29.3285, Review: Nyanja; Morphology; Phonetics; Phonology; Syntax; Typology: Downing, Mtenje (2017)
The LINGUIST List
linguist at listserv.linguistlist.org
Mon Aug 27 20:44:18 UTC 2018
LINGUIST List: Vol-29-3285. Mon Aug 27 2018. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.
Subject: 29.3285, Review: Nyanja; Morphology; Phonetics; Phonology; Syntax; Typology: Downing, Mtenje (2017)
Moderator: linguist at linguistlist.org (Malgorzata E. Cavar)
Reviews: reviews at linguistlist.org (Helen Aristar-Dry, Robert Coté)
Homepage: https://linguistlist.org
Please support the LL editors and operation with a donation at:
https://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/
Editor for this issue: Jeremy Coburn <jecoburn at linguistlist.org>
================================================================
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2018 16:44:01
From: Japhet Ajani [jajani at tulane.edu]
Subject: The Phonology of Chichewa
Discuss this message:
http://linguistlist.org/pubs/reviews/get-review.cfm?subid=36364298
Book announced at http://linguistlist.org/issues/28/28-3448.html
AUTHOR: Laura J. Downing
AUTHOR: Al Mtenje
TITLE: The Phonology of Chichewa
PUBLISHER: Oxford University Press
YEAR: 2017
REVIEWER: Japhet Onaolapo Ajani, Tulane University
SUMMARY
The phonology of Chichewa by Laura J. Downing and Al Mtenje (2017; Oxford
University Press) is a description of the phonology of Chichewa. Chichewa
belongs to the Bantu language family and it is spoken in the Central and
Southern regions of Malawi. Chichewa has three major dialects which exist in
the Central, Southern and Eastern Regions. The authors presented data from
Chichewa and other related Bantu languages.
The goal of the book, as explained by the authors, is to provide “a detailed
description of the major phonological processes in Chichewa that places them
in a broader typological and theoretical context” (pg. 8). With this in mind,
the authors proceed to show the relationships that exist among segmental
inventories, syllable structure, and prosody; and how they relate to
linguistic fields like morphology and syntax. The authors draw from the
wealth of previous work like Myers (1999a & b), Mtenje (1986), Kanerva (1990),
Hyman and Mtenje (1999a &b), Downing and Mtenje (2011), Downing (2006), and
Odden (2015) among others.
The book is organized into the following chapters:
Chapter 1: Introduction
Chapter 2: Grammatical Sketch
Chapter 3: Segmental Phonology: consonants
Chapter 4: Segmental Phonology: Vowels
Chapter 5: Syllable Structure
Chapter 6: Tonal Phonology: Lexical Tone Patterns
Chapter 7: Grammatical Tone Patterns of Affirmative Main Clause Verbs
Chapter 8: Grammatical Tone Patterns of Negative and Relative Verbs
Chapter 9: Prosodic Morphology
Chapter 10: Phrasal Phonology
Chapter 11: Intonation
Chapter 1: Introduction
This chapter introduces the Chichewa language, the dialects and related
languages. It also introduces Chichewa and the phonological theories that
have been used to explain it. The state of phonological analyses (and their
interface with morphology and syntax) is briefly introduced. While some
phonological analyses have been conclusive, the authors highlight that some
have generated controversies which have encouraged research in the language
over the years. The nature of tonal processes in Bantu and Chichewa is
presented, briefly, in this section. The authors also give overview on
morphological and syntactic interfaces with phonology of Chichewa. This
chapter also presents the goals of the book.
Chapter 2: Grammatical Sketch
Chapter 2 introduces the phoneme inventory of Chichewa as well as the
transcription system used in the book. Chichewa is a tonal language with two
tonal levels; High and Low. The Low tone is phonetically and phonologically
underspecified. In the book, High tone is the only marked or represented
tone, with an acute accent mark; Low tone is not marked.
“Chichewa has agglutinating morphology” (pg. 14). Chichewa is a noun class
language, that is, nouns are made up of stems and prefixes which show how they
agree in classes. There are eighteen agreement classes in Chichewa nouns
which are identified by the noun class prefixes (pg. 15). The prefixes are
grouped into singular and plural pairs (check pg. 14 - 25 for an in-depth
discussion on Chichewa Noun class system).
