In this work as partial outline of the possibilities
that are available in Tangkhul-Naga word formation has been given, showing just
how wide a range of patterns can be found.
Chapter
1 discussed the sound system taking into account some phonotactic, phonological
and morphophonemic features. We found that there is not much to be explored
for tonemics and morphophonemics except rising or falling of tones in reduplication, and causativized construction
and phonologically conditioned aspiration of the formative/nominalizer (FX, NOMZ)
before sonorants (that is, k∂̀ → kh∂̀)
and the non-future marker (NFUT) (that is, ∂̀ → ì/y∂̀/w∂̀). Elsewhere, fixed tones and phonemic shapes
are assigned to each root and grammatical morphemes even in compounding and agglutination.
Chapter
2 discussed nominals listing, apart from other, types of compound and derived
noun stems and introduced a type of prefix (/a/ which has been called ‘formative’
prefix(FX)) that is neither inflectional nor derivational (by the usual criteria).
We also found that names of many concrete nouns and some case-marking elements
and cardinal members are compounded ones, and some nouns are formed from ‘core
element’ (or root) via prefixation/derivation.
Chapter
3 explored and two types of modifiers - - noun modification and verb modification.
A section has devoted to some modifying elements which may occur in noun modification,
and which has been called ‘adjectivals’.
The
discussion on adjectivals was partly morphological in nature, and though some modifiers/intensifiers
are affixable to only certain types of roots (which are adjectives in may other
languages), I have not claimed adjectivals as constituting a separate word class
in Tangkhul-Naga. Here, we may recollect that the tripartite distinction between nouns,
verbs and adjectives was put forth by Western grammarians only in the Medieval
period, and has been generally maintained since then. But more recently the dispute
has once again cropped up, with some claiming that adjectives form a sub-category
of verbs and others maintaining the opposite view. There have also been other
contentions that all three of them (nouns, adjectives and verbs) constitute a
single category called ‘contentives’ or ‘predicators’, or that there is a continuum
of noun-adjective-verb, or even that adjectives form and mixed category sharing
the feature (+N) with nouns and (+V) with verbs.
The
question as to whether adjectives are to be regarded as constituting a distinct
category or whether they are to be sub-grouped with nouns or verb (or both) has
given rise to conflicting claims in the case of individual languages also.
In case of Japanese, for example, some regard adjectives to be a subgroup
of verbs19, whereas others claim that they form a distinct category20.
Similarly, in the case of Salishan and neighboring languages, there is a long-standing
dispute regarding the possibility of establishing not only adjectives, but even
nouns and verbs, as constituting distinct categories. Some linguists like Kinkade consider this to
be impossible21, whereas some, like van Eijk and Hess consider it to
be quite possible 22.
Even
in English language, it is interesting to recall that, historically, adjectives
were once called ‘noun adjectives’ because they named attribute which could be
added (Latin adjectivus from adjecere ‘to add’) to a noun substantive to describe
in more detail, the two being regarded as varieties of the class noun or ‘name’.
Thus, in the word of J.Brinsley (1612)23 :
“Q
How many sorts of nouns have you?
A.
Two: a noun substantive, and a noun adjective. A noun adjective is that cannot stand by itself,
without the help of another word to be joyned with its to make it plain”
19 R.M.W. dixon (1982). Where Have All the Adjectives Gone ? Berlin:
Mouton. p .3.
20 A.E. Backhouse
(1984). “Have All Adjectives Gone? Lingua 62: 169-86.
21
M.D. Kinkade (1983). ‘Salish evidence against the universality of ‘noun’ and ‘verb’,
Lingua 60 : 25-40.
22 J.P.
van Eijk and T. Hess (1986). ‘Noun and verb in Salish. Lingua 69:319-31
23
J. Brinsley (1612). The Posing of the parts. London: Thomas Man, cited in : Sylvia Chalker
and Edmund Winner (1994). The Oxford Dictionary
of English Grammar, p. 11.
Latter
traditional grammarians defined adjectives as ‘describing words’ or ‘words that
tell us something about nouns’. Adjectives are differentiated from nouns and verbs
by the fact that nouns denote persons, places, and things, and verbs denote events
or actions, while adjectives denote properties or qualities. Such a ‘notional’
definition, in English, like wideness or width which denote properties, and verbs
like envy which are not (very) different semantically from adjectives like jealous.
