ (Vitale 1981, p.137)
30. Ahmedi
Ahmed
ai______na_____jii______penda mwenyewei. (coindexication mine)
3SUBJ PRES REFL
love
himself.
‘Ahmed loves himself’ (Vitale 1981, p.137)
Shiraki (2004) observes that from 28 and 29 above, objects agree with their predicates in Swahili. This,
he explains, is shown by the 3rd person singular object agreement morpheme –m- attached to the verb.
However, he notes that in 30, when the object is a reflexive, the reflexive object agreement morpheme
–ji- is attached to the verbal complex and occupies the object’s position (emphasis is mine). Because of
this, he notes, Woolford (1999) claims that Swahili exhibits the Anaphor-Agreement effect and came
up with the following dictum:
Anaphors do not occur in syntactic positions construed with agreement, unless the
agreement is anaphoric, Shiraki (2004)
20
BINDING IN SWAHILI MORPHOLOGY AND SYNTAX.
Shiraki (2004) then bases his analysis of Swahili on the above argument. He starts by pointing out that
the morpheme –enyewe is what Vitale (1981) calls an “emphatic reflexive” as we have already seen
previously. Shiraki further points out that objects in transitive sentences may be deleted in Swahili as
long as the verb has an object agreement morpheme. We have already seen this but for the purpose of
the proposition that he makes, it is worth revisiting it. He cites the following examples.
31. Juma
Juma
a______li______u______fungua
3SUBJ PST
3N
open.
‘Juma opened it’ (Vitale 1981, p. 24)
32. Fatuma
Fatuma
a______na_____ya_____panda.
3SUBJ PRES 6N
plant.
‘Fatuma plants them’ (Vitale 1981, p. 24)
33. *Juma
Juma
a______li______fungua.
3SUBJ PST
open.
‘Juma opened (something)’ (Vitale 1981, p. 24)
The grammaticality of 31 and 32 is associated with the presence of the object agreement morphemes –
u- and –ya- respectively in the verbs. However, example 33 is ungrammatical since the verb is a
transitive one and it requires a theme argument.
It is worth mentioning here that for a sentence such as 33 above to be grammatical, you can either
insert the object morpheme in the verb or add the object after the verb even without an object
morpheme marker such that it reads:
21
BINDING IN SWAHILI MORPHOLOGY AND SYNTAX.
34. Juma a______li______fungua
Juma 3SUBJ PST
open
mlango.
door
‘Juma opened the door’
The issue of subject and object markings in Swahili will be looked at in the following section because
it has been termed by several authors to be complex and it relates to binding in Swahili morphology.
Shiraki (2004) further observes that when the reflexive morpheme –ji- is put in a verb, -enyewe can be
omitted as we have already seen. He cites the following two examples.
35. Ahmedi
Ahmed
aj______na_____jii________penda
mwenyewej. (coindexication mine)
3SUBJ PRES REFL
himself.
love
‘Ahmed loves himself’ (Vitale 1981, p. 137)
36. Ahmed
Ahmed
ai______na_____jii_________penda.
3SUBJ PRES REFL
love
‘Ahmed loves himself’ (Vitale 1981, p. 137)
Shiraki (2004) concludes that –enyewe is pseudo-reflexive and the morpheme –ji- is the real reflexive.
He clarifies that by ‘real reflexive’ he refers to anaphoric dependency in the domain of syntax or
morphology (such as English himself) or one that reflexivizes a predicate.
Shiraki further notes that considering that a verbal complex with –ji- introduces only one theta
function. Hence, -enyewe is probably used adverbially, in a way similar to such an English sentence as:
37. He himself refused to accept the money.
Shiraki adds that even if we were forced to assume that an object like yeye in 28 was an argument, we
could still account for the observed reflexivization pattern. He revisits example 35 repeated as 38 to
demonstrate this argument.
22
BINDING IN SWAHILI MORPHOLOGY AND SYNTAX.
