10.6092/issn.2785-0943/16309
Usaghade, a Lower Cross (LC) language is, unlike other LC languages, in regular contact with several Bantu languages, particularly Londo, and has a functioning system of noun classification/agreement, whereas other LC languages have only remnants of a former system. A comparison of noun classification in Lower Cross and Usaghade and between Usaghade and Londo suggests that Londo may have played a role in shaping the noun classification system of Usaghade by providing, along with other neighboring languages, an ecology in which Usaghade speakers were able to maintain their own existing system rather than converge with Londo. Usaghade temporal marking and its apparent system of verb classification, also different from other LC languages and hardly attributable to contact-induced convergence, might be a result of contact-induced divergence. The situation of Usaghade supports the view that bound morphology is resistant to borrowing and suggests three possible outcomes of contact: convergence, divergence, and stability.
application/pdf
2785-0943
16309
1
en
Bruce Connell
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads
contact-induced change
Language contact and evidence of divergence and convergence in the morphology of Usaghade
Text.Serial.Journal
https://typologyatcrossroads.unibo.it/
3
Research articles
2023-11-30
2023-01-22
2023-11-30
2023-11-30
43-71
LTC
Bruce Connell
2023/11/30
10.6092/issn.2785-0943/16309
43
York University
2785-0943
1
contact-induced change
en
71
<p><span data-contrast="auto">Winston, F. Dennis. 1962. The nominal class system of Lokə. </span><em><span data-contrast="auto">African Language Studies</span></em><span data-contrast="auto"> 3: 49&ndash;70.</span><span data-ccp-props="{&quot;201341983&quot;:0,&quot;335551550&quot;:6,&quot;335551620&quot;:6,&quot;335559685&quot;:360,&quot;335559740&quot;:276,&quot;335559991&quot;:360}">&nbsp;</span></p>
Language contact and evidence of divergence and convergence in the morphology of Usaghade
https://typologyatcrossroads.unibo.it/article/download/16309/16970
3
           Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 3-1 (2023): 43-71                     ISSN 2785-0943



       Language contact and evidence of divergence and
           convergence in the morphology of Usaghade

                                            BRUCE CONNELL
                                              YORK UNIVERSITY




                    Submitted: 22/01/2023               Revised version: 19/05/2023
                       Accepted: 12/08/2023                 Published: 30/11/2023



                   Articles are published under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (The authors
                   remain the copyright holders and grant third parties the right to use, reproduce, and share the article).




                                                   Abstract
Usaghade, a Lower Cross (LC) language is, unlike other LC languages, in regular contact with
several Bantu languages, particularly Londo, and has a functioning system of noun
classification/agreement, whereas other LC languages have only remnants of a former system.
A comparison of noun classification in Lower Cross and Usaghade and between Usaghade and
Londo suggests that Londo may have played a role in shaping the noun classification system
of Usaghade by providing, along with other neighboring languages, an ecology in which
Usaghade speakers were able to maintain their own existing system rather than converge
with Londo. Usaghade temporal marking and its apparent system of verb classification, also
different from other LC languages and hardly attributable to contact-induced convergence,
might be a result of contact-induced divergence. The situation of Usaghade supports the view
that bound morphology is resistant to borrowing and suggests three possible outcomes of
contact: convergence, divergence, and stability.


Keywords: noun classification/agreement; language contact; Lower Cross; Londo; contact-
induced change.



1. Language contact, convergence and divergence


The expected outcome of language contact is the modification of one (or more) of the
languages in the contact situation, in that it (or they) adopt(s) characteristics of one


https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/16309                                                                            43
Connell                                                   Language contact and evidence of divergence


(or more) of the other languages; that is, in some respect(s) the languages converge.
Less expected and rarely reported are situations where languages in contact diverge,
i.e. change occurs in a way that one (or more) of the languages seemingly reacts
against the influence of the others. An extreme example would be the deliberate
manipulation by speakers of a language to render it less like those of their neighbors;
this explicitly appears to be the case among the Sepik languages of Papua New
Guinea; as reported by (Laycock 2001: 169), speakers told him “it wouldn’t be any
good if we all talked the same; we like to know where people are from”. Perhaps less
consciously deliberate is the creation of Ma’a, an ‘ethno-register’ of Mbugu (ISO 639-
3 [mhd]; Glottocode mbug1240), which as described by Mous “serves to stress the
ethnic identity of the Mbugu as being different from their Shambaa and Pare
neighbours” (Mous 2001: 313). In this case, speakers are said to have attempted to
learn or approximate a language they had already given up. Among the reasons why
there are so few reports of divergence in the literature may simply be that they are
indeed rare or unrecognized, being counter to expectations; it may also be more
difficult to establish divergence compared to convergence given an assumption that
divergence must be deliberate. Apart from convergence and divergence, a third
possible outcome of contact is that existing features of a language instead be stabilized
through influence of contact, a situation that is essentially an areal phenomenon in
nature though the latter are typically considered to involve convergence. In the view
of Kühl & Braunmüller (2014: 14),


        both stability and divergence occur in contact situations quite frequently, not only
        independently of language contact, but also as its direct outcome: a language may
        preserve its structural features due to, or even despite, undergoing contact with
        other languages.


Usaghade1 (ISO 639-3 [usk]; Glottocode usag1244), also officially known as Isangele
in Cameroon and as Usakedet among the Efik and Ibibio in Nigeria, is a Lower Cross
language though, unlike other LC languages, it is in intimate contact with several
Bantu languages. Most notable of these, as described below, is Londo (Bantu A11; ISO
639-3 [bdu], Glottocode lond1243), a language of the Oroko cluster. Usaghade differs



1
    As is common in the region one and the same term serves as both ethnonym and glottonym as well
as place name.


                                                                                                  44
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 3-1 (2023): 43-71


in interesting ways from other Lower Cross languages, and the question arises as to
whether these differences, or some of them, can be attributed to contact, or rather are
a result of internal development. While a case might be made for its having been
influenced by Londo or other neighboring languages, particularly at the level of the
lexicon, other of its characteristics are difficult to attribute to convergence. Indeed,
deeper study shows at least one of these, its noun class and agreement system,
plausibly represents the third possibility mentioned above; rather than convergence,
or divergence, an inherited feature has been stabilized through contact. One goal of
this paper is to make the case for this assessment. To do this I look at the noun
classification and agreement systems in both Usaghade and Londo, as well as evidence
that exists of former noun classification in other Lower Cross languages and in Proto-
Lower Cross. Its functioning noun classification and agreement system is the most
obvious way in which Usaghade differs from other Lower Cross languages. Beyond
this, I examine other characteristics of Usaghade in which it differs from the rest of
Lower Cross, such as in its encoding of temporal distinctions, to assess whether or to
what extent these may be ascribed to contact with neighboring Bantu languages. From
a more general perspective, the situation of Usaghade as described here shows that
stabilization of, or support for, a given linguistic structure, is indeed a possible
outcome of language contact along with convergence and divergence. The description
and discussion given here build on and elaborate that found in Connell (2001).


2. Usaghade and language contact


The contact setting of Usaghade can be understood in terms of its linguistic genealogy,
its geographical setting and the associated demographics, described in the following
paragraphs.


