# About the substitution of the voiceless post-alveolar affricate among Igala speakers of English

Olushola Bamidele Are and Hope Akinola

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

OpenEdition
Journals

**Electronic version**

URL: https://journals.openedition.org/lla/11465

DOI: 10.4000/lla.11465

ISSN: 2822-7468

**Publisher**

Llacan UMR 8135 CNRS/Inalco

**Printed version**

Date of publication: 31 December 2017

Number of pages: 11-28

ISSN: 2429-2230

**Electronic reference**

Olushola Bamidele Are and Hope Akinola, "About the substitution of the voiceless post-alveolar affricate among Igala speakers of English", *Linguistique et langues africaines* [Online], 3 | 2017, Online since 31 March 2022, connection on 26 August 2023. URL: http://journals.openedition.org/lla/11465; DOI: https://doi.org/10.4000/lla.11465

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>
#03

Juin 2017

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

LLA

Linguistique
et Langues
Africaines

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

- About the substitution of the voiceless post-alveolar affricate among Igala speakers of English

- Cognate object constructions in Degema

- La multifonctionalité des conjonctions **bó** et **bɔ** en fon

- The morpho-syntactic coding of motion events in Igbò

- Notes et documents / Notes & Documents

- Comptes-rendus / Book Reviews

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>

9 782359 352375

ISSN 2429-2230

ISBN 978-2-35935-237-5 20 €

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /></figure>

Lambert-Lucas
<figure><img src="image_7.png" /></figure>

1. About the substitution of the voiceless post-alveolar affricate among Igala speakers of English (Olushola Bamidele Are and Hope Akinola) 11

2. Cognate object constructions in Degema (Ethelbert Kari) 29

3. La multifonctionalité des conjonctions **bó** et **bɔ** en fon (Renée Lambert-Brétière) 55

4. The morpho-syntactic coding of motion events in Igbò (Maduabuchi Sennen Agbo) 85

## Notes et documents / Notes & Documents

Issues about tone rules in Xitshwa (Zeferino Ugembe) 103

## Comptes-rendus / Book Reviews

Denis Creissels et Séckou Biaye, *Le balant ganja: phonologie, morphosyntaxe, liste lexicale, textes*, par Wolfgang Berndt 119

Meikal Mumin and Kees Versteegh (eds.), *The Arabic Script in Africa: Studies in the Use of a Writing System*, par Stefano Manfredi 123

Olivier Bondéelle, *Polysémie et structuration du lexique: le cas du wolof*, par Bert Peeters 127

Saleh Mahmud Idris, *A Comparative Study of the Tigre Dialects*, par Marie-Claude Simeone-Senelle 131

Olga Stolbova, *Этимологический словарь чадских языков* [Etymological Dictionary of the Chadic languages], par Gábor Takács 138
LLA

Linguistique
et Langues
Africaines

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /></figure>

International Journal edited by
Revue internationale éditée par le LLACAN
(UMR 8135 CNRS / INALCO / PRES Sorbonne Paris Cité)
Diffusion

Éditions Lambert-Lucas

4 rue d'Isly - 87000 LIMOGES (France)

Tél 05 55 77 12 36

Fax 05 87 84 00 11

Por 06 44 78 30 73

Cette revue est en accès libre

téléchargeable sur le site des éditions Lambert-Lucas

n° 1, juin 2015 :

http://www.lambert-lucas.com/linguistique-langues-africaines-1

n° 2, juin 2016 :

http://www.lambert-lucas.com/linguistique-langues-africaines-2

n° 3, juin 2017 :

http://www.lambert-lucas.com/linguistique-langues-africaines-3

Pour des exemplaires sur papier,
merci d'écrire à lambertlucas@free.fr

© Éditions Lambert-Lucas, 2017

ISSN 2429-2230

ISBN 978-2-35935-237-5
**Comité scientifique**

Emilio BONVINI (LLACAN, CNRS), Denis CREISSELS (DDL, Université Lyon 2), Claude HAGÈGE (EPHE), Bernd HEINE (University of Cologne), Larry HYMAN (University of California - Berkeley), Sambieni KOFFI (Université d'Abomey-Calavi), Jérémie KOUADIO (Université d'Abidjan), Friederike LÜPKE (SOAS, University of London), Gudrun MIEHE (University of Bayreuth), Maarten MOUS (Leiden University), Pape Alioune NDAO (Université Cheikh Anta Diop de Dakar), Margarida PETTERS (Universidade de São Paulo), Thilo SCHADEBERG (Leiden University), John MCWHORTER (Columbia University).

**Comité de rédaction**

Nicolas AUBRY (LLACAN, INALCO), Pascal BOYELDIEU (LLACAN, CNRS), James ESSEGBEY (University of Florida), Gwenaëlle FABRE (LLL, Université d'Orléans), Maximilien GUÉRIN (LLACAN, CNRS), Stefano MANFREDI (CNRS, Sedyl), Sylvester OSU (LLL, Université de Tours), Yvonne TREIS (LLACAN, CNRS), Marie-Claude SIMEONE-SENELLE (LLACAN, CNRS), Valentin VYDRIN (LLACAN, INALCO), Kofi YAKPO (University of Hong-Kong).

**Rédaction**

Paulette ROULON-DOKO (LLACAN, CNRS), Nicolas QUINT (LLACAN, CNRS), Loïc-Michel PERRIN (LLACAN, INALCO).

