Contrastive Analysis of the Morphemes of the English and Igbo Languages
Chapter One
Purpose of the Study
The cardinal purpose of this study is to critically identify the differences in the application and uses of morphemes of English and the Igbo languages. This aims at identifying, analyzing and contrasting the processes of the formation of morphemes in both languages. This study, for pedagogical purposes, tends to discover how the Igbo language differs from the English language in the formation and application of morphemes.
The study of the inflection and derivation in word formation in the use of Igbo language seems to have no importance for some of the language users. This may be because the language gives rooms to the users to coin word in a peculiar style to express their thought. This chance is so common that nobody wants to study the standard way of forming words.
The constructive features of the two languages should be known for easy evaluations and applications. This is important so as to make the users of the two languages know that the two languages have different ways of word formation.
CHAPTER TWO:
Literature Review
Conceptual Framework
The study of morpheme means more than the study of the smallest meaningful units of a language. This is because each unit of a language is distinct and requires a critical study for the identification. Therefore, the study of morpheme, apart from word structure has more to do with the scientific study of relationship between the formation of words and the scientific positions they occupy in a language. Spencer Andrew (198) sees morpheme as the unit of language that has it own definite meaning and syntactic function. To him morpheme is the key figure in languages studies. This is because the expansion in number of words in a given language is as a result of morphemes.
Aronoff (16) proposes a model of word formation, which shares certain characteristics with that of Halle’s, especially in the assumption that there is a separate component of grammar for word formation rules. While Halle says that the morpheme is the minimal input, Aronoff adopts a theory of word based morphology restricting him expertly to derivational morphemes, and regarding all other aspects of morphemes as syntactic. His argument is that the process of word formation does not seem to operate over the productive process of words. He reasons that the rules that add affixes to pure stems in Halle’s model do not have a place in his own model.
As he puts it:mall regular word formation process is word-based. A new word is formed by applying a regular rule to a single already existing word. Both the new word and the existing one are members of major lexical categories. (Aronoff, 48)
He proposes a model of word formation which shares certain characteristics with that of Halle’s, especially in the assumption that there is a separate component of grammar for the existing words. He proposes allomorph rule in the word formation component which affects phonological changes but which only applies to certain morphemes in the immediate environment of certain other morphemes. The changes in the pronunciation occur only in the formation of nouns and verbs. For instance, in English words, the phonological environments that bring about the changes in the pronunciation of plural markers are the vowels and some of the consonant sounds.
Anigbogu et al (99) refer to morpheme as the smallest indivisible form which has a specific grammatical function. A morpheme, weather free or bound, has a specific grammatical function. The free morphemes as words have their function depending on the class of words they belong to and the role they play whenever they are used in a sentence. The bound morphemes have no function in isolation. Their functions are to change the form of a free morpheme to fit into a particular grammatical position. Babarinde (9) notes that free morphemes can stand on their own with a meaning. They are independent and are otherwise known as monomorphemic words. Free morphemes are both lexical and functional morphemes. The lexical morphemes belong to the content words while the functional morphemes belong to the grammatical words. All the grammatical words are free morphemes and do not accept bound morphemes. This is because the grammatical words, apart from the auxiliary verbs, do not accept changes in their forms for definite positions in the English language.
Bound morphemes which include inflectional and derivational affixes possess meanings but not in isolation. Bound morphemes have their meanings manifested only when they are attached rightly to a free morpheme. The meanings they have are mostly identified when they change the meaning of the already existing morphemes. For instance, “-un” and “-able” have no meanings in isolation. But their meanings become identifiable when they are attached to free morphemes “break” to have “unbreakable”. For that, ‘break’ ‘breakable’ and ‘unbreakable’ have different meanings because of the morphemes attached. Rodman et al, (106) observe the study of morphemes as the study of affixation. To them, the study of free morphemes is rather seen as the study of word classes. This is because the identification of free morphemes is by means of the grammatical and the syntactic functions of the words which are only possible following the grammatical function of the word classes. To them, when morphemes are to be studied the focus should be on only the affixes.
