

American International Journal of Education and Linguistics Research; Vol. 2, No. 1; 2019 

ISSN 2641-7987   E-ISSN 2641-7995 

Published by American Center of Science and Education, USA 

 
13 

 
Conversational Implicature and Politeness Strategies in Bío ̣́dún-

Káyo ̣́dé Newspapers’ Review in South Western Nigeria 
 

Agunbiade Favour Olamide 

Adekunle Ajasin University 

 Akungba-Akoko, Nigeria 

E-mail:olamide.agunbiade@aaua.edu.ng 

 
Abstract 

Wardhaugh (1986) opines that when we speak, choices must of necessity be made of what we want to say, how we 

want to say it, the choice of words, sounds, (styles and other variables available within the speech community) that 

best unite (connect) what we say with how it is said.  Based on the foregoing, the focus of this study is to identify 

and analyze the politeness strategies employed in the talk exchanges presented in Bíọ́dún and Káyọ̀dé newspapers’ 

review through critical evaluation. In addition, the study seeks to investigate what is implicated by an expression, 

other than what a speaker actually said by saying what he said.  Brown and Levinson's politeness theory and Grice’s 

Cooperative Principle with its Maxims are adopted for analysis purpose. This study intends to show that Yorùbá 

culture places premium on social behaviour displayed and to reveal some of the culturally inherent linguistic and 

non-linguistic tools in the native speakers’intuition as well as and repertoire of the people which they employ to 

meet the face want of interlocutors in communication situations. 
 

Keywords: Politeness, Face, Interlocutors, Implicature, Speech acts, FTAs. 

1. Introduction 

Bíọ́dún-Kàyọ̀dé, as popularly called and known amongst the south western people of Nigeria is a daily Yorùbá 

newspaper review aired on selected radio stations. On the programme, both local and international news are 

captured and presented in form of talk exchanges between the duo reviewers- Bíọ́dún and Káyọ̀dé.  

Traditionally, politeness is considered a vital part of the Yorùbá people’s culture and a great deal in the people’s 

daily linguistic and paralinguistic interaction, especially, if social distinction exists between participants. The 

concept of politeness is universal though it operates and manifests variously in diverse cultures and beliefs of people 

across the world (Ajayi and Balogun, 2004:77). This research will examine the talk exchanges of Bíọ́dún and 
Káyọ̀dé as presented in their newspapers’ review to determine whether politeness, as found in Yorùbá talk 

exchanges exhibits universal feature reported in some scholars’ works or it deviates from what has been on ground 

on the topic of politeness. This will be done by identifying, and analyzing politeness strategies and its various 

concepts (as discussed by Brown and Levinson, 1978) employed in Bíọ́dún-Káyọ̀dé newspapers’ review. Similarly, 

this study seeks to find out what is implicated by speaker’s utterance(s) other than what is said in the duo’s 

newspapers’ review. 

2. Literature Review 

Language is usually employed to reflect the belief, perception and views of people about certain ideas in the society. 

The social use of languages is guided by social order among which is politeness in Yorùbá culture (Ajayi et al., 

2014:78). A society’s language is said to form aspects of its culture. Scholarly definitions and views abound of what 

culture is. In his opinion, Adetugbo 1967 says that culture comprises of verbal and non-verbal aspects. According to 

him, the verbal aspect of culture is concerned with the cultural rules that guide the organization of the social use of a 
language or lack of it. Ọdẹ́bùnmi seems to share this view when he says that: 

Politeness is sometimes relative to people and culture. 

In the context of Nigeria cultures, the Hausa and 

the Yorùbá operate at two extremes in terms of 

politeness. Whereas Hausas are rather blunt in their 

description of persons and phenomena… the 

Yorùba are reserved. A Yorùbá person is essentially 

euphemistic in his/her language usage when it comes 

to issues that border on the psych-social and emotional 

aspects of co-participants 

(Ọdẹ bùnmi, 2003:71). 


www.acseusa.org/journal/index.php/aijelr          American International Journal of Education and Linguistics Research            Vol. 2, No. 1; 2019 

 
14 

 
Similarly, Miriam, (2006:84) opines that the meaning we give to conversation exchanges as hearers, depend on 

where we grow up and the norms of politeness acquired in the meantime. Certain responses to talk exchanges which 

may be considered rude and impolite in some cultures and languages may be polite, normal and culturally 

acceptable by the standard of other language or culture based on mutual knowledge between the speaker and the 

hearer.Though the concept of politeness has been observed to be a universal one despite the fact that its operations 

and manifestations differ from culture to culture and in relation to people’s beliefs across the globe (Brown et al., 
1978:56-57; Ajayi et al., 2014:77). 

In his study, Ikotun 2004 identifies verbal devices that are employed by Yorùbá people to indicate politeness to one 

another. Based on his findings, factors that influence politeness in address forms of the people include custom, 

marriage, market strategy, seniority, faith, age, neat physical appearance and courtesy. One noticeable observation 

made about the examples cited under Ikotun’s use of politeness markers based on the  factors he identified is the 

reoccurrence of similar address forms under numerous varying factors except  a few. 

3. Research Methodology/Method of Data Collection 

This research is qualitative in nature. It is based on the talk exchanges that take place in the   Newspapers’ review of 

Bíọ́dún and Káyọ̀dé in South Western region of Nigeria. The review is carried out throughout the five working days 

in a week in the people’s indigenous language (Yorùbá). This research topic is chosen in particular because it makes 

use of the people’s indigenous language, and because it is assumed to reflect the beliefs of the people in terms of 

what is permissible in their linguistic exchanges. For the purpose of this study, we collected data directly from the 
newspapers' review of the duo reviewers within a period spanning over two weeks with the aid of mobile devices, 

namely, a handset and a transistor radio.  In addition, a scheduled telephone interview is conducted with the 

reviewers as a way of interrogating and ascertaining the idea behind their style of newspapers’ review. 

4. Theoretical Frameworks 

Talk exchanges is an interactional linguistic activity that involves at least, two participants in a conversation, hence, 

the need for mutual understanding and cooperation between them. Therefore, Brown et al. (1978) Politeness theory 

and Grice’s Cooperative Principle with its maxims and sub-maxims have been adopted as theoretical frameworks for 

this study.  Brown et al. formulated politeness theory based on the notion of ‘face’ developed by Goffman, (1967) 

and other concepts presented in their work. Brown & Levinson propose two assumptions which form the properties 

of  interlocutors that all competent adult members of a society have (and know each other to have) 

(i) ‘face’, which is the public self-image that every member wants to claim for himself.  
(ii) ‘certain rational capacities,in particular consistent modes of reasoning from ends to the means that will 

achieve those ends’. 

