Ifẹ̀ Relative Clause

 

Ifẹ̀ Relative Clause 

Emmanuel Omoniyi Olanrewaju[1]

Credit: Prof L. O. Adewole

Yoruba for academic purpose

Historical Background of Ile-Ife Town.

            Ile-Ife, an ancient Yoruba town is geographically located on Latitude 7^o 28¹ ON (7.466667). and Longitutufe 40^o 34¹ OE (4.566667). The town is in present day Osun State in Southwestern Nigeria.

            Although the history of Ile-Ifẹ is essentially mythical, prominent among the myriad of traditional beliefs about Ile-Ife is the claim of its being the common origin of all the Yoruba nations. According to Yoruba legend, the founding deities, Obalata and Odùduwà, began the creation of the world. Odùduwa became the first divine King of the Yoruba. Johnson (1957) insists that the Various tribes of the Yoruba trace their origin from Oduduwa and the city of Ile-Ifẹ. Abraham (1958:278) agrees that “Ile-Ifẹ is accepted as the parent city of all the Yoruba. Ile-Ifẹ is considered not only as their place of origin but also as the place where mankind was created’.

            These traditional beliefs are reflected in the morphological realization of the noun “Ifẹ” meaning “act of spreading”. Ifẹ̀, a nominalized word comprising two morphemes: the prefix “ị” and the verb “fẹ̀’ meaning “to spread”, as shown in (1) below;

 

i           +          fẹ̀         =          Ifẹ̀

(prefix          (Spread) (act of Spreading or where a thing                                                                                         begins to spread)

            Ilé-Ifẹ̀ is a major collecting point for the cocoa and cotton grown in the surrounding areas. Palm oil and kernels, yams, cassava, corn (maize) pumpkin and kola nuts are also cultivated for local markets. Ilé-Ife’s inhabitants are primarily town-dwelling farmers.

 

Ifẹ̀:      A Dialect of the Yoruba Language.

            Adetugbọ (1982) classifies the Ife dialect of Yoruba under Central Yoruba (CY). The Ife dialect is characterised by numerous linguistic differences when compared to what Adetugbo (1982) refers to as standard Yoruba. Among the linguistic differences exhibited by the Ifẹ dialect is the use of velar fricative [ ﻻ ] in place of the labiovelar glide [ω] used by standard Yoruba. Some other dialects like Ilajẹ, Ìkálẹ̀, Ìjẹ̀ṣà, Ekiti, etc. exhibit this same difference.

            The use of voiceless alveolar fricative [s] in place of the palatal-alveolar fricative [∫] is also evident in the dialect. Some other dialects of Yoruba like Ibadan, Ìjẹ̀ṣà, Ekiti, etc. also exhibit this same difference.

            The Ifẹ dialect, like other speech forms such as Ijesa and Ekiti classified under central Yoruba (CY), operates a full vowel harmony system unlike standard Yoruba which operates with a partial vowel harmony. The dialect has nine oral and five nasal vowels as against the seven oral and five nasal vowels exhibited by standard Yoruba. Other dialects such as Ìkálẹ and Ìlajẹ share this feature.

            The Ifẹ dialect has Ifẹ̀wàrà, Ìfẹ́tẹ̀dó and Òkè-Igbó as sub-dialects. This sub-dialects exhibit some linguistic differences when compare to the Ifẹ̀ dialect. The linguistic differences are the result of the influence of the dialects of the neighbouring towns on the affected sub-dialects. Ifewara is influenced by the Ìjẹ̀ṣà dialect while Ifetedo and Okè-Igbo are influenced by the Ondo dialect of the Yoruba language. Among the obvious linguistic differences between the Ife dialect and these three sub-dialects: Ifẹ̀wàrà, Ifẹtẹdo and Oke-Igbo is the use of pronominals.

 

Relativisation Strategies in Ifẹ̀

Introduction

            The Ife dialect embraces two types of retativization strategies, namely; the word order and the case coding strategies. These two strategies are postulated by Gwon (1976) and Keenan and Comrie (1977). Different NP positions that are accessible to relativization in the Ife dialect are Subject (Su), Direct Object (DO) Genitive (GEN), Indirect object (IO), Oblique (OBL) and Object of comparison (OCOMP). The dialect uses “kí” as its relative marker, in the place of “tí” which is used in standard Yorùbá, Unlike Standard Yorùbá, the Ife dialect sometimes drops its relative marker, “kí”.

