• 검색 결과가 없습니다.

The Paradox of Number and Non-number in Kiswahili Classes

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "The Paradox of Number and Non-number in Kiswahili Classes"

Copied!
30
0
0

로드 중.... (전체 텍스트 보기)

전체 글

(1)

in K i s w ah ili Cla s s e s

A s s ib i A . A m i du

(N orw e g ian U niv ers ity of S c ienc e & T ec hn olog y , T ron dh eim )

A m idu , A . A s s ibi . 200 2 . T he P arad ox of N um be r and N on - n um b e r in K i s w ah ili Cl a s s e s . T he L ing uis tic A ss ociation of K orea J ournal, 10 (4), 149- 178. Within the Bantu ling uistic w orld, g enetic clas s sy stem s st and as centr al pillar s of their com munication s y stem s . In this study , w e arg ue th at , in clas ses , s ocial or g anization and n atur al kind sy stem s , ther e ar e an om alies th at do not confir m entir ely the st andar d division of num ber as sing ular v er su s plur al pair s of affix es in B antu . W e sug g est th at a pr inciple of n on - number is res pons ible for such a conclusion . T o achieve our g oal, the study w ill ex am ine the r elation ship betw een Kisw ahili g r amm atical number , the s ocial org anization of countability , and the Bantu view of n atur al kinds . W e dr aw attention t o contr adiction s inv olving n on - num ber in the sy s tem s and sugg est th at clas s affix es are n ot inherent num ber affixes . T he an om aly is par tly r es olv ed in Bantu clas ses only w hen n on - number is des cribed as a neutr al or central categ ory . We conclude th at Bantu clas ses ar e prim arily clas s ifier s of n atur al kind s of object , and only secondar ily deter miner s of number .

K e y w ord s : Kisw ahili, Bantu , clas ses , num ber , g ender

1 . In t ro du c t i o n

Bantu is a clas s language family , but it is not alone in expr essing it s univ erse of r eference through genetic class or classifier m arkers . Lakoff (1986) and Dix on (1968, 1982) hav e w ritt en about the Dyirbal class or classifier sy st em and it s s em antic im plication s . Wilkins (2000) and Aikhenv ald (2000) hav e recently com e out w ith descriptions of classifier/ class sy st em s laying emphasis on their gramm atical an d sem antic cat egories .

1)

Both class and classifier languages ar e gener ally

1) Allan (2001, p . 116) h as rig htly obser ved in rev iew ing A ikhenv ald (2000)

(2)

referred t o as either clas s or classifier syst em s . S om e linguist s , how ev er , refer t o Bant u languages as class sy st em s as opposed t o classifier sy st em s (Craig , 1986; Amidu , 1997; Aikhenv ald, 2000). In this study , I use t he t erm s int erchan geably . I shall restrict myself, how ever , t o Kisw ahili an d Bantu evidence.

T he st udy argues that t here is a high count able or pr obability r atio in natural kind sy st em s such that obj ect s m ay be paired as one v ersus m ore than one, and their linguistic t erm s m ay also be paired as singular ver sus plural in a predict able m anner . But there is n o direct correspondence betw een class and number in Bantu . I begin , how ever , by claiming that the concept ual organization behind Bantu classes and their univ erse of r eference, as seen through Kisw ahili, em anat es from tw o thin gs : 1. T he social organization of the family am on g Bantu people, 2. T he Bantu univ ers e of nat ural kinds of obj ect s . I view the Bantu family simply in Durkheimian t erm s (see §§ 2.- 3. below ), and so I w ill not go int o an ant hropological description of w hat or how it looks like. Within these t w o param et ers , w e discov er that t here are lim it ations t o a one t o one m apping of social count abilit y and natural kinds in a natural language like Kisw ahili Bantu , particularly w ith regar d t o a ) number and b ) sem antic assignm ent rules . T his study w ill only look at problem s of number description s in Bantu .

2 . A t h e o ry o f s o c i al t h in k in g a n d o rg a n i z a t i o n

S ocial ant hropologist s hav e long draw n att ent ion t o the fact t hat hum an bein gs are organised int o communities , n ot so much for the sake of the individual but for t he surviv al of the group or fam ily as a w hole (Lienhardt 1964, 1966).

2)

According t o Lienhar dt (1966), Durkheim w as

th at "A m azonian lang uag es are g iven dispr oportion ate pr om inence in the book ."

2) I w ish t o th ank Ar ne Kjell F oldvik of the Depar tment of Ling uistics , Norw eg ian Univer sity of Science and T echn olog y , T r ondheim , for giv ing aw ay his book on s ocial or g anization . T he b ook h as contr ibuted im m ens ely t o the hypothesis in this study and in my recent s tudies of clas s es . I als o th ank w arm ly Ali H . M ar oug a of T r ondheim and Abdulaziz Y . Lodhi of Upps ala

(3)

the first t o point out that a st udy that proceeds from the individual t o the m ajority is likely t o miss out the fact t hat t he in dividual is him self a pr oduct of t he society . He or she is , as a result , incapable of representing the t ot al goals and salience of that society . A st udy of hum an society should, therefore, be based not on t he individual, but rather on t he 'collectiv e r epresent at ions ' , that is , on the fact that

"Different societies exhibit different p atterns of thought , different 'collect iv e r epresent at ions ' ..." (Lienhardt , 1966, pp. 31). Lienhardt explains t he doctrine of div ersit y in a lucid m ann er as follow s : "In general, the F rench s ociologist s of Durkheim ' s school est ablished convincingly that social tradition m oulds the individual conscience m ore fully than ev en the m ost self- conscious m embers of a society usually recognize."

T he concept of difference an d diver sity in pat t erns of thought and hence of 'collectiv e repres ent ations ' m ay appear t o rule out a univ ersalist explicat ion of the em ergence of t oday ' s Bantu classes . An int erpr et er m ay also as sum e t hat differ ence and div ersity m ean that there are no unifying threads that link language syst em s t ogether . T hese conclusions are, how ev er , not justifiable in Bant u or in linguistics generally as typological studies show (Greenber g , 1966, H eine and Reh , 1984, Croft , 1990). W e stres s , how ev er , that Bant u classes can best be studied from a position of an underst anding of w hat Krapf (1850) called the 'Nilotic Idiom ' (NI). T he NI is a collect iv e idiom that repr esent s t he African ' s conceptualization of his or her univ erse of reference. An int erpr et er w ho does not underst an d t he ' collectiv e represent ations ' in the NI cann ot truly do just ice t o the w ay the African perceiv es the w orld and how this is reflect ed in and through his linguistic strings . T he linguist ic strin gs ar e them s elv es deriv ed from his ant ecedent usage.

It should be n ot ed t hat the affirm at ion of difference and div ersity of thought is a non - racial st at em ent , t hough pedlars of racial doctrin es could s eize upon it for their ow n goals (Lucy , 1992, ch . 1, on relativity ).

Univ er sity for ver ifying s ome of m y dat a .

(4)

3 . S o c i al o rg a n i z at i o n in c l a s s o rg an i z a t i o n : t h e c o n c e pt o f g ram m at i c a l n u m b e r

F ollow ing from the Durkheimian School, w e might say t hat , essentially , hum an societies consist of individuals an d a collectiv e represent ation of in dividuals . T he collectiv e represent ation is the family , a v ery import ant and indispensable landm ark of hum an social organization and exist ence. T he Bantu family is , t herefore, a collect iv e represent ation of individuals . In Amidu (1997, ch . 9), t he relationship bet w een individuals and their families w as r educed t o a sy st em of ont ological opposition (I) for individual obj ect v ersus (F ) for family of individual object s .

3)

T he opposition reflect s the fact that the family organization of Bantu m an and w om an as a collective is reflect ed also in the linguistic organizat ion of their speech . T his can be seen in the fact that t he genetic classification of t heir gr amm ar att empt s , albeit oft en unsuccessfully , t o correlat e som e linguistic t erm s w ith (I) and other lin guistic t erm s w ith (F ). W e also discov er that som e it em s are neither (I) nor (F ) obj ect s . T he gramm at ical represent ations of the family or collect iv e represent ation , on the one hand, an d the individual represent ation , on the other hand, are kn ow n lin guistically as the opposition of singular ver sus plural. T he opposition (I) v ersus (F ), therefor e, r eveals a direct impact of social organization on language organization , in m y view . T his does not imply that one w ill alw ay s find a one t o one opposition or correlation betw een language and fam ily or collectiv e represent ation in the society or the univ ers e of r eference.

