Creativity and Lexical/Discourse Innovations in Yoruba –

English Translation
Alo, M.A., Department of English, University of Ibadan, Ibadan,
Nigeria

Abstract
This study seeks to contribute to translation studies in two major ways. First, it
explores the link between bilingual’s creativity and translation in English.
Secondly, it analyses specific discourse and lexico-semantic innovations in a
sample of Yoruba-English translations. These involve creative processes of
extension of codes and discourse markers, compounding or linguistic
hybridization, borrowing as well as semantic extension. Bilingual’s creativity
becomes relevant at the points where the bilingual translator finds it difficult or
impossible to get appropriate translation equivalents between ST and TT. L2
innovations function to ease the problem of transmissibility and equivalence;
they also serve to enhance a better understanding of translated texts in English.

Introduction
The use of language in general is creative. The bilingual L2 setting forms
a potential site for investigating linguistic innovations not only in
language acquisition, but also in translation. The existence of non-native
or L2 varieties of English and the need to translate cultural concepts and
experiences from indigenous languages into English in a manner that is
contextually appropriate and meaningful make the creation of
innovations in translations inevitable.
Previous works have identified a number of strategies often
employed in the attempt to grapple with the numerous difficulties faced
in translation. Whenever there is a gap between SL and TL, terminology
may be qualified by loan words, neologisms or semantic shifts and
circumlocution (Nida, 1985). Translation shifts may occur in the universal
categories of unit, structure, class and system. These theoretical
categories are as used in Halliday’s theory (Halliday 1961). Steiner (1975)
talks of “permutation,” that is, the strategy of adapting themes from
other cultures. In the L2 setting, studies on bilingual’s creativity in L2
acquisition and use, including translation have observed a number of
lexico-semantic strategies, such as semantic extension, semantic shift,
coinage and loan words (Kachru, 1987; Bamgbose 1998, 2004; Bamiro,
1994; Igboanusi, 2002. Works on translation from some Nigerian
languages (for instance, Yoruba) into other languages, like English, have
18 M.A. Alo

often focused on lexical translation with illustrations of translation

strategies like semantic shifts, transliteration and Nigerianisms (Oyeleye,
1995; Oladipo, 1995; Teilanyo, 2000). Translation strategies certainly go
beyond the word level to embrace the phrase, sentence and discourse.
These are no less a problem in translation of texts from Nigerian
languages into English.
Linguists have observed that there are not only structural differences
in languages and the distinct cultural assumptions associated with them,
but there are also differences at the level of discourse and rhetoric
between languages (Kaplan, 1966). The Whorfian hypothesis recognises
that each language both embodies and imposes upon the culture a
particular world view (Sapir, 1921; Whorf, 1956). Nature is, indeed, a
kaleidoscopic continuum, but the grammar of each language serves both
to classify reality into corresponding units and to define the fundamental
nature of those units. Thus, the metaphysics embodied in the grammar of
English, for instance, makes it possible to analyse sentences and the
reality they express into agents, (subjects) actions, verbs, objects and
instruments (Halliday 1994). English makes use of SVO word order,
whereas Nigerian languages have structural peculiarities distinct from
English (Owolabi, 1993).

Purpose of Study
The purpose of this paper is to investigate specific discourse and lexico-
semantic innovations in translation through a case study of a collection of
Yoruba-English translations. The paper sets out to provide answers for
the following questions:

(i) What are the peculiar linguistic problems and strategies

evident in Yoruba-English translated texts?
(ii) What are the specific innovative linguistic devices used
in Yoruba-English translations?
(iii) Of what effects are L2 creative innovations on Yoruba-
English translated texts?

Sources of Data
The data for this investigation were derived mainly from four literary
texts: three bilingual Yoruba-English plays (Oba Ko So/the King did not
hang (1972) by Duro Ladipo, Omuti/The Palmwine Drinkard (1972) by Kola
Ogunmola and Obaluaye by Wale Ogunyemi), and the fourth text (also
containing extracts of bilingual Yoruba–English translations) is Yemi
Elebuibon’s Ifa: The Custodian of Destiny (2004). These provided natural
 Creativity and Lexical/Discourse Innovations 19

linguistic data for the analysis. They are translation texts in which
indigenous socio-cultural meanings and Yoruba speech are projected in
English. They contain speeches packed with Yoruba proverbs, idioms
and rhythms. The focus is on specific discourse and lexico-semantic
innovations and their underlying processes in translation.

Discourse, Pragmatics and Translation

Our approach to translation as discourse in this study covers lexical and
pragmatic features in Yoruba – English translated texts. Within the
framework of discourse pragmatics, locutions (i.e. specific linguistic
forms) and their illocutionary force are considered. Scholars have argued
that discourse analysis and pragmatics have clear application in
translation (Newmark, 1981; Levinson, 1983).
The term discourse has come to mean different things to different
people. It often refers to the way texts are put together in terms of
product and form, sequential relationships, inter-sentential structures
and organization. It is also concerned with the way texts hang together in
terms of cohesion and coherence. Generally, the term discourse is linked
with the study of language above the sentence level. Stubbs (1983:1)
defines discourse as

The organization of language above the sentence or above the

clause, and therefore…larger linguistic units, such as
conversational exchanges or written texts. It is also concerned with
language in use in social contexts, and in particular with interaction
or dialogue between speakers

