Cite this article as: Aliyu, B., Haliru, I. A., & Gambo, S. I. (2026). A contrastive syntactic study of modality processes in English and Fulfulde. Sokoto Journal of Linguistics and Communication Studies (SOJOLICS), 2(2), 149-162. https://doi.org/10.36349/sojolics.2026.v02i02.013
By
1Bamanga Aliyu
2Prof. Isa AdamuHaliru
3Dr Sumayyat Ibrahim Gambo
08032823822
1Department of General Studies,
Federal Polytechnic,
Bali,
Taraba State, Nigeria
2 &3 Department of Languages &Linguistics,
Taraba State University,
Jalingo, Nigeria
Abstract
Thepaper examines the
syntactic processes involved in the expression of modality in English and
Fulfulde spoken in Adamawa State. The aim is to analyse how modality is
structurally realised in both languages, with specific objectives to: describe
the syntactic processes involved, compare their modal structures, and justify
cross-linguistic variations. It is anchored on Generative Syntax, particularly
the Principles and Parameters frameworkas primary and Functional Grammar as
supportive which together explain both structural patterns and communicative
functions of modality. A descriptive qualitative method is adopted, using
elicited and naturally occurring bilingual data. The analysis focuses on modal
expressions such as can, must, may, willand shall in English, and foti, doole,
ndego, tammi, and -an in Fulfulde. Findings reveal that while both languages
encode similar modal meanings such as ability, obligation, permission and
futurity which differ in syntactic realisation. English employs auxiliary-based
constructions with overt subjects and rigid word order, whereas Fulfulde uses
morphologically integrated modal forms and allows subject omission. These
differences are explained through parameter variation and typological
distinctions. The paper concludes that modality is a universal semantic
category but is realised through language-specific syntactic strategies. The
findings contribute to understanding bilingual syntax and cross-linguistic
variation in African contexts.
Keywords: Modality; Syntax; English; Fulfulde; Linguistics
1.0 Introduction
Language is a uniquely
human faculty that enables individuals to express thoughts, intentions,
attitudes, and social relationships (Crystal, 2010). One of the core components
of linguistic structure is syntax, which governs how words and phrases are organized
to produce meaningful sentences. In the syntax of natural languages, modality
occupies a central position because it reflects the speaker’s attitude toward
the proposition being expressed, including notions of possibility, necessity,
obligation and futurity (Palmer, 2001). In a multilingual nation such Nigeria,
speakers routinely alternate between English, the official languageand
indigenous languages such as Fulfulde. Fulfulde, a major Niger-Congo language
spoken widely across northern Nigeria, exhibits grammatical patterns that
differ markedly from those of English.
Despite the importance
of modality in understanding sentence structure and meaning, syntactic studies
focusing on English and Fulfulde Adamawa spoken variety remain limited. This
research, therefore is undertakento compare modality processes of English and
Fulfulde as spoken in Adamawa State, with the aim of identifying both universal
features of modality and language-specific realizations.
Although modality has
been extensively studied in English and other Indo-European languages, there is
limited empirical research comparing its syntactic realization with that of
Niger-Congo languages such as Fulfulde, particularly within specific sociolinguistic
contexts like Adamawa State. Existing studies often focus on semantic
interpretation rather than syntactic processes, leaving a gap in understanding
how modality is structurally encoded across languages. Furthermore, the
Fulfulde spoken in Adamawa State remains under described in formal linguistic
literatures. This gap restricts theoretical generalizations about modality and
limits pedagogical and descriptive applications. This study addresses this gap
by providing a systematic linguistic inquiryof modality in English and Fulfulde
spoken variety.
The main aim of this
study is to examine the syntactic processes involved in the expression of
modality in English and Fulfulde. The specific objective is to:
1. describe the syntactic processes involve in English and Fulfulde
spoken variety of Adamawa State.
2. compare the syntactic structures of English and Fulfulde as spoken
in Adamawa State with respect to modality.
3. justifycross-linguistic variations among languages in this
research.
The study is significant
in several ways. For instance, theoretically, it contributes to syntax by
demonstrating how universal grammatical principles are realized differently
across typologically distinct languages. Empirically, it enriches the descriptive
literature on Fulfulde by documenting its modal constructions within a specific
regional variety. Pedagogically, the findings are useful for language teachers
and learners by highlighting structural contrasts between English and Fulfulde.
It also provides a reference point for future research on modality
particularlyNiger-Congo languages.
