ABSTRACT
Relationship in linguistics is very essential. There are two types of relationship in linguistics: paradigmatic and syntagmatic. Syntagmatic relations are based on the linear character of speech. They enable language to function as a means of communication. The syntagmatics of noun modifiers are therefore the relation of noun modifiers with the HN and each other. Adopting Dependency Theory from Hays (1972), we base our argument on the hypothesis that the occurrence of any modifier in the noun phrase is more related to and conditioned by the HN. Noun modifiers in Akan therefore depend on the HN for meaning and form. We also argue that the combining properties of modifiers are their potential ability to get into syntagmatic relation and to pattern with other modifiers of appropriate types. In this study we combine modifiers of the same type together in one NP and test how grammatical the construction turns out. The various kinds of determiners are put in one construction to test their grammaticality. The data collected shows that certain determiners can occur in a sequence. We also test plural marking of all the types of noun modifiers in Akan. We find out that Prenominal modifiers do not have plural markers. This study also tests how acceptable an NP is when the order of its modifiers is altered. Certain constructions with altered arrangement of modifiers are accepted to some level. With the use of data we also examine the movement of NPs, that is, the HN, the adjective, and the determiner are “moved about” in a clause. Consequently, we conclude that syntagmatic studies are good basis for language communication.
TABLE OF CONTENT
Title Page……………………………………………………………………………………………………. i
Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………………………….. ii
Declaration………………………………………………………………………………………………… iii
Dedication………………………………………………………………………………………………… iv
Acknowledgement……………………………………………………………………………………… v
Table of Content……………………………………………………………………………………….. vi
List of Tables…………………………………………………………………………………………….. xi
List of Figures…………………………………………………………………………………………… xii
List of Abbreviation………………………………………………………………………………….. xiii
CHAPTER ONE: GENERAL INTRODUCTION
- Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………… 1
CHAPTER TWO: TYPES OF SYNTAGMATIC RELATIONS, THEIR APPROCHES AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK.
- Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………. 20
CHAPTER THREE: NOUN MODIFIERS IN AKAN
- 0 Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………… 34
- Adjectives…………………………………………………………………………………………. 44
- Morphology of Adjectives………………………………………………………………… 45
- Adjective Reduplication…………………………………………………………………. 48
- Morphology of Adjectives………………………………………………………………… 45
- The Relative Clauses in Akan……………………………………………………………….. 53
- Adjectives…………………………………………………………………………………………. 44
Endnotes…………………………………………………………………………………………………. 57
CHAPTER FOUR: ANALYSIS OF NOUN MODIFIERS IN AKAN
- Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………… 59
- The Relation of Postnominals and the HN………………………………………………. 61
- Prenominal Modifiers and the HN…………………………………………………………. 66
- Nouns as M…o…di…fie…rs ……………………………………………………………………………… 69
- D-Trees and the NP……………………………………………………………………………… 83
4.9 Summary…………………………………………………………………………………………….. 85
Endnotes……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 85
5.3 Some Future Research Areas………………………………………………………………… 90
Appendix…………………………………………………………………………………………………. 91
Bibliography……………………………………………………………………………………………… 94
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: A list of human and non-human quantifier in Akan……………………….. 52
Table 2: A Table of Possessive Pronouns/morphemes in Akan………………………. 67
Table 3: Acceptability Levels in the ordering of Adjectives, Quantifiers
and Numerals in the Noun Phrase…………………………………………………… 76
LIST OF FIGURES
Fig 1: A Tree of an NP having prenominal and Postnominal Modifiers…………….. 7
Fig 2: A Dependency Tree of (23)………………………………………………………………. 31
Fig 3: A Dependency Tree of (24)……………………………………………………………… 31
Fig 4: A Dependency Tree of (25)……………………………………………………………… 32
Fig 5: The Arrangement of Post Nominal Modifiers in Akan………………………… 60
Fig 6: Dependency Tree of (77)………………………………………………………………….. 63
Fig 7: Dependency Tree of (116)………………………………………………………………… 84
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
| ABBREVIATIONS | FULL FORM |
| 1PL | First Person Plural |
| 3PLU | Third Person Plural |
| 1SG | First Person Singular |
| 2SG | Second Person Singular |
| 3SG | Third Person Singular |
| ADJ | Adjective |
| ADJP | Adjective Phrase |
| ART | Article |
| CFGs | Context-Free Phrase Structure Grammars |
| DEM | Demonstrative |
| DET | Determiner |
| DG | Dependent Grammars |
| DP | Determiner Phrase |
| DT | Dependency Theory |
| FUT | Future Aspect Marker |
| H | Head |
| HAB | Habitual Aspect Marker |
| HN | Head Noun |
| MOD N | Modified Noun |
| MOD | Modifier(s) |
| MTT | Meaning-Text Theory |
| N | xiv Noun |
| ND | No Date |
| NEG | Negative |
| NP | No Page |
| NP | Noun Phrase |
| NUM | Numeral |
| OBJ | Object |
| PERF | Perfective Aspect marker |
| PLU | Plural |
| PROG | Progressive Marker |
| PST | Past Aspect Marker |
| QUANT | Quantifier(s) |
| REL | Relative Clauses |
| SG | Singular |
| STAT | Stative Aspect Marker |
CHAPTER ONE GENERAL INTRODUCTION
1.0 Introduction
This chapter gives the general introduction to Syntagmatic Relations of Noun Modifiers. The introduction consists of the background which explains syntagmatic relations and how different it is from paradigmatic relations. The chapter further explains the terms that come together to form the categories under discussion; nominal and modifiers. The discussion of the modifiers is carried out by looking into the various post-nominal and pre-nominal modifiers as have also been discussed in Akan and English where the need arises. The hypothesis, aims significance of the study, and study questions are all discussed in this chapter. Furthermore, this chapter introduces works that will be reviewed and the theory for data analyses. It finally concludes with how the rest of this study is organized.
