MOVE ALPHA TOP AND PRO WITHIN THE MINIMALIST PROGRAM A CROSSLINGUISTIC ANALYSIS OF NGAS HAUSA AND FULFULDE

1
MOVE- , TOP AND PRO WITHIN THE MINIMALIST PROGRAM: A CROSS-
LINGUISTIC ANALYSIS OF: NGAS, HAUSA AND FULFULDE
BY
LENGJI NUDIYA DANJUMA
PGA/06/06235
A Thesis
Submitted to the School of Postgraduate Studies, University of Maiduguri, in Partial
Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Award of Doctor of Philosophy in General
Linguistics
NOVEMBER, 2015

2
CERTIFICATION
We certify that this thesis entitled “Move- , TOP and PRO within the Minimalist Program:
A Cross-Linguistic Analysis of: Ngas, Hausa and Fulfulde” has been duly presented by
Lengji Nudiya Danjuma (PGA/06/06235) of the Department of Languages and Linguistics,
Faculty of Arts, University of Maiduguri and has been approved by the examiners.
Supervisor Head of Department
Signature: ……………………………… Signature: ………………………..
Name: Professor Mohammed M. Munkaila Name: Prof.. Jidda Hassan Juma’a
Date: ………………………………….. Date: ………………………………
Supervisor
Signature: ………………………………
Name: Dr. (Mrs.) Aishatu Iya Ahmed
Date: ………………………………….
Having met the stipulated requirements, the thesis has been accepted by the School of
Postgraduate Studies.
Signature; ……………………………………
Name: Professor Bulama Kagu
Dean, School of Postgraduate Studies
………………………………………
Date

3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
My deep appreciation goes to the following: Prof. M. M. Munkaila and Dr. (Mrs.) Aishatu Iya
Ahmed, both my supervisors, for their unparalleled patience, kindness and encouragement; the
University of Jos, my sponsors and the American Council of Learned Societies (ACLS)/African
Humanities Program (AHP) in association with the Carnegie corporation of New York for
granting me a fellowship with a residency at the University of Dar es Salam UDSM, Tanzania
for the completion of this thesis and Prof. Mkude, Prof. B.B. Mapunda, Dr. (Mrs.) Rose Upor
and Mr. Killama all of the College of Arts and Social Sciences CASS , University of Dar es
Salam UDSM for their warm welcome while I was in Dar.
Words are not enough to express my gratitude to my external and internal examiners: Profs.
Ahmadu Usman and Muhammad Fanami respectively for their comments, suggestions and
meticulous perusal of this thesis.
My sincere appreciation also goes to the following in the Department of Languages and
Linguistics, University of Maiduguri for contributing to the success of this work through their
well-deserved and sincere criticisms. They are: Profs. Abubakar Abdulhamid, B. R. Badejo, Late
C.M.B. Brann, Shettima Umara Bulakarima Ahmad Tela Baba, Balarabe Zulyadaini, Shettima
Abba Kura, Muhammed Fanami, Muhammed Aminu Mua’zu, Andrew Haruna, Mallam Usman
Bashir and the Head of Department Prof. Jidda Hassan Juma’a; the Departmental PG
Coordinator, Dr. Muhammed Shuiabu and Dr. Baba Mai Bello.
Many thanks go to my only course-mate in this program: Dr. Baba Kura Alkali Gazali for his
invaluable assistance all the while I was in Maiduguri for this course.
The concern and love shown to me by my colleagues in the Department of Linguistics and
Nigerian Languages, University of Jos is sincerely appreciated. They are: Prof. Andrew Haruna,
Prof. U. K. Eke, Dr. (Mrs.) O. Ogunkeye, Dr. (Mrs.) I. I. Akinremi, Dr. P. V. Gomwalk, Mrs. V.
Isha, Mrs. A. Dugga, Mr. P. Dajang and Mr. A. Erin. Others are Prof. V. Aire and Dr. Chris
Kuju.

4
Special appreciation goes to my mentor and teacher for making me fall in love with Generative
Syntax: Prof. George T. Teke. Prof. John Wakton Wade and Chief (Dr.) Joseph Fomwul, my
mentors also are deeply appreciated.
Last but least are my numerous friends which space will not permit me to mention all their
names. I say thanks a lot! Among them are: Chief George Maqual, Late Panyil Dakom and Engr.
Mike Odey.

5
DEDICATION
I dedicate this work to my mother: Mrs. Saratu Danjuma, to my wife Karen Satya and to my
daughter: Pitongritmwa (Ritmwa) Elizabeth. May the Almighty Father bless you!

6
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Certification……………………………………………………………………………..................i
Acknowledgments……………………………………………………………...............................ii
Dedication ……………………………………………………………......................................... iv
Table of Contents……………………………………………………………………………..….. v
List of Abbreviations Used…………………………………………………….......................... viii
Abstract ..........................................................................................................…............................xi
Chapter One: Introduction
1.0 Introduction…………………………………………………………………...........................1
1.1 Background of the Study……………………………………………………………………...1
1.1.1 Move-alpha (Move-𝛼 ), TOP and PRO…………………………………….........................3
1.1.2 The Minimalist Program (MP)……………………………………………............................3
1.2 Statement of the Problem……………………………………………………...........................4
1.3 Objective of the Study………………………………………………………………………. 4
1.4 Significance of the Study……………………………………………………………………...5
1.5 Scope of the Study…………………………………………………………….........................5
Chapter Two: Literature Review
2.0 Introduction………………………………………………………………………………… 6
2.1 Pre-Minimalism……………………………………………………………………………….6
2.1.1 The Case Theory………………………………………………………………………….....8
2.1.2 The Government Theory………………………………………………………………….....9
2.1.3 The Theta Theory…………………………………………………………............................9
2.1.4 The Binding Theory………………………………………………………………………..10
2.1.5 The Control Theory………………………………………………………………………...11
2.1.6 The Bounding Theory……………………………………………………………………...12
2.1.7 The X′ Theory……………………………………………………………...........................13
2.2 Minimalism…………………………………………………………………………………..13
2.3 Move-Alpha (Move-𝛼 )……………………………………………………………………...15
2.4 TOP…………………………………………………………………………..........................21
2.5 PRO…………………………………………………………..................................................30
2.5.1 Types of Control…………………………………………………………………………...32

7
2.5. 1.1 Subject and Object Control …………………………………………………………….32
2.5.1.2 Obligatory, Arbitrary and Optional Control …………………………………………32
2.5.1.3 Partial and Exhaustive Control..…………………………………………………………33
2.5.1.4 Implied Control ………………………………………………………………………...33
2.6 The Basic Properties of PRO: Landau (2001) ………………………………………………33
2.7 Movement Theory of Control (MTC) and Agreement Theory of Control (ATC)…………..34
2.8 Backward Control: Potsdam (2006)………………………………………………………….37
2.9 PRO in Hausa, Fulfulde and Ngas…………………………………………………………..37
Chapter Three: Theoretical Framework and Methodology
3.0 Introduction…………………………………………………………………..........................42
3.1 Theoretical Framework………………………………………………………………………42
3.1.1 The Minimalist Program: An Outline ……………………………………………………..44
3.1.2 The Minimalist Program: An Implementation Procedure…………………………………56
3.1.3 TOP within Minimalist Syntax …………………………………………………………....64
3.1.4 PRO within Minimalist Syntax…………………………………………….........................65
3.1.5 The Agreement Theory of Control (ATC) (Landau 2000 and 2004).. …………………...67
3.1.6 Move-Alpha (Move-𝛼 ) within Minimalist Syntax………………………………………..68
3.2 Methodology…………………………………………………………………………………72
3.2.1 Validation of Data………………………………………………………………………… 72
Chapter Four: Data Presentation and Analysis
4.0 Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………. 74
4.1 Presentation of Data………………………………………………………….........................74
4.1.1 Topic in Ngas………………………………………………………………………………74
4.1.2 Topic in Hausa……………………………………………………………………………..76
4.1.3 Topic in Fulfulde…………………………………………………………………………...77
4.1.4 Focus in Ngas……………………………………………………………............................78
4.1.5 Focus in Hausa……………………………………………………......................................79
4.1.6 Focus in Fulfulde…………………………………………………………………………..80
4.1.7 TOP: Elements of Topic and Focus in: Ngas, Hausa and Fulfulde ……. ……………… 81
4.1.7.1 Topic in: Ngas, Hausa and Fulfulde …………………………………………………...81
4.1.7.2 Focus in: Ngas, Hausa and Fulfulde …………………………………………………..82

8
4.1.8 Infinitival Construction in Ngas…………………………………………............................82
4.1.9 Infinitival Construction in Hausa…………………………………………………………..88
4.1.10 Infinitival Construction in Fulfulde………………………………………………………92
4.1.11 PRO: Elements of PRO in Ngas, Hausa, and Fulfulde…………………...........................96
4.1 11.1 Two-place Predicate………………………………………………………………….....96
4.1.11.2 Arbitrary Controller of PRO ……………………………………………………….....96
4.1.11.3 Optional Controller of PRO …………………………………………………………..98
4.1.11.4 The Identity of the Controller of PRO: Subject or Object ……………………………..99
4.1.11.5 Partial Controller of PRO…………………………………………………………….....99
4.1.11.6. Implied Controller of PRO……………………………………………………………..99
4.2 Analysis of Data……………………………………………………………………………...99
4.2.1 TOP in: Ngas, Hausa and Fulfulde within Minimalist Syntax ………………………...100
4.2.2 PRO in: Ngas, Hausa and Fulfulde within Minimalist Syntax…………………………...122
4.2.3 Derivational Analysis of PRO in: Ngas, Hausa, and Fulfulde ………………………….122
4.2.3.1 Obligatory Control (OC) ……………………………………………………………...126
4.2.3.2 Non-obligatory Control (NOC)…………………………………………………………127
4.3 Move-Alpha (Move-𝛼 )…………………………………………………….........................131
4.3.1 Move-Alpha (Move-𝛼 ) in Topic and Focus Constructions in Ngas, Hausa and
Fulfulde…………………………………………………………………………………..132
4.3.2 Move-Alpha (Move-𝛼 ) in Infinitival Constructions in Ngas, Hausa, and Fulfulde……..139
Chapter Five: Summary and Conclusion
5.0 Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………144
5.1 Summary……………………………………………………………………………………144
5.2 Conclusion………………………………………………………………….........................144
5.3 Findings of the Study……………………………………………………….........................151
Bibliography…………………………………………………………………………………...154
Appendix……………………………………………………………………….........................162

