Heine Bernd, Nurse Derek. A Linguistic Geography of Africa

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

such as citation, nominal predicate, object, topicalized participants, focused

participants, and modiﬁed nouns are covered by the accus ative. The nomina-

tive is used only to encode S, and A if neither topicalized, focused, nor

modiﬁed. If, as I suggest, Dhaasanac does not have three cases, namely

accusative, nominative and genitive, but four, namely also genitive plus an

oblique, the language would follow type 2. If there is an oblique, this corre-

sponds to the “basic form” of nouns, which is the only morphologically

unmarked form. All other cases are derived forms. The accusative is derived

from the oblique via vowel loss, and the nominative is derived from the

accusative via accent lowering. For a complete list of functions covered by the

accusative and the nominative in marked-nominative languages, see Ko

nig

(2006).

8.2.3 Typological generalizations

There are a number of observations suggesting that marked-nominative lan-

guages such as Turkana and Dhaasanac stand out typologically as a class of

their own. The following is a listing of the most salient properties of these

languages; the reader is referred to Ko

nig (2004, 2006) for more details and

evidence.

First, all case languages in eastern Africa with verb-initial or verb-medial

word order obey the rule “No case before the verb” (Ko

nig 2006), which means

that in preverbal position only the morphologically unmarked form appears,

irrespective of the case function expressed by the relevant participant. In

marked-nominative systems the case before the verb is invariably the

accusative.

subject (S & A) if not focused, topicalized, or modified

NOM subject in copula clauses

(a) citation form

(b) O

ACC (d) subject (S & A) if focused, topicalized, modified

(e) focused participants

(f) topicalized participants

(g) modified nouns

(h) peripheral participants introduced by head-marking devices

(verbal derivation)

(i) possessee

(j) nouns after prepositions

Figure 8.3 Functions covered by the nominative and accusative cases in

Dhaasanac

Christa Ko

nig262

Second, marked nominative occurs essentially only in two of the four

language phyla of Africa, namely Afroasiatic and Nilo-Saharan (marked-

nominative languages share this feature with African case languages in

general; they all belong to these two language phyla); as we observed above,

however, there are a few western Bantu languages s poken between Gabon

and Angola (see chapter 4, this volume) that distinguish case by mea ns of

tone and also seem to follow a marked-nominative pattern (see Blanchon

1998; Schadeberg 1986, 1990;Maniacky2002).

Third, case expressed by tone appears in marked-nominative languages

only; of the 49 marked-nominative languages in my sample, 13 use tone (10

exclusively, 3 in a mixed system by sufﬁxes or tone), but in none of the

accusative or the few ergative languages

is case expressed by tone.

Fourth, if case is not expressed suprasegmentally by tone or accent shift, it is

expressed by sufﬁxes (sufﬁxes are the only tool for case marking used in all

African ergative and accusative languages). There are however two exceptions.

Berber is one, where there is vowel reduction at the beginning of the noun, which

may go back historically to a clitic preceding the noun. Shilluk is the second,

where the ergative case is expressed by a preﬁx (Miller & Gilley 2001).

Fifth, the use of tone as a case marker appears to be genetically determined:

it is found espec ially in the Omo-Tana branch of East Cushitic and in Nilotic

languages, in particular in East and South Nilotic languages. Among the

Surmic languages, tone is only a minor means for expressing case (it appears

only once, or more exactly, only 0.5 times in Tennet: Tennet uses tone and

sufﬁxes).

Sixth, marked-nominative languages belong prototypically to type 1. Of the

49 African marked-nominative languages, the majority, namely 35, belong to

type 1 with a zero-marked form for the accusative and a non-zero form for the

nominative, while only 14 follow type 2, 3 of them only partly so.

Seventh, type 2 languages with an obligatory (rather than an optional) case

system are mostly marked-nominative languages. All marked-nominative type

2 languages belong to Cushitic, in particular Highland East Cushitic, and

Western Omotic, especially Ometo. In all type 2 languages which encode case

by sufﬁxes, case marking is interwove n with gender. Exceptions are

Kemantney (Central Cushitic), and Ik (Kuliak), which are both accusative

rather than marked-nominative languages. In both languages, there is a mor-

phologically unmarked form, in Kemantney with indeﬁnite nouns, in Ik in

certain clause types (e.g. imperatives, some copula clauses). Further type 2

languages are the Saharan languages Tubu and Kanuri; both follow an

accusative system, but case marking is not obligatory (Ko

nig 2004).

