Transporte de colmenas y trashumancia

The first language on the basis of which the DP hypothesis was conceptualised and refined was English, a language that has a well-established system of articles (cf. Chesterman, 1991). Many follow-up studies were also done in languages that have articles. Even though the DP hypothesis was first tested against articled languages, the underlying assumptions of this hypothesis were assumed to be universal. Motivated by this global structure of the DP hypothesis, scholars took the initiative to extend the DP analysis of the nominal expression to those that do not have articles (cf. Progovac (1998) for Serbo Croatian; Pereltsvaig (2013) for Russian, Veselovská, (2013) for Czech, Aboh (2004) for Kwa, Carstens (1991) for Swahili, among others). The results were varied across studies; some scholars supporting the universal view of the DP while others negating it (see section 3.5.4 for the discussion on this issue). Many Bantu languages do not have the system of the articles that are found in Germanic languages like English and German. However, they project DPs in their unique morpho-syntactic ways. In this sub-section, a sample of the studies done on the DP structures in Bantu languages is reviewed.

3.5.5.1 Asiimwe (2014)

Asiimwe examines definiteness and specificity in Runyankore-Rukiga (henceforth, RR). According to Asiimwe, Runyankore-Rukiga is a Bantu language cluster spoken in south-western Uganda and

107

which is classified as JE13/JE14 by Maho (2009). Like many Bantu languages, this language does not have articles, but it has pre-prefixes or initial vowels (IV) as Asiimwe refers to them. In investigating definiteness and specificity in RR, Asiimwe employs three different approaches, namely pragmatic-discourse considerations, morpho-syntactic approaches and the approach of generative syntax. She employs pragmatic-discourse considerations in investigating definiteness and specificity in bare nouns. The interaction between nominal modifiers and their head nouns are investigated morpho-syntactically. Cartography, a recent version of minimalism, is employed to sketch the structure of nominal expressions in RR.

Asiimwe points out that Bare nouns (BN) in RR are ambiguous between (in)definite and (non-) specific readings. For such nouns to be understood as (in)definite or (non)specific, Asiimwe notes that pragmatic-discourse factors should be appealed to. An ambiguous BN is given below (ibid.: 128) (34) Omupiira gwabaruka (Asiimwe, 2014: 128)

O-mu-piira gu-aa-baruk-a IV-3-ball 3-PASTim-burst-FV The/a ball has burst

Asiimwe notes that the BN omupiira (a/the ball) is clearly specific because the speaker has a particular ball in mind. However, this BN is ambiguous between definite or indefinite reading. If the speaker and hearer have the common knowledge about the ball in question, it is definite. Such common knowledge would involve situations where the ball was mentioned previously or where it is in a physical setting that the speaker and the hearer find themselves in.

Asiimwe brings to attention the fact that sometimes non-pragmatic factors may be needed to reconcile between the (in)definite and (non-)specific reading of nouns. Under this sub-section, she considers the reading of BNs when the AgrOP interacts with the IV in positive and negative sentences and the effects of word order alterations. As an illustration, consider (35a-b) adopted from pages 139-140. (35) a. Omwishiki naakishoma *(e)kitabo (Asiimwe, 2014: 139)

O-mu-ishiki ni-a-ki-shom-a *(e)-ki-tabo IV-1-girl PROG-3SG-7-read-FV IV-7-book ‘The girl is reading it (the book)

b. Omwishiki tarikushoma kitabo

O-mu-ishiki ti-a-ri-ku-shom-a ki-tabo (Asiimwe, 2014: 140) IV-1-girl NEG-3SG-COP.PROG-INF-read-FV 7-book

108

In relation to examples (35a-b), Asiimwe first notes that the presence of an AgrOP licences the obligatory occurrence of an IV on the object noun in both positive and negative sentences. When it is absent, the IV is optional. Asiimwe contends that the occurrence or non-occurrence of AgrOP with or without the IV affects the interpretation of bare nouns. When both are present as in (35a), the object noun is definite and specific. However, when the IV appears alone without an AgrOP, the object noun becomes non-specific and indefinite. Following this morpho-syntactic property of the IV, Asiimwe concludes that the IV is a determiner category with the specificity feature in RR.

In addition to encoding specificity, the IV, according to Asiimwe, can also express contrastive focus in the sense of invoking alternatives in the discourse. She argues that an object NP receives a contrastive focus reading when it occurs with the IV after a negative verb but without an object prefix co-referential with the object NP. This cement her view that the IV is a determiner in RR endowed with a contrastive feature in addition to specificity feature.