2.0 LiteratureReview:
This conceptual review
presents the key ideas and theoretical constructs relevant to the study. The
review also examines how these concepts are defined and interpreted in
linguistic literature, providing a foundation for understanding their
application in the analysis of data in this study.
2.1 The Concept of
Modality
Modality is a
fundamental concept in linguistic theory because it enables speakers to express
judgments, attitudesand evaluations concerning events, actions and states of
affairs. Although scholars generally agree on its significance, they differ in
their emphasis on its primary function. Palmer (2001) approaches modality
mainly as a semantic category that reflects a speaker’s assessment of the
status of a proposition. By contrast, Portner (2009) situates modality within a
broader logical and discourse framework, arguing that modal expressions
establish relationships between propositions and possible worlds while
simultaneously shaping the interpretation of discourse. Whereas Palmer
concentrates on the meaning encoded by modal forms, Portner highlights their
contribution to contextual interpretation and communicative interaction.
For Palmer (2001),
modality provides speakers with linguistic resources for indicating certainty,
probability, necessity, obligation, and possibility. Through these expressions,
language users can convey perspectives that extend beyond straightforward factual
descriptions. This view positions modality at the interface of syntax,
semantics, and pragmatics, demonstrating its importance in explaining how
speakers communicate subjective evaluations. The interpretation of modal
meanings therefore depends not only on lexical content but also on the
grammatical structures through which such meanings are realized.
Cross-linguistically,
modal meanings are expressed through a range of grammatical devices, including
auxiliary verbs, particles, affixes, adverbs, and prosodic features. The
specific form adopted by a language is determined by its structural
organization. In English, modality is predominantly encoded through a
restricted set of auxiliary verbs such as can, may, must, will, and shall,
which function within the clause structure and interact with categories such as
tense, aspect, and negation (Huddleston &Pullum, 2002). In many African
languages, including Fulfulde, comparable meanings are often conveyed through
verbal morphology or modal particles integrated into the predicate. Such
structural differences illustrate how languages employ distinct grammatical
strategies to express similar modal concepts.
Moving beyond
grammatical realization, Portner (2009) argues that modality also performs an
important discourse function. From this perspective, modal expressions indicate
the degree to which speakers commit themselves to the truth of a proposition
and guide listeners in interpreting statements within a particular contextual
framework. By signaling relationships between utterances and alternative
possibilities, modality contributes to coherence and facilitates the
organization of discourse. This approach broadens the understanding of modality
from a purely semantic phenomenon to one that is deeply connected to
communication and interpretation.
Taken together, these
perspectives reveal the multidimensional nature of modality. Palmer’s account
emphasizes the semantic content associated with modal expressions, while
Portner demonstrates their role in structuring discourse and managing speaker
commitment. Their combined insights suggest that modality cannot be adequately
explained from a single perspective; rather, it operates simultaneously as a
grammatical, semantic and pragmatic system. Within linguistic analysis, modal
meanings are commonly grouped into three major categories: epistemic modality,
which expresses degrees of certainty or likelihood; deontic modality, which
relates to obligation, permission, and authority; and dynamic modality, which
concerns ability, willingness, or internal conditions influencing an action.
2.2 Epistemic Modality
Epistemic modality
refers to the linguistic expression of a speaker’s judgment about the truth,
likelihood, or certainty of a proposition. Scholars differ in their emphasis on
its primary function. For instance, Palmer (2001) views epistemic modality mainly
as a semantic category through which speakers assess the probability of an
event or state of affairs based on available knowledge or evidence. In
contrast, Portner (2009) approaches it from a logical and discourse
perspective, arguing that epistemic modals locate propositions within a set of
possible worlds compatible with the speaker’s beliefs and assumptions. While
Palmer emphasizes semantic evaluation, Portner highlights the role of epistemic
modality in guiding interpretation and maintaining discourse coherence. At the
grammatical level, epistemic modality is commonly realized through modal
auxiliaries that take scope over the entire proposition. In English, forms such
as may, might, must, and could typically occur in preverbal positions,
signalling the speaker’s degree of commitment to the truth of a statement.
Their syntactic position reflects their function as operators that modify the
proposition rather than individual constituents.
Expanding beyond
semantic and logical accounts, Kärkkäinen (2020) emphasizes the interpersonal
dimension of epistemic modality, defining it as the linguistic encoding of a
speaker’s evaluation of a proposition along a continuum from uncertainty to
certainty. This perspective underscores its role in expressing stance and
managing interaction. Taken together, these views demonstrate that epistemic
modality is not merely a marker of probability but a linguistic resource that
combines semantic judgment, syntactic structure, discourse organization, and
speaker stance. Simply put, it indicates how certain a speaker is about a
proposition. For example, He may be at home expresses possibility rather than
certainty, showing that the speaker considers the proposition plausible but not
confirmed.
