See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/348188778

Structural Variations of Adjective in English and Okpameri

Article in Journal of Language Teaching and Research · January 2021

DOI: 10.17507/jltr.1201.07

CITATION READS

1 300

2 authors:

Raifu Farinde Olugbenga Happy

Federal University Oye-Ekiti Federal University of Technology Minna
56 PUBLICATIONS 35 CITATIONS 5 PUBLICATIONS 23 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Raifu Farinde on 27 July 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

ISSN 1798-4769
Journal of Language Teaching and Research, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 66-75, January 2021
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17507/jltr.1201.07

Structural Variations of Adjective in English and

Okpameri
Raifu O. Farinde
Department of English and Literary Studies, Federal University Oye-Ekiti, Ekiti State, Nigeria

Happy O. Omolaiye
Department of General Studies, The Federal Polytechnic, Ile-Oluji, Ondo State, Nigeria

Abstract—Adjectives indicate grammatical property of language. They give more information about nouns.
The usage of adjective in utterances varies in languages. These variations often pose problem to ESL learners.
Predicating on Contrastive Analysis, the study generated Okpameri data from oral sources and participatory
observation. English data were got from the English grammar texts. From the findings, the two languages are
grammatically marked for pre/post modifying adjective, predicative adjective, degree of adjective and order of
adjective. However, the grammatical structure and usage of these adjectives differ. While English adjectives
often pre-modify the headword, Okpameri adjectives usually post-modify the headword. Also, while English
distinguishes between the use of “beautiful” and handsome for feminine and masculine genders respectively,
Okpameri language resorts to using uni-gender “shemilushe” which its equivalent translation in English is
either “beautiful or handsome”. As in the case of degree of adjective, suffixes are attached to the root-word to
form comparative and superlative adjectives of the two languages. It has been observed that English adjectival
pre-modification is consistent. However, Okpameri adjectives function as pre/post-modifiers. The study,
therefore suggests that language teachers, particularly English language experts, should adopt systematic
approach to the teaching of adjectives as this will broaden the knowledge of Okpameri ESL learners.

Index Terms—English, Okpameri, adjective, second language, grammar

I. INTRODUCTION
Structural variation of language is usually occasioned by difference in culture. Thus, culture becomes one of the
determining factors of language structure. Every language structure is the carrier of the culture that produces the
language. For instance, the structure of English adjectives might seem not to be the same with the structure of Okpameri
adjectives because of cultural differences. Since English is the target language, it therefore becomes pertinent to view
the structure of the Okpameri adjectives on the structure of the English adjective as this will reveal the areas of
similarities and differences. The differences of the two languages under study will definitely improve on the teaching of
adjective in ESL context.
What actually informed this study is borne out of the fact that Okpameri language is yet to receive much scientific
study, particularly, in the area of grammatical structure. Beaming searchlight on the identified problem area(s), the
present study will reveal the likely problem the study of the English adjectives will pose to Okpameri ESL learners in
the course of learning the English adjectives. The likely problem predicted will definitely go a long way in improving
on the teaching methodology of the English adjectives.
As earlier mentioned, Okpameri language is yet to receive much scientific study. In other words, scholars have not
really researched on the language. It must be stated here that language not scientifically studied might go into extinction.
Hence, the study of the structure of Adjectives in English and Okpameri becomes significant.
Okpameri language is one of the Edoid languages (see Elugbe, 1989, Damola, 2004, Omolaiye, 2017, etc).
According to Elugbe (1989), all the languages (such as Okpameri) that have generic resemblance must have descended
from a common photo-language as it were and of which each had later emerged as a distinct language over a long
period of time. The linguistic affinity among the Okpameri is one the greatest evidence of their oneness as a people.
This explains why the word “Okpameri” means “we are one”.
In the works of Hakeem (2003) and Ekharo et al (2007), Okpameri is classified as belonging to North-Western Edoid
community who had retained its Edoid language and speaks a heavily accented variety of Yoruba as a second language.
Okpameri is in Akoko-Edo Local Government Area of Edo State. The communities that make up Okpameri in the Local
government are located in almost all the political constituencies in the said local government. Hence, the following
communities are in Akoko-Edo North constituency: “Lampese”, “Bekuma”, “Ibillo”, “Imoga”, “Ekpesa”, “Ekor”, “the
Ikirans” “the Ugboshis”, “Aiyegunle”, “Ogugu”, and “Somonka”, while communities like “Ojirami”, “Dangbala”,
“Ojah”, “Makeke”, “Ekpe” are in Akoko-Edo South constituency. Okpameri is a language widely spoken in the local
government, and it has population of about 62,000 (Omolaiye, 2013:5 citing population census of 2006 in Edo State).

