PALATALIZATION IN HAUSA
MICHAEL A.O. OYEBOLA
DEPARTMENT OF LINGUISTICS AND NIGERIAN
LANGUAGES UNIVERSITY OF ILORIN.
PALATALIZATION IN HAUSA
ABSTRACT
The paper applies the theory of lexical phonology to the analysis of the
operation of the palatalization rule in Hausa. It presents a brief overview of the
theoretical framework of lexical phonology. In the framework the lexicon is
construed as being made up of different strata on which phonological rules are
paired with morphological processes. The paper endeavours to account for the
apparently deviant behaviour of Hausa alveolar and palatal consonants with
respect to the palatalization process. This relates to the occurrence of alveolar
consonants before front vowels and of palatal consonants followed by back vowels.
Evidence for the cyclicitly of the palatalization rule is provided. By considering the
formation of plurals and compounds in Hausa, the paper discusses the
organization of the lexicon into different levels and provides justification for the
setting up of the levels.
INTRODUCTION
We will discuss, in this analysis, certain aspects of word formation in Hausa.
Specifically we will attempt to apply the theory of lexical phonology to the
analysis of the operation of the palatalization rule in Hausa. The palatalization rule
is a process intertwined with the process of the historical development of the
language. We are interested in exploring the extent to which the theoretical
framework provided by lexical phonology allows us to capture the facts exhibited
by the distribution of palatal consonants in Hausa. We shall first give a brief
overview of the theoretical framework of lexical phonology. We shall discuss the
status of the palatalization rule in Hausa before proceeding to illustrate the
application of the theory to the organization of the lexicon. We shall then attempt
2
to account for the problematic cases, i.e. those cases where palatalization seems to
have applied contrary to what would have been expected, as well as where it fails
to apply in spite of the fact that its structural description is met.
1.
LEXICAL PHONOLOGY: - The theory of lexical phonology developed
by Mohanan (1982) as well as Kiparsky (1982) provides a framework for
accounting for the interaction between phonology and morphology within the
lexicon. It construes the lexicon as being made up of different strata on which
phonological rules are paired with morphological processes. Rather than having all
the phonology apply before the morphology, it predicts that rule application can
alternate between the phonology and the morphology at different strata of the
lexicon. In other words, the theory allows us to apply some phonology before the
morphology and then go back to phonology in a derivational process. The
framework furthermore, allows us to account for the fact that some phonological
rules may apply to certain morphemes without applying to others. If such rules are
restricted to particular strata, the fact that they do not apply to some other
morphemes will be accounted for.
Lexical phonology distinguishes between lexical and post-lexical rules.
Lexical rules are those which apply in the process of word formation within the
lexicon while post-lexical rules apply after the completion of the word formation
process. In Kiparsky’s framework all lexical strata are cyclic while for Mohanan
3
certain lexical strata are cyclic and some are non-cyclic. Cyclic rules obey the
Strict Cycle Condition which blocks a rule from applying in an underived
environment. A cyclic rule can only apply in an environment created, for example,
by the application of a rule or by the juxtaposition of morphemes. Kiparsky argues
that the strict cycle condition can be derived from the Elsewhere Condition. The
Elsewhere Condition stipulates that we apply the more specific of two rules if the
outputs of both rules are distinct. Kiparsky analyzes a lexical entry as constituting
a lexical identity rule whose structural description is the same as its structural
change. The Elsewhere Condition is then applied to determine the ordering relation
between the lexical rule and any other rule with a corresponding structural
description.
By deriving the Strict Cycle Condition from the Elsewhere Condition the
theory predicts that the conjunctive application of rules is blocked only when the
outputs of the application of the rules are distinct. This insight leads to the
differentiation between structure building and structure changing rules. The
outputs of structure changing rules are distinct while those of structure building
rules are non-distinct. Thus while the Elsewhere Condition blocks structure
changing rules from applying in underived environments, structure building rules
are allowed to apply. The application of structure building rules in underived
environments is made possible by introducing the notion of underspecification.
