Despite
Oyelaran’s (1982:41) claim that both the imperfective and what he regards as
the perfect aspect in Yorùbá are not controversial, a look at some of the
studies on the topics shows several crucial problem areas. Where the
imperfective aspect is concerned, if Oyelaran’s reference to Comrie’s (1976)
instructive account on the topic is anything to go by, one could say that none
of the Yorùbá scholars, to date, has actually written anything on this
subcategory of aspect. What previous writers (i.e., Awobuluyi (1967) and Oke
(1969)) often mention are the durative and the habitual aspects. Though these
two could be regarded as subcategories of the imperfective as defined by Comrie
(1976) (if we tentatively take durativity as equivalent of progressivity), they
are characterized differently by these writers and no attempt is made by any of
them to account for “both in relation to each other and each to other
subcategories” (Oyelaran, 1982:41).
For example,
Awobuluyi (1967:263-264) regards both máa m/máa ń and m/ń as in
(1) and (2) respectively as having the same meaning, hence, “the preverb máa
seems redundant” in (1):
(1) Bọ́lá máa ń ta ìwé
“Bọla sells books”
or
“Bọla used to sell books”
(2) Bọ́lá m ta ìwé
(i) Present: “Bọla is selling a book (right now)” or
“Bọla sells books”
(ii) Past: “Bọla was selling a book” or “Bọla
used
to sell books”
He even says
that there is no difference (if we understand him correctly) between the usages
of the word máa in the following sentences[3].
(3) (i) Bọ́lá máa ń ta ìwé
“Bọla
sells books”
or
“Bọla used to sell books”
(ii) máa ta ìwé
“Keep
selling books”
(iii) Bọ́lá máa lọ
“Bọla
will go”.
Oke
(1969:440-448), on the other hand, regards máa ń as a single auxiliary. Awoyale
(1974:18) disagrees with this view and concludes without justifying his claim
that “there is no entity máa ń in Yorùbá but máa and ń”.
Some writers
even believe that the progressive aspect is not marked in the language. For
instance, Dalphinis (1985:87-88), after giving the following sentences as
examples from Yorùbá:
Yorùbá
ẹni mu (sic) lọ si ọja – ‘Today I’m going to market’.
i.e., literally “today I’m in the process of going to market”,
ọla mu (sic) lọ si ọja – ‘Tomorrow I’ll go to market,
i.e., literally “tomorrow I’m in the process of going to market”
anọ mu (sic) lọ si ọja – ‘Yesterday I went to market’,
i.e., literally ‘yesterday I’m in the process of going to market’,
concludes that,
. . . it is the
progressive aspect rather than time which is the standard by which the ‘action’
of the verb is judged; it could be ‘today’ yesterday or tomorrow’. . . in
Yorùbá one can say: ‘I’m in the process of going to market’ – the verb does not
change its form nor the personal pronoun its shape with any change along a time
– scale.
Bamgboṣe
(1963:144) also classifies what Oyelaran regards as the perfect market in
Yorùbá as the perfective marker. Abraham (1958:639) regards this same item as
the past tense marker in the language. Amuda (1986:199-200) also makes the
following remarks about what he regards as the Yorùbá Tense and Aspect Systems:
The tense system of Yorùbá has two terms: simple and perfective.
The simple tense has five positive and four negative sub-terms. The positive
sub-terms include: future, conditional, continuative, habitual, and unmarked.
The unmarked tense, whether in the positive or negative, is made up of past and
present or neutral. The
perfective is also made up of the same number of sub-terms as in the simple
tense. The only difference is the occurrence of the perfective marker ti
“have” with each of the sub-terms in the perfective. Unlike English, Yorùbá has
no affixes with base forms of the verbs for deriving past tense such as the –ed
or the third person singular -s form.
As ‘no examples are given, it is not clear to us how Amuda’s
simple tense terms can be realized in the language. His perfective term is the
same as that of Bamgboṣe noted above.
We also have
some misgivings about the accuracy of the use of such terms as durative, terminative,
ingressive, etc., by Awobuluyi (1967) and Odunuga (1982) for some subcategories
of aspect in the language. Studies have shown that these terms do not refer to
aspectual subcategories. Rather, they are elements of what is often referred to
in literature as mode of action
(= aktsionsart in German). In Safarewicz’s (1984:328) opinion,
“they are nothing else but certain features of the vocabulary; they do not form
any grammatical category”.
Apart from
the controversies noted above, a greater weakness of all the previous works which
have anything to do with any aspect of phase and aspect is their failure to
take the trouble to discuss their forms and contents in detail. Our concern in
the remaining part of this paper, then, is to account for some of the
discrepancies mentioned above. We begin with the habitual aspect.