38. Ahmedi
Ahmed
aj______na_____jii______pendaj
mwenyewei.
3SUBJ PRES REFL
himself.
love
‘Ahmed loves himself’
He argues that there are two potential analyses that present themselves. To begin with, if it is assumed
that the theme theta role of the predicate a-na-ji-penda is satisfied by mwenyewe, and that, following
Woolford (1999), the morpheme –ji- is not a real object agreement morpheme, then, the object
argument mwenyewe has to be licensed by case and not by agreement. In this case, nothing prevents
mwenyewe from occurring in the object position.
Secondly, Shiraki (2004) argues that if we consider the alternative possibility that –ji- is real object
agreement and that it is a manifestation of agreement between the reflexive and the predicate, the
object argument has to be licensed by agreement. He adds that if we were to consider sentence 38
again, here the mwenyewe is headed by –enyewe. Hence, there is no reason to assume that these
elements do not agree and as a result, the sentence is grammatical.
As such, he concludes, we do not observe any anaphor-agreement effects in object anaphors in
Swahili.
I think there is a misconception here. To begin with, it is not mwenyewe that is headed by –enyewe but
rather, it is –enyewe that is headed by mw- for agreement purposes with the subject; Ahmed and its
prefix in the verbal complex a-.
It is clear that the debate raised here by Shiraki (2004) touches on subject and object marking in
Swahili. The following section will help in shedding light regarding subject and object marking in
Swahili.
To this end, it is clear that the debate surrounding subject/object marking is important in the Swahili
verbal complex and largely determines the grammaticality in Swahili sentences. The following section
exclusively looks at subject/object marking in Swahili.
23
BINDING IN SWAHILI MORPHOLOGY AND SYNTAX.
Subject and object marking in Swahili
Keach (1995) investigates the functions of Subject and Object markings in Swahili. Her guiding
principle is that for a morpheme to be in agreement relationship with XP, it has to first share the
relevant characteristics in terms of person, class marking and number with NP. Secondly, the
agreement morpheme must be strictly local to XP, where the order is irrelevant. She states the
following rule to reflect this:
39. [XPi
AGREEMENTi –V]
She further assumes that an Incorporated Pronoun (PI) is the XP that anaphorically binds a topic NP to
the clause:
40. (NPiTOP) … XPi –V)
Subject Marking (SM)
Following the above guiding principle, she notes that SM in Swahili is twofold: agreement and IP. She
demonstrates this by use of the following examples:
41. a. [watu wa Kenya]i
WAi- na-
people of Kenya
SM-
wa-
PRES- OM-
penda
watoto
like
children
‘Kenyan people like children’
b. WAi - na
SM
wa-
PRES OM
penda watoto
[watu wa Kenya]i
like
people of Kenya.
children
‘They like children, Kenyan people’
24
BINDING IN SWAHILI MORPHOLOGY AND SYNTAX.
c. [watu wa Kenya]i nafikiri kuwa WAi- naPeople of Kenya I think
that
SM
wa-
PRES OM
penda watoto.
like
children
‘Kenyan people, I think like children’
Keach (1995, p. 110)
Keach (1995, p. 110) argues that SM in 41a satisfies both the agreement and PI functions. However, in
b and c, the SM satisfies only the PI function because the subject NP, “watu wa Kenya” is not local to
the clause. She notes that in b and c, SM serves the subject/agent function in accordance with 40 above
and it links the topic NP, “watu wa Kenya,” to the predicate.
The above argument relates to binding principles in morphology. The SM can only serve an agreement
purpose if it satisfies two conditions:
i)
If it shares basic features of the XP
ii)
If it is local.
These conditions are satisfied if the subject and the verb are adjacent to each other.
Whenever a SM does not satisfy these two conditions, its function is PI.
