Umeodinka- Corpus-based contrastive analysis pp: 54-62
54
Corpus-based Contrastive Analysis of Igbo and English Adjectives A. U. Umeqd[nka
Abstract This paper examines Igbo and English adjectives from contrastive analysis perspective. It uses a descriptive approach to look into the patterns of authentic language use through the analysis of the actual usage of the adjectives. Emphasis is on the differences in their usage as they relate to interference problems encountered Igbo learners of English as L2. The results of the analysis show that corpus-based contrastive study is an indispensable innovation in language teaching, especially as it plays a prominent role in foreseeing problem areas and making predictions to forestall their occurrence in language pedagogy. However, it needs to be pointed out that corpus-based contrastive analysis is not without some methodological limitations.
1. Introduction The description of any language is not done without the collection of a sample data. Such usable data that are collected make up a corpus. In Latin, the word “corpus” means “body”. But here, in the context of Applied Linguistics, it is the assemblage of linguistic data which may have been either put together as texts that are written, or as recorded speech that is transcribed (Crystal, 1992). In other words, as far as linguistics and lexicography are concerned, it is a body of utterances, texts or other specimens which is seen as being more or less representative of a language and which is usually stored in form of an electronic data base (McArthur, 1992). The investigation we are faced with here is to carry out a careful examination or comparison of Igbo and English adjectives from the perspective of some sample data from both languages. What this means is that we shall depend on the representative data base from English and Igbo to carefully isolate the similarities and differences in the two languages and possibly make some predictions based on the finding. Our findings or conclusions would be the products of the analysis of the items from the corpora. It would be the product of the contrast, the pedagogic decisions that would remove the perceived obstacles to the learning of the target language (TL). Journal of Igbo Language & Linguistics (JILL) No. 3, December 2011
Umeodinka- Corpus-based contrastive analysis pp: 54-62
55
2. Literature Review There seem not to be any line of demarcation between corpus – based analysis and corpus linguistics. According to Wikipedia (2011), “corpus linguistics is the study of language as expressed in samples (corpora) or real world text”. A corpus, as Finnegan (2008:536) sees it, is “A representative collection of texts, usually in machine –readable form and including information about the situation in which each text originated, such as speaker or author, addresses or audience”. It is this machine – readability attribute of the corpus that makes it possible for one to search for a specific word or phrase in the computer. The purpose of this collection of language data picked up from spoken and written sources is that they are used for linguistic research and analysis. The analysis is contrastive when two or more languages are systematically compared with the goal of making a description of their similarities and differences. According to Sinclair (1998), it is possible for a corpus – based analysis to carry out investigation on almost any existing type of language patterns, including lexicon– grammatical, discourse, phonological and morphological. One of the tools used in these investigations of language patterns is concordance. In fact, a concordance, as Sinclair (1998) claims, is a software programme which is used to analyze corpora and list the results. If the right analytical tools are available, it is not only the patterns of language use that would be discovered, but also the extent to which they are used, and the factors of context that influence variability. It is necessary to point out that a corpus is compulsorily a representative. What this means, according to Gleason (1961), is that it must give examples of the full range of structural features in the manner that they would be easy to be identified, characterized and related to other aspects of the system. Lehmann (1972:22) maintains that why the linguist is planning the analysis is to look for entities and relationships. He then says that “In making the analysis, the linguists will look for entities of sound, form and meaning”. In the view of Schmitt (2002), Corpus – based analysis is characterized by the fact that it is empirical, makes use of corpus as the basis for analysis, uses computer for analysis and depends on both quantitative and qualitative analytical techniques. This view is also shared by Biber, Conrad and Reppen (1998). Schmitt (2002:93) gives the following as examples of some available corpora that are popular: “Brown corpus, the Lancaster / Oslo – Bergen (LOB) corpus and the Helsinki corpus of British texts. Regarding the type’s corpora that exist and are used by language researchers, Schmitt (2002:95) calls them “the general corpora”, “specialized corpora” and “learner’s corpus”. Journal of Igbo Language & Linguistics (JILL) No. 3, December 2011
