CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background to the Study

The use of certain words in communication often leads to misunderstandings and

misinterpretations. Hence, when one says something and the listener gives it another

interpretation or finds it difficult to understand what the speaker meant, confusion has been

created against the intent of the speaker. There are complications at times because the speaker

may mean one thing and the hearer will understand a different thing all together. The researcher

embarked on this study owing to the fact that certain Gbagyi words are ambiguous and their

wrong use can hamper effective communication.

Previous studies have been conducted in the language under study, such as that of

Dalhatu (2019), which focused on Assimilation and Morphophonemic Processes in Gbagyi,

which provided valuable insights into the phonological and morphophonemic features in

Gbagyi, as well as Dalhatu's (2019), ‘Gbagyi Syllable and Phonotactics’, which tried to

examine the syllable and phonotactic structure in the language, amongst others, have tried to

explore the various aspects of linguistic study in Gbagyi language.

Despite these significant contributions, there remains a lack of research on the semantic

aspects of ambiguity in Gbagyi. The present study aims to fill this gap by conducting a

comprehensive semantic analysis of ambiguity in Gbagyi. Specifically, it will explore the

different types of ambiguity that can arise in Gbagyi words, phrases, and sentences. The

research will investigate the factors that contribute to ambiguity in Gbagyi and how native

speakers navigate and resolve these ambiguities in their everyday communication.

1.2 Statement of the Problem

The problem addressed in this study is the lack of comprehensive understanding of the

semantic complexity and multiple interpretations of ambiguous words and phrases in the

1
Gbagyi language, which, despite the various linguistic studies in the language, haven’t been

attempted by any of the previous researchers. Ambiguity in language can lead to

miscommunication and misunderstanding, impacting various aspects of daily life. Therefore, a

thorough investigation into the different meanings and interpretations of ambiguous terms in

the Gbagyi language is essential for enhancing linguistic clarity and effective communication

within the Gbagyi-speaking community.

1.3 Aim and Objectives

The main aim of this study is to explicate the semantic ambiguity in Gbagyi language,

which is accompanied by the following objectives.

i. To examine the different types of semantic ambiguity that exist in the Gbagyi

language.

ii. To identify the causes of ambiguity in Gbagyi language.

iii. To explore the consequences of ambiguity in the language.

iv. To identify ways of eliminating ambiguity in Gbagyi expressions.

1.4 Research Questions

As regards to the primary objectives of this research, the following study would be

answered at the following questions:

i. What are the different types of ambiguity that exist in the Gbagyi language?

ii. What are the causes of ambiguity in Gbagyi language?

iii. What are the consequences of ambiguity in the language?

iv. What can be done to eliminate ambiguity in Gbagyi expressions?

1.5 Significance of the Study

The semantic study of ambiguity in Gbagyi language is significant because it provides

insights into the nature of ambiguous expressions and their interpretation in this under-

researched language. By examining different types of ambiguity, such as lexical, syntactic, and

2
pragmatic, the study contributes to our understanding of how meaning is constructed and

conveyed in Gbagyi. It also helps identify the factors that contribute to ambiguity and explores

the strategies employed by Gbagyi speakers to resolve it. The findings of this study have

implications for language teaching, translation, discourse analysis, and other areas of linguistic

research.

1.6 Scope of the Study

The scope of this study is to analyze and explore the semantic aspects of ambiguity in

the Gbagyi language. It aims to identify and classify the different types of ambiguity that exist

within Gbagyi, such as lexical, syntactic, and pragmatic ambiguity. The study will also examine

the factors that contribute to ambiguity in Gbagyi, including context, cultural factors, and

linguistic structures.

However, it is important to note that this study has certain limitations. Firstly, the

research will focus solely on the semantic aspects of ambiguity and may not delve into other

linguistic phenomena related to ambiguity, such as phonological or morphological ambiguity.

Additionally, the study will be limited to the Gbagyi language and may not be applicable to

other languages or dialects. In addition to this, due to time and resource constraints, the study

may only analyze a limited number of ambiguous words or phrases in Gbagyi. This means that

the findings may not be representative of the entire range of ambiguity in the language.

Additionally, the study may rely on a specific sample of Gbagyi speakers, which may limit the

generalizability of the results.

Despite these limitations, this study aims to make a valuable contribution to the

understanding of ambiguity in Gbagyi and provide insights that can enhance communication

and comprehension within the Gbagyi-speaking community.

3
1.7 Basic Linguistics Information

1.7.1 Name, Location, Demography and Ethnography

In recounting the historical myth. Kuta (n.d), as cited in Galadima & Aboki (2014:48),

ascribe the origin of the name "Gbagyi" known by the Gbagyi ethnic group. to the consumption

eating much fruits of the fruit, thus, the term 'Agbayi gyi' (‘eaters of the fig fruit’), became their

adopted name and identify. According to Galadima and Aboki (2014):

“The term 'Gbagyi' refers to both the people and their language. The name 'Gbagyi' is

derived from two words: 'Ogba' and 'gyi'. The word 'Ogba' has multiple meanings

depending on the tone used. With a low tone, 'ògbà' refers to a wild apple fruit, while

with a high tone, 'ógbá' signifies wisdom, knowledge, cleverness, and intelligence. The

word 'gyi' means to eat, win, internalize, succeed, or triumph. Therefore, the combined

term 'Gbagyi' can be literally translated to 'eaters of apples' or 'those who consume

wisdom'.”

The term 'eater of wisdom' is more aptly associated with the Gbagyi people, given their

renowned wisdom and skill. In contrast, the term 'eater of apple' is less fitting. Moreover,

scholars Gunn and Connant (as cited in Galadima & Aboki, 2014:37) employed 34 different

terms to describe the Gbagyi, all of which were deemed offensive. In agreement with Kuta's

definition, the researcher acknowledges that Gbagyi Nge speakers refer to the Gbagyi Nkwa

dialect as 'Gbawyi', meaning 'fruit stealers', implying that Gbagyi Nge is the parent dialect from

which Gbagyi Nkwa evolved. However, the relationship between these adjacent languages

remains a topic of debate. Notably, the native Gbagyi speakers consider this term, like the other

34, to be derogatory.

From the historical point of view, Gbagyi people are said to be one of such people with

the most sophisticated historical background. This history has many views. A few among them

include the Borno tradition, which is reiterated by Paden as cited in Galadima & Aboki (2014),

4
that Gbagyi trace their history to Borno area where they were by origin. but pushed out during

the lslamisation periods. They trace their migration into Katsina area. to the east of Zaria and

into Birnin Gwari. Another view is given by Gwamna as cited Galadima & Aboki (20l4:4).

Little wonder, he further describes Gbagyi as “nations without a state". He called the

dispersion into different belts as the “Gbagyi diaspora". Giving the description of the location

of the Gbagyi people. Also Filaba (2009), posits that:

"The Gbagyi people have a widespread settlement pattern, beginning from Lokoja,
where the Rivers Niger and Benue converge, and extending eastwards to Umaisha, on
the River Benue, where they coexist with the Igbira, Bassa, Nupe, Kamberi, and Zulu.
They also stretch northwards through Nasarawa, Keffi, Abuja, Kaduna, Igabi, Kauru,
Zaria, Birnin Gwari, and Giwa, intermingling with the Koro, Kadara, Maguzawa,
Hausa, and Fulani. Historical records indicate that the Gbagyi are one of the oldest
ethnic groups in Nigeria, with a saying that aptly captures their predecessor status:
'Gwari, the father of everybody.' This highlights the unique aspect of the Gbagyi people,
who are dispersed across various regions of the country, unlike other language
groups."
Other accounts of the origin in agreement with Filaba, suggest that Gbagyi migrated from

Koton Karfe in Kogi state, and made their homeland around the Niger-Benue confluence and

this brought them closer to the Nupe. This account states that the Gbagy is are indigenous to

central Nigeria, where they must have migrated to other parts of central Nigeria. ln more simple

terms, the Gbagyi/Gbari people are located in such parts of the federation as Kogi, Kaduna,

Nasarawa, Niger and the FCT.

On the population of Gbagyi speakers. Filaba (2012). reports that the Sudan Interior

Mission reported in 1904. that it was working among the Gbagyi of about 180.000 people and

as it were, they represented the largest ethnic group in the Middle Belt o1‘North Central

Nigeria. But because population is subject to growth. in 2006. the National Population

Commission estimated Gbagyi speakers to be 4.8 million and using the provision given by the

Nigeria population that Gbagyi has high birth growth rate of 3% per annum, one can possibly

5
project from the 2006 national census estimation of 4.8 million that by 2012. the Gbagyi were

not less than 11,000,000.

The Gbagyi people, also known as the Gwari, constitute a significant ethnic group in

Nigeria, primarily residing in the central and northwestern regions of the country. Their rich

cultural heritage is characterized by a strong emphasis on community, kinship, and tradition.

The Gbagyi society is traditionally organized into distinct lineages and clans, with a complex

system of social hierarchy based on age, gender, and lineage. Their cultural practices, including

music, dance, and storytelling, play a vital role in preserving their history and values. These

traditions, particularly storytelling, are often used to convey wisdom, moral teachings, and

historical accounts.

