PRAGMATIC FAILURE IN INTERCOMMUNICATION CONTEXT: THE NIGERIAN

Ebere Omeje

ONAH, OLUCHUKWU CHINYERE

PG/MA/11/58510

PRAGMATIC FAILURE IN INTER-CULTURAL COMMUNICATION CONTEXT: THE NIGERIAN

CONTEXT.

Ebere Omeje Digitally Signed by: Content manager’s Name

DN : CN = Webmaster’s name

O= University of Nigeria, Nsukka

OU = Innovation Centre

FACULTY OF ARTS

DEPARTMENT OF LINGUISTICS, IGBO AND OTHER NIGERIAN LANGUAGES

i

ONAH, OLUCHUKWU CHINYERE

CULTURAL COMMUNICATION CONTEXT: THE NIGERIAN

Digitally Signed by: Content manager’s Name

DN : CN = Webmaster’s name

O= University of Nigeria, Nsukka

DEPARTMENT OF LINGUISTICS, IGBO AND OTHER NIGERIAN LANGUAGES

ii

PRAGMATIC FAILURE IN INTER-CULTURAL COMMUNICATION CONTEXT: THE NIGERIAN

CONTEXT.

BY

ONAH, OLUCHUKWU CHINYERE

PG/MA/11/58510

DEPARTMENT OF LINGUISTICS, IGBO AND OTHER NIGERIAN LANGUAGES

UNIVERSITY OF NIGERIA, NSUKKA.

MAY, 2016.

iii

APPROVAL PAGE

This thesis has been approved for the department of linguistics, Igbo and other Nigerian languages,

University of Nigeria, Nsukka.

By

_______________ ______________

Dr. C.U Agbedo External examiner

Supervisor

________________ _______________

Internal examiner Prof. R.I Okorji

Head of department

__________________

Prof. P.U Okpoko

Dean

iv

CERTIFICATION

Onah, Oluchukwu Chinyere with the registration number PG/MA/11/58510 a of postgraduate student in the department of linguistics, Igbo and other Nigerian languages, university of Nigeria, Nsukka has satisfactorily completed the requirement for the award of Masters Degree in linguistics. The work embodied in this thesis is original and has not been submitted in part or whole for any other diploma or degree of this or any other university.

_______________________ ________________

Dr. C.U Agbedo (Supervisor) Name of candidate

Date: _______________ Date:_____________

v

DEDICATION

To my family and all peace-loving people of all races

vi

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I am grateful to God for His goodness. I would also like to express my sincere thanks to my supervisor, Dr. C.U Agbedo for his insightful advice from the beginning of the formulation of my topic, through the writing, to the final writing of the dissertation. I also wish to express my sincere gratitude and deepest appreciation to the head of department, prof. R.I Okorji for his words of encouragement, patience and suggestion during the research period.

Special thanks to my darling husband, whose emotional, moral and financial support were the greatest source of my strength throughout my academic programme in this university.

Finally, I am also grateful to my course mate who shared their knowledge and ideas in this work.

vii

ABSTRACT

This research seeks to study the cultural communication norms in the use of

English and Nigerian languages with the aim of pointing out their similarities,

differences and how the wrong use of these languages can lead to pragmatic

failures. It adopts the theoretical framework of intercultural pragmatics. The

findings show that cultural communication norms in the use of English and

Nigerian languages pay attention to the recognition of titles and meticulous

address of names and personalities; and that political and social class

distinctions are consciously recognized and respected. Equally, there is great

respect for the populace who constitute a society. Furthermore, the study

observes that while adhering to the cultural communication norms in the use of

English and Nigerian languages, the cultural communication norms in the use of

Nigerian languages show the use of more title names which are drawn from the

traditions of the people of a given society than what is obtainable in the use of

