The sentence particle kɔ in Ikwere

byǎ dúkpálábém bʊ ́ ǹgàngà, ńye ̰ làg w ʊ ̀ àlâ márʊ ̰ nɛ̂m ǹhɛ ̰̀ ó ze ̰̀ g w ù

When a guest asks you to escort him, just remember it is simple formality

Introduction

The Ikwere 1 morpheme kɔ ́ features among a subset of particles that can occur in the sentence final position. Others include wé, ta ̰́ , ó, ʔ ɔ̂ and nu. In a recent paper (Osu, in press), I analysed wé and ta ̰́ showing that their use in a sentence has to do with reassessment. The morpheme wé implies that the speaker's very act of saying something is tentatively called into question. Based on that, the speaker reassesses his act of saying (something) and presents it as the right act of saying. The result is that any alternative point of view, any alternative act of saying (something) whether real or imaginary, is ruled out. The morpheme wé is therefore regarded as a means by which the speaker commits himself vis-avis his sentence, reaffirming his position. As for the morpheme ta ̰́ , its use implies that a given value (say p for positive or p′ for negative, see section "theoretical background" for details) associated with an event or a state of affairs, initially introduced without considering any alternative value, is reassessed in the sense that an alternative value is introduced. The result is that p and p′ are both regarded as possible values. 2

Aim

The present article focuses on kɔ. This morpheme has a wide range of uses. Unlike wé and ta ̰́ which occur exclusively in the sentence (or clause) final position, kɔ ́ can occur in a post-verbal position as in (1), within the verb as in (2) and in a clause final position as in (3). It can occur in affirmative, negative, injunctive and interrogative sentences. Further, it contributes to the construction of a variety of meanings. Thus, in (1), the speaker refuses to take advice, in (2), he confirms the boy in question has eaten, and in (3), he lets his friend know he has no option. 1 Ikwere is an Igboid Benue-Congo language spoken in Rivers State, South-east Nigeria by a people also called Ikwere (alternate name: ɩ hw úrúɔ ha ̰̀ ). My analysis is based on the Ogbakiri [ɔ ̀gbàkɪ rɪ ] dialect of this language.

IPA symbols are used in Ikwere examples except that dʒ is replaced with j; tʃ with c, and j with y. kp and gb are nonexplosive, bilabial stops with no velar occlusion. They resemble their explosive counter-parts p, b in several ways but differ from them in that they involve no buildup of air pressure behind the occlusion. gb is fully voiced and nonimplosive while kp is preglottalized, voiced prior to release, and frequently imploded. They must not be confused with labiovelar stops such as those found in Gbe languages. (Interested readers may see [START_REF] Clements | Explosives, implosives, and nonexplosives: the linguistic function of air pressure differences in stops[END_REF]. Tones are indicated as follows: á for High, à for Low, ǎ for Rising or Low-High, â for Falling or High-Low, and ↓ á for Down-step High. Ikwere has a system of vowel harmony according to which with a few exceptions, all vowels of a word are either [+ATR] or [-ATR]. Hence, -lem changes to -lɛm, -g w u tog w ʊ, -ru to -rʊ and the 3SG o to ɔ. Ikwere also has a system of nasal harmony according to which nonobstruent sounds nasalize if followed by a nasal vowel; for instance the underlying form for -nɛm is -lɛm. (See [START_REF] Clements | Ikwere nasal hamony in typological perspective[END_REF][START_REF] Osu | The invariant property of the Ikwere morpheme mà in its diverse uses[END_REF] for further discussion). 2 As for nu, see Osu (2003a).

[Osi has been offended and means to retaliate. Therefore, he does not want to listen to those who advise him to forgive and forget:] 3(1) m ̀ k w é-kɔ̂-m m ̀ k w é-kɔ̂-m 1SG B.V.accept.NEG-SP-AGR1SG

No way, I refuse your apology.

[Wori and Chike are two sisters trying to figure out why their younger brother keeps crying. Wori is not sure the boy has eaten his lunch. Chike reassures her.]

(2) ò rɩ -kɔ -lɛ̂m ò rɩ -kɔ -lɛ̂m 3SG B.V.eat-SP-AFF PFT Of course s/he has eaten.

[Osi has been hiding from his friend to avoid paying him back his money. His friend suddenly meets him:]

(3) ɩ ́ nòtúg w ǎ ɩ ́ nòtúg w ǎ, ʔâ mɔ hw ʊ ̰̀ rɪ ̀ kɪ ńà kɔ ? ɩ ́ n-òtúg w ǎ ɩ ́ nòtúg w ǎ ʔâ mɔ ́ h w ʊ ̰̀ rʊ ɪ ̀ kɪ ńà kɔ ́ 2SG PROG-V.B.hide 2SG PROG-V.B.hide this way 1SG V.B.see-EFF 2SGO now SP You're hiding and hiding. Now I have found you. What about that?

The above examples reveal that kɔ does not bear an identical tone. One may be tempted to think that we are dealing each time with a separate morpheme. In other words, we are dealing with several homonymic kɔ. One answer to such a question is that linguistic objects do not exist in isolation; they always interact with each other. 4 Therefore, tones and tone patterns of a given unit may vary depending on the context whereas the tone bearer remains the same. And although, I do not have any historical account of Ikwere at my disposal, I claim in this paper that we have the same kɔ in the sentences analysed in this paper, meaning that its different uses are intrinsically related and that it has an invariant property (also referred to as schematic form) which enables it to operate the way it does in the language.

The purpose of this paper is to outline the invariant property of kɔ by examining the specific part it plays in sentences, the contribution it makes to the construction of meaning of sentences and the means by which it does that. To achieve this aim, I consider kɔ as a marker (say, a trace) of some linguistic operation which it brings to play in its specific ways. Also relevant to my analysis are the syntactic, semantic and pragmatic constraints associated with the use of this marker in a given situation.

Theoretical background

This article is realized based on the theory of linguistic markers within the framework of enunciative and predicative operations, often referred to as TOPE (in French: Théorie des Opérations Prédicatives et Enonciatives), elaborated by Antoine Culioli and his research associates (Culioli 1990(Culioli , 1995, 1999a&b, 1999a&b; see also [START_REF] Groussier | On Antoine Culioli's theory of enunciative operations[END_REF]Osu 2003b[START_REF] Osu | The invariant property of the Ikwere morpheme mà in its diverse uses[END_REF]. TOPE is classified as a theory of enunciation. A major claim in the enunciation paradigm is that there can be no meaningful sentences unless grounded in contexts, be they linguistic, social, economic, political or historical, and therefore, any linguistic study that aims at meaning construction or even communication, must incorporate the speaker's point of view and the context of production of sentences into analysis (see [START_REF] Benveniste | Problèmes de linguistique générale[END_REF][START_REF] Benveniste | Problèmes de linguistique générale[END_REF][START_REF] Ducrot | Le dire et le dit[END_REF][START_REF] Bakhtine | Le marxisme et la philosophie du langage: essai d'application de la méthode sociologique en linguistique[END_REF][START_REF] Bakhtine | Le marxisme et la philosophie du langage: essai d'application de la méthode sociologique en linguistique[END_REF]).

The basic assumption of TOPE is that there is a finite series of cognitive processes underlying language activity. These processes, called linguistic operations, are represented by words in individual languages. And for that reason words, including the sentence particle under study, are termed as markers of operations. However, several units can represent the same operation just as one single unit can represent several operations. Therefore, there is no one-to-one relationship between markers and operations. Each marker has its own way of marking a specific operation or operations. And each marker has an invariant property that is flexible enough to enable it to behave the way it does. In this view, the specific role a marker plays while interacting with other markers in the construction of meanings is equivalent to its invariant property. Within Culioli's theoretic model, a notion is a hybrid entity that provides extralinguistic materials which linguistic units are made from. Roughly speaking, a notion is like a mental image, our representation of reality. It is regarded as a complex bundle of physico-cultural properties that has no fixed boundary, meaning that with additional properties the boundary can always be extended. In fact, notions are characterized by two things, namely ramification as a result of inter-notional relationships created by the user (e.g., sheep and dog as opposed to sheep and lion); and abundance as physical, cultural and anthropological properties interrelate in such a way that they refer to a multiplicity of potentialities (see Culioli 1995: 44).

