Open Journal of Modern Linguistics
2013. Vol.3, No.1, 1-8
Published Online March 2013 in SciRes (http://www.scirp.org/journal/ojml) http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ojml.2013.31001
Copyright © 2013 SciRes. 1
Negation in Sixteen Yorùbá Dialects
Felix Abídèmí Fábùnmi
Department of Linguistics and African Languages,
Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife, Nigeria
Email: fabunmibm@yahoo.com, fafabunmi@oauife.edu.ng
Received July 24th, 2012; revised December 13th, 2012; accepted December 20th, 2012
This paper examines the various morpho-syntactic distributions of negation in sixteen Yorùbá dialects and
comes up with some interesting questions, observations and claims. Negation is contextualised in the dia-
lects; it is marked by different elements within the word and within the sentence. Some of the NEG for-
matives examined are used to negate the indicative expressions, others are used in the imperative mood
while some others are mainly used to negate the focus marker. Nearly all the NEG Morphemes examined
precede the verb except /
̩ [+NEG] which may be used at the end of the VP. This work believes that
within the scope of àì [+NEG], it is not a complex negative morpheme; the low-toned “à” is regarded as
the negator in the syntax of Yorùbá negation. Following Ouhalla (1999), this work takes the NEG to be-
long to a category known as the Negative Phrase. It functions as a syntactic Head which projects into a
NegP. Here, NEG is taken as an independent category which projects its own X-bar structure NegP; it in-
habits a borderline between functional and lexical projections. We observe that the differences between
the morphemes of negation in these sixteen Yorùbá dialects are of linguistic change. We also realise in
this work that in as much as morphemes of negation in Yorùbá dialects commute with the aspecto-modal
marker of negative polarity, they can be placed in the position of the functional category Asp. In essence,
negation in the sixteen Yorùbá dialects commutes with the tense/aspecto-modal nuances. The various
NEG morphemes of the Yorùbá dialects discussed in this paper have shown that the verbo-aspectual
negative polarity subsumes very much as a strong feature.
Keywords: Negation; Yorùbá; Dialect; NegPhrase; Negative Polarity; Functional Category
Introduction
“It is a well established fact that linguistic innovations, and
linguistic forms generally, are diffused geographically from one
area to another… Geographical diffusions models have been
constructed which are able to make reasonably accurate predic-
tions about the geographical routes to be followed by linguistic
innovation.” (Trudgill, 1986: p. 39) This is the reason why dia-
lectologists in many linguistic situations describe “various
forms within the same language” (Petyt, 1980: p. 16). In essence,
these are different forms of the same language; they reflect
some of the changes that have taken place in the language. It is
therefore possible to distinguish a virtually vast number of “dif-
ferent forms” of a language like Yorùbá which has experienced
some historical changes. A comparative study of the linguistic
features of many Yorùbá “different forms” (dialects), about
sixteen of them examined in this paper, will help us determine
such changes either from analytical or synthetic perspectives.
Consequently, we shall look at the various morphophonological
and syntactic realisations of the negative markers of fifteen
Yorùbá dialects and compare them with the so-called Standard
Yorùbá which we, following Capo (1989), regard as a lect.
The Dialects of the Yorùbá Language
Any language like Yorùbá spoken by more than a handful of
people exhibits the tendency to split into dialects which may
differ from one another. Majority of the speakers of the lan-
guage reside in the South-western part of Nigeria but aside
from Nigeria, the language is also spoken in countries like Re-
public of Bénin, Togo, Ghana, Cote D’ivoire, Sudan and Si-
erra-Leone. Outside Africa, a great number of speakers of the
language are in Brazil, Cuba, Haiti, Caribbean Islands, Trinidad
and Tobago, UK and America (Abimbola, 1978: p. 2; Hunt,
1977: pp. 17, 51; Lasebikan, 1963: p. 352; Turner, 1958: p. 45;
Walkins, 1972: p. 380). One variety of Yorùbá, the Ò
̩
̩ dialect,
has been in use for literary purposes since 1843. It has been the
obvious choice for standardization because it serves as inter-
dialectal communication. Yorùbá language is a dialect continu-
um; we regard the so-called Standard Yorùbá (SY) as a part of
the Yorùbá, it is not the Yorùbá language. The Yorùbá dialects
groupings include the following: Northwest Yorùbá (NWY),
Southeast Yorùbá (SEY), Central Yorùbá (CY), Northeast
Yorùbá (NEY) and Southwest Yorùbá (SWY). Among them
are Àwórì, Èkìtì, Ifè
̩ (Nigeria), Ifè
̩ (Togo), Ìjès
̩̩ à, Ìjùmú, Ìlàje
̩,
Ìyàgbà, Kétu-Mò
̩
̩lí, Oǹdó, Òǹkò, Owé, Ò
̩
̩
̩, Ò
̩
̩-Ìbàdàn
and Sábèé
̩̩ . We shall examine how negation is realised in the
above-mentioned fifteen Yorùbá dialects, the Neg segment
structures in these dialects, the tonal morphemes that are used
to indicate Neg, evidence of double negation or otherwise, the
prosodic features that mark negation in these dialects, the exis-
tence of a functional head Neg in Yorùbá dialects and the
analysis of the different syntactic and morphological occur-
rences of Neg in these Yorùbá dialects. Others Yorùbá dialects
not mentioned above include Èkó, È
̩gbádò, Òs
̩̩ un, Ìbò
̩
̩, Ìg-
bómìnà, Mò
̩bà, È
̩gbá, Ìjè
̩bú, Ìkálè
̩, Ò
̩
̩, Ò
̩bà-Ìkàré
̩, Kákáǹdá,
È
̩gbè
̩, Ò
̩
̩rí, Ìdáìsà, Mànígìrì, Ìfò
̩hìn and the Àkókóid group
which comprises Ìfira (Ìpèsì, Ìkàré
̩, Ìrùn, Ò
̩kà, Ìbòròpa, Súpárè,
Àkùngbá and Ò
̩gbàgì), È
̩pìnmì (Ìpè, Ìyàyú ànd Ìs
̩ùà), Ìkákùmò
̩
(Ìkàní, Àúga and Isè
̩̩ ), Àkùnù (Àkpè, Ìkaràm, Ìbaràm, Ìyànì,
F. A. FÁBÙNMI
Gédégédé and Àjo
̩wá) and Arigidi (Oyín, Urò, Ìgásí, Erús
̩ú and
Òkè-àgbè).