English language. This makes it a case that the use of English language titles

such as chief, sir, etc, to refer to, or address persons is in the Nigerian setting

considered inadequate in the cultural communicative norms of Nigerian

languages. Finally, the study observes that there are instances of wrong use of

language which brought about pragmatic failure. These are observed to be as a

result of the making of ambiguous statements, existence of lexical gaps in some

grammatical constructions, poor use of high-sounding lexemes and even the use

of non-existing or unidentifiable lexemes or vocabularies, poor grammatical

expressions in relation to subject-verb concord and tautologies.

viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Title Page - - - - - - - - - - - i

Approval Page - - - - - - - - - - ii

Certification- - - - - - - - - - iii

Dedication - - - - - - - - - - - iv

Acknowledgement- - - - - - - - - v

Abstract - - - - - - - - - - - vi

Table of Contents- - - - - - - - - - xii

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background to the Study- - - - - - - 1

1.2 Statement of the Problem- - - - - - - 5

1.3 Objective of the Study - - - - - - - 6

1.4 Research Method - - - - - - - - 6

1.5 Scope of the Study- - - - - - - - 7

1.6 Significance of the Study- - - - - - - 7

1.7 Limitation of the Study- - - - - - - - 7

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Literature Review - - - - - - - - 9

2.2 Theoretical Review - - - - - - - 18

ix

2.3 Empirical Review- - - - - - - - - 23

CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 Research Design- - - - - - - - - 24

3.2 Area of the Study- - - - - - - - - 24

3.3 Population of the Study- - - - - - - - 24

3.4 Instrumentation- - - - - - - - - 24

3.5 Sampling Procedure- - - - - - - - 25

3.6 Method of Data Collection - - - - - - 25

3.7 Method of Data Analysis- - - - - - - 25

CHAPTER FOUR: DATA PRESENSTATION AND ANALYSIS

4.0 Data Analysis - - - - - - - - 26

4.1 Linguistic Domain- - - - - - - - 26

4.1.1 Use of person Deixis- - - - - - - - 26

4.1.2 Use of Obscure Lexical Items- - - - - - - 29

4.1.3 Use of Ambiguous Expressions- - - - - - 32

4.2 Lexical Gaps- - - - - - - - - 34

4.3 Cognitive Domain- - - - - - - - 35

4.4 Social and Cultural Domain- - - - - - - 35

4.4.1 Recognition of titles and Meticulous Address of Names and

Personality- - - - - - - - - - 36

x

4.4.2 Political and Social Class Distinction- - - - - - 38

4.4.3 Respect for the Populace who Constitute a Society- - - 40

CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

5.1 Summary- - - - - - - - - - 42

5.2 Conclusion -- - - - - - - - - 42

1

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background to the Study

Communicative action refers to the interpersonal uses of language in everyday

context involving the exchange of information which has been acquired through

sensory experience. This ‘conversational exchange’ as Ward haugh (2006) calls

it usually takes place within certain contexts. It could be in the classroom,

hostel, family, church, town meetings, board meetings, seminars, traditional

events, cooperate events, etc. It could be among friends, villagers, business

colleagues, farm hall meeting and presidential address, courtesy call, among

others.

Hence, we could say that these exchanges are situated within contexts.

These contexts could be situational or cultural based. In whichever context,

language should be used appropriately to convey meaning and achieve certain

goals and purposes. However, when we fail to achieve the intended goal as a

result of inappropriate use (may be as a result of use of language out of context)

we can misfire. In other words, one can implicate something else rather than

what he/she actually intended to say. People use language to achieve or perform

certain goals. Finegan (2008) captures such purposes in the following:

People use language principally as a tool to do things: request a

favour, make a promise, report a piece of news, give directions,

offer a greeting, seek information, invite someone to dinner, and

perform hundreds of other ordinary verbal actions of everyday life.

Sometimes the things we do with language have serious

consequences: propose marriage, declare a mistrial, and swear to

tell the truth, fire an employee and so on… Knowing a language is

not simply a matter of knowing how to encode a message and

2

transmit it to a second party who then decodes it in order to

understand what we intended to say (282).