Face has two related aspects, namely, ‘negative face and ‘positive face’. According to Brown et al. (1978), “face is 

something that is emotionally invested, and that can be lost, maintained, or enhanced, and must be constantly 

attended to in interaction”. There is need for participants in an interaction to cooperate in maintaining or saving each 

others face, such cooperation, however, is based on mutual vulnerability of face. In other words, normally, the face 

of every participant in an interaction depends on the face of other (everyone else’s) being maintained. The 

propounders of politeness theory presents and treats ‘face as wants’, which every member of a society is aware that 

every other member desires. Since the face of everyone is susceptible to being threatened by certain speech acts in 

interactions, it is therefore in the interest of everyone involved in talk exchanges, to maintain each others’ face by 

employing speech acts that assures the other participants that his/her acclaimed public self-image is recognized, or, 

politeness strategies that limit threat to the participants faces. 
Negative Face: This refers to the want of every ‘competent adult member’ that his actions  be  unimpeded by others. 

Negative face derivative is negative politeness of non-imposition, it usually shows up as formal politeness which the 

notion of politeness readily brings to mind. 

Positive Face:  This is the want of every member that his wants be desirable to at least some others e.g. that the 

speaker (S) shows in some ways that he identifies with the hearer (H) in matters that are of interest to him. The 

derivative of positive politeness is less obvious, but consists of the most important aspect of an individual’s 

personality expected of other interactants that his wants or desire be ratified, understood, and approved (Brown et 

al., 1978:62). In the course of interaction, face threatening acts do occur which result in a loss of face (damage our 

positive face). This is the essence of the use of facework strategies  from which politeness strategies are derived to 

redress and restore our (threatened) face (Redmond, 2015). 

On the need for cooperation by interactants in linguistic exchanges,  H.P.Grice, (1975) in his work ‘conversational 
logic’ suggests that conversation is based on a shared principle of cooperaton (CP) which is expected to be 

operational whenever people interact. Conversational logic provides us with logical basis for making inferences 

from utterances literally expressed in a sentence (Gergely, nd.).  The formation of Grice’s framework is an effort to 


www.acseusa.org/journal/index.php/aijelr          American International Journal of Education and Linguistics Research            Vol. 2, No. 1; 2019 

 
15 

 
make clear the ‘intuitive difference’ that exists between what is said literally in a sentence and what is entirely 

implied, suggested, or hinted with an utterance containing the same number of words. 

To distinguish between the two above ( what is said and what is implicated),  Grice employs the coinage implicate 

and implicature; he refers to the linguistic content of  utterance made as ‘what is said’, while he calls the totality of 

what is said in a sentence and what is implicated in an utterance of the same sentence ‘the total signification of an 

utterance (Grice 1975, 1989b:41). Implicature extends to cover many ways in which literally unexpressed 
information can be conveyed. Gergely conveys the relationship between ‘what is said’ and ‘what is implicated by 

what is said’in the schema below: 

 
    Total signification of an utterance 

 
  What is said    Implicature 

 
     conventional   nonconventional 

 
      conversational  nonconversational 

 
     generalized  peculiarized 
 

According to Grice, conversational implicature is initiated by “certain general features of discourse” rather than by 
conventional meaning of a specific word (which helps to determine what is implicated along side what is said) 

(Grice, 1989a:26). The features are as follow: 

i. Linguistic exchanges are governed by the cooperative Principle (henceforth,  CP), the content which is 

fully detailed in the four maxims of conversation and their submaxims; 

ii. When one of the participants of the exchanges seems not to follow the coopreative principle, his or her 

partner(s) will nevertheless assume that, contrary to appearance, the principle is observed at some deeper 

level. Thus, the Cooperation principle simply states that:  

  “make your converstional contribution what is required,  

  at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose  

  or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged.” 

This principle is with the following maxims and sub-maxims of conversation: 

Maxim of Quantity:  
(1) “Make your contribution as informative as required.” 

(2) “Don’t make your contribution more informative than is requires.” 

Maxim of Quality: Be truthful 

(1) “Don’t say what you believe to be false.” 

(2) “Don’t say what you lack adequate evidence for.” 

Maxim of Relation: “Be relevant.” 

Maxim of Manner: “Be perspicuos.” 

(1) “Avoid obscurity of expression.” 

(2) “Avoid ambiguity.” 

(3) “Be brief (avoid unnecessary prolixity).” 

(4) “Be orderly.” 
Grice’s notion of conversational implicature can be stated as follows: 

“A participant Pins a linguistic exchange, by literally making an assertion with the propositional context x, 

conversationally implicates the proposition y if and only if: 

(a) P is presummed to be observing the maxims 

(b) The supposition y is required to maintan (a) 

(c) P thinks that his partner will realize (b).”  

     (Gergely, p.2) 

In one of Grice’s examples of interaction, inference made by speaker B from the request of speaker A reveals that 

certain interpretation can only be derived by means of conversational implicature.  In order words, the inferred 

meaning will be situated within the context of the immediate discourse or interaction being held at that instant. 


www.acseusa.org/journal/index.php/aijelr          American International Journal of Education and Linguistics Research            Vol. 2, No. 1; 2019 

 
16 

 
See the example below: 

A: Is that scotch over there? 

 B: Help yourself. 

Literally speaking, the example above obviously reveals that A has just asked for information “on the nature of the 

liquor (scotch) which B interprets as a request for a drink”. Since nothing in the literal meaning of A’s utterance 

could possibly make B to respond to A’s request the way he did, it follows then that B’s interpretation was inferred 
by means of conversational implicature made possible by the context of their interaction. Furthermore, Grice claims 

that any implied meaning stands a risk of being (mis)understood by the hearer as against what the speaker intended 

to communicate. The implicature of an utterance may be misread thereby leading to incorrect inference on the part 

of the hearer. Consider the hypothetical example of an exchange between a pregnant woman with health challenge 

and a concerned neighbor: 

Neighbour: I think you should see your doctor more frequently for prenatal care    

 considering your EDD and your health condition. 

Pregnant woman:I am a Hebrew woman.  

