See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275830344 Juba Arabic Chapter · July 2013 CITATIONS READS 0 3,155 2 authors, including: Stefano Manfredi French National Centre for Scientific Research 37 PUBLICATIONS 41 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects: Corpus Linguistics and translanguaging (pratiques langagières hétérogènes) View project ANR CorpAfroAs: a Corpus for Afro-Asiatic languages View project All content following this page was uploaded by Stefano Manfredi on 04 May 2015. The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. SUISSE SLOVENIE Ljubljana ANDORRE Sarajevo Rome Madrid ALBANIE Tirana Juba Arabic Autoglossonym: Khartoum Sudan l African Republic W Equ est ato ria Yemen Sanaa Djibouti Southern Sudan Ethiopia Ea Equatst oria Juba Uganda Democratic Republic of Congo Somalia Mogadiscio Kenya Rwanda Burundi Tanzania Map 1. S E YC H E L L E S Moroni COMORES Ali sent a military expedition against the Mamluks who had MALAWI sheltered in Nubia and eventually conquered a great part of ZAMBIE what is now modern Lilongwe Lusaka Sudan. The way to southern Sudan was opened for long-distance B MADAGASCAR trade: ivory and slave traders started toMset up permanent tradHarar A‘cattle enclosure’), which Antananarivo (literally ing camps, called zaribas ZIMBABWE NAMIBIE BOTSWANA Windhoek Gaborone Pretoria Mbaban 3-07_juba_arabic.indd 54 Eritrea Up p Nil er e Ba al-Ghr Central haza GUINEE EQUAT. to the Fourth Population and Housing Census in Sudan, the population of Juba reached almost 120,000 inhabitants in 1993. This A figure is NGOLA far from representative of the current population of the capital of South Sudan. Actually, during the last twenty years Juba faced a rapid population growth that reached its peak only after the Peace Agreement in 2005. It should be mentioned that another population census took place in 2008, but the results were rejected by the South Sudanese Government because of supposed irregularities. T h ran SYRIE OMAN Chad CAMEROUN Yaound The Arab conquest of Africa began soon after the death of the Congo prophet Muhammad. As far as the Sudan is concerned, the penetration of Arab groups from theGUpper ABON Nile started in the twelfth century and reached its climax by the end of the fifteenth century. Powerful states, such as the Funj Sultanate and the Muslim Sultanate of Dar Fur, gradually took the place of the ancient Christian Nubian kingdoms, and Arabic Luanda became the lingua franca of the area. In 1820 the Khedive of Egypt Muhammad LIBAN arabi juba Beyrouth Damas ʕarabi juba (Sudanese IArabic) R AK Bagdad A mman J rusalem Other names: Juba Arabic (English) ISRAEL Number of speakers: Le Caire unknown JORDANIE Î Î Î Î Î Î Î Î ÎK Î ow Î et Major lexifier: Sudanese Arabic IRAN Other contributing Egyptian Arabic, Bari, ARABIE Pojulu, languages: Dinka, Shilluk SAOUDITE Manama ELocation: BAHREIN Doha E GY P South T E Sudan and diaspora QATAR Riyad communities in Sudan, Egypt, E.A.U. Britain, United States, Canada, and Australia Official language of South Sudan: English (since 2005, earlier Arabic) I Q U E Bata Nicosie CHYPRE M O Z TOGO SAOTOME ET PRINCIPE 54 Bakou AZER. GRECE La Valette BENIN Porto Novo 2. Historical background 1 According TURQUIE ite Nile Tunis Alger LIBERIA AZERBAIDJAN Erevan • •• • • • •••••••• Juba Arabic is an expanded pidgin spoken in South Sudan, a MALTE (following the signcountry which split off from Sudan in 2011 Rabat ing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement TUNISIE in 2005). As it is spoken MA ROC either as first, second, or third language by the majorTripoli ity of South Sudanese people, it is quite difficult to estimate the exact number of Juba Arabic speakers. On one hand, Juba Arabic represents A LtheGfirst E Rlanguage I E of the greater part of the urban population of Juba, the capital city of South Sudan.1 On the other hand, Juba Arabic is widely spoken as second or third L I B Y language by mother-tongue speakers of Nilotic languages such SAHARA CCIDENTAL as Bari or Dinka. In addition, another factor that makes it hard to evaluate the boundaries of Juba Arabic as a linguistic entity is that this pidgin is involved in a reconstructing continuum with its major lexifier, which is Northern Sudanese Arabic (or SudaMAURI T ANInese E Standard Arabic). For decades the coexistence with SudaNI GE R nese StandardM Arabic A L has I been affecting Juba Arabic in southern akchott Sudan, although the influence of Arabic is even stronger among the large diaspora communities living in Khartoum (Sudan) r SENEGAL and Cairo (Egypt). In thisNiamey overall situation, it is possible to disnjul BURKINAFASO GAMBIE tinguish between acrolectal /mesolectal and basilectal varieties Bamako ssau Ouagadougou of Juba Arabic according to the different degrees of structural GUINEE GUINEE BISSAU I G EArabic-based RI A interference