2.2.1 Deontic Modality
Deontic modality is
concerned with the expression of obligation, permission, prohibition, and duty
within socially or institutionally regulated contexts. While epistemic modality
reflects a speaker’s evaluation of the likelihood of a proposition and dynamic
modality relates to a subject’s inherent ability or willingness, deontic
modality derives its meaning from external norms, rules, and authority
structures. Nuyts (2016) therefore characterizes deontic modality as the
linguistic encoding of what is required, permitted, or prohibited within a
particular social or moral framework. Illustrative examples include You must
attend the meeting, which expresses obligation, and You may leave now, which
conveys permission.
The defining feature of
deontic modality is its connection to authority and social regulation. Hacquard
(2018) argues that deontic interpretations typically involve an external
source, such as institutional rules, legal systems, social conventions, or interpersonal
authority, that imposes or grants the conditions governing an action.
Consequently, deontic modality extends beyond the expression of modal meaning
to reflect the social relationships and normative structures that shape human
behaviour.
At the grammatical
level, deontic meanings are realized through language-specific syntactic
mechanisms. In English, they are commonly expressed by modal auxiliaries such
as must, should, and may, which function as clause-level operators. In
contrast, languages such as Igbo frequently encode deontic meanings through
verbal particles integrated into the verbal complex rather than through
independent auxiliary verbs (Matthewson, 2021). Such cross-linguistic variation
demonstrates that although the semantic function of deontic modality remains
relatively stable, its syntactic realization differs across languages. Thus,
deontic modality may be understood as the linguistic expression of obligations,
permissions, and prohibitions that regulate socially acceptable actions and
behaviours.
2.2.2 Dynamic Modality
Dynamic modality
concerns the expression of a subject’s inherent ability, capacity, or
willingness to perform an action. Unlike epistemic modality, which relates to a
speaker’s assessment of the truth of a proposition, and deontic modality, which
expresses obligation or permission, dynamic modality is grounded in the
internal characteristics of the subject. Matthewson (2021) maintains that
dynamic modal meanings derive from the participant’s capabilities or volition,
as illustrated in examples such as she can swim and they are willing to help.
This perspective identifies dynamic modality as a subject-oriented category
that reflects the conditions enabling an action to occur.
Despite this
distinction, modal meanings are not always rigidly separated. As Kärkkäinen
(2020); Narrog, &Heine, (2017) observe, the interpretation of modal
expressions is often shaped by context. For instance, must may indicate
internal necessity (I must leave now), epistemic inference (She must be home),
or deontic obligation (You must obey). Such variation demonstrates the
multifunctional nature of modal expressions and highlights the importance of
discourse context in determining meaning.
The grammatical
realization of dynamic modality also varies across languages. English commonly
employs modal auxiliaries such as can and will to express ability and
willingness, whereas languages such as Yorùbá frequently utilize auxiliary or
serial verb constructions for comparable functions (Hacquard, 2011). These
cross-linguistic differences reveal that similar modal concepts may be encoded
through distinct syntactic structures. Therefore, dynamic modality may be
defined as the linguistic expression of a subject’s ability, capacity, or
willingness to perform an action.
2.2.3 Modality Place in
Syntax
From a syntactic
perspective, modality is realized through structural configurations such as
modal auxiliaries, particles, and affixes that occupy functional positions
within clause structure. It interacts systematically with tense, aspect,
agreement, and negation, demonstrating that modality is not merely a semantic
phenomenon but an integral part of grammatical architecture (Huddleston &Pullum,
2002). This syntactic integration explains why modal expressions behave in
patterned ways alongside other functional categories.
In English, modality is
typically expressed through modal auxiliaries such as can, may, must, and will.
These elements occupy a preverbal functional head position and select bare
infinitival complements, as in She can read the book and They must leave early.
Their ability to trigger inversion and negation (Can she read? / She cannot
read) further confirms their status as independent functional operators within
clause structure, rather than lexical verbs (Kratzer, 2012).