The Neg Projection
Negation is contextualised in Yorùbá dialects, and it is both
syntactic and lexical. We take Neg in Yorùbá dialects to head
an independent projection. Following Ouhalla (1999: pp. 389-
391) Neg belongs to a category known as the Negative Phrase.
It functions as a syntactic Head which projects into a NegP. The
theoretical ground used in this analysis is Transformational
Generative Grammar of the Minimalist Program (Chomsky,
1995; Ouhalla, 1999). Here, Neg is taken as an independent
category which projects its own X-bar structure NegP; it inhab-
its a borderline between functional and lexical projections.
According to Déchaine (1995: p. 135), Neg is “a quasi-func-
tional head”. In Yorùbá dialects therefore, Neg has the status of
a VP adjunct and can be generated in tense. We do not agree
that Yorùbá is a tenseless language; tense is a universal cate-
gory. In Yoruba language, although the problem of morphemic
seg- mentation is raised if the verbs assume the form that indi-
cates time morphologically, but it is however discovered that
tense could be grammatically expressed in the language by the
use of temporal adverbials that locate situations in time (see
Fábùnmi, 1998, 2001, 2006, 2007). The idea that all languages
with no morphological indication of the opposition present-past
are tenseless will always to be difficult to accept. So, the
Yorùbá Neg quasi-functional head-hood is schematised in 1).
The Morpho-Phonological and Syntactic
Distributions of Negation in Yorùbá Dialects
There are several syntactic realisations of negation in nearly
all the dialectal varieties of the Yorùbá language. Aside from
the Standard Yorùbá, we shall use fifteen of such Yorùbá dia-
lects as analytical models; they are Àwórì, Èkìtì, Ifè
̩ (Nigeria),
Ifè
̩ (Togo), Ìjès
̩̩ à, Ìjè
̩bú, Ìkálè
̩, Ìlàje
̩, Mò
̩
̩lí, Oǹdó, Òǹkò, Owé,
Ò
̩
̩
̩, Ò
̩
̩-Ìbàdàn and Sábèé
̩̩ .
Negation in Standard Yorùbá
The following formatives in (2) which are exemplified (3) are recognised by Yorùbá language scholars like Bamgbose (1967, 1990);
Ogunbowale (1970); Banjo (1974); Oke
̩̩ (1982); Awobuluyi (1978, 2008) and Adewo
̩le (1999) as negative markers in Standard Yorùbá.
2) i) kò/ò ii) kì í iii) kó
̩ iv) má/máà v) mó
̩ vi) yé
3) i) Àjo
̩-olùgbé
̩
̩ náà kò kò lónìí
Tribunal the NEG meet today
“The tribunal didn’t meet today.”
ii) Wo
̩n kì í s
̩e O
̩
̩run
3P NEG are God
“They are not God.”
iii) O
̩ba kó
̩ ni ó pàse
̩̩ yìí
King NEG FOC he give-order this
“It was not the king who gave this order.”
iv) Má/máà sò
̩
̩ kankan
NEG say-word any
“Don’t say anything.”
v) Mó
̩
̩
̩ kankan
NEG say-word any
“Don’t say anything.”
vi) Yé sò
̩
̩
NEG say-word any
“Don’t say anything.”
vii) E
̩ kò lo
̩
2P NEG go
“You (p) didn’t go.”
viii) E
̩ ò lo
̩
2P NEG go
“You (p) didn’t go.”
ix) E
̩ è
̩ lo
̩
2P NEG go
“You (p) didn’t go.”
x) Ó lè má je
̩un
3S can NEG eat
“S/he may fail to go.”
xi) A kì í rayì
1P NEG buy-honour
“Honour can’t be bought.”
xii) A ì í rayì
1P NEG buy-honour
“Honour can’t be bought.”
The Neg morphemes in (3i & ii) are the sentence negators, the one in (3iii) is the negator of the NP, while those in (3iv, v & vi) are
simple imperative negators. In (3vii, viii & ix) and (3xi & xii), the consonants of (NEG) and í (NEG) are deleted and the
stranded vowel are assimilated to the preceding consonants. This is not so for the consonants of the Neg morphemes in (3iv, v & vi).
The NEG in (3x) negates part of the predicate that follows it in the sentence. The negative marker in (2i) above belongs to the
class of “irrealis auxes and is in Tense,” while that of (2iv) is “adjoined immediately to the VP” (see Dechaine, 1995: p. 143).
Negation in Yorùbá Àwórì
In Àwórì dialect of Yorùbá, the morphemes of negation are /ò/,
̩, íìí, ò , méè, èé, èyìò; they are shown in the sentences in
(4i-vii) below.
Copyright © 2013 SciRes.
2
F. A. FÁBÙNMI
4) i) Olú ò
̩ je
̩ ère
̩̩ = (SY: Olú kò je
̩ e
̩ja).
Olu NEG eat fish
“Olú did not eat fish.”
ii) Olú kó
̩ nì lo
̩ = (SY: Olú kó
̩ ni ó lo
̩).
Olú NEG FOC go
“It wasn’t Olú that went (there).”
iii) íìí s
̩òwu/kò mí s
̩òwu = (SY: Kì í s
̩e òun).
NEG it 3S/NEG ASP it 3S
“It is not him/her.”
iv) Wùn ò s
̩ìì lo
̩ = (SY: Wo
̩n ò tíì lo
̩)
3P NEG PERF-NEG go
“They haven’t gone.”
v) Méè sì lo
̩ = (SY: N kò tíì lo
̩)
NEG yet go
“I have not gone.”
vi) Éè ra e
̩já mé
̩ta = (SY: Kò ra ajá mé
̩ta).
pro NEG buy fish three
“S/he did not buy three fishes.”
vii) Èyìò je
̩wun kò dára = (àìje
̩un wo
̩n kò dára)
Nom-NEG-eat 3P NEG good
“The fact that they did not eat is not good.”
The syntax of negation in Yorùbá Àwórì is more or less the
same as that of the standard Yorùbá. In (4i, iv & vii), the con-
sonants of the NEG morphemes are also deleted and the
stranded vowels assimilated to the last vowel of the preceding
itmes. In the other examples, we an establish cases where the
morphemes of negation occur at the preverbal position whereas
cases of the postverbal positions are very rare. We also observe
that negation in Yorùbá Àwórì does not take the form of a tonal
morpheme despite the use of formatives like méè and éè (the
putative negator).
