Department of Language and Linguistics

Permanent URI for this community

https://keffi.nsuk.edu.ng/handle/20.500.14448/2024

Browse

Browsing Department of Language and Linguistics by Author "Chibuzo, Benedith Iloka"

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    A COMPARATIVE PHONOLOGY OF AMIYA-AGU ATA AND OHAFIA
    (department of language and linguistics, nasarawa state university keffi, 2016-10-19) Chibuzo, Benedith Iloka
    This work is a comparison of the phonology of two Igbo dialects (Amiyi-Agụata and Ọhafịa). The scope is limited to the sound systems, the syllable structures, phonotactics and phonological processes. Two native speakers from each of the dialects were interviewed with the aid of the One Hundred (100) Culture Free Basic Words and the Ibadan 400 Word List of Basic Items. The principles of phonemic analysis of classical phonemics, minimal pairs, complementary distribution and analogous environment were used to establish the phonemes of the two dialects being compared. The rates of lexical relatedness of the two dialects were ascertained with the use of percentage. The comparative method of Newman (2000) research design basically patterned for reconstruction, especially of phonology and vocabulary was employed. This is because it is already an established fact that Amiyi-Agụata and Ọhafịa are dialects of the Igbo language; that is to say that both dialects are already demonstrated to be related. The major findings from both dialects reveal that the lexical difference between the two dialects is 57%, whereas the lexical similarities between them is 43%. The research established the following differences in the phonemes of Amiyi-Agụata and Ọhafịa: breathy voiced plosives /b d ɡ/, labialized bilabial plosives /pw bw/, fricatives /f z /, bilabial click / / and the vowel /ԑ/ are peculiar to Ọhafịa . The following phonemes: aspirated plosive /kwh/ aspirated affricate /tsh/ and fricatives like /ɣ v ṽ hw β/ are peculiar to Amiyi-Agụata dialect. The following phonological processes: aspiration, labialization and nasalization are attested in both dialects though not in similar segments and environments. This clearly shows that the two dialects are different. The import of a comparative work such as this is in its usefulness to language learners and teachers as the findings from such works could be applied in classroom experience. Scholars and researchers on dialectology will also find the piece useful since it went ahead of previous studies to establish similarities and differences in the phonological processes of the two dialects.