Finally, the chapter discusses word order and agreement in noun phrases and
verb phrases with special emphasis on the class system of Chichewa. It also
examines clause structures and how phonology and morphology help in the
formation of the syntactic components such as questions and subordinate
clauses,
Chapter 3: Segmental Phonology: Consonants
This chapter looks at the consonant inventory of Chichewa. It compares
Chichewa consonants with Proto-Bantu consonant inventories. Consonantal
variations are due to variation among dialects of Chichewa. Aspiration, nasal
place assimilation are also discussed here. Homorganic nasals (NC) form
clusters.
Two morphologically conditioned processes are identified in Chichewa. They
are root initial changes in class 5/6 singular plural pairs and spirantization
(fricativization). In the former, some aspirated voiceless stops in class 5
become unaspirated when the class 6 plural affix [ma-] occurs before them.
For example, [thuumba] becomes /ma-tuumba/ ‘bag’. In some other instances,
stem initial alveolar fricative /s/ and /z/ in the plural class 6 replace
voiceless alveolar affricates in class 5. For example, [tsaamba] becomes
/ma-saamba/ ‘leaf’. On causative spirantization, stem final consonants are
affected. /k/ and /l/ become fricatives /ts/ and /z/ respectively. For
example, [tuluuka] ‘come out’ becomes /tuluutsa/ ‘bring out’.
Chapter 4: Segmental Phonology: Vowels
This chapter examines the vowel inventory in Chichewa and how they relate to
Proto-Bantu vowels. How Chichewa vowels are used phonologically and
morphologically is examined. The chapter also looks at vowel height harmony
in Chichewa and how it contributes to the development of phonological
theories. Chichewa has five vowels which are [i u ɛ ɔ a] compared to other
Bantu languages’ seven contrastive vowels. An interesting mention of the
vowels in Chichewa is the long vowels that only occupy the phrase penult
position. This position is predictable in every instance in this language.
The authors mention that “the long vowel contrast is only found in
root-initial position, the position of maximum phonemic contrast in Chichewa”
(pg. 67). For example, [vula] ‘undress’ vs [vuula] ‘pull out of the water’.
Looking at Chichewa Vowel Height Harmony or VHH which is a phonological
phenomenon where vowels agree in height and can only be used with vowels of
the same height in words, the authors identify three features of Bantu VHH,
these are (a) front-back asymmetry, (b) the low vowel a is also asymmetric and
(c) morphological conditioning by drawing from Hyman (1999) and Odden (2015).
To explain phonological approaches to VHH, the authors present
underspecification theory, markedness/faithfulness theory in OT and
element/licensing theory (which is the most plausible argument). The book did
not agree on which of the three phonological approaches to VHH would best
explain VHH in Bantu languages. one may then assume that the authors’ analyses
only complicates the initial knowledge of VHH.
Chapter 5: Syllable Structure
This chapter examines the syllable structure of Chichewa, sound sequences, and
loanword phonotactic resolution. Chichewa syllable structure is CV which can
be found in all positions. Meanwhile, a syllable can be made up of a vowel;
that is, an onsetless syllable, but it is restricted to only word initial
positions (pg. 91). Chichewa allows only three types of consonant sequences
and only two sequences; they are: consonant glide (CG) and homorganic nasal
consonant with a non-syllabic nasal (NC). They can only occur morpheme
internally and across morpheme boundaries. These sequences are created by
phonotactics as well as nasal prefix contraction, which is another interesting
topic in Chichewa.
CG are formed in Chichewa, as a vowel hiatus resolution technique, from
clusters of consonants and underlying [+high] vowel. This happens because
Chichewa places a ban on the number of consonants that may be in sequence.
The authors recognize that NC sequences in Bantu languages is a controversial
topic because different arguments support NC sequence as a cluster or not.
Meanwhile, they argue that “NC is a cluster, and when the nasal of the cluster
is postvocalic, it is syllabified in coda position.” Meanwhile, the authors
suggest a phonetic analysis of the argument.
