ABSTRACT
This work examines the syntax of interrogatives in North Eastern Group of Igbo Dialects (NEGD) and Standard Igbo (SI). The main aim is to comparatively characterise the systems of interrogatives in the selected varieties of NEGD, namely Izhi, Ezaa, Mgbo, Ehugbo, Uburu and Nkaleha and to describe the range of parametric possibilities and constraints distinguishing between them and the standard variety (SI). In doing this, the instruments of the minimalist framework are utilised. Several questions bordering on the structures, behaviours and properties of interrogative elements in the varieties are addressed. A number of variations are found in the grammars of interrogative across the dialects studied and accordingly, accounted for. The work shows that in spite of the variations seen among the dialects of Igbo, all the interrogative forms in the language derive from the same underlying architecture. On the structure and nature of the wh- elements, the work argues that all the wh-phrases in Igbo are built on the same primary tree, though with varying internal make-ups, which account for their varying behaviours in overt syntax. The work also argues that movement of wh- phrases to SpecCP in the language is triggered by the Q-operator for feature- checking purposes and for scope specification. Wh-in-situ instantiations in Igbo is found to be instances of ‘declarative predicate in-situ question’ (DPIQ) and ‘interrogative predicate in-situ question’ (IPIQ), both of whose interpretation is based on pragmatic, or non-syntactic factors. Based on this, the work argues that the optional tendencies in wh-characterisation of the language are only superficial; that Igbo is actually, a wh-movement language. This conclusion is notable because it has long been assumed that Igbo is optional in instantiating wh- strategies, and given to free switch between wh-movement and in-situ strategies at the volition of the user (without any syntactic motive). Again, for all contexts of yes-no question derivation in Igbo, the movement of the subject element to CP is argued to be obligatory, forced by a Q-operator feature need
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.0.Preamble
Microparametric syntax is a fairly new research approach that applies the theoretical concepts and techniques of generative theory to dialectal and other small-scale variational data. In line with this contemporary course of linguistic investigation, therefore, this work examines, identifies and compares the syntactic features of interrogatives in some dialects of Igbo, grouped under the North Eastern Group of Igbo Dialects (NEGD, henceforth), comprising, but not limited to Izhi, Ezaa, Mgbo, Ehugbo, Uburu and Nkalaha (Nwaozuzu 2008) and the Standard Igbo variety (SI, henceforth), with the view to establishing some microparametric variations across them. The work, from the perspectives of these varieties, illuminates the syntax of interrogatives in the Igbo language, generally and affords us new insight into and understanding of some of the phenomena underlying the Universal Grammar (UG) theories and assumptions on question derivation, such as wh-parameter instantiation (wh-in-situ and wh-movement strategies), wh-feature and Q(uestion)-feature-checking and their associated principles.
This chapter provides the general introduction to the study. The chapter is organised as follow: section (1.1) presents the background and motivation for the study. The section also provides insight into the language of study and overview of the syntactic structure of the Igbo language. In section (1.2) the theoretical and empirical linguistic problems to which this study is poised to provide solutions are stated. In section (1.3), the general and specific objectives of the study are stated. The next section, (1.4), raises the main question which the study is meant
to address. In section (1.5), the significance of the study are stated. Next, in section (1.6), the scope of the study is specified. Here, the linguistic and geographical areas within which the study is confined are defined. Lastly, section (1.7) outlines the theoretical assumptions that guide the thinking of the researcher
1.1. Background to the Study
It is a linguistic fact that the grammars of different languages exhibit certain differences. For example, a grammar of Igbo is different from a grammar of Yoruba; that of English from French, etc. However, it must also be stated that they have some properties in common. Linguists of different traditions and conventions all agree about this situation.
Against the backdrop of the observed structural differences between languages, one of the major goals of linguistic theory has come to be establishing what is universal in human language, and what are the limits on linguistic variation; that is, in how far and in what ways the grammars of languages or dialects may vary from one another. Consequently, a great deal of contemporary linguistic theories, according to Radford, Atkinson, Britain, Clahsen and Spencer (1999: 7), are aimed at testing hypotheses about UG on ever wide class of languages. On this prevailing development, Ndimele (2004: 2) notes that there has been a new focus of theoretical interest in syntactic investigation into comparative syntax – a comparative framework adopted to provide some insights into the kind of interlinguistic variations, which might exist among languages, and to illustrate the functioning of certain syntactic processes that may or may not be universal attributes of human language.
In searching for the principles of UG as well as of the language-specific parameters which yield variations, Kayne (2013) has advocated looking at more
closely related languages. (Note that Kayne’s use of the term ‘language’ simply refers to ‘a speech form’; whether such a speech form is regarded as a language or a dialect. In his own words, “I will use the term ‘language’ to cover dialects, too” (Kayne 2013:134)). According to Kayne (2013:137):
The varying difficulty of the question of ‘counterparts’ of words (or morphemes) across languages feeds into the more general fact that it is easier to search for comparative syntax correlations across a set of more closely related languages than across a set of less closely related languages. If the languages being compared are more closely related/more similar to one another, it is almost certain that there will be
fewer variables that one has to control for, and that there will therefore be a greater likelihood of success in pinning down valid correlations.
The microparametric proposal becomes most appealing in view of the concern of this work – the features of interrogatives across seven dialects of Igbo.