 

Noun Phrase Accessibility Hierarchy (NPAH) in Ifẹ̀

                        The first in the NPAH in the Ife dialect is the subject [Su], followed by direct object (DO), indirect Object (IO), oblique (OBL), genitives (GEN) and lastly, object of comparison (OCOMP) as shown below.

            Su > DO > IO > OBL > GEN > OCOMP

                        where > means ‘is more accessible than’

 

The Subject Position (Su)

            Example (1 a & b) below show how the subject position is relativized in the Ife dialect.

            (1)        (a)        [_IP[_NPAkẹ́kọ̀ọ́]     kàwé]

                                    Student read + book

                                    The student read

                        (b)        [_IP[_NPAkẹ́kọ̀ọ́]  [ǿ [ọ́; ka ìwé]]sùn

                                    Student REL Pro read + Non future book Sleep + Nonfut.

                                    The student who read a book slept.

            In (1b), the [Spec, IP] of the restricting clause i.e. the relativized NP moves to the [Spec, IP] of the matrix clause, thereby leaving a trace that is occupied by a (resumptive) pronoun[ọ́]. The subject position is never empty in the dialect. (52b) is phrase –marked as (53) below.

           

 

Direct Object (DO)

            Example (2a & b) below show how a direct object can be relativized in the Ife dialect.

            (2)        (a)        [_IP Akẹ́kọ̀ọ́]    [_vpra    [_Npìwé]]]

                                    Student buy + Non Fu book

                                    The student bought a book.

                        (b)        [_IPⁱ[_Np Ìwé; [_cpǿ [_Ip²akẹ́kọ̀ọ́ rà t_i]]] bàjẹ́]

                        Book REL student buy + Nonfut spoil + NonFut

                        The book that the student bought got spoilt.

            In (2b), the relativized direct object moved from the object position i.e. [NP, VP] of the lower clause to the [Spec, Ip], of the matrix clause thereby leaving a trace co-indexed with the moved constituent i.e. the antecedent.  

 

Indirect Object (IO)

            The third on the accessibility Hierarchy of      NP positions in the Ife dialect is the  Indirect Object (IO). Let us consider examples (3a&b) below.

            (3)        (a)        [_IPOlùkọ́] [_VPra  ìwé]  [_ppko [_NPakẹ́kọ̀ọ́]]]]

                                    Teacher buy+NonFut book for Student

                                    The teacher bought a book for a student

                        (b)        [_IPⁱAkẹ́kọ̀óⁱ̣] [ǿ [_ip²olùkọ́ [_vpra ìwé]  [_ppkò tⁱ]]] ghá]

                                    Student REL teacher buy+NonFu book for come +NonFut.                                                             The student for whom a t3ach bought a book came

In (3b), the indirect object i.e. the [NP, PP] relativized moved from the object position of the transitive preposition “kò” meaning “for” to the [Spec, IP] of the matrix clause. The proposition, “kò”, is left stranded.

 

Oblique Position (OBL)

            Examples (4a & b) show how an NP in oblique position can be relativized in the Ife dialect.

            (4) (a)  [_IPMọ [_vpbu ọbẹ̀ [_ppsí [_NPàwo]]]]

                                    I share(out)+ NonFut Soup in plate

                                    I put the soup in a plate

            (b)        [_IP[_NPÀwo_i [_cpǿ [_ipmọ [_vpbu obẹ̀ [_ppsí t_i]]]]] fọ́ ]

                        Plate REL Pro Share (out) + Non Fut soup in break + Nonfuture

                        ‘The plate in which, put soup broke’

            In (4b), the object of preposition, “si”, meaning “in” moved from the oblique position to the [Spec, IP] of the matrix clause. The [NP, PP] is relativized in (4b) above.

plate

 

Genitive Position (GEN)

            NPs  in genitive position can as well be relativized in the Ifẹ dialect as shown in (5a&b) below.

            (5)        (a)        [_IPAkẹ́kọ̀ọ́] [_VPjí  [_NPowo]  [_NPolùkọ́]]]]

                                    Student steal + NonFuture money teacher

                                    The student stole the teacher’s money.