Underspecification involves leaving out predictable features of lexical entries and
4
writing lexical redundancy rules which fill in these features. This approach ensures
that rules such as assimilation rules which have to apply in underived
environments are not blocked.
We summarize this overview of the theoretical framework by highlighting
the distinction between lexical and post-lexical rules. Lexical rules may refer to
word internal structure while post-lexical rules cannot refer to word internal
structure. Lexical rules may not apply across words while post-lexical rules may
apply across words. Lexical rules may be cyclic and if cyclic, they are subject to
the strict cycle condition. Post-lexical rules, on the other hand, cannot be cyclic,
hence they apply anywhere. Lexical rules are structure preserving while post
lexical rules need not be structure preserving. Lexical rules may have exceptions
while post-lexical rules cannot have exceptions. Finally lexical rules must precede
all post-lexical rule applications. (This summary is due to Pulleyblank (1983) cited
by Archangeli (1984:5)). Later works on lexical phonology include Durand, J.
(1990) Katamba (1989) and Mohanan (1986). In a more recent work Giegerich
(2005) argues that stratification should be conceptualized as base-driven rather
than being affix-based.
2.
PALATALIZATION IN HAUSA: Hausa alveolar consonants t, s, d, z and
velars are palatalized before front vowels. While alveolar consonants change
completely into their corresponding palatal consonants, palatalization occurs as a
5
secondary articulation on velars. Both ‘d’ and ‘z’ change to the voiced palatal
affricate before front vowels. Gregersen (1967:172) argues that Hausa palatal
consonants are historically derived from earlier alveolars before front vowels.
However, while the palatal consonants synchronically constitute part of Hausa
phonemic inventory, the palatalized velars occur allophonically before front
vowels. The fact that palatal consonants and their corresponding alveolars occur
constructively in several environments forces us to recognize palatal consonants as
phonemes in Hausa. The contrastive distribution of palatals and alveolars is
illustrated by the following set of examples: tasa ‘awaken’ casa ‘thrash’ tasha
‘station’.
Gregersen suggests that the phonemic palatal consonants are, almost
exclusively, restricted in their distribution to loan words. He proposes marking
these words with a feature [+ foreign]. Although we agree with this observation we
shall attempt to show that the apparently deviant behaviour of the alveolar and
palatal consonants can be accounted for within the theoretical framework of lexical
phonology. Examples of the deviant distribution given by Gregersen are: (a) the
occurrence of alveolar consonants before front vowels: teebur ‘table’ asibiti
‘hospital’ dozin ‘dozen’ reediyoo ‘radio’.
(b) palatal consonants not before front vowels: cooci ‘church’ jooji ‘judge’ washaa
‘washer’.
6
Since there are other words with deviant distribution of alveolar and palatal
consonants whose historical status is as yet unclear, it would be better if the
deviant behaviour could be made to follow from theoretical considerations.
Having considered a few facts connected with the distribution of palatal
consonants, we shall now discuss the status of the palatalization rule in the lexicon.
To begin with, the occurrence of lexical exceptions referred to above suggests that
the palatalization rule cannot be post-lexical, since post-lexical rules are
exceptionless. Furthermore the rule applies lexically since there is no case where it
occurs across words. It applies in all cases as a word internal or morphologically
conditioned rule. The strongest evidence for its cyclicity comes from its interaction
with other rules such as vowel lengthening and gemination. Vowel lengthening and
gemination in Hausa are lexical rules since they make reference to word internal
structure. For example Greenberg (1941, p. 321) draws attention to the
morphophonemic alternation of long vowel in open syllable and short vowel in
closed syllable in accordance with the normal syllabic structure of the language. In
its interaction with the vowel lengthening rule, the palatalization rule can apply in
any order. So for instance in the formation of the intensive form of the verb ‘to
read’ we see the interaction of the palatalization rule with the vowel lengthening
rule. The intensive form of the verb is formed through a suffix – e which is
lengthened before an object pronoun.
7
1.
2.
