GUELEAYA’S NON-VERBAL PREDICATIONS

FROM A TYPOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE

KAMAL BAGHOUR بغــــور كمــــال

IN THE NAME OF ALLAH, THE MOST MERCIFUL, THE MOST GIN THE NAME OF ALLAH, THE MOST MERCIFUL, THE MOST GRACIOUSRACIOUS

THESIS TITLE:

GUELEAYA’S NON-VERBAL PREDICATIONS

FROM A TYPOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE

STUDENT NAME: KAMAL BAGHOUR DATE OF BIRTH: 27 SEPTEMBER 1977PLACE OF BIRTH: NADOR, MOROCCO

STUDENT NUMBER: 9968695

SUPERVISOR: PROF.DR. P.C.  (KEES)  HENGEVELDSECOND READER: DR. U. ANSALDO

TITLE OF DIPLOMA/DEGREE: MASTER OF ARTS IN GENERAL LINGUISTICS DATE OF AWARD: DECEMBER 15, 2006

UNIVERSITY ADDRESS: UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM THEORETICAL LINGUISTICS

SPUISTRAAT 2101012 VT AMSTERDAM

THE NETHERLANDS0031 (0)20 525 3862

2

Table of contents

Abbreviations 5

1. Introduction 6

1.1. Gueleaya linguistic profile 7Figure. 1 The Berber language family tree 7Map. Areal diffusion of Gueleaya variety in the province of Nador 8

1.2. Gueleaya basic syntax 9

2. Parts of speech system followed by non-verbal predicates in Gueleaya 14 2.1. Parts-of-speech system 14 2.2. Non-verbal predicate types 15

2.2.1. Equative predications set 152.2.2. Ascriptive predications set 18

3. Gueleaya in Hengeveld’s (1992) typological profile 21

3.1. Parts of Speech hierarchy 21 3.2. Non-verbal predication hierarchies 22 3.2.1. Predicate hierarchy 1A: (130) 22

3.2.2. Predicate hierarchy 1B 233.2.3. Predicate hierarchy 2: Equative predications 243.2.4. Predication hierarchy (145a-150) 243.2.4.1. Predication hierarchy-Ascriptive predications (145b) 253.2.5. Deixis hierarchy 263.2.6. Quantification hierarchy 273.2.7. Non-presentative predication types 283.2.8. Predicativity hierarchy 28

3.2.9. Predication hierarchy 29 3.2.10. Predicate hierarchy 1A: Ascriptive predications 30 3.2.11. Positional verbs and localizing copulas 30 3.2.12. Pronominal copulas hierarchy 30

Figure 2. Sketch: expression formats in Gueleaya 31

4. Gueleaya in Wetzer’s (1996) typological profile 32 4.1. Adjectival encoding in language: Nouniness and verbiness 32

4.1.1. “Nouny” and “verby” adjectivals 32 4.2. Nouniness and verbiness in type-A and type-B languages 35

4.3. Nouny adjectivals in type-A languages 37 4.3.1. Criteria for nouniness 37 4.3.1.1. Person marking 38 4.3.1.2. The use of an overt copula in adjectival and nominal predicates 38 4.3.1.3. Zero marking 38 4.3.2. Optional use of an overt copula with adjectivals and nouns 38

3

4.3.2.1. A deviant pattern: syntactic dissimilarity between 384.4. Verby adjectivals in type-A languages 39

4.4.1. Criteria for verbiness 394.4.1.1. Person marking in adjectival and verbal predicates 39 4.4.1.1.2. The general pattern: adjectivals and intransitive-

verbs take the same person markers 394.4.1.2. Zero marking in adjectival and verbal predicates 39 4.5. The tense Hypothesis 40

4.5.1. Tensedness parameter 41 4.5.2. The Tensedness Universals 41

4.5.3. The Tensedness Universals (revised version) 424.6. Mixed languages: Split-adjective languages 42

5. Discussion 47

5.1. Discussion 475.2. Gueleaya is a semi-split-adjective language 495.3. Documented cases of double-copula in Gueleaya 495.4. Multi-functionality of the posture verb ‘qqim’ 505.5. Multi-functionality of presentational particle ‘aqa’ 51

6. Conclusion 53

References 55

4

AbbreviationsAbbreviations

1st first person 2nd second person3rd third personADJ adjectiveAOR aorist AUX auxiliaryADV adverbCOP copulaDECL declarativeDEF definiteDEM demonstrativeDET determiner DIST distalEMP EmphaticEXI existentialF feminineFUT futureIMP imperativeIMPF imperfectiveIND indicativeINTENS intensifyingLOC locativeM masculineN NeuterNO nounNEG negative NPI negative polarity item(s)P personPART ParticiplePAST past PERF perfectivePL pluralPOSS possessivePRE presentational particlePRES presentPRES.PERF present perfectPRET preteritePROG progressivePROX proximateREL relativeRNM relational prefixSG singularV verb* ungrammatical

5

11

Introduction Introduction

This typological study of non-verbal predications in Gueleaya is predominantly based on Hengeveld’s functional approach of non-verbal predication. Structurally, Hengeveld’s framework of non-verbal predication reflects the following general format.

Argument(s) (copula) Predicate -V In non-verbal predication, the main predicate assumes only non-verbal assets, while copula, in contrast, can have pronominal, verbal and/or existential properties. By applying Hengeveld’s both parts of speech and non-verbal predications hierarchies on the one hand, and Wetzer’s property concept words continuum hypotheses and Holton’s two based measure of pragmatic status (activation state and identifiability) on the other to Gueleaya (an Afro-Asiatic language) non-verbal predications, patterns of variation in the copula system of this Berber dialect eventually emerged from the finding. Therefore, the main objective of this study is to investigate patterns of variation inherent in the copula system of Gueleaya in the light of different non-verbal predications. Structurally, this paper is methodically divided into five chapters. Chapter 1 is a broad outline of Gueleaya basic syntax. Chapter 2 attests the compatibility and/or incompatibility of non-verbal predicates with both parts-of-speech system and non-verbal predicate types in the light of Hengeveld’s non-verbal predication account. Chapter 3 attests the applicability of Hengeveld's parts of speech and non-verbal predication hierarchies to the language under study. Chapter 4 measures the pertinence of Wetzer’s different V-N continuum hypotheses on property concept words on the one hand and Holton’s two-based measures of pragmatic status (activation state and identifiability) to Gueleaya non-verbal predications on the other. Chapter 5 is a concise synthesis of the main findings in the preceding chapters of this paper.

6

1.1. Gueleaya linguistic profile1.1. Gueleaya linguistic profile

Spoken primarily in North Morocco, Gueleaya has actually linguistic affiliation with the large Berber ‘Thamazight’ (Afro-Asiatic) language family. Ethnically, Berbers, who are a multi-ethnic Muslim community, dispersed through the country- from the Rif mountain range in the north to the Atlas mountains, and the desert in the south. Nonetheless, geography, which is represented mainly in distance, is indeed a contributing factor in either mutual-intelligibility or unintelligibility of these interrelated languages. That is, linguistic gaps between Gueleaya, Thashelhit and Thamazight gradually widen out as one proceeds southward through Morocco and the opposite holds. In Morocco, among the Berber dialects are Thamazight, Thashelhit and Tharifith, which are said to constitute a potential dialect continuum. Schematically, the tree diagram below tries to characterize the relation of the offshoot (Gueleaya) to the ancestor language.

Berber“Thamazight”

Thamazight Thashelhit Tharifith

-Anti-Atlas-Mountains -High Atlas mountains- - Rif mountains-

Gueleaya- Nador city and the outskirts.

Figure. 1 The Berber language family tree.

Ethnologically, all contemporary Berber dialects including Gueleaya are, in essence, orally-based languages, i.e. not-document or written oriented. Nevertheless, by means of the oral output alone, these verities have stupendously managed to maintain their existence alongside predominant languages for centuries, and their communal heritage has been positively transmitted from one generation to the next. Consequently, lack of the written word has virtually closed the door on the availability of vivid diachronic data on Gueleaya’s syntax on the one hand. On the other hand, the above phenomenon has also opened the door on flexible innovations and comparative linguistic speculations on the part of native speakers and linguists respectively.

After decades of negligence, Morocco has lately turned some attention to the issue of Berber language. In this regard, Thamazight, Thashelhit and Tharifith are currently undergoing a large-scale process of codification nationwide, i.e. schools and the media throughout the kingdom, for instance, have witnessed the introduction of the three

7

languages into their school curricula and daily broadcasts as well for the first time in history. Linguistically speaking, Gueleaya is areally surrounded by different languages such as Kebdana dialect- in the east-, which is spoken namely in Berkane and Beni Yaznassen; Tharifith, from the west, spoken notably in the city of Al-Hoceima; and lastly, Spanish (Indo-European)- the official language- in Melilla and in some adjacent Spanish enclaves in Morocco. Sociolinguistically, the direct language contact of Gueleaya with Moroccan Arabic on the one hand, and Spanish on the other has naturally engendered many sociolinguistic phenomena, such as lexical borrowing and code switching, which are beyond the scope of this study. Recent demographics posit that more than 195,703 people are active users of Gueleaya at home and overseas. Abroad, it is the mother tongue of many transmediterranean Moroccan immigrants, namely in Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain and France. In Morocco, the isogloss of this dialect apparently covers the outskirts of Nador-city including Zegangan, Selouan, Melilla, Beni Sidal, Bou-yafar, etc. Schematically, the underlined cities on the map underneath roughly refer to the areal-dispersal of this dialect in the province of Nador.

Map. Areal diffusion of Gueleaya dialect in the province of Nador.

8

1.2.1.2. Gueleaya basic syntaxGueleaya basic syntax

Based on the available data on the syntax of Gueleaya, it stands to reason that two interchangeable constituent-order patterns, i.e. VO (Pro-drop) and SVO tend to be both fully-operational in this language. Nevertheless, the null subject construction is the most commonly used strategy either among people of shared knowledge or for economy tendencies.

VO (Pro-drop) (1) Youra thabrat

Write.3rd.M.SG.PAST.PERF letter.F.SG ‘He wrote the letter’SVO

(2) Ali youra thabratAli write.3rd.M.SG.PAST.PERF letter.F ‘Ali wrote the letter’

As a pro-drop language, the subject of the sentence tends to be inferred from the Person, Number and Gender [PNG] inflections placed on the main predicate of the sentence.

Person (1st.SG)(3) Asghigh1 bashakliet

1st.SG.buy.PAST.PERF bicycle.M‘I bought a bicycle’Person (1st.PL)

(4) Nasgha ijan bashakliet/ bashaklayat1st.PL.buy.PAST.PERF one bicycle.M.SG / bicycle.PL‘We bought a bicycle/ bicycles’Number (Plural)

(5) Thasghiem bashaklayet3rd.PL.M-buy.PAST.PERF bicycle.PL.M‘You bought bicycles’ Number (Singular)

(6) Thasghiem ijan bashakliet3rd.PL.M-buy.PAST.PERF one bicycle.SG.M‘You bought a bicycle’Gender (Masculine)

(7) Yasgha bashekliet 3rd.SG.M-buy.PAST.PERF bicycle

1 To note, words in some examples are sometimes italicized only with the express purpose of glossing.

9

‘He bought a bicycle’

Gender (Feminine)(8) Thasgha bashekliet

3rd.SG.F-buy.PAST.PERF bicycle‘She bought a bicycle’

So far, the focus has been mainly on the mechanisms for encoding PNG grammatical categories, now it is the turn to consider the internal structure of some sentences. Conspicuously, a standard transitive sentence in Gueleaya starts mainly with a subject, or alternatively, a verb inflecting for subject person and number and the object.

