"Povelitel'nye predlozhenija v jazyke bamana." (Imperative constructions in Bambara).
Tipologija imperativnyx konstrukcij. V.S.Xrakovskij. (Ed.)
Sankt-Peterburg, 1992,
s.263-274.
Chapter 23 (author’s translation for future publication in English)
IMPERATIVE CONSTRUCTIONS IN BAMANA
MIRA B. BERGELSON
Moscow State University
1. Grammar notes. Bamana is a representative of a word-isolating language type
characteristic of the West African Manding group (Manding languages belong to the Mande
family, Niger-Congo phylum). Clause structure (syntactic relations) is manifested in Bamana by
means of fixed word order and auxiliaries. Basic word order is SOV. Isolation also serves as
morphological technique. Exclusions can only be found in word formation which operates as
adding up roots.
One typical feature of isolating languages is well attested in Bamana, namely that the absolute
majority of sentences in this language has more than one clause. The language has not got
adverbs as a word class, so all the adverbial meanings (benefactive, goal, adressee, locus, source,
time, condition) are expressed through adverbial clauses, which often are manifested as
complements, or non-finite predicates. Well known serial constructions are but an instance of
this category.
Bamana (more known as Bambara with English speakers) is spoken in the Mali Republic and
some other West African countries. The data used in this chapter reflects the so called standard,
or urban, dialect. A few examples are taken from the Beledugu dialect, which shows some
syntactic differences with the standard dialect regarding imperative constructions formation
(these examples are marked below). The material is taken from text sources, mostly of general
educational type - readers (Magasa 1978), grammars (Bird, Kante 1976), or elicited from native
speakers of Bamana. My main consultant on this research was a Mali linguist Mr. Adama
Konate whose untimely death in 1990 has been mourned over by everyone who happened to
know him.
Thus far I have seen only one research that looks at imperative constructions on West African
material (Demuth, Yanco 1979). Unfortunately, it is an unpublished manuscript.
Like many other West African languages, Bamana has lexical tones (cf. Courtenay 1974,
Creissels 1978, Diarra 1985). In recent years a ground-breaking work by Valentine Vydrine on
Manding lexical systems (see Valentine Vydrine. Manding-English Dictionary. Vol.1 St.
Petersburg: Dimitry Bulanin Publishers. 1999) has changed some previously held views and led
to much deeper understanding of the tonal sytems in these languages1. Besides that, Bamana
features grammatical tones - a tonal article - which marks NPs, and phrasal accents
charachteristic of types of utterances - questions and statements (Petrjankina 1983). In relation
to imperative utterances Bamana-specific data has not been obtained: there is just a common
correlation between the forcefulness and urgency of request and more pronounced phrasal accent.
Fixed worder order in Bamana means that a clause can be viewed as a sequence of ordered
positions, or slots, any of which may be occupied by elements of specific word classes. The
linear clause structure is as following:
slot #1 - subject NP
slot #2 - construction marker
slot #3 - direct object NP (for transitive constructions)
slot #4 - main predicate
slot #5 - adjunct (an adverbial NP with or without postposition).
There is no separate position (and thus - no category) for indirect objects.
Construction markers (CM) attach the clause to a situation by means of such concepts as:
aspect, modality, negation, semantic type of predicate. The following is the full list of CMs to
be found in Bamana clauses2:
bª incompleted (INC)
tª
incompleted negative (INCN)
yé1
completed transitive (CMPL)
má
completed negative (CMPLN)
3
0 ... -Ra - completed intransitive (CMPL)
bªnà
intentional (Int)
tªnà
intentional negative (IntN)
n‚, ná
intentional certain (Int)
bªkà
actual continuated (ActC)
bª ... lá actual progressive (ActP)
ká1
stative (Stat)
mán
stative negative (StatN)
ká2, kà2 dependent clause (DPND)
kàná
dependent clause negative DPNDN)
máná
hypothetical (Hyp)
yé2
imperative (Imper).
1I
would like to express my deep gratitutde to Valentine Vydrine who carefully read this paper checking all
the examples, especially marking tonal characteristics (the tones had not been marked when the initial
research on imperative constructions took place). His work and valuable comments improved
tremendously the quality of the proposed analysis and the data. It goes without saying that I bear all the
responsibility for any incorrectnesses left.
