CHAPTER FIVE

SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Summary

This study focuses on an examination of morphosyntactic variations of an Idiolect language use.

This study explores how an individual's unique language habits, known as their idiolect, vary in

terms of word structure and sentence formation, shaped by their personal experiences and social

interactions. By closely analysing the morphosyntactic features of one person's speech and

writing, the research aims to uncover distinctive patterns that traditional linguistic studies might

overlook. The findings could deepen our understanding of language variation and inform

practical applications in fields like education, forensic linguistics, and natural language

processing. However, focusing on a single individual's language use limits the study's broader

applicability and may be influenced by external factors, yet it offers valuable insights into how

language functions on a personal level. This study reviews the literature on key linguistic

concepts, particularly morphology, syntax, and idiolects, within the broader context of language

study. Morphology is examined as the study of word structures, focusing on morphemes and

word formation processes like affixation. The text discusses formal syntax theories, highlighting

how sentence structures are hierarchically organized and the complexities in defining sentences

across languages. Additionally, the concept of idiolects is scrutinised, particularly from the

perspective of integrationist theories, which challenge traditional linguistic constructs like

dialects and speech communities. The Weak Lexicalist Hypothesis is introduced as a theoretical

framework, emphasizing the interplay between syntax and morphology in word formation,

particularly in ideolect. This study also presents the research methodology and data used to

investigate the morphosyntactic variations within an individual's idiolect, focusing on a subject

involves the collection of spoken and written language samples from the subject, with data

analysis aimed at identifying patterns in their morphosyntactic usage. The data presentation

includes a comparison of 120 lexical items between the Ikare dialect and standard Yoruba,

highlighting the unique features of the subject's idiolect. The chapter concludes by emphasizing

the significance of these findings for both theoretical linguistics and practical applications. This

study focuses on the analysis of data using theoretical frameworks like the Weak Lexicalist

Hypothesis (WLH) and Integrationist Theories to explore the relationship between lexical items

and syntax in the Ìkàrẹ̀ idiolect compared to standard Yorùbá. The analysis reveals that language

in the Ìkàrẹ̀ community is highly contextual, challenging the notion of languages as fixed

systems. Shared vocabulary across the dialects suggests stable communicative practices, while

lexical variations highlight the unique cultural, environmental, and historical contexts of Ìkàrẹ̀

speakers. Additionally, affixation processes in the Ìkàrẹ̀ idiolect demonstrate the dynamic nature

of language, where prefixes and suffixes are attached to root words to convey different

meanings, often reflecting the specific needs and realities of the community. The study also

explores syntax-generated words, showing that syntax in the Ìkàrẹ̀ idiolect can generate new

word-level categories, further underscoring the flexibility and adaptability of the language.

5.2 Conclusion

In this study, we have explored the intricate linguistic features of the Ikare dialect, particularly

focusing on its lexical variations, morphological processes, and the influence of syntax. By

comparing the Ikare idiolect with standard Yorùbá, we have revealed how language is deeply

intertwined with the cultural and social contexts of its speakers. The data show that, while there

are significant similarities between the two varieties, the Ikare dialect possesses unique lexical
items and affixation patterns that reflect the specific experiences and communicative practices of

its speakers. Integrationist Theories have provided a valuable lens through which to understand

these linguistic differences. They emphasize that language is not a fixed system but a dynamic

one, shaped by the interactions and practices of its users. This perspective has helped us

appreciate the Ikare idiolect as more than just a variant of Yorùbá; it is a distinct linguistic system

that evolves in response to the needs and realities of the Ikare community. The study also

highlighted the flexibility in the interaction between syntax and morphology within the Ikare

idiolect. While morphology often provides inputs for syntax, there are instances where syntax

itself generates word-level categories. This finding underscores the dynamic nature of language

and the adaptability of the Ikare idiolect to the communicative demands of its speakers. Overall,

this research contributes to a deeper understanding of the richness and diversity of Yorùbá

dialects. It challenges the notion of a homogeneous Yorùbá language, instead presenting a more

complex linguistic landscape where multiple idiolects coexist and evolve. The Ikare dialect, with

its unique linguistic features, is a testament to the creativity and adaptability of its speakers, and

it highlights the importance of context in shaping language.

5.3 Recommendations

Given the findings of this study on idiolects within the Ikare dialect, the following

recommendations are proposed:

1. It is crucial to document individual speech patterns (idiolects) within the Ikare

dialect. This documentation should include recordings and analyses of unique expressions,

vocabulary choices, and tonal variations used by individuals. Such efforts will preserve the rich

diversity within the dialect, showcasing how personal history, social interactions, and

environment shape language use.

linguistics, should include studies on idiolects. By examining how individuals within the same

community use language differently, students can gain a deeper understanding of linguistic

diversity and the factors that influence language development on a personal level.

3. Community-based initiatives should encourage individuals to embrace and use

their idiolects in both spoken and written forms. This can be achieved through creative platforms

like storytelling, poetry, and local media, where people are encouraged to express themselves in

their unique linguistic style. Such practices can help in preserving the distinct characteristics of

personal language use within the broader dialect.

4. More research should be conducted on the variation of idiolects within the Ikare

idiolect, dialect and other Yorùbá dialects. This research should explore the factors that

contribute to idiolectal differences, such as age, gender, education, occupation, and social

networks. Understanding these variations can provide deeper insights into the dynamics of

language change and maintenance within communities.

