




































American International Journal of Education and Linguistics Research; Vol. 2, No. 1; 2019 

ISSN 2641-7987   E-ISSN 2641-7995 

Published by American Center of Science and Education, USA 

 

1 

 

 

 

Focus Constructions in Ǹjo ̩̀-kóo
1
 

 
 

Simeon O. Olaogun  Ph.D 

Lecturer 

Department of Linguistics and Languages 

Adekunle Ajasin University  

Akungba-Akoko Ondo State, Nigeria 

E-mail: simeon.olaogun@aaua.edu.ng 

simeonlaogun2@gmail.com 

 

Abstract 

Focusing is a universal syntactic phenomenon. That is, there is no language in the world that does not have a means 

of placing prominence on constituents for focus purposes. However, the formal expression of focus differs from one 

language to another. Some languages express focus morphologically by using distinct morphemes or elements while 
others employ suprasegmentally means. The paper, therefore examines the focus strategies in Ǹjo ̩̀-Kóo. It gives a 

detailed description of different constituents that may be focused in the language and the changes that are triggered 

in the clause as a result of the focusing. Adopting the Minimalist Program of Chomsky (1995) and Cartographic 

analysis of Rizzi (1997) Split-CP projections within the clausal left periphery, the study investigates how focus 

clauses are derived in the language and reveals that the syntax of focus in the language involves two probes: focus 

(foc) and emphasis (emph) each of which can provoke displacement operations. The paper employs information and 

clause structure evidence to motivate the constituents being focused. It is also observed among other things, that the 

constituents that could be focused in Ǹjo ̩̀-kóo are subject DP, object DP or object DP of preposition, possessor DP 

and a whole sentence, and that the language does not distinguish between sentence and verbal focus hence the same 

strategy is employed for both focus types. 

 

Keywords: Cartographic analysis, Clausal left periphery, Focusing, Minimalist program,Split-CP projection  

 

1. Introduction 

Focusing is a universal phenomenon in that every language has a means of placing prominence on the constituent 

that is foregrounded. Some languages employ syntactic, morphological or prosodic means for focus purposes. The 

English language is an example of language that employs prosodic means while most African languages including 

Ǹjo ̩̀-kóo use distinct items for focus purposes. Gundel (1988) and Givon (1991) claim that hardly can there be any 

language that uses just one system/means, say, morphology, to code focus information. They argue further that word 

order variation and special syntactic constructions such as cleft sentences are also used to indicate focus. 

 

Most existing works on focus constructions in Nigerian Languages commonly dwell on the constituents being 

focused or touch on argument on whether focus constructions are sentences or phrases (Awobuluyi, 1978, 1992, and 
Arokoyo, 2013). As far as I am aware, there is no known work that has employed information structure and clause 

structure to motivate the constituents being focused in a clause. This being the case, the present paper gives a 

detailed descriptive and theoretical description of different constituents that may be focused in the language, the 

changes that are observed in the clause as a result of the focusing, and also employ information and clause structure 

evidence to motivate the constituent being focused in a clause at any given instance. The article is organized into 

                                                             
1 Ǹjo ̩̀ -Kóo is the name proposed in Olaogun (2016) for a group of relatively mutually intelligible speech forms 

formally called Amgbè̩ ̩́ /Arigidi-Cluster spoken in the North-western part of Akoko in Ondo State, Nigeria. Ǹjò̩  -Kóo 

is a language spoken in at least five towns; Òkèàgbè, Ìgás̩̀ í, Àjò̩ wá, Arigidi, and Erús̩̀ ú made up of nine 

communities; Ìgás̩̀ í, Arigidi, Erus̩̀ ú, Oyín, Urò in Àjò̩ wá, and Àfá, Ùdò, Ògè, Àjè in Òkèàgbè all in Akoko North West 

local government in Ondo State. Ǹjò̩  -Kóo is a compound name formed from Ǹ jo ̩̀ o and Ǹ Kó o (or Ǹ ghó o the 

variant of Ǹ kó o used in Urò) which is a form of greeting equivalent to Pè̩  lè̩ ̩́  o in Standard Yoruba. 
 

mailto:simeon.olaogun@aaua.edu.ng
mailto:simeonlaogun2@gmail.com


www.acseusa.org/journal/index.php/aijelr          American International Journal of Education and Linguistics Research            Vol. 2, No. 1; 2019 

 

2 

 

 

five sections. The first two sections centre on introduction and theoretical framework respectively. Section three 

focuses on the constituents that can be focused. The fourth section touches on the derivation of focus constructions 

while section five concludes the paper.  

 

2.  The Theoretical Framework 

This study adopts the Minimalist Program framework as proposed in Chomsky (1995, 1998 and 2002). Minimalist 
Program is a theory of grammar which employs minimal linguistic apparatus to form syntactic structures. The 

apparatus are operations select, merge, and agree. Operation select chooses relevant lexical items from the lexicon 

and puts them in the numeration for the construction of syntactic structures. Numeration contains the selected lexical 

items needed for constructing syntactic structures and an index that shows the number of times that each lexical item 

is used in the derivation. The lexical items in the numeration are therefore put together by operation merge based on 

their individual features. Following the assumption that operation move is a form of merge and that movement of 

features has been replaced by agree, the computational system that builds the syntactic tree now consists of two 

operations, namely, merge and agree.  Merge is the operation that combines two syntactic elements to form larger 

constituents. It is a binary and recursive operation which puts together selected lexical items from the numeration. 

