bilingualism in pluricentrism: investigating the conflict...
TRANSCRIPT
Bilingualism in Pluricentrism:
Investigating the Conflict of Standards in English
Pronunciation in Nigeria
By
Anyagwa, Carol Ngozi Ph.D.
University of Lagos
08035723727
International Conference on African Literature and the English Language, 2016
Abstract
The English language in its many varieties embodies the legacy of European colonisation in
many African countries, with the consequence of making many Africans bilingual in English and
their indigenous languages. One controversial issue about bilingualism in Africa, however, has
been the question of accent; given that both endoglossic and exoglossic models exist for English
pronunciation. Obviously, on paper, many Anglophone African countries settle for the „prestige‟
accent of their colonial masters which, in former British colonies, is the Received Pronunciation
(RP). However, a close look at the accent of English spoken/ taught in a country like Nigeria
shows that what obtains is a hybrid accent manifesting not just local features but also
pronunciation features of more than one exoglossic standard. Using primary data collected from
100 teachers and students of English in Lagos, Nigeria, the study reveals the confusion created
by the coexistence of these multiple pronunciation models in the country. The study, therefore,
lends its voice to the query about the rationale behind the adoption of exoglossic spoken models
for the teaching of English pronunciation in Anglophone African countries.
Keywords: Accent, Exoglossic, Endoglossic, Standard, bilingualism, pluricentrism, Model.
Introduction
As a result of her colonial experience, Nigeria, as well as other former British colonies, has
bilingualism as a more or less second nature; an average Nigerian today can speak English and at
least one indigenous language. Given the pluricentric nature of the English language, standards
abound, leaving the learner to choose from existing options which to model his/her English
usage after. Suffice is to say, however, that English is not only a language of instruction in
Nigeria but is also taught as a subject in schools. By implication, therefore, learners are taught
English pronunciation, grammar and vocabulary development, among others. Teaching
pronunciation is one interesting, yet challenging, aspect of English Language Teaching (ELT) as
it is usually mediated by certain legislative and attitudinal limitations, often to the
discouragement of the teacher himself. For instance, the question of what model to teach always
arises. Even where no explicit statements have been issued to that effect, we observe that the
accent being tested in Oral English examinations in most of the former British colonies is RP,
which compels the teacher to also teach RP. However, many scholars have objected to this
apparent promotion of the Standard British English accent on the African soil to the detriment of
educated accents of English which have already developed in the different countries.
In this study, using data obtained from a hundred teachers and students of English in Lagos,
Nigeria, we investigate the model of English pronunciation which dominates the academic
environment in Nigeria. The findings reveal an urgent need to revisit the question of the model
accent for English instruction in Anglophone African countries, which should also reflect in the
nature of the instructional materials (e.g. course texts) made available to these students/teachers.
Bilingualism and Pluricentrism
Simply put, bilingualism is defined as the ability to use two languages, either as a group of
speakers or as an individual. However, the term encompasses a range of proficiencies and
contexts. Consequently, attempts have been made to classify bilinguals bearing this multi-
dimensionality in mind. Wenreich (1953), concentrating on the organization of the two or more
linguistic codes and meaning units by individuals, distinguishes Coordinate bilinguals (who
possess two parallel linguistic systems), Compound bilinguals (who show evidence of non-
mastery of all the subtleties of either language) and Subordinate bilinguals (who understand and
interpret the L2 through their L1) one from another. Focusing on the relationship between the
fluency and proficiencies of the respective languages which bilinguals master, Peal and Lambert
(1962) further distinguish between Balanced and Dominant bilinguals. Lambert (1974) makes a
distinction between Additive and Subtractive bilinguals based on the influence of the Second
language (L2) on the first (L1). Concentrating on the social status of language, Fishman (1977)
makes a distinction between Folk and Elite bilinguals. Beardsmore (1986: 28), based on the age
of exposure to the two (or more) languages, differentiates between Early and Late bilingualism;
where early bilingualism can be Simultaneous or Consecutive (i.e. successive). Other
distinctions include Formal and Informal; Acquired and Learnt; Passive and Active bilingualism.
Moradi (2014) however observes that most of these dimensions are usually interrelated. Being
that this study is concerned, not with individual bilingualism but, with societal bilingualism,
much attention will not be paid to any particular sub-class as all the identified are possibilities
within the bilingual Nigerian speech community.
Clyne, Michael G. (1992:1) uses the term „pluricentric‟ to describe languages with several
interacting centers, each providing a national variety with at least some of its own (codified)
norms. Simply put, a pluricentric language is a language with two or more standard varieties.
