Mahamane L Abdoulaye

Abdoulaye Perfectivity

Abdou Moumouni

Perfectivity and time reference in Hausa 1

Introduction

In the continuum from tense and tense-prominent languages to aspect-prominent and aspect-only languages, Hausa is nowadays characterized as an aspect-prominent language where, in some accounts at least, the temporal category is not totally excluded (cf. [START_REF] Abdoulaye | Aspects of Hausa morphosyntax in Role and Reference Grammar[END_REF]: 60, 1997: 310n1, Jaggar 2001: 154ff, 162n5, and Newman 2000: 564ff, Schubert 1971/72). Earlier works however consider Hausa to be an aspect-only language (cf. Wald 1987: 488), and some authors in fact explicitly exclude any kind of speech time orientation in the language by analyzing the two future paradigms as belonging to the aspect category (cf. [START_REF] Cowan | Spoken Hausa[END_REF]Schuh 1976: 82ff, 122, 276, Gouffé 1966: 156 The relative clause in (3a) displays an alternate imperfective marker ya-kèe, which is referred to as

Relative Imperfective (cf. the general Imperfective ya-nàa in (2)). Similarly, the relative clause in (3b)

has the Relative Perfective marker su-kà, in contrast to Completive sun, as illustrated in (1). These alternate forms are together referred to as relative marking and they are required on the highest verb in relative and out-of-focus clauses, when these are in the perfective or imperfective. The Relative Perfective (but normally not the Relative Imperfective) can also be used in narrative context, as illustrated in (3c), in preference to, or to the exclusion of, the Completive. A sentence such as (3c)

would typically appear in narration, i.e., with a preceding or following sequential clause. This sharing of the Relative Perfective between relative and out-of-focus clauses on the one hand and narrative context on the other hand occurs in many languages displaying the relative marking (cf. Bearth 1993: 96, Hyman andWatters 1984: 259, etc.). Consequently, a number of attempts have been made

to account for this phenomenon in Hausa. The common flaw in most previous accounts is the desire to explain the distribution of the relative TAM paradigms by positing some common feature uniting the various contexts. In contrast, this paper shows that in relative and out-of-focus clauses, Relative

Perfective contrasts with Relative Imperfective and both are aspectual paradigms. However, in other contexts, including storyline clauses and main clauses of dialogical discourse, the Relative Perfective does not contrast with Relative Imperfective and encodes the specific time of the event (in subordinate clauses) or the simple past (in narrative and dialogical discourse). In other words, this paper claims that Hausa has three "Relative Perfectives". The first one is a "basic" perfective, with no external temporal reference (as defined for example in Comrie 1976: 3). The second one is a perfective augmented with a specific time referencing function but without speech time orientation. Finally, the third one codes the simple past (i.e., the specific time of the event precedes speech time).

The paper uses grammaticalization theory to retrace the development of the Simple Past from the Aspectual Relative Perfective, through the intermediary stage of the Specific Time Marker. The paper shows that the Specific Time Marker arose after the demise of the contrast between Relative by lexically weak time words. The account proposed in this paper also has the overall advantage of putting Hausa in line with the results of typological and grammaticalization studies showing that in languages throughout the world, tense categories develop from aspectual categories (cf. [START_REF] Bybee | The creation of tense and aspect systems in the languages of the world[END_REF][START_REF] Lehmann | Thoughts on grammaticalization: A programmatic sketch[END_REF]: 31, Stassen 1997, and the vast literature on this subject). It should be noted at the outset that despite the proposed development of a simple past, this paper will not claim that Hausa is a tensed language anywhere near the standard acception of the term (cf. for example the tense criteria given in [START_REF] Stassen | Intransitive Predication[END_REF]: 352 and references cited there).

The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 reviews and argues against current accounts of the narrative use of relative marking. Section 3 gives, as a background, an overview of Hausa TAMs and details the values of Completive, Relative Perfective, and Simple Past. Section 4 retraces the development of the Specific Time Marker in temporal relative clauses and its spread in conditional clauses and in simple (non-relative) temporal clauses. Section 4 describes the use of Relative

Perfective in storyline narrative main clauses. Finally, Section 5 describes the use of Relative

Perfective in main clauses of dialogical discourse.

Hausa already having established terminology sets for its tense/aspect paradigms, any further revision of the system will not fail to raise terminological issues. This paper uses the label "Completive" for the sun form, following Newman 2000: 569ff (cf. note 2). The term "relative marking" will stand as a cover term for the Relative Imperfective and Relative Perfective. The Relative Perfective encompasses the Aspectual Relative Perfective and the Temporal Relative

Perfective. The Temporal Relative Perfective in turn encompasses the Specific Time Marker and the Simple Past. For easy reference, these labels are presented in Table 1. 1, the four terminal tense/aspect paradigms are Relative Imperfective, Aspectual Relative Perfective, Specific Time Marker, and Simple Past. As is usual in general linguistics literature, tense/aspect labels written with capital initials refer to language-specific categories (the standard ones found in previous Hausa literature as well as the new ones proposed in this paper).

Previous accounts of the narrative use of Relative Perfective

As seen in the introduction, Relative Perfective is typically used (along with Relative Imperfective) in presupposed clauses of relative, focus, and fronted wh-question or wh-ever constructions (and in adverbial scene-setting clauses, cf. Abdoulaye 1997). However, in certain relative marking languages, the perfective relative TAM also appears in narrative main clauses that move the story forward (cf. [START_REF] Newman | The Hausa language: An encyclopedic reference grammar[END_REF]Schuh 1974: 19n1, Arnott 1970: 316ff for Fula, for other languages see Bearth 1993: 96, Hyman andWatters 1984: 259, etc.). This section reviews various accounts of this apparent paradox for Hausa (cf. also Schuh 2001Schuh -2007: 14 : 14 on the a priori unnatural use of the Relative Perfective in narratives).

Relative Perfective in narratives as temporal subordination marker

This analysis assumes that there is an affinity between syntactic subordination and temporal sequentiality of events. As Prost (1956: 123) puts it, "[l]a succession chronologique est une forme de dépendance" (sequentiality is a type of dependency). From the observation that the relative marking appears chiefly in relative clauses, it is taken as a marker of syntactic subordination. Since syntactic subordination is linked with sequentiality, it is natural that the Relative Perfective also be used to sequence events in a narrative. Regarding Hausa, proposals along these lines can be found in Wald (1987: 508) and Caron (1991: 172), who is cited and endorsed in Bearth (1993: 102).

For Hausa, a major problem with the subordination/sequentiality analysis is that there appears to be no principled way proposed to link syntactic subordination per se with temporal sequentiality. For example, there are many types of subordinate clauses, the most typical of which are certainly adverbial clauses, complement clauses, and relative clauses (cf. Christofaro 2003 for a typology of subordination). Many adverbial clauses -especially temporal before or after clauses -and complement clauses do form temporal sequences with events in their main clauses. If the relative marking characterized adverbial and complement clauses, and then came to be used in narratives, the motivation would be sufficiently clear. However, adverbial and complement clauses in general do not require the relative marking in Hausa (cf. [START_REF] Newman | The Hausa language: An encyclopedic reference grammar[END_REF]: 572, Schachter 1973: 23n4, n6). In relative subordination, where the relative marking does appear, there is no frequent or preponderant relation between the relative clause event and the main clause event. Such relations do obtain in temporal when-relative clauses, which are grammaticalized from canonical relative clauses. The subordinationbased account however cannot exclusively refer to the adverbial relative clauses.

Furthermore, the Relative Perfective can be taken as neither a subordination marker in relative and out-of-focus clauses, nor the exclusive sequential marker in Hausa sequential constructions. Indeed, on the one hand, relative and out-of-focus clauses do accept other tense/aspect paradigms such as Future I (cf. kàasuwa+ dà Abdù zaa shì tàfi 'the market that Abdu will visit'), Habitual (cf. wurin dà sukàn jee 'the place where they go'), or Eventual (cf. ìnaa sukàa jee? 'where would they go?), etc.

Relative clauses can even accept, under certain conditions, the Completive and the general Imperfective (see discussion of data (13) below). On the other hand, many tense/aspect paradigms can appear in temporal sequences without being linked to subordinating contexts (cf. Schuh 1985a, b, Tuller 1986, etc.). In conclusion, although narrative clauses in languages frequently show signs of being somehow dependent on a preceding clause, this does not presume a direct connection with syntactic subordination. In fact, it is frequent for a narrative/consecutive marker to relate to particles meaning "and then" (cf. Dahl 1985: 114).

Relative Perfective in narratives as marker of presupposed, known/specific events

This section discusses the influential account by Schuh (1985aSchuh ( , 1985b)), as reported in Jaggar 2001: 162n5 and Tuller 1986: 102ff, 142f (cf. also a restatement in Schuh 2001-2007: 14). Schuh rejects the traditional notion that the Relative Perfective is used in narratives to mark sequential events. He proposes that outside relative clauses and focus contexts, the Relative Perfective appears in clauses describing chronological events that are "specific to a time and/or place and already instantiated". In particular, this characterization would entail that the events are both completed with respect to the time of speech and individual (i.e., happening once, cf. also Schubert 1971/72: 221ff). So, rather than calling the Relative Perfective in narratives a sequential marker, Schuh labels it "definite perfective" (cf. imp-RP do to-3p presentation 3p-RP fall 3p-RP do greeting 'When the three youths arrived, they sought to see the emir. They were introduced.

They reached to the ground and greeted.'

In sentence (4a), the temporal clause (marked by in/ìdan 'if, when') carries the Completive and it is understood that there were many instances of swinging and getting tired of it. In contrast, in sentence (4b) where the temporal clause carries the Relative Perfective, each event is instantiated only once.

Finally, according to Schuh (cf. Tuller 1986: 142f), the functions of the Relative Perfective in all contexts can be unified under the semantic notion of "definite/specific" event, since in relative and out-of-focus clauses the events are presupposed, i.e., known to both speaker and hearer, hence definite/specific. A problem in Schuh's account is that narrative Relative Perfective does not exclusively mark one-time events. For example, when one replaces the Completive in (4a) with narrative Relative Perfective, the sentence is indeed grammatical, as illustrated next:

(5) Ìdan Gizò ya yi shillòo ya gàji, sai yà saukoo if Spider 3ms.RP do swing 3ms.RP tire then 3ms.SBJ come.down yà ci gyà&aa.

3ms.SBJ eat peanuts 'Once Spider swung all his soul, he would then come down and eat some peanuts.'

Schuh's account of the contrast between (4a) and (4b) implies that (5) too, with narrative Relative Perfective, describes one-time events. This is clearly not the case. The one-time event reading of (4b) is simply a context effect. As seen in Section 4.2, the difference between sentences like (4a) and ( 5) is the time interval between the event in the conditional/temporal clause and the events in the main clause. Therefore, this paper will differ from Schuh's account in emphasizing the time specificity function as one of the features of Relative Perfective in narratives.

