Most Yorùbá grammarians have adopted, without question, the suggestion made by Crowther over a hundred years ago that yóò “will” marks the future tense in the language. The status of yóò “will” as a future tense marker has since been questioned by Oyèláran (1982). Oyèláran’s ideas are important, because they lead us to examine further the bases on which the item yóò “will” is established as the future tense marker in the language. Though we are not denying that the item can occur in sentences which have future references, all times are possible:
(1) (a) Olú yóò lọ lánàá
Olú will go yesterday
“Olú would leave yesterday”
(b) Èmi yóò lọ lónìí
I will go today
“I will leave today”
(c) Ìwọ yóò lọ lọ́la
You will go tomorrow
“You will leave tomorrow”
If we adopt Lyons’ (1971: 304) definition of tense as “time-relation by systematic grammatical contrast”, then it seems that the use of yóò “will” in sentences (1) (a) and (b) cannot be considered as referring to some future events. In contrast, if modality is taken as the category signaling the different degrees or kinds of reality, desirability or contingency of an even (Hockett 1958: 237), then one can account for the different uses of yóò “will” in (1) as indicating the speaker’s commitment with respect to the factual status (Lyons 1971: 307).
So, that the Yorùbá yóò is often translated into English “will”[3] is not sufficient evidence for calling yóò a future tense marker. Even in English, studies have shown that the use of “will” does not necessarily indicate future tense. The point is that the future, being uncertain, tends to be referred to by various kinds of “uncertain items” in different languages. Yorùbá, having a tendency to develop the modal system, has made use of part of that system as one of its means of talking about the future. Witness that in certain circumstance, especially with some motion verbs, the progressive can also be used in sentences which have future reference, as in:
(2) (a) Mo ńlọ lọ́la
I PROG go tomorrow
“I am going tomorrow”
(b) Ó ń bọ̀ láìpẹ́
He PROG come not long
“He is coming soon”
Note too that in dependent clauses introduced by the conditional and temporal conjunction tí “if”, yóò “will” cannot be used to indicate the future:
(3) Tí Olú bá rà, mo lè rà
“If Olú buys, I may buy”
This is not to say that yóò “will” cannot occur in dependent clauses but when it does, it is given a volitional reading:
(4) Tí Olú yóò bá rà, mo lè rà
If Olú will buy, I may buy
“If Olú is willing to buy, I may buy”
Yóò also often has strong volitional implications even when relating to future tense. For example, Yóò kán jókòó síbẹ̀ sá láíṣe nǹkankan “He will just sit there doing nothing” expresses a characteristic habitual activity which is not restricted to the future time (Haegemann 1983: 8). Similarly, Gbọ̀ngàn yẹ̀n yóò gbà tó ènìyàn mẹ́wàá “That hall will sit ten people” expresses general capacity.
More importantly, all modal verbs can occur in sentences with future reference e.g.
(5) (a) Olú yóò wá lọ́la
Olú will come tomorrow
(b) Olú lè wá lọ́la
Olú may come tomorrow
(c) Olú gbọ́dọ̀ wá lọ́la
Olú must come tomorrow
Hence, we believe that yóò “will” should not be separated from the rest and designated as tense marker, for, according to Chung and Timberlake (1985: 243), any “future event is potential rather than actual, and there are more degrees of possibility depending to some extent on the speaker’s (or source’s) convictions: a future event may be evaluated as relatively certain, merely possible, conceivable or unlikely, and so on”.
Not to base our arguments on intuition alone, we take a look at the use of yóò “will” by Yorùbá speakers/writers. Our choice of data is a corpus taken from Atótó Arére – a fictional narrative written by Ọládẹ̀jọ Òkédìjí.
2. The Data
2.1 The use of the Corpus Data
The corpus data will be use:
(6) (a) for exemplificatory purpose to enable us to provide an objective semantic description of the use of yóò “will” in the language.
(b) As a mode for the invented examples that we might need to exemplify some areas of meanings which are not covered in the corpus.
2.2 Reasons for taking our data from Atótó Arére
Our interest in using the corpus data taken from Atótó Arére stems from the fact that:
(7) (a) The prose depicts not only real characters but also reflects real life experience in some Nigerian cities.
(b) The prose is also one of those few writings in Yorùbá which adequately represent the standard language. The dialectal variation is minimal and most junctural syllables are indicated.
(c) The data taken from the novel also confirms Rowlands’ (1964: 1) findings from the speech of a native speaker he recorded.
