1

UNACHUKWU, OGECHI C. PG/MA/12/62803

EFFECTS OF PIDGIN ENGLISH IN STANDARD ENGLISH USAGE AMONG STUDENTS IN SELECTED SECONDARY SCHOOLS IN EHA-AMUFU, ISI -UZO L.G.A. OF ENUGU

STATES

FACULTY OF ARTS

DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH AND LITERARY STUDIES

Ebere Omeje Digitally Signed by: Content manager’s Name

DN : CN = Webmaster’s name

O= University of Nigeria, Nsukka

OU = Innovation Centre

2

EFFECTS OF PIDGIN ENGLISH IN STANDARD ENGLISH USAGE AMONG STUDENTS IN SELECTED SECONDARY SCHOOLS IN EHA-AMUFU, ISI -UZO L.G.A. OF ENUGU STATES

BY

UNACHUKWU, OGECHI C. PG/MA/12/62803

SUPERVISOR: PROF. C. L. NGONEBU

DATE: NOVEMBER, 2015.

Ebere Omeje Digitally Signed by: Content manager’s Name

DN : CN = Webmaster’s name

O= University of Nigeria, Nsukka

OU = Innovation Centre

3

EFFECTS OF PIDGIN ENGLISH IN STANDARD ENGLISH USAGE AMONG STUDENTS IN SELECTED SECONDARY SCHOOLS IN EHA -

AMUFU, ISI -UZO L.G.A. OF ENUGU STATES

A PROJECT REPORT SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH AND LITERARY STUDIES IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT

OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE AWARD OF MASTER OF ARTS (M.A.) DEGREE IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE

BY

UNACHUKWU, OGECHI C. PG/MA/12/62803

SUPERVISOR: PROF. C. L. NGONEBU

DATE: NOVEMBER, 2015.

4

TITLE PAGE

EFFECTS OF PIDGIN ENGLISH IN STANDARD ENGLISH USAGE AMONG STUDENTS IN SELECTED SECONDARY SCHOOLS IN

EHA-AMUFU, ISI -UZO L.G.A. OF ENUGU STATES

5

APPROVAL PAGE

This work has been read and approved as having met the standard

required for the award of the Master of Arts [MA] degree in the Department

of English and Literary Studies, University of Nigeria Nsukka.

_______________ _______________ Prof D. U. Opata Date Head of Department _______________ _______________ Prof C. L. Ngonebu Date Supervisor

6

CERTIFICATION

This is to certify that this project is an independent study carried out

by Unachukwu, Ogechi. C. whose registration number, PG/MA/12/62803, is

of the Department of English and Literary Studies, University of Nigeria,

Nsukka and that this work has not been presented in part or full for the

award of any diploma or degree in this or any other university.

_______________ _____________ Prof C. L. Ngonebu Date Supervisor

_______________ _______________ Prof D. U. Opata Date Head of Department _______________ _______________ Dean of Faculty Date

_______________ _______________ External Supervisor Date

7

DEDICATION

To you, our Testimony Ogechi Princess Unachukwu, you brought us joy,

comfort and the zeal to continue. Thank you dearie.

8

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

For this work to have gone this far, I sincerely thank God for His

grace. He is indeed a faithful God. I acknowledge the efforts and

encouragement of my supervisor, Prof. C. L. Ngonebu. Prof., you brought

out the best in me, encouraged me to work hard and never failed to attend to

me even at odd times. God bless you ma. To my other lecturers who

contributed in this work, I say thank you, especially Prof. Sam. Onuigbo,

Prof. E. J Otagburuagu, Dr. P .A. Ezema, Prof. A. N. Akwanya, Prof. D. U.

Opata and the departmental secretary.

To my research partners, Moses and Matthias, I say thank you. You

really helped in times of need. I also say a big thank you to James, Lamana,

Ukamaka, Chinyere and Lovelyn. You are friends indeed.

Finally, I sincerely thank my friend, prayer partner and husband, Rev.

Canon ThankGod Okechukwu Unachukwu. You encouraged me to continue.

You bore with me at all times. God bless you.

9

ABSTRACT

The use of Pidgin English in the Nigerian context has gone beyond verbal communication to become more of a mode of behaviour as its expression has moved from informal conversation to formal situations. This above scenario necessitated this study which investigates the effects of Pidgin English on Standard English usage among selected secondary schools in Eha-Amufu in Isi-Uzo L. G. A. Using the descriptive research design and the questionnaire as the research instruments, data were collected from a sample of 200 students and 35 teachers from four selected secondary schools in Eha-Amufu. Also, copies of the written essays of the selected students were analysed to complement results from the questionnaire. Findings reveal that the use of Pidgin English is traceable to the students’ homes. However, the finding that students do not use Pidgin English in their written essays were largely contradicted by the avalanche of Pidgin English usage found in the written essays of the students which also reveal an adverse effect of Pidgin on Standard English both in spelling and contextual usage. The researcher, therefore, concludes that the use of Pidgin English creates a form of identity among students and hence recommends that constant monitoring and evaluation of language use in teaching and learning in Nigeria will help check the trend of usage of Pidgin English which will guide policy making aimed at addressing this ugly trend.

10

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Title page - - - - - - - - i

Approval page - - - - - - - - ii

Certification - - - - - - - - iii

Dedication - - - - - - - - iv

Acknowledgement - - - - - - - v

Abstract - - - - - - - - - vi

Table of Contents - - - - - - - - vii

Chapter One: Introduction - - - - - - 1

1.1 Background of the study - - - - - - 1

1.2 Statement of the problem - - - - - 7

1.3 Objectives of the study - - - - - - 9

1.4 Significant of the study - - - - - - 9

1.5 Scope and limitations of the study - - - - 10

1.6 Research questions - - - - - - - 11

Chapter Two: Review of Related Literature - - - 12

2.0 Introduction - - - - - - - - 12

2.1 Standard English - - - - - - - 12

2.2 Pidgin English - - - - - - - - 14

11

2.3 Nigerian Pidgin English - - - - - - 19

2.4 Researches in Nigerian Pidgin English - - - - 27

2.5 Problems encountered by speakers of Nigerian Pidgin - 40

2.5.1 Educational disadvantage - - - - - - 40

2.5.2 Lack of standard orthography - - - - - 42

2.5.3 Lack of cultural attachment - - - - - 44

Chapter Three: Research Methods and Theoretical Framework 46

3.0 Introduction - - - - - - - 46

3.1 Research design - - - - - - - 46

3.2 Area of study - - - - - - - 46

3.3 Research population - - - - - - 47

3.4 Sampling - - - - - - - 47

3.5 Instrument for data collection - - - - 48

3.6 Method of data collation and analysis - - - 48

3.7 Theoretical Framework - - - - - - 49

Chapter Four: Data Presentation and Analysis - - - 60

4.0 Introduction - - - - - - - 60

4.1 Research question one - - - - - - 60

4.2 Research question two - - - - - 66

12

4.3 Research question three - - - - - - 69

Chapter Five: Summary of Findings, Conclusion and Recommendation 72

5.0 Introduction - - - - - - - 72

5.1 Summary of findings - - - - - - - 72

5.2 Conclusion - - - - - - - 76

5.3 Recommendations - - - - - - 77

Works cited - - - - - - - - 79

Appendix

13

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY

Language in multilingual societies such as Nigeria has always been a

matter of concern to educators, educational planners and parents especially

with regard to its appropriate use in communication. The English language is

the medium of instruction in all Nigerian educational institutions at all

levels. This is the basis for Olaore’s comments, “… in the countries

language policy, the fact that for a long time to come, English will continue

to play a prominent role in the socio-economic and political development in

Nigeria as the language of administration, politics, industry, education,

science and technology is of paramount importance,’ (21).

The English language, to a large extent, functions as a second

language in Nigeria. Although Nigeria is believed to have more than four

hundred (400) languages with over two hundred and fifty (250) ethnic

groups, (Emenanjo, 73), the English language is the only language used for

all forms of official transaction. Despite the central role the English

language has been playing in communication process nationwide, the

language excludes the majority of uneducated Nigerians who live in rural

communities. Some Nigerian communities have more than six distinct but

14

mutually unintelligible languages. This makes communication among

neighbours difficult. Emenanjo cited in Otagburuagu and Okorji (2003)

notes that Nigerian linguistic geography is so complex that language

communities can fall into small language groups called chontonolects. The

convolutions in the Nigerian linguistics ecology as Otagburuagu (99) noted,

has made the use of Nigerian Pidgin a more universal and inconclusive

language, inevitable in both formal and informal domains.