2. The Yorùbá Habitual Aspect
The habitual
aspect is regarded as “describing a situation which is characteristic of an
extended period of time, so extended in fact that the situation referred to is
viewed not as an incidental property of the moment but, precisely as a
characteristic feature of a whole period” (Comries, 1976:27-28). The notion of
“extended period” as used in the above definition is conceptual rather than
linguistic hence, Comrie (1976:27) warns that habituality should not be
confused with iterativity. According to him, “the mere repetition of a
situation is not sufficient for that situation to be referred to by a specific
habitual . . . form”. The reason for this is that “a situation can be referred
to by a habitual form without there being any iterativity at all” (Comrie,
1976: 27). In support of this view, Dahl (1985:97) adds that “the difference
between ‘once’ and ‘twice’ or even ‘seven times’ is almost totally irrelevant
to HAB”. With these two writers’ view of habitual, one can conclude that
sentences such as (4) are not in any way habitual.
(4) (i) Ó lọ sí oko púpọ̀ ní èsí
He
go to farm plenty in last year
“He
went to the farm many times last year”
(ii) Ò lọ sí oko ní ọgọ́rùún ìgbà èsí
He
go to farm in hundred times in last year
“He
went to the farm a hundred times last year”
Rather, what
actually marks the habitual aspect in the language is the polymorphemic word máa
ń. What the use of this item
in any sentence indicates is that the action expressed “took place in the
majority of those occasions” (Dahl, 1985:97) indicated or understood in the
sentence. Thus the item, as used in (5), refers to indefinite individual
occasions when the action takes place.
(5) Ó máa ń
lọ
He HAB go
“He usually
goes”
The
notion of an indefinite occurrence of an action credited to the habitual aspect
does not mean that it could be interpreted as denoting the same notion with
such adverbials of time as nígbà gbogbo
“every time”. The fact that the appendage ṣùgbọ́n
ní ẹkọ̀ọ̀kan o máa ń wọ aṣọ funfun “but once in a while, he puts on white
clothes” is possible with (18) (i) but not with (18) (ii) brings this out
clearly.
(6) (i) O máa n wo aṣọ
dúdú ṣùgbọ́n ni ẹ̀kọ̀ọ̀kan He
HAB wear clothes black, but in one time,
O máa ń wọ aṣọ funfun He
HAB wear clothes white
“He usually puts on black clothes but once in a
while he put on white”
(ii) *Ó máa ń wọ
aṣọ dúdú nígbà gbogbo, ṣùgbọ́n ni He
PROG wear clothes black in time all, but in
ẹ̀kọ̀ọ̀kan, ó máa n wọ aṣọ funfun in
one one time, he HAB wear clothes white
“He is always putting on black clothes but once
in a while, he puts on white”
Despite the
fact that there is no controversy on the notion of the habitual aspect as
defined above, the form in which the subcategory is realized in the language is
still a subject of dispute. To most Yorùbá scholars, the subcategory does not
exist. To some few others, only some Yorùbá speakers use it, “other speakers
use the ń form (the progressive marker) freely in both senses” (Comrie,
1976:101 quoting Rowlands). The only Yorùbá scholar who has given an
unqualified support for the postulation of the sub-category in the language is
Oke (1969:440-448). One of the reasons he gives for regarding the habitual as a
distinct subcategory from the progressive is that the distribution of the
habitual is quite different from that of the progressive. According to him, whereas
verbs such as wá “to come” and wà “to be” cannot be immediately
preceded by the progressive, they occur with the habitual quite freely.
Examples are:
(7) (i) Ó máa
ń wá
He HAB come
“He
usually comes”
(ii) Ó máa
ń wà
ní ibẹ̀
He HAB be in there
“He is usually there
(iii) *Ó ń wá
He PROG come
(iv)*Ó ń wà[4]
He PROG be
“He
is being”
On the other
hand, verbs, such as bọ̀ “to come and bẹ “to be”, are not also
immediately preceded by the habitual markers. Examples are:
(8) (i) *Ó máa
ń
bọ̀
He HAB come
“He
usually comes”
(ii) *Ó máa
ń bẹ
He HAB be
“He is usually existing”
(iii) Ó ń bọ̀
He PROG come
“He is on his way”
(iv) Ó
ń bẹ
ní ibẹ̀
He PROG be in there
“He is there”.