Some of the popular assumptions on Standard Igbo interrogative derivation (e.g. wh-movement optionality, tone as the yes-no question question operator, etc.) do not only conflict with a number of current theoretical assumptions and established principles of UG, but conflict with the realities found in various dialects of the language. In order to reconcile the conflicting assumptions on various instantiations of interrogative mechanism across the dialects of Igbo, six dialects of NEGD have been selected to be examined against SI, with focus on wh-interrogatives and yes-no interrogatives.
The main thesis of this study is that, comparatively, there is significant variability in grammar between the NEGD and SI, in terms of interrogative
constructions; though, the systems across all the dialects may have derived from the same underlying architecture.
1.1.1 Insights into the Language of Study
Igbo is a Kwa language of the new West Benue-Congo family, spoken by well over 20 million people of the southern eastern Nigeria, mainly in Abia, Anambra, Ebonyi, Enugu and Imo states. Igbo people and speakers are also found in good numbers in the neighbouring states of Delta, Rivers, Benue, Cross River, Edo and Kogi.
The Igbo speech area has been classified by Nwaozuzu (2008) into eight groups of geographically proximate varieties, which coincidentally, exhibit similar dialectal traits. The groups include the following:
i. West Niger Group of Dialects (WNGD) ii. East Niger Group of Dialects (ENGD) iii. East-Central Group of Dialects (ECGD) iv. Cross River Group of Dialects (CRGD)
v. South-Eastern Group of Dialects (SEGD) vi. North-Eastern Group of Dialects (NEGD) vii. South-Western Group of Dialects (SWGD)
viii. Northern Group of Dialects (NGD) (Nwaozuzu
2008: 10)
All the dialects, irrespective of the grouping, are, to a considerable extent, mutually intelligible.
The interest of this study, as we have indicated, is in the sixth group above (NEGD) and SI. NEGD comprises the dialects of Izhi, Ikwo, Ezaa, and Mgbo (the Abankaleke Satellite Dialects); Ehugbo (Afikpo), Amasiri and Akpoha (the
Afikpo Satellite Dialects); Nkaleha, Nkalegu, Ezzilo, Agba (the Ishielu Satellite Dialects); Akaeze, Ishiagu, Ihie and Okue (the Ivo Satellite Dialects); Onicha, Okposi, Uburu, Oshiri, Ugwulangwu, Isu (the Ohaozara Satellite Dialects); and Edda.
1.1.2 Overview of Igbo Syntax
The purpose of this section is to provide some background information on the syntax of the Igbo language generally, using SI as a reference. References are, however, made to some of the dialectal variations where necessary. This, we presume, would facilitate a better understanding of the data to come.
1.1.2.1. Tone
Igbo is a register tone language (Mbah & Mbah 2010), utilising tone for both lexical and grammatical distinction of meaning. It has three tones: the high tone ( ˊ ), low tone ( ˋ ) and the step tone ( ˉ ). The distinctiveness of the first two tones mentioned has been unanimously attested to. What remains controversial is the status of the third one, the step tone. The most popular view on this is that the step tone is a reduced high, grammatically induced, and hence does not contrast minimal pairs (Mbah & Mbah 2010). For this reason, the step tone has been argued not a distinctive tone. On the contrary, Mbah (1999) argues and shows that the step tone does contrast minimal pairs, hence should be considered at par with the other two. However, considering the cross-dialectal nature of this study, we will remain unaligned on this. We maintain what has been generally established, that there are three tones in the language.
1.1.2.2 Lexical categories of Igbo
The lexical categories of Igbo do not reduce to one-one correspondence to the English lexical categories. Mbah (2012) identifies six lexical categories in
Igbo, including nouns, pronouns, verbs, adverbs, prepositions and conjunctions. Additionally, for us, there are also adjectives. So we can say there are seven classes of words in Igbo.
It is instructive to note that these lexical categories are not usually neatly distinguishable in isolation. As it is in English, but even more in Igbo, most words functionally belong to several classes. In fact, in the language, very many of the functions played by distinct lexical categories in English are expressed somewhat via the verb system in Igbo. In the same vein, most modifying elements are basically nominals. A great number of the Igbo modifying elements (like adverbs, which modify the verbs) are expressed by reduplication, syntactic iteration or ideophones.
(1) Ihe nile gà-rà were-were ‘Everything went smoothly’ (Reduplication) Thing all go-PST RED
(2) Chụ-wa ya n’ike n’ike ‘Begin to pursue it rigorously’ (Syntactic iteration)
[pursue-INC it PREP-strength PREP-strength]
(3) Anwụ nà-àcha gbàà ‘The sun shines brightly’ (Ideophone) [sun aux-shine IDIO]
1.1.2.3 Basic word order in Igbo
Here we use ‘basic word order’ strictly from the perspective of the surface sentence syntax; we do not by any means imply ‘underlying order’. The basic word order of the Igbo language is Subject-Verb-Object (SVO). Therefore, in all the dialects of Igbo the canonical sentence structure has the subject first, followed by the verb and then, the object, as in (1),
(4) Emeka zà-rà ụlọ ‘Emeka swept the house’
pst
SUBJ V OBJ
However, in Standard Igbo (SI) and some other dialects, the above word order is sometimes jingled, yielding still a different default order. This is particularly so, when the subject element is a first person singular pronoun (1sg). In this case the pronominal element ‘splits’ around the verb in a circumfixal manner as in (5).
