ABSTRACT

This research work, the polysemic analysis of Yoruba body-part terms is carried out to find out the
different extended meanings the Yoruba body-part terms can realize. The objectives of this research work
are to: 1) find out the different extended meanings that can be realized from the use of Yoruba body-part
terms, 2) indicate which of the extended meanings are opaque or transparent, and 3) to determine the
frequency of occurrence of the analyzed polysemic terms. Ibarretxe (1999) approach to polysemy known
as compositional polysemy is adopted by the researcher. Male and female aged 60 and above constituted
the population of research. Structured interview and observation were used in the collection of data for
this study. It is found that Yoruba body-part terms can realize opaque and transparent extended meaning
and that they are used to derive more opaque extended meanings than transparent extended meanings.
Findings also show that ojú – ‘eye’ is the mostly used body-part term for polysemic use in Yoruba
language. The research work also indicates clearly that a single body-part term can be used in different
expressions to express the same notion, and also two different body-part terms can be used in different
expressions to express the same notion. Finally, it has been found that the body-part term imú – ‘nose’
cannot be used to derive a transparent extended meaning.
1.0 Background of the Study
Polysemy is the phenomenon whereby one word exhibits multiple distinct yet related meanings.
Traditionally, this term is restricted to the study of word-meaning, where it is used to describe words like
'body' which has different uses that are nevertheless related to the human body such as “corpse”, “the
trunk of the human body”, “the central part of something”. Cognitive linguists claim that polysemy is not
restricted to word-meaning but is a fundamental feature of human language. According to this view, the
“distinct” areas of language all exhibits polysemy. Accordingly, cognitive linguists view polysemy as a
key to generalization across a range of “distinct” phenomena and argue that polysemy reveals important
fundamental commonalities between lexical, morphological and syntactic organization (Evan, 2007:163).
The study of body parts terminology is one of the areas of linguistics that has attracted the
attention of researchers, for instance, Petruck (1986), Svorou (1993), Chappel and McGregor (1996),
Bilkova (2000) etc. The terms for body parts in Yoruba are no exception because they offer a good,
varied and rich laboratory for the study of polysemy and conceptualization.
In Yoruba, the general term for body is ara which refers to the physical body following Oladipo
(1992:15) which says “body is a collective term for all the material components of a person”. Gbadegesin
(2003:175) defines body as “the physic-material part of the human being”. As such, it includes both
external parts (ọwọ́ “hand”, àtàrí “forehead”, ẹsẹ̀ “leg” etc.) and internal components (ọkàn “heart”, inú
“stomach”, ìfun “intestine” etc.).
In Yoruba, similar to other languages, terms of physical body and its parts are often used to talk
about other things other than body. The explanation usually advocated for this, is an intuitive
interpretation of the surrounding world through bodily experience (Lakoff, Johnson 1980).

1.1.0 History of the Yorubas

According to Adeyemi (1974), the Yoruba people, of whom there are over thirty million occupy
the southwestern corner of Nigeria along Dahomey border and extends to Dahomey itself. To the east and
north, the Yoruba culture reaches its approximate limit in the region of the Niger River. However, an
ancestral culture directly related to the Yoruba once flourished all north of the Niger.
Portuguese explorers “discovered” the Yoruba cities and kingdom in the fifteenth century, but
cities such as Ife and Benin, among others, have stood at their present locations for at least five hundred
years before the European’s arrival. Archaeological evidence indicates that a technologically artistically
advanced proto-Yoruba (NOK), were living somewhere in the northern part of Nigeria in the first
millennium B.C. and they were then already working with iron. Ifa theologians state that, the creation of
human kind arose in the sacred city of Ile-Ife where Oduduwa created dry land from water. Much later
on, an unknown number of Africans migrated from Mecca to Ile-Ife.
 Oyo and Benin came later, grew and expanded as a consequence of their strategic locations at a
time when trading became prosperous. Ife, unlike Benin and Oyo, never developed into a true Kingdom.
But though it remained a city state, it had paramount importance to Yoruba as the original sacred city and
the dispenser of basic religious thoughts
According to Olumide (1964), the Yorùbá language is spoken in the south-western part of
Nigeria, including some parts of Dahomey and in some northern part of Togo land. Western colonialist
politically separated the Yorùbá as an empire from each other. Their languages, dialects, customs, beliefs,
and worships differ to some extent. Even in Nigeria, the Yorùbá people are further divided into two
regions. Majority of them are predominantly found in the southern-western Nigeria, while some can be
traced to the northern region, e.g. Ilorin, Yagba, just to mention but a few.
Historically, the Yoruba people were primarily farmers growing cocoa and yam as cash crops.
These are planted in a three-year rotational system, alternating cassava and a year of diverse crops
including maize, peanuts, cottons and beans. At the end of the three-year cycle, the land is left to fallow ,
sometimes for seven years. It is estimated that nearly 70% of the Yorubas participated in agriculture;
farming and fishing as the major occupation and 10% of the Yorubas each working as craft men and
traders within the town.
The Yorubas claim to have 401 deities which in truth there are more than these. The complexity
of the cosmology has led western scholars to compare them with the ancient Greeks and their impressive
pantheon. The deities are known as “Orisa”, and the most high God as “Olorun” or “Oluwa”. No
organized priesthoods or shrines exist in honour of “Olorun”, but his spirit his invoked to ask blessings
and to confer thanks. The Yorubas believe that even when they die, they will enter into the realm of the
ancestors where they still have influence on earth. Names of the important Orisas include; esu, ogun, and
sango.
Yoruba is spoken by a set of people in West Africa. Its native name is “Ede Yoruba” that is, the
Yoruba language. The language has its origin in the Yoruba people, who are believed to be descendant of
“Oduduwa”, the son of a powerful God called “Olodumare”. The places where the language is spoken are
called “Ile Yoruba” meaning Yorubaland. The language is the pride of the Yoruba people with over
30million speakers. According to Fafunwa (2008:14), the Yoruba language is the third most widely
spoken native African language. It is spoken in Oyo, Ogun, Ondo, Ekiti, Osun, Lagos states and some
parts of Kwara and Kogi states of Nigeria. Some isolated pockets of the language are being spoken in
Diaspora, such as in Central Togo, Cuba, Trindad, Haiti and Brazil. Traces have also been found in
Sierra-Leone where it is called “Oku” and in Cuba where it is called “Nago”.
1.1.1 Language Classification
 The Yoruba language belongs to the Benue-Congo under the Volta-Congo of the Atlantic-Congo
in the Niger-Congo language phylum. (Greenberg 1963)
Figure 1.1
African Languages

Nilo-saharan Afro-Asiatic Niger-Congo Khoisan

Mande Atlantic-Congo Kordofanian

Atlantic Volta-Congo Ijoid

Kru New Kwa New Benue-Congo North Volta-Congo

Dogon Gur Adamawa

ubanji

Ogoni Akpes Ukaan Edoid Nupoid Igboid C.River Platoid Bantoid

Idomoid

Yoruboid Akokoid

Igala Edekiri

Ede Itsekiri Yoruba

Adopted from Willaimson (1989)

1.3 Statement of the Problem

The available works on Yoruba body-parts show that there are still a lot to be done. The works of
Rowland (1969) and Dingemanse’s (2006) dealt with Yoruba body-part terms but did not analyze body-
part terms utilizing polysemic concept. The research work will therefore attempt to fill the gap.

1.4 Objectives of the Study

 The aim of this study is to undertake a polysemic analysis of Yoruba body-part terms. The
objectives are to:
find out the different extended meanings that can be realized from the use of Yoruba
body-part terms.
indicate which of the extended meanings are opaque or transparent.
determine the frequency of occurrence of the analyzed polysemic terms.

1.5 Scope of the Study

The Yoruba body-part terms are divided into two, namely; internal and external. This research
work is restricted to the use of external body-part terms used in identifying the various extended
meanings. Also, being aware of the cognitive approach to the study of polysemy that analyses
polysemous words using the three cognitive mechanisms as well as other approaches to the study of
polysemy, this research is limited to the polysmic analysis of Yoruba body-part terms.

1.7 Significance of the Study

This study will be a good material for any researcher that wishes to carry out a research on body
terms. This will also serve as reference material to researchers who intend to carry out further work on
Yoruba body-part terms. This research will also help learners of Yoruba language know that body-part
terms in the language can be used to generate numerous senses that are different from the notion of body.
2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW
This section reviews the available literature related to the topic of this dissertation namely; the
concept of semantics, and the concept of polysemy in the use of body-part terms in Yoruba language
Many scholars have made several approaches to the study of polysemy which is a sub -field of
semantics. Semantics in general is concerned with the study of meaning so therefore, its sub -fields will
definitely deal with the study of meaning. Though this research focuses on polysemy, one need to talk in
brief what the general field it belongs to is about.

2.0 The concept of Semantics

The term Semantics is a recent addition to the English language. Although there is one occurrence
of semantick in the phrase semantick philoshophy to mean ‘divination’ in the seventeenth century,
semantics does not occur until it was introduced in a paper read to the American Philological Association
in 1894 entitled ‘Reflected meanings: a point in semantics’. The French term sémantique had been coined
from Greek in the previous year by M. Bréal. In fact the term Semantics was not simply to refer to
meaning but its development. Such a concept of Semantics has been even in used until the 20th Century
as can be evident from ‘The Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English’, which defines
Semantics ‘branch of philology concerned with the meaning of words’
Semantics is closely linked with another sub discipline of linguistics, pragmatics which is also
broadly speaking the study of meaning. However, unlike pragmatics, semantics is a highly theoretical
research perspective, and looks at meaning in language in isolation, in the language itself, whereas
pragmatics is a more practical subject and is interested in meaning in language in use.
Semantics is also informed by other sub disciplines of linguistics, such as Morphology, as
understanding the words themselves is integral to the study of their meaning, and Syntax, which
researchers in semantics use extensively to reveal how meaning is created in language, as how language is
structured is central to meaning.
Semantics is concerned with what sentences and other linguistic objects express, not with the
arrangement of their syntactic parts or with their pronunciation. Semantics looks at these relationships in
language and looks at how these meanings are created, which is an important part of understanding how
language works as a whole. Understanding how meaning occurs in language can inform other sub
disciplines such as Language acquisition, to help us to understand how speakers acquire a sense of
meaning, and Sociolinguistics, as the achievement of meaning in language is important in language in a
social situation.
 Semantics concentrates on the similarities between languages, rather than on the differences.
Semantics theory is a part of a larger enterprise, linguistic theory, which includes the study of syntax
(grammar) and phonetics (pronunciation) besides the study of meaning.
Semantics is concerned with the meanings of non-sentences, such as phrases and incomplete
sentences, just as much as with the whole sentences.
Katz (1972:11) says that “the meaning of an expression will be meaningful just in case it refers to
something” he further explains that expressions will have the same meaning only if such expressions are
referring to the same thing.
Leech (1974:22) argues that “semantics, the study of meaning, is central to the study of
communication, and as communication becomes more and more a crucial factor in social organization,
the need to understand if becomes more and more pressing”. He further states that semantics is also at the
centre of human mind-thought processes; cognition and conceptualizations.
Palmer (1981:206) states that “semantics is not a single-well-integrated discipline. It is not a
clearly defines level of linguistics, not even comparable to phonology or grammar, rather, it is a set of
studies of the use of language in relation to many different aspects of experience to linguistic and non-
linguistic contexts, to participants in discourse, to their knowledge and experience, to be the conditions
under which a particular nit of language is appropriate. This implies that the study of semantics is not
limited only to the linguistic context but also to non-linguistic context. Palmer (1976:1) then defines
semantics as the technical term used to refer to the study of meaning.
According to Babatunde (1995:1), semantics is “the study of meaning that seeks to convey and
classify human experience through language”. Babatunde (1995:2) states that semantics is coined from a
Greek verb which means to signify.
Goddard (1998) postulates semantics to be the study of meaning which stands at the very centre
of the linguistic quest to understand the nature of language and human language abilities”. To understand
how any language works, one needs to understand how its individual design works to fulfill its function
as an intricate device used for communicating meanings.
Lobner (2002) argues that semantics is the part of linguistics that is concerned with meaning.
Saeed (2008:3) says semantics is “the study of meaning communicated through language”. In
definition of the Saeed above, one can simply say before any meaning can be given to any utterance,
communication must have take place.
From the definitions above, we know that Semantics is the study of meaning that is used for
understanding human expression through language.
Semantics relates to all meaningful utterance of language and the relationship of meaning, which
is contained by the utterance. In other words, the scope of Semantics is the characterization of meaning
and its relation. There are at least two major approaches to know how the way meaning in a language is
studied. The first is linguistics approach, the second is philosophical approach. Philosophers have
investigated the relation between linguistic expression, such as the words of language and the persons,
things and events in the world to which these words refer.
There are three basic terms have been widely used in each of these approaches, i.e. (1) meaning,
(2) sense, and (3) reference. The term ‘meaning’ is simply derived from the word ‘mean’. The notion of
sense and reference are central to the study of meaning. Reference is not only meant the words which
refers to something but also to the words which cannot be brought forward for the existence of something
but have lexical items referring to it, while the sense is a relation which occur between two lexical items.

