Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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 teach.
11 (6%) 19 (10%) 15 (8%) 35 (18%) 112 (58%) 192 (100%)
6 I use Pidgin English at home.
53 (28%) 65 (34%) 15 (8%) 27 (14%) 30 (16%) 192 (100%)
75
From the result in Table 2 on the extent to which respondents use
Pidgin English in selected schools in Eha-Amufu, there is a preponderance
of the respondents that use Pidgin English at home as indicated by 118
(62%) respondents (i.e. SA+A).
However, the other responses show that none of the respondents agree
to the statement indicated as most of the responses were largely negative
(i.e. addition of D+SD). More specifically among these responses, majority
of the respondents (157 representing 82%) claim they do not use Pidgin
English during class activities; while 153 (80%) say they do not Pidgin
English with their teachers. Also, equal number of respondents (76%) claim
they do not use Pidgin English in writing and that some of their teachers do
not use Pidgin English to teach. At the bottom of the table are 102
respondents (54%) who claim they do not use Pidgin English with their
classmates.
76
Table 3: Distribution of responses (from open-ended question 5)
showing other areas where respondents use Pidgin English
S/N Variables Frequency Percentage
1 In the market 58 45%
2 At Church 32 25%
3 At Playing ground 16 12%
4 Among peer group 7 5%
5 At social gathering 4 3%
6 Among relatives 2 1.5%
7 Social media 11 8.5%
Total 130 100
From the result in Table 3 on other areas where respondents use
Pidgin English, those who use Pidgin English in the market ranked highest
with 45%. This is followed by those who use it in the church (25%), at
playing ground (12%) and social media (8.5%). This shows the places these
students interact more using Pidgin English and this complements the earlier
results in Tables 2 and 3 above.
77
Table 4: Distribution of responses showing factors that determine
respondents’ usage of Pidgin English
S/N Variable SA A U D SD Total 1 I enjoy speaking Pidgin
English with my friends. 41 (21%) 62 (32%) 15 (8%) 34 (18%) 39 (21%)
192 (100%)
2 I prefer Pidgin English to Standard English.
14 (7%) 9 (5%) 8 (4%) 40 (21%) 120 (63%) 192 (100%)
3 Pidgin English is easier to learn than Standard English.
51 (27%) 50 (26%) 7 (4%) 35 (18%) 49 (25%) 192 (100%)
4 Pidgin English is not prohibited in my school.
25 (13%) 28 (15%) 10 (5%) 53 (28%) 76 (39%) 192 (100%)
5 Pidgin English conveys what I want to say better than Standard English.
21 (11%) 32 (17%) 10 (5%) 46 (24%) 83 (43%) 192 (100%)
6 My parents encourage me to use Pidgin English.
2 (1%) 2 (1%) 7 (4%) 44 (23%) 137 (71%) 192 (100%)
7. My Teachers encourage me to use Pidgin English.
9 (5%) 1 (0.5%) 8 (4%) 35 (18%) 139(72.5%) 192 (100%)
From the result in Table 4 on the factors that determine respondents’
usage of Pidgin English in selected Schools in Eha-Amufu, those who enjoy
speaking Pidgin English with their friends ranked highest in the affirmative
responses (i.e. SA + A) with 103 (53%). The other response on the
affirmative were those who claim that Pidgin English is easier to learn than
Standard English (101 representing 53%) of the respondents.
78
However, the remaining responses were on the negative in respect to
the statement posed to the respondents (i.e. D + SD). On the top of this
category of responses are those who claim that their parents do not
encourage them to speak Pidgin English (181 representing 94% of the
respondents). This is followed by respondents who say that their teachers do
not encourage them to speak Pidgin English (174 representing 90%). Also,
160 respondents (84%) say they do not prefer Pidgin English to Standard
English while equal number of respondents (129) representing 67% say that
Pidgin English conveys what they want to say better than Standard English
even though it is prohibited in their schools.
4.2 RESEARCH QUESTION TWO
To what extent does Pidgin English affect the written essays of
secondary school students in Eha-Amufu?
