Interrogative Sentence

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/333907538
The structure of negation in Úwù
Article · January 2018
CITATIONS READS
0 720
1 author:
Adeoye Jelili Adewale

Ekiti State University, Ado Ekiti
9 PUBLICATIONS 3 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Interrogative Construction in Uwu View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Adeoye Jelili Adewale on 20 June 2019.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

The structure of negation in Úwù
Jelili A. Adeoye*
Department of Linguistics and Nigerian Languages, Ekiti State University
This study examines the structure of negation in Úwù; one of the endangered languages of Nigeria. Úwù is spoken in the
Àyèré community in the Ìjùmú Local Government in Kogi State. The present study identifies the various negative markers
in the language and their structural distributions both at phrasal and sentence levels. In this study, the researcher
establishes that a negative clause is derived through Neg that projects into NegP which takes TP as its complement. It is
also observed that the language does not manifest lexical negation. The minimalist program (MP) is used to analyse the
syntactic distributions of negative markers in sentences. It is our hope that this study will serve as part of the documentation
of an aspect of the syntax of the language.
Keywords: Negation, Úwù, Minimalist program
1. Introduction
Úwù is one of the endangered languages spoken in Nigeria (Abiodun, 2004, 2007) with a population of
4,600 speakers (2006 Census). As at the time of this research, the number of native speakers of Úwù has
reduced drastically to about 2,000 people due to migration. The speakers of Úwù are compound bilinguals;
they speak Yoruba fluently and live within the Yoruba territory. As result, they prefer to use Yorùbá for
social purposes and restrict Úwù to the home domain. The speakers of the language live in a small
community called Àyèré in Kogi State. The community shares boundaries with Yorùbá and Àhàn in the
West, Igbo in the East, and Ebira in the North. It must be noted that there are towns and villages in
between Úwù and the other tribes mentioned.
There are controversies among scholars as to the actual genetic classification of the language. Most
linguists who have worked on Yorùbá dialects have consistently omitted Úwù from the group of dialects
under Yorùbá. Thus far, only Adeniyi and Ojo (2005) classify Úwù as a dialect of Yorùbá, although it is
observed in this research that Úwù is not mutually intelligible with Yorùbá. In a preliminary study,
Abiodun (2007) observed a close affinity between Úwù and Àhàn, a language spoken in Èkìtì State, but he
did not attempt a new genetic classification for Úwù. Akanbi (2014), modifying Elugbe’s (2012)
classification, grouped Àhàn and Àyèré (Úwù) as a separate branch of Benue-Congo languages, under
Defoid, which he called Ahanoid. The group (Ahanoid) comprises Àhàn and Àyèré (Úwù). However,
Adeoye (2015), relying solely on lexicostatistic counts of 100 words and mutual intelligibility between
Úwù, Àhàn and Yorùbá, maintains that Àhàn and Úwù are closely related but are quite different from
Yorùbá. As a result, he treats Úwù as a distinct language.
There is still ongoing research on the genetic classification of Úwù, because most of the classifications
done by earlier scholars are not based on substantial data since most studies were preliminary observations.
The focus of this paper, however, is not on genetic classification but on the analysis of negation in Úwù.
More specifically, we are interested in the identification of the various negative markers in Úwù and their
structural distributions both at phrasal and sentential levels. Moreover, efforts shall be made to compare
*Address correspondence to [email protected]
Kansas Working Papers in Linguistics | Vol. 39 (2018) | pp. 40-56

The structure of negation in Úwù 41
Úwù with Yorùbá, Àhàn, and Igbo where necessary. The comparison of Úwù with these languages (Yorùbá,
Àhàn, and Igbo) is borne out of the fact that they all belong to the Benue-Congo language family and there
are possibilities of structural similarities between them which are likely to assist our data analysis in this
study. The grammar of Úwù has received considerable attention in the area of phonology and syntax, but
to the best of our knowledge, nothing exists on the syntax of negation in the language. This gap is what
this present study aims to fill by documenting the syntax of negation in the language.
This paper is divided into three sections. Section one is the introduction. Section two discusses the
concept of negation, sentence negation in Úwù, focus negation, lexical negation and the derivation
negative sentences in Úwù. Section three concludes the paper.
2. The concept of negation

Negation has been defined as a device employed in a language to deny an affirmation or assertion.
Kempson (1975) observes that unlike positive indicative sentences which are used to assert some
propositions, negations are used to claim that their corresponding proposition is false. Dahl (1979, p.80)
claims that a negator is used “...for converting a sentence S1 into another sentence S2, such that S2 is true
whenever S1 is false and vice versa.” Yusuff (2008, p. 134) further claims that negative sentences are not
used in discourse to introduce new arguments, but rather they are used in contexts in which their
referential arguments have already been introduced in the preceding context. Ilori (2010, p. 153) asserts
that a negator is a functional element used to deny a proposition. He posits two arguments with respect to
negators in languages. First, he claims that negators in most languages are Infl items which linearly precede
the predicate that they are to negate. Secondly, he submits that there are other languages where Neg is
not solely realised in Infl. Contrary to the first assertion, in Igbo the negative marker is an inflectional item
which is suffixed to the predicate it negates (see Obiamalu, 2014). Consider the Igbo examples below.1
1a. Àda mà-rà mmã 1b. Àda a mã-ghi mmã

Ada be beautiful-rV beauty Ada AGR be beautiful-Neg beauty
‘Ada is beautiful.’ ‘Ada is not beautiful.’
2a. Ọ̀ zụ̀-rụ̀ akwà 2b. Ọ̀ zụ-ghi akwà

3sg buy-rV(past) cloth 3sg buy–Neg cloth
‘S/he bought some clothes.’ ‘S/he did not buy clothes.’
3a. Òbi e ri e-la nrĩ 3b. Òbi e ri be- ghi nrĩ

Òbi AGR eat-OVS PF food Òbi AGR eat PF-Neg food
‘Obi has eaten.’ ‘Obi has not eaten.
(Obiamalu, 2014)
1 The following notation is used for syntactic glosses: FocP – focus phrase; PF – phonetic form; Infl – Inflection; Spec – specifier; IP –
inflectional phrase; RelP – relative phrase; LF – logical form; NegP – negative phrase; DP – determiner phrase; rV – tense, perfective
marker (Igbo).