(5) A zà-rà m ụlọ ‘I swept the house’
pst
SUBJ V-past SUBJ OBJ
The initial element, usually ‘a’ or ‘e’, as the case may be (due to vowel agreement/vowel harmony phenomenon of the language), have been variously described as a dependent 1sg pronoun (Emenanjo 1978), place holder (PH) (Ndimele I991), and many more. The element ‘a’/‘e’ has been argued to be externally merged at SpecTP to satisfy Extended Projection Principle (EPP) structural requirement on sentence derivation that every sentence/clause must have a subject. Note that, fundamentally, the occurrence of the subject DP in SpecTP is believed to be as a result of movement since it is assumed to have generated at SpecVP. The verb is also assumed to have raised to T to adjoin with the relevant inflectional or functional elements in the T-node. The derivation of
the Phonetic Form (PF) of the sentence in (4) is captured in (6) below:
(6)
TP
SpecTP Tʹ
T VP
+pst
SpecVP Vʹ
V DP NP
Emekaj zà-ràk
Emekaj zak ụlọ
In (5), therefore, it is assumed that the 1sg m remains at its base-generated position at SpecVP. Its failure to raise to T requires that something be done to check the EPP feature in T, hence the insertion of a dummy pronominal element
‘a’ which is co-indexed with the main subject at SpecVP. The reason for the failure of m to raise is not clear here; but that should not bother us.
1.1.2.4 Igbo Phrasal Categories
The Igbo phrasal categories are divided into two: lexical phrases and
functional phrases. The lexical phrases are those phrases built around lexical
heads (e.g NP, VP, etc), while functional phrases are those built around functional heads (e.g. IP or TP).
1.1.2.4.1 Lexical Phrases of Igbo
Of the seven lexical categories of Igbo, only five (N, V, Adv., AdjP and P)
project into phrases. The pronoun and conjunction do not project. Pronouns do not project into or head a distinct phrase; it’s a property or sub-category of the DP or NP. Thus Igbo has Noun Phrase (NP), as in (7), Verb Phrase (VP), as in (8), Adverbial Phrase (AdvP), as in (9), Adjectival Phrase (AdjP) as in (10) and Prepositional Phrase (PP), as in (11).
(7) a [NP Nwoke ogologo] ‘tall man’
Man tall
(8) [VP sụ akwà] ‘wash cloth’
Wash cloth
(9) [AdvP mgbè ọ byàrà] ‘when he came’
| When 3sg come-PST (10) [AdjP obere ìtè ‘small pot’ (11) Small pot [PP n’ elu ụlọ] ‘ on top of t |
he house’
PREP top house
1.1.2.4.2 Functional Phrases of Igbo
There are three functional phrases in Igbo. They include the Inflectional Phrase (IP) (otherwise referred to as Tense Phrase (TP)), the Complementiser Phrase (CP), and the Determiner Phrase (DP). The DP has dual nature. It can pass for lexical and functional phrases. The IP is headed by INFL which is made up of ‘a bundle’ of features (Mbah 2012:231), that is, inflectional categories, including tense, gender, number, auxiliary, modal, etc. On the other hand, the CP is headed by a complementiser. There are three complementisers in SI: na, ka,
and ma; most NEGD dialects have four or five (e.g. Ezaa – mè, le, gè, tè, and be). These complementisers have different subcategorisational frames (SF).
The SI DP is the most difficult to characterise neatly. This, we observe, is partly connected to the fact that many Igbo scholars are yet to come to terms with the DP hypothesis, hence they are still stocked to the NP conceptualisation. Again, and, more seriously, the absence of articles (both definite and indefinite) in most, if not in all dialects of Igbo, makes DP analysis very abstract in the language. Again, the inconsistent head-complement configuration within the DP in the language further complicates issues. For us, the DP analysis helps to resolve the controversy surrounding head principle in phrases involving noun-complement configuration within the D-system. We return to illustrate Igbo DP structure ahead.
1.1.2.5 Head-Parameter in Igbo
When lexical heads are combined with other lexical items or phrases to form larger phrases, it is always the case that the head either precedes or succeeds the other constituents. It is on this basis that languages parametrically divide into two: those whose heads always precede other elements of the phrase (head initial language) and those whose heads always or most consistently follow the other elements in the phrase (head-final language). In principle, languages are supposed to maintain one pattern only – head-initial or head-final. However, empirically, what we see most often is a mixed system sort of. Igbo is a head initial system. By this we mean that the head of the phrase in Igbo consistently precedes its complement. We illustrate the head-initial pattern across the various Igbo lexical phrases below.
