Phasal Polarity Systems in East Bantu

Althea Löfgren

Department of Linguistics
Independent Project for the Degree of Bachelor 15 HEC
General Linguistics
Spring 2018
Supervisor: Ljuba Veselinova
Examiner: Francesca Di Garbo
Phasal Polarity Systems in East Bantu

Abstract
This study explores a category of expressions akin to not yet, already, still and no longer, called
Phasal Polarity (PhP) expressions. They encode the domains of phasal values, polarity and
speaker expectations and have previously been described in European languages (van der
Auwera 1998) and in a small, genealogically diverse sample (van Baar 1997). Using refer-
ence grammars as the primary source of information, the aim of this crosslinguistic study is to
describe PhP expressions in a sample of East Bantu languages. It is found that the distribution
and behaviour of PhP expressions in East Bantu differ from both European languages and the
genetically diverse sample of van Baar. The markers are found to be morphologically diverse
and of varied crosslinguistic frequency. Furthermore, the verbal morphotax indicates that the
markers are, or are in the process of, being incorporated into the tense-aspect systems of their
respective language.

Keywords
aspect, Bantu languages, phasal polarity, tense

Sammanfattning
Denna studie utforskar en kategori av utryck besläktade med inte än, redan, fortfarande och
inte längre, som kallas Phasal Polarity (PhP) expressions. De uttrycker fas, polaritet och ta-
larörväntningar och har tidigare beskrivits i en studie av europeiska språk (van der Auwera
1998) och i en småskalig, genetiskt mångfaldig studie (van Baar 1997). Med referensgram-
matikor som primärkälla ämnar denna studie undersöka PhP expressions i ett urval av språk
i underfamiljen Östbantu. Resultaten visar att PhP expressions i Östbantu har annorlunda
distribution och användning jämört med europeiska språk och van Baars urval. Markör-
erna varierar avseende morfologi och tvärspråklig frekvens. Verbens morfotax indikerar att
markörerna har, eller håller på att, inkorporeras i respektive språks -system.

Nyckelord
aspekt, Bantuspråk, phasal polarity, tempus
Table of Contents
1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2.1 Phasal Polarity expressions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2.1.1 PhP expressions and phasal values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.1.2 PhP expressions and polarity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.1.3 PhP expressions and speaker expectations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2 Previous crosslinguistic studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2.1 Van der Auwera’s European study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2.2 Van Baar’s crosslinguistic study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2.3 Kramer’s PhP parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.3 Bantu languages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.3.1 Classification and characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.3.2 Tense and aspect in Bantu languages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.3.3 Negation in Bantu languages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.3.4 Grammaticalization in Bantu languages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.4 Aims and research questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.5 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3 Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.1 Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.2 Working definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.3 Data collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.4 Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.1 Frequency of occurrence and form of PhP expressions in Bantu . . . . . . . . 15
4.2 Morphological status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
4.3 Semantics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
4.4 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
5 Further correlations and discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
5.1 Crosslinguistic frequency and universals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
5.2 Co-occurrence of PhP expressions and more general markers . . . . . . . . . . 26
5.2.1 Co-occurrence with standard negation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
5.2.2 Co-occurrence of  and continuous aspect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
5.2.3 Co-occurrence of  and perfect aspect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
5.3 A small scale historical comparative analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
6 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
A Appendix 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
B Appendix 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
C Appendix 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
D Appendix 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
E Appendix 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
F Appendix 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
List of abbreviations

1 1st person  object marker

2 2nd person  optative mood
3 3rd person  persistive
9 prefix for class 9  polite register
15 prefix for class 15  present imperfective
 article  perfect
 augmentative  pronoun
 auxiliary  progressive aspect
 counterexpectational  present tense
 conditional mood  past tense
 consecutive tense  participle
 direct evidential  recent past
 future  singular
 final vowel  subject marker
 infinitive  stative
 imperfective  subjunctive
lgs languages  tense aspect mood
 negative . . . Tumbuka-Sena-Nyanja
. . North Mozambique  verb sentence marker
 nominative case = clitic boundary
 non-completive ≠ verbal root
? morpheme unknown

Presentation conventions
Metalanguage with small capitals will be used to talk about the PhP expressions on an abstract
level when no specific language is discussed (i.e. ,   etc.).
Many Bantu languages have grammatical tone. This feature is not consistently indicated in
the reference grammars. This is therefore only illustrated when tone is relevant to distinguish
one PhP expression from another marker. Otherwise, tone is left out of the discussion.
All examples are given as found in the original source. An unglossed morpheme of un-
known meaning is glossed with a question mark. The ISO-code of each language is given in
square brackets in all examples.
1 Introduction
Languages have different ways of categorising a very abstract part of the human existence
– time. This central part of cognition can be expressed in different ways depending on how
one categorises the world. If the point of time of an action is important, the language in
question can express this in different temporal distinctions, such as past, present and future
tense. If the action is viewed as a whole, it can be expressed as aspectual distinctions. The
start, middle and end of an event can also be encoded, mainly through adverbials expressing
phasal values. Some languages have grammaticalized phasal values, in addition to tense and
aspect. Whether the event is taking place at the time of the utterance or not, is also important
and expressed through polarity, i.e. positive and negative values, e.g. the existence or non-
existence of a particular situation. All of the categories above can be expressed either lexically
or grammatically.
There is a category of expressions that combine phasal and polarity values, briefly outlined
above: a semantic domain typically referred to as Phasal Polarity, and the ways of its encoding,
namely Phasal Polarity expressions (henceforth PhP). PhP items are morphologically diverse
markers that facilitate the encoding of primarily three domains: phasal values, polarity and
speaker expectations. Phasal expressions received some attention in the late 1990s, but not
much has been done since then (van der Auwera 1998; van Baar 1997). Thus the domain
remains fairly unexplored.
Two ongoing projects are currently investigating this phenomenon. One of them is Phasal
Polarity in African languages at Hamburg University, led by Raija Kramer. The other one is
Expectations shaping grammar: searching for the link, between tense - aspect and negation at
the Department of Linguistics at Stockholm University, led by Ljuba Veselinova. My study
contributes to both of these projects by collecting and analyzing data from grammars. While
this method is insufficient for a detailed study of this phenomenon, the information found in
grammars is an important part of any crosslinguistic study. This study serves as a stepping
stone for future research in an otherwise little explored area.

2 Background
In this chapter an overview of the theoretical background will be provided. First, a basic
description of PhP expressions will be given (2.1). Second, the findings of earlier studies will
be presented (2.2) and third, some relevant features of Bantu languages will be described (2.3).

2.1 Phasal Polarity expressions

PhP items are morphologically diverse markers that facilitate the encoding of primarily three
domains: phasal values, polarity and speaker expectations. In European languages, they are
often adverbials as in the example of English PhP items presented below.

(1) PhP expressions in English (van Baar 1997: 1)

a. Peter is already in London.
b. Peter is still in London.
c. Peter is no longer in London.
d. Peter is not yet in London.

1
 According to van Baar (1997), the four adverbials in the example are inherently telic/atelic
and therefore possess phasal properties. PhP expressions are also affected by the existence or
non-existence of a situation at the moment of speech. Therefore they also have polarity values.
Many other expressions may appear to be PhP items, but at a closer look they lack either the
phasal values or polarity values that are essential to the objects of this study. Consider the
examples below.

(2) Expressions similar to PhP items (van Baar 1997: 1) [emphasis added]
a. John will not visit me again.
b. John will not be discussing this matter any further.

Van Baar explains that the above examples have iterative or additive meaning but are not
phasal in the same way as PhP expressions are. To be able to classify an expression as a PhP
item, it is essential that they are related by temporal phases as well as polarity.

2.1.1 PhP expressions and phasal values

Phasal values are described by Plungian (1999) as being either inchoative, continuative or
terminative, i.e. they represent the start, continuation and end of an event. While Plungian
agrees that phases are similar to aspect, he argues that they are interconnected but not the
same. Aspect describes the inner structure of an event by referring to points in time (phases),
and therefore uses phasal values, to some degree, to express aspectual values (Plungian 1999:
314). However, phasal values form a separate functional domain, different from the domains
of tense and aspect.
The interrelated phasal properties of PhP expressions are best described using the metaphor
of a timeline starting with  , followed by ,  and ending with  .
If Plungian’s three phases are applied to PhP expressions, we end up with three categories:
the inchoative , the continuative  and, in Plungian’s view, also  , and the
terminative  . These items are described by van Baar as phasal and sequential, since
they encode the three different phases of an event that occur after one another.

2.1.2 PhP expressions and polarity

In addition to phasal values, polarity is an equally important part of PhP expressions. Consider
a situation x. If x holds, a speaker would use  or  and if x does not hold they
would use   or   . In addition to the fact that half of the PhP paradigm is
negative and the other half positive, all four items are related to each other through negation.
This systematic relationship is called the Duality Hypothesis (Löbner 1989).
The Duality Hypothesis is based on the idea that all PhP expressions are related to each
other by external and internal negation Löbner (1989). External negation is where the element
falls within the scope of negation (NOT (x)), whereas in internal negation, the element has the
negation in it’s scope (x NOT). The English phasal adverbials create the system seen in figure
1.
Figure 1 should be interpreted as a situation that either has negation in its scope or falls
within the scope of negation. Using   as an example consider a situation p. If this event
has yet to come, one could express it as [  p]. According to van Baar (1997) the internal
negation of this situation would be [not [ p]] and the external negation would be
[ [not p]]. This is true because of the fact that if an event has not already happened, it
is true that is is not yet happening. Also, if it is still not happening, it is true that it has not

2
 Figure 1: Duality in English (van Baar 1997: 20)

yet happened. This relationship works the same way even with the expressions that are not
negated, i.e. the equivalent of  would be [not [  p)] and [  [not p]].
If a situation has not not yet happened, it has started and is already happening. If a situation
is no longer not happening, it has also started and is now already happening.
Languages make use of different combinations of internal and external negation to create
their PhP systems. The examples below show how Spanish uses internal negation to create
 and  .

(3) Example of  in Spanish [spa] (Garrido 1992: 361):

El niño duerme todavía
 child sleep..3 
‘’The child is still sleeping’

(4) Example of   in Spanish [spa] (Garrido 1992: 361):

El niño no duerme todavía
 child  sleep..3 
‘’The child is not sleeping yet’

The Spanish PhP system consists of an affirmative and a negative ya () and todavía
() thus making use of internal negation to construct both   and   (van
Baar 1997: 22).
The following examples show how Classical Nahuatl uses external negation to create 
and  .

(5) Example of  in Classical Nahuatl [nci] (Andrews 2003: 76, 92, 175):
oc yōliyah
still they.were.living
‘’they are still alive’

(6) Example of   in Classical Nahuatl [nci] (Andrews 2003: 76, 92, 175):
ayoc āc
.still he/she.is.present
‘’he is no longer here’

In this system external negation is used to create the negative PhP expressions, negating
 to create an expression for  , ayoc. This means that   is equal to [not
[ p]].

3
2.1.3 PhP expressions and speaker expectations
Languages make use of different strategies to express if a situation conforms or deviates from
the shared norms in a context. Heine, Claudi and Hünnemeyer (1991) describe these expres-
sions as counterexpectation (CE) markers, like too and only illustrated in the example below.

(7) Counterexpectation markers in English (Heine et al. 1991: 192)

a. Your house is too small, even if you are only two.

The main function of a CE marker is, according to Heine et al. , to compare a statement
to what is being presupposed or assumed. In the case of PhP expressions, all of them are to
be viewed as CE markers, but behave differently depending on the context as illustrated in
van der Auwera (1998). Van der Auwera proposes a theory where he views PhP expressions
from the perspective of speaker expectations instead of negation, called the Double Alternative
Hypothesis.
Van der Auwera explains that both the surrounding circumstances and the expectations of
the speakers involved will affect which PhP expressions are being used. There are three sce-
narios that influence the use of PhP items. The first scenario is neutral, where the expectations
of the speaker is met (Scenario 1). The second scenario is an event realized earlier than the
speaker expected (Scenario 2). The third scenario is an event realized later than the speaker
expected (Scenario 3). The examples below are inspired by van Baar (1997: 27). To illustrate
the different scenarios the examples share the same background:

• 7 a.m. Anna and Mary are meeting at the bus stop to exchange notes.
• 8 a.m. Mary will leave for school.
• 9 a.m. Mary will arrive at school.

In the neutral scenario neither of the girls are surprised with the outcome of the meeting
because they are aware of the background information. Even if Anna oversleeps and arrives
at the bus stop at 9 a.m., she would be aware that Mary would have already left and say: ’(I
know) Mary is already at school.’ (Scenario 1).
On the other hand, if Anna arrived on time, but Mary remembered that her morning class
starts at 8 a.m. and not 9 a.m. and therefore left at the agreed meeting time, Anna’s response
would be one of surprise: ’(Oh no!) Mary is already at school.’ (Scenario 2).
Likewise, if Mary was late for the meeting and thus was late for school, Anna’s statement
would be: ’Mary is finally at school.’ (Scenario 3). The second and third scenarios are therefore
opposites, in the first one Mary arrives at school surprisingly early and in the second she is
surprisingly late.
In language specific cases all PhP expressions will not be compatible with all three scenar-
ios. According to van Baar (1997: 29) an English example would show that  is only
compatible with scenario one and two while scenario three demands a different expression:
finally. Telicity also affects the compatibility with some scenarios, as is the case with  and
 . Van Baar argues that their lack of a clear finishing point make them incompatible
with the third scenario since their inherent lateness presupposes an event that has already
taken place.