The answer to the above research question can be found in results
presented in Tables 5 and 6 below which indicate responses from the
students on the extent of harm done by Pidgin English on their academics
and the distribution of scores obtained by these students in their written
essays.
79
Table 5: Distribution of responses showing the extent of harm done by
Pidgin English on students’ academics
S/N Variable SA A U D SD Total
1 I sometimes use Pidgin English in writing assignments.
8 (4%) 7 (4%) 7 (4%) 44 (23%) 126 (65%) 192 (100%)
2 I cannot write a full page in essay without using Pidgin English.
12 (6%) 9 (5%) 7 (4%) 32 (17%) 132 (68%) 192 (100%)
3 I rarely use Pidgin English in writing assignments.
16 (8%) 14 (7%) 16 (8%) 45 (23%) 99 (54%) 192 (100%)
4 My spelling has been affected by Pidgin English.
9 (5%) 15 (8%) 13 (7%) 46 (24%) 109 (56%) 192 (100%)
5
Pidgin English has affected my spoken English such that I cannot end a conversation without using Pidgin.
17 (9%) 22 (12%) 14 (7%) 49 (26%) 90 (46%) 192 (100%)
6 I use Pidgin English in Examination unknowingly.
9 (5%) 28 (15%) 9 (5%) 31 (16%) 114 (59%) 192 (100%)
From the result in table 5 on the extent of harm done by Pidgin
English on students’ academics, none of the respondents agree to the
80
statements indicated as each of their responses to the statements were largely
negative (i.e. D + SD) as indicated above.
More significantly, there was a preponderance of response from the
respondents (170 representing 88%) claiming that they do not use Pidgin
English sometimes in writing assignments. This is followed by those who
claim they can write a full page of essay or letter writing without using
Pidgin English (164 representing 85%). Also, 155 respondents (80%) claim
that their spelling is not affected by Pidgin English; even as 144 (77%) deny
that they rarely use Pidgin English in writing assignments. At the bottom of
the table are respondents who deny the fact that they use Pidgin English
unknowingly in examination (145 representing 75%) and those who say that
their spoken English is not affected by Pidgin English (139 representing
72%) as indicated in the result.
Table 6: Distribution of scores showing students’ performance in essay
from the sampled respondents
Variables Frequency Percentage (F) Below 0-39% (D)Between 40-49% (C)Between 50-59% (B)Between 60-69% (A) 70% and Above
140 17 6 6 2
81% 10% 4% 4% 1%
Total 171 100
81
Using a benchmark of 40% and above as pass mark, the result in
Table 6 above indicates that only an abysmal 19% of the students passed
English Essay. The remaining 81% (140 out of 171) students failed in their
essay as a result of deficiencies in content, organization, mechanical
accuracy and expression. More specifically, out of the 19% that passed, 10%
scored between 40 – 49%; 4% each recorded between 50 – 59% and 60 –
69% respectively leaving the remaining 1% of the students scoring above
70% (excellent) in the essay writing.
4.3 RESEARCH QUESTION THREE
What can be done to mitigate the effects of Pidgin English on Standard
English usage among secondary school students in Eha-Amufu?
The answer to the above research question is found in Table 7 below
which shows a distribution of responses from sampled teachers on how to
mitigate the adverse effects of Pidgin English on Standard English usage.
82
Table 7: Distribution of responses from the teachers showing ways to
mitigate the adverse effect of Pidgin English on Standard English usage
S/N Variable SA A U D SD Total
1 Pidgin English should be prohibited in Nigerian schools.
26 (57%) 11 (24%) 3 (7%) 4 (9%) 2 (3%) 46 (100%)
2
There should be regular seminar and workshop to train teachers on effective usage of standard English.
25 (54%) 18 (39%) - (0%) - (0%) 3 (7%)
46 (100%)
3
Parents should be made to know the negative effect of Pidgin on students’ academic performance.