9
LIST OF ABREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS USED
AGR Agreement
AgrOP Object Agreement Phrase
AgrSP Subject Agreement Phrase
CFC Core Functional Category
CHL Computational System of Human Language
CI Conceptual-Intentional Interface
CO
Phase Head
COMP Complement
CP Complementiser Phrase
DAT Dative
DS Deep Structure
EF Edge Feature
EP Empty Pronoun
EPP Extended Projection Principle
FinitenessP Finiteness Phrase
FL Faculty of Language
FM Focus Marker
FocP Focus Phrase
ForceP Force Phrase
GB Government and Binding

10
HG Holmberg’s Generalization
I′′′ Inflection Projection Three Bars
iff if and only if
𝜃 theta
𝜑 phi
INFL Inflection
L Language
LA Lexical Array
LCA Linear Correspondence Axiom
Lex Lexicon
LF Logical Form
LI Lexical Item
MLC Minimal Link Condition
MP Minimalist Program
PF Phonetic Form
Pl Plural
Poss Possessive
PP Prepositional Phrase
S Sentence
S/O Spell Out
SC Small Clause
SD Structural Description

11
SM Sensory-Motor Interface
SMC Shortest Move Condition
Spec Specifier
SSC Specified Subject Condition
STAB Gender/Number Sensitive Stabilizer
SVO Subject Verb Object
t trace
Tns Tense
TopP Topic Phrase
UG Universal Grammar
vP/*vP Transitive vp
𝛼 alpha
𝛽 beta

12
ABSTRACT
Move-alpha (move-), TOP and PRO are Government and Binding (GB) and Principles and
Parameter Theory (PPT) concepts which this research analyses within the Minimalist Program
(MP) using the split-CP hypothesis. TOP is a grammatical category and a position that serves as
the landing site for move-alpha. PRO is the subject of infinitivals .the subject of Control theory:
one of the modules of GB, the theory determines the possible antecedents of PRO. This research
is a cross-linguistic analysis, using data from Ngas and Hausa both Chadic languages and
Fulfulde: an Atlantic-Congo language. The primary source of data collection was interviews
along with the use of structured questionnaire. The Ngas informants were speakers of standard
Ngas as agreed by the Ngas Language and Translation Board. The informants for Hausa and
Fulfulde were native speakers of Kananci (Kano Hausa) and Adamawa Fulfulde, respectively.
Our analysis shows that Topic constructions in: Ngas, Hausa and Fulfulde all have a declarative
force head of ForceP which is optional and the head of TopP which is null and an abstract topic
affix with a Top-specifier feature which requires a topic constituent as its specifier. Focus
constructions have a strong overt head feature (Focus Marker FM) which attracts the focus
constituents to spec-FocP. FM is optional in Hausa but obligatory in Ngas and Fulfulde. Force
head is obligatorily null in Hausa and Fulfulde but optional in Ngas. PRO is the subject of the
infinitival clause with an affixal infinitival particle affixed to the verb and a –WH CP marked by
a declarative force in Fulfulde. In both Ngas and Hausa, there is an intuited subject which is
indicated as PRO and CP is null. Both Ngas and Hausa have an abstract infinitival particle.
Theta-role is assigned to PRO indirectly via merger with a V-bar compositionally in Ngas,
Hausa, and Fulfulde. The status of move-alpha (move-𝛼) as regards TOP and PRO is that of an
operational procedure of Merge, Attract, Agree, Raising and Move (Affix Hopping) in
Fulfulde and Merge, Attract, Agree and Raising in Ngas and Hausa. There is a typological
asymmetry in the operation of move-alpha (move-𝛼): only in Fulfulde in the analysis of PRO a
classical movement operation of move-alpha (move-𝛼) occurs: Affix Hopping applies: -a the
infinitival particle is affixed to the verb wam. A typological asymmetry in the operations of
Topic and Focus constructions is observed: Topic constructions do not exhibit any occurrence of
Topic Markers. Focus constructions exhibit Focus Markers as in Ngas: ɗo; Hausa: ce/ne and
Fulfulde: on. Theoretically, the typological asymmetry observed between Chadic and Atlantic-
Congo in the operation of the three syntactic elements of move-alpha (move-𝛼 ), TOP and PRO
confirms the binary selection of syntactic operations in Universal Grammar (UG). Indeed, the
Minimalist Program (MP) adequately meets the adequacy conditions of classical Generative
Grammar by describing and analyzing the syntactic elements of move-alpha (move-𝛼), TOP and
PRO in these three African languages: Ngas, Hausa and Fulfulde.

13
CHAPTER ONE
GENERAL INTRODUCTION
1.0 Introduction
Move-alpha, TOP, and PRO are Government and Binding (GB) and the Principles and
Parameter Theory (PPT) concepts which The Minimalist Program for Linguistic Theory (MP)
re-examines in a novel way by reducing to the barest minimum those principles and parameters
involved in their analyses. The extent to which the MP represents these syntactic elements is the
goal of this research, more so from a cross-linguistic perspective, using data from Ngas and
Hausa, both Chadic languages and Fulfulde, an Atlantic-Congo language. TOP is a grammatical
category within the frame work of GB and PPT. TOP is a position that serves as the landing site
for move-alpha. PRO on the other hand is the subject of infinitivals, the subject of Control
theory, one of the modules of GB; the theory determines the possible antecedents of PRO. This
research gives a unified analysis of these syntactic elements within the two Chadic languages and
between the Chadic languages and the Atlantic-Congo language, Fulfulde from a Minimalist
perspective. Chapter one is General Introduction. Chapter one is divided into five sections. A
background to the study is presented in section 1 entitled: Introduction. A brief introduction is
given for the three languages under investigation. The languages under investigation are: Ngas,
Hausa and Fulfulde. In section 1 is also a brief introduction to the three syntactic elements under
investigation. The three syntactic elements are: Move-alpha, TOP and PRO. The Minimalist
Program (MP) is introduced in section 1. Sections 2 and 3 present the statement of the problem
and objective of the study respectively. The scope of the study is given in section 5.
1.1 Background of the Study
Ngas, also known as Angas is a language spoken mainly in Pankshin and Kanke LGAs and
partly in Kanam and Langtang North and South LGAs of Plateau state in North-central Nigeria
with about 400,000 speakers. Ngas is the name the people call themselves, they also call
themselves ‘nkarang’ which loosely translated means ‘people (of God)’ ‘Well-mannered people,’
Meaningful people’ or ‘True soul.’ The language has two dialects which are the Hill Angas and
Plain Angas. Ngas is an Afro-Asiatic language which is classified as Afro-Asiatic, Chadic, West,
A, A.3, Angas Proper, 1. Ngas is an inflectional language. Tone is a significant grammatical
element in Ngas. The sentence word order is SVO, (Yearwood 1981), (Gochal 1994), (Danjuma
1996) and (Lewis 2009).

14
Hausa is an Afro-Asiatic language which is classified as Afro-Asiatic, Chadic, West, A, A.1.
Hausa grammar lacks declensional endings for nouns; the relation between a noun and the rest of
the words in a sentence is shown by word order and the use of prepositions. Hausa is an
inflectional language and it is also tonal. The sentence word order is SVO. Hausa is a language
widely spoken in Nigeria by a population of about 18,500,000 in Sokoto, Kaduna, Katsina,
Kano, Bauchi, Jigawa, Zamfara, Kebbi and Gombe states. Other countries in which Hausa is
spoken are: Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, Eritrea,
Germany, Ghana, Niger, Sudan and Togo, (Gregersen 1977), and (Lewis 2009). Citing Mann &
Dalby (1987) and Grimes (1988) however, Abubakar (1983 and 2000) estimates the population
of Hausa speakers to be twenty and fifty millions and gives the dialects of Hausa as two: the
Western dialects comprising: Katsina and Sakwato (Sokoto) dialects and the Eastern group of
dialects comprising: Daura, Zaria, Kano and Bauchi dialects.
The speakers of Fulfulde call themselves Fulbe while a speaker is called pullo (Ahmed 2007).
Fulfulde is a language spoken by a population of about 17,000,000 in Nigeria mainly in Sokoto,
Katsina, Kano, Zaria, Jos Plateau, Bauchi, Gombe, Maiduguri and parts of Taraba and Adamawa
States. It is also spoken in Senegal, The Gambia, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Sierra Leone, Liberia,
Cameroon and Chad having substantial groups of speakers in almost all the savanna lands from
Senegal to The Sudan. The spread of the language is due to the nomadic pastoralist nature of the
speakers. It is a member of the macrolanguage Fulah. Fulfulde is a Niger-Congo language which
is classified as Niger-Congo, Atlantic-Congo, Atlantic, Northern, Senegambian, Fulani-Wolof,
Fula, East Central (Lewis 2009)
Fulfulde has a full noun class system which shows agreement or concord between nominals and
verbo-nominals which have the same referent. Fulfulde is also an inflectional language with
nouns and verbs formed by inflecting the nominal stem and verbal roots respectively. Verbal
extension is widespread and the pronoun system makes a distinction between inclusive and
exclusive common pronouns. The sentence word order is SVOA. Fulfulde is basically toneless
(Stennes 1967), (Arnott 1970), (Gregersen 1977), (Williamson & Blench 2000) and (Ahmed
2007).
Languages are classified broadly into two: genetic (genealogical) and typological. Genetic
classification groups languages into families according to their degree of diachronic relatedness.
For this research, genetically speaking both Ngas and Hausa are classified as Western Chadic

15
languages of the Afro-Asiatic phylum. On the other hand, Fulfulde is classified as an Atlantic-
Congo language of the Niger-Congo phylum. This means that the two language phyla are
genetically different. Typological classification groups languages into types according to their
structural characteristics. The three typological classifications of languages are isolating,
agglutinating and inflecting. An isolating language is one in which all the words are
morphologically unanalyzable each word is composed of a single morph. An agglutinating
language is one in which the word forms can be segmented into morphs, each of which
represents a single grammatical category. An inflecting language is one in which there is no one-
to-one correspondence between particular word segments and particular grammatical categories,
(Language 2012). Both Western Chadic (Ngas and Hausa) and Atlantic-Congo (Fulfulde) are
typologically similar. They are both inflecting languages even though typological similarity of
itself is no proof of genetic relationship, (cf. Linguistics 2012)) especially as there is no one-to-
one correspondence between particular word segments and particular grammatical categories.
This approach is employed in the examination of the theoretical claims of UG given the syntactic
element of Move-, TOP and PRO under investigation within MP.
1.1.1 Move-alpha (move-), TOP and PRO
Move-alpha (Move-) is the single rule of the transformational component of a generative
grammar. Move- means more or less ‘move any element or constituent anywhere.’ The
operation can be applied repeatedly to a D-structure (deep structure) in order to produce an S-
structure (surface structure) in a Government and Binding (GB) grammar (Chomsky 1957, 1965
and 1981).
TOP is a grammatical category proposed as the landing site for Move- : (Teke 1992)), (Atanga
1996), (Danjuma 1996 and 2003) and (Ahmed 2007).PRO is the abstract grammatical element in
the subject position of infinitival clauses, and the subject matter of one of the modules of GB
Control Theory. The theory determines the possible antecedents of PRO (Chomsky 1981).
1.1.2 The Minimalist Program (MP)
Earlier work in syntax postulated complex structures and principles in the analysis of language.
However, Chomsky in his work the Minimalist Program for Linguistic Theory (1995) which is
also known as the Minimalist Program (MP): a work he had developed over twenty years,
reacted to this trend and instead, proposed to reduce the complexity of the structures and
principles used in the analysis and description of language. The Minimalist Program proposed