Tracing the history of Pidgin English, Quirk et al pointed out that

“Pidgin historically began as simply a language marked by traditional

interference used chiefly by the prosperous and privileged section of a

community represents by the unskilled and illiterate class of the society”

(28). This situation, however, is not so with the Nigeria Pidgin. Studies have

shown that the Nigeria Pidgin began as an English-based Pidgin and later

metamorphosed into various forms and patterns in its usage, (Obiechina, 85;

Elugbe, 285 and Egbokhare, 21-40). Nigerian Pidgin English is seen as a

version of English and ethnic Nigerian languages spoken as a kind of Lingua

Franca across the country especially among students. In an attempt to define

Nigerian Pidgin English, Elugbe and Omamur (48), see it as ‘some kind of a

marginal language that arises to fulfill specific communication needs in a

well defined circumstance.’

15

Furthermore, Nigerian Pidgin is a somewhat pejorative label used by

native speakers of English to describe the often hysterical violations of the

basic rules of Standard English syntax by non-native speakers of the

language. Kperogi (4) further describes Pidgin as a technical term in

linguistics that refers to a “contact” or “trade” language that emerged from

the fusion of foreign, usually European, language and indigenous, usually

non-European languages. Here, the European language provided most of the

vocabulary and the indigenous languages produce the structure of the

language. The cultural language which language emanates from has far-

reaching influences on its predominant usage as is the case with Nigerian

Pidgin. Its variation, no doubt is not unconnected with the culture of its

users. It is in the light of this that Abdullah – Idiagbom in his study on “The

Sociolinguistic of Nigerian Pidgin (English) on University Campus” quoting

Brooks, N (1969) Posits: ‘It is through the magic of language that man

comes eventually to understand to an impressive degree the environment to

which he lives and still more surprising, gains an insight into his own nature

and his own condition.’ (2)

The teachers and students are victim of these observations about

Nigerian Pidgin. And perhaps the cultural influence of the native language

on the teacher is largely reflected on the students since no student is believed

16

not to be greater than his/her teacher. In view of this, Akujobi and Chukwu

(57), quoting Ashby submitted that ‘the quality of English used in the

classroom is such that all pupils are to a serious disadvantage. It cannot be

doubted that thousands of the most gifted are unable to further their

education because they were not taught well the language in which they

were examined.’ They further pointed out that ‘according to the canons of

the discipline for language pedagogy, the more the difference between the

system of the target language, the more difficult learning invariably becomes

and the smaller the difference, the easier the learning.’

The above assertion gives credence to the difficulty faced by students who

grew up in an environment where native language is widely used than

Standard English in teaching and learning. This will make their learning of

the Standard English a herculean task. Students’ daily use of their native

language in communication within and outside the school has further

enhanced the use of Nigerian Pidgin which is derived from a blend of the

morphology of the native language and the syntax of the Standard English in

its usage.

In real sense, no language is inferior or superior to the other. But what

enhances its continuous usage is the specific communication needs that it

serves and competence attained by its users over a long period of time which

17

also makes it a norn among a well-defined group of users. It is also true that

where two or more speech communities come in contact, a lingua franca or

common language of communication tends to emerge (Stockwell, 18). The

distortion which Nigerian Pidgin has on the Standard English is in varying

degree and magnitude. Looking at this Nigerian Pidgin sentence: “Wetin dey

hapun nau?” one knows that it is a derivative of the Standard English

equivalent – “What is happening now?” Now we see that the expression

“Wetin dey’ is a distortion of “What is”; “hapun” is also another distortion

of “happening” while “nau” is a corruption of “now”. Other examples are as

follows:

Examples Meaning

Long throat glutton

Bad belle envy

Busy-body loquacious

Shine your eye Be smart or clever

Country people citizens

Wetin I dey yan? What am I saying?

E don tey It’s been long

Kpafuka spoil

Olokpa police

18

Bone that levels Ignore that one

Wahala trouble

I go halla you I will call you

Na my bunk be this This is my house

U dey feel me? Do you understand me?

U don chew? Have you eaten?

From the foregoing, it is obvious that the vocabulary is mostly English but

the structure is largely African or better still, Nigerian.

Students have shown that among the reasons why they communicate with

Nigerian Pidgin are as follows:-

1. They are a product of their environment.

2. It is an easier form of communication among them.

3. To bridge the gap between the literate and illiterate students living

within a particular community.

4. Nigerian Pidgin is used not as a communicative need but as a means

of expressing group solidarity and intimacy with peers

5. It may serve as an identity in opposition to non-group members,

especially teachers and adults.

6. The absence of a widespread proficiency in Standard English usage.

(Akujobi and Chukwu, 57; Elugbe, 280; Elugbe and Omamur, 48)

19

Interestingly, Nigerian Pidgin is characterized by a simple, often anarchic

and rudimentary grammatical structure, a severely limited vocabulary and is

used for the expression of really basic thought processes (Kperogi, 2). The

above situation is a result of the fact that Nigerian Pidgin emerged more as

“emergency” language for casual, shot-term linguistic encounters. Hence, it

cannot be used to express high-minded thought processes and are usually not

anybody’s primary or first language.

1.2 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

There is a general belief among students that Pidgin English serves as

a variety of English that facilitates communication though it is a deviation

from the norm. The above assumption provided the basis for the use of

Pidgin especially among students. The use of Pidgin goes beyond verbal

communication and has become more of a verbal behavior as its expression

has moved from the boundaries of informal conversation to formal

situations. Scholars have called for the urgent consideration and

pronouncement of Nigeria Pidgin as co-official language with English,

(Balogun, 2012; Amao, 2012; Uguru, 2003; Elugbe and Omamor, 1991).

According to Uguru (43), ‘Nigerian Pidgin plays a very important role in

communication in Nigeria. If it will be recognized as a co-official language

with English, it will enhance the participation of all citizens in the economic,

20

social and political development of the country.’ Party to this assertion are

Elugbe and Omamur (48) who want the use of Pidgin in the classroom

especially in Edo and Delta states where virtually everybody speaks the

language with proficiency. Now, it is a known fact that what one reads

regularly influences the way one speaks and writes. Students regularly

expose themselves to songs with lyrics written in Pidgin, magazines and

jokes written in Pidgin as well as movies with Pidgin as their predominant

language of communication. All these influence students’ predominant

language of communication especially among themselves within and outside

the school. ‘The argument,’ according to Onuigbo and Eyisi, ‘in favour of

Pidgin as a compromise language and that which could foster unity among

the diverse ethnic groups has some surface attraction but many have not

paused to consider the possible negative effects on the standard usage of

English among pupils and students in Nigerian schools,’ (141).

It is an established fact that Pidgin English exists in Nigeria which

linguists call the Nigerian pidgin and that studies have been carried out on its

effects on Standard English (Oko, 2013; Agbo, 2008) among others. The

researcher observes that no special attention has been given to assess the

level of the damage done on Eha-Amufu students’ use of the Standard

English by constant use of Nigeria Pidgin English. The problem which this

21

research therefore seeks to investigate is the extent to which Pidgin English

has affected the use of Standard English among students in selected

secondary schools in Eha-Amufu, Isi-Uzo L.G.A. of Enugu State.

1.3 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

This study intends to investigate the level of damage done on Eha-Amufu

students’ use of the Standard English. Specifically, the study tends to:

1. Find out the extent of Pidgin English usage among secondary schools

in Eha-Amufu.

2. Determine the factors that inform students’ usage of Pidgin in

secondary schools in Eha-Amufu.

3. Ascertain the extent of harm done by Pidgin English on the written

works of secondary school students in Eha-Amufu.

4. Find out ways to mitigate the effects of Pidgin English on Standard

English usage among secondary schools students in Eha-Amufu.

1.4 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

Professionally, the findings from this study will serve as a useful

guide to language planners and policy makers on the educational sector to

trace the trend and come up with a policy framework to enrich the use of

Standard English as against Nigerian Pidgin.

22

To the academia, the study will serve as a springboard upon which

further research can be carried out, possibly to explore new ways where

Nigerian Pidgin can be a useful learning tool. Also the findings in this study

will further enrich the body of knowledge already tapped on the use of

Nigerian pidgin and its effects. Students will use the findings and

recommendation from this study to examine the extent of the danger which

the use of Pidgin have meted on their usage of the Standard English and

ways and approaches to avoid further harm.

