Cite this article as: Akinwande, Ọ. (2025). Topic constructions in Ọ̀họ̀rí Yorùbá. Sokoto Journal of Linguistics and Communication Studies (SOJOLICS), 1(2), 26–36. https://www.doi.org/10.36349/sojolics.2025.v01i02.004
TOPIC CONSTRUCTIONS IN Ọ̀HỌ̀RÍ YORÙBÁ
By
Ọlaide Akinwande
University
of Lagos
Abstract
This study
addresses the relative lack of scholarly attention to topic constructions in
Yorùbá, with particular focus on Ọ̀họ̀rí, a Yorùbá dialect spoken in WestYorùbá
areas (Oyelaran 1976, Adeniyi 2000), specifically Kétu and its surrounding
communities in Yewa North Local Government Area of Ogun State, Nigeria. Data
for the study were elicited from twelve native speakersof Ọ̀họ̀rí drawn from
Kétu, Asá, and Ègùwá. The analysis is framed within the Minimalist Program
(Chomsky1995, 1998, 2002) and theory of Information Structure (Halliday 1994;
Erteschik-Shir 2007; van der Wal et al. 2025). The findings show that a wide
range of constituents, including noun phrases, tense phrases, and conditional
clauses, can undergo topicalisation in Ọ̀họ̀rí. The study also examines the
syntactic positions of topic elements, drawing on the regions identified in
Bamgbọṣe (1990), and proposes two structural representations for topic
projections in the dialect. Finally, the paper discusses the semantics of topic
constructions in Ọ̀họ̀rí Yorùbá, an aspect that has received little or no
attention in existing Yorùbá linguistic literature.
Keywords: Information
Structure, Ọ̀họ̀rí, Projections, Topic Elements, Semantics,
1. Introduction
Topicalisation
is a universal syntactic phenomenon. Different definitions with different
approaches have been offered on topicalisation. Prince (1998:181) defines
topicalisation as a mechanism of syntax that establishes an expression as
sentence or clause topic by having it appear at the front of the sentence or
clause as against canonical position further to the right. Radford
(2004:361-362) describes topicalization as an expression which represents ‘old’
or ‘familiar’ information. Oyelaran (1993:164) conceives topicalisation as a
process of separating the topicalised elements from the clause by a pragmatic
pause, represented orthographically with a comma. All the definitions signal
that topicalisation is a transformation process, which alters word order of
basicclause to construct higher syntactic expressions in natural language. In
the next section, we review previous works on topic constructions.
2. Review
of Previous Studies on Topic
Constructions
Oyelaran (1993)investigates
anti-focus and topicalisation in Yorùbá from the syntactic point of view. It
asserts that topicalisation foregrounds old information and moves the
foregrounded element to the beginning of the sentence. The processseparates the
foregrounded element from the rest of the clause by a pragmatic pause,
represented orthographically with a comma. It stresses that when a subject NP
is topicalised, the subject NP moves to the discourse position and leaves a
pro-form in the extraction site. This present study shows that it is not only
NP that can be topicalised in Ọ̀họ̀rí. Other constituents such asPP, Adverbs,
etc., can as well be topicalised as evident in Ọ̀họ̀rí.Awoyale (1995) discusses topic constructionin Yorùbá from a syntactic perspective. The paper
claims that topic construction moves constituents (mostly NPs) from a
convergent derivation to the clause-initial position for emphasis. It states
that there is a brief pause which immediately follows the topicalised nominals,
usually indicated by a comma. It posits that every topicalised constituent
leaves a gap or trace in the basic clause from which it is raised to the
clause-initial position.Thearticle concludes that unlike focused constituents
which range over NPsand nominalised V/VP, topicalised constituents are usually
NPs. The current study debates that it is not only NPs that can be
topicalised. Other constituents such as TP, PP, conditional clause, etc., can
alsobe topicalised in Ọ̀họ̀rí.Sonaiya and Bisang (2003) discusses functional
analysis of topic expressions in Yorùbá and claims that
the process has a brief pause after the topicaliseditem.Thearticle compares
focus with topic and argues that focus has overt marker, but topic has no overt
marker. The paper posits that topic is realised on three broad categories,
i.e., topicalised noun phrases, adverbs, and adverbials. It contends that
adverbial of conditional clauses which are marked by kí/ká,
ní ‘if say’, tí...bá‘if’can also occupy
topic position. This current study discusses projections and semantic
interpretations of topic expressions in Ọ̀họ̀rí which are not
included in Sonaiya and Bisang’s article. Ilọri
(2010)examines topic expressions in Igálà from the
syntactic perspective. It states thatlike Standard Yorùbá, Igálà
has no phonetically visible, free or bound morpheme that localises topic. The
study maintains thattopicalised constituents which are mostly noun phrases
extracted from a convergent derivation and moved to the clause-initial position
as topic element. It concludes that verbs can also be topicalised in Igálà
but such verbs must be copiedandnominalised before being raised to Spec-TopP
for emphasis. However, our study uncovered that categorial items such as
adverbs, PP, TP, etc., can as well be pushed toleftward for emphasisin Ọ̀họ̀rí.
