Author manuscript, published in "The Buckingham Journal of Language and Linguistics 2, 1 (2009) 1-19"

1 Two types of temporal when clauses in Hausa 1 By Mahamane L. Abdoulaye Abdou Moumouni University, Niamey and Usmanu Danfodiyo University Sokoto

Abstract: Hausa has sim le tem oral !lauses, introdu!ed by the !on"un!tion d #$hen%, that many resear!hers derive from tem oral relative !lauses introdu!ed by lookcin d #time that%, throu&h the deletion of the seudo head $ord lookcii #time%. 'his a er sho$s that this analysis, ho$ever natural it may a ear, is inade(uate. hal-00567638, version 1 - 21 Feb 2011 )ndeed, the t$o tem oral !lauses have different uses, $hi!h $ould not be sur risin& if sim le tem oral !lauses are derivationally inde endent from tem oral relative !lauses, as ro osed in this a er. 1. Introduction 'here are in Hausa t$o ty es of tem oral when !lauses. 'he first ty e has the stru!ture of relative !lauses $hile the se!ond ty e sho$s no immediate !onne!tion to relative !lauses. 'he t$o ty es of tem oral !lauses are illustrated in the follo$in&* +1, a. Sun kaawoo ma-n zyaaRa lookci-n d to01. visit time0D1 mu-ke kalacii. meal

-../.L brin&

that 1.02)

#'hey visited us $hen $e $ere havin& a meal.%

Hausa +/hadi!, is s oken mainly in Ni&er and Ni&eria. Most data in this a er are made u e3am le senten!es the

&rammati!ality of $hi!h has been !he!ked $ith s eakers of 4atsinan!i diale!t and Standard Hausa. Some of the data are e3am les ada ted from revious ubli!ations, as indi!ated sometimes in the te3t. Still other e3am les are ada ted from naturally o!!urrin& utteran!es !olle!ted by the author. 'he trans!ri tion follo$s the Hausa standard ortho&ra hy $ith some !han&es. Lon& vo$els are re resented as double letters, lo$ tone as &rave a!!ent, and fallin& tone as !ir!umfle3 a!!ent. Hi&h tone is unmarked. Small !a itals 5 B, D, 46 re resent &lottali7ed8laryn&eali7ed !onsonants, and 526 re resents an alveolar trill distin!t from a fla 9r:. ;ritten 5f6 is ronoun!ed 9h: +or 9h $: before 9a:, in 4atsinan!i and other $estern diale!ts. 'he abbreviations are* 1, <, - #1st, <nd, -rd . # lural%= 2) #relative im erfe!tive%= 2. #relative erson%= !o . #!o ula%= /.L #!om letive%= D1 #definite%= 1 #feminine%= 1U' #future%= im #im ersonal%= ).> #im erfe!tive%= M #mas!uline%= erfe!tive%= S #sin&ular%= SUB #sub"un!tive%. ) thank t$o anonymous referees for their !o&ent remarks on this a er.

< b. Sun kaawoo ma-n zyaaRa to01. visit d mu-na kalacii. meal

-../.L brin&

$hen 1.0).>

#'hey visited us $hen $e $ere havin& a meal.% 'he tem oral !lause in +1a, is stru!turally a relative !onstru!tion $here the relative !lause introdu!ed by d seems to modify the a arent head $ord lookcii #time, moment, eriod%. Sometimes, instead of lookcii, an alternative $ord may a ear su!h as saa, sadii, yayii, et!., all meanin& #time, moment, et!.% )n +1b, by !ontrast, the tem oral !lause is introdu!ed by the arti!le d alone $hi!h is here translated as #$hen%. 1urthermore, the t$o tem oral !lauses differ in the fa!t that the tem oral relative !lause !an o tionally take the ?relative markin&@, i.e., alternate forms of the erfe!tive and im erfe!tive that a ear in relative !lauses and out0of0fo!us hal-00567638, version 1 - 21 Feb 2011 !lauses of fo!us and wh (uestion !onstru!tions +see amon& others Bearth 1AA-= Hyman and ;atters 1ABC= S!ha!hter 1AD-,. 1or this reason, the tem oral relative !lause in +1a, has the relative im erfe!tive mu-ke #1.02)% !ontrastin& $ith the re&ular im erfe!tive mu-na #1.0).>% found in the sim le tem oral !lause in +1b,. < Nearly all des!ri tions of Hausa tem oral !lauses !laim or assume that tem oral relative !lauses, es e!ially the ones headed by the $ord lookcii #time%, are the sour!e of sim le tem oral !lauses introdu!ed by d. 'he derivation $ould involve the deletion of the $ord lookcii #time% or its e(uivalents +!f. Ba&ari 1ADE8BD* 11D= Fa&&ar <GG1* E<C= Ne$man <GGG* HHE= 'uller 1ABE* 11-,. )n fa!t, for most authors +!f. Fa&&ar <GG1* E<C, E<A,, the lookcii tem oral relative
<

'he !om lete aradi&ms of the !om letive, the relative erfe!tive, the re&ular and relative im erfe!tive are &iven in +i, 2e&ular and relative im erfe!tive and erfe!tive )m erfe!tive +all diale!ts, 1S <MS <1S -MS -1S 1. <. -. one ina kana kina yana J shina tana muna kuna suna ana 2elative )m erf. others 8 $est nike/ nik kake/ kak kike/ kik yake = shike/ shik take/ tak muke/ muk kuke/ kuk suke/ suk ake/ ak /om lItive +all diale!ts, naa kaa kin yaa taa mun kun sun an 2elative .erfe!tive others 8 $est na/ niC ka/ kaC kik/ kink =kiC ya/ yaC ta/ taC muk/ munk kuk/ kunk suk/ sunk ak/ ank

the follo$in& table for referen!es +for the other 'AM aradi&ms, see Ne$man <GGG* HEC,*

!lause derives a $hole series of tem oral !lauses introdu!ed by hrasal subordinators involvin& the arti!le d, su!h as* (lookcin) d #+time, $hen%, sai (lookcin) d #till +time, $hen%, tun (lookcin) d #sin!e +time, $hen%, et!. 'he !laim that tem oral relative !lauses are the sour!e of sim le tem oral !lauses is usually based on e3am les $here the $ord lookcii #time% seems o tional, as illustrated ne3t +!f. also Ba&ari 1ADE8BD* 11D= ;atters <GGG* <<-,* +<, a. Naa san !d" (lookci-n) d ya-na yaa#$o.

1s./.L kno$ Abdu time0D1

DA -MS0).> !hild

#) kno$ Abdu +at the time, $hen he $as a !hild.% b. %&a#aa sun 'a sa#kii (lookci-n) d time0D1 su-k sh'a '#ii.

!hildren - ./.L see emir hal-00567638, version 1 - 21 Feb 2011

DA -.02. enter to$n

#'he !hildren sa$ the emir $hen they entered +i.e., visited, the to$n.% #'he !hildren sa$ the emir $hen they $ere enterin& the to$n.% )n the senten!es in +<,, the resen!e or absen!e of the $ord lookcii #time% has no !onse(uen!e on the meanin& of the senten!es. )n +<b, for e3am le, $ith or $ithout lookcii, there is an ambi&uity bet$een the inter retations #the !hildren sa$ the emir at the e3a!t moment $hen they entered the to$n% and #the !hildren sa$ the emir $hen they $ere visitin& the to$n%. )t thus seems !om letely natural to derive the sim le tem oral !lause from the more !om le3 tem oral relative !lauses throu&h the deletion of the $ord lookcii. )n fa!t, this ro!ess is thou&ht to be &eneral and, a!!ordin& to ;ald +1ABD* HGAnH,, many ;est Afri!an lan&ua&es !ommonly use a relative !on"un!tion +su!h as d in Hausa, as a !on"un!tion introdu!in& tem oral when !lauses. 'he aim of this a er is to sho$ that the assum tion of a systemati! derivation of sim le tem oral !lauses from tem oral relative !lauses !annot be maintained $hen one !losely e3amines the uses of the t$o ty es of !lauses. 'he a er also resents an alternative a!!ount of the ori&in of the sim le tem oral !lauses and the tem oral relative !lauses. 'he a er uses &rammati!ali7ation theory as a &eneral frame$ork. Normally, a &rammati!ali7ation ro!ess, in a s e!ifi! !onte3t, turns a le3i!al or derivational item into a &rammati!al marker, or a &rammati!al marker be!omes more &rammati!al +!f. for e3am le
-

'his seudo head deletion ro!ess is a!tually thou&ht by some $riters to a ly to all adverbial relative !lauses. 1or

e3am le, 2eineke +1AAB* 1G-, re orts that in Ditammari +and other Kur lan&ua&es,, lo!ative and manner adverbial !lauses are headless relative !lauses that ho$ever in!or orate noun !lass markers !om atible $ith, res e!tively, the le3emes meanin& # la!e% and #manner%. Ho$ever, in the t$o Kur lan&ua&es des!ribed by 2eineke +Ditammari and Biali,, the head $ords meanin& #time% are not deleted in tem oral relative !lauses.

