Oaths in the Bible

According to the New Geneva Study Bible (1995:670), “Oaths are solemn declarations invoking God as a witness to statements and promises, inviting Him to punish anything false.” The underlying factor here is that oaths bind the speaker to speak the truth, and failure to do that will offend God.

In the book of Nehemiah, chap. 5, the Hebrew governor Nehemiah deals with the oppressed and wants the rich to restore to them their lands, vineyards, houses, money, and other properties. When he calls them, they agree to restitution, but to make it binding he asks them to swear an oath. This is recorded as follows: “So they said, ‘We will restore it, and will require nothing from them; we will do as you say.’ ” Nehemiah recounts, “Then I called the priests and required an oath from them that they would do according to this promise” (Neh. 5:12).

In the book of Ezra, we are told that the Israelites confessed that some had taken pagan wives and wanted to make covenant with God to put away all those wives. They went to Ezra to commit themselves to supporting him in this, and to ask him to see to it that it be done. “Then Ezra arose, and made the leaders of the priests, the Levites, all Israel swear an oath that they would do according to his word. So they swore an oath” (Ezra 10:5).

In the New Testament as well, we encounter oaths. In Mathew 26:72–74, Peter denies that he knows Jesus, supporting his assertion against doubters with an oath: “Then he began to invoke a curse on himself and to swear, ‘I do not know the man.’ ”

Acts 23:11–12 tells how people plotted to kill Paul, binding themselves by an oath: “And when it was day, some of the Jews banded together and bound themselves under an oath, saying that they would neither eat nor drink till they had killed Paul.”

There are cases in the Bible in which God swears an oath to his people. A divine oath is expressed in Psalm 110:4: “The Lord has sworn and will not relent.” This was interpreted by Christians as demonstrating the unchangeable permanence of the new priesthood of Jesus. This was supported by reference to Hebrews 6:13–17, 7:20–21; for example, “Thus God determining to show more abundantly to the heirs of promise the immutability of His counsel, confirmed it by an oath” (Heb. 6:17).

It could be deduced from the examples above that oaths in biblical times had an inherent power to bind a speaker to abide by what he or she said. An oath's force does not respect the status of the speaker. Apart from the examples given above, there are many additional instances in the Bible of the use of oaths, for example in Luke 1:73–74, Mathew 5:33–34, Genesis 24:1–9, 1 Samuel 14:26, Ecclesiastes 8:2, and Jeremiah 11:5 and 42:18.

Oaths in Western society

Oath-taking in Europe and the Near East originated from religious customs, but it became extended to secular settings, especially in law courts and other legal proceedings, with the particular usage varying from country to country. Oath-taking dates at least as far back as the Sumerian civilization (4th to 3rd millennia bce) of the ancient Middle East, and to ancient Egypt. At that time people often swore by their life; Egyptian ankh ‘oath’ means ‘an utterance of life’. The words for ‘oath’ in many Indo-European languages, including English oath, are reflexes of Proto-Indo-European *h₁óitos ‘a going’, specialized to the meaning ‘oath’ in Celtic and Germanic with reference to the practice of walking between parts of slaughtered animals to give force to the oath (Mallory & Adams 1997:408). Oaths were also taken by invoking sacred watercourses of the underworld, combining associations with water and lightning (Mallory & Adams 1997:409). The force of such allusions makes clear that the oath was intended as an absolute guarantee of the word and intent of the person swearing, and also the fetter that bound him to the truth. This implies that it is not the mere mentioning of the oath that is important, but the implicational bond that it entails and the obligation it casts on the speaker. In Latin, the term for oath is ius iurandum ‘sworn law’; in Roman society, oaths were firmly established legal instruments with statutory force (see Klinger 1987:302). Benveniste 1973 concludes that the expression refers to the rigid enforcement of the procedure of the oath, which was itself a sacramentum, an engagement made before the gods.