Adeṣuyan (2014) reports that subject, object, possessor, verb, adverb, and
adjunct can be topicalised in Ìlàjẹ and Ìjẹ̀bú. The
work argues that the dialects have no phonetic
item for
topic constructions but employ a
pause inform of a comma immediately after the topicalised element. The thesis thereafter
discusses topic projections in the dialects. The vacuum that is left
untouched in Adeṣuyan’s work is the semantic aspect of topic constructions,
which is discussed in this present study.
3. Methodology
This section
presents the research methodology adopted in the study. The study employed a
qualitative research approach. The reason for choosing the qualitative research
method is that the construction investigated isa phenomenon
cross-linguistically, and it is a qualitative method of research that can best
handle the phenomenon effectively. However, the Ọ̀họ̀rí
data used in this study were elicited from twelve (12) native-speaker
consultants (6 males and 6 females) of Ọ̀họ̀rí in Kétu,
Asá, and Ègùwá in Yewa North Local Government Area of Ogun
State via digital device. Thereafter, the elicited data were transliterated and
appropriately glossed using the two tiers of literal/grammatical and logical
translations in line with Leipzig glossing rules’standards. The data were later
analysed using Minimalist Program of Chomsky (1995, 1998, and 2002) and
InformationStructure(Prince 1981, Halliday 1994, Ertechik-Shir, 2007, van der
Wal et al 2025).
4. Findings and Discussions
Findings and discussions of the study are
discussed below.
4.1. Topicalised Constituents in Ọ̀họ̀rí
This section is
set out to discuss a number of topicalised constituents in Ọ̀họ̀rí.
Topicalisation in Ọ̀họ̀rí is similar to what obtains in Standard Yorùbá (SY). For
instance,like SY, Ọ̀họ̀rí has no designated marker that expresses topic. The data obtained show
that there is a pause immediately after the topic element. We assume, following
established works in the literature (Bamgbose1990, Oyelaran 1993, Awoyale 1995,
Ilori 2010,etc.), that the brief pause which immediately and overtly follows the topicalised constituent and
orthographically marked by a comma is the topic function head thatdrives the
syntax of topicalisation in Ọ̀họrí.However, the system of realising topicalisation in Ọ̀họ̀rí is via
raising of the targeted constituent from its canonical position to theleft
periphery position (Spec-TopP).
4.1.1. Subject Argument Topic
The first
constituent that passes the test of topicalisation in Ọ̀họ̀rí
is subject argument. When subject of a clause is topicalised, a pause, which is
overtly functional head of topic construction,merges with the subject argument
in the basic clause and raises it to the leftward position of topic expression.
The raising triggers a pro-form/high tone syllable (HTS) to appear in the
canonical position of the raised subject. This process allows the pause to
follow the fronted subject argument directly, as illustrated in examples (1)
& (2).
1a. Àrẹ̀mú olówó yẹ
gbé gáàrí sínọ́
ọkhọ̀
Arẹmu owner of
money DEM carry gaari Loc-inner
car
‘Arẹmu the richman
puts gaari in the car/vehicle.’
b. [Àrẹ̀mú olówó
yẹ]i, [ọ́i gbé gáàrí sínọ́ ọkhọ̀]
Arẹmu
owner of money DEM 3SG.HTS carry gaari Loc-inner car
‘Arẹmu the richman,he puts gaari in the car/vehicle.’
2a. Àhọ̀n èìrhà bo ṣúghà yẹ
3PL ants surround sugar
DEM
‘The
ants bombarded the sugar.’
b. [Àhọ̀n èìrhà]i,[họ́ni bo
ṣúghà yẹ]
3PL ant 3PL surround sugar DEM
‘The
ants,
they bombarded the sugar.’
The data
in (1a) and (2a) are basic clauses. (1b) and (2b) are topicalised
constructions. The topicalised subject arguments are in leftward position of
the expressions (1b&2b). The pause, which is indicated by comma follows the
topicalised subject arguments. There is a pro-form/HTS in the position of the
raised subject arguments in (1b). It should be noted that the pro-form họn becomes họ́n (2b) in the
extraction site of the raised subject because of the HTS (ọ́)
which was morphologically glued to the subject given their contiguity. The
pro-form inherits that contiguity as soon as Àhọ̀n èìrhàwas
raised for topicalisation, i.e., họn + ọ́ → họ́n. Meanwhile, there is a case
of number in the pro-form that fills the position of the raised constituent in
(1b). The pro-form in (1b) is singular, while the one in (2b) is plural. The
reason for this is due to the fact that the antecedents in (1b&2b)
determine the shape of the referents. If antecedent is singular (1b), the
referent would be singular but if the antecedent is plural (2b), the referent
would be plural. This operation in Ọ̀họ̀rí aligns with
what is obtained in
subject relative (Akinwande, Ilọri & Ajiboye,
2024:12-13)
and subject focus (Akinwande, 2025:8-10).