These notional properties are filtered with the help of a certain number of primitive operations that underlie language activity. One such operation is quantifiabilization (also referred to as fragmentation or individuation). It is a complex operation of determination that can be broken down into two components i.e., quantification and qualification. The operation of quantification consists of extracting and singling out an occurrence of a given notion and locating such an occurrence with reference to spatio-temporal parameters (enunciator and time of enunciation) of the referential space while the operation of qualification differentiates the extracted occurrence from all other related occurrences. The result of the operation of quantifiabilization is that a notional domain is constructed. Therefore, a notional domain is an occurrence of a notion.

Lexical items, grammatical units and predicative relations (or grammatical sentences) are obtained by filtering notions. For example, with the notion 'being a dog' or 'being red' one can construct a notional domain 'dog' or 'red'; similarly, from the notion of aspect, one can construct aspectual categories; and finally from a complex notion of the type 'antelope, trap, catch' one can construct a complex notional domain or predicative relation <antelope-catch-trap> which utterances can be made from, as follows: My trap caught a very big antelope this time; My trap didn't catch any antelope today; My trap may catch an antelope; etc.

It must be underlined that notions are only perceived through linguistic units, and that there is no one-to-one relationship between notions and units; a word, a lexical unit, a morpheme or a predicative relation does not equate with a notion, it is all a matter of representation, a matter of regulation in the sense that a lexical unit embodies only some properties of the notion but never all of them. It should then be clear that words and such other linguistic units are very complex entities. They are a means of representing cognitive activity, real entities, events and states of affairs and at the same time, they are traces of linguistic operations.

A notional domain is organized into three different zones that are intrinsically related. These are the Interior zone which represents the notional domain by default; the Exterior zone which is the linguistic complement of the Interior; and finally, the Boundary, which is neither the Interior nor the Exterior but at the same time compatible with the Interior and the Exterior.

The Interior zone contains a class of occurrences which identify with one another and at the same time differ from each other. The Interior zone also contains an abstract representative occurrence that serves both as its organizing centre (or prototype) and as its attracting centre. The organizing centre enables one to discern what occurrences do or do not belong to the class associated with the domain. It can be likened to the Platonic archetype. The attracting centre enables one to state that something is identifiable with the representative occurrence to a lesser and lesser degree. And it can be likened this time to the prototype in prototype semantics (see in particular Rosch 1978;[START_REF] Lakoff | Women, fire, and dangerous things: what categories reveal about the mind[END_REF][START_REF] Kleiber | La sémantique du prototype[END_REF][START_REF] Geeraerts | Prototype semantics[END_REF]. The Interior zone represents the notional domain and therefore is associated with a positive value, conventionally noted p while the Exterior zone is associated with the negative value and is noted p'.

The Boundary, also noted p', is assimilated a priori to the Exterior zone. However, its relation with the Interior zone is qualified as that of simple difference. The Exterior zone is regarded as being totally different from the Interior zone. The Exterior zone has therefore nothing to do at all with the Interior zone. For example, if we use the word 'dog' to refer to a notional domain, then anything at all that has nothing in common with the prototypical representation of 'dog' will belong to the Exterior zone, while a hybrid wolf-dog for instance will be viewed as belonging to the Boundary.

As we have seen, a notional domain has two constituent values. Each value is defined with respect to the other. However, each value is by definition different from the other and the relation between both is characterized as that of alterity (or otherness). This is to say that alterity is a founding property of the notional domain. And each marker in its specific ways may bring about redefining the relation of alterity between p and p'. This could mean either ignoring alterity by presenting one value as the one and only valid value. It could also mean eliminating alterity, or maintaining it. It is argued in this paper that kɔ-rejects alterity.

More on the operation of locating

I stated earlier that the operation of quantification consists of extracting and singling out an occurrence of a given notion and locating such an occurrence with reference to spatio-temporal parameters (enunciator and time of enunciation) of the referential space while the operation of qualification differentiates the extracted occurrence from all other related occurrences. Culioli's position is that when we speak, we construct meanings using utterances. And at any stage of this construction of meaning, we can identify operations which are reducible to one elementary, primitive operation called: LOCATING (see Culioli 1990: 180 & elsewhere). The whole process implies setting a linguistic object as the reference point in relation to which the value of a second linguistic object is defined. In other words, the operation of locating consists of locating one term relative to another. And it very much has to do with the process of determination.

Thus, if you say that x is located relative to y you mean that x is situated [or, again, defined] with reference to y, whether the latter, which is a locator (reference point), is itself located with reference to another locator or whether it is itself a locator origin. In fact, nothing prevents a term from being located relative to itself or a term which is the locator in a first relationship from becoming the locatum [the located element] in a reciprocal relationship of locating. The relationship of locating is always binary and where we have three terms or more in a sentence, for example, we obtain a second or third binary relationship on top of the first one. We use a unary operation to construct a binary relationship. The operator of locating is noted ∈ signifying 'is located by' or 'has as a locator'. Therefore <x ∈ ( )> means that x is the locatum in a relationship which is being established. From <x ∈ ( )> we can construct a locator, say y, and thus have the relationship <x ∈ y> read: 'x is located relative to y' (see Culioli 1990: 74-75).

Analysis of kɔ

The remainder of this paper gives a detailed account of the way kɔ operates in the language. I first examine interrogative sentences, then negative, interro-negative (or negation in question) and declarative sentences are considered. I end the study with injunctive sentences. Each kind of sentence is fully illustrated with examples. The way kɔ interacts with its co-text and the specific part it plays in the sentence are equally underlined.

Interrogation

Questions generally introduce a predicative relation while indicating that the speaker is not in a position to determine which of the two constituent values of the notional domain represented by this predicative relation is valid. He therefore calls on someone else to select a value. To put it differently, apart from rhetorical questions in which the speaker tends to insinuate that he already knows the answer to his question and simply wants to emphasize something in particular, 5 questions generally imply that the person who asks them does not already know the answer. And not knowing the answer invariably means that there are several possible answers. In fact, questions, including rhetorical ones, imply that the speaker is uncertain about a given situation or that there is instability in the situation. Alterity is inherent in questions. Having recourse to another person who is liable to confirm, emphasize or know the answer in order that he will choose between all the possibilities is a means of stabilizing the situation. In a 'yes or no' or 'all or nothing' type of question, the person has to choose between two equiponderant values. But in a situation where the question implies a gradient, he has to choose the degree (among several degrees) to which the answer is right. Finally, there are situations where he has to choose between an element (an occurrence) of a given class and another. In sum, we can say that in a 'yes or no' or 'all or nothing' kind of question, p represents 'yes' while p′ represents 'no'; with a gradient i.e. to what extent or degree is it true that an event takes place, p is the representative value and p′ anything other than p, to a lesser and lesser degree; and with occurrences, p represents a given occurrence and p′ any occurrence other than p. Now let us turn to examples. The question in ( 4) is typically asked by a neighbour who comes around, finds children playing within their compound but does not find their mother nearby. It is also often used by a relative in a situation where children of a given family stop by to greet him or her on their way to school. If we delete the morpheme kɔ, the example in (4) loses its question form and becomes illformed in the contexts mentioned above. The resultant expression ńné ánʊ ́ 'your mother' is wellformed in a completely different situation. Now consider the following: A group of children previously fought each other. A relative who did not even witness the fight later comes to scold them. The children are surprised and ask him ǹyḛ kànnɪ ̀ nʊ ́ á lʊ ̀rʊ ̀ ɔ gw ʊ ̰̀ 'who told you that we fought?' And the relative can say ńné ánʊ ́ 'your mother'. On first intuition, one may think that with the question in (4), the speaker wants to know where to find their mother (or how to locate her). But in fact, this question implies that the speaker wants to be informed about their mother. He cares about her. We may observe that if it has to do with somebody who only wants to find out whether their mother is at home or not, the person will not use kɔ . He will most likely say: byǎ ńné ánʊ̂ ɔ ̀ zɪ ̀ nʊ ́ ɔ ŕɔ ̀ 'Come on, (and tell me), is your mother at home?' The truth is that the question aims at general information concerning the mother and that it does not focus on her whereabouts even though certain situations however may lead to such interpretation.

In fact, to ask after the mother using kɔ is a way of signalling that she is part and parcel of those he cares about. Put differently, the mother's absence tends to bring about divide between those the speaker cares about and those he does not care about. And kɔ rejects such alterity. The result is that the entire group of people the speaker cares about appears to be intact.