20 (44%) 23 (50%) 1 (2%) 1 (2%) 1 (2%)
46 (100%)
4 Students should be made to pay fine for speaking Pidgin English in class.
13 (30%) 25 (54%) 5 (11%) 1 (2%) 2 (3%) 46 (100%)
5
Nigerian’s educational curriculum should be reviewed to accommodate Pidgin English as a style of writing.
3 (7%) 3 (7%) 3 (7%) 8 (17%) 29 (62%) 46 (100%)
6
Students should be made to know the difference between standard colloquialism and Pidgin English.
19 (41%) 22 (48%) 1 (2%) 1 (2%) 3 (7%) 46 (100%)
83
From the result in Table 7 above on the ways to mitigate the adverse
effect of Pidgin English on Standard English usage given by teachers from
the selected schools, all the statements posed to the teachers received an
affirmative response except that on reviewing Nigeria’s educational
curriculum to accommodate Pidgin English which received a greater
negative response (37 representing 79%) .
More specifically on statements that received positive response, most
teachers (43 representing 94%) believe that parents should be made to know
the negative effect of their children using Pidgin English as against Standard
English; while 43 (93%) respondents share the view that there should be
regular seminar and workshop for teachers on effective use of Standard
English. Also, 37 (91%) respondents say that Pidgin English should be
prohibited in Nigerian schools while 41 (89%) respondents agree with the
fact that students should be made to know the difference between Standard
colloquialism and Pidgin English.
Lastly, 38 (84%) respondents say that students should be made to pay
fine each time they use Pidgin English so as to help mitigate the adverse
effect of its usage on Standard English.
84
CHAPTER FIVE SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.0 INTRODUCTION
This section deals with the summary of findings emanating from the results
in the data presented in the previous chapter (i.e. chapter four) as they
provided answers to the research questions posed in this study. Here the
researcher also drew conclusions based on the findings in this study and
thereafter made some recommendations.
5.1 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
During the investigation to find out the extent to which Pidgin English
has affected the use of Standard English among students in Eha-Amufu, the
study found out the extent of Pidgin English usage, the factors that inform
students’ usage, the extent of harm done on their use of Standard English
and outlined some ways to mitigate these effects. Based on these, the study
addresses the research questions.
The findings from this study reveal that students’ use of Pidgin
English is traceable to their homes. They use it often at home (as indicated
by 118 respondents representing 62%). Their responses in other statements
in Table 2 show that they rarely use Pidgin English in other areas such as;
with classmates, during class activities and with some teachers. Students use
85
Pidgin English more at home or outside school activities like in the market
and in the church (see Table 3) than during school activities. Furthermore,
most of them do not use the social media because if they do, that would have
ranked highest. If they find themselves in a social gathering (3%), they
seldom use Pidgin. This finding agrees with the assertion by Amao (4) and
Fasan (24) who noted 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
underscores the prevalence of the use of Pidgin English among the sampled
respondents, especially at their home.
Also, from the results in their written essays in Table 6, Pidgin
English has affected the writing style of students. This finding contradicted
the result in Table 5 which shows the response on the extent of harm done
by Pidgin English on students’ academic performance. All respondents
disagree with this researcher that Pidgin English has an adverse effect on
their use of the Standard English. But when given a simple essay on ‘How I
Spent My Last Holiday’, the effects were quite obvious. This corroborates
with the assertion that Pidgin is a fundamental simpler form of
86
communication and that the grammar and phonology are usually as simple
as possible consisting of uncomplicated grammatical structure, reduction of
syllabus codas and reduction of consonant cluster.
On the factors that determine their usage of Pidgin English, this study
found that most of the respondents (53%) enjoy using Pidgin English (see
Table 4), even though a greater percentage (84%) denied they prefer using
Pidgin English when compared to Standard English usage. There appear to
be some form of contradiction in these statements because one cannot claim
to prefer what he/she does not enjoy using.
This study also found that more respondents (67%) claim that Pidgin
English conveys what they want to say better than Standard English. This
agrees with what Balogun found out in his study entitled In Defense of
Nigerian Pidgin. According to him: “Nigerian pidgin serves as a convenient
form of communication in reaching targeted audience in the informal
setting,” (95).
