Noun Derivation in Lutiriki

NOUN DERIVATION IN LUTIRIKI

A MORPHOPHONOLOGICAL DESCRIPTION

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS

ADJ - Adjective

DIMIN - Diminutive

FV - Final Vowel

GP - Generative Phonology

IPA - International Phonetic Alphabet

LOC - Location

LOC N PR - Locative Noun Prefix

MDT - Morphological Doubling Theory

MP-RULES - Morphophonemic Rules

MS - Morpho Semantic

N - Noun

NCM - Noun Class Marker

NGP - Natural Generative Phonology

NOC - No Ordering Condition

NOM P - Nominalization Prefix

N-SG - Number – Singular

Pr P - Pre Prefix

PL - Plural

P-RULES - Phonetically – Conditioned Rules

RT - Root

SG - Singular

ST - Stem

TGC - True Generalization Condition

V - Verb

Ø - Zero Morph/Null

iii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Phonetic inventory of Lutiriki consonants

Table 2: Standard orthography and IPA representation of Lutiriki consonants

Table 3: Phonetic inventory of Lutiriki pure vowels

Table 4: Phonetic inventory of Lutiriki long vowels

Table 5: Standard orthography and IPA representation of Lutiriki vowels

iv

ABSTRACT

This is a study on derivational noun morphology of Lutiriki. Noun derivation in Lutiriki is

both morphologically and phonologically conditioned hence a morphophonological

description has to be undertaken to make insightful analysis of the derivational processes.

Noun derivation is indeed a morphophonological process that leads to the formation of new

lexemes that bear new meaning.

The study elicited data from native speakers of Lutiriki using five informants who have

competence in the language. The data collected has been analyzed using an eclectic approach

of Natural Generative Phonology and Morphological Doubling Theory.

Derivational noun morphology in Lutiriki is achieved through morphological processes of

affixation, compounding and reduplication. Bound morphemes derive nouns through a

process of affixation, while free morphemes are joined to each other through a process of

compounding to derive compound nouns. Reduplication requires a double occurrence of a

morphological constituent that shares a semantic and phonological generalization. The

process of reduplication fuses a base lexeme and a reduplicant to derive a reduplicated word

form.

Chapter one introduces the topic under study, the statement of the problem, the objectives of

the study, the hypotheses, the rationale, the theoretical framework, the scope and limitations,

the literature review and methodology that guided this study.

Chapter two gives an introduction to the phonology and morphology of Lutiriki. This

precipitates the need to undertake a morphophonological description into the derivation of

Lutiriki nominals.

Chapter three, four and five expound on affixation, compounding and reduplication as the

three morphological processes in the derivation of Lutiriki nouns.

v

The study comes to a conclusion in chapter six. The investigation reveals that a

morphophonological description within the theoretical framework of Natural Generative

Phonology and Morphological Doubling Theory is adequate in the analysis of Lutiriki noun

derivation.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS iii

LIST OF TABLES iv

ABSTRACT v

TABLE OF CONTENTS vii

CHAPTER ONE 1

1.0. INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 BACKGROUND TO THE LANGUAGE OF STUDY 1

1.2 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM 2

1.3 OBJECTIVES 3

1.4 HYPOTHESES 3

1.5 RATIONALE FOR THE STUDY 3

1.6 SCOPE AND LIMITATION 4

1.7 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 4

1.7.1 Natural Generative Phonology 4

The True Generalization condition (TGC)5

The NO ordering condition 6

Phonetically –conditioned rules (P-rules) 6

Morphophonemic rules (MP-Rules) 7

Sandhi Rules 7

Word-formation rules 7

1.7.2 Morphological Doubling Theory (MDT) 8

The morphology of reduplication 8

Essential morphological insights of MDT 10

1.8.0 LITERATURE REVIEW 11

1.9 METHODOLOGY 13

1.9.1 Data collection 13

1.9.2 Data analysis 14

CHAPTER TWO 15

2.0 INTRODUCTION TO PHONOLOGY AND MORPHOLOGY 15

2.1 LUTIRIKI PHONOLOGY 15

vii

2.1.1 Phonetic Inventory of Consonants 15

2.1.2 Phonetic Inventory of Vowels 17

2.2 PHONOLOGICAL PROCESSES INVOLVING VOWELS 18

2.2.1 Glide formation 18

2.2.2 Vowel lengthening 20

2.2.3 Vowel deletion 24

2.2.4 Compensatory lengthening 24

2.3 LUTIRIKI MORPHOLOGY 24

2.3.1 Bound vs Free morphemes 25

2.3.2 Noun-class morphology 25

Noun-class system of Lutiriki 26

2.4 SUMMARY 37

CHAPTER THREE 38

NON DERIVATION IN LUTIRIKI THROUGH AFFIXATION 38

3.0 INTRODUCTION 38

3.1 AFFIXATION BY CHANGING THE WORD CATEGORY. 38

3.1.1 Verb to noun derivation 38

[+animate] nouns 39

(27)...........................................................................................................................................39(28)...........................................................................................................................................40[-animate] nouns 41

(30)...........................................................................................................................................42(31)...........................................................................................................................................423.1.2 Adjective to Noun derivation 43

(32)...........................................................................................................................................433.2 Affixation by maintaining the word category. 44

3.2.1 Prefixation and Glide formation 44

3.2.2 Prefixation and Noun –class 45

(34)...........................................................................................................................................463.3 SUMMARY 47

CHAPTER FOUR 48

NON DERIVATION IN LUTIRIKI THROUGH COMPOUNDING 48

4.0 INTRODUCTION 48

viii

4.1 Endocentric compounds. 50

4.2 Exocentric compounds 50

4.3 Copulative compounds. 52

4.4 SUMMARY 53

CHAPTER FIVE 54

NOUN DERIVATION IN LUTIRIKI THROUGH REDUPLICATION 54

5.0 INTRODUCTION 54

5.1 Morphological reduplication in Lutiriki 54

5.1.1 Total reduplication 55

5.1.2 Addition of a linker morph “Khu” 56

Semantic value of “Face off” 57

Semantic value of distributiveness. 58

5.2 Forms of morphological reduplication..............................................................................595.2.1 Class maintaining reduplication. 60

5.3 PHONOLOGICAL REDUPLICATION IN LUTIRIKI 61

5.4 SUMMARY 62

CHAPTER SIX 63

6.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION 63

6.1 RECOMMENDATIONS 64

REFERENCES 66

ix

CHAPTER ONE

1.0. INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND TO THE LANGUAGE OF STUDY

The language under study is Lutiriki spoken by Tiriki speech community. Lutiriki is a Bantu

language under the category of Western Bantu of Kenya. Lutiriki is an agglutinating

language just like all other Bantu languages.

Lutiriki in itself is one of the 17 dialects that comprise the Luyia speech community.

According to Were, G (1967), Luyia dialects are classified into two major groups based on

shared boundaries and mutual intelligibility. Lutiriki falls under the Idakho, Maragoli cluster

of dialects.

The Batiriki people are believed to have come from Misri in Egypt led by a man called

Mudiriki from whom the name Tiriki was coined. It is also believed that the Tiriki people –

the Abatirichi –joined the Terik of the Nandi and through intermingling, the Tiriki “…

adopted the Kalenjin name Terik and bantuised it Abatirichi and became a united people”.

Were G. (1967:74). The most evident proof of this belief is the circumcision rites performed

by Tiriki people which were borrowed from the Kalenjin. Any member of the other Luyia

dialect who undergoes this circumcision rite is regarded to be “Mutirichi”. According to

Osogo, J. (1966), the Tiriki people comprise of different clans –dialects – put together. The

Idakho, Maragoli, Banyole and Bisukha have found their people become Batiriki because of

their proximity to the Tiriki people. They have been assimilated into Tiriki by undergoing the

circumcision rites.

In the present day, the Tiriki people are found in Vihiga district of Western Kenya. They

have their chief centre at Hamisi and Kaimosi where the latter was recognized due to

increased missionary activities in that place. It is also believed that these two chief centres

represent the two emerging dialects of Lutiriki. The Batirichi inhabiting the larger Kaimosi

area are referred to as bagwi and are believed to speak the pure Lutiriki. They cover the

1

Eastern Tiriki region (ibugwi). The other group inhabiting the Western region (imadioli), is

believed to speak adulterated Lutiriki with a lot of influence from Lulogooli. The Batirichi

inhabiting this region are labeled baduneni.

Due to migrations and intermarriages, a considerable number of Tiriki people are found in

settlement schemes notably Nandi, Kitale and Lugari in Rift valley.

1.2 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

Derivation is a morphological process that results in the creation of new lexemes. As a

morphological process, derivation is a word formation process that entails creating a new

form of a word that bears a new meaning.

Noun derivation is a regular and productive morphophonological process. However, not

much has been done on this field. Njoroge (1978) has done a study on Kikuyu deverbatives

and other nominalizations. His study focused on Kikuyu deverbatives and analyses

nominalization in Kikuyu in passing. Njoroge admits that “nominalization has been given

very little attention.” To the best of my knowledge, there exists a big linguistic gap on

derivational noun morphology. Apart from the study done by Njoroge (1978) on Kikuyu

deverbatives and nominalizations, there is nothing much that has been studied with regard to

Bantu languages. Of my interest is the linguistic gap that is prevalent in Luyia dialects.

This study examines how nominals are derived morphologically in Lutiriki and the extent to

which Natural Generative Phonology and Morphological Doubling Theory account for these

derivations. The investigation is governed by the following research questions:

i) What is the noun –class morphology of Lutiriki?

ii) What are the main morphological processes of deriving nouns in Lutiriki?

iii) What are the morphophonological processes of noun derivation in Lutiriki?

iv) Do Natural Generative Phonology and Morphological Doubling Theory competently

handle the morphological and phonological processes of noun derivation in Lutiriki?

2

There is thus the need to undertake a morphophonological description of the processes that

are involved in the derivation of Lutiriki nominals.

1.3 OBJECTIVES

In view of the Statement of the Problem, the study examined derivational noun morphology

in Lutiriki with the following objectives:

i) To analyze the morphological features of Lutiriki nominals.

ii) To investigate how derivational bound morphemes are attached to the root

morpheme to create new lexemes.

iii) To investigate how derivational free morphemes are attached to each other to

derive compound nouns.

iv) To analyze the linguistic units that are affected by morphological reduplication.

1.4 HYPOTHESES

In relation to the Statement of the Problem and the Objectives stated above, this study set out

to test the following Hypotheses:

i) Morphological and phonological processes are fundamental in noun derivation in

Lutiriki.

ii) Consonants that occur in Lutiriki dictate the morphology of the derived noun.

iii) Vowels that occur in Lutiriki dictate the morphology of the derived noun.

iv) Morphological Doubling Theory can account for morphological reduplication in

Lutiriki.

