Research Review NS 21.2 (2005) 17-25
THE STYLISTIC SIGNIFICANCE OF FOCUS CONSTRUCTIONS IN OFO*
Y.A. Ajayi
Resume
Cette recherche analyse les constructions clees des Yoruba Ofo’. A travers dix
categories d'Ofo, on trouve que les frequences de ces constructions sont tres hautes.
Ainsi, on peut dire du point de vue des structures, que les frequences sont tres
importantes a chaque texte. Dans cette perspective, nous proposons que ce modele aide
a minimiser I'ambiguTte et a creer le parallelisme entre les strophes. Se faisant, la
comprehension et 1'efficacite de ces genres de paroles magiques s'ameliorent
Abstract
This study discusses focus constructions in Yoruba ofo. Across ten categories of ofo the
frequency of these constructions is very high, and it can be argued that they are
structurally important to each text. We suggest that this pattern helps to reduce
ambiguity and also to create parallelism between verse lines, thereby enhancing the
understanding and perceived effectiveness of this genre of magical speech.
Introduction
The term "focus" has been linked by different scholars with functions such as
prominence, emphasis and foregrounding. Rooth (1996) compares focus to a spotlight
playing on thematic material to bring some of it to the hearer's attention (cf. Also
Halliday 1973, p. 113). Yoruba has a variety of stylistic devices for signaling focus
including repetition as well as special word orders and tone patterns, and the use of
relative clauses. In addition there are the ni and kii constructions, respectively marking
affirmative focus and the generic negative.1
Here are some samples showing sentences with and without Ni, and sentences with
and without kii focus markers.
(1)a
Afose ni ti Orunmila
Orunmila's speech is divinatory.
b. * Afose ti Orunmila (not a sentence)
Orunmila's command.
(2)a
b.
(3)a
b.
Ase ogunmo nii se lawujo efo.
Ogunmo's command always prevails in the assembly of leaves.
Ase Ogunmo se lawujo efo
Ogunmo's command prevails in the assembly of leaves.
Ito kii pada senu.
Sputum never returns to the mouth.
Ito pada senu
17
Research Review NS 21.2 (2005) 17-25
* This chapter draws on Ajayi, Ph.D. Thesis (1997). The author is particularly grateful
to Dr. (now Prof.) yiwola Awoyale for thorough and critical supervisor of that work.
Thanks are also due to Prof. Bayo Lawal, Dr. Victor Manfred and Dr. Rose-Marie
Dechaine for useful comments and editorial suggestions.
1
A ni-construction operates on a basic sentence to move an argument (subject or
object), a verb (or a whole predicate), an adverbial or indeed the entire sentence to the
left of ni (see Awoyale 1985). The construction has not received equal attention from
grammarians and stylisticians.
(unrealistic) Sputum returns to the mouth.
Omi kii san poju wehin.
Water never flows back in the direction it came from.
b.
*Omi san poju wehin (unrealistic)
Water flows back where it came from.
Ofo for its part, is an oral aspect of African magic. It requires uttering words in a set
pattern; a minor fault in rendition may render an ofo ineffective. Ofo are used in almost
every sphere of human activity, for protection against evil forces or in order to achieve
success. Based on functional criteria, Ajayi (1997) lists ten sub-types:
(4)a
Ofo iba
for paying homage
Ofo afose
for making what is said happen
Ofo aforan
for escaping misfortunes
Ofo afero
for attracting clients
Ofo aporo
for counteracting poison
Ofo arobi
to ward off calamities
Ofo awure
for good luck
Ofo isoye
to activate memory.
Ofo maadarikan
for self-defense
Ogede/aasan
the destructive incantation
The genre of ofo as a whole shares a set of formal linguistic traits. The aim of this
study is to document and explain the significance of focus construction in the semantics
and pragmatics of this type of poetry.