(12) Verb Phrase (VP): Verb-Object/Complement order
(a) re azụ ‘ sell fish’
sell fish
(b) tìnyèrè efere ahù nà nkàtà ‘put that plate inside the basket’
put plate DET PREP basket
The VPs in (12 a-b) above can be represented on derivational trees as in (12 c-d)
below (ignoring the internal structure of the complements)
(c)
VP
V O
re azụ
(d) VP
verb DP
tinyere
Object
efere ahu
PP
na nkata
(13) Prepositional Phrase (PP): Preposition-NP Order
(a) Nà Ǹsụka ‘At Nsukka’
PP
P NP
na Nsuka
(b)
(14) Noun Phrase: Noun-Relative Clause Order
(a) Nwaànyi di ime ‘A pregnant woman’
[woman be pregnant]
A woman who is pregnant
(b)
| y, in all the examples above, the heads of the |
NP
N RC
nwaanyi
Consistentl
di ime
Igbo lexical phrases are
head-initial. Now we turn to functional phrases. The head-complement sequence of the Igbo functional phrases is usually shrouded with feature- checking-related movements, which often demand that the specifier positions be
occupied. However, the head-initial tendency of Igbo is still maintained within the configuration of specifier-head-complement order. Let us demonstrate this with
the CP below:
(15) Complementiser-Complement Order
(a) Ọ gwàrà m [CP nà [TP ị VP byà-rà]] [3sg tell-PST me COMP 2sg come-PST]
He told me that you came
(b)
CP
SpecCP Cʹ
C TP
na ị bya-ra
The only Igbo phrase that shows irregular head-order is the Determiner Phrase (DP). The DP has the determiner as its head. Thus, it is expected that if a language is a head-initial language, the D should always come first and vice versa. On the surface, the head of Igbo DP sometimes comes first, at other times medially and at some other times, finally. Such inconsistent behaviour has posed a serious problem to uniform analysis. This is further complicated by the fact that the language has no articles, hence the head of the DP is often realised as null. The examples below
are illustrative:
(16) Nwoke à ‘This man’
[Man DET]
(17) Ajō nwoke ahù ‘That bad man’
[bad man that]
(18) Nwoke ogologo à ‘This tall man’
[Man tall DET]
In (16-18) above, the determiner is consistently phrase-final. In (17), the issue is further compounded by the occurrence phrase-initially of another modifying element (an adjective), encasing the noun in the middle. In (18), a different scenario presents itself: the noun is phrase-initially, the adjective medially, followed by the determiner finally. With this, it is difficult to maintain our head-initial assumption. However, we maintain that Igbo is head initial despite the inconsistency observed above.
We assume, Kayne’s (1994) Linear Correspondence Axiom (LCA) (19), which stipulates a uniform, universal word order, now taken as part of UG.
(19) Linear Correspondence Axiom:
a. The head precedes the complement.
b. The specifier precedes the head. c. Spec > Head > Complement
Kayne (1994:35) argues that no matter how complex the specifier or complement, it will always be the case, in any phrase marker, that the specifier and complement are on opposite sides of the head. Implicit in this postulation is that whatever head-specifier and complement permutation we may find in a
language (19) is underlying it; the scrambled head-specifier-complement order we see on the surface are instantiated by movements. Now, we return to examples
(16-18), represented in phrase markers below as (20-22), to show that, in their
Logical Form (LF), they are all head-initial (headed by the determiner).
(20) Nwoke à (This man) DP
NP Dʹ
D <NP> Nwokej a tj
(21) Ajo nwoke ahụ (That bad man) DP
AdjP Dʹ
Adj NP D <AdjP>
Adj NP
ajọ nwoke ahụ ajọ
nwoke
j tj
(22) Nwoke ogologo à (This tall man)
DP
NP Dʹ
N AdjP D <NP>
From our demonstration above, it can be seen that within the D-system, the determiner is the head of all the maximal D-projections. It can be seen therefore that the phrase-final occurrence of the determiner in Igbo is a mere surface instantiation. This assumption allows a uniform account of all the various head-complement permutations within the Igbo surface D-system.
1.1.2.6 Morpho-Syntactic Structure of Igbo
Igbo, like many other African languages, has a system in which morphology and syntax are so interwoven in a manner that it is difficult, if not impossible to discuss one without implicating the other. Understanding Igbo syntax, therefore, requires looking beyond the linear order/arrangement of words. One often needs to look inside the words to be able to decode a great deal of syntactic information which are usually morphologically encoded in them (the words). This is because, put technically, by morphological typological classification, Igbo is agglutinative.
As an agglutinative system, so much information, which ordinarily are expressed lexically (using free morphemes) in isolative languages, are expressed morphologically in Igbo. For instance, the negative, perfective aspectual and main verbal notions in the language can be inflectionally conflated into one verbal complex, as in (23)
(23) Ò ri-bè-ghì nri [3sg eat-perf-neg food] he/she has not eaten
However, all the inflectional categories of Igbo are verb-based. Put differently, only verb inflection is possible in Igbo (Nwankwegu 2013).
There are three inflectional categories in the Igbo language, including tense, aspect and modal (TAM) inflections (Nwankwegu, 2013:58). The Igbo tense inflection has only one process –past tense inflection, which is marked by the suffix –rV1 as in (24-25).
(24) rì-rì ‘ate’
eat-rVpast
(25) gà-rà ‘went’
go-rVpast
As for the aspectual inflection, in SI, we have two processes: the perfective inflection (marked with the suffix –go/-la (26) in the affirmative and – beghi (23) in the negative, and inceptive inflection (marked suffixally with –wa/- ba (27).
