Paul Okeke - University Of Nigeria Nsukka [PDF]

OLUSANMI BABARINDE

NASALISATION IN YORUBA: THE ONKO DIALECT PERSPECTIVE

THE DEPARTMENT OF LINGUISTICS, IGBO AND OTHER NIGERIAN LANGUAGES FACULTY OF ARTS

Digitally Signed by: Content manager’s Name

Paul Okeke

DN : CN = Webmaster’s name O= University of Nigeria, Nsukka OU = Innovation Centre

i

TITLE PAGE

NASALISATION IN YORUBA: THE ONKO DIALECT PERSPECTIVE

2

ii 3 CERTIFICATION Mr. Olusanmi Babarinde, a postgraduate student in the Department of Linguistics, Igbo and other Nigerian Languages, University of Nigeria, Nsukka, has satisfactorily completed the requirements necessary for the award of degree of Ph.D in Linguistics. The work embodied in this project report is original and has not been submitted in part or full for any diploma or degree of this or any other University.

____________________________ PROF. (MRS.) C. I. IKEKEONWU (SUPERVISOR)

___________________________ PROF. C. N. OKEBALAMA HEAD OF DEPARTMENT

____________________________________ PROF. F.O. OYEBADE EXTERNAL EXAMINER

iii 4 DEDICATION

TO

the apple of my eyes,

ENIọLA AJọKẸ ABIGAIL

my lovely daughter

and

my parents

who taught me to appreciate language.

iv

TONE MARKING COVENTIONS

High tone ( ́ ) Low tone ( ˋ ) Mid tone ( ˉ ) ‘always overtly left unmarked’

5

v

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ASP =

Autosegmental Phonology

CY

=

Central Yoruba

IAP

=

Initial Association Principle

IPA =

International Phonetic Alphabet

MSC =

Morpheme Structure Condition

NBU =

Nasal Bearing Unit

NWY =

Northwestern Yoruba

SEY =

Southeastern Yoruba

SPE

Sound Pattern of English

=

Son =

Sonorant

TBU =

Tone Bearing Unit

TG

=

Transformational Grammar

WFC =

Well Formedness Condition

6

vi 7 LIST OF PHONETIC SYMBOLS AND NOTATIONAL CONVENTIONS ε = j = k͡p = ʤ = ͻ = ʃ =

ẹ y p j ọ ṣ

Standard Yoruba ã ῦ ῖ ͻ̃ ε̃ ʃ

Onko Dialect = = = = = =

ε̃ ͻ̃ ῖ õ ẽ ʧ

˜

=

[]

= phonetic transcription

//

=

nasality

phonemic transcription

( ) =

parenthesis

V

=

vowel

C

=

consonant

Ø

=

becomes

=

in an environment of…

=

Deletion

vii 8

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS No one ever does a research ‘all by oneself’. Every researcher owes debts of gratitude to some people. This research work has come to be not through my ideas alone but because of many other people who gave of their time, talent, and ideas. It is my pleasant duty to express my profound gratitude to them. First and foremost, I am particularly grateful to my supervisor, Professor (Mrs.) Clara Ikekeonwu for reading through the work and making very insightful and revealing comments. Her diligent and excellent supervision can not be divorced from whatever merits this project achieves. May the Lord Jesus continue to strengthen you in your service to humanity professor. It is impossible to mention more than a fraction of those whose ideas I have drawn on over the years. In relation to this academic programme, I should like to acknowledge a special debt to members of the Departmental Postgraduate Board for very thoroughly working over the seminars and thesis proposal and commenting on them in such detail. I would particularly like to thank my respondents for their warm reception whenever I visited and for the attention given to me even at their inconvenience. May your children find favour in the sight of God and man. Grateful acknowledgement is also given to Dr. Gideon Omachonu. He has been involved throughout the work, as a friend and a constant source of encouragement (and of pressure when required). To my teachers at the University of Nigeria and the University of Ilorin such as Prof. Awobuluyi, Prof. Yiwola Awoyale, Prof. (Mrs.) C. I. Ikekeonwu, Prof. (Mrs.) G. I. Nwaozuzu. Prof. Inno U. Nwadike, Prof. C. N. Okebalama, Prof. Franny Oyebade,

9 viii Dr. Ore Yusuf, Dr. B. M. Mbah, Dr. (Mrs.) Okorji, Dr. Kris Agbedo, Mr. Anasiudu, Dr. Diipo Ajiboye, Dr. Peter Adesola, Dr. (Mrs) Mbah, Dr. E. S. Ikeokwu among others, your ideas have brought me this far. Thank you all. To my family, you are so wonderful. I am very grateful.

10 ix TABLE OF CONTENTS Title Page…………………………………………………………………………………..i Certification……………………………………………………………………………….ii Dedication………………………………………………………………………………...iii Tone Marking Convention………………………………………………………………..iv List of Abbreviations……………………………………………………………………...v List of Phonetic and Notational Conventions…………………………………………….vi Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………………vii Table of Contents…………………………………………………………………………ix Abstract………………………………………………………………………..………....xii

CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION 1.0

Background to the Study…………………………………………………………..1

1.1

Statement of the Problem………………………………………………………….4

1.2

Research Objectives……………………………………………………………….5

1.3

Research Questions………………………………………………………………..6

1.4

Significance of the Study………………………………………………………….6

1.5

Scope and Limitation………………………………………………………..…….8

1.6

Theoretical Framework……………………………………………………………8

CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW 2.0

Introduction…………………………………………………………………….…13

2.1

Theoretical Studies………………………………………………………………...15

2.2

Empirical Studies……………………………………………………………..…..30

2.3

Summary………………………………………………………...………………..54

11 x CHAPTER THREE RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 3.0

Introduction…………………………………………..……………………………55

3.1

Area of Study…………………………………………………………………...…55

3.2

Research Design…………………………………………………………………...56

3.3

Sampling Technique…………………………………………………………….....56

3.4

Selection of Respondents……………………………………………………….….57

3.5

Instrumentation…………………………………………………………………….57

3.6

Administration of Instrument………………………………………………………57

3.7

Method of Data Collection…………………………………………………………58

3.8

Method of Data Analysis…………………………………………………………..58

CHAPTER FOUR DATA PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS 4.0

Introduction...………………………………………………………………..…..59

4.1

Onko Dialect Nasalization: Data Presentation…………………………………...60

4.2

4.1.1

Words with Prefixes……………………………………………..……….60

4.1.2

Disyllabic Phrases without Prefixes…………………………...…………60

4.1.3

Disyllabic Words with Prefixes…………………………………….……61

Data Analysis……………………………………………………………….……61 4.2.1

Analysis of Words with Prefixes……………………………………...…61

4.2.2

Analysis of Phrases without Prefixes…………………………………….65

4.2.3

Analysis of Disyllabic Words with Prefixes……………………………..72

4.2.4

Nasal Stability……………………………………………………..……..76

4.2.5 Denasalization Under Deletion……………………………………...……80

4.3

4.2.6

Nasal Effacement in Onko………………………………………...……..85

4.2.7

Nasalization of e/o…………………………………………………...…..85

Autosegmental Account of Words with Multiple Nasalized Sounds………..….87

12 xi CHAPTER FIVE Summary of Findings and Conclusion…………………………………...………98 REFERENCES…………..…………………………………….………………102 Appendix A……………………………………………………………….……111 Appendix B………………………………………………………...…………..114 Appendix C………………………………………………………...…………..115

13 xii ABSTRACT This research work examines nasalization in Yoruba with particular reference to Onko dialect of the language. Nasalization in Onko is pervasive by virtue of nasal vocal quality to the extent that it has become an identification mark of any native speaker amidst speakers of other dialects of Yoruba. This is because nasality is realised on virtually all the segments in the dialect as may be noticed when one listens perceptively to a speaker during a speech event. There has neither been any rigorous research work of any kind on Onko generally nor has any indepth study done in this dialect using the non-linear approach. As such, autosegmental phonological framework was used in the analysis of nasalization in Onko. We used the Ibadan 400 List of Basic Words and unstructured oral interview method to elicit data from the native speakers of Onko. Random sampling method was used in the selection of respondents. Respondents were selected using based on their occupation. For data analysis, we adopted non-linear method of phonological analysis which is in consonance with the theories used in the research. From the analysis, the following findings were made: apart from the fact that nasalized vowels were found word initially as against their restriction to medial and final positions in standard Yoruba, vowels /e/ and /o/ earlier found incompatible with nasalization in the New Benue-Congo languages were among the five nasalized vowels in Onko. Similarly, denasalization often realized through deletion in standard Yoruba is non-existent in Onko. Besides, the direction of nasality spread which was interestingly bidirectional was accounted for by the location of the consonants which were susceptible to nasalization within a syllable as long as such consonants were not blocked by plosives or affricates. The domain of nasalization is the syllable. In addition, it is discovered that the nasalized vowels could be found word initially in the dialect as against what obtains in the standard variety of the Yoruba language. Through the bidirectional nasality spreading and a dual process of copying and spreading, we were able to account for how nasality could be derived from words having more than one nasalized sound. Suffice it to say here that the adoption of the autosegmental phonology enables us to give an objective analysis of nasality and nasalization in the Onko dialect of Yoruba. Judging from the data presented and the accompanying explicit analyses, the work indeed achieved its stated objectives by providing convincing answers to the research questions raised.

14 CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION 1.0 Background to the Study The subject of language according to Crystal (1982) has justifiably constituted an object of fascination and a subject of serious enquiry among scholars and researchers for years because of its functional dynamics. What Crystal implies from the foregoing is that the complexity of language can not be captured by a single definition; otherwise, one can very easily fall into the trap of thinking that we know all about it. But there is much more than we think. Though all speakers of a certain language can talk to each other and understand one another, yet no two speakers speak exactly alike. Beyond these individual differences, the dialect of a group of people often shows some systematic differences from that used by other groups. Speaking to one another is so much part of normal life that they often seem unremarkable. Yet, as in any scientific field, the curious investigator finds rich complexity beneath the surface. During speech event, the standard variety of the Yoruba language will invariably depict the Onko (Oke-Ogun) speaker’s version as deviating from the rule of the standard variety. Universality of language notwithstanding, generative linguists believe that some aspects of language are not universal. It is against this backdrop that this work seeks to bring to light some salient phonological attributes like nasality and nasalization process, and their manifestation in the speech pattern of Onko speakers of the Yoruba language. A language is composed of its dialects. Oyelaran (1978) and Adetugbo (1967 and 1982) made an important contribution to the dialectology of Yoruba. They both used sociological and linguistic evidence to classify Yoruba dialects into three major linguistic

15 groups viz: Northwestern Yoruba (NWY), Southeastern Yoruba (SEY) and Central Yoruba (CY). By their classification, the Onko (Oke-Ogun) dialect is classified as Northern part and the dialect is spoken in well over ten speech communities like Saki, Okeho, Iganna, Tede, Sepeteri, Ago-Are, Irawo, Igboho, Ago-Amodu and Iseyin all in Oyo state. Oyetade (1995) notes that the whole area of Oyo north division should constitute a linguistically homogeneous area because of certain peculiarities. For instance, the area is characterized by a peculiar nasalization. The [ã] and [ũ] forms in other areas of Southwestern and Central Yoruba correspond with [ε̃] and [ͻ̃] respectively as: nnkã kã

nnkε̃ kε̃ ‘something’

nãã

nε̃ε̃ ‘the’

dũ

dͻ̃

‘tasty’

rũ

rͻ̃

‘to smell’

Beside nasalization, there is the presence of the voiceless palato-alveolar affricate [ʧ ] in the speech of the people from these areas unlike in other areas: iʃέ

iʧέ ‘work’

ʃe

ʧe ‘to do’

Every speaker unconsciously has some knowledge of the sound pattern of his language. Fromkin and Rodman (1981) say it is the phonological knowledge of a speaker that enables him to produce meaningful sounds of his language and to recognize immediately the different phonetic sounds or strings of sounds that do not and cannot form any meaningful unit in his language; it further allows them to appreciate that there is a difference between the function of sounds of their language and other languages.

16 However, there has neither been any rigorous research work of any kind on Onko generally nor any indepth study done on this dialect using the non-linear approach. Using autosegmental phonological (a non-linear approach) is advantageous in accounting for the nasalization in Onko because it shows explicitly how nasality is realized and spread to other vocalic and transparent consonantal segments. Autosegmental phonology reveals clearly the domain of nasality and when/how its spread can be blocked. Additionally, adopting a linear approach would not do justice to the phenomena of nasality stability and relinking in Onko since any phonological model which adopts a linear approach treats speech as only a linear sequence of individual segment with arrays of phonological processes taking place at a one single level. Such linear approach is grossly inadequate to analyse nasalization as a phonological process. Nasalization may be a general property of speech according to Clark et al (2007), for reasons of individual articulatory habit, or dialect type. Following this insight, it is perceived that nasalization in Onko is pervasive to the extent that it has become a badge/identity of some sort in identifying any native speaker amidst speakers of other dialects of Yoruba. This is because nasality seems to be realized on almost all the segments in the dialect as may be noticed when one listens perceptively to a speaker at any speech situation. The speech situation in Onko is aptly captured by the term ‘nasal twang’ being first used by Abercrombie (1967). According to him, it is the result of keeping the velum lowered almost all the time one is speaking. This nasal voice quality, according to him, could be an institutionalized feature common to a group of speakers. There is no doubt that a special voice quality is recognizable as characteristic of certain languages or dialects. The term voice quality refers to those characteristics which feature

17 more when a person is talking: it is a quasi-permanent quality running through all the sound segments that issue from his mouth. These characteristics do, naturally, include some that have their origin in the anatomy of the larynx. Hyman (1985) proposes that we should regard nasality as an autosegment capable of being mapped unto a lexical morpheme or stem. Within the autosegmental model, the occurrence of a particular feature on one tier does not preclude it from occurring on another tier. A particular feature may appear on different tiers within phonological representation, and since the tiers are independent of one another, what affects the feature on one tier may not affect it on another tier. The autosegmental theory is used in accounting for the phenomenon of nasality in Onko. This is because these theoretical models represent a considerable advancement over the limited strength of generative phonology (SPE) apparatus, and they equally have certain salient empirical advantages, hence their relevance in nasalization in Onko.

1.1 Statement of the Problem There is not much variation in the nasal manifestation in the various Onko dialect speech communities speaking Onko (Oke-Ogun) dialect speech comm. The nature of nasalized vowels in the dialect further makes the nasalization in the dialect more interesting. Unless one listens very perceptively, one may find it quite difficult to distinguish between oral and nasalized vowels as it appears to be that there is no single utterance in the speech of any speaker of this dialect that does not somehow exhibit some trace of nasality. The foregoing inspires the desire to make a linguistic inquiry into what/which linguistic feature, possibly phonological, account for this seemingly rare and

18 unique phenomenon in all its manifestations. Since linguistics is an empirical science which does not rely on assumption, there is the need for thorough inquiry into the analysis of intricacies of nasalization in the Onko dialect leaning on theoretical framework of autosegmental theory. Some of the principles of autosegmental phonology are about an attempt to supply a more adequate understanding of the phonetic side of the linguistic representation. The autosegmental theory is a non-linear approach. It is a theory of suprasegmental representation, hence its appropriateness in accounting for issues that border on nasalization.

1.2 Research Objectives The goal of the theoretical study of a language is the construction of a grammar. Therefore, among the objectives of this study is that after a careful examination of nasalization in the said dialect, it is considered essential that readers should be able to evaluate critically the factual claims about nasality in the Yoruba language with particular reference to Onko dialect. The foregoing notwithstanding, the main objective of this work is to do an indepth analysis of nasalization in Onko dialect within the scope of autosegmental theory. Specifically, however, the objectives are to: (i)

present areas of differences between nasalization in the standard Yoruba and Onko dialect;

(ii)

account for the autosegmental analysis of nasalization in Onko dialect;

(iii)

account for nasality spread in Onko dialect;

19 (iv)

explain how nasality is derived on lexical items with more than one nasalized sound;

(v)

1.3

explain the realization of denasalization and nasal effacement in Onko dialect.

Research Questions To achieve the set objectives, the following leading questions shall be answered.

This will certainly go a long way in making the task of this research work worthwhile: (i)

To what extent does nasalization in Onko differ from that of the standard Yoruba?

(ii)

To what extent does autosegmental phonology capture the process of nasalization in Onko dialect?

(iii)

How can the nasality spread be objectively explained in Onko?

(iv)

How do we derive nasality on lexical items that have more than one nasalized sound?

(v)

1.4

To what extent are denasalisation and nasal effacement realizable in Onko?

Significance of the Study This study is aimed at extending the problem-solving capacity of autosegmental

phonology to analyzing nasalization; and also to reveal how traces of nasality perceived on every utterance could be explained using the theory. This research however is important especially when one considers the significant role that phonological investigation plays in the study and understanding of language. It is this aspect of linguistic study that analyzes the speech activities which go on in

20 everyday speaking, resolving the integrated speech complexity into its different aspects, breaking down the overall activity into its component details, explaining how the deceptive simplicity of everyday (speech) is achieved. This work will undoubtedly bring to light some unnoticed phonological treasures embedded in the Onko dialect for the overall update of available data in the Yoruba language thereby expanding the scope of the language theoretically. Besides, a study such as this will hopefully repair some of the damage that may have been done in languageteaching situation, through its objective descriptive analysis of issues. The study will equally reveal to us the changes that are taking place in language from area to area and among different categories of speakers of the language. Additionally, a proper understanding of nasalization in the Yoruba language may not only add to our insights about nasalization in the language but also to our understanding on nasalization as a general linguistic phenomenon. It is therefore not an overstatement that findings in this study will have implications for theoretical matters such as the nature of language itself, language learning and language-using abilities of human beings. Moreover, the study will contribute immensely to the formulation of theories in the study of Nigerian languages more so that these languages have revealed a lot about the phenomenon of language as human specific attribute. Furthermore, this kind of research work will or may serve as a point of reference to other researchers or students who may perhaps pick interest in this area of linguistic investigation for the purpose of filling some gap in their knowledge.

21 1.5

Scope and Limitation This research work focuses on nasalization in the Yoruba language with particular

reference to Onko (Oke-Ogun) dialect using the autosegmental framework. Topical issues to be examined in this regard include an explicit analysis of nasalization as a concept, its manifestation in Onko dialect with a view to revealing those salient attributes that account for the perceived nasality in almost every utterance in the speech community. The work gives an analysis of the orientation, assumption and strength of autosegmental framework in the objective analysis of nasalization. The work equally explored the phonological processes like elision and assimilation for their great insight and input to nasalization process.

