The enclitic -mm in Amharic: reassessment of a multifunctional morpheme (1).
Demeke, Girma A. ; Meyer, Ronny
Abstract
In this article we examine the enclitic -mm in Amharic and its
claimed functions as topic marker and coordinative conjunction. The
enclitic -mm has multiple translations into English, and would thus seem
to constitute a multifunctional morpheme. In contrast to previous
analyses, we argue that the several interpretations of enclitic -mm in
discourse are due to different context-dependent readings of its single
function, namely as contrastive focus marker.
1. Introduction
The enclitic -mm in Amharic has been claimed to fulfill several
discourse-pragmatic and grammatical functions. On the one hand it is
referred to as a marker of topic, topic change or focus (Blejer 1986:
186; Bliese 1988: 619; Gasser 1983: 114, 128; Hetzron 1973). On the
other hand it is also referred to as a coordinating conjunction with
noun phrases and as a marker of indefinite pronouns (Blejer 1986:
185ff.; Leslau 1995: 882ff.). Kapeliuk (1978, 2001) and Gasser (1985)
analyze the enclitic as a connective element on the discourse level.
Hetzron (1973: 4-5, 8), furthermore, proposes that the same enclitic -mm
is also involved in the circumfixal negation of matrix clauses in the
indicative mood. According to Hetzron it also functions as a prefixal
nominalizer with relative verbs in the imperfective aspect.
Amharic is an Ethiosemitic language spoken in Ethiopia by
approximately 80% of the population (cf. Meyer and Richter 2003: 40;
Girma 2001). Structurally it belongs to Heine's type D languages
(Heine 1975: 36f.), i.e., it is a subject-object-verb (SOV) language
with modifying elements preceding the head. Amharic is not a language
that possesses obligatory focus markers in syntax like, for instance,
Somali (cf. Saeed 1984) or Zay (cf. Meyer 2002, 2005: 291). Focus in
Amharic, or more generally the pragmatic status of a sentential
constituent in the sense of Chafe (1976: 27), is mainly controlled by
pragmatics and not by grammar, i.e., its expression is optional. (2)
Information structuring applies both on the sentential and on the
extra-sentential level. While on the sentential level a single sentence
is the frame of reference for discourse markers, on the extra-sentential
level constituents of at least two sentences are set into relationship
to one another.
2. Interactions between sentence topic and the morpheme -mm
According to Hetzron (1973) and Blejer (1986), one of the main
functions of-mm is to mark the topic of a sentence. Kapeliuk (1978: 275)
and Girma and Meyer (2007), in contrast, do not consider it a topic
marker because topics in Amharic are marked syntactically by fronting
them into the sentence-initial position. In an SOV language like Amharic
the sentence-initial position is usually filled by the subject. However,
any nonverbal phrase can occur in sentence-initial position and become
the topic of the sentence if it is definite in the sense of being
identifiable in the discourse, as in the following examples: (3)
(1) a. lelocc-u bere-wocc necc-u-n bere
other:p-DEF ox-p white-DEF-ACC ox
abarrer-u-t.
send.away:PV-3p-AgrO:3sm
'The other oxen sent the white ox away.'
b. bere-we-ne-mm geb-occ bell-u-t.
ox-DEF-ACC-MM hyena-p eat:PV-3p-AgrO:3sm
'As for this ox, the hyenas ate him.'
(2) a. be-sostenna-w qen mammo ye-qen sera
at-third-DEF day Mammo GEN-day work
agenne.
find:PV:3sm
'On the third day Mammo got work for one day.'
b. le-serra-w sera-mm ye-gulbet waga
for-work:PV:3sm-DEF work-MM GEN-hard.work price
yemm-i-hon saga and habtam
REL-3sm-be:IPV meat one rich.person
sette-w.
give:PV:3sm-AgrO:3sm
'As for the work he did, a rich man gave him meat as payment
for the hard work.'
In example (1) the phrase berewen 'the ox (ACC)' is the
topic of sentence (b) even though it is the direct object in the
sentence. It represents background information by virtue of referring to
the noun neccun bere 'the white ox (ACC)' in sentence (a). In
sentence (b) from example (2), the prepositional phrase leserraw sera
'for the work he did' is the topic of the sentence. The head
noun sofa 'work' represents background information because it
has already been introduced in the preceding sentence. In both sentences
we can observe a change of the word order from basic SOV to OSV. The
initial phrase of the respective (b) sentences is a direct object
explicitly marked with accusative in (1) and an adjunct in (2). An
attempt to front the subject and habtam 'a rich person' in the
(b) sentence from example (2) so as to precede the direct object
ye-gulbet waga yemmihon sera 'meat as payment for the hard
work' would yield an odd sentence.
Although the enclitic element -mm follows the topicalized
constituent, it does not itself have the function of a topic marker. In
fact, the enclitic element -mm can also be found cliticized to
constituents which are not topics in positions other than
sentence-initial (cf. example (3) below). Rather, the optional
suffixation of enclitic -mm to a sentence-initial constituent is due to
its discourse-pragmatic function as a focus marker. (4) The definite
phrase marked by enclitic -mm at the beginning of a sentence, therefore,
conveys two pieces of pragmatic information at the same time: it is the
topic or contains the given information, and it indicates contrastive
focus as well (of. also Gasser 1985: 52). We understand contrastive or
identificational focus in the sense of Drubig and Schaffar (2001: 1080)
and Payne (1997: 269f.) as a device used by the speaker to emphasize a
constituent which is part of the presupposed knowledge shared between
speaker and addressee. (5) According to Dik et al. (1981: 60) the term
contrastive focus encompasses various subcategories like selective,
expanding, restricting, replacing and parallel focus. Selective focus
denotes "one item from among a presupposed set of possible
values" (Dik et al. 1981: 62), while expanding focus adds items to
a presupposed set of values (Dik et al. 1981: 65). It is not always
possible to make a clear-cut distinction between these two kinds of
focus because the presupposed set is in fact often salient knowledge
shared between speaker and hearer. It depends, thus, on the
interpretation of the hearer if the speaker singles out one item from a
given set of values (selective focus) or if he adds an additional item
to this set (expanding focus).