The teacher on the other hand, will use the findings to evaluate their

method of teaching and interaction with the students. This they will do when

they read from the findings the dangers Pidgin English usage have done on

their writing and speaking skills.

1.5 SCOPE AND LIMITATION OF THE STUDY

This study is delimited to assessing the effects of Nigerian Pidgin

English in written and spoken conversation of students in selected secondary

schools in Eha-Amufu, Isi-Uzo L.G.A. of Enugu State.

However, this study is not without limitations. A research like this

requires re-evaluation after some time to know whether the percentage of

those affected is increasing or decreasing. The researcher could not re-

evaluate the results from one study to another within this study because of

23

the time frame given for this work. Secondly, responses from the students

are likely to be subjective because they will like to please the researcher

through their answers. Finally, some of the facts cannot be substantiated

because they emanate from students.

1.6 RESEARCH QUESTIONS

The following research questions will guide this study:

1. To what extent is Pidgin English spoken by students in secondary

schools in Eha-Amufu?

2. To what extent does Pidgin English affect the written essays of

secondary school students in Eha-Amufu?

3. What can be done to mitigate the effects of Pidgin English on

Standard English usage among secondary school students in Eha-

Amufu.

24

CHAPTER TWO

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

2.0 INTRODUCTION

This section deals with the relevant concepts that have helped to shape

this study. They include: the Standard English, Pidgin English, Nigerian

Pidgin English (NPE) and problems encountered by the speakers of Nigerian

Pidgin English. Presented in this chapter is also the studies scholars have

done on Pidgin English and its effects on English and the move to accept

Pidgin as one of the national languages.

2.1 STANDARD ENGLISH

The notion ‘Standard English’ is somewhat a direct and deliberate

invention by the society to create a class and standard for a language.

Standardization refers to the process by which a language has been codified

in some way. The process usually involves the development of such things

as grammars, spelling book, dictionaries and possibly a literature

(Wardhaugh: 31). Based on this, Standard English is defined by Trugill (5-6)

as ‘that variety of English which is normally taught in schools and to non-

native speakers learning the language. It is also the variety which is normally

spoken by educated people and used in news broadcasts and other similar

situations.’

25

Yule (180) also defines Standard English as ‘the variety which forms the

basis of print in newspaper and books, which is used in the mass media and

in schools … It is the variety normally taught to those who want to learn

English as a second language.’ For a language to be standard there must be a

referent and a model which that language must follow and this has to be the

prescribed grammatical rules of that language. When one fails to follow

these prescribed rules, an incorrect grammar is produced and this is in total

deviance with the model.

Quirk (100) says: ‘Standard English is basically an ideal, a mode of

expression that we seek when we wish to communicate beyond our

immediate community with members of the nation as a whole or with

members of a wider community – English speakers as a whole.’ For a

language to be standard, it must pass through a filter. Its usage is not labeled

standard merely because it is used and found acceptable by native speakers.

The additional criterion is the acceptability of such usages among educated

people. Hudson (33) comes up with the criteria or the filter which a language

must be sifted before it is said to be standard. These are: ‘selection,

codification, elaboration of function, acceptability (by the educated class)

and intelligibility (international).’ The grammatical systems of Standard

English are linked to the various national, regional and local dialects in a

26

taxonomic way. It is directly tied to the way in which English is used in a

particular area. For the purpose of this work, what has been accepted as the

Standard English in Nigeria is a rendition devoid of native idioms or loan

words from Nigerian dialects. It agrees with the rules of the English syntax

and is also grammatical. Any usage either in writing or speech that deviates

from the rules of the language is not standard. It encompasses grammar,

vocabulary and spelling.

2.2 PIDGIN ENGLISH

Pidgin English may be built from words, sound or body languages

from multiple languages and culture. There are no rules attached to its usage

as long as the parties involved are able to understand each other. Looking at

the common traits among various Pidgins, Wilson et al (125 – 126) posit that

they are a fundamental simpler form of communication and that the

grammar and phonology are usually as simple as possible consisting of

-uncomplicated grammatical structure

-reduction of syllabus codas

-reduction of consonant cluster

-no tones, such as those found in West African and Asian languages

-separate verbs to indicate terms usually preceding verbs

27

-reduplication to represent plurals, superlative and other parts of

speech that represent the concept of being increased

-a lack of morphemic variation

Hymes (3) pointed out that before the 1930s, pidgin and creoles were

largely ignored by linguistics who regarded them as ‘marginal languages’ at

best. He further pointed out that Pidgins and Creoles were marginal in the

circumstances of their origin, and in the attitudes towards them on the part of

those who speak one of the language from which they derive. Their origins

have been explained not by historical and social forces, but by inherent

ignorance, indolence and inferiority. As languages of those without political

and social power, literatures and culture, they could be safely and properly

ignored. Wardhaugh (54) says, ‘fortunately, such attitudes are now changing

and as linguists pay serious attention to Pidgins and creoles, they are

discovering many interesting characteristics about them which appear to

bear on fundamental issues to do with all languages, fully fledged and

marginal alike. Moreover, pidgins and creoles are invaluable to those who

use them. Not only they essential to everyday living but they are also

frequently important markers of identity.’

A Pidgin is a language with no native speakers. It is no one’s first

language but is a contact language. This means that it is the product of a

28

multilingual situation in which those who wish to communicate must find or

improvise a simple language system that will enable them to do so. As

Wardhough submits, very often too, that situation is one in which there is an

imbalance of power among the languages as the speakers of one language

dominate the speakers of the other language economically and socially. A

highly codified language often accompanies that dominant position. A

pidgin is therefore sometimes regarded as a ‘reduced’ variety of a ‘normal’

language i.e, one of the aforementioned dominant languages, with

simplification of grammar and vocabulary of that language, considerable

phonological variation and admixture of local vocabulary to meet the special

needs of the contact group (58).

Holm (4-5) defines Pidgin as ‘a reduced language that results from

extended contact between groups of people with no language in common; it

evolves when they need some means of verbal communication perhaps for

trade, but no group learns the native language of any other group for social

reasons that may include lack of trust or of close contact.’ To form a Pidgin,

at least three languages are needed to come in contact. One of these

languages must clearly be a dominant one over others. If only two languages

are involved, there may be struggle for dominance as between English and

French in 1066 (Wardhaugh, 58). The speakers of the inferior languages

29

play a prominent role in the development of a Pidgin. They must not only

speak to those in the dominant language position but they must also speak to

one another. To do this, they simplify the dominant language in certain

ways. Therefore, pidgin arises from the simplification of a language when

that language comes to dominate various groups of speakers separated from

one another by language differences. Wardhaugh supports this when he says,

‘this hypothesis partially explains not only the origin of Pidgin in slave

societies in which the slaves were drawn from a variety of language

backgrounds, but also their origin on sea coasts where a variety of languages

might be spoken, but the language of trade is a pidgin. It also explains why

pidginized varieties of languages are used much more as lingua franca by

people who cannot speak the corresponding standard languages than they are

used between such people and speakers of the standard varieties. For

example, pidgin Chinese English was used mainly by speakers of different

Chinese languages, and Tok Pisin is today used as a unifying language

among speakers of many different languages in Papua New Guinea (58).

Onuigbo and Eyisi (137) in supporting the simplification process

involves in pidginization affirm that pidgin developed out of the master-

servant relationship in which the servant was compelled to learn a simplified

version of the master’s language to be able to communicate with the master

30

and do the menial jobs assigned to him as a privilege. The imperfect and

simplified emergence language was designed to be in line with the low

social status of the servant. By implication, Pidgin lacks the kind of

grammatical and phonological complexity of the dominant language. It also

lacks elaborate semantic specifications.

On the origin of pidgin, Uguru (61) quoting Hall (1966) says that

pidgin may have an English origin, being a derivation from an indigenous

word meaning ‘people’. The word Pidgin is a corruption of the word

‘Pidian’ which refers to local Indians. Thus, it means ‘a native who is

willing to trade’ and Pidgin means ‘the English used by and in contact with

Pidians’.

The first Pidgin English recorded was in North America and was used by

American Indians.

‘English man much foole’ meaning ‘The Englishmen were fools.’