3 .1 . Count ability an d c las s c las s ific ati on in B antu

If w e look at the dat a (1)- (16) below , w e discov er that the opposition

3) T he ter m ' indiv idu al ' should be inter preted br oadly t o include all objects and pos sible objects w ith independent exis tence as opposed to the collectiv e exis tence of their fam ilies of object . In this sen se, ' indiv idu al ' is n ot r estricted t o hum an being s as object s .

(5)

(I) v ersus (F ) in social organization underpins much , but n ot all, of Kisw ahili class organization , t oo.

(1) a . Class 1 MU 1

b . m - s ichana y u- le m - ref u a- m eolewa m - yu - m - a-

Cl. 1 she- girl Cl. 1 she- that Cl. 1 she- t all Cl. 1 SM she- RE CENT PA ST - m arry - PA SS .- MOD .

'T he t all girl is m arried.' (2) a . Class 2 WA

b . wa- lev i wa- le wa- w ili wa- naim ba w a - w a- w a- w a-

Cl. 2 they - drunkard Cl. 2 they - that Cl. 2 t hey - tw o Cl. 2 SM they - PRESENT - sing - MOD.

'T hos e tw o drunks ar e singing .' (3) a . Class 3 MU2

b. m - to w - etu m - k ubwa u- m ef urika m - w - m - u -

Cl. 3 it - riv er Cl. 3 it - our Cl. 3 it - big Cl. 3 SM it - RE CENT PA ST - ov erflow - ST AT IVE - MOD.

' Our big riv er has ov erflow ed (it s banks ).' (4) a. Class 4 MI and Class 1 MU 1

b. mi- iba hi- i my - embamba i- li- m - choma m-p ishi mi- i- my- i- | - m- m-

Cl. 4 they - t orn Cl. 4 this - t hey Cl. 4 they - t hin Cl. 4 SM they - PA ST - Cl. 1 OM she- prick- MOD. Cl. 1 she- cook

' T hese slender thorns pricked t he cook .' (5) a . Class 5 JI

b. j i- cho l- ak e m oj a li- naum a ji- l- Ø - li- Cl. 5 it - ey e Cl. 5 it - his Cl. 5 it - one Cl. 5 SM it - PRESENT - pain - MOD .

' One of his ey es sm art s w it h pain ' , Lit . his one ey e sm art s w ith pain .'

(6) a . Class 6 MA 1

b . m a- g om bano y - ao y - a j uz i y a- m ekw isha m a - y - y a- y a- Cl. 6 they - quarrel Cl. 6 they - their Cl. 6 they - of Cl. 0

ø- day - befor e- y est erday Cl. 6 SM they - RECENT

(6)

PA ST - ST RE SS AF X.- finish - MOD.

'T heir quarrel/ s of the day befor e yest erday has/ hav e been buried.'

(7) a. Clas s 7 KI

b. ch- ak ula hi- k i ch- ote k i- m ehabirika ch - - ki ch - ki- Cl. 7 it - food Cl. 7 this - it Cl. 7 it - all Cl. 7 SM it - RECENT PA ST - spoil- ST AT IVE - MOD.

' All this food has gone bad.' (8) a. Clas s 8 VI

b. v i-j ik o vy - ang u vy - ote v i- m eibwa vi- vy - vy - vi- Cl. 8 they - spoon Cl. 8 they - my Cl. 8 they - all Cl. 8 SM they - RECENT PAST - st eal- PA SS .- MOD .

' All my spoons hav e been st olen .'

4)

(9) a. Class 9 NI1

b . k eng ele y - etu m - pya i- nalia Ø - y - m - I- Cl. 9 it - bell Cl. 9 it - our Cl. 9 it - n ew Cl. 9 SM it - PRESENT - cry - MOD.

' Our new bell is ringing .' (10) a. Clas s 10 NI2

b . tend e z - enu tam u z i- m euz wa Ø - z- Ø - zi-

Cl. 10 they - dat e Cl. 10 they - your Cl. 10 they - sw eet Cl. 10 SM they - RECENT PAST - sell- PA SS .- MOD .

' Your sw eet dat es hav e been sold.' (11) a. Clas s 11 U 1

b . u-f a u- le m - k ubwa u- taz ibwa u - u - m - u -

Cl. 11 it - crack Cl. 11 it - that Cl. 11 it - big Cl. 11 SM it - F UT URE - st op up- PA SS .- MOD .

4) N ote th at - ibw a ' be st olen ' is a pas siv e of the basic predicate ver b - iba ' s teal ' . It is u sed in the N orthern dialect s of Kis w ahili, such as Kim vita, but it is not u sed in a S outhern dialect like Kiung uja, accor ding t o Ali H . M ar oug a of T r ondheim , and A bdulaziz Y . Lodhi of Upps ala Univer sity , both nativ e s peaker s of Kisw ahili fr om Zanzibar . In the Kiunguja dialect of Zanzibar , the applic ativ e pas sive form - ibiw a ' be st olen fr om ' is r ather u sed . A s a r esult, the pas sive of the sim ple pr edicate v erb - iba is , str ictly speaking , often unu sed in Kiung uja .

(7)

' T hat large crack w ill be st opped up.'

(12) a. Clas s 12 KA (dorm ant and no longer used activ ely ) b . ka- toto ka- le ka- dog o ka- nalia ka- ka- ka - ka-

Cl. 12 it - child Cl. 12 it - that Cl. 12 it - sm all Cl. 12 SM it - PRESENT - cry - MOD.

' T hat sm all child is crying .' (13) a. Clas s 14 U2 an d Class 2 WA

b . u- shirika u- takatif u hu- u u- ta- wa- im arisha wa- k ulim a u - u -

u - u - | - w a- w a -

Cl. 14 it - communion Cl. 14 it - holy Cl. 14 t his - it Cl. 14 SM it - F UT URE - Cl. 2 OM they - be firm - CAUS .- MOD. Cl. 2 they - farm er

' T his Holy Communion w ill fortify the farm ers .' (14) a. Clas s 15 KU and Class 2 WA

b . k u- iba k w - ak e k u- le k u- li- wa- aibisha wa- g eni ku - kw - ku - ku - | - w a- w a-

Cl. 15 it/ they - thievin g Cl. 15 it/ they - his Cl. 15 it/ they - that Cl. 15

it/ they - PA ST - Cl. 2 OM they - sham e- CAUS .- MOD. Cl. 2 they - guest

' His thieving/ s abashed the guest s , Lit . that/ those his thieving/ s

embarr assed the guest s .'

(15) a. Class 16/ 25 MA 2, also

traditional Cl. 16 PA - , and Proclass 2/ 1 1st Per s .

b . m a- hali p a- le p a- k ubwa p a- na- tu- tisha s is i m a - pa- pa- pa- | - tu -

Cl. 16 it/ they - place Cl. 16 it/ they - that Cl. 16 it/ t hey - big Cl.

16 SM

it/ they - PRE SENT - ProCl 2/ 1 OM w e- fright - CAUS .- MOD.

ProCl. 2/ 1

w e that/ t hose large place/ s fright en/ s us .'

(16) a. Class 17/ 26 NI3 , also

(8)

traditional Class es 16. PA - , 17. KU - , 18. MU -

b . ny um ba- ni ha- p a p - ote p a- m ep akwa rang i - ni pa- p- pa-

Cl. 17/ 26 house- there Cl. 17/ 26 t his - there Cl. 17/ 26 ther e- all Cl.

17/ 26 SM there- RECENT PA ST - paint - PAS S .- MOD. Cl. 9 it - paint

' T his entir e house has been paint ed.' Lit . In and out of this entire

hous e has been paint ed paint .

c . ny um ba- ni hu- k u k - ote k u- m ep akwa rang i- ni ku - k - ku - Cl. 17/ 26 house- there Cl. 17/ 26 t his - there Cl. 17/ 26 ther e- all Cl.

17/ 26 SM there- RECENT PA ST - paint - PAS S .- MOD. Cl. 9 it - paint

' T his entir e house has been paint ed.' Lit . In and out of this entire

hous e has been paint ed paint .

d. ny um ba- ni hu- m u m - ote m - m ep akwa rang i- ni mu - m - m - Cl. 17/ 26 house- in there Cl. 17/ 26 this - in there Cl. 17/ 26 in there- all Cl. 17/ 26 SM in there- RECENT

PA ST - paint - PA SS .- MOD.

Cl. 9 it - paint

T he int erior of the entire house has been paint ed.' Lit . In this entire house has been paint ed paint .

Each predicat ion - sent ence (Pn - S ) repr esent s a class syst em or part of a class syst em .

