A Derivation by Phase Analysis of the Ekegusii Verb System

Abstract

This study was morpho-syntactic and qualitative in nature. The researcher was the primary source of data for analysis, which were mainly Ekegusii sentences, clauses, and phrases. In this study, an attempt was made to account for the phase structure of the morpho-syntactic nature of the Ekegusii verb system using Noam Chomsky’s phase-based theory of syntax – Derivation by Phase (hereafter DbP). This theoretical framework reduces the computational burden in the generation of sentences by positing two indispensable syntactic operations: Merge and Agree, in the probe-goal pair and in phases through which a derivation proceeds. The study considered the derivation of Ekegusii transitive, intransitive, unaccusative, negative, passive and infinitival structures. The analysis of these structures revealed that Ekegusii verb responds pretty closely to the split VP (i.e. VP shell) analysis posited in DbP. Besides, Ekegusii has the phase structure propounded in DbP. For instance, an Ekegusii transitive verb with an external argument (EA) is a ν*P phase, a finding that is in favour of Chomsky’s claim that a transitive verb with an EA is a phase (Chomsky 2008, p.143). The study also explored structural Case assignment (i.e. Nominative and Accusative) and agreement between Ekegusii verb and its arguments. The findings of the study showed that: first, the Ekegusii tense head T does not assign NOM Case contrary to what is held in DbP that the tense head T assigns NOM Case to a c-commanded (pro)nominal in a derivation by either triggering movement to its SPEC or through long distance agreement. Part of the reason Ekegusii NOM Case is not assigned in such a manner is because Ekegusii T-constituent that is a finite one carries subject-verb agreement affixes which render it valued. For this reason, Ekegusii finite T-constituent does not get into the probe-goal pair syntactic relation with its c-commanded goal (goal within its local search space): Ekegusii finite T-constituent does not serve as a probe because its φ-features are valued as a consequence of carrying subject-verb agreement affixes. Therefore, a subject raises to SPEC T not on account of agreement with T, but on account of the EPP feature carried by T. However, Ekegusii T-constituent that is a to infinitive agrees with its c-commanded goal in person feature and attracts the element to move to its SPEC because Ekegusii T-constituent that is a to infinitive carries uninterpretable person feature. Structural ACC Case, on the other hand, is assigned by a transitive light verb in the manner held in DbP. This is so because, following Chomsky’s claim that features of lexical items are introduced in the ix course of the derivation (2000, p. 100), Ekegusii transitive light verb (which serves as a probe) agrees with its c-commanded goal and assigns ACC Case to it at the ν*P phase, at which point the verb has not received the φ-features: the verb receives the person and number inflections when the derivation gets to the higher CP phase. The crucial conclusion of the study, therefore, was that the assumptions of Derivation by phase theory on NOM Case assignment are problematic when it comes to the Ekegusii linguistic data. Consequently, a revision to the properties of a T-constituent should be undertaken in order to accommodate other T-constituents such as that of Ekegusii because its T carries person and number affixes which inactivate it because they are already valued as at the time T is introduced into the derivation.