3. Focus marking by -mm
3.1. Focusing constituents
Phrases or constituents marked by the enclitic -mm also occur in
nonsentence-initial position. In this case it can be shown clearly that
the enclitic element -mm functions only as a focus marker: (6)
(3) hesan-u be-yye-gize-w le-enat-u
baby-DEF at-DISTR-time-DEF to-mother-poss:3sm
yeteleyayye-w teyaqe-mm ye-teyyeq-at nebber.
various-DEF question-MM 3sm-ask:IPV-AgrO:3sf aux(past)
'The small child was asking his mother VARIOUS QUESTIONS every
time.'
(4) lemen ke-zih ke-mme-te-bey-ew ferafere
why from-this from-REL-2sf-eat:IPV:3sf-DEF fruit
le-ene-mm tennes tennes
for-I-MM few few
atte-werewer-i-lle-nne-m?
NEG:2sf-throw.down:IPV-2sf-for-AgrO: 1s-NEG
'Why don't you throw down some fruits FOR ME from among those
which you are eating?'
(5) be-akkababi-w be-astesasseb beslet-u-nna
at-vicinity-DEF at-thinking cleverness-poss:3sm-and
be-asteraqinnet-u ye-tawweq-u and terecce
at-being.mediator-poss:3sm REL-be.known:PV-3p one Tiriche
ye-tebal-e ye-tota-wocc aleqa-mm nebber.
REL-be.named:PV-3sm GEN-monkey-p chief-MM aux(past)
'There was A CHIEF of the monkeys who was named Tiriche and
who was known for his maturity in thinking, his cleverness and his
abilities as mediator in the vicinity.'
In examples (3) to (5) the constituent marked by the enclitic -mm
does not have a topic function at all. It is used to change the neutral
status of a phrase or constituent to a status of contrastive focus. In
examples (3) and (4) the constituents to which -mm is suffixed express
expanding focus, i.e., they add a single item to a presupposed set of
values. Although not mentioned overtly, the presupposed set seems to be
salient information shared between speaker and hearer. In sentence (5),
by contrast, the enclitic -mm singles out the item yetotawocc alexia 'chief of the monkeys' in terms of his aforementioned
qualities yastesasseb beslet 'maturity of thinking' and
asteraqinnet 'ability as mediator'. The enclitic -mm in
sentence (5), therefore, expesses selective focus.
Focus marking via enclitic -mm is not restricted to nonverbal
constituents but may also appear on verbs. The usage of the enclitic
with main verbs, however, is very rare; an example is (6):
(6) yeh-en gudday le-enat-u y-awrall.
this-ACC matter to-mother-poss:3sm 3sm-tell:IPV:aux(np)
y-asay-all-emm.
3sm-show:IPV-aux(np)-MM
'He tells this matter to his mother. HE ALSO SHOWS (it to her).'
(7) aheya-we-n gend lay asro-mm encet
donkey-DEF-ACC trunk above tie:CONV.3sm-MM wood
leqema gebba.
picking enter:PV:3sm
'AFTER HE TIED Tim DONKEY TO A TRUNK he went to pick up wood.'
(8) betam sele-rab-accewe-mm
very because-be.hungry:PV:3sm-AgrO:3p-MM
ke-wasaccew ye-wett-u-t qemse-w
from-cave:poss:3p REL-come.out:PV-3p-DEF taste:CONV-3p
l-i-mmelles-u ne-w.
INGR-3p-return:IPV-p COP-3sm
'SINCE THEY WERE VERY HUNGRY, they left their cave intending to
return after they had eaten something.'
(9) tennes ende-bella-mm
little that-eat:PV:3sm-MM
ye-metta-bbe-te-n gudday
REL-come:PV:3sm-at-AgrO:3sm-ACC matter
ende-mm-iy-awq-ew le-asser aleqa-w
that-REL-3sm-know:IPV-AgrO:3sm to-officer-DEF
negger-e-w.
tell:PV-3sm-AgrO:3sm
'JUST AFTER THEY HAD EATEN A LITTLE BIT, he told the officer that
he knew the matter for which he came.'
(10) sew-occ yeh-ecce-n qongo le-magbat negus-u-n
man-p this-f-ACC beauty for-marriage king-DEF-ACC
b-i-teyyeq-u-mm l-i-ssaka-ll-accew
if-3p-ask:IPV-p-MM INGR-3sm-be.successful:IPV-for-AgrO:3p
al-cal-e-m.
NEG-be.able:PV-3sm-NEG
'EVEN IV the people ASKED the king to marry this beauty, they
could not succeed with it.'
In sentence (6) the action of showing, which is marked by the
enclitic -mm on a main-clause verb, is an expansion of the information
provided in the previous predication. In sentences (7) to (10) a
subordinate verb/ predication marked by the enclitic -mm attracts the
particular attention of the hearer. The discourse-neutral variants of
these sentences would have been uttered without the attached enclitic.
In all these sentences the subordinate phrase provides specified and
emphasized information which modifies the main predication in a certain
way. These subordinate clauses are, therefore, marked for selective
contrastive focus.
3.2. Multiple focusing?
If our analysis of the enclitic -mm as a contrastive focus marker
is correct, then Amharic should represent a language in which multiple
focus marking is possible. The following example illustrates this very
situation:
(11) negus-u-mm betam b-i-bbesacc-u-mm
king-DEF-MM very if-3p-be.annoyed:IPV-p-MM
ke-meggedel at-zell-u-m
from-being.killed NEG:2p-jump:IPV-p-NEG
ble-w ...
say:CONV-3sm ...
