Content uploaded by Victoria Enefiok Etim
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Victoria Enefiok Etim on Nov 26, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
JOLAN Volume 27.1&2, December 2024 25
Argument preposing in Ibibio
Emmanuel Okon,1 Victoria Etim2 & Unyime Udoeyo3
1Department of Linguistics & Nigerian Languages
University of Uyo
2Department of Linguistics & Nigerian Languages
University of Calabar & 3Department of Nigerian Languages
College of Education, Afaha Nsit
emmanuelaokon@uniuyo.edu.ng
DOI: https://doi.org/10.60787/jolan.vol27no1&2.390
Abstract
This study examines argument preposing in Ibibio, a Lower-Cross language spoken in Akwa Ibom
State, Nigeria, from its base-generated position to a case feature position and then to the left
periphery of the sentence. It used the Minimalist Program (MP) as its theoretical model to explain
the syntactic and semantic causes of argument preposing in overt syntax. According to the MP,
sentence derivation is the process of combining meaning and sound while adhering to specific
economic rules. Fifty-two sentences were elicited from fourteen native speakers in addition to the
dings reveal that interrogative, topicalised, left-dislocated and
cleft structures show evidence of argument preposing. The work establishes that Ibibio displays
both the in-situ and non-in-situ patterns concerning the position of wh-operators. The preposing of
the object wh-operators is obligatorily followed by a base- focus marker. Topic
arguments are probed by the ke particle. Left dislocation is characterised by an overt trace in the
form of a resumptive pronoun. Clefting process also utilises the k particle as a relativiser to
introduce the clause that modifies the cleft argument in the language. Argument preposing in Ibibio
is basically a strategy for focusing.
Keywords: argument, interrogative, left periphery, obligatory, preposing.
Abstract in Ibibio
Utom ami akese abaña daña eben anamñkp ke ntppe itie am eka edem mbaak akenie anyñ ab
idiñ nte anamñkp ke usem Ibibio ake Lowa Krs, eesemme ke Akwa Ibom Sted. Naiyiria.
Nduuñ ami akeben awt mme mbed usem ye se adiinam uben-anamñkp ñkaa edem ada an.
Edeet utom ami ekeene akikere se isne ke fremwk Minimalis Prokram. Fremwk ami abo ke
enam usem ekeene ewuana ami mme uyo ik eniehe ye se mme udm ik eda en ke ibio-ibio
mbed. Udm usem aba mme duob mme iba ke ekeb eto mme asem-usem dian ye ifik mbon
JOLAN Volume 27.1&2, December 2024 26
nduuñ ke ekama enam nduuñ ami. Nduuñ ami ayaara abo ke ubp mbmme, usio ik nnyan ke
nsio-nsio usñ edo mme usñ ebenne anamñkp eka nwuọ-nda itie ke ubk ufien ke usem. Utom
ami amaana abo ke usem ami anie usñ iba ekemeke adiibp mbmme: Anye abppe mbmme ke
ñkped-ñkped (in-situ) ye ada abadinam akaañake akeda ke ubk ufien adiwt idiñ mbmme.
Utom ami ñko ate ke idioño uben anamñkp ñkaa edem asesaña ye ntppe ik . Ke ami anam
uwak utom dian ye adiin ik nwu-nda ke usem. Anamñkp aseenie ndukpñ ke ntak adiika edem.
Adiiben anamñkp ñkaa edem ado usñ adiin ik nwu-nda ke usem Ibibio.
Introduction
Language is an important tool in which the stock of lexical items are grammatically organised for
communication. Okon (2023) maintains that placing communicative prominence on certain
arguments or asking question for an answer is a form of communication in any language. With the
human mind as a language processor, it is assumed that lexical/phrasal elements are re-arranged to
concerned with preposing the arguments that are involved in discourse. Arguments are Determiner
Phrases (DP) or nominal positions. They are preposed or displaced backward for some feature
reason. According to Etim & Okon (2023), the possession of the grammatical ability to move or
process lexical items in the mind is a sign of normal grammatical acquisition. Argument preposing
is one of such abilities and processes. Argument preposing is concerned with the movement of an
argument (DP) from a base-generated position to case feature position for activation and
subsequently to another position for some other feature.
With an emphasis on the principles of minimalismVP-Shell and Predicate Internal Subject
Hypotheses (PISH), this study examines argument preposing from its base-generated position
within the VP-Shell and then to a position known as A' position or non-argument position.
Arguments are preposed in Ibibio for both syntactic and semantic reasons in the following cases:
wh-movement, topicalization, left-dislocation, and clefting.
The Ibibio language has not received much attention in argument preposing. But Okon (2012) had
discussed NP movement in Uda, one of the Ibibiod lects spoken in Mbo Local Government Area
of Akwa Ibom State. Again, Udosen & Okon (2019) worked on NP movement to argument position
saying that argument position is a case and theta role motivated position. Okon (2023) had also
provided some research on interrogative word movement in Ibibio. However, none of these works
have taken into account argument preposing from its base-generated position and then rising to the
non-argument position from a minimalist perspective. The paper thus provides an in-depth
discussion of argument preposing from its base-generated (VP-Shell) position within the minimal
clause to the clausal left periphery using Chomsky's (1995) MP model. The analysis employs the
Tense Phrase (TP) and Complementizer Phrase (CP) clausal domains. The study seeks to explain
how simple rules constrained by general universal principles interact to explain a syntactic
phenomenon in Ibibio.