42 J. A. Adeoye
In examples (1b, 2b, 3b), observe that ghí/ghi ̣́ are the negative markers in Igbo. The negative markers are
suffixed to the verb which they negate. Also notice that the rV suffixes which mark present tense, and the
past tense marker in (1a and 2a), are replaced with the negative markers ghí/ghi ̣́ in (1b and 2b). The rV (a
fusion of an alveolar trill and a vowel of the verb) is an archimorpheme for suffixes that are used to indicate
present, stative and past in Igbo. The vowel of the suffixes is dependent on vowel harmony constraints in
the language. In Igbo, co-occurrence restrictions are placed on the occurrences of vowels such that vowels
in the language are divided into two harmonic sets: +ATR vowels and –ATR vowels. The +ATR vowels
co-occur with each in both derived and underived words and the same thing is applicable to –ATR vowels.
Thus, the choice of the rV suffixes are dependent on the vowel of the verb to which they are attached. In
(3a) it is observed that e-la, which is used to mark perfective aspect, becomes bè in (3b) and it linearly
precedes the negative marker.
In addition, Yorùbá realises its negators at Infl. Thus, Ilori (2010) submits that there are four negators
in Yoruba. They are k(ò), k(ì), má(à) and kọ́. Also, he claims that these free morphemes are discretely
realized at Infl. In buttressing his claim, he argues further that each of the Neg items occurs immediately
after the subject and they can co-occur with other Infl. elements. Let us consider these examples in Yoruba:
4a. Akín wá 4b. Akín k(ò) wá

Akin T come Akin Neg come
‘Akin came.’ ‘Akin did not come.’
5a. Adé ń lọ 5b. Adé k(ò) lọ

Ade Prog. go Ade Neg go
‘Ade is going.’ ‘Ade is not going.’
6a. Kúnlé ti sùn 6b. Kúnlé k(ò) ti ì sùn

NP Perf. sleep NP Neg Perf. Neg sleep
‘Kúnlé has slept.’ ‘Kúnlé has not slept.’
7a. Adé máa n lọ 7d. Adé k(ì) í lọ

Ade Hab. go Ade Neg Hab. go
‘Ade used to go.’ ‘Ade did not used to go.’
8a. Adé yóò lọ 8b. Adé kì yóò lọ / Adé k(ò) nìí lọ
Ade Fut. go Ade Neg Fut. go
‘Ade will go.’ ‘Ade will not go.’
In examples (4b and 5b), observe that the negative marker occupies the position of the tense (past) and
progressive aspectual marker, respectively. Moreover, in (6b, 7b, and 8b) there are overt markers that
show the presence of the perfective, habitual aspectual markers and future tense markers in the negative
sentences. Having looked at Yorùbá and Igbo, ample data from Àhàn, which scholars claim has close
affinity with Úwù, will be necessary. It must be noted that Àhàn, just like Yorùbá, expresses its negation
by using free negative morphemes which are realised as Infl. Consider the following examples in Àhàn.

9a. Kolá yún 9b. Kolá àà yún

NP T go NP Neg go
‘Kola went.’ ‘Kola did not go.’
10a. Kolá thèrù 10b. Kolá àà thèrù

NP eat NP Neg eat
‘Kola ate.’ ‘Kola did not eat.’
11a. Olú à theru 11b. Olú àà theru

NP Prog eat NP neg eat
‘Olú is eating.’ ‘Olú is not eating.’
12a. Olú à ǹthì 12b. Olú àà ǹthì

NP Prog sleep NP Neg sleeping
‘Olú is sleeping.’ ‘Olú is not sleeping.’
13a. Adé ká yun 13b. Adé àà ri yún

NP Perf. go NP Neg. Perf. Go
‘Adé has gone.’ ‘Adé has not gone.’
14a. Olú ká ǹthì
14b. Olú àà ri ǹthì
NP Perf. sleep
NP Neg. Perf. Sleep
‘Olu has slept.’
‘Olu has not slept.’
15a. Olú é yún
15b. Olú àà yé yún
NP Fut. go
NP Neg. Fut. Go
‘Olú will go.’
‘Olú will not go.’
(Akanbi, 2014)
In examples (9a), (10a), (11a), and (12a) one can observe that the slot of past tense and the progressive
aspect are filled with negative marker àà in (9b), (10b), (11b), and (12b). It appears that the language
does not allow the co-occurrence of past tense and the progressive marker with the negative marker. On
the other hand, in (13a), (14a) and (15a) it is observed that perfective aspectual marker and future marker
have overt morphemes that show their presence in (13b), (14b), and (15b). However, the focus in this
study excludes languages where Neg is not solely realised as Infl. Having looked at the manifestation of
negative markers in Igbo, Àhàn and Yorùbá, the remaining parts of this study will be dedicated to the
examination of Úwù.
In this present study, we will examine the various manifestations of negative markers in Úwù
sentences. Also, explanation will be provided to show whether the language uses free morphemes as its
negative markers, and more importantly the positions of occurrence of the negative markers and verbs in
both simple and complex sentences will be discussed.