David Crystal (2008:372) and P.H. Matthews (2007:308) respectively classify English among
the pluricentric languages considering the differences in pronunciation, vocabulary, spelling,
etc., of the different standards e.g. American English, British English, Australian English and
Indian English. Although British English naturally tends to predominate in former British
colonies like Nigeria, the realities of such areas show that American English, for instance, also
has a visible presence in the linguistic repertoire of such speech communities. In Nigeria, for
instance, the influence of American English is becoming so widespread that it has become the
second most important characteristic feature of Nigerian English, outside nativisation (see
Awonusi, 1989; Bamgbose, 1995; Igboanusi, 2002a, 2002b).
Given the already complex and multi-dimensional nature of bilingualism, the additional burden
of a pluricentric language has not produced the best results in the Nigerian bilingual‟s
proficiency in the L2. Standards are confused across the different classes of bilinguals at the
levels of pronunciation (e.g. /daɪrɛkʃn/ ~ /dɪrɛkʃn/, vocabulary (e.g. lift ~ elevator) and even
spelling (e.g. program ~ programme). Although this has been well-accommodated by the
dynamism which characterises the Nigerian socio-linguistic milieu, and may not necessarily
impair communication, it still raises a number of hitches for attempts at describing the Nigerian
variety of English. Thus, in this study, we set out to establish, from the angle of teachers and
students of English, the extent of this confusion particularly as regards English pronunciation. To
ensure a detailed investigation, the focus of the study has been limited to the segmental level of
English pronunciation.
English Pronunciation Models and the African English Community
Across the African continent, a good number of indigenised or nativised varieties of English
have emerged, each having naturally acquired phonological, syntactic, and lexico-morphological
peculiarities that are significantly different from those of the language in native English
countries. Available literature on the models for English instruction across Anglophone African
countries show that in Kenya, Ghana, (Anglophone) Cameroun, Nigeria and, indeed, many other
countries, it is on paper that school children are taught English pronunciation which is perceived
as the Received Pronunciation (RP). This claim can be verified by just taking a close look at the
focus and content of Oral English texts and other publications geared towards teaching English
pronunciation in these countries (including those from indigenous authors). However,
considering Jenkins‟ (2000) observation that the main bulk of communication by learners of
English takes place among non-native speakers of the language, one begins to wonder if there is
really any need on the learner‟s part to acquire a native accent. Beyond the question of
justification for the choice of a foreign model is that of equipment: to what extent are the
educational systems of these countries adequately equipped in terms of the human and material
resources required for the attainment of this ambitious target? From Spencer (1971) to Pride et al
(1982), Platt et al (1984), Kachru (1986), Crystal (1988), Awonusi (1989) and Adetugbo (2004),
writers have argued extensively on the question of standards for English language teaching.
Kachru (1986:91), ironically, notes that university teachers in non-native English-speaking
environments generally defended the exonormative standard, often not realizing that they
themselves used and taught to their students a transparent local accent.
Focusing on the Nigerian situation, Awonusi (2004) notes that the teaching model of English in
Nigeria „has always been the [Received Pronunciation] RP‟. Ufomata (1996), however, notes
that most teachers of English pronunciation in Nigeria „have no training in the teaching of
pronunciation and … cannot be said to represent suitable models ….‟ Suffice it to say that given
this reality on ground, the goal of teaching the RP model becomes more or less unrealistic. Some
scholars (Adetugbo, 2004; Awonusi, 1989, 1990, 2004) have adequately faulted the adoption of
RP as a spoken model for Nigerians on the ground that the variety of English spoken in Nigeria
cannot be said to be truly British. Their arguments thus favour the adoption of an endornormative
as opposed to exonormative standard for English pronunciation in Nigeria. Jibril (1982) actually
noted the emergence of a distinct accent of English in Nigeria (tagged Nigerian RP in Ugorji
(2010)) even in the face of a British RP teaching model.
Beyond the academic circle, another source of empirical evidence on the accent of English
promoted within any society is the broadcast media. Every keen observer of newscasters in
Nigeria, particularly those on network channels, will note that they, as much as possible,
approximate „RP‟ (albeit being constrained by the differences in the articulatory settings). Jowitt
(2015) has however noted that what we generally refer to as British Received Pronunciation (RP)
has undergone and is still undergoing changes in its homeland, and is not homogeneous. One
may then be tempted to ask: which RP do they approximate? Another dimension to this, as
observed by Ufomata (1996), is that „presenters of musical programmes and other programmes
aimed at young people are tending more and more towards an American accent‟. When we
combine the pictures painted above – of a British RP-based [sic] teaching model, and a Nigerian
RP and American accent-based broadcast media - with the widely-acclaimed geographical accent
variation in Nigeria, we can at best summarise the state of English pronunciation in the country
as chaotic.