2.1. Lower Cross affiliation of Usaghade


Usaghade is a small and relatively remote community, accessible to the rest of Lower
Cross    only    by     water     but    it   has    a    particular   place   in   Lower   Cross
cosmology/mythology; for some it is their place of origin (e.g. this account is found




                                                                                               45
Connell                                                     Language contact and evidence of divergence


among the Obolo2 and the Ọrọ3); for others (e.g. the Ibibio) it is a place of mystery and
supernatural power. The language is not extensively discussed in the literature, however
its place in Lower Cross as well as the classification of Lower Cross within Cross River is
well established (Connell 1995, Connell & Maison 1994). Within Lower Cross, Usaghade
appears as a relatively early branching, following only Obolo, as shown in Figure 1. The
subgrouping of Lower Cross represented in Figure 1 is based on lexical data and arrived
at using a Neighbor-Joining algorithm (Saitou & Nei 1987), available in Splitstree (Husan
& Bryant 2013). With certain exceptions not germane to the present discussion4, it is
supported in its details by phonological innovations (Connell 1995). The position of
Usaghade is confirmed by several phonological innovations.




                   Figure 1: Groupings within Lower Cross based on lexical evidence.


Lower Cross itself is part of the Cross River group, which in turn has been grouped
together with Bantoid to form the Bantoid-Cross group within Benue-Congo
(Williamson & Blench 2000).


2.2. Location


The Lower Cross subgroup is situated in southeastern Nigeria, covering the lower part
of the Cross River basin to the coast, and from the eastern fringe of the Niger Delta


2
    ISO 639-3 [ann], Glottocode obol1243.
3
    ISO 639-3 [orx], Glottocode oroo1241.
4
    For example, the Efai–Ebughu grouping shown in Figure 1 is not supported by phonological
innovations.


                                                                                                    46
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 3-1 (2023): 43-71


to the estuary of the Cross River. The confluence of the Cross River (at its estuary)
and its tributary the Yafe form the international frontier between Nigeria and
Cameroon at this point.5 Both linguistic evidence and oral traditions (Connell &
Maison 1994) suggest a relatively recent dispersal of the majority of the Lower Cross
languages from a common homeland, likely reaching the coastal area in the 15th
century; this date receives some support in accounts from early European visitors to
the Cross River estuary, which report no settlements at locations (e.g. parts of what
is now Calabar), which were then found occupied on subsequent visits (Latham 1973).
     Usaghade itself is situated to the east of the Cross River (left bank), entirely in
Cameroon in the area referred to in early sources as Rio del Rey (Ardener 1968),
which includes the Bakassi Peninsula. The immediate coastal area is largely mangrove
swamp and not well suited to permanent settlement, though fishing settlements exist
representing many ethnolinguistic groups: Lower Cross (particularly Efik 6 and Efai7,
but also others), Bantu groups from along the coast to the south, as well as others
from further west, such as Ịjọ groups from the Niger Delta. Slightly inland, the area
surrounding Usaghade is home to other languages, in particular several Northwest
Bantu languages. The immediate Bantu neighbors to Usaghade in addition to Londo,
are Bakole (ISO 639-3 [kme], Glottocode bako1250), Balue (uncoded), and Barombi
(ISO 639-3 [bbi], Glottocode baro1252) to the east, and Bima (uncoded) and Ngolo
(uncoded) to the north-east. Beyond these but still in the immediate area are the
Manenguba languages (Hedinger 1987), also Northwest Bantu languages. Durop (ISO
639-3 [krp], Glottocode koro1304), an Upper Cross language, lies to the north, as
shown in Figure 2.


2.3. Demographics


As described in Connell (2001), the Usaghade community comprises three villages,
Oron8, Amoto, and Bateka, and several smaller hamlets and fishing settlements, such



5
    A 2002 ruling by the International Court of Justice declared Bakassi to be part of Cameroon, however
dispute over this continues; the region remains part of a Nigerian federal constituency.
6
    ISO 639-3 [efi], Glottocode efik1245.
7
    ISO 639-3 [efa], Glottocode efai1241.
8
    This village, Oron, is not to be confused with the town of Oron [ɔ́ɾɔ́] located on the Nigerian side of
the Cross River estuary in Akwa Ibom State. The similarity in name appears to be coincidental.


                                                                                                        47
Connell                                                      Language contact and evidence of divergence


as Atabong and Ataiyo. Recent census data are not available however the population
figure given in Eberhard et al. (2022) is 5,000. Each of the three main villages has its
own tradition of origin, which for Oron and Amoto are similar.




        Figure 2: Location of Usaghade and its linguistic neighbors. (Map courtesy of Phil Braun.)


The Oron-Amoto tradition9 holds that the founders of these two villages were from
Enyong, near Idere and Eki on the map in Figure 2; Enyong Creek is a tributary of the
Cross River to the north-west of the estuary near Arochukwu and Enyong is today
part of the Lower Cross speaking area and constitutes the northmost reaches of the
Lower Cross language distribution, where they interface with Upper Cross languages.
The Oron-Amoto tradition says they migrated down the Cross River and settled first
among the Uda and Enwang on the west bank of the Cross River. The tradition does
not tell us how long they stayed among the Enwang and Uda, only that a dispute
arose between these two groups, with the migrants supporting the Uda. Fearing
Enwang retaliation, the migrants fled in two groups, crossing the mouth of the Cross
River at night to the Rio del Rey area. The two groups became the founders of the
villages of Amoto and Oron. It is difficult to date this migration with confidence, but
one version of the Oron-Amoto tradition has it that they migrated to the coast for



9
    As given to me by Chief Anke of Oron village.


                                                                                                     48
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 3-1 (2023): 43-71


trade purposes, having heard of the arrival of Europeans. This would place it in the
late 1500s or early 1600s (see below).
   The people of the third village, Bateka, do not claim Lower Cross origin. Their
traditions say they are originally Balondo, a Bantu people who inhabit the region
adjacent to Usaghade. This is not disputed in Usaghade, and at the time of my research
most of the older inhabitants of Bateka, despite having adopted Usaghade as their
first language, still spoke Londo as a second language. The Bateka people claim to
have been farmers and to have settled their present location while searching for new
farmlands. These groups of people came together to form the community now known
as Usaghade. I had the opportunity to work most closely with a speaker from Bateka
resident in Calabar at the time, though our work together included one field trip to
Usaghade (Bateka). Though still a young man in his late 20s, he spoke Londo; his
principal language of daily use in Bateka however was Usaghade, and he was also
fluent in Efik, English and Pidgin and had passive knowledge of other local languages
to varying degrees. Anecdotally, he reported his daughter, aged four at the time, being
exposed to these languages on a daily basis and acquiring them simultaneously.
   Further insight into the multilingual nature of this region and its development can
be had from two sources. Hedinger’s (1987) study of the Manenguba languages
includes a short description of the sociolinguistic situation as including “considerable
complexity with regard to the number of languages used in different contexts” (1987:
31). This complexity includes use of mother tongue in the home and with members
of the same clan to the extent that intelligibility permits. In border regions,
bilingualism in local languages appear to be the norm. Pidgin English (Cameroon
Pidgin, uncoded) is spoken throughout the region and either English or French or
both are available as education is in these languages.
   Attesting to the historical depth of this contact setting is documentary evidence, as
presented in Ardener (1968). Ardener’s work establishes that linguistic contact in the
area, involving the groups in question (i.e. essentially Lower Cross and Bantu) goes
back at least 500 years and presumably longer. Indeed, a part of Ardener’s discussion
constitutes the first modern linguistic examination of language contact in the Rio del
Rey, as he presents an analysis of what appears to be the earliest wordlist collected
by European traders in this region. While the origin of the list, i.e. exactly who
collected it and whether it is from one or several locations, is subject to debate,
Ardener argues it was the work of the Dutch trader Samuel Blommaert, who was
active in the early 1600s. It clearly contains words from both Lower Cross and Bantu



                                                                                     49
Connell                                           Language contact and evidence of divergence


languages. This allows Ardener (1968) to conclude that the linguistic situation of the
region around the end of the 15th century was much as it is now, i.e. heterogeneous.
  Thus, Usaghade demonstrably is and has been in an intense contact situation for
several centuries both internally, through its heterogeneous origin, and externally
through its being in close proximity to numerous other languages, as described above.
It may be expected then that contact has played a part in its development, and those
areas in which it differs from other Lower Cross languages may do so as a result of
this contact. In the following sections of the paper I look at, in turn, nominal
classification and agreement in Usaghade compared to what is found in other LC
languages (§4, §5), and in Londo (§6, §7), and offer an account as to why its system
has been relatively stable compared to other LC languages (§8). In §9 two other
aspects of Usaghade morphology that differ from the LC canon are discussed with a
view as to understanding how they came about. §10 moves from morphology to
examine cases of lexical influence on Usaghade from Londo or other neighboring
Bantu languages. §11 presents the conclusions of the paper concerning what the major
influences on Usaghade were that made it different from other LC languages, and
offers discussion as to the implications these findings have for a theory of
morphological change in situations of language contact.