2.1 The concept of Polysemy

In general linguistics, Bréal (1924 [1897]) was the first to introduce the term “polysemy”
(polysémie) to describe single word forms with several different meanings andusage(cf. Nerlich 2003).
For Bréal, polysemy was primarily a diachronic phenomenon, arising as a consequence of semantic
change. Words acquire new meanings through use, but these do not automatically eliminate the old ones.
Polysemy, then, is the result of the parallel existence of new and old meanings in the language; it is the
‘synchronic side’ of lexical semantic change. However, Bréal also observed that, at the synchronic level,
polysemy is not really an issue, since the context of discourse determines the sense of a polysemous word
and eliminates its other possible meanings (Bréal 1924 [1897]: 157). These early insights of Bréal also
underlie much contemporary researches in lexical semantics and pragmatics.
Following the advent of transformational-generative grammar in the late 1950s, with its main
focus on syntax, polysemy received little attention for several years. However, with the development of
cognitive grammar during the 1980s, polysemy reappeared on the research agenda as a central topic in
lexical semantics, in particular as a result of the pioneering studies of prepositional polysemy conducted
by (Brugman 1988, Brugman and Lakoff 1988) and Lakoff (1987).
The probably most widely accepted definition of polysemy is the one that perceives it as the form
of ambiguity where two or more related senses are associated with the same word; consider these
meanings of glass in “I emptied the glass” ‘container’ and “I drank a glass” ‘contents of the container’.
Polysemy is a linguistic term for words with two or more meanings, usually multiple and related
meanings for a word or words. The words polysemy and polysemous are defined as having or
characterized by many meanings; the existence of several meanings for a single word or phrase. When
polysemous words are discussed, homonymous words are likely to be discussed at the same time.
However, polysemous words present different related meanings while homonymous words present
unrelated meanings.
 Since the vague concept of relatedness is one test for polysemy, judgments of polysemy can be
very difficult to make. Because applying pre-existing words to new situations is a natural process of
language change, looking at a word’s etymology is helpful in determining polysemy, but this is not the
only solution; as meanings become lost in etymology, what once was a useful distinction of meaning may
no longer be so. Some apparently unrelated words share a common historical origin; however, etymology
is not an infallible test for polysemy, and dictionary writers often defer to speakers’ intuitions to judge
polysemy in cases where it contradicts etymology.
A word which has more than one distinct, established sense is said to be polysemous or to show
polysemy. To be considered as belonging to the same word, multiple senses must be felt by native
speakers to be related in some way. Unrelated senses associated with the same word-form, such as “side
of river” and “financial institution” associated with bank, exemplifies homonymy, and is usually treated
as separate words that just happen to be associated with the same form. Polysemy starts from concrete
then extends to abstract; for instance, in the case of ‘drink’ when someone says “imbibe liquid” or
“imbibe alcoholic beverage” or ‘dog’ when he says “canine animal” or “male canine animal”. Several
polysemous relations involve a contrast between literal and figurative meanings of a word. Abstraction is
achieved through metaphorization in the sense that the word 'position' which might have some senses
such as, “location in space”, “opinion on some controversial issue”, and “professional post within an
organization”, or it may be metonymic, as in wheels which may “revolve parts of a mechanism in contact
with ground” and “car”, or it may involve hyperbole, “as in fantastic which is so extreme as to challenge
belief” and “a generalized term of approval” (Cruse, 2006: 133).
In lexical semantics, where the existence of polysemy is accepted, it has always been difficult to
distinguish polysemy from homonymy, the existence of different but unrelated meanings for a single
word form - and thus to construct lexical entries coherently. To give a relatively clear-cut example, the
homonyms (river) bank and (financial) bank would be accommodated in two entries. The word 'chip'
could mean a piece of wood or a piece of food or a piece of electronic circuit which are all accommodated
in one but they would not be so clear for the readers or learners (Nerlich, 2003:4).
Polysemy is important not only because it is ubiquitous, but also because it provides a source of
linguistic creativity: to express new ideas, we needn’t invent new words, but can instead extend existing
words beyond their original meanings.
Ever since this notion was proposed by Breal (1897), it has been puzzling researchers from many
disciplines: linguists, lexicographers, psycholinguists, psychologists. It has been approached from the
perspective of different fields of linguistics such as semantics, pragmatics, cognitive linguistics and the
most recent, psycholinguistics. Semantics as earlier explained in this chapter deals with the study of
meaning. It is concerned with how meanings are created. Pragmatics is a field of linguistics that is
concerned with language in use and the context(s) in which it is used. Morris (1930) defines pragmatics
as the relations of signs to interpreters. Pragmatics is also concerned with the use of stable meaning
resources of language-as-a-system for communication. Cognitive linguistics according to Geeraerts and
Cuyckens (2007:4) focuses on language as an instrument for organizing, processing and conveying
information. Geeraerts and Cuyckens (2007:4) see cognitive linguistics as an approach to the analysis of
natural language. Cognitive linguistics is an approach to the study of language structure and linguistics
behaviour. Steinberg (1993) defines psycholinguistics as the study of language with reference to human
psychology.
Several approaches have stemmed out of the different linguistic perspectives of polysemy such
as; Traditional Approach (Lyons 1977; Palmer 1981; Cruse 1986) Nunberg’s Pragmatic Theory of
polysemy (Nunberg 1979), Deane’s theory of polysemy (Deane 1987), cognitive approach (Lakoff 1987),
Kilgarriff’s approach (1992), Compositional polysemy (Ibarretxe-Antuñano 1999) Principled polysemy
approach (Evans 2005), the Generative Lexicon (Pustejovsky 1995), Natural Semantic Meta-language
‘NSM’ (Wierzbicka 1996). All the aforementioned approaches to the study of polysemy can be collapsed
into two main theories, namely; classical theory and non-classical theory.

2.1.1 Classical Theory of polysemy

The term “classical theory” is used to umbrella different approaches to the study of polysemy.
Some of the approaches classified under the classical theories are; Nunberg’s Pragmatic Theory of
polysemy (Nunberg 1979), Deane’s theory of polysemy (Deane 1988), cognitive approach (Lakoff 1987),
Kilgarriff’s approach (1992), Principled polysemy approach (Evans 2005), the Generative Lexicon
(Pustejovsky 1995), Natural Semantic Meta-language ‘NSM’ (Wierzbicka 1996).

2.1.1.1 Pragmatic theory of polysemy

Nunberg (1979) adopts in his writings a narrower concept of polysemy. He does not discuss cases
of non-systematic polysemy at all, but identifies polysemy simply with systematic polysemy. He tries to
provide a theory that is capable of dealing with all instances of systematic polysemy, but he concentrates
on cases of what Deane call closed referential polysemy. The central example of Nunberg is like the
following:
The ham sandwich is sitting at table 20.
His basic idea can be summarized in the following way: phenomena of systematic polysemy are
phenomena of referential variation (as opposed to a variation of lexical meaning), and they are deducible
from pragmatic factors. Nunberg (1979) is the first in a series of papers Nunberg devoted to this topic. He
presents the problem of polysemy as a problem of reference, which he believes to be an essentially
pragmatic issue. Reference depends on the co-operation between a speaker and a hearer, and can be
considered successful if the hearer is able to identify what the speaker has in mind. One way of referring
is by direct ostension or by direct linguistic specification of the intended referent. But another common
way of reference, which Nunberg claims to be the basis of (systematic) polysemy, is achieved in the way
that the speaker does not directly refer to his intended referent, but instead to another entity which stands
in a specific and obvious relationship with the referent. So, for example, one can point to a part of
something to refer to the whole. This kind of reference is called deferred reference
A radically different approach to polysemy can be found within the field of lexical pragmatics,
which specifically studies the interaction between an expression’s linguistically-encoded meaning and
aspects of the context, and where context is not restricted, as it is in for instance Asher’s (2011) proposal,
to material provided by linguistic structure (e.g., Blutner, 1998; Bosch, 2007; Carston, 2002; Recanati,
2004; Wilson and Carston, 2007). However, it shares with rule-based and coercion approaches the
‘literalist’ assumption that polysemous expressions typically activate a fully conceptual representation (a
‘lexical concept’), which is used as a starting point for further inference.
A central insight of lexical pragmatics is that word meanings typically undergo pragmatic
modulation in the course of utterance interpretation. Consider the examples below:
[University student]: I didn’t get enough units. (‘credit modules’)
It’s boiling outside. (‘extremely hot’)
Will is a fox. (‘cunning, sly, devious. . ., etc.’)
The idea is that while each of the interpretations in the examples above is easily inferable from the
context, none of them can be generated on the basis of linguistic context alone. The specification in
meaning of the noun “units” in (i), the loose use of the verb “boiling” in (ii), and the metaphorical
broadening of the concept encoded by “fox” in (iii), each requires the hearer to take the situational
context into account in deriving the speaker-intended meaning. Lexical pragmatic processes such as these
are thought to play a central role in giving rise to polysemy. The prevalence of polysemy in natural
languages suggests that speakers and hearers might find it easier to extend already existing words to new
functions than to invent new words for each sense, and lexical pragmatic processes are thought to play a
key role in enabling communicators to do this. Indeed, some ‘radical’ pragmatic accounts tend to see
polysemy as an epiphenomenon of pragmatic processes operating at the level of individual words: ‘‘In
general . . . polysemy is the outcome of a pragmatic process whereby intended senses are inferred on the
basis of encoded concepts and contextual information’’ (Sperber and Wilson, 1998:197).
2.1.1.2 Deane’s (1988) theory of polysemy
Paul Deane’s approach is definitely in the line with the general holistic treatment of polysemy in
so far as he also claims polysemy to derive from general cognitive strategies. More specifically, he
outlines a theory “in which word meaning is closely integrated with certain kinds of extra-linguistic
knowledge (i.e., the cultural background, expressed in the form of ICMs (Idealized Cognitive Model)),
without such information, it would be impossible to account consistently for polysemy” (emphasis added-
G.P. He maintains that it is reasonable to distinguish polysemy from both homonymy and generality, and
also to treat systematic and non-systematic phenomena, which he considers to be instances of two kinds
of polysemy, separately.