JOLAN Volume 27.1&2, December 2024 27
Literature review
Argument preposing is simply a movement process in which an argument is displaced from the VP
Shell or base-generated position to the sentential left periphery for some syntactic feature such as
case and subsequently to the Spec-CI for some semantic or focus feature. In other words, it involves
moving an argument to the left side of the sentence. A movement action known as "posposing"
occurs when a constituent is moved farther to the left within a phrase or sentence. Lasnik &
Uriagere
is no restriction on the number of possible movements by the operator. Subjacency, which pertains
to Move-
associated with preposing. The Subjacency Condition (SC) primarily states that each Move-
application should not be made across a "too large" distance, but rather should be made in a
sequence of smaller hops so that the rule application's domains are close to one another. Because it
is one step away, it is subservient. Additionally, Ndimele (2004) asserts that the SC is threatened
by "long-distance" movement, or movement across more than one boundary node. Subjacency is
the principle that limits the operation of the transformational rule of the Move-g which
also means movement is understood to mean copy and delete.
Overview of Argument and Argument Position
According to Radford (1988), an argument is a participant minimally involved in an action defined
by the predicate. It is a nominal position for which a theta role can be assigned. A sentence such
as:
contains two arguments i.e. Okon and the ball. Both arguments represent the two participants in the
process of kicking. Okon refers to the agent, the initiator of the action of kciking, while the ball is
the theme (i.e. the entity that has undergone the effect of some action). The theme usually occurs
at the predicate part of the sentence. The predicate refers to as the verb and other categories that
occur after it. In Chomskyan grammar, predicate refers to the verb that has meaning relation to
nouns or nominal that co-occurs with it. The argument structure of a predicate explains a set of
arguments associated with the subject and the thematic role that each subject plays in respect to the
predicate.
Thus, the argument is a relational term for a constituent that acts or receives an action from the
verb. The concept of movement within the minimalist syntax was first viewed from a syntactic
reason and subsequently a semantic reason too. This means that every base-generated argument
within the VP-Shell must be preposed to the argument position where its case feature can be
activated. Ndimele (2004), Thrinsson (2007) & Okon (2012) identify two positions with respect
to argument preposing. They are argument position and non-argument positions.
JOLAN Volume 27.1&2, December 2024 28
Argument Position (A-position)
Argument position is defined by Ndimele (2004), Thrinsson (2007), Okon (2012), Udosen & Okon
(2019) as a position that allows theta role and case to be assigned. An overt nominal in the surface
structure must occupy this usually unoccupied position. An argument is moved or preposed to take
undergoes A-movement and its null trace constitutes an A--
motivated or feature-driven. A-movement, while normally obligatory, can sometimes be
suspended. Argument movement (which involves Case-motivated movement of NPs) can be found
in passives, ergative, middle sentences, and raising structures.
Non-Argument Position (A-bar Position)
According to Radford (2009), the non-argument position is a domain that can be occupied by
adjuncts or arguments. The Government and Binding (GB) framework describes this position as
-role assignment. The non-argument position, often known as
-bar) position, is not transparent to government. Argument moves out of its minimal
clause, i.e. out of its case motivated position within TP into the Spec-C' position (a position to the
immediate left of C). The Spec-C' position is a position of prominence and focus. Arguments can
only occupy this position if they are preposed from its case activated position to the left. The
operation by which arguments move from an argument position into SPEC- -argument)
position i
-role are assignable into another
--argument) position. The following
tree diagram labelled (1) illustrates the clausal spines classified as Spec-TP and Spec-CP,
respectively:
JOLAN Volume 27.1&2, December 2024 29
Diagram 1: Argument Position Schema
CP
SPEC C'
A'-pos C TP
SPEC T'
A-pos T VP
V Complement
A-pos
Thrinsson (2007: 173).
Thrinsson (2007), Okon (2012), Udosen & Okon (2019) & Okon (2023) observe that, case
activation is within the A-position - the minimal clause. Here, a targeted constituent moves out of
the VP-Shell into SPEC-T' position (i.e. a position where case and theta roles can be assigned).
Thrinsson (2007) also observes that, within the A-bar position, a targeted constituent is moved
outside its minimal clause, i.e. arguments are preposed into Spec-
The Minimalist Program (MP)
The most recent version of Chomsky's (1995) transformational generative syntax is called the
program (MP). In the view of minimalism, language is composed of two parts: the computing
system and the lexicon. A phrase or clause's syntactic structure is produced by combining words
that are taken one at a time from the mental lexicon. These objects are arranged by the
computational system to generate a pair. In line with Radford (2009), a phrase or clause's derivation
is the collection of syntactic operations, such as merger, movement, agreement, and case marking
that are employed to create the necessary structure.
