Gbagyi Noun Phrases within the Classical Government and Binding Theory: Theta, Case and Binding Sub Modular Appraisal

Article Citation: Isah Muhammad (2021). Gbagyi NPs within the Classical Government and Binding Theory: Theta, Case and Binding Sub Modular Appraisal. DEGEL: The Journal of the Faculty of Arts and Islamic Studies, Vol. 19, No. 1. ISSN 0794-9316

GBAGYI NOUN PHRASES WITHIN THE CLASSICAL GOVERNMENT AND BINDING THEORY: THETA, CASE AND BINDING SUB MODULAR APPRAISAL

By

Isah Muhammad

Abstract

This paper examines how Noun Phrases (NPs)s in Gbagyi were handled by the Government and Binding (GB) Theory proposed by Chomsky (1981, 1986). The paper studies three sub modular theories that basically handled the interpretation, distribution, and argument structure and case assignments for the NPs in Gbagyi. The paper fairly adopts a syntactic focus without necessarily going into the morphological and semantic analysis of NPs as constrained in the three sub-modules of GB: Binding, Theta and Case. The paper argues that Gbagyi NPs are found to be constrained by the universals and parametric conditions contained in the GB sub-modules covered herein.

Introduction

This research presents an appraisal of the Gbagyi Nouns within GB framework, conceptualizing it in the pivot of history about Gbagyi language, its linguistic facts as well instances on how the language abides by some GB universalities.

In the government and binding theory, Noun Phrases referred herewith as NPs are accounted for differently from the traditional grammatical perspective. Government and Binding theory, being a cross linguistic phenomenon proposed by Chomsky (1981), attempts at characterizing different syntactic structures like NPs in sentences and determining their distribution. This paper appraises Gbagyi NPs within the GB theoretical framework. It argues that Gbagyi exhibits category of NPs and can be treated using GB theory identified in the classical works of Chomsky.

The paper concentrates on Gabgyi language; a language spoken by Gbagyi people largely found in Niger state. It seeks to find the universal parametric values of Gbagyi language with a particular reference to a theoretic model of analysis propounded by Chomsky and other syntacticians. This is because it is widely believed that Universal Grammar can well be used in describing the parametric variations cross-linguistically.

Government and Binding theory is a modular theory with each handling specific categories and constituents cross-linguistically. The paper uses three sub-modules of the theory in accounting for the distribution and interpretation of NPs in Gbagyi language, namely Case theory, Theta theory and Binding theory. Hence, the distribution of various NPs may be accounted for by the interaction of Government and Binding sub-modules. However, Case, Binding and Theta theories are theories that can constrain NPs syntactic representations. These theories, put together, constrain the distribution of NPs generated by syntactic rules. Theta – theory, Binding theory and Case theory determine the well formedness condition of the D -structure constituents.

Linguistic and Historical Background of Gbagyi Language

The term Gbagyi is made up of two parts "Gba" and "Gyi”. Gba" means to put into consideration, to worship, to be concerned with, to fell and or, to prioritize. "Gyi" means character, behavior, conduct or habit. Hence, Gbagyi means to put into consideration the behaviour/conduct (of someone), to consider character/behaviour and habit (Sheshi and Philip, 2004). The ethnonym "Gbagyi" therefore, is an ethnic cum-linguistic label to describe the Gbagyi people and the Gbagyi language. Gbagyi; like most Nigerian languages, has no adequate descriptions of its phonological, semantic, morphological and grammatical components, in spite of the fact that it is spoken by about two million people (Ibid). The language is found in Kaduna, Kwara, Plateau, Niger states and the FCT, Abuja. The name Gbagyi refers to both the language and the people (Shekwo, 1986). Among other names used are Gbari, Gwari, Gbali, Goali, etc. (Shekwo, 1986).

In terms of classification, Greenberg (1963) classifies Gbagyi, Nupe, Egbira, and Gade as constituting the Nupe group within the larger family of other languages generally known as Kwa. Gbagyi belongs to the Niger-Congo language family. Williamson (1989) calls them "Nupoid". Bennett and Sterk (1977) place the language among the group they have labeled Central-Niger languages.

The actual number of Gbagyi speakers is unknown. Different people have given different figures. Hyman and Magaji (1970) said they number about 500,000; Byanyiko (1979) estimates over one million quoting after earlier census figures of 20,000 150,000 and 155,000 in 1921, 1931 and 1952, respectively. Shekwo (1986) estimates at 4 million based on a census conducted by the National Union of Gbagyi Students in 1983.

