The Syntax of Case and Focus in Idoma: A Government and Binding Approach

Citation: Oyewole, L.D. & Fatai, T.K. (2026). The Syntax of Case and Focus in Idoma: A Government and Binding Approach. Tasambo Journal of Language, Literature, and Culture, 5(2), 94-102. www.doi.org/10.36349/tjllc.2026.v05i02.011. 

THE SYNTAX OF CASE AND FOCUS IN IDOMA: A GOVERNMENT AND BINDING APPROACH

By

Oyewole, Lydia Damilola
Department of Linguistics and Nigerian Languages. Kwara State University, Malete.
Email: damsly25@gmail.com.
Phone number: 07036116199

And

Dr Fatai Toyin Kareem
Department of Linguistics and Nigerian Languages. Kwara State University, Malete.
Email: kareemfatai89@gmail.com
Phone number: 08061242208

Abstract

This study investigates the interaction between focus constructions and case assignment in the Idoma language spoken in Benue State. It examines the type of case assigned to a focused NP when it is moved from its extraction site to its landing site. Arokoyo (2013, p. 94) proposed a case form called the Emphatic Case. This case is assigned by the focus marker to the focused NP in the specifier of the Focus Phrase. This study is intended to determine whether this feature is present in Idoma. Since the researchers are not native speakers of the language, data were collected through interviews, and the frame technique method was adopted in presenting structured grammatical sentences in English for native speakers of the language to translate into Idoma. The Principles and Parameters approach was employed for the analysis in this study. The study finds that in the Idoma language, the focus marker co-occurs with the emphasis marker, which appears at the sentence final position. That is, the definiteness marker in a focus construction in the Idoma language is mutually dependent such that the focus marker needs the emphatic marker syntactically and semantically to make sense in a complete declarative sentence. This study represents a modest contribution to the existing literature and serves as a resource for further research.

Keywords: Focus, Emphasis marker, Functor, Idoma, Specifier

1.1 Introduction

The interplay between focus construction and case assignment has attracted considerable attention in linguistic research. Scholars have explored the type of case assigned to a focused noun phrase (NP) as it moves from its extraction site to its landing site. Arokoyo (2013, p. 94) examined the status of focus phrases with respect to case assignment. She observed that the focus marker in Owe also functions as a case assigner; therefore, the Emphatic Case was proposed. However, Jayeola (2016, p. 98) argued against the proposal for Emphatic Case, explaining that focus clauses in Zarma show tangible reconstruction effects because the focus marker does not bear a case that needs to be checked. Therefore, this study investigates the focusing strategies in the Idoma language and examines the type of case that is assigned to Focus NPs in the language. The Idoma language is spoken by the Idoma people of Benue State, Nigeria. Genetically, Idoma belongs to the Benue-Congo language family.

1.2 Idoma: The Language and Its Speakers

Armstrong (1955, p. 91) submits that the Idoma people occupy the area from Keana through the Doma and Agatu districts of Lafia and Nasarawa, as well as the Nkum in the Ogoja area of the present Cross River State. Erim (1981, p. 3) also states that the Idoma lived within the ancient Kwararafa confederacy before AD 1800 and that they were Jukun or Jukun-related in origin. However, many Idoma kindreds trace their origin to an ancestral homeland called Apa, North-East of the present-day Idomaland. The historical Apa was part of the ancient Kwararafa Kingdom (Okolofa Kingdom), a confederacy of several people. According to Umaru (2016, p. 3), “Idoma is the language spoken by the Idoma people who are predominantly found in Benue State with clusters of them found among other ethnic groups, especially Afo and Alago in Nasarawa State and Yala.”

Linguistically, the Idoma of Benue State share much in common with their neighbours. Languages such as Gede in the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja; Afa and Alago in Nasarawa State; Igala and Ebira in Kogi State share linguistic similarities with Idoma. Akweya and Etulo in Benue State, as well as Jukun in Taraba State, are sisters of Idoma. These languages are highly mutually intelligible.

