Main Article Content
Inherent and body part anaphors are common in African languages, yet they are understudied in terms of the generative theories applicable to binding and anaphors. These anaphors get reference from the antecedent that comes before it in an utterance. The reference may pose a problem to the listener, since probably the part of the body affected by an action is not known. This paper, therefore, attempts to describe the syntax and semantic of Dholuo inherent and body part anaphors with an aim of identifying the exact part of the body affected by an action. The paper is couched in Government and Binding Theory and particularly in its modules Case Theory and Binding Theory to describe the syntax; while Theta Theory provided semantic interpretation. Data was elicited through the researcher’s intuition as a native speaker. Data was verified by six respondents, native speakers selected using purposeful sampling technique. Thereafter, different types of anaphors collected were presented and analyzed descriptively to show their occurrence and relationship with the antecedent and also assigned case to ensure grammaticality. They were then assigned theta roles to ensure they were meaningful and interpretable. Result indicates that Dholuo inherent anaphors refer to both inanimate and animate beings while body part anaphors refer to animate beings only. Moreover, sentences containing the inherent and body part anaphors were found to be grammatical since they were assigned case according to visibility condition. Semantically, there was a fusion in the assignment of theta roles to the anaphors and the subject. However, the arguments were assigned different theta roles so as not to violate Theta Criterion Principle. But, it was not clear on the exact body part affected by the action of the verb. This then calls for a linguistic theory that incorporates context to vividly indicate the parts of the body affected by the action of the verb.
Schladt M. The typology and grammaticalization of reflexives: In F. Zygmuny, & T. curl, (Eds.) Form and Functions. Amsterdam: Benjamins; 2000.
Poole G. Modern linguistics syntactic theory (2nd ed). New York, NY: Palgrave Publishers; 2002.
Siemund P. Speech acts and clause types: English in a cross linguistics context. United Kingdom, UK: Oxford University Press; 2018.
Omondi LN. The major syntactic structures of Dholuo. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer Verlag; 1982.
Okoth D. A Functional grammar of Dholuo. Köln: Rudger köppe Verlag; 1997.
Onyango J, A. A semantic analysis of Dholuo anaphors in simple declarative sentences: The minimalist program perspective. Unpublished MA Thesis, University of Nairobi; 2013.
Wambia RJA. A syntactic interpretation of ambiguous Dholuo long distance anaphors. Unpublished MA Thesis, Maseno University; 2015.
Sikuku J. An examination of anaphoric relations in selected African languages. In the afranaph development project workshop I. Conference conducted at Rudgers University, New Brunswick; 2010b. Available: http://www.africananaphora.rudgers.edu/index.php
Haegemann L. Introduction to government and binding theory (2nd ed). Oxford: Blackwell publishers; 1994.
Arts B. English syntax and argumentation (5th ed). London: Palgrave Macmillan Publishers; 2018.
Rudney P. The anaphor agreement effect is not about featural deficiency: Evidence from Avar. Glossa Journal of General Linguistics. 2020;5(1):7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.907
Kӧng E, Volker G. Trends in linguistics: Reciprocals and reflexives. Berlin: Mourton De Gruyter & Co; 2008.