A reasonable interpretation of discourse might be that language

users look at sentence structures to determine the meaning of individual
words of the sentence before arriving at the message. This view assumes
that one’s knowledge of word meanings is sufficient for comprehending
discourse. But lexical knowledge is not enough for comprehension of
discourse. Full comprehension results only when the hearer/writer has
sufficient extra-linguistic information to use the cues from linguistic
input to create some semantic context that allows him or her to
understand utterances. This suggests that one may have knowledge of
language and yet fail to understand utterances, unless one is able to
activate appropriate non-linguistic or contextual knowledge. This brings
us to the issues of context and pragmatic meaning (speech acts, intention
of speaker / writer, illocutionary force, truth value of propositions and
20 M.A. Alo

presuppositions) in translation. Meaning in discourse pragmatics can be

discovered at various levels: linguistic structure or form (a sound, a
word, a phrase, a sentence or a whole text) and extra-linguistic contexts
(i.e. social, inter-personal and cultural features).
Pragmatics is concerned with the relationship between language use
and the extra-linguistic context (Levinson, 1983), in terms of “who says
what?”, “in what situation or circumstances?”, the beliefs and
presuppositions underlying utterances. Pragmatics is therefore interested
at a level of meaning that is context-dependent.
Our interest here is the relevance of pragmatics to translation.
Although the idea of constructing a translated text on the basis of
meaningful equivalence to the original text appears to be the ideal thing,
its application in actual practice is problematic. Scholars of translation
recognize the problem of semantic equivalence between languages.
Catford (1965: 21) refers to it as a “central problem of translation of
translating theory”. Equivalence is described in different ways. Nida and
Taber (1969) recognize two different types of equivalence: formal and
dynamic. Formal equivalence concentrates on the message itself in form
and content, whereas dynamic equivalence is concerned with equivalent
effects. The problem with this distinction, as generally observed, is that
there are not always formal equivalents between languages. From the
linguistic perspective, Catford (1965) identifies and classifies translation
types, based on the criteria of (a) the extent of translation, (b)
grammatical rank and (c) the level of language involved, whether total or
restricted. At the level of grammatical rank, equivalence between SL and
TL may be sought at the level of morpheme, word or phrase (that is,
rank-bound translation), whereas in unbounded translation, equivalence
is not tied to a particular rank.
Equivalence may be determined on the basis of (a) reference or
denotation, whereby the SL and TL words conjure up same or similar
associative meanings in the minds of native speakers of the two
languages, (b) context, that is, the SL or TL words can be used in the
same set of contexts, (c) pragmatic function, (d) form, that is, the SL and
TL words may have the same or similar orthographic or phonological
features. Baker (1992) explains the notion of equivalence, in terms of
informative content and cohesive function in texts.
According to Nida and Taber (1969) translation consists in
reproducing in the receptor language the closest natural equivalent of the
source language message, first in terms of meaning. For Emery (2004:149)
 Creativity and Lexical/Discourse Innovations 21

the process is “the rendering of an SL text’s pragmatic meaning into a TL

text in line with TL expectancy norms”.
The translator’s task, therefore, is to negotiate the pragmatic
meaning of the ST and then re-negotiate this meaning into a TL code. The
reader’s task then involves both interpretation of a text/author’s
meaning (as expressed in a SL code) and analysis of the factors that
govern the translator’s choice. Nida and Taber (1969) suggest three
dynamic phases: (a) analysis of a source text (b) transfer of analyzed text
material (c) restructuring of transferred text material.

Types and Problems of Translation

In this section, some kinds of translation are examined with their
specific problems and strategies.

Conceptual Translation
It is a characteristic of languages that they impose certain lexical
categorization upon reality. Conceptual or lexical translation involves
translation equivalents in which a category or concept in ST is replaced
with an equivalent lexical unit in TT. Philosophical and cultural concepts
present the problem of lack of complete correspondence between words
and concepts in different languages. The English word “gentleman”, is
not the exact equivalent of the Yoruba term Ọmọlúwàbí as is often
translated. Recent studies have approached conceptual translation within
the prototype theory, suggesting similarities in the prototype core of a
concept between languages. The hypothesis is that translation displays
prototype features (Lakoff 1987). Prototypical salience and variation of a
concept may be culturally determined (cf. Alo 1989).

Idiomatic Translation
Idiomatic translation involves the transfer of meaning from the ST to
TT without necessarily retaining the structure of the source. The form
may change because the primary objective is that the message remains
unaltered. Words are deployed in idioms in a peculiar way. Idiomatic
translation in Larson’s view is “one which has the same meaning as the
source language but is expressed in the natural form of the receptor
language” (Quoted in Shuttleworth and Cowie. (1997:73) In Yoruba, the
idioms, “Ó ta téru nipa” and “O térí gbasọ” mean “to die”. A literal
Yoruba-English translation of the Yoruba idioms “O térí gbasọ” (He
kicked “teru” - a kind of white cloth - will lose in colour and meaning.
22 M.A. Alo

Free Translation
Free translation does not carry out a mechanical transfer of translation
segments or units but the translator exercises freedom in adding to or
cutting the number of words in the source text (ST). A variety of
translation techniques, including lexical and syntactic adaptation may be
used. But free translation has serious limitations. Translations are
unduly free if they add extraneous information not found in the source
text.

Literal Translation
Literal translation goes beyond the lexical/conceptual level and involves
sentential and propositional equivalence or sameness between ST and
TL. The ST sentences structures and propositions with their peculiarities
are replaced with equivalent TT structures. The Yoruba expression “Òrò
púpò kò ńkún agbòn”, literally translated into English as “Many words do
not fill a basket”, means or asserts that action is preferable to long speech
or brevity is prized in speech in Yoruba.

Literary Translation
This refers to the translation of creative works (prose, poetry, drama,
short stories and oral literature) in one language or dialect into another.
A literary translation may serve to unfold a cultural life of a people as
contained in their language. A significant feature of literature is the use
of figurative language. Words are used in such a way that their figurative
or associative meanings are evoked. A major issue in literary translation
has to do with figurative equivalents between ST and TT.