44 J. A. Adeoye
2.1. Sentence negation in Úwù. Sentence negation implies denying the truth or the assertion of a
sentence. In this study, sentence negation shall be divided into declarative and imperative sentence
negation.
2.1.1. Declarative sentence negation. Declarative sentences are simply statements that relay information. A
declarative sentence states the facts about something specific. In Úwù, a declarative sentence is negated
when the negative markers kè or kàá are sandwiched between the subject and the verb phrase as in the
examples below:
16a. Adé á dá 16b. Adé kè dá

NP Pst go NP Neg. go
‘Ade went.’ ‘Ade did not go.’
17a. Olú ka ǹṣí 17b. Olú kè ǹṣí

NP Prog. sleep NP Neg sleep
‘Olu is sleeping.’ ‘Olu is not sleeping.’
18a. Wálé ka ṣe eṣ̣̀ e 18b. Wálé kè ṣe ẹ̀ṣe

NP Prog. eat yam NP Neg. eat yam
‘Wale is eating yam.’ ‘Wale is not eating yam.’
19a. Adé káa dá 19b. Adé kàá dá

NP Hab. go NP Neg go
‘Ade used to go.’ ‘Ade did not used to go.’
20a. Òjó káa ṣe eṣ̣̀ e 20b. Òjó kàá ṣe ẹ̀ṣe
NP Hab. eat yam NP Neg eat yam
‘Ojo used to eat yam.’ ‘Ojo did not used to eat yam.’
21a. Wálé káa di bàtà 21b. Wálé kàá di bàtà

NP Hab. buy shoes NP Neg buy shoes
‘Wale used to buy shoes.’ ‘Wale did not used to buy shoes.’
In examples (16a-21a) above, the verbs in the sentences which are preceded by progressive, past and
habitual tenses are negated accordingly in (16b-21b). The sentences show that when negative markers
appear in sentences (16b-21b), the progressive, past and habitual markers are deleted. It appears that the
language does not allow the co-occurrence of these markers with the negative morpheme(s) in a sentence
because the tenses are reflected on the negative markers. Indeed, the co-occurrence of these markers
(progressive, past and habitual) with the negative morpheme renders the sentence ungrammatical, as
shown below.
22a. Olú ka di eṣ̣̀ e 22b. * Olú ka kè di eṣ̣̀ e

NP Prog buy yam NP Prog Neg buy yam
‘Olú buys yam.’ —

In example (22b) above, the co-occurrence of a progressive and a negative marker makes the sentence
ungrammatical. The assertion made above with respect to the deletion or replacement of progressive, tense
or habitual markers with the negative marker before or after the verb is not peculiar to Úwù alone. In a
number of Benue-Congo languages such as Yoruba, Àhàn and Igbo, the co-occurrence of a negative
morpheme and some tense and aspectual markers such as: present, past, and progressive aspect, is not
allowed in a sentence, as shown in (1-2b), (4-5b), and (9-12b).
Moreover, in Úwù, it appears that the perfect aspect has an overt marker that reflects it in a negated
sentence. Consider examples (23b) and (24b) below.
23a. Adé ká ṣe uaṣe 23b. Adé í kè ṣe uaṣe
NP Perf eat food NP ? Neg eat food
‘Ade has eaten the food.’ ‘Ade has not eaten the food.’
24a. Olú ká hure 24b. Olú í kè húré

NP Perf run NP ? Neg run
‘Olú has run.’ ‘Olú has not run.’
In (23a) and (24a), one may tentatively claim that the perfective marker in the examples is realised in the
negative counterparts in a different form as (i) in (23b) and (24b). A cursory observation may argue that
the negative marker in Úwù is a functional element that prefixes or suffixes cannot be attached to; as a
result of this, íkè will be treated as two morphemes, where the first part, í, is the perfective marker, while
the other part, kè, will be regarded as the negative marker. However, the data in this study reveals that in
the habitual negative sentence the negator is bi-syllabic and functions as a unitary morpheme. Moreover,
the data presented in (16b-21b) reveal that the negator precedes Tns and Asp in Úwù. Thus, íkè in (23b)
and (24b) will be treated as a unitary morpheme.
However, in Úwù, the future tense marker égà has an overt spell-out in the negative sentence. Consider
the examples below.
25a. Olú égà dá 25b. Olú kégà dá

NP Fut. go NP Neg.Fut. go
‘Olu will go.’ ‘Olu will not go.’
26a. Akin égà ṣe uaṣe 26b. Akin kégà ṣe uaṣe
NP Fut. eat food NP Neg.Fut. eat food
‘Akin will eat the food.’ ‘Olu will not eat the food.’
In (25a) and (26a), the sentences indicate a future action and the future tense marker is égà. The element
is overtly spelled-out in (25b) and (26b). One observes the vowel of the negative marker is deleted with
its tone. As a result, there is a fusion between the negative marker and the future tense marker, such as:
kè + égà = kégà. The occurrence of future tense in a negative sentence is not uncommon in African
languages. It has been reported in languages such as Yoruba and Àhàn, as shown in (8b) and (15b).

