Citation: Auwal, M.D. (2024). A Cognitive Semantic Analysis of Hausa Personifications. Tasambo Journal of Language, Literature, and Culture, 3(1), 25-31. www.doi.org/10.36349/tjllc.2024.v03i01.003.
A Cognitive Semantic
Analysis of Hausa Personifications
By
Muhammad
Dayyib Auwal PhD
Federal
College of Education, Kano Staff Secondary School
08037340691
tayyibtayyibabba@gmail.com
Abstract
This
paper investigates the cognitive aspect of Hausa Personifications. The objective
of the study is to discover the Hausa personifications found in the language
expressions as a result of feature mappings from animate concepts to inanimate
ones. The other objective is to come up with a cognitive semantic analysis of the
Hausa personifications. The studied personifications are metaphorical and the Conceptual
Metaphor Theory of Lakoff and Johnson (1980) is used as a guide frame in
mapping the attributive features of the living entity to the inanimate ones. The
observation technique is used in collecting the data for the study. One of the
findings of the study reveals the kind of features merged between the animate
and the inanimate concepts to form the Hausa personifications. Another
important finding of the research indicates that the attributive features
attached to animate entities are mapped upon the inanimate concepts
conceptually to make the Hausa expressions personified. And finally, the study
considered the analyzed Hausa personifications as similar to dead metaphors.
1.0 Introduction
The cognitive approach to the study of personification originated
through the cognitive linguistic studies on language, while cognitive
linguistics is part of the general school of thought collectively referred to
as cognitive science. Like any developed language,
Hausa is a language that emphasizes the use of personification, and for any
language to be well understood, speakers must know the meaning of words in the
language and be able to relate the words to one another conceptually. Different studies have been
conducted by Hausa scholars on Hausa and other languages with cognitive
semantic perspectives like that of Auwal (2023), Auwal (2018), Almajir (2013),
Almajir (2014), Gwarzo (2019), Gwarzo (2017), Gwarzo (2015) Imam (2017), among
others. Therefore, this paper discusses the cognitive semantic analysis of Hausa
personifications.
1.1 Personification
Personification
is seen as one of the literal devices in which inanimate objects or abstract
concepts are spoken of as if they were given life or traits or feelings like
humans. The concept of personification is also seen as one of the figurative
languages that assign human characteristics to objects other than humans (inanimate
objects) so that these objects exist in an environment like humans (Abrams,
1999). Another view sees personification as the treatment of a non-human concept
or entity as if it were human (Thornborrow and Wareing, 1998), e.g., a car can
be described as powerful or having sensitive qualities.
The Hausa personifications here are analyzed within the cognitive semantic
perspective, and cognitive semantics is a part of larger enterprises of
cognitive linguistics; it represents an approach to the study of the mind and
its relationship with embodied experience and culture (Evans & Green (2006). The
approach also considered that the mind of the human being is so embodied in
such a way that our conceptual systems draw largely upon the peculiarities of
the human body and the specifics of our physical and cultural environment
(Johnson, 1987; Lakoff, 1987; Lakoff & Johnson, 1987; Yu, 2008; Maalej
& Yu, 2011).
The
traditional cognitive linguistic approach considers personification as a
special type of conceptual metaphor, in which the source domain is the human
body and our mind, and the target domain is a non-human or non-living entity
(Kövecses, 2010). According to this proposal, personification relies on
conceptual mappings between two domains, and it is an appropriate model for
nominal expressions which introduce an analogy between two entities, e.g., DRUG
IS AN ENEMY, (Dorst, 2011).
Personification
is also a cognitive semantic tool used for conceptualization and
personification is the general metaphor of EVENTS ARE ACTIONS, and the central
participant of the event becomes the actor of the metaphorical action (Lakoff,
2006). In this approach, mappings unfold between arguments of two domains and
not between the domains themselves which is characteristic of verbal
personifications (Drost, 2011).
2.0 Methodology and Theoretical Framework
The method used in sourcing the working data
for the study is observation. “Observation is a technique of data collection in which the
researcher makes a personal visit to the field or respondents and collects
relevant data’ (Haruna, 2008:95). In the process of collecting the data,
different materials on Hausa such as Hausa
books, projects, dissertations, theses, novels, newspapers, listening to radio
and television programs in Hausa, Hausa to English dictionaries and English to
Hausa are
used, read and observed. And being the native
speaker of the Hausa language, the researcher knows the expressions that are personified
in nature.