Operation merge is divided into two, namely, external and internal. External merge involves merge operation that 

takes an item from the numeration to build a syntactic structure while internal merge is a syntactic operation that 

affects syntactic objects that are already introduced into the derivation. Agree is a non-lexicalist approach to feature 
interpretability in the lexicon. The Agree-based method holds the assumption that only [+interpretable] features of 

lexical elements are already fully specified in the lexicon before they enter the derivation, whereas elements with [-

interpretable] features acquire their features in the course of the derivation. According to Hornstein et al. (2005: 

317), agree is the operation that establishes a relation between two different linguistic elements, probe and goal, in 

the syntactic structure through which feature values can be exchanged. A probe is a head with [-interpretable] 

features, and a goal is an element with matching [+interpretable] features. 

 

Some other minimalist assumptions and hypotheses that are relevant to the analysis and derivation of focus 

constructions in Ǹjo ̩̀-Kóo are discussed below. These assumptions are: Phase impenetrability condition, VP-internal 

Subject Hypothesis, Theta Role Assignment Principle 

Phase Impenetrability Condition: According to Radford (2009:398), this is a constraint  

on grammatical operations which states that the domain of a phase head is inaccessible to an external probe 

(i.e. a c-commanding probe which lies outside relevant phase) 

 

VP-Internal Subject Hypothesis: This hypothesis states that the subject of a TP is base- 

generated at the Spec of VP, the subject then raised to the Spec - TP to satisfy the EPP feature of the T 

head. 

 

Theta Role Assignment Principle says that arguments receive their theta roles through  
a merge operation and an argument is theta-marked (i.e. assigned a theta role) via merger with a predicate 

(Radford 2009:399). 

 

Information structure: It has to do with the way speakers package information and transfer to  

the hearers. This also called information packaging. 

 

Clause structure: This has got to do with how constituents are combined in a rule- 

governed manner to form a convergent and acceptable structure 

 

3. The Constituents in Focus  

This section discusses the categories of constituents that can be focused in Ǹjo ̩̀-kóo as well as changes that are 
observed in the rest of the clause consequent upon focusing. The constituents that may be focused in the language 

are subject DP, object DP, possessor DP, a whole sentence and the verbs2. 

3.1Subject DP Focus  

The focused constituent here is the DP with the grammatical role of subject. When the subject DP is focused, it is 

fronted and marked with a focus marker úwo ̩̀n and a clause final high tone morpheme. The former immediately 

                                                             
2
For detailed information on verb focus, readers should see Olaogun (2017).  



www.acseusa.org/journal/index.php/aijelr          American International Journal of Education and Linguistics Research            Vol. 2, No. 1; 2019 

 

3 

 

 

follows the focused constituent and the latter occurs in clause final position. This is the difference between simple 

non-focus clauses in (1a-e) and clauses whose subject DPs are focused in (2a-e). 

1. (a) Délé   ju     ò̩ gè̩ dè̩  

  Délé eat    plantain 

  ‘Ade ate plantain.’ 

(b) Títí   da   àju 
  Titi buy  yam 

  ‘Titi bought yam.’ 

(c) Bólú da    ìwé 

  Bolu buy book 

  ‘Bolu bought a book.’ 

 (d)  Igbée ̩̀ji ópú  pu   è̩ yè̩  

  the    dog   kill  snake 

  ‘The dog killed a snake’ 

 (e) S e ̩́gun li      Bó̩ lá 

  Segun beat Bólá 

  ‘Se ̩́gun beat Bola’ 

2. (a) Adé  úwò̩ n ˂Adé˃
3   ju   ò̩ gè̩ dè̩      é̩  

  Ade   FOC   Ade     eat plantain EMPH 
  ‘ADE ate plantain.’ 

(b) Títí   úwò̩ n ˂Títí˃  da   àju     ú 

  Titi   FOC    Titi    buy yam EMPH 

  ‘TITI bought a tuber of yam.’ 

(c) Bólu  úwò̩ n˂ Bólú˃ da   ìwé        

  Bolu  FOC     Bolu  buy  book+EMPH 

  ‘BOLU bought a book.’ 

 (d) Igée ̩̀ji ópú úwo ̩̀n ˂ Igée ̩̀ji ópú ˃ pu    è̩ yè̩        e ̩́ 

  the    dog     FOC   Igée ̩̀ji ópú   kill  snake   EMPH 

  ‘The DOG killed a snake’ 

 (e) S e ̩́gun úwo n ˂ S e ̩́gun˃ li Bó̩ lá 

  S e gun FOC  Segun beat Bola+EMPH 

  ‘SEGUN beat Bola’ 

As observed in the examples above, when a subject DP is moved for focus, there is a gap at the extraction site4 . 

That is, there is nothing that occupies the extraction position of the focused constituent. Also, examples (2c and e) 

show that when the focused sentence ends with a high toned lexical item, the clause final high tone fuses with the 

high tone of the lexical item that ends the clause. The reason for this fusion may be to maintain euphony. 

