Cite this article as: Alani, E. A., Buhari-Jaji, A. O., &Alagbe, A. A. (2026). Syntactic contrastive analysis of relative clause structures of the Yoruba and English languages. Sokoto Journal of Linguistics and Communication Studies (SOJOLICS), 2(2), 84-95. https://doi.org/10.36349/sojolics.2026.v02i02.007
By
Alani, Ebenezer Akinyele
Department of English,
Nasarawa State University, Keffi
08161649895&07049389234
&
Aishat Olatinuke Buhari-Jaji
Department of English, Nsarawa
State University, Keffi
&
Alagbe, Adewole Adigun, Ph. D
Department of English,
Nasarawa State University Keffi
Abstract
This study, “Syntactic Contrastive
Analysis of Relative Clause Structures of Yoruba and English Languages”,
investigates the nature, syntactic elements and structural formation of Yoruba
and English Relative Clause structures. Though, there might be areas of
similarities between two or more different languages, there are certainly no
two languages that are the same. The data for the study were generated in Iwo
and Ogbomoso towns from the different interactional activities of the native
speakers of Yoruba language. This was done through interviews, recording and
writing of the sentences/utterances from the conversations. The data were
analysed descriptively using the Contrastive Analysis (CA) Theory propounded by
Lado. The study shows that the relative clause marker; the “ti-clause” in the
Yoruba language relative clauses is often immediately followed by a noun or
pronoun – ‘o, won, a, etc’. This however depends on the headword and if the
same is retained in English, it will result to syntactic disorder. The finding
also reveals that Yoruba language does not distinguish between the two types of
relative clauses: restrictive and non-restrictive relative clauses, (RRCs
NRRCs). Hence, the most typical areas of syntactic difficulty faced by the
Yoruba users of English through the Contrastive Analysis Theory in relative
clauses are: incorrect use of genitive relative pronoun, omission of relative
pronoun, noun/pronoun retention, omission of prepositions in relative clauses,
error in subject-verb agreement, omission of a main verb in relative clauses,
incorrect use of verb phrase, omission of commas, and use of relative pronoun
“that” in replacement of “who”, “which”, “whom”, “when”, “where” etc in
relative clauses. In addition, the study shows that where English has several
numbers of relative clause markers (relative pronouns), the relative clause of
Yoruba language is only introduced with one relative clause marker -
‘ti-clause’. Through the data collected and analysed, the study concludes that
there exists a certain level of divergence and convergence in the relative
clauses of the two languages under study.
Keywords: Grammar, Syntax, Sentence, Clause, Relative Clause.
1.0 Introduction
Language is a universal phenomenon
that distinguishes human beings from other creatures of God. The study of
language is viewed from different perspectives of Grammar/Syntax, Morphology,
Phonetics and Phonology, Semantics, Sociolinguistics, Pragmatics, Discourse
Analysis among others. However, the focus of this study is generally in the
area of syntax and specifically relative clause. A relative clause is a type of
dependent clause that provides additional information about a noun or pronoun
in a sentence. It usually begins with a relative pronoun such as ‘who’, which’,
‘whom’, ‘whose’, or ‘that’, or a relative adverb such as ‘where’, ‘when’ or
‘why’. However, this does not mean that a relative clause cannot be formed
without the relative clause markers. E.g. the research carried out by
the students was excellent. From the ‘sentence, carried out by the
students’ is the relative clause without any relative pronoun. Relative clauses
help to add more detail and specificity to a sentence. In English and some
other languages like Yoruba, relative clauses are also used to provide
additional information about a noun or pronoun in a sentence. They function as
adjectival clauses and are introduced by relative pronouns such as
"who," "whom," "whose," "which," or
"that." The structure of an English relative clause is typically as
follows: [Noun/ Pronoun] + [Relative Pronoun] + [Verb Phrase].For instance, the
relative clauses are italicized in the sentences below: (1) The man who
is standing over there is my uncle. (2) The book that I am
reading is very interesting.