C Ho er and 'rau&ott 1AA-* <,. )n this ro!ess, the ori&inal le3i!al item be!omes ro&ressively eroded, both at the honolo&i!al and semanti! levels. Ho$ever, there is another ro!ess that also falls under the domain of &rammati!ali7ation, $here an entire !onstru!tion under&oes e3 ansion in ne$ !onte3ts and8or a!(uires ne$ fun!tions $hile be!omin& synta!ti!ally more inte&rated and less fle3ible. 'his ty e of &rammati!ali7ation has been dis!ussed in, amon& others, KivLn +1AAG* EH1,= KMldemann +<GG-* 1B-,= Heine and 2eh +1AB-* -C,= Himmelmann +1AAD,= and Ho er and 'rau&ott +1AA-* 1EDff,. )n this a er, $e $ill see both ty es of !han&es. )ndeed, sim le tem oral !lauses stem from the &rammati!ali7ation of the d, $hi!h evolved from an e3istential redi!ate, throu&h a !omitative and instrumental marker, to a tem oral !on"un!tion. 'em oral relative !lauses on the other hand are derived from ty i!al head modifyin& relative !lauses and have a fro7en stru!ture !hara!teristi! of &rammati!ali7ed !onstru!tions. hal-00567638, version 1 - 21 Feb 2011 'he a er is stru!tured as follo$s. Se!tion < resents the semanti! differen!e bet$een the t$o ty es of tem oral !lauses as $ell as their intera!tions $ith the tenses8as e!ts8modes +'AM,. Se!tion - resents t$o se arate develo ment s!enarios for the tem oral relative !lauses and the sim le tem oral !lauses. 2. Differences between simple temporal clauses and temporal relative clauses 'his se!tion sho$s that the t$o ty es of !lauses differ $ith re&ard to their use in $ays that may not be a!!ommodated in the frame$ork of the lookcii deletion analysis. )ndeed, the t$o ty es of tem oral !lauses do not e3 ress the same ran&e of tem oral when relations and behave differently $ith re&ard to the tense8as e!t aradi&ms. 2.1 Semantic differences between the two types of temporal clauses )n the &eneral lin&uisti! literature +!f. Mi!haelis <GGE, >la!h 1AB1, there are essentially t$o ty es of tem oral relations bet$een the event in a tem oral when !lause and the event in its main !lause. 2e&ardin& Nn&lish for e3am le, >la!h +1AB1, !onsiders that the relation is overla in& $hen one of the situation refers to a state +i.e., $hen the event is durative,. By !ontrast, the relation is !onse!utive $hen both events in the subordinate and main !lause are non durative. 'he overla in& relation is $ell illustrated for both ty es of Hausa tem oral !lauses, as seen in e3am les +10<,, $here the un!tual arrival event may ha en at any oint durin& the eatin& a!tivity. Another ty e of overla in&, one may !all minimal overla in&, may obtain bet$een t$o events, as illustrated in the follo$in&*

H +-, ((ookci-n) d time0D1 ya diRoo) sai then ya ka#

*a+a

DA -MS.2. "um

-MS.2. break le&

#;hen he "um ed, he broke his le&.% )n senten!e +-,, the event in the tem oral !lause is durative. 'he un!tual event of breakin& the le& !an only ha en, normally, at the end of the "um in& ro!ess. One notes that this relation is ossible for both sim le tem oral !lauses and tem oral relative !lauses, as sho$n by the o tionality of the $ord lookcii #time%. 'he !onse!utive relation $ith t$o un!tual events !an be illustrated for Hausa as in the follo$in&* +C, ((ookci-n) d time0D1 hal-00567638, version 1 - 21 Feb 2011 su-k zoo) sai mu-k t+i.

DA -.02. !ome then

1.02. leave

#;hen 9on!e: they arrived, $e then left.% )n this e3am le, the events of arrivin& and leavin& are both un!tual and have a !onse!utive relation. A&ain, this se(uential inter retation is ossible for both sim le tem oral !lauses and tem oral relative !lauses, as sho$n by the o tionality of the $ord lookcii #time%. 'he various ty es of tem oral when relations seen so far bet$een the subordinate and the main !lause event !an be dia&rammed as in the follo$in&* +H, 1ull8 artial overla in& 00 minimal overla in& 00 normal !onse!ution

As illustrated in the dis!ussed e3am les, both ty es of tem oral !lauses !an e3 ress all three relations in +H, and, otentially, other ty es of relations. Ho$ever, there is one ty e of !onse!utive when relation that !an be e3 ressed only by sim le tem oral !lauses. )n this tem oral relation, the !lose se(uen!in& of the events is stressed or arti!ularly e3 li!it. 'he stressin& of the !lose se(uen!e relation is illustrated ne3t* +E, *oo (,lookci-n) d even time0D1 su-k zoo) sai mu-k t+i.

DA -.02. !ome then 1.02. leave

#As soon as they arrived, $e left.% Senten!e +E, is almost the same as senten!e +C,, e3!e t for the arti!le koo #even%. )n +C,, the !loseness of the !onse!utive relation is not stressed and !an be e3 ressed by both ty es of tem oral !lauses, as indi!ated. )n +E,, the senten!e is introdu!ed by koo #even%, $hi!h is an em hati! arti!le +!f. 4Pni& 1AA1,, stressin& the !lose se(uen!in& of the events. One notes that in

E this !ase, the $ord lookcii is not ossible. Another !ase of e3 li!it !lose se(uen!in& is illustrated ne3t* +D, -a tm!yi Saanii. (,(ookci-n) d Sani time0D1 ya !aa t) sai ta t+i.

-1S.2. ask

DA -MS.2. &ive -1S then -1S.2. &o

#She asked Sani 9for somethin&:. ;hen he &ave 9it to: her, she $ent.% )n +D,, $hi!h !ould be a ie!e of narrative, the !lose !onse!utive relation is e3 li!it, i.e., in the !onte3t of askin&, the $oman left as soon as she $as &iven somethin&. Here too, the $ord lookcii is not ossible. 'he narrative !onte3t in fa!t rovides a further illustration of a !lose !onse!utive relation that e3!ludes the tem oral relative !lauses. 'his is seen in the follo$in&* +B, hal-00567638, version 1 - 21 Feb 2011 Su-k +ta. -.02. &o.out (,(ookci-n) d time0D1 su-k +ta) sai ta #u+
*oo+a.

DA -.02. &o.out

then -1S.2. !lose door

#'hey then left. On!e they e3ited, she then !losed the door.% Narratives, by definition, relate events that are se(uen!ed and sin&le o!!urren!e +Adam 1AAC* A<01GH,, ty i!ally in !lose su!!ession. )n Hausa, a fre(uent narrative te!hni(ue is to re eat a revious event in a tem oral !lause, before !hainin& u $ith the ne3t event. )n +B,, the event of &ettin& out is resented. 'hen the same event is re eated in the subordinate !lause and linked $ith the ne3t ne$ event. 'his re etition in fa!t stresses the !lose !onne!tedness of the events, as sho$n in the translation. One notes that here, too, the $ord lookcii is not ossible. )n fa!t, the re eated event !an e3 li!itly be introdu!ed by !aayan #after% or a hybrid !on"un!tion !aayan d #after that8$hen%, instead of d alone. 'his is illustrated in the follo$in&* +A, a. Su-k +ta. /aayan after #u+ (,(ookci-n) d time0D1
*oo+a.

su-k

+ta,

-.02. &o.out sai ta

DA -.02. &o.out

then -1S.2.

