(Title of the Paper)
(Name of Researcher)
Swahili is one of the best documented and most studied African languages and much work has been done in analyzing various aspects of the language. However, one area which has thus far been left unexplored is that of the syntactic elements of Relative Clause. To this end the paper will focus on by providing a detailed (though not exhaustive) analysis of relative clauses without attempting to grapple with morphology. This is done deliberately so that time is not wasted on restating too much previous research as morphology in Swahili is already a well-researched area. Moreover, Swahili syntax is deceptively simple and can cause one to imagine that it is of no importance. In a language as highly agglutinative as Swahili, it seems that morphology is all that is needed to appreciate the language, however, syntax, as will be shown, does have some powerful implications in the formation of relative clauses.
The morphosyntactic glosses provided will follow the Leipzig glossing convention throughout. Given the nature of this research, original data has not been collected and all examples have been taken from secondary sources namely: Thompson and Schleicher (2001), Henderson (1990), Mpiranya (2014), Zwart (1997), Lippss (2011), and Ngonyani (2001). Furthermore,
Before grappling with relative clause syntax outlining a few general features of Swahili and having an idea of what a simple sentence in Swahili looks like will be useful.
- The most basic sentence structure in Swahili is the SVO – Subject-Verb-Object. Other words, such as tense modifiers, are appended to the verb itself as an affix which means that a vast range of communication can be accomplished using the simple SVO structure. As in English, the only essential parts of a sentence in Swahili are the Subject and the verb For example:.
- ki-su ki-me-anguk-a Swahili
7 knife SM7 PERF fall-down IND
- When dealing with subordinate clauses, many changes are brought about through affixation. This implies that while the essential structure of the sentence will not change, the meaning can vary through the morphemes affixed or removed from the root word.
- Relative clauses are clauses which describe a part of a sentence. In order to create a relation between the relative clause and the rest of the sentence some common affixes are used. Most prominent of these is the ‘-o’ prefix. As quoted in Lipps’s thesis from Mohammed, the ‘-o’ prefix can be used in conjunction with ‘–amba’ relatives to produce a functional relative pronoun as in the example: ‘mtu ambaye anakula’ meaning – person who is eating (where the ‘-o’ prefix is modified as ‘-ye’). Furthermore, when this kind of structure is used, the ‘amba’ relative must always agree with the head noun, though the syntax will almost always remain the same.
- When dealing with relative clauses, one must bear in mind that it is one part of a sentence which relates itself to the rest of the sentence. While in English this relationship is established using whole words (usually free morphemes), the relationship in Swahili syntax is established through the use of affixes.
Basic Sentence Structures
Understanding the basic sentence structure of simple, compound and complex sentences is a good place to start an analysis of relative clause construction as it is mutations of this basic form which usually gives rise to relations.
- Simple sentences follow the basic SVO structure, as mentioned. There are, however, subtle differences when using verbs which are of Bantu origin and those which are not. These differences are largely morphological and do not affect the syntax of a sentence, as seen in the following examples:
Owuor anacheza kabumbu sasa.
Owuor is playing soccer now.
Miti hii ilianguka jana
The trees fell down yesterday. (Mohammed 2001: 244)
Mvua labda itanyesha leo jioni
It will probably rain this afternoon. (Mohammed 2001:244)
In the above sentences the first is the one which contains an original Bantu verb – enda. But, as can be seen from the second sentence, there is no appreciable change in the essential structure of the sentence.
- Complex sentences are of more import when considering to relative clauses as it is here that one first sees the use of a main clause and a subordinate clause. For example:
Ikinyesha mvua kesho, hatutaenda shuleni.
If it rains tomorrow, we will not go to school. (Mohammed 2001: 245)
Ingawa Chumu ni mnene lakini anaweza kukimbia vizuri, kwa vile hufanya mazoezi ya mwili mara kwa mara.
Although Chumu is fat, he can run well because he frequently performs physical exercise. (Mohammed 2001:245)
This simple structure is the basis for constructing relative clauses. As can be seen, the relative clause will, as in the above example, usually immediately succeed the primary noun head.
Compound sentences do not relate directly to relative clauses and hence have been left out in favor of analyzing complex sentences.
Having analyzed, one can begin to analyzed basic sentence structure and with suitable back knowledge of Swahili as a language, the various syntactic formations of the relative clause can now be looked into.
