Navigation – Plan du site

AccueilNuméros69Directive and optative clauses in...

Directive and optative clauses in Manding languages

Propositions directives et optatives dans les langues manding
Дени Кресель. Директивные и оптативные предложения в языках манден
Denis Creissels
p. 3-29

Résumés

Cet article discute la structure des phrases directives et optatives dans les langues mandingues. La discussion repose essentiellement sur une comparaison entre les deux langues mandingues pour lesquelles des données détaillées sur les phrases directives et optatives sont disponibles : Mandinka et Bambara. Dans les langues mandingues, le subjonctif joue un rôle de premier plan dans l’expression des ordres et des souhaits, mais les locuteurs évitent d’exprimer les souhaits au moyen de constructions exactement identiques à celles utilisées pour formuler des ordres. Les langues mandingues ont une construction optative spécialisée dans laquelle Álá ‘Dieu’ est suivi d’un marqueur optatif spécialisé, mais en Mandinka, la séquence‘Álá + marqueur optatif’ se fige pour devenir une particule optative, comme le montre le fait que Álá peut être répété comme le sujet de la proposition qui succède au marqueur optatif.

Haut de page

Plan

Haut de page

Texte intégral

1. Introduction

  • 1 See however Kissine (2013: 104–106) for an alternative approach, according to which directive speec (...)

1Directive speech acts are commonly defined as urging the addressee to bring about (or to contribute to bringing about) the truth of a given propositional content,1 whereas wishes are commonly classified as a particular type of expressive speech acts. However, directive speech acts normally imply the speaker’s wish that the proposition involved in the directive speech act becomes true. Moreover, directive speech acts stricto sensu can only concern propositional contents whose realization is conceived as controllable by the addressee, but the distinction between controllable and uncontrollable states of affairs is far from being perfectly clear-cut, and in practice, there is often fuzziness in the limit between commands and wishes. Unsurprisingly, the forms and constructions used in a given language to express commands or wishes may be ambiguous between a directive and a purely optative interpretation, not to speak of the fact that commands are often expressed indirectly, by means of assertive or interrogative utterances which, depending on the context in which they are uttered, may be interpreted as aiming at provoking an action from the addressee.

2In the title of this article, ‘directive and optative clauses’ refers to monoclausal constructions interpreted as commands or wishes concerning the propositional content they encode, as opposed to the expression of commands or wishes by means of complex constructions consisting of a subordinate clause expressing a propositional content and a main clause referring to the manipulation of this propositional content in discourse, as in I would like you to help me.

3The following particularities of Manding languages are worth being immediately highlighted, since they condition the presentation of the data analyzed in this article:

4– Manding languages do not have dedicated apprehensive forms or constructions.

5– The expression of wishes by means of formulations exactly identical to those used for commands is uncommon in Manding languages.

6Blessing is a very important aspect of social intercourse in Manding culture, but the formulations used for blessing on solemn occasions such as the birth of a child, or marriage, are not distinct from those used for ordinary wishes in everyday life (as for example for wishing a good night when leaving each other before going to bed).

7The organization of the article is also conditioned by the fact that Manding languages have a particular TAM construction, the subjunctive construction, which plays a prominent role in the expression of commands and wishes. Section 2 describes the morphology of the subjunctive and its dependent uses. Section 3 describes the independent subjunctive clauses. Section 4 discusses the other possibilities of expressing commands or wishes by means of simple independent clauses. Section 5 summarizes the main conclusions.

  • 2 The other Manding varieties that have been considered for this study and the sources that have been (...)

8In this article, the discussion of Manding directive and optative clauses is mainly illustrated by Bambara and Mandinka examples. The reasons are simply that much more precise data on the syntax of directive and optative clauses are available in the literature for Bambara than for any other Manding language, my personal documentation on Mandinka is much more important than on any other Manding language, and to the best of my knowledge, the available data on directive and optative clauses in the other Manding languages do not reveal the existence of phenomena that would not be also found either in Bambara or in Mandinka.2

2. The subjunctive and its dependent uses

  • 3 For example, Mandinka has an incompletive predicative marker kà distinct from the adverbial copula (...)

9The inventories of predicative markers may vary across Manding languages as regards some details of the TAM distinctions they express,3 but they invariably include a pair of predicative markers (a positive one and its negative counterpart) whose distribution and functions are broadly similar to those of the verb forms labeled subjunctive or conjunctive in European grammatical traditions. They are designated here as subjunctive. The same term is used in Creissels & Sambou’s (2013) grammar of Mandinka and in Vydrin’s (2019b) handbook of Bambara grammar, but other terms can be found in the literature, such as ‘projectif’ in Dumestre’s (2003) grammar of bambara.

10In Manding languages, the subjunctive plays a crucial role in the expression of commands and wishes. This section is devoted to a succinct account of the morphology of the subjunctive and of its dependent uses. Independent subjunctive clauses, crucially involved in the expression of commands and wishes, are described in §3.

2.1. The subjunctive: morphology

2.1.1. Variation in the form of the subjunctive positive marker

11The subjunctive positive markers found in the sample of Manding languages considered for this study can be divided into four different formal types:

12– KA, for example Bambara ká,

13– YE, for example Mandinka yè,

  • 4 Idiatov (2020) analyzes YA and YE as belonging to one cognate set. However, the decision on this po (...)

14– YA: Koro yá (Creissels 1984), Koyaga yá (Creissels 1988),4

15– LA: Baninko Bambara lá (Togola 1984).

16Within the sample of Manding languages on which this study is based, YA is only attested in Koro and Koyaga (spoken in the center of Ivory Coast), and LA is only attested in Baninko Bambara, whereas both KA and YE have a wide distribution.

17The subjunctive markers subsumed under the label YE (such as Mandinka yè) are homonymous with a completive predicative marker found in many Manding languages (including Mandinka and Bambara). However, completive YE is found exclusively in transitive clauses, whereas subjunctive YE is not sensitive to transitivity. On a possible analysis of the historical significance of this coincidence, see Idiatov (2020).

18Interestingly, in some Manding varieties, subjunctive markers belonging to two different formal types may coexist in complementary distribution. In Mandinka, the most common form of the subjunctive marker is yè, but in contact with the pronouns ŋ́ (1SG) and ŋ̀ (1PL) the subjective marker is ŋà, to be interpreted as a variant of the type KA in nasal context. In Bambara, the subjunctive marker proper is ká, but yé is found in the 2nd person plural imperative.

19Subjunctive KA is segmentally identical with the pan-Manding infinitive marker kà, but differs from it in its tonal properties. Section 2.1.2 is devoted to a brief presentation of the -infinitive and a discussion of its possible relationship with the subjunctive.

2.1.2. Subjunctive KA and the kà-infinitive

20Manding languages have infinitival phrases that can be described as subjectless dependent clauses whose missing subject is interpreted either as arbitrary, or as coreferential with a nominal term of the matrix clause, depending on the wider construction in which the infinitival phrase is inserted. All Manding languages have at least one construction meeting this definition, the -infinitive construction, characterized by the presence of the infinitive marker or a variant thereof (glossed INF) in phrase-initial position.

