SOME ASPECTS OF NEGATION IN YORÙBÁ

Credit: Prof L. O. Adewole

Yoruba for academic purpose

1. Introduction[1]

Negation has been recognized as a complex phenomenon in linguistic analysis. In his work on raising in English, Postal (1974: 239) notes that "the facts of negativity are everywhere extremely complicated and poorly understood". What applies to negation in English, to a great extent, also applies to negation in Yorùbá. One of the devices used in the language "in order to effect standard negation" is the negative verb (Payne 1978: 52). In this paper, we shall examine the Yorùbá negative verb and its variants to see how each of them interacts with other items in a given sentence. We start by reviewing Banjo’s (1974) work on negation and then proceed to discuss the negation of some of the other constituents of Yorùbá sentences.

2. Banjo (1974)

Banjo (1974) defines negation on the basis of its syntactic and distributional criteria and goes on to talk about the different types of negative verbs in the language. He also advances arguments for the recognition of the following negative verb classification:

Kò and its variants ò, kì í are the sentence negator

(l) Olú kò 1ọ

Olú NEG- go

"Olú didn’t go"

Kọ́ is the negator of the NP

(2) Olú kọ́ ni ó 1ọ

Olú NEG POC he go

"It wasn’t Olú who went"

Má/mọ́/yé is the imperative negator

(3) Má 1ọ

NEG go

"Don’t go"

Má negates part of the predicate phrase that follows it in a sentence

(4) Ó lè má 1ọ

He may NEG go

"He may not go"

Tíì and mọ́ are preverbal and postverbal adverbials respectively, their presence unambiguously marking sentence negation in non-interrogative sentence,

(5) (a) Olú kò 1ọ mọ̣́

Olú NEG go again

"Olú has stopped going"

(b) Olú kò tíì 1ọ

Olú NEG ( ) go

"Olú has not gone"

3. Some Comments on Banjo (1974)

Banjo’s analysis is straight-forward enough but it is not without its problems especially when it comes to the possible interpretations that could be given to his examples, For instance, although (1) permits a sentential performative paraphrase of the type "I say of Olú that it is not true that he went" (Payne 1935: 201), the sentence also has several other uses in which a subsentential constituent is negated. Depending on the context of discourse in which (l) occurs, it admits of two non-sentential readings para-phrasable as:

(6) (a) It was not Olú who went (If Ojo went)

(b) Olú didn’t go (Olú did something else)

In Gabbay and Moravcsik’s (1978) view, a sentence made up of a subject and a predicate such as (1) contains a subsentential negation. They do not deny that (1) can be interpreted as involving sentence negation as claimed by Banjo, but apart from this, (l) still has additional uses such as the ones exemplified in (6). Payne (1985: 200) supports this view when he states that as "the contextual articulation of the sentence varies, so does the apparent scope of negation, and in such a way that what is negated is the contextually free information".

The view of these two writers is made more explicit by Aldridge (1982: 109) when he gives as an example the sentence “Milton did not write Paradise Lost” and states that the sentence is three way ambiguous:

it may be that the speaker is denying Milton’s authorship; he may be denying that he physically wrote the poem, perhaps implying that he dictated it; or the negation may be centred upon Paradise Lost, implying that some other work, e.g. Paradise Regained was written by Milton.

To account for the contextual variation of the use and the interpretation of a sentence that contains a negative verb, Gabbay and Moravcsik (1978) associate a set of element V* with each basic element V of the same basic category. Thus, if V = Olú then V* contains other names different from Olu. If V = ó "he", then, V* contains the variable mo "I", o "you", etc. "The choice of V* depends on V. For example if V has an antonym, then the leading element of V* will be this antonym denoted by V* " (Gabbay and Koravcsik 1978: 259). In short, V* is the family of all those members of the same category as V that are incompatible.