**Administration**

Jeanne ZERNER

**Directeur de la publication**

Mark VAN DE VELDE
**Contact**

LLACAN (UMR 8135, campus du CNRS)
7, rue Guy-Môquet
94801 VILLEJUIF Cedex - France
http://llacan.vjf.cnrs.fr/lla
llafrique@cnrs.fr

**Consignes de soumission**

http://llacan.vjf.cnrs.fr/lla

**Comptes-rendus**

Les ouvrages sont à adresser à
Maximilien Guérin (maximilien.guerin@cnrs.fr)
(s/c de Loïc-Michel Perrin et Nicolas Quint)
LLACAN (UMR 8135, campus du CNRS)
7, rue Guy-Môquet
94801 VILLEJUIF Cedex - France
# Sommaire

1. About the substitution of the voiceless post-alveolar affricate among Igala speakers of English .................................................... 11
Olushola Bamidele ARE and Hope AKINOLA

2. Cognate object constructions in Degema .................................................... 29
Ethelbert KARI

3. La multifonctionalité des conjonctions *bó* et *bɔ* en fon .................... 55
Renée LAMBERT-BRÉTIÈRE

4. The morpho-syntactic coding of motion events in Igbò .................... 85
Maduabuchi Sennen AGBO

# Notes et documents

Issues about tone rules in Xitshwa .................................................... 103
Zeferino UGEMBE

# Comptes rendus de lecture / Book Reviews

Denis Creissels et Séckou Biaye : *Le balant ganja : phonologie, morphosyntaxe, liste lexicale, textes* .. 119
par Wolfgang BERNDT

Meikal Mumin and Kees Versteegh (eds.) : *The Arabic Script in Africa: Studies in the Use of a Writing System* .. 123
par Stefano MANFREDI

Olivier Bondéelle : *Polysémie et structuration du lexique : le cas du wolof* .................... 127
par Bert PEETERS

Saleh Mahmud Idris : *A Comparative Study of the Tigre Dialects* .................................... 131
par Marie-Claude SIMEONE-SENELLE

Olga Stolbova : *Этимологический словарь чадских языков*
[Etymological dictionary of the Chadic languages] .................... 138
par Gábor TAKÁCS
# About the substitution of the voiceless post-alveolar affricate among Igala speakers of English

Olushola Bamidele ARE<fnref n="1" /> and Hope AKINOLA <fnref n="2" />

## Abstract

This article is a report of a micro research focusing on a specific case of deviant pronunciation among Igala speakers of English. Although deviations from native speaker norms are expected in any second language (L2) context, this particular deviation appears to defy the basic principles governing mother tongue (MT = L1) interference in L2 speech productions. Indeed, people generally mispronounce elements that do not occur in their native language. Yet, Igala speakers tend to replace the voiceless post-alveolar affricate /tʃ/ with the voiceless palato-alveolar fricative /ʃ/ when they speak English, although /tʃ/ occurs in Igala. This paper deals with this hitherto unstudied phenomenon, for which it provides explanations both from a diachronic and a synchronic perspective. It also shows, in the process, how changes occurring in the speakers' L1 can be detected from the way they speak an L2. Finally, it discusses the implications of the phenomenon at stake for Igala Linguistics.

## Keywords

Igala, second language acquisition (SLA), language interference, phonetics, phonology, pronunciation, linguistic deviation.

## Résumé

Cet article rend compte d'un travail de recherche portant sur un cas particulier d'écart à la norme en ce qui concerne la prononciation de l'anglais par des locuteurs natifs de l'igala. En soi, il n'est pas surprenant que les productions langagières issues de locuteurs de langue seconde (L2)

<footnote n="1">1. Department of English Studies, Adekunle Ajasin University, Akungba-Akoko, Nigeria, areolusola@yahoo.co.uk</footnote>

<footnote n="2">2. School of General Studies, Kogi State Polytechnic, Lokoja, Nigeria – mikeakins01@yahoo.com</footnote>
présentent de façon récurrente des écarts par rapport à la norme suivie par les locuteurs natifs de L2. Cependant, l'écart qui fait l'objet de cette étude semble contrevenir aux principes fondamentaux qui régissent les cas où la langue maternelle (LM=L1) des locuteurs interfère dans leurs productions en L2. En effet, la plupart du temps, les locuteurs de L2 ont des difficultés à prononcer les sons ou phonèmes qui n'existent pas dans leur langue maternelle. Cependant, dans le cas qui nous intéresse, les locuteurs natifs de l'igala, lorsqu'ils parlent l'anglais, tendent à remplacer l'affriquée sourde palatale /tʃ/ par la fricative palatale /ʃ/, alors que /tʃ/ est un phonème attesté en igala. Ce phénomène est resté encore largement inexploré. Le présent article vise à mieux le comprendre (i) en recourant à des arguments diachroniques et synchroniques, (ii) en montrant comment des fluctuations observées en L1 peuvent être identifiées grâce à la façon dont les locuteurs de L1 pratiquent L2, et (iii) en faisant le point sur les conséquences que l'existence dudit phénomène peut avoir pour les études consacrées à la langue igala.

## Mots clés

Igala, Acquisition d'une Langue Seconde (ALS), interférences linguistiques, phonétique, phonologie, prononciation, écart à la norme (langagière).

## 1. Introduction

As a rule, second language (L2) pronunciation is generally accented. The often inevitable accent represents the cumulative acoustic effect of all deviations from native speaker (NS) norms. Pronunciation deviations range from those that have moderate or no effect on intelligibility, to those that fully impede communication. Studying and analysing deviations from native speaker norms has been a preoccupation of many linguists over the years, especially those working in the field of L2 pedagogy. Several factors often account for such deviations. These include mother tongue interference, limited exposure to the second language, faulty instruction, learning at disadvantaged age and so on.

