Lexical semantics of planting terms in Ihiala dialect of Igbo.

By
Matthew Onyebuchi Ndiribe
Department of Linguistics, Igbo and Other Nigerian Languages
University of Nigeria, Nsukka
E-mail: matribe2001@yaahoo.com, matthew.ndiribe@unn.edu.ng
08037308497; 08179822620

1.0 Abstract

The study focuses on the semantic field theory with special emphasis on the planting terms in
Ihiala dialect of the Igbo language of the Igbo language. The study adopts the semantic field
theory as a tool for an efficient descriptive analysis of the subject matter. In the discussion of
the topic, efforts are made to explain the five planting terms discovered in the dialect under
discussion. These terms are iso, [kx, [gba, [gha and [zq with the items that fall under each
term. It is also discovered that activities which characterise each item rather than the terms
are exclusive. It is equally important to note that iso is the only term that belongs to tuber
crops and cannot be associated with any other planting item in the dialect. Our concern in this
study is to point out the terms that associate with each planting item.

1.1 Introduction

Semantics, like any other field of study has a problem of defining what semantics is all about.
The general opinion is that semantics is a scientific study of meaning. This meaning could be
studied at the levels of words, phrases, sentences and larger units of discourse. However, the
concept of what meaning really is appears a difficult task. Ogden and Richards (1923)
highlights twenty three different concepts of meaning. Cherry (1995) asserts that meaning is a
harlot among words which can seduce the writers or speakers from the path of intellectual
chastity.

Ndimele (2003) remarks that meaning is a chameleon that changes the colour of its
effect, with change of speaker, hearer, context or setting. He maintains that meaning can
stand for: signify, symbolise, stand for, mean, indicate, intend, and translate e.t.c.

1
 Several scholars including Jacobson (1960); Haliday (1970); Lyons (1968, 1981);
Brown and Yule (1981); Yule (1996); Agbedo (2000); Anagbogu, Mbah and Eme (2001)
concede the fact that the concept of meaning is a problematic one.

The general agreement of what meaning really is has led to the postulation of several
theories of meaning among them are: the componential theory of meaning; the logical theory
of meaning; the structural theory of meaning; the referential theory of meaning; the speech
act theory of meaning; the use theory of meaning; the thing theory of meaning; the idea
theory of meaning; the correspondence theory of meaning; the realistic theory of meaning;
the lexical theory of meaning among others. (see Bradley& Swartz, 1979; Stainton, 1996;
Saeed, 2003; Yoshitake, 2004)

Under the lexical theory of meaning, there is a field theory semantics which forms the
fulcrum of this study. Our objective in the study is to determine the interrelationships that
exist among verbs that denote a specific activity in the dialect under investigation.

1.2. Semantic Field theory

Field theory semantics, according to Agbedo (2000) “explains the fact that words in any
given language are grouped into fields and each field comprises a set of lexical items whose
meanings have something in common”. The theory says that lexical items whose meanings
share appreciable similarities constitute semantic field. A lexical field is a structured group of
words with related meanings that perhaps has some sort of distinctive life of its own

Colour and kinship terms constitute different lexical fields in both English and Igbo
languages. According to Agbedo (2000 ibid), colour terms in English include green, blue,
yellow, red, black, white, orange, and brown with its corresponding colours in Igbo as
akwxkwq ndx akwxkwq ndx, anxnx anxnx, edo edo, mmee mmee, oji, qcha, and nchara

nchara. Though there is the pink, grey, scarlet, violet as colour distinction in English, Igbo
does not have colour equivalent to these colours.

Kinship terms in English include father, mother, brother, sister, son, daughter, uncle,
aunt, nephew, niece, cousin e.t.c. while in Igbo we have nna, nne, nwanne nwaany[, nwanne
nwoke, qkpara, ada, nwanne nna, nwanne nne, nne-di, nna-di, nwunye nwa, qgq nwoke, qgq
nwaany[ e.t.c. The English and Igbo do not have one to one correspondence when it comes to
kinship terms. Finch (2000:177) sees semantic field as an area of meaning containing words

2
with related senses. According to him, meaning of words cluster together to form fields of
meaning which in turn cluster into even larger fields until the entire language is
encompassed. He maintains that we can identify a semantic field of madness containing
words like: insane, demented, batty, schizophrenic, and paranoid, some of which are
synonyms of mad, and others which are types of madness.