'EVEN IF THE KING WAS very ANNOYED he said that they wouldn't
escape from being killed and ...'
In sentence (11) the subject nogusu 'the king' is the
topic of the sentence. It is also marked for selective focus by
suffixation of the enclitic element -mm. In addition, the conditional
clause betam bibbesaccu 'even if he (polite) feels annoyed'
appears to be marked for focus because the enclitic element -mm is
suffixed to it as well. This clause has the reading of a concessive conditional. According to Konig (1991: 85), concessive conditional
clauses very often consist of a conditional or temporal clause and a
focus particle meaning "even" or "also". Sentence
(11) provides, therefore, an example with two focused elements in a
single sentence. The two focused constituents can coexist because they
operate on two different levels. In Zay, a language that is genetically
related to Amharic, this kind of multiple focus marking would have led
to an ung-mmmatical sentence (Meyer 2005: 290ff.). Amharic differs
considerably from Zay in this respect. The main reason for the different
behavior of Zay and Amharic seems due to different degrees of
obligatoriness of the focus elements. There exist two types of focus
markers in Zay: the first type is syntactically obligatory in forming a
grammatical sentence; the second type is optional. While several of the
optional focus markers may co-occur in a single Zay sentence, it is only
possible to apply one obligatory focus marker per sentence. Amharic does
not have obligatory focus markers but only optional ones, and these can
co-occur in a sentence.
4. Scope of the enclitic -mm
Thus far we have paid attention to constituents focused by the
enclitic -mm as a whole. Now we examine the scope of the enclitic -mm
within such a constituent. It appears that only the constituent
immediately to the left of the enclitic is in its scope:
(12) and wetadder ye-negus-u-n mist
a soldier GEN-king-DEF-ACC wife
ayyat.
see:PV:3sm:AgrO:3sf
'A soldier saw the wife of the king.'
(13) and wetadder ye-negus-u-ne-mm mist
a soldier GEN-king-DEF-ACC-MM wife
ayyat.
see:PV:3sm:AgrO:3sf
'A soldier saw the wife of the KING.'
(14) and wetadder ye-negus-u-n mist-emm
a soldier GEN-king-DEF-ACC wife-MM
ayyat.
see:PV:3sm:AgrO:3sf
'A soldier saw the WIFE of the king / A soldier saw THE WIFE OF
THE KING.'
In sentence (12) no constituent conveys special discourse-pragmatic
information; the sentence is neutral in regard to focus. In sentences
(13) and (14) the enclitic -mm as focus marking device is attached to
the genitive construction yenegusu mist 'the wife of the
king', which itself is in object position. The two sentences are
very similar in meaning, but they differ in the scope of the focused
elements. In sentence (13) only the noun negus 'king' is in
the scope of selective focus. That means that a presupposed set of items
exist which have the quality of being wives. One wife is singled out
from this set: the wife of the king (as opposed to the wife of a peasant
or soldier, etc.). In (14), however, the interpretation is not as easy
as in (13) because an ambiguity exists on the syntactic level. One
reading of the sentence is that inside the phrase yenegusu-n mist only
the head noun mist 'wife' is contrasted against several
possible persons who may belong to the king, e.g., yenegusu-n legg,
'the child of the king', etc. In this case the modifying
genitive 'of the king' remains constant and is out of the
scope of the focus. The phrase in (14) has a second reading, however,
where the modifying genitive noun and the head are taken as a single
constituent. In this case the whole phrase yenegusu-n mist is contrasted
against another entity, e.g., aster-en 'Aster (female name)',
etc. In this reading the enclitic -mm does not assign selective but
expanding focus to the whole genitive construction.
The interpretation of the scope of the enclitic -mm depends on both
the particular discourse situation and the syntactic structure. When a
genitive construction or an adverbial phrase or clause is the first
constituent of a sentence, the position of the enclitic -mm is crucial
for the interpretation of the phrase. A reading of a whole multiword
phrase as the focused constituent is only possible when the enclitic is
attached at the end of the entire phrase.
(15) a. ye-bet ensesat and lay hone-w wede
GEN-house animal togehter be:CONV-3p towards
lela ager hed-u.
other country go:PV-3p
'The domestic animals went together to another country.'
b. tennes ke-tegwaz-u behwala-mm betam
little after-travel:PV-3p after-MM very
sele-dekkem-accew be-mekina le-mehed
because-be.tired:PV:3sm-AgrO.3p by-car for-going
tesmamm-u.
agree:PV-3p
'AFTER THEY HAD TRAVELED A LITTLE BIT they agreed to go by
car because they were very tired.'
The adverbial clause tennes ketegwazu behwala-mm 'after they
had traveled a little bit' in sentence (15b) contains background
information about leaving a country which has already been mentioned in
sentence (15a). The adverbial clause stands in sentence-initial position
and is, therefore, the topic of the sentence. Furthermore, it is focused
because it is followed by the enclitic -mm. The scope of the focus is
the whole adverbial clause. If the enclitic -mm were suffixed to an
element standing in nonfinal position, then only the respective
constituent of the clause would be focused but not the entire clause.
Thus, in sentence (16) the scope of the enclitic -mm comprises only the
verb ketegwazu 'after they traveled'.
(16) tennes ke-tegwaz-u-mm behwala betam
little after-travel:PV-3p-MM after very
sele-dekkem-accew be-mekina le-mehed
because-be.tired:PV:3sm-AgrO.3p by-car for-going
tesmamm-u.
agree:PV-3p
'AFTER THEY HAD TRAVELED a little bit they agreed to go by car
because they were very tired.'
The different scopes of the enclitic -mm are important for the
discourse-pragmatic interpretation of circumpositional phrases.