Object marking
Keach (1995, p. 113) points out a popular view regarding the distribution of animate and inanimate
OM in Swahili. This is the view that OM is obligatory for animate objects but optional for inanimate
ones. Furthermore, in the case of inanimate objects, the OM permits a definite or specific interpretation
of the inanimate NP. She however notes that just as with the SM, OM is ambiguous. She provides the
following prove to show that inanimate OM is PI whereas animate OM is both for agreement as well as
for PI.
25
BINDING IN SWAHILI MORPHOLOGY AND SYNTAX.
42. a) Aisha
Aisha
a-
na-
m-
SM
PRES OM
penda Juma.
love
Juma
“Aisha loves Juma”
b). *Aisha
Aisha
a-
na-
penda Juma.
SM
PRES love
Juma
“Aisha loves Juma”
c). Aisha
Aisha
a-
na-
ki-
soma kitabu
SM
PRE
OM
read
book
“Aisha is reading (the) book.”
d). Aisha
Aisha
a-
na-
soma kitabu
SM
PRE
read
(the) book.
“Aisha is reading (the) book”
Keach (1995, p. 114) observes from the above phenomena that animate SM and OM are ambiguous in
encoding both the agreement and PI functions. Hence, she argues, an overt object NP may occupy the
object position where it will agree with the verb or it may be a topic bound to the verb by OM, which
serves the PI function. She however notes that an inanimate object does not display such flexibility. It
only occurs with OM when it is a topic, which serves to bind the dislocated NP to the clause. She
concludes that inanimate objects, unlike animate object NPs never agree with the verb and OM is thus
only PI. This conclusion is compatible with that of Keith (1983) who argues that when OM occurs
without a coreferential object noun phrase (ONP), it functions pronominally. However, he adds that
26
BINDING IN SWAHILI MORPHOLOGY AND SYNTAX.
when both the OM and the ONP occur together, the OM must have another function, which is, it is the
topic of discussion. Thus, this argument is based on discourse.
To this end, the above reviewed literature points towards the interaction between morphology and
syntax in Swahili. Starting with the two debated categories of personal pronouns, it is clear that
drawing a distinction between the two is confusing since the bound morpheme pronouns necessarily
refer to the independent ones. Furthermore, the independent ones have to be marked using the bound
ones in the verb. Secondly, the –enyewe reflexive can easily lead to ambiguity since it is not gender
specific. The –ji- reflexive on the other hand dislocates the object from the verbal complex
compounding the debate by Woolford (1999) and Shiraki (2004). This implies that a further
investigation, involving subject/object marking and the reflexives is needed in order to show how
binding works in both morphology and syntax in Swahili.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
i)
What is the nature of agreement in a Swahili verbal complex?
ii)
Can binding relations be exhaustively explained using a Swahili verbal complex?
iii)
Which of the two reflexives in Swahili: -enyewe and –ji- is the real reflexive?
iv)
Does Swahili exhibit anaphoric agreement effect?
METHODOLOGY
Sources
I will employ a qualitative approach in collecting my data. I will need to read the existing texts on my
research topic, generate my own sentences whose number is undefined which will contain anaphors to
investigate their relations both in morphology and syntax alongside the ones used by the authors
mentioned below. Furthermore, I will also rely on the available corpus for my data.
27
BINDING IN SWAHILI MORPHOLOGY AND SYNTAX.
Justifying the selection of the sources
I have selected Woolford’s (1999) and Shiraki’s (2004) articles as the basis of my study specifically
because they use Swahili sentences to anchor their arguments on the debate surrounding anaphor
agreement effect. Woolford (1999) concurs with an earlier generalization by Rizzi (1990) about
anaphor agreement effect. Rizzi (1990) upon investigating Italic and Icelandic languages concluded
that all natural languages exhibit anaphor agreement effect. However, his study only focused on
languages with nominative agreement. Woolford (1999) notices this gap and conducts a study focusing
on languages with objective agreement, among them Swahili. She observes that these languages too
exhibit anaphor agreement effect and her findings thus confirm and add validity to Rizzi’s (1990)
generalization.
