Cite this article as: Mohammed, A. (2025). The argument structure and thematic roles of Gbagyi verbal predicates. Sokoto Journal of Linguistics and Communication Studies (SOJOLICS), 1(2), 8–18. https://www.doi.org/10.36349/sojolics.2025.v01i02.002
THE ARGUMENT STRUCTURE AND THEMATIC ROLES OF GBAGYI
“VERBAL PREDICATES.”
By
Adamu Mohammed
M.A Student, Usmanu Danfodiyo University, Sokoto,
Nigeria.
Abstract
This paper
examines the argument structure and thematic roles of Gbagyi verbal predicates
within the framework of Government and Binding Theory using the Theta Theory, a
sub-module of Government of and Binding Theory. Basically, this paper explores
the argument structure and the thematic roles attested in Gbagyi language and
how Gbagyi verbal predicates play a crucial role in theta marking their
arguments. The data collected for this study were drawn from primary and
secondary sources. The analysis reveals that Gbagyi exhibits zero, one, two, and
three-place predicates, and that the subject, direct object, as well as
indirect object positions of the arguments of a predicate are realized
syntactically while thematic roles such as agent, patient, benefactor, goal,
location are realized semantically. This paper serves as a preliminary in this
area. Hence, some key issues could not be addressed in this paper but would be
considered in the subsequent papers.
Keywords: Gbagyi language; Argument structure; Theta
Theory; Thematic Roles; Theta Criterion Principle; Verbal Predicates.
1. Introduction
This paper
provides a preliminary account of the argument structure and thematic roles of
Gbagyi Verbal Predicates within the Theta Theory framework of Government and
Binding Theory. Gbagyi Language is one of the minority languages spoken in
Nigeria. Gbagyi language essentially belongs to the Niger-congo language family
of the Niger Kordofonia group, under the Kwa group (Greenberg, 1963). Today it
is estimated that there are about 6 million Gbagyi people concentrated in the
area in which they occupied (Midah, 2019). The motivation behind this paper
rests on the fact that there is barely any theoretical study on the argument
structure of Gbagyi and whether verbal predicates in Gbagyi exhibit the
thematic roles proposed by Jackendoff (1972), hence, this paper is an attempt
to fill this gap.
Thematic relations
are necessary for determining grammatical arguments. In this way, thematic
theory, or theta theory seeks to characterize possible predicate in overt
syntax. The central question often raised in the literature, is how thematic
roles and grammatical arguments correspond with the linking problem of argument
projection. This will constitute part of the issues to be addressed in this
paper in the discussion of argument structure of Gbagyi as stated earlier.
Argument structure
can be defined from two perspectives: semantic and/or syntactic. It is
therefore bi-dimensional. As a semantic notion, argument structure is a
representation of the central participants in the eventuality (event or state)
expressed by the predicate. On the other hand, as a syntactic notion, argument
structure is a hierarchical representation of the argument required by the
predicate determining how they are expressed in the syntax (Mateu, 2014, p.
24). The semantic aspect of argument structure is generally conceived in terms
of thematic roles which are said to be selected in the lexical entries of the
predicates. The role of argument structure in the lexicon-syntax interface has
been studied from two different perspectives: the projectionist view and the
constructivist (neo) constructionist one.
This therefore
means that there are basically two views of argument structure evident in the
literature. The projectionist approach assumes that the syntax of argument
structure can be argued to be projected from the lexical meaning of the
(verbal) predicate. The proponents of the constructivists/ (neo) constructionists’
approach, on the other hand, argue that the argument structures are (a)
provided with a configurational meaning that is independent from the conceptual
contribution of the verb and (b) constructed out of the lexical entry of the
verb. Thus, the idea of “mapping” from the lexicon to syntax or “linking” of
arguments has no meaning in this second approach; instead, the syntax is said
to narrows down possible semantic interpretations of predicates and arguments.
This paper argues that argument structure at
the lexicon syntax interface is determined by the lexical (typically semantic)
properties of the predicate which have been expressed in terms of thematic
roles or in terms of lexical decompositions of the predicate (i.e the
projectionist account).
2. Literature
review
Theta theory is
one of the sub-modules of Government and Binding Theory which assigns thematic
role to NPs in a given sentence. In GB tradition, theta theory regulates the
distribution of arguments (NPs) in a sentence. The theory is concerned with the
assignment of thematic roles to sentential constituents. Its main principle is
the Theta Criterion, which stipulates that each argument of the verb is
assigned one and only one theta role and that each theta role is assigned to
one and only one argument. In other words, the theta-criterion is the proposed
universal principle which requires that a particular thematic role may occur
only once in a given sentence. The main role of Theta Criterion is to determine
the positions to which NP-movement is possible (Crystal, 1980’). The theory is
also concerned with the functional relationships between a predicate and its
arguments. A predicate theta-marks
its arguments. In other words, it is said to assign theta role to each of its
arguments, that is, the semantic relationship between the verb and noun phrase
of a sentence, such as agent, theme, benefactor, source, goal, experiencer,
instrument, etc. Similarly, in Chomskian Generative Grammar especially with
reference to Government and Binding Theory and Standard Theory of
Transformational Grammar, a theta role is a recognized method for representing
syntactic argument (the number and type of noun phrase) which are required to
show the syntactic structure of a particular verb (Radford, 2009’). These
principles ensure that a verb will be associated with just the right number of
lexical arguments. For instance, a transitive verb like “destroy” is associated
with two lexical arguments and the theta criterion will ensure that it occurs
with two lexical NPs. In a sentence like “Musa
destroys the car”. The verb “destroy”
will assign the role of agent and theme to its subject and object
respectively.