  • 5 Readers are referred to Dumestre’s (2003) Bambara grammar (chapter 14) and Vydrin’s (2019b) handboo (...)

21The structure of the kà-infinitive construction can be schematized as [kà (O) V (X)], with a verb in its bare form possibly combined with the same object and oblique phrases as in independent clauses projected by the same verb. In all the Manding languages for which data are available, the -infinitive has at least the three types of uses illustrated in the remainder of this section with Mandinka examples.5

22The kà-infinitive is spontaneously used by speakers as the quotation form of verbs, and this is consistent with the use of -phrases in topic position at the left periphery of clauses, resumed by a demonstrative pronoun within the clause, as in (1). In this use, the missing subject of the infinitive has an arbitrary interpretation.

(1)

Mandinka

[Kà

fúlá-káŋ-ó

kàrâŋ]i,

wǒoi

kòlèyâa-tá

báakè

lè.

INF

Fula-language-D

learn

DEM

be.difficult-CPL.ITR

very

FOC

‘Learning Fula is very difficult.’

23The kà-infinitive is also used in the complementation of modal or aspectual verbs, as in (2). In this use, the missing subject of the infinitive is interpreted as coreferential with the subject or the object of the matrix clause, depending on the higher verb.

(2)

Mandinka

Ŋ́

làfí-tá

[kà

ñǐŋ

súŋkútòo

fútûu].

1SG

want-CPL.ITR

INF

DEM

girl.D

marry

‘I want to marry this girl.’

  • 6 An in-depth analysis of this construction in Bambara is provided by Vydrin (2020).

24The third well-attested type of use of the -infinitive is its use in the clause-chaining construction, typically used to express sequentiality. In this construction, an independent clause is followed by one or more infinitival phrases referring to events conceived as the successive phases of a complex event, the missing subject of the infinitival phrases being interpreted as coreferential with the subject of the first clause, as in (3).6

(3)

Mandinka

Kèê

wúlì-tá

[kà

mùrôo

fúntíndí

bòotôo

kónò].

man.D

stand.up-CPL.ITR

INF

knife.D

go.out.CAUS

bag.D

in

‘The man stood up and took out a knife from the bag’.

  • 7 A particular clear case is that of the future predicative marker of Bambara ná, whose obvious etym (...)

25Across Manding languages, the infinitive marker kà is consistently L-toned (or H-toned in the Manding languages characterized by tonal inversion, such as Odienné Jula or Niokolo Maninka), whereas the subjunctive markers whose segmental form is ka show irregular variation in their tonal properties. However, this difference in their tonal behavior is not sufficient to exclude that the subjunctive markers whose segmental form is ka might originate from the transgrammaticalization of infinitive , since there is evidence that, in Manding languages, the acquisition of the status of predicative marker may trigger irregular tone changes.7 In fact, as rightly observed by Vydrin (2014), in subordinate clauses, the only difference between the subjunctive and the infinitive is the presence / absence of an overt subject. This strongly supports the hypothesis that the subjunctive markers whose segmental form is ka result from the replacement of a more ancient subjunctive marker yé or yè by the infinitive marker kà, whose tone may have been subsequently aligned with the high tone of the pre-existing predicative markers. The fact that yé subsists in the imperative clauses of Bambara (see §3.1) provides further support to this hypothesis.

26Interestingly, in Soninke, which belongs to a distinct branch of West Mande but shares many typological features with Manding, probably due to long-standing contact, the infinitive and subjunctive markers (transitive nà and intransitive nàn) are fully homonymous.

2.1.3. The subjunctive negative

27The subjunctive negative marker shows less variation in its form than its positive counterpart, at least segmentally. The vast majority of Manding languages have forms that can be summarized as KANA, with, however, variations in tone and vowel length that do not conform to the regular phonetic correspondences between Manding varieties: Bambara kànâ, Kita Maninka káná ~ kánà, Mandinka kánàa, etc.

28However, a variant KA (with a high tone) in free variation with KANA is found in the southernmost Manding languages (Koro, Koyaga). Since the vowel a in this variant is neither long nor nasalized (as should be expected if KA resulted from the deletion of the intervocalic nasal of KANA), a plausible explanation is that, originally (i.e., before the creation of a subjunctive positive marker KA in some Manding languages), the subjunctive negative marker was ká (distinguished from the infinitive marker by tone only), and KANA resulted from the grammaticalization of the subjunctive negative form of the verb nà ‘come’. It is quite common in the languages of the world that inflected forms of ‘come’ or ‘go’ verbs grammaticalize as auxiliaries expressing various TAM values (Kuteva et al. 2019), and consequently a plausible scenario is that KANA emerged from the routinization of formulations whose original meaning was ‘don’t come and V!’, but in which the movement component of meaning became more and more bleached. This phenomenon can be observed in French, where for example Ne viens/va pas me dire que tu n’es plus d’accord, lit. ‘Don’t come/go and tell me that you don’t agree anymore’, is normally interpreted as an emphatic way of expressing ‘Don’t tell me that you don’t agree anymore’, without any idea of movement.

29Incidentally, such a use of the subjunctive negative of ‘go’ appears in example (15) below. Moreover, contrary to an objection raised by an anonymous reviewer, the length of the second vowel in Mandinka kánàa is not a problem for the analysis proposed here, quite on the contrary, since in western Manding varieties, most monosyllabic verbs (including nǎa ‘come) have a long vowel.

2.2. The dependent uses of the subjunctive

30The dependent uses of the subjunctive illustrated in sections 2.2.1 to 2.2.7 are found in all the Manding languages for which the relevant data are available. Section 2.2.8 describes a dependent use of the subjunctive which, as far as I am aware of, is only attested in Mandinka, and section 2.2.9 mentions a dependent use of the subjunctive that so far has only been signaled in Bambara. Since detailed syntactic descriptions are available for relatively few Manding languages, it cannot be excluded that perhaps other dependent uses of the subjunctive could be found in less documented Manding varieties.

2.2.1. The subjunctive in complement clauses

31In the complementation of verbs expressing commands, advices, wishes, or agreement / disagreement, the complement clause can only be in the subjunctive or in the infinitive. When the subject of the complement clause is different from the subject of the matrix clause, as in (4), the subjunctive is the only possible choice.

(4)

Bambara

má

sɔ̀n

[í

ká

táa

yèn].

3SG

CPL.NEG

agree

2SG

SBJV

go

there

‘I don’t agree that you should go there.’

2.2.2. The subjunctive in reported speech

32In reported utterances marked as such by the quotative marker kó (equally used for direct and indirect quotations), the subjunctive marks reported commands, as opposed to reported assertions. Example (5) illustrates a construction in which the identity of the original speaker is not specified.

  • 8 Note that, in Kita Maninka, is not found in copula function, and is used exclusively in verbal p (...)

(5)

Kita Maninka8

(5a)

Kó

Sékù

bé

nà.

QUOT

Sékou

FUT

come

‘It is said that Sékou will come.’

