Re-Examining Previous Classification of Biseni and the Ijọ Language Cluster

Pindus Journal of Culture, Literature, and ELT
ISSN: 2792 – 1883 | Volume 3 No. 10

https://literature.academicjournal.io
Re-Examining Previous Classification of Biseni and the Ijọ Language Cluster
Worufah, Ebini-Ipiri Raphael, Ebitare Fabiawari Obikudo, PhD

Department of Linguistics and Communication Studies, University of Port Harcourt, Nigeria
Abstract: This paper re-examines previous classifications of Biseni and the Ijọ language cluster,
under the Niger-Congo Language Family Tree, made by Jenewari (1989) and Williamson (1992),
analyse their choice for the tree model against the wave diagram and dialect map atlas and settling
on the model most appropriate for this study. Then we attempt an appraisal of the previous
classifications, highlighting their pros and cons as well as areas of adequacy and shortcomings. We
end the presentation by providing a new classification that introduces novel naming for the sub-
nodes that conforms with present day reality of Ijọ world view and introduce additions that make
up for lacunas observed in prior classifications.
Keywords: Classification, Language Cluster, Dialect, Phylum, Intelligibility and Ijọ.
1.0. Introduction
Ijọ has been variously referred to as a language cluster by researchers for reasons that it is made up
of a chain of dialects where some speakers understand the speech of other dialects but not vice
versa, or speakers of a dialect understand their immediate neighbours, but not vice versa. Then is
also a second scenario where the linguistic intelligibility is mutual and referred to as dialect cluster,
making Ijọ to be considered as a language made up of some isolated dialects and cluster of dialects,
where the various forms are related, but some simply not close enough to be regarded as part of a
single language and yet not different enough to be different languages. Biseni was previously
classified under the superstrate node called Inland Ijọ.
The Ijọ language cluster belongs to the Atlantic-Congo branch of the Niger-Congo phylum, but
Williamson (1989) used the term “Ijoid” to refer to Ijọ and Defaka; the closest relative of Ijọ.
Defaka, also called Afakani, is a language discovered to be threatened by extinction, by Jenewari in
1983, spoken only by a few persons in a political ward in Nkọrọọ in present Opobo/Nkoro Local
Government Area of Rivers State, Nigeria.
Ijo is also the term used to refer to the language of the Ijaw Ethnic Nationality of the Niger Delta
Region in South-South Nigeria. It is a large language spoken in Bayelsa, Rivers, Delta, Edo and
Ondo State. The number of speakers is put at 10% of the Nigerian Population, same figures as the
Ijaw Ethnic nationality that uses Ijọ as first language. https://www.worldatlas.com>articles.
2.0. Methodology
Data was elicited in wordlist format from several sources that included the intelligibility survey of
Biseni, Okordia and Oruma lects (Worufah, 1997), Efere and Williamson (1999) and Efere (1994)
studies in Ijọ.
Direct oral interviews were conducted and analyses made on comparative data from speakers of
varieties in the cluster. Also, prior classifications of Ijọ (Jenewari 1989 and Williamson 1992), a
recent study on Biseni Grammar (Worufah forthcoming) and the SIL Comparative African
Wordlist were all extensively consulted and utilized.
ISSN 2792-1883 (online), Published in Vol: 3 No: 10 for the month of oct-2023
Copyright (c) 2023 Author (s). This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of Creative Commons 98
Attribution License (CC BY).To view a copy of this license, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
ISSN: 2792 – 1883 | Volume 3 No. 10
3.0. Linguistic Classification