1.5 RATIONALE FOR THE STUDY

Nominals and verbals are pre-requisite linguistic elements of any language. Performance is

achieved first by understanding the basic elements of a language. There is therefore the need

to study the noun morphology of Lutiriki in order to understand the language. The study is

3

significant in the sense that nouns are derivations of different types and these derivations are

realized through morphological and phonological processes.

To the best of my knowledge, there is no study that has been done on Lutiriki noun

morphology. This study will therefore provide literature for future studies on other linguistic

elements of Lutiriki.

1.6 SCOPE AND LIMITATION

This is a synchronic study of Lutiriki aimed at analyzing the Lutiriki noun morphology and

the phonological and morphological processes involved in the derivation of Lutiriki

nominals. The study will be focused on Lutiriki dialect of Luyia but will only make reference

to the other dialects in the event of reinforcing a concept which needs comparison.

1.7 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

This study adopts an eclectic approach. This approach is necessitated by the fact that the

study is a morphophonological description of noun derivation in Lutiriki. The conceptual

approach therefore, will not competently handle the morphophonological processes that

derive noun forms.

1.7.1 Natural Generative Phonology

This study partly adopts Natural Generative Phonology approach. Natural Generative

Phonology is a theory propagated by Hooper (1976), Vennemann (1971) Hudson (1975) and

Rudes (1976). Natural Generative Phonology (NGP) is a component of generative grammar

that assigns the correct phonetic representations to utterances in such a way as to reflect a

native speaker’s internalized grammar. According to Hooper (1976), the major claim of NGP

is that “Speakers construct only generalizations that are surface true and transparent”. If this

does not happen the generalizations that will be constructed will be artificial. These surface

true and transparent generalizations are the key to formulating universal substantive

principles of phonology and morphology. Natural surface true and transparent

4

generalizations are derived using rules which form an interface between phonological and

phonetic representation of a word.

NGP as an improvement of GP has developed a constraint to the theory to avoid over

generation. Hooper states that “the long range goal of theoretical linguists is to formulate a

theory that is just powerful enough to describe correctly all the facts of a natural language;

but at the same time is not so powerful that it describes systems or predicts phenomenon that

never occur in natural language (1976:4-5)

Transformational Generative Phonology was to powerful for a natural language and has to be

constrained. According to Abdulmajid (2000), “the constraints placed on possible underlying

forms are meant to limit abstractness such that surface forms can be mapped onto the

underlying forms in a systematic and predictive manner”.

Hooper (1976) came up with two general conditions on phonological analyses which will

help “speakers to decode a multiplicity of different speech sound”. These conditions are

The True Generalization condition (TGC)

TGC states that phonological generalization will be regarded as true only if it is true at the

level of phonetic representations. This means that generalizations and phonological rules

must be true of all the surface forms. TGC therefore states that in a language, the speakers

will only internalize the phonological elements presented to them during the learning and

acquisition process but avoid the mental representations that are not in line with the acquired

phonological elements.

True Generalization Condition also demands a relationship between surface forms and other

surface forms. This is realized in the rules that native speakers formulate in their natural

language. This relationship is geared towards eliminating abstract forms.

5

The NO ordering condition

According to Abdulmajid (2000), NOC ordering condition “states that rules may contract

intrinsic ordering relations but they may not be extrinsically ordered. Rules therefore can

apply several times to a form and not in a specified order as long as that form meets that

structural description.

Natural Generative Phonology raises issues of abstractness in addition to naturalness. It

proposes that “abstractness of underlying representations be constrained by proposing that all

underlying and surface forms have a direct relationship. Abdulmajid (2000:12). This means

that there is a direct relationship between the phonological features that appear in the lexical

representation of a morpheme and those that occur in the surface representation of that

morpheme. This is referred to as the Strong Naturalness Condition.

Natural Generative Phonology limits its approach to formulations of constraints and

principles whose effect is to limit the generative power. This puts limit on the distance

permitted between abstract underlying representations and surface representations. These

constraints of morphological and phonological grammar however, must represent true

generalization about the surface structure of the language. Hooper has tried to illustrate how

NGP is the best suited approach for the study of substantive principles by highlighting rule

types in NGP and morphology in a Natural Generative Grammar.

NGP is concerned with constraints that represent true generalization about the surface

representations. These surface generalizations are further divided into types.

Phonetically –conditioned rules (P-rules)

P-rules work within the confines of phonetically motivated processes. The environments in

which the alternations for these rules occur are purely phonetic terms. They relate to the way

vocal tract is constituted physically in the production of sound segments. Since P-rules are

phonetically motivated, they are natural and are found in all the languages of the world.

These rules are said to be productive, regular and universal.

6

Morphophonemic rules (MP-Rules)

MP- rules result in changes in phonological features occasioned by morpho-syntactic or

lexical environment. The syntax, morphology, phonology and lexical information of a

language are basic in MP-rules. MP-rules take into consideration the morphological, lexical

and syntactic information. This information includes word boundaries and lexical categories.

Unlike P-rules, MP-rules are language specific because the rules are as a result of sound

meaning correspondences of individual languages.

Sandhi Rules

Sandhi rules take a structural analysis dealing with word boundaries. These rules fall between

P-rules and MP-rules. On one hand, Sandhi rules operate like MP-rules by taking into

consideration word boundaries that are determined by morphosyntactic information. On the

other hand, Sandhi rules operate like P-rules for the simple reason that they are determined

by word boundaries bearing phonetic information.

According to Abdulmajid (2000:16) “The word boundary that functions in a Sandhi rule

must be considered a syntactic boundary because it is determined arbitrarily by the syntax

and semantics and not by the phonology. On the other hand the word boundary resembles a

phonological boundary because it can coincide with a syllable boundary” Just like P- rules,

Sandhi rules are also productive and regular.

Word-formation rules

Word-formation rules account for derivations which are morphologically and phonologically

conditioned. These rules specify the morphophonological processes that result in formation

of new lexemes. Word-formation rules describe morphological elements which can either be

combined together to form compound words, those which can form independent meaning

bearing lexemes and those that double a morphological element to derive a base and

reduplicant combined. Word-formation rules determine the morphological constituents of a

word and how these constituents are arranged in a word.

7

1.7.2 Morphological Doubling Theory (MDT)

This study also adopts Morphological Doubling Theory (MDT) in the description of Lutirirki

morphological reduplication. This theory was put forward by Sharon Inkelas and Cheryl Zoll

in 2005.

The essential claim of this theory is that “reduplication results when the morphology calls

twice for a constituent of a given semantic description, with possible phonological

modification of either or both constituents.” Inkelas and Zoll (2005). In general there are two

approaches to duplication namely: the phonological copying and morpho-semantic feature

duplication. MDT however finds its ground on the morpho-semantic (MS) feature

duplication approach which provides for multiple instantiation of identical features. On the

other hand, MDT does not rule out phonological copying approach per se, but reserves it for

analysis of purely phonologically driven duplication. In MDT, the reduplicant and the base

are both generated by the morphology as part of a construction which also embodies

semantic and phonological generalization.

The morphology of reduplication

MDT assumes the following basic structure for morphological reduplication.

[Output] [F +some added meaning]

/Input/ [F] /Input / [F]

where [F] = semantic feature bundle.

Adapted from Inkelas & Zoll (2005:6)

A reduplicated stem has two daughters that are featurally identical in that, they mean the

same thing. The notion of having two sisters being identical semantically makes MDT

approach differ from phonological copying theories. Zoll and Inkelas (2005) state that “By

8

requiring the two sisters to be identical only semantically, MDT makes a prediction which

sets it apart from all phonological copying theories: other kinds of deviation, whether

morphotactic or phonological, between the two copies are expected to be possible.”

Using the MDT basic structure, we can analyze reduplication in Lutiriki as follows:

Henza (verb) – to look

Mhenza (noun) – one who looks around

Mhenza-henzi – one who likes looking around

[ Mhenzi-henzi ] [F +some added meaning]

/Mhenzi/ [F] /henzi/ [F]

In this example, /mhenza/ is the base while /henzi/ is the reduplicant both sharing the same

semantic description of “one who looks around” but differ phonologically. This is realized by

morphology calling twice the stem whereby the reduplicant has an empty morph.

On this account, morphological reduplication under MDT “is double (insertion) of a

morphological constituent such as stem or root. There is no inherent morphological

asymmetry between the daughters.” Inkelas and Zoll (2005:11)

MDT also employs the use of morphological constructions to account for reduplication. A

construction refers to any morphological rule or pattern that combines sisters into a single

constituent. Each individual affix or reduplication process is a unique morphological

construction.

Syntax = N

Semantics = ‘watery/light in texture’

Phonology = [maatsi maatsi]

9

Syntax = N Syntax = N

Semantics = ‘water’ Semantics = ‘water’

Phonology = [maatsi] Phonology = [maatsi]

The two morphological elements should agree in their semantic (and syntactic) specification

but not necessarily phonologically.

A morphological construction is achieved by having two identical morphological constituents

in terms of semantics and syntax. One of the daughters in a reduplication construction should

be the stem.

Essential morphological insights of MDT

i) Thesis of Semantic Identity

The identity between copies is semantic rather than phonological in that the two can differ

phonologically as a result of:

a) Copies being identical in input but differ in output because of special or normal

reduplicative phonology.

e.g. [a - b] - identical copies in morphological input.

a b - unidentical phonological outputs.

x x - identical inputs.

b) Copies are different in input

10

e.g. [a - b] - identical copies in M-input.

a b - different phonological outputs.

x y - different inputs.

The scenario in (a) is common to all reduplication theories. However scenario (b) is unique to

MDT in that the base and the reduplicant have different inputs, although the aggregate

semantics of the inputs is identical.

(ii) Thesis of Morphological Targets

A reduplication construction targets morphological constituents like affixes, root, stem or

word and not phonological constituents like syllable.

1.8.0 LITERATURE REVIEW

This section sets out to review written work done on Luyia dialects and their relevance to the

topic under study. The study also reviews studies done on derivational noun morphology in

general. The study further reviews written studies on other related Bantu and non-Bantu

languages which give insights into noun derivation.

According to Fromkin (2003), Derivation is a term used in morphology to refer to the

morphological processes that result in creation of new words. Derivation is concerned with

word formation by changing the word categories to come up with a new form of a word

which has new meaning. Derivational morphemes are added to a root morpheme to create a

new lexeme which has new meaning. These derivational morphemes are bound morphemes

in form of affixes, that are added before a root word, or added inside a word by breaking into

a root word or may be added after a root word. Derivational morphemes are bound

morphemes because they must be attached to the host morpheme. Bound morphemes on

themselves are meaningless and are regarded as parts of words. Fromkin (2003) states that

the form that results from the addition of a derivational morpheme is called a derived word.

11

Inkelas and Zoll (2005) give this study a framework of Morphological Doubling Theory to

work with. They make references to earlier theory of phonological copying with a revision of

incorporating morphology and semantics in the process of reduplication. Our study finds this

theory of great importance in accounting for the morphological process of reduplication in

Lutiriki and the linguistic elements that are affected by this process.