The Gbagyi language is subdivided into two major dialects, and mutual intelligibility is high. These two dialects are Gbagyi Matai (Eastern Gbagyi)with speakers found in Niger State: (Minna, Kuta, Shiroro, Gussoro, Erna, Alawa, Guni, Gwada, Sarkin Pawa, Kifinkoro, Pina, Wana). In Kaduna State: (Kaduna town, Birnin-Gwari, Zaria, Chikun, Kakuri, etc). In Plateau State: (Nasarawa, Jos, Gadabuke, Toto, Keffe, Gitata, Tamari, Karu, Doma, etc.) Kwara State: (Jebba, New Bussa) and in FCT, Abuja: (Abuja, Diko, Suleja, Bwali, Kuje), etc. and Gbagyi Yamma (Western Gbagyi).

Statement of the Problem

Factually, Gbagyi language has received little attention by linguists in terms of documentation and more robust academic research using recent grammatical theories. However, there are little works on Gbagyi grammar ranging from a grammar book to dictionary. Thus, the need to consider the syntax of Gbagyi language from a theoretical perspective becomes imminent. To the best of my knowledge there are very few works on the grammar of the language and they are descriptive in nature. Similarly, the available literatures in Gbagyi grammar show that they are placed within the traditional grammatical perspective. Little work on Gbagyi syntax was achieved and most of them have not captured the language based on the universal model of analysis, i.e GB theory. It is against this backdrop that this research is considered necessary. Thus, the present study is a modest contribution to the body of knowledge within the principles and parameters approach to the study of human languages.

Aim and Objectives

Generally, this work aims at studying the different types of NPs in Gbagyi language using Government and Binding theoretic approach. However, the following specific objectives will be taken into consideration for in-depth and a more closely analysis.

(1)

a- To appraise the Gbagyi NPs using the Case theory and Theta theory

 perspectives of the GB.

b- To appraise how the identified NPs in Gbagyi are realized within the

 classical Government and Binding theory.

 

 

Research Questions

The study has fundamentally tried to find out the answers to the following pertinent questions and issues surrounding Gbagyi language.

(2)

a- In what ways can theta theory and case theory be used be used to

 account for NPs in Gbagyi language?

b- How are the identified NPs in Gbagyi realized within Government

 and Binding theory?

Literature Review

Although, works on Government and Binding theory in Gbagyi syntax are very scanty, some scholars have contributed to the study of Gbagyi grammar that it would be difficult at this onset of my research to mention all what they had contributed. Therefore, I have examined only those works that are related to this paper and which can help in establishing the fact that there is a modest contribution to the body of knowledge this paper brings.

Hyman and Magaji (1970) argue that most Gwari nouns consist of two Syllables. The majority of these are characterized by a vowel prefix and a single consonant initial noun stem: e-bi ‘child’, o-binya ‘fish’’. The vowel prefix is o (and more rarely e) in the singular, a in the plural, and it bears either mid or low tone. The remaining syllable nouns consist of two consonant-initial syllables: kuta ‘stone’, yaba – ‘banana’. This class of nouns forms what in this paper is called full NPs or lexical NPs or Overt NPs. .

According to Hyman & Magaji (1970), the personal pronouns (pronominals as referred herewith) are as follows:

(3) 1^st Pers. Sg: mi I, me, my

 Pl: yi ‘we, us our’

 2^nd Pers. Sg: ho ‘you, your’

 Pl: fye you, your’

 3^rd Pers Sg: wo ‘he, she, him, her, his, her

 Kwo ‘it, its

 Ce ‘it, its’

 Pl: ba ‘they’

 a ‘they’

Rosendall (1998) provides an overview of certain Gbari aspects of Gbagyi language, including the phonological system, the Noun Phrase, the verb phrase, and certain subordinate constructions.

