NEGATIVE ADVERBS IN YORÙBÁ

Ayọ̀ Yusuff

University of Lagos, Nigeria

1          Introduction

This paper intends to present our findings on some Yoruba words in (1) all having meanings relating to ‘at all’ and ‘no longer’.

(1)        a.         rárá

b.         pẹ́ẹ̀

c.         pẹ́ẹ̀pẹ́ẹ̀

d.         píntín

e.         kankan

f.          páàpáà

g.         mọ́

            h.         páà

As we are going to show, they are negative adverbs because of their modification function in sentences. We observe that they have negation in their meanings and occur in only non-interrogative negative constructions. In this paper, we also look at previous works on Yoruba adverbs, Yoruba negators and negation in Yoruba to support our claims.

2.         Previous studies on Yorùbá adverbs and negation

Yoruba adverbs and adverbials have been discussed or analyzed by many Yoruba grammarians either directly or indirectly. Among them are Ward (1952), Delano (1958), Bamgbose (1966) and (1976), Ogunbowale (1970), Awobuluyi (1975), (1978) and (1982), Fakehinde (1983), and Oke (1974). The treatment of Yoruba adverbs has also varied from author to author. While some first present a list of what they regard as adverbs and their distribution, as done by Delano (1958), others go further to mention how they affect meaning and their formation as done by Ward (1952). In Bamgbose (1966), the treatment of adverbials rest mainly on their function as adjuncts in clause structures. He however claims that members of other groups can also function as adjuncts.

Bamgbose (1976) is an examination of the proposal that words such as patapata ‘completely’ and kíakía ‘quickly’ in sentences like:

(2)        Won ra a pátápátá 

They bought it completely/they bought it all up

(3)        Won ra a kíákíá   

They bought it quickly/they buy it in hurry

should not be considered as adverbs but nouns. The proposal which Bamgbose (1976) examines was made by Awobuluyi (1975, 1982) and Rowlands (1970). Ogunbowale (1970) discusses adverbials with respect to their distribution, formation and types. He finally divides them into types namely, time, place and direction, manner, affirmative, doubt, number, measurement and quantity, interrogative, result, comparison, condition, cause and concession. He does not mention negative adverbs as a subcategory.

Awobuluyi (1975) explains that words like kíakía, kìtakìta gìrìgìrì, ketekete, werewere are nouns while words like rí, mọ́, bí, ṣáá gan-an are adverbs. He calls mọ́ which is one of words we are examining an adverb. He does not mention the type and the kind of construction in which it is found. Awobuluyi (1978) is mainly classificatory. He endeavours to explain how the positioning of adverbs is determined by the structures of sentences. The classification is done by distribution, that is, the position they occupy in sentences. He has pre-verbal adverbs, post-verbal adverbs, pre-verbal adverbials and post-verbal adverbials.

Oke (1974) attempts a structural sub-classification of Yoruba adverbials and agrees that the prestructuralist (traditionalist) sub-classification which is based on intuition coincides in many respects with that of the structuralists.

Quite a number of Yoruba grammarians have shown considerable interest in the process of negation in Yoruba. This fact is manifested in the sections they devoted to the discussions of negative constructions in Yoruba in their grammar books and/or articles. Most of these grammarians succeeded in providing a list of some of the negators while some explored further by discussing the distribution of negators in sentences. Notably among such grammarians are Abraham (1958), Awobuluyi (1978), Bamgbose (1966), Delano (1965), Ogunbowale (1970), Ward (1952) and Fakehinde (1983).

Only a few of the Yoruba grammarians consider more than kò and its elliptical allomorph ò or its variants kì and máà as markers of negation. The terms given to markers vary from grammarian to grammarian. To Ward (1952:95) they are particles. Bamgbose (1976:20) and Oke (1982:247) call them negators. Abraham (1958: xxx) and Ogunbowale(1970:52) see them as negatives. Banjo (1974) describes terms them as markers of negation, while to Awobuluyi (1977:69-70, 100, 125) they are classified as pre-verbal adverbs, introducers and negative words.

3          Negation and Negative adverbs

This section looks at negative adverbs in Yorùbá primarily. First we define the term negation in general before looking at how it relates to adverbs in the language. Negation is a device employed in language to deny an affirmative. Fakehinde (1983) referring to Kempson (1975) observes that unlike positive indicative sentences which are used to assert some propositions, negatives are used to claim that their corresponding proposition is false.