Theta Criterion Principle:
a.
Each
argument is associated with one theta role
b.
Each
theta role is associated with one argument
Thematic roles
By thematic roles
Chomsky means what are sometimes called semantic roles. Roles such as agent,
patient, beneficiary, source, theme, goal, etc, are some of the theta roles
assigned to arguments within the theta theory. It is assumed that these are
assigned to the complements of lexical items as lexical property. This is
because lexical head carry thematic information; they are associated with a
number of arguments to which they assign a thematic role or theta role.
Thematic roles
used by researchers in GB framework originate from the early work connected
with lexical semantics, especially Fillmore (1968) and Gruber (1965). Both
Fillmore and Gruber postulate a finite set of underlying categories which serve
to unite the semantic and syntactic levels.
Fillmore (1968)
believes that case which is an
“underlying syntactic-semantic relationship”. Case can be identified both
semantically and syntactically. The semantic identification proceeds through
pointing intuitive natural classes based on the way in which we conceptualize
states and events, whereas the syntactic identification is done by showing
covert grammatical distinctions in the ways in which nominal behave in the
syntax.
Fillmore (1968)
suggests that the following cases exist: agentive, dative, instrumental,
factive, locative, objective, (sentential and nominal), benefactive, and
temporal (p. 24-25).
Gruber (1965,
1976) proposed a set of thematic
relations, originate based on verbs of motion. Working in the context of
the Standard Theory, Gruber proposed a prelexical categorical structure deeper
than the level of deep structure in syntax (p. 2). This structure provides a
base for the syntactic structure and at the same time provides the meaning
relations between the parts of a sentence. The verb is central element in the
prelexical structure, other elements are given roles associated with particular
verbs. The basic role is Theme, others are given roles include: Location, Goal,
Source, and Agent.
In a research by
Linguists spanning more than half a century, the exact number of thematic roles
have remained contentious amongst Linguists. In the light of the foregoing,
attempts have been made to devise a universal typology of the semantic roles
played by arguments in relation to their predicates. The system was further
elaborated by Jackendoff (1972) and incorporated into the theta theory module
of the GB framework. Below are listed number of terms used to describe some of
these roles and for each role an informal gloss is given alongside an
illustrative example and the semantic role is indicated by means of
italics.
Table 1: List of
roles played by arguments with respect to their predicates.
|
Role |
Gloss |
Examples |
|
THEME |
Entity undergoing the effect of some
action |
Maryam fell over |
|
AGENT |
Entity instigating some action |
Musa killed John |
|
EXPERIENCER |
The entity experiencing some
psychological state |
I like syntax |
|
LOCATIVE |
Place in which something is situated or
take place |
He hid it under the bed |
|
GOAL |
The entity representing the destination
of some other entity |
Musa went home |
|
SOURCE |
The entity from which something moves |
He returns from Sokoto |
|
INSTRUMENT |
Means used to perform some action |
He hit it with a hammer |
Adapted from (Radford, 2009, p. 246)
3. Theoretical Framework
This study is
carried out within the Government and Binding Theory otherwise known as
principles and parameter approach. It is a model of grammar which is said to be
a descendant of extended standard theory and ultimately of a classical
transformational grammar. In particular, the work employs the sub-module of
grammar known as Theta theory (Chomsky, 1981 & 1986).
4. Methodology
This research is
qualitative in nature, because it involves an in-depth analysis and description
of data collected. Relevant data collected for this paper were drawn from
primary and secondary sources which comprises of a wordlist, recorded
interview, personal observation, internet, journals, and phone calls where
necessary.
5. Data
Presentation and Analysis
The term argument
structure is seen as a focal point for the understanding of grammatical
structure of any human language. The term according to Matexu (2014) can be
defined from two perspectives: Semantic and Syntactic. He defines it
semantically as an argument structure that is concerned with the representation
of the central participants in the eventually (event or state) expressed by the
predicate. On the other hand, it is syntactically a hierarchical representation
of the argument required by the predicate determining how they are expressed in
syntax. Hence, the argument structure comprises of a set of thematic roles
associated with a predicate determining the well-formedness of a given sentence
which plays a very pertinent role in predicting or determining whether or not a
given sentence is grammatical or structurally well-formed. Thus, the present
paper provides an account of the numerous thematic roles assigned to arguments
by verbal predicate in Gbagyi sentences. The roles performed by different arguments
include: agent, patient, theme, source,
location, goal etc. These different terms are used to refer to the thematic
roles performed by argument in relation to the predicate in Gbagyi clauses or
sentences. Furthermore, in this paper, Gbagyi predicates are classified on the
basis of their argument structure as well as the number of thematic roles in a
given sentence. Thus, it is exemplified in the paper that each predicate
correlates with a set of arguments.