Transliteration
According to Catford (1965:66), in transliteration, SL graphological
units are replaced by TL graphological units, but these are not translation
equivalents.
The linguistic realisation of the phenomenon of transliteration takes
different forms. For example, at the lexical level, a word or lexical item in
an SL may be replaced by an item in the TL. This may coincide with
lexical translation or conceptual translation. However, the concept
embodied in the SL word may not be semantically equivalent to the TL
item in the absolute sense. For example, the concept of “Ori” in Yoruba
and its lexical translation equivalent ‘head’ in English are not same.
 Creativity and Lexical/Discourse Innovations 23

Syntactic transliteration faces serious linguistic barriers, since human

languages differ in terms of their syntactic structures and systems.

Pragmatic Translation
In pragmatic translation, the focus is on the speaker’s actual
intention or message routed in the culture of the SL. Pragmatic
translation is communicative in the sense of the speaker’s intention and
what is meant by the use of specific words and sentences (Snell-Hornby,
1988). Pragmatic translation, therefore, involves translation of pragmatic
functions of expressions and forms in the SL (e.g., speech acts, social
greetings, politeness phenomena, swearing, moral and pragmatic beliefs
and ideology) in the cultural environment (Hervey, 1998). In translating
these, the translator employs pragmatic translation techniques based on
contextual interpretation of SL meaning with a view to producing an
appropriate perlocutionary effect on the reader. The Yoruba greetings
Kára ó le o, Ìbà o, Odún á yabo are translated into English to express
pragmatic functions or meaning in respectively as: “Hail, Your Majesty,”
“I salute you.” and “I wish you a prosperous year.”
The foregoing is an attempt to examine certain types of translation
and specific problems associated with each. In the following section, we
consider the link between bilingual’s creativity in L2 and translation
process.

Creativity in English as L2
The term second language (abbreviated as L2) refers to the second
language of a bi/multilingual person. Technically speaking, a second
language sieves several important functions within the environment in
which it operates, including such function for wider communication,
education, governmental administration, politics and as lingua franca. It
may also be used in some domains in which the first language is used
(home, family, religious worship, social interaction, etc). This is the case
of English bilingual and multilingual countries, for example, Nigeria,
India, Ghana, Sierra Leone and many other commonwealth countries.
English functions as a second language for speakers who have a first
language (L1), which is usually an indigenous one. English as a second
language in Nigeria manifests local colour observable at all levels of
linguistic description. Among the factors that have contributed to this are
the following:

(a) mode of acquisition (usually the classroom)

24 M.A. Alo

(b) transfer of features from the indigenous languages

(c) culture contact (including bilingualism and biculturalism)
(d) sociolinguistic realities in the Nigerian environment.

Human creativity is observable in language use. Being creative itself,

language has the potential to convey a limitless number of messages,
thus, enabling its users to produce novel utterances. The creativity of a
language user depends on how much can be exploited from the resources
of language. According to Williams (1976:72), creativity

has a general sense of original and innovating and an associated

special sense of productivity. It is also used to distinguish kinds of
work, as in creative writing, the creative arts.

Studies of creativity in language use have often been done in the context
of literary language (prose, drama and poetry), identified literary
language with the use of figures of speech such as simile, metaphor,
irony and hyperbole among others. Following the tradition of the
Russian formalist school, literary creativity is characterised in terms of
the deliberate use of unorthodox or deviant forms of language to
foreground attention and meaning. For Mukarovsky and others, the
function of the poetic language consists in the maximum foregrounding
of standard language. Poetry must de-automatize or ‘foreground’
standard language by violating its norms. Rhyme, repetition, archaisms
and foreign words help to de-automatize the spoken norm and procure
literary language.
Within linguistic stylistics, linguistic creativity embraces both
literary and non-literary texts such as advertisement and newspaper
reporting. Style is the peculiar manner in which the language of a text is
made to achieve a striking effect. Style is therefore a kind of art
associated with creative imagination. Freeman’s (1970) division of
linguistic stylistics includes: include (a) style as deviation from the norm
(b) style as occurrence and convergence of textual patterns and (c) style
as particular exploitation of a grammar of possibilities.
From the perspective of formalist linguistics, linguistic creativity as
developed by Chomsky, refers to native speaker’s capacity “to produce
or understand an indefinite number of new sentences” (Chomsky,
1957:15) and changes or transformations employed to change the form of
a structure. Chomsky is concerned with how a native speaker would
produce and understand sentences he had never previously heard or
 Creativity and Lexical/Discourse Innovations 25

used. Chomsky’s sense of creativity is clearly technical. The

understanding of bilingual’s creativity in L2 necessarily goes beyond
Chomsky’s idea.
Kachru (1987:130) describes the characteristics of the bilingual’s
creativity in L2 in terms of;

the facility and ease of mixing, switching, and the adoption of

stylistic and discoursal strategies from total verbal repertoire
available to a bilingual. One has to consider not only the blend of
the formal feature, but also assumptions derived from various
cultural norms and the blending of these norms into a new
linguistic configuration with a culture–specific meaning system”.)

Nativisation may engender innovations at any level of language.