of the Arabic lexifier.NOther contact Conakry COTE are Kinubi (see Luffin, in this volume) and Turku SIERRA languages Freetown GHANA LEONE D'IVOIRE Abuja Arabic. Lom Lagos Accra Tbilissi ARMENIE Ankara 1. Introduction Abidjan GEORGIE MACEDOINE ITALIE ESP AGNE Monrovia Sofia BULGARIE YOUGOSLAVIE Wh Lisbonne SAN MARINO CITE DU VATICAN Skopje Sara Petrollino Stefano Manfredi and Andorre-la-V. PORTUGAL ROUMANIE Bucarest Belgrade Juba Arabic CROATIE MONACO Zagreb BOSNIEHERZEG. Maputo SWAZILAND 5/23/2012 9:31:04 AM Juba Arabic The consonant inventory consists of twenty phonemic segments. Juba Arabic presents a five vowel set (a, e, i, o, u). The predominant syllable structure is open, although syllable-­ internal consonant clusters are also allowed. Stress is phonetically realized as a high pitch and can be distinctive, both lexically and grammatically. In Table 1, a broad allophonic inventory of consonants is given so as to show the secondary segments (in brackets).2 Phonemic variation occurs between s ~ š, p ~ b and z ~ j: (1) šókol ~ sókol ‘work’ ašán ~ asán ‘because’ tálabu ~ tálapu ‘to ask’ zol ~ jol ‘individual’ ázu ~ áju ‘to want’ [x] is an allophone of /k/ in acrolectal varieties, whereas [h] may stand for the Arabic [x] in basilectal varieties: kámsa (< Arabic xamsa) [ˈxamsa] ~ [ˈhamsa] ‘five’. The appearance of [ɣ] as an allophone of /g/, together with m w td f sz n r l dʒ ʃ ( ɲ) Glottal (p) b (ɓ) Velar Plosive Implosive Affricate Fricative Nasal Trill Lateral Approximant Palato-alveolar Table 1. Consonants Alveolar As already stated, Juba Arabic represents the main lingua franca of South Sudan. Thus, even if it is only in the last thirty years that Juba Arabic has gradually begun to be acquired as a first language, it has long been a vehicular medium widely used in inter-ethnic exchanges. Urban speakers are generally more affected by the interference of Sudanese Arabic; thus, they are to be considered the repositories of the acrolectal/mesolectal varieties. In this regard, it is important to remark that Juba Arabic speakers living in Khartoum are much more exposed to the prestigious variety of Sudanese Arabic. By contrast, the basilectal varieties of Juba Arabic can generally be associated with rural speakers who are more influenced by the Nilotic substratum. In truth, there are no discrete boundaries between acrolectal and basilectal varieties since Juba Arabic speakers are involved in a socio-linguistic continuum, which implies a high degree of phono-morphological variation. The signing of the Addis Abeba peace agreement in 1972 granted a certain degree of administrative autonomy to South Sudan, and consequently Juba Arabic became an important lin- 4. Phonology Labio-Dental 3. Sociolinguistic situation guistic means for expressing a new super-tribal South Sudanese identity (see Miller 1991: 159). As a result, Juba Arabic went through a significant functional expansion that led it to cover formal communicative settings such as religious functions in missionary churches, judgments in local courts (Miller 2007), and, more recently, radio broadcasting. Finally, it should be observed that even though Juba Arabic does not possess an established orthography, it is widely written in Latin script. This is particularly true for prayer booklets produced by Christian missions that have significantly contributed to the spreading of Juba Arabic in South Sudan. bilabial spread all over the White Nile Basin, the Bahr al-Ghazal and Equatorial Province. These settlements were inhabited by a heterogeneous population composed of a dominant minority of native speakers of Arabic and a vast majority of autochthonous people engaged as dragomen, slave soldiers and domestic slaves, who were forcibly drawn from various Nilotic tribes (Mundu, Lugbara, Dinka, Shilluk, Bari; see Owens 1985). Soon afterwards the traders’ camps were progressively turned into military camps and those who had worked in the zaribas as traders’ private troops were gradually incorporated into the government army, while local inhabitants started to join the camps deliberately. In this environment a pidginized Arabic arose. After 1870, slave trade increased so much that the Egyptian government had to take anti-slavery measures and began to restrain the zaribas which were in effect dominating the economy and politics of the south. The provinces were assigned to several governors (Baker, Gordon, Gessi, Emin Pasha) in order to bring them under control of the Egyptian government in Khartoum. Despite this, at the end of the nineteenth century, southern Sudan faced a complete upheaval: the Mahdi revolt of 1882 resulted in the capture of Khartoum and the occupation of several provinces. The loss of power of the Egyptian government led to numerous rebellions among local tribes and desertions in the army, until the Egyptian forces had to withdraw from the south. These events hampered the linguistic influence of Arabic in southern Sudan immediately after the Mahdi revolt. Ultimately, the declaration of independence in 1956 marked the beginning of a new, overt Arabization policy that greatly affected the development of Juba Arabic. kg (ʔ) (x) (ɣ) (ŋ) h j 2 The orthographic conventions used are the following: j for IPA [dʒ], y for IPA [j], š for [ʃ ]. The acute accent on vowels marks stress. 