Journal of Languages, Linguistics and Literary Studies (JOLLS) Http://www.jolls.com.ng Vol 6. September 2018 ISSN : 2636-7149-6300 (online & print)
Imoh Philip Manda CC BY-NC-ND Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs
17
NEGATIZVIZATION: A FOCUS STRATEGY IN BASÀ LANGUAGE
Imoh Philip Manda
Nasarawa State University, Keffi
Nasarawa State
Abstract
Basà language is classified as belonging to Kainji family, under the sub-phylum Western-Kainji,
known as Rubasa (Basa Benue) (Croizier & Blench, 1992:32). Basà is an under-described
language spoken in North-Central Nigeria. The language is characterized by subject-verb-object
(henceforth SVO) as its canonical word order. Data for this work is sourced from the researcher’s
native intuition of the language corroborated with a careful observation of native speakers. This
paper investigates the syntactic derivational strategy of information-structure encoding in Basà
language. It emphasizes on a negative operator, as a strategy for focusing a constituent or clause
that follows it and negativizes a whole proposition. For items that are not nouns, they have to
undergo an obligatory nominalization process, either by affixation, modification or conversion
before they are moved to the preverbal position for these operations. The study discovers and
provides evidence of the fact showing that deferent constituents in the sentence such as the subject,
direct, indirect object, genitive, verb phrase, prepositional phrase, clause and idiophone, etc. can
be focused with the same negativizing operator. The process is characterized by focusing the
preverbal NP constituent alone, whereas the whole proposition is negated. The study can stimulate
similar study or be replicated in other languages.
Key words: Negation, focus, Basà, nominalization
Abbreviations ACC = accusative, ADJ = adjective, APPL = applicative, AGR = agreement, AUX =
auxiliary, CAUS = causative, CL = class, CP = complementizer phrase, C = complement, COMP =
complementizer, EMPH = emphasis DAT = dative, DEM = demostative, DET = determiner, F =
focus, FM = focus marker, FOC = focus, TUT= future, FV = final verb, INFL = inflection, NOM
= nominative, MSG = masculine singular, NP = noun phrase, NEG = negative, NM = negative
marker, N.PRE noun prefix, OBJ/O = object, OBL = oblique, P = pronoun, PST= past, PERF =
perfective, PR = present morpheme, PP = prepositional, phrase, POSS = possession, PRE = prefix,
PREP = preposition, PRES = present, PST = past, RP = recapilatory pronoun, SG = singular,
SUB/S = subject, TR = transitive, V = verb, VP = verb phrase, VR = verb root, VS = verb stem,
1SG = first person singular, 1PL = first person plural, 2SG = second person singular, 2PL =
second person plural, 3SG = 3rd
person singular, 3PL =3rd
Person plural, 3PLS =3rd
Person plural
subject
Introduction
The Basà people are in all the Federal Capital
Councils of Nigeria: Kwali, Abaji, Gwagwalada,
kuje, Bwari, Municipal; and some states in North-
Central Nigeria, such as Kogi, Nasarawa, Niger
and Benue. The Basà in Kogi State are found in
Bassa (the name of a local government where the
Basà people are), Dekina, and Ankpa Local
Government Areas; Niger State, in Kontagora
Local Government; Nasarawa State, in Nasarawa,
Kokona, and Toto Local Government Areas.
According to 2008 population census, Basà had the
population of 224,839 (National Population
Commission 2008). This is highly disputable as
many people, believe the population of Basà triples
that figure; especially, in my verbal conversation
Journal of Languages, Linguistics and Literary Studies (JOLLS) Http://www.jolls.com.ng Vol 6. September 2018 ISSN : 2636-7149-6300 (online & print)
Imoh Philip Manda CC BY-NC-ND Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs
18
with Pa Daniel Tukura.
Basà language is one of the Nigerian languages that
are highly under-defined or under-described
compared to larger languages like Yoruba, Igbo,
Hausa, Ibibio, Effik etc. It has orthographies
designed by missionaries who were non-linguists
for the sole purpose of translating the Bible and
other Christian literatures such as the Pilgrim‟s
Progress (authored by John Bunyan), the Way of
Salvation, excerpts of the Bible, etc. in order to
propagate the Gospel of Christ. This they did by
devising primers to enable users of these materials
to learn how to spell, read and write. Apart from
some long essays written by some undergraduates,
the researcher‟s M.A. and PhD theses titled
„Aspects of Bassa Morphology‟, „A Study of Basà
Morphosyntax‟ respectively, and some of research
published in journals and chapters in books, no
further scholarly works have been done on the
language.
This study attempts to answer the following
questions:
i. Can a negative operator focus a
constituent?
ii. Why do some constituents move
out of IP before negation?
iii. What is the boundary between
negation and focusing in a
sentence?
This work is purely a descriptive one. The
following are methods for sourcing data for the
study:
i. The researcher, being a native speaker of
the language, used his native intuitions
corroborated by inputs from other native
speakers.
ii. More data were sourced from syntactic,
and morphosyntactic works.
iii. Other relevant linguistic and non-
linguistic materials such as the Basà Bible,
hymns etc. were also used as a means of
gathering data.
iv. The researcher also observed other native
speakers and interacted with them to study
features of negativization and focus,
especially those used to mark focus.