3. Nominal classification, grammatical agreement


The most interesting feature of Usaghade when considering it as a Lower Cross
language is the presence of a fully functioning noun classification and agreement
system, only vestiges of which are present elsewhere in Lower Cross. This system
bears the hallmarks of noun classification and agreement systems found elsewhere
among East Benue-Congo languages and beyond. Nouns and their dependent elements
are morphologically marked with a prefix, on which basis they are assigned to a
particular class, referred to here as nominal form (NF) classes. Prefixes encode
number: singular, plural, or neutral; singular-plural pairings are deriflection classes
(DERF; see Güldemann & Fiedler 2021), commonly referred to in the literature as
genders. Agreement (or ‘concord’) exists between a head noun (the trigger) and any
of several possible elements dependent on the noun, such as demonstratives,
relativized nouns, associative constructions, and numerals, and between subject and
verb, according to the subject and grammatical person, and is again marked
prefixally. Nouns thus fall into agreement classes (AGR), singular-plural pairings of



                                                                                          50
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 3-1 (2023): 43-71


which are referred to as genders (GEND). In some languages the                   AGR   prefix is
phonologically identical to the         NF   prefix, i.e. agreement or concord is alliterative,
though this is frequently not the case; there is no necessary phonological identity
between DERF classes and genders.


4. Nominal classification in Cross River Usaghade, Lower Cross and neighboring
languages


4.1. Nominal classification and agreement systems in Cross River


Nominal classification/agreement systems are or were a feature of Cross River languages
(see Faraclas 1986); functioning systems exist in several Upper Cross languages (for
Durop see Connell 2021, Kastelein 1994; for Hohumono10 see Sterk 1976; for Lokəə11 see
Winston 1962; for Mbembe12 see Barnwell 1969). Connell (1987) discusses the state of
nominal classification in Lower Cross where, depending on the language, it ranges from
the functioning system of Usaghade to vestigial evidence in languages like Obolo where
the former noun prefix has disappeared from some nouns; across most of the group
fossilized NF prefixes are present on most or all nouns. In the Ogoni languages bordering
Lower Cross on the west, nominal prefixes have largely disappeared in Kana (ISO 639-3
[ogo], Glottocode khan1278) and Gokana (ISO 639-3 [gkn], Glottocode goka1239),
while Eleme (ISO 639-3 [elm], Glottocode elem1253) and to a lesser extent Baan (ISO
639-3 [bvj], Glottocode baan1241) have apparent fossilized prefixes. It is interesting to
note here the rough cline that exists; moving from east to west, the nominal
classification/agreement system of languages has increasingly eroded and disappeared.
Table 1 includes a representative set of Lower Cross languages and example lexical items
to illustrate the loss of nominal classification following this cline; i.e. east-most Usaghade
is at the top and west-most Obolo at the bottom, with other languages ordered between
these two (see also Figure 1). Where a singular-plural alternation exists, the plural prefix
follows the noun; otherwise the prefix is fossilized, or in two examples from Obolo, ‘oil
palm’ and ‘water’, and possibily ‘slave’, it has disappeared. The LC languages are followed
in the table by Kana (Ogoni) in which former prefixes have all but disappeared. To the



10
     ISO 639-3 [bcs], Glottocode kohu1244.
11
     ISO 639-3 [yaz], Glottocode loka1252.
12
     ISO 639-3 [mfn], Glottocode cros1244.


                                                                                             51
Connell                                                                  Language contact and evidence of divergence


west of the Ogoni languages are the Ijoid languages which have no identifiable traces of
nominal classification and/or agreement systems.


                 ‘ear’          ‘head’              ‘person’       ‘slave’          ‘chief’          ‘oil palm’   ‘water’
 Usaghade        ú-tɔ́ŋ / a-    ú-βô / m-           ɔ́-wɔ́m / ɛ-   ò-βúnàŋ / i-     ù-múɔ̂ / a-      ú-tɛ́n        ɛ̀-mɔ́ŋ
 Ọrọ             ú-tɔ́ŋ / ɔ-    ú-búgò / m-         ɔ́-w̃ ì / e-   í-vɔ̂n           ɔ́-!fɔ́ŋ         á-dà         ḿ-mɔ́ŋ
 Enwang          ú-tɔ́ŋ         ú-búgù / m-         á-w̃ ú         ɔ́-fɔ̀n / mi-    ɔ́-!vɔ́ŋ / mi-   á-dʒì        ḿ-mɔ́ŋ
 Ebughu          ú-tɔ́ŋ         ú-búʀò / m-         á-w̃ í         ɔ́-vʌ̀n          á-!búŋ / i-      á-ɟè         ḿ-mɔ́ŋ
 Efai            ú-tɔ́ŋ         í-búʀò / m-         á-ŋwɛ́         ɔ́-fʌ̀n          á-!búɔ́ŋ         é-jè         ḿ-mɔ́ŋ
 Ibibio          ú-tɔ́ŋ         í-wû:d / ŋ-         á-wó           á-fɩ̂n / i-      á-!bɔ́:ŋ / m-    á-jôp        ḿ-mɔ́:ŋ
 Ekit            ú-tɔ́ŋ         í-búʀò              á-ŋwé          í-fɩ̀n / á-      á-!bɔ́ŋ          á-dʒì        ḿ-mɔ́ŋ
 Obolo           ú-tɔ́ŋ         í-bòt               ɛ́-nè          gúwù             ú-bɔ́:ŋ          kô:          múŋ
 Kana            tɔ́            ákóbee              nɛɛ            –                mɛ́nɛ́           zóo          máá


 Table 1: Fossilization/loss of prefixes in Lower Cross following an east to west cline, with Usaghade
                                            east-most and Obolo west-most.13


There is more, however, underlying the presence or maintenance of the functioning
system found in Usaghade than geographical distribution. This system and reasons
why it has been maintained, while in other LC languages it has been eroded, are
explored in the following sections. First, additional details are given concerning the
evidence for nominal classification in LC.


4.2. Retentions of nominal classification in Lower Cross


As just mentioned, for most LC languages, fossilized                          NF   prefixes are present on most
or all nouns. In Ọrọ, singular-plural prefix alternations have been maintained for
about 10% of nouns in a comparative database comprising 550 glosses. Nominal form
prefix alternations on these are suggestive of several DERF class pairings in the history
of Ọrọ: u-/N-; u-/i-; u-/a-; o-/i-; o-/e-; i-/N-; and e-/N-. NF prefix alternation in Ibibio
is present in most, if not all, [+human] nouns (1), and occasional other nouns (2).
With rare exceptions, the prefix associated with the prefix is the same across                                    SG–PL

pairings and is determined by the stem tone.


 (1)      á-ꜜbọ́́ọ́́ñ / N- (or i-)ꜜbọ́́ọ́́ñ    ‘chief /chiefs’


13
     Codes for languages not mentioned in the text are: Enwang (ISO 639-3 [enw], Glottocode enwa1245);
Ebughu (ISO 639-3 [ebg], Glottocode ebug1241); Ekit (ISO 639-3 [eke], Glottocode ekie1246).


                                                                                                                    52
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 3-1 (2023): 43-71


       à-kpáráwà /N-kpáráwà                 ‘young man /young men’
       à-bóíkpà /ú-bóíkpà                 ‘young woman /young women’
       á-tâ /N-tâ                         ‘specialist /specialists’ (of traditional knowledge)
       á-bíà /N-bíà                       ‘specialist /specialists’ (of traditional knowledge)

 (2)   ì-kpàt /N-kpàt                           ‘foot /feet’
       í-só /N-só                              ‘face /faces’
       í-kpộñ /N-kpộñ                    ‘cocoyam /cocoyams’
       á-fâñ /N-fâñ                         ‘leaf /leaves’
       á-kɔ́k /N-kɔ́k                           ‘branch /branches’

For elements of the noun phrase other than the head noun, generally only fossilized
cases of agreement, e.g. with adjectives, are present, as shown in (3), through
examples from Ibibio (ISO 639-3 [ibb], Glottocode ibib1240), Ọrọ, and Usaghade. In
these, the AGR prefix of the adjective alternates while, except in Usaghade, the
(former) NF prefix of the noun has lost the alternation. In these examples the AGR
prefix is N-, as is the case in most other examples in the data. It is assumed this is a
result of merger of AGR prefixes, not that this was the case in an earlier functioning
system in Lower Cross or Proto Lower Cross.

 (3)         Ibibio                         Ọrọ                    Usaghade
       SG    á-búbít      éwà             ì-dìọ́́k áwà            ó-βíè ó-wá
       PL    ḿ-búbít     éwà             ǹ-dìọ́́k áwà           i-βíè í-wá
             black         dog              bad        dog           short dog

Subject–verb agreement is maintained to some degree in all LC languages in which
this has been examined, including in Obolo, as shown in (4). Examples show the
independent pronoun and the verb ‘buy’ with the subject–verb AGR prefix.

 (4)            Obolo               Ibibio                   Usaghade                 Gloss
       1SG      è-mì      ń-lép   à-mì         ń-ꜜdép    à-mì   ń-ꜜnéí         I buy
       2SG      ò-wò    ó-lép    à-fò        à-ꜜdép     à-fò  à-ꜜnéí          You buy
       3SG      ò-mô     ó-lép    à-ɲé        á-ꜜdép     ó-mò  ó-ꜜnéí          He buys
       1PL      è-jì      é-lép   ǹ-ɲìn       í-ꜜdép    á-ɲìn  ì-ꜜnéí          We buy
       2PL      è-ɲì      é-lép   ǹ-dùfò    è-ꜜdép     m̀ -bùfò   è-ꜜnéí    You (pl.) buy
       3PL      è-mâ     é-lép   á-mmộ é-ꜜdép         é-mmọ̀́    é-ꜜnéí   They buy




                                                                                                  53
Connell                                                          Language contact and evidence of divergence


These few examples give some indication of the range and nature of retentions of what
must once have been a functioning system of noun classification and agreement in
Lower Cross. Further evidence and argument for this is available in Connell (1987).


5. Nominal classification and agreement in Usaghade


5.1. Nominal form classes


Usaghade nominal form (NF) classes are given in Table 2 with the allomorph(s) of each,
their number category, and a sample noun for each. Number can be either singular (SG),
plural (PL) or neutral (NTR), ‘neutral’ being those nouns which do not alternate prefixes
and are typically non-count, denoting liquids or abstract qualities, or denoting items
that are commonly referred to in a non-count sense, such as ŋ́-kúndì ‘beans’. Nominal
form prefixes have no inherent tone, but rather bear the same tone as the stem. The
semantic make-up of classes is typically heterogeneous, the most homogeneous being
that for [+human] nouns.


           NF      Allomorphs        Number       Examples
           U-      u-                SG           ú-fàŋ ‘leaf’
                                     NTR          ú-núŋ ‘salt’
           O-      o-, ɔ-            SG           ɔ́-wɔ́m ‘person’; ó-wá ‘dogʼ
                                     PL           ó-díáŋà ‘curse’
                                     NTR          ó-bûn ‘dust’
           E-      e-, ɛ-            SG           é-kép ‘navel’
                                     PL           ɛ́-wɔ́m ‘people’
                                     NTR          ɛ́-mɔ́ŋ ‘water’
           I-      i-                SG           í-náp ‘dream’
                                     PL           í-wá ‘dog’
                                     NTR          í-mɔ̀m ‘laughter’
           A-      a-                PL           á-nɛ̀m ‘tongue’
                                     NTR          à-jɔ́ŋ ‘sky’
           N-      m-, n-, ŋ-        PL           ń-só ‘face’
                                     NTR          ŋ́-kúndì ‘beans’


                                Table 2: Usaghade nominal form classes.




                                                                                                         54
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 3-1 (2023): 43-71


5.2. Deriflection classes


Deriflection classes (DERF) are singular–plural pairings of nouns according to their NF prefix;
these are sometimes referred to as ‘genders’ in the literature (see Güldemann & Fielder
2019 for discussion). The term ‘gender’ here is reserved for groupings of nouns according
to their agreement pattern, i.e. agreement classes (AGR), as is also found in the older
literature. Ten DERF classes are found in Usaghade, the pairings shown in Figure 3.14


                          SG                                 PL

                          U-                                 N-
                          O-                                 O-
                          E-                                 E-
                          I-                                 I-


                                                             A-
                          Figure 3: Usaghade deriflection classes


5.3. Agreement in Usaghade

Agreement in Usaghade exists between a head noun and dependent demonstratives,
numerals, relatives, associatives, adjectives and subject–verb agreement. It is
alliterative agreement: the AGR prefix is a copy of the NF prefix, both segmentally and
tonally. While its possible exceptions may exist, there are no counterexamples in the
available data. The genders (pairings of            AGR   markers) mirror the     DERF   classes shown
in Figure 3 and there are thus ten          GEND   identified in Usaghade: u-/N-; u-/i-; u-/a-; o-
/-e-; o-/i-; e-/N-; e-/a-; i-/N-; i-/O-; and i-/a-. Examples from            GEND   o-/i- are given in
(5–10). NF prefixes are in uppercase, as in Table 2, AGR prefixes are in lower case.


 (5) DEM
     a.     ó-wá             ó-ké
            O-dog              o-DEM
            ‘That dog.’




14
     Four other pairings are present in the data, represented by just one word each. These are ‘inquorate
classes’ (Corbett 1991: 170); their status as DERF (and GEND) is uncertain and in any case not relevant
to the present discussion.


                                                                                                      55
Connell                                      Language contact and evidence of divergence


  b.      í-wá                í-ké
          I-dog                 i-DEM
          Those dogs.’


 (6) NUM
  a.      ó-wá           tʃén
          O-dog            -one
          ‘One dog.’
  b.      í-wá           í-bà
          I-dog            i-two
          ‘Two dogs.’


 (7) REL
  a.      ó-wá     ó-nò ó-ká-dì-nè
          O-dog      o-REL o-PST-came-x
          ‘The dog who came.’
  b.      í-wá     í-nò í-ká-dì-nè
          I-dog      i-REL o-PST-came-x
          ‘The dogs who came.’


(8) POSS
 a.       ó-wá       ó-sè
          O-dog        o-POSS
          ‘The dog’s’ / ‘of the dog.’
 b.       í-wá       í-sè
          I-dog        i-POSS
          ‘The dogs’ / ‘of the dogs.’


(9) ADJ
 a.       ó-βíè     ó-wà
          o-short      O-dog
          ‘The short dog.’
 b.       í-βíè     í-wà
          i-short      I-dog
          ‘The short dogs.’



                                                                                     56
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 3-1 (2023): 43-71




(10) S–V
 a.      ó-wá       ó-dí
         O-dog        o-come
         ‘The dog came.ʼ
         í-wá       í-dí
         I-dog        i-come
         ‘The dogs came.’


Figure 4 shows the relationship between               NF   prefixes and       AGR   prefixes, which is
consistently alliterative.


                           NF                              AGR

                           U-                              u-
                           O-                              {o-, ɔ-}
                           E-                              {e-, ɛ-}
                           I-                              i-
                           A-                              a-
                           N-                              {m-, n-, ɲ-, ŋ-}


             Figure 4: Relationship between NF and AGR prefixes in Usaghade.


5.4. Summary


Summarizing, the system of noun classification and agreement found in Usaghade is
typical of those found elsewhere in East Benue-Congo, in that a system of alternating
prefixes, encoding singular or plural found on nouns and their dependent elements
allows the grouping of nouns into different classes. Usaghade has six NF classes, nine
DERF classes and nine genders.


6. Nominal classification and agreement in Londo


Noun classification and agreement in Londo is described in some detail in Kuperus
(1985), which follows a form of analysis traditionally used in describing Bantu languages:
nouns are grouped into genders following three criteria: first, the form of AGR (concord)
prefixes; second, the form of noun prefixes (NF) and, third, the singular-plural class
pairings. The NF of Londo are given below.



                                                                                                   57
Connell                                                    Language contact and evidence of divergence


6.1. Nominal form classes in Londo


Londo nominal form (NF) classes are given in Table 3, with the main allomorph(s) of
each, the number, SG, PL, or NTR, and an example of each. The class number they have
with respect to usual practice in Bantu studies practice is included. Nominal form prefixes
in Londo all bear Low tone, as is usual in Bantu languages, though the L surfaces as High
when conditioned by a floating H tone associated with the stem. The semantics of
categories are typically heterogeneous.

                      NF      Allomorphs      Number            Bantu Class
                      MO-     mò, mɔ̀        SG                1, 3
                      Ø       Ø               SG                1a
                      BA-     bà              PL                2
                      ME-     mè, mɛ̀         PL                4
                      DI-     dì              SG                5
                      MA-     mà              PL, NTR           6
                      E-      è, ɛ̀           SG                7
                      BE-     bè, bɛ̀         PL                8
                      N-      ɲ̀              SG, PL            9, 10
                      DO-     dò, dɔ̀        SG                11
                      BO-     bò, bɔ̀        PL                14
                      O-      ò, ɔ̀          SG                17
                      A-      à               SG                17a
                      I-      ì               SG                19

                            Table 3: Londo nominal form classes.



6.2. Londo Deriflection Classes


Singular-plural pairings of Londo nouns as         DERF   classes are given for Londo in Figure
5. Londo has 10 DERF classes, most of which are simple one-to-one pairings.


                      SG                                  PL

                      Ø-                                  BA-
                      MO-                                 ME-
                      DI-                                 MA-
                      E-                                  BE-
                      N-                                  N-
                      I-                                  DO-
                      BO-
                      O-
                      A-

                      Figure 5: Deriflection classes in Londo.


                                                                                                   58
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 3-1 (2023): 43-71


6.3. Agreement in Londo


Agreement in Londo is present between a head noun and words modifying the noun,
marked by a prefix.


                          NF                               AGR

                          Ø-                               mò-
                          MO-                              ò-
                          BA-                              à-
                          ME-                              mé-
                          DI-                              dí-
                          MA-                              má-
                          E-                               é-
                          BE-                              bé-
                          N-                               è-
                          DO-                              dó-
                          BO-                              bó-
                          O-                               ó-
                          A-
                          I-                               í-

        Figure 6: The relationship between NF and AGR prefixes in Londo.



Following Kuperus (1985), word classes subject to agreement are: demonstratives;
3rd person pronouns; adjectives; numerals one to five (one is considered an adjective);
demonstratives; possessives; the ‘concording conjunctive’ ‘that’; and verbs (i.e. subject
- verb agreement). Here I omit details found in Kuperus not germane to the present
discussion. The    NF   prefixes and corresponding        AGR     prefixes are set out in Figure 6. It
is apparent from the pairings shown here that there is a substantial amount of
alliterative agreement but the agreement system is not strictly alliterative.


7. Similarities and differences between Usaghade and Londo


A comparison of the two systems, that of Usaghade and of Londo, shows that beyond
the basic characteristics of such systems the two have little in common. The most
striking similarity may be the extent to which the two show alliterative agreement,



                                                                                                   59
Connell                                                 Language contact and evidence of divergence


however even in this the match is far from perfect. Agreement in Usaghade, as far as our
data show, is consistently alliterative (Figure 4); Londo, on the other hand, despite being
substantially alliterative, is not entirely so. Beyond this, the differences between the two
systems are far more striking. Usaghade has six        NF   classes (Table 2), Londo fourteen
(Table 3); five of the six in Usaghade are V-, the other is N-, while those of Londo include
eight CV- prefixes. There are nine   DERF    classes in Usaghade, ten in Londo; the pairings
that comprise these classes have only limited commonality across the two languages.


8. Whence nominal classification and agreement in Usaghade?

Given the extent of decay of nominal classification in Lower Cross, with the exception of
Usaghade, and the contribution of Londo speakers to the formation of Usaghade outlined
above (§2.3), the question arises whether the fully functioning system found in Usaghade
is borrowed, i.e. a result of convergence with Londo in particular, or perhaps with other
neighboring Bantu languages also contributing. The comparison given in the previous
section shows this cannot be the case. The details of systems found in neighboring Bantu
languages have not been examined, but if Usaghade speakers did not adopt this
characteristic from Londo, whose speakers comprise a part of the make-up of Usaghade,
it seems highly improbable they would have adopted it from a third source. One might
also wonder whether contact with an Upper Cross language – Durop is in the immediate
vicinity – may have had an influence, but without going into detail here it can be said
many of the differences here parallel those just described in the comparison with Londo
(see Connell 2021). Rather, when comparing Usaghade with the vestiges present in other
Lower Cross languages, the system of Usaghade seems to be in a state of ‘arrested
erosion’. Among the   NF   prefixes of Usaghade, as mentioned, we find no CV- prefixes,
unlike in Londo (and other Bantu languages) or Durop (and other Upper Cross
languages), but this is true throughout Lower Cross, though the             NF   prefixes can be
associated with CV- prefixes; at least some are apparent reflexes of Proto Benue-Congo
noun class prefixes (Connell 1987)). As noted (§4.2), there are         SG-PL   pairings among a
small percentage of nouns in Ọrọ that point to seven former DERF classes in that language;
the match between these and those of Usaghade is shown below in (11).

 (11) Ọrọ           u-/N- u-/i-      u-/a-     o-/i-   o-/e-    i-/N-    e-/N-    –        –
          Usaghade u-/N- u-/i-       u-/a-     o-/i-   o-/e-    i-/N-    e-/N-    e-/a-    i-/a-




                                                                                                60
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 3-1 (2023): 43-71


Examination of the content of each of these DERF classes would establish more
conclusively their genealogical relationship, but the fact of the correspondences, together
with other evidence indicating a genealogical relationship between the two languages, is
strong evidence that the Usaghade system is an inherited, not borrowed, one. The one
area where Londo may have influenced the Usaghade system is that both have alliterative
agreement, whereas it is uncertain what form agreement took earlier in Lower Cross.