In neighbouring Ghana, Dako (2001) admits that the target English accent taught in the Ghana
school system is also “based on the sound system of what is perceived as RP”. However, given
that this model – RP – has proved to be nothing but “a myth”, “an „albatross‟ around our necks”
(Ofori et al, 2014), proposals have been made towards a standard of English pronunciation in
Ghana - Ghanaian English Pronunciation Standard (GhEPS) - “which can serve as a reference
point for teachers and examiners – a norm which will be distinctly Ghanaian and acceptable to
the Ghanaian as well as to other users of English elsewhere” (Koranteng, 2006).
From Anglophone Cameroon, Simo Bobda (2002:v), admits that even with the emergence of an
autonomous variety of English in Cameroon, Anglophone Cameroon is still, in many ways,
dependent upon British and American norms. In his words, “our educational and professional
successes are still dependent on these norms”. Ngefac (2010), however, in an article titled
“Promoting Standard British English Pronunciation in the Cameroonian Classroom? Between
Policy and Practice” empirically demonstrates that the promotion of the Standard British English
accent in Cameroon to the detriment of Educated Cameroon English pronunciation is an
unrealistic goal. In this interesting study, 30 English teachers in Cameroon were allowed to
assess their own English by indicating on the questionnaire the variety they spoke and used as a
medium of instruction.
Ngefac (ibid) reports that 33.3% of the teachers claimed to speak British English „even though
their speech were obviously characterized by Cameroonisms‟. 23.3% admitted that they spoke
Cameroon English; 6.7% were convinced that they spoke a mixture of British English, American
English and Cameroon English, while 36.7%, „who were apparently caught between government
policy and the love for their local variety of English‟, settled for a mixture of British English and
Cameroon English. He thus concludes that Cameroon English is still the unavoidable companion
of those who strive to promote SBE in Cameroon, adding that Cameroon displays “unique
sociolinguistic and pragmatic realities that make the promotion of Standard British accent an
unattainable goal”. By implication, therefore, even when, on paper, RP is the model, in reality, it
cannot be taught; at least, not by teachers who do not and cannot use it. Earlier studies on the
prospects of the SBE accent in Cameroon (Masanga, 1983; Mbangwana, 1987; Bobda, 1994) had
also revealed that ELT goals in Cameroon are set out of the context of Cameroon and would
hardly ever be attained.
Away from the Western shores, scholars in Kenya (Kioko and Muthwii, 2001) have also
confirmed British RP as the model that is regarded as the norm of correctness in Kenyan schools.
However, reviewing the situation on the ground, Njoroge and Nyamasyo (2008) aptly claim, ‘At
the moment, there is a mismatch between aims of teaching English in Kenya, the model to be
used, and actual practice‟. This position was informed by the observation that as against
Zuengler (1982) and Schmied‟s (1991) claim that Kenyans are in touch with the standard British
variety, it is actually the indigenised variety that they are in touch with. Thus, even teachers
speak a variety of English which varies significantly from the British standard variety (Njoroge,
2008). Consequently, Njoroge and Nyamasyo (ibid) conclude that „the expectation by policy-
makers of a native-like competence in English for the non-native teachers is an ideal and
possibly cannot become a reality in Kenya‟.
The claim above, although specifically addressing the situation in Kenya, can conveniently be
said to capture the situation in virtually all the countries mentioned above and many more. If all
the countries reviewed individually and collectively admit their inability to attain this model –
RP – it will only be natural for us to take a closer look at the model itself in an attempt to
demystify it. In the next section, therefore, we will look closer at the term „RP‟ from the
viewpoint of contemporary Englishes.
WHAT THEN IS RP?
The term „Received Pronunciation (RP)‟ was used by Daniel Jones in his English Pronouncing
Dictionary and The Outline of English Phonetics to describe the standard British English
pronunciation. Between the 1920s and the 1960s, the term wielded influence and was adopted in
many other works seeking to describe an accent of that status. However, the claim has been
consistently made that only 3% of the population of Britain use this accent (Crystal, 1995:365;
Milroy and Milroy, 2012:151), suggesting that even in its native home, RP has limited
accessibility. Surprisingly, this is the accent after which many African Englishes are modeled.
Although attempts have been made to capture the different variations which abound even within
the said standard using such classifications as Refined RP, Modern RP, Regional RP, Advanced
RP etc., in recent times, attitude towards RP has shifted from that of a revered, dignified accent,
equivalent to placement on the top of the social ladder, to that of a „posh, outdated, falsely
prestigious accent …‟ (Cruttenden 2014:80). Hence, in the introduction to the 17th
edition of the
Cambridge English Pronouncing Dictionary, the editors aptly state: “the time has come to
abandon the archaic name „Received Pronunciation‟ …” (2006:v). The 2011 edition of the
Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary refers to it as the „less than happy, archaic-sounding
term‟. Is it not, therefore, a possibility that many African Englishes are being modeled after an
accent which “lingers only in the speech of some older people; a class-ridden, outdated accent
limited to a small minority in Southern England” (Cruttenden 2014:78)? Is it not also possible
that this disconnect between the contemporary New Englishes and their apparently outdated
model is the reason for the highly avowed unattainability of the latter? We can go on and on with
the unanswered questions.