© 2021 ACADEMY PUBLICATION

JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE TEACHING AND RESEARCH 67

The people are predominantly farmers. A sizable number of the female population are gari producers while some
trade with the nearby villages and towns (in Kogi state), and Igarra (in Akoko-Edo, Edo State). Communities like
“Ugboshi”, “Ikiran”, “Ibillo”, “Ekpesa”, “Lampese”, “Bekuma”, “Makeke” and “Ekpe” fairly speak Yoruba and Ibira
languages as the communities share common boundary with Yoruba and Ibira town and villages.
As earlier stated, this paper is out to investigate structural variations of the English and Okpameri adjectives.
However, emphasis will be on pre/post modifying adjectives, predicative adjectives, degree of adjective and order of
adjective.
In a research work of this nature, it is paramount to briefly discuss some related terms of adjectives of the two
languages under study as this will enhance the theoretical base of discussion. The discussion thus, begins with pre/post
modifying adjectives.
Grammarians simply define adjectives as words used to modify or give more information about nouns or pronouns.
(see Farinde & Ojo, 1998, Murthy, 2007, Jimoh 2009, Ojo 2011, Oyelekan 2002 etc.). By implication, any word used to
describe, modify or qualify a noun is referred to as an adjective. However, words are not discriminately used as
adjectives. They are used in line with the dictates of the grammar of a language. For instance, it is ungrammatical to
render the English expression thus: “beautiful two ladies” instead of “two beautiful ladies”. It is also wrong to say
“grammar errors instead of “grammatical errors” in English. Adjectives are functionally classified as:
-Attributive: directly attached to a nominal item to function as a pre-modifier or post modifier e.g beautiful lady, the
president elect etc.
-Predicative: Coming after the verb of a given sentence e.g He is fine, Don’t be foolish etc.
-Numerical: Usually marked by cardinal numerals or ordinal numerials e.g. five houses, first speaker etc.
-Interrogative: used as a pre-modifier to ask questions e.g whose name is written?; which state that is free of coronal
virus? etc.
-Demonstrative: used as a pre-modifier to point at something or somebody e.g. This book is standard; those students
are very brilliant etc.
-Possessive: used as a pre-modifier to indicate possession e.g. my book; your house etc.
-Nominal: a noun used as a pre-modifier to perform the function of adjective e.g Nigeria police; town crier etc.
-Proper noun: a proper noun inflected to perform the function of an adjective e.g European countries; a Ghananian
citizen etc.
-Verbal: Participles used as pre-modifiers to perform the function of an adjective e.g reading book; spoken English
etc.
-The Articles: used as a pre-modifiers to perform the function of an adjective. Articles are used for specific and non-
specific referent. Specific referent: the man. The non-specific: a girl, an empty space etc.
-The determinants: used as a pre-modifier or post modifier to perform the function of an adjective. Determinants are
used to talk about the quantity of things or humans e.g few people attended the meeting, little milk is good for you etc.
-Emphasizing words: As the name suggests, they are words used as modifiers to perform the function of adjectives.
They are usually used to emphasize nouns e.g I saw my very sister in the party. It is my own money I used to build the
house etc.
-Exclamatory word: used as an adjective to express one’s feeling e.g what! a beauty, what! an insult, etc.
The English adjectives are also used for comparison. In essence, comparison of adjectives has to do with expressing
adjectives in terms of grading, that is, deriving their comparative and superlative forms. When two things or people are
compared, the comparative form of adjective is used, while superlative form is used when more than two items or
people are compared. This implies that adjectives and particularly, the traditional adjectives are inflected for
comparative and superlative forms. Most monosyllabic adjectives usually derive their comparative and superlative
forms with the addition of the morpheme “er” and “est” respectively. Consider the following:
big - bigger – biggest
tall – taller – tallest
fat – fatter – fattest
According to Oyelekan (2002), some di-syllabic adjectives do take either “er” and “est” or “more” and “most” for
their comparative and superlative forms. Some of these examples are:
happy – happier – happiest
heavy – heavier – heaviest
lay – lazier – laziest
active – more active – most active
Some of the multi-syllabic adjectives also take “more” and ‘most’ as their comparative and superlative forms. They
are:
beautiful – more beautiful – most beautiful, palatable – more palatable – most palatable
excellent – more excellent – most excellent etc.
It must be mentioned here that some adjectives do not have fixed rules to form their comparative and superlative
forms. Murthy (2007) refers to them as “irregular comparative and superlative adjectives”. Some of these irregular
adjectives are:

© 2021 ACADEMY PUBLICATION

68 JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE TEACHING AND RESEARCH

good – better – best, bad – worse-worst, much – more – most, little – less – least.
As earlier mentioned, when more than one adjective pre-modifies a particular noun, there is an order they usually
follow so as to have a grammatical and meaningful arrangement (see Ashaolu, et al 1995). In other words, pre-modifiers
do not follow one another indiscriminately. Using the mnemonic as preferences for adjectival word-order, Ojo (2011)
states as follows:
-Number (N) e.g one, six, third, fifth etc.
-Attributes (A) e.g. beautiful, ugly, elegant, poor, rich, experience, extravagant etc.
-Size/weight (s/w) e.g. tall, short, big, large, small, little, heavy, light etc.
-Age (A) e.g. new, young, old, modern, ancient, archaic, obsolete, outdated, old-fashioned etc.
-Shape (S) e.g. fat, thin, lanky, stout, slim, round, circular, rectangular, oblong etc.
-Colour (C) e.g. red, white, black, dark, yellow, dark-skinned, fair-skinned, light, fair blonds etc.
-Nationality/Origin (N/O) e.g. Nigerian, Italian, Japanese, Ghanaian, American etc.
-Nouns used as adjectives (N) e.g. leather, silk, sports, cotton, metal etc.
The above mnemonic is written in adjectival order of occurrence in a sentence. It must be stated here that not all the
above adjectives might occur in a particular nominal group. Therefore, correct use of adjectives enhances linguistic
competence.
The Okpameri Adjectives
Okpameri has adjectives in its grammar. That is, certain words are used to modify or describe nouns in Okpameri
utterances. Similar to English, words are not discriminately used as adjectives in Okpameri language. Their usage also
goes along with the dictates of the grammar of the language. It is an error to say n’eva (two) Ivbia (children) instead of
Ivbia (children) n’eva (two).
Just as the English adjectives are classified functionally, Okpameri adjectives could also be classified as:
-Attributive: directly attached to a nominal item to function as a post modifier e.g. Ọzha n’oshemushẹ (wife
beautiful), ọmọ-o shemi (child good) etc.
-Predicative: lopping together the be-verb with adjectival word to function as predicative adjective, e.g. Ojo-ọ
nẹzuguẹh (Ojo-he intelligent); Ọ shẹ (she tall) etc.
-Numerical: usually marked by cordinal numerals or ordinal numerials e.g Izili-ẹ n’ẹsa (goats-they three), Uguẹh
Okhenikeh (thing first) etc.
-Interrogative: used as post-modifier to ask questions, thus performs the function of adjective e.g. Iweh ẹgu? (book
which?, Ineneh agu khẹ vbuẹh? (name what your?) etc.
-Demonstrative: used as post-modifier to point at something or somebody e.g. Ọmọ nọh (child this), Avbua amọh
(dog that) etc.
-Possessive: used as a post-modifier to indicate possession. eg. Eguo amẹh (shirt my), ọzha mẹh (wife my) etc.
-Nominal: noun used as post-modifier to perform the function of adjective e.g Onyo Okpameri (indigene Okpameri),
police-ẹ inigeria (police-they Nigeria) etc.
-The Article: used as post-modifier to perform the function of adjective e.g. Ibo-ẹ wẹni (people-they the), ọmọhọzi-ọ
wẹni (boy-he the) etc. Note: Okpameri language does not mark for indefinite articles.
-The determinants: used as pre-modifier to perform the function of adjective e.g ito agbọ (few people).
-Emphatic: used as post modifier to perform the function of adjective e.g Ukpo mẹh kpa (house my own), ọmọ mẹh
kpa (child my own).
-Exclamatory word: used as an adjective to express inner feelings of the speaker e.g. uka kunọh! (shame, a what!),
Asẹkhẹ kanọh! (mence a what!) etc.
Just as the English adjectives are used for comparison, Okpameri adjectives are also used for grading. Hence,
Okpameri adjectives have comparative and superlative forms. Some of the examples are:
- Kheke - khekevẹnẹ – khekevha
(small smaller smallest)
- họi - khọivẹnẹ - họivha
(big - bigger - biggest)
- fiea - fieavẹnẹ - fieavha
(loud - louder - loudest)
It is pertinent to state that all Okpameri degree of adjectives are regular in form unlike English that some
degree of adjective are irregular in form.
Consider:
- shemi - shemivẹnẹ - shemivha
(good better best)
- vbemi - vbemivẹnẹ - vbemivha
(bad - worse worst)
- bu - buvẹnẹ - buvha
(many more most)
- kheke - khekevẹnẹ - khekevha

