Most people modify their ways of speaking, writing, texting, and e-mailing, and so on, according to the people with whom they are communicating. This fascinating book asks why we 'accommodate' to others in this way, and explores the various social consequences arising from it.
AUTHORS: Frajzyngier, Zygmunt; Johnston, Eric; Edwards, Adrian TITLE: A Grammar of Mina SERIES: Mouton Grammar Library 36 YEAR: 2005 PUBLISHER: Mouton de Gruyter ISBN: 3110185652 ANNOUNCED IN: http://linguistlist.org/issues/17/17-57.html
Reviewer: Mahamane L. Abdoulaye (Abdou Moumouni University, Niamey, Niger)
Continuing the series of reference grammars on Chadic languages by the main author and his associates (cf. Frajzyngier 1993, Frajzyngier and Shay 2002, etc.), this book offers a full description of Mina, a central Chadic language spoken in the northwest of Cameroon, around the village of Marbak.
A feature in the presentation of the book is an introductory chapter (Chapter 1) that contains a synopsis of the phonology, the lexicon, the morphology, the syntax, and the discourse structure of the language. All chapters also have an introduction setting out the tasks and a conclusion recapitulating the main findings. The book is interspersed with ethnographic or anecdotal information, giving some view on the life and culture of Mina speakers. Besides the main chapters, the book has an acknowledgment section, a table of contents, a list of abbreviations, a collection of narrative texts, an index, and a reference section.
Chapter 2 ''Phonology'' proposes 28 consonant phonemes (including ejective [p’], which appears in only one word in the corpus). The system features prenasalized stops (behaving differently from N+Stop sequences, cf. p.9), lateral fricatives, and glottalized stops. In Mina, only the lateral liquid can geminate (p.17). Clusters (two consonants only) can occur in word-initial and word-medial position (where they involve a least one sonorant) or in word-final position (where all consonants must be sonorant, cf. p.15). The main phonological process is the palatalization of alveolar fricatives and affricates before [i].
The six vowel phonemes are /i, e, ə, u, o, a/. A phonetic rounded high front vowel exists resulting from the fronting of /u/ after a front vowel. There are two vowel harmony processes along the features [front] and [round], respectively. Final vowels are deleted phrase-internally, which has a great repercussion in the syntax of the language (p.21). Indeed, most words have two forms, one used phrase-internally, and the other used phrase-finally. In fact, many grammatical items, such as pronouns, have two very distinct forms allowing -- at least in theory -- for an easy identification of phrasal boundaries (the system probably leaks, since the subject phrase for example does not preserve its final vowel, cf. p.273).
The allowed syllable structures are (p.24): V, N, VC, CV, CVC, CCV (where the second consonant is a sonorant). This list does not concord with the claim that consonant clusters occur word-finally (cf. p.17, where a word must indeed be syllabified as CVCC). Mina has two tones, a High and a Low, which are associated with lexical and grammatical functions. The book claims that when a supporting vowel is deleted, the associated tone is deleted as well (p.29). Many grammatical markers display tonal polarity.
Chapter 3 ''The structure of the noun phrase'' gives the general NP structure ''Head + (Number) + (Modifier) + (Determiner) (Number). Number marking appears at the end of the phrase, or both on the head and at the end of the phrase (p.60). There are only two derivational processes for forming nouns, the agentive derivation (which in reality involves a relative clause marker and translates as ''one who Verb'', p.38) and the ethnonym derivation (the prefix added to names of ethnic groups, places, or property nouns, derives the names for members of the group/place or bearers of the property, p.40). The possessive construction is ''Possessed + tə + Possessor''. Kinship terms in possessive constructions vary greatly from their base form and depend on the person (1st, 2nd, 3rd) of the possessor (p.51). The pronominal system is characterized in the 1st person by a dual/exclusive/inclusive distinction. Mina has no reported noun classification system.
Chapter 4 ''The verb and its forms'' says that the verbal stem can have the structure CV, CVC, CCV(C), or CVCVC, with lexical tones. Statives forms of transitive verbs are derived through suffixation and are used in the ''perfect'' constructions (cf. chapter 11).