5)

W e discov er , therefore, that there ar e basically 16

5) F or each predic ation - s entence ty pe, the clas s ifier/ s of the clas s , e .g . MU 1 and/ or MI, etc ., underly ing the string is/ are the actu al g ener at or/ s of the string con struction , and hence of the predication - sentence . Im mediately below every deriv ed Pn - S in the dat a abov e, therefor e, w e find it s clas s sig nificant con stituent syllablic unit s (S CSU s ), e .g . w a - w a - w a - tr ig ger ed by clas sifier WA of clas s 2, etc ., w hich determ ine syntax em ic function s or str ing con stituent

(9)

or m or e distinct predication - sent ence t ypes in St andard Kisw ahili, ex actly as illustrat ed by (1- 16) s up ra. In a dialect like Kisiu , w e find 15 class es (Eastm an and T opan , 1966). T he dat a are arran ged r oughly on the basis of n atural kinds , such as +hum an , +t ree/ riv er , +body part/ action , +thing , +im plem ent , +abstr act entity , +location , etc., in such a w ay that , w here possible, they show the opposition individual obj ect (I) v ersus family of individual obj ect (F ). T his corresponds roughly t o singular ver sus plural opposit ions in gr amm ars . N ot e that the dat a ar e not paired classes of the sam e obj ect x or y or z . Rather , they are paired as x v ersus y nat ural kinds . Alt ernat iv ely , they are unpaired natural kind p , q, or n . T hus , m s ichana (girl) in (1b ) is an in dividual natural kin d of hum an object correspondin g t o a gramm atical singular noun . It contrast s w ith walevi (drunkards ) in (2b ), w hich is a fam ily of individual nat ural kinds of hum an object correspon ding t o a gram m atical plural noun . T r adit ionally , m ost of the dat a are re- organized int o set s of pairs of the sam e natural kind of obj ect x , e.g . x 1/ x 2, y3/ y4, z5/ z6, q7/ q8, g9/ g 10, n 11/ n 10, w hich are then view ed as sin gular v ersus plural pairs of Pn - Ss . In the traditional syst em , singular regularly correlat es w it h (I) of obj ect x and plural r egularly correlat es w ith (F ) of obj ect x in the real w orld. F or ex ample, datum (1) m ay be paired w ith (17) and datum (3) w ith (18) below .

(17) a. Clas s 2 WA

function s . T he trig g ering effect w hich g ener ates S CSU s is know n as the clas s pr ojection pr inciple (CPP ) (A midu, 1997). T he CPP als o tells us h ow clas ses ar e org anized and then m apped unt o syntactic structur es t o deriv e Pn - S s . T he CPP has been discu s sed in Am idu (1997). T he data ab ove als o c on sist of a and b, ± c,

±d com ponent s . T he a com ponent st ates the clas s m arker/ s and clas s num ber/ s 1, 2, 3, etc . under descr iption, and the b, ±c, ±d com ponents g ive the output pr edication - sentence or - sentences der ived under the CPP or CPP s of the clas s m ar ker/ s . T he glos s follow s the meth od u sed in A midu (1997, 2001a, 2001b ). W e see in the abov e illu str ation s th at clas s description s are m or e c omplex than the mer e itemization of w ord s tr ucture m or pholog y and the com pilation of a tax on om y of w ord clu ster s c alled n oun clas ses , s om ething r ather fas hionable in Bantu g r am m atical studies since it s foundation (Creider , 1975, Denny and Cr eider , 1986, Demuth, 2000).

(10)

b. wa- sichana wa- le wa- ref u wa- m eolewa wa- wa- wa- wa- Cl. 2 they - girl Cl. 2 they - that Cl. 2 they - t all Cl. 2 SM they - RECENT PAST - m arry - PAS S .- MOD.

' T he t all girls are m arried.' (18) a . Clas s 4 MI

b . m i- to y - etu m i- k ubwa i- m ef urika mi- y - mi- i- Cl. 4 they - riv er Cl. 4 t hey - our Cl. 4 they - big Cl. 4 SM they - RECENT PAST - overflow - ST AT IVE - MOD . ' Our big riv ers hav e overflow ed (their banks ).'

T he result is the paired strings of Pn - Ss foun d in traditional gramm ar books . But not e that this inform ation about natur al pairs of the sam e obj ect x or y , et c., e.g . girl/ girls , or riv er/ riv ers , is not w hat class classificat ion is about . T he inform ation is , t herefore, not required in a t able of classes , at least in my view . T his is because classes in them selv es are not obligat orily paired syst em s of the sam e obj ect in Bantu , in m y opinion , hence girl/ drunkards is just as good an indication of so- called number as girl/ girls .

T he justification for our claim is as follow s . In both the r eal w orld and in language, w e find individual obj ect s w ithout corresponding 'collect iv e repr esent ations ' or family of obj ect . F or ex am ple, m ag om bano 'quarrel/ s ' in (6) has no class 5 *g om bano 'quarrel ' in Kisw ahili. We also find 'collectiv e represent ations ' or family of obj ect w ithout it s corresponding individual obj ect . F or ex ample, k uiba ' thievin g ' in (14) contr ast s w it h not hing . T his fact is captured by our dat a (1)- (16) than by tr adit ional descript ions and classifications . T his seem s t o suggest that each class is independent m orphologically and synt actically of every other class , and not all classes can be paired, as this study w ill further illustrat e below (Am idu , 1997, for further discussions ).

S o far , w e hav e s een t hat som e Kisw ahili classes m ay be paired int o

singular v ersus plural, correspon ding t o pair s of natural kind obj ect s as

(I) v ersus (F ). W e hav e also seen t hat this pat t ern does not imply that

all clas ses ar e reducible t o a binary num ber sy st em . It follow s that

class es represent natur al kin ds of obj ect , w hether or not the nat ural

(11)

kinds corr espond w ith gramm atical number singular v ersus plural. In addition , a s o- called singular noun m ay correspond w it h a family of obj ect s in it s function and a so- called plural noun m ay correspond w ith an individual obj ect in it s function (com pare (15) w ith (6) on on e reading ). Last ly , the s am e so- called singular or plur al class m ay correspond w ith in dividual and family obj ect functions in the gramm ar thus defeatin g the classification of the class int o pair s of sin gular ver sus plur al num ber . See (6), (14), (15), (16) abov e. All these variations suggest that class is different from num ber in Kisw ahili. My init ial hypothesis , therefor e, is that the pairing of classes in Bantu by linguist s and Bantuist s lies out side t he fram ew ork of class classification and organization and belongs t o number clas sification and organization . T he t w o organizat ions , i.e. natural kind an d number , belong t o different syst em s of the gram m ar . W e blur the levels in clas s sy st em s w hen w e fuse them int o the sam e affix es . T his problem is furt her discussed in § 3.2 below .

Con sider also the follow ing aspect s of the dat a. F or ex ample, the

predication - sent ence type (16b )- (16d) abov e in the class 17/ 26 NI3 is

kn ow n in traditional class clas sifications as locat iv e classes 16- 18

follow ing general Bantu practice. T he general pract ice does not reflect

Kisw ahili Bant u string construction s and patt erns . Consequently ,

follow ing discussions and recomm endations in Amidu (1994, 1997), the

traditional syst em of numbering is changed t o reflect the evidence in

Kisw ahili. In view of this , inst ead of classes 16- 18, I pr efer 17/ 26 NI3,

because KU > NI, PA > NI, and MU > NI in Kisw ahili n oun t o noun

deriv at ions . A similar m odification applies t o clas s 16 t o giv e 16/ 25

MA2 or PA in our classification . T he class 16/ 25 MA2 or PA is

justified by the fact that place nouns in the clas s can be m odified by

adj ectives , w hereas locative nouns w ith affix {ni } cannot be so m odified

in Kisw ahili. In addition , the prefix {m a } or {pa } of the clas s 16/ 25

implies , in cont ex t s , number as either singular or plural, or both ,

som ething the locat iv e affix {ni} does not im ply in Kisw ahili. T he class

16 or 16/ 25 is a class form ed by only one borr ow ed foreign w or d,

m ahali (place/ s ) and a couple of gr amm aticalized Bantu w ords , e.g .

(12)

p eup e ' open space, clearin g , square in a t ow n ' (Johnson , 1939, p. 87).

M ahali is oft en bantuized as p ahali. Amidu (1980, 1997), follow ing Asht on (1947), an d other scholars , claim s ther e is just one noun w ord in t he class 16 or 16/ 25. T his conclusion is no longer defen sible giv en w or ds such as p eup e ' open space ' abov e. In short , there is m ore t han one noun in clas s 16 PA or 16/ 25 MA2 or PA of Kisw ahili Bant u . F or simplicit y , the student should select either {pa } or {m a } as t he class m arker (Am idu , 1997 for det ails of t he 16/ 25 and 17/ 26 approaches ).