However, this, being a synchronic study, adopts an equally synchronic non-regional British
English accent as a basis for its analysis. The said accent which is obviously an evolved and
evolving version of RP is, in this study, tagged General British (GB) after Cruttenden (2014).
This accent parallels General American (GA) – the American English accent which does not
have marked regional characteristics.
Paying particular attention to the Nigerian situation, the next section will attempt a comparison
of the features of General British (GB hereafter), General American (GA hereafter) and the
Nigerian English Accent (NEA) with a view to identifying the divergences which constitute a
source of confusion to the Nigerian bilingual.
Comparing the features of GB, GA and the NEA
One possible source of confusion in the pronunciation of English is the language user‟s exposure
to more than one pronunciation pattern. In this section, we would beam our light on these three
accents: what is so different about them? Our focus will mainly be on their vowel systems which
usually constitute sources of divergences.
Studies have shown that GB, the prestige British English accent, has a total of 20 sounds in its
vowel inventory (12 monophthongs and 8 diphthongs). GA, on the other hand, has 16 (11
monophthongs and 5 diphthongs) while Nigerian English has 13 (7 monophthongs and 6
diphthongs). Beyond the disparity in their numbers, such studies have also gone ahead to reveal
clear differences in the composition of the individual phoneme inventories.
GB has as her monophthongs /i:, ɪ, ɛ, æ, ɑ:, ɒ, ɔ:, ʊ, u:, ʌ, ɜ:, ə/. GA has all the above with the
exception of /ɒ/, which it realizes as /ɑ:/ as in dog, job, coffee, pocket, logic and spot; or /ɔ:/ as in
across, often and cough (where it occurs before a voiceless plosive. GA /ɜ/ is r-coloured and, as
such, is often captured as /ɝ /. In place of GB /ɑ:/, GA has /a/ before voiceless fricatives and also
before a sequence of a nasal and another consonant. NEA has /i, ɛ, a, ɔ, u, o, e/ all of which are
both qualitatively and quantitatively different from both GB and GA vowels. In the diphthongs
category, GB has /əʊ, aʊ, aɪ, eɪ, ɔɪ, ɪə, ɛə, ʊə/ while Ame E has /oʊ, aʊ, aɪ, eɪ, ɔɪ/, having
monophthongised and rhoticised the remaining three as demonstrated below:
Words GB GA
fear /fɪə/ /fɪr/
lure /ljʊə/ /lʊr/
fare /fɛə/ /fɛr/
care /kɛə/ /kɛr/
cure /kjʊə/ /kjʊr/
dear /dɪə/ /dɪr/
NEA, on the other hand, has six diphthongs in contrast to GB‟s eight (Adetugbo, 2004). They
are: /ai, ao, ɔi, ia, ɛa and ʊɔ/. Adetugbo (ibid) argues that considering the actual phonetic quality
of these accents, it may be difficult to accept that NE operates with diphthongs since the so-
called diphthongs may be made up, not of glides, but of two vowel nuclei. He however
recognizes that out of the seven NEA monophthongs, two - /e/ and /o/ result from the
monophthongisation of RP (GB) diphthongs /ei/ and /əʊ/ respectively.
Another outstanding area of difference has to do with rhoticity. GA is rhotic while GB is non-
rhotic. A rhotic accent is one in which /r/ occurs pre-consonantally and pre-pausally. /r/ has a
restricted distribution in GB in that it does not occur in the aforementioned environments and
this trend is, to a large extent, sustained in the NEA.
The Current Research
The study involved a hundred teachers and students of English in Lagos, Nigeria. Half the
population was made up of post primary teachers of English who were registered for one
postgraduate programme or the other (M.A. or Ph.D.) while the other half comprised
undergraduate students, all in the Department of English, University of Lagos. The choice was
based on the consideration that these are individuals who by virtue of their academic orientation
have been exposed to some level of training in English pronunciation and, as is the case with the
postgraduate students cum teachers of English, are in position to influence or model the
pronunciation patterns of the upcoming generation. These respondents were selected via a
stratified sampling method. The yardstick for the stratification was mainly their level of exposure
to English language studies, hence the selection of equal numbers from both undergraduate and
postgraduate students. Other intervening variables include age, sex, place of primary and post
primary education and first language. A unifying consideration was the focus on only students
who have never lived in a native English speaking environment. This was designed to guarantee
that the accent being tested has been acquired in Nigeria. The table below summarises the details
of the sample for the study.