Using words to do things have been described as speech acts, thus, when we say

words we are actually doing things or performing one act or the other. This

concept has been elaborated in Austin’s work entitled “How to do things with

words”. However, it is not all the time that we succeed in doing what we

intended with our words. In other words, we may have the intention of

producing a particular communicative effect with our words but end up

producing another. Hence, that speech act has been employed wrongly.

Richards, Platt, and Platt (1992) note that wrong communication effects can

arise as a result of speaker’s faulty use of speech acts or any of the rules of

speaking.

Furthermore, Finegan (2008) observes that if grammatical competence is

all that is needed to make correct sentences, then every sentence would have a

fixed interpretation regardless of the context and situation of use. This brings us

to the issue of competence and performance, langue and parole, as proposed by

Noam Chomsky (1957) and Ferdinand de Saussure (1976) respectively.

Performance and parole may suggest communicative competences.

Grammatical knowledge does not confer on a speaker of language competence

in the use of the language. Knowledge of grammar is required in language

communication; there is also need to be competent in the actual use of language

in interaction. Prominence is also given to knowledge of cultural norms and

nuances associated with language use. For instance, in English, if a man tells a

woman, “I love you”, it then follows that he is ready to marry that woman, but a

non-native speaker of English who does not know the cultural norms associated

with love may use ‘love’ when he actually intended to say ‘like’.

Pragmatic failure which is also called pragmatic error, according to Richards,

Platt and Platt (1992) is a communicative situation whereby an interlocutor

3

produces a wrong communicative effect as a result of inappropriate use of

speech acts or violation of rules of speaking.

This could be referred to as social miscommunication arising mostly from

inadequate knowledge of cultural nuances that guide the use of a particular

language. If a native speaker of Igbo does not acquaint himself with the cultural

nuances associated with English, for example, and tells an English “your life”

when he sneezes, he has only transferred Igbo /cultural norms into English. This

could elicit humour or some negative consequences like a white boss who

handed his driver over to the police for saying “your life” when he sneezed. The

Igbo driver meant to be polite to his superior while the English boss took it to be

a threat to his life (Agbedo, 2012).

Again, an Igbo native speaker speaking English may wrongly say, “sorry”

to a friend that accidentally spilled his cup of tea, when he actually intended to

say, “It is a pity”. He is only trying to carry over the Igbo ‘ndo’ to English. This

kind of wrong transfers is done under interlanguage studies. However, our

sociolinguistic study in this regard derives specifically from the inter-cultural

aspects of language use whereby non-native speakers’ of English carry over

norms and nuances in the culture into English (for example, from Igbo to

English). Hence, cross-cultural awareness, in other words, “cultural

competence’ as Kramsch (1991) calls it, should also be the focus of second

language teaching and learning. This means that culture should be taught

alongside the target language. Kramsch further notes that cultural competence

“can best be developed in a structured learning environment, where conscious

parallels can be drawn, where language can be explicitly linked to its meaning

in a particular socio-cultural and historical context where disparate linguistic or

cultural phenomena can be brought together and attached to more abstract

principles of both base (C1) and target (C2) language and culture” (229).

Language and grammar must be made to function appropriately in

communication and interaction. Gee (2011) refers to this as, “Grammar as it

4

functions in communication and social interaction”(13) He observes that

Halliday and Mathiessen (2004) contain a detailed analysis of functional

grammar, that is, how grammar is being put to use to function effectively in

society.

Competence is the actual use of language in society based on context and

cultural factors are what set the sociolinguists apart from the formal linguists.

Agbedo (2007) harps on the role of sociolinguists in communicative language

teaching. He states that:

This social approach to linguistic theorisations and descriptions

perhaps explains the heavy reliance of language teachers on the

grammarian to provide the description of language from which the

content of language teaching courses can be drawn. The implication

is that such descriptions have not yielded the kind of

communicative content required until the recent theoretical shift of

emphasis in language pedagogy that favours a type of syllabus

which makes ample provision for the learning of communicative

competence (341).

Agbedo further explores the crucial role which sociolinguistics stands to

play in the current trend in linguistic description towards what might be called

Communicative Functionalism. Thus, he discusses it against the backdrop that

“the teaching of language as a social behaviour involves an understanding for

just how language is used to communicate in society whose language is being

taught” (15).