Among the Hittites, there were “oath gods” and others seen as gods of contract (i.e., the guardians of oath and truth). Judaism distinguishes two kinds of improper oaths: a vain oath, whereby one attempts to do something that is too difficult to achieve or attempts to negate the fulfillment of a religious precept; and a false oath, in which one uses the name of God to swear falsely, thus committing a sacrilege. In Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, oaths are still widely used today. An oath in Islam is called qasam; one typically swears on his life, soul, honor, or faith. This primarily constitutes a pledge to God, and so a false oath is considered a danger to one's soul.

In Greek religion, the institutions of oath, religion, and morality and the organization of society were inextricably linked. According to Burkert (1985:250), “The function of an oath is to guarantee that a statement is absolutely binding, whether it be a statement about something in the past or a declaration of an intent for the future.” In a culture like Akan, which was until recently without writing, with no records to serve as proof and no legal documents, the binding nature of oath was of unique importance, and it still is. This implies that there is an extension of the illocutionary speech act into a kind of statutory force.

Ntam as a speech act

In this article, distinction is made between a ntam event and a ntam speech act. The ntam event is the situation that triggers the use of ntam, as we will see below. The ntam speech act is the evocation of the ntam taboo utterance and the use of performative verbs. The ntam speech act and its paralinguistic features are integral parts of the whole ntam communicative event. The speaker performs the speech act in a serious mood, and the participants become solemn.

Ntam falls directly into the category of commissives; however, certain types of ntam communicative events may employ speech acts of other categories, such as directives. A commissive is a speech act in which the speaker is committed in some degree to the truth of the proposition his utterance expresses, and it necessarily involves intention (Searle 1969). Commissives commit the speaker to some posterior or future action; that is, the speaker commits himself or herself to performing an action at a time later than that of the utterance (see Leech 1983:206). Commissive verbs include promise, vow, swear, offer, volunteer, pledge, contract, bid, bet, accept, and assure (see Duranti 1997:224, Coulthard 1992:24).

The display in the speech act of commitment to some future action must be separated from the fulfillment of the act. This is why, in cases of inappropriate or perjured ntam, social censure can be exercised, as discussed below.

Searle 1969 emphasizes the illocutionary force of speech acts and introduces the term fit. According to him, “fit” expresses the relationship between our words and the world we live in. We can deduce that physical things and concrete behavior such as violence are transformed into abstractions in the form of language, and when the language is used, it presupposes the performance of the act referenced. This phenomenon can be captured as follows:

This means therefore that world is fitted to words, and words may also be fitted to the world. There is thus a strong relationship between the world, which is reality, and the word, which is language.

According to Mey (1993:132), “Through the use of words I make the word fit my language and change the world in accordance with my directions as given through the use of language.” A person's commissives effect a change in the world by creating an obligation in the speaker. The speaker of a ntam therefore creates an obligation on his or her own part to abide by what is said in the proposition, and also targets the truth.

Ntankumaa ‘minor reminiscential oaths’

Ntankumaa are the oaths pertaining to individuals, households, families, and localities such as small towns and villages. In the household, the custodian of the ntam is the head of the family, usually the oldest surviving member.

Ntankumaa originated from tragedies, real or legendary, which tradition claims befell particular small towns, villages, families, or individuals. Every family and every individual can have his or her own ntam. Examples of some individual ntam may stem from barrenness, impotence, serious diseases like epilepsy or leprosy, or physical and mental disabilities. Here are some examples:

‘major reminiscential oaths’

are the oaths pertaining to various ethnic groups such as the Akuapem, Asante, Akyem, or Bono. Some refer to them as

‘red reminiscential oath’ (i.e., ‘serious oath’). The color red in Akan society signifies danger, doom, or damnation, and it indicates symbolically that such reminiscential oaths are very dangerous or tricky to use and must be handled with great caution.

Every traditional state in Akan and every akonnwa tuntum ‘black stool’ has its own ntam. (The wooden stool is the symbol of office for Akan chiefs and kings; every chief has one.) According to the Akan, the state oaths came into being with the expansion of families into clans and further into states. In this process of expansion, the misfortunes and mishaps that previously were limited to the family now became the concern of the whole state, and the wrath invoked by their mention would now affect the king or chief and the whole state.