Table 1: The Sample for the Study
Variable Undergraduate
Frequency (Over 25)
Postgraduate
Frequency (Over 25)
Sex Male 10(40%) 12(48%)
Female 15(60%) 13(52%)
Age Below 30 18(72%) 12(48%)
30-49 5 (20%) 8 (32%)
50 and above 2(8%) 5 (20%)
Place of Primary
Education
North 4(16%) 5(20%)
West 12(48%) 13(52%)
East 9(36%) 7(28%)
Place of Post-
Primary
Education
North 1(4%) 2 (8%)
West 14 (56%) 12 (48%)
East 10 (40%) 11 (44%)
Level of Study 100 06(24%) N/A
200 06(24%) N/A
300 06(24%) N/A
400 07(28%) N/A
M.A. N/A 12(48%)
Ph.D. N/A 13 (52%)
Research Procedure
The main source of data for this study is a list of fifty English words compiled by the researcher.
The list basically contained words which are clearly pronounced differently in the GB and GA
accents of English. These test materials were validated using the Cambridge English
Pronouncing Dictionary. According to the editors of the dictionary, where more than one
pronunciation pattern exist in a particular accent „the first pronunciation given is believed to be
the most usual one…‟ (2006:vi)
The study therefore adopts only the form listed first against each accent to represent it. These test
materials were administered on the respondents who pronounced them one by one, as the
researcher recorded them with a tape recorder. The main aim was to test, among other things,
their level of consistency in aligning with any of the two accents. The researcher was also keen
to note tendencies which were neither way but could be said to mark a distinctive Nigerian
accent. The recordings were played back, transcribed and analysed using the framework of
phonological analysis described below.
Phonological Analysis
Phonological analysis is defined as the observation of specific spoken languages in specific
contexts with the aim of evaluating and accounting for their phonemic and/or prosodic
peculiarities. This implies that the analysis can be carried out, on the one hand, from the
perspective of a linear „beads-on-a-string‟ approach, vertically segmenting the phonemes for
analysis (i.e. the phonemic approach). On the other hand, the segmentation can be horizontal; in
which case there is recognition of phonetic features which either extend over or have
implications over more than one linear segment (i.e. the prosodic approach).
The phonemic approach perceives spoken language as comprising speech sounds (phonemes)
which can be combined with other speech sounds to produce meaningful stretches of utterances.
It, therefore, considers the common feature of sound, which is the phoneme (the smallest
„indivisible‟ unit of language that is contrastively meaningful) as the basis of analysis. Atolagbe
(2000:45) submits that this approach perceives spoken English language as comprising speech
sounds, otherwise called phonemes, which combine to produce meaningful stretches of
utterances … it describes an utterance in terms of the speech sound of which it comprises, this is
done phonemically.
The phonemic approach is considered adequate for this study since the lexical items are being
tested in their citation forms; thus, the variations that may arise in other more natural contexts do
not apply. Although, ideally, phonological analysis is applied to spoken data with a view to
analyzing phonetic sounds to determine phonemes, the current study recognizes the pluricentric
nature of the English language, thus, rather than impose a form on others as the „parent‟ form,
the description is geared towards explicating the distinguishing peculiarities of the individual
standards. Hence, we are content with simply describing in phonemic terms the segments
preferred in the individual standards for the items being tested.
Data Analysis
The data are grouped in line with the observed phonemic contrasts in the two major accents
being tested, namely: GB and GA. These are captured in the table below where the underscoring
denotes the segments affected.
Table 3 : Phonemic Contrasts between GB and GA with sample words tested
GB GA SAMPLE WORD(S) TESTED
ɑ: ɝ: Clerk
ɑ: eɪ Tomato, Vase
ɛ i: Leisure, Zebra
Cj C Nuclear, Pursue
aɪ i: Either, Direction
i: aɪ Migraine
ɛə ɛr Care, There
ɪ aɪ Privacy, simultaneous
ʃ sk Schedule
ʊə ʊr Security, tour
əʊ oʊ Loan, Protest
ɒ ɑ: Tomorrow, Dissolve
aɪ ə Missile
æ ɪ Impasse
eɪ ɪə Israel
ə ɛ January
ə ʊr Brochure
ʃ ʧ Niche
z s Resource
ɔ: ʊr Yours, Sure
ɔ: ɑ: Restaurant
æ eɪ Patriotic
əʊ ɑ: Onerous
ʊ ʌ Muslim
æ ə Garage
ɛ i: Depot
ɔ: ɝ: Tourniquet
ɛə ɛ Nefarious, Parent
ɑ: æ Master, Passable
ɪə ɪ Period
ɪə i: Really
Three major distinctions were made in the analysed data. The identification of each pattern was
based on its preference by a simple majority of the respondents. It must be mentioned that at no
point did we have a uniform pronunciation pattern across board. Also worthy of note is the fact
that other variations in other parts of the words besides the portions underlined in the table above
were not taken into consideration. The analysis is presented under the headings: Forms which are
GB compliant, Forms which are GA compliant, and Forms which are total deviations from the
two accents.