55 3-07_juba_arabic.indd 55 5/23/2012 9:31:05 AM Stefano Manfredi and Sara Petrollino (12) zaráf towíl min fil giraffe tall from elephant ‘The giraffe is taller than the elephant.’ (Manfredi 2005: 207) Table 5. Numerals The other option is represented by the ‘exceed’ comparative. This construction, contrary to its recurrent use in Kinubi and Turku, is marginal in Juba Arabic. The standard noun phrase is marked by the grammaticalized item fútu, which derives from the Arabic verb fāta ‘pass, surpass’: (13) úo kebír fútu íta 3SG big pass 2SG ‘He is bigger than you.’ (Miller 1993: 167) 5.5. Possessive phrases Possession is expressed through an analytic construction: the possessor follows the head noun and is preceded by the genitive marker ta (or bitá): (14) áhal ta wéled bi=dáfa mal le áhal bitá biníya family POSS boy IRR=pay dowry to family POSS girl ‘The bridegroom’s family will pay the dowry to the bride’s family.’ (Manfredi 2005: 126) The particle ta derives from the Sudanese Arabic genitival marker bitá (originally meaning ‘merchandise’). The two markers in Juba Arabic are interchangeable, the second one occurring more under Arabic interference. For this reason bitá can occasionally appear in place of ta in possessive pronominal forms: bitái ‘my’, biták ‘your’, bitá(u) ‘his’, bitánna ‘our’. 5.6. Numerals Numerals are based on a decimal system (see Table 5). Cardinals precede the head they modify: arba yom ‘four days’, sítta bagar-át ‘six cows’. Ordinals are formed by the head noun and the cardinal number bound together by the genitive particle ta (Head ta Numeral): yom ta kámsa ‘the fifth day’, síka ta síta ‘the sixth street’. The first two ordinals (áwal ‘first’, táni ‘sec- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 wá(h)id ~ way tinén ~ (i)tinín taláta árba kámsa sít(t)a sába tamánya tísa ášara (h)idášer itnášer talatášer arbatášer kamsatášer sit(t)ášer sabatášer tamantášer tisatášer išrín 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 2,000 3,000 2,000,000 teletín arbaín kamsín sit(t)ín sabaín tamanín tisyín mía mitén, tinén mía taláta mía órbo mía kómso mía sútu mía súbu mía túmunu mía túso mía alf alfén taláta alf tinén million ond’) are borrowed from Arabic and behave like the cardinals; they are thus preposed to the head noun, e.g. áwal hája ‘the first thing, first of all’, táni hája ‘the second thing’. 6. Verb phrase 6.1. Tense, aspect and mood Juba Arabic shows three overt pre-verbal markers (bi=, ge=, and kan) together with zero marking. Bi introduces future and conditional meanings in most cases; hence it is generally considered an irrealis marker (IRR). On the other hand, ge typically marks progressive aspect (PROG). Kan is an anterior marker (ANT) which adds past tense reference to nominal and verbal predicates and can co-occur with bi and ge. The tense values expressed by unmarked verbal forms vary according to the lexical aspect of the verb. Table 6 summarizes simple and complex TAM expressions in Juba Arabic. Table 6. Tense–aspect–mood expressions ∅ ge= bi= kan ∅ kan bi= kan ge= Lexical aspect Tense/aspect Mood Action, motion Stative Action, motion, stative Action, motion Action, stative Action, motion, stative Action, motion Stative Action, motion, stative Action, motion Perfect Generic present Imperative Progressive, durative, habitual present Habitual present Future, conditional, habitual present Past perfect Imperfect Habitual past Imperfect Irrealis Irrealis (counterfactual) 58 3-07_juba_arabic.indd 58 5/23/2012 9:31:05 AM Juba Arabic If unmarked action/motion verbs typically express a perfect (6), stative unmarked verbs express a generic present (7). (15) ána kásuru bab 1SG break door ‘I broke the door down.’ (16) rábbuna ma ázu nas bi=séregu God NEG want people IRR=steal ‘God does not want people to steal.’ (Tosco 1995: 428) Unmarked verbs also express imperative mood. In this case, the plural is formed by postposing the second plural pronoun tákum (see §5.2) to the verb: (17) rówa ‘go!’ gáta ‘cut!’ (IMP), rówa tákum ‘go!’ (IMP.2PL) (IMP), gáta tákum ‘cut!’ (IMP.2PL) If ge 5 has progressive and present-habitual meanings, then it is generally considered a non-punctual marker. The occurrence of ge is mostly independent of the tense reference of the VP. Bi 6 is basically an irrealis marker, although as a consequence of the growing influence of Sudanese Arabic it is gradually acquiring the habitual values which were formerly expressed by ge. In particular, bi started to cover potential habitual actions, while ge reduced its habitual value to actual actions (Tosco 1995: 434). Another important point to remark is that, in contrast to Kinubi (see Luffin, in this volume), bi and ge cannot occur together to mark progressive future. This is because in Sudanese Arabic the imperfective bi= and the progressive gā‘id (see notes 5 and 6) are mutually exclusive. The following examples show some common occurrences of bi and ge. – ge as progressive (motion verb): (18) ána ge=rówa juba 1SG PROG=go Juba ‘I am going to Juba.’ – ge as durative present (action verb): (19) ána ge=ágra árabi 1SG PROG=study Arabic ‘I study Arabic.’ – ge as factual habitual (action verb): (20) anína ge=ákulu keymót 1SG PROG=eat ground.nuts.sauce ‘We habitually eat the keymót.’ (21) nas bi=num bédri people IRR=sleep early ‘People habitually go to sleep early.’ – bi as generic future (motion verb): (22) úmon bi=raja búkra 3PL IRR=come_back door ‘They will come back tomorrow.’ – bi as potential habitual (epistemic possibility, see §6.3): (23) múmkin ita bi=rákabu ákil íta bi=kútu fi=talája MOD 2SG IRR=cook food 2SG IRR=put in=refrigerator ‘You can cook the food and then put it in the refrigerator.’ – bi as factual conditional (action verb) (24) kan úo ma déru ána ma bi=jówzu ANT 3SG NEG want 1SG NEG IRR=marry ‘If he does not want (me to marry), I will not marry.’ The anterior marker kan7 introduces the past perfect when occurring with unmarked action/motion verbs, while it marks an imperfect aspect before unmarked stative verbs. The imperfect of motion and action verbs is expressed by the sequence kan ge. By contrast, the sequence kan bi typically marks a habitual past or counterfactual conditional. Independent subject pronouns can be interposed between the two preverbal sequences. In NPs, kan occurs between the subject and the nominal predicate. Some examples of anterior marking are shown below: - kan +motion verb (past perfect): (25) úo kan ja 3SG ANT come ‘He had come.’ – kan + ge (imperfect): (26) kan ána ge=stákal fi=kartúm ANT 1SG PROG=work in=Khartoum ‘I used to work in Khartoum.’ – kan + bi (counterfactual): (27) kan ma šílu ána fi=jibtália kan ána bi=mútu if NEG carry 1SG in=hospital ANT 1SG IRR=die ‘If I had not been carried to the hospital, I would have died.’ (Manfredi 2005: 195) - bi as generic present (stative verb): 6.2. Tense-aspect auxiliary verbs 5 The most probable etymon for ge= is gā‘id . This is an active participle of the verb ga‘ad ‘stay’, which is used in Sudanese Arabic for introducing a progressive aspect of motion and action verbs (Nhial 1975: 83; Owens 1990: 109; Tosco 1995: 445). 6 Bi= finds its origin in the preverbal marker bi= which introduces an imperfective aspect or/and an indicative mood in Sudanese dialects and in many other Middle Eastern Arabic varieties (Miller 1984: 302). In addition to TAM particles, also auxiliary verbs that express tense and aspect are found in Juba Arabic. 7 Kan in Juba Arabic is diachronically derived from Old Arabic kān, the third-person singular masculine perfective of the verb ‘be’. In Juba Arabic and in western Sudanese dialects, kān has become an invariable anterior marker. 59 3-07_juba_arabic.indd 59 5/23/2012 9:31:05 AM Stefano Manfredi and Sara Petrollino Table 7. Tense–aspect auxiliary verbs bíga gum bíji birówa Lexical aspect Tense/aspect Action, motion, stative Action, motion Action, motion, stative Action, motion, stative Inchoative Inchoative (narratives) Resultative Near future Simple auxiliary verbs such as bíga ‘become’ and gum ‘get up’ generally express an inchoative meaning. Whereas bíga occurs with bi- marked verbs, gum usually occurs before unmarked verbs. The complex auxiliary verbs bíji and birówa, which derive from the Arabic imperfective forms b=i-ji ‘he is coming, he will come’ and b=i-rawwaḥ ‘he is leaving, he will leave’ respectively, introduce a resultative and a near future. The auxiliaries bíji and birówa always precede unmarked verbs. - gum (inchoative): (28) ána gum šílu bagar-át del 1SG stand.up bring cow-PL DEM.PROX.PL ‘I began to herd these cows.’ (Manfredi 2005: 104) - bíji (resultative): (29) ána bíji jówzu mara de 1SG coming marry woman DEM.PROX.SG ‘I have just married this woman.’ (Manfredi 2005: 103) – birówa (near future): (30) íta birówa kélim šenú 2SG going say what ‘What are you going to say?’ (Manfredi 2005: 103) 6.3. Modal verbs In Juba Arabic epistemic, dynamic and deontic modalities are expressed by the modal verbs (see Table 8). In Juba Arabic, as well as in Sudanese Arabic, the pseudoverbs yúmkin, múmkin introduce both deontic and epistemic possibility. Bukún is generally related to future and present presumptive expressions. If bukún is joined with an action/motion unmarked verb, it conveys a deontic possibility in the past. Bágder ‘can’ denotes dynamic possibility, always preceding unmarked verbs. Lázim, for its part, requires the irrealis bi to exTable 8. Modal verbs yúmkin, múmkin bukún bágder lázim Translation Modality ‘it is possible that’ ‘might’ ‘can’ ‘it is necessary that, must’ Epistemic possibility Deontic possibility Dynamic possibility Deontic and epistemic necessity press deontic necessity, while it precedes unmarked verbs in epistemic contexts: – bukún ‘could’: deontic possibility in the past: (31) margaret bukún ja mbári de Margaret might come yesterday DEM.PROX.SG ‘Margaret might have come yesterday.’ (Manfredi 2005: 106) – bágder ‘can’: dynamic possibility: (32) ána bágder sádu íta 1SG can help 2SG ‘I can help you.’ (Manfredi 2005: 106) – lázim ‘it is necessary that’: epistemic necessity: (33) lázim úo bi=kun éndu íštira must 3SG IRR=be have permission ‘It is necessary that he owns a permission.’ (Manfredi 2005: 106) 6.4. Reduplication Reduplication of a verb emphasizes the action described by the verb phrase. In certain cases, reduplication indicates specific semantic notions such as repetitivity or habituality of the action. There are no semantic restrictions to reduplication in Juba Arabic and in theory any verb can be reduplicated. (34) tiyára de agilíbu~agilíbu náfsa to airplane PROX wheel~wheel soul POSS.3SG ‘The airplane repeatedly wheeled on itself.’ (35) anína bi=asúrubu~asúrubu kímbo de 1PL IRR=drink~drink kimbo PROX ‘We usually drink a lot of kimbo.’ It is not rare to find instances of reduplication applied to sequences of verbs: (36) íta bágder rówa áynu rówa áynu zol 2SG can go see go see individual ‘You can regularly go to visit someone.’ 6.5. Negation The basic negative operator in Juba Arabic is ma, which always precedes the verb and the preverbal markers (if any). It follows the anterior marker kan (e.g. 17, above) and the auxiliary verbs. (37) íta ma dáfa gurúš ta bet 2SG NEG pay money POSS house ‘You did not pay the rent.’ (38) ána ma bi=rówa le USA 1SG NEG IRR=go to USA ‘I will not go to the USA.’ 60 3-07_juba_arabic.indd 60 5/23/2012 9:31:05 AM Juba Arabic (39) john bíga ma kélim John become NEG speak ‘John began to be silent.’ In existential NPs the negative operator is máfi. It generally precedes the subject, although in topicalized sentences it might occur in final position: (40) máfi mile NEG.EXIST salt ‘There is no salt.’ (41) mile de máfi salt PROX.SG NEG.EXIST ‘As regards the salt, there is none.’ The prohibitive mood in Juba Arabic is formed by the negative operator ma prefixed to -ta for the singular and to -tákum for the plural. (42) má-ta ákulu! NEG-IMP.2SG eat ‘Don’t eat!’ (43) má-takum géni henák! NEG-IMP.2PL stay there ‘Don’t stay there!’ 7. Simple sentences 7.1. Word order Juba Arabic is predominantly SVO. The basic word order may be changed by passive verbs (§7.3) or in presence of contrastive topicalization (Y-movement). In the last case, the object might be placed before the verb: (44) rábbuna úmon bi ábidu God 3PL IRR revere ‘It is God they will revere.’ (Manfredi 2005: 187) The indirect object follows the direct object, as illustrated in the following example: (45) ána kan bi=šílu bagar-at de fi=tehet máŋa 1SG ANT IRR=bring cow-PL DEM.PROX in=under mangoes ‘I used to herd these cows to the mango trees.’ (Manfredi 2005: 188) The recipient, or beneficiary, of a ditransitive verb is signalled through adpositional marking (the dative preposition le) and it often precedes the direct object, or patient (indirect object construction; but see example (5)): (46) ána wedí le úo gurús de 1SG give to 3SG money DEM.PROX ‘I gave him the money.’ (Manfredi 2005: 140) (47) ána dáfa le úo teletín-alf giné 1SG pay to 3SG thirty-thousand guineas ‘I paid him thirty thousand guineas.’ (Manfredi 2005: 188) 7.2. Causative, reflexive, and reciprocal Since Juba Arabic lacks valence-increasing and valence-decreasing devices, it resorts to periphrastic constructions in order to add causative, reflexive, and reciprocal meanings to verbs. The analytic causative is formed by the verb ámulu ‘make, do’, which precedes the sentential complement which refers to the caused event: (48) ána ámulu úo kásulu wésa 1SG make 3SG wash face ‘I made him wash his face.’ (Manfredi 2005: 148) Reflexives and reciprocals are not isomorphic. The analytic reflexive náfsa, lit. ‘soul’, followed by a possessive pronoun, expresses objects that are coreferential with the subject: (49) kan íta dúsu náfsa táki if 2SG hide soul POSS.2SG ‘if you hide yourself’ (Manfredi 2005: 167) The reciprocal is expressed by means of the lexicalized form badúm (from Arabic baʕd-hum ‘some of them’) which acts as a reciprocal pronoun: (50) lísa anína kátulu badúm still 1PL kill RECP ‘We keep on killing each other.’ 