Top Banner
Page 1 A CONTRASTIVE ANALYSIS OF ALLOPHONIC VARIATION IN ENGLISH AND URHOBO LANGUAGE. A seminar paper presented by WAIVE OGHENEFEJIRI RITA (Matric No. 160362) Department of Linguistics & African Languages, Faculty of Arts, University of Ibadan. In Partial Fulfillment of the Course LIN 701- READING IN LINGUISTICS To The Department of Linguistics and African languages, Faculty of Arts, University of Ibadan, Ibadan Nigeria [1]
40

Eng Asgnmnt for Seminar

Apr 21, 2015

Download

Documents

Waive Rita
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Page 1: Eng Asgnmnt for Seminar

Page

1

A CONTRASTIVE ANALYSIS OF ALLOPHONIC VARIATION IN ENGLISH AND URHOBO LANGUAGE.

A seminar paper presented by

WAIVE OGHENEFEJIRI RITA (Matric No. 160362)Department of Linguistics & African Languages,Faculty of Arts,University of Ibadan.

In Partial Fulfillment of the Course LIN 701- READING IN LINGUISTICS

To The Department of Linguistics and African languages,Faculty of Arts,University of Ibadan, Ibadan Nigeria

February 2012

ABSTRACT

[1]

Page 2: Eng Asgnmnt for Seminar

Page

2

This paper presents a contrastive analysis of the allophonic variations that exist in English and Urhobo languages. The main focus of this study is to identify allophonic variants in the aforementioned languages, and the environment that conditions the variations in the given segment. Furthermore, facts are presented to aid our understanding of classifying sounds as allophone of a phoneme with the aid of copious data drawn from both languages. Theoretical analysis would be given only where the need arises. This study attests to the fact that allophonic variation is systematic, hence an attempt is made at generalizing contrastive statements regarding the conditioning of allophones in the both language being contrasted. This is done in other to ensure that these variations today do not lead to sound change in the language tomorrow.

Key Words: Phone, phoneme, allophone, free variation, complementary distribution, allophonic variation, phonotatics, minimal pairs.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

[2]

Page 3: Eng Asgnmnt for Seminar

Page

3

Title page 1

Abstract 2

Table of contents 3

1.0 Introduction 5

2.0 Linguistic background of languages used

5

2.1 English language 5

2.2 Location and population of Urhobo 6

3.0 Methodology 7

4.0 Related works on terminologies used

7

4.1 The Urhobo Language 7

Fig 1 Phonemic consonant chart of Urhobo 8

Fig 2 Phonemic vowel chart of Urhobo 8

4.2 Phoneme 9

4.3 Allophones 9

4.4 Allophonic variation 10

5.0 Analysis 10

5.1 Allophonic variations of consonants in English 11

5.1:1 Allophonic variations in Urhobo consonants 12

5.1:2 Contrastive statement on allophonic variants for stops 15

5.2 Allophonic variants for liquids and glides in English 15

5.2:1 Allophonic variants for glides in Urhobo 18

5.2:2 Contrastive statement on allophonic variants of liquid and glides 19

5.3 Allophonic variation of English vowel segment 20

5.3:1 Allophonic vowel segments in Urhobo 21

5.3:2 Contrastive statement on allophonic variation of nasal segment 22

[3]

Page 4: Eng Asgnmnt for Seminar

Page

4

6.0 Hierarchy of problem

23

6.1 Scope and Limitation to the study 23

7.0 Conclusion 24

Reference 25

[4]

Page 5: Eng Asgnmnt for Seminar

Page

5

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Knowledge of segmental contrast is fundamental to comprehending

language and the initial step in phonological analysis is to establish sounds in the

language that are in contrast. However in every language, there are many sounds

that do not contrast hence it is of great importance to examine the distribution of

sounds in words and to compare word meaning.

This work therefore will make up for the deficiency that prospective Urhobo

learners may have while analyzing the phonology of the language because

emphasis will be laid on the allophonic variation that exists in the language,

explanations on the realization of a phoneme (contrastive phonological unit)would

also be dealt with mainly with the aid of copious data drawn from both English and

Urhobo in other to achieve the goal of contrastive analysis.