Basic to the field theory is the view that words occupy a certain amount of semantic
space within the language, which is distributed among the specific lexical items available.
For example, the field of residences is divided up into castle, maisonette, house, bungalow,
duplex and flat. These terms, according to Finch (2000), constitute the lexical set, or lexical
field, which realise the semantic field. The meaning of any one of them is affected by other
terms to which it is related. As a consequence, fields are constantly expanding and
contracting. Field theory is very useful in the contrastive analysis of different languages.
Languages differs quite widely even in apparently basic lexical divisions, and fields such as
temperature, kinship, colour, parts of the body, and animal and vegetable worlds, divide the
semantic space differently with respect to them.

Lexical field theory, according to Asher (1994:2146) “is the general name for those
approaches in lexical semantics that rejects the view that the vocabulary of a language is an
unordered set of items but that instead take a view that lexicon is organised into groups of
items that belong together on the basis of their meaning”. A lexical field then, is a set of
semantically related lexical items that belong together on the basis of their related lexical
items. Asher (1994) posits that linguistic analysis of a lexical field takes the form of a
description of the mutual relations among the items in the field, the basic structuralist
assumption being that the semantic value of any such item is determined by its relative
position in the field.

Lyons (1968) points out that good deal of work has been devoted to the investigation of
lexical systems in the vocabularies of different languages, with particular references to such
fields or domain as kinship, colour, flora and fauna, weights and measures, military ranks,
moral and aesthetic evaluation, and various kinds of knowledge, skill and understanding in
recent years. The result obtained, according to Lyons (1968:429) “have conclusively
demonstrated the value of the structural approach to semantics, and have confirmed the
pronouncements of such earlier scholars as Von Hum Boldt, De Saussure and Sapir to the
effect that the vocabularies of different languages (in certain fields at least) are non-

3
isomorphic: that they are semantic distinctions made in one language which are not made in
another; moreover, that particular field may be categorised in a totally different way by
different languages”. He affirms that this fact was expressed in Saussurean terms by saying
that each language imposes a specific form of the a priori undifferentiated substance of the
content-plane.(Lyons 1968:429)

Nida (1964) discusses, in terms of ‘class’, the words in a Mexican language for ‘noise’, there
are six ‘noise’ words, referring to children yelling, people talking loudly, people arguing,
people talking angrily, increasing noise and funeral noise. Palmer (1981:69) notes that in
Maya, three words for searching exist. They are:

(a) To select good from bad

(b) To search in a disorder way
(c) To search in an orderly way

Also in Shillux (Africa) continues Palmer (ibid), three words exist for break. These are:

(a) One for breaking sticks

(b) One for breaking eggs and
(c) The other for breaking strings.

In all these examples we have a list of words referring to items of a particular class dividing
of a semantic field. In almost all cases, the words are incompatible in the sense that an object
cannot be both red and blue at the same time. Nor shall we allow a creature to be described
both as a goat and a sheep. Thus, it was a Sunday that he went implies that he did not go there
on Monday or any other day of the week. So if John punched Jane implies that he did not
kick her or slap her: punch, kick and slap belong to the same semantic field. (Lyons
1977:228)

1.3. Syntagmatic Lexical Relations

Traditionally, the possibility for combining words with other words is looked at mostly at
mainly from the syntactic point of view. (The fact for instance that a word like take belongs
to the syntactic category ‘verb’ implies that it can be combined with a noun as its subject). In
1934, Water Porzig pointed out that syntagmatic combinability has much to do with aspects
of meaning as with grammatical characteristics. He pointed out that if somebody asked ‘will
you walk or drive home? The choice that the person is faced with is between going on foot or

4
going by car, since these are designated by English ‘walk and drive’ respectively. In other
words, in the verb, information is enclosed about the instrument by means of which the
designated activity is achieved; at the same time, a restriction is indicated on the ombinability
of the verb with adverbial that designate the instrument. In general, the semantic affinity
between co-occurring words can be described in terms of syntagmatic lexical relations. In
connection with these syntagmatic relation, Porzig introduced the term ‘the essential
meaning relation’. (Asher 1994: 4475-6) Firth (1957) uses the term ‘colloccation’, Katz and
Foder (1963) talk about selection restriction ; Weinreich (1966) mentions ‘transfer’ feature
and Coserie (1967) discusses ‘lexical soliderities’ (Asher 1994:4476).

