1

Hierarchies in Igala Complementary Binominal Marking

by

Salem Ochala Ejeba

Department of Linguistics and Communication Studies, University of Port Harcourt

E-mail: salem.ejeba@uniport.edu.ng

Telephone: 08051649397, 07032031984

Being a Paper Presented at the 25th Annual Conference of the Linguistic Association of

Nigeria (CLAN) on Linguistics/Language, Integration, and National Development,

Adekunle Ajasin University, Akungba-Akoko, Ondo State, Nigeria.

3rd – 6th December 2012

2

Abstract

In this work, it is proposed that a normative hierarchy exists for human language, akin to the well known animacy hierarchy observed and documented in the linguistic semantics literature. It is claimed that the normative hierarchy is the super ordinate of animacy hierarchy and other such hierarchies that may be observed to exist in human language. The evidence from Igala (New Benue Congo, Nigeria) illustrates the functioning of this hierarchy in a language system: specifically used only in the context of complementary binominals which are rigidly irreversible. In the literal interpretation of normative hierarchy, it establishessome forms of social, spatial or temporal relationships in the real world between the collocated words, wherestructural order of the nouns conjoined by the complementary binominal marker (CBM), corresponds to grammatical preference, which in turn derives from the semantics of the Igala language; the kind of superiority that has been referred to as normative hierarchy in this work. The CBM is exclusively utilized to establish the idiomatic expression of the formulaic irreversible binominals in a manner that the other coordinative strategies, using the morpheme coordinative morpheme, juxtapositiondo not.

1 Introduction

Emenanjo and Oweleke (2011) and Muhammad (2012) all anchor their views on irreversible

(complementary) binominals on the seminal work of Malkiel (1959) as well as few other works which will

be hereafter reviewed in addition to succinct thoughts on collocation patterns in human language and how

the morphological order and semantic preference of the ordering points to the expression of animacy

hierarchy in human language. Beyond this, it shall be established in this work that the hierarchies in natural

language extend to norms based on cultural biases, a substratum of which is the animacy hierarchy.

Specifically in Igala, a morphological element will be isolated in this work for marking the fixed formulaic

relationship.

2 An Overview of Collocation, Irreversible Binominals and Animacy Hierarchy in

Human Language

2.1 Collocation Patterns in Language

We learn from Palmer (1976) that certain collocations are semantically determined, as very particular

meanings are assigned to the individual words that make up the structure. Palmer provides instances here in

pretty child and buxom neighbour; though pretty girl and buxom woman may be restatements, pretty boy or

buxom man are abnormal. Palmer thus argues agreeably that the forms pretty child and buxom neighbour

would normally refer to females. Palmer also gives the example of blond, which would go with hair in blond

hair, though not with door or dress, “...even if the colour were exactly that of blond hair” (Palmer 1976:77)

in the ungrammatical expressions *blond door or *blond dress. Saeed (2003:60) calls this ‘collocation

effects’ and comments on instances, “...we talk of strong tea rather than powerful tea; but a powerful car

3

rather than a strong car. Similarly, blond collocates with hair and addle with eggs.... names for groups act

like this: we say a herd of cattle, but a pack of dogs.”

According to Saeed (2003:60), the restricting influence of collocation is “the tendency of words to occur

together repeatedly...” and like idioms, “...a string of words correspond to a single semantic unit” (Saeed

2003:59). Looking at the structuring and semantics of these elements, Saeed (2003:60) observes, “These

collocations can undergo a fossilization process until they become fixed expressions. We talk of hot and

cold running water rather than cold and hot running water; and say They’re husband and wife, rather than

wife and husband.” Saeed (2003:60) observes further,

“Such fixed expressions are common for food: salt and vinegar, fish and chips, curry

and rice, bangers and mash, franks and beans, etc. A similar type of fossilization

results in the creation of idioms, expressions where the individual words have ceased

to have independent meanings. In expressions like kith and kin or spick and span, not

many English speakers would be able to assign a meaning here to kith or span.”

Attention is also paid in the literature to specific elements utilized in collocation; particularly coordination,

of nouns in English and in African languages (Emenanjo 1978, Ndimele 1999, 2003, 2007 and Kari 2004).