(5b)

Kó

Sékù

ká

nà.

QUOT

Sékou

SBJV

come

‘Sékou is asked to come.’

2.2.3. The subjunctive in adverbial clauses of purpose

33The subjunctive is used to mark adverbial clauses of purpose that need not be introduced by a conjunction, as in examples (6) to (8).

  • 9 In the Bambara examples that do not come from my personal documentation, the tonal notation has bee (...)

(6)

Bambara (Dumestre 2003: 349)9

yé

gánsílî

kɛ́

[mɔ̀gɔ̂-ú

ká

nà

3SG

CPL.TR

announcement.D

made

person.D-PL

SBJV

come

nyɔ́gɔ́nyê

lá].

meeting.D

POSTP

34‘He made an announcement to ensure that people will come to the meeting.’

(7)

Bambara (Vydrin 2017: 129)

Fántà

nà-ná

[nê

ká

dɛ̀mɛ̀].

3SG

come-CPL.ITR

1SG

SBJV

3SG

help

‘Fanta came to me for help.’

(8)

Mandinka

Jèŋké

[wòtôo

yè

tàmbí].

stand.aside

car.D

SBJV

pass

‘Stand aside so that the car can pass.’

35However, depending on the individual languages, purpose clauses introduced by conjunctions can also be found. The conjunctions that introduce purpose clauses invariably trigger the use of the subjunctive in the clauses they introduce.

36Note also that, if the matrix clause is in the negative form, another reading of the same construction is possible, according to which the state-of-affairs denoted by the subjunctive clause is incompatible with that expressed by the matrix clause, as in (9).

(9)

Mandinka

Wòntôo

búká

sàwúŋ

[à

díŋ-ò

yè

ŋúnúmà].

giraffe.D

ICPL.NEG

jump

3SG

offspring-D

SBJV

crawl

lit. ‘The giraffe does not jump for its offspring to crawl.’

> ‘The giraffe jumps, how could its offspring crawl!’

2.2.4. The subjunctive in subordinate clauses introduced by conjunctions

37In adverbial clauses introduced by conjunctions specifying various semantic types of adverbial subordination, the use of the subjunctive depends on the choice of the conjunction. For example, in Bambara, the subjunctive is obligatory with sání ‘before’.

38(10) Bambara (Dumestre 2011: 872)

    

bɛ́

nà

[sání

dùgû

ká

jɛ́].

3SG

ICPL

come

before

atmosphere.D

SBJV

become.clear

39‘He will come before dawn.’ lit. ‘... before the atmosphere should become clear.’

2.2.5. Subjunctive clauses in topic position

40The subjunctive is also used in clauses that occupy a topic position at the left periphery of another clause and are interpreted as the expression of a propositional content resumed in the main clause by a 3rd person singular or demonstrative pronoun.

41(11) Bambara (Vydrin 2017: 127)

[Fúrâ

ká

gɛ̀lɛ̀yâ

lásé

mɔ̀gɔ́

mà]i,

medication.D

SBJV

problem.D

bring

person.D

POSTP

i

bɛ́

kɔ̀lɔ̀sí

kósɛ́bɛ́.

DEM

ICPL

observe

very

42lit. ‘That medication brings problems to people, this is observed very much.’

43> ‘It is often observed that medication has undesirable side effects.’

44(12) Mandinka

[Kèê

yè

wúlûu]i,

ñàa

néné

yè

wǒoi

man.D

SBJV

give.birth.D

2SG

eye.D

ever

CPL.TR

DEM

jé

mìntóo

lè?

see

where

FOC

45lit. ‘That a man gives birth to a child, where did your eyes ever see that?’

46This use of the subjunctive emphasizes the affinity between subjunctive clauses and the -infinitive construction, since, as already observed in section 2.1.2, infinitive phrases introduced by have the ability to fulfill the same function.

2.2.6. Subjunctive triggered by modal particles

2.2.6.1. The obligative construction

47Manding languages have an obligative construction consisting of the unanalyzable obligative particle fɔ́ ‘it is necessary that...’ and a clause in the subjunctive.

(13)

Bambara (Dumestre 2011: 329)

nàkân

yé

fɛ̂n

mîn

yé,

díyágóyâ lá,

2SG

destiny

NomCOP

thing.D

REL

as

in.any.case

fɔ́

ká

sɔ̀rɔ̀.

OBLG

DEM

SBJV

2SG

get

48‘If something is your destiny, in any case, it must happen to you.’

(14)

Mandinka

Níŋ

yè

sólóo

bàràmá,

2SG

2SG

CPL.TR

panther.D

wound

fó

yè

sílá-kútòo

ñínîŋ.

OBLG

2SG

SBJV

road-new.D

look.for

49‘If you have wounded a panther, you must look for a new road.’

50As illustrated by example (15), in the negative, an apprehensive reading of the obligative construction is possible.

(15)

Mandinka

Nûntó

kèebâa-lú

máŋ

làfí

tùbáabòo-lú

sìiñóoyàa

formerly

elder.D-PL

CPL.NEG

want

European.D-PL

cohabitation.D

lá,

kánàa

táa

díŋ-ò-lú

POSTP

3PL

SBJV.NEG

go

3PL

child-D-PL

káafíríyá-ndì

become.an.unbeliever-CAUS

51‘Formerly, the elders did not want to live together with Europeans, lest they deter their children from religion.’

52One may wonder whether the obligative particle fɔ́ was borrowed from French (il) faut ‘it is necessary’, or is the result of language-internal evolution. The point is that the obligative particle might be cognate with the conjunction fɔ́ ‘until’ (or ‘unless’). Moreover, the hypothesis of a language-internal evolution is strongly supported by the observation that the same coincidence between an obligative particle and a conjunction ‘until’ is found in the Soninke-Bozo branch of West Mande with completely different forms (Soninke mà, Jenaama (Bozo) (ŋ̄)kàlà). However, the historical scenario that might relate a conjunction ‘until’ / ‘unless’ and an obligative particle is unclear.

2.2.6.2. Others

53Individual Manding languages may have other modal particles triggering the use of the subjunctive in the clauses they introduce. For example, Mandinka has an optative particle dàŋkó.

(16)

Mandinka

(16a)

Dàŋkó

ŋ́

ŋà

ké

mànsàkêe

tí.

OPT

1SG

SBJV

become

king.D

as

‘If only I could become a king!’

  • 10 In this particular example, an apprehensive reading is possible: ‘Be careful, you might poke a hole (...)

(16b)

Dàŋkó

kánàa

kátóo

sǒo.

OPT

2SG

SBJV.NEG

ball.D

pierce

‘Let’s hope you won’t poke a hole in the ball!’10

2.2.7. The subjunctive in sequences of direct commands

54A general rule in Manding languages is that, in sequences of direct commands concerning the same addressee, the first clause may instantiate the dedicated imperative construction described in §4.1, but the following clauses can only be in the subjunctive, as in (17a, b).

(17)

Mandinka

(17a)

Fùntóo

tǎa

yè

táabúlòo

fítà!

cloth.D

take

2SG

SBJV

table.D

wipe

‘Take (sg.) a cloth and wipe the table!’

