logophoricity is functional both in Issele Mkpitime and Standard Igbo.

ABSTRACT

 The main focus of this research work is to comparatively study and analyse logophoricity in Issele Mpkitime dialect of Igbo and standard Igbo in order to make a comparative study and analysis of logophoricity betweenthe two. The primary linguistic data was gotten through elicitation method.  In summary, logophoricity in Issele Mkpitime and standard Igbo are the same because they exist in the same way. This means that  logophoricity is functional both in Issele Mkpitime and Standard Igbo.

 INTRODUCTION

The research was done to study the existence and use of logophoricity in Issele Mkpitime dialect of Igbo .According to Curnow (2002), Hagege introduced logophor to show special pronominal forms. Logophors are referred to with logophoric pronoun. There is a difference between ordinary pronoun and logophoric pronoun. Logophoric pronoun is used to refer to distinct forms of pronoun. Some languages use reflexive pronoun to show logophoricity, others us a special class of pronoun. Logophors are used in a discourse to lay emphasison the person whose thought or perception is reported. Pronoun  for example, you ,I , me, and others are different from logoghoric  pronouns because they replace noun. When they  function as logophoric trigger in a logophoric domain, they are called logophors it can be called logophoric  pronoun or logophors.

LITERATURE REVIEW

 INTRODUCTION

The literature review is on logophoricity. In this section logophoricity will be discussed based on theoretical review, empirical review and theoretical framework, then summary and conclusion.

THEORETICAL REVIEW

Many authors have worked on logophoricity in many languages and many definitions has also been given. According to timothy J. Curnow, the term logophoric was introduced by Hagege (1974) to refer to special pronominal forms found in West Africa. Schlenker (1999, 2003) points out that logophors can be considered instances of secondary indexicals in reported speech. Oliver (2004) sees logophoric pronouns as that which refers to the person (in the matrix clause) whose speech thoughts or knowledge is being reported.Culy(1997) cited in Oliver (2004) gave an additional information by saying that logophoric pronoun occurs in the complement of a speech predicate.For instance;

IM:  O          siri     na      ya     bia.

 GL: 3PGS     said   DET   LOG  came.

       He said that he came.

In the above example, the word marked LOG is the logophoric pronoun that is the person whose speech is being reported. The logophoric pronoun is in the predicate position and it comfirmed what Culy cited in Iliver’s work said.

In 1994, Culy gave a hierarchical order of logophoric lincersers based on 32 languages: speech – thought -  knowledge – direct perception. He gave the environments for LOG marking  which includes;

SPEECH PREDICATE: Say, ask, tell (write)

REPORTED SPEECH: Know.

THOUGHT: Thinks, understands, forget, remember.

EMOTION:Anger, fear, happiness,

DIRECT PERCEPTIONS: See.

According  to crystal(2008), a logophoric pronoun refers to a person whose speech or thought is represented in discourse. Self forms , according to Reinhart and Reuland (1991, 1993) can also be seen as logophors. Logophoric self-forms is used to refer to an assigned epistemic validator. (Stirling 1993) . It refers to an entity that takes responsibility for the ascription of truth values to propositions in a given discourse segment.

Summarily, the definitions given is talking about indexicals. Logophors are used to lay emphasis on the person whose speech is reported and not on the person reporting. This is usually done with  distinct pronouns. It can be called Logophors, logophoricity, or logophoric pronouns. Logophors can be seen in context of verbs of speaking,thinking et cetra and it is usually seen in predicate not the subject position. The definitions of logophoricity has been expanded over the years with scholars distinguishing between logophoric pronouns and verbal logoporicity. It is used either with the third person or with the third person and second person and they appear obligatorily. Types of  verbal include; logophoric cross-referencing: logophoric cross-reference languages have an additional verbal form or forms specially marking logophoricity. Logophoric first person marking: Here a verbal inflection on the surbodinate verb shows that the subject is first person. It can be found in singular and plural referents. Logophoric verbal affixes:it is the least common. Here verbal affixes are attached to words to show coreference  of some subordinate argument of matrix clause. of speech or thought.