3 .2 . A lim it ation of c ount ability an d num b er pairs

What about the claim that s om e it em s ar e neither (I) nor (F ) obj ect s?

It seem s univ ers ally accept ed that classifier/ class v alues hav e som e

primitiv e m eanings . It is , therefore, believ ed that the m eanings

underlyin g the clas sifiers of a class language reflect t he w ay the

speakers of the comm unity inv olv ed perceive and or ganize the w orld

around them , including possible w orlds , and w orlds of

aut o- comm unicat ion or thinkin g (Amidu , 1980, Davids on , 1975). My

illustrations , how ev er , predict that the Bant u m an and w om an did not

achiev e complet e correlation betw een their family organization an d t heir

speech organization . T his is due t o the fact that t he social or ganization

of society depended and depends , crucially , on the prior recognition of

natural kinds of obj ect s in the univ erse of refer ence. Without such a

recognition , there w ould be not hing t o organize int o (I) v ersus (F ),

nothing t o count as one v ersus m ore t han one, an d n o r eason for class

or language sy st em s w hich recognize gramm atical num ber as sin gular

ver sus plur al, the language correlat es of (I) ver sus (F ). An int erestin g

aspect of Bant u social or ganizations is , therefore, the discov ery that it

seem s relativ ely easy t o pair s et s of ont ological kinds natur ally as (I)

ver sus (F ), e.g . riv er/ river s , or thorn/ thorns . But it is , in practice, not

easy t o pair all ont ological kin ds as (I) v ersus (F ). F or ex ample, m ass

obj ect s like mud, spit tle, crow d, etc., are not easily paired as (I) of x

ver sus F of x (Amidu , 1997). Let us call the failure of pairing of

natural kinds as (I) v ersus (F ) in the organization al syst em the pr oblem

(13)

of n eutral or cen tral m onads . Nam ely , there ar e obj ect s that are, strictly speaking , n either (I) n or (F ) obj ect s . T hese are oft en our uncount able obj ect s of gramm ars . Do these obj ect s hav e gramm atical number , t oo?

If w e turn t o Kisw ahili Bantu , w e discover that the problem s of social or ganization just described abov e carries ov er int o class organization . F or ex ample, all the pr edication - sent ences (1)- (18) abov e of the Kisw ahili Bantu gramm ar are not sin gular v ersus plural pairs of const ructions reflecting pair ed class es of natural object s like x 1/ x 2, e.g . dat a (1)/ (17), or ran dom obj ect s like x/ y , e.g . dat a (1)/ (2). In deed, dat a (13)- (16), for ex ample, ar e not pair ed int o class es of sin gular ver sus plural inflect ions . F or these dat a, t he issue of number affix is m eanin gless . Why is this so? Dat a such as (13)- (16) rev eal that the Bantu people recognized t he central cat egory of obj ect s m ention ed abov e. T hey also recognized that , w it hin the dichot omy singular v ersus plural, t here are class w ords w it hout number affix es . Such affix es represent a non - number cat egory . T o resolve this anom aly of non - number w ithin a number syst em , the absence of number as either singular or plural has been called cent ral num ber (Amidu , 1997). It is abbr eviat ed as (Ce.).

F ollow ing from our analysis , w e discov er t hat the Bantu classes ,

especially w hat Mut aka and T am anji (2000) call ' Narrow Bant u ' , consist

of i) singular clas ses , ii) plur al classes , and iii) cent ral class es . In t his

respect , Ce. m eans a class w ith a non - count able and non - number or

number neut ral class affix . But how can this be, if classes are paired

singular v ersus plural affix es in Bantu? And yet , t his is ex actly w hat

w e fin d in dat a (1)- (18). T hat is , som e classes easily pair for natural or

random number , e.g . (1)/ (17), (3)/ (18), (1)/ (2), w hile others nev er do,

e.g . (13)- (16). T his m eans t hat there is a negation of gramm atical

number in the class sy st em s of Bantu , especially w hen num ber is m ade

cot erm inous w ith natural kin ds . In this respect , the evidence contradict s ,

in a fun dam ent al w ay , gram m atical ass ertions t o t he effect that the

Bantu clas ses ar e exclusiv ely a paired sy st em of singular v ersus plural

affix es . I return t o t he issue again in § 4. below .

(14)

4 . Cl a s s e s a s re f le c t i o n s o f n at u ra l k in d s a n d s o c i a l o rg an i z at i o n in B a n t u a n d K i s w a h ili

What is the nat ure of the n atural kinds in Bantu? T he dat a (1)- (18) reflect the Bant u conceptual view of the univ ers e, especially t he core ont ological kinds of obj ect that m ake up the w orld. I w ish t o illustrat e here, using tw o descriptions , how Bantuist s , as int erpret ers , hav e order ed and arranged the sem antic cat egorizations of nat ural kinds found am ong Bantu speakers . Here is the first description . Demuth , F araclas and Marchese (1986, p. 455) s elect Sesotho as "an ex am ple of a full noun class/ concordial agreem ent syst em ... — a typical Bantu language." T hey then present 15 clas ses of this language, and explain that "In such a syst em each noun is prefix ed w ith one of a pair of CV - noun class m arkers , one used for the singular form , the other for the plural." T hey go on t o st at e that :

T he m ore conserv at iv e Bantu lan guages typically hav e 5 or 6 pr oduct iv e singular/ plural n oun class or gender pairs , plus a few classes w ith no alt ern ation . While productive sem antic correspondences have been lost for m ost of t hese gen der distinctions , classes 1/ 2 (m o / ba abov e) and 2a (bo- the kinship class ' ) are generally know n as t he hum an clas ses . Class es 9/ 10, in the larger Niger - Congo cont ext , have been called the ' larger anim al ' classes . Most Bant u languages and m any other languages in Niger - Congo also hav e a 'm as s noun ' or ' liquid ' (14 bo) class w hich generally exhibit s no sin gular/ plural pairing (Demuth et al., 1986, pp. 455- 456).

In her recent w ork , Dem uth (2000, p. 272) list s 23 "Various

N ig er- K ordof an ian noun class sy s tem s " (Maho 1999, p. 247- 248, for

similar classification s ). T he sem antic and number classifications of the

Bantu classes giv en by the scholars abov e are s aid t o reflect the Bantu

univ erse of r eference and the Bantu m ode of ordering the univ erse of

natural kinds an d properties of these. T he scholars also ass ert that the

(15)

organization of the classes reflect s gram m atical number , i.e. sin gular ver sus plural.

T he second description com es from A sht on . It is specifically about Kisw ahili. A sht on (1936, 1937) dev eloped w hat she t erm ed the ' Idea Appr oach t o Sw ahili,' w hich she then applied t o the w rit ing of her gramm ar book of 1944/ 1947. T he underlying ideas behind Kisw ahili class es provided by A sht on are giv en on v arious pages of her gr amm ar book . T he reader m ay refer t o the dat a (1- 18) abov e t o confirm som e of her claim s . W e summ arize Asht on ' s claim s below . W e give t he page numbers aft er each extr act .

M - WA - classes : "..Living Clas ses ...cont ain the n am es of hum an beings ." (Asht on , 1947, p. 29). E .g . mp ishi ' cook ' .

M - MI- classes : "..nam es of livin g things but not hum an ,....", e.g . all trees , plant s etc. "som ethin g that spreads or ext ends "

(A sht on , 1947, p. 23). E .g . mj i ' t ow n ' , m ti 't ree ' , m lim a 'm ount ain ' , etc.

JI- MA - classes : "nam es of things w hich occur in quantities , but w hich m ay be thought of singly as w ell,...." (Asht on , 1947, p.

65). E .g . j ino 't ooth ' .

KI- VI- classes : "...oft en spoken of as the thing classes , for m any of the nouns are t he nam es of inanim at e t hings as opposed t o anim at e or sentient beings ." (A sht on , 1947, p. 14). E .g . k iti 'chair ' , k ik o 'pipe ' .

N - N - class es : "...w ords w hich are the n am es of comm on obj ect s and of anim als ." (Asht on , 1947, p. 82). E .g . f im bo 'w hip ' , s im ba 'lion ' .

U - classes : "T her e ar e tw o U - Clas ses ...".

a . U - (< BU - ) Class . T his cont ains "W ords w hich adm it of no singular or plural concept , such as abstract nouns den otin g qualities or st at es ." (A sht on , 1947, p. 104). E .g . uz uri 'beauty ' , utu ' m anhood ' .

b . U - (< LU - ) Class . "All w ords , how ev er , refer t o concr et e

obj ect s , w ith a furt her im plication of length or m ass ."