Relative Perfective in narratives as marker of prominent, specific events

There are two accounts claiming in some way that the narrative event is focused and both acknowledge being influenced by Schuh (1985aSchuh ( , 1985b)). Jaggar (2001Jaggar ( : 161f, 2006: 114): 114), in his description of the usage of narrative Relative Perfective, clearly associates it with past time reference, comparing its use with that of English Preterit. However, Jaggar's central claim is that the relative marking ("Focus Perfective" and "Focus Imperfective" in his terminology), is the morphological reflex and diagnostic of focus-fronting. In particular, he claims (cf. Jaggar 2006: 107) that the Relative

Perfective "is normally used to highlight and assert elements which are "foregrounded" as informationally prominent and addressee-new, i.e., fronted focus and wh-constituents and foregrounded past-time narrative events [...]" (emphasis in original). Indeed, for Jaggar, the narrative event is focused "at the discourse level" just as a focus-fronted NP or wh-word is focused "at the sentence level". A problem in Jaggar's account is the fact that in storyline narrative clauses there is no evidence for focus-fronted material, so that some further principled account is necessary to show that the generalization is indeed valid (that is, the generalization that the relative marking is the morphological reflex and a diagnostic of focus-fronting). It is also not clear how Jaggar's generalization would handle the appearance of relative marking or copula kèe 'be' (which is the source of Relative Imperfective) in scene-setting clauses (cf. discussion of (31) below; cf. also Jaggar 2001: 177, 638). The generalization also cannot straightforwardly explain the appearance of Relative Perfective in conditional clauses (cf. Section 4.2 below; cf. also Jaggar 2001: 609). In other words, although Jaggar's claim that the Relative Perfective in narratives has a past time reference is correct, his generalization does not straightforwardly account for the narrative and other uses of the relative marking. [START_REF] Tuller | Bijective relations in Universal Grammar and the syntax of Hausa[END_REF], following Schuh (1985aSchuh ( , 1985b)), also says that the Relative Perfective is used in narratives when the event is temporally defined, i.e., when it occurred once (cf. Tuller 1986: 104). She explains further that the temporal specification can be brought by a temporal conjunction (such as sai 'then') or a preceding event in the narrative sequence (cf. also Westley 1982: 363). This claim is quite plausible. However, Tuller also claims that all relative marking clauses have a [+focus] operator, which can be overt (relative pronoun, focused constituent, or fronted wh-word) or null (in the case of narrative clauses). She then considers (cf. Tuller 1986: 117) that the narrative event is focalized vis-àvis the stage-setting material at the beginning of the narration, and this focalization triggers the Relative Perfective in the narrative clause. The problem with this account is that normally, when the null operator is [+focus] (i.e., is focused), one would expect the rest of the clause (the clause expressing the narrative event) to be backgrounded, just like a relative or an out-of-focus clause. In other words, Tuller's account is inadequate as an explanation for the common use of Relative

Perfective in focus and narrative contexts.

The problem just underlined in Tuller's accounts is in fact the starting point of an account given in Abdoulaye (1997: 310n1), which, based on a pragmatic test, proposes that the focused item in narrative clauses is a time adverbial such as sànnan, sai 'then'. When this adverbial is not salient, is lost, or is null, the assertion domain of the sentence is shifted to the narrative event clause in a neutral topic/comment articulation. The idea is that the Relative Perfective that started as a presupposition marker in time (adverbial) focus ended up expressing the Simple Past (cf. also Abdoulaye 1992: 60ff).

While this paper maintains that the Relative Perfective in narratives is a temporal category, the data presented below suggest another source-context and a more gradual process in the development of Simple Past.

The accounts of the relative marking in relative and out-of-focus clauses and in narrative main clauses for Hausa can be summarized as in Table 2. The table also includes other proposals not discussed above (cf. [START_REF] Bagari | Hausa subordinate adverbial clauses: Syntax and semantics[END_REF]/87: 83f, Creissels 1991: 337, as reviewed in Bearth 1993: 92ff, Hyman and Watters 1984: 259, Newman 2000: 571-578, and Wald 1987: 499, 506, 508). Most of the proposals in Table 2 share the a priori that the relative marking in relative and out-offocus clauses and the narrative Relative Perfective must have the same motivation. It is clear that some of these proposals are interesting and intuitive. However, none of them will be considered further in the paper, since they cannot explain the temporal features of narrative Relative Perfective.

The problem with the characterization in [START_REF] Newman | The Hausa language: An encyclopedic reference grammar[END_REF] is that the Relative Perfective in relative and out-of-focus clauses has no time orientation and cannot be a preterit (simple past). Bagari (1976/87: 83f) on the other hand separates the two Relative Perfectives, although he admits to having no explanation for the narrative use of Relative Perfective.

As indicated in the introductory section, this paper proposes a grammaticalization account that distinguishes up to three types of Relative Perfective, each with its particular semantic characteristics.

Indeed, a key feature of the account is the proposal of an intermediary temporal TAM category between the Relative Perfective found in relative or out-of-focus clauses on the one hand and the narrative Relative Perfective on the other hand. The evidence for this intermediary category calls for a proper account and renders irrelevant the debate about possible common features between relative or out-of-focus clauses and narrative context, the more so since, as we will see in due course, the

Relative Perfective also appears in main clauses of dialogical discourse. However, before presenting the details of the grammaticalization account, the next section, as a background, gives an overview of Hausa TAM system.

TAM paradigms in Hausa

Formally, Standard Hausa distinguishes ten TAM paradigms, i.e., forms that express aspect, tense and mood on preverbal pronouns (or on the verb for the Imperative). In addition, certain TAMs have a distinctive negative form. This section reviews the main uses of the paradigms (those usually listed in Hausa linguistics literature as well as the Simple Past proposed in this paper), with a particular emphasis on the contrast between Completive, Aspectual Relative Perfective, and Simple Past (for more details on Hausa TAMs, see Newman 2000, Chap. 70).

Overview of Hausa TAM paradigms

As is probably true with many languages, the value of most Hausa TAM paradigms may change Jaggar 2001: 195). Although it is a "future", Future I belongs, along with Relative Perfective and Relative Imperfective, to the restricted group of TAMs that can appear in reduced scene-setting clauses, i.e., subordinate causal or consequent clauses that express presupposed and realis events (cf. Abdoulaye 1997Abdoulaye : 317, 2001: 25;: 25;cf. also discussion of data (31) and note 5). The Habitual in (6g) has a past or present habitual usage, although in western dialects, it implies that the action happens from time to time (frequent and regular actions are expressed with Imperfective).

Despite the fact that it is frequently referred to as the "Potential", i.e., a kind of uncertain or vague future (cf. Jaggar 2001: 201, Newman 2000: 587), the Future II, as illustrated in (6h), is a simple future that, by default, firmly predicts an event, but without any implication about agent's intention, state of preparedness, or imminence of action (cf. Abdoulaye 1997Abdoulaye : 324-326, 2001: 28): 28).

The eight forms so far reviewed belong to the indicative mood and so contrast with the last three forms, which express irrealis mood, although there is some caveat regarding the Subjunctive. The sukàa form in (6i) is usually referred to in the literature as the "Rhetorical" (cf. Jaggar 2001: 204, Newman 2000: 589), due to its use in rhetorical questions such as: waa kà iyàa! (< wàa yakàa iyàa!)

'who can possibly do [this]!'. In fact however, it has a basic "eventually" sense in regular sentences, as indicated in the gloss. Sometimes, the eventual meaning applies not to the event itself (if it already happened), but to a participant, in which case the TAM has a dubitative meaning (cf. koo Iisaa koo Abdù, wani cikinsù yakàa yi wannàn aikìi 'either Isa or Abdu, one of them may/must have done this').

For these reasons, the label "Eventual" (originally used in Gouffé 1967-68: 45-47) is preferable. The Subjunctive, as illustrated in (6j), is a rather versatile paradigm, to the point where some authors assume two homophonous but different categories under the same form (cf. Newman 2000: 593 and references cited there). It is used in typical irrealis contexts, such as giving orders (as an alternative to Imperative), expressing whishes, purpose, etc. (cf. Newman 2000: 591). It is however also used in sequential clauses as a replacement to the TAM specified in the first clause of the sequence (cf. Tuller 1986: 96). The Subjunctive can also be used on its own to express past habitual events (kullum sai sù àuni hatsii sù dakàa 'every day they would measure off millet and pound it'). In contrast to all other TAMs, the Imperative, as illustrated in (6k), has no preverbal subject pronoun and is marked directly on the verb (which, sometimes, changes in tonal pattern; cf. Newman 2000: 263). The Imperative is used only in the singular and the Subjunctive must be used with second person plural.

One may note that paradigms (6a-c) share one negation, where a suppletive form of the TAM (or a Ø-TAM, cf. Newman 2000: 574) is marked with the negative particles bà...ba (cf. yâara bà sù tàfi tashàa ba 'the children didn't go to the station'). The paradigms in (6d-e) also share one negation, where a suppletive form of the TAM is marked with the negative particle baa (cf. yâara baa sàa tàfiyàa tashàa 'the children are not going to the station'). Future I, Habitual, Future II, and Eventual are all negated through simple addition of the negative particles bà...ba (cf. yâara bà zaa sù tàfi tashàa ba 'the children will not go to the station'). The Subjunctive is negated through the addition of prohibitive particle kadà (cf. kadà yâara sù tàfi tashàa 'may the children not go to the station/ lest the children go to the station'). Negative Subjunctive is also used to issue negative commands, the Imperative having no negative form. Finally, it should be noted that the TAMs illustrated in (6a-k) are not combinable in one simple clause. The rest of this section deals in more details with the values of Completive (sun form), Aspectual Relative Perfective (the suka form used in presupposition contexts), and Simple Past (the suka form used in storyline clauses and main clauses of dialogical discourse).

Perfect vs. perfective contrast in Hausa

The sun form paradigm, the tense/aspect category referred to in Hausa literature as (general)

"Completive" (or Perfective, Accompli I, etc.) has actually been compared to English Perfect (past, present, or future, cf. Newman 2000: 569ff; cf. also Caron 1991: 164ff andSchubert 1971/72: 220f).

Indeed In (7a), the Completive allows an anterior reading (second translation), where the coming event happened before 2 o'clock, with a past, future, or even habitual interpretation. One notices the sentence also allows a perfective interpretation (first translation), where the coming event happened at exactly 2 o'clock, and which is actually the default interpretation of the sentence. However, this is not a sure indication that the Completive is a real perfective since, as shown in Dahl (1985: 137), many languages differ from English in allowing their perfect tense/aspect paradigm to co-occur with definite time adverbs. In fact, when the time adverb is preposed in a topicalized-like construction, then only the anterior reading is possible, as indicated in (7b). Similarity, without a time specification, as illustrated in (7c), the Completive can be interpreted as a perfect of result with a current relevance value. For example, (7c) is the most straightforward way to alert someone that some people have arrived so that he/she can go see them. As seen in these examples, Aspectual Relative Perfective can only refer to the initial and final phases of the action (the focused equivalent of (10b) must use the Relative Imperfective). This also applies to the Simple Past. It is very likely that the on-going action reading seen in ( 10b) is possible due to the perfect/anterior value of the Completive, i.e., once the children have departed, the resulting situation is that they are on their way. In other words, although Aspectual Relative Perfective indeed automatically replaces Completive in presupposed contexts, the two TAMs are not aspectually identical and in contexts that must be interpreted as perfect/anterior, the replacement is not possible.