The concerned neighbour of this woman needs to have some background knowledge about who “Hebrew women” 

are and the basis for the response of the addressee. In order for the speaker not to misunderstand the meaning of the 

hearer’s response and to implicate appropriately, he must be a Christian that conversant with the story of Hebrew 

women, or must have been told how Hebrew women in the land of Goshen (a territory occupied by the Hebrew in 
Egypt) in the biblical narrative used to be very strong such that they were delivered of their babies before the arrival 

of Egyptians’ midwives without any medical aids (Exodus 1:16-19). 

In actual sense, what is responsible for hearer(s) making inference of an exchange is non-observance of maxims. A 

speaker’s failure to observe CP maxim may prompt a competent hearer to draw one of many possible conclusion 

that:  

The speaker is “opting out” from the operation of the maxim, deliberately and secretly violating maxim for some 

personal selfish purpose, committing maxim infringement usually because of incompetence or flouting a maxim 

based on certain premises postulated by Grice that serve as basis for non-observance of maxims. More often than 

not, it is an established fact that people fail to observe the CP maxims either deliberately or accidentally. Either 

ways, the consequential effect of non-observance of maxim can result in flouting, violating, infringing, opting-out, 

or suspending (Grice, 1975).  In this research, we shall subject talk exchanges of the newspapers’ reviewers to 
Gice’s framework to investigate their observance of CP, and also find out, if their utterances fail to follow the 

cooperative principle and its maxims through the various means stated by Grice that the maxims could be violated in 

linguistic exchanges. 

Flouting of Maxim: 

Flouting of maxim occurs when a speaker “blatantly fails to observe a maxim, not with any intention of deceiving or 

misleading, but simply because the speaker wishes to prompt the hearer to look for a meaning which is different 

from or in addition to the expressed meaning” (Thomas 1995:65). Mey (1993) lend credence to Thomas’ claim by 

providing succinct but inclusive definition of flouting as a case of exchange when we can make a blatant show of 

breaking one of the maxims…in order to lead the addressee to look for covert, implied meaning”.  In order words, 

the speaker is indirectly provoking a huge in the hearer to look for a hidden meaning which he did not state.  

Violation of Maxim: 

Violation is defined in term of being deliberately secretive with information that could help in meaning-making, 
with a mind to misguide the hearer. When a speaker violates a maxim, he is said to ‘be liable to mislead’ (Grice 

1975:49). Violating a maxim is quite contradictory to flouting a maxim. The former discourages or prevents hearer 

from delving into discovering of covert meaning or implicatures, instead, it encourages their taking information at 

face value. Like flouting, all the maxims can be violated. Overall, Non-observance of maxim(s) form the basis for 

making deductions in conversation which Grice referred to as implicatures. 

5. The Structure of Bío ̣́dún-Káyo ̣́dé’s Newspapers Review  

The Newspapers’ review of Bíó ̣́dún-Káyò ̣́dé is distinct in its style of presentation. This is as a result of its systematic 

structures. The sequential ordering of the core linguistic elements of their programme is consistent every day.  The 


www.acseusa.org/journal/index.php/aijelr          American International Journal of Education and Linguistics Research            Vol. 2, No. 1; 2019 

 
17 

 
duo, usually start off their review with jokes directed at each other as a way of introducing each day’s programme 

and to draw the attention of their audience. This is followed by rendition of individual’s pedigree. 

A dedicated interval is earmarked for sponsors’ advertisements. This is usually followed by turn-taking exchanges 

that normally start with the presenters calling out to each other in this manner: “Káyò ̣́dé, Bío ̣́́dun, and vice versa. 

This is where the review programme derives its title and popularity in south west Nigeria. Going into the main 

review, the presenters do not just roll out news from newspapers, instead, they play around such news by speaking 
in riddles and proverbs to create suspense in order to lure their hearers to stay glued to their radios till the end of the 

news.  

Often than not, the reviewers utterances are directed at themselves as the referents of a particular news being 

presented, they only mention the name of the actual referent towards the end of such news to avoid violation of 

broadcasting regulations and possibility of allegation of doctoring news by National Broadcasting Commission 

(NBC), coupled with the need to give their audience direction. The closing trend of Bíó ̣́dún-Káyò ̣́dé newspapers 

review has been known to follow the same pattern consistently. They usually end the review session by eulogizing 

themselves making reference to their family background, town and appellations and then move on to close their 

presentation with song thus:  

     Translation 

Bío ̣́dún:    Ǹ jé ̣́ títí d’ò ̣́la, chief commander Bíó ̣́dún Ìlò ̣́rí Until tomorrow, I am chief        

lèmi ńjé ̣́ o, Aládé Alé ̣́lẹ l’orúko tí wó ̣́n fi ń  commander Bíó ̣́dún Ìlò ̣́ri popularly       gbé mi lárugẹ. 

Amúùlúdùn fún gbogbo Ìjero   known as Aládé Alé ̣́lẹ , a renowned       àti gbogbo àgbáyé 

káàfàtà.     entertainer for Ìjerò land and the        

   entire world 

Káyo ̣́dé:  Orúkọ tèmi kò tí ì yí padà, G5 yín rèé o,   My name remain unchanged,  I am         

general evangelist s ̣̣́́ì wà ń bè ̣́ o                              your G5; your general evangelist is       Ẹn,Olúkáyò ̣́dé 

ni mo ń jé ̣́, Akínmóyèdè          is still very much available. I am         Fálẹgàn lorúkọ bàbá tó 

bí mi ló ̣́mọ,            Olúkáyò ̣́dé, my father is Akínmóyèdè          ajísanwó kéhú, Káúsú gbogbo oníròyìn,             

Fálẹgàn, one who studies Quran daily,       Falilat, Sheik amúludù gbogbo ìlú Ìjerò           chief 

amongst broadcasters, a                         àti gbogbo àgbálá-ayé, kìnìún ádínì           renowned entertainer for 

Ìjerò land                         tí kì í ṣẹégbẹ kìnìún ẹlé ̣́yàme ̣́̀yà kan.            and the entire world, a powerful lion                      

      Kìnìún ì bá à káwo mé ̣́sàn án jáde,           that differs from all others. It does          

kìnìún tèmi ni yóò fa gbogbo ìho                  not matter if any lion grown nine                       ò ̣́hun yọ…. (joke)                                                

horns; It is my lion that will pluck                               them all 

(jovially). 