4
2.2 Previous crosslinguistic studies
As already mentioned, the field of Phasal Polarity is understudied. A brief interest was shown
in the area during the 1990’s, that gave rise to the studies described below and in 2.1.2 and
2.1.3, but since then the interest has subsided. It is not until now that linguists have started to
show interest in the field with two large, ongoing projects that started recently (see chapter
1).

2.2.1 Van der Auwera’s European study

Van der Auwera’s (1997) study of European languages gave rise to what he calls the Euroversal
accessibility hierarchy. Based on a sample of 45 European languages, the study shows that it is
most common for a language that has one PhP expression to have only  . Conversely,
if a language is missing one PhP expression it is most commonly . Ordered from
most common to least common the following hierarchy is presented by van der Auwera: 
 > /  > . There seems to be some opposition in the expressibility
of the atelic half of the PhP paradigm with   and  on the opposite ends of
the hierarchy.

2.2.2 Van Baar’s crosslinguistic study

Van Baar’s (1997) findings dispute van der Auweras claims. Based on a crosslinguistic sample
of 40 languages, his results show that the PhP expression most frequently missing is either
 or   or both. Languages across the world seemingly favour the continuative
half of the PhP paradigm, while European languages deviate in the sense of favouring the
terminative   above all other PhP items.
Van Baar also proposes two coverage universals that explain patterns in the PhP systems
found in his sample (van Baar 1997: 166). The fist universal states that if a language has
the same expression for  and  , there is no distinct  . This should
be understood as it is more common for   to be derived from , and not the
other way around. The second universal states that if a language has the same expression for
 and  , it also has an expression meaning  and  .

2.2.3 Kramer’s PhP parameters

Kramer (n.d.), influenced by the studies above, has developed six parameters under which PhP
expressions can be discussed. The parameters are: coverage, pragmaticity, telicity, wordhood,
expressibility and paradigmaticity. The first three parameters are used to discuss the semantics
of PhP expressions, while the last three are concerned with their structure.
The coverage parameter is concerned with how many PhP expressions a language uses per
PhP concept. Kramer defines a PhP system with one expression per concept as rigid and a
system that has more than one as flexible.
The parameter discussing pragmaticity is based on van der Auwera’s three scenarios de-
scribed in 2.1.3. Here, Kramer narrows it down to two scenarios: one neutral and one counter-
factual. The counterfactual scenario is described as containing two simultaneous phases that
are either actual or expected. This explanation leaves out both the unexpectedly early and
late outcomes in van der Auwera’s theory, and instead focuses on the opposition between the
expectation of the speaker and the reality of the situation.

5
 Telicity in PhP expressions includes, as discussed in 2.1, both telic and atelic aspects.
Kramer adds to this the concept of earliness/lateness from The Double Alternative Hypothesis,
but also states that the telic PhP items can be insensitive to this concept and, thus, be general.
The parameter wordhood is concerned with the independence, or grammaticalization, of
PhP expressions. Kramer describes PhP items as diverse, ranging from independent auxiliaries
with verbal properties to bound affixes. Since PhP expressions are so varied in their form,
they cannot be identified based on the wordhood parameter alone, but need to be viewed as
structurally diverse, specialised markers that form a paradigm in a language.
The concept of expressibility is discussed in the previous section in the form of universals
based on earlier findings. Kramer discusses this parameter more generally and states that PhP
systems may or may not contain specialised items for all four expressions, no specialised items
at all or any variation in between.
The paradigmaticity parameter focuses on the symmetrical properties of the PhP system
as a whole. Kramer describes this parameter as containing both an internal and external per-
spective. From an internal point of view, paradigmaticity is concerned with whether a PhP
expression has an alternative item with the opposite polarity. From an external perspective
this parameter focuses on whether a system has a one-to-one relationship between PhP items
and non-PhP items.

2.3 Bantu languages

This study investigates the phenomenon known as Phasal Polarity in a sample of East Bantu
languages. The Bantu family was chosen for two reasons: a) it is absent in all studies mentioned
above and b) PhP expressions are frequently brought up in the Bantu literature, though not
necessarily under this name. In this section relevant features of this family, such as tense,
aspect and negation, will be described.

2.3.1 Classification and aracteristics

Bantu languages are spoken in Sub-Saharan Africa. They are part of the Niger Congo phylum
(Nurse & Philipson 2014: 1). The debate regarding the classification of Bantu languages is
ongoing, mainly due to the complex migration patterns of the Bantu people, as well as the
difficulties of distinguishing language from dialect. The issue of classification aside, recent
studies claim a number between 500 and 600 languages (Grimes 2000; Maho 2003; Grollemund
et al. 2015). The focus of this study is the East Bantu sub-family, where Phasal Polarity has not
been studied previously. This branch includes 252 languages and is found in the south eastern
part of Africa.
The Bantu verb is famously complex and is often described using a template to illustrate
the morphotactic structure. Table 1 illustrates in what order Bantu verbs allow affixes. Due
to its size Table 1 is locates on the next page. In total, there are seven slots devoted to affixes
that make up what in English would be a whole sentence, leaving one slot for the verbal stem.
Both the subject and the object are marked on the verb, together with , polarity and clause
type. The word order most common in Bantu is SVO (Nurse & Philipson 2014: 125).

6
 Table 1: Verbal template (Güldeman 1999: 546)

Verbal template

SLOT FUNCTION
preinitial /polarity
initial subject
postinitial /polarity
preradical object
radical verbal root
prefinal derivation/
final 
postfinal clause type/object/polarity

2.3.2 Tense and aspect in Bantu languages

The preinitial, postinitial och final slots are used to express . According to Nurse (2003)
 are encoded in Bantu languages using three main components: verbal inflection, tone and
auxiliaries. Combining these three strategies, Nurse explains that Bantu languages can have
several different past, present and future tenses with different degrees of distance to the point
of reference or speech. Adding to this, they also encode many different kinds of aspect, the
most common being: perfective, imperfective and progressive.
Examples (8)–(11) illustrate the four future tenses of Logooli. From example (8) to (10) the
future becomes more and more remote with the fourth future being uncertain.

(8) Example of near future tense in Logooli [rag] (Nurse 2003: 130) [own glossing]:
kʊ-ra≠gʊr-a
1.-buy-
‘’We will buy’ [Near future]

The near future in Logooli is expressed with the marker ra after the subject marker.

(9) Example of middle future tense in Logooli [rag] (Nurse 2003: 130) [own glossing]:
na-kʊ≠gʊr-i
.1-buy-.
‘’We will buy’ [Middle future]

The middle future in the example is found in the subjunctive, but whether this is obligatory
or not is uncertain. It is, however, expressed with the marker na before the subject marker.

7
 (10) Example of far future tense in Logooli [rag] (Nurse 2003: 130) [own glossing]:
kʊ-rika≠gʊr-a
1.-buy-
‘’We will buy’ [Far future]

The far future tense is marked by rika, and like the near future marker, this marker occurs
after the subject.

(11) Example of uncertain future tense in Logooli [rag] (Nurse 2003: 130) [own glossing]:
kʊ-ri≠gʊr-a
1.-buy-
‘’We will buy’ [Uncertain future]

The uncertain future tense, illustrated in example (11), is constructed with the marker ri.
The same pattern is found in the past tenses, the only difference being that Bantu languages
usually have a higher number of past tenses than future tenses, according to Nurse (2003).
Nurse claims an average of one to three future tenses and one to four past tenses in the Bantu-
family.
In example (12) and (13) the imperfect and progressive aspect in Haya are illustrated.

(12) Example of imperfect aspect in Haya [hay] (Nurse 2003: 121):

tu-Ø≠gúr-a/tu-Ø≠gur-á
we-zero-buy-a
‘’We buy’ (IPFV)

(13) Example of progressive aspect in Haya [hay] (Nurse 2003: 121):

ni-tu-Ø≠gúr-a
-we-zero-buy-a
‘’We are buying’

The imperfect aspect is marked by high tone on either the final vowel a or the verbal stem
gur. The progressive aspect on the other hand has a marker ni that occurs before the subject
marker giving the verb the aspectual meaning.

2.3.3 Negation in Bantu languages

According to Güldeman (1999), negation in Bantu languages is mainly accomplished using two
different strategies. A negative utterance can be constructed both using a) a periphrastic con-
struction and b) grammaticalized affixes, particles or clitics. Together with these two strate-
gies, Bantu languages negate the verb using three of the slots above, shown in Table 1: the
preinitial, the postinitial and the postfinal. Negation using the preinitial slot is by far the most
common and is thought to be the unmarked negation in many Bantu languages (Güldeman
1999: 555-556). The examples below show preinitial and periphrastic negation in two Bantu
languages.

(14) Example of preinitial negation in Standard Swahili [swh] (Güldeman 1999: 551):
ha-tu-tak-i
1-want-
‘’Wir wollen nicht’ [we don’t want]

8
 Example (14) illustrates preinitial negation in Standard Swahili. The preinitial slot contains
the negative marker ha, followed by the subject marker, the verbal stem and lastly the final
vowel marking the present tense.

(15) Example of periphrastic negation in Hungan [hum] (Güldeman 1999: 550):

beet tu-khoon-aak ku-mon ni beet tu-biing
we 1-fail- -see that we 1-win
‘’We don’t think that we’ll win’

In contrast, Hungan uses periphrastic negation illustrated in example (15). The auxiliary
verb ’fail’ is marked with a subject marker and a progressive marker and has the main verb as
an infinitive complement.

2.3.4 Grammaticalization in Bantu languages

To further discuss some of the diachronic implications of this study, an introduction to gram-
maticalization is necessary. Broadly speaking, grammaticalizaiton is a diachronic process
where items with a more referential meaning are gradually incorporated into the grammar
of a language. Typical traits of this process are semantic change, phonological erosion and
loss of wordhood (Givón 1971: 12).1 Givón proposes the cycle of grammaticalization to ex-
plain how the synchronic morphology and the diachronic syntactic structure are related.

(16) Givón’s cycle of grammaticalization

discourse > syntax > morphology > morphophonemics > Ø

With this cycle, Givón wants to illustrate that the syntax of a language is indicative of
possible morphological patterns. For example, if an adverb becomes grammaticalized the word
order in a language will affect whether it becomes a prefix or a suffix. If adverbs occur before
the verb, they will become prefixes and if they occur after the verb they will become suffixes.
Traugott (2011) proposes three basic mechanisms of grammaticalization: Reanalysis, ex-
tension and repetition. Reanalysis is change in the structure of an utterance that does not
have any apparent effect on the surface structure. For example changes in word order or
morpheme boundaries. Extension is to be understood as a broader term that can include ex-
tension of a wide range of domains, such as semantic extension which expands the meaning
of an utterance. The syntax and pragmatics of an utterance can also undergo extension. The
repetition of an utterance also contributes to the grammaticalization process. Repetition can
lead to phonetic reduction and loss of referential content.
A pattern of grammaticalization can be found in African languages using the mechanisms
proposed by Traugott. Heine (2011) describes how the African languages develop their com-
plex -systems by a constant addition of new forms of tense and aspect-markers. He pro-
poses the grammaticalization chain in example (17) to describe this process.

(17) The grammaticalization of auxiliary constructions (auxiliation) (Heine 2011: 21)

a. Main verb (V1) - (non-finite verb) complement
b. Auxiliary - Main verb (V2)

The example above can be described in the three steps.

1
The literature on this subject is extensive. I only reference the work which is of immediate relevance to this
study.

9
 1. V1 takes a non-finite verb as its complement (a).
2. V1 loses some of its semantic and morphosyntactic properties, and gains some gram-
matical properties (a).
3. V1 is now an auxiliary and V2 is the main verb (b).

The result of this grammaticalization chain is an auxiliary with inflection typically associ-
ated with a main verb and a main verb that is non-finite. In extreme cases V1 will become even
further grammaticalized into a clitic or an affix. These types of constructions are commonly
found in this study, as will become apparent in chapter 4.

2.4 Aims and research questions

The purpose of this study is to describe Phasal Polarity expressions in East Bantu languages,
while also contributing to the current discussion on Phasal Polarity. The research questions
are as follows:

1. What form do the PhP expressions have?

2. Which PhPs are available and in what languages?
3. What is the morphological status of the markers?
4. What function do the PhP expressions have?
5. Do the markers occur under any restrictions?

2.5 Summary
PhP expressions are morphologically diverse markers with opposite phasal values and polarity
that encode speaker expectations and together form a system within a language. Earlier studies
have found that a sample of European languages differs from a crosslinguistic sample in what
the most common PhP items are. Van der Auwera’s European study finds that   is
the most common PhP expression, while van Baar claims that  is the most frequent. The
ambition of this study is to add to the theoretical framework of PhP expressions by describing
Phasal Polarity in a sample of East Bantu languages. The Bantu family was chosen because
there is evidence of PhP expressions in the Bantu literature and the family is absent in all
previous studies.