5. Engage local communities in activities that highlight the importance of individual

language use. Workshops, seminars, and discussion forums can be organised to educate people

on the significance of idiolects and encourage them to consciously preserve their unique speech

patterns as a form of cultural heritage.

6. Providing targeted support for linguists who specialize in the study of idiolects

can facilitate more in-depth research. This support can include funding, access to linguistic

databases, and collaboration opportunities with communities to collect and analyze individual

speech data effectively.

Adetugbo, A. 1967. The Yoruba Language in Western Nigeria: Its Major

Dialect Areas. PhD Thesis, Columbia University, U.S.A.

Ajiboye, O. 2013. À-ì- Derived Nominals in Yorubá in Ndimele, O.M., Ahmed

M,, and Yakassai, H.M. Eds. Language Literature and Culture in a Multilingual

Society. Port Harcourt, M& J Grand Orbit. 645 – 656.

Akinlabi A. 2007. Category change as vowel reduplication. Glow XX. Tromso.

Allen, M.R. 1978. Morphological investigations. PhD dissertation, University of

Connecticut, Storrs.

Archangeli D. and D. Pulleyblank. 2014. Emergent Morphology.

http//www.researchgate.net/publication/267633603

Aronoff, M. 1976. Word formation in generative grammar. Cambridge: MIT

Press.

Aronoff, M. and K. Fudeman. 2005. What is morphology? Oxford, Blackwell

Publishing.

Ajọngọlọ, T. 1997. NP Movement in Yorùbá. MA Dissertation, University of Ìbadan,

Ibadan, Nigeria.

Ajọngọlọ, T.2005 Negation in the Ào Dialect of Yorùbá. PhD Thesis University of

Ìbadan, Nigeria.

Awobuluyi, O.1978b. Essentials of Yorùbá Grammar. Ìbadan, UPL.

Awobuluyi, O. 1967. Vowel and consonant harmony in Yorùbá. Journal of African Languages

6 (1): 1-8.
Awobuluyi, O. 2006. “Ó” ki ísẹ aróp̣ o -orúkọ nínú èdè Yorùbá. Yorùbá, Journal

of the Yorùbá Studies Association of Nigeria

Bamgbose, A. 1966. A grammar of Yoruba. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Beard, R. 1995. Lexeme-mopheme base morphology: a general theory of

inflection of Word formation. Albany, NY. Sunny press.

Booij, G. 1996. Inherent and context inflection and the split morphology

Hypothesis. http://geertbooijfiles.wordpress.com2014/02/booij-1996-

inherentand-contextualinf.1-17.

Booij G. 2010. Morphological analysis. https:// geertbooijfiles.wordpress.com

2014/02/booij-2010-oup-Leine-narrog.pdf

Borer, H. 1998. Morphology and syntax. A. Spencer and A.M. Zwicky, A. M.

The handbook of morphology. Oxford Blackwell. 151 – 190.

Chomsky, N. 1957. Syntactic structure. The Hague: Mouton.

Chomsky, N. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge: Mass, MIT.

Di Sciullo, A. M &, E.Williams 1987. On the definition of word. Cambridge,

Mass,

MIT Press.

Fromkin, V.& Rodman R. 2009. Linguistics: an introduction to linguistic

theory. Oxford, Blackwell. 25-88.

Giegerich, H.J. 2006. Lexicalism and modular overlap in English.

www.skase.sk/ volumes/JTL03/06pdf
Hyman, L. 2012. Issues in the phonology – morphology interface in African

languages. UC Berkeley Phonology Lab Annual Report Ling. Com

www.lingref.com/cpp/cal/43/paper295.pdf.

Inkelas, S. &, C. Zoll. 2005. Reduplication: doubling in morphology.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Inkelas, S. 2008. The dual theory of reduplication. Linguistics 46: 351 – 401

Jackendoff, R. 1975. Morphological and semantic regularities in the lexicon.

NLanguage 51: 639 – 671.

Grady, W. and V. de Guzman 2000. Morphology: the analysis of word

structure. W. O‟Grady, M. Debravolsky, and F. Katamba, eds Contemporary

linguistics. an introduction. Longman, London. 111 -153

Ogunkeye, F. 2002. A lexicalist approach to the study of aspect of Yoruba

Morphology. PhD thesis, University of Ibadan, Ibadan.

Owolabi, K. 1995. More on Yoruba prefixing morphology. Language in Nigeria:

essays In honour of Ayo Bamgbose. Owolabi, K. Ed. Ibadan. Group Publishers

Plag, I. 1999. Morphological productivity: structural constraints in English

derivation. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruiter.

Plag, I. 2004. Syntactic category information and the semantics of

derivational morphological rules.

www2.uni-siegen.de/-engspra/papers/morphology/phg.

book.pdf

Pulleyblank D. and A. Akinlabi 1988. Phrasal morphology in Yoruba. Lingua

74: 141 – 166.

Inkelas, S. eds The Nature of the word: 311 – 358

Taiwo, O. 2004. Evidences for the indivisibility of {àì-} in standard Yoruba.

Paper presented at YSAN conference. Ago- Iwoye, October 5 – 9.

Taiwo, O. 2006. Negative markers in Ao and standard Yoruba. Journal of West

African Languages, JWAL, 33, 1: 53 – 70.

Taiwo, O. 2011. 2nd edition. Mọfọlọji. Ibadan: Universal Akada Books

Taiwo, O 2008. Compound verbs in Yoruba Studi Linguistici e Filologici online 6 (4): 345 –

370-