This paper is divided into four sections. The
first section is the introduction. The second
presents the theoretical background. The
third section analyses the various processes
of negation and focus marking in Basà.
Section four is the conclusion.
Theoretical Background
Negation, which is claimed to be a distinct
speech act from the affirmative, is an area of
interest in syntax which has attracted scholars
(Ndimele, 2005:95). Morava (1977:168)
quotes Garcia (1975:8) as saying that
“negative sentences communicate in terms of
an implicit, but rejected, affirmation which
might be expected to hold, but which in fact
fails to obtain.”
Morava (1977:168) states that “while
affirmatives are used to convey new
information on the presumption of ignorance
of the hearer, negatives are used to correct
misguided belief on the assumption of the
hearer‟s error.”
Scholars have defined negation in different
ways. Anagbogu (2005: 575); Crystal
1996:243; Watters 2000:208; Oluikpe
1976:164 and Heasley 1983:19) see negation
as a grammatical process by which an
affirmative sentence is negated. A negative
sentence must have a negative operator in
form of an affix or a full word (Anagbogu,
2005:29).
It has a process or construction in
grammatical and semantic analysis which
typically expresses the contradiction of some
or all of a sentence‟s meaning (Crystal,
1994:131; 2008:323). Lyons (1968) defines it
also as a denial of a positive proposition, or a
prediction that a proposition is untrue. Payne
(1997:282) observes that the function of
negation is to negate the clause which asserts
an affirmation of an event, situation, or state
Journal of Languages, Linguistics and Literary Studies (JOLLS) Http://www.jolls.com.ng Vol 6. September 2018 ISSN : 2636-7149-6300 (online & print)
Imoh Philip Manda CC BY-NC-ND Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs
19
of affairs.
Ndimele (2005:95) quotes Schaefer &
Masagbor (1984:28) as saying “…in terms
of the truth value of two sentences, that is, a
negation marker is such that in converting
one sentence (S-1) into another (S-2), it
brings about a state where S-1 is true if S-2 is
false or S-2 is true if S-1 is false.” This
implies that sentence-1 is untrue if the other
(sentence-2) is true. For example, Bill arrived
early (1) vs. Bill arrived late (2). The state in
the example above is that sentence (1) is true
only and only if sentence (2) is false. To
Arokoyo (2013: 63), it is a transformational
process that expresses a proposition that is
contrary to the truth. Malmkjaer (2002: 12)
says, it is derived by an optional
transformation that inserts a negative element
into an affirmative kernel.
Generally, there are two types of negation in
the linguistic literature: clausal negation
which negates the whole proposition of a
sentence and lexical negation which negates
only a constituent (Payne, 1997:282,
Anagbogu, 2005:575). Although these two
are very similar or identical, this work
focuses on the first. In each of the ideas
above, all have one thing in common, which
is the fact that negation is an optional
transformation that expresses the contrary
proposition of the truth. This operation is
attested a universal principle but varies in
parameter.
This process is very productive in Basà
language. Imoh (2012, 2014) discuss the
morphosyntactic processes of negation,
where the verb stem is affixed to carry out
this operation. In Basà language, he claims
that the main or primary negation strategy is
the attachment of the negative inflectional
suffix –shì(ò) to either the verb stem/root or
auxiliary verb. He further argues that the
negative suffix is used in all tenses, aspects
and mood, except for the perfective aspect.
Being the primary negation strategy, it has
the widest distribution in Basà language vis-
à-vis other negative marking strategies. He
exemplifies it thus:
(1) a. Bì shiteji ìyìmèyẹ
3SG-S cook-PST food
„S/he cooked some food‟
b. Bì shítejí-shi ìyìmèyo-ò
3SG cook-PST-NEG food EMPH
„S/he did not cook food‟
(2) a. Gè- Jére so ọhàntò
NOM name buy-PST boat/plane
„Jere bought a boat/plane‟
b. Gè- Jere sé- shi ọhantọ-ò
NOM name buy-PST-NEG boat/plane- EMPH
„Jere did not buy a boat‟
(3) a. Tí zhẹ ta rità utakàda
1PL-S AUX AGR read-FUT book
„We will read a book‟
Journal of Languages, Linguistics and Literary Studies (JOLLS) Http://www.jolls.com.ng Vol 6. September 2018 ISSN : 2636-7149-6300 (online & print)
Imoh Philip Manda CC BY-NC-ND Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs
20
b. Tí zhá-she ta rità utakàdoò
1PL-S AUX-NEG AGR read- FUT book
„We will not read a book‟
(4) a. Èẹ zhẹ a rità utákàda
3PL-S AUX AGR read- FUT book
„They will read a book‟
b. Àà zha-shẹ a rità utákàdo-ò
3PL-S AUX NEG AGR read-PRES book-EMPH
„They will not read a book‟
(5) a. Bọtọ áta zhẹmẹ
3SG DEM fine/beautiful
„That person is fine/ beautiful‟
b. Bọtò áta zhé-shi-ò
3SG DEM good-NEG- EMPH
„That person is not fine‟
In each of the processes in the forgoing
examples (1-5), the examples in (b) are
optional transformations that derive from the
attachment of the negative operator to the
verb stem. In which, if option (a) is true then
(b) is false and vice-versa.
