Question Formation and Focus Construction in Owo: A Yoruba Dialect

Question formation and focusing are two transformational processes attested in Standard Yorùbá both of which have been extensively discussed in previous studies. However, very little is known about these concepts in Owo (Ò̩ ̩̀ wò̩ ̩̀ ) a south-East Yoruba (Yorùbá) dialect. This study examines the concept of questions and focusing in Ò̩ ̩̀ wò̩ ̩̀ dialect with a comparison of the processes in Standard Yorùbá. The study revealed some differences as well as similarities in the two processes in Ò̩ ̩̀ wò̩ ̩̀ and standard Yorùbá. Just like in Standard Yorùbá, question markers in Ò̩ ̩̀ wò̩ ̩̀ normally occur in sentence initial and final positions. However, the question marker dè̩ ̩̀ constantly appears sentence medially before and before verbs in certain constructions. Furthermore, while the focus marker in Yorùbá normally occurs immediately after the focused item with a stable form, the focus marker in Ò̩ ̩̀ wò̩ ̩̀ usually occurs at the sentence final position as a reduplicated form of the last syllable of the final item. Also, a pronoun which indicates number and agreement usually occurs immediately after the focused item in Ò̩ ̩̀ wò̩ ̩̀ . Finally, just like in Yorùbá, there is a syntactic relationship between question and focusing in Ò̩ ̩̀ wò̩ ̩̀ dialect.


Introduction
An uncountable number of scholarly researches have been carried out on Yorùbá language some of which revealed some controversial issues about the structure of the language. As a way of addressing these controversies, Awóbùlúyì (1992) made a clarion call to Yorùbá scholars to start studying the various and structurally diverse dialects of the language in order to find out new things the dialects may reveal about the standard form. This call by Awóbùlúyì has triggered a number of studies which examined different linguistic phenomena in many of the dialects. Some of these studies have helped to resolve Transformational grammar assigns a "deep structure" and a "surface structure" to show the relationship between such sentences. The deep structure consists of a series of phrasestructure rewrite rules, i.e., a series of possible universal rules that generates the underlying phrase-structure of a sentence, and a series of rules called transformations that act upon the phrase-structure to form more complex sentences. These transformations eventually produce a surface structure that, after words and pronunciations are added, is similar to an actual sentence of a language. The assumption is that all languages share the same deep structure, but they differ from each other at the surface structure level because of the application of different rules for transformations, pronunciation, and word insertion. For example, a basic sentence can be transformed to an interrogative sentence while an affirmative sentence can be transformed into a negative sentence. This will be done through processes of transformations by applying some rules which may involve the movement of some lexical items and the addition of some vital ones. These rules will transform the basic sentence in order to generate new ones (sentences). This informed the name of this theory, Transformational Generative Grammar. It transforms a basic sentence in order to generate new grammar (i.e. new grammatical sentences). Encyclopedia of Linguistics (2005) summed up TGG as follows: "its (TGG) principal objective is the formulation of a finite set of basic and transformational rules that explain how the native speaker of a language can generate and comprehend all its possible grammatical sentences, it focuses mostly on syntax and not on phonology or morphology as structuralism does". TGG makes use of tree diagrams to represent and distinguish sentences by their syntactic characteristics. Thus we have noun phrases (NP), verb phrases (VP), prepositional phrases (PP) etc. For example, while the rule guiding the basic sentence in Yorùbá says it should contain a Noun Phrase (NP) and a Verb Phrase (VP) that of Ò̩ ̩̀wò̩ ̩̀ dialect normally contains a Noun Phrase (NP), an INF (Inflection) and a Verb Phrase (VP). Though a lot of modifications have been made to this theory which has given birth to other theories e.g. Government and Binding (GB) and The Minimalist Program (MP), the relevance of transformations in the generation and comprehension of sentences in any native language has remained useful in these modified theories.

Question Formation Processes in Ò̩ wo̩
Questions are transformational processes which involve seeking or requesting for information about the subject or the action performed by or related to the subject in a basic sentence. In English for example, there are different types of questions like Polar question, Interrogative question, Yes/No question etc. Most questions in English are usually introduced by words like "what, where, when, why" etc. known as Wh-words, they usually appear at the initial position of such sentence. However, the processes of question formation in Yorùbá and its dialects differ considerably from those of English. In Ò̩ ̩̀wò̩ ̩̀ for example, the question marker can occur in word initial, word medial and word final positions. Also, the question marker may have a regular form while in some instances it may not. In such irregular instances it is the last syllable of the noun being questioned that determines the form of the question marker.
