Distribution and Interpretation of NPs in Hausa and Kambari: A Comparative Approach
Keywords:
Comparative Approach, Noun Phrase, Precedence, Syntactic ElementsAbstract
The key tenet of the universal grammar’s proposition is that natural languages have features that are common to them all while also having some parametric variations in the way these features are explored in various languages. It is on this paradigm that this paper sets to compare the structure of Noun Phrases in Hausa and Kambari. Using the comparative approach, areas of similarities and divergences were pointed out as well as traits specific to the NP structure of each of the languages. The general aim of the present study is to examine the distribution of NPs in Hausa and Kambari with the view to comparing and contrasting their morphosyntactic properties in the light of Binding Theory, a sub-module of GB Theory. Binding theory is the framework for the present study which is principally concerned with the distribution of NPs in a sentence. It thus determines the situation in which they can occur or must be co-indexed with other NPs. It is therefore, the module of grammar regulating NP interpretation. Although Hausa and Kambari are from different language phyla, findings revealed that the three NP types are obtainable in the two languages, hence they appear to pattern in the same way in many respect. Despite their similarities, areas of divergences do exist. The notion of precedence as it applies to the NP structure of each of the two languages varies. For instance, in the reflexive anaphors of Hausa and Kambari, the reflexion precedes the person that is being reflected.
References
Amfani, H. A. (2007). Hausa Syntax. In Yusuf Ore (ed) Basic Linguistics for Nigerian Languages. National Institute for Nigerian Languages, Aba: 156 – 168.
Büring, D. (2005). Binding Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Carnie, A. (2006). Syntax: A Generative Introduction. (2nd ed.). Blackwell Publishing.
Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton 8c Co.
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Massachusetts Institute of Technology: Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
Chomsky, N. (1986). Barriers. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Crozier, D. H. and R. M. Blench (eds) (1992). An Index of Nigerian Languages. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics.
Fedorova, O. and I. Yanovich (2006). Lexically Modifying Binding Restrictions: Case for a Variablefree Binding Theory. Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 6: 113-136.
Haegeman, L. (1994). Introduction to Government and Binding Theory (2nd edn). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Horrocks, G. (1987). Generative Grammar. London & New York: Longman.
Jackendoff, R. (1972). Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Koopman, H., S. Dominique and S. Edward (n. d.). An Introduction to Syntactic Analysis and Theory.
Lees, R. B. and E. S. Klima (1963). ‘Rules for English Pronominalization’. Language. 39: 17-28.
Muhammad, A. and A. I. Dantata (2015). ‘The Structure of Noun Phrase in English and Kambari’. In Ndimele, O. M. (ed.), Language Endangerment: Globalisation & the Fate of Minority Languages in Nigeria. A Festschrift for Appolonia Uzoaku Okwudishu. Port Harcourt: The Linguistic Association of Nigeria. Series 12: 451-478.
Pollard, C. and I. A. Sag (1992). ‘Anaphors in English and the Scope of Binding Theory’. Linguistic Inquiry. 23.2: 261- 303.
Stark, J. E. (2011). The Role of Oral Literature in the Dissemination of Neologisms. Summer Institute of Linguistics International.
Stark, J. P. (2010). Kambari Orthography Design. Summer Institute of Linguistics International.