Basic Form
Dr. Sonja Ermisch has noted, there are three types of relativisation strategies present in most African languages (Ermisch 2012). These are:
- Correlative Strategy, which is a subset of the non-reduction strategy. In this case, the entire noun phrase is retained with no modification along with an added pronomial form in the matrix clause,
- The pronoun retention strategy, wherein a ‘resumptive’ pronoun is present within the relative clause, and
- The ‘gap’ strategy, which deals with noun cases which are absent in African languages, and, consequently, has various other implications attached to it.
Of the given forms, it the third which is the most pervasive form in Swahili. In fact it can be argued that the first two forms can only exist as sub-forms of the third because any pronoun used in a relative way is usually reduced to a particle. This feature of Swahili was well looked into by Zwart and will not be taken into consideration for this paper (ref: Zwart 1997). and so it will be looked into in greater detail. Ermisch further described three ways in which the problem of the gap strategy has been solved, while Deo Ngonyani added a fourth to the list. (Ngonyani 2001)
Gap Strategy and Syntax
While the other three strategies are, by and large, syntactically similar to their equivalents in languages such as English and German, the Gap strategy is unique. As noted by Ermisch, the gap strategy, as used in other languages, implies the existence of a case for the noun head. However, in African languages, including Swahili, nouns do not have a case and so the problem of relativisation (which other languages solve morphologically), is solved through various syntactic alterations.
These sub-strategies are the ‘tensed relatives’, the ‘tensless relatives’, the ‘amba relatives’ and (as added by Ngonyani) the relatives which adjoin the negative marker ‘-si-’. Each of these will hereafter be discusses.
- Firstly, the ‘amba’ relative.
This kind of relative clause is constructed with the ‘amba’ morpheme. For example:
vi-tabu [amba-vyo Juma a-Ji-nunu-a] ni ghali
8-book amba-8.REL Juma 1-PST-buy-FV COP expensive
The books Juma bought are expensive. (Ngonyani 2001: 61)
- itabu amba-cho ni-li-ki-som-a
7.book amba-7 AN.1SG-PAST-7.OBJ-read-FV
book which I read (Lipps 2011:23)
- itabu ch-a mtoto amba-cho ni-li-ki-som-a
7.book 7.SG-of 1.child amba-7 AN.1SG-PAST-7.OBJ-read-FV
child’s book which I read (Keach 1980:112 as quoted in Lipps 2011:23)
- sauti nzuri z-a ndege amba-zo watu wa-li-zoe-a
10.voice 10.good 10-of 10.bird amba-10 2.person AN.3PL-PAST-be.accustomed-FV ku-zi-siki-a
INF-10.OBJ-hear-FV
the pleasant voices of (the) birds which the people grew accustomed to hearing (Lipps 2011:23)
As can be seen from the example quoted from Ngonyani’s paper, the use of the ‘amba’ creates a relative clause which is syntactically similar to construction of sentences in languages such as English where the relative pronoun would be used. The relative clause verb is placed immediately after the head noun which gives it an immediacy and direct, one could even say, ‘causal’ link between the relative clause and the head noun. Note that the relative marker attached to ‘amba’ in the given example (-vyo) is in agreement with the noun head and thereby forms a relation to the noun phrase. Note, also, that amba is, functionally, a free morpheme which means that the following verbs are not constrained in any way and can express any tense. This is important to understand the difference between this particular gap strategy and the other three.
- The second strategy is the tensed relative.
As mentioned earlier, the ‘amba’ relatives is the only strategy which contains the possibility of use in any tense. The tensed relative, therefore, is restricted to only certain tenses and it is worth noting these tenses as well as their affixes. They are:
- The present progressive tense, with the affix ‘-na-‘,
- The future tense, with the affix ‘-taka-‘, and
- The past tense, with the affix ‘-li-‘
These affixes ensure that the verb of the relative clause and the noun of the main noun phrase are in agreement and thereby establish a relation between them. The added affix is, as seen in the case of the future tense, only slightly different (if at all) from affixes added to verbs in a simple sentence. This small addition causes the relative clause to function as needed in the sentence. Moreover it gives the relative clause verb a certain level of syntactic flexibility which ‘amba’ relative clauses lack. Given the specific morpheme attached to these verbs, they can be placed in several different places in a sentence resulting in several different syntactic formations. Some examples are given to illustrate this feature (taken from Ermisch’s article). The first example shows that even if the sentence is changed from singular to plural, the essential syntactic structure remains. It can thereby be deduced that it is the syntax which forms the strongest bond between the noun phrase and the relative clause.