Kari (2004:104) particularly attests to the phenomena of coordination in Degema, and specifically gives

attention to the ‘And-Coordination’ and ‘But-Coordination’ in the language. According to Kari,

“In Degema, only noun phrases can be coordinated by ‘and’ on the one hand, and the

adversative coordinator ‘but’ can equally be used only for coordinate clauses and not words.

This is whereas the alternative coordinating conjunction ‘or’ can be

used to coordinate both noun phrases and clauses, the two elements variously as appropriate for

questions or for statements.”

Examples are provided from Kari (2004) as follows,

1. ‘mother and child’

mother and child

4

2. == =

3SgSCL=go=FE to market but 3SgSCL.NEG=buy fish

‘S(he) went to the market but did not buy fish’

3. = =

2SgSCL=eat yams or 2SgSCL=eat plantain

‘You will eat yam or plantain’

4. = =

Q.2SgSCL=eat yams or 2SgSCL=eat plantain

‘Will you eat yam or plantain?’

2.2 Irreversible Binominals in Language

Emenanjo and Oweleke (2011) is an excellent introduction to the phenomenon of complementary

binominals (CBs), particularly dubbed Ejima Okwu in the Igbo language; using for the metalanguage, a

biologic analogy of twins. Like the order of birth, Emenanjo and Oweleke (2011) note that CBs are regular

combinations of nouns or noun phrases (NPs) that are premade formulaic structures, regularly irreversibly

consecutively ordered relative to each other, expressing semantically “...fixed culture-determined meanings

(just as they have fixed structures) which are not reducible from the individual words that make up the NP”

(Emenanjo and Oweleke 2011:2). To this extent, the binominals are a special kind of collocational

expression (cf. Muhammad 2012).

Muhammad (2012) also presents a lucid expose of the very phenomenon of irreversible binominals (with

conceptual extensions to trinominals and multinominals, or simply polynominals). The first definition of

binominal advanced in Muhammad (2012:557) considers it “a term which originates from mathematics

(originally conceived as an expression consisting of two elements connected by a plus or minus sign) ‘which

is sometimes used in lexicology to characterise two-element idiomatic collocations...” (cf. Crystal, 2008:53).

Another of Muhammad’s definition is like the first, “...a pair of words linked by a conjunction such as and

called irreversible when their order is fixed...” (cf. Matthews, 1997:39). The significant contribution of this

latter definition is the distinction between binominals generally and irreversible binominals specifically.

This goes down well with Mohammad’s (2012:560) thought, “Generally, binominals are construed... as

constituting a subtly graded possibilities (sic) of matching, with irreversible binominals representing one

extreme and unimpaired freedom of variation the other....” Based on Malkiel (1959), Mohammad

5

(Mohammad 2012:558) presents the cline of possibilities, using a system of symbols to, “account for the

distinction between different categories (i.e. linked, non-linked varieties) evident in the realm of binominals,

cross-linguistically”, where the constituents A and B stand for the prior and latter members of the

configuration generally of irreversible and reversible binominals,

i. A and B are the same word; or,

ii. B represents a morphological variation upon A arrived at through inflection, derivation or

composition; or,

iii. A and B may be near synonyms or mutually complementary, or else B may be opposite, a part, or

consequence of A: these subsume numerous relationships that are of semantic order

2.3 Animacy Hierarchy in Language

Trask (1997:15) defines animacy hierarchy, dubbed chain-of-being hierarchy, as “A ranking of nouns (and

sometimes also pronouns) in which nouns denoting human beings come first, followed by nouns denoting

animals, and finally by nouns denoting non-living things.” Trask further comments that “In many languages,

this hierarchy is grammatically important: higher-ranking classes may make more distinctions than others, or

it may be impossible for a lower-ranking noun to precede a higher-ranking one in a sentence.” The two

important points from this further explanation are the semantic feature fine-tuning and grammatical

prominence of the higher ranked nouns. The grammatical prominence may sometimes be in the explicit

marking of plural, as Katamba (1993) and Omachonu (2004) observe, or in the structural order of

coordinated nouns, a hierarchical fossilization; the kind of fixed expressions which Saeed (2003:60)

observes that collocations undergo. And, Saeed (2003:170) adduces the reason particularly for the highest

ranking of nouns denoting human beings,

“It has been argued that we as human beings naturally view situations from the point of view of any

human beings involved, and if there are none, of other living creatures. This preference, sometimes

called an animacy hierarchy is coded into the lexical semantics of a language....”