Njoroge (1978) examines Kikuyu deverbatives and other nominalizations. This study deals

with Kikuyu language which is a Bantu language just like Lutiriki. He observes that

nominalization is done by use of affixes. These affixes can either be prefixes or suffixes. The

process of deriving nouns from verbs by use of prefixes or suffixes is what he refers to

derivational morphology. He presents the essential parts in the formulation of nominals from

verbs as: the invariable verbal stem, the variable nominal prefix and the terminal vowel.

Derivational morphology can derive different types of nominals ranging from agentive

nouns, abstract nouns and instrumental nouns. The study done by Njoroge posses a

knowledge gap of morphological and phonological processes that derive nominals. Our study

will strive to build on the morphological process of affixation as highlighted by Njoroge

giving other forms of affixation in the derivation of nominals.

Appleby (1947) is one of the first scholars of Luyia language. She looks at the structure of

Luyia language developing a noun-class morphology of Luyia language and the phonological

processes involved. Her main focus however, is on the orthography, pronunciation, parts of

speech and tense. This study therefore will find Appleby’s analysis of the structure of Luyia

language as a primary source. Appleby has developed general noun-class morphology of

Luyia. Our study will review this class in analysis of noun-class morphology that is specific

to Lutiriki.

Abdulmajid (2000) has studied Luwanga morphophonemics using an NGP approach which

gives insights into the morphophonological processes in word-formation. This study is

important to our study because it uses the same approach as the one we have adopted and

more so Luwanga is one of the 17 dialects of Luyia.

12

Kanyoro (1983) has done a study on the syntax of the Luyia dialects. He has looked into the

syntactic, morphological and phonological aspects of Luyia dialects. His linguistic survey of

Luyia dialects is important in the study of derivational noun morphology.

Also important to our study is Mberia (1993) in his discussion of Kitharaka segmental

morphophonology. Mberia looks into the phonological and morphological aspect of the

nominals and verbs of Kitharaka. Kitharaka being a Bantu language offers credence to our

study especially in the analysis of Lutiriki noun morphology and the morphophonological

processes involved in deriving nominals.

Sumba (1992) studies the phonological processes of Luloogoli, Luwanga and Lubukusu.

These are Luyia dialects and their findings are of great importance to the study of

derivational noun morphology of Lutiriki. Luloogoli in particular falls under the same cluster

with Lutiriki hence reference to Luloogoli phonology is important to our study.

Downing (2003) study on Lubukusu reduplication offers valuable information to this study.

Lubukusu is a dialect of Luyia language hence its findings has a direct bearing to our study.

Okombo (1982) study on morphophonemic alternations in Dholuo is also important to our

study. This is because Okombo has used generative phonology in the analysis of Dholuo

morphophonemic alternations, an approach which yielded the theory our study has adopted.

Atieno (2007) has done a study on Morphological reduplication in Dholuo. This is a study on

non-Bantu language that has also adopted MDT. Atieno’s study is valuable to our study

because it has adopted the theory that we are also using.

1.9 METHODOLOGY

1.9.1 Data collection

In this study, we used introspection in collecting the primary data. Being native speakers of

Lutiriki, we used the native competence we have in the language to come up with the data.

13

The data we came up with was subjected to a test by cross-checking it with other native

speakers of Lutiriki. This was done by presenting structured questions and grammatical tests

to our informants to ascertain the validity of our data and to eliminate subjectivity.

We incorporated five informants for this study. The informants were native speakers of

Lutiriki with competence in the language. The informants ranged from forty years to sixty

years of age who have spent their life time in Lutiriki speech community. These informants

came from the village to avoid external influence on the data to be collected. We elicited data

from these informants by asking structured questions and giving them grammatical tests in

form of questionnaires

.

The data collection process took a duration of approximately one month. We also used

natural observation technique in collecting our data. This technique entailed listening to

native speakers of Lutiriki in their natural conversations without soliciting information from

them. We then did note-take the relevant information from them.

Library research was also of great help to this study in reviewing related literature to our

study.

1.9.2 Data analysis

Data collected was cross-checked with findings on other related studies. The data was then

transcribed phonemically giving the orthography and the gloss.

14

CHAPTER TWO

2.0 INTRODUCTION TO PHONOLOGY AND MORPHOLOGY

The primary aim of this chapter is to give a morphophonological description of Lutiriki noun

derivation. The description relies on the knowledge of Lutiriki phonology and morphology

with special reference to phonological and morphological processes that are significant in the

derivation of Lutiriki nominals.

2.1 LUTIRIKI PHONOLOGY

2.1.1 Phonetic Inventory of Consonants

Lutiriki has a total of 28 consonants. These consonants are classified according to their

manner of articulation, place of articulation and state of the glottis. The state of glottis of

phonemes that appear in minimal pairs have been differentiated by placing the voiceless

phonemes on the left while the voiced segments have been placed on the right.

Table 1: Phonetic inventory of Lutiriki consonants

Place

manner

Bilabials Labio-

dentals

Alveolars Palatals Velar Glottal Post-

alveolar

Labio-

velar

Stops p b t d k g

Fricatives β f s x h ʃ

Nasals m n ɲ ŋ

Affricates ʧ ʤ

Laterals l

Trills r

Glides j w

Prenasalised mb nd nj ŋg

Stops

15

Below is a table with the standard orthography and International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)

symbols representing Lutiriki consonants together with examples of words bearing these

phonemes.

Table 2: Standard orthography and IPA representation of Lutiriki consonants

Examples

Orthographic

representation

IPA symbol Word Transcription Gloss

p /p/ Shipichipichi /ʃipiʧipiʧi/ “Motorbike”

b /b/ shibusi /ʃibusi/ “cat”

t /t/ Matohi /matohi/ “mud”

d /d/ lidala /lidala/ “home”

k /k/ mwikulu /mwikulu/ “Heaven”

g /g/ lugaga /lugaga/ ‘fence”

b/v /β/ bandu /βandu/ “People”

f /f/ ifaala /ifa:la/ “To dress”

s /s/ shisako /ʃisako/ “Chair”

kh /x/ mukhana /muxana/ “Girl”

h /h/ masaahi /masa:hi/ “Blood”

sh /ʃ/ bushuma /βuʃuma/ “Ugali”

m /m/ makhuba /maxuβa/ “Information”

n /n/ imoni /imoni/ “Eye”

ny /ɲ/ inyaambu /iɲa:mbu/ “Chameleon”

ng' / ŋ / shing’ang’a /ʃiŋaŋa/ “Beast”

ch /ʧ/ luchina /luʧina/ “Grinding mill”

j /ʤ/ shijamaanyo /ʃiʤama:ɲo/ “squirrel”

l /l/ malwa /malwa/ ‘Brew”

r /r/ imbiri /imbiri/ “hyena”

y /j/ yaanza /ja:nza/ “Like”

w /w/ liswi /liswi/ “Hair’

16

mb /mb/ isiimbwa /isi:mbwa/ ‘Dog”

nd /nd/ Indama /indama/ “tobacco”

nj /nf/ Injira /injira/ “path”

ng /ŋg/ Ingoi /iŋgoi/ ‘leopard”

ts /ts/ Maatsi /ma:tsi/ “water”

nz /nz/ Inzala /inzala/ “hunger”

2.1.2 Phonetic Inventory of Vowels

Lutiriki has a total of five pure vowels. These vowels are classified in terms of front and back

vowels. Front vowels are articulated at the front part of the tongue while the back vowels are

articulated at the back of the tongue. In addition to the five pure vowels, Lutiriki has five

more long vowels which are a product of vowel lengthening.

The tables below show the phonetic inventory of Lutiriki pure vowels and long vowels.

Table 3: Phonetic inventory of Lutiriki pure vowels

i u

e o

a

Table 4: Phonetic inventory of Lutiriki long (double) vowels

i: u:

e: o:

a:

Table 5: Standard orthography and IPA representation of Lutiriki vowels

17

Orthographic

representation

IPA

Symbol

Examples

Word Transcription

Gloss

a /a/ Mawaa /mawa:/ “thorns”

e /e/ Shilenje /ʃilenje/ “Leg”

i /i/ Lirohi /lirohi/ “ear”

o /o/ linyonyi /liɲoɲi/ “Bird”

u /u/ Mulimi /mulimi/ “land”

aa /a:/ Maawa /ma:wa/ “Flowers”

ee /e:/ maree /mare:/ “saliva”

ii /i:/ bushiindu /βuiʃ:ndu/ “cold”

oo /o:/ miroo /miro:/ “Traditional

vegetable”

uu /u:/ buluu /βulu:/ “Pain”

2.2 PHONOLOGICAL PROCESSES INVOLVING VOWELS

2.2.1 Glide formation

Glides are regarded as semi-vowels because they are produced when the body of the tongue

is raised to take the position of producing high vowels. More so glides are semi-vowels since

the palatal glide /j/ corresponds with the front-high vowel /i/ while the bilabial glide /w/

corresponds with the back-high vowels /u/. Glide formation takes two forms, namely:

a) Glides formed on the stem

This type of glide formation occurs at the boundary of the prefix and the root. Glides formed

on the root occur in the environment where the prefix has the back – high vowel /u/ followed

by front vowels /i/, /e/ or /a/, or an unidentical vowel /o/

According to Abdulmajid (2000), such a form of glide formation entails that “the noun root

vowel as well as the prefix vowel assimilate to give rise to a glide /w/ which is bilabial

18

without any change in the meaning of the word.” This process can be summarized in the

following rule and examples.

U →W / ____ V

(1)

Gloss.

a) Mu-ana /mu-ana/ → mwana /mwana/ “child”

b) Mu-ejitsi /mu-eʤitsi → mwejisti /mweʤitsi/ “teacher”

c) Mu-imani /mu-imani/ → mwimani /mwimani/ “miser”

d) Mu-eyi / mu-eji/ → mweyi / mweji/ “sweeper”

e) Mu-ikho /mu-ixo/ → mwikho /mwixo/ “relative”

It is important to note that glides formed on the stem takes place with singular nouns.

b) Glides formed on the root

This type of glide formation occurs inside the root. The glide is formed morpheme –

internally either at morpheme medial position or morpheme final position. Bilabial glide /w/

is formed when the back – high vowel /u/ is immediately followed by front-high vowels and

front-low vowels.

The same rule that accounted for glides formed on the stem also accounts for glides formed

on the root.

U →w/ ________v

(2)

Gloss

a) Lisui /lisui/ → liswi /liswi/ “hair”

b) Lusua /lusua/ → luswaa /luswa/ ‘curse”

c) Muikulu /muikulu/ → mwikulu /mwikulu “heaven”

d) Murui /murui/ → murwi /murwi/ “head”

19

e) Ibugui /iBugui/ → ibugwi /iβugwi/ “east”

In summary, glide formation occurs in Lutiriki when a high vowel [+high], either back or

front, precedes another vowel which is not identical with it. A high-back vowel /u/ will form

a bilabial glide /w/ if followed by an unidentical vowel.