4. The Negative Adverbials

If kò "NEG" does not necessarily mark sentence negation, how then do we account for the claim that kò "NEG" occurs only with the negative adverbials such as mọ́ "again" and tíì "has" which, according to Banjo, mark sentential negation, and does not occur with negative forms such as aláìkọrin "the fact of not singing". Observe (7):

(7) (a) O1ú kò kọrin mọ́

O1ú NEG sings again

"O1ú has stopped singing"

(b) *O1ú ṣe aláìkọrin mọ́

"Olú do the fact of not singing again"

The non-cooccurrence of the negative form aláìkọrin "the fact of not singing" and the negative adverbial mọ́ "again" as shown in (7b) can be explained by the fact that aláìkọrin "the fact of not singing" is a nominal derived from the verb kọrin "sing" by the prefixation of the derivational morphemes oní and àì as in (8).

(8) Oní + àì + kọrin = Aláìkọrin "the fact of not singing"

Nagucka’s (1978: 82) comment on the type of negation in (8) is that it is "limited in its scope only to the lexical item and has no bearing on the other elements of the sentence. It is of local nature ... and it does not affect the relations that exist among the elements of the sentence". Bamgbose (1986:32) calls (8) a derivation in which the negation of a "constituent is lexicalized". Awobuluyi (1972: 108) also refers to a nominal such as the one in (8) as a "negated nominalization" and Zimmer (1964:70) calls it an abstract noun which expresses "some sort of opposition to the verb" from which it is derived. As "adverbs function as modifiers of constituents other than nouns" (Schachter 1985: 20), the non-co-occurrence of the negative form aláìkọrin "the fact of not singing" and the negative adverbial mọ́ "again" becomes clear.

Note that if kò "NEG" is also nominalized, it can no longer occur with mọ́ "again". For example, from the underlined VP in (9a) which contains kò "NEG", the nominal in (9b) can be derived but whereas (9a) can occur with the negative adverbial mọ́ "again" as in (9c), a sentence containing the nominal in (9b) cannot as shown in (9d).

(9) (a) Ó ṣe é kò gbowó

He do it NEG get money

"He did it without receiving any financial reward"

(b) Àṣeègbowó "that which is done without one receiving any financial reward"

He do it NEG get money again

"He did it though he has stopped receiving any financial reward"

(d)(i) Ó ṣe àṣeègbowó

"He did that-which-is-done-without-any-financial-reward"

(ii) *Ó ṣe àseègbowó mọ́

"He did that-which-is-done-without-any-financial-reward again"

5. Nominalizing the Negative Verb

This has now brought us to another point raised by Banjo (1974: 45) that "only má and never kò" is used in nominalization. This point, he argues, supports the claim that "má is used for negating units other than sentences" (Banjo 1974: 45). (9a and b) are good counter-examples to this claim. It may be the case that because of the deletion of the consonant /k/ of kò "NEG" in (9b) (see (9a)) and the assimilation of the stranded vowel /o/ into the vowel preceding it, one might think that (9b) is not the nominalization of a VP in which the negative verb, kò occurs.

Against this last view is an explicit account of the type of deletion and post-deletion processes taking place in (9a and b) presented by Abimbọla and Oyelaran (l975:42-43) which can be summarized as follows: consonant deletion occurs when an item such as kò "NEG" follows "one formative and precedes another" in a sentence. After the deletion of the consonant, the stranded vowel is then assimilated into the one preceding it. This simple rule clearly accounts for the processes taking place in (9a and b). First, kò "NEG" finds itself between the pronominal e "it" and the VP gbowó "get money". Its consonant gets deleted and the stranded vowel is assimilated into the preceding vowel.

6. Sentential and Sub-sentential Negation: A Critique

In addition, that a sentential and a sub-sentential negation classification of the negative verbs should not be based on their co-occurrence with the "negative adverbials" mọ́ "again" and tíì "has" is shown by the fact that another negative verb, tíì, classified by Banjo as a sub-sentential negator, occurs freely with these "adverbial". Note (10).

(10) (a) Ó lè ma 1ọ mọ́

He may NEG go again

"He may not go again"

(b) Ó lè má tíì lọ

He may NEG ( ) go

"He may not have gone"

The co-occurrence of the negative verb máa with both tíì "has" and mọ́ "again" shows that the functions of both tíì "has" and mọ́ "again" are different from the ones suggested by Banjo.