Language families are usually classified using either dialect maps in dialect atlases, tree diagrams
or wave model diagrams.
However, many scholars have divergent opinions on the efficacy, advantages and shortcomings of
these different models of representation. It is our contention that dialect maps better represent
linguistic reality than tree diagrams, while the wave diagram model is seen as complex, appear
tedious, difficult to draw and less appreciated by readers and analysts. So, linguists only settle for
wave diagrams when the intendment is to emphasis certain facts that are difficult to present by
other two models, making the tree model of classification as the simpler, clearer and more favoured
way of representing language families and sub-groupings.
3.1. Previous Classifications of Ijọ
The Ijọ language cluster has just two notable classifications made by Jenewari (1989) and
Williamson (1992), that are largely adopted as the standard by subsequent researchers in Ijọ
language studies. However, we now have cause to believe that these prior classifications are
fraught with some noticeable inconsistencies, lacunas and inadequacies as regards choice of
terminologies, group representations and even some noticeable omissions.
3.1.1. Jenewari (1989) Classification:
Fig. 1:
In this classification, Ijọ is divided into seven groups, said to be based on mutual intelligibility,
where four of them are viewed as isolated dialects and three as cluster of dialects. Biseni, Okordia,
Oruma, and Nkọrọọ are the isolated dialects, meaning they are more divergent from each other and
the rest in the cluster. This position, particularly as regards Biseni, Okordia and Oruma, is at
variance with the intelligibility survey report by Worufah (1997) that confirms very significant
mutual intelligibility and cognate percentages of basic vocabulary items of 80% for Biseni and
Okordia, 66% for Biseni and Oruma and 69% for Okordia and Oruma.
The summary for Jenewari (1989) is that Ijọ is conveniently divided first into Central and Wide
Eastern, where Central branches into the Biseni, Okordia and Oruma group (that has no superstrate
term) and Izọn. Wide Eastern branches into Brass Ijọ and Eastern Ijọ, with Nkọrọọ having a
different node under Wide Eastern. Even though we cannot yet provide evidence to sufficiently
ISSN: 2792 – 1883 | Volume 3 No. 10
dispute the rationale behind isolating Nkọrọọ from the rest of what Williamson (1992) refers to as
KOIN, personal interactions and observations reveal that there is a high level of mutual
intelligibility, at least, between Okrika and Nkọrọọ that needs further investigation and survey.
Another noticeable problem with this classification is that it lumps all the cluster of dialects it
captures as Izọn into one equal whole, suggesting inadvertently that they all have equal levels of
mutual intelligibility. This is very misleading and a non-truth as there are established divergent
levels of intelligibility and differences of word stock between Kolokuma, Ḅumọ and Mein, talkless
of Kolokuma (in Bayelsa State) and Arugbo (in Ondo State) of Nigeria, separated by Delta and Edo
States. Arugbo (sic Arogbo) belongs to Western Ijọ in all known classifications of the Ijaw ethnic
group and thus inappropriate to place it under the wider Central Ijọ.
3.1.2. Williamson (1992) Classification:
Fig. 2:
As the tree diagram clearly indicates, Ijọ is broadly divided into West and East, where West is split
into Inland and Izọn; Izọn into another West and Central, then Central into North and South. East is
further divided into Nembe-Akaha and KOIN; an acronym for Kalabari, Okrika, Ibani, and
Nkọrọọ.
Some of the issues we observe and contend with in this classification are first, the broad splitting of
Ijọ only into West and East. The Ijọ geographical space, even in consonance with other variables
and the naming of various Ijaw Nation‟s groupings, recognises Western Ijọ (Ijaw), Central Ijọ
(Ijaw) and Eastern Ijọ (Ijaw). So central, should not have come as a node under Izọn, but a broad
substrate directly under Ijọ between West and East. Just like in Jenewari (1989) classification,
Williamson also placed Izọn as a sub-node under Ijọ. This we completely disagree with, because in
ISSN: 2792 – 1883 | Volume 3 No. 10
reality the difference between Ijọ (also spelt as Ijaw when referencing the ethnic nationality) and
Izọn is that Ijọ is an anglicization of Izọn; the indigenous name of the people and their language.
So, to use the term Izọn as a sub-node under Ijọ is but to create confusion and suggest that others
not captured under it are not Izọn people. This is not only misleading but seem to ignore the reality
that the two terms have same referent or are different versions of the same thing.
Efere and Williamson (Alagoa 1999, p. 101) reports that the Oruma variety of Ijọ “is spoken in the
towns of Oruma and Ibelebiri in Ogbia Local Government Area” of Bayelsa State, yet Ibelebiri is
not represented in the various classifications. Apart from East Olodiama in Southern Ijaw Local
Government Area of Bayelsa State that is captured under S. West, South of the Central Izọn node,
there is a West Olodiama in Edo State that is not represented in the tree which should have
appeared below Arugbo and Furapagha under the West node.
The classification of Nembe and Akassa (Akaha) as one (Nembe-Akaha) we think, is inappropriate,
given the levels of divergence in the speech form of Nembe-Ibe group and the Akassa variety of
what Jenewari (1989) captures as Brass Ijọ. So we subscribe to a split between Nembe and Akassa.
Then, Kalabari, Okrika and Ibani need to be split under one KAKIBA (Kalabari, Okrika, Ibani)
node of KOIN and not the one single-line branching made for the three different varieties of
Eastern Ijọ.
3.2. Present (New) Classification of Ijọ:
For the present classification, we have divided Ijọ first into three broad groups of Inland (BIKORI
Ijọ), Heartland and Eastland. Inland, also named BIKORI Ijọ, where BIKORI equally translated as
„hold the mouth‟ in the lects, stands for Biseni, Okordia, Oruma and Ibelebiri. BIKORI Ijọ splits
into Biseni, Okordia and Oruma, with Biseni and Okordia sharing closer proximity while Oruma
and Ibelebiri are on the same split. Heartland branches into Western Ijọ and Central Ijọ, with
Arugbo and West Olodiama on the one hand and Furupagha and Burutu on the other under
Western Ijọ, while Central Ijọ divides into North and South, where Ogboin and Ikibiri (a
community in Ekpetiama Clan but speaks differently and more like the Ogboin people) are part of
North-West. Kolokuma, Gbarain and Ekpetiama form part of North-East. The South of Central Ijọ
is divided into South-West and South-East. South-West comprises Apoi, Koluama, Basan, East
Olodiama etc, while South-East is made of Ḅụmọ, Oporoma, Tarakiri, Oiyakiri etc. In this
classification, Eastland being one of the broad branches of Ijọ divides into Brass Ijọ and Eastern
Ijọ. Brass Ijọ comprises two splits where Akassa is one and Nembe-Ibe (including Twọn,
Okpoama, Basambiri, Ogbolomabiri etc) is the other. Eastern Ijọ first splits into two where
Kalabari, Okrika and Iḅani each branch out on the one hand and Nkọrọọ branches off on a different
split from the other three sisters in Eastern Ijọ.
ISSN: 2792 – 1883 | Volume 3 No. 10
New Classification:
Fig. 3: New Ijọ language tree.