A second person singular prefix /u-/, for instance, becomes a glide when it occurs in front of

another unidentical vowel.

(3) Gloss

a) u-ononi /u-ononi/ → woononi /wo:noni/ “You have spoilt”

b) u-ambakhane /u-ambaxane/ → waambakhane /wa:mbaxane/ “You have refused”

c) u-elekhi / u-elexi/ → weelekhi / we:lexi/ “You have escorted”

d) u-ojitsi / u-oʤitsi/ → woojitsi / wo:ʤitsi/ “You have washed”

2.2.2 Vowel lengthening

Vowel lengthening is a phonological process of enhancing vocalic length by reduplicating

the vowel sound. Lutiriki employs the doubling of the vowel in a predictable manner. The

presence of a prenasalised consonant (nasal cluster) being preceded by a vowel, calls for

vowel lengthening. The prenasalised consonants in Lutiriki - /nd, nz, mb, ŋg, nj/ - pre-

determine the doubling of vowels that come before them. The syllable structure of vowel

lengthening process can be captured by the following rule:

CVNCV → CVVNCV

V → VV/ _____NC

20

(4) Gloss

bushiindu /βuʃi:ndu/ “Cold”

baanga /βa: ŋga/ “How many”

shaanje /ʃa:nje/ “Mine”

seenje /se:nje/ “Aunt”

masaambu /masa:mbu/ “leaves”

According to Kanyoro (1983:55), “Doubling the vowel as written seems to be the most

practical way of representing this [process of lengthening]” Vowel lengthening is also

productive in exclamatory remarks. Words used as interjections double the vowel realizing a

‘non-phonemic length’. Kanyoro (1983)

(5)

Gloss

a) Baane ! /βa:ne/ “Surely!”

b) Maako ! /ma:ko/ “Surprise!”

c) Ngaako ! /ŋgaako:/ “Trouble!”

d) Shikuu ! /ʃikuu/ “What!”

e) Shakhabulaa! /ʃaxaβula:/ “Trouble!”

This type of vowel lengthening is occasioned by the emotions that are drawn in the

utterances due to surprise, annoyance or excitement.

Vowel lengthening is used to show emphasis on a particular thing such as distance. This form

of vowel lengthening may be done by doubling the vowel or by using more than two vowels

consecutively. However, this representation of multi vowels can only be manifested in the

orthography. The transcription of both forms will follow the standard form of representing

long vowels accounting for the variation brought about by the degree of emphasis. For

example:

( 6)

21

a)

Gloss

Ihare /ihare/ “Far”

Ihaare /iha:re/ “Quite far”

Ihaaaare /iha:re/ “Far away”

b)

Ikulu /ikulu/ “high”

Ikuulu

ikuuulu

/iku:lu/

/iku:lu/

“high up”

“higher up”

c)

Musilo /musilo/ “stupid”

Musiilo /musi:lo/ “rather stupid”

Musiiiilo /musi:lo/ “very stupid”

Vowel lengthening is further significant in differentiating grammatical meaning of lexical

items. This entails that the phonemic distinction of words can be marked by vowel length.

Consider the following data:

(7)

Gloss

a)

mawaa /mawa:/ “thorns”

maawa /ma:wa/ “Flowers”

b)

mala /mala/ “intestines”

maala /ma:la/ “finish”

c)

nyola /ɲola/ “pluck”

nyoola /ɲo:la/ “get”

22

2.2.3 Vowel deletion

Vowel deletion is a phonological process of vowel loss. Vowel deletion takes place when

two unidentical vowels occur side by side in a word. One of the unidentical vowels is deleted

and the retained vowel is lengthened. In other instances, vowel deletion leads to vowel

coalescence in that the two sound segments –vowels– are deleted and replaced with an

entirely new sound. The gap left behind by the process of vowel deletion is taken care of by

lengthening the retained, or sometimes the introduced vowel. For example:

(8)

Gloss

a) ifuala /ifuala/ → ifaala /ifa:la/ “To dress”

b) mauwa /mauwa/ → maawa /ma:wa/ “Flowers”

c) shieyo /ʃiejo/ → sheeyo /ʃe:jo/ “broom”

2.2.4 Compensatory lengthening

Compensatory lengthening is a phonological process of doubling a vowel that has been

retained after the process of deletion. Compensatory lengthening “is therefore a process of

vowel lengthening motivated by loss of a segment.” Atieno (2007: 31)

(9)

Vowel deletion compensatory lengthening Gloss

a)Ifuala /ifuala/→ ifala /ifala/ → ifala /ifala/→ ifaala /ifa:la/ “to dress”

b) Mauwa /mauwa/→ mawa/mawa/→mawa /mawa/→ maawa /ma:wa/ “flowers”

2.3 LUTIRIKI MORPHOLOGY

Morphology deals with word formation in general. A single word in Lutiriki may be

composed of one or more morphemes. A word with one morpheme may stand out as a root.

This type of a word is a lexical content morpheme that cannot be analysed into smaller parts.

23

A word with more than one morpheme is regarded as the stem in that the word is the root

combined with an affix or affixes.

2.3.1 Bound vs Free morphemes

A morpheme is the basic word structure of Lutiriki morphology. A morpheme can either be

free morpheme or bound morpheme.

A single meaning -bearing morpheme in Lutiriki is classified as a free morpheme and

constitutes the root word. On the contrary, meaningless morphemes which must be attached

to a host morpheme are classified as bound morphemes, and which constitute the stem word.

Bound morphemes in Lutiriki are affixes which are attached to host morphemes for them to

convey meaning.

Affixes used in Lutiriki are classified into two groups namely: prefixes and suffixes.

Prefixes are bound morphemes which are attached to the left of the host morpheme while

suffixes are bound morphemes that are attached to the right of the host morpheme.

2.3.2 Noun-class morphology

According to Appleby (1961:8) “there are twelve classes of nouns in Luyia distinguished by

their prefixes. Eight of the 12 have singular and plural forms again distinguished by

prefixes”. Kanyoro (1983:91) presents nominal system of Luyia in paired classes numbering

one to twenty four. Lutiriki, alongside other central and southern dialects of Luyia have with

time dropped the pre-prefix o- (singular) and a – (plural) only retaining the root and the class

prefix as highlighted in the following example.

(10)

Gloss

Ø mundu “ person”

zero P Pr NCM RT

Ø bandu “ people”

zero P Pr NCM RT

24

Noun –class system of Luyia dialects (adapted form Appleby (1961).

Class Prefix (sg) Prefix (pl)

1 omu aba

2 omu emi

3 li ama

4 eshi ebi

5 i(n) tsi(n)

6 olu tsin

7 Akha Oru (diminutive)

8 Obu

a) Abstract

b) singularia tantum

9 Okhu

Verbal nouns

10 ha-

Locative nouns (place, or at )

11 Mu-

11a Locative nouns (in)

hu-

Locative nouns (on)

12 Oku omi (augmentative)

Noun-class system of Lutiriki

Class 1/2 mu- / ba-

This class primarily refers to human beings. The prefix /mu-/ is attached to the root to depict

singularity while prefix /βa-/ is attached to the root to depict plurality.

25

(11)

Gloss

1. SG Mu- nd- u

NCM RT FV

/mundu/ “Person”

PL Ba- nd- u

NCM RT FV

/βandu/ “People”

2. SG Mu- sher- e

NCM RT FV

/muʃere/ “ Old woman ”

PL Ba- sher- e

NCM RT FV

/βaʃere/ “Old women”

3. SG Mu- sakhur- u

NCM RT FV

/musaxuru/ “Old man”

PL Ba- sakhur- u

NCM RT FV

/βasaxuru/ “Old men”

4 .SG Mu- hindir- a

NCM RT FV

Muhindira/ “Grown – up”

PL Ba- hindir- a

NCM RT FV

/βahindira/ “Grown – ups”

5. SG Mu- khan- a

NCM RT FV

/muxa:na/ “Girl”

PL Ba- khan- a

NCM RT FV

/βaxana/ “Girls”

It is important to note that there are lexical items that belong to this class but have undergone

a process of glide formation. A relative number of such words retain the prefix /βa-/ while

majority of them alter the vowel that comes after the bilabial fricative to either /βe-/ or /βi-/.

Consider the following data:

(12)

26

Gloss

1. mu- an- a /muana/ – mw- an- a SG /mwana/ “child”

NCM RT FV NCM RT FV

ba- n- a PL /βana/ “children”

NCM RT FV

2. mu- am- i /muami/ – mwam- i SG /mwami/ “leader”

NCM RT FV NCM RT FV

ba- m- i PL /βami/ “leaders”

NCM RT FV

3. mu- ejits- i /muedzitsi/ – mw- ejits- i SG /mweʤitsi/ “teacher”

NCM RT FV NCM RT FV

Be- jits- i PL /βeʤitsi/ “teachers”

NCM RT FV

4. mu- ikh- o /muixo/ – mw- ikh- o SG /mwixo/ “relative”

NCM RT FV NCM RT FV

Bi- kh- o PL /βixo/ “relatives”

NCM RT FV

Class 3 / 4 mu- / mi-

This class makes reference to non-animate things notably things to do with agriculture such

as plants, trees and land. It also refers to some body parts. The prefix /mu-/ marks singularity

while the prefix /mi-/marks plurality. For example:

(13)

Gloss

1 Mu- lir- u

NCM RT FV

/muliru / SG “forest”

Mi- lir- u

NCM RT FV

/miliru/ PL “forests”

2 Mu- lim- i

NCM RT FV

/mulimi/ SG “parcel of land”

Mi- lim- i /milimi/ PL “parcels of land”

27

NCM RT FV

3 Mu- nw- a

NCM RT FV

/munwa/ SG “mouth”

Mi- nw- a

NCM RT FV

/minwa/ PL “mouths”

4 Mu- sal- a

NCM RT FV

/musala/ SG “tree”

Mi- sal- a

NCM RT FV

/misala/ PL “trees”

The prefix /mi-/ that marks plural forms in this class is also used with a few substances which

are in liquid form such as:

(14) Gloss

mi- nyal- i / miɲali/ “urine”

NCM RT FV

Class 5 / 6 Li- / ma-

This class refers to non-animate things. It makes reference to natural things found in the

environment such as stones and parts of plants. This class also refers to some of the borrowed

words form other languages. For example:

(15)

Gloss

1 Li- chin- a

NCM RT FV

/litʃina/ SG “stone”

Ma- chin- a

NCM RT FV

/matʃina/ PL “stones”

2 Li- samb- u

NCM RT FV

/Lisambu/ SG “leaf”

Ma- samb- u /masambu/ PL “leaves”

28

NCM RT FV

3 Li- sand- a

NCM RT FV

/lisanda/ SG “nail”

Ma- sand- a

NCM RT FV

/Masanda/ PL “nails”

4 Li- roh- i

NCM RT FV

/lirohi/ SG “ear”

Ma- roh- i

NCM RT FV

/marohi/ PL “ears”