© 2021 ACADEMY PUBLICATION

JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE TEACHING AND RESEARCH 69

(little less least)

Okpameri language has adjectival word-order in an utterance. The headword is usually post modified unlike
English where adjectives are usually pre-modified. The adjectival word-order in Okpameri is not as complex as that of
English. Two modifiers are usually used to modify the headword. Consider:
- Efiza-ẹ n’ẹva n’ichichi
(Birds-they black two) two black birds
- Ivbiezha-ẹ n’ẹva n’ishemushẹ
(girls-they two beautiful) two beautiful ladies
- Ọhọzi-ọ riọ n’ọla
(man-he old fat) fat old man
- Ọvala ọmọhọzi n’oshumushẹ
(young boy handsome). Young handsome boy
The hypothetical examples of Okpameri order of adjectives have revealed the uniqueness in the headword and
its modifiers. The headword is sometimes followed immediately by its pronoun. The researchers simply refer to such
pronouns as “headword tag”, while the letter representing sound that comes before the modifiers as prefix is referred to
as “word-particle”.
Having briefly examined the structures and functions of adjectives of the two languages, it is expedient to also briefly
examine some sociolinguistic concepts like “bilingualism” and “linguistic interference as they sometimes constitute
learning problem to ESL learners.
Bilingualism: Akindele and Adegbite (2005), describe Bilingualism as the use of two languages either by an
individual or a speech community. By implication, Bilingualism gives room for the co-existence of two languages in the
repertoire of an individual or a speech community. It could be submitted therefore that Bilingualism is the ability an
individual has to produce meaningful utterances in the other language in a bilingual speech community. However, such
an individual could be deficient in either of the two languages. The resultant effect of this could be technically referred
to as Linguistic Error. Linguistic Error occurs when a bilingual unconsciously transfers the structure of the language
that he is more proficient in to the language he is less proficient in.
Linguistic Interference: Omolaiye (2017) identifies Linguistic Interference as those instances of deviation from the
norms of either language that occurs in the speech of a language user as a result of familiarity with more than one
language. This is why Weinreich (1953) describes Linguistic Interference as the rearrangement of patterns that result
from the introduction of foreign elements into the more highly-structured domains of language. In view of this, it is
essential to do a comparative study where two languages (as in the case of English and Okpameri) co-exist so as to
examine their area(s) of similarities and differences as this will enable an analyst or contrastivist predict the likely
problem area(s) for the natives in the course of using the target language.

II. METHODOLOGY
In generating Okpameri adjectives for analysis, two methods were adopted viz-a-viz oral interview and participatory
observation. Secondary data were got from the works of Omolaiye (2013, 2015, 2016 and 2017). Twenty informants
including males and females who are between the age bracket of 60 and 85 years and are also native speakers of
Okpameri language were interviewed. The researchers’ intuitive knowledge in Okpameri language enhanced
participatory observation in linguistic exchanges that involve the use of Okpameri adjectives in a natural setting. As in
the case of the English data, the researchers made use of relevant literature obtained from library, relevant English
grammar texts and internet sources.
It is also important to look at the theoretical framework that will actually enhance our data analysis. Hence, the study
is predicated on Contrastive Analysis as it is relevant to the comparative study of two languages. According to Di Pieto
(1971) and James (1980), Modern Contrastive Linguists began with Lado’s “Linguistics Across culture” in 1957. And
by expansion, Lado’s work was given impetus by earlier works of Weinreinch (1953) on the linguistic integration of
immigrants in the united state of America (see Ojo, 1996, Omolaiye, 2013).
Contractive Analysis remains an influential construct in the field of second language acquisition. It is a linguistic tool
used in knowing what are needed and what that are not needed in the context of Target Language (TL). CA is also an
instrument used to identify whether two languages have something in common thereby identifying the similarities and
differences of the two languages under study in order to expand and expound the frontier of language universality.
James (1980:3) describes Contrastive Analysis as a linguistic enterprise aimed at producing inverted (i.e contrastive)
two valued typologies in that, a pair of language is found on the assumption that language can be compared.
Routledge Encyclopedia of Language Teaching (1990:14) makes distinction between Theoretical and Applied CA.
While Theoretical CA is concerned with the production of extensive account of the differences between the languages
contrasted, Applied CA is concerned with a reliable prediction of the learner’s difficulties (James, 1980:181).
Contrastive Analysis like Error Analysis and Translation Theory is a form of intelingua study in which two languages
are involved. In view of this, CA therefore deals with issues that arise in the process of leaning a second language after
the bases of the first language (L1) has been acquired. The pre-occupation of Contrastive Linguistics in its comparison
of language is to provide the methods for language teaching. By so doing, features of language structure revealed in CA