(16)

(A sht on , 1947, p. 105). E .g . uk uta 'w all ' , uf ag io ' broom , brush ' , uj i ' gruel ' .

KU - clas s : "T hat of a v erbal noun , as such it form s a clas s of nouns know n as the KU - class ...T hes e v erbal noun s cannot be thought of in t erm s of singular and plural. T hey expr ess the act of doing , of becom ing or the st at e of being ...."

(A sht on , 1947, p. 123). E .g . k us om a 'reading/ s , k uondoka ' departure/ s ' .

MAHALI class :"Reference t o a definit e place." (A sht on , 1947, p. 125).

E .g . m ahali 'place/ s ' .

ADVERBIAL classes (Asht on , 1947, p. 126)

KU - class : "ku - Indefinit e place, direction ". E .g . huk u ' there ' . PA - class : "pa- Definit e place, position ". E .g . hap a 'here '

MU - class : "mu - Ar ea, "alongness ", "w ithinness "". E .g . hum u 'in here/ t here '

Not e that A sht on ' s "adverbial place class es " are also called locativ e class es (Amidu , 1980, 1997, see als o §§ 3.- 3.1. supra). W e refer the reader also t o discus sion s by S acleux (1909), Haddon (1955), and Corbett (1991) on the t opic of t he m eanings of class affix es . Our dat a (1)- (18) alm ost ex actly m atch A sht on ' s classificat ion . T he ' ideas ' underlyin g A sht on ' s classes reflect the core Kisw ahili cat egorizations of the w orld and hence the Kisw ahili and Bantu view of n atural kinds of obj ect in the w orld, and, con sequent ly , the collective v ersus in dividual represent ation s of the natur al kinds of obj ect in t he w orld, includin g possible w orlds .

W e m entioned earlier on that in t heir social organization of the family

or collectiv e unit s of object s , the Bantu m an and w om an soon realized

that there w as a m iddle ont ological cat egory of central m onad or entity

in respect of count ability . We hav e att empt ed t o show that the

gramm at ical organizat ion of classes also reflect s this centr al cat egory . In

the class sy st em , the central cat egory m ay be said t o inv olv e number

neutralization in s om e affix es . W e hav e suggest ed that number

neutralization in affix es m ay part ly be resolved linguistically by

(17)

recognizing a central number . Essent ially , therefore, the cent ral number and it s affix es in class syst em s display w hat is kn ow n as syncretism in languages . Within centr al num ber , the distinction singular v ersus plural is neutralized. T his leav es the distinction singular v ersus plural t o be m ade s em antically according t o the cont extual function s of lexical w ords or phrases or Pn - Ss them selves . Or else, no number distinction s are m ade at all, and w e get class es w ithout number m orphem es an d m arkers . Let us look at A sht on ' s list for confirm ation of our analysis .

If w e look at t he above list of cor e conceptual cat egorizations present ed by Asht on (1947), w hat strikes us is that t he classes are paired initially as reflect ing an opposition singular v ersus plural affix es , nam ely M - WA , M - MI, JI- MA , KI- VI, N - N . T hen the opposition ceases . All the classes U - , KU - , MAHALI, PA - , KU - , MU , are not paired. Recall also that the locativ e classes of Kisw ahili act ually display the follow ing m orphemic patt erns of conv ersion : PA - > NI3, KU - > NI3, MU - > NI3, i.e. they are r epresent ed by ex actly t he sam e affix NI3 and the s am e noun ny um bani 'in the hous e ' in (16a )- (16d). Consequently , the Bant u noun m arkers PA - , KU - , MU - , are n eutralized and replaced by a comm on affix - NI3 in Kisw ahili Bantu and display no opposition singular v ersus plural, even sem ant ically . W e cannot call this class (or class es ) a gramm atical number class w hen it s affix es lack inflect ional and sem antic number m orphem es . T he pr efix es PA - , KU - , MU - only surface in m odifying w ords , e.g . k ule 'far ov er there ' , p ale 'just ov er there ' , m le ' in there ' , of the n ouns , as the dat a in (16b ), (16c), (16d) dem on strat e (Amidu , 1980, 1997). T he unpaired class es are evidence of number neutralization or non - number .

5 . A c rit i c i s m o f n a t u ra l k in d s a n d n u m b e r d e s c ript i o n s in B a n t u

What ar e the pairing anom alies in the t radition al descriptions of

Bantu and linguistic gramm arians? T raditional classification s giv e the

impression that number and natur al kinds are the s am e kinds of

m orphem es . T hat is , class affix es describe number as singular or plur al

(18)

and hav e gender m eanings . In practice, gram m arians are unable t o defend this appr oach , and appeal t o a principle of fusion (Dix on , 1986, p.

106, Amidu 1997, p. 130). F or ex ample, A sht on ' s (1936, 1937, 1947) ' idea approach ' st at es that "E ach class is associat ed w ith one or m ore underlyin g ideas ". In spit e of this , she clas sifies her classes alon g a number - gen der scale, t hus fusing num ber and gender t oget her . A sht on ' s classification seem s t o m ake the lex ical concept ual feat ures of n atural kinds , such as +hum an , +tree/ riv er , +body part/ action , +thing , +implem ent , +abst ract entity , +locat ion , etc., subordin at e t o the number features , singular/ plural, of her clas ses . In our view , it s eem s bett er t o use a tw o- lev el scale: 1) a lex ical conceptual scale of natural kinds and b) a number property or feature scale. T he m otiv at ion for this is that number is like an adj ectival predicat e in Bantu , w hile underlying ideas are m ostly tied in w ith noun s (Am idu , 1997). In principle, therefore, number and underlying ideas (genders ) are not concept s of the sam e cat egory in the clas s syst em s , ev en though both can fus e t ogether (Amidu , 1997). A tw o- lev el syst em prev ent s number , a 'long series ' feature, from underlying all t he classes . T his in turn prev ent s affix es of w or ds that refer t o underlyin g ideas or natural kin ds , and w hich are really ' short series ' elem ent s oft en restrict ed t o one or tw o classes only , from n ecessarily expressing number as either singular or plural. If my assertion is m otiv at ed, then w e should also be able t o find in Bantu and Kisw ahili classes w ords w hich ex press number by m eans of noun m odifiers and not by m eans of class pr efix es . Such ex am ples w ould illustrat e furt her t hat number is not an inherent feature of class affix es .

We further justify the separat ion of number from n atural kinds below .

F or ex ample, observ e that A sht on ' s class 15 KU , ex em plified by a w ord

such as k us om a 't o read, reading ' , is pair ed w ith nothing in her

Kisw ahili dat a above (see below for her t able cont aining k uchez a

'play ' ). In addition , on page 123 of her w ork , Asht on (1947) ex plicitly

st at es that the verbal noun w ords in class 15 KU "cannot be thought of

in t erm s of singular and plural". F urtherm ore, on page 104 of her book ,

Asht on also claim s that the class U - (< BU ), also giv en as clas s 14 bo

by Demuth et al (1986), does not oft en show sin gular/ plural pairin g in

(19)

Kisw ahili. T his claim about class 14 is repeat ed by Demuth et al. (1986, p. 456) as affecting "m ost Bantu languages and m any ot her languages in Niger - Congo". Let us assum e that Demuth et al. (1986) are correct . If so, their initial general claim t o the effect that "In such a syst em each noun is prefix ed w ith one of a pair of CV - noun class m arkers , one used for the singular form , t he other for the plur al." is simply unt enable and s elf- evidently false (Dem uth et al.).

