Kraal studies a grammar of Chimakonde, focusing on the Chinnima dialect. He points out that “the aim of this grammar is on phonology (especially on tone […] and less on syntax ad semantics (ibid.: 10). His grammar is descriptive and therefore he does not adopt any theory on which he grounds his study. However, he borrows some concepts and terminology from generative phonology, autosegmental theory, lexical phonology and prosodics domain theory to explain various issues raised in his study.
2.11.3.1 Nominal specifiers
Although the purpose of Kraal’s study was not to study nominal specifiers, he includes a section on specifiers in his study in order to find out how tone affects phrasing of the head noun and modifiers (noun-specifier tonology). Kraal refers to elements which may modify nouns specifiers. Such specifiers include demonstratives, numerals, adjectives, quantifiers, possessives, reflexives, and connexives.
Kraal divides nominal specifiers into three groups, namely conjoint, disjoint and conjoint-disjoint. According to him, this division is determined by whether the specifier and head form a phonological phrase (P-phrases). Kraal (2005: 39) defines P-phrases as “the domain [sic] where specific tone rules apply subsequently to Penultimate lengthening”. The three groups of specifiers are:
(i) Conjoint specifiers: Kraal points out that these specifiers always p-phrase-with their head noun. They cannot occur on their own without the head noun. Reflexives and particularisers belong to this group as in [Likaka lyeene: ‘the cassava itself’] and [mwana weeka: ‘the child on his own’]
(ii) Disjoint specifiers: According to Kraal, this group constitutes specifiers which do not p-phrase with the head noun. The specifiers in this group may or may not occur on their own and in either case, they form their own p-phrases. Such specifiers include numerals, adjectives, quantifiers and connexives. It is the largest group of the three. [lipoondo] [linji] = ‘another hole’]
(iii) Conjoint-disjoint specifiers: Kraal contends that this group involves specifiers which can occur on their own. However, when they occur with the head noun, they p-phrase with it. Typical members of this group are demonstratives, possessives and absolute pronouns. For,
72
example [mwana ayu ‘this child’], [lukombe langu ‘this nail’] and [chiteng’u chinang’o
‘this chair’]
2.11.3.2 Nominal specifiers and penultimate lengthening (PUL)
Kraal points out that specifiers which form a unit with their head nouns have PUL but those which do not form a unit with head nouns do not have PUL. Instead, it is the head noun itself which takes PUL. He maintains that specifiers forming units with their head nouns are more determiner-like than those which do not. Thus, demonstratives are more determiner-like than adjectives. Following Devos (2004) who describes phrasal tonology in Makwe (a dialect of Chimakonde spoken in Zanzibar), Kraal advances the view that conjoint specifiers put focus on the head noun and that the true conjoint- disjoint specifiers are demonstratives. Kraal maintains that it is information structure which determines whether the demonstrative should form a p-phrase with the head noun (conjoint) or should not (disjoint).
2.11.3.3 Distribution of nominal specifiers in Chinnima
Kraal states that specifiers are generally post-nominal in Chinnima. Each specifier agrees in number with head nouns. In post-nominal position, one or more than one specifier can follow a head noun. The specifiers following the head noun can be of the same types (for example, two demonstratives) or different types (for example, demonstratives and adjectives). For reasons that are not specified, Kraal points out that the canonical order can be inverted so that the specifiers appear before the head noun. As is the case with post-nominal specifiers, he points out that more than one nominal specifier can appear before a head noun. All the nominal specifiers can occur without a lexical head in Chinnima.
2.11.3.4 Demonstratives in Chinnima
Of the nominal specifiers that Kraal discusses in his study, demonstratives have received a fairly thorough treatment. Kraal points out demonstratives in Chinnima are made up of the initial vowel a-
, or u- pronominal prefix and a deictic morpheme. Kraal notes that demonstratives in Chinnima can
occur in attributive (after a noun) and non-attributive position (before a noun). According to him, the attributive position is a canonical position for demonstratives. He further states that the demonstrative vowel root a- is optional in non-attributive position. He maintains that the demonstrative vowel root
u- is obligatory with emphatic near and far demonstratives but optional with emphatic referential
demonstratives. However, he does not state why the initial vowel root has different omissibility status in different distributions or with different types of demonstratives.
73
In terms of the deictic contrasts of demonstratives in Chinnima, Kraal maintains that three-series demonstrative can be distinguished: near, far and referential. The three demonstrative contrasts can take the vowel a- or u- as their root. He points out that the demonstratives with the vowel root a- express non-emphasis purposes and those with vowel root u- encode emphasis. According to him, each of these demonstratives has short and long forms. Long forms are those which occur with the root and short ones are those without the root. He states that short forms usually cliticise to the head noun or to another specifier they are preceded by the specifier. Furthermore, Kraal contends that the demonstratives with the vowel root a- can combine with those with the initial vowel u-. However, he does not state the interpretational effects this combination brings about on a DP.
Implicit in Kraal’s discussion of the nominal specifiers is that more than one nominal modifier can occur prenominally or postnominally in the Chinnima DP. However, there exist no co-occurrence restrictions among various specifiers. What is clear is that both demonstrative roots are optional in some syntactic distributions or with certain types of demonstratives. What is not clear, however, is why they are optional in such cases. It is envisioned that the current study will shed some light as to why the root may be optional in some cases.