Had our primary concern been the Yoruba

phonology, we would have investigated some other aspects of phonology such as tone and syllable structure in a considerable detail for their theoretical importance to the work. Their exclusion, however, is essentially because this work limits itself to a particular phonological phenomenon within the study area. We equally felt that incorporating those other complex aspects here would unnecessarily over-labour this work since they can not be effectively handled at least to avoid haphazard analysis. Time equally poses some constraints during the course of the study.

1.6

Theoretical Framework Autosegmental

Phonology

is

a

theory

of

non-linear

phonological

representation. It was developed out of research in Generative Phonology at MIT in the mid and late 1970s, as a response to certain problems in the phonological theory of that

22 time. Autosegmental phonology was initially developed in response to the challenge of developing an adequate theory of tone. Its immediate source of inspiration was the work of Williams 1971 and Leben 1973; these were the first to introduce non-linear structures into generative phonology in their treatments of tone systems in West African languages such as Margi, Igbo and Mende. Autosegmental Phonology received its name from the doctoral thesis of John Goldsmith in 1976 in his work entitled Autosegmental Phonology. According to Goldsmith, the Autosegmental phonology arose out of certain inadequacies of the SPE model that were brought to light explicitly and implicitly by William’s (1971) and Leben’s (1973) work. The most glaring problem was the nature of ‘contour-toned’ vowels – that is, vowels whose surface tone is rising or falling, a situation that can often be shown to be the result of a concatenation of Low and High level tones. How can a single segment bear or carry two tonal specifications in sequence? The principal innovation of autosegmental phonology, as presented in Goldsmith 1976, was the idea that tone mapping rules do not merge tonal and segmental representations, but associate their elements by means of formal entities known as Association Lines. In this framework, phonological representations consist of parallel tiers of phonological segments, both tonal and segmental. Goldsmith made suggestions on modifications of the theory of generative phonology with the introduction of parallel tiers of segments or autosegments to solve some formal problems in the current theory (generative phonology). To show the effectiveness of the theory, a detailed analysis of Igbo, a tone language, is used to show that phonological representations are no longer seen as simple rows of segments, with

23 arrays of phonological processes taking place at one single level. Rather, phonological representations are seen as arrays of items organized on different tiers. Goldsmith’s understanding of what he refers to as ‘absolute slicing hypothesis’ led him to what he describes as a multilinear phonological analysis in which different features may be placed on separate tiers. The tiers are connected to each other by association lines which allow for the fact that there may not always be a neat one-to-one mapping between tiers. The lines provide flexible way of associating autosegment with segmental feature such that the autosegment is not swallowed up within a strictly segmental notation. The notion of tiers is reminiscent of Firthian prosodic phonology. It is also found in CV phonology of Kahn (1980) on syllabic organization and McCarthy on Semitic languages (McCarthy 1981). Some of the principles of autosegmental phonology are about an attempt to supply a more adequate understanding of the phonetic side of the linguistic representation. Viewed in this light, it is a framework which aims at the same logical level as the idea that phonetic representation is a linear sequence of atomic units – which could be called segments; it is at the same level the proclamation that these atomic units are crossclassified by distinctive features. Autosegmental phonology is a particular claim, then, about the geometry of phonetic representations; it suggests that the phonetic representation is composed of a set of several simultaneous sequences of these segments, with certain elementary constraints on how the various levels of sequences can be interrelated or associated. Autosegmental framework is known for the analysis of tone, like Goldsmith himself remarks that the system of analysis was originally suited to fit the intricacies of

24 African tone languages (Goldsmith, 1979). Various papers developing the autosegmental perspective (Clement 1977, 1981, 1984, 1985) show how similar notation can be applied to other phenomena like vowel harmony and nasality where their spread across segmental boundaries can be treated analogously. Nasality has a special feature in Onko. It is one of the phonological features of the Onko dialect. The work examines the process of nasalization in Onko. It claims that nasality is most insightfully captured within the autosegmental framework given its principles and its efficiencies as regards topical issues like stability, re-linking, spreading, deletion and effacement. All these can most conveniently be captured within this chosen framework. It also provides further evidence for the segmentalization of the feature (Nasal) onto a separate autosegmental tier, independent of other segmental features. The arrival of autosegmental theory has reduced the dependence on the rules in describing the phonological structure due to their advancement on SPE model coupled with the objective and explicit account of suprasegmentals which were earlier haphazardly handled in SPE. Being a theory of suprasegmental representations, there is a good reason to agree that autosegmental theory is more adequate in analyzing nasalization. Not only because the goal of autosegmental phonology according to Goldsmith (1990) is to formulate general principles of phonological descriptions which can be sufficiently applied to a greater number of languages but its use especially in this work objectively accounts for the detailed analysis of nasality as a phonological feature and nasalization process in Onko speech dialect beyond what a linear approach such as SPE can explicitly explain. For example, the use of autosegmental phonology throws

25 more light on the nasality spread, nasality stability and nasality re-linking. All these attributes of nasality could not be handled using linear approach.

26 CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW 2.0

Introduction A nasal consonant is a type of consonant segment which like a stop, is produced by

a stricture of complete closure; a nasal segment however, unlike a stop, has no simultaneous velic closure. The airstream, therefore, though prevented from passing through the mouth, is not dammed up; it is entirely diverted through the nose. We refer to nasalization as a phenomenon which arises when a sound (oral) is pronounced with some degree of nasality. One result of autosegmental phonology according to Clements (1997) is to provide an avenue that allowed linguists to express their insights in a revealing way. An example of this is how autosegmental phonology brought an illuminating approach for expressing views field researchers had about tone, for example, the representation of tone spreading. In the Aghem language, a prefixal high tone (H) spreads onto a following low tone (L) root, thereby creating a HL falling tone: [é-zû] ‘to skin

/é-zù/

In pre-autosegmental phonology, Hyman and Schuh (1974) express such a rule roughly as: H

L

H

H͡ L

Goldsmith’s (1976) autosegemental representation, on the other hand, is shown

below:

27 V

C

H

V

L

Goldsmith’s representation clearly indicates that there is a single H feature involved in tone spreading, Hyman and Schuh’s formulation implies that a H feature is being copied onto the following vowel as in the SPE generative model’s conception of assimilation. Comparatively, there is no gain saying that the application of autosegmental theory has some explanatory force over and above the SPE generative model. For one, it shows convincingly how to account for the tone spreading in Aghem.

2.1

Theoretical Studies

The linguist’s concern with all languages and dialects derives from the proclaimed aim of his subject: the construction of a scientific theory of the structure of human language. Theory is the backbone of any academic inquiry. Phonological theories have contributed a lot to the development of the study of African languages. Some phonological issues in African languages like tone, nasalization, vowel harmony to mention but a few have provided grist for theoretical mills showing how theories benefit the study of languages by leading to more insightful discoveries. However, linguistic theory has provided part of the training necessary to do good work. In the most successful situation, the result has been a give-and-take between theory and description; and between general and African Linguistics. Considering what the potential contribution of linguistic theory should be to language specific work, Steel and

28 Threadgold (1987) note that theory serves both as a guide to discovery and as a tool for expressing insights. That is, it can deal with the unknown as well as the known phonological issues. In other words, a theory can help direct the research towards important discoveries. It might lead us to ask questions we might not have otherwise asked and data we might otherwise not have considered. In addition, theoretical awareness can help the researcher see connections that might otherwise not be made, as well as pinpointing problems that might have been overlooked. A particularly clear example of this is how autosegmenal phonological theory provide an explicit framework for expressing intuitions about nasalization. Language structure is amenable to three different levels. These are: sound level (phonetics and phonology), form and structure level (morphology and syntax), and meaning level (semantics). The study of the substance of sound is, therefore, of more central concern to the phonologist than is the investigation of graphic substance. Language, according to Radford (1981), at every level of organization, is highly structured in a highly complex and highly systematic way. However, in a very general term, we will see that the analysis of human language at each structural level is stated in terms of: (i)

a set of discrete units of some sort, and

(ii)

rules combining those units. Interest in pronunciation is far older than the pursuit of phonetics and phonology

as academic subjects. Several centuries before Christ, Indian scholars were devoting themselves to the description of Sanskrit and achieving remarkable accuracy in articulatory phonetics. Although their primary concern seems to have been to maintain

29 the correct pronunciation of what was already becoming a classical language, their observations about points and manners of articulation and other aspect of pronunciation reveal an interest that qualifies as scientific in the best sense of the term (Allen 1953). Phonology according to Oyebade (1998) is the scientific study of the arbitrary vocal symbols used by man in speech for communication and systems by which vocal sounds produce intelligent and meaningful utterances. Ikekeonwu (1996) observes that for some the practice of phonology has revealed important variations. We have shifted from classical phonology to generative, and from classical generative period to some more recent autosegmental phonology, metrical phonology, prosodic phonology and optimality theory. Each of these theories, on the basis of evidence from different languages has modified, redefined and clarified issues on our understanding and description of language. The foregoing knowledge of the aim of phonology led to its maiden theoretical orientation of the scientific analysis of speech sounds which was prominent in the 1920’s to the mid 1960’s. In line with Sommerstein’s (1977) submission, this orientation seeks to answer these questions: “what phonic features (a) serve in the language under investigation, or (b) are capable of serving in natural language, to distinguish one utterance from another’’. Phoneme has been defined variously by many scholars like Daniel Jones (1967) who sees phoneme as a family of sounds in a given language which are related in character and are used in such a way that no member ever occurs in a word in the same phonetic context as

30 any other member without bringing about semantic change. This class of phonemes will have as members a group of allophones that appear in complementary distribution based on one phonetic distribution or another. The above phonemic account, notes Lightner (1980), stems from the insights and orientation of a school of linguists called structuralists. Their model is also rather referred to as taxonomic grammar because of its crucial emphasis on classification of sounds into families of phonemes and their allophones and stating their distribution. One of the ironic tenets of classical phonemics is the biuniqueness principle. This principle, according to Bybee (2001) insists that once a sound has been identified as a phoneme in a language, it can not later be said to be an allophone in that language. This condition has created a lot of problems. For example, the sounds [s] and [k] can be established as phonemes in English since they occur in minimal pairs ([sIk]: [kIk] ‘sick, kick’). However, in some environment they may be described as variants of the same phoneme: [kritik]

‘critic’

[krItIsIzәm]

‘criticism’

It can be argued that criticism is derived from the collection of two morphemes [kritik] and [-Izәm]. This is not an isolated case as the same thing occurs in such pairs of words as ‘fanatic: fanaticism’ electric: electricity: if the two sounds [k] and [s] occur in complementary distribution such that one can predict the environment in which each occurs, then [k] and [s] must be considered allophones of the same phoneme. However, the two sounds had earlier been established as discrete phonemes in the same English language. This proposal, of course violates the be-uniqueness principle. Oyebade (1998)

31 notes that classical phonemics avoided this problem by regarding the level at which [k] and [s] are in mutually exclusive environment as the morphophonemic level and not the phonemic level which the bi-uniqueness condition adopts. This problem made Morris Halle and other generative phonologists to feel that maintaining the bi-uniqueness condition will lead to establishing an artificial separation of levels into phonemic and morphophonemic which has no empirical basis for actual language. They contended that an ideal theory of phonology must not only explain the type of issue above but also account for other revealing phenomena about language. They rejected bi-uniqueness condition and suggested that phonemic analysis be carried out that will be faithful to the data by stating when a sound acts like a phoneme and when the same sound is a variant form in another instance. This position was called systematic phonemic position. Another point of modification was in terms of what the smallest level of phonemic analysis should be. Taxonomic phonemics considered the sound as the minimal unit of phonemic analysis. One of the major flaws in such position, according to Langacker (1972), is the fact that it ignores a crucial linguistic fact that pairs of sounds are different from each other in different ways. For instance, the minimal pairs ‘glow: grow’ and ‘pit: bit’ in English differ in terms of a pair of sound each [I]: [r] and [p]: [b]. However, the fact that the difference between the first pair and the second pair is not the same is ignored. The difference can not be captured if only the sound is seen as the minimal unit of phonemic analysis. Inadequacies such as these and lots more led to the proposal for major modifications to the phonemic principle of classical phonemics. These modifications had significantly led to the formulation of a new theoretical framework with different

32 orientation and goals. This framework was called Transformational Generative Phonology. According to Oyebade (1998), classical phonemics could not do justice to the phenomenon of speech. Rather, the model only attempts the phenomenon slightly leaving the entire bulk of empirically interesting puzzles unsolved. Riemsdijk (1985) notes that the development and characteristics of generative grammar also include a theory of sound structure or phonology. Chomsky and Halle (1968) observe that a universal grammar is a system of conditions that characterize any human language. Generative phonology is a theory which builds on the insights of taxonomic phonemics even while remodeling the focus of phonological analysis. It was given its full status in Chomsky and Halle’s book entitled The Sound Pattern of English (SPE) in 1968. It is a part of theory of language called generative grammar. For Ikekeonwu, (1996), the theory is the introduction of a new framework to phonological theory and analysis whose goal is to explore and further understand the nature of linguistic knowledge. Yul-Ifode (1998) asserts that generative phonology belongs to a new school of linguistics - Transformational Generative Theory (TG). This theory focuses on the linguistic competence, in which the underlying representations are converted into surface representations by the application of rules. The major motivation for this theoretical framework was the clash between theoretical assumption and linguistic data under theory of classical phonemics. This theoretical model according to Chomsky and Halle (1968) sees speech as sequences of discrete segments that are complexes of a particular set of phonetic features, and that the simultaneous and sequential combinations of these features are subject to a specific constraint. This framework characterizes the utterance as a bundle of unordered features arranged in an ordered sequence. Goldsmith (1976) refers to

33 this as the absolute slicing hypothesis. According to him, this is the claim that speech can be exhaustively sliced into segments which consist of unordered bundles of features which are linearly ordered. For instance, the English word ‘cat’ is made up of the segments k-æ-t and these segments in turn are made up of the features: k = voiceless, plosive æ = low, front, unrounded vowel t = voiceless, alveolar plosive The utterance can be represented in the following ways:

æ

k voiceless velar plosive

t

low

voiceless

front

alveolar

unrounded

plosive

vowel

The features are unordered in that any of the features for each sound segment can be first written without any restriction:

k

æ

plosive

low

voiceless

unrounded

velar

vowel front

t alveolar plosive voiceless

34 However, if the sequence is restructured in a way that the bundle of features for [t] is followed by [æ] and finally by [k], the output will surely yield another word different from ‘cat’. This, then, justifies why the sequence is so unordered. So, features are a significant part of SPE generative model. These features must be distinctive and must be specifiable phonetically. This is to say that any feature proposed as linguistically distinctive must be relatable to the way the sound {or class of sounds} to which it is referred is produced. Brame (1974) adds that this is an important check on the porosity of feature because generative phonologists argue that all human languages draw from a pool of highly limited number of features in the construction of their sound systems. This phonetic specifiability of the distinctive features must be able to distinguish between any two phonetically related sounds. Morphemic relevance is yet another condition for the distinctive feature. By this, the acceptable features must be functionally relevant in one language or the other. The main preoccupation of the SPE model was, according to Katamaba (1986), with rules that modify feature specifications in various ways; with the manners in which rules mapping deep (or underlying) onto surface representations relate and with the extent to which underlying surface representations may differ from surface representations. Ikekeonwu (1996) submits that in generative phonology, the emphasis is shifted from identifying the phonic properties that bring about contrast in different languages to describing those phonic elements that may be used distinctively across languages. She points out that generative phonology appears with two levels of analysis – the surface level or systematic phonemic level and the underlying or systematic phonetic level. Whereas the underlying level captures the details of pronunciation of segments and their modifications whether or not they are distinctive, the surface level contains all the

35 distinctive segments and whatever modifications that are non-distinctive. The two levels are related. The surface level is derived from the underlying through phonological rules. However, the age-long general opinion among phonology scholars was that phonological

representations

consist

of

both

segmental

and

suprasegmental

representations. The former were taken to be made up of consonant and vowel sounds as well as empty segments which are referred to as syllable, morpheme, word Katamba (1989) and Dinnsen (1976). In the SPE generative phonology, it was held that some phonological phenomena like tone, vowel harmony, stress, nasalization were superimposed on the segmental layer. Then, both segmental and suprasegmental elements were thought to be organized in a row one after the other. And, for a long time in phonological history, the validity of the assumption that phonological representations consist of linear segmental and suprasegmental layers was overlooked. Generative phonology, notes Fudge (1973) characterizes the utterance as bundles of unordered features that were organized in an ordered pattern. But the effect of this description is that all of the articulatory and acoustic signals that represent an utterance are organized in linear order. So, Goldsmith (1976) notes that ever since segments have been part of phonology, there have been phonological phenomena that transcend segmental classification or description and as a result there have been suprasegmentals. Besides, the question of how two levels of segmental and suprasegmentals got related to each other never occurred to anyone or probably was lackadaisically treated. Due to all these cloudy and unsettled phonological issues, in the 1970’s a number of studies and researches centered on the connection between segmental and suprasegmental representations. The outcome of such inquiries showed that the

36 assumptions that SPE phonological model was based on were rather shady and questionable. Katamba (1989) notes that such inadequacies first occurred in the discussion of tonal representation. An important question which was brought up was whether features of tone like [high], [low] should be seen as features attributable to vowel, in the same token [front] or [rounded] are seen as vowel features. Or, should we regard tonal features as distinct from the segmental representation of vowel? Furthermore, should tone still be indicated with the conventional marks of ( ̀ - ʹ ) for high, mid and low tones respectively in order to show its (tone) status? These and more were the findings of various studies undertaken by phonologists. So, it was observed that the SPE generative theory and even the structuralist phonological theory before it were not right in assuming that phonological representations are linear especially with regard to sound segments some of which bear suprasegmental properties arranged in a neat sequence. The generative phonology model that seeks to analyze the suprasegmentals (that is, those phonological features that transcend beyond segmental level like tone, stress, nasalization, vowel harmony) has been labeled a non-linear generative phonology theory. Hyman (1975) observes that the issue of whether certain phonological phenomena should be analysed segmentally or suprasegmentally has been a major issue to the generative phonologists. Infact, some of the main issues in phonological model have been argued on the basis of suprasegmental phenomena. The term suprasegmental according to Hawkins (1984), is used to refer to both phonological and grammatical units larger than the segment. Phonological suprasegmentals are those which are defined in terms of the sound segments of which they are comprised. To the above observation raised by Hyman,

37 Goldsmith (1976) proposed some revealing answers. He said the division of the speech continuum into segments may proceed in different ways in different languages. Buttressing this proposal, he cites an instance of nasalization which is usually a feature of nasal consonants only, still in some languages it can be a property of the syllable or even the word as a whole. Ikekeonweu (1996) notes that a tone may not necessarily apply to a single segment. It may apply to a whole syllable or to sequence of two or more segments. It then becomes rather difficult to “slice out’ a segment, as it were, and tie down the tone to it, just as distinctive features are specified under the affected segment. Also, the rate of vibration of the vocal cords which determines the pitch of a sound can be a property of an individual segment, of a syllable or even an entire word. According to Katamba (1989) a central claim of the new framework formulated by Goldsmith is that, in the deep sense of it, the various articulatory criteria like aspiration, nasalization and tones are autonomous and the articulation that result from them are, in principle, independent. In an SPE inspired model, a word like ‘mad’ would be represented as: + cons

–cons

+ cons

+nas

-nas

- nas

+lab

-lab

- lab

-cont

+cont

- cont

- cor

- cor

+ cor

m

æ

d

While the assignment of the various features to discrete segments above might look plausible, the same procedure could not be extended to the feature [+ voice] in this word since [+ voice] is a property of the entire word. Nor could it be extended to the

38 analysis of pitch here because it too could not be vertically sliced and allocated to a single segment, without any leakage into adjacent segments. This evidence, according to Lehiste (1970), undermines the fundamental claim of the slicing hypothesis. Infact, segmental features can often extend over more than one segment. In autosegmental phonology, notes Clements (1976) phonological representations are no longer seen as simple rows of segments, with arrays of phonological processes taking place at one single level. Rather, phonological representations are seen as arrays of items organized on different levels or tiers using association lines which link items on different tiers. Leben (1973) in a work entitled Suprasegmental Phonology notes the problem inherent in the use of the SPE approach to account for features that transcend individual segments. SPE cannot handle these features because it adopts a linear method. One of the major functions of phonological theory is to establish the languagespecific features as well as universal principles with the linking of these autonomous parameters. Autosegmental phonology is a name intended to highlight the fact that potential autonomy of the various phonological parameters is taken as significant. The aim of autosegmental phonology is to deal with the consequences of generative phonology of multi-linear phonological analysis and representation. That is we let go of the assumption that phonological and phonetic representations consist of a single string of segments. Instead we set up underlying and surface forms consisting of parallel strings of segments arranged in two or more tiers. Features are distributed over the various tiers in the sense that no feature may appear on more than one tier. The earliest model of autosegmental phonology focused on the relationship between tones and segmental properties. According to Harris (1985), this accounts for the reason why the earliest

39 models were represented in terms of tonal tier and segmental tiers. Non-linear phonology assumes that the features that represent each sound in an utterance are situated on different independent autosegmental tiers. These independent layers are connected together by a universal convention called Well- Formedness Condition (WFC). These constraints were severally modified between 1976 and 1990. Eventually, it was agreed that the association convention that links different tiers together can be stated thus according to Durand (1990): (a)

Mapping: Associate vowels with tones in a one-to-one correspondence from left to right until we exhaust tones or vowels.