The Gbagyi have a unique religious system, blending traditional beliefs with elements

of Islam and Christianity. Their traditional beliefs revolve around the veneration of ancestors

and the belief in spirits and deities. The Gbagyi are renowned for their skilled craftsmanship,

particularly in pottery, weaving, and metalwork. These crafts, often passed down through

generations, represent a key aspect of their cultural identity. Their distinctive art forms, such

as the intricate designs on their pottery, reflect their deep connection to their land and their rich

history (Yusuf, 2016).

1.7.2 Sociolinguistics and Dialectal Situation

If the criterion for determining the sociolinguistic status of Gbagyi language were to be

its population, the would have been considered one of the major Nigerian languages, but

bringing other factors order than the population, such as the Nigerian language policy, the level

of language development, Gbagyi is a developing minority language in Nigeria. Among the

two dialects of the language (Gbagyi Ńkwá being the other dialect), Gbagyi Ńgé is used for

the orthography as designed by Adagbagyilo (2013), hence, it is the standard dialect. Gbagyi

Ńgé is therefore, the preferred dialect, used in the media both on radio and television

6
broadcasting programmes, including other programmes that are informative and educative.

Gbagyi Ńgé is also used as a medium of communication in native churches, as well as in the

entertainment industry including music and home videos. Hyman & Magaji (1970) assert that:

"The term 'Gwari' is used by neighbouring non-native speakers to refer to two distinct

language communities. The larger community, comprising approximately 4/5 of the

Gwari population, speaks a unified language across most of the Gwari territory,

excluding a narrow strip along the southern border with the Nupe. In this southern

region, a second language community exists, comprising dialects spoken in villages

such as Maikonkele, Bosso, Paiko, and Gawun, which have been significantly

influenced by the Nupe language."

Similar to Hyman & Magaji’s opinion above, is Nana’s (1979) claim that there are two

main dialects with the majority of Gbagyi people in and around Kaduna, Tegina, Mina, Abuja,

Karu, Nasarawa and Koton-karfe, who speak one dialect and that what constitutes the second

dialect is the narrow belt bordering, the southern Nupeland which include Bosso, Maikonkele,

Paiko, Gawun and Kwali in Abuja. He further observes that though they belong to the same

dialect. However, Blench (1989), submits that Gbagyi dialects are several; the dialects include

Tawali, Kuta, Dikko, Karu, Bwari, Kaduna and Vwezhi. However, in my opinion (based on

the studies in the existing literature e.g. Hyman and Magaji (1970)) as a native speaker of the

language under investigation. Gbagyi is a language consisting of two major dialects which

include Gbagyi Ngé and Gbagyi Nkwa and these two dialects in turn, are further classified into

sub-dialects or smaller speech groups. While Gbagyi Ngé sub dialects are situated in Bwari,

Tegina, Minna, Kuta, Kaduna, Gbagyi Nkwa sub-dialects, on the other hand can be found in

Bosso, Kwali, Gawun, Paiko, respectively.

Galadima and Aboki (20l4: l0). have a clearer description of Gbagyi/Gbari dialectal

variation. While they agree with Hyman and Magaji, that Gbagyi has two major dialects, they

7
use a more native term for Gbagyi Nge as Gbagyi Matai and maintain the term for the other

dialect. Gbagyi Nkwa. They reveal that the dialect is also known as Gbagyiwyi or Gbari. ln (l)

below, Galadima (2012:82), provides lexical items to illustrate the relationship between the

two major dialects:

1) Gbagyi Nge Gbagyi Nkwa Gloss

ōpyiá [ōpjá] ēpyá [épjá] moon

gà [gà] gì [gjì] to give

ōbyi [ōbji] ēbyi [ébji] a child

ōwyé [ōwjé] ēwyé [ēwjé] eye

òje [òʤe] òde [òde] clothe

túkwó [túkwó] túgwó [túkwó] head

(Source: Galadima, 2012:82)

More also. as earlier stated. Gbagyi Nge. is the standard dialect. However, before now,

there was a contest regarding which of the two dialects should be used for the design of the

orthography for the language and several attempts were made. these include Sanda’s (1986),

“orthography of Gbagyi”: Gbari language development committee (2000) “the orthography of

Gbari (Gbagyi Nkwa) dialect”, but in more recent time, an orthography that seems to have been

widely accepted is that of Adaghagyilo (2013). The linguistic oriented existing literature in

Gbagyi indicates that Edgar (1909), a compilation of Gbagyi dictionary, was the first literature

to come into limelight among Gbagyi literature. Next to this was that for very first time, part

of the Bible was published in Gbagyi in 1913, which later yielded the notable event which was

a remarkable milestone in Gbagyi language development, the translation of the New Testament

of the Bible into Gbagyi in 1956 was the earliest, although, it only got to the press in 1995, and

till date, the translation of the New Testament is still in progress. Because as at this moment

8
there was yet to be an orthography for the language. it is assumed that the translators of the

Bible had used the English orthography for this course.

1.7.3 Genetic Classification

To state the particular location of Gbagyi in the language family tree, is a task that has

to be approached with utmost care. This is because there is a controversy brought about by the

conflicting views in the existing literature concerning its classification under language family.

For instance, Greenberg (1963), claims that Gbagyi language is classified as belonging to the

Kwa-group of Niger-Congo of the Benue-Congo family. Later, Rosendall (1992), classifies

Gbagyi under the Niger-Kaduna or Nupoid subgroup and explains that the languages related to

Gbagyi in the Nupoid sub-group, are Gade, Ebira, Kakanda and Dibo. Later again, the Gbagyi

language development committee (2000:3), simply asserts that, Gbagyi belongs to the Kwa

language group, in Greenberg’s classification, whereas, in Williamson's classification, it is

classified as Niger-Congo (Nupoid). but as Nupoid (Niger-Kaduna) in Blench’s classification.

And recently, in the 15th edition of Ethnologue: languages of the world (20l5). on

www.ethnologue.org. Gbagyi, Egbira and Nupe are all classified under the Voltaic or Gur sub-

group of the Niger-Congo language family. Also, Blench & Musa (2005), establish that Gbagyi

and its dialects is a Niger-Congo language and is usually classified as part of Nupoid group,

which is part of Benue-Congo and Blench (20l3:1), reiterates that Gbagyi belongs to the

Nupoid sub-group of Niger-Congo family, below is the family tree which shows the most

recent comprehensive language family to which Gbagyi belongs.

9
 AFRICAN LANGUAGES

Nilo Sahara Niger Kordofanian Afro-Asiatic Khoisan

Niger Congo Kordofanian

West Atlantic Gur Mande Benue-Congo Kwa

Bentoid Jukunoid Cross-River Nupoid

Gbagyi Igbira

(Blench 2004)

1.7.4 Typological Classification

Generally, the typological features of language arc identified using three levels of

linguistic analysis. which may include: phonological. morphological and syntactic These are

duly considered to ascertain the typology of Gbagyi. Niger-Congo languages have live

distinctive places of speech production: labial. dental/alveolar palatal. velar and labiodental.

Gbagyi reflects this feature in its consonant inventory. also, there is a contrast between the

velar sounds and labio velar sounds that is, /k/-/kp/. /g/-/gb/. Examples obtained from selected

language assistant which were later confirmed by the researcher’s native intuition as in (2)

below:

2) a) /k/ /kp/
/ka/ ‘to write’ /kpa/ ‘to rear’
/lakà/ ‘get up’ /kpe/ ‘to wear’
/kala/ ‘strength’ /akpa/ ‘height’
b) /g/ /gb/
/ga/ ‘to give’ /gba/ ‘to pay’

10
 /gaja/ ‘gap tooth’ /əgbel/ ‘resemblance’
/gaja/ ‘scatter’ /kigbe/ ‘mouth’
It is generally believed that. although, proto-Niger-Congo languages operate six tones

consisting of four level and two contour tones. the languages are believed to use register tones

more often than the contour tones. This claim is evident in Gbagyi as it preferably uses level

tones to distinguish between word meanings. This is observable in data (2) above as there is no

trace of contour tones. To further prove this claim more data are provided in (3) below:

3) a) [ɲagji] ‘food’

b) [abji] ‘a child’

c) [minag'i] ‘anger'

d) [snàkpegje] ‘salt'

Also, although, Niger-Congo languages are said to show vowel harmony languages in

the Nupoid sub-group of this language family scarcely exhibit this feature. as it is observed that

only Gade and Ebira have partial harmonic vowels. On the basis of morphological criterion, it

is a well-known fact that languages vary in terms of the Way in which morphemes are

organized. as observed by linguists. over the years. For instance, Anagbogu, Mbah & Emeh

(2010:149), identify different patterns of morpheme organization by different languages. They

are: analytic or isolating pattern of morpheme organization, hence, analytic or Isolating

languages. agglutinating pattern of morpheme organization hence, agglutinating languages,

synthetic or fusional pattern of morpheme organization hence, Synthetic or inflecting

languages, incorporating or polysynthetic pattern of morpheme organization hence.