By contrast, in
Niger-Congo languages such as Igbo, modal meanings are commonly encoded through
verbal particles or serial verb constructions rather than discrete auxiliary
verbs. For instance, Ọ nwereikeịga (“he has ability to go”) illustrates how
modality is embedded within the verbal phrase. In such structures, modal
meaning is morphologically and syntactically integrated into the predicate,
resulting in a tighter fusion between modality and the verb complex
(Aikhenvald, 2018). This contrast indicates that while English externalizes
modality as an independent functional head, Igbo internalizes it within verbal
morphology.
Above all, these
patterns show that modality constitutes a cross-linguistically stable
functional category, yet its syntactic realization varies significantly across
languages, reflecting language-specific grammatical architectures while
preserving universal functional properties.
3. Empirical Review
This empirical review
examines previous studies relevant to the research topic, focusing on findings
related to English–Fulfulde bilingualismand syntactic variation. It highlights
methodological approaches, key results and research gaps identified in earlier
works. The review provides a critical basis for situating the present study
within existing scholarship and justifying the need for further investigation.
Bokamba (1988)
investigated code-mixing and syntactic variation in bilingual African
communities, with particular focus on hybrid clause constructions among
Bantu–English speakers. Grounded in bilingualism and contact linguistic theory,
the study employed conversational data and qualitative syntactic analysis. The
findings revealed that code-mixing follows systematic grammatical patterns
rather than random alternation between languages. The study concluded that
bilingual speakers consciously maintain grammatical constraints while mixing
languages and recommended further studies on syntactic interaction in African
multilingual settings. However, the study did not specifically address modality
processes or provide a detailed contrastive syntactic analysis of English and
Fulfulde, which the present study seeks to examine.
Thomason & Kaufman
(1988) investigated the structural outcomes of language contact across
multilingual communities, with emphasis on syntactic restructuring, borrowing,
and hybrid constructions. Anchored in contact linguistics and historical
sociolinguistic theory, the study employed comparative historical and
sociolinguistic data analysis. The findings revealed that intense bilingual
contact often results in syntactic simplification, reanalysis, and structural
convergence between languages. The study concluded that language contact
significantly influences grammatical change and recommended further studies on
bilingual syntactic innovation in multilingual societies. However, the study
did not specifically examine modality processes or provide a contrastive
syntactic analysis of English and Fulfulde, which the present study intends to
address.
Mufwene (2001)
investigated the influence of language contact and bilingualism on the
syntactic structures of African languages, particularly Fulfulde and Nigerian
English, with emphasis on structural convergence and divergence. Anchored in
sociolinguistic and contact theory, the study employed sociolinguistic
interviews and historical linguistic analysis. The findings revealed that
bilingual speakers often produce hybrid and non-canonical clause structures
that are neither fully English nor Fulfulde. The study concluded that bilingual
interaction significantly shapes syntactic innovation and recommended further
comparative studies on African contact languages. However, limited attention
was given to modality processes and detailed contrastive syntactic analysis,
which constitutes the gap the present study intends to fill.
Heine &Kuteva (2005)
examined grammatical borrowing and syntactic change across African and other
world languages, with emphasis on the transfer of functional categories,
clausestructures, and grammatical markers. Anchored in contact linguistics and
grammaticalization theory, the study employed comparative linguistic data from
various African language families. The findings revealed that bilingual
communities frequently develop parallel syntactic structures as a result of
prolonged language contact. The study concluded that contact-inducedchange
significantly shapes grammatical systems and recommended further comparative
studies on African bilingual communities. However, limited attention was given
to modality processes and detailed contrastive syntactic analysis between
English and Fulfulde, which the present study aims to address.
Igboanusi (2006)
examined syntactic innovations in Nigerian English, focusing on function word
variation, subject omission, and interrogative formation. Guided by
sociolinguistic and contact linguistic perspectives, the study employed
qualitative textual analysis to investigate deviations from Standard English
structures. The findings revealed that Nigerian English demonstrates systematic
syntactic variations influenced by indigenous languages and sociolinguistic
environments. The study concluded that language contact significantly
contributes to the development of localized syntactic patterns and recommended
further investigations into bilingual language interaction in Nigeria. However,
the study did not specifically address modality processes or undertake a
detailed contrastive syntactic analysis between English and Fulfulde, which the
present study seeks to explore.
Gass&Selinker (2008)
examined processes in second language acquisition, focusing on syntactic
transfer, interlanguage development, and learner errors. Grounded in second
language acquisition theory, the study employed experimental data, learner
corpora, and classroom observations. The findings revealed that first language
(L1) structures exert a significant influence on second language (L2) syntax,
particularly in areas of tense, agreement, and word order, resulting in hybrid
grammatical forms within interlanguage systems. The study concluded that L1–L2
interaction shapes syntactic development and recommended further research on
bilingual syntactic interference. However, it did not specifically investigate
modality processes or a detailed contrastive analysis of English and Fulfulde,
which the present study seeks to address.