Focus involves laying emphasis on a certain
constituent of a sentence; especially, the
information the speaker does not share with the
hearer. It is a construction that refers to the
information which is at the centre (or focus) of the
speakers communicative interest (Cryptal,
2008:193). It is a situation where an element or part
of a sentence is given prominence by intonational
or other means e.g. pseudo-cleft, as in „It was I
who did it‟ (Matthews, 2007:142). Focus is a
grammatical process of highlighting the
organization of information in a discourse, thereby
laying emphasis on the most important one.
Speakers regularly tend to emphasize specific
pieces of information by deliberately drawing the
attention of the listener to a certain constituent in
the sentence bearing a specific piece of
information. The essence of the speaker, focusing
particular information in a construction is to bring
certain information into communicative
prominence. This is usually done by the constituent
in the construction that bears the information in
which emphasis is laid on. Mutaka (2000) points
out two types of focus which he says are either
contrastive or assertive. In contrastive focus, the
intention of the speaker is to provide information
which is contrary to the one known to the listener
or bring a constituent into sharp contrast with other
constituents of the construction. In assertive focus
on the other hand, he asserts, “The attention is to
reinforce a known fact or to affirm an assertion” (p
215). The aspect of focus in this work emphasizes
on assertion, where emphasis is on a particular
constituent to bring it into communicative
prominence among other constituents in a
construction.
Bickel (1999:279) describes focus
construction as a complex move in discourse
where the speaker separates information that
is taken for granted from information which
s/he cannot assume to be shared by the
addressee. As such, focusing lays bare the
speaker‟s assumption about what the
Journal of Languages, Linguistics and Literary Studies (JOLLS) Http://www.jolls.com.ng Vol 6. September 2018 ISSN : 2636-7149-6300 (online & print)
Imoh Philip Manda CC BY-NC-ND Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs
21
addressee has in common and what s/he does
not share with another. He argues that a focus
construction signals the speakers heightened
concern with a particular instantiation of a
variable as one that competes with other
possible instantiations or that is not evident
by itself. As a result of this, he contends that
focus constructions “typically announces a
strong authorial position” (p. 279).
Jones (2006:143) argues that focus “…
divides sentences into a focus and an open
proposition corresponding to background
information.” Rooth (1996) opines that it
selects a value for the variable in the open
proposition from a set of contextually
relevant alternatives.
There are different ways focus is marked
across languages. In English, for example, it
is through prosodic features such as
intonation. Jones (2006) reports that in
Mandeng, it is marked morphologically;
whereas, in English as well as Yoruba, it is
structurally marked, for instance, clefting.
She argues that to mark this grammatical
function, the focus occupies the left position
in the sentence and followed by a particle ni:
(6) [XP]F ni […]
She exemplifies the process with the following Yoruba examples:
(7) Adé ni ó ra ìwé
Ade Foc 3sg buy book
„[Ade]F bought a/ the book‟ (Curled from Jones 2006:143)
Dechaine (2000), as cited in Jones (2006), says that questioned or focused objects leave a trace in
the object position:
(8) ìwéi ni Adé rà [ti]
book Foc A buy
„Ade bought [a/the book]F‟
In (8) above, rà „buy‟ being a transitive verb requires an object occurring after it for an SVO
parameter language, but a trace/gap is created because it has moved to the location where it is
focused.
For focused verb/VP, she argues that in Yoruba, the verb or VP is nominalized via reduplication,
and a copy of the verb is required in the construal site. In (9), rà („buy‟) is nominalized, and
appears as rírà when focused (Jones, 2006). Example:
(9) [Rírà]F ni Adé ra ìwé
Nom-buy Foc A buy book
„Ade [bought]F a/the book.‟
In Yoruba, a possessed noun can also be focused. Owobuluyi (1978:100), cited in Owobuluyi
(1992:82), exemplifies the phenomenon thus:
(10) [Owó Òjo]i ni Dàda á jí [ti]
money ojo Foc Dada INFL steal
„Ojo‟s money is what Dada Stole‟
Journal of Languages, Linguistics and Literary Studies (JOLLS) Http://www.jolls.com.ng Vol 6. September 2018 ISSN : 2636-7149-6300 (online & print)
Imoh Philip Manda CC BY-NC-ND Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs
22
In (10), the focused NP is a possessed noun, where both the possessor and the possessed occur
together. The analysis of this work will be patterned after Jones (2006) following her focused rule
i.e. (6).
