Láńre Atóyèbí[1]
1. Introduction
There may not be any problem in either regrouping some
fixed expressions as the account here testifies, or in working out
nominalisable structures and the nominalization procedures as a chapter in our
forthcoming work depicts. There may not even be any problem in accounting for
the mutual selection between the lexical value of a verb and its environment.
It is certainly very difficult, if not impossible, to tackle, with some perfect
precision, some derivations[2]
which look complex in forms: one may have the impression of an etymological
rapport between a form and others to which one stretches it to cover without
being able to systematize the rapport with the desired great precision. It is
necessary, therefore, to account for fossilized and reduplicated verb forms in
Yorùbá. The impression of very much reduced verb vocabulary in the language
even calls for this lexical characterization.
Are those complex forms of the Yorùbá verbs realized
by compounding or by reduplication? This issue preoccupied our mind for a long
time and made us examine if there would be some mechanism parallel to those of
the noun formation (cf. Ògúnbọ̀wale (1970: 32-37) and Awobuluyi (1978: 92-94),
for example) for the formation of verbs. Our finding is in the direction of
absence of any such useful systematic processes. Instead of drawing on its
lexematic resources in order to systematically enrich its verbal lexis, the
Yorùbá language is pleased with redeeming the lack of diverse procedures found in other languages by having a multiplicity of
verbal locutions and serial verbs[3].
Some complex form (v/p + noun v/p +
v/p, v/p + v/p
+ noun, etc.) are purely and simply in the process of fossilization: it
is the limited case of phrasal and serial verbs.
2. Construction Fossilisation[4]
2.1 Introduction
Fixed verbal expressions are not numerous and do not
offer the same degree of fossilization. One finds in some cases that it is
particularly difficulty to advance some etymological hypothesis. One also
discovers that some phrases have their forms modified thereby causing some
disturbance in the recognition of lexicalization rapport. Consider the elements
in italics below for example. Are they loan words from other languages? Is one
dealing with some linguistic units in the Yorùbá dialects? One is reduced to
simply making hypothesis on them.
2.2 Fossilisation of the v/p
+ noun construction
Without pretending to be exhaustive in our inventory of
the fixed expressions, here are some attestations:
jiná (jẹ ‘eat’, ‘consume’ + iná ‘fire’) ‘to be cooked’
wọ́pọ̀ (wá ‘come’ + ọ̀pọ̀ ‘great number’) ‘to be
common/ordinary’
wúlò (see its decomposition below) ‘to be useful’
tàsé (see its decomposition below) ‘to miss a target’
It appears to me that wúlò is a combination of the verb wú (be blown up in the sense of inspiring, encouraging,
stimulating and exciting) and the verbal noun ìlò (nominaliser, ì
+ lò ‘use’) = the use. Based on what we know already concerning the mutual
influence of tones, one may say that tàsé is not the lexcalised form of
the verb ta (to shoot/dart) and ṣé (be wedged/tuck, be pinned
under/against something). But based on the rules of tonal meeting within the
context of elision at the verb-complement junction, one may establish that the
block is a combination of the verb ta + the verbal noun iṣé (the
nominaliser, ì replaces the verbalization procedure ‘Ci[5]:
instead of having ta èyí tí ó sé or ta sísé, one has ta isé (=
tàsé) miss somebody/something).
The syntactic relationship between the components of
each expressive bloc becomes sclerosed in the sense that the two terms in the
verb phrase cease to be relatively free. The complement loses series of
transformational possibilities: it can no longer take the markers that a noun
normally takes; one can no longer make it the marker of a relative clause (or
of a focus construction) which will include the verb; it can neither be an
object of questioning nor can it be pronominalized. The verb-complement
construction evolved in the direction of a simple unit. With the elision system
and this bloc-forming, the recognition of what is an expansion (and what is
not) is no longer apparent. This fact of our language is similar to that of Urhobo
where ‘le nominal est dans ce cas plus
que nécessaire, il est désormais partied u signifiant du verbe[6]
(Blanc 1985 : 65). If the verb-complement relationship is semantically
considered, one cannot but admit that the mutual selection between the meaning
of the verbal lexeme and that of the nominal lexeme placed after it has gone to
the extent that, synchronically, one can no longer attribute to the verb the
semantic content that it is its own.
