Contrastive analysis of topicalization in English and Urhobo

Table of Content

Abstract

Introduction

Review of Related Literature

Contrastive Analysis

Theoretical Framework

Phase Theory: A Brief Review

Role of Features in Phase Theory

Delete or Crash: Uninterpretable Features

Materials and methods

Data presentation and analysis
1. Noun Phrase Preposing
2. Direct Object Preposing
3. Verb Phrase Preposing
4. Topic associated with movement
5. Left isolation

Conclusion

References

Abstract

This research is a contrastive Analysis of Topicalization in English and Urhobo a Southwestern Edoid Nigerian language. Its objective is to explore topicalization in English and Urhobo Languages using basic Chomsky’s Phase theory model to establish points of divergence while noting convergence in the derivation of the investigated phenomenon so as to highlight areas of learner’s difficulty which will be useful to teachers as best strategies un teaching process. The study utilized two sources of data namely primary and secondary sources. Through observation and textbook, internet and dictionaries, data was collected and analyzed. The theoretical framework adopted for the study is the Phase Theory. The data analysis posited that the theory is a suitable mechanism for the analysis of the investigated structure, lexical items are assigned to probes as a result of the features they possess to realize goal and every syntactic operation is done in phases which is the only level of representation.

Key words: Phase, Urhobo, Features, Phonological form (PF), Logical form(LF)

Introduction

This study is centered on topicalization in English and Urhobo language. Before delving into the discussion of the above topic, it is pertinent to make an effort to get clear in our minds the sense in which the word ‘transformation’ is used in this study since different people have different notions of the term ‘transformation’. The English language like any other language has rules of syntax. Many languages including English have a transformation that move constituents which according to Aarts (193) are “strings of one or more words that syntactically and semantically behave as a unit” from one part of the phrase structure to another. This in essence means that some sequence of words in a particular sentence can occur in a different position in the same sentence.

Topicalization

Topicalization is a mechanism of syntax that establishes an expression as the sentence or clause topic by having it appear at the front of the sentence or clause (as opposed to in a canonical position further to the right). It often results in a discontinuity and is thus one of a number of established discontinuity types (the other three being wh -fronting, scrambling, and extraposition). Topicalization is also used as a constituency test; an expression that can be topicalized is deemed a constituent. The topicalization of arguments in English is rare, whereas circumstantial adjuncts are often topicalized. Most languages allow topicalization, and in some languages, topicalization occurs much more frequently and/or in a much less marked manner than in English.

It has been observed that most students find it difficult to relate topicalized sentences to the original code. This development has given rise to confusion and difficulty in the comprehension of such sentences by students. Further to this, transformational generative grammar provides the basis for determining kernel or basic sentences upon which formal transformation can occur and the absence of research on topicalization in Urhobo based on the Phase theory of Chomsky’s Transformational Generative Grammar which is the most recent theory has necessitated this study. This paper shall look these problems with a view to providing students with a sound basis for understanding topicalized sentences from the point of view of transformational generative grammar.

The objective of the study is to explore topicalization in English and Urhobo Languages using basic Chomsky’s Phase theory model to showcase the various forms of the syntax and also posit that topicalization is attainable in both languages. A contrastive study is a source of experimental study into the predictability of the learner’s difficulty combined with error analysis, as a partial classroom research tool for teachers anxious to adjust their teaching to the state of the knowledge of the learners. Thus, this research will serve as a comprehensive descriptive work on topicalization in both languages which will proffer solution to learners’ difficulty and function as a reference material for further study in Urhobo. It will also enrich the existing literature on topicalizaton and probe speakers of Urhobo to research other aspect of the language.

Review of Related Literature

Many languages have a way to mark the topic in a sentence.

(1) This book, I really like.
(2) a. As for this book, I really like it.
b. This book, I really like it.

Example (1) is typically called the topic construction while (2) is referred to as left dislocation. In both cases some sort of topic phrase is placed at the head of the sentence. We will refer to both as topicalization. There are a number of issues to contend with in analyzing these constructions, including:

(3) (i) What is the “meaning” of topicalization?
(ii) How does the topic phrase end up where it does, at the head of the clause?
(iii) Can topicalization occur freely, in any environment?

As it turns out, the answers to (3ii) and (3iii) vary from language to language, and within a language, the answers may differ depending on which topic “meaning” (3i) one is considering—for there are more than one. One point that is clear at the outset is that to deal with sentences like (1) and (2), one needs to incorporate into the grammar a topic position that occurs somewhere above the TP. In Chomsky (1977), it is noted that no rule could create a structure such as as for this book within the core sentence (CP), hence the topic position must be outside of this core portion of the structure. He proposes it to be Sʺ, which we will translate into the more modern designation TopP, which occurs above CP.

(4) TopP → Top CP

Furthermore, as observed by Sag (1976), the topic construction can occur in an embedded structure.

(5) I informed everyone that [this book, they should read by tomorrow].

To accommodate this fact, Chomsky further proposes the following (again we update the labels to more modern versions).

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Along with accounting for embedded topics, this rule, in combination with (4), allows for topic recursion (Chomsky 1977), of which (7) is an example.

(7) As for John, as far as this book is concerned, he will definitely have to read it.

In principle there is no upper limit on the number of topics allowed, although in practice sentential meaning and other factors intervene to restrict the number.

Typically, there is just one topic, but two are not impossible, as (7) shows.

Contrastive Analysis

Contrastive analysis is one of the fields in linguistics which deals with the systematic study of language. It is systematic because the methods applied are both objective and empirical. The concern of linguistics is rather to provide an explanation to how language works than promote the language use. This is why Finch (2000:2) asserts that:

[...]