Haliru (2019)
investigated the functional classification of sentences in the Kulung language,
with emphasis on pragmatic conditioning of syntactic structures. Grounded in
functional linguistics, the study employed elicited data from native speakers
alongside natural conversational recordings. The findings revealed that
sentence types are largely context-dependent, demonstrating that pragmatic
factors significantly shape syntactic organization. The study concluded that
sentence structure cannot be fully understood without reference to discourse
context and recommended further functional analyses of related Adamawa
languages. However, it did not focus on modality processes or provide a
contrastive syntactic analysis of English and Fulfulde, which the present study
seeks to address.
Unuabonah (2021)
examined pragmatic markers borrowed from indigenous Nigerian languages into
Nigerian English, with emphasis on their syntactic positioning and discourse
functions. Grounded in corpus linguistics and pragmatics, the study employed
data from the International Corpus of English–Nigeria and a global web-based
corpus. The findings revealed that items such as oya, ke, ni, walahi, and ba
function as attention and emphasis markers within English clause structures,
reflecting contact-induced syntactic integration. The study concluded that
indigenous languages significantly shape the pragmatic and syntactic features
of Nigerian English and recommended further corpus-based studies. However, it
did not focus on modality processes or undertake a contrastive syntactic
analysis of English and Fulfulde, which the present study addresses.
Onuegwunwoke, Okoro,
&Onuoha (2024) investigated morpho-syntactic features in the spoken English
of Nigerian university students. Anchored in sociolinguistic and second
language acquisition perspectives, the study employed oral discourse tasks and
statistical analysis as its methodology. The findings revealed a high degree of
nativised syntactic patterns influenced by indigenous Nigerian languages, with
widespread deviations from Standard English due to bilingual interference and
sociolinguistic factors. The study concluded that local languages significantly
shape English morpho-syntax in bilingual settings and recommended further
investigation of structural variation in Nigerian English. However, it did not
specifically examine modality processes or conduct a contrastive syntactic
analysis between English and Fulfulde, which the present study addresses.
Aliyu &Danbukar
(2025) analysed sentence structures in the poetry of SanusiBako, with emphasis
on clause arrangement and thematic emphasis. Guided by literary stylistics and
syntactic analysis, the study employed qualitative textual analysis to examine
patterns of poetic syntax. The findings revealed notable variations in clause
structuring that reflect stylistic and expressive functions within the poetic
texts. The study concluded that syntactic flexibility plays a significant role
in literary meaning-making and recommended further exploration of syntactic
variation in creative texts. However, the study was limited to literary
discourse and did not address modality processes or provide a contrastive
syntactic analysis of English and Fulfulde, which the present study seeks to
fill.
Haliru& Aliyu (2025)
investigated errors in the use of the simple present tense among students,
focusing on L1 interference in syntactic performance. Grounded in second
language acquisition theory, the study employed a qualitative descriptive
method, using written exercises and oral responses as its data sources. The
findings revealed that learners’ first language significantly influences tense
usage, resulting in systematic errors in agreement and aspect marking. The
study concluded that bilingual interference plays a key role in tense
acquisition and recommended improved pedagogical strategies for grammar
instruction. However, it did not specifically examine modality processes or
provide a contrastive syntactic analysis of English and Fulfulde, which the
present study aims to address.
Bappa (2025) examined
the phonological adaptation of English loanwords in Fulfulde spoken contexts,
with particular attention to contact-induced linguistic change. Grounded in
contact linguistics and phonological theory, the study employed recordings and
bilingual informant interviews as its methodological approach. The findings
revealed processes such as vowel epenthesis, consonant substitution, and
syllable elongation in the adaptation of English lexical items. It further
demonstrated that some loanwords undergo grammaticalization into functional
elements, suggesting pathways for the emergence of new negators and other
functional morphemes. The study concluded that language contact significantly
shapes Fulfulde phonological and morpho-syntactic systems and recommended
further investigation of English–Fulfulde interaction. However, it did not
specifically focus on modality processes or provide a detailed contrastive
syntactic analysis of English and Fulfulde, which the present study seeks to
address.