Review of Related Literature
Few written texts exist on the Yoruba incantation. For a long time, the only
collection was Onibon-okuta's Dudu Aye (1965). Other writers just mentioned ofo in
passing. We are however aware of Fabunmi (1972) and Adeniji (1980). These two
major books are principally devoted to collection of ofo with explanatory notes on
difficult words or expressions. Recently, Raji (1991) published a collection of ofo
including ogede and aasan, (the two most powerful and dangerous categories of
Yoruba incantation).
18
Research Review NS 21.2 (2005) 17-25
Among scholars who attempted systematic studies of ofo are Olabimtan (1977:551611), Olatunji (1984:139-167), Dopamu (1977:551-611). Olabimtan examines ofo and
ayajo as two categories of Yoruba traditional incantatory poetry. He discusses the
cultural context and semantic structure of Yoruba incantation. He describes with some
illustrations three structural parts of ofo through which one can realize the goal an ojo is
set to achieve. Olabimtan's classification of the Yoruba ofo seems too broad, and the
role language plays in ofo is not his concern.
Olatunji (1984) deals at length with the sociological background, the content, the
features and stylistic elements of Yoruba ofo. He agrees with Ogunba (1967) that man
uses ofo "to control both the natural and the supernatural worlds and subject them to his
will". Olatunji (1984:139) describes ofo as a restricted poetic form, cultic and mystical
in its expectations.
Since Olatunji examines the characteristic features of Yoruba oral poetry in general,
all aspects of each genre could not be treated exhaustively. However, we have benefited
immensely from his critical analysis. Olatunji's work has pointed the way to further
analysis of ofo text. Hence this study focuses attention on language use, with particular
reference to focus constructions.
Dopamu (1977) looks at incantation in its entirety, focusing on the basis for its
existence, its features, its potency, and its social applications. He defines incantation as
"the spoken word believed to have magical power when recited alone or on magical
objects". He describes the spoken word as the key which unlocks the forces of nature.
According to Dopamu, people who have the knowledge of aasan, the type of ofo which
appears in Raji (1991) collection, do not usually disclose it, otherwise people label
them as wicked souls.
Fadahunsi (1988) examines not just the nature and types of incantation but
primarily how it works and the extent to which its effectiveness can be justified
scientifically.
From the review of the earlier works on Yoruba incantation, it is evident that
although some scholars are aware of the restricted, special and cultic nature of ofo
language, no attention has been paid to ofo language description adapting a
textlinguistic model. This is our focus in this study.
The existing collections of Fabunmi (1972), Adeniji (1980) and Raji (1991) were
employed for analysis. It is when the collections are inadequate that we select relevant
text from our fresh data, collected from the Ifa priests and medicine men, the most
recognized custodians of the Yoruba incantation.
Textual Analysis
Ofo is loaded with focus constructions. The bulk of these are declarative sentences,
plus at least one sentence in the imperative mood which expresses the speech act of the
text as a whole. Overall, less than 20% of the sentences in the corpus are compound or
complex, and the majority of the simple sentences are focus constructions. Looking at a
single text in each of the text types, the frequency of «/-constructions as a proportion of
total sentences ranges from one-sixth to two-thirds. A detailed breakdown is given.
19
Research Review NS 21.2 (2005) 17-25
Type
Total sentences
ni-construction
Ofo lba
18
6(33%)
Ofo afose
43
27 (63%)
Ofo afbran
20
4 (20%)
Ofo afero
13
8 (62%)
Ofo aporo
8
3 (38%)
Ofb arobi
31
12(39%)
Ofo awiire
21
14(67%)
Ofo isoye
43
7 (16%)
Ofo maadarikan
12
7 (58%)
Ogede/aasan
31
9(29%)
Sample Text
The following text belongs to the ofo afose subtype, which speaks in the voice of
authority whose words must instantly come to pass. This kind of poem can be used in
sociopolitical affairs, and in economic and medical contexts to disarm, defeat, dupe or
revive someone.2
1. A-a-se, ko ni saise;
2. Niton awise ni ti Ifa;
N
3. Afose ni ti Orunmila
N
4. Ase ogunmonii sel'awujo efo;
N
2
In the text n ('-constructions are annotated in the margin as N, "Kii-negative" as K.
