Explore the vast range of titles available.

In many African languages, there exists a type of subject–object asymmetry by which subject focus must be expressed by A-bar movement to a morphologically marked left peripheral position whereas object focalisation can be expressed by movement and morphological marking in the left periphery, or in situ. In this article, we discuss and analyse this structural asymmetry in the Bantu languages Basaá and Mmaala. We argue that overt and covert movement of the focused object to Spec-FocP in the left periphery is allowed while covert movement of the subject is blocked, so that overt movement is the only possible option. Contrary to previous analyses, which attribute the obligatoriness of subject focus movement and marking to an interpretive conflict, we propose a formal characterisation of this phenomenon by which the blocking of subject focalisation in situ is deduced from criterial freezing, so that overt movement to the left periphery is the only option, through a familiar strategy of overt subject extraction.

I propose a comprehensive analysis of what has been commonly referred in the literature to as split, discontinuous noun phrases or split topicalization. Based on data from Basaá, a Narrow Bantu language spoken in Cameroon, I partly capitalize on previous authors such as Mathieu (2004), Mathieu & Sitaridou (2005) and Ott (2015a), who propose that this morphosyntactic phenomenon involves two syntactically unrelated constituents which are only linked semantically in a predication relation in a small clause (Moro 1997, 2000; Den Dikken 1998). According to these analyses, split noun phrases are obtained as a result of predicate inversion across the subject of the small clause. Contrary to/but not against these views, I suggest that what raises in the same context in Basaá is rather the subject of the small clause as a consequence of feature-checking under closest c-command (Chomsky 2000, 2001), and for the purpose of labelling and asymmetrizing an originally symmetric syntactic structure on the surface (Ott 2015a and related work). The fact that the target of movement is the subject and not the predicate of the small clause follows from agreement and ellipsis factors. Given that the subject of predication is a full DP while the predicate is a reduced DP with a null head modifier, the surface word order is attributed to the fact that noun/noun phrase ellipsis is possible if the elided noun is given in the discourse and is recoverable from the morphology of the stranded modifier. This paper offers a theoretical contribution from an understudied language to our understanding of this puzzling nominal construction.

This dissertation is a contribution to an on-going debate on whether information structure has direct access to syntax, or not since Rizzi’s (1997) seminal paper ‘The Fine Structure of the Left Periphery’. I provide arguments from Basàá, a noun class, focus-drop, topic-drop and tone language from the Bantu language family spoken in Cameroon, that scope-discourse properties such as focus, topic, interrogation, evidentiality and the like are grammatical primitives which take part in the syntactic derivation. In line with the current cartographic approach to syntactic structures, it is shown that Basàá, like many other natural languages, is inclined to using overt morphemes when expressing scope-discourse properties. Of interest is the fact that focus, topic, interrogative as well as evidential markers are realized only in ex-situ contexts and never in-stu. It is demonstrated that just like Basàá expresses the I(inflection)-related information such as tense and aspect overtly, so does it with information structure-related categories. Focus, topic, interrogation and evidentiality should be considered as formal features just like other formal features. In order to achieve the goal of this work, the analysis is based on Rizzi’s (1997 and subsequent works) split-CP hypothesis. It is showed that the Basàá left edge is a prolific and articulated domain due to a proliferation of different functional categories which ‘populate’ (Rizzi 2013) the complementizer domain of the language. Focus fronting, topic fronting, evidentiality as well as interrogation are expressed in the left periphery via the use of distinct and specific morphemes which signal the presence of each scope-discourse property in the sentence. One salient characteristic of this language is that it exhibits rich agreement morphology. Such a property enriches its complementizer layer so much so that fronted foci, fronted topics and evidential constituents trigger not only morphological marking related to each discourse property, but they also trigger overt agreement morphology. In addition to the clausal left periphery, there exists in the language a low focus projection in the vicinity of the VP. Due to minimality effects, this focus position attracts only wh-items and never focalized non-wh constituents. It seems to be the case that the Basàá empirical material enriches not only theoretical syntax, but also comparative syntax in terms of ellipsis, a domain of linguistic theory which, probably, has not yet been (significantly) explored in the context of African linguistics at large and Bantu linguistics in particular. The study of sluicing and fragment answers is well accounted for under a restrictive theory of phonology-morphology-syntax and semantics interfaces and the division of labour between these interfaces. Such a theory does justice to the ellipsis approach according to which these constructions involve PF-deletion of the propositions out of which extraction has been applied prior to A-bar movement of the sluiced or the fragment. Thus, the major contribution of Basàá is that the E-feature which is responsible for ellipsis and which has been said to be covertly realized in English-like languages can be sometimes realized overtly in Basaá. This state of affairs confirms the claim that Basàá is a mixed language i.e. it is in-between languages with overt formal features and those with covert features. Overall, failure to include scope discourse categories in core syntax would violate the Inclusiveness Condition (Chomsky 1995; Aboh 2010) and would lead to a purely impoverished traditional syntax which requires that syntactic structures be confined to the sole classical C-I-V architecture as defended by Minimalist syntax, and as opposed to cartography which militates in favour of a detailed, articulated and precise study of syntactic atoms in terms of content, number, hierarchical order and function. Globally, the study proposes a novel framework for the derivation of focus and topic fronting in Basàá. More precisely, it is proposed that focus and topic (except hanging and frame setting topics) fronting involve a bi-clausal non-cleft structure which requires that focalized/topicalized elements get moved into the embedded FocP/TopP first, prior to moving into the matrix TP position for the purpose of the EPP. While the first movement step is said to be motivated scope-discourse requirements, namely focus and topic, the second one is motivated by the EPP i.e. the requirement that the matrix TP should have a subject. This second movement operation is attributed to the unavailability in the language of expletive/dummy subjects that would otherwise satisfy the EPP in the matrix TP. Fragment answers, by virtue of being considered as fronted foci are also derived using the same mechanism except in a very rare case while sluicing is said to be derived by wh-movement of the sluiced into Spec-EvidP or Spec-Wh-P, depending on the nature of the wh-item. Whereas the target of ellipsis in fragment answers is a functional FocP projection in almost all cases, what deletes in the context of sluicing is an AgrSP projection. The idea that focus and topic fronting are not cleft constructions pertains to their semantic interpretation. Focus fronting is not necessarily associated with exhaustive or contrastive interpretation in light or their morphosyntax, semantics and pragmatics. Exhaustivity and contrastiveness can be attested only in specific discourse contexts. The semantic interpretation of topics never allows them to be exhaustive and their contrastive interpretation is not that of exclusion as expected from bona fide clefts. The Basaá clausal left periphery is a prolific, composite, complex and articulated layer which is made up of four main sub-domains as briefly depicted in the following snapshot: Domain A[fixed word order] ForceP > IntP > Domain B[flexible word order] TopP[Scene setting] > TopP[Hanging] > Wh-PDomain C[flexible word order] TopP[Aboutness/Contrastive] > TopP[Additive] Domain D[fixed word order] EvidP > FocP >[AgrS-P/TP…

This dissertation carries out a syntactic analysis of the Basa'a left periphery. Although based on Chomsky's (1993,1995, 1998, 2001 etc.)the study reveals that information structure-related devices such as question formation, focus, topic and the like are syntactically encoded. This state of affairs is supported by the fact that there exist specific information structure morphemes occuring in a certain structural fashion. As result, the study provides further support to the current 'Cartographic Approach' to syntactic structures (Rizzi 1997, 2001, 2004) and subsequent works.