From the foregoing, we understand that various societies that make use of

language do so within the shared and generally known norms and values which

any new learner of a second language must also imbibe to communicate

effectively in that given language. Understanding language in use for various

contextual uses is very crucial to effective communication in society. Halliday

(1967) cited in Agbedo (2007) directs the focus of linguistic researchers to pay

5

attention to “characterizing language as an instrument of social communication

and extending the scope of grammar to cover not just the internal patterns of

language in use”(242). Sociolinguists lay much emphasis on functionalism in

language use. Agbedo(2007) asserts:

In sociolinguistics and ethnolinguistics, we emphasize the point

that using language for communicative purpose means more than

just using language forms correctly. The context in which language

is used is extremely relevant to linguistic interaction between

groups and individuals. This context is equally structured and has a

rule system so that the competent language user will have to apply

this rule system as well in order to be able to communicate

adequately (243).

Social aspects of using language appropriately in communicative contexts are

well expounded in Dell Hyme’s (1988) Ethnography of Communication.

Davies (1991) asserts that the “notion of communicative competence reflects a

growing awareness of the importance of pragmatic knowledge in achieving

mastery of a second language” (207).

We intend to x-ray such inter-cultural failures in the English speeches of

politicians, government officials and public figures who are native speakers of

the Nigerian indigenous languages. Finegan (2008) observes that “actions that

are carried out through language are called speech acts, and a surprisingly large

number of reports in newspapers are reports of speech acts” (283). Hence, it is

our intention to harvest these speech acts from the media and analyze them

within the theoretical framework of pragmatics, (pragmatic failures) and

intercultural communication .

1.2 Statement of the Problem

Language in contact situation leads to various issues in language choice

and language use in society. Non-native speakers’ attempt to speak foreign or

6

second languages may lead to failure in speech delivery as a result of

differences in culture, norms and values associated with language. Non-native

speakers of English as a second language in Nigeria tend to speak the language

on the background of the culture inherent in their native languages, thereby

violating some cultural context conditions. This kind of intercultural transfers in

language use has often caused pragmatic failures some of which may have

disastrous social consequences. Language in use is culturally sensitive and any

failure to speak without regard to cultural context may lead to pragmatic failures

in communicating actual intentions. Though different kinds of pragmatic

analysis in Nigeria have been analysed from different linguistic perspectives by

scholars and linguists, there is yet no pragmatic failures in intercultural

communication. This study thus intends to do analysis on pragmatic failures in

intercultural communication context to ascertain and determine how

inappropriate language use in cultural and social communication can lead to

pragmatic failure.

1.3 Objectives of the Study

This research on the failures identified in intercultural communication

aims to:

(i) Bring out the similarities between English and Nigerian languages

cultural communication norms.

(ii) Show differences in cultural communications norms between English and

Nigerian languages.

(iii) Determine how inappropriate language use in cultural communication can

lead to pragmatic failures.

1.4 Research Questions

Following the above purpose of study, we now come up with the

following research questions to guide our research.

7

(i) To what extent are the cultural communication norms in English and

Nigerian languages similar?

(ii) To what degree do the cultural communication norms in English and

Nigerian languages differ?

(iii) How does wrong use of language bring about pragmatic failures?

1.5 Significance of the Study

The study holds a lot of importance as far as communicative competence

is concerned. The study will help bring out the dynamics of language in use in

society as regards intercultural sensitivity. Findings from this research will

make a lot of input into communicative language teaching (CLT) syllabus. This

study in intercultural communication will also help bring to the fore the

sociolinguists’ stand on the nature of language.

The formal linguists pay so much attention to grammatical competence

but the sociolinguist insists on the importance of both linguistic competence and

communicative competence.