(b)

Dumping: If after mapping some tones are left free or unassociated, link them to the last vowel which are still free,

(c)

Association lines are not allowed to cross.

This could be illustrated with the sketch below: L

L

ε

am

ε

L

H

L

ea Ø

e

L

a

L H

mε

L

e

L

өa

The convention could add or delete association lines as appropriate at any particular point in time during derivation. For instance, in the above sketch, a tone-bearing segment is deleted but the high tone on it remains stable and then re-links to the succeeding vowel to the right. This further justifies the principle of autosegmental phonology that what affects

40 the segmental tier does not affect the tonal tier since each tier is independent of the other. Besides, the function of WFC according to Goldsmith (1976) is not to police phonological representations rather, it is to be seen as a statement of the unmarked, neutral, normal state of affairs. In the above sketch, the inherent floating tone relinks itself to an adjacent tone bearing unit (TBU) rightward following the elision of the vowel segment bearing it. The tonemic movement by floating tone in search of where to hang is called docking. This phenomenon of floating tone justifies one of the telling evidence from non-linear representation known as tonal stability. Tone does not get deleted when the segment is elided, rather it shifts its location and shows up on some other vowel. However, for nonlinear framework to be seen as a true linguistic insight, it must prove itself capable of solving other phonological issues beyond the scope of tones. This is what motivated Clements (1981) and Oyebade (1998) to extend the model to explain the interesting linguistic issue of vowel harmony. Beside vowel harmony, the non-linear phonological framework has equally been adjudged more effective in the analysis of reduplication and nasalization (see Clements 1976, 1977, 1984; Leben, 1973; Durand, 1986; Oyebade, 1998). However, the autosegmental model has undergone some modifications due to some new emerging facts. For one, the Initial Association Principle (IAP) of this framework proposes that tone association starts from the left to right on TBU. However, this proposal cannot work for languages such as Hausa and some other languages which start tones application from the right to left. However, this principle is suitable for the Yoruba language as evident in this work. In addition, the inclusion of the skeletal tier,

41 that is, to sketch the nature of the individual sound segments, is another modification. Oyebade (1998) observes that the skeletal tier is good for languages that have consonant gemination and vowel length. The introduction of this tier provided strong opportunity to adjust and accommodate more facts from new languages that are just being discovered. It is so called skeletal tier because it is a foundation upon which any utterance is built. The concept of tiers is also found in CV phonology, which arose from work by Kahn on syllabic organization and by McCarthy on Semitic languages (Kahn, 1980, McCarthy, 1981, Clement and Keyser 1983, Kenstowicz 1994). The original contribution of CV phonology is the postulation of a CV tier, a tier of C and V ‘slots’ which are filled by segments, Often segments can be mapped directly onto these CV positions. In this regard, CV phonology is a contribution autosegmental notation. We can thus represent English man and landed as; C

V

C

C

V

C

C

V

C

m

æ

n

l

æ

n

d

ә

d

but just as autosegmental phonology allows other kinds of mapping, so CV phonology offers the possibility of capturing the special nature of complex segments that traditionally require structural interpretation. Suffice it to note that analysis which shall be done in this work at the later stage will not be unconnected with the feature geometry. This is to allow us look at the phonic features of sounds in Onko that make them different from those of the standard variety of the Yoruba language. Crystal (2003) notes that feature geometry in non-linear phonology

42 is a model of the ways in which features are organized in phonological representations. The term, according to Clark, Yallop and Fletcher (2007) has become common in discussion of the way in which phonological features are grouped or structured. In the light of this concept, bundles of distinctive features are internally structured and that the behaviour of segments according to Kenstowicz (1994) can be understood from the elucidation of this internal feature structure. Various approaches to feature geometry look at the non-linear relationship between features, and at the way they can be grouped into a hierarchical array of functional classes. By feature we mean an element which plays the role corresponding to phonological rule and to true suprasegmentals. The feature values are arrayed on separate tiers, where they may enter into non-linear relations with each other. Features are organized into hierarchical arrays, in which each constituent functions as a single unit in phonological rules. It is sufficient to say here that the works on autosegmental phonology is a true reflection and continuation of the traditional work of generative phonology that was published in Chomsky and Halle’s Sound Pattern of English (SPE) in 1968. This is because the justifications for the theoretical changes in the framework of phonology which resulted into autosegmental phonology were placed on contention that made, and continues to make sense within the very theoretical heart of generative phonology. No important shift in theoretical goals needs to be made to see why the framework is superior to the analysis made by classical generative phonology. There is a good reason however, to agree that autosegmental phonological theory is more adequate, explicit and objective than classical generative phonology. The basic goal of autosegmental model according to Goldsmith (1990) is to formulate general principles of phonological

43 descriptions which can be objectively and sufficiently applied to a greater number of languages. According to him: ‘… success may be hard to measure, but it consists largely in the ability the analysis grants us to see connections in various ways’

2.2

Empirical Studies In traditional phonetic terminology, a nasalized segment is one whose production

involves flow of air through both the mouth and the nose. The oral cavity still acts as a resonance chamber for the sound. Resonance according to Goldsmith (1989) refers to a sound being deep, clear, and continuing to echo. Leben (1973); Cauty (1978) and Valenzuela (2003) suggest that nasalization may be considered as a suprasegmental feature in some languages. Both vowel harmony and nasalization were seen to be prosodic in the British School of Linguistics. Akamatsu (1991) shows that nasal sounds are produced when the egressive airstream meets obstruction at a given point in the oral cavity and is channeled into the nasal cavity through which it goes out following the lowering of the soft palate. Katamba (1989) opines that it is the neat synchronization of velic closure along with the other articulatory parameters like phonation, manner and place of articulation that ensures a clear cut distinction between the oral and nasal consonants. He notes that any slight leakage of air past the velum will cause some nasalization. Abercrombie (1967) notes that nasalization is not a secondary articulation either in the case of vowels or consonants. For nasals there is always an obstruction of complete stricture in the mouth. Acoustically, nasal stops are sonorants in that they do not restrict the escape of air and

44 cross-linguistically are nearly always voiced. However, nasals are also stops in their articulation because the flow of air through the mouth is blocked completely. This duality, a sonorant airflow through the nose along with an obstruction in the mouth, means that the nasal stops behave both like a sonorant and like an obstruent. Generally, nasalization has been noted to obtain as a result of the position of the velum or soft palate (Abercrombie, 1967). And further on the action of the velum, Gimson (1980) highlights that the palate can either be held in its raised position to effect one channel escape of air through the mouth; be lowered, as in normal breathing, to allow a dual outlet of airstream – the oral and the nasal cavities – or be lowered (with an obstruction in the mouth) to afford a nasal outlet; which brings about oral, nasalized, or nasal speech sound respectively. Nasal consonants with a complete mouth closure are common in almost all languages, and may be exemplified by English /m/, /n/, and /ŋ/, the nasal counterparts of the oral /b/, /d/, and /g/ (mob /mɔb/; bomb /bɔm/; nod /nɔd/; don /dɔn/; gang /gæŋ/). /ŋ/ is not found at initial position in English words. All nasal consonants are continuants as the egress of air is never completely cut off. They are commonly voiced, though voiceless nasals have been reported in Burmese (see Ladefoged, 2000) Nasal stop cluster such as mb and nd often referred to as characteristic of African languages do not occur at all in most Nilotic languages like Dinka-Nuer and Shilluk (Gregerson, 1972). But they do occur in a few such as the Luo and Alor languages. As a matter of fact, in Luo some nouns show an alternation of stem-final nasal with nasal-stop cluster, as in the following:

45 Nominative singular

Appreciative singular Plural.

boum

boumb

buombe

‘wing’

ţuno

ţund

ţunde

‘breast’

bɔɲ

bɔɲj

bɔɲjɛ

‘ring’

A nasalized sound may be adjacent to a pure nasal or it may occur in an environment devoid of a nasal. According to Uguru, (2005), the distinction between pure nasals and nasalized sounds is their manner of production. While air escape is through the nose during the production of pure nasals, air escapes through both the mouth and nasal cavities during the production of nasalized sounds. That languages do not have vowel systems in which there are more distinctive nasalized than oral vowel qualities has long been recognized (see Issatschenko, 1937; Ferguson, 1963; Ruhlen, 1978; Hayek, 2005). It is well known that languages with distinctively nasalized vowels have an equal or lower number of nasalized vowel qualities than of oral vowel qualities Haspelmath, (2005). For almost all the languages, each nasalized vowel can readily be considered to be the nasalized counterpart of one of the oral vowels in the language’s inventory. However, based on the description in Bender and Harris (1946), Cherokee is interpreted as an exception, being reported to have five oral vowel qualities [i, e, o, a, u] plus nasalized vowel /ɐ̃/ which does not have an oral counterpart, so that in this case the nasalized vowel adds one to the total of basic vowel qualities in the language. However, different accounts of the language disagree on whether this vowel is nasalized in all its occurrences, or is only nasalized next to certain consonants, such as /h/. The range of oral consonants and vowels that can be nasalized depends on the language under

46 consideration. In some languages nasalized vowels feature while in some, they never occur. O’Connor (1973) emphasizes that nasalization is another feature with which vowels can be distinguished. Usually, nasalized vowels are fewer than their purely oral counterpart. According to him, Burmese has seven oral vowels /i, u, e, o, a,ɛ,ɔ / and five nasalized vowels /ã, ẽ, õ, ĩ, ũ/. Portuguese, has eight oral vowels and five nasalized vowels which are; [ã, ẽ, õ, ĩ, ũ]. French has nine oral vowels with three nasalized vowels, thus; [ẽ, õ, ã,] The acoustic features of vowel, according to Beddor, (1993) have shown that it is more difficult for a listener to distinguish between different nasalized vowels than to distinguish between their oral counterparts. This observation probably helps to explain why the number of nasalized vowels in a language is so often less than the number of oral vowels. More specifically, this factor can be expected to operate with particular force when the number of vowels is larger. However, nasal vowels do not seem to be as frequent in occurrence as nasal consonants. Nasal consonants as contained in the I.P.A. chart of 1996 are as follows: /m/ voiced bilabial nasal – seen in most languages like English, Yoruba, Igbo, Igala etc /ɱ/ labio-dental nasal seen in Igbo. /n/ alveolar nasal seen in most languages of the world like /n/ /ɲ/ palatal nasal seen in Igbo, French, Yoruba /ɳ/ retroflex nasal seen in Wangkatya (Australia) /ŋ/ velar nasal in French, Igbo, Ga, English, Yoruba /ŋw/ labialized velar nasal in Igbo

47 /ŋm/ labial velar nasal in Idoma, Yoruba In the majority of languages with nasalized vowels the historical origin of these vowels can be traced to an earlier sequence of a nasal consonant followed by a vowel or a vowel followed by a nasal consonant fusing together, (Ferguson (1963) and Maddieson (2005)). Such processes are quite likely to affect all vowels and thus produce nasalized counterparts to each oral vowel. However, if the number of vowels is large, maintaining the distinction between all the nasalized counterparts is difficult. Nasalization can also occur on consonant. According to Chomsky (1968), nasality can be superimposed on glides as well as liquid articulation in some languages like Yoruba, Nupe, and other African languages. The language exhibits nasal cognates of the non-nasal [j], [w] and [r] contextual variants as [ȷ]̃ , [w̃ ], and [r]̃ . According to Ohala (2006), some consonants, those called sonorants, allow their normal oral articulation to have simultaneous nasality imposed on them. This set includes the approximants. Stahlke (1971) notes that it is impossible to produce an implosive sonorant. In addition, an implosive /m/ or /n/ is apparently a phonetic impossibility because what is involved in the production of an implosive is the rarefaction of the air pressure inside the mouth by a downward movement of the whole glottis. This lowering of the air pressure would be impossible if the nasal passage were coupled to the oral passage. Besides, a nasally released implosive would be phonetically impossible because since the air pressure is lower within the mouth, it is not possible for air to be released through the nose. Instead, air rushes into the mouth after implosive has been released. This phonetic impossibility explains why no African language, especially in the New-Benue-Congo sub-family, has been observed with phonetic sequences such as [ɓṽ] and [ɗṽ]. In Ebirie,

48 for instance, [ɓ] and [ɗ] do not occur before nasalized vowels, but only before oral vowels while [m] and [n] are found before nasalized vowels. Nasalized vowels are usually derived from the effect of a preceding nasally realized consonant. So, [ɓ] and [ɗ] are in complementary distribution with [m] and [n] in Ebirie. In other words, if we represent [mṽ] and [nṽ] as /ɓṽ/ and /ɗṽ/, respectively, then Ebirie, notes Dumestre (1970) will have no underlying nasal consonants. These analyses would have been accepted in classical phonemics and generative phonology but for some reservations by some phonologists. One of such reservations centres on the pronounceability of underlying forms. This argument has both a weak and a strong version. In the weak form, it is argued that underlying forms must be pronounceable at least in some human language. Chomsky and Halle (1968) have, for example been criticized according to Kiparsky (1968) for setting up an ‘epsilon glide’, the pronunciation of which is not certain. Since the native speaker will find the underlying forms [ɓNv] and [ɗNv] hard to internalize for their unpronounceability, it would be ruled out by a Weak Condition on the basis of pronounceability. A Strong Pronounciability Condition would state that no underlying form can be set up in a language that is not pronounceable by speakers of the language. This view looks awkward. The strong pronounceability condition in conjunction with the Alternation Condition, Kiparsky (1968), represents the view of phonology presented by Venneman (1972b). For Vennemann, he would recognize [mṽ] and [nṽ] in Ebirie as /mṽ/ and /nṽ/, respectively, and not as /ɓṽ/ and /ɗṽ/, since there are no alternations. This creates phonemes in complementary distribution. /ɓ/ and /ɗ/ would occur only before oral vowels and /m/ and /n/ only before nasalized vowels in the same way /1/ is recognized before

49 oral vowels in Yoruba and /n/ before nasalized vowels with denasalization rule which changes /n/ to [l] in certain morphemes. Umeh (1987) maintains that nasalization impinges directly only on vowels and approximants. According to him, the nasal effect is postponed at the point of closure for stops, until the closure opens and nasal release continues on the following vowel. In other words, all Igbo vowels are capable of being nasalized in the environment of nasals and nasalized oral sounds, especially approximants like ‘r’ and also ‘h’ whose vocalic features help to enhance nasal effects. Nasals have a very special place in the Sotho group of languages. Nasal homogeneity consists of two points: (a)

when a consonant is preceded by a nasal it will undergo nasal permutation,

(b)

when a nasal is immediately followed by another consonant with no vowel between them, the nasal agrees in place of articulation of the following consonant, after the consonant has undergone nasal permutation. If the consonant is already a nasal then the preceding nasal will simply change to the same.