2 The following constructions markers are labeled according to their syntactic functions. In Idiatov 1998
(see Dimitry Idiatov. Semantics of Aspectual/Temporal Markers in Bamana. St. Petersburg. 1998.
Manuscript.) one may find a semantic description of a significant portion of these markers.
3 Here -Ra stands for a hyper-marker that appears as -na after nasals, as -la after laterals, and -ra in all
other cases.
Consider the examples4:
1a.
c¥®`
yé
fìní`
#1
#2
#3
man
CMPL
clothes
'A man put his clothes on the ground'
1b.
jí`
ká
#1
#2
water
Stat
'The water is warm'
1c.
à
tªnà
b¢
#1
#2
#4
he
IntN
go-out
'He will not leave the house'
dá
#4
put
dùgú`
#5
ground
só`
#5
house
k¢n¢
mà
postposition
kálán
#4
warm
postposition
Bamana syntax does not allow the sequence of positions in a clause to be broken by any inserted
elements. Thus, dependent clauses which in other languages may find themselves within the
linear clause structure, in Bamana will be positioned differently. Bamana multiclausal sentences
have two additional slots that allow for building more-than-one-predicate constructions.
Complex, multiclausal constructions are formed via quasi insertion of a dependent clause. In
fact, the dependent clause is moved out to the leftmost (slot #0), or rightmost (slot #6) position
reserved for topicalized information and "afterthoughts." A pronominal trace fills a
correspondent slot (subject, object or adjunct positions) within the matrix clause. This pronoun
(Pron) is anaphorically or cataphorically related to the dependent clause. Complex constructions
comprise sentences with relative, complement, coordinate clauses and nominalizations.
As for the construction markers, they fall into two unequal categories. The majority of them are
independent CMs that can be used both in monoclausal constructions and in any clause within
complex sentences. Only two of the CMs listed above have restricted distribution and can be
only used in dependent clauses. Those are CMs mana and ka2. The case with mana is simple
because this CM is only used within conditional dependent clauses. The opposite is true of ka2,
which is the most multifunctional of all CMs. As a marker of dependent predication it is used in
complements with modal and experiential verbs (see 2a.); in coordinate, same-subject
constructions (2b.); in serial constructions (2c.); in subjunctive clauses (2d.). CM ka2 may also
form a single-clause construction with optative meaning (3a., b.).
2a.
Mádù
bª
sé
ProperN
INC can
'Madu can ride a horse'.
2b.
à
he
4
kà
DPND
0
nà-ná
kà
à
CMPL come-CMPL DPND his
sò/`
bòlì
horse ride
mùsó` yé
wife see
Lexical tones are marked on vowels: "/", "\", "\/" mark, respectively, high, low, and rising tones. The
phrasal accent on the NPs is marked by "`" after the noun.
'He came and saw his wife'.
2c.
2d.
à
0
sín-ná
kà
he
CMPL head-for-COmpl
'He came out from the forest'
b¢
fúrátú`
k¢r¢
DPND go-out forest
n•
f‚`
bª
báará` kª
wálásá
à
my
father INC work
do
so-that
màló`
sàn
rice
buy
'My father works, so that his wife could buy rice'.
3a.
Álá
ká
hªrá`
Lord DPND happiness
'Let Lord make you happy'
kª
í
make you
3b.
fùnténí`
ká
kª
heat
DPND become
'Let the hot weather come'.
from
mùsó` ká
his
wife
DPND
yé
postposition
The occurrences of the ka2 marker fall into two categories: with high and with low tones. The
data shows that low tone occurences take place when the clause subject is omitted thus reflecting
higher degree of cohesiveness within the sentence (also see below examples in 17 - 18). Tonal
differences (along with the fact that neighboring languages demonstrate two phonetically
differing markers for these constructions) lead some scholars to the conclusion that there are two
unrelated ka-markers here. Still, syntactic and semantic in-language evidence allows for another
hypothesis which is favored in this paper. Syntactically, two tonal types are in complementary
distribution (low tone is manifested when the subject is omitted); semantically, they have in
common one core component of meaning, namely consequential dependence
('in-order-to'-relation) of one clause upon another. This relation may be manifested as in 2d., or
be an unexpressed speaker's request as in 3a., b., or be concealed behind the processes of
diachronic development of so called coordinate (2b.) or serial (2c.) constructions out of a
sequence of predicates whose positioning one after another reflects iconically the action
development.
