.

University of Nigeria Research Publications

MBAH, Monday Boniface.

Aut

hor

PG/MA/87/5417

Title

Noun Phrase Movement in Igbo

Facu

lty

Arts.

Dep

artm

ent

Linguistics and Nigerian Languages.

Dat

e

October, 1991.

Sign

atur

e

NOUN PHRASE MOVEMENT I N I G B O ,

Mr. Monday B o n i f s c e Ebah, a post~ra8!ual;e - s-';1L~.8.1cnt

in t h e nep?rtment of Linquistics and Yicerim k .~- -u~ . . r ; es ,

Universit;y of Ni~eria, Ksukka, has s a t i s f a c t o r i l y completed

the requirements for courses and project vo rk f o r %he degree

of Plaster of Arts (M.P..,) i n L ingu i s t i c s .

The work embodied in t h i s Froject Xeport i? o r h ~ i n a l . .

and has not been submitted i n p a r t or full f o r a17 diploma

o r degree of this or any o the r University.

. - I

D r . P.1.. Uwachuk-,(ru ( Supervisor )

P r o f . B.O. O l u i Q e Read of Den - r f~en t ,

15.

I therefore dedicate this work t o t h e following.

To my parents Mr. F.U. Mba and Madam Orie Ona Okanya

who brought m e up, n e i t h e r pampered nor deformed; t o

mr Tnnocent Eze who s t a d e d my education on a ser ious note ; ;

t o Joseph Scebe who cared when misfortune struck; t o

P.A. machukwu (ph. D) my i n s p i r a t i o n and. t eacher who turned

my prohluns during t h e programme i n t o data; t o 0. S. Ogwueleka

(ph. D) who convinced m e t h a t a year i s so shor t time a n d thus

enabled me do this programme; to Mr I.U. Nwadike who helped me

f i n d a job; t o B.O. Oluikpe (prof) whose wordq were soothing t o

my anxious mind; t o C. Azuonye ( ~ h . D) who taught m e t o appeal

even t o my enemies when i n need, some ncnemiestt d i d help; t o

Mrs C. I. fkekeonm (ph. D) for teaching m e t h a t being grea t i s

keeping one's head when others are l o s i n g theirs and t o t h e

gods who made me have t h e virtues of poverty. These people

have each contributed t o make me w h a t I om today.

iii

ACKNOWIrnGEMENT

In 1986, a t the University of Nigeria Department of

Linguistics and Nigerian Languages, it w a s announced t h a t

Dr P.A. Nwachukwu was going on sabba t i ca l leave. Ve temporari ly

broke dom, the lady s tudents $n t e a r s and the ir gentlemen

counterpar ts in agony. I wept, he being my supervisor. The

cause o f our mourning was h i s i n s i g h t f u l teaching we were about

losing,

Soon a f t e r about three months a f t e r what s tudents helieved

was a , f e a s i b i l i t y study, he came back saying that he was nsorryt '

he taught u s *oldN linguistics: l i h g u i s t i c s had assumed a new

dimension. The e f f e c t of this statement on m e was very profound.

Though I was determined t o %nowH t h i s Hnewn l i n g u i s t i c s a s

a t then, it appeared utopian.

A s fate had it, I was redeployed t o t h e Department t o do my

National Youth service. Tt was he re that I received a b a t t e r y

o f advice from var ious well-wishers i n p a r t , dedicated t o .

I was a l s o enlivened by the e f f o r t s by Dr Nwachukwu t o s e c u r e .

a postgraduate admisston for me i n t h e United S t a t e s and

prof. Oluikpefs recommending me f o r a Commonwealth Scholarship

award.

When these e f f o r t s d i d not m a t e r i a l i z e a f t e r my youth

s e r v i c e , I f e l t de f l a t ed and f r u s t r a t e d . Su rp r i s ing ly , one

of my s tuden t s dur ing my youth s e r v i c e , a l e c t u r e r a t t h e

Department of Languages, Eva Kammler,took i n t e r e s t i n m y

t each ing and asked me t o teach h e r Igbo p r iva t e ly . I r e a d i l y

agreed and she pa id me we l l i n advance. This was the beginning

of my doing t h i s programme. A t the p o i n t I would have given up,

I g o t a teaching appointment through Mr Nwadike which has

helped me t o f i n i s h t h i s programme - where t h e r e is w i l l t h e r e

ie way. Most of t he problems I' encountered dur ing the programme *

t h e s e people took care o f , of which I do acknowledge t h e i r

efforts and here in express my indebtedness.

Figure 1

F i g u r e 2

3

4

TABLE 07 TABLES

viii

TABLE OF COKTEXTS

T i t l c Page ... ... Dedica t ion . . 9 . .

Ack2owledgement ... ...

... TaSle o f C o n t e n t s ... I!\T!CDUC 'III(;T!

C E A P T 3 GKE:

The Structure of Igbo NP ... C?:2i'Zi? Y..'C :

KP 1:ovemen-t hies i n 1 , ~ h o Syntax

C!I? PT?,TZ TTrRE?7 :

C o ~ d i t i o z s 0.1 1.T F'overnent i n I y b o

CILWTER FOUR:

Summary =d Zonc lus ion ... REFERGITCSS

Pa,? e

i

fi i

iii

v

v i i

v i i i

I

INTRODUCTION

The most important d r i v i n g force f o r this work i s our

desire t o con t r ibu te i n t he cu r r en t surge i n the s tudy o f

Igbo and by imp l i ca t ion i n the search f o r universal grammar

( h e r e a f t e r UG), Mang scholars notab ly Cawell ( 1 9 7 0 ) .

Emenan jo (1978), Oluikpe f 1979), Nwachukwu (1982, 1983a, 1983b,

1987, 1988) and Lkekeonwu (1986) have done q u i t e a g r e a t dea l

of work i n Igbo s tud ie s .

T h i ~ work i n bafi icolly on syntax and semantics. Its

pecu l i a r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c i s perhaps i t s approach. Though s t i l l

within the t ransformat iona l grammar (TG) madel, i t employs

the x-bar convention of a n a 1 ~ s i . i as w e l l a s indexa t ion

a s soc i a t ed wi th f~overnment and binding (GB) framework i n its

presenta t ion .

The x-bar convention was first formalized i n Chom~ky (1970)

and i t has been argued a t l e n g t h by Jackendoff (1977) t o

c o n s t i t u t e a s y n t a c t i c theory. The theory of x-bar syntax i s

summarized i n Fig. 1.

Fig, 1.

X ' '

A- Maximal p ro j ec t ion

Nodif i e r Specifier X'

X

This schema was however modified i n Jackendoff (1977).

Jack~ndoff*8 versi-on is represented in Fig. 2.

Fig. 2

I n f igures 1 and 2, X i s t h e head of t h e s y n t a c t i c catqgory

(see 1 below) Anything dominated by except X i s t h e complement

of X. This i s contained i n t h e claim made by t h e x-bar

convention t h a t each l e x i c a l category def ines a se t of s y n t a c t i c *

, . 1'' categoriesX , xl1 . . . faximum re la ted by a phrase s t r u c t u r e

I

of the fonn in (1).

,{ccording t o Jackendoff (1977), (1) is a PS rule provided

by UG. It ' r e s u l t s from t h e phrase s t r u c t u r e configurat ion

represented i n Fig, 5.

Fig. 3.

The head of a s y n t a c t i c category X can be def ined in

two d i f f e r e n t ways:: It can be t h e 9" that : . dominates it or

i t can be t h e l e x i c a l category X a t the bottom of the e n t i r e

oanf i gu ra t ion .

The path from X via X' and X I I to paximum is t h e main

p r o j e c t i o n l i n e . All phrasax nodes dominated by xrn aximum are

o p t i o n a l elements except f o r t h e nodes on the main p r o j e c t i o n

l i n e ,

There is no common number of b a r s t o a l l languages yet

s tudied. It is a l s o not likely t h a t al'L languages can have

t h e same number of bars. T h i s is because aCcording to

Jackendoff (1977) UG provides a s e t of d i s t i n c t i v e . s y n t a c t i c

f e a t u r e s which d e f i n e s the p o s s i b l e l e x i c a l ca t ego r igs of hyplan

language. Each language chooses i ts r e p e r t o i r e from t he stouk

provided by UG. This consequently r e s u l t s i n a l l p o s s i b l e

s y n t a c t i c d i s t i n c t i v e f e a t u r e s and by imp l i ca t ion i t a l s o

r e s u l t s i n d i f f e r e n t number of bars d i f f e r e n t languages might

have.

In t h i s work, we s h a l l u se t he double bar for a l l p h r a s a l

c a t e g o r i e s except t he verb phrase which we shall a s s o c i a t e

with j u s t a single bar.

One pronounced advantage of the x-bar convention as ahawn

i n t a b l e 1 is t h a t i t r e v e a l s i n t e rmed ia t e ca tegor ies . These

a r e t h e ca t ego r i e s which f a l l between t h e l e x i c a l c a t e g o r i e s

4

(minimal ones) and the super categories ( t h e maximal ones).

A PS grammar does no t provide this. From the foregoing, w e

have seen X as t he ob l iga to ry element wi th in t h e category, Its

presence must e i t h e r be phys i ca l o r implied as i n e l l i p t i c a l

cons t ruc t ions , X' is a n in te rmedia te category. It shows the

node immediately dominating X. It u s u a l l y comprises t h e

l e x i c a l head and some complement. The complement i s n o t usually

regarded as a cons t i t uen t ; s o i t does no t s t and f o r 3 node,

The X " denotes a node which is two nodes above a l e y i c a l

category node. Hence while X' could be rewritten as

X' 4 , X - C O K P , X' could also be r e w r i t t e n as:

x l i + Specx - x'.

However f o r typographical and mnemonic purposee, we sb#I-1

be us ing both t h e o l d t and ' the newq convent ions interchangebbly

i n t h e fol lowing equivalences (shown i n Table 1).

As can be observed from Table 1, the PS node configuration

does not provide for any intermediate categories obviously,

In representing the nodes in tree diagrax form, distinction is

just made between the lexical category and the super-category.

!Fhus the lexical category and the super-category become the

bediate daughters of a categorial node.

The equivalences can be demonstrated i n the following

examples . 1. NW~~C!' ?ma ah:

As has already been explained, a close observation at

Fig. 4 will reveal that in the tree, there is no intermediate

node within the PS convention of labelled tree diagramming.

This i s what happens in example 3.

3 . $1: . . ocha . at? ahy+ ah;.

F i g . 5.

N A " (AP:

The main theme of the work is t o o v e r t l y i n v e s t i g a t e

t h e c o n s t r a i n t s on t h e noun phrase movement i n Igbo syqtax.

Since Ross (19671, Chomsky (7973) and Chomsky's subsequent

works, a t t e n t i o n has been d ive r t ed t o t he s tudy of t he binding

condi t ions on the languages, t h e world over. This is done

wi th t he hope of d i scover ing common b inding cond i t i ons on t h e s e

languages. This w i l l , when achieved, i n v a r i a b l y provide a

p i c t u r e of UG. T h i s is plausible because a l l normal ch i ldrgn

acqu i r e language inc lud ing its underlying r u l e s a t the same

r a t e and a t about the same age. T h i s i s i n t e r e s t i n g because

the lexemes o f every language are open i n the sense t h a t they

a r e innumerable. This i s what Jackendoff (1977) means by say ing

t h a t ch i ld ren acqui re language from fragmentary da ta .

The i d e a o f UG i s we l l conceived and plaus ib l e , and wi th the

amount of work already done on the s u b j e c t , there is t h e

hope t h a t one why our languages w i l l be s o cons t r a ined CBct generative

WS arrive at a ~ i m p l e but a L .grammar called u n i v e r s a l

grammar.

The body of t h i s workais divided i n t o four chapte rs .

The f i r ~ t chap te r takes a l o o k a t t h e s t r u c t u r e of t h e NP i n

g o . f t reviews some c r i t e r i a t h a t have been p o s i t e d foF

aeterrnining t h e head of a l i n g u i s t i c category. fro^ here ,

ae~tain deduct ions a r e made. These were used i n discussing

what c o n s t i t u t e ( s ) t he head o f t he N P i n Tgbo grammar. The

second chap t e r , t h e co re of t he work, discusses N P movement

i n Igbo wherefrom w e g e t t h e c o n s t r a i n t s on t h e s e movements.

These c o n s t r a i n t s a r e d i scussed i n t h e t h i r d chapter , These

ana ly se s , ipso f a c t o , i n c l u d e comparative analyses of some

o t h e r languages wi th l i n g u i s t i c structures relevant t o t h e

t o p i c under d i scuss ion . The las t chap t e r is t h e summary of

t he work wi th in which some conc lus ion has been drawn.

NOTE

1. The t o n e marking convention used here i s t h a t propounded by

Telmers and Nwachukwu. (cf. Nwachukwu 1983a, pp. 47-51). It has

been e l a b o r a t e l y used i n h!bah (1986). This convention i s preferred

here because of i t s economy of d t a c r i t i c s . It uses only two

symbols t o distinguish t h e t h r e e tone c o n t r a s t s i n the language.

The t o n e c o n t r a s t s a r e high, s t e p and low tones.

A sequence o f high tones means t h a t t h e first i s high whi l e

t h e second i s a s t e p tone, e.g.

&if - (HS) *p rope r name1 e

t &a - (HH) *handv

I ala- (LH) 'welcomeq (~sukka)

\ a l a - (LL) *groundv

CHAPTEk ONE

THE STRUCTURE OF IGBO EP

1.1 The c e n t r a l i d e a of t h i s chapter is discussing t h e

s t r u c t u r e of the NP in Igbo. The chapter desc r ibes t he s t a t u s

of t h e l e x i c a l category - t h e head>i.e. x i n t h e x-bar convention

and t h e phrasal category o r t he maximal p r o j e c t i o n of x i n the

same theory and t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p wi th r e s p e c t t o one another.

It is div ided i n t o two sec t ions . The f i r s t sectJon

c h a r a c t e r i z e s t h e notion 'head' i n a s y n t a c t i c category. The

second s e c t i o n d e a l s with t h e p o s i t i o n s of t h e bead noun in the

I

All ca t egor i za t ions are disqussed usisg pure ly s y n t a c t i ~

c r i t e r i a . Rowever, t h e r e is recourse t o eemantics when

s y n t p c t i c c r i t e r i a f a i l t o he lp u s a r r ive a t a conclusion.

1.2 .a THE NOTION 'HEAD I N LINGUISTICS :

Much has been done i n def in ing the no t ion 'head1 of a

p h r a s a l category i n l i n g u i s t i c s . However in Xgbo only Carf e l

(1970) has s tud ied it. Even i n English where much work has been

done on t h i s sub jec t a r e a , i n a r r i v i n g a t heads of a phraedl

category, t>re iias been much in f luence from the way h e a h a r e

determined i n morphology. It has, for i n s t ance , been observed

t h a t a f f i x e s are heads of a combination (cl. Zwicky 1984). T h i s

is because it i s bel ieved t h a t word formation is endocshkh

5 4 . t h a t a phrasa l .ca tegory can be reduced t o one of i t e

cons t i t uen t s .

Following th i sp ropos i t i on which we do not suppor t , t h a t

a f f i x e s can be heads of a combination, i t means t h a t i n the

fol lowing t n f i n i t i v e s , t h e p r e f i x is t h e head of t h e e n t i r e word.

.' / / 4. (a) l zu - ' t o s t e a l 1 f r o m i - zu ( b ) $$ - ' t o heaar' from - n{

( c ) ib{ - ' t o be ' from & - b{

( d ) &me/ - ' t o have ' from i - nwe'

( e l ik'o - ' t o s w e l l ' from i - kh

This p ropos i t i on appears convincing because i t no t only

changes t h e l e x i c a l category o f t h e verbs ( r e f e r t o example 4 )

b u t a l s o changes t h e i r tone p a t t e r n s (except f o r the low tone ones) +

1 t . r e d u c e s t h e high tone of t h e verb t o a s t e p , Anpther confusing t h e above

r e v e l a t i o n about f morphological c h a r a c t e r i s t i c * of d e r i v a t i o n

is t h a t i t appears t o copy what o b t a i n s a t t h e h ighe r domain of

s y n t a c t i c paradigms$i.e. a s p r e f i x e s happen t o be t h e heads of

l e x i c a l d e r i v a t i o n given t h e above p r o p o s i t i o n and a r e t h e

l e f t m o s t c o n s t i t u e n t s , a t t h e s y n t a c t i c l e v e l , heads a l s o appear

t o be t h e l e f t m o s t c o n s t i t u e n t s i n Igbo. e.g.

5. ( a ) V1Q gcha ?ma any$ a t o n i i l e ah?

"all those our t h r e e b e a u t i f u l whi te houses

i n t h e i r e n t i r e t y w

( b ) K r i - n i i l e ahu any i e r i c h a g h i

" tha t whole food we d id no t consume".

( c ) Nwoke qcha ahq - " t h a t l i g h t complexioned man".

I n (5) t h e u n d e r l i n e d words a r e heads of t h e p h r a s a l

c a t e g o r i e s . I n Igbo whi le heads a r e t h e l e f t m o s t c o n s t i t u e n t s ,

Pn E n g l i s h , t h e y a r e t h e r igh tmos t c o n s t i t u e n t s e.g.

6 . (a) The b i g o l d man - ( b ) A met icu lous s c h a o l t e a c h e r

( c ) My beloved g e n t l e wife.

Zwicky (1985) concedes t h e a t t r a c t i v e n e s s of t h e

e n d o c e n t r i c p r i n c i p l e i n accomodating a ' g e n e r a l principle

c a l l e d p e r c o l a t i o n which r e q u i r e s t h a t " the c a t e g o r y of a I

c o n s t r u c t and t h e c a t e g o r y o f i ts head b e i d e n t i c a l f ' . Consequently,

when i / z i s a s s i g n e d t o x, i t h a s t h e e f f e c t o f p r o j e c t i n g i h e *

c a t e g o r y ' o f x r a t h e r t h a n t h e c a t e ~ o r y of o t h e r c o n s t i t u e n t s .

\ f i a t t h i s means is t h a t t h e p r i n c i p l e o f p e r c o l a - t i o n i n

morphology p l a y s s i m i l a r r o l e s t h a t t h e Head F e a t u r e Convention

o f Gazdar and Pullum (1982) p l a y s i n syntax. Thus examples i n

(4) belong t o t h e same c a t e g o r y N f o r e x a c t l y t h e Sam? reason

t h a t members of ( 5 ) b e l o n ~ t o t h e p h r a s a l c a t e g o r y N u . The

r e a s o n ic t h a t t h e head o f each o f t h e c o n s t r u c t s is i t s e l f an N.

However i n Igbo, a c r u c i a l problem c o n f r o n t s t h i s

g e n e r a l i z a t i o n . The problem i s whether i n t h e immediate

c o n s t i t u e n t a n a l y s i s , t h e ' v e r b ' which i s a t t a c h e d t o t h e p r e f i x

pe r fo rms e x a c t q u a l i f y i n g f u n c t i o n as t h e s p e c i f i e r s i n t h e

d e t e r m i n e r p'.:.ise i n t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e p h r a s a l c a t e g o r i e s . I f

t h e y l a c k t h i s q u a l i f y i n g c h a r a c t e r because they a r e a u n i t w i t h

t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e heads , then t h e i d e a o f a p r e f i x b e i n g a head

and a verb b e i n g a m o d i f i e r of t h e p r e f i x i s n u l l i f i e d .

. . . - 2 . H U D Il? IGBO SYNTAX*

Some s c h o l a r s have considered t h e l i n e a r o rde r ing of

L z ~ t m c t i o n s . One o f such scho la r s i s Greenberg (1963). However,

t : - is l i n e a r o rde r ing l i k e t h e endocent r ic c r i t e r i o n i s no t adequate

t ccouse wi th in t h e l i n e a r i z a t i o n r u l e s , t h e r e a r e o t h e r r e l e v a n t rules*

7-f s makes is very d i f f i c u l t t o . judge t h e adequacy o f such

t m c r a l i z a t i o n . This i s t h e t y p e of c r i t e r i o n r e l e v a n t t o dependency

c-ar (see a l s o Zwicky 1985).

Another criterion i s t h e ope ra t iona l c r i t e r i o n . This i s two-

Told: t h e d i s t r i b s t i o n a l equiva len t and t h e ob l iga to ry c o n s t i t ~ e n t .

?he d i s t r 5 b u t i o n a l equiva lence c r i t e r i o n p o s i t s ' t ha t t h e head of

a cons t ruc t c h a r a c t e r i z e s i t a s a whole. This i s because it

belongs t o a category w i t h roughly t h e same d i s t r i b u t i o n a s t h e

cons t ruc t a s a whole. I n t h e words of Hockett (1958), i t i s a

c o n s t i t u e n t t h a t must l a c k mismatch w i t h those of t h e c o n s t i t u t e .

This aga in goes back t o t h e endocentr ic ism c r i t e r i o n . This

c r i t e r i o n i s also f r a u z h t w i t h problems, (this i s f r augh t w i t h

problems) because D e t + Noun i s n o t endocentr ic , This i s

because determiners , though convent iona l ly t r e a t e d a s modif iers ,

have Secn r e ~ n r d e d a s heads (see zwicky 1985). Also, i t has been

o r l y e d t h a t P + NP has n e i t h e r t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n a l equiva lence o f

- p n o r Fjp, r a t h e r it combines wi th V a l o n e o r wi th V and h p t o

nake a ca tegory VP.

The ob l iga to ry c o n s t i t u e n t c r i t e r i o n holds t h a t a head

c>arac ter i s%ng a construct must be p r e s e n t always i n the cons t ruc t .

::imply p u t , i t is obl iga tory . However, i t i s necessary t o

d i s t i n g u i s h between op t iona l ly present and e l l i p t i c a l c o n s t i t u e n t s

i n o rder t o f u l l y comprehend t h i s i d e a of ob l iga to r ines s .

In : V + NP

NP i s op t iona l

IIowever i n V + NP, V can be e l l i p t i c a l as i s in t h e condi t ion of

i d e n t i t y . ' \ /

7. (a) E r z r i m j i n\a agwa

'1 ate yam and beans"

'He k i l l e d a r a b b i t and a g o i t '

( c ) Ida ' na ~ndkcf &a &a

*Ada and Nwoke went t o t h e market'.

The above cons t ruc t ions are e l l i p t i c a l cons t ruc t ions of

8. (a) 6rLi m j l

/ - E r i r i m agwa

and h'wo'kd g\ara +a r e spec t ive ly .

Unlike op t iona l ly p re sen t c o n s t i t u e n t s , elliptical

c o n s t i t u e n t s a re -unders tood t o be p re sen t though covert ly .

!r. T~bo, in :

N + D l ' , N i s obligatory

V + N", V is obligatory

Aux + V 9 , V is obligatory

Comp + S, S i s obligatory

(?be COMp cannot occur without S but the reverse i s possible)

~9~ + V', V is obligatory

p + Nw P i s obligatory

"esa are true because i n Igbo unlike i n mglish, nounlesa nouns

cannat obtain. In m g l i s h , w e have such examples as

Mine etc.

Tn Tgbo, nke i s a proform which blocks this type of construction

and we cannot have e l l i p t i c a l nounless nouns e.g. In.

Ada9 s cloth

Ada' s book

Ada's mirror

all the possessed items can be substituted by nke when the I

context is already established. The problem with this

operational cr i te r ion a s may be with other cr i ter ia already

1

reviewed i s whether i t p l ays any sys temat ic role in s y n t a c t i c

theory ( s e e a l s o Zwicky 1986). I n o the r words, i t is s t i l l

Inadequate.

A more s u b t l e approach i n determining the head o r head

l i k e no t ion i s t h a t bf Zwicky (1985) which has as a major

c r i t e r i o n the determinat ion of head i n s y n t a c t i c perco la t ion .

Zwickyos (1985) propos i t ion is t h a t t he head must dominate t he

whole cons t ruc t i n whatever p o s i t i o n i t might be. J e s p e r s e n l s

(1924) semantic-argument t reatment of determining head i s

s i m i l a r l y and s t r i k i n g l y comprehensive. He speaks of words w i th

'primary ranks1 r a t h e r than heads. H e d,efines t h e no t ion of rank

i n t e rns of a p r imi t ive semantic no t ion of d e f i n i t i o n ,

q u a l i f i c a t i o n o r modification. He w r i t e s :

I n any composite denomination of a t h i n g o r person..., we always f i n d t h a t t h e r e is one word of supreme importance t o which the o t h e r s a re joined as subordinates . TI., chief word, (emphasis ou r s ) i s def ined ( q u a l i f i e d , modified) by another word which i n t u r n may be def ined ( c p a l i f i e d , modified) by a t h i r d ward etc, We are the re fo re l e d t o e s t a b l i s h d i f f e r e n t ranks of words according t o t h e i r mutual relation as def ined o r def in ing (p. 96).

I n t h e ,combination:

p ' \ vl? I s e ah? - "those f i v e houses'' 1 \

i f w e fo l low Jespe r sen8s ranking system, ~ 1 9 is t h e primary word

which i s immediately quan t i f i ed by Xse which is i n t u r n q u a l i f i e d

by the l a s t word t h a t can consequently be ranked as t h e t e r t i a r y

word.

Thus this marks a r e l a t i o n which can be captured i n what

i s now c a l l e d morphosyntactic locus. This is the l o c u s t h a t

morks s y n t a c t i c r e l a t i o n s between t h e cons t ruc t and o t h e r

s y n t a c t i c units. A similar d e f i n i t i o n has been put forward by

Ricrnsdijk and ~illiak (1986) as fol lows: Ifthe head node shares

some fundamental p roper t4es with the p h r a s a l node conta in ing

it". I n o t h e r words, i t s o b l i g a t o r i n e s s must be implied o r

expressed overtly i n the cons t ruc t ion . Chomsky (7965) p r e s e n t s

t h i s i n a formulaic manner.

A i s a lexical category i f t h e r e i s a base r u l e of the

form A d CS o r A --+ [+A] and ther,e i s a t l e a s t one

l e x i c a l e n t r y containing t h e ' f e a t u r e ( + A )

This is be l ieved t o be language un ive r sa l , Igbo observes t h i s

r u l e but t h e p o s i t i o n of the head d i f f e r s from those of many

o the r l z n p a g e s .

1.2.2 POSITION OF HEADS OF NPs IN IGBO SYNTAX:

In languages such as Engl i sh , t he head of t h e NP i s

dominantly t he r ightmost c o n s t i t u e n t because such languages a r e

head-f inal languages (refer t o 4a-c). This has made i t easy t o

de r ive t h e i r phrase s t r u c t u r e r u l e s as w e l l as make c a t e g o r i c a l

s ta tements about t he heads of t h e i r NP s t r u c t u r e s .

I n Igbo, t h e p i c t u r e is not t h e same. This is because

q u a l i f i e r s can precede as wel l as fol low t h e head noun, In

add i t i on t o this, t h e noun i t s e l f can perform qua l i fy ing

17

functions. This makes it difficult to assume that there is

class of words that can be adjectives per se whose privilege

of occurrence is restricted only to the adjective position e-g . #

l o . a Mmad; <jog . ah; that bad personf

( b ) NW&~$ (ma 'good woman'

(c) & i d ndc 'water of life1

In 10a-c, the head of the NPs are the initial nouns. This

is because they are oblig~tory elements within the NPs and they

share, as suggested in Riemsdijk and Williams (19861, certain

fundamental properties with the whole phrases. In essence, their

existence within the phrases is seminalDto the meaning of the

phrases as a whole. The NPs can'be represented as

71. NP 4 N + CAP)

In some other FTPs however, the head noun does not come at

t h e initial position e.g,

12. (a) a'j? m a d $ 'bad person'

(b) o't'u dnye lone personf

( c ) &urn big house

Here, the qualifiers precede the head nouns, Coqsequently

the head nouns are final in the NPs. This gives a rewrite rule

0 f

13. NP ----A ( AP) + N

In yet another instance, one may observe that the head noun

may occur at the medial position e .g .

14. ( a ) o t u m a d e - ojp? 'one bad person ' ( b ) ndc nmady i r i ' t e n m i l l i o n persons '

( c ) a jq p p w a a n y i - i t o o l u ' n ine bad women'

Here, t he head nouns occur w i t h i n t h e medial p o s i t i o n o f

t h o NPs.

What is deduc .. i b l e from t h e above is t h a t t h e head noun . .

w3ich is ob l iga to ry within t h e NP can occur both i n i n i t i a l ,

Zedia l o r f i n a l p o s i t i o n s wi th in t h e NP. Emenanjo (1978) h a s

studied t h e i s s u e of head cons t ruc t ions ex tens ive ly . H e has I

cone f u r t h e r t o e l ' u c i d a t e t h e PS r u l e s , whichlgiven t h e above

examples 10-12, a r e far- reaching. The s t r ,uc ture of the NP,

fol lowing Emenanjo (1978) would l ook like:

15. (A ) + N + (A+P+NM+Q+D+Q+RC)

where ( ) = o p t i o n a l i t y

A = a d j e c t i v e

N = N o ~ n

P = Pronominal modif ier

Nm = Numeral

Q = Quan t i f i e r

D = Demonstrative

1X P I ~ c l : ~ t I v c cln~xnc.

If we r e f e r t o I o r f i g u r e 3 , t h e PS rule of t h e Igbo NP

can be c l e a r l y understood. All o p t i o n a l e lements w i t h i n x ' except

x complement x. This i s captured i n fienanjg (1978) (cf 15 above) ,

13

In conclusion, we can say t h a t t h e Igbo noun h a s many

privileges of occurrence as seen in 10-12. The change in 5.t~

n y n t a c t i c p o s i t i o n is n e c e s s i t a t e d by t h e f a c t t h a t its m o d i f i e r s

can precede as well as follow it.

CHAPTER TIJO

NP NOVE3tIENT RULES IN IGBO SYNTAX

2.1 INTRODUCTION :

In this chapter, we p2esent NP movement rules in Igbo ( 1 9 7 7 )

syntax . Following jackendof fLstrictlg, certain assumptions

have been made. It is assumed that the categorial components

which are a subcomponent of the base component include a set of

context-free phrase structure rules that define the hierarchical

syntactic categories of Igbo and thus simultaneously determine

the order (left-to-right) of the immediate constituent (Ic) of

each category.

It is also assumed that,PS rules generate a set of phrase

markers whose initial symbol is S and its terminal symbols are

the lexemes of the language. Also the.lexica1 insertion is

constrained by subcategorization and selectional restriction.

As Jackendoff (1972) argues, these restrictions constitute a

well formedness condition on semantic interpretation. It is also

assumed that the terminal symbols can be left unfilled with

lexical items resulting in an ternpty nodeg. The preterminal . symbols contain phonological null items pro or PRO. However the

empty node must be filled at some point in the derivation for

it to be meaningful at the level of logical form (LF). In

essence, only those items introduced by adjunction can be

deleted by transformation. Finally, there is the assumption

that the phrasal markers with the lexical formatives generated

21

hy t h e base component c o n s t i t u t e t h e underlying s t r u c t u r e o r

poss ib ly the deep s t r u c t u r e (DS) of t h e sentence.

The chap te r i s divided i n t o t h r e e sec t ions . The f irst

aec t ion in t roduces t h e gene ra l p r i n c i p l e 'Move a lpha ' . The

two o t h e r s e c t i o n s d i scuss lp movement and wh-movement.

Transformafional opera t ions a r e r e l a t e d i n deep and s u r f a c e

stmctures by mcve a lpha ( ), where Alpha i s a v a d a b l e Over

s y n t a c t i c ca t egor i e s , here t h e NP category. I t s fundamental idea

is t h a t a s t r u o t u r e may be a l t e r e d i n any way by %aving anyth ing

anywhere". Independent p r i n c i p l e s w i l l then determine w)la t w i l l

b e moved and i t s l and ing site, t h u s a l lowing the t ransfopnat ion

f t s e l f t o b e s t a t e d i n a rnaxirnalli ~ e n e r a l way. This i s an aspect

of t h e p r o j e c t i o n p r i n c i p l e which fol lowing S e l l s (1985)~ states:

Representa t ions a t each s p t a c t i c l e v e l a r e p ro j ec t ed from t h e lex icon i n t h a t they observe the subcategori- z a t i o n p r o p e r t i e s of l e x i c a l items (p.30).

This p r i n c i p l e , a b a s i c t e n e t i n t h e Government and Binding

framework, s t a t e s that "a c o n s t i t u e n t i s on t h e mapping between

s u r f a c e and deep s t x v c t u r e and LF t o t h e e f f e c t that if' t h e r e

i s an hrp p o s i t i o n i n a certain s t r u c t u r a l conf igura t ion a t on9

level, t h a t I\TP p o s i t i o n must be p re sen t a t a l l l eve l sw . Th i s i s

a very important condi t ion because d e s p i t e t h e f a c t t h a t an W

may b e ex t r ac t ed from i t s p o s i t i o n , thereby l e a v i n g behind a

phonological ly n u l l category, (the pro o r PRO o r r e s ~ n p t i v e

pronoun!, i t s trace must be there. The moved NP will have a

22

s i t e t o l and - t h e l and ing s i t e where i ts form is r e a l i z e d f u l l y .

A p o i n t t o no?e about t h i s movement is t h a t i t must b e meaning-

p r e ~ e r v i n g (see N e i j t 1980). An irnporkant c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of

the l a n d i n g site i s that it must be of t h e same lexical ca tegory

as t h e e x t r a c t i o n s i t e , It is this i d e n t i t y that warran ts

the ability of t he landing s i t e to accep t t h e extracted i t em e.$,

# \

16. (a) Anq rn riri r e r e u r g

Meat I eat past decay decadence

"The meat I a t e decayed"

5 Upderlying s t r u c t u r e :

NP NP PSP VP VP

(b) Ext r ac t i on :

Landing :

riri

S2 NF' NPL NP VP VP S2

- 2 landing site I

e x t r a c t i o n s i t e

(a rn r i r i : o l J , 1 [ r e m u r e ] ] NP NP VP VP Sf

s> An! rn r ir i (01 r e r e ure .

2 3

Ynlike i n Igbo, i n English we do n o t have resumptive pronouns.

3 5 s i s because t h e e x t r a c t i o n s i t e where t he movement starts

rcmuins p e r p e t u a l l y empty as t h e movement ho ld s e . g .

17. The boy I bea t came here.

( a ) Underlying S t r u c t u f c :

NP I b e a t t h e boy came he re

bea t came h e r e

Surface S t r u c t u r e :

( c ) The boyl I bea t ei came he re

4 The boy I b e a t came here. #

2.3, MOVE NP

In t r y i n g t o d i s c u s s t h i s t o p i c , we have tried t o p rov ide

amwers t o the fo l lowing ques t ions :

( a ) Is t h e r e any particular position t h a t NPs move t o i r r e s p e c t i v e

of t h e massive g e n e r a l i z a t i o n of t h e nave a l p h a hypo thes i s a l r e a d y

zent ioned, and reproduced h e r e f o r convenience.

18. 'Move'

Move any category a lpha anywhere. . (b) Af te r NP has been moved, what happens t o t h e vacated p o s i t i o n ?

Does t h e movement l e a v e a phonolog ica l ly n u l l trace i n WP p o s i t i o n ? 1

( c ) Can t h i s movement be a s s o c i a t e d w i t h c o n t r o l ?

The answers w i l l be ev iden t from t h e fo l lowing hT movements:

2.1 TERSED CLAUSS NP MOV21ENT:

Th is KP movement i nvo lves tensed c l a u s e s wi th ve rbs of r a i s i n g .

Ssch verbs i n fgbo are*

AS a pre-requisi te f o r movements i n fgbo t h e b a s i c assumption i s

tht t h e Np p o s i t i o n of t h e matrix sentence (i.e, landing site)

5 s empty. e.6.

/ 0 - # 20, Fmiri d i ka o ga-ezo

Water i s like i t will r a i n . The rafn is likely t o f a l l .

N m i ri 1 & d i ka o ga-ezo

rollowing o u r earlier assumption t h a t t h e NP p o s i t i o n on t he

r a t e x sentence has t o be empty, t h e above te rminal s t r uc tu r e

is obtained. T h i s empty rTP position then warrants t h e subject

of t he embedded sentence t o be moved, thus

Fig. 7: Ex t r ac t i on

p r e s e n t

Landing :

Fig. 8:

I N

mmiri pre sen t i

=> h i r i d+ ka oi ga-ezo.

The movement makes t h e r e a l i z a t i o n o f a r e s y p t i v e profloun a t

the e x t r a c t i o n s i t e p o s s i b l e - a r e a f f i r m a t i o n of our e a r l i e r

con ten t ion t h a t first, t h e NP p o s i t i o n of t h e ma t r i x sen tence

i s u n f i l l e d by lexical i n s e r t i o n . When the embedded subject gets

ra ised i n t o this higher node, t h a t p roces s of s u b j e c t raising

l e z v e s beh-ind an a p p r o p r i . ~ t e pronoun at t h e e x t r a c t i o n s i t e .

This is i l l u s t r a t e d below:

S t r u c t u r e :

ike 1 [ nwer e

V P

Ex t r ac t i on : r

Landing :

[. ro-I nwere ike

T h i s e x t r a c t i o n l e a v e s u s wi th some two o p t i o n s ( r e f l e c t i n g

dialectal v a r i a t i o n s i n t h e language). I n some dialects most ly

i n t h e sou the rn Igbo d i a l e c t s , i t would be unaccep tab le t o have f

22. (a) ('1 66 m e r e i k e bya8

What they would r a t h e r have i s : /

(b ) 6s nwere ike bya.

Rowever i n Nsukka d i a l e c t , t h e former i s a c c e p t a b l e r e f l e c t i n g

t h e s t r i c t a l l e g i a n c e t o t h e resurnptive pronoun phenomenon. I n

h'suklia a l s o , the resurnptive pronoun i s c o - r e f e r e n t i a l , as i n a l l

cases of the resuxptive pronoun, with t h e moved c o n s t i t u e n t (0gu).

A c l o s e r look at t h i s NP movement will r e v e a l t h a t i t is

. t t y p i c a l v i o l a t i o n of the tensed c l ause c o n s t r a i n t which s t a t e s ,

'no element can be ex t r ac t ed from a tensed c lauseh ( c f . chapter 3) ,

The above movement has the fol lowing form change:

23. ~ ( e ) V' COMP/S N f INFL V '

(Compare with Question formation NP movement p. 28ff).

T h i s movement has been pos i t ed t o i n t e r a c t wi th t he N P

prcposing and NP postposing of t h e passive formation i n Er-glish.

iIowever t he s y n t a c t i c p a t t e r n s of Igbo do fiat permit pas s ive

transformation. e.g. , ,

24. E kwru na Q ga-abya Tt i s said t h a t he will comer' /

A gbara ha egbe "8smeone s h o t t h e m ; r

E ke re ya eke " It was d i v i d e d "

Passive t ransformation is l i censed by many shared p r o p e r t i e s

of sen tences t h a t can be passivized. These p r o p e r t i e s are

cmmarized as follows:

25. (a) Passive morphology ( a u x i l i a r y p l u s pas s ive p ~ r t i c i p l e )

(b) An op t iona l b~ - NP agent phrase

(c) A subject t h a t de r ives some of i t s e s s e n t i a l

c h a r e c t e r i s t i c s from an NP > o s i t i o n somewhere t o t h e

r i g h t of t h e pas s ive verb, (cf. Riemsdijk and Williams

1986).

25(a) and (b) a r e cons t ruc t ion - bound e s p e c i a l l y s i n c e (a) is

not relevant for passive nominals. It is also postulated that

(c) which is solely responsible for positing the passive rule

actually shows up in other construction in English. In Igbo

(cf. 24) we do not have these conditions for p a s s i v e formation,

hcnce such movements do not obtain in the language,

2.3 -3 QUESTIOM FORMATION NP 'f0VEKENT:

NP movement in question formation will be better

appreciated if we assume that in the underlying structure of any

construction, there is a presentential node such as Q, Reg,

IMP etc, These tell us the farm of such a construction. In

~es/Fo questions in Igbo, the NP subject pf the declarative

~cntence moves into the position of the empty dummy symbol Q.

This movement fills it, This gives room at the extraction site

for the resumptive pronoun.

There are two plausible interpretations of what happens a t

the presentential node as regards the low tone question marker.

Ve have to assume that there are two autosegments to each

syllabls of a tone language. One is the tonal tier while the

other is the segmental tier. Bow this affects syntactic movemen' . i:; rcvcaled in t h i s example:

' \ O d o Q gn-aby&?

Underlyin~ Structure:

Fig. 9 : s

INFL

29

ISr t ra c t i o n :

?!6. 10 :

y:?e p r e s e n t w a - 1 node i s as a t t h e e x t r a c t i o n and movement not

ye t f i l l e d by any lexicon. This movement also leaves a resumpt iv t

pronoun a t t h e e x t r a c t i o n site. This gives t h e fo l lowing

s t ruc tu re :

?i ga abya

A s a low tone i s a p r e r e q u i s i t e f o r ques t ion formation i n

?gbo e s p e c i a l l y w i t h pronouns, a f t e r this movement t h e low t o n e

i s introduced on t h e resumptive pronoun t o realize it ag an

tnterrogative construct ion. This w i l l be of t h e fo l lowing

configurat ion.

-

Oda i N I P L V

It i s worthy of n o t e here t h t . t h i s cons t ruc t ion can mean a

di f fe ren t thing, that is, w i t h regard t o i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e

pronoun wi th re ference t o t he subject Og3. The resumptive pronoun

30

a i g h t be d i s j o i n t i n re fe rence , This means t h a t i t might mean

OF o r i t might r e f e r t o a third par ty i n the d i scourse , It

w i l l be of t h e fo l lowing indexation ( s c e a160 Nwachukwu (7988) 1.

Fig* 73 :

' 0 j

abya.

Eowever t h i s results from a d i f f e r e n t in tona t ion . There must be

a c l ause , a paxse a f t e r t he e x t r a c t e d i t em - Ogu. Thus we have:

*pi' ?i( j) ga-abya,

D i s j o i n t r e f e rence i s what is r e n l i q e d i n Nsukka and by

extension the Korthern I ~ b o d i a l e c t s whi le i n t h e Southern

d i a l e c t s , once t h e pause i s introduced, t h e resumptive pronoun

cannot be i n t e r p r e t e d as being c o - r e f e r e n t i a l w i t h t h e moved

cons t i t uen t ,

The second i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of what happens at the presenten-

tial l e v e l dur ing ques t ion formation is t h a t the p r e s e n t e n t i a l

node can be f i l l e d w i t h a low tone. T h i s l o w tone is s o f i x e d

t h a t any o the r tone coming i n with t h e e x t r a c t e d i t em must be

changed t o a low tone. This i s what o b t a i n s i n Oha Ozara and

its surrzrrnding d i a l e c t s e, g,

Fig. 14: S

v ' . (L) I

N

# 26. Anya'byara (declarative)

Anya came \ Anya o byara (quest ion)

Anya he came?

byara

There i s a movement of t h e sub jec t t o t h e p r e s e n t e n t i a l level.

f This wi l l hatch a resumptive pronoun.

The t one of t h e p r e s e n t e n t i a l node "overpowers" t h e h i g h and

s t e p tones on Anya and conver t s them t o low tones.

There i s s t i l l another way of looking a t t h e movement rule.

T h i s view holds t h a t i t i s t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n of the low tone

autosegment question marker t h a t n c c c s s i t n t c s t h e vowcl ns a

s u f f i x t o t he tone. T h i s i s necessary i n o rde r t h a t the low

tone can be r ea l i zed . This i s e x t r i n s i c i n 60 fa r as the vowel

w a s imposed so as t o achieve an o b j e c t i v e , t h a t of r e a l i z i n g t h e

autosegment, which must have some pronuncia t ion t o be f u l l y

r ea l i zed .

T h i s p r o p o s i t i o n however leaves many questions unanswered.

If the vowel s u f f i x i s an appendix of t h e tone , why does i t Copy

the W moved? It i s t y p i c a l l y a rcsumptive pronoun because it

a l s o cop i e s the i d e n t i t i e s of plural nouns e.g.

27. ~h<kwu ni dd; je re ghYs

Underlying Structure: -

( d l Question formation Low tone Flarkcr Int roduced:

NP h'Pi W VP S S

=> Chukwu nn Odo ha :ore ahya?

Thus, the s t r u c t u r e of the i n t e r r o g a t i v e will look like:

Fig. 17: S

33

The resumptive pronoun has been argued by G o l d s m i t h (1976)

t o h e a c l i t ic . However t h e resumptive pronoun phenomenon i s

no t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of Igbo langrrage a lone ; Hausa ('lusuf 1985!,

and Vata a Kuru language o f Ivory Coast observe t h i s phenomenon.

The i s s u e of o b j e c t c l i t i c s and pro has been a c o n t r o v e r s i a l

one. They belong t o t h e category pronominal. S tud ie s i n d i f f e r e n t

languages e. g. S a f i r (1985) and o t h e r s p r e s e n t such cont rovers ies .

Yere, we present one o f such arguments i n Phi l ippaki-Tarburtan

(1985) of modern Greek. I n Greek we have-

28. (a) Ksero t o j a n i

Know-1 t h e - Acc John ' a c c

1 know John

(b) t o n kse ro

him know 1

ton kse ro t o jan5

him know 1 t h e Acc-John Acc

I know John.

Tn 28(a) t h e Bsc- b?p t o Jani fo l lowing t h e t r a n s i t i v e verb {s

subcategorized i n t h e verb, performs a 0 - r o l e as r equ i r ed by

the verb and carries t h e a c c u s a t i v e case t h a t i s assigned t o i t

by t h e verb. These a r e a l s o s a t i s f i e d by t h e c l i t i c - t on i n (b).

Consequently one may s e e t h e c l i t i c a s t h e d i r e c t o b j e c t argument

of t h e verb. he' problem which is a s s o c i a t e d wi th t h i s assumption i s

t h a t it does n o t occupy t h e d i r e c t o b j e c t argument p o s i t i o n i.e. a s a sister of t h e verb unlike lexical NP of

T h i s l e a d s Phil ippaki-l larburton t o assume t h a t i t i s

generated in t h e same p o s i t i o n (baze) a:? a lexical d i r e c t o b j e c t

and must t he re fo re c o n s t i t u t e i ts s u b s t i t u t e .

Fig. 78:

The above r e p e s e n t a t i o n appears reasonable because c l i t i c a

are pronouns and pronouns a r e expected t o co-occur i n t h e position

as l e x i c a l NPs. I n t h i s p o s i t i o n the case and 0 r o l e of t h e

e l l t i c i n (b) a r e expressed i n the same way as those of the

l e x i c a l NP of (a). It t h e r e f o r e r e q u i r e s a r u l e t h g t w i l l move I

t he clitic t o the preverbal p o s i t i o n as i n (b). This h a s been

suggested by Kayne (7975) f o r French and Philfppaki-Warburton

(1987) f o r Modern Greek.

However R i z z i ( 7 9 8 2 ) sugges ts a movement r u l e which Chomsky

(1982) follows. T h i s r u l e stems from t h e empty category

p r i n c i p l e as shown below.

Fig. 19: V' '

The c o - s e f e r e n t i a l i t y between c l i t i c and e fo l lows n a t u r a l l y

from movement ana lys i s . The Binding Condition which s t a t e s t h a t

a pronominal must be f r e e i n i ts governing category is s a t i s f f e d .

E i n t he above f i g u r e is marked by case and i s t h e r e f o r e a

v a r i a b l e - f r e e in i ts governing category.

The requirement t h a t v a r i a b l e s must b e A bound i s

f u l f i l l e d if, following Chomsw (1982*88), i t i s assumed t h a t

the preve rba l p o s i t i o n of t he c l i t i c i s n o t an aryurncnt (A-)

but a non-argument (A-) pos i t i on .

However J a e g g l i (1982) does not support t h i s propos i t ion .

He argues t h a t it cannot adcount f o r c l i t i c doubling which

obta ins i n c o l l o q u i a l French and River P l a t e Spanish eg.

29. l o vimos a Juan

him saw-we t o John

W e saw John

He.contends t h a t a Juan i s t h e element s a t i s ~ i n ~ t h e

subca tegor iza t ion frame of the verb and c a r r y i n g t h e Q-ro le

assigned by it. He consequently, conclus ive ly , cons iders a

Juan a s a d i r e c t ob jec t . S ince t h e @ - c r i t e r i o n r equ i r e s , he

contends, t h a t +role be assigned t o only one bF, then i t

e n t a i l s t h a t l o cannot be generated i n a pos tve rba l argument

p o s i t i o n since it would r e s u l t , i n t h e DS a s a double o b j e c t

element. He summarizes by sayin6 t h a t o b j e c t c l i t i c i s i n essence

basegenerated i n i t s p reve rba l p o s i t i o n which i s a non-arguhent

(A) pos i t ion .

R i z z i i n a suggest ion adopted by Chomsky (1982) and S a f i r

(1985) ~ s a i t s t h a t c l i t i c 10 absorbs t h e a c c u s a t i v e case while - t h e d a t i v e case i s assigned t o Juan by a prepos i t ion . He

exemplif ies

* l o v h o s Juan

A p r e p o s i t i o n has t h e r e f o r e been added, which a s s i g n s case t o

i t and produces a grammatical s t r u c t u r e :

(b) l o viaos a Juan

Borer (1984) aLcepts t h e base generation hypothes i s of

c l i t i c a s w e l l as i t s s t a t u s as a non argument but with some

modif icat ions . He c la ims t h a t t h e c l i t i c is not a c o n s t i t u e n t

of 7 but a f e a t u r e of V. T h i s t a k e s c a r e of t h e problem

inc lud ing J a e g g l i l s where t h e c l i t i c d i d not C-command e (p ro )

which made i t ob l iga to ry t h a t a s p e c i a l non s t r u c t u r e dependent

rule of coindexat ion must be r equ i r ed i? o r d e r t o e s t a b l i s h

co-reference between the clitic and e.

Fig. 20:-

l e x i c a l NP I " I (cf . Borer 1983:35)

The r evea l ing f a c t here i s t h a t whether i t invo lves movement

o r no t , t h e c l i t i c , i n i t s p reve rba l p o s i t i o n is not an argument

but a non-arwrnent element (cf. Phil ippalci- l~larburton (1 987) ),

Philippaki-Varburton (1987) a l s o agrees t h a t 5.t is base-

generated b u t she argues t h a t t h e rule does not apply under

syn tax b u t i n t he phonological- cornpollent i n a way analogous t o

Engl ish Affix-Hopping and as such i t l e a v e s a t r ace .

38

(see Philippaki-k!arburton ( 1987 ) 1. I n Igbo, t h e l e x i c a l head

and thc resumptive pronoun are one - not independent of each

o t h e r , a t l e a s t logically; and are co - r e fe ren t i a l . Also t h e

resumptive pronouns are always fully r e a l i z e d p h o n o ~ o g i c a l l y .

In Grcek as well as in o t h e r l a n m a g c s , t h e c l i t i c must be

ad jacent t o t h e verb as i t is i n French. This is so because

i t i s e s s e n t i a l f o r both government and 0- ro le assignment. The

rcsumptive pronoun is v i a b l e on ly i f a l e x i c a l head can fo l l ow

the clitic. Howcver, in Igbo, resumptive pronouns can be both

s u b j e c t ( o / ? ) o r o b j e c t (ya), They r e c e i v e t h e i r Q r o l e from

and arc covorncd by INFL. Another d i f f e r e n c e i s that while

Phi l ippak i -Xarbur t on ( I 987 ) , Borer (7983) and Chomsky (1 982)

agree that thc clitic is b a s e - ~ e n e r a t e d , resumptive pronouns

a r e a r e s u l t of t rans format ions . L a s t l y , whi le t h e p resence of

a c l i t i c usurps sen tence s t r e s s from t h e l e x i c a l head ( e c t u s a t i v e ) ,

this i s n o t s o w i t h resumptive pronouns. These a r e enough

reasons t o b e l i e v e that c l i t i c s are n o t i d e n t i c a l w i th resumptive

pronouns I

I n Igbo, we have f o u r nominal complements which are

s e n t e n t i a l i n form. They a r e t h e ' i r a d i t i o n a l noun c l a u s e s which Jike

can occupy t h e sub j ec t o r o b j e c t p o s i t i o n j u s t .k a n NP. They

have t h e fol lowing s t r u c t u r a l con f igu ra t i on : /

Fig. Tf:

Uni-2e the hrP p o s i t i o n s we have already seen, here t h e COMP

is a l r eady f i l l e d . These C O W heads present a n i n t e r e s t i n g

s tudy because they go wi th d i f f e r e n t cons t ruc t ions and they a r e

no t equa l ly amenable t o movement rules. Of the four of them,

only t h e na-clause can undergo movement of ex t r apos i t t on . n

Here t h e r e a r e two p o s s i b l e t ransformat ions : e i t h e r d e l e t e

o r extrapose.

The Ra - Complement:

A s recognized by Nwachukwu, when t h e complementizer n\a i s

removed from the clause, what remains will be a f u l l sentence e.g

31. N a o/c

emebeghi ya

gzbeghi eme y a ... . ka ga-aga

meela ya e t c .

From the above examples, another f e a t u r e of t h e sentential

complement i s unwound: it does n o t impose any sequence of tense

restraint on the verb of the embedded sentence. D i f f e r e n t l y

pu t , any t ense is p o s s i b l e i n t he c l ause r e g a r d l e s s of t he t e n s e

of t h e mat r ix clause. Thirdly, s t i l l fo l lowing Nwachukwu, i t

i s the only complement c lause t h a t a s s e r t s the t r u t h of what i t

s ays , a f f i - ~ n s o r declares. It is factive; it is verifiable

0 wutcrc m na Q byaghi

It pain past I t h a t s/he come n o t

It pained mc t h t s/hc d i d not corno'

Na m ahygh-i, ya gwuru m ike

That I scc him finish past I s t r e n g t h

"That I d i d n o t see him made m e t i r ed" .

Ra o kwuru ya mere e j i gbuo ya

That s/he say past i t make p a s t someone k i l l him/her

"That s/he said i t caused his deatht1.

By v i r t u e of t hc ve rbs - wute ' p a in ' , gwy ' f i n i s h ' and

cbuo ' k i l l 1 , i t prcmpposes o r enta i l s t h e t r u t h of what they

say: That s in ,p ln r f a c t e n a b l e s

t r an s fo rma t ions - to t h e matrix

is empty, e.g.

N a byagh? wutere m

Underlying Structure:

Fig. 22: s

it t o undLrgo

s en t ence when

A- N wutere rn

S

movement

t h e NP position

Pie. 23. Movement and Ext rapos i t ion

0 n 7 , ~ ; " ~ h % \ - - p wutere m

-. - --- - --* The whole s e n t c n t i a l h'P i s extraposed t o t h e end o f t h e

T sentence a s shown i n (18~:. This movement enables t h e head F ' P

to bc realised fully.

5 6 . 24. Landing

COMP S

/ P, na o bya ghi

=3 0 wutere m na ? byaghi

The o t h e r t ransformat ion d e l e t e will amount t o deleting

t h e entire NP complement. This will a l s o enable the head FP

to be realized fully. .

32. (a) 0 wutere m

(b) Dele te -

(c) Q wutere m

One deficiency o f this transformation i s t h a t thouch under

established context what pained the speaker could be understood,

the sentence lacks t h e meaning o f t h e complement. This i s

because of t h e fact t h t N i s noc t h e same a s t h e s e n t e n t i a l

complement S f . This is captured i n Fig. 20.

Fig. 25:

The renaining t h r e e s e n t e n t i a l complements a r e not ~ u b j e c t

t o t h e movement rule. This i s because ka subjunctive conplement

expresses a wish, o r anopen proposition. The Ma clause introduces

t h e in te r roga t ive while s i heads an embedded imperative sentence.

Their common f e a t u r e a s w e l l a s t h e b a r r i e r whlch does not permit

them t o move i s t h a t none of them i s declarat ive. Tkrey are no t

f a c t i v e and they do not claim o r deny t h e t m t h o f what they say.

Vhether they w i l l be f u l f i l l e d depends heavily on t h e r e a l i z a t i o n

o f requests which cannot be verif ied. It i s after t h e

fu l f i lment of t h e i r request t h a t they become v e r i f i u b l e f a c t s

which can be collapsed i n t o the na - fact ive.

2.3.4 THE TSSTJE Oa PRO IN IGBO-

We f ind it necessaly t o d iscuss PFO here. This i s not

necessa r i ly because i t involves movement pe r se but because of

i ts complex r e l a t i o n wi th t h e sub junc t ive - a s e n t e n t i a l

complement i n Igbo. P80 which does no t seem t o e x i s t i n Igbo, as

is proposed here, can t h e r e f o r e n e i t h e r have involved a movement

nor a resumptive pronoun.

PRO is one of t he empty c a t e g o r i e s (EC) proposed by Charnab

(7982). Chomsky proposed i t whi le attempting t o p rev ide an

account of t he p r o p e r t i e s of a n empty ca tegory andq the i r

d i s t r i b u t i o n i n terms of o t h e r general p r i n c i p l e s . PRO is unique

because i t clearly d i f f e r s from o t h e r empty c a t e g o r i e s i n t h a t

i t occupies an ungoverned pos i t i on . Thus i t i s t h e on ly EC that

escapes t he Empty Category P r i n c i p l e (ECP) which s t a t e s t h a t an

EC must be proper ly governed, ' I n Se l l s (1985) i t is formulated

as : ECP

A trace must be p rope r ly governed.

33. Proper Government

d governs i f f

(a) b governs & and 4 is l e x i c a l

(N, V, A, P) or

(b) d: locally A - binds

PRO v i o l a t e s t h i s rule - It always occupies an

ungoverned pos i t ion . D i f f e r e n t l y p u t , fo l lowing Riemsdijk and

Williams (1986), i t sometines behaves like an anaphor whi le a t

o t h e r t imes , i t does not. Let u s examine t he se examples:

44

34 . (a ) I e x p e c t PIX t o l e a v e

( b ) R?O t o l e a v e i s dangerous .

I n ( b ) PI30 i s f r e e and canno t be an a n a p h o r w h i l e i n (a) i t bs

n o t f r e e and canno t be f r e e l y i n t e r p r e t e d . It i s the re fo rc

ambiguous as i t can be L n t e r p r c t e d i n at l e a s t two ways.

T h i s i s c l e a r e r i n :

The c h i c k e n s are r e a d y t o eat.

T h i s can be i n t e r p r e t e d as:

35. (a) The c h i c k e n s arc ready e NPi t o eat.

or (b) The chickens arc ready f o r someone t o ea t e i

A s o b s e r v e d above , t h e a m b i s u i t y h a s l e d t o i n d e x a t i o n which. #

r e f l e c t s d i s j o i x t and a n u p 5 o r i c r e f e r e n c e s and nnaphors . Also

t h i s ambigu i ty has l e d Riemsd i jk and i . l i l l i ams (1986) t o

d i s t i n , - t l i s h between o b l i p t o r y c o n t r o l F2O a s s o c i a t e d wi th C O W

and a n o n - a b l i g a t o r y PRG which o c c u r s among i n f i a i t i v a l s u b j e c t s ,

i n f i n i t i v a l r e l a t i v e s and i n f i n i t i v e q u e s t i o n s , They f i n d t h i s

clumsy and hzve r e d e f i n e d i t t h u s :

... t h e r e a r e s p e c i f i c c n v i r o n a e n t s i n which PRO must 5 e nnaphor i c r a t h e r t h a n a s c r i b i n ? ; t h e ('+ a n a p h o r i c ) i n h e r e n t l y t o PRC i t s e l f . Thus t h e s u b j e c t p o s i t i o n o f i n f i n i t i v a l conp lemen t s of V w i l l be a p o s i t i o n o f bound anaphora V PRO t o VP), bu% t h e s u b j e c t p o s i t i o n o f ac i n f i r i t i v e t h a t i s i t s e l f a subject will no t . L e x i c a l p ronouns l i k e PXO a r e n o t i n h e r e n t l y bound, b u t i n c c r t a i n env i ronmen t s , t h ey

.3 .- and t o o f u n c t i o n as bound! anap\or ( c f . Riernp,- ' . ' ;--

b i i l l i ams 1986 : 204 ) .

n hat P1X docs n o t o b t : ~ i n i l l l ~ h n i:: cvirlr!nccd by t h o

t h e universal formulation of the filtcr by Igbo syntax.

w h e r e KP Zs l e x i c a l

35b. 'John t o ~llcceed is expected, is ungrammatical (brought

about by s u b j c c t i v i z i n g t h e infinitive) i n f i n i t i v e s in 1 ~ 5 8 *

can have subjects e . ~ .

I t o go p l ace t h a t s u r r o u n d I s u r p r i s e

"For me t o go t h e r e s u r p r i s e s me1'.

E 0 - f l # (b) 6$ ~ z b u nwe nne ya by nke rn a g h q t s ~ h ;

O p to kill c 3 i l d mot1:er his is what I x n d c r z t a n d n o t .

"For O p to !dl1 his b r o fl7-.r baffles met1.

* # \ # \ 0 ( c ) 4% zda ebe a p;tara ihe .

Arrow t o fa13 p lace t h i s corrie out something

"F3r m arrox to fall here, ic an onen".

r f i \ ( d ) Mmadv igbu onwd ya b\u gzuzu

Person t o k i l l self h i s is f o o l i s h n e s s

9?or somebody t o commit s u i c i d e i s foolishnecst ' .

J fi ( e ) Kwoke i k 6 i s i b: a$y

Plan t o t i e head is abomination

'??or a man t h t i e his h a i r is an abominationu.

From t h e above examples, one observes t h a t (NP t o VP) is

grammatical in Igbo - without any restrictions on e i t h e r t h e

infinitive or the verb.

I n Igbo, i n f i n i t i v e s a r e no t base-generated b u t are

con t r ac t ed fcms of t h e sub junc t i ve e.g.

#

(a) ~ c h & rn ka m/ gaa nf og> . . Want I t h a t I go i n time

ttI want t o go i n time*.

The s u b j e c t of the embedded clause is d e l e t e d because i t

is t h e same with t h e s u b j e c t of t h e main c lause . This i s called

Equi-NP de l e t i on . This l e a v e s t h e verb s t r anded because a

sen tence must have a sub j ec t . #

(b) ~ c h h r o rn ka 6 g& ntog\e # / \ ~ c k t q m ka gaa n t oge

Then t h e complementizer is d e l e t e d so t h a t t h e fo l lowing

s t r u c t u r e r e s u l t s .

( c ) &hhrq rn s& ntos;.

Because t h i s i s ungrammatical, i n f i n i t i v i z a t i o n i s in t roduced

' t

( d ) Achor? m &ah n1og\e.

1 n f l n i . t i v e s i n lgbo do n o t a ccep t open vowel s u f f i x e s (oVS).

Th is n e c e s s i t a t e s ano the r deletion process - that of t h e s u f f i x .

./ ( e ) ~ch'loro . . m lea nlo$,

One i n t e r e s t i n g f e a t u r e o f t h i s d e l e t i o n t r an s fo rma t ion

is t h a t i t does p reven t a m b i s o u s PRO. Once t h e s u b j e c t a of

t h e ma t r i x sen tence and t h p t of t h e embedded s en t ence are n o t

i d e n t i c a l , d e l e t i o n under cond i t i on of i d e n t i t y between t h e

m a t r i v and embedded s u b j e c t s cannot ob t a in . T h i s accovnto f o r

t h e ung raama t i ca l i t y o f :

37. (a) *Ach?rq rn gi i g a nloge.

( b ) ' 0 ch?r? n i g a n'oge.

( c ) *Achcr? ha unu iga nroge.

( d ) "9do ch?rq Ogo iga nloge.

( e ) *I chgrq ya iga nfoge .

I n t h e above, the s u b j e c t s of t h e matrix 4nd embedded s e a t e n c e s

a r e no t i d e n t i c a l , To have two d i f f e r e n t s u b j e c t s i n t h e matrix

and embedded p o s i t i o n s i n a grammatical c o n s t r u c t i o n , a f u l i

s e n t e n t i a l complement must be p r e sen t . e.g.

f 38. (a) ~ c h \ r ? rn ka 1 gaa nlo&.

"I want you t o go i n time".

(b) < c h b q ka <nk l&

"Re wants you t o hone home".

/ ( c ) 4 ch4r0 ka i bya

"He wants you t o come",

( d ) 6 d ; chqr? ka 66 l/e anya

llOdo wants Ogo t o l o o k / p y attention".

Igbo i n f i n i t i v e s a r e t h e o u t p u t of n s e r i e s of t r a n ~ f o r r n a t i o n s

which n e c e s s i t a t e s them. The i r s u b j e c t p o s i t i o n s a r e r a t h e r

c o n t r a c t e d . With r e g a r d t o government, t h e y a r e s t i l l w i t h i n

t h e domain of t h e i r a n t e c e d e n t s and a r e consequen t ly a n t e c e d e n t

governed. I n o t h e r words, t h e y a r e c o n s t r u e d as t r a c e s of t h e i r

a n t e c e d e n t s and a r e always t h u s i n t e r p r e t a b l e as t h e i r t r a c e s ,

@ /

39. (a) ITwo'k~ ch$ro PRO iga

.&.a c o n t r a c t e d form of

( b ) ~w6kr$chhro k a fi gaa.

I n essence , t h e s u b j e c t of t h e i n f i n i t i v e i s a lways a n

anaphor bound by t h e s u b j e c t of t h e m a t r i ~ s e n t e n c e , I n s o far

as i t cannot accep t any o t h e r pronoun a p a r t from t h e s u b j e c t of

t h e m a t r i x s e n t e n c e , i t cannot be PRO.

T h i s movement w a s f i r s t f o r m a l l y d i s c u s s e d i n Ross (1967).

However h i s s t u d y c o n c e n t r a t e d on Xnglish. Of a l l t h e movement

t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s wh-movement i s t h e one t h a t h a s an unbounded

domain of a p p l i c a t i o n ( c f . Rierasdi jk and I.:illiarns (1986) 1.

I n Igbo t h e COYP g e n e r a l l y h a s t h e f o l l o w i n g s t r u c t u r a l

c o n f i g u r a t i o n :

[+ wh{'- wh [in t h e environment/-W] I+ high t o e e l

The +wh complements can perform two d i f f e r e n t functions. ( 1 1

They can func t i on as t h e head of t h e embedded c l a u s e when they

occupy t he p o s i t i o n of t h e complementizer. Also, t hey can f u n c t i o n 121

as t h e ( s u b j e c t ) modi f ie r of t h e s u b j e c t of t h e matrix sentev.ce. e.g. 0

U g w (ohye) (ahaby&a ebe h a n d o l a . I ah?

Ugwo who t h a t came place t h i s d i e has

tVgwu who came he re has died".

~ ~ c f l l e k e r e (hgbe) rn r h , < b y h a .

By c lock four t ime I reached s/he come h a s

"By fou r o ' c l ock when I reached, she had come".

N'<I+ oe$ (:be) c j nbro nw&, h a d u j q b t a r a

I n house medicine p l a c e s/he s t a y e d , d i e , people f i l l e d .

I'In t he h o s p i t a l where $/he died , people were manyr1*

They i nc lude t h e following:

41. ~ < n $ 'what \ on ye' 'who

kbge' 'where ' o l e 'which t/vhowl

As poin ted ou t i n Nwachukwu (19881, they can be used in

c l e f t cons t ruc t i ons :

Here t h e wh-re la t ives func t i on as t h e o b j e c t of t h e cleft

cons t ruc t ion . However i n t h e i r under ly ing s t r u c t u r e they modify

the o b j e c t o r r a t h e r r e f e r t o t h e o b j e c t of t h e conWxuct ion as

i n t h e f o l l o w i ; ~ ~ -

/ \ 4' * The person

3 onye' ? c h q ~ by onye- n o YOU want i s who?*

# where

e chpra b 5 ebee? ?he p l a c e You r a n t 5 s where9*

/ % Nke 5 chqrq bu ol& The one you want i s whichpH

t \ I Oge i chqrq hu mgbe (ole)" HThe t i m e you want i s whenqtt.

5 @ #

The i chqrc! bv glni;" '':'/hat you want i s whatqn

They a r e s t r i c t l y bound by s e l e c t i o n a l co-occurrence

r e s t r i c t i o n s . There a re no grammatical sen tences like 4.4.

U. *Onye chprq bv ebe?

Oge i chqr? b~ onye"

Ebe i chqrc bq ole' *

Ebee i chcr? b~ oge9

A c l o s e observa t ion w i l l r e v e a l t h a t each of t h e sen tences

i n 43 b e a r s a copula verb. This is why Kedu can app ly t o any o f

t h e c o ~ s t r u c t i o n s . Kedu i t s e l f must t h e r e f o r e have a combination

o f a copula verb and t h e wh-element

I n the following cons t ruc t ion , Kcdu can comfortably apply

o r co-occur w i t h t h e nouns which t h e wh-free r e l a t i v e s always

refer to.

45. &ye (person)

g b ~ (p lace) 1 &d< 1 !e ( th ing) 1 c h q r y

o&! (tine)

One may t h e r e f o r e a rgue t h a t Kedu is a b a s i c Igko free

r e l a t i v e (always i n a t o p i c a l i z e d p o s i t i o n ) w i t h o t h e r r e l a t i v e

clauses (fully r e a l i z e d when kcdu i~ dcmotcd) as i t s suppletives.

This

they

46.

is a j u s t i f i c a t i o n of Ywachukwuts (1988) c o n t e n t i o n t h a t

a r e kedu ques t ions . IIowever i n 46,

MI- is you wznt

Who do you want?"

* / &d; ebe. unuu gara ei

1 \a- i s p l a c e you want

'Where d i d you 60".

Flwachukwu (1987) contends t h a t t h e t r a c e s a r e t h e traces o f

t h e o b j e c t onye, and ebe. Howevgr, i t is a l s o p o s s i b l e t o

assume t h a t they c o n s t i t u t e t r a c e s of t h e f r e e relatives, This

will

47.

48.

bear t h e fo l lowing i n d e x a t i o n :

\ \ / ' ( b ) ~ e d & e b e . unuu gara ei

J Th i s i s p o s s i b l e because nuch c o n s t r u c t i o n s as:

H \ \ / \ (a) Onye b? gnye unuu char??

Who i s person you want?

"Who is t h e pe r son you want?"

(b) Ebk b: &be un&G &a?

l i t e r e is place you went?

Where d i d you go?"

a r e grammatical.

5 2

Thus i t becomes c l e a r e r why Kedu c o n s t i t u t e s a combination of

thc copula verb and the free relatives. It i s also clearer why

we ~ o ~ i t t h a t t h e t r a c e ( s ) r e s u l t ( s ) from t h e t o p i c a l i ~ 3 t f l f i of

t h e head o f the free r e l a t i v e s in t he V P which is ob l iga to ry .

Top ica l i z a t i on i s 0 5 l i ~ i t o r y because t h e following underlying

s t r u c t u r e is ungrammatical.

Gnderlying St ruc tu re :

\ unu

This t h e r e f o r e n e c e s s i t a t e s a movement of t h e head of the

wh-free r e l a t i v e s t o t h e s u b j e c t position. Here as I t is

observab le from 49, t h e hT p o s i t i o n nay )e u n f i l l e d o r it ;nay

be f i l l e d by ke- t h e wh-element. When t h i s movement t a k e s place,

t h e r e a r e two p o s s i b l e changes.

1, The head of t h e wh-free r e l a t i v e s could f i l l t h e empty

p o s i t i o n of t h e NP and s e l e c t t h e copula verb bt. This dl1

result i n the fo l lowina cons t ruc t i ons :

oge

2. The ke- wh-dement vhich r e l a t e s t o all t h e free r e l z t i v e s

could ge t mapped t o t h e copula verb di/du. This mapping dev ice

will delete au toma t i ca l l y t h e heads of t h e f r e e r e l a t i v e s i n 43.

These possible constructions will result,

ebe

[i'l d d { ebe . u& c h b ? e

J j

Ked! ebe unuu c h ~ r o

These reveal the n a t u r e o f t h e wh-movement i n Igba. In al.1 the

t r ans fo rma t ions which m a y invo lve movement o r mapping, t hey both

leave behind a trace.

One r e v e a l i n g f a c t about t h i s i s t h a t it is like the move

15' already discussed. The same r u l e a p p l i e s .

52, Rule :

Delete or extrapose.

The wh-movements obey u n i v e r s a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of wh-

r e l a t i v e s , t h a t - r e l a t i v e s and wh-questions as i d e n t i f i e d by

R i e m s d i j k and W i l l i a m s (1986). They i nc lude :

53, (a) A gap is involved

(b ) COPS is involved

( c ) Rela t i on i s involved

( d ) It i s unbounded

However t h e wh-ward may o r mag no-: be over t . Tone is s o

overlaid that t h e absence of t h e wh-element may no t b e

b m e d i a t e l y known. Al so i t does no t prevent the wh-COKP from

performing its two f u n c t i o n s : as t h e wh-complementizer and as

t h e head of the r e l a t i v e clause when napped on the wh-relatives*

i t i t h t h e s e func t i ons o f t h e tone , unlike (-wh) compl ernentizers,

one can adjoin a c o n s t i t u e n t to t h e s u b j e c t of t h c construction

without rendering i t ungrammatical, e.g.

54. (a) ~ ~ g k e ' ( b y ) onye Z&IJ ohi . " N o k e who s t o l e "

Nwgke' (onye ) a&u o h i . Vwoke who s t o l e * '

~wo'ke' zuru ohi. "'Nwoke who stole ".

The above examples can thus be r ep re sen t ed as:

Fig , 28 (a)

- IT '

nwoke Nwoke zu ohi

nwolcei b o k e i l zuru o h i

Lonyei J

Fig. 29 W"

Tn t h e above construction t h e r e i s no movement per se.

?hat happens can be explained by t h e theory of c - cnmmand.

'In both examples, t h e COMP c-commands S and impl ica t ional ly

a l l the const i tu tuents dominated by S. T t i s t h i s governance t h a t

enables t h e Ss t o i n h e r i t t h e tone of COMP. Consequently t h i s

makes it poss ib le f o r t h e items c-commanded by t h e high tone CDMP

t o be deleted without rendering t h e construction tmgrammatical.

Prom the movement transformation i n Igbo, only two rules 8

obta in*

Rule.

Move o r d e l e t e

Also f o r any movement t o t a k e place, t h e r e must be a landing

si te - which must be u n f i l l e d a t the time of the movamert.

There must a l s o be elements t h a t have t o be e x t r a c t e d from the

ext rac t ion site. It i s a t t h i s ext rac t ion s i te t h a t a t r a c e js

l e f t behind. Also t h e landing site must be i d e n t i c a l with t h e

extraction site. This i s t h e only condit ion that makes i t

poss ib le f o r t h e item t o be assimilated without rendering the

construction ungrammatical.

It can a l s o be observed that top ica l i za t ion and ex t rapos i t ion

a r e important movements i n Tgbo syntax. Thes a r e common with -wh

COMP movement. However the (+wh) COW movement also involves

5 6

topicalization. However (+wh) COKP has the potentiality of

crossing many categori sl nodes in its movements. This is why

it is unbounded (refer to 2.3.3 a n d 2.4ff 1.

CIIAPTER TImEE

CONDITIONS ON NP NOVXMENT I N IGBO

3.0 INTRODUCTION:

Ross 's (1967) t h e s i s t r i g g e r e d o f f some awarcncss of t h e

f a c t t h a t movement rule? a r e , i n f a c t , quo t ing N e i j t (1980) ,

%onst ra ined by a r e l a t i v e l y unrevea l ing v a r i e t y o f s t r u c t u r a l

con f igu ra t i ons known a s Zs l j nds o r semi-Islznds". &though Ross

was unable t o define t h e i s s u e s t h a t were t o be i n h i s s y n t a c t i c

theory as pointed ou t by N e i j t , he i s n e v e r t h e l e s s c r e d i t c d w i th

t h e f a c t t h a t s t a t emen t s about grammatical sentences can today

be i n t e r p r e t e d t h e o r e t i c a l l y , ungrammatical s en t ences can be

analysed showing hbw they v i o l a t e well-for&edness condi t ions .

Today, r e sea rches a r e go ing on i n t h i s a r e a of l i n g u i s t i c

t o d i scovcr what t he se well-forrnedness candit ' ions on movements

are and how' they can be l u c i d l y stated t h e o r e t i c a l l y . Rcrrocks

and Stavrou (1987) have i n t h e i r o m c o n t r i b u t i o n noted t h a t

i t is t he s tandard assumption of t h e GB theory t h a t c o n s t i t u e n t s

moved by t h e t r ans fo rma t iona l r u l e - nove alpha and t h e i r t r a c e s

are s u b j e c t t o t h e l o c a l i t y cond i t i on known as subjaccncy. a

This is a k i n t o Cole ' s (1982.) observnLion t h a t v a r i e t y of L s e e m i n ~ l y independent cond i t i ons on movements are p r e d i c t e d by

t h e same bounding theory - t h e subjacency cond i t i on - t h a t

r e q u i r e s t h a t not more than one %barrierw i n t e r v e n e between t h e

moved c o n s t i t u e n t and i t s e x t r a c t i o n sfte. This is so because

languages display " is land c o n s t r a i n t s f f i n which certain

c o n s t r u c t i o n s form s y n t a c t i c i s l a n d s i n t h a t they block t he

p o s s i b i l i t y of any t rans format ion app ly ing ' b e t w e e n a p o s i t i o n

o u t r i d e them an2 one i n s i d e thcm", (c f . Sells 1985).

Since Chomsky's (1973) p u b l i c a t i o n , subjacency has been

v a r i o u s l y i c t e r p r e t e d . Tne argument has cen t e r ed on t h e cho ice

o f c y c l i c nodes - whether they should be I?P/s, hT/St or NP/S/Stc

Horrocks and Stavrou (1987) and Chomsky (1978) sugges t l!P/S/St

as bounding nodes. However Rizzi (1 978) , Radford ( A 981 ) and

Xiemsdijk and W i l l i a m s (1986) argue f o r NP/S1. R i z z i argues f o r

S' instcad of S f o r I t a l i a n beczuse i t helps t o account f o r the

freedom of e x t r a c t i n g c o n s t i t u e n t s from wh-island i n I t a l i a n

( c f . IIorrocks and Starvou ( 7 987.) 1, The second argument c e n t r e s

around t h e number of c y c l i c boundaries: can a r u l e Gross one

boundary o r no boundary a t a l l ? The third has been the determina-

t i o n of t h e p o s i t i o n of the c y c l i c boundary.

In t h e lisht of t he above ques t i ons , i n v e s t i g a t i o n s have

been c a r r i n d o u t he r e t o f i n d ou t how they app ly t o Igbo syntax, '.

Consequently, we have reviewed t he various c o n s t r a i n t s which a r e

p o s t u l a t e d f o r d i f f e r e n t l a n g ~ a g e s ~ e s p e c i a l l y , Engl i sh , i n an

a t t empt t o d i scover t h e c o n s t r a i n t s on movements i n Igbo syntax.

3.1 Chomsky (1977) and Lasnik s t a t e t h a t the subjacency

cond i t i on recommends t h a t a t r a n s f o r c a t i o n a l r u l e cannot move a

phrase from p o s i t i o n Y t o p o s i t i o n X ( o r converse ly i n (55).

. . . i p ... Y.. J ... 1 ... x...

where 4 and & are c y c l i c nodes.

I n o t h e r words, no phrase can bc moved a c r o s s more than

one c y c l i c node.

J a n t subjaccncy s e t s out t o do i s t o ensure t h a t a r u l e does

no t ope ra t e over too l a r g e a d i s t a n c e though i t might Bo so by

i t e r a t i n g in a s e r i e s ' o f sma l l e r hops o r p i t - s t ops , b u t never i n

one swoop. I n Igbo, t h e C O W can be hopped through and going

by t h e subjacency cond i t i on , i t does s o i n a s t epwi se f a ~ h i o n . the

L e t u s b r i e f l y l ook at howLsubjacency cond i t i on has evolved

through t h e years . The o l d e s t d e f i n i t i o n s of subjacency m e

c ivcn i n Chomsky (1973) and Cole (1382). According t o t h e s e

definitions : 0

56. (a) Category A '%- c o n t a i n s ca tegory B if and only i f

A p rope r ly c o n t a i n s B and f o r all C # A, i f A con tn ins . C and C c o n t a i n s B, t hen A = ... C ... where ... con ta in s a l e x i c a l item.

(b) B i s "Subjacent t o A if and only i f A i s s u p e r i o r

t o B and where t h e r e i s a.L n:ost one c y c l i c ca tegory

C such t h a t C L-contains P;XC (B) and C does no t

con t a in A.

With (56) t he subjacency cond i t i on is v i o l a t e d on ly i f c y c l i c

nodes of (55) are branching nodes i,e. when t h e y can branch t o

l e x i c a l items. Thus wi th r e s p e c t t o (55), t h e i n s t a n c e of COKP-

to-COW, wh-movement p r e sen t ed below i n Fig. 30 v i o l a t e s t h e

subjacency cond i t i on while 52 does not.

Fig. 30 S '

9 ' A c c o ~ d i n g t o cond i t i on (55), movement from COEP2 t o C O W ,

i s a subjacency condi t ion v i o l a t i o n beceuse t h e wh-phrase c r o s s e s

two c y c l i c nodes N and S ii, I Eowever t h i s s o r t of movement does

not v i o l a t e 56 because TIP, does not count as a bouqdfng node f o r

subjacency.

Another s e t of figures i nvo lv ing wh-movement which v i o l a t e s

bo th versions of subjacency cond i t i ons i s g iven i n figures 31

and 32.

Fig. 31

Fig. 31 v i o l a t e s t h e subjacency c o n d i t i o n because wIf

t h e bT branches

t o l e x i c a l i t ems , whi le Fig. 32 a l s o v i o l a t e s i t because

t rans format ion has a p p l i e d over too large a di~tance by c r o s s i n g

more than one bounding node - Nit and S, i n a s i r q l e r u l e

app l i ca t i on .

In t h e Engl ish language, i t i s assumed t h a t NPs and Ss a r e

bounding nodes. This is s t r eaml in ing Chomskyls a t t e m p t s over

t h e y e a r s t o a r r i v e at d e f i n i t e bounding nodes. Chomsky (1973)

sugges t s NP and S t , Chomsky (1976) , I@ and S and Chomsky (I 976)

hT, S, and St. I n Igbo, i t d o e s appear i n t h e f o l l o w i ~ examples

t h a t NFs 2nd Ss a r e c y c l i c nodes.

/ I / t

57. (a) Nwoke ah! 6 chkre na i s i na $ h{la.. . llan t h a t I t h o u ~ h t t h a t you say t h a t you s e e has

T h a t man I thought you s a i d you saw ..."

Under ly ing S t ruc tu re :

h q l a nwoke ah:

S 1 S' S' NP

C G X P (+dl) m chcrc . . S t

C O I F (-wh) i hula e C .

S t S' S' NP

S' # S'

NP

This is clearly shown in Fig. 33.

CO'P

?!P VP

N N 1

m chere COPQ $ I

I 1 U T

63

1 ' \ \

58. (a) Obelc Nke i kara na $ t iwara ... Calabash which you s a i d t ha t someone broke ...

*That calabash which you sa id t h a t someone broke . . . (b) Obele nke I Fmp i kara ';OM. e t i w a r a i l ]

T'F .s ' S ' S '

hT

( p o s s !

With regard t o t h e above two examples, t h e r e i s an apparent

confusion e s p e c i a l l y t o an Lgbo learner a s t o w4ethar t h e r e i s a

high tone CCMP which agrees wi th t h e t o n e o f t h e fo l lowing

pronoun o r whether t h e r e i s a n u l l COMP. However t h e former i s

more t e n a b l e w i th o u r e a r l i e r d i scuss ion (see a l s o Nwachukwu (1986),

(1987) and Iwundu (1987). The hi@ t o n e (H) heads t h e (+wh!

phrase i n t h e language. This d i f f e r e n t i a t e s t h e t w o SO?IPs w e have

i n ~ g b o - t he +wh and t h e -wh SOMPs. The -vh phrase i s usually

marked by a low tone (cf. Chapter 2). The +wh COMP i s mapped on t o

t h e head of t h e r e l a t i v e c l ause and l i k e o t h e r C O M B , i t f 'unctions

a s t h e ccmplementizer and being a head node, it c-commands t h e

remaining c o n s t i t u e n t s of t h e clause. This i s by the way. From

57 and 58, it i s deducib le th t t h e bounding nodes f o r subjacency

i n ~ g b o a s i n mglish are NP and S. 'The f a c t tbt PIT and S are

bounding nodes i n 1bbo must n o t be taken prima f a c i e t o be un ive r sa l .

This i s t h e p o i n t Cole (1982) r a i s e s when he argues t h a t t h e bounding

node must b e l u c i d l y defined.

The bounding node must be well defined because i n Imbabura (1982) ( 1 9 8 5 )

Quechua and i n Turk i sh zs Cole,Land SellsLobserve, w h i l e thc

subjacency c o n d i t i o n i n which non-branching nodes count f o r sub-

jacency as i n ( 5 5 ) they 60 noL count f o r sub jacency along t h e

l i n e of (56) i n which o n l y b ranch ing nodes arc bounding nodes,

I n I t a l i a n , i t i s a l s o observed t h a t S is no t the bounding node

but S f ,

Though subjacency has n o t been proved t o b e a languap-

p n i v ~ r s n l c o n d i t i o n , cspccial1.y when critically examined, i t I s

peve r the l e s s a worthwhile one. It i s worthwhi le bccauce o$her

c o n s t i t u e n t can move over more t h a n one bounding node i n any

s i n g l e r u l e a p p l i c a t i o n . The movement c o n d i t i o n s which can b e

subsumed under subjacency i n c l u d e :

59. The A - over A P r i n c i p l e

The Complex IF C o n s t r a i n t

The Co-ordinate S t r u c t u r e C o n s t r a i n t

S e n t e n t i a l Sub jec t C o n s t r a i n t

Tensed S Condi t ion

S p e c i f i e d SuSjec t Constr?. int

U n i t Kovcment C o n s t r a i n t

'Ah-island Cons t ra in t . P

3.2.1 TILE A - OTJER - A PRIBCIPLE (AoAP):

Chomsky (1964) e s t a b l i s h e d t h i s p r i n c i p l e as one of h i s

g e n e r a l c o n s t r a i n t s on moverent t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s . The c o n d i t i o n

is that no c o n s t i t u e n t of c a t e s o r y A can b e rnoveJ o u t of l a r g e r

c o n t a i n i n s c o n s t i t u e n t s of ca tegory A, s c h e m a t i c a l l y fo rmula ted as:

I f a s t r u c t u r a l d e s c r i p t i o n r e f e r s t o A ambiguously, then

t h a t s t r u c t u r a l description can on ly a n a l y z e h i g h e r more i n c l u s i v e

node A (c f . R i e m s d i j l r ?:,a Wil l i ams ("I 986) 1,

T h i s i s s i m i l a r t o m ~ i e n g o t s Head Condi t ion which i s a.

c o n d i t i o n on gapping. He s t a t e s t h a t i f a remnant c o n t a i n s +m

of X, i t c o n t a i n s -rn o f M, which i m p l i e s , as elicits Nci$C (1980)

t h a t "the head o f FI may n o t f u n c t i o n as a remnant u n l e s s a l l

non-heads a r e remnants as w e l l , It b l o c k s t h e p r o d u c t i o n of non-

m a x i m a l p r o j e c t i o n s of a c a t e g o r y as is p r e s e n t e d i n N e i j t (7980).

I n t h e above figure, X can o n l y b e a remnant if o t h e r

accompany5n.g -m c o n s t i t u e n t s arc remnants as w e l l ; L.e. i f X 1

is a r c n - a n t . X 1 i n t u r n cannot f u n c t i o n as a remnant unless t h e

accampanyin~ -m d a u g h t e r s of X" are remnants as well. . Consequently, on ly X I t c a n be a p o s s i b l e remnant.

This l e a d s u s f u r t h e r t o a n a9alogous Piaximization p r i n c i p l e 2

of X e i j t (19801 whrch s t a t e s that a t r a n s f o r m a t i o n may n o t apply

t o X" i f X" is immediately dominated by xm, and d 3 n.

A f t e r a l l , a l l of them are similar i n t h a t when r e l a t i v e c l a u s e s

o r q u e s t i o n s . a r e Sound from t h e c o n s t i t u t e , they render t h e whole

\ d / (a) Any? .gk-eri ji n\a Cdd:

(b) *Olee ji a n y i ga-eri na ede?

('c) *Wdi a bu ede a n y i ga - e r i j i na.

@ \ 0 (a) 66 na ado gara Ahya

(b) *Olee 0g-u gar& ahya na Odo?

(c) *Ndi a b; Odo gara ahya O g u na.

f 63. (a) 11: 6 dbb\uru mad? jogburu onwg

(b) *GznZ na o gburu jqgburu onwe ya?

( c ) "Q by rnrnad~ jogburu onwe ya na o cburu.

3.2.2 THE COWLEX E?P COR'STRAINT:

This c o n s t r a i n t s t a t e s t h a t no element contained i n an S I

dominated by an NP with a lexical head noun may be paved o u t of

t h a t NP by a t r ans fo rna t i on . I n t h e words of Radford (1981)

fo l lowing Ross, i t s t a t e s t h a t no element can be e x t r a c t e d out

of an adnominal c lause . This p r i n c i p l e a p p l i e s t o movement of

IPS, PPs and P9s. Examples 61 and 62 i l l u s t r a t e t h i s p r i n c i p l e .

3.2.3 THE TD!SD S COE:DI?IO?T:

This condi t ion stipulates t h a t no c o n s t i t u c r ~ t of a tensed

c lzuse ( s ' ) no t i n CGKP can be move?. o u t s i d e t h a t t ensed c l a u s e

o r const rued with any element o u t s i d e t h a t t ensed c l a u s e

(cf. gadford 1981). T h i s cond i t i on e x c l u s i v e l y concerns verbs

of r a i s i n g which include t h e f o l l o w i n g i n Igbo:

\ 64. a;

nwkike . t ? s ~ r + w 2 s ~ r ~

'

The verbs making up 64 are t e n s e l e s s becaus,e i n t h e i r underlying -

s t r u c t u r e , they do n o t contain f i . n i t e verbs. thc s u b j e c t - . ,

p o s i t i o n is u n f i l l e d by l e x i c a l i n s e r t i o n . Thus i t becomes

p o s s i b l e f o r t he s u b j e c t of t h e embedded sentence t o be r a i s e d

t o t h e focus Frorninert ' p o s i t i o n of t h e s u b j e c t o f the main

sentence,

While t h i s may o b t a i n i n some ofiher languages , t h e ca se of

- . I$IO . presents perhaps a more i n t e r e s t i n g p i c t u r e .

This i s :?ccause like o t h e r (move NF) movement phenomena, t h i s

movencnt l e a v e s a rcsumptive procoun at t h e e x t r a c t i o n s i t e e.~ .

# 65. (a) 0 . d i . ka p-abyn' @

This has t h e u n d e r l y i ~ g s t r u c t u r e :

(b) NP d i [ ka p d o ga-abya I 1 comp S S Comp

T h i s u n f i l l e d h i s u b j e c t p o s i t i o n o f t h e matrix sen tence

n e c e s s i t a t e s a n o b l i g s t o r y movement of t h e s u b j e c t of t h e embedded

clause - Odo t o t h a t ve ry pos i t i on .

( c ) Odoi d$ ka qi sa-abya

The movement i s c l e a r l y shown i n Fits 35 and 36.

Underlying S t ruc tu r e :

Comp S S Comp

Piovenen t and R e s u ~ p t ive Pronoun 7omat ior,

- -) Odo d$ ka 9 ga-abya,

The s u b j e c t p o s i t i o n is t h u s fillcd by t h i s movement, This

movement also l eaves behind a resumptive pronoun co-referential

b ; i t h t h e moved c o n s t i t u e n t . T h i s , t h e s u b j e c t of t h e matrk

sen t ence binds as an anaphor,

Another interestinq f e a t u r e about these raising verbs i s t h a t not

only do they leave behind a resumptive pronoun, b u t they violate

the t e z s c d S c o n d i t i o n .

In E n c l i s h , the verbs of raising i n c lude :

66. be l i k e l y

s e e m

ap: =.-r

69

The movement in 67 results i n a crammatical sentence. e. g.

John appears t o b e happy

??Pi appears Johnj t o be happy

NP appears John t o b e happy

John. appears e t o be happy 1 i .

== John appears t o b e happy.

However In example 68, t h e r eve r se i s t h e case.

(a) NPI seems Johni w i l l cone

(b) NP seems John w i l l cone

(c) *Johni seems ei w i l l come

he movement i n 68 r e s u l t s i n an ungrammatical sen tence .

because the t ensed c l ause

f gbo.

P \ \ 69. (a) oi t o s i r i E z e j

*Eze i s supposed

i s involved. This i s ' n o t the c a s e i n

t o t e l l him/her/ i t a l l his sinsm*

T h i s has the underlying s t ruc tu~e .

(b) e t o s i r i Eze $wa ya n j o ya n i i l e ,

Because t h e s u b j e c t p o s i t i o n of t h e ma t r ix sen tence i s empty,

. i t n e c e s s i t a t e s an o b l i g a t o l y movement of the s u b j e c t of' the

embedded c l a u s e t o f i l l t h a t empty p o s i t i o n i n t h e ma t r ix . sentence. This r e s u l t s i n C;

(c ) Ecc t o s i r i igwa ya nj? ya n i i l e . w

(d) Ezej t o s i r i e. i@va yak n j q Ya jlu n i i l e . 1

Eze t o s i r ? + p a ya n j o ya n i i l e .

T h i s movcncnt has n o t r e s u l t e d i n a resumptivc pronoun. IIowcvcr

the t r a c e l e f t is s t i l l understood, t o be an anaphor of the

moved constituent and -' .. .a lso bound by t h e moved item. This is

p o s s i b l e because t h e s u b j e c t p o s i t i o n of t h e embedded c l a u s e i s

a l r eady occupied by t h e nominoverbal, the I n f i n i t i v e which is

itself a noun (c f . 2.3.4). This can a l s o o b t a i n wi th t h e t h i r d

r s i s i n g verb - nwg ike.

# \ ' \ 70. (a) 0 nwere ike Odo abya/.

The s t r u c t u r e u n d e r l y i n g 7~(a) is (b) .

(b) ei nwere i k e Odo abya j

Movement

( c ) e nwere i ke Odo abya j

(dl *Odo nwere ike q abya.

Because t h i s movement does no t produce an accep t ab l e c o n s t r u c t i o n

wi th a resumptfve pronoun (a t t h e e x t r a c t i o n s i t e ) , certain

t r ans fo rma t ions s i m i l a r t o t h e one d i s cus sed i n 2.3.4 have t o be

applied. F i r s t t h e prononinal p re f ix affixed t o t h e verb h a s t o

be de le ted . Af te r t h i s , i n f i c . i t i v i z a t i o n w i l l 5 e in t roduced.

This has t w o e f f e c t s : i t b locks t h e format ion of a resumpbive

pronoun bu t s t i l l r e v e a l s c o - r e f e r e n t i a l i t y between t h e t r a c e of

the aoved i t em and t he moved item i t s e l f . It a l s o r ende r s t h e

sen tence grammatical.

' \ ' # / 71. (-a) *Odo nwere i l te ? abya /

(b ) 6d2 m e r e ike ( 9 ) bya. (KsuMca). / #'

( c ) ddd m e r e i ke $by&

I n t h e r!su!~ka Group of d i a l e c t s , t h e ( b ) v e r s i o n i s accopl,ublc

while in some othcr d i a l e c t s cnpccinlly in b l b a i ~ c and nc i r~h -

bour inc d i a l c c t s l i t i s no t acceptable .

( c ) is gene ra l l y accepted ir t h e language.

3.2.4 THX CO-OXDIP!AT$ S?RlJCTURS CONSTPAINT:

This w a s formulated i n Boss [1967), It p r e v e n t s movement

of a conjunct , and/or movement o f an element con ta ined i n a

conjunct. T h i s i s somewhat r e l a t ed . t o AOAP. However i t d i f f e r s

from i t i n t h a t i t a p p l i e s t o t h e e x t r a c t i o n of p a r t s of a

conjunct which AOAP would n o t cover i n any obvious tray.

Ecwples 57 and 58 a r e i l l u s t r a t i o n s , It a l s o accounts f o r

sentences l i k e ( t h e fol lowjng: . \ # 8 %

72. Udele hqr? anu n'anya ma kp<? as?

Udele s e e p a s t meat i n eye b u t h a t e decadance ha t red .

Udele l i k e s meat b u t h a t e s decadence. L '

/ / \ -. (b) Gin1 ka Udele h - t p a h n 1 anya & kp60 as;?

a . . 8 / f l \ *

$be b u m okukq rzwa d<ma+ry ya.

K i t e c a r r y p a s t chicken bu t i t f e l l (from) it .

"The k i t e c z r r i c d t h e chicken bu t i t f e l l o f f it". 0

(a) Zgbe buru okuko nana o danahuru ya.

( b ) *Gini ka egbe buru okuko mana o danahu ya?

A very i n t e r c s t i n , ~ f e a t u r e of t h e co-ordinate s t r u c t n r c s is

tkit wh-moveme? t can, especially - i n E n y l i s h , e x t r a c t parallel

wh-phrases ou t o f ' c o n j u n c t s when all con junc t s of a co-ordinate

s t r u c t u r e . z e a f f e c t e d t h i s way (c f . Ricmsdijk and Williams (1986) 1,

Thi s rule s t a t e s -

No element dominated by an S may be moved ou t o f t h a t S i f tht node S i s dominated by a n NP which i tself i s immediately dominated by S (cf. N e i j t 1980: 139) -

T h i s rule appl i e s t o for-klauses and that-clauses. I n Xgbo

t h e following i l l u s t r a t e the condi t ion*

# ' \ / * \

73. Na 9 dara u l e ya jogbum o n r g y a

That s/he f a i l past examination h i s h e r bad t o dea th self it.

*That 3,he f a i l e d he rh i s examination i s t o o badn.

\ f l \ ' (a) Na 9 dam ule y< ,j&buru onvd ya . (b) * 0 dara u l e ya jogbum onwe ya. a

(c) *Na dara u l e ya jogburu onwe ya.

0 % t / 74. 0 s i r i ~ k e n: ? byara

'It be p a s t s t r e n g t h that s , h e come p a s t

'+It would be d i f f i c u l t f o r him t o comew.

(a) 0 s i r i i k e na q byara

(b) *O siri i k e q byara.

( c ) *O s i r i na 9 byara.

\ 75. ~h&wu rn; na oi & - e k t e n* oge

God know t h a t s h e w i l l a r r ive i n t ime

flGod knows he will a r r i v e i n time".

(a) Chukwu ma na 9 ga-erute n 'oge

@) *Chukwu ma na ga-erute nqoge

( c ) *Chub me 9 g s - e w t e n*oge.

Prom t h e above 72 - 75, t h e e x t r a c t i o n o f t h e COMP o r some

element wi th in the embedded sentence ren?ers t h e remainink

c o n s t r u c t i o n ungr:mmsl t,icctl - t h u s r;.u?)nortinc t h c s c n t c n t j a1

sub j c c t c o n s t r a i n t . The c o n s t r u c t i o n w i l l even "worsen i n

rncanj.!:.qM i f t h e e x t r a c t e d cons t i . tuen t i s moved t o ano thc r

p o s i t i o n w i t h i n t h e cons t ruc t iono .

3.2.6 'TIIIS SPECIPISD SUBJECT CONDTTICXI:

Th i s cond i t i on as s t a t e d i n K e i j t (19803 h o l d s t h a t %no

r u l e can i nvo lve X , Y, X s u p e r i o r t o Y , i n t h e s t r u c t u r e

76. ..*x ... C . . . z . . . -VYZ . 3 where Z i s t h e s p e c i f i e d s u b j e c t of WZ.

In a more v e r b a l form, s u b j e c t s are s p e c i f i e d i n case they a r e

l c x i c n l l y filled o r c o n t n i r n proform which is no t c d n t r o l l e d 8

by X f I. Biernsdi j lc and \ l i ' l l ipms (1386) further explain t h i s by

c o n t c n d i r , ~ that "if a pronoun i s cznapharfcally free with r e s p e c t

t o i t o t h e domain-of-a-subject, then rcnove i from t h e

anaphor ic index of t h a t p ronau~" . Th i s r u l e operates at LY

3 a f t e r ihdexing r u l e s have applied.

I n Igbo, we do not have reciprocals; what we have are

r e f l e x i v e s . Consequently as this cons t r a j -n t concerns reciprocals,

i t does n o t o b t a i n i n Igbo. I n E n ~ l i s h , we have examples

77. (a) The w r c s t l e r s p ron i sed you t o de f ez t each o tge r .

(b) The w r e s t l e r s promised you [s' & e t o d e f e a t each a 1 1

o t h e r 2 kt

The i d e a o f r e c i p r o c a l i t y and r e f l e x i v e n e s s 5.c

by some app rop r i a t e e x t e n s i o n a l s u f f i x e s and ttont~e"

expressed

i n Igbo,

i r r e s p e c t i v e o f number o r 3erson. e.g.

74 0 \ 0 \ # \ /

78. (a) Odo n a Oko .f;wara m na ha m r u r u onwe ha ahu.

' \ / / (b) Odo na Clio p&o anyi na ha lrrsara onrre'ha ;c5.

' \ / ' 8 # ( c ) hcwtlra m yu na cl;buolc m onwc m.

( d l Nyeritany ocwe unu eke l e nke udo

From t h e above examples, both r e f l e x i v e n e s s and r e c i p r o c a l i t y a r e

expressed fnter alia... Consfqucntly t h e p o t e n t i a l ambiguity ac ,

t o whether Oko and Odo i n 78(a) and (b) wounded each o t h e r

r e c i p r o c a l l y o r whether t hey wounded themselves each by h i s ewh

r e f l e x i v e a c t i o n , i n d e p e n d e ~ t of t h e 0 t h e r ~ i s always resolved by

t h o contcr t . In t h c Rncl i r ;h cxamplc (771, the moct i m ~ o r t ~ f i t

t h i n g i s t h a t t h e s u b j e c t s involvkd must n g t be misconst rued ta~i th

t h e pronouns i n t h e VP.

3.2.7 TIIS U N I T 1.COVET.Z::T COWSTRAITIT :

7:. 2 . . , - 3 was developed by Schwart:: (cf. Radford 1987 ). According

t o t h i s c o n s t r a i n t , on ly a s t r i n g of e lements which forms a

c o n s t i t u e n t can be moved t oge the r i n any s i n g l e a p p l i c a t i o n of

any n o v e r e ~ t r u l e . Some o t h e r c o n s t r a i n t , the AO!.? (cf . 3.2.t )

has t h e same t e n e t as t h i s cond i t ion . e . ~ .

1 79. h': 4 byara m t e r e d

t h a t s/he come past annoy pas t 1

"That sfhe cane annoycd me".

0 (a) I& 4 by\ara wutere m

Ext r apos i t i on :

s (b) 0 wutcre tn n a 4 b y l a .

75

80. Ka o s i kwu, anyi ba-ala

A s s h e said w e s h a l l go

nAs s/he said, we shall go*.

Extraction:

Ka o s i kwu, anyi . ~ a - a l a

Extraposition:

Anyi ga-ale ka o s i kwu.

81. b& ah: odd a n d q l a

Time t h a t , Odo d i e has

"By then, Odo had diedtt.

(a) Extraction: 0 #

066 ah;, 6da a n y q l a

Extraposit ion

' 1 f (a) 0do anwuola . . og; ah;.

79-81 a r e made up of complex sentences. The dependent clauses

a r e extraposed t o t h e end of t h e independent sentences. In a l l

of them, they a r e moved a s a u n i t - a s adverbia l clauses, I n

essence, t h e const ra in t i s upheld a s true bu t it i s not regarded

here a s a s t rong constraint . T h i s i s beoause every const i tuent

of a sentence will a t the end of the ntree representa t ionH farm

a u n i t , a t l e a s t of i t s o m . It i s from here that i t moves

with o the r lexical items through an intermediate category t o a

phrasa l category. This cons t ra in t i s t-ypified by ext ranosi t ion ,

top ica l i za t ion and/or raising. A vio la t ion of t h i s cons t ra in t

i s exemplified i n (82).

7 6 \ r 5

82, (a) *Na wu'icrc m o 'uya1-a

This p r i n c i p l e s t a t e s t h a t no element can be moved o u t OF

a c l a u s e c o n t a i n i n g an o v e r t complementizer o r wh-phrase in COMP,

(gf. Radford (1981)). The fo l lowing i l l u s t r a t e t he p r i n c i p l e

' \ / # 83. Q p a r a any?- onye byarn ebe \a

S/he teU. p a s t we who person come pest p l a c e t h i s

he t o l d u s who ceme here.

This p r i n c i p l e i s a l s o c o n s t r a i n e d by t h e f a c t t h a t an NP t h a t

i s p a r t of an i n d i r e c t ques t i on cannot be q u e s t i o n e d o r r e l a t i v i z e d

( cf . Iiiernsdi jlc and !i'illiarr,s (1 386 ) 1. % r e \ , \ / \ 84. Zoee ka 2 s t na ya gawara?

!.here t h a t s h e say t h a t him go pas t .

$&ere d i d s/he say s/ke went t o .

S C \ / \ 0 \ (a) * K e d ~ eSee 9 s% na yn gawara.

0 P / # (5) *Ebe \a bu c5e ka q s i n a ya gavara.

' 8 \ / \ 8 85. $ s t na ~2-n; mere o jieh~ bya?

S/he s a y that what do p a s t s/he h o l d n o t come

I f h a t d i d s/he say war; hcr/kis reason f o r absent ing himself/

5erse l f .

\ ' .\ \ /

(a) *Kedu i h e q si n a ;ere o j q h l bya?

) \ f \ / + %

( b f * Ihe a bu i h e ? sl nn mere o j i g h i by&

86. Ygbe o l e ka o k w ~ r u n a y a g a - a l a

P e r i o d which t h a t s/he s a y past t h a t s /he w i l l go,

)hen d i d h e s a y h e w i l l go (lncce).

that h a s b r o u g h t a b o u t t h i s u n g r a n r r ~ a t i c d i t y ir; t h a t . r e l ~ t i v e c l a u s e f o r m a t i o n h a s a p p l i e d t w i c e t o t h o elem'ents o f

t h e ~ o s t d e e p l y enbedded r e l a t i v e c l a u s e ,

T h i s p r i n c i p l e t a k e s c a r e of t h e complement izer c o n S t ~ 3 i n t

f o r m u l a t e d i n Radford ( 1 9 8 1 ) ~ S i m i l a r l y t h e c o n s t r a i n t h o l d s

t h a t no c o n s t i t u e n t can b e a d j o i n e d t o a C O W which alrcatly #

c o n t a i n s a wh-element ; 83-86 a r e i l l u s t r a t i v e examples.

I n sunmary, one can deduce t h e f o l l o w i n g from t h e c o n d i t i o n s

on 1,ybo RP ( s y n t a c t i c ) moveaents. The bounding n o d e s of Ig50

a r e TP ar,l! S , Also , t h e s u b j a c e n c y c o n d i t i o n v ~ h i c h v e r y much

a p p l i e s t o Igbo d o e s s o at t h e l e v e l o f s y n t a - as opposed t o

t h o s e where t h i s t a k e s p l a c e a t t h e LF. O f t h e many movcrncnt

c o n d i t i o n s which have been p o s t u l a t e d f o r d i f f e r e n t l a n g u a g e s ,

Igbo v i o l a t e s o n l y one o f them: t h e t e n s e d S c o n d i t i o n .

F u r t h e r , b e c a u s e of t h e s t r u c t u r e o f t h e l a n g u a g e , t h e s p e c i f i e d

s u b j e c t c o n d i t i o n d o e s n o t o b t a i n . tie do n o t have r e c i p r o c a l s

i n t h e l a n g u a g e ; r a t h e r what we have are r e f l e x i v e s .

1. Thc l k & n i z a t i o n EriccipLe however differs 'from AOAP in not 04 by

t r o p r i n c i p a l ways as L '.cI j t (1330). AOAl) ic n o t roatrictcd

t o i m n e d i a t e l y d o m i n a t i n ~ nodes a n d may c o n s e q u e n t l y b l o c k .!$I@

p o s s i b i l i t y o f s e l e c t i n g Y'' i n c o n s t r u c t i o n such as:

Fig. 37

Eere t h e I l ax imiza t ion P r i n c i g l e andfcven t h e Head F e a t u r e

C o n d i t i o n canno t apply. T5e Head F e a t u r e Condi t ion carmot apply

because "the d e t e r m i n e r , n o t b e i n g a projection of a l e x i c a l

c a t e g o r y , canno t d o n i n ~ t e heads ar.d non-heads ( c f . Deijtl. (1990)).

n l h e a a x b i z a t i o n ~ r i n c i p l c canzot a l s o app ly because t h o

d e t e r m i n e r no2e i n t e rvenes .

Seco2dly , BOAP c o n s i d e r s t h e nunber of bars and t h e r e f o r e

never p r o h i b i t s t h e s e l e c t i o n o f a node dominated by a n o t h e r

node of t h e spae projec t j -or . t y p e r : l th more b a r s ( s e e c?'l,so Neijt

( 1 9 8 0 ) ; .

2 , Koster f o r n u l a t e d t k i i s t o exclude empty positions w i t h i n

E" urAless t h e 2 a r e boundcZ ( i . e . f i n d an a n t e c c n d e n t ) . He a l s o

g e n e r a l i z e s i t t o i n c l u d e ?T, AP, PP 2nd S'.

3 . Zincl in t ; as a prope r ty rcprescztcc! lz L? is achieved and

expressed t h r o u ~ h c o i n d e x i n ~ ( c f . F:ay 1979) . The importo.ncc

of r c f c r c n t i d i n d i c e s i c nccc.qsi tatcd by t hc f ac t t h a t at LF

t r a c e and T O a r e formally n o n - d i s t i n c t , b a t h being d e s i e n z t e d \

as ' e l . A l s o all t y p c s o f AT need r c f c r e n t i o l i n d i c e s which

a r e i n t e y e r s f o r p r o p e r an; a d e q u a t e i n t e r p r e t i v e n e s s and they

are assi ,yned t he se i n d i c e s as a n a s p e c t of rules of c o r e p a r m a r ,

c i t h e r u c d e r rriovernent, c o n s t r u a l o r p r i c c i p l e o f c o n t r o l .

As o b s e r v e d Kay (I 983 ) , at logical r ep re sen t : , . : :.on "t5i.s

pa r t i a l i n d c x i n g 'cecom's cor :> le te as any TTP at, LF w i t h o u t fa

r e f e r c n t i a l index is a s s i g n e d one , d i s t i n ~ t *froq all thoee

previously assignedfq. !Two i d e n t i c a l N P s (by b i n d i n g ) arc

assigned t h e same r e f e r e n t i a l i n d e x ,

Thc hcad o f a s y n t a c t i c c a t e g o r y e s p e c i a l l y t h e NP c a t e g o r y , 3 is t h a t c o n s t i t u e n t t h a t o c c u p i e s t h e m o r p h o s y n t x t i c l o c u s .

Its p r e s e n c e i n t h e c a t e g o r y i s 0 5 l i g a t o r y . T t csanot be s o

a f f e c t e d by any p h o n o l o g i c a l o r s y n t a c t i c p r o c e s s t h a t i t is

d - e l c t e d o r o m i t t e d i n t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n . Its c h a r a c t e r

is d i s t r i b ~ t e d t o a l l t h e o t h e r c o n s t i t u e n t s ; t h i s i s rnade

possib1.e by t h e p r i n c i g l e o f C-comnand. Consequen t ly o t h e r

subcategorized c o n s t i t u e n t s t u r n o u t t o 5 e c i t 3 e r m o d i f i e r s o r

q u a l i f i e r s o r i n a n u m b r e l l a t e rm, d e t e r m i n e r s . IG Ig2o , t h e *

head i s a lways i n t h e bitial p o s i t i o n . Though i t i s a n

o b l i c z t o r y c o n s t i t u e n t , at t i m e s , i t s p r e s e n c e n e c e s s i t a t e s t h e

p r e s e n c e o f a complement which e n a b l e s i t t o r e d i z e i ts meaning

f u l l y . In I ,ybo , t h e r e a r c o n l y two p o s s i b l e s y n t a c t i c r u l e s t h a t

o b t a i n aa r e g a r d s TF movcnent. These s y n t a c t i c r u l e s a r e e i t h e r

e x t r a p o s i t i o n o r d e l e t i o n . Vhcre movement p r o d u c e s a r e s u m p t i v e

pronoun t h e e x t r a c t e d e l c n c n t a l w a y s s e r v e s as t h e a n t e c e d e n t

o f t h e t r a c e o r r e m r n ~ t i v e pronoun. They a r e a l s o co-r : ferent ial

and t h e a.2tccendent e l e n e n t s Eovern t h e anaphor s .

C o - r e f e r e n t i a l i t y is f u l l y expresser1 v i a co- indexing .

A c o n d i t i o n f o r movement i s t h a t t h e l a n d i n g s i t e must b e

u n f i l l e d by l e x r c a l i n s e r t i o n . The l a n d i n g s i t e n u s t a l s o

b e l o n g t o t h e same lexic,:l c a t e ~ o r y a,? t h e e x t r a c t i o n s i t e .

Only t h i s c o n d i t i o n i l r l l l a l l o w t h e e x t r a c t e d i t e m i n t h a t

p a r t i c u l a r p o s i t ion. Like YP movcwn ts i n many o t h e r languages , TTP movements i n 1,-to oSe:- t h e sub jacency c o n d i t i o n i n s o f a r as

t h c y do n o t c r o s s more t h a n onc bounci.'ng nodc i n any r i n ~ l e

rule a p p l i c a t i o n . Eoriever t h e +wh rcla t i v e s i n v o l v e unbounded

movement. Th i s p re&pposcs t h e i r potentiality o f c r o s s i n g

more than one c a t e g o r i a1 nodc during novcaent.

Prom t h e work; i t has been o b s e r v e d that t h e bounding nodes

f o r I cbo nse E2 and S, O f dl t h e 3P movement conditiocs t h a t

havc hccn positcc? f o r 8 i P f e r c n t l a n p a g e n and s h i c h can be

d e s c r i S e d under t h e sub jacencg c o n d i t i o n , Igbo s y n t a x v i o l a t e s

t h e Tensed S c o n d i t i o n . The s p e c i z i e d s u b j e c t C o n d i t i o n

does n o t o b t a i n at all in IgBo. This is because r e c i p r o c a l s

which are a p r e r e q u i s i t e f o r t h i s c o n d i t i o n do n o t o b t a i n i n

t h e language. Xiat t h c language 3as a r e r e f l ex ives and under

t h e s e r e f l e x i v e s t h e i d e a of r e c i p r o c c l i t y i s i m p l i c i t l y

expressed.

I n c o n c l u s i o n wc assum t h a t sone c r u c i a l q u e s t i o n an NP

movercent in I ~ b o syntax have been answered. Bowever t h c work

i s n o t c o n c l ~ s i v e i n i t s e l f . It i s rather a c a t a l y s t aimed at

t emper ing f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h on t h i s area.

Allan, Keith (1987). nHierarchies and t h e Choice of Left Conjuncts with Par t icu la r Reference t o Englishn, i n Linguistic Tnquiry 14, 51-77.

Anderson, J. (1976). "On Ser ia l i za t ion i n Fbglish Syntax1' i n Mdni<sburr; Studies i n h n ~ u a ~ e and Linguist ics 1-np.

Bloomfield, L. (1933). Iansage. New York. Henny H o l t .

Pilinger, Dwight. (1973). "hmhient - Tt i s a l s o Meanincful* i n Journal of Linguistics, p. 262.

BofW, H. (1984). Parametric tax- Case Studies i n Sernl t io A and Romance Lanmaces. Dordrecht Foris.

Brcsnan, J.V. (1970). ' On Complementizers Toward s Syr-tgctic Theory of Complement Typest i n Foundations o f bnguaae 6 , 297-3210

Carrel, p. LG. (1970). A Transformational Grammar o f Tgbo, yest African Languages Monograph 8 C TJ P

~homslry, Ei'. (1964). Current Tssues i n ~ i n g u i s t < c Theory. The Hague- Monton.

(1970). "Remarks on Nominali za t ionH In R. Jacobs and P.S. Rosenbaum, eds., Reading i n English Transfornational Grammar. Waltham, MA* Ginn & Co. ( ~ e p r i n t e d i n Chomsky - -pmTJ.

(1973). Conditions on Transfornations In S.R. Anderson and P. Xiparsky, eds., A Pes t schr i f t f o r Yorris - ~

Halle. New vork- Holt, s inehar t and ''/inston (?e;~r;nt,e.l i n Chomsky (1977b)).

(1980a). "On Binding i n Iiin&stic Tnquiryw 11, 1-1t6.

(1980~). Lectures on Government and Binding. . Dordrecht : Foris.

$ 3 3 I.:. Iasnik (1977). l 'F i l t e r s and 2ontrolH, i n Linguist ic Inquiry 8, 425-504.

Cole, L. (1982). (ne): Linguist ic Inquiry If, NO. 1,

Dowty, D. (1979). word Meanin6 and Montague Grammar. Dordrecht Recdel.

Emenan jo, E. FJ. (1978). gements of Tgbo Grammar. Ibadan: OUP,

mends J.2. (1976). 4 Transfornational Approach t o r n g l i s h Syntax* Root S t m c t u r e Frescrv in~ , an;] b c a l Transf%mations. New Yorkr Academic Press.

Gazdar, G. and G.K. Pullurn (1982). Generalized Phrase S t r u c t u r e Gmmmnr: A Theoret ical Synopsi S. Bloominston Indiana - Universi ty Linguistic club:

Goldsmith, J. (1976). Autoseymeital Phonology. Bloornington- Garland press.

Greenberc, J. (ed) (1963). !Jniversals of k i n g u a ~ e . $arnbric-lde MTT Press.

Horrocks, G. and Staurou, M. (1987). HBounding Theory a n d Greek Syntax. Evidence f o r Vh-Movement i n Moun phrasen Journal cf Linguis t ics 23. . .

I I

Ikekeonwu, C. f. (1986). A Lexico-phonotactic Study of t h e Northern Tgbo Dialects. ~ o c t d r a l Disser ta t ion , Department of Linguist ics and Nigerian Xanguages, Universi ty of Nigeria, Nsukka.

Tmndu, Mataebere (1987). "Igbo Xelat ive Clauses Some General Aspects o f languagen i n Xrsukka Journal of Linguis t ics and African Lanma~ts, 1, 87-99.

Jackendoff, R. (1977). X-Theory* A Study of Phrase Structure. Cambridge, NA. MTT Press.

I 1

Jaeggli , C. (1982). Topics i n Romance S.yntax. Dordrecht . Foris .

Jespersen, 0. (1924). The Philosophy of Grammar. London* Allen and Unwin Ltd.

Kayne, R.S. (1980). tlExtensioris on D l n t l i n ~ and Case-Markinen, i n Linguis t ic Tnquiry 11, 75-96.

(1983). "Connectedness" Linguistics ' I n q u i q 14, 223-249.

May, R. (1985). Logical Form I t s Structure and 3erivat ion. Cambrid~e MI2 Press.

Mbah, B.M. (1986). I tperfect ive Aspect Marker i n Nsukka G r o q of Dialects". B.A. Thesis. 3eparhent of Linguis t ics and Fligesian Languages, Universi ty of Nigeria, ~ ~ ~ a ~ .

Neijt, A. (1900). Gapping: A Cont r ibu t ion t o Sentence Grammnr. Cambridger MIT Press.

h~wachukwu, P.A. (1982). "hT Ser tex t ia l Complements in Tgbatt in J O L A V , 1, 47-61.

(1983a). Readings i n t h e T ~ b o Verb. O n i t s k Af ricana-TP

(1983). Towards an T ~ b o Literary Standard. London Kegan Paul In t e rna t iona l .

(1985), flInhcrent Complement Verbs i n Igbon JOLAhr 3, 61-74.

(1987) HTgbo Questions- Movement and TraceM. - A Mimeograph.

(1 988). "Case Theory, The Theta-Cri ter i on and Tgbo Inherent Complement Predicatesv ' . A mirneoyraph.

Oluikpe, B. 0. (1979). Transforna t iona l Tgbo Syntax. The Ngwa Example. Onitsha* Africana~PEP.

philiparki-Tflarburt on, I. (1987) . "?he ~heory of Etnpty Categor ies and t h e PRO-Drop P a r a s e t e r i n Modern Greek*, Journal o f L ingu i s t i c s , 23.

Powell, Mava J. (1985). "Purposive Vagueness An Evaluative Dimensf on of Vague Quantif'ying Expressionsvt i n Jou rna l o f L ingu i s t i c s , 21, 31-50.

Radford, A. (1981). Transformational Syntax A Student* s Guide t o Chomskv's Extended S t a n d a r d Theorv. London. Cambr id~e - .., TJniversity press .

Riemsdijk, H. and Xdwin Williams (1986). In t roduc t ion t o t h e Theory o f Granmar. Camhr id~c MTT press.

Rizzi, L. (1982). I s sues i n T t a l i a n Syntax. Dordrecht. Poris.

Rose, 3. R. (1987). Cons t r a in t s on Variables i n Syntax. Doctoral D i s se r t a t i on , VTT.

S e l l s , Peter (1585). Lecture Kotcsa- Lectures on Contemporary S y n t a c t i c Theories. Center for Cogni t ive Science, VTT, Cambridge, h f ~ 02139.

~wicky, A.M. (1985). *Headn Journal of Linguistics 21.

Zwicky, A.M. (1986). wfncorporating the Tnsizhts of A'-ttolexfcal Syntax'' Ohio State University Torking Papers in Linguistics. 139-143.