Aleh (2013:1037) investigates focus construction in Urhobo, and claims that this syntactic process
is very productive in the language where arguments such as subjects, direct objects and objects of
prepositions can be focused. The process is characterized by the occurrence of a focus operator
after the focused NP to indicate prominence on a particular constituent. He exemplifies the process
thus:
(11 ) a. Òkè dá àmè
Oke drank water
„Oke drank water‟
[CP e] [C e] [NP [N Oke] [ VP dà àmè]]
b. Okei óyèn ti dá àmè
Oke Foc drink-Pst water
„It is Oke that drank water‟
c. Àmèi óyè Òkè dare ti
Ame Foc one dring-Pst
„Oke is the one that drank‟
[CP e[C e] [ NP Òkè] [VP dá [NP àmè]]]
He explains that (11a) is a basic sentence, whereas (11 b-c) are derived from (11a), through a focus
movement rule.
As illustrated in the review above, focus is used in various ways to mark prominence on a
particular constituent in a language. In some languages, as characterized by Basà, it requires re-
ordering the sentence structure, and taking the focused constituent to the preverbal position as
prescribed by the syntax of the language. Basà being an SVO language, the value of the head the
parameter is head first. Therefore, the focused element is moved from its in-situ/construal position
to the position outside IP, where the focus marker is inserted in order to focus the prominent
constituent concerned, (see Imoh, 2011 and 2014).
Imoh (2014:90), in his study of focus construction in Basà exemplifies the process as presented
below.
(12)
a Gè – jèe yẹ òsọnda
NOM J eat-PST meat
[CP e] [C e][IP [NP jèe] [VP ye I] [NP òsọnda]
„[Jèe]F ate (the) meat‟
b. [Gè Jèe]i ùbwa [ti] yẹ òọnda
NOM J FOC [IP eat-PST meat
[CP jee ] [C ùbwa][IP [NP I] [VP yẹ] [NP ọsọnda]
„[Jee]F was the one that ate (the) meat‟
Journal of Languages, Linguistics and Literary Studies (JOLLS) Http://www.jolls.com.ng Vol 6. September 2018 ISSN : 2636-7149-6300 (online & print)
Imoh Philip Manda CC BY-NC-ND Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs
23
c. [Òsọnda]i ìbẹ gè-Jèe yẹ [ti]
meat FOC NOM J eat-PST
[CP[NP òsọndai] [C ìbẹ] [IP] [NPgè-jèe] [VP ye]ti.
„[Meat]F is what Jee ate.‟
Example (12a) is a basic sentence structure, whereas, (b) and (c) are those derived from the focus
movement rule. That is, they are derived as a result of focusing the subject of the basic sentence or
the object respectively. In (c), the trace within IP shows the extraction site, whereas, the subscript
within CP shows the landing site of the moved element. In example (a), the object òsọnda „meat‟,
the initial syllable is characterized by a low tone. Where the focus marker occurs in (b), the low
tone changes to mid (unmarked), and where the object is focused in (c), it reverts to its inherent
tone (low). We can provide more examples to illustrate this:
(13) a. Gà –Jasà so uhantò
NOM J buy-PST boat
„Jasa bough a boat.‟
b. [Ga-Jasa]i ùbwa [ti] só uhantò
NOM J FOC buy boat
„[Jasa]F was the one that bough a boat.‟
c. [Ùhantù]i ìbẹ gà-Jása so [ti]
boat FOC NOM J buy-PST
„[boat]F is what Jasa bought.‟ (Curled from Imoh 2014:90)
The foregoing examples in (13) show how the rule of focalization moves an argument from its
base position to the landing site within SPEC-CP, and leaves a trace. The process is followed by an
obligatory insertion of the focus operator ùbwa/ìbẹ to focus the prominent constituent. The
movement leaves a trace at the extraction site which is co-indexed with the moved NP at the
landing site. The movement is in consonance with the Government and Binding convention which
specifies that the moved NP leaves a trace at the extraction site; hence, it is co-indexed with its
antecedent (Radford 1988:555). According to him, “Any moved constituent X leaves behind at its
extraction site an identical empty category [Xe]. This moved NP is known as the trace, and the
moved constituent is said to be the antecedent of the trace”.
Imoh (2014:92) also argue that prepositional phrases can also be focused. He exemplifies
such process thus:
(14)
a. Gà Jéere zhe n‟ìhwẹ
NOM J go-PST Loc house
[CPe] [C
e] [IP [NP Jére I] [VP zhe] [PP] [P nù] [NP ihwe]]
„Jere went home
b. [N‟ìhwẹ]i ìbẹ gè-Jéere zhe [ti]
PREP-house FOC NOM J go-PST
[CP[PP [P Nù[NP ìhwẹ] [C ìbẹ] [IP [NPgè Jére I] [VP zhe]]]]
„It is [to the house]F that Jere went‟
Journal of Languages, Linguistics and Literary Studies (JOLLS) Http://www.jolls.com.ng Vol 6. September 2018 ISSN : 2636-7149-6300 (online & print)
Imoh Philip Manda CC BY-NC-ND Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs
24
(15)
a. Gè-Jéere yẹ iyimèyẹ ùwè yèu ìbwẹ
NOM J eat-PST food for child POSS
[CP e] [C
e][ IP [NP Jéere [VP yẹ] [NP ìyimèyẹ I] [PP [P ùwè][NP yèu ìbwẹ]]
„S/he ate food for his child (S/he ate food for the sake of his/her child)‟
b. [Ùwẹ yèu]i (ìbwẹ) ìbẹ gè-Jéere yẹ iyimèyẹ [ti]
PREP child POSS FOC NOM J eat-PST food
[CP Ùwẹ yèu ] [C ìbẹ][ IP [NP gè Jéere [VP yẹ] [NP ìyimèyẹ I] [PP [P e][NP
e]]
„[Because of his child]F s/he ate food‟
He asserts that in Basà, as exemplified in (14 & 15), the focused constituents move to the landing
site, that is SPEC-CP, in order to be focused together. This he maintains conforms with trace
movement principle which states that the extraction sites of the moved items are phonetically null
when items move to SPEC-CP.