3 Method
The sample (3.1), working definitions (3.2), data collection (3.3) and methods of analysis (3.4)
are presented in this chapter.

3.1 Sample
The 46 languages2 selected for this study are presented in alphabetical order in Table 2. The
sample languages are mainly spoken in Zambia, Zimbabwe, Tanzania, Mozambique and South
Africa and belong to 15 different branches of the East Bantu sub-family. In Table 2 these
different genealogical groups are called clusters. The clusters are presented in appendix 6.
2
A map illustrating the distribution of the sample can be found here: http://www.arcgis.com/home/
webmap/viewer.html?webmap=8daad53ce7d349159b13f1aee5d1b116

10
East Bantu was chosen because a) it was deemed a good place to start investigating this phe-
nomenon, since no previous studies on Phasal Polarity has been conducted in this area and b)
it has the best descriptive literature of the African languages. This gives the study a bibliog-
raphy bias, but could not be avoided since this study relies solely on descriptive grammars for
data collection.

Table 2: Sample

e sample
Language ISO code Country Cluster G. zone
Bemba bem Zambia Sabi M42
Bena (Tanzania) bez Tanzania S. T. Highlands Bantu G63
Chopi cce Mozambique S. Bantu-Makua S61
Chuwabu chw Mozambique N. Mozambique Bantu P34
Gitonga toh Mozambique S. Bantu-Makua S62
Ila ilb Zimbabwe Botatwe M63
Kalanga kck Botswana Shona S16
Kaonde kqn Zambia Central Western Bantu L41
Kgalagadi xkv Botswana Sotho-Tswana S 31d
Koti eko Mozambique N. Mozambique Bantu P311
Lala-Bisa leb Zambia Sabi M51
Lamba lam Zambia Sabi M54
Lenje leh Zambia Botatwe M61
Makhuwa vmw Mozambique N. Mozambique Bantu P31
Makonde kde Tanzania Rufiji-Ruvuma P23
Makwe ymk Tanzania Rufiji-Ruvuma G402
Manyika mxc Zimbabwe Shona S13a
Matumbi mgw Tanzania Rufiji-Ruvuma P13
Mwani wmw Mozambique Coastal NEC Bantu G403
Ndali ndh Malawi Corridor Bantu M301
Ndengereko ndg Tanzania Rufiji-Ruvuma P11
Ngoni ngo Mozambique S. T. Highlands Bantu N12
Nsenga nse Mozambique Sabi N41
Nyakyusa-Ngonde nyy Malawi Corridor Bantu M31
Nyamwezi nym Tanzania Sukuma-Nyamwezi F22
Nyanja nya Mozambique Tumbuka-Sena-Nyanja N31a
Pedi nso South Africa Sotho-Tswana S32a
Sena (Malawi) swk Malawi Tumbuka-Sena-Nyanja N441
Shona sna Zimbabwe Shona S10

11
 Continuation of Table 2
Language ISO code Country Language family G. zone
Soli sby Zambia Botatwe M62
Southern Sotho sot South Africa Sotho-Tswana S33
Sumayela Ndebele nbl South Africa Nguni-Tsonga S408
Swati ssw Swaziland Nguni-Tsonga S43
Tawara twl Mozambique Shona S11
Tewe twx Mozambique Shona S13b
Tonga (Zambia) toi Zambia Botatwe M64
Totela ttl Zambia Botatwe K41
Tsonga tso Mozambique Nguni-Tsonga S53
Tswa tsc Mozambique Nguni-Tsonga S51
Tswana tsn Botswana Sotho-Tswana S31a
Tumbuka tum Malawi Tumbuka-Sena-Nyanja N21
Venda ven Zimbabwe Sotho-Makua-Venda S21
Xhosa xho South Africa Nguni-Tsonga S42
Yao yao Mozambique Rufiji-Ruvuma P21
Zimbabwean Ndebele nde Zimbabwe Nguni-Tsonga S44
Zulu zul South Africa Nguni-Tsonga S42
Total: 46

As mentioned in 2.3, Bantu languages are notoriously hard to classify; they are also un-
derdescribed. This leads to the main limitation of the sample. To be able to capture as much
diversity as possible, ideally both the genealogical and geographical distribution would have
been considered when constructing the sample (Croft 2002: 21). This has, however, proven
difficult due to the number of languages that lack descriptive grammars and the sample has
thus been limited to a convenience sample. Nonetheless, great care was taken in selecting
languages with as even a distribution as possible. Several languages belonging to genealogical
clusters where also chosen to enable small scale historical comparative analysis.

3.2 Working definitions

The following section defines the characteristics and functions of all four PhP expressions
based on the works of van der Auwera (1998), van Baar (1997) and Kramer (n.d.). These pa-
rameters are also used in Veselinovas ongoing project.

1.  : This is a negative continuative expression. It represents an ongoing period of

time before an event where the action has not yet taken place, but is expected to do so.

2. : This is a positive, inchoative expression which embodies a point of change

when an event starts taking place. This PhP expressions occur in three scenarios.

• Scenario 1: A neutral scenario where no speaker expectations exist.

12
 • Scenario 2: A surprisingly early scenario where the speaker expected the event to
occur later.
• Scenario 3: A surprisingly late scenario where the speaker expected the event to
occur sooner.

3. : This is a positive continuative expression. It represents a period of time when an

event is taking place.

4.  : This is a negative terminative expression. It represents a negative point of

change when the event ends.

Consider the examples below.

(18) Example of   in Hausa [hau] (van Baar 1997: 84):
datra úwa nóron man
doctor  still he.is
‘’The doctor isn’t here yet’

In example (18) the negative continuativity of   is apparent because of the fact that
there is a period of time, ongoing at the time of the utterance, where the doctor is not there,
but that the speaker expects the doctor to come.

(19) Example of  in French [fra] (van Baar 1997: 75) [own glossing]:
L’arbre fleurit déjà
the=tree blossom..3 already
‘’The tree is blossoming already (it didn’t bloom before)’

In example (19) it is apparent that  is an inchoative expression since it marks the
point where the tree starts blooming, which is now and not before. This example is neutral
and belongs to scenario 1.

(20) Example of  in Georgian [kat] (van Baar 1997: 77):

me k’idev xel-i unda mo-va-c’er-o
I still hand- must 1..-write-
‘’I still have to sign’

Example (20) shows that  is continuative since the speaker had to sign before, and still
has to sign at the moment of the utterance. Therefore the situation is ongoing.

(21) Example of   in Burmese [mya] (van Baar 1997: 79):

Pita ma-maùn-dáw-ba-bù
Peter -drive-anymore-()
‘’Peter is no longer driving’

Example (21) shows that   is terminative since it marks the point when Peter has
stopped driving.

13
3.3 Data collection
The PhP expressions where collected according to the working definitions described in 3.2 and
are presented in appendices 1–4. Since interaction and correlation with tense, aspect and other
grammatical categories have been discussed in earlier studies, information about the perfect
and continuous tenses and standard negation were also collected to enrich the discussion.
A study that relies as heavily on reference grammars as this one is bound to encounter
problems associated with reliability. The ideal grammar is a both current and detailed descrip-
tion of a language from which the relevant data can be extracted. However, such a grammar is
not always possible to find, especially in the case of Bantu languages, as many grammars are
superficial or outdated. There are two main concerns when using an outdated or superficial
grammar. The problem most relevant to this study is the fact that an old grammar might be
missing features simply due to the lack of knowledge of a certain domain at that time. As
Phasal Polarity is a relatively new field, there is a considerable risk of it being overlooked in
a grammar from the early 1900’s. The second problem is that the presentation conventions
might also have changed over the last century, as well as the languages themselves, making
both the data and analysis unreliable. The above-mentioned problems are difficult to solve be-
cause of the lack of secondary sources. While it is important to mention the insufficiency of a
study exclusively based on grammars, it is equally important to note that it is also a necessary
stepping stone for further research.

3.4 Analysis
Glossed examples are a prerequisite for any type of linguistic analysis. As straightforward
as this might sound, it proved problematic early on in the study, as many grammars did not
contain glossed examples. Below follows a typical example.

(22) Example of   in Matumbi [mgw] (Odden 1996: 66)

nįnakalaanga lį
’I haven’t yet fried’

It is apparent from the example that no morpheme boundaries can be identified and that the
meanings of said morphemes are unclear. This problem was solved by glossing the examples
containing the relevant markers by comparing them to the chapters in the grammar describing
the verb structure, or verbal template, and the relevant affixes. The examples were glossed
according to the Leipzig glossing rules, with one exception (Comrie et al. 2008). Since the
exact meaning of the verbal stem could not always be established, it was left in the glossing
as .
The lack of glossed examples posed yet another problem. When working with the agglu-
tinative Bantu language family, bound markers are expected to be found. However, because
of the lack of glossing, unless the bondedness was mentioned explicitly in the text, the or-
thography of the examples was used as the main source when deciding whether a morpheme
was bound or free. This makes the conclusions drawn regarding the bondedness of the PhP
expressions unreliable. Below follows a typical example.

(23) Example of   in Tsonga [tso] (Ouwehand 1978: 108)

a. A mi si heta xana? — have you not yet finished?
b. A ku si hlakuriwa la — it has not yet been weeded here

14
 Example (23) possibly shows morpheme boundaries by inserting spaces between each of
them, making all parts of this structure seem like unbound markers. It might be the case that
they are actually bound, but that the presentation in the grammar make them look like free
forms. This is not discussed or mentioned anywhere in the grammar, forcing the bondedness
criteria to be based solely on the orthography.
Kramer’s parameters are mainly applicable to the semantic content of PhP expressions.
Again, due to the limited data in the sources, information about the semantic content has
been difficult to come by. Therefore Kramer’s parameters are not used when discussing the
findings in this study.
In his study van Baar (1997) used questionnaires to investigate PhP expressions. This
method, of course, provides more in depth information than a study using reference gram-
mars as the only source. However, within the scope of this study, I have not been able to use
questionnaires.
It is important to note that under the the present circumstances, the results can demon-
strate tendencies within the sample, but should not be used to make any wider claims.

4 Results
In this chapter the results of the study are presented following the order of the research ques-
tions.

4.1 Frequency of occurrence and form of PhP expressions in Bantu

The fist two research questions are addressed in this section:

1. What form do the PhP expressions have?

2. Which PhPs are available and in what languages?

PhP expressions are very diverse in regards to their form, but some genealogical tendencies
can be discerned (see. 5.3). For a detailed description of all PhP expressions, see appendices
1-4. Table 3 shows the crosslinguistic frequency of PhP expressions among the 46 sample
languages. This includes all expressions that correspond to the definitions in 3.2.

Table 3: Crosslinguistic frequency of PhP expressions

Crosslinguistic frequency of PhP expressions

PhP      

Distribution 36 (0.78) 16 (0.35) 27 (0.59) 12 (0.26)

The most common PhP item is  , which occurs in 78 percent of the languages.
The second most common marker is  with a 59 percent occurrence rate.  and
  are much less common, as they only occur in 35 and 26 percent of the sample
respectively. Ordering the markers from most common to least common the following East
Bantuversal hierarchy (inspired by van der Auwera’s Euroversals) can be proposed:

15
 (24) The East Bantuversal accessibility hierarchy for PhP
  >  >  >  
For a more detailed description of the distribution of PhP expressions in each language,
see appendices 1-4. The PhP systems found in the sample are illustrated in Table 4.

Table 4: PhP systems

PhP systems
PhPs per language Function No. of lgs ISO
Four    6 [chw][sot]
   [ssw][tsn]
[ven][zul]
   5 [bem][cce]
Three  [ilb][xkv]
[xho]
    5 [kck][nso]
 [twx][ttl]
[tso]
  1 [nbl]
 
   8 [lam][leh]
Two [wmw][nyy]
[nya][twl]
[tsc][yao]
   2 [eko][nde]
  1 [kqn]
  11 [toh][vmw]
One [kde][ymk]
[mxc][mgw]
[ngo][swk]
[sna][sby]
[toi]
 1 [bez]
 1 [ndg]
None - 5 [leb][ndh]
[nse][nym]
[tum]

Altogether, ten types of systems could be found, although many of these only have one
or two occurrences. As shown in Table 4, six languages have all four PhP expressions and

16
five have none at all. In total, eleven languages have three PhP items each, but in different
constellations. Five of these languages have excluded  , five have excluded ,
and one language has excluded  . The two most common PhP item to exclude in a
system with three expressions are  and  . For a more detailed overview of
the PhP systems, see Appendix 5.
Eleven languages were found to have systems with two PhP expressions. Eight of these
systems contain  and  . Two languages have systems with  and  ,
and one language has a system with  and . The most common two-item system
in the sample is, by far, one with  and  .
Systems with only one PhP expression were found in thirteen languages. This is the most
common PhP system. Eleven of these have  , one has  and one has . The
languages with only one item seem to favour   over all other PhP expressions, since
this is the most common PhP system found.
Makhuwa is one of the languages with only  , illustrated in figure 2. The language
specific PhP system is illustrated with plus signs next to the existing markers.