Theta Grid and Means of Representing Argument
Structure in Gbagyi Language
Haegeman (1991)
argues that the semantic relationship between the predicate and its argument is
part of the lexical knowledge of a native speaker and hence be recorded in the
lexicon. Rather than merely specifying the
number of arguments of a predicate, one may also imagine a representation which
specifies the type of semantic roles of these arguments. The representation of
these semantic roles of arguments are represented by means of thematic grid or
theta grid in Government and Binding Theory. These semantic roles are assumed
to be part of lexical entry of the predicate. For instance, the lexical
representation for the Gbagyi predicate wú“kill”
is represented by means of thematic grid in (1) below:
1. wú “kill” → Agent Patient
NP1 NP2
The thematic grid above specifies that the predicate wú “kill” assigns two thematic roles (agent and patient) to the arguments as illustrated in example (1). However,
some linguists are of the view that the syntactic category realizing the
thematic role should be represented in the thematic grid of a predicate as NP1
and NP2 as oppose to agent and patient format. These two syntactic categories
are used in the analysis of this study for better illustration and
comprehension.
Consider the examples below:
2 a. Musa nàwúolū
“wú” (to kill) < NP1˃ < NP2 ˃
<AGENT˃
<PATIENT˃ <verb>
Musa
PST kill bird
‘Musa
killed a bird’
b. *Musa nawú
*Musa
killed
Sentence (2a)
clearly shows that the predicate requires two essential arguments and not more.
If for any reason one of the arguments is omitted, the sentence will be
rendered ungrammatical as illustrated in (2b). This example is true of both
Gbagyi and English language. Thus, in (2a), the predicatewú “kill” theta marked two essential arguments where the first is
the subject NP, which has the thematic role of an “agent” and the second is the
object NP, which has the thematic role of “patient”. Apparently, the Gbagyi
sentence in (2a) and (b) could be said to be the same as its English equivalent
based on the number and nature of the arguments involved.
Additionally, one
criterion for judging whether a sentence is grammatical, is that, the thematic
roles associated with its predicate(s) must be assigned to arguments. These
arguments must be structurally realized. On the other hand, the referring NPs
in the sentence must bear some semantic relation to a predicate (Haegeman,
1991, p. 44).
Thematic Roles and their Arguments in Gbagyi Verbal
Predicate
According to
Radford (2009) the semantic roles played by the arguments in an event or state
of being are known as thematic roles or theta roles. Thus, many scholars in
this field have maintained that thematic role is the underlying relationship
which the participants of a sentence or argument (as they are called in theta
description) have with (main) verb in a clause (Muhammad, 2014). Based on the
above view, it is assumed that for any phrase or sentence to be analyzed using
the theta theory analysis, it must contain a predicate and an argument. For the purpose of explicit discussion, we
shall categorize Gbagyi verbal predicates into the following:
i.
Zero predicate which requires no predicates at all.
ii.
One-place predicate which takes only one argument,
iii.
Two-place predicate which takes two essential arguments,
iv.
Three-place argument which takes three essential arguments and,
The above
constituents were consider based on the data drawn from native speakers of
Gbagyi and the L2 knowledge of the researcher. Both Primary and Secondary
method of data collection was employed, which involved face to face contact
with the respondents. The native speakers were drawn from all walks of life
ranging from old, young, both males and females which number about seven (7) of
them between the age of 18 and above who have the innate capability to speak
Gbagyi language, residing in different location in the Federal Capital
Territory, Abuja and Niger state respectively. The Matai dialect is used for
the data analysis.
On the one hand,
we rely heavily on Philip and Shehi (2004) for Gbagyi orthography and
morphological structure, while on the other hand, on Hyman and Daniel (1970)
for the syntactic structure.
Zero Predicate
Zero predicate
requires no predicate at all for a proposition to be grammatically acceptable
in a language. Gbagyi language is one of these languages that exhibit sentences
or clauses that are grammatically complete containing zero predicate and still features the thematic role as exemplify in
the sentences below:
3 a. Lùzhíyàlón’fá
Well
there in farm
‘There
is well in the farm’
b. N’Bwari n-jésùnn’Amac Area Council
In
Bwari in Amac
‘In
Bwari and in Amac Area Council’
c. N’fáizàa-píwoí
In
farmer’s PL house new
‘In
the farmer’s new houses’
d. Núwán-zhénàsànyímwāló
Flood
PST harm plenty
‘Flood has so many harmful effects’
Sentence (3a-d)
above indicate that there are no predicates in the Gbagyi sentences, yet the
sentences are grammatically complete and acceptable in the language. Thus, the
PP and NP arguments “nfá” (in the farm), “Amac LGA” and “mwāló” (plenty) all
has the thematic role of “location”.