Again,
there is the problem in Tangkhul-Naga in which even the primary functions of words
are not always distinguishable from one another. Thus, the root pàk may be translated as either ‘wide’ or ‘be wide’,
and the nominalized/non-finite form k∂̀-pàk as ‘t be wide’, being wide’
or ‘wideness’. Again there is a compound
root yúi-šì ‘state-sulk’ which covers both ‘which covers both ‘envy’ and ‘jealous/be
jealous’. At the primary level the roots pak and yui- šì readily function as verbs
by taking verbal inflections, and allows affixation for nominalization and non-finite
forms. Such language would apparently fail to provide any basis for a functional
approach of the type in which adjectives are differentiated rather sharply from
verbs by their primary function i a clause. The
best solution for such language, support by apparent morpho-syntactic characteristics
and some semantic features, would be to treat adjectives as constituting a sub-type
of verbs.
The
second section of the chapter explored the heterogeneity of adverbials as is evident
in their semantics and morpho-syntax. We
found that many semantic sub-classes of adverbials are coded by either an affix
or one-word adverbs or by more complex morpho-syntactic (compound or sentential)
constructions. Again, we came across that
even single adverbial words display relatively little cross-language comparability.
Chapter
4 discussed the verbal system. Verbs in
the language exhibit derivation, inflection, compounding and serialization.
Barring grammaticalized verbs and idiomatic compounds, verbal morphology
in the language is comparatively very ‘transparent’ and
demonstrates word formation produced very ‘transparent’ and demonstrates
word formation produced by both ‘rules’ and ‘analogy’.
The
language share a number of typological similarities. The word order is SOV and the language (often) prefer subjectless
constructions. Verbs exhibit heavy inflectional
and agglutinative morphology. Syllable
structure is typically simple, and many verbs have lexical and / or grammatical
tone distinction.
Some
typological changes are introduced by grammaticalization in infection, derivation,
explictor compound and serial constructions of verbs. If we focus on the morpheme themselves, we
can describe the changes in terms of the grammatical categories into which the
verbs shift : post-position, complementizer, subordinating conjunction, adverb,
auxiliary, and tense-aspect-modality marker, for example. The change can introduce a new category into
the language, resulting in an ‘expansion’ of the number of grammatical categories
in the language. If the category already
exists in the language the change can add to the inventory of lexical items in
that category, and can result in an increase int e frequency of occurrence of
that category in discourse.
A
consequence of grammaticalization is decrease in the number of verbs per clause.
Often, the trend is change from a clause with a serial verb string to a
clause with a singel main verb accompanied by ‘modifying verbs’, some of which
are losing verb status. OVer time, a simple tow-verb construction can
undergo restructuring to, say, verb plus prepositional phrase, verb plus object
complement and eventually subordinate clause, or verb plus adverb or auxiliary.
Again,
in a two-verb construction, the semantic depletion of one verb can be balanced
by the semantic enhancement of the other verb.
In a sequence like khui-rá ‘bring (<taki-come), a ‘take’
verb can become semantically depleted to the extend that it no longer indicates
physical grasp (or even a separable action) and signals a transitive/causative
reading for the following verb. The ‘take’ verb can become semantically bleached,
syntactically defective, and morphologically eroded while a following intransitive
verbs acquires a transitive/causative reading.
Now,
why do languages like Tangkhul-Naga prefer string like verb construction and tend
to develop complementizers, deverbal adpositions, explicators and auxiliaries?
There may verbal adpositions, explicators and auxiliaries? There may be ways to
approach a question of this sort. In some accounts of linguistic change, languages
may proceed to correct deficiencies or attain greater efficiency of communication.
But a judgment like this, based on criteria of efficiency rather than aesthetics,
is difficult to arrive at from simply reviewing typological data.
Psychological experiments can show that certain structures take longer
to process than other, and studies of child language development indicate that
children learn some structures before others.
However, I am aware of no psychological or developmental evidence that
indicates that single-verb typology is easier or more efficient than compound/serial
necessarily verb typology. The grammaticalization
process does not necessarily produce a change in clause typology anyway, since
some languages maintain stable clause typologies while cycles of grammaticalization
proceed. Tangkhul-Naga, for example, has
maintained a compound or serializing typology, with some shifts in the range of
meanings, while developing de-verbal adpositions, etc.
In short, we may attribute grammaticalization to the speaker’s
desire for novel, vivid expression; there are limitations on the appropriateness
of the devices available to speakers, so different speakers tend to use the same
devices.
Chapter
5 explored the various reduplicative structures which are different linguistic
structures sharing some common morpho-semantic properties. Word reduplications, echo formations and expressives
are ‘so expressive’ that, often, similar picture or the content meaning of an
utterance cannot be expressed by other words.