16
the use of minimal theoretical apparatus in which grammars are expected to be as simple as
possible. The basic assumption of MP is that language is a perfect system of optimal design in
the sense that natural language grammars generate structures which are designed to interface
perfectly with other components of the mind particularly with speech and thought systems.
Chomsky gives the internal organization of the grammar of a language to consist of:
i. a lexicon: this is a list of all the lexical items/words in the language and their
linguistic properties
ii. a syntactic/computational component of the grammar: This component generates
syntactic structures from lexical items of the lexicon
iii. the semantic component: a representation of linguistic aspects of
meaning
iv. a PF component: a representation of the Phonetic Form
The semantic representation interfaces with the systems of thought and the PF representation
with the systems of speech. The interface with the thought systems he calls ‘Conceptual-
intentional interface (CI) and the interface with the speech systems the ‘sensory-motor interface
(SM)’.The semantic representations passed on to the thought systems only elements contributing
to meaning while those of the PF representations passed on to the speech systems only elements
which contribute to Phonetic Form, (Chomsky 1993, 1995, 2000 and 2001), (Radford 1997). It is
from the perspective of the MP that this research is carried on, re-focusing and re-analyzing, as it
were the GB theoretical syntactic elements of Move-, TOP and PRO for Ngas, Hausa and
Fulfulde cross-linguistically.
1.2 Statement of the Problem
This work seeks to fill the existing gap in the syntactic study of Move-, TOP and PRO in Ngas,
Hausa and Fulfulde from a cross-linguistic point of view. Earlier work in syntactic study,
particularly generative syntax focused on individual languages, for example Burquest (1973)
examined Ngas, Junaidu (1987) investigated Hausa and Ahmed (2007) analysed Fulfulde. This
thesis studied Move-, TOP and PRO from a Minimalist perspective in Ngas, Hausa and
Fulfulde by determining and putting in perspective how MP meets the Adequacy Conditions for
linguistic theory and the consequences for Universal Grammar (UG).

17
1.3 Objectives of the Study
The aim of this research is to examine the syntactic elements: Move-, TOP and PRO in Ngas,
Hausa and Fulfulde within MP. The objectives of the study are to:
i. determine the status of move- within MP
ii. examine the status of TOP within MP
iii. investigate the status of PRO within MP
iv. analyze the cross-linguistic features of TOP and PRO in Ngas, Hausa and Fulfulde
and
v. determine the theoretical status of i – iv within UG.
1.4 Significance of the Study
This research is significant because it presents a unified analysis of the syntactic elements of
Move-, TOP and PRO within UG, resolving as it were questions of theoretical methodology
across a wide range of the generative apparatus and across two basic language classes i.e. Chadic
(Ngas and Hausa) and Atlantic-Congo (Fulfulde). This will encourage other researchers to be
more focused in their treatment of other syntactic elements bearing in mind the main goal of
achieving UG. In presenting the main facts of these syntactic elements, researchers and teachers
of generative syntax will have a clear understanding of the theoretical systems of generative
grammar in general and MP in particular.
1.5 Scope of the Study
The research is delimited to the syntactic elements: Move-, TOP and PRO in Ngas, Hausa,
and Fulfulde within the scope of the MP and the Adequacy Conditions for linguistic theory.

18
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.0 Introduction
There are nine sections in this chapter. The first section 2.1 reviews pre-minimalist literature;
2.2, 2.3, 2.4 and 2.5 review literature related to Minimalism, Move-alpha (Move-), TOP and
PRO respectively. The remaining four sections review literature related to the basic properties of
PRO; the Movement (MTC) and Agreement (ATC) theories of Control; backward control; and
PRO in Hausa, Fulfulde and Ngas.
2.1 Pre-minimalism
The literature review for this research is better situated within earlier work in generative
grammar which predates the Minimalist Program (MP) (Chomsky 1957,1965, 1981, 1995 and
2001) but which is intricately related to it. The grammatical elements: Move-, TOP and PRO
have their roots in this earlier tradition of the generative approach to the study of language.
Unlike earlier work in generative grammar, MP reduces the complexity of the structures and
principles used in the analysis and description of language. It proposes the use of minimal
theoretical apparatus in which grammars are expected to be as simple as possible. The basic
assumption of MP is that language is a perfect system of optimal design in the sense that natural
language grammars generate structures which are designed to interface perfectly with other
components of the mind particularly with speech and thought systems.
The generative approach to the study of language has been the cornerstone of the methodology
of the study of language in this case syntax. Beginning with Chomsky (1965), this methodology
can be reduced to the following assumptions and principles which assumptions are captured also
by Radford (1997). The assumption that:
a. A language makes infinite use of finite means and that a grammar must describe and
explain the processes that make this possible.
b. The study of the grammar of a language relies mainly on the intuitions of the ideal
speaker-hearer’s competence about the grammaticality and interpretations of words,
phrases and sentences in the language. In this case, the grammar of the language is a
reflection of the competence of the native speaker-hearer of the language. This ideal
speaker-hearer is from a completely homogeneous speech community.

19
c. Language acquisition is determined by an innate language faculty different from any kind
of learning which human beings experienced. Besides, this kind of learning is mentalistic
because it is concerned with discovering a mental reality underlying actual behavior.
d. A grammar must meet the criterion for adequacy which presupposes that the grammar is
descriptively adequate. In this case, the grammar must be :
i. Universal: It should provide the tools needed to describe the grammar of any
natural language adequately by giving a set of the universal properties of natural
language grammars.
ii. Explanatory: It should provide reasons why natural languages have the properties
that they do have. Therefore, defining the characteristics of natural languages
which differentiate them from artificial languages or animal communication
systems.
iii. Restrictive: It should be maximally restrictive such that it would be able to be
used to devise a technical device (what Chomsky refers to as the language
acquisition device) which is so constraint in its expressive power that it can be
used to describe natural languages only.
iv. Learnable: It should account for the rapidity with which language is acquired by
children.
v. Minimally complex: It should make use of a minimal theoretical apparatus to
characterize linguistic phenomena (what Chomsky seeks to achieve with the MP)
The development of generative syntax is of particular interest to this research because the
syntactic elements: Move-, TOPand PRO have their foundations in this theoretical model.
Therefore, the assumptions raised in GB and other similar work are reviewed briefly here as a
backgrounder to the research topic for the proper elucidation of Move-, TOP and PRO within
MP in Ngas, Hausaand Fulfulde.
The levels of grammar presented in GB are structured into modules which define the constraints
on various aspects of syntax. Each of these modules is simple, but their interaction generally
predicts the complex array of facts encountered in language. The S-structure is the point from
which the other levels converge in the grammar. The D-structure is the level which most directly
reflects the lexicon. The lexicon is a list of morphemes and words in a language together with all
the relevant information pertaining to them. D-structure is mapped onto S-structure by the rule

20
move-. Thus, Move- means more or less ‘move any element or constituent anywhere.’ The
operation can be applied repeatedly to a D-structure in order to produce an S-structure and the
history of this application is called a derivation. Constraints on movement1
within a sentence are
not imposed by move- but by the modules of the grammar. What distinguishes these various
forms of the rule move- is not the rule itself but the constraints on the rule. A trace2
t marks the
position in D-structure of an element that has been moved by move-.The indexes: i and j
indicate the position in a sentence a word is to be associated. A series of elements coindexed as a
result of move- make up a chain.
The Logical Form (LF) is the part of the grammar which expresses logical relations within S.
Given (1) below, its LF representation would be (2) where the wh-word ‘who’ is translated into a
variable X
1. Who can John see?
2. For which X, X a person, [can John see]?
This particular variable is called a wh-operator which is said to have a scope over X. Logically it
means that the wh-word determines the domain within the sentence within which X has force.
The fronting of variables in LF is an unbounded movement which is theoretical movement not
real movements of real word.
The Phonetic Form (PF) is one of the least discussed in GB. It basically relates to the phonetic
content of words and the rules that apply to these words.
Chomsky (1981) gives an outline of the theory of core grammar to account for what he also calls
Universal Grammar (UG): an appropriate level of abstraction which is compatible with the
diversity of existing grammars and is sufficiently constrained and restrictive as to the options it
permits in accounting for the fact that each of these grammars develops in the mind on the basis
1
Example of such a constraint on movement is subjacency. A term used in extended standard theory and
government binding theory to refer to a type of condition which restricts the application of a transformational rule; it
is the main principle of bounding theory. The subjacency condition states that a constituent cannot be moved (in any
single application) across more than one bounding node. For example, in the sentence The story that [[the quarrel
about pay NP] was wrong S] is irrelevant, the brackets mark the place of the constituent boundaries np and s. To
move the phrase about pay to the right of wrong is possible, because only one bounding node has been crossed; but
it is not possible to move this phrase to the right of irrelevant, according to the subjacency condition, because then
both the NP and S nodes would be crossed. It has been argued that it is possible to subsume several earlier island
constraints under this conditionwhich is claimed to be more general and natural as a consequence (Crystal 2008)
2
A trace of a moved constituent is a null copy left behind (as a result of movement) in each position out of which a
constituent moves. Trace theory is a theory which posits that moved constituents leave behind a trace copy in each
position out of which they move (Radford 2009)