- Mw-alimu a-na-ye-sem-a a-na-ka-a jira-ni.
CL1-teacher 3SG-PROG-REL.CL1-speak-INDIC 3SG-PROG-live-INDIC next-door-LOC
The teacher who is speaking is living next-door. (Ermisch: 5)
- W-alimu wa-na-o-sem-a wa-na-ka-a jira-ni.
CL2-teacher 3PL-PROG-REL.CL2-speak-INDIC 3PL-PROG-live-INDIC next-door-LOC
The teachers who are speaking are living next-door. (Ermisch: 5)
A further example shows that the principle employed in adding the affix to the verb without otherwise changing the syntax of the sentence holds true even when an object is inserted:
- Mw-alimu a-na-ye-ki-som-a ki-tabu
CL1-teacher 3SG-PROG-REL.CL1-OBJ.CL7-read-INDIC CL7-book
a-na-ka-a jira-ni.
3SG-PROG-live-INDIC next-door-LOC
The teacher who is reading the book is living next door. (Ermisch: 5)
Applying this principle to sentences which contain relative clauses appended to the object instead of the subject yields the same result and the sentence structure is otherwise left unaltered. For example:
- n.yumba ni-li-zo-zi-on-a
CL10.house 1SG-PAST-REL.CL10-OBJ.CL10-see-INDIC
The houses which I saw (Ermisch: 6)
- The next strategy is with the application of the general negative affix – ‘-si-‘
This strategy is almost identical to the previous one, except of the general negative affix – ‘-si-‘ renders the sentence tenseless. The fundamental sentence structure places this strategy nearer to tensed relatives, though the nature of the sentence, in the semantic sense, places it closer to the tensless relative. It is for this reason that Ngonyani chose to treat this category separately. An example of this kind of relative is:
- msichana a-si-ye-pend-a ku-som-a
1.girl AN.3SG-NEG-AN.3SG.REL-like-FV INF-read-FV
‘a girl who does not like to read’ (Mohammed 2001:187)
- vi-tabu [a-si-vyo-som-a Juma] ni-ta-vi-uz-a
8-book 3S-NEG-8.REL-read-FV Juma lS-FUT-8-sell-FV
The books that Juma does not read I will sell. (Ngonyani 2001:61)
- The final strategy is that of the ‘tenseless’ relative.
This is a curious construction from a syntactic point of view since, as the name suggests, it precludes the non-existence of tense. Aspect markings are also absent here. It is due to these qualities that this strategy is sometimes called the ‘general relative’. For example:
- A-fundish-a-ye ni mw-alimu.
3SG-teach-INDIC-REL.CL1 AUX.be CL1-teacher
He who teaches is a teacher. (Ermisch: 7)
As can be noted, the sentence follows a strict syntactic pattern – subject-verb base-final vowel-relative. Given its non-temporal nature, the strategy has been said to exist to describe habitual occurrences, or facts which are perpetually true. This also entails a level of difficulty in translation since languages such as English have inescapably locked tense into the verb of a given sentence. This is why sentences which possess tensless relatives are usually translated into the present. For example:
- Wa-tu w-engi wa-sem-a-o ki-swahili
CL2-person CL2-much 3PL-live-INDIC-REL.CL2 CL7-Swahili
wa-na-ka-a Kenya.
3pl-prog-live-indic cl9.Kenya
Many people who speak Swahili are living in Kenya. (Ermisch: 7)
Having looked into various strategies for attaching a relative clause to a sentence, it might be useful to analyze certain common features in all of them.
- First, the placement of the subject. Thus far the subject has always been placed at the start of the sentence (to the extreme left). However, as Lipps has noted, there are certain cases where the subject can occur in a different, sometimes post-verbal position. This is called subject postponing (Lipps 2011). Two examples can here be given:
- chakula amba-cho a-li-ki-pik-a mama 7.food amba-7 AN.3SG-PAST-7.OBJ-cook-FV 1.mother
food which mother cooked (Edelsten et al. as quoted in Lipps 2011:25)
- kitabu a-li-cho-ki-som-a Juma 7.book AN.3SG-PAST-7.OBJ-7.REL-read-FV Juma
‘book Juma read’ (Keach 1980:211 as quoted in Lipps 2011: 24)
Further examples of subject postponing show that this technique, though possible, is not always encouraged.