                        (b)        [_IPOlùkọ́_i] [_cpǿ [_IPakẹ́kọ̀ọ́][_VPjí  [_NPowọ́]  [_NPrẹ̀ị]]]] Ré]

                                    Teacher REL Student steal NonFut money his shout+NonFut

                                    The teacher whose money was stolen by the student shouted

            In (5b), the genitive qualifier moved from the genitive position in the restricting clause to the [Spec, Ip] and it is replaced by a possessive pronoun, “rẹ”, which is co-indexed with the moved NP/constituent antecedent.

 

Object of Comparison (OCOMP)

            Let us consider example (6) below.

            (6)        (a)        [_Ip Ọlá dàgbà ju [Akin] lọ ]

                                    Ọlá older than Akin go+Non future

                                    Ọlá is older than Akin

                        (b)        [_ipBàbá [_vpPe Akin [_cpǿ [_ipỌlá dàgba jù t_i lọ]]

                                    Father call + Non Future Akin REL Ọlá older then go

                                    Father called Akin whom ọla is older than.

                        (c)        [_ipAkín [_vpkéré sí Adé]]

                                    Akin Smaller to Adé

                                    Akin is younger than Adé

                        (d)       Adé_i [_cpǿ [_ipAkín kéré sí t_i]] na Akin]

                                    Adé REL Akín small to beat + Non fut Akin

                                    Àde who is younger than Akin beat Akin

            The relativized NPs in (6b) and (6d) are objects of comparison. In (6b), the relativized NP moved from the object position of the verb “jù”meaning pars in the lower clause to the object position of the matrix clause. In (6d), the “surpass or pass” relativized NP is moved from the oblique position i.e. the [NP, PP] of the lower clause to the [Spec, Ip] of the matrix clause. The relativized NPS in (6b) and (6d) are very similar to that of direct object and oblique positions respectively. The only difference is that, two NPs are compared under object of comparison position unlike direct object position. In the Ifẹ dialect, “jù”, meaning “surpass/pass” is a verb unlike its counterpart in the English language.

 

 

Consecutivisation of Relative Clauses in Ifẹ̀

            In the Ifẹ̀ dialect, two or more restricting relative clauses can be conflated. Each embedded clause qualifies the head nominal. Wherever this occurs in the Ife dialect, the first embedded restricting clause has its relative marker non-overt, while the subsequent embedded restricting clauses have their relative marker overt. Let us consider (7) and (8) below.

            (7)        [_IPỌdeⁱ [_cPǿ_i [_IPọ́_I pa ẹran_j]] [_cp kí [_JP ó_i sè é_j]] [_cp kí [ọ́_I jẹ ẹ́_j]]

                        Hunter REL Pro Kill animal REL Pro Cook it REL Pro eat it.

                        The hunter who killed, cooked and ate it

                                    ti kú]

                                    Asp die

                                    has died

                                    animal has died.

            (8)        [_IPAkẹ́kọ̀ó_ị] [_cpǿ_i [_ipọ́_i ra ìwé_j]] [_cpkí [_ipọ́_i kà a_j]] ṣe dáadaá][_VPjí 

                        Student REL Pro buy book REL Pro read it do good

                        The Student who bought and read his book performed very well.

            In (7) and (8) above, the relative markers of the first embedded restricting clauses are dropped, while the relative markers of the subsequent ones are left overt. The [Spec, Ip]s of all the embedded restricting clauses are co-indexed clauses with the head nominal i.e. the [Spec, Ip] of the matrix clause which is their antecedent.            Consecutivization of restricting clauses is applicable to all the relativizable NP positions in the Ifẹ dialect. Constructions (9) and (10) below show the consecutivization of relative clauses of direct object (DO) and genitive (GEN) positions respectively.

(9)   [_IPIwé_i [_cpǿ [_Ipakẹ́kọ̀ọ́ rà t_i]] [_cpkí [_Ipọ́ kà t_i]] ti sọnù]

                        Book REL student buy REL Pro read ASP miss

                        The book that the student bought and read has got missing

            (10)      [_IpTíṣà_i [_cpǿ [_Ipìghán akẹ́kọ̀ọ́ jí ìwé rẹ̀;]] [_cpkí [igbán ya asọ rẹ]]

                        Teacher REL Pro Student steal book his REL Pro tear his clothes

                        The teacher whose students stole his book and tore his clothes

                        bínú gidigidi]

                        annoy seriously

                        was seriously annoyed

In (9), the [Spec, IP] of the matrix clause is extracted from the object position of the restricting clause, while that of (10) is extracted from the genitive position.