                  
Bío ̣́dún:    (singing) Bó bá dìwòyí ò ̣́la, (Káyò ̣́dé echoes) ò ̣́la gangan,                  

(both) kó tó dìwòyí ò ̣́la ganranranran, ìyanu á ṣẹle ̣́̀.  

       The song means, by this time tomorrow, there shall be miracle. (The presenters anticipate a brand new 

day to carry out their daily business of newspapers’ review).         

                    
Often times, the reviewers present news about very serious matters such as robbery, kidnapping, suicide and 

assassination cracking jokes. At such instance, maxim of quality is flouted /violated because the situation being 

reported does not call for joke. However, the reviewers, despite their joke expect their hearers to be able to make 
logical deductions from the content of the jokes. It is pertinent however to state at this juncture that joke is a 

conscious and deliberate strategy employed by the reviewers to lessen tension, put hearers in relaxed mood and to 

sustain their interests through the news.  

6. Data Presentation and Analysis 

 Excerpt 1      Translation: 

Bío ̣́dún: Káyò ̣́dé:      Káyò ̣́dé, 

Bío ̣́dún: Ìyàlé ̣́nu ló jé ̣́ fún mi pé ìgbá tí mo sọ pé   It is surprising that the Governor did  
 àwọn kan fé ̣́ wá ṣekú pa mí,    not call me since I said some people 

  o jé ̣́ mò ̣́ pé Gómìnà wa kò tilè ̣́ pè mí   made an attempt to assasinate me.  


www.acseusa.org/journal/index.php/aijelr          American International Journal of Education and Linguistics Research            Vol. 2, No. 1; 2019 

 
18 

 
Káyo ̣́dé: Gómìnà ò pè ó ̣́?     The Governor did not call you? 

Bío ̣́dún: Kò pè mí, kó má ti è ̣́ sọ pé òun á wá ṣe àbè ̣́wò He did not call me not to talk of  

        paying me a visit. 

Káyo ̣́dé: Ìgbà tí èmi àti Gómìnà sò ̣́rò ̣́, wo ̣́n ní ibo lo wà? When I and the Governor talked, he  

 Mo ní àláfíà ni o wà pé màmá rẹ ṣe ̣́ṣe ̣́ bímọ. asked after you, I told him your  Òhun ni 

kò jé ̣́ kí wo ̣́n yọjú.    mother has just been delivered of a   
      baby, that is the reason why you did  

      not see him. 

In the above data, four different politeness strategies are employed, two of which are positive-politeness strategies 

and the other two are negative-politeness strategies. They are joke, pluralization of pronoun, deference and 

avoidance as analyzed below. 

6.1 Joke Strategy  

There is hardly a language, and by extension, culture, in the entire universe that does not have the way it expresses 

jokes. This is usually done to bring people into a relaxed state, ease tension, or as a deliberate attempt to make 

people laugh. Likewise, joke can be used to communicate a potentially inciting message, depending on how much 

the speaker knows how to use language. Brown et al. (1987:124) describes “jokes as a basic positive-politeness 

technique for making hearer (H) to be ‘at ease’. They are also of the opinion that one can take advantage of joke as 

politeness strategy to “redefine the size” (intensity) of FTA. 
The above data vividly indicates direct FTA; a friend of the Governor (the S and H’s names withheld) has just 

accused him of not bothering to visit or at least call him having heard of the failed attempt that some people made on 

his life. The utterance (locution) of the first participant (Bíó ̣́dún) is a face threatning speech act that infringes on the 

right of the Governor (though in Yorùbá society, such accusations are traceable in talk exchanges that involve very 

intimate friends) as to whether he wishes to visit or call the victim of the failed assasination. 

The utterance of the second interlocutor was purely a joke “Ìgbà tí èmi àti Gómìnà so ̣̀ro ̣̀, wo ̣́n ní ibo lo wà? Mo ní 

àláfíà ni o wà pé màmá rẹ ṣèṣè bímọ, òhun ni kò je ̣̀ kí wo ̣̀n yọjú ‘when I and the Governor talked, he asked after you, 

I told him your mother has just been delivered of a baby, that is the reason why you did not see him’. Káyò ̣́dé 

employs this strategy as a redressive measure to soften the intensity of the FTA and to save the face (personality and 

self esteem) of the Governor. 

6.2Avoidance of Name Strategy 
Avoidance of name calling of the interlocutors (S and H) as well as the affiliation of the H to his office (Governor) 

is a deliberate attempt on the part of the Newspapers reviewers to protect the face want of the hearer ‘that his actions 

be unimpeded by others’. The intensity of the direct effect of the FTA would have been higher; it probably would 

have generated heat in the society and among the fans of the Governor and his friends.  In some cases, towards 

the end of a particular news presentation, the presenters will jokingly mention the referent’s name by teasing each 

other that “ I am not the one that said X, it is Z. And often times times, they refer their audience to the newspaper 

that reports the news being reviewed for the full story. 

6.3Use of Honourific Pronoun(s) Strategy 

As observed by Brown & Levinson, the phenomenon of pluralizing pronouns to differentiate social status seems to 

be widespread in unrelated languages and cultures around the globe. In such languages, greetings and politeness are 

almost inseparable. In French, as shown by  (Àjàyí et al., 2014:83), politeness permeates greetings depending on the 

status of people interacting. It is out of acceptable norm of the language for a student to greet his teacher saying 
“Bonjour monsieur, comment allez vous? Which is translated as “Good morning sir, how are you? Instead of 

saying “Bonjour ca va? Which means “Good morning, how are you?”. Their study shows how languages that do not 

belong to the same ancestral family nor situated within the same continent manifest common cultural features in the 

way they express politeness in their greetings (pp. 83-84). In the third example cited by Àjàyí et al., (2014), because 

there is no cordialiness  between the first speaker (who incidentally is the wife to the friend of the second speaker) 

and the second, the interlocutors resorted to the use of honourific pronoun “vous’ to save each other’s faces; though 

between the second speaker and his friend (the husband of the first speaker), they us “tu”.   