4.1.2.
Direct Object Argument Topic
The system of topicalising direct object
argument also follows that the pause merges with the argument in the core
clause and raises it to the subject position. There is manifestation of comma
immediately after the topicalised constituent, as demonstrated in (3) and (4).
3a. Mọ̀ rhí Àyìnlá
lọ́nọ̀ọ́.
1SG see Ayinla LOC-yesterday
‘I saw Ayinla yesterday.’
b. [Àyìnlá]i,[mọ̀ rhí íi lọ́nọ̀ọ́].
Ayinla 1SG see 3SG LOC-yesterday
‘Ayinla, I saw
him yesterday.’
4a. Olùkọ́
ń kpe ọ̀hin akẹ́kọ̀ọ́
Teacher PROG call 2PL student
‘The teacher is calling you students.’
b. [Ọ̀hin akẹ́kọ̀ọ́]i, [olùkọ́
ń kpe ini]
2PL
student Teacher PROG call 2PL
‘You students, the teacher is calling
you.’
(3b) and (4b) are the derived topic
constructions. The pause, which is an active head, manifested in form of a
comma and appeared after the topicalised direct object argument in the
discourse position. Unlike in SY focus and relative clause constructions, where
there is gap/invisible phonetic item in the extraction site when direct object
argument is raised to the leftward, the case is different in Ọ̀họ̀rí topic
expressions. In Ọ̀họ̀rí topic constructions, there is an obvious presence of a
pro-form that fills the canonical domain of direct object argument, such as í and in (3b) and (4b) respectively. The
pro-forms connect the antecedents in the topic domain. If the pro-forms í and in in (3b) and (4b) are absent
there, the construction would crash. This pro-form that functions as direct
object is also available in SY topic expressions.
4.1.3. Indirect Object
Argument Topic
When indirect object (object of
preposition) istopicalised in Ọ̀họ̀rí, the overt pause
merges with the indirect object in the basic clause and moves to the specifier
position of topic construction, while other items get merged. However, the
indirect objectdrops a pro-form in the extraction site, as shown in (5b) and
(6b).
5a. A sọ̀rhọ̀
sí Àríkẹ́
1PL say-word LOC Arikẹ
‘We talked to Àríkẹ́.’
b.
[Àríkẹ́]i, [a sọ̀rhọ̀
sí ii]
Arikẹ 1PL
say-word LOC 3SG
‘Arikẹ, we talked to her.’
c.
*[Àríkẹ́], a sọ̀rhọ̀
sí
Arikẹ 1PL say-word LOC
6a. Mọ̀ sọ fú Ọlábọ̀dé
1SG say for Ọlabọde
‘I told Ọlabọde.’
b. [Ọlábọ̀dé]i,
[mọ̀ sọ fú ui]
Ọlabọde 1SG say for 3SG
‘Ọlabọde, I told him.’
c. *[Ọlábọ̀dé],
mọ̀ sọ fú
Ọlabọde 1SG say for
The pro-form in the canonical position
binds its antecedent in the topic position in (5b) and (6b). (5c) and (6c) are
non-convergent expressions because there is no pro-form in the neutral position
that binds the topicalised item. The topicalised items in (5b) and (6b) are
familiar information according to Radford (2004:361-362) because they have been
prementioned in the spell-out.
4.1.4.
Possessor Argument Topic
Possessors in Ọ̀họ̀rí
enjoy the service of topic expressions. This is also achieved via merge of the
pause that functions as strong head, to the possessor argument and raised the
possessor to the specifier position. The possessor leaves a pro-form in the
canonical position, for the construction to be well-formed, as expressed in
(7b) & (8b).
7a. Elégbèdé kha ìwé Táyọ̀
Elegbede read book Tayọ
‘Elegbede read Tayọ’s
book.’
b. [Táyọ̀]i, [Elégbèdé kha ìwé
ẹ̀i]
Tayọ Elegbede read book POSS
‘Tayo, Elegbede read his book.’
c. *[Táyọ̀], [Elégbèdé kha ìwé]
Tayọ Elegbede read book
8a. Eijò
kpa ajá ọdẹ.
Snake kill dog hunter
‘The Snake killed the hunter’s dog.’
b.
[Ọdẹ]i, [eijò kpa
ajá ẹ̀i].
Hunter snake kill
dog POSS
‘Hunter, the snake killed his dog.’
c.
*Ọdẹ, ejò kpa ajá
Hunter snake kill dog
(7a) and (8a) are the basic clauses from
which the possessor topic is derived in (8b) and (8b). The pro-form in the
canonical position links the topic the antecedent in the discourse position.The
examples in (7c) and (8c) are ungrammatical expressions due to the absence of
the pro-form in the extraction site.
4.1.5.