            Observations on the manifestations of negative constructions have shown that negative sentences are not used in discourse to introduce new arguments, but rather they are used in contexts in which the referential arguments have already been introduced in the preceding context. Consider the following sentences in this connection:

(4)        a.         Ayo ọ́ kawe, 

Ayò HTS read-book

‘Ayò read a book’

b.         Ayo ko kawe  

Ayo  neg.  read 

‘Ayo did not read a book’

(5)        a.         Omo agbe     ẹ́          sun   

Child farmer    HTS sleep 

‘The farmer’s child slept’

b.         Omo agbe ko sun  

Child farmer neg. sleep 

‘The farmer’s child did not sleep

(6)        a.         Ìyawo mi bímo ní ana 

Wife  my gave birth yesterday 

‘My wife put to bed yesterday

b.         Ìyawo mi ko bímo ní ana 

Wife my neg. gave birth yesterday

‘My wife did not put to bed yesterday

Fakehinde (1983) goes on further that such sentences show that negation constitutes a different speech act from affirmatives. While the (a) sentences of each pair is used to convey new information on the assumptions of ignorance of the hearer, the (b) sentences, i.e. the corresponding negatives are denials of the hearer’s previous assumption.

The point being made here is that it is correct to say that negative is used largely to deny supposed belief of the hearer in the context where the corresponding affirmative has been assumed rather than to impart new information in the context of the hearer’s ignorance. On the basis of these, one can rightly claim that negation is not a distinct speech act in language. Negative adverbs constitute some Yoruba words which are inherently negative in the sense that they do not occur in non-interrogative positive sentences.

3.1       Defining negative adverbs

We consider a lexical item to be a negative adverb when it occurs in a non-interrogative negative construction only and it modifies an already overtly negated sentence.

3.2       Types of Negative Adverbs

We observe that negative adverbs in Yorùbá divide into two groups: basic negative adverbs and those lexical items that function as negative adverbs in certain environments. We discuss them in turn.

3.2.1    Basic negative adverbs

As earlier mentioned in our introduction, negative adverbs in Yoruba are the following; rárá, péè, péèpéè, píntín, kankan, páàpáà, mó, páà. As we show, they can only occur in negative constructions. This is evident by the ungrammaticality of the “b” examples in (7-9) where we try to force them to occur in positive constructions.

(7)        a..        Ade ko lo mo          

Ade  neg.  go  no longer

‘Ade no longer went’

            b.         *Ade lo mọ́          

Ade go no longer

(8)        a.         Bola ko lo rara 

Bola neg. go at all 

‘Bola did not go at all.’

            b.         *Bola lo rara         

Bola go at all

(9)        a.         Tísa  ko jeun kankan 

Teacher neg eat anything

‘Teacher did not eat anything.’

            b..        *Tísa jeun kankan[1]  

Teacher eat anything

The fact that their occurrence is limited to negative constructions makes them differ from other adverbs in Yoruba. We would therefore prefer to regard the items listed above as basic negative adverbs. This assumed status stems from the fact that they occur in negative constructions only. In (7a) following Fakehinde (1983), for instance, the function of mọ́ is the modification of the already negative interpretation of lo, lo as would be observed is interpreted negatively by virtue of the fact that the scope of the modal operator contained in kò is restricted to it.

We agree totally with Fakehinde (1983) in her observation that Olowookere (1980) is not explicit in his assertion that negative adverbs are sometimes understood on their own as denial when used in full sentence forms and also elliptically. We also observe that these assertions are true for some of them like rárá, péè, péèpéè, píntín, páà and páàpáà and not true for the others. We shall exemplify with rárá. It is true that rárá is sometimes understood on its own as denial. It is also true that it is used in full sentence form as response to sentences such as:

(10)      a.         Se oga wa ní ile? 

Q. Boss be at home? 

‘Is the boss in?’

b.         Rara 

No

c.         Òga ko sí ní ile rara

Boss neg be at home at all.

‘The boss is not in at all’

It is noticed that (10b) is a result of the fact that the use of rara permits an optional deletion of other constituents in the construction. The semantic content of this adverb might have motivated that. It is usually understood as none and has the interpretation of no when stated.

Following Fakehinde (1983), when rara is used in a negative construction that serves as a reply to a question, an optional deletion of other constituents in the reply is possible. It may therefore be used elliptically as in:

(11)      a.         Se Ade lo? 

