Content uploaded by Emmanuel Akaninyene Okon Ph.D
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Emmanuel Akaninyene Okon Ph.D on Sep 12, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
Reflexivity in Ibibio: A Government-Binding Approach
Escor Udosen
Department of Linguistics & Communication Studies
University of Calabar
escorudosen@gmail.com
&
Emmanuel Akaninyene Okon
Department of Linguistics & Nigerian Languages
University of Uyo, Nigeria.
emmanuelaokon@uniuyo.edu.ng
Language Documentation and description in Nigeria. A festschrift in Honour of Professor Imelda
Udoh
Pages 275 - 288
Abstract
This paper on reflexivity and pronominal clitics in Ibibio adopts Government-Binding approach
with special focus on binding and case sub-theories as its theoretical basis for analysis. The goal
of these sub-theories is to identify the syntactic relationship that can or must hold between a
given pronoun or noun and its antecedent. Ibibio is a Lower Cross language spoken in Akwa
Ibom State of Nigeria. In considering data from the language, it would be noticed that
reflexivisation as an instantiation of anaphoric dependency is morpho-syntactically encoded. The
papers surveys and examines the various strategies of marking reflexivity and the morphological
behavior of the object pronoun in the language. To express reflexivity, the object pronoun must
co-occur with the word d
differently from reflexive anaphor. It is also observed that, the predicate or verbal cluster is very
complex showing person, tense, pronominal clitic and the verb itself. The paper further discovers
that, person concord markers, are morpho-phonologically distributed within their minimal
domain suggesting that they behave more like clitics and therefore must attach to verbal string
which also reflect in the object pronoun. The paper concludes that the pronominal affixes within
the verbal system is a case of morpho-syntactic encoding where an affix must agree with object
pronouns.
Keywords: Anaphoric, Cliticization, Encoding, Pronominal, Reflexivity
2
1.1 Background to the Study
According to Akpan and Okon (2020), the Ibibio language is one of the Nigerian Niger Congo
Lower Cross languages spoken in Akwa Ibom State, Nigeria. It is a morphologically rich
language with its distinctive features. This paper presents a complex-interaction processes
between arguments within a construction. Reflexivity is a property of syntactic constructs
whereby two arguments (actual or implicit) of an action or relation expressed by a single
predicate have the same reference. Reflexivity may be expressed by means of reflexive pronouns
or reflexive verbs. Just like the object on the mirror, reflexive pronoun must refer to itself in the
same sentence.
Reflexivisation is a widely studied phenomenon in linguistic circle. It is a syntactic and
transformational operation in which a noun, pronoun, noun phrase or nominal element is
converted into a reflexive pronoun. In generative grammar, a reflexive pronoun is an anaphor
that must be bound by its antecedent. Thus, Carnie (2007)) describes a reflexive pronoun as a
noun phrase that obligatorily gets its meaning from another noun phrase within the same
sentence. A reflexive pronoun is therefore a special kind of pronoun that is usually used when
the object of a sentence is the same as the subject. Each personal pronoun has its reflexive form.
In Ibibio, it is observed that the reflexive pronoun must co-occur with the word d
The paper adopts the GB theoretical approach with special focus on Binding and Case sub-
theories. Within the conception of Binding Theory, the reference of an element is determined by
its index. This index can be regarded as the sole aspect of a lexical item that is visible for
whatever the mental faculty assigns reference. Whereas the reference of R-expressions is
inherent through an independently assigned index, a co-indexed antecedent determines the
reference of anaphors. Pronominals can be interpreted either by a co-indexed antecedent or by an
independently assigned index. This theory can be interpreted in the form of conditions on
3
indexing. Co-indexed elements must match in features. Reuland and Everaert (1993) observe that
English anaphors are specified for gender, number and person, but many languages of the world
including Ibibio have a third person anaphor lacking a specification for gender and number. In
ny she/it can be masculine,
feminine and neuter. In addition to matching features, binding is subject to the structural
condition of c-command.
Pronominal cliticization is another major issue discussed in this paper. A pronominal clitic is a
morpheme in morphology and syntax that has syntactic characteristics of a word, but depends
phonologically on another word or phrase. The clitic provides both morphological and syntactic
information as evident in this paper.