1. Subject Moad 2. Verb y-asgha

3rd.SG.M-buy.PAST.PERF3. Object bashakliet

Bicycle

Subject-verb-object construction(9) Moad yasgha bashakliet

Moad 3rd.SG.M.buy.PAST.PERF bicycle‘Moad bought a bicycle’Verb-object construction

(10) Yasgha bashekliet 3rd.SG.M.buy.PAST.PERF bicycle

‘He bought a bicycle’

From the available data, some property words, which are eligible to function as intransitive predicates, and thus requiring no copula support are found to quantitatively outnumber nominal adjectival predicates in the language under study. Morphologically, on a par with verbs, adjectives are herein also eligible to function as heads of intransitive predicates, inflecting for Tense Mood and Aspect [TMA] and PNG inflections too. An example of this case is cited underneath.

Subject-adjectival verb construction(11) Rqahwa-ya thahma

Coffee.F-PROX 3rd.SG.hot.PERF.F‘This coffee is hot’

On the other level, on a par with nouns, some property words may alternatively behave like nouns within an NP compound, or as copula complements inflecting for only gender and number categories (Dixon 2004:26). To mention, property words are discussed in more detail in chapter 4. Some further clarification of the nominal adjectival predicate and NP compound cases are illustrated below.

Subject-nominal adjectival construction

10

(12) Al-jaw da sammad nharaDEF-weather.M COP.M cold.M today‘The weather is cold today’

NP modification

In the attributive construction below, the lexical item ‘amaqraan’, which follows the noun ‘rabhaar’, actually acts as a modifier.

(13) Rabhaar amaqraan Sea.M big.M.SG ‘The big sea’

As a rule, an adverb of place, manner, time, etc. is commonly found to follow the modified verb as the example below tries to show.

Verb-adverb(14) Arahad danita

Come.2nd.SG.IMP LOC‘Come here!’

In Gueleaya, as well as in English, the prepositional phrase, which consists of the preposition (di: in) and the object of preposition (ljamiaa: university) consecutively, is said to follow the verb (aqaagh: I study) it modifies. The next example (15) tries to make this case somewhat clear.

Verb-locative preposition construction(15) Aqaagh di ljamiaa

1st.SG.M.study.PRES.IMPF LOC university‘I study at the university’

The coordinate conjunction walakin is eligible to connect the two independent clauses [thsaat ino da-jdid and tharraz] into one compound sentence as shown below.

Subject-verb-conjunction construction(16) Thsaat ino da-jdid walakin tharraz

Watch.F my COP.M-new but 3rd.SG.F.break.PAST.PERF‘My watch is new but (it is) broken’

On account of the fact that copulas in Gueleaya are essentially non-verbal, it stands to reason that grammatical categories, including negative forms, are encoded by auxiliaries instead of copulas. To recap, these non-verbal constituents are limited only to gender and number marking.

Non-verbal peredicationsPresent-Progressive-Indicative

11

(17) Ahmad aqath da `l-ostad Ahmad AUX.3rd.SG.PRES.PROG.IND.M COP.M the-teacher.M.SG ‘Ahmad is being the teacher’

Past-Perfective-Indicative(18) Ahmad togha(th) da `l-ostad

Ahmad AUX.3rd.SG.PAST.PERF.IND.M COP.M the-teacher.M.SG ‘Ahmad was (being) the teacher’ or ‘Ahmad used to be the teacher’Future-Imperfective-Indicative

(19) Ahmad adyiri da `l-ostad anagh Ahmad AUX.3rd.SG.FUT.IMP.IND.M COP.M the-teacher.M.SG our‘Ahmad will be our teacher’

In stark contrast with, for instance, Standard Arabic, Hungarian and Sanumá, whereby the introduction of verbal copulas on the surface structure of sentences is TMA marked sensitive, Gueleaya non-verbal copulas surface on equal terms, merely in nominal and nouny-adjectival predicates, with both marked and unmarked TMA categories. A couple of examples are included below by way of illustration.

Overt pro-copulas in unmarked casesPresent tenseNouny-adjectival predicate

(20) Rabhaar da-maqraan Sea.M COP.M-big.M.SG ‘The sea is big’ Nominal predicate

(21) Ahmad da `l-ostadAhmad COP.M the-teacher.M.SG ‘Ahamd is the teacher’Overt pro-copulas in marked cases Past tense

(22) Rabhaar togha(th) da-maqraan Sea.M be-3rd.SG.M COP.M-big.M.SG ‘The sea was/used to be big’

(23) Ahmad togha(th) da `l-ostad Ahmad be-3rd.SG.M COP.M the-teacher.M.SG ‘Ahmad was/ used to be the teacher’ Future

(24) Ahmad adyiri da `l-ostad Ahmad will-be COP.M the-teacher.M.SG ‘Ahmad will be the teacher’

In terms of mood, if positive and negative constructions are altogether found to be overtly combining with non-verbal copulas, stative imperative and negative imperative (prohibitive) make no exception in this regard. However, negation or double negation

12

properties are marked by auxiliaries instead of non-verbal copulas. Thus, examples (27) and (28) are consecutive cases in point.

Stative imperative(25) Erish da aryaz

Be-2nd.SG.M COP.M man.M.SG ‘Be courageous’Positive construction

(26) Aqa da `lostad anagEMP.EXI.PRES. 3rd.SG. M COP.M teacher.M.SG our‘He is being our teacher’ Negative imperative

(27) Watt.iri.sha/bo2 ad magwadNot.be 2nd.SG.FUT.NPI COP.M coward.M.SG‘Do not be a coward’ Negative construction

(28) Wa-yadji bo da `l-ostadNot-be.3rd.SG.M NPI COP.M the-teacher.M.SG‘He is not a teacher’

In terms of compatibility of non-verbal copulas with parts of speech, exclusive of nominals, the quantity of nouny-adjectives that is eligible to combine with overt non-verbal copulas is basically finite. However, verby adjectivals and adverbs, despite being eligibly predicable, their inconsistency with non-verbal copulas is evident from the examples (29) and (30) underneath.

Verby adjectival(29) * Rqahwa-ya da thahma

Coffee.F-PROX COP.F 3rd.SG.hot.PERF.PERF.F‘This coffee is hot’Adverbial predicate

(30) * Aqayi da mlih EXI.1st.SG.PRES.IND.M well ‘I am well’

2 Sha and bo are two negative polarity items.

13

22

Parts of speech system Parts of speech system followed by non-verbal followed by non-verbal predicates in Gueleayapredicates in Gueleaya

IntroductionIntroductionIn this chapter, different examples from Gueleaya are cited in an attempt to attest the compatibility and/or incompatibility of Gueleaya’s non-verbal predicates with both parts-of-speech system and non-verbal predicate types developed by Hengeveld (1992).

2.1. Parts-of-speech system2.1. Parts-of-speech system

Seemingly, the fact that Gueleaya lexical inventory is inevitably entailing the four traditional parts-of-speech, i.e. V, N, Adj and Adv, identified respectively by Hengeveld (1992:63), categorizes it into Specialized type of languages. Unlike Flexible and Rigid (non-specialized) languages, verbs, nouns, adjectives and adverbs are herein specialized lexical categories (Hengeveld 1992:93). That is, a verbal predicate has only a predicative use, a nominal predicate can be used as a head of a term, an adjectival predicate can be used as a modifier of a nominal head, and lastly an adverbial predicate can be used as a modifier of a non-nominal head (Hengeveld 1992: 58). Comparatively, Verbs, Nouns (heads/obligatory categories), Adjectives and Adverbs (modifier/optional), which have predicative use, tend to be fully operational. What follows are examples of the types of predicates in Gueleaya. To begin with:

Verbal predicate(1) Yaffagh Leave.3rd.SG.PAST.PERF.M

‘He left’ Nominal predicate

(2) N`Nador atta-ndintNador COP.M a city.F‘Nador is a city’Adjectival predicates

14

Attributive cases (3) Rabhaar amaqraan (4) Thandint tha-amaqraan-t

Sea.M big.M.SG City.F F-big.SG-F ‘The big sea’ ‘The big city’Predicative cases

(5) Rabhaar da-maqraan (6) Thandint atta maqraan.tSea.M COP.M-big.M.SG City.F COP.F big.F.SG‘The sea is big’ ‘The city is big’ Adverbial predicate

(7) Aqayi mlih1st.SG.EXI.PRES.IND well ‘I am well’

In sum, on the basis of the examples above, it stands to reason that the four separate lexical predicate categories-the subject matter of this chapter- are altogether quite elaborate in Gueleaya. In effect, the linear distribution of the parts of speech on the hierarchy, developed by Hengeveld (1992:68) for his sample languages, is trivially valid for the language under consideration.

(70) Verb>Noun>Adjective>Adverb

2.2.2.2. Non-verbal predicate typesNon-verbal predicate types

Ascriptive, equative and existential predications are three predominant classes of predications that can be distinguished under the term non-verbal predicates proposed by Hengeveld (1992: 101). Initially, relational and bare predicates are two subtypes of ascriptive predications, whereas term-predicates, predication-predicates, proposition-predicates and clause-predicates are altogether the subtypes of equative predications consecutively.

2.2.1. Equative predications set Hengeveld’s definition of equative predications is that they are ‘non-verbal predications based on a predicate which, apart from its predicative use, has some referential non-predicative use’ Hengeveld 1992:104. According to the same author (1992: 77), referential predicates, ‘include predicates based on terms, i.e. referring expressions with a nominal head, and predicates based on larger referential units, i.e. predications, propositions, and clauses’. Basically, term predicates, which are based on a referential expression with a nominal head, do convey the semantic relations of identification and classification.

Identifying predications: In identifying predications, the term that is used predicatively is basically definite, and the semantic relation expressed by the non-verbal predication, as a whole, is one of identification (Hengeveld 1992: 81). The identifying predication underneath is a case in point.

15

(8) Natta d`oma He COP.M. brother.M ‘He is my brother’

Classifying predications:In noticeable contrast to identifying predications, wherein the term is definite, in classifying predications, the term is otherwise indefinite and the semantic relation is of classification (Hengeveld 1992: 81). In effect, as stated by the same author (1992: 85), classificational predications split up into expressions of class membership and of class inclusion.

(9) Natta di ijo madoukar ino He COP.M.SG one friend.M.SG mine ‘He is a friend of mine’

Type 1: Identification-Specification: (reversible)In specificational predications, the argument term and the predicate term, which propose an alternative specification of the referent set of the argument term (Hengeveld 1992: 82), are both coextensive, that is, they have the same index or referent set. Qualitatively, the argument and the predicate are herein possibly reversible (Hengeveld 1992: 86-88).

(10) Al-asima na l-maghreb da-arbaatThe-capital of the-Morocco COP.M.SG-Rabat.M.SG‘The capital of Morocco is Rabat’

(11) Arbaat da al-asima na’l-maghrebRabat COP.M.SG the-capital of the-Morocco‘Rabat is the capital of Morocco’

Type 2: Identification-Characterization: (irreversible)In stark contrast to specification predications (reversible), characterization predications are basically irreversible (Hengeveld 1992:88). In characterization, ‘the members of the referent set of the argument term are also members of the referent set of the predicate term’ (Hengeveld 1992: 86). Nonetheless, only one of the several characteristics of the members of the referent set of the argument term is specified in characterization predications. Functionally, characterization constructions answer the question (what can you tell me about someone or something?) Hengeveld (1992: 83).

(12) Bruxel da al-asima an BelgicBrussels COP.M.SG the-capital of Belgium‘Brussels is the capital of Belgium’

Note that examples (13), (17) and (21) are ungrammatical under the intended meaning.