1.6 Scope of the Study

The study will focus on pragmatic failures as a result of intercultural

clashes which tend to yield wrong communicative effects. We shall look at the

speech of public office holders in government and corporate sector to ascertain

whether there are speakers who failed to communicate their intentions as a

result of pragmatic failure which may be occasioned by intercultural clashes in

language use. The study will concentrate on the native speakers of the three

major Nigerian languages, Igbo, Hausa, Yoruba use of English language in the

public spheres.

8

1.7 Limitations to the Study

A number of problems were encountered in an attempt to gather the relevant

data for this research. The limitation of this research centers basically on time

and finance.

Topics like Pragmatic Failures in Inter-Cultural Communication requires much

time frame to enable the researcher travel to many parts of the country

especially the three geopolitical zones in Nigeria, to garner information that will

aid the progress of the work.

Finance also posed a trait to the accomplishment of this research; this is because

Money is considered the mechanism that propels a successful execution of any

reliable research work. The researcher, in the cause of gathering information for

this work, spent a huge sum of money, which in turn affected her.

The researcher limits her data collection to the print media/internet sources.

This serves as a limitation as she would have wished to be present to listen to

these speeches which reflect pragmatic failures in real time.

However, the researcher made all necessary effort to ensure that she obtained

written, visual and audio copies of the data where possible, in order to

effectively and efficiently come out with a good research.

9

CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter presents a review of the works by scholars in the field with special

emphasis on the Theoretical review, Empirical Review and Theoretical

Framework. Not much has been done on intercultural communication but this

research is particularly concerned with the study of pragmatic failures in

intercultural communication context: the Nigerian perspective.

2.1 Theoretical Review

This section presents a review of the theory that is used in writing this research

work. Healed (1988) in Onuegbu (2004) defines theory as a set of ideas that

provide explanation for something (18). Theories are generally used in the study

of societal cultures, values, ideas and the various meanings obvious to these

things by individuals in the society. For a clear understanding of this work,

intercultural pragmatics is used to lend credence to this research.

Pinango (2013) explains intercultural communication in the following

statement:

Intercultural communication occurs when a member of one culture

produces a message for consumption by a member of another

culture. More precisely, it involves interaction between people

whose cultural perceptions and symbol systems are distinct enough

to alter the communication event (240).

Pinango further notes that in intercultural communication, participants in

an interaction assign different meanings, values and functions to different things

and most likely manage different and distinct institutional frameworks and

possess institutional practice for particular frameworks but not others, and this

might potentially lead to misunderstanding. Mey (2009) gives us an insight into

Intercultural Pragmatics in the following sentence:

10

Intercultural pragmatics is a part of contemporary linguistics which

is most concerned with ‘‘language as a part of life,’’ indeed, with

language as it affects millions of lives in the contemporary world,

and which arguably every student of human life should know

(292).

It is a discipline that has developed in response to what Istvan Kecskes (2004)

the editor of the New Journal of Intercultural Pragmatics calls ‘‘the challenges

of a new era”. These challenges involve, above all, interaction among people

from different cultures.

Pragmatics as a part of linguistics has always been concerned with

interpersonal interaction – but (as will be discussed below) in the past it was

often locked in a monolingual and mono-cultural framework, derived,

essentially, from the English language and Anglo culture. In the contemporary

world, however, a monolingual and mono-cultural perspective on language use

is no longer tenable, and in fact, has become glaringly irrelevant and obsolete.

Intercultural pragmatics or cross cultural pragmatics as used by Davies (1991) is

seen here in a much broader sense than as used in the study of speech

pragmatics.

Pragmatic failure has been referred to as the production of wrong

communication by speakers through the faulty use of speech acts or wrong

application of speaking rules. Thomas (1983) notes that pragmatic failure is the

inability of an individual to understand what is meant by what is said. He

proposes two categories of pragmatic failures: pragma-linguistic failure and

socio-pragmatic failure. Pragma-linguistic failure, according to her, arises when

an utterance fails to achieve the speaker’s goal; not necessarily because of a

grammatical error. Hence, she refrains from using the term, pragma-linguistic

error. In other words, this can occur when non-native speakers of a language try

to translate an utterance from their first language into the target language. In this

case, non-native speakers may end up not able to get their meaning across in the

11

target language because communicative conventions that guide utterances in the

target language are not adhered to. The second aspect of pragmatic failures

which is the socio-pragmatic failure as identified by Thomas, involves knowing

“what to say and whom to say it to”. She observes that most of the

misunderstanding and miscommunication that arises under this kind of

pragmatic failure occur as a result of differences in evaluation as regards the

size of imposition, cross-cultural differences, assessments of relative power or

social distance as well as value judgements. That is to say that a speaker may

know what to say but may say it to the wrong person, or present it in a wrong

context.

