Thesis Abstract

<p> </p><p>Like its users, one important feature of language is its dynamism. Thus, language</p><p>adapts to situational constraints as its users vary across regional/geographical, social,</p><p>educational, occupational, etc. domains. English is such a typical language that, as a</p><p>result of vast geographical distribution, has often assumed the peculiarities of different</p><p>societies that use it informing the notion of variety. Varieties of English thus exist among</p><p>the three Kachruan circles among which Nigerian English (NE) is situated. This paper,</p><p>building on the works of several scholars who have approached the NE phenomenon</p><p>from different perspectives, discusses the phonological, morpho-syntactic, lexicosemantic</p><p>and pragmatic features NE. It is submitted that the issue of variation and/or</p><p>deviation characterizing the NE be harmonized within the Global English (GE) variety</p><p>and Computer-Assisted Language Learning (CALL) be fully incorporated and</p><p>implemented so that the current state of English language teaching and learning in</p><p>Nigeria would transcend the “state of confusion” (Babatunde, 2002) it is now. This is</p><p>considered expedient so that the Nigerian users of English would be able to cope</p><p>meaningfully with the challenges posed by the knowledge-driven twenty-first century, in</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>which English is assuming greater roles and significance.</p> <br><p></p>

Thesis Overview

<p> </p><p>1.0. Introduction</p><p>One sociolinguistic implication of the diffusion of English language – an amalgam</p><p>of the three paltry languages of the Jutes, Angles and the Saxon, unknown in the 6th</p><p>Century AD – in the global scene is the emergence of World Englishes (WE) (Adegbija,</p><p>1994). English is now spoken all over the world among various categories of speakers.</p><p>The Kachruan ‘three concentric circles’ of English users are the Inner Circle, the Outer</p><p>Circle and the Expanding Circle (Kachru,1985).These are normatively characterized as</p><p>Norm-producing, Norm-developing and Norm-dependent users. This sociolinguistic</p><p>scenario is also aptly captured by Quirk (1985:1-2) as English as a Native language(ENL)</p><p>countries (Great Britain, United States, Canada, Australia, South-Africa), English as a</p><p>Second Language countries (e.g. Nigeria, India, Singapore, Tanzania, Zambia, Ghana,</p><p>2</p><p>Uganda, Kenya, etc.) and English as a Foreign Language countries (e.g. Germany,</p><p>Russia, China, France, Belgium, Italy, Saudi Arabia, Greece, etc.) (Adedimeji, 2006).</p><p>The international explosion of English has made it cease to be an exclusive</p><p>preserve of the English people (Adegbija,1994:209).As there are more speakers of</p><p>English in the outer and expanding circles than the norm-producing inner circle, English</p><p>is now seen as a global language, susceptible to the subtleties and idiosyncracies of</p><p>regional and cultural linguistic behaviours. Indeed, Bailey and Gorlach (1982) provide a</p><p>panoramic overview of world varieties of English as clothed by their various distinctive</p><p>peculiarities and identifiable local flavour. Some of the issues that have arisen from this</p><p>phenomenon as rightly identified by Adegbija (1994) are: (a) the growth and</p><p>development of indigenized, nativized indiosyncratic varieties, (b) the issue of</p><p>intelligibility or otherwise of the emerging varieties and the implications of this for an</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>international or global variety, (c) the acceptability of the different varieties and (d) the</p><p>determination of which variety should be the ideal norm to use as a model, especially in</p><p>education.</p><p>As “sociolinguistics tries to cope with the messiness of language as a social</p><p>phenomenon” (Coulmas, 2003:263), such messiness may be said to abound in the sociogeographical</p><p>spread of English across the world. Some world varieties of English, aspects</p><p>of Nigerian English inclusive, would still need to be interpreted to other speakers of</p><p>English before they are intelligible. This is a result of the overbearing local idioms and</p><p>linguistic patterns that characterize such varieties or uses. Trask (1995:75) provides such</p><p>structures of English varieties that are quite normal to their users as follows:</p><p>1. We had us a real nice house</p><p>2. She’s a dinky-di Pommie Sheila.