Yusuf (1991) investigates Aspects of the Morphosyntax of Functional Categories in Hausa using Government and Binding theory as theoretical framework. After giving an outline of the theoretical and descriptive framework adopted in the study, it went ahead to discuss pre-theoretical accounts of Hausa Morphosyntax. His brilliant account of the structures of Nominal Constituents and Nominal Modifiers in Hausa is indeed a strong motivation for this paper. This paper adopts the same theoretical framework used in the thesis. According to Yusuf (1991:167) nouns in Hausa can be segmented into a stem and on AGR(eement) suffix which varies according to the Number/Gender of the overall noun: cf. e.g

4) (a) Stem Maalam

MS- Malam + ii (male) teacher

FS- Maalma + aa (female) teacher

PL – Maalam + ai teachers

 (b) Stem- Yaar

MS – Yaar +oo boy

FS – Yaar + inyaa girl

PL – Yaar + aa children

 (c) Stem – Kaar

MS – Kaar + ee dog (masculent)

FS – Kaar + yaa dog (feminist)

PL- Kaar+ nukaa dogs (plural)

As can be seen from the example in (2), the choice of AGR suffix is lexically determined: for example, the masculine singular AGR suffix is +ii with the stem maalam, +oo with the stem yaar, and ee with the stem kaar+. (Yusuf, 1991).

Bature (1991) examines Aspects of Hausa Grammar within the framework of Kirpasky’s Direct Linking Theory, focusing on the Morphosyntax-Semantics interface. This paper derives certain motivations especially in chapter 3 of the thesis where thematic objects versus semantic objects were discussed.

Muhammad (2014) studies the thematic roles in Hausa sentences. He described Hausa sentences and their constituents by examining the possibility of applying the principle of theta criteria in Hausa sentence structure with a view to better understanding of the concept of thematic role and its application. He went further to investigate the relationship between thematic roles and arguments structure of verbs found in the language. However, the analysis involved the explanation of Hausa verb, its types and function in relation with the arguments or participants in the phrases, clauses, and sentences.

He cited the following as some of the many examples:

(5) Theta function of Agentive Argument in Relation to the Verb Tafi

 (to go)

a) Musa ya-a tafi yanzu

(Musa [Personal name] 3MSG-PAST go now)

“Musa has gone now.”

b) Musa ya-na tafiya da sauri

(Musa [Personal name] 3MSG-CONT go with fast)

“Musa is going very fast.”

From sentence (5a-b) above, the verb “tafi” “to go” features the theta function of agent. Thus, in the sentence (5a &b), the existence of NP Musa is required by the argument structure of the verb tafi “go” Musa as the agent in sentence (5a & b) above.

(6) Theta function of Theme Argument in Relation to the Verb Gina (to build)

a) Gwamnati ta-a gina rijiyoyi bara

(Government 3FSG-PAST build well.PL last year)

“Government built some wells last year.”

b) A gonaki a-ka gina saboda manoma

(In farm.PL IMP-PAST build because farmer.PL)

“The (well) were built in the farms because of the farmers.”

Considering the sentences above, it is evident that the verb “Gina” “to build” is used with common noun “Gwamnati” “government” and “Rijiyoyi” “Wells” in sentence (4a), but the direct object Rijiyoyi have the thematic function of theme.

Following Munkaila (1990), theta sub-theory is concerned with the relation between heads and their complements. Lexical elements assign thematic roles to their complements under government. The number of theta-roles corresponds to the number of the arguments a lexical element selects. The sort of theta roles assigned include: Agent, Goal, Theme, Instrumental, Benefactive, Location, Possessor, etc. The general assumption is that lexical heads directly assign theta roles to their complements while the subject theta-roles are assigned indirectly. That is to say, it is compositionally determined by the verb and its complements. This is due to the fact that the verb does not govern the subject. The classic example given in Chomsky (1981) to indicate that the subject theta-role is assigned indirectly (i.e. by the verb and its complements) is illustrated in (7a-b) with the Hausa equivalent given in (8a-b) below (cf. Howard 1988).

7) a. John broke the door

 b. John broke his hand

8) a. Audu yaa karya koofa

Audu he-PERF break door

Audu broke the door

b. Audu yaa karya hannunsa

Audu he-PERF break hand-his

"Audu broke his hand

In (7a and 8a) John is the Agent that performs the action. Whereas in (7b and 8b) John again the subject this time bears the Patient theta-role.