Incorporating or Polysynthetic languages and infixing pattern of morpheme organization

hence, infixing languages. Also. different languages may employ different strategies for the

expression of conceptual relations. For instance, they may use separate words, affixation, or

internal modification (stress or tone and intonation), reduplication or compounding and

sometimes, they may use metathesis in certain inflectional or derivational processes. Gbagyi,

11
in like manner, employs internal modifications like tone and intonation as well as affixation to

mark grammatical relations and on this basis. the language can be said to manifest

agglutinating. isolating or analytical features. However, to clearly determine which of these is

predominant in the language. there has to be a careful study of the degree or percentage of each

of these features but a cursory look at data from the language indicates that Gbagyi may

predominantly be an isolating or Analytic language, although. it exhibits features of

Agglutinating language. especially at the morphological level. Examples are given below to

illustrate this:

4) a) Tone co-occurring with lexical items

wő lá ɓe
3SG have come
‘S/he has come’ (declarative)
wő lá ɓe
3SG have come
‘Has s/he come?’ (lnterrogative)

b) Affixes added to lexical item

wő ɓa gyi (positive)
wo tá gyi (negative)
nyaknű ‘room’ (singular)
anyaknű ‘rooms’ (plural)
(Source: Participant 2, personal communication, May 15, 2024)

As earlier observed. the language predominantly exhibits the feature of Isolating or

Analytic language type, in that, when the lexeme occurs in longer strings like in sentences, they

occur isolatably rather than being put together. such that. they are seen to be separated from

each other, illustration for this is shown in data (5) below:

5) a) gà mi gyiwye
give ISG money
‘Give me money"

12
 b) omi ya yi ho lo
POSS mother call you PROG
‘My mother is calling you"
(Source: Participant 2, personal communication, May 15, 2024)

By syntactic criterion, it is believed that almost all Niger-Congo languages have the subject.

verb. object (SVO) word order. Heine (I976) and Walters (2000: I27), exempt Maude, Sanufo

and Ijo from this claim. The basic word order of :1 language is observed by studying the

sentences in a story or narrative, declarative sentences. affirmative sentences and active

sentences, which contain transitive verbs, Mutaka (2000:10), reports that these sentences must

have noun phrases to serve in the Subject and Object positions rather than pronouns. Also,

Creissels (2000:250), admits that among the logically possible clause constituent orders. only

those in which the subject S precedes the object, O commonly have the status of basic

constituent order. He further asserts that clause constituent order is a domain in which African

languages differ from languages in other parts of the world. lt has been shown by Heine (1976

& 1980) and Claudi (1993), that most languages in Niger-Congo belong to the type A word-

order. The type A corresponds to what is often considered as the ‘consistent' SVO type.

Languages of this type are said to have a basic SVO clause constituent order. and within the

noun phrase, all modifiers follow the head noun. The genitival modifier is the only modifier

that can, in rare cases, precede the head noun (Creissels, 2000), however, these claims are, as

far as the researcher’s knowledge goes, language specific rather than universal, hence, it may

or may not exactly be the case in Gbagyi.

Based on the aforementioned arguments put forward by Blench & Williamson (2000:39), it is

therefore believed that Gbagyi operates an SVO word order by typology. This is clearly

illustrated in (6) below:

6) a) mi ɓa gà gyiwye yí
lSG FUTURE give money DET
S V O
‘I will give the money’

13
 b) ɓa ɓá kwő anyi
3PL FUT. sing songs
S V O
‘They will sing songs’
c) Ladi wő lű mi
Ladi PAST heal me
S VO
‘Ladi been me’

d) Daniel wő sni nűnwa

Daniel PAST drink water
S V O
‘Daniel drank water’
(Source: Participant 2, personal communication, May 15, 2024)

14
 CHAPTER TWO

Literature Review

2.0 Preamble

The objective of this chapter is to discuss the key concepts essential to this research and

present an overview of the theoretical framework for the study, showing its strength and

weaknesses, as well as the applicability. It will also examine previous empirical carried out by

scholars in the field.

2.1 Conceptual Explication

This section explains important terms related to the research topic.

2.1.2 Semantics

Semantics is the branch of linguistics that studies the meaning of words, phrases,

sentences, and texts, examining how language conveys meaning and how people interpret it.

Recent research has expanded the scope of semantics, incorporating insights from cognitive

science, pragmatics, and discourse analysis. According to Löbner (2020:1), semantics is "the

study of meaning in language, including the meaning of words, phrases, sentences, and texts".

He emphasizes the importance of considering both the linguistic context and the cognitive

processes involved in meaning construction.

The study of semantics is a crucial aspect of linguistics, focusing on the meaning of

expressions in a language, including their truth conditions and inference properties (Kamp &

Reyle, 2019:3). Semantics plays a vital role in understanding how language relates to the world,

as it examines the relationships between words, concepts, and reality (Kamp & Reyle, 2019).

However, the scope of semantics extends beyond the meaning of individual words,

incorporating pragmatics and discourse analysis (Ginzburg, 2019). As Ginzburg (2019:2)

defines it, semantics encompasses "the study of meaning in language, including both the

meaning of words and the meaning of utterances in context", highlighting the importance of

15
considering the context in which language is used to uncover its meaning. By exploring the

complex interplay between language, meaning, and context, semantics provides a

comprehensive understanding of how language functions to convey meaning and create

meaningful interactions (Ginzburg, 2019; Kamp & Reyle, 2019).

Cann (2019) underscores the crucial role of cognitive processes in meaning

construction, highlighting the need to examine how language users actively create and interpret

meaning. He defines semantics as "the study of how language encodes meaning, and how

people use language to convey and understand meaning" (Cann, 2019:1), emphasizing the

dynamic interplay between linguistic structures and cognitive processes. This perspective

aligns with the views of linguists like Jackendoff (2002), who argues that meaning arises from

the interaction between linguistic forms and cognitive representations (Jackendoff, 2002:123).

Similarly, Searle (1979) emphasizes the importance of understanding how language users

intend and infer meaning, stressing that "meaning is not just a matter of words, but of the uses

to which words are put" (Searle, 1979:137). By considering the cognitive processes involved

in meaning construction, researchers can gain a deeper understanding of how language encodes

and conveys meaning.

Summarily, semantics has been viewed as the study of meaning in language,

encompassing the meaning of words, phrases, sentences, and texts, as well as the cognitive

processes involved in meaning construction.

2.1.2 Ambiguity

The concept of ambiguity has been widely discussed in semantics. Hurford and Heasly

(1995:121) opine that "a word is ambiguous when it has more than one sense and a sentence is

ambiguous if it has two (or more) paraphrases which are not in themselves paraphrases of each

other". The above definition is pointing to the fact that ambiguity is a semantic property of

words or sentences. Crystal (1980:23), Franklin and Rodman (1974:167) share the same view

16
about ambiguity. They explored the concept of ambiguity as a word or a sentence which

expresses more than one meaning.

In Langacker's (1967:123) view, "where a sentence can represent two or more different

structures, we recognize it as being ambiguous, having alternative semantic interpretation".

Langacker study of at ambiguity, was from the sentential level thereby ignoring the ambiguous

nature of linguistic items (words and phrases).

Wilkinson (2006) also claims that "A situation where a word, term notation, sign,

symbol, phrase, sentence or any other form used in communication is called ambiguous if it

can be interpreted in more than one way". The above view indicates that other forms of

communication can also be ambiguous if they have more than one meaning.

Lobner (2002:39) opines that “An expression or an utterance is ambiguous if it can be

interpreted in more than one way”. For him, the notion of ambiguity can be applied to all levels

of meaning: expression meaning, utterance meaning and communicative meaning.

In his contribution, Cann (1993:8) says that:

“A sentence is said to be ambiguous whenever it can be associated with two or more

different meanings. Ambiguity can arise in a sentence for a number of reasons: through
the ascription of multiple meanings to a single word, through the assignment of
different syntactic structures to a sentence, or through the use of certain expressions
that may have different semantic scope.”
From the above, we discover that words can be ambiguous as well as sentences. Cann

cites three reasons that can give rise to ambiguity; when words are given multiple meanings,

when a sentence has different meanings and through the use of expressions that may have

different semantic scope.

Kempson (1977), defines ambiguity “as the state of having two possible interpretations

from an expression”, that is an expression in general terms is ambiguous if it has more than

one meaning. When a word e.g ‘bank’ has multiple meanings, we have lexical ambiguity, while

a sentence can be ambiguous even if none of its words is ambiguous, because sometimes the

17
ambiguity is considered syntactic as a result of an alternative meaning that correspond to an

alternative syntactic configuration e.g ‘Mary saw John with a telescope’ there are two possible

interpretations from this sentence by two separate listeners. Listener ‘A’ may assume or

understand that Mary saw John holding a telescope while listener ‘B’ would deduce that Mary

saw John with the aid of an instrument called a telescope.

Ambiguity refers to a situation where a word or construction “expresses more than one

meaning,” (Crystal, 2008:22). An ambiguous word or structure, therefore, has more than one

possible interpretation. Again, linguists generally differentiate between two types of ambiguity

viz: lexical and structural ambiguities (Jackson & Amvèla, 2001; Akmajian et al., 2004;

Ndimele, 2007; Saeed, 2008; Crystal, 2008; Umera-Okeke, 2008).

Ndimele (1999) defines ambiguity “as a grammatical phenomenon in which an

expression can be given more than one interpretation.” He likens it to polysemy in the sense

that one stretch of utterance is given more than one meaning. Ambiguity is thus divided into

phonetic, pragmatic, lexical and syntactic ambiguity, as discussed below.

2.1.2 Lexical Ambiguity

Lexical ambiguity is ubiquitous. In English over 80% of common words have more

than one dictionary entry (Rodd, Gaskell, & Marslen-Wilson, 2002), with some words having

very many different definitions.