Circumpositions consist of a phrase-initial prefix and a modifying
postpositional element at the end of the phrase. The postpositional
element is optional in some circumpositional phrases. The presence of a
modifying postpositional element is quite frequent in today's
Amharic. There are, however, constructions in which the postpositional
element is regularly omitted, as in phrases where a demonstrative
pronoun (-zih 'this' or -ziya 'that') is the
complement. Such phrases are illustrated as follows:
Circumposition Prefix
ke-ziya behwala ~ ke-ziya 'after that, then'
be-zih yetenessa ~ be-zih 'due to this'
be-zih gize ~ be-zih 'then'
The meaning of the corresponding circumpositional and prefix
phrases is similar. Most often the discourse context enables the hearer
to resolve ambiguous constructions (e.g., be-zih). When the
circumpositional phrase appears in sentence-initial position, the
enclitic -mm can be suffixed either to the demonstrative or to the
postpositional element:
(17) ke-ziya behwala-mm negus-u wede-bet-accew
from-that after-MM king-DEF towards-house-poss:3p
temelles-u.
return:PV-3sm
'AFTER THAT the king returned to his house.'
(18) ke-ziya-mm behwala negus-u wede-bet-accew
from-that-MM after king-DEF towards-house-poss:3p
temelles-u.
return:PV-3sm
'After THAT the king returned to his house.'
When the enclitic is suffixed to the postpositional element at the
end of the phrase, as in keziya behwala-mm 'after that', a
reading as topic constituent in focus is achieved. The demonstrative
pronoun refers to given information, and is also marked for contrastive
focus. The scope of -mm, in this case, is not only the preceding
postpositional element but the entire adpositional phrase. However, when
the enclitic -mm is suffixed to the demonstrative pronoun keziya
'from that', only the demonstrative is in the scope of the
enclitic -mm. In sentence (18), therefore, only the demonstrative
pronoun -ziya 'that' is marked for contrastive focus of
restriction by the enclitic -mm. When instead of a circumpositional
phrase only a prefix is used, an ambiguous reading results:
(19) a. hulett-u gwadenna-mocc le-ceqeceq-accrew mensa[??]e
two-DEF friend-p for-quarrel-poss:3p reason
ye-hon-e-we-n neger
REL-be:PV-3sm-DEF-ACC thing
ya-negr-u-t-all.
3sm-tell:IPV-p-AgrO-3sm-aux(np)
'The two friends tell him the reason for their quarrel.'
b. ke-ziya-mm mengedenna-w "yeh qelal aydelem"
after-that-MM passenger-DEF this easy not.to.be:3sm
ya-l-all.
3sm-say:IPV-aux(np)
'Then the passenger says that this is not easy.'
The prefix ke- followed by the demonstrative pronoun in (19b) may,
on the one hand, refer to the event mentioned in the preceding sentence.
In this case it can be considered as a topicalized constituent, which is
also in focus. On the other hand, it is also possible to analyze it only
as a focused constituent referring to the just-completed speech event
itself, with no reference to the previous sentence, i.e., the passenger
starts to talk only after the two friends have spoken to him and not
before. This ambiguity seems to arise due to the omitted postpositional
element.
5. On the concatenative function of -mm
The enclitic -mm can also be used as a coordinating device to join
several nouns occupying the same syntactic position. In this function
the enclitic -mm is suffixed to every noun in the respective
enumeration:
(20) sew-u-mm negus-u-mm denegget.-u.
man-DEF-MM king-DEF-MM be.surprised:PV-3p
'The people as well as the king were both surprised.'
An alternative way of joining nouns is the usage of the
coordinative conjunction enna ~ -nna 'and':
(21) sew-u-nna negus-u denegget.-u.
man-DEF-and king-DEF be.surprised:PV-3p
'The people and the king were surprised.'
However, examples (20) and (21), though similar in meaning, differ
in the interpretation of the conjoined nouns. Whereas in (21) the nouns
sew 'people' and negus 'king' are taken as one
single set consisting of two items, in (20) these nouns must be analyzed
as two different sets each consisting of only one item. (7) In Example
(20) the nouns sew 'people' and negus 'king' are,
therefore, not simply combined in the same single syntactic position.
This becomes apparent when we have a closer look at the semantic
behavior of the two morphemes:
(22) gebs-enna masella zerra.
barley-and maize sow:PV:3sm
'He sowed barley and maize.'
(23) gebs-emm masella-mm zerra.
barley-MM maize-MM sow:PV:3sm
'He sowed BARLEY and also MAIZE.'
In Example (22) one possible reading is that a peasant sowed barley
and maize together on a plot of land, i.e., the nouns gebs
'barley' and masella 'maize' refer to a single set
of crops which have been sown. This reading of mixing the two crops
together can be manifested overtly by the usage of the modifying phrase
addebalqo '(he having) mixed together':
(24) gebs-enna masella addebalqo zerra.
barley-and maize mix:CONV:3sm sow:PV:3sm
'He mixed barley and maize and sowed it.'
Due to the modifying phrase in (24) it is clear that both crops
have been sown together. This cannot be the case in (23); using the
modifier addebalqo '(he having) mixed' yields a semantically
unacceptable construction:
(25) *gebs-emm masella-mm addebalqo zerra.
barley-MM maize-MM mix:CONV:3sm sow:PV:3sm
'*He mixed BARLEY and also MAIZE and sown it.'
The unacceptability of sentence (25) is due to the function of the
enclitic -mm. It implies that the two nouns belong to two different sets
and emphasizes both sets against each other so that we have two sets of
nouns in the status of selective focus. Due to this contrastive focus
marking, the two nouns cannot be taken as simply being conjoined. A
lexical item, like addebalqo, which overtly emphasizes this
"conjoinedness" will lead, therefore, to an ungrammatical structure.