46 J. A. Adeoye
Moreover, Úwù permits the co-occurrence of modal auxiliary kú ‘can’ and a negative marker in a
negative sentence. See the examples below.
27a. Akin àyèkú dá b. Akin kè kú dá c. Wálé kè kú ṣe uaṣe
NP modal go NP Neg. modal go NP Neg. modal eat food
‘Akin can go.’ ‘Akin cannot go.’ ‘Wale cannot eat the food.’
In (27b) and (c), the negative marker precedes modal auxiliary kú. This is not to say, however, that it
negates the modal, rather it negates the verb. The co-occurrence of modal auxiliary with negative marker
does not contradict our claims that a negative marker cannot co-occur with progressive, habitual aspect
and past tense markers in a sentence. Facts from data presented in (23-26b) clearly show that it is possible
for two or more Infl items to co-occur in a sentence. This fact and others necessitate the Split-Infl.
Hypothesis (see Pollock, 1989).
2.1.2. Imperative negation in Úwù. In Úwù, like every other language, imperative sentences indicate
command or order. Such sentences are always subject-less after spell-out because it is assumed that the
speaker is addressing the second person ‘you’. Adewole (1992) notes that in Yorùbá the negative
imperative may or may not have an overt grammatical subject and when it has a subject, it is always
second person. Moreover, in Igbo, Obiamalu (2014) claims that commands are only given to the addressee
(second person). He notes further that when the subject is the second person singular, it is left unexpressed,
but, when it is the second person plural there are two options in the imperative. The second person plural
pronoun can occur in the subject position before the verb or as an enclitic after the verb. Imperative
sentences in Úwù are negated with mè and this marker precedes the verb. See the examples below.
28a. – dá 29a. – ṣe uaṣe 30a. – húré

‘Go!’ ‘Eat food!’ ‘Run!’
28b. Mè dá 29b. Mè ṣe uaṣe 30b. Mè húré
Neg. go Neg eat food Neg run
‘Don’t go!’ ‘Don’t eat the food!’ ‘Don’t run!’
In (18b), (19b), and (20b), we observe that mè occurs before the verb and it negates the imperative
assertion of the verb. However, it must be noted that aspectual markers cannot co-occur with negative
markers in an imperative sentence in Ùwú because they are mutually exclusive. Hence, the sentence below
is ungrammatical.
31. * Mè ká dá

Neg Perf. Go
–
The ungrammaticality of (31) is triggered by the presence of the perfective marker in the imperative
sentence. Moreover, it is a fact of the language that perfect and progressive aspects, and other preverbal
particles, cannot co-occur with imperative verbs. The only preverbal particle that the language allows to

co-occur with the imperative verb is the imperative negative marker. It must be noted that the mè negative
marker is not restricted to imperative sentences; there are also instances where the two negative markers
kè and mè can occur together in a non-imperative sentence, and each negates different constituents. See
the examples below.
32a. Olú kè kú ṣí ní mè dá

NP Neg can do Comp Neg go
‘Olu cannot do without going.’
32b. Ngọ kè kú ṣí ní mè ṣiṣọla

2sg. Neg can do Comp Neg fight
‘You cannot do without fighting.’
In (32a, b) it is observed that the two negative morphemes negate two different constituents, while kè
negates the verb ṣí. The negative morpheme mè, on the other hand, negates the verbs dá (go) and ṣíṣọla
(fight).
2.2. Focus negation in Úwù. Focus construction has been extensively discussed in many African
language families, including the Benue-Congo group. For example, Bamgbose (1990), Awobuluyi (1978),
Owolabi (1981, 1983), and Ajiboye (2006) all report that ní is the focus marker in Yorùbá. Issah (2013)
claims that kà and n are focus markers in Dagbani, while Omoruyi (1989) maintains that Edo has two
focus markers: e ̣̀ ré and ọ̀ ré. In the three languages mentioned above the focus marker(s) always follow
the focused constituents. It has been argued that focusing entails foregrounding specific information or
expression in a sentence for the purpose of emphasis. Halliday (1967, p. 204) claims that “information
focus is one kind of emphasis that whereby the speaker makes out a part (which may be the whole) of a
message block as that which he wishes to be interpreted as informative.”
Thus, focus negation implies negating the emphasized constituent in a sentence. Turning back to Úwù,
the focused negated constituent is always preceded by the negative morpheme úkwèdi. However, the Úwù
focus marker nè behaves similarly to the previously mentioned Yoruba, Dagbani and Edo cases in that
(when it is overt) the focus marker always follows the focused constituents. As we will see in the next
subsection, it is only the subject DP and its satellites that are overtly followed by nè when focused. For all
other focused constituents, the focus marker is always covert.
2.2.1. Subject DP negation. In Úwù, the subject DP can be a noun with its satellites or pronoun. When the
subject NP is negated, the constituent is moved to sentence-initial position it is preceded by the negative
marker and followed by the focus marker. The moved constituent (subject) leaves a trace at its extraction
site. See the examples below.
33a. Adé á dá 33b. Úkwèdi Adéi nè ti dá

DP Pst. go Neg. DP Foc go
‘Ade went.’ ‘It was not Ade that went.’

48 J. A. Adeoye
34a. Awá di bàtà nẹẹ̀ 34b. Úkwèdi awai nè ti di bàtà nẹẹ̀
Pro buy shoe Det Neg Pro Foc buy show Det
‘We bought the shoe.’ ‘It was not us who bought this shoe
35a. Ọma énṣí á dá

DP red Pst. go
‘The fair complexion child went.’
35b. Úkwèdi ọma énṣíi nè ti dá

Neg DP Qual. Foc. go
‘It was not the fair completion child who went.’
35c. Úkwèdi énṣíj nè di ọmai nè tij dá