This paper focuses on a unique element in deviation from NS pronunciation norms among Igala speakers of English. There are indeed several deviations from English NS norms among Igalas. Most of them, however, are amenable to analyses within the framework of well-known patterns of pronunciation behaviour among speakers of English in the Nigerian L2 context. The particular deviation being referred to here is somewhat different as it appears to defy the known phonological principles involved in mother tongue (MT) interference in the production of L2 speech. The
feature in question is the prevalent tendency among Igalas to replace the
voiceless post-alveolar affricate, /tʃ/, with the voiceless alveolar fricative,
/ʃ/ while speaking English. This phenomenon seems puzzling as /tʃ/ is
supposed to be one of the consonants of the Igala language. Therefore,
one would expect that the Igala speakers have not any problem in
realizing this phoneme segment. But actual observation goes against this
prediction, and this case of /tʃ/ > /ʃ/ substitution has hitherto never
been studied. The present paper is meant to fill this gap.

This study provides a cursory description of the Igala people and the
Igala language, as well as an overview of relevant issues and studies in
L2 pronunciation. Also, an overview of relevant studies in Igala Linguistics
is provided. The paper then gives a detailed insight into the phoneme
substitution at stake, and attempts an explanation of this phenomenon.
The implications for Igala Linguistics are subsequently discussed.

## 2. The Igala people and the Igala language

The word ‘Igala’ refers both to the language and the people who speak it.
The Igala people live mainly in the Eastern part of Kogi state, Nigeria,
where Idah, the seat of their central traditional institution, is located.
Small communities of Igala people can also be found in Edo, Delta, and
Anambra states of Nigeria (Arokoyo 2012).

The Igala language belongs to the Yoruboid cluster of the Defoid
subgroup of the Benue-Congo branch of the Volta-Congo linguistic
grouping, which in turn branches off from the Atlantic-Congo branch of
the Niger-Congo language family. From a genetical point of view, Igala
is more closely related to the Yoruba dialect continuum than to any other
language, so much so that scholars like Forde (1951) and Westermann
(1952), cited in Omachonu (2012a), classified Igala as a dialect of
Yoruba. This perspective is often fiercely resisted by Igala people who
are keen to emphasize their unique ethnic identity. From apurely linguis-
tic standpoint though, one may argue that all languages belonging to the
Yoruba dialect continuum together with Igala have their roots in the same
ancestral tongue, a fact that certainly does not prevent us from studying
each of these linguistic varieties for its own sake.

## 3. Second language pronunciation

L2 pronunciation is often characterized by deviations from native speaker
norm at all levels. These deviations have been the subject of linguistic
research for a long time and have frequently focussed on the phenomenon
of inter-language transfer. Mayor (2008: 64) observes that the study of
inter-language transfers, albeit from diachronic perspective, started in
earnest in the 19th century when scholars began to study the role of such
transfers in the processes of pidginization and creolization. This, accord-
ing to Mayor, continued unto the 20th century when Trubetzkoy (1939)
made the famous assertion that the “sieve” of the first language (L1) “filters” one’s perception in an L2. This means that a person may perceive features of an L2 basing themself on assumptions that are influenced by the already internalized L1 norms.

A synchronic perspective on the impact of L1 on L2 began to develop with the advent of Contrastive Linguistics in the form of the early versions of Contrastive Analysis (CA). Gast (2013:153) points out that Contrastive Linguistics:

> ... investigates the differences between pairs (or small sets) of languages against the background of similarities and with the purpose of providing input to applied disciplines such as foreign language teaching and translation studies. With its largely descriptive focus contrastive linguistics provides an interface between theory and application. It makes use of theoretical findings and models of language description but is driven by the objective of applicability.

CA in its strong form emerged from the works of Robert Lado in the 50s. The practical applicability it sought was in language teaching where it was thought to be capable of being used to predict learners’ errors and initiate proactive pedagogical responses. This perspective was based on what is generally known as the CA hypothesis, which argues that the differences and similarities between L1 and L2 can respectively mar or enhance L2 learning. Lado (1957) cited in Gast (2013) affirms that

> we can predict and describe the patterns that will cause difficulty in learning, and those that will not cause difficulty, by comparing systematically the language and culture to be learned with the native language and culture of the student.

While the impact of interference from L1 in L2 learning is a hard reality, CA hypothesis in its strong form has proved to be quite tenuous in the face of experimental and practical applications. In addition, CA lacked a solid foundation in learning psychology and it met with empirical problems. Also, CA had its foundations on behaviourist views of language acquisition. It therefore rapidly lost relevance as the influence of behaviourist perspectives decreased.

Perhaps the major problems were (i) that CA overemphasized the role of interference as a source of errors and did not take into cognizance other crucial factors in language learning such as age and (ii) the difference between natural acquisition processes and the kind of learning that takes place under formal instruction. In addition, differences between the acquisitions of a second or third language received no attention. Essentially, contrastive analysis turned out not to be as helpful to language teachers as envisaged by its proponents because its predictions were unreliable. Many proponents of CA eventually opted for more realistic and more empirical studies of learners’ behaviour, such as error analysis, which was popularized by Corder (Gast 2013).
Gast (2013) further observes that in modern times, L2 speech is seen more in terms of ‘approximate systems’ as proposed by W. Nemser (1971) or as an ‘interlanguage’ as described by L. Selinker (1972).

Regardless of the continuing evolution from the strong form of CA to more moderate forms of Contrastive Linguistics, it is clear that the L1 does impinge one way or another on the L2, and this remains a relevant issue in research on language learning. However, the precise ways in which these L1 influences operate may not be as simple as the strong form of CA proposes. There is need for more specific research works in more situations in which languages are in contact. It is in this regard that a work such as the present paper appears relevant and timely.

It is also important to note that while studies of inter-language transfers cover all levels of language analysis and may also extend to supra segmental elements, attention to phonetic elements is especially relevant as such elements account for accent which is the main giveaway of L2 language use. A number of factors are known to affect pronunciation in L2, first of which L1 interference, which is the dominant concern of early CA (as has been previously stated). In addition to this, Zhang & Zin (2009) and Gilakjaji & Ahmadi (2011) identify a number of other factors among which learners’ age, quality of instruction, learners’ attitude, motivation and exposure, as well as personality.

