Cite this article as: Solomon, I. A. & Yakubu S. (2025). An Intellectual View of Semantic Relation in Igala Syntax as a Tonal Language. Zamfara International Journal of Humanities, 3(1), 24-30. www.doi.org/10.36349/zamijoh.2025.v03i01.003.
AN INTELLECTUAL VIEW OF SEMANTIC
RELATION IN IGALA SYNTAX AS A TONAL LANGUAGE
Idegu A. Solomon, Ph.D
Samaila Yakubu
Department of
English and Literary Studies, Federal University, Lokoja, Kogi State
Department of
English and Literary studies, Federal University Wukari, Taraba State
Abstract: The
primary aim of this study Is to intellectually describe the structure of
semantic relation in Igala syntax as a tonal language insofar as the linking
verbs (copulas) ni ‘is’ and ch ‘be’ are concerned. Random Sampling Technique
was used by the researchers as the method of data collection. The data are
drawn extensively from a set of normal protocol language as found In Igala
personal names. The cognitive model otherwise known as stratificational grammar
was used as theoretical framework in this study. The description of the details
of sentence structures, including the deep structures of the data, will be
based on this theoretical framework. From the results of the analyses, the
findings show that there is a marked consistency of copulas ni ‘is’ and ch ‘be’
in relational clauses, as to where ni occurs as contrasted to where ch occurs.
The findings also show that dialectical variations exist. They are more of
phonological differences than syntactical variations. Then, it turns out that
the researchers shall be subscribing to an important concept of cognitive
system of semantic relation.
Keywords:
Intellectual, Phonological, Random sampling, Stratificational, Technique
1. INTRODUCTION
Language is generally seen as informed human
activities, and as a result, linguistic choices are made in such a way that
they reflect the intention of the user. Because of the diverse nature of human
activities, language is highly diverse in its function and use. In trying to
establish the centrality of language, as a general human activity, Ferguson
(2010) asserts that linguistic expression is not just the additive value of
words, but the complex pertaining formed by the operations of units within each
other.
People use language in various domains,
politics, churches, business and political campaign and so on to socialize with
friends and associates. This means that language serves various functions on
different occasions. In other words, people use language based on their
worldview to meet the needs of their communication.
The data used here are consistently standard
Igala. A few variations of such names, however, can be found in various dialect
clusters: Idah, Ibaji, Ogugu, Ankpa, Basa etc. While dialect variations exist,
they are more of phonological differences than syntactic
variations. Therefore, the data here are
appreciably representative of Igala syntax.
According to Bloomfield (2009), a linguistic
structure which is “not included in any larger
form” be recognized as a sentence, which is
the approach we have adopted here.
Researchers of the Igala language have not
paid enough attention, if at all, to the implications of grammatical
structuring of Igala personal names. Most of the works so far, in Igala names
tend to concentrate on social significance as seen in practices of the giving
of personal names or on semantic interpretations of such names.
2.1 THEORETICAL FRAMWORK
The cognitive model formally known as
stratificational grammar was used as theoretical framework for this study.
According to this theory, every language comprises a restricted number of
structural layers or strata, hierarchically related in such a way that units or
combinations of units on one stratum realize units of the next higher stratum.
It is a grammar that is based on the theory that language consists of a series
of hierarchically related strata linked together by representational rules.
2.2 METHODOLOGY
The data for this study were accomplished
purely on the basis of actual events inving actual utterances in Igala, as seen
in some personal names used among the Igala. This is very possible because
Igala personal names are essentially a record of events of everyday normal
speech of the people. Representative samples were selected from a long list
which we have compiled through years of research in the field of Igala
onomastic. The procedure for data collection inved a number of analytic
processes:
(a)
Random collection of names from Church registers, School
registers, Judicial records, Private Club records, Demographic records, and
from personal interviews which we conducted in major dialect areas in Igala.
For example, the interview sought to establish a general semantic conception of
the verbs ni ‘is’ and ch ‘be’ in various dialects in Igala.
The subjects were asked various questions to elicit answers inving their use of
the two copulas in relational clauses. The questions were structured and
administered accordingly so that the subjects were given chances with the same
set of questions, though allowing room for dialectical variations, where
sometimes the subjects used the verbs interchangeably in their various
dialectical origins.
(b)
Arbitrary selection and alphabetic listing of the names
results from (a)
(c)
Structural grouping of the result from (b) into
sentences, clause, phrase, and word.
(d)
Classification of the result from (c) according to types:
affirmative, negative, interrogative, etc.
(e) Verifications by rules
formulation, notably cognitive or stratificational model.