[In order to properly welcome their guest who has just arrived, the hosts first offer him wine and kola nut. But the guest says he does not feel like drinking. They then offer him food, like this:] (5) wɩ ŕɩ ́ yá kɔ , á g w èyâ wɩ ŕɩ ́ yá kɔ ́ áyɪ ́ g w èyâ food 3SG.EMPH SP 1PL V.B take-return.CTP What about food, should we bring you some?

Example (5) is a clear case of 'yes or no' question. The guest is called upon to choose between two equiponderant values (p and p′). It is of utmost importance to note here that the guest has refused a first offer. This means that 'food' belongs to a class of things the hosts offer him. Otherwise the question is not natural. The very focus of the question is the fate of food from the point of view of the guest: is he going to accept it or not? A refusal signifies that he assigns it the same value as wine and kola. Alternatively, accepting it signifies that he introduces a difference between food on one hand and wine and kola on the other. The morpheme kɔ is used here to indicate that though the speaker offers food to their guest, he does not have any hope as to whether their guest will accept it, based on the fact that the latter has earlier refused wine and kola. Technically, the guest assigns the p′ value to the first offer and the host strongly suggests the guest will assign the p′ value to the second offer. The question is a means of asking the guest to confirm p′ while leaving the door open for the alternative option. In sum, there is no difference between the fate of wine and kola on one hand and that of food on the other. Consequently, there should be no difference between the point of view of the guest and that of the host. Here again, the morpheme kɔ ensures the continuity or homogeneity of a given domain.

[A man is mistreating his wife. His friend warns him against the possibility of his wife leaving him and going back to her parents' home] The primary aim of the speaker's question in ( 6) is to call his friend to a change of attitude. In so doing, the speaker introduces a cause and effect relationship. More precisely, this situation entails a two-level network of inference relations that can be represented as follows:

(6) ì tu ̰́ nè èke ̰́ k w árʊ ́ ńwɔ ̰́ rìya ̰̀ k'â ákâ. ɔ ́ lálɛ ́ kɔ ́ ì tu ̰́ -nè èke ̰́ -k w á-rʊ ́ ńwɔ ̰́ rìya ̰̀ kè â ákâ 2SG V.B find-PFT.NON-AFF V.B handle-wellness-DAT child female CONN DEICT hand ɔ ́ lá-lɛ ́ kɔ ́ 3SG V.B leave
A husband mistreats his wife the wife leaves marital home Q P A husband does not mistreat his wife the wife does not leave marital home Q′ P′ How does kɔ interact with the question in this particular example (6) to yield the meaning we have? By continuously mistreating his wife, the husband insinuates that Q leads to P', this is a way of introducing alterity here. The husband's attitude violates a pre-established relation (he realizes Q and expects P). Thus, he introduces alterity into the domain represented by the complex relation Q-P. The primary verb suffix -le implies that an expected event may be realized. This morpheme kɔ refers to Q-P indicating that the expected or unavoidable end result (i.e., divorce) of the husband's attitude (i.e., he mistreats his wife) is bound to happen.

With the question, the speaker asks his interlocutor to reflect over this unavoidable or expected end result, rephrased as follows: "with the way you mistreat her there is no iota of doubt that she will divorce you, do you know that"? In fact, kɔ signifies that the link between the husband's attitude and divorce cannot be disrupted, or in other words, there is no room for alterity. However, the question form calls into question the relationship Q-P and therefore enables the speaker to create room for avoiding P by putting an end to Q. Let us consider (7).

Chima and Wori are playmates. For one reason or another they begin to quarrel. Wori calls Chima ńye ̰́ íh w u ̰̀ ríh w o ̰́ 'a foolish person'. Chima can choose to answer:

(7) jɛ ɛ kɔ ́ jɛ ɛ kɔ ́ 2SG.CONTR.EMPH SP What about you?
As a matter of fact, the speaker, Chima, does not expect Wori to give any answer to his question; it is assumed that he already knows it. Hence, ( 7) can be considered a rhetorical question. In this kind of situation, Chima introduces a value, let us say p (you are not different from me) and considers it to be the right value. As a result, it does not seem necessary to refer to or introduce p′. In fact, there is no need for it, from the point of view of the speaker. But like I said earlier, a rhetorical question remains a question. As such, Wori can choose to answer it. She can say something like this: mɔ ̀ bʊ ̀ jɪ ́ 'Am I (like) you?' meaning 'you are a fool, I am not'. Such an answer will enable her to introduce p′ alongside p.

If we come back to Chima's answer "what about you", we record the following things: a) For Chima, Wori's attempt to exclude herself from the abstract class of foolish persons brings about an unstable relation 'someone is foolish' that requires to be stabilized. Wori thus introduces alterity; b) The morpheme kɔ indicates that there is no difference between Wori and Chima with respect to the quality 'be foolish'. Wori cannot be excluded from the class and consequently, the relation is stabilized and alterity is eliminated; c) The rhetorical question implies that though the speaker has scanned different possibilities arriving at the conclusion that there is no difference between both of them, he (the speaker) still leaves room for the interlocutor to scan other possibilities; d) And finally, the speaker has no doubt the interlocutor will arrive at the same conclusion as his.

However, Chima may choose to answer as in ( 8 Contrary to (7), sentence ( 8) is not a question. It is an example of focus construction in Ikwere. Such a construction implies two things: a pre-constructed predicative relation containing an unspecified entity ńye ̰́ 'someone', the entire relation is noted <ńye ̰́ p 1 >, and then a relation of identification introduced with the help of the verb bʊ 'to be'. This relation of identification enables the speaker to specify the person who instantiates the place of the unspecified entity introduced by someone. But this process entails choosing the interlocutor, noted x, from an abstract class of possible fools. The whole complex process can be rewritten as follows: < 0 < 1 ńye ̰́ p 1 > bʊ ́ x 0 >, read: Someone is a fool, and the person who is a fool is x. Most importantly, the speaker uses this means to indicate that he himself is not a fool. 7Lastly, Chima can equally answer as in ( 9 Sentence ( 9) is not a question either. The thing with this example is that the word màkɔ ́ 'also, too' contains kɔ. The speaker acknowledges that he and his playmate are fools. The second person singular element emphatically introduces Wori in relation to the speaker, meaning that in relation to the quality 'being foolish' Wori is really the person concerned. This debate on who is foolish and who is not brings about a situation that is not stabilised. The morpheme ma introduces Wori as the only reference point in relation to which the situation is stabilised. In this setting, kɔ implies that Wori cannot be separated from Chima and that they both share the quality 'being foolish'. If we take this analysis to be correct, we can then admit that kɔ in màkɔ ́ is the same as the one we have seen in previous examples. In fact this example provides further illustration of how words interact beyond our expectation, defying our methods and challenging our reasoning capacity.

In the examples examined so far, we consistently observe that there is an attempt to introduce alterity in form of a division into a notional domain between p and p′. The marker kɔ rejects such alterity. Consequently, the notional domain remains homogeneous or intact. However, with the question, the speaker refers the domain represented as p or p′ to someone else and asks the person to validate it. This could mean asking the person to provide missing information, as in ( 4), ( 7) and ( 9); to choose between accepting or refusing an offer with the hope that the expected value will be chosen, as in (5); and finally, to reconsider a pre-established relationship to see if that is what the person desires, as in (6).

Negation

Many scholars including Horn (1989: 31 sqq) 8 have often stressed the fact that it is not always easy to draw a line between affirmative and negative sentences. However, [START_REF] Crystal | A dictionary of linguistics and phonetics[END_REF] defines negation as "a process or construction in GRAMMATICAL and SEMANTIC analysis which typically expresses the contradiction of some or all of a sentence's meaning". [START_REF] Ramat | Negation[END_REF]Ramat ( : 2769) ) also asserts that "[t]he linguistic operation of negation (NEG) consists in denying the truth value of the negated sentence, or of a part of the sentence, by applying a NEG operator (π NEG ) to a sentence like: 1a) John likes to work gives John does not like to work, i.e., [it is not true that [John likes to work]]; 1b) John does not like beer at lunch i.e., [John does like beer, [π NEG ADV SATELLITE at lunch]]. He further (p. 2769) states that negative sentences are those "used to correct states of affairs assumed by the speaker to be either shared knowledge or to represent the commonest ones to be expected in the context. The post hasn't been delivered this morning is a felicitous message only under the assumption, shared by speaker and hearer, that the post has to be delivered every day. This is the reason why negative sentences are not normally used to introduce new propositions or new referents". Crystal and Ramat tend to suggest that negation is a derivative of a positive construct.