6. Adverbs and enclitic -mm
The enclitic -mm can also be attached to time adverbs like telant
'yesterday', zare 'today', ahun 'now',
etc. In most cases this yields an emphasis on the time adverb, which can
be interpreted as a corrective contrastive focus:
(26) zare-mm al-teressa-m.
today-MM NEG-be.forgotten:PV:3sm-NEG
'Even today it is not forgotten.'
In sentence (26) we can imagine a situation where the speaker
supposes the hearer to assume that something has been forgotten at the
present time. The speaker corrects this assumption by suffixation of the
enclitic -mm to the adverb. The interpretation as a focused adverb also
appears with ahun 'now':
(27) ahun-emm gudgwad k-agenn-e ye-gba!
now-MM hole when-find:PV-3sm 3sm-enter:JUS
'When he finds a hole JUST NOW, let him enter into it!'
In example (27) the speaker again focuses on the time adverb, but
now not to correct a false assumption. Here the speaker is using
selective focus. Depending on the context in which sentence (27) is
used, an additional interpretation of ahunemm is possible. The
combination of the time adverb ahun with the suffixed enclitic -mm has
in fact been lexicalized to yield a new adverbial meaning
'again':
(28) be-zih gize ahunemm totit egg-wa-n
at-this time now:MM monkey:DEF(f) hand-poss:3sf-ACC
awetta-cc.
stretch:PV-3sf
'At this time again the small monkey stretched out his hands.'
In sentence (28) the phrase ahunemm can only have the reading
'again' and not 'now' because the time reference is
given by the prepositional phrase bezih gize 'at this time'.
7. The enclitic -mm with quantifiers
Quantifiers like hullu 'all', bezu 'many', etc.
can also be marked with the enclitic -mm. When it is attached to the
quantifier hullu 'all', enclitic -mm does not emphasis each
individual item encompassed by the quantifier, as is the case with
numerals (see Section 8.1), but refers to a closed set of items as a
single individuated entity which is contrasted against another set:
(29) geb-occ egegg eyye-tedesset-u hullu-n-emm
hyena-p very CONT-be.happy:PV-3p all-ACC-MM
bere-wocc cerres-w-accew.
ox-p finish:PV-3p-AgrO:3p
'The hyenas were very happy and finished ALL of the oxen.'
The phrase berewocc 'oxen' in sentence (29) refers to
four oxen of different colors that have been previously mentioned in the
discourse. The four oxen thus represent a given set of items. This
entire set is put into a contrastive focus by the phrase hullunemm
berewocc 'all oxen (ACC)' in the sense that not only one or
two of the oxen have been eaten but all of them. The quantifier
hullunemm 'all (ACC)' cannot overtly be marked by a definite
article. Nevertheless it is referential and specific. It does not denote
any number of oxen but it refers specifically to the aforementioned set
of four oxen. The specific reference in this case can only be achieved
by the enclitic -mm, because there is no definite article. This suggests
that the enclitic may actually encode two functions: a) marking of
contrastive focus and b) referring to a specific entity in the
discourse. It becomes even clearer that the combination of quantifier
and enclitic indeed refers to a specific set of items when we contrast a
phrase with the enclitic -mm against a phrase without it:
(30) sew hullu / ?hullu sew
man all all man
'all men (everybody)'
(31) hullu-mm sew
all-MM man
'all the people'
First, we can observe a syntactic restriction. The quantifier
marked by the enclitic -mm must appear directly before the head noun. By
contrast, when enclitic -mm is not involved, the position of the
quantifier is free in regard to the head noun. (8) Phrase (30) refers to
a nonreferential set of men, i.e., it can either be all of mankind or
all of the peoples of Ethiopia or all of the people in a classroom, etc.
Phrase (31) differs in this regard from phrase (30) because due to
either the general knowledge of the speaker and hearer or to the
discourse, there is reference made to a specific, closed group of men
marked by the enclitic -mm.
The following sentence (32) is part of a story about a donkey, a
dog and a goat:
(32) sememmennet-accew hullu-mm ye-yye-ras-u-n
agreement-poss:3p all-MM GEN-DISTR-self-poss:3sm-ACC
hisab keflo wedasseb-u-bb-et
bill pay:CONV:3sm towards:(REL)-think:PV-3p-to-AgrO:3sm
bota le-medres nebber.
place for-arriving aux(past)
'Their agreement was that each of them would pay the bill by
himself and then go to whatever place he wants.'
Here, the quantifier hullu-mm with the attached enclitic -mm refers
to a known group of animals consisting of the abovementioned donkey,
dog, and goat. If in sentence (32) the enclitic were not suffaxed to the
quantifier then the interpretation would change slightly: the quantifier
hullu would simply stand for an unknown and unspecific number of
persons/animals who agreed to pay by themselves, with no reference to
any particular entity in the common knowledge of speaker and hearer.
When the quantifier is involved in a comparison the enclitic -mm
must always be used:
(33) keber ke-hullu-mm belay ne-w.
honor from-all-MM above COP-3sm
'Honor is above all.'
Here again it is clear that the enclitic -mm is functioning as a
reference marker to a given, closed set of items in the world. This set
need not be mentioned in the preceding discourse but can be part of the
common knowledge presumed to exist between speaker and hearer. In
sentence (33) the set is a set of qualities, of which keber
'honor' is seen as the most important.
8. Numerals and wh-words with the enclitic -mm
8.1. Numerals
A numeral always has a specific reference to a certain set of items
when the enclitic -mm is attached to it. Beside this reference to a
specific set of items, the enclitic also functions to distributively
single out each item expressed by the numeral:
(34) anbessa-wa sost awre-wocc se-te-teyyeq
lion-DEF(f) three animal-p when-3sf-ask:IPV
sost-u-mm awre-wocc be-yye-tera be-sehetet
three-DEF-MM animal-p at-DISTR-turn at-mistake
menged merr-w-at.
way lead:PV-3p-AgrO:3sf
'When the lion (f) asked three animals, each one of the three
animals in turn told her the wrong way.'