1.2 Objectives of the Study
The specific objectives of this study include the following:
a. to identity antecedents and anaphors in the language,
b. to account for the syntactic relationship that holds between two or more arguments,
c. to distinguish between reflexive anaphors and reciprocals,
d. to account for the subject and object pronominal clitic in the language,
e. to relate the topic to binding and case sub-theories of Government and Binding
framework.
1.3 Population of Study/Sources of Data
The sample population for this study was made up of fourteen men and fourteen women who fall
within the age range of eighteen and seventy-five years of age. They all speak Ibibio as their
mother tongue. The researcher selected two speakers each, male and female from the fourteen
Local Government Areas making it a total of twenty-eight respondents. Some of the language
consultants are titled chiefs. Others are farmers, fishermen, businessmen, civil servants,
4
politicians and undergraduate students. Most of the informants were literate and some were
undergraduates who spoke English language fluently. The problem of interpretation did not arise
so much but useful explanations were offered on technical areas where the researcher had to
focus. Again, most of the informants had some competence in more than one Lower Cross
language, typically an understanding of Efik and Anaa. Beyond the sentences which relate to
the topic of this paper, data were also gathered through primary and secondary sources. The
primary source of data involved the Ibadan 400 and the SIL wordlists. These wordlists
(instruments) consist of basic vocabulary items and samples of short sentences to elicit more
information on morphology and syntax to aid the researcher on the analysis of reflexivity and
pronominal system.
Data from the library which form part of the literature review serve as secondary source of
information. Publications and journals on core levels of language study were also consulted.
1.4 Research Procedure
The method applied for the gathering of the research data was interview which elicited forty
sentences relating to the research subject matter from twenty-eight native speakers of the
language. The researcher also interacted with the speakers and asked them to make sentences
referring to themselves.
1.5 Statement of the Problem
Reflexivity is scarcely discussed in Ibibio considering the amount of literature on the subject
matter. The strategies adopted in this work correspond with that of Essien (1990) that the
d-occur with real possessive pronoun for a reflexive anaphor
to be derived. The work also aligns with the fact that certain reflexive verbs can be extended by
suffixation for reflexives to be formed. This work refutes Essien (1990) analysis on reciprocal
5
idea for some strings of words. The work argues that the d morpheme in -d-mk-k love
each other should not be treated as reciprocal affix, is the
morpheme responsible for the reciprocal function.
1.6 Theoretical Framework
This work adopts the two sub-theories of Government and Binding GB; namely, Binding and
Case sub-theories. Binding theory is basically concerned with the referential dependency
between two or more elements of a sentence. This explains the fact that certain elements depend
on other elements for reference. Therefore, the goal of this sub-theory is to identify the syntactic
relationship that can or must hold between a given pronoun or noun and its antecedent. An
element that is not bound is free. With respect to binding, it is assumed that nominal expressions
fall into the following categories:
a. Anaphors
b. Pronominals
c. R-expressions.
1.6.1 Anaphor
Anaphors are expressions that have no capacity for inherent reference. Canie (2007) defines
anaphors as an NP that obligatorily gets its meaning from another NP in the sentence. Typical
anaphors are himself, herself, themselves, yourselves, ourselves, each other etc.
1.6.2 Types of Anaphors
Carnie (2007) identifies at least two different kinds of anaphors; namely, reflexive pronouns like
herself, herself, themselves etc. The other kinds are called reciprocals which include: each other,
one another
6
A pronoun (a bindee) usually has an antecedent (a binder) in context. Ndimele (2004) maintains
that, anaphors are NPs whose reference must be determined within the same clause and cannot
have independent reference. Consider the following example:
1. Mary know herself.
In this sentence, Mary is the antecedent while herself is the anaphor. In the context of binding,
Mary is the binder while herself is the bindee.
Reciprocal Pronouns are a type of anaphor which can be used to refer to a noun phrase
mentioned earlier in a sentence. The reciprocal pronouns known in English language are one
another and each other and they form the category of anaphors along with reflexive pronouns.
2a. Ima and Edet like themselves
b. Mfon and Akpan like each other
The main difference between reflexives as in example (2a) and the reciprocal pronoun in (2b) is
that reflexives are used when the subject acts upon itself. While reciprocals are used when
members of a plural subject act on other members of the same subject. Reciprocal Pronouns are
used in many languages with plural noun phrases, and when used, they indicate a reciprocal
relationship between the members of the plural noun phrase.