2.1.1.3. Cognitive approach to Polysemy

In the realm of cognitive linguistics, studies of polysemy are concerned with categorization.
Lakoff (1987: 5) emphasizes the importance of categorization as can be seen in the follow quotation:
Categorization is not a matter to be taken lightly. There is nothing more basic than
categorization to our thought, perception, action, and speech. Every time we see something as a
kind of thing, for example, a tree, we are categorizing.
Conception of categorization can be traced back to Aristotle. Lakoff, however, asserts that the
traditional categorization is not suitable for illustrating polysemy.
The classical theory of categories does not do very well on the treatment of polysemy. In order to
have a single lexical item, the classical theory must treat all of the related senses as having some abstract
meaning in common—usually so abstract that it cannot distinguish among the cases and so devoid of real
meaning that it is not recognizable as what people think of as a meaning of a word. And where there are a
large number of related senses that don’t all share a property, then the classical theory is forced to treat
such cases as homonymy (Lakoff, 1987:416).
When speaking about polysemy, the fact that we are dealing with multiple meanings is not the
main point but the fact that those multiple meanings are related in a systematic and natural way.
According to Lakoff (1987), polysemy has to be understood as categorization, that is to say the
idea that related meanings of words form categories and that these meanings bear family resemblance, an
idea introduced by Austin (1962). Taylor (1996: 108) explains this family resemblance category in terms
of ‘meaning chains’. A lexeme can convey different meanings, A, B, C, D, … A is related to B in virtue
of some shared attribute(s) or other kind of similarity. Meaning B in turn becomes the source of a further
extension to meaning C and so on. This ‘meaning chain’ can be represented in the following way where
any node in a meaning chain can be the source of any number of meaning expressions:
A B C D…
Taylor compares these ‘meaning chains’ to Lakoff’s ‘radial categories’. A category is structured
radially with respect to a number of subcategories: there is a central subcategory, defined by a cluster of
covering cognitive models and in addition, there are non-central extensions which are not specialized
instances of the central subcategory, but variants of it. The extensions of the central model are not
random, but motivated by the central model plus certain general principles of extension. One of the
advantages of this approach if compared with classical models is that it offers adequate means of
characterizing the situations where one or more senses are central or more representative.
For an alternative theory of categorization, Lakoff suggests prototype theory. His approach to
polysemy is based upon this theory: a word has its core meaning, namely prototypical meaning, and
although senses of the word are slightly different from each other, they are related mutually through the
core, and can be represented by a single word. In this way, multiple meanings of a word form a network
and construct a complex category. Within this category, meanings extend from the core meaning and they
are presumed to form a radial construction, and for this reason, Lakoff refers to this construction as radial
category. Below is what Lakoff state about radial category, using mother as an example.
The category mother, … is structured radially with respect to a number of its subcategories: there
is a central subcategory, defined by a cluster of converging cognitive models (the birth model, the
nurturance model, etc.); in addition, there are non-central extensions which are not specialized instances
of the central subcategory, but rather are variants of it (adoptive mother, birth mother, foster mother,
surrogate mother, etc.). These variants are not generated from the central model by general rules; instead,
they are extended by convention and must be learned one by one. But the extensions are by no means
random. The central model determines the possibilities for extension, together with the possible relations
between the central model and the extension models. We will describe the extensions of a central model
as being motivated by the central model plus certain general principles of extension (Lakoff, 1987: 91).
What is important here is ‘motivation’. Extensions from prototypical meanings have to be motivated.
These motivations can be considered as sources of polysemy in the framework of Lakoff’s study.
The cognitive linguists’ approach to polysemy is marked by its comprehensive nature. In the
meanings extended from a core meaning, some meanings are still close to the core and have very much in
common with the central meaning, while others extend too far and make it difficult to think that the
meaning is derived from the core. In the framework of categorization, however, all stages of extended
meanings can be explained by viewing the whole category of a word and not just focusing on individual
phenomena.

2.1.1.3.1 Psycholinguistic approach

Psycholinguistics was probably the field that Cognitive Linguistics related to first: Even when
Cognitive Linguistics was still far from adopting experimental/observational approaches, there were
attempts to integrate the psycholinguistic models/findings regarding into Cognitive Linguistics. Polysemy
was not represented much in psycholinguistic research before the 1960s and some early work (Asch and
Nerlove, 1960; Macnamara et al. 1972) was concerned with questions that may seem unrelated to
Cognitive Linguistics work on polysemy. However, that is not entirely true. For instance, the former
studied how children acquire and distinguish words denoting both a physical and a psychological quality,
such as hard, deep, bright, etc., certainly a topic of current relevance. The latter study tests the hypotheses
that speakers store meanings associated with a phonological form in a particular order, that this order is
very similar across speakers, and that during comprehension, speakers try meanings in that order. While
this may seem far-fetched, given the lexical networks that have been developed, a usage-based approach
that accords frequencies of words, senses etc. a primary role, implies at least some sort of rank-ordering
of senses based on their frequencies. Indeed, the experimental results refuted that simplest rank-ordering
hypothesis but also showed that (i) the first 1−2 senses named by subjects often coincided and (ii) context
plays an important role in rapid online meaning disambiguation. Such examples notwithstanding, most
early work on the subject was concerned with ambiguity or homonymy and explored
the time course of activation of word senses: are only relevant or relevant and irrelevant
senses of words activated and how does the presence of multiple meanings or senses
affect word recognition (Hino and Lupker 1996; Azuma and Van Orden, 1997)?
the importance of context for sense selection: does it have an effect at all, what exactly is
it, and when does it kick in?
the importance the frequency/dominance of senses plays for sense selection: less frequent
meanings take longer to access interactions of the above. (Hogaboam and Perfetti 1975)
That shows that most earlier studies on lexical access/disambiguation neither included any
systematic distinction between homonymy and polysemy in their designs/explanations; in fact, some
psychological/psycholinguistic studies use polysemy to refer to cases such as ball (‘spherical object’ vs.
‘dance event’), which linguists would class as homonymy, others use ambiguity as meaning ‘polysemy’.
(In fact, some recent introductions to psycholinguistics e.g., (Byrd and Mintz, 2010; Menn, 2011) − do
not feature polysemy or ambiguity as index entries). Therefore, some early work speaks directly to many
questions of Cognitive Linguistics, but much is ‘only’ indirectly related to Cognitive Linguistics since,
e.g., it hardly explores the nature of the relations between senses or adopt the same fine degree of sense
granularity (Gibbs and Matlock, 2001). While the exact nature of lexical access is still debated, there is
evidence that
all meanings of a word are accessed even if they are contextually inappropriate (semantic
or syntactic context cannot constrain initial access)
context both before and after the word can help make subordinate but contextually
appropriate meanings more available for selection; also, context helps suppress
 contextually inappropriate meanings of homonyms within approximately 200 ms and can
make reactions to dominant senses as fast as to unambiguous controls
dominant and subordinate senses react differently to context (Lupker 2007)
Recently, there have been several psycholinguistic studies investigating the representation of
polysemy (Klein and Murphy, 2002; Klepousniotou 2002; Klepousniotou, et al. 2008; Beretta, Fiorentino,
and Poeppel 2005; Pylkkänen, et al. 2006).

2.1.1.4 Kilgarriff’s (1992) approach

In Kilgarriff’s Ph.D. dissertation on polysemy, he followed a course that is quite characteristic of
NLP (natural language processing) research. His approach is inspired by modern lexicography in general
and computational lexicography in particular, corpus linguistics, computationally oriented linguistic
theories like HPSG (Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar) and issues of artificial intelligence research
(most importantly, knowledge representation). He notes that polysemy is no phenomenon the definite
borders of which could be clearly defined. He suggests that what is usually referred to as polysemy is
actually a complex and gradual phenomenon at the crossroads of homonymy, collocation, analogy and
alternation (so he actually chooses a two-dimensional one). Homonymy is understood in the usual way.
Alternation is kind of meaning variation that is both systematic and is intimately connected to the
structure of encyclopedic knowledge about the thing denoted by the word. Collocation is a kind of
contextual meaning variation that is closely associated with the word one is interested in co-occurring
with some particular other word, e.g. frontal meaning ‘direct and obvious’ “seems to occur only with
attack and assault”. Analogy is another kind of contextual meaning variation that is quite interesting.
Analogy is somewhat systematic but connected neither to the knowledge representation underlying the
use of polysmy (like open polysemy), nor to general discourse context (like closed polysemy). (Kilgarriff
1992: 71-81)

2.1.1.5 Principled polysemy approach (Evans 2005)

Evans (2005) employs the principled polysemy approach to lexical concepts arguing that the
lexeme time constitutes a lexical category of distinct senses instantiated in semantic memory. The notion
of ‘lexical concept’ is used interchangeably with sense, which is the central theoretical construct of his
theory. Principled polysemy is an approach which seeks to account for the meanings associated with
words as not being absolute and fixed, but rather as being capable of changing over time. Hence, in this
qualified sense, lexical concepts are treated as being mutable and dynamic in nature.

2.1.1.6 Generative Lexicon approach

 The ‘Generative Lexicon’ is Pustejovsky’s (1995) approach to the problem of lexical ambiguity,
to the multiplicity of word meaning and to the question of how we are able to give an infinite number of
senses to words using finite means. The main focus of this approach is that a core set of word senses is
used to generate a larger set of word senses when individual lexical items are combined with others in
phrases and clauses. This system has four levels (argument structure, event structure, qualia structure and
lexical inheritance structure) which are connected by generative devices (type coercion, selective binding
and co-composition) that provide the compositional interpretation of words in context.
Pustejovsky argues that former approaches to natural language semantics have ignored either the
problem of how words are used in novel contexts or the creation of such new senses on the basis of
compositionality. In language, words can have more than one meaning, but the means in which this
extension of meaning is carried out can vary. Pustejovsky’s Generative Lexicon proposes a model that
addresses the question neglected by Cognitive Semantics of how senses are created. It states that a core
set of word senses is used to generate a larger set of word senses when individual lexical items are
combined with others in phrases and clauses. Although Pustejovsky is mainly concerned with non-
metaphorical meanings, it seems an appropriate model to account for the way in which polysemy is
created.
In short, in Pustejovsky’s Generative Lexicon approach, polysemous senses are understood as
manifestations of the same basic meaning in different contexts. A strong compositionality model,
consisting of four levels of representation for a lexical item, and generative connecting devices explains
these senses. This framework seems the most suitable for explaining how the semantic content of
different lexical items interacts in order to create polysemous senses but this approach cannot explain the
interaction between the distant related extended meanings and the core prototype meaning.

2.1.1.7 Natural Semantic Meta-language (NSM)

This approach is originated by Anna Wierzbicka (1996) later used by Goddard (1998) and
Goddard & Wierzbicka (2002). Goddard uses this framework of Natural Semantic Meta-language to
develop and justify semantic explications for the common ordinary meanings of the polysemous word
Culture in the article ‘The lexical semantics of culture’. He proposes a set of semantic explications
framed in terms of empirically established universal semantic primes such as PEOPLE, THINK, DO,
LIVE, NOT, LIKE, THE SAME, AND OTHER.

2.1.2 Non-Classical Theory of Polysemy

The term “non-classical theory” is used to umbrella different approaches of polysemy that does
not fall under the classical theory. Two commonly used approaches of this theory are the traditional
approach and the compositional polysemy.
2.1.2.1 The Traditional approach
The traditional approach first concern is to mark a distinction between polysemy and homonymy
based on whether there are one or two lexical items involved. Lyons (1977: 550) considers them as two
types of lexical ambiguity and introduces some criteria for deciding when it is polysemy and when it is
homonymy.
One criterion is etymological information about the lexical item in question. Lexical items with
the same origin are considered as polysemic, whereas if they have evolved from distinct lexemes in some
earlier stage of the language then they are regarded as homonymous. This condition is neither satisfactory
nor decisive because the history of the language does not always reflect its present state. For instance, in
present- day English, the lexemes pupil ‘student’ and pupil ‘iris of the eye’ are not usually related by
native speakers, but they are both derived from Latin pupillus/pupilla ‘ward, orphan-boy’ which is itself a
diminutive of pupus ‘child’. The opposite case is also fairly common, namely when native speakers
consider two lexemes derived from different roots in an earlier stage of the language as related. For
example, the lexemes ear ‘organ of hearing’ and ear ‘spike of corn’ come from two different origins.
However, most people nowadays treat these two lexemes as one polysemous word and explain their
relation by means of metaphor. Therefore, the etymological criterion can be very misleading when
deciding between homonymy and polysemy.
Another criterion is the un-relatedness vs. relatedness of meaning; i.e. the native speaker’s feeling
that certain meanings are connected and that others are not. One of the major drawbacks that Lyons states
for this criterion is that relatedness of meaning appears to be a matter of degree, together with the fact that
sometimes native speaker’s intuitions are far from being the true interpretation, as has been seen with the
ear example above. Attempts to formalize this relatedness of meaning have also been made. Katz (1972),
Katz and Fodor’s (1963) Componential Analysis proposes the decomposition or breakdown of the sense
of a word into its minimal distinctive features, i.e. into semantic components which contrast with other
components. These minimal distinctive features produce formulae called componential definitions of the
type [± human], [± adult], [± male] for the description of lexemes such as man, woman, girl, boy in the
semantic field of ‘human race’ (Leech 1981: 96).
Unfortunately, this type of approach is not sufficient for the polysemy homonymy problem. First,
the relatedness in the different sense of a word might not be expressible in terms of ± features and also
because in some cases, these features are present in different degrees, not in absolute terms. A classical
example of this problem is the word bachelor (Fillmore 1982). In a simplified world, where people are
marriageable at a certain age, mostly marry at that age and stay married to the same person, bachelor is
just any unmarried male past marriageable age. However, outside this simplified world, the word
bachelor does not apply. That is why we find it so odd to call the Pope or a twice-married divorce
bachelor, even though they both meet the criteria of the definition given above. Secondly, as Lyons
(1977: 553) points out, “the possibility or impossibility of decomposing the senses of lexemes into a
(structured or unstructured) set of semantic components is irrelevant, unless we can specify just how
many components, or alternatively what kind of components, two senses must share in order for them to
meet the criterion of relatedness of meaning”.
A third way of attempting to establish polysemy is to search for a central or core meaning. Based
on the classical definition of a category as a set of necessary and sufficient conditions for membership,
Allerton (1979) proposes that when different senses of a lexeme share a core meaning, they are
polysemous. On the other hand, cases when the core meaning cannot be extracted are to be considered as
homonymous. For instance, the word paper can mean ‘newspaper’, ‘document’ and ‘academic lecture’;
all these senses share the core meaning of ‘important written or printed material’. According to Palmer
(1981: 105), this is possible when we have cases of metaphors and the other senses have been transferred
from that core meaning. The disadvantage of this criterion is again to decide what the core meaning is.
Under the Cognitive Linguistics approach, neither the core meaning approach nor Palmer’s acceptance of
it in metaphorical cases is accepted. The reason is the fact that metaphor is understood as a motivated
transfer between two different domains and this core meaning approach totally defeats any attempt to
show a motivated account of semantic extension.
Hence, the traditional approach defines polysemy as the case when a lexical item has a range of
different meanings. Polysemy can be differentiated from homonymy by using a set of criteria, such as the
etymology, the unrelatedness of meaning, the central or core meaning as well as some ambiguity tests. It
has been argued that this model is mainly concerned with a descriptive analysis of polysemy, without
addressing questions such as why and how polysemy is created.