Of greater significance however, are the specific phonetic or phonological processes by which L2 pronunciation features are realized. Scholars differ in the way they present or describe these processes, but a convenient overview is provided in Mayor (2008). The author itemizes a number of such processes, some of which had been identified and discussed by linguists even before the advent of modern Contrastive Linguistics. Citing Weinreich (1953), Mayor describes various types of transfers from L1 such as:

* *Sound substitution* (a learner uses the nearest L1 equivalent in the L2),

* *Allophonic processes* (a learner uses an L1 allophonic variant that does not occur in the same environment in the L2),

* *Under differentiation* (the L2 has distinctions that the L1 does not have; e.g., when two sounds are allophones in the L1 but separate phonemes in the L2),

* *Over differentiation* (the L1 has distinctions that the L2 does not have, e.g., two sounds are separate phonemes in the L1 but are allophones in the L2),

* *Reinterpretation of distinctions* (reinterpreting secondary or conco-mitant features as primary or distinctive features),

* *Phonotactic interference* (making the syllable structure in the L2 conform to the L1 syllable structure),
* *Prosodic interference* (e.g. showing no regard for falling and rising tones in L2 if such do not feature in L1.

Mayor (2008) raises another crucial issue which is central to this paper. This has to do with the difference between the approach of phoneticians on one hand and phonologists on the other with regard to what element would constitute a legitimate level of investigation. Phone-ticians generally pay more attention to surface phenomena, while phono-logists generally favour more abstract phenomena. According to Mayor, these differences in points of views have carried over to research in Second Language Acquisition. The big question is: What is exactly transferred? Surface features or abstract features and principles of the language? Mayor makes an interesting submission to this respect:

> There are those who conveniently ignore stylistic variation, claiming it is part of performance, not competence, and base their analyses on abstract general descriptions of the L1s (which usually means a formal style) and supposedly on this basis they can determine what constitutes L1 transfer. However, in doing so, they potentially miss transfer phenomena in other speech styles. If the L2 speech sample includes anything other than citation forms, such as reading word lists, ignorance of L1 running speech characteristics can lead to some erroneous conclusions about transfer.

For the purpose of this research, more preference is given toward surface phonetic categories than abstract phonological categories.

**4. Igala studies and Igala Phonology in perspective**

The Igala language has received considerable scholarly attention over the past two centuries. Omachonu (2012b) provides an overview of the landmark works in Igala language studies. According to him, the first published account of the Igala language was in Rev. John Clarke's *Specimens of Dialects* in 1848, followed in 1935 by W.T.A. Philpot's paper entitled: "Notes on the Igala", which was published in the *Bulletin of the School of Oriental Studies*, University of London. In 1951, Armstrong presented a paper entitled "Igala: A Preliminary Report with Word List" at the Institute of African Studies, University of Ibadan, and subsequently published a comparative wordlist of Igala and Yoruba. Fresco's "The Tones of the Yoruba and Igala Disyllabic noun prefix" which appeared in the *Journal of West African Languages* in 1969 is also noteworthy. Also worthy of mention is Akinkugbe's study of the internal classification of the Yoruboid Group (Yoruba, Itsekiri, Igala), appeared in 1976 in *The Journal of West African Languages*.

Apart from these, Omachonu (2012b) also mentions the profound contributions to Igala phonology made by Silverstein in 1973 in his Ph.D thesis on *Igala Historical Phonology* at the University of California, Los Angeles, as well as Akinkugbe's Ph.D thesis in 1978 at the University of Ibadan on *A Comparative Phonology of Yoruba (dialects), Itsekiri and*
Igala. These and other publications have supplied considerable know-
ledge about the language.

One crucial issue that cannot be missed in studies in Igala phonology,
as reflected in Arokoyo (2012), is the general affinity of its phonological
system with those of other languages in the Yoruboid group. This is
significant in spite of the existence of some notable differences, such as
the presence in Igala of /p/, /gw/ and /tf/ which are conspicuously absent
in other Yoruboid languages. Indeed, most words in which the allophonic
variations of /s/ and /ʃ/ are used in other Yoruboid languages contain /tʃ/
in Igala, as in the case of the word for ‘yam’ which in other Yoruboid
languages is either /isu/ (or /usu/) or /iʃu/ (or /uʃu/), contrasting with Igala
/utʃu/.

Okpanachi (2013) surveys the sounds of Igala with a view to
establishing pronunciation difficulties usually encountered by Igalas
while speaking English. She reports a field research involving three
selected secondary schools in Idah town, i.e. in the core of the Igala area.
The respondents for the survey were put through pronunciation practice
to identify the problematic aspects of their English pronunciation. In the
three schools visited, three lessons on spoken English were observed and
recorded (one lesson from each school). Subsequently, the teachers and
students were interviewed. The students were systematically given
English words to pronounce, such that consonants and vowels in different
positions were recorded. The major findings are summarized thus:

Generally, the students did not have much problem with the consonants,
except for the following sounds [sic]: /tʃ/ /dʒ/ /ʃ/ /ð/ /z/ /ʒ/. In all positions,
that is initial, medial, final positions, most of the students were not able to
articulate these sounds properly. The palato-aveolar affricate /tʃ/ was
pronounced as palato-alveolar fricative /ʃ/. For instance the words “church”
/tʃɜ:tʃ/ and “much” /mʌtʃ/ were pronounced /fɔʃ/ and /mɔʃ/ respectively. The
voiceless dental fricative /θ/ was pronounced as alveolar plosive /t/. For
example, the words “thick”, “method”, “oath”, /θɪk, meθəd, əʊθ/ were
pronounced /ti:k, metəd, əʊt/ respectively (p. 69).