5 Li- shaat- i

NCM RT FV

/liʃa:ti/ SG “shirt”

Ma- shaat- i

NCM RT FV

/maʃa:ti/ PL “shirts”

The prefix /ma-/ that marks plurality in this class is also used in uncountable nouns. All

substances in liquid form use the prefix as in the examples below:

(16)

Gloss

1 Ma- saah- i

NCM RT FV

/masahi/ “Blood”

2 Ma- lw- a

NCM RT FV

/malwa/ “Brew”

3 Ma- re- e

NCM RT FV

/mare:/ “Saliva”

4 Ma- hir- a

NCM RT FV

/mahira/ “Pus”

5 Ma- kur- a

NCM RT FV

/makura/ “Jelly/oil/fuel”

Class 7/8 shi- /bi-

29

This class refers mostly to man-made things and some body parts. The prefix /ʃi-/ marks

singularity while the prefix /βi-/marks plurality. Kanyoro (1983) labels this class as the

“thing” class. Consider the following data:

(17)

Gloss

Shi- rub- i

NCM RT FV

/ʃiruβi/ SG “basket”

Bi- rub- i

NCM RT FV

/βiruβi/ PL “baskets”

Shi- sak- o

NCM RT FV

/ʃisako/ SG “chair”

Bi- sak- o

NCM RT FV

/βisako/ PL “chairs”

Shi-lenj-e

NCM RT FV

/ʃilenje/ SG “leg”

Bi-lenj-e

NCM RT FV

/βilenje/ PL “legs”

Shi-mol-i

NCM RT FV

/ʃimoli/ SG “calf”

Bi-mol-i

NCM RT FV

/βimoli/ PL “calves”

Class 9 /10 i(n) / tsi-

This class primarily refers to names of animals. It also makes reference to some man-made

things and parts of the body. The prefix /i-/ or /in-/ mark singularity while the prefix /tsi-/

marks plurality. For example:

(18)

Gloss

I- ngokh- o /iŋgoxo/ SG “Chicken”

30

NCM RT FV

Tsi- ngokh- o

NCM RT FV

/tsiŋgoxo/ PL “Chickens”

I- nyamb- u

NCM RT FV

/iɲa:mbu/ SG “Chameleon”

Tsi- nyaamb- u

NCM RT FV

/tsiɲa:mbu/ PL “Chameleons”

I- ngo- i

NCM RT FV

iŋgoi/ SG “Leopard”

Tsi- ngo- i

NCM RT FV

tsiŋgoi/ PL “Leopards”

I- tay- a

NCM RT FV

/itaja/ SG “Lantern /lamp”

Tsi- tay- a

NCM RT FV

/tsitaja/ PL “Lanterns /lamps”

I- mon- i

NCM RT FV

/imoni/ SG “Eye”

Tsi- mon- i

NCM RT FV

/tsimoni/ PL “Eyes”

Class 11/12 Kha- / ru-

This is a diminutive class. It denotes the smallness of things especially living things. It also

refers to non- animate things. This class is used in a derogatory manner.

(19)

Gloss

1 Kha- nd- u

NCM RT FV

/xandu/ SG “Small thing/ small person”

Ru- nd- u

NCM RT FV

/rundu/ PL “Small things/ small people”

2 Kha- khan- a /xaxana/ SG “Small girl”

31

NCM RT FV

Ru- khan- a

NCM RT FV

/ruxana/ PL “Small girls”

3 Kha- sakhur- u

NCM RT FV

Ru- sakhur- u

NCM RT FV

/xasaxuru/ SG

/rusaxuru/ PL

“Small old man”

“Small old men”

4 Kha- shaat- i

NCM RT FV

Ru- shaat- i

NCM RT FV

/xaʃa:ti/ SG

/ruʃa:ti/ PL

“Small shirt”

“Small shirts”

5 Kha- saasul- i

NCM RT FV

/xasa:suli/ SG “ Small piece of firewood”

Ru- saasul- i

NCM RT FV

/rusa:suli/ PL “Small pieces of firewood”.

Class 13.14 ku- / mi-

This is an augmentative class. It denotes the bigness of things. This class refers to living

things especially those with supernatural powers. In some instances, this class may be used in

a derogatory manner.

(20)

Gloss

Ku- nd- u / kundu / SG “a big thing or a monster”

NCM RT FV

Mi- nd- u /mindu/ PL “big things or monsters”

NCM RT FV

Ku- ya- i /kujai/ SG “a big boy”

32

NCM RT FV

mi- ya- i /mijai/ PL “big boys”

NCM RT FV

Class 15 bu-

This class refers to uncountable nouns. Appleby (1963) has divided this class into two

groups:

a) Abstract nouns

b) Singularia tantum

Abstract nouns.

Abstract nouns are nominals which are not measurable. This type of nouns is not concrete.

The prefix /βu-/ is significant in deriving nouns from verbs, adjectives and other nouns.

(21)

Lok- a / loka / → mu- loch- i / muloʧi/ → bu- loch- i / βuloʧi/

RT FV NCM RT FV NCM RT FV

Verb Concrete Noun Abstract Noun

“Bewitch” “Witch” “Witchcraft”

Mu- chel- i /muʧeli / → bu- chel- i / βuʧeli/

NCM RT FV NCM RT FV

Adjective Abstract Noun

“Intelligent person” “Intelligence”.

Mu- sil- o /musilo / → bu- sil- o /βusilo/

NCM RT FV NCM RT FV

Adjective Abstract noun

“Stupid person” “stupidity”

33

Singularia tantum

These are nouns which exist in singular forms only. Number cannot be inflected in the root in

any way. This type of nouns is analogous with English examples such as equipment, bedding,

water and money.

(22)

Gloss

Bush- i / βuʃi/ “Honey”

RT FV

Bushum- a / βuʃuma/ “Ugali”

RT FV

Buser- a /βusera/ “Porridge”

RT FV

Bunyas- i /βuɲasi/ “grass”

RT FV

It is also important to note that nouns that exist in singular form which have already

undergone glide formation have underlying forms typical of this class. For example:

(23)

Gloss

Buoy- a /βuoja/ → bwooy- a /βwo:ja/ “pubic hair”

RT FV RT FV

Glide formation

Buong- o /βuoŋgo/ → bwoong- o /βwo:ŋgo/ “brain”

RT FV RT FV

Glide formation

Class 16 ha-

34

This class refers to location. The prefix /ha-/ is used to indicate the location where something

is “at”.

(24)

Gloss

Has- i /hasi/ “down”

RT FV

hanje- e /hanje:/ “my place”

RT FV

Class 17 Khu-

This class also refers to location. /xu-/ is a locative prefix denoting something being “on” top

of another thing.

( 25)

Gloss

Khu- lugag- a /xulugaga/ “on the fence”

LOC RT FV

Khu- lwaany- i /xulwa:ɲi/ “on the compound”

LOC RT FV

Khu- lwaakh- o /xulwa:xo/ “on the edge /boundary”

LOC RT FV

Class 18 mu-

This class refers to location. The locative prefix /mu-/ refers to something that is inside.

(26)

Gloss

Mu- unz- u /mu:nzu/ “inside the house”

LOC RT FV

35

Mu- gar- i /mugari/ “inside”

LOC RT FV

Mu- buli- i /muβuli:/ “inside the bedroom”

LOC RT FV

Mu- dis- i /mudisi/ “inside the boys’ cottage”

LOC RT FV

2.3.3 Noun derivation

Lutiriki nouns are derived through morphophonological processes. Affixation, compounding

and reduplication processes are the key instruments that derive these nouns. Lutiriki nouns

are derived from different grammatical classes. In some cases, these nouns may be derived

from the same grammatical class

2.4 SUMMARY

Chapter two was aimed at giving a description of Lutiriki phonology and morphology; and

the morphophonological processes that are fundamental in the derivation of Lutiriki

nominals. The inventory of Lutiriki phonemes has shown that there are a couple of phonemes

that are used predominantly with borrowed lexical items. These phonemes include /b/, /p/

and /g/. Noun-class system of Lutiriki is synchronized in the derivation of Lutiriki nouns.

This makes it imperative for the description of noun derivation in Lutiriki to be

morphophonological.

36

CHAPTER THREE

NON DERIVATION IN LUTIRIKI THROUGH AFFIXATION

3.0 INTRODUCTION

Affixation is a process of attaching affixes to a root word or a stem to derive a new word.

Affixation is the most productive means of marking derivation in Lutiriki. Lutiriki nominals

are derived mainly through a process of prefixation, a sub-class of affixation, whereby lexical

information is added to the left of the stem.

Affixation derives nouns in Lutiriki in two main ways, namely by:

i) Changing the word category.

ii) Maintaining the word category.

3.1 AFFIXATION BY CHANGING THE WORD CATEGORY.

This is a form of noun derivation in which the addition of an affix to a root or stem changes

the grammatical category of the base lexeme to a different grammatical category .Affixation

by changing the word category is predominant in the derivation of Lutiriki nominals.

According to Bauer (2003: 32), a derivation affix “is one which produces a new lexeme from

a base”. The addition of a prefix to a lexeme in Lutiriki, changes the class of the lexeme to a

new grammatical class.

Lutiriki derives nominals from verbal and adjectival grammatical classes. However, the

process of deriving nouns from verbs is the most productive compared to adjectivals.

3.1.1 Verb to noun derivation

A noun can easily be derived from a verb in Lutiriki through the process of prefixation.

There are different types of prefixes which are attached to the root or the stem to derive a

noun. The type of prefix which is added to the base lexeme depends on the noun-class of the

37

base lexeme together with the phonological features of the word to be derived. For instance,

[+ animate] word-forms take a different prefix as compared to [-animate] word forms.

[+animate] nouns

These nouns belong to class 1 / 2 in the Noun-class system of Lutiriki. The prefix /mu-/ for

singular nouns and /βa-/ for plural nouns is attached to verb roots to derive [+animate] nouns.

As mentioned in Section 3.1.1, the type of prefix to be used also depends on the phonological

features of the base lexeme.