(Uguru 61-62)

With this, one can say that pidgins originated between traders who speak

unintelligible languages. In most cases, as seen in Onuigbo and Eyisi’s

assertion above, pidgins denote the superior-inferior relationship between

masters (English) and their servants. Uguru (62) agrees that the Pidgin that

resulted from the slave trade between the whites and the blacks and also in

31

colonial period, the colonialists had black stewards, cooks, court clerks,

messengers and other menial labourers who could not speak the English

language, is Nigerian Pidgin English – NPE.

2.3 NIGERIAN PIDGIN ENGLISH

The Nigerian Pidgin English is an English-based pidgin. This is why it

drew most of its vocabularies from English and few from other native

languages that shaped it. This means that its superstrate is English while any

of the three major languages is used as a substrate language.

Ihemere (296) reports that Nigerian pidgin has become the native

language of approximately 3 to 5 million people and a second language for

at least another 75 million. This type of Pidgin, as a marginal language,

arises to fulfill specific communication needs. In Nigeria as a multilingual

society, one notices different variants of Nigerian Pidgin English. As

Idiagbon noted, Bendel variants are:

1. Bendel variant

Wa

rri

Iso

ko

Sa

pe

le

Ag

bo

r

Itse

kir

i

Ab

rak

a

Eff

uru

n

Ag

ba

ra-o

to

Uro

bo

Ew

u

32

ii. Calabar variant

iii. Kano/Maiduguri variant

iv. Lagos variant

No

rth

We

st

No

rth

so

uth

No

rth

No

rth

No

rth

Ea

st

Ka

lab

ari

re

gio

ns

Ak

wa

Ib

om

Cro

ss R

ive

r

cala

ba

r

So

uth

ce

ntr

al

Ea

ste

rn P

art

So

uth

we

st

33

v. Port Harcourt variant

A variant is characterized by a preponderant influence of its substrate

language on the form and usage. Despite the list of these varieties, some

other communities speak Nigerian Pidgin with their mother tongue accent.

Nigerian Pidgin English is a type of Pidgin. Therefore, it has

characteristics as a developed Pidgin. It lacks surface grammatical

complexity. Phonologically, it is simpler than any of the languages involved

in their evolution. Southworth in Romaine (199) notes that this feature of

simplicity is the most obvious characteristics of Pidgin which many account

have attributed to an alleged lack of grammar. ‘If the attempt to simplify

vocabulary is fraught with difficulties, the attempt to simplify grammar is

simply disastrous. The standard grammar has been jettisoned and new crude,

an incredibly torturous form of grammar has been built up in its place.’

This means that the speaker will always find it difficult to learn a

complicated grammatical construction in the English language. There is a

Re

gio

na

l

Su

bu

rbs

Riv

er

Po

rt h

arc

ou

rt

34

reduction in morphology (word structure) and syntax (grammatical

structure), reduction in the number of functions, tolerance of considerable

phonological variation (pronunciation) and extensive borrowing of words

from the mother tongue. This is why Winford (302) points out that

‘Pidginization is really a complex combination of different processes of

change, including reduction and simplification of input materials, internal

innovation and regularization of structure with LI influence also playing a

role.’

Onuigbo and Eyisi (138) agree that ‘many words of Nigerian Pidgin

carry greater functional load than they do when used as English words. The

multifunctional nature of Pidgin words leaves the Pidgin speakers with

fewer words to learn but more elaborate functions to perform with such

words than what would have been the case if similar communicative

functions are to be performed through the medium of English.’ This reduced

vocabulary can be seen in these:

a. The first person singular ‘I’ can be used to refer to masculine,

feminine and neuter subjects.

I don comot. – He has gone out.

She has gone out.

It has gone out.

35

b. han – arm, hand

c. bak – back, return

d. bad – (i) two bad pikin =( two bad children)

(ii)We no like this kind bad. =(We

don’t like this kind of thing.)

(iii)I likam bad = (I like it very much)

(iv)I good bad = (He is very good or

He is a good person.)

(v)The pikin bad = (The child is not

well behaved.)

The sounds in NPE are fewer and less complicated in their possible

arrangements than the English language sounds. There is no contrast

between’ it’ and ‘eat’, ‘ship’ and ‘sheep’, read’ and ‘read’/red/ and ‘had’ and

‘hard’

The vowels are /i, e, u, o, u/ while the consonants are /p, f, m, b, v, t, s, n, d,

z, l, r, tu, du, j, k, x, g, kp, gb, w, h/

Pidgin has no inflections like in ‘one book = two books’, and no clear

tense markers as in English. It expresses past and future process with strange

auxiliary forms as in ‘I go tell am’ (I will tell him/her), Onuigbo and Eyisi

(140). Syntactically, sentences are likely to be uncomplicated clause

36

structure as no embedded clause (relative clause) is seen. Instead, it makes

use of particles, small isolated words. It achieves negation through the use of

a simple negative particle ‘no’ from English – I no tu had = It’s not too

difficult. Another feature is the use of a verbal particle to show that an action

is continuing. This can be seen in the use of ‘de’ in ‘I de go work’, ‘I de eat’

and ‘I de nak’ which mean ‘I am going to work.’, ‘I am eating.’ and ‘I am

reading’.

Nigerian Pidgin draws its lexical items from English while others are

drawn from the indigenous languages.

Yoruba

Oyibo – white man

Wahala – trouble

Portuguese

Sabi – know

Pikin – child

Palava – trouble

Hausa

Wayo – tricks

Igbo

Kpako – nonentity

37

Secondly, there is extensively use of reduplication in its lexis. This is partly

to identify meaning and partly to avoid confusion which could result from

phonological similarity. The examples are:

Katakata – confusion/chaos

Wakawaka – wandering

Drydry – unpalatable

Lukuluku – stare

Sansan – sand

Its lexis is also filled with compound words like –

Switmout – flattery

Wochnait – night watchman

Kresman – crazy man

Pronouns are not distinguished for case so that most Pidgin use ‘mi’ to

indicate ‘I’ and ‘me’

Subject

Singular plural

a wi

Yu una

I/In dem

Object

38

Singular Plural

Mi wi/os

Yu una

Am/In dem

Qualifier

Singular Plural

Mai awa

Yu una

In dem/den

Looking at the usage of Nigerian Pidgin English, students see it as an

easier means of communication among them because it is not as

‘complicated’ as the Standard English usage. What they do is to code mix

English with the Igbo or any other Nigerian language in their

communication and come up with expressions like:

i. Chineke sabi sey my hand no dey. (God knows that I know nothing

about it.)

ii. Biko see me see trouble. (Please bail me out of this conspiracy.)

iii. You dey mek inyanga. (You are too proud.)

iv. Una no see that the girl di kwa too fine (Can’t you see that that girl is

charmingly beautiful.)

39

v. Wetin de sele?(What is happening?)

vi. Joo comot for road. (Please leave the road/excuse me.)

vii. You no no say exam matter bi wasa ba (Don’t you realize that

exam matters are not something to joke with.)

ix. Wetin be your wahala for my matter sef? (What is your business in my

matter?)

x. Fashy the guy. (Neglect the man/lady.)

2.4 RESEARCHES IN NIGERIAN PIDGIN ENGLISH

Research in linguistics and language learning and usage has always

reflected other current events in the world. The history of linguistics and

language learning are replete with accounts of teachers and applied

linguistics making great efforts to unravel the complex question of language

teaching and learning as well as language use. While some are interested in

the essence of language as a phenomenon, others are interested in how it

could be taught, learnt, used and categorized.

One of the works reviewed by the researcher is that of Amao on The

Use of Pidgin English as a Medium of Social Discourse among Osun State

University Students. He remarks that ‘pidgin is not just some “distorted” or

“bastardized’ form of language, as some would think, and which perhaps

makes them refer to it as broken, but that Pidgin is a complete language in

40

its own right,’ (4). For him, Nigeria’s multi-lingual background provides a

veritable ground for the emergence of national language. Another level at

which Nigerian Pidgin registers its way is the Nigerian music scene

particularly with the emerging Naija Pop Culture, (4). In support of this

assertion by Amao, Fasan (24) notes that ‘Nigerian Pidgin is a predominant

language of expression and a form of solidarity or mark of identity among

the various multi-ethnic groups of young people who crave to create

effective urban culture in their respective locations. It is also acknowledged

as a formidable stride in the recreation of Nigerian and African socio-

cultural identity. This level of prominence carries over into the religious

terrain in Nigeria as well as into the Nigerian film-making and music

industry where the language enjoys unrestricted use, mirroring the way of

life of Nigerian people.’ The foregoing serves to highlight the perceived and

observable place of Nigerian Pidgin in contemporary Nigerian society. The

implication of this is that if enough research work that is commensurate

with the increasing growth and influence associated with the language is

carried out, Nigerian pidgin may well receive more audience from the

government and secure a better place in Nigeria’s language policy in the

nearest future.