7. Modifier Negation

The co-occurrence of the negative verb kò and the "negative adverbial" mọ́ "again" can be explained not in terms of sentence negation marking, as stated by Banjo, but in terms of the interaction of modifiers and negation. When the negative verb occurs with modifiers, negation can apply to the modifier or the VP. This is because if one says Kò kọrin mọ́ "He has stopped singing", "each part of the sentence", according to Gabbay and Moravcsik (1978: 255), "should have some role in conveying the information intended". If the intended information is the denial or the criticism of the modified phrase without the modifier playing any role, one would have simply said Kò kọrin "He did not sing". The inclusion of the modifier in the sentence indicates that it has a role in conveying information for "it would be positively misleading" (Gabbay and Moravcsik 1978: 255) to use kò kọrin mọ́ "He has stopped singing" in order to convey the information that the subject in question did not sing.

In the case of such adverbials as mọ́ "again" classified as "duration adverbial" by Moravcsik (1932: 107), the negation stays with the adverbial. Thus, Kò kọrin mọ́ "He has stopped singing/He is no longer singing" is the negation of Ó ń kọrin síbẹ̀ "He is still singing". This shows that if mọ́ "again" is V, one of its V* is síbẹ̀ "still". When the adverb is negated in this way, we have a case of "jumping" (Gabbay and Moravcsik 1973: 255) in which the negative verb and the element negated are not adjacent syntactic units. Other instances of "jumping" are the co-occurrence of the negative verb with the class of adverbs classified by Moravcsik (1982:108) as "containers" and the ones classified by Oke (1974:241) as the manner adverbials both of which are exemplified by (11a and b) respectively.

(11) (a) Wọ́n kò parí rè ̣ ní ọjọ́ kan

They NEG complete it in day one

"They didn’t complete it in a day"

(b) Olú kò rìn jẹ́jẹ́

Olú NEG walk gently

"Olú didn’t walk gently"

(11a) says that it took longer than a day to finish it i.e "They finished it not-in-a-day". (11b) says "He walked not-gently" i.e Ó rìn kémọ́kémọ́ "He walked briskly".

If we now turn to the "referential" and the "instantaneous" adverbials (Moravcsik 1982:108) like ní ọjọ́ ẹtì "On Friday" and ní ọwọ́ "at the moment" respectively, what we find is that negation applies not to the adverbial but to the VP. Note 12:

(12) (a) Kò wá ní ọjọ́ ẹtì

NEG come in day Friday

"He didn’t come on Friday"

(b) Kò kọ̀wé ní ọwọ́ (kò kọ̀wé lọ́wọ́)

NEG write book in hand

"He is not writing at the moment"

(I2a) asserts that on Friday, no act-of-coming took place while (12b) says that he is not writing at the moment but something else is in progress.

From these examples, it is clear that the adverbial mọ́ "again" does not mark sentence negation. Like some of the other adverbials, it attracts the NEG- element hence instead of the VP it modifies being negated, it is the adverbial itself that is negated. As shown in (l0a), the adverbial mọ́ "again" co-occurs freely with the so-called constituent negator má. When it does this, again, it is the adverbial that is negated, not the VP. For example, in Ó lè má kọrin mọ́ "It is possible that he may not sing again", what is negated is not "everything that follows the negative verb, má in the VP" (Banjo 1974:42) but rather, as in kò kọrin mọ́ "He is no more singing/He has stopped singing" which negates Ó ń kọrin tẹ́lẹ̀ "He was singing before"; Ó lè má kọrin mọ́ "It is possible that he may not sing again" negates Ó lè kọrin tẹ́lẹ̀ "He could sing before".

7. Focus Negation

As we have stated above, a simple sentence such as Ó pa Dàda "He killed Dada" allows for not only a NP negation either in the subject or object position but also a verb negation. This does not mean that a specific element in a sentence or even the sentence itself cannot be focus negated; some facts about focus negation which are not often noted by Yorùbá linguists are worth noting here. The way an item is focus negated with the negative verb kò is different from the way the same item is focused for negation with the negative verb kò. To focus Olú for negation with kò in (I3a), what we have is (I3b).

