SOAS Working Papers in Linguistics Vol.

15 (2007): 151-157

Semantic Classification and Chichewa Derived Nouns

Thokozani Kunkeyani
University of Malawi, [email protected]

1. Introduction
Nouns of Bantu languages are classified grammatically according to prefixes whether
overt or null, and the concordial agreement associated with them. It has been observed
that noun classes can also be semantically classified. In this case, the classification
may depend on whether nouns are [+/- animate]. This entails that all animate nouns
with similar features should belong to classes 1/2. Classes 1/2 are also charactierised
by the prefixes /mu-/ and its variants /m-/, /mw-/ or null /ø-/ in the singular and /a-/ in
the plural, yet there are other nouns with the prefix /mu-/ that do not belong to these
classes. Although it is believed that nouns in classes 1/2 are recognized by the
semantic feature [+animate], and prefix /mu-/ or its variants, there are other nouns
with the prefix /na-/, or /ka-/ which belong to classes 1/2. In this paper, I will
demonstrate why nouns with features not meant for classes 1/2 can belong to classes
1/2. The paper is divided into three sections: section 1, the introduction, section 2.0
deals with interalia, noun derivation, finally, section 3.0 explores semantic
reclassification of nouns. In order to account for the semantic classification, Morris’
(1980/84) will be exploited. The paper restricts itself to classes 1/2, classes which are
generally regarded as being semantically classified.

2. Class 1 Nouns with /mu-/ or null Prefixes

This class typically contains nouns which refer to human beings and animals.
Whether the noun is a human being or not, does not matter so long as it is [+
animate]. Additionally, nouns are in class 1 because they have the prefix /mu-/ or its
variants /m-/, /mw-/ or null /ø-/.

(1) Mu- Prefix Zero Prefix

m-lendo ‘visitor’ ø- galu ‘dog’
m-phunzitsi ‘teacher’ ø-fisi ‘hyena’
m-lenje ‘hunter’ ø-bakha ‘duck’
m-bale ‘relative’ ø- nyani ‘monkey’
mu-nthu ‘person’ ø-bulu ‘donkey’
mw-ana ‘child’ ø-kambuku ‘leopard’

2.1 Problems in Characterizing Classes

Although it is claimed that typical class 1 nouns are recognized by /mu-/ or its
variants /m-/, /mw-/, there are other nouns with these prefixes but which do not belong
to this class.

2.1.1 Other Nouns with /mu-/ Prefix

There are other nouns with the same prefix /mu-/ but are not in class 1. These nouns
belong to class 3. For instance:
152 Thokozani Kunkeyani

(2) mtolo ‘bundle of things’ mtsutso ‘debate’

mtengo ‘tree’ mphika ‘clay-pot’
(for cooking)
mkuwo ‘shout/loud cry’ mtsitso ‘slope’
mtsuko ‘clay- pot’ (for storing water) mwendo ‘leg”
mulu ‘heap’ mwezi ‘month’
munda ‘garden’ mwala ‘stone’

Semantically, also, the nouns in (2). cannot belong to class 1 because they have the
feature [– animate]. Thus /mu-/ prefix cannot be used as the sole indicator for class 1
nouns.

2.1.2 Other Class 1 Nouns without /mu-/ Prefix.

Morphologically a noun with neither /mu-/ nor zero prefixes should not belong to
class 1 as the mnemonic term Mu-A class suggests. But there are other nouns with
prefixes /ka-/ and /na-/ which belong to class 1, for example:

(3) kadziwotche ‘moth’

kabwerebwere ‘jailbird’
kasoze ‘spy’
nankafumbwe ‘weevil’
napweri ‘albino’
namalira ‘bereaved person’
nakubala ‘parent’

These nouns are derivatives i.e. they are derived from verbal roots. Below is a more
detailed list of nouns and verbs from which they derive.