Some complement constructions featuring CM ka2 are related to imperatives because the
predicate in main clause has causative performative meaning of inducement, and may form a
directive speech act. (Still, not all such complement constructions demand ka2 marker.) Most
frequently used directives are: bìlá 'force, compel', bàlí 'forbid', tó 'allow, let', yàmàrú 'allow', kó
'tell', j¥®n 'agree with, allow' in Beledugu dialect. These predicates differ syntactically in what
NP will occupy the slot #3. It is Addressee for bìlá, bàlí, and yàmàrú; it is Theme coded as a
pronominal trace of the complement clause for tó; and there is no filled slot #3 for j¥®n which
forms intransitive construction in this context.
4a.
n•
f‚`
bª
n•
bìlá
kà
nìn
báará` kª
my father
INC I
force DPND this
'My father makes me do this work'.
work do
4b.
sánjí` bª
n•
bàlí
rain INC I
prevent
'The rain prevents me from going'.
kà
táa
DPND go
4c.
n• f‚`
bª
n•
yàmàrù n•
my
father INC I
allow
'My father allows me to go'.
ká
I
4d.
à
f‚`
bª
à
tó
dén`
his
father INC it
allow child
'Father allows his son to go'.
ká
táa
DPND go
4e.
n•
f‚`
0
jÞn-nà
n•
my
father CMPL allow-CMPL I
'My father allowed me to go'.
ká
táa
DPND go
táa
DPND go
2. The imperative constructions scale. In a number of speech act theory studies, imperative
constructions (IMPs) are described as one of the four major types of utterances, namely directive speech acts, or directives.
Variety of IMP types and types of inducement expressed by them is immediately related to one of
the directive speech acts felicity conditions - the extent to which the speaker has control over the
addressee. It may mean that the speaker is respected by the addressee, is an authority for him, or
that the former has overall control over the communication act, thus being empowered to cause
the addressee to perform certain actions. The degree of such control depends on specific
correlations of social and individual statuses for a given pair of communication participants.
The higher this degree is, the less is the speaker obliged to take into account the addressee’s free
will; the less does the addressee exist for him as an individual.
Hierarchization of directives based on the degree of control is iconically mapped onto ordering of
IMPs in accordance with the amount of the adressee expicit coding in the surface structure. This
coding may include (without being restricted to) the following ways to “mention” the addressee
in the sentence: a separate NP, agreement markers, forms where the addressee’s grammatical
parametrs may be or may not be expressed. It can be better shown in a language with more
grammatical coding, like Russian. See (5):
5a.
5b.
5c.
Íå ìîãëè áû Âû îñòàíîâèòüñÿ?
‘Couldn't you please stop here?’
ß Âàñ ïðîøó, ÷òîáû Âû îñòàíîâèëèñü
‘I would ask you to stop here’
Ïðîøó Âàñ îñòàíîâèòüñÿ
‘I am asking you to stop here’
5d.
Îñòàíîâèòåñü!
‘Stop!’
5e.
Ñòîÿòü!
'Stop this car!'
5f.
Íè ñ ìåñòà!
'Don't you dare move this car!'
A few inferences relevant for understanding directives can be made out of this presumably
incomplete scale. Sentences in 5a. through 5f. form an hierarchy in accordance with a
pragmatically relevant parameter ‘degree of control’ irrespective of their form. A well-known fact
that IMPs in many cases represent indirect speech acts may be accompanied by an observation
that transition from direct to indirect speech acts is continual - also for directives (cf. Givon
1986).
