The forms of the proximal demonstrative

As already pointed out above in the preceding section, the proximal demonstrative is typically employed when an entity is close to the speaker. The proximity of the speaker to the entity can be so close that s/he can touch the entity, or it cannot be so close that touching it may prove difficult. The distinction is, therefore, made between the referent which the speaker touches and the one which the s/he is just nearby. In this regard, Chimakonde exhibits two closely related forms of the proximal demonstrative, distinguishing an entity which the speaker can touch to which I refer as PROX1 from the one which she cannot touch to which I refer as PROX2. I refer to the former as full forms and the latter as short forms for the reason that the morphology of the full form (PROX1) consists of all three morphemes that a demonstrative exhibit, namely the root morpheme, a class agreement morpheme and a deictic morpheme whereas the morphology of the short form (PROX2) consists of the root morpheme and agreement morpheme only. In the short form, a deictic suffix is missing, therefore. Semantically, a subtle difference of interpretation between the lexical heads modified by full and short forms can be adduced and this will become evident shortly. The forms of the full and short demonstratives are given in Table 4.1 below.

158

Table 4.1: The proximal demonstrative: full (PROX1) and short (PROX2) forms

CL. NCP Example Short form Full form Gloss

1 mu mwana mwana ayu mwana ayuno this child

2 va vana vana ava vana avano these children

3 mu mwihi mwihi au mwihi auno this pestle

4 mi mihi mihi ai mwihi auno these pestles

5 li liye liye alyi liye alino this egg

6 ma maye maye ala maye alano these eggs

7 chi chiha chiha achi chiha achino this bundle

8 vi viha viha avi viha avino these bundles

9 n ng’oha ng’oha ai ng’oha aino this hoe

10 JiN jing’oha jing’oha aji jing’oha ajino these hoes 11 lu lunda lunda au lunda auno this saliva

12 ka kaliye kaliye aka kaliye akano this small egg

13 tu tumaye tumaye atu tumaye atuno these small eggs

14 u uchi uchi au uchi auno this honey

15 ku kulya kulya aku kulya akuno this eating

16 pa paliye paliye apa paliye apano at this egg

17 ku kuliye kuliye aku kuliye akuno to this egg

18 mu muliye muliye amu muliye amuno in that egg

As Table 4.1 above illustrates and as already pointed out in the first paragraph, PROX1 demonstratives are referred to as full forms as they contain all three morphemes that the full Chimakonde demonstrative have, namely the root, agreement and proximity morphemes. PROX2 demonstratives are referred to as short forms as they have one of the demonstrative morphemes omitted, namely the deictic morpheme. For the proximal demonstratives and medial demonstratives, the omitted morpheme is the deictic morpheme of the morpheme and the invariable morpheme -ne- respectively. Distal demonstratives have full forms only. It is worth noting that the distinction between the full and short forms of the demonstrative is not based on the optionality of the root morpheme but the omission of the other two morphemes making up the demonstrative. Both the

159

agreement morpheme and deictic morpheme of the distal morpheme cannot be omitted but the root morpheme of this demonstrative can optionally occur. For this reason, I maintain that distal morphemes have no short forms. The demonstrative root morpheme can, therefore, occur optionally in all forms of the demonstratives. The omission of this root leads to cliticization of the remaining part of the demonstrative.

PROX1 forms are used to point to the referents of the noun phrases which the speaker touches and PROX2 forms are used to point out to the referents which the speaker does not touch but s/he can do

so if they are willing. A proto-Bantu demonstrative suffix reconstructed for an entity which is very close to the speaker in many Bantu languages is -no (cf. Guthrie, 1970). Synchronically viewed, it is conceivable to assume that Chimakonde reserves the demonstrative forms with -no (PROX1) for use with entities that speakers can touch, and it leaves out PROX2 forms for use with other entities that speakers are simply within range of touch. The two forms of demonstratives are exemplified by the data from the first six noun classes as follows:

(16) a. chala (a)chino chinanyang’anya ch-ala a-chi-no chi-na-nyang’anya-a

3-finger DEMrt-3-PROX1 3AgrS-TAM-itch-FV This finger is itching

b. lihonga (a)li linitumbula li-honga a-li-Ø li-ni-tumbul-a

5-arrow DEMrt-5-PROX2 5AgrS-TAM-be fat-FV This arrow is big

In a discourse-pragmatic context, a Chimakonde speaker would, for example, utter the DP in example (16a) when she has gripped the finger in question. In (16b), the speaker is close to the referent designated by the DP lihonga ali (this arrow). To capture the distinction between the referents which the speaker can keep hold of and those which she cannot, but she can do so if the need arises, the proximity morpheme on a demonstrative should be overtly realized for the former and that morpheme must be covertly realized (i.e. absent) for the latter. As pointed out, if it is only the deictic interpretation that is encoded, the demonstrative root in both cases can be omitted, which results in the remaining part of the demonstrative cliticizing onto the head noun.

160

4.4.1.1 The cliticization of the proximal demonstrative onto a nominal head

In some studies, in Bantu languages, cliticization is associated with an integration of subject and object agreement affixes, the so-called subject and object markers respectively, which are coreferential with the subject or object DPs into a verb morphology (cf. Mchombo, 2006; Ngonyani, 2006). This is not the sense to which I refer the term cliticization in this study. Cliticization here is understood as a process in which a part of nominal modifier fuses into a lexical noun head so that the head noun and the fused morpheme become one word. For the proximal demonstrative, the following are full and shortened cliticised forms.