Completive also contrasts with the other two tense/aspect paradigms in being able to express "hot news" perfect, as can be seen in its ability to appear in chapter titles or in news headlines (cf. Comrie 1976: 60 and the reference cited there). For example, the short life-story in [START_REF] Moussa-Aghali | Yarintata [My childhood[END_REF] has five chapters that have a finite clause as title, and four of these titles have Completive (the fifth chapter has negative Completive, which uses a suppletive marker and is not discussed in this paper). In examples ( 14), the tense/aspect paradigms appear with a cognition verb ('know'), which by default expresses a persistent situation (cf. Schubert 1971/72: 220f). The persistence reading is maintained with Completive and Aspectual Relative Perfective, as indicated in (14a-b), respectively. Indeed, in these sentences, the referent of the subject pronoun still knows the information at speech time. In contrast, sentence (14c), with Simple Past, only has the inceptive meaning indicated and there is no implication that the subject's referent still knows the information at speech time (i.e., the sentence will still be fine even if it is known that the medicine has been relocated in an unknown place). It should be noted that in ( 13) and ( 14), the experiential and persistent situation meanings depend, respectively, on the verb ta$à 'touch' and the cognition verb san 'know', rather than on the TAM paradigms per se.

In conclusion, the sun form is a perfect category in Hausa, although it has probably acquired some perfective uses. For this reason, it may be more extensively used in Hausa than would be the Perfect in English. The Aspectual Relative Perfective that appears in relative and out-of-focus clauses can be considered a true perfective, since it does not have key perfect readings, such as the perfect of result.

This paper will consider the Aspectual Relative Perfective as a "basic" perfective, that is, the perfective as defined in Comrie (1976: 3f), which is an aspectual category that presents a situation as a single unanalyzable whole, i.e., without reference to its internal temporal structure. The perfective essentially differs from the perfect (or anterior) in having no relevance to a reference time, usually the present situation. The Simple Past is even more remote from the perfect semantics, since it cannot express or is not compatible with any of the perfect meanings reviewed in this section. There are a few reasons why one may label the narrative Relative Perfective as a "Simple Past". First, the term Simple

Past is preferable because it is general and familiar in linguistic literature. It is indeed less restricted than terms like "definite perfective", "historical aspect", "sequential marker", and "aorist", a term which, according to Bearth (1986: 297n136), is sometimes used in African linguistics to designate an aspect specialized in narratives. In fact, as will be shown in this paper, Simple Past is not restricted to narratives and can appear in main clauses of dialogical discourse. Secondly, the term Simple Past is more indicative of the progressive development that has probably taken place, and is better than terms such as "past perfective", "perfective past", or even simply "perfective", as when this category is taken to inherently incorporate reference to past time (cf. [START_REF] Bybee | The creation of tense and aspect systems in the languages of the world[END_REF]Dahl 1989: 83, Dahl 1985: 78f).

Indeed, this paper will suggest that in Hausa, Simple Past developed step-wise, as shown in the following diagram:

(15) Aspectual Relative Perfective => Specific Time Marker => Simple Past

In this diagram, only the first category is aspectual since it contrasts with the Relative Imperfective.

The other two categories, Specific Time Marker and Simple Past, display temporal features and do not contrast with Relative Imperfective in their contexts, as respectively shown in the next two sections.

As is clear from the diagram, this paper posits a diachronic relation between the three categories, even though all three coexist synchronically in the language. There isn't necessarily a contradiction here.

The diachronic aspect of the diagram in (15) lies in the claim that in the history of Hausa, there was a Hopper and Traugott (1994: 120). In fact, in languages where enough diachronic data are available, one may find direct evidence for the proposed chronological development (cf. Hopper and Traugott 1994: 76, 92, 185f). Dialects of a language or closely related languages may also evidence different stages of the same grammaticalization process (cf. for example the various stages of the grammaticalization of the verb zâa 'start to go, be going' to future in western, central, and eastern dialects of Hausa, see Abdoulaye 2001; cf. also Heine and Claudi 1986: 82, 113, 126f for further examples). The next section looks at the shift from Aspectual Relative Perfective to Specific Time Marker.

From Aspectual Relative Perfective to Specific Time Marker

It may be remembered that in relative, constituent focus, and fronted wh-question or wh-ever constructions, Relative Perfective and Relative Imperfective fully contrast and both are obligatory in their function of marking the presupposed clauses of these constructions. Nonetheless, there are some particular contexts where the information contained in a relative clause has some saliency. In these [START_REF] Jaggar | Restrictive vs non-restrictive relative clauses in Hausa: Where morphosyntax and semantics meet[END_REF]: 220ff, Schubert 1971/72: 283)/72: 283), where in general the relative clause contains additional secondary information about the head. Since the clause is not presupposed, the general Imperfective can be used, as indicated. More generally, it has been established in Hausa that relative constructions containing some modal or adverbial particles manipulating the relative clause information may take

Completive and general Imperfective (cf. [START_REF] Jaggar | Restrictive vs non-restrictive relative clauses in Hausa: Where morphosyntax and semantics meet[END_REF]Jaggar : 214ff, 2001: 531n6, 537f): 531n6, 537f). Finally, in (16c) the story is framed in a relative clause construction and the speaker chooses to use the non-relative tense/aspect paradigms since he is giving new information about a referent, and not just identifying it (which is the normal function of relative clauses).

In contrast, this section deals with temporal when relative clauses where the Relative Imperfective freely alternates with general Imperfective, while the Relative Perfective is obligatorily maintained.

The claim will be that in this context, the relative marking as an aspectual contrast is lost, but that the Relative Perfective survived because it has acquired a new function. The section also discusses conditional/temporal in/ìdan clauses and temporal (non-relative) dà clauses where only Relative Perfective appears. In all these environments, the Relative Perfective is not the presupposition marker but the exponent of a temporal category, the Specific Time Marker (which is glossed "STM" in the ilustrations).

Demise of relative marking in temporal lookàcin dà 'when' relative clauses

Most Hausa grammars note that in temporal relative clauses headed by lookàcii 'time' (or its equivalent sa'àa/ saa'ìdii/ sàa'ìlii) the relative marking is optional (cf. 'Once they finish (the work), please pay them their due.'

Example (19a) is part of a narrative text describing a village living on palmtrees and the event described in the temporal clause is cyclical or habitual. In sentence (19b), the time reference of both subordinate and main clause events is clearly the future. In all these sentences however, the Specific Time Marker encodes the specific time of the event. This paper hence distinguishes the Aspectual Relative Perfective (in relative and out-of-focus clauses) from the temporal Specific Time Marker.

There is one indication that the demise of the relative marking in temporal relative clauses is due to the headword lookàcii 'time' (and at least one of its equivalents). Indeed, besides temporal circumstances, place and manner circumstances also are expressed through grammaticalized adverbial relative clauses. However, since place and manner are not usual features of verbal inflection, they have no bearing on the relative marking. Consequently, place and manner adverbial relative clauses fully maintain the aspectual contrast between Aspectual Relative Perfective and Relative Imperfective, as seen in the following:

(20) a. Sun kai saanìyaa in-dà a-kèe/ *a-nàa wà dabboobii àlluu+àa. 'there' and interrogative ìnaa 'where', while manner ya-relates to comparative conjunction yà/iyaa (as in yaaròo yà Abdù 'a boy like Abdu') and interrogative yàayàa 'how'. The locative in-has, as a less general alternative, the regular noun wurii 'place' (as in sun zoo wurin dà akèe wà dabboobii àlluu+àa 'they came to the place where animals are vaccinated'), which also requires the aspectual relative marking. To summarize, the demise of the relative marking observed in temporal relative clauses is not solely due to their adverbial function but also to their temporal function.

Nonetheless, there are indications that the degree of grammaticalization of the temporal clause is also important. Indeed, the word lookàcii 'time' has some alternatives, but only one of them, sa'àa 'hour, time, occurrence' (or saa'ìdii 'time, moment'), is apparently general enough to cause the demise of the relative marking. Some of these alternative words are illustrated next:

( Nonetheless, they behave differently with respect to the integrity of the relative marking. While sa'àd-dà 'time that' behaves like lookàcin dà in allowing the breakdown, ran-dà 'day/time that' fully requires the relative marking.

To summarize, in temporal relative clauses where the head has a certain degree of generality, the aspectual contrast between Relative Imperfective and Relative Perfective can be eliminated. In this context, the Relative Perfective survives by taking up the new function of indexing the specific time at which the event takes place, whether this time is past, cyclical, or future. Very likely, the perfective's inherent features favored the change, as well as the fact that time semantics can in general be incorporated into verbal inflection. A more explicit case of such incorporation happens in metrical tense languages. For example, Diki-Kidiri (1988: 118ff) shows that Sango (pidgin, Ubangian) has time adverbials that can also function as tense markers in a developing metrical tense system.

Similarly, Marchese (1984: 192ff, 199) presents correspondences in Kru languages between time adverbials (such as "today, yesterday, day before yesterday, tomorrow, etc.") and related affixes grammaticalized to metrical tense markers (see Binnick 1976: 206 on metrical tense languages). More generally, Anderson (1973: 42), as discussed in Fleischman (1983: 198, 208n35), proposes that time adverbials are the source of tense, which can be conceived of as a concord on the verb referring to the temporal adverbs. Maybe a similar relation can be posited between the time words lookàcii or sa'àa and the Specific Time Marker. Hausa differs from metrical tense languages in that an inferred general meaning "specific time" was incorporated, rather than some particular temporal adverb (such as "yesterday"). In addition, in Hausa, an aspectual marker was re-interpreted for the new temporal function, instead of a new tense marker developing and combining with the aspect marker.

Relative Perfective in conditional or temporal in/ìdan clauses

Hausa has a conjunction in/ìdan that introduces reality conditional clauses and temporal clauses, as illustrated next:

(24) a. In a-kà yi ruwaa gòobe zaa mù yi shubkàa.

if imp-STM do rain tomorrow FUT 1p do sowing 'If it rains tomorrow we will do some sowing.' b. In yâara su-kà taashì dàgà kwaanaa, kà yii mu-sù shaayìi.

when children 3p-STM wake.up from sleep 2ms.SBJ do to-3p tea 'When the children wake up, please prepare some tea for them.'

Sentence (24a), under normal circumstances, is interpreted as a typical hypothetical conditional construction, where the atmospheric event of the rain falling is not certain to happen. In (24b) on the other hand, the context makes it clear that the event in the in/ìdan clause is certain to happen. In fact, this clause can be replaced with a plain temporal clause with the same meaning (cf. lookàci-n dà yâara su-kà taashì... 'when the children wake up. NOT: 'If it turns out they have come, I will then give them a penny each' (uncert., check)

The first noticeable difference between the two sentences is the fact that the Completive conditional clause in (25a) can have a potential one-time past event reading, due to the current relevance value of the Completive. Otherwise, with both tense/aspects, in/ìdan particle can have a conditional (uncertain)

or a temporal (certain) value. The difference between similar senses of (25a) and (25b) has to do with the temporal proximity between the events in the protasis and the apodosis. Sentence (25a) says nothing about this temporal proximity, i.e., it is only known that the event in the apodosis will follow the event in the protasis. In sentence (25b) on the other hand, the reward (giving pennies) is understood to immediately follow the children's arrival, hence the presence of the adverbial then in the translations (cf. Wald 1987: 495f for a similar function associated with the Swahili tense marker li-).

