‘Ni’ structures in argument focus

In the example from 08 Archbishop below, the conjoint structure is the past conjoint vaaleke ‘they came’ with its complement mundege ‘in an aeroplane’. The fact that they came is already established information, both from sentence 2, where it states Nangolo bispo …kwida akuno ‘the bishop came here’, and also in the tail-head construction starting this sentence, liduva lyavaleke ‘the day that they came’. So, what is being identified is how they came, which was in a plane—a very prestigious mode of transport— and one which led to the greeting procession which is so firmly squashed in the story. 08 Archbishop argument focus construction with conjoint verb 3a. Napanelo liduva lyavaleke vaaleke mundege vila So day that.they.came they.had.come in.aeroplane onlycontinuing 3b. mpaka ndagwilila mushiwanja akulá. until and.landed on.airstrip there. So they came by plane, and after a long journey landed over there on the airstrip. In clauses 30a–b of 09 Ákalimanya below, the villagers are complaining directly to the protagonist about his selfishness in keeping the elephant meat all for himself. The conjoint structure comes into the first part of the sentence with the conjoint anterior verb twimbile ‘we dug’ and its complement pamo ‘together’. This is all discourse-established information. Pamo ‘together’ is given prominence in order to contrast with what the protagonist is doing; that is, claiming all the meat as his own, which is similar to example 09 Ákalimanya 35a–b immediately above. In that case, however, a similar complaint—where villagers are speaking to each other—uses a post-posed subject rather than a conjoint verb. Also worthy of note is that in 30b below utenda is also a conjoint verb form, with davo as its complement. Since this paper is a description of narrative information structure, there is no formal analysis of the use of the conjoint in questions, but it is interesting to note that the conjoint is, in fact, very commonly used in questions, especially in short questions ending with a question word. 09 Ákalimanya argument focus construction with conjoint verb 30a. Ba da wetu S inembo ai lipondo O twimbile pamo Aa, question word] we elephant this hole we.dug together 30b. mwaa shani wako utenda davo? reason which you you.doing thus? “What Didn’t we dig the hole for this elephant? What are you behaving like this for?”