The PP and NP arguments “Luzhiya” (well), “Bwari” and “n’fáizá” (in farmer’s)
all has the thematic role of an “agent”
while the NP argument “núwán-zhé” (flood) in (d) has the thematic role of “force” because it is a non-volitionary
action or event. It is evident in the sentences above that zero predicate exist
in Gbagyi language. The analysis also revealed that determiner “the” is
abstract, while preposition is embedded in the NP as an affix (n-’).
One-place verbal predicate
However, in the
case of one-place verbal predicate such as, “wāngyé” (to sleep), “búsí” (to
run), etc. The argument requirement of these kinds of verbal predicates is
essentially only one, therefore, necessitating the assignment of only one
thematic role to them, unlike the verbal predicate in (2a) that is assigned two
arguments. This type of verbal predicate is referred to as one place predicate
and it is further illustrated below:
4.
Aliyu yìnnwāgyē (nwāgyē) “to sleep” < NP1>
<AGENT> <verb>
Aliyu
PST sleep
‘Aliyu
slept’
In (4), the subject NP Aliyu is the
essential argument for the predicate “wāngyé” (to sleep) which has the thematic
role of an “agent”, in fact, this
type of verbal predicate allows for only one essential argument and any form of
addition (i.e at the object position) is regarded as adjunct which is only
there to provide additional information as to the time, manner, or place the
event in question took place. This particularly predicate in Gbagyi requires
only one essential argument, which also correspond to its English counterpart.
Below are further illustrations on how
Gbagyi verbal predicates assign only one thematic role to only one essential
argument. Verbal predicates that take “agent” as their only essential argument
are considered in the following examples below:
5 a. Zhíɓeîyìnkùɓé (kùɓé) ‘to come’ < NP1>
<AGENT> <verb>
Visitor
PST come
‘The
visitor came’
b. Āɓichiɓúiló (chiɓúi) ‘to cry’ <
NP1>
<AGENT>
<verb>
Children
cry GER
‘The
children are crying’
NOTE: The marker (GER) is used in
indicating a progressive tense.
The Gbagyi verbal predicate that requires
“theme” as essential argument is illustrated in the sentence below:
6. Shínwāyìnmwá (mwa) ‘grow’ < NP1>
<THEME> <verb>
Tree
PST grow
‘The tree grew’
In sentence (6), the NP “shínwā” in the
subject position is the only essential argument for the predicate “mwá” (to
grow) which has the thematic role of “theme”.
Below are some examples of predicates that contain the same thematic role
(theme).
7 a. Bmánágyínàlō (gyínà) ‘to burn’ <
NP1>
<THEME> <verb>
Bush burn GER
‘The
bush is burning’
b. Núwánzhélō (zhé) ‘to flow’ < NP1>
<THEME> <verb>
Water
flow GER
‘The
water is flowing’
There are some verbal predicates in Gbagyi
that take “patient” as an essential argument. These arguments that undergoes
this action are usually animate in nature. Consider the examples below:
8. Musa yìnfyí (fyí) ‘to die’ <NP1>
<PATIENT><verb>
Musa PST die
‘Musa died’
In sentence (8), the subject NP “Musa” is
the only essential argument for the predicate “fyí” (die) which has the
thematic role of “patient”. The
sentence is structurally and grammatically correct both in Gbagyi and English
language with one essential argument having the thematic role of “patient”.
Consider below other examples of predicates with one essential argument bearing
the thematic role of patient.
9 a. Aliyu kūɓè (kūɓè) ‘to tire’
<NP1>
<
PATIENT > <verb>
Aliyu
tire
‘Aliyu is tired’
b. Akú Aliyu lù (lù) ‘to beat’ < NP1
>
<
PATIENT > <verb>
PST
Aliyu beat
‘Aliyu
was beaten’
Some Gbagyi verbal predicates take
experiencer as their only essential argument and this experiencer can be mental
or physical in nature. Consider the following example.
10. Zākowîyìnkpáshìnyìpěi (kpáshì) ‘to
cough’ < NP1>
<EXPERIENCER>
<verb>
Oldman
PST cough in evening
‘The
oldman coughed in the evening’
In (10), the subject NP “zākowî” (oldman)
is the experiencer and the essential argument for the predicate “kpáshì” (to
cough) and the PP “nyìpěi” (in the evening) is an adverb, telling us the time
the event took place. It is regarded as an adjunct and therefore not an
obligatory constituent. Note that if the NP voluntarily cough to draw the
attention of someone, it is then regarded as an agent rather than experiencer.
The view above is also the same as its English equivalent. Below are some other
examples with similar predicates whose essential arguments are experiencer.
11 a.