2.0 LINGUISTIC BACKGROUND OF THE LANGUAGES USED

2.1 English language

The variety of the English language used in this work is restricted

to those varieties spoken predominantly by native speakers of English. This

implies that consideration will be based on the kinds of English spoken by the

inner circle members. The American English would be used to compare and

contrast.

At the time of Elizabeth I (1533–1603), there were at most seven million

native speakers of English. At the opening of the nineteenth century, English had

spread to every corner of the world, and in the course of the nineteenth and

[5]

Page 6: Eng Asgnmnt for Seminar

Page

6

twentieth centuries i.e the time of Elizabeth II (1926– ) the number of native

speakers of English had increased to some 350 million. It is worthy to note here

that England (if not the whole UK) is the natural place where English was

developed as the language of the people. While it has been strongly affected by

various invasions, English is endemic in England. Everywhere else, English has

been introduced. In the inner circle such as New Zealand, USA Australia,

Anglophone part of south Africa country except the UK, a large group of English-

speaking people arrived bringing their language with them, and they became a

dominant population group in the new environment. Bauer (2002).

2.2 Location and population of Urhobo:

The Urhobo language is a south western Ediod language The Edoid

languages make up a sub-branch of the West Benue-Congo branch of Niger-

Congo, and are spoken in the southern part of Nigeria. They are classified into four

co-ordinate groups, namely Delta Edoid (DE), North Central Edoid (NCE), North

Western Edoid (NWE), and South Western Edoid (SWE). Elugbe (1973, 1989).

Urhobo is widely spoken in Delta state, in areas covered by the present Ethiope,

Okpe, Ughelli, Sapele and Warri Local Government Areas. There are twenty-two

(22) clans within the Urhobo speaking community namely: Agbarha, Agbarho,

Agbassa, Agbọn, Arhavwariẹ, Abraka, Egwhu, Evwreni, Ẹphrọn-otọ, Idjerhe, Ogọ

Oghara, Okere, Okparabe, OkpẹOlomu, Orogun, Udu, Ughelli, Ughienvwen

(Jeremi), Uvwiẹ, and Uwheru. Each of these clans has its dialect that differs from

the other in certain respects such as lexeme. However, most of them are highly

mutually intelligible. The Agbarho dialect is the standard variety which is used for

writing the language. It should also be noted that the choice of Agbarho as the

standard variety is neither for geographical nor population reasons but mainly for

intelligibility. Geographically the neighbours of the Urhobo to the South are the

[6]

Page 7: Eng Asgnmnt for Seminar

Page

7

Ijaw speakers of Bomadi and Burutu, to the North are the Edo(Bini) speakers of

Oredo and Orhionmwon Local Government Areas; to the East are the Isoko and

Ukwani speakers of Isoko and Ndokwa local Government Areas and finally, to the

West are the Itsekiris of Warri North Local Government Area.

Aweto (2002) estimates that the population of Urhoboland was 1.2 million in 1991

and it is now about 1.5 million.

3.0 METHODOLOGY

The data collection method is essentially qualitative; the basic method

utilized in the collection of data was that of participant observation as well as

intense interview with key informants. A minor quantitative component of

gathering data for comparism, is information gathered from available data on the

phonology of Urhobo by Prof. Mrs R.O. Aziza.

Since no existing work has been done on this topic to the best of my knowledge, I

spent some days in Obi-Ayagha, a village in Otu-Jeremi in Ughelli South Local

Government Area of Delta State working on the orthography, close contact with

the key informant was also maintained with the aid of a mobile phone during the

course of this work in order to attain copious data.

4.0 RELATED WORKS ON TERMINOLOGIES USED

4.1 The Urhobo language

At the phonetic level, Urhobo has the following seven vowels [i, e, ɛ, a, ɔ, o, u].

The orthographic equivalents i, e, ẹ ,a, ọ, o, u are used for writing the language.

All seven vowels have nasal counterparts: [ῖ, e, ɛ, ã, ɔ, õ, ữ]. Elugbe (1991). The

syllable structure of the language is of three types, namely, V, CV, CCV.

