1

Preamble

The Vice-Chancellor,

Principal Officers,

Members of the Council and Senate of the Obafemi Awolowo University,

In the name of God, Father Almighty, I pay homage1 and give honour to all of whom it

is due.

My father, who laid the early foundation of my education but is now resting peacefully

in the heavenly abode of God;

My mother and co-mother sitting here with us on this occasion;

My wife, Taiwo Ibidunni Akanke, for your beauty and the love in your heart;

My children, all, for abundant living and joy;

My relations, in-laws, friends, colleagues and students, for your support;

Everybody present here, for your goodwill and good wishes;

I welcome you all.

I have deliberately delayed mentioning the names of two persons dear to me,

my mentors, Prof. Adebisi Afolayan and Emeritus Professor Ayo Bamgbose. It was

through the former that I got invited to English language scholarship in the Department

of English as Graduate Assistant in 1982 and initiated to academic scholarship as an

M.A. English as a Second Language (ESL) holder and Assistant Lecturer in 1984. And

it was through the latter that I became mature as an academician when I obtained the

PhD degree in Linguistics under his supervision at the University of Ibadan in 1991.

Thank you very much for your tutelage.

1. Introduction Today, I stand before you all to share with you the benefits of my scholarship

as a Professor of English Language and Applied Linguistics. The discipline of Applied

Linguistics is concerned with the relation of knowledge about language to decision

making in the real world (Cook 2003). It sets out to investigate problems in the world

in which language is implicated - political, economic, educational, technological,

social, interactional and linguistic, among others. In Nigeria and many African nations

today, the role of language is undervalued (cf. Afolayan 1994, Thomas 1995).

Language ought to be given due prominence in policy formulation and

implementation. In education, it is not just another subject in the curriculum; it is also

the medium of instruction across the curriculum. Outside the curriculum, it is a

medium of communication in all aspects of life (Thomas ibid, Ilesanmi 2004).

Language is an important vehicle of education and development.

What this means is that in discussing the English language today, we are not

only going to investigate the issues and problems about the language alone, but we are

relating the discussion to other languages and the sociopolitical problems of Nigeria.

Issues and problems about the English language are among the problems of Nigeria as

a nation and are intertwined with issues and problems of all languages in the nation2.

An Applied linguistic approach to English studies would thus not study English in

isolation but relate it to the context of other languages and the myriads of national

problems.

2

Fig.1: Map showing some principal linguistic groups of Nigeria

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigeria. Accessed on May 11, 2010)

Nigeria as the Context of Study

Nigeria (pronounced /naɪdʒɪriə/), officially the Federal Republic of Nigeria,

is a federal constitutional republic comprising thirty-six states and its Federal Capital

Territory, Abuja. The country is located in West Africa and shares land borders with

the Republic of Benin in the west, Chad and Cameroon in the east, and Niger in the

north. Its coast in the south lies on the Gulf of Guinea on the Atlantic Ocean. The three

largest and most influential ethnic groups in Nigeria are the Hausa, Igbo and Yoruba.

In terms of religion, Nigeria is roughly split half and half between Muslims and

Christians with a very small minority who overtly practice traditional religions. The

people of Nigeria have an extensive history. Archaeological evidence shows that

human habitation of the area dates back to at least 9000 BC. The area around the

Benue and Cross River is thought to be the original homeland of the Bantu migrants

who spread across most of central and southern Africa in waves between the 1st

millennium BC and the 2nd

millennium. The name Nigeria was taken from the Niger

3

River running through the country. This name was coined by Flora Shaw, the future

wife of Baron Lugard, a British colonial administrator, in the late 19th century.

Nigeria is the most populous country in Africa, the eighth most populous

country in the world, and the most populous country in the world in which the majority

of the population is black. It is listed among the „next eleven‟ economies, and is a

member of the Commonwealth of Nations. The economy of Nigeria is one of the

fastest growing in the world, with the International Monetary Fund projecting a growth

of 9% in 2008 and 8.3% in 2009. It is the third largest economy in Africa, and is a

regional power that is also the hegemony in West Africa.

2. Nigeria as a Non-host English as Second Language (ESL) Community ESL is a technical term that describes the existence of the English language in

a context in terms of historical, politico-geographical, psychological and societal

factors which determine and influence its usage and uses. It is not an inferior variety of

English to any variety of English; rather, it has mutual co-existence with other varieties

of English, which will be mentioned in due course.

A host environment of ESL is a community of native speakers of English, e.g.

the USA and Britain, where some non-native speakers of the language learn and use it

as a second language. A non-host ESL environment is that in which English exists and

is learnt and used in a community of non-native speakers of the language such as India,

Kenya, Nigeria and Singapore. In the former, it is speakers that are non-native, while

in the latter, it is the language that is non-native to an environment. A distinction is

thus being made here between learning English in a non-host ESL community, such as

Nigeria, and learning it in a host ESL community, such as Britain, the USA, Canada or

Australia, where a non-native speaker of English may reside either as a home citizen or

an immigrant. A Nigerian learner of English who emigrates to a native English

speaking community has thus moved from a non-host ESL community to a host

community.

The terms „usage‟ and „use‟ are parallel to Saussure‟s (1959) distinction

between „langue‟ and „parole‟. Usage here refers to the conventional form or norm of

a language, dialect or register. It denotes the system of rules and regulations agreed

upon by a group or community of speakers in respect of a language, dialect or register.

Thus, English language usage in Nigeria refers here, in general terms, to the

characteristics of Nigerian English as a dialect of English; and individual usage would

refer to the idiolect, or personal orientation of an individual to the group norm. In

contrast, English language use would mean the utilisation of language for specific

purposes in particular situations. Language usage is derived from its individual uses in

diverse social contexts, while the uses realise the usage forms of registers, genres or

dialects of language. Language misuse is the incorrect or inappropriate utilisation of

language in a particular or general social context.

3. English Language Studies in Nigeria

3.1 Varieties of English in the World Quirk, et al. (1972) describes the English language as “a common core or

nucleus” which is realised in different forms of the language, i.e. varieties that we

actually hear or read. He later distinguishes six kinds of varieties according to region,

education, social status, medium, attitude and interference. He further claims that the

core varieties are the native English (EMT) dialect, while the second (ESL) and foreign

4

(EFL) dialects are considered as dependent „interference‟ varieties because they are

influenced by features from the speakers‟ mother tongues. However, he observes that

some of the latter two varieties have characteristics that are of such long standing that

they may be thought stable and adequate enough to be institutionalised and regarded as

varieties in their own right.

Other classifications include those of Gregory (1967) and Halliday (1978) who

propose a system of „dialectal‟ and „diatypic‟ varieties, which respectively describe

varieties according to users (dialects) and varieties according to use (registers). Freitas

and Adkins (1981) lump ESL and EFL together as ESOL (English for speakers of

other languages) because they consider the separation of the varieties unnecessary and

confusing. Kachru (1982) and Afolayan (1987, 1995) argue that each of EMT, ESL

and EFL is a recognizable variety on its own, conceived on a lingua-cultural basis in

terms of the social history, status and functions which it serves in certain spheres of

life in its community. Kachru (1985, 1997) further explains the three varieties in three

„concentric‟ and, later, „overlapping‟ circles. They correspond to the inner, outer and

extending (or expanding) circles and are also described respectively as „norm

producing‟, „norm developing‟ and „norm dependent‟ varieties. Later, some scholars

express dissatisfaction with certain aspects of the models of circles, which, for

example, Yoneoka (2001) criticises as placing some varieties on an inferior footing to

native speakers‟ varieties. He (Yoneoka 2001) presents an alternative model, „the

English Umbrella‟ model, in which different parts of the umbrella identify and

characterise different varieties. The model, he claims, will enable “newer Englishes to

be viewed on an egalitarian footing with more established varieties of English” (ibid.

p.6).

Thus, over time, dialects of English have been described from numerous

perspectives all over the world, but those relevant for this presentation are based on

geographical (e.g. British English (BrE), American English (AmE) and Nigerian

English (NigE); social (educated/ non-educated, standard and non-standard/local); and

sociolinguistic criteria (EMT, ESL and EFL).

5

Fig. 2: Kachru’s ‘concentric’ and ‘overlapping’ circles of English (from Kachru

1997: 213)

6

Fig. 3: The English Umbrella (Yoneoka 2001:6)

(4) the fabric covering=background sociocultural systems

(5) the top=an idealised ”standard” English

(2) the tips=English varieties (3) the spokes=communications network

(1) the handle=core “easy” English

3.2 English in Nigeria According to Graddol (1997), there are 63 countries in which there are

substantial populations of second language speakers of English. Nigeria tops the list

with an estimated 43 million L2 speakers3. This leading position which Nigeria

occupies makes it central to the study of World Englishes and incumbent on scholars

to be conscious of the need to study the status, forms and functions of the language,

particularly in the context of Nigeria‟s national development objective and of global

economic, cultural and technological advances (Akere 2009). English is the major

official language of the country. Apart from administration and education, English is

the dominant language of the mass media, business transactions, politics, advertising,

the courts, science and technology and so on. It serves intra-ethnic, inter-ethnic and

international functions in the nation. The language co-exists with more than 500

indigenous languages4

which serve as mother-tongue of speakers of diverse ethnic

groups, and also some foreign languages such as French, Arabic and German, which

are studied in schools. In its non-native contexts, English has peculiar forms of usage

which occur in the different uses of the language in social and individual contexts in

Nigeria and such forms have engaged the attention of language scholars around the

world for some time now.

4. Research on English Usage in Nigeria

4.1 Perspectives Awonusi (1994) presents a linear view of the development of English in

Nigeria in three stages. The first stage (1400-1842) includes the beginning of

Portuguese influence which metamorphosed into pidgin and the now extinct „Negro

Portuguese‟, the emergence of English-based pidgin and later the assimilation of some

English culture in the coastal states (Calabar region) of Nigeria. The second stage

(1843-1914) witnessed the active role of various missionary institutions in the planting

of schools and churches in the Eastern and Western coasts of Nigeria. The noticeable

7

feature of this period is the predominance of English and de-emphasis of the Nigerian

mother tongues as the medium of instruction in schools. In the third stage, (1915-

present) the dominance of English is maintained in spite of all efforts to boost the

status of Nigeria‟s mother tongues. The later part of this period is, however witnessing

a decline in the standard of English use when compared to the second stage.

Schneider (2007) proposes a „dynamic model‟ which explains the growth of

new varieties of English. In his presentation, postcolonial Englishes arise out of the

interactions of two „strands‟ in communicative interactions, that of the settlers (STL)

and that of the indigenes (IDG) and its growth passes through five stages or phases: the

foundation, exonormative stabilisation, nativisation, endonormative stabilisation and

differentiation. NigE is at present between stages 2 and 3, that is, the exonormative

stabilisation and the nativisation stage. The implication of this is that the growth of the

variety has, not unexpectedly, been stunted, when compared to Singaporean English,

another second language variety, that is in stage 4 (cf. Mukherjee and Gries 2009).

Jowitt (2008:18) attributes this phenomenon to the fact that after Stage 2, the role of a

permanent group of English speaking residents of British origin in contributing to the

evolution of the NigE variety has been negligible, if not non-existent. But, of course,

other reasons abound such as the divergent views and opinions of scholars and lapses

in language policy formulation and implementation.

Akere (2009) identifies four phases of research on English usage in Nigeria as

contrastive and error analyses; variety differentiation in NigE; nativisation,

codification and elaboration; and re-inventing. This classification by Akere suits our

goal of describing English in the wider context of bilingualism, multilingualism and

national development. We shall, therefore, take the phases one at a time.

4.2 Contrastive and Error Analysis The focus of the first phase (See Banjo 1995, Akere 2009) is on the

description of errors and the influence of mother tongue on English at various levels of

language: phonological, syntactic and lexical (cf. Tomori 1967, Afolayan 1968, Banjo

1969 and Adesanoye 1973). The frameworks utilised are mostly those of contrastive

and error analyses. The procedure is either a contrast of elicited data in BrE and NigE

and identification of deviations from the British norm as errors that must be avoided or

minimised or identification of errors from spoken or written data in English by

Nigerian users. A lot of description of features has been undertaken by scholars in this

respect (cf. Ayoola 1988, Adesanoye 1994, 2004 and Fakoya 2004) and even up till

this moment (Alo and Mesthrie 2008, Gut 2008). These are illustrated in Appendix 1

of this paper, based on relevant categories in the literature. But before we shift our

attention from this page, let us whet our appetite with this made-up excerpt by Kujore

(1995:372-373)5:

The ceremony was colourful; it was a party in commemoration of the first

year anniversary of the Chief‟s death. The Chief was a powerful politician,

with a large followership in his lifetime. There was plenty to eat and drink,

and guests were seated in groups – relations, family friends, professionals,

retirees and so on. Old friends were happy to meet themselves, and chatted

pleasantly about the occasion as they dined and wined. The head of the

village was there; as guests arrived, they went across to him on the high

table, prostrated before him and greeted him.

8

I had just started eating when I saw Kunle (poor man. He‟s out of job)

come in, in company of his senior sister. He, too, saw me and came

straight to me. As he sat beside me and tried to explain why he had come

a little bit late, I put down my fork and knife and requested for hot drinks

for both of us, but he would prefer soft. He said he had had to go and condole

a friend who had lost his junior brother – the brother died in a ghastly motor

accident. Even then, he would have to leave immediately and join us at the

party later because he had to attend a meeting which will hold between 3 to

4pm. Meanwhile, I congratulated him for his brilliant performance on the

stage in Zulu‟s play recently, and also advised him to completely hands off

the matter of Tunde‟s grandmother‟s estate. “No problem, I would. Thank

you, I will like to go now. See you later.” As soon as Kunle left, his sister

moved her chair nearer and pleaded with me to forgive her friend: “You‟ve

got to make it up with Simi now at all cost. She has shown beyond all doubts

that she is sincere.”

Meanwhile, some key issues have been raised by scholars about the error

analysis procedure. One of them, for example, is what should constitute the valid and

reliable sources of data for analysis of errors; for instance, would errors have similar

quality and frequency of occurrence in spoken v. written, formal v. informal

(colloquial) English and educated v. non-educated English? It is obvious that one

would mostly likely encounter more errors in impromptu spoken than in prepared

spoken English, in the local market English than in the classroom English, in a speech

delivered by a person as a guest at a social ceremony and the same person as a guest

lecturer at a university symposium, in spoken English in a lecture room than a written

research paper, in primary school English than in tertiary English. For example, Jowitt

(1991) and Alo and Mesthrie (2008) distinguish between the errors that occur at lower

levels of usage (Varieties 1 and 2 of NigE) and those that persist to a higher level

(Variety 3).

A second issue that has been addressed pertains to the parameters that would

be utilised to distinguish between errors/deviants and non-errors/variants. If we look at

the illustrations in the appendix, one would observe that pragmatic and creative

features (variants) are more tolerable than linguistic features, for mainly socio-cultural

reasons. Among linguistic features, listeners are less tolerable with most morpho-

syntactic features (errors) than lexico-semantic and phonological/ orthographic features

(variants and errors). In phonology, lapses pertaining to sound segments and syllables

are, for certain physiological and psychological reasons, frowned upon more than

lapses at the stress and tonal levels; and, in orthography, writing is, as a matter of

reality, induced mainly by the computer and media technology, that AmE spellings are

considered as alternatives to BrE.

The third and the last issue to consider here is about the percentage of errors

that would occur in the performance of a speaker to determine his/her competence or

incompetence in English by the Nigerian standard. It is of course recognised that the

tolerable level of many listeners of English is very low, as quite a lot of people would

seem to stalk a speaker for errors and pounce on him or her at the slightest opportunity.

This becomes even more surprising when the listeners themselves are sometimes not

more competent than the speaker. If, for example, a non-native speaker of English

commits one or two errors or lapses in a 15-minute speech or a writer commits such in

a 20-paged article, does that make the speaker/writer incompetent? Of course, it is

9

agreed that judgements, sometimes, may be based on certain circumstances, such as

the level of education and the situation of usage.

4.3 Variety Differentiation of English Usage in Nigeria The second phase in NigE studies marks a shift from the perception of it as

deviant or interference English by scholars to its recognition as a substantive variety or

set of varieties whose features can be characterised. Varieties of NigE have thus been

categorised and described in different ways by scholars (Ubahakwe 1979, Jibril 1982,

Afolayan 1987, Bamgbose, et al. 1995, Akindele and Adegbite1999, Udofot 2003):

- the geographical perspective, in regional terms as „northern‟ and „southern‟ English

varieties, and in ethnic terms as „Hausa‟ English, „Edo‟ English, „Ibibio‟ English,

„Igbo‟ English,„Yoruba‟ English, among others;

- the social perspective as standard: sophisticated/educated v. non-standard: local/

interference; or lectal: acrolectal, mesolectal and basilectal;

- psycho-sociolinguistic as English as a Second language (ESL), against English as

Mother Tongue (EMT) and English as Foreign Language (EFL); and

- registeral, as technical/scientific, non-scientific or literary; formal v. informal;

official v. personal; spoken v. written; interactional, etc.

Scholars then embark on the characterisation of NigE at various levels of usage -

phonological, lexico-syntactic, semantic and pragma-sociolinguistic – especially as

they mark different varieties of English spoken and written in Nigeria (Ubahakwe

1979, Odumuh 1987, Bamgbose et al. 1995)

4.4 Nativisation (also Indigenisation or Domestication) of English in Nigeria

The third phase becomes inevitable when drawing the line between errors and

non-errors in language usage becomes very difficult and there are areas of controversy,

especially on culturally related items that differentiate the native and non-native

varieties. Bamgbose (1995) observes that the nativisation of NigE consists of three

aspects: linguistic, pragmatic and creative. Linguistic nativisation includes substitution

of Nigerian language vowels and consonants for English ones, replacement of stress by

tone, pluralisation of some non-count nouns, the use of culture-specific vocabulary

items, back formation, semantic shift, different verb-preposition combinations and

some L1-induced structures. Pragmatic nativisation involves modifying the rules of

language use in native situations under pressure from the cultural practices of the

Nigerian environment. Creative nativisation manifests in either coining expressions to

reflect the Nigerian experience or world view or translating an authentic Nigerian

native idiom into English in such a way as to reflect the mood of the situation or

character. Although the three aspects have been investigated in the literature, the

linguistic aspect has been focused more than the others.

Three major issues are debated in respect of the nativisation process. It

deserves that we pay attention to these issues, which are germane to the current state of

the language in the country.

4.4.1 Is There Standard Nigerian English or Not? Jowitt (2008) describes the diversity of positions in terms of „left‟, „right‟ and

„centre‟ in respect of the attitude of scholars to tolerance of learners‟ errors. The left,

10

towing the line of Kachru (1982) is represented by all those (cf. Adetugbo 1979a and b

and Odumuh 1987) who would generally assert that a standard NigE exists and has a

right to exist, that it is used by educated people, that it has begun to find expression in

creative writing and that it can be an expression of national identity. The right, towing

the line of Prator (1968), maintains the position that the distinctive usage identified in

NigE cannot be regarded as standard, because the standard form of a language is one

that is generally both accepted and used by the educated section of the community; the

lack of standard is evident in the numerous errors observed in the usage and the lack of

institutionalisation, in the absence of any dictionary embodying its usage (cf. Salami

1968, Adesanoye 1973). The centre position, which appears to be the consensus

among scholars of NigE in recent times, is that a standard form exists in the

ontological sense in the usage of educated Nigerians, though the features are yet to be

codified (Grieve 1966, Banjo 1971, Bamgbose 1982, Jibril 1986, Adegbija 2004).

4.4.2 The Model for English Language Teaching (ELT) This debate centres on whether an indigenous model, NigE or „external (or

foreign) model such as BrE should be the target for ELT in schools. Many scholars (cf.

Udofot 2003) would, for nationalistic and realistic reasons, concur with the

endonormative model suggested by Banjo (1971) as a follow up to Brosnahan‟s (1958)

earlier classification. In Banjo‟s four-variety typology of English language usage in

Nigeria6, Variety III , the variety of the „educated elite‟, suggested by him, is

associated with university education in recent times and has been supported by many

scholars in Nigeria (cf. Odumuh 1984, Adeniran 1979 and Banjo 1996). He (Banjo

1971) describes it as a variety that is close to Standard British English in syntax and

semantics, similar in phonology, but different in phonetic features as well as with

regard to certain lexical peculiarities. Although some scholars have observed the lack

of uniformity in competence and performance among educated Nigerians, there is

ample evidence to show that a combination of education, exposure to considerable data

and considerable experience of usage correlates with competence in English (Jowitt

2008, Adegbite and Gut 2010). However, despite this seeming agreement among

scholars, it is rather disheartening that, forty years after Banjo‟s suggestion, the BrE

still serves as the main reference point in school examinations in the country because

of the lack of codification and, consequently, lack of uniform resource materials on the

indigenous model.

4.4.3 Pro-RP and Anti-RP Model of Spoken English for ELT The third debate in the third phase, parallel to the debates above, is that

between pro-British „Received Pronunciation‟ (RP) (Atoye 1987, Amayo 1988) and

anti-RP (Eka 1985, Adetugbo 1987, Dairo 1988) scholars on the model of spoken

English to be used for teaching English in schools. The pro-RP group cites the

availability of descriptive materials in the form of textbooks and a tolerable degree of

international intelligibility as reasons for their suggestion. In contrast, the contra-group

argues that there is lack of personnel to teach the model in Nigeria. They also comment

on its lack of social prestige (Gut 2008); that is, its non-desirability and non-

acceptability among Nigerians, especially when used by Nigerians or other non-native

speakers. Ioratim-Uba (1995), writing on the attitude of Nigerian undergraduates

towards RP, says (pp.69-70):

Whereas a need is felt for RP as a tool for educational and communicative

effectiveness, the undergraduates in our sample would not employ it just

because they want to be like white men... its persistence might for sometime

11

remain a classroom phenomenon, and to some extent a tool in the hands of

other users such as radio and TV broadcasters.

Besides, there is the fact that RP itself is outdated, even in Britain where

people are shifting to other models in common use. For example, Awonusi (2004)

examines the fairly recent vicissitudes of the RP accent of English and reflects on its

relevance as a standard accent/model for spoken English teaching and learning in non-

native speaker English speaking communities like Nigeria. He observes some

challenges that result in its changing status as historical factors, threats from hitherto

traditional UK rural dialects and globalisation factors (such as the influence of AmE).

With the observation that RP is fairly dated (almost Jonesian) and that many of its

phonetic features are recessive but not appealing to current young RP speakers,

Awonusi (ibid., 189) asks whether we should still continue to insist that young people

all over the world continue to use an accent of fading-out ninety-year olds, when, in

reality, they will be dealing with much younger people in business, education,

communication and industry. His suggestion is to develop local standards and simply

regard RP as a codified version; this functional approach will lead us to recognise non-

RP Standard English accents which will still belong to the community of World

English for as long as intelligibility is not seriously impaired.

4. 5 Codification of Nigerian English The tasks of codification and elaboration are the ones in current contention

among scholars of NigE. The requirement here is the description of a structure or

behavioural norm in reference books such as dictionaries, grammars or usage guides or

their inclusion in the specified target of language instruction in schools. Bamgbose

(1998) suggests five measurements of the degree of standardisation of linguistic

innovations (under which he subsumes linguistic structures such as lexical items,

syntactic structures or the pronunciation of words as well as pragmatic and social

aspects of language use):

- demographic: number of speakers who use a particular linguistic innovation,

- authoritative: type of speakers who use a particular linguistic innovation,

- geographical: regional spread of the innovation,

- codification: description of the innovation as a norm, and

-acceptability.

Of these, Bamgbose (1998: 4) claims, codification and acceptability are the most

important, but he considers acceptability the “ultimate test of admission of an

innovation”. The supporting criterion for acceptability is intelligibility, which, in turn,

is based on appropriateness and grammaticality (Afolayan 1977, Adejare 1995).

Bamgbose (1998: 5) predicts that pragmatic innovations will be standardised before

structural ones as there is a greater tolerance for them. With regard to standardising the

linguistic features, the condition of acceptability mentioned above must be met.

Standard NigE, that is, the acrolectal variety of NigE, should be made up of features of

Standard BrE and AmE (as representations of International/World Englishes) and

some „popular‟ features of Nigerianism. By „popular‟ here, we refer to those

Nigerianisms that have a high frequency of usage among Nigerians as a test of their

wide acceptability.

It would appear that so much time has been spent preparing the ground in

terms of defining terms and concepts than carrying out the real task of lexicography

12

and grammatical description. The works of a few scholars, however, need to be

pointed out as charting a course on the issue, even though these have been descriptive

rather than prescriptive, sometimes characterising errors in their collections7. First is

the notable work of Kujore (1985) which presents a long list of expressions in English

usage in all the areas of language (phonology, grammar and lexis). Another

presentation of a glossary of forms in NigE covers an extensive section of Jowitt‟s

(1991) publication. The latter work bears similarity with the former, but it goes further

by providing information about the context of use. Also worthy of mention is

Igboanusi‟s (2002) compilation of distinctive NigE expressions, which Jowitt (2008)

considers as perhaps the longest inventory so far, but still tentative because the

judgements are provisional. The above efforts undoubtedly represent a step in the right

direction, but the search for a comprehensive dictionary still continues. Jowitt

(2008:29) himself recognises the limitations of the previous efforts when he asserts

that:

The task of differentiating variants from errors – of deciding which usage

should be lifted out of the category of (merely) „popular‟ expressions and

exalted to the status of Standard, and so prescribed expressions – is thus

an interesting one. It is invidious for an individual, however, even if that

individual is a Professor of English, to start making solo pronouncements.

The task is one of delicacy and needs to be carried out by a team of experts,

not by an individual.

It is thus proper at this point to recognise the insightful project on NigE corpus

that is being undertaken by a group of scholars coordinated by Prof. Ulrike Gut at the

University of Augsburg in Germany. The ICE (International Corpus of English)

Nigeria project aims to collect a 1-million word corpus of spoken and written data of

English usage by educated Nigerians and it contains text categories and annotations

specified by the ICE project International (Wunder, et al. 2010). The written part of the

corpus, consisting about 400,000 words, is already completed and work is in progress

on the spoken part. The corpus could undoubtedly be utilised to facilitate the

codification of NigE. For example, the application of the instrument to research

enhances combined quantitative and qualitative corpus searches of features in a study

by Adegbite and Gut (2010). Apart from being a rich source of representative data, it

provides an objective basis for comparing features and describing the frequency of

their occurrences. The codification of a widely accepted and used form of NigE, in

essence, needs to rely on facts about how wide-spread the usage of particular forms is

among the users of the variety.

4.6 Elaboration and Re-inventing of Nigerian English The elaboration of English, as Akere (2009:9) observes, involves a painstaking

listing of all domains in which English functions in official and non-official capacities

and then going on to identify and describe the usage structures that are attested in each

domain in their standard NigE variety. Also part of the elaboration process is the

publication and wider dissemination of codified materials to learners and users through

teaching, broadcast, advocacy and enlightenment. With respect to the phase of re-

inventing English, it is expected that scholars would interrogate, assess and re-package

English to meet the current requirements of modernity, development and globalisation.

In order to confront linguistic homogenisation and Englishisation of the world in the

course of globalisation, some scholars have suggested the need to re-examine the status

and functions of English vis-à-vis the existing languages in the community. The re-

13

examining process follows two main courses. In the first course, scholars attempt to

create an awareness of the positive and negative influence of English on some

indigenous languages, in order to safeguard the latter against the cannibalistic

incursion of the former (Bamgbose 1982, Banjo 1986, Ekundayo 1987, Ufomata 1991,

Isola 1992, Essien 1995, Adegbite and Akinwale 2008). In the second course, scholars

attempt to review existing language provisions, which tend to valorise the English

language and overlook the indigenous languages, arguing that both should complement

each other in the task of nation-building (Adegbite 2004a and 2008a, Afolayan 1994,

Bamgbose 2006, Emenanjo 1998, Essien 2003, Jibril 2007, Lawal 2009, Schafer and

Egbokhare 1999). The remaining sections below extend the discussion on the

elaboration and re-inventing of English further.

5. The Uses of English in Nigeria

5.1 Micro-uses The uses of English in various domains of communication in Nigeria have

been described by scholars in recent times via different approaches: linguistic, literary,

stylistic, textual, pragmatic, discoursal and conversational. Some of the areas covered,

particularly in the Department of English, Obafemi Awolowo University, include

casual and family interactions and discourses in the classroom, computer mediation

(internet, e-mail, text messaging, etc.), education and literacy, gender, law, literature,

mass media (electronic and print), popular media (film and entertainment), medicine,

politics, religion, translating and interpreting. This speaker has made his own

contributions to some of these areas by applying different approaches (systemic

linguistic, text linguistics, linguistic stylistics, critical linguistics, content-text analysis,

discourse analysis and pragmatics) to the analysis of texts from different areas of

human communication in English and Yoruba: translation/interpreting, biblical

passages and legal, literary and medical discourse. I have also engaged in both

descriptive and empirical studies on language learning, literacy and education, and

language policy and planning.

It might be appropriate to mention some salient observations and comments

made in a few of the works stated above. For example, in my earliest research on

translation/interpreting (Adegbite 1987, 1988 and 2000a), I observed that simultaneous

interpreting of Yoruba Christian Sermons from Yoruba into English was a

collaborative bilingual process that raised linguistic, technical and interpersonal

challenges for practitioners. The first major challenge was the interpreter‟s duty to

translate from a native language (L1) into English, which was usually his or her second

language (L2), though it was far much easier to translate from one‟s L2 into the L1.

The interpreter, therefore, required adequate communicative competence in the L2 for

efficiency and effectiveness. Another challenge was the choices of options from

translation techniques: literal or free, equivalent form or message, focus on source or

target text, translation of cultural items and all that. That thus called for adequate

training in order to acquire the professional skills required for the job, in addition to

experience. Lastly, a cordial relationship between the source language speaker and the

interpreter was crucial for an effective output. The interpreter had to be familiar with

the communication habit of the source speaker, the pronunciation, vocabulary, length

of sentences and other idiosyncrasies. A lot of encounters thus took place behind the

scenes to ensure a successful performance.

Later on, I carried out both stylistic and empirical studies on the interpretation

of a passage, St John 1: 1-14, selected from two versions of the Bible, the King James’

14

Version (KJV) and The Living Bible (TLB) versions. In the stylistic study (Adegbite

1991a), I investigated the different ways in which the passage was written in the two

versions, using the systemic linguistic framework. The findings revealed that the TLB

text was paraphrastic and simpler than the other text. The stylistic procedures used to

achieve this included the orthographic style of paragraphing; the use of dashes and

parentheses to mark parenthetical statements that helped to eliminate ambiguity or

vagueness; the use of simple and avoidance of multiple and complex sentences; and

the simplicity, clarity and currency of usage of the expressions, for example, the light

shineth…and comprehended it not in the KJV (verse 5) is expressed as the light that

shines…can never extinguish it (TLB, verse 5).

In the other study (Adegbite 1998), the reactions of selected university

students and lecturers to the two texts were elicited via a questionnaire. The findings

confirmed the researcher‟s interpretation in the previous work, regarding the

distinction between aesthetics and comprehensibility. In addition, the older

respondents, the lecturers, preferred the KJV because of its aesthetic qualities,

projected through the rhythm and other poetic devices. They claimed that the passage

had a mystical quality appropriate for the religious/Biblical register. In contrast, the

younger respondents preferred the TLB passage because it was clearer and less

ambiguous and, thus, more easily comprehended. The study showed the different

factors that readers could bring to textual interpretation, which authors/writers should

be aware of.

Another field of my research is that of the legal register, in which I (Adegbite

1996) investigated some interpretation problems in selected court cases in Nigeria

using three prominent court cases as examples. It was observed that the cause of

interpretation disputes in law courts is the indeterminacy of meaning of formulated

laws. Although judges aimed at the literal meaning of provisions of statutes, they

sometimes found it difficult to arrive at this meaning in adjudication. The problems

identified could be attributed to conflict in the application of principles of law, conflict

between the logical and conventional meanings of expressions, non-contextual

decoding of expressions, ambiguity in the meaning of provisions in legal documents

and intentional or deliberate misinterpretation of expressions in some instances to suit

specific purposes. While, in my opinion, one could wish that framers of law provisions

and statutes tighten those „language ends‟ that tend to allow ambiguity of expressions

in legal documents, it might be difficult to check practitioners who would deliberately

or inadvertently misinterpret documents even when such are clearly written. We may

wish that interpretation problems be eradicated or minimised in law and make several

suggestions in this regard, but it would seem that interpretation disputes form the basis

of the legal profession and the practitioners thrive on the phenomenon.

My research on medical discourse is a cross-linguistic one. The primary study

of some features of language use in Yoruba traditional medicine (YTM) was the

product of my PhD research in linguistics (Adegbite 1991b) and it later provided the

basis of comparison with a later collaborative work in English. The features of the

YTM study were described at the levels of situation, use, functions, message and form

using a combination of frameworks from ethnography of communication, discourse

and conversation analysis, text linguistics and systemic functional linguistics. The

features of situation showed YTM texts as products of speech events which involved

human and non-human objects and indicated participant beliefs, actions, relations and

revealed human behaviour. The texts, whose primary mode is conversational, revealed

15

especially that participants in YTM interactions believe in magical medicine, rituals

and in the power of the spoken word. The major uses performed by the texts were

diagnosis, optional divination and medication and these derived from the participants‟

intuitive reactions to the functions and messages of the texts. The functions provided

mainly the informative and directive bases for the message content which expressed

the identification of a health problem and quest for its remedy. The structure of the

texts revealed interactions in which herbalists and clients take turns in diagnostic and

prescriptive transactions to make various initiation-response moves constituted mainly

by elicit-reply and direct-accept acts. In some texts, however, the herbalists‟ turns may

further extend into monological transactions of divination, incantations and

supplication, depending on the performance situations. Lastly, the forms of the texts

showed that the preponderance of reference and lexical cohesion features as well as

clauses with the unmarked theme enhanced simplicity and easier comprehension of

messages of the texts. They also showed that the material process and positive polarity

were prominent because the texts expressed a lot of physical activities carried out

towards achieving a positive goal. They further indicated that the declarative mood

marked the primary function of giving information in the transactions.

The collaborative study by Adegbite and Odebunmi (2006) investigated

discourse tact in Doctor-Patient interactions in English in selected hospitals in South-

western Nigeria. The mutual contextual beliefs (MCBs) of participants, linguistic

patterns and other pragmatic features were analysed from the perspective of the

pragmatics of discourse. The findings indicated the predominance of doctor-initiated

spoken exchanges in which doctors elicit and confirm information and give directives

to patients, while the patients give information and attempt to respond appropriately to

the doctors‟ moves. It was also observed that „conversational maxims‟8, except that of

quantity, were flouted and politeness maxims of tact, generosity, agreement and

sympathy were exploited in order to enhance successful diagnosis in the interaction.

Below, a brief description of the grammar of sentences in a typical doctor-patient

interaction is presented from the perspective of Halliday‟s (1985) systemic functional

grammar (the grammatical terminologies are italicised). The interaction opens with

an interrogative clause of the relational identifying type (are, is) in which

the doctor expresses a value (how? where?) of a token (your health). The

client replies via a declarative clause of the relational attributive type (am,

have/has been) in which an attribute (not well, pregnant, sick) is ascribed

to a carrier (I, he, she). Alternatively, the reply is expressed in a declarative

clause with the relational possessive process (have/has (got), am/is having)

in which a possessor (I, he, she) possesses possessed items of illness (fever,

malaria, cough, headache, diarrhoea).

Similar „process‟ and „participant‟ features to the one above realise further diagnostic

investigations in the interaction. Occasionally, however, there may be other clauses

expressing

either (i) a mental process of the reaction/affection type (feel [s]) in which

a senser (I, he, she) is affected by a phenomenon or condition (hot, dizzy,

like I‟m having malaria); or (ii) material (or physical) process of the action

type (eat, sleep, work or can‟t eat/sleep/work) in which participants are both

the affected and goal in middle clauses. In all of these expressions,

circumstantial details of either inner or outer types may realise the time

16

duration (3months, for a long time); location (on my neck, in my mouth) and

manner (persistently, seriously, properly, slowly) of an illness.

Towards the end of the interaction, the doctor recommends treatment

via declarative clauses of the modalised (shall give/send/prescribe/do)

or non-modalised (have taken/written /sent) type in which the material

action process above (send, give, do) is performed by the doctor as an

agent/actor (I, We) on the client as beneficiary/recipient and objects of

medicine as goal (samples, drugs, etc).

In the analysis of literary texts, not only did I use linguistic theories to

demonstrate my interpretation of the texts, I also related the interpretations to some

topical issues of the day and I shall specifically mention briefly my opinion on three of

them: gender (Adegbite and Kehinde 2003), diplomatic communication (Adegbite

2005a) and conflict mediation (Adegbite 2007). Adegbite and Kehinde (2003) utilised

the perspective of Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) to describe features of feminism

in some of Flora Nwapa‟s novels, focusing on Efuru (1966) and Women Are Different

(1981). The discourse features analysed were interaction, transaction, exchanges,

moves, acts, turntaking, contributions and the narrative techniques observed were the

third person omniscient narrator, collective heroinism, documentation/historicisation

and presence/absence/silence of characters. The features above illustrated the

phenomena of control, dominance as well as sex and social roles in the texts.

Recognising the double agenda of feminism mentioned by Humm (1995:4) as the task

of „critique‟ (attacking gender stereotypes) and the task of „construction‟, the

researchers asked whether in performing the first task, a feminist needed to de-

construct male chauvinistic stereotypes only to replace it with female ones or in

performing the second task, s/he needed to aim at creating the superior female and

subordinate male instead of creating a male-female relationship imbued with self and

mutual respect between the sexes. The researchers frowned at Nwapa‟s utilisation of

the destructive-male model which substitutes female silence with male silence in her

works. They observed that Nwapa denigrates almost all the male characters and

emphasises the frailties of men and opined that Afro-centric feminism has to be

embracing, not isolationist; otherwise, the consent of the male sex cannot be assumed.

In the conclusion, Adegbite and Kehinde (ibid.) recognised the contribution of Flora

Nwapa towards the expression of women‟s voices in her novels, but observed her

failure to reconcile African consciousness with feminist aspirations. To some

feminists, the notion of „African feminism‟ almost seems a contradiction and it is in a

bid to remove this contradiction that the African stance bears the tag of „womanism‟

(Hudson-Weems 1993 and Kolawole1996), bearing in mind that it is

i. not sex-isolating but accommodating;

ii. not only for self-realisation, but also for family/group/social development;

iii. not sexually subordinating but sexually parallel; and

iv. self-respecting and group attracting

Adegbite (2006) utilised both the systemic functional linguistics (SFL) and

functional sentence perspective (FSP) models to demonstrate a stylistic analysis of an

extract of conflict mediation speech from Chinua Achebe‟s (1958) Things Fall Apart.

In the opinion of stylisticians, an objective description of a literary text can help

learners not only to create awareness about the internal patterns of language in the text

17

but also to give their own personal responses to the text. The extract analysed

represented the speech of an Igbo communal mediator in the Achebe‟s novel. The

fictional mediation context was that of an estranged relationship between a husband,

on the one hand, and his wife and her relations, on the other hand. The analysis gave us

some insights into the content of mediation and the linguistic characteristics of the text.

The transitivity options reveal that mediation primarily expresses relations among

participants by identifying and making references to authorities, social values,

obligations and social duties. Sometimes, human beings are either involved or

committed to performing actions in the present or future. Constant appeal is also made

to the cognitive and visual attention of disputants and the mediator ascertains their

cooperation in the mediation process. The options of mood indicate the characteristic

traits of mediators to counsel mainly via assertions and a few instructions. Conflict

resolution is thus perceived as social obligations/duties which interactants must

perform in conformity with conventional regulations. Lastly, the options of theme

indicate the orientation of the mediator to the direct conversational nature of mediation

speeches. References are made to disputants, mediators and third parties in the

communication. The emphasis on the mediator‟s personality and power and potency of

social control in the themes and rhemes is indicative of conflict resolution by coercion

and appeal to authority rather than by complex argument and persuasion, as may be

observed in some other sociocultural or cross-cultural contexts.

My study on diplomatic communication (Adegbite 2005a) is an interface of

linguistic and literary studies in which principles deriving from linguistic and literary

pragmatics were utilised to analyse the features that enhanced successful

communication and those that led to communication breakdown in Ola Rotimi‟s

Ovonramwen Nogbaisi (OVON), using relevant extracts of dialogue from the play for

illustration. The concepts pertaining to literary interpretation utilised were „voice‟ and

„characterisation‟ and those of linguistic pragmatics were those relevant to analysing

dialogue in interactive discourse, viz, the „cooperative principle‟ and „conversational

maxims‟, the „politeness and face principles‟ and relevant categories of conversation

analysis such as „turns‟, „contributions‟, „interruptions‟, „interaction‟, „transaction‟,

„exchange‟, „move‟ and „act‟. Central to both facets of pragmatic analysis mentioned

above is the category of context, which is concerned with the conditions governing

either speaker-listener or author-reader collaboration and the dialectics of text (fiction

and dialogue) and society. The findings revealed that conversational maxims were both

flouted and violated in the interactions that took place in the text. In view of the

formality of the discourse, characterised by the business-like nature of the topic of

transaction and the social distance between participants in terms of position, familiarity

and race, participants spoke indirectly and cautiously. They said less or more than they

should say (quantity), concealed information from each other/one another (quality), did

not go straight to the point (relevance) and were hesitant, loquacious and sometimes

rude (manner).

It was observed further in the study that a combination of factors enhanced

successful diplomatic communication in the play and these included (i) the observance

of politeness maxims, expressed through deference, calm counseling, assurance,

indirect instead of direct accusation, presentation of gifts, extending a hand of

fellowship, expression of prayers and exchanges of pleasantries; (ii) utilisation of

„negative on-record with redress‟ and „off-record‟ face strategies; and (iii) concessions

of participants to each other in confrontational transaction. In contrast, the

communication that broke down was characterised by (i) breaches of politeness

18

maxims such as those of modesty, tact and agreement; (ii) expressing „bald on-record‟

face threats without any redress; and (iii) failure of participants to make concessions.

Finally, the interpretation of the extracts from the text analysed revealed the following

as the major sources of conflict in the play:

a. King Ovonramwen breached the societal measures put in place to control royal

availability for face encounters. He talked too much in public and engaged himself so

much in self praise. He distanced himself from his chiefs who should advise him

because he doubted their loyalty. His people perceived him as a wicked king. His

obsession with power was constantly threatened by the fear of rebellion within his

kingdom and domination by the Whitemen.

b. The Whitemen considered the business of trade negotiation without respecting the

cultural values of their host community. The invocation of the Queen via verbal and

non-verbal means was perceived as an imposition of the Queen‟s authority over the

Benin Empire. The excesses of the British soldiers who visited Benin on a self-

appointed date that was inconvenient for their host further indicated their insensitivity

to the independence of the Benin people.

c. The interaction between the Benin security officers and the British military officers

broke down because they did not employ sufficient tactics of diplomacy in their

communication. The participants on both sides flouted and violated conversational

maxims, breached politeness principles and shunned concessions to each other when

they disagreed. Of course, military and security officials are reputed more for physical

force than language power to resolve issues. The question is: could civilians have

handled the negotiation of the problematic encounter between Okavbiogbe and Phillips

in OVON (pp. 28-30) better than they did?

On language learning, literacy and education, my research activities spanned

all levels, investigating various issues of form, content and methodology: nursery

(Adegbite and Obilade 2002), primary (Adegbite 1993, 2000b, 2005b), secondary

(Adegbite and Arua 1998, Adegbite 2000c and 2005c), tertiary (Adegbite 1995 and

2005d) and community literacy (2000d and 2003b). The principles and concepts

applied to the studies are those relevant to the bilingual/multilingual African situation

such as bilingualism/ multilingualism in language teaching, learning and use, primacy

of the mother tongue, English as a Second Language, Communicative Competence and

English for Specific Purposes.

Meanwhile, my professional activities have not been restricted to research

alone. I have also been involved in mentoring scholars and doing practical work

relevant to my field. I have successfully supervised nine postgraduate students with

research thesis: 3 PhDs, 1 M.Phil. and 5 M.As. Four other students are making

progress in their research work at the three levels above. Regarding practical activities,

I have been engaged in textbook writing at all levels of education in the country. For

example, I am a co-author of some textbooks (see Okedara, et al. 2003, Adegbite, et al.

2008a) that are utilised in the classroom nationwide by primary and secondary school

pupils. Also, texts which I authored (Adegbite 2009), co-authored (Akindele and

Adegbite 1999, reprinted 2005) and co-edited (Adegbite and Onukaogu 1994,

Adegbite and Olajide 2008b, 2009a and 2009b) are being used by tertiary students in

the areas of psycholinguistics, sociolinguistics and language in education. I have

organised, coordinated, facilitated and participated in literacy workshops and activities

locally, nationally and internationally. Currently, some scholars and I are involved in

the compilation of a comprehensive English-Yoruba bilingual dictionary project

19

coordinated by Prof. Kola Owolabi of the University of Ibadan. From the layout and

the progress made so far, the work shows great promise to be a masterpiece when

completed. The list goes on to God‟s glory. Permit me not to bore you with these

details any longer, because we still have one or two more grounds to cover.

5. 2 Macro-uses At the macro-level, the use of English may be viewed in terms of the status of

the language vis-à-vis other languages from the perspective of language policy and

planning as well as language attitudes of Nigerian citizens. I shall discuss these issues

from three standpoints: (a) language provisions in the Constitution of the Federal

Republic of Nigeria (1999) and the National Policy on Education (NPE 1977, revised

1981, 1998 and 2004)); (b) the national language question; and (iii) language and

social citizenship.

5.2.1 Language Provisions in Nigeria There is no comprehensive language policy document for Nigeria, but there

are provisions formulated haphazardly in the Constitution and NPE which scholars

always refer to for the explanation of language status and use in the socio-political

context. Below, I present the provisions in both documents and some of these would be

discussed later in the study. I have italicised the areas of those policies that would be

commented on later.

1. The business of the National Assembly shall be conducted in English and in Hausa,

Ibo (sic) and Yoruba when adequate arrangements have been made therefor.

(Constitution 1999, Paragraph 55)

2. The business of a House of Assembly shall be conducted in English, but the House

may in addition to English conduct the business in one or more other languages that

the house may by resolution approve. (Constitution 1999, Para. 97)

3. Government appreciates the importance of language as a means of promoting social

interaction and national cohesion; and preserving cultures. Thus every child shall learn

the language of the immediate environment. Furthermore in the interest of national

unity, it is expedient that every child shall be required to learn one of the three

Nigerian languages, Hausa, Igbo, and Yoruba. (NPE, 2004, Para. 10a)

4. For smooth interaction with our neighbours, it is desirable for every Nigerian to

speak French. Accordingly French shall be the second official language in Nigeria and

it shall be compulsory in Primary and Junior Secondary schools but Non-vocational

elective at the Senior Secondary School. (NPE 2004, Para. 10b)

5. Government: …shall ensure that the medium of instruction is principally the

mother tongue or the language of the immediate community… (Early Childhood/ Pre-

primary Education, NPE 2004, Para. 14c)

6. The medium of instruction in the primary school shall be the language of the

environment for the first three years. During this period, English shall be taught as a

subject. From the fourth year, English shall progressively be used as a medium of

instruction and the language of immediate environment and French shall be taught as

subjects. (Primary Education, NPE 2004, Para.19e and f)

20

7. Junior Secondary School (NPE 2004, Para. 24a)

Core Subjects (Languages): English, French and language of immediate environment.

(The language of the immediate environment shall be taught as L1

where it has orthography or literature. Where it does not have, it shall

be taught with emphasis on oracy as L2.)

Elective (Language): Arabic

8. Senior Secondary School (NPE 2004, Para 25c)

Core Subjects (Languages): English language, a major Nigerian language

Electives (Languages): Literature in English, Arabic, any Nigerian language that has

orthography and literature

It is apparent that English occupies a primary place in the provisions above in relation

with the indigenous languages; even in Provision 3 where it is not overtly stated, the

primary role is assumed all the same. Note also the preference given to the three major

languages of Hausa, Igbo and Yoruba. These roles need to be interrogated as I shall

attempt to do later in this study.

5.2.2 The National Language Question The national language debate has been quite enduring (see especially

Bamgbose 1990, Emenanjo 1990), though, sadly, there has been nothing much to show

for it. Without any doubt, to possess a national language is a confirmation of the

political sovereignty of a nation, since language is the extant symbol of identity of an

individual or society. A national language has the added advantage of further

enhancing wider communication, both vertically and horizontally, among the people

because a minimum of 75% will have access to it. This would consequently have a

positive effect on democracy and national development, since it would be easier to

effectively mobilise the generality of the citizenry towards participation in

developmental tasks under good leadership.

Existing proposals can be categorised into two terms, the „unilingual‟ and

„multilingual‟ approaches. The unilingual approach covers various suggestions of one

language as national among which are English; Pidgin English; an artificial language

such as „Guosa‟, formed from an amalgamation of elements of, especially, the major

languages of Hausa, Igbo and Yoruba; a major language selected from one of the three

earlier mentioned; a minor indigenous language from the centre of Nigeria such as

Igala; and an external pan-African language such as Swahili. In contrast, the

multilingual approach features the suggestion of the three major languages alone or

their selection as national languages while English retains its current official status.

Although well argued, it has been difficult to adopt any of the suggestions above.

Bamgbose (1990:75) asserts that

“Of the possible candidates for selection as a unilingual model, some

can be dismissed out of hand. In this group, I include pidgin, artificial

language, any pan-African languages and any minority languages.

It is clear now, as a matter of reality, that the major languages are not favoured

either, whether separately or jointly, for various reasons9. The best that they can

achieve status-wise is to remain as regional languages, while the other indigenous

languages serve as state, local government or community languages. Where then do we

go from there? A logical step would be to confirm the higher role of English at the

national level while delimiting its functions at sub-national levels. In this regard, a

21

nativised Standard NigE could be adopted as the primary official language at the

national level, while the indigenous languages are considered secondary at this level.

Then, there would be role reversal at the sub-national levels where the indigenous

languages would play primary roles while English plays a secondary role.

Adegbite (2004a) suggests a framework for roles assignment in which the

indigenous languages, on the one hand, and NigE, on the other hand, complement each

other to perform personal and official roles. According to him, five levels of geo-

political significance can be identified in democratic Nigeria for official language

usage. These are (a) The International Community; (b) The National Level; (c) The

Sub-national Level (Regions, Zones, and States); (d) The Local Government Areas;

and (e) the Local Government wards. At each level of „a-e‟, English currently plays a

formal role as the primary official language; whereas, it ought to serve primarily at

only two, Levels „a‟ and „b‟ and, occasionally, in the multilingual minority areas of

Level „c‟, while it performs a secondary official function in the monolingual areas

under Level „c‟ (monolingual states, zone or regions) and at Levels„d‟ and „e‟ (cf.

Adegbite 2004b). An illustration of the suggestion made above is presented in Table 1

below.

Table 1: Official functions of languages at politico-geographical levels in Nigeria

Languages Functions (Inter-) National Zonal/State Local/Ward

NigE Primary √ MB SE SS ─

Secondary ─ NW NE SW √

Indigenous

Languages

Primary ─ NW NE SW √

Secondary √ MB SE SS ─

Zones: MB (Middle Belt), NE (North East), NW (North West), SE (South East) and

SW (South West)

An explanation of the presentation above is that NigE, would be used primarily for

international communication and in national (inter-ethnic) communication at the

National Assembly, National Executive Council, Federal High Court and all federal

institutions, while the indigenous languages in respective areas are used primarily at

the intra-ethnic level such as in the States Houses of Assembly and other states

institutions. Indeed, the consideration of English usage at all for official

communication at the ward and local government levels is rational on the grounds that

the messages of such communication may sometimes be intended to extend beyond

those areas.

The NigE mentioned above, indigenised and domesticated to wear a Nigerian

colour, would be different from Colonial English, when codified. It is the codified

standard form that would be used for official inter-ethnic and international

communication, while the colloquial and non-standard forms, including pidgin, could

be used for intra-ethnic communication alongside the indigenous languages (cf. Attah

1987, Jowitt 1991, 1995).

5.2.3 Language and Social Citizenship in Nigeria The decisions about what roles to assign to languages or dialects of languages

at individual and societal levels, which languages to choose for communication in

personal and official communication and why particular languages are preferred to

others in communication situations are to a great extent determined or influenced by

such factors as language attitude, language mastery, human behavior and the psycho-

22

social conditions prevailing in a society at a particular time. It is proper to examine

how these factors affect the status and uses of English and indigenous languages in

Nigeria so that we can have a clear understanding of the individual capacities and

social responsibilities of citizens in addressing the challenges of languages vis-à-vis

national development.

In Nigeria, the attitudes of speakers to languages have been identified as a

major factor militating against the utilisation of languages for sustainable individual

and social development (Adegbija 1994; Bamgbose 2001, Oyetade 2001, Adegbite

2003a) and scholars have attributed the attitudes to colonialism, eliticism, mobility and

job prospects, level of language development and lack of knowledge of the workings

of language. In particular, the elite-masses distinction has been a major factor in the

consideration of language attitude, choice, usage and use by Nigerians. For example,

the Nigerian elite have been blamed for the inferior status of the indigenous languages

compared with English (Oyesakin 1992). Since it is the elite that dominate policy

making in Nigeria, their interest has always been equated with public interest.

Consequently, the dominance of English over the indigenous languages in Nigeria and

the attendant positive attitude towards the language can be attributed to elitist interests.

Ordinarily, the masses could not have had a negative attitude towards their respective

native languages if they had not been misled or misdirected by the elite who dictate the

pace and whom they look up to for direction. In the next few paragraphs, I shall

present my opinion, based on the views of scholars and my own social experience,

about the social-linguistic characteristics of the elite and the masses of Nigeria so that

we can perceive their past, present and future capacities for responsible social-action

towards developing Nigerian English and other languages for the consequent

development of the Nigerian nation. For convenience, the presentation is illustrated in

Table 2 in Appendix 2 of this paper.

Scholars have earlier perceived the African elite as a united group, referred to

variously as „the bourgeoisie‟ or „national middle class‟ and distinguished from the

metropolitan capitalists in Europe (Rodney 1972:36). The elite are characterised as

having an almost incurable desire for the permanent identification with Western elders

from whom they have learnt their lessons. According to Ngugi (2009: 42), the elite

class prefers the European linguistic screen that keeps their worlds apart from the

people. In developed societies, writers, keepers of memories and carriers of national

discourse use the languages of their communities; but the postcolonial elite prefer to

express communal memories in foreign languages, which mean sharing those

communal memories with the foreign owners of the languages or among themselves as

foreign language-speaking elite. The result is an intra-class conversation of elite that,

cocooned from the people by the language of its choice and practice, conceives of

itself as constituting the nation by itself.

In the present day Nigeria, different faces of elitism10

can be identified. Over

the fifty year period of independence, a „ruling‟ elite have gradually emerged in the

polity from the previous „national middle class‟ parallel and in constant touch with

Western capitalists. The 0.5% ruling elite entrusted with the governance of the nation

at the national, state and local government levels have progressively acquired political

power and stupendous wealth at the expense of the nation in order to maintain and

sustain contact with their cohorts abroad. Conscious of class preservation, detached

from the local community and exploitative, they use language as an instrument of

power and exploitation (cf. Fanon 1967: 133,152). They themselves are bilingual in

23

varying degrees in English and respective indigenous ethnic languages, depending on

their levels of education; but they encourage the sustenance of English for official

business and, sometimes, personal interests disguised as official, making endless visits

overseas for conferences, social activities and medical treatment and stashing away

money in foreign accounts. Their children live abroad and receive education there at

great expense to the nation. Having English as their mother tongue and little or no

knowledge of an indigenous language, the children become culturally alienated and

estranged from the Nigerian community. Yet, courtesy of their parents‟ means and

resources, these emigrated children who have for many years been shielded from

national problems and aspirations are, unfortunately, sometimes foisted on the nation

to hold leadership positions through improper and rigged elections.

The second elitist group of major significance is the „educated‟ or middle class

elite. The more numerically prominent members of this group are the „careerists‟ or

professionals, about 15% population, in various fields - senior teachers, academicians,

educationists, journalists and media practitioners, lawyers, accountants, doctors,

writers, publishers, film makers, senior civil servants and senior officers of security

and law enforcers, corporate managers and businessmen. Members are more often

collaborators and imitators of the ruling elite and just as self-centred, intra-class in

perspective and conscious of self-serving awards. Fanon (1967:120) says:

The university and merchant classes which make up the most

enlightened section of the new state are in fact characterised by

the smallness of their number and their being concentrated in

the capital, and the type of activities in which they are engaged:

business, agriculture and the liberal professions...The national

bourgeoisie… is not engaged in production, nor in invention,

nor building, nor labour…

The „career elite‟ demonstrate the attitude of ambivalence and contradiction,

feeling proud to identify with the native languages which serve as a powerful symbol

of ethnicity while at the same time taking maximum advantage of all the benefits that

proficiency in English confers. Parents forbid their children from speaking the native

language at home, even when the fathers and mothers speak the language to each other.

They overzealously prevent their children from playing with peers in the

neighbourhood, except those who can speak to them in English. They send the children

to schools abroad and high fee paying elitist private schools locally. In the local private

schools, low priority is accorded indigenous languages at school in a „straight for

English‟ programme. Apart from the fact that fewer periods are allocated to the

languages in the school curriculum, if they occur as subjects at all, school regulations

forbid children from speaking them, even when the teachers do so. Thus, children who

do not speak indigenous languages at home or in school lack any interest in it and fail

to master the language to any significant degree.

The less prominent members of the educated elite are the „intellectuals‟ who are

very few indeed (2%). They cut across all the professions mentioned above for career

officers. Intellectuals are not only well educated in bookish terms, but they are also

involved practically in social activities that involve reasoning, sensitisation and

participation. In other words, intellectuals are socially responsible citizens who do not

only theorise and pontificate on social issues, but advocate, lobby and take practical

steps to solve social problems (Bamgbose 2006, Adegbite 2008b)11

. The intellectual

24

elite are nationalists and patriots. They seek for, research and promote original and

creative ideas and inventions that can help to advance progress and sustain the

sovereignty and development of the nation. Intellectual academics and scholars are

coordinate bilinguals12

and have consistently advocated the complementarity of the

learning, mastery and utilisation of indigenous languages and English for national

development and the numerous benefits attached to such language measures. They

suggest bilingualism and bilingual education as a basis for sustainable national

development. In this regard, they utilise their native language primarily for

communication at home and in social gatherings, while at the same time provide a

conducive environment for achieving literacy in the native language and English. Their

children attend quality but not too expensive private and government schools in which

bilingualism is encouraged or at least, tolerated; thus, the children are able to achieve

competence and literacy in both native language and English.

A sub-elite group of individuals, mostly of the older generation, can also be

identified. This group of people, about 2.5% in population, are wealthy and have the

financial capacity to achieve economic goals, but their limited formal education

constrain their socio-political power from matching that of the ruling or educated elite.

The sub-elite group members are competent in the spoken form of their native

language but may not be literate in the language; they also lack knowledge of either

spoken or written English. In order to boost their social position, they encourage their

wards or children to attend school in order to be literate in English. The kind of school

which their children attend depends on their level of association in society or extent of

enlightenment. Thus, the children achieve bilingualism in varying degrees in both their

native language and English, from limited to coordinate bilinguals.

Coming to the „masses‟, which scholars (Fanon 1967, Rodney 1972, Ngugi

1981) have referred to cover the „proletariat‟ and „peasants‟, the masses form the

largest group of individuals (80%) in the nation. The proletariat or working class

people (20%) have not received as much formal education as the elite class has. With

the feeling of deprivation of formal education, accompanied by low wages at work, the

working class is always in constant struggle with the elite for better wages and

conditions of service. Members are incipient and subordinate bilinguals who are

competent in their native language but lack competence in English. However, whatever

the limitations of parents in the proletariat group, they compensate for in their desire to

ensure that their children and wards are educated and speak English. They emulate

their elite colleagues by speaking English to their children at home, not minding the

quality of the language emanating from their own deficiency. They also send their

wards to fee-paying primary schools where the medium of instruction is English, even

though the schools they can afford lack the quality of teachers and facilities to enhance

its proper learning and usage. For children who do not speak their native language at

home before going to school, they become limited bilinguals, failing to master any

language to any significant degree.

Constituting 60% of the citizen‟s population, the peasants are the largest group

of people in the country in terms of social class. However, they are a marginalised

group in view of their lack of formal education and knowledge of English.

Communication wise, they have been excluded from the affairs of the nation, despite

the large potentials of the knowledge and capacity they possess for national

development. Ngugi (1981: 23) asserts that the peasant keep alive the national heritage

and see no contradiction between speaking their own mother tongue and belonging to a

25

larger national or continental geography. The children of peasants who go to school

(many do not) have achieved mastery of oracy skills in their native language before

going to school, but they fail to acquire education and literacy in both the language and

English in the public schools they attend due to poor learning conditions.

6. The Misuse(s) of English in Nigeria

6.1 Misuses at the Micro-level

I go back to the comment of Prof. David Cook, mentioned earlier in this study,

(see Notes 2) that the pattern of language use in the country is mainly responsible for

the low level of development in the key areas of national life. The hitherto

uncoordinated overbearing status of English above indigenous languages has done

incalculable damage to the individual and collective psyche of Nigerian citizens,

unwittingly. Reports of poor performance of students in education, qualitavely and

quantitatively, continue to jar our ears from time to time. Students perform poorly in

examinations in all subjects, including languages (Akere 1995, UBE 2003, Bamgbose

2006 and Jibril 2007). Majority of users, while not literate in their mother tongues, do

not also speak or write English well, even at the tertiary level (cf. Adesanoye 1994,

2004). There is constant evidence of impoliteness in communicative interactions in

English among people as many speak bookish English even in informal situations.

Through the overuse of English, majority of the Nigerian populace is excluded

from information and active participation in the different facets of social life (Oyelaran

1988, Bamgbose 2006). There is communication restriction due to the shortage of

information facilities, on the one hand, and the existence of deliberately formulated

information restriction laws. Knowledge and information circulated in English get to

20% of the Nigerian population and the interpretation and translation of such into the

indigenous languages is haphazardly done, courtesy a few mass media that are

conscious of the essence of indigenous language development. A major restriction is

that not all users of English are even competent in the language and it is common

knowledge that research findings, academic discussions and most government policies

written in English circulate among and are understood by only 10% of the Nigerian

population, who are competent in the language. Not only is this trend unhelpful to

democracy, it is also a hindrance to human development. Further evidence of

communication failure can be observed in the aversion to interactions by some

political leaders, manifested either through avoidance of impromptu dialogue in

English with news reporters and the public and the making of unilateral declarations

and issuance of threats and abuses in form of „harsh words‟ and „words of coercion‟

(cf. Adegbite 2008c).

It is not just enough to castigate human beings for their low performance

levels, nor is it even wise enough to blame the failure on the lack of adequate

qualified and skilled human resources, inadequate funding, poor facilities, equipment

and infrastructure. These resources are secondary to the main cause of the problems,

language misuse. Take it or leave it, without getting the language right, there is a very

limited chance of survival in the globalised economy. Essien (2003, 2006) observes

that it is quite clear that nationhood, economic, legal, socio-cultural and linguistic

developments were integrated in developed western and Asian nations and are where

they are - far above the new Black African nations whose developments take no

cognisance of the enormous potential of language.

26

Thus, in addition to the need for government authorised long-term sustained

efforts, a combined effort of individuals and groups to promote, develop and utilise the

language resources of the nation appropriately, through micro- and macro-policies,

planning and action measures, is a sine qua non of qualitative and quantitative

education, positive socio-cultural dynamism, creative technology, vibrant economy,

social justice, medical innovations and political sovereignty. It is sometimes very

surprising when a group of human beings recognise language as a basic requirement of

their social existence and yet fail to exploit its creative potential for societal growth.

Instead, we face other things and continue to chase the shadows.

6.2 Misuse at the Macro-level

6.2.1 Examining the Language Provisions It has already been stated that the „overuse‟ of English and „underuse‟ of

indigenous languages have been the sources of our collective language failure and the

consequent national kwashiorkor. One reason for the language problem is the lack of a

comprehensive language policy, while some of the few language provisions that

abound are either not well formulated or not implemented. Let us at this juncture look

at the provisions stated a short while ago and comment on them.

Of the eight provisions, five (1, 2, 3, 4, and 8) are not in tune with the reality

of the situation on ground and may require reformulation to be feasible. Two (5 and 7)

are okay as they are but are not being implemented for one reason or the other. The

remaining provision (6) may suffice if well implemented, but some scholars would

prefer an alternative to it. In my comments on the provisions below, I shall identify the

flaws in the provisions and attempt to suggest reformulations or solicit implementation

as may be necessary.

Provision 1. No preference should be given to any language(s) by mentioning them

overtly (cf. Adegbite 2008a), which is the main complaint by the ethnic minority

groups (cf. Egbokhare 2004). Besides, all languages are to be treated as equal, as a

right of the speakers13

. Secondly, the expression “when adequate arrangements have

been made therefor,” has been described by scholars as an escape clause that covers up

inaction (cf. Bamgbose 1994).

Reformulation: The business of The National Assembly shall be conducted in

English and Nigerian indigenous languages, when desirable.

Provision 2. The indigenous language(s) is/are considered primary at the state level

and should be mentioned before English.

Reformulation: The business of a House of Assembly shall be conducted in the

language(s) of the immediate environment in each State, as the House

may by resolution approve, and in English.

Provision 3. The preference for any language(s) should not be explicitly stated. The

child or community should have the freedom to choose from any of the languages

he/she may desire.

Reformulation: Government appreciates the importance of language as a means of

promoting social interaction and national cohesion; and preserving

cultures. Thus every child shall learn the language of the immediate

environment. Furthermore, in the interest of national unity, it is

expedient that every child shall be required to learn another Nigerian

27

language apart from his/her own native language.

Provision 4. The provision is ambitious and unrealistic, having been hastily drafted by

the military government of Nigeria at that time to spite Britain during a temporary

period of „strained‟ political relationship between them. What is the essence of a

„second official‟ language when the existing official language, English, is daunting

enough to cope with? Bamgbose (2001) wonders how feasible it is to introduce French

in the primary school curriculum, since every primary school teacher teaches all

subjects and very few of them can teach the subject. Learning a foreign language such

as French should be an optional and not a compulsory task.

Reformulation: For smooth interaction with our neighbours, it is desirable for

Nigerians to speak French. Accordingly, students shall be encouraged

to learn French as a subject in the curriculum, starting from the Junior

Secondary School.

Provision 5. This provision is well formulated and is in conformity with international

standards. But scholars have reported its non-implementation. Ohiri-Aniche (2001)

reports that most of the nursery schools in Nigeria, which are privately owned, use

English as a medium of instruction and some of them do not even have the “mother

tongue or language of the immediate environment” as a subject on the school time

table. Some proprietors‟/proprietresses‟ and head teachers, of course, are aware that

the provision is valid and reasonable (Adegbite and Obilade 2002), but what can they

do? Instead, they give the usual escapist excuse: “That is what the parents want, and

s/he who pays the piper dictates the tune.” Can one really blame them for succumbing

to the parents‟ pressure, under the false notion of “the earlier English, the better”?

Many parents who speak English to their children at home lack mastery of the

language themselves and do not realise what damage they cause their children who

may have to unlearn in future some of the wrong things they have been taught as

children. The education administrators who are to enlighten the parents and also

monitor the schools to ensure that they comply with the provision are themselves

compromised and the perpetuation of ignorance continues. Meanwhile, the status of

nursery education in public schools is arbitrary and unplanned.

Provision 6. The main problem with this information is that the implementation is

haphazardly done as it lacks the political will and commitment of the government. The

provision is also well formulated, to some extent, and it would suffice in the

meantime, in view of indigenous languages that do not yet have the script, human and

material resources to cope beyond the lower level as mediums of instruction.

Otherwise, scholars have commented that the fourth year period of change-over from

language of immediate environment to English is too early for effectiveness (Fafunwa,

et al. 1989, Afolayan 2001, Obanya 2002)14

. They suggest that the native language

should be used as a medium of instruction throughout the six years of primary school

or even up till the end of basic education, after the third year of junior secondary

school, while at the same time taught alongside English as a subject. Note also the

observation made earlier about the non-feasibility of teaching French at this level of

education.

Provision 7. This provision is okay as it is, provided that it is well-implemented.

Provision 8. The problem with this provision is that literature in English is listed as an

28

elective at the Senior Secondary School level; whereas, it should be a compulsory

subject, in order to develop positive reading habits among all students, not a select few

(Adegbite 2005b).

Notwithstanding the comments and reformulations of provisions above, it is

quite apparent that a general framework that expresses the national philosophy,

principle(s) and/or ideology(ies) is lacking, to which all the provisions above can be

related. Adegbite (2008a:15) suggests a policy framework at the macro-level of

societal (national) bilingualism, represented symbolically thus: NL + SL + (OL),

where NL refers to Native Languages; SL refers to Second Language (English); OL

refers to other languages which may be another indigenous language, Pidgin English

or foreign languages such as French, Arabic, German and Latin; and the brackets

indicate optionality. The principles underlying the policy are three, viz, (i) the primacy

of the mother tongue, (ii) the secondary role of English or English as a Second

Language and (iii) bilingualism-biculturalism (Adegbite 2004c). It can also be seen

that the specification above supports polyglottism, but a status distinction is made

between NL and SL as obligatory languages and OL as optional languages.

6.2.2 Misconceptions about Language Learning and Use Language scholars have identified three facets or aspects of attitude as the

cognitive, affective and the behavioural or active (Agheyisi and Fishman 1970, Baker

2001). These aspects apply to the lackadaisical or negative attitude paid to language

development in Nigeria. For example, the affective aspect can explain the positive

attitude which speakers may have towards English and, to some extent, their own

native languages and the negative attitude that they may have towards the languages of

other people. The behavioural or active aspect can explain the reasons why some

people take practical steps towards developing languages, why some others are

apathetic about the languages and why, yet, some prevent the development in other to

perpetuate exclusion. The cognitive aspect can explain the knowledge, beliefs,

ideologies and values that speakers may have about themselves, others, their

environment and languages that may predispose them to feel or behave in a particular

way.

Certain misconceptions about language learning and use by some individuals

may have been responsible for their attitude towards languages. Obemeata (2002)

presents some of such misconceptions as follows:

(i) Children have no advantage in being taught in the mother tongue. The mother

tongue interferes negatively with the learning and usage of the English language.

(ii) Mother tongue learning is not relevant to the global economy.

(iii)Mother tongue cannot express technical concepts of mathematics, science and

technology.

(iv) The language projects of NERDC in developing indigenous languages may, after

all, be a colossal waste of resources.

In their attempt to argue for the primary role of English in Nigeria, Igboanusi

and Lothar (2005:18) claim that “Nigerians are not genuinely complaining about the

role and functions of English in Nigeria. Those who try to fault the dominance of

English in Nigeria do so for academic purposes”. To buttress their position, they (ibid.

p.19) cite Lucko‟s (2003) assertion that

29

“… demanding that all these languages be developed to a point where they

can serve as fully-fledged languages in all domains of life and as a medium

of instruction in the education system seems to be a fundamentalist thinking

because this may be unrealistic and even unhelpful. These nations have much

more pressing needs than development of all languages…, such as providing

people with food, development of infrastructure and health systems, etc.

governments therefore have to concentrate (often limited) material resources

on main objectives.

Later, in the same book, (p.22), the authors have this to say:

Education in English does not mean a rejection or forsaking of our culture.

After all English permits the projection of one‟s culture in the language. There

is also nothing wrong in cultural hybridisation, which the use of English may

encourage.

While there is no disagreement between the authors‟ position and mine on the

realities of bilingualism/ multilingualism and hybridisation, our main point of

disagreement is that of primacy between the native languages and English. No one is

disputing the fact that English should play primary roles nationally and internationally.

Instead, what we are saying is that its role can be de-emphasised at the intra-national

level, where it would play a secondary role. We are also saying that with the political

will, indigenous languages can also play secondary roles at the national level.

Lastly, on the issue of misconceptions, I shall refer to the claim of some

legislators of the Lagos State House of Assembly during a debate on language medium

of communication in the House (The Guardian, 10 December, 1999) that “The mother

tongue is not appropriate for the conduct of the business of the House of Assembly. It

is capable of demeaning and reducing the intellectual capacity of legislators”. It is,

however, gratifying that the same House, for better reasons of common sense, has now

passed the bill for the occasional use of Yoruba to conduct her affairs, like some other

Houses in the Southwestern and Northern states (Owolabi 2006).

6.2.3 The Need for Enlightenment Contrary to the misconceptions expressed above, there are some useful facts

about language that should be made available to all citizens of Nigeria who are

interested in language development. First, the vital role of the native languages, which

are respectively the mother tongues of users, cannot be overemphasised as they

provide the bases for their positive personal image, original individuality and

creativity, retention and maintenance of native identity. The mother tongue is the most

useful language to a bilingual child in the formative stage of his/her life. According to

Fafunwa (1982), it is natural to him/her like mother‟s milk. A human being without

competence in his/her mother tongue is deprived and de-humanised. In Nigeria‟s

cultural parlance, only a bad mother will refuse to give her child breast milk while only

an awkward child will rate another language higher than his/her own.

To be denied the opportunity to acquire education or communicate in

one‟s mother tongue is a violation of one‟s linguistic rights (Tollefson 2004). To allow

such a denial is to destroy the life of the individual psycho-socially and also sentence

the language to death. According to Skuttnabb-Kangas (2004), no language deserves to

die because the cost of language death in terms of knowledge and cultural loss to an

enlightened community is enormous. Essien (2003) says that the source of power of

30

developed nations lies in their ability to develop their numerous languages from very

few sources and utilise the languages for gainful purposes. While academics in

developed nations of the world encourage participation in the globalisation process via

native and non-native languages, contesting Englishisation seriously (Phillipson and

Skutnabb-Kangas 1999, Skutnabb-Kangas 2004), most academics in undeveloped

Anglophone nations, apart from a few active linguists, respond to globalisation by

either being apathetic or encouraging the loss of their native languages and promoting

Englishisation.

Furthermore, research in bilingualism and second language teaching has

shown that pupils perform better in both mother tongue (L1) and English (L2) in

primary school leaving examinations, when instruction is carried out in the mother

tongue and both the mother tongue and English are taught as subjects (Afolayan 2001,

Ouane 2005, Jibril 2007). The results of several experiments carried out around the

world (cf. Cummins 1981, Royer and Carlo 1991, August et al. 2000 and 2006) have

confirmed that the acquisition of competence in a mother tongue facilitates the proper

learning of a second language if mother tongue and second language skills are

introduced in a sequential order in which skills learnt earlier facilitate the acquisition

of later skills (cf. Adegbite 1993, 2000b). For example, the oral skills of listening and

speaking of L1 and L2 influence positively the learning of literacy skills of reading and

writing in both L1 and L2; also the mastery of reading and writing L1 later influences

reading and writing in L2.

What Adegbite (1993, 2000b) suggests, in line with the approach of

„sequential‟ bilingualism utilised by the scholars mentioned above (Kessler 1984), is

that in early education at the nursery and early primary level, while the L1 is used as

the medium of instruction, both the L1 and English will be taught as subjects. In the

languages taught, both the oracy and literacy skills of L1 will be emphasised but only

the oracy skills of L2 will be focused on. By the time the children get to the later part

of primary school, they will be fully literate in the L1 and will also have had

considerable mastery of oracy and some mastery of reading in L2. When you now

focus on the literacy skills of L2 at this level, the children will bring all their previous

learning experience to bear on these later skills and thus enable efficient and effective

learning. Also, when there is a switch from L1 to L2, either at this stage (Primary 4) or

a later stage (JSS1), the children already have the linguistic, cultural and cognitive

bases to cope with their subjects. Otherwise, the straight use of a second or foreign

language to teach children who are not yet competent in their mother tongues or

second language, as is currently in practice, most often results in „limited‟ bilingualism

or „semi-lingualism‟ and also in rote learning (Baker 2001, Dada 2006), especially

when there is lack of adequate exposure to the second language (Bamgbose 1985).

According to Andrew Thomas (1995:383), former Assistant Director, British Council,

in charge of English and education in West Africa, “the teaching of English should be

carried out within a truly bilingual system, integrating the teaching of English with the

teaching of indigenous languages. English must be able to co-exist with the indigenous

languages, both in the curriculum and in the world outside education”.

Another repercussion of the „straight for English‟ programme is that the

children would at best have acquired Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills

(BICS), but not Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency (CALP), when we believe

that they have successfully learnt English. Cummins (1984) distinguishes between

BICS and CALP (cf. also Baker 2001) in second language learning. According to him,

31

the terms describe two different types of language abilities found in children. BICS

refers to context-bound, face-to-face communication, like the language first learned by

toddlers and preschoolers, which is used in everyday social interaction. In contrast,

CALP (Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency) refers to the highly abstract,

decontextualised communication that takes place in the classroom, especially in the

later elementary grades. CALP involves the “language of learning”, which enables

children to problem-solve, hypothesise, imagine, reason and project into situations

with which they have no personal experience. It is a prerequisite for learning to read

and write and for overall academic success. Children who begin acquiring a second

language at the time they begin school generally take one to two years to acquire BICS

and five to seven years to acquire CALP. The implications of the BICS and CALP

concepts are that the child‟s second language or language of the classroom needs to be

sufficiently well developed for her or him to be able to meet the cognitive demands of

the academic setting. This does not mean that the child‟s L1 should be abandoned,

however. In fact, the theory assumes that a minimum threshold of competence in L1 is

required in order for a child to benefit from instruction in L2. All activities such as

speaking, listening, reading or writing in both L1 and L2 facilitate the development of

the whole cognitive system. However, if children are made to operate in L2 when L1 is

not adequately developed, then the entire language system will be compromised and

academic learning and performance will suffer.

6.2.4 Summary of Argument I have argued in this lecture that English is a second language in Nigeria and

thus ought to complement rather than dominate the native indigenous languages. In

doing this, English would function primarily as a language of inter-ethnic and

international communication and secondarily in intra-national and intra-ethnic

communication. The indigenous languages can play secondary roles at the national

level and play primary roles at the ethnic and intra-ethnic levels. Next, I have argued

that the indigenisation of English is inevitable, to enable it express experiences of

Nigerians; hence, the suggestion that Standard NigE be codified as a model that will

co-exist with other colloquial and non-standard forms to be used appropriately with the

indigenous languages for efficient and effective communication in specific situations. I

see bilingualism/ multilingualism as an asset, not a liability. But I support „additive‟

bilingualism instead „subtractive‟ bilingualism (Lambert 1975), because the former

promotes the development of the two languages and encourages the user‟s flexibility in

them, while the latter demotes the first language in the process of acquiring the second

and results in the loss of native cultural identity (Gutierrez, et al. 2002 and Skutnabb-

Kangas 2004). Then, I suggest that languages be presented sequentially to learners in

schools, to enable mother tongue and second language skills learnt earlier to facilitate

those learnt later. In a nutshell, the point I am making is not to discontinue with

English. Instead, it is simply about additive bilingualism and the restitution of positive

individual self-image and social responsibility; the preservation of native personal

identity, even in the acquisition of multiple identities; the acquisition of language and

cognitive competence and creativity; and lastly, learning languages through

appropriate sequencing and order of skills, not putting the cart before the horse.

7. Implications and Recommendations

Nigeria requires well-coordinated macro- and micro-language planning

measures (cf. Emenanjo 1990, Ricento 2006, Omoniyi 2007, Adegbite 2008a) for

sustainable national development, in view of the importance of language in nation-

building. While macro-planning takes place at the national level, in the form of

32

formulating appropriate policies and demonstrating positive political will to support

the implementation, micro-planning takes place at the individual, group and sub-

national levels to promote, use and develop languages. Some examples of micro-

planning activities mentioned by Adegbite (2008a) are the Ife Six-year Primary Project

(SYPP), already cited; the Zaria Primary Education Improvement Project (PEIP)

(Omojuwa 1980) and the Port Harcourt Rivers Readers Project (Williamson 1980).

Others include the identification of varieties, nativisation and codification efforts on

NigE (Ubahakwe 1979, Bamgbose et al. 1995, Awonusi and Babalola 2004 and

Adegbite and Olajide 2009); the Use of English, including the Communication Skills

Project (COMSKIP), programme in tertiary institutions (Afolayan 1986);

modernisation efforts on indigenous languages such as the production of (i) a glossary

of technical terminologies in science and mathematics for primary schools in eight

languages, (ii) a metalanguage in three languages on linguistics, literature and

methodology, (iii) translations of the 1999 Constitution into three languages, (iv) a

quadrilingual „glossary of legislative terms‟ (QGLT) in three languages, and (v) a

Yoruba Dictionary of Engineering Physics (cf. Owolabi 2006).

Effective language planning would require the attention of all stakeholders in

the society to formulate, implement, develop and nurture an enduring additive

sequential societal bilingual policy in which both English and indigenous languages

are utilised complementarily as national, regional, state and local languages for

personal, official and in particular, educational purposes. The stakeholders in the

Nigerian society have minimum specific roles, though not restricted to these, to play in

the language development process. The government at the national level should

- formulate, legislate and provide the enabling environment for the implementation of

a bilingual policy for the nation;

- sponsor the codification and elaboration of Standard NigE to reflect the identity of

the nation and proclaim it as national language.

- encourage the translation and interpreting of documents and texts across languages

for public consumption.

It is also the duty of the governments at the state and local government levels to

encourage, finance and support the languages in their respective domains.

It is the duty of the intellectual and career elite to engage in planning

measures such as „corpus‟ planning - development of language structure through

devising and standardising of orthographies and writing grammars and dictionaries –

by language scholars; „status‟ planning – assigning vital roles to languages – by

politicians and all citizens; „acquisition‟ planning by learners, teachers and education

administrators; „advocacy‟ planning – politicking by all citizens, especially by cultural

groups and legislators; and „elaboration‟ planning – enlightenment and popularisation

of languages – by scholars, media practitioners, writers, publishers and film artistes

and directors. Individuals, groups (especially cultural), corporations and organisations

may promote a bilingual policy in several ways such as using the mother tongue and

English for communication at home; sponsoring learners to study languages at school;

specifying both native and English languages as requirements for admission and

employment; and using them in writing advertisements, signposts and billboards (cf.

Ugorji 2005).

33

Mr Vice-Chancellor sir, may I use this opportunity to appeal to academic

colleagues in Obafemi Awolowo University to make efforts to balance the abstract

researches which they conduct for the benefit of the elite and overseas sponsors with

practical application that is of relevance to the generality of the Nigerian society. In

this regard, collaborative efforts to translate some of those useful but hidden research

findings in the archives into books, booklets and pamphlets could be well utilized if

presented in consumable form to proletariat technical persons, craftsmen and women

and intelligent peasants that may need them. The Institute of Cultural Studies of this

university can be further strengthened with materials and equipment to promote

collaborative activities between the sciences and humanities. In this regard, the

university would, in addition to its academic pedigree, further justify the “For Learning

and Culture” sobriquet and make a giant leap towards social relevance.

8. Conclusion The benefits of multiple (multi-) languages, multi-literacies and integrated

language and social development are unlimited in multilingual-multiethnic nations for

the survival of individuals and societies in the globalised economy. I have had the

opportunity at one point or the other to raise some of the issues discussed above at

conferences and academic forums. It is absurd to aim at mono-competence in English

in a second language environment, instead of communicative bilingual competence.

Many English language teachers have low tolerance for the promotion of indigenous

languages in schools, perhaps for the fear of losing their jobs or for the belief that a

„straight for English‟ or „only English‟ programme will lead us to the El Dorado. When

teachers of English fail to support, what do we expect from teachers who teach other

subjects in English, some of whom will even declare bare-facedly in this 21st C. that

“you cannot use Yoruba to teach physics or chemistry”, as if those subjects originally

existed in English in the first instance?

On the contrary, linguists show a better understanding of the issues. They are

more tolerant and, indeed, strive to promote multi-languages, multi-literacies and

integrated language and social (lingua-cultural) development. As a scholar of English

language and applied linguistics, I straddle the two fields and understand the bases of

the differences in attitudes. My submission on these observations is that languages

exist for human beings, not just to be learnt, spoken and written for the sake of it, but

to be utilised for the development of individuals and societies.

Thank you very much for listening.

34

Notes

1. In Yorubaland, homage is a cultural canon, just as acknowledgement is in

scholarship. Ilesanmi (2004: 95) says that it has to be “meticulously followed if the

artist would not court the opposition of the custodians of the cultural oratural heritage”.

I see no reason why such an appropriate canon should not extend to academic

scholarship, at least, in Yorubaland. I should use this opportunity to acknowledge the

scholarship provided by the DAAD German Academic Exchange Service for a

research stay in Germany. The conducive atmosphere provided by the university, as

well as personal and academic support by my hostess, Professor Ulrike B. Gut, has

contributed a lot to the quality of this paper.

2. Prof. David Cook, a British Professor of English literature at the University of

Ilorin, at a colloquium in 1990 remarks that one reason why Africa has been slow to

become leaders of science and technological development is the pattern of language

use which encourages rote learning like parrots. Concepts in mathematics and science

had been taught in a language which the teachers themselves did not understand.

3. Scholars have estimated the population of English speakers in the world as follows:

ENL: over 337 million; ESL: 235 – 350 million; EFL: 100 – 1000million;

Conservative estimate, native or native: 670million;

Reasonable competence: 1,800 million;

A „middle of the road‟ estimate: 1,200-1,500 million, a quarter of the world‟s

population. (Crystal 1997, Graddol 1997 and Jowitt 2008)

4. Grimes and Grimes (2000) put the number at 505. Wikipedia puts it as 521. This

number includes 510 living languages, two second languages without native speakers

and 9 extinct languages. Ethnologue says there are 527 languages, of which 514 are

living languages, 2 are second languages without mother-tongue speakers and 11 have

no known speakers.

5. The italics are by the author cited and the reference should be consulted for the

solution to the exercise.

6. According to Banjo (1995:209), Variety I exhibits the greatest density of mother-

tongue transfers, while Variety four exhibits the least. Of the other two varieties,

Variety II exhibits more transfers than Variety III but, because Variety III, unlike

Variety IV, is a home-grown variety, it is identified as the most appropriate endo-

normative model. The suggestion comes after Brosnahan earlier suggestion of four

levels: Level 1 (Pidgin): no formal education; Level 2: only primary education

completed; Level 3: only secondary education completed; and Level 4: university

education completed. But parallel to Banjo‟s classification are the sociolectal varieties:

basilect, mesolect and acrolect. These represent a continuum from the non-standard to

the standard form. While Broken English is regarded as a part of the basilectal variety,

the case with Pidgin English is less clear-cut (Bamgbose 1995). Some scholars (Elugbe

and Omamor (1991) argue that Pidgin English is not a variety of English but a variety

of pidgin language in general.

7. In this regard, scholars would need to distinguish between a „descriptive‟ focus on

NigE, which permits data from different varieties to be described objectively,

irrespective of the sources or quality, and a „prescriptive‟ focus, which discriminates

between data and marks out a qualitative one for description. The codification of

35

Standard NigE is undoubtedly a prescriptive grammar that must be based on data

from the acrolectal variety. When the form is fully described, the co-existence with

the other varieties becomes streamlined and users can select forms according to the

communication situation based on their communicative competence (Adejare 1995)

8. According to Grice (1975), the maxims that speakers normally obey in

conversations are quantity, quality, relevance and manner. This view has been

criticised by scholars and an alternative suggestion is the politeness principle,

conceived in terms of politeness and face maxims.

9. Scholars have explained the reasons for the non-implementation of policies in

Nigeria diverse but complementary ways. For example, Bamgbose (2001) identifies

the constraints as failure to accord priority to language policy, negative attitude to all

indigenous languages, absence of well coordinated implementation strategies,

administrative or political instability leading to frequent changes of policy makers and

policies, failure to use language experts and lack of political will. Owolabi (2004)

identifies possible threats in terms of (i) downright opposition to the policies from

three quarters, viz. speakers of main and small group languages whose native

languages are not overtly recognised, elite who have the native language prejudice

syndrome (NLPS) and those who would like to oppose the policies because they are

not part of the teams that produce them; and (ii) official reluctance to implement the

policies. Most important of all is the negative disposition of Nigerians from the ethnic

minor and minority groups who believe that some of the provisions favour the three

major Nigerian languages and neglect others.

10. It is sometimes possible that the distinction is made between the middle class and

the ruling class, the fact still remains that, to the low class, they constitute different

facets of elitism and the positional relationship between both groups is fluid.

11. The following assertion by Gramsci (1971: 352) is apt on social responsibility:

In this sense, the real philosopher is, and cannot be other than, the

politician, the man (sic) who modifies the environment, understanding

by environment the ensemble of relations, which each of us enters to take

part in. if one‟s individuality means to acquire consciousness of them and

to modify one‟s own personality means to modify the ensemble of these

relations.

12. Bilingual speakers of an indigenous language and English exist with varying

degrees of competence in the two languages. „Coordinate‟ bilinguals have good

mastery of the two languages. „Subordinate‟ and „incipient‟ bilinguals have good

mastery of one of the two languages, usually the L1, and understand the second

language partially, with the former being slightly higher on the bilingual competence

ladder. „Limited bilinguals‟ or „semi-bilinguals‟ lack competence in both languages.

13. Three phases of LPP research have been observed by Ricento (2000) and Chibita

(2006). The first phase (from the viewpoint of language as problem) was to seek

linguistic homogeneity out of diversity, for furthering the goals of modernisation and

Westernisation. The second phase (from the viewpoint of language as a resource)

shifted from the more technical aspects of language to the social, political and

economic effects of language contact and from languages, their structures and their

roles in society to the status and relations of linguistic communities. The current third

36

phase (from the viewpoint of language as human right) presents language as a tool for

the empowerment of individuals and societies (cf. Adegbite 2008c).

14. In the Ife Six Year Primary Project (SYPP) that was carried out in the early 1970s,

the experimental group was taught all the subjects in the six-year primary school

curriculum, except English, in Yoruba, while English was taught as a subject. The

results showed that the experimental classes demonstrated better competence in

English than the control group and performed much better in practically all the other

subjects in the curriculum, including science and mathematics (Afolayan 2001).

Despite the tremendous success of the programme, political instability and lack of

political will prevented its replication and implementation nationally.

37

REFERENCES

Author’s Publications

Adegbite, A. B. (1987) Assessing the quality of translation into English as a Second

Language. Journal of English Studies IV, 59-73.

Adegbite, Wale (1988) Problems of message equivalence in simultaneous translation

from Yoruba into English. Ife Studies in English Language Vol. 2, No. 1, 15-28.

______ . (1991a) A comparative stylistics study of message projection in two versions

of a Biblical text. GEGE: Ogun Studies in English Vol. 1, 127-143.

______ . (1991b) Some features of language use in Yoruba traditional medicine. PhD

Thesis, University of Ibadan.

______ . (1993) Towards an efficient bilingual programme for teaching language skills

in Nigerian primary schools. Literacy and Reading in Nigeria Vol. 6, 337-351.

______ . (1994) Teaching English prosodic features to Nigerian secondary school

pupils. Ife Journal of Theory and Research in Education Vol.4 Nos 1and 2, 82-94.

______ . (1995) The use of English programme in Nigerian tertiary institutions: A

consideration of the course content. Nigerian Journal of Educational

Research Vol.1, No1, 99-105.

______ . (1996) English and legal argument: Some interpretation problems in selected

court cases in Nigeria. Abuja Journal of the Humanities. Vol. 1, No 2, 90-101.

______ . (1998) Some factors affecting interpretants‟ reactions to English texts in

Nigeria. Ilorin Journal of Language and Literature 3, 26-35.

______ . (2000a) Some features and problems of simultaneous interpretation of

Christian sermons in Yoruba and English. Ilorin Journal of Language and

Literature 4, 1-16.

______ . (2000b) Sequential bilingualism and the teaching of language skills to early

primary school pupils in Nigeria Glottodidactica XXVIII, 5-18.

______ . (2000c) Teaching reading comprehension in English through vocabulary.

TESL Reporter Vol. 33 (1), 23-31.

______ . (2002) The promotion of reading habits in Yoruba and English through the

Media: A case study of some media activities in southwestern Nigeria.

Literacy and Reading in Nigeria Vol.9, No 2, 88-94.

______ . (2003a) Enlightenment and attitudes of the Nigerian elite on the roles of

languages in Nigeria. Language in Culture and Curriculum 16:2, 185-196.

(Hard copy: New Language Bearings in Africa: A Fresh Quest, edited by

Margaret Muthwii and Angelina N. Kioko, Clevedon: Multilingual Matters,

pp. 89-100.

______ . (2003b) The Karatu workshops on literacy and development in Nigeria. In

Arua, A. E. (Ed.) Reading for All in Africa: Building Communities Where

Literacy Thrives. Newark, DE: International Reading Association, 109-12.

______ . (2004a) Towards a delimitation of the status and functions of English in

Nigeria. In Owolabi, K. and Dasylva, A. O. (Eds) Forms and Functions of

English and Indigenous Languages in Nigeria: A Festschrift in Honour of Ayo

Banjo. Ibadan: Group Publishers.

______ . (2004b) Language, culture and local government administration in Nigeria

In Aransi, I.O. (Ed.) Local Government and Culture in Nigeria. Chapel Hill,

NC. Chapel Hill Press Inc., pp. 206-212.

______ . (2004c) Bilingualism, biculturalism and the utilization of African languages

for the development of African nations. In Oyeleye, L. (Ed.) Language and

Discourse in Society. Ibadan: Hope Publications, 13-31.

38

______ . (2005a) Pragmatic tactics in diplomatic communication in Ola Rotimi‟s

Ovonramwen Nogbaisi. Journal of Pragmatics 37, 1457-1480.

______ . (2005b) A content–based approach towards learning English and other

subjects in Nigerian Primary Schools. Special Calel Vol. 3 No. 2 (Special

issue of the Journal of the International Conference on African Literature and

the English Language, University of Calabar, Calabar, Nigeria), 87-105.

______ . (2005c) Curriculum development and English studies in Nigerian secondary

schools. In Dada, A., Abimbade, A. and Kolawole, O. O. (Eds) Issues in

Language, Communication and Education. A Book of Reading in Honour of

Prof. C.A. Okedara. Ibadan: Counstellation Books, pp.110-124.

______ . (2005d) Perspectives of meaning interpretation in English. In Olateju, M. and

Oyeleye, L. (Eds) Perspectives on Language and Literature. Ile-Ife: Obafemi

Awolowo University, pp. 53-72.

______ . (2006) A stylistic analysis of conflict mediation discourse in a literary text.

Ife Studies in English Language Vol. 6,1: 139-168.

______ . (2008a) Macro-language policy and planning and lack of proficiency in

language learning and use by Nigerian students. Journal of the Forum on

Public Policy.www.forumonpublicpolicy.com/archivespring08/Adegbite/pdf

______. (2008b) The responsibility of academics towards promoting Nigerian

languages for sustainable national development. Paper presented at the

22nd

Conference of the Linguistic Association of Nigeria (CLAN), held at the

University of Maiduguri, Maiduguri, from November 9-13, 2008.

______ . (2008c) Achieving democratic progress through effective planning and

utilization of languages in Nigeria. Paper presented at the Faculty of Arts

International Conference on Democracy in Africa, August 12-15.

______ . (2009) The Psycholinguistics of English Language in Nigeria: An

Introduction. Ibadan: Kraft Books

______. and Onukaogu, C.E. (1994) (Eds.) Language in Education in Nigeria: Some

Critical Perspectives. Ile-Ife: Centre for Language in Education and

Development (CELED), pp. i-xiii, 1-303.

______ . and Arua, A. E. (1998) A study of secondary school students' proficiency in

English in Oyo and Osun States. Journal of Educational Improvement, Vol. 1,

44-54.

______ . and Obilade, O. O. (2002) Problems of teaching reading skills in English to

nursery school pupils in Southwestern Nigeria. Africa Reads (A Publication

of the International Development in Africa Committee) No 2, 9-13.

______ . and Kehinde, A. (2003) Discourse features of feminism in some of Flora

Nwapa‟s novels” Estudos Portugueses e Africanos EPA No 42, 5-21.

______ . and Adejuwon, A. O. (2005) Problems of perception of rhythm in English

poetry by Nigerian undergraduate students. Journal of the Nigeria English

Studies Association. Vol. 11 No 1, 77-86.

______ . and Odebunmi, Akin (2006) Discourse tactic in doctor-patients‟ interactions

in English: An analysis of diagnosis in medical communication in Nigeria.

Nordic Journal of African Studies, Vol. 15 (4), 499-519.

______ . Odebunmi, Akin, Sadiq, Tajudeen and Akobundu, Ngozi (2008a) Lantern

Comprehensive English for Junior Secondary Schools I-III. Lagos: Literamed

Publications.

______ . and Akinwale, Layi (2008a) The Limitations of Yoruba-English in Bilingual

Undergraduates Students in the Expression of Greetings. In Ndimele, O. M.

Udoh, I. I. and Anyawu, O. (Eds) Critical Issues in the Study of Linguistics,

39

Languages and Literatures in Nigeria. A Festschrift for C.M. B. Brann. Port

Harcourt: Grand Orbit Communications Ltd and Emhai Press, pp.195-184.

______ . Wale and Olajide, Billy (Eds) (2008b) English and the Challenges of Literacy

in the 20th

C. Proceedings,of the 22nd

Annual Conference of the Nigeria

English Studies Association (NESA). Lagos: Olivetree Ventures and NESA,

213 pages.

______ . and Olajide, Billy (Eds) (2009a) Re-inventing the English Language in the

Context of Globalization and Decolonization. Proceedings of the 23rd Annual

Conference of the Nigeria English Studies Association (NESA). Lagos:

Olivetree Ventures and N ESA.

______ . and Olajide Billy (Eds) (2009b) English in the Nigerian Environment:

Emerging patterns and new challenges. Proceedings of the 24th

Annual

Conference of the Nigeria English Studies Association (NESA). Lagos:

Olivetree Ventures and N ESA.

_______ . and Gut, U. B. (2010) Variation in English Language Usage in Nigeria

across Two Generations. Mimeo, Department of English, Obafemi Awolowo

University, Ile-Ife, Nigeria

Akindele, Femi and Adegbite, Wale (1999, Re-printed 2005) The Sociology and

Politics of English in Nigeria: An Introduction. Ile-Ife: Obafemi Awolowo

University Press, i-vi, 1-181 pages.

Okedara, C. A., Awonuga, C. O., Adegbite, A. B. and Ezeokoli, Francis

(2003a)Lantern Comprehensive English for Primary Schools, Books 1 – 6

(including Teacher’s Guide and Activity Books 1-6. Lagos: Literamed

Publications.

B. Others

Achebe, C. (1958) Things Fall Apart. London: Heinemann

Adegbija, E. (1989) Lexico-semantic variation in Nigerian English. World Englishes

8:2, 165-177.

_______ . (1994) Language Attitudes in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Sociolinguistic

Overview. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

______ . (2004) The domestication of English in Nigeria. In Awonusi, S. And

Babalola, E. (Eds) In The Domestication of English in Nigeria In A

Festschrift in honour of Abiodun Adetugbo. Lagos: University of Lagos Press,

pp.20-44.

Adejare, O. (1995) Communicative Competence in English as a Second Language. In

Bamgbose, A., Banjo, A. and Thomas, A. (Eds.), pp. 153-177.

Adeniran, A. (1979) Nigerian elite English as a model of Nigerian English. In

Ubahakwe, E. (Ed.), pp. 227-241.

Adesanoye, F. (1973) A Study of the Varieties of Written English in Nigeria. PhD

Thesis, University of Ibadan

_______ . (1994) Tertiary English in Nigeria In Asein, S. O. and Adesanoye, F. A.

(Eds) Language and Polity: Essays on Language and Society in Nigeria.

Ibadan: Sam Bookman, pp. 132-147.

_______ . (2004) The English language in Nigeria: The case of a vanishing model In

Owolabi, K. and Dasylva, A. (Ed.), pp. 507-22.

Adetugbo, A. (1979a) Appropriateness and Nigerian English. In Ubahakwe, E. (Ed.),

pp. 227-241.

______ . (1979b) Nigerian English and communicative competence. In Ubahakwe, E.

(Ed.), pp. 167-183

40

_______ . (1987) Nigeria English phonology: Is there any standard? Lagos Review of

English Studies Vol. IX, 64-84.

Afolayan, A. (1968) The linguistic problem of Yoruba learners and users of English.

PhD Thesis, University of London, London.

______. (1977) Acceptability of English as a second language in Nigeria. In

Greenbaum, S. (Ed.) Acceptability in Language. The Hague: Mouton, pp.13-

25.

______ . (1986) The English language and development-oriented education higher

education in Nigeria. In Freeman, R. And Jibril, M. (Eds) English language

Studies in Nigerian Higher Education. London: British Council, pp.

_______ . (1987) English as a second language: A variety or myth? Journal of

English as a Second Language1, 4-16.

______ . (1994) Valedictory lecture: Language as a neglected factor of development

in Africa In Adegbite, W. and Onukaogu, C. E. (Eds), pp. 250-288.

_______ . (1995) Ineffectiveness in the presentation of English in Nigeria: Sources and

Remedies. In Bamgbose, A., Banjo, A. and Thomas, A. (Eds), pp. 113-129.

______ . (2001) The alienated role of the mother tongue in literacy education for

sustainable national development: The Western Nigeria Yoruba example.

In Manaka, S. (Ed.) Proceedings of the First Pan-African Reading for All

Conference, Pretoria: International Reading Association, pp. 70-88.

Akere, F. (1995) Languages in the curriculum: An assessment of the role of English

and other languages in the education delivery process in Nigeria.In Bamgbose,

A., Banjo, A. and Thomas, A. (Eds), pp. 178-99.

______ . (2009) The English language in Nigeria: The sociolinguistic dynamics of

decolonization and globalization. Keynote address. In Adegbite, W. and

Olajide, B.(Eds) (2009a) op.cit., pp.1-15.

Alo, M. A. and Mesthrie,R. (2008) Nigerian English: Morphology and syntax. In

Mesthrie, R. (Eds) Varieties of English 4, Africa, South and Southeast Asia,

Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp.323-339.

Amayo, A. (1980) Tone in Nigerian English. Papers from the Regional Meeting of the

Chicago Linguistic Society 16, 1-9.

______ . (1988) The case for RP as the appropriate model for teaching English

pronunciation. Ife Studies in English Language 2:1, 71-74.

Atoye, R. O. (1987) The case for RP as the appropriate model for teaching English

pronunciation. Ife Studies in English Language 1, 1&2, 63-70.

Attah, M.O. (1987) The national language problem in Nigeria. Canadian Journal of

African Studies 21, No 3: 393-401.

August, D., Carlo, M., and Calderon, M. (2000) Transfer of Skills from Spanish into

English. Report from Practitioners, Parents and Policymakers Retrieved from

http://www.Cal.org/pub/articles/skillstransfer.pdf Accessed on 30th April

2003.

August, D., & Shanahan, T. (2006) Developing literacy in second-language learners.

Report of the National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority Children and

Youth. Mahwah, NJ: Eribaum.

Awonusi, V. O. (1994) The Americanization of Nigerian English. World Englishes

13:1, 75-82.

______, S. (2004) RP and the sociolinguistic realities of non-native English accents. In

Owolabi, K. and DaSylva, A. (Eds), pp.179-192.

_______ . and Babalola (Eds) (2004) The Domestication of English in Nigeria. A

Festschrift in honour of Abiodun Adetugbo. Lagos: University of Lagos Press,

41

pp.20- 44.

Ayoola, K. A. (1988) Towards the standardization of Educated Nigerian English. Ife

Studies in English Language 2:1, 61-70.

Baker, C. (2001) Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. Clevedon:

Multilingual Matters.

Bamgbose, A. (1971) The English language in Nigeria. In Spencer, J. (Ed.) The

English Language in West Africa. London: Longman, 35-48.

_______ . (1992)[1982] Standard Nigerian English: Issues of identification. In Kachru,

B. The Other Tongue: English across Cultures. Urbana: University of Illinois

Press, pp. 99-111.

________ . (1982) Languages in contact: Yoruba and English in Nigeria. Education

and Development 2:1, 329-341.

______ . (1985) Barriers to effective education in West African languages. In

Williamson, K. (Ed.) West African Languages in Education. Wien: Beitrage

Zur Afrikanistik, Band 27, 22-38.

________ . (1990) Language and the national question in Nigeria. African Notes Vol.

14, Nos 1 and 2: 70-80.

________ . (1994) Fifteen years of the national language policy in education: How

far has language fared? In Adegbite, W. and Onukaogu, C.E. (1994) (Eds) op.

cit., pp. 1-10.

________ . (1995) English in the Nigerian Environment. In Bamgbose, A., Banjo, A.

and Thomas, A. (Eds), op. cit., pp. 2-26.

______ . (1998) Torn between the norms: innovations in World Englishes. World

Englishes 17:1-14.

______ . (2001) Language policy in Nigeria: Challenges, opportunities and constraints.

Keynote Address presented at the Nigerian Millenium Sociolinguistics

Conference, University of Lagos, Lagos, August 16-18.

______ . (2004) Negotiating English through Yoruba: Implications for Standard

Nigerian English. In Owolabi and Dasylva (Eds), pp. 612-630.

______ . (2006) Linguistics and social responsibility: The challenges for the

Nigerian linguist” Keynote Address Delivered at the 20th

Annual Conference

of the Linguistic Association of Nigeria at the Nigerian Educational Research

and Development Council, Abuja, Nigeria, November 13-17.

______ . Banjo, A. and Thomas, A. (Ed.) (1995) New Englishes: A West African

Perspective. Ibadan: Mosuro/ Trenton, NJ and Asmara: African World Press.

Banjo, A. (1969) A contrastive analysis of aspects of the syntactic and lexical rules of

English and Yoruba. PhD Thesis, University of Ibadan, Ibadan.

_____ . (1971) Towards a definition of Standard spoken Nigerian English. Actes du 8e

Congre de Societe Linguistique de l’afrique Occidentale, d‟Universite

d‟Abidjan, 165-75.

_____ . (1986) The influence of English on the Yoruba language. In Viereck, W. And

Bald, W. D. (Eds) English in Contact with Other Languages. Budapest:

Akademiai Kiado.

_____ . (1995) On codifying Nigerian English: Research so far. In Bamgbose, A.

Banjo, A. and Thomas, A. (Eds), pp. 203-231.

_____ . (1996) An Overview of the English Language in Nigeria. Ibadan: Ibadan

University Press.

Brosnahan, L.F. (1958) English in Southern Nigeria. English Studies39, 97-110.

Chibita, M. (2006) Our tongues count: A Ugandan perspective on indigenous

language, local content and democracy. In Salawu, A. (Ed.) Indigenous

42

Language Media in Africa. Lagos: Centre for Black and African Arts and

Civilization (CBAAC), pp. 238-270.

Cook, G. (2003) Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford university Press.

Crystal, D. (1997) English as a global language. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Cummins, J. 1981. Bilingualism and Minority Language Children. Ontario: Ontario

Institute for Studies in Education.

______ . Wanted: A theoretical framework for relating language proficiency to

academic achievement among bilingual students. In C. Rivera (ed.), Language

Proficiency and Academic Achievement. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Dada, S. A. (2006) Language contact and language conflict: The case of Yoruba-

English Bilinguals” In Ndimele, O., Ikekeonwu, C. and Mbah, B. M. (Eds)

Language and Economic Reforms in Nigeria. Port Harcourt: M & J Grand

Orbit Communications Ltd and Emhai, pp. 68-85.

Dairo, L. (1988) Teaching English pronunciation in Nigerian schools: The choice of

a model. Ife Studies in English Language 2:2, 102-110.

Egbokhare, F. (2004) Language and politics in Nigeria. In Owolabi, K. and Dasylva,

A. (Eds), pp. 507-22.

Eka, D. (1985) A phonological study of Standard Nigerian English. PhD Thesis,

Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria.

Ekundayo, S. A. (1987) English in suppressive interference. Ife Studies in English

Language 1:1&2, 5-14

Emenanjo, E. N. (1990) In the tradition of the majors: Lessons in language engineering

for the minority languages” In Emenanjo, E. N. (Ed.) Multilingualism,

Minority Languages and Language Planning in Nigeria. Agbor: Central

Books Limited in Collaboration with The Linguistic Association of Nigeria,

pp. 88-98.

______ . (1998) Towards a pragmatic language policy for Nigeria: Hindsight as

foresight in the education domain. Mimeo. Aba: National Institute for

Nigerian Languages.

Essien, O. (1995) The English language and code-mixing: A case study of the

phenomenon in Ibibio. In Bamgbose, A. Banjo, A. and Thomas, A. (Ed.), 269-

83.

______ . (2003) National development, language and language policy in Nigeria. In

Essien, O and Okon, M. (Eds) Topical Issues in Sociolinguistics: The Nigerian

Perspective. Aba: National Institute for Nigerian Languages, pp. 21-42.

______ . (2006) Language and the Nigerian reforms agenda. In Ndimele O.,

Ikekeonwu, C. and Mbah, B. M. (Eds) Language and Economic Reforms in

Nigeria. Port Harcourt: M & J Grand Orbit Communications Ltd. and Emhai,

pp. 1-14.

Fafunwa, A. B. (1982) An integrated primary school curriculum in Nigeria: A six

year project. In Afolayan, A. (Ed.) Yoruba Language and Literature. Ile-Ife

and Ibadan: University of Ife Press and University Press Limited, pp. 291-299.

______ . Macauley, J. I. and Sokoya, J. A. F. (1989) Education in Mother Tongue.

Ibadan: University Press Ltd.

Fakoya, A. A. (2004) A mediolect called „Nigerian English‟. In Owolabi, K. And

Dasylva, A. (Eds), pp. 223-238.

Fanon, F. (1967) The Wretched of the Earth. Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin.

Federal Republic of Nigeria. 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

Lagos, Nigeria: Federal Government Press.

43

Federal Republic of Nigeria (2004) National Policy on Education (Revised). Lagos:

Federal Government Press.

Freitas, J. F. And Adkins, P. V. S. (1981) English for, not English as. English

Language Teaching XXXV: 3, 216-219.

Graddol, D. (1997) The Future of English. London. The British Council.

Gramsci, A. (1971) Selections from the Prison Notebook, Edited and translated by

Quintin Hoare and Geoffrey Nowell Smith. London: Lawrence and Wishart.

Gregory, M. (1967) Aspects of varieties differentiation. Journal of Linguistics 3, 2:

177-198.

Grice, H.P. (1975) Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. and Morgan, J. L. (Eds) Syntax

and Semantics, Vol.3: Speech acts. New York: Academic Press, pp. 45-58.

Grieve, D. G. (1966) English Language Examining. Lagos: West African

Examinations Council.

Grimes, B. and Grimes, J. (2000) Ethnologue, Languages of the World. Vol. 1.

Dallas: SIL International.

Gut, U. B. (2008) Nigerian English phonology. In Mesthrie, R. (Ed.) Varieties of

English. Africa, South and Southeast Asia, 323-339. Berlin: Mouton de

Gruyter.

Gutierrez, K. D., Asato, J., Pacheco, M. Moll, M. C., Olson, K., Horng, E. L.,Ruiz, R.,

Garcia, E. and McCarty, T. L. (2002) Conversations: „Sounding American‟: The

consequences of new reforms on English language learners. Reading

Research Quarterly 37:3, 328-343.

Halliday, M.A.K. (1978) Language as a social semiotic: The Social Interpretation of

Language and Meaning. London: Edward Arnold.

______ . (1985) An Introduction to Systemic Functional Grammar. London: Edward

Arnold.

Hudson-Weems, C. (1993) Africana Womanism: Reclaiming Ourselves. Troy, MI:

Bedford.

Humm, M. (1995) Practising Feminist Criticism: An Introduction. London: Prentice

Hall/ Harvester Wheatsheaf

Hudson-Weems, C. (1993) Africana Womanism: Reclaiming Ourselves. Troy, MI:

Bedford.

Igboanusi, H. (2002) A Dictionary of Nigerian English Usage. Ibadan: Enicrownfit

Ilesanmi, T. M. (2004) Yoruba Orature and Literature: A Cultural Analysis. Ile-Ife:

Obafemi Awolowo University Press.

Ioratim-Uba, G. A. (1995) Attitudes towards Received Pronunciation (RP) among

Nigerian undergraduates. ITL Review of Applied Linguistics 109 (110), 36-74.

Isola, A. (1992) The African writer‟s tongue, in Research in African Literature,

24(1), 7-26.

Jibril, M. (1982) Phonological variation in Nigerian English. PhD Thesis, University

of Lancaster.

_____ . (1986) Sociolinguistic variation in Nigerian English. English Worldwide 7,

47-75.

_____ . (2007) New directions in African linguistics. In Akinrinade, S., Fasina, D. and

Ogungbile, D. O. and Famakinwa, J.O. (Eds) Rethinking the Humanities in

Africa. Ile-Ife, Nigeria: Faculty of Arts, Obafemi Awolowo University, pp.

281-290.

Jowitt, D. (1991) Nigerian English Usage: An Introduction. Lagos:Longman.

_____ . (2008) Varieties of English: The World and Nigeria. Inaugural Lecture

delivered at the University of Jos on Friday, 28 March.

44

Kachru, B.B. (Ed.) 1982. The Other Tongue: English across Cultures. Illinois:

University of Illinois Press.

______ . (1985) Standards, codification and linguistic realism: the English language in

the outer circle. In Quirk, R. and Widdowson, H. (Eds) English in the World:

Teaching and learning of Languages and Literature. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

______ . (1997) World Englishes and English-using Communities. Annual Review of

Applied Linguistics: Multilingualism 17, 66-87.

Kessler, C. (1984) Language acquisition in bilingual children. In Miller, N. (Ed.)

Bilingualism and Language Disability: Assessment and Remediation. College

Hill Press, Inc.

Kolawole, M.E.M. (1996) Womanism and African Consciousness. Trenton, NJ: Africa

World Press

Kujore, O. (1985) English Usage: Some Notable Nigerian Variations. Ibadan: Evans.

_____ . (1995) Whose English? In Bamgbose, A. Banjo, A. and Thomas, A. (Eds),

pp. 367-380.

Lawal, A. (2009) Globalization and the repercussions of Englishization in Nigerian

education. In Adegbite, W. and Olajide, B. (Eds), pp.1-15.

Lewis, M. P. (Ed.) The Ethnologue: Languages of the World, 16th

Edition. Dallas, TX:

SIL International.

Lucko, P. (2003) Is English a „killer language‟? In Lucko, P. Peter, L. and Wolf, H.

(Eds) Studies in African Varieties of English. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang,

pp. 151-165.

Mukherjee, J. and Gries, S. T. (2009) Collostructional nativisation in New Englishes.

English World-Wide 30:1, 27-51.

Ngugi wa Thiong‟o (1981) Decolonising the Mind:The Politics of Language in

African Literature. Nairobi, Kampala, Dar es Salaam: East African

Educational Publishers.

______ . (2009) Re-membering Africa. Nairobi, Kampala, Dar es Salaam: East African

Educational Publishers.

Nwapa, F. (1966) Efuru. Ibadan: Heinemann.

_____ . (1981)Women Are Different. Trenton, NJ:Tana Press.

Obanya, P. (2002) Revitalizing Education in Africa. Ibadan: Stirling Horden.

Ohiri-Aniche, C. (2001) Language endangerment among a majority group: The case

of Igbo. Paper presented at the Nigerian Millenium Sociolinguistics

Conference, University of Lagos, Lagos, August 16-18.

Odumuh, A. E. (1984) Educated Nigerian English as a model of Standard Nigerian

English. World Language English 3, 231-235.

______ . (1987) Nigerian English. Zaria: Ahmadu Bello University Press.

Omojuwa, R. A. (1980) Primary Education and the Problem of Medium Transition.

Zaria: Institute of Education, Ahmadu Bello University.

Omoniyi, T. (2007) Alternative contexts of language policy and planning in Sub-

Saharan Africa TESOL Quarterly 41:3, 533-549.

Ouane, A. (2005) Learning but in which language? ADEA Newsletter Vol. 17, No 2,

1-2.

Owolabi, K. (2004) On the translation of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal

Republic of Nigeria into selected languages. In Owolabi, K. and Dasylva, A.

(Eds), pp. 523-37.

______ . and Dasylva, A. (Eds) (2004) Forms and Functions of English and

Indigenous Languages in Nigeria. Ibadan: Group Publishers.

45

_______ . (2006) Nigeria‟s native language modernization in specialised domains

for national development: A linguistic approach” An Inaugural Lecture delivered at

the University of Ibadan, Nigeria on Thursday 29th June.

Oyelaran, O. O. (1988) Language, marginalization and national development in

Nigeria. Ife Studies in English Language 2:1, 1-14.

Oyesakin, A. (1992) Who is afraid of mother tongue? Paper Presented at the seminar

in honour of Prof. Ayo Bamgbose, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, January 9-11.

Oyetade, S. O. (2001) Attitude to foreign languages and indigenous language use in

Nigeria. In Igboanusi, H. (Ed.) Language Attitude and Language Conflict in

West Africa, Ibadan: Enicrownfit, pp. 14-29.

Prator, C. (1968) The British Heresy in TESL. In Fishman, J. Ferguson, C. A. and Das

Gupta, J. (Eds) Language Problems of Developing Nations. New York:

Wiley.

Phillipson, R. and Skuttnabb-Kangas, T. (1999) Englishization: One dimension of

globalization. In Graddol, D. And Meinhof, U. (Ed.) English in a Changing

World. AILA Review 13: 19-36. Oxford: The English Book Centre.

Quirk, R. and Greenbaum, S. (1972) A University Grammar of English. London:

English Language Book Society and Longman.

Ricento, T. (2000) Ideology, Politics and Language Policies: Focus on English.

Amsterdam:John Benjamins.

Rodney, W. (1972) How Europe Underdeveloped Africa. London: Bogle-L‟ouverture

Publishers and Dar es Salaam: Tanzania Publishing House.

Royer, J. M. and Carlo, M. S. (1991) “Transfer of Comprehension Skills from Native

to Second Language” Journal of Reading 34:6,450-455.

Salami, A. (1968) Defining a Standard Nigerian English. Journal of the Nigeria

English Studies Association 2:2, 99-106.

Saussure, F. De. (1959) Cours de Linguistique Generale (English Translation by Wade

Baskin) Course in General Linguistics. New York: Philosophical Library.

Schafer, R. P. And Egbokhare, F. O. (1999) English and the pace of endangerment in

Nigeria. World Englishes 18: 381-91.

Schneider, E. W. (2007) Postcolonial English. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Skuttnabb-Kangas, T. (2004) Do not cut my tongue, let me live and die with my

language. A comment on English and other languages in relation to linguistic

human rights. Journal of Language, Identity and Education Vol. 3, No. 2,

127-133.

The Guardian 10 December, 1999.

Thomas, A. (1995) Summary In Bamgbose, A., Banjo, A.and Thomas, A. (Eds), op.

cit., pp. 381-384.

Tollefson, J. W. 2004. Theory and action in language policy and planning” Journal

of Language, Identity and Education 3:2, 150-54.

Tomori, S. H. O. (1967) A study in the syntactic structures of the written English of

British English and Nigerian grammar school pupils. PhD Thesis, University

of London.

Ubahakwe, E. (Ed.) Varieties and Functions of English in Nigeria. Ibadan: African

Universities Press

Universal Basic Education, UBE DIGEST – Newsletter of Basic Education in Nigeria,

Vol. 4.Abuja: UBE, 2003.

46

Udofot, I. (2003) Stress and rhythm in the Nigerian accent of English. English World

Wide 24 (2): 201-220.

Ufomata, T. I. (1991) Englishization of Yoruba Phonology. World Englishes 10:1, 33-

51.

Ugorji, C. U. C. (2005) The Igbo language: Endangerment and empowerment” In

Ndimele O. (Ed.) Trends in the Study of Languages and Linguistics in Nigeria.

Port Harcourt: M & J Grand Orbit Communications Ltd. and Emhai, pp.161-

170.

Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_Nigeria.

Williamson, K. (1980) Small Languages in Primary Education: The Rivers Readers

Project as a Case History. In Bamgbose, A. (Ed.) Language in Education in

Nigeria, Vols I and II. Lagos: National Language Centre/Federal Ministry of

Education.

Wunder, E., Voormann, H. & Gut, U. (2010) The ICE Nigeria corpus project: Creating

an open, rich and accurate corpus. ICAME Journal 34, 78-88.

Yoneoka, J. S. (2001) The English umbrella: Model of a multicultural language

system. Asian English Studies 7, 2: 69-83 http://kumagaku.ac.jp/teacher/.../26.umbrellaweformatfinal2.doc Accessed May 12, 2010

47

APPENDIX 1: FEATURES OF NIGERIANISM

LEVELS: Linguistic, Pragmatic and Creative

A. LINGUISTIC: Phonology, orthographic (spelling) syntax and lexico-semantics

1. PHONOLOGY a. Substitution of consonant sounds

/f/ for /v/ as in /ferI/ for /verI/ (very); /f/ for /p/ as in /fuə/ for /puə/ (poor);

/t/ for /θ/ as in /tIn/ for /θIn/ (thin); /d/ for / /ð/ as in /dIs/ for /ðIs/ (this);

/s/ for /z/ as in /su:/ for /zu:/ (zoo); /ʃ/ for /t / as in /ʃeə / for /t eə/ (chair)

b. Substitution of vowel sounds

/I/ for /i:/ as in /sIt/ for /si:t/ (seat); /e/ for /eI/ as in /let/ for /leIt/;

/e/ for / ɛ/ as in */hevn/ for /hɛvn/ (heaven); /ɛ/ for /e/ as in */lɛdI/ for /leIdI/ (lady);

/ɔ/ for /ʌ/ as in */kɔt/ for /kʌt/ (cut); /ɔ/ for /ɔ/ as in */kɔt/ for /kɔ:t/ (court); /u/ for /u:/

as in (pool); /ɔ/ for /ə/ as in */puɔ/ for /puə/ (poor) or (future); /æ/ or /ɛ / for /ə /

as in /kIæ/ or /kIɛ/ for /kIə/ (care) or /əbaut/ (about)

c. Syllable: Vowel insertion in consonant clusters

*bured instead of bread , *filask instead flask*milik instead of milk, litu instead of

little, *sitirikt instead of strickt

d. Stress placement

(i) *maRY instead of Mary, *MOBILE instead of Mobile CARPENTER instead of

CARpenter, *RECOGNISE(-TION) instead of REcognise(-tion)

(ii) *CLASSIFY instead of CLAssify, *MAGNIFY instead of Magnify (and –ify

words);

(iii) *SOCIALISE/SOCIALISM instead of SOcialise/ Socialism, *VANDALISE

(-ISM) instead of VANdalise(-ism), MOBILISE instead of MObilise (and other –ise/

words);

(iv) *CONGRATULATIONS instead of conGRAtuLAtions, *PRONOUNCIATION

instead of ProNUNciAtion

e. Tonal Assimilation: Rising pitch in LOW-RISING sequences

H H L H / H L L H H H H L L / H L H L L

students‟ affairs / students‟ affairs senior lecturer /senior lecturer

f. Rhythm: Syllable-timed (even pitches) v. Stress-timed (uneven pitches)

(i) L H H L H H L L M L M L L

The lecture is holding at the Oduduwa Hall NigE (Yoruba speaker)

(ii) L H L L H L L L H L L L L

The lecture is holding at the Oduduwa Hall

(Note that the utterance ends on a low pitch (Falling Tune) as a statement.)

2. SPELLING (see the italicised only)

*Yes the too areas is invisble becaus resion is that the distant is diferent in evry

kilometas”, “they are intercros becos the two ares one is not par away in top of

48

another. (two, invisible because, reason, different, every, kilometer, intercross,

areas, far

3. MORPHO-SYNTAX

a. The Nominal Group

(i) Articles

Omission

*ʌGovernment is making ʌ serious effort to solve the problem. (The, a)

ʌLagos State government has just purchased some buses.

ʌ River Niger can be used effectively for transportation in Nigeria.

Superfluous usage

*Everybody is entitled to a freedom of expression. (Article not needed)

Usage of the „ordinator‟ one in place of the indefinite article a/an

*I saw one big animal coming towards us. (a/an)

(ii) Plural marking of nouns

*The studentʌ can be told to read their books regularly. English is the language of

instructions at all levels of education. (instruction)

Other words that are marked for plural in error include furniture, success,

treatment, equipment and machinery.

(iii) Case

?We are stronger than them in all respect. (they/ they are)

?She knows the subject much more than me. (I/ I do)

(iv) Genitive / Possessive

*Salvation is Godʌ desire for all human beings. (God‟s)

*The swimming pool’s water was too cold for me. (pool water/ water in the pool)

(v) Gender

*The mother told his children that he suffered a lot for them. (her, she)

*Every man in life has his destiny to face. (human, his or her)

(vi) Pronoun („they‟ used for singular referent)

*That woman there, they are calling you. (she)

*They have stolen my money. (Someone has stolen my money. / My money has

been stolen.

*They have jailed him. (He has been jailed.)

(vii) Reflexive pronoun for reciprocal activity

*The brother and sister are fond of fighting themselves. (each other)

*Please, let us show love to ourselves in this class. (one another)

(viii) Relative Pronouns

*Who are you talking to? (Whom)

*She asked me who‟s book is this? (She asked me whose book it was.)

b. The Verbal Group

(i) Concord

49

*The findings of the study shows that all the children are malnourished. (show) *Every

day, the boy leaveʌ home early for school. (leaves)

(ii) Tense and Aspect

*Many people called me and threatenʌ to beat me up. (threatened)

*Her father was not ready to assists her. (assist)

*I hope and pray every day that she can believes me. (believe)

*The parent‟s attitude must have influenceʌ her behavior. (influenced)

*Students have not being around on campus for some time now. (been)

*It took a long before a winner was emerged. (… winner emerged)

(iii) Modality

*I will like very much to attend your wedding. (would)

*Please sir, help me to sign my form. / *I want to register. (Please sir, could you sign

my form? / May I register please?)

(iv) Stative v. Non-stative (Dynamic) Verbal Expressions

*It is just recently that I am liking yam. (like/ beginning to like)

*We are trusting God to perform a miracle on her. (We trust…)

c. Other Function Words

(i) Prepositions

*During campaigns, they go about soliciting for votes… (solicit votes)

*They did not allow himʌ search the room. (allow him to)

*He was uncomfortable, but he endured, since he would soon get down from the

bus. (get off)

* I have just requested for money from home. (requested money)

*Have you served the people on the high table? (at)

*Congratulations for your success. (on)

(ii) Conjunctions

*Although nobody voted for him, but he was elected. (Choose although or but)

ʌPolitics can be beneficial to mankind (sic). On the other hand, politicians can use

it to destroy people. (On the one hand is missing)

* In case if he does not come, I will go there myself. (Choose in case or if)

d. Clause and Sentence Level

(i) Questions

*How did he lost the election? (lose)

*Does she understands you? (understand)

(ii) Topicalisation

*The female, they perform better than male students.

*People, you can not judge them by what they say. (delete either of the italicised

expressions)

*The brain, the lower animals, they have it too.

e. Tag Questions

*They are not coming, do they? (are they?)

*I got the answer correctly, isn‟t it? (didn‟t I?)

50

f. Repetition and tautologisation

*Through research, findings from studies have shown that… (research and

studies are tautological)

*The origin of ESP can be traced back to… (traced to)

… *first year anniversary (first anniversary)

4. LEXICO-SEMANTIC

a. Lexico-semantic Transfer

(i) Loan words: Native names of persons, titles, places, ethnic groups, religion and

festivals, meals and objects (These are considered normal, unless there is an

adequate equivalent word for an item in a circumstance.)

(ii) Acronyms: WAZOBIA, UME, WAEC, FRSC, PHCN, ASUU, NASU, ND,

MON, etc. (Acceptability depends on wide usage)

(iii) Loan expressions and codeswitching: o; jare; fa; walahi, Tufia kwa; turenci;

A dupe ma. Na wetin, etc. (These are sometimes stigmatised in educated usage.)

b. Lexico-semantic Extension:

Kinship terms: family, father, mother, my children, son, daughter, brother,

sister, uncle, aunt, etc.

c. Lexico-semantic Shift: senior/junior brother or sister (elder…), chief (as a title),

madam (a wealthy woman), amount (money), cult/cultism (gang), ghastly

(fatal), machine (motorbike/motorcycle), deliver a baby (be delivered of),

take in (become pregnant), *to take away light (power failure), hot (strong)

drink, etc.

c. Neologism and Nonce Formation

(i) Neologism: timber and caliber, healthiness, relinked, segmentalised, retirees,

followership, etc.

(ii) Nonce Formation: *straight forward jacked (straightjacket), *bores down to

(boils down to), *live in a selfcontain (noun) instead of “…self-contained

flat”, *two-storey building (a storey- building)

B. PRAGMATIC 1. Prayers, greetings, proverbs, social (ceremonial) expressions, etc.

2. Some social expressions: wake keeping (wake) Hip! Hip Hip! (3 times in NigE

but 2 times in BrE or AmE)

C. CREATIVE Coinages: been-to, bride price, go-slow, mammy water, long leg, cash madam, to

be someone‟s eye, to meet at home, „419‟, etc.