In my view, depending on the context, negative constructions m ay mean that something is not the case or that <something is the case> is not the case. In other words, negative sentences imply that a predicative relation or a state of affairs is certain. The speaker states that the predicative relation which he introduces using a negative sentence is the case. Thus, if he says "John has not killed the antelope", he means that <John has not killed the antelope> is the case. Similarly, if he says "It is not raining", he means that <It is not raining> is the case. Thus, the speaker uses such sentences in order to negatively evaluate something. In more technical terms, we can say, following Culioli (1995 & elsewhere) that in a given notional domain endowed with two values (p and p′), negation implies that we are dealing with p′ i.e., the Exterior zone, Boundary inclusive. As Culioli (1995: 71) puts it:

"It [negation] is everywhere: when we analyse alternative values, the Exterior, absence, the void, we process operations of negation. Concerning negation we can only have two attitudes: either we seek to eliminate it or we consider it to be primitive. Personally, I do not think it can be constructed as a derivative -we cannot do without the operation of negation. I am forced to posit it as being primitive. This means that when I construct my Exterior, I shall do so based on a notion that I shall first apprehend in its positive form as an Interior".

According to [START_REF] Osu | Negation marking in Ikwere[END_REF], Ikwere has a wide range of markers of negation which include such verb suffixes as -g w o (possibly derived from g w u+o), -le, -re (probably derived from ru+e) and the verb prefix zɛ-(possibly the verb of locating zi + e). They also include the periphrastic element ɔ zɛ̂ which occurs only in the initial of the sentence, and tones. 9 We must however underline the fact that though tones play a crucial role in negation marking in Ikwere, no one single tone is devoted to negation marking in this language. Semantically, negation in Ikwere can imply contrast between a given predicative relation and another. It can also imply the absence or rejection of something that has been previously affirmed and indicate that an expected event does not occur. At issue here is what kind of combinations bring about the negative reading and what role does kɔ play? I shall therefore attempt to point out such elements for each example in this section. Let us examine (10) below. It is about an everlasting applicant. And the speaker links the applicant's situation to his lack of formal training.

(10) m ̀bʊ ́rʊ ́ bá kàrʊ ̀ ó zḛ sùk w úlù ò k w ê m ̀bʊ ́rʊ ́ bá kà-rʊ ̀ ó zḛ sùk w úlù ò k w ê when 3PL V.B say-EFF 3SG V.B go school 3SG V.B agree.NEG When they advised him to go to school he refused.

We all know the link between formal training, certificates and acquired skills. At issue here is the fact that the applicant refused to go to school (to acquire skills) when he ought to have done so. The negated element is the clause ò k w ê 'he-to agree'; and negation can formally be seen in the verb form as well as the tone pattern (HL) on the verb final vowel. If we dare to convert the sentence into a positive one, we would obtain something like this: m ̀bʊ ́rʊ ́ bá kàrʊ ̀ ó zḛ sùk w úlù ò k w érɩ ĺêm 'when he was advised to go to school, he agreed'. The latter sentence remains weird because the situation in which it can be produced does not readily cross the native speaker's mind. Note however that (10) does not contain kɔ. Example ( 11) is very natural in a situation where a business partner gives a negative answer to a business proposal. Here again, the negated element is the clause ò k w ê 'he-to agree'. And we can attribute the negative reading to both the verb form and the tone pattern. We notice that this example contains kɔ and that this morpheme bears a low tone while the preceding syllable bears a high tone. Interestingly, one has the impression of emphasis. And like in the preceding example, the outcome is refusal. This morpheme indicates that there is refusal to such an extent that one cannot imagine anything other than refusal. Put differently, considering the notional domain, noted P(p,p′), introduced with the process èk w é 'to agree', negation itself implies that the subject o 's/he' of the process èk w é 'to agree' is located relative to the Exterior zone of the domain. Thus, the p′ value of P is validated. The effect of this is that p is at best ignored. As for kɔ, it implies that the subject of the process holds so firmly unto his refusal that no room whatsoever is left, not an ounce of hope, for a positive answer (i.e., p). In fact, P is construed as a domain without any possibility of introducing p i.e., a possible source of alterity, into it. To say that there is no possibility of introducing alterity is to say that one should not even think of negotiating or pleading. It just won't work. Note that this example is also natural without kɔ. In that case, the analysis will be similar to the one given in (10).

We can complicate matters a little further by adding ḿmê as in (12).

(12) ò k w ékɔ ̀ḿmê èk w é ò k w é-kɔ -ḿmê èk w é 3SG V.B.accept-SP-in the first place.NEG REDUP S/he does not agree at all in the first place.

The element ḿmê in turn calls for a reduplicative form without which the sentence is not wellformed. Should a native speaker of Ikwere hear ò k w ékɔ ḿmê, he will certainly feel that there is something missing in the sentence, it is not complete. The element ḿmê signifies that one puts something at the forefront or in the first position. Thus, zḛ ḿmé ízí bó dúsírú í translates as 'First run the errand they sent you (before I can talk of compensating you)', and rík w óḿmé wírí as 'First finish eating (before we talk of your outing)'. In the example under analysis, ḿmê is used in order to say that the person's refusal is of utmost importance to him (i.e., refusal ranks first, it is a priority). As we know, if something is of utmost importance to us, we hold on tight to it. Let us not forget that our discussion here is about a blunt refusal.

The reduplicative form in Ikwere generally indicates that the person is in a state and remains in that state. In (12) the reduplicative form enables the speaker to say that the person is in his decision and remains in his decision; or again, he holds his decision tight. All this leads to further specification of the role kɔ plays. This element indicates that any attempt to introduce alterity into the domain represented by <he-not agree> is blocked. We now have all the ingredients to understand why in this example the person's refusal is such that there is nothing anyone can do to make him change his mind. Next, let us see ( 13). Because of lack of space, I give henceforth a word-for-word gloss for only the portion of the example I am concerned with, that is, in (13), the part of the sentence that contains the negative construction and is written in bold-face characters. Example ( 13) is a reported speech. My focus here is the negation expressed with the verb form and tone pattern we ̰́ kɔ ̀ (the positive form will read as follows: ɩ ̀ we ̰̀ rùkɔ ̀ 'you do have'). The sentence gives the impression of emphasis. Thus the speaker really means that his son has no time to pay his relative a visit. Note that if kɔ is deleted, the sentence remains valid though the impression of emphasis is lost. Negation implies that we are dealing with p′, and kɔ indicates that the subject ɪ 'you' is located relative to the Exterior zone of the domain 'have time' in such a way that any attempt to make him cross over to the Interior zone of the domain, in other words, any attempt to consider p is completely ruled out. From the ongoing discussion, we can rephrase this part of the sentence like this: "when I say he has no time, you may nurse some doubt, in fact I mean that he has no time, not even a second for visiting you". Consequently, the speaker tentatively clears any possible doubt in his relative's mind.

Example ( 14) is all about a neighbour whose character is not appealing.

(14) ʔɛ̂m ɔ ́ zɪ ̀ ǹhɛ̂m áya̰ á vɔ ḿɛ ̀ nʊ ́ ńhɛ ̰́ ɔ ́jɔ , rʊ ́mʊ ̀ɔr ɔ ̀ kâ dúm ̀, ɔ ̀ màkɔ ̀ ámá nèmé ó nèmé ɔ ̀ zɪ ḱɔ ̀ ńye ̰́ k w èg w ù nʊ ̀ à, bà kà nʊ ́ ɔ ́ ńye ̰́ bísı ̰́ . ɔ ̀ zɪ ́-kɔ ̀ ńye ̰́ k w è-g w ù nʊ ̀ à 3SG
V.B. be.LOC-SP individual V.B.accept-STAT CONN 3SGO Lit.: There is no one person (who) believes in him. As you see him there, he is always seeking evil. Take the entire Rumuoru community, he can do whatever pleases him no one single person trusts him. He is known to be an evil-doer.