(13) (a) Olú 1ọ

Olú go

"Olú went"

(b) Olú ni kò 1ọ

Olú FOC NEG go

"It was Olú who didn’t go"

Below, we discuss the operations for associating any element or the sentence itself with the negative verb kọ́[2].

7.1 Subject NP

To focus a subject NP for negation with the negative verb kó, the element is fronted to the sentence-initial position and a third person singular or plural pronominal is inserted in its former position. The following should also be noted. First, if the subject NP is a pronoun, it has to be nominalized before being fronted. This is exemplified in (14f and g). Second, in speech, the third person singular pronominal is often inserted no matter what the number of the NP is hence, instead of (l4d), (14e) can be heard.

(l4)(a) Olú 1ọ

Olú go

"Olú went"

(b) Olú kọ́ ní ó 1ọ

Olú NEG FOC he go

"Olú was not the one who went"

Olú and Òjó go

"Olú and Òjó went"

(d) Olú àti Òjó kọ́ ni wọ́n 1ọ

Olú and Òjó NEG FOC they go

"Olú and Òjó were not the ones who went"

(e) Olú àti Òjó kọ́ ni ó 1ọ

Olú and Òjó NEG FOC he go

"Olú and Òjó were not the ones who went"

(f) Ó 1ọ

He go

"He went"

(g) Òun kọ́ ni ó 1ọ

He NEG FOC he go

"He was not the one who went"

7.2 Object NP

The process that applies to an NP in subject position applies here too. The only difference is that no pronoun is inserted in the gap left behind by the NP object.

(15) (a) Ó na Adé

"He hit Adé"

(b) Adé kọ́ ni ó nà

Adé NEG FOC he hit

"Ade was not the one he hit"

7.3 Verb

The verb is nominalized by the reduplication of its initial consonant and the insertion of the vowel /i/ with a high tone between the double consonants. It is this derived nominal that is now fronted while the verb itself is neither replaced nor deleted.

(16) (a) Ó 1ọ

He go

"He went"

(b) Lílọ kọ́ ni ó 1ọ

Going NEG FOC he go

"It was not the act of going that he performed"

7.4 Adjective

The adjective can be negated either outside or inside the NP it modifies. What applies to an NP either in the subject and object position without an adjective, as described above, applies to an NP in which an adjective modifies a noun. In both cases, however, the adjective is the item negated. (17b and d) negate the NP in (I7a and c). To negate an adjective outside the NP it modifies, the adjective is first nominalized without any overt marking and focused. It is then relativized before it is finally negated. While (I7e) is the negation of the adjective in (I7a), (I7f) is the negation of the same item in (I7c).

(17) (a) Ọmọ dúdú 1ọ

Child black go

"A black child left"

(b) Ọ̣mọ dúdú kọ́ ni ó 1ọ

Child black NEG FOC he go

"It was not a black child who left"

I see child black

"I saw a black child"

(d) Ọ̣mọ dúdú kọ́ ni mo rí

Child black NEG FOC I see

"It was not a black child that I saw"

(e) Dúdú kọ́ ni ọmọ tí ó 1ọ

Black NEG FOC child REL he go

"The child that left was not black"

(f) Dúdú kọ́ ni ọmọ tí mo rí

Black NEG FOC child REL I see

"The child that I saw was not black"

7.5 Adverbial

Here, we shall base our discussion on the adverbial classification made by Oke (1974).

7.5.1 Place Adverbial

Under this subheading, Oke (1974) discusses such items as ní Ibadan "in Ibadan" and ní ilé "in the house". These items are nominalized without any overt marking and fronted to the sentence-initial position. After nominalization and fronting, the preposition ní "in" is optionally deleted and a new particle ti, which is different from our phase/aspect marker ti "has/have/had" to be discussed below, is introduced into the VP. The preposition cannot be stranded, hence, (18c) is not acceptable.