</p><p>3. I might could do it.</p><p>4. The lass didn’t gan to the pictures, pet.</p><p>5. They’re a lousy team any more.</p><p>6. I am not knowing where to find a stepney.</p><p>The expressions above are marked by dialects or regional forms. Almost all of them</p><p>may have to be interpreted to Nigerian and other English speakers apart from their</p><p>specific users. As adapted from Trask (1995:74-75), the first expression is peculiar to the</p><p>3</p><p>south of the USA, with the extra “us” and the form is sometimes used elsewhere. The</p><p>second structure is Australian English, a native speaker variety, and it means “she’s a</p><p>typical Englishwoman.” The third example is a normal expression in parts of the</p><p>Appalachian Mountain region of the USA as well as many parts of Scotland; it means “I</p><p>might be able to do it.” The fourth structure is ‘Geordie’, the speech of the Tyneside area</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>of northeastern England and it means “The girl didn’t go to the cinema.” The fifth</p><p>expression is typical of a large part of northeastern USA and the use is considered</p><p>mysterious because it means “They used to be a good team but now they are lousy” the</p><p>opposite of they are not a lousy team anymore .The last (number 6) example is an Indian</p><p>English expression and it means “I don’t know where to find a spare wheel.”</p><p>What the above shows that English adapts to the socio-cultural constraints that</p><p>characterize various contexts of its use. A world language par excellence, its propensity</p><p>to adapt to the dictates of its users, whoever they are, appears to be inimitable. This paper</p><p>overviews the linguistic features that typify Nigerian English and highlights the</p><p>implications of such in an unfolding century that poses greater challenges for mankind,</p><p>economically, politically, culturally, educationally among others, and in which</p><p>internationalism and globalization will become more pervasive. The present exercise is</p><p>relevant because most previous attempts at addressing features of the Nigerian English</p><p>have been particularistic and unidirectional, focusing on individual or two levels of</p><p>linguistic description. For instance, all of Banjo (1971), Adetugbo (1977), Bamgbose</p><p>(1982), Jibril (1979;1982), Eka (1985) among others have focused on phonology.</p><p>Odumu (1981) focuses mainly on syntax and semantics and Banjo(1969), Adesanoye</p><p>(1973), Kujore (1985), Awonusi (1990)and Jowitt (1991) treat aspects of morphology</p><p>and syntax extensively in their treatises. Akere (1982), Adegbija (1989), Bamiro (1991),</p><p>Alabi (2000) among others have been preoccupied with lexico-semantic features while</p><p>fragments of pragmatic features of Nigerian English can be gleaned from the works of</p><p>Akere (1978), Adetugbo (1986), Bamgbose (1995) and Banjo(1996).The representative</p><p>features in all the above are adopted while others are added as found desirable.</p><p>4</p><p>2.0. The Linguistic Features of Nigerian English</p><p>The English language in Nigeria exhibits certain distinctive features that cannot be</p><p>ignored. This situation results from the range of social, ethnic and linguistic constraints</p><p>posed by the second language context in which the language operates. The term,</p><p>“Nigerian English”, can be broadly defined as “the variety of English spoken and used by</p><p>Nigerians” (Adeniyi, 2006: 25). Nigerian English has generated as a lot of scholarly</p><p>interest since as far back as 1958 when L.F. Brosnahan published his article “English in</p><p>Southern Nigeria.” The question of what Nigerian English is and what it is not has</p><p>pitched scholars into two camps: the deviation school and the variation school. The</p><p>deviation school maintains that Nigerian English does not exist and what is referred to by</p><p>the term is just a concatenation of errors underpinning the superficial mastery of the</p><p>Standard British