ONAH, JULIANA ELONNA
PG/MA/08/48664
AMBIGUITY AND POLYSEMY IN IGBO: A CASE STUDY OF
NSUKKA DIALECT CLUSTER
DEPARTMENT OF LINGUISTICS AND NIGERIAN
LANGUAGES
FACULTY OF ARTS
Chukwuma Ugwuoke
Digitally Signed by: Content manager‟s Name
DN : CN = Webmaster‟s name
O= University of Nigeria, Nsukka
OU = Innovation Centre
AMBIGUITY AND POLYSEMY IN IGBO:
A CASE STUDY OF NSUKKA DIALECT CLUSTER
BY
ONAH, JULIANA ELONNA
PG/MA/08/48664
A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF
LINGUISTICS, IGBO AND OTHER NIGERIAN
LANGUAGES, UNIVERSITY OF NIGERIA, NSUKKA.
IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR
THE AWARD OF THE MASTER OF ARTS DEGREE
SUPERVISOR:
PROF. (MRS.) G.I. NWAOZUZU
SEPTEMBER, 2011
i
TITLE PAGE
AMBIGUITY AND POLYSEMY IN IGBO:
A CASE STUDY OF NSUKKA DIALECT CLUSTER
ii
APPROVAL PAGE
This project has been approved for the Department of Linguistics, Igbo and
Other Nigerian Languages in the Faculty of Arts, University of Nigeria, Nsukka
-----------------------Prof. G.I. Nwaozuzu
(Supervisor)
-----------------------External Examiner
-----------------------Internal Examiner
-----------------------Prof. C.N. Okebalama
(Head of Department)
-----------------------Dean of Faculty
iii
CERTIFICATION
This is to certify that Onah Juliana Elonna Reg. No. PG/MA/08/48664, a
Postgraduate student of the Department of Linguistics, Igbo and other Nigerian
Languages, University of Nigeria, Nsukka has satisfactorily completed the
requirements for the courses and project work for the award of the Degree of Master
of Arts (M.A) in Linguistics. The work embodied in this dissertation is original and
has not been submitted in part or full for any diploma or degree of this or any other
university.
---------------------------Candidate
---------------------------------Prof. (Mrs.) G.I. Nwaozuzu
(Supervisor)
---------------------------Prof. C.N. Okebalama
(Head of Department)
---------------------------Internal Examiner
-----------------------Prof. E.E Okafor
(Dean of Faculty)
-----------------------External Examiner
iv
DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to my son Chijioke, whose shouts always
reminded me that I have stayed for too long in my study!
v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I wish to use this medium to express my indebtedness to my supervisor Prof.
(Mrs.) G.I. Nwaozuzu of the Department of Linguistics, Igbo and other Nigerian
Languages who, in spite of her tight engagements devoted much time to me to see
that this work comes out in this quality. Her constructive criticisms and painstaking
corrections propelled me to get this project finished.
I lack words to adequately express my gratitude to the erstwhile HOD. Dr.
B.M. Mbah who not only served as my motivator but also made his books and other
materials available for my use not minding the pranks of many students. For the
present HOD, Prof. C.N. Okebalama, I pray that God protects him so that we
continue to tap from his wealth of experience.
I would also like to acknowledge the efforts of my lecturers in the Department
that always did their job in such a way that they would get the best out of you. They
are Mr. B.N. Anasiudu, Dr. Chris Agbedo, Dr. (Mrs.) Okorji and Dr. (Mrs.) E.E.
Mbah.
I owe a great debt of gratitude to my lovely husband Rom for his financial and
moral support. To my children, I thank them all for bearing the challenges of my
absence from home with diligence.
Finally, I remain ever grateful to the Almighty God for sustaining me
throughout the period of writing this project.
Onah, Juliana Elonna (Mrs.)
University of Nigeria,
Nsukka 2011
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title Page
-
-
-
Approval Page
-
-
-
-
-
-
i
-
-
-
-
-
-
ii
Certification -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
iii
Dedication
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
iv
Acknowledgements -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
v
Table of Contents
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
vi
Abstract
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
vii
-
-
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
1.1
Background of the Study
-
-
-
-
-
1
1.2
Statement of the Problem -
-
-
-
-
-
3
1.3
Purpose of Study
-
-
-
-
-
4
1.4
Scope and Delimitation of the Study
-
-
-
-
4
1.5
Limitations of the Study
-
-
-
-
-
5
1.6
Significance of the Study -
-
-
-
-
-
5
1.7
Area of the Study
-
-
-
-
-
6
1.8
Population of the Study
-
-
-
-
-
6
1.9
Method of Data Collection
-
-
-
-
-
6
1.10
Sample and Sampling Procedure -
-
-
-
-
7
1.11
Research Instruction
-
-
-
-
-
7
1.12
Method of Data Analysis
-
-
-
-
-
8
-
-
-
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1
Theoretical Studies
-
-
-
-
-
-
9
2.2
Empirical Studies
-
-
-
-
-
-
14
2.3
Causes of Ambiguity
-
-
-
-
-
-
20
2.4
Types of Ambiguity
-
-
-
-
-
-
22
vii
2.5
Polysemy
2.6
2.7
-
-
-
-
-
-
27
Polysemy versus Homonymy
-
-
-
-
-
29
Summary of Literature Review
-
-
-
-
-
30
CHAPTER THREE: DATA PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS
3.1
Ambiguity in Nsukka Group of Dialects -
-
-
-
31
3.2
Ambiguity in Phrases, Clauses, and Sentences -
-
-
31
3.3
Metaphorical Ambiguity in Nsukka Group of Dialects -
-
39
3.4
Lexical Ambiguity – Polysemy
-
-
-
41
3.5
Polysemy in Nouns in Nsukka Dialect Cluster -
-
-
42
3.6
Polysemy in Verbs -
-
-
-
-
-
-
47
3.7
Polysemy in Adjectives
-
-
-
-
-
-
50
3.8
Ambiguity in Questions
-
-
-
-
-
-
51
-
-
CHAPTER FOUR: DISCUSSIONS AND FINDINGS
4.1
Ambiguity in Wh-relative -
-
-
-
-
-
55
4.2
Ambiguity in Conjuncts and Disjoints
-
-
-
-
56
4.3
Ambiguity in Metaphorical References -
-
-
-
57
4.4
Ambiguity in Imperatives
-
-
-
58
4.5
Ambiguity in Inter-Clausal Pronominal Reference
-
-
59
4.6
Uses of Ambiguity -
-
-
-
-
-
60
4.7
Processing Ambiguous Expressions
-
-
-
-
62
4.8
Social/Cultural Implications of Ambiguity
-
-
-
66
-
-
-
CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, RECOMMENDATION AND
CONCLUSION SUMMARY
5.1
Summary
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
71
5.2
Recommendations -
-
-
-
-
-
-
71
5.3
Conclusion -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
72
References
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
73
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
76
Appendix
-
-
viii
ABSTRACT
This dissertation extensively looked at the operations of both the lexical and
structural features of polysemy and ambiguity. It is a cognitive semantic study of
these sense relations as they operate in the Nsukka dialect cluster of Igbo. The
analysis made here was based on the use of contextual theory propounded by L.
Wittgenstein in 1956. Related literature of other scholars were reviewed to determine
the relationships and differences between them and the present work. Data collected
were analysed and possible interpretations given. The researcher, to a large extent,
used a native-speaker advantage to provide innumerable examples of both polysemy
and ambiguity. The findings revealed that ambiguity in metaphorical extensions is a
culture-specific phenomenon. It was discovered that „relatedness‟ is a criterion in
determining whether a word is polysemous or is homonymous. In this study, we saw
that a polysemous word takes a single entry in the dictionary while homographs take
different entries. The research also revealed that while the use of ambiguity is sought
in some cases, it is despised in others. The study recommended that for effective
communication, speakers/writers should use expressions that have the simple
meanings as to facilitate speaker/hearer interaction whenever possible.
1
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1
Background of the Study
Language is one of the greatest endowments of man by nature. It is a
phenomenon which singles man out from all other creatures. Language is an
indispensable tool in human existence. It plays a major role in the development of
any nation. Researchers have in very many ways defined language. Carnie (2007:3)
sees language as “…a psychological or cognitive property of humans”. Other authors
like Akwanya (2005), Ndimele (1999), Anagbogu, Mba and Eme (2001) and a host
of others all see language as a systematic means of communicating ideas and
expressing feelings by the use of vocal symbols and conventionalized signs, gestures
or marks that are mutually intelligible to the users of the given language. Richards
and Schmidt (2002:283) also see language as “the system of human communication
which consists of the structured arrangement of sounds (or their written
representation) into larger units of morphemes, words, sentences, and utterances”.
The scientific study of language is what is called linguistics. According to
Richards and Schmidt (2002:312), Linguistics is:
the study of language as a system of human communication.
Linguistics includes many different approaches to the study of
language and many different areas of investigation, for example sound
system (phonetics, phonology) sentence structure (syntax),
relationships between language and cognition (cognitive linguistics),
meaning systems (semantics, pragmatics, functions of language), as
well as language and social factors (sociolinguistics). Several
specialized branches of linguistics have also developed in combination
with other disciplines, e.g. applied linguistics, anthropological
linguistics, psycholinguistics, forensic linguistic.
2
The foregoing establishes semantics as a branch of linguistic investigation that
inquires into meanings of morphemes, words, phrases, clauses, sentences, utterances,
as well as discourses. Spencer-Oatey and Zegarac (2002) opine that “… the task of
semantics is to describe and explain linguistic meaning, that is, what a given
utterance means by virtue of the words used and the ways in which they are put
together”. Among scholars, there seems to be a consensus opinion as to the fact that
semantics is the study of meaning, where divergent views are seen is in pinning down
the meaning of “meaning”.
Over the years, the meaning of “meaning” has defiled a common acceptable
definition. Ogden and Richards (1923) were able to give not less than sixteen
different meanings of meaning (Palmer, 1976:2). Thus, Ogden and Richards assert
that the meaning of meaning cannot be unified into one single definition apparently
because the words used to represent certain concepts may not have fixed meanings.
This may be why Ndimele (2005:2) likened meaning to a chameleon, “changing the
colour of its effect with a change of speaker, hearer, context or settings”.