The scale in 5a.- 5f. can be divided in several zones. There are indirect directives expressed by
interrogative sentences (5a.). For 5b. - 5c. I suggest the name ‘explicit directives’; those are
statements with performative verbs which explicate the speakers intentions, namely specific types
of inducement . The central part of the scale (5d.) is reserved for imperatives per se specifically marked forms or constructions expressing prototypical imperative meaning that does
not coincide with any of the directive performative verbs meaning. Thus Go! is not synonymous
to I order (tell you, request, demand, etc.) that you go. The former IMP reflects a different
communication situation - see Hausser 1980. To capture this difference I suggest a concept of a
‘zero, or implicit, performative’. It has its own meaning that can be described as ‘Saying “P,” I
cause you to do P’. The notion of a zero performative is confirmed by zero markers for the 2nd
person singular of the imperative mood in many languages, by zero expression of the subject and
the addressee of causation when they - as the speaker and the listener - are immediate participants
of a corresponding communication act. This performative approach to IMP is not a kind of
“trivial performativity” (Paducheva 1985, 23), but a way to functionally delineate core imperative
constructions (=Imper).
The rightmost part of the scale (5e. - 5f) also comprises indirect directives. They express
peripheral, not prototypical, inducement (necessity, status differences, obligation), which is
similar to the indirect directives in the leftmost part of the scale. What differs them from the
“classical” indirect speech acts (interrogatives or explicit directives) is the function that
grammatical forms or constructions play in the former ones: imperative meaning is a derived,
secondary, function for adverbs, NPs, infinitives in Russian. So, this part of the scale is called
‘derived indirect directives’. It should be mentioned that languages may express this 'derived
indirectness' in various ways: inflexional languages like Russian will use forms that don't allow
for grammatical reflection of listener's presence; more isolating languages - see English
translations - will use slightly different technique of 'dehumanizing' the addressee by shifting
attention from him/her to other objects.
Thus, the scale formed by constructions like those in 5a. through 5f. allows to describe IMPs in a
specific language not only within the framework of a universal paradigm, but also by functionally
as manifestations of certain types of directive speech acts.
3. Imperative constructions (IMP). Scarcity of formal means, characteristic of isolating
languages, is responsible for the fact that the repertoire of IMPs in Bamana is also quite scanty.
Still, it’s worth noting that a cell in a universal imperative paradigm can be filled by more than
one IMP, and this is due not o differences in aspectual or other verbal meanings, but to diversity
of mixed inducement types.
Assuming that A is Speaker, B - Listener, BB - Listeners, C - 3rd person, D - Actor performing
the requested action, the imperative paradigm will look as following:
Cell #1. D=B
Cell #2. D=BB
Cell #3. D=C
Cell #4. D=CC
Cell #5. D=A+B
Cell #6. D=A+BB
Cell #7. D=A (and there is B)
Cell #8. D=A (and there are BB). See Khrakovskij, Volodin 1986.
3.1. Core Imperative constructions (IMPER). Two variants of IMPER correspond to cells #1
and #2 in the above-mentioned paradigm - with a singular (D=B) and witha plural (D=BB)
addressee. IMPER with a plural addressee does not differ from other verbal constructions in
Bamana (compare 6b. below with 1a. - 1c.). IMPER with a singular addressee does not differ
from functionally similar constructions in many other languages (see 6a.): the predicate is a
simple verb stem, and both A and D are not coded in the surface structure.
6a.
bòlì;
run
'Run!'
6b.
á
yé
bòlì;
you-2ndPl
Imper run
'You guys run!'
lívúrú` tà
book take
'Take the book!'
á
yé
lívúrú` tà
you-2ndPl
Imper book take
'You guys take the book!'.
In 6b. á - 2nd person plural pronoun (with a high tone - not to be confused with à - 3rd person
singular pronoun) is a non-emphatic variant of áw - ‘you guys’.
Worth noting is that in the beledugu dialect (which features some differences in pronouns usage
as compared to the standard dialect) there is, besides the standard one, another variant of
IMPER with D=BB.
6c.
á //aá bòlì;
you-2ndPl
run
'You guys run!'
á //aá
lívúrú` tà
you-2ndPl
book take
'You guys bring {take?} the book!'.
There are two possible interpretations for the construction in 6c. The first is to postulate a zero
imperative marker, the second to view the pronoun á (aá is an optional variant with lenghtening)
as a form of address. The latter variant is preferable, because it is in correlation with optional
lenghtening of the vowel (compare to Russian Âàà-àñü!) and, which is very important, it does not
involve breaking of the linear structure of the clause in Bamana: subjects can not immediately
precede direct objects with no Construction Markers in between. In this case the beledugu
dialect differs from the standard one by only having one variant of IMPER, whereas the number
of actors of the requested action is clarified by a form of address.