Bamgbose (2004:612) categorises nativisation as (a) linguistic nativisation
(b) pragmatic nativisation (innovation associated with context of
situation to reflect the worldview, rhetoric and idiom and (c) creative
nativisation. According to this view, creative nativisation manifests in
two major ways.
Firstly, expressions may be coined to reflect the Nigerian experience
or worldview: been-to (one who has traveled abroad, particularly to
England), four-one-nine (the act of duping), etc. Secondly, the Nigerian
native idiom may be translated into English to reflect the mood of the
situation.
The term creativity suggests innovation, the human capacity to bring
about new changes or transformations from existing entities or objects
and to solve problems. Innovations are often motivated and purposeful
(Nicholls 1983). In the context of L2, innovation results from the process
of nativisation of English in non-native English environments (Kachru,
1982). This is motivated by the need to use English to express socio-
cultural concepts and experiences in the new environment (Bamgbose,
1998, 2004; Bamiro, 1994; Igboanusi, 2002). It is in the new soci.o-cultural
environment that the innovations in the L2 derive their communicative
value and meaning. The formations of new words (neologisms), and new
meanings or semantic extension are aspects of linguistic innovation.
Linguistic innovation may involve deliberate alteration of linguistic
forms and usage, for instance, a word, idea or meaning “perceived as
new by an individual or individuals to bring about improvement in
relation to desired objectives” [Nicholls, 1983:4]. Thus, an existing word
in English may acquire a new meaning in the process of translation.
26 M.A. Alo

In trying to cope with the problem of expressing features of the

indigenous culture and to remain as culturally authentic as possible, L2
users and translators often resort to a variety of linguistic and discoursal
strategies which, according to Kachru (1987), include:

(a) the use of non-native similes and metaphors (e.g. Yoruba,

Kannada, Matay) which linguistically result in collocational
deviation.
(b) The transfer of rhetorical devices for personalizing speech
(c) The translation (transcreation of proverbs, idioms, etc
(d) the use of culturally dependent style
(e) the use of syntactic devices

Non-native creative writers in English generally resort to a variety of

such linguistic and discoursal strategies, as well as the use of native
rhetoric and figurative language, proverbs, transliteration and
translation. In the next section, we analyse some lexical/discourse
innovations in Yoruba – English translation.

Analysis and Discussion of Features in Yoruba-English Translation

The analysis below covers two aspects of discourse features in
Yoruba – English translation, that is, pragmatic use and function of
discourse markers, and lexico-semantic innovations. Our data base
derives mainly from Yoruba literary texts translated into English by
Yoruba – English bilinguals. These are texts in which indigenous socio-
cultural meaning and discourse in Yoruba are projected in English.
Lexico-semantic innovations in the analysis include coinages, lexical
transfers, loan blends, semantic shifts, etc. Discourse- pragmatic
innovations are reflected in the use of conversational gambits or markers
(e.g. “thank you”, “yes”, etc.)

(a) Lexico- Semantic Features

In this part of this paper, we consider some lexico-semantic and
discourse innovations and their formation processes in translation. These
include: coinages, lexical transfer, loan-blends and semantic shift.

(a) Coinages
Coinages are newly coined words and expressions in English resulting
from the prevailing socio-linguistic factors in the Yoruba land, in
particular, and Nigeria, in general. Most of these coinages appear in the
form of compound English words, which merely paraphrase the Yoruba
 Creativity and Lexical/Discourse Innovations 27

concepts. English, coinages are the most productive process in the

creation of new words in English as equivalents of Yoruba. The following
coinages illustrate the process of compounding in translation:

Table 1 Courages
Yoruba: Source Text (ST) English: Target Text TT)
Oba kò so The King did not hang
Page
Reference
(PR)
Iyawo afeke’hin Sango gbe Sango’s last wife enters with his 2-35
odo ijo’ko o Sango wole. mortar-stool 91
Ogbondoroko is the home of yam-
Ògbondoroko ló lèlùbó 14-15
flour
A ó jeka làlè We shall eat yam-paste tonight 14-15
E má sìkà láyé o Don’t be wicked on earth
16-17
Torí ará òrun Because of the heaven people
Kó o má gbàgbàdo Collect maize
Kóo maa gbowóo bodè lówó And collect gate-money from the 36-37
awon èrò travelers
Won gbé ìrùkèrè oyè lée
The royal horsetail is given to him 46-47
lówó
Baba sogbá-sogbá The Chief calabash-carver 128-129
Bíyán sogún odún e má
If the pounded yam is twenty
màgbe sonù o
years old don’t throw it into the 136-137
Bókà sogbòn osù, e má jùú
bush
sígbó ó
The palm wine drunkard
Wón jùrùkèrè só kè 8-9
They threw up the horse tail
When one shows the yam head to
Ba bá fàpàrí isu ń hànlejò
the guests. 24-25
Owe ilé tóó lo ni
It is a hint: “time to go home”!
Se o ri nnkan ida’na e? Do you find your bride-wealth 120-121

(d) Lexical Transfer

This strategy involves the act of direct transfer of a lexical item from the
SL to the TL. This is frequently done in the case of non-existence of a
term and its referent in the TL and no other referent with a parallel
function. In other words, rather than create a new word with the TL item,
a translator decides to simply transfer the SL item
28 M.A. Alo

Table 2(a) Lexical Transfer

Obaluaye Obaluaye
Yoruba Text English Text PR
Ògún Ogun 6-7
Òsanyìn Osanyin 10-11
Òpélé Opele 14—15
Kábíyèsí Kabiyesi 20-21
Ìwòfà Iwofa 20-21
Olorì Olori 22-23

Table 2(b) Lexical Transfer

Obakoso The king did not hang
PR
Àfeni ti kogílá ko lù, Only one whom a devil strikes, 4-5
Àfeni Èsù n se Only one whom Èsù tricks
Ló lè ko l’Èsù, Could confront/dare Èsù,

(e) Loan blends

Loan-blends combine items from Yoruba and English to form new
words. In loan-blends, the item from the source language (ST) and an
item in English within the same semantic field from the target language
are placed side-by-side to form a new word combination, usually a
nominal group. In this type of combination, the English word functions
as the headword while the Yoruba item functions as the modifier. The
English item helps the reader to understand the meaning of the Yoruba
item. Loan-blends provide a good source of the Yoruba tradition in the
Yoruba-English translation. Examples are as follows:

Table 3(a): Loan Blends

Oba ko so The King did not Hang
PR
Ìlùu bàtá ati ijó Bata drums and dance 6-7
Wón ń fi ìlù so òrò ti Tìmì so Gangan-drum, talking, reacts to Timi’s 42-
words 43
Bi Gbòónkáà ti ń pofò ni As Gboonkaa recites incantations, the 70-
Ìwèfa ń fon fèrèè tóró Eunuch blows the toromogbe flute 71
A kì Í tàrònì láyà No one dares the aroni-spirit to a fight 70-
71
 Creativity and Lexical/Discourse Innovations 29

Table 3(b): Loan Blends

Omuti The Palm Wine Drinkard
PR
B’ílùu bàtá ti ń dún The bata drums 2-3
Oluugbo, mo ti mú ìyé èsá Oluugbo, I have brought the feathers of the 36-
Tée ní kí n lo mú wá dé! asa-bird 37
A ki I pasa! Which you said I should bring!
No one kills the asa-bird!
Ìlùú wóròo bèrè Woro music 56-
57
Èyí táa bá wí fógbó logbó ń It is what we say to the ogbo tree that it 58-
gbó hears (does) 59
Èyí táa bá wí fógbó logbà ń It is what we say to the ogba tree that it
Gbà accepts.

Table 3(c): Loan Blends

Ifa Ifa: the custodian of destiny
PR
And if dundun drum refuses melody too 137
We may then opt for abemo
Kin-n-kin

(f) Semantic Shift

Translation shift, including semantic shift, is an unavoidable strategy of
inter-lingual translation dictated by the inequalities between forms and
their functions in the SL, and TL. The translator may employ shift in a
number of ways. Certain English words and their corresponding
reference are used as rough equivalents or lexical cosmetics for Yoruba
referents that do not exist in English.

Table 4: Semantic Shift

Yoruba English
Èsù Trickster god of fate-(Obaluaye)
Babaláwo Priest (Obaluaye pp 22 – 23)
Orí Head (destiny) (FID p. 119)
Omolúàbí Priest (-Obaluaye Players)
Iyefun White powder (Obaluaye 18-19)
Èrò Balm (Obaluaye)
Olorì Queen (-Obaluaye pp 1-2)
Bànté Undervest (FID pg 110)
Àdó Little gourd: (Obaluaye pp 50 –51)
Satani (Lati òdò satani) “It was from another spirit”
30 M.A. Alo

The English word ‘Satan’ is interpreted as another spirit. In the context

of Yoruba mythology, is held in high esteem as one of the principal
divinities (Awolabu 1979). Èsù is seen as a link or a liaison officer
between heaven and earth. This divinity maintains constant relationship
between the super-sensible world and the human belongs by helping in
the conveyance of sacrifices from the latter to the former. Therefore, Èsù,
in the Yoruba context, does not connote devil or evil. It has a positive
connotation. ‘Èsù’ is a good servant. This is contrary to the Christian or
Muslim concept which regards Èsù as the “devil” or the “Shaitan”
respectively. The negative notion is what is available in the TL (English).
In the above, ‘Èsù’, for example, is translated to mean “a trickster
god of fate”, but in another context it may have another referent, “devil”.
The trickster god translated from Èsù in the Yoruba context may have
both negative and positive applications. Also, the word ori (head), which
also has its referent in English as the physical head, goes beyond this in
Yoruba to mean, somebody’s destiny. Also, “Olorì” has a corresponding
referent in the TL (English) but with a different function from what it has
in the SL. (Yoruba).

(b) Discourse Markers and Function: the use of “Yes” and “Thank
You”

The process of exploiting available discourse and rhetoric devices in both

languages, especially in relation to conversation gambits is observed.
Conversation gambits form part of our phatic communion to get the
social wheel going. Gambits are also used to introduce new ideas within
conversations and to end the conversation well. As the analysis shows,
there are some interesting features in the use of the conversational
gambits of responding and accepting compliments, among several
others, in Yoruba-English translations, the use of the expressions “yes”
and “Thank you” in English and their translation equivalents in Yoruba,
that is beeni and E seun. The table below presents data on the use of
“Yes”.
 Creativity and Lexical/Discourse Innovations 31

Table 5(a) Discourse Markers: ‘Yes’

Yoruba: Source Text (ST) English: Target Text (TT)
Òmùtí The Palmwine Drinkard PAGE
Sango: Hùn-hún! Sango: Yes, (I am listening) 12-13
Timi: Dákun, má pe mo bá o Timi: Please, don’t say when I met
lóyè mo pè o lórúko. you with the title I called you by
name.
Òmùtí The Palmwine Drinkard 2-3
GBOGBO: Húuùuun! Àkííkà! ALL: Hmmmm! That’s right!
LANKE: (Pèlú èrín) Abéré ni LANKE: (laughing) It is a needle, 6-7
loooto ‘o! Abéré ni. indeed! It is a needle.
Okare ‘o! Abéré ni! That’s right! It is a needle
GBOGBO: Un-hun! ALL: Yes….! (Go on!)
ROPO: Àkííkà! ROPO: How true! (Yes) 14-15
ALABA: (pelu ìbínú) O oo! Kí ALABA: (angrily) Yes …! What’s 16-17
ló se tí gbogbo è fi le tó bá yi the matter? Strange!
ke? À ‘a!
18-19
OHUN ENIKAN: Un-hun! An- VOICE: Yes…! Yes….!
han!
OBA ÌKÀ: Uun! CRUEL KING: Yes, (that’s all 102-103
right).
Oba kò so: The King did not hang 12-1
Sango: Hun-hun! Sango: Yes, (I am listening.)