Note that Okpanachi (2013) attests above to the deviation involved in
the pronunciation of English words containing the phoneme/tʃ/. Signi-
ficantly however, Okpanachi does not supply any precise explanation for
this. In a subsequent part of the paper (pp 69-70), she only remarks that
MT interference and inadequate instructions account for all the
pronunciation deviations she points out. But as observed earlier in this
paper, the Igala language has indeed the voiceless post-alveolar affricate
/tʃ/ as one of its consonants. Clearly, therefore, there must be a more
unique and detailed explanation for the inability of many Igala people to
produce in spoken English, a segment that exists in their own language.

The inability to pronounce a sound that exists in L1 when it occurs in
L2 is not a phenomenon unique to the Igalas. However, where such a
deviation occurs, a clear explanation of the phonetic or phonological
processes involved must be brought forth because this type of phonetic
phenomenon does not fit into the classical description of interference,
which emphasizes inability to produce sounds that do not occur in the
speakers' L1, or the tendency to superimpose L1 features on L2.

In this regard, Gilakjani & Ahmadi (2011:75) point out that often “it is *not* the case that accent is caused by an inability of speakers of other languages to produce the sounds of English.” They further point out that although

there are individual sounds in English, or more especially combinations of
sounds, that are difficult for learners from different backgrounds to produce,
there are cases where such sounds are easy for them to produce, but they do
not have concepts of them as separate sounds, but rather think of them as
indistinguishable variants of a single sound. (p. 75)

In other words, a simplistic application of the notion of interference
does not suffice to explain the way the L1 factor affects L2. The present
paper attempts to supply a plausible explanation for the deviation
involving the replacement of /tf/ by /ʃ/ in the English spoken by many
Igala native speakers.

**5. Methodology**

This research involved two procedures. The first one involves carefully
comparing the environments of occurrences of the voiceless post-alveolar
affricate in Igala and English to see whether there are differences that can
account for the deviation at stake. The second procedure involved
studying the actual use of the phoneme in question in Igala conversations
in order to discover any underlying factor that might be significant. To
achieve this, recordings of real life communication situations seemed a
good option in order to get raw data. It was important for the people not
to be aware their conversations were being monitored for language re-
search in order to avoid any bias and to collect spontaneous speech
productions. This was hinged on the above mentioned issue raised by
Mayor (2008) regarding the need to differentiate between the “surface
elements” that manifest in “running speech” and the ‘fine-tuned’ version
that often surfaces in well-structured research situations. Mayor gives the
instance of situations where informants are asked to read from a word
list, and they pronounce the words in certain ways that do not reflect the
actual stylistic variations that come up in running speech. Often, the
former represents the level of competence which may amount to
abstractions while the latter often represents the performance level which
tends to be more crucial in understanding the way interference operates.
This perspective from Mayor (2008) informs the approach to this
research. A decision was made to record Igala conversations from drama
skits which were scripted to ensure the preponderance of the consonant
phoneme being studied. The participants in the skits were persons adjudged by the researchers to be competent speakers of Igala and who, though aware they were being recorded, were not aware that they were subjects of a pronunciation research. Expressions containing words in which /tʃ/ was expected to occur were extracted from the conversations. Subsequently, words that contain the phoneme of interest were extracted and transcribed phonetically with a view to identifying the exact phonetic realization of the concerned segment in each instance.

# 6. Analyses

## 6.1 Procedure 1: Environment of occurrence

The particular deviation being addressed in this paper is a documented case of sound substitution as evidenced in Okpanachi (2013). Any attempt to test the reality of the deviation on the field would therefore be redundant. What remains unclear is the reason for the deviation. Below, the environments of occurrences of the phoneme in Igala and English are compared to find out if there are differences that could be significant.

Like all other consonants of Igala, /tʃ/ occurs in word initial and medial positions only (the syllable structures allowed in Igala are CV, CVV, V, and VV). The phoneme occurs in initial position in such words as the following<fnref n="3" />:

1. **chi** /tʃi/ 'open'

2. **cha** /tʃɑ/ 'flow'

3. **che** /tʃe/ 'do'

4. **chubu** /tʃubu/ 'fall'

5. **chai** /tʃaɪ/ 'except'

Obviously, these roughly align with the occurrence of the phoneme /tʃ/ in English words such as *cheat*, *chat*, *check*, *chew* and *child*. Indeed, there are no conceivable situations where the occurrence of /tʃ/ in initial position in Igala operates differently from English.

For the medial position, the following examples are presented:

1. **ucha** /ɔtʃɑ/ 'pot'

2. **ichi** /ɪtʃi/ 'tribe, language'

3. **uchu** /ɔtʃʊ/ 'yam'

4. **eche** /ɛtʃe/ 'rotten'

5. **echibakpa** /ɛtʃɪbəkpa/ 'pawpaw'

<footnote n="3">³. When transcribed according to the usual orthography, the Igala texts in this article are missing the standard diacritic marks. These marks are used to indicate tone, nasalisation, and the exact sound a letter represents where a particular letter may represent different sounds. The use of the diacritic marks is deemed not essential in view of the article's focus on a particular consonant to which the diacritic marks may not be of immediate relevance.</footnote>
Again, it is clear that these align roughly with the occurrence of /tʃ/ in such words as *orchard*, *itchy*, *stretcher*, *archer*. In this case too, there are no conceivable situations where the occurrence of /tʃ/ in medial position in Igala operates differently from the situation in English.

In spite of the above, it is interesting to note that the consonant /tʃ/ in such words as *church*, *lecturer* and *much*, is routinely replaced with /ʃ/ by many Igalas as attested to in Okpanachi (2013: 69).