!lose door

#'hey then left. After they e3ited, she then !losed the door.% b. Su-k +ta. /aaya-n sun after +ta) sai ta #u+
*oo+a.

-.02. &o.out

-../.L &o.out

then -1S.2.

!lose door

#'hey then left. After they e3ited, she then !losed the door.%

D )n +Aa,, the first event of the assa&e is re eated and introdu!ed by !aayan d #after that8$hen% and lookcii !annot be used. /aayan is a re osition and !on"un!tion meanin& #behind, after, beside% +!f. !aayan icce #behind the tree%, !aayan sallh #after the festival%,. As seen in +Ab,, !aayan !an a ear alone and mark the !lose se(uen!e relation. C Be!ause of this ability of sim le tem oral !lauses to mark !lose !onse!utive events, they usually have, &iven the a ro riate !onte3t, more !ausal im li!ation than tem oral relative !lauses. 'his is illustrated in the follo$in&* +1G, a. (ookci-n d time0D1 su-na +a0a nee "!&-n naa-s" ya +itoo.

that - 0).> fi&ht

!o . father0D1 of.-.

-MS.2. !ome.out

#)t is +at the time, $hen they $ere fi&htin& that their father !ame out.% hal-00567638, version 1 - 21 Feb 2011 b. 0 su-na +a0a nee "!&-n fi&ht naa-s" ya +itoo.

$hen - 0).>

!o . father0D1 of.-.

-MS.2. !ome.out

#)t is $hen8be!ause they $ere fi&htin& that their father !ame out.% ;hen asked to !ontrast the senten!es in +1G,, most Hausa s eakers inter ret +1Ga, as im lyin& that the father !ame out inadvertently to find the fi&htin& &oin& on $hile +1Gb, is taken to im ly that the father !ame out on ur ose +say u on hearin& that a fi&ht is &oin& on,. )t should be noted that both !lauses rimarily have a tem oral fun!tion and, $ith some main verbs, may or may not have a !ausal im li!ation. 1or e3am le if the verb +itoo #!ome out% is re la!ed by zoo #!ome%, then both +1Ga0b, $ould have a sim le !ontin&en!y readin& +that is, if the father !ame from $ork or from some$here not kno$in& about the fi&ht,. /onversely, if, instead of a father !omin& out, the main !lause des!ribes the oli!e makin& arrest, then both tem oral !lauses $ould in this !onte3t naturally &et the !ausal im li!ation +that is, the fi&hters $ere arrested be!ause of their fi&htin&,. 'his means that the inter retations are !onte3t0de endent.
C

'here are nonetheless some differen!es bet$een a hybrid tem oral !aayan d #after that8$hen% illustrated in +Aa,

and a tem oral !aayan #after% !lause illustrated in +Ab,. 1or e3am le, the sim le !aayan !lause allo$s a more or less e3tended time bet$een the t$o events. By !ontrast, the hybrid !aayan d !lause ty i!ally im lies a relatively short time bet$een the t$o events. Besides koo #even% and !aayan, the !on"un!tion d !ombines $ith other arti!les, su!h as tun #sin!e%, sai #only, then%, to e3 ress a !lose !onse!ution bet$een events +usually $ith an im lied !ausal relation,. )t may also be noted, as an anonymous referee sus e!ted, that !aayan !an a ear before a referential lookcii +Q a relative !lause, as in ai wnnan !aayan lookcin d suk ci !inci ne #oh, that $as after the time $hen they ate%, or in !aayan lookcin d suk ci !inci) naa kuma 'anee s" d *a#+e takws #besides the time $hen they ate, ) also sa$ them at B o%!lo!k%, $here the events are unordered.

B 'o summari7e, sim le tem oral !lauses and tem oral relative !lauses do not have the same uses. )n the lookcii deletion analysis, $hi!h derives sim le tem oral !lauses from tem oral relative !lauses, this differen!e in use $ill have to be e3 lained in one $ay or another. By !ontrast, if the t$o !lauses develo ed inde endently +!f. Se!tion -,, then one !an e3 e!t them to have different ro erties. Ne3t $e see some further differen!es bet$een the t$o !lauses. 2.2 Tense aspect mode paradi!ms and their interpretation in the two temporal clauses 'his subse!tion e3 lores the tense8as e!t aradi&ms that !an a ear in sim le tem oral !lauses and in tem oral relative !lauses, as $ell as the tem oral inter retations of the aradi&ms +i.e., $hether they !an refer to ast or future events,. 'able 1 resents the tense8as e!t ossibilities $ith tem oral lookcin d relative !lauses. hal-00567638, version 1 - 21 Feb 2011 'able 1* 'AM aradi&ms and their inter retations in tem oral relative !lauses +$ith - rd erson lural su0 and verb +ta #&o out%, .ast referen!e )m erf.* lookcin d suna +taa 2el. )m .* lookcin d suke +taa 2el. .erf.* lookcin d suk +ta 1ut. )* lookcin d zaa s" +ta Nventual* lookcin d suka +ta +one0time event, Res Res Res Res Res 1uture referen!e +one0time event, Res Res Res Res Res

1ormally, standard Hausa has ten affirmative 'AM aradi&ms +in!ludin& the im erative= the e3a!t number may vary de endin& on the diale!t= !f. also Abdoulaye <GGBa, but 'able 1 sho$s that only five of them !an a ear in tem oral relative !lauses* the re&ular im erfe!tive, the relative im erfe!tive, the relative erfe!tive, the future ), and the eventual. 'em oral relative !lauses !annot take the habitual, the future )), the sub"un!tive, et!. )t should be noted that a relative !lause !ontainin& the habitual as e!t !an modify the $ord lookcii, #time%, but in this !ase the $ord lookcii re!eives a referential inter retation only +i.e., the !lause $ould not have an adverbial use= !f. lookcin d sukn +ta #the time8moment $hen they usually &o out%,. Also, only !lauses des!ribin& one0time events are !onsidered in 'able 1 sin!e they allo$ the adverbial use, $hile !lauses $ith re!urrent events $ould tend to have a referential lookcii head. )t may also be noted that a tem oral relative !lause takes the re&ular or the relative im erfe!tive $ith the same meanin&, as indi!ated in the introdu!tory se!tion +!f. also Abraham 1AHA* 1E-, Fa&&ar <GG1* H-1,.

A 'he se!ond si&nifi!ant as e!t of 'able 1 is that all admissible tense8as e!t aradi&ms !an refer to the ast or the future, &iven an a ro riate !onte3t +as determined by the main !lause,. 'his is illustrated in the follo$in& for the relative erfe!tive* +11, a. (ookci-n d time0D1 !a*ii su-k zoo) an !aa s" ta!a#maa.

that visitors -.02. !ome im ./.L &ive -. mat

#;hen the visitors !ame, they $ere &iven a mat.% b. (ookci-n d time0D1 !a*ii su-k zoo) sai !aa s" ta!a#maa.

that visitors -.02. !ome then im .SUB &ive -. mat

#;hen the visitors !ome, they should be &iven a mat.% Hausa is a redominantly as e!tual lan&ua&e so that most 'AM aradi&ms !an be used to refer to hal-00567638, version 1 - 21 Feb 2011 ast and future events. )n +11a,, the relative erfe!tive su-k #-.02.% has a ast inter retation in a narrative0like !onte3t, $hile in +11b,, the same 'AM marker has a future inter retation in a !onte3t $here the hearer is &iven some instru!tion !on!ernin& a future situation. H
H

2e&ular relative !lauses may fail to take both the relative erfe!tive and the relative im erfe!tive, in !ontrast to

tem oral relative !lauses, $here the relative erfe!tive is obli&atory. Some e3am les of relative !lauses $ith the !om letive or the &eneral im erfe!tive are resented in the follo$in&* +i, a. m"tun-n man0D1 1d that koo $hether yaa mut" koo or ya-na d #&i llaah" walam2 -MS0have life only Kod kno$s -MS./.L die