© 2021 ACADEMY PUBLICATION

70 JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE TEACHING AND RESEARCH

may suggest modification and will certainly be further modified in the light of future experiences, thereby improving on
finer grading of learners’ difficulties.
The major concern of CA therefore, is to do a descriptive study individually of the two languages under study and
subsequently juxtapose them for areas of similarities and differences as this will enable the contrastivist predict
difficulties and perhaps postulate a hierarchy of difficulties hoping that this would help in improving on teaching
methodology. This will serve as a tool in solving learning problems emanating from some of the perceived difficulties
of learning the English adjectives and expressing the Okpameri terms in English.
CA hypothesis therefore claims that the major barrier to second language acquisition is the interference of first
language system with the second language system in that, a scientific structural analysis of the two languages in
question would yield a taxonomy of linguistic contrast between them which in turn would enable linguists and language
teachers predict the problem area(s) a learner would encounter. Lado (1957:267) asserts that where the language
patterns are similar in the two languages under study, learners of the TL would find language relatively easy, because
the inputs they are now exposed to are not new to them. On the other hand, where the language patterns of the TL and
the MT differ, the learning of the TL would be relatively difficult. The difficulties predicted by CA cannot be properly
taken care of without recourse to Error Analysis (EA) as Error Analysis deals with the actual errors committed by the
ESL learners. In the light of this, it is not out of place to mention here that CA and EA are related in that no contrastivist
has ever really predicted solely on the basis of the CA, but has to be relied on his or on teacher’s knowledge of errors
already committed. James (1980) corroborates this when he claims that CA is always prognostic while EA is diagnostic.
Thus, CA and EA are linguistic approaches used to account for L1 learning problem(s).

III. RESULTS AND ANALYSIS

For the purpose of clarity of data presentation, adjectives are classified as pre/post modifying adjectives, predicative
adjective, degree of adjective and order of adjective. English, being the target language, is contrasted with Okpameri
using samples of the data of the two languages. Ibillo variant of Okpameri language is adopted for analyzing Okpameri
data. The analysis begins with pre/post modifying adjective. The adjectives of the two languages under study are
underlined in the nominal group or sentences being contrasted. It must be mentioned here that, at the level of order of
adjective, only nominal group containing two modifiers are analyzed as the structure of Okpameri adjective does not
often give room for more than two adjectives modifying one headword in a nominal group.
Pre/Post Modifying Adjectives
The following (proper, nominal, descriptive verbal, demonstrative attributive, possessive, interrogative, emphatic, the
articles, determinant, numerical adjectives etc.) are classified as pre/post modifying adjectives because they follow
almost immediately the headwords they modify. Some of the sample data gathered are presented below:
TABLE 1
THE PRE/POST MODIFYING ADJECTIVES
S/N English Okpameri
1. Good child Ọmọ n’oshemi
2. First person Onyo okenike
3. Two children Ivbia n’ẹva
4. Young goat Uvhazi izili
5. Young person Ọmọ Ọvala
6. That house Ukpo mọh
7. Which book? Iweh ẹgu?
8. Only me Mhẹmẹ kpa
9. Forbidden fruit Utousha n’asah
10. His name Ineneh avbọh
11. Nigerian citizen Onyo Inigeria
12. Nigeria police Itenugu Inigeria

Contrastive Statement
Some of the samples of the data presented have revealed the similarities and the differences of English and Okpameri
with respect to how adjectives of the two languages under study modify the headword in a nominal group or noun
phrase. It is obvious that the two languages (English and Okpameri) have modifying adjectives. However, there is
difference in the area of grammatical environment in which the headword is modified. While English adjectives usually
pre-modify the headwords, Okpameri adjectives often post modify the headword except uvhazi (young) that pre-
modifies the headword izili (goat) in a nominal group.
It must be mentioned here that English adjectives also post modify headwords. However, few adjectives perform this
function. Some of these examples are “election proper”, “money available”, “the president elect”, “the house ablaze” etc.
While the adjective “young” is consistent as revealed in (4), and (5), its translation equivalent in Okpameri reveals
non-consistence. Another difference between English and Okpameri adjective structure and usage is at the area of
morphological realization. While the noun “Nigeria” is suffixed to perform the function of an adjective in a nominal
group in English as revealed in (11), this derivational morpheme is absent in the Okpameri adjective. Similarly, the
suffix ‘en’ attached to the verb ‘forbid’ in (9) to perform the function of an adjective is alien to Okpameri adjective as

