Maximilien Guérinmaximilien.guerin@univ-paris3.fr

Locative, Presentative and Progressive Constructions in Atlantic Languages

CALL 2016Colloquium on African

Languages and Linguistics

2

Atlantic Languages

Structure of the Construction(s)

Markers of the Construction(s)

A genetic inheritance?

Grammaticalisation hypotheses

Conclusion

Outline

3

Atlantic LanguagesLocation

(Segerer 2010)

4

Atlantic LanguagesClassification

5

Atlantic languagesVery distant (genetically) from each others

In world's languagesGenerally, verbal morphology renews itself quickly (Creissels 2006)

↳ Verbal morphology displays a lot of differences within Atlantic languages

However, in most Atlantic languages: Locative construction May be used as Presentative or Progressive construction Structure of the constructions & Form of the markers

Specific to Atlantic languages

Atlantic LanguagesLocative, Presentative and Progressive Constructions

6

Atlantic Languages

Structure of the Construction(s)

Markers of the Construction(s)

A genetic inheritance?

Grammaticalisation hypotheses

Conclusion

Outline

7

Locative Construction:

Presentative/Progressive Construction:

Structure of the Construction(s)

Subject(NP or disjunctive

pronoun)+ Marker +

LocativePhrase

Subject(NP or disjunctive

pronoun)+ Marker +

VerbPhrase

8

Locative constructionMi yuu ga kaan.PRO1SG LOC PREP home'I am at home.'

Laalaa (Cangin)

Structure of the Construction(s)

Presentative constructionMi yuu tík cëen.PRO1SG PRST cook dinner'I am cooking the dinner.'

9

Locative constructionAtejo umu búsol yaŋ yayu.Atejo COP behind house the'Atejo is behind the house.'

Joola Banjal

Structure of the Construction(s)

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

10

Atlantic Languages

Structure of the Construction(s)

Markers of the Construction(s)

A genetic inheritance?

Grammaticalisation hypotheses

Conclusion

Outline

11

Marker of the Construction(s)

General form:

Amalgam

Subject Marker

Link Base

S DEIC1 DEIC2CL

12

The marker may fuse with the subject pronoun (S)

The marker is constituted by: a deictic marker (DEIC1)

(which may be a link with the subject pronoun) a base, constituted by:

a noun class marker (CL) another deictic marker (DEIC2)

CL usually agrees with the subject DEIC1 usually agrees with DEIC2

Marker of the Construction(s)

13

Sereer

Me-x-e ñaam-aa.PRO1SG-CL.HUM;SG-PX eat-IPFV

'I am eating.'

Laalaa

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

Joola BanjalAtejo u-m-u ni bu-rokk.Atejo DEIC-CL-PX PREP INF-work'Atejo is working.'

Marker of the Construction(s)

14

Marker of the Construction(s)

15

Atlantic Languages

Structure of the Construction(s)

Markers of the Construction(s)

A genetic inheritance?

Grammaticalisation hypotheses

Conclusion

Outline

16

Most Atlantic languages displaya locative-presentative construction

Structure of these constructions andmarker's form are similar in most languages

Coherent with the actual classification: All languages without specific marker belong to

some groups (Tenda-Jaad, Manjaku, Balant, Bijogo) In languages of the same group,

markers have similar forms

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

A genetic inheritance ?

17

In languages in contact with Atlantic languages:

Soninke & Mandinka (Mande)↳ markers derive from perception verbs (see, look)

Jalonke (Mande) Casamancian (Portuguese-based Creole) Zenaga (Berber) Mel languages

↳ construction and marker formally different↳ no link between Locative and Presentative

One exception: Temne (Mel)↳ Language contact ?

A genetic inheritance ?

18

Mandinka (Mande)

Yír-óo be boy-óo la.tree-DET COP fall-DET POSTP

'The tree is falling.'

Casamancian (Portuguese-based Creole)

I na kumé karna di purku.S3SG IPFV eat meat of pork'He is eating some pork.'

Temne (Mel)Ká-gbɛngbɛ kə fúmpɔ k-aŋ.CLk.DF-chili PRO.CLk fall CLk-DT

'The chili is falling.'

A genetic inheritance ?

19

Atlantic Languages

Structure of the Construction(s)

Markers of the Construction(s)

A genetic inheritance?

Grammaticalisation hypotheses

Conclusion

Outline

20

In several Atlantic languages,the marker is similar to demonstrative determiner.

Hypotheses:

Demonstrative grammaticalized into Locative Copula.

In some languages (Cangin, Sereer), Demonstrativefirst grammaticalized into Definite Determiner.

In some languages (Palor-Ndut, Buy, Wolof),the Determiner has frozen (human class).

Locative Copula has been used as Presentative Marker, and/or grammaticalized into Progressive Marker.

Grammaticalisation

21

Grammaticalisation path(s):

Grammaticalisation

Demonstrativedeterminer

Definitedeterminer

Locativecopula

Presentativemarker

Progressivemarker

22

In Proto-Atlantic: *DEIC1-CL-DEIC2

Hypotheses:

DEIC2 = deictic marker of demonstrative or definiteattested in all languages

DEIC1 = agrees with DEIC2attested in some languages belonging to North(Wolof, Nyun, Cangin) and Centre (Joola) branches

CL = agrees (in noun class) with the subjectattested in all languages[has frozen in default (human) classin some languages (Palor-Ndut, Buy)]

Grammaticalisation

23

Atlantic Languages

Structure of the Construction(s)

Markers of the Construction(s)

A genetic inheritance?