English (SBE) by Nigerians. Scholars in this school include Vincent,</p><p>Salami, Prator, Brann, etc. To the members of this school, Nigerian English is anomalous</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>and the banner of the SBE is upheld as the existing form, “even though their own speech</p><p>and usage provide ample evidence if its (Nigerian English) existence” (Bamgbose,</p><p>1982:99). The variation school represents the contemporary viewpoint and a vast army of</p><p>scholars like Banjo, Bamgbose, Awonusi, Odumu, Adetugbo, Adegbija, among several</p><p>others, belong here. The school affirms the existence of a distinct variety or dialect in</p><p>Nigeria, with its own subtypes along basilectal (non-standard), mesolectal (general,</p><p>almost standard) and acrolectal (standard Nigerian English) lines (Awonusi, 1987, cf.</p><p>Babatunde, 2001).</p><p>The question of which school is right or wrong as determined may be outside the</p><p>scope of the present work though appropriate entailments to that effect are made. What is</p><p>incontrovertible is that the use of English in Nigeria is characterized by the idiosyncratic</p><p>norms reminiscent of the Nigerian linguistic ecology. The features reflect the submission</p><p>of Soyinka (1988:126) regarding the use of English by Nigerian and other non-native</p><p>speakers:</p><p>And when we borrow an alien language to sculpt or paint in, we</p><p>must begin by co-opting the entire properties in our matrix of</p><p>thought and expression. We must stress such a language, stretch</p><p>it, impact and compact it, fragment and reassemble it with no</p><p>apology, as required to bear the burden of experiencing and of</p><p>5</p><p>experiences, be such experiences formulated or not in the</p><p>conceptual idioms of the language.</p><p>2.1. Phonological Features of Nigerian English</p><p>1. Each syllable of a given speech is of nearly the same length and given the same stress.</p><p>The final syllable is often stressed, even if it is not a personal pronoun. There is no</p><p>differentiation between strong and weak stresses (Alabi, 2003;Ufomata,1996).</p><p>2 Stress misplacement: The stress pattern of English words in NE is different. This</p><p>discrepancy is illustrated by Jowitt (1991:90-92) in lexical, phrasal and clausal structures</p><p>as follows:</p><p>SBE PNE</p><p>FIREwood fireWOOD</p><p>MAdam maDAM</p><p>PERfume perFUME</p><p>PLANtain planTAIN</p><p>SAlad saLAD</p><p>TRIbune triBUNE</p><p>conGRAtulate congratuLATE</p><p>inVEStigate investiGATE</p><p>SITting-room SITting-room or sitting ROOM</p><p>DeVElopment fund Development FUND</p><p>It SHOULD be It should BE</p><p>3. Interference: This is the negative transfer of what obtains in the source language</p><p>or Nigerian languages to the target language or English. Phonological interference</p><p>is of five types: a) Over-differentiation of sounds,b) under-differentiation of</p><p>sounds, c) re-interpretation of sounds, d.) actual sound substitution and e)</p><p>hypercorrection (Ofuya,1996:151).</p><p>a.) Overdifferentiation arises when distinctions made in Nigerian languages that are</p><p>not realized in English are forced on the English language. Examples are:</p><p>6</p><p>/kwÉ’rent/ for current in Hausa.</p><p>b.) Under-differentiation occurs when more than a sound in mother tongue is used for</p><p>more than one sound in English. Generally, Nigerians tend to substitute long vowel</p><p>sounds with the short sounds, the latter of which is only applicable in their mother</p><p>tongues. Hence,</p><p>/i:/ is realized as /i/</p><p>/a:/ :: :: :: /a/</p><p>/u:/ :: :: :: /u/</p><p>/ε:/ :: :: / ε /</p><p>c.) Reinterpretation happens when a sound in English is realized as its close</p><p>counterpart in English. Hence,</p><p>/ Ê/ is interpreted/ realized as / É /</p><p>/ É/ :: :: :: / É /</p><p>/ æ/ :: :: :: / É /</p><p>/ f / :: :: :: / p / especially in Hausa Nigerian English.</p><p>d.) Actual sound substitution is occasioned by the substitution or replacement of</p><p>sounds absent in Nigerian languages. Hence,</p><p>/ ï½ / is substituted with / t /</p><p>/ ð / :: :: :: / d /</p><p>/ ʧ / :: :: :: / ∫ / or / s/</p><p>/ v / :: :: :: / f /</p><p>/ z/ :: :: :: / s /</p><p>/ Ê / :: ::: :: / ∫ /</p><p>/</p> <br><p></p>