Figure 2: PhP expressions in Makhuwa

(25) Example of   in Makhuwa [vmw] (Van der Wal 2009: 106):
mí nki-ná-n-koh-é
. .1-1-ask-
‘’I haven’t asked him yet’
The PhP system in Makhuwa only has the PhP expression  , which is expressed
with a prefix, ná, affixed to the negated verb.
The second most common arrangement, with eight occurrences in the sample, is a two-
marker system containing   and . Figure 3 illustrates this kind of system found in
Nyakyusa-Ngonde.

Figure 3: PhP expressions in Nyakyusa-Ngonde

Examples (26) and (27) show the PhP expressions  and   in Nyakyusa-Ngonde.

17
 (26) Example of  in Nyakyusa-Ngonde [nyy] (Persohn 2017: 186):
tʊ-kaalɪ tʊ-kʊ-job-a
1 1-speak-
‘’we still speak / we are still speaking’

Nyakyusa-Ngonde has a PhP system with two PhP items,  and  . These are
both expressed with an auxiliary, kaalɪ, that takes two different complements. This auxiliary
is used to express that a situation still holds from a later point in time. When it is marked by a
subject marker, forming a periphrastic construction with an inflected verb as its complement,
it takes on the meaning of .

(27) Example of   in Nyakyusa-Ngonde [nyy] (Persohn 2017: 187):

jɪ-kaalɪ ʊ-kʊ-py-a
9 15()-be(come).burnt-
‘’It’s not yet done.’

When it takes an infinitive complement, like in example (27), the meaning changes to that
of  . Therefore, unlike in the example for Spanish in 2.1.2, it is the complement that
decides the meaning of kaalɪ, not negation.
Six languages have all PhP expressions. An example of a complete PhP system is illustrated
by data from Southern Sotho in Figure 4.

Figure 4: PhP expressions in Southern Sotho

The PhP system in Southern Sotho uses three different markers to express all four PhP
items. One marker is used to express  , another is used exclusively for , and the
third marker is used both in constructing  and  . Examples (28)–(31) il-
lustrate the PhP items in Southern Sotho. No language with a complete system possesses a
grammar with glossed examples, therefore the glossing of each example was completed ac-
cording to 3.3.

(28) Example of   in Southern Sotho [sot] (Doke & Mofokeng 1957: 213) [own gloss-
ing]:
ha-kē-es’o-rek-ē
1.-buy-.
‘’I do not yet buy; I have not yet bought’

  is expressed with the marker es’o used in conjunction with standard negation in
a bound construction.

18
 (29) Example of  in Southern Sotho [sot] (Paroz 1946: 96) [own glossing]:
kē sa rut-a
1  teach-
‘’I still teach’

Unlike es’o,  is expressed with an auxiliary, sa, which is used together with the main
verb.

(30) Example of  in Southern Sotho [sot] (Paroz 1946: 95) [own glossing]:
kē-se kē-rut-a
1 1-teach-
‘’I already teach’

(31) Example of   in Southern Sotho [sot] (Paroz 1946: 95) [own glossing]:
kē-se kē-sa-rut-e
1 1-teach-.
‘’I teach no more’

What is described as another auxiliary, se, is used to express both  and  .
In this construction the subject marker is found on both the auxiliary and the main verb. In
the case of  , there is a negation marker sa, that is described as a dependent negation
marker.
There is also a group of ten languages of which half have excluded  and half have
excluded  . The PhP system in Chopi has all PhP expressions except  , in
a system with both periphrastic and bound constructions. Examples (32)–(34) show the PhP
expressions in Chopi.

Figure 5: PhP expressions in Chopi

(32) Example of   in Chopi [cce] (Smyth 1902: 95) [own glossing]:
ni-sanga-von-a
1.-see-
‘’I have not yet seen’

  is expressed with the marker sanga, directly before the stem of the verb.

(33) Example of  in Chopi [cce] (Smyth 1902: 38) [own glossing]:
se-ni-von-ile
1-see-
‘’I have already seen’

19
  is expressed with a prefix, se, and the perfect tense.
(34) Example of  in Chopi [cce] (Smyth 1902: 95) [own glossing]:
ni-nga-di ni-ci-von-a
1 1-see-
‘’I still see’
The construction meaning  is more complex and contains markers that are not ex-
plained. In Chopi,  is expressed using a periphrastic construction with an auxiliary, di,
marked by both the subject marker and a marker of unknown meaning, nga, which is described
as a ’tense marker’. The main verb is inflected with both a subject marker and a consecutive
tense marker. Except for the fact that this utterance means , exactly how the consecutive
tense marker and the ”tense marker” nga affect the meaning is unknown.
In Totela three PhP items could be found. This system uses two markers to express the
three different PhP items, illustrated in examples (35)–(37).

Figure 6: PhP expressions in Totela

(35) Example of   in Totela [ttl] (Crane 2011: 337):

ta-ndi-ini ku-kalis-a
1-have- -begin-
‘’I haven’t started (yet)’
  is expressed with the negated auxiliary ini together with an infinitive complement
(Crane 2011: 337).
(36) Example of  in Totela [ttl] (Crane 2011: 325):
ndì-chì-hùpúl-à
1-think-
‘’I’m still thinking’
(37) Example of   in Totela [ttl] (Crane 2011: 327):
ta-tu-chi-izi
1-know.
‘’We no longer know’
 and   are expressed with the marker chi after the subject marker, which, in
the case of  , is negated using standard negation.
To answer research question number two: The PhP systems found in the sample are quite
diverse. Six languages have a system containing all PhP expressions and five have none. Eleven
languages have systems containing different combinations with three items, another eleven
languages have systems with two items and thirteen languages only have one PhP item. As
shown in Table 3,   and  seem to be the most favoured expressions.

20
4.2 Morphological status
Research question number three is answered in this section:

3. What is the morphological status of the markers?

Table 5 illustrates the morphological status of all PhP items. The largest category in Table
5 is labeled ’Unclear’. This means that the morphological status is not mentioned explicitly in
the reference grammar. Because of the problems regarding the orthography and bondedness
described in 3.3 the results presented here should be considered tentative at best.

Table 5: Morphological status

Morphological status of PhP expressions

     

Verb 2 (0.05) 0 0 0
Adverb 0 3 (0.19) 1 (0.04) 0
Particle 2 (0.05) 1 (0.05) 2 (0.07) 0
Auxiliary 6 (0.17) 3 (0.19) 6 (0.22) 1 (0.08)
Prefix 6 (0.17) 3 (0.19) 6 (0.22) 4 (0.3)
Infix 1 (0.03) 0 1 (0.04) 0
Suffix 1 (0.03) 0 0 0
Unclear 18 (0.5) 6 (0.38) 11 (0.4) 7 (0.58)
Total: 36 16 27 12

  occurs as a prefix six times and an auxiliary six times. The other occurrences
are few, for example there are two examples of particles and one suffix.  occurs as
an adverb, auxiliary and prefix three times each, and only once as a particle. There are six
examples each of  being an auxiliary or a prefix, and two of it being a particle. The
other categories are only found once.   occurs four times as a prefix and once as
an auxiliary. Below, the most common types of the PhP expressions are given in examples
(38)–(44).
(38) Example of   in Matumbi [mgw] (Odden 1996: 66) [own glossing]:
ni̧-na-kalaanga li̧
1.-fry 
‘’I haven’t yet fried’
As shown in Table 5,   most commonly occurs as either a prefix or an auxiliary. The
prefix na in example (38) is described as a negative persistive marker with no known positive
counterpart. This prefix occurs with the negative marker li̧.

21
 (39) Example of   in Makwe [ymk] (Devos 2008: 341):
ináamba kuúlya
:1-be:yet. 15.eat.
‘’I have not eaten yet’

The auxiliary námba in example (39) is a polarity-item described as meaning ’be (not) yet’.
It always co-occurs with negation and takes an infinitive as complement.

(40) Example of  in Zimbabwean Ndebele [nde] (Bowern et al. 2002: 186):
se-si-dl-ile
1-eat-
‘’We’ve already eaten’

Just as in the case with  , the most common types of  markers are prefixes
and auxiliaries, two categories that tie with the adverb. Example (40) shows  as a
prefix in Zimbabwean Ndebele. It occurs word-initially with the verb in the perfect tense.

(41) Example of  in Koti [eko] (Schadeberg & Mucanheia 2000: 147) [own glossing]:
ka-áz-’ó-o-sííl-a
1-hear-
‘’I have already heard it (before)’

The auxiliary in example (41) is described as an affirmative counterexpectational that, when

no other event is mentioned, means . It is preceded by the subject marker and has an
infinitive as a complement.

(42) Example of  in Bena [bez] (Morrison 2011: 269) [own glossing]:
ndi-pí-gon-a
1-walk-
‘’I’m still walking’

 is most commonly found as a prefix or an auxiliary. In Bena, example (42), it is

described as a persistive prefix, pi, which implies that the subject is ’still V-ing’. It is found
after the subject marker and before the verbal stem.

(43) Example of  in Mwani [wmw] (Floor 2010: 15) [own glossing]:
n-ingarí ku-fyóm-a
1 -read-
‘’I am still reading’

In Mwani,  is an auxiliary in the form of ingarí, and is inflected with a subject marker
and takes an infinitive as a complement.   is most often described as a prefix, as
in example (44), where the PhP expression consists of the prefix sá together with standard
negation.

(44) Example of   in Sumayela Ndebele [nbl] (Ziervogel 1959: 88) [own glossing]:
a-tí-sá-dl-i
3-eat-.
‘’They no longer eat’

22
 Table 6: Bondedness

Bondedness of PhP expressions

     

Bound 18 (0.5) 4 (0.25) 17 (0.63) 7 (0.58)
Periphrastic 14 (0.39) 3 (0.19) 4 (0.15) 3 (0.25)
Free forms 4 (0.11) 9 (0.56) 6 (0.22) 2 (0.17)
Total: 36 16 27 12

The table above describes the bondedness of the PhP expressions. Half of the  -
markers are bound, 39 percent are used in a periphrastic construction and eleven percent are
unbound morphemes. The marker  is also mainly bound, at 63 percent, followed by a 15
percent section of periphrastic constructions and 22 percent free forms.   follows
the same structure. Of the examples found, 58 percent are bound, 25 percent are used in a
periphrastic construction and 17 percent are unbound. The one marker that differs from this
pattern is , which has 56 percent free forms, 19 percent periphrastic markers and 25
percent bound items.
According to section 2.4.4, which explains the grammaticalization process, the bonded-
ness of the PhP expressions indicates the level of grammaticalization.  is therefore the
most grammaticalized marker, followed by   and  . The high percentage of
periphrastic constructions for  and   indicate that they are currently undergoing
grammaticalization (see example (16)).
In short, the answer to research question number three is that the PhP expressions are
of very varied morphological status, however, some tendencies can be discerned. The most
common categories for  ,  and   is auxiliary and prefix.  is
commonly found to be a prefix, an auxiliary or an adverb. ,   and   all
have a high tendency to be grammaticalized, while  does not.

4.3 Semantics
Research questions number four and five are treated in this section:

4. What function do the PhP expressions have?

5. Do the markers occur under any restrictions?

The function of the PhP expressions were investigated with great difficulty. The lack of
detail in many grammars often provides the reader with no more than an English translation
of the marker, without discussing its usage and meaning further. In three cases   was
described as a CE-marker (Guerois 2015; Schadeberg & Mucanheia 2000; Van der Wal 2009),
or to have ’expectant implications’ (Stevick 1960; Canonici 1996). In one case  was
described as an affirmative CE-marker, and in another it was described as inceptive (inchoa-
tive) (Schadeberg & Mucanheia 2000; Canonici 1996).  is described on four occasions
as marking an action which has previously been going on and still continues at the time of

23
speech (Gadelii n.d.; Ziervogel 1952; Kiso 2012; Persohn 2017).   is not described as
anything other than a negated form of .
Even though the function is not mentioned explicitly in the grammars, the markers po-
sition in the verbal template can be used to speculate about its status in the grammar of the
relevant language. Table 8 shows in what slot in the verbal template (2.4.1) the PhP expressions
occur.