21
of quite limited evidence. The rule system of grammar has the following subcomponents: the
Lexicon, the Syntax which is sub-divided into a Categorial component and a Transformational
component, the PF-component and the LF-component. The subsystems of principles are: the
Case theory, Government theory, -theory, Binding theory, Control theory, Bounding theory and
X′-theory.
2.1.1 The Case Theory
The Case theory is concerned with the assignment of case to arguments. For example, the subject
and object of a sentence are called the arguments of the verb. Furthermore, the head
assigns case to its arguments, to the right or left and the case assigned by each head is
determined by that head. The most important principle of the Case theory is the Case Filter3
.
3. The Case Filter: *NP if NP has phonetic content and no case
The Case Filter stipulated that every overt noun phrase must have (Abstract) case.
2.1.2 The Government Theory
Government theory defines the domain around a head to which certain types of processes are
limited. This is called a governing category. The idea is that there is a narrow neighborhood
around the head of a phrase within which words have to stay when the sentence is passivized,
etc. Similarly, the formal mechanism limiting the rearrangement of argument structure to the
confines of a governing category is the Binding theory4
. Chomsky (1981) defines this governing
category as:
4.  is the governing category for  iff  is the minimal category containing ,  a
governor of and a SUBJECT accessible to  …
2.1.3 The Theta Theory
The theta-theory is concerned with the relationship between thematic roles (-roles) and the
syntactic structure of the sentence. -roles are essentially semantic and syntactic roles basically
involved with formal sentence structure. The most basic principle of the theta-theory is the -
criterion (5):
3
Case filter restricts the range of sentences which can be generated making movement of the object-NP to the
subject position obligatory in passives and preventing the appearance of an adverbial between a verb and its object.
For example The snake was killed by John and John killed the snake,
4
To say that one constituent X binds (or serves as the binder for) another constituent Y (and conversely that Y is
bound by X)is to say that X determines properties (usually, referential properties) of Y. For example, in a sentence
such as ‘John blamed himself’, the reflexive anaphor himself is bound by John in the sense that the referential
properties of himself are determined by John (so that the two refer to the same individual)(Radford 2009)

22
5. The -Criterion: Each argument bears one and only one -role and each -role is assigned
to one and only argument.
This means that in GB, subjects and objects are defined structurally: subjects are the NPs
immediately dominated by S and objects as the NP immediately dominated by VP. Each lexical
entry is associated with a particular syntactic structure and a thematic structure. Objects of a verb
get their -roles directly from the verb whereas the -role of the subject is assigned indirectly or
compositionally by the VP as a whole. In order words, the -criterion states that every -role
assigned by a verb must be assigned to some syntactic structure and every syntactic argument
must bear a -role. Of particular interest is the case of the infinitival construction (6) in which a
single element has two -roles in clear violation of the -criterion.
6. John convinced Bill to play tennis
‘Bill’ is both subject of ‘convinced ‘and ‘object ‘of ‘play.’
The constraint that the -criterion holds at all levels except PF is called the Projection Principle
(7):
7. The Projection Principle: Representations at each syntactic level (i.e. D- and S-structure)
are projected from the lexicon, in that they observed the subcategorisation properties of
the lexical items.
This means that every time one postulates a rule, one has to think of the levels in which the rule
applies at. The -role is assumed to hold at the three levels of the syntax which are the D-
structure, S-structure and LF. The idea of the Projection Principle that the thematic relation is
assigned in the lexicon has to be visible at these three levels of the syntax. Both the Projection
Principle and the -criterion are the two most important assumptions of GB, they form the
backbone on which the theory of Binding is formulated.
2.1.4 The Binding Theory
The Binding theory captures the mapping of heads, subjects and objects in a sentence: the sort of
semantic processes involved in long and short range movement; and the words in a sentence
which refer to the same thing. Thus, the following have to be borne in mind: that argument
positions, also known as A-positions, are subject and object positions which are governed by the
head of the constituent; that non argument positions, also known as A-bar-positions are COMP,
adjunct positionsand various post-sentential positions; and that two elements which refer to the
same object in the world are coreferent. This fact is expressed syntactically by giving them the

23
same subscript. In other words, when a trace is left by an application of move- for example to
an NP, the trace is defined to be coreferent with the overt NP which moved and is now in a new
position. Thus, the Binding theory defines the coreference of both overt and covert elements in a
sentence and also the movement restrictions on these elements. The following are arguments:
overt anaphors, pronominals, R-expressions and clauses.
8. Binding Theory
(A)An anaphor is bound in its governing category
(B) A pronominal is free in its governing category
(C) An R-expression is free
Further essential to understanding the Binding theory is the concept of c-command which is
stated as (9), first proposed by Reinhart (1976) as a constraint on movement. It requires that
elements must move upward in the syntactic tree during derivation:
9.  c-commands  if  does not dominate  and the first branching node which dominates
 also dominates 
Anaphors are reflexives and reciprocals and they are bound in their minimal governing category.
Pronominals are pronouns and they are free in their minimal governing category while R-
expressions are any other overt referring NPs which can never be bound by anything. They are
free. The theory defines and characterizes the domain in which various elements in the language
must find their antecedent and the domain in which they must be bound. These argument types
can be overt NPs or empty categories. Overt NPs are classified by their lexical forms while
empty NPs are defined functionally.
An empty anaphor is the trace of NP-movement, it is defined functionally as an empty category
in an A-position which is not bound from an A-bar-position; empty pronominal is pro which is
found in the empty subject position of languages like Italian and Russian because these
languages do not require overt subjects. Technically, empty pronominals in A-positions are
defined functionally as those which are either free or locally A-bound by an antecedent with an
independent -role; and an empty R-expression is a trace left by unbounded movement which is
also a variable. An empty R-expression is functionally defined as a category which is in an A-
position and locally A-bar-bound.
We can deduce a feature matrix for anaphor, pronominal and R-expression. Pure anaphor:
reflexives, reciprocals and NP-trace are: [+anaphoric, -pronominal]; pure pronominal are

24
pronouns and the null element pro which appears as the null subject in pro-drop languages are
[+anaphoric, +pronominal] and R-expressions are ordinary nouns which are [-anaphoric, -
pronominal].
2.1.5 The Control Theory
The Control theory is the theory of the element PRO which is [+anaphoric, +pronominal] i.e. it is
both anaphoric and pronominal, it is the subject of Binding theory A and Binding theory B hence
both bound and free in its minimal governing category, an apparent contradiction because case is
assigned under government and overt NPs are subject to the Case Filter: a [+anaphoric,
+pronominal] element cannot be an overt NP. Chomsky (1981) argues that PRO is the subject of
infinitivals and is in an ungoverned position. Since a maximal sentence boundary (S-bar 
COMP S ) intervenes in a construction with PRO as the subject of an infinitival, PRO is not
governed from outside its clause nor is it governed from inside the clause given +Tense of INFL
which governs the subject. Thus, PRO can only appear as the subject of tenseless infinitival
clauses. Unlike trace, the antecedent of PRO has an independent -role. As a matter of fact PRO
need not have an antecedent. It is necessary to have an empty category as the subject of an
infinitival to avoid a violation of the -criterion which requires that an intuited subject in an
infinitival construction must have an NP in the sentence as well as Binding theory A which
requires that the reflexive be bound inside the minimal governing category.
2.1.6 The Bounding Theory
The Bounding theory sets the limitation to movement i.e. the conditions that restrict movement
to certain positions. Unbounded movement is almost always to a COMP at the head of a clause
or sentence. A word such as a question word or a topicalised word cannot move to a new A-
position because these positions are assigned a -role under government which will conflict with
the original -role assigned to the word and result in the violation of the -criterion giving one
NP two -roles. Such a word has to move to an A-bar-position. In addition, it has to move to a c-
commanding A-bar-position which eliminates adjunct positions in higher clauses leaving COMP
as the only available option. Unbounded movement also has another constraint on movement.
This constraint is called subjacency. Subjacency is the subject-matter of the Bounding Theory.
Subjacency requires that an A-bar-binding may apply across at most one bounding node.
Bounding nodes are subject to parametric variations. In the same vein, subjacency also accounts
for the facts of Island Constraints including the Complex NP Constraint which blocks movement

25
out of the structure [NP[S-bar ---]] and the Sentential Subject Constraint which blocks movement
out of a sentence in subject position. Limitation on Extraction from Subject Position is a situation
in which government is differentiated from proper government under which case is assigned and
which is required to form a governing category. Only overt categories such as verbs and
prepositions can properly govern their objects. INFL is not a proper governor. Thus, it is the case
that GB stipulates that a constraint obtains in which movement can only take place from properly
governed positions. This fact expresses what is known as the Empty Category Principle (ECP).
(10) and (11) define proper government and ECP as given by Chomsky (1981) respectively:
10. Proper Government:  properly governs  if and only if  governs  [ and   AGR ]
11. ECP: [ e] must be properly governed
In other words, traces must be properly governed. This also means that movement can take place
from subject position only if the subject is properly governed by some other elements in the
sentence such as a matrix verb.
2.1.7 The X′ Theory
The X′-theory as outlined by Jackendoff (1977) and assumed in GB is concerned with the
structure of constituents in a sentence for which a sentence is a construction out of several major
constituents or maximal projections, such as: S′, S, VP, NP etc. These categories are projections
of their heads such as N, V, etc. The major thrust of the X′-theory is that all maximal projections
have basically the same structure:
12. X″ → (Spec-x) X′
X′ → (Comp-x)
where Spec and Comp are again X′′. X is a variable ranging over N, V, Adj., etc. X′′ is also
written as XP where X is the head of XP. It is good to note that Jackendoff (1977) argues for X′′′
projection as the Maximal projection, a proposal Teke (1987) used in his postulation of the TOP
grammatical category.
2.2 Minimalism
Unlike in work predating the Minimalist Program such as GB and PPT, the Minimalist Program,
(Chomsky 1993 and 1995) employs fewer principles and parameters in analyzing language. It
presupposes a language faculty (FL). FL is also called I-language, a linguistic system
internalized within the brain. FL consists of two parts: the Lexicon (Lex), a list of all the words
in a language and their idiosyncratic linguistic properties from which a lexical array i.e. an

26
unordered set of words out of which a given expression is derived from and Syntax, a
computational system (CS).Syntax, i.e. the computational system is also known as CHL (the
computational system of human language) CS selects lexical items from the Lexicon and
generates a derivation called a structural description (SD). To this effect, the Minimalist Program
captures the idea of a linguistic derivation of an I-language, a linguistic system internalized
within the brain, to be a systematic relationship between the memory and the active memory
(Vlachos 2005). Memory is taken to be the “hard disk” (in computational terms) of the I-
language which stores information of lexical items and stores a refined C
HL
(the computational
system of human language).
CHL interacts with the two components of the mind/brain dealing with sound and meaning: the
articulatory- perceptual system and the conceptual-intentional system through two distinct
interface levels, Phonetic Form (PF) and the semantic component.
The active memory is the “RAM” (the workspace) of the operating system where the C
HL
uses
lexical items to generate syntactic descriptions (expressions). It is literally the space where all
derivations take place. A derivation D presupposes the selection of an array i.e. the selection of a
lexical array (LA) of lexical items (LI) - which are fully inflected when they enter the LA - by
a one-time access of the C
HL
to the lexicon (Lex) of the I-language.
The numeration is an operation that uses indices to pre-define the number of times a LI will be
used in the course of a specific derivation. Each time a LI is used in the derivation its index is
reduced by one. A successful derivation is achieved when all the indices of all the LIs of a LA
are reduced to zero and the derivation converges at the interface levels.
Computational economy and “self-sufficiency” are the two major reasons why the CHL accesses
the Lex once and once only. By “self-sufficiency” is meant CHL syntactically rearranges all the
LIs in a LA by reducing their numeration indices to zero without adding any new elements in
the derivation apart from the LIs of a LA. Therefore, a derivation converges at the interface
levels of the Semantic component and the PF if all the LIs in a LA have been used in the
derivation, according to their numeration.

