RESUMEN DATOS MENSUALES WEB

The preferred position for the demonstrative in Chimakonde is to follow the lexical noun it specifies i.e. post-nominally. The noun-modifier distribution in a Chimakonde DP mirrors the order of elements in a clause in Chimakonde, which is SVO. As pointed out, In Chimakonde, the demonstrative with the root a- is, by default, deictic when occurring in post-nominal position. The demonstrative root may optionally be included in the demonstrative complex when a demonstrative occurs post-nominally. It was pointed out in section 4.3 that the only obligatory morpheme in a demonstrative complex is an agreement suffix. Hence, both the root and deictic morphemes can be omitted and in such cases an agreement morpheme which is left behind cliticises onto a lexical head. However, when the root is omitted in post-nominal position, a deictic morpheme must occur. When it is included, the demonstrative root bears a low tone if only the deictic interpretation of the demonstrative is intended. However, the speaker may want to both point to some entity present in an extra-linguistic context (deictic) and add some other pragmatic-discourse interpretations to the pointed entity, particularly emphasis, or/and additional specificity (non-deictic). In this case, the demonstrative bears a high tone. As pointed out by Aboh et al. (2010), in some Bantu languages various scope discourse interpretations such as focus, and emphasis may be rendered through prosodic features such as tone (cf. Hyman (1990) for Kinande; Letsholo, (2006) for Ikalanga and Zerbian, (2006) for Northern Sotho). Tone in Chimakonde may, therefore, be lexical, in contrast to the view of Odden (1990a) and Kraal (2005). As argued in this section, a tone in this language may distinguish deictic demonstratives which have a low tone from informational demonstratives which have a high tone.

The role of tone in a Chimakonde DP is similar to the role of tone in a clause. It is possible in Chimakonde, (as in some other Bantu languages) for a construction to exhibit both clausal and phrasal properties, depending on the role of a tone on a subject agreement morpheme. For example, a subject

143

agreement morpheme bearing a low tone may indicate that a given construction is clausal. However, if this subject agreement morpheme bears a high tone, the construction may be interpreted as phrasal. (6) a. mwana alya manda

mu-ana a-ly-a Ø-manda 1-child 1AgrS-eat-FV 9-rice A/the child is eating rice b. mwana álya manda

mu-ana á-lya Ø-manda 1-child 1REL-eat 9-rice A/the child who is eating rice

The example in (6) indicates that tone can distinguish a declarative clause from a relative clause in Chimakonde. The declarative clause in (6a) bears a neutral tone on the subject agreement morpheme and the relative clause in (6b) bears a high tone on the subject agreement morpheme. This is another piece of evidence that tone is lexical in Chimakonde.

Considering the demonstrative root a-, the requirement that the demonstrative root a- in the post- nominal position should be obligatory and should bear a high tone when discourse-pragmatic interpretations such additional specificity or emphasis are invoked suggests that this root is endowed not only with deictic features but also with the discourse-pragmatic feature of additional specificity and/or emphasis. When the speaker includes the demonstrative root obligatorily, s/he intends a particular entity which is already salient in a discourse-pragmatic setting. Consider the following examples:

(7) a. lilundi (a)li linapwateka li-lundi a-la la-na-pwatek-a

5-knee DEMrt-5 5AgrS-TAM-be sick-FV This knee is aching

b. chiteha (a)chi chinikatapala. chi-teha a-chi chi-ni- katapala

7-cage DMrt-7 7AgrS-TAM-be beautiful This cage is beautiful

144

The examples in (7) demonstrate that the demonstrative root in post-nominal demonstratives can occur optionally. However, this is only possible when the demonstratives in question are deictic. In a discourse-pragmatic context in which in (7a) takes place, the speaker would be understood as having one specific entity in mind which happens to be identifiable to the hearer through the pointing demonstrative. Similarly, the speaker would utter the DP in (7b) while pointing to the referent designated by the linguistic expression chiteha (a)chi, thus guiding the hearer to the intended referent. In (7), the demonstratives simply locate them in a physical context, making them inherently specific and definite.

When a demonstrative occurs non-deictically as anaphoric reinforcers in the sense that the referent of the DP it modifies is now familiar to the speaker and hearer through the previous but immediate discourse the speaker and hearer have had, the root morpheme must occur on the demonstrative complex and the cliticization of the root onto a lexical head, which is a typical feature of post-nominal demonstratives in Chimakonde, cannot take place.

Furthermore, the root morpheme must have a high tone when it occurs obligatorily on the demonstrative. In this case, the DP is interpreted with a contrastive focus in the sense of singling out one entity among other possible entities. i.e. THIS knee (the one of the left, not on the right) and THIS cage (not that). The inclusion of the demonstrative root with a high tone on the demonstrative, therefore, gives rise to the intensified specificity of the DPs. Concerning (7a), for example, it is known that a normal human being has two knees, one on the left leg and the other on the right. In this case, the inclusion of the demonstrative root indicates that one item (left knee, for example) is selected to the exclusion of the other (the right knee). This brings about added specificity advanced in this thesis, as such contrast draws the hearer’s attention to the contrasted referent as it is focused.