Relative clauses marked R in the margins are set off in brackets.
5.
Ase ijimereniise 1'awujo eranko;
N
6.
Terekese, nil se 1'awujo owu;
N
7.
Gbogbo igi [ti'legbedee ba fowo ba] nil dun;
N (R)
8.
Ki o se, ki o se ni ti ilakose
N
9.
Yee [a ba wi han ogbo] ni ogbo i gbo;
N (R)
10.
Yee [a ba wi han igba] ni igba i gba;
N (R)
11.
Oro [okete ba le so] ni ile i gba;
N (R)
12.
Aba [alagemo ba da] ni orisa gba
N
13.
Aro oun abuke kii p'ohun orisa da;
K
14.
Sango kii ko ohun orogbo;
K
20
Research Review NS 21.2 (2005) 17-25
15.
Orisa kii ko ohun obi;
K
16.
Obatala kii ko ohun; sese-efun;
K
17.
Kokoro keekeekee kii ko ohun ayetale;
K
18.
Obailukiikooro iyo;
K
19.
Oju oro kii ko ohim omi;
K
20.
Osibata kii ko ohun odo;
K
21.
Koriko [ti a ba ja fun eerun] naa ni eerun i gbaa mu;
N
22.
Abede ni ti okira; okira kii be tiree ti;
N.K
23.
Ito kii pada senu;
K
24.
Omi kii san poju wehin;
K
25.
Kankan ni ewe ina i jo ni;
N
26.
Irawe kii dajo ile ko sun'ke;
K
27.
Adigbonnaku kii fojo ikii ree do'la;
K
28.
Dandan ni ti aidan
N
29.
Ojo [omode ba wa oyin] nii royin;
N (R)
30.
Ojo [laba muti] niipa'ni;
N(R)
31.
Ojo [abagbeleeebu] ni aabo 6;
N (R)
32.
Ojo [a ba ribi] ni i wole;
N (R)
33.
Ojo [akiikodie kan ba ko] nile aye
N (R)
34.
Ojo [a ba peegun] ni eegiin i je;
N (R)
35.
Ojo [abaporo]ni oro i gbona;
N(R)
36.
Ojo [oluwongaga ba waye] naa ni i rorun;
N
37.
Oojonioro inamu'gi;
N
38.
O6J6 ni oro ejo i mu'niyan;
N
39.
Oojo naani oro ito maa mu'le;
N
40.
Warawara ni'jimere i so Tori igi aladi;
N
41.
Warawara naa ni omo i so lori igi werepe
N
42.
Warawara ni a a ri'kuidin, warawara
N
43.
Warawara naa ni ki ohun yi se o, warawara
N
1.
It will happen, it won't fail to happen
2.
Because Ifa's (speech) is oracular;
3.
Orunmila's (speech) is divinatory;
4.
Ogunmo's command always prevails in the assembly of leaves;
21
Research Review NS 21.2 (2005) 17-25
5.
Ijimere's 3 command always prevails in the assembly of animals;
6.
Terekese4 always prevails in the assembly of cotton.
7.
It is every tree a baboon touches that reverberates;
8.
"Let it come to pass, let it come to pass" is the (command) of ilakose 5
9.
Whatever we shout to flax6 it hears;
3
Pataguenon monkey.
4
Cotton with glossy fibres.
5
Small snail. After elision, "ki o se" is pronounced [kose] hence the pun with the word
Ilakose.
10.
Whatever we shout at the igba7 it agrees to;
11.
What a giant rat tells the earth, the earth agrees to;
12.
Suggestions made by a chameleon, the divinities accept;
13.
Cripples and hunchbacks do not defy Obatala;8
14.
Sango does not ignore orogbo' 9
15.
Divinities do not ignore obi 10
16.
Obatala does not ignore sese-efun 11
17.
Small insects do not ignore grubs;
18.
Even the king does not ignore salt;
19.