                                                             
3 Given the copy theory of movement, the angle brackets indicate that the element or constituent in the brackets has been moved.  
It is also important to say that the constituent so moved in each construction occurs in two places. This actually underscores the 
conception of movement in the current status of the minimalist theory as several occurrences of one constituent. So, when this 
happens, the highest copy is spelt out and pronounced in the PF component.    
4 The fact that nothing occupies the position from where the subject DP is moved appears to be a piece of cross-linguistic 
evidence which supports Awóbùlúyì’s claim that in SY when the subject is focused there is no resumptive pronoun at the 
extraction site contrary to some scholars that believe that the high tone syllable ‘Ó’ that normally surfaces in the focus 

construction such as Olú ni ói ti ra isu is a resumptive pronoun. Part of Awobuluyi’s argument against “o”, the so-called 
resumptive pronoun is that it does not agree in number and person with the focused subject DP in the language as given below. 
        a OlúIni oi ra isu        b Àwai ni oi ra is u 
 Olufoc RP buy yam  we    foc  RP buy yam 

‘OLU bought yam’  ‘WE bought yam’ 
        c     [Olú àti Adé] i ni ói ra is u        d Àwo ni ni ói ra isu 
 Olu and Ade  foc RP buy yam they   foc RP buy yam 
 . OLU and ADE bought yam’ ‘THEY bought yam’ 

 
As evident in the above, the form of the so-called resumptive pronoun does not change with the number and person 

of the focused subject DPs in examples (a-d). That is, the form remains constant in each case. 

 



www.acseusa.org/journal/index.php/aijelr          American International Journal of Education and Linguistics Research            Vol. 2, No. 1; 2019 

 

4 

 

 

 

It is very important to motivate the claim that the subjects are truly focused in the sentences above. There is both 

information structure and clause structure evidence to prove that the subjects in examples (2a-e) are focused. The 

focus constituents in these examples are Adé in (2a), Títí in (2b), Bólú in (2c), Igbée ̩̀ji ópú in (2d), and S e ̩́gun in 

(2e). For example, the speaker who makes the utterance in (2a) is questioning the subject DP in (1a) and accordingly 

responding to the wh-question Konè̩  è̩   ju ò̩  gè̩  dè̩  ? ‘Who ate banana?’ The fact that somebody ate banana is known to 
both of the discourse participants thereby constituting the background or existential presupposition of the sentence, 

whereas the intention of the speaker is to newly inform the hearer that it was Adé that ate banana and not someone 

else. Thus, the constituent ADÉ conveys the most salient information in the sentence. Put differently, the constituent 

is non-presupposed but novel to the hearer with regard to the question posed by the speaker which the sentence in 

(2a) is meant to answer. Similarly, the two occurrences of each of the focused constituents is a compelling 

attestation to the fact that movement has taken place. The clause structure evidence reveals that the focused 

constituent is derived while its copy is base generated. For instance, Adé in (2a), Títí in (2b), Bolu in (2c), Igbée ̩̀ji 

ópú in (2d) and S e ̩́gun in (2e) are base generated before the verbs ju in (1a), dà in (1b and c), pu in (1d) and li in 

(1e), but each of them later shows up at the beginning of the clauses in (2a-e). Precisely, each of them precedes the 

focus marker úwo ̩̀n in each focus sentence.  

 

3.2. Object DP Focus  
These focus constituents concern the DPs with core grammatical function of objects. Examples (3a-e) illustrate this 

type of focus. 

 

 

3 (a) O ̩̀ ge ̩̀de ̩̀    úwo ̩̀n  Adé  ju ˂o ̩̀ge ̩̀de ̩̀˃   ú 

  Plantain FOC    Adé  eat  o ̩̀ge ̩̀de ̩̀  EMPH 

  ‘Ade ate PLANTAIN.’ 

 

(b) Àju  úwo ̩̀n Títí  dà   ˂àju˃   á 

  Yam FOC Titi  buy   yam EMPH 

  ‘Titi bought a tuber of YAM.’ 
 

(c) Ìwé   úwo ̩̀n   Bólú  dà ˂ìwé˃ á 

  Book FOC    Bolu buy ìwé EMPH   

  ‘Bolu bought a BOOK.’ 

 (d) E ̩̀ yè̩      úwo ̩̀n  ópú  pu  ˂ ópú ˃        ú 

  snake  FOC  dog   kill    ópú   EMPH 

  ‘The dog killed a SNAKE’ 

 

 (e) Bó̩ lá úwo n S e ̩́gun lí ˂ Bó̩ lá ˃ í 
  S e gun FOC  Segun beat Bola+EMPH 

  ‘Segun beat BOLA’ 

 

  

The focused object DP is fronted and marked with a focus marker in addition to the clause final high tone. The 

syntactic process here is similar to what happens when a subject DP is focused in that the focused element is 

preposed and there is nothing that occupies the extraction site where the constituent is focused. Apart from the copy 

of the focalised constituent traditionally referred to as a gap, no anaphoric or resumptive pronoun is licensed in that 

position. 