(13) * Al-asima an Belgic da BruxelThe-capital of Belgium COP.M.SG Brussels‘The capital of Belgium is Brussels’

16

Type 3: Classification-Specification: (reversible)(14) Al-jahil ad wani wayasinan-walo

The-ignorant.M COP.M the-one.M NEG-3rd.SG.know.PRES.IMPF-nothing ‘The ignorant is the one who knows nothing’

(15) Wani wa-yassinan-walo d-al-jahilThe-one NEG-3rd.SG.M.Know.PRES.IMPF-nothing COP.M. the-ignorant.M.‘The one who knows nothing is the ignorant’

Type 4: Classification-Specification: (irreversible)(16) Canari da-ajdid

Canary COP.M.SG a bird.M‘Canary is a bird’

(17) * Ajdid ad CanariA bird COP.M.SG canary.M.SG‘A bird is a canary’

Predication-predicates:Instantiation-Specification: (reversible)

As defined by Hengeveld (1992: 90), besides being reversible, predications based on predication-predicates characteristically entail the instantiation of events.

(18) Aryada i-siitaajiban attas ad box Sport REL-3rd.SG.like.PRES.IMPF.M much COP.M boxing.MThe sport that he prefers much is boxing

(19) Box da-aryada i-sitaajiban attasBoxing.M COP.M.SG-sport REL-3rd.SG.like.PRES.IMPF.M much ‘Boxing is the sport that he prefers much’

Instantiation-Characterization: (irreversible)(20) An-natija na-l-mashrou’a togha da-najaah

The-result.F of-DEF-project.F was COP.M-success.M‘The result of the project was a success’

(21) * An-najaah togha da an-natija na-l-mashrou’a Success was COP.M the-result.F of-DEF-project.F‘A success was the result of the project’

Proposition-predicates:Factuality (reversible)

Predications based on proposition predicates deal mainly with the factuality of propositional contents (Hengeveld 1992: 90).(22) As-sabab mayami wa-adyousi-sha togha ad rahrash

The-reason why NEG-3rd.SG.come.PAST.PERF-NPI was COP.M sickness‘The reason why he did not come was a sickness’

(23) Rahrash togha da as-sabab mayami wa-adyousi-sha Sickness was COP.M the-reason why NEG-3rd.SG.come.PAST.PERF-NPI ‘A sickness was the reason why he did not come’

17

Clause-predicates:Interpretation: (reversible)

Predications based on clause predicates deal with the interpretation of speech acts (Hengeveld 1992: 90).

(24) Min shak assaqssigh togha ad ‘mani ishtogha?’What you 1st.SG.ask.PAST was COP.M ‘where be-2nd.SG.M.PAST ‘What I asked you was ‘where were you?”

(25) “Mani ish-togha?” ad min shak assaqssigh Where 2nd.SG.M-be.PAST COP.M what you 1st.SG.ask.PAST‘Where were you?’ was what I asked you.

2.2.2. Ascriptive predications set

As indicated earlier, bare and relational predicates, which ascribe some property to some entity (Lyons 1977: 148) (Hengeveld 1992: 103), are two subtypes of ascriptive predications. In this regard, bare ascriptive non-verbal predications ‘are based on a predicate which, apart from its predicative use, has some non-predicative use’ Hengeveld’s (1992:104).

Bare predicates:Characteristically, bare predicates bifurcate into two sub-predicates, that is, property assignment predicate based on an adjectival predicate and status assignment predicate based on nominal predicate (Hengeveld 1992:76) (Dik: 1980:98/104).

Non-presentative ascriptive predications:Property assignment predicate based on an adjectival predicate

Non-verbal predications based on bare adjectival predicates encode mainly the semantic relation of property assignment (Dik 1980: 104).

(26) Rabhaar da-amaqraan The sea.M COP.M-big.M.SG ‘The sea is big’

Status assignment predicate based on nominal predicateOn the other hand, non-verbal predications based on predicative bare nominal predicates encode the semantic relation of status assignment (Hengeveld 1992: 76).

(27) Ahmad da mahdaarAhmad COP.M.SG student.M.SG ‘Ahmad is a student’

18

Relational predicates:Based on constructions with a referential use, relational predicates are inherently prevalent in ascriptive locative predicates and possessive3 predicates (Hengeveld 1992: 74/125). Functionally, the latter are basically found to predicate some concrete property of the argument term.

Non-presentative locative predications (28) Mohammed aqa-th di rbiit-anas

Mohammed EXI.PRES-3rd.SG.IND.M in room.M.SG-his‘Mohammed is in his room’Non-presentative Possessive predications

(29) Atelefon na AhmadMobile-phone.M of Ahmad‘The mobile-phone is of Ahmad’ (i.e. the mobile phone is Ahmad’s)

Technically, predicability of the example (29) is detectable by virtue of a lightly audible stop notably intervening between a falling intonational contour that is placed on the subject/pronoun/NP and a relative raising intonation placed on the possessive preposition and the possessor consecutively.

Presentative ascriptive predications:Intrinsically, presentative constructions (re)-introduce a referent, which might be familiar or unfamiliar to the addressee, into the discourse (Hengeveld 1992: 119). The example underneath is an illustration of the above claim from Gueleaya.

Presentative possessive predications(30) Ijan telefon an-nash

One mobile phone.M.SG of-you ‘A mobile-phone is yours’ (i.e. you have a mobile-phone) Presentative Localizing predicationsExistential predications

As defined by Hengeveld (1992:103), existential non-verbal predications are based on a predicate, which introduces the referent of the argument term into the discourse by ascribing existence to it.

(31) Yadja waghroum bra thmadjahtExist.3rd.SG.M.PRES bread.M.SG without salt.M‘Bread without salt exists’‘There is bread without salt’Or

3 Predicable possessive predicates are framed in this language in the absence of copula.

19

(32) Aqa-da yaghroum EXI.PRES-LOC bread

‘There is bread here’ Presentative locative predications

Presentative locative predications, besides (re)-introducing an entity into the discourse, do also ascribe a concrete location hereto (Hengeveld 1992: 119).

(33) Aqa4-dani aghi di nibiraEXI.PRES-LOC milk in fridge‘There is milk in the fridge’

Intrinsically, Gueleaya, predicable non-verbal predications characteristically bifurcate into copular predicable predications and zero-copula predicable predications. In view of the copular predicable predications, non-verbal copula is a prerequisite for the predicability of identifying predications, classifying predications and bare predicates, whereas relational predicates, quantifying predications, by contrast, are predicable irrespective of copula absence. Distinctively, cases of predicable deictic locative predicates are evident in either copula or zero-copula constructions.

4 “Aqa” is an invariable presentational particle (PRE) that introduces a (new) topic of discourse, the equivalent of which, in French, is “voici”.

20

33

Gueleaya in Hengeveld’s Gueleaya in Hengeveld’s (1992) typological profile(1992) typological profile

IntroductionIntroductionThe subject matter of this chapter is to attest predicability and non-predicability of non-verbal predications in Gueleaya in the light of Hengeveld’s typological non-verbal predication hierarchies (1992). The latter encompass: part of speech hierarchy, non-presentative ascriptive predications hierarchy, predicate 1B, predicate hierarchy 2- Equative predication, Predication hierarchy ─Ascriptive predications, predicate 2, deixis hierarchy, quantificational hierarchy, non-presentative predication types hierarchy, predicativity hierarchy, predication hierarchy, predicate hierarchy 1A- Ascriptive predications, positional verbs and localizing copulas and pronominal copulas hierarchy.

3.1. Parts of Speech hierarchy3.1. Parts of Speech hierarchy

On the basis of sample of languages, Hengeveld (1992: 68) typologically outlined the part of speech hierarchy that has the following structure:

(70) Verb>Noun>Adjective>Adverb

The hierarchy above implies that ‘a category of predicates verbs, nouns, adjectives and adverbs is more likely to appear as a separate part of speech the more to the left it is in this hierarchy’ Hengeveld (1992: 68). To recap, verbs and nouns are heads/obligatory categories, while adjectives and adverbs are modifiers/ optional elements (Hengeveld 1992: 62). Analogously, the fact that verbs and nouns are obligatory entities, whereas adjectives and adverbs are, in contrast, optional categories in Gueleaya lends support to Hengeveld parts of speech hierarchy.

21

3.2. Non-verbal predication hierarchies3.2. Non-verbal predication hierarchies3.2.1. Predicate hierarchy 1A: (130)5

Non-presentative ascriptive predications1 2 3 4(xi)Loc > A > N > (xi) Poss

Firstly, Hengeveld’s non-presentative ascriptive predication hierarchy above postulates that localizing predications are the most easily predicable elements on the predicate hierarchy, followed by adjectival and then by nominal predications, while possessive predications are the least predicable categories. For definition’s sake, predicability, in Hengeveld’s language, encodes the possibility of grammatically acceptable application of a certain predicate type to a certain argument, i.e. a predicate is predicable of a given argument if the application of the former is grammatically acceptable to the latter (Hengeveld 1992: 113). Secondly, the same hierarchy implies that in case a predication type is predicable at a certain point on the hierarchy…then all preceding predication types will also be predicable in that language (Hengeveld 1992: 130). In simple terms, if a language uses possessive predicates predicatively, it can thus use nominal, adjectival and locative predicates predicatively; if it can use nominal predicates predicatively, then it can use adjectival and locative predicates predicatively (Hengeveld 1992: 130). Hengeveld’s current non-presentative ascriptive predications postulate is trivially apposite for Gueleaya in light of the following examples.

Non-presentative locative predications (1) Mohammed aqa-th di rbiit-anas

Mohammed EXI.PRES-3rd.SG.M in room.M.SG-his‘Mohammed is in his room’Non-presentative adjectival predication

(2) Thaqmijat ino att-ashamra.tshShirt-F mine COP.F-white.F‘My shirt is white’Non-presentative nominal predication

(3) Ahmad da mahdaarAhmad COP.M student.M ‘Ahmad is a student’ Non-presentative possessive predication

By way of clarification, Gueleaya’s predicable presentative and non-presentative predications are distinguished from non-predicable possessive forms notably by virtue of a phonological criterion. That is to say, predicability of presentative and non-presentative possessive predications can be detected by a short audible stop intervening between a falling intonational contour placed on the subject/pronoun/NP and a raising pitched tone placed on both the possessive preposition, and the possessor consecutively. With respect 5 (130) above stands for the page number where Predicate hierarchy 1A was discussed in more details.

22

of non-predicable possessive constructions, a level tone is said to be the main phonological feature of such constructions. A couple of examples are provided below for illustration.

Possessive forms(4) Atelefon-ino (5) Thsaat a Ali

Mobile-phone.M.SG-mine Watch of Ali‘My mobile-phone’ ‘Ali’s watch’Non-presentative possessive predication

(6) Atelefon ino 6 Mobile-phone.M.SG mine‘The mobile-phone is of mine’ (i.e. the mobile phone is mine).

In terms of the predicability of non-verbal possessive predications, constructions (4), (5) and (6) are altogether predicable regardless of the copula absence.

3.2.2. Predicate hierarchy 1B

Presentative ascriptive predications(xi/Ø)Loc > (xi)Poss

Hengeveld’s (1992: 141) reading of the hierarchy above literally implies that ‘presentative localizing predications are more easily predicable than presentative possessive predications…, and if presentative possessive predications are predicable…, presentative localizing predications will be predicable as well’. On the basis of the examples underneath, it turned out that Hengeveld’s theory is trivially applicable to the language under study.

Presentative possessive predications(7) Ijan telefon an-nash

One mobile phone.M of-you ‘A mobile-phone is yours’ (i.e. you have a mobile-phone)

Presentative Localizing predicationsExistential predications

(8) Yadja waghroum bra thmadjahtExist.3rd.SG.M.PRES bread.M without salt‘Bread without salt exists’‘There is bread without salt’Presentative locative predications

(9) Aqa dani aghi di nibiraEXI.PRES LOC milk in fridge‘There is milk in the fridge’

6 The underlined bold-italic items indicate an audible raising pitched tone placed on (both the possessive preposition and) the possessor in possessive predication.