These examples, according to Oke, show that the Progressive
and Habitual markers have different distributions. Other examples in which the
progressive contrasts with the habitual are as follow:
(9) (i) Ó m
gbẹ
“It is/was becoming dry”
(ii) Ó máa ń
gbẹ
“It
usually becomes/became dry”
(Quoted
from Awobuluyi, 1967:265).
(10) (i) *Bọla ń
ṣe iṣẹ́ fún wákàtí
mẹ́ẹ̀tà
“Bọla aspect-marker do work there hours”
i.e.,
“Bọlá works for three hours”
(Awobuluyi,
1967: 284, n. 93)
(ii) Bọ́lá máa
ń ṣe
iṣẹ́ fún wákàtí mẹ́ẹ̀tà
Bọ́lá HAB do work for hour three
“Bọ́la usually works for three
hours”
With the
above examples, we are of the opinion that there should be a distinct Habitual
subcategory of Aspect in the language. One may then wonder why the opinion of
the Yorùbá grammarians differs on the status of the Habitual subcategory of
Aspect in the language.
This main
reason for this divided view can be traced to the fact that both the Habitual
and the Progressive share the same variant forms. Hence, the sentence in (11)
has two interpretations which the negations in (12) clearly distinguish:
(11) Máa ṣe é
(a) Start to do it (right now)
(b) “Continue to do it (henceforth)”
(12) (a) Má ṣe
é
NEG do it
“Don’t
do it (now)
(b) Má máa
ṣe é
NEG HAB do it
“Do
not do it (henceforth)
While (12)
(a) negates the Progressive, the Habitual can be negated only as in (12) (b).
Most linguists who do not consider examples such as (11) and (12) or the ones
given by Oke in (7-8) or the ones given in (9-10) often concludes that máa ń and máa are the contextual realizations of the
Progressive.
We hope that
enough has been said here to show that the Habitual, to which almost all Yorùbá
scholars give a notional recognition, needs to be formally distinguished from
the Progressive.
3. Phase System in Yorùbá
In
the previous section of this paper, we have been able to show a way by which
the Yorùbá speakers indicate when the action expressed by the verb cannot be
said to have any clear limit. This case is achieved in the language by the
marker of the habitual aspect. There is still another Yorùbá grammatical
category that we still need to discuss. For instance, King (1983) discusses the
grammatical categories from the relational point of view. First, he defines
orientation “as that semantic notion which allows the speaker to express an
ordering relationship for the reported situation”. He then classifies the types
of ordering relationship into two – the primary form and the relational form.
He classifies the habitual aspect as a primary form. By the primary form he
means that it does not express any orientation and that no ordering
relationship is involved in the action it depicts. The relational form, on the
other hand, relates one situation to another.
We have
discussed how a primary form is expressed in Yorùbá. What now remains is for us
to show how the Yorùbá speakers relate one situation-token to another
situation-token in an utterance-situation[5].
This relationship is shown by what Thrane (1983:188) regards as the Phase.
Thrane (1983: ibid.) defines Phase as “the category which enables H (the
hearer) to identify a particular S-token of a certain type in terms of its
sequential order relative to some other S-token”. The item that is used in the
language to show such a relationship is ti “has/have/had”. The item ti
has/have/had has been analysed either as a past tense marker or a perfective
marker.
According to
Thrane (1983:189). “the basic semantic function of Phase is such that it will
allow valid inferences to be drawn from it in the direction of both Tense and Aspect”
but whereas the two latter categories are concerned with matters of time, the
former is concerned with space. For example, in (13), the Phase, marker ti
“has” only indicates the sequential ordering of the S-tokens involved relative
to the Utterance-situation.
(13) Ó ti lọ
kí á
tó ó
dé
He PH go
before we equal INF come
“He had left
before our arrival”
The Phase
marker in (13) does not say where the entities are at any absolute sense. What
it states is that “the entities are arranged relative to one another along a
single spatial dimension” (Thrane, 1983:188).
King
(1983:147) uses the term “relational form” for this marker. The reason is that,
in term of orientations, what the marker does is to relate two S-tokens to each
other relative to the utterance situation. The Utterance situation is not fixed
in any way. Thus, (14) (i) can be read either as (14) (ii) or (14) (iii) depending
on the nature of the Utterance-situation.
(14) (i) Ó ti
lọ
He PH go
“He has gone”
(ii) Ó tí
lọ (Ó fún un lówó nì yẹn)
He PH go
(He give him money is that)
“He has gone (He must have given him some money)
(iii) Ó ti lọ (Ó fẹ́ ẹ́ fún un lọ́wọ́ nì yẹn)
He PH go (He want INF give him in money is that)
“He has gone (that means he wants to give him some
money).