When a word or a group of words is capable of having more than one
interpretation, then the word or group of words is said to be ambiguous. If it has to do
words, it is categorized under lexical ambiguity, but if it concerns more than one
word (e.g. a phrase, a clause, or a sentence), it falls under structural ambiguity. This
therefore, means that ambiguity can either be lexical or sentential. If ambiguity is
present in a sentence due to multiple meaning of a particular lexical item, that
particular lexical item is said to be polysemous. Agbedo (2000:157) posits that
3
“polysemy refers to a set of different meanings associated with a word, that is, when
a given word is amenable to different interpretations”.
Ambiguity and polysemy impede communication and we know that the
overall function of language is to achieve effective communication. For
communication to take place, there has to be understanding between the speaker and
the hearers. Hybels and Weaver (1989:93) opine that “understanding is a two-way
process; that is, the speaker is responsible for presenting the idea clearly, and the
listener is responsible for trying to understand it accurately”. If a speaker consciously
or unconsciously utters ambiguous expressions, the hearer may give a different
interpretation from what the speaker intends to communicate, and this would imply
that the speaker has not communicated effectively, therefore, his/her utterance has
failed to satisfy the felicity conditions of Austin‟s (1962) Speech Act Theory which
requires the speaker to, among other things, fulfill the sincerity condition by
providing participants with the requisite thoughts, feelings and intentions, as
specified by the procedure (Saeed, 2009: 236).
1.2
Statement of the Problem
Language is used basically for communication. It is observed that ambiguity
impedes effective communication. If a hearer/listener misconstrues what a speaker
intends because the speaker has used an ambiguous expression, it may result in some
conditions like chaos, anger, misunderstanding, etc. This situation as it affects the
Nsukka dialect has not been given any attention at least as far as the dialect cluster is
4
concerned. The present study is an attempt to fill this gap by investigating the extent
to which ambiguity can affect effective communication in our dialect of study. The
study, in order to be able to do this will have to identify what constitutes ambiguous
structures at both the lexical and phrasal levels. The researcher also will extend the
study to polysemous structures in the area of study.
1.3
Purpose of Study
Ambiguity and polysemy do occur in Igbo. This study aims at identifying
ambiguous and polysemous expressions in Igbo with particular reference to Nsukka
group of dialects. We shall try to disambiguate such expressions to enhance
communication between speakers and hearers. In other words, this research aims at
investigating thoroughly the operations of these phenomena – ambiguity and
polysemy.
We intend to do a thorough investigation
to find out the causes, the
operations, the effects of ambiguity and polysemy on language use with particular
reference to the Nsukka group of dialects. We shall also see how to disambiguate
ambiguous structures to enhance communication.
1.4
Scope and Delimitation of the Study
Because of time and space factors, the present study is confined to ambiguity
and polysemy. This is because of the problems these two sense relations could cause
in a discourse between speakers and hearers. The data are drawn from Nsukka group
of dialects. The researcher again bases the study on only these dialects referred to as
5
Nsukka dialect cluster. Other Northern group of dialects are not included because of
the nature and requirements of the study.
1.5
Limitations of the Study
A research of this nature is normally faced with some limitations. This one is
not an exception. An integral part of this work included reaching out to our
informants who are in their various homes, farmlands, markets, etc. Because of this,
much money was spent on running around in order to get the required data. Times
without number, some of the informants saw this work as time wasting and of little or
no importance. Hitherto, the researcher was often regarded as someone wasting time
in a venture that is not worth the while.
1.6
Significance of the Study
The significance of this work is that it will identify ambiguous and
polysemous structures in our area of study, classify them, process and suggest how to
disambiguate them, in order to enhance effective communication. The research will
be a useful contribution to scholarship and will serve as a reference for future
researches in the field of semantics, specifically in the area of ambiguity and
polysemy.
6
1.7
Area of the Study
This research work bases on ambiguity and polysemy in Nsukka dialect
cluster. This dialect of the Igbo language is spoken in the eastern part of Nigeria.
Nsukka is located in the extreme north of Igbo land. It covers most areas referred to
as the “Waawa Igbo”. According to the groupings in Nwaozuzu (2008:117), the
Nsukka dialect cluster falls within the Northern Group of Dialects (NGD). Towns
included in this group of dialects are: Àkụ, Ohodo, Ópí, Nsụka, Obimo, Edem-Anị,
Edeọbala, Enugu-Ezike, Ovoko, Iheaka, Okpuje, Ọbụkpa, Uhunowere, Alọ-ụnọ,
Obollo, Ibagwa, Imilike, Ọba etc
1.8
Methodology
The population for this study comprises native speakers of the Northern Group
of Dialects (NGD) which, according to Nwaozuzu (2008:117), are the areas referred
to as “Waawa Igbo”. Through oral interview, the researcher collected data from
about ninety respondents who are all adult native speakers of the Nsukka dialect
cluster. The ages of the respondents range from forty to ninety six years. Most of
them are farmers while others engage in some petty trading. The choice of this group
of people is to ensure competence and originality.
1.9
Method of Data Collection
The researcher embarked on an extensive oral interview in order to actualize
the objectives of this research. This oral interview ensured the primary source of
7
data. The researcher asked questions and most of the time engaged the respondents in
discussions. By this means, more light was thrown on the operation of ambiguity and
polysemy. Furthermore, the researcher used her ingenuity as an adult native speaker
to explore the dynamic nature of ambiguity and polysemy in Nsukka group of dialect.
1.10
Sample and Sampling Procedure
It is a herculea task accessing the entire population in this kind of research
work. In view of this, the researcher had to objectively select a required
representative sample of respondents who are adult speakers from the towns
mentioned in 1.8. The researcher used random sampling to select ninety respondents
which stood as a representative of the population.
1.11
Research Instrument
The research instrument adopted for this work is the informal oral interview.
The focused interview method was adopted. This is to give the respondents the
opportunity of focusing their attention to experiences they had in the past and give
them the chance to express themselves properly. The researcher adopts the use of
tape recorder in recording material during the oral interview.
8
1.12
Method of Data Analysis
The available data were analysed through description. Data obtained from
both the primary and secondary sources were properly categorized and evaluated.
Then, through identification, presentation and interpretation of data got from the two
sources, conclusions were made using the descriptive method of analysis.
9
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter examines the theoretical and empirical studies in the area of
semantics with reference to the particular area of study. In the theoretical study, the
researcher discusses the different theories in the area of study and finally adopts the
one that best suits the present study in order to put it on course. The empirical study
discusses what scholars have written on sense relations particularly on ambiguity and
polysemy.
2.1
Theoretical Studies
The feud nature of the meaning of meaning has given rise to formulation of
some theories. There is the referential theory which contends that the meaning of a
word is what that word refers to. It is this idea that introduced the idea of the
“triangle of signification” otherwise known as the semiotic triangle introduced by
C.K. Ogden and I.A. Richards in The Meaning of Meaning. It shows that words refer
to things they name. The semiotic triangle may be thus represented.
Reference
Symbol
Referent
Fig 1: Semiotic triangle
10
According to Umera-Okeke (2008:14), “symbol is the word, sentence or form;
referent is the object in the world of experience; thought or reference is the concept”.
The referential theory posits that a word must have something that it points to. It is
this requirement that has flawed this theory because, it can only apply to concrete
objects. What about abstract words like love, hatred, God etc? Such abstract entities
cannot be represented in the semiotic triangle.
The mentalist theory of meaning argues that if meanings are not real objects,
then they are mental objects. This implies that meanings of a given word are the
possible feelings, images, ideas, concepts, thoughts, and inferences that are conjured
up when that word is heard and processed. The meaning of an expression is the
idea(s) associated with that expression in the minds of speakers. The mentalists
account of meaning explains words in relation to the image(s) with which they are
associated in the mind. This fact is a major reason why this theory is flawed. For
instance, when the word “chair” is mentioned, what type of image is conjured? – is it
a back-chair, a settee, a cushion chair, an arm chair, or a stool? As Akmajian,
Demers, Farmer and Harnish (2009:233) rightly point out, “….the notion of an idea
is too vague to allow the theory to predict or explain anything specific, and thus the
theory is not testable”. A close relationship can be observed between the referential
and the image theories of meaning. Both theories assume that a word is wedded to an
image which is a reality. In fact, there is this image/object relationship. One of the
proponents of this theory is Ullmann (1957:72). He believes that every meaningful
11
expression has a concept and an image associated with it and that this concept/image
is conjured up each time the word or expression is meaningful employed.
Scholars like Bloomfield (1933) would rather want to account for meaning in
behaviourist terms. Behaviourism is tailored towards Stimulus – Response theory of
Ivan Pavlov, which was highly influential in America up till the 1960s. Correct
language learning involves correct response to stimulus which is reinforced by
endless repetitions. Bloomfield believes that meaning consists in the relation between
speech and practical events that either precede or follow it. This invariably implies
that meaning can be pathetic in which case the stimulus and the response guide the
interpretation and meaning of actions. One major problem with behaviourism is that
“it is difficult to identify constant behavioural correlates of words” (Agbedo, 2000:
152). It is argued that behaviourism is extra-linguistic and as Umera-Okeke
(2008:42) avers, “behaviourism is not a theory of word meaning, but that of language
learning and language use”.
Another approach to meaning is the semantic field theory. According to this
theory, in any given language, words are grouped into lexical fields and each lexical
field comprises a set of lexical items whose meaning have something in common.
This theory proposes that a set of lexical items whose meanings share appreciable
similarities constitute a semantic field. For instance, we have:
father
a
kinship terms
mother
brother
sister
uncle
12
boil
b
cooking terms
bake
roast
fry
steam etc
white
c
colour terms
black
green
blue
red etc
a,b, and c above constitute different lexical fields. Agbedo (2000:158) proffers that
the development of lexical field theory was influenced by Saussurean structuralism.
According to him, de Saussure‟s structuralist principle believes that “a language
consists at every level, of sets of paradigmatic choices, arranged along the
syntagmatic axis according to definite principles of combination”. This implies that
linguistic units do not have inherent significance in isolation rather, they acquire their
value through paradigmatic and syntagmatic relation with other units in that system.
For instance, to inquire into the meaning of cucumber, one has to view it in relation
to other vegetables like cabbage, lettuce, green beans etc.
Another semantic theory is the componential analysis. This theory proposes
that to get at the meaning of a word, the inherent lexical entries must be isolated and
labeled. In the componential theory, the difference between one word and another
13
can be seen in terms of binary indices such that a lexical item lacking some inherent
lexical properties which are seen in some other lexical items account for the
difference between or among them. This is what Saeed (2009:262) simply refers to as
“Katz‟s theory”. This theory appeared in Katz and Fodor (1963) and was refined in
Katz and Postal (1964) and Katz (1972) according to Saeed. Thus, the basic idea of
this theory is lexical decomposition as can be seen in the word “woman”.