[7]

Page 8: Eng Asgnmnt for Seminar

Page

8

The standard Urhobo dialect is noted to have 28 consonant segment. Aziza (2007).

A chart for the Urhobo consonants and vowels is represented below.

Fig 1: A phonemic consonant chart of Urhobo

bilabial labiodental

alveolar postalveolar

palatal velar Labial velar

Labialised velar

glottal

Plosive p b t d c ɟ k g kp gb gw

Nasal m n ɲ ŋm

Trill rTap ɾFricative ɸ ß f v s z ʃ ʒ ɣ ɣw HC.approx

j ɰ W

l .approx l

Fig 2:Phonemic vowel chart of Urhobo

Front central back

close i u

close mid e o

open-mid ɛ ɔ

open

a

[8]

Page 9: Eng Asgnmnt for Seminar

Page

9

4.2 Phoneme

The Prague School (N. S. Trubetzkoy, R.Jakobson) and American structuralist

(principally L.Bloomfield, Z.S.Harris) regard the phoneme as indivisible and as

minimally abstract. In this view, the phoneme is essentially a stuctureless object

which nonetheless has identifiable phonetic characteristics, it may be realized in

speech by phonetically different phones in different environment(i.e its allophone)

note that the allophones of a phoneme are united within it by their shared phonetic

similarities and by their complementary distribution. Phonemes are, however, not

the smallest units of phonetic description, because each phoneme represents a class

of phonetically similar sound variants, the allophones, which cannot be

contrastively substituted for each other, i.e. cannot stand in semantically distinctive

opposition. The phoneme is defined as the minimal unit of

speech that distinguishes meaning (e.g., pat vs. bat). At a more abstract level,

phonemes are merely bundles of features that are used to provide the necessary

information about the sound structure of words in the lexicon.

4.3 Allophones

According to the routeledge dictionary of languages and linguistics the term

allophone consist of two morpheme, i.e a prefix allo-, and the stem phone. Allo- is

a Greek word which means ‘another, different’. It is a designation for

morphological elements distinguishing variation of linguistic units on the level of

parole (i.e the actual language used by people) hence we can say an allo-form

(which includes allophones and allomorphs) represent variations of fundamental

linguistic units such as phoneme or morphemes on all levels of description. While

[9]

Page 10: Eng Asgnmnt for Seminar

Page

10

the term phone refers to a segment or speech sound. In phonology phones become

allophones.

When two (or more) segments are phonetically distinct but phonologically the

same they are reffered to as Allophones (predictable variant of a phoneme). They

are concretely realized variants of a phoneme (contrastive phonological unit). The

classification of phones as allophones of a phoneme is based on

(a) their distribution (in terms of position in the segment)

(b) their phonetic similarity.

Allophones may be realized coincidentally as independent variants unaffected by

their phonetic environment ( free variation) such as English voiceless bilabial

plosive in final position, aspirated [ph] and unreleased [po] as in [taph] vs [tapo]

‘top’, these allophones are in free variation because they do not lead to a change

in meaning. Most allophones, however, are in complementary distribution ‘CD’

(sounds in CD are mutually exclusive) such as

[ph] in [phaut] pout and [p] in [spaut] spout.

[phӕn] pan [spӕn] span

[kh] in [khin] kin and [k] in [skin] skin

[th] in [thown] tone and [t] in [stown] stone

The data above exemplifies the fact that voiceless stops in English have

aspirated and unaspirated allophone. The reason for the allophonic variation of the

voiceless stop [p] is based on the syllable structure of the given words.

Other examples of voiceless stops in free variation is represented in the schema

below.

Phonemic level (phoneme) /tap/ /tɒp/ ‘tap’

[10]

Page 11: Eng Asgnmnt for Seminar

Page

11

Phonetic level (allophone) [tӕph] [tӕpo] [tɒph] [tɒpo]

4.4 Allophonic variation

Allophonic variation is systematic, it occurs most often among phonetically

similar segments and it is conditioned by the phonetic context or environment in

which the segments are found.