Negation in Yorùbá Èkìtì
In Yorùbá Èkìtì, the morphemes of negation are , i, /ì,
móò/móò
̩̩. These NEG morphemes are exemplified the follow-
ing Yorùbá Èkìtì utterances.
5) i) Sànyà á sùn = (SY: Olú kò sùn).
Sànyà NEG sleep
“Sànyà did not sleep.”
ii) Olú ú je
̩un = (SY: Olú kò je
̩un).
Olú NEG eat
“Olú did not eat.”
iii) Olé i sùn = (SY: Olè kì í sùn)
Thief NEG sleep
“Thieves don’t sleep.”
iv) Ayó
̩ i je
̩un = (SY: Ayò
̩ kì í je
̩un)
Ayò
̩ NEG eat
“Ayò
̩ does not eat (the food).”
v) Ká sè é kì Iso
̩lá rì á = (SY: Èés
̩e tí So
̩̩ lá kò fi wá).
Why is it that Sola NEG come
“Why is it that So
̩̩ lá did not turn up?”
vi) A rì lo
̩ = (SY: Àì lo
̩)
prefix NEG go
“Failure to go.”
vii) Móò gbe = (SY: Má gbé e).
NEG carry
“Don’t carry it.”
viii) Móò
̩̩ jà = (SY: Má jà)
NEG fight
“Don’t fight.”
In utterances in (5i & ii), we notice that Èkìtì dialect obliga-
torily deletes the consonant of the NEG, and there is a tonal
change in the last syllable of the subject NP. This is a high tone
syllable (HTS) which always occurs before the NEG. In (5iii
& iv) above, it is shown that the formative i is the NEG mor-
pheme not ei. The form ei is a combination of the HTS and the
negator i, the vowel of the HTS will be deleted, its stranded
tone will then be transferred to the last syllable of the subject.
In Yorùbá Èkìtì therefore, the HTS will always co-occur with
the negators. In (5v & vi), the ri/i NEG form negates the verb
phrase; it is also used to negate the nominalised VP. From those
utterances in (5v-vi), we notice that the ari NEG form is not a
single morpheme; likewise the negativising prefix ai cannot be
a single morpheme. Following Awobuluyi’s (2005) assertion, it
is nominalising prefix à, followed by the ì negator. In (5vii &
viii) above, móò/mó
̩ò
̩ is used to negate imperatives. The two
are variants.
Negation in Yorùbá Ifè
̩ (Nigeria)
In Ifè
̩ (Nigeria), the form of the sentence negation is struc-
turally determined by the tone(s) preceding the negator. The
preceding words affect the tones in Ifè
̩ (Nigeria) negative
markers; this is shown in (6i & ii). The dialect does not use
either NEG or í NEG forms for its sentence negation; this
is exemplified in (6iii & iv). Yorùbá Ifè
̩ (Nigeria) also uses a
lengthened
̩ NEG to negate the imperative and part of the
predicate phrase following the negator in a sentence; this is
shown in (6v & vi).
6. i) O
̩
̩
̩̩ gbe
̩ = (SY: O
̩
̩ kò gbe
̩)
Stew NEG dry
“The stew did not dry up.”
iii) Olú ù lo
̩ = (SY: Olú kò lo
̩)
Olú NEG go
“Olú didn’t go.”
v) Móò
̩̩ lo
̩ = (SY: Má
̩/mó
̩ lo
̩)
NEG go
“Don’t go.”
ii) Ata à pó
̩n = (SY: Ata kò pó
̩n)
Pepper NEG ripe
“The pepper is not ripe.”
iv) Èmi ì í ri = (SY: Èmi kì í rí i)
I NEG see him
“I don’t usually see him.”
vi) Ó lè moò
̩̩ je
̩un = (SY: Ó lè má/mó
̩ je
̩un)
He might NEG eat
“He might not eat.”
Copyright © 2013 SciRes. 3
F. A. FÁBÙNMI
7) i) *É
̩ kò lo
̩ = (SY: *Ó kò lo
̩)
He NEG go
“He didn’t go.”
ii) *É
̩ ò lo
̩ = (SY: *Ó ò lo
̩)
He NEG go
“He didn’t go.”
iii) É
̩ è
̩ lo
̩ = (SY: Kò lo
̩)
He NEG go
“He didn’t go.”
We notice that the rule which postulates the optional deletion
of the initial segment of a grammatical formative that follows
one formative and precedes another item is obligatory in
Yorùbá Ifè
̩ (Nigeria). Such rule is optional in the standard
Yorùbá. This accounts for the negation of the third person sin-
gular pronoun shown in (7) above.
Negation in Yorùbá Ifè
̩ (Togo)
Negation in Yorùbá Ifè
̩ (Togo) is expressed by , , ō
̩̩
and àrì (à-/ì) as displayed in (8) below.
8) i) Èsérè ère
̩̩ n kò sàn = (SY: Èrò re
̩ kò dára)
Thought 2s NEG good
“Your thinking is not good.”
ii) Múfú kò kóyán àà lo
̩ = (SY: Múfú kò gbo
̩
̩ tíì lo
̩)
Múfú NEG OBL PERF go
“Múfú ought not to have gone.”
iii) Kò tsàwa ni = (SY: Àwa kó
̩)
NEG is-3p is
“It is not us.”
iv) Kò tsèwé ère
̩̩ n = (SY: Ìwé re
̩
̩)
NEG is-book 2s
“It is not your book.”
v) Igidan kà je
̩
̩n = (SY: Omo
̩̩ bìnrin kì í je
̩un)
Damsel NEG eat-food
“The damsel doesn’t eat.”
vi) Olú kà ko
̩in = (SY: O
̩ba kì í ko
̩rin)
King NEG sing-song
“The king does not sing songs.”
vii) Móo
̩̩ je
̩
̩n = (SY: Má je
̩ oúnje
̩)
NEG eat-food “Do not eat food.”
viii) Alápá-móo
̩̩ -tsitsé
̩ móo
̩̩ lo
̩ o = (SY: Alápá-má-sisé
̩̩̩ má lo
̩ o)
Lazy-man NEG go
“Lazy man, do not go.”
ix) Àrìgbó
̩n èghe
̩̩ n èrè
̩n méjì ni = (SY: Àìgbó
̩n è
̩yin méjéèjì ni)
Prefix-NEG-wise 3p 2s two is
“The failure-to-be-wise by the two of you is responsible.”
x) Àrìje
̩
̩n abesìn kà sàn = (SY: Àìje
̩un aboyún kì í dára)
Prefix-NEG-eat pregnant-woman NEG good
“Failure-to-eat by a pregnant woman is dangerous.”