This hierarchy has been described as some kind of ‘in-built bias’ or ‘conventional bias’ in language.

Now considering Katamba’s (1993:233) observation, it is noted that “there is a strong correlation between

animacy and number.” As such, in certain languages, absence of number specification is especially common

if a noun is inanimate, and nouns referring to animate, humans in particular, are likely to have explicit plural

marking. Katamba (1993) further observes that, “Often, forms signalling number do also simultaneously

reflect animacy or some other salient property of an entity.” As Katamba (1993) rightly predicts, Omachonu

(2004) observes the grammatical significance of the animacy hierarchy in Igala. Omachonu simply shows in

6

his work that there is a sharp division between animate and non-animate nouns in the facts of pluralisation:

whereas the plural morpheme, is used for the former, the latter are implicitly marked for plural; and

whereas the said plural morpheme is used generally for animate nouns, the form, is exclusively reserved

for nouns that are specifically human. By inference from this description of the facts of pluralisation in the

language, Omachonu (2004) gives Igala the hierarchy,

Human Animate Non-animate

Katamba (1993) as well as Saeed further observe that this hierarchy goes beyond observations in

grammatical number, even though they do not proceed to specify the extensions. Do the facts from Igala

support other hierarchical organisation beyond the so-called animacy hierarchy? In the present work, the

endeavour shall be to make observations that hopefully would provide answers, particularly based on the

collocation pattern introduced by the morpheme utilized for complementary binominal marking in Igala.

3 Complementary Binominal Marking in Igala

In the course of the training in linguistics, one comes to learn that every element needs to be named in

language particular cases (Insight from Dr Kari, Personal Communication). Evidentially, this instils in the

linguist (particularly, the descriptive linguist) the discipline of paying close attention to specific details of

the language they are working with, driven by the need for accuracy and consistency in description. One

very interesting phenomenon that has been observed in the present work in Igala semantics, arising from the

functional attitude described here is the Complementary Binominal Marking, which takes bearing from a

sort of semantically hierarchical structuring of nouns in their collocation context; akin to the animacy

hierarchy (cf. Trask 1997 and Omachonu 2004). It is observed that this hierarchy is reflected in the order of

nouns conjoined by the Igala Complementary Binominal Marker (CBM), ‘and’. In the course of this brief

work, it would become clear what the CBM is, why it has to be established as a class on its own, quite apart

from the regular Igala coordinative conjunct , and why it should generate the kind of interest it does in

writing this paper (its link to a kind of semantic hierarchy in the grammar of Igala).

The form of the CBM is, as observed earlier, ‘and’, being a low toned CV-structured morpheme with a

phonetically unrealised vocalic element that is only realised in the environment of the initial vowel of a

following noun, assimilating the segmental features of this particular element of the noun. There are good

7

reasons why we call this morphological element CBM. It functions as a coordinative morpheme in the

language, as in the literal use of this element in coordination in (5) – (7) for instance,

(5) ma ‘mother and child'

mother CBM child

(6) ‘front and back’

front CBM back

(7) ‘night and day’

night CBM afternoon

Unlike the common coordinative form ‘and’ in the language, this particular element is (i) specifically

used only in collocation contexts, and (ii) where it is used, it establishes in the literal case some forms of

social, ‘mother and child', spatial, ‘front/back’or temporal

‘night/day’, relationship in the real world between the collocated words.

The CBM is restricted to use in irreversible fossilized marking of regular nominal combinations such as in

the instances illustrated above. However, the general additive conjunction, ‘and’, may be used for any

of the examples and in no particular fixed order in most instances, as in (8) – (10). An exception to this latter

observation would be the case of (11) which structurally and semantically behaves like the cases of CBs.

(8) ma ‘mother and child'

mother and child

(9) ‘front and back’

front and back

(10) ‘night and day’

night and afternoon

(11) - - ‘livelihood'

to-eat and to-drink

8

Being realised in the alternate order, as (12) – (13) illustrate, the use of CBM would be ungrammatical,

whereas, as in (15) – (17), the use of the alternate additive form, would still be grammatical, albeit

rendering the expression loosely paraphrastic and modifying meaning.