Adverbial Topic
Adverbscan also be topicalised in Ọ̀họ̀rí.
The topicalised adverb is raised to the subject position of the topic
construction via merge. The pause that functions as active headimmediately
follows the topicalised adverb. The raised adverb leaves trace in the canonical
position, as expressed in (9b) & (10b).
9a. Olówó ń jẹùn wẹ́ẹ́wẹ́ẹ́
Rich-man PROG eat-something quietly
‘The rich man is eating quietly.’
b.
[Wẹ́ẹ́wẹ́ẹ́], [olówó ń jẹun <wẹ́ẹ́wẹ́ẹ́>]
Quietly
rich-man PROG eat-something
‘Quietly, the rich man is eating.’
10a. Àmọ̀kẹ́ lọ kíákíá
Amọkẹ go quickly
‘Amoke went
quickly.’
b. [Kíákíá], [Àmọ̀kẹ́ lọ <kíákíáa>]
Quickly Amokẹ go
‘Quickly, Amoke went.’
(9b) and (10b) are derived from the basic
clauses in (9a) and (10a). The raised constituents leave an obvious gap in the
extraction site. Adverb of topic expression is also present in SY.
4.1.6.
Prepositional Phrase Topic
Prepositional
phrase (PP) passes the test of topic construction in Ọ̀họ̀rí.
PP in this regard refers to Adjunct. When adjunct is topicalised in Ọ̀họ̀rí,
the process of merge that raises the PP to the specifier position creates a gap
in the extraction site. The topicalised adjunct is followed by the pause, which
is indicated by a comma, before the corresponding clause follows, as evident in
(11b) and (12b).
11a. Àhọn àgbẹ̀ gbin iṣu léṣìí
3PL farmer plant yamLoc-last-year
‘The farmers
planted yam last year.’
b. [Léṣìí], [àhọn àgbẹ̀ gbin iṣu<léṣìí>]
Loc-last-year 3PL farmer plant yam
‘The farmers, they planted yam last year.’
12a. Mọ̀ rhí Àyìnlá
lọ́nọ̀ọ́.
1SG see Ayinla Loc-yesterday
‘I saw Ayinla yesterday.’
b. [Lọ́nọ̀ọ́], [mọ̀ rhí Àyìnlá<lọ́nọ̀ọ́>]
Loc-yesterday
1SG see Ayinla
‘Yesterday, I saw Ayinla.’
The gaps/invisible
phonetic items in (11b) and (12b)show that the PP/adjunct is raised from the canonical position to the topic position.
The topic constituents in (11b) and (12b) align with the argument of Chomsky
(1971:209) and Jackendoff (1972:227) that topic elements are found in the
subject position.
4.1.7.
Tense Phrase Topic
The data collected show that tense phrase
(TP) can be topicalised in Ọ̀họ̀rí but only in
conditional clauses. When TP is raised to the discourse domain via merge and marked
by the pause, there is an invisible phonetic item in the traditional position
of the TP. The raised TP must be deleted from the extraction site for the
construction to converge meticulously, as expressed in (13b) and (14b).
13a. Bó bá de, yọ́ọ́ jẹun.
If-then-3SG
to-do arrive
FUT eat-something
‘When s/he comes, s/he will eat.’
b. [Yọ́ọ́ jẹun],
[bọ́ bá dé<yọ́ọ́jẹun>]
FUT eat-something
if-then-3SG.HTS to-do arrive
‘S/he will eat, when s/he comes.’
c. *[Yọ́ọ́ jẹun],
[bọ́ bá déyọ́ọ́
jẹun]
FUT eat-something if-then-3SG.HTS to-do arrive
FUT
eat-something
14a. Ba bá kpè é, á wá
If-then-1PL to-do call 3SG FUT come
‘If we call
him/her, s/he will come.’
b. [Á wá], [ba bá
kpè é <áwá>]
FUT come if-1PL to-do call 3SG
‘S/he will come,if we call him/her.’
c. *[Á wá], [ba bá kpè éá wá]
FUT come if-1PL to-do call 3SGFUT come
As evident in (13b) and (14b), the
topicalised TPs leave a gap/invisible phonetic item in the extraction site.
There is still no overt marker in Ọ̀họ̀rí TP topic but a
pause which follows the topicalised element. With
this, we perceive that TP topic should also be available in SY.
4.1.8.
Conditional Clause Topic
Conditional clauses are not excluded from
topicalised constituents in Ọ̀họ̀rí. This is also
done through the process of merge, which raises the conditional clause targeted
for topic to the subject position and drops a gap in the orthodox position.
This is illustrated in (15b) and (16b).
15a. Wá
kí á sọ fú mi, bí họ́n bá tọ́n parhiwo,
Come COMP 1SG say for 1SG if-then 3PL to-do again kill-noise
‘Come and tell me, if they make noise again.’
b. [Bí họ́nbá tọ́n parhiwo],[wákí á sọ fú mi<bí họ́n bá tọ́n parhiwo>]
If-then 3PL to-do again kill-noise come COMP 1SG ay for 1SG
‘If they make noise again, come and tell me.’