It will be
noted that the “sequentiality of the anterior S-token” (Thrane, 1983:188) in
(14) (ii) has undergone some subtle changes in (14) (iii). This change,
according to Thrane, shows that Phase is essentially concerned with sequence
and only inferentially with time.
4.1 Tense, Aspect and Phase
With
the notion of Phase as described above, the reason why its marker has been
analysed either as a past tense marker or as a perfective marker can now be
explained. Tense has been defined as “the category which enables H (the Hearer)
to identify a particular S-token in terms of its temporal occurrence relative
to the deictic centre of the Utterance-situation” (Thrane, 1983:188). With this
definition, it becomes clear why two sequentially arranged S-tokens are given
some temporal co-occurrence attributes. Before two S-tokens can be sequentially
ordered, “they both have to be ‘there’ at the same time” (Thrane,
1983:189).What time does in such circumstances is to impose some direction on
the sequential order of the S-tokens. The mere mention of the terms ‘anterior’,
‘posterior’, ‘after’ and ‘before’ while defining Phase shows that time has to
impose some directionality on the sequential order. It is because of this
linguistic encoding of sequential order that some Yorùbá scholars, inaccurately,
regard the item ti “has” as a past tense marker.
The past
tense, in the languages in which it occurs, is regarded as simply stating that
a given situation obtained before the Utterance-situation without any reference
to overt orientation. The item ti does not function in this way. Rather,
what it only indicates is the sequentiality of S-tokens. In our opinion, it is
the notion of one S-token being anterior to another that the advocates of the
past tense analysis of the item ti “has” regard as tense.
If we now
turn to the perfective, what we note is that Phase also draws some Aspectual
meaning especially from this sub-category of Aspect. Aspect is taken as “a
category which enables H to identify a particular S-token in term of its
internal temporal structure”. (Thrane, 1983: 188). For two S-tokens to be considered
to be sequential, one must have been perceived as either ‘complete’ or
‘finished’. Since the notion of perfective denotes a situation viewed in its
entirety, it is not surprising that the perfective and the Phase are often
confused with each other. The confusion stems from the ‘complete’ notion which
Phase partially shares with the perfective.
4.2 The Phase as a Relational Form
Phase,
as we have stated, is by orientation a relational form. It does not refer to
any particular S-token but relates one S-token to another. Both the perfective
and the imperfective subcategories, on the other hand, are regarded as primary
forms, the reason being that no sequential ordering of any S-token is made by
them. They can both co-occur with the Phase.
When the
perfective co-occurs with the Phase in an S-token one views such an S-token in
its entirety and orders it sequentially relative to the Utterance-situation.
When the Phase co-occurs with the progressive, it indicates that what is
ordered sequentially relative to the Utterance-situation is the middle of the
said-S-token. Finally, the Phase marker co-occurs with the Habitual marker to
indicate that an indefinite occurrence of S-tokens is ordered sequentially
relative to the Utterance-situation. Examples are:
(15) (i) PERFECTIVE AND PHASE
Olú ú ti
lọ kì
Òjó tó
ó dé
Olu HTS PH go before Ojo equal INF come
“Olu had left before Ojo’s arrival”
(ii) PROGRESSIVE AND PHASE
Ó ti ń lọ kí á tó ó dé
He PH PROG before we equal INF come
“He
was leaving when we arrived”
(iii) HABITUAL AND PHASE
Ó ti máa
ń lọ
kì á
tó ó
dé
He PH HAB go before
we equal INF come
“He
usually leaves before our arrival”
5. Summary
In
this paper, we have discussed some aspects of aspect and phase in Yorùbá. We
started with the discussion of the habitual aspect and presented arguments for
the recognition of the habitual sub-category of aspect in the language. We then
contested the classification of the item ti “has/had/have” either as a
past tense marker or as a perfective marker. We suggested that the item should
be regarded as the relational Phase marker in the language.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abraham, R.C. (1958), Dictionary
of Modern Yoruba. London: Hodder and Stoughton.
Adewọle, L.O. (1986), “The Yorùbá High Tone Syllable
Revisited”, Work in Progress 19:81-94.
Edinburgh University
of Edinburgh
Adewọle, L.O. (1987), “Dahl (1985) and the Yorùbá
Perfective: A Note”, Belfast Working Papers in Linguistics 9:1-9.
Adewọle, L.O. (In
preparation), “Ibá Atẹ́rẹrẹ Yoruba” (Yorùbá Progressive)”.