23

3.2.3. Predicate hierarchy 2: Equative predications

(ixi) > (dxi)

As defined, predications based on indefinite term-predicate ‘ascribe the referent of the subject-expression a certain property’, whereas predications based on definite term-predicate ‘identify the referent of one expression with the referent of another’ Lyons (1977:472) Hengeveld (1992: 142). On the subject of the predicability, the predicate hierarchy 2 above posits that non-verbal predications based on indefinite term-predicate are comparatively more predicable than predications based on definite term-predicate. The fact that indefinite term-predicates are more predicable compared to definite predicates in Gueleaya clearly goes to prove the relevancy of Hengeveld’s implication.

Identifying predications(10) Natta da madoukar ino

He COP.M friend.M mine ‘He is my friend’

Classifying predications

(11) Natta di ijo madoukar ino He COP.M one friend.M mine ‘He is a friend of mine’

3.2.4. Predication hierarchy (145a-150)7

Equative> Ascriptive Non-presentative > Presentative Non-existential >Existential

Hengeveld’s predication hierarchy (145a/150) literally indicates that ‘the equative predication is the best-predicable type, followed by non-presentative ascriptive predication type then by the presentative one respectively. On the same hierarchy, presentative non-existential predications are better predicable than existential ones (Hengeveld 1992: 145-150). Seemingly, predicability of the different predications underneath, lends trivial validity to Hengeveld’s predication hierarchy above.

Equative predications(12) Natta da madoukar ino

He COP.M friend.M mine ‘He is my friend’

7 (145a) stands for the first Predication hierarchy (21) found consecutively on page 145 and 150 of Hengeveld’s Non-Verbal predication (1992).

24

(13) Natta di ijo madoukar ino He COP.M one friend.M mine ‘He is a friend of mine’Non-presentative ascriptive predications

(14) Rabhaar da-amaqraan Sea.M COP.M-big.M ‘The sea is big’

(15) Ahmad da mahdaarAhmad COP.M student.M ‘Ahmad is a student’

(16) Mohammed aqa-th di rbiit-anasMohammed EXI.PRES-3rd.SG.M in room.M-his‘Mohammed is in his room’

(17) Atelefon na AhmadMobile-phone.M of Ahmad‘The mobile-phone is of Ahmad’ (i.e. the mobile phone is Ahmad’s).

Presentative ascriptive predications (18) Ijan telefon an-nash

One mobile phone.M of-you ‘A mobile-phone is yours’ (i.e. you have a mobile-phone) Existential predications

(19) Yadja waghroum bra thmadjahtExist.3rd.SG.M.PRES bread.M without salt.M‘Bread without salt exists’‘There is bread without salt’Presentative locative predications

(20) Aqa-dani aghi di nibiraEXI.PRES-LOC milk.M in fridge‘There is milk in the fridge’

3.2.4.1. Predication hierarchy ─Ascriptive predications (145b)8

Similarly, on the ascriptive predication hierarchy (145b), the statement that non-presentative ascriptive predication type is far more predicable than the presentative one is also tenable for Gueleaya.

Ascriptive Non-presentative > Presentative

Non-existential >Existential

Non-presentative ascriptive predications

8 (145b) stands for the Ascriptive hierarchy-Ascriptive predications (22) found on page 145 of Hengeveld’s Non-Verbal predication (1992).

25

(21) Rabhaar da-amaqraan Sea.M COP-big.M ‘The sea is big’

(22) Ahmad da mahdaarAhmad COP.M student.M ‘Ahmad is a student’

(23) Mohammed aqa-th di rbiit-anasMohammed EXI.PRES-3rd.SG.M in room-his‘Mohammed is in his room’

(24) Atelefon na AhmadMobile-phone of Ahmad‘The mobile-phone is of Ahmad’ (i.e. the mobile phone is Ahmad’s).

Presentative ascriptive predications (25) Ijan telefon an-nash

One mobile phone of-you ‘A mobile-phone is yours’ (i.e. you have a mobile-phone).Existential predications

(26) Yadja waghroum bra-thmadjahtExist.3rd.SG.M.PRES bread.M without-salt‘Bread without salt exists’‘There is bread without salt’Presentative locative predications

(27) Aqa dani aghi di nibiraEXI.PRES LOC milk.M in fridge‘There is milk in the fridge’

In general, so far Gueleaya’s major predication types superficially match up with the ascriptive predication arrangement displayed above.

3.2.5. Deixis hierarchy

Deictic > Non-deictic

Before evaluating the predicability of both deictic and non-deictic locative predicates in Gueleaya, a brief overview of the inventory of Gueleaya’s deictic categories is vitally adequate herein. Quantitatively, the deictic inventory encompasses two adverbial locative deictics (Proximal: da and Distal: diha), two adjectival demonstratives (proximal: wa: PROX.M.SG, tha/atta: PROX.F.SG, ina: PROX.M.PL, thina: PROX.F.PL and Distal: win: DIS.M.SG, thin: DIST.F.SG, inin: DIST.M.PL, thinin: DIST.F.PL), and two deictic suffixes (Proximal: -a: PROX.M/F.SG, -athin: PROX.M/F.SG and Distal: -iin: DIST.M/F.SG, inin: DIST.M/F.PL). Morphologically, Gueleaya demonstrative pronouns are marked for proximity, remoteness as well as number and gender categories. Deictic elements, including distal and proximal demonstrative pronouns, not only do they instruct or invite the addressee to direct his attention to a particular spatiotemporal region to find

26

the object that is referred to, but as referring expressions, they also locate the referent in relation to the speaker (Lyons 1977: 648/654/655).

DeicticAdjectival demonstratives

(28) Atta da atomobin i.yasghaDEM-PROX.SG.F COP.M car.M REL.buy-3rd.SG.PAST.PERF.M‘This is the car that he bought’

(29) Thin at-tamzida i-di qaaghDEM-DIST.F.SG COP.F-school.F which-in study-1st.SG.PRES.PROG‘That is the school where I am studying’Adverbial demonstratives

(30) Aqa-yi da PRE.EXIS-1st.SG.IND.PRES here‘I am here’

(31) Togha da attas an-yawdan idanadWas LOC many of-people yesterday‘There were many visitors here yesterday’

Non-deictic (32) Ahmad da `l-ostad

Ahmad COP.M the-teacher.M.SG ‘Ahmad is the teacher’

(33) Bruxel da al-asima an BelgicBrussels COP.M.SG the-capital of Belgium‘Brussels is the capital of Belgium’

In this regard, Hengeveld’s implication that deictic locative predicates are more predicable than non-deictic is trivially compatible with Gueleaya, which do easily conduct the predicative use of both deictic and non-deictic locative predicates.

3.2.6. Quantification hierarchy

Non-quantified > quantified

Hengeveld (1992: 153) postulated that, in some languages, predicability of presentative predications is determined by the presence or absence of quantifiers. In the case of Yessan-Mayo, presentative predications will be predicable unless a quantifier is present. Nevertheless, unaffected by either the presence or absence of quantifiers, both quantifying and non-quantifying predications are found to be predicable in Gueleaya irrespective of copula. Thus, Hengeveld’s quantification hierarchy is trivially relevant to the language under discussion.

Quantified(34) Thnayan na ttaffahin ino

Two of apples.F. mine‘Two apples are of mine’

27

Non-quantified(35) Danita gha yaryazan

LOC.PROX only men ‘There are only men here’

3.2.7. Non-presentative predication types

(xi)Loc/-Pres A/-Pres N/-Pres (xi)Poss/-Pres

(ixi) (dxi)

On page 172 of the Non-verbal Predication, Hengeveld made out a case for alternative strategies for non-predicable predication types, that is, the equative predication type (EQ) is implied as an alternative for non-predicable (non-presentative) ascriptive predications. Hengeveld’s recommendation of EQ strategy as a substitute for non-predicable predication proved inappropriate for Gueleaya by virtue of inherent predicablilty of non-presentative locative, adjectival, nominal and (non-presentative) possessive predications in the language under investigation.

3.2.8. Predicativity hierarchy

Bare > Referential > Relational Non-presentative > Presentative

Hengeveld’s (1992: 199) predicativity hierarchy typifies languages that allow non-verbal predications to be expressed by means of the Zero-1 strategy. According to the same author, non-verbal predicates may receive morphosyntactic (intransitive) verbal marking for tense, mood, aspect and person (Hengeveld 1992: 185). To test out the applicability of the above hierarchy vis-à-vis Gueleaya, an analysis of bare, referential and relational predicates is herein of vital importance. To begin with, non-verbal predications based on bare adjectival predicates, which have an underlying structure similar to that of verbal predicates9, are found to be the only compliant entities with the zero-1 strategy in Gueleaya. Second, inconsistencies with the zero-1 strategy are basically appreciable in non-presentative, presentative possessive predications and non-presentative locative or localizing predications.

Gueleaya(36) Adrar y-o’ara yattas

Mountain.M 3rd.SG.M-high-PERF.PRES very‘The mountain is very high’

Mojave Munro (1976: 72)(37) M-homi:-k 2-tall-NON-FUT.IND ‘You are tall’

9 Hengeveld (1992: 200)

28

Intrinsically, the adjectival predicate yo’ara (high) is illigible to encode attributes of intransitive verbs including Tense, Mood, Aspect, Person, Number and Gender.

3.2.9. Predication hierarchy

Equative> Ascriptive Non-presentative > Presentative Non-existential >Existential

Hengeveld (1992: 201) predication hierarchy proposes that ‘the more easily predicable a predication type is, the more it tends to operate the zero-2 strategy’. Intrinsically, a non-verbal predicate tends to have the same morphosyntactic behaviour of (intransitive) verbal predicate in the zero-1strategy, whereas in the zero-2 strategy, by contrast, such predicates are simply juxtaposed with the argument term. Comparatively, with the exception of non-presentative ascriptive locative, non-presentative possessive predications, presentative possessive and locative predications, which might tolerate the zero-2 strategy, the rest is simply incompatible with the latter. For the sake of more elaboration, some examples are introduced below.

Equative predicationsIdentifying predications

(38) * Natta amadoukar ino He friend.M mine ‘He is my friend’

Classifying predications(39) * Natta ijo madoukar ino

He one friend.M mine ‘He is a friend of mine’

Non-presentative ascriptive predications Property assignment predicate based on an adjectival predicate

By applying the zero-2 strategy to property assignment predicate based on an adjectival predicate, an attributive-instead of a predicative construction- immediately results.

(40) * Rabhaar amaqraan Sea.M big.M ‘The big sea’ Status assignment predicate based on nominal predicate

(41) * Ahmad amahdaarAhmad student.M ‘Ahmad the student’ Presentative Localizing predicationsExistential predications

(42) * Aghroum bra thamadjaht Bread.N without salt‘Bread without salt’

29

Strikingly, the introduction of the zero-2 strategy into some of non-presentative ascriptive predications semantically induces a fundamental change in the predications typology. In this case, zero-2 strategy transforms, on the one hand, property assignment predicate based on an adjectival predicate into an attributive construction and status assignment predicate based on nominal predicate into a nominal compound on the other. Examples (40) and (41) are cases in point.

3.2.10. Predicate hierarchy 1A: Ascriptive predications

1 2 3 4(xi)Loc > A > N > (xi) Poss

Hengeveld (1992: 203) made out a case for the following two principles: (1) localizing predications are the most easily predicable elements, whereas the possessive predications are the least ones on the predicate hierarchy 1A. (2) Localizing predications favour zero-2 over zero-1strategy. Analytically, Hengeveld’s principles roughly hold for Gueleaya.