Umeodinka- Corpus-based contrastive analysis pp: 54-62
56
According to Biber (1990), the design of corpus is a very vital factor. In designing a corpus, he says, its composition must reflect the research goals that are anticipated. If it is a corpus that is aimed at addressing lexical questions, it needs to be large such that an accurate representation of a large number of words and different meanings must be covered. Also, according to Willis (1998), the students, through the use of corpus – based contrastive analysis may be able to determine the following: the potential different meanings and uses of common words, useful phrases and typical collocations they might use themselves, the structure and nature of both written and spoken discourse; and that certain language features are more typical of some kinds of text than others. Wikipedia (2011) draws our attention to the characteristics of corpus – based linguistic research. One of them is that the researcher has to insist that the basis for the research must be the use of authentic materials. Secondly, his focus must be strongly descriptive and empirical. In this wise, it is not better to pay attention to grammaticality and acceptability, but to the patterns of use. Thirdly, it is good to have quantitative investigating so as to use them to support the qualitative ones. In his overview of different types of corpus studies, Schmitt (2002) notes that it has been used in the area of historical linguistics to address language change, to acquire understanding and insights concerning changes related to language development, not only in a situation of the first language but in the second; to research into the similarities or differences in English varieties of different nations and regions and also to investigate into the differences between languages that are spoken and the ones that are written. 3. Analysis of Igbo and English Adjectives Our main preoccupation in this section is with presenting and analyzing the Igbo and English Adjective corpora, using the corpusbased contrastive perspective. The four–fold approach would involve the display of the word list, the arrangement or grouping of the word list, the comparison of the grouped items of the two ;corpora and the making some pedagogic projections about them. 3.1. Groupings of the Wordlists A look at the two corpora shows that they are samples of Igbo and English adjectives. (See Appendix). An adjective is a lexical category made up of words that describe or modify a head noun within a noun phrase (Asher, 1994). Guided by this knowledge, we proceed to select Journal of Igbo Language & Linguistics (JILL) No. 3, December 2011
Umeodinka- Corpus-based contrastive analysis pp: 54-62
57
and arrange them according to their collocation items in each language, thereby leading us to have groupings that would enable us to make comparisons between the adjectives of the two languages. 3.1.1 Igbo Adjectives Selected from the corpus, the Igbo adjectives could be apportioned into the following groups: (1) Pure adjectives (2) Adjectival modifiers ajq (bad) mmadx qjqq (a bad person) nnukwu (big, huge) mmadx nta (a small person) nta (small, little) ezi (good, right) (3) Adjectival use of nouns (4) Ponominal modifiers xlq akwxkwq (school) ala any[ (our land) xlq mkpqrq (prison) isi g[ (your heard) xgbq elu (aeroplane) (5) Onomatopoeic Adjectives (6) Demonstrative Adjectives nkanka mmadx (withered person) nke a (this one) nzanza mmadx (lean person) nwoke a (this man) (7) Indefinite number Adjectives (8) AdjectivalQuantifiers mmadx niile (every person) Naabq (two) mmadx dum (all persons) Naan[ (only) Niile (all) dum (all) 3.1.2 English Adjectives Through selection from the given corpus, the English adjectives have been distributed into groups as follows: (1) Attributive Adjectives (2) Predicative Adjectives Good unwell bad loathsome clever (3) Attributive-Only Adjectives (4) Adjectives of Quality outright wealthy utter regional (5) Interrogative Adjectives (6) Possessive Adjectives what my which your whose (7) Emphasizing Adjectives (8) Adjectives of Number Journal of Igbo Language & Linguistics (JILL) No. 3, December 2011
Umeodinka- Corpus-based contrastive analysis pp: 54-62
(9)
(11)
own very
five
Adjectives of Quantity (10) little enough Distributive Adjectives (12) each both
Demonstrative Adjectives this that Proper Adjectives Nigerian American
58
many