Eighth, marked-nominative languages follow to some extent a genetically

motivated pattern (see the append ix to this chapter). Berber, Cushitic, and

The marked-nominative languages of eastern Africa 263

Omotic are the only Afroasiatic families which are marked nominative, and

Surmic and Nilotic are the only Nilo-Saharan groups. The languages of the

Chadic branch of Afroasiatic have no grammaticalized case systems. Within

Cushitic, marked nominative is found in East and North Cushitic only; Central

Cushitic has accusative and South Cushitic no case system at all. Within

Omotic, Western Omotic, especially Ometo, is marked nominative through-

out, while Eastern Omotic is accusative only.

The Berber languages allow for the following prediction: if a Berber lan-

guage has inﬂected case, it is marked nominative, and it is either North or

South Berber, all East and West Berber languages having lost their marked-

nominative system.

Within Nilotic, East and South Nilotic are marked nominative. West Nilotic

mostly has no case; but there are two languages with a split marked-nominative

system, namely Pa

ri and Jur-Luwo. Both are simultaneously ergative and

marked nominative. West Nilotic is the only branch with ergative languages so

far found within Africa. The ergative case marker in some clauses functions as

an ergative and in others as a marked-nominative case.

Ninth, the presence of marked-nominative languages of type 2 appears to be

genetically motivated. These languages are found in Highland East Cushitic

and Ometo languages only. Among the Ometo languages, all marked-nom-

inative languages are of type 2, with the exception of Maale (see the appendix).

Tenth, marked-nominative languages occur with all constituent orders. This

distribution however appears to be genetically determined: With the exception

of Berber, which is verb-initial, all Afroasiatic marked-nominative langu ages

are verb-ﬁnal. All Nilo-Saharan marked-nominative languages are either verb-

initial (East and South Nilotic, Surmic) or verb-medial (West Nilotic, Surmic).

Eleventh, marked nominative is statistically the most common case pattern,

not only in eastern Africa but in Africa as a whole. In my sample, there are 49

marked-nominative languages as opposed to 27 accusative languages, and

among the latter there are 5 in which case is not obligatorily marked, accusative

sufﬁxes being only used in pragmatically marked constituent orders.

8.3 Distribution of marked-nominative languages

Worldwide, marked-nominative languages are a rare phenomenon. The only

other part of the world where they are found is among the Yuman languages of

California, e.g. Maricopa (Gordon 1986), Dieguen

o, Jamul Tiipy (Langdon

1970; Miller 2001). Furthermore, the Austronesian language Houailou and the

Australian language Malak-Malak are mentioned in the relevant literature

(Plank 1985: 302; Mallinson & Blake 1981: 47–8). Therefore, marked nom-

inative is essentially an African feature.

Christa Ko

nig264

8.3.1 Genetic distribution

Within Africa however, marked nominative is the prevailing system among all

case systems (see below); for its genetic distribution see the appendix. Among

the Cushitic languages, East and North Cushitic are predominantly marked

nominative, whereas Central Cushitic languages are accusative only; there is

no case marking in South Cushitic languages. Within Omotic, the Western

Omotic languages show a concentration of marked-nominative, whereas

Eastern Omot ic has accusative systems only. Within Western Omotic lan-

guages, the Ometo languages are mostly marked nominative.

In Nilo-Saharan, only two branches have marked-nominative languages,

namely Nilotic and Surmic languages, both being subbranches of Eastern

Sudanic languages . Among the Nilotic languages, East and South Nilotic are

marked nominative. Most West Nilotic languages show no case at all, but

within West Nilotic, the only African languages so far identiﬁed as having an

ergative system are found, namely Pa

ri, Jur-Luwo, and Shilluk. The ﬁrst two

are partly ergative and partly marked nominative. In Pa

ri, the ergative marker,

a sufﬁx -Cı

, functions in some clauses as an ergative case and in other clauses

as a marked-nominative case (Ko

nig 2006).