Rowlands claims that yóò “will” is much more limited in speech than its variants ó/á.ẹ́ as in:
Èmi yóò lo
“I will go”
N ó lọ
“I will go”
Ẹ ẹ́ lọ
“You (pl.) will go”
In most written text, which are “heavily influenced by the language of Bible translation”, according to him, the opposite is the case. The table – (ci) shows the findings from the application of the same test to the use of yóò “will” in Atótó Arére.
(ci) Sample Total %
Yóò,ó,á, ẹ́ “will” 1120 100
ó “will” 557 49
yóò “will” 391 35
á “will” 169 15
ẹ́ “will” 3 0.27
ó, é, ẹ́ “will” 729 69
From (ci), it is quite clear that, just as in speech, the use of yóò “will” in the corpus data is more restricted.
Having made clear the source of our corpus data, we begin our discussion of the modal meanings of yóò “will”. The pages of the example quoted from the narrative text are put in curly brackets i.e. “()”.
3. The Modal Meanings of yóò “will”
3.1 Predictability
This gives the sense[4] “I confidently predict that it is the case that p …” (Coates 1983: 177). It indicates an assumption made by the speaker concerning the prevailing state of affairs. The following examples illustrate this meaning.
(8) (a) X. Ẹ wá kìlọ̀ fún ọmọdé yìí o (p. 13)
You (pl.) come warn child this
“Come and help me warn this child”
(b) Y. Kí ló wí rí? (p. 13)
That FOC he say?
“What has he said?”
(c) X. Mo ti mọ̀ pé ẹ̀yìn rẹ̀ lẹ ó pọ̀n sí (p. 13)
I have know say back his FOC you (pl. ) will slung in
“I know you will support him”
(9) Jèéní yóò ti retí, retí, yóò ti wọlé lọ sùn (p. 83)
Jane will have expect, expect, will have enter house go sleep
“Jane would have waited for long and gone to sleep”
In (8) (a), Speaker X reports a boy to Y and in (8)(b), Y asks a question but instead of answering the question, X says, with confidence, in (8)(c) that she knows that Y will support the boy. X’s confidence here is based on the previous behaviour of Y i.e. her own experience. In (9), the speaker’s confidence is based on common sense. In his opinion, Jane would have waited in expectation for hours and would have gone to sleep. It will be noted that both examples have third person subjects. This is one of the features of “predictability” use of yóò “will”. Another important feature is that the main predication is always either in the present or in the past. While the main predication in (8) is in the present, the predication in (9) is about a past event.
3.1.1 Harmonic Combination
The harmonic clause, mo ti mọ̀ pé “I have know that” in X’s statement in (8)(c) is used to show that he is making a confident statement about what she knows of Y from experience. It would be inconsistent for X to add the clause, ṣùgbọ́n kò dá mi lójú “but I am not sure” because statement (8)(c) excludes the possibility of the speaker not knowing that Y will support the boy. The use of the harmonic adverbials is also often crucial for distinguishing the “predictability” sense from “prediction” sense. For example, while yóò ti dé báyìí “He will have arrived now” is “predictability”. Yóò ti dé níwòyí ọ̀la “He will have arrived by this time tomorrow” is “prediction”.
3.1.2 Syntactic Concurrence
“Predictability” yóò “will” freely concurs with stative verbs. An example of this is (9). When yóò “will concurs with the aspect marker in its predictability use, the only reading possible is the past. (See X’s statement in (8)(ci)). In (10), “predictability” yóò “will” is found in the environment of a progressive marker.
(10) nígbà tí wọ́n bá bá òkú ọdẹ… àwọn ọlọ́pàá… á
when that they meet dead hunter… they policy … will
ti máa sá sókè sá sódò (p. 143)
“After seeing the dead hunter… the police… would have started running hither and thither”
In (10), two points should be noted: first, the main predication refers to a time prior to the moment of speaking which extends up to the moment of speaking. Second, the occurrence of the aspect marker in the environment of the progressive is obligatory in this type of construction. Without the aspect marker, (10) would be given a “prediction” reading.
3.2 Prediction
This can be paraphrased as “I predict that…” and the prediction is always in the future (Coates 1983: 177). Example:
(11) Ọwọ́ ó tẹ gbogbo yín
Hand will catch all you
“You (pl.) will all be captured”
The “prediction” use of yóò “will” refers either to a definite or an indefinite time in the future and occurs freely with an inanimate subject.
3.3 Volition
This can be paraphrased by “willing, want or intention”. Its predication refers to a single feature event. Examples:
(12) X. Ṣé o ó yá ni lówó ni?
Q you will lend me in money FOC ?
“Are you willing to lend me some money?”