If a derivation converges at both the Phonetic Form and Logical Form levels, it is considered
grammatical; if not, it crashes. The Spell-Out is the technical term for the point where PF and LF
meet (Radford 2009). At this step, information relevant to the pairing of sound and meaning are
supplied into the derivation. Stated differently, it is the stage of a derivation where distinct grammar
JOLAN Volume 27.1&2, December 2024 30
components handle phonetic and semantic data. It is believed that the computation system contains
only those elements required to construct representations linking sign or sound to meaning. It is
preferable to think of minimalism as an attempt to rationalize the GB model.
However, the economic tenets of procrastinate, greed, and the shortest move guide MP. According
to Chomsky (1991), derivations must be as economical as possible in order to satisfy the notion of
economy. This indicates that it is best to avoid applying rules that are not necessary. This is
accomplished via minimalism by abandoning the complex Phrase Structure Grammar (PSG) rule
system as well as a few of the many theories of the Government and Binding Theory. Sentence
building is only the integration of meaning and sound. Adopting this paradigm makes sense because
it assumes that arguments move for a variety of reasons, so that distinct layers of a construction
will each be represented by a separate projection. Derivations are judged to be well-formed if they
meet three major economy principles of MP stated above.
A. Shortest Move
This economy principle entails that a constituent moves to the closest accessible landing site in the
computation process. Cook & Newson (2007) note that the range of possible positions is
determined by the properties of the moving element. Movement of a constituent is hierarchical and
cyclic. A DP undergoing A-movement cannot skip an A-position to move to another A-position.
The same applies for a constituent undergoing A-bar movement. The shortest move is equivalent
to the Subjacency Condition in earlier versions of the Principles and Parameters theory, and
relativized minimality. This also corresponds to the Minimalist Link Condition (MLC) and
emphasises that movement chain be kept in the minimum. The MP is not a complete departure from
the GB.
B. Greed
A constituent moves in order to examine its own characteristics, not those of another constituent.
Therefore, other than the moving element, this principle does not permit the satisfaction of other
elements. Since case features can be verified at the argument's base position, an argument that is
already in a case-marked position cannot be moved in order to verify its case features. According
to Radford (1997), Marantz (1995) & Obiamalu (2015), such a movement will be selfish. It is
also important to keep in mind that feature-checking drives the morphological features of
movement operations.
C. Procrastinate
Anyanwu (2007) notes that procrastinate favours derivations that delay movement till after Spell-
out as an economic concept. It is better to make movements that have no impact on PF than those
that do. The last possibility for ensuring convergence is to break the procrastination rule. Hornstein
et al. (2005:) assert that the [-interpretable] features must be removed before they reach LF in order
to maintain Full Interpretation (FI) and prevent the derivation from crashing. This assertion is based
on the MP's rationale.
JOLAN Volume 27.1&2, December 2024 31
Note that there should be no [-interpretable] feature. However, once they are present for whatever
reason, the language faculty must use any means necessary to get rid of them because if they were
not, the LF would not be able to interpret the objects that the computational system created. The
only way to remove [-interpretable] features is through movement operations. The removal of [-
interpretable] formal features is essentially the licensing checking operation. In view of the fact that
every operation must be licensed, it follows that movement must comply with the Last Resort
condition stated in Hornstein et al (2005: 293) thus:
Last Resort
A movement operation is licensed only if it allows the elimination
of [-interpretable] formal features.
Collins (2002) maintains that it is not in all cases that movement is motivated by the need to satisfy
the morphological properties of the moving element and that movement is not often blocked by
greed. A strong assumption by Cook and Newson (2007) for the Procrastinate economy condition
is that all movement operations must occur before Spell-out. For Chomsky (2015), Last Resort
demands that every computational operation must serve a grammatical purpose.
Operations of the MP
In the computing system, the MP utilizes words from the lexicon in order to operate. The MP
comprises four operations. Operation Select, Operation Merge, Operation Move, and Operation
Check. The processes do not operate concurrently and operate on the notion of division of labour.
a. Operation Select: Anyanwu (2007) states that operation Select targets the needed
items from the lexicon (heads and their complements) and ensures they are
appropriately selected. This is actually the starting point of derivation. A derivation
is a sequence of symbolic elements S mapped from a numeration N, such that the
last number of S is a pair.
b. Operation Merge: This is an operation that builds structures where a derivation is
built from bottom-up. Merging entails two compatible entities coming together to
form a grammatical unit. Udosen & Okon (2022) maintain that two or more nouns
can be merged for a nominal compound to be derived. It is defined by two syntactic
objects that are joined together in a pair-wise fashion following a binary pattern.
Diagram 2: Simple merge
drive
drive car
Obiamalu (2015: 13)
JOLAN Volume 27.1&2, December 2024 32
A crucial assumption in the literature is that the MP is derivational rather than representational.
Structures are built in piecemeal from bottom (innermost VP--
VP analysis) to top (most peripheral Force Phrase) followi-CP hypothesis).