Aliyu vìnvín lō (vìnvín) ‘to shake’ < NP1 >
<EXPERIENCER><verb>
Aliyu shake
‘Aliyu is shaking’
b. Omi nuƙótòwò-ndàn (tòwò-ndàn) ‘to
displease’ < NP1>
<EXPERIENCER>
<verb>
My friend PST
displeased
‘My
friend was displeased’
The sentences
(4-11) specify that Gbagyi verbal predicates assign only one thematic role. In
order words, its exhibit one-place predicate which require only one essential
argument. Any additional constituent that is added to sentence is to provide
additional information about the event and it is not necessarily to make the
sentence complete. Whether or not the constituent is added the sentence still
remain grammatically complete, as exemplify in sentence (10) above. Apparently, this is also true of its English
counterpart.
Two-Place Predicates
In the preceding
paragraphs, we have discussed zero predicates and one-place predicates. Now,
shall we look at another interesting aspect of Gbagyi verbal predicate known as
two-place predicate. The two-place predicate requires two essential arguments
in a given sentence for it to be grammatical complete as illustrated in
sentence (13) below. The verbal predicate “gúyā” (to open) is associated with
two arguments which include “agent” and
“theme”. The thematic role of “agent” is assigned to Aliyu and “theme” to the kpákòyā“the
door”. However, the verbal predicate “gúyā” (to open) in Gbagyi may also
express change of an entity depending on the context of use. For instance, if
it indicates the change of state of an entity without indicating the actor, it
is said to be intransitive as illustrated in (12) below:
12. Kpákò n gúyā (gúyā) ‘to open’ <
NP1>
<THEME>
Door
PST open
‘The door opened’
In (12), the subject NP “kpákò” (the door)
is used in the sentence above along with the inchoactive predicate “gúyā” (to
open) which indicate the change of state that occurred without an actor in one
hand. On the other hand, the same inchoactive predicate can be used in another
context but this time indicating who or what brought about the change. Consider
the example below:
13. Aliyu nágúkpákóyā (gúyā) ‘to open’
< NP1>< NP2 >
<AGENT><
THEME ><verb>
Aliyu
PST open door
‘Aliyu
opened the door’
Below are other examples of predicates in
Gbagyi that take “agent” and “theme” as their essential arguments.
14 a. Aliyu námìshinwányà (mì) “to uproot”
< NP1 >< NP2 >
<AGENT><
THEME ><verb>
Aliyu
PST uproot tree
‘Aliyu
uprooted the tree’
b. Ābùsí-bíyìdànáwànōvì (wàn) ‘to arrest’
< NP1 >< NP2 >
<AGENT><
THEME ><verb>
Policemen
PST arrest thief
‘The
policemen arrested the thief’
Consider the example below containing the
verbal predicate “wú” (to kill) in Gbagyi. The predicate “wú” (kill) assigns
the thematic roles of “agent” and
“patient”, hence it requires two arguments (one external argument and the
second, internal argument), as illustrate below:
15. Aliyu náwúŌmŭi (wú) ‘kill’ <
NP1>< NP2 >
<AGENT><PATIENT><verb>
Aliyu
PST kill dog
‘Aliyu
killed a dog’
In (15), the subject NP Aliyu is the
external argument which is refers to an “agent”
that performed the action of killing “Ōmŭi” (dog) which takes the object
position as internal argument and has the thematic role of a “patient” and also the element who
suffers the action of Aliyu in the course of the event. If for any reason one
of the arguments (i.e NP1 or NP2) is omitted in the sentence, the sentence will
be rendered ungrammatical as illustrated in (16) below:
16 a. *Aliyu náwú
<AGENT><verb>
Aliyu kill
*Aliyu
killed
b. *Aliyu náwúŌmŭinyàkú
<AGENT><verb><PATIENT><?>
*Aliyu
kill dog the room
*Aliyu
killed the dog the room
Sentence (16a) above has been explained in
the beginning of the analysis. It is however cited here to make sentence (b)
explicit and comprehensive to the reader. The NP “patient” is an obligatory
constituent and its omission in sentence like (16a) will raise the question
‘what did Aliyu killed?’ Hence, sentence (16a) is regarded ungrammatical in
both Gbagyi and its English counterpart because the second (NP2) “patient” in the sentence is omitted
and it is therefore unacceptable in the grammar of both languages.
Now we can see that only arguments are
required. In sentence (16a), the absence of NP2 renders the sentence
ungrammatical because it was not assigned any thematic role in the object
position while in sentence (b), an additional NP was added to the sentence. The
additional NP cannot be assigned a thematic role because the Gbagyi verbal
predicate “wú” (to kill) only requires two thematic roles, in this case, which
are already assigned to the subject NP and the object NP respectively. For
sentence (b) to be grammatical, the preposition “ín” must be inserted and it will thereby assign the thematic role
of “location” to the “nyàkú”.
For a thematic role of a predicate to be
entered correctly, it must be entered in the index of argument to which
thematic role is assigned as shown in theta grid (1) above. However, when we
try to do the same for (16a) for instance, the theta grid will be left unfilled
and one thematic role will not be assigned any thematic role while (b) cannot
be assigned additional thematic role because it has no place in the theta grid.