3.2. Derived indirect imperative constructions. The interpretation of a CM ka2 given in
Bergelson 1985 suggests that this polyfunctional marker has one prototypical function underlying
all its occurrences, namely - to mark a dependent, subordinate clause (‘indirect mood’ marker).
In complex, multiclausal constructions (see 2a. - 2d.) this dependency is obvious and syntactic.
But besides that, ka2 is used in simple single-clausal constructions with optative meaning (see 3a.
-3b.). For such cases it is reasonable to postulate semantic dependency of ka2 from an implicit
performative ‘I want’.
7a.
n•
bª
à
fÞ
í
I
INC it
want you
'I want you to take the book'
7b.
í
ká
lívúrú` tà
you
DPND book take
'Why don't you take the book?'
ká
lívúrú tà
DPND book take
Expressing will is in the foundation of any speech act of causation, or inducement. That’s why
ka2 codes derived indirect IMPs. Expressing will stands here for the illocutionary function of
inducement. Depending on context or communicative situation sentence in 7b. can be also
translated as ‘Take the book!’ being a more polite, less coercive way to express the same idea as
in 6a. For other cells in the universal imperative paradigm (when D is not B/BB) IMPs with ka2
are the only grammaticized way to express imperative meanings.
8a.
8b.
ù
ká
táa
só`
k¢n¢
they DPND go
home in (=postposition)
'Let them go home / Why don't they go home?'
D=CC
án
ká
bámánánkán` kàlàn
we
DPND Bamana
learn
'Let's study Bamana' (title of a textbook of Bamana) D=A+B/BB
Thus, the only time when in one cell of the universal imperative paradigm one can find more than
one construction, is the case of D=B and D=BB:
9a.
lívúrú` dí
book
give
'Give (me) the book'
9b.
í
ká
lívúrú` dí
you
DPND book
give
'Why don't you give (me) the book?'
9c.
áw / á
yé
lívúrú` dí
you-2ndPl
Imper book
'You guys give (me) the book'
9d.
give
áw
ká
lívúrú` dí
you-2ndPl
DPND book
give
'Why don't you guys give (me) the book?'
The difference between core imperatives (IMPER) in 9a., 9c. and derived indirect directives in
9b., 9d. is not restricted to opposition of the two types of inducement - direct, prototypical, and
indirect, loaded with additional modalities. There is at least one context where only 9b.- and
9d.-type constructions are allowed for expressing imperative meaning. This is a conditioned
imperative context.
10.
ní
à
0
nà-nà
í
if
he
CMPL come-CMPL you
'If he comes to you, give him the book'.
m‚`
í
postp you
ká
lívúrú` dí
DPND book
give
3.3 One possible interpretation (D=A). In Khrakovskij, Volodin 1986 this case is described
as self-inducement on the side of the speaker which happens in the presence of one or several
listeners. In Bamana, the presence of a 'high-authority' listener, who in this or that way endorses
the action to be performed by the speaker, is a necessary condition for expressing this type of
inducement. So, here the speaker induces the listener to give him, the speaker, permission to
perform a certain action. Self-inducement per se does not have any special coding.
11a.
à
tó
n•
ká
nìn
it
allow I
DPND this
'Let me do this work'.
báará` kª
work do
11b.
á
yé
à
to
n•
you-2ndPL
Imper it
allow I
'You guys, let me do this work'.
ká
nìn
DPND this
báará` kª
work do
Sentences in 11a. and 11b. are multiclausal constructions with main predicate to -'leave, allow'
and a dependent clause with ka2 marker. The main clause of these sentences features the core
imperative construction (IMPER).
4. Prohibitive constructions. The dependent clause marker ka2 has its negative counterpart
kana that is used in the same construction types as ka2. Particularly, all prohibitive constructions
are formed with kana.
12a.
kàná
DPND-N
'Don't run!'
bòlì
run
12b.
í
kàná
you
DPND-N
'Don't run!'
12c.
à // ù/
kàná
d£nkílí`
dá
he // they
DPND-N
song
sing
'Don't let him/them sing the song' // 'Let him/them not sing the song'.
12d.