The third person singular marker, realized ɔ because it harmonizes with zɪ ́ for the feature -ATR, does not refer to any specific being or thing. This sentence can therefore be likened to an impersonal construction in some of the world's languages. Here again, we can delete kɔ and the correct form obtained is ɔ zɛ̂ ńye ̰́ k w èg w ù nʊ ̀ à 'Nobody trusts him', where ɔ zɛ̂ (it does not exist) can be analysed as ɔ -zɪ -ɛ ̀ (s/he-be located-negative marker). The negated element is the verb zɪ ́ 'to be located, to exist' (note that ɛ zɪ̂ is the uninflected form). And negation is marked using both the high tone verb base zɪ and the low tone kɔ. So the result of the interaction of the third person singular marker and the negative form of the verb 'to be located, to exist' can be phrased as follows: "there is nobody to be found so as to say that the person trusts him". With kɔ, the speaker is more specific, like this: "when I say nobody trusts him, I mean no one single person, so don't go imagining that you may spot out one that trusts him". If we represent the Rumuoru community made of individuals as a class of abstract occurrences of x (x i , x j , x k … x z ), and the predicate 'trust him' as P, the whole sentence can then be taken to mean that no single occurrence of x is located with respect to P. The class of x remains totally empty and therefore uniform in relation to P. In (15), the speaker stresses the fact that no solution is foreseeable from his own point of view. However, there is no indication as to whether the speaker's point of view is introduced at the expense of another person's point of view. We can delete kɔ. In that case, the sentence remains valid and interpretable. The speaker signifies that he is looking for a solution to the problem, meaning that there is room for a solution. Note in passing that negation is marked using the high tone verb base and the low tone kɔ. Example (16) can be interpreted as follows: just stay away from my name. This example is an indirect speech. The speaker reports what another speaker (henceforth S 2 ) said to him. We first notice the element ɛ ʔɛ ̰̀ translated here as 'no'. It indicates that S 2 does not tolerate the very act of mentioning his name. Negation of h w o ̰́ (uninflected form: òh w o ̰́ ) 'mention' is marked using a high tone verb base and a high-low tone kɔ. But the interesting thing is that S 2 succeeds in blocking every discussion with the speaker. Negation implies that the speaker is located relative to the Exterior of 'mention my name' (you don't mention my name is the case). kɔ implies that the slightest attempt to mention his name is strictly prohibited in order to avoid introducing alterity in the zone. The outcome of this process is that the zone is intact.

In summary, with the negative construction, the Exterior zone of a notional domain is introduced. There is attempt, real or imaginary, to move away from this zone in order to be located in the Interior zone, for instance. Such attempt brings alterity to play. And it may consist in a minimum acceptance and knowledge of something, as in ( 11) and ( 15); a simple call of someone's name, as in ( 16); that one has little time (as opposed to no time at all), as in (13); and that there is someone (as opposed to no one), as in ( 14). The morpheme kɔ blocks such attempt so that one remains in the Exterior zone, no more, no less.

The interro-negative construction

A combination of negation and kɔ can also give an interro-negative reading. In that case, kɔ must occur in the verb or sentence final position and not in the infix position. And it must bear a high tone. An interro-negative construction (or negation in question) means that we are no longer dealing with a question where yes and no, Interior value and Exterior value are equiponderant (equal weighted) answers. In fact, the speaker posits the p′ value and asks the interlocutor to confirm it. If the interlocutor confirms it, then the p value is automatically ruled out. Nevertheless, the interlocutor may choose not to confirm p′. For instance, he can reply 'I don't know', or 'I don't want to answer'. He may also choose to just keep quiet. No matter the weight of p′ in that case, there remains a possibility for p to be validated.

(17) ánʊ ́lɛ ́ ryêkɔ ́ ɔ dɔ ́ ɔ ḱɔ ŕɔ ́ kâ ánʊ ́-lɛ ́ ryê-kɔ ́ ɔ dɔ ́ ɔ ḱɔ ŕɔ ́ kè â 2PL-EMPH V.B.eat.NEG-SP kind crab CONN DEICT
You don't eat this kind of crab at all, do you?

In ( 17), the speaker is carefully preparing his basket of crabs in order to cook his dinner and has no intention to give out any of them. But his neighbours wouldn't stop looking at him with envy. The neighbours' envious look introduces p. This sentence is therefore the means by which the speaker justifies his act of not sharing his crabs with his neighbours. The use of kɔ enables him to strengthen his argument i.e., that no single member of the family eats the kind of crabs he is preparing. He thus gives the impression that not only these crabs are prohibited in his neighbours' family but also no member of the family ever dares to taste them. In other words, the domain represented here by means of the Exterior value <x-do not eat> is considered to be free from containing any form of alterity, where x represents the neighbours' family. Recall that alterity could be introduced if a member of the family would just taste the crabs. We can therefore qualify the domain as homogeneous with respect to p' i.e., <not eat such kind of crabs>. If we delete kɔ, we obtain a declarative sentence in which the speaker simply states that p′ is the case. It can equally be a question if adequate intonation is employed. In that case, the speaker sets out to know whether or not p′ is the case. Finally, we can move kɔ to the sentence final position like this: ánʊ ́lɛ ́ ryê ɔ dɔ ́ ɔ ḱɔ ŕɔ ́ kâ kɔ ? 'You don't eat this kind of crab, isn't it so?' In this case, the speaker first introduces p′, he then uses kɔ to refer back to this value while asking for it to be confirmed. At this point, the difference I can see between ryêkɔ where kɔ is in the verb final position on one hand, and kɔ in the sentence final position on the other, is that with ryêkɔ, the speaker indicates that he is more concerned with the process 'to eat'. With kɔ in the sentence final position, the speaker states that he considers the whole sentence in block. The role of the question is to reintroduce p alongside p′ while indicating that it is the interlocutor's onus to eliminate p. The analysis given in ( 17) can further be supported with ( 18) and ( 19 In ( 18), the speaker wants to find out the consequences he would face if he refused to run an errand and in ( 19), the consequences for refusing a proposal. Both examples imply that the expected thing is p i.e., 'we have to go' in ( 18) and 'I have to accept' in (19). They also contain the primary verb suffix -ne (the nasalized non affirmative form of -lem). In the affirmative form, this suffix indicates that a process is constructed both on the time plane and on the subject plane and that the construction on the time plane is in conformity with the construction on the subject plane. The same suffix in the negative form signifies that the construction of the process on the time plane does not correspond with its construction on the subject plane. The morpheme kɔ occurs in the sentence final position in both examples. Now, given the context of use, if we delete kɔ, we have the impression of an incomplete sentence i.e., a sentence that is not stabilized. We may also choose to insert kɔ between the verb base and the suffix. The resultant sentence is not complete either. This provides further argument to support the fact that kɔ does contributes to stabilizing a sentence. In the sentence final position, kɔ interacts with the question to say that one should consider the predicative relation in the preceding co-text the way it is i.e., without introducing anything different at all. To put it another way, one should view the domain this predicative relation represents 'we don't go' as homogeneous (meaning that the domain is free from any intention 'to go on errand; to accept the proposal') and then state one's own position in return. The question implies that though p′ is preponderant, p remains a possible value until it is eliminated. Let's recapitulate. There are three main ingredients here: interrogation, negation and the morpheme kɔ. As we have seen, with negation in question (or the reverse) the speaker introduces the p′ value of a given notional domain, meaning that the p value is a priori out of the race; he then calls on someone else to confirm it. We must point out here that the privileged value is p. Therefore, the p′ value is introduced relative to p. The morpheme kɔ signifies that having taken p into account, the p′ value or the domain introduced should be considered without reference to any other value or domain.

Affirmative sentences

sentences are a means by which a speaker positively evaluates events, states of affairs, processes or predicative relations. The speaker considers that a given state of affairs represented by a predicative relation is certain in the sense that its locating relative to time and space is conform to what he expects. Put differently, the speaker states with an affirmative sentence that a state of affairs is the case. Thus if he says 'I am eating', he means that <I am eating> is the case.

Affirmative sentences, alongside with negative sentences and rhetorical questions, are assertive constructions.

Consider (20):

(20) ò rílêm ò rí-lêm 3SG V.B.eat-PFT-AFF He has eaten.

The typical situation in which this sentence is usually produced is a cultural setting: In a community that makes yearly offerings to their ancestral father, it is a general belief that the statuette moulded in the village Jury room and representing their ancestral father shakes to signify that their ancestral father accepts their offering. And so, if in the course of the ceremony the statuette shakes, the whole village trembles with joy as they shout in unison: ò rílêm 'He has eaten (i.e., he has accepted our offering)'. Here again, the primary verb suffix -lem implies that what the whole village has been expecting has come to pass. In other words, the construction of the predicative relation <He-eat> on the time plane is consistent with the construction of the same relation on the subject plane.