2.1.2.2 Compositional Polysemy

Another approach to polysemy under the non-classical theory is compositional polysemy. The
concept of ‘compositional polysemy’ stems from that of ‘graduable polysemy’ (Ibarretxe-Antuñano1999).
Based on the analysis of perception verbs, Ibarretxe-Antuñano (1999: 2193-218) establishes and analyses
the importance of the elements of a sentence in the creation of the overall meaning in three degrees of
compositionality:
‘Unpredictable polysemy’, when it is not possible to predict what the interpretation is by
means of the choice of arguments;
 ‘Verb-driven extensions’, when it is the verb that mainly governs the choice of arguments
and meaning;
‘Argument-driven extensions’, when the meaning is mainly determined by the verb
arguments and other elements of the sentence. The choice of the different elements is
constrained by the ‘verb-property requirement’. This requirement states that the
properties that characterize the different elements that interact with the verb must not
violate the prototypical properties that constitute the bodily basis upon which the
polysemy of these verbs is based.
As seen in the above degrees of compositionality postulated by Ibarretxe-Antuñano (1999), it is
safe to say several meanings can be generated from a lexical item when used in sentences depending on
the verb of each sentence it is used and the meaning it will generate may or may not be given using the
meaning of the different elements in the sentence. This makes me conclude that the different extended
meaning a lexical item can generate as regards to the sentence in which it is used can either be distant or
near or technically put transparent or opaque. The extended meaning will be considered transparent when
it has a kind of resemblance with the core meaning of the lexical item and opaque when the extended
meaning doesn’t have any resemblance with the core meaning of the lexical item. (Cruse 1986)

2.2 The concept of body-part terms

Body-part terms were collected mainly because they were present in every language (every
speaker having a body); accordingly, the emphasis mostly was not on analysis of the terms themselves
within each language, but on comparison across languages, mostly at the phonological level. A somewhat
late example of the traditional philological approach is Homburger’s (1929) study Les noms des parties
du corps dans les langues Négro-Africaines (The names of the parts of the body in the black African
languages). Contrary to what the title suggests, this is not really a study of names for body-parts in
African languages, but rather a comparative enterprise set up with the primary goal of uncovering a
common phonology as well as common lexical roots among the over fifty languages in her sample. The
fact that Yoruba forms part of her sample (as Yorouba of Nigéro-Camérounienne affiliation) makes this
study probably the first in which the body-part terms of Yoruba are singled out for examination. The
Yoruba data is drawn from 1885 French-Yoruba dictionary by Baudin, a missionary in Benin. The data
are not always accurate or complete, mainly because Homburger tends to omit words that do not fit
readily into her proposals. This means, for example, that common words such as ẹsẹ̀ ‘leg’ and apá ‘arm’
are missing. The modern continuation of this comparative philological view on body-part terminology
may be sought, among others, in the work of Morris Swadesh, who in the 1940-50’s (Barnouw 1978)
compiled a list of core vocabulary intended for historical-comparative purposes. Some twenty body-part
terms form part of this widely used list. Wilkins (1993:24-5) proposes a reordering of comparative word
lists based on regular semantic changes in the domain of body-parts.
Somewhere around the end of the nineteenth century, a new approach came up in lexicology
which studied the ways in which notions are named in human languages. The Romanist Adolf Zauner
coined the term onomasiology for this discipline, analogous to semasiology, the study of isolated words
and the way their meanings are manifested. Aside from just looking at how notions are labelled,
onomasiology tries to account for changes in this labelling, i.e. semantic change. Arguably, Zauner’s
(1903) study Die Romanischen Namen der Körperteile (The Romanesque names of body parts) was
foundational in many ways to research into body-part terminology, and much of the later findings in this
area are already foreshadowed in his work. He offers an explanation for the general stability of body part
terms; according to him, a body-part term refers to an unchanging outlook nature (unwandelbares
Aussenwesen) and hence is less susceptible to cultural change which according to him easily induces
semantic shift (Verschiebung). At the same time, he offers some observations on semantic changes and
shifts that nonetheless do occur in body part vocabulary: confusion of parts of the body (verwechslung
von Körperteilen), for example, occurs mainly in body parts that are adjacent to each other (Andersen,
1978:357), but can also happen as a result of outer similarity (äusseren ähnlichkeit), as is often the case in
palm of the hand and sole of the foot (a point also made by Brown and Witkowski some eighty years
later; see also Wilkins (1993), and Schladt (1997). An unfortunate omission is that Zauner does not treat
body parts for which he failed to find labels in some of his test languages. In other words, he only treats
body part terms that are found in all Romance languages, and passes by terms for notions like wrist,
knuckle, hollow of the knee, shoulder blade, shin, side, groin, etc. which he located in some, but not all
languages of his sample.
The first half of the twentieth century saw the rise of some of academic philosophy which opened
up new ways of looking at the body in language. Between 1923 and 1929, the German philosopher Ernst
Cassirer developed his philosophy of symbolic forms. In the first volume, dealing with language, he
connected the meanings of certain spatial concepts to human embodiment and experience: ‘Das Innen und
Aussen, das Vorn und Hinten, das Oben und Unten erhält seine Bezeichnung dadurch, dass sie je an ein
bestimmtes sinnliches Substrat im Ganzen des menschlichen Leibes angeknüpft warden’ (The inside and
outside, the front and rear, the top and bottom gets its name due to the fact that depending on a certain
sensual substrate in the whole body be linked) (1923:156).
In the same period, the phenomenological method was founded. One of the most influential
works in the phenomenological method is Merleau-Ponty's Phénoménologie de la perception
(Phenomenology of Perception) (1945). The body, he said, is what mediates and constitutes our contact
with the outside world. At the same time, it is only through the body that our inner life can manifest itself
outwards — the body is expression (1945:226- 230). Early followers of Merleau-Ponty who elaborated on
this point include Louis van Haecht and Joost De Witte. For Van Haecht (1947), the primacy of bodily
experience in human intuitions about space and time was evident from the fact that spatial and temporal
prepositions often are derived from certain body-part terms. Similar evidence was adduced for the notions
of pointing and counting.
De Witte in particular offered a fascinating and masterful blend of the onomasiological and
phenomenological approaches in his 1948 dissertation De betekeniswereld van het lichaam:
taalpsychologische, taalvergelijkende studie (The semantic realm of the body: psycholinguistic and
comparative linguistic study). Whereas Zauner’s seminal study limited itself to Romance, the study by De
Witte is much wider in scope, being based on an enormous wealth of data from over sixty languages from
all over the world. This 500 page study is impossible to summarize in a few sentences. Let me give just
one example: his treatment of the body part ‘back’. De Witte starts with a diagram detailing the various
sources of names for ‘back’ as well as paths of semantic change that lead from and to it. He furthermore
recognizes and discusses the distinction between the zoomorphic and the anthropomorphic models of the
body as source domains in grammaticalization (Heine 1997, Reh 1999) noting that the concept of human
‘back’ often serves as a source for ‘behind’ (spatial) and ‘after’ (temporal) whereas instances of ‘back’
being used in the sense of ‘top/above’ are more plausibly related to the animal ‘back’. All throughout, his
statements are illustrated by examples from a diversity of languages.
After 1950, studies taking a phenomenological approach to body-part terminology are quite rare.
One particularly nice example, however, is Fédry’s (1976) L’experience du corps commestructure du
langage (The experience of the body as the structure of the language), a study of the human body and the
corps des choses (body of things), as he calls it, in the Chadian language Sàṛ̃. With the expression ‘corps
des choses’, Fédry refers to the fact that body-part terms are frequently used to describe things other than
the human body. Fédry’s study in turn influenced Buhan & Kange Essiben’s (1979:191-216) description
of the body in the language of the Bakoko of South-West Cameroon.
Onomasiology in its original form (as described above) thrived somewhere between 1870 and
1930 (Geeraerts 2002a). It returned in another form in the 1950-60’s, when anthropologists started to take
interest in folk biology and nomenclature. The name most tightly connected with this current of
anthropological linguistics is that of Brent Berlin (in several collaborations with Breedlove and Raven),
although Conklin’s (1954) The Relation of the Hanunóo to the Plant World is cited by them as one of the
defining publications. Berlin et al.’s study was followed in its wake by the influential research of Cecil H.
Brown and colleagues on body-part nomenclature (or ethnoanatomy as it was called at the time,
analoguous to ethnobiology). This line of research was initiated in Brown (1976) and Brown et al. (1976);
some other central publications include McClure (1975), and Andersen (1978).Thoroughly influenced by
earlier studies on taxonomy, the emphasis was on a comparable structure in the body-part domain:
partonomy. Another axis of this work concerned the growth of nomenclature in the domain, focusing
especially on implicational universals and the principles underlying these. In some studies (esp. in Brown
& Witkowski 1981 and 1983 and 1985), a decisively speculative approach to onomasiology was taken,
correlating for example the occurrence or non-occurrence of labels with certain cultural and sociological
traits. Importantly, much of the research on the growth of body-part nomenclature was carried out on the
basis of data drawn from dictionaries rather than being gathered in field work. At least in the case of
Yoruba, which forms part of their sample, this has rendered their results somewhat unreliable,

2.3 Yoruba body-part terms

Rowland’s (1969) Teach yourself Yoruba devotes several sections to the different roles body-part
terms play in Yoruba. He notes for example, that Yoruba has a whole series of pairs of words which
consist the combination of prefix “sí-” and “ní-"with names of parts of the body to indicate position or
direction as the case may be. With some of these “sí” and “ní” have come to be written as one word,
while with others either an inverted comma is used to show that two words have come together through
elision or they may even be written separately in their unelided forms. In such pairs “sí” generally
corresponds with “to, towards” while “ní” corresponds with “in, at”.

