A Cognitive Semantic Analysis of Hausa Personifications

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 2^nd 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. (1^st ed.) Taylor and Francis. Advance online Publication.

Get the full PDF here: