Thesis Abstract

<p> </p><p>This study investigates the syntactic features of Nigerian English which have been created</p><p>through the following processes – the use of subjectless sentences, reduplication, double subjects,</p><p>Pidgin-influenced structures, discourse particles, verbless sentences, and substitution. It observes</p><p>that the fact that some features of Nigerian English syntax are shared by other new Englishes is a</p><p>healthy development for the identity of non-native varieties around the world. It finally recommends</p><p>the codification of the new norms into variety-specific grammars and a common grammar</p><p>of new Englishes.</p> <br><p></p>

Thesis Overview

<p> </p><p>Introduction</p><p>The documentation of the various features of world Englishes has continued to</p><p>attract the attention of the linguistic scholar. Like other varieties of non-native</p><p>Englishes, West African English (WAE) has received considerable attention</p><p>(see, for example, Spencer 1971; Sey 1973; Bamgbose – Banjo – Thomas 1995;</p><p>Wolf 2001; Igboanusi 2002a). However, not much has been published on the</p><p>syntax of WAE in general and that of Nigerian English (NE) in particular. The</p><p>general belief is that grammatical features of national varieties of WAE are not</p><p>exclusive, and can also be found in other varieties of New Englishes (cf. Peter –</p><p>Wolf – Simo Bobda 2003: 44). For example, some scholars (notably Todd</p><p>1982; Bamgbose 1992; Bamiro 1995) observe that most of the syntactic patterns</p><p>in educated WAE are similar to those of other new Englishes. However, Todd</p><p>identifies the following syntactic variations of WAE: the indiscriminate use of</p><p>the tag questions isn’t it/not so? as in it doesn’t matter, not so/isn’t it?; differences</p><p>in the use of some phrasal verbs, e.g. cope up with for ‘cope with’; failure</p><p>to sometimes distinguish between countable and non-countable nouns (e.g. an</p><p>394 H. Igboanusi</p><p>advice, firewoods, behaviors). Bamiro’s (1995) study on the syntactic variation</p><p>of WAE was a more comprehensive investigation than earlier studies on the</p><p>subject matter. Using data from creative literature, Bamiro identifies the following</p><p>variations: subjectless sentences, e.g. Is because she’s a street walker for ‘It</p><p>is because…?’; deletion of -ly morpheme in manner adjuncts, e.g. Send patrol</p><p>van to pick her up quick (quickly); omission of function words, e.g. You say</p><p>truth (‘… the truth’); reduplication, e.g. Slowly, slowly the canoe moved like the</p><p>walk of an old man (gradually); formation of interrogatives without changing</p><p>the position of subject and auxiliary items, e.g. You’ve decided finally then?</p><p>(‘Have you finally decided then?’); tag questions, e.g. You are writing a paper</p><p>about our organization, not so? (‘Isn’t it?’); the use of the progressive aspect</p><p>with mental processes, e.g. Do you know what I am hearing? (‘Do you know</p><p>what I hear these days?’); non-distinctive use of reciprocal pronouns, e.g. The</p><p>captains (seven of them) looked at each other somewhat perplexed (‘one another’);</p><p>substitution of preposition in idiomatic usage, e.g. That is why they have</p><p>dragged the good name of my father, Joshua, son of Fagbola in the mud</p><p>(‘through’); focus constructions, e.g. You are a funny man, you this man.</p><p>With regard to NE, Banjo (1995: 217) observes that “empirical contrastive</p><p>study of the syntax of Nigerian and British English goes back to the era of error</p><p>analysis and contrastive linguistics” (e.g. the works of Tomori 1967; Banjo</p><p>1969; Odumuh 1981; Kujore 1985). Further works on the syntax of NE are</p><p>found in Odumuh (1987); Jowitt (1991); Bamgbose (1992); Kujore (1995) and</p><p>Banjo (1995). For example, Odumuh (1987: 60-65) identifies some “typical</p><p>variations between British English and Nigerian English as spoken by tertiary</p><p>educated informants”. Some of his examples include:</p><p>1) They enjoyed for BE ‘They enjoyed themselves’ (enjoyed occurs intransitively</p><p>in NE structure while it is usually transitive in BE);</p><p>2) He pregnanted her for BE ‘He made her pregnant’ (while NE structure uses</p><p>pregnanted as a verb, the word pregnant occurs in BE as an adjective);</p><p>3) You like that, isn’t it? for BE ‘You like that, don’t you?’ (in BE, while the</p><p>negative question tag is always determined by the verb, it is often represented</p><p>in NE by isn’t it?);</p><p>4) Give me meat for BE ‘Give me some meat’ (omission of article in NE</p><p>structure but not in BE structure);</p><p>5) I am having your book for BE ‘I have your book’ (NE structure uses the</p><p>ing as a stative marker);</p><p>6) He has been there since for BE ‘He has been there for some time’ (NE</p><p>structure uses an adverbial adjunct while BE structure has a preposition</p><p>followed by an adjunct).</p><p>Syntactic innovation processes … 395</p><p>Jowitt (1991) provides the following examples:</p><p>7) He offed the light for BE ‘He put off the light’ (1991: 112 – functional</p><p>derivation);</p><p>8) After the referee might have arrived the match will begin for BE ‘After the</p><p>referee has arrived the match will begin’ (1991: 120 – illustrates the use of</p><p>modals in NE);</p><p>9) My father he works under NEPA for ‘My father works in NEPA’ (1991:</p><p>121 – subject copying).</p><p>A further example is:</p><p>10) I have filled the application form for BE ‘I have filled in the application</p><p>form’ (Kujore 1995: 371 – illustrates the use of the verb fill in NE where</p><p>the preposition in is deleted);</p><p>It has to be pointed out here that some of the syntactic features illustrated as characterizing</p><p>WAE or NE by existing studies are in fact shared by other varieties of English.</p><p>For instance, Kachru (1982, 1983, etc.) has noted the following syntactic features</p><p>in South Asian English – reduplication, formation of interrogatives without</p><p>changing the position of subject and auxiliary items, tag questions, differences associated</p><p>with the use of articles, etc. Similarly, Skandera (2002: 98-99) identifies</p><p>some of the grammatical features of all ESL varieties which do not occur in Standard</p><p>English to include missing verb inflections, missing noun inflections, pluralisation</p><p>of uncountable nouns, use of adjectives as adverbs, avoidance of complex</p><p>tenses, different use of articles, flexible position of adverbs, lack of inversion in</p><p>indirect questions, lack of inversion and do-support in wh-questions, and invariant</p><p>question tags. The fact that many of the features of NE or WAE syntax identified in</p><p>earlier studies are also shared by other new Englishes is an indication that new Englishes</p><p>around the world now have identifiable linguistic characteristics. What needs</p><p>to be done is to intensify research on comparisons of these features across national</p><p>and regional varieties of non-native Englishes with a view to separating exclusive</p><p>features of these varieties from general or universal markers.</p><p>2. Syntactic innovation processes</p><p>The present study is an attempt to account for innovations in the syntax of NE</p><p>resulting from the sociolinguistic context of Nigeria, namely Nigerian Pidgin</p><p>English and the indigenous languages. How is “innovation” to be perceived? To</p><p>this question, Bamgbose (1998: 2) states that an innovation is to be seen as “an</p><p>acceptable variant”. The problem here is to determine whether a usage or struc396</p><p>H. Igboanusi</p><p>ture is an innovation or an error. What is seen as an innovation in a non-native</p><p>variety of English may be perceived as an error by most native speakers of English.</p><p>This problem is resolved the very moment we recognize the roles of social</p><p>convention as well as the relationship between social structure and linguistic form</p><p>in the use of new Englishes (cf. Banda 1996: 68). As Skandera (2002: 99) has</p><p>rightly observed, “if the characteristic features of an ESL variety come to be used</p><p>with a certain degree of consistency by educated speakers, and are no longer perceived</p><p>as ‘mistakes’ by the speech community, then that ESL variety becomes</p><p>endonormative (or endocentric), i.e. it sets its own norms”. Most of the examples</p><p>provided in the present investigation are so frequently heard in the speech of</p><p>many educated users of NE that they have ceased to be regarded as errors.</p><p>3. The data</p><p>The data for this study is based on my observations through recordings and field</p><p>investigations over the past five years. The recordings involve mainly the formal</p><p>and informal conversations of educated speakers of NE at different social</p><p>events, conferences and seminars, and students’ conversation as well as the</p><p>conversations of less educated NE speakers. The informal recordings reflect</p><p>different settings, sexes, ages, and ethnic and educational backgrounds. Some of</p><p>the data used in this work are also drawn from radio and television discussions.</p><p>I have adopted some of the categories of syntactic variation in WAE identified</p><p>by Bamiro, which are commonly found in NE. They include: reduplication,</p><p>subjectless sentences, substitution of preposition in idiomatic usage, and use of</p><p>double subjects. I have supplemented these categories with such new ones as</p><p>the use of verbless sentences, Pidgin-influenced structures, and structures influenced</p><p>by the use of discourse particles. Although many of the processes of syntactic</p><p>innovation discussed in this paper may occur in other varieties of WAE or</p><p>new Englishes, the sources of their influence and patterns of their use may be</p><p>different. It is also important to note that some of these syntactic categories are</p><p>very important features of creation in the style of many Nigerian and West African</p><p>writers (as Bamiro has shown) and are regularly founded in Nigerian newspapers</p><p>and magazines. In other words, they are not only restricted to colloquial</p><p>contexts. Their uses also cut across different levels of education.</p><p>I have carefully presented features which are found in both the basilectal and</p><p>acrolectal varieties of NE. I have identified the variety of NE in which a particular</p><p>feature is dominant. British English (BE) equivalents to the examples are</p><p>provided in parenthesis after each example.</p><p>English in Nigeria presents interesting problems because even the acrolectal</p><p>variety is caught between the Standard BE norms and basilectal pidgin. This</p><p>complex situation inevitably tolerates influences from Nigerian languages (as</p><p>Syntactic innovation processes … 397</p><p>with the case of discourse particles and reduplication) and Nigerian Pidgin (as</p><p>with the case of Pidgin-influenced structures).</p><p>3.1. Subjectless sentences</p><p>There is a preponderant use of subjectless sentences in the speech of NE users.</p><p>This practice involves the omission of the subject it in NE structures. Where</p><p>this omission occurs in the speech of educated users of NE, it is largely influenced</p><p>by the process of shortening in which the form It’s is reduced to Is, especially</p><p>in spoken English. Where it occurs in the speech of less educated users of</p><p>NE, it may be as a result of the influence of Nigerian Pidgin (NP) in which na is</p><p>transferred as is into NE structures. Consider the following examples:</p><p>a) Is very far (‘It’s very far’).</p><p>b) Is about three hours or more (‘It’s about three hours or more’).</p><p>c) Is about ten dollars (‘It’s about ten dollars’).</p><p>d) Is the woman (‘It’s the woman’).</p><p>Although subjectless sentences may not be found in the written form of the</p><p>acrolectal variety, it does exist in the written form of the basilectal variety.</p><p>3.2. Reduplication</p><p>Although reduplication has been treated by Bobda (1994) and Igboanusi (1998)</p><p>as lexical process of innovation, Kachru (1982) has noted that the reduplication</p><p>of items belongs to various word classes. For instance, some English words are</p><p>often reduplicated or repeated consecutively, either for emphasis, pluralisation,</p><p>or to create new meanings. Bobda (1994: 258) has rightly identified three categories</p><p>of words, which generally undergo the process of reduplication: numerals,</p><p>intensifiers and quantifiers. And as Igboanusi (2002b) has observed, while</p><p>the occurrence of a second numeral denotes ‘each’ (as in one-one, half-half), the</p><p>reduplication of an intensifier or a quantifier may be for emphasis (as in manymany,</p><p>now-now, before-before, fast-fast, fine-fine, slowly-slowly) or for pluralisation</p><p>(as in big-big, small-small). Examples are:</p><p>a) Please drive slowly-slowly because the road is bad (‘Please drive very</p><p>slowly because the road is bad’).