16a. Kí i rhí min bọ́
bá dé
COMP 2SG see
1SG if-then-3SG.HTS to-do arrive
‘See me, when you come.’
b. [Bọ́ bá dé], [kí i
rhí min <bọ́ bá dé>]
If-then-3SG.HTS to-do arriveCOMP 2SG see
1SG
‘When you come, see me.’
The examples (15) and (16) above show that
a whole conditional clause is raised to the discourse position in (15b) and
(16b), leaving a gap in the canonical position. The active head which is
indicated by a comma is visible immediately after the conditional topic. The
raising of the conditional clause does not in any way disrupt the convergence
of the constructions. The conditional topic here aligns with the position of
Prince (1998:181) which asserts that a clause can be topicalised in a sentence.
4.2.
Projections of the Topicalised Constituents in Ọ̀họ̀rí
This section accounts for the projections
of the topicalised constituents in Ọ̀họ̀rí discussed in previous section. For the avoidance
of redundancy, we shall only propose two structures. The first structure
accounts for the constituents that drop a pro-form in the extraction site after
raising. The second structure caters for the constituents that leave a
gap/invisible phonetic item(s) in the canonical position after raising.
However, unlike questions, focus, and relative clause expressions which have
overt markers, what represents the overt marker in Ọ̀họ̀rí
topic expressions is pause, which is a strong and function head that
projects into topic phrase (TopP).
4.2.1.
Projection of the constituents representing themselves with phonetic itemin the
extraction site of Ọ̀họ̀rí
Topic Constructions
The constituents projected here are
subject, direct object, indirect object, and possessor topics. The projection
below in (17) shows that the constituent that is valued for topic, àhọ̀nèìrhà ‘the
ants’
first raised to the Spec-TopP to check the specifier-head agreement, while a
phonetic item (pro-form) occupies the raising position, so that the
construction can converge meticulously. The pause head (orthographically
represented by a comma) merges with theTP serving as its complement, ‘họ́nboṣúghàyẹ
‘they bombarded this sugar’ to project Top'. Top'later projects into TopP. TopP
instantly attracts the Spec item, àhọ̀nèìrhà ‘the ants’
to its specifier positionfor maximal projection.
17.
4.2.2. Projection of the constituents
that leave a gap/invisible phonetic itemin the extraction site of Ọ̀họ̀rí Topic Constructions
The constituents projected here are
adverb, PP, TP, and conditional clause topics. The projection in (18) indicates
that the constituent that is valued for topic, lọ́nọ̀ọ́, ‘yesterday’ first
raised to the Spec-TopP for feature checking and deleted immediately from the
extraction site, to prevent the convergence from crashing. Thereafter, the
pause head [+comma] merges with the TP, mọ̀rhíÀyìnlá‘I saw Ayinla’
servingas its complement to project Top'. Top'later projects into TopP. TopP
immediately attracts the Spec item, lọ́nọ̀ọ́
‘yesterday’ to its specifier position for maximal projection.
18.
5.
Distributions of Topic Elements in Yorùbá
Apart from the pausethat functions as
strong topic head, Bamgboṣe (1990) identified
some elements that focalise topic in Yorùbá. Ever since
Bamgboṣeidentified
the elements, no serious efforts have been made to discussthe syntactic domains
of the elements in clause structures. The elements that Bamgboṣe
(1990:214) identified as topic markers are o, sẹ́, mà, àní, yìí. He described the elements as insertion, which
are plugged in basic clauses, thereby transformingdeclarative clauses to topic
expressions. Adeṣuyan(2014:204)
briefly mentioned the topic elements in hiswork but did not discuss their
syntactic distributions. However, this study identified three syntactic
positions where the topic elements occur, namely; clause-initial,
clause-medial, and clause-final.
5.1.
Clause-initial topic element
The topic element in this category occurs
clause initially and attaches to the declarative clauses at the beginning. The
attachment of the element immediately convertsdeclarative clause to topic
construction. Theelement that plays such structural function isàní,
as expressed in (19)& (20).
19a.
Ṣọlá ti dé ilé
Ṣọla PERF arrive house
‘Ṣọla has arrived
home.’
b. [Àní
[Ṣọlá ti dé ilé]]
TOP ṢọlaPERFarrive house
‘Ṣọla has even arrived
home.’
20a.
Wọ́n á ti máa kọrin
3PL FUT PERF HAB sing-song
‘They would have been singing.’
b. [[Àní]
[wọ́n á ti máa kọrin]]
TOP 3PL FUT PERF HAB sing-song
‘They would have even been singing.’
The element àníappears
in (19b&20b) before the subject DP. The topic element does not in any way
topicalise the subject DP there but the whole basis clause (proposition), i.e.,
àní targets the whole declarative clause. Ànícan
neither shows up after subject DP nor clause finally lest it yields ill-formed
expressions. The structure of expressions where ànífeatures
clause initially is given in (21).