In (2a) above, Ima and Edet refer or co-index with themselves; hence, they are the binder while,
themselves is the bindee. The constraint which provides reference for another grammatical unit is
binder. The one which depends on the binder for its reference is the bindee. Ima and Edet are the
binder while themselves is the bindee.
Within the theory of generative grammar, and within phrase structure grammar, binding theory
explains how anaphors share a relationship with their referents. Therefore, binding is thus
defined by Chomsky (1986) as:
7
- -
- -indexed
Constraint Command (C-Command) means to share one maximal projection or to occur with the
same governing category or w
To co-index elements means to share the same reference. Consider the following binding
principles:
1.6.3 Binding Principles
These are conditions which place constraint on dependent arguments. These conditions are
referred to binding conditions A, B and C. The conditions are presented below:
Principle A
This principle states that anaphors (reflexives and reciprocals) are bound in their local domain or
in the governing category, (i.e. minimal sentence).
3. Youi hurt yourselfi.
Note that yourself which is an anaphor is bound in the domain in which it occurs. It is also
pertinent to note that you binds yourself in the sentence.
Principle B
This principle states that personal pronouns, e.g. he, she, I, them, him, her, etc. are free in their
local domains but bound elsewhere.
4. Okon said that, he will come to Lagos.
5. Atim is a doctor, she describes drugs to patients.
In sentences (4 and 5), Okon and Atim bind he/she respectively because he/she occur in their
free domain.
8
Principle C.
This principle states that Referential (R)-expressions are free in both local and non-local
domains. In other words, substantive nouns are free in both local and non-local domains.
6. Etim killed a goat.
In sentence (6), Etim is free and goat is free in both local and non-local domains.
It should also be noted that, R-expressions have intrinsic references; they cannot be assigned
their reference from somewhere else and are not bound at all. Consider the next example:
7. Effiong killed a goat and sold it.
From this sentence, it is observed that, Effiong is free, goat is free but goat binds it. Pronouns are
bound whereas nouns are free.
Linearly speaking, the binder comes before the bindee. But there are cases where the bindee
precedes the binder in the case below:
8 He has risen, Jesus the son of God.
matrix (subject) position. It would be right to say that the substantial noun gets its reference from
the pronoun. This is a case of cataphoric situation.
1.7 Case Theory
Blake (2001) as the change in the forms of nouns or pronouns in relationship to other words in
the sentence. The case of a noun or pronoun is an inflectional form that indicates their
grammatical function in a phrase, clause, or a sentence. McGregor (1972), views case as a
system of marking dependent nouns for the type of relationship they bear to their heads. Case is a
grammatical category determined by the syntactic or semantic function of a noun or pronoun.
Case should be distinguished from thematic roles such as agent and patient. They are often
closely related, and in languages such as Latin, several thematic roles have an associated case,
9
but cases are a morphological notion, while thematic roles are a semantic one. Languages having
cases often exhibit free word order, since thematic roles are not dependent on position in the
sentence. Case theory accounts for the formal properties of overt NPs and integrates the
traditional notion of case into the grammar. According to Ndimele (2004), case theory deals
with the assignment of abstract case to overt nominal elements that occur in case-marked
position. The theory postulates that, an overt nominal is assigned case by virtue of its position in
a sentence irrespective of its morphological markings. In effect, the theory is responsible for the
regulation and the distribution of NPs in a sentence.
Case is considered an obligatory feature of NPs; hence, a structure is ill-formed if an overt NP
fails to be assigned case, or fails to appear in a position to which case can be assigned. This is
containing an overt NP (i.e. an NP that has phonetic content) is ill-formed if the NP is not case-
Languages with rich nominal inflection typically have a number of identifiable declension
classes, or groups of nouns with a similar pattern of case inflection. Latin is traditionally said to
have six declension classes. They are: nominative, genitive, dative, accusative, ablative, and
vocative cases. Four major types of case have been identified in English. They are: Nominative,
Accusative, Oblique and Genitive Cases. The conditions of case assignment are partly structural:
Accusative case is assigned under government. A verb cannot assign Accusative case to an NP
outside the VP as the subject.
10
1.7.1 Case Assignment Rules:
Haegeman (1994) outlines the following case assignment rules:
a. NP is nominative if governed by AGR (i.e. if INFL is [+Tense]).
b. Accusative case is assigned by the verb to [NP, VP].
c. NP is oblique if governed by a Preposition (P).
d. Genitive case is assigned in the structure [NP-NP].
e. NP is inherently case-marked as determined by properties of its [N]
governor.