Table 4.2: The full and short cliticised forms of the proximal demonstrative

CL NCP Example Cliticised short form Cliticised long form Gloss

1 mu mwali mwaliyu mwaliyuno this girl

2 va vali valiva valivano these girls

3 mu muti mutiu mutiuno this head

4 mi myuti myutii myutino these heads

5 li lihonga lihongali lihongalino this arrow

6 ma mahonga mahongala mahongalano these arrows

7 chi chihima chihimachi vihimavino this well

8 vi vihima vihimavi vihimavino these wells

9 n njuluku njulukui njulukujino this money

10 jiN jinjuluku jinjulukuji jinjulukujino this money

11 lu lwidi lwidiu lwidiuno this whistle

12 ka kahomba kahombaka kahombakano this fish 13 tu tuhomba tuhombatu tuhambatuno this fish

14 u ulehu ulehuu ulehuuno this tallness

15 ku kuheka kuhekaku kuhekakuno this laughter

16 pa pachuli pachulipa pachulipano at this kitchen 17 ku kuchuli kuchuliku kuchulikuno to this kitchen

161

Some scholars of the Bantu languages employ cliticization to distinguish nominal determiners from modifiers. Lusekelo (2013b), for example, argues that true determiners are linearly closer to a head noun than a modifier. Due to this proximity, Lusekelo (ibid.) advances the view that determiners but not modifiers may undergo cliticization. He concludes that possessives and demonstratives in many Bantu languages are determiners as they cliticise onto a head noun, following the proximity principle. Two caveats are in order at this juncture. First, the present study is not an investigation of the differences between determiners and modifiers in Chimakonde. In fact, the terms ‘determiners’ and ‘modifiers’ are in the present study collapsed into a single term ‘nominal modifiers’ Although in Chimakonde cliticization of demonstratives is common, demonstratives cannot be viewed as determiners simply because they cliticise onto a head noun. The cliticization of demonstratives matters in this study if the process exerts influence on the interpretation of a lexical head. Thus, rather than employing the proximity of the nominal modifier to a lexical head as a criterion for determinerhood, I investigate the influence of the nominal modifier in inducing (in)definiteness (non- )specificity reading of a lexical head as a criterion for a functional category of a determiner.

As already pointed out in various sections in this chapter, the difference in interpretation of Chimakonde DPs containing the demonstrative is, to a large extent, brought about by the omission or non-omission of the demonstrative root morpheme and the structural position of the demonstrative in a DP. As the examples in Table 4.2 illustrate, the cliticization of the proximal demonstrative onto a lexical head causes the root morpheme to be elided. The DPs containing the cliticized proximal forms in this table are interpreted as inherently definite and specific rather than emphatically specific. They are definite and specific not because of the cliticization that has taken place but because they contain the demonstratives which are inherently definite and specific (Lyons, 1999). This is tantamount to saying that cliticization has not exerted any influence in the interpretation of the DPs as definite or specific. Thus, no extra difference in meaning can be adduced between a non-cliticised demonstrative that contains an optional proximal demonstrative root morpheme (e.g. mabati (a)la ‘these iron sheets’) and a cliticised proximal demonstrative (for example, mabatila ‘these iron sheets’) because in both cases the root is omitted.

Thus, the cliticization of the distal demonstratives and other forms of the demonstratives in Chimakonde is not semantically conditioned but it is morpho-syntactically conditioned. It is the omission of the root morpheme of the demonstrative which conditions cliticization. Cliticization cannot take place if another nominal modifier intervenes between a head noun and a demonstrative as in ‘kulya kohe kula’ ‘all that eating’. In this example, the universal quantifier -ohe is a syntactic barrier that prohibits the cliticization of the demonstrative kula to take place. Thus, siding with Lusekelo (op.cit), the structural distance between a nominal modifier and a nominal head can

162

influence the cliticization of the modifier onto the head. However, unlike Lusekelo, and with the support of data from Chimakonde as given in Table 4.2 above, I assume that cliticization has no bearing on determinerhood of a nominal modifier.

4.4.1.2 Co-occurrence of the cliticised and non-cliticised distal demonstrative

Although rare, the occurrence of the cliticized forms of the distal demonstrative with either a full or short form is possible in Chimakonde. Whenever such combinations co-occur, the DP is interpreted as emphatic. The emphasis a DP receives can be attributed to the demonstrative root because the root must be obligatory and the fact that more than one demonstrative has occurred. Redundancy created by having such demonstratives may explain why it is rare to have such combinations in the daily use of the language.

(17) a. mwanayu ayu ananguchima nangu ayu mu-ana-yu a-yu a-na-ngu-chim-a a-yu

1-child-1 DEMrt-1 1AgrS-TAM-1AgrO(2SG)-hate-FV DEMrt-1 I hate this child very much, this one exactly

b. uchiuno aula apano uve na medi namene

u-chi-u-no a-u-no a-pa-nu u-ve na Ø-medi namene

3-honey-3-PROX DEMrt-3-PROX DEMrt-16-PROX 3AgrS-have with water very This honey, this one here, is very watery

The discourse-pragmatic interpretations of the DPs in (17) is not so different from cases where two non-cliticised forms of a demonstrative co-occur with a nominal head, as discussed in section 4.3.3.3. The same effect is created, and this is the additional emphasis of the referents. It is not cliticization that beings about intensified emphasis/ specificity of the referents but rather it is due the fact that more than one form of the demonstrative with an obligatory demonstrative root has occurred.