The general Bantu pronoun ‘I’ and ‘you’ are ‘mi’ and ‘we’, respectively. The Bantu languages have general aversion towards monosyllabic words and use different ways of making pronouns disyllabic: Kiswahili uses doubling – ‘mimi’ and ‘wewe’ Shona

uses prefixes – ‘imi-’

and ‘iwe-’

Zulu

uses suffixes – ‘mina’ and ‘wena’

Sesotho and Xhosa also use the suffix ‘-na’, but the I in ‘mina’ has been elided to ‘mna’. However, in Sesotho this construction contradicts the second principle of nasal

50 homogeneity, so the m changes to the nasal in the same position as n, given the Sotho word ‘na’ for ‘I’. Nasalization is marked by a tilde [ ͂ ] over vowels, for example, [ã] only when the nasalization represents a phonological feature of a particular language. For instance, in all languages, a vowel that is adjacent to a nasal consonant must become at least slightly nasalized. Ohala (2000) however observes that we should not run away with such impression that all languages have a phonological rule that nasalizes vowels before and after nasal consonants. Instead, what we should do is to determine whether a language has, according to him, ‘phonologized’ this phonetic phenomenon which is due to the timing factors between the movement of the soft palate and the other articulators. For instance, in Nupe, [nã´] ‘to shine’ is realized as [na´] in Gwari (a language closely related to Nupe). Although the vowel in ‘to shine’ in Gwari cannot completely escape the nasalizing effect of the proceeding /n/, this factor cannot be attributed to the phonetic nature of all human speech. According to Flanagan (1972) a universal phonetic tendency is said to become phonologized when language-specific reference is made to it, as in a phonological rule. A phonetic feature becomes phonemicized when contrastive reference must be made to it, as in underlying phonemic forms. In other words, nasalization is said to be phonologized if a rule is required in the language that nasalizes vowels in the contexts of nasal consonants. Nasalized vowels are phonemicized when they cannot be predicted by rule, but rather must appear in the lexicon. It is accepted by most phonologists that nasalized vowels are derived from the earlier state of the oral vowels in proximity with nasal consonants. According to Lunt (1973) and Herbert (1986), the most common origin of contrastive nasalized vowels

51 seems to be syllable final sequences of oral vowel followed by nasal consonant. This source which has been relied on for years first appeared in Stahlke’s (1971a) publication and has in fact been the only one considered for New Benue-Congo languages. Gilbert and Wyman (1975) reveal that when nasalized vowels are contained in a phonetic system, they are expected to be learnt much later than their non-nasalized equivalents. In a test they conducted on children aged between five and seven years on the acquisition of four nasalized and four non-nasalized vowels, it was seen that the children of the three ages, five, six, and seven years, learned the nasalized vowels later and slower than the nonnasalized ones. In determining whether nasalization should be viewed as segmental or suprasegmental for any language, several factors must be considered. One of such factors is whether a direction for nasal spreading can be established or not? Like in the Terena language below nasalization clearly spreads from left to right. Besides, the following oral-nasal opposition is found in comparing the third person singular and first person singular forms: emo?u

‘his word’

ẽmõ?ũ

‘my word’

ayo

‘his brother’

ãỹõ

‘my brother’

owoku

‘his house’

õwõŋgu ‘my house’

It is quite clear from these forms that nasalization is used as a parameter in differentiating between 3rd and 1st person singular. Besides, nasalization (or orality) is realized on several syllables. It is this feature that suggests it as a suprasegmental feature in Terena. It is possible to identify a nasal item ‘1st pers. sing.’ that is prefixed to nouns and verbs

52 which cause the preservative spreading of nasalization. A latter rule deletes /N/. So, Leben (1973b) proposes Terena vowel nasalization as follows: (i)

nasalize all vowels and semivowels in the word up to the first stop or fricative,

(ii)

nasalize the first stop or fricative in the word as follows: mb replaces p, nd replaces t, ŋg replaces k, nz replaces h. Umeh (1996) says nasalization like aspiration is not articulation type par

excellence. It is borne out of the oro-nasal process. While making a specific case for the Igbo language, Carrel (1970) claims that nasalization in Igbo is a feature of the syllable. In other words, some morphemic rules distribute the nasal feature throughout the syllable. Nasalization can be seen as an example of suprasemental feature because it extends its feature over units which can encompass more than one segment. Normally, note Dickson and Dickson (1982) the specification [+nasal] is a fractional part of nasal consonants and probably nasal vowels. However, in some languages, the [+nasal] feature is got from the segmental tier and, through spreading, put on the suprasegmental tier so that it can affect some syllables or morphemes or the entire word. So, in a suprasegmental analysis, according to Leben (1973a) a nasal exponent can be fashioned out which, by a ‘mapping rule’ is assigned to each segment within the suprasegmental unit like a syllable. A segmental analysis on the other hand would endeavour to give an underlying [+nasal] feature specification to one segment within each suprasemental unit and will provide a rule by which neighbouring segments assimilate to that feature specification. In the underlying form, /bã/, nasality is assigned to underlying vowels. A rule is therefore recognized to nasalize oral consonants in the context of a following nasalized vowel:

53 V

C

[ +nasal]

/

[+ nasal]

An equally plausible segmental analysis would recognize the underlying form /ma/, where nasality is assigned to the consonant. In this case, a rule is needed to nasalize an oral vowel following a nasal consonant, as seen below: C

V

[+ nasal]

/

[+nasal]

Hyman (1982) notes that those languages that use nasality situate it either syntagmatically or paradigmatically. So, nasality can be analyzed using non-linear approach only if the latter option (paradigmatically) is adopted. Here, nasality is manifested over many syllables phonetically. Many languages (especially African languages) have contributed to our understanding of nasals and nasalization process in several ways. A large number of African languages have nasal consonants. Many of these nasal consonants are in near or total complementary distribution unlike their oral counterparts. Thus quite early in the history of generative phonology, Schachter and Fromkin (1968) had reported derivations such as the following from dialects of Akan, that there are no underlying nasal consonants in the language. That is, no voiced oral consonant appears before nasalized vowels in surface forms: /bã/

[mã]

‘give’

/dã/

[nã]

‘and’

/jã/

[jã]

‘receive’

[w̃ãnĩ]

‘scrape’

/wãdĩ/

Rather than representing nasal where it is contrastive, they also could quite easily have abstracted the feature away as prosody, in keeping with Firthian (British) tradition. The

54 forms for ‘receive’ and ‘scrape’ have the possible free variants [ɲã] and [ŋwãnĩ], respectively. In Central Igbo dialect, Ikekeonwu (1986) observes that fricatives and frictionless continuants are nasalized as seen below: zú [zṹ̃ ] ‘steal’

zi

[ʒı̃ ́]̃ ‘to blow nose’

shí [ʃí] ‘faeces’

árá [arã̃ ] ‘breast

One may not know, according to her, where exactly nasalization belongs while listening to the pronunciation of these words since nasalization dominates both the consonant and the succeeding vowels. As such, nasalization may be erroneously assigned to the vowels. But examples of minimal pairs involving these nasalized consonants challenge such assumption: [ʒĩ̃ ] ‘to blow ones nose’

[sʊ ̃ ́ ̃ ] ‘to cut grass’

[ʒi] ‘to send on an errand’ [sʊ́] ‘pound’ In English, according to Fromkin and Rodman (1983), nasalized vowels can only occur when the vowel is followed by a nasal (+nasal, +stop). From the foregoing, one can conclude that nasalization is predictable in English and as such it is not a phoneme in the language. There is a general principle which tells us, or predicts, when a vowel will be oral and when the same vowel phoneme will be nasalized. The following sets of words and nonsense words (those with asterisks) can throw more light on the foregoing statement: Ai

Bi

Ci

Aii

Bii

Cii

bee [bi]

bead [bid]

bean [bĩn]

*[bĩ]

*[bĩd]

*[bin]

lay [le]

lac

[les]

lame [lẽm]

*[lẽ]

*[lẽs]

*[lem]

baa [bæ]

bad

[bæd]

bang [bæ̃ŋ]

*[bæ̃]

*[bæ̃d]

*[bæŋ]

55 The acceptable words (Ai, Bi, Ci) show where oral and nasal vowels can occur in English: oral vowel in final position and before non-nasal consonants; nasalized vowels only before nasal consonants. The ‘non-words’ (Aii, Bii, Cii) show where oral and nasalized vowels can never occur. Thus the oral vowels and their nasalized counterparts never contrast. So, since nasalization of vowels in English is predictable, a phonological rule for its nasalization can be proposed as follows: Nasalize a vowel when it occurs before a nasal consonant.

C V

[ + nasal]

+nas

The value of the feature [+ / -nasal] can be predicted for the class of vowel segments in English. When a feature is predictable by a general principle, it is not distinctive. In other words, the feature [+/-nasal] is not a distinctive feature of English vowels. The nasality feature, however, is not predictable or redundant for consonants in English; whether or not a consonant if [+nasal] cannot be predicted by a general rule but must be specified for each word. For instance, there is no rule which can predict that the word bean will have a final n rather than a d. Thus, the first consonant in a word like meat must be specified as [+nasal] to distinguish it from the [-nasal] specification of the first consonant in the word like beat. Conversely, for languages like French, Akan and Yoruba, contrasts can be made with the nasalized and non-nasalized vowels. In French, the two words below contrastive in meaning as a result of nasality.

56 main /mε̃/

‘hand’

mets /mε/

‘dish’

In French, nasalized vowels may occur when no nasal consonant is adjacent. In the French spelling system an n (which is silent in the examples below) is included to indicate that the preceding vowel is nasalized: [ε̃]

as in vin [vε̃] fin

[ã]

as in an [ã]

[õ]

as in son [sõ] son

an

In the Akan language, nasalization is a distinctive feature for vowels. In the language, nasalized and oral vowels occur both phonetically and phonemically, as the following examples illustrate: [ka]

‘bite’

[fi]

‘come from’

[tu]

‘pull’

[kã] [fĩ] [tũ]

‘speak’ ‘dirty’ ‘hole’

The above examples show that vowel nasalization in Akan is not predictable. There is no rule which says all vowels are nasalized only before nasal vowels as shown by the last minimal pair. Furthermore, after the identical consonants one finds word-final oral vowels contrasting with word-final nasalized vowels; here we see that the change of form does change the meaning. In other words, both oral and nasalized vowel phonemes exist in Akan. The foregoing further illuminates the fact that two languages may have the same phonetic segments but have two different phonemic systems. Both oral and nasalized vowels exist in English and Akan; English has no nasalized vowel phonemes but Akan does. The same phonetic segments function differently in the two languages.

57 While giving an account of nasalization in Ika dialect of Igbo, Uguru (2005) notes that when there is nasal consonant cluster in words, nasalization is not likely to take place in Ika dialect; ńnu

/nnu/ ‘salt’

ńné

/nne/

‘mother’

m̀mẹ́ /mmε/ ‘me’ Ladefoged (1982) while admitting the distinctiveness of nasalization in vowels concludes that the distinctiveness between nasalized and non-nasalized consonants does not occur in any language. But, Erendu (1984) and Ikekeonwu (1986) provide enough relevant examples using minimal pair test in Igbo to nullify this assertion. Thus, the distinctiveness of the Igbo nasalized segments appears to originate from the consonant. Anderson, (1991) asserts that nasalization could result from language change. He cites French examples, at one time, bol ‘basin,’ botte ‘high boot,’ bog ‘a card game,’ bock ‘beer’, and bon ‘good’ were [bɔl], [bɔt], [bɔg], [bɔk], and [bɔn], respectively. A closer look will reveal that in bon there was a final nasal consonant which conditioned the nasalization of the preceding vowel. Today, bon is pronounced [bɔ̃]; the nasal vowel effectively maintains the contrast with the other words. Umeh (1996) suggests that nasalization should be designated orthographically with a syllable final silent ‘-n’ in Igbo as it is in some other languages like Izon, French and Efik. But this proposition is not justifiable in Igbo. While nasalization spreads from the right to the left direction in these languages, Ikekeonwu (1986b) using both diachronic and synchronic evidences asserts that nasalization in Igbo (like Terena) spreads from left to right. According to Obi, (1998) if we go by this suggestion, two

58 points both of which are controversial will be raised. One, that the influence of nasalization is not from the left to right in Igbo; secondly, that the domain of nasalization in Igbo is the vowel. Besides, if the ‘-n’ must be present, it then implies that it first nasalizes the vowel before the consonant through the right to left direction. Oluikpe (1979) had earlier observed that syllabic nasals do not occur before nonnasalized fricatives because they tend to nasalize the immediately following sound in the Southern Igbo dialect thus; mf̃ ̃u

‘a loss’

nz̃u

‘chalk’

mṽọ

‘finger nail’

This proves the directionality of the influence of nasalization in Igbo to be from left to right. Emenanjo, (1978) claims that in the Ikwere and Ika dialects of Igbo nasalization occurs in stops as well as in continuants. He also notes that nasalization is in complementary distribution in the Southern (Central) Igbo dialects. Oluikpe (1979) notes that there has never been any dialect of Igbo that nasalizes /l/. In the Gbe language like many African languages belonging to the Niger-Congo family, Ikekeonwu (1986) confirms that instances of nasalized consonants occurring alongside nasalized vowels are present. According to her, in Aladagbe dialect of the Gbe language we have [l̃] and [w̃ ], [ȷ]̃ and [r]̃ as seen below: [kpl̃ɔ]̃ ‘to learn’

[e ȷɔ̃ ̃] ‘it is good’

[w̃ ã] ‘bad smell’

[drɔ̃ ̃]

‘dream’

In the Bini and Edo languages, nasality can also be found as seen in the examples below; [ewẽ wã] full of

59 [ajarĩ]

roof

The nasal vowels spread nasality to surrounding segments thus making them nasalized. The words above are therefore pronounced as: [ew̃ẽ w̃ã] [aj̃ãr̃ĩ] Nasality has a special place in the Esan language. It is one of the prominent phonetic and phonological features of the language. Nasality in the language has a propensity to influence segments in the adjacent mora. In the language, notes Kammelu (2003) the influence of nasalization can be rightwards to a segment across a morpheme, word or syllable boundary. At some other times, it can spread leftwards. Whichever direction, its influence can be essentially and insightfully captured and analyzed using nonlinear approach. However, just like Yoruba, nasalized vowels do not occur at the word initial position in the language but can occur elsewhere; /έsĩ/ ‘pepper’ /igε̃/ ‘wing’ /εsɔ̃/ ‘work’ Esan has both nasalized vowels and nasal consonants. The five nasal vowels are / ĩ, ũ, ã, ɔ̃, ε̃ /. According to Crystal (1992), nasality is an essential identifying feature of the sound that has it. This assertion is fully acceptable since the nasalized vowels have nasality on them in the underlying form of their representation. This assertion however contradicts what obtains in Onko dialect where nasality is a feature of the syllable due to its bidirectional spreading and it is indeed autosegmentable.

60 In Desano (a Columbian language), morphemes are marked as a unit as either [+nasal] or [-nasal], or are unspecified for nasality. Thus, the morphemes, [w̃ãĩ ] ‘name’ and [wai] ‘fish’ differ in that the first is recognized as /wai/ with the feature specification [+nasal], while the second is recognized as /wai/ with the feature specification [-nasal]. Morphemes left unspecified for nasality are typically those which become nasalized in the context of another morpheme marked (+nasal). In the language (Desano), nasalization is not simply a property of certain consonants. It is extracted from the segmental tier and placed on separate suprasegmental. According to Katamba (1989), to represent Desano nasalization, the following rules are needed:

[+nasal]

w a i

[-nasal]

[w̃ãĩ ]

w

a

i

[wai]

For voiceless consonants, the same procedure of mapping is undertaken, only that it is blind to the presence of voiceless consonants: [+nasal]

j

o h so

[ɲõhsõ]

61

The motivation for recognizing a suprasegmental feature Nasal is seen from [ɲõh̃sõ] ‘a kind of bird’ and [johso] ‘a kind of lizard’. Kaye (1971) says that nasalization is not blocked by non-low obstruents. According to him, in a language such as Denaso where non-low obstruent also becomes nasalized (b becomes m, d becomes n), segmental analysis is much more difficult to maintain. Until recently, spreading has been attributed to tones alone. Scholars like Steriade, (1982); Hayes, (1986); Archangeli and Pulleyblank (1986); Hyman and Pulleyblank, (1987) have suggested that all assimilation including palatalization, nasalization, place of articulation should be regarded as spreading. Hyman (1982) proposes that we should regard nasality as an autosegment, capable of being mapped onto a lexical morpheme or stem. Within the autosegmental framework, the occurrence of a particular feature on one tier does not preclude it from occurring on another tier. A particular phenomenon may occur on different tiers within a phonological representation, and since the tiers are independent of one another, what affects the phenomenon on one tier may not affect it on another tier. As a nasalized segment, nasality occurs on an autosegmental tier. On this Hyman (1982) suggests that nasality be mapped onto lexical morphemes or stems. That is, a lexical morpheme is either marked positive for nasality or it has no underlying nasal specification. Nasality is thus linked to a segment in the phonological representation only through association whereby it is independent of that segment bearing it. Nasality as an autosegment can spread onto neighbouring segments which are receptive to it as seen in the Igbo, Edo and Bini languages above. It can be stable, that is, it can feature even in the absence of the segment to which it has been linked when the segment

62 is elided or when it undergoes certain phonological processes. This is the highpoint of the justification of the autosegmental phonology in accounting for nasalization as a phonological process. This further shows the problem-solving efficiency of the autosegmental phonology over the linear approach of SPE. Generally, one way to analyze nasals autosegmentally especially in the tone languages is to propose that the nasality bearing unit (NBU) in the underlying representation is any slot that has the potential of associating with the nasal autosegment. This covers slots to which it can spread i.e sonorants. This shows that the autosegment is mapped onto only a V slot on the CV tier in the underlying representation. However, the nasal consonants here will not be regarded as nasality bearing units. The context within which the phenomenon is realized is in [+son] segment within the stem. One can conclude that apart from the NBU, all other nasalized segments within a stem are derived from the spreading of the nasal autosegment segment. Taking a cue from Esan, (Kammelu (2003)) where the nasality spreading is from right to left as in Yoruba and unlike Igbo, the above analysis can be illustrated thus; /hͻ̃/

[hͻ̃]

‘to hear’

/uxͻ̃/

[uxͻ̃] ‘navel’

/ijã/

[iɲã]

‘yam’

63 (a) Nasality tier

N

CV skeletal tier

V C V

u

(underlying form)

ͻ

x

‘navel’

(b)

N

(nasality spreading ‘leftwards’)

V C

V

u

ͻ

(c)

x

N

phonetic form

V C V

u

x

ͻ

[ũx̃ͻ̃] ‘navel’

From the above sketch, one can possibly infer therefrom that the unbroken association line from nasality tier to the V of the CV skeletal tier in the underlying level shows that V is the basic nasalized segment. The broken association line from nasal tier to the C of the CV skeletal tier in (b) reveals that the consonant acquires its nasality

64 property from the preceding nasal vowel or nasal consonant /n/. If the NBU is the final vowel and the spreading is from right to left, then, mapping as usual is only to one slot which is more or less a nasalized vowel. Ejele (1982) confirms this anticipatory regressive coarticulation of the Esan language; /ʃiε/

[ʃĩε̃]

‘to sell’

/hĩã/

[hĩã]

‘to cut’

According to her, both versions (oral and nasalized forms) are correct and acceptable since there is no alteration in the meaning. So, the speakers are at liberty to determine the degree of nasalization.

