Locative predication in Chadic
-
Zygmunt Frajzyngier
Abstract
The aim of this study is to demonstrate that Proto-Chadic had a category ‘locative predication’ that was formally and semantically distinct from all other predications in the language. The proposed hypothesis, combined with the principle of functional transparency (Frajzyngier & Shay 2003), allows us to answer the following theoretical questions: (1) why lexical items with the same reference have different properties across languages; (2) why a given form in the same language is sometimes used and sometimes not used in the coding of what appears to be the same situation; (3) why some languages have only one locative preposition and other languages have many; (4) why some languages deploy serial verb constructions and others do not; and (5) why some languages deploy verbal extensions for some functions and others do not. These questions are examined using data from locative expressions in Chadic languages.
The existence of a grammaticalized predication may imply that some lexical items are compatible with semantic features of the predication and others are not. The existence of locative predication, as proposed for Proto-Chadic, means that, if the semantic feature ‘locative’ is present in the complement and/or in the predicate, no other formal means are required to mark either component for locative predication. If the feature ‘locative’ is absent in the predicate, languages with locative predication have either lexicalized the category ‘locative predicator’ or have grammaticalized other means, such as serial verb constructions and locative extensions, to mark the predicate as locative. If the complement is not inherently locative, languages have lexicalized the category ‘locative preposition’ to code the locative complement. In some Chadic languages, subsequent changes have resulted in the replacement of locative predication by narrower semantic categories, such as movement toward a goal, movement from the source, or presence in a place.
Abstract
The aim of this study is to demonstrate that Proto-Chadic had a category ‘locative predication’ that was formally and semantically distinct from all other predications in the language. The proposed hypothesis, combined with the principle of functional transparency (Frajzyngier & Shay 2003), allows us to answer the following theoretical questions: (1) why lexical items with the same reference have different properties across languages; (2) why a given form in the same language is sometimes used and sometimes not used in the coding of what appears to be the same situation; (3) why some languages have only one locative preposition and other languages have many; (4) why some languages deploy serial verb constructions and others do not; and (5) why some languages deploy verbal extensions for some functions and others do not. These questions are examined using data from locative expressions in Chadic languages.
The existence of a grammaticalized predication may imply that some lexical items are compatible with semantic features of the predication and others are not. The existence of locative predication, as proposed for Proto-Chadic, means that, if the semantic feature ‘locative’ is present in the complement and/or in the predicate, no other formal means are required to mark either component for locative predication. If the feature ‘locative’ is absent in the predicate, languages with locative predication have either lexicalized the category ‘locative predicator’ or have grammaticalized other means, such as serial verb constructions and locative extensions, to mark the predicate as locative. If the complement is not inherently locative, languages have lexicalized the category ‘locative preposition’ to code the locative complement. In some Chadic languages, subsequent changes have resulted in the replacement of locative predication by narrower semantic categories, such as movement toward a goal, movement from the source, or presence in a place.
Chapters in this book
- Prelim pages i
- Table of contents v
-
Introduction
- Afroasiatic 1
-
Part I. Afroasiatic
- Did Proto-Afroasiatic have marked nominative or nominative-accusative alignment? 11
- The limits and potentials of cladistics in Semitic 23
- Lexicostatistical evidence for Ethiosemitic, its subgroups, and borrowing 41
-
Part II. Forms and functions
- Reconsidering the ‘perfect’–‘imperfect’ opposition in the Classical Arabic verbal system 61
- The imperfective in Berber 85
- Condition, interrogation and exception 105
- The semantics of modals in Kordofanian Baggara Arabic 131
-
Part III. Predication and beyond
- Insubordination in Modern South Arabian 153
- Possessive and genitive constructions in Dahālik (Ethiosemitic) 167
- The characterization of conditional patterns in Old Babylonian Akkadian 185
- Locative predication in Chadic 203
- Unipartite clauses 235
- The Interaction of state, prosody and linear order in Kabyle (Berber) 261
- Index 287
Chapters in this book
- Prelim pages i
- Table of contents v
-
Introduction
- Afroasiatic 1
-
Part I. Afroasiatic
- Did Proto-Afroasiatic have marked nominative or nominative-accusative alignment? 11
- The limits and potentials of cladistics in Semitic 23
- Lexicostatistical evidence for Ethiosemitic, its subgroups, and borrowing 41
-
Part II. Forms and functions
- Reconsidering the ‘perfect’–‘imperfect’ opposition in the Classical Arabic verbal system 61
- The imperfective in Berber 85
- Condition, interrogation and exception 105
- The semantics of modals in Kordofanian Baggara Arabic 131
-
Part III. Predication and beyond
- Insubordination in Modern South Arabian 153
- Possessive and genitive constructions in Dahālik (Ethiosemitic) 167
- The characterization of conditional patterns in Old Babylonian Akkadian 185
- Locative predication in Chadic 203
- Unipartite clauses 235
- The Interaction of state, prosody and linear order in Kabyle (Berber) 261
- Index 287