Lexical ambiguity is a construction that is deemed to have more than one meaning as a

result of the presence of a specific word in it. Usually, lexical ambiguities are caused by

homonyms. Fromkin and Rodman (1993) clearly state that homonyms create lexical ambiguity;

for instance: “Bat” in the sentence “he saw the bat” might mean an animal or among others, a

table tennis bat or a police bat. Without a particular context, a sentence like this will be subject

to more than one interpretation. This means that a sentence is ambiguous when an ambiguous

word is found in the sentence. This type of ambiguity is also known as word based ambiguity.

18
Similar view is shared by Akwanya (2002) that lexical items play a pivotal role in the

interpretation of a sentence, such that the sentence may be subject to more than one

interpretation if the item is not sufficiently specified in the context.

Lexical ambiguity involves cases where words that have the same form can have

multiple meanings. Fromkin, et al (2003:586) state that lexical ambiguity refers to multiple

meaning of sentences due to words that have multiple meanings.

Lexical ambiguity according to Yule (2014), is defined as the occurrence of a word or

phrase having multiple meanings due to its inherent polysemy or homonymy. Polysemy refers

to a word having multiple related meanings, while homonymy refers to a word having multiple

unrelated meanings. For example, the word "bank" can mean a financial institution or the edge

of a river. The word "bat" can mean a flying mammal or a piece of sports equipment. This type

of ambiguity can also cause confusion and misunderstanding in communication. Lexical

ambiguity usually factored by the following:

2.1.2.1 Polysemy:

Polysemy occurs when one form of a word (written or spoken) has multiply meanings

which are related by extension. It is also a single lexical item with several related meanings.

Kempson (1999) defines polysemy as an item whose semantic representation involves a

disjunction between all the interpretations that the lexical item may bear; each listed with the

context which determines the particular interpretation. A thing of importance to note from the

above definitions is that the words must be related and all senses related to one thing. For

instance, “head” refers to part of the body, leader of group, position or part of furniture. The

different senses of “head” are derived from an automical referent. One of the meanings is

central and the others metaphorical. The relationship between polysemy and ambiguity is

similar to that of homonym. A word used in a sentence is possible to be interpreted in several

ways.

19
 Polysemy is a semantic relation in which one word has several meanings. It is however

important to note that the several meanings of a polysemous word must be related. Alluding to

this fact, Ndimele (1999:57) confirms that “all the several meanings of a polysemous word

belong to a common core”. In polysemous words, `one of the several meanings is central while

other meanings are rather figurative or metaphorical extensions of the core sense. Polysemy is

the phenomenon where a single word has multiple related meanings. According to Yule (2014),

author of "The Study of Language," polysemy is a "central aspect of lexical meaning". E.g.:

i. "Book" can mean a physical object with pages that you read, or it can mean a

reservation for a service or event.

ii. "Bank" can mean a financial institution or a place where you store something,

such as a river bank.

iii. "Head" can mean the part of your body that sits on top of your neck, or it can

mean the leader of an organization or group.

2.1.2.2 Homonomy:

Most words that create lexical ambiguity are homonyms. Ozo-mekuri (1999) defines

homonyms as lexical items with the same form but different meaning. Ogbulogo (2005) sees

it as a situation when a word form (spoken or written) has two or more unrelated meanings.

According to this definition, the meanings of homonyms are unrelated. Ozo-mekuri (1999) also

agrees that homonyms have unconnected meaning; such words are thus, treated as different

lexical units. For instance: “bear” is an instance of homonyms in a sense like “she cannot bear

children”. The ambiguity is created by the presence of a homonym “bear” which may mean “to

tolerate” or “to give birth”.

Homophones are words that are pronounced the same but have different meanings. Here

are a few examples:

20
7)
i. "to," "two," and "too": They are pronounced the same but have different

meanings. "To" is a preposition, "two" is a number, and "too" means "also" or

"excessively."

ii. "hare" and "hair": They sound alike but have different meanings. "Hare" refers

to a fast-running mammal, while "hair" refers to the strands that grow on your

head.

iii. "buy" and "bye": They have the same sound but different meanings. "Buy"

means to purchase something, while "bye" is a shortened form of "goodbye."

Homographs, on the other hand, are words with the same spelling but different

meanings. Examples include:

i. "lead" (rhymes with "bead") and "lead" (rhymes with "fed"): The first "lead" is

a heavy metal, and the second "lead" is the act of guiding or directing.

ii. "tear" (a drop of water from the eyes) and "tear" (to rip): These two words are

spelled the same but have distinct meanings.

2.1.3 Structural Ambiguity

Structural ambiguity is a pervasive phenomenon in linguistics where a single sentence

or phrase can be interpreted in multiple ways due to its syntactic structure (Chomsky, 1957).

This ambiguity arises when the arrangement of words and phrases allows for more than one

possible parsing or interpretation, leading to ambiguity (Lakoff, 1970). A classic example of

structural ambiguity is the sentence: "The police shot the man with a gun." This sentence is

structurally ambiguous because it can be interpreted in two ways: (1) The police used a gun to

shoot the man, or (2) The man being shot had a gun (Bever, 1970).

The ambiguity in this sentence arises from the attachment of the prepositional phrase

"with a gun" to either the subject "police" or the object "man" (Lakoff, 1970). This type of

ambiguity is known as attachment ambiguity, where a phrase can be attached to more than one

21
node in the syntactic tree (Frazier & Clifton, 1996). According to Frazier and Clifton (1996),

attachment ambiguity can be resolved through contextual information, which can disambiguate

the sentence by providing additional information about the intended meaning.

Structural ambiguity can also be found in other constructions, such as modifier

ambiguity and coordination ambiguity (Gómez-González, 2001). Modifier ambiguity occurs

when a modifier can modify more than one element in a sentence, while coordination ambiguity

occurs when two or more clauses can be coordinated in more than one way (Li, 2013).

Understanding structural ambiguity is crucial for developing effective communication

strategies, improving language teaching methods, and enhancing natural language processing

systems (Bever, 1970).

In conclusion, structural ambiguity is a fundamental concept in linguistics that

highlights the complexities of human language. By recognizing and resolving structural

ambiguity, we can improve the clarity and accuracy of communication.

2.2 Theoretical Review

Given its applicability to achieving the study's goals, the ‘lexical semantic theory’ of

linguistics was used for this investigation.

2.2.1 Lexical Semantic Theory

Lexical Semantic Theory (LST) was first introduced in the 1960s by linguists J.J. Katz

and J.A. Fodor. They aimed to understand how words acquire their meanings. Later, other

scholars like G.A. Miller, P.M. Johnson-Laird, R.W. Langacker, and G. Lakoff contributed to

the development of LST. LST explains that word meanings are composed of smaller units

called sememes. These sememes are interconnected, forming a network that reveals how words

relate to each other. This theory highlights the importance of context in shaping word

meanings.

22
 Lexical Semantic Theory (LST) is strong because it helps us understand word meanings

in a clear and organized way. It shows how the context, or situation, can change the meaning

of a word. For example, the word "bank" can mean a place to save money or the side of a river,

depending on the context. LST also explains how one word can have many related meanings,

like how "head" can mean the top part of your body or the leader of a group. This helps us see

how words are connected and how their meanings can change depending on how they're used.

Lexical Semantic Theory (LST) also has some limitations. One weakness is that it can

be complicated and hard to use, especially when dealing with complex words or meanings.

Another issue is that it depends on the analyst's own understanding of word meanings, which

can be subjective. Additionally, LST focuses mainly on the meanings of individual words,

without considering other important aspects of language, such as how words are used in

sentences or how people communicate in context. This narrow focus can make it difficult to

get a complete picture of how language works. Overall, while LST is a powerful tool for

understanding word meanings, it has some limitations that need to be considered.

Lexical Semantic Theory (LST) can help solve semantic ambiguity in Gbagyi language

by breaking down words into their basic meanings, called sememes. It also helps by analyzing

how these meanings are connected and related to each other. Additionally, LST considers the

situation or context in which words are used, which can change their meanings. For example,

the word "kpa" can mean either "stone" or "rock" depending on the context. LST also identifies

words with multiple related meanings, like polysemy, where one word has many connected

meanings. By doing this, LST helps clarify ambiguous words and improves our understanding

of the Gbagyi language.

2.3 Empirical Review

Akase (2019), in his work ‘ambiguity in Tiv’, examines ambiguity in general with

emphasis on lexical and structural ambiguities. He also shed light on other causes or factors

23
that are responsible for ambiguity in Tiv such as homonymy and polysemy. In addition to this,

efforts were made to not just discuss ambiguity as it relates to discourse, he also was able to

identify its various types, causes as well as the role played by context in disambiguation. From

his findings, it was clearly seen that when it comes to discourse, Context helps to remove

ambiguity if words could be put in their right context. The context will always determine which

interpretation will be possible. This means that the meanings of the greater part of ambiguous

sentences used in conversation are worked out by referring to the context of the speech act.