For this reason, one may take the Relative Perfective in (25b) to be the Specific Time Marker.

The apodosis context specified in (25b) favors a one-time future event reading of the Specific Time Marker. However, Specific Time Marker in in/ìdan clauses can also have a recurrent past event interpretation, as already illustrated in ( 5), or a past or present habitual interpretation, as illustrated next:

(26) Ìdan su-kà zoo, i-nàa baa sù kwabòo kwabòo. if 3p-STM come 1s-IPV give 3p penny-penny 'When they come, I usually give them a penny each/ I used to give them a penny each.'

Although sentence ( 26) implies many instances of the two events, the Specific Time Marker still marks a temporal proximity between each event of coming and the ensuing event of giving a penny.

For this reason, one may distinguish the notion of a specific time event from Schuh's notion of a "single-occurrence/one-time" event (cf. Section 2.2). The Specific Time Marker can mark the specific time of single-occurrence or recurrent events.

There are further indications that the Relative Perfective in in/ìdan clauses is indeed the Specific Time Marker, implying that the event in the clause is immediately followed by the main clause event.

For example, conditional sentences containing a threat in the apodosis usually require Relative

Perfective in the protasis. This is illustrated in the following:

( For future conditions, a threat is necessarily formulated using Specific Time Marker, as indicated by the inadequacy of (27b). This is probably because a serious threat typically must imply that the retaliatory measure will immediately follow that specific time when the offense takes place. The association between Specific Time Marker and threat formulation is also well illustrated in (27c).

Indeed, the particle ku+ very likely derives from the verb kùru 'err' and the first clause in (27c) may be a shortened version of the imperative kùru kà shigoo nân! 'be mistaken and enter here!', where the clause following kùru would originally be in the Subjunctive.

To summarize, the Relative Perfective in in/ìdan conditional or temporal clauses is the Specific Time Marker. In these clauses, the Specific Time Marker has no past time reference per se, since it can refer to past and future events, just as it does in temporal lookàcin dà relative clauses. Contrary to temporal lookàcin dà clauses, the in/ìdan clauses do not at all accept the Relative Imperfective. One may take this as a sign that the Specific Time Marker spread into environments where originally there was no relative marking contrast.

Relative Perfective in simple temporal dà clauses

Most descriptions of Hausa temporal clauses claim or assume that temporal relative clauses, especially the ones headed by the word lookàcii 'time', can derive simple temporal clauses introduced by the subordinator dà only. The derivation would involve deletion of the word lookàcii 'time' (cf. [START_REF] Bagari | Hausa subordinate adverbial clauses: Syntax and semantics[END_REF]/87: 117, Jaggar 2001: 624, Newman 2000: 556, Tuller 1986: 113ff, Watters 2000: 223). In fact, for most authors (cf. Jaggar 2001: 624, 629), lookàcii temporal relative clauses derive a whole series of temporal clauses introduced by phrasal subordinators involving the particle dà, such as: (lookàcin) dà '(time) when', sai (lookàcin) dà 'till (time) when', tun (lookàcin) dà 'since (time) when', etc. This section shows that there is no direct derivation between temporal lookàcin dà clauses and simple temporal dà clauses (cf. also [START_REF] Abdoulaye | Aspects of Hausa morphosyntax in Role and Reference Grammar[END_REF]Abdoulaye : 65f, 77n6, 2007b)). The section concludes that simple temporal dà clauses are a spreading environment for the Specific Time Marker, where it also has a strict past interpretation.

The claim that temporal lookàcin dà relative clauses are the source of simple temporal dà clauses is usually based on examples where the word lookàcii 'time' seems optional, as illustrated next (cf.

also [START_REF] Bagari | Hausa subordinate adverbial clauses: Syntax and semantics[END_REF]/87: 117, Watters 2000: 223):

(28) a. (Lookàci-n) dà su-kà zoo, sai mu-kà ci àbinci. In examples ( 28), presence or absence of the word lookàcii 'time' seems to make no difference in the meaning of the sentence. Even ambiguous readings, as illustrated in (28b), can obtain irrespective of the presence of the word lookàcii. This derivation in fact is thought to be a more general process. For example, Wald (1987: 509n5) notes that West African languages commonly use a relative subordinator also as a temporal clause subordinator. Though some simple dà clauses may be so derived, there are however at least two good indications against a wholesale derivation of simple temporal dà clauses from temporal lookàcin dà relative clauses through deletion of the head lookàcii.

The first indication in favor of underived temporal dà clauses is the fact that assuming such underived clauses would allow one to link them with other temporal expressions also using the particle dà. Some of these expressions are illustrated next (sentence (30a) adapted from Moussa- As suggested in Abdoulaye (2004Abdoulaye ( : 167ff, 2006Abdoulaye ( : 1123ff, 2007b)), particle dà probably originated as an existential predicate (cf. dà ruwaa 'there is water'). This existential predicate gave rise through grammaticalization to a comitative particle (cf. yaa zoo dà Bàlki 'he came with Balki'; cf. Heine and Reh 1984: 58, 62 (cf. also the Future I lookàcin dà zaa sù tàfi 'when they were/will be leaving'). In contrast, simple temporal dà clauses allow only four tense/aspect paradigms, Completive, Relative Perfective, general Imperfective, and Future I. The temporal interpretations of these paradigms are presented in Table 3. For three of the four tense/aspect paradigms occurring in simple dà clauses in Table 3, one can observe a certain anchoring of the temporal interpretation in the past. Only Completive accepts a future reading. Even Future I in this context describes a "future-in-the-past", i.e., the event in the main clause precedes, and sometimes cancels, the event in the temporal clause, with both events in the past (cf. dà zaa sù tàfi, sai ta rufè <oofà-+ 'when they were about to leave, she locked the door'). A probable reason for the anchoring to the past observed in Table 3 may be the influence of the ultimate origin of dà clauses, i.e., existential/comitative dà-constructions, which would tend to describe realized situations. No matter the correct explanation, the past time anchoring is certainly incompatible with a lookàcii deletion analysis. It is also clear that the difference in temporal interpretation guarantees that temporal relative clauses and simple temporal dà clauses will not have the same uses (cf. for example, *(lookàcin) dà yâara sukà taashì kà yii musù shaayìi 'when the children wake up, please prepare some tea for them', where the weak head cannot be deleted).

Having established the existence of underived temporal dà clauses, one can now characterize the Relative Perfective that appears there. This paper proposes that the Relative Perfective in temporal dà clauses such as illustrated in (30b) is the Specific Time Marker, which here has a strict past interpretation (cf. Table 3). Indeed, simple temporal dà clauses contrast with similar-looking dà The other Relative Perfective (Specific Time Marker) does not contrast with Relative Imperfective and marks specific time. Since temporal dà clauses do not accept Relative Imperfective, one can assume that they constitute a spreading context for the Specific Time Marker. 5

In conclusion, this section has shown that the Relative Perfective found in canonical relative clauses and in out-of-focus clauses is different from the Relative Perfective found in temporal relative clauses, in/ìdan conditional clauses, and simple temporal dà clauses. The former contexts have a purely aspectual category, the Aspectual Relative Perfective, while the later contexts have a category intermediary between tense and aspect, the Specific Time Marker. Indeed, this category codes the specific (external) time of the event but without speech time orientation.

Relative Perfective in storyline narrative main clauses

A sequence can be defined as a series of at least two events that are temporally ordered (Event 1 +

Event 2) and where, typically, a preceding event defines the reference time for the following event (cf.

Andersen 1994: 256, discussing Lulubo, Dahl 1985: 112, and Tuller 1986: 98, discussing Hausa).

When the sequence is made up of independent main clauses expressing single-occurrence events, then one is dealing with a narrative sequence (for the criteria of a canonical narrative discourse, cf. [START_REF] Adam | Le texte narratif: Traité d'analyse pragmatique et textuelle[END_REF]: 92-105 and Wald 1987: 483ff, 506, who cites Labov and Waletzsky 1967). This section essentially argues that the Relative Perfective used in storyline clauses is not a special kind of narrative marker (i.e., consecutive/sequential marker, narrative tense, aorist, etc.) but a simple past.

For this reason, the Relative Perfective in this section is glossed "SP" (for Simple Past) in relevant examples.

As observed in numerous Hausa studies (cf. [START_REF] Caron | Le haoussa de l'Ader[END_REF]: 171f, Jaggar 2001: 162, Newman 2000: 572, etc.), the Relative Perfective is the narrative TAM par excellence. Indeed, it is the TAM that appears (to the exclusion of almost all other TAMs) in main clauses that constitute the narrative storyline, as illustrated next (example adapted from a radio interview):

(32) In (32), all clauses describe sequential events using Simple Past. None of the clauses can be considered subordinate or backgrounded in any way; i.e., each represents an essential part of the story.

Indeed, each clause can be marked with discourse particles such as sai or sànnan 'then' without marked changes in the story's structure.

One may note that other tense/aspect paradigms do appear in sequential main clauses, but such

sequences may not answer the definition of a canonical narrative (cf. in particular Tuller 1986: 95ff

for Hausa sequential constructions in general). For example, there is a minimal contrast between

Completive and Simple Past in a sequential construction, as illustrated in the following:

(33) a. Mun toonè roogò-n, mun aunàa shi, kuma mun kai shì sìtôo.

1p.CPL dig cassava-df 1p.CPL weight 3fs and 1p.CPL take 3ms storage 'We digged the cassava, weighed it and took it to the storage.' b. Mu-kà toonè roogò-n, mu-kà aunàa shi, kuma mu-kà kai shì sìtôo.

1p-SP dig cassava-df 1p-SP weight 3fs and 1p-SP take 3ms storage 'We digged the cassava, weighed it and took it to the storage.' c. Mun toonè roogò-n, sànnan mu-kà aunàa shi, sànnan mu-kà kai shì sìtôo.

1p.CPL dig cassava-df then 1p-SP weight 3fs then 1p-SP take 3ms storage 'We digged the cassava, weighed it and took it to the storage.'

The examples in (33a-b) describe the same events and are equally interpreted as sequential, past, discrete, definite/specific, single-occurrence, etc. Nonetheless, they are used in different circumstances. Sentence (33a) in Hausa would be used in reporting a series of actions to someone entitled to receive such a report, a supervisor for example. It will be told with the expectation that the receiver would acknowledge what happened, take some action, etc. This usage probably results from the current relevance value of the Completive. The clauses in (33a) do not seem to be necessarily connected and indeed the apparent ordering of events is not important (i.e., the report could be like a checklist of the activities done, which will be individually appreciated by the supervisor). Indeed, that a (narrative-style) event ordering and connectedness are not significant, even for a naturally ordered sentence such as (33a), is shown by the fact that the sequential particle sai 'then' cannot be used in the sentence. In contrast, sentence (33b) would be used to tell a story just for that purpose, say, to a friend.

