A syntactic analysis of Tiv anaphors and pronominals using Government-Binding Theory

1. 1
ANAPHORS AND PRONOMINALS IN TIV: GOVERNMENT-BINDING APPROACH
Isaac Kuna
DEPARTMENT OF LINGUISTICS AND FOREIGN LANGUAGES
BAYERO UNIVERSITY, KANO
kunaisaac@yahoo.com
+2348030558002
A Paper Presented at the 29th
Conference of Linguistics Association of Nigeria, University of
Jos, Jos, between 5th
and 10th
December, 2016

2. 2
Abstract
Government and Binding as a syntactic theory, was developed by Noam Chomsky in the 1980s.
The theory was a radical revision of his earlier theory of transformational-generative grammar
(TGG) which was later revised in The Minimalist Program (1995) and in his paper, Three Factors
in Language Design (2005). Government and Binding (GB) model claims that human languages
consist of principles that are universal for any grammar and parameters that allow grammars to
vary in limited ways. Binding Theory determines the interpretation and distribution of pronouns
and anaphors. It is formulated in terms of three principles: Condition A applies to anaphors;
Condition B applies to pronouns and Condition C, applies to name and other referential
expressions (R-expressions).There is no descriptively adequate account of syntatico-semantic
analysis of Tiv anaphors and pronominals. The goal of this paper therefore, is to provide a
systematic description of anaphoric and pronominal relations in Tiv, using the three binding
conditions as proposed by Chomsky (1981). Anaphors and pronominals of Tiv exhibit unique
morphosyntactic structure in terms of coindexation and referential expression. Using both primary
and secondary data collected through survey and Tiv literature, the researcher proposes that the
use of anaphors in Tiv is motivated by antecedent. This paper observes that the use of anaphors
and pronominals in Tiv is not without certain constraints. Tiv anaphors and pronominals like many
other languages, play referential function as they derive their meanings from both the antecedent
and the entity in the world. They do not show gender.
KEYWORDS: Government-Binding Theory, Anaphors and Pronominals, Tiv Language, Co-
indexation, Antecedent, Referential, R-expression

3. 3
1.0 Introduction
As an offshoot of Transformational-Generative Grammar (TGG) (Chomsky, 1957, 1965)
and Extended Standard Theory, EST (1970), GB postulates that sentences have three main levels
of representations—D-structure, S-structure and Logical Form. S-structure is derived from D-
structure via transformational rules and Logical Form (LF) from S-Structure through the same
rules by applying move alpha. Logical Form (LF) is an interface between the syntactic and
semantic components. The main sub-theories of GB are: Government theory, Binding theory, X-
bar theory, Case theory, Theta theory, Control theory and Bounding theory. These sub-theories are
best known as modules which presuppose that GB is a modular theory of syntax. The Phrase
Structure rules and the transformational rules make up the heart of the GB model. The development
of GB theory as a modular model really began in 1977 when Chomsky and Lasnik proposed some
major revisions in the Extended Standard Theory in Filters and Control. They provided an S-
surface filter that simplifies and restricts the theory of transformation. They questioned the
necessity of phrase structure rules in the lexicon which provided similar information. They also
addressed the question of transformational rules with regard to stylistic rules versus meaning
changing rules.
Anaphors are dependent nominal elements, which must have a sentence-internal
antecedent. Unlike pronouns, they cannot generally, refer to a sentence-external contextual
element. The antecedent of the anaphor must c-command the anaphor. Pronouns do not require a
sentence-internal antecedent. However, if they do have a sentence-internal antecedent, then it must
be feature-compatible with the pronoun. Pronouns do not have a c-command requirement. The
intuition is that anaphors must have a binder that is localized, while pronouns may not have a
binder that is localized.
a. Condition A: An anaphor must be locally bound.
b. Condition B: A pronoun must not be locally bound.
c. Condition C: An R-expression cannot be bound.
The preoccupation of this paper is to describe how the grammar of Tiv reflects the speakers’
intuitions regarding the use of anaphors and pronominals in the construction of grammatical
sentences. Tiv language is classified under the Benue-Congo branch of the Niger family of
languages. It is of Bantu origin and belongs to the semi-Bantu group of languages. Tiv is an
inflectional (fusional) language as units of meaning are fused into a single morphological shape.
The language exhibits seven morphological processes such as: prefixation, suffixation, infixation,
stem modification, reduplication, suprasegmental modification and suppletion. It is predominantly
a dependent-marking language. The language has SVO word order.
1.1 Government and Binding Theory
In outlining the theory of core grammar, Chomsky lists the subcomponents of the rule
systems of grammar: Lexicon, Syntax (categorial and transformational components), Phonetic
Form component and Logical Form component. The lexicon specifies the abstract morpho-
phonological properties of each lexical item and its syntactic features… (Chomsky, 1988: 5). The
idiosyncratic properties of a lexical item constitute the atomic units of the syntax (Black, 1999: 2).
Categorial component consists of the base rules that generate the D-Structure and transformational
component is applied to D-Structure to derive the S-Structure. The mapping of the D-Structure to
S-Structure by Move α leaves traces that are coindexed with their antecedents.