It has been established that Pidgin is a simplified language and its
constant use results in the inability of students to make a complete sentence
and spell a word correctly in the Standard English. This has been a major
problem that has always resulted in mass failure in the English Language in
WAEC as seen in the findings recorded in Table 7, even though the sampled
87
students in this study claim that Pidgin has not affected their written and
spoken English in any way (see Table 5). However, confirmatory findings
from the marked students show a preponderance of indiscriminate use of
Pidgin in their work. Below are examples of notable spelling and
grammatical errors found in their essay scripts:
Wrongly used Corrected one Beral Burial No Know Privelege Privilege Restorant Restaurant I was dear some weeks I was there for some weeks Som weeks Some weeks When I rich there When I got there Inmidetely I rich there Immediately I got there I’m happy the time I here message I was happy when I got the message I am hearing it in my ear I heard it I traveled to PH I travelled to Port-Harcourt You mer ask why You may ask why When I reach there I rest When I got there, I took some time to
rest The last holiday was the best of all holidays I have been going to
The last holiday was the best I have ever had
While on the vehicle, I pass many highways
While on the journey, I saw many buildings
Wen I try to come When I tried to come Siblins Siblings I help my mother to cooking food I helped my mother in cooking On my way going to gombe On my way to Gombe
88
Based on the result in Table 7, the following will help in mitigating
the effects of Pidgin English on Standard English usage among secondary
school students in Eha-Amufu.
1. Pidgin English should be prohibited in Nigerian schools.
2. There should be regular seminar and workshop to train teachers on
effective usage of Standard English. Government and school proprietors
should also employ qualified teachers.
3. Parents should be made to know the negative effects of Pidgin on
students’ academic performance.
4. Students should be made to pay fines for speaking Pidgin English in class.
5. Students should be made to know the difference between standard
colloquialism and Pidgin English.
5.2 CONCLUSION
From the findings in this study, it can be inferred that there is relative
influence on students’ use of Pidgin from their home and since parents
appear not to take it up with the students at home, the effect has now been
felt in the school.
Also, Pidgin English (as was found in this study) was used to create a form
of identity for the students who find it convenient to express themselves
89
easier in Pidgin than in Standard English when communicating with their
peers.
There is a sense of denial in young people when confronted with their
weakness as regards the use of Pidgin. No student will want to give an
impression of himself or herself as one that uses Pidgin in examination or in
writing assignments. But a closer scrutiny will reveal the true nature of one
who pretends over issues of this magnitude.
Using outright ban or prohibition of Pidgin English in schools does not seem
to stop its usage but a deliberate and conscious effort at instilling in the mind
of the students the knowledge of Pidgin’s adverse effect on their academics
and the danger of its persistent use will go a long way in mitigating the
adverse effect of using Pidgin in schools.
5.3 RECOMMENDATIONS
From the foregoing, the researcher makes the following recommendations:
1. There should be constant monitoring and evaluation of language use
in teaching and learning in Nigerian schools to check the trend of
usage of Pidgin.
2. Teachers should always caution students each time they use Pidgin in
formal school settings.
90
3. Students should be constantly exposed to debate competitions and
other activities that will help improve their use of Standard English.
4. Parents should be made to know the negative effects of Pidgin on
students’ academic performance. Once this is done, students’ use of
Pidgin English at home will be minimized. Using Pidgin English at
home is like a ‘mental block’ that prevents them from fully using the
Standard English correctly. Once the students are motivated from the
home, they will have a lower affective filter which allows more input
into their language acquisition device (LAD).
Teachers should also be exposed to seminars and workshops to train them on
how they can help improve students’ usage of Standard English and ways to
mitigate the incessant use of Pidgin by students.
91
WORKS CITED ` Abdullahi-Idiagbon, M.S. The Sociolinguistics of Nigerian Pidgin English in
Selected University Campus in Nigeria. Unpublished Thesis. Ife,
2010.