I prefer Tatiana’s definition of logophoric pronouns because it is easily understood. It is something we see in our everyday life. With her definitionsyou can easily find the logohors in the discourse. The definitions of logophoricity by different authors have been given and also the explanations of definitions and types of logophoricity was discussed. Her work on logophricity is more preferred definition of logophoricity.

EMPIRICAL REVIEW

In Oliver’s work on logophoricity, he gave some terminologies that will help people understand logophoricity better. They include;

1. Logophoric trigger: The person whose speech or thoughts is reported.

2. Logophoric domain:The stretch of discourse in which the speakers thought or perception is    reported.

3.Sentential logophoric domain: clause subordinate to the one in which the trigger is identified.

4. Discourse logophoric domain : May extend across several utterances.

5. Logophoric target: Any element in the matrix clause that is co referent with the trigger.

 For instance; SI:    O        siri     na       ya       dara.

                       GL: 3PSG   said   DET   LOG    fall.

                                He said that he fell.

In example above, ‘ya’ is the logophoric  trigger, the whole of the sentence or the period when the report was made is the logophoric domain and the logophoric  target is ‘o’  because he is the person that is co referent to the trigger.

Also Comrie(19983) discussed logophoricity based on young switch reference system.or logophoric reference. He outlined what switch reference is all about, they include the following.

1.      Switch reference system are marked as an inflectional category on the verb of the independent( embedded clause).

2.      It is used with all person or number variants.

3.      It is primarily concerned with grammatical subjects.

4.       Co referents are overtly marked or if only one , it is the different subject form.

In this work , Olivers work will be used to throw more light on logophoricity. In the data, the logophoric trigger, domain and target will be shown because I see it as the more basic terms.It can be found easily in many languages when compared to switch reference approach. Oliver and Comrie’s works on logophoricity when compared with Comrie’s work is considered more acceptable.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

The descriptive method will be used to analyse the data collected.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION.

In this section, the definitions , types, works of scholars, theoretical framework were discussed under theoretical , empirical, and theoretical framework. The chosen works will be applied in the next chapter.

DATA  PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS

1.      SI  :Ọ siri na ya biara

IM  :Ọ siri na  ya          bia.

GL:  3PSG Said DETLOG came

          ENG :He said that he came ( Hyman and Comrie 1981)

2          SI:Ọsi a gaba.

            IM : Ọsia ya nama.

            GL: 3PSG  Said  LOG go.

          ENG :He said he should go (Hedinger 1984:95)

3         SI:Ọ siri ya biara n’ụtụtụa

           IM:Ọ si na ya bia n’           ụtụtụa.

           GL: 3 PSG    said DET LOG come PREP morning

           ENG : He said that he came this morning (Anderson and Goyvaerts 1986:313)

4        SI:Umuaka siri na ọ bu ụlọ ha

          IM :Umundi asi na ha nweụlọ afụ

          GL:Children said DET LOG own house  DET.

          ENG:Children said that it was their house

5         SI :Kofi si na pụrụ

           IM:Kofi asi na pụga

           GL: Kofi said DET LOG go

           ENG: Kofi said that he left (clements 1975:142)

6          SI :Ọ siri na ya dara

           IM :Ọ si na ya dahi.

           GL: 3PSG Said DET LOG fall

           ENG He said that he fell.

7         SI: Lebare siri na ya tiri ya ihe.

           IM Lebare siri na ya tia ife

           GL Lebare said DET LOG beat him thing.

            ENG Lebare said that he beat him

8          SI :Anụrụ m n’ onụ Emeka na dara

            IM :  Anụ m n ‘       onụ Emeka       na       ya da

             GL:IPS heard PREP mouth Emeka DET LOG fall.

               I heard from Emeka that he fell

9          SI: O were iwena ya dara.

            IM:  O were      iwe       na ya dara.

            GL: IPSG  became   angry  DET    LOG   fall.

             He became angry that he fell.

10. SI: O kpesara na onweghi ihe ya nwere.

     IM: O           kpesara    na         onweghi    ihe      ya     nwere.

     GL: 3PSG   complain DET      does not   thing   LOG   have.

            She complains that she has nothing.