Just like English, Yorùbá relative
clauses are used to provide additional information about a noun or pronoun in a
sentence. They function as adjectival clauses. In Yorùbá, the relative pronoun
used to introduce relative clauses is "tí" which mean
"that" this “ti” is usually refers to as “ti clause”. According to
Akinlade (57), the relative adverb "ní" can also be used to introduce
relative clauses and means "where" or "when." Though,
Bamgbose (89) argues against this notion. According to him, this is only possible
in some dialects of Yoruba language such as the Ife dialect which drops “ti”
and uses “ki”. The structure of a Yorùbá relative clause is typically as
follows: (ti cluse i.e Relative Pronoun/ Adverb) + (noun or pronoun) + (Verb
Phrase).For example, relative clauses are in bold form in the sentences below:
(1) Òròtímosọniòròtí o sọ. (The word that I said is the word that he said.).
(2) Ìwéníìwénáàtímofẹ. (The book that I want is that book.)Relative clauses in
Yorùbá can also be used to form complex sentences by combining two or more
clauses. They provide additional information and help to clarify the meaning of
the main clause.
From the above considerations, one
is right to say that every language, including Yoruba language, has its own
structure, pattern of arrangement of words and other syntactic components. The
theoretical approach selected for this study is the Contrastive Analysis
approach.
Therefore, the problem of this
study is that there exist no definite/published studies on the syntactic
contrastive analysis of the structure and formation of relative clause of
Yoruba and English languages. Hence, the manifest differences in the relative
clauses of the two languages under study are compelling reasons to investigate
them. This study provides answers to the following questions: (1) What are the
linguistic properties contained in the structure of relative clauses of Yoruba
and English languages? (2) What are the differences and the similarities that
exist between Yoruba and English relative clauses? (3) How can the Contrastive
Analysis Theory be used to discuss the various ways in which the similarities
and differences that exist in the structure of the relative clauses of Yoruba
and English languages inhibit or enhance the correct/effective use of English
by Yoruba learners/users of English as L2?
The aim of this study is to examine
the differences and similarities that exist in the structure of the relative
clause of Yoruba and English languages. The specific objectives are to: (1)
Identify the linguistic properties contained in the structure of relative
clauses of Yoruba and English languages. (2) Examine the differences and the
similarities that exist between Yoruba and English relative clauses. (3) Use
the Contrastive Analysis Theory to discuss the various ways in which the
similarities and differences that exist in the structure of the relative
clauses of Yoruba and English languages inhibit or enhance the
correct/effective use of English by Yoruba learners/users of English as L2.
Significantly, this study will, to
a large extent, help the learners and users of both languages especially the
Yoruba learners and users of English to have a comprehensive understanding of
what constitutes the syntactic nature and structure of relative clauses of
Yoruba and English languages. It will help speakers/users of both languages to
realize and take proper cognizance of the similarities and differences in the
structures of relative clause of both languages. It will in turn enhance their
performance in learning and using the languages correctly. The study focuses on
the syntactic comparison of Yoruba and English languages. The area therefore
covered by the study is the structure of Relative (adjectival) Clauses of
Yoruba language with that of English; the examination of the nature, the
structure, the structural formation, the similarities and the differences.
2.0 Literature Review
2.1 The Concept of Syntax
Grammar as a branch of linguistics
is usually discussed from two major units of syntax and morphology. Morphology
is the study of structural formation of words. The concept of syntax deals with
the arrangement of elements within a sentence. In general terms, many linguists
like Omorodion (10) argues that subfield of modern grammar are phonetics,
phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics and pragmatics while according to him
traditional grammar includes morphology, syntax and sometimes semantics. However,
in a specific and more precise term, some other scholars like Prasad (71) argue
that morphology and syntax are the two basic branches of grammar. According to
Prasad (7), “syntax is a new approach to grammar as suggested by linguist such
as Ferdinand de Saussure, Franz Boar, Edward Sapir and Bloomfield”. He added
that syntax has to do with the study of how words combine to form phrases,
phrases to clauses and clauses to make sentences. Yule (100) on the other hand
postulates that if we concentrate on the structure and ordering of components
within the sentence we are studying what is technically known as the syntax of
a language. In Johnstone’s (11) opinion, syntax is the arrangement of elements
in a phrase or clause; the ways in which users of language characteristically
use patterns of arrangement of elements to convey meaning’.