9. Other aspects of Usaghade inflectional morphology


The evidence for the origin of nominal classification and agreement in Usaghade as
presented in the preceding section is reasonably convincing and the system cannot be
attributed to convergence through contact with Londo or other language. There are
at least two other aspects of Usaghade morphology that deviate from the Lower Cross
canon. The available data are limited and therefore discussion and conclusions are
tentative. These have to do with the encoding of tense and/or aspect distinctions and
an apparent system of verb classification.


9.1. Temporal marking in Usaghade


Usaghade differs from other Lower Cross languages with respect to encoding temporal
distinctions. In all Lower Cross languages for which temporal marking has been discussed
(Welmers 1966 for Efik; Essien 1990a,b for Ibibio; Aaron 1994, Faraclas 1984, and
Rowland-Oke 2003 for Obolo; Kuperus 1978 for Ọrọ), the relevant constituent, whether
a tense or aspect marker, is pre-verbal. In Usaghade these are in some cases marked post-
verbally, as examples 12-16 illustrate. The relevant tense/aspect markers and associated
verbs are indicated in bold. With the exception of the        FUT   marker in (16) they are
considered cognate, though whether this is the case is not critical; it is the position of the
temporal marking constituent relative to the verb that is of importance. Whether a given
constituent encodes tense or aspect is of potential importance, but determining this is
difficult given the insufficient data available for a detailed analysis of temporal reference
in Usaghade, and that these categories are not always as clearcut as the literature would
have it. Distinguishing tense and aspect in Ibibio, to which Usaghade is compared in
these examples, is not always a straightforward matter; Essien for example variously
refers to the prefix mé-, (mí- in 14b), as a present tense marker (1990a), or marking
proximate past and perfect (1990b, 1991). The contradiction is only apparent however,
and may be seen as reflecting the difficulty in distinguishing these categories.



                                                                                           61
Connell                                                                             Language contact and evidence of divergence


(12)
a. Usaghade
  ŋ́-        kú       má ó-íŋwàn
  1SG see              PFV       woman
b. Ibibio
  ḿ-        màá- kíd áwóŋwáàn
  1sg        PFV       see woman
  ‘I saw the woman.ʼ


(13)
a. Usaghade
  ǹ-súâ          ǹ-nìàŋ è-kè                é-βè            ó-            ká-      bá
  year              four         mother             3PL.POSS          3PL.AGR        PST       die
b. Ibibio
  ì-súâ ì-nààŋ è-kà á-mmɔ̀                       á-         ké-   kpá
  year four                see         3PL.POSS           3PL.AGR     PST    die
  ‘Their mother died four years ago.ʼ


 (14)
 a. Usaghade
  í-        mí-                kú      ú-tín
  3PL        PRF/PRS             see sun
 b. Ibibio
  é-        mí-                kíd útín
  3PL        PRF/PRS             see sun
  ‘They see the sun.ʼ


 (15)
a. Usaghade
  ó-        yíré        sé         ɛ́-mɔ́ŋ      ké         ú-dûm
  3SG bathe                HAB         water        PREP        stream
b. Ibibio
  á-        sí-      yíè           ì-dém      ké            í-dîm
  3SG        HAB       bathe           body         PREP           stream
  ‘She bathes at the stream.ʼ



                                                                                                                            62
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 3-1 (2023): 43-71


 (16)
 a. Usaghade
       é-wóm é-     í-    kǎ
       men             3PL    FUT   go
 b. Ibibio
       ídên   é-    yâ-              é-    kǎ
       men      3PL    FUT.PROX          3PL go
       ‘The men will go.ʼ


In (12), what is analyzed as a            PFV   marker is pre-verbal in Ibibio15, but post-verbal in
Usaghade, and similarly in (15) the HAB marker is pre-verbal in Ibibio, but post-verbal
in Usaghade. However in (13), the                PST   marker is in both languages pre-verbal, and
similarly in (14) what might plausibly be analyzed as a                 PRS   marker is pre-verbal and
in (16) the      FUT   marker is preverbal. This suggests that what are tentatively analyzed
as aspect markers have undergone a shift in Usaghade, from pre- to post-verbal.
However, assuming this is the case, the question arises as to whether this shift is due
to influence from Londo. Kuperus (1985: 145) provides the flectional template in (17)
to characterize the structure of the Londo verbal complex, showing aspect may be
marked both pre-verbally and post-verbally.


 (17) Mood             Person Polarity Time/              Lexical   Aspect      Aspect/         Plur
                                                Aspect    Core      Suffix      Mood FV


Kuperus identifies three markers in Londo, -mò-, -mó- and -má-, as indicating past
reference and which occur in the time/aspect slot. Elements occurring in this slot
which are referred to as aspect markers are -ne- (durative) and -kèndé-, -kèé-, and –
 ́
kà-, which are indicative of motion, either direct or abstract. The lone aspectual suffix
mentioned in Kuperus is -àk- referred to as a durative suffix. On the basis of this
evidence, it is difficult to argue that the shift from pre- to post-verbal position for
aspect markers, if this is indeed what they are, is a result of influence from Londo.
The root cause of the change remains unclear.




15
     Essien (1991) refers to it as a past tense marker but elsewhere (1990) treats it as PFV.


                                                                                                       63
Connell                                              Language contact and evidence of divergence


9.2. Verb classes in Usaghade


One further characteristic in which Usaghade differs from other Lower Cross
languages also has to do with verbal suffixes, but again insufficient data are available
to determine their status. Verbs may be grouped into four classes according to the
suffix assigned, whether -sé, -dà, -já, or a zero suffix, -Ø. Of these, -sé defines the
largest class (approximately 53% of verbs in the database), followed by -Ø (32%), -
dá (9%) and -jà (6.5%). They appear to mark imperatives, though the available data
are insufficient to assert this with confidence. The data include only very few
instances of imperatives, though for these one of the suffixes is present. Otherwise,
they appear only in the wordlist, and not in any sentential examples which are all in
the indicative. Further data collection, not possible to this point, would resolve the
issue. The important point however is that there are no corresponding forms present
in any of the much better studied Lower Cross languages for which grammars or
description of the verb phrase are available (e.g. Ibibio, Essien 1990b; Obolo, Faraclas
1984; Ọrọ, Kuperus 1978), nor are they known to occur in Upper Cross and so it
seems unlikely they are retentions in Usaghade. On the other hand, there is also no
obvious source for them in Londo, where the mood-marking Final Vowel (see (17),
above) is -é, -è, so they cannot be considered to be due to convergence/contact.


