Banjo (1974) defines negation on the basis of its syntactic and distributional criteria and goes on to talk about the different types of negative verbs in the language. He also advances arguments for the recognition of the following negative verbs[2].
(1) Kò and its variants ò, ki/kìí are the sentence negator
(a) Olú kò lọ
Olú NEG go
‘Olú didn’t go’
(b) Olú ò lọ
Olú NEG go
‘Olú didn’t go’
(c) Olú kìí lọ
Olú NEG go
‘Olú doesn’t often go (there)
(2) Kó is the negator of the NP
Olú kó ni ó lọ
Olú NEG FOC he go
‘It was not Olu who went’
(3) Má, mọ́ and yé are the imperative negator
(a) Má lọ
NEG go
‘Don’t go’
(b) Mọ́ lọ
NEG go
‘Don’t go’
(c) Yé lọ
NEG go
‘Stop going’
(4) Má negates part of the predicate phrase that follows it in a sentence
Ó lè má lọ
He may NEG go
‘He may not go’
(5) Tíì and mọ́ are preverbal and postverbal adverbials respectively, their presence unambiguously marking sentence negation in non-interrogative sentence.
So, whereas we can have (9a) – (d), we can not have (e) and (f)[3].
(a) Olú kò lọ mọ́
Olú NEG go again
‘Olú has stopped going’
(b) Olú kò tíì lọ
Olú NEG has go
‘Olú has not gone’
(c) Ǹjẹ́ Olú lọ mọ́?
Q Olu go again?
‘Did Olu go again’
(d) Njẹ́ Olú tíì lo
Q Olú has go
‘Has Olu gone?’
(e) *Olú lọ mọ́?
Olú go again
(f) * Olú tíì lọ?
Olu has gone
In this paper, we shall accept Banjọ’s (1974) classification without question and take a critical look at Ọkẹ’s (1982: 257-261) claim that Yoruba negative verbs often act as reinforcers[4] in a given sentences.
2. Negative Verb as Emphatic Marker
Ọkẹ (1982: 257-261) states that the occurrence of double negation in a clause does not always result in cancellation, producing positive reading. In some cases, he states further, one of the negative verbs gives the other an emphatic reading. The examples given are the following[5]:
(6) (a) Kí ó máà lọ ọ̀
“Who cares whether he goes or not”
(b) Kì báá má ri i
“He wouldn’t have found it”
(c) Kò báà wà n’íbẹ̀
“Even if he was there”
(d) Kò kì ń jẹun ọ̀sán
“He doesn’t eat launch”
(7) (a) Kó máà lọ ọ̀
“Who cares whether he goes or not”
(b) Ibáá má ri i
“He wouldn’t have found it”
(c) Ìbáà wà n’íbẹ̀
“Even if he was there”
(d) Kì ń jẹun ọ̀sán
“He doesn’t eat launch”
The deletion of a negative verb in each of the sentences in (6) (a), (b), (c) and (d), according to Ọkẹ (1982), produces each of the sentences in (7) (a), (b), (c) and (d), respectively, both with the same meaning but with loss of emphasis in the sentences in (7).
3. Negatives Verb as None Reinforcer
3.1 Introduction
A close scrutiny of the examples given by Ọkẹ (1982) shows that none of them supports the suggestion that double negation can be used for emphasis in the language. As Ọkẹ (1982) does not tell us how he derives the sentences in (7) from their counterparts in (6), in this paper, we shall use three independently established rules in the language to show how some of the sentences in (7) are derived from their counterparts in (6). We shall also use the same rules to show how some of the sentences in (7) cannot be derived from the sentences in (6) from which Ọkẹ (1982) says they are derived.
3.2 The Rules
(8) Assimilation and Elision Rule (Bamgbose 1973: 50)
It is a characteristic feature of Yoruba that when a word beginning with a vowel is preceded by another word, there is often (in normal quick speech) an assimilation or elision of one of the two vowels in contact. The assimilated vowel is replaced by the other vowel in contact with it, e.g. ará ìlú > aráàlú “townspeople”. The elision of one of the vowels in contact results in contraction of the two words, e.g. ra ẹja > rẹja “buy fish”.
(9) Deletion Rules (Abímbọ́lá and Oyelaran 1975: 40-41)
In Yoruba there is an optional deletion of the non-initial segment of a grammatical formative which follows one formative and precedes another.
(10) There is also an obligatory deletion of the 3rd person singular pronoun before kò/kì “NEG”, yóò “will” and kì “PORBABLE”.