Allophonic variation occurs because segments are altered and affected by the

phonetic characteristics of neighboring s elements or by the larger phonological

context in which they occur. If allophonic differences are phonotactic (i.e.

conditioned according to their placement/environment), language specific and in

complementary distribution, then the allophones are said to be ‘combinatory

variants.’ William (2001). Such phonetic variants cannot be freely substituted for

one another. Allophonic variation is triggered by a segment’s environment and it is

predictable. On the other hand, the phonetic features that are used to identify the

phonemes of a language are NOT predictable. These are known as distinctive

features.

Viewed from the perspective of features, allophonic variation is seen to be

not simply the substitution of one allophone for another, but rather the

environmentally conditioned change or specification of a feature. The liquid - glide

devoicing that occurs in English words like tree and twinkle, for instance is a

change in the value of of the feature [voice] from [+voice] to [-voice] after

voiceless stop consonant. Dobrovolsky (2001)

5.0 ANALYSIS

5.1 Allophonic Variations Of Consonants In English

[11]

Page 12: Eng Asgnmnt for Seminar

Page

12

Voiceless stops in English are aspirated and this does not lead to a change in the

meaning of words. Aspiration is the period of voicelessness that follows the

voiceless closure phase of a stop. Ladefoged (1993).

Asides aspiration, voiceless stops can also be palatalized, labialized or be

unexploded in terms of their articulation in actual speech. Hence we can have the

possible allophones of the voiceless stops as shown below. Using /t/ we have

[tj] in till, teeth

[tw] in tooth, two

[th] in torch, tall

[to] in spot, spit

[t] in tilt, tin /t/

[tj] [tw] [th] [to] [t]

English realize /t/voiceless alveolar stop as, the basic form [t],

[tj]- palatalized, [tw]-labialised, [th]-aspirated, [to]-unexploded.

The same holds for all other voiceless stop in English.

In words like tool [tu:l], cool [ku:l], where the initial stop is followed by a

rounded vowel, the articulation of the stop often anticipates the lip rounding of the

next sound (contrast the articulation of the same voiceless stops in tin [tɪn], and

keen [kɪ:n]. These palatalised stops [tj] in ‘tin’ and [kj] ‘keen’ are of course nothing

but positionally defined allophones of the [t] and [k] phoneme, and their

palatalisation is non-dinstinctive). The same type of lip-rounding occurs before [w]

in words like

‘Twin ’ [twɪn] ‘queen’ [kwɪ:n]

‘Tweezers’ [twɪ:zǝz] ‘quick’ [kwɪk]

‘Twist’ [twɪst] ‘quiz’ [kwɪz]

[12]

Page 13: Eng Asgnmnt for Seminar

Page

13

5.1:1 ALLOPHONIC VARIATIONS IN URHOBO CONSONANTS

Allophonic variation in Urhobo is systematic and this is not peculiar to the

language. It is a universal phenomenon. Evidence of the systematic nature is

evident in the fact that allophones pattern according to their membership in

phonetic class. Just as phonemic contrast found in each language are specific to

that language so also the actual patterning of phonemes and allophones is language

specific. Hence the distribution discovered for Urhobo language may not hold true

for other languages.

(1) The voiceless glottal fricative /h/ has two allophones that are in free

variation, they are ; [h] voiceless glottal fricative

[x] voiceless velar fricative

The use of one instead of the other is particularly a matter of choice. This is

obvious in the examples given below in data K.

Data A: ohọre /ohɔre/ [ohɔre] ~ [oxɔre] ‘neck’

Eha /eha/ [eha] ~ [exa] ‘play’

Uhoho /uhoho/ [uhoho] ~ [uxoxo] ‘shadow’

ọhọ /ɔhɔ/ [ɔhɔ] ~ [ɔxɔ] ‘sense

phonemic rep.(phoneme) /h/

phonetic rep.(allophones) [h] [x]

Note that the phonetic similarity between both allophones is that they are both

fricatives.

(2) The alveolar nasal /n/ also has two allophones [n] and [l] which occurs

sometimes in the same environment, but in most cases when the nasal is selected, it

[13]

Page 14: Eng Asgnmnt for Seminar

Page

14

has the effect of nasalizing the following vowel segment. See examples in data B

below.