Therefore, despite
extensive studies on language contact, bilingualismand syntactic variation,
existing studies reveal notable gaps. Works such as Mufwene (2001) and Thomason
& Kaufman (1988) adopt broad theoretical and comparative frameworks, with
limited attention to micro-level syntactic processes in specific contact
settings such as English–Fulfulde interaction in Adamawa State. Similarly,
studies byIgboanusi (2006) and Unuabonah (2021) focus on Nigerian English in
general, without a detailed contrastive examination of Fulfulde syntactic
structures. Furthermore, recent research has tended to prioritize phonological
adaptation, tense errors and literary stylistics rather than clause-level
syntactic analysis. Consequently, this study addresses these gaps by providing
a focused, context-specific contrastive analysis of English–Fulfulde syntactic
interactions in Adamawa State, with particular emphasis on modality processes.
4.0 Methodology
This study adopts a
descriptive research design. Data are drawn from Fulfulde, the native language
spoken in Adamawa State, and English, the official language used alongside
Fulfulde in the region, with particular focus on parallel constructions
expressing modality. Primary data for Fulfulde are elicited through direct
observation and native speaker intuition, while English data are obtained from
documentary sources, including standard textbooks. The data are analysed
qualitatively within a syntactic framework, emphasizing modal marking, subject
realization, argument structure, adjunct attachmentand principles of structural
economy.
5.0 Theoretical
Framework
The study is anchored on
Generative Syntax, particularly the Principles and Parameters framework by
(Chomsky,1981,1995) asprimary and Functional Grammar by
(Halliday&Matthiessen,2014) as supportive. Generative syntax explains
structural differences through parameter settings such as subject realization
and auxiliary placement,
while functional grammar
accounts for the communicative roles of modality in discourse. Together, these
frameworks provide a robust basis for analysing both forms and functions of
modality as an expressive mechanism in language elements.
Recent syntactic studies
have applied these frameworks in contemporary research. For instance, Radford
(2021) employs generative principles in analysing clause structure and
functional categories; Haegeman (2020) examines the syntax–discourse interface
within a generative framework; and Belletti (2019) explores subject positions
and parameter variation across languages. These works demonstrate the continued
relevance of generative syntax in explaining cross-linguistic variation,
particularly in areas such as modality, subject licensing and clause structure.
6.0 Data Presentation
and Analysis
This presentation and
analysis section is guided by the specific objectives of the study, focusing on
the identification and comparison of modal constructions in English and
Fulfulde.The analysis provides a structured interpretation of data in line with
the research objectives, ensuring clarity, coherenceand relevance to the
study’s aims. This is done as thus:
Table. Presents Data on
Modality Process: (ENG: can, must, may, will, shall) (FULF: waawan,
foti, doole, ndego, tammi, -an)
Fulfulde English
|
Mi fotiyiigona'iɗin. |
I can see the cattle. |
|
A fotiɓirgonaggengen. |
You can milk the cow. |
|
O fotiyaagoluumongon. |
He/She can go to the market. |
|
Doole am mi janngahaasaare. |
I must study at home. |
|
Doole ma kuwa les leggal. |
You must work under the tree. |
|
Doole o oorana'i. |
He must herd cattle. |
|
Ndego mi yahanhaawaaldenden. |
I may go to the correl. |
|
A tammihuwugondernokkuurenden. |
You may work in the field. |
|
O janngannderbukkaarundun. |
He/She will learn in the hut. |
|
Mi huwanhaaluumongon. |
I shall work at the market. |
Analyses:
Objective i: Description
of syntactic processes
The findings reveal that
modality in English and Fulfulde spoken in Adamawa State is realized through
systematic syntactic processes such as modal marking, subject realisation,
linear orderingand adjunct attachment. Within the Principles and Parameters framework,
English modal auxiliaries (can, must, may, will, shall) occupy a functional
head position (Modal/T), projecting a Modal Phrase. For example, I can see the
cattle shows the modal preceding thelexical verb, satisfying auxiliary
placement rules. In contrast, Fulfulde encodes modalitythrough morphologically
integrated forms such as foti, doole, and -an, as
in Mi fotiyiigona’iɗin, where modality is embedded within the
verbal complex. This reflects parameter variation in how languages realise
functional categories. Subject realisation further illustrates this: English
requires overt subjects (I must study), consistent with the Extended Projection
Principle, whereas Fulfulde allows pro-drop (Doolemi jannga), due to
rich agreement marking. From a functional perspective (Halliday& Matthiessen,2014),
these structures serve communicative purposes by expressing ability,
obligation, and permission. Thus, both languages exhibit universal syntactic
processes, but differ in structural realisation due to parameter settings.