The current study focuses on the dual syntactic roles of a negative operator in focusing
certain constituents occurring preverbally and equally negating an entire proposition in Basà
language. In the foregoing discussion, each constituent is focused with a focus marker which does
not combine the dual roles of both negation and focus (see Imoh, 2011, 2014). Also, the process of
negativization does not also combine the dual roles of both negation and focus; rather, in each
case, each operator plays a distinct role. The preoccupation of this paper is to examine the
analytical negative operator, playing dual roles of both negation and focus; where it focuses only a
constituent, but negates the whole proposition. Apart from focusing a constituent, larger units such
as phrases and clauses can equally be negated and focused. The following sections discuss the
processes.
Negation as Focus Strategy in Basà
In the foregoing discussion, we have
discussed the fact that negation and focusing
are two distinct syntactic or morphosyntactic
operations. Examples have been drawn from
different languages to establish the fact. In
Basà, despite the fact that these two
operations are distinct (see Imoh 2011 &
2014), when the negativizing operator occurs
preverbally, its role ceases to be strictly to
negate either a constituent or an entire
proposition; rather, it also focuses the
immediate element such as a word, a
constituent or a structure that follows or
occurs preverbally, such as a noun, NP, verb,
adjective, adjectival phrase, prepositional
phrase, or a clause. Before this process takes
place, the constituent concerned which are
not inherent nouns undergo an obligatory
nominalization process in order to be able to
fill the NP slot that serves as the focus of the
discourse and subject of the derived structure.
In what follow, examples of such operations
in Basà are presented and analyzed.
(16)
i) a. Gè- Jéere jìye
NOM J return-PST „Jeere returned‟
b.[Shé gè- Jéere]F jìye-ò
NEG/FM NOM-Jeere return-PST-EMPH „It is not Jeere that returned‟
Journal of Languages, Linguistics and Literary Studies (JOLLS) Http://www.jolls.com.ng Vol 6. September 2018 ISSN : 2636-7149-6300 (online & print)
Imoh Philip Manda CC BY-NC-ND Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs
25
ii) a. Gamba N nyécí tinyecì
1SG RP write writing „I did the writing‟
b. [Shé gamba]F N nyécí tinyecì-ò
NEG/FM 1SG RP write writing-EMPH „I did not do the writing‟
iii) a. Àtọba tú só umwònò
3PL RP buy-PST house „We bought a/the house‟
b. [Shẹ atọba]F tú só umwònò
NEG/FM 3PL RP buy-PST house „It is not we that bought the house‟
In each of the examples in (16) above, (a) is in the affirmative, whereas (b) is negative. In (b), shé
„not‟ negates the entire proposition and equally renders the subject constituent emphatic. I.e. the
speaker assumes that s/he does not share with the hearer, certain information in the discourse,
especially the focused constituent.
Other elements in a discourse can also be focused. For example, quality such as colour can be
emphasized in a discourse. In this case, since it is not a noun, it undergoes an obligatory
nominalization process to be able to serve the function of the NP and fill the subject position when
it moves to the preverbal argument position. Consider the following examples.
(17)
i) a. ọnọnọ shẹ shíì
bird be black „The bird is black‟
b. [Shé u-shiì]F ọnọnọ shẹ-ò
NEG/FM N-PRE-black bird be-EMPH „The bird is not black‟
ii) a. Tàama ti i‟nshi
porridge AGR thick „The porridge is thick‟
b. [Shé mòisò]F tàama ti i‟nshi-ò
NEG/FM thickness porridge AGR thick-EMPH „It is not that the porridge is thick‟
As earlier commented, the process in (17) involves a nominalizing process, where in (ib), the
adjective shíì „black‟ (adjective) derives ùshíì „blackness‟ a noun, and fill the argument position
where it moves. In (iib), mòisò „thickness‟ is derived from the adjective i'nshi „thick‟ for the
purpose of becoming a noun and be adequate to ocupy the NP position. In each case, in (17b),
where the movement occurs, and the moved element nominalizes, a copy of it remains at the
extraction site as the core of the predicate in order to express the state of being which the derived
NP emphasizes. This is because, in this language, some adjectives occupy the verbal slot in the
predicate and act as the verb (see Imoh, (2011).