Water lettuce12 does not ignore water;
20.
Water lilies 13 do not ignore the river;
21.
The grass we pick for soldier-ants is what they grab on to;
22.
A sharpened, prepared cutlass cuts right through, it doesn't fail to cut;
23.
Sputum never returns to the mouth;
24.
Water never flows back in the direction it came from;
25.
The stinging-leaf14 imparts an instant jolt,
26.
Dead leaves do not inspect the ground and then rush back to their branch;
27.
Adigbonnaku 15 never postpones its day of faulting;
28.
Compulsion is the mark of aidan 16
29.
The day a child looks for oyin'7 it finds it;
30.
The day we drink alcohol, it intoxicates us;
31.
The day we dig holes to plant seed yams, we cover them up;
32.
The day the placenta comes to light it is buried;
22
Research Review NS 21.2 (2005) 17-25
33.
The day a rooster crows on the earth, its fellow roosters take up the call;
34.
The day we perform eegun 18 the ancestor acknowledges us;
35.
The day we perform an Oro 19 ritual the fact becomes known;
36.
The day oluwongaga 20 appears, it dies off.
37.
On the same day, fire's force grabs a tree.
38.
On the same day, a snake's poison grabs its victim;
39.
On the same day, the stench of urine permeates the soil.
40.
It is instantly that ijimere abandons his seat on an ant-infested tree
41.
It is instantly too, that a child abandons his seat on the werepe21 tree
42.
It is instantly that we observe a maggot die, instantly;
43.
It is instantly, too, that this utterance should take effect, instantly!
Structural Analysis
In the text, as noted in tbe right-hand margin, we can count 30 ni-constructions (N)
and 13 Ail-constructions (K). The linear distribution of these constructions is charted
thus:
6
Penploca (asclepiadaceae), generally used as tying twine.
Twisted-fibre sling designed for climbing palm trees,
8
The text refers literally to orisa, but see discussion in 36 below.
9
Bitter kola, Garcinia Gnetoides (Gumferoe).
10
Cola acuminata (sterculiaceae).
11
Small pieces of white kaolin chalk, or beads representing same. Obatala's favorite
clour is white.
12
Pistra stratiotes (Aroideae).
13
Nymphaea lotus.
14
Ewe ina or eesi, Tragia (Euphorbiaceae).
15
“A beetle which feigns death when touched" (Abraham 1958:13).
16
Or aridan, Tetraplcura Tetraptera (Mimosaceae): the relationship to dandan
compulsion is purely phonetic.
17
A leaf, used in herbal medicine that requires rituals before being picked, if it is to be
effective.
18
Masked dancers representing ancestors.
19
A divinity known particularly for its loud public voice, the bull-roarer.
20
A type of mushroom.
21
'Cow-itch', Mucuna Prucriens (papilonaceae).
7
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
1 line with neither N nor K;
11 lines with N;
8 lines with K;
2 lines with N;
3 lines with K;
1 line with N;
2 lines with K;
16 lines with N;
(line 1)
(lines 2-12)
(lines 3-20)
(lines 21 -22)
(lines 22-24)
(line 25)
(lines 26-27)
(lines 28-43)
23
Research Review NS 21.2 (2005) 17-25
Setting aside line 1 which is an introductory formula, the overall pattern of the text
is a multiple sandwich, with m'-constructions forming the outer layer, then
constructions as the next layer further in, then a layer of ni all surrounding a section of
kit at the middle. The symmetry is actually reinforced by the two exceptional lines.
Line 1 has neither ni nor kii, while line 22 combines one sentence of each type. Line 22
occupies the numerical midpoint of the incantation's 43 lines. The same two lines, 1
and 22, are the only cases of a single line comprising two sentences.