Verb roots that begin with vowels entail that the phonological process of glide formation will

take place hence changing this type of the class 1/2 prefix /mu-/ to /mw-/ in the derivation of

this type of Lutiriki noun. In addition, the final vowel changes from /a/ to /i/ to show the

derived noun is an agent, the doer of an action. Consider the following examples:

(27)

Verb Noun

a) ey - a /eja/ Mw - ey- i /mweji/

RT FV Nom P RT FV

“sweep” “sweeper”

b) ayits - a /ajitsa:/→ mw - ayits- i /mwajitsi/

RT FV Nom P RT FV

“graze” “herdsman”

c) ejitst - a /eʤitsa/→ mw - ejits - i /mweʤitsi/

RT FV Nom P RT FV

“teach” “teacher”

d) ony -a /oɲa/ → Mw - ony -i /mwoɲi/

RT FV Nom P root FV

38

“heal/save” “saviour/healer”

Verb roots that begin with consonants attach class 1 /2 prefix /mu-/ to the base lexeme to

derive [+ animate nouns]. Likewise, the final vowel /a/ changes to /i/ to indicate that the

derived noun is an agent. Consider the following examples:

(28)

Verb Noun

a) bay – a /βaja/ → mu – bay- i /muβaji/

RT FV Nom P RT FV

“Play” “Player”

b) Lok - a /loka/ → Mu- loch - i /muloʧi/

RT FV Nom P - RT FV

“bewitch” “witch”

c) Sheb – a / ʃeβa/ → Mu – sheb - i / muʃeβi/

RT FV Nom P RT FV

“circumcise” “circumciser”

[+ animate] nouns which show the doer of the action are marked by the change of the final

vowel from /a/ in the verbal root to /i/ in the nominal stem. This process can be captured by

the following rule.

a → i /___________#[+animate noun]

39

[-animate] nouns

Non – animate nouns in Lutiriki can be derived from verbs by attaching different types of

prefixes to the root. [-animate] nouns belong to different noun-classes of Lutiriki notably

Class 3 / 4 and Class 7/8. The form of the prefix also depends on the phonological features of

the base lexeme.

[-animate] nominals formed from verbs change the final vowel /a/ of the verb root to /o/ in

the derived noun stem.

Verbal roots that begin with vowels undergo a phonological process of vowel deletion and

vowel lengthening to account for the two vowels that come in succession.For examples:

(29)

Verb Noun

a) ey - a /eja/ → shi -ey -o /ʃe:jo/

RT FV Nom P RT FV

“sweep” “broom”

b) bay – a /βaja / → mu – bay – o / muβajo /

RT FV Nom P RT FV

“play” “game”

From example 29 above, the noun shi-ey-o has been derived from the verb ey-a. The

prefix /shi/- has been attached to the verb to derive the noun. However, this derivational

process does not stop there. Phonological processes of vowel deletion and vowel lengthening

also have to take place. The vowel in the prefix /shi/- is deleted and the gap left behind filled

in by lengthening the initial vowel of the root. The lengthening process comes in to fill in the

gap that was left behind by the process of deletion. In addition, the final vowel of the verb

also changes from /a/ to /o/ to account for the derivation of [–animate] nouns.

40

Abstract nouns can also be derived from verbs in Lutiriki by prefixation. This process also

involves changing the final vowel from /a/ to /o/ in the derived word form.

(30)

Verb Abstract Noun

a) Jend- a /ʤenda/ → Lu – jend – o / lu.ʤendo/

RT FV Nom P RT FV

“Walk” “journey”

b) Sheb- a /ʃeβa/ → shi- sheb - o / ʃiʃeβo

RT FV Nom P RT FV

“Circumcise” “circumcision”

Example 30 above shows a process of deriving abstract nouns from verbs. For instance, the

abstract noun lu-jend-o has been derived from the verb jend-a by attaching the prefix /lu/- to

the verb. This has then been followed by changing the final vowel of the verb from /a/ to /o/

to depict the derived noun.

Singularia tantum nouns are also derived from verbs in Lutiriki by attaching the prefix /bu-/

to the base lexeme and changing the final vowel from /a/ to /o/. For example:

(31)

Verb Singular tantum noun

a) kon – a /kona/ → bu- kon - o / βukono/

RT FV Nom P RT FV

“sleep” “bedding”

Example 31 above shows the noun b-ukon-o, which exists in a singular form being derived

from the verb kon-a by attaching the prefix /bu-/ to the verb and changing the final vowel

from /a/ to /o/.

41

3.1.2 Adjective to Noun derivation

Lutiriki derives nouns from adjectives by adding prefixes to the base lexeme. Unlike verb to

noun derivation, adjective to noun derivations in Lutiriki do not affect the final vowel.

Majority of nouns derived from adjectives are abstract nouns hence the prefix /bu-/ comes

into play. Consider the following examples:

(32)

Adjective Abstract noun

a) mu – mwam – u / mumwamu / → bu – mwam – u /βumwamu/

NCM RT FV Nom P RT FV

“black” “blackness”

b) mu - sil – o / musilo/ → bu – sil – o / βusilo/


“stupid” “stupidity”

c) mu – lwal – e / mulwale/ → bu- lwal- e / βulwale/


“sick” “sickness”

d) mu – jel – i / muʤeli/ → bu- jel – i


“clever/wise” “wisdom”

e) mw- ilol- i / mwiloli/ → bw -ilol -i /βwiloli/


“Proud ” “pride”

42

Example 32 above cites instances where abstract nouns have been derived from adjectives.

The prefix /mu-/ has been attached to the root of the adjectives to depict the human attributes

borne by the given adjectives. To derive the abstract nouns above, the prefix /βu-/ is attached

to the root of the adjective but on this occasion without changing the final vowel.

Example 32(e) on the other hand, presents a case of prefixation and glide formation. This

process will be discussed in full length in Section 3.2.1

3.2 Affixation by maintaining the word category.

This is a form of derivational process that involves the addition of an affix to a root word or

stem without changing the class of the word. In Lutiriki, prefixation is used to differentiate

concrete nouns from abstract nouns. The form of the prefix to be attached to the base lexeme

depends on the noun–class of the base lexeme and the phonological form of the base lexeme.

3.2.1 Prefixation and Glide formation

Base lexemes that have undergone a phonological process of glide formation derive abstract

nouns by prefixation.. This is done by attaching the prefix /βu-/ to the root word. However,

due to the final vowel in the prefix /βu/- having to precede the initial vowel in the root, a

process of glide formation has to take place in the derived abstract noun, hence changing the

prefix from /βu-/ to /βw-/. Besides, the final vowel of the derived abstract noun will not be

affected in any way. Consider the data below:

(33)

Concrete noun Abstract noun

a) mw- ilwats-i /mwilwatsi/ → bw – ilwats – i /βwilwatsi/


“Priest / preacher” “Priesthood”

b) mwam – i / mwami/ → bw- am- i /βwami/

43


“leader “leadership”

c) mw- ikh- o /mwixo/ → bw – ikh – o /βwixo/


“relative” “kinship”.

d) mw – iman – i / mwimani/ → bw – iman – i /βwimani/

NCM RT FV Nom P RT Fv

“miser” “meanness”

e) mw- an- a /mwana/ → lw – an – a /lwana/


“Child” “childishness”.

The data in 33 above shows a case of nouns derived from the same grammatical class. The

underlying difference is the concreteness of the noun and the abstractness of the derived

noun. The abstract noun bw-ilwats-i for instance, has been derived from a concrete noun mw-

ilwats-i. As highlighted in Section 3.1.2, abstract nouns are derived by attaching the

prefix /βu-/ to the stem. However in this case, the base lexeme has already undergone a

process of glide formation. This entails that the prefix /βu/- which marks abstractness will

also undergo the process of glide formation to become /βw-/ before substituting the noun

class marker mw- to derive the abstract now bw-ilwats-.i

3.2.2 Prefixation and Noun –class

Lutiriki also derives abstract nouns from concrete nouns through attaching prefixes of Noun

–class 1 /2 and 3 /4 to the root word. This type of prefixation concludes the continuum of

verb to concrete noun then finally to abstract noun derivation. This process is captured by the

figure below

VERB → CONCRETE → ABSTRACT

44

NOUN NOUN

Derivation

process

Derivation

process

This process is further highlighted in the following examples:

(34)

Verb Concrete Noun Abstract Noun

a) lok – a / loka / → mu – loch – i / muloʧi/ → bu- lochi- i / βuloʧi/

RT FV NCM RT FV Nom P RT FV

“bewitch” “witch” “witchcraft”

b) Sheb – a /ʃeβa/ → Mu- sheb -i / muʃeβi/ → shi- sheb- o /ʃiʃeβo/


“circumcise” “circumciser” “circumcision “

c) bay – a / βaja/ → mu – bay – i / muβaji/ → mu – bay – o /muβajo/


“play” “player” “game”

Example 34 above captures the derivation process that operates in a continuum. A concrete

noun is first derived from a noun and on using that concrete noun as the base, an abstract

noun is derived. The word sheb-a for instance, is a verb that acts as a base for deriving the

concrete noun mu-sheb-i. This is done by attaching the agentive prefix mu- to the root word

and changing the final vowel from /a/ to /i/. Along the continuum, the derived agentive noun

mu-sheb-i is operationalised to derive an abstract noun shi-sheb-o. This abstract noun is

realized by attaching the prefix shi- to the root word and changing the final vowel of the base

from /i/ to /o/ to depict the abstractness of the derived noun

45

3.3 SUMMARY

Affixation is a very productive morphological process in the derivation of Lutiriki nominals.

In particular, prefixation accounts for the majority of the nouns derived from other

grammatical classes. The nouns derived from verbs, for instance appear to be distinctive,

based on the phonological features they bear and the noun-class type they originate from.

The distinctiveness of these derived nouns is further captured by the type of prefix that is

attached to the base lexeme which in turn dictates the form of the final vowel of the derived

word.

46

CHAPTER FOUR

NON DERIVATION IN LUTIRIKI THROUGH COMPOUNDING

4.0 INTRODUCTION

Compounding is a morphological process which involves joining two or more free

morphemes to derive a new word. According to Matthews (1993:82) “compounding is a

process by which a compound lexeme is derived from two or more lexemes.”

Lutiriki employs compounding as a process of deriving compound nouns by adjoining two or

more word-forms to derive nouns. The free morphemes may belong to different grammatical

classes but once adjoined they merge to a single grammatical category – a noun.

Compounding in Lutiriki takes the following basic structure.

Adapted from Matthews (1993:82)

Using the basic structure of compounding given above, we can analyze compounding in

Lutiriki as follows:

(35)

[ lind – a ] + [mu – liang -o ] → [mu- lind- a- mu- liang- o ]

RT FV N-SG RT FV NOM P RT FV N-SG RT FV

/linda/ /muliango/ /mulindamuljango/

Free morpheme + Free morpheme → compound word

“watch” “door” “watchman”

From the above example, the compound noun “mulindamuliango” which is a noun, has been

derived from “linda” a verb and “muliango” which is a noun. Both the verb and the noun

have been merged to derive a compound noun. The nominalization prefix mu – has to be

attached to the compound noun to indicate the noun belongs to the noun class 1 / 2 and also

show the agent in the noun.

47

Compounds (derived lexemes) used in Lutiriki portray “idiosyncratic meanings” Matthews

(1993:83), in that the meaning of the compound word is inferred from the two lexemes

juxtaposed and not in isolation. Therefore, the meaning of a compound word depends on the

featural semantic relationship between the constituting lexemes and the context as

highlighted in the following example.