Ohun’kan: En-en. Voice: Yes. 50-51

Enikan: Béè ni. Somebody: Yes
Gboonkaa: Béè ni. Gboonkaa: Yes. 62-63

Tone marks play an important role in using these Yoruba equivalents to

show different meanings in the language. For instance, the term Hun-un
with fall-rise tone marks indicate response to a call. The same term Hun-
un with middle tone-mark indicates affirmation or confirmation of a
statement or proposition. The English item “Yes” relates to different
senses in Yoruba language. The variants, when used in different contexts
can connote confirmation, affirmation, response or acceptance. These
variants include: bee ni, Hun-hun, un-hun, O oo, An-han, Uun, Eneen,
Huuuuun, Oooooooooo! O da, Òótó ni, ododo ni, hoo, hee ba, looto, Akiika
(Ooto). Some of these variants are dialectical and their use and meaning
are restricted to certain areas of Yoruba land. They can be used in both
formal and informal settings depending on the social level of the user.
32 M.A. Alo

Factors such as age, sex, religion and intimacy, to some extent, do not
constrain the use of “Yes” in Yoruba. Context becomes a fundamental
factor in the interpretation of the Yoruba items. Sometimes, Akiika can
mean “Yes” to affirm a claim. Apart from its meaning as “yes”, akiika
may suggest a surprise or ironic use.
The variants bee ni, Un-hun, Oo, Een-en, Ooto ni, ododo ni, looto ni, are
standard forms. They are used in both formal and informal situations.
Their use cuts across all dialects, age, sexes and religions. The use of any
of the variants in Yoruba land by an addressee signifies confirmation or
affirmation of any statement made by the addresser. The use in this sense
has no negative or offensive denotative meaning. However, at the level of
pragmatic meaning, they may acquire negative connotations, e.g. doubt.
An-han, Uun, Huuuun, Ooo, O da (“Yes” in English) can all mean
acceptance to a proposition or re-affirmation of a statement. The terms
are used extensively among both the adolescent and adult of Yoruba
users in both formal and informal settings. Oo, Ee-en, or Hun-un variants
are used by an addressee as a response to a call by an addressee. They are
used in both formal and informal settings. Their use is not restricted to
elites too. However, other expressions such as mo nje, mo ndahun, mo nbo
can also be used as equivalents for “Yes” among Yoruba adolescent users
of the language. The choice of any of the variants depends on the user’s
interactive setting. For instance, in some enlightened social settings,
especially among the young students, the variants En-en, Hun-un, Oo, can
be regarded as being local. He eba! is an inferior variant of the dialect and
its use and meaning are restricted to certain groups of Yoruba speakers
especially those in the Oke Ogun area. It is used to affirm or confirm a
proposition. It can also be used as an affirmative response to a question.
Its use cuts across ages, sexes or religion, but it is used in an informal
setting, or among the lower social class speakers of the language. Ooo or
Ooooooooo is used in a special way. It is commonly used among the
spiritually possessed people especially the masquerades, the Sango,
Ogun, Obatala and other lesser god worshippers in Yoruba land. It has a
spiritual connotation as a response to a negative call (e.g. from sleep).
The variant is used as a response to spiritual chants, incantations, talking
drums, praise-songs, etc that highly provoke emotional sensibility in the
addresser. Its use cuts across sexes or genders but the setting is always
religious and formal. It can only be used sarcastically in ordinary
settings. The variant Akiika is only used among adult Yoruba users
especially the elderly ones. Its other equivalent is Òótó ni, Òdodo ni, béè
ni, or Oò púro. The setting is always formal. It is normally used in a
 Creativity and Lexical/Discourse Innovations 33

discourse among elderly discussants. Young Yoruba users only use the
term to mimic elders or playfully cajole a young interlocutor that tries to
mimic elders.
The following excerpts from a Nigerian literary work illustrate some
typical contexts and uses of “yes”:
(a) Yes? A sullen-looking clerk looked up from a file in front of him.
This is the office of the A.C.C. Personnel (Expressing anger)
(b) Yes, I do. He is expecting me. Titus said, (Expressing irritation).
(c) I was saying that I don’t want to live in Ibala:
Your home-town?
Yes, my home-town. .
From T. M. Aluko’s Kinsman & Foreman (Pp 14, 15, 23)

Table 5(b): Discourse Markers:

The use of “THANK YOU” (English); E seun (Yoruba)
LANKE: E féé mo ìdíí rè tí LANKE: You want to know 10-11
mo se gbádùn emuu mu bí why I like drinking palmwine
eléyi, àbí? so much, don’t you?
GIRL’S VOICE: Thank you!
OHUN OMOBINRIN: O
jàre! O jàre!
OKUNRIN: Aa! O sééé, o MAN: Ah! Thank you, thank 48-49
sééé! you, thank you.
BABA: ‘Oo FATHER: Thank you 64-65
BABA: Oo, E jòwóò! FATHER: Thank you. Please! 72-73
BISI: Bàbá, mo mà dúpé BISI: Father, I thank you very 86-87
púpò much
AWON IWIN: SPIRITS: Thank you! … 118-119
‘Ooooooooooo!
Oba ko so The King did not hang
Kabiyesi! Your Majesty! 6-7
Atóóbájayé! With whom one can associate
and enjoy life!
Olówóo mi, okoò mi ‘o!
Eni a ní ní I gbani! My master, my husband!
Oósa gba tèmi yè wò! The one whom a person has is
the one who saves him!
O god, consider my case!
Sango: E seun! Sango: Thank you!’
34 M.A. Alo

Table 5(c): Discourse Markers

Omuti The Palmwine Drinkard
Lóòtó, ba bá ti fàpárí isu n Truly, when one shows the 24-25
hànlejò, yam-head to the guests, it is
Òwe “ilé tóó lo” ni! a hint: “time to go home”.