Forms which are GB compliant
34% of the items (i.e. seventeen out of the fifty words) tested were pronounced in concordance
with the GB norms. For each of the contrasts presented below, the first is the preferred pattern in
GB while the second represents the preferred GA pronunciation. They include:
- The item testing the contrast between the palato alveolar fricative /ʃ / and a cluster of the
alveolar fricative /s/ and the velar plosive /k/ (schedule) in which the GB pattern / ʃɛdju:l/ was
preferred;
- The items testing the contrast between a consonant plus the palato alveolar glide
sequence (Cj) and a single consonant (C) as in pursue, tune and news where the GB forms
/pəsju:/,/ tju:n/ and /nju:z/ were retained;
- The items testing the contrast between the low, back, lax vowel /ɒ/ and the low, back,
tense vowel /ɑ:/ in tomorrow, consummate (V) where the GB forms /təmɒrəʊ/ and
/kɒnsəmeɪt/were upheld;
- The items testing the contrast between the mid, back, tense vowel /ɔ:/ and the rhoticised
high, back, lax vowel /ʊr/ in sure, where the GB form /ʃɔ:/ was preferred;
Others are the /ɑ:/ and /eɪ/ contrast in vase, the /ɪ/ and /aɪ/ contrast in multi-, anti- and
simultaneous; the /ɑ:/ and /ɝ/ contrast in clerk, the /aɪ/ and /ə/ contrast in missile, the /ɛ/ and /i:/
contrast in depot, the /ɔ:/ and /ɝ/ contrast in tourniquet, the /ɑ:/ and /æ/ contrast in master and
passable; in all of which the GB patterns (i.e. the initial phonemes in each pair) were preferred.
Forms which are GA compliant
A total of sixteen words out of the fifty tested (32%) were pronounced by the respondents in line
with the GA norms. In the phoneme pairs that follow, the initial element represents the GB
norms in the words listed while the second of the pair is the GA norm. They include:
- The items testing the contrast between the mid, back, tense vowel /ɔ:/ and the low, back,
tense vowel /ɑ:/ as in restaurant, in which the GA form /rɛstərɑ:nt/ was upheld, apparently on
account of its similarity with the orthographic realization of that portion of the word;
- The items testing the contrast between the high, front, lax vowel /ɪ/ and the rising
diphthong /aɪ/ in privacy in which the GA pattern /praɪvəsi/ was preferred;
- The items testing the contrast between the low, back, tense vowel /ɑ:/ and the rising
diphthong /eɪ/ in tomato, in which the GA pattern /təmeɪtoʊ/ was preferred.
Others are the /ɛ/ and /i:/ contrast in leisure and zebra; the Cj and C contrast in duke and
nuclear, the /aɪ/ and /i:/ contrast in either, the /ɛə/ and /ɛr/ contrast in care and there (although
the feature of rhoticity was deleted), the /i:/ and /aɪ/ contrast in migraine, the /æ/ and /ɪ/ contrast
in impasse (apparently spelling induced), the /ʃ/ and /ʧ/ contrast in niche, the /z/ and /s/ contrast
in resource, the /ɛə/ and /ɛ/ contrast in nefarious, and the /iə/ and/ i:/ contrast in really, in all of
which the second of the pair, i.e the GA pattern, was preferred.
Forms which are total deviations from the two accents
In a total of sixteen items out of the fifty items tested (32%), the analysis showed that the
respondents‟ preferred pronunciation patterns were neither GB nor GA. These features could be
said to be peculiarly Nigerian, having evolved independent of the two other forms. Although the
phoneme contrasts attested in these words between GB and GA will still be used to analyse this
section, the actual forms used in their replacement will also be introduced. They include:
- The item testing the contrast between the centring diphthong /ʊə/ and the rhotic /ʊr/ in
tour, in replacement of which the mid, back vowel /ɔ/ was used;
- The item testing the contrast between the mid, back, tense vowel /ɔ:/ and the rhotic /ʊr/
in yours in place of which the vowel sequence /uɔ/ was preferred;
- The item testing the contrast between the low, back, lax vowel /ɒ/ and the low, back,
tense vowel /ɑ:/ in voluntary for which a short central (alternatively ʌ or ə) was substituted.