Neg Qual. Foc. Det. DP Rel. go
‘It was not the fair complexion child who went.’
In (33b-35b), it is observed that the negative marker precedes the subject DPs that are negated in the
sentences. The subject DP is moved to sentence-initial position and is followed by the focus marker nè. The
DP leaves a copy in the form of a trace at its extraction site and the trace forms a chain with the DP serving
as the head of the chain (Chomsky, 1995). Moreover, in (35c), the adjective that qualifies the NP is focused
and negated. It is moved to sentence initial position and is followed by the focus marker while the NP that
it qualifies is followed by a relative marker. One also observes that the relative and focus markers in Úwù
have the same morpheme. On the sameness of the morpheme, one can explain that the morphemes are
homonyms with distinct functions, where one is focus marker and the other is a relative clause. However,
the morphemes can co-occur in a sentence and each will perform its own grammatical function.
2.2.3. Object DP negation. The object DP refers to the object of the verb in a sentence. The same focus
process that applies to Subject DPs applies here too. The only difference is that when the object is focused
the moved constituent is not followed by the focus marker. See the examples below.
36a. Adé á pu ẹna 36b. Úkwèdi ẹnai Ø Adé pu ti

DP Pst. kill animal Neg DP Foc. Adé kill
‘Ade killed an animal.’ ‘It wasn’t an animal that Ade killed.’
2.2.4. Verb negation. Verb negation in Úwù involves the prefixation of a to the verb to change it to a
nominal; thus, the technical name for this nominalised verb is a gerund. This process of verb
nominalisation is not unusual in languages worldwide. It is reported in a number of Benue-Congo
languages, such as Yorùbá, Igbo, Igala, and Urhobo (see Abiodun 2010, 2014; Ileonu, 2010; Aziza, 2010;
and Ilori, 2010, respectively). The nominalised verb is focused and moved to sentence-initial position while
a copy of the verb remains in the sentence. One also notes that the nominalised verb is not followed by
the focus marker. See the examples below.

37a. Adé á dá

DP Pst go
‘Ade went.’
37b. Úkwèdi adá Ø Adé dá

Neg going Foc. Adé go
‘It wasn’t the act of going that Adé performed.’
38a. Olu á ǹṣí

DP Pst sleep
‘Olú slept.’
38b. Úkwèdi aǹṣí Ø Olú ǹṣí

Neg sleeping Foc. Olu sleep
‘It was not the act of sleeping that Olú performed.’
In (36b-38b), the focus maker is not overtly present. In the examples, we suspect that the language doesn’t
allow overt focus markers to follow any constituent apart from the subject DP and its satellite. One can
presume that the covert focus marker for all other constituents is borrowed from the neighbouring
languages. It can also be argued that the focus marker is present in the historical development of the
language but got deleted at a point, and the remnant is the case of the overt focus marker that shows up
when the subject DP is moved. However, covert focus marking is not uncommon. Adeoye (2008) and
Akanbi (2014) note that Àhàn has no overt focus marker for any constituent; the only thing that happens
is that the focused constituent is moved to sentence-initial position.
2.2.5. Adverb negation. Adverb negation in Úwù involves the negation of the place of an event, the time
of an event, the reason for an action and the manner of an action. The process of negation takes the same
shape as any other focus negation in the language. Consider the examples below.
39a. Má ye ̣̀ e Ìbàdàn 39b. Úkwèdi Ìbàdàn ná ye ̣̀ e

1sg see you DP Neg DP 1sg see you
‘I saw you in Ibadan.’ ‘It was not in Ibadan that I saw you.’
40a. Jejeje u kwaná 40b. Úkwèdi jejeje Ø u kwaná

Adv. 3sg walk Neg Adv. Foc 3sg walk
‘He walks gently.’ ‘It is not gently he walks.’
41a. U káa wá ẹnene 41b. Úkwèdi ẹnene Ø u káa wá

3sg Hab. come night Neg night Foc 3sg. Hab. come
‘He comes every night.’ ‘It isn’t every night that he comes.’
In (39b-41b), adverbs of place and manner are focused and negated. In (40b) and (41b) the focus marker
is covert. The movement of the constituent Adv. just like verbs and nouns shows that the position of the
focus is null. Moreover, in (39b) there is a marker ná that occurs between the moved adverb and the verb;

50 J. A. Adeoye
cursory observation suggests that it is a focus marker. But since focus is not present in other examples of
its kind the possibility of it being a focus marker is ruled out. Thus, one can argue that when an adverb of
place is focused, the locative phrase marker normally occurs to show that the emphasis is on a location.
Ajiboye (2005, p. 135) observes a similar situation in Yorùbá in content questions; he states that the tí
element found in content interrogative constructions is a marker of locative extraction. In addition, Adeoye
(2015, p. 29) notes among other things that when an adverb of place is focused in Úwù it is always followed
by a locative phrase marker ná. The argument that ná is locative seems logical but has a defect in the sense
that the first person singular pronoun má in (39a) has been dropped in (39b) without a replacement, and
this violates the EPP principle. This fact, among others, may lead us to assume that the bilabial nasal
consonant in má, as shown in (39a), assimilates the feature of the neighbouring alveolar nasal that is the
reason ná surfaces in (39b).
2.3. Lexical negation. Lexical negation has been reported in both Indo-European and many African
languages. Lexical negation involves the prefixation of a lexical negator to an existing word to negate it.
In English several markers are used (e.g., un- and in-), in Yoruba àì is used, while in Àhàn it is èkì. See the
examples below.
42. English
important unimportant
possible impossible
correct incorrect
tolerable intolerable
do undo
43. Yorùbá
(Verbs) (Nouns)
sùn àìsun ‘the act of not sleeping
lọ àìlo ‘the act of not going’
gbọ́ àìgbọ́ ‘the act of not listening’
gbọ́n àìgbọ́n ‘the act of not wise’
rìn àìrin ‘the act of not walking’
44. Àhàn
(Verbs) (Nouns)
nthì èkìmanthì ‘the act of not sleeping’
the èkìmáthe ‘the act of not eating’
yún èkìmáyún ‘the act of not going’
ràn èkìmaràn ‘the act of not walking’
hún èkìmáhun ‘the act of not carrying’