This balanced arrangement can be said to serve a mnemonic purpose, since there is
a predictable alternation between the two types (ni and kii). The alternation of ni and kii
segments also has an aesthetic function generating variety without randomness. We
furthermore believe that the pattern in (iv) contributes to the text's effectiveness as a
performative utterance, i.e. a ritual formula intended to produce a practical impact on
the hearer, because it provides scope for structural parallelism.22
As with structural symmetry, so too can structural parallelism be regarded as both
mnemonic and performative in function. By parallelism we mean repetition at a certain
level of structure. There is syntactic repetition in each unit in (iv) by definition, since
the repetition of ni and kii constructions is the basis for dividing the text. This division
is reinforced by clusters or relative clauses in the largest two units. A relative clause is
the focused argument of the m-construction in the last 4 lines of unit iv (b), and in the
first 8 lines of unit iv (h).23 There is morpho-lexical repetition, and hence parallelism, in
lines 2-3 (awise vs. afowe). There is purely lexical repetition, and hence parallelism, in
lines 19-20 (ko okuri) and again in lines 29-39 (ojo oojo) and 40-43 (warawara). The
lexical repetition tends to be at the beginning of the line/sentence, which is also the
favoured position for focus.
Stylistic Significance
Like other poetic genres, ofo allows some constructions that would be stylistically
marked in ordinary spoken Yoruba. In a ni-construction, it is well known that the item
that occurs to the left of ni is normally either an argument of the main sentence, or else
a predicate (nominalised where necessary) is the subject of the main verb se ('come to
pass'). In line 9 the phrase yee a ba wi han ogbo ('whatever we may shout to flax') is the
object of the main verb gbo (hear). In lines 40-43 the ideophone warawara ('instantly')
is understood as a secondary predicate of the various sentences that it precedes24.
In some examples from the text, a ni-construction is elliptical with respect to certain
lexical items. In line 2, the ni-sentence (5) is most plausibly derived from (6).
22
Tambiah (1968, 1979) identifies parallelism as an important ingredient in ritual
language, cf. also Fox
(1977).
23
Respectively, lines 9-12 and 29-36.
24
The text does not contain any examples of verb focus in order to focus a verb,
nominalizing reduplication is required (see Awoyale 1985). Ideophones such as
warawara however are already reduplicated (and therefore, perhaps, quasi-nominal), so
that focusing warawara in lines 40-43 does not require further reduplication or
24
Research Review NS 21.2 (2005) 17-25
nominalization. For general discussion of Yoruba ideophones see Awoyale (1998) and
references cited therein.
5.
6
A-wi-seni ti ifa
AGT-utter-happen FOC of Ifa
'It is oracular utterances (utterances that come to pass) that are characteristic of
ifa.
Ifa wi a-wi-se
Utter AGT-utter-happen
'Ifa foretells correctly' (i.e. makes oracular utterances).
Unit (5) does not contain the lexical verb wi 'utter'; so we cannot say that (5) is
derived from (6) syntactically; the relationship is more indirectly semantic in character.
The recover ability of the main verb wi in (a) is certainly made easier by its appearance
inside the focused nominalization a-wi-se. A similar ellipse occurs in line 3, where the
elided main verb fo. ('says’) can be recovered through the nominalization afose.
Another example of ellipse in the text concerns the relative marker ti. Since ti is not
a lexical item, merely a grammatical marker, its absence from lines 9-12 and 29-36 is
not very surprising because it is fully recoverable from context. In fact, ti is optional in
ordinary spoken Yoruba, especially in the dialect of Ile-Ife; so perhaps one can infer
that the reciter of this text hails from that town.25
For their message to be compelling, ofo incantations rely upon shared cultural
knowledge. The lines in the text that show this most clearly are those containing lexical
items whose cultural content is so great that literal translation fails. Such items include
proper names of divinities like Ifa and Orunmila (the divination divinity) in lines 2-3,
as well as the use in line 13 of the noun orlsa. Orisa literally means divinity, as in the
name Orisa Oko. 'The Divinity of Horticulture (oko); but in fixed phrases like eni Orlsa
'someone belonging to 'Orisa' (by implication, a physically deformed person), the word
is understood as an abbreviation of the proper name Orlsa-nla otherwise called Obatala
(Idowu 1962:71). Obatala is responsible for shaping the physical body during the
creation of a human being, including any physical deformities, hence lame and
hunchbacked people and albinos are said to be specially connected to Obatala. Only by
assuming all this background knowledge can we see that the statement in line 13 is
effectively a truism.