#the man 9$ho only Kod kno$s $hether he is dead or alive:% b. *an$o) !iRnii 4ano !ity wand d&a maa $hi!h in any !ase ya-na d mahimmanci 3ausa -MS0have im ortan!e in Hausa

#4ano, a !ity $hi!h in any !ase has a &reat si&nifi!an!e in Hausaland% )n +ia,, the restri!tive relative !lause !arries information that is marked as un!ertain $ith the !on"un!tion koo #$hether%. As !an be seen, the t$o embedded !lauses !arry the !om letive and the &eneral im erfe!tive. 'he relative tense8as e!t aradi&ms $ould be un&rammati!al in this !onte3t. )t should be noted at this oint that almost all resear!hers $ho dealt $ith the (uestion think, one $ay or another, that in Hausa the relative erfe!tive and relative im erfe!tive mark the resu osed !lause in relative !onstru!tions and in !onstituent fo!us, fronted wh0(uestion, or wh0e4e# !onstru!tions and are obli&atory in these !onstru!tions +!f. Ba&ari 1ADE8BD* B-f, /reissels 1AA1* --D, Hyman and ;atters 1ABC* <HA, S!ha!hter 1ADE* H1C, S!huh 1ABHa, b, ;ald 1ABD* CAA, HGE, HGB, et!.,. One $ay then to a!!ount for the failure of the relative markin& to a ear in +ia, is to say that the marked un!ertainty of the information takes the relative !lause out of the resu markers of resu osition domain and !oth relative erfe!tive and relative im erfe!tive, as osition, are !an!elled. N3am le +ib, illustrates a non0restri!tive relative !onstru!tion +!f. Fa&&ar osed, the &eneral im erfe!tive !an be used, as indi!ated. More

1AAB* <<G= S!hubert 1AD18D<* <B-,, $here in &eneral the relative !lause !ontains additional se!ondary information about the head. Sin!e the !lause is not resu

1G ;hen one turns to the sim le tem oral !lauses, one observes a more restri!ted number of ossible 'AM aradi&ms. 'he ossible aradi&ms and their inter retations in sim le tem oral !lauses are resented in 'able <.

hal-00567638, version 1 - 21 Feb 2011

&enerally, it has been established that in Hausa relative !onstru!tions !ontainin& some modal or adverbial arti!les mani ulatin& the relative !lause information may take the !om letive and the &eneral im erfe!tive, as the dis!ussion in Fa&&ar +1AAB* <1C, <GG1* H-1nE, H-D, sho$s. Nonetheless, it should be ointed out that Fa&&ar +<GGE,, in !ontrast to most resear!hers, thinks that the relative erfe!tive and relative im erfe!tive +S1o!us .erfe!tiveS and S1o!us )m erfe!tiveS in his terminolo&y, are the mor holo&i!al refle3 and dia&nosti! of fo!us frontin&. )n arti!ular, he !laims +!f. Fa&&ar <GGE* 1GD, that the relative erfe!tive ?is normally used to hi&hli&ht and assert elements $hi!h are 5+o#e'#ounded6 as informationally rominent and addressee0ne$, i.e., fronted fo!us and wh-!onstituents and oses that heads are fo!used in fore&rounded ast0time narrative events 9...:@ +em hasis in ori&inal,. 'his a!!ount su

restri!tive relative !lauses but not in non0restri!tive relative !lauses, a oint on $hi!h Fa&&ar does not elaborate. Similarly, in storyline narrative !lauses, $hi!h re(uire the relative erfe!tive +but not the relative im erfe!tive,, there is no eviden!e for a fo!us0fronted !onstituent, so that some further a!!ount is ne!essary to sho$ that Fa&&ar%s &enerali7ation is indeed valid +that is, the &enerali7ation that the relative markin& is the mor holo&i!al refle3 and a dia&nosti! of fo!us frontin&,. )t is also not !lear ho$ Fa&&arTs &enerali7ation $ould handle the obli&atory a earan!e of the relative markin& or the !o ula ke TbeT +$hi!h is the sour!e of the relative im erfe!tive, in adverbial s!ene0 settin& !lauses $here there is no head that !an be fo!used +!f. dis!ussion of +<<, belo$= !f. also Fa&&ar <GG1* 1DD, E-B,. )t $ould also not be !lear $hy the relative erfe!tive !an a ear in !onditional !lauses +!f. Fa&&ar <GG1* EGA,, sim le tem oral when !lauses +$here, in his analysis, the fo!used head lookcii $ould have been deleted,, and in main !lauses of dialo&i!al dis!ourse. 'he resent author follo$s the revious $riters in !onsiderin& the relative erfe!tive and the relative im erfe!tive as +realis, resu osition markers in the ra&mati!ally marked !onstru!tions +s!ene0settin& !lauses, relative !lauses, fo!us !lauses, wh0(uestion and wh-e4e# !lauses,. Ho$ever, the resent author is also !urrently $orkin& on the ro osal that in tem oral lookcin d relative !lauses, the as e!tual !ontrast bet$een relative erfe!tive and relative im erfe!tive has !olla sed +hen!e the o tionality of the relative im erfe!tive, and that the obli&atory relative erfe!tive has in fa!t &rammati!ali7ed as a s e!ifi! time8sim le ast marker +!f. also Abdoulaye <GGBa,. 'hese ne$ fun!tions e3 lain the a !lauses, and ast !lauses of dialo&i!al dis!ourse. earan!e of the relative erfe!tive in many !onte3ts $here it

does not !ontrast $ith the relative im erfe!tive* !onditional !lauses, sim le tem oral when !lauses, ast narrative

11 'able <* 'AM aradi&ms and their inter retations in sim le tem oral !lauses +$ith - rd erson lural su0 and verb +ta #&o out%, .ast referen!e One0time 2e!urrent Res Res Res Res Res 1uture referen!e One0time 2e!urrent Res Res

/om letive* d sun +ta )m erfe!tive* d suna +taa 2el. .erfe!tive* d suk +ta 1uture )* d zaa s" +ta relative

'able < sho$s that sim le tem oral !lauses a!!e t only four 'AM aradi&ms* the !om letive, the erfe!tive, the re&ular im erfe!tive, and the future ). )n arti!ular, sim le tem oral !lauses do not normally take the relative im erfe!tive, des ite their admittin& the re&ular im erfe!tive. One may also note that 'able < takes into a!!ount both sin&le and multi le hal-00567638, version 1 - 21 Feb 2011 o!!urren!e events, sin!e this has no in!iden!e on the ability of the !lause to fun!tion adverbially. 2e&ardin& the tem oral inter retation of the 'AM, one noti!es in 'able < a &eneral shift to a ast inter retation for most tense8as e!t aradi&ms. 1or e3am le, of all admissible 'AMs, the !om letive alone !an be used to refer to ast or future events, under the !onditions &iven in the table. 'he t$o inter retations of the !om letive are illustrated in the follo$in&* +1<, 0 sun +ta) sai t #u+
*oo+a/

sh&idaa ma-n. to01S

$hen -../.L &o.out

then -1S.SUB !lose door8

<MS.SUB advise

#As soon as they &o out, she +usually, !loses the door8you should let me kno$.% )n this e3am le, a !om letive sim le tem oral !lause !an modify a main !lause referrin& to re!urrent ast or future situations. 'he other three 'AMs in 'able < !an only be used to refer to ast events. 'his is illustrated in the follo$in&* +1-, a. 0 su-k +ta) sai ta #u+
*oo+a/

,k

sh&idaa ma-n. to01S

$hen -.02. &o.out then -1S.2. !lose door8

<MS.SUB advise

#On!e they e3ited, she !losed the door8 9on!e they e3it: lease let me kno$.% b. 0 su-na +taa) sai ta #u+
*oo+a/

,k

sh&idaa ma-n. to01S

$hen -.0).> &o.out then -1S.2. !lose door8 lease let me kno$.%

<MS.SUB advise

#;hen they $ere &oin& out, she !losed the door8 9$hen they $ill be &oin& out:

1< !. 0 zaa s" +ta) sai ta #u+

*oo+a/

,k

sh&idaa ma-n. to01S

$hen 1U' -. &o.out

then -1S.2. !lose door8

<MS.SUB advise

#;hen they $ere about to &o out, she lo!ked the door8 9$hen they $ill be about to &o out: lease let me kno$.% As these e3am les sho$, a sim le tem oral !lause $ith the relative erfe!tive, re&ular

im erfe!tive and future ) is !om atible only $ith a main !lause des!ribin& ast events. 'he future ) in +1-!,, for e3am le, des!ribes a ?future0in0the0 ast@, i.e., the event in the main !lause re!edes, and sometimes !an!els, the event in the tem oral !lause. A robable reason for the shift to ast inter retation observed in 'able < may be the influen!e of the ultimate ori&in of tem oral !on"un!tion d. )n Se!tion -.<, it is su&&ested that sim le tem oral !lauses develo ed on the hal-00567638, version 1 - 21 Feb 2011 model of tem oral ?d Q Noun8Adverb@ hrases, $hi!h themselves are based on !omitative !onstru!tions. )t ha ens that the !omitative use of d very likely develo ed from the ultimate fun!tion of d, i.e., the e3istential fun!tion +!f. Abdoulaye <GGE,. )n this !onte3t, the an!horin& of sim le tem oral !lauses in the ast may be a survival of the e3istential fun!tion, $hi!h tend to des!ribe reali7ed situations +on the lon& survival or influen!e of the ori&inal semanti!s of &rammati!ali7ed items, see Bybee and .a&liu!a 1ABD* 11D and Ho er and 'rau&ott 1AA-* BD0A-,. ;hatever the validity of this e3 lanation, it is !lear that the shift $ill be diffi!ult to e3 lain in the frame$ork of the lookcii deletion analysis. E ". An alternative account of the ori!ins of the temporal clauses 'his se!tion resents t$o se arate a!!ounts dealin& $ith the ori&in of the t$o ty es of tem oral !lauses. )t also, tentatively, su&&ests a relationshi bet$een the t$o !lauses, $hereby the sim le tem oral !lause may in fa!t ultimately be the sour!e of the tem oral relative !lause.

Beside the fa!ts re orted in this a er for Hausa, the deletion analysis is also roblemati! on theoreti!al &rounds.

)ndeed, in this analysis, the $ord lookcii #time%, $hi!h surely kee s some semanti! load, is deleted $hile the semanti!ally em ty relative !on"un!tion d a!(uires, after deletion of lookcii, the more substantive meanin&s of #as soon as, on!e, $hen, as, be!ause, et!.% 'his violates kno$n &rammati!ali7ation tenden!ies. )n fa!t, if somethin& should be deleted in a tem oral relative !lause introdu!ed by lookcin d #time that%, it $ould robably be the $eaker &rammati!al element d. 1or e3am le, S!huh +1AAB* <D<, re orts that some tem oral !lauses in Miya +/hadi!, !an be introdu!ed by m"kw7 #day 9that:% or m"ku ma #day that%, i.e., the $eak head m"kw7 #midday% +a tem oral $ord derived from m"ku #sun, day%, re(uires no relative ronoun8!on"un!tion.

1".1 Development of temporal relative clauses )t has lon& been evident that adverbial !lauses in &eneral may in some lan&ua&es be !losely !onne!ted to relative !onstru!tions +!f. Lehmann 1ABC* -<G= 'hom son and Lon&a!re 1ABH* 1DB,. 'his se!tion sho$s that tem oral relative !lauses in Hausa !an be derived from relative !lauses $here the head $ord lookcii #time% has a true referential readin&. Like any noun hrase fun!tionin& in a senten!e +as sub"e!t, dire!t ob"e!t, et!.,, the $ord lookcii !an be modified by at least four kinds of relative !lauses. One of the t$o fundamental !ontrasts in Hausa relative !lauses distin&uishes relative !lauses $ith a !om le3 stru!ture involvin& a !o ular redi!ate k(e) #be% and sim ler, redu!ed relative !lauses that have no !o ula. 'hese t$o ty es of relative !lauses are illustrated in the follo$in& +!f. also Ne$man <GGG* HCG,* hal-00567638, version 1 - 21 Feb 2011 +1C, a. * uni lookci-n d ya-k yaa daace.

<MS.SUB aim time0D1

that -MS0be -MS./.L fit

#Rou must8should aim at the really a ro riate moment.% b. * uni lookci-n d ya daace.

<MS.SUB aim time0D1

that -MS.2. fit

#Rou must8should aim at the a ro riate moment.% )n the senten!es in +1C,, the main !lause is k uni 1lookcii82 #you should tar&et 9a timeU:% $here the $ord lookcii fun!tions as dire!t ob"e!t in the main !lause. )n +1Ca,, the relative !lause is introdu!ed by the !on"un!tion d #that% and is made u of an im ersonal !o ular redi!ate yak #it be% and the relative !lause ro er. ;e $ill assume that the relative !lause ro er here fun!tions as a !om lement to the !o ula 9k. By !ontrast, in +1Cb,, the relative !lause is redu!ed in stru!ture and is introdu!ed only by the !on"un!tion d #that%. As may be seen, the redu!ed relative !lause in +1Cb, has the relative erfe!tive marker ya #-MS.2.% re la!in& the re&ular !om letive marker yaa #-MS./.L% found in the !o ular relative !lause in +1Ca,. )t may be noted that redu!ed relative !lauses as illustrated in +1Cb, are more fre(uent, $hile the !o ular relative !lauses illustrated in +1Ca, have an asso!iated em hati! readin&, as indi!ated in the translation. 'he se!ond fundamental !ontrast in Hausa relative !lauses is the resen!e or absen!e of a relative ronoun introdu!in& the relative !lause. )ndeed, the relative !lauses illustrated in +1C, all have variants $ith a relative ronoun, as illustrated in the follo$in&*

1C +1H, a. * uni lookcii wa-n-d time ya-k yaa daace.

<MS.SUB aim

one0D10that -MS0be -MS./.L fit

#Rou must aim at the really a ro riate moment.% b. * uni lookcii wa-n-d time one0D10that ya daace.

<MS.SUB aim

-MS.2. fit

#Rou must aim at the a ro riate moment.% !. wa-n-d one0D10that ya-k yaa daace

-MS0be -MS./.L fit

#the one that is really a ro riate.% 2elative !lauses $ithout a relative ronoun, as illustrated in +1C,, are usually taken to be more hal-00567638, version 1 - 21 Feb 2011 basi! +!f. Ne$man <GGG* HCG,. )ndeed, relative !lauses introdu!ed by a relative ronoun, as illustrated in +1Ha0b,, are histori!ally se!ondary and stem robably from the &rammati!ali7ation of free relative !lauses headed by the indefinite ronoun wa #one%, as illustrated in +1H!,. 'he free relative !lauses are no$ alternatin& $ith the ori&inal d relative !lauses in modifyin& a head noun. )n +1Ha0b,, the se(uen!e made u of the indefinite ronoun and the !on"un!tion +i.e., wa-nd #the one0mas!. that%, is reinter reted as a relative ronoun wand #$ho0mas!.%. 'he relative ronoun is $ritten as one $ord in Hausa ortho&ra hy and the other forms are* wadd/wacc #$ho0fem.%, wa0nd #$ho0 lur.% +these ronouns in fa!t have a variable tone attern, see Fa&&ar <GG1* H<B= on the develo ment of relative ronouns in &eneral, see amon& others Kivon 1AAG* EHD= Lehmann 1ABC* -BA= van der Au$era and 4uVanda 1ABH* A<D, AH-,. N3am les +1C01H, illustrate the noun lookcii #time% fun!tionin& as dire!t ob"e!t of the main !lause and this noun !an naturally also assume other synta!ti! fun!tions in the main !lause. )n arti!ular, lookcii !an also fun!tion as a tem oral adverb in the main !lause. Ho$ever, in su!h !ase, lookcii and its a!!om anyin& relative !lause have a double inter retation, as seen in the ne3t e3am les* +1E, a. /a*ii sun zoo lookci-n d mu-ke c:n !inci. eat food

visitors -../.L !ome time0D1 #'he visitors !ame at our meal time.%

that 1.02)

#'he visitors !ame $hile $e $ere eatin&.%

1H b. /a*ii sun visitors -../.L zoo ;iy/

*a#+e

!iyu.