21. [TopP [ Topàní[TPwọ́nátimáakọrin]]]
The scheme in (21) shows that the topic
head simply merges with the TP to project its phrase. No raising is involved.
5.2.
Clause-medial topic element
Another syntactic position where the topic
element appears is clause-medial region. The topic element in this position is mà.
The
monomorphemic element cannot occur elsewhere apart from medial position, as
exemplified in (22), (23)& (24).
21a.
Ìyá ń lọ ọjà.
Mother PROG go market
‘The mother is
going to market.’
b. Ìyá [[mà] ń lọ ọjà].
Mother TOP PROG go market
‘The mother is even going to market.’
22a.
Èmi ti ń jẹun.
1SG PERF PROG eating
‘I am
eatingalready.’
b. Èmi [[mà]
ti ń jẹun].
1SG TOP PERF PROG eating
‘I am even eatingalready.’
23a. Èmi kò níí jẹun.
1SG NEG FUT eating
‘I am not going to
eat.’
b. Èmi [kò [mà] níí jẹun].
1SG NEG TOP FUT eating
‘I am not even going to eat.’
c. *Èmi [mà] kòníí jẹun.
1SG TOP NEG FUT eating
The property of the morpheme màis such a type that shows up in verbal domain, i.e., it precedes verbal item (22b) and
occurs after verbal particle (23b). This suggests that morpheme màcan collocate with other verbal items like modal,
agreement, etc. Unlike (22b) where màprecedes
perfective item, màcannot precede
negator lest it yields ungrammatical expression (24c). The structural
configuration of mà-constructions is
given in (25).
25.
[TopP Èmi
[Topmà[TPtińjẹun]]]
The configuration in (25) shows that màhead
internally merges with the TP to express and project the topic phrase (TopP).
Thereafter, the TopP attracts the specifier item èmi
‘1SG’ for maximal projection.
5.4.
Clause-final topic element
The last distribution of the topic
elements is the one that features in clause-final position. The topic elements
in this category are o, sẹ́, yìí.
The
topic items can never feature elsewhereapart from the right edge position. This
is illustrated in (26).
26a.
Ayọ̀ ọ́ máa sọ̀rọ̀
Ayọ HTS FUT say-word
‘Ayọ will talk.’
b. [[Ayọ̀ ọ́ máa sọ̀rọ̀] [o]]
Ayọ HTS FUT say-word
TOP
‘Ayọ will even/definitely talk.’
c. [[Ayọ̀ ọ́ máa sọ̀rọ̀] [sẹ́]]
Ayọ HTS FUT say-word
TOP
‘Ayọ will even/definitely talk.’
d. [[Ayọ̀ ọ́ máa sọ̀rọ̀] [yìí]]
Ayọ HTS FUT say-word
TOP
‘Ayọ will even/definitely talk.’
The property of the topic elements in
(26b-d) topicalises the whole basic clause (26a) rather than word items
preceding them. The topic items provide more emphasis on the whole declarative
clause. The structure of the expressions in (26b-d) is illustrated in (27).
27. [TopP [TPAyọ̀ọ́máa sọ̀rọ̀ [Topo/sẹ́/yìí<Ayọ̀ọ́máasọ̀rọ̀>]]]
The configuration in (27) indicates that
thetopic head internally merges with the TP to project its phrase. Thereafter, the TP is raised to the Spec-TopP, which allows the topic heads to show up in clause-final position.
6.
Semantics of Topic Constructions in Ọ̀họ̀rí Yorùbá
Following information structure (IS)
approach, the study assumes that the
semantics of topic constructions in Ọ̀họ̀rí divides topic expression into two elements - the
topic and the comment. Topic
element is interpreted as being fully specific in reference since it is
prementioned in the discourse and hence presumed to be known to the
interlocutors. Similarly, topic is interpreted as a theme for discussion and it
is mostly found at the beginning of topic expressions in Ọ̀họ̀rí.
Topic element is NEW information in discourse. Sometimes, prosody (stress
and/or intonation) is placed on topic element to indicate that it has more
fortis than the rest of the utterances. In the same vein, IS construes comment
element as GIVEN information that is introduced into the discourse.
Commentelementis updated afterthe topic.Commentelement is called RHEME. Rheme
refers to what is being said about the topic element. Thus, the string of words
that immediately follow topic element in Ọ̀họ̀rí is the comment.
Consequently, IS interprets topic constructions in Ọ̀họ̀rí
Yorùbá as
follows:
6.1. Aboutness Reading
Topic constructionssometimes signal that
the expression is about a certain entity (Reinhart,
1981:55). Topic expression is used to foreground referent in discourse context.
The aboutness reading in Ọ̀họ̀rítopic expressions
is illustrated in (28)&
(29).
Ọ̀họ̀rí
28.
