Investigating the Phonological Processes Involved When Yoruba Personal Names Are Anglicized
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Personal names, in African context, are not arbitrary. They are like signposts that convey a wide range of invaluable information about the bearers. Also, they are like a ‘social DNA’ that discloses the identity, family background, family history, family vocation and family deity of the bearer (Onadipe, 2012). Sadly however, studies, which are mostly sociolinguistic in perspective, abound to show that some of these given personal names are being anglicized among the younger generation of bearers (Soneye, 2008; Faleye & Adegoju, 2012; Raheem, 2013; Filani & Melefa, 2014). From the standpoint of socio-phonology and using Knobelauch’s (2008) Phonological Awareness as our theoretical framework, this paper investigates the phonological changes that Yoruba personal names undergo when they are anglicized; and their implication for the endangerment of Yoruba language. Perceptual and acoustic analyses of the data sourced from the written and verbalized (as well as recorded) anglicized names of 50 informants from a Nigerian University show “stress-shift” as the major prosodic strategy used by speakers to anglicize Yoruba personal names. Other phonological processes identified include re-syllabification, contraction, elision and substitution; but bearers are not overtly aware of these processes. Findings reveal further that though the “new names” are structurally more English than Yoruba, they are nevertheless pronounced with Yoruba tone by some bearers.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".