There are eight different patterns of question formation in Ò̩ ̩̀wò̩ ̩̀. Some of these patterns make use of distinct and regular question markers while others do not have any regular form but their form is determined by the last syllable of the noun being questioned. Each of these markers performs different syntactic function. For example, the item (d)ẹ̀ is used to question the subject NP in affirmative sentences. Consider the examples in 1a-1c and 2a-2c below: (  Awóbùlúyì (1978Awóbùlúyì ( , 1992Awóbùlúyì ( , and 2001, the HTS is a preverbal element (a tense and aspectual marker) which indicates past/present actions in Yorùbá and its dialects. He further claims that in constructions like (1a and b), the ó which is always the first overt element is the HTS just like it is in (2a and b) and not the 3psg pronoun. Awóbùlúyì (2001) claimed that the 3psg pronoun is always covert in such constructions (i.e. 1a and b) hence, the null Ø sign in the NP position of the form indicated with the arrow. This claim appears to be true if examples (2a, b and c) are considered. The ó in (1a and b) appears to perform the same function as the one in (2a and b) where it does not function as a pronoun. In examples 1b, 1c, 2b and 2c, the subject NPs in 1a and 2a were questioned respectively. In ex.1, the subject NP which is covert in this position is the 3psg pronoun. In 1b and 2b, the distinct question marker is dẹ̀, however, in 1c and 2c the question marker changes to ẹ̀. There is a phonological (i.e. transformational) explanation for this. The underlying form of the question marker is dẹ̀. However, in most instances as shown in 1c and 2c, the consonant of the question marker is deleted, after which it assimilates the HTS (ó) but the HTS still retains its original high tone. This phonological process is shown below in ex.3: ( The occurrence of ó HTS in 2b and 3b also supports the fact that the ó in 1a and 1b cannot be the 3psg pronoun but a tense and aspectual marker. Its function in 1a and 1b is exactly the same in 2a and 2b. Also, the question marker de ̀ occurs in sentence medial position. This is contrary to what operates in Yorùbá where question markers occur only in word initial and final positions. However, whenever the question marker de ̀ is used together with the verb ghún "be", the question always depict an action in the present. The item Ṣé just like de ̀ is used to seek information. However, it is used in two ways. One, it is used to seek request concerning intention. This is usually introduced with the item dí (a tense and aspectual marker) which signifies future intention. Two, it is also used when the person asking the question wants to ascertain the veracity of the issue at stake from the person being questioned tactically or rudely in form of a statement. Consider the examples below:

Focus onstruction in ̀ o ̀
According to Rooth (1996), focus is a grammatical means of marking the organization of information in discourse. It divides sentences into a focus and an open proposition corresponding to background information. Focus selects a value for the variable in the open proposition from a set of contextually relevant alternative propositions. Stockwell (1977) described focus construction as a way of introducing special marking into the surface structure of the elements that is being focused. He therefore equates focus with prominence. Prominence in focusing is phonologically determined by intonation. In Yorùbá for example, when an item is focused it is usually moved to the initial part of the sentence and the focus marker ni is inserted immediately after it. Only nouns and verbs can be focused in both Yorùbá and Ò̩̩̀ wò̩ ̩̀. Examples of focus constructions in standard Yorùbá are given below in 9a-9d: In examples 11a-11d, the subject Àìná, the verb je and object e ran were focused respectively. However, unlike standard Yorùbá where the focus marker ni is inserted immediately after the focused item, the focus marker in Ò̩ ̩̀wò̩ ̩̀ usually occurs at the end of the sentence and it always takes the form of the last vowel or syllable of the final word in the sentence. Also, a pronoun which indicates number and agreement usually occurs immediately after the focused item. This pronoun indicates the emphasis on the focused item. It is the combination of this pronoun with the focus marker that succinctly indicates focusing in Ò̩ ̩̀wo ̩̩̀̀ . The occurrence of pronoun as an indicator of emphasis as well as marker of number and agreement in focus construction has not been previously reported in any Yorùbá dialect. Thus, its occurrence in Ò̩̩̀ wò̩ ̩̀ is a new discovery in Yorùbá dialectology. Based on this, it becomes imperative to give a detailed background of pronouns in Ò̩ ̩̀wò̩ ̩̀ which will provide an insight into their pattern as well as their role