negatizvization: a focus strategy in basÀ language … · some long essays written by some...

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

http://www.jolls.com.ng/



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




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‟




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




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‟




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‟




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‟




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‟




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)




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




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.




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‟




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‟




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




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.


negatizvization: a focus strategy in basÀ language … · some long essays written by some...

Documents