(18) (a) Mo rí ẹ ní Ìbàdàn

I see you in Ìbàdàn

"I saw you in Ìbàdàn"

(b) (Ní) Ìbàdàn kọ́ ni mo ti rí ẹ

(In) Ìbàdàn NEG FOC I PRT see you

"It was not at Ìbàdàn that I saw you"

Ìbàdàn NEG FOC I PRT see you in

"It was not at Ìbàdàn that I saw you in"

7.5.2 Reason (or Purpose or Result) Adverbial

This adverbial behaves exactly as the place adverbial except that instead of the introduction of the particle ti in the VP, another particle ṣe is introduced.

(19) (a) A wá nítorí owó

We come in reason money

"We came because of money"

(b) (Ní) torí owó kọ́ ni a ṣe wá

(In) reason money NEG FOC we PRT come

"It was not because of money that we came"

7.5.3 Time and Manner Adverbials

These are also nominalized and fronted without any overt marking. No new particle is introduced into the VP and the preposition in the time adverbial is optionally realized after fronting.

(20)(a) Ó máa ń rìn jẹ́jẹ́

He HAB walk gently

"He normally walks gently"

(b) Jẹ́jẹ́ kọ́ ni ó máa ń rìn

Gently NEG FOC he HAB walk

"He doesn’t normally walk gently"

He HAB come in night-night

"He comes every night"

(d) (Ní) alaalẹ́ kọ́ ni ó máa ń wá

(In) night-night NEG FOC he HAB come

"It isn’t every night that he comes"

7.6 Sentence Negation

As stated above, a sentence can also be focus negated. To do this, the negative verb kọ́ is placed at the end of the sentence. The sentence may or may not be nominalized and the presence of the focus marker is optional. (21b and c) are the focus negation of (21a).

(21) (a) Olú 1ọ

Olú go

"Olú went"

(b) Olú 1ọ kọ́ (ni)

Olú go NEG (FOC)

"The point is that Olú did not go"

Say/that Olú go NEG (FOC)

"That Olú went is not the point"

8. Negative Imperative

8.1 The Characteristics of the Yorùbá Imperative

The Yorùbá imperative is distinguished from its declarative counterpart by the following characteristics:

(22) (a) Its structure may or may not have an overt grammatical subject. When it has a subject, this is always a second person pronoun.

Jáde - Go out

Ìwọ Jáde - You go out

*Èmi Jáde - I go out

*Òun Jáde - He go out

(b) The first and third person pronouns which are impossible as imperative subjects can occur in the jẹ́ kí "let" construction where the second person pronoun is excluded.

Jẹ́ kí n/ ó/ á/ wọ́n/*ẹ /*o/ Jáde

Let me/him/us/them/you[PL]/you[SG]/go out

(c) In the VP, just as in a sentence with a pronominal subject, the imperative is characterized by an absence of the HTS.

Ọ̀la á 1ọ

Ọ̀la HTS go

"Ọ̀la went"

Lọ

"Go"

Mo 1ọ

"I go"

(d) Semantically, according to Davies (1986: 49), whereas "a declarative asserts a proposition, an imperative merely presents one". Just as the proposition asserted by the declarative may or may not be true, the proposition presented by the imperative also may or may not be true.

8.2 Negating the Imperative

With the above distinctions noted between the Yorùbá imperative and the declarative sentences, some Yorùbá linguists are of the opinion that there should also be a distinct negative verb which occurs only in the imperative and nowhere else. This is the view shared by Amuda (1986: 197-198) when he states that má is the imperative negator. The CMS’s (1913: 155) A Dictionary of the Yorùbá Language also defines má as "a negative particle used in the imperative mood". Banjo’s (1974) analysis of the negative verb má can also be classified with the two studies just cited (i.e. Amuda (1986: 197-198) and CMS (1913: 155)) if his imperative negator má "not" in (3) above is a distinct item from his verb phrase negator má "not" in (4). As he does not make any comment on the two má’s just mentioned, the question that crops up can be framed thus, are the two má’s i.e. the ones in (3) and (4), different items or are they the same item performing two different functions?

In our opinion, it is the same item that is being used for two different functions. That this is the case is shown by the fact that yé/mọ́ which are classified as the variants of má, the so-called imperative negator, also perform the same function for the VP negator, má.

