Felix K. Ameka

Catching Language: The Standing Challenge of Grammar Writing

This is the first book to focus on the problem of writing grammars of little-known languages, a task of major urgency as linguists face the challenge of documenting the many endangered languages around the world. The chapters, all written by distinguished specialists, address the many questions the author of a reference grammar must tackle as they destil the regularities of a whole language into a single integrated volume.

Introduction-The typology and semantics of locative predicates: Posturals, positionals and other beasts

Abstract 1. The linguistic interest of positional verbs This special issue is devoted to a relatively neglected topic in linguistics, namely the verbal component of locative statements. English tends, of course, to use a simple copula in utterances like “The cup is on the table”, but many languages, perhaps as many as half of the worlds languages, have a set of alternate verbs, or alternate verbal affixes, which contrast in this slot. Often these are classificatory verbs of ‘sitting’, ‘standing’ and ‘lying’. For this reason, perhaps, Aristotle listed position among his basic (“noncomposite”) categories.

A comparative analysis of linguistic routines in two languages: English and Ewe

Abstract Itsis very widely acknowledged that linguistic routines are not only embodiments of the sociocultural values of speech communities that use them, but their knowledge and appropriate use also form an essential part of a speakers communicative/pragmatic competence. Despite this, many studies concentrate more on describing the use of routines rather than explaining the socio-cultural aspects of their meaning and the way they affect their use. It is the contention of this paper that there is the need to go beyond descriptions to explanations and explications of the use and meaning of routines that are culturally and socially revealing. This view is illustrated by a comparative analysis of functionally equivalent formulaic expressions in English and Ewe. The similarities are noted and the differences explained in terms of the socio-cultural traditions associated with the respective languages. It is argued that insights gained from such studies are valuable for crosscultural understanding and communication as well as for second language pedagogy.

The meaning of phatic and conative interjections

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the meanings of the members of two subclasses of interjections in Ewe: the conative/volitive which are directed at an auditor, and the phatic which are used in the maintenance of social and communicative contact. It is demonstrated that interjections like other linguistic signs have meanings which can be rigorously stated. In addition, the paper explores the differences and similarities between the semantic structures of interjections on one hand and formulaic words on the other. This is done through a comparison of the semantics and pragmatics of an interjection and a formulaic word which are used for welcoming people in Ewe. It is contended that formulaic words are speech acts qua speech acts while interjections are not fully fledged speech acts because they lack illocutionary dictum in their semantic structure.

Areal cultural scripts for social interaction in West African communities

Abstract Ways of interacting and not interacting in human societies have social, cognitive and cultural dimensions. These various aspects may be reflected in particular in relation to “taboos”. They reflect the ways of thinking and the values of a society. They are recognized as part of the communicative competence of the speakers and are learned in socialization. Some salient taboos are likely to be named in the language of the relevant society, others may not have a name. Interactional taboos can be specific to a cultural linguistic group or they may be shared across different communities that belong to a ‘speech area’ (Hymes 1972). In this article we describe a number of unnamed norms of communicative conduct which are widespread in West Africa such as the taboos on the use of the left hand in social interaction and on the use of personal names in adult address, and the widespread preference for the use of intermediaries for serious communication. We also examine a named avoidance (yaage) behavior specific to the Fulbe, a nomadic cattle-herding group spread from West Africa across the Sahel as far as Sudan. We show how tacit knowledge about these taboos and other interactive norms can be captured using the cultural scripts methodology.

Cut and break verbs in Ewe and the causative alternation construction

Abstract Guerssel et al. (1985) propose that crosslinguistically, separation verbs group into cut verbs and break verbs based on their meaning. This meaning supposedly affects the constructions in which the verbs occur, e.g., only break verbs are expected to participate in the causative/inchoative alternation. In Sranan, a verb that superficially looks like ‘cut’ in English is actually a break verb. Also, not only break verbs participate in the causative/inchoative alternation, as expected, but cut verbs do also. I argue that the intransitive use of cut verbs does not yield a passive construction as proposed by some; instead, it is inchoative.Ewe verbs covering the cutting and breaking domain divide into four morpho-syntactic classes that can be ranked according to agentivity .W e demonstrate that the highly non-agentive break verbs participate in the causative-inchoative alternation while the highly agentive cut verbs do not, as expected from Guerssel et al.’s (1985) hypothesis. However, four verbs tso ‘cut with precision’, se ˜ ‘cut’, la ˜ ‘snap-o¤ ’, and dze ‘split’, are used transitively when an instrument is required for the severance to be effected, and intransitively when not. We reject a lexicalist analysis that would postulate polysemy for these verbs and argue for a construction approach.