( 36 )

[ inz - u ] + [ ingal- i ] → [ inz- u- ingal- i ]

RT FV RT FV RT FV RT FV

/inzu/ /ingali/ /inzuingali/

Free morpheme + Free morpheme → compound word

‘house’ ‘big’ ‘main house’

From the above example, a compound noun “inzuingali” has been derived from a noun

“inzu” and an adjective “ingali”. To infer the meaning “main house”, the relationship

between “house” and “big” has to be established within the confines of relevance and

context. Putting “house” and “big” side by side outside these parameters will imply any big

house in the homestead which may be a garage, a gallery or a cow shade; which in real sense

might be even bigger than the main house.

The context and relevance in Lutiriki culture denotes that there are two –sometimes three -

important houses in a home: the main house, the kitchen (and) the boys’ cottage. Of the

three, the main house can only be one, the living house; never mind if the other structures are

bigger than the main house.

According to Bauer (2003), there are three main types of compounds.

i) Endocentric compounds

ii) Exocentric compounds

iii) Dvandva compounds /copulative compounds.

48

4.1 Endocentric compounds.

Endocentric compounds are compound lexemes which have the head of the compounds

denoting the meaning of the compound. Endocentric compounds are most productive in

Lutiriki in that one element in the constituting lexemes bears the meaning of the compound.

Such compounds “denote a sub-class of the items denoted by one of their elements and

function as hyponyms of the head element.” Bauer (2003: 42).

Example 35 and 36 discussed in Section 4.0 are examples of endocentric compounds. This is

explained as follows:

As for example 35, the lexeme “linda” with the nominalizing prefix mu- that depicts the

agent, is adjoined to the lexeme “muliango” to derive a compound noun “mulindamuliango”.

The lexeme “linda” stands out as the head lexeme whereby the overall meaning of this

compound is dependent on it. On the other hand, example 36, has the two lexemes “inzu”

and “ingali” deriving a compound noun “inzuingali” with the head of that compound being

“inzu”. The meaning of the derived compound is in overall dependent on the head lexeme.

4.2 Exocentric compounds

Exocentric compound “denote something which is not a sub-class of either of the elements in

the compound. That is they are not hyponyms of either of their elements.” Bauer (2003:42).

Lutiriki uses compounds to express hidden messages or to be indirect. Exocentric compounds

feature mainly in narrations where the speaker is left to deduce the meaning of the compound

within the parameters of context and relevance.

Generally, Lutiriki exocentric compounds featurally acquire new meanings distinctive from

the lexemes that constitute them. Consider the following data:

(37)

(a) [ mu -khon -o ] + [mu -ramb -i ] → [ mu.khono-murambi ]

49

NCM RT FV NCM RT FV N+ADJ

/muxono/ /murambi/ /muxonomurambi/

“hand” “long” “thief”

(b) [shi- rim- i] + [randa] → [shi-rim-i-randa]

NCM RT FV ST N+N

/ʃirimi/ /randa/ /ʃirimiranda/

“one who digs” “stomach” “lazy person/glutton”

(c) [shi- kon- a] + [buluhu] → [shi-kon-a-buluu]

NCM RT FV RT N+ADJ

/ʃikona/ /βuluhu/ /ʃikonaβuluhu/

“one who sleeps” “thirsty” “ an ignorant person”

From the example 37(a) above, the meaning of the derived compound mukhonomurambi

“thief” is expressed overtly from the two lexemes. This is because, a “long hand” does not

mean a thief but within particular contexts, mukhonomurambi will automatically mean one

who stretches his hand all over picking other people’s possessions without their consent. The

meaning of exocentric compound is overtly expressed by the constituting lexemes.

Example 37(b) is also an instance of exocentric compound that has acquired a new meaning

relative to the lexemes that constitute it. The joining of the lexeme shirimi and randa derives

a compound noun shirimiranda which has a distinct meaning from the constituting lexemes.

The lexeme shi-rim-i has been derived from lima “to dig”. The NCM prefix shi- is then

attached to the root word before changing the final vowel from /a/ to /i/ to derive the

agentive noun shirimi. This agentive noun is further adjoined to the noun randa ,a DIM form

of the noun inda for “stomach”. This process of compounding finally derives a compound

noun shirimiranda which bears a new meaning of “a person whose only reason for living is

food for the stomach.” Such an individual only toils with a mission of filling his stomach.

Exocentric compounds are also referred to as “bahuvrihi compounds” Bauer,(2003: 43), a

word which in itself is an exocentric compound in the Sanskrit, meaning “having much rice”.

50

4.3 Copulative compounds.

Copulative compounds are a type of compounds which express the combined meanings of

the constituting lexemes. The semantic interpretation of each lexeme in a copulative

compound is distinct and the overall meaning of the compound is expressed by the lexemes

in play. Lutiriki has a relative number of copulative compounds. The most common

copulative compounds in Lutiriki are the objects that perform multi-tasks. Due to lack of a

specific name for such objects in Lutiriki’s lexicography, each independent lexeme, together

with its independent meaning is put side by side to other independent lexemes, again with

their own independent meanings. This will realize a copulative compound with both

functions, but the underlying objects as one. For example:

(38)

(a) [mw- ejits- i] + [mu- sheb- i] → [mw- ejits- i- mu- sheb- i]

NCM RT FV NCM RT FV NCM RT FV NCM RT FV

/mweʤitsi/ /muʃeβi/ /mweʤitsimuʃeβi/

“teacher” “ Circumciser” “ teacher cum circumciser”

(b) [mw- ib- i] + [mw- ir- i] → [mw- ib- i- mw- ir- i]


/mwiβi/ /mwiri/ /mwiβimwiri/

“thief” “murderer” “thief cum murderer”

(c) [mu- lim- i] + [mu- lonj- i] → [mu- lim- i- mu- lonj- i]


/mulimi/ /mulonji/ /mulimimulonji/

“farmer” “potter” “farmer cum potter”

(d) [mw- lwats- i] + [mu- ndereb- a] → [mw- lwats- i- mu- ndereb-a]


51

/mwilwatsi/ /mundereβa/ /mwilwatsimundereβa/

→ “preacher” “driver” “preacher cum driver”

From example 38 above, there is no lexical term for an individual who performs the two

tasks. This dilemma is underscored by incorporating the two lexemes together with their

individual meanings to derive a copulative compound. The compound mushebimwejitsi for

instance, has the semantic description of “one who circumcises and also teaches”

4.4 SUMMARY

This chapter has looked into the morphological process of compounding aimed at deriving

compound nouns. The compound nouns derived in Lutiriki take the form of endocentric

compounds, exocentric compounds and copulative compounds. It has been observed that

compound nouns are interpreted within the confines of relevance and context. Exocentric

compounds for instance have been used as idioms in conveying hidden messages.

52

CHAPTER FIVE

NOUN DERIVATION IN LUTIRIKI THROUGH REDUPLICATION

5.0 INTRODUCTION

This chapter makes an analysis of noun derivation in Lutiriki within the theoretical

framework of Morphological Doubling Theory. Consequently, the analysis of reduplication

in Lutiriki will be biased towards the morphological reduplication parameters only making

reference to phonological reduplication in passing.

According to Crystal (2003: 391), reduplication is “a term in morphology for a process of

repetition whereby the form of a prefix /suffix reflects certain morphological characteristics

of the root.” Reduplication is a morphophonological process of deriving Lutiriki nominals.

This is done by repeating the root or the stem to form a new word with an added meaning.

Reduplicated word-forms in Lutiriki are composed of the base lexeme and the reduplicant,

both of which share the same semantic description.

5.1 Morphological reduplication in Lutiriki

Morphological reduplication is a process which initiates “a double (or multiple) occurrence

of a morphological constituent meeting a particular morpho semantic description”. Atieno

(2007:10). This means that the root or the steam is called twice to derive a reduplicated word

form that takes into account the morphological elements of both the base lexeme and the

reduplicant plus an additional meaning.

Morphological reduplication in Lutiriki can be achieved through two main ways, namely:

1. Total reduplication

2. Addition of a linker morph “Khu”.

53

5.1.1 Total reduplication

Total reduplication is a morphological process that calls twice for identical morphological

inputs resulting to a reduplicated word-form. The base lexeme and the reduplicant are

regarded as identical constituents – inputs – of the reduplicated word. Majority of Lutiriki

reduplicated word-forms are derived through total reduplication. This process is also referred

to as full reduplication.

Using the MDT basic structure in Chapter One, we can analyse total reduplication in Lutiriki

as follows:

(39)

a) Henz– a /henza/ V “to look”

RT FV

Mu- henz- a /muhenza/ N “One who looks around”

NCM RT FV

Mu- henz- a + henz- i /muhenzahenzi/“One who likes looking around”

NCM RT FV RT FV

[Mu-henzihenzi] [F+Emphasis ]

[mu-henzi] [F] [henzi][F]

“Base” “Reduplicant”

Example 39 above illustrates the added meaning that is borne by the reduplicated noun. The

doubling of (mu-) henza manifests a semantic description of emphasis.

The base lexeme in this example contains a Noun class Marker /mu-/, from the Noun-class

1 /2, /mu-/ /βa/. When the base lexeme is repeated to form a reduplicant, the NCM /mu-/ is

54

dropped only attaching the root to the base lexeme to derive a reduplicated noun. This can be

further captured by the following examples:

(39)

a) Mu-henza + Ø henzi → muhenzaØhenzi

ST zero morph RT reduplicated noun

/muhenza/ /henzi/ /muhenzahenzi /

“one who looks around” “one who likes looking around”

b) mu-jenda + Ø jendi → mujendaØjendi


/muʤenda/ /ʤendi/ /muʤendaʤendi/

“walking person” “prostitute”

c) mu-loma + Ø lomi → mulomaØlomi


/muloma/ /lomi/ /mulomalomi/

“speaker” “talkative person”

As noted in the examples in 39 above, the reduplicants bear zero morphs. This is a tenet of

MDT whereby as the base lexeme is doubled, only the pre-requisite morphological elements

of the base lexeme are repeated in the reduplicant. At a glance, this may seem to break the

noun-class concord. However, if concordance was to be adhered to, then such reduplicated

forms would be meaningless.

5.1.2 Addition of a linker morph “Khu”

The addition of the linker morph “Khu” is a morphological process that involves joining two

nouns together with a linker morph. Lutiriki uses the linker morph “khu” /xu/ to form

reduplicated word-forms. The linker morph “khu” when used in isolation, has no semantic

value. It only obtains meaning when it is placed between a base lexeme and a reduplicant. In

addition, the linker morph will further spread its acquired meaning to the reduplicated word-

form.

55

The linker morph “khu” in Lutiriki adds two main semantic descriptions to the base lexeme

and the reduplicant. These semantic values are:

i) “Face off”

ii) Distributiveness

Semantic value of “Face off”

The additional meaning of “Face off” which may be a show of might or exchange of a favour

for a favour, or an item for an item is brought about in a reduplicated word-form by adding

the linker morph “khu” between the base lexeme and the reduplicant. The base in this form

of reduplication is always a noun. This is captured in the following examples below.