Constructions with Non-Argument Position in Ibibio
The Ibibio language attests the following syntactic operations in which arguments are preposed
from the VP-Shell to Spec-TP and subsequently to the clausal left periphery of the sentence:
interrogative word movement, topicalisation, left-dislocation and focusing. The processes are
discussed below:
Interrogative Operators in Ibibio
The Ibibio interrogative words attest two patterns; The wh-words and the wh- non-in-situ.
Ibibio wh-words in subject in-situ position
The Ibibio interrogative argument or operator can be base-generated in the same position as the
substantive nominal it is used to query. This shows that the Ibibio language is a wh-in-situ language
with respect to the universal parameter about wh-movement. Here, the interrogative words can
occur in the subject position in the basic word order (SVO) as shown with nìé ákèé
2. nìé í níé úfôk ámì?
Who 3SG has house this
3. Ákèé úfôk í dòm?
Which house 3SG be
Which
The interrogative operators, ànìé ákèé
in-situ in the subject position.
JOLAN Volume 27.1&2, December 2024 33
Diagram 3: Interrogative operator in subject-in-situ
InterP
DP InterI
Ànìé
Inter0 TP
DP TI
<nìé>
T VP
ínìé
DP V
<nìé>
V DP
<níé> úfôk ámì
In this configuration, the lexical (=V) níé úfôk mì
this house to form the V níé úfôk mìànìé
-bar and subsequently
with TP. Observe that the interrogative subject argument ànìé which is based generated
within the VP moves to a position within the minimal clause. The EPP feature on T requires as its
subject a constituent which it agrees with in person and number; hence the displacement of the
interrogative argument ànìé queried. The argument
subject is further queried in the InterP and activation of its nominative case feature. Olaogun (2016)
& Nweya (2018) maintain that the licensing of interrogatives takes place in overt syntax by
movement of the TP to the Spec of InterP, given the Earliness Principle which states that linguistic
operations must apply as early in a derivation as possible. Thus, following Nkemnji (1995), Aboh
& Pfau (2011), the movement of wh-phrase takes place at LF for focusing so as to delimit the
question.
Ibibio wh-operator in object in-situ position
It is also possible for interrogative argument in Ibibio to be generated in-situ at the object
position as demonstrated in the following examples:
4. Áfò à tó úké?
you 2SG come where
You come from where?
JOLAN Volume 27.1&2, December 2024 34
5. Áfò à kr dìé?
you 2SG call what
You are called what?
It is observed that the interrogative arguments úké ‘dìé ‘
(5) occur as objects of the verb tó kr
each case assign accusative Case to their accompanying interrogative arguments. For instance, tó
úké
Consider the sentence in example (4) in diagram (4) thus:
Diagram 4: Interrogative operator in object-in-situ
TP
DP TI
Áfò
T VP
àtó
DP VI
<Áfò>
V DP
<àtó> úké
From the diagram above, it is observed that the object interrogative argument is base-generated at
the object in-situ position. The argument phrase, úké
verb tó áfò -
generated, Spec-VP position to Spec-TP for its case feature to be activated. If these interrogative
arguments in examples (4) and (5) must occur at sentence-initial position, they must be preceded
by the focus marker ké which is the case for wh-words in non-in-situ position. Thus, from the data
presented above in examples (4) and (5), it is observed that the Ibibio language exhibits the main
characteristics of a wh-in-situ language. The next section covers discussions on wh-words in non-
in-situ position.
Ibibio wh-operators in non-in-situ position
In the Ibibio language, it is possible for an interrogative argument to be moved to the left periphery
of the sentence. Once a wh-expression is moved, it is obligatorily followed by a focus marker ké.
It is pertinent to remark that the focus marker ké is absent when the interrogative arguments occur
rightward as in examples (4) (5) above. Below are data to illustrate this contrast.
JOLAN Volume 27.1&2, December 2024 35
6a. Àfò à- kr dé?
You 2SG call how
You are called what?
6b. Dé k àfò à kr?
How [FOC] you 2SG call
What are you called?
7a. Ènò à ké kâ úké?
Eno 3SG PST go where
Eno went where?
7b. Úké ké Ènò à ké kâ?
Where [FOC] Eno 3SG PST go
Where did Eno go?
8a. Nnyìn ì tó àñkéé úfôk?
We 1PLU come from which family
We come from which family?
8b. Àñkéé úfôk ké nnyìn ì tó?
Which family [FOC] we 1PL come from
Which family do we come from?
9a. Òkón á níé àfòñ ìfàñ?
Òkón 3SG has cloth how many
Òkón has how many clothes?
9b. Àfòñ ìfàñ ké Òkón á níé?
Cloth how many [FOC] Okon 3SG has
How many clothes does Òkón have?
9c. *Àfòñ ìfàñ Òkón á níé?
Cloth how many Okon 3SG has.