3.2.11. Positional verbs and localizing copulas

(xi)Loc A N (xi) Poss

On the basis of some historical evidence vis-à-vis the Ibero-Romance languages, Hengeveld (1992: 246) deduced that original verbs of position are drifted out to non-verbal predications by virtue of grammaticalization process. That is to say, positional verbs were originally used with locative predicates but later on their use extended to adjectival and nominal predicates. Diachronically, these verbs have gradually evolved from sheer positional verbs into a possible localizing copula, or alternatively, into a possible multifunctional copula (Hengeveld 1992: 245/6). No concrete proof in support of the positional verbs and localizing copulas theory was documented in this Berber dialect. Inapplicability of the positional verbs and localizing copulas hierarchy above to Gueleaya derives from the fact that copulas are non-verbal in the latter. 3.2.12. Pronominal copulas hierarchy

Pro (dxi) > (ixi) > A/N

Pronominal copulas hierarchy above implies that pro-copulas tend to be more easily predicable with both identifying predications (definite), classifying (indefinite), adjectival and nominal predicates respectively (Hengeveld 1992: 251). Comparatively, the pronominal copula hierarchy is inoperative for Gueleaya because copulas are herein substantially non-verbal rather than pronominal.Based on Hengeveld (1992) typological non-verbal predication hierarchies, the conclusion that can be drawn from this chapter is as follows: hierarchies that were trivially compatible with Gueleaya’s non-verbal predications include part of speech hierarchy, non-presentative ascriptive predications hierarchy: predicate hierarchy 1A,

30

predicate 1B, predicate hierarchy 2- equative predication, predication hierarchy ─ascriptive predications, deixis hierarchy, quantificational hierarchy. On the other hand, hierarchies that are partially applicable include predicativity hierarchy, predication hierarchy; whereas positional verbs, localizing copulas and pronominal copulas hierarchies are, on the basis of the finding, both irrelevant if applied to this language. To recap, in Gueleaya, predicable non-verbal predications clearly bifurcate into copular predicable predications and zero-copula predications. In the light of the copular predicable predications, non-verbal copula is found to be a prerequisite for the predictability of identifying and classifying predications, and bare predicates; whereas relational predicates and quantifying predications, by contrast, are predicable regardless of the copula. In the same language, cases of predicable deictic locative predicates are evident in either copula or zero-copula constructions. Schematically, the following table outlines the different expression formats that are available for different types of non-verbal predications in Gueleaya.

Figure 2. Sketch: expression formats in Gueleaya

Exist Yadja/Aqa

Pres Poss

Ø

Pres Loc

Aqa

Non-pres Loc Aqa

Non-pres Adj

da

Non-pres Noun

da

Non-pres Poss

Ø

Class

da

Ident da

31

44

Gueleaya in Wetzer’s Gueleaya in Wetzer’s (1996) typological profile(1996) typological profile

IntroductionIntroduction

Chapter 4 main objective is to attempt to typologically categorize potential patterns of property concept words encoding in Gueleaya on the basis of different Wetzer’s V-N continuums.

4.1. Adjectival encoding in language: Nouniness and 4.1. Adjectival encoding in language: Nouniness and verbinessverbiness

4.1.1. “Nouny” and “verby” adjectivals

Property concept words, according to Wetzer's hypothesis (1996: 44), fill a medial position in a language-independent lexical continuum or “category space” from Verb (left) to Noun (right). Dynamically, the left-to-right extension on the continuum implicitly entails an increase of nominal properties and a comparable decrease of verbal properties and vice-versa (Wetzer 1996: 44).

1. VERBS -----------------ADJECTIVALS-------------------NOUNS decreasing verbality= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = >

increasing nominality

32

On a par with Wetzer continuum above, Gueleaya property concept words, which exhibit a two-fold distribution, that is, (adjectival) Nouns and (adjectival) verbs, spatially occupy an intermediate position between verbs on the left and nouns on the right of the continuum. In terms of treatment of property concept words, Wetzer typologically classified languages of his sample into three major classes, i.e. adjectival verbs, adjectival nouns and adjectives.

2. VERBS ------------------ADJECTIVALS-------------------------NOUNSa.Verbs Adjectival Verbs // Nounsb.Verbs // Adjectival Nouns Nounsc.Verbs // Adjectives // Nouns

First, “adjectival-verb” languages referred to as (pattern (a)) above. Second, “adjectival-noun” (pattern (b)) and a unique adjective-class language (pattern (c)). In reference to the pattern (a) and (b) languages, according to Wetzer (1996: 45), such languages are said to lack a discrete adjective class, and therefore property concepts are either verbally or nominally encoded, whereas pattern (c) languages, in contrast, entail the three major word classes: verbs, adjectives and nouns altogether. As regards the surface of the Verb-Noun continuum, in “adjectival-verb” languages, the boundary is clearly placed between adjectival verbs and nouns (pattern (a)), while in “adjectival noun” languages, the boundary is marked between adjectival nouns and verbs instead (pattern (b)). In contrast to the pattern (a) and (b), adjectivals’ class in pattern (c) is distinctively isolated from both verbs and nouns by slashes, which mark the categorical limits. Comparatively, the distinct fact that Gueleaya is possessed of a discrete adjective class and a quantity of adjectival class displaying potential nouny and verby encodings undermines the relevance of Wetzer’s enumerated patterns to the language under study.

3. VERBS ------------------------ADJECTIVALS-------------------------NOUNS Verbs Adj.Verbs // Adjectives // Nouns

Typical of Nkore-kiga language, the Verb-Noun continuum above in fact allocates adjectives only a marginal position because discrete adjectives comprise only a small subset of adjectivals. Other adjectives are simply categorized into verbs (Wetzer 1996: 46). In actual fact, the adjectivals bipartite encoding of verby-adjectives and discrete adjectives deems the V-N continuum above inapplicable to Gueleaya adjectivals which potentially shows three-way encoding, i.e. verby-adjectives, adjectives, nouny-adjectives. Property concept words distribution potentialities are discussed in more detail in the section 4.6 of chapter 4 on Split-adjective languages.

Gueleaya adjectival encodingsAttributive cases (discrete adjectives)

(1) Rabhaar amaqraan (2) Thandint tha.amaqran.t Sea.M big.M City.F F.big.F ‘The big sea’ ‘The big city’Nouny-adjectives

33

(3) Rabhaar da-maqraan (4) Thandint tta-maqraan.tSea.M COP.M -big.M City.F COP.F-big.F‘The sea is big’ ‘The city is big’Verby-adjectives

(5) Rqahwa thahma DEF-coffee.F 3rd.SG.hot.PAST.PERF.F‘The coffee is hot’

Contrary to the first Verb-Noun continuum, which entails namely adjectival verbs and adjectives, the next continuum typifies the sort of languages in which the adjectivals category incorporates “Adjectives” and the “nominal Adjectives”.

4. VERBS ------------------------ADJECTIVALS-------------------------NOUNSVerbs // Adjectives // nominal Adj’s // Nouns

By way of illustration, from his languages sample, Wetzer (1996: 47) included an example of Japanese in which “adjectives” partly show verbal characteristics, whereas “nominal Adjectives” are somewhat nouny. On closer survey, the Verb-Noun continuum (3) and likewise the V-N continuum (4) will be applicable to Gueleaya only on the condition that they are both conjoined into one integral Verb-Noun continuum including, notably verby-adjectives similar the continuum (6) below. In terms of the Verb-Noun continuum (5), two different types of languages are distinguishable here, that is, “verby” adjectival languages (pattern (a)) are said to consist of both verb-like adjectives and adjectival verbs on the one hand, and “nouny” adjectival languages (pattern b)) are formed from noun-like adjectives and adjectival verbs on the other.

5. VERBS -----------------------ADJECTIVALS-------------------------NOUNS a.Verbs ?? Verby Adjectivals // Nouns

b.Verbs // Nouny Adjectivals ?? Nouns

Terminologically, Wetzer (1996: 49), deemed Ross’ (1972, 1973) “Nouny” and “Verby” adjectivals discrepancy a better substitute for the traditional approach to adjectives, namely (adjectival) Nouns and (adjectival) Verbs. Symbolically, in reference to the current continuum, the slashes do functionally mark the categorical limits between verby adjectives and nouny adjectives, while the question marks indicate equivocal boundaries between “verby” adjectivals and core verbs (Wetzer 1996:49). In effect, the Verb-Noun continuum (5) will only be more relevant to Gueleaya adjectival category in case it explicitly entails both nouny and verby-adjectival encoding patterns.

34

So far, with the exception of the Verb-Noun continuum (6), which is typical of split-adjectival languages, all Wetzer’s continuums have been found to be either partly consistent or irrelevant when contrasted with Gueleaya’s adjectival predications. Finally, the possible reading of the Verb-Noun continuum (6) below is that words encoding property concepts are basically subdivided, by a distinctive split, into two principal categories: nouny and verby adjectivals (Wetzer 1996: 50).

6. VERBS ------------------------ADJECTIVALS-------------------------NOUNSVerbs ?? Verby Adj’s // Nouny Adj’s ?? Nouns

By way of explanation, the split in the adjectival concept words (above) is explained by the fact that ‘words expressing property concepts can be divided into two major-linguistic categories; either they share many (not all) properties with the nouns, or they share (not all) properties with the verbs’ Wetzer (1996: 50). On account of the fact that, in Gueleaya, only a limited set of adjectivals can be predicatively both nouny or verby, Wetzer pattern (6) above is therefore only to some degree applicable hereto. By way of illustration, on one level the adjective ‘amaqraan’ (big), for instance, is eligible for both nouny and verby encodings, as examples (6) and (7) clearly show but on another level, adjectives like ‘yahma’ (hot) and ‘yasfa’(clear) have only verby attributes, and hence they are overwhelmingly incompatible with non-verbal copulas.

Verby Adjectives (6) Rabhar y-amghar attas

Sea.M 3rd.SG.M-big.PRES.PERF very‘The sea is very big’ Nouny adjectives

(7) Rabhaar da-maqraan Sea.M COP.M -big.M ‘The sea is big’ Only verby adjectives

(8) Aghroum y-ahma attasBread.M 3.SG.M-hot.PRES.PERF very ‘The bread is very hot’

(9) Rkaas-a y-asfaGlass.M-PROX 3rd.SG.M-clear.PRES.PERF‘This glass is clear’

(10) * Rkaas-a da y-asfaGlass.M-PROX COP.M 3rd.SG.M-clear.DECL.PRES‘This glass is clear’

4.2. Nouniness and verbiness in type-A and type-B 4.2. Nouniness and verbiness in type-A and type-B languageslanguages

In Wetzer’s typological profile, languages are generally classified into two predominant types, that is, type-A and type-B languages. To mention, type-A languages distinguish

35

between verbal and nominal predicates by relatively clear morphosyntactic features, whereas such distinctive features are simply absent in type-B (Wetzer 1996:85). Based on available data, Gueleaya can be categorized as a type-A language. Wetzer acknowledges three strategies in the formal encoding of intransitive (nominal and verbal predicates). That is, (1) person marking [PERS], (2) use of an overt copula [COP], and (3) zero marking [ZERO]. By applying these three strategies, nine possible patterns resulted, which are “uniformity” patterns (1-3) and “differentiation” patterns (4-9).

Basic Verb-Noun patternsVpred Npred

Uniformity (1) PERS PERS(2) COP COP(3) ZERO ZERO

Differentiation (4) PERS ZERO(5) PERS COP(6) ZERO COP(7) COP ZERO

* (8) COP PERS* (9) ZERO PERS

In Wetzer’s sample languages, the formal encoding of intransitive verbal and nominal predicates in kernel sentences in type-B is defined according to the uniformity pattern (1)-(3) of basic verb-noun patterns. By definition, uniformity pattern is inherent in languages, which use the same predicate formation strategy as mentioned earlier. For instance: (1) [PERS] person marking (both predicate nouns and verbs take person/ number subject prefixes), (2) [COP] use of an overt copula for both verbal and nominal predicates, and (3) [ZERO] zero marking (absence of the overt markers used in the former two strategies) for both verbal and nominal predicates. According to Wetzer (1996: 109) nominal predicates are essentially distinguished from verbal ones by accepting an overt copula. On the other hand, in type-A languages, formal encoding of intransitive verbal and nominal predicates in kernel sentences allows a description in terms of the four differentiation patterns (4)-(7). To begin with, in the differentiation pattern (4), verbal predicates receive person marking, while nominal predicates are zero marked. In pattern (5), verbal predicates are marked for person category, whereas nominal predicates, by contrast, are accompanied by an overt copula. In the last but one pattern (6), verbal predicates are zero-marked, but nominal predicates are combining with an overt copula instead. Lastly, verbal predicates favour an overt copula, whereas nominal predicates accept zero-marking in pattern (7). All in all, on the basis of the differentiation list above, Gueleaya can be trivially classified as type-A language since

36

the formal encoding of intransitive verbal and nominal predicates showed consistency with pattern 5 inherent in the former differentiation list. Two examples are cited below by way of illustration.