Type 2 marked-nominative languages are found in Highland East Cushitic

and Ometo languages. Within Ometo, the following generalization holds: if an

Ometo language has a marked-nominative system, it belongs to type 2. The

only exception found so far is Maale, which is the only South Ometo language

of my sample.

8.3.2 Areal distribution

As the above features show, marked-nominative languages follow at least to

some extent a genetically motivated pattern. Nevertheless, their distribution

cannot be explained satisfactorily by genetic relationship only; rather, it clearly

exhibits an areal pattering. Map 8.1 shows the distribution of case systems in

Africa. The languages mentioned on the map are identical with the ones listed

in the appendix.

Map 8.2 shows the areal distribution of case languages spoken in the border

region of southern Ethiopia, Kenya, Uganda, and Sudan. Each language is

represented by one spot only and the areal dimension of a language is dis-

regarded. Berber is spoken in a huge area, and some relevant languages or

dialects are listed separately (for some languages it is difﬁcult to determine

their exact location; the map constitutes a ﬁrst approximation).

Evidence for the presence of areal relationship is of the following kind: ﬁrst,

marked nominative systems cut across genetic boundaries. Within the border

region of Kenya, Uganda, Sudan, and Ethiopia there are, with few exceptions,

The marked-nominative languages of eastern Africa 265

Marked nominative

Accusative

Traces of ergativity

Split S

Afroasiatic

Nilo-Saharan

Berber Tuareg

Kanuri

Beria

Tu ba

Maba

Marait (Merarit)

Masalit

Ta ma

Fur

Nyimang

Beja

Bilin

Kemantney

Awngi

Amharic

Oromo

Anywa

Haro

Libido (Maräqo)

Kambaata

Alaaba

Sidamo

Wolaitta

K’abeena

Zayse

Maale

Dirayta (Gidole)

Arbore

Dhaasanac

Turkana

Baale

Tennet

Didinga

Somali

Päri

Murle

Te so

Rendille

Kalenjin

Maa

Datooga

Afar

Saho

Xamtanga

Dullay

Hadiyya

Burji

Gamo

Hamar

Jur-Luwo

Berber Wargla

Berber Mzab

Berber Tamazight

Berber Kabyle

Berber Shilh

Berber Little Kabyila

Berber South Beraber

Berber Ghadames

Berber Zenaga

Argobba

Gafat

Tigre

Tigrinya

Harari

Gurage

Masketo

Dime

Aari

Bworo

Kefa

Kullo

Benchnon Gimira

Nobiin

Kunama

Omotik

Dinka

Bayso

Gedeo

Majang

Koyra (Koorete)

Shilluk

Map 8.1 Case in northern and eastern Africa

Christa Ko

nig266

only marked-nominative languages. Genetically, they belong to both the Afro-

asiatic and the Nilo-Saharan phyla. Within both phyla, they belong to different

branches. The following marked-nominative languages are of different genetic

origin but spoken in direct neighborhood or even in overlapping areas:

(a) The Nilo-Saharan (NS) Surmic languages Majang, Murle, and Baale are

spoken partially in an overlapping area with Bench, an Afroasiatic (AA)

Omotic language.

(b) The Nilotic language Turkana (NS) is spoken in an overlapping area with

the East Cushitic language Dhaasanac (AA). It is also spoken adjacent to

the East Cushitic languages Oromo and Rendille.

Cushitic marked-nominative languages (AA).

The few exceptions in that area which are accusative rather than marked-

nominative are Afroasiatic languages, in particular Eastern Omotic languages

such as Hamar, Dime, and Aari, as well as Masceto, which is the only Western

Omotic language not being marked nominative. The Semitic accusative lan-

guages spoken on the northern and the eastern fringes of southern Ethiopia,

Map 8.2 Areal distribution of case in southern Ethiopia and adjacent areas

The marked-nominative languages of eastern Africa 267

such as Gurage and Amharic, seem to be without greater inﬂuence on the case

systems found in their neighborhood (for Gurage see map 8.2, for Amharic see

map 8.1). In northern Ethiopia, the situation is different: Semitic accusative

languages have inﬂuenced Cushitic languages. For example, the Semitic lan-

guage Amharic has had massive inﬂuence on the Central Cushitic language

Kemantney (Leyew 2003b) and on the East Cushitic language Dullay (Tosco

1994b: 229). For Tosco, the lack of marked-nominative systems in Central

Cushitic as well as in Dullay is the result of areal inﬂuence from Ethio-Semitic

languages such as Amharic, Tigre, Tigrinya, and Gurage:

Diachronically, the weakness of subject marking is shown in its dismissal in the

majority of Agaw (Central Cushitic) languages, in favour of an object marking system

presumably borrowed from Ethio-Semitic; and the same development is shown by

Dullay, which has apparently given away subject marking and developed object

marking. (Tosco 1994b: 229)

Tone or accent shift as a means of deriving the nominative from the

accusative also shows an areal distribution. As we saw above, the nominative is

marked in Turkana by a spreading low tone. Turkana shares this feature with

other Nilotic marked-nominative languages, such as Maa. In the neighboring

Cushitic Dhaasanac language, the nominative is also expressed by tone low-

ering: there is an accent shift from initial high to initial low. In the genetically

closely related Cushitic languages Arbore and Bayso, which are not spoken

adjacent to Turkana, the marked nominative is not expressed by initial low.

Accordingly, it is likely that the Dhaasanac initial low encoding nominative is

the result of areal inﬂuence rather than of genetic relationship. Since tone

lowering is common in East Nilotic but not in Cushitic languages, there is

reason to hypothesize that this feature was transferred from Turkana to

Dhaasanac. Figure 8.4 shows the areal distribution of this phenomenon.

Thus, I take the fact that neighboring languages that are genetically unrelated

and typologically contrastive but share the presence of a marked-nominative

system to be strongly suggestive of areal relationship, considering that such a

Nilo-Saharan (NS)

Maa

Afroasiatic (AA) NOM

= low tone

Dhaasanac

Turkana

Figure 8.4 A schematic overview of the distribution of low tone for

nominative encoding

Christa Ko

nig268

system is rare in Africa and virtually non-existent outside Africa. This

hypothesis is strengthened by the following observation: Turkana and Dhaasanac

belong to two different language phyla, Nilo-Saharan and Afroasiatic, while

other languages genetically closely related to Turkana or Dhaasanac, respect-

ively, are not marked nominative: Lango or Bari are both Nilotic languages like

Turkana but have no marked-nominative system, and Dullay or Agaw are

Cushitic languages like Dhaasanac but lack a marked-nominative system.

8.3.3 Diachronic observations

There is not much information on the history of marked-nominative systems;

the evidence available suggests, however, that these systems have developed

more than once, that is, that there are different origins for the marked-nom-

inative case. As is argued in Ko

nig (2006), possible sources for these markers

are deﬁnite markers (e.g. in Pa

ri and Berber), topic markers (as in Cushitic; see

Tosco 1994b: 231), and agent encodings in clauses with a demoted subject (in

Maa). Hayward and Tsuge (1998) claim that in Proto-Omotic marked nom-

inative case has developed out of a former accusative system, and the same

development is claimed by Sasse (1984a) for Cushitic. Aikhenvald (1995)

argues that in Proto-Berber marked nominative was not yet present, which

would be additional evidence for the assumption that marked nominative

developed independently in different languages.

Still, as has been hypothesized in the preceding section, areal diffusion must

also have been involved in the development of marked-nominative systems in

eastern Africa. The question then is who inﬂuenced whom, that is: what is the

directionality of diffusion? In general, it is plausible that East Cushitic lan-

guages inﬂuenced East and South Nilotic languages, and not the other way

round. First, as has been demonstrated, for example, by Ehret (1974) and Heine

et al. (1979), there has been massive East Cushitic inﬂuence on East and South

Nilotic languages, resulting in lexical and other kinds of borrowing. Second,

with regard to number and diversity of marked-nominative systems it is more

likely that their origin is to be sought in Cushitic, that is, in Afroasiatic lan-

guages and not in Nilo-Saha ran languages. The number of Cushitic languages

having such a system is much larger than that of Nilotic and Surmic languages:

the total number of marked-nominative systems found in Afroasiatic lan-

guages is 34 as opposed to 1 5 in Nilo-Saharan languages.