4. 4
Base Rules
Move α
Figure 1: D-Structure and S-Structure
The central notion of government is the relation that exists between the phrasal head and its
dependent categories. Binding is concerned with anaphoric and pronominal relations in a syntactic
structure. Government and Binding theory is used principally to filter out ungrammatical sentences
in human natural language as it specifies what the components of the sentence are, how they
interact, in which order they occur, etc. It not only formulates the principles that are of a universal
nature; but also parameterizes language­specific properties of individual languages. Grammati-
cality has nothing to do with units higher than the sentence but the relation between the structure
of the sentence and the words that make up the sentence (Chomsky, 1986; Haegeman, 1994).
1.1.1 Government Theory
The term government is derived from the verb govern which literally means, ‘to control’,
‘restrain’, ‘determine’ or ‘influence’. In linguistics, to ‘govern’ is to require a specific
morphological form of accompanying words. In other words, here, a word or part of speech dictates
the case, mood or inflectional ending of another closely associated word, such a word is said to
govern the other word in the sentence. For example, prepositions in English, govern the accusative
NPs. Lexical heads such as nouns, verbs, adjectives and prepositions are governors along with the
inflection of the finite clause (Chomsky, 1981: 162). The governees control their complement
positions whilst the inflection governs the subject position (Cook & Newson, 2007).
(a) VP (b) PP (c) IP
V' P' I'
V NP P NP NP I
Lexicon
S-Structure
D-Structure
Phonetic Form (PF) Logical Form (LF)

5. 5
(1) Give him
(2) Look at them
(3) She has given him
The verb, give governs him (1) and the preposition, at governs the accusative pronoun,
them (2). But in (3), has governs she, the logical subject. Verbs, prepositions, and Complemen-
tizers govern NP2. A verb does not govern NP1, but I does if it is tensed or contains AGR [+Tensed,
+AGR]. A Raising verb (seem, appear) or a raising predicate (certainly, likely) has the verb or
adjective as a governor. A marked verb such as English “believe” or Tiv “gbidye” (beat) is an
instance of Exceptional Case-marking (ECM) (Chomsky, 1981; Aoun & Sportiche, 1983; Starosta,
1988). “Only transitive verbs can be exceptionally Case-marking verbs…the raising verbs must be
intransitive since they govern NP1”. Government is therefore, “closely related to
subcategorization” (Chomsky, 1981: 164). Essentially, Case theory is an integral part of
Government Theory as the basic and central instances of Case assignment are instances of
government by a Case-assigner (Chomsky, 1981: 183).
1.1.2 Governing Category
According to Crystal (2008: 215) ‘a governing category is the minimal structure (noun
phrase or sentence) within which the relationships of binding obtain.
X is the governing category for Y,
Where X is N, V, Adj, P or AGR
if and only if X and Y are dominated by exactly the same maximal projections.’
In other words:
α is a governing category for β if and only if α is the minimal category containing β
and a governor of β, where α = NP or S (Chomsky, 1981: 188).
(4) Zege or
Big man
(A big man)
(5) Nenge tsembelee
Saw clearly
(Saw clearly)
In (4), Adj Zege and N or are the terminal nodes or governing categories of the noun phrase NP''
which is maximally projected. Similarly, in (5) V nenge and Adv tsembelee are the governing
categories of the verb phrase VP which is also projected.
For example, in Tiv:
(6) Yav sha butu.
Sleep on mat
(Sleep on the mat)
(7) Ḿ gbidye un.
I beat him/her
(I beat him/her)
(8) Ḿ ngu yemen.
I am going
(I am going)
(9) U kar wer i doo.
You said that it good
(You said that it was good.)