Context helps to limit the range of possible interpretations that are possible. From his findings,

a very good example of how Ambiguity is shown in Tiv discourse, with an extension to how it

could be taken off is shown below:

8)
i. À vìhí í shé yòl ná

He/she spoil eye body his

“He has spoilt his eye himself”

The word íshé in the above construction is said to be ambiguous in nature because of

its multiple meaning which can be interpreted as eye/price; which leaves the sentence to have

‘he spoilt his eyes/price’ as a possible meaning. It was also shown that the ambiguity from this

construction could be taken off as shown below:

9)
i. Abo vìhí íshé kwàghyán ké kàsúa

Abo spoil price food in market

“Abo spoilt the price of food in the market”

ii. Wán là ká òr íshé ímôm

Boy the is person eye one

“The boy is one eye person”

24
 The above clearly shows the removal of the ambiguity through the introduction of a

clear complement to the sentence. Building on Akase's findings, we hypothesize that Gbagyi

exhibits similar patterns of ambiguity, particularly in lexical and structural forms, and that these

ambiguities can be resolved through contextual cues.

Ugochuwku (2014), in his study ‘ambiguity in Igbo’ attempt to examine the nature and

sources of this device in Igbo. His work identified major types of ambiguity, their major causes

and implications in Igbo were also highlighted. The objectives are to highlight the uses of the

devices in communication and also to enable the users of the language detect them in

communicative situations. His research was a survey research which collected data from Igbo

stories/poems through random and unstructured interviews. The data collected were analysed

and interpreted through classification and sentential analysis. The implications of ambiguity

were also examined and the outcome of the research work were outlined in the research

findings. His findings showed that When ambiguity occurs in a sentence, a lot of linguistic

problems are created. For instance, meanings are impaired, communication marred and

confusion is created. In addition to this, he explained that While structural ambiguity emanates

from the grammatical analysis of a sentence, lexical ambiguity arises from the use of words

that have more than one interpretation. Phonetic ambiguity arises from the phonological

properties (production) of the expressions involved. Some of the findings in his work with

regards to the various types of ambiguity are thus:

10)
- Phonetic Ambiguity

i. Did you decay on top?

I rèrè n’èlu ? ii. Did you sell wholesale?
iii. Did you sell upstairs?
The above shows that When spoken, the ambiguity in in the utterance respectively rests

on ‘rèrè’, which can mean 'decay' or 'sell'.

25
11)
- Lexical Ambiguity

Àkwà ‘bed’ ‘bridge’

Àgwà ‘character’, ‘conduct’ behaviour’, ‘beans’,
‘colouration’
Anwū ‘sun’, ‘sun’, ‘sunlight’, ‘mosquito’
From his findings, it was gathered that the above has the same tonemic, phonic and

graphic representation but still have differences with regards to its meaning, which paves way

for lexical ambiguity in the language.

12)
- Syntactic Ambiguity

Ndị fūrū ụzo i. Those who can see

ii. Those who have foresight
iii. Those that are exposed
iv. Those who saw the way
v. Those who saw the person called Uzo
Ezè àmaka i. The person whose name is Eze is handsome
ii. The king is handsome
ii. Personal name
The above shows how ambiguous a single statement could be in Igbo language, always

resulting to different meanings from a single utterance or statement.

Alerechi (2018), in her work on ‘ambiguity in Ikwere: an exploration’, tries to

specifically treats polysemy and homonymy as the lexical components of ambiguity in Ikwere,

an Igboid language spoken in Rivers State of Nigeria. It also analyzes some structural

ambiguities resulting from certain syntactic structures. The data for this study are obtained

through direct interviews with competent language consultants and through the participant

observation method. The descriptive method of interlinear morpheme- to- morpheme glossing

is employed in the analysis of ambiguous constructions. The work identifies polysemy in nouns

and verbs in the language. Her work further observed homonymous nouns, adjectives, verbs

26
and a number of ambiguous sentences. As a way of disambiguating ambiguous expressions in

the language, the work suggests three likely strategies namely: substitution of the subject-

pronoun with the appropriate noun subject; completing the phrase or sentence for additional

information, and supplying additional. Some of the data presented in the findings are shown

below:

13)
- Homonyms in Ikwere

Homonymous Nouns
Ó̩ chnà ‘whiteness’ (colour), ‘ripe’(of fruit), ‘cleanliness’,
‘innocence’
Homonymous Adjective
Kwú ‘big’, ‘enormous’, ‘older in age as grandmother’
Homonymous Verb
Tù̩ ‘peck’, ‘decide’, ‘dig (ground to plant yam)’
A couple of structures was also treated and the paper then suggested three strategies for

disambiguating ambiguous expressions in the language. These strategies areː Substitution of

subject- pronoun with appropriate noun subject; completing the phrase or sentence for

additional information and supplying additional sentence. This study provides a valuable

empirical contribution to the present study, shedding light on the complexities of its semantic

system and the role of context in ensuring clear communication.

Olusanya (2017), in ‘A Syntactic Analysis of Ambiguity in Nigerian Newspaper

Headlines,’ tried to pesent a syntactic analysis of ambiguous structures the headlines of

political news reports in selected newspapers in Nigeria. His analysis was aimed at presenting

what could be described as linguistic features of the ambiguous structures and as well

determining the causes of the ambiguities. His findings showed that that, ambiguity, though a

linguistic phenomenon, could be used deliberately and creatively by a writer as an instrument

of humour and aesthetics in language use. His study has also revealed that language users could

use ambiguous language unconsciously and deliberately. When a language user unconsciously

uses ambiguous structures, he does not consciously entertain their unintended meanings. But

27
deliberate ambiguity is however used to create certain effects on the audience. From his study,

it was shown that ambiguity is viewed beyond a mere function of poor grammar. It is seen as

part of techniques that beautifies language use, especially in written texts. Some of the syntactic

extracts from his findings, showing ambiguity are as follows:

14)
- The Fear of Fanikayode

This is an ambiguous S– structure derived from two different underlying structures

through the syntactic process of nominalization. The two D – structures are;

i. X fears Fanikayode

ii. Fanikayode fears X. Where X stands for somebody unknown or unspecified

- Three in police net for murder

The ambiguity here is due to the fact that the structure is originally a sentence at the D–

structure but the verb has been omitted. There are two preposition phrase here; “in police net

and for murder. The ambiguity arises from the fact that any of these PPs can be governed by

the said omitted verb – be, there by leading to two different structural analyses and semantic

representations respectively.

15)
i. Three (are) in police net for murder.

ii. Three in police net (are) for murder.

In the first analysis: Three are in police net for murder, while the second shows that

three out of the numerous police nets are specifically for murder.

In line with Olusanya's (2017) analysis of ambiguity in Nigerian newspaper headlines,

this study aims to identify specific types of ambiguity in Gbagyi, particularly those arising from

syntactic structures, and examine how context resolves these ambiguities. Similar to Olusanya's

findings, the present study expects to show that ambiguity in Gbagyi can be both unintentional,

due to grammatical structure, and intentional, employed for stylistic or communicative effect.

28
2.5 Summary

This chapter provides an in-depth examination of topical language, with a specific focus

on ambiguity. Ambiguity, a fundamental aspect of language, refers to the phenomenon where

a single word, phrase, or sentence can convey multiple meanings. The chapter explores the

various types of ambiguity, providing a comprehensive understanding of this complex

linguistic concept.

The Descriptive theory, a crucial framework for linguistic analysis, is also explored in

this chapter. This approach, which emphasizes empirical observation and description, provides

a systematic and objective account of language structure and usage. By applying the

Descriptive theory, researchers can gain a deeper understanding of ambiguity in Gbagyi

language, including its forms, functions, and resolution strategies.

Furthermore, this chapter reviews significant empirical studies from renowned

researchers, providing a solid foundation for understanding ambiguity in language. These

studies, which have investigated ambiguity in various languages and contexts, offer valuable

insights into the complexities of meaning and how speakers navigate ambiguity in

communication. By examining these studies, researchers can identify patterns and trends in

ambiguity resolution, ultimately informing language teaching, communication, and cognitive

processing.

Overall, this chapter provides a thorough conceptual evaluation of ambiguity, its types,

and the Descriptive theory, as well as a review of empirical studies on the topic. By exploring

ambiguity in language, researchers can gain a deeper understanding of the intricate mechanisms

underlying human communication, ultimately enriching our knowledge of language and its role

in shaping human experience.

29
 CHAPTER THREE

Research Methodology

3.0 Preamble

This section covers the area of the study, research design, population, sampling

technique, instrumentation, sources of data, data collection methods, data analysis methods,

and the theoretical framework and its application in the analysis.

3.1 Research Design

This study involves a qualitative approach that aims to explore the phenomenon of

ambiguity in the language through a detailed analysis of linguistic structures and context. The

study will employ a descriptive research design, utilizing a combination of document analysis,

interviews with native speakers, and observation of language use in natural settings to gather

data. The qualitative data collected will be analyzed using thematic analysis to identify patterns

and themes related to semantic ambiguity in Gbagyi language. The research design will also

involve a comparative analysis with other languages to provide a broader perspective on the

nature of ambiguity in language.

3.2 Area of Study

This study is a linguistic study that focuses on the semantic study of ambiguity in

Gbagyi, with the aim of discussing its various forms and how ambiguity could be removed

from language use, in Gbagyi. By exploring the complex nature of ambiguous expressions,

words, and phrases in Gbagyi, this research aims to uncover the underlying mechanisms that

contribute to ambiguity in communication and how it is navigated by native speakers. This

study will focus on the Gbagyi speakers of Nasarawa state.