Differentiation patterns (5)V-Pred (5)

(11) Rabhar y-amghar attas Sea.M 3rd.SG.M-big.PERF.PRES very‘The sea is very big’ N-Pred (5)

(12) Natta da madoukar ino He COP.M friend.M mine ‘He is my friend’

As far as the predicate formation strategy of person marking is concerned, Wetzer’s (1996: 90) implicational universal implying that “if the predicate formation strategy of person marking applies to nouns, then it will be applicable to verbs as well” is fully predictable from the examples below.

Nominal predicate (13) Ahmad da mahdaar

Ahmad COP.M.SG student.M.SG ‘Ahmad is a student’ Verbal predicate

(14) Gasolina th-ighraGasoline.F 3rd.SG.F-expensive.PRES‘Gasoline is expensive’

4.3. Nouny adjectivals in type-A languages4.3. Nouny adjectivals in type-A languages

4.3.1. Criteria for nouniness

According to Wetzer (1996: 116), nouniness of predicate adjectivals is found in cases where both adjectivals and nouns are accompanied by an overt copula as in pattern (b) and (c) below, or alternatively when both adjectival and nominal predicates are zero-marked (a) and (d) cases.

Nouniness in type-A languages

Vpred Apred Npred(a) PERS ZERO ZERO(b) PERS COP COP(c) ZERO COP COP(d) COP ZERO ZERO

37

Based on the data below, it stands to reason that, contrary to the pattern (a) and (d), nouniness of predicate adjectival in Gueleaya is detectable only in cases where both adjectivals and nouns are accompanied by an overt copula as in pattern (b) and (c).

Ajectival nouniness (15) Rabhaar da-maqraan

Sea.M COP.M -big.M ‘The sea is big’ Nominal predicate

(16) Ahmad da-chifour Ahmad COP.M-driver.M ‘Ahmad is a driver’

4.3.1.1. Person marking

As a type of predicate formation strategy, person marking is a distinctive criterion of verbal predicates. Nonetheless, cases of nouny predicates marked for person are inherent in Kalishan (Salishan language) Wetzer (1996: 91).

4.3.1.2. The use of an overt copula in adjectival and nominal predicates

Wetzer’s (1996: 116) first criterion for nouniness (overt copula) posits that ‘if, in a given language, nominal predicates can be distinguished from verbal predicates because predicate nouns are accompanied by an overt copula, and if predicate adjectivals are accompanied by an overt copula as well, then adjectivals will be considered nouny’. Based on the available data, Gueleaya actually shows signs of compliance only with the first part of the implication above, while the second part, in contrast, is partly consistent on the principle that only a finite amount of nouny-adjectives are eligible to combine with non-verbal copulas.

(17) Rabhaar da-maqraan (18) Mourad da mahdaarSea.M COP.M -big.M Mourad COP.M student.M ‘The sea is big’ ‘Mourad is a student’

According to Wetzer (1996: 134), the formation of adjectival and nominal predicates in type-A languages entails the use of an obligatory copula, yet the copula may or must be omitted under specific grammatical conditions such as with least marked tense forms or with third person forms. Comparatively, if the first claim finds support in Gueleaya, the second one is simply irrelevant to a language where both marked and unmarked categories have no impact on either introduction or omission of the copula.

4.3.1.3. Zero marking

38

In his second criterion (Zero marking) vis-à-vis nouniness, Wetzer (1996: 118, 166) affirms that “if, in a given language, nominal predicates can be distinguished from verbal predicates because nominal predicates are encoded by means of zero marking, and if adjectival predicates are encoded by means of zero marking as well, then adjectivals will be considered nouny”. This claim is largely irrelevant to the language under consideration.

4.3.2. Optional use of an overt copula with adjectivals and nouns

4.3.2.1. A deviant pattern: syntactic dissimilarity between adjectival and nominal predicates

Adjectivals and nominal predicates are encoded by means of an overt copula, but they are syntactically dissimilar, either because adjectivals and nouns are accompanied by different copulas or because adjectives and nouns have to meet different requirements so that to be used as complement of the (same) copula. The syntactic dissimilarity pattern between adjectivals and nouns that Wetzer consecutively discussed on pages 158-9 has in fact no equivalence in Gueleaya because both and nominal adjectival and predicates are operate the same type of copula.

Adjectival predicate Nominal predicate(19) Assa(r)war da-qodad (20) Natta da l-modier

Trousers.M COP.M-short.M He COP.M the-headmaster.M ‘The trousers are short’ ‘He is the headmaster’

4.4. Verby adjectivals in type-A languages4.4. Verby adjectivals in type-A languages

So far, the focus has been placed mainly on nouniness of adjectival predicates in the type-A languages, yet verby adjectivals are worth particular attention too.

4.4.1. Criteria for verbiness 4.4.1.1. Person marking in adjectival and verbal predicates

According to Wetzer (1996: 182), person-marking category is the first criterion for verbiness of the adjectival predicates. In his own terms, “if, in a language, verbal predicates can be distinguished from nominal predicates because verbs, not nouns, are marked for person, and if predicate adjectivals are marked for person as well, then adjectivals will be considered verby”. The fact that verbal and verbal-adjectival predicates altogether display patterns of person markings in Gueleaya obviously implies that Wetzer’s person-marking criterion for verbiness of predicate adjectivals roughly holds for the language under study.

4.4.1.1.2. The general pattern: adjectivals and intransitive verbs take the same person markers

39

Wetzer (1996: 193) posited, “While predicate adjectivals may take the person markers which are obligatorily used with verbs, they can also be predicated non-verbally, i.e. without person markers”. Apparently, by reason of displaying both verbal and non-verbal specifications, Gueleaya predicate adjectivals are found to be trivially compliant with Wetzer’s general pattern above. 4.4.1.2. Zero marking in adjectival and verbal predicates

On the subject of zero marking in adjectival and verbal predicates, Wetzer’s postulated that “if, in a given language, verbal predicates can be distinguished from nominal predicates because verbal predicates are encoded by means of zero marking, and if adjectival predicates are encoded by means of zero marking as well, then adjectivals will be considered verby” (Wetzer 96: 220). Seemingly, Gueleaya is inconsistent with Wetzer’s current conditional simply because zero marking is herein not the criterion that distinguishes both adjectival and verbal predicates from nominal predicates.

4.5. The Tense Hypothesis4.5. The Tense Hypothesis

According to Wetzer (1996), the Tense Hypothesis posits that the assignment of nouny or verby adjectivals is affected by the presence or absence of morphologically bound tense marking on verbs. (1)(a) “If a language has nouny adjectivals, then it will have person marking on verbs.

If a language has person marking on verbs, then it will have nouny adjectivals” Wetzer (1996: 273). Judging by the examples below, the above putative bi-directional universal is trivially valid for Gueleaya.

Nouny adjectival(21) Thaqmijat ino att-ashamra.tsh

Shirt-F mine COP.F-white.F‘My shirt is white’Verbal predication

(22) Ali youra ija(n) e-mailAli write.3rd .SG.M.PAST.PERF one e-mail‘Ali wrote an e-mail’

(b) “If a language has verby adjectivals, then it will lack person marking on verbs. If a language lacks person marking on verbs, then it will have verby adjectivals” Wetzer (1996: 273). No supportive data in favour of universal 1(b) can be found in the language under study.

(2)(a) “If a language has nouny adjectivals, then it will have person marking on verbs”

Wetzer (1996: 273). The current universal, which is virtually identical to the previous universal 1(a), is once again relevant to the language under consideration.

40

(b) “If a language lacks person marking on verbs, then it will have verby adjectivals” Wetzer (1996: 273). If verbs in this Afro-Asiatic variety are marked namely for person category, then it stands to reason that the above universal is irrelevant to this language.

(3) (a) “If a language has nouny adjectivals, then verbs will be morphologically marked

to indicate TMA distinctions” Wetzer (1996: 274). On the basis of former examples, Gueleaya does trivially accord with the putative universal (3)(a).

(b) “If, in a given language verbs are not morphologically marked to indicate TMA

distinctions, then this language will have verby adjectivals” Wetzer (1996: 274). Contrary to the current universal, core verbs in Gueleaya are altogether morphologically marked for TMA categories. Examples of verby adjectival predicate and core-verbal predicate are supplied below by way of clarification.

Verby adjectival(23) Rabhaar yamghar attas

Sea.M 3rd.SG.M.big.PERF.PRES very‘The sea is very big’ Core-verbal predicate

(24) Ali y-oura ijan e-mailAli 3rd .SG.M-write.PAST.PERF one e-mail‘Ali wrote an e-mail’

4.5.1. The Tensedness parameter

(a) TensednessAccording to Wetzer (1996: 276), a language is tensed if the former has a grammatical category of tense, which is encoded on the main verb by means of bound morphology, and which minimally involves a distinction between past and non-past tense. Seemingly, the fact that tense (past and non-past) is encoded on verbs via bound morphology classifies Gueleaya into tensed-languages’ group.

Past tense (25) Omar y-anjah

Omar 3rd.SG-succeed.PAST.PERF‘Omar succeeded’ Non-past tense

(26) Qa-attatagh ijan-ttaffaht PRE-eat.1st.SG.PRES.PROG one-apple.F ‘I am eating an apple’

(b) Non-tensednessA language is non-tensed if it does not meet all the requirements for tensedness at the same time. In other words, the term “non-tensed language” is understood as

41

being complementary to the notion of “tensed language”. Actually, data in support of the non-tensedness claim is nowhere to be found in Gueleaya.

4.5.2. The Tensedness Universals

(a) “If a language has nouny adjectivals, then it will be tensed. If a language is tensed, then it will have nouny adjectivals” Wetzer (1996: 285)

(b) “If a language has verby adjectivals, then it will be non-tensed. If a language is non-tensed, then it will have verby adjectivals” Wetzer (1996: 285)

In terms of the Tensedness parameter, identified by Wetzer on page 276, Gueleaya can be partly included in the list of Tensedness type of languages, i.e. the tensedness of Gueleaya verby adjectivals renders this language more compliant with the Tensedness Universal (a) than (b), and the verby adjectival in the construction below can be a case in point. Verby Adjectives

(27) Akhaam-a yamghar attas Room.M-PROX 3rd.SG.M.big.PRES.PERF very‘This room is very large/big’

4.5.3. The Tensedness Universals (revised version)

(a) “If a language has an open class of nouny adjectivals, then it will be tensed. If a language is tensed, then it will have an open class of nouny adjectivals” Wetzer (1996: 287). Comparatively, there is a degree of relevance in Wetzer’s present Tensedness Universal (a) to Gueleaya.

(b) “If a language has an open class of verby adjectivals, then it will be non-tensed. If a language is non-tensed, then it will have an open class of verby adjectivals” Wetzer (1996: 287). Gueleaya’s examples run counter to (revised version) of the Tensedness Universal (b) in that despite being an open verby-adjectival language, the former is substantially tensed.

4.6. Mixed languages: Split-adjective languages 4.6. Mixed languages: Split-adjective languages

Strikingly, in “split-adjective” languages, properties encoding units are basically found to bifurcate into nouny adjectivals and verby adjectivals. Schematically, on the split-adjective Verb-Noun continuum, a clear boundary divides adjectivals so that some prototypical adjectivals are attributed to the nouny section and the rest to the verby one (Wetzer 1996: 311). The Wetzer’s schematic continuum below is a characterization of the lexical category distribution inherent in Split-adjective languages.