It is to be noted that the (6a 9a) examples do not suggest maintaining any derivational history for
the (6b) (9b) examples. Rather, they are presented for comparative reason. Observe that the
subjects in (6b) (9b) originate internally within the VP containing the relevant verb and from
there are moved into Spec-T where case feature is checked. Diagram (5) illustrates the fact that the
interrogative argument phrase or operator moves out of its minimal clause to the left periphery
(Spec-CP) of the sentence in order to check the interrogative specifier feature within the domain.
JOLAN Volume 27.1&2, December 2024 36
Diagram 5: Non-in-situ interrogative operator preposing
CP/InterP
DP CI/InterI
úké
C/Inter0 TP
ké
DP TI
Ènò
T P
àkékâ
DP I
<Ènò>
VP
<kâ>
V DP
<kâ> <úké>
From the above diagram, operations Select and Merge apply to the derivation as follows: the
interrogative argument úké àkékâ-role is
assigned under Merge, the verb kâ -role THEME, to the interrogative argument
úké I. It is the
strong feature of the light that attracts the lexical verb to adjoin to it. Ènò is selected and merged
with to form P. The domain of P is sent to PF and LF for appropriate interpretation. Further
computation proceeds with the merging of T with P to form TI. The V moves further to value its
T-features. It is important to note that the locus of nominative case and subject-verb agreement for
a sentence of this nature is on T. This is so because T carries a complete set of person, number and
agreement features in the language and it (T) also probes for the closest goal in its c-command
domain to value its unvalued features. Ènò satisfies this requirement because its -features are yet
to be valued. It values them on T via Agree. The EPP feature on T attracts the external argument to
move and occupy its Spec position forming the TP.
Subsequently, TP is merged with the overt focus marker, ké which is base-generated at the
complementizer node. Ké probes for a goal,
to the C-commanding domain of ké, the focus marker. Observe that the interrogative phrase úké is
preposed to occupy the Spec-CI position, which is referred to as the left periphery. The study also
postulates that the focus marker ké corresponds to the do support in English. The focus marker in
Ibibio occupies the complementiser position just as it is in English. Also note that it is the edge
feature of C that attracts an interrogative expression to move to the specifier position on the edge
JOLAN Volume 27.1&2, December 2024 37
of CP. C marks interrogative force in diagram (5). The wh-feature is checked in the Spec-CP against
the feature [+wh] in C. It is also important to state that úké
must satisfy AGR condition imposed by UG. where is assigned accusative Case under Merge
by the verb kâ
the occurrence of dìé -generated focus marker ké.
Okon (2023) notes that arguments which are merged with the verb as complement as well as a
Prepositional Phrase complement can undergo this leftward movement to the Spec-CP position.
Topicalisation in Ibibio
The language expresses this phenomenon of placing communicative prominence by preposing the
argument of the verb as well as merging it with a base-generated ké topic marker in overt syntax.
Consider the following examples:
10a. Èmèm à má kn.
Emem 3SG like Okon
10b kn ke Èmèm à má.
Okon [FOC] Emem 3SG like
11a m
- má- díá ds.
I ISG PST eat rice
I ate rice.
11b. ds ke m
Rice [FOC] I 1SG PST eat
Rice, I ate.
12a. tm díá àkt.
Etim 3SG eat beans
Etim eats beans.
12b. Àkt ke tm díá.
Beans [FOC] Etim 3SG eat
Beans, Etim eats.
13a. ky má- á tèm ùdíá.
Nkoyo 3SG PST 3SG cook yam
Nkoyo cooked yam.
13b Ùdíá ké ky ké tèm.
yam [FOC] Nkoyo 3SG PST cook
Yam, ky cooked.
JOLAN Volume 27.1&2, December 2024 38
In the movement type, represented by the above sentences, there is a change in position of the direct
object of the verb to a position outside the minimal clause. Thus, the internal argument kn in
example (10a), dsàkt ùdíá
example (13a) are topicalised in (10b) (13b) examples. It should also be observed that movement
of these arguments results in emphasis being placed on them with the merging of the topic marker
k. Topicalisation involves a leftward extraction to the inter-clausal domain Spec-CP as seen in
the (10b) (13b) examples. Based on the assumption of Split-CP projections discussed by Rizzi
(2003), topic expressions which occur at the beginning of clauses are said to be contained within a
TopP headed by an abstract topic constituent. The tree diagram below is a representation of
sentence (13b)
Diagram 6: Topicalised preposed argument
TopP
DP TopI
ùdíá
Top TP
ké
DP TI
ky
T P
kétèm
VP
<tèm+ø>
DP VI
< ky>
V DP
<tèm> <ùdíá>
This derivation begins by merging the verb, tèm ùdíá
to satisfy the c-selection requirement of the head while the subject argument, ky is merged in
Spec-VP to satisfy the PISH assumption that subjects originate internally within the VP. The EPP
feature on the T attracts the argument ky to be raised to Spec-T where its case feature can be
checked. In other words, it is supposed that ky is directly merged with Spec-T in order to satisfy
the EPP requirement for T to project a nominal specifier to form the TP. The derivation further
merges TP and subsequently with the CP identified as Topic Phrase (TopP). This is necessary so
that the preposed argument generated within the VP can be given a topic function. Observe that the
movement of ky generated within the minimal clause is in a successive cyclic manner in
JOLAN Volume 27.1&2, December 2024 39
conformity with the Relativised Minimality Condition which requires an A-moved constituent to
become the specifier of the closest T constituent above it. In contrast, the movement of ùdíá
generated as the complement of tèm ké marker is base-
generated as the head of TopP. As soon as the structure is formed, the topic marker, ké acts as probe
and searches for an argument which it c-commands to occupy the Spec-CP. The only nominal goal
c-commanded by the focus marker ké within the structure is the complement of the verb, that is,
. Hence, ùdíá is given more communicative prominence beyond other constituents in
the derivation. The object complement of the verb
verb through Merge operation.