In this larger domain, the king became the owner and custodian of the ntam. In all the state ntam I compiled, the origin typically had to do with an unfortunate experience or a tragedy that affected a king, a queen, another royal, or some other important figure in the political administration of the state. The event might be a disaster such as the death of the king in battle or the decimation of an army, a plague, or an epidemic that affected a whole state. The unmentionability (or taboo) of an oath was intended to avert the reoccurrence of the tragic event.

The state ntam are established unspeakable linguistic items, each with its own origin. These items, unlike all other expressions in the language and culture, have limited scope of distribution and usage. They may not be used in ordinary conversation. There are prohibitions, inhibitions, sanctions, punishments, penalties, and rituals attached to them.

Categories of appropriateness

Ntam may also be categorized according to the appropriateness of their use and performance into ntanhunu ‘inappropriate’, ntampa, ‘appropriate’, and

‘stalemate’.

Ntanhunu ‘inappropriate reminiscential oath’ refers to any taboo ntam that is spoken in an inappropriate context. Ntanhunu literally means ‘empty oath’. Since ntam is a taboo expression and can be mentioned only when there is actual need for it, anybody who swears an oath in the wrong context or in falsehood is said to have used a verbal taboo inappropriately. This is perjury and must be punished accordingly. Here is an example of ntanhunu:

Ntanhunu can also refer to a situation in which one has sworn an oath but cannot explain the reasons behind the swearing. When it is perceived that she or he is joking with the ntam, it is consequently declared an ntanhunu ‘empty reminiscential oath’ or ‘taking an oath in vain’. This article, however, focuses on ntampa, discussed in detail in a later section.

Ntanhunu attracts many punishments. In the olden days, a person who swore a ntanhunu could be killed. In the present day, such a person may incur various punishments and sanctions such as the payment of a fine, providing drinks, or slaughtering a sheep. These depend on the seriousness of the offense, the power of the stool that owns the ntam, and the political status of the ntam that has been spoken.

Internal structure and stylistics of ntam activity

I will now examine the internal structure of a ntam utterance by looking at how the words are arranged in linear order. This refers to the acts sequence of the ntam activity. A prototypical ntam in Akan has the following structure:

This is exemplifed by the following utterance:

The Akan ntam expression thus has the following components: (i) a protactic proposition, (ii) an interpretive marker

‘that’, (iii) an apodictic proposition, and (iv) a commissive proposition. In most ntam expressions, the commissive proposition is implicit, as seen in (6).

The protactic proposition is the introductory proposition that encodes the verbal taboo – the performative and the evocation, as in

‘I swear by the great oath’. It serves as a guarantee of the truth condition of the apodictic proposition.

The protactic component of ntam is devoid of figurative language, idiomatic expressions, or evasive language. It goes contrary to the indirection strategies discussed by Obeng 1994, 1997. There is no stylistic way of phrasing the evocative parts in order to avoid punishment: One either utters it and faces the necessary sanctions, or one avoids it. All my informants confirmed that ntam is a univocal “expression.” Opanin Yaw Nsia of Assisiriwa cleverly put it: “

, lit. ‘As for ntam, if you turn it any other way it is not possible, it stays alone in its house.’

The interpretive marker

‘that (complementizer)’ marks or introduces the apodictic proposition (see Sperber & Wilson 1995:224–31 on interpretive uses).

The apodictic proposition is defined here as the actual statement for the purpose of which the speaker has been prompted to speak the forbidden word – that is, the reasons for the use of the ntam. It is the kernel and stimulus of the whole ntam expression and comes after

.

The commissive proposition binds the speaker to whatever is said. In a major ntam, the commissive may also mention the punishment to be meted out to a speaker who fails to comply with the contents and obligations of the oath. The example in (7) contains all the constituent parts discussed above:

In (7), the performative part is Meka Mamponhene Yawoada. It is followed by

, the interpretive marker. The apodictic proposition is fused with the commissive in the expression

‘I will serve you’, a pledge that represents the speaker's intention to serve the addressee (a king), without which there would be no need to utter the taboo word ntam. In effect, it is the core of the whole ntam expression. The final part is the commissive proposition, mebu so a, meto ntam ‘failure to do that I violate the oath’; this spells out the punishment that concretizes the commissive. The terms “protactic” and “apodictic” propositions have also been used in connection with similar Akan verbal taboos (see Agyekum 1996, chaps. 3, 4; Agyekum 1999.)