(23) (a) Olú kò lè mọ́ 1ọ

Olú NEG M NEG go

"Olú cannot but go"

(b) Olú kò lè yéé 1ọ

Olú NEG M NEG go

"Olú cannot stop going"

Observe that mọ́ and yé still have the same meaning when used in a declarative sentence such as (23) and when used in an imperative sentence such as (24).

(24) (a) Mọ́ 1ọ (b) Yéé 1ọ

"Don’t go" "Stop going"

Examples (23) and (24) show quite clearly that it is the same má that is being classified as the VP and the imperative negator.

Oke (1982) is more careful in his analysis of the negative verbs. He notes that má not only occurs both in the imperative and in the non-imperative sentences but that "when the non-imperative positive verbal group is baà or báà, máà is the only negator that may be used to effect negation ... as in: kí a máà baà lọ ‘so that we might not go¹" (Oke 1982: 252). The only problem with Oke’s analysis is the claim that the negative verb kò cannot occur in an imperative sentence. An example which shows that this claim is not correct is (25) where an embedded sentence which forms part of the NP is negated with kò.

(25) Má fẹ́ ẹni tí kò lówó

NEG marry person REL NEG have money

"Don’t marry someone who is not rich"

From the above discussion, it is clear that one cannot distinguish between kò and má on the basis of their occurrence or non-occurrence in the imperative. Rather, they can be differentiated in terms of their positions in a given sentence.

Kò precedes all auxiliary verbs in both the matrix and embedded sentences of a non-imperative construction as in (26a and b). It also precedes all auxiliary verbs in an embedded sentence of an imperative as in (26c).

(26) (a) Olú kò tíì lówó

Olú NEG ASP have money

"Olú is not yet rich"

(b) Ó fẹ́ Olú tí kò tíì lówó

She marry Olú REL NEG ASP have money

"She marries Olú who is not yet rich"

NEG marry Olú REL NEG ASP have money

"Don’t marry Olú who is not yet rich"

Má, on the other hand, occurs before all auxiliary verbs in the imperative as in (27a) and occurs either after an auxiliary verb, a conditional marker (i.e. ìbáà "even if") or a verb (i.e. modifying verb, main verb, etc.) in a non-imperative and in an embedded sentence as in (27b and c).

(27) (a) Má tíì 1ọ

NEG ASP go

"Don’t go yet"

(b) Ó lè má 1ọ

He may NEG go

"He may not go"

Olú REL he may NEG get money market

"Olú who may not receive (any) money for the articles (he sold)"

The above generalization about kò makes unnecessary Oke’s (1982: 252) remark that kò does not precede such auxiliary verbs as yóò/á/máa and ḿ. The reason is that any time kò follows any of these auxiliary verbs, it does not occur in the same matrix sentence with them. In Oke’s (1982) example given in (28), the underlined ní "say/tell" is a verb which subcategorises for a sentence hence, kò following it occurs at the initial position of an embedded sentence i.e. Kò sówó "There is no money".

(28) Wọ́n a jẹ’lú run tán, wọn a ní kò sówó

"They ruin the finances of the state, and tell you there is no money".

There is also no justification for Payne’s (1985:240) claim, quoting Banjo (1974), that in ‘Yorùbá, the main-clause sentential negative is kò, whereas the subordinate negative is má’.

On the interpretation of the negative in the Yorùbá imperative, we agree with Davies (1986:75) that there is no difference between negation in the imperative and negation in the declarative sentences. Once it has been realised that the negation may be interpreted with more than one type of scope, then, just as "negation may be associated either with the assertion which a declarative sentence constitutes, or with the proposition of which the declarative is an assertion, so it may be associated either with the presentation constituted by an imperative or with the particular proposition which is presented" (Davies 1986:72).

Finally, it should be noted that the adverbial and focus negation exemplified with declarative sentences above also applies to the imperative. For example, on adverbial negation, Má rìn kémọ́kémọ́, "Don’t walk briskly" implies "Walk not-briskly" i.e. Rìn jẹ́jẹ́ "Walk gently". (29b) shows a focus negation of an imperative.