!ome yesterday8 o%!lo!k t$o

#'he visitors !ame yesterday8 at < o%!lo!k.% !. (ookc:-n nan ne !a*:-n tile0D1 su-k zoo. !ome

that !o . >isitors0D1 -..2.

#)t $as at that moment that the visitors !ame.% )n the first meanin& of +1Ea,, lookcii is referential and desi&nates a re!ise moment. )n this inter retation, the eo le visited do not need to a!tually be eatin&. )n +1Ea, then lookcii fulfills a fun!tion in the main !lause and is !om arable to sim le tem oral adverbs su!h as ;iy #yesterday%, et!., as illustrated in +1Eb,. 'he differen!e bet$een the t$o ty es of adverbs is that hal-00567638, version 1 - 21 Feb 2011 the $ord lookcii must ne!essarily be s e!ified by a relative !lause to have a referen!e, unless this referen!e is !lear from !onte3t. 1or e3am le, in +1E!, the referen!e of lookcii $ould be s e!ified in the re!edin& dis!ourse. )n the se!ond meanin& of +1Ea,, the $ord lookcii #time% is not referential and its inter retation seems to be !losely tied to the a!tion des!ribed in the a arent relative !lause +the a!tion of eatin&,. )n arti!ular, the a!tion of eatin& refers to a s e!ifi! event +unlike in the first inter retation,, $hi!h thus determines the tem oral referen!e. )n this !ase, it is the entire a arent relative !onstru!tion that a!ts as a tem oral adverbial !lause in the main !lause. 'hat is, sin!e lookcii is not referential +or is le3i!ally em ty, !f. Lehmann 1ABC* -<G,, one no lon&er has the !onstru!tion ?Head lookcii Q relative !lause@. )ndeed, many relative !onstru!tions $ith the $ord lookcii !an only be inter reted as adverbial !lauses, in arti!ular $hen they refer to sin&le o!!urren!e events, as illustrated in the follo$in&* D +1D, a. (ookci-n d time0D1 su-na +a0a nee "!&-n naa-s" ya +itoo.

that -.0).> fi&ht

!o . father0D1 of0-.

-MS.2. !ome.out

#)t is $hen they $ere fi&htin& that their father !ame out.%

2elative !lauses normally re(uire the revious referen!e marker -<# +feminine, or -<n +mas!uline or lural, on the

head noun itself or in the relative ronoun, as seen in e3am les +1C01H,. 4atsinan!i is one the diale!ts $here the definiteness marker has lost its floatin& lo$ tone in relative !lauses. One may assume that in tem oral relative !lauses, $here the head $ord lookcii is not referential, the revious referen!e marker survives as a reli! in the fro7en !onstru!tion.

1E b. (ookci-n d time0D1 Saanii ya !uu0oo

*oo+a

sai

su-k

#uu'a.

that Sani

-MS.2. o en

door

then -.02. run

#)t is $hen Sani o ened the door that they fled.% )n senten!es +1D,, the a!tion des!ribed in the tem oral relative !lause is a sin&le o!!urren!e event, $hether the tense8as e!t is im erfe!tive, as in +1Da,, or erfe!tive, as in +1Db,. 'he fun!tional8semanti! !han&es observed in e3am les +1E01D, !an be naturally a rehended in the &rammati!ali7ation frame$ork $hereby the re&ular relative !lauses $ould be the sour!e of the s e!iali7ed tem oral relative !lauses. )ndeed, there are indi!ations that the semanti! !han&es are a!!om anied by formal !han&es as $ell. As e3 e!ted in a &rammati!ali7ation ro!ess, the derived tem oral relative !lauses are indeed more redu!ed and less fle3ible synta!ti!ally. ;e hal-00567638, version 1 - 21 Feb 2011 have at the be&innin& of this se!tion seen that one !ontrast o oses !o ular and redu!ed relative oses relative !lauses that have !lauses +!f. dis!ussion of e3am les +1C,, $hile another !ontrast o

a relative ronoun and those that have no relative ronoun +!f. dis!ussion of e3am les +1H,,. )t ha ens that tem oral relative !lauses have no variants $ith the !o ula -k and !annot take a relative ronoun, as illustrated in the follo$in& e3am les* +1B, a. ,(ookci-n d time0D1 ya-k su-na +a0a...

that -MS0be -.0).> fi&ht

#;hen they $ere fi&htin&U% b. ,(ookcii wa-n-d time one0D10that su-ke -.02) +a0a... fi&ht

#;hen they $ere fi&htin&U% !. ,(ookcii wa-n-d time one0D10that ya-k su-na +a0a...

-MS0be -.0).> fi&ht

#;hen they $ere fi&htin&U% N3am les +1Ba0!, sho$ that tem oral relative !lauses !annot, res e!tively, have the !o ula 9k, the relative ronoun, or both features at the same time. 'he same &rammati!ality "ud&ments obtain $hen the im erfe!tive aradi&ms are re la!ed by the !om letive or relative erfe!tive. )t may be noted that !o ular relative !lauses have an em hati! !onnotation, $hi!h $ould a arently a ly to lookcii #time% only if it is referential. At the be&innin& of the se!tion it $as su&&ested that relative !lauses $ith a relative ronoun are a se!ondary develo ment and in!or orate a free

1D relative !lause. )t a ears then that only redu!ed relative !lauses $ithout a relative ronoun s e!iali7ed to be!ome tem oral relative !lauses. ".2 Development of simple temporal clauses )n relative !lauses and tem oral relative !lauses, the arti!le d is &enerally taken to be a sim le &rammati!al marker, i.e., a subordination !on"un!tion $ithout semanti! load. By !ontrast, the same arti!le in sim le tem oral !lauses is translated by all $riters as the !on"un!tion #$hen% +!f. for e3am le Fa&&ar <GG1* EGE, E<C= Ne$man <GGG* HHE= !f. also e3am le +1b, above,. Nonetheless, su!h translation is only an a ro3imation and is !onte3t0bound sin!e d a ears in other tem oral e3 ressions $here it is not e3a!tly translatable as #$hen%. 'his is illustrated in the follo$in& +!f. also Fa&&ar <GG1* EHG= ;olff 1AA-* CCG,* hal-00567638, version 1 - 21 Feb 2011 +1A, !d" yaa zoo d saa+e/ (d)
*a#+e

takws. ei&ht

Abdu -MS./.L !ome durin& early.mornin&8 at #Abdu arrived early in the mornin&8 at B o%!lo!k.%

o%!lo!k

As seen in +1A,, the arti!le d !an, obli&atorily or o tionally, a!!om any !ertain tem oral adverbs su!h as the times of day, rayer times, hours, seasons, et!. +ho$ever, some tem oral adverbs su!h as maak$o/saatii #$eek%, the months and the years Wsu!h as =aaRs #mar!h%, #1AAA%, !ana #this year%, !a#a #last year%, and !0i #ne3t year%, et!.0 do not take d,. As indi!ated, in !onte3ts su!h as +1A,, d !an be translated as #at, in8durin&%, $hi!h sho$s that the tem oral arti!le is in fa!t semanti!ally !om le3 and the meanin& of #$hen% may be a se!ondary meanin&. )n this re&ard, there are indi!ations sho$in& that arti!le d #$hen% may be a develo ment of the !omitative8instrumental re osition d #$ith%. )n fa!t in !ertain tem oral uses, the !omitative semanti!s of d is (uite e3 li!it, as illustrated ne3t* +<G, a. !d" yaa zoo d wu#i.