Body-part Terms Direction Position

inú (stomach) inínú (inside) sínú (inside)
orí(head) lórí (to the head) sórí (on top)
ìdí (buttock) n’ídǐ (to the base) s’ídǐ (bottom)
ẹ̀hìn (back) lẹ́hìn (back) sẹ́hìn (rear)
ẹnu (mouth) l’ẹ́nu (to the mouth) s’ẹ́nu (mouth)
ojú (eye) l’ójú (to the face) s’ójú (on the face)
apá (arm) l’ápá (to the …) s’ápá (on the …)
ọwọ́ (hand) l’ọwọ́ (to the …) s’ọwọ́ (on the …)
(p.139)
Note: “n” changes to “l” before oral vowels as seen in example iv – viii.
Also, in a chapter on emotions, sensations and ailments, he details some of the uses of body-part
terms in emotion terminology. Examples of emotion terminologies used by Rowland using body-part
terms are:
inú bi mi si i
(stomach born me to him)
 I got angry with him
inú ḿbi i púpọ̀
(stomach borning him a lot)
He always gets very angry
ọ̀rọ̀ yí bí mi nínú
(talk this born me inside stomach)
This word/this matter made me angry
inú ńlọ́ mi
(inside twisting me)
I have gripes
ojú tì mí
(eye pushing me)
I felt bashful/ashamed
ẹnu yà mi
(mouth pictured me)
I was surprised
orí ńfọ́ mi
(head breaking me)
I have headache
orí rẹ fó
(head his broke)
He is a fool
ó ri mi l’ára
(it sees me in the body)
It nauseates me
As seen in the above example, Rowland (1969: 127-131) gave, “inú” (stomach) is used in
examples i – iii to express emotion anger while it is used in example vi to express ailment. “ojú” (eyes) is
used in examples v to express being shy or ashamed. “ẹ́nu” (mouth) is used in examples vi to express
surprise. “orí” (head) is used in example vii to express ailment while it is used in example viii to express
emotion of not being wise and “ara” (body) which is the container of other body-parts is used to express
irritation in example ix.
Rowland (1969) only dedicated few chapters in his book “Teach Yourself Yoruba” to talk on few
Yoruba body-part terms that can be used to indicate direction and position as well as to express ailment,
sensation and emotion as seen in the examples above curled from his book but he didn’t span his work
through all the body-part terms especially the external body-part terms that have been seen overtime as an
inventory that offer a good and rich laboratory for the study of meaning extension “polysemy”, this study
is set to identify various meaning extension external body-part terms can generate.
 Dingemanse’s (2006) “The Body in Yoruba: A Linguistic Study focuses on the body and its parts
as a semantic domain, providing first of all a detailed and illustrated overview of Yoruba body-part terms,
and furthermore covering such areas as grammatical constructions for bodily actions and events,
organizing principles of the domain, semantic extensions of body-part terms, some of the roles ascribed to
internal body-parts, and the body in the context of the Yoruba conception of a person. The work dwells
extensively on ascribing names and functions to body-part terms in Yoruba language.
“The head, orí, is the upper part of the body. It is the locus of the brain, o ̣pọlọ; but more
importantly, it is a symbol for the inner head (orí inú), the destiny of a person. With reference to
its place in Yoruba thought, language and art, orí may be considered the single most important
part of the body.” (p.20)
ojú = ẹ̀yaara ìríran
ojú = body-part vision
‘the part of the body used for vision’ (p.21)
“Ara is the physical body (20); it can also be used in the sense of skin, as in (21), but
there is also the more general awọ ‘skin’ found in expressions like awọ ara ‘human skin’ ” (p.22)
He named the different human parts of the body in Yoruba with the aid of a diagram. The various
names given to the different body-part are:
etí “ear” imú “nose” itan “thigh”
ètè “lip” ọrùn “neck” idodo “navel”
ọwọ́ “hand” apá “arm” orúnkún “knee”
ọmú “breast” inú “belly” ẹsẹ̀ “leg”
(p.20,23)
Dingemanse (2006) only gave the names and functions of few body-part terms but didn’t go into
the possible semantic extension these body-part terms can realize. In view of this, this study is set to use
the information on Yoruba body-part terms provided in Dingemanse (2006) as a working tool to dwell on
the semantic extension of Yoruba body-part terms.
2.4 Review of literature on Research Methodology
This part of the literature review reviews literature on the type of methodology that is be adopted
in carrying out this research.
The methodologies that will be used for this research are participant observation and structured
interview. According to Kumur (2011), he defines participant observation as an act whereby a researcher
participates in the activities of the group being observed in the same manner as its members, with or
without their knowledge that they are being observed.
Monette et al. (1986: 156) says an interview involves an interviewer reading questions to
respondents and recording their answers.
 Burns (1997) says an interview is a verbal interchange, often face to face, though the telephone
may be used, in which an interviewer tries to elicit information, beliefs or opinions from other person.
Aina (2004) sees interview as a process whereby the researcher poses questions to the
respondents and the answers are recorded by the researcher. Materials that could be used during interview
period are tape recorder, paper and biro. He says the major advantage of this method of data collection is
that it produces high response rate. Besides, it tends to be representative of the entire population of the
study, and personal contact between the researcher and the respondents enables the researcher to explain
confusing and ambiguous questions in details.
Kumur (2011) says when interviewing a respondent, a researcher has the freedom to decide the
format and content of questions to ask his respondents, select the wordings of the questions, decide the
way he wants them and choose the order in which they are to be asked. He divided interview into two
types, namely; structured and unstructured.
He says in a structured interview, which is the method adopted in this research for data collection,
the researcher asks a predetermined set of questions, using the same wording and order of questions as
specified in the interview schedule. An interview schedule is a written list of questions, open ended or
closed, prepared for use by an interviewer in a person-to-person interaction (this may be face to face, by
telephone or by other electronic media).
One of the main advantages of the structured interview is that it provides uniform information,
which assures the comparability of data. Structured interviewing requires fewer interviewing skills
He then states that in an unstructured interview, the researcher is free to order the questions in
whatever sequence he wishes. The researcher also has complete freedom in terms of the wording he uses
and the way he explains questions to his respondents. The researcher may formulate questions and raise
issues on the spur of the moment, depending upon what occurs to him in the context of the discussion.

3.0 Theoretical Framework and Research Methodology

This section discusses the theoretical framework and the research methodology adopted for this
study.

3.1 Theoretical framework

Having identified different approaches to the study of polysemy in the second chapter of this
study, the approach adopted to serve as the theoretical framework for the analysis of data is the one
proffered by Ibarretxe (1999) known as compositional polysemy. The basic idea of the theory is that
different semantic extensions of a lexical item are obtained through the interaction of the semantic content
of both the lexical item itself and its different co-occurring elements. The weight of the semantics of these
elements in the creation of polysemy is not always the same; it varies according to the degree of semantic
influence of these elements in the overall meaning. For example, in Basque language, the word buru
means ‘head’. As is the case in many other languages, the word for head is polysemous not only because
it refers to this body part but also because it can be used in several other contexts. In Basque language,
buru can be used to mean the following:
Buru as top, summit
Mendiburura igo ginen
(Mountain.head ascend aux)
"We climbed to the top of the mountain"
Buru as end, conclusion
Nola eman behar zioten buru asmoari?
(How give must-aux head plan)
How were they going to finish the plans?
Buru as leader
Nor da etxe honetako burua?
(Who is house this head)
"Who is the head of this house"
(Ibarretxe-Antuñano 2006)
In Yoruba language, the body-part term “oju” – eyes can be used to mean the following;
má tijú
(don’t push.eye)
Don’t be shy
ó gbà mí l’ójú ti
(it receive me from.eyes ?)
It made me feel ashamed

ọ̀rọ̀ yi t’ojú sú mi
(talk this from.eyes tire me)
This business completely puzzles me
(Rowland 1969)
Studies on body-part terms within this framework (Rowland 1969; Ibarretxe-Antuñano 2006;
Almajir 2013) have shown that this is a strong hypothesis. An interaction between a lexeme denoting
body part and co-occurring elements leads to the emergence of numerous senses that are different from
the notion of body.
For example in Basque language, the body-part term “buru” – head is used in the examples below
to mean something different from notion of body.
Buru as intelligence
 Emakume buruargia eta bipila
(Woman head.light and brave)
An intelligent and courageous woman
Buru as book chapter
Bigarren burua. Sigifredo kondea gerrara
(Second head Sigifredo count war)
"The second chapter: Count Sigifredo goes to war"
(Ibarretxe-Antuñano 2006)
In Yoruba language, the body-part term “ọrùn” – neck is used in the example below to mean
something different from notion of body.
ó tẹ́ mi l’ọ́rùn
(it spread me to the neck)
I am satisfied
(Rowland
1969)

Hausa language just like every other African language is a good ground for this framework. The
examples below show some semantic extension of Hausa body-part terms “kai” – head and “baki” –
mouth.
“kai” – head
Ya yi batan kai
He lost head
He lost direction
Yana da duhun kai
He has dark head
He is not very intelligent
Yana son kansa
He loves his head
He is selfish

“baki” – mouth
Ya iya bakinsa
He guards mouth
(He is reserved)
Yana da nayin baki
He has heavy mouth
He is an introvert
Na ba shi baki
I gave him mouth
I pleased him
 (Almajir 2013)

3.2 Methodogy
The total number of the Yoruba body-part terms that have polysemic use collected from the field
is 190. Out of this number, 115 items are polysemic use of external body-part terms and 75 items are
polysemic use of internal body-part terms. The researcher puts aside the items with the polysemic use of
internal body-part terms and concentrates on the items with the polysemic use of external body-part terms
to form the sample population for this research work since the study focuses on the polysemic use of the
external body-part terms.
Participant observation whereby the researcher engaged group of respondents in a discussion
which he fully participated in was the major data collection method used. Another method of data
collection that was used in gathering data for this research is structured interview; the researcher prepared
ten questions which he administered by himself to the respondents of age 60-above of both gender (that
is, male and female) as speakers of this language in this age group are seen as masters of the language and
this was recorded with the knowledge of the respondents.

4.0 Data Presentation and Analysis

This section presents and analyses data obtained field. In this chapter, the focus is on the analysis
of seven external body-part terms in Yoruba. The external body-part terms, apart from having a prototype
meaning of the notion of body, show a great variety of meaning that are different from the notion of body.
The goal of this chapter is to show the prototype meaning of each of the seven body-part terms,
their various semantic extensions which will be categorized into two: transparent and opaque and also
show the percentage of frequency of occurrence of each term.
4.1 Data Presentation and Analysis
The external body-part terms that stand as the source of data for analysis are orí – ‘head’,
ojú – ‘eye’, etí –‘ear’, ẹnu – ‘mouth’, imú – nose, ọwọ́ – ‘hand’ and ẹsẹ̀ – ‘leg’. Attention will be paid on
the body-part lexemes and the co-occurring elements in the sentences which will aid in constructing their
meaning.
In the analysis, the prototype meaning of the body-part lexeme will be given and the different
semantic extensions will be categorized into two groups namely; transparent: extended meaning is
considered transparent when it has a kind of resemblance with the core meaning/prototype meaning of its
lexical item (Cruse, 1986) and opaque: external meaning is considered as opaque when it does not have
any resemblance with the core meaning of the lexical item (Cruse, 1986).

4.1.1 Orí – ‘Head’

The head is an important body part in the field of linguistics, it contains the brain where language
is stored and sound heard is processed and interpreted into meaningful sound. With reference to its place
in Yoruba thought, language and art, orí is considered the single most important part of the body.

4.1.1.1 Prototype meaning of orí – ‘head’

‘Head’ is the upper part of the body containing the eye, nose, mouth, ear and brain joined to the
trunk by the neck (Delano, 1985). This definition corresponds to the prototypical understanding of the
noun orí – ‘head’ as illustrated in the example below:

Orí aburo mi tobi

Head brother my big
(My brother’s head is big)
In the example above, it is seen that the prototype meaning ofn the lexeme orí in Yoruba is same
as ‘head’ in English.

4.1.1.2 Semantic Extension of orí – ‘head’

The basic reference of the notion ‘head’ is body part, but head expressions are used frequently to
refer to the brain, the mind, rationality and intelligence etc. this is because the mind, rationality and
intelligence have been presumed to be located in the head (Niemeier, 2000). Therefore, location is a
common motivation for the use orí. Also, the body-part term orí can have the notion of luck, top and end
of something when used in some expressions.
 Having known the prototype meaning and scope of possible extended meaning of the body-part
term orí, the various extended meaning of it are presented and categorized into two groups namely;
transparent and opaque.