A third piece of evidence is possibly provided by the fact that there is

much more struct ural diversity in Afroasiatic than in Nilo-Saharan languages:

(i) All Nilo-Saharan languages belong to type 1 (see section 8.2.2), while in

Cushitic and Omotic, both type 1 and type 2 languages are found. (ii) In

Nilotic, the marked-nominative case is expressed by tone (Pa

ri and Jur-Luwo

are exceptions), and in Surmic only by sufﬁxes (Tennet uses tone in addition),

The marked-nominative languages of eastern Africa 269

whereas in the Afroasiatic languages case is expressed by accent shift, sufﬁx,

tone, or some combination of thes e. (iii) The total number of case categories is

restricted in Nilotic languages. Except for Turkana, there are only two to three

cases, while in the Afroasiatic languages there is as a rule a much larger set of

case categories. Furthermore, there are three families within Afroasiatic that

have a marked nominative, namely Omotic, Cushitic, and Berber, whereas in

Nilo-Saharan, marked nominatives are found only in the Eastern Sudanic

branch, to which Nilotic and Surmic belong. These observations might suggest

that inﬂectional case in general and marked-nominative systems in particular

are older in Afroasiatic than in Nilo-Saharan languages.

As we observed in the case of Turkana and Dhaasanac, however, there is

also one example where there is evidence for an opposite directionality from

Nilotic to Cushitic. Contact between these two languages is a recent phe-

nomenon. The Turkana left their former homelands in eastern Uga nda only in

the ﬁrst half of the nineteenth century and occupied the semi-deserts east and

north of Lake Turkana considerably later; accordingly, contact with Dha asanac

speakers can be hardly older than 150 years.

8.4 Conclusions

To conclude, marked-nominative systems represent a distinct type of case

marking which is rarely found among the world’s languages, while in eastern

Africa they are extremely common, and in Africa this is by far the most

prominent case pattern. We saw that all case systems expressed by tone in

eastern Africa have a marked nominative. Marked nominative is not restricted to

any constituent order; there are verb-initial languages such as Turkana or Maa,

verb-ﬁnal languages such as Dhaasanac or Somali, or verb-medial languages

such as Baale and Chai of Surmic. The distribution of marked-nominative

languages patterns to some extent with genetic boundaries but, as was shown in

the preceding sections, there is also evidence that areal relationship, that is,

language contact, must have played some role in its development. There is a high

concentration of marked-nominative systems in the border region of Kenya,

Uganda, Sudan, and Ethiopia, and the areal distribution of marked-nominative

systems in this area cuts across the genetic boundaries that exist between Nilo-

Saharan languages of the Nilotic and Surmic subgroups on the one hand, and

Afroasiatic languages of the Omotic and Cushitic families on the other. There is

some evidence to suggest that the direction of inﬂuence was from Afroasiatic to

Nilo-Saharan languages; in certain cases, however, such as Dhaasanac and

Turkana, it is plausible that at a later stage, areal inﬂuence has taken place from

the Nilo-Saharan language Turkana to the Afroasiatic language Dhaasanac.

Christa Ko

nig270

Appendix: Genetic overview of marked-nominative languages

in eastern Africa

Note: Non-bold stands for type 1, and bold for type 2 languages. Languag e

names written with capitals are both ergative and marked nominative.

Afroasiatic

Berber

North: Tamazight, Kabyle, Shilh, Little Kabyila: Ait Ziyan, South

Beraber

South: Tuareg

Cushitic

East: Afar, Dirayta (Gidole)

Lowland East: Saho, Oromo

Omo Tana: Arbore, Dhaasanac, Rendille, Somali, Bayso

Highland East: Sidamo, Alaaba, Kambaata, K ’abeena, Libido

(Mara

go), Gedeo, Burji, Hadiyya

North: Beja

Omotic:

Western: Ometo: South: Maale

East: Haro, Koyra (Koorete), Zayse

North: Gamo, Kullo, Wolaitta, Benchnon Gimira

Kefoid: Bworo, Kefa

Nilo-Saharan

Nilotic

West: PA

RI, (ANYWA),

JUR-LUWO, SHILLUK, Dinka

South: Kalenjin: Pokot, Nandi, Sebei, Kipsigis Datooga, Omotik

East: Maa, Teso, Turkana

Surmic

North: Majang

Southwest: Didinga, Murle, Tennet, Baale

Southeast: Chai

The marked-nominative languages of eastern Africa 271