- mtu amba-ye a-li-m-pend-a Juma 1.person amba-AN.3SG AN.3SG-PAST AN.3SG.OBJ-like-FV Juma
the person who liked Juma. (Keach 1980:211 as quoted in Lipps 2011:28)
- mtu amba-ye Juma a-li-m-pend-a
1.person amba-AN.3SG Juma AN.3SG-PAST-AN.3SG.OBJ-like-FV
the person whom Juma liked. (Keach 1980:211 as quoted in Lipps 2011:28)
It is important to note in the above examples that, according to Keach, these are the only possible constructions with this manner of subject postponing.
- When passive verbs are used in constructing relative clauses, the passive verb often takes the primary position, displacing the subject to a later position. For rxample:
- chakula amba-cho ki-li-pik-w-a
na mvulana.
7.food amba-7 7-PAST-cook-PASS-FV
the food which was cooked by the boy (Keach 1980:105 as quoted in Lipps 2011: 28)
- chakula ki-li-cho-pik-w-a na mvulana 7.food 7-PAST-7.REL-cook-PASS-FV by 1.boy
the food which was cooked by the boy (Keach 1980:106 as quoted in Lipps 2011: 29)
- mvulana amba-ye chakula ki-li-pik-w-a na-ye
1.boy amba-AN.3SG 7.food 7-PAST-cook-PASS-FV by-3SG.PRO
the boy the food was cooked by (Keach 1980:105 as quoted in Lipps 2011: 28)
It is also worth noting an ungrammatical example to understand how syntax is established:
- mvulana chakula ki-li-ye-pik-w-a naye
1.boy 7.food 7-PAST-AN.3SG.REL-cook-PASS-FV by-3SG.PRO
‘the boy the food was cooked by’ (Keach 1980:106 as quoted in Lipps 2011: 29)
- A final form of syntactic variation in relative clauses is the so called headless relative. Such relatives are called ‘headless’ because not only do they belong to the tenseless strategy, they also do not have a specified subject. This gives them a very general nature. For example:
- Li-andik-w-a-lo ha-li-fut-ik-i
5-write-PASS-FV-5.REL NEG-5-wipe.off-STAT-FV
That which is written cannot be blotted out. (Ashton 1987:114 as quoted in Lipps 2011:33)
Such syntactic variation is hard to come by and is not used very often. Though it must be included because these are grammatically correct sentences and can provide insight into the syntactic construction of relative clauses in Swahili.
Given these syntactic variations, relative clauses in Swahili are seen to hinge quite heavily on syntax. Syntactic arrangements, together with morphological variation, cause relative clauses to look and behave in a unique way in Swahili. Although a good deal of variation is possible, as Lipps has noted, it is not always encouraged and standard forms are seen to hold sway by and large.
References
Ermisch, Sonja. (2013). Relative Clause Formation in the African Context: The Case of Swahili.
Goethe-Universität Frankfurt am Main.
Henderson, Brent Mykel. (2006). The Syntax and Typology of Bantu Relative Clauses. Urbana,
Illinois.
Lipps, Jonathan. (2011). A Lexical-Functional Analysis of Swahili Relative Clauses. Trinity
Term 2011. Oxfordshire: Oxford University.
Mohamed, Mohamed Abdulla. (2001). Modern Swahili Grammar. Nairobi: East African Educational Publishers. Retrieved from https://books.google.co.in/books?id=jyNEDFSK9IUC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Mohamed,+Mohamed+Abdulla.+2001.+Modern+Swahili+Grammar&hl=en&sa=X&ei=akuOVN_aMcWNuASypYK4Dg&ved=0CBsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Mohamed%2C%20Mohamed%20Abdulla.%202001.%20Modern%20Swahili%20Grammar&f=false.
Mpiranya, Fidele. (2014). Swahili Grammar and Work Book. New York: Routledge.
Ngonyani, Deo. (2001). Evidence for Head Raising in Kiswahili Relative Clauses. Studies in
South African Linguistics, 30 1.
Thompson, Katrina Daly and Schleicher, Antonia Folarin. (2001). Swahili Learners’ Reference
Grammar. Wisconsin: NALRC. Publications Office.
Zwart, Jan-Wouter. (1997). A Short Note on Relative Constructions in Lega and Swahili.