7.3. Passive constructions Juba Arabic commonly displays prototypical passive constructions, as in (41b): (51) a.Active jes de kútu john géni fi síjin army PROX.SG put John stay in prison ‘The army imprisoned John.’ b. Prototypical passive john kutú géni fi síjin (ma jes) John put\PASS stay in prison with army ‘John was imprisoned (by the army).’ The example is in line with all the prototypical hallmarks of passives because: (a) the passive construction represents a transitive clause containing an optional agent, (b) the patient (i.e. the object of the active clause) occupies the slot of the subject and represents the only topical argument of the construction, (c) the agent (i.e. the subject of the active clause) is demoted 61 3-07_juba_arabic.indd 61 5/23/2012 9:31:05 AM Stefano Manfredi and Sara Petrollino to an oblique case introduced by the comitative adposition ma ‘with’,8 (d) the verb has a specific phono-morphological marking for the passive voice: the displacing of the demarcative stress of the active form from the first to the last syllable of the morphological domain. The occurrence of stress displacement for passive marking depends on the morphology of the active verbs. Consequently, prototypical passive constructions are subjected to some restrictions. Stress displacement typically correlates with disyllabic and trisyllabic transitive verbs presenting a final vowel -u: (52) biníya de (ma bi=gedimú le rájil to girl PROX.SG IRR=introduce\PASS to man POSS.3SG with nas) people ‘The girl is introduced to her bridegroom (by the people).’ Other -u verbs: (53) ʃílu ‘carry’ dʒíbu ‘bring’ kútu ‘put’ kátulu ‘kill’ kátibu ‘write’ góbudu ‘catch’ ʃilú ‘be carried’ dʒibú ‘be brought’ kutú ‘be put’ katulú ‘be killed’ katibú ‘be written’ gobudú ‘be caught’ Besides, there are a number of transitive verbs with a final -a. These verbal items derive from Arabic perfective and imperfective stems presenting a final pharyngeal consonant that has been elided in Juba Arabic (dabaħ > dába ‘slaughter’, asmaʕ > ásma ‘listen’). Contrary to -u marked verbs, this class of transitive verbs shows a considerable degree of variation in the formation of the passive voice. At the present time we can isolate the following three morpho-phonological variants of passive marking for -a verbs. (54) a. sot to ma g=ásma úo voice his not prog=hear it b. sot to ma g=ásma=úo [gasmaɔ] voice his not prog=hear=itself c. sot to ma g=asmá voice his not prog=hear\pass ‘His voice is not heard.’ These variants represent three stages of the grammaticalization of passive marking in Juba Arabic. Stage (a) shows a reflexive 3rd singular independent pronoun in object position. In (b) the independent pronoun is cliticized and triggers assimilation but does not induce stress displacement. Lastly in (c), the cliticization of the earlier third-person independent pronoun results in a final stressed syllable. Thus, we can argue that stress displacement for the derivation of passive voice in Juba Arabic finds its 8 The agent is omitted when predictable from the context and is always miss- ing in case of non-human patients. origin in reflexive (non-causative) constructions in which the patient is expressed by a third singular independent pronoun in object position. Actually, in many languages, reflexive (noncausative) constructions constitute the basic source for the grammaticalization of passive morphology (Haspelmath 1990). Lastly, Juba Arabic also possesses a few ambitransitive verbs, which always show a final stressed syllable. Ambitransitive verbs in Juba Arabic have been lexicalized on the basis of Arabic verbal stems followed by a third-person-singular bound pronoun realized as a final stress (add-í ‘give it!’ > wedí ‘give, be given’, warr-í ‘show it’ > werí ‘show, be shown’, lig-ó ‘he found it’ > ligó ‘find, be found’). Lacking overt morphological marking, the following passive construction is non-prototypical. (55) kitáb de wedí le john book PROX.SG give to John ‘The book was given to John.’ 8. Interrogative and focus constructions Polar interrogative clauses can be distinguished from declarative clauses only by intonation. Q-words in content questions always occur in situ: (56) munú déru ákulu? who want eat ‘Who wants to eat?’ (Manfredi 2005: 199) (57) íta munú? 2SG who ‘Who are you?’ (58) kef íta? how 2SG ‘How are you?’ (59) íta bi=ligó kef ? 2SG IRR=find how ‘How will you find (it)?’ (Tosco 1995: 434) Le ‘why’ is always sentence-initial: (60) le íta ge=kóre~kóre zedé? why 2SG PROG=cry~cry in.this.way ‘Why are you whimpering this way?’ (Manfredi 2005: 146) Šenú ‘what’, mitén ‘when’, yátu ‘which’, and wenú ‘where’ generally take sentence-final position: (61) íta bi=rúwa kélim šenú? 2SG IRR=go say what ‘What are you going to say?’ (Manfredi 2005: 199) (62) íta ja mitén? 2SG arrive when ‘When did you arrive?’ (Manfredi 2005: 121) 62 3-07_juba_arabic.indd 62 5/23/2012 9:31:05 AM Juba Arabic (63) mára wenú? woman where ‘Where is the woman?’ (Manfredi 2005: 121) (64) íta gi=geni fi=héla yátu? 2SG PROG=live in=district which ‘In which district do you live?’ (Manfredi 2005: 111) The focused element in a clause is indicated by the focus marker yáwu following it: (65) anína yáwu bi=rówa géru haj-át del? 1PL FOC IRR=go change thing-PL DEM.PROX.PL ‘It’s us that will change these things.’ (Manfredi 2005: 112) 9. Complex sentences 9.1. Relative clauses In Juba Arabic the relative pronoun has the invariable form al ‘who, that, which’. Furthermore, the lexeme abú (from Arabic abū ‘father’) optionally introduces subject- and direct-object relative clauses modifying an animate head noun. Subject- and direct-object relative clauses generally do not contain resumptive pronouns. (66) dúwal al bi=gum fi= hudúd ma ekatória countries REL IRR=get_up in= borders with Equatoria ‘the countries that lay on the borders with the Equatoria region’ (Manfredi 2005: 189) (67) zurúf al ana kan waje circumstances REL 1SG ANT face ‘the circumstances that I was facing’ (Manfredi 2005: 189) By contrast, instrumental relative clauses need a resumptive pronoun which is variably introduced either by the comitative ma ‘with’, or the instrumental be ‘by’. Because of Arabic influence, in acrolectal varieties only be occurs. (68) fi=molodo al bi=kuruju be uo EXIST=hoe REL IRR=cultivate by 3SG ‘There is a kind of hoe with which (the fields) are cultivated.’ (Manfredi 2005: 124) Headless relative clauses are also common in Juba Arabic: (69) al ma endu gurúš b=istakal REL NEG have money IRR=work ‘The one who does not own money (usually) works.’ (Manfredi 2005: 190) Lastly, it should be remarked that in basilectal registers the relative pronoun is often missing: (70) sídi uo gáni bi=wedí gurúš to owner 3SG rich IRR=give money POSS.3SG ‘The owner who is rich offers his money.’ (Manfredi 2005: 190) 9.2. Complementizer with verbs of speaking and ­thinking In Juba Arabic, subordinate complement clauses usually follow the primary verb directly (uo fékir úo zol batál ‘He thinks he is bad’). However, the verb gal(e) ‘say’ may function as complementizer with verbs of speaking (in indirect speech) and thinking (see Miller 2001). (71) ána kélim gále ána ja min júba 1SG speak say 1SG come from Juba ‘I said that I came from Juba.’ (Manfredi 2005: 192) (72) ána fékir gále úo rówa bet 1SG think say 3SG go house ‘I think that he came back home.’ (Manfredi 2005: 192) In the majority of cases, nothing can intervene between the verb and the complementizer. In acrolectal varieties, though, an indirect object may optionally separate the verb of speaking and the complementizer gál (e): (73) úmon kélim le ána gále úmon bi=sádu íta 3PL speak to 1SG say 1PL IRR=help 2SG ‘They said to me that they will help you.’ (Manfredi 2005: 193) Glossed text This text was recorded in November 2004 in Cairo (Egypt), from a 35-year-old displaced speaker from Juba. fi=yom kéda ána kan ge=rówa fi=táraf báhar; in=day like.this 1sg ant prog=go in=bank river Some time ago I was going to the bank of the river (Nile). ána rówa ya ána wósulu fi=téhet máŋa; ána 1sg go then 1sg arrive in=under mangoes 1sg I walked until I arrived under the mango trees. I ge=dóru máŋa ya bolís ja min henák; prog=turn mangoes then police come in bank was walking (under) the mango trees when the police came. bolís gum dúgu ána; wa gum šílu ána dákalu ána police get.up beat 1sg and get.up carry 1sg put.in 1sg The police started to beat me. (The police) took me away and brought me fi=sijin; úmon gum dúgu~dúgu ána šedíd ya ána in=prison 3pl get.up beat~beat 1sg strong then 1sg to prison. They started to beat me hard until I 63 3-07_juba_arabic.indd 63 5/23/2012 9:31:06 AM Stefano Manfredi and Sara Petrollino bíga tabán; úmon lissa kamán úmon dúgu~dúgu ána; become ill 3pl still also 3pl beat~beat 1sg succumbed. They continued to beat me. dak wáhid táni ja min henák ja sádu ána; dist.sg one other come from there come help 1sg someone came from outside and helped me. ya amm henák úmon gum šílu ána fi=óda táni; voc uncle there 3pl get.up carry 1sg in=room other Oh my friend, suddenly they brought me to another room. záman dak ligó úmon rówa fi=bet tómon; time dist.sg find 3pl go in=house poss.3pl Then they went back to their house. úmon jére num~num ma ána wa num~num ma ána 3pl run sleep~sleep with 1sg and sleep~sleep with 1sg Then they raped me. They raped me úmon ákulu gáda bad gáda úmon ja; wa kamán 3pl eat dinner after dinner 3pl come and also They had their dinner and after the dinner they came back again. And kéda; ya amm henák ána gum ge=kóre; záman like.this voc uncle there 1sg get.up carry time like this. My friend, I started to cry. So, úmon jére dúgu~dúgu fógo ána 3pl run beat~beat on 1sg they started to beat me again. References Grammars Manfredi, Stefano. 