Objective ii: Comparison
of syntactic structures
The comparison of
English and Fulfulde modal constructions highlights both structural
similarities and typological differences. Semantically, both languages encode
similar modal meanings such as ability (can/foti), obligation (must/doole),
permission (may/ndego), andfuturity (will/shall/tammi/-an).
However, within generative syntax, English employs auxiliary-based
constructions where modals occupy a higher functional head and precede the
lexical verb, as in You must attend the meeting. This creates a layered clause
structure with distinct projections. Fulfulde, by contrast, incorporates
modality into the verb phrase, as seen in O
janngannderbukkaarundun (‘He/She will learn in the hut’), reflecting a
different parameter setting where functional elements are morphologically
realised. Subject licensing also differs: English requires overt subjects,
while Fulfulde allows omission due to agreement features. From a functional
grammar perspective, both systems effectively encode interpersonal meanings
such as obligation and permission. Despite structural differences, both
languages show similar adjunct placement (haasaare, in the hut),
indicating shared underlying processes. Therefore, the comparison demonstrates
that while semantic interpretations align, syntactic realisation differs due to
language-specific parameter configurations.
Objective iii:
Justification of cross-linguistic variations
The observed differences
between English and Fulfulde modal constructions are justified within the
Principles and Parameters framework as outcomes of different parameter settings
across languages. English, as an analytic language, expresses modality through
independent auxiliary verbs occupying functional heads, as seen in She may go
to the market. Fulfulde, however, reflects a parameter where modality is
realised morphologically within the verb, as in A
tammihuwugondernokkuurenden. This variation demonstrates how universal
grammatical principles generate different surface structures. The pro-drop
parameter further explains subject variation: English requires overt subjects
due to a non-pro-drop setting, whereas Fulfulde permits null subjects because
agreement features identify the subject. Additionally, functional grammar
(Halliday & Matthiessen,2014) explains that these structural differences do
not affect meaning, as both languages successfully perform similar
communicative functions such as expressing obligation (doole/must) and
permission (ndego/may). Therefore, cross-linguistic variation is
systematic and predictable, not random. The findings support contemporary
generative studies (Radford, 2021; Haegeman, 2020; Belletti, 2019), confirming
that differences in modality expression arise from parameter variation while
maintaining universal semantic functions across languages.
7.0 Discussion of
Findings
The findings of this
research reveal that modality in English and Fulfulde spoken in Adamawa State
is governed by both universal grammatical principles and language-specific
structural patterns. From a generative perspective (Chomsky, 1981, 1995), both
languages employ functional categories to encode modal meanings such as
ability, obligation, permission, and futurity, but differ in their parameter
settings. In English, modality is expressed through auxiliary verbs occupying a
preverbal functional head, as seen in I can see the cattle and You must attend
the meeting. These constructions illustrate a clear separation between modal
and lexical verbs, resulting in a layered clause structure.
In contrast, Fulfulde
demonstrates morphosyntactic integration, where modal elements such as foti (‘can’), doole (‘must’),
and the suffix -an are embedded within the verbal complex. For
example, Mi fotiyiigona’iɗin (‘I can see the cattle’)
and O janngannderbukkaarundun (‘He/She will learn in the hut’)
show that modality is realised internally rather than through separate
auxiliaries. This supports the idea of parameter variation, where languages
differ in how functional features are externalised.
Another key finding
concerns subject realisation. English strictly follows the Extended Projection
Principle, requiring overt subjects in all modal constructions, whereas
Fulfulde allows pro-drop in contexts where agreement markers identify the
subject. For instance, Doolemi janngahaasaare (‘I must study
at home’) may omit the subject in discourse without loss of meaning.
From a functional
grammar perspective (Halliday& Matthiessen,2014), both languages
effectively encode interpersonal meanings. Expressions like You may leave now
and A tammihuwugondernokkuurenden (‘You may work in the
field’) perform similar communicative functions despite structural differences.
Overall, the findings demonstrate that while modality is a universal semantic
category, its syntactic realisation varies systematically across languages due
to typological and parametric differences.
8. Conclusion
In conclusion, this
paper has shown that modality in English and Fulfulde spoken in Adamawa State
reflects both universal grammatical principles and language-specific
variations. While both languages express similar modal meanings such as
ability, obligation, permissionand futurity. However, they differ significantly
in their syntactic realisation. English relies on auxiliary-based, structurally
layered constructions, whereas Fulfulde employs morphologicallyintegrated forms
within the verbal complex. These differences are explained through the
Principles and Parameters framework and supported by functional grammar.