(4) Verbs Derived Nouns

wotcha ‘burn’ kadziwotche ‘moth’
soza ‘spy’ kasoze ‘spy’
bwera ‘come’ kabwerebwere ‘jailbird’
fumbwa ‘weevil’ nankafumbwe ‘weevil’
pwera ‘redden’ napweri ‘albino’
lira ‘cry/weep’ namalira ‘bereaved person’
bala ‘bear’ nakubala ‘parent’
lira ‘cry/weep’ nakulira ‘bereaved person’
mata ‘stick’ nalimata ‘small lizard’
londola ‘follow’ namlondola ‘small stick’
tuluka ‘get out’ namtuluka ‘newly initiated person’
fa ‘die’ nafadala ‘insect that pretends to die’
banthira ‘jump’ kabanthira ‘insect that jumps’
bulika ‘get out with force’ kabulikire ‘type of mouse’
bwata ‘boil’ kabwata ‘chicken with short legs’
chenjera ‘be clever’ kachenjede ‘degree holder/clever person’
deruka ‘appear in flash’ kaderuka ‘very mobile person’
dya ‘eat’ kadyansonga ‘giraffe’
meta ‘cut hair’ kadzimete ‘chicken with no hair on
neck’
papalala ‘thin’ kampapalala ‘very slim person’
 Semantic Classification and Chichewa Derived Nouns 153

The fact that they are derived nouns is not the reason why the nouns belong to class 1.
Rather they belong to class 1 because they have a feature [+ animate]. For example,
kadziwotche, nankafumbwe, kadzimete, kadyansonga, kampalala etc. refer to either
insects, animals or to persons. This classification adopts Morris’ folk classification.
Morris claims that Chichewa nouns are classified according to the concept of moyo,
animacy. He states that all Chichewa nouns are classified into two categories namely;
chopuma [+life] and chosapuma [-life]. The chopuma category is also divided into
munthu (human) and nyama (animal) categories. The nyama animal basic category
has subordinate categories ranging from nyama (edible or unharmful animal) to
chirombo (inedible or harmful animal). This depends on whether native speakers of
Chichewa consider them useful or useless. Insects belong to either of them i.e. the
nyama or chirombo categories, depending on how the native speakers view them. If
the insects are useful then they would belong to nyama. If useless or destructive as the
case is of nankafumbwe ‘ weevil’ it belongs to chirombo. The munthu category is also
divided into subcategories of mwamuna (male) mkazi (female) and chirombo (harmful
or useless). A kasoze ‘spy’ is always held in suspicion and is considered a negative
force in society since s/he may bring enmity between people. A kabwerebwere
‘jailbird’ is destructive and not wanted in a community. Thus both kasoze and
kabwerebwere would belong to chirombo category. Malinowski (1946), cited by
Morris (1984), claims that native speakers think through the stomach because they
classify things according to their utilitarian significance. Thus, native speakers are
able to categorise according to edibility/inedibility, usefulness/uselessness of any
object. Thus, native speakers’ classification is determined by their culture i.e.
according to their beliefs/environment, what they eat and what they use. If utility is a
major factor in folk categorization, then man’s response to environment is correlated
to perception and if perception changes then categorisation changes too. For example,
if one culture allows people to eat lion’s meat, then lion would not be in the category
of chirombo as the case is among the Chewa.
Additionally, there is a transparency of meaning between most verbs and
derived nouns and regularity of morphology providing substantial reasons as to why
those nouns derive from those particular verbs.
However, one cannot conclude that all nouns with prefix /ka-/ or /na-/ are
animate. There are other nouns which have these same prefixes, /ka-/ or /na-/, that
belong to class 1 but which do not have the feature [+ animate]. For example:

(5) tema ‘cut’ katemo ‘sickle’

tuta ‘pick’ katutu ‘ridge for planting crops’
mwa ‘drink’ kamwachale ‘very big clay pot’
limba ‘harden’ kalimba ‘musical instrument on
flat hard wood’
lasa ‘pierce’ kalasawene ‘shrub with thorns’
chesa ‘brew’ kachesa ‘clay pot (for keeping brewed
beer)
budula ‘trim’ kabudula ‘short’
saka ‘hunt’ nakasaka ‘spear with hooks’
kamba ‘say/tell’ nakambe ‘musical instrument’
gona ‘sleep’ namgoneka ‘creep’
wisika ‘be fresh’ nankawisi ‘green maize’
sema ‘shape’ kasemasema ‘small axe’
tserenga ‘mould’ natserenga ‘piece of clay- pot’
154 Thokozani Kunkeyani

kulunga ‘wrap’ nankulunga ‘basket’ (woven)

loza ‘point’ kalozera ‘contour ridge’
da ‘blacken or make dirt’ kadamsana ‘eclipse of the sun’

These nouns are inanimate and this presents a problem for the argument that class 1
nouns have the feature [+ animate] as their basis. Obviously this requires an
explanation. It would appear that these nouns are in class 1 because they are
personified. It seems that the prefixes /ka- / and /na-/ are used to personify inanimate
objects. However, there are other nouns which are not personified in the same
way, for example the following:

(6) nsansi ‘musical instrument stringed on flat wood’

zeze ‘tradition stringed musical instrument’
kwenga ‘traditional drum for announcing messages’
gubu ‘traditional gourd-like musical instrument’
kwenje ‘traditional drum for announcing the death of a chief or impending
war’

Why should these purely musical instruments be in class 1? To answer this question,
it is important to consider the traditional role of these instruments. For instance,
kwenga is a drum used to broadcast different types of messages in the village
including death. As such it plays the role of a town-crier. It may be assumed that
some of these instruments imitate the sound of humans / animals hence acquiring
animate connotations. The presence of these nouns in class 1, therefore, cannot be
merely accidental. It is this personification that makes them belong to class 1. This is
amply shown by the demonstrative prefixes that they take. For example:

(7) munthu uyu ‘this person’

galu uyu ‘this dog’
nakubala uyu ‘this parent’
kalozera uyu ‘this contour ridge’
kadziwotche uyu ‘this moth’
kwenga uyu ‘this traditional drum’

Thus, all the nouns above take the same demonstrative uyu ‘this one’. These nouns
are mentioned and used as if they all refer to human beings. Thus, although they are
inanimate, they are allocated to class 1 because of their personification. This
phenomenon has also been observed in Dyirbal. Dixon (1972), for example, observed
that birds in Dyirbal are in the same class as women because they are regarded as
dead female human beings and so birds and women, both belong to his class II.

3. The Semantic Reclassification of Class 1 Nouns

As explained above, class 1 nouns are grammatically supposed to have prefix /mu-/ or
its variants, or zero prefix. It has also been shown that there are some other nouns
which do not have those features but have /ka-/ and /na-/ instead. However, among
the zero prefix nouns, there are other nouns which are reclassified. They are
reclassified from class 1 into class 5. For example;
 Semantic Classification and Chichewa Derived Nouns 155

(8) Class 1 Class 5

tambala ‘cock’ tambala
‘coin’ (Malawi currency)
fulu ‘tortoise’ fulu
‘big tall handleless gourd’
(for water)
gompho ‘underground insect’ gompho ‘extremely short trousers’
godi ‘porcupine’ god ‘hole of board game’
bulu ‘donkey’ bulu ‘uncooked ball’
(of nsima)
gwala ‘lazy person’ gwala ‘bush route’
guni ‘wild dog’ guni ‘clay pot with two necks’
khwangwala ‘crow’ khwangwala ‘bushy route’
likumba ‘crooked person’ likumba ‘wall’
lumbe ‘type of bird’ lumbe ‘slice of bamboo’
(for weaving baskets)
phambo ‘greedy person’ phambo ‘whip’
leza ‘witch’ leza ‘razor’

These words have the same spelling and pronunciation (i.e. also tone) but belong to
different classes. Besides, morphologically, whether they are in class 1 or 5 they both
have a zero prefix. Those in class 1 have their plurals in class 2 with prefix /a-/ while
those in class 5 have their plurals in class 6 with prefix /ma-/. This is illustrated (9)
below using the examples in (8).

(9) Class 1 Class 5

Singular Plural Singular Plural
tambala a-tambala tambala ma-tambala
fulu a-fulu fulu ma-fulu
gompho a-gompho gompho ma-gompho
godi a-godi godi ma-godi
bulu a-bulu bulu ma-bulu
gwala a-gwala gwala ma-gwala
guni a-guni guni ma-guni
khwangwala a-khwangwala khwangwala ma-khwangwala
likumba a-likumba likumba ma-likumba
lumbe a-lumbe lumbe ma-lumbe
phambo a-phambo phambo ma-phambo
leza a-leza leza ma-leza

When the nouns are in class 1 they are animate. But when they reclassify themselves
to class 5, they become inanimate and as such belong to class 5, a class of non-living
things. The reclassification of the nouns seems to be triggered by the change in the
meaning of the words. Thus with Bantu languages like Chichewa, there is a
possibility of nouns reclassifying themselves depending on the change of the
semantics of the word.