On loanword adaptation in Chichewa, vowel epenthesis was identified, as the
strategy used in the adaptation of consonant sequences. Anderson et al (1973:
95), explaining borrowing, state that “when cultures come into contact with
one another, borrowing takes place primarily in the realm of lexical item”.
In the case of Chichewa, the language has borrowed mainly from English. The
epenthetic vowel must agree in features with the preceding consonant. /i/ is
the default epenthetic vowel in Chichewa but /u/ can be used to similarity in
features of a preceding labial consonant. (see pg. 96 for examples).
If vowel sequences occur across morpheme boundaries, some morphologically
conditioned processes must step in to resolve the sequences. Glide formation
resolves vowel sequences between a Subject Marker and a vowel initial
Tense-Aspect-Mood (TAM) prefix. If the Subject Marker consists of “a bilabial
or velar consonant followed by a high back vowel or only of a high vowel”.
For example, /mu-a-gon-a/ → [mwagoóná] ‘you have slept’, where /u/ becomes a
glide after the bilabial nasal /m/. In contrast, glide formation will not
take place if the TAM and stem begin with a consonant. Compare this example,
[mú-góóná] ‘you will sleep’.
Chapter 6: Tonal Phonology: Lexical Tone Patterns
This chapter introduces tone in Chichewa. It looks at lexical tone patterns
and tonal processes and functions of tone in the language. The authors
declare that “Chichewa is a tone language” (pg. 109). It is a two-tone system;
High and Low, tone is contrastive, tonal processes take place and verb tonal
patterns are complex. In the language, low tone is underspecified because,
according to Myers (1998), “it does not play any active role in Chichewa”.
On tones on nouns stems in Chichewa, according to Kanerva (1990), it is
unusual for a noun to have more than one underlying high tone. But there are
exceptions in borrowed and ideophonic words where two high tones can be
realized. High tones can appear on any syllable of Chichewa nouns.
Interestingly, Chichewa verbs stems can be toneless, that is, low toned, or
bear only one high tone. The study of Chichewa tone also compares tones in
other Bantu languages and in Proto-Bantu. Verbs in Chichewa can take three
verbal extensions or affixes. These are the stative/passive, -ík-/-ék-, the
intensive, -íts-/-éts and the reversive ‑úk‑. The authors note that when these
verbal affixes are added to inherently toneless verbs, a high tone will
result. For example, (pg. 115), when these verbal extensions are added to the
imperative toneless verbs, a high tone will appear on the final two moras of
the imperative verb stem; meny-eék-á ‘be beatable’. Compare ‘meny-eets-a
‘cause to hit’. (note that the second tone on the final vowel /a/ is not part
of the discussion).Some of the tonal processes identified in Chichewa include,
tone doubling, tone plateauing, final retraction, tone deletion (Meeussen’s
Rule) and tone shift.
Finally, on the phonetics of tone and how consonants can influence pitch of
following vowels, the authors indicate that more research needs to “test
whether pitch is a reliable cue to laryngeal quality of a preceding consonant
in Chichewa (pg. 132).
Chapter 7: Grammatical Tone Patterns of Affirmative Main Clause Verbs
This chapter discusses different grammatical tone patterns of affirmative main
clause verbs. It shows the connections that exist between tonology and
syntax.
As indicated by the authors, inflectional properties of the verb complex are
derived through association of high tones to the verbs. “These grammatical
high tones sometimes are added to the lexical tone contributed by the verb
stem and sometimes replace the lexical tone” (pg. 136). Tonal processes,
mentioned in Chapter 6, work on the different realizations of tones on
Chichewa grammar. The authors analyse how tone interacts with imperative,
perfective and permissive forms, subjunctive mood, simple past tense,
progressive tense, past tenses, and future tense among other grammatical
types.
Finally, while raising concerns about the ambiguity surrounding high tones and
its patterns on some morphemes, the authors conclude that it “remains a topic
for future research” (pg. 172).
Chapter 8: Grammatical Tone Patterns of Negative and Relative Verbs
Building up on the issues raised in Chapter 7, this chapter evaluates
grammatical tone patterns of negative and relative verbs in Chichewa. It also
looks at how tone behaves in relative clause construction.