3
Analysis
We applied the cognitive or stratificational
model. In this model, a stratificational illustration follows a basic principle
whereby the lexical items are arranged at the surface structural level. Thus,
the deep structure or meaning of a given data does not have the lexical items,
that is, the participants in a different arrangement, because they only exist
at the surface level. What we did then, was follow up a systematic analysis of
the data by means of stratification. Consequently, the researchers included a
systematic examination of how constituents fill functions in syntactic units
and of the relationship between functions and features from which meaning is
realized.
Findings
The results of the analyses yielded nuances
which provide a great insight into certain recalcitrant facts about the syntax
of Igala, such as the copula concept of relational clauses. The data analysis,
for instance, shows that there is a marked consistency of copulas ni ‘is’ and ch ‘be’ in relational clauses, as to where ni ‘is’ occurs as contrasted to where ch ‘be’ occurs. Also, the analysis reveals that while dialectical
variations exist, they are more of phonological differences than syntactical
variations.
These findings have been possible because
Igala names are maximally well formed idiomatic expressions, and as such they
form important linguistic units ranging from sentence to clause. According to
Ikegami (2007) and Sullivan (2007), idiom does not differ from “ a chain of
ordinary morphemes in its morphological and phonological relation”. These
syntactic facts are absolutely true of Igala names as we will show with the
illustrations that follow.
3.1 Syntax
Every Igala personal name has something that
serves, conceptually, as its subject, even when there is no corresponding
constituent. Moreover, the choice of name structures is usually based on
intuitions about what would be useful in expressing regularities among related
sentences and in analyzing meaning.
Briefly, let us examine these names:
(4.1) Ojonimi Ojo + ni +mi
God
+is +mi
“God
is life” (Affirmative)
(4.2) Ojochoka Ojo + ch + oka
God +
be + oka
“God
is miraculous” (Affirmative)
These constructions can be viewed as
objectively sets of multiple lexical relations, which can be classified as
independent sentences, the affirmative. Each sentence thus inves some or
relationship specified by the verb (italicized) and one or more participants
specified by the clause. Thus, each structure represents the underlying
propositional content of the sentence, who or what is this or that.
Notice that ( 4.1 ) and ( 4.2 ), being
expressions of the Igala world-view, mean exactly what they say. These can be
expanded without enlarging their basic structure, as we have shown the sign,
dashes(----), to the right of each string, to refer to the elements of the
structure, and (+) to mark the word-order. In a normal, neutral utterance,
therefore, (4.1) and (4.2 ) above, are recognized as relational clauses in that
the proposition in each case takes the form of a relation between two
participants.
3.2 Relational Clause
Relational clauses in Igala can be
distinguished by certain internal features apart from word-order, notably, the
functional value of the verbs and the grammatical class of predicate
attributes. These clauses whose verbs provide marked forms of relation or link
between the subject and the predicate are here referred to as relational
clauses. Normally, a relational in Igala is characterized by the presence of
the linking verb ni ‘is’ whose
predicate attribute must be a noun, or by copula ch ‘be’, with a noun as the predicate attribute
A basic structure for a relational clause can
be posited: S = N + V + N, Adj./N, meaning that a relational clause consists of
a noun (N), followed by a verb (V), and a noun or an adjective. In (4.1) and
(4.2), the copulas ni ‘is’ and ch ‘be’ respectively, perform special
functions characteristic of each. Therefore, two distinctive types of
relational clauses can be recognized: (i) Equational Clause and (ii) Stative
Clause. We take these up one after the other in what follows.
3.3 Equational Clause
An equational clause in Igala is
characterized by obligatory ni. Functionally,
this verb has an inherent quality of state. It marks a relationship between two
entities, as seen in (4.3.1) and (4.3.2) below.
(4.3.1) Omachonu = Oma + ch + onu
Child + be + king
“The
child is a kingly gift “
(4.3.2) Enekelechidu = Enekele + ch + idu
Man + be + power
“Man is a source of power”
In those examples, the copula ni ‘is’ equates the subject to the
predicate attribute of each construction.
Although, those participants, Ojo ‘God’ and imi ‘life’ (4.1), Oma ‘child’
and onu ‘king’(4.3.1), and enekele ‘man’ and idu ‘power’ (4.3.2) belong to the same order of abstraction, they
differ in generality which is an important characteristic of equational clauses
in most SVO languages such as Igala. Halliday (1970:154) rightly suggests,
though for English, that the distinctive feature of equational clauses is the
predicate attribute noun.
A
structure for equational clause in Igala can now be derived: S -------- N + V +
N to mean that an equational clause in Igala consists of a noun (N), a verb
)V), (obligatory) and a noun (N).
The surface structure of (4.1) is expanded as
seen below.
Ojonimi Ojo + ni + imi
God + be + life
“God is life”.