Many Igbo linguists have in one way or the other examined meaning relations while
discussing semantic classes of Igbo verbs, selectional restrictions of Igbo verbs or other areas
of the language though most of the comments are on the periphery. For instance, Mbah
(2001) in his work on precede and command in Igbo syntax comments that selectional
restrictions imposed by word order in Igbo has ruled out the possibility of proceed and
command. Nwachukwu (1983, 1985), Emenanjo (1984, 1986), and Ubahakwe (1976) in their
discourse on transitivity of Igbo verbs mentioned collocation. Nwachukwu (1987) and
Uwalaka (1988), discussing on the lexical semantics of Igbo verbs upholds that selectional
restriction of a verb determines the type of items whose meaning relations constitute semantic
set. Uwalaka points that most Igbo verbs are inherent complement verbs and the inherent
character sets apart a subclass of Igbo. Anoka (1983) argues that selectional restriction has
been observed in Igbo verb phrase and they are essentially semantic claiming that the
matching of verbs with their corresponding items are determined by the inherent meaning of
the verbs. In Mbaise Igbo, he identified seventeen entries expressing the word ‘zx’ (buy). He
further asserts that though selectional restriction on the verb/noun collocation exists in
various Igbo dialects, differences may exist in terms of details. Imo (2003) discusses the
lexical semantics of planting in Umuawulu. He identifies four verbs for and three for
harvesting. In the discourse, each verb co-occurs with many words (crops) to show that the
groups of words have a sense relation. Anyanwu and Iloene (2004) investigate verbs of
planting and harvesting in Ngwa and Obimo dialects of Igbo. The two dialects have both
similarities and differences in the verbs associated classes of planting and harvesting. Agbo
(2010) studies the sub-classes of verbs with body-part complements. He maintains that these
complements are NPs which are semantic modifiers to the verbs.

5
Our focus is on planting terms in the Ihiala dialect of Igbo using the field theory semantics as
our framework. The tone mark convention adopted in this study allows only the contrasts to
be marked and sameness to be unmarked, i.e. no particular tone is repeated in the same word.
E.g. anya and not anya as the presence of the first high tone represents the absence of the
same tone in the last syllable and thereby avoiding repetition. E.g.

akwa—cry

akwa-- egg

akwa—bed

akwa--cloth

1.4. Description of Ihiala Town

Ihiala towm, according to Ndubuisi (1996) extends from kilometres 45 to 50 along Onitsha-
Owerri road. It is bound on the east by Azia/ Mbosi towns, on the North by Okija/Ihembosi
towns and on the South by Uli/Amorka towns. The Urasi River with its source in Orlu Local
Government of Imo state, meanders round the Local Government Area and joins theOguta
lake on its way to the River Niger and from there to the sea. At the confluence of the lake and
Urasi River, a curious phenomenon is visible. The two waters do not mix. There is a clear
lime showing the greenish waters of the lake and the muddy-brown waters of the river. Ihiala
is a town in the southern part of Igboland. It is in the present Anambra state and a local
government headquarters of Ihiala Local Government.

Linguistically, it belongs to Inland East Igbo (IEI) according to Ikekeonwu (1996).

Nwaozuzu (2008) classifies Ihiala under East Niger Congo Dialects (ENCD).

2.0. Planting Terms In Ihiala

Here, we are going to consider the terms used in planting various items in ihiala
dialect. Due to the fact that the terms do not have direct one- to – one interpretation into
English, we should try as much as possible to gloss the terms but when it is obvious that we
lack the right equivalents, we will adopt the transliteration method.