Here the events are reported detached from the present, and the sequential particle sai 'then' can be used before any of the clauses (even the first one). Sentence (33c) illustrates a kind of hybrid report/narrative. This sentence would typically be used as a report to a supervisor if the supervisor required a particular order of execution for the activities. As indicated, the first clause must appear in the Completive and the other clauses in the Simple Past. Notice however that each clause but the first would tend to be explicitly marked with a sequential marker (in particular, the particle sànnan 'then', lit. 'that time').

Despite the sequential readings of (32, 33b-c), in narrative main clauses, too, there are many indications showing that the Relative Perfective is not in fact a sequential (or consecutive) marker.

First, in genuine consecutive-marking constructions, the first (or sometimes the last) clause of the chain does not bear the sequential marker (cf. [START_REF] Wald | Cross-clause relations and temporal sequence in narrative and beyond[END_REF][START_REF] Carlson | Narrative connectives in Sùpyìré[END_REF]: 1 on Sùpyìré (Gur), and

Longacre 1990 for an extensive study of consecutive-marking constructions in African languages). In Adam 1994: 93). However, when in a section of a story, it is necessary to report main events that are not sequential in the real world, one notices that the Simple Past can still be used, as is illustrated next: cannot be equated with the notion of single-occurrence or punctuality of events. As seen in the discussion of ( 5) and ( 26), clauses with Specific Time Marker can express multiple-occurrence events.

In the case of ( 5) for example, there is time specificity for each pair of swinging and getting tired.

Similarly, the specific time referred to may be that of the inception of an event, the end of an event, both beginning and end, or the entire external timeline implicated in an durative or multipleoccurrence event (cf. Bres 2003: 103 for a discussion of these properties with French Passé Simple).

Some of these points are illustrated next:

(36) a. Su-kà ri<à saya+ dà mootoocî-n. A cikin saatii su-kà saya+ dà mootoocii goomà. In sentence (36a), the event of selling the cars happened repeatedly in both clauses. In the first clause, the coded specific time is the entire timeline associated with the events. The amount of that time is actually given in the second clause (two weeks). In the first clause of (36b), the coded time point is that coinciding with the beginning of the event. The second clause probably refers to the entire time during which the three kids were born. In the third and fourth clauses, the coded times are probably the times coinciding, respectively, with the end-point and the beginning of the event.

In the literature, based on translations of narratives, the narrative Relative Perfective has been likened to English Preterit (cf. Jaggar 2001: 162) or French Passé Simple (cf. Abdoulaye 1992: 63).

However, since storyline events in a narrative are in any case interpreted as past, one in principle may not automatically assign an inherent speech time orientation to a storyline tense/aspect paradigm. That is, for Hausa, the narrative Relative Perfective can just as well be considered as the Specific Time Marker (cf. Section 4), which will automatically get a speech time orientation from the narrative context. Nonetheless, for Hausa there is another motivation for taking the narrative Relative Perfective as the Simple Past. Indeed, in main clauses of dialogical discourse, where there is no contextual restriction to past events, the Relative Perfective still cannot be used to refer to non-past events and must hence be considered to have an inherent time orientation. Furthermore, taking narrative Relative Perfective as a Simple Past would allow one to characterize Hausa assertive main clauses with a special tense/aspect system, as opposed to subordinate and non-assertive clauses, as the next section shows.

Relative Perfective in main clauses of dialogical discourse

The use of Relative Perfective in main clauses of dialogical discourse has not been investigated or explicitly taken into account in previous studies (cf. Section 2). One may take dialogical discourse to be centered on the speech situation. In this context, the speaker, in order to achieve his/her goals, can refer to past individual events with or without current relevance, to past narratives, to the future, and to various realms of possibilities. Typically, dialogical discourse would take place between individuals in a direct communication. This section focuses on the use of Relative Perfective in main clauses of dialogical discourse and shows that in this context, it has probably incorporated an obligatory past time reference feature and, on this account, can be labeled as Simple Past (cf. discussion at end of the section). We will therefore see that the specific time feature of Simple Past and the current relevance value of Completive explain the differences between sets of sentences that minimally differ by their tense/aspect paradigms. An illustration of these TAMs in dialogues is given next:

( In the context of (38a), the speaker of (38b), with Simple Past in the second clause, uses the breakfast event as evidence to support the reality of the waking up, hence the use of ha+ 'even, till, already'. The Simple Past in the sentence codes a specific time (time of waking up) for the event in the second clause. The two events are presented as closely connected temporally and the whole sentence is rooted in the past without connection to the present. In contrast, the purpose of sentence (38c), with

Completive in both clauses, is to report the two events and the connecting particle ha+ 'even' cannot be used, as indicated (i.e., one event is not used as evidence for the other). In sentence (40b), with Completive in the second clause, the speaker hopes that the door was closed.

One way to account for this contrast is to assume that in (40a), both events (forgetting and locking the door) are time-specific and temporally connected, and that the sentence is translatable as 'I hope you did not then forget (the instructions) and then (mistakenly) locked the door'. In contrast, in (40b) the two events have no specific time and in particular, the state of not forgetting was enduring. Notice that the contrast Simple Past vs. Completive can show its effects even in monoclausal sentences that are independent of a preceding or a following linguistic context. This is illustrated next:

(41) a. Sentence (41a), with Simple Past, matter-of-factly informs the listener of the visit. The sentence is totally disconnected from the present and the speaker expects nothing more to follow. In particular, there is no need of a related exchange preceding or following the sentence (i.e., the situation is evoked "in passing", the friends or their visit not being the subject of a long discussion). Sentence (41b), with

Completive, advises the listener of the visit, as an acknowledgement or information for the listener's usage: the listener may be pleased or act in any way appropriate towards the friends. This is why the sentence can be followed by comments such as yaa kàmaatà kai maa kà zìyà+ci ìyàllansù 'you, too, should visit their families', whereas such a consequence-related comment would be unnatural with (41a). Another indication that (41a) purely serves information purposes is the fact that it cannot be retold under any circumstances, whereas (41b) can be re-told to remind hearer he did not draw all the consequences after the previous communication.

Doubtless, there are many more semantic and pragmatic implications of the contrast between

Completive and Simple Past and the few illustrations given cannot be exhaustive. In most of these illustrations, the contrast between the two tense/aspects was explained by the current relevance of the Completive vs. the time specificity of the Simple Past. One may then wonder whether the Relative Perfective found in dialogical discourse is not simply the Specific Time Marker described in Section 4. However, it happens that the Relative Perfective in main clauses of dialogical discourse has a strict past time reference, as seen in all examples given in the section. It cannot be used in main clauses to refer to non-past events, contrary to most other tense/aspect paradigms.

To summarize, Hausa seems to have grammaticalized in two steps two temporal features in its perfective TAM, the Relative Perfective. These features are the specific time of the event and the speech time orientation. Nonetheless, as illustrated in the introductory section, Hausa has the characteristics of an aspect-dominated language and speech time orientation is definitely not an obligatory feature in the language. How can one then reconcile this situation with the existence of a Simple Past? The existence of a Simple Past in an aspect-dominated language like Hausa can be understood in the framework of grammaticalization theory. In particular, the proposal of a Simple Past in Hausa is consistent with the body of literature dealing with the development of simple past tenses in world languages. For example, Bybee and Dahl (1989: 58, 74) show that in a number of languages (including Romance languages, Mandarin, Somali, Palaung, etc.) a perfect has taken over the functions of a perfective or a past tense. [START_REF] Stassen | Intransitive Predication[END_REF] on the other hand assumes a more general tendency for aspect or aspect-dominated languages to shift over some period towards tense marking (cf. Stassen 1997: 492, 563). What is also significant is that in shifting from aspect to tense dominance, languages may pass through a transitional or mixed tense and aspect encoding stages, where it is not clear what the dominant category is (Stassen 1997: 480 The context of (42a) is in fact more unitary than it appears. The term "subordinate" there refers to relative clauses and temporal and conditional clauses, as discussed in the paper. The term "nonassertive clauses" refers to the out-of-focus clauses. These have been analyzed as subordinate clauses (cf. Caron 1991: 21, 159, 171 andParsons 1960: 19). However, Abdoulaye (2007a) proposes that outof-focus clauses are former subordinate clauses that are now re-analyzed as main clauses, although they are non-assertive main clauses. Therefore, in some sense, the context in (42a) can simply be referred to as the subordinate context. One notices that the subordinate context is aspectual, with no speech time orientation (at least with respect to the TAM paradigms portrayed). The context (42b) refers to main clauses of narrative and dialogical discourse and displays a simpler TAM system. In this mixed tense and aspect system, a former perfective TAM has acquired specific time reference and speech time orientation and is labeled "Simple Past". This way is consistent with grammaticalization tendencies by which, once a new meaning is incorporated into a form, it may later become the most prominent or even the only available meaning in the reanalyzed form (cf. for example the development of future tenses from motion verbs). Therefore, in (42b) the Simple Past is fundamentally a temporal --not an aspectual --category, even though it may have inherited perfective features (event viewed in a rolled-up manner without current relevance).

However, it is also clear from (42b) that Hausa tense, as a grammatical category, is rather limited, since there is no time orientation in the imperfective. Hausa is therefore unlike some West-African languages with a generic past marker (cf. for example Fula) or with metrical tense markers that periphrastically or morphologically combine with aspect markers (cf. discussion at the end of Section 4.1). All these remarks considered, one must conclude that Hausa is an aspect-dominated language with a tense category that is not combinable with aspect categories. 6

Conclusion

The relative marking (Relative Imperfective and Relative Perfective) in Hausa canonically appears in scene-setting clauses, relative clauses, and out-of-focus clauses of constituent focus and fronted whquestions or wh-ever constructions. Hausa however, also uses Relative Perfective in narrative and dialogical contexts. Contrary to earlier accounts, this paper analyzes the Relative Perfective in main clauses of narratives and dialogical discourse as the Simple Past. The Simple Past differs from the Relative Perfective found in presupposition contexts, which is aspectual and contrasts with Relative

Imperfective. The paper shows that one of the contexts for the genesis of Simple Past is the temporal lookàcin dà relative clause. In this clause, the semantics "specific time" was incorporated into the Imperfective vs. Relative Perfective was eliminated. From this initial environment, the paper shows that the new specific time category spread to environments that originally did not have the relative marking contrast, environments such as in/ìdan temporal or conditional clauses, simple temporal dà clauses, and finally the narrative and dialogical discourse, where it acquired speech time orientation.

These proposals are congruent with the results of typological and grammaticalization studies, which

show that in languages throughout the world, aspect markers diachronically derive tense markers.

Notes:

1 Hausa (Chadic) is spoken mainly in Niger and Nigeria. Primary data in this paper are mostly from Sometimes, authors use the 3 rd person plural form of central/east dialects to refer to a paradigm (cf. the "sun form" for Completive). The general Imperfective marker is made up of a pronoun and the auxiliarized locative copula -nàa (assertive contexts). According to Newman and Schuh 1974: 16f (cf. also Schuh 2001Schuh -2007: 13n15): 13n15), Completive markers are former independent pronouns reanalyzed into TAM markers. The Relative Imperfective marker of central and eastern dialects is made up of a pronoun and the auxiliarized locative copula -kèe. Kèe was probably the former general locative copula before being replaced by -nàa and relegated to presupposed contexts (cf. Abdoulaye 2007a).