© 2021 ACADEMY PUBLICATION

JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE TEACHING AND RESEARCH 71

Okpameri resorts to using nominal adjective to function as a modifier. While English differentiates between its proper
adjective and nominal adjective, as revealed in (11) and (12), Okpameri resort to using nominal adjective as both proper
and nominal adjectives.
From the table above, the Okpameri learners of English, may be confronted with how to use proper noun as adjective
in a sentence. They may tend to say “America cars” instead of “American cars”. They may also render expression like
“forbidden fruit” as “forbid fruit” as Okpameri verbs are not inflected to perform the function of adjective.
Predicative Adjectives
Some adjectives are classified as predictive adjectives because of the function they perform in a sentence. Jimoh
(2009) describes Predicative Adjectives as adjectives used to limit or complete the meaning of the verb in a sentence.
These adjectives usually come immediately after a be-verb or linking verb. This verb is said to have linked the adjective
with the modified subject. Some grammarians like Farinde, and Ojo (1998), Halliday (1961), Osisanwo (1996), Quick,
et. Al (1973), Ojo (2011) etc. describe predicative adjectives as “subject-complement, or “complement intensive”. The
data of this adjective type are presented thus:
Predicative Adjective
TABLE 2
S/N English Okpameri
1. Ojo is good. Ojo-o shemi.
2. She is beautiful. O shemilushẹ.
3. Joy is tall. Joy-o shẹhẹ.
4. He is handsome. O shemilushẹ.
5. It is correct. E bọzọh.
6. It tastes good. I nemah.
7. He is happy. Egua vbọ l’enemah.
8. She is old. O ri l’orio.
9. Ayo is lazy. Ayo-ọ ri l’avbua.
10. God is mighty. Oshọkọzi-Ọ khọi.
11. Sunday is intelligent. Sunday-ọ nẹzuguẹh.
12. Ibillo is popular. Ibillo-I whienawa.

Contrastive Statement
The sentences of the two languages presented have revealed the Predicative Adjectives as both languages have
predicative adjectives. However, there is difference at the level of structure. While the English verbs are followed
immediately by the adjectives, Okpameri subjects of the sentence are followed by predicative adjective as Okpameri
linking verbs are often lopped with the predicative adjectives. This uniqueness (lopping of verb with adjective) is also
peculiar to Yoruba language as we have in the expression like “O dara” (it is good). “O” is the subject pronoun while
“dara” is a predicative adjective in which case, the verb “is” is lopped with the adjective.
Another area of difference is adjectival gender sensitivity. While the complement intensives of “he and “she” as
revealed in (2), and (4), are “beautiful” and “handsome” respectively, there is no distinction of this in Okpameri
predicative adjective as Okpameri resorts to using un-gender. The Okpameri word “ri” in (8) and (9) is an active verb
which its equivalent in English in “doing” is thus followed by nouns (l’orio and l’avbua) in Okpameri grammatical
context. Structurally, “l’orio” and “l’avbua” are nouns but function as predicative adjectives.
The perceived problem the Okpameri learners of English as a second language may likely face is the use of
“beautiful” and “handsome”. The Okpameri speaker of English may tend to use these predicative adjectives
indiscriminately as Okpameri language does not distinguish between feminine and masculine predicative adjectival
gender. In the same manner, the Okpameri ESL learners may find it difficult to use the appropriate linking verbs since
such verbs (is, are, be, was etc.) are often lopped with the predicative adjectives in Okpameri language. They may lend
to render expression like “The boys is or are good” instead of “the boys are good”.
Degree of Adjectives
Degree of adjectives are also referred to as comparison of adjectives as adjectives are expressed in terms of grading
in which comparative and superlative are formed by attaching inflectional morphemes to the root-word as suffix. Three
degrees of adjective are identified to include positive, comparative and superlative. Adjective is positive when it is used
to talk about quality or a person, place or thing. Comparative adjective is used to compare two persons, things or
qualities, while the superlative form has to do with the comparison of more than two persons or things.
The data are hence presented:

© 2021 ACADEMY PUBLICATION

72 JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE TEACHING AND RESEARCH

TABLE 3
Positive Comparative Superlative
English Okpameri English Okpameri English Okpameri
1. Big họi Bigger họivẹnẹ Biggest Khoivha
2. Small Kheke Smaller Khekevẹnẹ Smallest Khekevha
3. Fat L Faller Lavẹnẹ Fattest Lavha
4. Loud Fiea Louder Fieavẹnẹ Loudest Fieavha
5. Wide Vboti Wider Vbotivẹnẹ Widest Vbotivha
6. Good Shemi Better Shemivẹnẹ Best Shemivha
7. Bad Vbhemi Worse Vbhemivẹnẹ Worst Vbhemivha
8. Many Bu More Buvẹnẹ Most Buvha
9. Little Kheke Less Khekevẹnẹ Least Khekevha
10. Beautiful Shemulushẹ More beautiful Shemulushẹvẹnẹ Most beautiful Shemulushẹvha
11. Heavy họhi Heavier Khohvẹnẹ Heaviest Khohvha
12. Happy Tanah Happier Tanahvẹnẹ Happiest Tanahvẹnẹ