3.5.5.2 Biloa (2013)

Biloa (2013) undertakes his study approached from a cartography point of view to investigate, among other things, the order of nominal modifiers relative to the head noun in Tuki (A60), a Bantu language which is spoken in Cameroon. He points out that the basic word order in Tuki is the one in which a possessive (POSS) and a demonstrative (DEM) follow the head noun. Both or one of the two nominal modifiers (determiners in his term) can follow the head noun. When the two co-occur, POSS precedes DEM. i.e. N-POSS-DEM. However, any of the two nominal modifiers can precede the head noun for various semantic interpretations such as contrastive focus and/or emphasis. Biloa proposes the structure of a DP in which a demonstrative or a possessive move to the left of the head noun to check contrastive focus feature.

(36) a. òkútú odzú eená Woman this here This woman here b. óowu none

this leaf Thus leaf

According to Biloa (ibid.), the DP in (36a) has a deictic reading but the one in (36b) has contrastive focus reading. He, therefore, concludes that demonstratives and by extension possessives in Tuki are functional categories with contrastive focus feature.

109

3.5.5.3 Taji (2017)

Taji (2007) investigates the distribution of subject agreement prefixes (subject markers in his term) in negative constructions in Chiyao (P 21) with the view to establishing the influence of those prefixes in inducing (in)definiteness and (non-)specificity of nouns (subjects in his term). Taji advances the view that a noun is encoded as definite and specific if the verb exhibits subject agreement prefix. In contrast, the noun is indefinite and non-specific if the verb does not exhibit a subject agreement prefix. To support his point, Taji (ibid. 119) provides the following examples (italics and bold-type are in the original text).

(39) a. nsigó ngaukútopa m-sigó nga-u-kú-topa

3-luggage NEG-3SM-PRES-be heavy The luggage is not heavy

b. nsigó ngatopa

m-sig ó nga-topa

3-luggage NEG-PRES-be heavy A luggage is not heavy

Taji argues that the occurrence of the subject agreement prefix -u- in (39a) induces the definiteness and specificity reading of the noun nsigó (luggage) while the non-occurrence of it in (39b) suggests that the noun is indefinite and non-specific. Taji supports his argument by demonstrating that sentences like (39a) can be modified by a demonstrative whereas those like (39b) cannot be modified by a demonstrative. For illustration, Taji (ibid.: 122) provides the following examples.

(40) a. aú nsigó u ngaukútopa

aú m- sigó u nga-u-kú-topa

Dem 3-luggage Dem NEG-3OM-PRES-be heavy This luggage is not heavy.

b. *aú nsigó u ngatopa au m- sigó u nga-topa

Int: ‘This luggage is not heavy’.

According to Taji, demonstratives can modify nouns which are definite through subject agreement morphemes as in (40a), but demonstratives cannot do so if nouns are indefinite through the lack of such morphemes as in (40b). Based on this data like, Taji concludes that the demonstrative in Chiyao

110

is a functional category. However, Taji glosses the -u- prefix in (40a) as a subject marker (SM) and as an object marker (OM) in (40a). Whether it is deliberate or perhaps not, it cannot be established with certainty. However, it is doubtful whether a verb can exhibit an object agreement prefix as in (40a) without a subject agreement prefix. Furthermore, it is obvious that a generic or non-specific noun like the one in (40b) cannot be modified by a demonstrative because it has no referent.

3.5.5.4 Visser (2008)

Employing Lyons’s (1999) semantic principles of definiteness and specificity, Visser (2008) investigates the interpretation of IsiXhosa object nouns when they co-occur with or without object agreement prefixes following subjunctive verbs. She argues that an object noun in IsiXhosa can be (in)definite or (non)-specific. According to her, it is a context which determines whether an object noun is definite or indefinite. However, it is the occurrence of an object agreement prefix which renders an object noun specific or non-specific. Visser (ibid.: 14) provides the following examples to support her arguments (italics in the original text).

(41) a. Umama ucela ukuba iintombi zi(yi)hlambe ingubo

umama(1) u-cel-a ukuba iintombi(10) zi-(yi)-hlamb-e ingubo(9) Mother AgrS-request-FV that girls AgrS-(AgrO)-wash-Subj blanket Mother requests (the) girls to wash the/a blanket

b. Utitshala unqwenela ukuba abafundi ba(lu)phumelele uviwo

utitshala(1) u-nqwenel-a ukuba abafundi(2) ba-(lu)-phumelel-e uviwo(11) teacher AgrS-wish-FV that learners AgrS-(AgrO)-pass-Subj exam

The/a teacher wishes that (the) learners pass the/an examination

As examples in (41a-b) indicate, Visser (ibid.) points out when an object agreement prefix occurs obligatorily, an object noun is interpreted as specific and it is non-specific if the prefix does not occur. As agreement object prefixes are an instantiation of noun class prefixes, Visser concludes that noun class prefixes are realizations of the functional category determiner in IsiXhosa.