Table Of ContentTABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements iv
Dedication v
Introduction vi
CHAPTER 1 KINANDI SYNTAX AND TRANSFORMATIONAL GRAMMAR
1.1 Introduction 1
1.2 Theoretical Framework 2
1.3 Kinandi Syntax 5
CHAPTER 2 MORPHOLOGICAL ANALYSIS OF KINANDI
2.0 Introduction 10
2.1 The Verb 10
2.2.1 Tense 11
2.2.2 Aspect 12
2.2.3 Habitual 13
2.2.4 The Infinitive 14
2.2.5 Mood 14
2.3 Transitivity 15
2.4 Reflexivization 16
2.5 The Copula 17
2.6 The Noun 18
2.6.1 Number 18
2.6.2 Possession 18
2.6.3 Demonstratives 20
2.6.4 Gender 21
2.7 Verbal Nouns 22
2.8 Pronouns 22
2.9 Adjectives 23
i
CHAPTER 3 SENTENCE PATTERNS IN KINANDI
3.1.0 Introduction 25
3.1.1 Elementary Phrase Structure Rules of Kinandi 27
3.1.2.1 Introduction 27
3.1.2.2 The Sentence 28
3.1.2.3 The Predicate 28
CHAPTER 4 SYNTACTIC TRANSFORMATIONS 31
4.1 Introduction 31
4.2 Transformations in English 31
4.2.1 WH-MOVEMENT 31
4.2.2 NP-MOVEMENT 34
4.3 Transformations in Kinandi 35
4.3.1 NP-MOVEMENT 35
4.3.2 TOPICALISATION 42
4.3.3 WH-MOVEMENT 47
4.3.4 Further transformations 51
CHAPTER 5 CONSTRAINTS VERSUS TRANSFORMATIONS IN KINANDI 55
5.1.0 Introduction 55
5.1.1 NP MOVEMENT AND THE RELATIVE CLAUSE 56
5.1.2 OTHER MOVEMENTS AND THE RELATIVE CLAUSE 58
5.1.3 MOVEMENTS AND THE NOUN COMPLEMENT CLAUSE 60
5.1.4 COORDINATE STRUCTURE AND UNIT MOVEMENT CONSTRAINTS 61
5.1.5 WH-ISLAND CONSTRAINT 66
ii
5.1.5 MOVEMENTS AND SUBJACENCY IN KINANDI 68
5.1.7 SUBJACENCY AND RAISING 69
CHAPTER 6 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION 72
6.0 Summary 72
6.1 Conclusion 73
References 73
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This book is a result of research to which many people contributed to its success both morally
and in kind. It is not possible to name all of them. To these unnamed „angels‟, I say Kongoi
mising „Thank you very much‟.
Special thanks go to my supervisors: Professors Karega Mutahi and Bureng Nyombe as well as
Dr. Judith Nyagah for all the helpful hints on analysis, reanalysis, rephrasing and the
reorganization of this study.
I also thank Professor Lucia Ndong‟a Omondi for having kindled in me an interest in syntax in
particular and African linguistics in general.
My colleagues, the „„Nairobiniks‟‟, Alemu Assefa, Khamete Magwaga, Charles Mboga,
Petronila Mebo, Emily Ogutu, Florence Owili and Mary Okebe deserve mention also for their
fruitful company, discussions and encouragement throughout.
However, I take responsibility for all the mistakes and errors that remain in this book.
iv
DEDICATION
TO:
My father, the late Kipkurgatt arwaap Kimining‟,
My mother, Jepchoge Tapsiargaak,
And the entire family of Kiptororguut arwaap Simbolion, who inspired it
v
Introduction
This book is a result of a study that tested the extent to which the transformational generative
framework can handle data and particularly the transformational processes in the Kinandi (a
dialect of the larger Kaleenjiin language). In particular, it basically describes a number of
syntactic transformations found in the language. This is then explained in relationship to the
constraints and conditions on syntactic transformations suggested by Chomsky (1971), Ross
(1967) and Schwartz (1972).
The resultant analyses revealed that there are various transformational rules that apply to the
language, namely; NP-MOVEMENT, WH-MOVEMENENT, RAISING, TOPICALISATION,
PP-PREPOSING and ADVERB PREPOSING. Further investigations which related the
transformational processes to the various constraints proposed by Chomsky, Ross and Schwartz,
found, for example, that none of the transformation processes could extract a constituent out of a
relative clause. Moreover, it was also found that the language is subject to the COMPLEX
NOUN PHRASE CONDITION which forbids extraction of constituents from adnominal clauses.
Further, data analyzed also showed that Kinandi is subject to the SUBJACENCY CONDITION
and that any attempt at applying transformations that are not cyclical, will lead to the formation
of ungrammatical structures.
It can be concluded that the framework that is used has both descriptive and explanatory
adequacy to handle data from the Nandi language.
vi
CHAPTER 1
KINANDI SYNTAX AND TRANSFORMATIONAL GRAMMAR
1.0 Introduction
Kinandi („kutitab Nandi‟ (= the „tongue‟ of the Nandi)) is a dialect of the Kaleenjiin language
group who live on the highlands west of the Great Rift Valley of Kenya. They mainly inhabit the
counties of Nandi, Uasin Gishu and Trans Nzoia. The latest national census puts the population
of the Kaleenjiin as 4,967, 328. Though there are no statistics on the Nandi community itself, it
is the second most populous of the Kalenjin communities and therefore could safely be said to
currently number over 1.5 million.
