The demonstrative root a (DEMa)

The morpheme a- is one of the two demonstrative roots in Chimakonde. This morpheme exhibits intriguing morpho-syntactic features that may be distinct from the demonstrative root a- that other Bantu languages exhibit (cf. Devos, 2004 for Makwe; Taji, 2017 for Chiyao). First, the demonstrative root a- is mainly employed for instances of deictic use, namely pointing out to entities that are in extra-linguistic contexts. However, as will be demonstrated shortly, although pointing out is the main function of this root, it is not the only one. Depending on the closeness of a pointed object to the

140

speaker, various forms of demonstratives occurring with this root can be distinguished. The discussion of the nature of this distinction is discussed in detail in sections 4.5 and 4.6 below. A further property of the demonstrative root morpheme a- in Chimakonde concerns its non- allomorphic nature. Regardless of the noun class to which it is prefixed, the demonstrative root a- is invariable. This property is in contrast with many Bantu languages in which the vowel of the noun class prefixes determines the allomorphic vowel of this demonstrative root (cf. Visser, 2002 for Xhosa and Northern Sotho). However, a few cases occur where some Chimakonde speakers, particularly young speakers, would alternate between the vowels -a and -e in the demonstrative root morpheme slot. This may suggest that the demonstrative root morpheme in Chimakonde is undergoing some kind of reconstruction or that some degree of influence has occurred or is taking place with respect to some Chimakonde speakers. Cases of these alternations are illustrated in the following examples: (4) a. nnandi au/eu unatibu

n-nandi a/e-u-no u-na-tib-u

3-tree DEMrt-2- 3AgrS-TAM-heal-FV This tree is medicinal

b. vambudi ava/eva vaniyanda va-mbudi a/e-va va-ni-yand-a

2-goat DEMrt-2 2AgrS-TAM-be thin-FV These goats are thin

Despite these cases of alternations, even the alternate demonstrative vowel -e is not in harmony with the noun class prefix with which it associates. In example (4a), the vowel class prefix for the class 3 noun nnandi (tree) is u-, which does not relate to the vowel e- as far as vowel harmony is concerned. It will be demonstrated in sections 4.5 and 4.6 that proximal and medial demonstratives can occur in long and short forms. With this alternate allomorphic demonstrative root, it cannot occur in long forms of demonstratives. Consider the following example:

(5) lidodo alino/*elino linayukuta li-dodo a/*e-li-no li-na-yukut-a

5-leg DEMrt-5-PROX 5AgrS-TAM-be sick-FV This leg is aching

In the example in (5), it is acceptable to have the demonstrative root a- occurring with the long form

141

substitutability may suggest two possibilities. First, this alternate allomorphic demonstrative root may simply be more of an idiolect for some speakers rather than an established form of the demonstrative root. Secondly, the fact that it cannot occur in long forms of demonstratives makes it plausible that the long form of the demonstrative is the default forms from which the short forms are derived. In regard to the demonstrative root a-, this root does not occur in the inflectional morphology of any noun modifiers such as adjectives, numerals and relative clauses, contra to many Bantu languages such as Zulu (cf. Zeller, 2004), Northern Sotho (cf. Mojapelo, 2007) and IsiXhosa (cf. Visser, 2002). In these languages, the occurrence of the demonstrative root in the inflectional morphology of various nominal modifiers is assumed to lend support to the view that the demonstrative root is a functional category associated with definiteness, specificity and focus. For example, Asiimwe (2014) points out that the occurrence of the form of this root on adjectives in Runyankore-Rukiga encodes specificity in which case the speaker construes a particular entity, as well as contrastive focus, in which case a member of a set is selected exclusively. Although the demonstrative root in Chimakonde induces a definiteness and specificity reading of a DP as will be explicated shortly, it is through the syntactic distribution of this demonstrative root, rather the occurrence of it on nominal modifiers, that it induces referential specificity.

Furthermore, the demonstrative root a- morpheme may be realized on a demonstrative or it may be omitted. I argue that the (non)-occurrence of this root on a demonstrative itself affects the interpretation of the DP in terms of the degree of specificity of the DP. The DP is interpreted with an additional feature of specificity when the root occurs whereas this feature diminishes when the root is omitted.

As pointed out in Chapter Three, specificity morphemes, according to Lyons (1999: 172), may indicate that the speaker intends a particular referent, but the identity of that referent may not be known to the hearer. Conversely, Lyons (ibid.) states the specificity morphemes may indicate that the speaker has no particular referent in mind but implies any member that corresponds to the description in which the specificity morpheme occurs. In this study, I adopt the first view of specificity which corresponds to referentiality. Following Lyons’s (1999) definitions of specificity and identifiability, a specific noun phrase has a referent which may be identifiable or non-identifiable. According to Lambrecht (1994: 84), identifiability is a matter of degree. A specific referent can be more or less identifiable or not identifiable at all (ibid.).

142