45. Úwù
(Verbs) (Verb Phrases)
dá kè dá ‘(did) not go’
húré kè húré ‘(did) not run’
ǹṣí kè nṣí ‘(did) not sleep’
ṣe kè ṣe ‘(did) not eat’
ṣíṣọla kè ṣiṣọla ‘(did) not fight’
46. Igbo
(Verbs) (Verb Phrases)
jé jéghí ‘(did) not go’
si ̣́ siǵ̣ hi ̣́ ‘(did) not say’
dá dághi ̣́ ‘(did) not fall’
rì rìghí ‘(did) not eat’
dé déghí ‘(did) not read’
In (42), one observes that the negative prefixes do not change the word class of the negated morphemes,
but in (43) and (44), the verbs are changed to nouns when the negative prefix is attached to the root
morpheme. However, in (45) and (46), the negative prefix is attached to the roots (verbs), and it does not
change them to nouns but they remain as verbs. We also observe that Yorùbá, Àhàn and English have a
designated lexical negative marker which is quite different from their sentence negative morpheme. Thus,
examples (45) and (46) will lead us to assume that Úwù and Igbo use the same morpheme for sentence
and lexical negation which is quite uncommon among Benue-Congo languages. For example Yorùbá and
Àhàn have different markers for sentence and lexical negation. Based on this fact, pending further research
one can conclude that Úwù and Igbo have no lexical negative morphemes.
2.4. Derivation of negative sentences in Úwù. Scholars have proposed different accounts for the
derivation of negative sentences in various languages. Ouallala (1999, pp. 389-391) asserts that Neg
belongs to a category known as the negative phrase and it functions as a syntactic head which projects
into NegP. Dechaine (1995, p. 135) notes also that Neg “is a quasi-functional head.” Ilori (2010) further
asserts that the Neg projection in Igala takes a VP adjunct. Moreover, Fabunmi (2013) claims that Yorùbá
dialects have a NegP that selects a VP adjunct. In this study, the Minimalist Program (MP) is used to
account for the derivation of the negative sentence in Úwù. Within MP, the representation of a sentence
at PF and LF is derived through the operation of the computation system which takes place in the lexicon,
CHL (Chomsky, 1995; Radford, 1997). The operations are Select, Merge and Move, which occur before spell-
out. Examples (16b) and (19b) are repeated below.
16b. Adé kè dá 19b. Ade kàá dá

‘Ade did not go.’ ‘Ade did not used to go.’

52 J. A. Adeoye
47. NegP
Spec Neg’
Neg
TP
Spec T’
VP
kè T
Adé
Spec V’
[Ade]
V
[Ade]
dá
48. NegP
Neg’
Neg FocP
Spec Foc’
Foc TP
Olú
T’
DP
úkwèdi nè T
VP
[Olú]
V’
Spec
V
[Olú]
dá

In (16b), the verb dá ‘go’ is selected in the lexicon by the computation system and merged with the Subject
DP, Adé, at the Spec VP, and the T head is merged with the VP to project T’. The T head becomes a potential
probe which attracts the Subject DP to Spec TP. The TP, Adé dá, is merged with the Neg head to project
NegP, kè Adé dá, the Neg head becomes a probe which attracts the Subject DP from Spec TP to Spec NegP.
To derive Adé kè dá, as shown in (16b)_, the operation Move must be invoked before spell-out. See the
diagram in (47).
In (47), the DP obeys the shortest move; it moves from Spec VP, where it has check its theta role, to
Spec TP to check its case. After checking its case feature at Spec TP, the subject DP moves Spec NegP to
satisfy the EPP feature. However, (48) and (49) are complex structures. See again (33b) and (35c) below.
33b. Úkwèdi Adé nè dá 35b. Úkwèdi énṣí nè di ọma nè dá
‘It was not Ade that went.’ ‘It was not the fair complexion child who went’
In (33b), the verb dá ‘go’ is selected in the lexicon and merged with the Subject DP at the Spec VP. The T
head is merged with the VP to project T’, the T head automatically becomes a probe that attracts the
Subject DP to Spec TP, and the Foc head is merged with TP to project Foc’. The Foc head becomes a potential
probe that attracts the subject DP to Spec FocP, and the Neg head is in turn merged with FocP to project
Neg’ and NegP. Moreover, to derive the sentence in (35b), the operation Move must occur before spell-out
(see example 48).
In the sketch in (48), the DP obeys the shortest move; it moves from the Spec VP where it has to check
its theta role, to Spec TP to check its case against T. In turn, it moves to Spec FocP, its final landing site. In
(35b) the verb dá ‘go’ is selected in the lexicon and merged with Subject DP ọma énsí at Spec VP, while the
T head is merged with VP to project T’. The T head becomes a potential probe which attracts the Subject
DP to Spec TP, while the Rel head is merged with TP to project Rel’. At this point, the Rel head becomes a
potential probe that attracts the Subject DP to Spec RelP. The convergent RelP is in turn merged with the
Foc head to project Foc’, while the Foc head becomes a potential probe that attracts the DP qualifier ensi
to Spec FocP. The FocP is merged with the Neg head to project Neg’ and NegP. Moreover, to derive the
sentence in (35b), the operation Move must occur before spell-out.
In (49), the DP moves from the Spec VP where it must check its theta role, to Spec TP to check its case
against T. It then moves to Spec RelP, while the modifier énjú moves to Spec Foc, leaving the NP behind at
Spec RelP. The simple reason for this is that the modifier is the constituent that is focused and negated.
3. Conclusion
In this research, we have examined negative structures in Úwù. We argue that negative markers are Infl
items in the language. We also established that Neg, which projects into NegP, dominates TP, and that it
linearly precedes the constituent it negates. The study notes that the language forbids the co-occurrence
of negative markers, perfective, progressive and habitual aspect, and past tense morphemes. The study
also shows that the imperative negative marker and perfective aspect are mutually exclusive. However,
we assert that the language permits the co-occurrence of the modal auxiliary and negative markers. Lastly,
the study claims that there is no lexical negation in the language.