Benedicta (2006) studies the “Antecedent -Anaphor Relations in Mbaise Dialect of Igbo” where she focuses on the analysis of Antecedent-anaphor relations. She adopts a syntactic argumentation to the study based on the Government and Binding Principles of Chomsky (1980, 1981). Findings show that antecedent anaphor relation holds in the dialect and that 'onwe' (self), 'ibe' (self), and 'ogwe' (self) are all anaphors. While some anaphors are bound in a minimal domain others cross clause boundaries to locate their antecedents. Thus principle A of the Binding Theory is violated. Also antecedents of anaphors must not always be subjects in the dialect of focus especially when used in idiomatic expressions. The reflexives 'ogwe' and 'ibe' were found to be used interchangeably in some contexts using appropriate pronouns. The study (Ibid), recommends that principle A of the Binding theory be stated without reference to minimal domain and a subcategorization of reflexives in the dialect where antecedents of group A functions as a subject and group B may not.

For more direction on the GB sub-modules chosen to analyse the data for this work, below is a brief review of Theta, Case and Binding theories. This will serve as a guide on how my data will be looked at and analysed subsequently.

Theta Theory

Theta theory is concerned with the assignment of thematic role (θ-role) such as agent, patient, goal, etc. to an argument in a sentence (Chomsky. 1986). The term argument is referred to as an NP or NP-position that is structurally accessible to θ-role assignment in a structure (see Ndimele 1991:29).

There are two types of argument to which θ-role can be assigned. These are the internal and external arguments. The internal argument is the NP or NP-position to which θ-role is assigned within the maximal projection of verb, while the external argument is the NP or NP-position to which θ-role is assigned outside the maximal projection of verb. The internal argument is assigned internal θ-role while the external argument is assigned external θ-role (Chomsky, 1986).

It has been argued that, to some extent, the number of θ-roles normally correspond to the number of arguments in a structure (Chomsky, 1986). This explains that an argument cannot receive more than one θ-role from a θ-role assignor. And a θ-role assigner also cannot assign one particulars-role to two or more arguments within the same construction. Chomsky (198l) refers to the constraint which rule out such twin possibilities of θ-role assignment as criterion or θ-criterion. (Chomsky, ibid)

Each argument has one and only one θ-role, and each θ-role is assigned to one and only one argument. For the purpose of this paper, below is a very brief definition of selected theta roles.

a. Agent

An agent is the entity that deliberately performs the action. In other words, it is the entity that instigates an action or the movement of the theme. Napoli (1996) says that one quality of an agent is the ability to carry its function voluntarily.

b.Patient

The patient is the entity that undergoes the action and has its state changed. A patient must not just be animate but it must be a human. Here, the action is direct because nothing comes between the verbs and the arguments.

a. Goal

It is the location towards which the entity moves or where the action is directed towards. Whether the entity reaches the location or not is immaterial.

Case-Theory:

Case theory is concerned with the assignment of case features such as: Nominative, Accusative, Genitive, etc to overt NPs in a structure (Radford, 1983). In the context of GB, Case has been recognized as an obligatory feature of NPs in a structure (Ndimele 1992:20). This implies that each NP must be assigned case in a structure. In fact, if an overt NP fails to be assigned case, or fails to occur in a position to which case can be assigned, then the structure is ruled out as ungrammatical. This is clearly stated in the following case filter as given in Sells (1985:53). *NP: if NP has phonetic content and has no case. The case filter stated above expresses that any sentence containing an overt NP is ungrammatical if the NP is not case-marked (Ndimele 1992:20).

Following Ndimele (1992:22), Radford (2004) and Chomsky (1981), the basic instances of case assignment are as in below:

9)

a. If INFL is [+Tense] Nominative case is assigned to the [NP IP]

b. A verb assigns Accusative case to [NP VP)

c. A preposition assigns oblique case to [NP PP]

d. Nouns and Adjectives (i.e. +N categories) do not assign case.

e. Case is assigned under government with the exception of Genitive case.

f. Genitive case is assigned in the structure [NP X]

g. A case assigner must be the head of a certain projection that must immediately dominate the NP to which the case is to be assigned.

Following Chomsky and others, Ndimele (1992:25) gives a constraint on case assignment which is known as case criterion as follows:

10)

i- Each NP bears one and only one case

ii- each case is assigned to one and only one NP

The case criterion stated above expresses that it is not possible for an NP to bear more than one case from the same case assigner nor is it possible for a given case assigner to assign given case to more than one NP (Ndimele 1992:25).