6. 6
An NP is said to be ‘governed’ by a verb (7), inflection (8), preposition (6) or
complementizer (9) as in the above examples; but ungoverned as in the case of reflexivization. An
NP can govern a reflexive as in (10).
(10) Ḿi vé iyolyami.
I came myself
(I came myself.)
Here, the verb vé (came) does not govern iyolyam (myself) because it is a reflexive pronoun.
Government refers to the relationship between a lexical head and its dependent. In this case,
iyolyam depends on the lexical head Ḿ for its meaning. This means that the dependent cannot stand
alone in any sentence structure without its antecedent. Within its binding domain, iyolyam must
be c-commanded by the antecedent Ḿ. Similarly:
(11) Ḿi ngu kilen akondo iyolyami.
I am washing clothes myself
(I am washing clothes myself.)
The verb kilen or the noun akondo do not govern iyolyam because Ḿ opens a slot for iyolyam
which refers “back” to the subject.
A governs B if and only if:
A is a governor.
A m–commands B and
No barrier intervenes between A and B
IP
NP I'
Ḿ
I VP
ngu
V'
kilen NP
N'
akondo NP
iyolyam
In generative grammar “when several possible nodes c-command a constituent, the
‘governor’ is the lowest of these nodes in the tree (i.e. the minimal node), as long as there is no

7. 7
intervening noun phrase or S–bar” (Crystal, 2008: 215). To this end, governors include noun, verb,
adjective, preposition, tense and possessive. The main application of the government relation
concerns the assignment of case. Cook and Newson (2007: 151) define government as follows:
α governs β if:
α is a governor
α m – commands β
There is no barrier between α and β
(12) M fa Terwase
I know Terwase
(I know Terwase.)
barrier
(13) M fa Terwase ngu yemen.
I know Terwase is going
(I know Terwase is going.)
In (12), M governs Terwase but in (13) it does not, because the nearer governor, Terwase is a
barrier, an intervening element, blocking the control of the subject, M so, it cannot govern ngu
yemen (Chomsky, 1986). This is referred to as Relativized Minimality in Minimalism.
α governs β if:
(i) α is a governor
(ii) α m-commands β
(iii) There is no closer governor to them.
Note that Terwase ngu yemen is embedded in M fa (13). C-command is a configurational property
that determines the operation of binding theory which I shall discuss later in this work.
1.2 Tiv Anaphors
The term anaphor is used in a special way in the generative grammar as a reflexive or reciprocal
pronoun, such as himself or each other in English. Binding theory investigates the syntactic
relationship that can or must hold between a given anaphor and its antecedent or postcedent. In
this respect, anaphors behave very differently from personal pronouns. An anaphor is a noun
phrase which refers to another noun phrase in a sentence.
Tiv Gloss Tiv Gloss
Iyolyam Myself Ayolase Ourselves
Iyolyom Yourself Ayolave Themselves
Iyolna Himself / Herself Ayolaen(e) Yourselves
Iyol ii Itself
Table 1: Tiv Anaphors (Reflexives)
Tiv anaphors consist of a head noun iyol (body) and a possessive pronominal determiner,
-yam, -yom, -ase, -ave, -na, aen(e) and ii. While English anaphors are head-final, Tiv anaphors are
head-initial. The agreement between the head noun and the pronominal in clause-mate is specified
by inserting pronominal copies of head noun into empty determiner nodes, which is an instance of
move α. “Pronominalisation and reflexivisation are simply two aspects of a single