54 J. A. Adeoye
49. NegP
Neg’
FocP
Neg
Spec Foc’
Foc RelP
Úkwèdi énṣí j Spec Rel’

nè
TP
Rel
T’
DP
di oma
̣̣ i T VP
nè
V’
[Ọma énsí] V
Spec
dá
̣̣ a énṣí]
[Ọ̣m
References
Abiodun, M. A. (2004). A preliminary report on the linguistic relationship between Ahan and Ayere. Paper presented
at the 24th West African Language Conference. University of Ibadan, Ibadan.
Abiodun, M. A. (2007). Àhàn and Àyèré: Two endangered languages in Nigeria. Festschrift in Honour of Ezikeojiaku.
Abiodun, M. A. (2010). On the gerundive source of verb infinitive phrase in Yorùbá. In Oyebade, F. O. and T.
Olumuyiwa (Eds.), New findings in the study of Nigerian languages and literatures: A festchrirft in honour of Oladele
Awobuluyi (pp. 253-263). Akure: Montem Paperback.
Abiodun, M. A. (2014). More on the source of the HTS in the infinitive phrase in Yoruba: Evidence from Anago in
Republic of Benin. Journal of Yoruba Studies Association of Nigeria, 7(3), 47-59.
Adeoye, J. A. (2008). Noun phrase movement in Àhàn. B.A. Long Essay, Department of Linguistics and Nigerian
Languages, University of Ado-Ekiti, Ekiti State, Nigeria.
Adeoye, J. A. (2015). Question Formation in Úwù. Unpublished M.A thesis, Department of Linguistics and Nigerian
Languages, Ekiti State University, Ado-Ekiti.

Adeniyi, H., & Ojo, A., Eds. (2005). Ìlò àti Ẹ̀dá-èdè Yorùbá: Yorùbá linguistics and language use. Trenton, NJ: Africa World
Press, Inc.
Adewole, L. O. (1992). Some aspects of negation in Yorùbá. Afri-kanistiche Arbeitspapiere, 28, 75-100.
Ajiboye, J. O. (2006). A morpho-syntactic account of ni in Mọ̀bà Yorùbá. Journal of West African Languages, 8(2), 23-
42.
Akanbi, T. A. (2014). A descriptive account of Àhàn verb phrase. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of
Linguistics and Nigerian Languages, Ekiti State University, Ado-Ekiti.
Awobuluyi, O. (1978). Essentials of Yoruba Grammar. Ibadan: Oxford University Press.
Aziza, R. O. (2010). Urhobo syntax. In Yusuf, O. (Ed.), Basic linguistics for Nigerian languages. Ijebu-Ode: Shebiotimo
Publications.
Bamgbose, A. (1990). Fonoloji at girama Yoruba. Ibadan: University Press PLC.
Chomsky, N. (1991). Some notes on economy of derivation and representation. In Robert, F. (Ed.), Principles and
parameters in comparative grammar (pp. 417-454).
Chomsky, N. (1993). A minimalist program for linguistic theory. In Hale, K. & S. J. Keyser (Eds.), View from building
20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvan Bromberger (pp.1-52).
Chomsky, N. (1995). The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Dahl, O. (1979). Typology of sentence negation. Linguistics, 17, 79-106.
Dechaine, R. M. (1995). Negation in Igbo and Yoruba. Niger-Congo Syntax and Semantics, 6, 135-150.
Elugbe, B. (2012). Comparative Akokoid and West Benue-Congo. Paper presented at the International Congress Proto-
Niger-Congo: Comparison and Reconstruction, Paris.
Fabunmi, F. A. (2013). Negation in sixteen Yoruba dialects. III. Open Journal of Modern Linguistics, 1, 1-8.
Genske, K. (2013). Negation as a formal flexible feature in children’s grammar: A case study investigation of cross-
linguistic transfer in a German-English bilingual child. Proceedings of Console 21, 83-103.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1967). Notes on transitivity and theme in English. Journal of Linguistics, 3(1), 37-81.
Ileonu, G. O. (2010). Igbo syntax. In Yusuf, O. (Ed.), Basic linguistics for Nigerian languages. Ijebu-Ode: Shebiotimo
Publications.
Ilori, J. F. (2010). Nominal constructions in Igala and Yoruba. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Adekunle Ajasin University
Akungba-Akoko, Ondo State, Nigeria.
Ilori, J.F., & Oyebade, F. O. (2012). Negation in Igala. Entrepalavras, Fortaleza-ano, 2(1), 25-40.
Issah, S. A. (2013). Focus and constituent question formation in Dagbani. Ghana Journal of Linguistics, 2(1), 31-62.
Kempson, R. (1975). Presupposition and delimitation of semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kitagawa, Y. (1986). Subject in English and Japanese. PhD Dissertation, University of Massachusetts.
Koopman, H. & Sportiche, D. (1985). Theta-theory and extraction. GLOW Newsletter.
Koopman, H. & Sportiche, D. (1990). The position of subject. Ms., University of California, Los Angeles.
Kuroda, Y. (1988). Whether we agree or not, Linguistica Investigations, 12, 1-47.
Mohsen, K. H. (2011). Negation in English. Unpublished M.A Thesis, Department of Foreign Lanuages and Translation,
University of Agder.
Obiamalu, G. O. (2014). Negation and V-movement in Igbo: A minimalist perspective. Skase Journal of Theoretical
Linguistics, 11(2), 42-58.
Omoruyi, T. O. (1989). Focus and question formation in Edo. Studies in African Linguistics, 20(3), 279-300.
Ouhalla, J. (1999). Introducing transformational grammar: From principles and parameters to minimalism. London: Arnold.
Pollock, J. Y. (1989). Verb movement, universal grammar, and structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry, 20, 365-424.
Radford, A. (1997a). Syntactic theory and the structure of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Radford, A. (1997b). Syntax: A minimalist introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