There are at least three proposals about the origin of the marker -kà (in Relative Perfective, it is sometimes deleted or reduced to an assimilated consonant "C", depending on the dialect). Newman (2000: 571) thinks that it derives from a Proto-Chadic perfective marker *kà/*kə, which in Hausa was restricted to narrative and other relative marking environments after the introduction of the new general Completive. Schuh (2001Schuh ( -2005: 5, 12) : 5, 12) rejects such an analysis, objecting that as a perfective marker, -kà would not have been able to appear in western dialects in both perfective and imperfective environments. He proposes that -kà derives from a copula that used to mark focus. However, given the fact that presupposed scene-setting clauses --and not focus constructions -are the basic environment for the relative marking, Abdoulaye (2007b) proposes that -kà was likely a former mood marker (probably marking non-negative realis; cf. Abdoulaye 1997) and, as such, is compatible with both perfective and imperfective environments. At the initial (Proto-Hausa) stage in the above table, after the suffixation of -kà, the distinction between the then-functioning perfective and imperfective TAM paradigms would have been lost

(distinction indicated by the "X" vs. "Y", whatever its exact locus was). This situation being untenable, western dialects adjusted the perfective form (by borrowing the Completive paradigm), while central/eastern dialects adjusted the imperfective form (by recruiting the auxilarized copula kèe).

The idea that -kà was some kind of addition to basic aspectual forms is also found in Jungraithmayr (1983: 227). However, he proposed that -kà was added only to the perfective, as a sequential marker.

3 To express the meaning 'it is by 2 o'clock that they had arrived/will have arrived', one will need convoluted constructions, which are probably rare in real exchanges, as illustrated next:

(i) a. In both cases, one notes that the Completive must appear somewhere in the sentence. Sentence (ia) in fact directly violates the otherwise strict rule replacing Completive with Relative Perfective in out-offocus clauses. In addition, copula nee/cee is obligatory in both sentences.

  ) the children fell asleep.'

  3p.CPL take cow there-that imp-RI/ imp-IPV to animals vaccination 'They took the cow where animals are vaccinated.' b. Sun kai saanìyaa in-dà a-kà/ *an yii wà dabboobii àlluu+àa. 3p.CPL take cow there-that imp-ARP/ imp-CPL do to animals vaccination 'They took the cow where animals were vaccinated.' (21) a. Su-nàa yî-n koomii yad-dà a-kèe/ *a-nàa nuunàa ma-sù. 3p-IPV doing.of everything like-that imp-RI/ imp-IPV show to-3p 'They are doing everything as one shows them how to do'. do everything like-that imp-ARP/ imp.CPL show to-3p 'They did everything as one showed them how to do'. Examples (20a-b) illustrate a locative adverbial clause in the imperfective and perfective respectively, while examples (21a-b) similarly illustrate a manner adverbial clause. As can be seen, in all cases the relative marking is obligatory, as shown by the ungrammaticality of general Imperfective and Completive. Normally, locative and manner clauses such as illustrated in (20-21) are taken to be relative clauses introduced by the subordinator dà preceded by weak heads, locative particle in-and manner particle ya-, respectively (cf. Jaggar 2001: 530f and Newman 2000: 535). While none of these particles is a typical nominal, locative particle in-clearly relates to locative demonstrative în/innìya

  time-df that 3p-STM come then 1p-STM eat food 'When they arrived, we ate.' b. Yâarâ-n sun ga sarkii (lookàci-n) dà su-kà shìga gàrii. children-df 3ms.CPL see emir time-df that 3p-STM enter town 'The children saw the emir when they entered (i.e., visited) the town.' 'The children saw the emir when they were entering the town.'

  clauses that function as background to their main clauses and where the relative marking (including Relative Imperfective) is a presupposition marker. The contrast is illustrated next: (31) a. [Dà su-kèe tsòoro-n à kaamàa su] sun gudù. as 3p-RI fear-of imp.SBJ arrest 3p 3p.CPL flee '[As it is the case they are afraid of being arrested], they fled.' (background reading) (No temporal reading available) b. [Dà su-kà gàji] sun koomàa inuwàa su-nàa huutàawaa. DA 3p-KA tire 3p.CPL return shade 3p-IPV resting '[As it is the case they are tired], they went under the shade to rest.' (background reading) 'When they got tired they went under the shade to rest.' (temporal reading) Sentence (31a) contains a reason adverbial dà clause (in brackets) with Relative Imperfective and it can only be interpreted as a scene-setting clause (SSC), i.e., a clause that supplies the background context in which the main clause event takes place and whose content is typically known by the hearer (cf. Abdoulaye 1997). To get the temporal reading, general Imperfective must be used (cf. dà sunàa tsòoron à kaamàa su... 'when they were afraid of being arrested...', with the past-anchored interpretation). As shown in (31b), a dà clause with Relative Perfective is ambiguous between a SSC reading and a (past-anchored) temporal reading. This sentence clearly evidences at least two types of Relative Perfective in Hausa. One Relative Perfective (Aspectual Relative Perfective) contrasts with Relative Imperfective and marks presupposition in SSCs, relative clauses, and out-of-focus clauses.

  Hausa narrative main clauses, the Relative Perfective can appear in all clauses of the sequence, including the first clause, as seen in the following (adapted from INDRAP 1983: 44): (34) Dà Sallà$ii dà Sòoloolòo su-kà tàfi kàasuwaa su-kà duubà ràagoo su-kà sayoo. and Salabi and Sololo 3p-SP go market 3p-SP look ram 3p-SP buy 'Salabi and Sololo went to the market, looked for a ram and bought one.' Sentence (34), with three sequential clauses in Simple Past, is the very first sentence of its story. In fact, the volume containing the story has sixteen independent stories and eight of them start off with a Simple Past clause. A narrative, by definition, reports a series of temporally sequenced events (cf.

  spread manure 'Idi and Maman went to the farm. Idi hoed and Maman spread the manure.'

  girma, sànnan su-kà koomàa Saafòo. children-df 3p-SP grow.up then 3p-SP return Safo 'He married a Saulawa woman, they had three children, when these grew up, they moved to Safo.'

  cites some Bantu languages as being in this situation). Hausa is apparently entering the transitional stage and one may propose the TAM system portrayed in (42), a system that is split along the line subordinate or non-assertive clauses vs. assertive main clauses: (42) a. Subordinate and non-assertive clauses b. Assertive main clauses (narrative and dialogical discourse)

  Katsinanci dialect and Standard Hausa (central/east dialects). The transcription follows Hausa standard orthography with some changes. Long vowels are represented as double letters, low tone as grave accent, and falling tone as circumflex accent. High tone is unmarked. The symbol '+' represents an alveolar trill distinct from the flap 'r'. Written 'f' is pronounced [h] (or [hw] before [a]) in Katsinanci and other western dialects. The abbreviations are: 1, 2, 3 '1st, 2nd, 3rd person'; ARP 'Aspectual Relative Perfective'; cop. 'copula'; CPL 'Completive'; df 'definite'; f 'feminine'; FUT 'Future'; imp 'impersonal'; IPV 'Imperfective'; m 'masculine'; NEG 'negative'; p 'plural'; RI 'Relative Imperfective'; RP 'Relative Perfective'; s 'singular'; SBJ 'Subjunctive'; SP 'Simple Past'; SSC 'scene-setting clause'; STM 'Specific Time Marker', TAM 'tense/aspect/mood marker'. This paper is part of a project on the relative marking in Hausa and other West African languages that was supported by the University of Antwerp Research Council through a postdoctoral research position at the Center for Grammar, Cognition and Typology, University of Antwerp, 2003-2004. I thank Johan van der Auwera for his detailed comments on various aspects of the project and for all the material support. I also thank the reviewers for providing remarks and useful suggestions. I am naturally solely responsible for all shortcomings.

Table 1 :

 1 Relative marking terminology

		Relative marking
			Relative Perfective
	Relative Imperfective	Aspectual Relative Perfective	Temporal Relative Perfective Marker Specific Time Simple Past
	In Table

  Tuller 1986: 103) and contrasts it with Completive, as illustrated next

	b. Dà	sàmàarii ukkù su-kà	ìsa	su-kà	nèemi sù	ga sarkii.
	when youths three 3p-RP arrive 3p-RP seek 3p.SBJ see emir
	A-kà	yii mu-sù isòo.		Su-kà faa&ì su-kà	yi gaisuwaa.
	(adapted from Schuh 1985a, b, cited in Tuller 1986: 102f):
	(4) a. Ìdan Gizò yaa	yi shillòo yaa	gàji, sai yà	saukoo
	if	Spider 3ms.CPL do swing 3ms.CPL tire then 3ms.SBJ come.down
	yà	ci gyà&aa.
	3ms.SBJ eat peanuts
	'Once Spider swung all his soul, he would come down and eat some peanuts.'

Table 2 :

 2 Various accounts of the narrative use of relative marking in Hausa

		Relative Imperfective	Relative Perfective	Narrative Rel. Perf.
	Caron 1991	Relative marking marks syntactic or temporal dependency
	Creissels 1991	Presupposed clauses and narrative are non-questionable
	Hyman/Watters	Narrative is non-assertive, backgrounded vis-à-vis direct discourse
	Jaggar 2001	Focused NP and narrative event are foregrounded
	Schuh 1985a, b	Presupposed event is known and, like narrative, definite-specific
	Tuller 1986	Overt or null focused operator triggers relative marking
	Wald 1987	Narrative sequence is backgrounded vis-à-vis last peak event
	Newman 2000	Relative Continuous	Preterit
	Bagari 1976/87	Presupposition (vs. assertion)	(no explanation)
	Abdoulaye 1997	Presupposition (vs. assertion)	Simple Past

  , Completive can express functions typically expressed by perfect categories in other languages (cf.[START_REF] Comrie | Aspect[END_REF]: 56-61, Dahl 1985: 129ff for the uses of the perfect). In this respect, Completive contrasts with Aspectual Relative Perfective (i.e., the Relative Perfective used in relative and out-of-

focus clauses) and contrasts even more with Simple Past (i.e., the Relative Perfective used in narrative and dialogical main clauses). For example, only Completive allows an anterior reading, as illustrated in the following: (7) a. Sun zoo <arfèe biyu. 3p.CPL come o'clock 2 'They came at 2 o'clock.' OR: 'By 2 o'clock they had arrived/ will have arrived.' b. >arfèe biyu sun zoo. o'clock 2 3p.CPL come 'By 2 o'clock they had arrived/ will have arrived.' NOT: 'They came at 2 o'clock.' c. Sun zoo. 3p.CPL come 'They have arrived.'OR: 'They came [and went back].'