Table 7: Position in the verbal template

Position in the verbal template

     

Initial 0 3 0 0
Postinitial 14 1 16 7
Postfinal 1 0 1 0
Unclear 1 1 1 0
n/a 20 11 9 5
Total: 36 16 27 12

The unbound or periphrastic constructions are not applicable, hence the last category. The
majority of the bound  -markers are found in the postinitial slot, directly preceded by
the subject marker. The postinitial slot is described by Güldeman (1999) as being reserved for
-marker. The bound -markers show the same tendency, with 16 examples found in
the postinitial slot.   has seven markers in the postinitial slot.  is, again,
deviant with only one marker in the postinitial slot, and three in the prenitial slot directly
preceding the subject marker. The preinitial slot is described by Güldeman (1999) as being
reserved for  and polarity. There are only two cases where the PhP expression occurs in
the postfinal slot, which is reserved for clause type/object/polarity.
Lack of detail in many grammars also led to difficulties in answering question number
five. What can be said about the restrictions put upon PhP expressions by other categories
is not much. It is, however, clear that they often occur alone, without any other tense or
aspect marker. Although not restricting them, there are a few exceptions where there is a co-
occurrence of both a PhP-marker and a -marker. Table 7 illustrates which PhP expressions
occur with which -markers in each language. Table 8 shows the co-occurrence of PhP
expressions and . Due to its size Table 8 is located on the next page.
Seven out of 36  -markers occur together with a -marker. Five out of these are
past tense markers. Six out of 16 -markers occur with the perfect tense.  occurs
four times in all tenses and once only with the continuous tense.   shows similar
tendencies with two occurrences in all tenses and one in the perfect tense.

24
 Table 8: Phasal Polarity and 

e co-occurrence of PhP expressions and 

     

Past 5 (0.14) 0 0 0
Perfect 0 6 (0.4) 0 1 (0.08)
Continuous 1 (0.03) 0 1 (0.04) 0
Habitual 1 (0.03) 0 0 0
All tenses 0 0 4 (0.15) 2 (0.17)
Total: 7 (0.19) 6 (0.4) 5 (0.19) 3 (0.25)

The answer to question number four is that the majority of the bound PhP expressions
seem to function like -markers since they occur in the postinitial slot otherwise reserved
for -markers. It is also very rare for all PhP expressions to occur with another -marker.
This shows that they are fully incorporated in the -system of the language.
To answer research question number five: Most often, PhP expressions can not occur to-
gether with other -markers, but the few exceptions show a tendency towards a specific
correlation between a PhP item and a -category.

4.4 Summary
In section 4.1, the East Bantuversal accessibility hierarchy for PhP was proposed to illustrate
what PhP expressions are the most common in East Bantu. The most common expression is
 , followed by , with  and   being far less common. The PhP
systems in the samples proved to be diverse but the two most common systems contained
either only   or   and .
The morphological status of the markers proved to be diverse as well. The majority of
the  ,  and  -markers are either prefixes or auxiliaries.  devi-
ates in the sense that it was found to be an adverb as well as a prefix and an auxiliary. The
bondedness of the markers indicate that the majority of  ,  and   are
grammaticalized in the languages.  is found to be mostly unbound which indicates it
is not grammaticalized.
The majority of the bound markers occur in the postinitial slot, otherwise reserved for
/polarity, in the verbal template proposed in 2.4.1. The majority of the markers also do
not co-occur with any other -markers. This indicates that they are incorporated in the -
system, and function in a way similar to other -markers.

25
5 Further correlations and discussion
This section is organized as follows. The results presented in the previous section and the
results of previous studies are discussed (5.1). The co-occurrence of PhP expressions and stan-
dard negation (5.2.1), continuous aspect (5.2.2), perfect aspect (5.2.3) is discussed, together with
other relevant findings made when comparing the data.

5.1 Crosslinguistic frequency and universals

The findings in this study differ from van der Auweras Euroversal hierarchy. Bantu languages
differ from European languages in respect to the crosslinguistic frequency of PhP items. 
 is the least common marker and not the most common as van der Auwera claims for
European languages. However, concerning  there seems to be some similarities. 
 is the least common marker, but  is the marker in the sample that is the most
deviant.  is the least bound of all four PhP items and occurs as an adverb, a category
not found in any of the other expressions, except one occurrence in . In van der Auwera’s
hierarchy,  and   are said to have the same crosslinguistic frequency. The results
of this study differ, since   occurs in 78 percent of the sample. The number for 
is much lower, at 59 percent, making   the most common PhP expression in Bantu
languages by 19 percent.
The crosslinguistic frequency in van Baar’s study, with  and   as the most
common and  and   as the least common, is confirmed by the findings of
this study. The first of van Baar’s coverage universals, mentioned in 2.2.2, is also endorsed
by the results. He claims that   is commonly derived from  which is a result
also found here. More on this in section 5.2.1 The second coverage universal states that if a
language has a shared expression for  and  , that languages also has the
other two PhP items. There is only one instance when   is derived from ,
making it impossible to prove or disprove this universal.

5.2 Co-occurrence of PhP expressions and more general markers

In this section the co-occurrence of the two negative PhP expressions and standard negation
is investigated. Similarly, the co-occurrence of  and the continuous tense and the co-
occurrence of  and the perfect is examined.

5.2.1 Co-occurrence with standard negation

The co-occurence of PhP items and standerd negation is illustrated in Table 9. Due to its size the
table is located on the next page. All cases of   co-occurs with negation. In fact, 
 is most often the negated form of . This is not true for  , however, since
there are three cases of   that do not co-occur with negation, illustrated in example
(45)-(47). Example (45) gives the structure of   in Yao.

(45) Example of   in Yao [yao] (Sanderson 1922: 187) [own glossing]:
ni-gini-ni-ich-e
1.1-come-
‘’I had not yet come’

26
 Table 9: Co-occurrence of negative PhP items and standard negation

Co-occurence of negative PhPs and SN

PhP Co-occurrence with SN

  33
  12

Yao constructs the expression with the   marker using gini. This prefix occurs
between two subject markers. The interesting deviation in this construction is the final vowel.
In other words, both negative and positive tenses, Sanderson describes the final vowel as a.
The other two cases where the final vowel is e is in the immediate future tense and in the
subjunctive mood. The future tense includes an additional prefix, but the subjunctive mood is
only characterised by the change of the final vowel from a to e.
This raises the question whether the subjunctive has anything to do with the PhP expres-
sion. That would mean that the counterexpectational part of   links the construction
to the subjunctive, that has similar semantic content. Hypothetically, it is imaginable that this
expression is derived from the subjunctive like this: ’I may come later´ meaning ’I have not
yet come (but I expect to later)’.
Example (46) gives the structure of   in Chopi.
(46) Example of   in Chopi [cce] (Smyth 1902: 95) [own glossing]:
ni-sanga-von-a
1.-see-
‘’I have not yet seen’
The prefix sanga is described briefly by Smyth and Matthews (1902: 95) as meaning 
, but no further explanation is given. Standard negation in Chopi consists of a prefix, a,
and a final vowel i, which does not occur in the example. In this case,   seems to be
completely grammaticalized into a single prefix. However, upon examining the section in the
grammar describing the perfect, a negative prefix was found: nga. This form is also used to
negate the subjunctive, in both cases together with the negative prefix a.
If this negative prefix is part of the marker described as meaning  , there is a number
of interesting implications. It is possible that   in Chopi is derived from either the
perfect or the subjunctive, with the marker sa originally meaning , a -marker, being
negated by the subjunctive or perfective negative prefix nga. Again, it is possible that  
has been derived from a construction originally in the subjunctive mood.
Example (47) gives the structure of   in Nyakyusa-Ngonde.
(47) Example of   in Nyakyusa-Ngonde [nyy] (Persohn 2017: 187):
jɪ-kaalɪ ʊ-kʊ-py-a
9 15()-be(come).burnt-
‘’It’s not yet done.’
Persohn (2017) describes the marker kaalɪ as a persistive marker that can mean either 
or   depending on the complement. Possible reasons why the infinitive complement

27
changes the meaning of the marker to   are not discussed. This type of construction is,
however, common as noted by both Bernander (2017: 263) and Veselinova (pc).
Table 10 gives the bases of derivation of  .

Table 10: Derivation of  

Bases for derivation of  

 2
 0
Not derived 34

Although   usually occurs with standard negation it does not seem to be derived
from any other PhP expressions, as shown in Table 10. There are only two examples of 
 being derived from , and no examples of it being derived from .
Table 11 gives the bases of derivation of  .   does not behave like 
 and is for the most part derived from .

Table 11: Derivation of  

Bases for derivation of  

 9
 1
Not derived 2

Comparing  and  , it soon became evident that   was most often
derived from . This was the case in nine out of twelve languages. Two languages showed
no similarities between the two PhP expressions, and one was derived from . Example
(48)-(49) showcase the most common way this was done.
(48) Example of  in Pedi [nso] (Ziervogel 1954: 70) [own glossing]:
ki-sa-khov-a
1-sit-
‘’I still sit, I am still sitting’
(49) Example of   in Pedi [nso] (Ziervogel 1954: 70) [own glossing]:
a-ki-sa-khov-i
1-sit-.
‘’I no longer sit’
Comparing  and   in Pedi is rather straightforward. The positive construc-
tion contains the subject marker, the prefix sa and the stem. The negated version starts with
the negative prefix a, and ends with a negative final vowel i. This is how all expressions of 
 are derived, except in Kalanga, that has a more complex structure. Examples (50)–(52)
illustrate the way Kalanga expresses  and  .

28
 (50) Example of  in Kalanga [kck] (Chebanne & Schmidt 2010: 101) [own glossing]:
ndi-tja-lim-a
1-plough-
‘’I’m still ploughing’
There are clear similarities between example (50) and (48). Both contain the subject marker,
followed by the PhP item and the verbal stem. However, unlike all other languages with a
  marker, the construction in Kalanga is limited to the past and future progressive
tenses. It is also a periphrastic construction, a characteristic only shared with Tswana, whose
  marker is not derived from any other PhP expression.
(51) Example of   in Kalanga [kck] (Chebanne & Schmidt 2010: 101) [own gloss-
ing]:
a-ndi-towo-be ndi-tjowo-be ndi-lim-a
1. 1. 1-plough-
‘’I shall no longer be ploughing’ [future tense]
Example (51) illustrates the structure of   in the future progressive tense. This
construction consists of two inflected auxiliaries and a main verb. The auxiliaries, be (to be),
are both marked with the subject marker, and the first is also negated with both the negative
prefix a and the future negative marker towo. The second auxiliary has the marker, tjowo,
which described as a contraction of tja () and nowo (). The main verb is, again, marked
for person, but with no other inflection.
(52) Example of   in Kalanga [kck] (Chebanne & Schmidt 2010: 101) [own gloss-
ing]:
nda-ka-be ndi-si-nga-tja-lim-a
1 1-plough-
‘’I shall no longer be ploughing’ [past tense]
Example (52) illustrates the structure of   in the past progressive tense. This
construction differs a lot from the future progressive, as it is not negated and only has one
auxiliary. The auxiliary, be, is inflected for person and marked with the past tense marker
ka. The main verb repeats the subject marker, in direct conjunction to what is described as
a participial marker, si. This also changes the final vowel from a, to e, the same as in the
participial mood. The next marker is nga, which is described as a conditional, or eventuality
marker. This marker is used to express the conditional, potential, permissive, and the optative
(Chebanne & Schmidt 2010: 128).
Unlike example (51), there is no negation marker in this construction. Exactly in what
way the participial and conditional markers contribute to changing  to   is not
explained. There is, however, another example of a negative PhP expression with no explicit
negation. Compare example (52) to example (26) of   in Nyakyusa-Ngonde. This is also
a periphrastic construction where the main verb is an infinitive. Although not abundant, these
examples show that negation is not always needed to construct a negative PhP expression.
Olsson (2013) investigates perfective grammatical markers, iamitives, in Southeast asian
languges. These markers can also be used as PhP expressions. He concludes that the relation-
ship between negation and iamitives is that a negated  in his data becomes  .
Furthermore, when  is negated Olsson claims it becomes  . It would seem that the
Southeast Asian languages use the the continuative  to derive the continuative  ,
and the inchoative  to derive the terminative  . As illustrated above, Bantu
languages exhibit a different pattern:   is derived from  more often than from
, and   is, for the most part, not derived from another PhP item. Southeast
Asia and Southeast Africa seem to have different lexicalization patterns.

29
5.2.2 Co-occurrence of  and continuous aspect
Table 12 shows that  coexists with the continuous aspect in 23 languages. 16 languages
only have a continuous tense and four languages have  without a continuous tense. Three
languages showed no evidence of either.

Table 12:  and the continuous aspect

Co-occurrence of  and continuous aspect

Both 23
Only  4
Only  16
Neither 3

Example (53) and (54) illustrate a language with both continuous aspect and grammatical-
ized , namely Totela.

(53) Example of the continuous tense in Totela [ttl] (Crane 2011: 317):
ndi-li-kweesi ndi-la-yend-a
1.. 1-walk-
‘’I am walking’

Totela uses a periphrastic construction to express the continuous tense, with the auxiliary
kweesi inflected for person and a present tense marker, li. The complement is marked with the
subject marker and the non-completive marker la. Another, infinitive complement, can also
be used to express continuous aspect.

(54) Example of  in Totela [ttl] (Crane 2011: 325):

ndì-chì-hùpúl-à
1-think-
‘’I’m still thinking’

What is interesting in Totela is that  and the continuous tense show different levels of
grammaticalization. The bound marker chi () is more grammaticalized than the construc-
tion used to express the continuous tense. This may indicate that the addition of a continuous
tense is a more recent evolution in the language.
Table 13 illustrates the bondedness of  compared to the continuous tense.  shows
12 bound constructions, six unbound and three periphrastic constructions. Two constructions
are mixed and can be expressed with both an auxiliary and a bound morpheme. The contin-
uous tense has a few more bound constructions, with 17, and five periphrastic constructions.
Only one is unbound. Over all,  seems to be slightly less bound with its six unbound
morphemes, but overall the difference is small.