Palatalization
Vowel lengthening
/karant + e/
karance
karancee
2
1
/karant + e/
karantee
karancee
The interaction of the palatalization rule with the gemination rule similarly
provides evidence for the cyclicity of the rules. There are cases where the
palatalization rule has to occur before gemination while there are other cases where
gemination must occur before palatalization. These phenomena are reflected in the
formation of the participle. The participle in Hausa is formed from the verbal base
through a process of reduplication, gemination and suffixation. The masculine,
feminine and plural participles have –e, -iya, - u suffixes respectively. For instance,
the participles are formed from the verb dafa ‘to cook’ in the following way:
dafa
reduplication
dafaf
final c germination
dafaff
suffixation
dafaffe, dafaffiya, dafaffu.
In the following derivations palatalization and gemination apply in different
orders. The derivation of ‘fansasshiya’ redeemed (fem) proceeds in the following
way.
Final c reduplication
Final c germination
Suffixation
Palatalization
fansa
fansas
fansass
fansass + iya
fansasshiya
8
(to redeem)
If palatalization had occurred before gemination we would derive the wrong
form fansashshiya. In the following derivation palatalization has to occur before
gemination.
The derivation of fahimtacce ‘intelligent’ (masc) proceeds in the following
way:
Verb stem Final c reduplication
Suffixation
Palatalization
Germination
fahimta
fahimtat
fahimtat + e
fahimtace
fahimtacce
(to understand)
If gemination had occurred before palatalization, we would need another
rule of progressive assimilation to change *fahimtatce to fahimtacce, thus
complicating the derivational process. The derivational processes, discussed above,
show that palatalization, gemination and vowel lengthening rules are cyclic and
since they are cyclic they cannot be post-lexical.
3.
OPERATION
OF
THE
PALATALIZATION
RULE
IN
THE
LEXICON: In this section we shall look at the organization of the lexicon within
the theoretical framework of lexical phonology. In this regard, it will be shown that
while the environment for the application of the palatalization rule is the same in
all cases, it has to have different levels at which it can apply. The organization of
the lexicon into different levels will be illustrated by considering the formation of
plurals and compounds in Hausa. The lexicon is organized into three levels. The
9
first level consists of words which form their plural in an irregular manner. The
affixes attached to these words represent + boundary affixes. Level two
corresponds to that at which derivational morphology and compounding take place.
Level three deals with regular word boundary inflection, and in particular the more
regular plural formation.
The following are examples of words which form their plural in an irregular
manner.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
màcè
sírdì
yárò
dámì
Kàzá
míjì
‘women’
‘saddle’
‘boy’
‘bundle of corn’
‘chicken’
‘husband’
mátá plr.
síràdá
yárá
dámmá
kàjí
mázá
Examples 1, 5 and 6 illustrate the alternation between palatals and alveolars
in the singular and plural. Example 2 is an exception. Since we are positing a
palatalization rule, examples 1, 5 and 6 have the following underlying forms.
/mat + e/
/kaz + a/
/maz + i/
‘woman’
‘chicken’
‘husband’
plr.
plr.
plr.
/matta/
/kaz + i/
/maz + a/
Palatalization applies in the appropriate environment i.e. before front
vowels. In example 6 we have to posit an additional vowel harmony rule.
There is evidence from Hausa plural formation for putting the class of words
given above on a different level with respect to other plural formations. There
appears to be a constraint in the formation of Hausa plurals which blocks the
10
occurrence of ‘a’as the penultimate vowel if the final vowel is ‘a’. That is how we
can account for the change in the penultimate vowel in the following examples:
/haraf + a/
/al’amar + a/
/hakarkar + a/
harufa
al’amura
hakurkura
‘sound’ plr.
‘affairs’
‘ribs’
Similarly there is no other way of accounting for the epenthetic ‘u’ in farauta
‘finger nails’. This latter example is derived from underlying /fart + aCe/ (singular
‘farce’). The final vowel ‘e’ of the suffix changes to ‘a’ because of the general
alternation between alveolar and palatals in singular and plural. The usual final
consonant copying process would yield ‘farata’, thus the need for the epenthetic
‘u’, giving farauta.