This is because the requirement is that each thematic role of a verbal
predicate must be assigned an argument (NP) and that there must be no NPs that
lack a thematic role (Haegeman, 1991). Hence, we shall further illustrate more
sentences containing other thematic roles.
Below are other examples of verbal
predicates that take “agent” and “patient” in Gbagyi sentences:
17 a. Aliyu náyā Maryam (yā) ‘to chase’
< NP1>< NP2 >
<AGENT><PATIENT><verb>
Aliyu
PST chase Maryam
‘Aliyu
chased Maryam’
b. Musa názūn Aliyu (zūn) ‘to hit’ <
NP1 >< NP2 >
<AGENT><PATIENT><verb>
Musa
PST hit Maryam
‘Musa
hit Aliyu’
Note that predicates which take two
arguments like the ones above are known as transitive verbs and that the
arguments at subject NP position is termed “external argument” while the
argument at object NP position is termed “internal argument”.
We shall consider below some of the
predicates in Gbagyi which take “agent” and “goal” as their essential arguments
in a given sentence for it to be grammatically complete as illustrated in (18)
below:
18. Ōvìlāgyìwěwyímì (wyí) ‘to steal’ <
NP1 ><NP2 >
<AGENT><GOAL><verb>
Thief
PST money stealmy
‘The
thief has stolen my money’
In sentence (18), the subject NP “Ōvì”
(the thief) has the thematic role of an “agent”
and “gyìwě” (the money) has the thematic role of “goal”. From the foregoing analysis, it is apparent that both
Gbagyi and English language share similar argument structure in sentence (18)
based on the number and nature of the arguments in the sentence.
Below are other examples that share
similar features like that of (18):
19 a. Musa yìngúnshìnwâ (gun) ‘to climb’
< NP1 >< NP2 >
<AGENT><GOAL><verb>
Musa
PST climb tree
‘Musa
climbed the tree’
b. Ābùsí-bíyìdàkūshégùnzhí (shégùn) ‘to
surround’ < NP1 >< NP2 >
<AGENT><GOAL><verb>
Policemen
PST surround city
‘The policemen surrounded the city’
Some of the Gbagyi predicates that take
“theme” and “experiencer” as their essential arguments are predicates that
involves emotion or experiencing some psychological state of being (that is,
feels or perceives an event) as in (20) below:
20
a. Aliyu nágyēgóffì (gyē) “to see” < NP1><NP2>
<THEME><EXPERIENCER><verb>
Aliyu
PST see rat
‘Aliyu
saw a rat’
b. Musa zhínwāyēānyádúyì (wāyē) “to like”
< NP1>< NP2 >
<EXPERIENCER><THEME><verb>
Musa
use like PL cooky
‘Musa
likes cookies’
In sentence (20a-b), Aliyu and Musa has
the thematic role of an “experiencer” having
undergone some sensory or emotional input and “góffì” (rat) and “ānyádúyì”
(cookies) has the thematic role of “theme”.
Three-
Place Predicates
A three- place predicate requires three
essential arguments in a given sentence to be grammatically complete. For this
to happen, the argument structure of the predicates must determine which
elements of the sentence are obligatory. For instance, if a verbal predicate
expresses an activity involving three arguments, there will have to be at least
three constituents in the sentence to enable these arguments to be expressed
clearly.
Therefore, a speaker of Gbagyi for
instance who knows the meaning of the word “gá” (give), and what it expressed,
he will also know how many participants (i.e arguments or NPs) that are
involved.
In Gbagyi, “gá” (give) just like English
involves three participants and hence will be expected to take three essential
arguments. If one of these arguments is realized as subject of the sentence, it
follows that “gá” (give) will select two VP-complements as illustrated in
sentence (21).
However, we should also note that the
verbal predicate “ga” (give) may not necessarily subcategorises for an NP.
Haegeman (1991) believes that arguments can be realised by other categories
other than NP, and that argument structure of the predicate predicts the number
of constituents needed but not necessarily the type.
These set of verbal predicates are
described as ditransitive verbs and they correspond to that of their English
equivalent. Consider the following examples below:
21 a. Musa ɓòlá Maryam gágyìwē (gá) “to
give” <NP1><NP2><NP3>
<AGENT><THEME><
RECIPIENT><verb>
Musa
PST Maryam give money
‘Musa
gave Maryam the money’
b. Musa ɓòlágyìwēgá Maryam “to give”
<NP1><NP2><NP3>
<AGENT><RECIPIENT><THEME><verb>
Musa
PST money give Maryam
‘Musa
gave the money to Maryam’
In the above examples (21a-b), it shows a
ditransitive sentence that contain three essential arguments. The verbal
predicate “gá” (to give) allows for two types realizations of its arguments as
shown in (21a) and (b), which indicate that the second argument of “gá” (to
give) is either realized as an NP as in (21a) or as a PP as in (b). We can say
that the verbal predicate in Gbagyi has demonstrated that the indirect object
construction of (21a) and (b) has the recipient in indirect object position,
either with a preposition as in (b) or without a preposition as in (21a).