</p><p>b) Before-before, food was very cheap in this country (‘In the past, food was</p><p>very cheap in this country’).</p><p>c) Please get me two more bottles of beer fast-fast (‘Please get two bottles of</p><p>beer for me very quickly’).</p><p>398 H. Igboanusi</p><p>d) I visited my friend’s campus and I saw many fine-fine girls (‘I visited my</p><p>friend’s campus and I saw several fine girls’).</p><p>e) Give me half-half bag of rice and beans (‘Give me half bag each of rice</p><p>and beans’).</p><p>f) We were asked to pay one-one hundred Naira as fine for contravening the</p><p>environmental sanitation law (‘We were asked to pay one hundred Naira</p><p>each as fine for contravening the environmental sanitation law’).</p><p>g) Do you have small-small beans? (‘Do you have small brand of beans?’).</p><p>h) You put it small small (‘It is put little by little’).</p><p>i) I have small small children in the house (‘I have young children in the</p><p>house’).</p><p>j) He claims not to have money and yet he’s busy building big-big houses all</p><p>over the city (‘He claims not to have money and yet he’s busy building</p><p>several big houses all over the city’).</p><p>k) Many many speak English (‘The majority of the people speak English’).</p><p>l) He visits me at three three weeks interval (‘He visits me at three week</p><p>intervals’).</p><p>m) Me I was running running (‘I was busy running’).</p><p>n) They went inside inside (‘They went to the interior part’).</p><p>o) Those are simple simple jobs to do (‘Those are very simple jobs to do’).</p><p>p) They live one one or two two (‘They live one or two to a room’).</p><p>Reduplication is mostly used in NE in colloquial contexts. And in the contexts</p><p>exemplified above, the reduplicatives small-small, fine-fine, one-one, fast-fast,</p><p>simple-simple, three-three and big-big are often heard in the speeches of educated</p><p>NE users. In general, reduplicatives are more commonly used by the less</p><p>educated speakers of NE than by educated speakers. The occurrence of reduplicatives</p><p>in NE stems from the influence of Nigerian languages and Pidgin.</p><p>3.3. Double subjects</p><p>The use of double subjects is another syntactic feature of NE. This process,</p><p>which is adopted to emphasize the subject, may involve the use of double pronouns</p><p>(e.g. this your/my, Me I) or the pronoun + a modifier/qualifier (e.g. we</p><p>children, we the poor).</p><p>a) Me I don’t have money (‘I don’t have money’).</p><p>b) Me I don’t know anything about the journey (‘I don’t know anything about</p><p>the journey’).</p><p>c) This your friend is not reliable (‘Your friend is not reliable’ OR ‘This</p><p>friend of yours is not reliable’).</p><p>Syntactic innovation processes … 399</p><p>d) This your regime is the worst we have witnessed in recent time (‘Your</p><p>regime is the worst we have witnessed in recent time’ OR ‘This regime of</p><p>yours is the worst we have witnessed in recent time’).</p><p>e) We children were sent to go and play (‘We were sent to go and play’ OR</p><p>‘Those of us who were young were sent out to go and play’).</p><p>f) We the poor are always cheated in this country (‘We are always cheated in</p><p>this country’ OR ‘Those of us who are poor are always cheated in this</p><p>country’).</p><p>The use of double subjects in constructions reflects the colloquial contexts of</p><p>some of Nigeria’s indigenous languages (e.g. Igbo and Yoruba) and Nigerian</p><p>Pidgin. Its colloquialism lies with the use of redundancy to achieve emphasis.</p><p>Note the use of double pronouns as subjects in examples (a) to (d) and the use</p><p>of pronoun + a modifier/qualifier in examples (e) and (f). The structures exemplified</p><p>in (3.3.) are found in the speech of both educated and less educated users.