Verbs can also be focused by the same process. They behave like adjectives, i.e. when a verb is
focused, it has to be nominalized, move to the preverbal position and leave a copy of itself at the
extraction position. This can be exemplified in the following.
(18)
Journal of Languages, Linguistics and Literary Studies (JOLLS) Http://www.jolls.com.ng Vol 6. September 2018 ISSN : 2636-7149-6300 (online & print)
Imoh Philip Manda CC BY-NC-ND Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs
26
i) a. Bè yẹ tòga
3SG eat-PST food „S/he ate food‟
b. [Shé tè-ya]F bàa yẹ tòga-ò
NEG/FM N-PRE-eat 3SG eat-PST food-EMPH „It is not eating that‟s/ he did to the
food‟
ii) a. N so ìhwẹ
1SG buy-PST house „I bought a house‟
b. [Shé tò-sa]F ngòó so ìhwẹò-ò „I didn‟t buy a house‟
NEG/FM N-PRE-buy 1SG buy-PST house-EMPH
iii) a. Gà- Jásà ba hantànà uhantò
NOM-J RP drive boat „Jasa paddles a boat‟
b. [Shé ì-hẹntẹnẹ]F gà-Jásà ba hantànà ọhantò
NEG/FM N-PRE-drive NOM-J RP drive boat-EMPH „It is not paddling that Jasa paddles
a boat‟
This negativizing process differs from the pattern discussed in Imoh (2011, 2014), which is a form
of verbal inflection, where the verb stem is affixed to negate a whole proposition (see 2.0). In (18)
above, only the action identified by verbal noun is focused, though the whole structure is negated
by the same operator. The verb stem also has to undergo an obligatory nominalization process
which involves prefixing it with an appropriate nominal prefix in order to be fit to fill the argument
slot at the landing site. In regular negation, only the verb stem is inflected by attaching a
negativizing affix to negate the entire proposition (see Imoh 2011). It does not derive a nominal
category from the verb stem before this process. But in (18), the negative operator is an
independent particle as opposed to the former and derives a noun from a verb. If it does not
undergo a derivation process, the derived structure will be ill-formed for instance:
(19)
a i. *[Shé ya] bàá yẹ tòga-ò
NEG/FM eat 3SG eat-PST food-EMPH „*It is not eat that s/he ate food‟
ii. [Shé tȇya] bàá yẹ tòga-ò
NEG/FM N.PRE-eat 3SG eat-PST food-EMPH
bi. *[Shé sa]F bòó so ìhwẹ-ò
NEG/FM buy 3SG buy-PST house-EMPH „*It is not buy that s/he bought the house‟
ii. [Shé tòsa]F bòó so ìhwẹ-ò
NEG/FM N.PRE-buy 3SG buy-PST house-EMPH „*It is not buy that s/he bought the house‟
ci *[Shé hantana]F bèé henteni ùhantò
Journal of Languages, Linguistics and Literary Studies (JOLLS) Http://www.jolls.com.ng Vol 6. September 2018 ISSN : 2636-7149-6300 (online & print)
Imoh Philip Manda CC BY-NC-ND Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs
27
NEG/FM drive 3SG drive-PST boat „*It is not paddling that he paddled the boat‟
ii. [Shé tòhantana]F bèé henteni ùhantò
NEG/FM N.PRE-drive 3SG drive-PST boat „It is not paddling that he paddled the boat‟
All of the sentences in (19i) are ill-formed simply because the focused items are not arguments and
their inherent derivational process is not conversion, still they have moved and occupied the NP
position but in (19ii) the verbal forms are nominalized whose process is characterized by a nominal
prefix attached to the verb stem, hence they are grammatical.
The reason why a copy of the verb remains at the extraction site is because it still serves as
the means that identifies the action of the predicate, whereas, the nominal form serves as the
focused subject. Hence, it has to move to the subject position.
Genitives in Basà can also undergo these dual processes by the same operator. In this case,
both the possessor and the possessed items can be negated and focused, i.e. the entire constituent
that forms the genitive. Unlike verbs, this category does not undergo derivation because a genitive
is a noun phrase. Consider the following examples.
(20)
i) a. Ùmwótù mu bàá sukà
car POSS 3SG drive „S/he drives my car‟
b. [Shé ùmwótu mu]F bàá sukà
NEG/FM car POSS 3SG drive „It is not my car that s/he drives‟
ii) a. Ìdiké ìbwẹ „nwá
shirt POSS fall „His/her shirt fell‟
b. [Shé ìdíké ìbwẹ]F nwá-ò
NEG/FM shirt POSS fall-EMPH „It is not his/her shirt that fell‟
iii) a. Mèni Zeèjè bèé zweji
water Z 3SG turn-PST „S/he turned Zeeje‟s water‟
b. [Shé mèni Zeèjè[F bèé zweji-ò „S/he did not turn Zeeje‟s water‟
NEG/FM Z 1SG turn-PST-EMPH
In (20) above, the focus operator focuses only the genitive which serves as the subject of the
sentence, but the negative role applies to the entire structure. This is because, the genitive NP is the
central focus of the speaker whose information is believed not to be shared with the hearer. Hence,
it has to be distinguished from other elements and constituents of the sentence. Although it does
not undergo nominalization like other adjectives and verbs, still it is characterized by the same
movement rule to the preverbal position in order to make focusing possible.