(a)

N

underlying representation

C V V

ʃ

(b)

i

N

C V V

ʃ

i

ε

ε

‘to sell’

nasality (leftward spreading)

65 (d)

N

phonetic representation

C V V

ʃ

i

ε

[ʃĩε̃]

‘to sell’

Besides the foregoing, the NBU in Esan may be the final vowel or the nasal consonant /n/ within a root. And nasality here is only mapped to one slot on the CV tier. So, the place of nasality in this is still [+son] segments within the stem, but the spreading here is from left to right: N

C

/n/ /únù/

(a)

[unũ] ‘mouth’

N

underlying form

V C V

u n u

‘mouth’

66

N nasality spreading (rightward) (b) V C V

u n u

(c)

N

surface form

V C V

u

V

Ṽ

n u

N

[unũ] ‘mouth’

67

2.3

Summary The adoption of autosegmental framework being a non-linear

approach has proved to be adequate and relevant given its strength and problem-solving efficiency over the SPE linear approach as exhibited by various works reviewed. The adequacy and relevance is justified by its ability to capture objectively and explicitly the phonological processes and suprasegmentals like tone, vowel harmony, reduplication and nasalisation in different languages of the world.

68 CHAPTER THREE RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 3.0

Introduction Research methodology describes the procedures used in arriving at the number of

subjects used for the study and the instrument used in collecting data for analysis and interpretation.

3.1

Area of Study The research work has both linguistic and geographical area of study.

Linguistically, our subject of inquiry within this area is nasalization being a peculiar feature of the speakers of this area in the whole of Yoruba land. For the geographical area, it is Onko (also known as Oke-Ogun) dialect: a dialect spoken in over ten communities within one geographical zone of Oyo North in Oyo state. Onko is a true reflection of a dialect speech community. The communities that make up the Onko dialect are trying to carve out a separate identity for themselves. It is generally agreed that they are very closely related groups. The entire speech community is delimited from other parts of Oyo state by River Ogun. In other words, the Oke-Ogun speech community constitutes a particular linguistic section of Oyo state. This is why towns where Onko (Oke-Ogun) dialect is spoken are called Oke-Ogun (Upper River Ogun). We believe no other study area could have been a better choice when studying nasality than Onko.

69 3.2

Research Design This is a plan of the research procedure which may be realized in the selection of

the appropriate sampling techniques, instruments and tools of data collection (Ndagi 1984; Nwana 1981; Strauss and Corbin 1990). We adopted a non-linear approach in this work which aims at analyzing facts about nasalization in the case study. In line with this general background, we used stratified random sampling method, interview method of data collection via tape- recorder. We equally used the Ibadan 400 Basic Word List. Besides, respondents are selected based on their occupation. All these are geared towards one goal: ensuring objectivity and explicitness.

3.3

Sampling Technique The sampling method which we adopted in this work is random sampling. Using

this method, respondents are picked randomly given the vast nature of the area of study which makes it rather difficult for the researcher to use every speaker of the dialect into the work as respondents. The random sampling method enabled us to take and generalize the response obtained from the selected respondents. In other words, the response of these informants was taken to represent the general response of the entire population of the study area. In random sampling, every member of the population has equal chance and independence of being selected.

70 3.4

Selection of Respondents The respondents were selected based on their occupation. We selected those

respondents whose occupations do not take them outside the dialect community. Besides, such people are always less educated with little or no stratified strength network of association or affiliation, hence a veritable set of people for this type of research.

3.5

Instrumentation The study is largely empirical. Since the original research of linguistic data must

come from the native speakers following the accurate and detailed description of our individual languages, data in this work was gathered using the instrumentation of taperecorders and cassettes. Besides, unstructured oral interview with questions prompted or determined by certain situations was also used. The nature of the interview notwithstanding, the inherent part of their speech pattern must, as a matter of necessity, manifest. Being a research that is essentially empirical in nature, the use of a word list is considered most appropriate. And as such, the Ibadan Word List of 400 basic items is chosen. The choice of this wordlist is informed by the geographical location of the study area.

3.6

Administration of Instrumentation The tape-recorder was kept from the knowledge of the informant to enable us

obtain and record the information in its true and real form void of any pretence on the part of the respondents because of his unawareness of the recording during the speech events. The use of the midget becomes imperative since we are dealing with the speech

71 pattern of a people who are ever busy with their occupations. So, to ensure that we make the best of any time granted us for interview, we use the recorder. Besides, its use allows us to listen perceptively to the battery of conversations and deduce from it the relevant forms so that we can have a good basis on which we establish our findings.

3.7

Method of Data Collection Method according to Cohen and Manion (1980) refers to that range of approaches

used in research to gather data which are to be used as a basis for inference and interpretation for explanation and prediction. We used unstructured oral interview and the Ibadan 400 Basic Word List to elicit information from the respondents.

3.8

Method of Data Analysis

We adopted non-linear method of data analysis. This involves systematic analysis of the data in line with the theoretical frameworks used. The foregoing was done under some manageable sub-headings as manifested in the pattern and structure of the data collected.

72

CHAPTER FOUR DATA PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS 4.0

Introduction. In this chapter we presented and analysed data based on nasalization in Onko

dialect of Yoruba. Various approaches were adopted but basically the descriptive analysis was done through the identification of the structures (words or phrases) that have manifested nasalization in the dialect. Subsequently, the utterances of some of the words were examined using autosegmental phonological theory. The analysis in this work, apart from leaning on the autosegmental theoretical framework, was based on the general feature geometry peculiar to nasalization such as nasality spreading, identification of domain of nasalization, nasal stability, nasal re-linking, denasalisation and nasal effacement among others. The process of nasalisation in the said dialect is aptly captured by Clark et al (2007) that it may be described as ‘inherent’ when speakers do not exert strong control over the raising of the velum, allowing nasalization to become an ‘unintended’ characteristic of all their vowels, even when not adjacent to nasal consonants. Nasalization may also be a general property of speech, for reasons of individual articulatory habit or dialect type. Such nasalization is often described as ‘pervasive’. The degree of nasal effect in the Onko speakers speech could be seen as nasal twang according to Abercrombie (1967) who first used term. According to him, it is a phonetic term without a precise phonetic definition.

73 4.1

Onko Dialect Nasalization: Data Presentation

4.1.1. Words with Prefixes ì-mọ̀

[ ìmò̃ ] ‘knowledge’

ii.

ì-wòn

[ iw̃ õ ]

‘measurement’

iii.

ọ-yọ́n

[ ɔȷɔ̃ ̃́ ]

‘blister’

iv.

àì-ri

[ àìr̃ĩ́ ]

‘invisible’

v.

ẹ̀-pọ́n

[ ὲkpõ ] ‘admiration’

vi.

ì-wẹ̀

[ ìw̃ε̃̀]

vii.

a-rẹ̀n

[ar̃ε̃̀] ‘intestinal worm’

viii.

ẹ̀-chẹ́

[ὲʧε̃] ‘pieces of broken stick’

xi.

à-tẹ́n

[ àtε̃́̃]

‘tastelessness’

x.

ì-rìn

[ir̃ĩ̀]

‘walk’

1.i.

‘bathing’

4.1.2. Disyllabic Phrases without Prefixes 2.i.

pín òwú

pṍwu [kpṍw̃ũ] ‘share wool’

ii. mọ́ ẹja

mɛ̃ja [mέ̃ʤa] ‘catch fish’

iii. yẹ́n epo

yekpo [jε̃kpo] ‘borrow oil’’

iv. mọ́ ede ́

mẽ́de [mẽ́de] ‘catch crayfish’

v.

mọ́ omi

momi

[mõmĩ] ‘drink water’

vi. yẹ

ichu

yẹchu

[ȷɛ̃ ʧ̃ u]

vii. fí

ẹ̀fon

fẹ̃́fõ

̃ ‘kill mosquito’ [fɛ̃́fõ]

f̃õnẹ́

̃ ] ‘collect hot charcoal’ [fõnɛ̃

viii. fon inẹ́ xi. rún efĩn

refĩ

[rẽ̃ fĩ]̃

‘roast yam’

‘exude smoke’

74 x. rọn orín

rorĩ́

[r̃õr̃ĩ]

‘chewing stick’

4.1.3. Disyllabic Words with Prefixes 3. i.

ì-fọnọ

ii. ọ̀-mọ̀tín

[ ìf̃ɔnɔ̃]

‘toothpaste’

[ ɔ̀mɔ̃̀tĩ́] ‘a drunkard’

iii.

ì-dánẹ́

[ìdánã́] ‘cooking items (pot)’

iv.

ò-téntọ́

[òté̃tɔ́] ‘truth’

v.

ì-chanẹ

[ ìʧanε̃́] ‘matches’

vi.

ì-rọ̀rọ̀n

[ ìrɔ̀̃ ̃r̃ɔ̃̀ ] ‘convenience’

vii.

ọ̀-kọrin

[ɔ̀kɔrĩ] ‘singer’

viii.

ì-pónrin

[ ìkpó̃r̃ĩ] ‘iron sharper’

ix.

ì-larọn

[ ìlarɔ̃] ‘comb for parting hair’

x.

a-yẹnrẹn

[aj̃ε̃rε̃̃ ] ‘meat roaster’

4.2. Data Analysis 4.2.1. Analysis of Words with prefixes Prefix vowels are not affected by nasality within the stem. The following are some examples:

4i.

ì-mò̃

[ìmò̃] ‘knowledge’

ii.

ì-w̃ò̃

[iw̃ò̃]

iii.

ↄ-j̃ɔ̃́

[ↄj̃ɔ̃́]

‘measurement’ ‘blister/pregnancy’

We present some sample derivations below:

75

(5i)

Nasality Tier

[N]

CV

V-

Segmental Tier

C V

ì- m

(ii)

Underlying representation

o

N

(iii)

By [N] Spreading

V-

C

V

i-

m

o

[N]

surface representation

V

C

V

i

m

o

[ìmò̃] ‘knowledge’

76 (6i)

Nasality Tier

[N]

CV Tier

C

Segmental Tier

C

V

w

i

Underlying representation

õ

(ii)

[N]

V

C

V

i

w̃

õ

(iii)

by [N] spreading

[N] Surface representation

V

C

V

[iw̃õ]

77 (7i)

Nasality Tier

[N]

CV Tier

Segmental Tier

V C

V

ɔ

ɔ

j

(ii)

Underlying representation

[N]

V

C

V

ɔ

j

ɔ̃

(iii)

V

C

By [N] Spreading

[N]

Surface representation

V

[ ɔ j̃ ɔ̃ ] ‘blister/pregnancy’

78 The examples above show that where [N] is mapped unto C1, spreading is to the right and includes, where there is one, an immediately following consonant (which is usually [+sonorant]) and the vowel segment. Where on the other hand, it is mapped onto the V, it spreads onto all the preceding nasalizable consonants and vowel segments. In other words, spreading in Onko dialect appears to be bidirectional; it could be from right to left (6ii) as it is in all dialects (if not all) and the standard Yoruba. However, rightward spreading of nasality in Onko as in (5ii) is a dialect-specific rule which is against the universal association convention. Thus all the segments within a morpheme stem agree on the feature of nasality. Besides, data from Onko reveals certain unusual instances in the Yoruba language specifically and the New Benue-Congo languages. In these languages, notes Hyman (1972) the nasalization of /e/ and /o/ is very rare even when the spread of nasalization from consonants to vowels can make vowels susceptible to nasalization. But in this dialect, these vowels are nasalized at the underlying level unlike in the standard variety where they are derived at the surface level following the process of elision at the word boundary intermorphemically. Onko is about the only dialect where this phenomenon occurs in the Yoruba language.

4.2.2. Analysis of Disyllabic Phrases Without Prefixes The underlying forms of the data in (4.1.2) above reveals that the surface forms are derived from the contraction of verbs and nouns following the deletion of certain vowel segments. So, across morpheme boundary, spreading is always from left to right. In this case, the vowel before the boundary is a nasalized vowel, and when it gets elided or becomes non-syllabic due to some phonological processes such as elision, the nasality

79 phenomenon survives on the vowel across the boundary which then becomes the nucleus of that syllable. Let us consider some examples: [ kpõw̃ũ]

kpĩ ́ + òwú share wool

(8i)

(ii)

kpĩ́ share

+

(iii)

mɔ́ ̃ catch

+

ekpo oil

[kpẽkpo]

εʤa fish

[mε̃́ʤa]

We present some sample derivations below:

(9) (i) Nasality Tier

CV Tier

[N]

C

Underlying representation

V +

kp ĩ share

(ii)

[N]

C

kp

ø

V

C

o

V

w u (wool)

by vowel elision

V

C

V

o

w

u

80 (iii)

[N]

by

C

V-

C

V

kp

õ

w

u

(iv)

[N]

[N] relinking

by [N] Spreading

CV Tier

C

V

C

V

Segmental Tier

kp

o

w

u

(v)

[N]

[kpõw̃ũ]

Surface representation

C

V

C

V

kp

o

w

u

[kpo͂w͂ũ] ‘share wool’

81 (10i.)

[N]

CV tiers

Segmental tier

ii.

C

V

m

u

[N]

C

+

V- C

V

ɛ

a

ʤ

by vowel elision

ø

m

iii.

underlying representation

[N]

V-

C

V

ɛ

ʤ

a

by [N] spreading

C

V -

C

V

m

ɛ

ʤ

a

82 iv.

[N]

surface representation

C

V

C

V

m

ɛ

ʤ

a

(11i) Nasality Tier

CV Tier

Segmental tier

(ii)

[N]

kp

Underlying representation

C

V +

V

C

V

kp

i

e

kp

o

[N]

C

[mɛ́ʤ ̃ a] ‘catch fish’

ø

By Vowel Elision

V

C

V

e

kp

o

83 (iii)

[N]

by

C

V

C

V

kp

e

kp

o

(iv)

[N]

by [N] Spreading

C

V

C

V

kp

e

kp

o

(v)

[N]

C

kp

Relinking

Surface Representation

V

C

V

e

kp

o

[kpẽkpo]

84 The examples in (9-11) above also demonstrate the stability of the nasal autosegment. We find that where a nasal vowel gets elided, the nasality phenomenon is not deleted along with the vowel. Rather, it relinks on the vowel segment that becomes the nucleus of that syllable. If it was a segmental feature, it should have been deleted along with the other segmental features of the vowel, for instance, its frontness is stable all show that it is an autosegment, independent of the segment that bears it in the phonetic representation. Besides, it is noted in (1i, ii & v) above that whereas vowels /e/ and /o/ are not nasalized in the New Benue-Congo languages, they are part of the five nasalized vowels in Onko. These two vowels are derived from earlier states of oral vowels in proximity with nasal consonants. Not only that, the sketches (9&11) above show that these two vowels can still be nasalized following the elision of the nasal bearing unit intermorphemically/ across word boundary. A close look at example (9iv) above shows that the nasality spread is from left to right until it reaches the word boundary even across the intervening approximant consonant. But in examples (10 and 11) the spread is blocked by a plosive and affricates. This further justifies the proposal put up in item (24ii) below that despite the bidirectional nature of the spreading, the nasality spread can be blocked by plosives and affricates. The foregoing has lent credence to the adequacy and suitability of autosegmental phonology in accounting for nasality spread in this dialect.

85 4.2.3. Analysis of Disyllabic Words with Prefixes The derivation of disyllabic words at the surface representation is a combination of three linguistic units viz, a nominal agentive morpheme, a verb and a noun as shown below: 12 i. i-fọnọ

[ifɔnɔ]̃ ‘toothpaste’

ii. ọ-mọtin [ɔmɔ̃tĩ] ‘a drunkard’ iii. a-yẹnrẹn [ajε̃rε̃] ‘gadget for roasting meat’

13i

Nasality Tier

CV Tier

[N]

Underlying representation

V- + C V

+ V

C

V

ɔ

ε

n

ɔ

i-

f

ii.

[N]

V- +

C V

i-

f

ɔ

+ ø

by vowel elision

C V

n

ɔ

86 iii.

[N]

V- +

C V

i-

f

iv.

+

ɔ

by [N] spreading

C

V

n

ɔ

[N]

Surface representation

V C V C V

i

f

ɔ n

ɔ

[ifɔnɔ̃] ‘toothpaste’

14i. Nasality tier

[N]

CV tier

V- + C V + V C

a- + j

ε + ε

Underlying representation

V

r ε

87 ii. Nasality tier

[N]

by elision

V- +

C V + ø

a-

j

iii.

V- +

ε

r

ε

[N]

by [N] Spreading

C V C V

a

ε

j

iv.

C V

r

[N]

ε

Surface representation

V C V C V

a

j

ε

r

ε

[aȷε̃̃ rε̃̃ ]

88 15i.

Nasality tier

CV Tier

[N]

V- +

C V+ V C V

ɔ-

ii

Underlying representation

m ɔ

.

ɔ t

i

N

by vowel elision

V- +

C V+ ø

ᴐ

m

iii.

ᴐ

C V

t

N

V

C

ɔ

m

i

by [N] spreading

V C V

ɔ

t

i

89 iv. N

V

C V C V

ɔ

m ɔ t i

Surface representation

[ɔ̀mɔ̃̀tĩ́] ‘a drunkard’

Data from two syllable words with prefixes reveals the striking feature of nasalization in Onko. It is bidirectional; it could spread from left to right (as in 13iii & 15iii) and from right to left (as in 14iii). What determines the direction of nasality spread in the dialect is the location of the consonants susceptible to nasalization to either a nasal consonant or nasalized vowel. What is the logical systematic way of constraint in Onko is that prefixal vowels are not allowed to acquire nasality through spreading even at the underlying level.

4.2.4. Nasal Stability Stability is a technical autosegmental term used to refer to the retention of certain features like tone or nasality after the deletion of segments which appeared to be bearing them. In Yoruba, when a nasal vowel has been elided at morpheme boundary, its nasality is retained on a following vowel occurring across boundary:

(16i)

h̃ε̃

+

okɔ̃̀

h̃õkɔ̃

‘to catch robe’

(ii)

jε̃

+

epo

j̃ẽpo

‘borrow oil’

90 (iii)

arε̃

+

oʤu

arõʤu

‘eye worm’

(iv)

sɔ̃

+

eku

sẽku

‘ burn rat’

(v)

kpĩ

+

erε̃

kpε̃rε̃

‘share meat’

(vi)

tu

+

nnkε̃

tũnkε̃

‘spit something’

(vii)

che

+

ĩ̀rε̃rε̃

(viii)

sisɔ̃

(ix)

kikε̃

+

ʧẽ̀rε̃̀rε̃ʹ ‘to be ranting while sleeping’

okete

sisõkete ‘to roast giant rat’

+ orule

kikõrule ‘to roof house’

There is some possible explanation of stability in Onko dialect. One may assume that the soft-palate feature [+nasal] spreads onto a following segment occurring across boundary prior to the elision of segment bearing it. The example above show that nasal stability in Onko is both progressive (as in examples i-v above) and regressive (as in vi-vii above) The progressive nasal stability may be illustrated thus: Ṽ

#

V

(17i)

o

o

o

o

o

o

[+nas]

root

supralaryngeal

91 While the regressive nasal stability is given below (ii)

V

♯

Ṽ

o

o

root

o

o

supralaryngeal

o

o

[+ nas]

The double crossed lines show deletion of the root node; the broken line shows spreading of [+ nasal] across word boundary. It is quite important at this point to refer to feature geometry in order to capture the articulatory basis for the perceived persistent occurrence of nasalization in Onko. This analysis would erroneously suggest that nasality may spread across word boundary in the dialect. It fails to recognize the fact that feature specifications are segments in their own right and may behave independently of other features. The better analysis is therefore to propose a straightforward deletion of the nasal vowel leaving only the soft palate feature [+nasal] which is then reassociated with the following segment as given below for both progressive and regressive nasal stability respectively:

92

Ø

#

V

(18i)

o

root

o

supralaryngeal

o

soft palate

[+nas]

OR (ii)

V

root

♯

ø

o

supralaryngeal

o

soft palate

o

[+nas]

The broken line shows that only [+nas] remains among the vowel features. This feature reassociates with a following vowel occurring across boundary. This convention is

93 dialect-specific because of its bidirectional spreading as against leftward direction of spreading in the standard variety of Yoruba. Only the underlying nasality may exhibit stability. For instance, (16i-iv) the nasality of deleted final nasal vowels of monosyllabic verbs and bisyllabic nouns is stable, likewise that of final vowels of bisyllabic verbs (16viii-ix) and trisyllabic nouns which have nasalized vowels in the final syllable as seen in the examples above.