8. 8
phenomenon…Pronouns and reflexives are in complementary distribution” (Wasow, 1972: 18).
This is exemplified in (15 a-i).
1.3 Tiv Pronominals
The major difference between a pronominal and an anaphor is that a pronominal can refer
to someone else but an anaphor is bound in its governing category. Radford (2004: 46), citing
Postal (1966), Abney (1987), Longobardi (1994) and Lyons (1999) suggests that there are D-
pronouns and pronominals. For example:
(14) (a) [We republicans] don’t trust [you democrats]
(b) [We] don’t trust [you]
Since we and you in (14a) modify the nouns republicans/democrats as
determiners are typically used to modify nouns, they function as prenominal determiners. But in
(14b), we and you appear without nominal elements which is why they function as pronominals.
The third-person pronouns like he/she/it/they are typically used pronominally.
Tiv (Nominative) Gloss Tiv (Accusative) Gloss
M / Me I Me / Mo Me
Se We Se Us
We /Ne You U / Ne You
Ve They Ve Them
A / Un He / She Un Him / Her
I It I It
Table 2: Tiv Pronominals (Pronouns)
According to Carnie (2007: 136), a pronominal is “an NP that may (but need not) get its meaning
from another word in the sentence while an anaphor is an NP that obligatorily gets its meaning
from another NP in the sentence.” A pronominal is optionally bound to its antecedent in the
sentence. It cannot refer to something outside the sentence structure. But a pronominal is free.
Whereas a reflexive must be bound in its local domain, a pronoun must be free in its local domain.
In order to determine the binding domain for reflexive, one should find the governor of the
reflexive and the closest subject (Haegeman, 1994: 215). Let us consider:
(15)
(a) Ai gbidye iyolnai
S(he) beat himself/herself
(S(he) beat himself/herself)
(b) Ai gbidye unk
S(he) beat him/her
(S(he) beat him/her)
(c) Ai gbidye vek
S(he) beat them
(S(he) beat them)
(d) Ai gbidye sek
S(he) beat us
(S(he) beat us)
(e) Ai gbidyemk
S(he) beat-me
(S(he) beat me)
(f) Ai gbidye uk

9. 9
S(he) beat you-SING
(S(he) beat you)
(g) Ai gbidye nek
S(he) beat you-PLUR
(S(he) beat you)
(h) Ternai man Terseeri soo ayolavei
Terna and Terseer love themselves
(Teerna and Terseer love each other.)
(i) Ternai, Terseeri man Terdooi soo ayolavei
Terna, Terseer and Terdoo love themselves
(Terna, Terseer and Terdoo love one another)
Tiv personal pronouns show person and number but do not show gender (15a-g) and there is no
distinction between “each other” and “one another” (15h-i).
1.4 Binding Theory
To ‘bind’ is to ‘tie’ ‘fasten tightly’, ‘restrict or limit something’. Whereas government is an abstract
syntactic relation, binding deals with the referents of pronouns, anaphors and referential
expressions. The governing category was replaced with local domain in Chomsky (1986) and is
defined as the minimal clause (IP) which contains the bindee. Chomsky (1981) suggests that
Binding Theory (BT) should be developed within the framework of Government Theory (GT)
which expresses their common core.
Antecedent-binding relates anaphors and proximate pronominals to their antecedents,
controllers in the case of PRO. Variable-binding relates variables to the operators that bind
them, perhaps through the medium of a trace. The notions seem conceptually distinct. One
is a logical notion, the other (antecedent-binding) a syntactic notion relating to the syntax
of LF (Chomsky, 1981: 184).
The distinction between BT and GT is that of antecedent-binding versus peripheral-binding, where
the former holds when the c-commanding element is in an A-position and the latter when it is not.
“Binding is a kind of coindexation. It is coindexation that happens when one of the two NPs c-
commands the other, Note that coinderation alone does not constitute binding. Binding requires
both coindexation and c-command” (Carnie, 2007: 40). In the framework of Binding Theory:
(A)An anaphor is bound in its governing category.
(B) A pronoun is free in its governing category.
(C) An R-expression is free
α is X-bound by β if and only if:
α and β are coindexed,
β c-commands α, and β is in an X- position
(Chomsky, 1981: 184, 188).
(16) (a) Dooshimai gbidye [IP iyolnai sha akpa.]
Dooshima beat herself with whip
(Dooshima beat herself with a whip.)
(b) Dooshimai gbidye [IP unj sha akpa.]
Dooshima beat him/her with whip
(Dooshima beat him/her with a whip.)
(c) Dooshimai hen [CP er [IP ák gbidye iyolna sha akpa.]
Dooshima thought that s(he) beat herself with whip.
(Dooshima thought that s(he) beat herself with a whip.)