4.1.1.2.1 Transparent Extended meaning of orí – ‘head’

The various extended meanings of the body-part term orí that are transparent are identified
below.
Orí ń fọ́ mi
head breaking me
(I have headache)

Orí apata
Head mountain
(Mountain top)

4.1.1.2.2 Opaque External meaning of orí – ‘head’

The various extended meanings of the body-part term orí that are opaque are identified below:
Orí ẹ̀ ti dàrú
Head his has scatter
(He has run mad)

Olórí ẹbí
head-poss family
(Family head)
Orí ẹ̀ ti dí
head his has blocked
(He is very dull)
Gbórí dúró
carry.head wait
(Be calm)
Olórí orílẹ̀-èdè
Head-poss country
(President)

Orí ẹ pé
head your complete
(You are sensible)

Ó ti bọ́ s’órí
it has escape to.head
 (It is too late)

Orì ọ̀rọ̀
head talk
(Topic)

Orí kìn-ín-ní
head number one
(Chapter One)

Ọ̀rọ̀ mi á yorí sí rere

word me will remove.head in good
(My situation will end well)

Mo ní orí obìnrin
I have head female

(I am lucky in having a good wife)

Forí jìn mí
use.head ? me
(Forgive me)

4.1.2 Ojú – ‘Eye’

The word ojú is ambiguous; depending on its use, it can refer to ‘eye’ or ‘face’. According to
Delano (1958), ojú is defined as the part of the body used for vision and also defined it as the entire front
of the head.
Ojú as eye Ojú as face
Mo ni ojú mèjí Mo ní ojú ènìyàn mèjí
I have oju two I have eye person two
(I have two eyes) (I have two person’s face)

4.1.2.1 Prototype meaning of ojú – ‘eye’

‘Eye’ is an organ of sight which is responsible for converting light into impulses that are
transmitted to the brain for interpretation. ‘Eye’ is an organ that gathers information visually and sends to
the brain for processing, this means the raw data received by the eye has to be processed by the brain
before it can be considered as inform ation. This definition corresponds to the prototypical understanding
of the noun ojú as illustrated in the example below:
Ojú ẹ̀ ló fi ri mí
Eye his he use see me
(He saw me with his eyes)
 In the above example, it is seen that the prototype understanding of the lexeme ojú in Yoruba
same as ‘head’ in English. According to the prototype meaning of ojú, the primary notion presumed for it
is ‘sight’.

4.1.2.2 Semantic Extension of ojú – ‘eye’

The eye is a window into the mind which makes it a good source of polysemy when used in
different expressions. The basic reference of the notion ‘eye’ is body part but frequently, can be used to
refer to the notion of insight, point, pretence, covetousness, seduction, choice etc, this is because the
mind which the eye is a window into can be used to induce different notions to lexeme based on the
expressions it is used.
Having identified the prototype meaning and scopes of possible extended meaning of the body-
part term ojú, the various extended meanings of it are presented below and categorized into two groups
namely; transparent and opaque.

Transparent Extended meaning of ojú – ‘eye’

The various extended meanings of the body-part term ojú that are transparent are identified
below.
Mo fojú jọ ọ
I with.eyes resemble him
(I look like him)

Ojú inú
eye inside
(Insight)

Ojú mí wà lára ẹ
eye my is in.body him
(I am monitoring him)

Ó faju ro
he pull.eye ?
(He frowned)

Opaque Extended meaning of ojú – ‘eye’

The various extended meanings of the body-part term ojú that are opaque are identified below:
Ojúbọ
eyes.worship
 (Shrine)

Ó dijú mọ́rí
he tied.eyes head
(He refused totally)

Ojú ìwé
eye book
(Book page/page of a book)

Ojú ara
eye body
(Female private part)

Ó fojú rere wò
he with.eye good look
(He showed mercy on him)

Ojú ọ̀nà
eye road
(Pathway)

Ojú ayé lo ńṣe

eye world he doing
(He is pretending/eye service)

Ò dijú ṣe é
he close.eyes do it
(He did it with determination)

Ojú mi ló dé
eye my he come
(He came in my presence)

Ò ti mójú kúrò ńibẹ̀

he has eye leave it
(He has given up on it)

Ojú tì í
eye push him
(He is shy)
Kò lójú tì
neg. in.eye come
(He does not have shame)

Mo sejú si ì
I cook.eye to her
(I seduced her)

Ó ṣẹ́jú sí mi
he blink.eye to me
(He signalled me)

Ọ̀gá mi dójú lé mi
boss my fix.eye put me
(My boss dislikes me)

Re’jú
soak.eye
(Sleep)

S'ojú abẹ níkòó

throw.eye blade knock
(Say the truth)

Ojú àpá
eye mark of healing
(Scar)

Ó fẹ́ ẹ́ lójú
he widen in.eye
(He escalated it)

Ó féjú mọ́ ọ
he widen.eye him
(He scared him)

Ojú mí d’ojú ẹ
eye my turn.eye yours
(I rely on you to represent me)

Ojú omi
eye water
(Surface of the water)
 Ojú ọ̀run
eye heaven
(Sky)

Ó wà lòjú oorun
he is in.eye sleep
(He is sleeping)

Ó fojú sí i dáadáa
he with.eye to it very.well
(He pays attention carefully)

Ojú ń ro mí
eyes aching me
(Am sorrowful)

Ó kán mi lójú
he broke my in.eye
(He hurried/hastened me)

Ó ń tẹ ojú mi mọ́lẹ̀
you stepping eye my ground
(You are getting me angry)

Yọ t'ojú ẹ kúrò
remove of.eye your away
(Stop being covetous)

Ó jọjú
it sieve.eye
(It is valuable)

Ojú ogun
eye war
(War front)

Ó lójú kòkòrò
he in.eye ant
(He is covetous)

Ojú ikú
eye death
(Point of death)
 Ó pọ́n lójú
it wrap in.eye
(I made him suffer)

Ó mójú lọ sọ́jà
He took.eye go to.market
(He made a good choice)

Lójú ẹsẹ̀
in.eye leg
(On the spot)

Ojú ọmọ pọ́n ọn

eye child wrap him
(He was barren)

Idojúko
act of eye.facing
(Confrontation)

Ó jo o loju
it resemble.him in.eye

(It shocked me)

Ọ̀rọ̀ ayé è ti dojúrú

word life his has in.eye

(His life is chattered)

Gbájúmò ni mi
hit.eye.know is me

(I am famous)

Ó ń ṣe ojú ṣajú
he doing eye forward
(He is partial)

4.1.3 Ẹnu – ‘Mouth

Mouth is cross-linguistically associated with language (Radden, 2001).
4.1.3.1 Prototype meaning of Ẹnu –‘Mouth’
The Mouth is an opening through which an animals and human beings take food. It is the part of
the body that is use for talking and it contains the tongue, teeth and other speech sound articulators. This
definition corresponds to the prototype understanding of the noun ẹnu as illustrated in the example below:
ẹnu e wu, ko le sọ̀rọ̀ dáadáa
mouth his swell, neg. he talk well
(He can’t talk because his mouth is swollen)
The above example shows that the prototype meaning of ẹnu in Yoruba and ‘mouth’ in English is
the same. Mouth primarily has the notion of speech based on the prototype meaning.

4.1.3.2 Semantic Extension of Ẹnu –‘Mouth’

Mouth is a good source of polysemy when used in different expressions. Aside from the primary
notion of speech, mouth expressions are used to refer to the notion of being reserved, complaint, surprise,
shock, caution, flattering, silence etc. all the aforementioned notions are realized due to the fact that they
are associated with speech, that is, they all happen with either talking or not talking.
Having identified the prototype meaning and scopes of possible extended meanings of it are
presented and categorized into two groups namely; transparent and opaque below.

Transparent Extended Meaning of Ẹnu –‘Mouth’

The various extended meanings of the body-part term ẹnu that are transparent are identified
below.

Ó máa ń lanu gbàgà sọ̀rọ̀

he does cont. open.mouth ? talk
(He does talk anyhow)

Elẹ́nu méjì ni
mouth-poss two ?
(He is inconsistent in speech)

Ó fẹnu sí i
he put.mouth in it
(He arbitrated)

Ó gbẹ́nu lọ́wọ́
he carry.mouth in.hand
(He keep quiet)
 Ó fi ẹnu dídùn bá a sọ̀rọ̀
he use mouth sweet ? to.talk
(He flatters him)

Ó ti fẹ́nu kọ
he has use.mouth stumble
(He has said what he is not suppose to say)

Ó gbẹnu mi sọ̀rọ̀
he pass.mouth my to.talk
(He spoke on my behalf)

Ó panu mó
he kill.mouth neat
(He kept mute)

Opaque External Meaning of Ẹnu – ‘Mouth’

The various extended meanings of the body-part term énu that are opaque are identified below:
Ó yàá lẹ́nu
It open in.mouth
(It surprised him)

Ó kóra ẹ̀ níjanú
he pack.body his ?.mouth

(He cautioned himself)

Ẹnu ẹ ni mo wà
mouth it am I in
(I am still on it)

Gbẹnu ibí
pass.mouth here
(Pass through here)

Ó fonu gan
he break.mouth a lot
(He is proud)

Ó mú ẹnu ayé kúrò

he take mouth world away
(He avoids people’s complaint)
 Wàá fẹnu fẹ́ra
you.will use.mouth blow.body
(You will encounter problem)

Ẹnu ọ̀nà
mouth road
(Entrance)

Ẹnu ibodè
mouth border
(Boundary)

Kò gbọ́rọ̀ sí mi lẹ́nu
neg. hear.talk to my in.mouth
(He is disobedient to me)

Ó lẹ́nu
he has.mouth

(He is boastful)

A ti fẹnu ko
we has use.mouth ?
(we have agreed)

4.1.4 Etí – ‘Ear’

The ear is an important body part in linguistics as it is an essential organ in auditory phonetics.

4.1.4.1 Prototype meaning of Etí – ‘Ear’

Just like the eye that gathers information to send to the brain, the ear is an organ that gathers
information about the external world and sends to the brain for processing and interpretation. This
definition corresponds to the prototype understanding of the noun etí as illustrated below:
Etí àbúrò mí kéré
Ear younger me small
(My brother’s ear is small)
The above example shows that the term etí in Yoruba and ‘ear’ in English share the same
prototype meaning.

4.1.4.2 Semantic Extension of Etí – ‘Ear’

 The body-part term etí is a good source of polysemy when used in different expression. In
Yoruba, the meaning of phraseological expressions involving the word etí can refer to caution, proximity,
position, attention and warning.
Having known the prototype meaning and scopes of possible extended meaning of the body-part
term etí, the various extended meanings of it are presented and categorized into two groups namely;
transparent and opaque below.

Transparent Extended meaning of Etí – ‘Ear’

The various extended meanings of the body-part term etí that are transparent are identified below.

Ó tẹ́ti lélẹ̀
he spread.ear on.down
(He pays attention)

Fi etí kọ́rọ̀
use ear hook.word
(Eavesdrop)

4.1.4.2.2 Opaque Extended Meaning of Etí – ‘Ear’

Extended The various extended meanings of the body-part term etí that are opaque are identified
below:
Ó fà á létí
he pull his in.ear
(He cautions him)

Etí ẹ mélòó
ear your how.many
(Warning)

Etí ilé ni mo ń gbe

ear house is I living
(I am live nearby)

Etí tábílì
ear table
(Edge of the table)

4.1.5 Imú – ‘Nose’

 The nose is an organ that covers the nasal cavity that is used in the production of nasal sounds.

4.1.5.1 Prototype meaning of imú – ‘Nose’

Nose is that part of the face that sticks out between the eyes and the mouth used for breathing and
smelling things. This definition corresponds to the prototype understanding of the noun imú as illustrated
below:
Fi imú ẹ gborun ẹ
Use nose your smell it
(Use your nose to smell it)
In the above example, it is seen that the Yoruba body-part term imú and English lexeme ‘nose’
have the same prototype meaning.

4.1.5.2 Semantic Extension of imú – ‘Nose’

The body-part term imú is a good source of polysemy when used in different expressions.
Expressions involving imú can have the notion of punishment, investigation and mockery.
The various extended meanings of the body-part term imú are transparent and are presented
below.

4.1.5.2.2 Opaque Extended meaning of imú – ‘nose’

The various extended meanings of the body-part term imú that are opaque are identified below:
Ó yínmú sí mi
he ?.nose to me
(He mocked me)

Màá fi imú ẹ fọn fèrè

I will use nose your blow trumpet
(I will punish you seriously)

Màá fi imú ẹ danrin

I.will use nose your sharpen.iron
(I will punish you seriously)

Fimú fínlẹ̀
use.nose spray.ground
(Investigate)

4.1.6 Ọwọ́ – ‘Hand’

 Hand is involved in a non-verbal communication called gesture. Gesture is the movement of the
hands, face or other part of the body to pass a message. In Syntax which is a subfield of linguistics, hand
is seen as an instrument because it is used to carry out an action.