 

Again, motivating the fact that it is the object DPs that are focalised in the sentences, (3a-e) is also in order here. As 
said in respect of subject focalisation, there exists both information structure and clause structure evidence that the 

objects in examples (3a-e) are focused. The focus constituents in these examples are o ̩̀ge ̩̀de ̩̀ in (3a), àju in (3b), ìwé 

in (3c), e ̩̀ye ̩̀ in (3d) and Bo ̩́ la ̩́ in (3e). For example, the speaker who makes the utterance in (3a) is questioning the 

object DP in (1a) and also responding to the wh-question ko Adé yè ju? ‘What did Adé eat?’. The fact that Adé ate 

something is known to both the speaker and the hearer thereby constituting the background or existential 

presupposition of the sentence whereas the intention of the speaker is to newly inform the hearer that it was o ̩̀ge ̩̀de ̩̀, 



www.acseusa.org/journal/index.php/aijelr          American International Journal of Education and Linguistics Research            Vol. 2, No. 1; 2019 

 

5 

 

 

‘plantain’ that Adé ate and not something else. Thus, the constituent O ̩̀ GE ̩̀ DE ̩̀  conveys the most salient information 

in the sentence. Put differently, the constituent is non-presupposed and novel to the hearer with regard to the 

question posed by the speaker which the sentence in (3a) answers. Similarly, the two occurrences of each of the 

focused constituents indicate that movement has actually taken place. The clause structure evidence reveals that the 

focused constituent is derived while its copy is base generated. For instance, o ̩̀ge ̩̀de ̩̀ in (3a), àju in (3b), ìwé in (3c), 

e ̩̀ye ̩̀ in (3d) and Bo ̩́ lá in (3e) are base generated after the verbs ju in (1a), dà in (1b and c), pu in (1d) and li in (1e) 
but each of them later shows up in clause initial position in (3a-e). Precisely, each of them precedes the focus marker 

úwo ̩̀n in each focus sentence. In more technical terms, the lower occurrence that is not spelt out is said to be found 

in the IP internal position, while the highest occurrence that is pronounced and spelt out is said to have moved to the 

left peripheral position.   

 

 

3.3 Possessor DP Focus 

In Ǹjo ̩̀-kóo genitive constructions, possessor DPs may also be fronted and focus-marked as the sentences in (4b) and 

(5b) illustrate. 

 

4 (a) Dàda   di     ewó     Òjó 

  Dada steal money Ojo 
  ‘Dada stole ojo’s money.’ 

 

(b) Òjó úwò̩ n  Dàda   di     ewó   o
5    ó 

  Ojo FOC    Dada  steal ewo  RP EMPH 

  ‘Dada stole OJO’s money.’ 

 

5 (a)  Èdi       di    ìwé   Ayò̩  

   Thief steal book Ayo 

  ‘The thief stole AYO’s book.’ 

 

(b) Ayò̩   úwò̩ n   èdi      di     ìwé    e      é 

  Ayo FOC    thief  steal book  RP EMPH 

  ‘The thief stole AYO’s money.’ 
 

6 (a) Bó̩ lá  da    àju  Ayò̩    rí aaja 

  Bola buy yam Ayo in market 

  ‘Bola bought Ayo’s yam in the market.’ 

 

(b) Ayò̩  úwò̩ n Bó̩ lá da     àju      ù
6    rí   aaja 

  Ayo FOC    Bola buy yam   Rp  in  market+EMPH 

  ‘Bola bought AYO’s yam in the market’ 

 

As evident in the (b) examples above, when a possessor DP is focused in this language, there is always a resumptive 

pronoun with 3sg feature that anaphorically refers back to it. It is also observed that the tone on this resumptive 

pronouns changes depending on the environment where it occurs. Its inherent low tone always rises to mid when it 

                                                             
5 In examples 4b and 5b, the resumptive pronouns o and e are used for the lower occurrences instead of the exact 

copies of the moved elements in the clausal left periphery. These pronouns which show agreement in number and 

person anaphorically refer back to their respective moved constituents. The fact that the two occurrences of each of 

these moved constituents are spelt out and pronounced necessitates the non-use of the angle brackets for the lower 

occurrences. We can then speculate that when the lower occurrence of a moved constituent is realised as a pronoun, 

it is also spelt out and pronounced. As we know that languages detest unnecessary repetition, this may be the reason 

why any lower occurrence that has the same form with the moved element is not pronounced in the language. 
6 For example, ‘his book’ and ‘his money’ in the language are rendered respectively as ‘ìwé è’ and ‘ewó ò’ meaning 

that the original/inherent tone on this third person singular pronoun in the language is a low tone 

 



www.acseusa.org/journal/index.php/aijelr          American International Journal of Education and Linguistics Research            Vol. 2, No. 1; 2019 

 

6 

 

 

occurs between two high tones as examples (4b) and (5b) show. But in example (6b), the original low tone is 

retained on the resumptive pronoun. 

 

3.4 Preposition DP Focus 

The DP that performs the grammatical function of object of preposition is the concern of focus in this section. In 

African languages, when the object DP of a preposition is focused, at least three strategies are involved: (1) the 
prepositional head may be stranded, (2) it may be pied-piped, and (3) it may disappear completely. For instance, in 

Yorùbá the prepositional heads could be stranded or pied-piped with their DP objects
3
.
  However, in Ǹjo ̩̀-kóo, 

prepositional heads are never stranded or pied-piped. They simply disappear as the ungrammaticality of (7b) and 

(7c) on the one hand, and grammaticality of (7d) on the other, show below: 

 

7. a. Bó̩ lá  da   àju    Ayò̩  rí aaja 

  Bola buy yam Ayo in market 

  ‘Bola bought ayo’s yam in the market.’  