27
Whereas, pre-minimalist linguistic theory aims to unravel the human system of knowledge
through the examination of the mechanisms of human language, the Minimalist Program
(Chomsky 1995, 2000 and 2004) assumes that language is not an exclusive product of human
interaction with environment but has properties which are genetically endowed in the human
mind / brain i.e. Language is species-dependent with the principal aims of describing and
capturing the mechanisms and principles behind them common to all human beings and also
accounting for the various instantiations and choices of these mechanisms and principles that
make up the various human Languages; the Minimalist Program makes the assumption that
language is a biological organ in the human mind / brain which interacts with other systems of
the human mind / brain, for example the system of Thought ( Chomsky 2000a) and the
Articulatory and the Perceptual systems. This assumption holds that the principles behind the
mechanisms are dependent properties of the human language system which are products of and
or the same general principles that exist in nature in other biological organisms.
Therefore, the Minimalist Program introduces a new framework in the program of inquiry
which does not dispense with the theoretical advantages of earlier work in Linguistic Theory but
builds on them. In other words the Minimalist Program goes beyond the search for explanatory
adequacy for UG to answer questions about why language is based on the properties it possesses
and not others i.e. to determine to what extend the properties of language can be derived from the
general properties of complex biological organisms and the interface conditions that FL must
satisfy to be of any use at all. These interface conditions are characterized as PF and semantic
component which are sensorimotor (SM) and conceptual-intentional (CI) respectively. The
interface conditions imposed by SM and CI enable FL to be usable. Therefore, I-language is a
system that links SM and CI by generating expressions that are legible by these systems i.e.
expressions that are of L. FL is an optimal solution to the problem of linking SM and CI. The
states of FL are computational systems. It is within this framework that the cross-linguistic
analysis of move-α, TOP and PRO in Ngas, Hausa and Fulfulde is undertaken.
2.3 Move-alpha (Move-)
Move-alpha (Move-) is the single rule of the transformational component in (GB). Move-
means more or less ‘move any element or constituent anywhere.’ The operation can be applied

28
repeatedly to a D-structure in order to produce an S-structure and the history of this application is
called a derivation.
In Chomsky’s (1981) Government and Binding, (GB), the S-structure is the point from which the
other levels converge in the grammar, (syntactic, phonological and semantic). This is the point
where the conceptual constraints of the grammar apply. The D-structure is the level which most
directly reflects the lexicon. The lexicon is a list of morphemes and words in a language together
with all the relevant information pertaining to them, it also tells how each word is pronounced in
isolation, what suffixes and prefixes it takes and in the case of the verbs, the objects it requires
and the Cases it assigns. This syntactic requirement of words in the lexicon determines the
underlying structure and word order i.e. D-structure for each sentence.
The word order in S-structure is the order in which the sentence actually occurs in the language.
D-structure is mapped onto S-structure by the function Move-. Constraints on movement
within a sentence are not imposed by move- but by the modules of the grammar, (Bounding
theory, Government theory, -theory, Binding theory, Case theory and Control theory).
Among these movements are passivisation, Wh-movement, topicalisation, relativisation and
particle movement. What distinguishes these various forms of the rule move- is not the rule
itself, but the constraints on the rule such as Subjacency, Propositional Island Condition PIC,
Specified Subject Condition SSC and the Case Filter. A trace, t, marks the position in D-structure
of an element that has been moved by move-.The indexes i and j indicate the position in a
sentence a word is to be associated or coindexed with i.e. refer to the same thing. A series of
elements coindexed as a result of move- make up a chain. These traces and indexes are part of
the structural description of sentences in GB.
There are movements that are internal or external to the sentence S. Movements that are internal
to S are called bounded movement. This type of movement rearranges the argument structure of
a verb and is confined to a governing category. When an NP is subjected to bounded movement
within a clause, it is called an NP-movement. Unbounded movement is movement external to S.
It does not affect the argument structure of the verb. It usually moves a constituent to a COMP
position which is defined as the head of the constituent S-bar. The following is an example of the
application of the rule move-:
13. [S [NP John] [INFLBE…ING] [VP play football]] [D-structure] Affix Hopping

29
14. John is playing football [S-structure]
The type of movement that applies in the D-structure (13) is Affix Hopping. The affix of the
Auxiliary verb BE i.e. –ing moves to the right to conjoin with the verb play of the VP. This
gives the S-structure (14). The derivation leaves no trace neither does it employ indexation. It
does not violate any of the constraints on movement either. However, the choice of the landing
site for move- in movements such as passivisation, Wh-movement, topicalisation, relativisation
etc led to the landing site controversy which Teke (1987) proposed to solve with his TOP
hypothesis.
Move-∝ within the Minimalist Program subsumes a number of concepts. These concepts are
those of Merge, Move and Attract. Though these concepts can be individuated, the relationship
among them is close. However, this individuation is best situated within the concepts of Phase
which subsumes the concept of Edge within a derivation. What follows is a synthesis of the
general conception of move-∝ within the Minimalist Program from: Chomsky (1993), (1995),
(2000), (2001), (2002), (2004), (2005), (2006) and (2008); Ouhalla, (1999); Radford, (2004) and
(2009), Vlachos, (2005), Crystal, (2008), Boeckx, (2010) and Di Sciullo and Hill, (2010)
The phase hypothesis assumes that a phase is a propositional unit, a transitive vP or CP which
are units headed by a core functional category (CFC), C, T and v with φ-features (phi-features)
i.e. agreement features and that the syntactic computations proceed in chunks (phases). In other
words, the syntactic computations proceed one step at a time. At the end of each phase, part of
the derivation i.e. the complement of the phase head ends up at PF and Semantic component
making the derivation inaccessible to further syntactic operations because of cyclic spell-out
and Phase Impenetrability Condition (PIC) respectively. The cyclic spell-out applies to strong
phases, transitive vP, annotated v*P and CP and later to the strong and weak phases; a vP/VP
(unaccusative, passive or raising) where vP/VP is always a weak phase while CP and v*P are the
strong ones. TPs are not phases and hence allow A-movement out of their complement. In this
regard, it is important to note that the mechanism of the operation of phases is cyclical in the
LAs of the initial LAs. In other words, every LA is a phase. It is important to note that the notion
of edge plays a central role in the analysis of phase. The left edge is defined in terms of the
asymmetry hypothesis to mean a highly articulated collection of X-bar projections as in (15):
15. [ForceP [TopicP [FocusP [FinitenessP]]]]

30
The properties in (15) are edge properties which are called P-features (peripheral features) and
they are scopal or discourse-related. In other words, they introduce new and old information,
topicand focus in the phasal domain.
In another sense, an edge is defined as a clausal relation in which a lower phase-head v0
and a
higher phase-head C0
which are both surrounded by V0
and I0
make up a complement domain
and an edge domain. The complement domain is inaccessible to further syntactic operation as a
result of PIC while the edge domain is accessible to further computation at the next higher phase
level as the structure (16) indicates:
16.
[HP --- [HP H0
[---] ] ]
phase-head phase-complement
The structure (16) shows that the complement domain of the phase is accessible to movement to
the edge domain. This movement is possible because the phase-head has an optional edge feature
(EPP-feature) i.e. the requirement for a constituent to have a specifier, requiring it to project a
specifier which enables raising without a matching feature on the moved item. It is this edge
feature that enables successive cyclic movement. In other words, there is no checking relation
between the two positions.
The edge feature also ensures that lexical items are meageable i.e. a lexical item has an edge-
feature that permits it to be merged because merge is always at the edge forcing merge to target
the root of the lexical item as a last resort.
When the derivation of a phase is complete it is TRANSFERRED to the Spell Out (S/O). In this
case, all the LIs which have been transferred are frozen. This means that they are no longer
accessible to any syntactic operation in the derivation.
This system of phases is the active link between the computational domain of the Faculty of
Language (FL) and its representational components namely: the interface levels of the Phonetic
Form (PF) and the Semantic component since it is assumed that the interface levels are parallel
with the computation of syntactic descriptions.

31
The operation merge is a recursive process which combines two lexical items, or one lexical
item in a construction to form larger units out of those already constructed. There are two types
of merge operations: Internal merge and external merge; ‘move’ is called internal merge and
‘merge’ is called external merge.
Move is a basic operation which moves elements about in the derivation. Movement can be
constrained by Shortest Move i.e. only the shortest movements of an element are acceptable;
minimal link condition i.e. movement is into the nearest relevant position; Procrastinate i.e.
movements is delayed until absolutely necessary and Greed i.e. movements must satisfy the
requirements of the moved element.
Attract, on the other hand is an operation which identifies the driving force behind move. A
head is said to attract a constituent when it triggers movement to some position on the edge of a
head phase. In other words, a head H attracts a constituent C when that H triggers movement of
C to some position on the edge of HP i.e. C moves to adjoin to H or becomes the specifier of H.
Three basic conditions underlie the operation, they are: the Attract Closest Condition which
requires that a head which attracts a particular type of constituent X attracts the closest X which
it c-commands; the Attract Smallest Condition which requires that a head which attracts a
particular type of item attracts the smallest constituent containing such an item which will not
lead to violation of any UG principle and; the Wh-Attraction Condition which specifies that a
head H which attracts a wh-word attracts the smallest possible maximal projection containing
the closest wh-word to become the specifier of H.
Since derivation is by phase, merge, move and attract are triggered by the EPP-effect that the
Core Functional Categories (CFC) have. These CFCs are C, T and v. The landing sites for the
merged/moved/attracted elements are their respective specifier positions: Spec-C, Spec-T and
Spec-v. Whereas, C and v are phasal heads, T is not. Move and attract are also triggered by
agreement and case valuation
The notion of Probe designates the head that triggers move/attract. Probe searches its
complement domain and attracts the closest constituent with matching features as a goal. This
mechanism ensures that EPP-effect, agreement valuation and case valuation are executed