Compare fage ‘cleared space’ fagage.
The rule referred to here can be formalized as follows
ø
u/
[a] plr……………… 3
As a matter of fact a general constraint which holds for most cases of plural
formation can be formalized in the following way *[
v1 cv1] plr.
If this rule is made to operate at the level of the regular plural formation, the
fact that it does not apply to the irregular forms in examples 1-6 can be accounted
for. Thus forms like mátá, síràdá and yárà are not blocked.
We shall consider next the evidence for the need to distinguish level two
from level three, i.e. a separate level for certain types of compounds as opposed to
11
that for the regular plural formation. Level 2 is distinct from level 1in the sense
that while level 1 combines non-independent entities e.g. /mat + e/ level 2
combines words, or at least joins affixes to words. At level 2 the application of the
palatalization rule, where it does apply, follows from different principles, in the
sense that it must have applied prior to compounding. This is shown, for example,
in the compound word ‘abinci’ ‘food’.
Hausa derivational morphology utilizes prefixes and suffixes in forming
substantives from verbs, nouns and adjectives. Examples of the suffixes are –ci and
–ta. When nouns are formed in this way an ‘n’ is inserted between the noun and the
other noun or suffix. The ‘n’ is the genitival ‘n’ for masculine nouns. The most
common compound formation is the combination of àbù ‘thing’ with another word.
The ‘u’ in abu is changed to ‘i’ and an ‘n’ is inserted between the words. For
instance, àbù ‘things’ and ‘ci’ ‘eat’ become abinci ‘food’. Similarly we have
abinsha ‘drink’ abinso ‘desire’. This process is also used in the combination of
three words, for instance gidan abinci restaurant (from house, thing, eat) the
compound formation rule can thus be formalized as follows.
ø
n/
([
[
]Noun
masc
] ) ………………. 4
compound
Among the words used as prefixes in the word formation process are mai- ,
plural masu -, Ma – is another prefix used. The differences in the behaviour of mai
12
– and masu- on one hand and ma – on the other provide evidence for making level
two distinct from level three. There are three basic differences between the first
two prefixes and the third one (ma-). The first two (mai – and masu-) are what, in a
boundary type framework, would be referred to as word boundary affixes. They
are derived from personal pronouns. Ma- exclusively serves as a prefix, indicating
place as in makaranta ‘school’ or agent maciji snake (biter).
While mai- and masu – are attached to nouns to serve as the possessive as in
maigida ‘head of household’ ma – is attached to verbs. Perhaps the strongest piece
of evidence for separating levels two and three comes from the different ways in
which the words having these prefixes form their plural. While words with prefix
ma- form their plural like the regular forms, the words with mai-prefix cannot form
their plural as their corresponding plain nouns do. For example the plural of gida
house is gidaje.
However, the plural of maigida ‘head of household’ is not *maigidaje but
masugida. Similarly, the plural of mairai ‘living being’ is not *mairayuka but
masurai.
On the other hand we have words with prefix ma-forming their plurals just
like the following.
aboki
wakili
friend
representative
abokai
wakílaì
13
So far example we have
maciji
masallaci
masauki
snake
mosque
rest house
macizai
masallatai
masaukai
The only way by which we can account for the different ways of forming the
plural in the compounds and the derived nouns is to make the level at which
compounding takes place distinct from that of level three where the regular plural
inflection takes place. The prefixes mai-and its plural masu – will be on level two
while the prefix ma – will be on level three. By restricting the prefixes mai- and
masu – to level two we correctly predict that while gidaje is a possible form,
*maigidaje is not. If the regular plural inflection were to take place of level two,
there would be no way of blocking the formation of *maigidaje.
Level three which represents the level of regular plural inflection is the level
at which the most productive ways of forming plurals take place. Among the most
productive ways of forming plural is the form in which the final consonant of the
stem is copied in the suffix – oCi. For example, we have taga – tagogi ‘windows’.
