Issue

Vol. 11 No. 2 (2022)

Date Log

Submitted
Apr 19, 2023
Published
Apr 19, 2023

Morphosyntactic Analysis of Relative Clause Markers in Chindali

Imani Alinanuswe Mwang’eka

Journal of Education, Humanities & Science (JEHS), Vol. 11 No. 2 (2022)

Abstract

This article analyses the basic morphosyntactic features of relative clause markers (RMs)
in Chindali, spoken in Tanzania. A qualitative approach was employed with a descriptive
research design in the process of generating, analysing data, as well as reporting the
findings. The data for the study were collected through text collection. The researcher
gathered sentences with relative clauses (RCs) from 10 informants by recording them with
their consent, and three (3) written Chindali storybooks. Informants were sampled
through the snowball technique. The study revealed that Chindali RCs are marked by free-
standing relative pronouns that are bound by agreement. These RMs are classified based
on the noun class system of the language. It further revealed that RMs can be formed
morphologically with or without class agreement marker (CAM). Chindali RMs with CAM
have the morphological structure of ‘CAM + stem-o’, whereas RMs without CAM have the
morphological structure ‘stem (C/CC+O)’. RMs without CAM results from deletion
process. RMs are distinguished phonologically by the reduplication of the consonants of
the CAM(s), followed by a clitic ‘o’ which is the root of the marker. It is also distinguished
by the affixation of the glides (G) ‘w’ and ‘y’ in some consonants, as well as the change of
the vowel to clitic ‘o’. CAM has the phonological shape CVC (G) V. The relative clauses are
introduced syntactically by the language’s relative markers placed at the beginning of a
clause linking the RC and a head noun; thus, making the RC an NP syntactic modifier. In
Chindali, relative clauses are externally headed postnominal relatives introduced by RMs
with a NRC pattern expressing class agreement with the head noun. Semantically, relative
markers influence the types of RCs that exist, whether they are restrictive or appositive
relatives; and modify things, persons, animals or ideas. The study suggests further
research into other aspects of Chindali’s relativization

Keywords

morphosyntactic relative markers relative clauses Bantu, Chindali
Alinanuswe Mwang’eka, I. . (2023). Morphosyntactic Analysis of Relative Clause Markers in Chindali. Journal of Education, Humanities & Science (JEHS), 11(2). Retrieved from https://ojs3.bongotech.info/index.php/jehs/article/view/198
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX
References
  1. Arregi, K. 1998. Spanish El Que Clauses and the Doubly Filled Comp Filter. Cambridge: Mit Press.
  2. Buell, L. 2007. Semantic and Formal Locatives Implications for the Bantu Locative Inversion
  3. Typology. So as Working Paper in Linguistics, 15: 105–120. Retrieved June 09. 2020.
  4. Chibona, E., G. Kajange, E. Lwinga, & E. Songa. 2015. Ukalata Ugwa Tupango Utwa Chindali. Texas:
  5. SIL International.
  6. Cho, D. W. & K. Lee. 2016. English Relative Clauses in Science and Engineering Journal Papers: A
  7. Comparative Corpus-Based Study for Pedagogical Purposes. Elsevier, 3: 61–70.
  8. Collins, H. 2010. Creative Research. The Theory and Practice of Research for the Creative Industries.
  9. Worthing: Ava Publications.
  10. Comrie, B. & T. Kuteva. 2005. Relativization Strategies. In M. S. Dryer & M. Haspelmath (Eds.). The
  11. World Atlas of Language Structures, 494–501.
  12. Cooper, B., F. Mwaluanda, K. O’ Donnell, & R. Yalonde. 2011. Ukalata Ugwa Luuti: Isha Kulongosha
  13. Isha Fimanyilo Ifya Ibhangeli. Texas: Sil International.
  14. Dalgish. 1979. The Syntax and Semantics of the Morpheme Ni in Kivunjo (Chaga). Studies in African
  15. Linguistics, 10(1).
  16. De Vries, M. 2002. The Syntax of Relativization. Amsterdam University. The Netherlands: LOT.
  17. De Vries, M. 2018. Relative Clause in Syntax, Post Print Version. (Oxford Research Encyclopedia of
  18. Linguistics) Retrieved November 20: 2019, from http://linguistics.oxfordre.com.
  19. Dehham, S. 2016. The Problematic Use of Noun Diminutive Forms in English. Retrieved June 07. 2020,
  20. from Researchgate: https://www.researchgate.net.
  21. Du Toit, H. C. 2016. Some Syntactic Features of Relative Construction in the Greek New Testament.
  22. Stellebosch Papers in Linguistics Plus, 45: 49–75.
  23. Ermisch, S. 2013. Relative Constructions in African Languages. Retrieved March 15. 2019, from
  24. http://web.uni-frankfurt.de/fb10/zimmermann/hp_fg-relis/info_typ.htm.
  25. Gibson, H., R. Guerois, & L. Marten. 2017. Patterns and Developments in the Marketing of
  26. Diminutives in Bantu. Nordic Journal of African Studies, 26(4): 344–383.
  27. Gu?rois, R. & D. Creissels. 2016. Cuwabo Relativization: Accessibility Hierarchy and the Typology of Bantu
  28. Inversion Constructions. Helsinki: Helsinki University.
  29. Guérois, R. & D. Creissels. 2020. The Relative Verb Forms of Cuwabo (Bantu P34) as Contextually
  30. Oriented Participles. Linguistics, 58(2): 463–491.
  31. Kaoneka, S. 2018. Tense Sensitivity of the Shambala Relative Markers. Journal of Education,
  32. Humanities and Sciences, 7(2): 73–92.
  33. Karels, J. 2014. Relative Construction in Nyiha. An Investigation of the Syntax, Semantics, and
  34. Activation Status of Information in Relative Constructions in Nyiha a Bantu Language of
  35. Southern Tanzania (M 23): Electronic Working Paper. Kampala: SIL International.
  36. Katamba, F. 2003. Nominal Derivations. In D. Nurse & G. Phillipson (Eds). The Bantu Languages.
  37. London: Routledge.
  38. Kayne, R. 1994. The Antisymmentry of Syntax. Cambridge: Mit Press.
Read More
Author biographies is not available.
Download this PDF file
Statistic
Read Counter : 29