</p><p>Although the use of double subjects resembles the use of topicalisation,</p><p>which is commonly used in British English (e.g. John Coker, he’s to blame), the</p><p>two processes are different since the pronoun in topicalisation is in apposition to</p><p>the noun.</p><p>3.4. Pidgin-influenced structures</p><p>The strong influence of Pidgin English brings forth several NE structures. Let’s</p><p>examine the following samples:</p><p>a) We work farm (‘We are farmers’ or ‘We work on a farm’).</p><p>b) I have maize, yam, finish (‘I have maize and yam; that is it’).</p><p>c) I continue working at farm, finish (‘I continue to work at the farm; that is it’).</p><p>d) We sat down, finish (‘We sat down; that was it’).</p><p>e) We stayed together, ate, finish (‘We stayed together and ate; that was it’).</p><p>f) The Muslims are plenty than the Christians (‘The Muslims are more than</p><p>the Christians’).</p><p>g) I don’t know book (‘I’m not brilliant’).</p><p>h) If rice is done you keep it (‘Bring down the rice from fire when it is well</p><p>cooked’).</p><p>Note the deletion of preposition and determiner in (a), the emphatic use of finish</p><p>as a discourse marker in (b), (c), (d) and (e), the use of plenty as a comparative</p><p>item in (f), translation equivalent in (g), and (h).</p><p>400 H. Igboanusi</p><p>3.5. Structures with discourse particles</p><p>Several English structures exist in NE with discourse particles, which derive</p><p>either from the influence of NP or the indigenous language. Discourse particles</p><p>are frequently used in conversation. Consider the following examples:</p><p>a) You know Kemi now! (‘You should know Kemi’).</p><p>b) I live in Port Harcourt now! (‘You should know that I live in Port Harcourt’).</p><p>c) Wait now! (‘Please wait’).</p><p>d) Tomorrow is your birthday, abi? (‘Tomorrow is your birthday. Isn’t it?’).</p><p>e) Shebi it was you I gave some money yesterday (‘I think it was you I gave</p><p>some money yesterday’)</p><p>f) I won’t be there o (‘I will not be there’).</p><p>g) I’m tired of this life self (‘I’m even tired of this life’).</p><p>h) You’ll be here tomorrow, ko? (‘You’ll be here tomorrow, won’t you?’).</p><p>i) You disobeyed me and still went ahead to fight those people, ba? (‘You</p><p>disobeyed me and still went ahead to fight those people, didn’t you?’).</p><p>j) So, it is now confirmed that you were the one who initiated that move</p><p>against me; kai, I’m disappointed (‘So, it is now confirmed that you were</p><p>the one who initiated that move against me; I’m really disappointed’).</p><p>k) Haba! You should have told me before taking my money (‘What! You</p><p>should have told me before taking my money’).</p><p>l) Sha me, I have said what I wanted to say (‘As for me, I have said all I have</p><p>to say’).</p><p>m) I don’t know him sha (‘Anyway, I don’t know him’).</p><p>n) I have heard you, to! (‘OK, I have heard you’).</p><p>o) You’re the one that stole my money, to! (‘You’re the one that stole my</p><p>money, right!’).</p><p>p) I will deal with that man, wallahi (‘By God, I will deal with that man’).</p><p>q) Yauwa! I have seen what I’m looking for (‘I’m satisfied that I have seen</p><p>what I’m looking for’).</p><p>While 3.5 (a), (b), (c), (f) and (g) have pidgin as their source language, (d), (e),</p><p>(l) and (m) have Yoruba as their source language. The examples in (h), (i), (j),</p><p>(k), (n), (o), (p) and (q) are derived from Hausa and/or Fula. All the examples</p><p>are regularly found in NE-based conversations. In (a), (b) and (c), the discourse</p><p>particle now is used to emphasize the point that what is referred to is not unfamiliar</p><p>to the listener. In (d), the interjection abi is used as a discourse strategy to</p><p>confirm a piece of information. It may be equivalent to ‘Isn’t it?’ Like now, the</p><p>particle o in (f) is usually found in sentence-final position and gives emphasis to</p><p>Syntactic innovation processes … 401</p><p>the entire sentence. In addition, o signals the emotional involvement of the</p><p>speaker. Both ko in (h) and ba in (i) are interrogative markers. Kai and haba</p><p>express surprise. Shebi is a rhetorical question marker while yauwa expresses</p><p>feeling of satisfaction. Both sha and to are used to affirm a statement whereas</p><p>wallahi is equivalent to ‘honestly’ or ‘By God’. All the discourse particles discussed</p><p>above are only used colloquially. Discourse particles are veritable</p><p>sources of syntactic innovation processes in NE. The structures in (3.5.) can</p><p>occur in the conversations of both educated and less educated speakers of NE.</p><p>Although discourse particles are not originally English items, they are innovative</p><p>in creating NE structures.</p><p>3.6. Verbless sentences</p><p>Some verbless sentences exist in the discourse of NE speakers. In conversations</p><p>or exchange of pleasantries, one notices the frequent occurrence of the following</p><p>verbless sentences:</p><p>a) How? (‘How are you?’)</p><p>b) How now? (‘How are you?’)</p><p>c) How things? (‘How are things?’)</p><p>d) How work? (‘How is work?’)</p><p>e) How family? (‘How is your family?’)</p><p>f) How life? (‘How is life with you?’)</p><p>g) How body? (‘How is your body?’)</p><p>h) How market (‘How is business?’)</p><p>It may be argued that the deep structure of the verbless sentences in 3.6. may</p><p>not be really verbless but the result of a phonological rule in which single consonants</p><p>(in this case, [z]) are deleted between word boundaries. But at the surface</p><p>structure, they remain verbless. Although such verbless sentences are more</p><p>frequently found in the conversation of the less educated speakers of NE, they</p><p>also occur in the conversations of educated users of NE as a means of expressing</p><p>intimacy.</p><p>3.7. Substitution</p><p>Some instances of substitution, which involve the use of English idioms, have</p><p>been identified as processes of syntactic creation in NE. In all the examples</p><p>listed below, NE structures are used to replace BE idioms:</p><p>a) They are two sides of the coin (‘They are two sides of one coin’).</p><p>402 H. Igboanusi</p><p>b) He did the work on his own accord (‘He did the work of his own accord’).</p><p>c) I am not surprised that Chike and Andrew are such close friends; they are</p><p>birds of the same feather (‘I am not surprised that Chike and Andrew are</p><p>such close friends; they are birds of a feather’).</p><p>d) Dipo, I can’t believe that you’re now biting the finger that fed you (‘Dipo, I</p><p>can’t believe that you’re now biting the hand that fed you’).</p><p>e) The football match is going to be a child’s play (‘The football match is</p><p>going to be child’s play’).</p><p>f) I have been busy since morning cracking my brain over that question (‘I</p><p>have been busy since morning racking my brain over that question’).</p><p>g) You should not take the law into your hands (‘You should not take the law</p><p>into your own hands’).</p><p>h) By no stretch of imagination could anyone trust him (‘By no stretch of the</p><p>imagination could anyone trust him’).</p><p>i) And last but not the least is the perennial water problem in this state (‘And</p><p>last but not least is the perennial water problem in this state’).</p><p>j) He often shouts on top of his voice (‘He often shouts at the top of his</p><p>voice’).</p><p>As a syntactic process, the substitution of idiomatic usage involves three strategies</p><p>– omission, replacement and insertion. While examples (a), (g) and (h)</p><p>involve omission of some functional words, examples (e) and (i) concern the</p><p>insertion of articles. In the same vein, examples (b), (c), (d), (f) and (j) adopt the</p><p>process of replacement of some words.