 

b. * (rí aaja)        úwò̩ n  Bó̩ lá  da   àju     Ayò̩   ˂ rí aaja ˃      ó̩  

   Prep. market  FOC    Bola buy  yam  Ayo    in  market EMPH 

  ‘Bola bought Ayo’s yam in the MARKET.’ 
 

c. *Áájá     úwò̩ n  Bó̩ lá  da    àju  Ayò̩     rí    ˂ áájá ˃   

  Market  FOC    Bola buy yam  Ayo  prep market+EMPH. 

  ‘Bola bought ayo’ yam in the MARKET.’ 

 

 

d. Áájá    úwò̩ n  Bó̩ lá  da     àju     Ayo ̩̀    ˂ áájá ˃   o ̩́ 

  Market FOC  Bola buy yam   Ayo   market EMPH 

  ‘Bola bought Ayo’s yam in the MARKET.’   

 

3.5 Verb Focus 

In Ǹjo ̩̀-kóo, the process of verb focus in the language is that the verb to be focused will be nominalised attaching the 

morpheme ‘à-’ to its root word.  When a verb is focused, a copy of the nominalised verb which is focused is left in-

situ i.e. in its IP- internal base generated position. The language has no mechanism to license a gap as demonstrated 

by the ungrammaticality of (8e-h). 

 

8. (a) Àju          úwò̩ n  Adé  ju
7   ò̩ gè̩ dè̩       é̩  

  Nom-eat  FOC   Ade eat plantain EMPH 

  ‘Ade ATE plantain.’ 

 

(b) Àdà           úwò̩ n  Adé   da   ìwé      

   Nom-buy FOC   Ade  buy  book +EMPH 
  ‘Ade BOUGHT a book.’ 

 (c) Àro           ùwo n  mò̩ mó̩      ro        e te          é̩  

  Nom-grind FOC mummy grind pepper EMPH 

  ‘Mummy GROUND pepper 

 

 

 (d) Àli            úwo n S e ̩́gun li     Bo ̩́ lá 

  Nom-beat FOC   S egun beat  Bola+EMPH 

  ‘S egun BEAT Bola’ 

  

(e) *Àjui        úwò̩ n  Adé  -  ò̩ gè̩ dè̩          e ̩́     

                                                             
7 The difference in the form of the lower and the highest occurrences of the focused verb necessitates the spell out 

and the pronunciation of both of them. 



www.acseusa.org/journal/index.php/aijelr          American International Journal of Education and Linguistics Research            Vol. 2, No. 1; 2019 

 

7 

 

 

  Non-eat FOC    Ade   plantain EMPH 

  ‘Ade ATE plantain.’ 

 

(f) *Àdà         úwo ̩̀n   Adé  –  ìwé  

Nom-buy foc     Adé      book+emph 

  ‘Ade BOUGHT a book.’ 

 (g) *Àro           ùwo n  mò̩ mó̩      -       e te          é̩  

  Nom-grind FOC mummy     pepper EMPH 
  ‘Mummy GROUND pepper 

 

 (h) *Àli            úwo n  S e ̩́gun  -     Bo ̩́ lá 

  Nom-beat FOC   S egun       Bó̩ lá+EMPH 

  ‘S egun BEAT Bola’ 

 

3.6 Sentence Focus 

The language employs the same strategy for the verb focus in sentence focusing. The verb of the sentence is copied, 

nominalised and fronted as the sentence in (9b) shows. 

9. (a) Kó̩ lá ju àran 

  Kola eat meat 

  ‘Kola ate meat’ 

 

(b) Àju        úwò̩ n Kó̩ lá    ju  àran  án 
  Nom-eat FOC    Kola eat meat EMPH 

  ‘Kola ATE meat’ 

 

4. Derivation of Focus Constructions 

In Ǹjo ̩̀-kóo, just like in many African languages, there is a condition that every potential focus constituent must 

fulfill. The constituent to be focused must enter the derivation via internal merge while the focus marker must enter 

the derivation through external merge. The reason is that all the ɸ –features of the element or constituent to be 

focused must be valued and deleted appropriately for the movement of that item to take place. This requirement is 

subsumed under what is called focus constituent condition which says: 

all the ɸ-features of a potential focus constituent must be valued within the TP (that is the minimal/simplex sentence 

that contains it). Therefore, the sample derivation of focus constructions below is in line with this assumption.  
4.1 Derivation of Subject DP Focusing 

 

A focus construction such as (10) is derived as given in (11) 

          10. Òjó   úwo ̩̀n ˂Òjó˃   bo       ùji        í 

 Ojo   FOC            drink water EMPH 

 ‘ÒJÓ drank water’ 

          

 

 

 

 

 

 



www.acseusa.org/journal/index.php/aijelr          American International Journal of Education and Linguistics Research            Vol. 2, No. 1; 2019 

 

8 

 

 

 11. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The syntax of focus projections involves two probes: foc and emph each of which is capable of triggering a 

displacement operation. From the minimalist perspective, the structure is derived by first merging the verb bo  to its 

complement ùji in order to satisfy its c-selection requirement while the subject DP Òjó is second merged with the 

same verb in the Spec-VP (in line with VP-internal Subject Hypothesis) so as to satisfy the EPP requirement of the 
head verb. In line with the TRAP (i.e the Theta Role Assignment Principle that some scholars labelled Predicate-

Internal theta –marking Hypothesis), it is assumed that the external argument Òjó receives its theta role when it is 

merged in the spec-VP shell assuming further that arguments check their case features outside their theta domain. 