The negative markers in Ifè
̩ (Togo) differ from those of Ifè
̩
(Nigeria) but the differences are of linguistic change. Changes
that have taken place in Ifè
̩ (Togo) have not taken place in Ifè
̩
(Nigeria). Ifè
̩ (Togo) does not use í NEG as a sentence nega-
tor, it has replaced it with which has been completely
dropped from Ifè
̩ (Nigeria) negation morphemes. This is exem-
plified in (8v & vi) above. Móo
̩̩ is used to negate the impera-
tives in Ifè
̩ (Togo), it is also used to negate part of the predicate
phrase that follow it in a sentence. This is shown in (8vii & viii)
above. In (8ix & x), àrì NEG form is analysed as two different
morphemes: à NEG is a nominalising prefix while /ì NEG is
the negator. In (8iii & iv) above, we notice that Ifè
̩ (Togo) does
not use kó
̩ as the negator of the NP whereas this is a very
common negation structure of the Standard Yorùbá. Instead of
using
̩ to negate the NP, speakers of Ifè
̩ (Togo) dialect of
Yorùbá will change the entire sentence structure and introduce
a sort of discontinuous negative morpheme surrounding the
verb tse.
Negation in Yorùbá Ijès
̩̩ à
The various morphemes of negation in Ìjès
̩̩ à are dissimilar
from those of the Standard Yorùbá already shown in (2) above
but repeated as (9) below. The structure of negation in Ìjès
̩̩ à
does not make use of any of the forms in (9) as shown in (10)
where we have éè, éè
̩̩ [+NEG] and the lengthening of the last
segment of NP which usually carries a low tone.
9) i) kò/ò ii) kì í iii) kó
̩
iv) má/máà (v) mó
̩ (vi) yé.
10) i) Mé éè yé fò = (SY: Èmi kò lè fò)
1s NEG POT jump
“I cannot jump.”
ii) Éè
̩̩ gbóò
̩̩
̩
̩
̩ á = (SY: Kò gbó
̩
̩ má bè
̩ wá)
NEG OBL NEG beg us
“He must but beg us.”
iii) Péjú ù níí pàtéó
̩̩ = (SY: Péjú kò níí pàté
̩
̩)
Péjú NEG ASS clap
“Péjú will not clap.”
We notice from the NEG morphemes in (9) and (10) that
where the low tone unrounded back vowel /è/ functions as the
sentence negator in Ìjès
̩̩ à, the Standard Yorùbá uses . The
negator in (10i) is therefore derived from the structure in (11)
through the process of assimilation of the NEG form to the
vowel of the preceding NP.
11) Mo è yé fò Mí è yé fò Mé è yé fò = (SY: N kò lè fò)
I NEG POT jump
“I cannot jump.”
The phonological processes that derived the negation in 10ii)
above is quite complex. The underlying NEG stem of the deri-
vation is /
̩. There is a rule which obligatorily deletes the
third person singular pronoun before / NEG in the Standard
Yorùbá; this is shown in (12). Such deletion rule is not obliga-
tory in Ìjès
̩̩ à dialect; this is shown in (13).
12) Ó kò lo
̩ kò lo
̩ Kò lo
̩
NEG go
“H/she did not go.”
13) *Ó kè gbóò
̩̩
̩ rí béè
̩̩ = (*SY: Ó kò gbo
̩
̩ rí béè
̩̩ ) (It must not be so).
The consonant of the NEG morpheme in (13) is then deleted
to realise (14) where the stranded vowel of the NEG is assimi-
lated regressively to construct (15).
14) *Ó è gbóò
̩̩
̩ rí béè
̩̩ = (*SY: Ó ò gbo
̩
̩ rí béè
̩̩ ) (It must not be so).
15) *É è gbóò
̩̩
̩ rí béè
̩̩ = (*SY: Ó è gbo
̩
̩ rí béè
̩̩ ) (It must not be so).
However, the vowel co-occurrence rule must apply to (15) be
able to form (16) which again is a reflection of another regres-
sive assimilation rule, and to finally produce a grammatically
accepted sentence shown in (17). (17) permits an Ìjès
̩̩ à speaker
Copyright © 2013 SciRes.
4
F. A. FÁBÙNMI
to express his/her thoughts within the bounds of the dialect
grammar.
16) *É è
̩ gbóò
̩̩
̩ rí béè
̩̩ = (SY: Ó è
̩ gbo
̩
̩ rí béè
̩̩ ) (It must not be so).
17) É
̩ è
̩ gbóò
̩̩
̩ rí béè
̩̩
It NEG OBL be so
“It must not be so.”
It should be noted that all the expressions in (13-16) above
are ungrammatical in Ìjèsà
̩̩̩ ; their grammaticality strictly fea-
tures within the analytical condign of those highlighted phono-
logical rules.
In 10iii) above repeated as (18) below, we notice that when-
ever a negative marker follows a noun as the subject of the NP
(Péjú), such item is lengthened on a low tone; in essence the
negation takes the form of a tonal morpheme marked by the Low
tone on the aspecto-temporal morpheme níí [+ASSUMPTIVE].
18) Péjú ù níí pàtéó
̩̩ = (SY: Péjú kò níí pàté
̩
̩)
Péjú NEG ASS clap
“Péjú will not clap.”
Negation in Yorùbá Ijè
̩
Negation in Ìjè
̩bú dialect of Yorùbá is expressed by none of
the morphemes of negation shown in (9) above, it is rather ex-
pressed by the forms shown in (19) below and exemplified in
(20).
19) i) ǹḿ ii) éèés
̩e
iii) mée
̩̩
̩ iv) The tone(s) preceding the negator.
20) i) Wó
̩n ǹḿ
̩n nóru = (SY: Wo
̩n kì í rìn lóru)
3p NEG walk at-night
“They don’t go out in the night.”
ii) Éèés
̩e èwe
̩̩ n rè é yún-ún = (SY: È
̩yin kó
̩ ni e
̩ lo
̩/Kì í s
̩e è
̩yin ni e
̩ lo
̩)
NEG 2p is there go
“You are not the ones that went there.”
iii) Wòó
̩̩ n ò
̩n níí sù = (SY: Wo
̩n ò níí sùn).
3p NEG FUT sleep
“They will not sleep.”
iv) a) Olú ù wàá = (SY: Olú kò wá).