“Thank you” may be used ironically to mean the opposite of what

the expression usually implies (that is appreciation or gratitude). This is
the case here in Baba Oo: Father thank you. Again, context plays an
important role here. The equivalents of “Thank you” in Yoruba are not
restricted by such factors as age, sex, religion or social class, as such in
terms of meaning. The variants are mainly used to express appreciation
in Yoruba. Variants of “Thank you” in Yoruba include: O séé, or e séé, mo
dúpé, or a dúpé, o seun, or e seun, e káre or o káre. The major difference
among the age line is usually reflected in the preceding pronoun “e”, and
“o”. The pronoun “e” as in e see (emphasis), or e seun, is used with the
variant to address an elderly person while “o” (o seun or o séé) is used for
a younger addressee. It is considered insulting, rude and uncultured for
a younger addressee to use o seun, o séé, or o kare for an elderly addresser.
The use of these variants is reserved for the elderly addressee and equal
interlocutor in Yoruba. Even at times, equal interlocutors use e see or e
seun for equals just to show mutual respect especially in an informal
setting.
Again, the use of “a”, “e”, or “o”, mo as in e seun and o seun
respectively is distinct for number (singular/plural). E seun or e see, e kare,
are used to indicate plurality while o see, o kare are used to indicate a
singular addressee or younger person who is lower in status. But the
singular pronoun can equally be used in some settings as honorific
pronouns to show majesty, prowess strength, wealth, influence or very
high sense of appreciation displayed by the speaker. The pragmatic or
illocutionary force of “Thank You” as used by the King several times in
this context is appreciation.
At times, the Yoruba uses of these equivalents may be sarcastic or
ironic. In this sense, the term will not really mean or express the normal
appreciative gesture but something else. Here, the use of the expression
may connote perhaps failure of the addresser to discharge a duty, a
responsibility, fulfill a promise, grandt an obligation, etc. The setting for
the usage may be formal or informal.
 Creativity and Lexical/Discourse Innovations 35

The use of the expression “Thank you” has other functions: sarcasm,
question, unserious remark. Variations in the use of “Thank you” occur
in spoken English are made possible by means of intonation e.g. “Thank
you” as a question has a rise intonation; whereas “Thank you” with a
fall-rise intonation can mean sarcasm or may indicate unserious remarks.
The ironic or sarcastic use of o séé, o káre or e káre (equivalents for English
“Thank you”) depends on the mutual knowledge and contextual beliefs
of interact ants.

Implications of L2 Innovations for Translation

As the foregoing analysis shows, translators tend to make deliberate
linguistic choices to achieve specific communicative goals. Linguistic
innovations occur to ease the problem of equivalence and transmissibility
of meaning between languages. How then does the translator handle
innovations to achieve the translation/communicative objectives? How
does the reader/hearer manage linguistic innovations for achieving
effective interpretation of meaning in the TT? What kind of knowledge
and skills must the reader/hearer possess to be able to understand TT?
Of what use is innovation in the interpretation of translated texts by the
reader?
As a product of the bilingual’s creativity in the use of L1 and L2
resources, linguistic innovations function as a significant translation
strategy for negotiating meaning and enhancing the translation task. It
therefore becomes important that both the translator and reader should
be sensitive to innovative devices in translation. It is important that the
translator should be skillful in managing innovations to achieve specific
translation objectives. This requirement has to do with translational
competence, which subsumes linguistic encyclopedic, cultural and
pragmatic knowledge. Innovations in translation also have some
implications for the reader. They not only enable the reader to have
access to the original substance, but also provide a better understanding
of translated texts. For example, in some lexical combinations involving
Yoruba and English (“bata drum” etc.), one of the constituents, in this
case, “drum” would suggest a fair idea of what the Yoruba item “bata”
means, (a kind of drum). To fully understand meaning in translation,
readers need essential skills for decoding and interpreting discourse
innovations and meaning in TT.
36 M.A. Alo

Conclusion
This paper has attempted to draw a link between bilingual’s
creativity and translation. A major problem that confronts the translator
is how to replace units in the SL with their equivalents in the TL. In this
study, a number of linguistic and discourse innovations have been
observed in Yoruba – English translations. These are often motivated by
the need to handle specific problems, in particular in-equivalences
resulting from linguistic and cultural differences between the two
languages. The Yoruba texts which are translated into English encode
cultural beliefs, experiences and values embedded in the Yoruba culture
and language, making necessary linguistic and discourse innovations.
These involve the use of words and expressions (including the extension
of discourse forms and markers, for example “Thank you” and “yes”) in
English to cover socio-cultural, idiomatic and pragmatic meanings in
Yoruba. L2 innovations become purposeful in the hand of the translator
in trying to negotiate meaning in the TT. They also serve to enhance
better understanding of translated texts in English.
 Creativity and Lexical/Discourse Innovations 37