6. VERBS------------------------ADJECTIVALS-------------------------NOUNS

42

Verbs ?? Verby Adj’s // Nouny Adj’s ?? Nouns

Relatively speaking, it is worth highlighting that only a finite set of property concept words in Gueleaya seem to comply with the two-way lexical category distribution proposed by Wetzer (1996: 50-113) in that not all adjectives can be predicatively nouny and/or verby and the property word ‘amaqraan’ (big) is a case in point. On the other hand, property words such as ‘yahma’ (hot) and ‘yasfa’(clear) are basically verby and thus incompatible with non-verbal copulas.

Verby Adjectives (28) Rabhar y-amghar attas

Sea.M 3rd.SG.M-big.PRES.PERF very‘The sea is very big’ Nouny adjectives

(29) Rabhaar da-maqraan Sea.M COP.M-big.M ‘The sea is big’ Verby adjectives10

(30) Aghroum y-ahma yattasBread.M 3rd.SG.M-hot.PRES.PERF very ‘The bread is very hot’

(31) Rkaas-a y-asfaGlass.M-PROX 3rd.SG.M-clear.PRES.PERF‘This glass is clear’

Based on the previous cases, the fact that Wetzer’s hypothesis is partially relevant to Gueleaya derives actually from the fact that only a finite amount of property words has the potentiality to display the split-adjective pattern inherent in mixed languages. Correspondingly, the nearest approach to Wetzer’s split-adjective hypothesis is found in Holton’s (1999) work on ‘categoriality of property words in Tobelo’ wherein nouny and/or verby property words are pragmatically regulated. Instead of morphological, syntactic or semantic distinctions, property words in Tobelo11, which tend to appear as either nouny or verby, are pragmatically defined. That is, ‘a property word is coded as a noun when the noun it modifies represents “new” information, and a as a verb when the noun it modifies represents “old” information’ Holton (1999: 342). In sum, nouns functionally introduce new referents, whereas verbs, in contrast, represent established referents (Holton 1999: 354). Example (32), in which the property word amazyan (small) modifies the new referent rabhaar (sea), is a relevant case in point.

New referent (32) Ibahaan dawrand

Fishermen return.3rd.SG.PAST.PERF.M minzi rabhaar amazyan togha yhaajBecause NM-sea.M RNM-small.M was rough.3rd.SG.PAST.PERF.M

10 Property concept words such as y-ahma (hot), y-asfa (clear), y-oa’ra (high), etc. are preponderantly lexicalized as verbs that are incompatible with non-verbal copula(s). Therefore, such adjectives assume no nouny encodings.

11 A Papuan language.

43

‘Fishermen returned home because the small sea was rough’

Typically, Tobelo’s property words elaborating properties of established referents are virtually not always verby encoded (Holton 1999: 355) in that nouny encoding is also found to be a subtle feature of lexical items predicating a property of an established referent (Holton 1999:351). Examples 33 and 34 are rough illustrations from Gueleaya of the previous principles.

Established referentVerby property words

(33) Raqtan ad wozzar wa-wazanan-bo kifkif. Cotton.M and iron.M NEG-weight.3rd.SG.M-NPI the sameRaqtan y-afsous, wazzar yadqarCotton. M 3rd.SG-light.M.PRES.IND, iron. M. 3rd.SG.M-heavy.PRES.IND‘Cotton and iron do not weight the same. The cotton is light and the iron is

heavy’.Nouny property words

(34) Raqtan da-dhab wa-dahan-bo kifkif. Cotton.M and gold.M NEG-weight.3rd.SG.M-NPI the same

Raqtan da-shamrar, adhab da-wraghCotton.M COP.M white, gold.M COP.M yellow.M‘Cotton and gold are not the same. The cotton is white and the gold is yellow’

Predominantly, Tobelo nominal property words are most prevalent, notably in possessive constructions wherein the property word is morphologically marked with a relational prefix RNM12 (Holton 1999: 350). Example 35 is another well-matched case in point documented in Gueleaya.

Nominal property words(35) Thaganjajt o.kashod

Spoon.F.SG of.RNM-wooden.M‘A wooden spoon’

On the other hand, verbal property words are found to reflect the same syntactic and the same range of inflectional and derivational morphology of other verbs. An example from Gueleaya in support of this claim is stated below.

Verbal property words(36) Rkaas-a y-asfa

Glass.M-PROX 3rd.SG.M-clear.PRES.PERF‘This glass is clear’

12 RNM (the relational prefix) indicates that the noun, to which it is attached, is related to another referent. Semantically, the relational prefix expresses three types of relations. That is, linking a genitive construction, previous mention in discourse, and inherent possession (Holton 1999: 346).

44

In principle, Tobelo’s property words are nominally encoded provided that they assign attributes to referents. By contrast, property words, which function to predicate a property of an established referent, may operate either as verbs or alternatively as nouns (Holton 1999: 351). A couple of examples corresponding roughly to the current hypothesis are again inherent in Gueleaya.

Attribution(37) Rabhaar amaqraan

Sea.M big.M.SG ‘The big sea’

(38) Rabhaar i-y-amghan Sea REL-3rd.SG.M-big.PART.PERF‘The sea which is big’

Predication Nominal property word

(39) Rabhaar da-maqraan Sea.M COP.M -big.M ‘The sea is big’ Verbal property word

(40) Rabhar y-amghar attas Sea.M 3rd.SG.M-big.PRES.PERF very‘The sea is very big’

Admittedly, pragmatic factors have a large bearing on status of property words, that is, the switch of property word in this Papuan language from nominal to verbal forms is predominantly regulated by the (pragmatic) status of the modified noun. That is, Tobelo property words, which do basically introduce new (inactive) referents, opt for nominal encoding, whereas the ones modifying properties of already established (given) referents, by contrast, are usually coded as verbs (Holton 1999: 355).

Activation stateBeing a measure of pragmatic status, Chafe (1994) defined activation ‘as the status of information in the listener’s consciousness, as measured on a continuum from active (given) to inactive (new information)’ Holton (1999: 354). Practically, property words introducing new (inactive) referents are usually coded as nouns (Holton 1999: 355). An identical tendency is evident in Gueleaya where the new introduced referent rabhaar (sea) is modified by the nominal property word amazyan (small).

(41) Ibahaan dawrand Fishermen return.3rd.SG.PAST.PERF.M minzi rabhaar amazyan togha ihaajBecause NM-sea.M RNM-small.M was rough.3rd.SG.PAST.PERF.M

45

‘Fishermen returned home because the small sea has been rough’

On the other hand, Tobelo property words, elaborating or modifying properties of established (given) referents, are usually coded as verbs (Holton 1999: 355). A comparable example in Gueleaya is provided below.

(42) Raqtan ad wozzar wa-wazanan-bo kifkif. Cotton.M and iron Not-weight.3rd.SG.M.NPI the sameRaqtan yafsous, wazzar yadqarCotton.M light.3rd.SG.PRES.IND.M, iron.M heavy.3rd.SG.PRES.IND.M‘Cotton and iron do not weight the same. Cotton is light and iron is heavy’.

After having defined only one of the two text-based measures of pragmatic status, that is, activation state, it is now turn to define identifiability. According to Chafe (1994), ‘identifiable referents are those which a speaker assumes that the listener will be able to identify’ Holton (1999: 355). In Holton’s own words (1999: 356-357), ‘Tobelo verbal property words always modify identifiable referents’. To put it simply, the referent ija (price), which is potentially identifiable within the frame of reference of ‘buying’ in the discourse, is found to be modified by the verbal property word i-lyamoko (large).

Identifiability in Tobelo(43) o-gaharu yo-ija,

NM-kind.of.tree 3PL.SUBJ-buyYo-uti o-Labi-Labi-iha3 PL.SUBJ-descend NM-Labi.Labi-DIRO-Labi-Labi-iha.NM-Labi.Labi-DIRMa-ijaPNM-pricei-lyamoko3SUBJ-large‘They came down to Labi-Labi to buy gaharu wood. The price was high’

Identifiability in Gueleaya (44) Attas an-yawdan i-yasghin ihoriyan i Riid.

Many of-people REL-buy.3rd.P.PAST.PERF sheep for Feast of sacrifice.Attaman an-san ya(r)khas attasRNM-Price.M of-which cheap.3rd.SG.PRES.IND very‘Many people bought sheep for Feast of Sacrifice. The price is low’.

The main points of Holton’s arguments can be summarized in the following lines: in case of Tobelo, which is a non-inflecting language, a property word is nouny encoded when the noun it modifies represents “new” information. Comparatively, already established or identifiable referents are simply modified by verby property words (Holton 1999: 342). In addition to that, the integration of nominal property words with possessive constructions is a second distinguishing criterion of nouny and verby property words.

46

Syntagmatically, Tobelo’s property words, which have an attributive function of introducing new referents, are encoded with nominal inflectional morphology, whereas, by contrast, the ones that predicate a property of an established referent clearly operate either as verbs or as nouns (Holton 1999:351). In Holton’s own pragmatic terms, activation state and identifiability are the two text-based measures of pragmatic status whereby nouniness and verbiness can be entitled to property words.

ConclusionSeemingly, nouny and verby distribution of individual property words in both Gueleaya and Tobelo is not at all free-will in that findings pertinent to Gueleaya indicate that the inventory of property words, which do exhibit both nouny and verby encodings, is basically finite. By contrast, nouniness and verbiness of property words in Tobelo is the exclusive feature of constituents that do predicate a property of an established referent.

555.1.5.1. Discussion Discussion

The main objective of this synopsis is to discuss the distinctive features of the Gueleaya copula system from morphosyntactic, syntagmatic (copula compatibility with different parts of speech) and from pragmatic angles. Conspicuously, the nature of the constituent under study (copula) is intriguing as it clearly displays non-verbal and, by implication, verbal features too. To put it simply, on a par with non-verbal copulas, copulas do morphologically inflect for gender and number, but on a par with verbs, the present tense is implicitly concomitant of the copula in both nominal and/or nominal adjectival constructions. Inflectional categories including TMAP distinctions are superficially marked on auxiliaries, which syntactically accompany the non-verbal copula, as the examples (5), (6) and (7) roughly try to demonstrate. On the other hand, the compatibility of non-verbal predications, agreeing with the subject in gender and number, with non-verbal copulas is evident from the next four examples.

Gender distinctions(1) Thada(r)th att-amaqraant

House.F COP.F.SG-big.F ‘The house is big’

(2) Ahmad da mahdaarAhmad COP.M.SG student.M ‘Ahmad is a student’

Number distinctions(3) Thodrin-in att-i maqraan-in

House.F.PL-DIST COP.F-PL.big.F-PL‘Those houses are big’

(4) Ahmad ad Saad di mahdaa-nAhmad and Saad COP.M.PL student.M-PL

47

‘Ahmad and Saad are students’

Firstly, contrary to Standard Arabic, Hungarian and Sanumá, in which the introduction of verbal copulas on surface structure is TMA-marked sensitive; Gueleaya non-verbal copulas inherently surface on equal terms in nominal and with a limited cases of nouny-adjectival predicates regardless of markedness or unmarkedness of TMA categories, personal pronouns and/or deictic markers. Secondly, to rephrase what was said earlier, on account of the fact that copulas in Gueleaya are not verbal in essence, grammatical categories such as tense, mood, aspect and person are alternatively encoded by auxiliary verbs, while copulas are essentially tasked with marking of only gender and number distinctions. A couple of examples are provided below for the purpose of further illustration.