Data B: ọnẹ /ɔnɛ/ [ɔnɛ] ~ [ɔlɛ] ‘yam’

nọ /nɔ/ [nɔ] ~ [lɔ] ‘grind’

une /une/ [une] ~ [une] ‘song’

ọnokpa /ɔnokpa/ [ɔnokpa] ~ [ɔlokpa] ‘policeman’

onori /onori/ [onori] ~ [olori] ‘leader’

onorogun /onorogũ/ [onorogũ] ~ [olorogũ] ‘chief’

In the orthography of this language, the native speakers do not use just one symbol

for the one significant sound represented by [l] and [n], rather both are written.

However, the alveolar nasal is considered as the basic for the two reason below;

- It is more common to hear words with [n] than with [l], being that there exists

more words in this dialect with [n] which cannot be replaced with [l]. example

is as shown in data C below:

Data C:

nọ /nɔ/ [nɔ] ‘ask’

oni /oni/ [onĩ] ‘mother’

unu /unu/ [unũ] ‘mouth’

ọno /ɔno/ [ɔno] ‘who?’

ọnana /ɔnana/ [ɔnana] ‘this one’

A second reason for the realization of [n] as the basic phoneme is that, when loan

words which have the sound [l] enter into the language they are automatically

realized as [n]. See examples below

inọdoni [inɔdoni] ‘london’

inegọsi [inegɔsi] ‘lagos’

[14]

Page 15: Eng Asgnmnt for Seminar

Page

15

inaya [inaja] ‘lawyer’

5.1:2 Contrastive statement

The realization of voiceless stops in Urhobo is very different from that of

English, reason being that all consonant in this language except the glottal

fricative/h/ and the alveolar nasal /n/ has only one allophone each.

While English realizes five different allophones for their consonants, as explained

above in , allophonic varaiation in Urhobo is evident only in the articulation of

the voiced glottal fricative/h/ whose variant is [h] and [x] (voiceless velar

fricative).

5.2 ALLOPHONIC VARIANTS FOR LIQUIDS AND GLIDES IN

ENGLISH

The realization of the liquid /l/ is usually not identical and many speakers of

English are unaware that they routinely produce the different articulations. This

variation can be heard clearly when the words in the data below are pronounced in

slow and steady speech.

Data D: Set 1 Set 2

blue [blu] plaw [pƖaᴜ]

gleam [glim] clap [kƖӕp]

slip [slɪp] clear [kƖɪr]

flog [flɒg] play [pƖei]

leaf [lɪf] plea [pƖi:]

[Ɩ]= voiceless alveolar lateral

[l] =voiced alveolar lateral

[15]

Page 16: Eng Asgnmnt for Seminar

Page

16

These allophones never and do not contrast in English, in fact they do not have a

minimal pair such as [plei] and [pƖei] play, in which the phonetic difference

between /l/ and /Ɩ/ function to signal a difference in meaning.

A close examination of the distribution of the two laterals indicates that they both

vary symmetrically; all the [Ɩ]s occur after the class of voiceless stops while the

voiced [l] never occur after voiceless stops. Apparently it is a predictable property

of the phonology of English that voiceless laterals is found in the phonetic

environment coming after voiceless stops. Based on our explanations of sounds in

CD, We can thus agree that the two variants of /l/are in CD. The representation of

the relationship between the phoneme and its allophonic variant is shown below.

Phonemic rep. (phoneme) /l/

Phonetic rep.(allophones) [Ɩ] [l]after voiceless stop elsewhere

But there exist another variant of /l/ which many speakers of English use. This is

called the dark l [ɫ]. Its usage is as shown in the data below.