2.1 Theoretical Framework
The theoretical
framework employed in this study is conceptual metaphor theory. The theory was
developed by Lakoff and Johnson (1980). It has been very useful both within
cognitive linguistics and the social sciences, particularly in related disciplines
like cognitive psychology and anthropology.
In the
metaphorical expression, love is a journey. There is a conventional link at the conceptual level
between the domain of love relationships
and the domain of journeys Lakoff
and Johnson (1980). According to the view, love, which is the target (the
domain being described), is conventionally structured in terms of journeys, which is the source (the
domain in terms of which the target is described). What makes it a metaphor is
the conventional association of one domain with another.
Lakoff
and Johnson also observed that many distinct roles populate the source and
target domains. For example, journeys
include TRAVELLERS, a means of transport, a route followed by obstacles along the route and so on.
Similarly, the target domain love
relationship includes lovers
and events in the relationship.
Evans
and Green (2006:295) stress that the metaphor works by mapping roles from the
sources onto the target: lovers
become TRAVELLERS (we are at a crossroads), who travel by a particular means of transport (we are spinning our
wheels), proceeding along a particular route
(our relationship went off course), impeded by obstacles (our marriage is on
the rocks). As these examples demonstrate, a metaphorical link between two
domains consists of many distinct correspondences or mappings.
1.0 Data
Presentation and Analysis
This
part presents and analyzes Hausa personifications based on the cognitive
semantic perspective. The study analyzes ten personifications as a sample among
the personifications found in the language expressions. In making the analysis
literal and technical meanings are shown and how the mapping process took place
from the sources unto the target domains.
The sample analyzed personifications in the
language expressions are listed below:
1) Kuɗii nàa
màganàa.
2)
Katangâr nàa rawàa.
3) Wàndôn
dàariyaa yakèe.
4)
Bìirònkà yanàa amai
5)
Yàajìn akwai shi da
faɗàa
6)
Tàɓôn yaa kaamà
7)
Motàr baa tàa
tàfiyàa
8)
Kiliifàr taa cînyee
9)
Wayàr taa mutù
10) Mânjân yaa yi baccii.
Graesser
et al. (1989) see personification when animals, objects, social organizations
and abstract notions are given qualities of people. Personifying non-humans as
human beings helps us understand non-humans better (Kovecses, 2002). Lakoff and
Johnson (1980) see personification as
an ontological metaphor involving a cross-domain mapping where an object or
entity ‘is further specified as being a person’, as in the following
examples
1) His
theory explained to me the behaviour of chickens raised in factories.
2) This
fact argues against the standard theories.
3) Life has
cheated me.
4) Inflation
is eating up our profits, (Lakoff and Johnson 1980:33).
Therefore,
the analysis of the sample data of the study can be seen in the expressions
below.
1)
Kuɗìi nàa maganàa a ginin wancan gidan.
Lit. Money is talking in the building of that house.
Tech. Money speaks in the building of that house.
Source
Domain and its Attribute (animate)
|
Target
Domain (the
inanimate) |
The Mapped
Feature from source onto the Target Domain |
Human
+ maganàa ‘talking/speaking’ |
Kuɗìi ‘money’ |
Kuɗìi nàa maganàa ‘money is
talking/speaking’ |
In the expression above, the human attribute maganàa ‘talking/speaking is regarded as
the source and kuɗìi ‘money the target domain. When
conceptualizing the expression Kuɗìi nàa maganàa a ginin wancan
gidan, the
statement simply shows the mapping
process of human attribute maganàa ‘talking/speaking’ onto the inanimate
entity kuɗìi
‘money’. The mapping of the human attribute to the non-living entity kuɗìi
‘money’ makes the statement personification. Based on what Conceptual Metaphor
Theory (1980) highlighted, the features of a source domain are mapped upon the
target domain as in the way the feature maganàa ‘talking/speaking’ is
mapped onto the target kuɗìi
‘money’. The inanimate concept kuɗìi
‘money’, has no mouth to talk or speak, but in conceptualizing the statement what
would easily come to one’s mind is that a lot of money is spent on the building of the house.
2) Ku bar wajen katangar nan rawaa takee yìi.