Left-dislocation in Ibibio
This is a process in Ibibio in which a constituent is moved from its intra-clausal domain to the inter-
clausal left periphery within the same syntactic structure. In this type of A- bar movement, a
constituent is moved outside the minimal clause. Just like in topicalisation, emphasis or prominence
is placed on a particular constituent than other constituents within the construction. Many languages
attest different ways of deriving a left-dislocation operation. In the Ibibio language, left-dislocation
leaves behind at the site of the dislocated element, an overt pronominal copy of the left-dislocated
constituent. The following examples illustrate this:
14a. m - má kn.
I 1SG love Okon
I love Okon.
14b. kn,, m - má
yé.
Okon I 1SG love him
15a. Ènò a- má àk
t.
Eno 3SG like beans
Eno likes beans.
15b. Àk
t, Ènò á má yé.
Beans Eno 3SG like it
Beans, Eno likes It.
16a. tm - má Àfìò mme Ìkw.
Etim 3SG love Àfìò and Ìkw
Etim loves Àfìò and Ìkw.
16b. Àfìò mme Ìkw, tm - má àmm
.
Àfìò and Ìkw, Etim 3SG love them
Àfìò and Ìkw, Etim loves them.
17a. Ùdèmé á- sák Énò.
Udeme 3SG laugh Eno
Udeme laughs at Eno.
JOLAN Volume 27.1&2, December 2024 40
17b *Énò, Ùdèmé á sák _
Eno, Udeme 3SG laugh
Enoi Udeme laughs.
Consider the diagram below for a structural illustration
Diagram 7: Argument Preposing in left-dislocation
TopP
DP TopI
àk
t
Top TP
Ø
DP TI
Ènò
T P
ámá
VP
<má>
DP VI
<Ènò>
V DP
<má> yé
In accordance with the PISH, that is the assumption that the subject of a sentence originates
internally within the VP node, Ènò is raised from its base-generated position into Spec-TP to check
its nominative case. The movement of the subject argument Ènò is to satisfy the EPP Condition
which specifies that an uninterpretable feature on a probe is deleted by movement of the closest
active goal of the relevant type to become the specifier of the probe. As shown in diagram 7 above,
àkt
the VP has moved from its base-generated position to an inter-clausal domain in the left periphery
of the sentence. Note that yé àktyé must
also be described as an overt trace or resumptive pronoun which is coreferential with the preposed
argument, àkt.
This paper argues that the overt trace element is not a violation of the Inclusiveness
Condition (IC), a grammatical principle proposed by (Chomsky, 1999). The principle bars the
introduction of new elements (features) in the course of derivation. It is argued here that the (14b)
(16b) derivations converged due to the presence of the resumptive pronoun. But in (17b), the
sentence crashes as a result of its absence. Therefore, the resumptive pronoun is necessary for left-
JOLAN Volume 27.1&2, December 2024 41
dislocated derivations to converge in the Ibibio language. From the above sentences, it is clear that
yé 15b) and àmm
referring to Òkón, àkt, and Àfìò mme Ìkw respectively. Thus, yé àmm
are not new elements but copies that are coreferential with Òkón, àkt, Àfìò mme Ìkw, the
displaced and preposed arguments. This confirms what Trask (1993) says about left-dislocation
that it involves a resumptive pronoun which occurs in the non-dislocated part of the sentence and
which is coreferential with a dislocated argument. Comparatively, left-dislocated arguments are
e in addition to the
pronominal copies left behind as a result of movement.
Semantically, left-dislocation serves to mark topic-comment in an explicit manner. It is observed
that the left-dislocated arguments stand outside the minimal clause. The other part of the sentence
which accommodates the resumptive pronoun can be described as a relatively autonomous or
independent clause. For instance: àk
t can be detached from the string in (15b) above and the
derivation would still converge as shown below:
18. Ènò á má yé.
Eno 3SG love him
Eno loves him.
The above sentence becomes clearer if the speaker and the hearer share the same discourse.
Focusing in Ibibio
Focusing is also related to giving prominence to a constituent over and above surrounding
constituents in a construction. Focusing is achieved through clefting. Clefts typically put a
particular constituent into focus. In Ibibio, clefting is characterised by the presence of a particle ké
as the following examples demonstrate:
19a. kpn - k- dép mmt.