in focus construction in the dialect. One important thing is that the type of pronouns which feature in focus constructions in Ò̩̩̀ wò̩ ̩̀ are those referred to as long pronouns (Awóbùlúyì , 1978). Interestingly, they are the only type of pronouns that can be focused in the dialect. Below are the forms of pronoun both short and long in Ò̩ ̩̀wò̩ ̩̀: second person plural e ̀g he n "you (pl)" ghe n "you (pl)" third person plural ò gho n "they" gho n "them" "It was they who went there" "It was they that Òjó saw" From the examples given in ex.16-21, we noticed that only the long pronouns occurred in focused positions. In all instances, such pronoun explicates the emphasis on the focused element which is the goal of focus construction. When a pronoun either subject or object is focused, it is the long pronoun that appears in the focus position. For example, when the NP subjects (mo/mi) and the NP object (mi) in 16a (i-iii) were focused in 16b (i-iii), they changed to èmi, the first person singular long pronoun. Also, we noticed that the first, second and third person plural pronouns in Ò̩̩̀ ̩̀w ò̩ ̩̀ share the same form with their long pronoun counterparts, the major difference is that only the long pronouns can be focused as earlier stated.
Another important fact has to do with the function of the pronoun which occurs immediately after the focused element. The pronoun performs two related functions in focus construction. It indicates number and agreement. A look at its occurrence revealed that òun (the third person singular long pronoun) always occurs after focused singular noun and nominalized verb which is always singular in nature while ò̩ ̩̀g ho n and àwa which are plural forms of long pronouns appear after focused plural nouns. The choice however depends on the two nouns involved.

The Relationship bet een Question and Focusing in ̀ o ̀
Another important fact concerning the two transformational processes i.e. question formation and focusing in Ò̩̩̀ wò̩ ̩̀ dialect is that a syntactic relationship exists between them. For example, in the process of questioning the NP subject or object or an action relating to either of them in a basic sentence, the answer always occur as focused construction where the question marker sí (human) or kí (non-human) occurs in focus position. In examples 22a-22g, the basic sentence is 22a. In 22b, the NP subject Òjó was questioned while in 22d the NP object è ko was questioned. And in 22f, the action performed by the subject NP Òjó on the object NP e ̀k o which was expressed by the verb je was questioned. In 22d and 22f, both questions appeared as focus constructions where the question markers kí was focused since the NPs questioned are both non-human i.e. e ̀k o "pap" and je "eat". In 22b the question also appeared as focus construction where the question marker sí (human question marker) was focused because the NP questioned Òjó is a human noun.
It should be noted that it was the sentences (questions) in 22b, 22d and 22f that led to the generation (through transformation) of the sentences (focus constructions) in 22b, 22e and 22g. In other words, the sentences in 22c, 22e and 22g would never have been generated without the existence of those in 22b, 22d and 22f. The above explanation shows that the two types of sentences i.e. questions and focus construction have a syntactic relationship made possible through transformation.

Conclusion
In this study, two transformational processes; question formation and focus construction were examined in Ò̩̩̀ wò̩ ̩̀ dialect. It was discovered that questions in Ò̩ ̩̀wò̩ ̩̀ dialect have different formative patterns. While some use distinct question markers others do not. Focus construction in the dialect involved movement where the focused element is obligatorily moved to the initial part of the sentence. Also, the claim by Stockwell (1977) that focus equals prominence and prominence in focusing is phonologically determined by intonation was found to be true in Ò̩ ̩̀wò̩ ̩̀ dialect. The focus marker in Ò̩ ̩̀wò̩ ̩̀ is phonologically determined by the last syllable of the last item in the focus construction which usually takes a high tone irrespective of the tone on such a syllable. Furthermore, focusing in Ò̩̩̀ wò̩ ̩̀ dialect exhibits two features which had not been previously reported in any Yorùbá dialect. The first one is the use of pronoun to mark agreement and number. The second one already identified in Oshodi (forthcoming), is the occurrence of the epenthetic vowel [i] in front of all consonant initial nouns which occur in focus construction. It was also discovered that a syntactic relationship which buttresses and equally supports the vital role of transformations in sentence generation was shown to exist between question formation and focus construction in the dialect.