56 J. A. Adeoye
Rizzi, L. (1997). The fine structure of the left periphery. In Heagman, L. (Ed.), Elements of grammar (pp. 281-337).
Dorderecht: Kluwer.
Rizzi, L., Ed. (2004). The structure of CP and IP: The cartography of syntactic structures (Vol. 2). Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Taiwo, O. (2006). Negative markers in Ào and Standard Yorùbá. Journal of West African Languages, 33(1).
Yusuff, L. A. (2008). Negative adverbs in Yoruba. Ihafa: A Journal of African Studies, 5(3), 132-145.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 International License.
View publication stats

Interrogative Sentence

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Interrogative Sentence

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Interrogative Sentence

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

The structure of negation in Úwù

Article · January 2018

Adeoye Jelili Adewale

Interrogative Construction in Uwu View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

*Address correspondence to [email protected]

Kansas Working Papers in Linguistics | Vol. 39 (2018) | pp. 40-56

2. The concept of negation

1a. Àda mà-rà mmã 1b. Àda a mã-ghi mmã

2a. Ọ̀ zụ̀-rụ̀ akwà 2b. Ọ̀ zụ-ghi akwà

3a. Òbi e ri e-la nrĩ 3b. Òbi e ri be- ghi nrĩ

Kansas Working Papers in Linguistics | Vol. 39 (2018) | pp. 40-56

4a. Akín wá 4b. Akín k(ò) wá

5a. Adé ń lọ 5b. Adé k(ò) lọ

6a. Kúnlé ti sùn 6b. Kúnlé k(ò) ti ì sùn

7a. Adé máa n lọ 7d. Adé k(ì) í lọ

Kansas Working Papers in Linguistics | Vol. 39 (2018) | pp. 40-56

9a. Kolá yún 9b. Kolá àà yún

10a. Kolá thèrù 10b. Kolá àà thèrù

11a. Olú à theru 11b. Olú àà theru

12a. Olú à ǹthì 12b. Olú àà ǹthì

13a. Adé ká yun 13b. Adé àà ri yún

Kansas Working Papers in Linguistics | Vol. 39 (2018) | pp. 40-56

16a. Adé á dá 16b. Adé kè dá

17a. Olú ka ǹṣí 17b. Olú kè ǹṣí

18a. Wálé ka ṣe eṣ̣̀ e 18b. Wálé kè ṣe ẹ̀ṣe

19a. Adé káa dá 19b. Adé kàá dá

21a. Wálé káa di bàtà 21b. Wálé kàá di bàtà

22a. Olú ka di eṣ̣̀ e 22b. * Olú ka kè di eṣ̣̀ e

Kansas Working Papers in Linguistics | Vol. 39 (2018) | pp. 40-56

24a. Olú ká hure 24b. Olú í kè húré

25a. Olú égà dá 25b. Olú kégà dá

Kansas Working Papers in Linguistics | Vol. 39 (2018) | pp. 40-56

28a. – dá 29a. – ṣe uaṣe 30a. – húré

31. * Mè ká dá

Kansas Working Papers in Linguistics | Vol. 39 (2018) | pp. 40-56

32a. Olú kè kú ṣí ní mè dá

32b. Ngọ kè kú ṣí ní mè ṣiṣọla

33a. Adé á dá 33b. Úkwèdi Adéi nè ti dá

Kansas Working Papers in Linguistics | Vol. 39 (2018) | pp. 40-56

35a. Ọma énṣí á dá

35b. Úkwèdi ọma énṣíi nè ti dá

35c. Úkwèdi énṣíj nè di ọmai nè tij dá

36a. Adé á pu ẹna 36b. Úkwèdi ẹnai Ø Adé pu ti

Kansas Working Papers in Linguistics | Vol. 39 (2018) | pp. 40-56

37a. Adé á dá

37b. Úkwèdi adá Ø Adé dá

38a. Olu á ǹṣí

38b. Úkwèdi aǹṣí Ø Olú ǹṣí

39a. Má ye ̣̀ e Ìbàdàn 39b. Úkwèdi Ìbàdàn ná ye ̣̀ e

40a. Jejeje u kwaná 40b. Úkwèdi jejeje Ø u kwaná

41a. U káa wá ẹnene 41b. Úkwèdi ẹnene Ø u káa wá

Kansas Working Papers in Linguistics | Vol. 39 (2018) | pp. 40-56

Kansas Working Papers in Linguistics | Vol. 39 (2018) | pp. 40-56

16b. Adé kè dá 19b. Ade kàá dá

Kansas Working Papers in Linguistics | Vol. 39 (2018) | pp. 40-56

Kansas Working Papers in Linguistics | Vol. 39 (2018) | pp. 40-56

Kansas Working Papers in Linguistics | Vol. 39 (2018) | pp. 40-56