10. Evidence of contact leading to convergence


10.1. Lexical borrowings in Usaghade


Thus far this paper has examined characteristics of Usaghade which are conceivably
a result of contact leading to convergence, though they have proved not to be.
However, in situations of language contact, lexical borrowing is a default expectation,
so we turn now to look for convergence in the area of the lexicon. When examining
the lexicon of Usaghade, aspects of its history should be borne in mind (see §2). That
is, there are at least three possible sources of Usaghade vocabulary: inherited
vocabulary, vocabulary possibly borrowed through contact with neighboring Upper
Cross languages before the migration to the coast, and borrowing of vocabulary from
adjacent Bantu languages after arriving at their current coastal location some
centuries ago. The database for the present discussion comprises some 550 glosses



                                                                                             64
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 3-1 (2023): 43-71


collected for all Lower Cross languages known at the time. Upper Cross material is
from unpublished wordlists collected by Jan Sterk, and Londo material from Kuperus
(1985). The overlap between the different sources is considerably less than the 550
glosses available for Lower Cross. Sterk’s Upper Cross wordlists are based on 400
glosses. Kuperus’ Londo-English lexicon is considerably longer but still there are many
words in the Lower Cross set that are not found there. A lexicostatistical analysis using
a subset of these words (a Swadesh basic vocabulary list) was conducted and
presented in Connell & Maison (1994); a similar analysis using a different set of core
vocabulary is in Connell (to appear). In both studies, Usaghade is seen to share
approximately 65% – 70% cognates with other Lower Cross languages. In other words,
as many as 30% – 35 % are potential borrowings. Of these a portion are of apparent
Bantu origin while others maybe Cross River (i.e. Upper Cross). Yet others are of
uncertain provenance. Table 4 presents words in Usaghade that appear to be of Bantu
origin though not all are attested in Londo, possible cognates are found in nearby
Bantu languages suggestive either of gaps in the Londo data or contact with these
languages.
   So, at least a small number of lexical items in Usaghade can be attributed to
contact, either with Londo or other neighboring Bantu languages. Most of these can
be attributed to the migrating Usaghade finding themselves in a new environment.


11. Discussion


Usaghade differs from other Lower Cross languages with respect to its morphology in
at least three interesting ways: in its nominal morphology, there is a functioning noun
classification and agreement system, whereas in other Lower Cross there remain only
remnants of an earlier system. In its verbal morphology, Usaghade marks at least
some temporal distinctions post-verbally while elsewhere in Lower Cross all temporal
distinctions are encoded pre-verbally. Usaghade also has a form of verb classification,
marked suffixally, which has no parallel among other Lower Cross languages; the
precise function of these suffixes is as yet unclear.
   I considered the possibility that one or other of these characteristics arose in
Usaghade through contact, most probably with Londo, given that a village of Londo




                                                                                      65
Connell                                                    Language contact and evidence of divergence


                           Usaghade                Londo                    Comment
 beans              -kúǹdì              -kóndì              PLC kɔ́tì
 bone               -síp                 -sé                The relation to Londo -sé is unclear;
                                                             the Usaghade term may be cognate
                                                             with Ibibio ásîp, ‘tendon, veinʼ
 cocoyam            -sɔ́ŋɔ́              -sɔ̀ngú             PLC *í-kpɔ̀ŋ; cognates are not known
                                                             elsewhere in CR.
 compound           -wǎtʃè               -wóká               The Londo term refers to a temporary
                                                             house on a farm; as k > tʃ is a regular
                                                             development in Usaghade this is
                                                             plausible as a borrowing.
 cut (v.)           bì                   -bɛ̀-               Londo ‘cut meatʼ; one of very few verbs
                                                             that may be a borrowing.
 farm               -tʃá                                     Cognate forms are not found in CR,
                                                             nor does the Londo form look cognate
                                                             though possible cognates exist in other
                                                             NW    Bantu,    e.g.   the   Manenguba
                                                             cluster; PM *-jàg (Hedinger 1987)
 friend             -kɔ́ɾɔ́              -kɔ́dɔ́             Cognate forms are not found in CR
 hat                -kpòtó                                   Not available for Londo; cf. PM*-bòtV
                                                             (Hedinger 1987)
 heart              -bùmá                                    a Londo form is not available but
                                                             nearby Bantu have -bùm ‘stomachʼ;
                                                             PM *-bùm (Hedinger 1987)
 pepper             -dàǹdúŋ                                 No known cognate in LC; not available
                                                             for Londo, but cf -dóŋ in other nearby
                                                             Bantu; PM *-dóŋ (Hedinger 1987)
 slave              ò-βúnàŋ              -ɸà                 The Usaghade form is a compound, the
                                                             first element of which appears cognate
                                                             with the Londo form.


            Table 4: Lexical borrowings in Usaghade from Londo or other Bantu languages.



speakers formed part of the nascent Usaghade community. However, as was shown,
Londo differs from Usaghade in each of these three characteristics. Despite its having
a noun classification and agreement system which is at least broadly speaking
typologically similar, the Londo system shows considerable formal difference with
that of Usaghade, making it improbable that Usaghade acquired or rebuilt its system
through contact-induced convergence. On the other hand, it is plausible, even likely,
that the presence of a noun class system in Londo and other neighboring languages



                                                                                                   66
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 3-1 (2023): 43-71


with which the Usaghade community interacted closely, served to help stabilize and
maintain the existing system in Usaghade. That is, noun class/agreement systems are
essentially an areal phenomenon in the region and this served to buttress and
maintain its use in Usaghade.
   The origin of the two characteristics of verbal morphology, the order of tense-
aspect markers relative to the verb and the seeming verb classification system, in
which Usaghade differs from the Lower Cross canon remains unclear. There is no
evidence to date that suggests the post-verbal marking of certain temporal relations
is retained from Proto-Lower Cross, and while it is not uncommon in the broader
Bantoid region to find aspect marked post-verbally, this is not the case in Londo (or,
as far as is known, other Bantu languages of the region) and so this too cannot
convincingly be attributed to contact-induced convergence. Likewise, with no Londo
equivalent or even near-equivalent to the verbal suffixes found Usaghade, it is difficult
to attribute this characteristic to convergence. How, then, to account for these
changes? Post-verbal marking of aspect is not uncommon and a shift of temporal
encoding to a post-verbal position might somehow be seen as a natural development;
nevertheless, some form of mediating factor would be expected and none, at present
is available. Indeed, it is a prima facie instance of divergence and though there is no
evidence now to suggest it is a result of deliberate manipulation, one might question
whether divergence needs always to be deliberate in the sense of the examples of
divergence presented in §1.
   If one accepts that the developments in Usaghade reflect, in one case, the third
possibility proposed at the outset of this paper, that contact in some circumstances
can lend stability to features already present in a language, and in another case
possible contact-induced divergence, it is still worth noting that convergence is also
evident in Usaghade, at least in its lexicon, with several borrowings from Londo in
evidence in the relatively small lexical database available to this study.


12. Conclusions: Usaghade and theories of morphological change in contact
settings


The aim of this work has been to reach an understanding of the forces that have
shaped Usaghade and made it different from other Lower Cross languages. The results
and their interpretation presented here contribute to our understanding of the



                                                                                      67
Connell                                            Language contact and evidence of divergence


maintenance of stability, in addition to convergence and divergence, as an outcome
of language contact and are consistent with the view presented in Braunmüller et al.
(2014), that all three outcomes are associated with contact and may indeed be present
within the same contact setting.
  At the same time, the conclusions reached are of interest to a theory of
morphological change in situations of language contact. Bound morphology has
frequently been considered, though not without debate, resistant to borrowing;
Thomason and Kaufman (1988) provide a summary of this debate which tends to the
view of its being resistant, though they also offer counter examples. Among the
counter examples they cite is one from Thomason’s own work, on Ma’a (Mbugu)
(Thomason 1983), which is suggested to show the opposite, Bantu bound morphology
(viz. the noun class system) having been borrowed into a Cushitic language. However
Mous (2001), in his more detailed work mentioned in the introduction, argues for a
different analysis and asserts that borrowing “cannot explain the present-day
situation” (2001: 299). Mous is even more categorical in a general statement: “The
Bantu (or Niger-Congo) noun class system is in its form unique in the world. It is
never borrowed by other languages… it is hardly ever enriched” (2001: 298). The
evidence presented here, that the system of nominal classification and agreement that
exists in Usaghade has not been borrowed, substantiates Mous’s view and lends
further support to the view that bound morphology is resistant to borrowing.
However, the claim that noun class systems are not borrowed does not preclude the
possibility that their widespread presence areally provides a setting where they are,
in a sense, mutually supporting; i.e. in the present case causing the system of
Usaghade to be stabilized.
  In short, the evidence from Usaghade suggests three possible influences in
situations of language contact: convergence and divergence, as well as a third
possibility, the stabilization or maintenance of existing features of a language.