Shiraki (2004) on the other hand reacts to the anaphor agreement effect by offering an alternative
explanation to it. He concurs with Woolford (1999) that Swahili has object agreement. However, he
attempts to refute Rizzi’s (1990) generalization, which has been supported by Woolford (1999) above.
His claim is that if Rizzi’s (1990) generalization is correct, we should not experience instances where
the reflexives appear in the object positions in Swahili. However, the reflexive prefix -ji- in Swahili
does exactly this. He explains this phenomenon by analyzing the same sentences analyzed by
Woolford (1999) from the agreement and case points of view. This leads him to draw several
conclusions regarding Swahili: firstly, he argues that –enyewe is a pseudo-reflexive and the morpheme
–ji- is the real reflexive. Secondly, Swahili does not exhibit anaphor agreement effect. Thus, the debate
that has ensued from the two opposing views forms the basis of my study.
Keach’s (1995) article on Subject and object markers as agreement and pronoun incorporation in
Swahili will be pivotal in this study. The major contentious issue by Woolford (1999) and Shiraki
(2004) can be traced in the fact that the reflexive morpheme –ji- in a Swahili verbal complex occupies
28
BINDING IN SWAHILI MORPHOLOGY AND SYNTAX.
the object’s position. This necessarily implies that the two, the object marker and –ji-, are in
complementary distribution. Hence, the issue of object marking in Swahili demands to be investigated
in the light of this debate. Keith (1983) who looks at the function of object marking in Swahili will also
be used.
On the other hand, Vitale (1981) will be very useful for this study. He discuses Swahili Syntax in
depth. Furthermore, all the Swahili examples used by Woolford (1999) and Shiraki (2004) are from his
book.
Kihore, Massamba and Msanjila (2001) have been selected based on how they address what a Swahili
pronoun is and what it is not. They argue that though some scholars, like Mohammed (2001) have
identified two categories of Swahili personal pronouns: independent pronouns and bound pronouns,
the latter category does not qualify to be pronouns in the strict sense of the word. On the contrary,
Mohammed (2001) identifies both categories. Krifka (1995) too identifies two categories. This leads to
a debate on Swahili pronouns in the light of the Binding Theory. Hence, these books are relevant to my
study since principle B of the Binding Theory, which will be part of the investigation, relates to
pronouns.
Carnie (2007) introduces the basics of the Binding Theory and his book is thus necessary to equip me
with the fundamental basics. There are two chapters dealing with Binding Theory in this book.
Santorini & Kroch (2007) have a similar online-book to that of Carnie (2007). Their book will be used
alongside that of Carnie for the sake of clarity.
Sampling
The subjects who will be involved in my study are mostly the Swahili scholars in the US. The
Snowball sampling method will be used to identify them. I only know of a few whom I have met with
29
BINDING IN SWAHILI MORPHOLOGY AND SYNTAX.
at a conference. These few have indeed suggested to me professors who have done something related
to morphology and syntax and working in the US.
Materials
I will rely on the above-mentioned texts for examples of Swahili sentences with the linguistic features I
will be investigating in my study: pronouns and reflexives. In addition, I will generate my own
sentences, which will include these features and test them against the binding principles A and B.
Later, Swahili scholars in the US will be sought after to solicit their insights in my judgments on these
sentences.
Procedure
I will start by reading relevant literature relating to Swahili anaphors, particularly Swahili pronouns
and reflexives. This will be done to first get a clear understanding of the Swahili pronouns following
the debate mentioned earlier on them. The pronouns will be looked at from the binding perspective
rather than from the strict sense of the word. Secondly, I will investigate the nature of subject/object
marking in the Swahili verbal complex. The relevant literature that I am familiar with indicates that
there are no hard and fast rules governing object marking in Swahili. A number of generalizations have
been floated to explain this phenomenon though. However, for the sake of investigating binding in
morphology and syntax, I will require to establish a sound conclusion on object marking in Swahili.