4. Data Analysis At this juncture, we compare and contrast adjectives in Igbo (L1) and English (TL). The essence is that any similar systems in the two languages (L1 and TL) would enhance or help the learning of the TL, Igbo, whereas any variations between them would cause interference or place some obstacles in the learning of TL. From the corpora, it is evident both languages similar types of adjective although English seems to have more in number. Igbo has pure noun onomatopoetic and demonstrative adjectives. On the other hand, English has adjective of interrogation, quality, possession, number, demonstration etc. Also, both languages use nouns to perform adjectival functions as can be seen in the corpora. The two languages have demonstrative adjectives, adjectives of number, quantity and possession. Moreover, they have adjectives that function as pronominal modifiers. In terms of differences, Igbo has less number of adjectives than English. From the corpus, the original or pure Igbo adjectives are “qcha” (white), ojii/oji (black), qma (good), ajq/qjqq (bad), ukwu (big) and nta (small). English has adjectives of quality (wealthy), quantity (much, all), number (five, many). Also, English has demonstrative adjectives (this, that), distributive adjectives (every, either), interrogative adjectives (what, which), possessive adjectives (my, our), proper noun as adjectives (Nigerian, American) etc. However, this does not suggest Igbo lacks these equivalents. Nonetheless, these adjectives are fewer in comparative terms. The implication of this in a second language learning situation imposes pedagogic problem on the learner in term of making up for the adjectival forms in English that do not equivalents in his L1 ( i.e. Igbo). The solution to this would be to teach the learner the different number of ways in which Igbo tries to make up for the deficiency of adjectives. Some of such ways is to make use of nouns (e.g. xlq akwxkwq, for school) as adjectives. Another way is to capitalize on a word, which has Journal of Igbo Language & Linguistics (JILL) No. 3, December 2011
Umeodinka- Corpus-based contrastive analysis pp: 54-62
59
some sameness being identical with a noun in form but has adjectival interpretation (Ogbalu and Emenanjo, 1982). Another way to go about it, according to them, is it is to make use of adjectival sentences and verbs. Another major difference is that most times, adjectives in Igbo are preceded by the head word they qualifiy, thereby functioning as postnominal modifiers. This an be seen in the following examples: Nwaany[ qma, (a good woman), Nk[ta qcha (a white dog), Xlq ukwu, (big house), Ewu ojii (black goat). This does not rule out the possibility of adjectives functioning as pronominal modifier as in ajq mmadx (a bad person), nnukwu xlq. Igbo, unlike English, has onomatopoeic adjectives. This is one of the peculiarities of the Igbo language. Such adjectives, according to Okonkwo (1974; 1977), are words whose meanings are suggested by their sounds. Its absence in English definitely imposes pedagogic constraints on the leaner of English as L2. Another point of difference between English and Igbo is that adjectives are not compared in the process of forming comparatives and superlatives. Instead, it is the verb roots that are used in deriving comparatives and superlatives as in ‘makar[r[ mma’ (more beautiful/handsome), maker[s[ (most beautiful) ‘jqkar[r[ njq’ (uglier), jqkar[s[r[ (ugliest). In English, adjectives undergo either internal vowel change or inflection (by affixing ‘er’ or ‘est’) to form comparatives and superlatives. At the suprasegmental level, the difference between the two language is overtly discernible. Whereas Igbo is a tone language and makes use of different pitch levels to indicate semantic differences in lexical and associative constructions, English is an intonational language, which makes use of different stress patterns to effect semantic changes. In Igbo, according to (Okafor & Ewelukwa, 2008), adjectives do not change their tones in associative constructions, but other words that associate with adjectives in constructions have their tones affected as seen in these examples: akwa + qcha akwa qcha (cloth) + (white ) (white cloth), ajq + nri
ajq nri (bad) + (food) (bad food)
4. Findings and Conclusion From the perspective of Landau (2001), it is tenable to aver that any body of work that is collected with the aim of analyzing its characteristics is known as a corpus. The creation of the concept of corpus as a tool for examining a body of linguistic data is a major contribution to the study of language. At least, it has made it possible and easy for the exploration of actual patterns of language use to be executed, thus, paving way for the development of appropriate instruction Journal of Igbo Language & Linguistics (JILL) No. 3, December 2011
Umeodinka- Corpus-based contrastive analysis pp: 54-62
60