+ HUMAN
- MALE
+ FEMALE
+ MARRIED
+ ADULT
The foregoing is an assumption that all lexical items can be broken down into
component parts. This means reducing word meaning to its constituent parts which
Umera-Okeke (2008:23) sees as “a herculean task stating the properties of the
vocabulary of a language”. Thus, componential analysis may be seen to thrive
specifically on nouns.
Let us now adopt a suitable theory for the present study. The theoretical
framework adopted for this work is the contextual theory. It was propounded by a
German scholar, Wittgenstein (1933) in an attempt to overcome the problems posed
by the referential and mentalist theories. For Wittgenstein, the meaning of a word is
determined by the context in which it is used. The contextual theory of meaning
claims that the meaning of any word is the use to which it is put. This is an off-shoot
14
of functionalism which claims that to determine the meaning of any word,
consideration must be based on the function it performs. The implication of this is
that meaning is subjective rather than objective. Thus, the meaning of an expression,
therefore, is the effect(s) it creates in a particular context in which the expression is
used. This invariably implies that meaning is subject to the whims and caprices of
both the speaker and the hearer in a given context. Akwanya (1996:19) refers to this
as operationalism. For him, “…there may be a difference between the meaning of
word taken in isolation and the uses in sentence”. The contextual theory is an
approach that looks at words in contexts and could be said to be the theory of
interpretations. Simply put, it is meaning according to function, and for UmeraOkeke (2008:43), “since they reflect the non-linguistic context where words are used,
they are often termed pragmatic and their study pragmatics”.
The contextual theory is what Akmajian, Demers, Farmer and Harnish
(2009:236) refer to as the use theory which came into limelight “in the 1930s when
Wittgenstein (1933) advanced an alternative conception of meaning as use, that
influenced Anglo-American theorizing for many decades”. For these co-authors, the
use theory can be formulated as a slogan: „the meaning of an expression is its use in
the language community.
2.2
Empirical Studies
This section proved very challenging because, even though ambiguity and
polysemy are very common terms, not much has actually been written on them.
15
However, let us examine the works of some scholars that have ventured into these
two sense relations.
Richards and Schmidt (2002:24) see ambiguity as a word, phrase, or sentence
which has more than one meaning. They went further to cite an example with the
following sentence:
1.
“The lamb is too hot to eat”.
The above sentence is subject to two different interpretations and that is why it
is ambiguous. It could be that:
1a.
the lamb is so hot that it cannot eat anything, or
1b.
the cooked lamb meat is too hot for someone to eat it.
Under a situation of an ambiguous expression usually, the hearer (the
audience) is confused and he/she would expect additional information from the
speaker or the writer, or from the situation on ground to be able to indicate the
intended meaning. However, ambiguity is a creative strategy and is used extensively
in creative writing, especially in poetry.
Ndimele (2005:77) posits that “ambiguity is a grammatical phenomenon in
which an expression can be given more than one interpretation”. The following
illustration which is adapted from Ndimele (2005:80) gives a clearer picture of the
meaning of ambiguity.
16
AMBIGUITY
One Construction
Meaning
1
Meaning
2
Meaning
3
Meaning
4
Fig 2: Illustration of Ambiguity
For him, ambiguity “is similar to polysemy in the sense that one stretch of utterance
is given more than one meaning”. Ndimele goes on to name two types of ambiguity:
lexical and structural ambiguity. He says that lexical ambiguity exists when
ambiguity is realized at the word level and he uses the following to illustrate:
2a.
The table is fascinating
b
She went to the bank
c.
John has broken the glasses.
The possible interpretations of the words that cause the ambiguity in sentences 2a, b,
and c are shown below.
as a piece of furniture
table
as a graphic work on paper
as a financial institution
bank
as a side of the river
as drinking containers
glasses
as sight/reading enhancer
17
For structural ambiguity, Ndimele posits that it is,
the type of ambiguity which arises when particular word or
phrase can modify more than one constituent or can be
involved in more than one relational association. Structural
ambiguity can also result due to how the whole sentence is
organized or the way a particular word or phrase is placed in a
sentence.
What illustrates structural ambiguity is the famous Chomsky‟s “flying planes are
dangerous”. One may decode this to mean that planes in motion are dangerous, or
that the act of piloting planes is dangerous.
As Akmajian, Demers, Farmer and Harnish (2009:237) also aver, ambiguity is
“another important semantic property”. For these co-authors, a word with more than
one meaning is ambiguous. They used the following expressions to illustrate lexical
ambiguity:
3a.
He found a bat.
(bat: baseball bat; flying mammal)
3b.
She couldn‟t bear children.
(bear: give birth to; put up with)
For linguistic communication to be successful, the hearer has to recognize the
speaker‟s communicative intention. This implies that the speaker and the hearer share
a common inferential strategy beginning from the utterance of an expression to the
hearer‟s interpretation of the speaker‟s communicative intent. If a word, phrase or an
expression is ambiguous, there cannot be a successful communication until a strategy
18
is used to disambiguate it. The implication of this is that the ability to detect
ambiguity is crucial in the communication process.
In his own contribution, Carnie (2007:87) uses the following sentence to
illustrate ambiguity:
4.
The man killed the king with a knife.
Carnie believes that example 4 above is ambiguous because it has more than one
meaning. He goes on to give these interpretations to that expression using
paraphrases.
4a.
The man used a knife to kill the king.
4b.
The king had a knife when the man killed him.
Hurford and Heasley (1983:121) opine that “a word or sentence is ambiguous
if it has more than one sense”. They go further to explain that “…a sentence is
ambiguous if it has two (or more) paraphrases which are not themselves paraphrases
of each other”. What this simply means is that an ambiguous expression has more
than one interpretation that can be rightly ascribed to it. For instance, let us consider
this:
5.
Visiting relatives can be boring.
The following paraphrases can be rightly used as its interpretation:
5a.
The act of going to visit relatives is boring
5b.
Relatives that visit are boring.
It is important to note that 5a and 5b are paraphrases of 5 while 5a is not a
paraphrase of 5b neither is 5b a paraphrase of 5a.
19
In the view of Allan (1986:146), “every expression has at least one meaning;
many of course, have more than one, and are said to be ambiguous”. That is also the
opinion of Crystal (1997:17) when he describes ambiguity as a word or a sentence
that expresses more than one meaning. For Umera-Okeke (2008:67), “one of the
characteristics of any language is multiplicity of meaning and that is why ambiguity
and disambiguity are subjects of semantics”. For her, “it is the duty of semantics to
identify which words or sentences have more than one meaning and all that there is
to that”. In other words, semantics verifies what constitutes ambiguity and the
possible causes.
Fromkin and Rodman (1993:129) agree with this popular view when they say
that “a word or a sentence is ambiguous if it can be understood or interpreted in more
than one way”. They agree that the ambiguity in 3b above is because of the word
“bear” which has two different meanings. For them, the ambiguity problem in 3b
could be resolved by adding additional context, for example;
3bi.
She cannot bear children if they are noisy
3bii
She cannot bear children because she is sterile.
Using 3bi and ii, Fromkin and Rodman invariably talk about disambiguating
ambiguous expressions.
In his own contribution, Osuagwu (1996:49) opines that ambiguity is a
phenomenon where “a word, phrase, or sentence is capable of many interpretations”.
Thus for him, ambiguity means being “susceptible to multiple interpretations,
doubtful or uncertain”. Ambiguity has to do with words and sentences (i.e. lexical
20
and structural) and it indicates the presence of two or more possible interpretations
for an expression.
The foregoing establishes two basic facts:
a. ambiguity can operate at word, phrase, or sentence levels,
b. ambiguity is all about one expression, having more than one meaning.
One may therefore conclude that ambiguity is a linguistic phenomenon whereby a
word, a phrase, or a sentence is capable of giving rise to more than one interpretation.
Akmajian et al. (op cit) also see polysemy as “the property of having more
than one related meaning. Ndimele (1999) believes that polysemy is a meaning
relation whereby a single lexical item has several (apparently) related meanings. In
the above definitions, the operative word is “related” because it implies that in a
polysemous word, the several meanings to be deduced from the structure have to
belong to a common semantic field. For example, in English, the word “mouth” is
polysemous because it can mean a “part of the body”, “an entrance of a cave”,
“where a river flows into the sea”.
2.3
Causes of Ambiguity
Ambiguity is a linguistic condition that occurs when there is no one to one
correspondence between an expression and the meaning decoded from it by the
hearer. The factors that may lead to ambiguity are discussed below.
Ambiguity arises when a speaker decides to play on words. This occurs when
a speaker intentionally chooses a word that would confuse his/her audience to serve
21
as a sort of pun. In this sense, the idea of ambiguity is seen as a joke. For instance, in
Igbo, this expression:
6.
Ị chọrọ íkpù?
may have these interpretations:
6a.
Do you want to put on a cap?
6b.
Do you want vagina/penis (or rather, to have sex?)
In his own view, Lyons (1968: 212) opines that ambiguity can be accounted
for in terms of its functions either as the constituent structure or as the distributional
classification of the element or both. On this note, Lyons uses the following
expression to illustrate:
6
They can fish
Example 7 above could be interpreted in these two ways:
7a.
They are capable of fishing.
b.
They put fish in containers.
According to Lyons (1968:212), the ambiguity in 7 above is accounted for by
the double classification of “can” either as a modal auxiliary verb or as a transitive
verb and “fish” either as a verb or a noun.
In the view of Umera-Okeke (2008:68), “there is also ambiguity due to lexical
factors”. She goes on to illustrate this by using the word “fine” in the following
sentence:
8a
She has a fine leg
22
Is it fine in terms of straightness or being good in athletics, or being hairy?
Also in the sentence,
8b.
Ngozi is a good student,
ambiguity arises due to the nature of the word “good”. One may begin to ask,
is Ngozi “good” because she behaves well, or that she is beautiful, or that she
is intelligent?
On the causes of ambiguity, Empson (1977:2) attributes it to the fact that the
human thoughts are complex (that is, very difficult to understand) and that there is no
way one can actually read what is exactly in the speaker‟s mind. According to him,
“the thought is complicated, or at least doubtful, whereas the feeling is direct”.
