Main Article Content
This paper examines strength and interpretability of Agreement and Tense features in English and Izọn languages within Chomskyan minimalist program which places premium on feature checking. Agreement (Agr) and Tense (T) are abstract functional heads in the clause structure of natural languages which check corresponding Agr and Tense features of nouns and verbs to ensure the convergence of syntactic derivations. The objective of the study is to characterize the strength and interpretability of the morphosyntactic features of Agr and Tense in the process of checking in both English and Izọn. The study derived data from standard and regularly used textbooks in English and from competent native speakers in Izọn. The study reveals that phi-features in both languages are interpretable at both Phonetic Form (PF) or phonological level and Logical Form (LF) or semantic level, but the +N agreement feature of Izọn verbs is interpretable only at LF but is uninterpretable at PF. On the other hand, Tense features of verbs of both languages are strong and interpretable at both LF and PF. Consequently, checking of these morphosyntactic features takes place before Spell-Out but the +N feature of Izọn verbs undergoes Procrastination and is checked after Spell-Out. This study characterizes the interface between functional morphological features and syntactic derivations and contributes to the linguistic discourse of feature checking.
Odingowei Kwokwo. Morphosyntactic interface of agreement and tense in English and Ịzọn. Journal of the Linguistic Association of Nigeria. 2014;17(1-2):11-25.
Williamson K, Blench R. Niger-Congo. Ed. Heine B and Nurse D. African languages: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2000;11-42.
Kwokwo OM. A morphosyntactic investigation of functional categories in English and Ịzọn. PhD Thesis, University of Ibadan, Nigeia; 2012.
Williamson K. A grammar of the Kolokuma Dialect of Ijo. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1969.
Egberipou OA, Williamson K. Ịzọn Tolumọ - Learn Ịzọn. Port Harcourt; Riverside Communication; 1994.
Marantz. The minimalist program In Webulhuth, G. Government and binding theory and the minimalist program: Principles and parameters in syntactic theory. Cambridge, Mass: Blackwell. 1995; 351-381.
Lamidi MT. The Minimalist program. An Encyclopedia of the Arts. 2006;4(2):92- 96.
Fakih AA. Licensing, movement and feature checking in standard Arabic: A minimalist approach. King Saud University Journal of Arts. 2006;19:37-54.
Pesetsky D, Torrego’s E. The syntax of valuation and the interpretability of features in S. Karimi, V. Samiian and W. Wilkins, Eds. Phrasal and Clausal Architecture. Amsterdam: Benjamins; 2004.
Koopman H, Sportiche D. The position of subjects’. Lingua. 1991;85;211-58.
Radford A. Syntactic theory and the structure of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1997.
Lotfi AR. Minimalist program revisited: Chomsky’s strength to trigger movement. In proceedings of the 34th Linguistic Colloquium (Germersheim 1999); 2002.
Lotfi AR. Feature sharing v. feature checking: An analysis of Persian pre- and post-verbal CPs; Califonia Linguistic Notes. 2006;XXXI(1).
Radford A. Minimalist syntax: Exploring the structure of English. Cambridge: Canbridge University Press; 2004.
Abney S. The English noun phrase in sentential aspects. PhD Dissertation: MIT; 1987.
Pollock JY. Verb movement, universal grammar and the structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry. 1989;20:365-424.
Comrie B. Tense. Cambridge; Cambridge University Press; 1985.
Yuka C. An articulated clause structure for Lamnso. Research in African languages and linguistics (RALL). University of Ibadan, Ibadan. 1999-2000;5(1):1-11.