RELATIVE CLAUSE CONSTRUCTIONS IN Ọ̀HỌ̀RÍ YORÙBÁ

Vol. 3, No. 1, September, 2024: Language Review: An International Journal of Linguistics (LRIJL) pg. 1 RELATIVE CLAUSE CONSTRUCTIONS IN Ọ HỌ RÍ YORÙBÁ Akinwande Ọlaide [email protected] 08103217426 University of Lagos Ilọri Fọlọrunṣọ [email protected] 07062399363 University of Lagos Ajiboye Ọladiipo [email protected] 08126932123 University of Lagos DOI : https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17932501 Abstract Ever since Bamgbose (1986) and Awobuluyi (1992, 1998) called for scholarly research attention on the study of Yorùbá dialects to increase the body of knowledge and understanding of the workings of the internal structures of Yorùbá language grammar, especially the standard form which has mounting unresolved issues, no serious work has been carried out on Ọ họrí grammar, most especially on its relative clause constructions. The paper employed relevant data samples elicited from 12 adult native speakers of Ọ họrí in Kétu, Ègùwá and Asá communities in Yewa North, Ogun State. It relies on Minimalist Program (Chomsky 1993, 1995, 1998, 2002) and SplitCP hypothisis (Rizzi 1997, 2003) as theoretical guides to analyse the data. The study discusses the structural derivations of relative clause constructions and shows that the four typology of relative clause constructions of Mark (2002) and Lehmann (1984) are employed in Ọ họrí. It also demonstrates that a number of lexical items such as N, V, adverbs, etc. can be relativized in Ọ họrí. Also, in contrast to what obtains in Standard Yorùbá where the relative clause introducer tí is optionally dropped in rare expressions (Awobuluyi,1978:36), the introducer ìyé is overtly obligatory in Ọ họrí relative clauses. The study, therefore, proposes that the relative clause introducer ìyé is the functional head that projects relative clause constructions in Ọ họrí. Keywords: Relativization, Relative clause, Typology, Ọ họrí, Yoruba INTRODUCTION elativization is a universal syntactic process cross-linguistically. As such, the syntactic construction is not unique to Ọ họrí, not to talk of Yorùbá. However, different descriptions and definitions have been offered on relativization based on some parameters: syntactic and semantic parameters. For syntactic parameter, different scholars have proposed different definitions for relativization. Among them are Ilọri (2010:251) who sees relativization as; a syntactic process of forming a relative clause construction. A relative clause is a subordinate clause in a complex IP projection that contains a constituent which has a kind of anaphoric link with another constituent serving as its antecedent in the main clause, such that the meaning of the complex clause involves two occurrences of a variable. R Relative clauses in Standard Yoruba typically begin with the introducer tí (Awobuluyi, 1978:35; Bamgboṣe, 1990:209) whereas in Mọbà Yorùbá, relativization requires the presence of focus marker ni alongside a mid-toned relative clause marker (Ajiboye, 2006), as illustrated in (1) below. This is in contrast to the high tone that the marker carries in Standard Yorùbá. 1a. Ìwé tí Kúnlé rà… Standard Yorùbá Book COMP buy ‘The book that Kunle bought…’ b. Ìwé ti ni Ikúnlé rà… Mọbà Book COMP FOC buy ‘The book that Kunle bought…’ (Ajiboye, 2006:14) However, following Hastings (2004:54-60), Mureili (2008:104) and Andreea (2010:7), we define relativization as an attribute which qualifies the head of a nominal item. For Downing (1978:378) and Mark (2002:14), in relativization, a relative clause is subordinated. From the definitions above, one can deduce that syntactically, relativization reduces the strength of a complete or full sentence (though not all relative clauses) to relative clause structure, as shown in example (2) in English. 