3.1 Class 2 Nouns

Morphologically nouns in class 2 are recognized by the prefix /a-/ regardless of
whether they refer to inanimate or animate objects, derived or not. None-the-less,
there is a difference morphologically between the derived nouns with prefixes /ka-/
156 Thokozani Kunkeyani

and /na-/, and others. Class 1 nouns with prefix /mu-/ when they pluralise, drop the
/mu-/ and take /a-/ as a primary prefix, for instance:

(10) Singular Plural

mu-nthu ‘person’ a-nthu ‘persons’
m-bale ‘relative’ a-bale ‘relatives’
m-phunzitsi ‘teacher’ a-phunzitsi ‘teachers’
m-lendo ‘visitor’ a-lendo ‘visitors’
m-lenje ‘hunter’ a-lenje ‘hunters’

However, those with /ka-/ and /na-/ take /a-/ as a primary prefix in the plural and
retain the /ka-/ and /na-/ as secondary prefixes. For example;

(11) Singular Plural

ka-soze ‘spy’ a-ka-soze ‘spies’
ka-lozera ‘contour ridge’ a-ka-lozera ‘contour ridges’
na-malira ‘bereaved person’ a-na-malira ‘bereaved persons’
na-nkawisi ‘green maize’ a-na-nkawisi ‘green maize’

A question arises whether all nouns of class 1 belong to that class because they all
have plural /a-/ in class 2. The problem here is that grammatical classification treats
the classes as independent of each other i.e. class 2 being independent of class 1. It
does not recognize the fact that munthu/anthu, mlendo/alendo, nyani/anyani are
semantically related.
All in all, for a noun to belong to class 1 the prefix /mu-/ and the concordial
agreement prefixes are not enough as a criteria, the concept of animacy also plays a
significant role.

4. Conclusion
In conclusion then, it would appear that from the very fact that the same semantic
principles apply across the classes, the view has emerged that linguistic classification
overtly categorises the world in terms of various types of interactions that human
beings carry out with objects of their environment. These interactions could be social,
physical or functional interactions as noted in this paper. In this paper, I have
demonstrated, for the first time, that noun classes in Chichewa can, and are best
accounted for by exploiting folk categorisation. In this way, a clearer picture of the
nature of categorisation in human cognition emerges. All in all, folk categorization
seems to depend upon the interest and purpose of that object or noun being
categorized by native speakers. It demonstrates the native speaker’s response to
his/her environment (Allan 1977). Folk categorization is not a matter of identifying
essences but simply a reflection of social convenience and necessities. Different
necessities produce different categorizations, as Hayakawa (1984:182) argues. For
example, if hides are used for making shoes, then the manufacturer of shoes would
categorise cattle differently from a butcher. From the discussion above semantic
classification seems to be prior to the grammatical one because native speakers do
categorise according to utility, environment etc. and linguists come in and classify the
same nouns into classes. Thus, linguists just translate what is already presented by
native speakers.
 Semantic Classification and Chichewa Derived Nouns 157

Appendix

Chichewa Noun Classes and their Concordial Agreement Prefixes (Mchombo and
Bresnan 1987).

Class Example Gloss SM OM

1, 1a mlenje hunter a-, u- -mu-
2 alenje hunters a- -wa-
3 mkango lion u- -u-
4 mikango lions i- -i-
5 phiri mountain li- -li-
6 mapiri mountains a- -a-
7 chipewa hat chi- -chi-
8 zipewa hats zi- -zi-
9 njuchi bee i- -i-
10 njuchi bees zi- -zi-
12 kamwana small child ka- -ka-
13 tiana small children ti- -ti-
14 ulalo bridge u- -u-
6 maulalo bridges a- -a-
15 kuimba to sing/singing ku- -k-
16 pamsika at the market pa- -pa-
17 kumudzi to the village ku- -ku-
18 mnyumba in the house mu- -mu-

References
Allan, Keith. (1977) Classifier Languages. Language 53.2: 285-309.
Bresnan, Joan and Sam A. Mchombo. (1987) Topic, pronoun, and agreement in
Chichewa. Language 63.4: 741-783.
Dixon, Robert M.W. (1972) The Dyirbal Language of North Queensland. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Hayakawa, Samuel I. (1974) Language in Thought and Action. London: George Allen
and Unwin Ltd.
Malinowski, Bronislaw. (1946) A study of the influence of language upon thought
and of the science of symbolism . In Charles K. Ogden and I.A. Richards (eds.)
The meaning of Meaning (8th Edition). New York: Harcourt, Brace & World Inc.,
296-336.
Morris, Brian. (1980) Folk classification. Nyala Magazine 6.2: 83-93.
Morris, Brian. (1984) The pragmatics of folk classification. Journal of Ethnobiology
4.1: 45-90.