2.4
Types of Ambiguity
Different scholars put up different views as to the types of ambiguity. Ndimele
(2005:77-79) identifies two types of ambiguity which are lexical, and structural
ambiguity. According to him, lexical ambiguity is the type of ambiguity “…which
results when a construction has more than one meaning due to the presence of a
particular word in that construction”. Examples 2a,b, and c above are used to
illustrate Ndimele‟s idea of lexical ambiguity. Then for structural ambiguity, he
opines that “this type of ambiguity arises when a particular word or phrase can
modify more than one constituent or can be involved in more than one relational
association”. Structural ambiguity may also arise due to how the whole sentence is
23
arranged or organized or the way a particular word or phrase is placed in a sentence.
Ndimele uses the following to illustrate structural ambiguity.
9a.
All Japanese History teachers were invited.
9b.
Careless lawyers and soldiers were in attendance.
9c.
It is a mark of rudeness to insult old men and women.
Examples 9a, b and c are all illustrations of structural ambiguity. This is
because, they are ambiguous not because of the presence of a particular lexical item
but because of how the expressions are organized.
Crystal (1997:17) agrees with Ndimele‟s view (that there are two types of
ambiguity: lexical and structural) when he opines that “lexical ambiguity is the
ambiguity which does not arise from the grammatical analysis of a sentence, but is
due solely to the alternative meanings of an individual lexical item”. Crystal on the
other hand sees structural ambiguity as “a term used in linguistics to refer to a
construction with more than one grammatical interpretation in terms of constituent
analysis”. This may well inform us on why Carnie (2007:87) uses syntactic trees to
show structural ambiguity and the way of disambiguating it. Let us consider the
following:
10.
The man killed the king with the knife
The above sentence may mean:
10a.
The man used the knife to kill the king, or
10b.
The king with the knife was killed by the man.
24
For Carnie, if paraphrase in 10a is applicable to 10, the syntactic tree would be
something like this:
TP
NP
VP
modifies
D
The
N
man
N
killed
PP
D
the
N
King
P
with
NP
D
the
Fig 3: Syntactic tree of 10a
where TP
=
Clause
NP
=
Noun phase
D
=
Determiner
N
=
Noun
VP
=
Verb phrase
V
=
Verb
PP
=
Prepositional phrase
P
=
Preposition
N
knife
25
On the other hand, if 10b is applicable to 10, the syntactic tree would look like this:
TP
NP
D
the
VP
N
man
V
killed
NP
modifies
D
the
N
king
Fig 4: Syntactic tree of 10b
PP
P
with
NP
D
the
N
knife
Adapted from Carnie (2007:87-88).
On his own part, Ullman (1962:156) identifies three types of ambiguity.
These, according to him, are “phonetic, grammatical, and lexical ambiguities”. This
phonetic ambiguity may be what Mbah (2008) refers to as “tonal ambiguity”.
According to him, “in some Igbo sentence patterns, the ambiguous structures depend
on homophony of the segments and tonal similarity”. He uses the following examples
to illustrate tonal ambiguity:
11a.
Á rápụ ya n‟Ọbà, ọ gà-àmá ụzọ lá
(If) leave him/her/it in Ọba, will he/she/it know way go (home).
26
If he/she/it is left at Ọba, will he/she/it know the way home?
b.
Árá pụ yā n‟Ọbà, ọ gà-àmá ụzọ lá
(If) madness come out him/her/it, he/she/it will know way go (home)
If he/she/it runs mad at Ọba, will he/she/it know the way home.
When we observe the above example closely, it would be seen that the ambiguity in
11 a and b is not lexical neither is it structural. Even though the a and b share
identical letters, they are arranged differently and this difference in their syntax
affects their meanings. It is however important to note that in this type of ambiguity,
the confusion disappears as soon as the expression is reduced to writing.
It could be seen from his examples that his “grammatical” ambiguity is likened to
other scholars‟ structural ambiguity, for instance;
12.
“George wants the presidency more than Martha”
The interpretations that could be given to 11 above are:
12a.
George wants the presidency more than he wants Martha
b.
George wants the presidency more than Martha wants the presidency.
In expatiating on what he identified as phonetic ambiguity, Ullman says that
phrases and sentences that may be distinct when written may sound ambiguous
especially in fast speech. He uses these examples, (Ullman 1962:157).
13a.
Plump pie
b.
Plump eye
c.
The sun‟s rays meet
d.
The sons raise meat
[plm paı]
[ðə sns reiz mit]
27
It could be observed that in fast speech, the listener has to subject the above to
disambiguation by contextualizing the expression before he/she is able to decode
appropriately. However, it has to be noted that it is only phonetic because, when
written or printed, the difference becomes clear and there would be no ambiguity
there.
It could be observed from the foregoing that linguists have identified two
types of ambiguity: lexical and structural. It was only Ullman (1962) that identified
the third type which is phonetic ambiguity. The various scholars are in agreement
that lexical ambiguity exists at word level while structural ambiguity exists at phrase,
clause, and sentence levels.
2.5
Polysemy
Ambiguity and polysemy are so related that where one is discussed, it brings
up the other. As Agbedo (2000:157) would put it, “polysemy refers to a set of
different meanings associated with a word”. If a particular lexical item is subject to
various interpretations, then that particular word is said to be polysemous. Agbedo
thus believes that the word “bank” is polysemous because it is amenable to these
interpretations:
14
“bank”
14a
Meaning 1
-
land beside a river
b.
Meaning 2
-
to deposit money in financial institution for safe-keeping
c.
Meaning 3
-
establishment for keeping money safely
28
d.
Meaning 4
-
row of keys
As Umera-Okeke (2008:53) avers, polysemy is “a situation where a word has
two or more meanings”. She goes further to explain that in the dictionary, a
polysemic word is treated as “a single item, that is, one word with meanings, 1,2,3
etc”. That is also the view of Saeed (2009: 64) when he writes that even though
polysemy and homonymy deal with multiple senses of a word, “…polysemy is
involved if the senses are judged to be related”. This implies that “relatedness” is an
important factor in polysemy. Thus, Saeed puts it in a rather clearer way:
This is an important distinction for lexicographers in the
design of their dictionaries, because polysemous senses are
related under the same lexical entry, while homonymous
senses are given separate entries. Lexicographers tend to use
criteria of „relatedness‟ to identify polysemy.
Lyons (1977:146) agrees with this popular opinion when he writes that a word is said
to be polysemous “if it has a single lexeme with several distinguishable meanings”.
Talking about relatedness, let us look at these phrases:
15a.
eye of a needle
b.
foot of the mountain
c.
hands of a clock
d.
ear of a corn
e.
leg of a chair
They show that eye, foot, hand, ear,
leg etc. have other meanings apart
from their literal meanings, so, they
are said to be polysemous.
29
One can further illustrate polysemy in this other way using the lexical item “eye” as
seen in the English mini dictionary:
2.6
(i)
the organ of sight
(ii)
something compared to an eye in shape, position etc
(iii)
look at closely or with interest
Polysemy versus Homonymy
The difference between polysemy and homonymy is subtle. It has been argued
that the difference between polysemy and homonymy is not always clear –cut. This
problem, as Palmer (1981:101) puts it, lies in the fact that:
…if one form has several meanings, it is not always clear
whether we shall say that this is an example of polysemy
(that there is one word with several meanings) or homonymy
(that there are several words in the same shape).
Saeed (2009:64) proffers a solution to this problem when he adjudged that there is a
traditional distinction made in lexicology between homonymy and polysemy and it is
that both deal with multiple senses of words; but polysemy is only invoked if these
various senses are judged to be related. Homonyms are unrelated senses of the same
phonological word. Some linguists distinguish between “homographs”, senses of the
same written word, and homophones, senses of the same spoken word.
When a word is polysemous, it takes only one entry in the dictionary with the
different meanings treated as meaning 1,2,3 etc but in a homonymous situation, they
take different lexical entries. This informs us about why Allan (1986:155) believes
30
that homonymy is “…the relation that holds between formally identical expressions,
which correspond with separate lexeme or morpheme entries in the dictionary”.
2.7
Summary of Literature Review
From the discussions so far, we have seen that the word polysemy is used to
describe a lexical item that is capable of having more than one meaning, while
ambiguity is when a phrase, sentence, utterance or a discourse capable of having
more than one interpretation. Though ambiguity may be intentional, it violates the
co-operative principles because the way an utterance is made determines whether it is
felicitous or infelicitous. In the Nsukka group of dialect, ambiguity impedes
communication and it requires both contextualization and ingenuity of the hearer to
disambiguate such expressions so that he/she can understand what actually the
speaker means.
31
CHAPTER THREE
DATA PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS
3.1
Ambiguity in Nsukka Group of Dialects
In the previous chapter, we identified three types of ambiguity: lexical
ambiguity, structural ambiguity and phonetic or tonal ambiguity. Different languages
differ in their ways of stringing words together to produce ambiguous expressions.
This means that an expression that is ambiguous in one language may not necessarily
become ambiguous when translated to another language. This makes ambiguity to be
a rather language-specific phenomenon.
Certain expressions become ambiguous due to how words are combined and
how such words interact between or among themselves. In such cases, the listener
becomes confused because he/she has two or even more interpretations to give.
Additional information may be required from the speaker to disambiguate the
structure, or the listener may use the situation at hand (or the context) to choose the
most appropriate option.
3.2
Ambiguity in Phrases, Clauses, and Sentences
In the Nsukka group of dialect cluster, ambiguous structures abound. Let us
cite examples of ambiguity as seen in phrases, clauses, and sentences.
16.
Ó shìrə ìké
It be present hard
32
16a
It is hard/difficult
b
It is strong
c
It is wonderful
17
Ọgẹrẹnyị onyeke nẹ onyenye
Old man and girl/woman
17a
(Old man) and woman, ie only the man is old
b
Old (man and woman), ie both are old.
18
Ọ ka m ọyị
He/she/it be I better
18a
He/she/it is better than me
b
I prefer that (to some other thing)
Example 18 is ambiguous because it may be interpreted to mean 18a in which
case it means that it is better than me while the interpretation in 18b implies that I
prefer him/her/it to some other one.
19.
Ewu na-ere
Goat is decaying
19a
Goat is decaying
b
Goat is expensive (in the market)
20
Ágwọ tərə ègwa
snake eat past beans
33
20a
Snake ate beans
Snake is multi-coloured
21.