(26) O ri-e-la nri ‘He has eaten (food)’
[3sg eat-EXT-PERF food]
(27) O ri-we-go ‘He has started eating’
3sg eat-INCP-PERF
Cross-dialectally, there are more aspectual inflections. For instance, the Owerri and Ikwere mark the progressive aspect inflectionally with the suffix –ga (Nwaozuzu 2008) as in (28)
(28) O ri-gà nri ‘He is eating’
[3sg eat-PROG food]
The modal inflectional category comprises the indicative and the imperative inflections, each divided into affirmative and negative processes. In the affirmative indicative inflectional sub-category, the –rV2 inflectional suffix expresses state of the subject on the verb (specifically a stative verb) as in (29)
(29) O nwè-rè egō ‘He has money’ (He is rich) [3sg have-IND money]
There is also the benefactive inflectional process, which is also marked with –rV3.
This is prepositional in function, interpretable as for/to in English, as in (30)
(30) O bụ-ụ-rụ Chinekè abụ ọma ‘He sang a hymn for God’
[3sg sing-PST-BEN God song good]
For the negative indicative inflection, the negative suffix –ghi is simply affixed on the stative verb.
The imperative inflection has –a/–e/-o/-ọ for the positive command (31) or
–rV4, if the staive-active verb is involved (32)
(31) By-a ebe à ‘Come here’
[come-IMP place DET]
(32) Kù-rù nwa à ‘Carry this child’
Carry-EMP child DET
1.1.2.7 The Igbo verb complex
Every Igbo verb co-occurs with one or more other element to express a clear meaning. In fact, there is no free Igbo verb in its absolute sense. Nwankwegu (2013:30) observes that most Igbo verbs are ‘bound roots’. This is because there is hardly any Igbo verb that expresses a meaning without, at least,
an affix or a complement attached to or associated with it. For instance, none of the verbs ri, zụ, je, and gba can occur without an affix – prefix or suffix: i-ri,ri-ri eri, rie, richa n-ri; i-zu, zụ-rụ, àzụ, zụa, etc. These affixes encode various grammatical features and meanings. Only few Igbo verbs (such as jì ‘hold’, nwè
‘have’, mà ‘know’; the copulas dì ‘be-state’ , bù ‘be-existential’, nọ ‘be- locative’, etc.) may exist, in certain contexts, without affixes, but not without complements (overtly or covertly present). The complete verbal formation of Igbo comprises
the main verb (or the bound verb root), bound verbal components, the complements and the auxiliaries. These form what has been referred to as ‘verbal complex’ (Uwalaka 1983) or ‘verb complex’ (Mbah 2012).
Very crucial to understanding the Igbo verbs system is their complementation structure. Every Igbo verb subcategorises an obligatory nominal element to make its meaning definite. The complementary element could be an obligatory verb complement (OVC) (33-34), a direct object or a direct and an indirect object (35–36), the bound cognate noun (BCN) (Emenanjo 1978) (37-38) or an adjunct (39-40)
1.1.2.7.1 The OVC and ICV
The OVC refers to the obligatory complement necessary to make the meaning of an inherent complement verb (ICV) definite. The ICV, according to Nwachukwu (1985) refers to verbs whose semantic content is incomplete without a corresponding meaning-specifying complement. Such a verb, according to the theory, does have meaning, but the meanings in questions are only made specific or definite with a complementary lexical item. For instance, though, ‘gba’ and ‘bu’ in (33) and (34), respectively, below have meanings, they cannot convey them without being complemented with a nominal:
| (33) | gba gba gba | mbo – oso oto | make effort run (a race) be naked |
| (34) | gba gba bu | egbe akaebē ibu | shoot a gun bear witness, etc. carry load |
| bu | onū | fast |
bu irō keep malice/be in enmity
The items in bold face in (33) and (34) above are ICV whereas those in italics are
OVC.
An Igbo verb, as we have noted can take a direct object, with an indirect object (35) or without an indirect object (36). Note that in the examples above, none of the nominal elements following the verbs is an object.
(35) Uchè zụ-ụ-rụ nwunye ya motò ‘Uche bought his wife a car’
[Uche buy-PST-BEN wife his car]
(36) Èmeka rì-rì ji ‘ Emeka ate yam’
[Emeka eat-PST yam
1.1.2.7.2 The BCN
The BCN (Emenanjo, 1978), variously called, the ‘cognate object’ (Green and Igwe 1963), the ‘bound cognate object’ (Williamson 1972), the ‘repetition noun’ (Winston 1973), and the ‘cognate complement’ (Okonkwo 1974), is a verb-bound deverbal nominal element, which usually comes after the verb, with or without a
complement. It is usually cognate with the main verb with which it co-occurs, having been derived from it. Examples:
(37) Ha rè-rè àlà ahụ ère ‘They actually sold that land’
[3pl sell_PST land selling]
(38) Èmeka jụ-rụ àju ‘Emeka refused’
[Emeka refuse-PST refusal]
In (37) the BCN (in italics) occurs after an object àlà ahù ‘that land’. It seems to function in this context as a predicate contrastive focus element, contrasting the action of ‘selling’ from other possible actions that could be taken on the land, like
‘leasing’, ‘giving’, ‘buying’, etc.. The function seems to change in (38) where it simply complements and makes specific the meaning of jụrụ, which could also mean ‘asked’, taking a complement ajụjụ ‘question’, as in jụrụ ajụjụ ‘asked a question’. Even in its denotation as ‘refuse’, without the BCN, there would arise several other interpretations of the verb; for instance, as a transitive verb, taking an object (e.g jụrụ nri ’refuse/reject food’).