Agbedo (12) defines affixation as the word building or word formation process that involves the addition of phoneme or group of phonemes to a root or item to modify, extend or change the meaning and, or function of the word (89). Umera, Nneka and Nwankwo (50) see affixation as the addition of prefixes and suffixes to the root word or base with or without any changes of the word class. Sapir (17) says that though affixes comprise prefixes and suffixes, prefixes mostly change the meaning of the words they are attached to but not the class of words they belong to. For instance, unhappy, ex-wife, misjudge and mismanage, have prefixes attached to them and still they retain their classes of words. To Sapir, suffixes are mostly attached to the root to change the class of words. Happiness, likeness, caller, faithful have suffixes which have changed them from the part of speech they rightly belong to another classes of words. In Igbo language, there are prefixes, suffixes, interfix, and circumflex. Onuba (196) states that unlike it is in the English language where bound morphemes are mostly identified in content words, all the Igbo words are studied through affixes. Gleason (53) states that morphemes are the smallest meaningful units in the structure of the language. He makes this clear by saying that the morpheme drastically alters the meaning of the stem of which the morpheme is added to.
CHAPTER THREE:
Methodology and Theoretical Framework
In this chapter, the researcher examines the procedures and methods used in eliciting information for the study. For that, the discussion and analysis will focus on the following:
- Design of the Study
- Method of Data Collection
- Method of data analysis
- Theoretical Framework
Design of the Study
Design can be described as the total outline or the general arrangement or plan from which a particular research work is made. Nwogu (76) sees a research design as “the plan or the blue print such as specification of how data relating to a given problem should be collected and analyzed.” According to him, it provides the procedural outline for the conduct of any given investigation. Eze (68) is of the opinion that “research designs specify methods and procedures for acquiring the information needed to put the research problem in a definite structure.” That is to say that research design stipulates the information that should be collected, specify the sources of the information and identify the procedures.
For this study, a descriptive design is chosen because the aim of this work is to critically do the contrastive study of the two languages under which the investigations are carried out. This method of design involves gathering of data that defines variables and then organizing, tabulating and describing the collected data. Ezekwesili (8) notes that “a descriptive research design is concerned with the condition or relationship that exists, practices that prevail, beliefs, points of view or attitudes that are felt, or trends that are developing in order to describe, compare, construct, classify, analyse and interpret entities and events.” She is of the view that a descriptive design is specifically made to analyze entities by finding the changes that bring about differences in them.
CHAPTER FOUR:
Presentation and Analysis of Data Presentation and Analysis of Data
In this chapter, there are three research questions that serve as guides for the presentation and analysis of data. For the analysis of variables to show variations in the formation of English l Igbo words via morphemes, the three research questions should be followed.
CHAPTER FIVE:
Implications, Discussion of Finding and Conclusion
The chapter discusses the implications, which are the prediction of the possible difficulties that may be encountered by the Igbo speaker learning English as a second language. It also discusses findings of the study and then conclusion. The chapter is presented under the following headings:
- Discussion of findings
- Conclusion
- Recommendations
Discussion of Findings Differences:
In the Igbo language, words can be formed by fusing words that can be a clause or a sentence. This is mostly used to formulate names of humans; Chukwudiegwu, Onyekachukwu, Onyejindum etc.
This style of word formation is not found in the English language. Every word in the English language cannot be detached to have a full sentence. A long word in the English language is only formed by jamming words that can be a phrase (compound words) when detached. For instance, classroom, chairman, etc, can be a phrase when they are detached.
