Journal statistics
How to use the archive
When the cursor changes from an arrow to a pointing finger, it indicates a link that you may click on to select that item.
The blue buttons at the top can be selected to return to the overview or to run a search for specific information.
Most volumes have been split into two parts, each with separate articles. When you select a specific number, all of the articles will be listed with details of the author, date of publication, language and the size of the file that will be downloaded if you choose that option. Just click on the yellow "Download" button to transfer a copy of the article to your own computer or device.
- Language Family: Kwa
- Topic #1: Syntax
- Topic #2: Semantics
Abstract
Studies on split-CP hypothesis and the role of information structure in the syntax of the left periphery have broadened understanding of the CP layer and the various structural projections available there (Rizzi 1997, 2001; Benincà 2001, 2002; Bošković 2002; Aboh 2004, 2007; etc). However, the question of the fine details of how these structures project in particular languages and language groups/families still remains debatable particularly in the context of question formation strategies and the scope and meaning interaction of focus and interrogative marking elements employed to encode such information. This paper examines the projections of interrogative constructions in Yoruboid* languages, a subgroup of Defoid-Kwa languages spoken in Central and Southern Nigeria comprising Yorùbá, Ígálà and Itshẹkiri (Akinkugbe 1976, 1978; Omamor 1976; Ilori 2010; Omachonu 2007, 2011; among others). It provides syntactic and semantic evidence to show that focus and interrogative (Inter) heads though somehow knitted in these languages are separately projected and differentiable. It shows that the somewhat knitted interaction of focus and Inter in content question is better understood in the light of the more structurally explicit polar and non-operator based content questions found in the languages. The paper concludes that content question operators are not interrogative heads but some kind of nominal words that interpret the focus of the interrogative force.