Aboveall, the study demonstrates that cross-linguistic variation in modality is
systematic, predictable, and shaped by typological features of each language.
References:
Aikhenvald, A.Y.
(2018). The Oxford handbook of evidentiality. Oxford
UniversityPress.
Aliyu, B.,
&Danbukar, S. M. (2025). Investigating syntactic patterns in
SanusiBako'sTheMambilla Plateau. International Journal of English
Language and Communication Studies, 10(1), 74–83.
Bappa, M. (2025).
Morphophonological features of English loanwords and code switching inspoken
Nigerian Fulfulde. European Journal of Applied Linguistics Studies,
8(2).
Belletti, A.
(2019). Theoretical and comparative syntax: New perspectives
on subjectpositions and parametric variation. Routledge.
Bokamba, E. G. (1988).
Code-mixing, language variation, and linguistic theory: Evidence from
Bantu-English contact. Lingua, 76(1), 21–62.https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(88)90017-4
Chomsky, Noam
(1981). Lectures on government and binding. Foris
Publications.
Chomsky, Noam
(1995). The minimalist program. MIT Press.
Crystal, David
(2010). The Cambridge encyclopedia of language (3rd ed.).
CambridgeUniversity Press.
Gass, S. M.,
&Selinker, L. (2008). Second language acquisition: An
introductory course (3rd ed.). Routledge.
Hacquard, V.
(2011). Modality. In C. Maienborn, K. von Heusinger, & P.
Portner (Eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of natural language
meaning (Vol. 1, pp. 1484–1515) Walter de Gruyter.
Haegeman, L.
(2020). Thinking syntactically: A guide to argumentation and
analysis (2nded.). Wiley-Blackwell.
Halliday, M. A. K.,
&Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2014). Halliday's introduction tofunctional
grammar (4th ed.). Routledge.
Haliru, I. A.
(2019). Descriptive grammar of Kulung. Ahmadu Bello University,
Press
Haliru, A. I., &
Aliyu, B. (2025). Syntactic study of linguistic competence on the use ofsimple
present tense among some students of Federal Polytechnic, Bali, Taraba
State. Jalingo Journal of Languages and Literary Studies
(JAJOLLS),9(1), 17–31
Heine, B. &Kuteva,
T. (2005). Language contact and grammatical change.
CambridgeUniversity Press.
Huddleston,
R.&Pullum, G. K. (2002). The Cambridge grammar of the
Englishlanguage. Cambridge University Press.
Igboanusi, H.
(2006). A Dictionary of Nigerian English Usage.Encrownfit
Publishers.
Kärkkäinen, Elise
(2020). Stance, interaction, and epistemicity in discourse. CambridgeUniversity
Press.
Kratzer, A.
(2012). Modals and conditionals: New and revised perspectives. OxfordUniversity
Press.
Matthewson, L.
(2021). Modality and cross-linguistic variation. In Daniel
Gutzmann& Lisa
Matthewson (Eds.), The
Wiley Blackwell companion to semantics (2nd ed.). Wiley-Blackwell.
Mufwene, S. S.
(2001). The ecology of language evolution. Cambridge
UniversityPress.
Narrog, H., & Heine,
B. (2017). Grammaticalization and modality. In A. Ledgeway& I.
Roberts (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of historical syntax (pp. 7–27).
Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781107279070.002
Nuyts, J. (2016).
Analyses of the modal meanings. In J. Nuyts& J. van der Auwera (Eds.), The
Oxford handbook of modality and mood (pp. 31–49). Oxford University Press.
Onuegwunwoke, H. N.,
Okoro, C. C., & Onuoha, C. N. (2024). Morpho-syntactic features inthe
spoken English of Nigerian university students. International Journal
of Language and Linguistics, 11(2), 45–61.
Palmer, F. R.
(2001). Mood and modality (2nd ed.). Cambridge University
Press.https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139167178
Portner, P. (2009). Modality.
Oxford University
Press.https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199292424.001.0001
Radford, A.
(2021). Analysing English sentences: A minimalist approach (2nd ed.). Cambridge
University Press.
Thomason, S. G., &
Kaufman, T. (1988). Language contact, creolization, and
geneticlinguistics. University of California Press.
Unuabonah, Foluke O.
(2021). Pragmatic markers in Nigerian English: Corpus evidence
andcontact-induced change. World Englishes, 40(4), 530–548.
0 Comments