N NEG come
“Olú did not come.”
b) Ayò
̩ òó
̩̩ mu e
̩mu yó = (Ayò
̩ kò mu e
̩mu yó).
N NEG drink palm-wine full
“Ayò
̩ did not drink excessive palm-wine.”
In (20i & ii), the Ìjè
̩bú dialect of Yorùbá does not use í
NEG as a sentence negator, it usually replaces it with ǹḿ and
éèés
̩e. ǹḿ always occurs in Ìjè
̩bú interrogative sentences, this is
witnessed in (21). ǹḿ and éèés
̩e seem to have long been drop-
ped the Standard Yorùbá negative morphemes.
21) Ǹ
̩
̩n ǹḿ s
̩e wàá = (SY: Ǹ
̩
̩n kì í s
̩e béè
̩̩ ?)
WH 3p NEG do like-that
“Didn’t they always behave likewise?”
(20iii) represents the phrasal negative markers and it variants
in Ìjè
̩bú. Here, the consonant of (NEG) is deleted and the
stranded vowel is assimilated to the preceding consonant to
give the structure in (22). It is the negation of the future tense in
Yorùbá Ìjè
̩bú.
22) a) Wòó
̩̩ n kò níí sù = (SY: Wo
̩n ò níí sùn).
b) Wòó
̩̩ n ò níí sù = (SY: Wo
̩n ò níí sùn).
c) Wòó
̩̩ n ò
̩n níí sù = (SY: Wo
̩n ò níí sùn).
3p NEG FUT sleep
“They will not sleep.”
The sentences in (20iva & b) confirm our observation that
Ijè
̩bú never uses for its sentence negation. The NEG in (20iv)
is derived from the same NEG in (3i) above (and in other struc-
tures like (23) below) through the deletion of the consonant of
the NEG and the assimilation of the stranded vowel to the
vowel of the preceding NP.
23) a) Olú kò wá
N NEG come
“Olú did not come.”
b) Ayò
̩ kò mu e
̩mu yó
N NEG drink palm-wine full
“Ayò
̩ did not drink excessive palm-wine.”
Just as we have already noted for the negative tone structures
in the Yorùbá Ifè
̩ (Nigeria), it is the preceding words that affect
the tones of Ìjè
̩bú negative markers as demonstrated in sen-
tences (20iva & b) above.
Negation in Yorùbá Ikálè
̩
Negation in Ìkálè
̩ is expressed by a double negation: leèmáà
as shown in (24b), (25b). The negative markers can also take
the forms shown in (26) and (27) below.
24) a) Olú lè lo
̩ = (SY: Olú lè lo
̩)
N POT go
“Olú can go.”
b) Oléè leè máà lo
̩ = (SY: Olú lè má lo
̩)
N-NEG POT NEG go
“Olú can decide not to go.”
25) a) Adé éè wúlí = (SY: Adé kò wale)
N NEG come-home
“Adé did not come home.”
b) Adéè leè máà wúlí = (SY: Adé lè má wá ilé)
N POT NEG come-home
“Adé can deicde not to come home.”
26) a) àìhùn = (SY: àìsùn) b) àìje
̩un = (SY: àìje
̩un)
c)àìpa = (SY: àìpa) d) àìrí = (SY: àìrí)
27) a) Olú éè lo
̩ hí o
̩jà = (SY: Olú kò lo
̩ sí o
̩jà)
N NEG go to market
“Olú did not go to the market.”
b) Éè s
̩e fífò
̩ Ìyábò
̩
̩
̩ múè
̩n = (SY: Kì í s
̩e síso
̩ ni Ìyábò
̩ so
̩ ò
̩
̩ mìíràn)
NEG do act-talk N talk other
“Ìyábò
̩ did not just do all the talking.”
c) Kí i yi wéè fé
̩ o? = (SY: Èwo le
̩ ò fé
̩ o?)
WH do 2p one-NEG want
“Which one you do not want?”
We see in (24 & 25) above that the first element of nega-
tion—leè [POT]—also occur for the negative perfective in both
(a & b). This probably accounts for aspectual contrasts in the
dialect. Both the Standard Yorùbá and the Ìje
̩bu dialect have the
same negativising prefix àì. We agree with Awobuluyi (2005)
that àì is not a single morpheme, à is a nominalising prefix
Copyright © 2013 SciRes. 5
F. A. FÁBÙNMI
while ì serves as the negator.
Negation in Yorùbá Ìlàje
̩
In Ìlàje
̩, the morpheme of negation for sentence and NPs is éè
as shown in (28) below. It usually appears as a NEG feature at
the end of the sentence, just before the object. It usually main-
tains its form if preceded by pronouns but has variations in
forms depending on the assimilated stranded vowels.
28) a) Méè lo
̩ = (SY: N ò lo
̩)
1s-NEG go
“I did not go.”
b) Áà lo
̩ = (SY: A kò lo
̩)
1p-NEG go
“We did not go.”
c) Án-àn lo
̩ = (SY: Wo
̩n kò lo
̩)
3p-NEG go
“They did not go.”
d) Méè je
̩run = (SY: N ò je
̩un)
1s-NEG eat-food
“I did not eat food.”
e) Wéè ra ehì = (O kò ra e
̩
̩
̩)
2s-NEG buy pork
“You did not buy the pork.”
f) O
̩mà ghán éè hó
̩nkùn = ( Omo
̩̩ re
̩ kò sunkún)
child 2s NEG weeping
“Your child did not weep.”
g) Áà léè rí ìdí irùnkúnrun = (SY: A kò lè rí ìdí pàtàkì)
1p-NEG POT see reason important
“We can not deduce any important reason.”
h) Akin hii éè rí bárè
̩ = (SY: Akin so
̩ pé kò rí béè
̩̩ )
N say-that NEG like that
“Akin said that it is not so.”
i) Ògúnbò
̩ óò
̩̩ gbóò
̩̩
̩ je
̩run = (SY: Ògúnbò
̩ kò gbo
̩
̩ je
̩un)
N NEG OBL eat-food
“Ògúnbò
̩ must not eat the food.”
Negation in Yorùbá Mò
̩
̩
Negation is contextualised in Mò
̩
̩lí dialect of Yorùbá; it is
marked by different elements within the word and within the
sentence. Traditionally (29) indicates the various NEG mor-
phemes in the dialect and they are illustrated in sentences (30-
35) below.
29) kè, kàn, kà, kò
̩, kó
̩ mé [NEG Morphemes].