Interestingly, most words of foreign origin form their plural in this way. The
following are some examples:
Likita
minti
Ofis
‘doctor’
‘minute’
‘office’
likitoci
mintoci
ofisoshi
14
At this stage, we can now give a graphic representation of the organization
of the lexicon. We recall that by restricting words which form their plural in an
irregular manner to level 1, we correctly predict that they will not undergo some of
the processes which other words undergo. Compounds are formed at level two.
Before going into the schematic representation of the lexicon, it is necessary to
draw attention to a rule which must apply port-lexically.
This rule
ay
e ………………… (5)
applies post-lexically because it can apply across words and it appears to be
without exception.
‘bai’ (phonetically [be]) in the expression
bai zo ba
‘he has not come’
is derived from the combination of the negative marker ba ….. ba and the third
person masculine pronoun: ba ya zo ba
This derivation is borne out by such cases where there is no contraction.
ba
ta
zo
ba
she has not come
The fact that this rule is post-lexical accounts for the fact that a word like
sosai ‘completely’ (given orthographically) is realized phonetically as [so:se:] and
not *[so:ʃe:] i.e. not palatalized . Since rule 5 applies post-lexically, one reason
why palatalization will not occur is because the environment for the rule cannot be
created within the lexicon. The other reason will be considered in the next section.
15
The derivations referred to earlier are given below:
(1)
kaji
chicken
[kaz]
level 1
( [kaz]i)
affixation
[kaji]
palatalization
level 2
level 3
(2)
abinci
food
[abu] [Xi]
level 1
[ci]
palatalization
level 2
[abi] [ci]……………………….u
i
[abi] n [ci]……………………. 4
[abinci] ……………………… Compounding
level 3
The status of X given above will be dealt with in the next section.
(3)
maigida
[gid]
level 1
[gid a]
Affixation
level 2
[mai] [gida]
Affixation
[maigida]
Affixation
level 3
Post-lexical
[megida] ………………. rule 5
(4)
gidaje houses
[gid]
level 1
level 2
level 3
(5)
level 1
level 2
level 3
(6)
level 1
level 2
[gid] ade]
[gidaje]
macizai
[Xiz]
ciz
[ma [ciz] ai]
[macizai]
alamura
[alamar]
-
Affixation and consonant copying
Palatalization
Palatalization
Affixation
Affairs
16
level 3
( [ alamar]a)
Affixation
[alamura] ………………. 3
In light of compounds like gidajenabinci ‘restaurants’ and abubuwanso
‘wishes’ we have to revise our earlier proposal according to which compounding is
to be restricted to level 2. The examples given here indicate that compounding
should be allowed to take place at level three after the plural formation. So far
example, we have
(6)
level 1
level 2
level 3
4.
gidajen abinci
[gid] [abu] [Xi]
[ci]
Palatalization
[abi] [ci]
u
i
[abi] n [ci] ……………..
[abinci]
Compounding
[gid] ade]
Affixation plr.
[gidaje]
Palatalization
[gidaje] n [abinci] …………… 4
gidajen abinci
Compounding
PALATALIZATION IN NON-DERIVED ENVIRONMENTS
In some of the examples considered so far, it will be noticed that palatal
consonants occur before front vowels in non-derived environments. An example of
this is ci ‘eat’ (with the consonant marked X in the underlying representation).