(13) Y. N ó bá ọ sọ̀nà owó
I will ( ) you will find way money
“I am willing to help you find some means of getting some money”
3.3.1 Syntactic Co-occurrence
The volitional use of yóò “will” is incompatible with an inanimate subject and an aspect marker, thus, (N ó ti yá ọ lówó “I will have lent you some money”) has a “predictability” meaning.
3.4 Omnitemporal
Haegeman (1983: 43), quoting Lyons
An omnitemporal proposition, … is one that says that something has been, is and always will be so: it is a proposition whose truth-value is constant for all values of ti, in a finite or infinite set of time-points or time-intervals.
She then re-interprets the over-all meaning of omnitemporality into (i) inference (timeless truth), (ii) habit and (iii) disposition (capacity). The major difference between the three being that the time-span of inference cover all time while the other two are “restricted to (part of) the life-time of their specific subject referents” (ibid: 76). Other differences noted are as follow:
3.4.1 Inference
This is the use of yóò “will” for “timeless truth” which, according to Palmer (1980: 112), may be proved inductively. Example:
(14) Omi ni yóò ṣe ẹja jinná (p. 3)
Water FOC will do fish well-cook
“Fish are cooked in water”
Simply put, despite the fact that the fish lives in water, we still need the same water to cook it. The following characteristics are noted: (i) the subject is generic and (ii) any occurrence of either the progressive or the aspect marker or a future time adverbial narrows down the time-sphere.
3.4.2 Habitual
This indicates what Palmer (1980: 112) regards as a characteristic activity. Example:
(15) Ẹni tí yóò ti ilé-ìwé dé, tí yóò tún padà lọ pọnmi
He that will from school come, that will again back go
tí yóò gbálẹ̀, tí yóò fọṣọ (p. 20)
that will sweep, that will wash clothes
“He will return from school, fetch water, sweep the floor and wash clothes”
Characteristics: It always has a specific animate subject and the occurrence of the progressive or aspect marker or a future time adverbial narrows down the time-sphere.
3.4.3 Disposition
This expresses general capacity. Example:
(16) Gbọ̀ngàn yẹn yóò gbà tó ènìyàn mẹ́wàá
Hall that will take equal people ten
“That hall will take ten people”
Characteristics: It occurs with only non-animate specific subjects. The occurrence of either the progressive or aspect marker or future time adverbial also narrows down its time-sphere.
4. Root/Deontic and Epistemic Uses of yóò “will”
Both philosophers and linguists have recognised two distinct kinds of meaning associated with the modals. The names most commonly used are “epistemic” and “deontic/root”. Chung and Timberlake (1985: 242) define epistemic modality in terms of actual world and the alternative worlds. According to them,
[the] epistemic mode characterizes the event with respect to the actual world and its possible alternatives. If the event belongs to the actual world, it is actual, if it belongs to some alternative world (although not necessarily to the actual world), it is possible; and so on.
They also define the deontic/root as characterizing
an event as non-actual by the virtue of the fact that it is imposed on a given situation. Given the actual world at any point in time, there are a number of worlds that could conceivably develop out of that world. The deontic (/root) … restricts these subsequent worlds with respect to an event, such that the event has to belong to some or all of the subsequent worlds (1985: 246).
For example, Yóò ni ìyàwó can mean:
(17) He is required to marry (to get a job)
(18) He is probably married
The first meaning is called the deontic/root while the second is called the epistemic. While (17) is concerned with what is going to be done for certain end to be achieved, (18) states a truth/falsity of a given proposition in the light of what the speaker knows. It will be noted that the relationship between the deontic/root and the epistemic is non-arbitrary: both can be given either a subjective or an objective interpretation. While a subjectively modalized utterance is a statement of opinion, an objectively modalized utterance contains an unqualified or categorical “I-say-so” component (Lyon 1977: 804). In other words, the speaker is committed to the factuality of the information. For example, Yóò lọ “he will go” can be given an objective interpretation meaning that the addressee is expected to go because this is what everybody does.
According to Veluppillai (1983: 86), what the speaker says to be the cause of an objective modalized utterance can be denied or questioned, accepted or referred to by the complement of a factive predication. The following are examples:
(19) Yóò lọ
He will go
“He will go” Irọ́ ni “that is not true’
Lóòótọ́? “Is that true?”
Mo gbọ́ “I agree”
Mo mọ̀ “I know”
If the above utterance is given a subjective interpretation, it means that the speaker is subjectively qualifying his or her commitment to the possibility of the addressee going to the said place. An appropriate clause Mo rò pé “I think that” can be added to the utterance to show the speaker’s commitment.