In a similar vein, some flora and fauna names require detailed encyclopedic
knowledge in order for the text to make sense, e.g. the hearer must know that werepe
(line 4) is a tree whose bark irritates the skin. By contrast, some lexical items are
employed in the text only by virtue of their sound, for the sake of achieving puns. Three
successive examples are found in lines 8-10. Puns contribute to the aesthetic value of
the text; in the context of a magical utterance they may also suggest that a name bears a
non-accidental relationship to the thing named, in defiance of de Saussure's view that
the relation between names and things is arbitrary. By hinting otherwise, the text
implicitly claims to have access to supernatural information. It is a deep Yoruba
cultural belief that to know the name of a thing gives power over that thing, just as one
can influence a person by using his or her names.26 Thus, the use of puns in the text
may constitute a meta-linguistic cultural reference to magic.
25
Research Review NS 21.2 (2005) 17-25
The alternation of ni and kii constructions, charted in (iv) leads us to ask why these
sentence types alternate so productively in the text. In structural linguistics, if two items
are in complementary distribution, the standard explanation is that they are tokens of a
more abstract category, or in other words, they both possess some property in common.
We are therefore led to ask what is the property that the construction shares with the niconstruction?
Consider lines 23-24, which can be more fully glossed as in:
7) a. Ito kii pada si enu
Sputum kii return to mouth (where it came from)
b. Omi kii san pa oju wo ehin
25
Ile-Ife is traditionally regarded as the place of origin of the Yoruba-spcaking people.
Fora discussion of this point, see Tambiah (1969).
27
Thcre may be some morphological relationship between the two negative items kii
and ko.
26
Water kii flow affect eye look back
Water never flows back in the direction it came from.
These are both negative generic sentences, describing states of affairs that do not indeed, cannot - happen under normal circumstances. Semantically, they interpreted as
having no exceptions. With this in mind, consider the negative sentence in (8).
8.
Gbogbo wa ko lo
all IP NEG go
(a) 'None of us went'
(b) 'Not all of us went (i.e. some of us did go)'
Adewole (1993) correctly notes that (8) is liable to two interpretations. The meaning in
(8. a) is exceptionless (no single one of us went), but that in (8.b) is not (some of us did
go, and some of us did not). Adewole then goes on to show that the meaning which has
exceptions in (viii. b) is blocked if a ni-construction is used:
9.
Gbogbo \va ni ko lo
all IP FOC NEG go
'None of us went'
This fact reveals a similarity between ni and kii. They both yield exceptionless or
universal statements. The difference is a matter of negation: kii is always negative, but
ni is negative only if the main clause negator ko is used.27 This leads us to our
concluding question: what is the function of all these universal statements in ojo?
Conclusion
Mood in Yoruba has two primary options: indicative (declarative) and imperative.
An imperative can be direct. A direct imperative has a second person subject, as in (10).
An indirect imperative (formed with the ki complementizer) can have a subject of any
person, e.g. the second person subject in (1 la) and the third person subject in (1 lb).28
26
Research Review NS 21.2 (2005) 17-25
10.
Lo!
go
'Go! (singular addressee)'
11. a.
Ki o
lo!
COMP 2s
go
'You (s.) should go!'
b. Ki o
lo!
COMP 3s go
'S/he should go!'
We have seen that the ofo text is loaded with ni- and kii- constructions, and that
almost all of these are in the indicative mood. It is only the last line of the incantation
which is an indirect imperative. We have also seen that the preceding lines provide this
imperative with a build-up, so as to make it more effective upon the addressee. We
suggest that the link has to do with the exceptionless nature of the ni- and kiiconstructions, discussed in the preceding section. The logic of the text runs as follows:
All the declarative sentences describe necessary states of affairs, either positive or
negative. (This necessity depends on the pragmatic factors of shared knowledge and
commitment to Yoruba culture and cosmology). By analogy, the final line of the text
should also come true without exception.