30
 Table 13: Bondedness of  and the continuous tense

Bondedness of  and the continuous tense

 Cont.
Bound 14 17
Periphrastic 5 5
Unbound 6 1
Mixed 2 0

5.2.3 Co-occurrence of  and perfect aspect

Table 14 shows the co-occurrence of  and the perfect tense. As  is one of the
least common of the PhP expressions it is no surprise that the largest group of languages are
the ones with only the perfect tense, with 24 occurrences. The majority of the languages that
have  also have the perfect tense, in fact, twelve out of sixteen, or 75 percent of the
languages show this tendency. There are also four languages that only have , and six
that have neither  nor the perfect tense.

Table 14: Co-occurrence of  and perfect aspect

Co-occurrence of  and perfect aspect

Both 12
Only  4
Only  24
Neither 6
Total: 46

Upon closer examination, the languages with both an -marker and the perfect
tense show that  is currently undergoing grammaticalization as described in section
2.3.4. In these languages there is a division into three categories based on the bondedness of
the marker. First, there are the free forms and auxiliaries, then there are the bound markers
that co-occur with the perfect tense, and finally there are the bound markers which occur on
their own. The examples below show  in different stages of grammaticalization. From
these examples it is clear how  is becoming more grammaticalized in some languages.
(55) Example of  in Tswana [tsn] (Cole 1962: 130) [own glossing]:
kè-sétsè ké-kwàl-á
1 1-write-
‘’I am already writing’

31
 Example (55) illustrates  as an auxiliary inflected for person, together with the
main verb that also has a subject marker.

(56) Example of  in Zimbabwean Ndebele [nde] (Bowern et al. 2002: 51):
se-si-dl-ile
1-eat-
‘’We’ve already eaten’

Example (56) is particularly interesting because of the following: First,  occurs
together with the perfect in a bound construction and does not seem to occur in any other
tenses. This is fully possible since  and the perfect have similar semantic properties,
causing an overlap (Dahl & Wälchli 2016). Second, Bowern et al. (2002) explain that 
was originally preceded by another subject marker, making the total of subject markers two
as in example (55). The initial subject marker has now been deleted.

(57) Example of  in Zulu [zul] (Canonici 1996: 103) [own glossing and translation]:
se-ngi-thand-a
1-love-
‘’I already love’

Example (57) also has an initial -marker, just like the two previous examples.
Canonici (1996) explains that this marker was originally an auxiliary that had its own sub-
ject marker, but is now a prefix. He also mentions that it can co-occur with the perfect, but
that it is not obligatory.
Based on these examples the following grammaticalization pattern can be hypothesised:

1.  is an unbound marker.

2.  becomes an auxiliary (example (55)).
3.  becomes bound, retaining both subject markers from the time it was an auxil-
iary.
4.  loses the first subject marker, as it is now redundant (example (56)).
5. An intermediary stage in the semantic development could cause  to co-occur
with the perfect (example (56)).
6. The co-occurence of  and the perfect becomes optional (example (57)).
7.  becomes a bound marker that occurs as an initial prefix without any other
-marker.

It becomes apparent from this hypothesis that the languages in the sample, and especially
those in the example, are in different stages of this development. The example languages even
share a similar -marker: se or sétsè. Other auxiliaries with the same meaning is the
Sumayela Ndebele sele and se in Southern Sotho (example (23)). It seems possible that an
increased usage and/or a development from an auxiliary to a bound form could reduce sétsè
and sele to se, as it is the more common form, meaning this could have already happened in
the other languages.

5.3 A small scale historical comparative analysis

This section discusses the similarities found in the clusters. First, some general observations
are made and later on the two most common markers,   and , are discussed. Only

32
 Table 15: Clusters

Distribution of PhP expressions in the clusters

Cluster No. of lgs       No. of PhPs
Botatwe 5 5 1 3 1 10
Sabi 4 2 1 2 0 4
Shona 5 5 0 3 1 9
Sotho-Tswana 4 4 3 4 3 14
Rufiji-Ruvuma 5 4 1 1 0 6
Nguni-Tsonga 7 6 5 6 4 21
N. M. Bantu 3 3 2 1 1 7
T-S-N 3 1 0 1 0 2
Total: 36 30 13 21 10

the clusters with three or more languages were used in the analysis. This means that 10 lan-
guages were excluded.
Table 15 gives an overview of the PhP items found in the clusters. The clusters are: Bo-
tatwe, Sabi, Shona, Sotho-Tswana, Rufiji-Ruvuma, Nguni-Tsonga, North Mozambique Bantu
and Tumbuka-Sena-Nyanja. Nguni-Tsonga and Sotho-Tswana are the two clusters with the
highest number of complete systems, and the overall highest concentration of PhP items with
21 and 14 items each. It seems like the southern part of the sample, below central Zimbabwe,
is where PhP expressions are most common. This is especially true if Chopi and Venda are
added, since they also have complete PhP systems and are geographically located close to the
two other branches.
The more northern part of the sample (Botatwe, Sabi, Shona) and the more north-eastern
part (Rufiji-Ruvuma, North Mozambique Bantu) all have a lower frequency of PhP, but still
have a high frequency of  . It seems like   is favoured in these parts of the
sample.
Table 16 illustrates the three clusters where  has a similar form. A total of 16 out
of 27 expressions share these similarities, adding up to 59 percent of the sample. The com-
mon denominator seems to be a fricative, usually s, followed by the vowel a. Two of the
branches are more closely related, raising the possibility of this being a genealogical feature.
Both Nguni-Tsonga and Sotho-Tswana are part of the Southern Bantu-Makua sub-family, but
Shona branches of earlier. Shona, however, is geographically located just north of the other
two clusters, so there is a possibility of contact-related spread of this form of .
Table 17 illustrates the three branches in which   share a similar form. The com-
mon denominator here seems to be na. In total, 11 of 36 items, or 31 percent, share a common
form; a much lower number than for . Two of these clusters are not as closely related as
Sotho-Tswana and Nguni-Tsonga either. Botatwe and Rufji-Ruvuma branch off directly under

33
 Table 16: Proto-

Proto-

Cluster Language 

Nguni-Tsonga Sumayela Ndebele sa
Nguni-Tsonga Swati sa
Nguni-Tsonga Tsonga ha
Nguni-Tsonga Tswa ha
Nguni-Tsonga Xhosa sa
Nguni-Tsonga Zimbabwean Ndebele -
Nguni-Tsonga Zulu sa
Shona Kalanga tja
Shona Manyika -
Shona Shona -
Shona Tawara sa
Shona Tewe cha
Sotho-Tswana Kgalagadi sha
Sotho-Tswana Pedi sa
Sotho-Tswana Southern Sotho sa
Sotho-Tswana Tswana sa
Total: 16

the East Bantu sub-family, while North Mozambique Bantu is part of the Southern Bantu-
Makua branch. Even though they are much less closely related, they still share this common
marker. This could be because they are fairly close together geograpically. The Rufiji-Ruvuma
and North Mozambique Bantu clusters are located along the coast of Tanzania and Mozam-
bique. Botatwe is mainly spoken in Zambia, very far away from the two other clusters, and is
therefore the odd one out. In both Botatwe and North Mozambique Bantu   is mainly
bound, while in Rufiji-Ruvuma the expression is bound in half of the languages and used in a
periphrastic construction in half. This suggests that the form na is newer in the Rufiji-Ruvuma
cluster than in the other clusters.
A historical comparative analysis relies mainly on sound changes. Without more diachronic
data, any historical comparative analysis will be difficult. Nonetheless, looking at the fren-
quencies of the markers it is possible to hypothesise a proto-form of both  and  ,
although not on the Proto-Bantu level. The most frequent form of  in the Nguni-Tsonga,
Sotho-Tswana and Shona branches is sa. The most frequent form of   in the Botatwe,

34
 Table 17: Proto- 

Proto- 

Cluster Language  

Botatwe Ila na
Botatwe Lenje na
Botatwe Soli na
Botatwe Tonga na/ninga
Botatwe Totela ini
N. Mozambique Bantu Chuwabu na
N. Mozambique Bantu Koti na
N. Mozambique Bantu Makhuwa na
Rufiji-Ruvuma Makonde ka-naa/ka-naamba
Rufiji-Ruvuma Makwe naamba
Rufiji-Ruvuma Matumbi na
Rufiji-Ruvuma Ndengereko -
Rufiji-Ruvuma Yao kana
Total: 13

North Mozambique Bantu and Rufiji-Ruvuma branches is na. Therefore the proto-form of
 could be sa, and for   it could be na or naamba. As stated in 2.3.4. the gram-
maticalization process can result in phonetic reduction. Therefore the longest form, naamba,
might also be the oldest. But without futher documentaion, it is difficult to draw any certain
conclusions. In any case, both  and   appear to be inherited rather than borrowed
features in these clusters.

6 Conclusions
A summary of the answers to the research questions, the characteristics of PhP expressions
and Bantu-specific tendencies, as well as recommendations for further research is presented
in this section.

The answers to the research questions are:

1. What form do the PhP expressions have?

35
 The forms of the PhP expressions vary. For a description of each PhP item, see appendices
1–4.

2. Which PhPs are available and in what languages?

The PhP systems found in the sample are diverse. Six languages have a system con-
taining all PhP expressions and five have none. Eleven languages have systems contain-
ing different combinations of three items. The most common three-item systems are 
// and  // . Another eleven languages have systems
with two items. The most common two item system is  /. Thirteen languages
only have one PhP item, of which twelve are  .

3. What is the morphological status of the markers?

The morphological status of the markers was not mentioned in most grammars. However,
in the cases where this was mentioned,  ,  and   were most commonly
found to be prefixes or auxiliaries.  was found to be a prefix or an auxiliary as often
as an adverb.

4. What function do the PhP expressions have?

The bound PhP items show tendencies of being incorporated in the -system of their re-
spective languages, hence functioning like other -markers. No other functions were found.

5. Do the markers occur under any restrictions?

The majority of the PhP expressions did not occur with any other -markers, indicating
that they might be incompatible. No other restrictions were found.

  was the most common marker found in the sample. It is most often a prefix or
an auxiliary and was found to be a bound marker in half of the occurrences. The bound 
-markers occurred in the postinitial slot in the verbal template.   was not found to
be derived from another PhP expression.
 was the second most common marker found in the sample. It is most often a prefix
or an auxiliary and was found to be a bound marker in more than half of the occurrences. The
bound -markers occurred, like  , in the postinitial slot in the verbal template.
 was not commonly found in the sample. This marker was found to have varied
morphological status and was often a free form. Therefore the verbal template was inapplicable
in the majority of cases. A third of the -markers co-occurred with the perfect.
  was not commonly found in the sample. The majority of the  -
markers were found to be derived from . Therefore, they share the same characteristics.
Three tendencies indicate that PhP expressions are a stable category in the East-Bantu
family. First, the languages in the sample show a very strong tendency to incorporate  
and to a certain degree  in the -system. Second, there is also a probability that  
and  are diachronically stable in specific clusters. Third, the languages show a tendency
to grammaticalize PhP expressions.
To better describe the semantics and usage of PhP expressions, future studies would ben-
efit from using a questionnaire like van Baar (1997). This method would avoid two problems

36
associated with grammars. It would increase the chance of finding complete systems, as the
questionnaire would be focused solely on PhP expressions, unlike grammars. This method
would also provide data that reflects the current usage of PhP items in the target language, as
opposed to the many grammars used in this study that are out-dated.

37
References
Andrews, J.R. 2003. Introduction to Classical Nahuatl. University of Oklahoma Press.

Bernander, R. 2017. Grammar and Grammaticalization in Manda: An Analysis of the Wider

TAM Domain in a Tanzanian Bantu Language. Department of Languages and Literatures,
University of Gothenburg.

Botne, R.D.O., & Schafer, L. 2008. e Chindali Language of Malawi: A grammatical sketch of
Cindali, Malawian variety. Lightning Rod Press. American Philosophical Society.

Bowern, C., Lotridge, V., & Alling, E. 2002. Ndebele. Languages of the world: Materials. Lincom
Europa.

Canonici, N.N. 1996. Zulu Grammatical Structure. Zulu Language and Literature, University
of Natal.

Carter, H., & Kahari, G.P. 1979. Kuverenga Chishóna: An Introductory Shona Reader with Gram-
matical Sketch. School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London.

Carter, H., & Kahari, G.P. 1986. Shona Language Course. Shona Language Course, nos. v. 1–3.
African Studies Program, University of Wisconsin.

Carter, H., & Kashoki, M.E. 2002. An outline of Chitonga grammar. Bookworld Publishers.

Chebanne, A.M., & Schmidt, D. 2010. Kalanga: Summary Grammar. CASAS book series.
Centre for Advanced Studies of African Society (CASAS).