Subjectively modalized statements are not statements of facts, hence, in reporting (19), what we have is:
(20) Ó ni òun rò pé yóò lọ
He say he think sya he will go
“He says he thinks he will go
To report the objectively modalized version of (19), we have:
(21) Ó ní yóò lọ
He say he will go
“He says he will go”
Given the parallelism just mentioned, it is appropriate to comment on the difference between the two modal meanings. According to Chung and Timberlake (1985: 247), while the epistemic mode deals with a set of alternative worlds at a given time”… the deontic/(root) mode deals with a set of alternative worlds that develop out of a given world and time …”. Though (22) and (23) are future deontic and epistemic propositions respectively, the relationship between the alternative and actual worlds are different.
(22) Òjó yóò wà ní ilé lọ́la
Òjó will be in home tomorrow
“At a given time tomorrow, in all alternative worlds, Òjó is at home”
(23) Lọ́la Òjó yóò lọ sí ilé
In tomorrow, Òjó will go to house
“At a given time tomorrow, in all worlds subsequent to that, Òjó goes home”
Following Haegeman (1983: 28, 42) and Hermeren (1978: 93), the epistemic and deontic/root distinction of the modal verbs we have discussed can be made as follow:
Root/Deonitc: Volition and Omnitemporal
Epistemic: Prediction and Predictability
5. Modal Combination
It is possible to combine yóò “will” with lè “can”. When this happens, lè “can” always follows the other modal. Example:
(24) N ó lè ṣe é
I will can do it
“I will be able to do it”
When modals occur together, they are said to be mutually reinforcing in significance. Yóò “will” does not occur with gbọ́dọ̀ “must”, the third modal verb in the language.
6. Summary
In this paper, we argued for a modal analysis of the so-called future particle yóò “will’ and made a straightforward presentation of its modal uses. Some of the examples used are taken from a narrative text, to avoid, as much as we can, a subjective interpretation of modal syntax and semantics.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adewọlé, L.O. (1986), “The Yorùbá High Tone Syllable Revisited”, Department of Linguistics, University of Edinburgh Work in Progress 19: 81-94.
Afolayan, A. (1969), “The Linguistics Problems of Yorùbá Learners and Users of English.”, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of London
Coates, Jennifer (1981), The Semantics of the Modal Auxiliaries. London
Chung, Sandra and Allan Timberlake (1985), “Tense, Aspect and Mood”, in Language Typology and Syntactic Description III: Grammatical Categories and Lexicon, edited by Timothy Shapen, pp. 202-258. Cambridge: University Press.
Haegemann, Lilliane M.V. (1983), The Semantics of “Will” in Present Day British English: A Unified Account. Brussel: Palels der-Acadenien-Hertogsstraat 1.
Hermeren, Lars (1978), On Modality in English, A Study of Semantics of the Modals: Lund Lund
Hokett, C.F. (1958). A Course in Modern Linguistics. New York
Lyons, J. (1968), Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics. Cambridge
Lyons, J. (1977), Semantics Volumes 1&2. Cambridge: University Press.
Òkédìjí, Ọládẹ̀jọ (1983), Atótó Arére. Lagos
Oyèláran, O.O. (1982), “The Category AUX in the Yorùbá Phrase Structure”, Paper Presented at the 15th West African Languages Conference, University of Port Harcourt, April 4-11, 1982.
Palmer, F.R. (1980), The English Verb. London
Rowlands, E.C. (1964), “Some Morphological Problems in Yorùbá”, Paper Presented at the 4th West African Languages Congress. Ibadan
Veluppillal, A. (1983), “Modality in Jafna Tamil”, Indian Linguistics 44, 1-4: 83-96.
[1] An earlier version of this paper was published as L.O. Adewole (1988), ‘Yoo, the so-called Future Particle in Yoruba’, University of East Anglia Papers in Linguistics (Norwich) pp. 48-61.
[2] I am indebted to Peter Cruickshank for his comments on an earlier draft of this papers. All errors and omissions, however, remain mine.
[3] The English gloss for ‘yoo’ here is not quite accurate because, according to Afọlayan (1968: 350), ‘there is a many-one relationship between thye modal forms in English and those in Yoruba, for example … ‘will’, ‘would’, ‘shall’ and ‘should’ are matched by Yoruba ‘yoo’’. Despite this many-one relationship, we shall use ‘will’ all through this work for ‘yoo’.
[4] The terms ‘meaning’, ‘use’ and ‘sense’ will be used in the rest of the paper as having almost the same meanings.
No comments:
Post a Comment