Abdu -MS./.L !ome $ith mar&in #Abdu !ame very early +i.e., $ith ?s a!e, mar&in@,.% b. Ciiw$-n n&n yaa zoo d damanaa.

si!kness0D1 this -MS./.L !ome DA rainy.season #'his disease !ame $ith the rainy season.% #'his disease !ame durin& the rainy season.%

1B )n +<Ga,, the adverb wu#i very likely derives from wu#ii # la!e, s a!e% and the e3 ression d wu#i literally means #$ith +time, room8mar&in%. N3am le +<Gb, ho$ever may more !learly sho$ the semanti!8fun!tional shift from !omitative d to tem oral d. )ndeed, d in +<Gb, !an mean #$ith%, as in the first inter retation, or #durin&%, as in the se!ond inter retation. 'hat the senten!e has both meanin&s is sho$n by the fa!t that if ciiw$n n&n #this disease% is re la!ed $ith 'wamn #&overnor%, the senten!e $ill only have a tem oral readin&. )f ho$ever ciiw$n n&n is re la!ed by shamuwaa #stork%, then the senten!e $ill only have the !omitative meanin& +sin!e in Hausaland the a earan!e of the mi&ratory bird means the rainy season $ill soon start,. One may assume that on!e arti!le d took u the fun!tion of introdu!in& tem oral adverbs, the ne$ fun!tion s read to events e3 ressed in finite or non finite !lauses. 'his is illustrated in the follo$in& +e3am le +<1a, ada ted from Hiskett 1AD1* DB and +<1b, from Moussa0A&hali <GGG* B= !f. also hal-00567638, version 1 - 21 Feb 2011 Fa&&ar <GG1* E-H for similar e3am les,* +<1, a. 0 'aanawaa on meetin& d kau #suwaa taa-s. of.-MS

on indeed dyin&

#He died as soon as they &reeted.% b. 0 ;:-n hak sai uwaa-taa ta !uushe d $ith da#iyaa. lau&hter

on hearin&0of this then mother0of.1S -1S.2. blo$

#On hearin& this 9J as soon as she heard this:, my mother lau&hed.% !. 0 ta ;i hak sai uwaa-taa ta !uushe d da#iyaa.

$hen -1S.2. hear this

then mother0of.1S -1S.2. blo$

$ith lau&hter

#;hen she heard this, my mother lau&hed.% )n +<1a,, arti!le d introdu!es t$o verbal nouns and is robably the same re osition found introdu!in& nominals or adverbs in e3am les +1A0<G,. 'he !onstru!tion ?d Q verbal noun Q +!om lement,@ is (uite fre(uent in Hausa and !an a ear even in fro7en e3 ressions +su!h as d +aa#awaa d iyawaa #early talent%, lit. #on startin& +is, on kno$in& ho$%= !f. further e3am les in Ne$man <GGG* CC,. 1or this reason, the !onstru!tion is fre(uently an alternative to finite tem oral !lauses, as seen in +<1b0!,, $here the t$o senten!es are essentially e(uivalent +althou&h +<1b, is better suited to !onvey the #as soon as% meanin&,. 'he shift from a re osition to a subordinatin& !on"un!tion seen in +<1b0!, !hara!teri7es the develo ment of many arti!les in Hausa +!f. sai !d" #only Abdu +!an do somethin&,% and sai kaa ;ee can #only 9if: you &o there

1A +!an you a!hieve somethin&,%,. Other arti!les introdu!in& a noun hrase or a finite !lause are* !aayan #after% +from !aayaa #ba!k%,, koo #even%, ka+in #before%, tun #sin!e%, et!. +!f. S!ha!hter 1ABH* H1= ;olff 1AA-* CCA,. )t is !lear that e3am les +1A0<1, eviden!e some tem oral uses of d that are unrelated to lookcin d relative !lauses. 'he ro osal that tem oral !on"un!tion d develo ed from !omitative8instrumental d is hen!e a viable alternative to the lookcii deletion analysis. Nonetheless, &iven the fa!t that both ty es of tem oral !lauses !ontain a arti!le d, one may $onder $hat the relation bet$een these t$o arti!les is, and, hen!e, the relation bet$een the t$o ty es of !lauses. )n fa!t Hausa has another ma"or family of !onstru!tions usin& d that may !onstitute a otential link bet$een the t$o ty es of tem oral when !lauses. )ndeed, d in Hausa also introdu!es some !ausal adverbial !lauses that !arries resu hal-00567638, version 1 - 21 Feb 2011 osed information and serves as ba!k&round to their main !lause. 'hese ?s!ene0settin& !lauses@ +SS/s,, like relative !lauses, !an have a !o ular and a redu!ed form +$ith the relative markin&,, as seen in the follo$in& +!f. also Abdoulaye 1AAD,* +<<, a. 10 ya-k as ish ta-na s>n shu!k 'y0aa2) ta-na eanuts saa#an daa;i. bush

-MS0be AishX

-1S0).> $ant lant

-1S0).> !ut

TAs it is the !ase Aisha $ants to lant eanuts, she !lears the bush.T b. 10 as ish ta-ke s>n shu!k 'y0aa2) lant eanuts (ai) ta-na saa#an daa;i. bush

Aisha -1S02) $ant

$ell -1S0).> !ut

TAs Aisha $ants to lant eanuts, she naturally !lears the bush.T 1un!tionally, the adverbial !lauses in +<<, !arry information that is ty i!ally kno$ by the hearer and only the main !lauses !arry asserted information. 1ormally, in the adverbial !lause of +<<a,, the subordinator d introdu!es the redi!ate ya-k #-MS0be%, $hi!h takes as !om lement a verbal !lause !arryin& the &eneral im erfe!tive au3iliary Wna. )n the !orres ondin& redu!ed SS/ in +<<b,, the redi!ate ya-k #-MS0be% is absent, but the sim le !lause has the relative im erfe!tive marked by Wke, instead of 0na. /o ular SS/s !ontainin& the !om letive $ould !orres ond to redu!ed SS/s $ith the relative erfe!tive. 'hus, formally SS/s have the same stru!ture as relative !lauses, $hi!h !an also be !o ular or redu!ed, as dis!ussed in Se!tion -.1. 1or this reason, Abdoulaye +<GGD, ro oses that relative !lauses in fa!t derive from SS/s $hen these s$it!hed from !lause0level modifi!ation to N.0level modifi!ation +!f. Abdoulaye <GGD* <E-0<EH for details,. No$, as indi!ated in the &losses, d in +<<, is inter reted as #as, sin!e, be!ause%. 'he

<G resent author is !urrently $orkin& on the ro osal that the !ausal d found in SS/s in fa!t derives from d #$hen% found in sim le tem oral !lauses +!f. Abdoulaye <GGBb,. )t may be noted that a !han&e from tem oral markers to !ausal markers is $ell attested in $orld lan&ua&es +!f. amon& others Ho er and 'rau&ott 1AA-* DCf, 'hom son and Lon&a!re 1ABH* 1B1,. 'he derivations ro osed !an be dia&rammed as follo$s* +<-, 'em oral !lauses d #$hen% 6 /ausal SS/s 6 d #as, be!ause% 2elative !lauses 6 'em oral 2/s

d as a subordinator

)f these derivations should be !onfirmed, then sim le tem oral when !lauses $ould a!tually be the ultimate sour!e of the tem oral relative !lauses. hal-00567638, version 1 - 21 Feb 2011 #. $onclusion 'his a er sho$s that in Hausa, one !annot strai&htfor$ardly derive sim le tem oral d #$hen% !lauses from tem oral lookcin d #time that% relative !lauses throu&h deletion of the head $ord lookcii. 'he a er sho$s that the t$o ty es of tem oral !lauses differ in their semanti!s, the list of the 'AMs they allo$, and the tem oral inter retation of the 'AMs. )n an alternative a!!ount, the a er ro oses t$o different develo ment aths for the tem oral !lauses. 'em oral relative !lauses are &rammati!ali7ed forms of ordinary relative !lauses, $hile sim le tem oral !lauses develo ed very likely $hen the re osition d +introdu!in& tem oral adverbs, nouns, or verbal nouns, &rammati!ali7ed as a !on"un!tion introdu!in& finite tem oral !lauses.