The case assigned in (a-d in terms
of S-structure position. They are structural cases since they are assigned according to the
grammatical function (GF) configurations of the sentence. It should be noted that sentences
without tense do not have subjects in the Nominative case. Th
-structure. The Genitive case is
assigned in the structure NP (NP-NP) (i.e. an NP followed by another NP within an NP). e.g.
book.
The basic picture of case assignment under government as culled from Ndimele (2004), Okon
(2012) is presented thus:
1. TP
NP T'
T VP
Tns V' PP
V NP P NP
Nom Acc Obl
11
the assignment of Nominative to the subject NP depends on a [+Tense] feature of INFL. In other
words, the INFL is the governor of the subject NP. According to Okon (2019), the pronominal
agreement marker on the verb in Ibibio is a case assigner, and by extension a governor. It
governs the subject position as well as assigns nominative case to the subject. The assignment of
Accusative case to the object NP depends on the verb within the VP while the preposition is the
case assigner that assigns oblique case to its object or complement. It is to be noted that, a [-
Tense] cannot govern its subject, hence cannot assign case. Whereas the Nominative, Accusative
and Oblique cases are assigned by INFL, V (verb) P (Preposition) respectively, Genitive case
assignment is treated as a property of the whole sentence, Ndimele (2008).
Chomsky (1981 and 1992), Koopman (1983), Sells (1985) and Horrocks (1987) argue that case
positions). The reason is that the choice of case for a given NP is determined by its governor. In
the context of GB, there can be no case assignment without government. Ungoverned positions
cannot be case-marked. However, case theory equally employs the notion of adjacency to
prevent ill-formed sentences. Sells (1985) observes that in English, the case assigners are on the
left while the assignee is often on the right. This is contrary to Chinese which requires case
assigners to be to the right. The idea of adjacency requires assigners to be adjacent to the NPs
that receive case.
1.8 Ibibio Pronominal System
Ndimele (2008) describes the pronoun as a word that substitutes for a noun or noun phrase to
avoid unnecessary repetition of such a name in a sentence. In order words, it is a word used
instead of a noun to mean the same person or thing. The use of pronouns involves anaphora,
where the meaning of the pronoun is dependent on another referential element. Essien (1990)
12
classifies Ibibio pronouns into subgroups: personal, relative, interrogative, demonstrative,
possessive, indefinite and distributive pronouns.
In Ibibio, the following are identified as personal pronouns.
Table 1
Person
Singular
Plural
First
m
ny
Second
f
df
Third
ny
mm
The personal pronouns in Ibibio have a distribution that is different from reflexives and
reciprocal pronoun. For instance, one can say:
9. m - br
br
I 1SG play play
10. f -br
br
You 2SG play play
11. ny -br
br
He/She 3SG play play
12. nyn -br
br
We 1pl-play play
13 df -br
br
You 2Pl-play play
13
14.
mm -br
br
They 3PL-play play
From the sentences above, it can be said that syntax is a syntactically word driven word
formation. As observed at different points, syntax imposes obligatory choices from a menu of
affixes. The verb selects its affix depending on the subject pronoun. If the right choice is not
made, an ungrammatical sentence results.
Eka (2000) further divides pronouns in Ibibio into subject, object, real possessive or possessive
adjective and independent adjective depending on their roles in sentences. These pronouns have
their singular and plural forms and co-occur with nouns to form noun phrases as shown below:
Table 2
Singular
Person
Subject
Object
Real Possessive
Independent
Possessive
1st
m
Mn/m
mm
2nd
f
Fn/f
f
3rd
ny
ny
m his/hers
m
Table 3
Plural
Person
Subject
Object
Real Possessive
Independent
Possessive
1st
ny
ny
ny
kny
2nd
df
df
df
kndf
3rd
mm
mm
mm
km
m
The changes in the forms of Ibibio pronouns are a cases of inflectional morphology. As
observed, the inflected forms of the Ibibio personal pronouns are just variants of one and the
same word. Also, the pronominal variants result from the syntactic environment in which the
pronouns may likely occur.
14
Eka (2000) also presents the following examples to demonstrate the co-occurrence of the object
pronouns with nouns to form noun phrases.