 

RC-Forming strategy and Continuous Segment Principle in Ifẹ̀

             Continuous segment principle, the second hierarchy discussed by Keenan and Comrie (1977:67) states that ‘any Rc-forming strategy must apply to continuous segment of the AH’. Ife dialect uses case coding and non-case coding strategies. Whenever the dialect embraces the case coding strategy, it relativizes the subject (Su) indirect object (ID), oblique (OBL) and the genitive (GEN) NP positions. The continuity is distrusted on direct object (DO) and object of comparison (OCOMP) which are relativized by another Rc-forming strategy: non-case coding strategy.

            Case may be coded by means of possessive pronouns, presumptive pronouns or expletives and stranded prepositions within a restricting relative clause in the Ife dialect. Let us consider the examples below.

            (11)      (a)        [_IPBàbá ra aṣọ]

                                    Father buy cloth

                                    Father bought clothes

                        (b)        [_NPBàba_i [_cpǿ [_ipọ́_i ra aṣọ]]]

                                    Father REL Pro buy cloth

                                    The father who bought clothes.

            (12)      (a)        [Mọ ra iwé ko akẹ́kọ̀ọ́]

                                    IP

                                    I buy book for student

                                    I bought a book for a student.             

                        (b)        [Akẹ́kọ̀ọ́ [ǿ [mọ ra iwé [ko t_i]]]]

                                    NP           CP  IP              PP              

                                    Student REL I buy book for

                                    The Student whom I bought a book for

            (13)      (a)        [_IPÓ fi owó sí apò]

                                    He keep money in pocket

                                    He kept money in the pocket

                        (b)        [_NPÀpò_i [_cpǿ [_IPó fi owó sí t_i]]]

                                    Pocket REL he keep money into

                                    The Pocket that he kept the money.

            (14)      (a)        [_IPỌ́ wa káà bàbá]

                                    He drive car father     

                                    He drove the father’s car

                        (b)        [_NPBàbá_i [_cpǿ [_IPọ́ wa káà rẹ̀_i]

                                    Father REL he drive car his

                                    The father whose car he drove.

            In (11) the subject position (Su) is relativized. In (12), indirect object is relativized, while NPs in oblique and genitive positions are relativised in (13) and (14) respectively. NPrel in (11) is case coded by a resumptive pronoun or an expletive co-indexed with the head nominal. In (11b). In (12b) and (13b), the NPrel are case coded by the stranded  prepositions, while the genitive NP (GEN) relativized in (14) is case  coded by a possessive pronoun Direct Object (DO) and object of comprison (OCOMP) are exempted when using case coding strategy.

            In Ife dialect, non-case coding is only used for direct object (DO) and Object of comparison (OCOMP). Let us consider (15) and (16) below.

            (15)      (a)        [_IPÓ mu ọsàn]

                                    He drink orange

                                    He suck an orange

                        (b)        [_NpỌsàn_i [_cpǿ [_IPọ́ mu t_i]]]

                                    Orange REL he drink

                                    The orange that he suck

            (16)      (a)        [_IpAkín fẹ́ran Bọ́lá ju Ayọ̀ lọ]

                                    Akin love Bọla surpass/pass Ayọ go

                                    Akin loves Bọla more than Ayọ̀

                        (b)        [_NPBọ́lá_i [_cpǿ [_IPAkín fẹ́ràn t_i ju Ayọ̀ lọ]]]

                                    Bọ́lá REL Akin love surpass/pass Ayọ go

                                    Bọ́lá who Akin loves more than Ayọ`

            In (15) and (16) above, the direct object (DO) and object of comparison (OCOMP) are relativized respectively. The NPS - the moved constituents, are not case coded.

            The implication of this analysis is that the Ife dialect has two RC-forming strategies: Case coding strategy for subject (Su), indirect object (IO), oblique (OBL) and genitive (GEN), and non-case coding strategy for direct object (DO) and object of comparison (OCOMP)

 

Relativisation and Movement Constraints in Ifẹ̀

            The Ife dialect strictly observes Subjacency Condition and Complex Noun Phrase Constraint (CNPC).