Chapter 5 ''Argument Coding'' (the book's longest chapter, pp.77-116) shows that Mina has the syntactic category ''subject''. Beside the typical conflation of semantic roles, the subject function is also distinguished by a special focus construction and a special form of the associative conjunction (i.e., ''NP and NP'' in subject function is coded differently from ''NP and NP'' in other functions, p.78). In pragmatically neutral sentences, the Direct Object (DO) occurs after the verb, giving the canonical SVO order in the language. The dative object occurs before the noun DO if it is pronominal and after it otherwise (a dative marker is always affixed to the verb).
Chapter 6 ''Coding the event from the point of view of the subject'' describes the use of a particle ka/kə claimed to mark a new function in linguistic description, the point of view of the subject. The particle is used if the verb's action is beneficial or detrimental to the subject (p.118).
Chapter 7 is devoted to ''Locative predication and locative complements'' (see more on this in discussion section below). Mina has place deixis markers (proximal kà 'here' and distal mà 'there', cf. p.138) that are different from entity deixis markers (cf. chapter 17, pp.307-312), which are wà/wàcín/wàhín 'this' and ta/taŋ 'that (near listener)'.
Chapter 8 treats the topic of adjuncts more generally, including the comitative, the instrumental and some temporal adverbs that can all be marked with the preposition meaning 'with, and'.
Chapter 9 ''Goal orientation extension'' presents a verb suffix -á/ákà that marks a specific place (implicit or explicit) for the verb's action or a ventive notion (motion towards speaker or relevant deictic center). This marker, for example, changes the base verb for 'depart, go' into 'arrive, come'.
Chapter 10 ''Tenses'' explores the two tenses of Mina, the future and the past. Mina has tense and aspect (T/A) paradigms (not combinable), some of which appear in two forms, an independent and a dependent form, with a great repercussion on the syntax. The independent future is marked by the configuration ''S-V-O-za'' and appears in pragmatically independent clauses, i.e., clauses ''that do not require another proposition or a specific situation for their interpretation'' (p.179). The dependent future is marked by the configuration ''S-n-k`ə[INF]-V'' (with a locative preposition and an infinitive marker) and appears in pragmatically dependent clauses, i.e., clauses which ''the hearer is forced to interpret [...] in connection with another previously mentioned or yet to be mentioned clause'' (p.179). Such clauses are the temporal or conditional protases, 'say'-complement clauses, wh-questions (but not y/n questions; cf. p.183), or clauses with a focus on the predicate. The independent past is marked by the reduplicated structure ''V1-S-V1-DO-(X)-za'', where the subject appears between the two verbal parts. The main argument for analyzing the reduplicated configuration as tense (and not aspect) is the fact that it codes past time and past time only events (cf. p.189; it should however be noted that the grammar is based almost exclusively on narratives, where perfectives are not easily distinguished from simple past tenses). In the past tense, at least two verbs have a suppletive ''reduplication'', where the first form of the verb is different from the second form (p.190). The dependent past is coded by the infinitive marker kə before the verb and a clause final za, without reduplication. In addition, in the past, the plurality of an event can be marked by multiple verb reduplication (leftward for the independent past and rightward for the dependent past).
Chapter 11 ''Aspects'' distinguishes the habitual (with a dependent/independent form contrast) and the perfect. It also discusses aspectual constructions with auxiliary verbs, such as the terminative (verb 'throw'), the completive ('finish'), the intentional ('go to') and the iterative (verb reduplication). The perfect is marked by the configuration ''S-m`ə[REL]-Stative Verb'' (p.211). With intransitive verbs of movement such as 'come', the perfect ''codes the subject still being present at destination'' (i.e. 'he has come' vs. 'he came and went', cf. p.214; for the use of the perfect with transitive verbs see discussion section below).
According to Chapter 12 ''Modality'', Mina distinguishes between epistemic modality (unmarked speaker's belief in truth of proposition vs. marked dubitative) and deontic modality (imperative, subjunctive, and optative). The language also marks an ''emotive'' modality that expresses surprise, astonishment, and amazement (p.251).