The coding of topological relations in verbs : the case of Likpe (Sεkpεlé)

Abstract This article examines the grammar, use and meaning of fifteen verbs used in the Basic Locative Construction (BLC) of Likpe — a Ghana-Togo-Mountain language. The verbs fall into four semantic subclasses: (a) basic topological relations: t ‘be.at’, t k ‘be.on’, kpé ‘be.in’, and fi ‘be.near’; (b) postural verbs: sí ‘sit’, ny ‘stand’, fáka ‘hang’, yóma ‘hang’, kp s ‘lean’, fus ‘squat’, and labe ‘lie’; (c) “distribution” verbs: kpó ‘be spread, heaped,’ and tí ‘be covered’; and (d) “adhesion” verbs: má ‘be griped, be fixed’, mánkla ‘be stuck to’. Likpe locative predications reflect an ontological commitment to the overall topological relation between Figure and Ground and are not focused just on the Figure or the Ground. Various factors determine the choice of “competing” verbs for particular scenarios: animacy, nonindividuation of the Figure, permanency of the configuration and the speakers desire to be referentially precise or to present stereotypical information. It is demonstrated that in situations where there is a choice, speakers tend to use the more general verbs (stereotype information). The implications of this tendency for the development of a language from a multiverb language using several verbs (e.g., 15) in its BLC to using only a small-set of verbs in its BLC, just as some of Likpes neighbors have done, are considered.

Descriptive theories, explanatory theories, and Basic Linguistic Theory

Linguists often distinguish work they characterize as descriptive from work they characterize as theoretical. Similarly, linguists often characterize certain work as atheoretical. This label is sometimes applied, not only to descriptive work on particular languages, but also occasionally to crosslinguistic typological work. I argue in this chapter that this way of talking represents a fundamental confusion about the relationship between theory and description. First, there is no such thing as atheoretical description. Second, although it is confused to talk about theory and description as contrastive notions, it does make sense to talk about a contrast between description and explanation. I further argue that there is a need for both descriptive theories and explanatory theories. Descriptive theories (or theoretical frameworks) are theories about what languages are like. They are theories about what tools we need in order to provide adequate descriptions of individual languages. Explanatory theories (or theoretical frameworks), in contrast, are theories about why languages are the way they are. The distinction between descriptive theories and explanatory theories is not widely recognized in linguistics, although it is not hard to identify the historical explanation for this. First, pregenerative theories, such as American structuralism, explicitly disavowed the goal of constructing an explanatory theory. As such they were examples of descriptive theories, but the underlying assumption was that that was the only type of theory needed. Generative grammar, in contrast, has aimed at being an explanatory theory. Furthermore, a central tenet of generative grammar, especially clear in the work of Chomsky since the mid-1970s (e.g. Chomsky 1973), has been the idea that a single theory can serve simultaneously as a descriptive theory and as an explanatory theory. Such a view follows from Chomskys ideas about innateness: if one believes that languages are the way they are because of our innate linguistic knowledge, then a theory about that innate linguistic knowledge will simultaneously serve as a theory about what languages are like and as a theory about why they are that way. Curiously, however, many linguists who reject Chomskys views about innateness seem to implicitly accept the Chomskyan view that a single theory will serve both theoretical goals. Many functionalists, in particular, propose kinds of explanations for why languages are the way they are that are radically different from those of Chomsky, yet they often see questions of how to describe languages as the domain of formal linguists, confusing issues of descriptive theory with issues of explanatory theory. In this chapter, I examine the implications of rejecting the Chomskyan view of a single theory serving both theoretical goals, and examine the question of what sort of theory will serve as an adequate descriptive theory. I argue that what Dixon (1997) calls “basic linguistic theory” will serve as such a descriptive theory. This paper is primarily directed at linguists who can be construed as functionalist, using the term in a broad sense that includes most work in typology and work by descriptive linguists. The central issue discussed in this paper is what sort of theory we need for linguistic description, if one adopts a functionalist view of language, which for the purposes of this paper can be characterized as the view that functional or grammar-external principles play a central role in explaining why languages are the way they are.

Divergence and convergence among the Ghana-Togo Mountain languages

Abstract The genetic unity and lineage of a group of fifteen languages spoken in the mountains of the Ghana-Togo border with an outlier across the Togo-Benin border have been debated for over a century. Some have concluded that they are not a genetic group. Instead they are a geographical and socio-cultural grouping (see Ian Maddieson 1998, Collapsing vowel harmony and doubly-articulated fricatives: Two myths about the phonology of Avatime. In Ian Maddieson & Thomas J. Hinnebusch (eds.), Language history and linguistic description in Africa, 155–166. Trenton: Africa World Press) or a typological grouping masquerading as a genetic unit (Roger Blench 2009, Do the Ghana-Togo mountain languages constitute a genetic group? Journal of West African Languages 36(1/2). 19–36). This paper investigates the latter claim. We argue that even though the languages share some typological features, there is enormous diversity among the languages such that they do not constitute a typological grouping by themselves. We examine four phonological and twelve morpho-syntactic features to show the convergence and divergence among the languages. We argue that while some of the features are inherited from higher level proto languages e.g. the noun class systems, others are contact-induced and yet others in their specificities could be seen as arising due to internal parallel development in the individual languages.