Data E: [phɪɫ] ‘pill’

[fɪɫ] ‘fill’

[bɒtɫ] ‘bottle’

[fᴜɫ] ‘full’

[bʌɫk] ‘bulk’

[hɛɫp] ‘help’

So we can attest to three variants of the phoneme /l/

So far it is obvious that the minimal pair test is a quick and direct way of

establishing that two or more sounds belong to separate phonemes in a language. If

the sounds contrast, they are allophones of different phoneme but if they do not

[16]

Page 17: Eng Asgnmnt for Seminar

Page

17

contrast they may be considerd as allophones of the same phoneme. I have used

the word ‘may’ because in some cases, certain pattern of distribution prevents

some sounds in a language from contrasting. For this reason Aronoff et al(2001)

opines that we can establish the phonemic status of a sound by default. Consider

the set of data below:

Data F:

[ηɒp] ‘does not exist’ [hɒp] ‘hop’

[ηeɪt] ‘does not exist’ [heɪt] ‘hate’

[lɒη] ‘long’ [lɒh] ‘does not exist’

[pɪη] ‘ping’ [pɪh] ‘does not exist’

[sɪη] ‘sing’ [sɪh] ‘does not exist

[kƖӕη] ‘clang’ [kƖӕh] ‘does not exist’

From data F above, it is obvious that the voiceless glottal fricative [h] and the

voiced velar nasal[η] do not contrast in both initial and final position. Reason being

that a minimal pair could not be found in English language. Thus the fact that [h]

and [η] are in CD does not imply that they are allophones of one phoneme. rather

since they are phonetically distinct, we assume that each one is a member of a

separate phoneme in this case the pattern of distribution is of secondary

importance. Note here also that minimal pair or near minimal pairs help us to

establish sounds in contrast, while phonetic similarities and CDs help us decided

which sounds are allophones of a particular phoneme, However some sound

alternation are in free variation and thus they are allophones of the same phoneme

since the variation does not lead to a change in meaning and they are phonetically

similar

One general statement that holds true for English language is that liquids and

glides have voiceless allophone occurring after voiceless stops, and voiced

[17]

Page 18: Eng Asgnmnt for Seminar

Page

18

allophones occurring elsewhere. The allophonic variation for the liquid [r]

(alveolar trill) is evident in the data G while that of glides are shown in data H

below.

Data G: Set 1 Set 2

Brew [bru:] prow [praᴜ]

green [gri:n] trip [trɪp]

grain [greɪn] crane [kreɪn]

drip [drɪp] creep [krɪp]

frog [frɒg] pray [preɪ]

shrimp [ʃrɪmp] tree [tri:]

Data H: glides /j/ and /w/ palatal and velar approximant.

Set 1 Set 2

view [vju:] cute [kju:t]

beauty [bju:ti] putrid [pju:trɪd]

swim [swɪm] twin [twɪn]

gwen [gwen] quick [kwɪk]

We can say liquids and glides are phonetically similar because they both belong to

the same phonetic class of non-nasal sonorant consonant.

5.2:1 ALLOPHONIC VARIANTS OF GLIDES IN URHOBO

The glides in this dialect /w/ (velar approximant), and /j/ (palatal approximant)

have two allophonic variants and they are non-syllabic. A representation of the

phoneme and their allophones is as shown below:

Phoneme /w/ /j/

[18]

Page 19: Eng Asgnmnt for Seminar

Page

19

Allophones [w] [w] [j] [j] Before nasal elsewhere before nasal elsewhere Vowels vowels

The distinction between the oral and nasal glide is indicated by the nasality of the

vowel in the adjacent segment. See examples below:

Data I orthography Phonemic Phonetic Gloss

Owo /owɔ/ [owɔ] ‘leg’

Uwen /uwen/ [uwẽ] ‘nose’

Uwodi /uwodi/ [uwodi] ‘prison’

Ewun /ewun/ [ewũ] ‘shirt’

wẹ /wɛ/ [wɛ] ‘you’

wẹn /wɛn/ [wɛ] ‘breath’

uyẹn /ujɛn/ [ujɛ] ‘fly’ (sng)

Ya /ja/ [ja] ‘hang clothes’

Yan /jan/ [jã] ‘walk’

Examples of vowels changing to a glide and assimilating the nasality feature of the

following nasal vowel.

Data J isuesu /iswesu/ [iswesu] ‘administration’

Suensun /swensun/ [swẽsũ] ‘elastic’ (verb)

Esio /esjo/ [esjo] ‘pulling’

ẹsiọn /ɛsjɔ/ [ɛsjɔ] ‘refusal’

ẹriọ /ɛrjɔ/ [ɛrjɔ] ‘eating’

utiẹn /utjɛ/ [utjɛ] ‘orange’

uvie /uvje/ [uvje] ‘kingdom’

ovien /ɔvjɛn/ [ɔvjɛ] ‘servant’

[19]

Page 20: Eng Asgnmnt for Seminar

Page

20

The above nasalized glides are certainly positionally determined allophone of the

phonemes /j/ and /w/. Their nasalisation is non- distinctive.