The system of applying a single morpheme either as a prefix or as a suffix to all the words in a class of words is applicable in Igbo language. That is to say that for a single morpheme to be applied as a suffix or as a prefix to every word in a class of words is a system of word formation in Igbo language and cannot be seen in the English language. As we can have, metu, wetu, jetu, hutu, setu, retu, detu, satu, watu, etc, which all have the suffix “-tu”. That shows that all words from the class of the verbs can accept the morpheme -tu. But in the English language, there is no such combination. Even the adverbs that are known to take the morpheme, –ly are not predictable when words such as, outright, fast, etc, are adverb, yet they do not accept the morpheme –ly. So as, costly, lonely and so on have the morpheme –ly and they are not adverbs.
There are no infixes in English, but Igbo depends on them in forming some long words such as, ogo-l-ogo, agu-m-agu, ede-m-ede. So, the insertion of a morpheme in the middle of words that have the same morpheme at both ends is a system used in Igbo language for word formation.
English distinguishes twenty four (24) types of affixes to guide the process of derivation well. These types of derivatives are not found in Igbo. English uses the affixes, which are considered to be foreign words to give new meanings, while Igbo depends on intercalation of the letters to accomplish the same purpose. Process of compounding in Igbo is more of descriptive. All compounds in Igbo are semantically endocentric, while English offers four types of semantic compounds.
The unpredictable formations in English: acronyms, blending and word-manufacturing are not found in Igbo except for clipping which is found in a few Igbo names. With this, it is realized that the English language and Igbo language vary to great extent.
Similarities
General similarities appear in both languages in affixation. Both languages use prefixes and suffixes in word formation. Compounding in English is a very productive process. It is the same in Igbo. There are three forms of writing the compound noun in both English and Igbo languages; (i) as one word, (ii) two (or more) separate words (iii) without a hyphen, or with a hyphen. English and Igbo depend on compound nouns and derivation (affixation) to increase their vocabulary.
Borrowing as an international phenomenon is found in both languages almost in the same way. By borrowing, the words are made with a slight modification to fit into the rules of the languages, or by translating the meaning of the borrowed word in away that a new word will be formed.
Finally, it can be said that both English and Igbo languages reveal a common linguistic phenomenon in their classification of noun-formation processes as well as their recommendations for their usages in the languages by forming productive rules and patterns. This shows that every language has rules for forming its nouns, although some irregular forms may exist in it.
Implication of the Study
This contrastive study, no doubt, reveals the linguistic universals of the two languages, English and Igbo. It is valuable in the field of education, although this study is essentially theoretical. It shows the similarities and differences between the two languages. Therefore it can predict the potential learning problems and difficulties that the Igbo learners of English languages may encounter in the process of learning English as a second language. It is assumed that aspects of similarity will facilitate learning the second language, especially cognate words, and when a rule in Li is identical to a rule in L2. Actually, in this respect, English and Igbo are not cognate languages and each has a different application of word processes.
There are some words that their usages are common in both languages. This shows that the use of such words in Igbo does not create any problem or difficulty in the use of words in English. Words such as university, television, telephone, etc, when they are written using Igbo alphabet have a very little modification, but these modifications are exceptions and we do not rely much on them, because these words represent the process of borrowing. However, we rely mainly on the difficulties which the students may face while they learn English and they do not have the advantage of cognate features or similarities in morpheme application rules.
Errors and difficulties are expected and are attributable to the differences between the two languages and their classification of noun-formation. The lgbo speaker who learns English will expect to make errors in conversion processes in his mother tongue (MT). The English learners who have Igbo as their Li may find it difficult to form the compound nouns and therefore many errors are expected to be committed during the process of the application of morphemes.
It is found that all word formation processes are generally rule-governed, but these rules are sometimes very complicated and some processes overlap and interpenetrate each other. The following examples will illustrate this fact:
In English, for example, the suffix –er, as we have seen, always denotes the agentive nominalization in the normal sense:
make + er maker sing + er = singer write + er = writer
But in the following examples, it denotes an instrument, as in:
Curle + er curler Open + er = opener Point + er = pointer
We can also find that in ‘lover’; it denotes an experience or patience. We may ask whether this suffix is the only one in forming the agentive noun. The answer is actually ‘no’, because there are other suffixes or forms which denote this semantic trend.