If this logic accurately describes the deep structure of the ofo text, we have gone
some way towards explaining the remarkable prevalence of ni and kii- constructions in
Yoruba magical
28
Some linguists such as Welmers (1973) use the term hortative, derived from the
Latin word hortaium for indirect imperatives.
incantation. At the same time, this textual genre teaches us something about Yoruba
focus constructions, namely their suitability for expressing unambiguous and
exceptionless propositions.
References
Abraham, R.C., 1958. Dictionary of Modern Yoruba. London: University of London
Press.
Adeniji, A.A., 1980. Ofo Rere, Ibadan: Ibadan University Press.
Adewole, L.O., 1993. Negating the Yoruba universal quantifier: a semantic analysis.
Journal of Nigerian Languages and Literatures 1, 1-7. Lincora Europa,
Unterschleissheim.
Ajayi, Y.A., 1997. Ofo (the Yoruba incantations): a textlinguistic analysis.
Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, University of Ilorin.
Ajayi, Y.A., 2001. "Textlinguistic Features of Ofo Amure: A case study of a chosen
Genre" ALORE.- The Ilorin Journal of Humanities. No. 1 Vol. II, pp.42-59.
27
Research Review NS 21.2 (2005) 17-25
Awoyalc, Y., 1998. A Dictionary of Yoruba Idiophones, Manuscript, Linguistic
Data Consortium. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania.
Awoyalc, Y., 1985. "A focus as an unbounded movement rule in Yoruba". Journal of
the Linguistic Association of Nigeria 3: 75-84.
Dopamu, P.A., 1977. The practice of magic and medicine in Yoruba Traditional
Religion. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Ibadan.
Fabunmi, M.A., 1972. Aydjo: fyinle Ohun Ife. Ibadan: Onibon-Oje Press.
Fadahunsi AYO 1988. "The logic of Incantation". Journal of African Philosophy and
Studies. Vol. 1: 1; 2: 39-48.
Fox, J.J., 1977. Roman Jakobson: Echoes of his scholarship. De Ridder, Lisse.
Halliday, M.A.K., 1973. Explorations in the Functions of Language. London: Edward
Arnold.
Idowu, B., 1962. Olodumare: God in Yoruba Belief. London: Longman.
Ogunba, O., 1967. Ritual Drama of the Ijebu people: A Case Study of the Indigenous
Festivals. Ph.D Thesis. University of Ibadan.
Olabimtan, A., 1971. Ofo and Aydjo: two Categories of Yoruba Traditional Incantatory
Poetry. M.A. Dissertation, University of Lagos.
Olatunji, O.O., 1984. Features of Yoruba Oral Poetry, Ibadan; University Press.
Onibon-Okuta, A., 1965. Ilepa Didu Aye, Osogbo. Mbari Mbayo Press.
Raji, S.M.C., 1991. Ijinle Ofo, Ogede ati Aasdn. Ibadan: Onibon-oje Press.
Rooth, M., 1996. "Focus". The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory. S.
Lappin, ed., 271-97. Blackwell, Oxford.
Tambiab, S.J., 1968. "The Magical Power of Words". Man 3, 175-208. Reprinted in
Culture, Thought and Social Action, 17-59. Harvard University Press, Cambridge,
Mass (1985).
Tambiah, S.J., 1979. A Performative Approach to Ritual. RedclifFe Brown Lecture.
Oxford: Oxford University Press. Reprinted in Proceedings of the British Academy
65, 1981, 113-69. Reprinted in Culture, Thought and Social Action 123-66. Harvard
University Press, Cambridge, Mass (1985).
28
Research Review NS 21.2 (2005) 17-25
Welmers, W.E., 1973. African Language Structures. Berkeley: University of California
Press.
29