5.2:2 Contrastive statement

English liquids (/l/, /r/) and glides (/j/, /w/ ) have two allophones each. They

are voiced and voiceless allophones respectively as illustrated above. But in

Urhobo the liquids are phonemes on their own right with no alternative

articulation. So /l/ is realized as [l] voiced alveolar lateral, and /r/ is realized as [r]

voiced alveolar trill.

Unlike liquids, glides (/j/, /w/) in Urhobo have two variants (i.e allophones) they

are [j] - nasal glide which occur adjacent to a nasal segment, and [j] - oral glide

which occurs elsewhere.

5.3 ALLOPHONIC VARIATION OF ENGLISH VOWEL SEGMENTS

In English, the effect of nasalization on vowels are treated as allophonic variations.

This is because the nasalized version is usually not meaningfully contrastive. See

examples below.

Data K: ‘seed’ [sɪd]

‘seen’ [sĩn]

‘soot’ [sᴜt]

‘soon’ [sũn]

In data K above, the effect of the alveolar nasal [n] makes the [ɪ] to be nasalized.

So there are at least two phones [ɪ] and [ĩ] oral and nasal vowel respectively used

in English language to realize the single phoneme /ɪ/ as shown in the schema

below. The situation is the same for all other existing vowel in English. If they

occur before a nasal consonant, they assimilate the nasality feature and become

nasalized thereby leading to a variation from the basic oral vowel.

Phonemic rep.(basic) /ɪ/

[20]

Page 21: Eng Asgnmnt for Seminar

Page

21

Phonetic rep (allophones) [ĩ] [ɪ] Before nasal consonant elsewhere

But this is not the case in Urhobo dialect which operates just like french in this

regard.

Data L mets [mɛ] ‘dish’

main [mɛ] ‘hand’

seau [so] ‘pail’

son [sõ] ‘sound’

Distinction between the nasal and oral vowel is phonemic in french just as we have

in Urhobo.

5.3:1 Allophonic vowel segments in Urhobo.

Urhobo has oral vowels as well as their nasal counterpart . Observation shows that

It is a usual phenomenon in this dialect for nasal vowel to occur near nasal

consonants precisely speaking ‘vowels preceeding the alveolar nasal /n/ are

predictably nasalized as evident in the data from Urhobo below.

Data M: Set 1 Set 2

Fa [fa] ‘flog’ fan [fã] ‘loosen free’

Se [se] ‘call’ sen [sẽ] ‘refuse’ deny’

Erhi [eri] ‘spirit’ erin [erĩ] ‘fish’

Su [su] ‘lead, rule’ fun [fũ] ‘extinguish’

Obviously allophonic nasalization is significant in Urhobo and this is because

minimal/near minimal pairs can be established.

The distinction between the oral and nasal vowel in this language is purely

phonemic because they give rise to a contrast in the meaning of words

A general hypothesis covering this distribution can thus be; ‘All oral and

nasal vowels have only one allophone each.’ As shown below:

[21]

Page 22: Eng Asgnmnt for Seminar

Page

22

Phonemic rep /i/ /e/ /ɛ/ /a/ /o/ /ɔ/ /u/

Phonetic rep [i] [e] [ɛ] [a] [o] [ɔ] [u]

Nasal vowels

Phonemic rep /ĩ/ /ẽ/ /ɛ/ /ã/ /õ/ /ɔ/ /ũ/

Phonetic rep [ĩ] [ẽ] [ɛ] [ã] [õ] [ɔ] [ũ]

The allophonic distribution of nasal vowels can be generally stated by

referring to syllable structure of the language while distribution of oral vowels by

referring to the sub syllabic units which is the onset. i.e: ‘In Urhobo, vowels are

nasalized in syllable final position.’ This statement accounts for the words in Set

2 (data M) above.