  In contrast, Aspectual Relative Perfective and Simple Past

	(10) a. Yâara	sun	tàfi tashàa, naa	kuma rufè ƙoofàa.
	children 3p.CPL go station, 1s.CPL and	close door
	'The children left for the station, and I have locked the door.'
	b. Yâara	sun		tàfi tashàa, gàa su can.
	children 3p.CPL go station see 3p there cannot express the anterior meaning, as illustrated next: '[Come see], the children are going to the station, there they are.'
	(8) a. >arfèe biyu (nèe) su-kà o'clock 2 c. Yâara sun tàfi tashàa, àmma bà sù zoo. cop. 3p-ARP come 'It is at 2 o'clock that they came.' children 3p.CPL go station but NEG 3p.CPL find Abdu NEG îskè Abdù ba.
	NOT: 'It is by 2 o'clock that they had arrived/ will have arrived.'
	b. Suu (nèe) su-kà	zoo	<arfèe	biyu.
	3p	cop. 3p-ARP come o'clock 2

'It is them who came at 2 o'clock.' NOT: 'It is them who had arrived/ will have arrived by 2 o'clock.' (9) Su-kà zoo <arfèe biyu. 3p-SP come o'clock 2 '(then) they came at 2 o'clock.' NOT: 'By 2 o'clock they had arrived/ will have arrived.' Sentences (8a-b) illustrate the Aspectual Relative Perfective in focus-fronting constructions, focusing the temporal adverb and the subject, respectively. The anterior reading is not possible, as indicated. Sentence (9) shows that Simple Past, too, does not express the anterior sense. 3 Similarly, certain verbs (like tàfi 'leave, go') that lexicalize an inchoative phase can have an ongoing action reading in the Completive. Indeed, a person walking to the station would typically indicate his/her destination to by-standers by using Completive naa tàfi tashàa 'I am off/on my way/going to the station' (the expected general Imperfective, inàa tàfiyàa tashàa, would be fully inadequate in this context; cf. Abdoulaye 2001: 7 for more details). Nonetheless, in this context, the station-bound walker cannot use the focused sentence (with Aspectual Relative Perfective) *nii (nèe) na tàfi tashàa 'It is me who is off/on my way/going to the station' to indicate that he, and not a friend walking with him, is going to the station. This naturally applies to sentence (6a), which, if appropriate contexts are specified, can have three readings, as illustrated next: 'The children went to the station, but they did not see Abdu.' In examples (10), Completive sun tàfi has an inchoative reading in (10a), an on-going action reading in (10b) and a completed (terminal phase) reading in (10c). It happens that only (10a) and (10c) have corresponding focused sentences, as illustrated next: (11) a. Yâara (nèe) su-kà tàfi tashàa, naa kuma rufè ƙoofàa. children cop. 3p-ARP go station, 1s.CPL and close door 'It is the children who left for the station, and I have locked the door.' b. Yâara (nèe) su-kà tàfi tashàa, àmma bà sù îskè Abdù ba. children cop. 3p-ARP go station, but NEG 3p.CPL find Abdu NEG 'It is the children who went to the station, but they did not see Abdu.'

  Three of the Completive titles are given next (adapted fromMoussa-Aghali 2000: 11, 26, 38):

	c. *Su-kà ta$à zuwàa Gaanà.
	3p-SP touch going Ghana
	(12) a. An '(Then) they once traveled to Ghana.' baadàa ni ru<òo	gurin kàakaa-taa
	imp.CPL give.away 1s hosting at As the data show, Completive and Aspectual Relative Perfective are compatible with the experiential grandmother-of.1s
	'One sends me away to my grandmother to stay with her' context, as indicated in (13a-b) respectively, in contrast to Simple Past, as indicated in (13c). The
	b. Kàakaa-taa same pattern obtains with regard to the ability to appear in context of persistent situations, as seen taa ràsu naa daawoo gida-n-mù grandmother-of.1s 3fs.CPL die 1s.CPL return home-of-1p next:
	'My grandmother dies and I return to our home' (14) a. Taa san indà maagànii ya-kè.
	c. Mun 3fs.PCF know where medicine 3ms-be <aura mun koomàa Abalàgh 1s.CPL move 1s.CPL go Abalagh 'She knows where the medicine is.'
	b. Ita (cèe) ta		san	indà maagànii ya-kè.
	3fs cop. 3fs.ARP know where medicine 3ms-be
	'It is she who knows where the medicine is.'
	c. Ta	san	indà	maagànii ya-kè.
	(13) a. Sun	ta$à	zuwàa Gaanà.
	3p.CPL touch going Ghana
	'They have once traveled to Ghana.'
	b. Suu (nèe) su-kà	ta$à zuwàa Gaanà.
	3p	cop. 3p-ARP touch going Ghana
	'It is them who once traveled to Ghana.'

'We move and go to Abalagh'

The examples in (

12

) are the titles of three consecutive chapters and, naturally, they serve to highlight the main events that have happened in the chapters. In these titles, it would be inappropriate to substitute the Aspectual Relative Perfective or the Simple Past for the Completive. Similarly, the first page of an issue of the journal "Gaskiya Ta Fi kwabo" (N° 6047, 12 October, 1998) has five titles, all of which are in the Completive. In general, in the rest of the issue, it seems that all past factual stories are titled with clauses in the Completive and never in Simple Past. As for the Aspectual Relative Perfective, it may be used in titles if the reader already holds a presupposition about the content of the story, typically for a developing story over many issues.

Other types of perfect meanings seem to be possible both with Completive and Aspectual Relative Perfective, but not with Simple Past. This seems to be case with the ability of the tense/aspect paradigms to appear in experiential perfect context, as illustrated next: 3fs.SP know where medicine 3ms-be '[When he inadvertently opened the drawer] then she knew where the medicine was.'

  stage, Stage I, where only Aspectual Relative Perfective existed. Then there was a Stage II at which Specific Time Marker developed, and, finally, a Stage III at which Simple Past arose. Indeed, it has

	been verified in numerous studies that earlier stages of a grammaticalization process persist with later
	stages (cf. the development of various uses of English let in Hopper and Traugott 1994: 12ff, or the
	development of subordinators from verbs or adpositions in Heine and Claudi 1986: 105f, 147f). For
	this reason, typical grammaticalization changes could be represented as "Stage I > Stage I/Stage II (>
	Stage II), as argued in

  cases, the clause reverts to Completive and general Imperfective. This is illustrated next (sentence There is one [woman] whom we tried, she was trying, we realized that she could not.' In (16a) the relative clause carries information that is marked as uncertain with the conjunction koo 'whether'. As can be seen, the two embedded clauses carry the Completive and the general Imperfective. The relative tense/aspect paradigms would be ungrammatical in this context. One way to account for this is to say that the marked uncertainty of the information takes the relative clause out of the presupposition domain and both Relative Perfective and Relative Imperfective, as markers of presupposition, are cancelled. Data (16b) illustrate a non-restrictive relative construction (cf. Jaggar

	(16c) adapted from Beik 1987: 122):
	(16) a. mùtunè-n [dà koo	yaa		mutù koo ya-nàa dà râi àllaahù wa'àlam]
	man-df	that whether 3ms.CPL die	or	3ms-have life only God knows
	'the man [who only God knows whether he is dead or alive]'
	b. Kanòo, bi+nii wandà dâa maa ya-nàa dà mahimmancìi à Hausa
	Kano city which in any case 3ms-have importance in Hausa
	'Kano, a city which in any case has a great significance in Hausaland'
	c. Àkwai wata	wàd-dà mun	sâa ta, ta-nàa	yîi, mun	ganii
	exist another one-that 1p.CPL put 3fs 3fs-IPV do 1p.CPL realize
	baa tà		iyà	tà	yi.
	NEG 3fs.IPV be.able 3fs.SBJ do
	'

  The examples in (17) both illustrate the Imperfective. When the word lookàcii 'time' functions as a true referential head to the relative clause, Relative Imperfective is required, as shown in (17a).However, if lookàcii is a weak head (i.e., not referential) and the relative clause functions as a grammaticalized temporal adverbial clause (cf. Abdoulaye 2007b), then the Relative Imperfective freely alternates with general Imperfective, as indicated in (17b). In contrast, examples (18) show that the Relative Perfective is required in a relative clause headed by a referential noun lookàcii, as in One may assume that in temporal adverbial relative clauses, the Relative Perfective has picked up a time referencing function and grammatically indexes the external time point (or time stretch) when the event happened. On this account, it can be considered a temporal category, the Specific Time Marker, even though it doesn't yet have a speech time

	(18) a. Naa b. Lookàci-n dà su-kà san lookàci-n dà ta/ *taa <aarèe, kù	fìta. biyaa sù ku&i-n-sù.
	1s.CPL know time-df time-df that 3p-STM finish 2p.SBJ pay 3p money-of-3p that 3fs.STM/ 3fs.CPL go.out
	'I know the time she went out.'
	b. Sun	zoo	lookàci-n dà ta/ *taa	fìta.
	3p.CPL come time-df	that 3fs.STM/ 3fs.CPL go.out
	'They came when she was out.'
	illustrated next:
	(17) a. Naa	san	lookàci-n dà ya-kèe/ *ya-nàa kwaanaa.
	1s.CPL know time-df	that 3ms-RI/ 3ms-IPV sleep
	'I know the time when he sleeps.' orientation. Indeed, while the Specific Time Marker in (18b) has a past interpretation, other temporal
	relative clauses can receive (present/past) habitual or future interpretations. This is illustrated next
	b. Sun (data (19a) adapted from Moussa-Aghali 2000: 5): 4 zoo lookàci-n dà ya-kèe/ ya-nàa	kwaanaa.
	3p.CPL come time-df	that 3ms-RI/ 3ms-IPV sleep
	'They came while he was sleeping.' (19) a. Lookàci-n dà gòorùbâ-n nan su-kà	yi &iyaa...

Abraham 1959: 163, who

gives san dà sunàa yâaraa = san dà sukèe yâaraa 'during their boyhood', lit. 'time that they were kids'; cf. also

Jaggar 2001: 531)

. However, this is true only to some extent, and the situation is not simple, as (18a), or in a temporal adverbial clause, as seen in (18b). One may interpret the facts illustrated in

(17)(18)

as showing the collapse of the relative marking as an aspectual contrast in temporal relative clauses, whether they are in the perfective or imperfective. Therefore, the Relative Perfective seen in (

18b

) is maintained because it has acquired a new function, i.e., the indexation of a specific time for the event in the adverbial clause.

It is very likely that the perfective semantics of the Aspectual Relative Perfective in relative clauses has favored the new function. Indeed, the perfective is already temporally restricted. Internally, the perfective event is presented rolled-up in a punctual perspective, i.e., with no reference to the event's temporal structure (cf.

Comrie 1976: 3)

. Externally, the perfective event has no connection with the present (no current relevance). time-df that palmtrees-df there 3p-STM do fruits 'Whenever those palmtrees have fruits (people would harvest them...)'