If we add kɔ as in ( 21), the meaning changes, the context of use too. For example, one of two friends wonders whether Chima's weird behaviour could be linked to the fact that he did not have his meal previously and the other friend reassures him, saying:

(21) ò rí-kɔ -lɛ̂m ò rí-kɔ -lɛ̂m 3SG V.B.eat-SP-PFT-AFF He did eat.
We see from the context of use that Chima's weird attitude, noted Q, creates a situation that is not stabilized and calls for explanation. One of the two friends links Q to the process P (to eat) in order to find out which of the two values, p (Chima has eaten) or p′ (Chima has not eaten) is the case. He indicates at the same time that from his own point of view, p′ is preponderant as evidenced by the fact that the sentence will otherwise not contain kɔ. The speaker (i.e., the other friend) introduces p as the right value. There are two divergent views here between the first friend, noted S 1 and the speaker, noted S 0 . S 1 has doubts and therefore suggests that Chima may not have eaten. Based on the fact that Chima has actually eaten (the relation is located in time and space), S 0 considers the position of S 1 as a way of calling p into question. S 0 indicates using kɔ that p is the case in such a way that there is no room for p′ and therefore, the domain <Chima-to eat> noted P, cannot be fragmented. Thus, S 0 rejects S 1 's attempt to introduce p′. Example (21) can be phrased as follows: "As for eating, I can tell you that he has eaten; there is no doubt about it". With -lem here, the speaker signifies that what S 1 tends to introduce as a process yet to be realized is in fact a process that has already been realized. As we can see in ( 22), the speaker introduces the process 'say something' but uses the linking word ma to introduce 'he' and 'his wife' i.e., the collective subject of this process. Interestingly this linking word occurs twice introducing each time one of the two subjects. What we need to know about this morpheme here is that in this kind of use i.e., where it follows a noun phrase (NP), ma brings about a focus effect. This is because it singles out the NP from an abstract class of occurrences (of NP) and sets it as the sole occurrence with reference to which the process 'say something' can be said to be validated. The fact that ma introduces two occurrences of the class represented by NP means that each occurrence is considered on its own as the sole reference. 10 In fact, the speaker means that with respect to 'say something' each ma plays a specific role. Indeed, the mere fact that there are two different individuals playing the role of the subject of 'say something', one would expect that each of them says it in a different way or again that they say something different from one another. The morpheme kɔ indicates that though the two subjects are capable of displaying differences on various topics, they do not differ in any way when it comes to what they say: they say just the same thing.

1SGO

corps From the day I delivered Osi till today not even a tiny syringe of his has penetrated my body not to mention wrapper the great. Since Osi was born, he has never done any good thing for me as his mother.

The speaker in ( 23) is not very happy with her son, Osi. She means to show that Osi does not behave the way a son should behave towards his mother. The verb base zí introduces a specific event ʔá mɔ ́ mʊ ̀rʊ ̀ ósì 'the time, space and manner I gave birth to Osi' and makes it the starting point in relation to which one can measure time lapse or geographical distance. The problem here is that the speaker fears that for one reason or another, this starting point might be taken to be a rough estimate. Hence she takes recourse to kɔ. This marker enables her to state that what she designates as the starting point should be regarded as the exact ('absolute') starting point, and consequently, no other point can be considered. The sentence in ( 24) is about someone who, after throwing a party, happily narrates that many people turned up. The speaker achieves his aim utilizing the morpheme kɔ. A house can be seen as made of spots (or spaces), meaning that if one spot is occupied another may be free. This is how alterity becomes part and parcel of the house. The use of kɔ here is intended to indicate that every corner of the house was occupied. As a result, no empty space could be spotted. In other words, the occupancy-rate of the house (or the rate of house filling) was such that no space was left. Once again, we see how kɔ implies that there can be no alterity in the house as far as the domain <house-occupied> is concerned.

[The speaker is very disappointed with the way her two children behave towards her] The verb form kárʊ ́kɔ ́ in (25) serves as a linking word between P i.e., the main clause (I don't know what to do) and Q i.e., the subordinate clause (I take the world as I see it). This verb contains the base ká (the corresponding uninflected form is àká 'to surpass'). It signifies that the speaker has to go beyond the limit set by Q. However, the co-text suggests that he cannot go beyond the limit set by Q. This example can be reinterpreted as follows: I don't know what else to do with them to enable me go beyond taking life the way it is. We see how Q becomes the ultimate limit for the speaker. But then, the verb also contains the dative marker -ru. This morpheme indicates that a process is realized in such a way that the subject of the process is concerned with the end result. In other words, the speaker is very much concerned with how to go beyond the limits imposed on him by her children. The morpheme -kɔ has a specific role to play here. It marks that the domain introduced by àká is not fragile and therefore enhances the idea that the speaker is firmly determined to go beyond what she normally cannot go beyond. To say that someone is firmly determined to go beyond the limit introduced by Q is another way of saying that alterity is rejected. Alterity in this example is introduced by the difference between the limit Q and the speaker's need for another limit noted Q′.

(26) A: ɪ ́ h w ʊ ̰́ nɛ ́ ǹhɛ ̰̀ ɔ ́ nákàsɪ ́ ɔ ́kà ɪ ̀ márʊ ́ n'ɔ ́ ńye ̰́ bɔ ́ vʊ ̰̀ rʊ ̀ ɔ vʊ ̰̀ . m ̀ nòk w ún'í ézí ók w ú ó.

If you hear him speak in public you know that he is well-trained. I'm telling you the truth.

B: ɔ ̀ bʊ ̀kɔ ̀ ʔɛ̂m. ɔ ̀ bʊ ̀-kɔ ̀ ʔɛ̂m 3SG V.B.be.IDT-SP like that That's right.

The focus of the conversation in ( 26) is Osi's art of speaking in public. Speaker A suggests that Osi is a good and mature orator. Speaker B confirms the point made by speaker A combining however, the verb ɔ bʊ ́ 'to be' and kɔ. The same sentence without kɔ will give the impression that speaker B's answer only comes from his lips i.e., without conviction, and therefore liable to contain alterity. The presence of kɔ here conveys the idea that Osi's art of speaking in public, noted P, is just what speaker A says it is, no more, no less. Thus, speaker B implies that there can be no difference, no alterity between P introduced by speaker A, and P located in relation to time and space. This is how kɔ rejects any form of alterity that could be introduced in any form into the domain represented as P.

An interaction of the morpheme kɔ with an affirmative construction results in a double assertion. As we have earlier seen, the affirmative construction enables the speaker to assert a value. In ordinary terms, the speaker indicates that a state of affairs is the case. In various examples and contexts, attempt is made to call into question this state of affairs. For example, someone expresses doubts about the effectiveness of a given process, as in ( 21), about the exactness of a starting point, as in ( 23), about the occupancy rate of a house, as in ( 24) or about a point some other person makes, as in (26). Alterity can also be introduced by definition, as in ( 22) where the fact that there are two persons suffices to expect a different behaviour from each of them; and finally it can be the result of the difference between what is expected and what is obtained, as in ( 25). In all these cases, kɔ blocks alterity so that there can be no doubt, and any difference whatsoever is erased.

Injunctive sentences

The speaker uses injunctive sentences to introduce an event or a process so that it is realized by someone else. According to Culioli (1995: 116) one states using assertion that a certain situation is (i.e., positive) or is not (i.e., negative) the case. But with an injunctive construction one says: 'may a certain situation be or not be'. In fact, injunctive constructions include orders, pleas, wishes as well as requests and suggestions. While with an order A says to B: 'whether you like it or not, do a certain thing', with a request, one is more polite, therefore one says 'I hope that you like it'. A suggestion can be phrased as follows: 'do you like what I like'; a plea: 'I, myself, like [it], I hope you like [it]; and finally wishes are not necessarily addressed to a person, as are pleas. Wishes can be addressed to fate, to a divinity, or to all and sundry.

More precisely, with an injunctive construction, the speaker presents the p value of the domain represented by P as the right one and then refers it to another speaker for the latter to assert and therefore validate it. But as long as the second speaker does not validate p, the alternative value remains a possibility.