Grammaticalisation hypotheses

Conclusion

Outline

24

In most Atlantic languages:

Locative construction,may be used as Presentative or Progressive construction

Link between Locative, Presentative and Progressive not peculiar to Atlantic languages, but attested in a lot of languages (various families)

(Heine & Kuteva 2002)

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

in contact with Atlantic languages

Conclusion

25

A genetic inheritance

No typological convergence

No language contact

Locative-Presentative Construction from Proto-Atlantic

Reconstruction: *DEIC1-CL-DEIC2

Marker grammaticalized froma demonstrative determiner

Marker has frozen in some languages

Conclusion

Thank you

for your attention

27

References

Alton, Paula D'. 1987. Le Palor. Paris: CNRS Éditions. Arnott, David W. 1970. The Nominal and Verbal Systems of Fula. Oxford: OUP. Bai-Sheka, Abou. 1991. Prédication non verbale en temne. Afrikanistische

Arbeitspapiere 26. 113-126. Bao Diop, Sokhna. 2013. Description du baynunk guñaamolo, langue minoritaire du

sénégal : analyse phonologique, morphologique et syntaxique. PhD dissertation. Paris: Inalco & Dakar: UCAD.

Bassène, Alain-Christian. 2006. Description du jóola banjal (Sénégal). PhD dissertation. Lyon: Université Lyon 2.

Biagui, Noël Bernard. 2012. Description générale du créole afro-portugais parlé à Ziguinchor (Sénégal). PhD dissertation. Paris: Inalco & Dakar: UCAD.

Creissels, Denis. 2006. Syntaxe générale, une introduction typologique. Paris: Lavoisier.

Creissels, Denis. 2015. Copulas originating from ‘see / look’ verbs in Mande languages. Paper presented at the Symposium “Areal patterns of grammaticalization and cross-linguistic variation in grammaticalization scenarios”, Mainz, 12-14 March.

Creissels, Denis & Pierre Sambou. 2013. Le mandinka : Phonologie, grammaire, textes. Paris: Karthala.

Cover, Rebecca T. 2010. Aspect, Modality, and Tense in Badiaranke. PhD dissertation. Berkeley: UC.

28

References

Diagana, Ousmane M. 1995. La langue soninkée. Paris: L'Harmattan. Dièye, El Hadji. 2011. Description d'une langue Cangin du Sénégal : le laalaa

(léhar). PhD dissertation. Paris: Inalco & Dakar: UCAD. Diouf, Jean-Léopold. 2009. Grammaire du wolof contemporain, Édition revue et

complétée. Paris: L'Harmattan.

Diouf, Jean-Léopold & Marina Yaguello. 1991. J'apprends le wolof. Paris: Karthala. Doneux, Jean Léonce. 1991. La place de la langue buy dans le groupe atlantique de

la famille kongo-kordofan. PhD dissertation. Bruxelles: Université Libre de Bruxelles.

Ferry, Marie-Paule. 1991. Thesaurus tenda : Dictionnaire ethnolinguistique de langues sénégalo-guinnéennes (bassari, bedik, konyagi). Paris: Peeters.

Guérin, Maximilien. 2016. Les constructions verbales en wolof : Vers une typologie de la prédication, de l'auxiliation et des périphrases. PhD dissertation. Paris: Université Sorbonne Nouvelle.

Heine, Bernd & Tania Kuteva. 2002. World Lexicon of Grammaticalization. Cambridge: CUP.

Lüpke, Friederike. 2005. A grammar of Jalonke argument structure. PhD dissertation. Nijmegen: Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen.

Morgan, Daniel R. 1996. Overview of grammatical structures of Ndut: a Cangin language of Senegal. MA thesis. Arlington: University of Texas.

29

References

Ndao, Dame. 2011. Phonologie, morphologie et structures syntaxiques du pepel. PhD dissertation. Paris: Inalco & Dakar: UCAD.

Payne, Stephen. 1992. Une grammaire pratique de kwatay. Dakar: SIL. Quint, Nicolas. 2015. Le système des classes nominales en nyun de Djifanghor. In

Denis Creissels & Konstantin Pozdniakov (eds.), Les classes nominales dans les langues atlantiques, 407-443. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe.

Renaudier, Marie. 2012. Dérivation et valence en sereer : Variété de Mar Lodj (Sénégal). PhD dissertation. Lyon: Université Lumière Lyon 2.

Segerer, Guillaume. 2002. La langue bijogo de Bubaque (Guinée Bissau). Louvain: Peeters.

Segerer, Guillaume. 2010. The Atlantic languages: state of the art. Paper presented at the Workshop “Genealogical classification of African languages beyond Greenberg”, Berlin, 21-22 February.

Soukka, Maria. 2000. A Descriptive Grammar of Noon: A Cangin Language of Senegal. Munich: Lincom Europa.

Taine-Cheikh, Catherine. 2010. The role of the Berber deictic and TAM markers in dependent clauses in Zenaga. In Isabelle Bril (ed.), Clause-Linking and Clause-Hierarchy, 355-398. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Trifkovič, Mirjana. 1969. Le mancagne. Dakar: IFAN. Wilson, W. André. A. 1961. Outline of the Balanta language. African Language

Studies 2. 139-168.