A Morphosyntactic Investigation of Functional Categories in English and Izon

Table of Contents

1 CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background to the study

1.2 The Ịzọn language

1.3 Previous studies in Ịzọn

1.4 The present study

1.5 Statement of the problem

1.6 Aim and objectives of the study

1.7 Scope of the study

1.8 Significance of the study

1.9 An overview of the model of analysis

1.10 Summary

2 CHAPTER TWO THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

2.1 Introduction

2.2 Languages in contact and bilingualism

2.3 Bilingualism

2.4 Contrastive analysis

2.5 Linguistic models of contrastive analysis

2.6 Chomskyan theory of grammar

2.7 Choice of theoretical framework

2.8 Summary

3 CHAPTER THREE FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES IN ENGLISH AND ỊZỌN

3.1 Introduction

3.2 Forms and Functions of Functional Elements in English and Ịzọn

3.3 Agreement in English

3.4 Agreement features in Ịzọn

3.5 Tense (T) in English and Ịzọn

3.6 The clause structure of Ịzọn

3.7 Case Checking in English

3.8 Case-marking/checking in Ịzọn

3.9 The ’s genitive case in English

3.10 The ’s-genitive Case in Ịzọn

3.11 Negation in English

3.12 Negation in Ịzọn

3.13 Summary

4 CHAPTER FOUR THE COMPLEMENTIZER AND FEATURE CHECKING

4.1 Introduction

4.2 Wh-Movement in English

4.3 Asymmetry in subject and non-subject wh-movement in English

4.4 Wh-movement in Ịzọn

4.5 Asymmetry in subject and non-subject wh-movement in Ịzọn

4.6 The Complementizer and feature checking in relative/embedded clauses

4.7 The Complementizer and feature checking in relative/embedded clauses in Ịzọn

4.8 The syntax of adpositions

4.9 Determiners/Articles

4.10 Co-ordinating conjunctions in English

4.11 Passive constructions and A-movement

4.12 Passive Constructions in Ịzọn

4.13 Pragmatic functions

4.14 Summary

5 CHAPTER FIVE SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

5.1 Summary

5.2 Head position (head directionality) parameter

5.3 Wh-movement parameter

5.4 Negation parameter

5.5 Auxiliary verbs and agreement feature checking

5.6 Conclusion: The Implications for language learning

5.7 Unresolved problems for further studies

Research Objectives and Themes

The primary objective of this work is to provide a systemic characterization and comparative analysis of functional morphological features and syntactic derivations in English and the Ịzọn language. By applying the Minimalist Program, the study aims to identify universal shared principles and idiosyncratic parametric variations that influence the derivation of clausal and phrasal structures in both languages.

• Morphosyntactic analysis of functional categories within the Minimalist Program framework.
• Comparison of head directionality and Case-checking mechanisms in English and Ịzọn.
• Investigation of wh-movement patterns and the role of focus particles in Ịzọn interrogatives.
• Analysis of agreement features, tense, and negation across the two distinct language families.
• Pedagogical implications of linguistic parametric variations for second language acquisition.

Auszug aus dem Buch

Summary of Chapters

CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION: Provides a foundation for the study by defining the scope, aim, and significance of comparing morphosyntactic features in English and Ịzọn.

CHAPTER TWO THEORETICAL BACKGROUND: Outlines the theoretical framework, including Universal Grammar and the Minimalist Program, while reviewing previous literature on language contact and contrastive analysis.

CHAPTER THREE FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES IN ENGLISH AND ỊZỌN: Examines functional elements, agreement, tense, and case-marking within the specific syntactic structures of both languages.

CHAPTER FOUR THE COMPLEMENTIZER AND FEATURE CHECKING: Investigates wh-movement, the role of complementizers, passive constructions, and focus marking strategies in English and Ịzọn.

CHAPTER FIVE SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION: Synthesizes the research findings, highlighting the parametric variations between English and Ịzọn and their implications for language learning and future studies.

Keywords

Functional categories, Universal features, Minimalist Program, Feature-checking, Parametric variation, Ịzọn, English, Contrastive analysis, Syntax, Morphosyntax, Agreement, Wh-movement, Tense, Case-marking, I-language.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the primary focus of this research?

The research focuses on the morphosyntactic investigation of functional categories in English and the Ịzọn language, specifically identifying shared universal principles and language-specific parametric variations.

Which theoretical framework does the study utilize?

The study adopts the Minimalist Program (MP) as its core theoretical framework to analyze the feature-checking processes and derivations within the two languages.

What are the central themes explored in the work?

Central themes include the role of functional heads (such as Determiners, Tense, and Agreement), wh-movement, case-marking, the head directionality parameter, and how these factors contribute to syntactic convergence or divergence.

How is the Ịzọn language characterized in terms of syntax?

The study characterizes Ịzọn as an SOV (subject-object-verb) and head-final language, which presents notable parametric differences compared to the SVO and head-initial structure of English.

What is the significance of the "kị" focus particle in Ịzọn?

The focus particle "kị" (and its allomorph "kọ") is crucial in Ịzọn syntax for licensing wh-elements and focus, acting as a functional element that ensures the derivation converges at the interface levels.

What methodology was used to collect data?

Data on English were derived from established grammar textbooks, while data on Ịzọn were collected from native speakers in the Kolokuma and Opokuma clans, supplemented by the author's introspective competence.

Does the Ịzọn language have a standard auxiliary verb system like English?

The study suggests that Ịzọn lacks overt auxiliary and modal verbs similar to English; instead, these functions are often embedded within aspect markers and specific inflectional enclitics.

Why are negation particles in Ịzọn considered synthetic?

Negation in Ịzọn is expressed through bound morphemes suffixed to the verb, as opposed to the English analytical approach which uses free morphemes like "not" or auxiliary "do-support".