4.0. Conclusion
This paper attempted an analysis of previous classifications of Ijo language cluster to ascertain if
they meet up current reality or there is still work left undone. It provided insights on the notable
classifications by Jenewari (1989) and Williamson (1992) regarding the naming of the various sub-
nodes, perceived lacunas and inadequacies as they relate to the different superstrate-substrate splits.
The presentation ends with the introduction of some new terms that are familiar to the users of Ijọ,
conforms to the world view of the people, consistent with divisions and groupings of their ethnic
nationality.
Some of the new terms introduced for the sub-nodes that were absent in previous classifications
are: Heartland, Eastland, BIKORI Ijọ, Western Ijọ, Central Ijọ, West Olodiama and Ibelebiri.
ISSN: 2792 – 1883 | Volume 3 No. 10
REFERENCES
1. Alagoa, E.J. (1999). The land and people of Bayelsa State: Central Niger Delta. Port Harcourt:
Onyoma Research Publications.
2. Anttila, R. (1988). An introduction to historical and comparative linguistics (Second Edition).
New York: Macmillan.
3. Campbell, L. (2000). American Indian Languages: The historical linguistics of Native America.
New York: Oxford University press.
4. Efere, E. E. (1994). The pitch system of the Ḅụmọ dialect of Izọn. PhD Dissertation, University
of Port Harcourt.
5. Efere, E.E. and K. Williamson (1999). Languages: In: Ebiegberi Joe Alagoa (ed.). The land and
people of Bayelsa State: Central Niger Delta. 95-107. Port Harcourt: Onyoma Research
Publications.
6. Greenberg, J.H. (1989). Classification of American Indian Languages: A reply to Campbell.
Language 63, 107-114.
https://www,worldatlas.com>articles.
7. Jenewari, C.E.W. (1989). Ijoid. In: John Bendor-Samuel (ed.). The Niger-Congo Languages.
105-118. Lanham: University Press of America.
8. Millar, R.M (2007). Trask’s historical linguistics (Second Edition). London: Hodder Education.
9. Ndimele, O.M. and E.E. Efere (2003). On Wh-question in Izọn. In: Ozo-mekuri Ndimele (ed).
In the linguistic paradise: A festschrift for E. Nolue Emenanjo. 525-541. Aba: National Institute
for Nigerian Languages.
10. Williamson, K. (1969). A grammar of the Kolokuma dialect of Ijọ. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
11. Williamson, K. (1989). Benue-Congo Overview. In: John Bendo-Samuel (ed). Niger-Congro
languages. 248-274. Lanham. University Press of America.
12. Williamson, K. (1992). Phonological processes in a vowel harmony language. Paper delivered
at University of York, England.
13. Worufah, E.R. (1997). An intelligibility survey of the Biseni, Okordia and Oruma lects of Ijọ
language cluster. B.A. Project, University of Port Harcourt.
14. Worufah, E.R. (2007). The interplay of geographical factors in an interlect phonological and
lexical variation: The case of Biseni, Okordia and Oruma. M.A. Thesis, University of Port
Harcourt.
15. Worufah, E.R. and C.E. Eneware (2013). The structural properties of verbal complements in
Biseni. International journal of language and communication. Development Universal
Consortia, 31-38.

Re-Examining Previous Classification of Biseni and the Ijọ Language Cluster

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Re-Examining Previous Classification of Biseni and the Ijọ Language Cluster

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Re-Examining Previous Classification of Biseni and the Ijọ Language Cluster

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pindus Journal of Culture, Literature, and ELT

ISSN: 2792 – 1883 | Volume 3 No. 10

Re-Examining Previous Classification of Biseni and the Ijọ Language Cluster

Worufah, Ebini-Ipiri Raphael, Ebitare Fabiawari Obikudo, PhD

3.0. Linguistic Classification

Fig. 3: New Ijọ language tree.

You might also like