2a. John plays football. b. John that <John> plays football c. Football that John plays <football> The examples in (2b-c) are no longer full sentences but relative clauses. However, from the semantic end, Givón (1984:651) explains that; there is a constraint in relativization which entails a great reduction in the expressive power of language and no language has attempted to impose the constraint, so far. The constraint according to the scholar is a language dependent constraint that deals with the possibility of recovering the function of the relative gap or trace, as demonstrated in (2b&c). For Downing (1978:378), relativization is a connected constituent to surrounding material by a pivot. To Downing, pivot is a constituent semantically shared by the matrix clause and the relative clause. Downing claims that if the pivot (usually a noun phrase) resides in matrix clause, the structure in (3) emerges. The Yorùbá example in (4) illustrates Downing’s structure in (3). 3. [matrix... [N RC]...] 4. Ọmọ òlẹ [ tí mo sọ] ti dé. Child lazy REL 1SG say PERF arrive ‘The lazy child that I mentioned/spoke of has arrived.’ This implies that the relative clause contains a gap, which may be filled by a relative pronoun. But if the pivot is spelled out inside the relative clause, the construction becomes head-internal, as shown in (5), which is illustrated with the Yorùbá example in (6). Vol. 3, No. 1, September, 2024: Language Review: An International Journal of Linguistics (LRIJL) pg. 3 5. [matrix... [RC ... NP...]...] 6. Baba [tí [ ó ra asọ dúdú]] nìyí Father REL 1SG.HTS buy cloth black FOC-DEM ‘This is the mother/woman who bought the black cloth.’ The structure in (5) indicates that the matrix contains a gap, which is filled by the whole relative construction, as shown in (6). While rounding off this section, we claim that all the definitions provided under each parameter employed above can be contextualized in Ọ họrí. 1. Typology of Relative Clause in Ọ họrí This section discusses the typology of relative clause in Ọ họrí. Syntactically, we assume following Lehmann (1984:149) and Mark (2002:30) that the typology of relative clause constructions are four: prenominal relatives, postnominal relatives, circumnominal relatives, and correlatives relatives. 1.1. Prenominal Relatives This type of relative clause occurs in matrix and embedded clauses. The embedded clause is inserted inside the matrix clause, as evident in Ọ họrí and Standard Yorùbá (SY) in (7) and (8). Ọ họrí 7. Obìì [ìyé [ à tà ]] wuyì Kolanut REL 1PL.HTS sell fine ‘The kolanut that we sold is fine.’ SY 8. Abà [tí [wọn kọ ]] dára. Barn REL 3PL.HTS build good ‘The barn that they built is good/beautiful.’ The structure of the prenominal relatives is given in (9). 9. [matrix... [RC ... N]...] The examples provided in (7&8) match the structure of the relative clause type given in (9). The matrix clause subsumes the relative clause there. 1.2. Postnominal Relatives This relative clause type occurs in matrix and embedded clauses. Unlike prenominal relatives that reside inside matrix clause, postnominal clause stands separately. The Ọ họrí and Standard Yorùbá examples of this relative clause type are given in (10) and (11). Ọ họrí 10. Báyọ rhí Ṣọlá [ìyé ọ  kàwé.] Bayọ see Ṣọlá REL 3SG.HTS PROG read-book ‘Bayọ saw Sola who is /was reading.’ SY 11. Táyọ na Olú [tí ó  pariwo.] Tayọ beat Olu REL 3SG.HTS PROG kill-noise ‘Tayọ beats Olu who is making noise.’ The nominal word, which relative clause modifies in (10&11) resides outside the internal structure of the relative clause. The structure of the examples in (10 &11) is configured in (12). 12. [S-matrix... [N RC]...] The configurational structure in (12) equally aligns with the data provided in (10) & (11). 1.3. Circumnominal Relatives This relative clause construction combines the head noun and the relative clause in a higher nominal expression. It is an internally headed relative clause. This is evident in (13) and (14) accompanied with the structure in (15). Ọ họrí 13. Owó [ìyé Ìyábọ fi rha ata] kpọ. Money REL Iyabo use buy pepper much ‘The money that Iyabo used to buy pepper is much.’ SY 14. Àdá [tí Ṣọlá fi pa eku] mú. Cutlass REL Ṣọlá use kill rat sharp ‘The cutlass that Sola used to kill the rat is sharp.’ 15. [S-matrix ... [DP [CP-rel... DP]…]] A close examination of the data in (13) and (14) shows that the examples are compatible with the structure in (15). 2.4. Correlatives Correlative is a relative clause type that modifies the head noun. The relative clause contains a pronoun which is a referent to the modified relative head noun. It is an internally headed relative clause. Correlatives are bare clauses (Keenan, 1985:164), i.e., they are not full sentences. This is exemplified in (16) and (17). Ọ họrí 16. Ọmọ ọlẹ [ìyé ọ ʃiʃɛ lọní] Child lazy REL 3SG.HTS do-work LOC-today ‘The lazy child who worked today’ SY 17. Ẹgbọn Ṣọlá [tí ó sọrọ lánàá] Elderly Ṣọlá REL 3SG.HTS talk LOC-yesterday ‘Sola’s elderly brother who talked yesterday’ The structure of the correlative relative illustrated in (16) and (17) is schematized in (18) according to Mark (2002:30). 18. [N (…) [RC …]] [s-matrix... (Dem)...] Vol. 3, No. 1, September, 2024: Language Review: An International Journal of Linguistics (LRIJL) pg. 5 However, in the spirit of information structure (Halliday 1967, Erteschik-Shir 2007), as will be contextualized in Ọ họrí Yorùbá shortly, we modify the structure of (Mark, 2002:30) in (18) by removing the second part. Hence, what remains is the structure in (19). 19. [N (…) [RC…]] Evidently, the description of correlative type of relative clause and the examples presented in both Ọ họrí and Standard Yorùbá align with the structure provided. The phonetic representation of ʃiʃɛ ‘to work’ in (16) is motivated by the pronunciation of the speakers of Ọ họrí. Before the close of this section, we will like to mention some of the properties of relative clause according to (Mark 2002:30) and use the properties to draw the table of the relative clauses, described so far. Thus, the properties of relative clauses include: nominalization of relative clause (RC). RC is a satellite to noun relative (Nrel) or sentence matrix (Smatrix), Nrel is present in RC. RC is open or closed and gap/quasi-anaphor in RC represents Nrel, or anaphor in Smatrix represents Nrel + RC. The table of the four relative clause types explained so far is shown below according to (Mark, 2002:30). Property Correlative CircumN PostN PreN Nominalization of RC (yes/no) No Yes Yes Yes RC is satellite to Nrel or Smatrix N - N N Nrel is present in RC (yes/no) Yes Yes No No RC is open or closed Closed Closed Open Open Gap/quasi-anaphor in RC represents Nrel, or anaphor in Smatrix represents Nrel + RC Anaphor - Gap Gap Table 1: The table of relative clauses in Ọ họrí Yorùbá 2. Relativized Constituents in Ọ họrí A number of constituents can be relativized in Ọ họrí. The relative marker in Ọ họrí as mentioned above is ìyé. The process of relativization in Ọ họrí is via dislocation, i.e. raising of the targeted constituent to the specifier position of the relative clause. The relative clause marker immediately and directly follows the raised constituent in the dialect. Relativization can be expressed in small and complex clauses in Ọ họrí. The constituents that can relativized in the dialect are taken one after the other in the following sub-sections. 3.1. Relativized Constituents in Small Clauses This section exclusively discusses the categorial items that could be relativized within the basic clauses in Ọ họrí. 3.1.1. Subject Argument One of the constituents that can be relativized is subject argument. The process of expressing it is achieved by raising the item to the leftward of the construction. There is overt relative operator (Ajiboye 2004, Adesola 2005, Ilọri 2017) that followed the raised NP immediately. There is presence of pro-form in the extraction site, which links the raised NP together, as expressed in (20) and (21). 