41

Amao goes further to identify some morphological processes in

Nigerian Pidgin that makes it a possible national language. These are

reduplication, compounding, clipping and also an important feature of every

living language, borrowing, (5-6)

Reduplication

Examples English base

Small small gently

Welu welu very well

Sharp sharp very fast

Mago mago deceit

Jaga jaga confusable

Compounding

Examples English based

Long throat glutton

Busy-body loquacious

Strong head stubborn

God Pikin Christian

House boy male servant

Woman wrapper weakling (a man)

Clipping

42

Examples English base

Pamy palm wine

Naija Nigeria

Momo (early) morning

Bros brother

Borrowing

Lexical source word English base

Portuguese palava problem/trouble

Pikin Child

Dash gift

Sabi know

French Boku plenty

Kampe fine/durable

Igbo inyanga show off

ogogoro locally brewed gin

Ogbanje reincarnated birth

Idiagbon in The Sociolinguistics of Nigerian Pidgin English in

Selected University Campuses in Nigeria (5-6) investigated varieties of

Nigerian Pidgin with special focus on the variety being used on the Nigeria

university campuses. These variations are Bendel, Calabar, Lagos,

43

Kano/Maiduguru and Port Harcourt. From these variants, he categorized the

Nigerian pidgin into

i. Ordinary NPE; spoken by the vast majority of Nigerian people both

educated and less educated.

ii. Wafe-Rank is a special variety popular among Nigerian students. This

category evolved in Ajegunle, a suburb of Lagos city, mostly inhabited by

low-income earners including young musicians who perform at club houses

where the majority of those in attendance are students

(iii). The Campus Variety of NPE is characterized by switching back and

forth between Pidgin and Standard English (Oloruntola, 127).

Examples are:

Guy, how your side now? (How are you doing?)

You dey sight that shawty? (Did you see that lady?)

iv. Horligan’s Version: This is popularly associated with the touts, area boys

or hoodlums. It is mostly vulgar and features lots of slang from musicians.

For instance,

- That guy too dey yarn dust. (That young man doesn’t talk sensibly)

-Why you step me now, dew fence your eyes? (Why did you step on me, are

you blind?)

44

He stresses that with the students’ adoption of the Campus Pidgin

English, they have contributed to its uniqueness of form and functions. On

functions, he says that close pals use it to admonish one another or praise or

warn (7)

i. Kasala don burst. (There is an imminent danger)

ii. Alam don blow. (The secret has been exposed)

iii. No kwam, carry go (No problem, you can go on)

iv. I beg, maintain (please be calm)

They also use it to request for favour (7):

i. I beg raise me with ten fibre (Please lend me ₦100)

ii. I wan grej make I no yakata for ground ( I want to eat so that I won’t

fall down)

He therefore established that the impact of Nigerian students as a community

in creating or/and sustaining positive attitude towards Nigerian Pidgin

underscores the assertion that a new prestigious status for the language has

come to stay, (10). In support, Jowitt (14) asserts that “the language is no

longer viewed with contempt, and that its growing popularity portends a

promising future especially among the “new elites’ generation.”

Again, in the work of Balogun entitled In Defense of Nigerian Pidgin,

it is deduced that Nigerian pidgin is a fully developed language with its own

45

rich lexico-semantics and syntax, which has evolved like any other language

through contact and modification. The paper points out that Nigerian pidgin

is not an inferior language, or a plague-ridden linguistics system when

compared to other well-described languages of the world. Rather, it is a

variety that serves broad spectrum of Nigerian inhabitants, whose

divergence transcends ethnic, religious and class boundaries. Given the

crucial inter-ethnic and intra-ethnic communicative functions of Nigerian

pidgin in various social strata of the people’s life, he suggests that Nigerian

pidgin should be given official recognition, (90).

He further proves that Nigerian pidgin serves as a convenient form of

communication in reaching targeted audience in the informal setting, (95). In

the advert world, advertising agencies use Nigerian pidgin more than native

or the English language in advertising. For example:

i. “As you dey cook, peper go pour you, oil go pour you,

many things go pour you,

na this new omo I take wash them

e no dey change colour.”

In English translation, it reads:

“There is the tendency of being stained while cooking

46

it could be oil stain

some other stains may also be experienced

omo detergent is the key to cleansing stains

it does not fade”

ii. “Winner ooo, winner, 2ce

Obasanjo you don win o, winner

Kpatakpata you go win forever, winner”

In English translation, it reads:

“It is good to win

It is good to be a winner

Winner is desirous

Obasanjo is a winner”

He argues that the rhythmic value of Nigerian pidgin in advertisement gives

it a poetic form (95).

Though he called for an official recognition of Nigerian pidgin, he did

not support the recommendation to make it an official language in Nigeria as

Elugbe and Omamor (46) etc suggested. In his words, “But we can save

ourselves the embarrassment of the language heterogeneity and have

Nigerian pidgin as a lingua franca, which will be a unifying force among

people of different tongues as ours (96).

47

Oko (33) observes that Pidgin English has effects on students’

performance in English language in secondary schools. In his words, ‘the

poor performance in English Language by the students in secondary schools

is due mainly to the use of Nigerian Pidgin English in oral and written

communication. This researcher recommends that Nigerian pidgin should

not be spoken side by side with Standard English but be used in informal

situations since it is not recognized as a medium of instruction.

Agbo, on the other hand, in Nigerian Pidgin and the Development of

English as a Second Language: Problems and Prospects (40-41), reports

that the relevance of Pidgin in Nigerian cannot be over emphasized given its

simplicity that makes its learning easier and its spread rapid. It is also a

language of wider communication that bridges the communication gaps

between the literate and the non-literate classes. Despite having the above

advantages, pidgin on the other hand has impaired the advancement of

English by its lack of standardization, support for multiplicity of dialects and

limitation of the speaker’s interest in skills in English language. She

suggests that pidgin English be discouraged among educated elites and in

regions that are considered urban areas. For no-literates who are not

privileged to have formal education, Pidgin English can be used in teaching

them English.

48

Morphological and the syntactic variety of the Nigerian Pidgin have

affected the students’ written and spoken forms of the Standard English as

observed by Amakiri and Igami (3). Some examples of the distortion are:

NPE Standard English

Go slow Traffic jam

She don born She has been delivered of a baby

Go front front Go further

I dey go I am going

I no sabi I do not know

How far? What is happening?

Wetin? What?

Teytey long time ago

Fall hand disappointed

Like play like play jokingly

You de yan opata You are saying nonsense

Make I troway am? Should I throw it away?

Dress shift

Ma le mother

Pa le father

Which one be your own? What is your problem?

49

Peper no dey There is no money

You de kolo? Are you crazy

Do quick quick Be fast about it

With the above, it is quite impossible for students to speak and write

the Standard English correctly. This is seen in the Oct/Nov 2013 WAEC

report of students who sat for the English language:

Candidates who displayed a capacity to

communicate fluently and effectively were

rewarded. However the management and control

of language continues to pose problems for the

candidates in particular, poor attention to the

formal aspects of language, such as spelling,

grammar and punctuation (19).

In the May/June WAEC report of 2013, the report reads:

The weaknesses observed in the scripts of the

candidates were mainly as a result of inadequate

exposure to the skill of writing, lack of required

formats, construction of loose sentences,

transliteration from the mother tongue and abuse

of the basic rules of grammar (20).

50

The high failure rate in the English language and the poor

communication skills among Nigerian students are often blamed on the

corrupting influence of Nigerian Pidgin (Elugbe: 10). It is believed that one

cannot write better than how one speaks and most Nigerians especially

students speak Nigerian Pidgin English. Besides, some educated elites also

use Pidgin in their conversations. This has given Pidgin a wider range of`

communication. The 1998 Educational Policy in Nigeria approves the use of

mother tongue in teaching children up to their third year in primary school.