2.0.1. Terms of Planting in Ihiala dialect

The following terms associate with planting items in the dialect under consideration.

(1) [kq (The general term for planting).

6
 (a) iso—to plant tubers

(b) [kx—to plant grains

(c) [gba—to plant stem materials

(d) [gha—to spread seeds

(e) [zq—to transplant

From the above terms, it can be deduced that [kq means to cultivate, to make mounds or to
make ridges where different items are sown or planted. For instance, it is in the process of
sowing of planting these different varieties farm produces that the exact terms emerge.

E.g.

[kq

agwa (beans)

ji(yam)

ede akpx qkpay[ qna

(cocoyam) (cassava) (groundnut) (bitter yam)

Using the chart above, one can easily say the following:

(2) Any[ akqq ji ahqq ( We did not plant yam this year)
(b) Nne m kqrq ede nga ahx (My mother planted cocoyam in that place)
(c) Qrx nke qzq bx akpx ka any[ ja-akq na ya (It is cassava that we will plant on the other
farmland)
(d) Q kqrq qkpay[ ngaa niile ( S/he planted groundnut in all this place)
(e) Ha na akq qna kemgbe xtxtx ( They have been planting bitter yam since morning)
(f) Nnaa chqrq [kq agwa ngan[ (Father wants/ wanted to plant beans in that place)

(3) iso

tubers

ji(yam) ede qna (bitter yam)

(cocoyam)
(a) Nnam nq n’azx xlq eso ji (My father is at the backyard sowing yam)

7
 (b) Mama na-eso ede n’qbxbo ( Mother is sowing cocoyam in the farmland)
(c) Q bx qna ka any[ ja-eso ngaa (It is bitter yam that we will sow here)

(4) [kx

Seeds (to plant)

qka(corn) qkpay[(groundnut)

egwusi xgx agwa (beans)

(mellon) (pumpkin)

(a) Nne m kxrx qka (My mother planted maize/ corn)

(b) Ha jeere [kx egwusi (They went to plant melon)
(c) Any[ na-akx xgx n’qrx (We are planting pumpkin in the farmland)
(d) Oge kxrx qkpay[ ngaa (Oge planted groundnut here)

(5) [gba (to plant as in stem cutting)

Stems

akpx (cassava) achara (sugar cane)

olugbo (bitter leaf)

(i) Any[ jeere gbaa akpx n’qrx any[ kqqrq xnyaahx ( We went to put/ cut-plant
cassava stems in the farm we cultivated yesterday)
(ii) O jiri olugbo gbachie oke orx ahu ( He/she used bitter leaf stems to plant all the
boundaries of the farmland)
(iii) Ha gbara achara ngaa (They planted sugar cane stems here)
(iv) Ha jiri igu wee gbachie ngaa niile (They used palm frond to cover all these place)
That is, they planted palm frond to serve as a demarcation or boundary.

(6) [gha (spreading)

8
 grains

inine ose (pepper) qkwxrx tomato

(armantus vegetable) (okro)

(a) O jeere [gha inine n’qrx (He/she went to spread (green) armantus in the farmland)
(b) I ghala ose n’qrx a? (Have you spread pepper on this farm?).
(c) Nneka ghara tomato ngaa (Nneka spread tomato here)
(d) Jee ghaa qkwxrx n’qrx a taa (Go and spread okra on this farm today).

(7) [zq (transplant)

nurseries
nkwxchukwu (pineapple)

nkwx (palm tree) ngwq (raffia) une (plantain/banana suckers)

(i) Qrx a d[ mma [zq nkwx (This farm is good to transplant palm trees)
(ii) Jee zqq ngwq nga ahx (Go and plant raffia nursery there)
(iii) Biko zqrq m ose nd[a n’qrx ahx (Please plant these pepper nursery for me there or
please transplant these pepper for me there)
(iv) O jeere [zq une n’qru (She went to plant plantain sucker in the farmland).