[Àyìnlá]i, [mọ̀ rhíii
lọ́nọ̀ọ́]
Àyìnlá 1SG see 3SG LOC-yesterday
‘Ayinla,
I saw him yesterday.’
SY
29. [Ẹ̀yin olùkọ́]i,
[ọ̀gá ńpè yíni]
2PL
teacher boss PROG call2PL
‘You
teachers, principal is calling you.’
(28) indicates that the speaker is
concerned about Àyìnlá and not
someone else. Conversely, the speaker saw Àyìnláyesterdayand not someone else.TheIS
cues there is that the speaker could have been interrogated: did you (even) see
Àyìnlá/have you seen Àyìnlá in recent timesor someoneelse?
And s/he emphatically responded that s/he saw Àyìnlá, and not someone else, yesterday. Similarly, the speaker in
(29) is concerned about ẹ̀yinolùkọ́‘you
teachers’ and not other members of staff. Thus, while ẹ̀yinolùkọ́‘you teachers’ is in topic position, the referent, yin‘2PL’ is in
comment position. The speaker in (29) could have also been
asked; are you callingàwaolùkọ́‘we teachers’ or other members of staff (e.g. clarks, cleaners, drivers,
etc.) but he specifically answered ẹ̀yinolùkọ́‘you teachers’
and not the other members of staff.
6.2.
Definiteness Reading
Definite reading in topic expression simply means
that since the topic element is the point to whichinformation in the comment is
anchored, topic cannot be indefinite (van der Wal, 2025:33). Therefore, the
topic has to be definite, i.e., be some specific information on which the
comment relies. Definite reading in Ọ̀họ̀rí topic expressions can be deduced
from the following context.
Context 1:Mrs Ajala kept cooked rice in the kitchen and went out. Mrs Ajala’s last
born, Tayọ, returned from school and took some garri soaked in water.
WhenMrs Ajala returned, she could not find the rice in the kitchen.
She then asked Tayọ whom she met at home:did you eat the rice?
Tayọ
answered with (30).
Ọ̀họ̀rí
30. [Ìrẹ́sì], [n kọ̀ jẹ <ìrẹ́sì>]
Rice 1SG NEG
eat
‘Rice, I did not eat.’
(30) presupposes that there is a cooked rice which
Tayọ agreed exists but that he did not eat. Gàrí, iṣu ‘yam’, etc., are other possible items that Tayo could have
eaten. From the context,gari nor any of the
possible food items mentioned here is not the topic because that is not what
was eaten and neither was it what Mrs Ajala was looking for. Therefore,
according to Reinhart (1981:66), gari or any other food item is indefinite and
cannot be the topic in the context. However, ìrẹsì ‘rice’, which is what Mrs Ajala is looking for, is definite and
appropriate as the topic in the context.
Another example of definite
reading is in SY illustration in (31), which can be realised from the following
context:
Context 2: Bunmi put fish in a bowl and went out forgetting
that she has cat at home. Bunmi’s
cat was playing
around. The cat saw the fish and
ate it.
When Bunmi returned, she did not
see the fish.
She asked her younger sister, Kẹmi if she ate the fish.
Kẹmi answered with (31).
SY
31. [Ẹja], mi ò jẹ <ẹja>àmọ́ mo jẹ ẹran
Fish 1SG NEG
eat CONJ 1SG eat meat
‘Fish, I did not eat but I ate meat.’
Following van der Wal (2025:33), (31) presumes that
since ẹran ‘meat’ is not what Bunmi is searching for and ẹran
‘meat’ has not been mentioned in the context before, it is indefinite.
Therefore, ẹran ‘meat’ cannot be topic but ẹja ‘fish’, which is what Bunmi is looking for and ẹja ‘fish’ has been mentioned in the context before, hence, ẹja ‘fish’ is definite. This suggests that ẹja ‘fish’ is the topic.
6.3. Contrastive Reading
Topic expressions are used to mark contrastiveness
in Ọ̀họ̀rí. Topic in this regard semantically interacts with focus, as it
introduces the notionof ‘contrast’ by using syntactic movement. This signals
that in a set of alternatives (ALTs), the item that is raised or moved to the
specifier position of TopP in the left periphery expression is the topic which
is co-referenced by a resumptive pronoun that emerges in its extraction site.
This is illustrated in the question-and-answer set in (32) & (33).
Ọ̀họ̀rí
32a. Ké li Ọláifá jẹ?
What FOC Ọlaifa eat
‘What did Ọlaifa
eat?’
ALTs: {ẹija‘fish’, ẹiran ‘meat’, ẹiyin ‘egg’, Ọ̀GBÍN ‘snail’
b. [Ọ̀GBÍNi,[Ọláifájẹẹ́i]].
Snail Ọlaifa eat 3SG
‘SNAIL, Ọlaifa
ate it.’
SY
33a. Ibo
ni Táyọ̀
lọ?