(17b)

Álí

kíní-tòo-lú

jì-ndí

nǎŋ

2PL

food-leftover.D-PL

go.down-CAUS

VEN

álí

yé

díi

wùlôo-lú

là.

2PL

SBJV

3PL

give

dog.D-PL

POSTP

‘Bring the food leftovers and give them to the dogs!’

2.2.8. The sequential use of the subjunctive in assertive contexts

55As mentioned in §2.1.2, all Manding languages have clause chains expressing sequentiality in which the non-initial clauses are reduced to infinitival phrases. In Mandinka, a clause-chaining construction with the non-initial clauses in the subjunctive, as in (18), is also possible (and is in fact more usual than the clause-chaining construction with the kà-infinitive).

(18)

Mandinka

Ŋ́

sì

bùlá

bòotôo

kónò,

1SG

POT

2SG

put

bag.D

in

ŋ́

ŋá

dáa

sìtí

jùlùkésòo

lá,

1SG

SBJV

3SG

opening.D

tie

rope.D

POSTP

ŋ́

ŋá

nǎa

fáyì

bâa

kónò.

1SG

SBJV

come

2SG

throw

river.D

in

‘I can put you in a bag, tie its opening with a rope, and throw you in the river.’

  • 11 For Balant Ganja, cf. Creissels &Biaye (2016: 273–274); for Jóola Fóoñi, see Creissels & Bassène (2 (...)

56The sequential use of the subjunctive found in Mandinka may be a trace of an earlier stage in the development of the sequential construction, if one accepts Idiatov’s (2020) analysis. However, one may also think that contact with Atlantic languages has played a role in either the maintenance or the emergence of the sequential use of the subjunctive in Mandinka, since in the Atlantic languages in contact with Mandinka (such as Balant Ganja or Jóola Fóoñi) a form whose uses are broadly comparable to those of the Manding subjunctive is commonly used in clause chains expressing sequentiality.11

2.2.9. The subjunctive and the expression of quasi-simultaneity

57Vydrin (2019b: 435–438) describes a Bambara construction in which two clauses denoting two events that immediately follow each other are coordinated by àní ‘and’ and followed by a third clause expressing the quasi-simultaneity of the two events. In this construction, there is some variation in the form of the first clause, but the second one (i.e. the clause that follows àní) is invariably in the subjunctive, as in (19).

(19)

Bambara (Vydrin 2019b: 436)

Nzǒn-ù

fáná

tló

dòn

kúlékân

ná,

thief.D-PL

also

ear.D

enter

DEM

scream.D

POSTP

àní

ò-lû

fànà

ká

yɛ̀rɛ̂

ɲíní,

and

DEM-PL

also

SBJV

3PL

self

look.for

bɛ́ɛ

kɛ́-rá

kélén

yé.

DEM

all

do-CPL.ITR

one

as

58lit. ‘That the thieves heard this scream, and that they ran away, all that was one.’

3. Independent uses of the subjunctive and the expression of commands and wishes

59In Manding languages, simple independent clauses in the subjunctive constitute the standard way of expressing various kinds of commands and wishes, depending on the nature of the subject and on the context (§§3.1-5). However, an independent use of subjunctive clauses that cannot be considered as either directive or optative is also attested (§3.6).

3.1. Independent subjunctive clauses with a second person subject

60Independent subjunctive clauses with a second person subject are a usual way of expressing a request to the addressee(s) to perform the action denoted by the verb (or, in the negative, to refrain from performing it), as in (20).

(20)

Bambara

(20a)

ká

dúnán

fò!

2SG

SBJV

guest.D

greet

‘Greet (sg.) the guest!’

(20b)

kànâ

wárí

tà!

2SG

SBJV.NEG

money.D

take

‘Don’t (sg) take the money!’

(20c)

Âú

ká

Fántà

wéelé

yé!

2PL

SBJV

Fanta

call

1SG

for

‘Call (pl.) Fanta for me!’

(20d)

Âú

kàná

bùgɔ̀!

2PL

SBJV.NEG

1SG

hit

‘Don’t (pl.) hit me!’

61In this use, the subjunctive is in competition with the dedicated imperative forms described in §4.1. The nuance is that, in the expression of commands, the subjunctive is perceived by speakers as less abrupt than the imperative.

62In the world’s languages, it is common that the use of constructions typically used for commands is also possible with reference to states of affairs beyond the control of the addressee(s), in which case they are interpreted as expressing a wish rather than a command, as in English Get well soon! or Have a good night!. Interestingly, the available descriptions of Manding languages do not provide examples unambiguously suggesting this possibility, and from my experience of working with native speakers of Manding languages, I am inclined to conclude that Manding speakers tend to avoid using subjunctive clauses with second person subjects or imperative clauses in contexts that would force a purely optative reading. Manding speakers strongly prefer to formulate wishes in a way that unambiguously triggers a purely optative interpretation, i.e. by means of either subjunctive clauses with Álá ’God’ in subject role (see §3.3), or dedicated optative constructions (see §4.2).

3.2. Independent subjunctive clauses with a first person plural subject

63Independent subjunctive clauses with a first person plural subject express a request to the addressee(s) to perform the action denoted by the verb jointly with the speaker (or, in the negative, to refrain from performing it).

(21)

Bambara

Án

ká

sègín

kà

táa

só!

1PL

SBJV

return

INF

go

home

‘Greet (sg.) the guest!’

(22)

Mandinka

(22a)

Ŋ̀

ŋà

wúlì!

1PL

SBJV

get.up

‘Let’s go!’

(22b)

Ŋ̀

ŋà

tèntéŋ

ŋ̀

ná

kàcâa

lá!

1PL

SBJV

continue

1PL

GEN

conversation.D

POSTP

‘Let’s continue our conversation!’

3.3. Independent subjunctive clauses with ordinary third person subjects

64Independent subjunctive clauses with a third person subject other than Álá ‘God’ are interpreted as requests to collaborate in some way or another to the realization of the state of affairs denoted by the clause, minimally by not opposing it.

(23)

Bambara (Dumestre 2003: 212)

(23a)

ká

sà!

3SG

SBJV

die

‘Let him die!’

(23b)

kànâ

fɔ́

òlû

sí

yé!

DEM

SBJV.NEG

tell

3PL

none

to

‘This should not be told to any of them!’

(24)

Mandinka

(24a)

kánáa

fùlàñjâŋ!

3SG

SBJV.NEG

happen.a.second.time

‘Let it not happen again!’

(24b)

Fìtíròo

kánáa

tàrá

sàatêe

kónò!

dusk.D

SBJV.NEG

2SG

find

village.D

in

lit. ‘Let the dusk not find you in the village!’ > ‘Come home before dusk!’