The use of ìwọ/è ̣́yin 2nd per sgl and pl pronouns in Yorùbá correspond to “tu/vous” distinction in French where 

singular ‘you’ tu (T) exists and a plural ‘you’ vous (V) also exist. Just like the case of tu and vuos in French as 

reported by Wardhaugh, (1986: 260-261), ‘È ̣́yin’, the 2nd pers pl pronoun form is often employed in Yorùbá to 

indicate power relationship, status, age, to mention a few. Individuals with a higher status gives ‘ìwọ’ and receives 
‘è ̣́yin’. Such usage is found between parents to children, masters to servants, teachers to students, superior to 

surbodinates, older sibblings to their younger ones, people in position of authority (i.e. political office holders) to 

their subjects. Unlike the situation where the use of tu (T) relaced the mutual vous of politeness, because solidarity 

is considered highly significant than politenes in personal relationship in Yorùba society, the use of symmentrical V 


www.acseusa.org/journal/index.php/aijelr          American International Journal of Education and Linguistics Research            Vol. 2, No. 1; 2019 

 
19 

 
subsist because politeness is a part and parcel of the people’s culture except in certain industries for example, in 

banking industry where people see themselves as colleagues consequently, they address one another by their last 

surname) name; this of course is a foreign cultureto Yorùbá society. 

In the data we are examining, the newspapers reviewers use wo ̣̀n ‘they’ to refer to “the Governor” who is a singular 

entity. Instances of similar usage abound in Yorùbá culture where plural pronouns are used to indicate class and 

social differences (i.e. age, power, education, religious, financial and political status) between the speaker and the 
hearer. For example, ‘you’ as in ‘e ̣́̀yin’ and ‘ẹ’ in: 

   Ṣé ẹ (sgl prn.) ti jẹun?   ‘Have you eaten?̀ 

   Ta ló mú ìwé mi? è ̣́yin? ‘Who took my book? You? 

When expressions such as the ones cited above are used to refer to a single person, it is employed to indicates 

deference. Brown and Levinson’s theory (1978:198-199) propose possible motivations for this phenomenon as a 

politeness strategy, the one that relates with the use of pronoun pluralization as it affects the linguistic items used in 

this context is that, such phenomenon “conveys the desire of the speaker to render H that tribute (of occupying a 

higher status) while fulfilling the practical needs of the clarity and on-record (direct) talk. 

6.4 Deference Strategy 

Deference is usually employed as negative-politeness strategy. According to Brown et al., deference has two 

realizations; in one, the speaker delibereately ‘humbles’ and ‘abases’ himself, and in the other, the speaker pays H a 

kind of positive face, such that satifies H’s wants (desire) to be treated as ‘superior’(even though S would not have 
done so in sincerity but in order to let H know that he recognizes and acknowledges the status that H claims for 

himself). In the two realizations, the fact that H is of higher social status than S is vividly expressed by employing 

the honorific pronoun ‘wo ̣́n to refer to the Governor as a single person. Deference of this sort accoding to Brown & 

Levinson serves to 

    ‘difuse potential face threatning act by indicating 

    that the addressee’s rights to relative immunity 

    from imposition are recognized- and moreover  

    that S is certainly not in a position to coerce H’s 

    compliance in any way” .  

      Brown et al., (1978:178) 

 
 Excerpt 2     Translation: 

Bío ̣́dún: Ṣé o rí àwọn ọlo ̣́́pàá tí a ní yìí,  Have you observed our policemen? 

 Iṣé ni wó ̣́n ń ṣe    They are really up to their tasks,  

Káyo ̣́dé: Kí a má a gbórí ìyìn fún wọn;  we should salute them, 

 Há à! Iṣé ni wo ̣́́n ń ṣe   they are indeed working.  

Káyo ̣́dé: O rí ọwó ̣́ mi?     Can you see my hand? 

 O rí bí mo ṣe ṣe òṣùbà?   You see how I fold my fists?              Bío ̣́dún: Mo rí i! 

Mo rí i!!    I can see it! I can see it!! 

 
6.5 Exaggeration, Prosodic and Kinesic Hedge  
The politeness strategies used in the talk exchanges are “exaggeration”and “prosodic and kinesic hedge (Brown 

etal., 1978:104, 172). The exaggeration strategy states that S exaggerate (interest, approval, sympathy with H). The 
politeness of this sort is usually achieved through exaggeration of different prosodic features like intonation, stress, 

pitch and so on; modifier intensity inclusive in English.  

The repetition of “iṣé ni wo ̣́n ń ṣe” in line 2 and 4 of excerpt two serve as emphasis which exaggerates how much 

the policemen are working. Similarly, the presence of exclamatory remarks in the last line of the conversation 

serves the purpose of intensifying the degree of the policemen industriousness. The second strategy, kinesic, which 

comprises of non-verbal communication such as gestures or other body movement is also used to indicate 

“tentativeness or emphasis”. The kinesics employed may show the speaker’s attitude or disposition towards what he 

is discussing. This, of course cannot be shown in writing. Brown et al. assert that prosodies and kinesics “serve as 

the most salient clue to the presence of an FTA across culture”. 

Generally speaking,the police force has been labelled a black goat among security agencies in Nigeria. The 

politeness strategies used by Bíó ̣́dún and Káyò ̣́dé here indicate that they (S) identify with and approve the efforts of 
the police. In Yorùbá culture, the folded fists (òṣùbà) is a sign or gesture extended to an individual to praise, appease 

or pacify him. The person being appeased or pacified in such a communicative event reaches out his hands to touch 

the folded fists as an indication that he has accepted the plea of the pacifier. This strategy serves as a redress to 

possible face threatning acts (FTAs), and it is used in Yorùbá culture as politeness indicator. 


www.acseusa.org/journal/index.php/aijelr          American International Journal of Education and Linguistics Research            Vol. 2, No. 1; 2019 

 
20 

 
 Excerpt 3       Translation: 

Bío ̣́dún: Àwọn tó jí kábíèsí gbé ní ìpínlè ̣́ Oǹdó,        The kidnappers who kidnapped 

wó ̣́n ti dín owó tí wó ̣́n fé ̣́ gbà láti mílíónì mé ̣́è ̣́dógún    a king in Ondo State have        sí mílíónù 

mé ̣́ta náírà.           reduced their ransom demand  

              from N15m to N3m 

Káyo ̣́dé: Ó ṣì ń rìn wó ̣́n bò ̣́.            They are just starting,   
 Kò sé ̣́ni tó má a kó ̣́ wọn nígbà tí wó ̣́n óò tì í jáde.          No one will advise them before     

             they push him (the king ) out of    

             their hide out. 