Where this is not possible, the dominant language of the community may be

used. For some parts of the country, Nigerian Pidgin English has been used

as an official medium of instruction at the primary level (Agheyisi, 88).

Children who are exposed to Nigeria Pidgin before learning English are

sometimes found alternating between the Nigeria Pidgin English and the

Standard English structures.

NPE Standard English

I no know I don’t know

I sabi do am I can do it.

Put pot for fire Put the pot on fire.

I no get am I don’t understand.

51

They are also heard pronouncing some words erroneously. Examples from

Agbo (45)

NPE Standard English

Onle only

Bodi Body

Bele belly

Moni money

In phonological sense where Standard English consonants differ from

Nigerian Pidgin consonants, ‘them’ becomes ‘dem’, ‘something’ becomes

‘somtin’. In the grammatical aspect, Pidgin teaches one to say, ‘I dey come’

instead of ‘I will be back’. This has led to the use of phrases like ‘I am

coming’ to mean ‘I will be back. (Edupedia, 3)

In Ebonyi State, Oko (61-62) in her findings says that the use of

English is fast losing credibility in secondary schools as students have

resorted to speaking Pidgin and managing to write Pidgin in Standard

English. There is poor pronunciation of English words and poor habits of

writing correct grammatical sentences that communicates effectively

especially during essay competition and debate sessions

52

Of all these researches, none singled out and assessed the effects of

Pidgin English in secondary schools. This is the vacuum this work wishes to

fill in especially in selected secondary schools in Eha-Amufu.

2.5 PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED BY SPEAKERS OF NIGERIAN

PIDGIN

Ndimele identifies three significant problems facing Nigerian

speakers of Pidgin English. These problems range from the fact that it is

educationally disadvantaged to the fact that it has no standard orthography.

NP lacks cultural attachment/affiliation. All these put together affect its

social acceptability (6).

2.5.1 EDUCATIONAL DISADVANTAGE

Officially, the NP has no status in the educational development of

Nigeria as a nation since it is not mentioned in the NPE. The NPE (10) states

thus:

In addition to appreciating the importance of

language in the educational process and as a

means of preserving the people’s culture, the

government considers it to be in the best of

national unity that each child should be

encouraged to learn one or three major languages

53

other than his own mother tongue. In this

connection, the government considers the three (3)

major languages in Nigeria to be Hausa, Igbo and

Yoruba.

Some have argued that the authors of the document above, who strip the

Nigerian Pidgin of the educational importance, did not take into cognizance

the importance of Nigerian Pidgin as a lingua franca. According to Gani-

Ikilama (219), ‘a philosophy of education, which places importance not only

on the development of man, but also on man in relation to society, cannot

afford to ignore the importance of a lingua franca like Pidgin’. For Gani-

Ikilama, Nigerian Pidgin can effectively be used in schools, especially to

solve linguistic problems and problems of socialization to school life in the

initial years of primary education. Could we possibly interpret the same NPE

(17) which states that ‘the medium of instruction in the pre-primary school is

initially the mother tongue or language of the immediate community, and at

a later stage English’ to serve as a stepping stone to legalize the use of

Nigerian Pidgin as a language of instruction in pre-primary school? Ndimele

(Linguistics Status, 357) observes that in Rivers and Bayelsa States,

‘teachers resort to the use of Nigerian Pidgin for explanatory purposes

54

especially in the early stages of primary education, since there is no other

common language among the pupils.’

Recommending Nigerian Pidgin as a medium of instruction will affect

the use of the Standard English. The 1953 UNESCO report shares this

reservation when it states that ‘it is feared that the use of Pidgin in schools

will make it harder for pupils to learn the European language correctly.’

Problems of interference abound for speakers of pidgin who learn English as

a second language. The interference will no doubt affect the proficiency of

such speakers in English. Ndimele also posits that ‘even if we go ahead to

advocate for the use of Nigerian Pidgin for education at higher levels, we

note here that Nigerian Pidgin is yet to acquire a standard variety and an

approved orthography (8). It cannot be successfully used in education

because it is always difficult to teach and even learn in a language that has

not been effectively committed to writing.

2.5.2 LACK OF STANDARD ORTHOGRAPHY

According to Emenanjo (1), a standard orthography will involve a

comprehensive writing system that is ‘generally recognized and acceptable’.

If Nigerian pidgin should have a standard orthography, it will be one which

has a stamp of authority and universality of use going with it. Elugbe and

Omamar (133) admit that, ‘the task of writing Nigerian Pidgin is more

55

formidable than would be expected for other Nigerian languages’. They

listed the problems of committing Nigerian Pidgin to writing to include:

-Inconsistency in the way of writing NP

-Disagreement by experts on the best way of writing it

Their work goes further to recommend three ‘broad options’ for writing

Nigerian Pidgin with its merits and demerits. These include:

- The anglicized writing method which reflects Englishness of individual

vocabulary items by simply reducing them in their English spelling

- Use of purely phonetic alphabet (only trained linguists can benefit from

this)

- Attempt a new modern orthography for Nigerian Pidgin

Because of the enormous task involved in the development of a

standard orthography for Pidgin, some linguists in their discussions of

Pidgins and creoles want their use to be oral only. Todd (84) argues that

while some use of Pidgin or creoles as an oral medium is useful, their use in

a written medium should be rejected because:

1. Preparing materials in pidgin might involve financial commitments.

2. The users of the materials might suffer some unspecified psychological

damages.

56

3. Deciding on the orthography would be difficult since to base it on the

Standard English orthography is to give the false impression that it is an

inferior, dialectal variant of English and to use a tailor-made (modern)

orthography is to teach a set of spelling conventions which will inevitably

clash with those of Standard English.

It is obvious that speakers of Nigerian pidgins suffer a disadvantage because

the language they use has not been successfully committed to writing.

2.5.3 LACK OF CULTURAL ATTACHMENT

Socio-cultural groups champion the struggles for development of

languages in most cases. This is because of the relationship between

language and culture, and language and ethnicity. According to Ndimele

(15), ‘an ethnic group can fight for ethnic and /or political equality by first

preserving and developing its language as a veritable tool for preserving and

sustaining its ethnic and political identity.’ It is this close relationship

between language and ethnicity that led Essien (161) to seek for a language

policy that will integrate fully all nationalities and linguistic groups in order

to allay the fear of ethnic and cultural denomination.

In 1982, for instance, the Ibibio Cultural Organization commissioned

the writing of the Ibibio orthography and presented it to the state ministry of

education as part of its community contribution to education. Also, the Igbo

57

speaking group which battled for orthography legitimacy for over thirty

years has the Society for Promoting Igbo Language and Culture (SPILC) at

the forefront of the reform (Essien, 167 and Ndimele, 124). Nigerian Pidgin

has acquired native speakerships/association speech community in the Niger

Delta Region (Warri, Sapele, Port Harcourt, Benin etc) (Ndimele, 256), but

none of these linguistic groups can claim ownership because it actually

belongs to no group of speakers. Instead, what we see are efforts geared

towards the development of the various indigenous languages of the Niger

Delta Region: Itsekiri through Centre for the Study of Itsekiri Language and

Culture (Emenanjo, 6), Urhobo through the Urhobo Language Committee

(Aziza, 109). With this, whose responsibility is it then to lead the agitation

for the development and standardization of Nigerian Pidgin? Most of the

Nigerian scholars who call for its standardization in their works did not write

their books in Nigerian Pidgin English. An example is Uguru’s A Common

Nigerian Language. The problem of identifying Nigerian pidgin with any

culture is probably what the Igbo speaker refers to as ‘the goat owned by

many but which is ultimately starved to death.’

58

CHAPTER THREE

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

3.0 INTRODUCTION

This chapter is concerned with a discussion of the research plan and

method adopted to aid the realization of the objectives of the study. It is

made up of the research design, area of study, population of study, method

of sampling, method of data collection and analysis. Furthermore, the

chapter presents the theoretical framework that will be used in this study.

3.1 RESEARCH DESIGN

This work adopted a descriptive research design. It is appropriate in

describing events as they are. Ali (57) states that a descriptive survey seeks

or uses the sample data of an investigation to document, to describe and

explain what is existent or non-existent on present status of a phenomenon

being investigated. This design is considered suitable since this study seeks

information to find out the extent of the damage done on Eha-Amufu

students’ use of the Standard English by Pidgin English with a view to

suggesting solutions to the existing problem.