Stylistics and pragmatics of

‘major reminiscential oaths’

This section pays particular attention to politeness strategies and performative acts, analyzing major

because they are more powerful and their structures demand some aspects of speech act principles and politeness. The most basic formulaic form used in speaking about

is exemplified in (8):

In (8), the speaker says, in effect, “I seek permission to use

great reminiscential oath to swear by the great oath.” In such an instance,

becomes an instrument that the speaker now uses as a prelude (or seeking permission) to utter the taboo word ntam.

In terms of personal pronouns as anaphoric references, the prototypical ntam utterance in both the major and minor ntam has 1st person singular me ‘I’ as the subject of ntam statement. The ntam being referred to must have some formal grammatical relationship that referentially indexicalizes either the speaker or the addressee in the speech communication. Reference to third parties is barred in Akan oath-taking, because the one on whose behalf it is sworn could deny responsibility for the use of the taboo or for its consequences. Such an act loses the aspect of commitment on the part of the swearer (see Silverstein 1976:27 for referential and nonreferential indexes). It would be inappropriate to make an ntam utterance like that in (9):

In ex. (9), the 1st person pl. pronoun is

‘we’. It is too general in reference for any action or breach of the taboo to be made the responsibility of any single member of the group. If a group of people is going to use a ntam taboo in a given context, only one of them will utter the ntam, using the 1st person sg. The speaker is assumed to be acting on behalf of all the rest, and the sanctions and punishment evolving out of the ntam will be binding on the group as a whole. This is in line with the group notion of face discussed by Obeng (1999:715). If the other members cannot be traced for some reason, there will be a swearer in propria persona to hold for the breach of the ntam if the need should arise.

The prototypical formula in ntam has an explicit and obligatory commisive performative verb ka ‘swear’ which functions as an initiating verb to the evocation of the taboo word ntam. The verb ka ‘swear’ is a commissive speech act verb. It has locutionary force that makes the agent involve himself or herself in uttering a ntam taboo expression. Its illocutionary force defines the intention of the speaker to perform a communicative activity that commits him or her in speaking the ntam, and its perlocutionary force indicates the effects that the utterance of the ntam may have on the listeners (see also Searle 1969; Bach & Harnish 1979; Crystal 1991:323; Levinson 1983:236; Coulthard 1992:18–19; Blakemore 1992; Mey 1993:113). The perlocutionary force of the ntam also brings about the reminiscence of the past deeds of the ntam and the solemnity therein. Among the Akan, the perlocutionary act includes the rituals (sacrifice of sheep, drinks, etc.) connected with the ntam that give the ntam its significance.

Use of the apologetic tag

in major ntam

The major ntam has an obligatory performative verb

‘beg’ (or ‘request’). I wish to draw attention to the social significance of the use of this verb in major ntam. The Akan word

can be glossed as ‘apologize, beg for, or request’. For our analysis, we are combining request and apology, since the speaker apologizes and also requests permission for using the taboo expression. In this case, the speaker combines expressive (apology) and directive (request). The speech act of apology is an aspect of appropriateness and politeness in speech, and the

verb carries that. The speech act of apology as an expressive captures the feelings and attitudes of the speaker, who thus expresses regret, admits the offense, assumes responsibility, minimizes the offense or responsibility, and offers compensation.

In the case of the ntam performance in (9), the use of

implies that the speaker expresses regret and admits the offense and responsibility of reminding society of the unmentionable, something that brings into mind a past unpleasant situation and may even bring about its repetition. Since the situation demands the evocation of the ntam taboo to assert a fact or claim, the use of the

‘apology’ is meant to tactfully minimize the offensive power of the taboo. It is also meant as a verbal compensation for the evocation of the taboo (see Kasper 1994:3209). According to Holmes (1995:155), “An apology is a speech act addressed to an interactant's face needs and intended to remedy an offence for which the addressor takes responsibility, and thus to restore equilibrium between the apologiser and the person offended.”

The verb

, which connotes both apology and request in Akan ntam, may also have the following as core pragmatic implications: The speaker employs politeness, apology, and persuasion. According to Obeng (1999: 710), “Apologising is a face threatening for the speaker, whereas it is face saving for the hearer. Apologies are face supportive acts and have positive effect on the recipient or addressee.” In the speech act of apology, the speaker of ntam tries as much as possible to protect and save his or her face so as to be considered as a communicatively competent speaker within the Akan social context. This is intended to indicate the politeness and good upbringing of the speaker. The speaker maintains face by alerting the audience that the upcoming expression is a taboo, an inherently face-threatening act for which the speaker must be pardoned. The pardon is directed to the taboo word. The apology implies that the speaker should not be misconstrued as rude and uncaring, as verbally assaulting the audience by reminding them of past woes. The speaker therefore prefaces the utterance with the apologetic tag

to express warm and positive concern, and that shows politeness. In addition, the use of

‘I beg or apologize’ serves to mitigate the force of the impending face-threatening act. The appropriate deployment of such a dualism leads to persuasion and politeness.

In discussing apology in the context of face and politeness, Obeng (1999:715) states, “Face and politeness among the Akan is a phenomenon belonging to the level of the society and of the individual.” Individual members who break and violate ntam taboos bring shame, disgrace, blame, punishment, and hardship on themselves, their families, and sometimes the entire Akan community. The reason for this is the belief that if the ntam is not well addressed, the unpleasant event can reoccur owing to the power of the spoken word. An apology event in an ntam speech act is therefore something that concerns not only the ntam speaker but also the entire Akan community within which the ntam is evoked. The need for the apology also stems from the fact that invoking the ntam puts everybody slightly in danger; it is a face-threatening act because it is dreadful to make the entire society revisit the contents of a ntam.

The value and application of politeness and what counts as politeness depend on the discourse domain and the participants involved. The given context of politeness is also socioculturally and historically determined. In the case of Akan ntam, the politeness, deference, and formality accorded to the “personified” ntam is based on the historical event to which the ntam label alludes, and on the custodian (the king) and his power.

The speaker uses the polite forms as nonreferential indexes

, the speaker makes it difficult for the chief to say no to the oath-swearing.

The verb

can also be considered in terms of requesting. Requests are pre-event acts that are meant to prepare the way for the performance of upcoming events in favor of either the speaker or the addressee. In using

‘request/beg’, the speaker is claiming clearance to swear a reminiscential oath taboo, but the clearance is sought through the ntam itself, which has now been personified. However, the implication is that the permission is sought through the king who is the custodian of the ntam.

In ethnolinguistic terms,

‘I request, apologize’ may be considered as an apologetic device. It is also a means of showing politeness, humility, submissiveness, and knowledge of the Akan language. The use of the apologetic device

is influenced by the social context of the oath – the fact that it is spoken in the presence of a revered entity, in effect the king. The speaker is appealing to the stool of the land via the king (the stool is the implicit target of the whole context). This is in line with the circuitous mode of communication at court, where the speaker addresses the king through the Okyeame (spokesperson) (see Yankah 1995). There is, therefore, a need to exaggerate politeness by use of the performative

.

The format is conventional, except that ntam performance does not call for indirection. In ntam speech events, directness connotes sincerity and straightforwardness, and this is what we see with the apodictic and commissive propositions. Oaths are required to be precise in order to avoid ambiguity that may give room for dubious interpretation at a later time when the speaker is called upon. The equation of indirectness with greater politeness has been criticized as being simplistic; it may depend on factors of genre and specific cultures. The use of indirection to obviate crises, to communicate difficulty, and to make utterances consistent with face and politeness (see Obeng 1994:42) does not apply wholly to ntam speech acts and events. In ntam, the protactic that mentions the ntam can be considered as a form of indirection because what is mentioned is a cover term, more or less a euphemism, for the actual event referenced.

Style of ntam

In terms of style in ntam (especially the major ones), the Akans adhere as much as possible to brevity. When an ntam is used, the language should be as precise, straightforward, and devoid of ambiguity as possible.

Circumlocution and unnecessary repetition of the same ntam are considered jocular and inappropriate to ntam, which is a serious taboo expression. Such uses are likely to be punished to discourage the trivialization of the ntam taboo. At the trial of a case at Manhyia on 30 May 1994, the Ankobeahene (a wing chief, or subchief) who trivialized the major Asante ntam by using it five times in a single ntam activity was severely punished. This use of ntam shocked and embarrassed the chiefs at that gathering. The culprit was strongly reprimanded, and his stool was set aside until further notice, an act signifying suspension. This episode underscores the importance and sacred uses of the ntam among the Akans. The elders, therefore, say that the use of a single ntam taboo in a single discourse has the potential of widening its scope to cover all events therein.

In discussing language and politics and indirectness in political discourse, Obeng 1997 mentions evasion, circumlocution, innuendo, metaphor, proverbs, and idioms as the common strategies that politicians use. He states that, owing to the rather tricky and risky nature of politics itself, and especially because of the power of the spoken word, political actors sometimes communicate in an obscure, semantically dense, vague, oblique, rather cautious manner.

Yankah 1995 talks about the Okyeame as a speech intermediary, and sees therefore that messages to the chief and from the chief to the subjects should officially be channeled through the Okyeame. In such instances, the Okyeame is the “animator” and has to edit the messages by embellishing them with vivid words and figures of speech.

The two systems of speech cited by Obeng 1997 and Yankah 1995 run contrary to ntam, which must be presented without circumlocution and forms of indirection. The ntam is, however, comparable to Yankah's proverb staff (a wooden staff ornamented with an emblem representing a popular Akan proverb) because it is a sort of condensed formulaic statement that alludes to the authority of ancestral dicta. The ntam is a metonymic representation of what really happened, an event too unpleasant to be recounted. Ntam is also related to the discourse of shame and blame discussed by Obeng (1997:79; 1999:729).

‘war reminiscential oath’

During times of war, in view of the seriousness of the situation, it is allowed to use the forbidden word in making a promise. This comes under commissives. An example of war oath normally taken before the chief by the Asafohene, the commander-in-chief of the traditional army, is as follows:

This is the major reminiscential oath of the Dwaben state of Asante; it is a state

. It originated when the Dwabens waged war against the Akyems, meeting stiff opposition that made them call for assistance from the Dwabenhene's (king's) traditional brother, the Asantehene. The Asantehene dispatched one of his wing leaders, the Adontenhene, with an army to assist Dwaben. The Dwabenhene, the Asantehene's Adontenhene, and thousands of Dwabens were killed in the war. As the few surviving Dwabens were returning home, many of them died of starvation. After a number of days, they fortunately came upon a banana plantation that had only kwadu bunu ‘unripe bananas’, for which they had to scramble. The word twum (or twom) in the ntam refers to the act of scrambling. The Kwadu Twum ntam of Dwaben is, therefore, a reminder of the famine during the Dwaben-Akyem war (see Obeng 1988:60).

After the swearing of such an oath of war, it was a taboo to sleep again in the town where it was taken. The chief and his army were bound by their words, and they moved directly into the war encampment

. Immunity from all the usual consequences of swearing an oath was permitted during the actual campaign. According to my informants, anyone might use these oaths “freely and even frivolously” without incurring any legal penalty whatsoever. There are expressions like

‘When we go to war, we prohibit investigation of any case arising out of the swearing of an oath’ (i.e., ‘We have relaxed all matters related to oaths’); or

‘We have opened the oath coffers of the king of Asante.’ The maxims of ntam discussed earlier imply that people can now use the oath freely. This is a situation in which the unspeakable becomes speakable.

Oath of allegiance

Oaths of allegiance can be of various types according to the situation, including those taken by lesser chiefs on the death of a superior chief, by a new chief during his installation before a king, by a king before his subjects, and by a priest before a new chief.

On the death of a king, the other ahemfo ‘subchiefs’, ahenemmahene ‘chief of the princes’, and the

‘chief priest’ of the state swear the

mu ntam while holding the state sword to pay their last homage to their lord. I present here such an oath by a Kurontihene of an Akan state on the death of a paramount chief

Gyaase, Ankobea,

, Domakwaa, Nifa, and Kyidom are various wings of the political administration of the Akan state and have different functions in time of war.

As the ahemfo ‘subchiefs’, ahenemmahene ‘chief of the princes’, and the

mfo panin ‘chief priest’ speak the taboo words in poetic form, they direct the state sword toward the corpse lying in state. The taboo words in (11), spoken by the subchief, include Meka Wukuada meka Sokodei, Meka Kwanyako meka

Meto Akwamu Yawoada. These taboo words can be used in this context without any sanctions. If they are used in any other context, they would be punishable – for example, if one said to his wife:

The ntam Wukuada ne Sokodei belongs to the Akuapem state of the Akans. It originated from a war the Akuapems fought with the Ewes in a town called Sokodei, where the Akuapems were defeated on a Wednesday. It has therefore become a sorrowful experience in the lives of the entire Akuapem state, and for that reason nobody is allowed to mention it lest he reminds the elders of that event.

The ntam sworn by the Kurontihene in (11), unlike the others we have seen, seems very long and poetic. It is a combination of various ntam brought together in a single utterance. The swearer has been motivated to mention all these various ntam taboos to prove how loyal he is to the dead king. He asserts that he has no control over death, and so could not save his master. It has an emotive effect on the audience. The evocation of ntam in an oath of allegiance like this is allowed because it foregrounds the seriousness of the event. However, in certain other contexts, repetition of a ntam is punishable.

Nsuae ntam, the oath of allegiance to a king, can vary from situation to situation and from participant to participant. It can be given by a traditional priest before a new chief, or a newly installed chief before a king, or a king before his subjects. During this period, the speaker is given the license to speak the ntam taboo and to commit himself or herself to the sincerity condition for speech acts (see Austin 1962:40).

On the installation of a new chief or king, the traditional priest of the state, who controls the spiritual power of the people, swears an oath of allegiance to the king, who is the custodian of the state

‘deity’. He may swear as follows:

The Kokofu Fiada ne Dwoada, the major reminiscential oaths of the Kokofu state of Asante, are said to have originated from the following events. In the first place, the tribute of firewood demanded by the Denkyiras when the Asantes served under them used to be collected on Fridays and Mondays.¹⁰

Let us look at the following oath, sworn by a chief before a king:

In (14), the letters (a), (b), and (c) represent the inherent structure of the entire taboo utterance. A new chief from Bantama, a suburb of Kumasi, is being installed, and he is swearing the oath of allegiance to his superior king, the Asantehene. He uses two kinds of ntam, the minor and the major oaths. This same structure can also be found in various ntam situations such as swearing before the mortal remains of a king, a traditional priest's oath of allegiance, or a war oath. In an oath of allegiance, the ntam reminiscential oath taboo expression can be used to mark the social identity, origin, and power of people in Akan society.

Judicial Ntam used in arbitration

Ntam is one of the major mechanisms used in Akan local arbitration to assert the truth and to avoid further conflicts. When a case is settled at the level of the traditional court, witnesses who testify are obligatorily made to swear the local oath. The intention is that the swearer be committed to speak the truth; otherwise, he or she violates the ntam. It is the normal ntam we have seen previously that is used; the only change, a slight one, is the apodictic propositional content. It is interesting to note that, in the Asante state, the Asantehemmaa ‘queen’ has her own ntam. This ntam is the one by which litigants or witnesses at her court swear:

The

is said to have originated from a sore that afflicted the toe of Asantehemmaa Nana Konadu Yiadom, queen of Asante, and became so chronic that it eventually killed her.