4.2.5. Denasalization Under Deletion Unlike in the standard Yoruba (as discussed above in the empirical studies) where nasalization may become denasalized due to the absence of nasality at the surface after the process of assimilation has taken place, in the Onko dialect, such denasalization does not occur both intra and inter morphemically as shown in these example whose underlying forms are derived from both partial and complete reduplication as exemplified in (19i) and (19ii & iii) respectively: (19)

a.

ͻ̀kε̃́kε̃́

ɔ̃ɔ̃kε̃́ ‘far away straight ahead’

b.

ͻrͻ̃́ -ͻrͻ̃́

ͻ̃rͻ̃̃ ͻ̃r̃ͻ̃́ ‘four days interval’

c.

ͻ̀kε̃ -ͻ̀kε̃

ͻ̀kε̃ε̃kε̃ ‘one by one’

In the examples (19a) above, vowel /ͻ/ which is V1 (first vowel) assimilates /ɛ/ while in (19c), vowel /ɛ/ assimilates /ͻ/ across the morpheme boundary. The autosegmental analysis of the above examples are given below:

94

(19ai)

N

V C

ͻ

N

V+ C V

k ɛ

(ii)

ɛ

k

N

N

V ø

V +

C V

ͻ

ɛ

k

(iii)

V

ͻ

ɛ

N

N

V + C

V

ɛ

k

by Consonant deletion

ɛ

by [N] spreading

95 (iv)

N

N

V

V + C V

ͻ

ͻ

(v)

k

by vowel assimilation

ɛ

N

N

V

V

C

V

ͻ

ͻ

k

ɛ

(19b) i.

surface representation

[ͻ̀ͻ́kɛ́] ‘far away straight ahead’

N

(ii)

N

V

C V + V C V

ͻ

r

ͻ

ͻ

N

N

V C V

V C V

ͻ

r ͻ

ͻ

r

ͻ

r

underlying representation

ͻ

by [N] spreading

96 (iii)

N

N

V C V

V C V

ͻ

ͻ

r

ͻ

surface representation

ͻ

r

[ͻrͻͻrͻ́]

‘four days interval’

In the same vein, denasalization noticed in Yoruba when the agentive morpheme ‘onί-’ is prefixed to a noun is realizable in the Onko dialect. But against Awobuluyi’s and Oyebade’s (1995) explanation, even though the final vowel of the morpheme may be elided, the nasal consonant is converted to the oral lateral approximant with nasality that is noticeable on the lateral and the following vowel at the surface. The /o/ preceding [ní ] changes to the first vowel of the noun as shown below: (20) a. b. c.

o+ you o+ o+

el ̃é̃dé

onί + ede

nί to have nί ni

‘owner of crayfish’

al̃á̃ ta ‘owner of pepper’ ɛl ̃ɛm ̃ ɔ̃ ‘palm-wine tapper’

onί + ata onί + ɛmɔ̃

The autosegmental analysis is given thus:

(20a) i.

N

underlying representation

V +

C V + V C V

o

n

i

e d

e

97 (ii)

N

V +

C

o

n

(iii)

by vowel elision

ø

V C V

e

N

d

e

by denasalization

V +

C

V C V

e

l

e d

(iv)

N

V +

e

e

surface representatiom

C V C V

l

e d

e

[elédé ] owner of crayfish

In other words, nasalization under deletion in Onko is only characterized by the loss of the ‘i’ vowel that bore the nasality. We adopted Awobuluyi’s (1964 and 1990) view that /onί-/ is a two-morhpheme word that is derived from second person singular pronoun ‘o’ and a verb meaning ‘nί’ “to have”. For Bamgbose (1966 and 1990), he views /onί-/ as a morpheme rather than a word made of two morphemes.

98 4.2.6. Nasal Effacement in Onko Nasality effacement is a rule which deletes the nasality on vowels occurring at morpheme boundaries in compound and complex words. Since compound and complex words are derived from phrase, it means that vowel elision would have applied resulting in the effacement of the nasality of the deleted vowel. Let us see a few examples below: (21)

by vowel elision

i. bu kɔ̃ ade ii. ade gɔ̃ ori oje

bukade adegoroje

by lexicalization bukade adegoroye

‘increase to royalhood’ ‘Ade mounted the throne’

It could be observed that nasal effacement is nominal sensitive. It is only restricted to proper nouns (sentential names). Such names show the agglutinative form of the morphological typology of the Yorubalanguage. We may suggest its restriction to this category of noun could be the result of the orthographic freedom each individual has in writing his/her name the way he/she feels. But for that these realizations might not have been possible given the nasal habit of the dialect under study.

4.2.7. Nasalization of e/o Vowels /e/ and /o/ are not generally nasalized in standard Yoruba. They are known to be generally incompatible with nasality. They are the only vowels in the language that do not occur nasalized at the underlying level. In Onko, they are compatible with nasality, and occur in non-derived environment i.e. as nasalized vowels (examples 1ii & v; 3viii) above and they are phonemic. Besides, they acquire nasality through transfer (via deletion) in a fully analogous environment, across morpheme boundary, as shown in examples (16i-iv) above, where many subjects on whom the data were tested considered

99 the utterances acceptable. In other words, in phrases, oral vowels (including /e/ and /o/ ) may get nasalized as a result of the elision of a preceding nasal vowel occurring across morpheme boundary. This, of course, can find explanation in the fact that they are lowered in phrase due to the ‘stability’ of the nasality of deleted preceding nasal vowels occurring across morpheme boundary as shown below: (22i) (ii)

jã́

omi

kpı́ ̃ ekpo

(iii) kpĩ owõ (iv)

fṍ

eso

jṍmĩ

‘sprinkle water’

kpé ̃kpo ‘share oil’ kpõwõ ‘share money’ fé ̃so

‘spread seed’

Confirming the spread of nasalization from consonants to vowels, Ikekeonwu (1986) notes that we realize that all vowels are amenable to nasalization in the enviroment of these consonants, even /e/ and /o/which are not always affected by the process in the New Benue-Congo languages according to Hyman (1972). We may say that the rule which prevents the nasality of the monosyllabic verbs from surfacing at the phonetic level following the deletion of all its segmental features is probably a morpheme-sensitive rule according to Awobuluyi and Oyebade (1995) and the rule is in the process of being phonologized. It is phonologized because the process exceeds the degree that can be said to characterize all languages. However, with the examples above, it appears the rule is not obligatory since the data are true representation of the speech habit of the Onko speakers. In other words, one can assert in a non-linear term that the rule which disallows the nasalization of /e,o/ in the standard Yoruba is one which optionally forbids the re-linking of a nasal autosegment (or soft-palate node) if it was linked with a vowel that has been deleted by rule.

100 In such instances these vowels are not lowered to their mid-open counterparts. It is clear from the situation above that half-close vowels are lowered if they derive their nasality from a preceding nasal consonant as in (examples 1i,3iv & viii); whereas they are not lowered if the source of nasality is a preceding nasal vowel occurring across boundary as in examples (22i-iv) above. We can summarize these situations below with the following rules:

23(i)

[C ₒ ]

(ii)

Ṽ ≠ [

[N ] ]

N --------[

]

It is noteworthy to compare the pattern of realization of nasalized vowels in Onko dialect with their counterpart in the standard Yoruba. They (nasalized vowels) are all phonemic in Onko. The high back rounded nasalized [ũ] is realized as mid-low back rounded nasalized [ɔ̃], the mid-low back rounded nasalized vowel [ɔ̃] is realized as midhigh back rounded nasalized vowel [õ]. The central low unrounded nasalized vowel [ã] is realized as [ε̃]. The mid-low front unrounded nasalized vowel [ε̃] is realized as [ẽ]. The high front unrounded nasalized vowel [ĩ] remains as it is in the standard Yoruba.

4.3. Autosegmental Account of Words with Multiple Nasalized Sounds Hyman (1982) proposes that we regard nasality as an autosegment capable of being mapped onto a lexical morpheme or stem. Within the autosegmental framework, the occurrence of a particular feature on one tier does not preclude it from occurring on another tier according to van der Hulst and Vergnaud (1982). A particular phenomenon

101 may occur on different tiers within a phonological representation and since the tiers are independent of one another, what affects the phenomenon on one tier may not affect it on another tier. It is for this reason that we may differentiate two types of nasality, namely, nasality as a distinctive feature and nasality as an autosegment. As a distinctive feature, it is part and parcel of the segmental make-up of the sounds on which it is found and so occurs on the segmental tier. The only consonant segments that possess it as a segmental feature in Onko dialect are the two nasal consonants /m, n/. Within a stem, if the NBU is C, spreading is from left to right. On the other hand, nasality may be regarded as an autosegment and so occurs on an autosegmental tier. As an autosegment, Hyman (1982) has suggested that nasality be mapped onto lexical morphemes/stems. In other words, a lexical morpheme is either marked positive for nasality or it has no underlying nasal specification. Within a lexical morpheme both the nasality bearing unit (NBU) and the domain within which the phenomenon can be realized must be specified for the language. Nasality is, thus, linked to a segment in the phonological representation only by association; it is independent of that segment. Consequently, it is stable, that is, it can feature even in the absence of the segment to which it has been linked (by deletion); it can float, and it can spread onto neighbouring segments which are receptive to it. Ways of accounting for the nasal autosegment in Onko is to propose that: (24) (i) the class of nasality bearing unit defined here are those segments which are underlyingly associated with nasality. These are the five nasal vowel phonemes. This means that the autosegment is mapped onto a V, CV tier in the underlying representation

102 (ii) the class of segments which can not be nasalized are affricates and stops. (iii) the class of segments which are those that can acquire nasality at surface representation – all approximants, fricatives, and oral vowels. (iv) the domain of nasalization – the syllable. (v) that NBU is the first nasal consonant within a stem. So, it is mapped onto only one slot on the CV tier, that slot may be a V1. Following the postulation of the five nasal vowel phonemes as the NBUs in Onko [ε̃, õ, ĩ, ẽ, ɔ̃] which are in some respects different from five attested in the standard Yoruba [ã, ĩ, ε̃, ɔ̃, ũ] we are faced with the task of deriving nasality on other segments in a stem that has more than one nasalized vowel (e.g ĩ̀̀r̃ε̃̀r̃ε̃́, ĩ̀gbɔ̃wɔ̃). We assumed that the first nasalized vowel is the NBU

[N] (25i)

i

r

ε r ε

[ ìr̃ε̃̀rε̃́] ‘meaningless talk while sleeping’

N ii.

i gb

ɔ w ɔ

[ìgbᴐ̀̃w̃ ᴐ́]̃ ‘elbow’

103 In example (25i) above the alveolar flap acquired its nasality from the succeeding nasalized vowels. In other words, the nasality spread is leftward. But in example (25ii), the spreading is rightward even to the word boundary. The nasality on the initial vowel is not derived; it is an underlying form of the vowel which is peculiar to the dialect. Worthy of note from these examples is certain unique feature of linguistic structure of Onko dialect. The presence of the nasalized vowels at the word initial position is against the phonotactic constraints in the standard Yoruba where nasalized vowels are restricted to the word-medial and word-final positions. In fact, it is against the general assumption concerning nasalized vowels in New Benue-Congo languages that the most common origin of contrastive nasalized vowels seems to be syllable final sequences of oral vowel followed by nasal consonant. V

[+nasal]

Ṽ N

♯

and then the syllable final N is deleted N

ø

[+ nasal]

♯

V Hyman (1972) says this explanation has met no opposition ever since. So, how do we derive the nasality in examples like those above where there are more than one nasalized vowel? With this we suggest three approaches. First, we may postulate the location of nasality on the NBU and spread bidirectionally from left to right as in (26 & 27) below or right to left as in (28 & 29) thus:

104 (26)

[N]

ĩ

d

(27)

ε̃

r

[dĩrε̃̃ ] ‘fry meat’

[N]

i d ɔ l ε

(28)

[ ìdɔlὲ ] ‘tiny insect in the soil’

[N]

i

j

(29)

ε

[ĩjε̃́] ‘pounded yam’

[N]

ε f

o

[ὲf̀ ̃õ]

‘mosquito’

105 This account is unique to Onko dialect. It is quite against what obtains in the standard Yoruba where the direction of spreading is from left to right. It runs contrary to the principle guiding nasality in the standard Yoruba which forbids leftward spread. This is the reason according to Awobuluyi and Oyebade (1995) why in the standard version of the language, the procedure is that [-N] feature spreads from one vowel to another (neighbouring) vowel provided the second vowel is to the right of the spreading nasal feature and it is linked with a [+N] feature. Besides, bidirectionality has been claimed to be a rare linguistic feature concerning nasalization in the New Benue-Congo languages according to Hyman (1972). Kammelu (2003) equally notices that the spread of nasality is bidirectional in the Esan language. In fact the pattern below is formulated for the development of nasalization in these languages: (30) CV1 NV2 CV1 N

(Final V-Elision)

CṼ1 N

(V-Nasalization)

CṼ1

(Nasal loss)

Hyman (1972) proposes a CNV structure becoming CV. So, the point here is that it is possible for nasalization to spread from vowels to consonants. In the analysis in (29) above, it would be observed that the leftward spreading of nasality influence a fricative (continuant) sound which is unusual in the standard Yoruba. This instance is also found in the Central Igbo dialect according to Ikekeonwu (1986). However, the domain of nasalization in the above example is vowel; it spreads its

106 nasality leftward to the fricative. In Ikekeonwu (1986) the spread of nasalization is from its domain that is the fricative to the vowel. The initial vowel in example (27) could not acquire nasality because the spread is blocked by a plosive. In bidirectional spreading, the regressive spreading only nasalizes the consonant tautosyllabically i.e, (segment within the same syllable) as in examples (28 & 29) while progressive spreading nasalizes all transparent (compatible) segments up to the word boundary as I examples (26 & 27). Secondly, we can see nasalization as involving two ordered processes: copying, whereby an NBU passes over intervening consonants and makes its nasality available to subsequent vowels and susceptible consonant gets nasalized afterward by syllabic nasal or nasalized vowels. By susceptible consonant we mean those consonants which are susceptible to nasalization such as those highlighted in (24iii) above. This may be illustrated thus: (31) ì kɔ̃ ahɔ́ ̃

(32) èé t ῖ rí nã́

(33) ɔrɔ̃ ɔrɔ̃

by copying ì k ε̃ h ɔ́ ̃

by spreading ì k ɛ ̃ h̃ ɔ́ ̃ ‘something (powder) rub on the tongue’

èé tῖ rῖ nε̃

ɔrɔ̃ɔrɔ̃́

èé tῖ

ɔrɔ̃ ̃ɔ̃rɔ̃ ́̃

rῖ nε̃ ‘what is it’ ‘five days interval’

The example (33) above could have resulted into denasalization in the standard Yoruba. However, it could be observed that nasalization as it is realized in Onko is possible under assimilation and it is characterized by the presence of nasality at the surface level after the process of vowel assimilation. It occurs intermorphemically.

107 This second approach could make nasality available from one vowel to another one at an arbitrary distance by passing through an intervening consonant by copying. To support this is the fact that the occurrence of nasalized vowels even through the nasalizable consonant can be explained phonetically through spreading. Thirdly, we may view nasality as a feature of the word rather than segment and simply spreads the nasality from left to right or, from right to left beginning with the leftmost segment. However, this approach is limited because oral segment like vowels that are prefixes may occur with nasal segments in a stem without getting nasalized as given below (34)

N

i d ε d ε [ ìdε̃dε̃] ‘compulsory’

(35)

N

i kp i

(36)

[ ìkpĩ] ‘a share’

N

ki kεle

[kikε̃le] ‘to roof house’

108 Where nasality is a suprasegment one would expect all the oral segments even those susceptible to nasalization to be nasalized since they are all within the domain of nasalization as seen in example (36) above. Besides, this suggestion could not give a clear-cut distinction between when nasality could spread and when it could not. And the fact that there is stability in both underlying and the derived nasality is seen as a unique feature of nasalization in Onko. This third approach could not distinguish between the derived and underlying nasality. And such distinction is important especially for nasality stability since stability at the underlying form is stable and stability on the derived form is not. For this work, we adopted the first and second approaches since they capture the intricacies of nasalization in Onko. What appears to be the salient point in the dialect is that nasality is a syllabic property. So, members of a syllable (consonant and vowel) must agree in nasality as long as they are compatible with it. This agreement, though captured by nasal spread rule may be explained by Morpheme Structure Condition (MSC) that any elements dominated by syllable node must agree in nasality. The MSC together with the figures below are able to explain the facts of nasalization in Onko in a simple way:

109 (38i)

(V-) V

#

xn

o

o

root

o

o

supralaryngeal

o soft-palate o

[+Nas]

[-strident]

and ii.

xn

♯

v

o

o

o

o supralaryngeal

o

o soft-palate

[- strident]

[+Nas]

root

110 The figure above explains nasalization as a process spreading nasality from the first NBU of a word in a bidirectional way to all [-strident] segments until it hits word boundary. The figure above specially shows the direction and domain of nasalization and the types of segments that undergo the process. Following this MSC approach we are able to explain formulating bidirectional rules.