10. 10
(d) Dooshimai hen [CP er [IP vek gbidye uni sha akpa.]
Dooshima thought that they beat him/her with whip.
(Dooshima thought that they beat him/her with a whip.)
(e) Dooshimai hen [CP er [IP úni gbidye vej sha akpa.]
Dooshima thought that she beat them with whip.
(Dooshima thought that she beat them with a whip.)
(f) Dooshimai lam [PP a nak [PP shaci wouj.]
Dooshima talked with him/her about you
(Dooshima talked with him/her about you.)
(g) Dooshimai lam [PP a vesek [PP shaci naj.]
Dooshima talked with us about him/her.
(Dooshima talked with us about him/her.)
(h) Dooshimai na-jighjigh [CP er [IP ák soomi.]
Dooshima believes that s(he) loves-me
(Dooshima believes that s(he) loves me.)
(i) Dooshimai na-jighjigh [CP er [IP sek soo vej.]
Dooshima believes that we love them.
(Dooshima believes that we love them.)
(j) [CP Er Dooshimai a na-jighjigh [IP a iyolnai.]
That Dooshima she believes in herself.
(That Dooshima believes in herself.)
(k) Ngôk u Dooshimai na-jighjigh [IP a iyolnai.]
Mother of Dooshima believes in herself.
(The mother of Dooshima believes in herself.)
(l) Ngôk u Dooshimai na-jighjigh [PP sha nai.]
Mother of Dooshima believes in her
(The mother of Dooshima believes in her.)
Pronouns are “proximate” if they are coindexed with some other element (16a, c, d, e, j, k) and
“obviative” if not coindexed with any other element (16b, f, g, h, i). The domain in which the
reflexive must be bound is the clause containing it. Comparing the structural relations (16 a - l), I
can conclude that the relation is that of c-command. In other words, the antecedent must c-
command the reflexive (Haegeman, 1994). A pronoun is necessarily Case-marked hence, has a
governing category in which it can be free (16b, h-i). “[E]xceptionally case marked (ECM) subjects
with an antecedent in the immediate subordinate clause are realized as reflexives rather than
pronouns” (Truswell, 2014: 216). Tiv anaphors and pronominals do not show gender e.g. a, na(n)
and iyolna (16a-d). So, the pronoun un in (16d) may refer to Dooshima or someone else in the
world, depending on the pragmatic meaning of the sentence. The English version of each other
or one another is ayolave.
An element α binds an element β if and only if:
(i) α c-command β
(ii) α and β are coindexed (co-referred).
(17) Sewuese ngu gbidyen iyolna sha akpa.
Sewuese is beating herself with whip
(Sewuese is beating herself with a whip)

11. 11
Sewuese (NP) α constituent–commands (c–commands) iyolna (NP) β. This means that, (NP) binds
another NP. Both Sewuese (NP) α and iyolna (NP) β co-index or co-refer meaning, they both refer
to the same person.
(18) Ngô u Sewuese ngu gbidyen iyolna sha akpa
Mother of Sewuese is beating herself with whip
(Mother of Sewuese is beating herself with a whip.)
There is only “of–genitive” in Tiv instead of “s-genitive” in case of English as in (18). But the of–
genitive varies according to Tiv morphophonological placement e.g. Ikpa ί (bag of); Ngo u (mother
of); Inyaregh ki (money of); Ior mba (people of), etc. In (18) Sewuese is no longer bound to iyolna
(herself) but to the possessed Ngŏ (mother). In (17) iyolna (herself) binds Sewuese but in (18)
iyolna (herself) binds Ngŏ (mother). In GB, binding is a symmetric relationship hence, Sewuese or
Ngô, which is the antecedent (binder) must c–command iyolna which is the anaphor or pronoun
(bindee).
(19) Terna hen er wankwase shon fa un.
Terna thinks that girl the knows him.
(Terna thinks that the girl knows him.)
(20) Terna hen er a fa ve.
Terna thinks that s(he) knows them
(Terna thinks that s(he) knows them.)
IP IP
NP I' NP I'
Terna VP Terna VP
I I
Ɵ CP Ɵ CP
V' V'
hen NP hen NP
C' C'
er VP er VP
N' N'
wankwase shon NP a NP
V' V' un
fa un fa
In (19) un (him) is bound to Terna but wankwase is not bound. It refers to someone else:
R-expression. Let me rewrite the sentences thus:
(21) Terna hen er a fa un
Terna thinks that she knows him
(Terna thinks that she knows him.)
The pronominal a refers to wankwase (20) and ve is related or linked to Terna. Both a (she) and
ve (them) are not co-referential with Terna. They are independent (unbound) elements hence, free.
Any NP that refers to an entity in the world is called R- expression (Referring expression). As a
consequence, in this approach, an antecedent is considered to be a segment of text. More precisely,
Carnie (2007: 91) defines an antecedent as “an NP that gives its meaning to a pronoun or an
anaphor”.