From the above notions of different
scholars, one can say that syntax is the structural way and manner in which
words, phrases and clauses are combined to form sentences in a language. It is
the systematical arrangement of grammatical elements to form meaningful and
syntactic sentence(s). In a nutshell, syntax is the study of how fragments of
natural language are organized, arranged and combined to form phrases, phrases
to form clauses and clauses to form sentences.
2.4 The Concept of Clause
In syntactic hierarchy, clause is
the next in rank to sentence. That is, the rank of the clause is below that of
the sentence, but it is above that of the phrase. Grammatically, sentence is
the highest unit, and it consists of one independent clause of two or more
relative clauses. Orthographical and rhetorically, it is that unit which starts
with a capital letter and ends with any of the sentence boundary markers such
as full stop/period(.) question mark (?) or exclamatory mark (!). Lowth cited
in Tomori (5) postulates that “a sentence is an assemblage of words, expressed
in proper form and ranged in proper order and concurring to make a complete
sense”. Clause according to Macaulay et al “is a sentence that does not make
complete sense by itself. It depends on another sentence for its full meaning”
similarly, Murthy (227) opines that “Clause is a group of words which forms a
part of a sentence and contains a subject and a predicate”. From the above
definitions, though Murthy puts it better by referring to Clause as part of a
sentence, but the problem here is that they both talk only about an aspect of
clause i.e subordinate clause. Moreover, Alagbe (80) defines clause as “a group
of words or all the following units: subject, predicator, object, adverbial,
and compliment”. He has added also that the predicator is the most important
unit in a clause. This definition is more acceptable because it points out some
required elements that can make a clause.
2.5 An Overview of Relative
Clause
This is a type of dependent clause
that performs the function of an adjective or adjectival phrase, that is, it
qualifies a noun or pronoun or noun phrase in a sentence. It is usually called
a relative clause because it often relates back to a noun which it qualifies
and is mostly introduced by relative pronouns such as: Who, which, that, whose,
when, whom, where etc. Adjectival clause performs the same function as that of
adjective phrase; it qualifies the noun, pronoun or noun phrase that precedes
it in a sentence. Examples are in italics below: (1) We saw the thief that
stole the car (qualifies the noun thief) (2) They visited the
school where they graduated (qualifies the school) (3) They
house whose roof was blown off has been repaired (it qualifies the
house) (4) The officer who arrested the criminal has been promoted (it
qualifies the officer)
3. Methodology
The research design used for this
study is descriptive and purposive research design. The data for the study were
collected for qualitative study and analysis. The primary sources are the
native speakers of the target language (native speakers of Yoruba language)
while the secondary sources include relevant printed materials such as:
textbook, journals, magazines, newspapers internet/website. The data were
collected directly from the native speakers of the Yoruba language in Iwo and
Ogbomoso speech community. This was done using interview, joting-down/writing
and audio-record methods to collect the utterances and conversation of the
interlocutors/participants in their different activities such as naming
ceremony, burial ceremony, wedding ceremony, community meetings etc. Forty (40)
educated people at the age of 35 – 40 years old were also selected and engaged
in test to translate and write some relative clause sentences from Yoruba to
English. The descriptive method of data analysis is employed for the study.
That is, the different data collected were qualitatively described and
analyzed. The major linguistic tool for this analysis is Contrastive Analysis
Theory.
4.0 Theoretical Framework
(Contrastive Analysis (CA) Theory)
Contrastive analysis (CA) is the
systematic study of pairs of language with a view to identifying their
structural differences and similarities. The theory was rooted as a result of
practical need to use a second language in the most effective way possible. Its
psychological base is behaviourism while linguistic base is structuralism.
Contrastive Analysis theory was first formulated by Fries in the 1940s and
brought into academic discourse by Lado in his Linguistics Across
Culture, (1957), Gast (2). According to Lado cited in Gast, (2)
‘Contrastive analysis is a scientific description of the language to be learned
carefully compared with a parallel description of the native language of the
learner’. The observation of Lado truly highlights the linguistic variants and
discrepancies as well as similarities that are inherent in human languages
across the globe. In this study, the primary objective is the comparison of two
different languages, Yoruba language and English, with the aim of underscoring
the similarities and differences of their relative clause structures for
pedagogical purposes. Hence, the data are presented in the two languages
understudy while the theory is applied to examine and discus their differences
and similarities.