Journal of Languages, Linguistics and Literary Studies (JOLLS) Http://www.jolls.com.ng Vol 6. September 2018 ISSN : 2636-7149-6300 (online & print)
Imoh Philip Manda CC BY-NC-ND Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs
28
The prepositional phrase can also be focused in a grammatical structure. The prepositional phrase
is not a noun phrase and does not usually substitute a noun phrase. In Basà, it performs a quite
unique role as can be exemplified below:
(21)
i) a. Èé jíye n‟ ìvwunẹ
3PL return-PST PREP-leg „They trekked back home‟
b. [Shè n‟ ìvwunẹ]F èé jíye-ò
NEG/FM PREP-leg 3PL return-PST-EMPH „They did not trek back home‟
Each fronted prepositional phrase serves as the subject-NP. A prepositional phrase normally serves
as a complement in the predicate, but in Basà, a preposition can be converted to an NP as shown
above. In the case of (21), the effect of focus is no longer on the prepositional phrase, but the noun
phrase which is derived by conversion. When this happens, the same focus operator also negates
the entire proposition.
Independently used nominalization usually signals “vividness and sometimes exclamatory
force” (Woodbury, 1985:76). The process involves, the speaker separating the information that
they think can be taken for granted from another which they think cannot be assumed to be shared
by the addressee (Bickel, 1999:279).
In the language, a whole clause can also be focused. Before it is focused, it has to be
nominalized, just the same way the other constituents discussed above. This is usually done in
order to “signal the speaker‟s heightened concern with a particular instantiation of variable as one
that competes with other possible instantiations” or to show vividness. In the following, I show
with examples that a nominalized clause in Basà is focalization when it is premodified by the
negative operator she .
(22)
i) a. Ùwènè bèé leni ìbẹ gè-zéèjè zhàjẹ
because 3SG agree-PST COMP NOM-Z come-PST
„S/he came because Zeeje allowed him/her‟
b. [Shé ùwènè bèé leni]F (ìbẹ) gè-zéèjè zhàjẹ
NEG/FM because 3SG agree-PST COMP NOM-Z come-PST
„S/he didn‟t come because Zeeje allowed him/her‟
ii) a. Ùwènè àbó yẹ ìyimèyẹ ìbẹ àmé ùbwa lemi
because 1SG eat-PST food COMP stomach POSS cool
„S/he is happy because you ate the food‟
b. [Shé ùwènè àbó yẹ ìyimèyẹ] ìbẹ àmé ùbwa lemi
NEG/FM because 1SG eat-PST food COMP stomach POSS cool
„S/he is not happy because you ate the food‟
Journal of Languages, Linguistics and Literary Studies (JOLLS) Http://www.jolls.com.ng Vol 6. September 2018 ISSN : 2636-7149-6300 (online & print)
Imoh Philip Manda CC BY-NC-ND Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs
29
iii) a. Ùwènè gà-Déẹnè ji ìbẹ po bèe gúùre
because NOM-D leave-PST COMP cause 3SG return-PST
„He came back because Deene left‟
b. [Shé ùwènè gà-Déẹnè ji]F po bèé gúùre
NEG/FM because NOM-D leave-PST cause 3SG return-PST
„S/he did not return because Deene left‟
In (22a) above, each structure is a complex sentence, made up of a main clause and an embedded
or subordinate clause. In (b), a whole clause is nominalized and serves as the subject of the derived
sentence. This process enables the clause to occupy an argument position and be focused by the
negative marker which equally negativizes the entire proposition.
In (ib), the negative marker nagativises the whole proposition, whereas, it focuses the
clause ùwènè bèé leni „because s/he agreed‟; In (iib), the negative operator nagativises the whole
proposition, but emphasizes the dependent clause ùwènè àbó yẹ ìyimèyẹ „because you ate the
food‟; whereas in (iiib) the subordinate clause ùwènè gà-Déẹnè ji „because Deene left‟ is focused,
while the entire structure is negativized. All of the processes are as a result of the negative/focus
operator shé occurring before the moved constituent in each case. When the negative operator
applies, the complementizer deletes, or where it subsists, it becomes optional. Hence, in (22ib), it
is enclosed within parenthesis; whereas in (iiib), it does not feature at all.