The notable difference between Igala and English regarding the use of /tʃ/ is the fact that in English the CVC syllable structure is allowed, giving room for the existence of /tʃ/ in word final position. However, the substitution of /tʃ/ among Igala speakers of English is not limited to word final position as exemplified by the fact that such words as *church*, *much* and *lecturer* are usually pronounced as /ʃɔʃ/, /mɔʃ/ and /lekʃɔrə/ respectively. This proves that the environment of occurrence is not a factor in the phenomenon in question.

## 6.2 Procedure 2: Voice recordings

As previously stated, expressions containing words in which the voiceless affricate is expected to occur were extracted from voice recordings of drama skits performed by competent speakers of Igala who were oblique of the subject of the research. The list of such expressions is presented below in:

1. *M'uchi ucha ki che chiwa le chi.* (Open the cover of the pot that is dirty)

2. *U ch'olafiya wn.* (I am fine oh)

3. *Eee! Oji we yi che efewn<fnref n="4" />.* *Ene che we ike?* (This hair of yours is clean oh. Who made it for you?)

4. *Virtue chee mi yo.* (Virtue made it for me)

5. *I che fe nyonyo.* (It is very clean)

6. *To, ugbo icholo wedding na'alo yi ke.* (Alright, I'm going to the place of the wedding ceremony)

7. *Ch'egbatugba.* (See you later)

8. *Ch'ojo'mune.* (See you another day)

9. *E che erewa Ojochogwu?* (Do you remember Ojochogwu?)

10. *Kpai Ojochide.* (Yes, and Ojochide)

11. *Abu ama ache'eche onukwu ema le yi ta?* (How are they making friends?)

12. *Ama kpai abo kuma ma ma m'Ojon achewn damai.* (They are doing things with unbelievers)

13. *Ola Ojo chee ka kakini awa ki tuta kpai echubi ni fa.* (The word of God said we should not have fellowship with darkness oh)

<footnote n="4">4. In Igala standard orthography, the sequence -wn following a vowel indicates that this vowel is nasalized. Therefore ewn codes for nasal /e/, and NOT for a sequence VCC (as seen above in § 5.1, final consonants are not allowed in Igala).</footnote>
14. Echubi d'ugbodu. (There is darkness everywhere)

15. Amaa, Jehovah chodogo ki gbiti, ila achubi one. (But Jehovah is a strong tower and He is faithful)

16. Ichewn k'alo no, I af'ona wa ch'omemele nwu wa. (If we depend on Him, He will make our paths beautiful for us)

17. Uyo, naago, m'uchibu le duu mi. Uyo. (Please, give me that plate)

18. I che chiwa. (It is dirty)

19. Ewn cho iwa? (What made it dirty?)

20. U m'wn ki cho iwan. (I don't know what made it dirty)

21. Uchibu omunee domon? (Is there no other plate?)

22. Uchu d'efuwn. (There is yam in it)

23. Uchu ewn? (Which yam?)

24. Uchu ede. (Fried yam)

25. Ene k'uchu nyefuwn? (Who put yam into it?)

26. Ochimana. (Ochimana)

27. Ugbo Agbeji d'uchu kwo ki du nw'Ochimana? (Where did Agbeji get yam from so that he was able to give it to Ochimana?)

28. E d'uchu ele kadalu me? (Have you tasted the yam?)

29. E mali uchibu ki t'ofo duu mi abajoyin, abeki atono t'odudu ke. (If you can't find an empty plate for me now, then let's leave it till morning)

30. Agba, cho'dudu. Thanks, till morning. (Thanks, goodnight)

31. Ch'odudu. (Goodnight)

Below is a list containing the words in which the voiceless affricate /tʃ/ is expected to occur, and the actual phonetic realizations as they occur in each case:

1. uchi, ucha, chiwa [uʃi], [uʃɑ], [ʃiwa]

2. che (assimilated) [tʃe]

3. che, che [ʃe], [ʃe]

4. chee [tʃeé]

5. che [ʃe]

6. icholo [itʃolo]

7. che [tʃe]

8. che [ʃe]

9. ojochogwu [ɔdʒɔʃogwu]

10. ojochide [ɔdʒɔtʃide]

11. ache, eche [ɑʃe], [eʃe]

12. achewn [ɑʃeun]

13. chee, echubi [ʃeé], [etʃobi]

14. echubi [etʃubi]

15. chodogo, echubi [tʃɔdɔgɔ], [etʃubi]
16. icheun, che [itʃeun], [tʃe]

17. uchibu [uʃibu]

18. che, chiwa [ʃe], [ʃiwa]

19. cho [ʃo]

20. cho [ʃo]

21. uchibu [uʃibu]

22. uchu [uʃo]

23. uchu [uʃo]

24. uchu [uʃo]

25. uchu [uʃo]

26. ochimana [oʃimana]

27. uchu, ochimana [uʃo], [oʃimana]

28. uchu [uʃo]

29. uchibu [uʃibu]

30. che (assimilated) [ʃe]

In 29 instances out of 40, /tʃ/ is actually [ʃ] realized instead of [tʃ] which is the sound that usually shows up in the Igala consonant list (Mbah & Ayegba 2012). This suggests that today's Igala speakers actually freely swing between the two sounds. Indeed, in some instances, alternation between the two sounds shows in the pronunciation of the same word, and in the same conversational context as exemplified above by the realization of uchibu 'spoon' in 17 and 21. The alternation [ʃ] ~ [tʃ] could well be a case of free variation.