3.4. Independent subjunctive clauses with Álá ‘God’ in subject role

65As already indicated, in Manding languages, the strategy of expressing wishes by simply using constructions that normally express commands in contexts that force a purely optative reading is not used with the same freedom as in languages such as English or French. In Manding languages, it is possible to express wishes concerning states of affairs conceived as being beyond the control of the speech act participants by means of independent subjunctive clauses, but in such cases, the possibility of a directive interpretation is normally ruled out by the choice of formulations in which the subject role is not fulfilled by a noun phrase referring to a participant in the state-of-affairs referred to, but by Álá ‘God’, as in (25).

(25)

Bambara (Dumestre 2003: 212)

(25a)

Álá

ká

dùgú

ìn

lá-bìn!

God

SBJV

village

DEM

CAUS-fall

‘May God cause the ruin of this village!’

(25b)

Álá

kànâ

né

bɛ̀n

ní

dɔ̀lɔ̀mìnnà

wɛ́rɛ́

yé

nìn

kɔ́!

God

SBJV.NEG

1SG

meet

with

drunkard

other

with

DEM

after

‘May God prevent me from meeting another drunkard after this one!’

3.5. The subjunctive in independent interrogative clauses

66The subjunctive can be used in independent interrogative clauses with a first person subject (either singular or plural) to express request for confirmation about what the speaker(s) is/are expected to do, or request for clarification about a command or instruction, as in (26).

(26)

Mandinka

(26a)

Ŋ̀

ŋà

álí

dàndáŋ

bǎŋ?

1PL

SBJV

2PL

accompany

Q

‘Should we accompany you?’

(26b)

Ŋ́

ŋà

mú

nè

tábì

lúntáŋò-lú

yè?

1SG

SBJV

what

FOC

cook

guest.D-PL

for

‘What should I cook for the guests?’

67However, with a first person singular subject, depending on the context, such clauses are not necessarily interpreted as true questions calling for a reaction from the addressee, and can also express a deliberative meaning. For example, (26b) can also express ‘I wonder what I could cook for the guests’.

3.6. The exclamative use of independent subjunctive clauses

68Independent subjunctive clauses may also constitute exclamative utterances glossable as ‘How is it possible that ...!’, as in (27).

(27)

Bambara (Vydrin 2017: 80)

Ée!

Màlòkìsɛ̀

dén

kélén

ká

kòlôn

fá

kùn!

INTERJ

grain.of.rice

unit

one

SBJV

mortar.D

fill

1SG

on

‘Hey, how is it possible that a single grain of rice fills my mortar!’

69A plausible explanation of the exclamative use of independent subjunctive clauses is that it developed as an instance of insubordination from the construction described in §2.2.5 above, in which a subjunctive clause occupies a topic position at the left periphery of another clause in which the propositional content denoted by the subjunctive clause is resumed by a pronoun. According to this hypothesis, the exclamative use of subjunctive clauses illustrated in (26) might have resulted from conventionalization of the use of subjunctive clauses in topic position with the main clause left implicit.

4. Other possibilities of expressing commands or wishes by means of simple independent clauses

4.1. The imperative

70All Manding languages have a dedicated imperative construction, at least for commands concerning a single addressee (imperative singular). A dedicated imperative construction is sometimes also found for commands formulated positively that concern two or more addressees, but never for negative commands (or prohibitions) concerning two or more addressees.

71As already mentioned, commands expressed by means of the dedicated imperative construction are perceived by speakers as more categorical than commands conveyed by subjunctive clauses.

72In Manding languages, as illustrated in (28), the distinctive mark of the imperative singular is the lack of an overt subject, plus, in the positive, the lack of an overt predicative marker. In the negative, the predicative marker of the subjunctive negative is also used in the imperative construction.

(28)

Mandinka

(28a)

Wùlôo

fúntí-ndì

búŋò

kónò!

dog.D

go.out-CAUS

room.D

in

‘Chase (sg.) the dog out of the room!’

(28b)

Kánàa

díndíŋò-lú

búsà!

SBJV.NEG

child.D-PL

hit

‘Don’t hit (sg.) the children!’

73In the plural, some Manding languages have a dedicated imperative construction in the positive, but never in the negative. In the imperative plural, the subject slot is occupied by the second person plural pronoun. What distinguishes the imperative plural from the subjunctive with a 2nd person plural subject is that, in the imperative plural, the predicative marker slot is either empty, as in Mandinka (29), or occupied by a special predicative marker, as in Bambara (30).

(29)

Mandinka

Álí

wùlôo

fúntí-ndì

búŋ-ò

kónò!

2PL

dog.D

go.out-CAUS

room-D

in

‘Chase (pl.) the dog out of the room!’

(30)

Bambara

yé

fárá

ná!

2PL

IMP.PL

separate

1SG

POSTP

‘Leave (pl.) me alone!’

74As already observed, the fact that Bambara has a dedicated imperative plural marker yé coinciding with the subjunctive marker found in many other Manding languages supports the hypothesis that the situation currently observed in Bambara results from the (incomplete) replacement of the subjunctive marker yé by an innovative subjunctive marker whose origin is the pan-Manding infinitive marker kà.

75Mandinka also has a special marker àlíŋà whose meaning is that two or more addressees are asked to perform the action denoted by the verb jointly with the speaker. Etymologically, this marker can be decomposed as àlí (irregular tonal form of álí (2PL)) + ŋ̀ (1PL) + ŋà (allomorph of the subjunctive marker in contact with a first person pronoun).

(31)

Mandinka

Àlíŋà

Músáa

dèemá!

IMP.1+2PL

Moussa

help

‘Let’s help Moussa!’

76Another particularity of the Mandinka imperative that does not seem to be found in the other Manding languages is the possibility to express commands in a less categorical way by adding to the imperative construction the particle bǎŋ (32b), otherwise used to convert assertions into yes/no questions (32a).

(32)

Mandinka

(32a)

bé

kùurôo

ké-lá

bǎŋ?

2SG

AdvCOP

washing.D

do-INF

Q

‘Are you going to do the washing?’

(32b)

Kùurôo

ké

bǎŋ!

washing.D

do

Q

‘Please, do the washing!’

77Finally, some Mandinka varieties (for example the Kaabunka variety spoken in the northeastern part of Guinea Bissau) have a suffix ‑nnu marking plurality of addressees that optionally attaches to verbs in the imperative construction. The etymology of this suffix is unclear, and nothing similar has been signaled in the other Manding languages.

(33)

Mandinka (Kaabunka variety)

Màndìŋkà-díndíŋ-ò-lú

kò

“Fúlá-díndíŋ-ò-lú

félé

nǎŋ,

mandinka-child-D-PL

QUOT

fula-child-D-PL

look

VEN

àlíŋà

táa

bǔutèe-nnú!”

IMP.1+2PL

go

3PL

hit-PL

78‘The Mandinka children said: “Here come Fula children, let’s go and hit them!’

4.2. The optative construction

4.2.1. The pan-Manding optative construction

79In all Manding languages, the expression of wishes by means of subjunctive clauses with Álá ‘God’ in subject role (see §3.4) is in competition with a dedicated optative construction that can be schematized as follows:

80Álá ‘God’ – OPT – VPOPT

81The second element of the optative construction is an optative marker found exclusively in this construction, in which it seems to occupy the position occupied by the predicative marker in other types of verbal clauses: Mandinka màa, Kita Maninka mán, Bambara má ~ mà ~ máa, etc.