3.3 The Application of the Rules
(6a and b) are easy to dispose of: the kí in (6a) is not a negative verb. The tone on the vowel is even different from that of the underlined item in (1c) with which it is being equated. The item kí is often glossed as let hence, the correct representation of (6a) is (11a) and that of (7a) is (11b).
(11) (a) Kí ó máà lọ ọ̀
Let him NEG go EMPH
“Let him not go (if he likes)”
(b) Kó máà lọ ọ̀
Let him NEG go EMPH
“Let him not go (if he likes)”
From our observation and from what we gather from some other Yoruba speakers, what happens in (11a and b) is just the application of rule (8) where the vowel í of kí is progressively assimilated and contracted to the following vowel ó in (11a) to produce kó of (11b). With this explanation, it is not clear to us where Ọkẹ (1982) gets his two negatives. The only negative verb in the two clauses is máà.
(6b and 7b) where we have the third person pronominal subject can be compared with (12) and (13) where we have the first and second person pronominal subjects respectively. (6b and 7b) are reproduced below as (14a and 14b) respectively for convenience.
(12) (a) A kì báà máà rí i
We PROB even if NEG sees it
“Even if we don’t find it”
(b) À báà máà rí i
We even if NEG see it
“Even if we don’t find it”
(13) (a) Ẹ kì báà máà rí i
You(pl) PROB even if NEG see it
“Even if you don’t find it”
(b) Ẹ báà máà rí i
You(pl) even if NEG see it
“Even if you don’t find it”
(14) (a) Kí báà máà rí i
PROB even if NEG see it
“Even if he doesn’t find it”
(b) Kí báà máà rí i
PROB even if NEG see it
“Even if he doesn’t find it”
In (12a), the consonant k is the non-initial segment of a grammatical formative that follows one formative and precedes another. Rule (9) says that k can be deleted. After the deletion, (12a) becomes (15).
(15) A ì báà máà rí i
We PROB even if NEG see it
“Even if we do not see it”
Rule (9) is recursive, so, after the deletion of the consonant k from kì of (12a) to give (15), the rule can again apply to the stranded vowel ì in (15) which is now the non-initial segment which follows a formative and precedes another. It is the application of this rule to vowel ì that gives us (12b) (reproduced as (16) below for convenience).
(16) À báà máà rí i
We even if NEG see it
“Even if we don’t find it”
As for (13a), rule (9) applies to delete the consonant k of kì as of (12a) described above to produce 917).
(17) Ẹ ì báà máà rí i
You(pl.) PROB even if NEG see it
“Even if you don’t find it”
Another application of rule (9) on the stranded ì, as in (15), produces (13b) (reproduced as (18) below for convenience).
(18) Ẹ báà máà rí i
You(pl.) even if NEG see it
“Even if you don’t find it”
As for (14a), the full representation should be
(19) Ó kì báà máà rí i
He PROB even if NEG see it\
“Even if he doesn’t find it”
Rule (9) applies and the consonant k of kì is deleted to give us (20)
(20) Ó ì báà máà rí i
He PROB even if NEG see it
“Even if he doesn’t find it”
Rule (10) then applies to give us (14b) (reproduced as (21) for convenience).
(21) Ì báà máà rí i
He PROB even if NEG see it
“Even if he doesn’t find it”
Alternatively, if rule (10) applies first, rule (19) will be blocked because the formant kì would now become the initial segment of the sentence. If this happens, what we can gave us (14a) (reproduced below as (22) for convenience).
(22) Kì báà máà rí i
PROB even if NEG see it
“Even if he doesn’t find it”
We also agree with Abimbola and Oyelaran (1975: 41 n. 9) that kì “PROB” never negate the kind of sentences in (12) to (14). Any negation that is noted in the sentences is brought about by the presence of the negative verb máà.
As for (6c and d) and their counterparts (7c and d) respectively, we quite agree with Ọkẹ (1982) that in (6c), there is a negative verb whereas in (7c) there is none and both have the same meaning. We also agree with him that in (6d), there are two negative verbs whereas in (7d), there is one and both have the same meaning. But then, what is not clear to us is how Ọkẹ (1982) derives (7c and d) from (6c and d) respectively. For instance, how does he derive the ì of ìbáà in (7c) from kò of kò báà in (6c), that is, how does ò change to ì and how does the initial segment k delete? Again, how does he delete the initial formant kò of kò kì in (6d) to give kì alone in (7d)? Note that rule (9) states that only non-initial segment of a formant which follows one formant and precedes another can be deleted in the language.