Contrastive Statement
The table has revealed the similarities between the two languages under study. There is similarity at the level of
suffix attached to the root-word to form comparative and superlative adjectives. The table has revealed “er” and “est”
morphemes of the two languages compared. Both languages are inflected for comparative and superlative adjectives. As
earlier mentioned, the morphemes are attached to the root-words as suffix. The difference between English and
Okpameri is in the area of regular adjective. While the Okpameri language has regular adjectives (like shemi-
shemivene-shemivha), some of the English words do not follow this trend. Examples of such words as presented in the
table are “good”- “better”- “best”, “bad” - “worse” – “worst”.
Another difference between English and Okpameri adjective is the area of multi-syllabic adjective as some of the
multi-syllabic adjectives in English take “more” and “most” as pre-modifiers of theirs adjectives to indicate
comparative and superlative forms. This is evident in (10) where “more” and “most” pre-modify “beautiful” to form
comparative and superlative adjectives. This is not so in Okpameri adjectives.
Okpameri learners of English may be confronted with the appropriate use of “good” and “bad” in comparative and
superlative respectively. They may tend to say “good” – “gooder” – “goodest”, or “bad” – “bader” – “badest”.
Order of Adjective
When two or more adjectives are used to pre-modify the headword, they are arranged according to the dictates of the
language that owns the modifiers. In other words, pre-modifier do not follow one another arbitrarily. The data gathered
has revealed this claim. Some of the samples are therefore presented below:
TABLE 4
S/N English Okpameri
1. Beautiful young lady Ọvala omuvhizi n’oshemushẹ
2. Two big goats Izizi n’ẹva n’ẹkhọi
3. White dried maize Ugbado n’ufu n’uvhola
4. Sharp flat cutlass Egbeleh n’emua n’apẹkẹtẹ
5. Clean big place Asha n’afuẹma n’akhọi
6. Three ugly women Ezha m’ẹnẹsa n’ifiasa
7. Two black birds Efiza n’ẹva n’ichichi
8. My large land kẹ mẹh n’ẹkhoi
9. Tall Nigerian soldier Ishoja inigiria n’ọshe
10. Clean bottle water Amẹh ukpalava n’evia
11. That big house Ukpo n’ukhọi umọh

Contrastive Statement
From the table above, the two languages have order of adjective. However, there is difference in the word order as
evident in the table. While English adjectives usually pre-modify the headword, this is not so in Okpameri as Okpameri
adjectives usually post modify the headword, except the adjective ovala (young) that pre-modifies the headword
ọmuvhizi (lady). Even then, the adjective n’ọshemushẹ (beautiful) still post modifies the headword. By implication,
English adjectival pre-modification is consistent while that of Okpameri is not.
The likely problem the Okpameri learners of English may be confronted with is how to identify the headword in a
nominal group since the order of adjective of the two languages under study is different. Proper noun (like Nigerian)
used as adjective may also pose challenge to Okpameri ESL learners since Okpameri language does not distinguish
between proper noun used as adjective and noun used a nominal adjective.

IV. DISCUSSION
Investigating structural variation of adjectives in English and Okpameri has, indeed, revealed areas of similarities and
differences of the two languages. The similarities have revealed grammar universality. As evident in English and
Okpameri languages, every language has words used to give more information about a noun. The major function of
adjectives, therefore, is to pre/post modify a noun. Adjectives also perform the function of subject-complement in a
given sentence. Grammarians refer to such adjectives as subject-complement or complement intensive. However, the

© 2021 ACADEMY PUBLICATION

JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE TEACHING AND RESEARCH 73

grammatical structure of adjective of every language differs. This difference is usually a function of culture (see Ojo,
1996). This is because the lexis and of course, adjective of every language, is culture-bound. This also buttresses the
assertion of Sapir-Worf Hypothesis (1921) that each language creates its own world and therefore its own meaning.
Thus, culture plays significant roles in language structure. These are revealed in the two languages examined.
With respect to headword modification, English adjectives usually pre-modify the headword while Okpameri
adjectives often post modify the headword of any given nominal group or noun phrase, except uvhazi (young) and ovala
(young) where the adjectives pre-modify the headwords. While some nouns and verbs are suffixed to perform the
function of adjective, this is not so in Okpameri as such morphological marking is alien to the grammar of Okpameri.
Okpameri language rather resorts to using noun to perform the function of an adjective in a nominal group. In other
words, Okpameri does not distinguish between proper noun and nominal noun used as adjective. The problem that
Okpameri language users of English may likely face is how to use proper noun as adjective in a nominal group as they
may tends to say “America cars” instead of “American cars”. Okpameri ESL learners may also tend to render this
expression thus: “forbid fruit” instead of “forbidden fruit”.
The two languages (English and Okpameri) have predicative adjectives. The study has, however, revealed area of
difference. While English predicative adjectives follow almost immediately the linking verbs, Okpameri often lopped
the linking verb with the predicative adjective. The study has also revealed predicative adjectival gender sensitivity in
English as against Okpameri language that does not distinguish between gender predicative adjectives. For instance,
shemilushẹ is zero gender in that the adjective-“shemilushẹ” is used as uni-gender, while the English masculine and
feminine subject complements are handsome and beautiful respectively. In view of this difference, “beautiful” and
“handsome” may likely pose problem to Okpameri learners and users of English adjectives as they may tend using these
gender adjectives interchangeably.
As in the case of degree of adjective, the two languages under study have degree of adjective. In other words, English
and Okpameri have “positive”, “comparative” and “superlative” adjectives and suffixes are attached to the root-words
to form comparative and superlative adjectives. However, there is difference in the area of regular adjectives. While
Okpameri language has regular adjectives as revealed in table 4, some of the English adjectives do not follow this trend.
Another difference between the two languages under study is in the area of multi-syllabic adjectives. Some of the
English multi-syllabic words are usually pre-modified with words like “more” and “most” to have comparative and
superlative adjectives. This is not so in the grammar of Okpameri. Hence, Okpameri learners of English may find it
difficult to appropriately use the comparative and superlative adjectives of “good” and “bad” as they may resorts to
rendering these expressions thus: “good” – “gooder” – “goodest” or “bad” – “bader” – “badest” instead of “good-
better- best”, “bad – worse – worst”. The learners may also say “beautiful – beautifier, bueatifuest” instead of “beautiful
– more beautiful – most beautiful”.
The predictive problem is that, the Okpameri learners of English may sometimes find it difficult to locate the
headword in a given nominal group because of the structural differences of adjectives in English and Okpameri.
Okpameri ESL learners may also be confronted with the correct usage of a proper noun as a pre-modifier in a nominal
group since Okpameri language does not distinguish between proper noun used as adjective and noun used as nominal
adjective. An Okpameri speaker of English may say “Nigerian police” instead of “Nigeria Police”.
In view of the CA hypothesis, the two languages under study have adjectives (pre/post modifiers, predicative
adjectives, degree of adjective and order of adjectives). The two languages have revealed grammar universality.
However, adjectives of the two languages differ in terms of structure and gender sensitivity. For instance, while English
modifiers are usually used to pre-modify the headword, Okpameri modifiers are often used to post-modify the
headword. Also, while English predicative adjectives – beautiful and handsome are gender sensitive, Okpameri
predicative adjective “shemilushe” is used as zero gender or uni-gender in Okpameri nominal group. Thus, Okpameri
ESL learners may be confronted with the appropriate use of English predicative adjective that is gender sensitive. Also,
Okpameri learners of English as a second language may be confronted with the appropriate use of gender pre-modifiers
like “his” and “her”. This study therefore suggests that language teachers, particularly, the English language experts
should concentrate more on the areas of differences in the teaching and learning of the English adjectives.
Investigating structural variation of adjectives in English and Okpameri has revealed some implications for the
teaching and learning of English as a second language. Considering the fact that languages come in contact (as in the
case of English and Okpameri), teaching and learning of ESL should be given due consideration. As a result, the
following among others are highlighted thus:
As a matter of fact, Okpameri ESL learners should be exposed to the grammar of the two languages under study, in
that the grammatical structure or feature of any language is usually characterized by the culture of the language.
Therefore, learners should be exposed to the culture of the two languages because the lexical items of a particular
language are regarded as carriers of the culture that produces the language. Emphasis should be on the literature
component of English and Okpameri language teaching programmes because literature is the practical use of language.
Language teachers should be encouraged to also teach the aspect of literature in our school system.
The teaching of adjectives should be handled using systematic approach. That is, language experts should be
acquainted with full knowledge of adjectival structures of the two languages as this will enable teaching and learning to
be more effective and productive. Also, standard, adequate and relevant instructional materials as well as conducive