(40)

(a) mundu – khu – mundu / mundu- xu -mundu / “a show of might between two people”.

mundu / mundu / “a person”

khu / xu / “for”

[mundu-xu-mundu] [F+”face off”]

/mundu / [F] / xu/ / mundu/ [F]

Where F= “a person”

(b) buruchi – khu- buruchi / βuruʧi Xu βuruʧi / “battle of wealth between two people”

buruchi / βuruʧi / “wealth”

khu / xu / “for”

[βuruʧi –xu-βuruʧi] [F+”face off”]

[βuruʧi/ [F] /xu/ /βuruʧi/ [F]

56

Where F= wealth.

(c) ingubu – khu – ingubu / iŋguβu xu iŋguβu/ “a cloth for a cloth”

ingubu / iŋguβu/ “cloth”

khu /xu/ “for”

[Iŋguβu- xu- iŋguβu] [F+ an item for an item]

/iŋguβu/ [F] /xu/ /iŋguβu/ [F] Where F = cloth

The semantic value of ‘face off’ is expressed in the examples given in (40) above. These

examples express the show of might between two opposing sides. The use of the linker

morph “khu” between the base lexeme mundu and its reduplicant, for instance, depicts a

situation whereby two competitors are up for each others jugular. Besides, the argument in

this case is only centered on the two warring factions without the inclusion of a third party.

Semantic value of distributiveness.

The addition of the linker morph “khu” adds a new meaning in the reduplicated word. The

notion of distributiveness is realized in accounting for every element of the items being

mentioned. The linker morph “khu” brings out the meaning of inclusion of each of the base

lexeme that constitutes the reduplicated word. Just like the semantic value of “face off”, the

base lexeme that shows distributiveness is mandatory a noun.

(41)

a) inzu –khu –inzu /inzu –xu-inzu/ - “Each house”

inzu /inzu/ “house”

khu / xu/ “each”

57

[inzu –xu-inzu] [F+distributiveness]

/ Inzu / [ F] /xu/ /inzu / [F]

Where F = house.

b) ling’ondo – khu – long’ondo / liŋondo- xu-liŋondo/ “each penny “

ling’ondo /liŋondo/ “penny “

khu /xu/ “each “

[liŋondo-xu-liŋondo] [F+distributiveness]

/liŋondo/ [F] /xu/ /liŋondo/ [F]

Where F = penny

The examples given above highlight the notion of distributiveness in Lutiriki by use of a

linker morph. The linker morph “khu” in this case stands out to account for each element

mentioned in the reduplicated word-form. “inzu –khu – inzu” for instance entails that, every

house mentioned is accounted for. In the event where a census was to be done from one

house to the other without excluding a single one, then the semantic description of

distributiveness being propagated by “inzu – khu – inzu” will be ultimate.

5.2 Forms of morphological reduplication.

Morphological reduplication is a process that involves placing free morphemes side by side

to derive a reduplicated word-form. Lutiriki uses free morphemes from different grammatical

categories in the process of reduplication. These derivations can be from morphemes that are

un identical in word class or those that share the same word class.

58

5.2.1 Class maintaining reduplication.

This form of reduplication takes place when a reduplicated noun is derived from morphemes

that share the same word class. This entails that, the base lexeme belongs to the same

grammatical class like the reduplicant in the derivation of a reduplicated noun. Reduplicated

word-forms occasioned by the addition of a linker morph are examples of class maintaining

reduplication. Consider the following data:

(42)

a) Ling’ana -khu-ling’ana / liŋana-xu-liŋana/ –“each word”

[liŋana-xu-liŋana] [F+distributiveness]

[liŋana/ [F] /xu / /liŋana/ [F]

Where F= word

li- ngan -a + khu + li- ngan- a → li- ngan- a-khu-li-ngan-a

NCM RT FV LMOR NCM RT FV

Noun (Base) + Noun (reduplicant) Reduplicated noun

“word” “each” “word” “each word”

b) lisambu – khu – lisambu / lisambu – xu – lisambu / - “each leaf”

[lisambu – xu- lisambu ] [ F+distributiveness ]

59

/lisambu/[ F] /xu/ / lisambu /[ F}

Where F = leaf

li- samb- u + khu + li- samb- u li- samb- u- khu- li- samb- u

NCM RT FV LMOR NCM RT FV

Noun (Base) + Noun (Reduplicant) Reduplicated noun

“leaf” “each” “leaf “ “each leaf”

5.3 PHONOLOGICAL REDUPLICATION IN LUTIRIKI

Unlike morphological reduplication, phonological reduplication in Lutiriki involves a

segment or entire base being duplicated into a reduplicated word-form without having an

additional meaning. In phonological reduplication, there is phonological copying of

morphemes which don’t share the same semantic description. “phonological copying cannot

explain the different morphotactics of the two copies or their morphological complexity

….phonological constituents’ copying is restricted to cases motivated by phonological

necessity.” Atieno (2007:14).

(43)

shigala + gala /ʃigalagala/

From the example given above, the derived Lutiriki reduplicated word-forms cannot be

subjected to a morphological description because the reduplicant is part of the meaning

bearing morpheme. This means that the meaning of the word-forms is not altered in any way

but rather a mere phonological copy of the base.

60

5.4 SUMMARY

A substantive number of Lutiriki nominals are derived through a process of reduplication.

Morphological reduplication accounts for most of reduplicated word forms in Lutiriki. These

reduplicated nouns are derived within the parameters of MDT by means of adding a linker

morph “khu” in between the base and the reduplicant, and in some cases by doubling the

base lexeme.

61

CHAPTER SIX

6.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

This study has made an attempt to describe the morphophonological processes that are

imperative in the derivation of Lutiriki nominals. This description was done within the

theoretical framework of Natural Generative Phonology and Morphological Doubling

Theory.

In this investigation, we made an inventory of Lutiriki consonants and vowels, highlighting

phonemes which are predominantly used with borrowed words. Our primary focus was to

make an analysis of the phonological processes that aid in the derivation of Lutiriki nouns.

The processes discussed include glide formation, vowel deletion, vowel lengthening and

compensatory lengthening. Phonological processes involving vowels in Lutiriki proved to be

working in a complementary manner. In the event of vowel deletion, the process of vowel

lengthening, in some cases vowel coalescence; would be initiated to account for the lost

vowel. Glide formation on the other hand, meant that two unidentical vowels could not occur

together especially when a front-high vowel or a back-high vowel proceeded the other vowel.

To solve this anomaly (ungrammaticality), the palatal glide /j/ would be formed to

correspond with the front-high vowel /i/ while the bilabial glide /w/ would also be formed,

again to correspond to the back-high vowel /u/.

The nucleus of this study was the morphological processes that derive nouns in Lutiriki. The

study indeed demonstrated that morphological processes of affixation, compounding and

reduplication are pre-requites for deriving new words with new meaning. Affixation under

the theoretical framework of NGP proved to be the most productive process of deriving

nouns in Lutiriki. This was done by attaching prefixes to the root word to derive a new

lexeme with a new meaning. Within the confines of Word-formation rules, prefixation

accounted for new lexemes formed from different grammatical classes and those that were

formed from the same grammatical class.

62

The study further confirmed that compounding, though not as productive as affixation is a

process of deriving Lutiriki nouns. The compound nouns derived in Lutiriki are in the form

of endocentric compounds, exocentric compounds and copulative compounds. These

compound nouns take the form of two free morphemes being put together to derive a new

lexeme with a new meaning.

Of great interest to this investigation was to test if MDT could account for reduplication as a

process of deriving Lutiriki nouns. This was proved as morphological reduplication in

Lutiriki could be achieved through the addition of a linker morph “khu” and through total

reduplication.

The study therefore established that derivation of Lutiriki nominals is a morphophonological

process that involves both bound morphemes and free morphemes. Furthermore, NGP

proved to be an adequate descriptive tool for the analysis of affixation and compounding.

MDT on the other hand, satisfactorily accounted for reduplication in Lutiriki.

6.1 RECOMMENDATIONS

Our study set out to investigate the morphophological processes that are fundamental in the

derivation of Lutiriki nouns. To this extent our objectives were achieved and our hypotheses

proven. The findings of this study will make a basis for a morpho-syntatic analysis of

Lutiriki.

This study further established that there may be existence of two dialects of Lutiriki.

However, due to time constraint and the scope and limitation of the study, we did not delve

into that. Therefore, this study leaves room for historical and comparative linguistic study of

the dialects and the morpho-syntatic differences that may exist. We therefore recommend

that the linguistic elements that have not been exhaustively handled in this study be covered

in studies to come.

63

REFERENCES

Abdulmajid, M.A. (2000). Luwanga Morphophonemics. Unpublished M.A. Dissertation,

University of Nairobi.

Appleby (1947). A first Luyia Grammar. Nairobi: EALB.

Atieno, J.O.(2007). Reduplication in Dholuo. Unpublished M.A Dissertation, University of

Nairobi.

Bauer, L.(1963).English Word Formation. Great Britain: CUP.

_______.(2003). 2nd Edition. Introducing Linguistic Morphology. Edinburgh: EUP.

Bybee,J.L. (1985). Morphology. A Study of the Relation Between Meaning and Form.

Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Carstain-McCarthy, A. (1992). Current Morphology. London: Routledge

Crystal, D. (2003). A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics. London: Blackwell.

Downing, L.J. (2003). Bukusu Reduplication.Berlin: Z.A.S.

Fromkin, V., Rodman, R. and Hymans N. (2003). An Introduction to Language. Boston:

Wadsworth Thomson.

Hooper, J.B. (1976). An Introduction to Natural Generative Phonology. New York: Holt

Rinehart and Winston.

Inkelas, S. and Zoll, C. (2005). Reduplication Doubling in Morphology.UK: CUP.

65

Kanyoro, R. (1983). Unity in University. A Linguistic Survey of the Abaluhya of Western

Kenya. Wien: B.Z.A.

Matthews, P.H. (1974). Morphology. An Introduction to the Theory of Word Structure.

Oxford: Blackwell.

______________ (1991). 2nd Edition .Morphology. London:CUP.

Mberia, K. (1993). Kitharaka Segmental Morphology with special reference to the Noun and

the verb. Unpublished Ph.D Dissertation, University of Nairobi.

Njoroge, N. J. (1978). Kikuyu Deverbatives and Other Nominalizations. Unpublished M.A.

Dissertation, University of Nairobi.

Okombo, D. (1982). Dholuo Morpho-phonemics in a Generative Framework. Berlin:

Reimer.

Osogo, H.J. (1966). A History of the Baluyia. London: Oxford.

Schane, A.S. (1973). Generative Phonology. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Spencer, A. (1991). Morphological Theory. Oxford: Blackwell.

Sumba, Z.K. (1992). Logooli, wanga and Lubukusu Dialects of Luhya: A study of the major

phonological processes. Unpublished M.A. Dissertation, University of Nairobi.

Were, G. S. (1967). A History of the Abaluyia of Western Kenya. Nairobi: EPH.

66

Noun Derivation in Lutiriki

Documents

Transcript of Noun Derivation in Lutiriki