Another important fact revealed in this study concerns the TGG which is the theory adopted for this study. The theory vividly captures and explains the concept of sentence generation in Ò̩ ̩̀wò̩ ̩̀ dialect. From the various examples cited in this work, the concepts of deep and surface structures clearly manifested as important features not only in transformational processes but also in basic sentence formation in Ò̩ ̩̀wò̩ ̩̀ dialect. For example, the deep structure of a lot of constructions in Ò̩̩̀ wò̩ ̩̀ dialect would be ungrammatical without the concept of transformation which affects them at the surface level. Examples of such sentences were indicated with an arrow in this study. The initial form is the one exhibited at the deep structure level while the form indicated with the arrow is the one attested at the surface level. Another discovery is that unlike in Yorùbá where structures attested at the deep structure level are most times correct and acceptable, the reverse is the case in Ò̩̩̀ wò̩ ̩̀ dialect where such constructions are not permitted and are neither grammatical nor acceptable. The implication of this is that there is the need to carry out more extensive studies on the grammatical structure of established Yorùbá dialects. This is imperative because there are still speech forms spoken within the Yorùbá region whose status either as dialects of Yorùbá or distinct languages are yet to be established ① . For example, Taiwo (2005) concluded that Ào (a speech form spoken in Ìdóàní, Ò̩ ̩̀sè̩́ local government area of Ondo state) which was not previously included in any Yorùbá sub-dialect group is a dialect of Yorùbá and included it in the South-East Yorùbá group. In spite of its structural similarities to Yorùbá and the numerous overwhelming features it shares with established Yorùbá dialects, Ào still exhibits some phonetic and syntactic features which have not been reported in any Yorùbá dialect. This did not come as a surprise. Awóbùlúyì (1992) already confirmed that stablished Yorùbá dialects are structurally diverse. It is our belief that a critical study of many of the established Yorùbá dialects will reveal more surprising and interesting structural diversity.
In conclusion, just like in previous studies which examined grammatical issues in Yorùbá dialects, the suggestion by Awóbùlúyì (1992) that a number of interesting facts would be discovered about standard Yorùbá from studies on its structurally diverse dialects ① Oshodi (2011a① Oshodi ( , 2011b suggested that Arigidi, a speech form under the controversial sub-group which has been tagged different sub-language family names should be considered a dialect of Yorùbá . The group which include Erúṣú, Oyí n, Ì gá ṣí , Àfá , Ògè , Ì dò, Àjè , Urò and Ọ̩̀jọ ̩̀ was tagged Yoruboid Greenberg (1963), Northern Àkókó Cluster Hoffman (1974), Yoruboid Bennet and Sterk (1977), Amgbẹ ̩́ Capo (1989), Akokoid Ohiri-Anichie (2006), Arigidi Cluster Ethnologue (2009), North-Central Yorùbá (NCY) dialects Oshodi (2011b;2011c) and North-West Akokoid Olúwádò̩ rò̩ ̩̀ (2014) are all spoken in Àkókó North-west local government area of Ondo state south-west Nigeria where Yorùbá is the lingua franca. According to Oshodi, that Arigidi exhibits some features not reported in any Yorùbá dialect is not enough reason to conclude that it is not a Yorùbá dialect since it shares more structural and grammatical similarities than differences with Yoruba and its established dialects. Following the observation of Awóbùlúyì (1992) that Yorùbá dialects are structurally diverse and coupled with the claim of Táíwò (2005) on Ào as a Yorùbá dialect in spite of having features not previously reported in any Yorùbá dialect, there is the need to re-assess the claim of Oshodi (2011b and c) regarding the status of Arigidi as a Yorùbá dialect. was proved to be valuable in this study. This follows some interesting facts revealed in this study which have a lot of implications on dialectology and in particular the diverse nature of Yorùbá dialectology.