Enninger (1991) offers his view on cultural differences in communication

in the following terms:

Even if it were only perceptible surface phenomena which mediate

universal and imperceptible deep-process and that in culturally

divergent ways, a systematic contrastive analysis of pragmatics of

L1 and L2 is mandatory (29). A stronger point may be made from

the perspective of the ethnography of communication. In 1996

Hymes stated: My contention is that people who enact different

cultures do to some extent experience different communicative

systems, but not merely the same natural communicative condition

with different customs affixed. Cultural values are in part

constitutive of linguistic reality. (29).

Halliday (1973) in Okeke (2010) defines language as “… a range of

possibilities, an open ended set of option in behaviour that are available as a

social man; the context of culture in the environment of any particular selection

that is made from within them” (42).

12

Searle (2007) referring to the interactive function of language notes that

“language is essentially social, but not just in any old way; rather in a way that

makes human society essentially linguistic” (9)

Okeke (2010) notes that the sociolinguist identifies the social functions of

language and the ways they are used to convey social meaning (46). Again,

culture is embedded in the intrinsic nature of language and every language user;

especially non- native speakers need to pay particular attention to the

communicative properties of language. On the contrary, if acceptable cultural

and social patterns are not adhered to in language use, it then follows that there

is bound to be a misfire in language use. This kind of situation is avoidable

when we emphasize the practical code of language for the learner. This kind of

understanding in language use has given rise to new focus in language teaching.

Agbedo (2007) recognizes Halliday’s efforts in redirecting “their research

interest in line with characterizing language as an instrument of social

communication and extending the scope of grammar to cover not just the

internal patterns of language as a self- contained system but also the manner in

which these patterns relate to the communicative operation of language in use”

(342).

In line with the foregoing, Agbedo (2007) in the following statements

emphasizes a theoretical shift in the linguistic paradigm.

This theoretical shift reflects some writers’ criticism of Chomsky’s

delimitation of the scope of linguistic description which focuses

exclusively on the ideal speaker’s sum total knowledge of his

language as too narrow. A number of applied linguists and teachers

have in the spirit of this shift of emphasis in language pedagogy,

dismissed the structural approach to language teaching as less than

adequate in providing for the learning of communicative

competence. The outcome of the shift in emphasis is a set of

proposals in favour of ‘a communicative content’ of language

13

teaching courses and syllabuses that consist of both linguistic

structures as well as communicative notional categories of one kind

or another. The basic assumption of this kind of syllabus, note

Allen and Widdowson, is that what the learner needs to know is not

so much how to recognize and produce sentences as linguistic

objects but how to make and understand utterances which express

certain concepts, perform certain communicative acts, and in

general enable the learner to participate in the interactional process

of normal language use (342).

From the foregoing, it is important that language learners develop

strategies for relating linguistic structures to their communicative function in

real life situations. At this juncture, let us consider communicative competence

as being central to the understanding of the dynamics of using language to

perform given tasks. Communicative competence assumes the language user’s

ability to “not just recognise and produce sentences as linguistic but how to

make and understand utterances which express certain concepts, perform certain

communicative acts, and in general enable the learner to participate in the

interactional process of normal language use”. (Agbedo:342).