30) a) Tsànyà kè tsùn = (SY: Sànyà kò sùn)
N NEG Sleep
“Tsànya did not sleep.”
b) Tsànyà kè ti tsùn = (SY: Sànyà kò sùn)
N NEG PERF Sleep
“Tsànya has not slept.”
c) Omo
̩̩ kéké li mi, n kè líyàwó = (Omo
̩̩ kékeré ni mí, n kò ní ìyàwó)
child little is me, I NEG have-wife
“I am but a little child, I am not married.”
31) a) An kàn gba tìyá gbó
̩ = (Wo
̩n kò gba ti ìyá gbó
̩)
3p NEG accept of-mother believe
“They did not even accept their mothers’ advice.”
b) An kàn gba babà gbó
̩
3p NEG accept father believe
“They did not even accept their fathers’ advice.”
32) a) N kà leè tsé o = (N kò lè s
̩e é o)
I NEG POT do it
“I cannot do it.”
b) N kà gbó
̩ kànkàn àfi Mò
̩
̩lí = (SY: N kò gbó
̩ ìkankan àfi Mò
̩
̩lí)
I NEG hear anything except N
“I cannot speak any other (language) except Mò
̩
̩lí.”
c) Kà a run = (Kò lè run)
NEG it destroy
“It cannot be destroyed.”
33) a) I kò
̩ gbé
̩
̩ ná o = (SY: O kò gbo
̩
̩ nà án o)
2s NEG OBL beat pro
“You must not beat him.”
b) An kò
̩ fàse
̩̩ ìyá babà lo
̩ lílé oko
̩̩ = (SY: Wo
̩n kò gba àse
̩̩ ìyá àti bàbá lo
̩
ilé oko
̩̩ )
3p NEG support mother father go house husband
“They are now getting married without their parents’ consents.”
c) N kò
̩ gbó
̩dè míè
̩n kú u = (SY: N kò gbó
̩ èdè mìíràn kún un)
1s NEG hear-language other with it
“I do not understand any other language.”
34) a) Mé febi pá o = (SY:Má fie bi pa á o)
NEG with-hunger kill him
“Don’t starve with to death.”
b) Babà kó
̩ mé gbó
̩
̩ í = (SY: Baba kò gbo
̩
̩ má gbó
̩ ò
̩
̩ yìí)
father NEG NEG hear-word this
“The father should not hear this issue.”
35) a) Bó tsìpè
̩ keè
̩̩ , a lè kè gbà = (SY: Bí ó bá bè
̩ wá, a kò níí gbà)
If-he beg PREV, we POT NEG agree
“Even if he begs us, we will not agree.”
As seen from the sentences above, Mò
̩
̩lí negation is both
syntactic and lexical. We have three categories of the NEG
elements:
1) Indicative NEG elements = /kàn/ (used in indicative
mood (NP & S)).
2) Imperative NEG elements = (used in imperative con-
structions).
3) Focus Marker NEG Elements =
̩ (used to negate the fo-
cus marker).
Negation in Yorùbá Oǹ
In Oǹdó, negation is a morpheme with éè depending on the
form of the vowel preceding the NP or a copy of the final
vowel of the morpheme at the end of the utterance (see 36c).
The different realisations of the morpheme of negation in
Yorùbá Oǹdó are shown in (36a-f).
36) a) Éè see soko
̩̩ e
̩? = (SY: Ta ni ì í soko
̩̩̩ e
̩?)
NEG who is-husband 2s
“Who is not your husband?”
b) Éè dó jí mi nówuò
̩ = (SY: Ma jí mi ní òwúrò
̩)
NEG is wake me in-morning.
“Do not wake me up in the morning.”
c) O
̩
̩ ne
̩ éè
̩̩ ti sá ju = (SY: O
̩
̩ náà kò sáré púpò
̩)
motor the NEG PERF run much
“The motor is not over speeding.”
d) Èlú wee éè tó
̩? = (SY: Èló ni o ò fé
̩ tà á?)
how 2s-much NEG sell
“How much are you not selling it?”
e) Wéè dà ti lo
̩ in? = (SY: O ò tí ì lo
̩ ni?)
2s-NEG yet PERF go now
“Have you not gone yet?”
Copyright © 2013 SciRes.
6
F. A. FÁBÙNMI
f) Aa mí éè yá = (SY: Ara mi kò yá)
body my NEG well
“I am not well.”
Negation in Yorùbá Òǹ
Nearly all the negative markers in the Standard Yorùbá—/ò,
í,
̩, /máà/
̩—are also found in Òǹkò dialect. The dia-
lect uses [NEG] and its variants like ò, ì and [NEG] as in-
dicated in (37) below. In simple negative declaratives, the NEG
morphemes are put in interverbal and and/or preverbal positions.
One phonological feature prominent with Òǹkò is the nasal
vowel // but it does not appear as Òǹkò structural negation.
37) a) Wo
̩n ò tse nǹke
̩n ke
̩n o = (SY: Wo
̩n kò s
̩e nǹkan kan o)
3p NEG do nothing
“They did not do anything.”
b) A ì í dìgbòlètsù = (SY: A kì í dìgbò lu ès
̩ù)
1p NEG make-assault-on-devil
“Do not try to assault the devil.”
c) O
̩
̩n o
̩
̩n yi ì dùn = (SY: O
̩dún o
̩dún yìí kò dùn)
celebration year this NEG sweet
“This year’s celebration is not low-keyed.”
d) Itsé
̩ néè
̩̩ ò ro
̩
̩n pé
̩n = (SY: Isé
̩̩ náà kò ro
̩rùn rárá)
work the NEG easy at all
“The job is not an easy one.”
Negation in Yorùbá Owé
In Owé, negation is marked by gháà and
̩ morphemes as
shown in (38). While
̩ [NEG] can be taken as a variant of
/máà [NEG] of the Standard Yorùbá, gháà [NEG] seems not
to easily commute the basic [NEG] because of the accompa-
nied voiced velar fricative /gh/ segment. However, Awobuluyi
(1992: 20) has suggested the occurrence of /gh/ in NEG mor-
phemes like gháà, as “an earlier common stage of the Yorùbá
language”. We also notice that this gháà NEG formative in
Owé cannot be said to occur as a tone with a copy of the final
vowel of the morpheme at the end of NP; so we cannot have
negative structures like (39).
