Existing studies on Izon language have concentrated on unilingual application of traditional grammar in constructing well-formed sentences, thereby neglecting critical descriptions of the ways morphosyntactic features ensure the derivation of convergent structures.
A contrastive examination of English, (a standard for universal grammar analysis) and Izonn languages can properly characterise these syntactically significant features. This work, therefore, investigates the morphosyntactic features in English and Izon languages with a view to identifying and describing the morphosyntactic features that make the structures of the two languages converge.
The study adopts Chomsky’s Minimalist Program, which emphasises checking of morphological features. The research is based on Standard English and the Kolokuma dialect of Izon, used in education and the media, and is mutually intelligible with other dialects. Data on English were collected from various books on English grammar and those on Izon were collected from native speakers in Kolokuma and Opokuma clans in Bayelsa State where the dialect is spoken, and complemented with the researcher’s native-speaker’s introspective data.
Since the study is competence-based, completely grammatical structures from each language were used for the analysis. Clausal and phrasal syntactic structures of English and Izon languages were comparatively analysed based on the feature-checking processes of the Minimalist Program to identify shared and idiosyncratic features.
Universal features common to both languages include phrases, clauses, syntactic heads and wh-fronting. However, English and Izon opt for different head parameters. Heads in English precede their complements while heads in Izon follow their complements. Although Nominative Case licensing occurs in Spec-head structures in both languages, Accusative Case is licensed in head–complement relationship in English and complement-head structure in Izon. Both English and Izon permit wh-fronting at Spec-CP, but Izon wh-expressions obligatorily co-occur with focus particles ki or ko, which are functional elements that licence wh-elements.
Whereas English constructs relative clauses with overt and interpretable complementizers such as ‘who’, which precede their complement clauses, Izon constructs relative clauses without overt interpretable wh-expressions except an overt amee (that) which follows its complement clause.
Table of Contents
1 CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background to the study
1.2 The Ịzọn language
1.3 Previous studies in Ịzọn
1.4 The present study
1.5 Statement of the problem
1.6 Aim and objectives of the study
1.7 Scope of the study
1.8 Significance of the study
1.9 An overview of the model of analysis
1.10 Summary
2 CHAPTER TWO THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Languages in contact and bilingualism
2.3 Bilingualism
2.4 Contrastive analysis
2.5 Linguistic models of contrastive analysis
2.6 Chomskyan theory of grammar
2.7 Choice of theoretical framework
2.8 Summary
3 CHAPTER THREE FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES IN ENGLISH AND ỊZỌN
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Forms and Functions of Functional Elements in English and Ịzọn
3.3 Agreement in English
3.4 Agreement features in Ịzọn
3.5 Tense (T) in English and Ịzọn
3.6 The clause structure of Ịzọn
3.7 Case Checking in English
3.8 Case-marking/checking in Ịzọn
3.9 The ’s genitive case in English
3.10 The ’s-genitive Case in Ịzọn
3.11 Negation in English
3.12 Negation in Ịzọn
3.13 Summary
4 CHAPTER FOUR THE COMPLEMENTIZER AND FEATURE CHECKING
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Wh-Movement in English
4.3 Asymmetry in subject and non-subject wh-movement in English
4.4 Wh-movement in Ịzọn
4.5 Asymmetry in subject and non-subject wh-movement in Ịzọn
4.6 The Complementizer and feature checking in relative/embedded clauses
4.7 The Complementizer and feature checking in relative/embedded clauses in Ịzọn
4.8 The syntax of adpositions
4.9 Determiners/Articles
4.10 Co-ordinating conjunctions in English
4.11 Passive constructions and A-movement
4.12 Passive Constructions in Ịzọn
4.13 Pragmatic functions
4.14 Summary
5 CHAPTER FIVE SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
5.1 Summary
5.2 Head position (head directionality) parameter
5.3 Wh-movement parameter
5.4 Negation parameter
5.5 Auxiliary verbs and agreement feature checking
5.6 Conclusion: The Implications for language learning
5.7 Unresolved problems for further studies
Research Objectives and Themes
The primary objective of this work is to provide a systemic characterization and comparative analysis of functional morphological features and syntactic derivations in English and the Ịzọn language. By applying the Minimalist Program, the study aims to identify universal shared principles and idiosyncratic parametric variations that influence the derivation of clausal and phrasal structures in both languages.
- Morphosyntactic analysis of functional categories within the Minimalist Program framework.