The authors provide data showing tonal behaviours in negative perfective and
simple past tense, negative infinitive verb forms, negative subjunctive verb
forms, and negative future tenses, among other negative categories studied.
On relative clauses, differences in tone patterns of the verb show the
differences between relative clauses and main clauses.
Finally, the authors address where grammatical tone is represented in the
grammar of the language. The authors note that the answer to the “question
is not obvious” but encouraged future research to look at the question and
some other related ones.
Chapter 9: Prosodic Morphology
This chapter focuses on how prosodic principles contribute to word formation
processes in Chichewa. Drawing from previous research, the authors point out
that disyllabic or bimoraic minimality, and nominal and verbal reduplication
are important in the morphology of Bantu languages and, by extension,
Chichewa. Quoting McCarthy and Prince (1986), they identify two main
strategies that make minimality requirement important, cross-linguistically.
The strategies are (a) phonological augmentation of subminimal forms and
blocking of deletion processes to avoid creating subminimal forms and (b) that
word bases should be minimally disyllabic (pg. 209-210).
On nominal reduplication, it is noted that it is “the last two syllables of
the base that reduplicate […] no matter how long the base noun (or pronoun)
is” (pg. 214). Contrastively, verbal reduplication, the authors observe, “is
not subjected to a disyllabic maximality condition. The entire verb stem is
copied, no matter how long it is” (pg. 219).
Finally, the disyllabic syndrome is discussed as a prosodic well-formedness
condition in the language and it plays some important roles in its
morphological processes. The authors point out how controversial and
‘problematic’ (pg. 227) it is to try to link the disyllabic syndrome to
metrical foot binarity, because,for one reason, Chichewa, like most Bantu
languages, is not a stress language.
Chapter 10: Phrasal Phonology
In this chapter the authors evaluate a well-known aspect of Chichewa – phrasal
phonology. As stated earlier, one of the most predictable features of the
language is penultimate vowel lengthening. The chapter also looks at how
tonal processes operate within phrasal phonology. Citing Kanerva (1990) and
Bresnan and Kanerva (1989), four phonological processes are conditioned by
prosodic phrasing in the language. These are: penult lengthening, tone
doubling, tone plateauing, and final retraction.
The role of syntax in Chichewa prosodic phrasing and the interface between
phonology and syntax are also discussed. On pg. 236, the authors note that
“prosodic phrasing in Chichewa is predominantly conditioned by syntax: the
right edges of prosodic phrases align with the right edges of clauses”. The
alignment is further called Intonation phrase. It is maintained that Chichewa
does not have focus prosody. Quoting Kanerva (1990), two levels of prosodic
phrasing in Chichewa are identified. They are (a) the phonological phrase and
(b) the intonation phrase. Kanerva further provides two cues that define
intonation phrase differently from phonological phrase: (a) culminative penult
lengthening and (b) lengthening of the final vowel and downstep/register rest.
(see Kanerva 1990 for more details). They conclude that “Kanerva’s
phonological phrases can be reinterpreted as minimal intonation phrases,
contrasting with maximal intonation phrases” (pg. 253).
Chapter 11: Intonation
This section discusses intonation phonetically and phonologically in Chichewa.
It gives an overview of intonation in three basic constructions in the
language: declarative sentences (simple and complex), content questions and
answers, and polar questions. It also considers emphasis prosody.
Declarative sentences often undergo what Myers (1996) calls “dramatic fall” in
pitch at the end of the sentences. In complex sentences, downstep is
observed. Therefore, lexical tones are important in the behaviour of
intonational tones in Chichewa. Downstep, the cause of intonational
fluctuation is found throughout most declarative utterances with one exception
which is that “downstep appears to be suspended in the context of a
non-restrictive relative clause” (pg. 259). In addition, intonation of
content question is similar to that of the declarative sentences. But,
downstep is not operational in polar questions and the register is raised.
Using the study by Downing et. al. (2004), emphasis prosody “is realized with
optional prosodic phrasing before or after the emphasized word”.
The chapter concludes that intonation is not minimized in Chichewa; it also
shows that intonation does not overrides lexical tones. Lexical tones, as we
have seen in the chapters on tone, is capable of influencing morphology and
syntax of Chichewa.