12. 12
A is the antecedent of B iff:
(i) A precedes B and
(ii) A and B corefer.
NPs that corefer are said to be coindexed which means, they refer to same entity in the world. A
full nominal expressions like Dooshima, Terna, Sewuese, etc. are independent entities that selects
referents from the universe of discourse but pronouns select referents from the universe of
discourse by indicating gender, number and person. Pronouns is interpreted in a sentence without
any context as they refer to entities different from the antecedent (Haegeman, 1994).
1.5 Binding Principles
Let me apply the principles of Binding Theory to Tiv anaphors, pronominals and R-expressions
and see their referential properties. Generally, the binding power of an anaphor is determined by a
certain local domain. As clearly stated above, binding theory contains three principles, each of
which regulates the distribution and interpretation of one specific type of NP. Principle A is the
principle that regulates the interpretation of elements which are referentially dependent, such as
reflexives. This Principle states that reflexives must be linked to, or bound by, an NP in an A-
position in a local domain. Principle B constrains the interpretation of pronouns: pronouns should
not be linked to an NP in an A­position within the binding domain. Principle C determines the
distribution and interpretation of referential expressions must not be bound by NPs in A-positions
(Haegeman, 1994; Chomsky, 1986; Aoun, 1986; Black, 1999).
(22) (a) M hen [CP me me za iyolyam]
I think that I shall go myself
(I think that I shall go myself)
(b) M hen [CP me un ne za iyolna.]
I think [that s(he) will go him-herself
(I think that s(he) will go him-herself.)
© M hen [CP me ve a za ayolave.]
I think that they will go themselves
(I think that they will go themselves.)
(d) *M hen [CP me me za iyolna.]
I think that I go him-herself
(*I think that I shall go him-herself.)
(e) *M hen [CP me se za ayolave.]
I think that we go themselves.
(*I think that we should go themselves.)
(f) *M hen [CP me ve za ayolase.]
I think that they go ourselves.]
(*I think that they shall go myself
The distributional pattern is as a result of the classification of NPs according to their feature values:
Anaphors [+anaphor, -pronominal]
Pronominal [-anaphor, +pronominal]
R-expression [-anaphor, -pronominal]
Binding is possible in (22 a - c) but impossible in (22 d - f). A reflexive needs an antecedent within
clause-mate with which to agree in person and in number. This is because an anaphor lacks
independent reference. It must have an antecedent which is the binder. Radford (1981: 366)
proposes Matching Condition which serves as semantic filter: “If two NPs are assigned the same
index, they must “match” in features (e.g. number, gender, person, etc.).” So, in (22d – f), M (I)