 

Subjacency Condition                                  

            Subjacency condition determines the boundary for movement. It also determines how far an element can move (Radford 1988, Haegeman 1991). Let us consider (17), (18) and (19) below

(17)      [_ipⁱỌkùnrin_i [_cpiǿ [_ip²mo mọ̀ t_i]] [_cp²wí [_ip³bàbá nà t_i ]]]] sunkún]

            Man Rel I know comp father beat cry

            The man whom I know that father hit cried.

(18)      [_ipⁱỌkùnrin_i [_cpiǿ [_ip²mo mí retí t_i]] [_cp²nígbà_i [_ip³bàbá pè t_i t_j]] dé]

            Man REL I ASP expect when father call, come

            * ‘The man I was expecting when father called came’

(19)      *[Ọkùnrin_i [_cpǿ [_ipmo rí  t_i]] [nígbá tíj [bàbá nà t_i t_j]] sunkún

            Man REL I see when father beat cry

            * The man I saw when father hit cried

            In (17), the [Spec, IP] i.e. the subject of the matrix clause originated internally within the second restricting clause i.e. IP³ and subsequently moved to the landing site through IP². The intermediate trace left in IP² indicates that the movement observes successive cyclicity. Therefore, subjacency cyclicity is not violated. Constructions (18) and (19) are ungrammatical because the moved elements violate subjacency condition. [Spec, Cp²] are occupied in both constructions, therefore, the moved elements could not land there to observe successive cyclicity. Each Ip defines a syntactic domain which the Wh-movement can cross.

 

Complex Noun Phrase Constraint in Ifẹ̀

            Complex Noun Phrase Constraint (CNPC) disallows the extraction of any element of an ‘adnominal clause’. Let us consider (20) below.

(20)      (a)        Ó sọ [_NPọ̀rọ [_cpǿ [_ipó rè mí]]]

                        He say word REL it please me

                        He said what pleased me.

            (b)        *Ó_i [_cp¹ǿ [_ipⁱọ́ sọ [_NPòrọ̀ [_cp²ǿ [_ip²t_i rè mí ]]]]]

                        *It REL he say word REL please me

            (c)        * Mí_i [_cpǿ [_ipọ̣́ sọ [òrọ̀ [_Cpǿ [_ip²o rè t_i ]]]]]]

                        * Me REL he say word REL It please

            (20b and c) violate Complex Noun Phrase Constraint and therefore ungrammatical due to the extraction of constituents from the adnominal clauses in both constructions.

            In Ife dialect, this constraint is not strictly observed. The head nominal of an adnominal clause can be extracted or separated from the restricting clause, and this neither renders it ungrammatical nor affects its categorial status unlike some other languages, such as English language and standard Yoruba. Let us consider constructions (20a) repeated as (21) below for the case of reference.

(21)      (a)        Ọ́ sọ [_NPọ̀rọ̀[_cpǿ [_ipó rè mí]]]

                        He say word REL it please me

                        He said what pleased me

                        His word pleased me

            (b)        Ọrọ_i       [_cpǿ [_ipⁱọ́ sọ t_i [_cp²ǿ [_IP²ọ́ rè mi]

                        Word  he say REL it pleas me

                        What he said pleased me¹

            What this suggests is that Complex Noun Phrase Constraint is not strictly observed in the Ife dialect unlike some other language. For instance, English language or standard Yoruba cannot extract or separate the head noun from the restricting clause without rendering the construction ungrammatical or affecting its categorical status.

 

Relativisation and Anaphoric System in Ifẹ̀

            Gwon (1976) includes anaphoric pronoun strategy as one of the strategies for relativization. In Ife dialect, like many other languages, anaphoric pronouns occur in the restricting clause qualifying the head NP. Let us consider (22-25)

(22)      [_IPⁱÌgha_i [ǿ [_IP²a_i lọ]] jẹ́ akọni]

            We REL Pro go bear brave

            We who went are brave

(23)      [_IPOdẹ_i [_cpǿ [_IPọ́_i pa olẹ̀]] sạ́ lọ]

            Hunter REL Pro Kill thief run go

            The Hunter who killed a thief ran away.

(24)      [_IPⁱÌghan_i [_cpǿ [_IPighán_i sùn]] tí  jí]

            They REL Pro sleep wake

            These who slept are awake.

(25)      [_IPẸ̀ghin [_cpǿ [_IPẹ_i gbọ́ṇ]] ti pọ̀]

            You (pl) REL Pro wise PERF many

            You (pl) that are wise are many.