32
smoothly in the derivation and uninterpretable features deleted. The feature complex of
agreement and case valuation are derived from the idiosyncratic properties of the LIs. As such,
T-constituents enter into the derivation with their interpretable features of Tense, Aspectand
Mood valued while their phi-features (ϕ-features) i.e. agreement features of Number and Person
are unvalued. In the case of Nouns and Pronouns, they enter into the derivation with their
interpretable ϕ-features of Number, Person and Gender valued while their case features are
unvalued. Unvalued features are determined via agreement in the derivation. In other words,
valued features are part of the LIs. They are determined before the derivation.
Agreement here means a probe such as T can agree with a goal in its local domain when the
unvalued ϕ-features on the probe is valued i.e. assigned a value which is a copy of that on the
goal and the unvalued case feature on the goal is valued i.e. assigned a value dependent on the
nature of the probe e.g. nominative if the probe is a finite T or objective if the probe is a V.
Feature deletion ensures that an EPP feature can no longer trigger movement once deleted
neither can a noun/pronoun which has been assigned case be assigned another case. A
constituent is only active for an operation like agreement, case-marking or movement if it carries
an undeleted uninterpretable feature of some kind and that once the relevant uninterpretable
feature has been deleted the constituent carrying it becomes inactive for further operations of the
relevant kind. By interpretable feature is meant that such a feature plays a role in semantic
interpretation while an uninterpretable feature plays no role in semantic interpretation.
All syntactic operations involving a given probe P apply simultaneously. In other words, (case
and agreement) feature-valuation, feature-deletion, agreement and movement operations apply
simultaneously in the derivation.
The derivation generated by the syntactic component of the grammar is subsequently sent to the
PF component of the grammar to be spelled out. Unvalued features are illegible to the PF
component, because the PF component is unable to spell out unvalued features. This causes the
derivation to crash i.e. fail at PF.

33
The derivation generated by the syntactic component of the grammar is also simultaneously sent
to the semantic component where it is converted into an appropriate semantic representation.
Uninterpretable features are illegible to the semantic component. However, uninterpretable
features are deleted in the course of the derivation thereby becoming invisible to the syntactic
and semantic components while remaining visible to the PF component. It is this perspective of
move-α which is adapted for this work.
However, several other proposals have been raised to modify especially the phase hypothesis and
also edge as they relate to merge, move and attract such as Lagate (2003) which hypothesizes
that any elements in the complement of v that need to move outside the phase (e.g., an object
wh-phrase) must move to the phase edge before Spell- Out suggesting that passive and
unaccusative VPs are phases and that there is a possible test for phases at PF which supports the
phasehood of passive and unaccusative VPs. Rubin (2003) suggests the existence of a functional
category Mod in the structure of adjuncts ([Mod [yp "Adjunct"]]) that is parallel in nature to the
functional categories in nominals and clauses. Citko (2005) argues for a new type of Merge
called Parallel Merge, a combination of the properties of External Merge and Internal Merge.
Parallel Merge creates symmetric, multidominant structures which become antisymmetric in the
course of the derivation. Matushansky (2006) is of the opinion that head movement is a
combination of movement and a morphological merger (m-merger) providing independent
motivation for m-merger and arguing that it can be attested in environments where no head
movement took place. Richards (2011) gives a unified analysis of the subarrays and the all-
powerful phase heads approaches.
2.4 TOP
The position TOP assumed herein subsumes both Topic and Focus constructions. Given this
analysis, Focus is also a position occupied by a constituent which is emphasized in some way
usually to mark it as containing ‘new’ or ‘unfamiliar’ information. Therefore, Focusing denotes a
movement operation by which a constituent is moved into a focus position at the beginning of a
clause in order to mark it as introducing new information. On the other hand, Topic is an
expression which represents ‘old’ or ‘familiar’ information by moving a constituent to the front
of a sentence. TOP is also a position occupied by Topic. Therefore, Topicalization takes place
when a topic is preposed Crystal (2008); Radford (2009).Since his work on Metta in 1987, Teke

34
has maintained that African languages are better analyzed using TOP, a position which serves as
the landing site for Move- Teke (1987). Languages such as Yoruba, Tiv and Bafut have been
investigated along this line, Atanga (1996), Teke (1995 and 1996). Danjuma (1996 and 2003)
has also dealt with some of the aspects of this analysis in Ngas
Briefly put, the postulation of the position TOP as a grammatical category is the consequence of
the controversy about the landing site for Move- particularly Chomsky’s (1977) position that
wh-movement is into COMP position outside S and Koopman’s (1984) position that verb
movement is into INFL. Teke rejects both positions and rather postulates ‘a unified analysis
which is that these movements are into the TOPIC position and that this position is within S,
where S is a minimal sentence’ Teke (1992). Teke (1988) and (1992) further state that both
COMP and INFL cannot contain  because both COMP and INFL are not empty and are too
small to contain Move- even though V-movement is forced by the Case Filter furthermore,
INFL being the specifier of V is not a V′ position and V cannot move into Spec-VP given the
analysis of X′.
Teke (1988) gives the minimal sentence structure as:
17. S → TOP NP INFL VP
18. S → I‴
Where I‴ is the projection of INFL and the internal structure of TOP is:
19. EP N (P)
TOP → FM N (P) FM
FM VP
EP FM (N (NP), WH-, V (P), PP, AP, S) FM
TOP contains a Focus Marker (FM) which can be an empty pronoun. This Focus Marker is a
movement trigger that can move  into TOP.
Distributional subject-verb agreement is responsible for INFL assigning nominative case to the
left or right even in languages with null operator elements such as FM in TOP or overt
agreement markers, AGR in INFL.

35
Furthermore, the TOP analysis replaces c-command Reinhart (1976) and unambiguous paths,
Kayne (1984) and also redefines the principle of government, Chomsky (1986) thereby
establishing a semantic relation between an antecedent and its anaphor, such that resumptive
pronouns are actually pronominal traces (Pro-traces) Teke (2004). In this case, the following
points are adduced Teke (2004):
20. Let a category TOP (in a phrase structure tree T) be marked by  such that:
a.  is a movement trigger in TOP
b. TOP serves as the landing site for 
where  is any node within the phrase structure T
21. TOP   and the first branching node dominating TOP does not necessarily dominate 
22. . TOP is free for case
23. .  governs  iff  c-commands  and every barrier  dominates  be
interpreted in the light of the TOP-antecedent relation.
Given (17), (18) and (19), (24) is a phrase structure tree:
24. .
I‴
I″
TOP NP I′
EP FOCUS VP
 FM INFL
Burquest (1973) is seminal because it is the first to investigate Ngas from a generative theoretical
standpoint. Burquest (ibid.) distinguishes two types of sentences in Ngas: verbal and non-verbal
sentences. The two are basically distinguishable by the presence or absence of a finite verb.
In his analysis, Burquest (ibid.) gives the structure of the verbal sentence in Ngas as a sentence
which comprises an NP which functions as the subject of the sentence and a VP with an optional
adverbial as the predicate giving the word order SVO. The particle mwa he calls a person-

36
aspectual marker which is glossed as they. mwa is also a plural marker. The particle ki, he also
calls a person-aspectual marker but with the proviso that it occurs in perfective aspectual
sentences i.e. sentences that are ‘completed’ aspectually. Similarly, Burquest (ibid.) makes the
point that the person-aspectual markers are part of the verb phrase specifically the manifestation
of tense.
The other sentence type Burquest (ibid.) describes is the non-verbal sentence which has the
following properties. Burquest (ibid.) notes that the structure of the non-verbal sentence consists
of two parts namely: a subject and a predicate. ‘The subject is comparable to what is sometimes
called a topic and the predicate, the comment given a topic-comment structure framework.’ The
subject of a non-verbal sentence must be an NP. The predicate may either be a second NP; an
adjective; an adverb construction; a possessive construction; or a numeral.
The particle do is described as a marker of emphasis which is not base-generated but is inserted
by an emphasis transformation. However, the grammatical elements he refers to as person-
aspectual markers, mwa and ki, are pro-trace and auxiliary verb, respectively. do, on the other
hand is a focus marker (cf. Danjuma 1996)
Ngas has no verb ‘to be’ but rather an empty copular; do is often glossed as ‘be’ but it is
primarily a topicalisation marker. This is the proposal that Burquest (2000) puts forward. This
proposed ‘empty copular’ assigns the -role THEME to any NP with which the PP occurs,
assuming further that prepositions assign -roles to their external arguments. In topicalised
sentences, all arguments are present, do functions like an equative verb though not obligatory.
Similarly, every NP is case marked in its original position with do positioned under C of CP in
D-structure and S-structure:
25. D-Structure [CP Spec do' [IP gurm mwa mwa pin am m-birng mwa]] (Ngas)
person pl they give water to-horse pl
26. S-Structure [CP ami do' [IP gurm mwa mwa pin ti m-birng mwa]] (Ngas)
Water person pl they give to-horse pl

37
(26) is a case where a trace is left behind. Burquest (ibid.) calls this trace a resumptive pronoun,
suggesting that there is no pied-piping in Ngas (cf. Haegeman (1994). The topicalised NP is base
generated in its initial position (cf. Haegeman (1996) without movement to preserve the
parallelism among related structures as in (27):
27. D/S-Structure [CP birng mwa do' [IP gurm mwa mwa pin am m-mwa]]
Horse pl person pl they give water to-they
The fact remains that nyi/mwa are markers of singularity/plurality and are also pronominal traces
as well as person-aspectual markers as part of the Agr feature in INFL while do is a focus marker
that triggers movement into TOP. Besides, ki and other modals and auxiliary verbs are presented
in Danjuma (1996), clarifying the fact that there exists in Ngas the verb BE and do is not an
equative verb. However, agreeing with Burquest that there is also an empty copula in Ngas
especially in equative sentences.
The most seminal works done on topicalisation in Hausa are Junaidu (1987) and Newman
(2000). Jaggar (1978) gives a transformational analysis of topic constructions in Hausa.
However, Junaidu (1987) notes that a transformational analysis of topicalisation is not tenable in
Hausa. He notes the following anomalies with Jaggar’s analysis.
A. Topicalised sentences bearing split anaphoric pronouns with conjoined nominal phrases
in the topic position are not accounted for.
B. Instances of topicalised sentences in which the topic element does not appear to have an
original position in the comment clause from which it could have been front-shifted are
also not accounted for by the transformational analysis.
C. The cases of topic-introducing expressions or topic-signaling modal particles are also not
accounted for by the analysis.
Newman (2000), however, draws a distinction between focus constructions and topic
constructions in Hausa. Of importance to note is the fact that ne; ce; nan; (null) and ta are
particles associated with focus constructions while the particles dai; fa; kam; kuwa; ma; to;
wallahi and ina are associated with topic constructions. The particles ne and ce are described as
STAB i.e. ‘the gender/number sensitive stabilizer.’ Whereas, dai; fa; kam; kuwa; and ma are
modal particles; and to; wallahi; and ina are ‘exclamatory or expressive materials.’ Given the