Ajeigbe, O. (1979), “A Syntactic and Semantic Studies of
Nominalization in Yorùbá.”, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of London
Amuda, Ayọade A. (1986) “Yorùbá/English Code-Switching in
Nigeria: Aspects of its Function and Form.”, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Reading
Awobuluyi, O. (1967), “Studies in the Syntax of the Standard
Yorùbá Verb.”, Ph.D. Dissertation, Columbia
University
Awoyale, ‘Yiwọla (1984), “Studies in the Syntax and Semantics
of Yorùbá Nominalization. Ph.D.
Dissertation, University
of Illinois Urbana
Bamgboṣe, Ayọ (1963), “A Study of Structures and Classes in
the Grammar of Modern Yorùbá.”, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Edinburgh
Comrie, B.
(1976), Aspect. Cambridge
Dahl, O.
(1985), Tense and Aspect System. New York: Brasil Blackwell.
Dalphinis, Morgan (1985), “Various Approaches to the Study
of Creole Language: The Case of African Influences”, in his Caribbean and African Language: Social
History, Language Use, Literature and Education, pp. 85-96. London
Freed, F. Alice (1979), The
Semantics of English Aspectual Complementation. Dordrecht: D. Reidel
Pubishing Co.
King, L.D. (1983), “Tense, Orientation and Aspect”, LINGUA
59:101-154.
Lyons, J. (1966), “Towards a ‘Notional’ Theory of ‘Parts of
Speech’”, JOURNAL OF LINGUISTICS2, 2:209-236.
Mufwene, S. Salikoko
(1984), STATIVITY AND THE PROGRESSIVE. Bloomington , Indiana Indiana University
Odunuga Ṣẹgun (1982), “Tense and Aspect in Yorùbá YORÙBÁ
LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE, edited by A. Afọlayan, pp. 264-276. Ifẹ, Nigeria
Oke, D.O. (1969), “Grammatical Study of Yorùbá Verb System”.
Ph.D. Dissertation, University
of York
Oyelaran, O.O. (1982), “The category AUX in the Yorùbá
Phrase Sturcture” Paper presented at the 15th West African Languages Congress,
University of Port Harcourt, Nigeria, April 4-11, 1982.
Safarewicz, J. (1974), LINGUISTIC STUDIES. The Hague
Smith, Carlota (1986), “A Speaker-based Approach to Aspect”,
LINGUISTICS AND PHILOSOPH 9, 1:97-115.
Thrane, T. (1983), “On the University of AUX
[1] This paper was published as
Adewole, L.O. (1990), ‘Phase and Aspects
Systems in Yorùbá’, in Seminar Series 2,
edited by T.M. Ilesanmi, L.O. Adewole and B.A. Oyetade. Ile-Ife, Nigeria:
Department of African Languages and Literatures, Obafemi Awolowo University.
[2] This paper was first presented at the Department of African
Languages and Literatures, Ọbafẹmi Awolọwọ University Seminar in February,
1989. I am grateful to the members of staff of the Department for their
comments on an earlier draft of the paper. It should be noted that only the
habitual subcategory of aspect shall be discussed here. For a comprehensive
discussion of the perfective aspect in the language, see Adéwọlé (1986). See
also Adéwọlé (1987). A discussion of the Yorùbá progressive is in preparation.
[3] Awobuluyi’s
remark on the sentences is that “it is this preverb, máá incidentally,
which appears to be shared by both the temporal and the aspectual sub-systems,
that led us to the conclusion that the terms in the Yorùbá temporal subsystem
should perhaps be definite and indefinite rather than past, present and future”
(p. 265). What is not clear here is whether máa is the same both in form
and function in these sentences. See Adéwọlé’s (1986) comments on this type of
situation.
[4] Ó
ń wà nì
ibẹ̀ “He is usually there” is possible but according to Oke, the ń
form used is not a progressive marker. It is a variant of the Habitual marker.
We support this claim. I am grateful to Professor Akìnwùmì Ìṣọ̀lá for calling
my attention to a máa as in Ọkọ̀ yẹn a máa sáré. “That vehicle can speed” which is a variant
of the Habitual.
[5] Thrane
(1983:182) defines a situation as “a delimited organization of entities between
which specifiable relations hold”. In this definition, a situation is to be language-independent.
To link situations to linguistics, he introduces the terms situation-token
(S-token), situation-type (S-type) and Utterance-situation (US) where S-token
stands for “a situation identified or identifiable in terms of its actual occurrence
in space and time”, and S-type stands for “a situation identified or
identifiable in terms of the relationship holding between the entities that
make up the situation” and the Utterance-situation as “a particular type of
actual occurrence situation, established in each case by someone making an
utterance’.
No comments:
Post a Comment