20a. Ìgè jẹ ẹba lí ìjẹkújẹ lí òdè. Ige eat ẹba of badly LOC function ‘Ige ate ẹba badly at the function/event.’ b. [Ìgè] [ìyọ jẹ ẹba lí ìjẹkújẹ lí òdè] Ige REL-3SG.HTS eat ẹba of badly LOC function ‘Ige who ate ẹba badly at a/the function/event’ 21a. Baba lu àhọn akẹkọọ lí ìnàkunà. Father beat 3PL students of badly ‘The father beats the students badly/anyhow.’ b. [Baba] [ìyọ lu àhọn akẹkọọ lí ìnàkunà] Father REL-3SG.HTS beat 3PL students of badly ‘The father who beats the students badly/anyhow’ From the examples above, (20a) and (21a) are basic structures from which (20b) and (21b) are derived. We noticed that the pro-form which is a referent of the relativized item is ọ. There are phonological constraints between the last vowel of the relative operator and the pro-form. The constraint is that for subject argument of relative clause construction to be well-formed in Ọ họrí, the last vowel of the relative operator must get deleted, while contraction occurs immediately between the remnant of the relative operator and the pro-form. Invariably, there are two phonological processes occurring there: deletion and contraction, as shown below. Base Pro-form Deletion Contraction Output ìyé ọ (HTS) ìyɇ ìy-ọ ìyọ This is the case that happens between the relative morpheme and the pro-form in (20b) and (21b) which is glossed as ‘REL-3SG.HTS’. Subject-argument relative, as expressed in (20b) and (21b) reduces the strength of clause constructions in (20a) and (21a) to simple clause constructions. The data in (20b&21b) align with the correlative relative as a typology of relative clause construction explained above. 3.1.2. Object Argument Object argument also passes the test of constituents that can be relativized in Ọ họrí. When object (direct object) is relativized in Ọ họrí, the object is displaced from the extraction site to the leftward. There is an overt relative operator that follows the displaced object immediately, as demonstrated below in (22) and (23). 22a. Àhọn ọlọpaa mu àhọn olè lí né-itura 3PL police arrest 3PL thieves LOC hotel ‘The police arrested the thieves in an/the hotel.’ b. [Àhọn olè] [ìyé àhọn ọlọpaa mú <àhọn olè> lí né-itura] 3PL thieves REL 3PL police arrest LOC hotel ‘The thieves whom the police arrested in an/the hotel’ 23a. Àlàní rhí Àyìndé lọnọọ lọjáà Alani see Ayinde LOC-yesterday LOC-market ‘Alani saw Ayinde in the market yesterday.’ b. [Àyìndé] [ìyé Àlàní rhí <Àyìndé> lọnọọ lọjáà] Vol. 3, No. 1, September, 2024: Language Review: An International Journal of Linguistics (LRIJL) pg. 7 Ayinde REL Alani see LOC-yesterday LOC-market ‘Ayinde whom Alani saw in the market yesterday’ The data presented in (22) and (23) indicate that (22a) and (23a) are basic structures, while (22b) and (23b) are derived structures [+REL CON]. The relative clause constructions in (22b) and (23b) equally weakens the potency of the full sentence structure in (22a) and (23a) to relative clause which is a modifier to the nominal head in (22b) and (23b). The examples in (22b&23b) match the correlative relative explained above. 3.1.3. Object of Preposition The objective complement of a preposition (indirect object) can be relativized gallantly in Ọ họrí. This follows the same process, i.e., dislocation of the objective item to the specifier position, which is followed by the overt relative operator, as exemplified in (24b) & (25b). 24a. Àmọkẹ gbé ọwọ sí òkè. Àmọkẹ carry hand LOC mountain ‘Àmọkẹ lifted hands.’ b. [Òkè] [ìyé Àmọkẹ gbé ọwọ sí <òkè>] Mountain REL Àmọkẹ carry hand LOC ‘The lifting that Àmọkẹ lifts hands’ 25a. Mò ó rha ilé sí Èkó. 1Sg HTS buy house LOC Lagos ‘I bought a/the house in Lagos.’ b. [Èkó] [ìyé mọ ọ rha ilé sí <Èkó>] Lagos REL 1SG HTS buy house LOC ‘The Lagos that I bought a/the house’ (24a&25a) are basic clauses, while (24b&25b) are relative clauses. The relativized items in (24b&25b) are displaced from the neutral domain to the discourse position for relativization. This is also a correlative type of relative clause. 