Akpan 3SG PST buy car
Akpan bought a car.
19b. - k- dò mmt ké kpn - k- dép.
3SG PST be car [REL] Akpan 3SG PST buy
It was a car that Akpan bought.
20a. tm - k- díá àk
t.
Etim 3SG PST eat beans
Etim ate beans.
20b. - k- dò àk
t ké tm - k- d.
3SG PST be beans [REL] Etim 3SG PST eat
It was beans that Etim ate.
21a. y - ké- wót bód ké fk.
Eyo 3SG PST kill goat PREP. house
Eyo killed a goat at home.
JOLAN Volume 27.1&2, December 2024 42
21b. - k- dò ké fk ké y - ké- wót bót.
3SG PST be PREP. home [REL] Eyo 3SG PST kill goat
It was at home that Eyo killed a goat.
22a. m - k- d fk ámì.
Ima 3SG PST come house this
Ima came to this house.
22b. - k- dò fk ámì ké m - k- d.
3SG PST be house this [REL] Ima 3SG PST come
It was this house that Ima came.
An illustration with a tree diagram using sentence (19b) is given below:
Diagram 8: Argument Preposing in clefting
FocP
TP FocI
T DP F0 TP
kdò mmt ké
DP TI
kpn
T P
kdép
VP
<dép>
DP VI
<kpn>
V DP
<dép> <mmt>
As illustrated in the diagram, movement of the argument kpn occurs in a successive cyclic
fashion within the intra-clausal domain in order not to violate the Relativised Minimality Condition,
(RMC). kpn moves to satisfy the EPP requirement that an active goal must move to become the
specifier of the probe. kpn moves to activate its nominative Case feature. The subject argument
also enters an Agree relationship with T in the lower clause with its -features before moving to
Spec TP to satisfy the EPP feature of T. It also important to note that kdò
an expletive it in English. In Ibibio, this peripheral clause is introduced by the third person singular
marker , a past tense marker k and the auxiliary to be ák
introduces the cleft argument.
JOLAN Volume 27.1&2, December 2024 43
The other type of movement is the inter-clausal where the targeted argument expression
moves out of its minimal clause to the left periphery of the sentence structure (Spec-CP), a
domain where some pragmatic information can be obtained. This paper establishes that the
particle ké in this instance functions as the relativiser in which the preposed argument (the
direct object of the verb, mmt
contrast with other surrounding constituents of the sentence. Given the copy theory of
movement, the angle brackets indicate that the element or constituent in the brackets has
been moved. It is also important to note that the constituent so moved in each construction
occurs in two places or more. This underscores the conception of movement in current
Minimalist Theory as several occurrences of one constituent. Napoli (1996) in Ejiofor
(2010) maintains that trace is a term which minimalism has redefined to mean copy. In this
theory, there is no real movement per se. Instead, one node is copied into another node.
Hence, there are no traces in this theory. When this happens, the highest copy is spelt out
and pronounced in the PF component.
Conclusion
Argument preposing is an expression used to refer to a movement operation that moves an argument
further to the left inside a sentence or phrase. The Minimalist Program was chosen as the analytical
framework. MP places a strong emphasis on feature checking as the justification for moving an
argument within a derivation. Phrases, clauses, and sentences can be generated through the various
MP operations with the lexical elements taken from the lexicon. The computational system of
human language requires two interfaces - the Phonetic Form (PF) and Logical Form (LF). These
interfaces are crucial if a language is to be understood as the pairing of sound and meaning. This
paper reiterates the fact that language is innate in our genes and follows that grammar and
grammatical rules are part of natural endowment. The MP presents the syntax of a language as a
computational system that links phonology and semantics. Arguments move to different positions
for different reasons. The work argued that every subject of a derivation is base-generated within
the VP-Shell and subsequently raised or preposed to occupy the Spec-TP for its Nominative Case
feature activation. This idea is contained in PISH, one of the tenets of MP concerned with the syntax
of the subjects. The following processes have been identified as syntactic phenomena that
determine argument preposing: wh-movement, topicalisation, left-dislocation and clefting. In
Ibibio, it is revealed that the interrogative word can be base-generated. In this case, the interrogative
arguments can occur both as the subject of the sentence and object of the verb. The Wh-argument
that moves to occupy the Spec-TP is equally preposed to the Inter-Phrase (InterP.) for the
interrogative argument to be properly queried. It is also revealed that interrogative arguments which
occur as the objects of the verb can be preposed. Once they are moved, they are obligatorily
followed by a base-generated k focus marker. In Ibibio, the internal arguments can be topicalised
by movement. When this is done, the internal argument moves to occupy the SPEC-CP for a
semantic feature to be checked. It is equally revealed that a topicalised argument is immediately
followed by a ke focus marker which also makes the constituent of prominence more explicit among
JOLAN Volume 27.1&2, December 2024 44
others within the same syntactic structure. Apart from placing emphasis on a constituent over other
constituents in a construction, left dislocation entails the presence of an overt trace in the form of a
resumptive pronoun which refers to the left-dislocated argument. It is remarked that the resumptive
element is not a violation of the Inclusiveness but derivations converge due to its presence. In
relation to clefting, it is revealed that the k focus marker is used as a relativiser to introduce the
next clause which modifies the cleft argument. In this process, constituents move to occupy the
SPEC-CP. The direct object, indirect object of the verb as well as the prepositional complement
can be focused with the focus marker, ké in the language. The subject argument lacks the presence
of the focus marker or the relativiser. This is because, the subject position is already a position of
prominence. This ke particle plays multi-syntactic functions in the language. For interrogative
constructions, the ke particle functions as an auxiliary in addition to probing for question while that
of topic construction is concerned with prominence. The ke particle is a relativiser in clefting.