This will be particularly crucial in addressing the issue of the reflexive –ji- that occupies the object’s
position and gives Shiraki (2004) basis for his argument against the anaphor agreement effect.
Secondly, I will focus on Swahili reflexives according to Vitale (1981). This will be done with the aim
of establishing which one between -enyewe and –ji- is the real reflexive in Swahili.
30
BINDING IN SWAHILI MORPHOLOGY AND SYNTAX.
Thirdly, I will read Rizzi (1990) article, which floated the idea of anaphor agreement effect. This will
be followed by Woolford (1999) who modifies Rizzi’s (1999) generalization after her investigation on
languages with objective agreement. Shiraki’s (2004) article will follow. I will seek to get a deeper
understanding of his ‘alternative explanation’ of the phenomenon identified as anaphor agreement
effect earlier by Rizzi (1990) and confirmed by Woolford (1999).
Fourthly, I will scrutinize the examples used by Woolford (1999) and Shiraki (2004) in anchoring their
arguments to establish their point of disagreement.
Fifthly, upon establishing the point of argument by the above-mentioned authors, I will generate my
own sentences involving pronouns and reflexives to test their arguments. In doing this, I will abide by
the principles of the Binding Theory. At this point, I will also be investigating how the Swahili
morphology and syntax interact to fulfill the principles A and B of the Binding Theory.
Sixth, I will seek other native speakers’ insight in my grammaticality judgments on both the authors’
as well as my own sentences.
Finally, I will scrutinize all the examples both grammatical as well as the ungrammatical ones to
establish whether or not Swahili exhibits anaphor agreement effect.
Type of data
The data that I expect to collect from the above procedure will be in form of sentences, whose number
is undefined at this stage. These sentences will be on Swahili pronouns, subject and object marking and
Swahili reflexives. They will also be either simple or complex depending on the specific issue(s) being
investigated. All the anaphors in the sentences will have been coded in accordance to the Binding
Theory. Coding refers to coindexing anaphors with their antecedents to satisfy the binding principles.
31
BINDING IN SWAHILI MORPHOLOGY AND SYNTAX.
Analysis
All the sentences that I will have will be analyzed in the light of the Binding Theory in morphology
and syntax. To begin with, I will seek to establish the nature of subject/object marking in a Swahili
verbal complex. This establishment will help me in determining how pronouns in Swahili should be
defined in the light of my research topic. Secondly, I will investigate object marking in Swahili to
establish if there is any rule I can formulate about it with regard to binding. At the moment, the
generalizations given about this issue are confusing and cannot be relied on to address binding in
Swahili morphology and syntax. Thirdly, I will investigate sentences containing Swahili reflexives to
determine which of the two reflexives, -enyewe and –ji-, in Swahili is the real reflexive. Fourthly, I
will investigate the mutual exclusion between the –ji- reflexive and the object marker in a Swahili
verbal complex. This analysis will be tested against the anaphor agreement effect to establish whether
or not Swahili exhibits this phenomenon.
Anticipated problems
Firstly, the corpus that I will be relying on is very shallow because scholars who have looked at
Swahili syntax appear to be analyzing almost the same sentences. For instance, Woolford (1999) and
Shiraki (2004) whose arguments form the basis of my study analyze the same Swahili sentences, which
are taken from Vitale (1981). In total, they have analyzed less than ten sentences. Secondly, given the
limited time that I have for doing this study, I will be unable to build my own corpus in terms of
investigating how the linguistic features I am investigating have been used in various Swahili genres.
Thirdly, the scholars whom I will be consulting with are Swahili scholars who might base their
arguments on their preferred generalizations regarding the linguistic features being investigated such as
the bound personal pronoun morphemes only.
32
BINDING IN SWAHILI MORPHOLOGY AND SYNTAX.