Just like the verbal predicate in (21a),
another verbal predicate that requires three arguments is “sī” (to buy).
Consider the examples below:
22 a. Aliyu ɓòlákyèkyésīgá Musa (sī) ‘to
buy’ < NP1 >< NP2 ><NP3 >
<AGENT><THEME><RECIPIENT><verb>
Aliyu
PST bicycle buy Musa
‘Aliyu
bought Musa a bicycle’
b. Aliyu ɓòlákyèkyésī (sī) ‘to buy’
<NP1><NP2><NP3>
<AGENT><THEME><implicit><verb>
Aliyu
PST buy bicycle
‘Aliyu
bought a bicycle’
In (22a), the verbal predicate “sī” (buy)
contains three arguments. The argument NP “Musa” can be absence, but as a
result the meaning of the sentence may not obviously or easily be understood.
While in (b), it will be taken to mean that “Aliyu” bought the bicycle for
himself. The action expressed in (b) still implicitly involves someone for whom
the bicycle is bought. This means that sentence (b) contain an unexpressed or
implicit argument at the indirect object position which the speaker is believed
to have deliberately left out; what Haegeman describes as the native speaker’s
intuitive knowledge of a language.
Consider below some example of verbal
predicates in Gbagyi that contain three essential arguments. Some these Gbagyi
predicate takes the following thematic roles: “agent”, “theme” and “location”
as their essential arguments for the construction to be grammatically
acceptable. Consider the following examples below:
23 a. Aliyu yáɗnàɗaîyázhílō n zákùbá
(yázhílō) “to put” <NP1><NP2><NP3>
<AGENT><THEME><LOCATION><verb>
Aliyu
driving thing put ACC garage
‘Aliyu
put the car in the garage’
b. Musa kpégyēyàtólō n shìnkpégyē (yàtólō)
“to keep” <NP1><NP2><NP3>
<AGENT><THEME><LOCATION><verb>
Musa book kept ACC table
‘Musa
kept the book on the table’
In sentence (23a), the subject NP “Aliyu”
has the thematic role of “agent”,
the NP “yáɗnàɗaî” (the car) is the “theme”
and “zákùbá” (garage) has the thematic role of “location”. This analysis is the same as in (b). It is also
grammatically complete and equivalent to its English counterpart based on the
number and nature of the argument structure. However, if the “location” is
removed in sentence (b), it still stands correct and grammatically acceptable
in Gbagyi but otherwise in English as shown in (24) below:
24. Abu gînwōi-fínúwán (wōi-f) “to fill”
<NP1><NP2><‒>
<+AGENT><+THEME><‒LOCATION><verb>
Abu
here fill water<NP1>
*Abu
is filling water
Unlike Gbagyi, sentence (24) in a language
like English is not grammatically acceptable because the “agent” and “theme”
are not enough to make the sentence complete without the thematic role of “location”. Thus, sentence of this
nature in English needs the thematic role of “location” to be grammatically
complete. Consequently, the predicates “yázhìlō” (to put) and “yàtólō” (to
keep) in (22a and b) can also be used in Gbagyi as instransitive verb with the
absence of the thematic role of “location” and the sentence will still remain
grammatically complete as shown in (25) below:
25 a. Aliyu yáɗnàɗaîyazhilo (yázhìlō) “to
put” <NP1><NP2><‒>
<AGENT><THEME><
><verb>
Aliyu
driving thing put
*Aliyu
put the car
b. Musa kpégyēyàtólō (yàtólō) “to keep”
<NP1><NP2><‒>
<AGENT><THEME><‒><verb>
Musa
book keep
*Musa
kept the book
Sentence (25a and b) above in Gbagyi is
grammatically acceptable but is not in English because the location argument is
obligatory and it is missing.
Some predicates in Gbagyi that require
three essential arguments such as “agent”, “theme” and “source” as shown in the
example below:
26. Másīlōmûiyē n gīnkónū (sī) “to buy”
<NP1><NP2><NP3>
<AGENT><THEME><SOURCE><verb>
I
buy orange this ACC market from
‘I
bought this orange from the market’
In (26), the subject NP “Ma” (I) has the
thematic role of an “agent”, the NP
“lōmûi” (orange) has the thematic role of “theme”
and the PP “n gīnkónū” (from the market) has the thematic role of “source”. This analysis can be said to
correspond to its English equivalent on the basis of the nature and number of
arguments in the sentence. Just like the anaylsis in (25a and b), sentence (26)
can be grammatically complete and acceptable in Gbagyi without the thematic
role of "source". Thus, “agent” and “theme” role is enough to make
the sentence meaningful in Gbagyi as illustrated in ((27) below:
27. Mɓêisīlōmûiyē (sī) “to buy”
<NP1><NP2><‒>
<AGENT><THEME><verb><‒>
I
have buy orange this
‘I
have bought this orange’
The examples below examine Gbagyi
predicates that require “agent”, “patient” and “instrument” as their essential
arguments in a given sentence.