Greenberg (1963) classifies Kaleenjiin as a Southern Nilotic language in the Eastern Section of
the Nilotic Branch of the larger Eastern Sudanic Language Family, which is composed of the
Western Nilotics (Luo, Langó, Acholi, Shilluk, Dinka, etc) and the Eastern Nilotics (Maasai,
Bari, Kakwa, Karamajong, Teso etc). The Nandi is part of this Kaleenjiin group, form the branch
of what is termed Highland Nilotes which comprise of the Pokot, Tugen, Keiyo, Marakwet,
Sabaot, Kipsigiis, Terik and Tatooga (spoken by a small group in northern Tanzania).
The original name of the Nandi is claimed to be „Il tieng’wal’ (in the Maasai language) meaning
„cattle raiders‟. The name, Nandi was used by the Swahili traders who had come in contact with
the group as a reference to what they perceived to be the long necks (like a cormorant‟s) of these
people and also to allude to what was also derogatorily considered as their voraciousness. The
word Kaleenjiin, on the other hand, was a political slogan coined in the 1940s. It means „I say‟ or
„I tell you‟ (since you can understand my language). It has since become a name to identify what
were originally called „Nandi-speaking people‟.
The dialects spoken by the Kaleenjiin continuum are basically the same except for minor
differences in pronunciation and vocabulary. The speakers can however, be mutually intelligible
when they want to. Some groups have higher mutual intelligibility. For example, Kipsigiis,
Nandi, Terik and Keiyo speakers understand most of the time compared to the Marakwet,
Sabaot, Tugen speakers who are likely to understand much of what the former are saying but not
1
vice versa. However, analysis of the syntax of Kinandi can be used as a basic reference to all the
Kaleenjiin dialects.
I wish to note here that I have used the Kiswahili prefix Ki- to refer to the language of the Nandi
people (thus Kinandi) as opposed to the people themselves (Nandi) because, in my view, it is
easier and less cumbersome to keep repeatedly using than the more anglicized term „Nandi
language‟. Moreover, it is more acceptable (in Kenya, at any rate) to now talk of the languages of
the various communities of Kenya in this way (e.g. We say that Luhya people speak Ki-luhya,
Kamba speak, Ki-kamba, Meru speak Ki-Meru, and Taita, Ki-taita, etc).
This book aims to describe some syntactic facts of Kinandi within a generative transformational
framework, that is, the Extended Standard Theory. Previous studies and literature of Kinandi was
done mainly by missionaries and anthropologists who mainly attempted to write grammars
thought to be “sufficiently full and detailed for anyone to learn the (Nandi) language adequately”
(Hollis 1969: xx). These grammars were written without any modern theoretical framework.
This book, guided by an explicit theoretical framework, gives us a richer perspective of Kinandi
than hitherto. This not only fills a gap in Kinandi language studies, but also becomes a
contribution to the study of African languages and General Linguistics.
1.2 Theoretical Framework
As mentioned in the previous section, the Extended Standard Theory underpins the analysis
of Kinandi syntax in this book. The theory is a further development of the Standard Theory
(„Aspects‟ model of 1965) so that the new theory recognized the function of the Semantic
Component. Before this, Chomsky (1957) had not taken into consideration certain semantic
abilities of the ideal speaker/hearer, such as:
a) detection of semantic ambiguity
b) detection of anomalous sentences.
c) detection of paraphrases
The „Aspects‟ model (1965), otherwise known as the Standard Theory, included a Semantic
Component, which together with the Phonological Component, were purely interpretive. For
example, Chomsky had asserted that semantic rules of the Semantic Component only applied
in the Deep Structure. This was subsequent to Katz and Postal‟s hypothesis (Katz and Postal
2
1963) that grammatical transformations should be structure-preserving. It was found that
some issues arose that that Standard theory could not handle, namely;
a) certain transformations reversed logical predicates
b) issue of analysis of anaphora
c) issues of presupposition and focus
These issues led to the extension of the Semantic Component to cover the Surface Structure. A
system of principles termed Universal Grammar evolved and contains which only allow a certain
number of grammars to be constructed. This grammar takes into consideration variations in
language and postulates a core grammar as well a Theory of Markedness. The theory of core
grammar and markedness is expected to cater for all languages a “a universal core of linguistic
principles which characterizes the full range of … grammatical phenomena found in natural
language” (Radford 1981:29). The core grammar contains unmarked structures whereas the
Theory of Markedness helps to explain marked structures i.e. those which show language
variation.
Thus, the resulting grammar is envisaged to consist of the Base Component which has the phrase
Structure (PS) rules, a lexicon with lexical entries, redundancy rules, lexical insertion rules, etc.
The output of the Base Component consists of Deep Structures. The transformational
Component, on the other hand, comprises of transformation and constraints on them. The output
of the transformations is the S-Structures. Case-marking rules and case filters make up the Case
Component with the output being case-marked S-structures which are fed into the Phonological
and Semantic Components which have their own rules. Phonological rules which consist of
deletion rules and surface structure filters give out filtered surface structures whereas the
semantic component gives out representations of meaning.
In summary, the theory explained above, claims that the relationship between the underlying
(Deep) structure and the surface is brought about by transformational (movement) rules. Since
our interest is the scope of the transformational component in Kinandi, it is fitting to illustrate
how this happens. The following two sentences will form the preliminary examples of how
movement will be analyzed here.
1. Kowo gaa Kiprono
3