4.1.6.1 Prototype meaning of ọwọ́ – ‘hand’

Hand is the part of the body which is used to hold things. It is a locus of five fingers. This
definition corresponds to the prototype meaning of the noun ọwọ́ as illustrated below:
O ti fọwọ́ dimu
He has use.hand hold.it
(He has held it with his hand)
In the above example, it is seen that the Yoruba body-part term ọwó and English lexeme ‘hand’
have the same prototype meaning.
4.1.6.2 Semantic Extension of ọwọ́ – ‘hand’
The body-part term ọwọ́ is a good source of polysemy when used in different expression.
Expression involving ọwọ́ can have the notion of torment, healing, delay, assistance, unity, collaboration,
approval, support etc.
The various extended meanings of the body-part term ọwọ́ are presented and categorized into
transparent and opaque below.

4.1.6.2.1 Transparent Extended meaning of ọwọ́ – ‘hand’

The various extended meanings of the body-part term ọwọ́ that are transparent are identified
below.
Iṣẹ́ ọwọ́ ẹ̀ ni
work hand his ?
(It is his handiwork)

Ó ti bu ọwọ́ lù ú
he has fetch hand to it
(He has signed it)

4.1.6.2.2 Opaque Extended meaning of ọwọ́ – ‘hand’

Extended meaning is considered as opaque when it does not have any resemblance with the core
meaning of the lexical item (Cruse, 1986). The various extended meanings of the body-part term ọwọ́ that
are opaque are identified below:
Ọwọ́ ayé wà lára ẹ
hand world is on.body him
(He is being tormented by the evil ones)
 Olúwa ti gbọ́wọ́ lé mi
God has carry.hand on me
(God has healed me)

Ó bọ́ lọ́wọ́ ẹ̀
it escaped in.hand him
(He lost it)

Má fawọ́ aago sẹ́yìn

neg. pull.hand clock backward
(Don't delay)

Fọwọ́ kún un fún mi

use.hand add for me
(Assist me)

Ìfọwọ́ sowọ́ pọ̀

using.hand tie.hand together
(Unity)

Ìfowọ́wewọ́
use.hand.to.wash.hand
(Collaboration)

Mo ti dáwó le
I have place.hand on

(I have started)

Ọwọ́ tuntun ló gbé yo

hand new he carry ?

(He came in a new dimension)

Mo lowo si ipinu ẹ
I in.hand in decision his

(I am in support of his decision)

ṣe lọwọ kan na
do in.hand break ?
(Do it once and for all)

4.1.7 Ẹsẹ̀ – ‘Leg’

4.1.7.1 Prototype meaning of ẹsè – ‘leg’
Leg is the lower part of the body that the whole body rests on and it is used for moving from one
point to another point. This definition corresponds to the prototype understanding of the noun ẹsẹ̀ as
illustrasted below:
Ó fẹsẹ̀ ẹ rin wole
He use.leg his walk go.inside
(He walked inside with his legs)
In the above example, it is seen that the Yoruba body-part term ẹsẹ̀ and English lexeme ‘leg’ both
have the same prototype meaning.

4.1.7.2 Semantic Extension of ẹsè – ‘leg’

The body-part term ẹsẹ̀ is a good source of polyemy when used in different expressions. The
body-part term ẹsẹ̀ can have the notion of influence, escape, distance, etc, when used in different
expressions.
The various extended meanings of the body-part term ẹsẹ̀ are presented and categorized into
transparent and opaque.
4.1.7.2.1 Transparent Extended meaning of ẹsè – ‘leg’
The various extended meanings of the body-part term ẹsè that are transparent are identified
below.
Ó fẹsẹ̀ fẹ́ ẹ
he use.leg blow it
(He ran away)

Gbé ẹsẹ̀ nílẹ̀

carry leg from.ground
(Walk fast)

4.1.7.2.2 Opaque Extended meaning of ẹsè – ‘leg’

The various extended meanings of the body-part term ẹsè that are opaque are identified below:
Fí ẹsẹ̀ ilé tò ọ́
use leg house trace it

(Use the traditional method)

Mo máa lo ẹsẹ̀ mi lórí ọ̀rọ̀ náà

I will use leg my in.head talk the

(I will influence the issue)

Ó ṣe lẹsẹ lẹsẹ
 he did in.leg in.leg

(He did it immediately)

Mo ti gb’ẹ́sẹ̀ lé e
I has carry.leg on it

(I have taken over it)

Ẹsẹ̀ kìn-ín-ní
leg number one
(Verse one)

Ká ẹsẹ̀ ètò nílẹ̀

fold leg programme from.ground
(Round off the programme)

Ó ṣe ìgbọ̀nsẹ̀
he did shaking.leg
(He defecates)

Ibè nasẹ̀
place stretch.leg
(The place is far)

Ó tésé dè mí
he press.leg for me
(He waited for me)

Ó ba ẹsẹ sọrọ
he ? leg talk
(He left the place)

4.2 Calculating Percentage of Occurrence

This part of this section focuses on the percentage of the frequency of occurrence and also gives a
diagram presentation of the percentage of occurrence.
The percentage of occurrence of the extended meaning of each of the seven external body-part
terms is calculated to know the body-part term that is mostly used to generate polysemy and the body-part
term that is least used for polysemy.

4.2.1 Calculation of the Percentage of Occurrence

The formula for calculating the percentage of frequency of occurrence is
 No. of occurrence of extended meaning of a body-part term x 100
Total no. of occurrence of extended meaning of external body-part terms

Before calculating the percentage of frequency of occurrence, the frequency of occurrence table
must be given to know the number of extended meanings each body-part term realizes apart from its
prototype meaning.
Table 1.1 Frequency Table
Lexical Device Types Frequency

of Occurrence

Orí 14

Ojú 46

Imú 4

Ẹnu 20
Body-Part Terms

Etí 6

Ọwọ́ 13

Ẹsẹ̀ 12

Total 115

Having got the table of frequency of occurrence, it will help in calculating the percentage of frequency of
occurrence.

Percentage of Occurrence of Orí – ‘head’

No. of occurrence of extended meaning of Orí x 100
Total no. of occurrence of extended meaning of external body-part terms
14 x 100
115 = 12.2%

Percentage of Occurrence of Ojú – ‘eye’

No. of occurrence of extended meaning of Ojú x 100
Total no. of occurrence of extended meaning of external body-part terms
46 x 100
115 = 40%

Percentage of Occurrence of Imú – ‘nose’

 No. of occurrence of extended meaning of Imú x 100
Total no. of occurrence of extended meaning of external body-part terms
4 x 100
115 = 3.5%

Percentage of Occurrence of Ẹnu – ‘mouth’

No. of occurrence of extended meaning of Ẹnu x 100
Total no. of occurrence of extended meaning of external body-part terms
20 x 100
115 17.4%

Percentage of Occurrence of Etí

No. of occurrence of extended meaning of Etí x 100
Total no. of occurrence of extended meaning of external body-part terms
6 x 100
115 = 5.2%

Percentage of Occurrence of Ọwọ́

No. of occurrence of extended meaning of Ọwọ́ x 100
Total no. of occurrence of extended meaning of external body-part terms
13 x 100
115 = 11.3

Percentage of Occurrence of Ẹsẹ̀

No. of occurrence of extended meaning of Ẹsẹ̀ x 100
Total no. of occurrence of extended meaning of external body-part terms
12 x 100
115 = 10.4%

Table 1.2
Lexical Device Types Frequency Percentage (%)

of Occurrence

Orí 14 12.2

Ojú 46 40

Imú 4 3.5

Ẹnu 20 17.4
Body-Part Terms

Etí 6 5.2
 Ọwọ́ 13 11.3

Ẹsẹ̀ 12 10.4

Total 115 100

The percentage in the above table is presented in a diagram below:

5.0 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION

5.1 Summary of Findings

The data presented and analyzed in the fourth section of this research work helped the researcher
to notice some important phenomena in the use of body-part terms for polysemy in Yoruba language. The
findings from the data presented and analyzed in chapter four are stated below:
It is observed in the data analyzed that ojú – ‘eye’ is the mostly used body-part term for
polysemic use in Yoruba.
It is also seen in the analysis that body-part terms are used to derive more meanings that
cannot be deduced using the prototype meaning of the body-part terms than meaning that
can be deduced from the prototype meaning of the body-part terms, that is, body-part
terms are used to derive more opaque extended meanings than transparent extended
meanings.
In the data analyzed under body-part term, it is evident that the body-part term imú –
‘nose’ cannot be used to derive a transparent extended meaning.
In the analysis, it is evident that a single body-part term can be used in different
expressions to express the same notion.
The data analyzed in section four also shows that two different body-part terms can be
used in different expressions to express the same notion.

5.3 Conclusion
 The semantic domain of body-part terms in Yoruba is rich and multi-faceted. This study has
addressed polysemy which is a sub-field of semantics. In Yoruba, as in many languages, the body-part
terms serve as source domain for polysemy. Most of the figurative uses of the body-part terms examined
in this work play an important role and help in conceptualizing different notions.

Biblography
Adeyemi, M.C (1994). Iwe Itan Oyo (Book of Oyo History), Ibadan, Publisher not indicated.

Aina, L. O. (2004). Library and Information Science Text for Africa. Ibadan: Third World
Services Limited.

Allerton, D. J. (1979). Essentials of Grammatical Theory: A Consensus View of Syntax and Morphology.
London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Almajir, T. S. (2013). The Polysemy of Body Part terms in Hausa within the frame of Image Schemas. In.
Studies of Department of African Languages and Cultures, Pg. 47

Andersen, E. S. (1978). 'Lexical universals of body-part terminology', in Greenberg, Joseph H. (ed.)

Universals of human language, Vol. 3: Word structure. Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press, 335-368.

Asch, S. and Nerlove, H. (1960). The development of double function terms in children. In: B. Kaplan
and
S. Wapner (eds.), Perspectives in Psychological Theory, 47−60. New York: International
Universities Press.

Asher, N. (2011). Lexical Meaning in Context. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Austin, J. L. (1962). How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Azuma, T. and Van Orden, G. C. (1997). Why safe is better than fast: The relatedness of a word’s
meanings affects lexical decision times. Journal of Memory and Language 36(4):
484−504.
Babatunde, S. T. (1995). “An Introduction to meaning in English as a second language”.
Unpublished Manuscript.

Barnouw, A. (1978). An Introduction to Anthropology. Vol. II, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee

Behrens, L. (1999). “Aspects of polysemy”, in: Cruse, D. A et. al., (eds.), Lexicologie – Lexicology, vol.
1,
Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

Beretta, A. et al., (2005). The effects of homonymy and polysemy on lexical access: An MEG study.
Cognitive Brain Research 24 (1):57-65.

Bilkova, I. (2000). Czech and English Idioms of Body Parts: A view from cognitive semantics. Ph.D.
Thesis, University of Glasgow.

Blutner, R. (1998). Lexical pragmatics. Journal of Semantics 15 (2):115 162.

Blutner, R. (2004). “Pragmatics and the lexicon”. In Handbook of pragmatics, edited by L. R. Horn and
G.
L. Ward. Oxford: Blackwell. 488-514.

Bosch, P. (2007). Productivity, polysemy and predicate indexicality. In: Zeevat, H., ten Cate, B. (Eds.),
Proceedings of the Sixth International Tblisi Symposium on Language, Logic and
Computation. Springer, Heidelberg/Berlin.
Breal, M. (1897). “The history of words”. In: G. Wolf (ed./transl.), The Beginnings of Semantics:
Essays, Lectures and Reviews, 152−175. London: Duckworth.

Bréal, M. (1924 [1897]). Essai de sémantique: science des significations. Paris: Gérard Monfort.

Brown, C. H. (1976). General principles of human anatomical partonomy and speculations on the growth
of partonomic nomenclature, American Ethnologist, 3, 3 (special issue on Folk Biology),
400-424.

Brown, C. H. et al., (1976). Some general principles of biological and non-biological folk classification.
American Ethnologist, 3, 1,73-85.

Brown, C. H. & Witkowski, S. R. (1981). Figurative language in universalist perspective. American

Ethnologist, 8, 596-615.

Brown, C. H. & Witkowski, S. R. (1983). Polysemy, lexical change and cultural

importance.Man, 18, 72-89.

Brown, C. H. & Witkowski, S. R. (1985). Climate, clothing, and body part nomenclature.
Ethnology, 24, 197-214.

Brugman, C. (1988). The Story of over: Polysemy, Semantics, and the Structure of the
Lexicon. New York: Garland.