2.3 Foosilisation of the v/p
+ v/p + Construction
First, let us recall as follows the most
characteristic traits manifested by serial verbs:
(a) the utterance is mono-clause despite the presence of
many verbal lexemes[7];
(b) in-spite of the outlook, each serial verb is the
nucleus of a particular whole that functions morpho-syntactically like a simple
non-serial root (i.e. unrepeated common subject before each of the verbs in the
series, common verbal markers placed before the first verb in the series when
the envisaged conjugation involves the use of explicit segmental morphemes,
absence of a preposition or pause between the verbs in the series, etc.);
(c) There is the possibility of emphasis and
relativisation of one of the serial verbs and one of the noun complements of
the serial construction.
Reckoning on this reminder, what conclusion can one
draw that will bring out the specifics of the v/p + v/p
combination here? It is good to have, in the first instance, precise examples
in order to talk concretely about the particularity of the construction. Therefore,
we present the following three examples:
tayọ (ta, shoot/dart + yọ, subtract) go past, over
shoot/overtake, jut out over/above, be higher/longer than
tẹ̀lé (tẹ̀, bend + lé, linger on, be added to) follow
dájí (see decomposition below) proceed on an action very
early in the morning, wake up early.
The meaning of the first complex form is easily
discernible from the meanings of the elements that make it up. The assertion
cannot be applied to the second form. Our contribution to the decomposition of
the third form is as follows: if it is not a combination of dá (do something
(or act) alone) + jí (wake up), it is probably composed of the verb, yá (hasten/quicken
(which becomes dá as a result of consonant alternation)) + jí (wake
up).
As our three examples here show, a complex form in
this class is merely a juxtaposition of two verbal roots. The lexicalization
gives a thing that cannot appear in two bits in the sentence: a syntactic
conditioning of fossilization. It is the lexicalized form that accepts
association with verbal markers and complements, and occupies a certain place
in the sentence (i.e. the position of a simple verbal predicate). For example:
(i) Ó tẹ̀lé mi
He/she/it follow me “He follows me/he followed me’
If
one is able to tell the meaning of each syllabic component taken in isolation,
the possibility of moving the bloc here and there (i.e. of transformation) is
on the contrary considerably diminished. For example, the Yorùbá will say (A)
and not (B), except a completely different thing is singled out for focusing,
etc.:
(ii) A (a) Títẹ̀lé ni ó tẹ̀lé mi
act
of following FOC he follow me
‘All
he does/did is to follow/was to follow me’
(b) Títẹ̀lér tí
ó tẹ̀lé mi
act
of following REL he follow me
‘The fact that he followed/follows
me/As he followed me’
B *Títẹ̀
ni ó tẹ̀lé mi
*Títẹ̀
tí ó tẹ̀lé mi
2.4 Fossilisation of the v/p
+ v/p noun Construction
It is a subclass of the fossilization in 2.3. but it
is also characterized by the compactness traits which define the fossilization
in 2.2 as a result of the presence of a noun. This is why it is made a separate
group.
The only example at our disposal is dọ̀bálẹ̀
‘prostrate before somebody’. It is very much likely that it is the verb
form dà ‘pour out’ which is transformed first into dọ́ before its
being added to the bálẹ̀ syntagm (bá ‘meet’ + ilẹ̀ ‘ground’).
This hypothesis assumes, therefore, that there is a vowel alternation. One can
also make the hypothesis of the lexicalization of dà ‘pour out’ + wá ‘come’
+ ilẹ̀ ‘ground’, explaining the consonant of –wá –as alternating
with that of -bá-
3. Verb Reduplication
3.1 Introduction
By reduplication we mean the repetition of a word
totally or the repetition of a segment of its form. There is a reduplication
that responds to the systematic related to the presence of the derivative
morpheme kú/ku, v/v (vowel element that copies the vowel of the verb).