5.0 Data Presentation and
Analysis
The study employs Contractive
Analysis Theory to investigate and analyse the differences between Yoruba and
English language relative clauses as identified in the conversation of the
Yoruba users of English.
5.1 Contrastive Analysis of the
Various Syntactic Areas of Interest as Fund in the Languages Understudy. The
data generated are presented, analysed and discussed under the following
syntactic areas of interest: Incorrect use of genitive relative pronoun,
subject verb agreement, omission of the main verb in relative clauses,
incorrect use of verb phrase in relative clauses, omission of the head noun in
the main clause, omission of relative pronoun in relative clauses, incorrect
use of relative pronouns, Noun/pronoun retention, omission of prepositions etc.
1. Omission of Relative Pronouns: This
situation occurs when a relative pronoun is omitted, resulting in an
ungrammatical sentence structure, as can be seen in the samples below
Yoruba: (1) Oga ile-eko yin olukoti o fun awon akekoo ni ebun.
(2) Alaga
gbaawon omo-egbeti o tete de siipadeniiyanju
English: (1)The principal praised the teacher ___ rewarded the students.
English: (2) The chairman encouraged the members ___ came early to the
meeting
From the samples above, though the
Yoruba version is correct, but when the speakers were asked to represent the
same in English, they omitted the relative pronoun “who” from the two of the
English samples. Hence, the correct versions of the above samples should be
written thus: (1)The principal praised the teacher whorewarded
the students. (2) The chairman encouraged the members who came
early to the meeting
2. Incorrect Use of Genitive
Relative Pronoun: In this case, the
Yoruba users/speakers of English apply a “relative pronoun + possessive
adjective” structure when they form genitive relative clauses. As in these
samples below; “that his car” is used incorrectly instead of “whose car.” Also,
“whose her husband” is also used incorrectly instead of “whose husband”
Yoruba: (1). Mo riomoegbeti won gbeoko re niojo meji seyin
(2). Akowetiriobinrinti won ji oko re gbe
English: (1) I came across the member of the
association that his car was stolen two days ago.
(2). The secretary has seen the woman whose
her husband was kidnapped.
The correct version of the above
English samples should be written thus: (1). I came across the member of the
association whose car was stolen two days ago. (2). The
secretary has seen the woman whose husband was kidnapped.
3. Subject-verb Agreement: This usually occurs when the subject (i.e the head noun)
and the verb in a relative clause did not agree in number as in the samples
below:
Yoruba: Oluko to kojuosunwonti o siniajosepo to
damoranpeluogaile –ekonionaabayo fun aseyorietoeko.
English: Qualified teacher that have strong relationship
with the principal is the result of a long-term academic success.
From the samples above, the head
noun phrase “qualified teacher” which is singular does not agree in number with
the verb in the relative clause “have” which is plural. This may be due to the
fact that Yoruba syntactic structures do not distinguish between singular and
plural form of verb. Hence, the correct English version is – Qualified
teacher who has strong relationship with the principal is the
result of a long-term academic success.
4. Incorrect Use of Tense: We identified this type of syntactic
difficulty/challenge when the verb tensein the direct speech of Yoruba users of
English is still maintained in the reported speech as a result of error of overgeneralisation
from Yoruba language to English (L1 to L2) as seen in the samples below:
Yoruba:Omodenaa ko moabuletiiya re wa
English: The child does not know the village where her
mother is.
From the above, the speaker
reported the situation of a child looking for her mother. Hence, the verbs used
– (does, is) should be in past tense (did, was) to correspond with the concord
rule of direct and indirect speech thus: the child did not know the
village where her mother was.
5. Omission of Verb or Main Verb
in Relative Clause: It is identified
from the data that the Yoruba users/speakers of English language sometimes omit
the verb in relative clause. This occurs because it is possible to omit verb(s)
in some of the relative clause structures of Yoruba language and the sentence
will still be syntactically correct while applying the same to English will
result to ungrammatical sentence as in the samples below:
Yoruba: (1) Mo feranisuti o dun
(2) Ero ibanisoroalagbekanionaibanisoroti o
darajuawononaibanisoro to ku lo
English: (1) I like yam that--- sweet
(2)
Mobile phone is the only means of communication that --- better than
the other means of communication.