materials. The corpus-based contrastive analysis of Igbo and English adjectives has revealed a number of advantages derivable therefrom. At least, it constitutes an empirical basis for claims, an easy access to materials and also a shared resource. This work has brought to light the types of adjectives that Igbo and English have in common, their common use of nouns for adjectival roles, how Igbo makes up for her deficiency in the number of adjectives, and the peculiarity of onomatopoeic adjectives to Igbo language, to mention but a few. Nonetheless, there is still room for improvement as far as corpus-based study as an analytical method is concerned. References Asher, R.E. (ed.) (1994). “The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics”. Oxford: Pergamon Press Ltd. Barlow, M. (2002). KAMALL International Conference, Daejon, Korea. Biber, D. (1988). “Variation across speech and Writing”. New York: Cambridge University Press. Biber, D. (1990). Methodological issues regarding corpus–based analyses of linguistics variation. “Literary and Linguistic Computing 5”: 257 – 269. Biber, D. Conrads S. Reppen, B. (1998). Corpus Linguistics: Investigating Language Structure and Use Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Crystal, D. (1992). “A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics”. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. Finch, G. (2000). “Linguistic Terms and Concept”. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Finegan, E. (2008). “Language: Its Structure and Use”. Boston: Thomson and Wadsworth. Gleason, H.A. (1961). “An Introduction to Descriptive Linguistics”. London: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc. http:/en/wikipedia.org/wiki/corpus.linguistics.Retrived on 6th February, 2011 http:iteslj.org/Articles/Krieger-corpu html. Retrieved on 6th February, 2011. Landau, S.I. (2001). “Dictionaries: The Art and Craft of Lexicography”. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lehman, W.P.(1972). “Descriptive Linguistics: An Introduction”. New York: Random House, Inc. Mcarthur, T. (ed.) (1992). “The Oxford Companion to the English Language”. Oxford 265 – 266 Journal of Igbo Language & Linguistics (JILL) No. 3, December 2011
Umeodinka- Corpus-based contrastive analysis pp: 54-62
61
Murthy, J.D. (2007). “Contemporary English Grammar”. Lagos: Book Master. Ogbalu, F.C. (1974). “School Certificate/GCE. Igbo”. Ilupeju: Thomas Nelson (Nigeria) Ltd. Ogbalu, F.C. and Emenanjo, E.N. (eds.) (1982). “Igbo Language and Culture”. Ibadan: University Press Ltd. Okonkwo, M.N. (1974; 1077). “A Complete Course in Igbo Grammar”. Ilupeju: Macmillan Nigeria Publishers Ltd. Okorji, R.I. and Okeke, C. O. (2009). The effects of the differences between the sound systems of English and Igbo on the effecting learning of English in Nigerian schools. Mmadike, B.I. (ed.) “NKOA: Nkxzi Na Qmxmx Asxsx” Vol 2, September, 2009. Schmitt, N. (2002). “Applied Linguistics”. London: Hodder Education. Sinclair, J. (1991). “Corpus, Concordance and Collocation”. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sinclair, J. (1998). Corpus evidence in language description, In G. K. Mcenery, S. Fligelstom & A. Wichmann (eds.) “Teaching and Language Corpora”. London: Longman pp. 27 – 39. Willis, J. (1998). Concordances in the classroom without a computer. In B. Tomlinson (ed.) “Materials Development in Language Teaching”. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Appendix Igbo Adjective Corpus Onye ocha, onye ori Ajq mmadx niile, nta, ezi ukwu, Mmadx dum, qma, mmadx qjqq, mmadx nta, xzq ah[a, akwa ndx, mmadx q bxla,Niile, dum, mmadx xfqdx, mmadx ole na ole, dum, qcha, kea, xlq nri, mmadx nta, mmadx, ukwu, ajq mmadx, mmadx niile, nnukwu mmadx, ezigbo mmadx, kwa xbqchi, xlq akwxkwq, xlq m, xlq mkpqrq, xlq anyi, ala anyi, anyinya Igwe, xgbq elu, xlq g[, xlq ya, xlq qgwx, xlq ha azx nkx, nkanka mmadx, nke a, nwoke a, nzanza mmadx, nwoke ahx nke ahx, dum, naabq walawala mmiri, mgbimgbi mmadx, niile, akataka xlq, akataka nwoke, chqlichql[ mmadx mghangha mmdx ka, kar[r[, kar[s[r[, maker[r[, makarisiri, dikariri, d[kar[s[r[. English Adjective Corpus good, outright, bad, utter, chief, former, unwell, loath, clever, tall, fair, asleep, worrying, nice, alive, dead, asleep, happy lovely, large, five, no, many, all, wealthy, some, regional, industrial, first, most, several, any, one, fundamental, elementary, little, much, enough, no, any, primary, whole, some, all, great, half, sufficient, this, those, that, such, these, each, what, every, either, Journal of Igbo Language & Linguistics (JILL) No. 3, December 2011
Umeodinka- Corpus-based contrastive analysis pp: 54-62
62
bank draft, customer service, tallest, thickest, shortest, kin, tall, thick, short, kind, taller, kinder, shorter, which, neither, my, your, none, both, any, its, his, their, her, that, these, such, the, rich, the brave, own, very, what, the honest, Nigerian, English, unique, perfect, universal, American, ideal, chief, Russian, excellent, extreme, superior, inferior, good/well, senior, better, junior, preferable, best, bad/evil, worst, worse, least, most, less/lesser, most, more, late, fare, later/latter, farther, latest, last, farthest, prior, first, foremost, fore, in, up, inner, former, further, furthest, inmost/up most, upper, top, hind, topmost, hinders, top pest, hindmost, hinder, eye contact, car breakdown, mind reader.
Journal of Igbo Language & Linguistics (JILL) No. 3, December 2011