Binding Theory:

Binding theory is concerned with the conditions that govern the relationship between "referential nominals (whether phonologically overt or otherwise) to their potential antecedent in a structure (Chomsky, 1981). According to Righler and Beukema (I985), the term binding refers to the co-reference relation between a binder and a bound element in a structure. A pronoun or any type of noun has a structural relation to another and is co indexed with it, it is said to be bound to it (Chomsky, 1986). Binding theory divides the class of referential nominals to anaphors, pronominal and referential expressions (Righler and Beukema 1985:110). As proposed by Chomsky (1981), there are basically three binding conditions for the anaphors, pronominal and the referential expressions as given below:

11) An anaphor must be bound in its governing category, (anaphors: NP-traces. lexical anaphor, PRO).

a- Pronominal is free in its governing category. (Pronominal: pronouns,

 PRO).

b- An R referential expression is free everywhere.

Methodology and Theoretical Framework

The paper has elicited data through primary and secondary methodologies including the interviews that were conducted and some books on Gbagyi and GB theory were gathered and referred to. Research of this kind is highly empirical and theoretical in nature. This is because the data used is largely elicited through a purposeful fieldwork by means of interviews, questionnaires and personal observation.

Data Presentation and Analysis

Here, I make a modest attempt to present the data and use three sub-modules of GB to analyse them.

Theta Theory: Here is the data on theta roles of Gbagyi NPs followed by a brief analysis.

Consider the examples below:

(12)- Wo Ku be wa gye Idris

 Agent Goal

 (He Pst come pp see Idris)

He came to see Idris

(13)- a- Binta La woo wuu

 Agent Patient

 (Binta Pst him/he kill)

 Binta killed him/her

 

b- Musa du gyinko ho okunsu Musa

Theme Locative Experiencer

 (Musa went market DET PREP/with Musa)

 Musa went to the market with Musa

In (12) “Wo” “He” is the Agent that performs the action, and “Idris is the entity towards which the action took place. Whereas in (13) “Binta” again the subject this time bears the Agent theta-role and “woo” “him/he” bears the patient theta role.

Case Theory: Here is the data on the assignment of case features on the Gbagyi NPs followed by a brief analysis.

Consider the following examples:

(14) Ozo ho filo shaknu ho

 (Bean DET PREP pot DET)

 NOMINATIVE OBLIQUE

 The bean is inside the pot

 

(15) Musa du gyinko ho okunsu Musa

 (Musa went market DET PREP/with Musa)

 NOMINATIVE OBLIQUE OBLIQUE

 Musa went to the market with Musa

(16) Binta La woo wuu

 (Binta Pst him/her kill)

 NOMINATIVE ACCUSATIVE

 Binta killed him/her

In (14) above, “ozo” “bean” is assigned a Nominative case being it an NP at the subject position, while the PREP assigned an Oblique case to the proceeding NP “shaknu” “pot”. In (15) above, “Binta is assigned Nominative case while “woo” “him/he” is assigned an Accusative case.

Binding Theory: Here is the data on Binding principles showing how NPs in Gbagyi satisfy them, followed by a brief analysis.

Consider the following examples for BT principle A:

17) *Wo_i kwa aaje_i maaji

(He Psr each other support)

*He supported each other

 

18) Baa_i kwa aaje_i gu

(They pst each other fight)

They fought each other

 

19) Baa_i la baii_i wuu

(They pst themselves kill)

They killed themselves

 

20) *John_i la baii_j wuu

(John pst themselves kill)

*John killed themselves.

Note: In 20 above, the arguments are not co-indexed due to lack of agreement in number between the external argument “John” and the internal argument “baii’ (themselves). That is why the sentence is marked ungrammatical.

Consider the following examples for BT principle B:

21) Wo Ku be wa gye Idris

(He Pst come pp see Idris)

He came to see Idris

22) Baa bmua lo

(They beautiful MOD)

They are beautiful

Consider the following examples for BT principle C:

23) Obi ho yinwei daabo paceyye

(Boy DET AUX talk gently)

The boy is talking gently

24) Musa du gyinko ho okunsu Musa

(Musa went market DET PREP/with Musa)

Musa went to the market with Musa

From 17-24, we have seen how the NPs in Gbagyi are interpreted and distributed according to the principles of BT, and how some NPs failed to be interpreted accordingly for failing to conform to the principles.

Conclusion

This paper presents the synopsis of NPs using some aspects of the GB sub-modules which the paper is embedded on. It is hoped that more research will fully explore the NPs in Gbagyi language using the whole GB theory.