3.2 AREA OF STUDY

The major motivation for this work is the relative poor performance in

English of students this researcher has taught the English language in Eha-

59

Amufu. This study was carried out in selected secondary schools in Eha-

Amufu in Isi-Uzo L.G.A. of Enugu State.

3.3 RESEARCH POPULATION

The population of this study is SS3 students and teachers drawn from

the selected eleven secondary schools.

3.4 SAMPLING

This research used multiple purposive sampling technique. This is to

say that there was a mini grouping of the secondary schools because of the

geographical location of schools in Eha-Amufu. They were grouped thus:

Eha-Ulo has six secondary schools, Eha-Agu has four secondary schools

while Eha-Ohuala has one secondary school. Out of the six secondary

schools in Eha-Ulo, four have SS3 students, so two were selected. Two

schools out of four in Eha-Agu have SS3 students, one was selected. The

only secondary school in Eha-Ohuala was used as well.

The schools are:

Eha-Ulo:

1. Community Secondary School, Umuhu Eha-Amufu = School A

2. Union Secondary School, Eha-Amufu = School B

Eha-Agu:

1. St John’s Secondary School, Agu-Amede Eha-Amufu = School C

60

Eha-Ohuala:

1. Community Secondary School, Eha-Ohuala Eha-Amufu = School D

Approximate number of SS3 students in the schools is as follows:

School A: 108 students

School B: 100 students

School C: 50 students

School D: 103 students

55 students were sampled from Schools A, B and D while 35 students

were sampled from School C. 200 students were sampled in all. This is

because this number represents the view of students. All willing teachers

were sampled in the selected schools.

3.5 INSTRUMENT FOR DATA COLLECTION

The instruments used for data collection in this research were

questionnaires and students’ written essays. The school examination

scripts of the students were examined to know the extent the constant use

of Pidgin in communication has affected their writing ability. The

questionnaire survey was administered to both students and teachers.

3.6 METHOD OF DATA COLLATION AND ANALYSIS

The Data were collated and described. The analysis was demonstrated

with tables using SPSS – Statistical Package for Social Science. There are

61

four criteria for the measurement of performance in writing as stipulated by

WAEC. These are content, expression, organization and mechanical

accuracy. An essay is said to be good if it scores high in all of the above.

The school examination scripts were graded. In the process, the presence

and/ or impact of Pidgin English in the students’ writings were identified. A

frequency count and description of the Pidgin usages provided the data for

this study and showed whether or not Pidgin usages affect Standard English

usages.

3.7 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

This aspect reviews the theory that was used in this work. The theory

is Stephen Krashen’s Second Language Acquisition Theory. Krashen’s

theory of second language acquisition was refined over a period of time and

is presented among other works in Krashen (1981, 1982, 1985, 1989, and

2003) and Krashen & Terrell (1983). The theory consists of five basic

hypotheses: the Acquisition/Learning Hypothesis, the Natural Order

Hypothesis, the Monitor Hypothesis, the Input Hypothesis, and the Affective

Filter Hypothesis. These five hypotheses will be briefly discussed while the

work dwells on the Affective Filter Hypothesis.

62

THE ACQUISITION/LEARNING HYPOTHESIS

Ellis (261) rightly points out that the acquisition/learning distinction

lies at the heart of Krashen’s theory of second language acquisition and

Krashen himself (Language Acquisition, 8) describes it as a ‘cornerstone’ in

his theory. It states that there are two independent ways of learning a second

language: acquisition and learning. Krashen describes acquisition as a

subconscious process virtually identical to the one used in first language

acquisition. It involves the naturalistic development of language proficiency

through understanding language and through using language for meaningful

communication. The acquirer is usually not aware of acquisition taking place

or the results of it. Acquisition occurs as a result of participating in natural

communication where the focus is on meaning (Ellis 261). Learning, on the

other hand, is described by Krashen as conscious knowledge, ‘knowing

about’ language. Learning occurs as a result of conscious study of the formal

properties of the language.

THE NATURAL ORDER HYPOTHESIS

This hypothesis states that grammatical structures are acquired. It is

based on the assumption that acquirers of a given language tend to acquire

certain grammatical features early and others later. ‘The agreement among

individual acquirers is not always 100%, but there are clear statistically

63

significant similarities’, Krashen (Principles and Practice, 12). To be

absolutely clear, the Natural Order Hypothesis does not state that every

acquirer will acquire grammatical structures in the exact same order. It states

rather that, in general, certain structures tend to be acquired early and others

tend to be acquired late. It also allows the possibility that structures may be

acquired in groups, several at about the same time, Krashen and Terrell (28).

The natural order is not based on any obvious features of simplicity and

complexity. Some rules that look simple (e.g. the third person singular) are

acquired late. Others that appear to linguists to be complex are acquired

early. This presents a problem to curricula designers who present rules to

language students from ‘simple’ to ‘complex’. A rule may seem simple to a

linguist, but may be late- acquired. The natural order cannot be changed. It is

immune to deliberate teaching. We cannot alter the natural order by

explanations, drills and exercises. A teacher can drill the third person

singular for weeks, but it will not be acquired until the acquirer is ready for

it. This explains a great deal of the frustration language students have. One

might suppose that the solution to our problems is simply to teach along the

natural order, we need only to find out which items are acquired early and

teach those first.

64

THE MONITOR HYPOTHESIS

The Monitor Hypothesis attempts to explain how acquisition and

learning are used. The hypothesis states that when we produce utterances in

a second language, the utterance is initiated by the acquired system and the

conscious learning is employed only later to make changes in our utterances

after the utterance has been generated by the acquired system. This may

happen before we actually speak or write, or it may happen after Krashen

and Terrell (30). Krashen claims that language is normally produced by

using acquired linguistic competence. Here conscious learning has only one

function: that of a Monitor or editor, (Explorations, 2). However, it is

difficult to use the Monitor. In order to use it successfully, three conditions

must be met. First, the acquirer must know the rule, which is a very difficult

condition to meet. As Krashen points out, ‘Research linguists freely admit

that they do not know all the rules of any language. Those who write

grammar texts know fewer rules than the linguists. Language teachers do not

teach all the rules in the texts. Even the best students don’t learn all the rules

that are taught, even the best students don’t remember all the rules they have

learned, and even the best students can’t always use the rules they do

remember. Many rules are too complex to apply while engaging in

conversation,’ (Explorations, 3).

65

The second condition for the successful use of the Monitor is that the

acquirer must be thinking about correctness, must be focused on form. This

is not easy to do. It is hard to think about both form and meaning at the same

time. Thirdly, the acquirer must have enough time to apply the Monitor but

for most people, normal conversation doesn’t provide enough time for the

use of the Monitor. A few language experts can monitor while conversing,

but these are very advanced acquirers who only need to monitor an

occasional rule here and there, and who have a special interest in the

structure of language. Research shows that Monitor use is only obvious

when all three conditions are fully met and claims that ‘for most people, this

occurs only when we give them a grammar test!’ We see the natural order

for example, grammatical morphemes, when we test students in ‘Monitor-

free’ situations where they are focused on communication and not form.

When we give adult students ‘pencil and paper grammar tests’, we see

‘unnatural orders’, a difficult order that is different from the child’s second

language acquisition order. When students are focused on communication,

they are not usually able to make extensive use of their conscious knowledge

of grammar, the Monitor, and their error patterns primarily reflect the

operation of the acquired system (Krashen & Terrell 31).

66

A very important point about the Monitor hypothesis is that it does

not say that acquisition is unavailable for self-correction. We often self-

correct, or edit, using acquisition, in both first and in second languages.

What the Monitor hypothesis claims is that conscious learning has only this

function, that it is not used to initiate production in a second language.

THE INPUT HYPOTHESIS

The Input Hypothesis addresses the question of how we acquire

language. This hypothesis states that we acquire language by understanding

input that is a little beyond our current level of acquired competence

(Krashen and Terrell: 32). This has been recently expressed lucidly by

Krashen (Explorations, 4): ‘we acquire language in only one way: when we

understand messages; that is, when we obtain “comprehensible input”’. This

strong claim is repeated in other places where Krashen states that

‘comprehending messages is the only way language is acquired’ and that

‘there is no individual variation in the fundamental process of language

acquisition.’ For this reason, Krashen often uses the term ‘comprehension

hypothesis’ to refer to the Input Hypothesis, arguing that ‘comprehension’ is

a better description as mere input is not enough; it must be understood.