Ngọzị nọ n‟úlò
21a
Ngozị is in (side) the house
b
Ngozi is around
22
Jẹ yàmá ya
22 a
Go and put-off the appointment
b
Go and spread/plant it (as in nursery planting)
c
Go and mix the food
In such expressions as in example 22, the speaker needs to attach a noun for
the listener to be able to deduce appropriately. For example,
22d
Je yama ije nuhwe
Go and put-off that appointment
Je yama akəkə nụhwụ
e
Go spread seeds those
Go and spread those seeds (as in nursery planting)
Jè yàmá nrí óbə
f
Go mix food the
Go and mix the food
23
Jé wụshịá
23a
Go and pour it out
b
Go and wash-off the dirt (from your body)
34
24
Ézè kpətá
24a
Eze bring a mouthful
b
Eze mould
c
Eze remove and bring (a domestic animal where it is tethered).
Example 24 is rather a command or an imperative and the ambiguity problem
therein, it requires the speaker to attach a noun antecedent to the verb “kpəta”. It
could then be any of the following.
24d
Eze kpəta ewu
Eze bring goat
Eze bring a goat
e
Eze kpəta ite
Eze mould pot
Eze mould a pot
f
Eze kpəta mənyi
Eze get water
Eze get a mouthful of water
25
Je hàmá
25a
Go and comb
b
Prepare and get a measure of foo-foo
c
Go and get honey (from the comb)
The ambiguity in example 25 could be disambiguated if a noun is attached to
it. 25a, b, and c would then be rendered as 25d, e, and f respectively.
35
25d
Je hama ishi
Go comb head
Go and comb (your) hair
e
Je hàmá útàrà
Go mould foo-foo
Go prepare and smoothen foo-foo (for eating)
f
Je hàmá ẹnwụ
Go harvest honey
Go and harvest honey (from the honey comb).
26
Ẹnyá ádəgə nwónyékē núhwè ọyị
Anya adịghị nwoke ahụ mma
Eye be not man that good
Example 26 could have any of these interpretations
26a
That man is mad
b
That man has eye problem
27
Nwányì hwụ ná-éré ékwà də òjí bịarə.
Nwanyi ahu na-ere akwa di oji biara
27a
The woman who sells black clothes came
b
The black woman who sells clothes came
We can also use tree diagram to disambiguate example 27. Using the tree
diagram, 27a would look like this:
S
NP
NP
CP
VP
NP
36
while 27 b would be represented as follows:
S
NP
VP
NP
CP
Det
NP
Adj Noun
Noun
The
black woman who sells
clothes
Fig 5b: Disambiguating Example 27:27b
28.
N‟íshí n‟íshí
28a.
In order of seniority
b. One by one
29.
Émēlē yē n‟àzə m
Emela ya n‟azụ m
29a.
Don‟t do it in my absence.
came
37
b.
Don‟t do it on my back.
In ambiguous structures, the listener is subjected to a wide range of choices
which are all possible probabilities to the given structure. This is mainly seen in
uncompleted expressions which the speaker may feel that there is no need either to
waste time or energy in completing certain utterances. In such cases, the listener
experiences the problem of making a choice from a variety of options. Hence, the
listener is compelled to use his/her ingenuity alongside the given context to deduce
appropriately. Here, are some examples of such instances.
Mə ga-eso je-eje Legọs
30.
Agaara m iso gi jee Legọs
I would have joined you to go to Lagos
30a.
Mane ike gwụcharə m – but I was very tired
b. Manẹ ị gwadəgə m – but you did not tell me
c. Manẹ enwegəmə ego – but I had no money
d. Manẹ ọ də tụtụtụụ - but it is too far
e. Manẹ emekomə iye ọzọ – but I was doing other things.
f. Manẹ ihe ji m – but I was sick
31
Mə ga-anə gə ụtàrà
Agaara m inye gi ụtara
I would have given you foo-foo
31a.
Manẹ ofe agwụma – but the soup is finished.
38
b. Manẹ anə m eme iye ọzọ –but I am doing other things
c. Manẹ ị lụkọ eshị - but you are in a hurry.
d. Manẹ efere adəgə - but there is no plate
e. Manẹ ọ nəgə adə gə ọyị - but you don‟t like it.
32.
Mə gé-égbə ágwó nụhwà
Agaara m igbu agwọ ahụ
I would have killed the snake
32a.
Manẹ ejigəmə oshishi – but I did not have a stick
b. Manẹ ọ gbahwuru – but it escaped
c. Manẹ egwu tụkọmə - but I was afraid
d. Manẹ ọ də nə nsọ - but it was a sacred snake
The peculiarity in these types of structures (30,31, and 32) is that they are
conditional and independent clauses.
3.3
Metaphorical Ambiguity in Nsukka Group of Dialects
According to Richards and Schmidt (2002:201),
Metaphors are important means by which words
carry both cultural and semantic meanings, and each
language has its own metaphors that have
accumulated over time and that must be learned by
second and foreign language learners.
39
For Bailey, Corpperwaite, and Munro (2008:72), metaphor is “a comparison of one
person or thing with another by saying that the first is the second, as in: he was a
tiger in the combat” Metaphor is a vital aspect of language for in it lies the beauty of
a language. It is a culturally-related phenomenon which is easily identified and
understood by native speakers of a given language. An L2 or a foreign language
learner has to learn the metaphors of the language in question in order to attain
competence.
On his own part, Empson (1977:3) defines metaphor as the:
Synthesis of several units of observation into one
commanding image; it is the expression of a
complex idea… by a sudden perception of an
objective relation. One thing is said to be like
another, and they have several different
properties in virtue of which they are alike
We say that metaphorical expressions are ambiguous because they have the
following meanings:
a.
literal meaning
b.
metaphorical meaning
Measured against their ordinary and figurative uses, they are ambiguous. In Nsukka
Group of Dialect cluster, metaphorical ambiguity abound and according to Mbah
(2008:1-20), “the cognitive semanticists believe that language is seen from the
window of metaphor”. Let us examine the metaphorical ambiguity in Nsukka
Dialect cluster.
40
33.
Ódò àkwụamá ụgwọ ishi Ada
Odo akwụọla ụgwọ isi Ada
33a.
Odo has bought Ada‟s head – literal meaning
b. Odo has paid Ada‟s dowry – metaphorical meaning
34.
Rəmá ọrə hwụ n‟ẹnyá m
Rụa ọrụ ahụ n‟anya m
34a
Do that work in my eyes (or in my presence) – literal
35.
Ndə
ndọrọndọrọọchịchị
mbekwu
Ndị ndọrọndọrọ ọchịchị niile bụ mbe
Example 35 could mean either 35a or 35b
35a.
b.
36
All politicians are tortoise – literal
All politicians are crafty
Jọn bə ụgọdụ
Jọn bụ nkịta
John is a dog
36a.
b.
37.
John is a dog – literal meaning
John is promiscuous – metaphorical meaning
Nwá hwụ bə ọkəkọ udumənyi
Nwata ahụ bụ ọkụkọ udummiri
37a.
b.
That child is a rainy-season chicken – literal
That child is always sick – metaphorical
niịle
bə
41
38.
Ngọzị bə átərə
Ngọzị bụ atụrụ
38a.
Ngozi is a sheep
b. Ngozi is foolish
39.
Nwá hwụ bụ ewu
Nwata ahụ bụ ewu
39a.
That child is a goat – literal meaning
b. That child is stupid – metaphorical meaning
40.
Nwaanyị hwụ bə eshì
Nwanyị ahụ bụ ezi
40a.
That woman is a pig – literal meaning
b. That woman is dirty – metaphorical meaning
3.4
Lexical Ambiguity – Polysemy
Polysemy is a semantic condition in which one word has several meanings. It
is however important to note that the several meanings of a polysemous word have
the criteria of “relatedness”. Thus, Ndimele (1999:57) avers that “all the several
meanings of a plysemous word belong to a common core”. In polysemous words,
`one of the several meanings is central while other meanings are rather figurative or
metaphorical extensions of the core sense.
3.5
Polysemy in Nouns in Nsukka Dialect Cluster
42
Nouns
The several senses
Remarks
Ẹnyá
as part of the body
central meaning
as topmost section of oil
metaphorical extension
as part of a seed
metaphorical extension
as the tiny hole of needle
,,
as part of the body
central meaning
as sedimented part
metaphorical extension
as part of a compound
,,
palm kernel
central meaning
as something too hard
metaphorical extension
as seed
,,
as part of the body (breast)
central meaning
as madness
metaphorical extension
as part of the body
as part of a tree
central meaning
Ọhə
Ák ə
Ẹrá
Ụkwụ

as standing apparatus
,,
,,
,,
metaphorical extension
,,
,,
(bed stand, table stand etc)
Íshí
as part of the body
central meaning
as paramount
metaphorical extension
as eldest
,,
,,
as edge of something
,,
,,
as number one
,,
,,
43
Ọnụ
Íme
Ḿkpà
as part of the body
central meaning
as entrance of a hole
metaphorical extension
as frontage of something
,,
as pregnancy
central meaning
as inside of something
metaphorical extension
as central part of something
,,
as something important
central meaning
As a ceremony
metaphorical extension
as being too tight (not
,,
,,
balanced)
,,
,,
,,
,,
as being too crowded
Ọgwụ
Òtòbò
ụtə
Ụzọ
Ụlọ
as drug
central meaning
as amulet
metaphorical extension
as magic or charm
,,
,,
as poison
,,
,,
as a playground
central meaning
as a hiding place inside
metaphorical extension
the earth for termites
,,
as weevil
central meaning
as levy
metaphorical extension
as contribution
,,
as road
central meaning
as sight
metaphorical extension
as to give chance
,,
,,
as door
,,
,,
as a house
central meaning
as a built-up area
metaphorical extension
,,
,,
44
Ugwù
not full
central meaning
circumcision
metaphorical extension
Ụmụ children
Ẹgwà
Ọkə
Ézè
Ụtàrà
Ákpọk
ọ
central meaning
as little-little things
metaphorical extension
as off-shoot
,,
as a type of beans
central meaning
as multi-coloured
metaphorical extension
as character
,,
as fire
central meaning
as being hot
metaphorical extension
as being bright-coloured
,,
,,
as in frenzy
,,
,,
as in king
central meaning
to dodge
metaphorical extension
as a person‟s name
,,
as foo-foo
central meaning
something very easy
metaphorical extension
as pepper
central meaning
metaphorical extension
,,
,,
highly inflammatory
,,
,,
,,
as a sauce for food
Ẹkwụ
Book
central meaning
kwọ
School
metaphorical extension
Leaf
,,
,,
Very light
,,
,,
very many/very plenty
central meaning
as being worthless
metaphorical extension
wage
debt
central meaning
Ẹjā
Ụgwọ

metaphorical extension
45
Ẹká
Ìhè
Ígwè
Ánə
Ẹkwá
Égbè
Íkpə
Ọkwà
Ẹnyụ
Jí
as part of the body
as a clap
central meaning
metaphorical extension
as a handle
,,
light
central meaning
exposure
metaphorical extension
outside
,,
,,
civilization
,,
,,
iron
central meaning
bicycle
metaphorical extension
strong
,,
meat
central meaning
to be stupid
metaphorical extension
fleshy
,,
egg
central meaning
to be fragile
metaphorical extension
to be very smooth
,,
gun
central meaning
to be so loud
metaphorical extension
to eat to one‟s fill
,,
,,
to be prepared
,,
,,
private part
central meaning
to hide
metaphorical extension
to plant seed in nursery
,,
a type of bird
central meaning
very wise
metaphorical extension
very smallish
,,
pumpkin
ugliness
yam
husband
central meaning
metaphorical extension
central meaning
metaphorical extension
,,
,,
,,
,,
,,
,,
46
Nouns in
Nsukka Group
of Dialect
Íshí
Standard
Igbo
Version
ísí
English
Gloss
Different Senses
head
The beginning/ the eldest
Ẹńyá
ányá
eye
as part of the body
as topmost part of sedimented
liquid/the tip or opening through
which a seed germinates.