Non-verbal peredicationsPresent-Progressive-Indicative

(5) Ahmad (a)qa da `l-ostad Ahmad AUX.3rd.SG.PRES.PROG.M COP.M the-teacher.M ‘Ahmad is (still) being the teacher’Past-Perfective-Indicative

(6) Ahmad togha-th da `l-ostad Ahmad AUX.PAST.PERF.M-3rd.SG.M COP.M the-teacher.M ‘Ahmad was (being) the teacher’ Future-Imperfective-Indicative

(7) Adyiri da `l-ostad anagh AUX.3rd.SG.FUT.IMP.M COP.M the-teacher.M of- us‘He will be our teacher’

Apart from nouns, which are the foremost consistent traditional parts of speech with non-verbal copulas, the inventory of nouny-adjectives that show consistency with copula is fundamentally finite, whereas verbs and adverbs are totally lacking in consistency with copula. Examples (8), (9), (10) and (11) underneath are included by way of illustration.

Nominal predicate(8) Ahmad da mahdaar

Ahmad COP.M.SG student.M.SG ‘Ahmad is a student’ Nouny-adjectival predicate

(9) Thandint atta maqraan.tCity.F COP.F big.F.SG‘The city is big’Verbal predicate

(10) Thashajaath th-oa’ra Tree.F 3rd.SG.F-high.PRES.PERF

48

‘The tree is high’ Adverbial predicate

(11) Aqayi mlih EXI.1st.SG.PRES.IND.M well ‘I am well’

Seemingly, Gueleaya’s non-verbal copula can be primarily described in terms of a multi-functional category in that, in addition to copula function, the former fulfills the pragmatic function of a predicate marker (PM) in cleft-constructions. As a rule, predicate markers, such as ad/da, spontaneously precede the foregrounded entity, as it is the case in the cleft-construction below.

(12) Da rqahwa i-swigh idanad PM.M coffee.M REL-drink.1st.SG.PAST.PERF.M yesterday‘It is coffee that I drank yesterday’

5.2.5.2. Gueleaya is a semi-split-adjective languageGueleaya is a semi-split-adjective language

Based on Wetzer’s typological approach to adjectives, Gueleaya can be thus described in terms of a semi-split-adjective language in that nouny and verby encoding is a natural pattern of only a finite set of adjectives. Morphologically, on a par with verbs, some adjectives are eligible to function as a head of an intransitive predicate where they obviously receive some morphological verbal attributes, including TMAP as well as GN categories. On a par with nouns, other adjectives do in fact inflect for only gender and number distinctions within NP compound or copula complement cases (Dixon 2004:26). For consideration, some examples of nouny and verby adjectivals from Gueleaya are given below.

Nouny adjectival (13) Thaqmijat ino att-ashamra.tsh

Shirt-F mine COP.F-white.F‘My shirt is white’Verby adjectival

(14) Adrar y-oa’ra yattas Mountain.M 3rd.SG.M-high.PRES.PERF.IND very‘The mountain is very high’

5.3.5.3. Documented cases of double-copula in GueleayaDocumented cases of double-copula in Gueleaya

A typological look at some African languages definitely indicates that double-copula cases are, beyond dispute, neither rare nor anomalous. That is to say, despite being linguistically unrelated and geographically distal, both Bambara (Niger-Kongo) and Gueleaya (Afro-Asiatic) do converge on the introduction of the double-copula strategy into nominal constructions. Nonetheless, Bambara distinctively shows a multiple-copula system of four types of copulas, that is, each predicate selects its concomitant copula, for

49

instance, the double copula ye……ye combines only with nominal predicates in this regard (Pustet 2003: 46).

Nominal predicate(15) Min ye námása ye

This COPa banana COP‘This is a banana’

The Bambara’s single nominal predicate is compatible with double-copula system, while Gueleay double nominal predicates combined with double non-verbal copula cases, by contrast, is indeed a striking linguistic pheonomenon identified in this research thus far. Intrasententially, double copula cases are found to systematically abide by the following constituent order.

[(Proper) Noun/pronoun/NP.COP¹. One {two, three, four, etc.} predicate nominal¹ COP² predicate nominal²]

By way of elaboration, the NP, in the example below, is twice modified by one man and good respectively).

(16) Mohammed di-ijan waryaz da-sabhaanMohammed.M COP¹.M-one man COP².M-good.M‘Mohammed is a man (who) is good’‘Mohammed is a good man’

5.4.5.4. Multi-functionality of the posture verb Multi-functionality of the posture verb ‘qqim’‘qqim’

In an attempt to lend some validity to the theory stating that the postural verb (qqim sit/sit down) has diachronically evolved into both a copulative verb (be/remain) and a continuative/ progressive marker as a result of the grammaticalization process, Kuteva (2001: 63/64) included a couple of examples from Kabyle (Afro-Asiaitic) language spoken in Algeria by way of exemplification.

Kabyle (Naït-Zerrad 1996:69)Qqim Copula

(17) Abuqal ye- qqim deg texzantVase 3rd.SG.M-sit/be/remain.PRET in cupoard‘The vase is in the cupboard’Qqim Continuative

(18) Ye- qqim ye- ttru3rd.SG.M-sit/be/remain.PRET 3rd.SG.M-CRY.AOR.INTENS‘He cries all the time’

Seemingly, both Kabyle and Gueleaya lexical inventories do convergently admit the operation of the posture verb qqim despite the widely divergent pathways along which

50

this particular verb has historically evolved. Therefore, the functions that this grammaticalized verb presently do serve in both Kabyle and Gueleaya are slightly different. That is, in this Algerian variety, copulative and continuative functions are the only two potential by-products of this grammaticalization drift, while in Gueleaya, by contrast, continuative and existential serve as two potential imports of qqim.

Qqim Continuative (19) Ye- qqim itat

3rd.SG.M-sit/be/remain.PRET 3rd.SG.M-.eat.AOR.INTENS‘He was eating all the time’Qqim Existential

(20) Ramfatah qqiman di tomobinKeys.M 3rd.SG.M-sit/be/remain.PAST in car.M‘The keys have been inside the car’

Equivalent to:(21) Ramfatah toghathan di tomobin

Keys.M 3rd.SG.M-EXI.PAST.PERF in car.M‘The keys were inside the car’

*Qqim Copula (22) Agroum ya-qqim da-atri

Bread.M 3rd.SG.M-sit/be/remain.PRES.PERF COP.M-fresh.M‘The bread remained/is fresh’

In this language, the posture verb qqim can have either continuative or existential, but no copulative function at all. Strikingly, in a sense analogous to posture verbs, linking verbs, which function as full-lexical (action) verbs, can possibly combine with non-verbal copula. The constructions below are cases in point.

(23) Aghamboub-anas yadwar da wraghFace.M-his/her turn.3rd.SG.PAST COP.M yellow.M‘His/her face turned/ become yellow’

(24) Douragh da l-modierTurn.1st.SG.PRES COP.M the-headmaster‘I become a headmaster’

5.5.5.5. Multi-functionality of presentational particle Multi-functionality of presentational particle ‘aqa’‘aqa’

The presentational particle ‘(a)qa’ with the meaning of ‘look here’, which is pragmatically used to introduce or bring new topic(s) into discourse, has diachronically evolved, owing to presumable grammaticalization process, from a deictic (locative-demonstrative) adverb into an existential verb, and later on into a possible auxiliary with basically tense and aspect markings, as examples (28), (29) and (30) respectively try to demonstrate below. In this case, Lyons’ (1977: 656) assumption about a deeper interrelationship between deixis and the presupposition of existence is evident from the following set of examples.

51

Deictic particle (25) Aqa thataffaaht !

Look here apple.F!‘Here is the apple’! Existential verb

(26) Aghi aqa-th di nibiraMilk.M EXI.PRES-3rd.SG.M in fridge‘Milk is in the fridge’

(27) (A)qa dani aghi di nibira EXI.PRES LOC milk.M in fridge.M‘There is milk in the fridge’

Auxiliary with tense and aspect marking Present-Progressive-Indicative

(28) Aicha (a)qa-thaqaar thabratAicha AUX.PRES.PROG-read.3rd.F.SG letter.F ‘Aicha is reading a letter’ Past-Perfective-Indicative

(29) Ahmad togha-th da `l-ostad Ahmad AUX.PAST.PERF-3rd.SG.M COP.M the-teacher.M ‘Ahmad was a teacher’ Future-Imperfective-Indicative

(30) Adyiri da `l-ostad anagh AUX.3rd.SG.FUT.IMP.M COP.M the-teacher.M.SG of- us‘He will be our teacher’

Deictically, aqa (look here) is compatible only with proximal spatial contexts, whereas ayaqa (look there), in contrast, combines with constructions of distal spatial designation.From the examples below, aqa and ayaqa, which are two variable deictic expressions, are found to morphologically inflect for gender and number of the addressee.

Proximal representation(31) Aqa thataffaaht (near with respect to the speaker)

Look here apple.F‘Here is the apple’Distal representation

(32) Ayaqash thataffaaht (far with respect to the speaker) Look.2nd p.s.there.IMP apple.F‘There is the apple’

52

66

ConclusionConclusion

Three different typological approaches were investigated in the study of both non-verbal copula system and non-verbal predications in Gueleaya. That is, (1) Hengeveld (1992) non-verbal predication, (2) Wetzer (1996) the typology of adjectival predication and (3) Holton (2006) categoriality of property words in a switch-adjective language respectively. Intrasententially, in Gueleaya non-verbal predications, copula, which morphologically inflects only for gender and number distinctions, operates on the principle that TMAP inflectional categories will be marked on auxiliaries instead. On another level, inconsistent with both verbal and adverbial predicates, Gueleaya non-verbal copula occurs on equal terms, in nominal as well as in some nouny-adjectival predications, with both marked and unmarked TMA categories, with all personal pronouns and with distal and/or proximal deictic markers indiscriminately. In the same language, predicable non-verbal predications demonstrably bifurcate into copular predicable predications and zero-copula predicable predications. In view of the copular predicable predications, non-verbal copula is found to be a prerequisite for the predictability of identifying and classifying predications as well as bare predicates, whereas relational predicates and quantifying predications, by contrast, are intrinsically predicable irrespective of the copula. Distinctively, cases of predicable deictic locative predicates are evident in either copula or zero-copula constructions.

53

On the basis of the finding, Gueleaya can be categorized as a semi split-adjective language in that only a finite amount of property concept words are eligible for both verby and nouny adjectival distribution. Intrinsically, documented cases of double (nominal) predicates combined with double non-verbal copulas are undoubtedly the main distinguishing feature of non-verbal predications in Gueleaya thus far.

54

ReferencesReferences

Chafe, Wallace L. 1994 Discourse, consciousness, and time: The flow and displacement of

conscious experience in speaking and writing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Dik, Simon C1980 Studies in a Functional Grammar”, London: Academic Press.

Dixon, R. M. W.& Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y.

2004 Adjective classes. A cross-linguistic typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Holton, Gary1999 Categoriality of property words in a switch-adjective language. Linguistic Typology 3.341-360.

Hengeveld, Kees1992 Non-verbal Predication: Theory, Typology, Diachrony. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Hewitt, B. George 1979 Lingua (now Croom Helm) Descriptive Studies 2: Abkhaz. Amsterdam: North Holland (now Croom Helm).

Kuteva, Tania 2001 Auxiliation: An enquiry into the nature of grammaticalization. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.

Lyons, John1977 Semantics. 2 vols. Cambridge University Press.

Munro, P

55

Mojave Syntax (New York: Greenland) Page: 292

Naït-Zerrad, K1996 Grammaire de berbiri contemporain. Vol.ii: Syntaxe. Algiers: ENAG.

Pustet, Regina2003 Copulas: Universals in the Categorization of the Lexicon. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

Ross, John Robert 1972 The category squish: Endstation Hauptwort, Papers from the eight

regional meeting. Chicago Linguistics Society 8: 316-328.1973 Nouniness”, in: Osamu Fujimura (ed.), 137-257.

Wetzer, Harrie1996 The typology of adjectival predication. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

56