Agbo, O. ‘Nigerian Pidgin and the Development of English as a Second
Language: Problems and Prospect.’ M. A. thesis, University of
Nigeria. 1998.
Agheyisi, R.N. “Standardization of Nigerian Pidgin English.” English World
Wide, 1988.
Akujiobi, O.S and Chukwu, E. “Challenges of Effective English Languages
Learning in Nigeria Secondary Schools.” International Journal of
Arts and Humanities. E.d. Bahir Dar. Ethiopia: Vol. 1, 2012: 57-68
Print.
Ali, Anthony. Fundamentals of Research in Education. Awka: Meks
Publishers, 1996. Print.
Amakiri, A. and Igani, B. ‘The Effects of Pidgin in the Teaching and
Learning of Standard English in Nigeria.’ International Journal of
English and Education. 2015. 122-130 Print.
92
Amao, T. The Use of Pidgin English as a Medium of Social Discourse
Among Osun State University Students. Unpublished Thesis. Osun,
2012.
Aziza, R,O. “Human and Material Resources in the Teaching of the Urhobo
Language.” Empowering Small Nigerian Languages. E.d. Emenanjo.
Port Harcourt: Grand Orbit Books, 2010. 99 -112 Print.
Balogun, T.A. “In Defense of Nigerian Pidgin”. In Journal of Languages
and Culture. vol. 4 (5), 2013: 90-98.
Brooks, N. Language and Language Learning: Theory and Pratcice:
NewYork: Harcourt Brace and world. 1969. Print.
Edupedia. Pidgin English versus WAEC/NECO.
Lagosbooksclub.wordpress.com. (retrieved 13/06/2015)
Egbokhare, F. ‘The Nigeria Linguistics Ecology and the Changing profiles
of Nigerian Pidgin’ Language Attitude and Language Conflict in West
Africa. E.d. Igboahuri, H. Ibadan: Encrofit Publishers, 2001. Print.
Ellis, R. Understanding Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: UP, 1985.
Print.
Elugbe, B. “Nigerian Pidgin: Problems and Prospects”. New Englishes: A
West African Perspective. E.d. Bamgbose, A.,Banjo, A. and A,
Thomas Ibadan: Mosuro publishers, 1995. 284 – 299 Print.
93
Elugbe, B.O. and Omamor, A.P. Nigerian Pidgin: Background and
Prospects. Ibadan: Heineman Educational Books, 1991. Print.
Emenanjo, E.N. ‘A Standard Orthography: An Imperative for written Texts
in a Developing Language.’ Empowering Small Nigerian Languages.
E.d. Emenanjo. Port Harcourt: Grand Orbit Books, 2010. 1-8 Print.
Essien, O.E. “The Future of Minority Languages”. In Emenanjo (ed)
Multilingualism, Minority Languages and Language Policy in
Nigeria. Agbor: Central Books, 1990: 155-168.
Fasan, R.O. Mother Tongue, Popular Music and Being Retrieval. Paper
Presentation in the CODESRIA 13th General Assembly, Casablanca,
Morocco, 2011.
Federal Republic of Nigeria. National Policy on Education. Lagos: Federal
Government Printing Press, 1998. Print.
Federal Republic of Nigeria. National Policy on Education. Lagos: Federal
Government Printing Press, 1981. Print.
Gani-Ikilama, T,O, ‘Use of Nigerian Pidgin in Education: Why Not?’
Multilingualism, Minority Languages and Language Policy in
Nigeria. E.d. Emenanjo. Agbor: Central Books, 1990. 219 -227 Print.
Holm, J. Pidgin and Creoles. Cambridge: UP, 1988. Print.
Hudson, R.A. Sociolinguistics. (2nd ed) Cambridge: Up, 1996. Print.
94
Hymes, D.H. Pidginization and Creolization of Languages. Cambridge: UP,
1971. Print.
Ihemere, K.U. “An Integrated Approach to the Study of Language Attitudes
and Change in Nigeria: The Case of the Ikwere of Port Harcourt
City”. Selected Proceedings of the 36th Annual Conference on African
Linguistics. E.d. Arasanyin, F.O. and Pemberton, M.A. Somerville:
M.A, 2006. Print.