15. m - ym sn
m
I 1/sg-find plate my
16. f - m - -n
mn n
You 2/sg have+-en me gift.
17.
ny -ma-kd wd m
He 3/sg-pst see his book.
From the sentences above, it is observed that, the object pronoun must co-occur with nouns to
form noun phrases.
1.9 Strategies of Marking Reflexive and Reciprocal Pronouns in Ibibio
To express reflexivity in Ibibio, the reflexive pronoun must co-occur with the word d
shown below:
18. Okon m dm m
They 3/sg like self them
When one examines the distribution of reflexive and reciprocal pronouns, one sees that there are
certain d-like. Reflexive
and reciprocal pronouns always seek their antecedent close by.
15
dm m
foolows, Okon is the antecedent and binder while idm m
the bindee. Therefore, Okon c-commands and binds idm m in the construction.
Consider the following:
19a m -kt dm
m k kds.
I 1sg-see self my in mirror
b. f -kt dm
f
you 2sg see self your
c. ny -kit dm m
he 3sg-see self his
d. nyn -kt dm nyn
we 1pl-see self our
e. df -kt dm df
you 2spl-see self your
f. mm kt dm mm
they 3sg-see self them
16
From the examples above, it is observed that reflexivity is expressed with the word d
co-occurring with the real possessive pronoun which co-indexes with the subject pronoun. It is
observed that the personal pronouns: m, f, ny, nyn, df, mm which occur at subject
position make it clear that the subjects are doing something for themselves. Instead of acting
upon another subject, the subject is acting upon itself either literary or figuratively. Anaphors
(reflexives) i.e. dm
m dm
f dm m dm nyn
dm df and dm mm are bound in their local domain or in the
governing category, (i.e. minimal sentence). In the context of binding, the subject pronouns c-
command and bind all anaphors. Again, the [+AGR] which are in the form of affixes assign
Nominative Case to the subject pronouns and govern them. For instance, the n- pronominal affix
assigns nominative case to m in (19a) and governs it, while the finite verb k
accusative case as well as governs the anaphor, dm
m assigns
oblique case and also governs the NP kds - affix in -k
nominative case to f and governs it, while k idem mfo
The ny in (19c), nyn in (19d), df in (19e) and mm in (19f) are assigned
nominative case by their respective pronominal agreement markers. The anaphors are assigned
accusative case by their verbs as well.
It is to be observed that the anaphors and pronouns are referentially dependent; they can or must
be co-referential with another NP in the sentence. It is to be noted that all antecedents are binders
while anaphors are bindees.
The use of d
To express reciprocal pronoun, the use of idem is equally very important as illustrated in
example 20
17
20 Eno ye Etim m kd kn.
Eno and Etim 3/pl like one another
21 Ima ye Mfon m db y kd kn
Ima and Mfon 3/pl compete competition with one another
Thus, the examples above illustrate that there is a domain within which a reciprocal pronoun
should find its antecedent. It will be right to say that kd k
on the plural subject. In the context of binding, Eno ye Etim in (20) and Ima and Mfon in (21)
are antecedents as well as binders and c-d kn in both (20
and 21) respectively. The plural subject are assigned nominative case by the [+INFL] element
identified as - in -m and m. The verbs also assign accusative case to the reciprocal
aanaphors.
1.10 Pronominal Clitics and Reflexivity
Pronominal clitics and reflexive pronouns are grammatical concepts which represent the meeting
point of morphology, syntax and phonology collectively known as cliticization. Spencer (1991)
defines clitics as elements which share certain properties of fully fledged words but lack the
independence usually associated with words. In particular, they cannot stand alone but have to be
attached phonologically to a host. Typically, clitics are function words such as modal participle
(e.g. interrogative participles), conjunctions, pronominal or auxiliary verbs. As a grammatical
unit, Trasks (1993) says that clitic exhibits behaviour intermediate between that of a word and
that of an affix. Typically, a clitic has the phonological form of a separate word, but cannot be
stressed and is obliged to occupy a particular position in the sentence in which it is
phonologically bound to an adjoining word, its host.
18
In Ibibio, the concord person marker must be attached to the verb for grammaticality and
acceptability. Consider the examples below:
22a m -d ds
I 1sg-eat rice.