  

The subject DP Òjó is raised to check its case feature in the Spec-TP. If we assume that phi-features of arguments 

are [+interpretable/valued] and case features are unvalued/uninterpretable while the phi-features of T are [–

interpretable/unvalued] but the case features on them are valued, then, following operation Agree, T becomes the 

active probe by virtue of having [–interpretable] phi-features while the subject DP Òjó in its c-command domain 

automatically becomes the goal because of its unvalued case feature. So, the external argument being the active goal 

with phi-complete features of T, is thereby attracted   to Spec-TP to fulfill the focused condition.  

The derivation proceeds by externally merging the emph head (which is morphologically realized as a clause final 
high tone morpheme) to the TP in order to satisfy its c-selection requirement thereby projecting an emph-bar. The 

emph head has an EPP/edge feature which is why it projects EmphP by pied-piping the whole TP to its specifier 

position. There are both empirical and theoretical reasons why the pied-piping to the spec of EmphP is licensed in 

this structure. Given phase impenetrability condition, if the focused constituent is moved before the pied-piping, the 

FocP 

EmphP 

Emph
1
 

Emph      <TP> 

ú̩wo ̩̀n 

Foc1 

Foc 

TP 

 

Òjó 

 

VP 

 
  V

1
 

OBJ 

 

<ùji> DP 

 
<úji> 

Òjó 

 

  T
1
 

vP T 

v
1
 

ùji 

VP 

 

v 

   V
1
 DP 

 
V 

 
<bo > 

<Òjó> 

 

<bo > 

V 

 

bo  
T 

Ø 
DP 

 

Ø 

<Òjó> 

 
  T

1
 

T 
  VP 

  V
1
 

ùji 

V 

 
<Òjó> 

 
V 

 
<bo > 

<bo > 

V 

 

T bo  

í 



www.acseusa.org/journal/index.php/aijelr          American International Journal of Education and Linguistics Research            Vol. 2, No. 1; 2019 

 

9 

 

 

phase domain of the emph head will undergo transfer and will no longer be accessible for any syntactic operation. 

So, the pied-piping comes before the movement of the focused constituent. Also, if the pied-piping is not done, the 

correct word order will not be realized. After this, the foc head úwo ̩̀n is also externally merged with EmphP to also 

satisfy its c-selection requirement thereby becoming the probe at this point which begins to search for its c-

command domain for an active goal, that is, the constituent with a matching focus feature. In Agree-based system, 

for a movement operation to take place, there must be an agreement relation between a probe and its potential goal, 
i.e. the probe must possess interpretable/unvalued feature while the goal should have a corresponding 

valued/+interpretable feature. On the basis of this agreement condition, the reasoning is that the subject DP Òjó has 

[+focus] feature which has been valued before it entered the derivation i.e. it acquires the +interpretable focus 

feature as it enters the numeration while the foc head has an unvalued/uninterpretable [ focus-EPP] feature which 

was acquired in the course of the derivation.  It should be stated that the requirement for a foc constituent like úwò̩ n 

to have a specifier is said to be a consequence of foc carrying an [EPP] feature requiring it to project a specifier. The 

[EPP] condition specifies that an uninterpretable EPP feature on a probe is deleted by movement of the closest 

active goal of the relevant type to become the specifier of the probe. Therefore, the probe foc attracts the goal to its 

specifier position in order to value the unvalued focus-EPP feature and subsequently deletes it because 

unvalued/uninterpretable features are not legible at LF component. 

 

The fact that the focused constituent acquires its focus feature before it is introduced to the derivation whereas the 
focus-EPP feature of the probe is introduced after entering the derivation is compatible with the assumption that 

unvalued features are on-line features while valued features are offline features (Christano 2004). 

 

Given that all of the constituents within the TP are in the c-commanding domain of the probe of foc, the question 

arises as to how the goal of the focus head probe would be determined since all of the nouns and verbal expressions 

are in the c-commanding domain of the probes and, each of them is active for movement operations because each of 

them has one undeleted [-interpretable] feature or the other. Put differently, what then determines the constituent to 

be focalised? Apart from attract closest condition which says that, a head which attracts a given kind of constituent 

attracts the closest constituent of the relevant kind. The subject DP Òjó is the only constituent that fulfills the focus 

constituent condition. Besides, there are two other factors that also determine the constituent to be focused, namely, 

information structure factor as well as clause structure factor. Discourse factor or information structure factor 
requires that the focused constituent in the tree diagram above can only be a felicitous answer to the wh-question 

konè̩  è̩   bò̩  ùji? So, if any constituent other than the subject DP is focused, the response will be inappropriate. 