Reversibility
If the copula ch in (4.1) is omitted,
the result would be a phrase structure,
(4.3.3) Ojonimi Ojo + imi
God + life
“God of life”
showing that a zero (o) copula is not
recognized in equational clauses in Igala. In other words, (4.3.3) may not be
considered as a clause, with the omission of the copula. Perhaps, this may
differ from what happens elsewhere. Sebeok (1943 : 320) suggests specific
conditions for the omission of copula in Hungarian, noting at least, twelve
exceptions to the rule.
In Igala, there may be no exception to the
rule of obligatoriness in equational clauses. Rather than omission of copula, a
reversal of word-order can be accommodated. For example, (4.1) may become
(4.3.4) Imichojo Imi + ch + ojo
life + is + God.
“Life is God within the soul”.
The surface structure of (4.3.4) is the same
as (4.1) although, they differ in semantic terms. In (4.3.), however, it
functions as rheme and vice versa, that is, it expresses the largest amount of
extra meaning, in addition to what already has been communicated. Perhaps, such
a view could be true of other languages whose equational clauses can be
reversed. For example, the English clause,
(4.3.5) Johnson is the leader
may not mean exactly the same as
(4.3.6) The leader is Johnson.
It can be inferred that the relation between
the participants in (4.1), (4.3.4), (4.3.5), and (4.3.6) is one of
identification, not inclusion. Further details of the deep structure concept,
however, should be left to a semiological view, which is beautifully treated by
Lepschy (2004). Here, however, it is important to stress that, semiologically,
Igala personal names express something about entities in the real world or an
imagination. Other examples of affirmatives are:
(4.3.7) Omachele Oma + ch + ele
Child
+ is + gift
“Child is a gift” (Affirmative).
(4.3.8) Ejuchegahi Eju + ch + egahi
“Human
face is dreadful”.
(4.3.9) Ojonioka Ojo + ni + oka
“God
is wonderful”
(Affirmative).
(4.3.10) Enechojo Ene + ch + ojo (Tonal)
“Who
is God?” (Interrogative)
“No
one is God” (Affirmative Negative).
(4.3.11)
Onechojon One + ch + ojon
Human + not + is + God
“Man is not God”
(Affirmative Negative).
As can
be seen (4,3,10) and (4.3.11) have the same functional structure. However, they
are distinguished only in the sense that (4.3.10) is a question, with the
question word, ene (who), which is a pronoun, while (4.3.11) is a negative statement with the
negative marker. Notice, especially that (4.3.10) and (4.3.11) have obligatory ch, and that the predicate attribute in
each case is a noun.
The distinctions in the function of the
copulas ni ‘is’ and ch ‘be’, as found in equational clauses,
make it possible to classify such clauses as affirmative, negative, and
interrogative.
Consider the names in Table 1. Against each
name is the normal sentence structure from which the name is derived.
|
Affirmative |
Negative |
Interrogative |
|
(4.3.12)
Omachonu Oma ch
onu “Child is king” |
(4.3.17)
Onechojon One ch
ojon “Man is not God” |
(4.3.21)
Enechojo (Tonal) Ene ch
ojo ”Who is God?” |
|
(4.3.13)
Ogacheko Oga ch
eko “Elephant is sick” |
(4.3.18)
Ukwuchamonun Ukwu ch amonun “Death does not know king” |
(4.3.22)
Enechemona (Tonal) Ene ch
emona “Who is the knower of tomorrow?” |
|
(4.3.14)
Omachele Oma ch
ele “Child is a gift” |
(4.3.19)
Alefiachofofo Alefia ch
ofofo “Beauty is nothing” |
(4.3.23)
Ilecholubo (Tonal) Ile ch
olubo World is a shade “Is world a shade?” |
|
(4.3.15)
Ojonioka Ojo ni
oka “God is the source of wisdom” |
(4.3.20)
Ilechunyin Ile ch
unyin “World is not home” |
(4.3.24)
Ilechunyi (Tonal) Ile ch
unyi World is home “Is world a home?” |
|
(4.3.16)
Ojochide Ojo ch
ide “God is a guardian” |
|
|
5.
Stative Clauses: Copula ch.
A
stative clause in Igala is characterized by obligatory copula ch ‘be’ and by its predicate attribute
which must be an adjective. Further examples are represented in these names:
(5.1)
Ukwuchome = Ukwu + ch + ome
Death is
terminal
“Death is the end”
(5.2)
Ojochuyo = Ojo + ch + uyo
“God is joyful”
The
grammatical function of obligatory ch ‘be’
is to state a qualification, hence, the predicate attribute for stative clause
must be an inherent quality. In (5.1) above, the predicate attribute is ome ‘end’ and in (5.2), it is uyo “joyful’, for instance,
A
structure can be assigned: S = N + V + Adj. meaning that a stative clause
consists of a noun (N),followed by a verb (V), and an inherent quality
(adjective). But we must further stress that the verb which characterizes such
a clause is copula, ch ‘be’.