Palatalization applies in this case contrary to the strict cycle condition which
forbids a cyclic rule from applying in non-derived environments. We had also
earlier referred to the occurrence of palatal consonants before back vowels. In this
section we shall account for the apparently deviant distribution of palatal
17
consonants. We will have to account for words such as kujera ‘chair’, fitila ‘lamp’
jaki ‘donkey’. Forms such as ‘kujera’ and ‘ci’ provide evidence for the need for
underspecification. Following Kiparsky’s proposal, only structure changing rules
are blocked from applying in non-derived environments. If consonants occurring
before front vowels are underspecified for their anterior feature, palatalization rule
can apply, since its application here will be structure building rather than structure
changing. Structure building rules can apply in non-derived environments. Given
this analysis, only these palatal consonants which occur before back vowels are
underlyingly patalal, as in jaki ‘donkey’ cali ‘netbag’. Underspecifying coronal
consonants occurring before front vowels allows us to capture the palatalization
process in derived and non-derived environments as one process. So far instance,
the coronal consonant before the front vowel in ‘kujera’ will be listed as
- son
+ cor
- cont
+ voice
o ant
The lexical redundancy rule
[+ cor]
[-ant] / - v [back]
provides full specification for the consonant, giving us ‘kureja’. The rule applies
by simple filling in the value of the anterior feature.
18
Given the application of palatalization as a structure building rule here, we
can account for the occurrence of alveolars before front vowels by positing that the
application of the rule is blocked because the consonants are fully specified in the
lexical entry. Following Kiparsky’s convention of construing a lexical entry as a
lexical identity rule, the application of palatalization in a form like ‘fitila’ will be
blocked by the Elsewhere Condition. The lexical identity rule ‘fitila’ is a more
specific rule than the palatalization rule and since the outputs of a conjunctive
application of the rules are distinct, the more general rule i.e. palatalization rule,
will fail to apply. Thus we derive the correct form ‘fitila’ rather than *ficila.
Justification for this analysis is found in the fact that there are many words
of foreign origin among the words in which alveolars occur before front vowels.
For example:
asibiti
rediyo
minti
hospital
radio
minute
These words are, among others, to be analyzed as being fully specified when
they entered the grammar of Hausa. Interestingly, most of these words form their
plural by adding the suffix oci (with the consonant copied from the stem).
Palatalization applies without exception in the suffix. For example:
asibiti
minti
asibitoci
mintoci
19
The fact that palatalization applies in the suffix is consistent with the fact
that pluralization in the form given above had been in the grammar before the
adoption of the new lexical items.
5.
SUMMARY: In this analysis we have attempted to account for the
organization of the lexicon of Hausa within the theoretical framework provided by
lexical phonology. We have shown that the palatalization rule in Hausa is a cyclic
rule and that by organizing the lexicon into different levels, we can account for the
differences in the word formation processes. Based on the notion of
underspecification and the Elsewhere Condition, the apparently deviant
distribution of palatal consonants has been made to follow from more theoretical
considerations. In conclusion we would suggest that an analysis based on lexical
phonology should be made complementary to the actual historical study of Hausa
language.
20
REFERENCES
Abraham, R.C. (1941): A Modern Grammar of Spoken Hausa. Hertford, England:
Stephen Austin.
Archangeli, D. (1984): An Overview of the theory of Lexical Phonology and
Morphology. Cambridge Mass: MIT Press.
Brauner, S. and M. Ashiwaju (1966): Lehrbuch der Hausa-Sprache. Munchen:
Max Hueber Verlag.
Centre for the Study of Nigerian Languages (1977). Sabon Kamus na Hausa Zuwa
Turanci (Modern Hausa - -English Dictionary)
Zaria: Oxford University Press.
Durand, J. (1990): Generative and Non-linear Phonology. New York: Longman.
Giegerich, H. (2005): Lexical Strata in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Greenberg, J.H. (1941): Some Problems in Hausa Phonology. Language 17.4 31623.
Gregersen, E.A. (1967): The Palatal Consonants in Hausa. Journal of African
Languages 6. 170-84.
Katamba, F. (1989): An Introduction to Phonology. Essex: Longman.
Kiparsky, P. (1982b): From Cyclic to Lexical Phonology in Van der Hulst and N.
Smith. The Structure of Phonological Representations
(Part 1). Dordrecht: Foris Publications.
Mohanan, K.P. (1982): Lexical Phonology. MIT Dissertation IULC.
Mohanan, K.P. (1986): The Theory of Lexical Phonology. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Robinson, C.H.: (1913): Dictionary of the Hausa Language Vol. 1 Hausa –
English Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
21