The numeral sostumm in sentence (34) refers to the noun phrase sost
awrewocc 'three animals' in the preceding subordinate clause.
This referentiality is achieved by virtue of the definite article -u,
which indicates that the numeral has a referent which is identifiable in
the discourse. The function of the enclitic -mm is to mark restrictive
focus on the numeral, yielding a reading of three individuated items.
The interpretation of sostumm is, therefore, not that of a selective
focus nor of a topicalized construction ('as for the three
animals'). The numeral sostumm must be translated as 'each of
the three animals', i.e., we have here a selective contrastive
focus construction referring to a closed set of items and singling out
successively every single item of the set.
Numerals standing alone as head of a phrase and followed by
enclitic -mm are always marked as identifiable items, either by the
definite article or by a possessive pronoun:
(35) be-duro gize anbessa-nna lam gwadenna-mocc nebber-u.
at-former time lion-and cow friend-p be:PV-3p
hulett-u-mm and and legg nebber-accew.
two-DEF-MM one one child be:PV:3sm-AgrO:3p
'Once the lion and the cow were friends. Each of the two had one
child.'
(36) and qen geb-enna aheya wede wenz
one day hyena-and donkey towards river
abrew werred-u, ke-ziya-mm
be.together:CONV:3p go.down:PV-3p from-there-MM
weha le-metettat wede wenz-u hulett-u-mm
water for-drinking towards river-DEF two-DEF-MM
tetegg-u.
approach:PV-3p
'Once a hyena and a donkey went together down to a river. And
then each of the two were approaching the river in order to drink
water.'
(37) yeh legg hulett-accehu-mm ye-ne ne-w
this child two-poss:2p-MM GEN-I COP-3sm
kalaccehu ...
when:say:PV:2p
'When each of you say: "This child is mine" ...'
In sentence (35) the numeral appears in subject position. It is
marked as an identifiable item by the definite article and followed by
the enclitic -mm. Its sentence-initial position and the anaphoric reference to the preceding sentence cause it to function as a salient
topic. Besides this topical reading, the enclitic -mm emphasizes that
each of the two women has one child. In sentence (36) the same number
expression is used, but not in sentence-initial position. Here it has no
reading as a topic; rather, the presence of-mm emphasizes that the
number expression 'two' consists of two separate items (a
hyena and a donkey) and that each of these two items is doing a certain
action. The combination of numeral, possessive pronoun and enclitic -mm
in sentence (37) has a meaning similar to that of the numerals in
sentences (35) and (36). The definite article or the possessive suffix of the 3sm -u refers to two specific entities, which are emphasized as
individuated, single entities in the discourse by the presence of the
enclitic -mm. Interestingly, the numerals in (35), (36), and (37) must
be marked by enclitic -mm; otherwise the expression would be
ungrammatical. Numeral constructions, therefore, differ considerably
from other constructions involving enclitic -mm. The reason for this
behavior is not obvious. In addition to syntactic restrictions there is
also a semantic difference involved in the interpretation of numerals
with the enclitic -mm. The enclitic does not refer as contrastive focus
marker to the entire set of items, but rather contrasts or highlights
each item of the set against the other items of the same set.
A further interesting case is the behavior of the word and
'one' in Amharic. It fulfills two functions: it either denotes
the number 'one' or it is used as a marker for an indefinite
noun phrase (cf. Baye 1996: 57f.). Significantly, when and functions as
an indicator for indefiniteness it can be marked by the definite article
and-u, translated as indefinite pronoun meaning 'someone,
anybody' into English (Baye 1996: 58). Thus the expression and-u
cannot be indefinite because the definite article signals that and
should be identifiable in the discourse or represents common knowledge
shared between the speaker and hearer. The idea of indefiniteness of
and-u has developed due to its nonreferentiality or nonspecificity.
Although the item expressed by and-u may be identifiable in the
discourse it is not known to which individuated item in the real world
and-u refers.
The combination of and 'one', the definite article and
the enclitic -mm has an identificational as well as a referential or
specific reading: (9)
(38) ke-mehal-accew and-u-mm
from-among-poss:3p one-DEF-MM
'just one from among them'
The pronoun andu-mm in (38) is identifiable as belonging to the
phrase kemehalaccew 'from among them' due to the definite
article and the ablative preposition ke-. The enclitic -mm functions
here, similar to the above numeral expressions, as a selective focus
marker, i.e., it strongly emphasizes the numeral.
The interpretation of the pronominal and followed by the enclitic
-mm is polarity-sensitive:
(39) telant andemm sew al-metta-m.
yesterday not.a.single person NEG-come:PV:3sm-NEG
'Yesterday not a single person came.'
In negative clauses this pronoun is interpreted as an indefinite
pronoun 'not a single, nobody'. The negative meaning of andemm
can be further emphasized by suffixing -acc to the numeral, which then
becomes andaccemm 'not even a single'.
8.2. Wh-words
Wh-words change from interrogative pronouns to indefinite pronouns
or quantifiers when the enclitic -mm is attached to them:
man 'who' mannemm 'nobody, everybody, whoever'
men 'what' mennemm 'nothing, everything'
mecce 'when' meccemm 'never, whenever'.
The interpretation of the pronoun interacts with the polarity of
the verb in the same way as and. The following examples illustrate this
semantic shift with wh-words:
(40) telantenna man metta?
yesterday who come:PV:3sm
'Who came yesterday?'
(41) telantenna mannemm al-metta-m.
yesterday nobody NEG-come:PV:3sm-NEG
'Yesterday nobody came.'