11. SI: Osaro siri na ya zuru ji ahu.

     IM: Osaro    siri     na          ya       zuru     ji       ahu.

    GL: Osaro    said    DET     LOG    stole   yam  DET.

           Osaro said he stole the yam.

12. SI: Umuaka    siri    na      ha       riri     ji.

      IM: Umundu    siri      na     fa        riri     ji     ahu.

      GL: Umundu  said   DET  LOG    ate   yam  DET.

           Children said that they ate yam.

13. SI: Ụnyaahụ, ọ siri na ya  ga abia taa.

       IM: Ọ    siri  ụnyaahụ na ya ga-abia taa.

       GL: He  said   yesterday  DET  LOG  will come    today.

             Yesterday, he said that he is going to come today

14. SI: Ọ siri na ya gafere ụgbụa.

     IM: Ọ     si       na       ya       gafe       kitaa.

     GL: He   said   DET   LOG    passed    now.

           He said that he passed now.

15. SI: Nwunye siri na ya ghotara.

     IM: Nwunye  si     na       ya     awoghana.

     GL: Wife     said  DET  LOG    understood.

             Wife said that she understood.

16. SI: Ụmuaka ahu siri na o bu ulo ha.

     IM: Ụmuaka     afụ    asi     na       ha     onwe   ulo      afu.

     GL: Children   DET   said  DET   LOG   own    house   DET.

          Children said it is their house.

17. SI: Ọ gwara m na nwanne nne ya nke nwoke anwụọla.

      IM:Ọ gwaram na nwanne nne ya nke nwoke anwụọla.

      GL: 3PSG    told       me   DET   sibling   mother LOG    of       man       died.

        He told me that his uncle has died.

18.  SI: Ọ siri bia saa m.

      IM:   Ọ       siri     m    bia     wua.

      GL:3PSG   said   me  come  wash.

           She said come and wash me.

19.SI: Oumar  gwaram m na ya puru na ejighi akpa.

    IM: Oumar    gwaram   m      na       ya     pizi   na ojini    akpa.

    GL: Oumar      told       me   DET   LOG  left   without      bag.

       He told me that he left without a bag

20. SI: Ọ  si na ya gaba.

      IM: Ọ          si     na        ya      nama.

      GL: 3PSG   said  DET   LOG       go.

             She said that he should go.

DATA ANALYSIS.

Logophoricity is used in Issele  Mkpitime  the same way it is used in Igbo . it is used in the context of verbs of speaking to indicate the interest of the person whose speech, thoughts or perceptions are reported. the  words marked LOG are the logophors or  logophoric pronouns in the data. They can also be called Logophoric triggers which are the ones whose thoughts , perceptions or knowledge is being reported. There is a little difference morphologically, the pronoun ‘ha’ in standard Igbo is written as ‘fa’in Issele Mkpitime dialect of Igbo. The pronouns in the sentences are logophoric trigger and their co- referents  are the logophoric target. Thelogophoric domain is the period when the various reports or conversations were made.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

There is existence of logopophoricity in Issele Mkpitime dialect of Igbo  and logophoricity is used the same way in both standard Igbo and Issele Mkpitime  dialect of Igbo. Logophoric pronouns is used to lay emphasis on the person whose speech or thought is reported, by this i mean that they are used in context of verb of speaking to indicate theperson whose speech, knowledge or thought is reported.

REFERENCES

Hagege C. 1974. Les Pronoms logophoriques.In Tatiiana Nikitina. 2012. Logophoric discourse and first personin wan (West Africa) . Anthropologocal Linguistics. Vol 54, num3,fall 2012. Pp 280-301. Nebraska press.

David Crystal .2008. A dictionary of linguistics and phonology. 6^th ed. Oxford: Blackwell.

Timothy Curnow. 2002. Proceedings of 2002 conference of Australian Linguisti Society: Three types of verbal logophoricity in African languages.vol 31, no 1and 2.University of new south wales.

Oliver Bond.2004. A broader perspective on logophoricity: beyond point of view in Ogonoid languages. ACAL 35 DU Bois Institution, Harvard University.

Peter Collin and Megiste Amberber.2003. Studies in African linguistics. Vol 31, no 1 and 2. University of new south wales.