Lit. Leave the side of this wall it’s dancing.
Tech. Leave the side of this wall it’s shaking.
Source
Domain and its Attribute (animate)
|
Target
Domain (the
inanimate) |
The
Mapped Feature from source onto the Target Domain |
Human
+ rawaa ‘dance’ |
katangaa
‘wall’ |
Rawar
katangaa ‘wall dancing’ |
In the above expression, the human attribute rawaa ‘dancing’ stands as the source
domain and katangaa ‘wall’ is the
target. The coming together of the living attribute rawaa ‘dancing’ and the non-living domain katangaa ‘wall’ give rise to the personification rawar katangaa ‘wall dancing’. However, in
conceptualizing the expression, the human attribute rawaa ‘dance’ is
mapped onto the non living katangaa
‘wall’. And in abstracting the statement Ku bar wajen katangar nan rawaa takee yìi, what
would triggers the mind is to ask
someone to leave the wall side as a result of its shaking.
3)
Wandon
da ka sàa jiya dàariyaa yakèe yìi.
Lit. The trousers you
wore yesterday are laughing.
Tech. The trousers
you wore yesterday are torn.
Source
Domain and its Attibute (animate)
|
Target
Domain (the
inanimate) |
The
Mapped Feature from source onto the Target Domain |
Human
+ Dàariyaa ‘laughing’ |
Wandoo
‘trousers’ |
Dàariyar
Wandoo ‘trousers’ laughing’ |
Based on one of the assumptions of Conceptual
Metaphor Theory (1980), mapping cannot be possible without the source and
target entities. And in identifying the source and target domains of the expression
wandon
da ka sàa jiya dàariyaa yakèe yìi ‘the trousers
you wore yesterday is torn’, the human attribute dàariyaa ‘laughing’ is considered the source and wandoo ‘trousers’ the target. However,
the fixing of human attribute dàariyaa
‘laughing’ onto to the inanimate concept wandoo
‘trousers’ yields to the produce of the personification dàariyar wandoo ‘trousers torn’. In arriving at the conceptual
meaning of the statement wandon da ka sàa jiya dàariyaa yakèe yìi what
would come to one’s mind is that the
trousers you wore yesterday are torn.
4)
Biironka yana amai.
Lit. Your pen is
vomiting.
Tech. Your pen is
leaking out ink.
Source
Domain and its Attribute (animate)
|
Target
Domain (the
inanimate) |
The
Mapped Feature from source onto the Target Domain |
Human
+ amai ‘vomiting’ |
Biiròo
‘pen’ |
Aman biiròo
‘pen’s vomiting’
|
The above statement is personification for giving
the attribute of a human being unto the non-living one. What to consider as the
source domain in the expression is the human attribute amai ‘vomiting and the target is biro ‘pen’. The feature mapping of
amai ‘vomiting’ onto the inanimate
entity biiròo ‘pen’ would make one to
conceptualize the expression as the pen is leaking out ink.
5)
Wannan yàajin akwai shi da fadàa.
Lit This pepper has
fighting.
Tech. This pepper is
spicy.
Source
Domain and its Attribute (animate)
|
Target
Domain (the inanimate) |
The
Mapped Feature from source onto the Target Domain |
Human
+ fadàa ‘fighting’ |
yàajìi
‘pepper’ |
Fadan
yàajìi ‘pepper’s fighting’ |
Based on what the above expression highlighted, the target
and inanimate domain here is yàajì
‘pepper’ where the living attribute fadàa
‘fighting is considered the source. Therefore in abstracting the expression Wannan yàajin akwai shi da fadàa,
what would come to mind conceptually is that the talking about pepper is spicy
to the taste. And when looking at the expression clearly, the feature fadàa ‘fighting’ of the living entity is
simply mapped onto the non-living concept yàajìi
‘pepper’.
6)
Taɓoo nèe ya kaama wa Binta taakalminta.
Lit. Clay catches the
shoe of Binta.
Tech. Clay holds the
shoe of Binta.