These examples show different suffixes for the ‘agentive noun’:
Return + e = returnee Solicit + ant = solicitant
This explains that the English classification which depends on affixation to define and nominate a certain process of application of morpheme is not very clear. It is better to define it according to semantic criteria, as we have seen in the Igbo classification for the same process.
Finally, we can say that errors could be attributed to two major sources, known in linguistics as Interlingua (MT interference), and intralingua (overgeneralization of L2 rules; incomplete application of rules, unqualified/untrained teachers and ineffective syllabus)
Although the English and Igbo linguists have compiled and codified rules for word formation processes, some rules seem to be unclear or ambiguous and some processes do not seem to be rule-governed. The process of noun-formation is an effective aid to word-fonnation and consequently to increasing the corpus of the vocabulary of the language.
Conclusion
It is well observed by rules and according to the studies that English word formation is not made following the process of the formation of words in Igbo language. The uniqueness in the two languages as known should be focused on while forming words in both languages.
Even though English and Igbo share some linguistic universals, it is still suggested, as Bauer (292) claimed, that “the only realistic way of gaining a proper understanding of the way which word-formation works is by ignoring lexicalized forms and concentrating on productive processes”.
Application of morphemes is a complex process in both languages which requires adequate mastery of the rule to control and apply the process of formation. English and Igbo show similarities as well as differences according to one process or another. However, both languages have some shared general universals.
Recommendations for Further Research
Research is really an on-going activity as far as no research topic is exhaustible. For instance, the just concluded research has given its own results based on the specific area that was focused on. For that, there are still other research problems associated with this topic which should be investigated. Therefore, other researches associated with the topic should be carried out as follows:
- Differences in realization of Semantic values in the English and Igbo
- Grammatical analysis of Igbo and the English
- Contrastive analysis of the orthography of the English and Igbo
- Difficulties in the interpretation of the English language, using Igbo language as the medium.
- The difficulties encountered in the transliteration from the English language to Igbo language.
WORKS CITED
- Abakporo, T.S. “The Processes, Methods and Problems of Morphemic Analysis”. College of Humanities, Imo State University, Nigeria, 2001. Print.
- Abdul, R. Mohammed, Ii-lian Goh, and Eliza wan-Rose. “English errors and Chinese learners”.
- Abdul, Mahmoud I.I. “Noun formation in standard English and modern standard Arabic: A contrastive study”. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, pp. 614 – 623. Academy Publishers, Finland. 2010. Print.
- Abubkre, S.O. affixation in hausa and eggon: A comparative analysis. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.Unilorin.edu.ng/publications/abubakare/AFFLIXATION%20EDE.htm.
- Akpojisheri, M.O. “English language: A Vehicle for National Development”.
- Nigeria Journal of Search and Production. Enugu: Nigeria Researchers Forum. 2009. Print. Amagbogu, P.N. “The Grammar of Igbo Nominalization”. Onitsha: University Publishing . 1990. Print.
- Aronoff, Mark. “Word Formation in Generative Grammar”. Linguistic inquiry Monograph one.
- Cambridge, Masschusetts: MIT Press. 1976. Print.
- ……… word structure. Phd thesis (np) 1974.
- Bauer, L. “English Word Formation”. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1983. Print. Bloomfield, Leonard. “Language”. London: George Allen and Unwin. 1934. Print.
- Chesterman, A. “Contrastive Functional Analysis”. Amsterdam: John Benjamin’s. 1998. Print.
- Chomsky, N. “Remarks on Nominalization”. Reprinted 1972 in Study on Semantics in Generative Grammar. The Hague Mouton. 1970. Print.
- Comrie, B. and Thompson, S.A. (Lexis Nominalization in T. Shopen (e.d.) Language Typology and Syntactic Description (349 – 397).
