Abstract
My project is ‘Subject inversion and information structure in Hehe’. In this project, I explore the relationship between word order and information structure in Hehe (G62), the least researched language spoken in the Iringa region, Tanzania. The upcoming presentation is based on drafts of chapters four and five. In these two chapters, I answer the first two research questions. Firstly, given that there are seven subject inversions in Bantu (Marten & van der Wal 2014), which types of subject inversion are attested in Hehe, with which predicates? Secondly, how are the formal and functional properties of the Hehe preverbal and postverbal subject interpreted? Like in many Bantu languages, the Hehe uninverted word order is (S)ubject-(V)erb (SV) as illustrated in [1]. In this example, the prefix a- (1sm) is a subject marker with an anaphoric reference to the full noun in class 1, a subject of the clause preceding the verb wona ‘see’ and the noun mwaalimu ‘teacher’ the object of the clause following the verb.
[1] Akamuwéne mwaalimu. [Hehe uninverted SVO]
a-ka-mu-won-íle mu-alimu
1sm-pst2-1om-see-pfv 1-teacher
‘S/he saw the teacher.’ (Ngwasi 2021:72)
However, this word order is not rigidly fixed because the language exhibits several other word orders allowing the postverbal elements to occupy either the preverbal or postverbal position with the logical subject following the verb (cf. English example in (2). Subject inversion is a linguistic phenomenon where the preverbal element is postposed while the postverbal element is preposed. I illustrate this phenomenon using the English examples in [1] and [2] where [1] (an uninverted construction) has an NP ‘three nurses’ (subject) preceding the verb ‘come’ and the locative ‘into the room’ following the verb. In [2] we have an inverted construction with the locative ‘into the room’ preceding the verb and the NP ‘three nurses’ following the verb.
- Three nurses came into the room
- Into the room came three nurses.
Information structure refers to how speakers pack their information to meet communicative intents. To achieve this goal, speakers organize information based on what they want to focus on in relation to the listeners’ current state of mind (Lambrecht 1994).
Subject inversion has been extensively studied. For the introduction’s sake, I will refer to one outstanding work. This concerns a survey of forty-six Bantu languages in Marten and van der Wal (2014). This survey indicates that the phenomenon is widespread in the Bantu area because only one out of forty-six languages did not exhibit subject inversion. These researchers found seven types of subject inversions. They also found a significant variation among Bantu languages regarding the number of inversion constructions a language may exhibit, the predicate types allowed in each inversion, and the co-occurrence directionality. With fresh data from Hehe, I examine the inversion constructions attested in Hehe and the verb types associated with each type. I then explore the pragmatic functions of each inversion. With these objectives, the project answers two questions. Firstly, given that there are seven types of subject inversion in Bantu languages, which types are attested in Hehe and with which predicates? Secondly, ‘How are the pre and postverbal subjects of the inverted constructions interpreted?’
To sum up, this presentation, I show how information structure influences the Hehe syntax and highlight some implications the study has on Bantu typology and their morphosyntax.