Argument preposing relates to two different positions (i.e. argument position- Spec-TP and non-
argument position Spec-CP).
References
-word got to do with it? In Pola, B. (Ed.), The cartography
of syntactic structures. (pp. 91-124). Oxford University Press.
Anyanwu, O. N. (2007). The syntax of Igbo causatives: A minimalist program account. M and J
Grand Orbit Communication Ltd. and Emhai Press.
Chomsky, N. (1973). Conditions on transformations. Anderson, S. & P. Kiparsky (Eds.), A
Festschrift for Morris Halle. (pp. 232-286). H.R.W.
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Foris publications.
Chomsky, N. (1986b). Barriers. MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. (1991). Derivation by phase. In Kenstowicz, M. (Ed.), Ken Halle: A life in language.
(pp. 104-131).MIT Press.
Chomsky, O. (1995). Bare phrase structure. In Webelhuth, G. (Ed.), Government & binding theory
and the minimalist Program. (pp. 383-439). MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. (2015). The minimalist program. MIT Press.
Colins, C. (2002). Eliminating Labels. In S. D. Epsrein & D. Seely (Eds), Derivation and
explanation in the minimalist program. (pp. 42-64). Blackwell.
Cook, V. Newson, M. (2007). An introduction. Blackwell.
Essien, O. (1990). A grammar of Ibibio language. Ibadan University Press.
Etim, V. E. and Okon, E.A. (2023). Acquisition of negation in the Anaañ child language.
JOLAN Volume 27.1&2, December 2024 45
British Journal of English Linguistics, 11(2), 68-78.
Hornstein, N., Nunes, J & Grohmann, K. (2005). Understanding minimalism. Cambridge
University Press.
Lasnik, H. &. Uriagereka, J. (1988). A course in GB syntax. MIT press.
Larson, R. (1988). On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry. 19, 335-391.
Marantz, A. (1995). The minimalist program. Webelhuth, G. (Ed.), Government and binding theory
and the minimalist program. (pp. 349-381). Blackwell.
Napoli, D. (1996). Linguistics. Oxford University Press.
Ndimele, O. (2004). The parameters of universal grammar: A government-binding approach.
African Educational Services.
Nkemnji, M. (1995). Heavy pied-piping in Nweh. Unpublished Ph.D Thesis. Department of
Linguistics: University of California.
Nweya, G. (2018). The Igbo clause structure and the cartography of the complementizer phrase
domain. Ph.D thesis, University of Ibadan.
Obiamalu, G. (2015). Functional Categories in Igbo: A Minimalist Perspective. M & J Grand Orbit
Communication and Emhai Press.
-kóo language in Akoko North-
West of Ondo State, Nigeria. Unpublishd Ph.D thesis, University of Ibadan.
Okon, E. (2012). Argument movement in d syntax. M.A. University of Uyo.
Okon, E. A. (2023). Minimalist Account on Interrogative Word Movement in Ibibio. UNIUYO
Journal of Humanities, 27(2), 1-17.
Radford, A. (1988). Transformational grammar. Cambridge University Press.
Radford, A. (2004). Minimalist syntax: Exploring the structure of English. Cambridge University
Press.
Radford, A. (2009). Analysing English sentences: A minimalist approach. Cambridge University
Press.
Rizzi, L. (1997). The fine structure of the left periphery. Haegeman, L. (Ed.) Elements of grammar
(pp 281-337). Kluwer.
Rizzi, L. (2003). Locality and left periphery. Structures and beyond. Belleti. (Ed.). The cartography
of syntactic structures. Oxford University Press.
JOLAN Volume 27.1&2, December 2024 46
Thrinsson, H. (2007). Object shift and scrambling. Baltin, M. & C. Collins (Eds.), The handbook
of contemporary syntactic theory. Blackwell.
Trask, R. (1993). A dictionary of grammatical terms in linguistics. Routledge.
Journal of Nigerian Languages Project, 1, 37-51.
Udosen, E. & Okon, E. A. (2022). Complementation and headedness in Ibibio Nominal
Compounds. In Ekpenyong, M. & I. Udoh (Eds.). Current Issues in Descriptive Linguistics
and Digital Humanities. A Festschrift in Honor of Professor Eno-Abasi Essien Urua (pp.
87 - 102). Springer Nature.