## 7. The substitution of the voiceless affricate in Igala spoken English: an explanation

The way Igala speakers use /tʃ/ allows the observer to establish a distinction between pronunciation variants (here the realizations [tʃ] and [ʃ]) at the performance level, and the abstractions of the competence level (the phoneme /tʃ/). Such distinction may account for the tendency among Igalas to substitute /ʃ/ for /tʃ/ while speaking English. Indeed, the /ʃ/ for /tʃ/ substitution in the English spoken by Igalas is likely to be a reflection of the dominant use of the [ʃ] variant to realize the phoneme /tʃ/ in today's Igala language.

This situation appears to confirm Mayor's assertion (2008) that in studies of interference, emphasis should be put on the actual phonetic realization of every sound identified in a language and not simply on abstract general descriptions of the L1s (which usually supposes implicit reference to a formal style). For this reason, the linguist studying language interference cannot content themself with asking informants to pronounce from word lists or resorting to other methods that equally yield only the abstract competence level forms.
Another plausible explanation for the sound substitution in question is that it probably also reflects the entrenchment of features of what is often referred to as Nigerian English (NE). One of the phonological features associated with NE is the substitution of /tʃ/ for /ʃ/ (Adedimeji 2007). One may argue that this feature, which apparently emerged among those language groups that do not have the voiceless affricate, has become so widely used in Nigeria that even speakers of languages that have the voiceless affricate are adopting it, when in fact there should be no phonetic impediment liable to make them do so. While this argument is hard to either prove or debunk, its validity may be considered in light of the possibility presented in this article.

## 8. The phonetic level variation: a diachronic explanation

One question that may agitate the mind of any reader of this article is: why is there such a marked difference between the expected pronunciation of some Igala words (based on standard description of Igala sounds), and the actual way the Igalas pronounce such words? The answer may lie in the history of the language.

The origin of the Igala people (like many other ethnic groups in Nigeria) is shrouded in the uncertainties of an unwritten past. As a result, there are myriads of postulation about the genesis of the people and the language. Abutu (2003) provides a succinct insight into this issue of origins. She observes, citing Silverstein (1973) and Akinkugbe (1978) that views vary from those that claim that Igala people are descended from the Yoruba, to those that assert that both Yoruba and Igala branched out from a common ancestry.

As earlier noted, some scholars have argued that the Igala language is a dialect of Yoruba, to the utter dismay of many Igala people. This view of the language, which according to Boston (1969) exists in some oral traditions, posits that the Idah area was inhabited by Yoruba speaking communities who were eventually overrun by invading migrants from the Jukun area. The notable differences between Igala and Yoruba would be the consequences of close contacts between the Igalas and non Yoruboid group such as the Jukun and possibly the Idoma. Boston also mentions other traditions that claim a complete Jukun ancestry. Therefore, from a historical point of view, the question of the Igala origins appears doomed to eternal obscurity.

However, as has been previously noted in this paper, if one considers the degree of linguistic affinity, it is clear that even if one may not wish to refer to a language associated with a distinct ethnic identity as a dialectal variation of another, one may safely posit that Igala and all the languages of the Yoruba dialect continuum, have their roots in the same protolanguage, a claim subscribed to by Akinkugbe (1976) who described this protolanguage as Proto-Yoruba-Itsekiri-Igala (PYIG). Indeed, as
noted in Arokoyo (2012), the notable similarities between Igala and Owe (the Yoruba dialect area with which the Igala country is closest in terms of geographical proximity), appear to be significant in this regard.

Be that as it may, as stated above (see § 3), the languages of the Yoruba dialect continuum, in spite of the many similarities they display with Igala, do not use some of the consonants attested in Igala(). These consonants include the voiceless affricate /tʃ/ that forms the subject of this paper. As mentioned in § 3, in cognates between Yoruba and Igala, Yoruba has the voiceless alveolar fricative /ʃ/ (or the voiceless palato-alveolar fricative /s/), where the Igala system displays the voiceless affricate (at least in the abstracted form). A sample of such cognates is presented below:

<table><thead><tr><th>Yoruba</th><th>Igala</th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><i>isu</i> /ɪʃo/</td><td><i>uchu</i> /ʊtʃo/</td><td>'yam'</td></tr><tr><td><i>isę</i> /ɪʃɛ/</td><td><i>uche</i> /ʊtʃɛ/</td><td>'work'</td></tr><tr><td><i>se</i> /ʃe/</td><td><i>che</i> /tʃe/</td><td>'do'</td></tr><tr><td><i>subu</i> /ʃʊbo/</td><td><i>chubu</i> /tʃʊbo/</td><td>'fall (v.)'</td></tr></tbody></table>

It must be emphasized (as previously shown) that in Igala, at the level of phonetic realization in rapid speech, as opposed to when the words are pronounced in isolation, the consonant /tʃ/ often, though not always, ends up being realized as [ʃ]. This suggests that the shift from /tʃ/ to /ʃ/ could be an ongoing evolutionary process that has not yet been fully phone-tically entrenched. Regarding the origin of the voiceless affricate /tʃ/ in Igala, it could have been acquired by Igala due to the influence of another non Yoruboid language. The most likely candidate for this influence is Jukun which has the voiceless post-alveolar affricate (Tsojon & Aji 2014). Obviously, this influence should be checked with further studies.

## 9. Implications for Igala Linguistics

A formal listing of the phonemes of Igala would normally include the voiceless post alveolar affricate /tʃ/. A predictive statement of areas of potential difficulty for Igala speakers would not include the realization of /tʃ/ for Igala speakers of English. Not surprisingly, Mbah & Ayegba (2012) do not include this possibility in their list of expected area of difficulties for Igala learners of English. Rather, their a priori proposal includes an expectation that Igala speakers of English would replace /ʃ/ with /tʃ/. In actual fact, [ʃ] –a sound which does not even occur in the list of Igala consonants which these scholars supply–, is actually used to replace /tʃ/ in the pronunciation of English words in which it occurs. This kind of situation is one of the reasons why CA hypothesis rapidly lost its appeal.