6.3.3 ‘Ni’ structures in argument focus

Ni structures occur as both copulas and clefts, where the invariable particle ni replaces the verb usually the verb to be in a sentence. They are highly marked structures. There is also a corresponding negative i structure, but it is rarer and in this text corpus is only found in questions in speech; ‘is-it-not….?’. There are several key features of ni structures. Firstly, all ni structures are thematically important; that is, if a ni occcurs, it is a strong signal that the structure is identifying information essential to the theme of the narrative. This is probably the primary discourse function of the ni structure. Another feature is that a significant proportion of them add no new information to the narrative; they are there to highlight a contrast, to confirm, to specify one of several possible options, or to explain information that has already been established. One of the most regularly-occurring, formulaic uses of ni structures is in the conclusion of narratives. These vary from one narrative to another, but all are argument focus structures. These also illustrate the fact that, although the focus usually comes after ni, it can on occasion occur before. 6.3.3.1 Use of ni structures in conclusions Contrast the following pair of conclusions, both from folktales: it is assumed information that when listening to a story, it will at some point come to an end; the question is when? This answers that question: the end is here. This conclusion to a folktale is semi-formulaic, but within that formula the narrator has quite a range of possibilities for expressing himself. The very similar conclusions below are in reverse order, showing that the focus can occur before or after the ni copula. 01 Horned Animals conclusion in folktale showing ni copula in argument focus construction 19. Apa ni pamwisho wankongo. Here it.is at.end of.story. And this is the end of the tale. 02 Lion and hamerkop conclusion in folktale showing ni copula in argument focus construction 24. Mwisho wangu ni wowo au End my it.is this.very this.one And this is the end of my tale The example below from 03 Hyena and Pied Crow shows a similar conclusion, but it is not an argument focus structure and uses the verb kuva ‘to be’ instead of the ni copula. 03 Hyena and Pied Crow conclusion in folktale using verb ‘to be’ instead of ni copula, predicate focus 27. --- Kuva pamwisho. It.is to.be at.end. The end. An example from a true story shows similar features, but with a slightly different focus. Here, it is not that the story is at an end that is in focus, but that it is a true story, ‘this is what I saw on that day’. The fact that the author of the story is an eyewitness is discourse-active information; it was introduced in the very first sentence of the story. This conclusion identifies and confirms that this—the whole story you have just heard—is ‘what I saw’. 08 Archbishop conclusion in true story showing ni copula in argument focus construction 11. Ashi ni shangugwene muliduva alyo. This it.is what.I.saw on.day that. This is what I saw on that day. 6.3.3.2 Other examples of ni structures In 04 Elephant and Nightjar clauses 3a–c below, the pair of ni structures in 3a and 3b identifies through contrast; the contrast is highlighted by parallelism. All of the information in both descriptions is culturally-accessible, known information; it’s the contrast that is focal. 04 Elephant and Nightjar ni copula in argument focus construction highlighted by parallelism: contrast focal 3a. Nnembo aju ni nkoko nkumene namene katika mumwitu uti pakati pavanyama Elephant this it.is animal big very concerning in.bush all among the.animals 3b. na Nalubwabwa ni shuni and Nightjar it.is bird 3c. wakunyambik anga namene of.being.despised very. The Elephant is a huge animal, the biggest of all the animals of the bush—and Nightjar is a bird of no significance at all. In another example from the end of the same narrative, sentence 32—not quoted below—says that Elephant died, so that is already discourse-active information. Here the reason for the death is identified: Elephant has died of remorse for callously stepping on Nightjar’s eggs. In fact, this has already been predicted by Nightjar in sentence 21, so that here the main function is confirmatory. 04 Elephant and Nightjar ni cleft in argument focus construction: confirmatory 33a. Kanji - shimpadídye nae S But what.killed.him he 33b. ni mwaa walilove it.is because of.word 33c. lyavashema matuva that.they.call remorse. But what it was that killed him was that word ‘remorse’. In the example below from 05 Fisherman, the magic bird has asked the fisherman why he goes out every day, rain or shine. The fisherman replies that if he doesn’t, he’ll die of hunger, ‘my work is this same one’—i.e., this is how I get my living. This information is all discourse-active already, but what the fisherman is doing is specifying that going out in all weathers, not simply in other easier ways of fishing, is how he survives. 05 The fisherman ni copula in argument focus construction: specifying his type of work 14. Madengo angu ni lolo ala Work my it.is this.very.same “This is how I get my living.” An interesting feature here for comparative purposes is that a very similar sentence—but utilizing the verb ‘to be’ instead of the ni structure—has already occurred in the orientation section of the text, where the fisherman is being described. The difference between the two sentences is that sentence 4, which does not use ni and gives new information, uses a predicate focus construction; whereas the statement by the fisherman in 14 with the ni copula contains no new information, but is an argument focus response answering the bird’s question. 05 The fisherman information above first presented in predicate focus construction 4. Kila liduva nae S kulya kwake madengo ake S avele lolo ala Every day he food his, work his was this.same this. So his daily work—and his daily food—were always the same. In Mozambique, where the story 07 Mother and child is told, it is culturally-accessible information that there have been two wars: the independence struggle against the Portuguese, and the subsequent civil war. So this ni copula is identifying which of the two wars, by drawing an implicit contrast. This can be seen by comparing it with the example from Elephant and Nightjar 3a–c above, where the contrast is explicit. 07 Mother and child ni copula in argument focus construction: indentification through implicity contrast 2a. Maimyo ala apaingondo ni ingondo ailá itandi Story this of.time.war it.is war that first 2b. itandéke akuno ku Moshambiki yavyaka kumi. that.happened here in Mozambique of.years ten. This story took place at the time of the first war here in Mozambique—the ten-year war. 7 Reported Speech Most Makonde narratives contain significant amounts of reported speech. This is overwhelmingly presented as direct speech, which is used for conversations, thoughts and soliloquies. Thoughts and soliloquies are not marked differently in any way from conversations. Indirect speech can occur in Makonde, but it is very rare and does not occur in this text corpus. In addition, ‘referred-to’ speech also occurs, again somewhat rarely. This is where a reference is made to someone having spoken without giving the content of the speech, which would be indirect speech. An example of this is given below; here, the Archbishop has asked a question. The ‘referred-to’ speech vakamwaudile ‘when they told him’ represents the answer and prompts his reaction below. There is no need for the content to be given as the audience of the story, unlike the Archbishop, knows the answer to his question already. 08 Archbishop referred-to speech 8a. --- Vakamwaulile When.they.told.him, 8b. nae até doni: he said thus, 8c. um nangu hangunava shinu Nnungu. “No, I I.am.not not.at.all God. When they told him, he said, “No, don’t treat me like God...” Makonde also allows for embedded speech, where a speaker quotes someone else’s speech. The text corpus only shows one level of embedded speech. The example below shows that the references; namely pronouns, and verb tenses, remain as in the original speech; the embedded speech also requires its own speech orienter, as can be seen below doni ‘thus’. Here Elephant is reporting to his wife what Nightjar had told him. 04 Elephant and Nightjar embedded speech 25a. Kuja mpaka kwandyagwe Returned to to.his.wife 25b. kutwa kumwaulila doni: then informed.her thus, 25c. nangu O akulá Nalubwabwa angwaulidilé doni: “I there Nightjar she.told.me thus, 25d. undapela matuva “You.will.die remorse”. He got back to his wife and told her, “That Nightjar told me I was going to die of remorse.

7.1 The placing and role of speech in Makonde narrative