Communicative competence is a term well expounded in Hymes (1971) and

it refers to the knowledge needed by a speaker or hearer. He further notes that

communicative competence is more broadly based than the linguistic

competence of Chomskyan tradition, as it includes our knowledge of how to use

linguistic forms appropriately and not just the knowledge of the linguistic

forms. In line with the foregoing, Dell Hymes’ term, ethnography of

communication expounds relevant factors in understanding how to carry out a

successful interaction in a communicative event and avoid pragmatic failures

that may elicit humour or other forms of reactions including abuse or violence

as the case may be. Agbedo, asserts the importance of ethnography of

communication in the following:

14

“This by implication predisposes us to the option of teaching language as

communication, the social uses of language and the way language functions in

the everyday business of communication”(344).

Agbedo, outlines the rudiments of Dell Hymes (1971) Ethnography of

Communication as follows:

These aspects of language which do not normally come within the general scope

of grammatical descriptions are captured by Dell Hymes’ term ethnography of

communication(346). An ethnographic account of a communicative event, notes

Wardhaugh (1986) “… is a description of all the factors that are relevant in

understanding how that particular communicative event achieves its

objectives”(238) Hynmes, continues Wardhaugh, uses the word SPEAKING as

an acronym for what has to be inventorized and related in an ethnographic

account. We shall examine these factors as outlined by Dell Hymes.

Settings (S) refers to the time and place, i.e. the concrete physical

circumstances in which speech or communication is permitted, enjoined,

encouraged, abridged.

Participant (P) includes various combinations of speaker-hearer, addresser-

addressee or sender or receiver.

Ends (E) refers to the conventionally recognized and expected outcomes of an

exchange as well as to the personal goals that participants seek to accomplish on

particular occasions.

Acts Sequence (A) refers to the actual form and content of what is said: the

precise words used, how they are used, and the relationship of what is said to

the actual topic at hand.

Key (K) refers to the tone, manner, or spirit in which a particular message is

conveyed: whether light-hearted, serious, elevated, banal, precise, pedantic,

mocking, sarcastic, and pompous etc.

15

Instrumentalities (I) refers to the various available channels, and their modes of

use, speaking, writing, printing, drumming, blowing, whistling, singing, face

and body motions as visually perceived, smelling, testing and tactile sensation.

This aspect equally embraces the actual forms of speech employed, such

as the language, dialect, code, or register that is chosen.

Norms of Interaction and Interpretation (N) This implies the specific

behaviours and properties that attach to speaking and also to how these may be

reviewed by someone who does not share them, e.g. loudness, silence, gaze-

return, etc.

Genre (G) refers to clearly demarcated types of utterance, such things as poems,

proverbs, riddles, sermons, prayers, lectures and editorials. These are all

‘marked’ in specific ways in contrast to casual speech.

The above account encapsulates all that a speaker needs to carry out a

successful use of language in communication which according to Agbedo,

includes “a sensitivity to and awareness of linguistic, interactional and cultural

factors that are germane to all communicative activities” (346)..

The foregoing is in line with Saville-Troike, in Agbedo, who outlines

these important aspects of the content of communication as follows:

Linguistic: verbal elements, non-verbal elements, patterns of elements in

particular speech events, range of possible variants, meaning of variants in

particular situations.

Interaction skills: perception of salient features in communicative situations,

roles and relationships, norms of interaction and interpretation strategies for

achieving goals.

Cultural knowledge: social structure, values and attitudes, cognitive

map/schema, enculturation processes (346).

Furthermore, Agbedo, asserts that “it equally falls within the descriptive

outline of ethnography of communication to account for the non-verbal

communicative behaviour of man” (347). Again, he notes that though non-

16

verbal communication is evident in all human communication, it could be

language/culture specific. In other words, each language and culture chooses

how to incorporate non verbal elements in its communicative repertoire. Hence,

from society to society coding and decoding of information may vary based

several factors including culture, age, gender, communicative event e.t.c.

Besides, functionality that is what use language is put to gives us a greater

insight into how languages operate. We can also say that complimentary to

ethnographic description of language is the description of the function of

language. According to Agbedo,

A number of linguists, notably Jakobson (1960), Halliday (1973)

and Robinson (1972) have proposed different categorizations of

the functions of language. Halliday’s list, for example, covers the

following functions: instrumental, regulatory, personal, heuristic,

imaginative and representational. Robinson’s list includes

avoidance, conformity to norms, aesthetics, encounter regulation,

performative, affective, role relationship marking, referential,

instruction, inquiry and metalanguage functions (347).