We can summarize the process involved in injunctive sentences as follows: From the point of view of S 0 , p is the right value, but from the point of view of S 1 , p and p' are both possible values; so until the subject represented as S 1 validates one value or the other (for example, p where he chooses to effectively realize the process or p' if he chooses not to realize the process) the two values remain equiponderant, meaning that none of them is privileged by S 0 , or again, both possibilities co-exist. Injunctive constructions involve intersubjective relationships and divergent views between S 1 and S 0 . The word ńhɛ̰ functions as object-type for the verb base érɩ .

Consider (27) to (35).

Wori can naturally answer:

B 1 : ánʊ ́ rɩ ́ ánʊ ́ rɩ ́ 2PL V.B.eat.INJ
Eat (i.e., You go on)! Note that kɔ is absent in her answer. This is because there is no attempt so far to call her position (I'm not eating) into question. But assuming speaker A insists saying, 'don't you want to join us?', then, Wori will say:

B 2 : ánʊ ́ rɩ ḱɔ ́ ánʊ ́ rɩ -kɔ ́ 2PL V.B.eat-SP.INJ Eat (You go on).
In this second situation, an answer without kɔ is unnatural. This sentence (B 2 ) can be phrased as follows: your question suggests that my answer wasn't decisive, in other words, that I might eventually change my mind and join you. I am saying that you should eat without bothering yourself about me. Here again, kɔ enables the speaker to introduce her answer as a decisive one. And therefore, no room is left for doubts. Let us consider ( 28) and ( 29). It is very important to note that we cannot commute ( 28) and (29) in the same context. Example ( 28) is typical of a situation where the speaker takes a friend out for a walk. As for (29), it is typically produced if the friend suggests by his words or attitude that the speaker (i.e. the person taking him out) does not know the way. In that case, ( 29) is used in order to reassure the friend. As usual, the question here is: how is Osi able to reassure his friend? Recall that Osi's friend expresses doubt as to whether Osi knows the way or not. The friend's doubt is taken to mean that he will eventually interrupt his walk. And that is how he is led to pave the way for alterity in the notional domain <he-walk>. Let us recapitulate. Osi's friend's behaviour suggests that he might not go to the end of his walk. He thus introduces, though tentatively, alterity into the domain represented by <he-walk>. With kɔ, Osi asks his friend not to stop walking. Consequently, alterity is thrown out. In (30) to (32), we notice that ( 30) is an instruction to tell Osi to come (to call Osi). The speaker does not give any further information; no time limit, no limit regards his means of coming. And therefore, it is up to Osi to decide when to come and through what means.

If we add the reduplicative sequence kɪ ńà kɪ ńà 'now now' to mean 'immediately' as in (31) we understand that the need for Osi to come is urgent. The first mention of the word consists of introducing a representation of kina without supplementary operations. In that case, the word kɪ ńà can be understood in its broadest sense. The second use of kɪ ńà introduces a representative occurrence (or a representation par excellence) of the notional domain introduced by this word.

As we have previously seen (cf. example 12), a side-by-side positioning of the same word (the base and the reduplicant) signifies, in my analysis, that the occurrence without further specification is set as identifiable relative to the representative occurrence of the notional domain. The effect of the process is that the domain in question is deemed homogeneous, hence the reading 'report immediately i.e., a moment that is represented as not different from the moment of speech' as opposed to 'any other moment '. In (31), nothing is said of the very act of coming. Osi may hesitate between 'to come' and 'not to come'; he could also ask to know why he is asked to come, he could delay his coming, and so on. In (32), the verb contains -kɔ . This brings about a focus on when Osi should come i.e., immediately, not immediately, later. The element kɔ signifies that when the speaker says 'come', he means that this process has to be realized without hesitation or delay or any other act that could give the impression that the relation <Osi-come> is shaky, called into question or subjected to some kind of destabilization. In so doing, the element kɔ prevents alterity from being introduced into the domain <Osi-come>.

[Osi informs his mother that he wants to discuss something with his father but the mother suggests one of the following three things in (33) to ( 35 The thing with the three examples is that the process 'to eat' is constructed as an unfragmented whole. If Osi is left to speak with his father, he will eventually interrupt the process 'to eat'. Each sentence is meant to dissuade him from doing so. The verb suffix -k w o implies that the process 'to eat' will have to be realized in such a way that no part of it will be left over. He can then deduce that talking with his father can be envisaged only after 'to eat' will have been totally realized. The use of mme in (34) enables the speaker to overtly introduce the order in which the two processes will be realized: first, the process 'to eat' realized in toto; thereafter comes the process 'to talk with his father'.

The major difference in ( 35) is that 'to eat' will not only be realized in toto but also in such a way that there won't be any doubt as to whether it has been realized or not. To say that there won't be any doubt is to say that there is no room for alterity. Like in (33), the order in which the two processes are realized is implicit in (35).

Let us recapitulate. The injunctive construction introduces p and p′. With kɔ, the speaker privileges one value over the other. But that is all he can do because as long as the addressee has not chosen one value, the two remain possible.

Conclusion

The major aim of this paper has been to outline the invariant property of the sentence (final) particle kɔ. We find that it does occur in several kinds of sentences and sometimes in different positions of a sentence. The second aim has consisted in checking how this invariant property adapts to different contexts.

It turns out that the use of this morpheme requires that alterity be introduced, whether tentatively or effectively, into a notional domain representing an event, a state of affairs or a predicative relation. If such condition is satisfied then kɔ is introduced to reject the alterity thus introduced, as if for the speaker using it, the domain must remain intact.

More specifically, with the question, the speaker refers the domain, represented as p or p′, to someone else and asks the person to choose a value. The question itself does not constitute a relevant source of alterity. Rather, alterity is constantly introduced through an attempt aimed at dividing the domain. The marker kɔ rejects such alterity. In (4), for instance, the act of not asking for information concerning the children's mother is reinterpreted separating their mother from them. Hence the speaker asks about her. In so doing, he signifies that their mother is part and parcel of the class of people the speaker cares about.

In the negative construction, only the Exterior zone of a notional domain is introduced. However, the speaker senses that the value thus introduced is liable to denote a state of affairs that is not stabilised. Thus, in (11), it is reported that the subject of the process has refused apologies. The speaker suspects that the refusal could be regarded as a weak refusal. That is why he uses kɔ. This morpheme enables him to reject such a reading.

As for the interro-negative construction, the speaker introduces p′ only and calls on someone else to confirm it. The interesting thing here is that the starting point is p. So, we have the expected value on one side and then the speaker introduces p′ as a possibility. With the morpheme kɔ, he reverses the process because he assigns more weight to p′. In (18) for instance, the speaker asks his interlocutor to consider the relation <we-do not go> as the most likely one.

Alterity is mostly introduced through doubts in the affirmative construction. It can also be introduced through other means. In such cases, kɔ implies that there can be no doubt relative to a given value. This is the case in ( 21) and ( 23). And in the case of injunctive constructions, p and p′ are introduced. The speaker then uses kɔ to indicate that he privileges one value over the other. The whole process can be characterised as follows:

In a given situation or context, a notional domain associated with a predicative relationship or a state of affairs which in turn is a priori introduced without any reference to alterity, is reinterpreted as liable to contain alterity such that p is differentiated from p′. Kɔ marks that it is not possible to differentiate p from p′ and thus rejects alterity.

(

  11) ò k w ékɔ ̀ ò k w é-kɔ ̀ 3SG V.B.accept-SP.NEG S/he does not agree at all.

(

  15) m ̀ mákɔ m ʔá mé zèmé gbásɪ ŕʊ ́ bɛ , kárɪ ḱɔ ́ mé g w èrú ɔ ẁà ʔá mɔ ́ h w ʊ ̰̀ rʊ ̀ áB. know.NEG-1SG AGR how 1SG.CONTR FUT-V.B.do V.B.concern-STAB-DAT 3PLO I don't even know what (else) to do with them except that I should take things the way they are.

(

  19) mè k w érílê kɔ ́ mè k w érí-lê kɔ ́ 1SG V.B.accept-PFT NON AFF.NEG SP What if I bluntly refuse (what would you do in that case)?

(

  22) mà yá mà ńwe ̰̀ rè ǎ yá ʔá bó k w úkɔ ́ mà yá mà ńwe ̰̀ rè ǎ yá ʔá bó k w ú-kɔ ́ CONN 3SG.EMPH CONN wife 3SG.GEN 3SG.EMPH how 3PL V.B.speak-SP Both him and his wife, that's what they say all the time.