Expected findings.
iv)
Subject and object marking in Swahili must be adhered to strictly in the light of binding
in Swahili morphology and syntax.
v)
Binding principles must first be satisfied both at the morphology and syntax levels
separately
vi)
Binding at both morphology and syntax levels must be harmonized to give us
grammatical sentences.
vii)
This harmony between morphological and syntactical binding will determine whether
Swahili exhibits the anaphor agreement effect being debated on by the two authors
mentioned previously.
Conclusion
In this proposal, I have looked at variables that need to be investigated in order to eventually arrive at
binding in Swahili morphology and syntax. To begin with, I have looked at Swahili pronouns and the
debate generated by opposing views among Swahili scholars of what should be considered as a Swahili
pronoun. I have taken the position that we need to treat both independent and bound morpheme
pronouns as pronouns. This is because both categories manifest different realities in binding. My
prediction is that while the independent personal pronouns relate to binding at syntax level, the bound
morphemes ones relate to binding at morphology the level.
Secondly, I have looked at Swahili reflexives. It has become evident that owing to the fact that the
Swahili reflexives are not as gender specific as the English ones, their usage can lead to ambiguity.
However, this problem can be solved by principles of binding especially when the proper
coindexication is done. The –ji- type of reflexive presents another challenge, which is occupying the
object marker’s position in the verbal complex and therefore displacing it. This phenomenon lays the
foundation on which Shiraki (2004) bases his argument against Swahili exhibiting anaphor agreement
33
BINDING IN SWAHILI MORPHOLOGY AND SYNTAX.
effect. However, this is an issue that needs to be investigated further and my prediction is that its
solution will be untangled by binding in morphology.
Thirdly, I have looked at the issue of subject and object marking in Swahili. My prediction is that since
this issue centers around the verbal complex, it will not only show how morphology and syntax
interact in binding in Swahili but also will shed light on the debate on anaphor agreement effect by
Woolford (1999) and Shiraki (2004).
I have finally addressed the methodology I will use to collect and analyze my data as well as the
expected findings and limitations.
34
BINDING IN SWAHILI MORPHOLOGY AND SYNTAX.
Reference.
Allan, K. (1983). Anaphora, cataphora, and topic focusing: Functions of the object prefix in Swahili. In
Dihoff, I. (Ed.), Current approaches to African linguistics, 1, 323-335. AM Dordrecht: Foris
publication Holland.
Carnie, A. (2007). Syntax: A generative introduction (2nd Ed.). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Keach, C. N. (1995). Subject and object markers as agreement and pronoun incorporation in
Swahili. In A. Akinlabi (Ed.), Theoretical approaches to African linguistics
(pp.109-116). New Jersey: African world press, Inc
Kihore, Y., Massamba, D., & Msanjila, Y. (2001). Sarufi Maumbo ya Kiswahili Sanifu (Structural
swahili grammar). Dar es Salaam: University of Dar es Salaam Press, TUKI.
Krifka, M. (1995). Swahili. In: Jacobs, J., Stechow, A., Sternefeld, W. & Vennemann, T. (Eds.),
Syntax: Ein internationales Handbuch zeitgenössischer Forschung, vol. 2, 1397-1418. Berlin:
Walter de Gruyter.
Mohammed, M. (2001). Modern Swahili Grammar. Nairobi: East African Educational Publishers.
Santorini, B., & Kroch, A. (2007). The syntax of natural language: An online introduction using the
trees program. Retrieved from: http://www.ling.upenn.edu/~beatrice/syntax-textbook.
Shiraki, H. (2004). Anaphors, Agreement and Case. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics (UCLWPL),
16, 109-147. Retrieved from: http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/publications/WPL/uclwpl16.html
Vitale, A. J. (1981). Swahili Syntax. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.
Woolford, E. (1999). More on the Anaphor Agreement Effect. Linguistic Inquiry, 30(2), 257-287.
35