13. 13
does not match in features with iyolna (him-herself), ayolave (themselves) and iyolase (ourselves).
The distribution of Tiv anaphors and pronominals is governed by three universal Binding
Principles:
Principle A: An anaphor must be bound locally.
This principle determines the distribution of anaphor within a sentence. For example:
(23) Sé tese ayolase.
We taught ourselves.
(We taught ourselves.)
The NP–ayolase (ourselves) is locally bound to the NP – se. The reflexive and its antecedent agree
with respect to nominal features of person and number but not with gender (23). They possess the
same property of [+male, +female]. Anaphoric expression is possible only in sentences that
provide configurations in which the use of anaphors is grammatical and meaningful (Reinhart,
1976). Tiv anaphors like many languages are bound in their local domain. In order to determine
the binding domain for the reflexive: “(i) find the governor of the reflexive, (ii) find the closest
subject. The smallest IP or NP containing these two elements will be the binding domain in which
the reflexive must be bound, i.e. coindexed with a c-commanding (and agreeing) antecedent”
(Haegeman, 1994: 215).
Principle B: A pronominal must be free locally.
As stressed earlier, a pronominal is optionally bound.
(24) Terna hen er a fa un.
Terna thinks that she knows him
(Terna thinks that she knows him.)
A pronominal must not be bound in an A-position where there is no binder in the clause. A pronoun
does not need an antecedent to get its meaning. The NP – a (she) is free locally. In (24), the Locality
Principle does not apply; that is, un is not bound to a but to Terna. This leads us to the next
principle.
Principle C: An R–expression must be free everywhere.
R-expressions are inherently referential expressions which select a referent from the universe of
discourse. They have independent reference as they do not need an antecedent. In (21 and 24), a
(s(he)) gets its meaning outside the sentence thus, not bound to any antecedent. It is therefore, an
R–expression. “An NP is + R iff it carries a full specification for φ-features and structural Case”
(Reinhart & Reuland, 1993: 697).
1.6 Conclusion
Tiv language has seven anaphors (reflexives) and ten pronominals (pronouns). They
consist of a head noun iyol- and a possessive pronominal determiner –yam, -yom, -ase, -ave, -na,
-aen(e) and ii. Tiv anaphors and pronominals are in complementary distribution. The insertion of
one excludes the other. From the data presented and analyzed in this paper, it is incontrovertible
that the Tiv language has anaphoric and pronominal relations in syntactic structure. These
reflexives and pronouns show person and number but not gender in sentences. There is no
distinction between “each other” and “one another.” It is necessary to identify correctly the
elements participating in an anaphoric and pronominal relations and to determine correctly the
meaning of the anaphor and pronoun on the basis of the antecedent. The mechanisms for
associating “anaphor and antecedent, to specify correctly the reading of the anaphor is a function
of the reading of the antecedent. While the anaphors must be bound in their local domains the
pronominals violate the Locality Principle.

14. 14
Tiv anaphors and pronominals like many other languages, play referential function as they
derive their meanings from both the antecedent and the entity in the world. This paper agrees that
the use of anaphors and pronominals in Tiv is not without certain constraints. Here lies the
weakness of this paper as it fails to account explicitly for the notion of constraints. Further research
will help iron out this difficulty.
References
Aoun, J. & Sportiche, D. (1983). On the Formal Theory of Government. In Linguistic Review 2,
211-236.
Black, C. A. (1999). A Step-by-Step Introduction to the Government and Binding Theory of
Syntax. Retrieved on 21st
November, 2016 from:
http://www.sil.org/americas/mexico/ling/E002-IntroGB.pdf
Carnie, A. (2007). Syntax: A Generative Introduction. Oxford, England: Blackwell.
Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic Structures, London: Mouton.
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax, Cambridge: MIT.
Chomsky, N. (1980). Rules and Representation, New York: Columbia University.
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.
Chomsky, N. (1986). Barriers. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. (1995). The Minimalist Program, Cambridge: MIT Press.
Cook, V. J. and Newson, M. (2007). Chomsky's Universal Grammar: An Introduction. Malden,
MA: Blackwell.
Crystal, D. (2008). A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Haegeman, L. (1994). Introduction to Government and Binding Theory. Oxford: Blackwell
Publishers.
Radford, A. (1981). Transformational Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Radford, A. (2004). Minimalist Syntax: Exploring the Structure of English. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Reinhart, T. (1976). The Syntactic Domain of Anaphora. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT.
Reinhart, T. & Reuland, E. (1993). Reflexivity. In Linguistic Inquiry 24, p. 657 – 720.
Starosta, S. (1988). The Case for Lexicase: An Outline of Lexicase Grammatical Theory. New
York: Pinter Publishers
Truswell, R. (2014). Binding Theory. In Carnie, A., Sato, Y. & Saddiqi, D. (Eds.). The
Routledge Handbook of Syntax. New York: Routledge Publishers.
Wasow, T. (1972). Anaphoric Relations in English. Unpublished Ph.D Thesis, MIT.