1.3 Statement of the Problem

Although appreciable works have been done on the structure of the Idoma noun phrase, a more elaborate research that investigates the interaction between noun phrase focusing and case assignment is needed. Therefore, this paper examines the relationship between focusing and case assignment in Idoma.

1.4 Methodology

The method employed for data collection is the qualitative method. Here, the informants were asked to produce equivalent sentences from the English language to their language. The frame technique is used in collecting linguistic data, and it forms a crucial part of this research work since it is within the domain of syntax. In order to obtain tacit information about the data collected, the investigator interviewed some other native speakers and compared their responses. Responses were recorded with a tape recorder and later transcribed.

 The method of data elicitation employed was the use of a direct translation approach from English to the Idoma language. This was easy to achieve due to the informants’ bilingual ability, as they possessed good control of the English language. The data were collected from two native speakers of the language under study. The Government and Binding Theory (otherwise known as Principles and Parameters Theory) was adopted for data analysis.

1.5 Literature Review

1.5.1 Existing Work on Idoma

Adejoh M. (2012) examined the processes of plural formation in Idoma and also attempted to provide an analytical discussion of some rules of pluralisation in the grammatical system of the language. These processes include prefixation, morpheme additives, mutation, reduplication, and others. The study also shows that verb inflection in the language is peculiar, as the singular and plural forms do not resemble each other. It is observed that most Idoma nouns take the prefix morpheme {a} to form plurals and that the additive plural formation is attested in Idoma. Furthermore, he examined the concept of case in Idoma and observed that Pluralisation in the language also extends to the genitive case.

 Adeniji (2014) wrote a long essay on the Comparative Phonology of Idoma and Igala. From the research, it was observed that Idoma has thirty-one (31) sounds, comprising twenty-four (24) consonants and seven (7) oral vowels [a, e, ɛ, i, o, ɔ, u]. The syllable structure of Idoma was also examined, and it was observed that the language attests monosyllabic, disyllabic, trisyllabic, and quadrisyllabic word patterns. That is, the following sequences of syllables: CV, CVCV, CVVCV, VCV, VCVV, VCVCV, VCVVCV, CVCVCVCV, VCVCVCV are attested in Idoma.

1.5.2 Theoretical Framework

The theoretical framework underpinning this research is the Government and Binding (GB) Theory, otherwise known as the Principles and Parameters approach. Haegeman (1991, p. 13) considers GB a theory of universal grammar (UG), consisting of all the principles and parameters that are common to all natural languages. Sanusi (2017, p. 21) also defines GB as a “modular deductive theory of UG, which posits multiple levels of representation related by the transformational rule (Move Alpha)”. He further explains that GB theory greatly eliminates the proliferation of transformational rules such as passive, affix hopping, verb-number agreement, question formation, equi-NP deletion, raising, permutation, insertion, etc. According to Cook & Newson (2007, p. 3), “This model claims that human languages consist of principles that are the same for any grammar and parameters that allow grammars to vary in limited ways.” In GB theory, the grammar is a continuous interaction between components and sub-theories embodying different principles and parameters. Furthermore, Horrocks (1987, p. 29) explains that the core grammar of a given language is derived from the interaction of subtheories of UG. These sub-theories are inter-related that each of them can account for the grammaticality or ungrammaticality of any sentence. The motivation for choosing this theory is that two of its modules (X-bar and Case) are crucial to the analysis of the topic understudy.

According to Haegeman (1994), “X-bar theory is the part of grammar regulating the structure of a phrase”. This means that X-bar theory is a principled theory in the sense that it allows binary branching; there is availability of distinction between elements, and also an intermediate level, unlike the theories before it. Also, since this research work focused on Case and Focus in Idoma, the case theory (a theory that accounts for the assignment of abstract case to noun phrases) was adopted.