According to Brown & Levinson, one can invite conversational implication only when certain maxims are not 

observed. It is expected of interlocutors to have the capacity to make sense of the talk exchange they engage in even 

when there are ‘missing elements’ in such a conversation. The missing elements are what is implicated. The 

implicatures are said to be made possible by shared cooperation between speaker (S) and hearer (H). 

It is important to bear in mind that before additional meaning(s) can be implicated from a talk exchange or inference 

made,  there must have been  conversation must of necessity violates or flouts a maxim to serve as logical basis for 

inference. On this ground, the data above will be subjected to cooperative peinciple (CP) maxims to see if it violates 

any in order to draw inferences, of what the likely implicatures might be. 

Primarily, the intended message that the above talk exchanges seeks to pass to the public is  that “the kidnappers of a 
particular king from Ondo State have reduced the random demand place on him in order to get him freed”. We will 

now examine the talk exchanges in the light of each of the maxims. 

 
Excerpt 4       Translation 

Bío ̣́dún: Káyò ̣́dé, ẹ è ̣́ tiè ̣́ bá àwọn ọmọ orílè ̣́-èdè  Káyò ̣́dé, you did not bother to Nàìjíríà sò ̣́rò ̣́ lórí 

bílíó ̣́nù mè ̣́tàlà náírà tí address Nigerians on the issue            ẹ sọ wípé ẹ rí gbà gan an. 

  of thirteen billion naira you said                                Ẹ jé ̣́ ká mọ ẹni gan tó lowó 
náà.  you recovered.                Ẹ je ̣́́ ká mò ̣́! Ẹ sọ fún wa.  

 Let us know who owns the money.                

 Let us know! Please tell us.  

Káyo ̣́dé: Ṣé owó un?     You mean that money? 

 Bío ̣́dún: Un un,      Yes, 

Káyo ̣́dé: Kàn jé ̣́ kí wọn mò ̣́;    Just let them be aware; 

Bío ̣́dún: Kàn jé ̣́ a mó̀ ̣́ ó ̣́.     Let them know him. 

Káyo ̣́dé: Ṣè bí o ń sọ fún mi té ̣́le ̣́̀ pé ìwọ lo ní.  But you told me previously that the  

        money  belong to you. 

Bío ̣́dún: Èmi kó ̣́! Èmi kè ̣́?     Not me! Not at all.    

 Níbo ni mo ti fé r’ówó tó tó un?  Where will I get such huge amount? 

Káyo ̣́dé: Inú mi ti ń dùn pé tí wó ̣́n bá ti gbé e fún ọ, I was excited already that whenever            wí pé bí ò 

ti è ̣́ jé ̣́ fifty-fifty,   you recover the money, if we cannot             ó lè jé ̣́ 

seventy-thirty    employ fifty-fifty sharing formula we   

    can make it seventy-thirty 

Bío ̣́dún: Seventy-seventy ni ì!    No, you should have make it   
      seventy-seventy 

Káyo ̣́dé: Rárá      No. 

Bío ̣́dún: Olè burúkú!     Thief 


www.acseusa.org/journal/index.php/aijelr          American International Journal of Education and Linguistics Research            Vol. 2, No. 1; 2019 

 
21 

 
In the data above, the two politeness strategies used are honourific pronouns and joke.  See pp.9-11 for analysis on 

the strategies. 

Excerpt 5 

Bío ̣́dún: Káyò ̣́dé! Láíláí, àfi tí kì í bá ṣe bàbá  Káyò ̣́dé! Never, except I am not a   mi ló bí 

mi, mi ò lè tọrọ àforíjì ló ̣́wó ̣́              bona fide son of my father, I cannot   Sàràkí, láyé 

àbádà!    ask for Saraki’s forgiveness. Never! 

Káyo ̣́dé: Ah! Kí ló pa ìwọ àti Sàràkí pò ̣́ o?  What business do you have with   

       Sàràkí? 

Bío ̣́dún: Nǹkan tó pa wá pò ̣́ pò ̣́ o   A lot. 

Káyo ̣́dé: Ẹ́̀ n, mo ń gbó ̣́…    Yes, I am listening… 

Bío ̣́dún: Kí èmi ó wá lọ má a tọrọ àforíjì ló ̣́wó ̣́ rè ̣́? That I should ask for his      

     forgiveness? 

Káyo ̣́dé: O ò lè tọrọ àforíjì ló ̣́wó ̣́ rè ̣́?   You mean you cannot ask for his   

       forgiveness? 

Bío ̣́dún: láyé mi kó! È ̣́én! Kí ló ń jé ̣́ bé ̣́è ̣́?  Not in my life! What? 

Káyo ̣́dé: ó dáa, n óò tè ̣́lé ọ lọ tó bá jé è ̣́rù ló ń bà ó ̣́;  It’s alright, if you are scared I will a  

 n ń tè ̣́lé ọ lọ…     accompany you to his place 

Bío ̣́dún: Katapílà ò ní foríbalè ̣́ fún mó ̣́tò.  A caterpillar will never bow to a car. 

Káyo ̣́dé: Ìyẹn katapílà tó ń ṣiṣe ̣́́.    That if the caterpillar is functioning  

In the data above, apart from the rhetorics employed by the presenters i.e. rhetorical questions and personification in 

line 4, 7, & 12, joke is the main politeness strategy used. This is done mainly to bring redress to the already 

threatened face of the addressee (Sàràkí), owing to the way the speaker lashed at him; even to the extent of swearing 

on his paternal origin. The expressions ...ó dá a, n óò te ̣́lé ọ lọ, …ìyẹn katapílà tó ń ṣiṣe ̣́  are both jokes, aimed at 

calming the nerves of their radio audience who must have become agitated by the speaker’s tone and choice of 

words. 

Subjecting the talk exchanges to Grice’s cooperative principle which states that participants in a  conversation need 

obey a general rule which is expected to apply any time a conversation happen; such that the participants make their 

“conversational contribution such as is required”. In order words, they are expected to stick to the rule(s) that govern 

such interaction by focusing on the direction of the conversation and not saying more or less that is required. 
However, in this instance, even if we decide to jettison all other parts of data 5, the statement “katapílà ò ní foríbale ̣̀ 

fún mo ̣̀tò” is a very strong statement if we go by the shared knowledge presumed to be possessed by interlocutors in 

such context as this among south western Nigerians. The expression alone can prompt listeners to begin to probe 

into the incident that warranted issuing of such strong statement by the speaker. 