Acknowledgements


Thanks are due to the organizers of the Panel on Language Contact and Non-
convergent Change in West Africa at the 4th Symposium on West African Languages
for their invitation to contribute to this special issue of Linguistic Typology at the
Crossroads despite my not being able to attend the symposium itself. My thanks also



                                                                                           68
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 3-1 (2023): 43-71


to two anonymous reviewers for their comments and especially to Pierpaolo Di Carlo
for his input and his work as editor. The paper is much improved as a result. Thanks
for much earlier contributions are due speakers of several Lower Cross languages, too
many to name, but in particular to C. E. Motina.


Abbreviations

1= 1st person                        FUT = future                    NTR   = neutral
2 = 2nd person                       FUT.PROX = proximate   future   PFV   = perfective
3= 3rd person                        GEND = gender                   PRF   = perfect
ADJ = adjective                      HAB   = habitual                PL   = plural
AGR   = agreement (marker)           IMP   = imperative              POSS = possessive

DERF = deriflection                  NF   = nominal form             REL = relative

FV   = final vowel                   NUM = number                    SG   = singu


References


Aaron, Uche. 1994. Tense and Aspect in Obolo Grammar and Discourse. Santa Barbara:
      University of California. (Doctoral dissertation.)
Ardener, Edwin. 1968. Documentary and linguistic evidence for the rise of the trading
      polities between Rio del Rey and Cameroons, 1500-1650. In I. M. Lewis (ed.),
      History and Social Anthropology, 81–126 London: Tavistock.
Barnwell, Katie. 1969. The Noun Class System in Mbembe. Journal of West African
      Languages VI, 51–58.
Braunmüller, Kurt & Steffen Höder & Karoline Kühl (eds.). 2014. Stability and
      Divergence in Language Contact: Factors and Mechanisms. Amsterdam: John
      Benjamins.
Corbett, Greville. 1991. Gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Connell, Bruce. 1987. Noun classification in Lower Cross. Journal of West African
      Languages 17, 110–125
Connell, Bruce. 1995. The historical development of Lower Cross consonants. Journal
      of African Languages and Linguistics 16, 41–70.
Connell, Bruce. 2001. The role of language contact in the development of Usaghade.
      In Nurse, Derek (ed.) Historical Language Contact in Africa (SUGIA / Sprache und
      Geschichte in Afrika vol. 16/17), 51–81. Köln: Rüdiger Köppe Verlag.




                                                                                          69
Connell                                             Language contact and evidence of divergence


Connell, Bruce. To appear. Cross River. In Watters, John R. (ed.) East Benue-Congo:
   Reconstructions and Bantoid Classification. Niger-Congo Comparative Studies 4.
   Berlin: Language Science Press.
Connell, Bruce & Kojo B. Maison. 1994. A Cameroun homeland for the Lower Cross
   languages? SUGIA (Sprache und Geschichte in Afrika) 15, 47–90.
Eberhard, David M. & Gary F. Simons & Charles D. Fennig (eds.) 2022. Ethnologue,
   25th     Edition.   Dallas,     Texas:    SIL    International.      Online       version:
   https://www.ethnologue.com
Essien, Okon E. 1990a. Aspectual character of verb and tense in Ibibio. Journal of West
   African Languages 20. 64–72.
Essien, Okon E. 1990b. A Grammar of the Ibibio Language. Owerri: University Press
   Limited.
Essien, Okon E. 1991. The tense system of Ibibio revisited. Afrikanistische
   Arbeitspapiere 27. 99–128.
Faraclas, Nicholas G. 1984. Obolo Grammar. Bloomington: Indiana University
   Linguistics Club.
Faraclas, Nicholas G. 1986. Cross River as model for the evolution of Benue-Congo
   nominal class/concord systems. Studies in African Linguistics 17. 39–54.
Güldemann, Tom & Ines Fiedler. 2019. Niger-Congo “noun classes” conflate gender
   with deriflection. In Francesca Di Garbo & Bernhard Wälchli (eds.), Grammatical
   Gender and Linguistic Complexity. 85–135. Berlin: Language Science Press.
Güldemann, Tom & Ines Fiedler. 2021. More diversity enGENDERed by African
   languages: an introduction. STUF - Language Typology and Universals. 74(2). 221–
   240.
Hammarström, Harald & Robert Forkel & Martin Haspelmath & Sebastian Bank.
   (eds.). Glottolog 4.7. https://glottolog.org.
Hedinger, Robert. 1987. The Manenguba Language (Bantu A.15, Mbo cluster). London:
   School of Oriental and African Studies.
Huson, Daniel & David Bryant. 2013. Splitstree4 version 4.13.1. www.splitstree.org.
Kastelein, Bianca. 1994. A Phonological and Grammatical Sketch of DuRop. Leiden:
   Leiden University. Scriptie.
Kuperus, Julianna. 1978. Esquisse du système verbal de l'oro du Nigeria. Paris: Sorbonne,
   Université Paris V – Rene Descartes. Thèse de IIIe cycle.
Kuperus, Julianna. 1985. The Londo Word: Its Phonological and Morphological
   Structure. Musée Royal de L'Afrique Central.



                                                                                            70
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 3-1 (2023): 43-71


Kühl, Karoline & Kurt Braunmüller. 2014. Linguistic stability and divergence: An
    extended perspective on language contact. In Kurt Braunmüller & Steffen Höder &
    Karoline Kühl (eds.), Stability and Divergence in Language Contact: Factors and
    Mechanisms. 13–38. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Latham, Anthony J. H. 1973. Old Calabar 1600–1891. The impact of the international
    economy upon a traditional society. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Laycock, Donald C. 2001. Linguistic diversity in Melanesia. A tentative explanation.
    In Alwin Fill & Peter Mühlhäusler (eds.) The Ecolinguistics Reader. 167–171.
    London: Continuum.
Mous, Maarten. 2001. Ma’a as an ethno-register of Mbugu. SUGIA (Sprache und
    Geschichte in Afrika) 16/17. 293–320.
Rowland-Oke, Mary. 2003. Description systématique de la langue Obolo-Andoni.
    Paris: Harmattan.
Saitou, Naryua & Masatoshi Nei. 1987. The Neighbor-Joining method: a new method
    for reconstruction of phylogenetic trees. Molecular Biology and Evolution 4. 406–
    425.
Sterk, Jan P. 1976. The Hohumono Noun Class System. Journal of West African
    Linguistics XI. 119–140.
Thomason, Sarah Grey. 1983. Genetic relationship and the case of Ma’a (Mbugu).
    Studies in African Linguistics 14. 193–231.
Thomason, Sarah Grey & Terrence Kaufman. 1988. Language Contact, Creolization and
    Genetic Linguistics. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Welmers, William. 1966. Efik. Obot Idim (Uyo): Lutheran Mission. Also published in
    1968 by the Institute of African Studies, Occasional Publication No. 11, University
    of Ibadan.
Williamson, Kay & Roger M. Blench. 2000. Niger-Congo. In Bernd Heine & Derek
    Nurse (eds), African languages: An introduction. 11–42. Cambridge: Cambridge
    University Press.
Winston, F. Dennis. 1962. The nominal class system of Lokə. African Language Studies
    3: 49–70.




CONTACT
bconnell@yorku.ca




                                                                                    71