1.1.2.7.3 The Object
From the above presentations, it appears every Igbo verb is transitive. However, a closer look reveals the fact that neither the OVC nor the BCN can be argued to have, actually, received the effect of the action depicted by the verbs in the examples given. Therefore, those verbs, though could be transitive in some other contexts, are not transitive in the above contexts. For a verb to be described as transitive, its action must have affected or been transferred to an entity – the object – such as moto in (35), ji in (36) and àlà ahụ in (37). When the action of the verb, transited to the object benefits or harms another entity, then we have an
indirect object. Here, the beneficiary or victim of the action is the indirect object. For example, nwunye ya ‘his wife’ in (35) is an indirect object.
The Igbo verb may also occur with one or more adverbials (adjuncts), as in (39-40).
(39) Ha byàra gboo ‘They came early’
[3pl come-PST early]
(40) Ha byà-rà ọzọ ùnyahụ ‘They came again yesterday’
[3pl come-PST again yesterday]
1.1.2.7.4 The Auxiliaries
Mbah (2012:20) identifies six auxiliaries in Igbo. They include nà, gà, kà, jì, mà, and dị. The first three, according to him are common in the standard variety of Igbo; the rest are somewhat dialectal. Several other auxiliaries have been argued, however, we will maintain these three in this work, with few more from NEGD: lè/là/jhè/gè/je/ (future), lè/yè/nè/nò/nà (durative/progressive), gà/gegẹ (past unfulfilled), maghi (neg future).
1.1.2.8 Interrogative system
The main interrogative devices in Igbo are interrogatives words, tone and movement. Several other minor devices, such as the question particle in Mgbo dialect, also exist. The interrogative words/phrases of SI include the following:
(41) Ònyē ‘who’ Gịnị ‘what’ Èbeē ‘where’ Òleē ‘which’ Òle mgbè/mgbè ole ‘when’ Màkà ginī/n’ihi ginī ‘why’
Òle etu/etu olē‘how’
These are the wh-phrases of Igbo – simple and complex forms – used in forming the wh-question. There also exists another question element kèdu which combines variously with wh-relatives to express interrogative meaning, inquiring about arguments or adjuncts in the sentence.
1.1.2.8.1 Interrogative Derivation
The interrogative phrases listed above usually originate somewhere inside the sentence (predicate or subject in-situ). Igbo has an option of leaving its question phrases (wh-phrases) in-situ, as in (42) or moving it to the left periphery of the original clause, specifically into the CP as in (43). This is contrary to the Wh-Parameter, which stipulates that a language either leaves its wh-phrases in their original place (wh-in-situ strategy) or moves it to the left edge of the clause (wh-movement strategy). In fact, languages are classified based on this parameter as either wh-movement or wh-in-situ languages. In the strict sense of the
minimalist idea of Wh-Parameter, no middle course is permitted.
| (42) | Èmeka rì-rì gịnị? [Emeka eat-PSt what] What did Emeka eat? | (wh-in-situ) |
| (43) | Gini kà Emeka rì-rì? [What COMP Emeka eat] What did Emeka eat? | (wh-movement) |
Syntax of interrogative being the focus of this study, one of the questions we will need to address is why Igbo optionally permits the two wh-interrogative
strategies, contrary to the stipulations of wh-parameter and other restrictive
Minimalist principles, which aim to promote economy of derivation.
In forming yes-no questions in Igbo, it seems it is only a single action – tone change on the subject pronoun – that suffices to turn a declarative clause/sentences into an interrogative one. Compare (44) and (45)
(44) Ha gà àbya
3pl aux come
They will come.
(45) Hà gà àbya
3pl aux come
Will they come.
This is one of the areas of Igbo grammar where the grammatical value of tone comes to fore. As can be seen in the above illustration, only the change of tone on the pronoun makes the difference. When the subject position is occupied by a referential DP or, a sentential DP, a little wiggle becomes additionally necessary. The referential subject DP here undergoes leftward movement to the clause/sentence periphery. When so-moved, the moved element leaves a phonetically realised copy of itself – a resumptive pronoun. The obligatory low tone rule described above then applies on the resumptive pronoun as in (46)
(46) Ndi Afirikà hà gà àbya? [People Africa they will come] Will African people come?
The yes-no question formation process as described above appears too simplistic that we suspect there are more to it than what appears on the surface. Inquiring deeper into the mechanism of yes-no interrogative constitutes one of the pre-
occupation of this work. In due course, we will subject the structure to the Minimalist analytic devices with the view to understanding more what actually transpires.
In conclusion, we have presented an overview of the syntax of only SI. We feel that, since the syntactic structure of the language is largely the same across all the dialects (with only marginal, though, non-trivial variations), this suffices to offer our reader some working knowledge, which will facilitate better understanding of the data to come. This is more so because the SI variety is used as a benchmark against which the NEGD varieties are examined.
1.2. Statement of Problem
According to Haspelmath (2006), many generative and functional linguists share a primary interest in understanding structural similarities and differences between languages. It is clear that the observed language structures represent only a tiny fraction of the logically possible structures, and for a whole range of syntactic domains, linguists have a good idea of what the limits on structural variation are. But why should languages be limited in these particular ways in choosing their structures?