Chapter 13 ''End-of-event coding'' explores another modality which ''is not commonly found'' in linguistic description and which ''implies that the event [in the clause] is real, regardless of its absolute time or aspect'' (p.250).
Chapter 14 ''Negation'' says that negative clauses always use the dependent T/A and are marked by clause-final skù/sk`ə. There is no verb reduplication in negative clauses.
Chapter 15 ''Verbless clauses'' essentially shows that equational, nominal and adjectival predication constructions in Mina have no copula, unless they refer to a time other than the present. The possessive ''have'' can be expressed by an associative construction ''Possessor [be] with Possessed'', an existential construction ''Possessed-of-Possessor Exist'', or through a locative construction ''Possessed on Possessor Exist'' (p.282ff).
Chapter 16 ''Interrogative clauses'' says that y/n questions use the independent T/A and are marked by rising intonation and a clause-final question marker vù. Wh-questions use the dependent past form and, apparently, the dependent future form, too (there is some confusion about this between claims on p.183 vs. p.293). The interrogative pronouns are ví for humans and mì for non-humans, supplied with appropriate prepositions if they have an adjunct role (place, time, reason, manner, etc.). Some interrogative pronouns appear in clause-initial and others in clause-final position, but in any case not in situ (p.290). Subject wh-questions are special in that they are marked by the clause-initial REL-marker m`ə with the interrogative pronouns positioned clause-finally. According to the authors, subject questions are paraphrasable as ''the one who Verb is who/what?'' and sometimes only intonation distinguishes a wh-question from a relative clause (p.294). DO questions have no relative clause structure. According to the authors, wh-words in Mina are not inherently interrogative, but they simply represent the unspecific argument (cf. p.303; this is in fact a claim -- plausible in my view -- that the first author already made about Proto-Chadic and other Chadic languages, cf. Frajzyngier 1985: 66ff).
Chapter 17 ''Reference'' treats the form of independent pronouns (vs. subject or DO pronouns). It also describes how the entity deixis markers - proximal wà/wàhín/wàcín 'this' vs. remote ta/ taŋ 'there'- are used as discourse markers to refer, respectively, to a known and a deduced referent. The remote marker ''instructs the listener to identify the referent through a process of deduction using knowledge from various sources, including the listener's cognitive system, the speech environment, and previous discourse'' (p.328). The chapter details the conditions of use of full NPs vs. simple nouns, pronouns, or other anaphors, in subject or DO functions.
Chapter 18 ''Focus constructions'' shows that subject focus is special and expressed through a relative clause construction ''S-m`ə[REL]-V-O'' (p.348). The book gives many examples translated with English it-cleft sentences (however, the chapter's conclusion -- p.355 -- wrongly claims that the focused subject ''remains in its pragmatically neutral clause-initial position''). The DO is focused through preposing before the verb with the locative preposition n in a structure ''S-n-DO-V''. Other focus notions are discussed, which, however, are not easy to understand (cf. the equation of ''focus on the predicate'' with ''focus clause'' on p.351ff).
Chapter 19 ''Topicalization'' distinguishes a discourse topic, established at the beginning of the discourse and marked with deictic wà/wàhín/wàcín. Such topics are later referred to by subject pronouns. Topics can also be established for paragraphs and for sentences, all marked with the deictic particle. Proper nouns, titles, etc. are topicalized by the 3rd person pronoun. Independent pronouns can also be topic. Mina allows topic nouns that have no argument or adjunct function in the sentence (p.362). DO topics are also fronted with the deictic particle, but they have a scope limited to their sentence. The comment clause of topic constructions naturally takes the independent T/A.
Chapter 20 ''Parataxis'' discusses the combination possibilities for independent clauses in Mina.
Chapter 21 ''Complementation'' studies the clausal complement of verbs of saying, volition, perception, and knowing, as well as infinitival complements. The chapter details the forms of the direct vs. indirect speech with verbs of saying. Volition verbs exhibit a switch-reference system. Infinitival complements allow Object-to-Object Raising to give structures such as ''he started meat to cut'' or ''he started house to build'' (p.397). Verbs of perception allow Subject-to-Object Raising of the structure ''I heard them coming''.