EVALUATION
The book is a rich source of information on a Bantu language. The authors
have, by combining and analysing previous studies on Chichewa and related
languages, succeeded in providing links that exist within Bantu languages.
This book has also opened up emerging and thought-provoking research areas in
phonology in Bantu languages and it is believed that those research areas can
be extended to other languages.
This book is an eye opener for phonologists who are interested in the
phonological issues emanating from Bantu languages and how they pertain to
Chichewa. It is of interest to those who intend to find connections that
exist between phonology and morphology, especially prosodic morphology, and
syntax. It is also a good reference for understanding interfaces between
phonology and other linguistic study areas of Chichewa. It is, however, not a
reference for beginners in phonology as it does not give the kind of
introduction they would expect when they are to be introduced to a concept.
Overall, the book shows how research in Bantu languages have evolved over the
years and how it can be advanced by opening up some fantastic research areas
for interested researchers in this line of study.
This book stands as a reliable and robust source on the phonology of Chichewa.
REFERENCES
Anderson, Stephen R. and Paul Kiparsky (eds.). 1973. A Festschrift for Morris
Halle. New York: Holt. Reinehart & Wiston.
Bresnan, Joan and Jonni Kanerva. 1989. Locative inversion in Chichewa: A case
study of factorization in grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 20: 1–50.
Downing, Laura J. 2004. Jita causative doubling provides optimal paradigms.
In Laura J. Downing, T. Alan Hall, and Renate Raffelsiefen (eds), Paradigms in
Phonological Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 122–44
Downing, Laura J. 2006. Canonical Forms in Prosodic Morphology. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Downing, Laura J. and Al Mtenje. 2011. Prosodic phrasing of Chichewa relative
clauses. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 32: 65–111.
Hyman, Larry M. 1999. The historical interpretation of vowel harmony in Bantu.
In Jean-Marie Hombert and Larry M. Hyman (eds.). Bantu Historical
Linguistics: Theoretical and Empirical Perspectives. Stanford, CA: CSLI
Publications, 235–95.
Hyman, Larry M. and Al Mtenje. 1999a. Non-etymological High tones in the
Chichewa verb. Malilime: Malawian Journal of Linguistics 1: 121–56.
Hyman, Larry M. and Al Mtenje. 1999b. Prosodic morphology and tone: The case
of Chichewa. In René Kager, Harry van der Hulst, and Wim Zonneveld (eds.).
The Prosody–Morphology Interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University press,
90–133.
Kanerva, Jonni. 1990. Focus and Phrasing in Chichewa Phonology. New York:
Garland Publishing.
McCarthy, John J. and Alan S. Prince. 1986. Prosodic Morphology Report no.
RuCCS-TR-32. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Center for Cognitive
Science. Available online at:
scholarworks.umass.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1012&context=linguist_facul
ty_pubs
Mtenje, Al D. 1986. Issues in the nonlinear phonology of Chichewa. PhD
dissertation, University College London.
Myers, Scott. 1996. Boundary tones and the phonetic implementation of tone in
Chichewa’. Studies in African Linguistics 25: 29–60.
Myers, Scott. 1998b. Surface underspecification of tone in Chichewa’.
Phonology 15: 367–91.
Myers, Scott. 1999a. Downdrift and pitch range in Chichewa intonation’.
Proceedings of the 14th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (ICPhS
99), San Francisco, 1981–4.
Myers, Scott. 1999b. Tone association and F0 timing in Chichewa’. Studies in
African Linguistics 28: 215–39.
Odden, David. 2015. Bantu phonology. Oxford Handbooks Online, DOI:
10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199935345.013.59.
ABOUT THE REVIEWER
Japhet Ajani is a Ph.D. Fellow in the Linguistics Program at Tulane
University, New Orleans, USA. His research interests include phonetics,
phonology, sociophonetics, and linguistic fieldwork.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
***************** LINGUIST List Support *****************
Please support the LL editors and operation with a donation at:
The IU Foundation Crowd Funding site:
https://iufoundation.fundly.com/the-linguist-list
The LINGUIST List FundDrive Page:
https://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/
----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-29-3285
----------------------------------------------------------
More information about the LINGUIST
mailing list