111 CHAPTER FIVE SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION The central issue in this work is nasalization in Onko or Oke-Ogun dialect and we examine this phenomenon within the scope of segments which are susceptible to nasalization, its direction of spread, the nature of the nasalized vowels and their distribution within stems, the domain of nasality, nasality perception, nasal stability and effacement and denasalisation. In order to give an accurate analysis of nasalization as a special feature in Onko, we propose that the class of nasality bearing unit (NBU) defined here are those segments which are underlyingly associated with nasality. These are the five nasal vowel phonemes. This means that the autosegment is mapped onto a V, CV tier in the underlying representation. Besides, approximants and fricatives as classes of sound segments can equally receive nasality while affricates or plosives do block nasality spread. Like in the standard Yoruba, five vowels are naturally compatible with nasalization in Onko. However, these vowels are quite different in some respect to that of standard Yoruba. They are [ε̃, õ, ĩ, ẽ, ɔ̃]. A close look at these vowels reveals certain striking revelation about the dialect as against the general assertion made of the New Benue Congo languages that /e, o/ are generally incompatible with nasalization except in nasal deletion or slow speech according to Malzian (1983). Beside these vowels, approximants and fricatives unlike in standard Yoruba are equally vulnerable to nasalization. We found that where a nasalized vowel gets elided, its nasality is not deleted along with it. Rather, it relinks on the vowel segment that becomes the nucleus of that syllable.

112 Besides, as noted above that whereas vowels /e/ and /o/ are not nasalized in the New Benue-Congo languages, they are part of the five nasalized vowels in Onko. These two vowels are derived from earlier states of oral vowels in proximity with nasal consonants. Nasality spreading can be blocked by affricates or plosives as earlier noted above. As shown in the example above, stops, including labio-velars are known to be preventing the spread of nasal spreading. Available data from two syllable words with prefixes reveals the striking feature of nasalization in Onko. It is bidirectional; it could spread from left to right and from right to left. What seems to be the crucial point in the dialect is that the domain of nasalization is syllable and this can account for the direction of nasality spread since it can spread over all the nasalizable segments except prefixes. Worthy of note is certain unique feature of linguistic structure of Onko dialect. The presence of the nasalized vowels at the word initial position is against the phonotactic constraints in the standard Yoruba where nasalized vowels are restricted to the wordmedial and word-final positions. In the Onko dialect, denasalization is not attested both intra and inter morphemically as observed in the standard Yoruba. In the same vein, denasalization noticed in Yoruba when the agentive morpheme ‘onί’ is prefixed to a noun is unrealizable in the Onko dialect. Against Awobuluyi’s and Oyebade’s (1995) explanation, even though the final vowel of the morpheme may be elided, the nasal consonant is converted to the lateral counterpart with nasality. So, the nasality that is not noticeable at the surface following the deletion in the standard Yoruba is prominent in the Onko dialect. In other

113 words, nasalization under deletion in Onko is only characterized by the loss of the ‘i’ vowel that bore the nasality while the nasal segment becomes nasalized lateral [l̃]. From the foregoing, we can unquestionably establish that our findings have largely accomplished all the stated objectives highlighted above (see 1.2). This could be measured from the aspects of the differences between nasalization in Onko dialect and the standard variety of the Yoruba language. For instance, the first objective aimed at presenting the differences between nasalization in Onko dialect and the standard variety of the Yoruba language. In achieving this objective, we discovered that the nature of some nasalized vowels in Onko dialect differ significantly from those of the standard variety. Besides, vowels /e/ and /o/ which are non-nasalizable at the underlying level in the standard variety of Yoruba are nasalized at the underlying level in the dialect under study. It is against the phonotactics of the standard variety of Yoruba to find nasalized vowels word initially; nasalized vowels are realized at the word initial position in Onko dialect.. The second objective focused on the explicit explanation of nasality spread in Onko dialect. From the analysis of the data, it was clear that the direction of nasality spread which is leftward in the standard variety is bidirectional in Onko dialect. Nasality could spread from right to left, and from left to right. This dual nasality spread is accounted for by the position of the sound segments which are transparent or susceptible to nasality in a word. Thirdly, the work achieved the penultimate objective on how to derive nasality on lexical items with more than one nasalized sound. This purpose is accomplished, having putting up three approaches, through the use of bidirectional nasality spread, and a dual process of copying and spreading. In other words, two of the three approaches that were advanced helped in realizing the third objective. Lastly, with

114 the help of autosegmental phonology, we were able to achieve the fourth objective that denasalization is non-existent in Onko unlike in the standard variety as enuciated by Awobuluyi and Oyebade (1995). In a nutshell, the accomplishment of these objectives has invariably provided satisfactory answers to the research questions highlighted on section 1.3 in a sequential order. We hope, therefore, that these findings will to a large extent add to existing insights and database about nasality as a phonological feature and nasalisation as a process especially in the Yoruba language. The foregoing will invariably have some pedagogical relevance to language teaching and learning in Yoruba specifically in that it will correct overgeneralization of some issues as regards nasalization in the language. Meanwhile, there is still a lot to inquire on about nasalization in Yoruba especially in Onko variety of the Yoruba language. For instance, the aspect of nasal harmony in this dialect has not been given attention in any serious research investigation. I therefore urge subsequent researchers to take a research inquiry into this phonological issue. In distinguishing autosegmental phonological analysis from more traditional types of generative phonology, the emphasis has been on the more articulated types of phonological structure proposed by the autosegmental theory and disallowed by SPE postulates. The Autosegmental theory has revised in some ways the generative view of phonology. Yet, it remains essentially within the general view of the goals of phonology spelled out in sound pattern. Non-linear framework provides to generative phonology one way to incorporate some more traditional and phonetically-based notions. Autosegmental model equally allows for revealing analyses of suprasegmental

115 elements using basic techniques of generative phonology. As remarked by Van der Hulst & Smith 1982, progress in autosegmental phonology has owed much to its ‘problem-solving efficiency’- i.e., its success in finding solutions for previously unsolved representational problems, and integrating them into a consistent, over-all theoretical framework.

116 REFERENCES Abercrombie, D. (1967). Elements of general phonetics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Adetugbo, A. (1982). Towards Yoruba dialectology. In A. Afolayan (Ed.) Yoruba language and literature. Ile-Ife: University Press Ltd. (Pp.207-224). Adetugbo, A. (1967). The Yoruba language in Western Nigeria: Its major dialect areas. Ph.D Thesis. Columbia University. Ann Arbor: University Microfilm. Akamatsu, T. (1991). Articulatory phonetics. In K. Malmkjaer (Ed.) The linguistic encyclopedia. London: Routledge. (Pp. 20-28). Anderson, S. R. & Kiparsky, P. (1985). Phonology in the twentieth century: Theories of rules and theories of representations. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Anderson, J. M. (1991). Historical linguistics. In K. Malmkjaer (Ed.) The linguistic encyclopedia. London: Routledge. (Pp. 189-216). Archangeli, D & Pulleyblank, D (1986). The content and structure of phonological representations. MS. University of Arizona and University of Southern California. Awobuluyi, A. O. (1964). The phonology and morphophonemics of Yoruba. M. A. Dissertation. Columbia University, Canada. Awobuluyi, A. O. (1990). On the N/L alternation in Yoruba. Paper read at the departmental seminar series. Department of Linguistics and Nigerian Languages, University of Ilorin. Awobuluyi, A. O. & Oyebade, F. (1995). Denasalization in Yoruba: A non-linear approach. In K. Owolabi (Ed.) Language in Nigeria. Ibadan: Group publishers. (Pp. 16-31). Bamgbose, A. (1966). A Grammar of Yoruba. London. Cambridge. Bamgbose, A. (1990). Fonoloji ati girama Yoruba. Ibadan: Ibadan University Press. Beddor, P. (1993). The perception of nasal vowels. In M. K. Huffman & R. A. Krato (Eds.) Nasals, nasalization and the velum. San Diego: Academic Press. (Pp 171196). Bender, E. & Harris, Z. S. (1946). The phonemes of North Carolina. International Journal of American Linguistics. Vol.12. pp14-21. Brame, M. (1974). The cycle in phonology. Li 5. Pp. 39-60.

117

Bybee, J. L. (2001). Phonology and language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Carrel, P. L. (1970). A transformational grammar of Igbo. West African Languages Series. Vol. 8. Cauty, A. (1978). An approach to the phonological and syllabic systems of language. Amerindia. 3. Pp85-103. Chen, M. (1969). Vowel length variation as a function of the voicing of the consonant. Project on Linguistic Analysis. Phonology Laboratory, Department of Linguistics, University of California, Berkeley. Vol. 9. Chomsky, N. & Halle, M. (1968). The sound pattern of English. New York.: Harper and Row. Clark, J, Yallop, C. & Fletcher, J. (2007). Introduction to phonetics and phonology. USA: Blackwell. Clement, G. N. (1976). Vowel harmony in non-linear phonology. IULC. Clement, G. N. (1977). The autosegmental treatment of vowel harmony. In Dressler and Pfeiffer (Eds.) Phonologica. Innsbruck: Innsbrucker Beitrage zur Sprachwissenschaft. (Pp. 111-119). Clement, G. N. (1981). Akan vowel harmony: A non-linear analysis. Harvard Studies in Phonology. Vol.2 pp 108-177. Clement, G. N. (1984). Vowel harmony in Akan: A consideration of Stewart’s word structure condition. Studies in African Linguistics. Vol. 15, Pp. 321-337. Clement, G. N. (1985). The geomentary of phonological features. In Phonology Yearbook 2. Pp. 225-252. Clement, G. N. & Keyser, S. J. (1983). CV phonology. Cambridge: The MIT Press. Cohen, L. & Manion, L. (1980). Research method in education. London: Croom and Helm. Courtnay, K. (1968). A generative phonology of Yoruba. Ph.D Thesis. University of California, Los Angelis. Crystal, D. (Ed.) (1982). Linguistic controversies: Essays in linguistic theory and practice. London: Edward Arnold.

118 Crystal, D. (1992). A dictionary of linguistics and phonetics. (3rd Blackwell.

ed.). Oxford:

Crystal, D. (2003). A dictionary of linguistics and phonetics (4th ed.). USA: Blackwell. Dickson, R. D. & Dickson, W. M. (1982). Anatomical and physiological bases of speech. Boston: College Hill Press. Dinnsen, D. A. (1976). Current approaches to phonological theory. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Dogil, G. (1980). Autosegmental phonology in contrastive linguistics, In J. Fisiak (Ed.) Current Issues in Linguistic Theory. Vol. 12. Dummestre, G. (1970). Atlas linguistique de Cote d’Ivoire. Abidjan: Institute de Linguistique Appliquee xi, Universite d’Abidjan. Durand, J. (1986). Dependency and non-linear phonology. London: Croom and Helm. Durand, J. (1990). Generative and nonlinear phonology. New York: Longman. Egbokhare, F. (1990). A phonology of Emai. Ph.D Dissertation. University of Ibadan. Ejele, P. E (1982). Towards the study of the phonology of Esan. M A Thesis. University College London. Emenanjo, E. N. (1978). Elements of modern Igbo grammar. Ibadan: Oxford University Press. Erendu, E. D. (1984). Towards the phonetics and phonology of Ngwa. B. A. Project Department of Linguistics and Nigerian Languages. University of Nigeria. Nsukka. Ferguson, C. A. (1963). Assumption about nasal: A sample duty in phonological universal. In J. H. Greenberg (Ed.) Universals of language. Cambridge: MIT. (Pp.53-60). Flanagan, J. L. (1972). Speech analysis: Synthesis and perception. Berlin: SpringerVerlag. Fromkin, V. & Rodman, R. (1981). Introduction to language. New York: C.B.S College Publishers. Fudge, E. C. (1973). Phonology. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

119 Gilbert, J. H & Wyman, V. J (1975). Discriminating learning of nasalized and nonnasalized vowels by five-six and seven-year-old-children. Phonetica Vol. 31. Pp. 65-80. Gimson, A. C (1980). An introduction to the pronunciation of English. London: Edward Arnold. Gleason, H. A. (1961). An introduction to descriptive linguistics. London: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Goldsmith, J. A. (1976). Autosegmental phonology. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Goldsmith, J. A. (1979). Autosegmental phonology. MIT: Garland Press. Goldsmith, J. A. (1989). Autosegmental and metrical phonology: A new synthesis. Oxford: Blackwell. Goldsmith, J. A (1990). Autosegmental and metrical phonology. Britain: Blackwell. Goldsmith, J. A. (1996). The aims of autosegmental phonology. In D. J. Napoli (Ed.) Linguistics. London: Oxford University Press. (Pp. 202-222). Goldsmith, J. A. (1999). Phonological theory: The essential readings. Oxford: Blackwell. Gregersen, E. A. (1972). Nilotic nasal stop cluster. Journal of African Languages. Vol.11. Part 3. Hajek, J. (2005). Vowel nasalization. In M. Haspelmath (Ed.) World atlas of linguistic structures. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Halle, M. & Vergnaud, J. R. (1981). Harmony processes. In Klein & Levelt (Eds.) Crossing the boundaries in linguistics. Dordrecht: Foris Publications. Harris, J. W. (1984). Autosegmental phonology, lexical phonology and Spanish nasals. In Aronoff & Oehrle (Eds.) Languages and sound structures. Cambridge: The MIT Press. Harris, Z. S. (1951). Methods in structural linguistics. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Haspelmath, M. (2005). Nasals and nasalization. In M. Haspelmath, (Ed.) World atlas of linguistic structures. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hawkins, P. R. (1984). Introducing phonology. London: Hutchinson.

120 Herbert, J. F. (1986). Formal aspects of phonological description. The Hague: Mouton. Hayes, B. (1986). Assimilation as spreading in Toba Batak. Li 17. Pp. 467-499. Hogg, R. & McCully, C. B. (1987). Metrical phonology: A coursebook. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hopper, J. B. (1976). An introduction to natural generative phonology. New York: Academic Press. Hyman, L. (1972). Nasals and nasalization in Kwa. In Studies in African linguistics. Vol. 3. Number 2. (Pp. 167-206). Hyman, L. M. (1975). Phonology: Theory and analysis. USA: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Hyman, L. M. (1982). The representation of nasality in Gokana. In H. Van der Hulst & N. Smith (Eds.) The structure of phonological representation. Dordrecht: Foris Publications. Hyman, L. M. (1985). A theory of phonological weight. Dordrecht: Foris publications. Hyman, L. M. & Pulleyblank, D. (1987). On feature copying: Parameters of tone rules. In L. M. Hyman & C. N. Li (Eds.) Languages speech and mind: Studies in honour of Victoria Fromkin. London: Croom and Helm. Hyman, L. M. & Schuh, R. G. (1974). Universals of time rules: Evidence from West Africa. Linguistic Inquiry . Vol.5. Pp 81-115. Ikekeonwu, C. I. (1986a). Contrastive consonant nasalization in Igbo. Afrika und Übersee. Band 69. Heft 2. Pp. 293-298. Ikekeonwu, C. I. (1986). A lexicophonotactic study of the Northern Igbo dialects. Ph.D. Thesis. University of Nigeria, Nsukka. Ikekeonwu, C. I. (1996). Introduction to elements of phonology. In O.S. Ogwueleka et al (Eds.) Effective English usage. Lagos: Greenline publication. (Pp.33-48). Issatschenko, A. (1937). A propos des Voyelles nasals. Bull. de la Soc de Linguistic de Paris 38: 267-279. Jones, D. (1967). The phonemes: Its nature and use. Cambridge: Heffer and Sons. Kahn, D. (1982). Syllable-based generalizations in English phonology. New York: Garland.

121 Kammelu, N. C. (2003). Nasality in Esan. In O. M. Ndimele (Ed.) Four decades of language and linguistics In Nigeria: Festrichrift for Kay Williamson. NINLAN. (Pp 655-663). Katamba, F. (1986). Phonology and phonological theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Katamba, F. (1989). An introduction to phonology. UK: Longman. Kaye, J. D. (1971). Nasal harmony in Desano. Linguistic Inquiry 2. Pp. 37-56. Kentowicz, M. (1994). Phonology in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell. Kiparsky, P. (1985). Some consequences of lexical phonology. Phonological Yearbook 2. Pp 85-138. Kiparsky, P. (1968). Linguistic universals and language change. In Bach & Harms (Eds.) Universals in linguistic theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Ladd, D. R. (1996). Intonational phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ladefoged, P. (1982). A course in phonetics. London: Harcourt, Brace and Jovanovich. Langacker, R. N. (1972). Fundamentals of linguistic analysis. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Jovanovich. Leben, W. R (1973). Suprasegmental phonology. New York: Garland. Leben, W. R (1973a). The role of tone in segmental phonology. In L.M. Hyman (Ed.) Consonant types and tone. Southern California occasional papers in Linguistics. Dept of Linguistics. Los Angelis. Leben, W. R. (1973b). Suprasegmental and segmental representations of tone. Studies in African Linguistics. Supplement. 2. Pp183-200. Leben, W. R. (1976). The tones in English intonation. Linguistic Analysis Vol.2. Pp. 69107. Lehiste, I. (1970). Suprasegmentals. Cambridge: MIT Press. Liberman, M.Y & Prince, A. (1977). On stress and linguistic rhythm. Linguistic Inquiry 8. Pp 249-336. Lightner, T. M. (1980). Why and how does vowel nasalization take place? Papers in Linguistics Vol.6. Pp. 179-226.

122 Lunt, H. G. (1973). Remarks on nasality: The case of Guarani. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Maddieson, I. (2005). Vowel quality inventories. In M. Haspelmath (Ed.) World atlas of linguistic Structures. Oxford:. Oxford University Press. Maddieson, I. (2007). Areal distribution of nasalized vowels. Department of linguistics seminar series. University of California. McCarthy, J. (1981). A prosodic theory of non-concatinative morphology. Linguistic Inquiry 12. Pp. 373-418. Melzian, H. (1983). A concise dictionary of the Bini language of Southern Nigeria. London: Kegan Paul. Ndagi, J. O. (1984). Foundation of behavioural research. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Nwana, O. C (1981). Introduction to education research. Ibadan: Hienemann O’Connor, J. D. (1973). Phonetics. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Obi, E. M. (1998). The domain of nasalization and aspiration in Osuowere, Mbano Inland East Igbo. B. A. Project, Department of Linguistics and Nigerian Languages, University of Nigeria, Nsukka. Ohala, J. J. (2000). Monitoring soft palate movements in speech. Project on Linguistic Analysis. No 13. Phonology Laboratory. Department of Linguistics, University of California. Ohala, J. J. (2006). A course in modern linguistics. New York: Macmillan Oluikpe, B. O. A. (1979). Igbo transformational syntax: The Ngwa example. Onitsha: Africana Publishers. Oyebade, F. (1998). A course in phonology. Ijebuode: Shebotimo Press. Oyelaran, O. O (1971). Yoruba phonology. Ph.D Thesis. Standard. Stanford University. Oyelaran, O. O (1976). Futher notes on the alveolar nasal in Yoruba, and the phonological status of the syllabic nasal. Paper read at the round-table meeting on nasals and nasalization in generative phonology. University of Ibadan.