3.3 Instrumentation and Sources of Data

The study of semantic ambiguity in Gbagyi utilizes a combination of primary and

secondary sources of data, to investigate the phenomenon comprehensively. Interviews would

30
serve as a primary source for data collection, which will be conducted through audio recording

with a smart audio recording device. Additionally, sources of data include written texts, which

capture the nature of ambiguity in various contexts. By triangulating data from multiple sources

and employing diverse instruments, the researcher can gain a holistic understanding of

semantic ambiguity in Gbagyi and its implications for language comprehension and

communication.

3.4 Methods of Data Collection

The method of data collection for studying semantic ambiguity in Gbagyi involves the

use of interviews, guided by a well modelled check list. Written texts, audio recordings, and

real-life interactions with native speakers are also utilized as sources of data to capture the

instances of ambiguity in various contexts, in Gbagyi language.

3.5 Methods of Data Analysis

This study is a descriptive study, and as such, in order to explain and expand on the

information acquired for this study, a descriptive template will be utilised during the data

analysis process, guided by the lexical semantic theory, showing the various forms of

ambiguity in Gbagyi, with regards to answering the research questions posed in this study.

31
 CHAPTER FOUR
Data Presentation and Analysis

4.0 Preamble

This chapter presents and analyzes the data collected for this research, with the aim of

addressing the central questions of the study, which focuses on exploring the existence, causes,

and consequences of ambiguity in the Gbagyi language, as well as potential strategies for

minimizing or eliminating ambiguity in language usage, thereby gaining a deeper

understanding of this complex phenomenon.

4.1 Ambiguity in Gbagyi

This section examines ambiguity in Gbagyi. Through data presentation and analysis,

we will explore the different types of ambiguity in Gbagyi, which include homophones and

homographs.

4.1.1 Homophones in Gbagyi

In Gbagyi, homophones are words with identical pronunciation but different meanings,

causing potential confusion, as illustrated in the following data.

16)
i. Syí - Buy
- Reach

ii. Tòr - Okay

- Fetch

iii. Knó - To pick

- To send

iv. Ódnáa - Termite

- Stream

v. Óná - Light
- Fire

vi. Mwá - To be enough

- To grow

vii. Kpé - To know

- To dress

32
 viii. Bmyá - Fine
- Shine

ix. Gbátá - Revenge

- Payback

x. Tná - Revenge
- Payback

xi. Yé - Love
- To need

xii. Wó - To hear

- Drain

The data presented reveals significant instances of homophony in Gbagyi, highlighting

the language's rich yet complex phonetic landscape. For example, entry (i) "Syí" can mean both

"Buy" and "Reach," indicating that context is crucial for understanding intended meaning.

Similarly, (ii) "Tòr" serves dual purposes as "Okay" and "Fetch," which could lead to confusion

in conversation if the context is not clearly established. Entry (iii) "Knó" illustrates another

layer of ambiguity, with meanings ranging from "To pick" to "To send," suggesting that

speakers must rely heavily on situational cues. The term (iv) "Ódnáa," meaning both "Termite"

and "Stream," exemplifies how natural elements can share phonetic characteristics, potentially

complicating communication. In (v), "Óná" signifies both "Light" and "Fire," which could be

particularly problematic in discussions about safety or visibility. The entry (vi) "Mwá," with

meanings of "To be enough" and "To grow," emphasizes the necessity of contextual

interpretation in determining whether a statement pertains to sufficiency or development.

Likewise, (vii) "Kpé" denotes both "To know" and "To dress," which may lead to

misunderstandings in educational or fashion contexts. The terms (viii) "Bmyá," meaning "Fine"

and "Shine," showcase how aesthetic descriptions can overlap, while (ix) and (x) both present

"Gbátá" and "Tná" as words for "Revenge" or "Payback," illustrating the potential for

confusion in discussions around conflict resolution or justice. Meanwhile, (xi) "Yé," which

33
translates to both "Love" and "To need," underscores emotional nuances that could shift

meaning based on context. Finally, (xii) "Wó," meaning both "To hear" and "Drain," highlights

the potential for misinterpretation in auditory contexts versus physical processes. Overall, the

findings underscore the importance of contextual awareness in Gbagyi, as homophones can

lead to ambiguity that necessitates careful attention to surrounding information in

communication.

4.1.2 Homographs in Gbagyi

In Gbagyi, homographs are words that share the same spelling but have different

meanings, often distinguished by tonal variations, as presented in the data below.

17)
i. Ókwó - Old age
Òkwò - Sheanut

ii. Ányí - Soup

Ànyí - Sheanut

iii. Òtsú - Honey

Ótsú - Chief

iv. Lú - To beat

Lù - Leaking (to leak)

v. Óyé - Name
Òyé - Year

vi. Dàdà - Forehead

Dádā - Sweet

vii. Béyé - Crowd

Bèyè - Neck

34
 viii. Gú - Guide
Gù - Close

ix. Gbé - Cut

Gbè - Hunt

x. Óná - Dream
Òná - Goat
The data on homographs in Gbagyi reveals how important tone is in conveying

meaning, as similar spellings can lead to different interpretations. For example, in data i,

"Ókwó" means old age, while "Òkwò" refers to sheanut; the only difference is in the tone,

making it crucial for speakers to articulate clearly. In data ii, "Ányí" means soup, and "Ànyí"

also refers to sheanut, again showing how a tonal shift can change the meaning entirely.

Moving to data iii, "Òtsú" translates to honey, while "Ótsú" means chief; once more, the tonal

difference creates two distinct concepts. In data iv, "Lú" means to beat, whereas "Lù" refers to

leaking; this variation can lead to confusion if the tone is not pronounced correctly. Data v

presents "Óyé," which means name, and "Òyé," meaning year; these similar spellings could

easily be misunderstood without proper tone. In data vi, "Dàdà" translates to forehead, while

"Dádā" means sweet; the tonal distinction is essential for clarity. Data vii shows "Béyé," which

means crowd, and "Bèyè," meaning neck; again, the tones differentiate these words. In data

viii, "Gú" means guide, while "Gù" refers to close; without clear tones, speakers might mix

these up. Data ix presents "Gbé," which means cut, and "Gbè," meaning hunt; the similarity in

spelling could confuse listeners if tones are not emphasized. Finally, in data x, "Óná" translates

to dream, while "Òná" means goat; this highlights the overarching issue of tonal ambiguity in

Gbagyi. Overall, these examples illustrate that without proper tonal representation,

35
communication can easily become unclear or misleading, emphasizing the need for speakers

to be aware of tonal variations to ensure accurate understanding.

4.1.2 Causes of Ambiguity in Gbagyi

Ambiguity in Gbagyi arises from various factors. This section explores the causes,

highlighting the language's complexities and the need for precise communication.

i. Contextual Dependence

Contextual dependence plays a pivotal role in semantic ambiguity within the Gbagyi

language, primarily due to the presence of homophones and homographs that can lead to

multiple interpretations of a word or phrase. For example, the homophone ‘Syí’, meaning both

"buy" and "reach," can create confusion in instances where the listener must rely on contextual

clues—such as prior conversation or situational cues—to discern whether the speaker intends

to purchase goods or merely arrive at the location. Similarly, the homograph ‘Óná’ can mean

either "light" or "fire," which can lead to miscommunication if someone converses without

additional context indicating whether they are referring to illumination or a burning flame. This

ambiguity is further complicated by words like ‘Knó’, which can mean "to pick" or "to send,"

necessitating an understanding of the surrounding dialogue to clarify intent. Without sufficient

contextual information, such as tone, body language, or specific details about the conversation

topic, speakers and listeners may struggle to achieve mutual understanding. Thus, the reliance

on context in Gbagyi not only enriches the language but also underscores the challenges posed

by its inherent ambiguities, highlighting how meaning is often co-constructed through

interaction rather than being fixed within words themselves.

ii. Lexical Gaps

Lexical gaps in the Gbagyi language significantly contribute to semantic ambiguity,

particularly when certain concepts or objects lack specific terms, forcing speakers to rely on

context or broader meanings that may not precisely convey their intended message. For

36
instance, consider the homophone ‘Syí’, which can mean both "buy" and "reach." In a scenario

where a speaker intends to express the action of purchasing but uses the term without sufficient

context, the listener might misinterpret the statement as merely arriving at a location. This

ambiguity is exacerbated by the absence of distinct terms for nuanced actions or states; for

example, if there is no specific word for a particular type of "love" or "need," speakers may

resort to using more general terms like ‘Yé’, which encompasses both "love" and "to need."

Consequently, the listener must navigate the ambiguity, often relying on contextual cues such

as tone, previous discourse, or situational context to infer meaning. Furthermore, homographs

like ‘Óná’, which can mean "light" or "fire," illustrate how lexical gaps can lead to confusion

when the context does not clarify which meaning is intended. Thus, the interplay between

lexical gaps and semantic ambiguity in Gbagyi demonstrates how limited vocabulary options

compel speakers to use existing words in flexible ways, creating potential misunderstandings

that hinge on contextual interpretation.

iii. Polysemy

Polysemy, the phenomenon where a single word has multiple related meanings,

contributes significantly to semantic ambiguity in Gbagyi. For instance, the word "Óná" can

refer to both "dream" and "road" (path), while "Gbé" can signify both "to cut" and "to hunt."