1.5.3 Existing Work on Emphatic Marker

As stated earlier, Arokoyo (2013, p. 94) examined the status of focus phrases as far as case assignment is concerned. She observed that the focus marker in Owe also functions as a case assigner; therefore, the Emphatic Case is proposed. Similarly, Abdullahi (2023, p. 167) examined the syntax of focus in Afa and discovered that there are two probes: Focus and Emphasis. He therefore proposed multiple CP layers where the focus phrase exhaustively dominates EmpP and takes IP as its complement. His submissions raised questions like: 1. What is the empirical motivation for positing separate probes for the analysis of focus constructions? 2. Is there any necessity for multiple CP layers to account for the observed focus phenomena in all languages?

Furthermore, Jayeola (2016, p. 98) argued against the proposal of the Emphatic Case and explained that focus clauses in Zarma show tangible reconstruction effects because the focus marker does not bear a case that needs to be checked. However, dismissing case features for focus constructions in languages may not be generally acceptable, as we have languages that obligatorily use an emphasis marker as part of their focus constructions. Furthermore, in analyzing the syntactic distribution and behaviour of the emphatic marker in Japanese, Akira posits a classification framework based on four features. These features are: type, self, edge, and polarity. The type feature is further classified into three: set-theoretic, presentational, and fulcral. The self-feature encodes whether the self is a unique, supplementary, or approximate member of its associated set. Edge conveys topological information about the relationship between the self and its counterpart. Polarity feature reflects whether the colleague aligns with the self in terms of the attributes predicted of the self in the sentence. He concluded that the interaction of multiple occurrences of emphatic particles within a sentence can best be accounted for using the F-structure notation of LFG. This is because it clearly elucidates the semantic contribution of Emphatic Particles in Japanese. His work does not focus on a case; it discusses the features of the emphatic marker in Japanese.

Lastly, Kayabasi (2022, p. 136) examined the anaphor “kendi” in the Turkish language and asserted that the anaphor also functions as an emphatic marker. The analysis further posits two distinct readings purportedly determined by the marker’s sentential position: one in which it co-occurs with the Determiner Phrase (DP) and functions as a modifier, and another in which it is claimed to modify the Verb Phrase (VP). However, the analysis focused on anaphora constructions in relation to the emphatic marker and not on the interaction between focus construction and emphatic marker.

In all, previous research has shown that there exist emphasis markers across languages. However, the syntactic representation of the interaction of case and focus constructions reveals significant empirical gaps, which the present study seeks to address through a detailed analysis of the Idoma language.

1.5.4 Focus Constructions

 Focus construction is “a construction that is specifically designed to serve an identificational function”. (Baker, 1995). Tallerman (2005) defines it as a transformational process, which involves the movement of constituents in order to focus on a particular phrase, perhaps in order to emphasize it, or else to contrast it with other parts of the clause.

Following Stockwell (1977, p. 157), focus is a way of introducing special marking into the surface structure of the element or constituent that is being focused. There are six types of Noun Phrase focusing. These are:

(a)               Subject NP

(b)              Object NP

(c)               Possessor NP

(d)              Possessed NP

(e)               Object of Preposition NP

(f)                Pronouns

(Arokoyo, 2013, p. 24).

Three out of these focus types (Subject NP, Object NP, and Object of Preposition) are considered in the language under study.

1.6 Data Presentation and Analysis

NP Focusing on Idoma

Focusing is a kind of emphasis that is syntactically marked through a movement transformation (Yusuf, 1989, p. 57). The Idoma language attests to focusing. Different constituents in a sentence can be focused on the surface structure. The particle that serves as the focus marker in Idoma is “nu,” and it heads the Focus Phrase. Therefore, Idoma attests to an ex-situ focus strategy. That is, there is the presence of a focus marker, and focus shows clear evidence of movement. This focus marker is examined as it occurs within the NP.

Subject-NP Focusing in Idoma

 In the Idoma language, focusing the Subject NP does not change the normal SVO order of the language. Therefore, the structure is such that the subject appears in the sentence-initial position, followed by the focus marker and finally the cleft sentence. Consider the following example in (1a),

Basic sentence

1a. ǹ mí gbánͻ̀

I saw bird

‘I saw a bird’

Derived sentence

b.               ǹ nu mí agbánͻ̀-a

I Foc see bird

‘It was me that saw the bird’.