We know that in all sense, a caterpillar is way bigger than a car (Sàràkí). For a speaker to speak in the manner we 

see above against senator Sàràkí who known to be a ‘big shark’ as far as Nigeria polity is concerned, there must 

have been a serious rancor between them. Similarly, we can infer, based on the utterance of the speaker that he is a 

bigger shark than Sàràki though anonymous. These implicatures are made due to the flouting of the maxim of 

quantity by the speaker’s expression as shown above which is implicature encumbered (see pp. 5 & 7).  

Excerpt 6 

Káyo ̣́dé: Bíó ̣́dún! Ó ga ò! Ọkùnrin kan mà ni ò, Bíó ̣́dún, can you imagine, a man sold  

 ó ta ọmọ ọdún mé ̣́fà ní ẹgbè ̣́rún ló ̣́nà igba a six year old boy for two hundred    náírà! 

     thousand naira! 

Bío ̣́dún: Áàh! Two hundred naira?   What? Two hundred naira? 


www.acseusa.org/journal/index.php/aijelr          American International Journal of Education and Linguistics Research            Vol. 2, No. 1; 2019 

 
22 

 
Káyo ̣́dé: Two hundred thousand….   Two hundred thousand … 

Bío ̣́dún … ló ta ọmọ ọdún mé ̣́fà, odidi ènìyàn! …he sold a six year old, a complete    
      human! 

Káyo ̣́dé: Ó lù ú ń gbàǹjo.    He sold him cheap. 

Bío ̣́dún: Ọló ̣́run mà kó è ̣́dá yọ kè ̣́è ̣́.   May God deliver us. 

Káyo ̣́dé: Àmín o.     Amen. 

In data 6 above, the utterance “ó lù ú ń gbàǹjo” made in line 7 has a literal meaning of putting up a product or 

goods for sale at its minimum expense or at give-away price in south western Nigeria.  This statement flouts the 

maxim of quality because in reality, one can only sell a good or product in that manner; probably because of its 

value depreciation or for reason of catering for emergency financial obligation. On one hand, in the sense, human 
being is not a good that can be put up for sale in that manner. The worst that could happen is for a parent to give out 

his or her child for domestic aid in order for the child or family to earn a living. In some cases too in Nigeria, young 

mothers, who sometimes feel they cannot take care of their new born babies give them up for adoption illegally in 

some make-shift maternity homes. Consequently, this information can be assumed to be superfluous in its context of 

usage despite the price the child was sold as the presenters claimed. On the other hand, these statements, 

Káyo ̣́dé: Ó lù ú ń gbàǹjo.    He sold him cheap. 

Bío ̣́dún: Ọló ̣́run mà kó è ̣́dá yọ kè ̣́è ̣́.   May God deliver us. 

as uttered by the presenters are capable of generating implicatures in listeners as to what the ‘situation’ of the man 

that sold his child is.  

(1) Could he be suffering from psychosis? 

(2) May be he is in a mess that requires financial settlement which he could not meet up with;  

(3) May be he could not fend for the child and he needed someone to assist with his or her upkeep. 

The probability of circumstances which could have led to that ‘act’ is endless just as the statements imply.  

Excerpt 7 

Káyo ̣́dé: Áàh! Ó màṣe ò!    (Exclaimed) It is a pity! 

Bío ̣́dún: Kí ló tún ṣẹlè báyìí?    What happened again? 

Káyo ̣́dé: Ọmọkùnrin kan lèyí tí wó ̣́n yìnbọn fún   A guy with his council secretary  

 pè ̣́lú akò ̣́wé ìbílè ̣́ ní Akwa-ibom  from Akwa-Ibom was shot 

Bío ̣́dún: Èn e ̣́́n òòò?     Is that so? 

Káyo ̣́dé: Òun náà ti ṣe bé ̣́è ̣́ je ̣́ aláìsí lánàá  He too died yesterday 

Bío ̣́dún: Eè! Eè! Eè! Ó pàpà kú?     (Exclaimed!) So he died eventually? 

Káyo ̣́dé: Ó jé ̣́ aláìsí.      He died. 

6.6 In-group Identity Marker Strategy 
The language use ‘je ̣̀  aláìsí’ meaning ‘died’ in Yorùbá language is often and preferably used among the people of 

south western Nigeria to announce the demise of a member of the society, known or unknown in order to claim 

common ground with the bereaved. The reviewers made the choice of the phrase deliberately to serve as redress to 

the face of the public (their audience), the deceased local government, and their immediate families. In Yorùbá land, 


www.acseusa.org/journal/index.php/aijelr          American International Journal of Education and Linguistics Research            Vol. 2, No. 1; 2019 

 
23 

 
the word ‘kú’ ‘die’ from ‘ikú’ ‘death’, is not usually employed on the occasion of people’s death. First, because the 

people see their selves as siblings; therefore, what happens to one affects all. Second it is more soothing to talk 

about passing away of people among the Yorùbá without making reference to the word death. Rather, they use ‘je ̣́ 

aláìsí ‘dead’. This is done to identify with the bereaved and at the same time condole with them. 

The analysis of data 7 in line with CP reveals flouting of maxim of quality. The word náà ‘too’ and pàpà 

‘eventually’ as uttered by the presenters in lines 6 and 7 serve as cue to some incident prior the death of the ‘guy’ 
who was in the same vehicle with the local government secretary when they were shot.  

The two words above have indirectly provided audience with information that the local government secretary died 

earlier, may be before he was rushed to the hospital due to the gun shot injury he sustained, and later, the guy ‘too’ 

died that same day (yesterday). This implicature is made possible because of the flouting of the maxim of quality by 

the presenters prompted by the words náà ‘too’ and pàpà ‘eventually’. 

7.Data Analysis in the Light of Grice’s Maxims  

7.1 Maxim of Quantity 

Looking at the conversations above, there would not have been any violation of maxim of quantity if the 

conversation had ended with the information supplied by the first participant. Kayode’s contribution (his response) 

has given out more information to get H thinking such that could trigger the following questions: 

(1) Why did the kidnappers reduce the ransom demand? 

(2) What is the status of the king among Yorùbá kings? 
(3) What is the king’s financial status (power)? 

(4) Does the king have any health challenge? 

Based on the questions triggered by the overstatement of ó ṣi ń rìn wo ̣̀n bọ̀ , ‘they are just starting’, the talk 

exchanges has flouted the second maxim of quatity which says “ don’t make your contribution more informative 

than is required”. 

