View source for Agreement in coordinated noun phrases in Runyankore-Rukiga

by [[User:Allen Asiimwe|Allen Asiimwe]]

{{TCedit}}

===Noun class agreement is not always illiterative===
Agreement morphology is one of the most pronounced and studied aspects of Bantu grammars. It is a cross-referencing mechanism between different parts of a sentence or a phrase. Agreement occurs depending on the arguments being cross-referenced. For example, for a verbal predicate the subject and object in a sentence trigger agreement on the verb. In the nominal domain all noun modifiers bear agreement markers, corresponding to the class of the noun they modify and this is exemplified in (1) below: 

(1) <Phrase>321</Phrase>


The subject ebijuma ‘fruits’ in (1) belongs to noun class 8; and the possessive, numeral, adjectives as well as the verb bear a corresponding agreement prefix.
 
In some cases, as for instance shown in the above example, the shape of the prefixes is identical, which is sometimes called ‘illiterative’ (Katamba 2003). However, agreement markers do not necessarily need to be identical with the class markers of the subject noun as for instance shown in (2a) below:


(2a) <Phrase>322</Phrase>


 b)  <Phrase>17060</Phrase>



Whereas omuti ‘tree’ in (2a) belongs to class 3, the agreement marker on the verb is accidentally identical to the agreement marker for class 20 as shown in (2b). Also note  that identical class markers might represent different noun classes. Take examples involving agreement in adjectival phrases, as in (3) below:
 
3(a)<Phrase>323</Phrase>


b) <Phrase>322</Phrase>

Omushaija ‘man’ and omuti ‘tree’ belong to different noun classes i.e. class 1 (for humans) and class 3 respectively. Relying on the form of the concord marker, which is in both cases mu-, when identifying the noun class can therefore be misleading. In comparison, the following cases of subject-verb agreement are straightforward:

4a) <Phrase>326</Phrase>


b)  <Phrase>17062</Phrase>

Under subject-verb agreement as shown in (4) the distinction between class1 and 3 is marked.

===Noun class agreement and coordination===
Turning to coordination, when two NPs, belonging to the same noun class, are coordinated the corresponding plural concord prefix is used to express agreement, e.g.:

5) <Phrase>332</Phrase>

The verb in the example above 'nibazaana' triggers class 2 agreement (plural marker for class 1), since the coordinated nouns belong to the same noun class (i.e. class1). Noun class agreement under coordination has been discussed for example by Schadeberg (1992) and Krifka (1995).

Interesting are those cases where two nouns belonging to different classes are coordinated. Take for example two nouns belonging to class 9 and 10; they may occur with either cl8 or 10, as illustrated below:

(6a) <Phrase>333</Phrase>


(b) <Phrase>334</Phrase>


(c) <Phrase>335</Phrase>


(6b) is not acceptable because though ente ‘cow’ and embuzi ‘goat' both belong to class 9, yet, they are different animals, which seem to make it impossible to use the plural agreement marker referring back to the two coordinated nouns. (6a) is acceptable but most natural is an expression as shown in (6c), where instead of using a coordinating construction, headed by the conjunction ''na'', a prepositional construction is chosen. 

The use of class8 is natural as an agreement marker under the coordination of inanimate nouns. Look at (7):
 
(7) <Phrase>336</Phrase>

The nouns coordinated in (7) are both inanimate and the plural agreement marker class 8 (-bi-) is appropriate. An interesting question is: what will happen when the coordinated nouns do not fall under the same noun class? Let us look at the following schema in (8), where the choice of verbal prefix is left open:

(8) <Phrase>17059</Phrase>

What prefix would a native speaker be inclined to add to the verb?
Note that omuhiigi ‘hunter’ belongs to class 1 while embwa ‘dog’ falls under class 9. Ashton (1994) observes that in cases where two nouns, belonging to two different noun classes, are conjoined (and especially if they are concrete nouns) the verb agrees with the last named noun. Following Ashton’s observation, in (8), the verb should agree with embwa ‘dog’, as shown in (9) below:
 

(9) <Phrase>364</Phrase>

However, (9) leads to an unacceptable construction; if the plural marker class 10 ya- is chosen to be the agreement marker for both ''omuhiigi'' and ''embwa'', it would mean that''omuhiigi'' also belongs to class 9 which is not the case. However, Ashton’s observation holds for constructions which involve nouns that are both inanimate, like in (10) below:

(10) <Phrase>337</Phrase>


The plural agreement marker, namely bi- of class 8, covers both nouns since also cl4 is inanimate, and accidentally agrees well with the last named noun ebyokurya ''food''. Another suggestion, close to Ashton’s, comes from Schadeberg (1992). He believes that agreement will be with the corresponding plural class of the closest conjunct. In fact, most scholars have argued that either the plural prefix of class 8 will be used or the plural class of the last noun (Schadeberg 1992, Krifka 1995) to express agreement with a coordinated subject NP. However, this generalisation only holds when the conjuncts do not involve humans, as again shown below:

(11) <Phrase>338</Phrase>
 

(12) <Phrase>339</Phrase>


(13) <Phrase>340</Phrase>


Again (13) is unacceptable because one of the conjuncts is human and bi- can only be used when both conjuncts are inanimate. Katamba (2003) argues for [http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=hay Haya] that in case of gender conflict in coordination of human with an animal, the best solution is to avoid coordination and opt for a comitative construction, this works well in Runyankore-Rukiga as well, and thus constructions such as (8) (which is equal to (13) above) will most likely be presented as shown in (14):

(14) <Phrase>341</Phrase>


Notice howeve that some of the meaning of (8) is not preserved in a comitative construction. (8)  means that the hunter left and also the dog left: not necessarily meaning that they left together and for the same destination, while (14) clearly means that the hunter left together with the dog for the same destination; may be, they have gone hunting. Coming back to my original question, namely: Which prefix would a native speaker be inclined to add to the verb; the answer lies in the construction below:

(15) <Phrase>342</Phrase>


Both conjuncts are coordinated but with a repetition of the verb. This would mean that both the hunter and the dog have left but not necessarily for the same destination which preserves the original meaning of (8).


===References===

Ashton, E. O. 1944.  Swahili Grammar. Harlow: Longman

Clement, M.  1943. Outline Grammar of Bantu. Mimeographed: Johannesburg: University of 	the Witwatersrand (Revised 1982 as Communication No.2 from the Department of African Languages, Rhodes University at Grahamston)

Katamba, F. 2003. Bantu Nominal Morphology. In: The Bantu languages. Routlege.	London and New York.

Krifka, M. 1995. Swahili. In Joachim Jacobs, Arnim von Stechow, Wolfgang
	Sternefeld & Theo Vennemann, eds., Syntax: Ein internationales Handbuch
	zeitgenoessischer Forschung, vol. 2, Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1397-	1418.

Schadeberg, T. C. 1992.  A Sketch of Swahili Morphology, 3rd ed., Köln: Köppe.