Basic sentence

c.                   Títí hái je ͻ́kpá

Titi be read book

‘Titi reads the book.’

Derived sentence

d.                 Títí nu hái je ͻ́kpá-á

Titi Foc be read book EMP

‘It was Titi that read the book.’

 

Títí, in the subject position of the example (1b) above, undergoes focus transformation by being moved from its case position into the caseless specifier position of FP, thereby creating prominence at the preverbal position through both subject NP movement and the attachment of the focus marker “nu”.

Direct Object- NP Focusing in Idoma

Arokoyo (2013, p. 28) observes that “when the direct object NP is focused, the verb occurs in sentence final position, but this is the case if it is the only object NP, that is, in the absence of the indirect object NP”. This phenomenon is exemplified below:

Basic sentence

2a. ń mí gbánͻ̀

I saw bird

‘I saw a bird.’

Derived sentence

b. Igbánͻ̀ nù mí á

Bird Foc see EMP

‘It was a bird that I saw.’

Basic sentence

b.                  Titi jé lͻ̀kpá

Titi read book

‘Titi read a book.’

Derived sentence

c.                   ͻ̀kpá nu jé-á

book Foc read EMP

‘It was a book that I read’.

 

 

 The attachment of the focus marker ‘nu’ to ‘ͻ̀kpá’, the object of the sentence, further reinforced the focus prominence. A trace of the object and its co-indexed value is visible at the s-structure.

Object of Preposition NP Focusing in Idoma

Idoma attests object of preposition NP focusing. This type of object moves to the specifier position of the focus phrase when it is focused in the Idoma language.

Basic sentence

3a. ͻ́ l ͻ̀kpá gunu bie cὲí gútébúlù

she book kept on table

‘She kept the book on the table.’

Derived sentence

b. ikpɛi gítébúlù nu jͻ̀kpá lͻ́cè- á

head table Foc book kept EMP

‘It is on the table she kept the book’ .

Basic sentence

b.                  ń lɔpá lá ŋmì píhi

I cloth buy at market

‘I bought cloth at the market’.

Derived sentence

c.                   ìpíhi nu la li- á

market Foc buy cloth-EMP

‘It is at the market that I bought cloth’.

 

The object-NP of the preposition at the D-structure is moved from its case position to a caseless preverbal specifier position of FP. The trace of s-structure shows the extraction site of the focused constituent and bears the same index, indicating co-indexation.

1.7 Findings and Discussions

 This section discusses the interaction of focus constructions and case assignment in the Idoma language. It examines the type of case assigned to a focused NP when it is moved from the extraction site to its landing site. According to the case theory, the nominative case is assigned by Tensed INFL to the NP in the subject position. Similarly, the accusative case is assigned by the verb to the NP in the direct object position, and the oblique case is assigned by a preposition to the object of the preposition. The research is interested in determining whether the focused NP retains its original case form in the Idoma language.

 Awoyale (1990), as cited in Arokoyo (2013, p. 74), treats focus as a case feature and argues that the focus marker assigns focus case to the specifier position of FP. This study supports the view that the focus marker assigns an emphatic case to the focused NP in the specifier position of FP. This is because, in the Idoma language, the focus marker co-occurs with the emphatic marker, which appears at the sentence final position. This emphatic marker is not an optional element in focus constructions, for any declarative clause to be grammatical in these two languages, the focus marker and the emphatic marker must be present.

The following data exemplify this in the Idoma language:

Basic Sentence

i.                    ń lͻ̀kpá jé

I book read

‘I read a book’.

Derived Sentence

ii. ͻ̀kpá nu jé á

book Foc read EM

‘It was a book that I read’.

It is observed that the focus marker co-occurs with the emphatic marker. Therefore, any focus construction in which an emphatic marker is not present is considered ungrammatical. As in:

iii.               * ͻ̀kpá nu jé

Book Foc read

‘It was a book that I read’.

