ABSTRACT
This study focuses on analyzing and contrasting the processes of noun formation in both English and Igbo languages. The method of data analysis was contrastive, since this research is a contrastive study of noun formation in English and Igbo. The various rules and processes of noun formation in both languages were identified and classified for the purpose of contrastive studies. In trying to find out the similarities and differences, English and Igbo noun formations were compared so as to postulate the degree of possible interference the Igbo learner will have in learning the English as a second language. The researcher applied marching method of contrastive analysis. It was found that all noun-formation processes are generally rule-governed, but these rules are sometimes very complicated and some processes overlap and interpenetrate each other. General similarities appear in both languages, in borrowing, affixation and compounding. Both languages use prefixes and suffixes in noun-formation. Compounding in English is a very productive process, likewise in Igbo. It was also found that unpredictable formations in English: clipping, acronyms, blending and word-manufacture, are not found in Igbo except for clipping which is found in a few Igbo Christian names. Others are in-fixation and compounding. All compounds in Igbo are semantically endocentric, while English offers four types of semantic compounds.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title page
Abstract
Table of contents
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Background to the Study
1.2 The Igbo language
1.2. The English Language
1.4. Statement of Problem
1.5 Purpose of the Study
1.6 Significance of the Study
1.7 Scope of the Study
1.8 Research Questions
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.0 Introduction
2.1 Theoretical Studies
2.1.1 Contrastive Analysis: Theoretical Considerations
2.1.2 Word Formation
2.2 Empirical studies
2.2.1 Empirical studies on Contrastive Analysis
2.2.2 Empirical Studies on Noun Formation
2.3 Summary of Literature Review
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
3.0 Introduction
3.1 Design of the study
3.2 Data Collection Technique
3.3 Method of Data Analysis
CHAPTER FOUR: PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA
4.0. Introduction
4.1. Research Question 1
4.2. Research Question 2
4.3 Research Question 3
CHAPTER FIVE: IMPLICATIONS, DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION
5.0 Introduction
5.1 Discussion of Findings
5.2. Implications of the Study
5.3. Conclusion
5.4. Recommendation for Further Research
WORKS CITED
CHAPTER ONE
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background to the Study
Language is a dynamic phenomenon, which takes in new words and thus enables its users to extend its vocabulary. With respect to English, which is used not just as a mother tongue but as a second or foreign language in most parts of the world, new words keep making their ways into the language from time to time. While many of these new words are borrowed from other languages, majority of them are formed. According to Katamba (8) “Speakers of a language do not just commit to memory all the words they know, their competence includes the ability to manipulate rules in order to create new words and unscramble the meaning of novel or unfamiliar words they encounter”.
The term morphology is generally attributed to the German poet, novelist, playwright and philosopher, Johann Wolfang Von Goetha (1749-1832), who coined it early in the nineteenth century in biological context. Its etymology is Greek. ‘Morph’ means ‘shape’ or ‘form’ and morphology is the study of form or forms. In biology, morphology refers to the study of the form and structure of organisms; and in Geology, it refers to the study of the configuration and evolution of land forms. In linguistics, morphology refers to the mental system involved in word formation or to the branch of
Anagbogu (26-27) is of the opinion that we entered into a second cycle of morphological evolution with Chomsky’s (1972) Remarks on Nominalization. This is because following Chomsky’s (1952) Syntactic Structures, morphology, according to Keifer (265) was incorporated partly into morphophonemics. Morphology has re-emerged from its two places of confinement, the phonological and syntactic components, because according to Anderson (57), the “programmes for reducing it to other domains have proven over-ambitious”. It remains a paradox to note that the same Chomsky whose publication, Syntactic Structures in 1952 contributed immensely to the disappearance of morphology also in Remarks on Nominalization (1972) made proposal for liberating it from syntax.
So, morphology has come to stay as a vital component of language in its own right, having been incorporated into linguistic theory. The aim of a general theory of morphology is to elucidate certain principles that apply to the structure of words in language (Iloene, 2). Morphology tackles some issues such as: the various component parts of a word, and kinds of....
================================================================
Item Type: Project Material | Size: 69 pages | Chapters: 1-5
Format: MS Word | Delivery: Within 30Mins.
================================================================
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.