Ḿkpə
mkpú
a shout
a shout an anthill
ọhə
íkè
bottom
as part of the body/sedimented part
of something
Úkwú
Úkwú
Leg
as part of the body
as a stand for something (eg. tree,
chair etc)
Úkwù
Úkwù
Waist
Mbá
Mbá
Tuber
A tuber of yam/ person‟s name
a whole bar-soap
Éká
Áká
Hand
as part of the body
as branch of something
ólə
Ólú
Neck
Ónú / as part of the body
as an entrance
as a home of something
ékpərì
Ákpịrị
throat
as part of the body
Úzò
Ụzọ Door
road, illumination
Úlò
Úlọ
built up area
House
47
Looking at the above examples, it can be observed that the central meanings
of most of the nouns are seen as part of the human body while other senses of the
meanings are metaphorical extensions.
3.6
Polysemy in Verbs
It is generally observed that in Igbo, the verb is the only part of speech that
can take inflectional affixes e.g., the verb, “jé” can be thus inflected:
jé
ije
- to go
jebe – go away
In Nsukka Group of Dialect, the following verbs are found to be polysemous.
to creep away
to faint
ịsọ
to flow like water
to kill
igbəté
to cut
to catch
to avoid
ízè
to escape
to respect
48
to bring
íwote
to offer
to spend
ịhe
to bring up
to fly
to drink (any liquid)
ịňə
ịṅə (iyi) to swear (an oath)
ikpe ekpə – to hide
íkpə
ikpə maa – to mask
ikpə akəkeə – to plant (seed)
to turn upside down
ịhọ
ịhọ (ihe) – to choose something
ịhọ (ihe) to separate something
ídē
ide (ihe) to write something
ide (ihe) to ferment something
íjè
ije ije – to walk
ije ije – to negotiate for something
ịkwa (ékwá) – to cry
ịkwa (ozə) – funeral
ịkwa (ékwà) – to sew cloth
49
íkwā
ịshwa (ezə) to sweep (compound)
ị shwa
ịshwa (ude) to rub (pomade)
to consume all
ivə (ivə) to carry (load)
ívə
ivə (n‟uche) to bear (in mind)
ivə (n‟ishi) to memorize
ishi (nri) to cook (food)
íshi
to come from
ishi (n‟obodo) to be a native of (a village)
to mix
ịgwā
to tell
to resemble
to sow (e.g .yam)
íyí
to set a trap
to put on clothes
ịkpə
ịkpə (ihe) - to drag (something)
to mould
ídò
to seek secretly (lie ambush for a prey)
a type of termite
50
3.7
Polysemy in Adjectives
The feature of adjectives in Igbo is such that it is just a small class made up of
not very many words. Adjectives in Igbo normally come after the nouns they modify
except a few like „ajọ‟, and „ọmarịcha‟. According to Emenanjọ (1978:71), when
used with nominals, “neither the adjectives nor the nominals undergo tonal changes
characteristic of associative construction”. This implies that even in associative
constructions, adjectives still bear their inherent tones, e.g.
óchá
Nwoke
ọchá
áhù
white/fair
man
fair
that
Fair
man
Ojíí
Nwáányị
ójíí
áhụ àbíalá
black/dark
woman
dark
that come has
Dark
woman has come
51
In Nsukka dialect cluster, the following adjectives are identified:
Adjective
Possible Interpretations
ójíí
black, dark
ócháà
white, fair, complexioned
shiirē
big, mighty
ẹjọ
ugly, evil, bad
njákírí
old, worthless
émōró
beautiful, good, well, acceptable
já
small, little
3.8
Ambiguity in Questions
In some question patterns, it is observed that the speaker unintentionally ends
up putting across an ambiguous question. This usually occurs when the interrogative
morpheme co-occurs with the attributive clause which is referential to the two NPs in
the matrix clause. Such patterns do not occur in interrogatives only, they are also
observed in declarative statements with wh -relatives (Mbah, 2008:1-20). Examples
of such are:
41.
Ònyé nwē éwú ne-ézúzù ezuzu?
There is ambiguity in 41 above. According to Mbah, “the wh-relative
embedded in the sentence may refer to the subject of the matrix clause or to the verb
complement which in turn serves as the subject of the embedded clause”. In other
52
words, “na-ezuzu ezuzu” may either refer to the owner of the goat or to the goat
itself. The structure of ambiguity in such questions may be illustrated thus:
42.
Kedee onye nwe nwa nəma ụkwụ adəgə
Kedu onye nwe nwa a ụkwụ adịghị
Who has this limping child? Or
Who is it that limps that has this child?
S
S
comp
NP
kedee
VP
V
NP
nwe
NP DET
onye
nwa
43.
nəma
Onye nwe ụma ishi gbawarə alarẹma
Ónyé nwē mmà ísí gbàwàrà àláālá.
The owner of the knife with the spoilt is gone – or
The insane person who owns the knife is gone.
44.
Ónyé kpò igòdó né-èmé mkpótú?
Who has the key that is making noise? – or
Who is this noisy person that has the key?
S
ụkwụ
V
adəgə?
53
It is however observed that such constructions occur in situations where the
speaker is not very happy. The annoyance may be because the thing (or object) is
seen where it is not supposed to be seen, or goes where it is not supposed to go, or is
how it is not supposed to be.
54
CHAPTER FOUR
DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS
In this research, we have been able to identify three types of ambiguity. They
are: lexical ambiguity (i.e. polysemy), structural ambiguity, and tonal/phonetic
ambiguity. Polysemy arises when a particular lexical item is susceptible to various
interpretations. Nevertheless, it is important to point out that the criteria of
“relatedness” comes into play in determining whether a particular lexical item could
be adjudged to be polysemous or not. A polysemous word takes a single entry in the
dictionary with meanings 1,2,3,4, etc. To make this clearer, let us use the word “leg”
to illustrate polysemy.
Leg
a. each of the limbs on which a person or an animal stands and moves; part of
human/animal body
b. a long thin support of a table, chair etc. leg of a table
c. a section of a journey, race, competition; first leg match etc.
The word “leg” is therefore polysemous. Because of this, a listener has to use
context or any other means in determining which of the meanings a speaker intends.
In structural ambiguity, the ambiguity therein cannot be attributed to any
particular lexical item but is seen when a word or a phrase can modify more than one
constituent or can be involved in more than one relational association. Structural
55
ambiguity may also arise due to how the whole sentence is arranged or organized. In
the Igbo language, according to Mbah (2008), the construction types that illustrate
structural ambiguity include structures with wh-relative, conjuncts and disjoints,
metaphoric reference, interclausal pronominal reference, and imperativisation. Let us
re-examine the features of these different structures.
4.1
Ambiguity in Wh-relative
This type of structure may be interrogative or declarative statements which are
ambiguous because the wh-relative may be referring to either the subject of the
matrix clause or to the verb complement which may equally serve as the subject of
the clause that is embedded. Let us use these examples to illustrate:
45.
Onye nwe ụlọ hwụ na-ada?
Onye nwe ụlọ ahụ na-ada?
Who has house that is falling
Who has that house that is falling?
The ambiguity in example 45 lies in the fact that the independent clause “that
is falling” may refer to “who” (subject of the matrix) as well as to “house”. In other
words, it can be the “who” (owner of the house) that is falling or “house” that is
falling.
46.
Onye nwe ego hwụ ọkə rerə abịama
Onye nwe ego ahụ ọkụ rere abịala
Person own money that fire burnt past participle come
56
The owner of the money that fire burnt has come
The ambiguity in 46 above lies in the fact that it may be the owner of the money
him/herself that was burnt or it can be the money that was burnt.
4.2
Ambiguity in Conjuncts and Disjoints
Ambiguity may arise in some co-joined structures because of the inability to
detect what entities are included or excluded in such conjoints. This arises when the
conjunction “na” (and) is used in joining different entities. Let us use the following
examples to illustrate such structures:
Ji Ijeoma nẹ Ada ja-abịa
47.
Yam (or husband) Ijeoma and Ada will come
Example 47 is ambiguous because:
I. The lexical item “ji” is polysemous because most speakers in the Nsukka
Group of Dialect will take it to mean either “yam” or “husband”.
II. It may have these various interpretations
47a
Ijeoma‟s husband and Ada‟s husband will come
b.
Ijeoma‟s husband and Ada will come
c.
Ijeoma‟s husband who is also Ada‟s husband will come
The implication of 47 c is that Ijeoma and Ada are married to one husband.
48.
Nwa nkẹ onyeke nẹ nke onyenye esuegbeme
Child for male and for female grown full are
57
Example 48 is also ambiguous because it is amenable to different
interpretations. The ambiguity therein is created by the presence of the conjunction
“nẹ” (which is and). There arises the confusion of what entity is either to be included
or excluded in the conjunction. It can have these interpretations:
48a.
b.