3.1.4. Possessor’s Relative The next element can be relativized in Ọ họrí is possessor of a head noun. When this is done, the possessor is raised to the SPEC domain of the relative clause and straightforwardly takes overt relative operator in the language. For the transformative construction [+REL] to be well converged, the displaced possessor replaces itself with a pro-form that functions syntactically as possessor in the higher construction, as exemplified in (26b&27b). 26a. Eijò kpa ajá ọdẹ. Snake kill dog hunter ‘The snake killed the hunter’s dog.’ b. [Ọdẹi] [ìyé eijò kpa ajá ẹi] Hunter REL snake kill dog POSS ‘The hunter whom the snake killed his dog’ 27a. Tádé jẹ ẹìbà Ṣọlá Tádé eat ẹbà Ṣọlá ‘Tádé ate Ṣọla’s ẹbà.’ b. [Ṣọlái] [ìyé Tádé jẹ ẹìbà ẹi] Ṣọlá REL Tádé eat ẹbà POSS ‘Ṣọla whom Tádé ate his ẹbà’ The transformative constructions in (26b&27b) appear that the raised possessors leave a resumptive pronoun in the neutral position. This is another correlative relative. 3.1.5. Adverbial Relative When adverbs are relativized in Ọ họrí, it is also displaced to the extraposition and immediately takes overt relative operator in the proposition. This is illustrated in (28b&29b). 28a. Àjíún  sọrhọ díẹdíẹ. Àjíún PROG say-word small-small ‘Àjíún is talking slowly.’ b. [Díẹdíẹ] [ìyé Àjíún  sọrhọ <díẹdíẹ>] Small-small REL Àjíún PROG say-word ‘Slowly that Àjíún is talking’ 29a. Àmọkẹ lọ kíákíá. Àmọkẹ go quickly ‘Àmọkẹ went quickly.’ b. [Kíákíá] [ìyé Àmọkẹ lọ <kíákíá>] Quickly REL Àmọkẹ go ‘Quickly that Àmọkẹ went’ 3.1.6. Verb Relative The next constituent that fails not to pass the test of relativization in Ọ họrí is verb (V). The approach is done via morphological process called gerund [+NOM], after which the nominalized verb is dislocated to the discourse position, depositing a copy of the verb in-situ. This is exemplified in (30) and (31). 30a. Ọmọ ọlẹ kọ ʃe itʃɛ lónìí Child lazy NEG do work LOC-today ‘The lazy child did not work today.’ b. [ʃíʃe] [ìyé ọmọ ọlẹ kọ ʃe itʃɛ lónìí] NOM-work REL child lazy NEG do work LOC-today ‘The act of working that the lazy child did not work today’ 31a. Ṣọlá jẹ ẹìbà lí ìjẹkújẹ lóde Ṣọla eat ẹba of badly LOC-function/event ‘Ṣọla ate ẹba badly/anyhow at the function/event.’ Vol. 3, No. 1, September, 2024: Language Review: An International Journal of Linguistics (LRIJL) pg. 9 b. [Jíjẹ] [ìyé Ṣọlá jẹ ẹbà lí ìjẹkújẹ lóde] Nom-eat REL Ṣọla eat ẹba of badly LOC-function/event ‘The act of eating that Ṣọla ate ẹba badly/anyhow at the function/event’ The data above show that (30a) and (31a) are basic clauses, from which (30b) and (31b) are derived. The verbs in (30a) and (31a) are nominalized via gerund and a copy of them remains in canonical position. This idea is common in most of Yorùbá dialects. 3.1.7. Verb Phrase Relative Apart from the relativization of V, the data collected equally show that verb phrase (VP) can also be relativized in Ọ họrí. The relativization of VP here is V plus its object. Just as explained in the V relative, the V in VP also goes through nominalization via gerund and dislocates the nominalized V with its object to the discourse position. Meanwhile, the full copy of the VP still remains in-situ, as demonstrated below. 32a. Ìjọbà yọọ/á kpèsè ọmi sẹẹrin ọjáà Government FUT provide water LOC-middle market ‘The government will provide water in the market.’ b. [Kpíkpésè ọmi] [ìyé ìjọbà yọọ/á kpèsè ọmi sẹẹrin ọjáà] Nom-provide water REL government FUT provide water LOC-middle market ‘The act of providing water that government will provide water in the market’ 33a. Ọmọ ọlẹ kọ ʃe itʃɛ lọnìí Child lazy NEG do work LOC-today ‘The lazy child did not work today.’ b. [ʃíʃe itʃɛ] [ìyé ọmọ ọlẹ kọ ʃe itʃɛ lọnìí] NOM-work REL child lazy NEG do work LOC-today ‘The act of working that the lazy child did not work today’ The examples given in (32b) and (33b) appear similar with its counterparts in (30b) and (31b). The slight difference is the fact that the object of the V in (32b) & (33b) is successfully dislocated with the V to the extra-linguistic position, resulting to VP relative. 