In the Akan tradition, after a case has been settled amicably either at the household level or at the chief's or queen's court, the ntam is used as a seal to mark the end of that case officially. Each of the two parties is made to swear a ntam oath to confirm that the case has been settled and that anyone who brings back the case violates the ntam. The expressive term used as the seal is taame, literally ‘we are mentioning the hatred expression’. If the case is settled at the domestic level, an ntankumaa is sworn. If it is a case tried at the public level by the king or queen, a major reminiscential oath is sworn. Below is an example:

According to Busia (1968:76), the Wenchi Yawoada might have originated from the following account. During the reign of Anye Amoapon, the Asantehene fought against the Dormaa in about 1746. The people of Wenchi then lived at Ahwene. The advance guard of the Asantehene's army took the wrong path and attacked Wenchi by mistake. Many of the unprepared people were killed before the error was discovered. The treasures of the Wenchi stool were hurriedly hidden in the bed of the River Tain. The tragic incident occurred on a Thursday. People should not be reminded of this incident, and it is hence a reminiscential oath taboo.

Ntam used as a minatory device

Apart from the major situations discussed above, ntam can be used also in various situations as a minatory, or threatening, device. The verb ‘to threaten’ is one of the commissives verbs (see Duranti 1997:224). Busia (1968:77–78) lists, among others, the following; I will only discuss here an example of a minatory ntam. The minatory type of ntam comprises two categories: (i) ntam used by the custodian of the ntam, a chief or king; and (ii) ntam used by a person other than the owner.

Ntam may be used as a minatory device by the chief who is the custodian of the ntam for the good of the entire society. A chief may swear an oath for various purposes: to enjoin his men to observe a certain custom; to order all those present to assist in quenching a fire; to order the cleaning of the path to the village stream; to order all his men to search for or apprehend a murderer; to ask his men to rescue the dead or dying from a fallen house or tree; or to enforce accepted rules of conduct, such as restraining young women from loose sexual habits and immorality or young men from riotous living. All these kinds of ntam commit the speaker to see to it that what is being directed is done. The speaker uses the ntam as a directive speech act to ask, order, command, enjoin, enforce, restrain, or prevent the addressee's action. Such ntam activities are thus a combination of commissive and directive speech acts. They bind and commit the addressee to the directive enshrined in the speaker's ntam.

An Akan citizen other than the chief may also use ntam as a minatory device in various situations. A war captain swears an oath when ordering his men not to retreat from an enemy. A man may swear an oath to retrieve his lost property from another; to restrain others from stealing crops from his farm; or to prevent another from doing him bodily harm. On the dissolution of a marriage, a divorced husband may swear an oath restraining his divorced wife from associating with a paramour suspected to have been instrumental in disrupting the marriage.

Oath-swearing by the chief is not sanctionable, and even though that by a war captain is performed by a person other than an owner of ntam, it is still non-sanctionable – as mentioned earlier, during wartime, ntam may be used freely without sanctions. A captain, like the chief, can use it for the good of the people. All the other uses by non-custodial persons mentioned above may attract sanctions if done inappropriately. The speaker is not the owner of ntam and cannot use it trivially for private ends without permission.

The speaker of a ntam may use it as a threat against his target (i.e., a commissive). In the old days, a chief could speak a ntam to some citizens to the effect that if they did not abide by his policies, he would make sure that their whole generation was killed:

The origin of the Kwasiada and Mpete ntam emanated from an epidemic of smallpox that hit the whole town of Bekwai on one particular Sunday and took thousands of lives. Hence, it has become a taboo for people to speak about this tragic event. Families who have been told about how the epidemic devastated their entire family will not like to think of this disease and that Sunday.

The above ntam is used as a minatory device. The speaker instills fear in the addressee in respect of an impending danger or consequences. It can also be a warning (a directive) to dissuade one from an act. Ntam in Akan can thus be used both as a promissory oath, or commissive (in the case of allegiance, war, and arbitration), and as a threat, or directive, as in (17) above.