3.2 Reduplication Involving Derivative
Morpheme
The reduplicated form envisaged by the use of kú and
ku is not known to be a verb, but, it can be nominalised. It must have
lost its status as a verb to the advantage of noun formation. For example, rà
‘buy’, ì+ ràkurà = ìràkurà/ìràkúrà ‘a thing purchased stupidly/heedlessly; rìn
‘walk’, I + rìnkúrìn/rìnkurìn/ìrìnkúrìn ‘a stupid outing’.
In the case of the derivational structure envisaged by
the use of the oral and nasal vowels
with a high tone, it is a form that can be used as a verb as the following
examples show: mọ̀ ‘know’ = mọ̀ọ́mọ̀ ‘do something deliberately’
and wọ̀ ‘be convenient’ = wọ̀ọ́wọ́ ‘not convenient/not good at all’.
3.3 Reduplication Devoid of Derivative
Morphemes
The use of a reduplicated form operates some options
among the possible orientation of the notion of not at all and deliberate
action. Ṣeéṣe (can be done, to be possible/probable) is the only one that
users feel as being the most semantically evolved. The development of the
action denoted by se ‘to do’ extends to the notion of
possibility/probability. This example shows clearly that one cannot, in any way,
totally oppose the meaning of a reduplicated form to the meaning content of the
lexematic verb from which it is derived. Apart from the incontestable
phonematic closeness, a semantic link is perceptible between the lexematic
forms and the reduplicated one.
The reduplication that does not involve a derivative
introducing a relation of single verbal root to its repetition also exists with
another value. It implies the repetition of the same act (or its duration). The
meaning of the reduplicated lexeme is always deductible from the meaning of the
simple root: burú ‘to be bad’ – burúburú ‘to be bad for a long
period’. The expression títí ‘for a long time’ may be substituted for
root repetition as in burúburú/burú títí be bad for a long time’.
3.4 Reduplication of a Reduplicated Form
The reduplication phenomenon does not spare the
already reduplicated forms that exist as verbs (Owólabí 1993: 4-5). In other
words, each of these reduplicated forms can, in their turn, be subjected to
reduplication. The only observable limitations spring from the supra-linguistic
domain (i.e. speech intelligibility, breath sustenance, style, etc). For
example, we have ó burúburuuruburú…, a ò rí irú ẹ̀ rí, kò lè burú ju ti àtẹ̀yìnwá
lọ (however bad that may be, the situation cannot be worse than what we
have been experiencing before). Here, the already reduplicate ‘burú’ ‘to
be bad’ is again reduplicated.
4. Conclusion
Apparently, the problem of tackling some derivatives
in Yorùbá with some perfect precision is essential owing to the fact that
certain elements that are to be decomposed impose a rather difficult, no to say
impossible, distinction to be maintained between those that are reducible to
the combination of smaller meaningful units identifiable in synchrony. This is
the situation even if one goes beyond the language variety whose grammatical
system is being considered, Yorùbá.
Apparently too, the semantic correlation of the
reduplicated form (i.e. the intensive value, the repletion value, the durative
value, the value of marked intention, etc., added to the initial verbal seme)
does not lead to the specialization of action in Yorùbá. From the
lexicographical point of view, the reduplicated form cannot be an object of
particular dictionary entry.
Bibliography
Atóyèbí, L. (1998). ‘The Influence Dimensions and
Other Properties of the Interrogative Morphemes in Yorùbá’, in Culture and
Society in Yorùbáland. Edited by
Dèjì Ògúnrẹ̀mí and Bíọ́dún Adédìran, pp. 196-202. Ìbàdàn: Rex Publication.
Atóyèbí, L. (1998). Issue and Methods in the Yorùbá
Predicative System. An Unpublished Work.
Awóbùlúyì, O. (1978). Essentials of Yorùbá Grammar.
Ìbàdàn: Oxford University Press.
Awóyalé, Y. (1974). ‘Studies in the Syntax and Semantics
of Yorùbá Nominalisations.’, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Illinois.
Awóyalé, Y. (1980a). ‘Proper Name Formation in Yorùbá’,
A Paper Presented at the Conference of the Linguistic Association of Nigeria.
University of Ìbàdàn.