(12) *

(13) *

(14) *

(15) ‘child and mother'

(16) ‘back and front’

(17) ‘day and night’

The CBM is never used as a general conjunction for non-relational nouns, neither is the hierarchical order of

its component nouns ever used in a reverse order, as (12) – (14) above illustrate.

It is important to note that the use of the CBM is literal, as already shown in the foregoing examples, as well

as idiomatic, as would be shown subsequently. In fact, in Igala non-equivalence translation or idiomatic

expression is obtained solely by the CBM, to the exclusion of the general coordinative marker. The

difference between the two coordinators in Igala goes beyond their lexical structure to variation in the

semantic and grammatical elements of the morphemes. Further instances of the specified order of the

collocation using the CBM are demonstrated in kinship, marital, social, hunter-hunted, more-less and cause-

effect relationships, as in (18) – (27). The literal meanings are given side by side the culturally valued

idiomatic ones in these latter examples. In the idiomatic instances, the translation does not fully represent the

intended meaning; it gives only an approximate one. The full meanings of (18) – (19), for instance, would

go beyond the motherly/fatherly attitude to include the expected evocative, to express mutuality. In this

respect, the interpretation ‘mutual hatred’ is the closest communicative interpretation from Igala to English

on the list of examples.

(18) [] ‘mother and child/a motherly affection and child response’

mother CBM child

9

(19) [] ‘father and child/A fatherly authority and child submission’

father CBM child

(20) [] ‘husband and wife/marital obligations’

husband CBM wife

(21) [] ‘social class and peer/social class’

calibre CBM peer

(22) [] ‘dog and game/mutual hatred’

dog CBM game

(23) -= - [] ‘more and less/false measure’

GRD-EM=3SgOCL pass CBM GRD-short

(24) [] ‘sickness and troubles/misfortune’

sickness CBM word

(25) [] ‘front and back/nowhere or everywhere’

front CBM back

(26) [] ‘night and day/always’

class CBM peer

(27) [] ‘in much and in lack/in all situations’

affluence CBM penury

4 The Normative Hierarchy in Igala Irreversible Complementary Binominals

There is a kind of hierarchical organisation or chain that runs through the ranking of nouns in Igala

collocations using the CBM. This hierarchy is grammatically important to the extent that higher-ranking

classes of nouns first occur and it is impossible for a lower-ranking noun to precede a higher-ranking one in

the collocated form. As Saeed (2003) observes, for Igala, this structural order of coordinated nouns using the

10

CBM has undergone a hierarchical fossilization. On what basis then is this hierarchy? Let us now see some

of the examples earlier provided and further examples to observe the semantic implications of the

collocation patterns to provide our answer. Since we have already established that the collocated forms using

CBM are generally relational, we shall now pinpoint the exact type of hierarchical relation in (28) – (45),

CB Literal Meaning Hierarchy Applied Meaning

(28) ‘God and the world' Divine/Mortal ‘cosmic existence’

(29) ‘spirit(s) and the world' Spirit/Non-spirit ‘cosmic existence’

(30) ‘husband and wife' Husband/Wife ‘marital romance’

(31) ‘father/mother and child' Parent/Child ‘parent/child harmony’

(32) ‘slave and child' Possession/Responsibility ‘asset/liability’

(33) ‘human and animal' Human/Non-human ‘humanity/inhumanity’

(34) ‘dog and game' Oppressor/Oppressed ‘arch rivary’

(35) ‘calibre and peer' Superior/Equal ‘social class’

(36) ‘front and back' Forward/Backward ‘hope/hopelessness’

(37) -= - ‘excessive and short Favouritism/Deprival ‘inequality’

(38) ‘night and day' Light/Darkness ‘diabolic powers’

(39) ‘in much and in lack' Good/Bad ‘fate’

(40) ‘sickness and difficulty' Cause/Effect ‘vicissitudes of life’

(41) ‘soup and okra' Super ordinate/Subordinate ‘everything/anything’

(42) ‘head and neck' Super ordinate/Subordinate ‘leadership/followership’

(43) ‘king and populace' Leadership/Lead ‘political harmony’

(44) ‘right and left' Informed/Uninformed ‘common sense’

(45) ‘good and bad' Right/Wrong ‘moral consciousness’