123 Oyelaran, O. O (1978). Linguistic speculations on Yoruba history. In O. O. Oyelaran (Ed.) Department of African Languages and Literatures Seminar Series 1. IleIfe:. Department of African Languages and Literatures. Oyelaran, O. O. (1991). Theoretical implications of the sources of the syllabic nasal in Yoruba Research in Yoruba language and literature 1. Oyetade, S. O. (1995). Towards a study of linguistic variation in Yoruba: A preliminary statement. In K. Owolabi (Ed.) Language in Nigeria: Essays in honour of Ayo Bamgbose. Ibadan: Group Publishers. (Pp. 201- 212). Radford, A. (1981). Transformational grammar. London: Cambridge University Press. Richards, J. C. & Schmidt, R. (2002). Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics. Harlow: Pearson Education Ltd. Riemsdijk, H. & Williams, E. (1985). Introduction to the theory of grammar. Cambridge: The MIT Press. Robin, R. (1989). General linguistics. London: Longman. Ruhlem, M. (1978). Nasal vowels. In J. H. Greenberg (Ed.) Universals of human language. Vol.2. Stanford: Stanford University Press. (Pp. 97-118) Schachter, P & Fromkin, V. (1968). A phonology of Akan: Akuapem, Asante and Fante. Working Papers in Phonetics 9. University of California. Los Angelis. Smolensky, P. I. (1991). Current issues in linguistic theory. The Hague: Mouton. Smolensky, P. I. (1993). ‘Theoretical issues in phonology’ In Proceedinds of the 13th international congress of phonetic science. Sommerstein, A. H. (1977). Modern phonology. London: Edward Arnold. Stahike, H. (1971). On the status of nasalized vowels in Kwa. In C. W. Kim & S. Herbert (Eds.). Papers in African linguistics. Edmonton. Linguistic Research Inc. (Pp. 239-247) Steele, R & Threadgold, T. (1987). Language topics. Amsterdam: Benjamin. Steriade, D. (1982). Greek prosodies and the nature of syllabification. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press. Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory. Procedures and Technique. Beverly- Hills: Sage Publications. Strauss, S. L (1982). Lexicalist phonology of English and German. Dordretcht:. Foris.

124

Uguru, J. O. (2005). Nasal in Ika. Nsukka Journal of Languages and Linguistics . Department of Linguistics and Nigerian Languages, University of Nigeria, Nsukka. Umeh, I. O. A. (1987). The Case of Aspiration in Igbo Language. M. A. Dissertation, Department of Linguistics and Communication, University of Port Harcourt. Van der Hulst, H. & Smith, N. (1982). An overview of autosegmental and metrical phonology. In H. Van der Hulst & N. Smith (Eds.) The structure of phonological representations. Dordrecht: Foris. Valenzuela, P. M. (2003). Phonological theory. Cambridge: MIT Press. Vennemann, T. (1972). On the theory of syllabic phonology. Linguistiche Berichte 18: 118. Vennemann, T. (1972b). Phonological uniqueness in natural generative grammar. Glossa, 6. 1 Vergnaud, L. A. (1983). ‘Nasal consonants and the internal structure of segments’ Language. Vol. 52. pp326-344. Williams, B. (1985). Pitch and duration inWelsh prominence perception. William, E (1976). Underline tone in Margi and Igbo. Li 7: Pp.463- 484. Yul-Ifode (1999). A course in phonology. Port-Harcourt: Riverside Communication.

125 APPENDIX A NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF RESPONDENTS INTERVIEWED 1. Name: Mr. Karimu Ọlatinwọ

2. Name: Ogontobi, Adejumọ

Age:

63 years

Age: 68 years

Sex:

Male

Sex: Male

Occupation: Farmer

Occupation: Carpenter

Address: Ita-Oye Street, Tede

Address: Oke-Aafa Street, Tede

3. Name: Ọlaifa, Adesakin

4.Name: Oyemọmi, Badejọ

Age:

66 years

Age:

83 years

Sex:

Male

Sex:

Male

Occupation: Farmer

Occupation: Farmer

Address: Abẹbi Area, Tede

Address: Oju-Odo Street, Tede

5. Name: Isọla, Akinfẹmi Age:

76 Years

Sex:

Male

6. Name: Adesọji Jimoh Age: 61 years Sex: Male

Occupation: Bricklayer

Occupation: Blacksmith

Address: Oke-Aafa Street, Tede

Address: Idi-Ọdan Area, Ṣaki,

7. Name: Kasali, Ọlakanmi

8. Name: Adegoke, Adeyẹmi

Age:

72 years

Age: 84 years

Sex:

Male

Sex: Male

Occupation: Tailor

Occupation: Palm-wine tapper/ Farmer

Address: Oke-Ọla Street, Saki

Address: Ọwọọpẹ Street, Ṣaki.

9. Name: Buraimọ, Taokeek

10. Name: Akanni, Moshood

Age: 75 years

Age:

71 years

Sex:

Sex:

Male

Male

Occupation: Bricklayer

Occupation: Butcher

Address: Marere Street, Ṣaki

Address: No 2, Balogun Area, Ṣaki

126 11. Name: Sikiru, Alade Age: Sex:

74 years Male

12. Name: Adetọna, Adewọle Age: 67 years Sex:

Male

Occupation: Tailor

Occupation: Farmer

Address: Oriire Street, Sẹpẹtẹri

Address: Anglican Street, Sẹpẹtẹri

13. Name: Ayọọla, Ọlajuwọn

14. Name: Ogunsina, Leke

Age:

58 years

Age: 69 years

Sex:

Male

Sex: Male

Occupation: Carpenter

Occupation: Farmer

Address: Oriire Strret, Sẹpẹtẹri

15. Name: Akinlekan, Bankole Age: Sex:

70 years Male

Address: Anglican Street, Sẹpẹtẹri

16. Name: Adelonpe, Adeoye Age: 61 years Sex: Male

Occupation: Shoe mender

Occupation: Hairdresser

Address: Temidire Street, Sẹpẹtẹri

Address: Oke-Aafa Street, Tede

17. Name: Oyediran Adewumi

18. Name: Adekanmi Funkẹ

Age:

69 years

Age:

70 years

Sex:

Female

Sex:

Female

Occupation: Trader (farm produce)

Occupation: Tailor

Address: Oju-Odo Street, Tede

Address: Abẹbi Area, Tede

19. Name: Oguntobi, Kadijat

20. Name: Atanda, Toyin

Age: 71 years

Age: 56 years

Sex:

Sex: Female

Female

Occupation: Hair dresser

Occupation: Trader (palm oil)

Address: Abẹbi Area, Tede

Address: : Ita-Oye Street, Tede

127 21. Name: Oyedeji, Adukẹ

22. Name: Oseni, Ọlarinpe

Age:

63 years

Age:

68 years

Sex:

Female

Sex:

Female

Occupation: Trader (goat)

Occupation: Trader (farm produce)

Address: Marere Street, Ṣaki

Address: Balogun Area, Ṣaki

23. Name: Ifaseun, Tọlani

24. Name: Adeniyi, Mọrufat

Age:

62 years

Age:

Sex:

Female

Sex:

64 years Female

Occupation: Trader (food seller)

Occupation: Tailor

Address: Oke-Ọla Street, Saki

Address: Ọwọọpẹ Street, Ṣaki

25. Name: Adeleke, Tinukẹ

26. Name: Agunbiade, Fọlaṣade

Age:

58 years

Age:

60 years

Sex:

Female

Sex:

Female

Occupation: Food seller

Occupation: Food seller

Address: Idi-Ọdan Area, Ṣaki,

Address: Oriire Street, Sẹpẹtẹri

27. Name: Akindele, Adenikẹ

28. Name: Adeyẹmi, Aṣabi

Age:

58 years

Age:

Sex:

Female

Sex: Female

Occupation:

Food seller

Address: Temidire Street, Sẹpẹtẹri

29. Name: Ogundele Funmilọla

60 years

Occupation: Farmer Address: Anglican Street, Sẹpẹtẹri

30. Name: Onifade, Oyinade

Age:

60 years

Age: 66 years

Sex:

Female

Sex: Female

Occupation: Palmwine seller

Occupation: Food seller

Address: Temidire Street, Sẹpẹtẹri

Address: Alemu Street, Sẹpẹtẹri

128 APPENDIX B Preliminary Questions Asked During the Unstructured Oral Interview

(a) Good morning/afternoon/evening. (b) Please, what is your name? (c) How old are you? (d) Are you single or married? (e) What do you do for a living? (f) Are you an indigene of Oke-Ogun speech community? (g) For how long have you been living here? (h) Do you speak Onko dialect? (i) Do you feel shy when speaking the dialect outside the Oke-Ogun speech community? (j) Now, can you pronounce these words using your dialect (Onko)?

129 APPENDIX C IBADAN WORD LIST OF 400 BASIC ITEMS (compiled by Prof. Ayo Bamgbose, Ph.D)

Trial (English) version Give the following information (1) Investigator’s name (2) Investigator’s address (3) Informant’s name (4) Informant’s age (or approximate age) (5) Informant’s language (a) official name (b) name used by speakers (6) What other language does the informant speak? (7) Infomant’s home town or village (8) How long has informant lived in home or village? (9) Where is this town? (a) List the nearest larger town their distance and direction (b) Name the Local Govt. Authority (a) Name the district or country (b) Name the province

130

(c) Name the state (10) Does the language have a written form? (11) If it doesn’t, name the language whose spelling is taken as the basis for the spelling of the word in the list. e.g (Hausa, English) (12) Which other towns (or district divisions, etc) speak the same language as the one under investigation? Pronounce these words in your own language or dialect: (1) Head (2) Hair (3) Eye (4) Ear (5) Nose (6) Mouth (7) Tooth (8) Tongue (9) Jaw (10)

Bread

(11)

Neck

(12)

Breast (female)

(13)

Heart

131

(14)

Belly (external)

(15)

Stomach (internal)

(16)

Navel

(17)

Back

(18)

Arm

(19)

Hand

(20)

Nail (finger/toe)

(21)

Buttocks

(22)

Penis

(23)

Vagina

(24)

Thigh

(25)

Leg

(26)

Knee

(27)

Body

(28)

Skin

(29)

Bone

(30)

Blood

(31)

Saliva

(32)

Urine

(33)

Faces

132

(34)

Food

(35)

Water

(36)

Soup/sauce/stew

(37)

Meal

(38)

Fat

(39)

Fish

(40)

Oil

(41)

Salt

(42)

Wine/beer (general word)

(43)

Palm wine

(44)

Yam

(45)

Cassava

(46)

Guinea corn

(47)

Millet

(48)

Maize

(49)

Beans

(50)

Pepper

(51)

Okro

(52)

Plantain

(53)

Banana

133

(54)

Orange

(55)

Groundnut

(56)

Kolanut

(57)

Coconut

(58)

Tobacco

(59)

Cotton

(60)

Oil palm

(61)

Seed

(62)

Grass

(63)

Tree

(64)

Leaf

(65)

Bark (of tree)

(66)

Root

(67)

Thorn

(68)

Stick

(69)

Firewood

(70)

Charcoal

(71)

Fire

(72)

Smoke

(73)

Ashes

134

(74)

Water pot

(75)

Cooking pot

(76)

Calabash

(77)

Grinding stone

(78)

Mortal

(79)

Knife

(80)

Hoe

(81)

Axe

(82)

Matchet

(83)

Spear (war)

(84)

Bow

(85)

Weapon

(86)

Arrow

(87)

Iron (metal)

(88)

Mat

(89)

Basket

(90)

Bag

(91)

Rope

(92)

Needle

(93)

Thread

135

(94)

Cloth (material)

(95)

Robe/gown/smock (man’s)

(96)

Hat/cap

(97)

Shoe

(98)

Money

(99)

Door (way)

(100)

Walk

(101)

Room

(102)

House

(103)

Compound

(104)

Town

(105)

Village

(106)

Well

(107)

Rubbish heap

(108)

Road

(109)

Market

(110)

Farm

(111)

Bush

(112)

River

(113)

Sea

136

(114)

Boat (canoe)

(115)

Stone

(116)

Mountain

(117)

Ground (soil)

(118)

Sand

(119)

Dust

(120)

Mud

(121)

Wind

(122)

Rain

(123)

Sunshine

(124)

Sun

(125)

Moon

(126)

Star

(127)

Day

(128)

Night

(129)

Dawn

(130)

Darkness

(131)

Sleep

(132)

Work

(133)

War

137

(134)

Fear

(135)

Hunger

(136)

Thirst

(137)

Year

(138)

Rainy season

(139)

Dry season

(140)

Sick

(141)

Story

(142)

Word

(143)

Lie(s)

(144)

Thing

(145)

Animal

(146)

Goat

(147)

He-goat

(148)

Sheep

(149)

Cow

(150)

Horse

(151)

Donkey

(152)

Dog

(153)

Cat

138

(154)

Rat

(155)

Duck

(156)

Egg

(157)

Wing

(158)

Chicken

(159)

Cock

(160)

Feather

(161)

Horn tail

(162)

Leopard

(163)

Crocodile

(164)

Elephant

(165)

Buffalo

(166)

Monkey

(167)

Tortoise

(168)

Snake

(169)

Lizard

(170)

Crab

(171)

Spider

(172)

Toad (frog)

(173)

Snail

139

(174)

Housefly

(175)

Bee

(176)

Mosquitoes

(177)

Louse

(178)

Bird

(179)

Vulture

(180)

Kite

(181)

Hawk

(182)

Guinea fowl

(183)

Bat

(184)

Person

(185)

Name

(186)

Man

(187)

Male

(188)

Husband

(189)

Wife

(190)

Female

(191)

Woman

(192)

Old person

(193)

Senior

140

(194)

Father

(195)

Mother

(196)

Children

(197)

Chile

(198)

Son

(199)

Daughter

(200)

Elder brother

(201)

Younger brother

(202)

Elder sister

(203)

Elder sister

(204)

Mother’s brother

(205)

In-law

(206)

Guest

(207)

Friend

(208)

Enemy

(209)

King

(210)

Hunter

(211)

Thief

(212)

Doctor

(213)

Witch

141

(214)

Chief

(215)

Medicine (charm)

(216)

Fetish (juju)

(217)

Corpse

(218)

God

(219)

One

(220)

Two

(221)

Three

(222)

Four

(223)

Five

(224)

Six

(225)

Seven

(226)

Eight

(227)

Nine

(228)

Ten

(229)

Eleven

(230)

Twelve

(231)

Thirteen

(232)

Fourteen

(233)

Fifteen

142

(234)

Sixteen

(235)

Seventeen

(236)

Eighteen

(237)

Nineteen

(238)

Twenty

(239)

Twenty-oneve

(240)

Twenty-five

(241)

Thirty

(242)

Forty

(243)

Fifty

(244)

Sixty

(245)

Seventy

(246)

Eighty

(247)

Ninety

(248)

Hundred

(249)

Two hundred

(250)

Four hundred

(251)

Black

(252)

White

(253)

Red

143

(254)

Big (great/large)

(255)

Small

(256)

Long (of stick)

(257)

Short (of stick)

(258)

New (opp New)

(259)

New

(260)

Wet

(261)

Dry

(262)

Hot (as fire)

(263)

Cold

(264)

Right (side)

(265)

Left

(266)

Good

(267)

Bad

(268)

Sweet (taste)

(269)

Heavy

(270)

Full

(271)

Strong

(272)

Hard

(273)

Eat

144

(274)

Drink

(275)

Swallow

(276)

Bite

(277)

Lick

(278)

Taste

(279)

Spilt

(280)

Vomit

(281)

Urinate

(282)

Defecate

(283)

Give birth

(284)

Die

(285)

Stand (up)

(286)

Sit (down)

(287)

Kneel

(288)

Lie (down)

(289)

Sleep

(290)

Dream

(291)

Go

(292)

Come

(293)

Return

145

(294)

Arrive

(295)

Enter

(296)

Climb

(297)

Descend

(298)

Fall

(299)

Crawl

(300)

Run

(301)

Jump

(302)

Fly

(303)

Pass (by)

(304)

Turn around

(305)

Follow

(306)

See

(307)

Hear

(308)

Touch (with hand)

(309)

Know

(310)

Remember

(311)

Forget

(312)

Think

(313)

Learn

146

(314)

Laugh

(315)

Weep (cry)

(316)

Sing

(317)

Dance

(318)

Play (games)

(319)

Fear

(320)

Greet

(321)

Abuse

(322)

Fight

(323)

Call (summon)

(324)

Send (someone to do something)

(325)

Say (direct speech)

(326)

Ask (question)

(327)

Reply

(328)

Ask (request)

(329)

Refused

(330)

Like

(331)

Want (desire)

(332)

Love

(333)

Look for

147

(334)

Lose (something)

(335)

Get (obtain)

(336)

Gather (thing)

(337)

Steal

(338)

Take (one thing)

(339)

Carry (load)

(340)

Show (something)

(341)

Give sell choose

(342)

Buy

(343)

Pay (for something)

(344)

Count

(345)

Divide (share out)

(346)

Finish

(347)

Catch

(348)

Shoot

(349)

Kill

(350)

Skin (flay)

(351)

Cook

(352)

Fry

(353)

Roast

148

(354)

Pound (in mortal)

(355)

Grind

(356)

Pour

(357)

Throw

(358)

Sweep

(359)

Burn

(360)

Extinguish

(361)

Plait (hair)

(362)

Weave (cloth)

(363)

Spin (thread)

(364)

Sew

(365)

Put on (clothes)

(366)

Take off (clothes)

(367)

Wash (thing)

(368)

Wash (body)

(369)

Wring (clothes)

(370)

Pull

(371)

Push

(372)

Beat (person)

(373)

Beat (drum)

149

(374)

Break (a stick)

(375)

Tear

(376)

Split

(377)

Pierce

(378)

Hole

(379)

Dig

(380)

Sow (seed)

(381)

Plant (tubers)

(382)

Burry

(383)

Building (house)

(384)

Mould (pot)

(385)

Carve (wood)

(386)

Make

(387)

Fold (hand)

(388)

Tie (rope)

(389)

Untie

(390)

Cover (a pot)

(391)

Open (door)

(392)

Close

(393)

(Be) rotten

150

(394)

Stink

(395)

Swell (of boil)

(396)

Blow (with mouth)

(397)

Blow (of wind)

(398)

Surpass

(399)

Dwell

(400)

Drink.