Where FOC Tayọgo
‘Where did
Tayọ go?’
ALTs: {oko ‘farm’, odò ‘river’, ilé ‘house’, ỌJÀ‘market’}
b. [ỌJÀ,[Táyọ̀ lọ<ọjà>]]
Market Tayọgo
‘MARKET, Tayọ went.’
This contrastive reading is possible because the
base context that sets it up is a content question which evidently has
syntactic structure of focus expressions in Ọ̀họ̀rí and SY.
7.
Conclusion
This
articlecritically examined topic constructions in Ọ̀họ̀rí Yorùbá by analysing
the nature of topicalised constituents and demonstrating that the brief pause
which immediately follows a topicalised element, orthographically represented
by a comma, functions as the topic head that drives the syntax of topicalisation
in the language. The study proposed two structural representations for topic
projections in Ọ̀họ̀rí: the first accounts for constituents that leave a
dropped pro-form in the canonical position after movement to Spec-TopP, while
the second explains cases where the raised constituent leaves a gap or an
invisible phonetic element in the neutral domain. The analysis further showed
that the topic elements identified in Bamgboṣe (1990:214) occur in three
distinct syntactic positions. The discussion concludes with an examination of
the semantic interpretations of topic expressions in Ọ̀họ̀rí Yorùbá, namely
aboutness, indefiniteness, and contrastiveness. A final clarification is that
verbs and verb phrases are not topicalised in Ọ̀họ̀rí through the use of a
brief pause; rather, verb or verb phrase topicalisation requires the focus
marker li immediately following the verb, and is therefore excluded from
this study to avoid conflating topic constructions with focus constructions
(Akinwande, 2025: 8–10).
References
Adeniyi, H.R. (2000). Ìlò Èdè àti Ẹ̀ka-Èdè Yorùbá: Apá
Kìíní. Lagos: Harade Publisher.
Akinwande,
O. Ilọri, J. F. &Ajiboye, O. (2024). Relative
Clause Constructions in Ọ̀họ̀rí Yorùbá. Language
Review: International Journal of Linguistics, 13(1), 1-23.
Akinwande,
O. (2025). Focus Constructions in Ọ̀họ̀rí Yorùbá. Ondo Journal
of Arts, 1(1), 1-24.
Adesuyan,
R. A. (2014). Ìtupalẹ̀ Àwọn Wúnrẹ̀n Onítumọ̀Gírámà Nínú Ẹ̀ka-Èdè Ìlàjẹ
àti Ìjẹ̀bú. PhD Dissertation, Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife.
Awoyale,
Y. (1995). The Role of Functional Categories in Syntax: The Yorùbá
Case. In Owolabi, K. (Ed). Language in Nigeria: Essays in Honour of Ayo
Bamgbose. Group Publishers, Ibadan, 113-127.
Bamgboṣe, A. (1990). Fọnọ́lọ́jì àti Gírámà Yorùbá. University Press Plc.
Chomsky,
N. (1971). Deep Structure, Surface Structure and Semantic Interpretation. In D.
Steinberg and L. Jakobovits (Eds.). Semantics: An Interdisciplinary Reader
in Philosophy, Linguistics and Psychology. Cambridge University Press.
Chomsky,
N. (1995). Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MIT Press.
Chomsky,
N. (1998). The Minimalist Enquiries: The Framework.Occasional Papers in Linguistics, 15, 30-75.
Chomsky,
N. (2002). On Nature and Language.Cambridge University Press.
Erteschik-Shir,
N. (2007). Information Structure: The Syntax-Discourse Interface. Oxford
University Press, New York.
Halliday,
M. A. K. (1994). An Introduction to Functional Grammar.EducationalArnold,
London.
Ilọri,
J. F. (2010). Nominal Constructions inIgálà and Yorùbá. PhD Thesis,
Adekunle Ajasin University.
Jackendoff,
R. S. (1972). Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge,
MIT Press.
Oyelaran,
O. O. (1976).Linguistic Speculations of Yorùbá History. In O. Oyelaran (Ed.), Ife Seminar Series 1, 624-651.
Prince,
A. S. (1981). Toward a Theory of Feature Structure in Phonology. Indiana
University Linguistics Club.
Prince,
E. (1998). On the Limits of Syntax, with Reference to Topicalization and Left
Dislocation. In Cullicover, P. & McNally, L. (Eds.), Syntax and
Semantics, 29, 281-302. Academic Press, New York.
Radford,
A. (2004). English Syntax. Cambridge University Press, London.
Reinhart,
T. (1981). Pragmatics and Linguistics: An Analysis of Sentence Topics. Philosophical,
27(1), 53-94.
Sonaiya,
R.&Bisang, W. (2003). Left of Focus – Insights on Topic and Information
Structure from the Perspective of Yorùbá. Leiden University
Press, Netherlands.
Van
der Wal, J. (2025). On the Expression of Information Structure in Bantu. Leiden
University Press, Netherlands.
0 Comments