A corpus-driven study of the expression of necessity in Luganda (Bantu, JE15)

Abstract

This article reports on the analysis of three major markers of necessity in Luganda, i.e. the modal auxiliaries -téekw-and -lina and the verbal prefix -andi-. On the basis a 4-million-word corpus it is argued that, overall, the auxiliary -téekw-is more established as a necessity marker, as it is involved in the expression of all necessity subcategories except participant-inherent dynamic necessity. The auxiliary -lina is less semantically diversified, expressing only participant-imposed, situational and deontic necessity, while the verbal prefix -andi-expresses only deontic necessity. A comparison of corpus data with data from older literature on Luganda further shows that the objective category of participant-inherent dynamic necessity, which is not associated with any of the three markers described, is perhaps expressed by less-grammaticalised forms. These forms are also, together with other grammaticalised forms that have increasingly become rare, assumed to be part of the devices that could have been responsible for expressing necessity in earlier stages of the language, given that the three markers described in this research have only begun to meaningfully express necessity since the second half of the 20th century. Introduction: The rationale for studying the necessity markers -téekw-, -lina and -andi-The understanding of necessity adopted in this article is that it is one of the two major sub-domains of modality, the other being possibility (Palmer 1986: 20; van der Auwera and Plungian 1998: 80; Kratzer 2012: 28). We use the typology proposed by Nuyts (2006, see also Nuyts 2016), in which three types of necessity are recognised. Dynamic necessity concerns 'the indication of a need or necessity for the first-argument participant' (Nuyts 2006: 3). If the needs or necessities are fully inherent to the first-argument participant or subject, it is referred to as participant-inherent dynamic necessity. If the necessity is determined by external circumstances, it is participant-imposed dynamic necessity, and for necessities/inevitabilities inherent in the situation described in the state of affairs, it is called situational dynamic necessity. Deontic necessity is generally defined as an assessment of the degree of moral acceptability of the state of affairs, while epistemic necessity is concerned with a high likelihood or probability that the state of affairs expressed in the clause applies in the world.In (older) Luganda dictionaries, grammars and handbooks, a number of forms with meanings associated with the concept of 'necessity' can be identified. These forms, some of which are auxiliaries or auxiliary-like verbs, include -téekw-'must, be obliged, be bound', -étaag-'need, require, want, desire, crave, long for', -gwán(ír)-'ought, be expedient, be necessary, be obligatory, must, be fitting, be suitable, behove', -sáan(ir)-'ought, be behoved' and -lina 'have' (see O'Flaherty 1892;

Corpus-driven Bantu Lexicography Part 3: Mapping Meaning onto Use in Lusoga

“…The team at the University of Pretoria has since furthered the field of BCL, as may be seen in studies on Northern Sotho (Taljard 2006, de Schryver and Taljard 2007, Taljard 2012, Taljard and de Schryver 2016. Meanwhile at BantUGent (i.e., the UGent Centre for Bantu Studies), an increasing number of research articles includes aspects of BCL, as seen in studies on Lusoga (de Schryver and Nabirye 2010, Nabirye and de Schryver 2011, Nabirye 2016), on Cilubà (De Kind and Bostoen 2012, Dom et al 2015, on Kirundi (Bostoen et al 2012, Mberamihigo 2014, Lafkioui et al 2016, Mberamihigo et al 2016, Nshemezimana 2016, Devos et al 2017, Misago 2018), on Swahili (Devos and de Schryver 2013), on Kikongo (De Kind et al 2013, Bostoen and de Schryver 2015, De Kind et al 2015, and on Luganda (Kawalya et al 2014, Kawalya 2017, Kawalya et al 2018. Not all of these studies are truly corpusbased, let alone corpus-driven, as some of them are closer to being 'corpusillustrated' (Tummers et al 2005) or even tend to use their corpora as fish ponds:…”

“…In this article we wish to investigate how meaning potentials may be drawn from usages as found in a Bantu-language corpus, through an approach known as 'mapping meaning onto use' (Hanks 2002), as applied in the ongoing compilation of a new Lusoga dictionary. With this topic we are squarely dealing with a dictionary's microstructure, although the method may of course be used (and is used) in the field of Bantu corpus linguistics more generally, as may be seen from the recent PhDs of Nabirye (2016) for Lusoga, Kawalya (2017) for Luganda, and Mberamihigo (2014), Nshemezimana (2016) and Misago (2018) for Kirundi. The major reference for any corpus-based microstructural issues in Bantu lexicography is de Schryver and Prinsloo (2000).…”

Corpus-driven Bantu Lexicography Part 1: Organic Corpus Building for Lusoga

“…We also illustrated the importance of knowing one's corpus, not only in terms of the oral vs. written distribution, but similarly with regard to the distribution of the sources, periods, genres, and topics. Variations on our presentation are of course possible, and indeed in the PhDs of Mberamihigo (2014), Nshemezimana (2016) and Misago (2018) for Kirundi, as well as the PhD of Kawalya (2017) for Luganda, three-dimensional graphs are shown in addition, the third dimension representing the diachronic aspects of their corpora. The point, however, is that a detailed description of a corpus is needed if one is to make intelligent use of it.…”

“…Even the latest version of the widely-used Helsinki Corpus of Swahili is not accompanied by a proper description (Hurskainen 2016). The only exceptions to this pattern seem to be the corpora built to carry out corpus linguistics studies at BantUGent (i.e., the UGent Centre for Bantu Studies) where, for instance, the PhDs of Mberamihigo (2014), Nshemezimana (2016) and Misago (2018) describe the various Kirundi corpora built, or where the PhD of Kawalya (2017) describes the Luganda corpus that he used for his study. The building of a Lingála corpus may be found in the PhD of Sene-Mongaba (2013), reworked and expanded as Sene-Mongaba (2015).…”