From the above samples, the English
relative clauses (RCs) in the underlined words lack a verb/main verb and thus
require a verb such as “is” for it to be syntactically correct. This shows and
justifies one of the syntactic differences between the Yoruba language relative
clauses (RCs) and English. That is, there are possibilities and syntactic
situation where Yoruba relative clauses (RCs) may not contain a verb at all,
and it will still be syntactically correct. For instance, in the first sets of
examples above “ti o dun” is a relative clause (RC) and when directly
translated to English, it will mean “that sweet” i.eti = that, o = it while dun
= sweet. “O” which is expected to be interpreted as verb “is” in English
does not mean verb in Yoruba language but the modifier “it”, which is used to
emphasize the kind of yam the speaker wanted.
6. Incorrect Use of Verb Phrase
in Relative Clauses: This type of
error occurs when the verb in the relative clause is followed by an
inappropriate verb form as seen in the samples below:
Yoruba:Awonakekoo ode-oni ro pe eroayelujaranionaidaraya to
darajuloti o wulo lati din idamukutiyoosi fun won niigbadun
English: Students of nowadays think that social media is the
best entertainment that helpsreduce stress and gives
them numerous enjoyment.
From the above sample of English
relative clause, the verb “helps” in English relative clause in bold should be
followed by either the - to infinitive “to reduce” or the infinitive without to
“reduce”. Hence, the past simple form “reduce” has caused a syntactic error in
the relative clause. This is as a result of the fact that the Yoruba language
verb structures do not probably have “to – infinitive”. Therefore, the correct
English version is - Students of nowadays think that social media is the best
entertainment which helps toreduce stress and gives
them numerous enjoyment.
7. Noun/Pronoun Retention i.e
Resumptive Noun/Pronoun:Here, it is
observed that the Yoruba users/speakers of English normally retain a noun or
pronoun of the head NP (noun phrase) in the relative clause which is supposed
to be omitted. This happens because in their L1 (Yoruba language), the noun or
pronoun usually occurs after the relative clause marker “ti”. Hence, this is as
a result of direct translation from L1 to L2 (Yoruba language to English). This
syntactic difficulty occurs when a noun or pronoun which is identical to the
head noun in the main clause is retained in the relative clause when it
actually needs to be omitted as in the following samples:
Yoruba: (1) Amusan n se abewosiomidanti o ba a padeninuolide
(2) Mo riosannaatimoti n wa a
(3) Taye riomo re ti o ti n wa a lati
ose to koja
English:(1) Amusan is visiting the lady who Amusan met the
lady on holiday
(2)I found the orange that I was looking for it
(3) Taye saw his child whom he has
been looking for her since last week
From the above samples, the noun
“Amusan” is repeated instead of pronoun ‘he’. Also, the NP ‘the lady’ and
pronouns ‘it’ and ‘her’ are repeated ungrammatically. The correct syntactic
version of the above should be written thus: (1) Amusan is visiting the
lady whom he met on holiday. (2) I found the orange which
I was looking for.(3) Taye saw his child whom he has been looking
for since last two weeks
8. Omission of Commas in
Nonrestrictive Relative Clauses: Here,
it is identified from the data that the Yoruba users/speakers of English
usually omit the comma that is used to set off English nonrestrictive relative
clauses from the main clause. As illustrated below, the nonrestrictive relative
clauses in the underlined relative clauses add additional information to the
main clause, and it does not restrict the entire clause. Therefore, it should
be set off from the main clause by a comma.
Yoruba:Iya mi owon, mogbo pe eyinati baba mi ko fowowewomo bi ti
tele ti o fihan pe ko siasoyepo to gun moniile.
English:Dear mummy, I was told that you and daddy talk to each
other lesser than usual _ which indicates that mutual communication is
lacking at home. Hence, the correct version should be – dear mummy, I was
told that you and daddy talk to each other lesser than usual, which
indicates that mutual communication is lacking at home
9. Omission of Prepositions: When forming oblique relative clauses, some Yoruba
users of English opt to omit preposition in the relative clause. Such
preposition include preposition “in” in the samples below.
Yoruba: Mo se abewosiokokokotiaburo mi ti n sise
English: I paid a visit to the Cocoa farm, ___ which my brother was
working.