áw
// án kàná
táa
só`
k¢n¢
you-guys
// we DPND-N
go
house in
'Why don't you guys // we not enter the house'.
bòlì
run
The constructions in 12a. and 12b. fill the same cell in the universal imperative paradigm. The
former represents a core imperative construction, the latter - an indirect directive. Both
constructions are in their negative variants.
4.1. Preventive constructions. Strictly speaking, there are no preventive constructions in
Bamana; one can observe the corresponding meanings in certain conexts, but no specific coding
devices are allocated by the language to express these meanings. Compare 13 below with 12a. 12d.
13.
kàná
bònyà
DPND-N
get-bigger
'Don't get bigger'
Some observations can be made from looking at the constructions with definitely agentive verbs.
Those in Bamana are so called reflexive verbs which denote intentional and controlled situations.
They can be only used in transitive consructions where the DO position is occupied by a reflexive
pronoun i 'self' (it's initial function is 2nd person singular pronoun). Examples below are given
in a somewhat morphonological representation5
14a.
à
yé
í
bìn
he
CMPL
REFL fall-down
'He fell down (purposely)
5Understanding
this construction as having reflexive meaning demands obligatory ekision of the CM last
vowel - y'í instead of yé í. The latter variant (without elision) will represent a normal transitive
construction and will mean 'he made you fall-down'. I was pointed to this difference of form/meaning by
Valentine Vydrine.
14b.
à
0
bìn-nà
he
CMPL fall-down-CMPL
'He fell down (accidentally)
Sentences in 14 will differ in respect to imperative constructions formation.
15a.
í
bìn
REFL fall-down
'Fall down! (purposely)'
Core imperative transitive construction.
15b.
í
kàná
bìn
you
DPND-N
fall-down
'Don't fall-down!'
Prohibitive (=negative indirect directive) intransitive construction ??
15c.
*bìn
'Fall-down! (accidentally)'
Core imperative intransitive construction.
15d.
kàná
bìn
DPND-N
fall-down
"Watch out not to fall-down'
Preventive (=negative core imperative) intransitive construction.
Problems with interpretations for the sentences in 15a. - 15d. are due not only to the polysemantic
i, but also with the unclear status of the construction in 15b. Is this the "right" prohibitive
constrution corresponding to the IMPER in 15a? The "negative variant" of 15a.? From a
formal point of view, this is not: 15b., possessing characteristics of a negative indirect directive
intransitive, is a negative variant of neither 15a., nor hypothetical 15c. The "real" prohibitive
construction with an agentive, reflexive, verb should look like 15e:
15e. ??*
kàná
í
bìn
DEPND-N
REFL fall-down
'Don't fall-down!'
But the consultants were very sceptical about acceptability of 15e. Similarly, an indirect
directive variant of 15c. will not help to fix the contradiction between inducive meaning of the
construction and non-volitional semantics of the verb: í ká bìn - 'you'd better accidentally fall
down' is not an independent clause. It can only serve as a dependent clause in a sentence with a
directive predicate expressing volition•inducement, like n•bª à fÞ í ká bìn 'I want you you
fall down' (cf. 7a). Here the opposition between agentive and non-agentive meaning of the verb
is neutralized.
5. Imperative in multiclausal constructions. Inducement or causation may be expressed
only in the first or in both clauses of the construction. In the former case (so called 'conditioned
imperative'), the dependent clause can express the condition or the goal of the inducement.
16a.
16b.
dén` máná táa
í
mà
í
ká
lívúrú` dí
child Hyp go
you
postpos.
you
DPND book
'If the child goes into your dirction give (him) the book'.
give
à
ká
táa
Bàmàkó
wálásá à
bá`
ká
à
yé
he
DPND go
Bamako
so-that
he
mother DPND he
'Let him go to Bamako, so that his mother would see him'.
see
Both examples allow IMPs with any person, but Imper constructions are not allowed. Thus,
when converting 16a. in plural, the main clause representing IMP will look as following: ... áw ká
lívúrú` dí - 'you-guys give (him) the book'.
The second case is 'coordinated IMPs'. They may express the following meanings: request for
a sequence of actions (see 17a. - 17c) and request for a few simultaneous actions (see 18a. - 18c.).
17a.
dúmúní`
tóbí í
food
make you
'Make the food and eat it'.
ká
à
DPND it
17b.