<1

%eferences Abdoulaye, Mahamane L. +1AAD,. ?.resu osition and realis status in Hausa@. S?#achty?olo'ie

und @ni4e#salien Ao#schun' HG+C,* -GB0-<B. 00000 +<GGE,. ?N3istential and ossessive redi!ations in Hausa@. (in'uistics CC+E,* 11<1011EC. 00000 +<GGD,. ?.rofilin& and identifi!ation in Hausa@. Bou#nal o+ C#a'matics -A+<,* <-<0<EA. 00000 +<GGBa,. ?.erfe!t and erfe!tive in Hausa@. +#ikanistik Dnline GGGA01G01-B<H.

htt *88$$$.afrikanistik0online.de8ar!hiv8<GGB81-B<8 + a&e !onsulted <H May <GGB,. 00000 +<GGBb,. ?Ori&in of relative markin& in Hausa@. ms. Abdou Moumouni University, Niamey. hal-00567638, version 1 - 21 Feb 2011 Abraham, 2oy /live +1AHA,. -he lan'ua'e o+ the 3ausa ?eo?le. London* London University .ress. Adam, Fean0Mi!hel +1AAC,. (e teEte na##ati+F -#aitG danalyse ?#a'matiHue et teEtuelle . .aris* Nditions Nathan. Ba&ari, Dauda Muhammad +1ADE8BD,. 3ausa su!o#dinate ad4e#!ial clausesF SyntaE and semantics. 2abat* )m rimerie Nl Maarif Al Fedida. Bearth, 'homas +1AA-,. ?Sat7ty und Situation in eini&en S ra!hen ;estafrikas@. )n* MPhli&, Brauner and Herrmann Fun&raithmayr +eds.,, 4P e >erla&. Bybee, Foan L. and ;illiam .a&liu!a +1ABD,. ?'he evolution of future meanin&@. )n* 2amat et al. +eds.,, Ca?e#s +#om the Ith Jnte#national Con+e#ence on 3isto#ical (in'uistics , Amsterdam* Fohn Ben"amins. /reissels, Denis +1AA1,. 0esc#i?tion des lan'ues nG'#o-a+#icaines et thGo#ie syntaEiHue. Krenoble* Nllu&. KivLn, 'almy +1AAG,. SyntaEF Ben"amins. KMldemann, 'om +<GG-,. ?Krammati!ali7ation@. )n* Nurse, Derek and KIrard .hili son +eds.,, -he /antu lan'ua'es, .1B<01AC. London* 2outled&e. +unctional-ty?olo'ical int#oduction, Kol. L. Amsterdam* Fohn .1GB01<<. +#ikanistenta', .A101GC. 4Pln* 2Mdi&er

<< Heine, Bernd and Me!hthild 2eh +1AB-,. ?Dia!hroni! observations on !om letive fo!us markin& in some Afri!an lan&ua&es@. )n* Heine, Bernd et al. +eds.,, S?#ache und Meschichte in +#ika (S@MJ ) H, .D0CC. Hambur&* Helmut Buske. #tikel) Nominal?h#aseF Nu# Ome#'enz

Himmelmann, Nikolaus .. +1AAD,. 0eiktikon) syntaktische# St#uktu#. 'Mbin&en* Ma3 Niemeyer.

Hiskett, Mervyn +1AD1,. ?'he #Son& of Shaihu%s Mira!les%* A Hausa ha&io&ra hy from Sokoto@. +#ican (an'ua'e Studies 1<* D101GD. Ho er, .aul and Nli7abeth /loss 'rau&ott +1AA-,. M#ammaticalization. /ambrid&e* /ambrid&e University .ress. Hyman, Larry M. and Fohn 2. ;atters +1ABC,. ?Au3iliary fo!us@. Studies in +#ican (in'uistics hal-00567638, version 1 - 21 Feb 2011 1H+-,* <--0<D-. Fa&&ar, .hili F. +1AAB,. ?2estri!tive vs non0restri!tive relative !lauses in Hausa* ;here

mor hosynta3 and semanti!s meet@. Studies in +#ican (in'uistics <D+<,* 1AA0<-B. 00000 +<GG1,. 3ausa. Amsterdam* Fohn Ben"amins. 00000 +<GGE,. ?'he hausa erfe!tive tense0as e!t used in wh08fo!us !onstru!tions and histori!al narratives* A unified a!!ount@. )n* Pest +#ican lin'uisticsF 0esc#i?ti4e) com?a#ati4e) and histo#ical studies in hono# o+ Russell M. Schuh. Studies in +#ican (in'uistics , 9Do$nloadable from* htt *88e rints.soas.a!.uk8ar!hive8GGGGG1--8: 4Pni&, Nkkehard +1AA1,. -he meanin' o+ +ocus ?a#ticlesF Ne$ Rork* 2outled&e. Lehmann, /hristian +1ABC,. 0e# Relati4satzF -y?olo'ie seine# St#uktu#en) -heo#ie seine# Aunktionen) *om?endium seine# M#ammatik. 'Mbin&en* Narr. Mi!haelis, Laura A. +<GGE,. ?'ense in Nn&lish@. )n* Aarts, Bas and A ril M!Mahon +eds.,, -he 3and!ook o+ On'lish (in'uistics, !ha itre 1G. O3ford* Bla!k$ell. Moussa0A&hali, 1atimane +<GGG,. %a#intata 9My !hildhood:. Niamey* Nditions Albasa. Ne$man, .aul +<GGG,. -he 3ausa lan'ua'eF n encyclo?edic #e+e#ence '#amma#. Ne$ Haven* Rale University .ress. com?a#ati4e ?e#s?ecti4e . London8 . 1GG01--.

<2eineke, Bri&itte +1AAB,. ?Des !onstru!tions relatives dans les lan&ues de l%Atakora@. Cahie#s KoltaQHues -* AH01GE. S!ha!hter, .aul +1AD-,. ?1o!us and relativi7ation@. (an'ua'e RS* 1A0CE. 00000 +1ABH,. ?.arts0of0s ee!h systems@. )n* Sho en, 'imothy +ed.,, (an'ua'e ty?olo'y and syntactic desc#i?tionF Kol. T Clause st#uctu#e, .ress. S!hubert, 4laus +1AD18D<,. ?Yur Bedeutun& und An$endun& der >erbal aradi&men im Hausa und 4anuri@. +#ika und U!e#see HH+10<,* 10CA, <GB0<<D, <ED0-GG, and >ol. HE* AG011B. S!huh, 2ussell K. +1ABHa,. 'ense8As e!t8Mood +'AM, System. Mimeo&ra hed, U/LA. hal-00567638, version 1 - 21 Feb 2011 00000 +1ABHb,. ?MaTanonin han&e !ikakke na Hausa 9Semanti!s of the !om letive as e!t in Hausa:@. .a er resented at the -hi#d Con+e#ence in 3ausa (an'ua'e and (in'uistics , Bayero University, 4ano, Ni&eria. 00000 +1AAB,. '#amma# o# =iya. Berkeley* University of /alifornia .ress. .-0E1. /ambrid&e* /ambrid&e University

'hom son, Sandra A. and 2obert N. Lon&a!re +1ABH,. ?Adverbial !lauses@. )n* Sho en, 'imothy +ed.,, (an'ua'e ty?olo'y and syntactic desc#i?tionF Kol. L Com?leE const#uctions, .1D10<-C. /ambrid&e* /ambrid&e University .ress. 'uller, Lauri!e A. +1ABE,. Bi"e!tive relations in Universal Krammar and the synta3 of Hausa. Un ublished .h.D. Dissertation, University of /alifornia Los An&eles. van der Au$era, Fohan and Dubravko 4uVanda +1ABH,. ?.ronoun or !on"un!tion W 'he Serbo0 /roatian invariant relativi7er Zto@. (in'uistics <-* A1D0AE<. >la!h, 1rank +1AB1,. ?'he semanti!s of the ro&ressive@. )n* 'edes!hi, .. and A. Yaenen +eds.,, SyntaE and Semantics, Kolume TR, . C1H0C-C. Ne$ Rork* A!ademi! .ress, )n!.

;ald, Ben"i +1ABD,. ?/ross0!lause relations and tem oral se(uen!e in narrative and beyond@. )n* 'omlin, 2ussell S. +ed.,, Cohe#ence and '#oundin' in discou#seF Dutcome o+ a sym?osium) Ou'en) D#e'on) Bune TSVR, .CB10H1<. Amsterdam* Fohn Ben"amins.

;atters, Fohn 2. +<GGG,. ?Synta3@. )n* Heine, Bernd and Derek Nurse +eds.,, +#ican lan'ua'esF n int#oduction, . 1AC0<-G. /ambrid&e* /ambrid&e University .ress.

;olff, H. Nkkehard +1AA-,. Re+e#enz'#ammatik des 3ausa. MMnster8 Hambur&* L)'.