  ..'). As can be noted, in both examples the Relative Perfective can be used.Although in/ìdan clauses accept many tense/aspect paradigms (including Completive, general Imperfective, the two futures, etc.), they do not accept the Relative Imperfective. For example, in no context at all is the following clause grammatical: *ìdan sukèe wàasaa 'if they are playing', and the general Imperfective must be used (cf. ìdan sunàa wàasaa 'if they are playing'). For this reason, this paper assumes that in/ìdan clauses are an environment of expansion for the temporal Relative Perfective in its new function as Specific Time Marker. The new function is evidenced when one contrasts Completive and Specific Time Marker, as illustrated next (cf. alsoAbdoulaye 1992: 69ff,

	1997: 310n1):
	(25) a. Ìdan sun	zoo, zâ-n	baa sù kwabòo kwabòo.
	if	3p.CPL come FUT-1s give 3p penny penny
	'If they come, I will give them a penny each.' (uncertain, wait and see)
	'When they come [from school], I will give them a penny each.' (certain)
	'If it turns out they have come, I will give them a penny each' (uncertain, check)
	b. Ìdan su-kà	zoo, zâ-n	baa sù kwabòo kwabòo.
	if	3p-STM come FUT-1s give 3p penny penny

'If they come, I will then give them a penny each.' (uncertain, wait and see) 'When they come [from school], I will then give them a penny each.' (certain)

  on the development of comitative particles from "be included" predicates in Ewe and Yoruba). The comitative marker would in turn give rise to the nominal coordinating conjunction 'and' (cf. Abdù dà Bàlki sun zoo 'Abdu and Balki came') and probably the instrumental dà (cf. yaa yankà naamàa dà wu<aa 'he cut the meat with a knife'). Given data (29-30), one can hypothesize that comitative dà probably also gave rive to temporal subordinator dà. Sentence (29a) is ambiguous between a comitative and a temporal reading and can be taken as one of the intermediary contexts inducing the change. Sentence (29b) gives some temporal adverbs (times of day, clock time) introduced by dà. Finally, in (30a), dà introduces a verbal noun and the construction is equivalent to a finite temporal dà clause, as indicated in (30b). The alternation in (30) between a preposition and a

conjunction is a feature of many particles in Hausa (cf. sai Abdù 'only Abdu (can do something)' and sai kaa jee can 'only

[if]

you go there (can you achieve something)', etc.). Examples (29-30) clearly establish temporal usages of dà that are unrelated to lookàcin dà relative clauses.

The second indication in favor of underived simple dà clauses relates to the possible tense/aspect paradigms and their temporal interpretation in the two temporal clauses. Lookàcin dà relative clauses appear with six paradigms: Specific Time Marker, general Imperfective or Relative Imperfective, Future I, Habitual, and Eventual. Except for the Habitual, all paradigms can receive, depending on the context, a past or a future interpretation, as already illustrated in (18-19) for the Specific Time Marker

Table 3 :

 3 Temporal interpretations in simple temporal dà clauses (with tàfi 'leave, go')

		Past reference	Future reference
		One-time Recurrent	One-time Recurrent
	Perfective: dà sun tàfi		Yes	Yes	Yes
	Relative Perfective: dà sukà tàfi	Yes
	Imperfective: dà sunàa tàfiyàa	Yes	Yes
	Future I: dà zaa sù tàfi	Yes

  That year, [the Jihadists] took the town of Alkalawa in Gobir and burned it. Then Mohamed Bello took Yumfa Rago's mother and his wife and carried them away.'

	kuma ya		kaamà màata-+ Yumfà Raggoo, ya	tàfi dà suu.
	and 3ms.SP catch wife-of YR	3ms.SP go with 3p
	'
	Wànnan shèekaràa a-kà	ci bi+ni-n Al<alaawaa na Gòobi+, a-kà	<oonè
	that	year	imp-SP win town-of Alkalawa of Gobir imp-SP burn
	bi+nî-n. Sa'ànnan Màhammadù Bellò ya	kaamà uwa-+	Yumfà Raggoo,
	town-df then	MB	3ms.SP catch mother-of YR

  Sentences (37) can be uttered in a context such as yâara sun ba+ gidaa 'the children left home'. The interlocutor can restate the information and ask a question using in situ focus construction(cf. Jaggar 2001: 496ff, 522f on this topic), to show more emotional involvement (surprise, compassion, eagerness to know more, etc.; the regular wh-question ìnaa sukà tàfi? 'where did they go?' would be neutral in this regard). There is however a difference between (37a) and (37b). Sentence (37a), with Completive, excludes the possibility that the children are back, while sentence (37b), with Simple Past, has no implication in this regard. This difference is probably due to the current relevance value of the Completive. There is also a certain emphasis on the temporal connection between the two

	clauses in (37b) with Simple Past. The following examples highlight this contrast more explicitly
	(example (38d) adapted from Moussa-Aghali 2000: 27):
	(38) a. Ha+ yànzu bà sù	taashì	ba?
	till now NEG.CPL 3p wake.up NEG
	'They are still sleeping?'
	b. Dà saafe		sun	taashì ha+ su-kà karyàa.
	on morning 3p.CPL rise	even 3p-SP breakfast
	'Earlier in the morning they did wake up and even had breakfast.'
	c. Dà saafe		sun	taashì (*ha+) sun	karyàa.
	on morning 3p.CPL rise	even	3p.CPL breakfast
	'Earlier in the morning they woke up and had breakfast.'
	d. Yaushè ki-kà		fitoo dàgà maka+antâ-+, ha+ kì	cêe zaa kì	koomàa!
	when 2fs-ARP come from school-df	till 2fs.SBJ ay FUT I 2fs return
	'How come you just returned from school and you already talk about going back there!'
	37) a. (Sun	ba+	gidaa?) Sun	tàfi ìnaa?
	3p.CPL leave home 3p.CPL go where
	'They left home, to go where?'
	b. (Sun	ba+	gidaa?) Su-kà tàfi ìnaa?
	3p.CPL leave home 3p-SP go where
	'They left home, to go where?'

  with Simple Past in the second clause, may imply that the visitors went back so quickly that they achieved nothing during the visit. A Completive in the second clause, as in sun zoo sun koomàa 'they came and returned', has no emphasis on the temporal connectedness of the events and implies, by default, that the visitors achieved the aim of their visit. The connectedness effect can also be seen How come the guests are no longer around and you did not advise me.' By uttering (39a), the speaker is regretting the fact he/she did not learn about the departure before it happened. Again, the situation is rooted in the past and there are no current consequences from the past events. The speaker of sentence (39b), in contrast, complains about not having been informed after the situation has changed. Normally, such sentence is uttered when there are current consequences of the failure to notify about the departure. One may note that negative Perfective has no special relative form. Therefore, since there is no grammatical contrast specific time vs. non-specific time, negative Perfective can appear in either context, as seen more clearly next:

	in the following:
	(39) a. Bàa<ii su-kà tàfi bà kà		shâidaa ma-nì ba!
	guests 3p-SP go NEG.CPL 2ms notify to-1s NEG
	'How come the guests left and you did not tell me [and I missed greeting them].'
	b. Bàa<ii sun	tàfi bà kà		shâidaa ma-nì ba!
	guests 3p.CPL go NEG.CPL 2ms notify to-1s NEG
	'(40) a. Dà faatan bà kà	mâncee ka	rufè <oofàa ba.
	with wish NEG.CPL 2ms forget	2ms.SP lock door	NEG
	'I hope that you did not forget (the instructions) and (mistakenly) locked the door.'
	b. Dà faatan bà kà	mâncee kaa	rufè <oofàa ba.
	with wish NEG.CPL 2ms forget 2ms.CPL lock door	NEG
	'I hope that you haven't forgotten and have (indeed) locked the door.'
	Sentence (40a) has Simple Past in the second clause and the speaker hopes that the door was left open.

That the role of ha+ 'even, till, already' is indeed only to justify/prove another event is illustrated in (38d), where the length of time since arrival does not justify the desire to go back. It is clear then that the time connectedness in (38b) depends on the Simple Past. Similarly, a sentence such as sun zoo sukà koomàa 'they came but/and returned',

Table ( i

 ( ): General and relative paradigms

		Imperfective	Relative Imperf.	Completive	Relative Perfective
		(all dialects)	others / west	(all dialects)	others / west
	1s	inàa	nikèe/ nikà	naa	na/ niC
	2ms kanàa	kakèe/ kakà	kaa	ka/ kaC
	2fs	kinàa	kikèe/ kikà	kin	kikà/ kinkà =kiC
	3ms yanàa = shinàa	yakèe = shikèe/ shikà	yaa	ya/ yaC
	3fs	tanàa	takèe/ takà	taa	ta/ taC
	1p	munàa	mukèe/ mukà	mun	mukà/ munkà
	2p	kunàa	kukèe/ kukà	kun	kukà/ kunkà
	3p	sunàa	sukèe/ sukà	sun	sukà/ sunkà
	one	anàa	akèe/ akà	an	akà/ ankà

  Table (ii) shows how the current situation may have arisen.Table (ii): Origin of relative marker -kà

		West Dialects	Central/East Dialects
		Aspect + modal -kà	Aspect + modal -kà
		perfective	imperfective	perfective	imperfective
	Initial	*su[X]-kà	*su[Y]-kà	*su[X]-kà	*su[Y]-kà
	Current	sun-kà	su-kà	su-kà	su-kèe

  It is by 2 o'clock that they had arrived/ will have arrived.'

	>arfèe biyu nèe (duk) sun	zoo.
	o'clock 2	cop. all	3p.CPL come
	'It is by 2 o'clock that they had arrived/ will have arrived.'
	b. >arfèe biyu nèe ya-kè sun	zoo.
	o'clock 2	cop. it-be 3p.CPL come
	'

Coordinated canonical relative clauses, out-of-focus clauses, and scene-setting clauses constitute another context where the relative marking is being eliminated. Indeed, in a chain of coordinated

relative clauses, only the first clause obligatorily marks the contrast between Relative Imperfective and Relative Perfective. All following clauses have the Relative Imperfective freely alternating with general Imperfective but an obligatory Relative Perfective (if they are imperfective or perfective). This is illustrated next with relative clauses:

(i) a. yâara-n dà su-kèe rìki&àa su-kèe/ su-nàa zamaa kuuràayee became hyenas'. In coordinated clauses, one may assume that the specific time for the second clause is the time of the event in the first clause. 5 The SSCs illustrated in (31), as suggested in note 2, are the original environments for the relative marking. These types of SSCs, called direct or reduced SSCs in Abdoulaye (1997Abdoulaye ( , 2007a)) Sentences (i) have the same general meaning as sentences (31), except that sentences (i) have no temporal reading at all. The SSCs in (i) have a more complex structure, where the subordinator dà is followed by an invariable impersonal copular construction ya-kè 'it-be' that takes the inner adverbial clause as complement. The inner clause can bear most tense/aspect paradigms in Hausa (except for the Eventual, the Subjunctive, and the Imperative). Reduced SSCs, with the relative marking, are very likely derived from copular SSCs through clause merger between the copular and the complement clause. The present author is working on the details of this clause merger, in particular, how the markers -kà and -kèe came to be recruited as relative marking in reduced SSCs (cf. These sentences show a use of Relative Imperfective outside the canonical contexts of a reduced SSC, a relative clause, or an out-of-focus clause. The context in each case is past imperfective. The speaker of (ia) was elaborating over the whereabouts of a common friend. Sentence (ib) was uttered to explain why a device was not functioning well. Finally, a speaker uttered sentence (ic) after having described how another woman was unhappy with a gift mattress bought by another party. This use does not seem to be widespread and the author has heard these and similar sentences in urban settings (including some from children as young as 4.7 years old). Furthermore, for all speakers, it is more natural to use general Imperfective in lieu of Relative Imperfective in all sentences in (i).