Chapter 22 ''Temporal and conditional clauses'' says that temporal clauses are marked by dependent T/A or by specific markers. Conditional clauses are marked by the dependent T/A or by áng`ə 'if'. In both constructions, the protasis precedes the apodosis.
Chapter 23 discuses ''Purpose, reason, and conclusion clauses''.
Chapter 24 is devoted to ''Comparative constructions''.
Chapter 25 ''Relative clause'' shows that the subject is relativized in a structure ''Head-m`ə[REL]-Clause''. Headless relative clauses are interpreted as ''the one who Verb''. The relativized DO is placed before the relative clause and repeated in situ or recalled with a resumptive DO marker affixed to the verb. Relativized datives, instrumentals, etc. are also fronted but have only a resumptive pronoun on the verb or associated preposition. In any case, no other relativized NP but the subject can be marked with m`ə.
Chapter 26 ''Elements of discourse structure'' introduces the new category ''comment clause'' and the unrelated category ''change of scene''. The ''comment clause'', marked by the emotive modality particle syì, is a clause whose event ''may be construed as taking place simultaneously with another clause, or as being a consequence, causal or temporal, of the preceding clause'' (p.438). The ''change of scene'' category, marked by the associative particle 'with, and' occurring between the subject and the verb, indicates that ''a participant has moved from the place where it has been at the last mention in discourse'' (p.442). The authors indeed show that whenever the ''S-with/and-V'' occurs, the subject leaves the scene previously mentioned. However, there was no attempt to rule out trivial structures such as a subject/topic followed by a temporal clause marked with the associative particle (cf. Hausa: yâarân dà zuwànsù... 'the children with [i.e., upon] their arrival...'). All illustrated ''S-with/and-V'' clauses are followed by sequential clauses that can be interpreted as main clauses. This chapter also discusses another uncommon category in linguistic description, the ''new action and its consequence'', marked by the auxiliary verb for 'put'. This construction occurs when an activity is new for the subject and the listener expects some consequences out of it (p.446).
With 452 pages of description, this grammar handles most topics of interest to the general reader. Mina apparently has no derived nominals, although the book does not explicitly comment on this. The grammar is based on a set of narrative texts and indeed the authors make the point that for this reason, their work is well grounded on natural data. There is however some contradiction between stated methodological claims and real working procedures. In the introduction (p.3), the authors say that ''[m]ost examples [from the texts] have been checked with language assistants, and they were given a tonal transcription, new segmental representation, morpheme-by-morpheme analyses, glosses, and sometimes a new interpretation and translation''. It is also said about one of the assistants that ''[k]eenly interested in his language[,] he has read the examples in the present work, suggesting some changes in transcription and translation''. Nonetheless, the authors strongly discredit native speakers' judgments and elicited data. On page 67, they report that some native speakers considered a certain sentence in a text as ungrammatical, yet the authors decided that ''[t]he fact that this sentence was used in natural discourse overrides other speakers' judgments''. On page 4, there is the claim that ''[t]he elicited examples frequently lead to incorrect conclusions when it comes to describing the function of a form'', and p.429 ''[t]he elicited examples should be used with extreme caution, because we do not know how natural they are'' and a similar comment on page 399. This avoidance of elicited data lead to frequent statements to the effect that ''[g]iven the paucity of natural discourse data, we are unable to determine the function of...'' (p.400, cf. also p.264, 311, 396, 430, etc.). Sometimes though, the crucial contribution of elicited data is acknowledged (cf. p.68, 264, 355, 399, 429, etc.).
The book also has its share of mistakes. There are data formatting/numbering errors (p.42, 82, 197, 447). A possessive 3rd person pronoun following the verb 'return' in data on p.125 seems to be the Intransitive Copy Pronoun (i.e., 'she returned [her way] to the village'), but it is wrongly interpreted as a real possessive pronoun (i.e., 'she returned to her village'). Real possessive pronouns follow the possessed noun (cf. pp.48-51). There are some typos (cf. ''commitative'', p.157), superfluous words (cf. ''all vowels in Figure 2.1 vowels,'' p.18, cf. also p.4 and p.451), missing words (cf. a missing ''are'', p.347 and ''in'', p.419), wrong words (cf. ''is'' for ''if'', p.64 or ''calabash'' for ''it/stick'', p.479). On p.199, ''too'' should have occurred 3 words earlier. On p.479, a sentence reads: ''[A]nother language asistant does not accept the the prepostion nin the avove clause...'', with five mistakes. The reference section (pp.507-509) was simply not re-checked for typos, inaccuracies, and format inconsistencies before publication.