3.1.8. Adjunct Relative From the data obtained, adjunct also passes the test of relativization in Ọ họrí. Adjuncts are parts of a sentence which can be cut off without rendering the sentence meaningless. By adjunct, we mean prepositional phrase (PP), as shown in (34) and (35). 34a. Olùkọ lu àhọn akẹkọọ lí ìnákúná Teacher beat 3PL student of severely ‘The teacher beats the students severely.’ b. [Lí ìnákúná] [ìyé olùkọ lu àhọn akẹkọọ <lí ìnákúná>] Of severely REL teacher beat 3PL student ‘The manner that the teacher beats the students severely’ Awobuluyi, O. (1978). Essentials of Yoruba Grammar. Oxford University Press, Ibadan. Awobuluyi, O. (1988). Aspect of Contemporary Standard Yorùbá in Dialectological Perspective. J.F. Ọdunjọ Memorial Lectures Organizing Committee, Lagos. Awobuluyi, O. (1992). Aspects of Contemporary Standard Yorùbá in Dialectological Perspective. New Findings in Yorùbá Studies,1-79. Awobuluyi, O. (1998). Àwọn Ẹ ka-Èdè Yorùbá. Àpérò Ẹ gbẹ Èdè Yorùbá. Bodija. Ibadan, Pastoral Institute Publisher. Bamgboṣe, A. (1986). Yorùbá: A Language in Transition. Ibadan, University Press. Bamgboṣe, A. (1990). Fọnọlọjì àti Gírámà Yorùbá. University Press Limited, Ibadan. Chomsky, N. (1993). A Minimalist Program for Linguistic Theory. In Hale and Keyser (Eds.), View from Building, 20(5), 1-52. Chomsky, N. (1995). Minimalist Program. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. Chomsky, N. (1998). The Minimalist Enquiries: The Framework. MIT. Occasional Papers in Linguistics, 15, 30-75. Chomsky, N. (2002). On Nature and Language. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Downing, B. (1978). Some Universals of Relative Clause Structure. In: J. Greenberg (ed). Universals of Human Languages, 4, 375-418. Erteschik-Shir, N. (2007). Information Structure: The Syntax-Discourse Interface. Oxford University Press, New York. Givon, T. (1984). Syntax: A Functional-Typological Approach. John Benjamins Publisher, Amsterdam. Halliday, M. A. (1967). Notes on Transitivity and Theme in English: Part 2. Journal of Linguistics, 3, 199-244. Hastings, R. (2004). The Syntax and Semantics of Relativization and Quantification: The Case of Ouechua. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Cornell University, Cornell. Ilọri, J. F. (2010). Nominal Constructions in Igálà and Yorùbá. PhD Thesis, Department of Linguistics, Adekunle Ajasin University. Ilọri, J. F. (2017). Interrogative Projections in Yoruboid Languages. Journal of West African Languages, 44(1), 1-17. Keenan, E. (1985). Relative Clause. In: T. Shopen (ed). Language Typology and Syntactic Description, 2, 141-170. Lehmann, C. (1984). Der Relativsatz. Gunter Narrverlag, Tubingen, 3, 15-32. Mark, V. (2002). The Syntax of Relativization. Academisch Proefchrift, LOT Trans Publisher, 103512 JK Utrecht, Netherlands. Mureili, A. (2008). Relative Constructions in European Languages: A Close Look at Non-standard Varieties. MEL-Kompaktvoirlesung, 1, 1-13. Rizzi, L. (1997). The Fine Structure of Left Periphery. In Liliane Haegeman (Ed.), Element of Grammar, Dordrecht, Kluwer, 89-110. Rizzi, L. (2003). Locality and Left Periphery. In Belletti (Ed.), Structures and Beyond: the Cartography of Syntactic. Oxford University Press, Oxford. End Notes 1Just like when subject is focused in Standard Yorùbá, there is a pro-form ó showing up in the canonical position of the focused subject. This syntactic event equally occurs in subject relative in Ọ họrí. Different submissions have been reported on the pro-form ó in the literature. Awobuluyi Vol. 3, No. 1, September, 2024: Language Review: An International Journal of Linguistics (LRIJL) pg. 17 (1988) sees the pro-form ó as preverbal modifier. Ajiboye (2005:104-105) analyzes the pro-form ó as inflectional element that instantiates Specifier-Head agreement in IP.