Furthermore, "Kpé" can mean either "to know" or "to dress." This polysemous nature of Gbagyi

words requires careful consideration of the context to understand the speaker's intended

meaning. This linguistic feature, where words carry multiple interpretations, necessitates a

deeper understanding of the surrounding discourse to avoid misinterpretation, highlighting the

richness and potential ambiguity within the Gbagyi language.

iv. Homographs

Homographs, words that are spelled the same but have different meanings and

sometimes different pronunciations, contribute significantly to semantic ambiguity in Gbagyi.

37
For instance, "Óná" can represent both "dream" and "goat," while "Ókwó" can signify "old

age" or "sheanut." Similarly, "Lú" can mean "to beat" or "to leak" (to be leaking). This

homographic nature of certain Gbagyi words requires a careful analysis of the context and

sometimes even the tone of voice to decipher the intended meaning, emphasizing the

importance of understanding the nuances of the language for effective communication.

v. Tonal Complexity

Gbagyi's tonal complexity, a feature where the same word pronounced with different

tones can have different meanings, is a key contributor to semantic ambiguity. For example,

"Óná" with a high tone refers to "light," while "Óná" with a low tone means "fire." Similarly,

"Tòr" with a high tone signifies "okay," but with a low tone, it becomes "fetch." This tonal

intricacy demands careful attention to pronunciation and the context of the conversation to

accurately decipher the intended meaning, highlighting the potential for ambiguity if not

properly understood.

4.1.2 Consequences of Ambiguity in Gbagyi

Semantic ambiguity in Gbagyi carries consequences for communication in the Gbagyi

language, as shown in the data presented below.

i. Misunderstandings

Misunderstandings are a pervasive consequence of semantic ambiguity in Gbagyi, as

exemplified by the numerous homophones and homographs that permeate the language. The

presence of words like "Syí" (buy/reach), "Tòr" (okay/fetch), "Knó" (to pick/to send), and

"Mwá" (to be enough/to grow) can lead to confusion, as listeners may interpret the intended

meaning incorrectly, resulting in misunderstandings that can have significant consequences.

Furthermore, homographs like "Ókwó" (old age/sheanut), "Ányí" (soup/sheanut), and "Óná"

(dream/goat) can also cause misunderstandings, as the context may not always disambiguate

the intended meaning. The complexity of these homophones and homographs can lead to a

38
breakdown in communication, causing confusion, incorrect assumptions, and failed

communication, highlighting the need for clarity and context to avoid misunderstandings and

ensure effective communication in Gbagyi.

ii. Miscommunication

Miscommunication is a significant consequence of semantic ambiguity in Gbagyi,

where words with multiple meanings or similar spellings can lead to confusion and

misunderstanding. For instance, using the homophone "Syí" without clear context can result in

confusion between "buy" and "reach", leading to miscommunication in everyday transactions

or interactions. Similarly, the homograph "Ókwó" (old age) and "Òkwò" (sheanut) can be

misinterpreted if the tones are not accurately represented, leading to confusion in discussions

about age or food. Moreover, the homophone "Tòr" can lead to miscommunication between

"okay" and "fetch", potentially causing misunderstandings in simple agreements or requests.

The complexity of Gbagyi's tone system and the presence of homophones and homographs can

lead to miscommunication in various aspects of life, including personal relationships, business

transactions, and cultural practices, highlighting the need for clear communication, accurate

tone representation, and contextual understanding to avoid misunderstandings.

iii. Language Learning Difficulties

The presence of homophones and homographs in Gbagyi poses significant hurdles for

language learners. Words like "Ódnáa," which can mean either "termite" or "stream," require

learners to rely heavily on context to understand the intended meaning. Similarly, "Óná" can

mean "light" or "fire," making it challenging for learners to distinguish between these meanings

without a strong grasp of the language's nuances. Homographs like "Ókwó," meaning both

"sheanut" and "old age," further complicate matters, as learners need to discern the subtle tonal

differences that differentiate their meanings. This ambiguity forces learners to rely on a deeper

understanding of the tonal system and context to grasp the accurate meaning of words, making

39
it a more arduous process compared to languages with fewer homophones and homographs.

This constant need to decipher context and tonal nuances can hinder fluency and

comprehension, making the learning process for Gbagyi more demanding than learning

languages with less ambiguity.

iv. Impact on Translaton

The impact on translation is a significant consequence of semantic ambiguity in Gbagyi,

where the complexities of homophones and homographs can pose substantial challenges for

translators. For instance, the homophone "Mwá" can be translated to either "to be enough" or

"to grow", depending on the context, while "Kpé" can be translated to either "to know" or "to

dress", leading to potential inaccuracies if not properly understood. Similarly, the homograph

"Ókwó" (old age) and "Òkwò" (sheanut) can be mistranslated if the tones are not accurately

represented, leading to confusion between two unrelated concepts. Furthermore, the numerous

homophones and homographs in Gbagyi, such as "Gbátá" (revenge/payback), "Tná"

(revenge/payback), and "Yé" (love/to need), can lead to incorrect translations, potentially

altering the meaning of the original text. Additionally, the tonal differences in homographs, if

not properly represented or mastered, can further exacerbate the challenges, leading to

mistranslations and misinterpretations. For example, the homograph "Ányí" (soup) and "Ànyí"

(sheanut) can be mistranslated if the tones are not accurately represented, while the homophone

"Wó" (to hear/drain) can lead to incorrect translations, potentially changing the meaning of the

original text. Therefore, it is essential to develop effective translation strategies and tools that

address the complexities of semantic ambiguity in Gbagyi to ensure accurate and reliable

translations.

4.1.4 Desirable measures to eradicate Ambiguity in Gbagyi

40
 Ambiguity in the Gbagyi language can lead to confusion, miscommunication, and

misunderstandings, hindering effective expression and comprehension. To address this

challenge, the following factors should be considered:

i. Lexical Expansion

Lexical expansion, the strategic addition of new words or distinct word forms to a

language, presents a potent solution to combat ambiguity in Gbagyi, particularly when

addressing the issue of homographs. Take, for instance, the words "Ókwó" (Old age) and

"Òkwò" (Sheanut) – both share the same spelling but differ in meaning and tonal inflection.

By introducing a new, unambiguous term for either "Old age" or "Sheanut," we eliminate the

possibility of confusion. Similarly, consider "Lú" (To beat) and "Lù" (Leaking). Developing a

new verb specifically for "Leaking," perhaps incorporating imagery related to water, would

instantly remove the ambiguity associated with the sound "Lu." This approach, applied

systematically across homographic clashes, would enrich Gbagyi vocabulary while

significantly enhancing clarity and precision in communication.

ii. Contextualization

Contextualization leverages the surrounding linguistic environment to clarify meaning.

For instance, "Óná" representing both "Light" and "Fire" relies heavily on context. A phrase

mentioning darkness would immediately point to "Óná" as "Light," while discussion about

cooking or warmth would suggest "Fire." Similarly, "Wó" meaning both "To hear" and "Drain"

becomes clear when discussing sounds versus discussing water or liquids. The presence of

related words or concepts in the surrounding discourse helps pinpoint the intended meaning of

these ambiguous words. Even without explicit sentences, the mere mention of associated

actions, objects, or ideas significantly aids in disambiguating these homographs within the flow

of communication.

iii. Cultural Awareness

41
 Cultural awareness is a vital measure to eradicate ambiguity in Gbagyi, as it involves

understanding the cultural nuances and context in which words are used. For instance, the

homograph "Ókwó" (old age) and "Òkwò" (sheanut) can be disambiguated by understanding

the cultural significance of age and sheanuts in Gbagyi culture. Similarly, the homophone "Yé"

(love/to need) can be clarified by recognizing the cultural emphasis on community and mutual

support, where "yé" is often used to express love and care for one another. Furthermore, cultural

awareness can also help to distinguish between homographs like "Dàdà" (forehead) and "Dádā"

(sweet), where the cultural significance of forehead markings and sweet dishes can provide

context for accurate interpretation. Additionally, understanding cultural practices and traditions

can aid in resolving ambiguities in homophones like "Gbátá" (revenge/payback), where the

cultural context of conflict resolution and restitution can inform the intended meaning. By

embracing cultural awareness, speakers and writers can effectively navigate the complexities

of Gbagyi language and avoid ambiguity, ensuring that their intended message is conveyed

with clarity and precision.

iv. Language Education

Language education is a crucial measure to eradicate ambiguity in Gbagyi, as it

involves teaching learners to understand and navigate the complexities of the language. For

instance, educators can use examples like "Kpé" (to know/to dress) to illustrate the importance

of context in disambiguating homophones, while also teaching learners to recognize the

cultural significance of dressing in Gbagyi culture. Similarly, language educators can use

homographs like "Ókwó" (old age) and "Òkwò" (sheanut) to teach learners about the

importance of tonal accuracy and cultural awareness in understanding word meanings.

Furthermore, language education can also focus on teaching learners to recognize and use

contextual clues to disambiguate words like "Yé" (love/to need), where understanding the

cultural emphasis on community and mutual support can inform the intended meaning.