(42) mennemm madreg sel-al-cal-u ...
nothing make because-NEG-be.able:PV-3p
'As they could not do anything ...'
(43) men ye-dderreg, meccemm yehew
what 3sm-be.done:JUS whenever voila
wusegi-w!
take:IMP:2sf-AgrO:3sm
'What should be done, voile, take it whenever you want!'
(44) meccemm seytan massasat-u ay-qer!
whenever devil aberration-poss:3sm NEG:3sm-remain:IPV
'The aberration of the devil will always remain!'
The wh-word man 'who' in (40) is used to refer to an
individuated set of persons or a single person out of a set of possible
persons who could have arrived. In (41), however, the pronoun mannemm
'nobody, anybody, somebody' does not refer to a single person
out of a set but to the whole set of possible entities in general, as
was the case with the quantifier hullu 'all'. These wh-words
followed by enclitic -mm have a reading of an indefinite pronoun because
they refer to an entire set without emphasizing its individuated
entities.
These indefinite pronouns appear most often in negative sentence
but they can also appear in affirmative sentences, although much less
frequently:
(45) megeb-u-n mannemm ye-bla-w ...
meal-DEF-ACC whoever 3sm-eat:JUS-AgrO:3sm
'May whoever wants to, eat the meal!'
In expression (45) manemm simply stands for any person who wants to
eat the meal from a known set of persons who probably can have this
meal. Due to this unspecificity it seems that the speaker actually does
not care who will eat the meal, which imposes a kind of negative
connotation on the indefinite pronoun.
The use of the enclitic -mm with negative indefinite pronouns may
lend support to Hetzron's (1973) hypothesis that there is a
connection between the element -m (m) in negative matrix sentences and
the enclitic -mm that expresses focus (cf. Girma 2003). At the present
stage of research, however, the etymology of-m(m) with negative main
verbs in the indicative mood still needs further investigation.
9. Conclusion
In the above description we have tried to illustrate the
multifunctional usage of the enclitic -mm in Amharic. The two further
functions of enclitic -mm as a nominalizer or a negative element, as
suggested by Hetzron (1973), have not been taken into consideration in
this article. Due to structural reasons we assume that the prefix mm-
appearing with relative forms of the imperfective is a different
morpheme (see also Gasser 1985 for the same conclusion).
In this article, we have argued that the common function of the
enclitic -mm in all the various constructions is to mark contrastive
focus. Contrastive focus, according to Dik et al. (1981), is a pragmatic
category which comprises several subcategories such as focus of
expansion or selection. As the enclitic -mm covers all these
subcategories, its interpretation necessarily depends on the discourse
situation and on the lexical items involved. In addition to
contrastiveness, the enclitic -mm may express different kinds of
referentiality. With numerals it can refer either to the individual
elements of a given set or to the set itself. With all other lexical
items, however, it seems to refer only to the entire set from which one
item is selected or to which one item is added. Furthermore, certain
constructions involving enclitic -mm have resulted in new lexicalized
items. This is in particular the case with the adverb ahunemm
'again', and may also hold for phrases with a prefix as head
and a demonstrative as complement.
Addis Ababa University
University of Mainz
Appendix. List of abbreviations
ACC accusative
AgrO agreement marker with
the object
aux(np) non-past auxiliary
aux(past) past auxiliary
CONT continuative
CONV converb
COP copula
DEF definite article
DISTR distributive morpheme
f feminine
GEN genitive
IMP imperative
INGR ingressive
IPV imperfective
JUS jussive
NEG negative/negation
p plural
poss possessive suffix
PV perfective
REL relative clause marker
1s 1st person singular
2p 2nd person plural
2sf 2nd person singular
feminine
2sm 2nd person singular masculine
3p 3rd person plural
3sf 3rd person singular feminine
3sm 3rd person singular masculine
Received 7 January 2004
Revised version received 20 January 2005
References
Baye Yimam (1996). Definiteness in Amharic discourse. Journal of
African Languages and Linguistics 17(1), 47-83.
--(2004). The structure of Amharic noun phrases. Unpublished
manuscript, Addis Ababa.
Blejer, Hatte Anne (1986). Discourse markers in early Semitic, and
their reanalyses in subsequent dialects. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.
Bliese, Loren F. (1988). A discourse analysis of Amharic narrative.
In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference of Ethiopian Studies,
Taddese Beyene (ed.), 613-621. Addis Ababa: Institute of Ethiopian
Studies, Addis Ababa University.
Chafe, Wallace L. (1976). Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness,
subjects, topics, and point of view. In Subject and Topic, Charles N. Li
(ed.), 25-55. New York: Academic Press.
Dik, Simon C.; Hoffmann, Maria E.; de Jong, Jan R.; Sie, Ing
Djiang; Stroomer, Harry; and de Vries, Lourens (1981). On the typology of focus phenomena. In Perspectives on Functional Grammar, Teun
Hoekstra, Harry van der Hulst, and Michael Moortgat (eds.), 41-74.
Dordrecht: Foris.
Drubig, Hans Bernhard and Wolfram Schaffar (2001). Focus
constructions. In Language Typology and Language Universals, Handbooks
of Linguistics and Communication Science 20.2, Martin Haspelmath,
Ekkehard Konig, Wulf Oesterreicher, and Wolfgang Raible (eds.),
1079-1104. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter.
Gasser, Michael (1983). Topic continuity in written Amharic
narrative. In Topic Continuity in Discourse: A Quantitative
Cross-Language Study, Talmy Givon (ed.), 95-139. Amsterdam and
Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
--(1985). Amharic -M and -SS: morphology, theme and assumed
knowledge. Lingua 65, 51-106.
Girma Awgichew Demeke (2001). The Ethio-Semitic languages:
re-examining the classification. Journal of Ethiopian Studies 34(2),
57-93.
--(2003). The clausal syntax of Ethiosemitic. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, University of Tromso.