</p><p>4. Conclusion</p><p>What the data on syntactic innovation processes in NE shows is the evidence of</p><p>some aspects of the nativisation of English as a result of the contact of English</p><p>and indigenous languages and Pidgin. There is also evidence of some influence</p><p>of the pragmatic use of English in the Nigerian environment. It is true that some</p><p>features of NE syntax discussed in this paper are shared by other varieties of</p><p>WAE in particular and other varieties of English elsewhere. This trend suggests</p><p>a healthy development for the character of new Englishes worldwide. The</p><p>pedagogical implication of these processes relates to acceptability. Once the</p><p>“acceptability factor” (Bamgbose 1998: 4) is guaranteed, that is, when innovations</p><p>become accepted by speakers, the next process will be to codify the new</p><p>norms in the form of variety-specific grammars and the common grammar of</p><p>new Englishes. To further aid the codification of these various grammars, there</p><p>is a great need for comparative studies of the syntax of New Englishes.</p><p>Syntactic innovation processes … 403</p><p>REFERENCES</p><p>Allerton, D.J. – Paul Skandera – Cornelia Tschichold (eds.)</p><p>2002 Perspectives on English as a world language. Verlag. Basel: Schabe &amp; Co. AG.</p><p>Bailey, Richard W. – Manfred Görlach (eds.)</p><p>1982 English as a world language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.</p><p>Bamgbose, Ayo</p><p>1992 “Standard Nigerian English: Issues of identification”, in: Braj B. Kachru (ed.), 148-</p><p>161.</p><p>1998 “Torn between the norms: Innovations in World Englishes”, World Englishes 17/1: 1-17.</p><p>Bamgbose, Ayo – Ayo Banjo – Andrew Thomas (eds.)</p><p>1995 New Englishes: A West African perspective. Ibadan: Mosuro.</p><p>Bamiro, Edmund</p><p>1995 “Syntactic variation in West African English”, World Englishes 14/2: 189-204.</p><p>Banda, Felix</p><p>1996 “The scope and categorization of African English: Some sociolinguistic considerations”,</p><p>English World-Wide 17/1: 63-75.</p><p>Banjo, Ayo</p><p>1969 A contrastive study of aspects of the syntactic and lexical rules of English and</p><p>Yoruba. [Unpublished Ph.D dissertation, University of Ibadan.]</p><p>1995 “On codifying Nigerian English: Research so far”, in: Ayo Bamgbose – Ayo Banjo –</p><p>Andrew Thomas (eds.), 203-231.</p><p>Igboanusi, Herbert</p><p>1998 “Lexico-semantic innovation processes in Nigerian English”, Research in African</p><p>Languages and Linguistics 4/2: 87-102.</p><p>2002a A dictionary of Nigerian English usage. Ibadan: Enicrownfit.</p><p>2002b Igbo English in the Nigerian Novel. Ibadan: Enicrownfit.</p><p>Jowitt, David</p><p>1991 Nigerian English usage: An introduction. Ibadan: Longman.</p><p>Kachru, Braj B.</p><p>1982 “South Asian English”, in: Richard W. Bailey – Manfred Görlach (eds.), 353-383.</p><p>1983 The Indianization of English: The English language in India. New Delhi: Oxford</p><p>University Press.</p><p>Kachru, Braj B. (ed.)</p><p>1992 The other tongue: English across cultures. (2nd edition.) Urbana: University of Illinois</p><p>Press.</p><p>Kujore, Obafemi</p><p>1985 English usage: Some notable Nigerian variations. Ibadan: Evans.</p><p>1995 “Whose English?”, in: Ayo Bamgbose – Ayo Banjo – Andrew Thomas (eds.), 367-</p><p>380.</p><p>Odumuh, Adama E.</p><p>1981 Aspects of the semantics and syntax of “educated Nigerian English”. [Ph.D. dissertation,</p><p>Ahmadu Bello University.]</p><p>1987 Nigerian English. Zaria: Ahmadu Bello University Press Ltd.</p><p>Peter, Lothar – Hans-Georg Wolf – Augustin Simo Bobda</p><p>2003 “An account of distinctive phonetic and lexical features of Gambian English”, English</p><p>World-Wide 24/1: 43-61.</p><p>404 H. Igboanusi</p><p>Sey, K.</p><p>1973 Ghanaian English: An explanatory survey. London: Macmillan.</p><p>Simo Bobda, Augustin</p><p>1994 “Lexical innovation processes in Cameroon English”, World Englishes 13/2: 245-</p><p>260.</p><p>Skandera, Paul</p><p>2002 “A categorization of African Englishes”, in: D. J. Allerton – Paul Skandera – Cornelia</p><p>Tschichold (eds.), 93-103.</p><p>Spencer, John (ed.)</p><p>1971 The English language in West Africa. London: Longman.</p><p>Todd, Loreto</p><p>1982 “The English language in West Africa”, in: Richard W. Bailey – Manfred Görlach</p><p>(eds.), 281-305.</p><p>Tomori, S. H. O.</p><p>1967 A study in the syntactic structures of the written English of British and Nigerian</p><p>grammar school pupils. [Ph.D. dissertation, University of Ibadan.]</p><p>Wolf, Hans-Georg</p><p>2001 English in Cameroon. (Contributions to the Sociology of Language 85.) Berlin: Mouton</p><p>de Gruyter.</p> <br><p></p>