The above question underscores the need to provide a universal explanation to the working of the human language, which has been incumbent on linguists. This has stimulated great efforts, which have variously resulted in well- known theories, all with the aim of defining the set of universal principles underlying all human languages, and the specific (parametric) application of these principles in different individual languages and their dialects.
There are two possible ways of approaching this question. One way is to look at languages which are superficially very different from one another to find
out to what extent there are true deep-seated differences between the languages, and how these differences can be accounted for. This is macroparametric approach. Another way is to look at closely related languages or dialects to examine the degree of variation that is possible between grammars, which are in many ways similar. This is microparametric approach, which we have favoured in this work.
The ever-growing application of the microparametric theoretical approach in extracting fine-grained description of cross-linguistic variation among closely related languages or dialects has revealed unusual behaviour of various grammatical aspects in different languages of the world. Mostly, the approach has been used productively and successfully in relation to Romance and Scandinavian languages and dialects. Unfortunately, little or none of such studies exist in Igbo language and its dialects. An investigation from the perspective of the Igbo language and dialects becomes necessary to fill this gap. With this in mind, this work zooms in on the interrogative system of the Igbo language, drawing from
the dialects of NEGD and SI.
The interrogative sub-area, like many other sub-areas of Igbo grammar, has not been adequately studied, particularly, using the minimalist theoretical framework. No doubt, a number of works exist on the subject of interrogatives (or questions) in Igbo; nonetheless, many critical questions remain nagging.
The theoretical problems associated with interrogatives are both global and perennial. The questions of whether both yes-no and non-yes-no questions derive from the same underlying functional mechanism or not; and if yes, how to uniformly account for them, have remained topics of serious discourse since the
1960s, leading to Katz and Postal’s proposal of Q-morpheme. Then, corollary to
the Q-morpheme proposal, arose the controversies over its position in the sentence, and whether the Q-morpheme is recursively present in all embedded questions or the one in the matrix clause suffices to quantify the illocutionary force (or type) the embedded clauses as interrogatives. As far as we are aware, none of these proposals has been, discussed, with respect to Igbo data. Still on
yes-no question derivation, the little we know about it in Igbo draws mainly from the standard variety, with the overriding discovery being the High-Low tone inversion (reversal) on the sentence/clause pronominal subject element and the associated referential NP left-dislocation, where present. No account exists for some yes-no derivational mechanisms that are inconsistent with this common strategy, as found in some of the dialects. Filling such gaps form one of the bothers of this work.
On the other hand, issues relating to wh-interrogatives, particularly, bordering on wh-movement and wh-in-situ mechanisms, have remained in the front burner of syntactic theories in the recent decades, world over. The question of wh-movement triggering (why wh-elements need to move), particularly, considering the postulation that movement is essentially forced (Chomsky 1993,
1994, 1995), has been attracting researchers of different language interests. The question of wh-in-situ licensing (what makes wh-phrases to remain in their base- generated positions) in wh-in-situ languages or in multiple wh-question constructions has also been central in the literature. The landing position of
moved wh-elements, constraints to wh-movement and all other related issues have also formed parts of the focus of researchers. Above all, in view of the highly restrictive model of minimalist framework in which optionality is excluded, the controversy over the claims of optionality in wh-parameter instantiation in some
languages has shown no sign of petering out. In response, scholars have been trying to provide answers to these questions from the perspectives of various languages.
In Igbo, as we have noted earlier, quite a number of works exist on the broad topic of interrogatives. Unfortunately, in terms of confronting the questions of wh-movement trigger, wh-in-situ licensing, the non-setting of the wh-binary- parameter in Igbo and the non-conformity to the standard strategy of the yes-no question derivation by some dialects, the literature on Igbo interrogatives have been silent or, to say the least, made only poor attempts.
All the problems identified above can be collapsed into four: (1) problems related to structural derivation and description (2) problems related to interrogative features and operation (3) problems related to parametric tendencies (4) problems related to conflicting theoretical assumptions.
In filling the yawning gaps identified above, we draw from the dialects of NEGD and SI to argue that there exists only one question derivation operation across the two interrogative sub-types (yes-no/wh-interrogatives). This operation is amenable to some few feature-related morphosyntactic manipulations to yield either yes-no or wh-questions. We further argue that the same question derivation operation underlies all the dialects of Igbo, with few adjustments due to minor parametric variations in feature strength and specification, and in the very nature of interrogative elements. On the parameter optionality (wh-movement and wh-
in-situ tendencies) exhibited in Igbo questions, we argue that, theoretically, Igbo is, rather syntactically an obligatory wh-movement language; the apparent wh-in- situ mechanism seen owes it to some non-syntactic factors – discourse processing. Therefore, with data from all the varieties, we will evidentially show that the wh-
optionality claim in Igbo, though superficially observable, is theoretically unfounded.
1.3.Objectives of the Study
In view of these problems, the main aim of this study is to characterise the grammars of interrogatives in the six dialects of the Igbo language, in terms of their structure, derivation and typology, and to describe the range of parametric possibilities and constraints distinguishing between them and the standard variety. In pursuance of this general purpose, the work specifically aims at
i. identifying the types of interrogatives and describing how each is derived in NEGD and SI
ii. characterising the syntactic properties of NEGD and SI interrogatives within the framework of minimalism
iii. comparing the features of interrogatives in NEGD and SI, and accounting for any observed variation.
iv. determining the extent to which the interrogative parametric features of the Igbo language are consistent with the minimalist assumptions on interrogatives.