Others are the /æ/ and /eɪ/ contrast in patriotic, for which /ɛ/ was substituted;
- The /ʊə/ and /ʊr/ contrast in security for which / u / was substituted;
- The /əʊ/ and /oʊ/ contrast in protest and loan, for which /o/ was substituted;
- The /ɒ/ and /ɑ:/ contrast in dissolve and accost for which /ɔ/ was substituted;
- The /eɪ/ and /ɪə/ contrast in Israel for which /ɛ/ was substituted;
- The /ə/ and /ɛ/ contrasts in January for which /a/ was substituted;
- The /ə/ and /ʊr/ contrast in brochure for which /u/ was substituted;
- The /əʊ/ and /ɑ:/ contrasts in onerous for which /wɔ/ was substituted;
- The /ʊ/ and /ʌ/ contrast in muslim for which /u/ was substituted;
- The /æ/ and /ə/ contrast in garage for which /a/ was substituted; and
- The /ɛə/ and /ɛ/ contrast in parent for which /e/ was substituted.
The result for the /aɪ/ and /ɪ/ contrast in direction was declared void as an equal number of
respondents (50 on each side) preferred the alternatives - /daɪrɛkʃən/ and /dɪrɛkʃən/.
Discussion of Findings
The findings of this study reveal the confusion or hybridity in the English pronunciation facet of
the Nigerian state since there was not much difference between the students‟ renditions and those
of the teachers. It further reveals the difficulty in describing the accent of English spoken in
Nigeria, as it can neither be said to be totally modeled after an endoglossic standard nor an
exoglossic one. The situation is worsened by the fact that even identified contrasts are in some
cases lexically conditioned and, as such, do not cut across all similar forms. For instance, while
the consonant plus glide sequence (Cj) operational in GB is preferred in news, the form without
the glide component is preferred in nuclear, in line with the GA pattern, the similarity in the
initial consonant elements notwithstanding. This makes it difficult, if not impossible, for the
processes that obtain in this accent to be captured in rules.
Another interesting angle to the discussion is that no particular accent‟s preferences can be said
to totally dominate the scene, hence our description of the state of spoken English in Nigeria as a
confused one. Most GA preferences are spelling induced since GA has the tendency to make
pronunciation as close as possible to spelling e.g. in the /rɛstərɔŋ/ ~ /rɛstərɑ:nt/ contrast. British
forms, on their own part, were preferred where rhotic patterns obtain in GA since rhoticity is
alien to Nigerians and their languages. The study, therefore demonstrates that English
pronunciation in Nigeria in reminiscent of an all-comers affair, a situation which is simply not
good enough.
Implications of the findings
The findings of this study have a number of implications, particularly since they are derived from
data collected from individuals who are not new to the business of English pronunciation. The
first implication is that it is still uncertain what accent constitutes the model for teaching English
pronunciation in Nigeria. The unrealistic nature of the acclaimed RP model has forced many
teachers to teach English vowels, in particular, using numbers. Students are, therefore, able to
identify the vowels with their numbers without any attempt to realize them, hence the dominance
of vowel-related deviations in our data. This is not surprising since the saying generally goes that
one cannot give what he does not have.
A second implication is that, given the foregoing, codifying Nigerian English pronunciation may
not be realistic in the nearest future. All the attempts so far at compiling a dictionary of Nigerian
English, for instance, have been silent on issues of pronunciation. If the trend observed in this
study is allowed to continue, Nigeria English will sooner than later even lose those peculiar
features that have consistently been used to describe West African Englishes without still
establishing for itself an identity.
Conclusion
It may suffice to conclude this essay by suggesting what I think is the way forward. Re-echoing
Njoroge and Nyamasyo (2008). I sincerely believe that setting a native standard for the non-
native teachers of English is an ideal and cannot become a reality. The focus of Nigerian
linguists should be to clearly define the Standard Nigerian English accent. When this has been
successfully achieved, the focus of Oral English and other English pronunciation texts should be
redirected to reflect the accent which has naturally evolved in the country. Teaching a practical
and realistic accent which is accessible to both teachers and students will be a very rewarding
experience as the teachers themselves will be models of what they teach and need not shy away
from teaching pronunciation. This will no doubt strengthen the Nigerian English accent not only
within the African continent but also globally.
REFERENCES
Adetugbo, A. (2004). “Problems of standardisation and Nigerian English phonology.” In A.B.K.
Dadzie and S. Awonusi (eds.), Nigerian English: Influences and Characteristics. Lagos:
Concept, pp. 179-199.
Atolagbe, A.A. (2000). Elementary phonological analysis: A course text for tertiary schools.