Q. Ade go 

‘Did Ade go?’

b..        [Ade ko lo] rara

Ade  neg. go at all 

‘Ade did not go at all’.

(12)      a.         Nje otí wa?

Q. drink be

‘Is there (any) liquor?

b.         [Otí ko sí] rara

Drink neg be at all 

‘There is no drink at all’

Although it appears correct in a sense to say that rárá can be used in full sentence form just as Olowookere (1980) observes, it is due, not only to the semantic interpretation of the adverb, but also to be the use that speakers have come to associate with it. (cf. Fakehinde 1983).

We shall examine the other negative adverbs such as mó and kankan to prove that they do not behave like rárá and the others mentioned along with them. Mó cannot be understood as denial on its own and cannot be used in full sentence form. Consider the following sentences:

(13)      a.         Ǹje o jeun 

Q. you eat 

‘Did you eat’

b.         N ko jeun mọ́.

I neg. eat again.

I did not eat again.’

c.         *mọ́ 

again

(14)      a.         Se Ade pa eku 

Q. Ade kill rat

‘Did Ade kill rat?’

b.         Ade ko pa eku kankan.

Ade neg. kill rat any

Ade did not kill any rat

c.         *kankan. 

*any

These show that mó and kankan can neither be used in full sentence form nor elliptically as claimed by Olowookere (1980).

The fact that some of these negative adverbs are sometimes understood on their own as denial and can be used in full sentence form while others cannot, does not constitute a major difference which can prevent us from categorising them together as negative adverbs. It only shows that members of the former group e.g. rárá are more semantically loaded than members of the latter e.g. mó. Members of both groups still perform the same function of modification which is known with adverbs.

On whether they might not after all be qualified to belong to the adverbial class because they cannot pass the test of focus which all Yoruba adverbs pass as in: (15) and (16) below; we will like to say that Yoruba adverbs are rarely focussed in negative constructions. Consider the following sentences:

(15)      a.         Bola ko lo rárá

Bola  neg. go at all

‘Bola did not go at all’

            b.         *Rára ni Bola ko lo

(16)      a.         Ade ko jeun mo 

Ade neg eat again 

‘Ade did not eat again’

            b.         *Mọ́ ni Ade ko jeun

In the same vein, pure adverbs as in (17) and (18) cannot be similarly focused.

(17)      a.         Ade ko lo kíakía  

Ade  neg. go quickly 

‘Ade did not go quickly’

b          *Kíakía ni Ade ko lo

(18)      a.         Aja naa ko sun fonfon 

Dog the neg. sleep deeply 

‘The dog did not sleep soundly’

b.         *Fonfon ni aja ko sun

When pure adverbs are focussed, they do so only with another form of the negator as shown in (19) and (20).

(19)      Kíakía ko ní Ade lo  

Quickly neg. Foc. Mk. Ade go

‘Ade did not go quickly’

(20)      Fonfon ko ni aja naa sun 

Deeply ng foc. Mk dog the sleep 

‘The dog did not sleep soundly’

To actually see that rárá and mó are not pure adverbs, an attempt to make them occur with kọ́, results to ungrammaticality.

(21)      *Rárá ko ní Ade lo  

At all neg. Foc. Mk. Ade go

(22)      *Mọ́ ko ni aja naa sun 

again neg foc. Mk dog the sleep 

‘The dog did not sleep soundly’

 Therefore, the fact that those items failed focus test should not be a criterion for disregarding the negative adverbs as a subcategory of Yoruba adverbs.

3.2.2    The Pseudo negative adverbs: tì/rí/tíì

Fakehinde (1983:36) calls items such as tì, tíì, rárá, pẹ́ẹ̀, rí, inherent negators either because negation may be inherent in them or by virtue of the fact that they are often found to occur in negative constructions. She then concludes that they are negative adverbs. Fakehinde’s (1983) analysis of tì, rí and tíì as negative adverbs needs to be re-examined. The fact that tì occurs in positive sentences such as (23) disqualifies it from being a negative adverb per se.

(23)      A gbé e tì

we carry it fail

‘We were unable to carry it.’

It does not modify an already negative sentence. There is of course no doubt as Fakehinde rightly notes that it has negation in its meaning. This fact is more reinforced because it can function as a predicate, thereby becoming a verb as in (24).