4.3
Child of the man and child of the woman are fully grown
Child of the man and the female are full grown
Ambiguity in Metaphoric Reference
Metaphor is a culture-based phenomenon which exists in all languages. When
we talk about metaphorical ambiguity, it cuts across all other figures of speech
because as far as meaning component is concerned, these figures of speech have
literal meaning and figurative meaning. Metaphor is language-specific because what
is metaphoric with a specific meaning in one language may have a different meaning
altogether when translated to another language. To illustrate this further, it is
observed that in the English language and culture, the fox is an animal that
symbolizes cunning and craftiness, but in the Igbo language and culture, the animal
which takes that role is the tortoise. In Igbo, in the Aninri area (e.g. Nenwe), the
rabbit if seen wandering about in broad day light symbolizes bad omen (that
somebody would die) but in the Nsukka area, it is the chameleon that plays that role.
Let us observe the metaphoric extensions in the following:
58
Eze ejigə ẹnya ahwụ Odo
49.
Eze ejighi anya ahụ Odo
The interpretation of 49 above are:
a. Eze does not use his eyes to see Odo
b. Odo is Eze‟s enemy
50.
Emele ye n‟azə m
Emela ya n‟azụ m
Example 50 could be interpreted to mean:
50a.
Do not do it on my back
b.
Do not do it behind me
c.
Do not do it when I am dead
4.4
Ambiguity in Imperatives
In some imperative constructions, ambiguity may also arise. This is when a
speaker gives an order to the hearer. In such a situation, the speaker expects no reply
from the hearer rather he/she (the speaker) only expects the hearer to carry out the
instruction so given
go and start chewing it
51.
Je taarẹ ya
go and start measuring it
go and wash it off
52.
Je wụshịa ya
go and pour it out
59
go and put it on
go and sow (plant) it
53.
Je yime ye
4.5
Ambiguity in Inter-Clausal Pronominal Reference
Ambiguity as a result of inter-clausal pronominal reference occurs in Igbo. In
a compound structure that has a noun antecedent and its anaphor; the anaphor may
create ambiguity as to whether it (the anaphor) is co-referential to the noun
antecedent or whether it is a disjoint reference. Let us look at this example:
54a.
Eze sị na ọ ga-abịa
The ambiguity in 54 above is whether “ọ” is co-referential with Eze or whether it is a
disjoint reference.
However, in Nsukka dialect cluster, this type of ambiguity does not exist. This
is because, the dialect cluster makes a clear difference between co-reference and
disjoint reference. In this dialect, example 54 above would not be ambiguous because
the anaphor “ọ” is a disjoint reference and therefore, does not refer to “Eze” but to a
different person. If the anaphor is to be co-referencial with the antecedent, it would
be realized thus:
54b.
Eze sə nẹ ya jị-abịa
Eze sị na ya ga-abịa
Eze say past that he will come
Eze said that he (Eze) will come
60
4.6
Uses of Ambiguity
As a semantic feature, the use of ambiguity is welcome in some contexts but it
is despised in others. In situations where one embarks on an expository writing for
instance, one need not be ambiguous because ambiguity impedes understanding.
Osuagwu (1996:51) rightly pointed out that when a writer uses “a language which
can be taken to mean something other than intended, he has failed in his job”. That
not withstanding, creative writers may deliberately decide to be ambiguous in their
writing. This is because; ambiguity serves a number of purposes in enhancing the
beauty in a piece of creative writing.
Ambiguity serves as pun. This is when a writer decides to play on certain
words. The intention of the speaker/writer in this may be just to invoke a deep and
diverse thought in the hearer/reader before understanding the art therein. In such
cases, it is seen that the pun created is beyond the ordinary mind to comprehend. To
illustrate this, let us look at example 55 below:
55.
Ngaa okpu, ị chọrə ikpə?
Were okpu, ị chọrọ ikpu?
Example 55 above could be thus interpreted
55a.
Take cap, do you want to put it on?
b.
Take condom, do you want vagina?
c. Take cap, do you want to sink?
61
Citing pun as an example readily calls to mind a famous promise by one politician in
the second republic (name withheld) during his electioneering where he ignorantly
created a pun thus:
- “I will water Iheakpụ, fire Ovoko, Umunowere no”
Invariably, what this politician meant was that if elected, he would sink a borehole at
Iheakpụ, bring electricity simply to Ovoko, but would do nothing for the people of
Umunowere.
In the use of euphemism as a figure of speech, ambiguity is created.
Euphemism, according to Richards and Schmidt (2002:188), is “the use of a word
which is thought to be less offensive or unpleasant than another word”. For instance,
in America, the use of “rest room” is widely accepted in place of toilet. Likewise in
the Igbo language, instead of saying that someone is in the toilet, we rather put it that
he/she went to the backyard, whereas “backyard” ordinarily implies “behind the
house”. It is therefore clearly seen that euphemistic ambiguity is used when a
speaker/writer does not want to hurt or injure the feelings of individuals.
Generally speaking, ambiguity is a source of entertainment in the use of
language. When an ordinary idea is put across in an extraordinary way, it is
entertaining to the audience. This may be the reason why ambiguous expressions are
widely used in advertisements both in the print and electronic media. Let us consider
this advertisement piece regularly shown on the television:
56.
“Sunrise wheat flour, everybody kneads it!”
62
The ambiguity in 56 is because of the homophone in the words “kneads” and
“needs”. Example 56 above could either mean:
56a.
b.
Every body kneads it
Everybody needs it
Whichever interpretation one gives to 56 (either a or b) it will suitably apply
4.7
Processing Ambiguous Expressions
According to Akmajian, Demers, Farmer, and Harnish (2009:366), “in order
to determine the meaning of expressions, the hearer must be able to mentally process
sentences that reflect complex structural properties of human language, such as
structural ambiguity…” There has been much research on how ambiguous
expressions are understood. This is because, the decoding of meanings of sentences is
a crucial part of linguistic communication.
When we talk about processing
ambiguous expression, we think seriously about the speaker‟s intended meaning
which is operative on that particular occasion. To overcome ambiguity, the hearer
uses contextualization strategy.
To apply this strategy, the hearer contextualizes the ambiguous expression and
presumes the speaker‟s utterance to be contextually appropriate. Akmajian, Demers,
Farmer and Harnish (op.cit) use the following to illustrate this:
…at an airport zoning meeting the sentence flying
planes can be dangerous would naturally be taken
as a remark about the danger of planes flying
overhead; but at a meeting of the Pilots‟ Insurance
Board it would naturally be taken as a reminder of
the risk of piloting planes.
63
Let us further localize the example of this contextualization strategy by using the
following example:
57.
Ọ nwụ òkwà n‟aka bịa
In a meeting of old women in the village square, 57 above would be taken to
imply that he/she came very early; but in a gathering of hunters at a spot in the thick
forest to showcase the games they killed, the same expression would mean that
he/she came with a partridge. Also, we have to consider the fact that most of the
times, the speaker‟s communicative intent is not generally determined by the
meaning of the expression uttered, but also includes the communicative message
encoded and attached in other forms other than in words. For instance, the expression
“I‟ll be there tonight” might be a prediction, a promise, or even a threat, depending
on the speaker‟s intentions in the appropriate circumstances.
On the other hand, semantic processes may be used in disambiguating
ambiguous structures. This process involves assigning semantic features to the
lexical item that caused the ambiguity in order to determine the appropriate meaning.
Let us look at this:
58.
They can fish
The lexical item responsible for the ambiguity in 58 is “can”. Example 58
could be disambiguated by assigning semantic features to this lexical item “can” as
can be seen below:
64
CAN
58a. can
+ verb
+ auxiliary
- finite
- object
58b. can
+ verb
- auxiliary
+ object
- finite
The interpretation for 58a is that they are capable of going fishing, while b means
that they put fish in cans.
The problems and all the troubles of going through disambiguation processes
would be drastically reduced if speakers could only be magnanimous enough in their
utterances to provide a little additional information that could help hearers process
ambiguous structures. On this note, let us bring forward example 25 to illustrate
25.
Jèé hàmá
The interpretations given to 25 are:
25a.
b.
Go and comb
Go and get and prepare a measure of foo-foo
if the speaker of 25 above could add “nri”, it would read:
25i.
Jèé hámá ńrí
This additional information “nr” (food) automatically disambiguates it. This is
because, only 25b applies to 25i. Example 25a cannot apply to 25i.
Researches indicate that when an expression is given, a lot of processing goes
on even more than introspection may ever reveal. As Akinajian, Demers, Farmer and
Harnish (2009:433) proffer, “hearers typically access all of the meanings of the
65
words they hear, by the end of a clause, the most plausible meaning is selected”. The
processing continues and if it is found out that the meaning selected is wrong and not
appropriate, the hearer has to go back and try all over again. This is what these coauthors simply refer to as the garden path sentences. Garden path sentences are
sentences inferred from a given expression where a hearer tries to decode the exact
intent of a speaker. If a hearer tries one inference to an expression and it becomes
wrong, it is said that he/she has been led through the garden path only to have been
fooled, he/she therefore has to go back all over again to apply another inference.
In disambiguating ambiguous structures, one may decide to use tree diagrams.
According to Akmajian, Demers, Farmer and Harnish (2009:183), “in a theory of
syntax, using phrase markers to represent syntactic structure, the explanation of the
phenomenon of structural ambiguity is straightforward”. This is because, an
unambiguous sentence is associated with just one basic phrase marker while an
ambiguous sentence is associated with more than one basic phrase marker. The coauthors use the following illustration to explain how this could be done.
S
Aux
NP
Art
The
N
mother
VP
PP
of the boy and the girl will
arrive soon
Fig 7a: Disambiguating an ambiguous structure
66
S
Aux
NP
NP
The mother of the boy and
VP
NP
the
girl
will
arrive soon
Fig 7b: Disambiguating an ambiguous structure
Adapted from Akmajian, Dermers, Farmer, and Harnish (2009:184).
As can be observed, in figure 7a, the head noun of the subject which is
“mother” is modified by a prepositional phrase that has a conjoined noun phrase in it.
“of the boy and the girl”. But in fig 7b, the subject noun phrase is itself a conjoined
noun phrase: “the mother of the boy” followed by “the girl”. The above illustrates an
important property of syntactic trees. Carnie (2007:88) also avers that “trees allow us
to capture the differences between ambiguous readings of the same surface
structure”.
4.8
Social/Cultural Implications of Ambiguity
In the Igbo language, native speakers most often make use of metaphors,
idioms, and other figures of speech. These figures of speech are used to drive home
pieces of advice, to explain things, and also to express issues. In fact, people see the
appropriate use of these figures of speech as a yardstick for measuring the level of
proficiency of an individual speaker. Ambiguity is most often a feature in the
speeches of old people and is therefore a sign of wisdom.
