A Semantic Analysis of a Yorùbá Modal Verb
A Semantic Analysis of a Yorùbá Modal Verb
Credit: Prof L. O. Adewole
Yoruba for academic purpose
1. Introduction[1]
In this paper, we examine the meaning[2] of
the Yorùbá modal verb, lè[3]“can”.
Modality/Mood, according to Chung and Timbrlake (1985: 241).
Characterizes the actuality of an event by comparing
the event world(s) to a reference world, termed the actual world. An event can
simply be actual (more precisely, the event world is identical to the actual
world): an event can be hypothetically possible (the event world is not
identical to the actual world): the event may be imposed by the speaker on the
addresses: and so on. Whereas there is basically one way for an event to be
actual, there are numerous ways that an event can be less than completely
actual.
These
characteristics of Modality/Mood lead Chung and Timberlake (1958: 241) to
conclude that the “internal complexity” of Modality/Mood is great. Because of
this noted internal complexity of Modality/Mood, in our analysis, we shall make
an extensive use of a corpus data taken from Atótó Arére, a fictional
narrative prose based on some social shortcomings of the Nigerian Society. The
novel is written by Ọladẹ̀jọ Òkédìjí.
2. The Use of the Corpus Data
The
corpus data will be used:
(1) For examplificatory purposes to enable us to provide
objective semantic description of the use of the modal verb, lè “can”.
(2) As a model for the invented examples that we might
need to exemplify some areas of meanings which are not covered in the corpus.
3. Reasons for Taking our Data from Atótó
Arére
Our interest in using the corpus data taken from Atótó
Arére stems from the fact that:
(3) The prose depicts not only real characters but also
reflects real life experience in some Nigerian cities.
(4) The prose is also one of those few writings in Yorùbá
which adequately represent the standard language. The dialectal variation is
minimal and most lengthened syllables are indicated.
4. The Modal Meaning of Lè “Can”
The modal meanings of lè “can” in Atótó
Arére can be divided into the following: (a) Possibility (b) Ability and
(c) Permission. We shall discuss these meanings one by one.
4.1 Possibility
This has the sense “it is possible that …” or to use
Chung and Timberlakes (1985: 242) terms – “there is at least one world one
could imagine in which…”. In Atótó Arére, we note the following characteristics
about the ‘possibility” uses of lè “can” (1) the range of time reference
possible in its use, (2) its use for what Coates (1985: 134) calls hedging
quality, (3) some of the features it can semantically and syntactically co-occur
with and (4) its combination with harmonic adverbs.
4.1.1 Possible Time Reference
“Possibility” lè “can” can be used in a
sentence in which the main predication refers to (a) time prior to the moment
of speaking as in (5), (b) time prior to the moment of speaking which extends
to the moment of speaking as in (6) and time subsequent to the moment of speaking as
in (7).
(5) Bí mo bá mọ̀ pé wọ́n lè pa ọ ni,
If I know say they can kill you FOC
Ǹ bá jẹ́wọ́ (p. 10)
I would confess.
“If I had known that you could be executed, I would
have confessed.
(6) O sì lè máa rò pé oró ti
You may continue think say suffer which
o dá mi ni èmi ná dá ọ san (p. 10)
You suffer me FOC I too do you revenge
“You may now be thinking that I am avenging the wrong
I suffered from you”.
(7) Ìwọ náà ò tun ní sẹ́ńjì kankan tí o
You too NEC again have change any which you
lè gbà lọ́dọ̀ ìyá ẹlẹ́pà (p. 53)
can get in-place mother groundnut-owner
“You too do not have any money to collect from the
groundnut seller again”.
4.1.2 Hedging Quality
Hedging quality is defined by Coates (1983: 134) as
the way “the speaker avoids committing himself to the truth of the proposition”
e.g.
(8) Ní ìrọ̀lẹ́ wọ́n le lọ gbá bọ́ọ̀lù (wọ́n sí lẹ̀ ma lọ)
(p. 37)
In evening they may go play ball (they may even not
go)
“In the evening, they may go out to play (or they many
not go)
In
(8), the speaker is not sure whether the boys do go out to play football in the
evening or not.