It is clear from the abov e analysis that there is a dr aw back in t he

w orks of Bant uist s . N am ely , t hey excuse som e clas ses from t he

principle of pairing classes int o gender class es defined also as singular

ver sus plur al pairs of affix es , ev en as they insist that clas s affix es ar e

number prefix es used t o distinguish singular fr om plural in Bantu . W e

see in the abov e decriptions , ther efore, quit e clearly the par adox of

number in Kisw ahili an d Bantu class descriptions . T he evidence, in my

view , show s that , in principle, the tw o classes U - an d KU - are, in

m ost Bantu languages an d in m any Niger - Congo lan guages , incapable

of being subj ect t o the principle of arrangin g class es int o paired

singular/ plural affix es . W e discov er from the abov e descript ions ,

therefor e, that gender or n atural kind must be defined for the tw o

class es U - (< BU ) and KU - as s om ething w hich is independent of the

syst em number . T he evidence also m ean s that not all clas ses st an d for

singular or plur al inflection . T his leads t o on e conclusion only . Nam ely ,

som e classes are central class es . Unfortunat ely , Bantu gr amm arians do

not handle the evidence about central classes w ell in w riting t heir

gramm ar s . F or ex ample, in or der t o resolve t he anom aly w hich has

surfaced abov e, som e linguist s , inter alia, H eine (1982), Corbet t (1991)

claim direct ly or indir ectly t hat the class KU - has no plur al. In short ,

they resolv e the problem of either neut ral number or non - number

simply by imposing number on the class KU - (Amidu , 1997 for

discussions ). T her e is no cross - linguist ic evidence for adopt ing such a

solut ion , at least , for Kisw ahili (Amidu , 1997, on Hein e, 1982). W e

illustrat e the lack of inflect ional number in the class 15 KU affix of

Kisw ahili w ith the follow ing datum fr om George Orw ell (1967).

(20)

(19) K uj a na k uondoka k wak e k uliwahof isha m no wany am a.

Cl. 15 it/ they - coming Cl. 0 ø- COP - be with Cl. 15 it/ they - leave Cl.

15 it/ t hey - his Cl. 15 SM it/ they - PA ST - Cl. 2 OM

they - fear - CAUS - MOD. Cl. 0 ø- v ery much Cl. 2 t hey - anim al 'His com ing/ s and going/ s fright ened the anim als v ery m uch .'

T he datum (19) has a coordinat e NP k uj a na k uondoka. T he agreem ent in the dem on strativ e k wak e 'his ' for both coor dinat e nouns is {ku } and the predicat e v erb k uliwahof isha 'it/ t hey fright ened them ' also has the s am e affix {ku }. T he construct ion is perfectly good Kisw ahili.

But w hat is int erestin g is that the conj oined elem ent s k uj a 'coming ' and k uondoka 'leaving ' are t ranslationally am biguous . K uj a m any m ean one inst ance of comin g or m any inst ances of com ing . Likew ise, k uondoka m ay m ean one inst ance of leaving or departure or s ever al inst ances of this . In Kisw ahili, w e can also hav e t he follow ing const ruction types .

(20) K uj a k wak e k uliwahof isha m no wany am a.

Cl. 15 it/ t hey - coming Cl. 15 it/ they - his Cl. 15 SM it/ they - PAST - Cl. 2

OM they - fear - CAUS - MOD. Cl. 0 ø- v ery much Cl. 2 they - anim al

'His com ing/ s fright en ed the anim als very much .' (21) K uondoka kwak e k uliwahof isha m no wanyam a.

Cl. 15 it/ t hey - leav e Cl. 15 it/ they - his Cl. 15 SM it/ they - PAST - Cl. 2

OM they - fear - CAUS - MOD. Cl. 0 ø- v ery much Cl. 2 they - anim al

'His going/ s (or departure/ s ) fright ened the anim als v ery much .'

T he subj ect of (20) is k uj a an d t he subj ect of (21) is k uondoka. T he

NPs k uj a an d k uondoka ar e the v ery elem ent s that form the coordin at e

NP subject of (19). In (20), the possessive and t he predicat e v erb of

k uj a are the v ery sam e kwak e and k uliwahof isha w e saw in (19). T he

(21)

concord affix es are {ku } for each m odifier . If w e t urn t o (21), w e discov er again that the possessiv e and the pr edicat e v erb of k uondoka are the v ery sam e kwak e and k uliwahof isha w e s aw in (19), and the concord affix is {ku } for each m odifier . In addit ion , n ot e how the fact that k uj a or k uondoka is used on it s ow n as a subj ect argum ent NP does not m ake it aut om atically a sin gular noun . In fact , the dat a (20)- (21) are, in this cas e, translat ionally just as am biguous as (19).

Our study of Kisw ahili patt erns show s t hat the patt erning in class 15 KU effect iv ely rev eals that there is not hing inherently singular or plural about it s affix es and it s class . Disambiguation depen ds on the m odifier s of the head noun , i.e. according t o how they restrict the m eaning of the head noun in a construct ion t o a singular int erpret at ion or plural int erpr et ation . T he distinction singular v ersus plural is not a propert y of the clas s 15 KU it self or it s affix es , at least in Kisw ahili. T he class 15 KU is a clear ex ample of non - num ber , i.e. t he absence of number defin ed as singular ver sus plural in Kisw ahili. T o sav e the number theory in Kisw ahili and Bantu w e need t o r ecognize a middl

e cat egory of number , hence central number .

Table 1: Ashton's arrangement of Kiswahili classes (1947)

singular pronouns Plural pronouns

m-tu a person wa-tu persons, people

m-ti a tree mi-ti trees

ki-ti a thing vi-ti things

j i-cho an eye ma-cho eyes

nj ia a path n-j ia paths

ulimi a tongue n-dimi tongues

ku-cheza to play, playing - -

Mahali a place Mahali places

*W ith tw o exception s , the prefix in the plur al Clas s differ s fr om th at of the s ingular Clas s . Each clas s is as s ociated w ith one or m or e under lying ideas .

A sht on ' s t able and claim abov e suggest that prefix es n eed not differ

at all t o form singular/ plur al classes . And so, she classifies class 15 KU

as sin gular in number , a m ethod repeat ed directly by H eine (1982). And

(22)

yet , on page 123 of her book , as seen above, she claim s emphatically that the class 15 KU "cannot be thought of in t erm s of singular and plural". T he t able reinforces the contradict ions not ed abov e. N ot e, how ev er , that A sht on (1947) does not include the class 15 KU am ong the tw o ex ceptions m ention ed in her t able. In cont rast t o A sht on (1947) and H eine (1982), w e hav e n ot ed that Corbet t (1991) an d ot hers ass ert that clas s 15 KU has no plural, an assumpt ion that indir ectly implies that it has a singular pr efix . T he evidence provided abov e show s that Corbett ' s (1991) description lacks gramm atical m otiv ation for Bantu . Furtherm ore, in Bantu lan guages , w here classes such as clas s 15 KU are said t o have plur al prefix es , one discov ers , unhappily , t hat the so- called plur al prefix es do not form inherent or natur al inflect ional pairs w ith the so- called singular prefix es .

6)

T he t radition al appr oach t o number does not also account for the fact that m orphem ic m eanings of number as singular or plural m ay be cont ex t dependent on m odifiers of noun phrases , or on the usage of a w or d or a phrase or predication cont aining t he sam e affix . F or ex ample, in k u- p iga k w - ing i 't oo much beating ' or 't oo m any beatings ' , number is a property of t he root - ing i 'm any , much ' in the m odifying w ord kw ing i. Num ber is not in the class affix {ku } t hat defines the class (Amidu , 1997, pp. 361- 370).

A sht on (1947) also st at es that in Kimvit a or Mombasa Kisw ahili, one m ay hear m ahali as "p ahali p l. m wahali". T his w ould seem t o be the additional justification for her classification of M ahali class as inv olving number singular/ plural. Her justificat ion is how ev er w eak in St andard Kisw ahili (cf. dat a (22)- (23) inf ra). Ev en if w e t ake int o account Kimvit a or Mom basa Kisw ahili, w e discov er that , as far as the St andard Gr amm ar goes , A sht on ' s t able of classes above impos es number sem antically , but n ot m orphologically , on her M ahali class . T he

6) T he meth od of pair ing unn atur al clas ses as number clas ses confirm s the adv ant age of the pairing s in (1)- (16) ov er the tr aditional ones (M aho, 1999;

H addon , 1955). T hes e s o- called number pair s are r andom or pseudo- pair s becau se, in Kis w ahili, one can bor r ow affix es fr om other clas ses either as allom orph s of exis ting affixes or for use as inflection al m ar ker s in other clas s es . T his principle is c alled allonom inal con cord m ark ing (Am idu , 1997).

(23)

dat a (22)- (23) below illustrat e our claim clearly .

(22) M a- hali ha-pa p a- m ek uwa p - em bem ba tena pa- baya ma- pa- | pa- p- pa-

Cl. 16/ 25 it - place Cl. 16/ 25 SM it - RECENT PA ST - ST RE SS AFX - be- MOD . Cl. 16/ 25 it - narrow Cl. 0 ø- and also Cl. 16/ 25 it - bad

'T his place/ space has becom e narrow and also bad.'

