The diachronic semantics of the Dissociative Past Completive construction in the Kikongo Language Cluster (Bantu)

Dom, Sebastian; Schryver, Gilles‐Maurice de; Bostoen, Koen

doi:10.1515/flih-2018-0011

Cited by 7 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 54 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…More generally, all descriptions from around the turn of the 20th century describe the attestation of the reflexive prefix yi-and multiple reflexive prefixes that are in complementary distribution based on the TAM paradigm in the respective languages. Interestingly, some cognate TAM constructions are described in all four historical grammars to combine with yi-only, i.e., the Contemporal Past Completive SBJ-…-idi (or -izi), the Imperative …-a, and, except for the Kakongo doculect, the Dissociative Past Completive SBJ-a-…-a (for a historical-comparative overview of TA morphology in the KLC, see Dom and Bostoen 2015; for a semantic and diachronic description of the DPC in Kikongo languages, see Dom et al 2018). A historical explanation on the relation between the TAM constructions and the use of ki-, ku-and yi-is given in Section 3.3.…”

Section: Tam Constructionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Previous studies report a high degree of variation between Kikongo languages with respect to phonology (Bostoen and Goes 2019;Goes and Bostoen 2019), morphology of noun class prefixes (Bostoen and Schryver 2015), diminutive (Goes and Bostoen 2021), reciprocal (Dom et al 2024), tense-aspect (Dom and Bostoen 2015) and focus constructions (de Kind et al 2015). This is typically the outcome of recent innovations and intensive contact between (subsets of) Kikongo languages.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Reflexive Morphology in the Kikongo Language Cluster: Variation and Diachrony

Dom

2024

Languages

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper provides a comparative and diachronic account of reflexive morphology in the Kikongo language cluster, a genealogically closely related group of 40+ West Coastal Bantu languages. This study is based on data from 34 grammatical descriptions from 1659 to 2017 and fieldwork data collected in 2012 and 2015. Previous studies have shown that Kikongo languages, despite being closely related to each other, demonstrate extensive phonological and morphological variation. This is also the case for reflexive morphology. First, six different reflexive prefixes are attested in the database. These are, in alphabetical order, di- (with cognate li-), ké-, ki-, ku-, lu- and a vocalic morpheme variably written as i-, ii- or yi-. Second, while most Kikongo languages have one reflexive prefix, some descriptions report the use of two or more different prefix forms in a single language. Languages with multiple reflexive prefixes fall into two groups: one group has different prefixes in free alternation, while the overall verbal construction is claimed to determine which prefix is used in the other group. Following an overview of the formal variation, I discuss the possible origins of the various reflexive prefixes. One hypothesis assumes that the vocalic prefix is inherited from Proto-Kikongo, the most recent common ancestor of the Kikongo languages. A second hypothesis relates the origin of some reflexive prefixes to object indexes of various noun classes, in particular, noun classes 5, 7 and 11. A third hypothesis suggests that in some Kikongo languages, the vocalic reflexive prefix became fused with other pre-stem verbal morphology and developed into ku- and ki-. A fourth hypothesis proposes the development of the reflexive prefix ké- from an auxiliary. These four hypotheses are not mutually exclusive, and I discuss how multiple diachronic scenarios are necessary to account for the full range of variation of reflexive morphology in the Kikongo language cluster. It is proposed that the distribution of di-/li- and ki- is contact-induced through borrowing, both between different Kikongo languages and between Kikongo and non-Kikongo languages. I tentatively reconstruct the vocalic reflexive prefix *i- to Proto-Kikongo.

show abstract

Section: Tam Constructionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Reflexive Morphology in the Kikongo Language Cluster: Variation and Diachrony

Dom

2024

Languages

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…to a present state as in (5) (for a detailed analysis of this ta construction, see Dom et al 2018), and the subjunctive a-R-a, as shown in ( 6).…”

Section: Mid-17th-century Kisikongomentioning

confidence: 99%

Kisikongo (Bantu, H16a) present-future isomorphism

Dom

Schryver

Bostoen

2020

JHL

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The North-Angolan Bantu language Kisikongo has a present tense (Ø-R-ang a; R = root) that is morphologically more marked than the future tense (Ø-R-a). We reconstruct how this typologically uncommon tense-marking feature came about by drawing on both historical and comparative evidence. Our diachronic corpus covers four centuries that can be subdivided in three periods, viz. (1) mid-17th, (2) late-19th/early-20th, and (3) late-20th/early-21st centuries. The comparative data stem from several present-day languages of the “Kikongo Language Cluster.” We show that mid-17th century Kisikongo had three distinct constructions: Ø-R-a (with present progressive, habitual and generic meaning), Ø-R-ang-a (with present habitual meaning), and ku-R-a (with future meaning). By the end of the 19th century the last construction is no longer attested, and both present and future time reference are expressed by a segmentally identical construction, namely Ø R a. We argue that two seemingly independent but possibly interacting diachronic evolutions conspired towards such present-future isomorphism: (1) the semantic extension of an original present-tense construction from present to future leading to polysemy, and (2) the loss of the future prefix ku-, as part of a broader phenomenon of prefix reduction, inducing homonymy. To resolve the ambiguity, the Ø-R-ang-a construction evolved into the main present-tense construction.

show abstract

“…This is especially true for studies of Bantu languages (but see, e.g. Drolc 1992; Botne 2010; Crane 2012; Dom, de Schryver & Bostoen 2018).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Constituency, Imbrication, and the Interpretation of Change-of-State Verbs in isiNdebele

Crane

Fanego

2020

StOrE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper describes the interplay of lexical and grammatical aspect with other grammatical phenomena in the interpretation of the aspectual suffix ‑ile (which we analyse as Perfective) in isiNdebele, a Nguni Bantu language spoken in South Africa. Crucial other phenomena include constituency-related factors such as the conjoint-disjoint distinction and (related) penultimate lengthening, along with morphophonological conditions that trigger different forms of ‑ile. These factors appear to interact differently in isiNdebele than they do in closely related Zulu, suggesting two different paths of grammaticalization, which we argue can change the interpretation of markers of grammatical aspect as they interact with lexical aspectual classes.

show abstract

The diachronic semantics of the Dissociative Past Completive construction in the Kikongo Language Cluster (Bantu)

Cited by 7 publications

References 54 publications

Reflexive Morphology in the Kikongo Language Cluster: Variation and Diachrony

Reflexive Morphology in the Kikongo Language Cluster: Variation and Diachrony

Kisikongo (Bantu, H16a) present-future isomorphism

Constituency, Imbrication, and the Interpretation of Change-of-State Verbs in isiNdebele

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About