4.1.3
Syntactic and Semantic Co-occurences
Lè “can”, in is possibility use, co-occurs freely with
the following syntactic and semantic features.
Phase/Perfect
marker
(9) Ó rí wọn mú ju bí òun gan an ti lè
He see them take than as he himself have may
lálàá tẹ́lẹ̀ lọ (p. 15)
dream before go
“He caught them unaware more than he could even have
expected”.
Stative
Verbs
(10)Ó lè wà nílé, ó sì lè m’a sí nílé (p. 60).
He may be in home, he even may NEG be in home
“He may be at home or he may not be at home”
Progressive
Aspect
(11)Wọ́n… lè máa wá inú báńkì kiri bóyá
They… may PROG search inside bank around whether
àwọn ó rí ohun tí àwọn wá wá gan an (p. 137)
they will see thing that they come look itself
“They may be searching the bank whether they will be
able to find what they have come to look for”.
4.1.4 Harmonic Combination
Lè “can’ is
found in conjunction with some modally harmonic adverbs and some phrases which
have hedging quality. In the following examples, adverbs and phrases with
hedging quality are italicized.
(12)Bóyá òun tilẹ̀ lè bèrè lọ́wọ́ rẹ̀ pé
Perhaps he INT may ask in hand his that
Ibo ni bàbá Òdìẹ̀wù wà (p. 58)
Where FOC father Òdìẹ̀wù is
“Perhaps he may be able to find out form him where
Òdìẹ̀wù is”
(13)Bóyá o lè fẹ́ fẹ̀hìn lélẹ̀ ná
Perhaps you may want put back lie ground for now
kí oúnjẹ to yọrí (p. 158)
that food before ready
“Perhaps you may want to rest a bit before the food is
ready”.
(14)Ó ti ń rò pé òun lè rí ẹni tí
He has PROG think say he may see person that
yóò gbà kí oṣù parí (p. 160)
will get that month finish
“He has been thinking that he may see someone who will
allow him to stay till the end of the month (before paying)”
(15)A kìí mọ̀, o lè mọ ibi tí mo kó
We NEG know you may know place that I put
owó kan sí (p. 170)
money one in
“I wouldn’t know, you may know where I kept some
money”
4.2 Ability
This can be paraphrased as “is able to… is capable
of…”. It can either be a physical or learn ability (Asher 1982: 169-171) or a
mental ability (Hermeren 1978: 102).
Examples:
(16)Wọ́n lè jó ju kòkòrò lọ (p. 37)
They can dance pass insect go
“They can dance more than an insect”
(17)Ó ń fojú sí ìwé díẹ̀díẹ̀, kí ó lè
He PROG put eye into book small, that he may
sọ Gẹ̀ẹ́sì (p. 59)
speak English
“He is taking some time off to study so as to be able
to speak English”.
(18)Omi gbígbóná ti dàpọ̀ mọ́ tutu, àfi
Water hot has mix with cold, only
Ọlọ́run lo lè yanjhú rẹ̀ (p. 194)
God FOC he can settle it.
“Both warm and cold water have mixed together, only
God is capable to separate them”
The
following characteristics noted by Coates (1983: 39) also apply to the three
examples i.e. (16), (17) and (18):
(i)
the subjects are
animate and have agentive function;
(ii)
the verb denotes
action/activity;
(iii)
the possibility
of the action is determined by the inherent properties of the subject (including
what the subject has learnt).
4.5 Permission
This has the sense “you are allowed to” or “you are
permitted to”. This use of lè “can” signals a permission given by the
speaker or a general permission irrespective of who does the permitting. The following
are some examples from the corpus:
(19)bóò b’a fẹ́ jẹun ní tìrẹ.. o lè dìde (p. 32)
If NEG want eat in you… you can stand
“If you don’t want to eat… you can stand (and leave)
(20)O lè máa wá gbé lọ́dọ̀ mi (p. 55)
You can continue come live in-place me
“You may/can come and live at my place”
The
following characteristics are also true of these examples: they have (i)
animate subjects and (ii) agentive verbs (Coates 1983: 87).