3.0. Analysis of the Terms Used in the Work

(a) [so—[kx—[gba—[gha—[zq
These are the five terms employed for planting agricultural inputs in Ihiala dialect of
the Igbo language. In the analysis of these terms, it should be right to point out the
peculiarities associated with any particular term.
(b) [kx (to sow) This term is used exclusively for tuber crops in the dialect under
discussion. This involves digging deep into the sub-soil and burying the tuber very
deep inside the soil. It involves such crops like yam, cocoyam and bitter yam. This
types of crops take some time in the soil before they germinate and as such proper
care is taken when they are planted.
(c) [kx (to plant) This term associates with all seeds that have outer coats. These crops
also possess ovule through which the shoots spring out. {kx is done by simply opening
the tilled soil with bare hands or any lesser instruments and drop few seeds preferably
two in a hole and close up the soil again. The seeds in this category include maize,
mellon, pumpkin, groundnut, beans etc. This category of crop takes only few days
ranging from three to five days for germination to take place.

9
 (d) [gba (to stem plant) This involves the cutting of stem of a particular specie. Such
items like cassava stem, sugar cane stem and bitter leaf stem and planted in this
process. The planting is done by using a machete and cutting the stem and planting it
slantly into the soil. Here only one-quarter of the stem is buried and the rest is seen
outside the soil.
(e) [gha (to spread) This type of planting is exclusively for tiny grains that are removed
from the main seeds. Most of the times, these materials are spread unknowingly by
the planter. For instance, after washing tomatoes and peppers in water and pour out
the water.{gha is the prerequisites of those little grains like armantus, pepper, tomato,
garden egg grains, okro grains etc. These grains are planted by a broadcast method on
the surface of the soil whether tilled or not.
(f) [zq (to transplant) This is the process of replanting the nurseries of plants. Prior to [zq,
the plant had been planted somewhere or had germinated on its own in an unwanted
place before and there are needs to transfer the items in a new environment. Trees like
palm tree nursery, raffia tree nursery, pepper nursery, banana/ plantain suckers and
pineapple nursery are under this term.

4.1 Findings

The study of semantics deals with different shades of meanings. Theses meanings could be
lexical or compositional in approach. The study focuses on the lexical semantics with a
special reference to planting items in the Ihiala dialect of the Igbo language. In the course of
this study we discovered five lexical terms that associate with planting agricultural items in
the dialect. These terms are [kx, [gha, iso, [gba and [zq depending on the activity that is
involved. These activities could be described according to the items and the processes that are
involved in planting them. In other words, sowing, spreading, planting, stem cutting and
transplanting must be seen to take place for any particular term to be appropriate. In the
whole process, [kq is the generic term for cultivating the land where the appropriate term is
employed.

4.2 Conclusion

The concept of semantic field deals with items that have one common core of activity with
various activities. We have touched many such activities in discussing planting terms in
Ihiala dialect of the Igbo language. The dictionary of any language is the collection of the
meaningful words and only the meaningful are reflected. Properties belong to the lexical
items as the relationship belongs to how the words are combined. Terms are employed in
every language to make sentences meaningful and appropriate in any context. In Ihiala dialect
for instance, the terms are not exclusive for such items mentioned under them. For example a
palm tree can be categorised under [kx and [gba. When such term as [kx associates with a
palm tree, the listener will deduce automatically that a young nursery is not involved but
rather that a palm fruit has been buried into the soil with the hope that it will germinate. The
same thing applies to the terms [gha and [zq as it relates to pepper. Igha applies when the
grains are involved whereas [zq comes into play if a nursery is involved. Also [kx and [gha

10
could be used in relation with planting of okro. The distiguising factor is that [kx implies
opening the soil and drop few grains while [gha involves spreading the grain over-board
whether the land is tilled or not. Iso is the exclusive reserve of the tuber crops and no other
can be associated with it as far as Ihiala dialect is concerned. Therefore, anybody who fails
to observe these terms marks himself/ herself as a foreign

References

Agbedo, C.U. (2000). General linguistics: An introductory reader. Nsukka: ACE resource
consult.

Agbo, M. (2010). On Igbo verbs with body-part complement. Journal of linguistics ans
language teaching. Vol.1(pp173-196)

Anagbaogu, P.N., Mbah, B.M. & Eme, C.A. (2001). Introduction to linguistics. Awka:
Amaka Dreams.