(29) (a) Jó

Dance

(b) Ijó kọ́ ni mo ní kí o jó

Dance NEG FOC I say that you dance

"I didn’t ask you to dance".

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abimbola, W. and O.O. Oyelaran (1975) “Consonant Elision in Yorùbá”, African Languages Studies 16; 37-60

Adewole, L. O. (1990), “Yorùbá Negative Verbs as Reinforcers: A Critique”, AAP 23:111-126.

Amuda, Ayoade (1986), “Yorùbá/English Code Switching in Nigeria: Aspects of its Function and Form.”, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Reading.

Aldridge. M. V. (1962), English Quantifiers; A Study of Quantifying Expressions in Linguistic Science and Modern English Usage. Wiltshire, England: Averbury Publishing Co.

Awobuluyi, O. (1972), "Predicative Adjective in Yorùbá: A Critique", in Yorùbá Verb Phrase, edited by Ayo Bamgbose, pp. 103-115. Ibadan: University Press.

Bamgbose, A. (1986), "Negation and Serial Verbal Construction Types in Yorùbá" in Current Approaches to African Linguistics 3. (Publications in African Languages and Linguistics 6). edited by G. Dimmendaal, pp. 31-40. Dordrecht: Foris Publication.

Banjo, L. A. (1974), "Sentence Negation in Yorùbá", Studies in African Linguistics Supplement 5:35-47.

CMS (1913), A Dictionary of Yorùbá Language. Lagos, Nigeria: CMS Bookshop.

Davies, E. (1986), The English Imperative. London: Croom Helm.

Gabbay, Dor M. and Julius M. Moravcsilc (1978), "Negation and Denial", in Studies in Formal Semantics, edited by Franz Guenthner and Christian Rohrer. Amsterdam: North Holland Publishing.

Moravcsik, Julius M. (1982), "Tense, Aspect and Negation", Theoretical Linguistics 9: 94-109.

Nagucka, Ruta (1978), Negatively Phrased Utterances in English: An Essay in Some Aspects of Negation Against The Historical Background. Krakow: Panstwowe Wydaw-nictwo Naukowe Warszawa.

Oyelaran, O.O. (1978), "Ọ̀nà Kan Kò Wọjà: Mofọ́lọ́jì Yorùbá", An Unpublished Paper, Department of African Languages and Literatures, Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife.

Oke, D. O. (1974), "Syntactic Correlates of Notionally Defined Adverbial Types in Yorùbá", Studies in African Linguistics Supplement 5: 233-252.

Oke, D. O. (1982), "On The Use of Verbal Negators in Yorùbá", in Yorùbá Language and. Literature, edited by A. Afolayan, pp. 247-263. Ife: Ife University Press.

Payne, J. (1978), "Language Typology and Syntactic Fieldwork". (Mimeo).

Payne, J. (1985), "Negation", in Language, Typology and Syntactic Description 1: Clause Structure, edited by Timothy Shopen, pp. 197-242. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Postal, P. (1974), On Raising: One Rule of English Grammar and Its Theoretical Implications. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.

Schachter, P. (1985), "Parts-of-Speech Systems", in Language, Typology and Syntactic Description 1: Clause Structure, edited by Timothy Shopen, pp. l-6l. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Zimmer, Karl E. (I964), "Affixal Negation in Some Non-Indo-European Languages: Yorùbá", in his Affixal Negation in English and Other Languages, An Investigation of Restricted Productivity Monograph 5: Supplement to WORD 20, 2: 70-72.

[1] This paper was published as L.O. Adewole (1990), ‘Some Aspects of Negation in Yorùbá’, AAP (Koln), 28:75-100.

[2] Terms often used in transformational Grammar are used for the operations taking place here.

Search This Blog

LINGUISTICS AND YORÙBÁ STUDIES E-LIBRARY

SOME ASPECTS OF NEGATION IN YORÙBÁ

SOME ASPECTS OF NEGATION IN YORÙBÁ

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

YORÙBÁ LITERATURE E-LIBRARY

SYNTAX AND GRAMMATICAL THEORIES E-LIBRARY SECTION

YORÙBÁ GRAMMAR E-LIBRARY SECTION