2005. Descrizione grammaticale dell’arabo Juba con riferimenti sociolinguistici alla comunità del Cairo. Naples: Università degli Studi di Napoli L’Orientale, unpublished MA Thesis. Watson, Richard L. & Ola, Louis B. 1984. Juba Arabic for beginners. Juba: Summer Institute of Linguistics. Dictionary Smith, Ian & Ama, Morris T. 2005. Juba Arabic – English Dictionary/ Kamuus ta Arabi Juba wa Ingliizi. Kampala: Fountain Publishers. Special topics Bureng Vincent, George. 1986. Juba Arabic from a Bari perspective. In Dimmendal, Gerrit (ed.), Current approaches to African Linguistics, Vol. 3, 71–8. Dordrecht: Foris. Drozik, Ladislav. 1996. Arabic based pidgins and creoles. In Krupa, Victor (ed.), Intercultural contacts and communication between east and west: Proceedings of the international conference, Bratislava September 17, 1996. Bratislava: Slovak Academy Press. Haspelmath, Martin. 1990. The grammaticalization of passive morphology. Studies in Language 14. 25–72. Kaye, Alan. 1994. Peripheral Arabic dialectology and Arabic pidgins and creoles. In Aguadé, Jordi, Corriente, Federico & Marugàn, Marina (eds.), Actas del Congreso Internacional sobre interferencias linguísticas arabo-romances y paralelos extra-iberos, 125–40. Zaragoza: Navarro y Navarro. —— & Tosco, Mauro. 1993. Early East African Pidgin Arabic. Sprache und Geschichte in Afrika 14. 269–305. Mahmud, Ushari. 1979. Variation in the aspectual system of Juba Arabic. Washington D. C.: Georgetown University PhD dissertation. —— 1983. Arabic in southern Sudan: History and spread of a pidgin-creole. Khartoum: Khartoum University Press. Miller, Catherine. 1984. Aperçu du système verbal en Juba-Arabic. Comptes rendus du GLECS, XXIV-XXVIII, 1979–1984, 295–315. Paris: Geuthner. —— 1985. Un exemple d’évolution linguistique: Le cas de la particule “ge” en Juba-Arabic. Materiaux Arabes et Sudarabiques 1. 155–66. —— 1989. Bari interference in Juba-Arabic. Nilo-saharian Symposium, 1–10, 30 August & 2 September, 1989. —— 1991. Le changement linguistique à Juba et à Khartoum. In Bleu­chot H., Delmet C., Hopwood D. (eds.), Sudan-History, Identity, Ideology/Histoire, Identités, Idéologies, 153–80. Ithaca, NY: Ithaca Press. —— 1993. Restructuration morpho-syntaxique en Juba-Arabic and Ki-Nubi: A propos du débat universaux/substrat et superstrat dans les études creoles. Materiaux Arabes et Sudarabiques 5. 137–74. —— 2001. Grammaticalisation du verbe gale “dire” en Juba-Arabic. In Nicolai, Robert (ed.), Lécons d’Afrique: Filiations, ruptures et reconstitutions des langues; un hommage à Gabriel Manessy, 455–82. Louvain: Peeters. —— 2006. Juba Arabic. In Versteegh, Kees (ed.), Encyclopedia of Arabic language and linguistics, Vol. 2, 517–25. Leiden: Brill. —— 2007. Do they speak the same language? Language uses in Juba local courts. In Ditters, Everhard & Motzki, Harald (eds.), Approaches to Arabic linguistics presented to Kees Versteegh on the occasion of his sixtieth birthday, 607–538. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Nhial, Abdon. 1975. Kinubi and Juba Arabic: A comparative study. In Hurriez, Sayed & Bell, Herman (eds.), Directions in Sudanese linguistics and folklore, 81–94. Khartoum: Institute of African and Asian Studies. Owens, Jonathan. 1985. The origins of East African Nubi. Anthropological Linguistics 27. 229–71. —— 1989. Zur Pidginisierung und Kreolisierung im Arabischen. Afrika und Übersee 72. 91–107. —— 1990. East African Nubi: Bioprogram vs. inheritance. Diachronica 7. 217–50. —— 1996. Arabic-based pidgins and creoles. In Thomason, Sarah (ed.), Contact languages: A wider perspective, 125–72. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 64 3-07_juba_arabic.indd 64 5/23/2012 9:31:06 AM Juba Arabic Owens, Jonathan. 2001. Creole Arabic: The orphan of all orphans. ­Anthropological Linguistics 43(3). 348–79. Petrollino, Sara. 2007. Grammaticalizzazione e contatto linguistico: Le strutture comparative in kinubi e nei pidgin e creoli arabi. Naples: Università degli Studi di Napoli L’Orientale unpublished BA thesis. Thomason, Sarah Grey & Elgibali, Alaa. 1986. Before the lingua franca: Pidginized Arabic in the eleventh century A.D. Lingua 68. 317–49. Tosco, Mauro. 1995. A pidgin verbal system: The case of Juba Arabic. Anthropological Linguistics 37. 423–59. —— & Owens, Jonathan. 1993. Turku: A descriptive and comparative study. Sprache und Geschichte in Afrika 14. 177–267. Versteegh, Kees. 1984. Pidginization and creolization: The case of Arabic. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. —— 1993. Levelling in the Sudan: From Arabic Creole to Arabic Dialect. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 99. 65–79. Watson, Richard L. 1989. An introduction to Juba Arabic. Occasional Papers in the Study of Sudanese Languages, 95–117. Nairobi: Summer Institute of Linguistics. Yokwe, Eluzai M. 1985. The diversity of Juba-Arabic. Studies in African Linguistics 9. 323–8. 65 3-07_juba_arabic.indd 65 5/23/2012 9:31:06 AM 3-07_juba_arabic.indd 66 View publication stats 5/23/2012 9:31:06 AM