References

Bature A. (1991)” Thematic Argument and Semantics Roles in Hausa (Morphosyntax and Lexical Semantics Interface); Ph.D Dissertation Standford University.

Bennett, Patrick R. and Jan P. Sterk. (1977). South Central Niger-Congo: a reclassification. Studies in African Linguistics 8:3.241-273

Benedicta N. C. (2006). “Antecedent-Anaphor Relations in Mbaise Dialect of Igbo”, An MA Dissertation, University of Nigeria, Nsukka.

Black, C.A. (1999). A Step-by-Step Introduction to the Government and Binding Theory of Syntax. Summer Institute of linguistics.

Blench, Roger and Musa Doma. 1993. A dictionary o f the Gbari language. Unpublished draft version. Gbari Gbadogun: Abuja.

Byanyiko, N. (1979). Topics in Gbagyi History. Jos: Idakula Press, Nigeria

Chomsky, N (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.

Chomsky, N (1986). Barries. Cambridge, Massachusetts:MIT Press.

Dhacko, I. A. (1986). “Gbagyi Dialectology: An Exploration. An Unpublished B.A. Dissertation, Department of English and French, Bayero university, Kano Nigeria

Eneware, E. C. & Worufah, E. R. (2013). The Noun Phrase in Kolokuma-izon. In Ndimele, O, Ahmad, M. & Yakasai, H. M., Language Literature & Culture in a Multilingual Society: A Festschrift for Abubakar Rasheed (pp. 771-786). Port Harcourt. Linguistics Association of Nigeria M&J Grand Orbit Communications Ltd

Greenberg, J.H. (1963). The languages of Africa. Bloomington: Indiana University press.

Howard, L. (1988). "Subject and the 0-Criterion." Natural Language and LinguisticTheory 6: 1 17.

Hyman and Magaji. (1970). Essentials of Gwari Grammar. Ibadan. Institute of African Studies.

Lyons, J. (1992). Theoretical Linguistics. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Mortin et al (eds) (2000). Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honour of Howard Lasnik. London: MIT Press.

Muhammad, A.U (2014). “An Analysis of Theta Roles of Verbs in Hausa”. An MA Dissertation: University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

Munkaila, M.M. (1990) “Indirect Object Constructions in Hausa. Pulished Thesis submitted in fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at the Department of Phonetics & Linguistics. Published by ProQuest LLC (2017)

Napoli, D.J (1996). “Linguistics: An Introduction”. Newyork: Oxford University Press.

Ndimele, O.M. (1992). The Parameters of Universal Grammar: A Government Binding Approach. Owerri: African Educational Services.

Oha, A. B. (2012). Personal Pronouns in Bette: A Preliminary study. In Ndimele, O, Language, Literature & Communication in a Dynamic World: A Festschrift for Chinyere Ohori-Anoche (pp. 665-675). Port Harcourt. M & J. Grand Orbit Communications Ltd. & Linguistics Association of Nigeria.

Peter S (2003). “Review of Anaphora: A Cross-Linguistics Study”. Hamburg: Von Melle Park.

Philip, A.N. & Sheshi, N. (2004). Gbagyi Orthography.Minna. Jos University Press.

Radford, A. (1997). Syntactic Theory and the Structure of English: A minimalist approach. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.

Radford, A. (2004). Minimalist Syntax:Exploring the Structure of English. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.

Rosendall, E.P. (1992). A Phonological Study of Gwari Lects. A Publication of Summer Institute of Linguistic Inc.

Rosendall, E.P. (1998). Aspects of Gbari Grammar. The unpublished masters dissertation at the University of Texas at Ailington.

Sells, P. (1985) “Lectures on Contemporary Syntactic Theories: an Introduction to Government and Binding theory, generalized phrase structure grammar and lexical functional grammaer. CSLI. Lecture note, 3.

Shekwo, J.A. (1970). Fundamentals of Gbagyi Language. Zaria Centre for Adult Education and Extension Services. ABU Zaria.

Thomas, W. (1972). “Anaphoric Relations in English”. A Ph.D. Thesis at the MIT (USA) (unpublished).

Yusuf, M.A. (1991) “Aspects of the Morphosyntax of Functional Categories in Hausa”, Ph.D Thesis, University of Essex.

 

The official website of the DEGEL Jounal is https://www.degeljournal.com