82The third element of the optative construction is a transitive verb phrase (i.e., a verb obligatorily preceded by an object NP and optionally followed by one or more oblique phrases) in which the verb is marked by the optative suffix ‑la (with variants ‑na in nasal context, and ‑ra in the Manding languages in which r may be the reflex of a former l, such as Bambara).

83(34) Mandinka

Álá

màa

ŋ̀

níŋ

só-lá

sìimàayàa-bâa

nîŋ

God

OPT

1PL

and

2SG

give-OPT

life-large.D

and

jáatákéndéyàa

lá!

health.D

POSTP

84‘May God give you and us long life and health!’

85As illustrated by example (35), to be compared with (34), in Mandinka, the optative suffix ‑la coincides with a suffix ‑la that can be analyzed as an infinitive suffix used for example in the complementation of modal verbs in competition with infinitive kà.

(35)

Mandinka

(35a)

Ŋ́

làfí-tá

só-lá

ŋ́

dímmúsòo

lá.

1SG

want-CPL.ITR

2SG

give-INF

1SG

daughter.D

POSTP

‘I want to give you my daughter.’

(35b)

Ŋ́

làfí-tá

kà

só

ŋ́

dímmúsòo

lá.

1SG

want-CPL.ITR

INF

2SG

give

1SG

daughter.D

POSTP

‘I want to give you my daughter.’

86However, across Manding languages, the suffix that marks verbs in the optative construction does not always coincide with a suffix analyzable in other constructions as in infinitive suffix. For example, in Bambara, the optative suffix has the same allomorphs (‑ra, ‑la and ‑na) as the completive marker in intransitive clauses, but the distribution of the allomorphs of the optative suffix is less regular than that of the allomorphs of the completive suffix (Vydrin 2019b: 104).

87An interesting particularity of the optative construction is that analyzing it as monoclausal requires introducing a rule according to which the optative construction imposes a transitive use of all verbs, regardless of their inherent valency properties, and triggers what can be analyzed as morphologically unmarked causativization of the verbs that are in principle strictly intransitive. For example, analyzing (36) as monoclausal implies considering that, in this construction, Mandinka bálûu ‘live’ is interpreted as ‘let live’, whereas in other contexts, ‘let live’ is normally expressed as bálúndì (where ‑ndi is a causative suffix).

(36)

Mandinka

Álá

màa

díndíŋò

bálùu-lá!

God

OPT

child.D

live-OPT

‘May God let the child live!’

88Of course, in a historical perspective, this particularity of the optative construction can rather be viewed as evidence that it developed from an originally biclausal construction in which the verb in the embedded clause had its normal behavior with respect to valency and transitivity.

89The dedicated optative construction exists only in the positive. Clauses in the subjunctive negative with Álá ‘God’ in subject role, as in (37), are the only possible option for wishes formulated negatively.

(37)

Mandinka

Álà

kánáa

ké

àlìfàa-sòkì-díŋò

tí!

God

SBJV.NEG

3SG

make

elder-contradict-child.D

as

‘May God not let him become a child that doesn’t obey his elders!’

90As regards the etymology of the Manding optative marker, it can be observed that, cross-linguistically, the expression of wishes often involves formulations such as French Dieu fasse que (lit. ‘let God make that’), cf. for example Jóola Fóoñi Emitey ekaan (Emitey ‘God’, ekaan subjunctive of ‑kaan ‘do’). This suggests that the pan-Manding optative marker might well be a reflex of the Mande root *ma ‘do, make’, which is widely attested across the Mande language family but has not subsisted in Manding as a verb. Note, however, that the Maninka varieties of Eastern Senegal have an optative marker mu whose historical relationship with the other forms of this marker is unclear.

4.2.2. A variant of the optative construction

91In Mandinka (but apparently not in the other Manding languages), the optative construction has a variant in which the optative marker is not followed by a verb phrase, but by a subjunctive clause. Although màa is clearly not a verb (at least synchronically), its syntactic status in this variant of the optative construction is comparable to that of the verb of the matrix clause in a complex construction.

(38)

Mandinka

Álá

màa

[díndíŋò

yè

kéndéyâa]!

God

OPT

child.D

SBJV

recover

‘May God grant that the child should recover!’

4.2.3. The grammaticalization of the sequence Álá màa as an optative particle in Mandinka

92Mandinka is to the best of my knowledge the only Manding language in which the phenomenon described in this section is attested, but a similar evolution is found in Jóola Fóoñi, an Atlantic language in close contact with Mandinka (Creissels & Bassène 2022).

93In Mandinka, it is possible to find sentences that seem to instantiate the construction described in §4.2.2, with, however, Álá ‘God’ repeated as the subject of the subjunctive clause.

(39)

Mandinka

Álá

màa

[Álà

yè

ŋ̀

só

sìimàayàa-bâa

lá]!

God

OPT

God

SBJV

1PL

give

life-large.D

POSTP

‘May God give us long life!’

94However, in its literal reading, the construction illustrated in (39) violates a very general constraint on subordinating constructions. Normally, if a term of a subordinate clause is coreferential with the subject of the matrix clause, it cannot be expressed as the repetition of the NP fulfilling the subject role in the matrix clause, as seems to be the case in (39), and can only be expressed as a pronoun, or left unexpressed.

95This suggests that, in a construction that was originally a biclausal construction with Álá as the subject of the matrix clause, the verb of the subordinate clause is being reanalyzed as the nucleus of a monoclausal construction, whereas what was originally the matrix clause is being reanalyzed as an optative particle. In example (39), the repetition of Álá ‘God’ as the subject of the verb denoting the desired state of affairs can only be analyzed consistently by positing that the first occurrence of Álá does not act as a referential expression anymore, and that the sequence Álá màa behaves as a syntactically unanalyzable block acting as an optative particle. In other words, the construction described in §4.2.2 is being reanalyzed as the combination of a subjunctive clause with an optative particle álámàa, and clauses such as (38) and (39) are best analyzed synchronically as indicated in (40).

(40)

Mandinka

(40a)

Álámàa

díndíŋò

yè

kéndéyâa!

OPT

child.D

SBJV

recover

‘May the child recover!’

(40b)

Álámàa

Álà

yè

ŋ̀

só

sìimàayàa-bâa

lá!

OPT

God

SBJV

1PL

give

life-large.D

POSTP

‘May God give us long life!’

4.3. Infinitival phrases as utterances expressing commands or wishes

96In some Manding languages, infinitival phrases can be used as independent interrogative clauses whose function is to check or confirm a command (for example, in Bambara, kà táa, infinitive of táa ‘go’, uttered with an interrogative intonation or combined with an interrogative particle, is interpreted as ‘Should I / we go?’).

97Another use of infinitival phrases as constituting utterances by themselves, attested in Bambara (but not in Mandinka), is the optative use of infinitival phrases, as in (41b). Such utterances are perceived by speakers as the elliptical form of subjunctive clauses such as (41a), with Álá ‘God’ in subject role (see §3.4), which provides further support to the hypothesis of a historical relationship between subjunctive ká and infinitive kà.