38) a) Ilé gháà wó re ìbéè
̩̩ = (SY: Ilé kò wó sí ibè
̩)
House NEG fall PREP there
“The house did not fall there.”
b) Bàbá gháà fé
̩ omo
̩̩ ìn hunkún = (SY: Baba kò fé
̩ omo
̩̩ tí ó ń sunkún)
father NEG like child that weep
“The father does not like a weeping child.”
c) Bó
̩lá ghe hi un mó
̩ rè = (SY: Bó
̩lá so
̩ pé kí o má lo
̩)
N tell that 2s NEG go
“Bó
̩lá said that you should not go.”
d) Hi ghó
̩n mó
̩ ghàá o
̩jà o = (SY: Kí wó
̩n má wá o
̩jà)
that 3p NEG come market
“That they should not come to the market.”
Negation in Yorùbá Ò
̩
̩-Ìbàdàn
The Ò
̩
̩-Ìbàdàn negative markers resemble the same mark-
ers in Standard Yorùbá which we also regarded as a dialect in
this paper. In Ò
̩
̩-Ìbàdàn, and í are the sentence negators
as in (39a),
̩ is the negator of the NP as in (39b), ,
̩ are
the imperative negators as in (39c), while (as shown in 39d)
also negates part of the predicate phrase that follows it in a
sentence.
39) ai) A kò gberin = (SY: A kò gberin)
1p NEG chorus-song
“We did not chorus the song.”
aii) A kì í je
̩ran sínkìn = (A kì í je
̩ran sínkìn)
1p NEG eat-meat chicken
“We don’t eat chicken meat.”
b) Àwa kó
̩ ni O
̩
̩run yín tó ga = (SY: Àwa kó
̩ ni O
̩
̩run yín tó ga)
Pro NEG FOC God 2p REL-he tall
“We are not your God who is tall.”
ci) Má gò
̩ ó
̩ = (SY: Má gò
̩ ó
̩)
NEG fool it
“Don’t act foolishly.”
cii) Mó
̩
̩ ó
̩ = (SY: Mó
̩
̩ ó
̩)
NEG fool it
“Don’t act foolishly.”
d) Wó
̩n lè má gbìpè
̩ = (Wó
̩n lè má gbìpè
̩)
3p can NEG accept-plead
“They might not accept the plea.”
Negation in Yorùbá Tsáàbè
̩
Majority of the speakers of the ʦáàbè
̩ dialect of Yorùbá are
found outside Nigeria, mostly in the Plateau State of the Re-
public of Bénin. The dialect is classified among the South-west
Yorùbá dialect subgroup. Negation is a morpheme with the
forms
̩,
̩ and as indicated in (40) below.
40) a) N kò
̩ tsáé je
̩kà = (SY: N kò sáé je
̩ o
̩kà)
1s NEG rush eat-food
“I did not rush eating the food.”
b) Yán yún-un mó
̩ = (SY: (Má) máa lo
̩
̩)
HAB lo
̩ NEG
“You should not be going there.”
c) Olú kì wè
̩ = (SY: Olú kì í wè
̩)
N NEG bath
“Olú does not always bath.”
Negation in Yorùbá Ìyàgbà
In Ìyàgbà, negation is a morpheme with the form éè, and
̩. This is shown in (41a-c for éè [NEG], 41d-f for [NEG],
and 41g-I for
̩ [NEG]) below. Negative declarative sentences
may be derived from the positive forms through the use of the
negator éè. The low tone on this formative usually indicates
negation especially when the high counterpart is changed to
low, it will be in the negative form.
41) a) Éè yún we
̩ = (SY: N ò lo
̩ sí ibè
̩)
Pron-NEG go there
“I did not go there.”
b) Éè ye
̩ Òjó nro
̩ gbé lálé = (SY: Òjó lè má wá ní alé
̩)
NEG POT N can come PREP-night
‘Òjó may not come tonight.’
c) Oúnje
̩ nkà éè jé je
̩ ún mi = (SY Oúnje
̩ ye
̩n kò s
̩eé je
̩ fún mi)
food that NEG allow eat for me
“I cannot eat that food.”
d) Ó
̩n kè wí o
̩ ghá ibeè
̩̩ = (SY: Wo
̩n kò ní kí o wá sí ibè
̩)
3p NEG say 2s come there
“They did not ask you to come there.”
e) Ìgho
̩n o
̩lós
̩̩ à kè gbe arù rè
̩ rè = (SY: Àwo
̩n o
̩lós
̩̩ à kò jí e
̩rù rè
̩ lo
̩)
3p thieves NEG carry luggage his go
“The thieves did not steal his luggage.”
Copyright © 2013 SciRes. 7
F. A. FÁBÙNMI
Copyright © 2013 SciRes.
8
f) Kè bà m àrù gan = (SY: Kò bà mí lé
̩rù gan-an)
NEG hit me fear much
“I am not seriously frightened.”
g) Ó bá mó
̩ gháà, a kè ín ri = (SY: Bí kò bá mò
̩ wá, a kò níí rí i)
3s if NEG us, we NEG POT see
“If he did not recognise us, we wouldn’t have seen him.”
h) Méè yún we
̩
̩ = (SY: N ò lo
̩ sí ibè
̩
̩)
Pron-NEG go there NEG
“I did not go there anymore.”
i) Éè wù ḿ je
̩
̩ = (SY: Kò wù mí láti je
̩
̩)
NEG like me eat NEG
“I don’t feel like eating it again.”
Conclusion
From the various morpho-syntactic distributions of negation
in sixteen Yorùbá dialects indicated above, it is discovered that
the morphemes of negation in the dialects occur at the level of
preverbal position. Negation does not occur post-verbally in
these dialects. We also notice that negation and tense/aspect are,
although separate syntactic units, concatenated in these dialects.
In other words, there is a feature [+NEG] which functions as a
syntactic Head and projects into a Negative Phrase (NegP). So,
in as much as morphemes of negation in Yorùbá dialects com-
mute with the aspecto-modal marker of negative polarity, they
can be placed in the position of the functional category Asp.
This is premised that Yorùbá does not have grammaticalised
time reference but could use temporal adverbials to lexicalise
time reference to the moment of speaking. This claim is in
consonance with Comrie’s (1976: p. 87) assertion that “all lan-
guages can lexicalise time reference i.e. by the use of temporal
adverbials that locate situations in time, such as English to-
morrow, yesterday, at seven o’clock, etc.” The various Yorùbá
dialects discussed in this paper have shown that the verbo-as-
pectual negative polarity subsumes very much as a strong fea-
ture; negation, therefore, can locate in the functional head Asp
because it is displayed preverbally in the polarity of the verb.