This work therefore lends credence to the notion elaborated in Mayor (2008) regarding the need to study the actual phonetic realization of
sounds deemed to exist in a language after studies of the most formal or “standard” forms of the language. As illustrated by the findings in this research the actual phonetic realization of /tf/ among Igalas often gravitates towards [ʃ] in many instances. Such stylistic variations are crucial in any contrastive work. This is the factor missed in Mbah & Ayegba (2012), which offers a CA perspective of pronunciation errors among Igala English speakers. The limitation of the later study is no wonder in view of the known deficiencies of the original approaches to CA.

By and large, the important point to note is that a simplistic comparison of Igala and English respective sound charts would not predict the sound substitution studied in this paper, neither would it provide an accurate account of why it occurs.

## 10. Concluding remarks

This paper has examined the phenomenon of /ʃ/ for /tf/ replacement among Igala speakers of English. At first view, this replacement appears as an odd phenomenon because /tf/ is ordinarily identified as one of the consonants of Igala, and its realization should pose no problem for Igala speakers when speaking English. It was observed that previous studies of English as spoken by Igala people have either misinterpreted the phenomenon at stake (as is the case of Okpanachi 2013) or omitted it (as is the case of Mbah & Ayegba 2012). The present paper puts forward two plausible explanations for the phenomenon. First, it article strongly suggests that the tendency among some Igala speakers to realize /ʃ/ instead of /tf/ while speaking English could be a reflection of a trend to replace /ʃ/ by /tf/ in their native Igala language. The paper submits therefore that contrastive studies of sounds of speech need to continually pay attention to the actual phonetic realizations observed in current speech and not just to the formal features already established in standard descriptions of a language. Second, the overall trend observed in Nigerian English to substitute /ʃ/ for British English /tf/ may also have played a role in the way Igala speakers realize this phoneme when speaking English.

Obviously, there is need for further research on the discussed phenomenon, especially with reference to a diachronic perspective. Also, the observations on which these discussions are based were restricted to a limited number of Igala people living in the Lokoja metropolis. Those living in the Igala homeland were not reached.

## List of abbreviations

<table><tr><td>L1</td><td>First Language</td><td>L2</td><td>Second Language</td></tr><tr><td>MT</td><td>Mother Tongue</td><td>NS</td><td>Native Speaker</td></tr><tr><td>CA</td><td>Contrastive Analysis</td><td>PYIG</td><td>Proto-Yoruba-Itsekiri-Igala</td></tr></table>
## References

ABUTU, Hope. (2003). *English/Igala syntax compared and contrasted*. Okene: Maigida Rio Press.

ADEDIMEJI, Mahfouz. (2007). Linguistic features of Nigerian English. Paper Presented at the 24th Annual Conference of the Nigeria English Studies Association (NESA), University of Uyo, Akwa Ibom State, 18-21/09/2007.

AKINKUGBE, O. O. (1976). An internal classification of the Yoruboid group. *Journal of West African Languages*. Vol. 11. (1-2), 1-17.

AROKOYO, B. Elizabeth. (2012). A comparative phonology of the Olùkùmi, Igala, Owe and Yoruba languages. Paper presented at the International Congress ‘Towards Proto-Niger Congo: comparison and reconstruction’, Paris, 18-21.09.2012.

BOSTON, J.S. (1969). Oral tradition and the history of Igala. *Journal of African History*. Vol. 10 (1), 29-43.

GAST, Volker. (2013). Contrastive analysis. *The Routledge Encyclopaedia of Language Teaching and Learning*. London: Routledge, 153-158.

GILAKJANI, Abas P. & M. REZA Ahmadi. (2013). Why is pronunciation so difficult to learn. *English language teaching*. Vol. 4 (3), 74-83.
http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/elt/article/view/11877/8337

MAYOR, Roy C. (2008). Transfer in second language phonology. In Jette G. Hansen Edwards & Mary L. Zampini (eds), *Phonology and Second Language Acquisition*. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 63-94.

MBAH, E.E. & AYEGBA, M. (2012). Contrastive analysis hypothesis: Insights into pronunciation errors of Igala speakers of English. *International Journal of English and Literature (IJEL)*. Vol. 2 (4), 1-10. www.tjprc.org/publishpapers/--1354182374-contrastive%20Analysis%20-%201.pdf

NEMSER, W. (1971). Approximative systems of foreign language learners. *International Review of Applied Linguistics*. Vol. 9, 115-123.

OMACHONU, Gideon S. (2012a). Comparative analysis of the numeral systems of Ígálà, Yoruba, German and English. *Linguistik online*. Vol. 55 (5).
http://www.linguistik-online.de/55_12/omachonu.html

OMACHONU, Gideon S. (2012b). Igala language studies and development: Progress, issues and challenges. Paper presented at the 12th Igala Education Summit held at Kogi State University, Anyigba-Kogi State, Nigeria. 28-29.12.2012

OKPANACHI, D. Aye. (2013). Phonological problems of Igala learners of the English Language L2. *Journal of Igbo Language and Linguistics*. Vol. 6, 67-72.

SELINKER, Larry. (1972). Interlanguage. *International Review of Applied Linguistics*. Vol. 10, 209-231.

TSOJON, I. Yussuf & AJI, Y. Nuhu. (2014). Pronunciation problems among Jukun (Wapam) English speakers. *European Journal of Research and Reflections in the Humanities*. Vol. 2 (1), 6-12. http://www.idpublica
tions.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/pronunciation-problems-among-
jukun-wapan-english-speakers-paper.pdf

ZHANG, Fachum & PENGPENG, Yin. (2009). A study of pronunciation problems of English learners in China. *Asian Social Sciences*. Vol. 5 (6), 141-146.
http://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ass/article/view/2490/2336