NEGATING THE YORUBA UNIVERSAL QUANTIFIER: A SEMANTIC ANALYSIS

 

NEGATING THE YORUBA UNIVERSAL QUANTIFIER: A SEMANTIC ANALYSIS

 Credit: Prof L. O. Adewole

Yoruba for academic purpose

 

1.         Introduction

This study is concerned with the negation of the Yoruba universal quantifier within the framework of Jespersen’s tripartition of value. We begin with the discussion of negation in Yoruba.

 

2.         Negation in Yorùbá

The negative verb in Yoruba is kò “not”. It has the following variants: kọ́, máà and kìí. Ko is a sentence negator. It can also be used to negate focused NP.

 

(1)              Olú kò lọ

Olu NEG go

“Olú did not go”

(2)              Olú ni kò lọ

Olú FOC NEG GO

“It was Olu who did not go”

Kọ́ is also used to negate sentences and NP’s but it differs from kò in that it always occurs in focused constructions and it always precedes the focus marker. Compare sentences (1) and (2) with (3) and (4)

 

(3)              Olú kọ́ ni ó lo

Olu NEG FOC he go

“Olú was not the one who went”

(4)              Olú lọ kọ́ ni

Olú go NEG FOC

“The point is that Olú did not go”

Máà is the imperative negator and it is also used to negate part of the verb phrase that follows it in a sentence.

 

(5)              NEC go

“Do not go”

(6)              Olú lè                         máà lọ

Olu can/may NEG go

“Olú may not go”

Kìí is used to negate (i) a sentence (ii) an habitual aspect (iii) a nominalized sentence. Examples are (7), (8) and (9) respectively

(7)              Kìí ṣe Olú

NEG do Olú

“It is not Olú”

(8)              Olú kì í lọ

Olú NEG go

“Olú does not often go”

(9)              Kìí ṣe pé         Olú lọ

NEG do say Olú go

“It is not that Olu went”

It should be noted here that more than one negative verb can be found in a sentence. Example:

 

(10)         Kìí     ṣe Olú  ni     kò lè  máà ṣe é

NEG do Olú FOC NEG can NEG do it

“It is not Olú that cannot but do it”

 

3.         Jespersen’s Tripartition of Value

Jespersen’s tripartition of value is based upon the two logical extremes and the intermediate state lying between them. The triparitition is set out as follows (Jespersen, 1924: 324-325):

Next we have to consider some terms of paramount importance to the logician as well as to the linguist, namely the two absolute extremes ‘all’ and ‘nothing’ with the intermediate ‘something’. Let us call the two extremes A and C and the intermediates B. They are most naturally represented in a descending scale

A.    everything, all, everybody (all girls, all the money)

B.     something, some, somebody (some girls, a girl, some money)

C.     nothing, none, nobody (no girls, no money)

Such items as “many”, “much”, “very”, “a few”, “a little”, “few” “little” and numerals are included in B.

For the negation of the A class where the universal quantifier belongs, Jespersen (1924: 326) has this to say:

Here we have the general rule that if the negative word is placed first, it discards the absolute element; and the result is the intermediate term. Not…A = b, … If, on the other hand, the absolute element prevails, and the result is the contrary notion, (then) A…not = C.

Some of the examples used to justify his claim are the following:

They are not all of them fools (not … A = B)

The one (uncle) I was always going to write to and always didn’t (A… not = C)

On the A… not configuration, Horn (1978: 139) notes that:

Jespersen observes correctly that the A… not configuration… often has a different interpretation in natural language, if the A-term is a quantifier. Examples like

All that glitters is not gold

Thank Heaven; all scholars are not like this…

abound, when A… not = B (or more correctly, A… not = not …A)

Jespersen attributed this phenomenon to “the result of two tendencies to place the subject first and to attract the negation to the verb” (1924: 327), so that the negative which would logically precede the universal (Not all that glitters…) is attracted instead to the unmarked nexal position.

 

Huddleston (1985: 431) also states that the two interpretations available for constructions such as Jespersen’s A… not where A-term is a quantifier can be “distinguished prosodically” in English; in Yoruba, both interpretation can be distinguished by focusing. Hetzron (1980: 279) presents convincing arguments to show that both grammatical intonation and focus should be regarded as part of the sentence and therefore should be given their rightful place in grammar.