We agree with Doipohyne (1976: p. 15) that “when a language
has a long history of having been written, it is often easy to tell,
from the spelling of words alone, some of the changes that have
taken place in the language.” We observe that the differences
between the morphemes of negation in these sixteen Yorùbá
dialects are of linguistic change.
REFERENCES
Abimbola, W. (1978). The Yoruba traditional religion in Brazil: Prob-
lems and prospects. In O. Oyelaran (Ed.) Department of African
languages and literatures seminar series I (pp. 1-64). Ife: Depart-
ment of African Languages and Literatures, Obafemi Awolowo Uni-
versity,
Adetugbo, A. (1967). The Yoruba language in Western Nigeria: Its
major dialect areas. Ph.D. Dissertation, New York: Columbia Uni-
versity.
Abraham, R. C. (1958). Dictionary of Modern Yorùbá. London: Uni-
versity of London Press.
Adewo
̩le, L. O. (1992). Some aspects of Negation in Yorùbá. Afri-
kanistische Arbeitspapiere, 28, 75-100.
Adewo
̩le, L. O. (1996). Ifè
̩ pronoun in polylectal grammar. Journal of
Nigerian Languages and Literatures, 2, 56-63.
Adewole, L. O. (1999). Negation in Ifè
̩: A Yorùbá dialect. Journal of
Asian and African Studies, 58, 397-403.
Adewole, L. O. (2007). Issues in linguistics and Yoruba language.
Inaugural Lecture Series 202, Ile-Ife: Obafemi Awolowo University.
Adewole, S. (1992). The NEG morpheme in Yorùbá. Afrikanistische
Arbeitspapiere, 31, 91-104.
Awobuluyi, O. (1978). Essentials of Yorùbá Grammar. Ibadan: Oxford
University Press.
Awobuluyi, O. (1992). Aspect of contemporary standard Yoruva in
dialectological perspective. In A. Isola (Ed.) New findings in Yoruba
studies (pp. 5-79). Ibadan: J.F. Odunjo Memorial Lectures Series.
Awobuluyi, O. (2005).
̩fíìmù kan S
̩oso ni “àì” Àbí Méjì: Afikún.
Ondo: Yorùbá Studies Association of Nigeria Conference, Adeyemi
Colloege of Education.
Awobuluyi, O. (2008). È
̩
̩ Ìsè
̩̩ -Ò
̩
̩ Yorùbá. Akure
̩: Montem Paper-
backs.
Bámgbós
̩é, A. (1967). A Short Yorùbá Grammar. Ìbàdàn: Heinemann
Educational Books.
Bámgbós
̩é, A. (1990). Fonó
̩
̩ àti Gírámà Yorùbá. Ìbàdàn: University
Press Limited.
Banjo
̩, L. A. (1974). Sentence negation in Yorùbá. Studies in African
Linguistics, Supplement 5, 35-47.
Chomsky, N. (1995a). Lectures on government and binding: The Pisa
lectures. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.
Chomsky, N. (1995b). The minimalist program. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Déchaine, R. M. (1993). Predicates cross categories: Towards a cate-
gory-neutral syntax. Dissertation, Amherst, MA: University of Mas-
sachusetts.
Déchaine, R. M. (1995). Negation in Ìgbò and Yorùbá. Niger-Congo
Syntax & Semantics, 6, 135-150.
Doipohyne, F. (1976). Dialect differences and historical records in
Akan. Legon Journal of the Humanities, 2, 15-27.
Fabunmi, F. A. (1998). Tense, aspect and modal systems in Ìjès
̩̩à dialect
of Yorùbá. M.A. Thesis, Ile-Ife: Department of Linguistics and Afri-
can Language, Obafemi Awolowo University.
Fábùnmi, F. A. (2001). Notes on tense and aspects in the Ìjès
̩̩à dialect of
Yoruba. Studies in African Linguistics, (UCLA, USA), 30, 113-114.
Fábùnmi, F. A. (2009). Ìtúpalè
̩ Gírámà Yorùbá
̩
̩ (A grammatical
analysis of Yorùbá Mò
̩
̩lí). Cape Town, South Africa: The Centre
for Advanced Studies of African Society (CASAS).
Fábùnmi, F. A. (2010). Negation and the scope of Negation in Yorùbá
̩
̩. Germany: VDM Verlag Dr. Muller Aktiengesellschaft.
Lasebikan, E. L. (1963). Yoruba in Brazil. West Africa, 30, 352-364.
Ogunbowale, P. O. (1970). The essentials of Yorùbá language. London:
Hodder & Stoughton.
Oke, D. O. (1982). On the use of verbal negators in Yorùbá. In A.
Afolayan (Ed.) Yorùbá language and literature (pp. 247-263). Ile-
Ife: University Press.
Olumuyiwa, O. T. (2006). Àwo
̩n Wúnrè
̩N Onítumò
̩ Gírámà Nínú
Àwo
̩N È
̩Ka-Èdè Aarin Gbùngbùn Yorùbá. Doctoral Dissertation,
Akungba-Akoko, Ondo State: Adekunle Ajasin University.
Ouhalla, J. (1999). Introducing transformational grammar: From prin-
ciples and parameters to minimalism. London: Arnold.
Owolabi, K. (1995). Languages in Nigeria: Essay in honour in honour
of ayò
̩ bamgbos
̩e. Ibadan: Group Publishers.
Petyt, K. M. (1980). The study of dialect: An introduction. London:
Andre Deutsch.
Salawu, A. S. (2001). Negation in èkìtì. YORUBA: A Journal of Yorùbá
Studies Association of Nigeria, 2, 102-119.
Taiwo, O. (2006). Negative markers in AO and standard yorùbá. Jour-
nal of West African Languages, xxxiii, 53-70.
Trudgill, P. (1986). Dialects in contact. London: Blackwell.
Turner, L. D. (1958). The role of folklore in the life of Yoruba of South
Western Nigeria. In W. M. Austin (Ed.) Monograph series on lan-
guages and linguistics 12-12. Reports of the 9th Annual Roundtable
Meetings on Linguistics and Language Study (pp. 45-57). Washing-
ton, DC: The Institute of Languages and Linguistics, Georgetown
University.
Watkins, M. H. (1972). Yoruba phoneme. In M. E. Smith (Ed.) Studies
in linguistics in honour of george L trager (pp. 380-394). The Hague:
Mouton.