1.4.Research Questions
Following from the objectives of the study, outlined above, the questions below are posed to guide our inquiry:
i. What are the types of interrogative patterns in NEGD and SI in terms of their structural derivation?
ii. What are the syntactic properties of NEGD and SI interrogatives?
iii. To what extent do interrogatives in NEGD and SI vary in terms of structure and features, and to what can we attribute such variations?
iv. To what extent are the interrogative parametric features of the Igbo language consistent with the minimalist assumptions on interrogatives?
1.5. Significance of the Study
It is hoped that this work will be of immense benefit to linguistic scholarship in many ways, having made several findings of intellectual significance. To begin with, to the extent we are aware, this work seems to be the first to embark on a comparative investigation of the interrogative system of Igbo dialects in the magnitude, dimension and theoretical depth it has done. To that extent, the work is a landmark in Igbo syntactic studies. As such, it forms an academic asset in the field of Igbo linguistics, especially, in the area of comparative grammar and dialect studies, as a source of information and guide for researchers who may be interested in the syntax of interrogative or related subject matters.
Besides, following from the micro-comparative approach adopted, the study has been able to unearth numerous syntactic intricacies, hitherto obscured in the usual blanket generalisations stemming from investigations carried out in the standard or individual varieties of the Igbo language. As a result, the work has challenged a number of existing assumptions hitherto held as unchallengeable in Igbo grammar.
As a corollary to the above, this work has taken theoretical positions, advanced proposals, and raised questions, with expected consequences of raising the temperature of Igbo syntactic scholarship, generally and, particularly, expanding the space of thinking in the conceptualisation of Igbo interrogatives.
1.6.Scope of the Study
This study investigates the microparametric features of interrogatives in the Igbo language. The inquiry focuses on the six dialects drawn from NEGD, namely Izhi, Ezaa, Mgbo, Ehugbo, Uburu and Nkaleha, and comparing same with SI data. The inquiry is limited to yes-no interrogatives and wh-interrogatives and their sub-forms; other sub-types of interrogatives, such as tag questions, alternative answer questions, echo and rhetoric questions are excluded.
Being one of the universal properties and major utterance-types characterising human language, questions can be studied at different levels of linguistic analysis, and from different theoretical and empirical perspectives. We have chosen to look at our data from the syntactic perspective. However, Igbo is both an agglutinative and a tone language, and much of the information signalled by different computational operations is encoded in morpheme and tone, such that the syntax is reflected by a potpourri of morphological manipulation, tone manipulation, lexical and phrasal displacement. In view of this, we cannot discuss Igbo interrogatives without involving phonology and morphology.
The work is theoretically couched within the Minimalist Program, propounded by (Chomsky 1995, 2000), and empirically guided by the microparametric approach to comparative syntax as expounded by Kayne (1994).
1.7 Theoretical Assumptions
The general assumptions adopted in this work, with few modifications, are those of Chomsky (1993, 1995, 2000) (the basic ideas of minimalism on [+WH+Q] features) and Simpson (2000). Some of the minimalist theoretical assumptions, as outlined by Cole & Hermon (1998), which shape the thinking of this study, are as follow:
i. All languages display the same underlying architecture; the only difference among languages is in the inventory of words/morphemes. UG is not subject to parameterisation.
ii. There is no optionality in syntactic principles. Optionality in language is due to differences in lexical items/morphemes.
iii. All the grammatical properties of UG itself are derived from the interface of syntax and extra grammatical systems such as logical interpretation and phonetic production.
iv. No movement rule applies unless its application is required by the needs/properties of some lexical/functional item. When the requirements of a lexical item can be satisfied without movement, no rule will apply. Functional heads that have uniterpretable features will force movement of a category with matching feature to check their strong feature before spell- out.
v. Principle of economy of derivation (PED) as detailed in Chomsky (1995) also apply. in particular, movement is more costly than merger (base generation). Thus, when there is competition between two derivations based n the same numeration, one of which involves movement and the other does not, the derivation without movement will win out.
On nominal expressions, we adopt the DP hypothesis of Abney (1987) and
assume that all nominal expressions are headed by a determiner (covert or overt).
(47)
DP
Dʹ
D NP
In line with Kayne’s (1994) LCA (S-H-C universal phrase constituent order), it is further assumed that the observed D-final order within the Igbo DP is a consequence of NP raising to SpecDP, having argued that Igbo is strictly a head initial system. Therefore, wherever the data show NP-D order, it should be understood as a surface representation.
This material content is developed to serve as a GUIDE for students to conduct academic research
MICROPARAMETRIC SYNTAX OF INTERROGATIVES IN NORTH EASTERN GROUP OF IGBO DIALECTS
PROJECTS TOPICS Support Team Are Always (24/7) Online To Help You With Your Project
Chat Us on WhatsApp » 09069999843
DO YOU NEED CLARIFICATION? CALL OUR HELP DESK:
09069999843 (Country Code: +234)
YOU CAN REACH OUR SUPPORT TEAM VIA MAIL: projectstopics1@gmail.com
09069999843 (Country Code: +234)