© 2021 ACADEMY PUBLICATION

74 JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE TEACHING AND RESEARCH

environment for learning should be made available and accessible as these will enhance efficiency and effectiveness in
the teaching of English adjectives. English language curriculum at every level of education should be made dynamic as
this will enable language teachers develop new approaches in teaching adjectives.
Finally, the study has revealed variations in the way different language communities are caused by their language to
engage with the world in distinctive manner. This is evident in this research. Adjectives are culture-bound and a good
understanding of them demands familiarity with the cultures that produce them. Hence, adjectives of the two languages
under study should be handled by language experts in the context of ESL as this would aid learners in studying the
adjectives of the two languages.

V. CONCLUSION
Contrastivists usually embark on comparing two languages (particularly, the indigenous and the target languages) in
order to provide the methods or approaches for language teaching. Features of the language structure revealed in CA
may suggest modifications and this will certainly be further modified in the light of future experience as it may enhance
a finer grading of learners’ learning problem(s). Thus, this paper has revealed the variations in the structure and usage
of the two languages under study. These variations have reflected the culturally important features of how adjectives are
used to enhance grammaticality. Hence, the acknowledgements of universal grammatical features are internal to the
culture in which it operates and its usage has reflected on those variations that are important to its culture.
Since adjectives are more culture-bound and a good understanding of them demands familiarity with the culture that
produces them, it is therefore advised that Okpameri speakers and users of English should be exposed to the similarities
and differences of English and Okpameri adjectives as this will enable them (Okpameri ESL learners) cope with the
likely problems identified in the findings. As a matter of urgency, language teachers should come up with practical
demonstration of these adjectives in the second language being learnt. In the light of this, dynamic and innovativeness
on the part of the language experts are called for in order to make use of adequate teaching and learning materials.
Consequently, the perceived difficulties of learning the English adjectives and expressing the Okpameri adjectives in
English will be minimized.

REFERENCES
[1] Adegbite, W. & Akindele, F. (2005). Sociology and Politic of English in Nigerian: An Introduction, Ile-Ife Obafemi Awolowo
University Press.
[2] Ashaolu, A. O. (1993). Use of English and Functional Communication. Ado: Ekiti Petae Educational Publishers.
[3] Di Pietro, J. (1971). Language Structures in Contact. Massachussetts: Newbury House.
[4] Ekharo, T., Aliu, G. & Akanji, J. (2007). The history of Somorika. Lagos: Dee Honour Company.
[5] Elugbe, B. (1989). Comparative Edoid: Phonology and Lexicon. Delta Series. No 6. University of Port-Harcourt Press.
[6] Farinde, R. & Ogunsiji, Y. (2010). Analytical Linguistics. Ago-Iwoye: Olabisi Onabajo University Press.
[7] Farinde, R. & Ojo, J. (1998). The grammatical structures of English: An illustrative approach. Ondo. Patrick Ade Press.
[8] Greenberg, J. (1978). Universals of Human Languages. Standard University Press, Stanford,
Califonia.
[9] Hakeem, B. C. (2003). A culture history of the uneme from the earliest time to 1962. Lagos: The book company Ltd.
[10] Halliday, M. A. K. (1961). Categories of the Theory of Grammar. Word. 17(3). Pp. 241-92. Reprinted in full in on Grammar.
Vol. 1 of the collected works of M.A.K Halliday: London and New York: Continuum.
[11] James, C. (1980). Contrastive Analysis. London: Longman.
[12] Jimoh, R. (2010). A Description Survey of the English Grammar. Ibadan. Alafas Nigeria Company.
[13] Lado, R. (157). Language teaching: A Scientific Approach. New York: Mc GrawHill.
[14] Murphy, J. D. (2007). Contemporary English Grammar, Lagos: Book Master Publishers.
[15] Ogundipe, P. A., Eckersley, C. E. & Macaulay, M. (1983). Brighter Grammar Book 3. England: Pearson Education Limited.
[16] Ojo, J. O. (1996). A Contrastive Lexicology of Six Semantic Fields of English and Yoruba. Unpublished M. A. dissertation:
University of Ibadan.
[17] Ojo, J. O. (2008). “A Contrastive Analysis of Tense, Aspect and Modality in English and Yoruba” Unpublished Ph. D Thesis:
University of Ibadan.
[18] Ojo, J. O. (2011). “A Contemporary Functional Grammar of English”. Ago-Iwoye Olabisi Onabaja University Press.
[19] Omolaiye, H. O. (2013). A Contrastive Lexicology of Six Semantic Fields of English and Okpameri. Unpublished M. A.
Dissertation. University of Ibadan.
[20] Omolaiye, H. O. (2015). Problems in the Syntactic Usage of Tense and Aspect in the Written Composition of Okpameri
Secondary School Learners of English, in J. O. Ojo (eds). Journal of School Languages, Adeyemi College of Education, Ondo.
Vol. 7, Pp. 227-257.
[21] Omolaiye, H. O. (2017). A Lexico-Semantic study of English and Okpameri Musical and Kitchen Terms: In J. O. (eds) Global
perspective on English, Literature and Communication, School of Languages, Adeyemi College of Education, Ondo. Vol. 8, Pp.
222-232.
[22] Omolaiye, H. O. (2017). A Comparative Study of Lexico-Semantics of Standard British English and Nigerian English: In J. O.
Ojo et. Al (eds) Journal of the School of Language, Adeyemi College of Education, Ondo. Pp. 71-79.
[23] Osisanwo, W. (1996). “Systemic Grammar as model of Grammatical Description: An Evaluation” in Ondo Journal of Arts and
Social Sciences (OJASS) 1.1 1996, 1-19.