Source
Domain and its Attribute (animate)
|
Target
Domain (the
inanimate) |
The
Mapped Feature from source onto the Target Domain |
Human
+ ‘catching’ |
taɓoo ‘clay’ |
Taɓoo nèe yàa kaama taakalmii
‘its clay catches the shoe’ |
Here, we may easily perceive the statement as one of
the examples of Hausa personification. As a result of giving a living attribute
to a non-living one considers the statement personification. The analysis
regards the human attribute kaama
‘catching’ as the attribute mapped upon the non-living concept taɓoo
‘clay’. Therefore, saying taɓoo nèe ya kaama wa Binta taakalmii
can easily be conceptualized as clay holding the
shoe of Binta.
7)
Mòotar baabanmu baa taa tafiyàa.
Lit. Our father’s car
is not walking.
Tech. Our father’s
car is not moving.
Source
Domain and its Attribute (animate)
|
Target
Domain (the
inanimate) |
The
Mapped Feature from source onto the Target Domain |
Human
+ ‘walking’ |
mòotaa
‘car’ |
Mootaa
baa taa tafiyaa ‘car is not walking’ |
Concerning the above expression, the animate baabaa ‘father’ and its attribute tafiyàa
‘walking’ are considered the source domain where the entity mòotaa ‘car’ is seen to be the target. Therefore,
saying mòotar baabanmu baa taa tafiyaa
indicates the mapping of living attribute tafiyaa
‘walking’ unto the non-living concept mòotaa
‘car’ and this makes the expression personification. And in conceptualizing the
statement, what would trigger the mind is that our father’s car had stopped
moving.
8)
Kilìifar taa cinye sùumar duka.
Lit.
The clipper ate all the hairs.
Tech.
The clipper cut off the hair.
Source
Domain and its Attribute (animate)
|
Target
Domain (the
inanimate) |
The
Mapped Feature from source onto the Target Domain |
Human
+ ‘ate’ |
kilìifàa
‘clipper’ |
Kilìifar
taa cinye sùumar ‘the clipper ate the hairs’ |
What makes Conceptual Metaphor Theory a cognitive
tool for conceptualizing concepts is the mapping process that holds between the
source and the target domain. However, in saying the statement kilìifar taa cinye sùumar duka
clearly shows the mapping of human feature cinye
‘ate’ unto the non-living concept kilìifàa
‘clipper’. The process of this attributable mapping from the animate to the
inanimate kilìifàa makes the
expression personification. However, in arriving at the conceptual meaning of
the expression, the mind would process the statement as the clipper cut off the
hairs.
9)
Wayar taa mutu.
Lit. the handset
is dead.
Tech. The handset is off.
Source
Domain and its Attribute (animate)
|
Target
Domain (the
inanimate) |
The
Mapped Feature from source onto the Target Domain |
Human
+ mutuwàa ‘dead’ |
wayàa
‘handset’ |
Wayàa taa
mutu ‘handset is dead’ |
In studying the expression above, wayàa ‘handset’ is
a non-living concept but given the attribute of living entities. Mapping the
feature of the living to a non-living concept in the statement makes it a
personification. The attribute of the animate feature mutuwàa ‘dead’ considered the source domain whereas the inanimate wayàa ‘handset’ regarded the target.
Therefore, conceptualizing the expression wayar taa mutu may simply make one perceive the expression as
the handset is off.
10)
Manjan yaa yi baccìi.
Lit. The palm oil slept.
Tech. The palm oil condensed.
Source
Domain and its Attribute (animate)
|
Target
Domain (the
inanimate) |
The
Mapped Feature from source onto the Target Domain |
Human
+ baccìi ‘sleeping’ |
manjàa
‘palm oil’ |
Manjàa
yaa yi baccìi ‘palm oil slept’ |
It’s clearly shown in the expression that the attribute
of the living concept baccìi
‘sleeping’ is used to describe the inanimate concept manjàa ‘palm oil’. The statement shows the mapping attribute of the
animate concept to the non-animate. However, abstracting the expression manjan
yaa yi baccìi would make someone perceive the expression as the palm oil is
condensed.
4.4 Conclusion
In
conclusion, the study presented the cognitive semantic analysis of the Hausa
personifications. It indicated how the animate attributes are mapped to the non-living
entity of the Hausa language. The study also highlighted that the analyzed
personifications are metaphoric and the Conceptual Metaphor Theory of Lakoff
and Johnson (1980) is used as the guide for mapping the attributive features of
the living entity to the inanimate ones. Observation technique was used in
collecting the data of the study and one of the findings of the study showed
that Hausa personifications are found in the expressions of Hausa the language.