4.3.1 Harmonic combination
The
harmonic clause bó ò bá fẹ́ “if you do not like” in (19) shows that any
permission granted by the use of lè “can” is neutral in terms of the
speaker’s wishes. It is left entirely to the addressee to decide if he wishes
to carry out the action.
4.3.2 Syntactic Co-occurence
“Permission”
lè “can” does not co-occur with an inanimate subject or a phase marker,
hence the following are not acceptable:
(21) *Òjò ó lè rọ̀
Rain HTS can fall
“There may be rain”
(22)*Òjò ó ti lè rọ̀
Rain HTS has can fall
“It might have rained”
Both
(21) and (22) are acceptable if they are given a possibility reading.
5. Epistemic and Deontic/Root Modes
Both the ability and possibility uses of lè
“can” are recognized by linguists as the “epistemic” mode while its permission
use is associated with the “deontic/root” mode. As state earlier, Chung and
Timberlake (1985: 241-242) define modality in terms of actual world and the
alternative worlds. According to them, the “epistemic mode characterizes the
event with respect to the actual world and its possible alternatives. If the
event belongs to the actual world, it is actual, if it belongs to some
alternative world (although not necessarily to the actual world), it is
possible, and so on”. They also define the deontic/root as characterizing “an
event as non-actual by the virtue of the fact that it is imposed on a given
situation. Given the actual world at any point in time, there are a number of
worlds that could conceivably develop out of that world. The deontic/root…
restricts these subsequent worlds with respect to an event, such that the event
has to belong to some or all of the subsequent worlds” (Chung and Timberlake
1985: 246).
Following Chung and Timberlake, we will define
epistemic mode as involving objective and personal assessments of the validity
of the predication, and includes such notions as certainty, logical necessity,
probability, possibility, conviction, conjecture, doubt and disbelief.
Philosophers and linguists have associated these modal meanings with a “scale
of certainty”. Deontic/root, on the other hand, has to do with degrees of moral
undertaking and responsibility, whether on the speaker’s or someone else’s
part, and involves a “scale of commitment”. This scale include notions like
intention, volition, permission, prohibition, obligation/necessity, duty etc.
For instance, Ó lè níyàwó can mean
(23)He is possibly married
(24)He is permitted to marry
(23)
is called the epistemic meaning while (24) is called the deontic/root (Lyons
1977: 791). It will be noted that the relationship between the deontic/root and
epistemic meanings of a given modal is non-arbitrary. For example, the same
modal verb here used to convey a deontic/root meaning “permission” is used to
convey an epistemic meaning “possibility”.
Given the parallelism just mentioned, it is
appropriate to comment on the differences between the two modal meanings.
Epistemic modal notions are paralleled by
language-functions such as “expressing/inquiring whether something is
considered a logical conclusion (deduction)”, “expressing how certain/uncertain
one is of something” and “inquiring how certain/uncertain one is of something”
and “”inquiring how certain/uncertain others are of something”. Deontic/root
modal notions correspond with language-functions such as “expressing that one
is/is not obliged to do something”, “inquiring whether one is obliged to do
something”, “giving and seeking permission to do something”, “inquiring whether
others have permission to do something”, and “stating that permission withheld”
(see Van EK 1975: 19-20). Other differences between deontic/root and epistemic
modalities noted by Lyons (1977: 823-825) are “that there is an intrinsic
connexion between deontic modality and futurity” and that “deontic… typically
proceeds, or derives, from some source or cause”. He also notes that while a
deontic modal normally excludes the presence of the phase/perfect marker, the
epistemic modal goes well with it.
Examples:
(25) Permission: *Ó
ti lè lọ ṣiré ní ìta
(26) Possibility: Ó ti lè lọ ṣiré ní ìta
“He may have gone out to play”
6. Negation of Lè “Can”
6.1 Epistemic Mode
Both the event and the modality can be negated in a
sentence containing the epistemic lè “can”. When the event is negated as
in (27), the scope of negation is said to be external, but when the modality is
negated as in (28), the scope of negation is internal.