7.2 Maxim of Quality 

The above linguistic expression does not violate  the maxim of quality because it is true that the kidnappers reduced 

the ransom placed on the king due to the fact that he has not been able to meet up. Also, because the kidnappers 

made contact with the king’s relation to let them know that they can get their person released on the payment of 

lesser amount than earlier demanded. If such contact was not made, it would not have come to the public notice that 

the ransom had been reduced. With this, adequate evidence is established. 

7.3 Maxim of relevance 

This maxim stipulates that participants in talk exchanges should make their contributions ‘relevant’. Brown et al., 

(1978:214-217) highlight four ways by which the maxim of relation can be flouted; they include (i) by giving hint, 

(ii) by giving associated clue, and (iii) through presupposition. According to Brown & Levinson, it is possible for an 

utterance to be ‘almost’ completely relevant in context, and still flouts the relevance maxim at the level of its 

presuppositions. The subordinate clause ‘ó ṣì ń rìn wo ̣̀n bọ̀ ’ in the context of usage here presupposes that it is a usual 

practice for the kidnappers to reduce ransom demands if no member of the family of their victim indicates interest to 

pay the ransom demanded. 

7.4 Maxim of Manner 

Like in the instance of maxim of quantity, the contribution of the second participant in the talk exchanges examples 

given in the excerpt above flouts the maxim of manner. The expression ‘ó ṣì ń rìn wo ̣̀n bọ̀ ’  is euphemistic, 

consequently, it is vague. Therefore, it flouted the first sub-maxim of manner which states “ avoid obscurity of 
expression.” The vagueness of the italicized expression can trigger the following implicatures: 

(5) It could be that the kidnappers are tired of keeping the king in their  custody 

(6) It could mean that the kidnappers are broke (out of cash). 

Based on the flouting of the maxims discussed above, the following can be implicated: 

(7) The kidnapers are unemployed individuals in search of daily bread and so they will not       hesitate to 

reduce the ransom to any amount as long as they can get anything 

(8) That the kidnappers are amateurs 

(9) That the kidnapped king is one without class (low status) among the kings of the Yorùbáland, and that 

the king as well as his relatives is financially poor. 

However, despite the flouting of maxim of manner observed above by the italicized expression, the same is relevant 

for maxim of ‘relevance’. The continual reduction in the ransom placed on the kidnapped king corresponds to the 
relevance of the statement  ‘o  ṣi ń rìn wo ̣̀n bọ̀ ’ considering the inability of the relations of the kidnapped king to raise 

or make available the ransom demanded inspite its reductions. 

 
www.acseusa.org/journal/index.php/aijelr          American International Journal of Education and Linguistics Research            Vol. 2, No. 1; 2019 

 
24 

 
8. Findings and Conclusion 

Generally speaking, evidence from several studies reveal that politeness, verbal or non-verbal has been observed to 

be a universal phenomenon that lubricates social relationships though with minor cultural differences in its 

manifestations. It minimizes social frictions or totally eliminates it, depending on expertise of interlocutors in 

maneuvering their ways around language use and the observance of social norms that guide interpersonal 

relationships and social interactions. 
In conclusion, whatever politeness strategies one employs in social interactions, whether positive or negative plays 

out a crucial role in mitigating possible FTA. It also resolves conflicts that may arise in the course of communication 

events, thereby promoting a hitch free interpersonal relationship among members of community irrespective of their 

social status. Similarly, it is essential for members of a speech community to understand the social stratification of 

their society, and the inference that may be drawn from language used in different communication contexts in order 

to guide against passing wrong or unintended message in the course of interaction. 

References 

Adetugbo, A. (1967). The Yoruba Language in Western Nigeria: Its Major Dialect Area Ann Arbor: UMI (Doctoral 

Dissertation, Columbia University; 284 pp). 

Ajayi, T. & Balogun, K.O. (2014). Politeness in the Yoruba and French Language. International Journal of 

Language Studies. 

Baber, T. & Warren, A Chapter 2: Research on Face in Communication Studies . 
Brown, P. & Levinson, B.C. (1978). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge University Press. 

Gergely, B. (nd). The Operationality of Grice’s Tests for Implicature (Online source) 

Goffman, E (1967). On Face-Work: An Analysis of Ritual Elements in Social Interaction. (pp. 306-320). 

Grice, H.P. (1975). “Logic and Conversation”. In Cole, P. and J.L. Morgan, eds. Speech Acts.New York: Academic 

Press, 41-58. 

Grice, H.P. (1989a). Logic and Conversation. In Studies in the way of words (pp. 22-40) Cambridge, MA: Harvard 

University Press.  

Grice, H.P. (1989b). Further notes on Logic and Conversation. In Studies in the way of words (pp. 41-57). 

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Holy Bible, King James Version. 

Ikotun, R.O. (2009). Politeness Forms in Yoruba Current Usage. Ado Journal of French and Related Disciplines, 

Ado-Ekiti. Vol. 1, No.1 pp. 26-41.  
Mariam, M. (2006). Introducing Sociolinguistics (2nd Edition). London & New York: Routledge, Taylor and 

Francis Group. 

Mark, V.R. (2015). Face and Politeness Theories. Iowa State University Digital Repository. 

Mey, J.L. (1993). Pragmatic an Introduction. Second Edition. Oxford Blackwell Publishing. 

Odebunmi, A. (2003). Pragmatic Features of English Usage in Hospital Interactions Amongst Medical Practitioners 

and Patients in South-Western Nigeria. PhD Thesis. Department of English. OAU, Ile-Ife. Xvii-310. 

Redmond, M.V. (2015). Face and Politeness theory. Iowa State University Digital Repository.The Holy Bible, New 

King James Version 

Thomas, J. (1995).What is Pragmatics? “Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics”. 

Wagner, L.C. (1975). Politeness, Face and Apologies. Morgan (eds.) Syntax and semantics 3: Speech Acts (41-58). 

New York. 

Wagner, L.C. Positive- and Negative- Politeness Strategies: Apologizing in the Speech Community of Cuernavaca, 
Mexico. University of Louisville. 

Wardhaugh, R. (1989). An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. Fifth Edition. Blackwell Publishing. 

Online Sources 

www.springer.com 

www.academia.edu 

 
Copyrights  

Copyright for this article is retained by the author(s), with first publication rights granted to the journal. This is an 

open-access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license 
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).