Hence, the correct version of the
above should be; I paid a visit to the Cocoa farm in which my brother
was working
10. Incorrect Use of Relative
Pronouns ‘that’: This is another very
common difficult area using the English relative clause by the Yoruba L2 users
of English. This difficulty occurs when the Yoruba L2 users of English
incorrectly use the relative pronoun ‘that’ in syntactic environment where
‘who’, ‘whom’, ‘which’, ‘whose’, ‘when’, ‘where’, is supposed to occur or in
most cases alternating them for each other. This is as a result of
overgeneralization of rules from L1 to L2. For instance, “whom” in the sample
below is used in the subject of relative clause, instead of “who”. “The man whom
married the lady is from Lagos” instead of “The man who
married the lady is from Lagos”. This syntactic situation is traceable
to the fact that Yoruba language relative clause structure has only one
relative clause marker which is usually referred to as “ti”– “ti clause”
while English has several means to introduce relative clause syntactically.
5.2 Contrastive Analysis of
Relative Clause Markers of English and Yoruba Language
Let us take one after the other the
different English relative clause markers (Relative pronouns): who,
which, that, whose, whom, where, when and see their operations in
relative clauses of the two languagesas follows.
That
Yoruba: Mo riileti o gbeeruna a si.
English: I saw the house that he put the load.
In written (formal) English, the
relative pronoun‘that’ is used to refer to people (or things usually in spoken
English). However, from the above samples ‘that’ is used to introduce an object
“ile – house. The correct sentence should be – I saw the house which he
put the load.
Who
Yoruba: Mo mookunrintiojaweoluborininuetoidibo
English: I know the man that won the election
The relative pronoun “who” is used
to refer to people when it is used in English relative clause. However, the
relative clause above employs “that” as directly translated from the Yoruba
language relative clause marker ‘ti’. Though, “that” may as well be correct but
only in spoken English not in written English. This is because, if we put the
expression to syntactic test, the case will be: “who won the election?” not
“that worn the election?” and the answer will be “the man” . Hence, I know the
man who won the electionis more formal than I know the manthat won
the election. Another sample is - the officer who arrested the
criminal has been promoted “Agbofinroti o mu odarannaatiriigbega”.
Which
Yoruba: Ade ferankeketibabarera fun-un.
English: Ade like the bicycle that his father bought for
him.
In English relative clause ‘which’
is used to refer to things or objects. However this has been wrongly used and
replaced with the relative pronoun “that” as the direct translation of Yoruba
relative clause marker ‘ti’. Hence, the correct English version of the
expression should be – Ade like the bicycle which his father bought for
him.
Whom
Yoruba: Okunrintimo nso nipa re niyi.
English : This is the man which I was talking about.
‘Whom’ is formally used in English
relative clause to refer to people when it replace an object in the relative
clause. Therefore “Whom” instead of “Which” should be used as relative clause
marker of the above syntactic structure. Hence, the correct version is: This is
the man whom I was talking about, not, This is the man which
I was talking about.
Whose
Yoruba: Iya agba ti won ji ewure re wanibi.
English: The old woman who goat was stolenis here.
The syntactic use of the relative
pronoun “whose” in English is to indicate possession. But in the contrary, as
it is not found in Yoruba language syntactic element of relative pronoun, it
has been misused to be replaced by the relative pronoun “Who”. On the other
hand, the correct syntactic structure of the English RC above should be – The
old woman whose goat was stolen is here not the old
woman who goat was stolen is here.
When
Yoruba: Baba Arugbonaa ko le ranti igbati won bi I.
English: The old man cannot remember the timewhich he was born.
Relative pronoun “when” in English
is used syntactically to indicate time. This has been wrongly used in the above
expression and it has been replaced with relative pronoun ‘which’. Hence, the
correct syntactic form should be; “the old man could not remember the
time when he was born”.
Where
Yoruba: Omidannaa ko moilutioko re wa.
English: the lady did not know the town that her husband is.
“Where” in the English relative
pronoun has a syntactic function of referring to location of person(s),
thing(s) or event(s). However, from the above sample of English relative
clause, it has been incorrectly used and interchanged with the relative pronoun
‘that’ as the direct translation of the Yoruba relative clause marker ‘ti’. The
correct version of the English sample should therefore be – the lady did not
know the town where her husband was.