42
Additionally, language educators can use examples like "Gbátá" (revenge/payback) and "Tná"

(revenge/payback) to teach learners about the cultural context of conflict resolution and

restitution, and how this informs the intended meaning of these homophones. By incorporating

these examples into language education, learners can develop a deeper understanding of the

Gbagyi language and its complexities, enabling them to communicate effectively and avoid

ambiguity.

v. Language Standardization

Language standardization, particularly in its written form, stands as a crucial measure

for mitigating ambiguity in Gbagyi. For instance, the homographs "Óná" (Dream) and "Òná"

(Goat) could be easily distinguished through standardized spellings or diacritical marks

representing the distinct tones. Likewise, the verbs "Lú" (To beat) and "Lù" (Leaking) could

be consistently represented in their standardized forms, eliminating confusion. Implementing

a standardized orthography, coupled with widespread literacy efforts, would equip Gbagyi

speakers with a shared, unambiguous system for written communication, diminishing the

potential for misinterpretations and fostering clearer understanding within the language.

4.2 Summary and Discussion of Findings

The findings from the study on semantic ambiguity in Gbagyi reveal a complex

linguistic landscape, characterized by widespread homophony and tonal complexity. The data

shows that numerous words in Gbagyi have multiple meanings, often distinguished only by

tone or context. This ambiguity can lead to misunderstandings, miscommunication, and

difficulties in language learning and translation. The causes of ambiguity in Gbagyi include

contextual dependence, lexical gaps, polysemy, homographs, and tonal complexity. To address

these challenges, desirable measures such as lexical expansion, contextualization, cultural

awareness, language education, and language standardization are recommended. These

43
measures can help to clarify meanings, promote consistent language use, and enhance effective

communication in Gbagyi.

The study's findings highlight the significance of context in disambiguating word

meanings in Gbagyi. Many words rely on situational cues to convey intended meaning,

emphasizing the importance of contextual awareness in communication. Additionally, the data

reveals a need for lexical expansion to address gaps in the language and provide clearer

distinctions between words. Cultural awareness and language education are also crucial in

promoting understanding and effective use of Gbagyi, while language standardization can help

establish a unified set of rules and conventions for language use.

Overall, the study underscores the complexities of semantic ambiguity in Gbagyi and

the need for comprehensive measures to address these challenges. By implementing these

measures, speakers and learners of Gbagyi can enhance their understanding and

communication, ensuring that the language remains a vibrant and effective means of

expression.

44
 CHAPTER FIVE

Summary, Conclusion and Recommendations

5.0 Preamble

This summary recaps the research on semantic ambiguity in Gbagyi, its conclusion, and

contributions to knowledge, while also suggesting future research, in relation to this study.

5.1 Summary

This study looks at how words and phrases in the Gbagyi language can have multiple

meanings, which can lead to confusion. The researchers used a combination of methods,

including analyzing documents, interviewing native speakers, and observing how the language

is used in everyday life. They found that many words in Gbagyi sound the same but have

different meanings, and that the tone of voice and context are crucial in understanding what

someone is trying to communicate. This complexity can lead to misunderstandings,

miscommunication, and difficulties in learning the language. The study highlights the need for

clear communication and understanding of the language's nuances to avoid confusion and

ensure effective expression and comprehension.

The study's findings uncover a wealth of homophony and homographs in the Gbagyi

language, showcasing its intricate phonetic landscape, where words like "Syí" (Buy/Reach)

and "Tòr" (Okay/Fetch) can be easily misconstrued without clear contextualization,

emphasizing the vital role of contextual awareness in deciphering intended meaning.

Furthermore, the language's tonal complexity adds another layer of intricacy, as identical

spellings can yield disparate interpretations based on tone, underscoring the need for precise

articulation. The research identifies a multitude of factors contributing to ambiguity in Gbagyi,

including contextual dependence, lexical gaps, polysemy, homographs, and tonal complexity,

which collectively lead to misunderstandings, miscommunication, language learning hurdles,

45
and translation challenges. To surmount these obstacles, the study advocates for a range of

measures, encompassing lexical expansion, contextualization, cultural awareness, language

education, and language standardization, which, when implemented, can significantly mitigate

ambiguity, facilitating clear expression and comprehension in the Gbagyi language.

Overall, the study provides a comprehensive understanding of semantic ambiguity in

Gbagyi, highlighting the need for precise communication to ensure accurate understanding.

The findings contribute to the field of linguistics, offering insights into the complex nature of

language and the importance of contextual awareness in communication.

5.2 Conclusion

In conclusion, the study on semantic ambiguity in Gbagyi has shed light on the complex

and intricate nature of the language, revealing a wealth of homophony and homographs that

can lead to confusion and miscommunication. The findings highlight the crucial role of

contextual awareness, tone, and precise articulation in deciphering intended meaning,

emphasizing the need for clear communication to ensure effective expression and

comprehension. The research identifies multiple factors contributing to ambiguity in Gbagyi,

including contextual dependence, lexical gaps, polysemy, homographs, and tonal complexity,

which collectively pose significant challenges to language learning, translation, and everyday

communication.

The study's recommendations for lexical expansion, contextualization, cultural

awareness, language education, and language standardization offer a comprehensive

framework for addressing these challenges and mitigating ambiguity in Gbagyi. By

implementing these measures, speakers and learners of the language can develop a deeper

understanding of its nuances and complexities, facilitating more accurate and effective

communication.

46
 Ultimately, this study contributes significantly to the field of linguistics, providing

valuable insights into the complex nature of language and the importance of contextual

awareness in communication. The findings have implications for language education,

translation, and communication in Gbagyi, emphasizing the need for precise language use to

avoid misunderstandings and miscommunication. As the Gbagyi language continues to evolve,

it is essential to prioritize clear communication and understanding of its intricacies to ensure

the preservation and promotion of this rich and complex language.

5.3 Contributions to Knowledge

This study makes significant contributions to the field of linguistics, particularly in the

area of semantic ambiguity, by providing an in-depth examination of the complex nature of the

Gbagyi language. The research sheds light on the intricacies of homophony, homographs, and

tonal complexity in Gbagyi, highlighting the crucial role of contextual awareness and precise

articulation in deciphering intended meaning.

The study's findings contribute to our understanding of the complexities of language

and the importance of considering the nuances of language in communication. By identifying

the various factors that contribute to ambiguity in Gbagyi, including contextual dependence,

lexical gaps, polysemy, homographs, and tonal complexity, the research provides valuable

insights into the challenges of language learning, translation, and everyday communication.

Furthermore, the study's recommendations for lexical expansion, contextualization,

cultural awareness, language education, and language standardization offer a comprehensive

framework for addressing the challenges posed by semantic ambiguity in Gbagyi. These

measures have the potential to significantly mitigate ambiguity, facilitating clear expression

and comprehension in the language.

The study's contributions to knowledge can be summarized as follows:

47
 i. In-depth examination of semantic ambiguity in Gbagyi, highlighting the

complexities of homophony, homographs, and tonal complexity.

ii. Identification of various factors contributing to ambiguity in Gbagyi, including

contextual dependence, lexical gaps, polysemy, homographs, and tonal

complexity.

iii. Emphasis on the crucial role of contextual awareness and precise articulation in

deciphering intended meaning.

iv. Provision of a comprehensive framework for addressing the challenges posed

by semantic ambiguity in Gbagyi, including lexical expansion,

contextualization, cultural awareness, language education, and language

standardization.

v. Insights into the complexities of language and the importance of considering the

nuances of language in communication.

Overall, this study provides a significant contribution to our understanding of semantic

ambiguity in Gbagyi, highlighting the need for precise communication to ensure accurate

understanding. The findings have implications for language education, translation, and

communication in Gbagyi, and offer valuable insights for linguists, language learners, and

communication practitioners.

5.4 Recommendations

Based on the study's findings, further research is recommended to delve deeper into the

complexities of semantic ambiguity in Gbagyi, exploring the following areas:

i. In-depth analysis of tonal complexity: A comprehensive study of the tonal

system in Gbagyi, examining how tone influences meaning and how speakers

navigate tonal complexity in communication.

48
 ii. Contextualization and pragmatics: Investigating how context shapes meaning

in Gbagyi, including the role of pragmatics, inference, and implicature in

resolving ambiguity.

iii. Lexical expansion and standardization: Developing a standardized lexicon

for Gbagyi, incorporating nuanced definitions and contextual examples to

facilitate clear communication.

iv. Language education and pedagogy: Designing effective language teaching

methods and materials that address semantic ambiguity, emphasizing contextual

awareness and precise articulation.

v. Psycholinguistic experiments: Conducting experiments to understand how

Gbagyi speakers process and resolve ambiguity, shedding light on the cognitive

mechanisms underlying language comprehension.

vi. Comparative analysis with other languages: Investigating semantic

ambiguity in related languages, identifying similarities and differences, and

exploring the implications for linguistic theory and language teaching.

vii. Development of language learning resources: Creating language learning

resources, such as textbooks, dictionaries, and online tools, that incorporate the

study's findings and address the challenges of semantic ambiguity in Gbagyi.

viii. Investigating the role of culture in ambiguity resolution: Examining how

cultural knowledge and background influence the interpretation of ambiguous

expressions in Gbagyi, highlighting the importance of cultural awareness in

communication.

By pursuing these avenues of research, scholars can further elucidate the complex

nature of semantic ambiguity in Gbagyi, ultimately enhancing our understanding of language

and communication.

49