3.4 Lagos Yorùbá
Having said the above, we still need to provide a non-ad-hoc reason why (7c and d), which are not derived from (6c and d) respectively, share the same meaning with them. On this, the view shared by us and the other Yoruba speakers we have consulted is that they are the type of sentences used by Lagos Yoruba speakers where, in standard Yoruba, we have the following:
(23) Kì báà wà nílé/ ìbáà wà nílé
PROB even if is in house/ PROB even if is in house
“Even if he is at home”
(24) Kì í jẹun ọ̀sán
NEG eat afternoon
“He doesn’t take launch”
(23) and (24) show that where the Lagos speakers of Yoruba use (6c) and (6d), the standard Yoruba speakers use (7c) and (7d) respectively.
The Yoruba dialect spoken by the Lagos speakers differs considerably from the ones spoken in the other parts of the Yoruba speaking area and most importantly, from the standard Yoruba on which Ọkẹ (1982) bases his work.
On the difference between the type of Yoruba spoken by the people of Lagos and the ones spoken by the people in the other parts of the Yoruba-speaking area, Simpson (1979: 5) states that:
While Yoruba… in Oyo State… is expected to be highly competent in his mother-tongue, the average inhabitant of the Lagos area is expected to be… less competent… in his Nigerian mother-tongue, having been exposed to an urban civilization in which terms are frequently borrowed from English in Yoruba speech, more so than is the case in other Yoruba-speaking states such as Ọyọ, Ogun and Ondo States.
An example that could be used to support the claim made by Simpson (1979) above is as follows: In Yoruba, there is a rule that changes the first person singular subject (1st per. Sing.) Mo “I” to N before the negative verb kì/ò. With the application of this rule, the negation of (25) is (26).
(25) Mo lọ
I go
“I go/went”
(26) N ò lọ
I NEG go
“I didn’t/don’t go”
As this type of rule is not available in English e.g. “I go”, “I didn’t go”; the rule is not often observed in the speech of the Lagos speakers of Yoruba. So, instead of (26), we have (27).
(27) Mo ò lọ
I NEG go
“I didn’t/don’t go”
As Ọkẹ’s (1982) analysis is concerned with the standard Yoruba and not the type of Yoruba spoken by the people of Lagos, examples (6c and 7c) and (6d and 7d) are not very safe in making grammatical decision.
A grammatical decision based on such examples could be compared with one in which a decision of grammaticality in Modern English is based on such sentences as “Nobody doesn’t like me” which, though is correct in English dialects and in earlier periods of the language, is asterisked in Modern English.
4. Conclusion
A situation where one of two explicit negative verbs in a clause function as a reinforcer does not exist in standard Yoruba, therefore, any sentence of this type should be accounted for dialectically and stylistically.
Bibliography
Abimbola, W. and O.O. Oyelaran (1975), “Consonant Elision in Yoruba”, African Language Studies 16: 37-60.
Adewọle, L.O. (1987). The Yoruba Language, Published Works and Doctoral Dissertations, 1843-1986 (African Linguistics Bibliographies 3), edited by Franz Rottland and Rainer Vossen. Hamburg: Helmut Buske Verlag.
Adewole, L.O. (1989), “Sequence and Concurrences of Yoruba Auxiliary Verbs”. Canadian Journal of Linguistics. 34, 1: 1-17.
Bamgbose, Ayo (1973). A Short Yoruba Grammar. Ibadan: Heinemann Educational Books Ltd.
Banjọ, L.A. (1974), “Sentence Negation in Yoruba”, Studies in African Linguistics Supplement 5: 35-47.
Ọkẹ, D.O. (1982), “On the Use of Verbal Negators in Yoruba”, in Yoruba Language and Literature, edited by A. Afọlayan, pp. 247-263. Ife, Nigeria: Ọbafẹmi Awolọwọ University Press.
Simpson, Ẹkundayo (1979), Translating in Nigerian Mass Media: A Sociolinguistic Study. Quebec: International Center for Research on Bilingualism.
[1] An earlier version of this paper was published as L.O. Adewole (1990), ‘’Yoruba Negative Verbs as Reiforcers: A Critique’, Afrikanistische Arbeitspapiere 23: 111-126.
[2] This paper was presented at a seminar at the Department of Africa Languages and Literatures, Ọbafemi Awolọwọ University, Ile-Ifẹ, Nigeria on 13th August, 1990. I am grateful to the members of staff of the Department for their comments on an earlier draft of the paper. All the errors and omissions in the paper are still mine.
[3] We can have (9e) and (f) if the voice is raised at the end of the sentence. This type of voice raising is not required for (9a-d) to be grammatical.
[4] All the underlined words are Banjọ’s negative verbs.
[5] The term ‘to reinforce’ and ‘to emphasise’ shall be used interchangeably in this work with both having the same meaning.
No comments:
Post a Comment