In many places, the terminology is not adequate. For example, on p.212ff, the book describes the ''perfect'' and says ''the perfect aspect is used to code the state of the subject with verbs that in the non-perfect aspects take a controlling subject.'' This implies that a by-product of the perfect is for transitive verbs to become intransitive with the patient as the subject. The authors here could have simply described a passive construction and explain its connection with the perfect. Another confusing terminology is ''comment clause'' in chapter 26, which is different from the ''comment-on-focus'' clause and the ''comment-on-topic'' clause of p.182, 191, 363. Similarly, p.191 says that relative clauses are ''comment'' on some other element (presumably the head). All this may be confusing for readers who take ''comment'' (cf. the topic/comment articulation) to refer to the assertion part of a sentence. Unclear definitions are also given on p.307 for demonstratives and on p.347 for focus.
Finally, to illustrate just one substantive problem in the book, in chapter 7 the authors explain the coding means in locative constructions and assume (based on intuition and not definitions) that Mina has +/-inherently locative verbs where the inherently non-locative verbs (INLVs) would require a predicator à before locative nouns. Similarly, Mina has +/-inherently locative nouns where the inherently non-locative nouns would require a preposition n after a verb. This gives the following four combinations: V+N (simple juxtaposition) for ILVs+ILNs, V+n+N for ILVs+INLNs, V+à+N for INLVs+ILNs, and V+à+n+N for INLVs+INLNs. However, the system does not work. Many intuitive ILVs require the predicator à (cf. til 'leave, move', deɓ 'carry, take', yàn 'move in' and even -- cf. p.137 -- ɗew 'sit'). Similarly, some intuitive ILNs require the preposition n, such láy 'field' (cf. also the fact that in the equivalent of 'he filled them [shoes] with ash', the anaphor referring to 'shoes' requires the preposition n). Here, the authors could have looked at the naturalness of the locative relation as part of the explanation of the coding means. In Hausa for example, 'Ali is in the room' can be Àali yanàa cikin ɗaakìi with a preposition and a nominal form of 'room' or Àali yanàa ɗakà with juxtaposition and an adverbial form of 'room', since a room is a natural place for humans. In contrast, 'the lion is inside the room' can only be zaakìi yanàa cikin ɗaakìi, since a real lion can only be an accidental presence in a room. Natural relations being more frequent, they may allow or even require a reduced coding, in contrast to less natural relations (cf. Bybee and Hopper 2001 on effects of frequency on linguistic structure). P.127 says that [+human] nouns are not ILNs, yet a person is a natural locus for many items (such as jewelry) and can be complement to motion verbs. Finally, the Mina locative ''predicator'' à may not be so special, given constructions in Hausa such as kwàndôn yanàa [à bisà kâ-n teebùr] 'the-basket is [at on top-of table]'.
This reference grammar is packed with interesting facts and one would recommend it for students of Chadic languages and for typologists and general linguists alike. Indeed, as the authors noted, some features seem to be particular to the language and may be a challenge for syntactic theories. However, some other purported particular features are probably mislabeled and there is no doubt different readers will have different interpretations for many of the described phenomena.
Bybee, Joan & Paul Hopper, eds. (2001) Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Frajzyngier, Zygmunt (1985) Interrogative sentences in Chadic: Reconstruction and functional explanation. Journal of West African Languages 15, 57-72.
Frajzyngier, Zygmunt (1993) A grammar of Mupun. Berlin: Reimer.
Frajzyngier, Zygmunt with Erin Shay (2002) A Grammar of Hdi. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
ABOUT THE REVIEWER:
Mahamane L. Abdoulaye teaches linguistics at the Abdou Moumouni University, Niamey. His main research focuses on Hausa morphology, syntax, and semantics.