67
In the Igbo culture, it is not expected that a child speaks to an elder in some of
these features that constitute ambiguity like making use of proverbs, metaphorical
ambiguity, etc. It is an elder that can decide to speak to a child (or to a younger
person than him/herself) making use of these figures of speech. Nevertheless, it is
expected that all adult-speakers of the language are able to understand and discern
the information contained in such usages. There is a popular Igbo adage which says
that:
-
Onye a tụọrọ ilu kọwara ya mara na ego e ji lụọ nne ya lara n‟iyi
An adult speaker of any given language needs no explanations when a proverb is
used.
Ordinarily, when ambiguity occurs, there are chances of misinterpretation.
The hearer may discern something quite different from the speaker‟s intent. In such
cases, misunderstanding arises and this may result in chaos, provocation etc. In short,
there is no limit to what this can cause because it may reach to the extent of war.
As cited in 4.6 above, ambiguity is a source of entertainment in the use of
language. In such cases, it then becomes a vehicle of humour. Let us take for instance
if someone just walks up to you and says:
59.
Anə gə họrə?
Anu gị ọ fọrọ?
59a.
Is your meat still remaining?
b.
Is your flesh still remaining?
68
60.
Ụwa chọrə ikpə
Ụwa chọrọ ikpu
60a.
b.
The world is about to sink
The world wants vigina/penis
The speaker in examples 59 and 60 knows that the statements are ambiguous
but he/she only wants to amuse the audience.
It is observed that in metaphorical extensions, the thoughts of the hearer are
provoked “to transfer features from the source to the target” (Saeed, 2009:363).
Conventionalized mappings of metaphors are largely from parts of the human body
and names of animals. For instance, conventionalized metaphors of body parts in the
English language according to Ungerer and Schmid (2006:117), are:
head
of department, of state, of government, of a page,
of a queue, of a flower, of stairs, of a bed, of a
syntactic construction.
face
of a mountain, of a building, of a watch
eye
of a potato, of a needle, of a hurricane in a flower,
hooks, and eyes
mouth
of a hole, of a tunnel, of a cave, of a river
neck
of land, of the woods, of a shirt, bottle,-neck
shoulder
of a hill or mountain, of a road, of a jacket
69
In the Igbo language, conventionalized metaphorical mappings of names of
animals are:
ézì (pig)
dirtiness
égbé (kite)
thief
éké (python)
lazy
ńkịtā (dog)
promiscuity
átúrú (sheep)
foolishness
mbè (tortoise)
craftiness
ágū (lion)
strength
ényí (elephant)
extra large in size
ènwè (monkey)
sharpness/cleverness
òkwà (partridge)
wisdom
70
CHAPTER FIVE
SUMMARY, RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION
5.1
Summary
In this study, we have tried to explain extensively, the operations of ambiguity
and polysemy in language. This work affirms that an ambiguous expression is one
that is amenable to more than one interpretation. Polysemy is when one lexical item
has more than one meaning. We observed that simple constructions may not be
actually as simple as they may look because, there may be different interpretations
that could be given to them.
We recognized two types of ambiguity which are lexical and structural
ambiguities. The other type discussed was phonetic or tonal ambiguity which we said
that the ambiguity therein disappears as soon as the expression is reduced to writing.
We were able to establish the fact that because a sentence is grammatical does not set
it free from being ambiguous.
We also discovered that metaphorical extensions are prone to more than one
interpretation because they always have their literal and figurative meanings. This
feature is a language – universal phenomenon because it operates the same in
languages other than Igbo.
It was discovered that in the Nsukka group of dialects, ambiguity as a result of
inter-clausal pronominal reference does not arise. This is because in the dialect, there
is a difference between co-referenciality and a disjoint reference.
71
5.2
Recommendations
As was earlier observed in this study, communication is a two-way process
and is effective only when the hearer/reader decodes appropriately what is encoded
by the speaker/writer. For effective communication therefore, we recommend that
speakers use utterances that have the same meaning to them as well as they do to
their listeners.
There is this need to implement tone marking in grammar books, works of
literature, reference materials, and other scholarly work. Many expressions in Igbo
are not ambiguous if tone is marked. In the English language, appropriate utilization
of stress as well as appropriate use of commas would most of the time disambiguate
ambiguous structures.
While ambiguity is deliberately sought in some cases, it is despised in others.
We recommend that language users should know situations that can warrant the use
of ambiguity and use it appropriately. Many a time, ambiguity adds beauty to a piece
of creative writing, but the use of ambiguity is not encouraged in cases like
expository writings.
72
5.3
Conclusion
Many expressions that may look simple are ambiguous when put to serious
scrutiny. Ambiguity cannot totally be avoided. Despite the problems they pose to the
study of language, ambiguity and polysemy are of immense help in language use.
Poets and other creative writers extensively make use of ambiguity. This is because,
it is a creative device that puts across messages/ideas in a few words.
Finally, we conclude by saying that linguists are interested in the presence of
ambiguity in language. Sentences have syntactic and semantic structures which
obviously are closely related. The fact that languages are highly structured
notwithstanding, language users are easily able to detect and disambiguate
ambiguous structures.
There is no doubt that this work will be of immense help to linguists who may
wish to venture into the same subject matter in other dialects of Igbo and other
languages in general.
73
References
Agbedo, C.U. (2000). General Linguistics. An Introductory Reader: Nsukka: ACE
Resources Konsult.
Akmajian, A., Demers, R., Farmer, A. and Harnish, R. (2009). Linguistics: An
Introduction to Language and Communication. (fifth edition). Cambridge:
The MIT Press.
Akwanya, A.N. (1996). Semantics and Discourse: Theories of Meaning and Textual
Analysis. Enugu-Nigeria: ACENA Publishers.
Allan, K. (1986). Linguistics Meaning. London: Faber and Faber Ltd.
Anagbogu, P.N., Mbah, B.M. and Eme, C.A. (2001). Introduction to Linguistics.
Awka: J.F.C. Ltd.
Bailey, N., Corpperwaite, P. and Munro, M. (ed.) (2008). The Dictionary of
Unfamiliar Words. New York: Skyhorse Publishing.
Bloomfield, L. (1933). Language. London: George Allen and Urwin Ltd.
Carnie, A. (2007). Syntax: A Generative Introduction. Oxford; Blackwell.
Crystal, D. (1997). A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics (Fourth Edition).
Oxford: Blackwell.
Emenanjo, E.N. (1978). Elements of Modern Igbo Grammar. Ibadan: Oxford
University Press.
Empson, W. (1977). Seven Types of Ambiguity. London: Chatto and Windows Ltd.
Fromkin, V. and Rodman, R. (1993). An Introduction to Language. New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston Inc.
Fillmore, C. and Atkins, B. (2000). “Describing Polysemy: The Case of “Crawl”. In
C. Leocock. Polysemy: Theoretical and Computational Approaches. Oxford:
OUP. pp.91-110.
Hurford, J. and Heasley, B. (1983).Semantics: A course Book. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
74
Hybels, S. and Weaver R. (1989). Communicating Effectively (second edition). New
York: Random House.
Kumekpor, B. (1985). Elements of Research: Calabar: Adams Publishers Ltd.
Lyons, J. (1968). Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mbah, B. (2008). “Ambiguity in Igbo”. In Ikenga International Journal of Institute of
African Studies, 10(1&2): 1-20.
Ndimele, O. (1999). A First Course on Morphology and Syntax. Port Harcourt:
Emhai Printing and Publishing Co.
Ndimele, O. (2005). Semantics and the Frontiers of Communication (second edition).
Port Harcourt: University of Port Harcourt Press Ltd.
Nwaozuzu, G. (2008). Dialects of the Igbo Language. Nsukka: University of Nigeria
Press. Ltd.
Osuagwu, B. (1996). Processing Ambiguous Sentences. Jos: Hitech Printing Press.
Ogden, C. and Richards, I. (1923). The Meaning of Meaning. London: Kegan Paul.
Palmer, F.R. (1976). Semantics: A New Outline. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Palmer, F.R. (1981). Semantics. (second edition). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Palmer, F.R. (1984). Grammar. England: Penguin Books.
Richards, J. and Schmidt, R. (2002). Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and
Applied Linguistics. (third edition). England: Pearson Education Ltd.
Saeed, J.I. (2009). Semantics. (third edition). Malden, USA: Blackwell Publishing.
Spencer-Oatey, H. and Zegarac, V. (2002). “Pragmatics”. An Introduction to Applied
Linguistics. London: Arnold. pp. 74-91.
Ullman, S. (1957). The Principles of Semantics. Oxford: Blackwell.
75
Ullman, S. (1962). Semantics: An Introduction to Science of Meaning. New York:
Barnes and Noble.
Umera-Okeke, N. (2008). Semantics and Pragmatics: Theories of Meaning and
Usage in English. Awka: Fab Anieh Nigeria Ltd.
Ungerer, F. and Schmid, H. (2006). An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics. (second
edition). London: Longman.
http://web.archive.org/web/20080628052459/http://www.bartleby.com/61/0/Po43005
0.html.
Wikipedia (2008). Accessed June 8, 2010. Educational Reforms in Nigeria.
76
Primary Sources of Data
S/N
Respondent
Sex
Male
Age Last Occupation
Birthday
57
Farmer
Date
Interviewed
10-06-2010
1.
Chukwuma Omeje
2.
Idenyi Ogama
Female
50
Farmer
10-06-2010
3.
Jude Ogbodo
Male
48
Teacher
12-07-2010
4.
Ugwoke Ezema
Male
46
Brick Layer
12-07-2010
5.
Onoyima Attama
Female
73
Housewife
12-07-2010
6.
Oyibo Ugwuowo
Female
40
Petty trader
23-07-2010
7.
Elizabeth Ugwu
Female
38
38
23-07-2010
8.
Emanuel Mama
Male
56
Wine taper
30-07-2010
9.
Ugwoke Ezeugwu
Male
96
Village Head
23-12-2010
10.
Ogbungwa Idoko
Female
81
Housewife
23-12-2010
11.
Odo Nwude
Male
54
Trader
11-01-2011
12.
John Ugwuododo
Male
51
Carpenter
11-01-2011
13.
Maria Eze
Female
40
Petty trader
11-01-2011
14.
Ezegba Ọgọdọ
Male
52
Farmer
16-01-2011
15.
Agnes Ugwuanyị
Female
41
Farmer
16-01-2011