Dialectal Variation; A Case Study of Ikere and Ijebu
Chapter One
PURPOSE AND SIGNIFICANT OF STUDY
This work is a comparative study of Ikereand Ijebu varieties of Yoruba language. It seeks to compare Ikere and Ijebu varieties of Yoruba to determine their relatedness and determine whether they are dialects or simply varieties of Yoruba language.
This work would also serve as a guide to interested researchers who would want to develop and consolidate the frontiers of this subject matter.
CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
In this chapter, literature related to this study is reviewed and presented. These would include definitions of the concept of language and dialect. Previous related works on Ijebu and Ikere would also be highlighted.
LANGUAGE AND DIALECT
As part of the nature of language in general, every language is characterized by variation within the speech communities that use it. Varieties which share similar features diverge from one another to different degrees. Divergent varieties are often referred to as dialects. In some cases, they may be distinct enough that some would consider them to be separate languages. In other cases, the varieties may be sufficiently similar to be considered merely characteristic of a particular geographic region, social grouping or historical era.
For many, the term “dialect” is a pejorative term that identifies a variety as being in some way deficient or inadequate.
Language
Language is a concept that has enjoyed great attention among scholars. There is no generally acceptable definition because different scholars hold different views as regards ‘Language’. Some of these views are explored in this section.
According to Bloch and Trager (1942):
“ alanguage is a system of arbitrary vocal symbols by means of which as social group co-operates”.
This definition emphasizes the social function of language which shows that cooperation among members of a given group is achieved through language.
Bloch and Trager stress the property of arbitrariness, and by being arbitrary, language is agreed upon by convention. For example: the aggregate of sounds dog result in the word ‘dog’. Yet the meaning ascribed to the word (dog) is no way naturally related to the set of sounds. Instead, the word ‘dog’ means what it means byconvention.
On the other hand, Sapir sees language as:
“ a purely human and non-instinctive method of communicatingideas, emotions and desires by means of voluntary producedsymbols”.
As opposed to animal communication which is naturally instinctive, human language has a larger scope and much is communicated by it. Therefore according to Sapir, the most eminent property that can be attributed to language is purelyhuman and non-instinctive.
Furthermore, M.K.C Uwajeh (2008) believes that language is:
“any semantic-symbolic inter-communication representational system structure”.
Uwajeh is of the view that language is for the sole purpose of communication. He compares language to an aircraft: A language is meant to communicate just as an aircraft is meant to fly. Uwajeh argues that language is a representational means of communication and presents the three Rs of language construction: R1, R2 and R3.
R1- is the Referent or the experience
R2- is the Reference or the thought
R3-is the Referend or the symbolization
These views address language in several parts and the area it functions. What should be known about language is that it is not restricted to human beings, despite playing an integral part in the human society. Humans are able to exchange beliefs, knowledge, opinions, threats, feelings and many more through language. We can smile to show discomfort, surprise, passion, disapproval and so on. This goes to show that the system of communication before anything else, is language.
Likewise, by moving in certain patterns,bees are able to tell their fellow workers where to find honey. Chimpanzees, Gorillas and Orangutanscan exchange different kinds of information by emitting various types of shrieks, contorting their faces in various ways and moving their arms. Even birds sing in different pitches either to attract mates or in defense of their territory.
CHAPTER THREE
RESULT OF DATA ANALYSIS
INTRODUCTION
This chapter, results of a comparative analysis of the lexical items of Ikere and Ijebu will be carried out. This comparison covers the areas of the sound systems of the varieties under study, with the analysis of the lexical similarities and differences obtained from the data used in this work.
Findings
There are basically seven (7) vowels in Yoruba language, they are; a e ẹ i o ọ u. In all, eighteen consonant sounds and seven vowel sounds were similar in both varieties. It was also revealed that the following sounds were absent in the varieties.
CHAPTER FOUR
CONLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
CONCLUSION
This project has attempted a purely linguistic analysis of the Linguistic status of Ikere and Ijebu varieties, and findings show that both Ikere and Ijebu varieties are dialects of Yoruba language. In this work, only two varieties were considered ( Ikere and Ijebu) with the purpose of ascertaining their linguistic status. It attempts to rule out the inappropriate allocation of linguistically given status that have been ascribed to Ikere and Ijebu.
The variations that exist between Ikere and Ijebu foster mutual intelligibility, which is why speakers of these dialects have no problem understanding eachother.
As records show, there is no existing literature on Ikere and Ijebu as a comparative study but the sound systems of both dialects have been compared.
RECOMMENDATION
These recommendations are subjected to all language lovers. It is not restricted to the State or Federal Government, but also Linguists, language students, native speakers, patriotic citizens and finally, interested individuals.
The area mentioned above has been treated and compared to establish the relationship between the dialects under study. Other areas not mentioned should be adequately studied in other to establish other relationships that may exist between them.
This work is a pioneering attempt; subsequent works may yet reveal more relationships about these dialects and may have implications for the theory of the grammar of African languages.
With respect to the lexicostatistic analysis used in this work, the similarities of both dialects based on their sound inventory are exemplified. This shows the relevance of comparative study of languages in linguistics, showing the extent to which languages are the same, similar, related, or different.
REFERENCES
- Abimbola K. (2005) Yoruba Culture: A Philosophical Account. Iroko Academic Publishers, Birmingham.
- Adetugbo A. (1982) Towards A Yoruba Dialectology. In Afolayan (ed.). Language And Literature.
- Akintoye S. (2010) A History Of The Yoruba People. Amalion Publishing, Dakar.
- Dayo O. (2008) The Cradle Of Yoruba Culture. Hachette Book Group, United States.
- Fani-Kayode F. (2013) Who Are The Yoruba People?Vanguard Newspaper. Lagos, Nigeria.
- Greenberg, J. H. (1963): The Languages of Africa. Bloomington, Indiana.
- Heine, B. and Nurse, D. (2002): African Languages: An Introduction. CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge.
- Idowu B. (1962) God In Yoruba Belief. Longman, Nigeria.
- Nicole P. (2006) Relations Between Dialect, Variation, Grammar And Early Spelling Skills. Springer, Netherlands.
- Ogunyemi, D. (2010) The Oral Traditions In Ile-Ife. Academia Press, Belgium.
- Okolo, B. A. and Ezikeojiaku, P. A. (1991) Introduction to Language and Linguistics. Mindex Publishing Company, Benin City, Nigeria.