A construction like this is ungrammatical in the Idoma language because of the absence of the emphatic marker in the focus construction. The research work found that in the Idoma language, ‘nu’ is a focus marker that assigns semantic prominence to an item. However, this focus marker is not the sole functor in assigning prominence to constituents within a sentence. This is since the emphatic marker ‘á’ licenses the focus in Idoma, and the focus marker licenses the emphatic marker, the construction would be ungrammatical.’ Therefore, the focus marker and the emphatic marker are mutually dependent. Furthermore, the NPs in the subject, direct object, and indirect object positions undergo focus transformation by being moved from their case position into the caseless specifier position of FP, thereby creating a prominence at the preverbal position through both NP movement and the attachment of the focus marker [nu].

1.8 Conclusion

 The interaction between focus construction and case assignment has been examined in this study. It is observed that focus is marked overtly by the morpheme “nu,” which appears after the word being focused. The NPs in the subject, direct object, and indirect object positions undergo focus transformation by being moved from their case position into the caseless specifier position of FP, thereby creating a prominence at the preverbal position through both NP movement and the attachment of the focus marker “nu”. Another important feature of the focus constructions in Idoma is the emphasis marker “á,” which is an obligatory element in any focus construction. Therefore, this study supports the proposition of the Emphatic Case advanced by Arokoyo (2013).

References

Abdullahi, B. (2023). Focus Construction in Afa. Linglit Journal: Scientific Journal of Linguistics and Literature.Vol. 4 No.4 pp 167-179.

Adejoh, M. (2012). Pluralisation in the Idoma Language. Unpublished M.A. thesis submitted to the Department of English. Benue State University, Makurdi

Adeniji, F. (2014). Comparative Phonology of Idoma and Igala Languages. Unpublished B. A Long Essay submitted to the Department of Linguistics and Nigerian Languages, University of Ilorin, Ilorin.

Armstrong, R. (1955). The Idoma-speaking People. In People of the Niger-Benue Confluence: Ethnographic Survey of Africa. London: International African Institute.

Arokoyo, B.E. (2013). Unlocking Morphology. (2^nd Ed.) Ilorin: Chridamel Publishers

Awoyale, Y. (1990). On the Nature and Types of Alpha Movement in Yoruba. University of Ilorin, Mimograph.

Cook, V.J. & Newson, M. (2007). Chomsky’s Universal Grammar: An Introduction. India: Wiley.

Erim, E. (1981). Idoma Nationality 1600-1900: Problem in Studying the Origins and Development of Ethnicity. Enugu: Forth Dimension Publishing Company.

Fillmore, C.J. (1968). The Case for Case. In Bach and Harms (ed): Universals in Linguistic Theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston

Haegeman, L. (1991). Introduction to Government and Binding Theory. Geneva Basil: Blackwell

Horrocks, G. (1987). Generative Grammar. New York: Longman.

Jayeola, W. (2016). Focus Fronting in Zarma. Journal of the Linguistic Association of Nigeria. Supplement 1

Kayabasi, D. (2022). The Emphatic Marker in Turkish: Two Readings. Proceedings of the Workshop on Turkic and Languages in Contact with Turkic. Vol.7 pp. 136-153

Sanusi, I. O. (2017). Introducing the Linguist & Linguistics. (2nd edition) Ibadan: University Press Plc.

Stockwell, R.P. (1977). Foundations of Syntactic Theory. New Jersey: Englewood Cliffs, Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Tallerman, M. (2005). Understanding Syntax. (2^nd Ed). London: British Library.

Umaru, Y. (2016). “The Syntax of Relative Clause Constructions in Idoma: A Government and Binding Approach.”Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis Submitted to the Department of Languages and Linguistics, Nasarawa State University, Keffi.

Yusuf, O. (1989). The Derivation of the Focus Construction in Yoruba: A Problem for the Trace Theory. Journal of the Linguistic Association of Nigeria. Vol. 5 pp.56-68.