 

4.         The Yorùbá Quantifiers

Ekundayo (1976) recognizes three types of quantifiers in Yorùbá. The three types of quantifiers he recognises are the universal quantifier, gbogbo “all”, the absolute quantifier, mẹ́wàá “ten”, mẹ́jọ “eight” etc., and the relative quantifier, púpọ̀ “many”, díẹ̀ “a few/few” (Ekundayo 1976: 59). The three quantifiers are distinguished from each other as follows:

 

 

(11)         (i) Universal – identifies whole sets without indicating exact numbers.

(ii) Absolute: - gives exact numbers of items quantified.

(iii) Relative – quantifies relative to unspecified sets.

Such quantifiers as méjèèjì “both”, mẹ́tẹ̀ẹ̀ta “all three” etc., are classified under the universal quantifier but we shall not be concerned with them in this paper.

 

5.         Explaining the Yorùbá Universal Quantifier Negation within Jespersen’s Tripartite System

Having identified the Yorùbá universal quantifier, we shall now analyse its negation within the framework of Jespersen’s tripartititon of value. We shall take account of the following important factors in our analysis:

 

(12)         (i)        the properties of the quantifier

(ii)       the position of the quantifier relative to the negative verb

(iii)     the type of sentence in which the quantifier occurs i.e. whether it is focused or not.

We shall be concerned with the following sentences:

(13)         (i)        Gbogbo wa ni ó lè lọ sí ilé

All  we is he can go to home

“All of us can go home”

(ii)             Gbogbo wa ni kò lè lọ sí ilé

All    we is not can go to home

“All of us are unable to go home”

(iii)           Gbogbo wa kọ́ ni ó lè lọ sí ilé

All  we not is he can go to home

“Not all of us can go home”

(iv)           Kìí  ṣe gbogbo wa ni ó lè lọ sí ilé

Not do all    we is he can go to home

“It is not all of us who can go home”

(v)              Ko sí nínú wa tí ó lè lọ sí ilé

Not exist among us who can go to home

“None of us can go home”

(13) (i) is a focus sentence, that is, it is a sentence in which the universal quantifier is focused. In the sentence, it is the focused item, gbogbo wa “all we”, that is negated in (13) (ii) in Jespersen’s A… not configuration. Compare (2) with (13) (ii); (2) is reproduced as (14).

            (13)     (ii)       Gbogbo wa ni ò lè lọ sí ilé

                                    All   we is not can go to home

                                    “All of us are unable to go home”

 

(14)         Olú ni kò lọ

Olú FOC NEG go

“It was Olu who did not go”

The possibility of the negative verb being attracted to the verb base form in (13) (ii) is blocked by the presence of the focus marker. The only meaning available, therefore, is that of Jespersen’s A… not = C which is a complete denial of the universal quantifier by the negative verb.

Unlike (13) (ii), neither (13) (iii) nor (13) (iv) denies (13) (i). this is so because both are true if at least one of the people concerned goes home but, the way each of them fails to deny (13) (i) differs. It will be noted that the negative verb follows the universal quantifier in (13) (ii) and (13) (iii) and both have the configuration A… not. The question then is if (13) (ii) is a complete negation of (13) (i), why is (13) (iii) not?

The reason for this is that whereas (13) (ii) is the negation of (13) (i), (13) (iii) is the negation of another sentence. A close look at (13) (ii) and (13) (iii) shows that the focus marker, ni occurs in different positions in the two sentences. Whereas the focus marker precedes the negative verb in (13) (ii), it follows the negative verb in (13) (iii). What this means is that whereas (13) (ii) negates (13) (i) where there is a focused universal quantifier, (13) (iii), in which the negative verb is focused, is the negation of (15).

 

(15)         Gbogbo wa lè lọ sí ilé

All     we can go to home

“All of us can go home”

If focus is taken, following Jackendoff (1972: 225-230), as denoting “the information in the sentence that is assumed by the speaker not to be shared by him and the hearer”, then, one can say that “the presupposition (i.e.) … the information in the sentence that is assumed by the speaker to be shared by him and the hearer” of sentences (13) (ii) and (13) (iii) differs. Another negation of (15) is (16). Whereas (16) allows for more than one type of interpretation i.e. (17) and (18); (13) (iii), in which the negative verb is “specified as new, within a contrastive sentence” (Chafe 1970: 229-230), allows for only (18) as its negation.