            [Spec, IP2] in each of the constructions above is an anaphoric item with anaphoric features (Radford 1988, Haegeman 1991).

 

Pronouns must be free in their governing category but they may be freely co-indexed with NPs outside the domain

                                                                        (Haegeman 1991:213)

 

The Status of the Pronoun in Subject Relatives in Ifẹ̀                              

Ife dialect, like many other languages, has its own constraints. One such constraints is that “no tensed sentence or clause is subjectless”. Whenever Ife dialect relativizes the subject NP (Su), a subject pronoun occupies the [Spec, IP] of the restricting clause [Gwon 1976, Keenan and Comrie 1977). Let us consider (26-30) below.

            (26)      [_IPÌghan_i [_cpǿ [ighan lọ_ị]] ti dé]

                        NP REL Pro go PERE arrive

                        Those who went have arrived

            (27)      [_IPỌde_i [_cpǿ [_IPọ_i pa ejò]] n jẹ ẹ́]

                        Hunter REL Pro kill snake PROG eat it.

                        The hunter who killed a snake is  eating it

            (28)      [_IPẸ̀ghin_i [_cpǿ [_IPẹ_i lọ]] ti dé]

                        You REL Pro go PERF arrive

                        You that went have come back.

            (29)      [_IPỌde_i [_cpǿ [_IPọ_i gé ẹran]] n se é]

                        Hunter REL Pro cut animal PROG cook it

                        The hunter who cut up an animal is cooking it.

            (30)      [_IPỌbinrin_i [_cpǿ [_IPọ_i bímọ lánàá]] yin Olódùmarè]

                        Woman REL Pro bear + child in + yesterday praise God.

                        The woman who delivered yesterday praised God.

            In each of the constructions (27), (29) and (30) above, the traces left in the lower clauses by the moved constituents i.e. the [Spec, IP]s of the matrix clauses are occupied by expletive pronouns. These pronouns are also known as clitics (Adewole 1991). Ife dialect uses either [o] as in (27) and (29) or [ɔ] as in (90) as its expletive or clitic. Selection between these two aforementioned clitics expletives is predicated on vowel harmony. In each of the constructions (26) and (28), the [Spec, IP]s of the restricting clauses are occupied by short pronouns. In Ifẹ dialect, whenever the [Spec, IP], of the matrix clauses i.e. the NPrel is a long pronoun (pronominal), either an expletive or a short pronoun occupies the [Spec, IP] of the restricting clause. Let us consider construction (31) below.

            (31)      [_IPⁱÌgha_i [_cpǿ [_IP²a_ilo_i sùn] ti j̣í]

                        We REL Pro/Exp PERF wake

                        We that Slept are awaken.

 

Negation and Relative Construction in Ifẹ̀

            The scope of negation can be classified into two, namely; constituent negation and sentence negation. The scope of negation can be on a particular constituent or the entire sentence. Negation is morphologically autonomous. It projects to its own X-bar, (NegP.) separately. NegP is located between I and VP.

            Ife dialect can negate either the restricting clause or the matrix clause. Both clauses could also be negated. Let us consider (32-34) below.

(32)      [_IP[_NPÌghan_i [_cpǿ [ighán_i [_Negpàn pè t_i]] ghá]

            NP REL Pro NEL Call come

            Those who were not called came

(33)      Ọmọ_i [cpǿ [_ipmo pè t_i]] [_Negpè ghá]]

Child REL I call NEG come

The child that I called did not come.

(34)      [_IPAkẹ́ọ̀ọ́  [_cpǿ [_ipẹ [_Negp ẹ̀ kàwé]]] [_Negpè yege ìdánwò rẹ̀]

            Student REL Pro NEG read + book NEG Pass examination his

            The student who did not read did not pass his examination

            Only the restricting clause is negated in (32) above. The negation is still within the adnominal clause i.e. the head noun and its RC. In (33), the matrix clause is negated while both the lower clause and the matrix clause are negated in (34). Examples (33) and (34) are instances of sentence negation while (32) is an instance of constituent negation. Either negation is associated with the matrix clause or is associated with the lower clause in Ifẹ dialect. It has its Negp as the maximal projection.

 

Conclusion

            This study presents some syntactic feature exhibited by the Ifẹ dialect. They are outlined in what follows:

1.         Unlike in some other languages, Ifẹ dialect of Yoruba usually drops the relative marker of the restricting clause.