38
facts as they stand, this research pursues a transformational analysis of both focus and topic
constructions in Hausa in the light of TOP. In Skinner (1977), Focus: Emphasis is treated in
Hausa. On the other hand, Galadanci (1976) deals more generally with the basic syntactic
structure of Hausa, while Jagger (2001) touches on the different aspects of Hausa grammar.
These references provide a wealth of useful information on Hausa grammar generally.
Ahmed (2007) observes that all movements to the left in Fulfulde sentences move into TOP.
Direct object NP, indirect object and subject NP can move into TOP. All the moved items leave
their traces at the extraction sites. These traces are either lexically governed or properly governed
by the moved items. All these moved items into TOP have grammatical cases. These cases are
assigned to them before the movement. This shows that TOP is case free as such allows only
cased items into it. In embedded structures, the moved items must meet some transformational
conditions like the cyclic rules, Propositional Island Condition (PIC) and Specified Subject
Condition (SSC). Topicalisation and focalization are two forms of emphasis in Fulfulde. They
are optional stylistic devices available in natural languages for transformationally altering
constituent structure of underlying unmarked sentences. In other words, emphasis is a way of
focusing our attention on a word, phrase or clause in a sentence. The emphasized object is moved
into TOP, an emphatic particle on is optionally inserted and the tense of the verb remains
unchanged.
Minimalist syntax however, hypothesizes that CP splits into a number of different projections, an
analysis widely referred to as the split CP hypothesis: Luigi Rizzi (1997, 2001b and 2004). The
hypothesis states that complementisers are analysed as Force markers heading a ForceP (Force
Phrase) projection; Top constituents heading a TopP (Topic Phrase) projection, Focused
constituents heading a FocP ( Focus Phrase) headed by a Foc constituent (Focus marker)
projection and; a FinP/Finiteness Phrase whose head Fin constituent serves the function of
marking a clause as finite or nonfinite.
The head Foc of FocP carries an edge feature EF which allows it to attract a maximal projection
into spec-FocP in which position the preposed projection is interpreted as being focused. Foc is
a strong affixal head carrying a tense feature (EPP) which also can attract. Similarly, the head
Top constituent of the TopP carries an edge feature which allows it to attract a maximal

39
projection to move into the specifier position within TopP in which position the preposed
maximal projection is interpreted as the topic of the sentence. However, Top is a weak head as
such it does not carry a tense feature. This is a general A-bar movement operation whereby a
moved constituent is attracted into an A-bar specifier position i.e. the specifier position which
can be occupied by arguments and adjuncts alike since it moves a maximal projection to a
specifier position on the periphery of the clause. In other words, Force constituents occupy the
specifier position within a Force Phrase, Focused constituents occupy the specifier position
within a Focus Phrase and topicalised constituents occupy the specifier position within a Topic
Phrase.
Apart from its EF that enables it to attract relative, interrogative and exclamative wh-expressions
into the head of Spec-Force, a Force head is impenetrable to a higher head c commanding the
Force head.
Between FocP and TP in a derivation is the fourth functional projection of CP. Fin is the position
occupied by certain prepositional particles which introduce infinitival control clauses in some
languages. In such languages, the Fin head assigns null case to the PRO subject of its clause
whereby Fin ‘hands over’ its null-case-assignment property to T. This allows for the movement
of inverted auxiliaries from T through Fin into Foc in order to satisfy the Head Movement
Constraint which allows a head to move only into the next highest head position.
The split CP hypothesis posits that the Finiteness head is fused with the Force head immediately
above it, so that rather than being realized on two different heads, the relevant force and
finiteness features are realized on a single head.
The split CP hypothesis states that CP splits into four separate projections which are: Force
Phrase, Topic Phrase, Focus Phrase and Finiteness Phrase as illustrated below:
28. [ForceP [TopicP [FocusP [FinitenessP]]]]
It is important to note here that it is the minimalist approach presented above that is employed in
the analysis of TOP in Ngas, Hausa and Fulfulde in this work. This does not exclude the
adaption of other proposals regarding the analysis of Topic and Focus within the Minimalist
enterprise. For example Hill (2002) proposes that Focus is a syncretic feature that is visible for
computation only through fusion with a feature cluster with scope-bearing properties such as

40
finite T in Romanian whereby T has the feature cluster of tense and nominative Case to check
preverbal subjects and constituents in pre-verbal Focus. In other words, Focus targets a scope
position within the TP and this target corresponds with pre-verbal subjects assuming that the
[focus] feature enters the grammar by merging with the head T only when the feature cluster in T
contains tense and Case features.
Another interesting perspective is the analysis of Topic in Small Clauses SC. A Small Clause is a
clause whose predicate is not a verb i.e. the predicate is verbless. For example, [Mary
intelligent] in the sentence: John considers [SC Mary intelligent] is a SC. In Basilico (2003) it is
proposed that an understanding of the syntax and semantics of small clauses (SCs) requires
understanding their topic structure, maintaining that SCs form constituents.
By comparing raising verbs with adjectival SC complements and raising verbs with infinitival
complements, Basilico, (2003) shows that the differences in the syntax and semantics of such
constructions are related to whether the subject of the embedded clause is a topic or not. Basilico
concludes that all clauses have a topic and A-movement across clause boundaries is restricted.
The prototypical element which can A-move across clause boundaries is a topic. As such, an
Adjectival SC has individuals as a topic which it can move into the matrix clause in a passive
construction and also it can take wide scope over the matrix raising verb.
In the case of the subject of a verbal SC the topic is present, not as an individual but an event or
stage. This event or stage topic is present in the syntactic representation that is why an individual
topic cannot move into the matrix under passivization. The presence of I(nfinitive) in the
subordinate clause allows passivization to take place because it is either the subject is a topic or
head movement of I into the matrix takes place allowing the subordinate topic to be skipped
over.
Unlike in Basilico (2003), E-Kiss (2007) focuses on the notions of topic, contrastive topic and
focus in Hungarian. In using distributional criteria for the analysis, E-Kiss (2007) affirms that
topic and focus are distinct structural positions in the left periphery in Hungarian sentence. These
structural positions have logical rather than discourse functions. In other words, topic functions
as the logical subject of predication; contrastive topic as a logical subject if a Non-individual-

41
denoting expression is individuated by contrast and focus as a derived main predicate which
specifies the referential content of the set denoted by the background post-focus part of the
sentence. The exhaustivity and existential presupposition of the background post-focus part of
the sentence are properties of their specificational predication relation.
Technically, E-Kiss (2007) characterizes topic and focus structural positions. In regards to topic,
the landing site is the specifier of the functional projection TopP. A noun phrase; a verbal
particle, a predicative adjective, nominal or a verb can function as non-contrastive topic. For
example, V-topicalization involves copying instead of movement; the verb is represented in
Spec, TopP by an infinitive phrase and both copies are pronounced. Focus is an XP occupying an
invariant A-bar position as the specifier of a FocP.
Aboh (2007) examines the mechanism of information structure mapping onto clause structure
and proposes the existence of a left periphery focus field and a VP focus field inside the
respective clause structure in Niger-Congo Kwa and Bantu languages. This proposal supports the
claim that VP has an edge feature (cf. Balletti 2002). Any apparent irregularity the languages
may display in their clause structure is a function of the activation of the relevant choice of either
a lower or higher focus phrase or both in the derivation.
This view further reinforces the claim that information structuring begins with the numeration.
Aboh (2010) proposes that information structure starts in the numeration in the form of
discourse-related lexical items which drive the derivation. These discourse-related particles
encode features such as Interrogative force, Topic or Focus which are projected in the syntax in
the same way as other optional formal features such as: Case and ϕ-features. Aboh (ibid.) notes
that in many languages of the world Topic, Focus and Interrogative force are determined by
lexical choices that are manipulated by CHL in the derivation using several syntactic operations.
Therefore, the numeration N of a sentence containing a Topic, a Focus or an Interrogative
expression (π, ƛ) must include Topic, Focus or Interrogative lexical choices. For example
Gungbe, (a Niger-Congo language of the Gbe group) does not distinguish between Topic and
Focus features and other formal features such as Tense, Case or ϕ-features. The licensing of the
Topic or Focus head is as a result of Probe-Goal relations. In other words, Focus and Topic enter
into the derivation in the numeration just as Tense, case and ϕ-features. This analysis supports

42
the view that formal features have semantic correlates which reflect their semantic properties.
Indeed, this proposal is not one to be easily ignored.
2.5 PRO
Within an infinitival construction is situated PRO. In this case, an infinitival clause is a
construction with to-infinitive. In the infinitival clause ‘He is trying [to help her]’, help is an
infinitival verb form and the infinitival complement of the infinitival particle to. In other words,
an infinitival clause denotes a TP projection headed by the infinitival particle to or by a null
counterpart of the infinitive particle to. PRO is the subject of infinitives. PRO is a null-case
pronoun which represents the understood subject of an infinitival complement of a control
predicate, a control predicate denotes a word like try or persuades which takes an infinitival
complement with a controlled PRO subject as in ‘John tried PRO to leave’. In other words, .PRO
has an antecedent (John), the antecedent is the controller of PRO. Conversely PRO is controlled
by its antecedent (John). As one of the (sub-)theories of government-binding theory i.e. control
theory, a control predicate determines the potential for reference of the abstract pronominal
element PRO (Crystal 2008) and (Radford 2009).
A presentation of PRO from a Minimalist perspective is given in Landau (2000 and 2003).
Landau (2006) discusses infinitival complementation with particular reference to Control.
Landau (2003) gives the GB/early minimalist accounts of Obligatory Control (OC) and the
interpretation of PRO to invoke the following stipulations and redundant mechanisms: An
argument chain bears exactly one θ-role; no movement to a θ-position; no (“sideward”)
movement to a non-c-commanding position; and θ-roles are not checkable features. The “null
case” proposal holds; PRO and trace are distinct; raising and control are substantially different;
and there is a special component of grammar that is responsible for the choice of controller in
OC and the interpretation of PRO. From this point of view, PRO which is a null pronoun within
Control theory is the subject of the infinitival as given below:
28. Mary tried [PRO to dance].
29. [PRO to dance with Mary] is fun.
The embedding predicate is a two place predicate - someone who tries/decides/plans something
and something that is tried/decided/planned. The infinitival clause typically cannot have an overt