í
sìgì
í
ká
à
REFL sit
you
DPND it
'Sit down and read it'.
17c.
wúlí
í
ká
stan-up you
DPND go
'Stand up and go'.
18a.
à
dún
kà
í
mìn
it
eat
DPND REFL drink
'Eat and drink'.
18b.
kàná
kàsì kà
à
DPND-N
cry
DPND it
'Don't cry and drink it'.
18c.
à
mì/n` kàná
it
drink DPND-N
'Drink it and don't speak'.
dún
eat
kàlàn
read
táa
mìn
drink
kúmá
speak
In the examples above the first part of the sentence is Imper - core imperative (prohibitive)
construction. The other part is a clause with a dependent marker ka. If the actions in both
clauses are understood as simultaneous, the subject of the coreferential subject in the second
clause has zero coding. It should be noted that in affirmative coordinate constructions in case of
coreferential subjects, the second one is necessarily omitted. For imperative constructions it is
optional, and the consultants confirmed preferential keeping of the subject for sequential actions
and omitting it for simultaneous ones. This allows for the iconic representation of more tight
cohesion of a situation in case of simultaneous actions. Compare 19a. and 19b. where presence of
the second subject slightly changes the meaning. (Also see the footnote #5, p. ... .)
19a.
dúmúní`
kª
í
ká
í
mìn
food
do
you
DPND REFL drink
'Have some food and (then) drink something'.
19b.
dúmúní`
kª
food
do
'Eat and drink'.
kà
í
mìn
DPND REFL drink
If the addressee of the inducement is not the listener, then the first clause can not be represented
by Imper, and the whole sentence is structurally analogous to a regular affirmative coordinate
multiclause construction with the same subjects. It is obligatory then to omit the same subject
in the second clause. (Also see the footnote #5, p. ... .)
20a.
à
ká
í
sìgí
he
DPND REFL sit
'Let him sit and write it'.
kà
à
DPND it
20b.
*à
he
à
he
ká
í
sìgí`
DPND REFL sit
sªbªn
write
ká
à
DPND it
sªbªn
write
6. Conclusion. The description of imperative constructions in Bamana suggested in this
paper does not cover all possible ways of expressing inducement and causation in this language.
When compared to the imperative constructions scale in 5a. - 5f., it is clear that only core
imperative constructions and indirect directives with CM ká/káná and surface subject (which
serve as a primary, grammaticalized way of expressing inducement of other than 2nd singular
person) were analyzed.
The issues that were more or less left out in this paper need at least some comment. Those
include explaining why IMPs with ká/káná are termed as indirect directives and how is the rest of
the imperative sonstructions scale expressed in Bamana.
6.1. The issue of indirect directives deals with two factors. First, the primary function of the
ka-marker is expressing volition; inducement is a secondary, indirect function. Second,
ka-constructions don't express prorotypical inducement (=strictly imperative meaning), but more
or less peripheral one. It is more than direct causation of the listener and may mean suggestion of
joint action, expressing wish to induce a third person to somenting, a request for permission to
perform an action, or a milder than normal request addressed to the listener to perform an action see 8b, 8a., 8c., 11a., 11b., 9b., 9d., respectively.
6.2. Correspondences of the sentences in 5a. - 5f. in Bamana will include only the counterparts
for the leftmost part of the scale - indirect directive interrogative constructions and expicit
directives like n• bª i bìlá kà táa -'I order you to go' (cf. with non-performative, assertive, use of
these constructions in 4a. - 4e.) Obviously, in this case the rules responsible for such
occurrences come from conventional strategies of language usage (indirect directives) and some
universal descriptions of language constructions contexts (explicit directives).
The rightmost part of the scale (5e., 5f. - derived indirect directives in Russian) is not represented
in Bamana for the specific reasons of its clause structure: the role of positions and constructions.
In particular, every sentence in Bamana must have expressed the main predicate position and the
Construction Marker position. Not a single NP can make a sentence without a special marker
whose meaning (existence, location, possession, or qualification and identification) is not
compatible with imperative. Probably, impossibility of the core imperative constructions
(Imper) in the main clause of the sentences with consitioned imperatives (see 10) is also due to
these structural restrictions.