11

From the list of relations established in the various uses of CBM, it seems clear that the hierarchy is not

simply an animacy hierarchy, as most of the relations may not be classifiable using a dichotomy based on an

animacy hierarchy. The closest example to an animacy hierarchy would be (33) where we have

‘human and animal' with a Human/Non-human hierarchy. The best that may be proposed is a hierarchy set

up judging certain kind of relationships in the real world; placing divinity ahead of humanity, humanity

ahead of non-humanity, super ordinate ahead of subordinate, the hunter ahead of its victim (the hunted); the

standard ahead of the substandard. It is in this regard that we rather dub the hierarchical organisation a

normative hierarchy, a postulation foreshadowed by Malkiel (1959:116) in the statement that the composite

elements, A and B may be viewed as subsuming, “numerous relationships that are of semantic order.”

5 Conclusion

As interesting and insightful as the discourse on the normative hierarchy is as a proposal in semantics, what

is special about the Igala data is not necessarily the mere presence of the normative hierarchy, as this exists

in other languages, even English (for instances, there are cause/effect, oppressor/oppressed, more/less

relationships which are semantically ordered in this culturally prescribed hierarchy for English); the

peculiarity of the Igala data is the attestation to the small coordinative morpheme – the complementary

binominal marker (CBM) which signals the particular case of this hierarchy in the language.

Also, as observed in this work, aside the case of idiomatic reference where the CBM is utilized exclusively,

there is another coordinative morpheme which is used generally to conjoin nouns both in collocations and in

mere syntactic ordering. The interesting semantic fact gathered from our comparing the two coordinators is

that whereas the general marker signs only the literal meaning of the binominal forms; it never signifies

idiomatic use. And whereas the order of nouns occurring with the CBM is fossilized to follow a particular

hierarchy, the general coordinative marker is so flexible that the order may be altered, resulting in

modification in the meaning of the expression from the strictly idiomatic with the CBM to a loosely

grammatical sequence using the general plural marker; what Mohammad (2012) has distinguished

respectively as the dichotomy between irreversible and free binominals.

The following are some abbreviations/symbols used in this paper: CBM (complementary binominal

marker), CL(itic), EM (existential marker), GRD (gerund), O (object), Sg (singular), - (morpheme

bounadry), =(clitic boundary), (high tone), (low tone).

12

References

Crystal, D. 2008. A dictionary of linguistics and phonetics. 6th Edn. London: Oxford University Press.

Emenanjo, E.N. 1978. Elements of modern Igbo grammar. Ibadan: Oxford University Press.

Emenanjo, E.N. and E.N. Oweleke. 2011. Ejima Okwu – Complementary binominals (CBs) and bi-verbals (CVs): A type of Igbo idioms. JOLINCS, 1:1, 1 – 14.

Kari, E.E. 2004. A reference grammar of Degema. Cologne: Rϋppe Verlag.

Katamba, F. 1993. Morphology. London: Macmillan Press.

Malkiel, Y. 1959. Studies in irreversible binominals. Lingua, 8, 113-60.

Matthews, P. 1997. The concise Oxford dictionary of linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Mohammad, A. 2012. Forms and function of irreversible negative binominals in Hausa. In N. Ozo-mekuri

(ed). Language, literature and communication in a dynamic world, 557 – 573.Port Harcourt: M & J

Grand Orbit Communications.

Ndimele, O-M. 1999. Morphology and syntax. Port Harcourt: Emhai Printing and

Publishing.

____. 2003. A concise grammar and lexicon of Echie. Aba: National Institute for Nigerian

Languages.

____. 2007. An advanced English grammar and usage. Revised Edn. Aba: National Institute

for Nigerian Languages.

Omachonu, G.S. 2004. Animacy hierarchy: A case for noun plural formation in Igala

language. In M.E.Attah, G.S. Omachonu, S.Y. Atabo, P.M. Onekutu and E.M.A.

Adama (eds.). Language and literature in education for a better society: The

challenges of the 21st century, 201 – 207. Nsukka: Great AP Express Publishers.

survey, 89 – 112. 4 Vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Palmer, F.R. 1986. Semantics. 2nd Edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University.

Saeed, J.I. 2003. Semantics. 2nd Edn. Malden, MA., Oxford and Victoria: Blackwell.

Trask, R.L. 1997. A student’s dictionary of language and linguistics. London: Arnold.