Jowitt, D. Nigerian English Usage: An Introduction. Lagos: Longman, 1991.
Print.
Kperogi, Farouk. Pidgin English and Nigeria English.
www.nigeriavillagesquare.com/articles/brokens-english-pidgin-
english.html
Krashen, S. Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning.
Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1981. Print.
------------ Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Oxford:
Pergamon Press, 1982. Print.
------------ The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications. New York:
Longman, 1985. Print.
95
------------ Language Acquisition and Language Education: Extensions and
Applications. New York/London: Prentice Hall International, 1989.
Print.
------------- Explorations in Language Acquisition and Use: The Taipei
Lectures. Portsmouth: Heinemann, 2003. Print.
Krashen, S. and Terrell, T.D. The Natural Approach: Language Acquisition
in the Classroom. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1983. Print.
Ndimele, R.I. ‘The Linguistics Status of Minority Language in Nigeria: The
Situation in Rivers and Bayelsa State.’ Topical Issues in
Sociolinguistics: The Nigerian Perspective. E.d. Essien. O. and Okon,
M. Aba: National Institute for Nigerian Languages, 2003: 353 – 366
Print.
Ndimele, R.I. Communication Problems of Nigeria Pidgin Speakers. Paper
Presentation at the Society for Pidgin and Creoles Linguistics, Accra.
2011
Obiechina, O. Towards the Classification of Nigerian Pidgin English.
London: Longman, 1984. Print.
Oko, O. ‘The Effects of Nigeria Pidgin on Performance of English Language
of Students in Secondary Schools in Ebonyi State.’ M.A. Thesis.
University of Nigeria, 2003.
96
Olaore, I.A. English for National Development: A Realistic Approach. Paper
Presented at the 13th Conference of the Linguistic Association of
(LAN) University of Abuja, 1992.
Oloruntola. Socio-Cultural Dimension of Nigerian Pidgin Usage (Western
Niger Delta of Nigeria). Unpublished Thesis, Indiana University,
1992.
Onuigbo, S. and Eyisi, J. English Language in Nigeria: Issues and
Development. Nsukka: Global Publisher, 2008. Print.
Otagburuagu, E.J. and Okorji, R.I. The Use of English and Linguistics
Manual. Enugu: Bewak Publishers Ltd, 2003. Print
Otagburuagu, E.J. The English Language and Multi-lingualism in Nigeria.
RAN Journal, vol 8. 1999.
Quirk, R., Greenbeaum, S., Leech, G. and Svartvik, J. A Comprehensive
Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman, 1985. Print
Romaine, D. Languages in Society. New York: Oxford University Press,
1994. Print.
Richards, J.C. and Rodgers,T.S. Approaches and Methods in Language
Teaching: A Description and Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1986. Print.
State Examination Council. May/June WAEC Report. 2013.
97
State Examination Council. Nov/Dec. WAEC Report. 2013.
Stockwell, P. Sociolinguistics: A Resource Book for Students: London:
Routledge, 2002. Print.
Todd, L. Pidgin and Creoles. England: Basil Blackwell, 1974. Print.
Trudgill, P. Sociolinguistics: An Introduction to Language and Society. (3rd
ed.) Harmonsworth: Pengium Books, 1995. Print.
Uguru, J.O. A Common Nigerian Language. (Revised ed). Enugu: Fulladu
Publishing Company, 2003. Print.
UNESCO. The Use of Vernacular Languages in Education. Paris:
UNESCO, 1953.
Wardhaugh, R. An Introduction to Sociolinguistics (sixth ed.). Oxford:
Blackwell, 2010. Print.
Wilson, F. B., Fasingha, W. and Gomba, N. O. ‘Varieties of Pidgin English
and their Effects on the Teaching and Learning of English Language,’
A Seminar Paper Presented as Part of the Course: Business
Communication, Rivers State Polytechnic, Bori, 2013.