- Comparison of head directionality and Case-checking mechanisms in English and Ịzọn.
- Investigation of wh-movement patterns and the role of focus particles in Ịzọn interrogatives.
- Analysis of agreement features, tense, and negation across the two distinct language families.
- Pedagogical implications of linguistic parametric variations for second language acquisition.
Auszug aus dem Buch
1.3.1.2 The noun phrase
Williamson (1969) identifies two configurations of a noun phrase in Ịzọn. The first of these is the NP that consists of a noun followed by ideophones such as ‘sẹ’, ‘ò’ or ‘òó’. According to her, these ideophones provide emphatic meaning to the noun. Following this formulation, the structure of the NP is:
-sẹ
14. NP NP + -ò
- òó
This structure of the NP is shown in the following sentences.
15a. ama-sẹ pọtọpọtọ
Town-all muddy
‘The town is all muddy’
15b. erein-ò, wéléwélé
Sky emph bright
The sky/weather is bright (Williamson 1969:41)
The NPs in these examples are ama-sẹ meaning ‘the whole town’ and erein-ò which is translated literally as ‘sky’ but should more appropriately mean ‘the day’ or ‘the weather’.
The second type of noun phrases identified by Williamson is one which consists of what she characterizes as a noun group (NG). This type of noun phrase is optionally preceded by a determiner, or consists of first or second person pronoun which is followed by a noun suffix (ns). These are illustrated in the following phrases.
16. NP [D +] NG or Pro [+ns]
17. bei wárị-mò sé
This house +pl all
All these houses
Summary of Chapters
CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION: Provides a foundation for the study by defining the scope, aim, and significance of comparing morphosyntactic features in English and Ịzọn.
CHAPTER TWO THEORETICAL BACKGROUND: Outlines the theoretical framework, including Universal Grammar and the Minimalist Program, while reviewing previous literature on language contact and contrastive analysis.
CHAPTER THREE FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES IN ENGLISH AND ỊZỌN: Examines functional elements, agreement, tense, and case-marking within the specific syntactic structures of both languages.
CHAPTER FOUR THE COMPLEMENTIZER AND FEATURE CHECKING: Investigates wh-movement, the role of complementizers, passive constructions, and focus marking strategies in English and Ịzọn.
CHAPTER FIVE SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION: Synthesizes the research findings, highlighting the parametric variations between English and Ịzọn and their implications for language learning and future studies.
Keywords
Functional categories, Universal features, Minimalist Program, Feature-checking, Parametric variation, Ịzọn, English, Contrastive analysis, Syntax, Morphosyntax, Agreement, Wh-movement, Tense, Case-marking, I-language.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of this research?
The research focuses on the morphosyntactic investigation of functional categories in English and the Ịzọn language, specifically identifying shared universal principles and language-specific parametric variations.
Which theoretical framework does the study utilize?
The study adopts the Minimalist Program (MP) as its core theoretical framework to analyze the feature-checking processes and derivations within the two languages.
What are the central themes explored in the work?
Central themes include the role of functional heads (such as Determiners, Tense, and Agreement), wh-movement, case-marking, the head directionality parameter, and how these factors contribute to syntactic convergence or divergence.
How is the Ịzọn language characterized in terms of syntax?
The study characterizes Ịzọn as an SOV (subject-object-verb) and head-final language, which presents notable parametric differences compared to the SVO and head-initial structure of English.
What is the significance of the "kị" focus particle in Ịzọn?
The focus particle "kị" (and its allomorph "kọ") is crucial in Ịzọn syntax for licensing wh-elements and focus, acting as a functional element that ensures the derivation converges at the interface levels.
What methodology was used to collect data?
Data on English were derived from established grammar textbooks, while data on Ịzọn were collected from native speakers in the Kolokuma and Opokuma clans, supplemented by the author's introspective competence.
Does the Ịzọn language have a standard auxiliary verb system like English?
The study suggests that Ịzọn lacks overt auxiliary and modal verbs similar to English; instead, these functions are often embedded within aspect markers and specific inflectional enclitics.
Why are negation particles in Ịzọn considered synthetic?
Negation in Ịzọn is expressed through bound morphemes suffixed to the verb, as opposed to the English analytical approach which uses free morphemes like "not" or auxiliary "do-support".
- Citation du texte
- Dr Odingowei Kwokwo (Auteur), 2012, A Morphosyntactic Investigation of Functional Categories in English and Izon, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/314755