2.         Whenever the Ifẹ dialect consecutivises restricting clauses, it only drops the relative marker of the first embedded restricting clause, while others are left overt.

3.         The [Spec, Ip] of a restricting clause is never empty in the Ifẹ dialect of Yoruba even when the subject position (Su) is relativized.

4.         Government and Binding as a theoretical framework is very capable for the analysis of relative construction in the Ife dialect.

5.         The subjacency condition, as a movement constraint, strictly holds in Ife dialect of Yoruba. Despite the fact that the Complex Noun Phrase Constraint (CNPC) holds in the dialect, the constraint is not strictly observed. In Ifẹ dialect, the constraint allows the extraction of the head noun of the adnominal clause. Apart from the head noun, no other constituent can be extracted from the clause without violating the movement constraint.

 

References

Abraham, R.C (1958), Dictionary of Modern Yoruba London: Oxford University Press.

Adetugbọ. A (1982), ‘Towards. Yoruba Dialectology’, Yoruba Language and Literature, edited by Adebisi Afolayan, pp 207-224.

 

Adewole L. (1991), ‘Heads Without Bars: A Solution to the Sentential Status of Yoruba Focus and Relative Constructions’,. Odu: A Journal of West African Studies  III 16 No 88 pp 19-22.

 

Adewole L.O. (1990), ‘Negation in Ifẹ̀: A Yorùbá Dialect’, in Journal of Asian and African Studies No 58, Institute for the Study of Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa (ILCAA). Tokyo University of Foreign Studies pp. 397-403.

 

Adewole, L (1991), ‘The Yoruba Relative and Focus Constructions. The Problem of coordination”, Ife African Languages and Literatures 3 in Honour of Professor Ayo Bamgbose No 3 pp. 24-32.

 

Awobuluyi O, (1975a), ‘On the Status of topricalised expressions in Yoruba’, Paper Presented at the Linguistics and African Languages Seminar of the University of Ibadan, Ibadan Nigeria.

 

Awobuluyi, O (1975b), ‘Adjectivization, Nominalization and   Relativization in Yoruba’, Paper Presented at the Linguistics and African Language Seminar of the University of Ibadan Ibadan, Nigeria.

 

Awobuluyi, O (1978), Essentials of Yoruba Grammar. Oxford University Press Ibadan, Nigeria.

 

Awobuluyi, O (1992), ‘On the Nature of Relativization’, Paper Read at the Third Annual Conference on African Linguistics, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana U.S.A.

 

Awobuluyi, O. (1978), ‘Focus Constructions as Noun Phrases’, Linguistic Analysis 4.2, pp 93-114.

Bamgbose (1966). A Grammar of Yoruba. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

 

Bamgbose (1975a), ‘Relative Clause and Nominal Sentences in Yorùbá’ in Proceedings of the 6th Annual Conference on African Linguistics (Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics), edited by R.K Herbert, pp. 202-209. Columbia, Ohio, Ohio State University.

 

 

Bamgbose A, (1975b), ‘Relative Clauses and Nominalized Sentences in Yoruba’, Paper Presented at the Linguistics and Nigerian Languages Seminar of the University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria. Mimeo.

 

Bamgbose, A. (1975c),’Relativization or Nominalization? - Case of Structure versus Meaning’, Paper Presented at the Linguistics and Nigerian Languages Seminar of the University of Ibadan, Ibadan. Nigeria. Mimeo.

 

Bamgbose (1990), Fonólójì àti Gírámà Èdè Yorùbá. Ibadan: University Press Limited.

 

Bamgbose, A. (1992), Yorùbá Metalanguage (Èdè-Ìpèrí Yorùbá) Volume I. Ibadan: University Press PLC.

 

Chomsky, N and H Lasnik (1977), ‘Filters and Control’, Linguistic Inquiry 8 pp. 425-504.

 

Chomsky, N (1980), ‘On Binding’, Linguistic Inquiry II

 

Chomsky, N (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding. Deodrecht: Foris

 

Chomsky, N (1986), Barriers. Cambridge: MIT Press.

 

Chomsky, N (1995), The Minimalist Progran. Cambridge. MIT. Press.

 

Crystal, D (1997), A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics. London. Basil Blackwell.

 

Finigan, E. (1994), Language: Its structure and Use. Orlando: Harcourt Brace and Co.