(41)

Bambara (Dumestre 2003: 213)

(41a)

Álá

ká

dén

cámán

dí

mà!

God

SBJV

child

many

give

2SG

to

‘May God give you many children!’ (optative use of a subjunctive clause)

(41b)

Kà

dén

cámán

dí

mà!

INF

child

many

give

2SG

to

infinitival phrase used as an optative utterance with the same meaning as (a)

98Example (42) further illustrates this use of infinitival phrases in the formulation of wishes commonly expressed in everyday life.

(42)

Bambara

(42a)

Kà

sû

hɛ́rɛ̂

cáyá!

INF

night.D

happiness.D

increase

‘Good night!’

(42b)

Kà

án

bɛ̀n!

INF

1PL

meet

‘Goodbye!’

(42b)

Kà

sírâ

díyá!

INF

road.D

be.pleasant

‘Have a good trip!’

4.4. Assertive or interrogative clauses interpreted as suggesting a request

99Indirect commands by means of assertive or interrogative clauses interpreted in a given context as suggesting a request are very common in the world’s languages, and Manding languages are no exception. Language etiquette is a crucial aspect of social interaction in Manding societies, and Manding speakers tend in particular to develop more or less conventionalized strategies for avoiding formulations that may be perceived as rude, such as negative answers or direct commands.

4.4.1. The directive use of interrogative clauses in the future negative

100In Manding languages, the use of interrogative clauses in the future negative with a second person subject constitutes a very common politeness strategy for suggesting a request to an addressee with whom an explicit formulation of the request could be considered inappropriate.

(43)

Bambara

tɛ́nà

ká

nɛ̀gɛ̀sô

síngá

mà?

2SG

FUT.NEG

2SG

GEN

bicycle.D

lend

1SG

to

‘Won’t you lend me your bicycle?’ > ‘Please, lend me your bicycle!’

4.4.2. The directive use of the potential construction of Mandinka

101Mandinka has a potential predicative marker sì ~ sè which has no exact equivalent in the other Manding languages. Not surprisingly, the potential clauses of Mandinka can often be translated by future clauses in the other Manding languages, since in the languages that do not have a dedicated potential marker, it is not uncommon that potentiality is expressed by TAM forms whose primary function is the expression of future (see for example Vydrin (2019a) on Guinean Maninka di). However, in Mandinka, potential sì ~ sè contrasts with the dedicated future construction bé ...‑lá, and is consequently more clearly anchored in the modal domain than the future constructions that may constitute its translational equivalents in other languages. Example (44) illustrates the basic modal meaning of this sì ~ sè in Mandinka. For more details on sì ~ sè, readers are referred to Creissels & Sambou (2013: 76–80).

(44)

Mandinka

Níŋ

yé

wǒo

dómò,

sì

kónòo

dímîŋ.

if

2SG

CPL.TR

DEM

eat

3SG

POT

2SG

belly.D

hurt

‘If you eat this, it might cause tummy aches to you.’

102What concerns us here is that potential clauses with second person subjects are commonly used as a polite way of expressing commands. Commands formulated by means of potential clauses are presented as if they were rather proposals, advices or suggestions, as in (45).

(45)

Mandinka

sí

jèe-môo-lú

sàláamú

ŋ́

ñè.

2SG

POT

there-person.D-PL

greet

1SG

for

103‘You might greet the people there for me.’

104> ‘Please, greet the people there for me!’

4.4.3. The directive use of assertive clauses with future or incompletive predicative markers

105It is cross-linguistically common that TAM forms or constructions whose basic meaning can be defined as future or incompletive are used to express commands, and this phenomenon is attested in Manding languages too, as observed by Vydrin (2019b: 91, 95).

5. Conclusion

106In this article, I have described the coding of directive speech acts and wishes in Manding languages within the frame of monoclausal constructions. In Manding languages, the subjunctive plays a prominent role in the expression of commands and wishes, in competition, however, with dedicated imperative and optative constructions. The main conclusions are as follows:

107– In Manding languages, dedicated imperative constructions are never obligatory, in the sense that direct commands can always be expressed by means of subjunctive clauses with a 2nd person subject, and when a dedicated imperative construction is also available, it is perceived as relatively rude in comparison with the subjunctive.

108– As regards the expression of wishes, an interesting particularity of Manding languages is that, even if they do not involve specific optative marking, the clauses expressing wishes (be they ordinary wishes in everyday life, of blessings as uttered in highly ritualized contexts) tend to be explicitly distinguished from clauses expressing directive speech acts by the systematic use of formulations with Álá ‘God’ in subject role.

109– Mandinka has a variant of the pan-Manding dedicated optative construction in which the desired state-of-affairs is encoded as a subjunctive clause, but in this variant of the optative construction, the sequence Álá màa (where màa is the optative marker) is being reanalyzed as an optative particle.

Abbreviations

110AdvCOP adverbial copula

111CAUS causative

112CPL completive

113D default determiner

114DEM demonstrative

115FOC focus marker

116FUT future

117GEN genitive

118ICPL incompletive

119IMP imperative

120INF infinitive

121INTERJ interjection

122ITR intransitive

123NEG negative

124NegCOP negative copula

125NomCOP nominal copula

126OBLG obligative

127OPT optative

128PL plural

129POSTP postposition

130POT potential

131Q interrogative particle

132QUOT quotative

133REL relativizer

134SBJV subjunctive

135SG singular

136TR transitive

137VEN venitive

138VP verb phrase

Haut de page

Bibliographie

References

Braconnier, Cassian. 1991. Elements de syntaxe du verbe en dioula d’Odienne. Mandenkan 21. 1–140.

Creissels, Denis. 1982. Notes d’enquete sur le système tonal du maukakan (parler Manding du Maou). Cahiers Ivoiriens de Recherche Linguistique 11. 77–100.

Creissels, Denis. 1984. Le système des marques prédicatives en korokan. Mandenkan 7. 15–25.

Creissels, Denis. 1986. Le système prédicatif du kagoro. Mandenkan 11. 1–16.

Creissels, Denis. 1988. Elements de phonologie du koyaga de Mankono (Côte d’Ivoire). Mandenkan 16. 1–159.

Creissels, Denis. 2009. Le malinké de Kita (Mande languages and linguistics 9). Rüdiger Köppe Verlag. Köln.

Creissels, Denis. 2013. Le maninka du Niokolo (Sénégal oriental), esquisse phonologique et morphosyntaxique, liste lexicale, textes glosés. Mandenkan 49. 1–218.

Creissels, Denis & Alain Christian Bassène. 2022. The emergence of an optative marker in Jóola Fóoñi (Atlantic). Syntaxe & Sémantique 22(1). 101–119.

Creissels, Denis & Séckou Biaye. 2016. Le balant ganja : phonologie, morphosyntaxe, liste lexicale, textes. Dakar: INFAN, Université Cheikh Anta Diop.