Winford, D. An Introduction to Contact Languages. Oxford: Blackwell,
2003. Print.
Yule, G. The Study of Language (2nd ed.). Cambridge: UP, 1985. Print.
98
QUESTIONNAIRE Department of English and Literary Studies,
Faculty of Arts, University of Nigeria, Nsukka. August 2015 Dear Respondent,
REQUEST FOR THE COMPLETION OF RESEARCH
QUESTIONNAIRE I am a post-graduate student of the above-named department and
institution, conducting a research on: Effects of Pidgin in Standard English Usage among Students in Selected Secondary Schools in Eha-Amufu, Isi-Uzo LGA of Enugu State.
This is strictly an academic enquiry and your honest response will be highly appreciated and treated in the strictest confidence.
Thank you for your cooperation. Yours faithfully
Unachukwu, Ogechi C.
PART A (PERSONAL DATA)
INSTRCUTION: Please tick (√) appropriately
1. Age: 14 – 15 16 – 16
17 – 18 Above 18 years
2. Sex: Male
Female
99
PART B (RESEARCH DATA)
3. Do you speak Pidgin English? Yes No
(By Pidgin English we mean “Nigerian Pidgin English”)
NB: For your response below, the following are the meanings to the acronyms (SA = Strongly Agreed; A = Agreed; U = Undecided; D = Disagreed and SD = Strongly Disagreed) 4.To what extent do you use Pidgin English as a Student?
S/N Extent of Pidgin English Usage among Students
SA A U D SD
1. I use Pidgin English with my classmates 2. I use Pidgin English during class activities 3. I use Pidgin English with some of my
teachers
4. I use Pidgin English in writing to my classmates
5. Some of my teachers use Pidgin English to teach
6. I use Pidgin English at home 5. Mention other areas where you use Pidgin English
6. What factors inform your usage of Pidgin English?
S/N Factors that determine pidgin English usage
SA A U D SD
1. I enjoy speaking Pidgin English with my friends
2. I prefer Pidgin English to Standard English 3. Pidgin English is easier to learn than
Standard English
4. Pidgin English is not prohibited in my
100
school 5. Pidgin English conveys what I want to say
better than Standard English
6. My Parents encourage me to use Pidgin English
7. My Teachers encourage me to use Pidgin English
7. Mention other factors that inform your usage of Pidgin English
8. What is the extent of harm done by Pidgin English in Students’ written works?
S/N The extent of harm done by Pidgin English in writing
SA A U D SD
1. I sometimes use Pidgin English in writing assignments
2. I cannot write a full page in essay or letter writing without using Pidgin English
3. I rarely use Pidgin English in writing assignments
4. My spelling has been affected by Pidgin English
5. Pidgin English has affected my spoken English such that I cannot end a conversation without using Pidgin
6. I use Pidgin English in examination unknowingly
9. What other harm has Pidgin English done in your writing apart from the ones mentioned above?
101
This section is for teachers only.
10. What can be done to mitigate the adverse effects of Pidgin on Standard English usage?
S/N Ways to mitigate the adverse effects of
Pidgin English on Standard English usage SA A U D SD
1. Pidgin English should be prohibited in Nigerian schools
2. There should be regular seminar and workshop to train teachers on effective usage of Standard English
3. Parents should be made to know the negative effects of Pidgin on students’ academic performance
4. Students should be made to pay fine for speaking pidgin English in Class
5. Nigerians’ educational curriculum should be reviewed to accommodate Pidgin English as a style of writing called ‘Nigerian Pidgin English’
6. Students should be made to know the difference between Standard colloquialism and Pidgin English
11. Mention other ways to mitigate the adverse effects of Pidgin English on Standard English usage_________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________
![Nigerian Pidgin - ZODMLNick_Faraclas]_Nigerian... · Nigerian Pidgin Nigerian Pidgin will provide linguists, Africanists, creolists, language teachers and learners with the first](https://img.dokumen.tips/doc/110x75/5b79c0847f8b9a534c8df8d5/nigerian-pidgin-zodml-nickfaraclasnigerian-nigerian-pidgin-nigerian.jpg)