Girma A. Demeke and Meyer, Ronny (2004). [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN
ASCII] Die unauffindbare Nadel: Amharisch--deutsche Lesematerialen.
University of Leipzig Papers on Africa, Language and Literature, No. 21.
Leipzig: University of Leipzig.
--(2007). Topics and topicalization in Amharic. Journal of African
Languages and Linguistics 28(1), 19-36.
Gutt, Ernst-August (1988). Toward an analysis of pragmatic
connectives in Silt'i. In Proceedings of the 8th International
Conference of Ethiopian Studies, Taddese Beyene (ed.), 665-678. Addis
Ababa: Institute of Ethiopian Studies, Addis Ababa University.
--(1997). Concise grammar of Silt'e. In
Silt'e-Amharic-English Dictionary (with concise grammar by
Ernst-August Gutt), Eeva H. M. Gutt and Hussein Mohammed, 895-957. Addis
Ababa: Addis Ababa University Press.
Heine, Bernd (1975). Language typology and convergence areas in
Africa. Linguistics 14(4), 27-47.
Hetzron, Robert (1973). The element -mm in the Amharic verbal
system. Annali dell'Istituto Orientale di Napoli 33, 1-10.
Hyman, Larry M. and Watters, John R. (1984). Auxiliary focus.
Studies in African Linguistics 15(3), 233-273.
Kapeliuk, Olga (1978). Particles of concatenation and of reference
in Amharic. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 41(1), 272-282.
--(2001). Some suprasentential constructions in Amharic. In New
Data and New Methods in Afroasiatic Linguistics: Robert Hetzron in
Memoriam, A. Zaborski (ed.), 75-83. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.
Kiss, E. Katalin (1998). Identificational focus versus information
focus. Language 74(2), 245-273.
Konig, Ekkehard (1991). The Meanings of Focus Particles: A
Comparative Perspective. London and New York: Routledge. Leslau, Wolf
(1995). Reference Grammar of Amharic. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.
Meyer, Ronny (2002). To be or not to be: Is there a copula in Zay?
In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference of Ethiopian
Studies, 6-11 November 2000, Addis Ababa, Baye Yimam, Richard Pankhurst,
David Chapple, Yonas Admasu, Alula Pankhurst, Birhanu Teferra (eds.),
1798-1808. Addis Ababa: Institute of Ethiopian Studies, Addis Ababa
University.
--(2005). Das Zay." Deskriptive Grammatik einer
Ostguragesprache (Athiosemitisch). Cologne: Koppe.
Meyer, Ronny and Richter, Renate (2003). Language Use in Ethiopia
from a Network Perspective. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Payne, Thomas E. (1997). Describing Morphosvntax. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Saeed, John Ibrahim (1984). The Syntax of Focus and Topic in
Somali. Hamburg: Helmut Buske.
Notes
(1.) This article is part of ongoing research on language contact
in Ethiopia within the framework of the multidisciplinary research
project Kulturelle und sprachliche Kontakte: Prozesse des Wandels in
historischen Spannungsfeldern Nordostafrikas/Westasiens at University of
Mainz. The German Research Council has generously supported this
research since 1997. We want to take this opportunity to express our
gratitude to the University of Mainz and the German Research Council for
their support. Furthermore, we want to thank Orin Gensler for his
critical comments on this article and the English editing. We also
express our gratitude to two unknown reviewers for their helpful
suggestions for improving the article. Correspondence address: Ronny
Meyer, SFB 295, Universitat Mainz, 55099 Mainz, Germany. E-mail:
[email protected].
(2.) Hyman and Watters (1984: 242) point out that the
"instance" which controls focus is of greater importance. This
instance represents, according to them, a continuum between
pragmatically controlled focus on the one hand and grammatically
controlled focus on the other. In a pragmatically controlled focus
system the speaker is free to choose between various focused and
non-focused utterances according to the needs of the discourse
situation. In a grammatically or syntactically controlled focus system
the speaker must indicate focus on one of the constituents in any main
clause.
(3.) Most of the cited sentences are taken from folk tales
published in Girma and Meyer (2004).
(4.) This kind of topicalization corresponds to Chafe's (1976:
49) "English-style topics", meaning that "The so-called
topic is simply a focus of contrast that has for some reason been placed
in an unusual position at the beginning of the sentence."
(5.) Generally two types of focus constructions are distinguished
in the literature: presentational (or assertive, information) focus and
contrastive (or identificational) focus constructions. The two differ in
respect to the presupposed knowledge between speaker and hearer. In
presentational focus constructions no presupposed knowledge is assumed
between speaker and hearer, while in contrastive focus constructions
such presupposed knowledge exists (cf. Drubig and Schaffar 2001: 1079;
Hyman and Watters 1984: 239f.; Kiss 1998). A distinction between these
two foci on a morphosyntactic level seems useful in languages which
possess obligatory focus markers. In Amharic this distinction is
artificial at least in regard to morphosyntax.
(6.) This fact clashes with Gasser (1985) because the enclitic -mm
is not used to indicate "discourse continuity".
(7.) This semantic difference in usage between the
discourse-pragmatic particle -m(m) and a coordinative conjunction was
already observed by Gutt (1988 and 1997: 942) for Silt'e, an
Ethiosemitic language closely related to Amharic.
(8.) In standard Amharic it is more common to put the quantifier
hullu after the head noun. In fact, only the quantifiers hullu
'all' and mullu 'full' can appear following the head
noun. All other quantifiers and modifiers must precede their head noun.
The uncommon phrase ?hullu sew 'all men' may represent a
recent change in Amharic in which the quantifier hullu moves from an
'irregular' postnominal position to the regular prenominal
position for quantifiers and modifiers.
(9.) See also Baye (2004) for the several interpretations of and
'one'.