22b Afo - d ds
you 2sg-eat rice
22c nyn - d ds
we 1pl-eat rice
22d df - d ds
You 2pl-eat rice
The examples above show that the attached affixes to the verbs are described as clitics
which also refer to the subject pronouns. It is to be noted that the phonetics and
phonology of the first person singular marker has been discussed in detail in Essien
(1990) and Urua (2000) respectively.
1.11. Double Clitics in Ibibio
In this language, there are cases where clitics are doubled for grammatical purposes. Consider
the following examples:
23. m -m-ym--kd fn
I 1sg-pst-want-2per.-see you
19
24. nyn -y--ym--kd fn
We 1pl-fut-1pl-like- 2sg-see you
25 *nyn -y--ym--kd mn.
We 1pl-fut-1pl-like- 2sg-see me
26 *f -m-ym---kd mn
You 2sg-do- want-to-1sg-see me
Do you want to see me?
27 mm -y--ym--kid fíèn.
They 3pl-fut-3sg-like-2sg-see you
28
mm
-y--ym--kd mn
They 3pl-fut-3pl-like-1sg-see me
They like to see me.
The above data reveal that pronominal cliticization is morpho-syntactically driven and there is
evidence of clitic doubling within the verbal string; one for the NP subject and the other for the
NP object. Both clitics are morpho-phonologically bound within the minimal domain. For
- in m-ym. As
a pro-drop language, the sentence would still be grammatical without the overt pronoun.
Example (23) also demonstrates the fact that, the object pronominal clitic - in kd binds as well
govern the following object NP position. Hence, the choice of - for fn (the second person
object pronoun). It is also noticed that the syllabic nasal -chooses the first person pronoun
20
m
(25 and 26). The study shows that, there are a menu of affixes where the subject NPs choose. In
summary, the choice of m
object pronominal clitic within the verb in the case of u- n- me
It is pertinent to note that the binding relationship in prononominal object clitic is strictly
adjacent and progressively dominating. The paper concludes that the pronominal affixes within
the verbal system are morpho-syntactically encoded.
Conclusion
This paper concludes that Binding Theory does not only deal with the distribution of reflexive
and reciprocal pronouns. It is also tied to the issue of control particularly with regards to the
relationship between affixes (clitics) and pronominal object. Pronominals are characterised by
the fact that their grammatical features are drawn solely from the set of phi-features (gender,
number and person). The paper concludes that the pronominal affixes within the verbal system
are morpho-syntactically encoded.
21
References
Akpan, O. & Okon, E.A. (2020). Lower cross languages in Akwa Ibom State: A comparison and
reconstruction of proto-forms. International Journal of Linguistics and Communication
(IJOLAC). Vol. 7.
Blake, B. (2001). Case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Carnie, A. (2007). Syntax: A generative introduction. (2nd ed.) U.S.A. Blackwell Publishing.
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris publications.
Chomsky, N. (1986b). Barriers. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Eka, H. (1988). Studies in language and literature. Uyo: Afahaide
Essien, O. (1990). A grammar of ibibio language. Ibadan: Ibadan University Press.
Haegeman, L. (1994). Introduction to government and binding theory. (2nd Edn.) Oxford:
Blackwell.
Horrocks, G. (1987) Generative grammar. London: Longman.
Ndimele, O. (2004). The Parameters of universal Grammar: A government-binding
approach. Oweri: African Educational Services.
Ndimele, O. (2008). Morphology and syntax. Port Harcourt. M and J Grand Orbit.
Communication Ltd., & Emhai Press.
McGregor, (1972). Outline of hindi grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Okon, E. A. (2012). Argument movement in d syntax. M.A. Dissertation. Department of
Linguistics & Nigerian languages, University of Uyo.
Reinhart, T. and Eric Reuland. (1993). Reflexivity. Linguistic Inquiry. 24: 657 - 720
Sells, P. (1995). Lectures on contemporary syntactic theories. Stanford: Stanford University
Press.
Spencer, A. (1991). Morphological theory. An introduction to word structure in Generative
Grammar. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Trask, R. (1993). A dictionary of grammatical terms in linguistics. London and New York.
Boutledge.
Udosen, E & Okon, E. A. (2019). GB syntax on NP movement to argument position in Ùdá
syntax. Journal of Nigerian Languages Project, (JNLP). Volume 1: 37 -53
Urua, E. (2000). Ibibio phonetics and phonology. Cape Town, South Africa, CASAS.