© 2021 ACADEMY PUBLICATION

 JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE TEACHING AND RESEARCH 75

[24] Oyelekan, C. O. (2002). Elements of Grammar I in Oluga et. Al. (ed) Essentials of use of English. A Pragmatic and
Comprehensive Approach. Osogbo: Supreme Star Press.
[25] Quirk, R. and Greenbaum, S. (2002). A University Grammar of English: London. Rouledge Encyclopaedia of Language
Teaching. 1990 edition.
[26] Sapir, E. (1921). Language: New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.
[27] Weinreich, U. (1953). Languages in Contact. The Hague: Mouton.

Raifu O. Farinde was born in Erin- Osun, Osun State, Nigeria on March 4, 1970. He attended Adeyemi College of Education,
Ondo, Nigeria, between 1988 and 1992 for his Bachelor’s Degree in English Education. He obtained his M.A in English Language
from the University of Ibadan, Nigeria in 1998. He also bagged his PhD in Linguistics and English Language from the University of
Wales, Bangor, United Kingdom now Bangor University, Bangor, United Kingdom in 2007.
He currently lectures at the Department of English and Literary studies, Federal University Oye-Ekiti, Nigeria. He has worked at
Adeyemi College of Education, Ondo, Nigeria and he left there as a Chief Lecturer. At present, he is a Senior Lecturer at the Federal
University Oye-Ekiti, Nigeria. Among his published works includes Forensic Linguistics: An introduction to the Study of Language
and the Law Allemagne, Germany: LIMCOM GMBH, 2009. He also co-authored with Dr. Ojo J.O. Introduction to Sociolinguistics
Ondo, Nigeria: Lektay Publishers, 2005. Furthermore, He co-authored with Dr. Yemi Ogunsiji Analytical Linguistics Ago-Iwoye,
Nigeria: Olabisi Onabanjo University Press. 2010. His research interests include Pragmatics, Forensic Linguistics, Discourse
Analysis, Sociolinguistics and Systemic Functional Grammar.
Dr. Farinde is a member of several learned societies some of which are British Association of Applied Linguistics (BAAL),
Linguistic society of America (LSA), Nigeria English Studies Association (NESA) and English Language teachers Association of
Nigeria (ELTAN). He is a recipient of Ford Foundation International Fellowship for PhD organized by the Institute of International
Education (IIE) New York between 2003 and 2006. Among his awards, honours and distinctions are Certificate of Achievement, UK,
2005, Certificate of Completion, 2004, Certificate of Recognition, 2013.

Happy O. Omolaiye was born in Ibilo, Edo state Nigeria on April 4, 1974. He attended Adeyemi College of Education, Ondo,
Nigeria, between 2004 and 2009 for his Bachelor’s Degree in English Education. He obtained his M.A in English language from the
University of Ibadan, Nigeria in 2003.
He currently lectures at the Department of General Studies, Federal Polytechnic, Ile –Oluji, Nigeria. He had worked in private
secondary schools in Ondo State, Nigeria, as a teacher of English language. At present, he is a lecturer 1 (L1) at the Federal
Polytechnic, Ile – oluji, Nigeria. Among his published works include: An Investigation of problems in the Syntactic usage of Tense
and Aspect among Okpameri secondary school Learners of English, Ondo, Nigeria, School of Languages Adeyemi College of
Education 2015, Lexico-Semantic Study of English and Okpameri Musical and Kitchen Terms Ondo, Nigeria, School of Languages,
Adeyemi College of Education, 2016, Using Linguistic Signals to Express Corrupt Practices on Nigerian Campuses, Ede, Nigeria,
Department of General Studies, 2019. His research interests include Contrastive Linguistics, Systemic Functional Grammar,
Pragmatics and sociolinguistics.
Mr Omolaiye is a member of several learned societies some of which are National English Studies Association (NESA), National
Association of Teachers of Language in Colleges of Education and Polytechnics in Nigeria (NATECEP) and Linguistics Association
of Nigeria (LAN). He received New Age Leadership Skills for High Organizational Performance Certificate, 2018.

© 2021 ACADEMY PUBLICATION

View publication stats