Krashen also acknowledges that this idea is not new with him. ‘ In the field

of second-language acquisition, James Asher, Harris Winitz, and Robins

67

Burling proposed similar ideas years before I did, and in the field of literacy,

Frank Smith and Kenneth Goodman had proposed that we learn to read by

reading, by understanding the message on the page, (Explorations, 4).

Consistent with the hypothesis is then the claim that listening

comprehension and reading are of primary importance and that the ability to

speak or write fluently in a second language will come on its own with time.

Speaking fluency is thus not ‘taught’ directly; rather, speaking ability

‘emerges’ after the acquirer has built up competence through comprehending

input (Krashen and Terrell : 32).

The Input Hypothesis builds on the Natural Order Hypothesis and

answers the question of how we move from one stage of acquisition to

another. In other words, it is concerned with how we move from ‘I’, where

‘I’ is the acquirer’s current level of competence, to ‘i+1’, where ‘i+1’ is the

stage immediately following ‘I’ along the natural order. According to

Krashen, the answer to how we can understand language that contains

structures we have not yet acquired is ‘through context, our knowledge of

the world and our extra-linguistic information’ (Principles and Practice, 21).

THE AFFECTIVE FILTER HYPOTHESIS

In addition to some objective factors, there are also some affective

factors in language learning that are like a filter which filtrates the amount of

68

input in learners’ brains. People with high affective filter will lower their

intake whereas people with low affective filter allow more input into their

language acquisition device. Krashen argued that people acquire second

languages only if they obtain comprehensible input and if their affective

filters are low enough to allow the input ‘in’. In his theory, affect includes

motivation, attitude, anxiety, and self-confidence. His main viewpoints are

as follows:

• A raised affective filter can block input from reaching LAD.

• A lowered affective filter allows the input to “strike deeper” and be

acquired.

• The affective filter is responsible for individual variation in SLA.

Affective factors are seen to play an important role in acquiring a second

language. Comprehensible input may not be utilized by L2 acquirers if there

is a “mental block” that prevents them from fully profiting from it. The

affective filter acts as a barrier to acquisition. The filter is up when the

acquirer is unmotivated, lacking in confidence, or concerned with failure.

The filter is down when the acquirer is not anxious and is trying to become a

member of the group speaking.

69

AFFECTIVE FACTORS IN SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

Motivation : Most researchers and educators would agree that motivation is

a very important, if not the most important factor in language learning,

without which even 'gifted' individuals cannot accomplish long-term goals,

whatever the curricula and whoever the teacher. In terms of the definition of

motivation, recent educational theory has tended toward the interpretation of

Gardner (1985) defining motivation to learn an L2 as "the extent to which

the individual works or strives to learn the language because of a desire to

do so and the satisfaction experienced in this activity". So the motivation of

SLA refers to the desire and impetus of the acquirers. Gardner and Krashen

point out that there are two motivations, integrative one and instrumental

one. With the former motivation, the L2 acquirers are interested in the target

language and willing to participate in that social life. But with the latter

motivation, the L2 acquirers only want to pass some examination, go

overseas to study, travel or be promoted. We can easily see that these two

motivations are positive and negative to the SLA respectively.

Attitude : One’s attitude to something is the way one thinks and feels about

it. Psychological theories on attitudes refer to an evaluative, emotional

reaction (i.e. the degree of like or dislike associated with the attitudinal

object) comprising three components: affect, cognition, and behaviour. How

70

attitude influences the SLA are shown as follows: The acquirers with

positive attitude tend to learn L2 easily and with rapid progress; while those

with negative attitude make slowly progress. Attitude decides the

commitment. Those who give up halfway are probably passive with lower

commitment whose achievements are lower than those positive and

persistent learners. Attitude influences the class participation. The students

with positive learning attitude perform actively and can have high grade.

Anxiety: From the SLA perspective, language anxiety is seen as the

apprehension experienced when a situation requires the use of a second

language with which the individual is not fully proficient. This apprehension

is characterized by “derogatory self-related cognitions, feelings of

apprehension, and physiological responses such as increased heart rate".

Self-confidence: L2 acquirers’ personality factors relate a lot to the learning

effect. Among the personality factors, self-confidence is the most important

one. Those who have enough self-confidence and positive personal image

succeed more. Self-confident people dare to adventure, to communicate in

foreign language and can gain more. While those who lack self-confidence

will lose the chances to practice their target language, for they are afraid of

losing face and making mistakes.

71

The Affective Filter hypothesis, according to Krashen, captures the

relationship between affective variables and the process of second language

acquisition by positing that acquirers vary with respect to the strength or

level of their Affective Filters. Those whose attitudes are not optimal for

second language acquisition will not only tend to seek less input, but they

will also have a high or strong Affective Filter – even if they understand the

message, the input will not reach that part of the brain responsible for second

language acquisition, or the language acquisition device. This is why most

students resort to the use of Pidgin English. Those with attitudes more

conducive to second language acquisition will not only seek and obtain more

input, they will also have a lower or weaker filter. They will be more open to

the input, and it will strike ‘deeper’ (Principles and Practice, 31). He also

points out that the Affective Filter Hypothesis can help explain why a certain

student of a second language who receives a great deal of comprehensible

input still does not reach a native-like competence. It is due to the high

Affective Filter that prevents the input from reaching the language

acquisition device. Put simply, for this type of an acquirer, input does not

become intake (intake is defined as the input that reached the language

acquisition device), (Principles and Practice, 32).

72

CHAPTER FOUR

DATA PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS

4.0 INTRODUCTION

In this section, the results from the analysis of data were presented in

tables showing frequencies and percentages with charts for vivid illustration

of results. This chapter also contains the discussion and answers to the

research questions raised in this research. Out of a total of 200 copies of

questionnaire distributed to students, 192 were returned, giving 96% return

rate while all willing teachers in the schools were sampled.

4.1 RESEARCH QUESTION ONE

To what extent is Pidgin English spoken by students in secondary

schools in Eha-Amufu?

The answers to the above research question are found in Figure 1 as well as

Tables 1, 2, 3 and 4 as indicated below.

Table 1: Distribution of responses showing demographic characteristics

of respondents (students)

Variable Frequency Percentage Age: 7-10 years 11-14 years 15-18 years Above 18 years

- 6 153 33

0% 3% 80% 17%

Total 192 100 Sex: Male Female

86 106

45% 55%

Total 192 100

73

The result in Table 1 above shows preponderance of respondents

between ages 15-18years (80%). This is an obvious fact because students in

SS3 are expected to fall within that age bracket having spent 6 years in their

primary education and another 6 years in secondary education added to the

age of enrolment into any school (i.e. between 4-6 years).

This is followed by respondents above 18 years (17%). These are

likely the categories of students that started school late. Lastly, respondents

between ages 11-14 years recorded 6 (3%) leaving those between 7-10 years

with no response at all.

On the sex distribution of respondents, the result shows that there are

more female respondents 106 (55%) when compared to their male

counterpart with 86 (45%) as indicated in Table 1 above.

Figure 1: Distribution of responses showing respondents’ disposition to

speaking Pidgin English

74

There is a slight margin between respondents that claim to have ever

spoken Pidgin English and those that say “No” (i.e. they don’t speak Pidgin

English). From the result (see figure 1), 51% of the respondents claim they

don’t speak Pidgin English while 49% say they do speak Pidgin English.

The result shows an average response between respondents that speak Pidgin

English and respondents that do not speak Pidgin English.

The tendencies to speak or not to speak Pidgin English can be traced

to the kind of home and family background each child grew up from. This,

to a large extent, predisposes them to gain mastery in speaking a particular

language.

Table 2: Distribution of responses showing the extent to which

respondents use Pidgin English

S/N Variable SA A U D SD Total 1 I use Pidgin English with

my class mates. 31 (16%) 47 (24%) 12 (6%) 49 (26%) 53 (28%) 192 (100%)

2 I use Pidgin English during class activities.

10 (5%) 13 (7%) 12 (6%) 47 (24%) 110 (58%) 192 (100%)

3 I use Pidgin English with some of my Teachers.

8 (4%) 21 (11%) 10 (5%) 43 (22%) 110 (58%) 192 (100%)

4 I use Pidgin English in writing to my Classmates.

14 (7%) 19 (10%) 13 (7%) 45 (23%) 101 (53%) 192 (100%)

5 Some of my Teachers use Pidgin English to t