Background to Study
Generally, words are combined to form phrases, phrases are used to form clauses and then to sentences. It is important to understand the arrangement of constituents, but it is equally important to understand the relationship between them. This brings to the fore the two levels of word relations: paradigmatic level and syntagmatic level.
Paradigmatic Level of Constituents Arrangement
At the paradigmatic level, consideration is given to the relationship of a category with other words in the vocabulary system. “Paradigmatic relations are not
displayed in constituent structure diagrams but are captured in a more indirect fashion in dictionaries, where the entry for each word specifies which diagram or form of class the word belongs to” (Brown et al 1991: 257-258). According to Van Vallin (2001: 87), “paradigmatic relation refers to the relation holding among elements which can be substituted for each other in a specific environment.”
Considering the phrase in (1) below, it could be noticed that very can be substituted by words like really, incredibly and amazingly; Nice can be replaced by words such as kind, friendly, cordial or nasty. These two sets of words, that is very and its possible substitutes and nice and its substitutes comprise two form classes or paradigms and they are said to be paradigmatically related (Brown et al 1991). Cox (1982) explains that paradigmatic relations involve a horizontal relations or associations. In example (2) below, Cox continued that pint would be in paradigmatic relations with words like glass, quart, or gallon.
- very nice boy
- A pint of milk (Cox 1982:379)
Knowing what paradigmatic relations is, we will move to the discussion of syntagmatic relations.
Syntagmatic Level of Constituents Arrangement
Brown et al (1991:258) trace the origin of the word syntagmatic from Greek. According to them, the word means “placed together” and it is certainly related to syntax which also means ‘placing together’ in Greek. Even though it is not
uncommon to consider a syntagmatic relation as just placing together of constituents, it must be noted that that kind of relation goes beyond that. Brown et al (1991: 258) point it out that “on a more complex note, syntagmatic relation is not just the placing of constituents together in a linear order or what types of constituent can go together and in what order they can occur”. Syntagmatic studies analyze the semantic structure of a word in its linear relationship with neighbouring words. Lviv (2010: 1) places syntagmatic on the plane of speech meaning. To him, speech should be understood as the manifestation of the system of language in the process of communication. Thus, the structure of a word in its linear relations with a neighbouring word is based on the meaning that structure communicates. Solntsev (1983:60) highlights it by saying that “syntagmatic relations are based on the linear character of speech. They enable language to function as a means of communication. They are therefore the functional relations of language”. According to Cox (1982: 379), Lyons (1964: 74) states that “the context of a linguistic unit is specifiable in terms of its syntagmatic relations.” Cox makes his point clear by using example (2). He explains that pint contracts syntagmatic relations with a, of and milk in the context given in (2). Therefore, when accessing a particular word in a sentence, we have to deal with interference from other words in the sentence (Dell et al 2008: 2).
There are different kinds/forms of syntagmatic relations in syntax. According to Lieberman and Truberzkoy (2001:78), “the relation between the element modified and its modifier is one of the most common of all syntagmatic relations, but others like the subject and predicate relation which cannot be considered as a modifier
and the modified also exist”. He continues to say that there are many languages with a special means of marking the relation of modified to modifier, and in most of them, this marker is not applied to the subject-predicate relation. There is also another form of syntagmatic relations which is presented by associative phrase (Lieberman and Truberzkoy 2001: 79). In such relations, terms in association stand in syntagmatic relation to some other member of the utterance. This could be two subjects with the same predicate, two predicate with same subject, two modifiers modifying the same element (Lieberman and Truberzkoy 2001: 79).