28 a. Musa náwúnàkó n bídìgá (wú) “to
kill” <NP1><NP2><NP3>
<AGENT><PATIENT><INSRUMENT><verb>
Musa
PST kill cow ACC gun
‘Musa killed the cow with a gun’
b. Wòsámìyá n ōɓê (sá) “to cut”
<NP1><NP2><NP3>
<AGENT><PATIENT><INSRUMENT><verb>
He cut me ACC knife
‘He cut me with a knife’
In (28a and b), the subject NP “Musa” and
“Wò” (he) has the thematic role of an “agent”,
the direct object NP “nàkó” (cow) and “mi” (me) has the thematic role of a “patient” and the indirect object NP “ōɓê”
(knife) and “bídìgá” (gun) has the thematic role of “instrument”. If for any reason one of the arguments is omitted in
the sentence(s), it will be ill-formed or ungrammatical in both Gbagyi and
English language.
Apparently, we
have so far examined in this paper the analysis of the argument structure and
thematic roles of verbal predicates in Gbagyi within the precinct of Theta
Theory, a sub-theory of GB. We have been able to identify and discuss the
various relevant thematic roles proposed by Jackendoff (1972) side by side the
argument structure of Gbagyi verbal predicates.
6. Discussion of findings
Basically, the
analysis reveals that Gbagyi predicate employs zero-place predicate, one-place
predicate, two-place predicate, and three-place predicates and all these are
explored and analysed within the theta theory as enshrined in the GB framework.
In addition,
Predicates play a pertinent role in determining the nature and number of
argument structure and also shows that predicate in Gbagyi consist of a single
syllable stem.
Inchoactive
predicate is found in Gbagyi and inflectional morphemes are not attached to
root words such as the prefix “ná”
and “ɓòlá” areusedtoindicate past
form, with an exception “ā” that is
use to indicate plurality and they are all attached word initial.
Both “ná” and “ɓòlá” precede predicates, while
“ā” precede nouns and the suffix “lō”
is used to indicate gerund and it appears word final position. Similary, the
affix “yîn” indicates nominative case
while “n” indicates accusative case.
7. Conclusion
On a final note,
this paper is a preliminary investigation regarding this area; it serves a
source of reference and information regarding the working of Theta Theory, a
sub-module of GB
There are other several issues that have not been addressed such as; expletives, alternation, causastive, locative predicates amongst others. All these will be addressed in our subsequent discussions.
References
Adamu,
M. (2015). A study on the argument structure of Gbagyi verbs[Unpublished
B.A. project]. UsmanuDanfodiyo University, Sokoto.
Chomsky,
N. (1981). Lectures ongovernment and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
Chomsky,
N. (1986). Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Crystal,
D. (2003). A dictionary of linguistics and phonetics (6th ed.). Oxford:
Blackwell Publishing.
Fillmore,
C. J. (1968). The case for case. In E. Bach & R. Harms (Eds.), Universals
in linguistic theory (pp. 1–88). New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart& Winston.
Greenberg,
J. H. (1963). The languages of Africa. Bloomington, IN: Indiana
University Press.
Grimshaw,
J. (1990). Argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Gruber,
J. (1976). Lexical structures in syntax and semantics. Amsterdam:
North-Holland.
Haegeman,
L. (1991). Introduction to government and binding theory. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Haegeman,
L. (1994). Introduction to government and binding (2nd ed.). Oxford:
Blackwell.
Hassan,
E., & Kareem, D. (2018). Thematic roles in English. Ministry of
Higher Education and Scientific Research, Qadisiyah University.
Hyman,
L., & Daniel, J. M. (1970). Essentials of Gwarii grammar. Ibadan,
Nigeria: Institute of African Studies.
Jackendoff,
R. (1972). Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
Jackendoff,
R. (1990). Semantic structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Malmkjar,
K., & Anderson, J. (1991). The linguistic encyclopedia. New York,
NY: Routledge.
Marantz,
A. (1984). On the nature of grammatical relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Mateu,
J. (2004). Argument structure: The Routledge handbook of syntax. New
York, NY: Routledge.
Midah,
K. A. (2019). Agbari in perspective. Gwagwalada, Nigeria: SMK T & K
Venture Global Ltd.
Muhammad,
A. U. (2014). An analysis of theta role of verbs in Hausa [Unpublished
M.A. dissertation]. University of Malaya.
Muhammad,
A. B. (2012). A comparative study of Hausa and Gbagyi sound systems
[Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation]. Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria.
Muhammad,
I. (2016). On the morpho-syntactic structure of NPs in Gbagyi: A binding
theoretic approach [Unpublished M.A. dissertation]. UsmanuDanfodiyo
University, Sokoto.
Philip,
A. N., &Sheshi, N. (2004). The Gbari orthography. Jos University
Press.
Radford,
A. (2009). Analyzing English sentences: A minimalist approach.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rosendall,
E. P. (1992). A phonological study of Gwarilects. Summer Institute of
Linguistics, Inc.
Sharma,
N. (2013). Argument structure of Puma. Working Papers in Linguistics, 16,
236–255.
0 Comments