Similarly, the clause –structure, demands that the clause final high tone morpheme which superimposes on the 

vowel of the immediately preceding lexical item be spelt out as í. Therefore, if any constituent other than the subject 

DP is focalised, the right word order and the desired meaning will not be realised as shown by the ungrammaticality 

of the focus construction below in (12) 

 

12.    * Ùji      úwo ̩̀n   Òjó   bo       o ̩́  

       water    FOC     Ojo drink EMPH 

     ‘Ojo drank WATER.’ 

 

One might quickly want to dismiss the claim that all of the constituents in the c-commanding domain of the foc 
probe are potential goals on the alleged ground that the EPP feature of the foc head is [+N] and the verb dà has [–N] 

feature. Well, cross-linguistic evidence shows that this observation might not hold water in that there are some 

languages whereby the spec, FocP can host –N or +N constituent. That is, there are some languages where foc head 

does not have [+N] EPP feature  

 

 

 

 

 

 



www.acseusa.org/journal/index.php/aijelr          American International Journal of Education and Linguistics Research            Vol. 2, No. 1; 2019 

 

10 

 

 

2    Derivation of Object DP focus  

13. 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The derivation of object DP focus also meets the phi-feature valuation condition as well as theta marking 

requirement. The object DP ùji receives its internal theta role within the contentful/main VP when it is merged with 

V as TRAP demands.  It also checks its accusative features in the spec of outer vP-shell in line with Chomsky 
(1999) MSH and VP-Shell analysis. Having fulfilled this condition, it is well able to be focused or moved to spec of 

FocP for scopal reason. 

 

The structure is derived by first merging the verb bo  to its complement ùji in order to satisfy its C-selection 

requirement while the subject DP Òjó is second merged with the same verb in the Spec-VP (in line with VP-internal 

Subject Hypothesis) so as to satisfy the EPP requirement of the head verb. Given TRAP (i.e. the Theta Role 

Assignment Principle that some scholars labelled Predicate-Internal theta –marking Hypothesis), it is assumed that 

the external argument Òjó receives its theta role when it is merged in the spec-vP shell assuming further that 

arguments check their case features outside their theta domain.  

 

The subject DP Òjó is raised to check its case feature in the Spec-TP. Assuming that phi-features of arguments are 
+interpretable/valued but case features are unvalued/uninterpretable while the phi-features of T are –

interpretable/unvalued but the case features on them are valued,  then, following operation Agree, T becomes the 

active probe by virtue of having –interpretable phi-features while the subject DP Òjó in its c-command domain 

ó̩  

Emph
1
 

Emph     <TP> TP 

 

Ø 

Òjó 

 
  T

1
 

T 

VP 

V
1
 <ùji> 

V 

 
VP 

 
  V

1
 

Òjó 

 
V 

 
OBJ 

 
<ùji> 

<bo > 

<bo > 

V 

 
T 

bo  

EmphP 
úwòn 

Foc1 

Foc 

FocP 

Ùji 

Òjó 

 

  T
1
 

vP T 

v
1
 ùji 

VP 

 

v 

 
  V

1
 V 

 
V 

 

OBJ 

 
<bo > 

<Òjó> 

 

<bo > 

V 

 
bo  

T 
Ø 

<ùji> 



www.acseusa.org/journal/index.php/aijelr          American International Journal of Education and Linguistics Research            Vol. 2, No. 1; 2019 

 

11 

 

 

automatically becomes the goal because of its unvalued case feature. So, the external argument being the active goal 

with phi-complete features of T, is thereby attracted to Spec-TP to fulfill the focused condition.  

 

The derivation proceeds by externally merging the emph head (which is morphologically realised as a clause final 

high tone) to the TP in order to satisfy its C-selection requirement thereby projecting an emph-bar. The emph head 

has an EPP or edge feature which is why it projects EmphP by pied-piping the whole TP to its specifier position. 
There are both empirical and theoretical reasons why the pied-piping to the spec of EmphP is licensed in this 

structure. Given phase impenetrability condition, if the focused constituent is moved before the pied-piping, the 

phase domain of the emph head will undergo transfer and will no longer be accessible for any syntactic operation. 

So, the pied-piping comes before the movement of the focused constituent. Also, if the pied-piping is not done, the 

correct word order will not be realised. After this, the foc head úwo ̩̀n is also externally merged with EmphP to also 

satisfy its c-selection requirement thereby becoming the probe at this point which begins to search its c-command 

domain for an active goal, that is, the constituent with a matching focus feature. for a movement operation to take 

place, there must be an agreement relation between a probe and its potential goal i.e. the probe must possess [–

interpretable/unvalued] feature while the goal should have a corresponding [valued/+interpretable] feature. On the 

basis of this agreement condition, the reasoning is that the object DP ùji has [+focus] feature which has been valued 

before it entered the derivation i.e., it acquires the [+interpretable] focus feature as it enters the numeration while the 

foc head has an unvalued/uninterpretable [ focus-EPP] feature which was acquired in the course of the derivation.  It 
should be stated that the requirement for a foc constituent like úwò̩ n to have a specifier is said to be a consequence 

of foc carrying an [EEP] feature requiring it to project a specifier. The [EPP] condition specifies that an 

uninterpretable EPP feature on a probe is deleted by movement of the closest active goal of the relevant type to 

become the specifier of the probe. Therefore, the probe foc attracts the goal to its specifier position in order to value 

the unvalued focus-EPP feature and subsequently delete it because unvalued/uninterpretable features are not legible 

at LF component. 