 

Gwon, T. (1976), ‘Topic, Pronoun, and Agreement’, in Subject and Topic, pp. 149-188. New York. Academic Press.

 

Haegeman, L (1991), Introduction to Government and Binding Theory. Oxford: Blackwell.

Hague, Mouton.

 

Horrocks G (1987), Generative Grammar. London: Longman

 

Hurford, J (1994), Grammar: A Student’s Guide. Cambridge University Press.

 

Jackendoff, R (1977), X-bar Syntax: A Study of Phrase Structure. Cambridge: MJT Press.

 

Johnson, H. H.(1957), A History of Yoruba Language. Lagos: C.M.S.

 

Keenan, L and Comrie, B (1979), ‘Noun Phrase Accessibility Revisited’, Language 55, No 3. 640-664.

 

Keenan, L and Comrie, B. (1977), ‘Noun Phrase Accessibility and Universal Grammar’, Linguistic  Inquiry 8: 63-99.

 

Koopman, H (1983), The Syntax of Verbs. Dordrecht. Foris

 

Lamidi, (2000). Aspect of Chomskyan Grammar. Ibadan: Emman

 

Lasnik H and J. Uriegereka (1988), A Course in GB Syntax: Lectures on Binding and Empty Categories. Cambridge. MIT.

 

Laurel, J. (2000), The Structure of Modern English. A Linguistic Introduction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

 

Lawal, S (1986), ‘The Classification of the Yoruba Serial Verbal Constructions’, Mimeo.

 

Lawal, S (1988), “Why verbs do not gap in Yorùbá” Jonal of African Languages and Linguistics 7: 155-162.

 

Lyons, J. (1968), Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Maxwell, D (1979), ‘Strategies of Relativization and NP Accessibility’, Language 55. No 2 pp. 352-371

 

Ndimele, O.M. (1992), The Parameters of Universal Grammar. A Government and Binding Approach. Ọwerri: African Educational Service

 

Olánrewaju, E.O. (2000), ‘Asiko, Ìbá-ìṣẹ̀lẹ̀ àtí Múùdu nínú Ẹ̀ka Èdè Ife.’, A Long Essay of African Languages and Literatures. Faculty. Of Arts Obafemi Awọlọ́wo University, Ile-Ife.

 

Olánrenwaju, E.O. (2005), ‘The Role of communication at the Grass-root Level in Nigeria – A Case Study of Ife Central Local Government Area.’, A Long Essay Submitted to the Department of Public Administration, Faculty of Administration, Obafemi Awolówọ University.

 

Owolabi K. (1981), ‘Focus Constructions as Noun Phrase: A Critique’, PaperPresented at the Linguistics and Nigerian Languages, University of Ibadan, Nigeria.

 

Owolabi, K. (1983), “More on the Inadequacy of the Focus Constructions as Noun Phrases’, Linguistic  Analysis Vol 12, No4, pp.  453-471.

 

Owolabi, K. (1976), ‘Noun-Noun Constructions in Yoruba. A Syntactic and Semantic Analysis’., PhD Dissertation. University of Ibadan.

 

Permutter, D (1970), Deep and Surface Structure Constraints in Syntax. New York: Holt Rinehart and Winston.

 

Radford, A. (1981), Transformational Syntax. Cambridge University Press.

 

Radford, A. (1988), Transformational Grammar. Cambridge University Press

 

Radford, A. (1997), Syntax: A Minimalist Introduction. Cambridge University Press

 

Reimdijk, H, and E Williams (1986) An Introduction to the Theory of Grammar. Mass: MIT.

 

Ross, J. (1967), Constraints on Variables in Syntax. Cambridge mass: MIT PhD Dessertation.

 

Schachter, P. (1973), ‘Focus and Relativization’, Language 49, pp. 19-46.

 

 

Yusuf, O (1997), Transformational  Generative Grammar: An Introduction. Ijebu-Ode: Shebiotimo.

 

Yusuf, O (1998), Fundermentals  of Syntax and the Study of Nigerian Languages.  Ijebu-Ode: Shebiotimo.

 

---

[1] For a comprehensive discussion of Ifẹ̀ Relative Clause, see Omoniyi Emmanuel Olanrewaju (2007), ‘Relativisation in Ifẹ̀.’, M.A. Dissertation, University of Ibadan, Nigeria.