43
subject. PRO is typically taken to be in complementary distribution with overt pronouns and pro.
This is in contradistinction with: predicates like want which takes an overt pronoun:
30. Mary wants him to dance
The following are important assumptions and theoretical considerations Landau (2000) and
(2003) observes. Given the -criterion, an argument DP must receive a -role and may receive
only one -role. The only one -role requirement rules out movement. DP-traces/copies are also
ruled out in the infinitival subject position. pro could be a possibility (cf. Borer (1989)) but pro
as generally conceptualized can only appear in positions where it can get case and where overt
DPs may also appear. Keeping to the only one -role part of the -criterion, there is then the
need to postulate a new kind of entity, a null pronoun called PRO which can satisfy the Extended
Projection Principle (EPP) requirement, receive a -role and which does not need case.
Therefore5
:
31. DP-trace/copies of DPs that are not pronounced are products of movement
32. pro - a null pronoun that alternates with overt pronouns needs case
33. PRO - a null pronoun that does not alternate with overt pronouns does not need case
34. PRO can only be the subject of a non-finite clause.
35. PRO is case-resistant. (Bouchard (1984))
36. PRO is in complementary distribution with overt pronouns and pro because the latter
need to be assigned (or check) a Case.
37. PRO is [+anaphoric, +pronominal].The only way for it to survive is to not have a
governing category i.e. not have a governor. Non-finite T0
is not a governor. Case-
licensing positions are always governed hence PRO cannot appear there. PRO Theorem
(Chomsky (1981))
38. PRO has null case, a special case that only it can bear. Non finite T0
licenses Null
Case.(Chomsky and Lasnik (1993) and Martin (2001)).
Given the assumptions (31 – 38), Landau (ibid.) further observes the difference between Control
and Raising. In Raising constructions: the subject of the infinitival moves to a higher subject
position:
39. Maryi appears [ti to be happy].
5
These assumptions are adapted from Landau 2000 and 2003. The MIT opencourseware site has been quite helpful
if you need detail treatment of the assumptions. (See Bibliography)

44
40. Maryi seems [ti to be exhausted].
Control and Raising are generally taken to involve different modules of the grammar – control
theory and movement respectively. Hornstein (1999) tries to derive Control via movement. On
the other hand, Boeckx and Hornstein (2004) point out that there are in fact certain parallels
between control and raising and claim that the non-parallels can be derived from independent
differences between raising and control.
41. . John believes [Mary to be innocent].
42. Mary wants [him to stay].
In the case of ECM in (41 and (42), the subject of the infinitival is an overt NP.
2.5.1 Types of Control6
Different kinds of Control have been adduced by Landau (2000) and (2003). These control types
are classified in terms of the different antecedents of PRO as presented in 2.5.1.1 - 2.5.1.4 below.
2.5.1.1 Subject and object control
There are more object control predicates than subject control predicates. Object control is forced
by the Minimal Distance Principle (cf. Rosenbaum (1967)) whereas an MDP-violating subject
control is taken to involve a special structure where the Minimal Distance Principle is respected
(cf. Larson (1991)). Dowty (1985), Culicover and Jackendoff (2001) and Jackendoff and
Culicover (2003) are of the opinion that the exact identity of the controller (subject or object)
follows from the semantics of the embedding predicate.
43. a. John promised Mary to finish his paper by Monday. Subject control
b. John persuaded Mary to finish her paper by Monday. Object control
2.5.1.2 Obligatory, arbitrary and optional control
For Obligatory Control (OC), the subject of the infinitival clause can only be interpreted as
dependent on an argument of the embedding predicate for its interpretation whether infinitival
(non-wh)-complements or infinitival adjuncts respectively:
44. a. Angela tried [to disinvite him].
b. Andre read Rushdie’s article about Coetzee [to make a presentation in his class]
In the case of Arbitrary control, PRO seems to lack an obvious controller and takes on a
generic/arbitrary interpretation. This case is referred to as PROarb. Arbitrary control is diagnosed
6
Sub-sections 2.5.1.1 - 2.5.1.4 are adapted from Landau 2000 and 2003 with additional material from MIT
opencourseware (See Bibliography).

45
by its ability to bind oneself and the availability of a paraphrase that involves the pronoun one as
a unique argument of an embedding predicate or part of a wh-CP, as shown below respectively:
45. a. [PROarb to walk along Paradise Pond in the Fall] is fun.
b. Minjoo knows [how PROarb to behave oneself in public].
An Optional control is denoted by an infinitival clause that is embedded in a wh-CP which is as
well for arbitrary control.
46. a.. Maryi knows [how PROi to behave herself in public].
b. Johni wonders [how PROi to protect himself from creditors].
2.5.1.3 Partial and exhaustive control
There is also a class of cases where the matrix predicate provides only part of the reference of the
subject of the infinitival clause (cf Landau (2000)) while others do not. The former is the case of
Partial Control and the latter Exhaustive Control as illustrated respectively below:
47. a. Hei wanted [PROi+ to meet in the lobby/do the dishes together]. Partial
Control
b. *Johni began [PROi+ to do the dishes together]. Exhaustive Control
2.5.1.4 Implicit control
The controller of PRO can be an implicit argument i.e. an argument that does not seem to be
syntactically projected. Some languages differ in the extent to which they allow for implicit
arguments to control a PRO as in the case of unaccusatives and passives where there is no
implicit argument and no Control and where there is an Implicit agent and Control respectively:
48. a. * The shipi sank [PROi to collect the insurance].
b. The shipi was sunk [PROi to collect the insurance].
On the other hand, Implicit accusatives and. Implicit datives as given below respectively hold:
49. a. This leads *(onei) [PROi to draw the following conclusion].
b. John said/shouted (to the visitorsi) [PROi to return later].
2.6 Basic Properties of PRO: (Landau, 2001)
The following are the basic properties of PRO in Control constructions (cf. Landau (2001)):
50. Basic Properties of Control constructions:
a. The controller can never be an expletive.
b. The PRO is always a subject

46
c. The controller of PRO needs to be an argument of the predicate to which the
infinitival clause is attached. c-command follows from argument requirement and the
fact that the clausal complement is the innermost argument.
d. PRO cannot be a real expletive.
2.7 Movement Theory of Control (MTC) and Agreement Theory of Control (ATC)
Two major theories of Control are presently the standard in Minimalist analysis of PRO (cf.
Snarska (2009)) These two positions are the Movement Theory of Control (MTC) as posited in
Hornstein (1999, 2000 and 2003) and Boeckx and Hornstein (2004 and 2006), (cf. Martin 1996,
O’Neil 1997, Manzini & Roussou 2000 and Polinsky & Potsdam 2002) and the Agree Theory of
Control (ATC) developed by Landau (2000, 2003, 2004 and 2007).
These two major theories i.e. MTC and ATC are basically different in terms of their
methodology; the MTC utilizes solely the theory-external conceptual apparatus while the ATC
introduces a new module of grammar with OC particularly and PC perceived as arising from
Agree relations. The crucial operation is Agree whereby the matrix functional head enters a
relation with the infinitival anaphoric Agr. Consequently, it emerges that PC can be licensed
solely in complements; Agree, being a subpart of Move cannot penetrate islands.
In Landau (2000) a division of Obligatory Control (OC) into Partial Control (PC) and Exhaustive
Control (EC) is presented. The EC verbs comprise implicative, aspectual and modal verbs, (e.g.
dare, begin and shall) while the PC verbs are instantiated by factive, propositional, desiderative
and interrogative verbs (e.g. regret, deny, wonder and want)
A fundamental assumption of Landau’s analysis is that the PC/EC antithesis is conditional upon
the presence/absence of the embedded tense specification. Only tensed non-finite clauses evince
partial control; that is, the tense specification of only PC complements is (relatively) independent
of the matrix clause: A desiderative verb, selects a tensed complement while an Aspectual verb
selects an untensed complement. A natural consequence of the presence of selected tense in the
embedded clauses is a fact that only matrix predicates license PC.

47
The reason underlying the importance of tense in triggering a PC interpretation is the fact that the
embedded T moves to C, thus precluding Agree (cf. Chomsky 2000) from standing between
PRO and a higher functional category F (T in the case of subject control and v for object control)
that also agrees with the matrix controller. A basic PC structure given by Snarska (2009) is:
51. [CP F[-SP] … DP[-SP] …[CP T-Agr[ØSP]+C [TP PRO[+SP] [T tT-Agr [VP tPRO
…]]]]]7
In (51), Agree1 holds between PRO and T-Agr and establishes embedded agreement (followed
by the raising of PRO to Spec, TP) and Agree2 taking hold between F and DP which gives rise
to matrix agreement. T-Agr must move to C to check C’s unInterpretable T-feature since PC
complements are tensed thereby reaching an edge position in which it is visible to matrix
operations. Hence, Agree3 is established between F and T-Agr adjoined to C. The key element of
this analysis is that PRO in PC is imbued with semantic plurality but crucially it partakes of
syntactic singularity at the same time. It is possible for PRO to co-exists with a semantically
singular controller because the unpronounced subject, equipped with an inbred semantic plurality
feature [+SP] agrees not with F but with embedded T which is [ØSP] since it does not inherit [-
SP] from F ([-SP] and [ØSP] being non-distinct on functional heads. Thus, [ØSP] on T and
[+SP] on PRO do not conflict giving rise to the PC effect. Therefore, control in the ATC is an
instance of an Agree relation and with Agree being a subpart of Move (Chomsky 2000); it must
be sensitive to islands.
7
See Section 4.2 for detailed explication of this agreement relation especially in the derivational analysis of PRO.
Agree2
Agree3
Agree1

MOVE ALPHA TOP AND PRO WITHIN THE MINIMALIST PROGRAM A CROSSLINGUISTIC ANALYSIS OF NGAS HAUSA AND FULFULDE

MOVE ALPHA TOP AND PRO WITHIN THE MINIMALIST PROGRAM A CROSSLINGUISTIC ANALYSIS OF NGAS HAUSA AND FULFULDE

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to MOVE ALPHA TOP AND PRO WITHIN THE MINIMALIST PROGRAM A CROSSLINGUISTIC ANALYSIS OF NGAS HAUSA AND FULFULDE

Similar to MOVE ALPHA TOP AND PRO WITHIN THE MINIMALIST PROGRAM A CROSSLINGUISTIC ANALYSIS OF NGAS HAUSA AND FULFULDE (20)

MOVE ALPHA TOP AND PRO WITHIN THE MINIMALIST PROGRAM A CROSSLINGUISTIC ANALYSIS OF NGAS HAUSA AND FULFULDE