(27) Mọ́ríámọ̀… ìwọ ò lè déhìn-ín wá wòran
Mọ́ríámọ̀…
you NEG can reach here come look play
mi (p. 6)
me
“Mọ́ríámọ̀…
it is not possible for you to come and watch my show” (i.e. to come and see how
he is being executed).
(28) Ó lè wà nílé, ó sì lè má
He may/can be in house, he INT can/may NEG
sí nílé kò yí ètò ohun tí
be in house NEG change arrangement things that
Alaba yóò ṣe padà (p. 60)
Alàbà will do turn back
“Whether he is in or not, the plans made by Alaba are
not changed”
It may be argued here that lè “can” owes its
internal scope of negation in (28) to the fact that it precedes rather than
follows the negative verb. That this is not the case is shown by (29) where the
negative verb precedes lè “can” and the scope of negation is still
internal and what is negated is the modality as in (28).
(29) Ó mọ̀ pé yanrìn ni wọ́n kí sínú àwọn
He know say sand FOC they put in inside those
àgbà rìbìtì¸ rìbìtì ọ̀hún, kí ọta ìbọn
drum round, round over there, that bullet gun
tí wọ́n yìn má lè tàtàpò sí ẹ̀hìn ọ̀hún (p. 7)
that they shoot NEG may stray to back other side
“He knows that the drums are filled with sand in order
for the bullets from the gun shot not to pass through them to the other side”.
6.2 Deontic Mode
With the deontic lè “can”, negation can also
apply either to the event or the modality. While (30) (a) means “… you are not
permitted to stay at work”, (30) (b) means “… you are permitted not to stay at
work”.
(30)(a) Mo fẹ́ẹ́
rán ọ níṣẹ́ lọ síbì kan lóni
I want send you in work go to place one in today
o ò níí lè dúró níbi iṣẹ́ (p. 64)
you NEG () can stay in place work
“I want to send you on an errand today, you cannnot
stay at work”.
(31)(b) Mo fẹ́ẹ́
rán ọ níṣẹ́ lọ síbì kan lónìí
I want send you in work go in place in today
o lè máà dúró níbi iṣẹ́
you can NEG can stay in place work
“I want to send you on an errand today, you may not
stay at work”.
7. Modal Combination
It is possible to combine either gbọ́dọ̀ “must”
or yóò “will” with lè “can”. When this happens, lè “can”
always follows the other modals.
Examples:
(32) Ó gbọ́dọ̀ lè ṣe e
He must can do it
“He must be able to do it”.
(33) N ó lè ṣe é
I will can do it
I will be able to
do it.
When
modals occur together, they are said to be mutually reinforcing in significance.
Yóò “will and gbọ́dọ̀
“must” cannot co-occur.
8. Summary
In this paper, we have presented a semantic analysis
of the modal verb lè “can”. Examples are taken from a narrative text to
avoid, as much as we can, a subjective interpretation of modal syntax and
semantics.
Bibliography
Afolayan, A. (1968). “The Linguistic Problems of
Yorùbá Learners and Users of English.”, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of
London.
Asher, R.E., (1982). TAMIL, Amsterdam: North
Holland Publishing Co.
Chung, Sandra and Allan Timberlake (1985). “Tense,
Aspect and Mood” in Language Typology and Syntactic Description III: Grammatical
Categories and the Lexicon, edited by Timothy Shopen, pp. 202-258,
Cambridge: University Press.
Coates, Jennifer (1983). The Semantics of Modal Auxiliaries.
London: Croom Helm.
Hermeren, Lars (1978), On Modality in English: A
Study of Semantics of the Modals: Lund: Gwk Gleerup.
Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics, Volumes I 2 Cambridge:
University Press.
Okediji, Ọladẹjọ (1983). Atótó Arére. Lagos:
Longman.
Van Ek., J. (1975). The Threshold Level. Strasbourg:
Council of Europe.
[1] An
earlier version of this paper was published as L.O. Adewole (1993), ‘A Semantic
Analysis of a Yoruba Modal Verb’, Ife
Annals of the Institute of Cultural Studies (Ife, Nigeria) 4:37-45.
[2] The
term’meaning, use and sense’ will be used in this work with the three having
almost the same meaning.
Comments
Post a Comment