Echo
formations in the language show structural peculiarities and wide range of semantics
unlike in many other languages such as Hindi, Telgu, Tamil,, and even Mitei (though
Mitei and Tangkhul-Naga belong to the same family - - Tibeto-Burman). There is no fixed replacer or replacing rule as such. All the echo words and replacers seem to be
collocationally restricted. Again, it
is interesting to ask why monocyllabic words cannot undergo echo formation; ad
why only some 50 words can have echo construction. Also, unlike in some other languages, only nouns or nominalized
stems can undergo echo formation in the language.
Compared
to word reduplication and echo formation, the study of expressives has often been
neglected giving expressives no prominence in the field of linguistics.
Some linguists posit that one reason for the neglect of expressives is
their position on the periphery of language proper, especially in structural view. Expressives are interesting to linguists just because they straddle
the boundary with paralinguistic and extralinguistic phenomena. They have also been ignored because of their
intractability to analysis. Their variability
or invariability also presents an obstacle. In many languages, they are not regularly employed
in writing texts, and in addition, they have little in the way of morpho-syntax
and may heavily rely on context for interpretation.
All
these factors suggest why expressives have not received the attention they rightly
deserve. on the other hand, these factors
also indicate why indeed they must be studied. one reason for why expressives should be brought
into the mainstream of linguistics is their widespread distribution in the languages
of the world. Not only in Tangkhul-Naga
or other Tibeto-Burman languages and South Asian languages, expressives are also
found in Aboriginal Australian languages, Russian, Lahu, Pidgins and Creoles in
the New world, for example, Jamaican English, and all the African languages.
Like in the African phenomenon, expressives in Indo-Aryan, Dravidian, Munda,
Mon-Kher, and Tibeto-Burman languages. Like in the African phenomenon, expressives
in Indo-Aryan, Dravidian, Munda, Mon-Kher, and Tibeto-Burman languages represent
a sizable proportion of the lexicons. Tangkhul-Naga’s
lexicon of about 8000 words contain more than 350 expressives : a portion that
cannot be ignored or neglected in any adequate analysis of the language.
Further
comparative work can be undertaken, for instance, by making a cross-linguistic
comparison of senses appealed to by expressives. Their distribution might be found to follow a species-specific pattern.
Much further research needs to be cone, of course, i comparing expressives
cross-linguistically in Tibeto-Burman or south Asian languages and elsewhere.
Many
research works on expressives have concentrated on analyzing them as constituting
a separate system - - assuming that they belong outside language
proper. I have tried to that they belong
outside language proper. I have tried to take the opposite assumption and I find
it very productive.
The
importance of expressives to literary discourse cannot be ignored. Further consideration as to how they are used
in this medium can inform us as to the pragmatic conditions on their appearance.
Bible translators have confronted this issue many times (both for poetic
and prose forms), and the responses of the readers as to the appropriateness of
expressives have been varied - - much
readily accepted in the language.
There
is a need to adequately describe and document the phenomenon using a reliable
framework. Another focus must be on integrating
expressives into the mainstream of linguistic inquiry - - treating expressives as a legitimate object
of inquiry and squarely confronting the problems they pose. If our approach is confined to the referential
function of language, expressives will just remain hankering on the periphery
of language.
I
have tried to demonstrate how expressive sand other reduplicated structures stand
within language proper, while acknowledging their stand without. I hope that the present work, in spite of many
shortcomings, would engender a respectability for expressives and other reduplicated
structures and stimulate the investigation of them in Tangkhul-Naga and other
languages.
Summing
up
In
this exploratory work I have messily presented some word formation processes in
Tangkhul-Naga. No one is more aware than
I of the many ‘confusing’ analyses ad over-simplifications. The shortcomings are mainly due to my lack
of expertise and partly due to morphology being inherently messy. Morphologists are in a difficult position because
there is unfortunately very little agreement among them on theoretical points,
and many of the descriptive studies of word formation available avoid reference
to such vital theoretical points as, among others, ‘productivity’.
Despite
these handicaps, the study of word formation is expanding. Researchers are showing a greater willingness
to blend various theoretical viewpoints when dealing with word formation: to blend
synchrony and diachrony, morphology and phonology, syntax and semantics, pragmatics
and psycholinguistics. In fact, it is the ‘crossroads’ nature of word formation, where
so many facets of linguistics come together and a challenge which more and more
linguists are taking up. And, though it
is obvious just how much research they still is to be done in word formation,
an why it should be the ‘deepest, most secret part of language’, there are places
for optimism, since even such basic problems do not seem to be insoluble in principle.
Word formation seems to offer the opportunity for valuable and fruitful
linguistic research, and a field which is attracting new researchers in various
disciplines.