Anyanwu,D.N., & Iloene, M.I. (2004). Verbs of planting and harvesting: The Ngwa and
Obimo dialects examples. In O.M. Ndimele (Ed). Language and culture in Nigeria: A
festschrift for Okon Essen. ( Pp815-821) Aba: Emai publishers & NINLAN.

Anoka, G.M.K. (1983). Selectional restriction: Verbs meaning to buy. In P.A. Nwachukwu
(Ed). Readings on the Igbo verbs. (30-35).Nsukka: Africana FEP.

Asher, R.E (1994). Encyclopedia of language and linguistics. Vol.4 (pp.2148), London:
Pergamon Press.

Asher, R.E (1994). Encyclopedia of language and linguistics. Vol.8 (pp.4476), London:
Pergamon Press.

Bradley, R. & Swartz (1979). Possible words: An introduction to logic and its philosophy.
Oxford: Blackwell.

Brown, G. & Yule, G. (1981). Discourse analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cherry, N. (1957). On human communication. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Emenanjo, E.N. (1984). Igbo verbs: Transitivity or complementation? Paper presented at the
5th Annual Conference of the Language Association of Nigeria (LAN), Nsukka.

Emenanjo, E.N. (1986). Igbo verb complement and the argument structure of compounds.
Linguistics 260 talk. London: Harvard University.

Finch, G. (2000). Linguistics terms and concepts. London: Macmillan Press.

Firth, J.R. (1957). Mades of meaning. In J.R Firth (Ed). Papers in linguistics. London :
Oxford University Press.

11
Halliday, M.A.K. (1970). Language structure horizon in linguistics. Harlow: Longman.

Ikekeonwu, C.I. (1986). A lexico-phonotactics study of Northern Igbo Dialects. A Ph.D

thesis, University of Nigeria, Nsukka.

Imo, C.A. (2003). Co-occurrence restrictions in Igbo verbs: A case study of Umuawulu
dialect. M.A dissertation : Department of Linguistics and Nigerian Languages,
University of Nigeria, Nsukka.

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

Lyons, J.(1968). Introduction to theoretical linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

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

Lyons, J.(1981). Language, meaning and context. London: Fontana.

Mbah, B.M. (2006). GB Syntax: Theory and application to Igbo. Cross River: Association of
Nigerian Authors.

Ndimele, O-M (2003). Morphology and syntax, Port-Harcourt: Emhai Press.

Ndubuisi, B.E.C. (1996). Ihiala and her neighbours: A historical and socio-cultural analysis.
(No place of publication) D’man Lithic services.

Nida, E.A. (1964). Towards a science of translating. London: Brill.

Nwachukwu, P.A. (1983). Readings on the Igbo verb. Onitsha: Africana FEP.

Nwachukwu, P.A. (1985). Inherent complement verbs in Igbo. Journal of Linguistics

Association of Nigeria (JOLAN) 3; 61-74.

Nwachukwu, P.A. (1987). Case theory, the theta criterion and Igbo inherent complement
predicate. Working papers in Linguistics. MIT Press.
Nwaozuzu, G.I. (2008). Dialects of Igbo languages. Nsukka: University of Nigeria Press.
Ogden, C.K. & Richards, I.A. (1923). The meaning of meaning. London: Kegan Paul.
Palmer, F.R. (1981). Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Saeed, J. (2003). Semantics. Oxford: Blackwell.
Stainton, R.J. (1996). Philosophical perspective on language. New York: Broadview.
Ubahakwe, E. (1976). On the question of transitivity and intransitivity in Igbo verbs.
Odenigbo 1(1) pp. 45-56.
Uwalaka, M.A. (1988). The Igbo verb: A semantic syntactic analysis. Beitrage Zur Africans.
Vol 35: institute for Africanistic Universitat ,Wien.
Yoshitake, M. (2004). Critique of J.L. Austin’s speech act theory: Decentralisation of speaker
centered meaning in communication. In Kyusha communication studies 2 (pp. 27-43)

12
13