Lagos: Jehovah Shammah Publishers.
Awonusi, V.O. (1989). “Aapi or Arupi: A re-examination of the notion of Received
Pronunciation in relation to non-native English accents.” LASU Journal of Humanities 1,
pp 12-22.
------------------ (1990). „Whose standard, which model? Towards the definition of a Standard
Nigerian Spoken English for teaching, learning, and testing in Nigerian schools.‟ ITL
Review of Applied Linguistics, 1989-1990, 91-106.
----------------(2004). „RP and the sociolinguistic realities of non-native English accents.‟ In
Owolabi, K. and Dasylva, A. (eds.) Forms and Functions of English and indigenous
languages in Nigeria. Ibadan: Group Publication. 55-63.
Beardsmore, H.B. (1986) Bilingualism: Basic concepts (Vol. 1) Multilingual Matters.
Clyne, M. G. ((1992).(ed.). Pluricentric languages: Differing norms in different nations. Berlin:
Mouton de Gruyter.
Crystal, D. (1995). The Cambridge encyclopaedia of the English language. Cambrige:
Cambridge University Press.
-----------------(2008). A dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics. Blackwell
Cruttenden, A. (2014). Gimson’s pronunciation of English. London: Routledge.
Dako, K. (2001). “The sound system of Ghanaian English”. In A. B. K. Dadzie (ed.)
Exploration: Journal of the English Department, 1(1). Accra: University Press, 107-119.
Fishman, J.A. (1977). „The Social Science Perspective in Bilingual Education: Current
Perspectives‟ Social Science pp 1-49. Arlington, VA: Center for Applied Linguistics.
Jenkins, J. (2000) The phonology of English as an international language. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Jibril, M. (1982). “Phonological Variations in Nigerian English”. Unpublished Ph.D.
Dissertation. Lancaster University.
Jowitt, D. (2015). “Nigerian Received Pronunciation” in Opeibi et al. (eds.) Essays on Language
in Societal Transformation: A Festschrift in Honour of Prof. Segun Awonusi. 3-13.
Kachru, B.B.. (1986). “The bilingual‟s creativity”. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics. 6,
20-33.
Kioko, A. and Muthwii, M. (2001). “The demands of a changing society: English in education in
Kenya today.” Language, Culture and Curriculum. Vol. 14:3, 201-213.
Lambert, W. (1981). „Bilingualism and language acquisition‟ Annals of the new York academy of
sciences vol 379, issue 1, pp 9-22
Masanga, D.W. (1983). “The spoken English of educated Moghamo people: A phonological
study”. Unpublished Doctorat de 3e Cycle thesis, University of Yaounde.
Matthews, P.H. (2007). Oxford concise dictionary of linguistics. Oxford.
Mbangwana P (1987). “Some characteristics of sound patterns of Cameroon standard English”.
Multilingua 4: 411-424.
Milroy, J. and Milroy, L. (2012). Authority in language: Investigating standard standard
language. Fourth edition. London: Routledge.
Moradi, H. (2014) „an investigation through different types of bilinguals and bilingualism‟
international journal of humanities and social science studies vol 1, issue II, pp 107-112
Ngefac, A. (2010). „Promoting standard British English pronunciation in the Cameroonian
classroom? Between policy and practice.‟ International Journal of Educational Research
and Technology, vol 1(1): 79-84.
Njoroge, M. and Nyamasyo, E. (2008). “The question of model in the achievement of universal
primary education in Kenya”. In Journal of language technology and entrepreneurship in
Africa. Vol. 1: 55-66.
Ofori, S.G. et al (2014). Exploring the feasibility of a proposed Ghananian English pronunciation
standard”. Journal of education and practice vol. 5 (22), pp 49-53.
Oxford advanced learners’ dictionary of current English. (2011). Eighth edition. Oxford:
Oxford University Press. http://oald8.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com (accessed 15/01/16)
Peal, E. and Lambert, W.E. (1962). “The relation of bilingualism to intelligence”. Psychological
Monographs, 76, 1-23.
Roach, P. et al (eds.) (2006). Cambridge English pronouncing dictionary. Seventeenth edition.
Cambridge: Cambridge University press.
Simo Bobda, A. (1994). Aspects of Cameroon English phonology. Bern: Peter Lang.
------------------- (2002). Watch your English! Yaounde: B&K.
Ufomata, T. (1996). „Setting priorities in teaching English pronunciation in ESL contexts‟.
Online at <https://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/shl9/ufomata/titi.htm> (accessed January 15,
2015).
Ugorji, C.U.C. (2010). Nigerian English Phonology. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Wenreich, U. (1953). Languages in contact. The Hague: Mouton.