(23) M a- hali ha-pa p a- m ek uwa p - em bem ba tena pa- baya ma- pa- | pa- p- pa-

Cl. 16/ 25 they - place Cl. 16/ 25 SM they - RE CENT PA ST - ST RE SS

AFX - be- MOD Cl. 16/ 25 they - narrow Cl. 0 ø- and also Cl. 16/ 25 they - bad

'T hes e places/ spaces hav e becom e narr ow and also bad.'

Observ e, im m ediat ely below the Pn - Ss , t hat the follow in g SCSUs ar e

generat ed, nam ely m a- pa- | pa- p- pa- separat ed by a group

boundary m arker ( | ) in t he form of a horizont al bar w hich separat es

the subj ect m ahali hap a 't his/ these place/ s ' from t he predicat e phrase

p am ek uwa p em bem ba tena p abay a 'has/ hav e becom e narr ow and bad ' .

Obs erv e further that the dat a (22)- (23) ar e repetitions or reduplicat ions

of ex actly one and the sam e string construction that w ould norm ally be

described as an ambiguous predication . Consequently , it seem s that

Asht on (1947) int erpret s the sam e string w ith ex actly the sam e prefix

m arkers as a singular denoting Pn - S , hence the tran slation of (22), or a

plural denoting Pn - S , hence the translation of (23). T he m eanin g

singular v ersus plural is , therefor e, n ot an inflection al property of m a-

pa- | pa- p- pa- . Number is rather a cont extual function of the us e of

one Pn - S and the lexical concept ual m eanin gs cont ained in it . By

repeatin g the s am e st ring tw ice, A sht on (1947) claim s t o hav e

est ablished singular v ersus plural pairs of affix es for her M ahali class .

It is clear , how ev er , that there is just one noun affix m arker and one

(24)

type of affix concor d for both constructions . If w e follow her ex ample, the datum (6) m ay also be repeat ed t w ice t o st and for singular v ersus plural number w ithout changing class . Asht on ' s approach and those of Corbett (1991), Maho (1999) and other s ar e, therefore, non - linguistic m ethods of generat ing number in Bantu classes . T he m ethods are, nev ertheless , w idely used in Bant u gr amm atical descript ions and are applauded. Compare t he dat a (6), (22)- (23) w ith the dat a (24)- (25) w hich form t he second of the t w o exceptions referr ed t o by A sht on (1947) in her t able.

(24) N -j ia hi- ii- m ek uwa ny - em bem ba tena m - baya n- i- | i- ny- m - Cl. 9 it - r oad Cl. 9 SM it - RECENT PA ST - ST RESS AFX - be- MOD. Cl.

9 it - n arrow Cl. 0 ø- and also Cl. 9 it - bad 'T his road has becom e n arrow and als o bad.'

(25) N-jia hi- zi zi- mekuwa ny- embemba tena m- baya n- zi- | zi- ny- m- Cl. 10 they - r oad Cl. 10 SM t hey - RECENT PA ST - ST RE SS AFX - be- MOD . Cl. 10 t hey - narrow Cl. 0 ø- an d also Cl. 10 they - bad

'T hes e roads hav e becom e narr ow and also bad.'

In the dat a (24)- (25), w e n otice that the nouns and adj ectiv es , nam ely n -j ia 'road/ s ' , ny - em bam ba 'n arrow ' , m - bay a ' bad ' do not show differentiation in affix al form . H ow ev er , their dem on strativ es hi- i/ hi- z i ' this/ thes e ' and predicat e v erbs i- m ek uwa/ z i- m ek uwa 'it/ they has/ hav e becom e ' show different iation betw een {i} for sin gular and {zi}

for plural. T hus , t o say that nj ia ' road/ s ' inflect s for num ber can be dem on strat ed by ass ociating it , for ex ample, w ith dem onstrative or predicat e v erb concords . On the other hand, the claim that m ahali inflect s for number cannot be dem onstrat ed in any w ay in strin g const ructions in the St andard Gram m ar using the affix es m a- pa- | pa- p- pa- .

F inally , A sht on (1947) leav es out of her t able the classes PA - , KU - ,

MU - (clas ses 17/ 26 NI3, in this study ) generally know n as locativ e

(25)

noun class es in the lit erature. W e hav e seen that t hese classes do not pair for num ber as singular v ersus plural v ersus centr al in Kisw ahili.

T he classes highlight the w eaknes s of the Kisw ahili class number syst em s .

5 .1 . T h e an om aly of c entral num b er w ithin a paire d num b er s y s t em

T he class 6 MA 1 is said t o be a plur al clas s , but Kisw ahili evidence does not fully confirm this claim . T he w eakness of the tr adit ional approach is rev ealed by the datum (6) above. T he datum is bot h singular denoting and plur al denoting ev en though it s singular inflectional class is said t o be class 5 JI in Kisw ahili Bant u . T his m eans that w e cannot s ay that m ag om bano in (6) is plur al in number . T he simple reason is t hat it also int erpret s as singular in number . T he affix es m a- y - ya- y a- , by them s elv es , do not t ell us anything about these choices of number function . Since the construction (6) belongs t o class 6 MA 1 but is int erpret able as either a singular or plural m orphemic strin g , it is clear that it does not pair w ith a class 5 JI for singular/ plural number . It r ather pairs w ith it self, so t o speak . T he principle of pairing becom es , therefore, t ot ally redundant for det ermining number in (6). Ev en centr al number does not apply strictly here. F or , how can a plur al class also be a singular class w hen it allegedly has a separat e class for singular? See Amidu (1997), for further discussions . In short , in class 6 MA 1, the concept of number as a syst em flies out of t he w indow . Here again , Corbett (1991), Maho (1999) hav e at t empt ed t o get out of this set back t o Bantu class theory by using t erm s like

"p luralia tantum " an d "gram m atically plural uncount ables ". T hes e t erm s

are m eaningless in Kisw ahili and in m orphology . W e see t his in the

fact that ' plural form ' is n ot equivalent t o havin g a plur al m orphem e,

w hereas number is a m att er of m orphem es and m orphem e functions .

Number is , therefore, not m erely a m at t er of phon ological shapes and

configurations . W e see her e an unhappy dev elopm ent in Bantu

m orphological theory in w hich form is t aken as equiv alent t o num ber

(26)

m orphem e and number function . Ev en if w e accept t he distinction s ing ularia tantum v ersus p luralia tan tum , it fails t o resolve the problem s of dat a (6), (13)- (16), (19)- (21). T he datum (6) is singular and plural in m orphemic m eaning and function , i.e. ambiguous , w hile it s class is said t o be plural. Here, the t erm s , s ing ularia tan tum and p luralia tantum , av ail us not .

6 . Co n c lu s i o n

Fir stly , the evidence rev eals that natural kinds , such as +hum an , +tree/ riv er , +body part/ act ion , +thing , +implem ent , +abstract entity , +location , etc., are n ecessary an d obligat ory features of the Kisw ahili and Bantu lin guistic univ erse of r eference and class organization s . Secon dly , t he n atural kinds form the basis of Bantu social organization and cat egorizat ion of obj ect s int o (I), (F ) and (Ce.). T hirdly , the Bant u social or ganization an d cat egorization lead t o the organization of t he class or classifier syst em int o number cat egories of the type cent ral >

singular > plural (Amidu , 1997, ch . 5). Generalizations about centr al number or non - num ber or number neutralization are also called num ber neutrality in other st udies (Kanazaw a, 2001). W e refer the reader t o Am idu (1997, chs . 5- 6, 9), Kanazaw a (2001), for som e discussions on the subj ect . Class syst em s in Kisw ahili Bantu are, therefore, not necessarily and obligat orily paired number sy st em s . T o sav e the day , w e hav e recognized a central number . Quit e oft en , due t o the problem of n on - number in the class sy st em , ev en the cent ral number fails t o sav e the day com plet ely for the Bant u class num ber sy st em . We can see this in t he fact that som e Bant u classes , e.g . class 17/ 26 NI3, are not sensit iv e t o the s o- called number oppositions of tr adit ional an d m odern Bantu gramm ar s . In addition , w e hav e seen that gramm at ical number , view ed in t erm s of inflect ional affix es , is not a neces sary and obligat ory part of clas s organization . F or ex am ple, t he adj ectiv e root {ingi} generat es plur al strings , t hus by - pasing clas s affix es .

Lastly , language has proposit ions an d sent ences in linguistics an d also

has a theory of ambiguity precisely for handling cas es like (6),

(27)

(19)- (21), (22)- (23). Propositions and ambiguity allow m ag om bano in (6) t o pair w ith nothing , and still express sin gular v ersus plural function s . Proposition s and ambiguity als o allow m ahali, k uj a, k uondoka, and ot her nouns t o perform the sam e kinds of funct ion t hat m ag om bano perform s . Bantu classes , hist orically and synchr onically , are not prim ary number syst em s but sy st em s for natural kind and social obj ect classificat ion . T he class affix es hav e s econdary function s as number m arkers only w here the cont ext of their w ords allow s it .