Creissels, Denis & Pierre Sambou. 2013. Le mandinka. Phonologie, grammaire, textes. Paris: Karthala.

Dumestre, Gérard. 2003. Grammaire fondamentale du bambara. Paris: Karthala.

Dumestre, Gérard. 2011. Dictionnaire bambara-français suivi d’un index abrégé français-bambara. Karthala. Paris.

Heydorn, Richard W. 1943. Das Manya, ein in Liberia gesprochener Mandingodialekt. Teil 1. Zeitschrift für Eingeborenensprachen XXXIV. 25–53.

Heydorn, Richard W. 1949. Das Manya, ein in Liberia gesprochener Mandingodialekt. Teil 2. Zeitschrift für Eingeborenensprachen XXXV. 47–66.

Idiatov, Dmitry. 2020. Perfective marking conditioned by transitivity status in Western Mande: constructional competition, specialization and merger. Diachronica 37(1). 43–82.

Kissine, Mikhail. 2013. From utterances to speech acts. Cambridge University Press.

Koité-Herschel, Ute. 1981. Le xàsonga (Mali) : phonologie, morphosyntaxe, lexique xàsonga–français et textes. Grénoble: Universtité de Grenoble Thèse pour le doctorat de 3e cycle.

Kuteva, Tania, Bernd Heine, Bo Hong, Haiping Long, Heiko Narrog & Seongha Rhee. 2019. World Lexicon of Grammaticalization. 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Prost, André. 1977. Petite grammarie marka (Région de Zaba). Dédougou: Diocèse de Nouna.

Sangaré, Aby. 1984. Dioula de Kong (Côte d’Ivoire): phonologie, grammaire, lexique et textes. Grenoble: Université de Grenoble III Thèse de 3ème cycle.

Togola, Naby. 1984. Le parler bambara du Baninko. Grenoble: Université de Grenoble III Thèse de 3ème cycle.

Vydrin, Valentin. 2014. Infinitiv v jazyke bamana (Инфинитив в языке бамана) [Infinitive in Bamana]. In Mikhail Daniel, Ekaterina Ljutikova, Vladimir Plungian, Sergej Tatevosov & Olga Fedorova (eds.), Jazyk. Konstanty. Peremennyje. Pam’ati Aleksandra Jevgenjevicha Kibrika (Язык. Константы. Переменные. Памяти Александра Евгеньевича Кибрика) [Language. Constants. Variables. In memoria Alexandre Kibrik], 653–676. St. Petersburg: Aleteia.

Vydrin, Valentin. 2017. Bamana jazyk (Бамана язык) [Bamana]. In Valentin Vydrine, Yulia Mazurova, Andrej Kibrik & Elena Markus (eds.), Jazyki mira: Jazyki mande (Языки мира: Языки манде) [Languages of the world: Mande languages], 46–143. St. Petersburg: Nestor-Historia.

Vydrin, Valentin. 2019a. Futural’no-prospektivnyje konstruktsii v gvinejskom maninka (Футурально-проспективные конструкции в гвинейском манинка) [Future and prospective constructions in Guinean Maninka]. Voporsy jazykoznanija (5). 73–100.

Vydrin, Valentin. 2019b. Cours de grammaire bambara. Paris: Presses de l’INALCO.

Vydrin, Valentin. 2020. Clause chaining in Bambara. In Nina Pawlak & Izabela Will (eds.), West African languages: Linguistic theory and communication, 79–98. Warsaw: University of Warsaw. https://www.wuw.pl/product-eng-13512-West-African-languages-Linguistic-theory-and-communication-EBOOK.html?query_id=2. (2 April, 2021).

Vydrine, Valentin. 2001. Esquisse contrastive du kagoro (Manding) (Mande languages and linguistics 4). Köln: Rüdiger Köppe.

Zoungarana, Ambroise. 1987. Esquisse phonologique et grammaticale du bolon (Burkina-Faso) - contribution à la dialectologie mandé. Paris: Sorbonne Nouvelle (Paris III) Thèse de 3ème cycle.

Haut de page

Notes

1 See however Kissine (2013: 104–106) for an alternative approach, according to which directive speech acts are best defined as “reasons to act”.

2 The other Manding varieties that have been considered for this study and the sources that have been used are as follows: Baninko Bambara: (Togola 1984); Bolon: (Zoungarana 1987); Kong Jula: (Sangaré 1984); Odienné Jula: (Braconnier 1991); Kagoro: (Creissels 1986; Vydrine 2001); Koro: (Creissels 1984); Koyaga: (Creissels 1988); Kita Maninka: (Creissels 2009); Niokolo Maninka: (Creissels 2013); Guinean Maninka: (Vydrin 2019a); Manya: Heydorn (Heydorn 1943; Heydorn 1949); Marka: (Prost 1977); Mauka: (Creissels 1982); Xasonka: (Koité-Herschel 1981).

3 For example, Mandinka has an incompletive predicative marker kà distinct from the adverbial copula bé, used mainly in habitual contexts, which has no exact equivalent in most other Manding languages.

4 Idiatov (2020) analyzes YA and YE as belonging to one cognate set. However, the decision on this point has no impact on the remainder of the discussion.

5 Readers are referred to Dumestre’s (2003) Bambara grammar (chapter 14) and Vydrin’s (2019b) handbook of Bambara grammar (chapter 33) for detailed descriptions of the uses of the -infinitive in a Manding variety in which the -infinitive has a particularly broad range of uses. Vydrin (2020) elaborates a diachronic hypothesis accounting for some apparent oddities in the behavior of the infinitive in clause-chaining.

6 An in-depth analysis of this construction in Bambara is provided by Vydrin (2020).

7 A particular clear case is that of the future predicative marker of Bambara ná, whose obvious etymology is the verb nà ‘come’.

8 Note that, in Kita Maninka, is not found in copula function, and is used exclusively in verbal predication with a future meaning (Creissels 2009: 52), hence the gloss FUT rather than ICPL or AdvCOP.

9 In the Bambara examples that do not come from my personal documentation, the tonal notation has been adapted to the system I use for my own examples.

10 In this particular example, an apprehensive reading is possible: ‘Be careful, you might poke a hole in the ball!’.

11 For Balant Ganja, cf. Creissels &Biaye (2016: 273–274); for Jóola Fóoñi, see Creissels & Bassène (2022).

Haut de page

Pour citer cet article

Référence papier

Denis Creissels, « Directive and optative clauses in Manding languages »Mandenkan, 69 | 2023, 3-29.

Référence électronique

Denis Creissels, « Directive and optative clauses in Manding languages »Mandenkan [En ligne], 69 | 2023, mis en ligne le 18 mai 2023, consulté le 09 février 2025. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/mandenkan/2954 ; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/mandenkan.2954

Haut de page

Auteur

Denis Creissels

Université Lumière (Lyon 2), denis.creissels@univ-lyon2.fr, http://deniscreissels.fr

Articles du même auteur

Haut de page

Droits d’auteur

CC-BY-NC-SA-4.0

Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence CC BY-NC-SA 4.0. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.

Haut de page
Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search