Awóyalé, Y. (1980b). ‘The Typology of Reduplication in
Yorùbá: A Test Case for the Ideophone’. Paper Presented at the African
Linguistic Society Conference, University of Benin, Cotonou, Republic of Benin,
April 13-19.
Banker, E.M. (1964). ‘Bahnar Reduplication’, in Mon-Khmer
Studies 1. Saigon and Texas: The Linguistic Circle of Saigon and the Summer
Institute of Lingusitics.
Bámgbóṣé, A. (1975b), ‘Relativisation or
Nominalisation: A Case of Structure versus Meaning’. An Unpublished Paper.
Blanc, J.F. (1985). ‘Le Verbe Urhobo.’, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of
Greenoble III.
Bole-Richard, R. (1978).
‘Problématiques des series verbales avec application au gen’, Afrique et
Langage (Paris) 10.
Chomsky, N. (1970). ‘Remarks on Nominalisatikon’, in Studies
in English Transofrmational Grammar, edited by R.A. Jacobs and P.S.
Rosenbaum, pp 194-221. Malthem, Massachusetts: Ginn & Company.
Creissels, D. (1979), Unités
et categories grammaticales Université des Langues et Lettres de Greenoble.
Creissels, D. and N.
Kouadio (1977), Description Phonologique et Grammaticale d’un parler baoulé,
Cote d’Ivoire : Institut de Linguistique Appliquée d’Abidjan.
Hyman, L. (1971). ‘consecutiviation in fe1fe1’.
Journal of African Languages 10, 2: 29-43.
Lord, C. (1977), ‘How Igbo Got from SOV Serialisation
to SVO Compounding’. Studies in African Linguistics (Supplement)7:
145-155.
Newmeyer, F.J. (1970). ‘The Derivation of the English
Action Nominalisation’, in Papers from the Sixth Regional Meeting. Pp
408-415. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
Ògúnbọ̀wálé, P.O. (1970). The Essentials of the
Yorùbá Language. London: Hodder and Stoughton.
Owólabí, K. (1993). ‘The Semantics of Reduplication on
Vowel Lengthening in Yorùbá’, Journal of Nigerian Languages 2: 1-17.
[1] This
paper was published as Atoyebi, Lanre
(1998), ‘The Critical Question of the Complex Verb Roots in Yoruba’, Journal of Nigerian Languages and
Literatures (edited by L.O. Adewole) 6: 1-6.
[2] We retain the following definition given by Creissels
(1979: 129): ‘des unites qui interviennent dans la constitution des bases sans
avoir elles-memes le statut de lexemes, c’est-e-dire sans avoir d’existence
autonome comme noyau d’un constituant syntaxi que’ (our translation :
‘units involved in the constitution of roots but which do not have the status
of lexemes, i.e. which do not have an independent existence as the nucleus of a
syntactic constituent’
[3] Thus the Yorùbá language provides a proof for this
Bole-Richard’s (1978: 44) thesis; Les langues utilisant la série verbale out
généralement une derivation verbale limitée, ou meme inexistence’ (our
translation: “Languages with verb serialization generally have limited, even
inexistent, verbal derivation”).
[4] This concept is a combination involving two (or more)
units which, considered in isolation, may have the status of lexical roots.
This term is based on the hypothesis that the fossilization components lose
their autonomy to form a bloc; no one can be displaced in relation to the
other(s). It is the limited case of something recognized elsewhere as a
syntactic construction.
[5]Cf. O Awóbùlúyì (1978: 93-94).
[6] That is, where ‘the nominal component is in this case
more than necessary; it has become an integral part of the verb form’ (our
translation).
[7] It is expected to be so, if one believes the theory
which states that the serial verb generally expresses a complex action analysed
as a succession of simple actions. That is, la succession des lexemes verbaux
constituent une série verbale reproduit généralment les phases successives d’un
processus’ (Creissels and Kouadio 1977 : 423, while exposing the semantic
values of a similar phenomenon in baoule language) ; ‘la traduction
littérale fait been ressortir l’organisation sémantique de type analytique par
laquelle est exprimé le procès (complexe)’, (cf Houis 1977 : 55).
No comments:
Post a Comment