(24)      Ò tì   

it fail

‘Not so’

Tì will therefore be qualified to be an adverb or verb in the language depending on its function in a sentence.

On the item rí, we notice that it occurs both in positive and negative constructions such as in (25) and (26).

(25).     Ade lo rí 

Ade went before

(26)      Ade ko lo rí

Ade never went before.

It modifies a verb regardless of whether it has been negated or not and it does not carry any negative meaning in it like tì does. It is therefore an adverb in the language. It has no peculiar features.

The last item of contention is tíì. In this paper, we analyze it as the perfective aspect marker in negative constructions in Yoruba language. It does not perform any modification function in sentences. It is therefore not an adverb at all. Consider the following sentences:

(27)            Ade ko tíì lo 

Ade reg.  Perf. Asp. go

‘Ade had not gone’

(28)            Èmi ko tíì sun

I  neg. per asp  sleep 

‘I had not slept’

4          Conclusion

In this paper, we have discussed negation and negative adverbs in Yorùbá language and demonstrated that tì, rí and tíì are not negative adverbs as earlier claimed in the literature. We draw more evidence from more lexical items and show their distribution in more syntactic environments such as topicalization and focus constructions.

References

Abraham, R. C. (1958): Dictionary of Modern Yoruba, London, University of London, Press.

Ajiboye, O. (2005) ‘The syntax and semantics of Noun-kankan (Any-X) in Yorùbá.’ Journal of the Linguistic Association of Nigeria. Vol. 9:71-87.

Awobuluyi, O. (1975): ‘Some Traditional Adverbs in true Perspective’, Ibadan, Journal of West African Languages, vol. X no. 1, pp. 28-54.

__________   (1978): Essentials of Yoruba Grammar, Ibadan, Oxford University Press.

__________  (1982): ‘More on the Reanalysis of some Yoruba Adverbs as Nouns’ Paper presented at Linguistics and Nigerian Languages Seminar, Room 13, Faculty of Arts, 17 June, 1982, (U. I)

Baker, M. (2003) Verbs, Nouns and Adjectives: Their Universal Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Bamgbose, A. (1966): A Grammar of Yoruba, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

_________  (1967): A Short Yoruba Grammar, Ibadan, Heineman Educational Books Limited

_________  (1976): ‘Are Yoruba Adverbs Really Nouns?’ Ibadan, Journal of West African Languages XI 1-2 pp. 21-40

_________  (1983): ‘Negation and Serial Verbal Construction Types in Yorùbá’, paper presented at the 14^th Annual Conference on African Linguistics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, April 7-10.

Banjo, A. (1972): ‘Sentences Negation in Yoruba’ In Studies in African Linguistics suppl. 5:37-47.

Delano, I. O. (1958): Atúmò Èdè Yorùbá, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

__________  (1965): A Modern Yoruba Grammar, London, Thomas Nelson and Sons Ltd.

Fakehinde, M. O. (1983): Aspects of Negation in Yoruba, unpublished M. A. project, University of Ibadan, Ibadan.

Kempson, R. (1975): Presupposition and the Delimitation of Semantics, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Ogunbowale, P. O. (1970): The Essentials of the Yoruba Language, London, University of London Press.

Oke, D. O. (1974): ‘Syntactic Correlates of Notionally Defined Adverbial Types in Yoruba in Studies in African Linguistics. Suppl. 5, Oct 1974, pp. 233-252.

Olowookere, E. T., (1980): Negation in Yoruba Unpublished M. A. project, University of Ife, Ile-Ife.

Owolabi, K. O. (1987) ‘Focus Constructions as Noun Phrase: A critique’ Yorùbá 1:45-62

Rowlands, E. C. (1970): ‘Ideophones in Yoruba’ in African Language Studies, Vol. XI.

Ward, I. (1952): Introduction to the Yoruba Language. Cambridge, W. Heffer and Sons Limited.

Yusuff L. A. (1987): ‘Yoruba Adverbials: A Semantic, Syntactic and Pragmatic Analysis’ Unpublished M. A. project, University of Ibadan, Ibadan

Acknowledgement:

I am particularly grateful to Dr. Oládiípò Ajíbóyè for his insightful contributions to this paper.

---

[1] The status of kankan is not as firm as that of  mó as it can also occur in nominal expressions to have the interpretation of a negative polarity item (cf. Ajíbóyè 2005).