R ef erenc e s

Aik henv ald. A . Y . (2000). Class if iers : A Typ ology of N oun Categ oriz ation D ev ices . Oxford: Oxford Univ ersity Press . Allan , K . (2001). Alex andra Y . Aikhenv ald, Class if iers : A Typ ology of

N oun Categ oriz ation D ev ices . L ing uis tic Typ ology 5 (1), 111- 116.

Amidu , A . A . (1980). L ocativ e m ark ing and locative choice in S wahili and their s em antic and g ram m atical imp lications . Ph .D. T hesis . SOA S , London : Univ ersity of London .

Amidu , A . A . (1994). What is clas s? A Study of Kisw ahili. W ork ing P ap er in L ing uis tics , 22, 75- 105.

Amidu , A . A . (1997). Class es in K iswahili: A s tudy of their f orm s and imp lications . Köln : Rüdiger Köppe Verlag .

Amidu , A . A . (2001a ). Language and dev elopm ent research in Africa : Based on Kisw ahili, Buli and Akan traditions . T he L ing uis tic A ss ociation of K orea J ournal, 9 (1), 45- 71.

Amidu , A . A . (2001b ). A rg um en t and p red icate relations in K iswahili:

A new analy s is of trans itiv en ess in B an tu (Gram m atis che A naly s en Af ricanis cher Sp rachen, 18 ). Köln : Rüdiger Köppe Verlag .

A sht on , E . O. (1936). T he "Idea" Appr oach t o Sw ahili. B S O(A )S 7, 837- 859.

A sht on , E . O. (1937) T he St ructure of a Bantu Language w ith Special

(28)

Reference t o Sw ahili, or F orm an d F unction through Bantu Ey es . B S O(A )S 7, 111- 120.

A sht on , E . O. (1944/ 1947). S wahili Gram m ar. London : Lon gm an Group Lt d.

Corbet t , G. (1991). Gender. Cambridge: Cam bridge Univ ersity Press . Craig , C. G. (Ed.). (1986). N oun Class and Categ oriz ation. Am st er dam/

Philadelphia : John Benj amin s Publishing Company .

Creider , Chet . A . (1975). T he S em antic Sy st em of Noun Class es in Pr ot o- Bantu . A n throp olog ical L ing uis tics, 17, 127- 138.

Croft , W. (1990). Typ ology and Universals . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Davidson , D. (1975). T hought & T alk . In S . Gutt enplan (Ed.). M ind and lang uag e. W olf s on Colleg e L ectures 1974 . (pp. 7- 23). Oxfor d:

Oxfor d Univ ersity Press .

Dem uth , K., F araclas , N . & Marchese, L. (1986). Niger - Congo Noun Class and A greem ent Syst em s in Language Acquisition and Hist orical Change. In C. Craig (Ed.). N oun class es and categ oriz ation (pp. 453- 471). Am st erdam : John Benj amins Publishin g Co.

Dem uth , K. (2000). Bantu Noun Class Syst ems : Loanw ord and Acquisition Evidence of Semantic Productivity. In G. Senft (Ed.). Sys tem s of nom inal class if ication (pp. 270- 29). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Denny , J. P . & Chet A . Creider . (1986). T he S em antics of N oun Classes in Pr ot o- Bantu . In C. Craig (Ed.). N oun Class es and Categ oriz ation. (pp. 217- 239). Am st erdam : John Benj amin s Publishin g Co.

Dix on , R. M . W . (1968). Noun classes . L ing ua, 21, 104- 124.

Dix on , R. M . W . (1982). W here have all the adj ectives g one ? and other essay s in s em antics and sy n tax . Berlin : Mout on .

Dix on , R. M . W . (1986). Noun Class an d Noun Classification in

T ypological P erspective. In C. Craig (E d.). N oun Class es and

Categ oriz ation. (pp. 105- 112). Am st erdam/ Philadelphia : John

Benj amins Publishin g Co.

(29)

E astm an , C. & T opan , F . (1966). T he Siu : Not es on the People an d their Lan guage. S wahili 36 (2), 22- 48.

Greenberg , J . H . (1966). Som e Univ ers als of Gramm ar w it h Particular Reference t o the Order of Meaningful Elem ent s . In J. Greenberg (Ed.). Univ ersals of Lang uag e. (pp. 73- 113). Cam bridge, Mass .:

M .I.T . Pres s .

H addon , E . B . (1955). S wahili L essons . Cambridge: W . H effer & Sons Lt d.

H eine, B. (1982). African Noun Class Sy st em s . In , H . S eiler , & C.

Lehm ann (E ds .). Appr ehension . Das Sprachliche Erfassen v on Gegenst änden I. (pp. 189- 216). T übingen : Gunt er Narr Verlag . H eine, B . & Reh , M . (1984). Gram m aticaliz ation and R eanaly s is in

Af rican Lang uag es . Hamburg : H elmut Buske Verlag .

John son , F . (1939). A St andard Sw ahili- English Dictionary . Oxford and Nair obi: Oxford Univ ersity Press .

Kanazaw a, M . (2001). Singular Donkey Pronouns are S em antically Sin gular . L ing uis tics and P hilosop hy 24, 383- 403.

Krapf, J. L. (1850). Outline of the E lem en ts of the K is uahéli L ang uag w ith Sp ecial R ef erence to the K inika D ialect. T übingen .

Lakoff, G. (1986). ' Classifiers as a Reflection of Mind ' . In C. Craig (Ed.). N oun Class es and Categ oriz ation (pp. 13- 51).

Am st erdam/ Philadelphia : John Benj am ins Publishing Co.

Lienhardt , G. (1964/ 1966). S ocial A nthrop ology . Ox ford : Oxford Univ ersi Pr ess .

Lucy , J . A . (1992) Lang uag e D iv ers ity and T houg ht. Cambridge Univ ersi Pr ess .

Maho, J . F . (1999). A Comp arativ e S tudy of B antu N oun Class es . Ph . Diss ert ation . Orientalia et Af ricana Gothoburg ens ia 13. Göt ebor Act a Univ ersit atis Gothoburgensis .

Mut aka , N . N . & T am anji, P . N . (2000). A n I ntroduction to Af rican L ing uis tics . Lincom Handbooks in Linguistics 6. München : Lincom Europa.

Orw ell, G. (1967). S ham ba la W anyam a. T rans . Kaw egere F ortun atus .

Nair obi: East African Publishing H ouse. (Originally published

(30)

1945).

S acleux , Le P . Ch . C.S .Sp. (1909). Gram m aire d es D ialectes S wahilis . Paris : Procure des PP . du S aint - Esprit .

Wilkins , D. P . (2000). 'Ant s , ancest or s and m edicine: a s em antic and pragm at ic account of clas sifier construction s in Arrernt e (Central Australia)' . In Gunt er S enft (Ed.). Sy s tem s of N om inal Class if ication (pp. 147- 216). Cambridge: Cambridge Univ ersity Pr ess .

A ssibi A . Amidu

Departm ent of Linguist ics

Norw egian Univ ersity of Science and T echnology N - 7491 T ron dheim , Norw ay

Em ail : assibi.amidu @hf.ntnu .no

Received in January , 2002

Accept ed in Nov ember , 2002

참조

관련 문서

-1396년 오스만 터키제국의 술탄 Bayezid I세는 불가리아 북부 다뉴브 강의 도시 Nikopo에서 십자군과의 전쟁인 Battle of Nicopolis에서 승리하여 불가리아를

Development of Bulgaria Граждани за европейско развитие на България.. Rosen Asenov Plevneliev

1 John Owen, Justification by Faith Alone, in The Works of John Owen, ed. John Bolt, trans. Scott Clark, &#34;Do This and Live: Christ's Active Obedience as the

This is because compared with the free-year English classes, the general semester English classes consisted of teacher oriented grammar class and reading

 The Autodesk Raster Design module supports grids and images and the Autodesk Onsite module handles all of the standard GIS data operations.  extensive tools

select customer name borrower loan number as loan id amount select customer-name, borrower.loan-number as loan-id, amount from borrower, loan.. where borrower lo n number = lo n

This study sought to apply a cooperative learning model to art classes with the aim of recognizing oneself as valuable and positive, while also

: Development of Microstructure and Alteration of Mechanical Properties.. 4.6 The homogeneous nucleation rate as a function of undercooling ∆T. ∆T N is the critical