 

(16)         Gbogbo   wa   kò   lè   lọ  sí  ilé

All       we not can go to home

(i)        “All of us cannot go home”

(ii)       “Not all of us can go home”

(17)         One/some/many of us can go home

(18)         Not all of us can go home

As it is the negative verb that is focused in (13) (iii) and not the universal quantifier, Jespersen’s A… not configuration does not work well with it as it does with (13) (ii). Although the focus marker blocks verb attraction both in (13) (ii) and (13) (iii), the A… not configuration of (13) (iii) gives rise to only a B interpretation (one, some or many) in Jespersen’s tripartition. This interpretation contrasts with the observation of Jespersen in English where A…not should normally be a C and only by verb attraction can it be interpreted as B.

As for (13) (iv), it will be noted that the negative verb precedes the universal quantifier which indicates a not… A interpretation in Jespersen’s configuration. A not…A in Jespersen’s configuration always results in a B except “when the negative is attached prefixally or implied” (Horn 1978: 139). As there is neither a prefixal negative nor a negative by implication in (13) (iv), it is not surprising that the only interpretation available agrees with Jespersen’s not…A = B configuration i.e. “one/some/many of us can go home”.

(13) (v) is also a complete negation of (13) (i). This can be explained in terms of Jespersens’s scalar values. Jespersen’s scalar account for the use of not one for none, no and not one thing for nothing in languages such as Yorùbá. According to Jespersen (1949: 81), “not four” does not mean

Whatever is above or below 4 in scale but what is below 4 … something between 4 and 0… ‘not everything’ means something between everything and nothing.

This is not to say that a not followed by a numeral cannot be interpreted as more than. On this, Jespersen (1949: 81) states that:

When not + numeral is exceptionally to be a taken as more than, the numeral has to be strongly stressed, and generally to be followed by a more exact indication: the hill is not two hundred feet high, but ‘three hundred’.

Jespersen (1949: 81) concludes that this scale hypothesis “explains how not one comes to be the natural expression in many languages for none, no and not one thing for nothing.

Ekundayo (1976: 62) supports Jespersen’s view when he states that:

Yoruba has no single word analogous to English none, nobody, nothing etc., but it expresses the senses of such lexical items existentially. Thus, nobody is kò sí ẹnìkan (not exist person one); nothing is kò sí nǹkan (not exist thing-ones) and none is kò sí (ọ̀kan) (not exist (one)). The Yorùbá word for zero i.e. òfo does not express the sense none and it cannot be used in partitive constructions… Thus, there is no òfo nínú wa (zero of us) analogous to kò sí nínú wa (none of us).

 

6.         Conclusion

Research in language universals takes one of two methodological paths.

 

(19) (i) It can start with a full description of a particular language in order to form hypotheses about language universals or

(ii)        It can examine a whole variety of languages and hypothesize from the data what the universal properties can be.

To a great extent, Jespersen’s approach is (19) (i). Although this work does not go very far (as it deals only with the negation of the Yorùbá universal quantifier), it shows that Jespersen’s tripartite system pays off in insight into the semantics of the Yorùbá quantifiers because four out of the five sentences examined in this work are duly accounted for by the system.

 

Bibliography

Adewole, L.O. (1987). Published Works and Doctoral Dissertation on the Yoruba Language 1843-1986) (African Linguistic Bibliography 3)i. Hamburg: Helmut Buske.

Adewole, LO. (1983), “Some Yoruba quantifier Words and Semantic Interpretation: A Critique”, Studies in African Linguistics 20, 1: 79-88.

Aldridge, M.V. (1982), English Quantifiers: A Study of Quantifying Expressions in Linguistic Science and Modern English Usage. Wiltshire, England: Averbury Publishing Co.

Chafe, Wallace L. (1970). Meaning and Structure of Language. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Ekundayo, S.A. (1976), “The Calculus of the Yoruba Universal Quantifier”, Yoruba 2: 59-70

Hetzron, Robert (1980), Universals of Human Language: A Monterverdian Quartet in Forty-Six Movements”, Lingua 50: 249-294.

Horn, Laurence R. (1978), “Some Aspects of Negation”, in Universals of Human Language, edited by Joseph H. Greenberg, Stanford, California: Stanford University Press pp. 127-209.

Huddleston, R. (1985), Introduction to the Grammar of English. Cambridge: Oxford University Press.

Jackendoff, R.S. (1972), Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.

Jespersen, O. (1924), The Philosophy of Grammar. London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd.

Jespersen, O. (1949), Selected Writing of Otto Jespersen. London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd.

Lawal, S.N. (1986), “Some Yoruba Quantifier Words and Semantic Interpretation”, Studies in African Linguistics 17, 1: 95-107.

Payne, J.R. (1985), “Negation”, in Language Typology and Syntactic Description I: Clause Structure, edited by Timothy Shopen. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Pp. 197-242.