(

  24) ɔ ŕɔ ̀ kâ jìkɔ ́ tɩ m ɔ ŕɔ ̀ kè â jì-kɔ ́ tɩ m house CONN DEICT V.B.fill up-SP to the brim This house was full to the brim.

(

  25) m ̀ mákɔ m ʔá mé zèmé gbásɪ ŕʊ ́ bɛ ́ kárɪ ḱɔ ́ mé g w èrú ɔ ẁà ʔá mɔ ́ h w ʊ ̰̀ rʊ ̀ á. ká-rʊ ́-kɔ ́ [ká-rɪ -kɔ ] mé g w è-rú ɔ ẁà ʔá mɔ ́ h w ʊ ̰̀ rʊ ̀ á V.B.surpass-DAT-SP 1SG V.B.take-DAT world this way 1SG B.V.see-EFF 3SGO I don't know what to do with them, I only have to take the world as I see it (i.e. take things as they are).

  h w ʊ ̀yâkɔ ́ h w ɔ -yâ-kɔ ́ V.B.emerge-CTP.INJ-SP Just come with me.

  ):] (33) sétě, ó rɩ ḱw ó ꜜwɩ ŕɩ ́ sétě ó rɩ -k w ó ꜜwɩ ŕɩ ́ wait.INJ 3SG V.B.eat-finish.INJ food Wait, let him finish eating. (34) sétě, ó rɩ ḱw óḿmé ꜜwɩ ŕɩ ́ sétě ó rɩ -k w ó-ḿmé ꜜwɩ ŕɩ ́ wait.INJ 3SG V.B.eat-finish-first.INJ food Wait, let him first finish eating. (35) sétě, ó rɩ ḱw ókɔ ́ ꜜwɩ ŕɩ ́ sétě ó rɩ -k w ó-kɔ ́ ꜜwɩ ŕɩ ́ wait.INJ 3SG V.B.eat-finish-SP.INJ food Wait, let him finish eating.

  -PFT.NON-AFF SP You don't want to handle this girl with care, what (about) if she leaves you?

kà nʊ ́ ɪ ́ we ̰́ kɔ ̀ òhèrè kɛ m.

  (13) ɔ ̀ kà mà jɪ ̀ we ̰́ mákɔ̂ ìke ̰̀ byá ɔ hw ʊ ̰́ ńwɛ ̰́ ótù ɔ bɔ cɪ ̀ ǹhɛ ̰̀ ɪ ́ làrʊ ̀, má He said if you also had no energy to come and see him one day before you go back, I said that you don't have that chance. He asked me if you would find time to go and see him and I

	má	kà	nʊ ́	ɪ ́	we ̰́ kɔ ̀	òhèrè	kè	ɛ̂m
	1SG.EMPH B.V say CONN 2SG B.V have-SP	opportunity CONN DIST
	Lit.:

told him that you have no time to do that.

[

  Just imagine. I told him I was going to the hospital. His answer was:] (16) ɛ ʔɛ ̰̀ mó h w o ̰́ kɔ̂ ń ↓ wɛ ̰́ n'ɔ ́↓nʊ ́.

	ɛ ʔɛ ̰̀ mó	h w o ̰́ -kɔ̂	ńꜜwɛ ̰́	nʊ ́	ɔ ́↓nʊ ́
	no 1SG.EMPH V.B.mention-SP LOG	CONN	mouth
	I shouldn't mention his name at all.

  ) below.

	(18) à ze ̰́ nè kɔ ́
	à	ze ̰́ -nè	kɔ ́
	1PL V.B.go-PFT NON AFF.NEG SP
	What if we don't go at all (what would you do in that case)?

zíkɔ ́ ʔá mɔ ́ mʊ ̀rʊ ̀ ósì dʊ ́ ta ̰̀ álángá

  ǎ ba ̰́ lélê m ̀ ɛ hɪ̰ ǹhɛ̰ mó wùsì ézè ha ̰́ lě íkpè

	zí-kɔ ́	ʔá	mɔ ́	mʊ ̀rʊ ̀		ósì dʊ ́	ta ̰̀
	V.B.start-SP	how 1SG.EMPH V.B.give.birth.to-EFF	osi V.B.reach today
	álángá ǎ		ba ̰́ lélê	m ̀	ɛ hɪ̰
	needle 3SG.GEN	V.B.enter-ever

(23)

  A family is at table. They invite Wori to join them like this:] (27) A: wóꜜrɩ ́ byǎ érɩ ́ ńhɛ̰

	wóꜜrɩ ́ byǎ	érɩ ́	ńhɛ̰
	Wori	V.B.come.INJ	V.B.eat	thing
	Wori, come and eat.

[

  INJ V.B.tell-CONN Osi CONN 1SG V.B.say s/he V.B.come.INJ Come, go and tell Osi that I said that he should come. (31) zě kànʊ ́ ósɩ ̀ nʊ ́ má kà ɔ ́ byǎ kɪ ńà kɪ ńà .B.go.INJ V.B.tell-CONN Osi CONN 1SG V.B.say he V.B.-come.INJ now now (Come), go and tell Osi that I said that he should come right away. (32) byǎ, zě kànʊ ́ ósɩ ̀ nʊ ́ má kà ɔ ́ byàkɔ ́ kɪ ́nà kɪ ́nà .B.go.INJ V.B.tell-CONN Osi CONN 1SG V.B.say he V.B.come-INJ now now (Come), go and tell Osi that I said that he should come right away.

	(30) byǎ, zě kànʊ ́ ósɩ ̀ nʊ ́ má kà ɔ ́ byǎ byǎ, zě kànʊ ́ kà-nʊ ́ ósɩ ̀ come V.B.go.zě zě kà-nʊ ́ ósɩ ̀	ósɩ ̀ nʊ ́ nʊ ́	nʊ ́ má má	má kà kà	kà ɔ ́ ɔ ́	ɔ ́ byà byà-kɔ ́ byǎ	kɪ ńà kɪ ńà kɪ ńà kɪ ńà

VV

Abbreviations are provided at the end of this paper.

Russell (1956: 41) writes: "But, for my part, I come to think that many words and phrases have no significance in isolation, but only contribute to the significance of whole sentences. I have therefore ceased to hope to meet "if" and "or" and "not" in heaven". Culioli also writes: "Linguistic objects are either primitive or derived from a primitive object. Linguistic objects (whether primitive or constructed) only occur in relations: they never occur in isolation" (1990: 116).

Nevertheless, the moment it is a question whether rhetorical or not, the interlocutor can choose to answer. Take for instance: Question: Who cares? Answer: me. Question: Are you kidding me? Answer: Yes. Question: Is there anyone smarter than me? Answer: Yes, me.

It might be interesting to investigate in a typological perspective what kind of connection exists between this particle and the interjection 'ńkọ ́' in Yoruba in a construction like Bàbá rẹ ńkọ ́? 'What about your father'? Ó wà 'He is fine' (see[START_REF] Sachnine | Dictionnaire usuel Yoruba-français suivi d'un index français-yoruba[END_REF].

See Osu (2000a) for further discussion.

For further discussion see inter alia[START_REF] Horn | A natural history of negation[END_REF] and[START_REF] Progovac | Negative and positive polarity[END_REF].

Interested readers may seeNdimele (1995: 112).Ndimele (2004: 951-953) further argues while referring toEmenanjo (1985) that "tones play a very important role in negative constructions throughout Igboid." Ikwere provides further evidence in favour of Ndimele's assertion.

See Osu (2005: 403-436).

Abbreviations

1SG: 1 st person singular; 1SGO: 1 st person singular object; 2SG: 2 nd person singular; 2PL: 2 nd person plural; 3SG: 3 rd person singular; 3SGO: 3 rd person singular object; 3PL: 3 rd person plural; 3PLO: 3 rd person plural object; B.V.: verb base; AGR: agreement marker; AFF PFT: affirmative perfect; CTP: centripetal; CONN: connector; CONTR: contrastive; DAT: dative; DEICT: deictic; DIST: distal; EFF: effective, EMPH: emphatic; FUT: future; GEN: genitive; IDT: identification; INJ: injunctive; LOC.: localization; LOG: logophoric marker; NEG: negation; NON AFF: non affirmative form; PROG: progressive; REDUP: reduplicant; SP: sentence particle; STAB: stabiliser; STAT: stative marker.