Works Cited
Alo, M.A. (1989). “A Prototype Approach to the Analysis of Meanings of Kinship
Terms in Non-Native English. Language Sciences. 11(2) 159-176.
Bamgbose, A. (1998) “Torn Between the Norms: Innovations in World Englishes.
World Englishes, 17, (1):1-17.
Bamgbose, A. (2004) “Negotiating English Through Yoruba: Implications for
Standard Nigerian English” In Owolabi, K. and Dasylva, A.
(eds) Forms and Functions of English and Indigenous Languages in
Nigeria: A Festschrift in Honour of Ayo Banjo. Ibadan: Group
Publishers. pp. 612-630.
Bamiro, E. (1994) “Lexical Innovation Processes in Nigeria English.” World
Englishes, 13, (1):47-60.
Baker, M. (1992) In Other Words: A Coursebook on Translation. London and New
York: Routledge.
Catford. J.C (1965). A Linguistic Theory of Translation. London: Oxford University
Press.
Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton
Cooper, T. C. (1999). “Processing of Idioms by L2 Learner of English” TESOL
Quarterly, 33 (2) 233-262.
Crystal, D. (1987). The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Elebuibon, Y. (2004) Ifa: The Custodians of Destiny Ibadan: Penthouse Publications
(Nig).
Emery, P. G. (2004) “Translation, Equivalence and Fidelity: A Pragmatic
Approach” Babel 50 (2): 143 -167.
Firth, J.R. (1953) “Linguistics and Translation” In Palmer, F.R (ed) 1968) Selected
Papers of J.R. Firth London: Longman Press.
Freeman, D. (1970). (ed) Linguistics and Literary Style. New York: Holt, Rinehart
and Winston Inc.
Gikandi, S. (1991) “The Epistemology of Translation: Ngugi Maitigari and the
Politics of Language”. Research in African Literature (4): 161-167.
Gyasi, K. A. “Writing on Translation: African Literature and the Challenges of
Translation” Research in African Literature. 30(2) 161-167.
Halliday, M.A.K. (1961) “Categories of the Theories of Grammar” Word. 17: 241–
92.
Halliday, M.A.K. (1973) Explorations in the Functions of Language, London:
Edward Arnold.
------------- (1978) Language as Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of
Language and Meaning. London: Edward Arnold.
------------- (1985, 1994) Functional Grammar. 2ndEdition. London: Edward
Arnold.
Hervey, S (1998) Speech Acts and Illocutionary Function in Translation
Methodology. In Leo Hickey (ed) The Pragmatics of Translation.
Toronto: Multilingual Matters Ltd. pp 10 - 24
38 M.A. Alo

Hickey, L. (1998). The Pragmatics of Translation. . Toronto : Multilingual Matters

Ltd
Igboanusi, H. (2002) Igbo English in the Nigerian Novel. Ibadan: Enicrownfit
Publishers.
Kachru, B.B. (1987). “The Bilingual’s Creativity: Discoursal and Stylistics
Strategies in Contact Literatures” in Larry E. Smith (ed.)
Discourse Across Cultures. New York: Prentice Hall. pp. 125-140.
Kaplan, R.B. (1966) “Cultural Thought Patterns in Inter- Cultural Education”
Readings on English as a Second Language, edited by K. Craft,
Cambridge Mass: Winthrop 245-262.
Kwofie, E. (1999) “On the Relationship of translator to Linguistics and stylistics”
Eureka 13: 40-50.
Larson, M. (1984). Meaning-based Translation (A Guide to Cross-Language
Equivalence) London: University Press of America.
Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mukarovsky, J. (1933). “Intonation comme factueur de rhythme Poetique”,
Archives ne erlandaises de phonetique experimentale 8-9. 153-165.
Newmark, P. (1981) Approaches to Translation. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Nicholls, A. (1983) Managing Educational Innovations London: Allen and Unwin.
Nida, E.A. (1985) ‘Translating means Translating Meaning’ Publication of FIT
UNESCO, pp. 119-215
Oladipo, O. (1995). “African World Western Concepts: The Problem of Language
and Meaning in Religio-Anthropological Interpretations of
African World Views “In Owolabi, K (eds) Language in Nigeria:
Essays in Honour of Ayo Bamgbose. Ibadan: Group Publishers. Pp
396-407.
Owolabi, D.K.O. (1993) ‘Yoruba In Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics 1st
edn. Oxford: Pergaman Press Ltd
---------- (2004) “Developing a Strategy for the Formulation and Use of Yoruba
Legislature Terms” In Owolabi K and Dasylva, A. (eds). Forms
and Functions of English and Indigenous Languages in 22 Nigeria.
Ibadan: Group Publishers. pp 397-413.
Oyeleye, A.L. (1987). Transference As A Stylistic Strategy: An Inquiry into the
language of Achebe’s Things Fall and No Longer at Ease”
ODU: A Journal of West African Studies 32. pp. 160-169.
---------- (1995) “Translation and the African Writer in English: A Sample Study
of Achebe’s TFA and NLAE” In Owolabi, K (ed) Language in
Nigeria: Essays in honour of Ayo Bamgbose. Ibadan: Group
Publishers. Pp 364 -379
----------- (2004) (ed) Language and Discourse in Society. Ibadan: Hope Publications.
Snell-Hornby, M. (1988) Translation Studies: An Integrative Approach.
Soyinka, W. (1982) The Forest of a thousand Daemons. (English Translation of
Ogboju Ode New Igbo Irunmale by D.O. Fagunwa Hong Kong;
Thomas Nelson.
 Creativity and Lexical/Discourse Innovations 39

Steiner, G. (1975) After Babel. London: Oxford University Press.

Stubbs, M. (1983). Discourse Analysis. Blackwell: Oxford
Teilanyo, D. I. (2000) “Some Lexico-Semantic Problems of Translation in J. P.
Clark’s The Ozidi of Saga in Kiabara. 6 (2):9-27.
---------- . (2004) “Nigerian Literature and Nigerian Languages: The
Tasks before the Translator and the Writer In Oyeleye, A. L.
(ed) Language and Discourse in Society Ibadan: Hope
Publications. pp. 234-245.
Williams, R. (1976) Keywords: A Vocabulary of Culture and Society. Glasgow:
Fontana.
Whorf, B. (1956) “Language, Mind and Reality” In Carroll (ed) Selected Writings
of Benjamin Lee-Whorf. Massachusetts: The M/T Press.