Like
equational clauses, stative clauses can be identified also in affirmative
question, with question word, ene (who)
and in negative structure, with negative marker. Consider these names:
(5.3)
Enechenyo = Ene + ch + enyo
“Who is good?”
(Affirmative-interrogative)
(5.4)
Eneniarida = Ene + ni +arida
Who be
different?
“Who is different?”
(5.5)
Ukwunietu = Ukwu + ni + etu
“Death is not good”
(5.6)
Ojoachenyo = Ojoa + ch + enyo
“God is never bad”
It
is very important to notice in all those illustrations, the concept of
obligatory copula is strongly stressed.
On
the other hand, the notion of reversibility cannot be applied to stative
clauses in Igala. If, for example, (5.3) and (5.4) are reversed, the results
would be unacceptable utterances in Igala as follows:
(s.7)
Nyochene
(5.8)
Aridanone
(5.9)
Uyochojo
The
unacceptability of these constructions arises from the fact that the
transformed structures feature a form of “baby-talk” in which the copula is
used for the wrong entity or in the wrong sense. In Table 2 below, we give a
classification of stative clauses as represented by some personal names.
|
Affirmative |
Affirmative
Declaration |
Interrogative |
|
(5.10)
Ojochegbe Ojo ch
egbe “God is merciful” |
(5.14)
Omachukpo Oma ch ukpo “Child is profitable” |
(5.18)
Enachenyo (Tonal) Ena ch
enyo “Who is good?” |
|
(
5.11) Ojochukpahiu Ojo ch
ukpahiu “God is powerful” |
(5.15)
Ojonile Ojo ni
le “God is the owner of the world” |
(5.19)
Enechojo (Tonal) Ene ch
ojo “Who is God?” |
|
(5.12)
Omachenyo Oma ch
nyo “Child is good” |
(5.16)
Ojonigwu Ojo ni gwu “God is the
root of history |
(5.20)
Omachadu (Tonal) Oma ch
adu Child be slavery |
Oma ch
ele “Child is gift” |
(5.17)
Omachoko Oma ch
oko “Child is forest”
|
(5.21)
Atekochele (Tonal) Ateko ch
ele Assistance is gift “Is assistance a gift?” |
CONCLUSION
In
the preceding analyses, no expectations have been noted for obligatory copula
in relational clauses in Igala. It is perhaps on such a basis that the Igala
language may differ somewhat from some other languages which may or may not
express copula at all in equational clauses, example. in Hungarian and Bengali.
There is no question, though, that ‘copula’ is a universal concept in languages. As far as equational clauses are concerned, Ferguson (2010) rightly suggests two main types of languages Type A, he says, has copula, with a few exceptions , and that Type B languages have no copula. Given such a classification, and based on the evidence of Igala, as seen here, it would seem clear enough that Igala would belong in Ferguson’s Type A languages, in spite of certain peculiarities which Igala may have in relational clauses. So far as we have seen in this way, some peculiar differences between the two types of Igala relational clauses include the fact that unlike equational clauses, stative clauses cannot be reversed. The reason for that has been seen as due largely to the marked function of copula ch ‘be’: it can only state a condition of, but not identify a predicate attribute. Thus, a “reversion” in a stative clause would result into unacceptable utterance in Igala, (5.5) through (5.7) for instance. What perhaps remains to be emphasized, then, is that structural concept of relational clauses in Igala arises from word-order in which the copulative verbs ni ‘is’ and ch ‘be’ are obligatory. Also, the personal names used here for analysis at least justify the fact that they provide clear representations of Igala syntax.
REFERNCES
1.
Bloomfield, L. (2009). Language. New York: Hold, Rinehart and Winston.
2.
Ferguson, C. (2010). Language Structure and Language Use.
California: Stanford University Press.
3. Halliday,
J. (2006). “Language Structure and Language Functions” in New Horizen in Linguistics. London: Penguin Books.
4. Ikegami,
Y. (2007). “On some categories for describing the semolexemic Structure”. Rice University Studies, . 66, No. 2, pp
101-121.
5.
Lamb, S. (1966). Outline of Stratificational Grammar.
Washington D.C.: George Town University Press.
6.
Lepschy, G. (2009). A Survey of Structural Linguistics. London:
Faber.
7.
Lockwood, D. (2005). Introduction to Stratificational
Linguistics. New York: Harcourt Brace and Jovanuvich, Inc.
8.
Lyons, J. (2000). Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics.
London: Cambridge University Press.
9.
Sebeok, T. (2004). “The Equational
Sentence in Hungarian”, Language 19,
pp. 320-327.
10. Sullivan,
W. (2007). “Some Logical Consequences of Makkaui’s Idiomaticity as a Language
Universal.” Rice University Studies,
. 66, No. 2, pp. 143-154.
11. Usman,
S.S. (2014). “Igala Language Dictionary”. JAS Investment Services, Anyigba.
0 Comments