Cole, T., Mpho Mokaila D. 1962. A course in Tswana.

Comrie, Bernard, Haspelmath, Martin, & Bickel, Balthasar. 2008. e Leipzig glossing rules:
Conventions for interlinear morpheme-by-morpheme glosses.

Crane, T.M. 2011. Beyond Time: Temporal and Extra-temporal Functions of Tense and Aspect
Marking in Totela, a Bantu Language of Zambia. Ph.D. thesis, University of California.

Croft, W. 2002. Typology and Universals. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. Cambridge

University Press.

Dahl, Östen, & Wälchli, Bernhard. 2016. Perfects and iamitives : two gram types in one gram-
matical space. Letras de Hoje, 51(3), 325–348.

Dembetembe, N.C. 1987. A Linguistic Study of the Verb in Korekore. Supplement to Zambezia.
University of Zimbabwe, Publications Office.

Devos, M. 2008. A grammar of Makwe: (Palma; Mozambique). LINCOM studies in African

linguistics. Lincom Europa.

Doke, C.M. 1938. Text Book of Lamba Grammar. Witwatersrand University Press.

Doke, C.M., & Mofokeng, S.M. 1957. Textbook of Southern Sotho grammar. SOLINET/ASERL
Cooperative Microfilming Project. Longmans, Green.

Floor, S. 2010. Mwani grammatical sketch. SIL Moçambique.

38
Gadelii, K.E. A grammatical sketch of Xitshwa. August, 1998.

Garrido, J. 1992. Expectations in spanish and german adverbs of change. 26(01), 357–402.

Givón, T. 1971. Historical Syntax and Synchronic Morphology: An Archeologist’s Field Trip. Vol.
7. The Chicago Linguistic Society. Pages 394–415.

Grimes, B.F. (ed). 2000. Languages of the world: ethnologue. SIL International.

Grollemund, Rebecca, Branford, Simon, Bostoen, Koen, Meade, Andrew, Venditti, Chris, &
Pagel, Mark. 2015. Bantu expansion shows that habitat alters the route and pace of human
dispersals. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Guerois, Rozenn. 2015. A grammar of Cuwabo (Bantu P34, Mozambique). Ph.D. thesis.
2015LYO20032.

Güldeman, Tom. 1999. The Gensis of Verbal Negation in Bantu and its Dependency on Func-
tional Features of Clause Types. Pages 545–587 of: Hombert, & Hyman (eds), Bantu Historical
Linguistics. Calif: CSLI Publications.

Heine, Bernd. 2011. e Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization. Oxford University Press.

Chap. Grammaticalization in African languages.

Heine, Bernd, Claudi, Ulrike, & Hünnemeyer, Friederike. 1991. Grammaticalization : a concep-
tual framework. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Hoch, E. n.d.. Bemba grammar notes for beginners. n.p.

Kirsch, B., Skorge, S., & Magona, S. 1999. Xhosa. Teach yourself books. NTC Publishing Group.

Kiso, A. 2012. Tense and Aspect in Chichewa, Citumbuka and Cisena: A Description and Com-
parison of the Tense-aspect Systems in ree Southeastern Bantu Languages. Ph.D. thesis,
Department of Linguistics, Stockholm University.

Kraal, P.J. 2005. A Grammar of Makonde (Chinnima, Tanzania). Universiteit Leiden.

Kramer, Raija. Position paper on Phasal Polarity expressions. https://www.aai.uni-

hamburg.de/afrika/php2018/medien/position-paper-on-php.pdf.

Lanham, L.W. 1955. A study of giTonga of Inhambane. Bantu linguistic studies. Witwatersrand
University Press.

Löbner, Sebastian. 1989. ’Schon – erst – noch’: An integrated analysis. Linguistics and Philos-
ophy, 12(2), 167–212.

Lukusa, S.T.M., & Monaka, K.C. 2008. Shekgalagari grammar: a descriptive analysis of the
language and its vocabulary. CASAS book series. Centre for Advanced Studies of African
Society (CASAS).

Madan, A.C. 1906. Wisa Handbook: A Short Introduction to the Wisa Dialect of North-East
Rhodesia. Clarendon Press.

Madan, A.C. 1908. Lenje Handbook: A Short Introduction to the Lenje Dialect Spoken in North-
west Rhodesia. Clarendon Press.

39
Maganga, C., & Schadeberg, T.C. 1992. Kinyamwezi: Grammar, Texts, Vocabulary. East African
languages and dialects. R. Köppe.

Maho, Jouni. 2003. A classification of the Bantu languages: an update of Guthrie’s referential
system. In: Nurse, & Philipson (eds), e Bantu languages. Routledge.

Miti, L.M. 2001. A Linguistic Analysis of Cinsenga: A Bantu Language Spoken in Zambia and
Malawi. CASAS book series. Centre for Advanced Studies of African Society (CASAS).

Morrison, M. E. 2011. A Reference Grammar of Bena. Ph.D. thesis, Rice University.

Ngonyani, D.S. 2003. A Grammar of Chingoni. Languages of the world / Materials: Materials.
Lincom.

Nurse, D. 2003. Aspect and tense in Bantu languages. In: Nurse, D., Philippson G. (ed), e
Bantu Languages. Routledge.

Nurse, Derek, & Philipson, Gérard. 2014. e Bantu languages. Routledge.

Odden, D.A. 1996. e Phonology and Morphology of Kimatuumbi. Phonology of the world’s
languages. Clarendon Press.

Olsson, Bruno. 2013. Iamitives : Perfects in Southeast Asia and beyond. M.Phil. thesis, Stockholm
University, General Linguistics.

Ouwehand, M. 1978. Everyday Tsonga. Sasavona publishers.

Paroz, R.A. 1946. Elements of Southern Sotho. Basutoland, Morija Sesuto Book Depot.

Persohn, B. 2017. e verb in Nyakyusa: A focus on tense, aspect and modality. Contemporary
African Linguistics. Language Science Press.

Plungian, Vladimir A. 1999. A typology of phasal meanings. Pages 311–321 of: Abraham,
& Kulikov (eds), Tense-aspect, transitivity and causativity: Essays in honour of Vladimir 24
Nedjalkov. John Benjamins Publishing.

Poulos, G. 1990. A Linguistic Analysis of Venda. Via Afrika Limited.

Sanderson, M. 1922. A Yao Grammar. Society for promoting Christian knowledge.

Schadeberg, T.C., & Mucanheia, F.U. 2000. Ekoti: e Maka Or Swahili Language of Angoche.
East African languages and dialects. Köppe.

Smith, E. W. 1907. A handbook of the Ila language. Oxford University Press.

Smyth, B., Matthews J. 1902. A vocabulary with a short grammar of Xilenge. Society For
Promoting Christian Knowledge.

Stevick, W. 1960. Manyika Step-by Step. Central Mission Press.

Ström, Eva-Marie. 2013. e Ndengeleko language of Tanzania. Ph.D. thesis, University of

Gothenburg.

Traugott, Elisabeth Closs. 2011. e Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization. Oxford Univer-

sity Press. Chap. Grammaticalization and the mechanisms of change.

40
van Baar, Theodorus Martinus. 1997. Eurotyp: 3: Phasal Polarity. Amsterdam: IFOTT.

van der Auwera, J. 1998. Phasal Adverbials in the Languages of Europe. Mouton de Gruyter.
Pages 25–145.

van der Merwe, D. F., Schapera I. 1943. A comparative study of Kgalagadi, Kwena, and other
Sotho dialects. University of Cape Town.

Van der Wal, J. 2009. Word order and information structure in Makhuwa-Enahara. LOT inter-
national series. LOT.

van Eeden, B.J.C. 1936. Notes on the Grammar of Soli. Nasionale Pers, Beperk.

Wright, J.L. 2007. An Outline of Kikaonde Grammar. Language in Zambia. Bookworld Pub-
lishers and UNZA Press.

Ziervogel, D. 1952. A Grammar of Swazi (siSwati):. Bantu grammatical archives, 3. Witwater-

srand University Press.

Ziervogel, D. 1954. e Eastern Sotho: a tribal, historical, and linguistic survey (with ethno-
graphic notes) of the Pai, Kutswe, and Pulana Bantu tribes in the Pilgrim’s Rest District of
the Transvaal Province, Union of South Africa. SOLINET/ASERL Cooperative Microfilming
Project. J.L. Van Schaik.

Ziervogel, D. 1959. A Grammar of Northern Transvaal Ndebele, Etc. Pretoria.

41
A Appendix 1

 
Language ISO-code Form of   Source
Bemba bem ta-?-la-?-a Hoch (n.d.: 21)
Bena (Tanzania) bez Morrison (2011)
Chopi cce SM-sanga-STEM-FV Smyth (1902: 39)
Chuwabu chw NEG.SM-ná-STEM Guerois (2015: 383)
Gitonga toh NEG-SM-si-INF-STEM-NEG Lanham (1955: 173)
Ila ilb NEG.SM na INF STEM-FV Smith (1907: 165)
Kalanga kck a-SM-thu + verb in the past Chebanne & Schmidt
consecutive (2010: 107)
Kaonde kqn Wright (2007)
Kgalagadi xkv NEG ntse SM STEM-NEG van der Merwe (1943:
71)
Koti eko NEG-SM-ná-STEM-e Schadeberg & Mucan-
heia (2000: 122)
Lala-Bisa leb Madan (1906)
Lamba lam NEG.SM-nga-STEM-FV Doke (1938: 284)
NEG-SM-nga-STEM-FV
Lenje leh NEG-SM-ná-STEM Madan (1908: 38)
Makhuwa vmw NEG.SM-ná-STEM-e Van der Wal (2009: 106)
Makonde kde SM-ka-nàa(va) INF-STEM- Kraal (2005: 242)
FV SM-ka-nàamba INF-
STEM-FV
Makwe ymk NEG.SM-náamba INF.cl15- Devos (2008: 341)
STEM-FV
Manyika mxc NEG-SM-PST.NEG-ti + verb Stevick (1960: 171)
in the recent past participle
Matumbi mgw SM-ná-STEM-FV NEG Odden (1996: 66)
Mwani wmw NEG-námba INF-STEM-FV Floor (2010: 15)
Ndali ndh Botne & Schafer (2008)
Ndengereko ndg Ström (2013)
Ngoni ngo NEG.SM-kona NEG-INF- Ngonyani (2003: 87)
STEM
Nsenga nse Miti (2001)
Nyakyusa-Ngonde nyy SM-kaali AUG-INF-STEM- Persohn (2017: 187)
FV

42
  continued
Language ISO-code Form of   Source
Nyamwezi nym Maganga & Schadeberg
(1992)
Nyanja nya NEG-SM-RECPST-STEM- Kiso (2012: 157)
SBJV-be
Pedi nso NEG-SM-ki SM-STEM-FV Ziervogel (1954)
Sena (Malawi) swk Kiso (2012)
Shona sna NEG-SM-satí Carter & Kahari (1986:
37)
Soli sby PST-NEG.PST-na-SM-STEM van Eeden (1936: 25)
PST-SM-NEG-na-SM-STEM
Southern Sotho sot NEG-SM-es’o-STEM-FV Doke & Mofokeng
(1957: 213)
Sumayela Ndebele nbl Ziervogel (1959)
Swati ssw SM-se SM-NEG-STEM-FV Ziervogel (1952: 133)
Tawara twl NEG-SM-cha-AUX SM-INF- Dembetembe (1987:
STEM-FV 101)
Tewe twx NEG-sa-ti + verb in the past Carter & Kahari (1979:
participle 41)
Tonga toi NEG-SM-níngá-STEM-FV Carter & Kashoki
NEG-SM-ná-STEM-FV (2002: 61)
Totela ttl NEG-SM-ini INF-STEM-FV Crane (2011: 337)
Tsonga tso NEG SM si STEM-FV Ouwehand (1978: 108)
Tswa tsc NEG SM.CONT ha STEM- Gadelii (n.d.: 22)
NEG
Tswana tsn NEG-SM-ísé + verb in the ha- Cole (1962: 130)
bitual subjunctive
Tumbuka tum Kiso (2012)
Venda ven NEG-SM-athu-STEM-FV Poulos (1990: 344)
Xhosa xho NEG-SM-ka-STEM-FV Kirsch et al. (1999: 205)
Yao yao SM-kana-SM-STEM-e Sanderson (1922: 56)
ngana-SM-STEM-FV
Zimbabwean Ndebele nde NEG-SM-zake SM-STEM- Bowern et al. (2002: 45)
SUBJ
Zulu zul NEG-SM-ka-STEM-NEG Canonici (1996: 105)

43
B Appendix 2


Language ISO-code Form of  Source
Bemba bem apo pene Hoch(n.d.: 51)
Bena (Tanzania) bez Morrison (2011)
Chopi cce se-SM-STEM-PRF Smyth (1902: 38)
Chuwabu chw já SM-PRF-STEM Guérios (2015: 363)
Gitonga toh Lanham (1955 )
Ila ilb kle Smith (1907: 213 )
Kalanga kck Chebanne & Schmidt (2010)
Kaonde kqn kala Wright (2007: 31)
Kgalagadi xkv la sala v.d Merwe and Schapera (1943: 84)
Koti eko SM-áz INF-STEM-FV Schadeberg (2000: 147)
Lala-Bisa leb
Lamba lam Doke (1938)
Lenje leh Madan (1908)
Makhuwa vmw van der Wal (2009)
Makonde kde Kraal (2005)
Makwe ymk Devos (2008)
Manyika mxc Stevick and Machiwana (1960)
Matumbi mgw Odden (1996)
Mwani wmw Floor (2010)
Ndali ndh Botne (2008)
Ndengereko ndg pyaa Ström (2013: 251)
Ngoni ngo Ngonyani (2003)
Nsenga nse Miti (2001)
Nyakyusa-Ngonde nyy Persohn (2017)
Nyamwezi nym Maganga and Schadeberg (1992)
Nyanja nya Kiso (2012)
Pedi nso Ziervogel (1954)
Sena (Malawi) swk Kiso (2012)
Shona sna Carter (1986)
Soli sby van Eeden (1936)
Southern Sotho sot SM se SM STEM-a Paroz (1946: 95)
Sumayela Ndebele nbl sele, biyo Sekhosana (2009: 330)

44
 continued
Swati ssw (SM)-se SM-STEM-FV Ziervogel (1952:
132 )
Tawara twl Dembetembe
(1987)
Tewe twx Carter and Ka-
hari (1979)
Tonga (Zambia) toi Carter (2002)
Totela ttl Crane (2011)
Tsonga tso Ouwehand (1965)
Tswa tsc Gadelii (1999)
Tswana tsn SM-sétsè verb in the present participle Cole and Mokaila
(1962: 130)
Tumbuka tum Kiso (2012: 235-
236)
Venda ven SM-PRF-no-STEM-FV Poulos (1990:
342)
Xhosa xho sele/sel/se Kirsch and
Scorge (1999:
123)
Yao yao Sanderson: 1922
Zimbabwean Ndebele nde se-SM-STEM-PERF Bowern et al.
(2002 : 51)
Zulu zul se-SM-STEM-a Canonici (1995:
95)

45
C Appendix 3

Language ISO code Form of  Source
Bemba bem ci Hoch(n.d.: 29)
Bena (Tanzania) bez SM-pí-STEM-FV pele SM-i- Morrison (2011: 271-
STEM-FV 272)
Chopi cce SM-NEG-di SM-CONS- Smyth (1902: 38)
STEM
Chuwabu chw naváno Guérios (2015: 323)
Gitonga toh Lanham (1955 )
Ila ilb SM chi STEM Smith (1907: 140, 148)
Kalanga kck SM-tja-STEM-a Chebanne and Schmidt
(2010: 106)
Kaonde kqn SM-(ka)-ki-STEM Wright (2007: 32)
Kgalagadi xkv SM sha STEM-CONT Lukusa & Monaka
(2008: 145)
Koti eko Schadeberg (2000 )
Lala-Bisa leb Madan (1906)
Lamba lam SM-ci-STEM Doke (1938: 269)
Lenje leh SM-chi-STEM SM-achi- Madan (1908: 35)
STEM
Makhuwa vmw van der Wal (2009)
Makonde kde Kraal (2005)
Makwe ymk Devos (2008)
Manyika mxc Stevick and Machi-
wana (1960)
Matumbi mgw Odden (1996)
Mwani wmw SM-ingari INF-STEM-FV Floor (2010: 15)
Ndali ndh Botne (2008)
Ndengereko ndg Ström (2013)
Ngoni ngo Ngonyani (2003)
Nsenga nse Miti (2001)
Nyakyusa-Ngonde nyy SM-kaali SM-PRS-STEM-FV Persohn (2017: 184)
Nyamwezi nym Maganga and Schade-
berg (1992)
Nyanja nya SM-PST.PFV-STEM-FV-be Kiso (2012: 150)
Pedi nso Ziervogel (1954)

46
 continued
Language ISO code Form of  Source
Sena (Malawi) swk Kiso (2012)
Shona sna Carter (1986)
Soli sby van Eeden (1936)
Southern Sotho sot SM sa STEM-a Paroz (1946: 96)
Sumayela Ndebele nbl SM-sá-STEM-FV Ziervogel (1959: 88)
Swati ssw SM-sa-STEM-FV Ziervogel (1952: 97)
Tawara twl SM-sa-STEM-FV Dembetembe (1987:
133-134)
Tewe twx SM-cha-STEM-a Carter and Kahari
(1979: 28)
Tonga (Zambia) toi Carter (2002)
Totela ttl SM-chi-STEM-FV Crane (2011: 325)
Tsonga tso SM ha TM STEM Ouwehand (1965: 107-
108)
Tswa tsc SM ha STEM Gadelii (1999: 22)
Tswana tsn SM-sà-STEM. SM-sántse SM- Cole and Mokaila
STEM-PART (1962: 121)
Tumbuka tum Kiso (2012)
Venda ven SM-kha-di-STEM-FV Poulos (1990: 334)
Xhosa xho SM-sa-STEM Kirsch and Scorge
(1999: 37-38)
Yao yao SM-AUX ?-FUT-STEM- Sanderson (1922: 88-
FUT.FV 89)
Zimbabwean Ndebele nde Bowern et al. (2002)
Zulu zul SM-sa-(OM)-STEM-a Canonici (1995: 101)

47
D Appendix 4
 
Language ISO code Form of   Source
Bemba bem Hoch(n.d)
Bena (Tanzania) bez Morrison (2011)
Chopi cce Smyth (1902)
Chuwabu chw já NEG-SM-STEM-PRF Guérios (2015: 363)
Gitonga toh Lanham (1955)
Ila ilb Smith (1907)
Kalanga kck 1. NEG-SM-NEG.FUT-AUX Chebanne and Schmidt
SM-STILL.FUT-AUX SM- (2010: 111, 120)
STEM-FV 2. PST-SM-PRF-
PST-AUX SM-PART-COND-
STILL-STEM-PART.FV
Kaonde kqn Wright (2007)
Kgalagadi xkv v.d Merwe and
Schapera (1943)
Koti eko Schadeberg (2000)
Lala-Bisa leb Madan (1906)
Lamba lam Doke (1938)
Lenje leh Madan (1908)
Makhuwa vmw van der Wal (2009)
Makonde kde Kraal (2005)
Makwe ymk Devos (2008)
Manyika mxc Stevick and Machi-
wana (1960)
Matumbi mgw Odden (1996)
Mwani wmw Floor (2010)
Ndali ndh Botne (2008)
Ndengereko ndg Ström (2013)
Ngoni ngo Ngonyani (2003)
Nsenga nse Miti (2001)
Nyakyusa-Ngonde nyy Persohn (2017)
Nyamwezi nym Maganga and Schade-
berg (1992)
Nyanja nya Kiso (2012)
Pedi nso NEG-SM-sa-STEM-NEG.FV Ziervogel (1954: 70)

48
  continued
Language ISO code Form of   Source
Sena (Malawi) swk Kiso (2012)
Shona sna Carter (1986)
Soli sby van Eeden (1936)
Southern Sotho sot NEG SM sa STEM-a Paroz (1946: 9)5
Sumayela Ndebele nbl NEG-SM-sá-STEM-NEG.FV Ziervogel (1959: 88)
Swati ssw NEG-SM-sa-STEM-NEG.FV Ziervogel (1952: 102 )
Tawara twl Dembetembe (1987 )
Tewe twx NEG-SM-cha-STEM-FV Carter and Kahari
(1979: 28)
Tonga (Zambia) toi Carter (2002)
Totela ttl NEG-SM-chi-(TM)-STEM- Crane (2011: 327 )
FV
Tsonga tso NEG SM ha TM STEM- Ouwehand (1965: 107-
NEG.FV 108)
Tswa tsc Gadelii (1999)
Tswana tsn NEG-SM-tlhòlé SM-STEM- Cole and Mokaila
PART (1962: 130)
Tumbuka tum Kiso (2012)
Venda ven NEG-SM-tsha-STEM-FV Poulos (1990: 338)
Xhosa xho sele/sel/se Kirsch and Scorge
(1999: 123)
Yao yao Sanderson (1922)
Zimbabwean Ndebele nde Bowern et al. (2002)
Zulu zul NEG-SM-sa-(OM)-STEM- Canonici (1995: 101)
NEG.FV

49
E Appendix 5
PhP Systems
Language ISO-code      
Bemba bem Yes Yes Yes -
Bena (Tanzania) bez - - Yes -
Chopi cce Yes Yes Yes -
Chuwabu chw Yes Yes Yes Yes
Gitonga toh - - -
Ila ilb Yes Yes Yes -
Kalanga kck Yes - Yes Yes
Kaonde kqn - Yes Yes -
Kgalagadi xkv Yes Yes Yes -
Koti eko Yes Yes - -
Lala-Bisa leb - - - -
Lamba lam Yes - Yes -
Lenje leh Yes - Yes -
Makhuwa vmw Yes - - -
Makonde kde Yes - - -
Makwe ymk Yes - - -
Manyika mxc Yes - - -
Matumbi mgw Yes - - -
Mwani wmw Yes - Yes -
Ndali ndh - - - -
Ndengereko ndg - Yes - -
Ngoni ngo Yes - - -
Nsenga nse - - - -
Nyakyusa-Ngonde nyy Yes - Yes -
Nyamwezi nym - - - -
Nyanja nya Yes - Yes -
Pedi nso Yes - Yes Yes

50
PhP Systems continued
Language ISO-code      
Sena (Malawi) swk - - - -
Shona sna Yes - - -
Soli sby Yes - - -
Southern Sotho sot Yes Yes Yes Yes
Sumayela Ndebele nbl - Yes Yes Yes
Swati ssw Yes Yes Yes Yes
Tawara twl Yes - Yes -
Tewe twx Yes - Yes Yes
Tonga (Zambia) toi Yes - - -
Totela ttl Yes - Yes Yes
Tsonga tso Yes - Yes Yes
Tswa tsc Yes - Yes -
Tswana tsn Yes Yes Yes Yes
Tumbuka tum - - - -
Venda ven Yes Yes Yes Yes
Xhosa xho Yes Yes Yes -
Yao yao Yes - Yes -
Zimbabwean Ndebele nde Yes Yes - -
Zulu zul Yes Yes Yes Yes

51
F Appendix 6
Clusters
Language ISO-code Country Cluster
Bemba bem Zambia Sabi
Lala-Bisa bez Zambia Sabi
Lamba cce Zambia Sabi
Nsenga chw Mozambique Sabi
Ila toh Zimbabwe Botatwe
Lenje ilb Zambia Botatwe
Soli kck Zambia Botatwe
Tonga (Zambia) kqn Zambia Botatwe
Totela xkv Zambia Botatwe
Kalanga eko Botswana Shona
Manyika leb Zimbabwe Shona
Shona lam Zimbabwe Shona
Tawara leh Mozambique Shona
Tewe vmw Mozambique Shona
Kgalagadi kde Botswana Sotho-Tswana
Pedi ymk South Africa Sotho-Tswana
Southern Sotho mxc South Africa Sotho-Tswana
Tswana mgw Botswana Sotho-Tswana
Makonde wmw Tanzania/Mozambique Rufiji-Ruvuma
Makwe ndh Tanzania Rufiji-Ruvuma
Matumbi ndg Tanzania Rufiji-Ruvuma
Ndengereko ngo Tanzania Rufiji-Ruvuma
Yao nse Mozambique Rufiji-Ruvuma
Sumayela Ndebele nyy South Africa Nguni-Tsonga
Swati nym Swaziland Nguni-Tsonga
Tsonga nya Mozambique Nguni-Tsonga
Tswa nso Mozambique Nguni-Tsonga
Xhosa swk South Africa Nguni-Tsonga
Zimbabwean Ndebele sna Zimbabwe Nguni-Tsonga
Zulu sby South Africa Nguni-Tsonga

52
Clusters continued
Language ISO-code Country Cluster
Chuwabu sot Mozambique North Mozambique Bantu
Koti nbl Mozambique North Mozambique Bantu
Makhuwa ssw Mozambique North Mozambique Bantu
Ndali twl Malawi Corridor Bantu
Nyakyusa-Ngonde twx Malawi Corridor Bantu
Tumbuka toi Malawi Tumbuka-Sena-Nyanja
Nyanja ttl Mozambique Tumbuka-Sena-Nyanja
Sena (Malawi) tso Malawi Tumbuka-Sena-Nyanja
Chopi tsc Mozambique Southern Bantu-Makua
Gitonga tsn Mozambique Southern Bantu-Makua
Bena (Tanzania) tum Tanzania Southern Tanzania Highlands Bantu
Ngoni ven Mozambique Southern Tanzania Highlands Bantu
Kaonde xho Zambia Central Western Bantu, Luban
Mwani yao Mozambique Coastal NEC Bntu
Nyamwezi nde Tanzania Sukuma-Nyamwezi
Venda zul Zimbabwe Sotho-Makua-Venda

53
Stockholms universitet/Stockholm University
SE-106 91 Stockholm
Telefon 08 - 16 20 00
www.su.se