It is also noteworthy that the internally-headed relative clauses are characterized by
different roles such as actor (23), cause (24), and locative (25):
(23)
a. [Bọtò nà àá túmwànẹ]F ùbwa zúnjí ukuribi
person 3PL send-PST 3SG steal money
„The person they sent was the one that stole the money‟
b. [Shé bọtò nà àá túmwànẹ]F zúnjí ukuribi
NEG/FM person COMP 3SG send-PST steal-PST money
„It is not the person they sent that stole the money
(24)
a. Ùwènè bèé swe màyagà ìbẹ po bàá gùmà
because 3SG drink-PST alcohol COMP cause 3SG sick
„S/he is sick because s/he took alcohol‟
b. [Shé ùwènè bèé swe màyagà]F po bàá gùmà-ò
NEG/FM because 3SG drink-PST alcohol cause 3SG sick-EMPH
„S/he is not sick because s/he drank alcohol‟
(25)
a. Ùlàpà áta zwéní ọsọnda, ùbwa bàá „nwanẹ
bag DEM contain meat COMP 3SG carry
„The bag s/he is carrying is the one that contains meat‟
Journal of Languages, Linguistics and Literary Studies (JOLLS) Http://www.jolls.com.ng Vol 6. September 2018 ISSN : 2636-7149-6300 (online & print)
Imoh Philip Manda CC BY-NC-ND Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs
30
b. [Shé ùlàpà áta zwéní ọsọnda]F bàá „nwanè-ò
NEG/FM bag DEM contain meat 3SG carry-EMPH
„It is not the bag that contains meat that s/he is carrying‟
The focused relative clause, Bọtò nà àá túmwànẹ „the person that they sent‟, in (23), typifies an
„actor‟ of the action stealing. In (24), the relative clause ùwènè bèé swe màyagà ‟because s/he
drank alcohol‟ is emphasized and it implies „cause‟; whereas in (25), the relative clause ùlàpà áta
zwéní ọsọnda„ the bag that contains meat‟ is focused to show „location‟. The item focused in each
case is emphasized so that the hearer will not take it for granted. That is, in (23), the emphasis is
the „actor, in (24), it is the „cause‟, and in (25), it is the „location‟. Furthermore, each of these
clauses is focused, but the entire propositions are negativized.
Conclusion
It is noteworthy that in Imoh (2011), negation
is an affix attached to the verb stem, but in
the present study, it preposes an NP
analytically to focus it for prominence, where
no morphological process is applied to the
predicate. Basà has several ways of
expressing negation such as negative
inflectional affix, inherently negative
auxiliary verbs, tonal alternation, etc., see
Imoh 2011, 2014, but none of this plays the
dual roles as expressed in this case,
To negate a structure, it must not move out of
IP, rather, the verb stem can be affixed to
carry out this process, but where focusing is
involved, the constituent concerned must
move out of IP or where it is based generated
to the preverbal position where it can be
focused. Since the two roles are fused in shé
„NEG/FM‟, the constituent which bears the
prominence of the discourse must move to
the location where it can properly be focused,
and the entire proposition negated.
References
Anagbogu, P. N. (2005). The negativizing prefixes of Koring. In O.M. Ndimele (Ed). Trends in
the study of languages and linguistics in Nigeria: A festschrift for Philip Nwachukwu.
574–582.Aba: National Institute for Nigerian.
Arokoyo, B.E. (2013). Unlocking focus constructions. Ilorin: Cridamel Publishing House.
Baertsch, K. (2001). Morphological and syntactic aspects of negation in Lamso. AAP 69, 125–
143.
Crystal, D. (1994). An encyclopedic dictionary of language and languages Oxford: Blackwell.
Crystal, D. (2008). A dictionary of linguistics and phonetics. Oxford: Blackwell.
Croizer, D.H. & Blench, R. M. (1992). An index of Nigerian languages (2nd
edition) Dallas: SIL.
Crystal, D. (2008). A dictionary of linguistics and phonetics. Oxford: Blackwell.
Imoh, P.M. (2008). Aspects of Bassa morphology. Unpublished M.A. dissertation. University of
Ilorin.
Imoh, P.M. & Amende, A.C. (2011). Verbal morphology of Bassa. Journal of Nigerian
languages and culture, 13, 1.35-46.
Imoh, P.M. (2014). Focus construction in Basà: A GB account. Ilorin journal of language
literature and culture 4, 84-100.
Imoh, P.M. (2014). A study of Basà morphosyntax. A PhD Dissertation, Nasarawa State
Journal of Languages, Linguistics and Literary Studies (JOLLS) Http://www.jolls.com.ng Vol 6. September 2018 ISSN : 2636-7149-6300 (online & print)
Imoh Philip Manda CC BY-NC-ND Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs
31
University.
Lyons, J. (1968). Introduction to theoretical linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Malmjaer, K. (1991). The linguistic encyclopedia. London: Routledge.
Morava, E. C. (1977). What is a negative equivalent. Data from Swahili negative tenses. Studies
in African language and linguistics supplement 7, 165-173.
Ndimele, O. M. (2005). Negation Marking in Igbo. In Ndimele O.M (Eds) Trends in the study of
languages and linguistics in Nigeria: A festschrift for Philip Nwachukwu, 939–956. Aba:
National Institute for Nigerian Languages.
Payne, T. (1997). Describing morphosyntax: A guide to field linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Schaefer, R.P. & R. Masagbor (1984). The form of negation. Journal of West African language
xiv: 2, 2742.
Watters, J. R. (2000). Syntax. In Heine, B, & D. Nise (Eds.) African language: An introduction,
194-230. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.