The other finding indicated that the attributive features attached to animate
entities are mapped upon the inanimate concepts abstractly to make the Hausa
expressions personified. The study also considered the analyzed Hausa
personifications similar to the dead metaphor and the dead metaphor is used in everyday conversation for a long time and
continuously which is usually marked by a very clear similarity so that someone
can understand it faster because it is often used in everyday language.
Reference
Abrams, M. H. (1999). A Glossary of Literary Terms (7). USA &
Canada: Earl McPeek.
Almajir, T.S. (2014). Hausa Metaphor: A Cognitive Semantic
Perspective. Unpublished PhD Thesis, Bayero University, Kano.
Almajir (2013). The Polysemy of Body Part-Terms in Hausa within the
Frame of Image Schemas. Studies of the
Department of African Languages and Culture, No. 47, pp. 93-111.
Auwal, M. D. (2018). The
Metaphoricty of English and Arabic Slogans: A Cognitive Semantic Approach. Unpublished M.A. Dissertation. Bayero
University, Kano.
Auwal, M. D. (2023). A Cognitive Semantic Study of Hausa Hypernym.
Unpublished PhD. Thesis. Bayero
University, Kano.
Dodson, J. R.
(2008). The ‘Power’ of Personification: Rhetorical Purpose in the
Book of Wisdom and the Letter to the Romans, 46-47. (Vol. 161). NY: Walter de
Gruyter.
Dorst, A. G.
(2011). Personification in discourse: Linguistic forms, conceptual structures
and communicative functions. Language and Literature 20 (2):113‒135.
Evans, V. and Green, M.
(2006). Cognitive linguistics An
Introduction, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Graesser, A. C. et al. (1989). Metaphors in
Persuasive Communication. In: D. Meusch & R. Viehoff (eds), Comprehension
of literary Discourse: Results and Problems of Interdisciplinary Approaches (
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyer), pp. 131-153.
Gwarzo, Y.A. (2015). A Study of Metaphoric and Metonymic
Expressions of Body Part Terms Hand and Head in Hausa. Unpublished M.A.
Dissertation, Faculty of Languages and Linguistics University of Malaya.
Gwarzo, Y.A. (2019). A Cognitive Analysis of Chained Metonymies
in Hausa Nouns. Unpublished PhD.
Thesis. Bayero University, Kano
Gwarzo, Y.A. (2017). Chained
Metonymies of Concrete Nouns in Hausa. Bayero
University Journal of Linguistics vol. 4, No. 1. Pp. 54-67.
Haruna, A.S. (2008). Educational Research A Comprehensive Guide
To Students, Kano: SK Amodu Printing and Publishing House.
Imam, H. Y. (2017). A Comparative Study of
Part-for-Whole Metonymy in Hausa Discourse. Bayero Journal of Linguistics.
Vol. 4, No. 1. pp 68-90.
Johnson, M. (1987). The Body in the Mind:
The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination, and Reason: University of Chicago
Press.
Kovecses, Z. (2010). Metaphor: A Practical
Introduction 2nd Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kovecses, Z. (2010). Metaphor and emotion:
Language, Culture and Body in Human Feeling. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press. Doi: 102277/0521641632
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire, and
Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind. Chicago, Chicago
University Press.
Lakoff, G. (2006). The contemporary theory of metaphor.In D. Geeraerts (Ed.), Cognitive Linguistics: BasicReadings. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 185‒238.
Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M.
(1980). Metaphors We Live By,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Thornborrow, J.
and Warieng, S. (1998). Patterns in
Language: Stylistics for Students of Language and Literature. (1st
ed.) Taylor and Francis. Advance online Publication.
0 Comments
ENGLISH: You are warmly invited to share your comments or ask questions regarding this post or related topics of interest. Your feedback serves as evidence of your appreciation for our hard work and ongoing efforts to sustain this extensive and informative blog. We value your input and engagement.
HAUSA: Kuna iya rubuto mana tsokaci ko tambayoyi a ƙasa. Tsokacinku game da abubuwan da muke ɗorawa shi zai tabbatar mana cewa mutane suna amfana da wannan ƙoƙari da muke yi na tattaro muku ɗimbin ilimummuka a wannan kafar intanet.