 

The fact that the focused constituent acquires its focus feature before it is introduced to the derivation whereas the 

focus-EPP feature of the probe is introduced after entering the derivation is compatible with the assumption that 

unvalued features are on-line feature while valued features are offline features (Christano 2004). 

 
Given that all of the constituents with the TP are in the c-commanding domain of the probe foc, what then 

determines the constituent to be focalised? Apart from attract closest condition which states that, a head which 

attracts a given kind of constituent attracts the closest constituent of the relevant kind. The subject DP Òjó is the 

only constituent that fulfills the focus constituent condition. Besides, there are two factors that also determine the 

constituent to be focused namely; information structure factor as well as clause structure factor. Discourse factor or 

information structure factor requires that the focused constituent in the tree diagram in (13) can only be a felicitous 

answer to the wh-question Ko Òjó yè bò̩ ? So, if any constituent other than the subject DP is focused, the response 

will be inappropriate. Similarly, the clause structure demands that the clause final high tone morpheme be spelt out 

as ú which bears on the vowel of the preceding lexical item. Therefore, if any constituent other than the subject DP 

is focalised, the right word order and the desired semantic interpretation will not be realised as shown by the 

ungrammaticality of the example sentence in (14). 

 
14.  * Òjó  úwo ̩̀n   bo      ùji          í  

   Ojo  FOC     buy   water EMPH 

  ‘Ojo drank WATER’ 

 

One might quickly want to dismiss the claim that all of the constituents in the c-commanding domain of the foc 

probe are potential goals on the alleged ground that the EPP feature of the foc head is [+N] and the verb dà is –N 

feature. Well, cross-linguistic evidence shows that this observation might not hold water in that there are some 

languages whereby the spec, FocP can host –N or +N constituent. That is, there are some languages where foc head 

does not have [+N] EPP feature  

 

5. Conclusion 
The paper examined the focus strategies in Ǹjo ̩̀-kóo. It gives a detailed description of different constituents that may 

be focused in the language and the changes that are triggered in the clause as a result of the focusing. The article 

reveals that the syntax of focus in the language involves two probes: focus (foc) and emphasis (emph), each of 

which can provoke displacement operations. The paper also employs both information and clause structure evidence 



www.acseusa.org/journal/index.php/aijelr          American International Journal of Education and Linguistics Research            Vol. 2, No. 1; 2019 

 

12 

 

 

to motivate the constituent that is being focused. It is discovered that the language does not distinguish between 

sentence and verbal focus. That is, one and the same focus strategy is employed for both sentence and verbal focus. 

References 

Arokoyo, B. (2013). Unlocking Focus Construction. Ilorin: Chridamel Publishing House. 

Awobuluyi, O. (1978). Focus Constructions as Noun Phrases. Linguistics Analysis, 4(2). 

Awobuluyi, O. (1992). Issues in the Syntax of Standard Yoruba Focus Construction. Journal Of West African 
Languages. XXIL, (2). 

Chomsky, N. (1995). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge: MIT Press. 

Chomsky, N. (1998). Minimalist Inquiries. The framework. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics. 

Chomsky, N. (1999). Derivation by phase. MIT occasional papers in linguistics 18 (also published in A life in 

language. M.Kenstowicz. Ed. 2001. Ken Hale. Cambridge Mass: MIT Press.1-52. 

Chomsky, N. (2002). On the nature and language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 

Christiano, C. (2004). Phases and cartography in Linguistic computation toward a cognitively motivated 

computational model of linguistic competence. PhD. Thesis. Dept. of Linguistics. University of Siena. 

Givon, T. (1991). Syntax: a Functional typological introduction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 2. Grammar. Eds. 

M..Leonetti, O Fernadez Soriano & V.Escandell Vidal. 10th colloquium on generative grammar. Selected 

papers,Universidad Alcala`de Henares 31-50  

Gundel, J.K. (1988). Universals of Topic –Comment Structure. Studies in Syntactic Typology. M. Hammond, E.A. 
Moravcsik, and J.R. Wirth. Eds. Amsterdam: John Benjamin’s publishing.  209-39. 

Hornstein, N., Nunes, J. and Grohmann, K. (2005). Understanding Minimalism. New York: Cambridge University 

Press. 

Olaogun, S.O. (2016). Information Structural Categories of the Ǹjo ̩̀ -Kóo Language in Akoko North-West of Ondo 

State, Nigeria. PhD. Thesis. Dept. of Linguistics and African Languages. University of Ibadan. 

Olaogun, S. O. (2017). Predicate/Verb Focus in Àfá. Inquiry in African Languages and Literatures. 10, 154-163. 

Radford, A. (2009). An Introduction to English Sentence Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 398-

399 

Rizzi, L. (1997). The fine structure of the left pheriphery. Element of grammar. Handbook of generative syntax. L. 

Heageman.  Ed. Dordrecht: kluwer. 281-337 

 
 

 

Copyrights  

Copyright for this article is retained by the author(s), with first publication rights granted to the journal. This is an 

open-access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license 

(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). 

 

 

 