5.3:2 Contrastive statement

Nasalization of vowel segments in English is not significant (allophonic) while that

of Urhobo is phonemic, reason being that if you substitute the oral vowel in

Urhobo with their nasal counterpart, it leads to a change in meaning of words as

illustrated in the analysis above.

Whereas the nasality of English vowels is purely phonetically conditioned thus it

does not lead to a change in meaning.

[22]

Page 23: Eng Asgnmnt for Seminar

Page

23

6.0 HEIRACHY OF PROBLEM

Regardless of the fact that everyday speech contains a great deal of allophonic

variation, speakers pay little or no attention it. When this is not detected early and

diagnosed, it may lead to unintelligibility and most probably the loss of the unique

structure of a given language. Although allophonic variation is a universal

phenomenon, the actual patterning of phonemes and allophones are definitely not,

rather they are language-specific. This might pose a problem for the learner.

Hence learners of a language (say language B) should not overgeneralise the rule

of his L1 in order to aid competence in the new language. This work therefore will

aid pattern preservation of our sound segment.

Allophonic variation is conditioned not just by neighboring segments but

also by the syllable structure thus a clear cut distinction of the syllables shapes

governed by universal and language specific constraint should be attained so as to

be able to establish the existence of segmental unit.

6.1 Scope and limitation of the study

The scope of this work borders around the concise nature of data

presentation and analysis. Conscious effort was made to avoid redundancy while

dealing with the sound segments, thus only a selected few that exist in both

languages were described. However, emphasis was laid on all of them covertly

with the use of generalized statement. The fact that this seminar paper is of a

limited scope also imposed a limitation on the study. For instance: the

24consonants in English and 28 consonant segments in Urhobo were not analyzed

individually. Rather I grouped them into natural classes and made a generalization

[23]

Page 24: Eng Asgnmnt for Seminar

Page

24

for the natural class. Although it has not been easy to gather the much data I

wanted to because research work such as these poses logistical problems, but as a

researcher I attempted the much I could.

7.0 CONCLUSION

We have seen that language tends to explore the same basic phonetic

parameters in building their phonological system, hence the findings in this work

demonstrates to us that the condition for realizing the various allophone of a

phoneme is the same cross-linguistically. Analysis of allophonic variant is more

concrete when we consider the phonetic condition in which they occur as well as

their distribution..

[24]

Page 25: Eng Asgnmnt for Seminar

Page

25

REFERENCE

Aronoff , William , Archibald and Rey-Miller (2001). “Contemporary linguistics”

4th ed. Bedford / St Martin

Bauer Lourie (2002).“An Introduction to the international Varieties of English”

Edinburgh University Press.

Aziza, R. O. (1994)."Vowel harmony in Urhobo" Nigerian Language Studies2:1-7.

Aziza,R. O. (2008). “Neutralisation of Contrast in Urhobo”. Studies in African

Linguistics Vol 37, No 1.

Bernard Bloch (1941). “Phonemic Overlapping.” Journal of American Speech Vol

16, pg 78-84.

Daniel Jones (2003). “English Pronouncing Dictionary”. Cambridge University

Press.

Elugbe B. O. (1991). “The Limits of Accuracy in the Designs of Orthographies.”

Journal of West Africa Languages XX1, 1

[25]

Page 26: Eng Asgnmnt for Seminar

Page

26

Hadmumod, Bussman, (1996) “Routledge Dictionary of language and linguistics.”

Routledge London and New york

Kelly, John (1969). "Vowel patterns in the Urhobo noun". Journal o.f West African

Languages 6.1: 21-26.

Ladefoged Peter, (1993) “A Course in Phonetics” 3rd ed. Harcourt Brace

Jovanovich Inc. USA.

Mowarin, Macaulay (2004) “Language Endangerment in Urhobo Land.” Paper

Presented at the Fifth Annual Conference of Urhobo Historical

Society.

Osubele A. E. (2001) “A Dictionary of Urhobo Language” . Dove Publishers.

Pike K. L. (1947) “Grammatical Prerequisite to Phonemic analysis”. Pgs 155-172

Yule, George. (1996) “The Study of Language.” Cambridge University Press.

[26]