Thus, by having the +DEM feature, the demonstrative root morpheme a- is necessarily definite and specific (Lyons, 1999). However, the degree of specificity of the DPs in example (7) above intensifies when the root morpheme is overtly realized, and this degree of intensification attenuates when the root morpheme is omitted i.e. covertly realized. The evidence supporting the association of the demonstrative a- with intensified specificity comes from the co-occurrence of the DP with and without the demonstrative root, respectively with a verb exhibiting object agreement morphology in declarative clauses. If the object agreement prefix in the verbal morphology which is coreferential with a lexical object DP co-occurs with the demonstrative root, the lexical head is interpreted with the additional feature of specificity. More details of this property are discussed below:

145

4.3.3.1.1 The occurrence of the object agreement prefix with the DEMa

The discussion above has indicated that the demonstrative root, which is the core of deictic expressions, occur optionally in the inflectional morphology of the post-nominal demonstrative in Chimakonde. Similarly, an object agreement prefix (AgrO) co-referential with a lexical head, to a large extent, occurs optionally on a verb in this language. However, three cases in which the object agreement morphology occurs obligatorily can be identified. First, the AgrO occurs obligatorily when a post-verbal argument constitutes an object DP denoting human. Secondly, the AgrO is required when a verb taking a prepositional phrase as a complement constitutes a relative clause (RC) antecedent and a subject DP both denoting humans. Thirdly, the AgrO is required (obligatory) to co- occur with the DEMa when the added specificity interpretation of the DP containing the demonstrative is invoked. It is this latter morpho-syntactic context that this sub-section explores. A Chimakonde clause with a verb exhibiting object agreement morphology permits the demonstrative root morpheme to appear in the inflectional morphology of the demonstrative optionally or obligatorily in post-nominal position. Recall that the referent of a DP containing the demonstrative is interpreted as definite as the demonstrative locates it in a non-linguistic context that the speaker and hearer can identify (Hawkins, 1978 cited in Lyons, 1999: 18). As for the AgrO, I assume with some scholars (cf. Seidl & Dimitriadis, 1997; Visser, 2008) that definiteness and/or specificity can morphologically be realised through object agreement morphology in some Bantu languages. When the demonstrative root and the AgrO interact in Chimakonde, the referent of a DP receives different interpretations, depending on whether the root is optional or obligatory as explained below:

A Chimakonde verb exhibiting object agreement morphology permits the demonstrative root morpheme to appear in the inflectional morphology of the demonstrative either optionally or obligatorily. The demonstrative root co-occurs optionally with the use of the AgrO if the speaker talks about an entity which both him/her and the addressee are familiar with, possibly because it is in the physical context they are both in or it is retrievable from the previous discourse they both engaged in. The interaction of the demonstrative root and the AgrO in this way expresses inherent specificity in the sense that the speaker communicates about a particular familiar entity but without committing how precisely specific it is. In the second morpho-syntactic context in which the demonstrative root co-occurs obligatorily with the AgrO, a slightly different kind of specificity is encoded. In this case, the speaker does not only intend a particular familiar or identifiable entity, but this entity is made salient by alluding that s/he does not have any other entity in mind apart from the one s/he is talking about. This way, the referent of a DP with the root appearing is interpreted emphatically, thus qualifying the specificity of the referent of a DP with precision. Consider the following examples:

146 (8) a. mmahe a*(li)sumisa ligauni (a)lino

m-mahe a-*(li)-sumis-a li-gauni (a)-li-no

1-waomn 1AgrS-*(5AgrO)-buy-FV 5-dress (DEMrt)-5-PROX The woman sells this specific dress

b. mwana a*(chi)soma chitabu *(a)chino mu-ana a-*(chi)-som-a chi-tabu *(a)-chi-no

1-child 1AgrS-*(7AgrO)-read-FV 7-book DEMrt-7-PROX The child reads this very specific book

The above evidence supports the view that the demonstrative root, through the interaction with object agreement morphology, can encode information structural notions such as added specificity or emphasis in addition to semantic features such as deicticity. In including the AgrO in the inflectional morphology of the verbs in (8), the speaker unequivocally communicates to the addressee that they are both familiar with the entities in question. The proximal demonstratives used makes it possible that these specific entities must be present in the setting in which the conversation takes place, which is one of the requirements for the definiteness interpretation of the reference of a DP according to Lyons (1999). In (8a), the optional inclusion of the demonstrative root indicates that the demonstrative is employed deictically. The long form of the proximal demonstrative used in both examples indicates that the entity is so close to the speaker that s/he can touch it. In (8b), both the AgrO and demonstrative root occur obligatorily to emphasize that the entity is not only specific and familiar, but it is the only one the speaker has in mind. It is possible in the discourse-pragmatic setting in (8b) that there is just one book about which the speaker insists the child is reading. In settings like this, the demonstrative root is, therefore, required for the intensified specificity reading of the object DP. The demonstrative root in Chimakonde can, therefore, be viewed as an instantiation of a determiner category specified for the additional feature of specificity. The interaction between the AgrO and demonstrative root has made the specificity feature of the DP referent in (8b) be realised more clearly. This finds support in Lambrecht (1994) who points out that notions such as (in)definiteness and (non-)specificity can be interpreted with varying degrees, depending on a host of factors, both psychological and linguistic.