Brugman, C. and Lakoff, G. (1988). “Cognitive topology and lexical Networks”. In Lexical Ambiguity
 Resolution: Perspectives from Psycholinguistics, Neuropsychology and Artificial
Intelligence, edited by S. Small, G. Cottrell and M. Tannenhaus. SanMateo, California:
Morgan Kaufman. 477-507.

Byrd, D. & Mintz, T. H. (2010). Discovering Speech, Words, and Mind. Chichester: John Wiley.

Buhan, C. & Essiben, É. K. (1979). La mystique du corps: jalons pour une anthropologie du corps, les
Yabyan et les Yapeke, Bakoko (Elog-Mpoo ou Yamban-Ngee) de Dibombari au Sud
Cameroun. Paris: Éditions l’Harmattan.

Burns, R. B. (1997). Introduction to Research Methods (2nd edition), Melbourne, Longman Cheshire.

Carston, R. (2002b). Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit

Communication. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

Carston, R. (2010). “Explicit communication and 'free' pragmatic Enrichment”. In Explicit

Communication:
Robyn Carston's Pragmatics, edited by B. Soria and C. Romero. Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan.

Cassirer, E. (1923). Philosophie der symbolische Formen. Erster Teil: Die Sprache. Berlin.

Chapell, H. & McGregor, W. (1996). The Grammar of Inalienability: A Typological Perspective on Body
Part terms and the part-whole relation. Berlin/New York:Mouton de Gruyter.

Conklin, H. C. (1954). The Relation of Hanunóo Culture to the Plant World.

Ph.D. Thesis, Yale University. Published 1974, Yale University.

Copestake, A. and Briscoe. T. (1996). “Semi-productive polysemy and sense extension”. In Lexical
Semantics: TheProblem ofPolysemy, edited by J. Pustejovsky and B. Boguraev. New
York: Clarendon Press. 15-67.

Cruse, D. A. (1986). Lexical Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cruse, D. A. (2006). Glossary of Semantics and Pragmatics. Edinburgh University press

Delanọ, O. I. (1958). Atúmọ̀ ede Yoruba (short dictionary and grammar of the Yoruba
language). London: Oxford University Press.

De Witte, A. (1948). De betekeniswereld van het lichaam: taalpsychologische, taalvergelijkende studie.

Antwerpen/Utrecht: De Standaard/Het Spectrum.

Deane. P. D. (1988). Polysemy and Cognition. Lingua 75: 325-361

Dingemanse, M. (2006). The body in Yoruba: A linguistic study. Master Thesis, Leiden University,
Leiden.

Evans, V. (2005). The meaning of time: Polysemy, the lexicon and conceptual structure.
Journal of Linguistics 41(1): 33−75.
Evans, V. (2007). A Glossary of Cognitive Linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Fafunwa, B. (2008). Ẹ jé ká gbé Yoruba lárugẹ. Èdè Yoruba lóde òní. Ìwé àpilèkọ nípa àjọ Ìdàgbàsókè
ìmò
Yoruba; Àpérò lórì àjọ àmójútó Ìdàgbàsókè ìmò Yoruba. Macmillian Nigeria.

Fédry, J. (1976). L'experience du corps comme structure du langage – essai sur la langue
Sàr, Tchad. L'Homme 16, 1, 67 107.

Fillmore, C. J. (1982). Frame semantics. In: The Linguistic Society of Korea (ed.),
Linguistics in the Morning Calm, 111−137. Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Co.

Gbadegesin, S. (2003). “Ènìyàn, The Yoruba Concept of a Person”, in P.H. Coetzee and A.P.J. Roux
(eds)
The African Philosophy Reader (2nd ed.), 175-191. (This study originally appeared under
the same title in Gbadegesin, Segun, 1991. African philosophy: Traditional
Yorubaphilosophy and contemporary African realities. New York: Peter Lang, 27-59.)

Geeraerts, D. (2002). “The scope of diachronic onomasiology”, in Vilmos Agel, Andreas Gardt, Ulrike
Hass-Zumkehr & Thorsten Roelcke (eds.), Das Wort. Seine strukturelle und
kulturelleDimension. Festschrift für Oskar Reichmann zum 65.Geburtstag. Tübing:
Niemeyer, 29-44.

Geeraerts, D. & Cuyckens H. (2007). The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics.

Oxford University Press. New York.

Gibbs, R. W. & Matlock, T. (2001). Psycholinguistic perspectives on polysemy. In: H. Cuyckens and B.
Zawada (eds.), Polysemy in Cognitive Linguistics, 213−239. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:
John Benjamins.

Goddard, C. (1998). A Semantic Analysis: A Practical Introduction. Oxford Textbooks in

Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Goddard, C & Wierzbicka, A. (2002). Meaning and Universal Grammar – Theory and
Empirical Findings. Vol. 1. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Greenberg, J.H. (1963).The Languages of Africa Bloomington, Indiana University

Haecht, L. (1947). Taalphilosophische Beschouwingen. Leuven: Instituut voor Wijsbegeerte.

Heine, B. et al., (1991) Grammaticalization: A conceptual framework.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Heine, B. (1997). Cognitive Foundations of Grammar. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hino, Y & Lupker, S. J. (1996). Effects of polysemy in lexical decision and naming: An alternative to
lexical access accounts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and
Performance 22(6): 1331−1356.
Hogaboam, T. W. & Perfetti, C. A. (1975) Lexical ambiguity and sentence comprehension: The common
sense effect. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 14(3): 265−275

Homburger, L. (1929). Noms des parties du corps dans les languages Négro-Africaines. (Collection
Linguistique publiée par la société de linguistique de Paris, XXV.) Paris: Librairie
Ancienne Honoré Champion.

Ibarretxe-Antuñano, I. (1999). Polysemy and Metaphor in Perception Verbs: A Cross-linguistic Study.

PhD
Thesis. University of Edinburgh.

Ibarretxe-Antuñano, I. (2006). Basque Buru: The Head, the Mind, the Location, the Self. An Analysis of
its
Conceptual Structure. University of Berkeley, California (USA)

Kigarriff, A. (1992). Polysemy. PhD. Thesis, University of Sussex.

Katz, J. J. & Fodor, J. A. (1963). The structure of a semantic theory. Language 39: 170−210.

Katz, J. J. (1972). Semantics Theory (Harper International Edition). New York: Harper and
Row Publishers.
Klein, D. E., and G. L. Murphy. (2001). “The representation of polysemous words”.
Journal of Memory and Language 45 (2):259-282.
Klein, D. E., and G. L. Murphy. (2002). “Paper has been my ruin: conceptual relations of polysemous
senses”. Journal of Memory and Language 47 (4):548-570.

Klepousniotou, E. (2002). “The processing of lexical ambiguity: Homonymy and polysemy in the mental
lexicon”. Brain and Language 81 (1-3):205-223.

Klepousniotou, E et al., (2008). “Making sense of word senses: the comprehension of polysemy
depends
on sense overlap”. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and
Cognitionn 34 (6):1534-1543.

Kumur, R. (2011). Research Methodology:A step-by-step guide for beginners. SAGE

Publication Ltd. London. 3rd Edtion.

Lakoff, G. & Mark J. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: what categories reveal about the mind.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. 1: Theoretical Prerequisites.

Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Lupker, S. J. (2007). Representation and processing of lexically ambiguous words. In: M. G. Gaskell
(ed.),
 The Oxford Handbook of Psycholinguistics, 159−174. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Leech, G. M. (1974). Semantics. Harmon Worth: Pengiums.

Leech, G. M. (1974). Semantics: The study of meaning. Harmon Worth: Pengiun

Lobner, S. (2002). Understanding Semantics. London: Hodder Education.

Lyon, J. (1977). Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Macnamara, J. et. al., (1972). The structure of the English lexicon: The simplest hypothesis.
Language and Speech 15(2): 141−148.

Menn, L. (2011). Psycholinguistics: Introduction and Applications. San Diego: Plural.

Merleau-Ponty, Maurice, (1945). Phénoménologie de la perception. Paris: Gallimard.

McClure, Erica F. (1975). “Ethno-anatomy: the structure of the domain”,

Anthropological Linguistics, 17, 78-88.

Monette, D. R. et al. (1986) Applied Social Research: Tools for the Human Services, Forth
Worth, TX, Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

Morris, C. H. (1930). Foundation of theory of signs. In Neurath O, et. al., (eds) International
Encyclopedia
of Unified Science, vol. 1, No. 2. Chicago: university of Chicago Press: 1938.

Nerlich, B. (2003). “Polysemy: past and present”. In Polysemy: Flexible Patterns of Meaning in Mind and
Language, edited by B. Nerlich, Z. Todd, V. Herman and D. D.Clarke. Berlin: Mouton de
Gruyter. 49-76.

Nerlich, B. et al., (2003). Trends in Linguistics: Polysemy Flexible Patterns of Meaning in Mind and
Language: Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Niemeier, S. (2000). “Straight from the heart metonymy and metaphorical explanations”, in Metaphor
and
metonymy at the crossroads. A Cognitive Perspective. Berlin: Mouton de Guyter, 195-
213

Nunberg, G., 1979. The non-uniqueness of semantic solutions: polysemy. Ling. Philos. 3 (2), 143--184.

Oladipo, O. (1992). The Yoruba conception of a person: An analytical philosophical study,

International Studies in Philosophy, 24, 3, 15-24.

Olumide, L. (1964). Yoruba language: Its structure and Relationship to other language.
Lagos Ore ki gbe Press.

Palmer, F. R. (1976). Semantics. Cambridge: University Press. First edition.

Palmer, F. R. (1981). Semantics. Cambridge: University Press. Second edition.

Petruk, M. R. L. (1986). Body part terminology in Hebrew: A study in lexical semantics.
Unpublished PhD dissertation. University of California, Berkeley.

Pustejovsky, J. (1995). The Generative Lexicon. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.

Pylkkänen, L. et al., (2006). “The representation of polysemy: MEG evidence”. Journal of

Cognitive Neuroscience 18 (1):97-109.

Radden, G. (2001). The folk model of language, Metaphorik.de, 1, 80-86.

Recanati, F. (1995). “The alleged priority of literal interpretation”. Cognitive Science 19:207-232.

Recanati, F. (2004). Literal Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Reh, M. (1999). ‘’Body’, ‘back’, and ‘belly’ — or: On the antonyms of ‘inside and their conceptual
sources’, Frankfurter Afrikanistische Blätter, 11 (special issue on ComparingAfrican
Spaces, edited by Sabine Neumann), 101-123.

Rowlands, E. C. (1969). Teach Yourself Yoruba. London: The English Universities Press.

Saeed, I. J. (2008). Semantics. Wiley-Blackwell. Third Edition

Schladt, M. (1997). Kognitive Strukturen von Körperteilvokabularien in kenianischen Sprachen

(Afrikanistische Monographien, 8). Köln: Institut für Afrikanistik.

Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. (1998). The mapping between the mental and the public lexicon. In: Carruthers,
P., Boucher, J. (Eds.), Language and Thought. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
pp. 184--200.

Steinberg, D. (1993). An Introduction to Psycholinguistics. London: Longman

Svorou, S. (1993). The Grammar of Space. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Taylor, J. R. (2006). Polysemy and the lexicon. In Cognitive Linguistics: Current Applications and Future
Perspectives, edited by Achard M. et al., Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 51-80.

Tyler, A. and Evans. V. (2003). The Semantics of English Prepositions.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wierzbicka, A. (1996). Semantics: Primes and universals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Wilkins, D. P. (1993). “From part to person: natural tendencies of semantic change and the search for
cognates”, Working paper No. 23, Cognitive Anthropology Research Group at the Max
Plack Insitute for Psycholinguistics.

Williamson, K. (ed) (1989) Benue-Congo Overview Bender-Samuel. The Benue-Congo

Languages, Lanham, M.D. America University Press

Wilson, D. and Carston, R. (2006). “Metaphor, relevance and the 'emergent property'
issue”. Mind & Language 21 (3):404-433.
Wilson, D. and Carston, R. (2007). “A unitary approach to lexical pragmatics: Relevance, inference and
ad
hoc concepts”. In Pragmatics, edited by N. Burton-Roberts. London: Palgrave. 230- 259.

Zauner, A. (1903). “Die Romanischen Namen der Körperteile”, Romanische Forschungen, 14, 2, 339-
530.