6. Discussion of Findings
In this study, the researcher has
adopted Contrastive Analysis (CA) Theory to analyse the structures of relative
clause of Yoruba and English language. The analysis reveals that both Yoruba
and English languages employ relative clauses in communication when using
complex or compound-complex sentences. Hence, there exist relative clauses in
both languages but the syntactic formation and arrangement differ. Glaringly,
the study shows that the “ti-clause” in relative clause (RCs) of Yoruba
language is often immediately followed by noun pronoun – ‘o, won, a,etc’
depending on the headword and these pronouns do not distinguish gender. The
finding also reveals that Yoruba language does not distinguish between the two
types of English relative clauses: restrictive and non-restrictive relative
clauses, (RRCs NRRCs). Hence, the most typical areas of syntactic difficulties
in relative clauses(RCs), via Contrastive Analysis Approach are: omission of
relative pronoun, incorrect use of genitive relative pronoun, noun/pronoun
retention, omission of prepositions in relative clauses(RCs,) subject-verb
agreement, omission of a main verb in relative clauses (RCs), incorrect use of
verb phrase in RCs, omission of commas in RCs, and use of relative pronoun
“that” instead of who, whose, which, whom, when, where etc in relative clauses.
In addition, the study shows that while English has several numbers of relative
clause makers (relative pronouns), relative clause of Yoruba language is only
introduced by ‘ti-clause’. In addition, the finding reveals that while English
relative clauses (RCs) distinguish between the different tenses (present,
future, past and past participle tense) through the verbs used, relative
clauses (RCs) of Yoruba language do not.
7. Conclusion
From the data collected and
analysed, study concludes that the relative clauses of Yoruba language have a
different structural constituent from that of English language. According to
this study, the structural differences are as a result of mother tongue
interference from Yoruba to English language and this has had serious effects
on the Yoruba users of English in both spoken and written communication when
using English language as their second language. To be more specific, the
errors in relative clauses (RCs) are largely attributed to the users’ lack of
complete knowledge of certain grammatical rules as stated earlier. These rules
need to be accurately mastered by the users in order to form and use correct
sentences with relative clause which evidently will allow them to use a wide
variety of sentence types and structures and will consequently enhance the
quality of their speaking and writing communication skills.
References
Akinlade A, An Introduction
to the Grammar of English:Ambet Printing Press, 2012.
Adelaja, A.A, The Study of
Language: An Introduction;Afuye Publication, 2009.
Abraham, R.C. Dictionary of
Modern Yoruba, Hodder and Stoughton Ltd, 1962.
Amuza, M.R., An
Introduction to Applied Linguistics; Well-Job Publications, 2000.
Cordetr, S.P., The Significance of
Learners’ Errors; International Review of Applied Linguistics, 1967.
Bamgbose, Ayo. FonolojiatiGirama
Ede Yoruba; University Press PLC, 2014.
Murphy, R. English Grammar
in Use (4th ed.). Cambridge University Press, 2012
Tani, Prasad. A Course in
Linguistics (2nded),Asoke k. Ghosh PHI Learning Private Limited,
2014.
Osisanwo, Ayo. Fundamental
of English Phonetics and Phonology (2nded),Femolus-Feto
Publisher, 2012.
Randolph, Quick and Sidney
Greenbaum University Grammar of English.Pears on Education Limited
2012.
Olu Tomori, S.H: The
Morphology and Syntax of Present-day English: An Heineman Educational
Books Ltd 2004.
Omorodion, G.N. Basic
Grammar of English. Spectrum Books Limited,2011.
Alagbe, Adewole, A Theories of
Grammar and Structure of English: SiloamPublication, 2016.
Agbede, C U. General
Linguistic. An Introductory Reader Ace ResourcesKnonsuit; 2000.
Akimajian, Adrian et al.
Linguistic: An Introduction to Language andCommunication.5thed
2010. Web.
Anagbogbu.P.N; et al. Introduction
to Linguistics.Amaka Dreams Ltd, 2010PrintBussmann, Hadumod. Dictionary
of Language and Linguistics. London:Routledge,1996.
Yusuf Ore (ed) Basic
Linguistics for Nigerian Language Teachers. M&J grand communications.
2007 print.
0 Comments