From the foregoing, we understand that language must be used to carry out

certain functions appropriately which underlies communicative competence. In

other words, when we learn structures of a language, we must also learn how to

use them appropriately in communication.

The functional aspects of language are therefore to be emphasized.

Bischoff and Jany (2013) capture the focus on functionalism as seen in the

following: “Functionalism, as characterized by Allen, "holds that linguistic

structures can only be understood and explained with reference to the semantic

and communicative functions of language, whose primary function is to be a

vehicle for social interaction among human beings” (254). Since the 1970s,

inspired by the work of Jespersen, Bolinger, Dik, Halliday, and Chafe,

functionalism has been attached to a variety of movements and models making

17

major contributions to linguistic theory and to various subfields within

linguistics, such as syntax, discourse, language acquisition, cognitive linguistics,

typology, and documentary linguistics. Further, functional approaches have had

a major impact outside linguistics in fields such as psychology and education,

both in terms of theory and application. The main goal of functionalist

approaches is to clarify the dynamic relationship between form and function

(Thompson 2003). Functionalist perspectives have gained more ground over the

past decades with more linguists resorting to functional explanations to account

for linguistic structure. The authors in this volume present the current state of

functional approaches to linguistic inquiry expanding our knowledge of

language and linguistics.

In our world of multiple languages when we move from one language to

another we need to master the ways of the new language. In line with the

foregoing, Agbedo, comments: “Therefore, in learning a language, we are

equally learning to communicative in those ways deemed appropriate by the

group in which we are doing the learning. These ways also differ from group to

group and from one linguistic context to another. In essence, as we move from

one language to another, we must learn the new ways peculiar to a given

language if we are to fit into that new group” (348)

Pinango (2013) in asserting the “naturalistic” and the “deontic” nature of

language states: “The account of language that best serves our purpose is one

provided by Searle (2007), which describes language as being both

‘naturalistic’, that is, as an extension of other human biological fundamental

forms of intentionality and as “deontic”, in the sense that “once a society has a

common language, it already has a social contract’ (241). Including these two

features in a description of language for building, defining and understanding

institutional frameworks and institutional practice is essential, because they

underpin two features present in social and cultural phenomena …, namely, our

inherent human capacity to ascribe different meanings and functions to

18

phenomena that would otherwise not possess meanings and functions (the

naturalistic aspect), and the binding qualities that these creations actually have,

as well as our commitment to complying with them (deontic aspect).

From the above, we understand that language goes with some cultural

conventions and that meanings are assigned by the society and social contexts

implying that language is a social contract. Hence, whoever that uses language

in any given society must conform to certain norms of usage.

Searle (2013) asserts that:

…we will not understand an essential feature of language if we do not see that it

necessarily involves social commitments, and that the necessity of these social

commitments derives from the social character of the communication situation,

the conventional character of the devices used, and the intentionality of speaker

meaning (28). It is this feature that enables language to form the foundation of

human society in general.

In view of the above, the researcher considers intercultural pragmatics as the

theoretical framework of this study. This is as a result of the fact that the theory

views language as part of life and that language affects millions of lives in the

world; and the researcher believes it could situate the topic of the pragmatic

failures in intercultural communication.

Empirical Review

One of the works reviewed by the researcher is that of Thomas Jenny. She

investigated on sociolinguistic miscommunication. She also made some

researches on pragmatic failures. Thomas study makes a dichotomy of

pragmatic failures based on the difficulty in the analysis of possible remedies

both on the sides of the language teacher and language learners. She uses the

socio-pragmatic analytical framework to provide a useful way of looking at the

type of diversity which exists across cultures and which, most of the time, leads

19

to cross-cultural problems. She succeeds in separating major areas where there

are differences in cultural rules as regarding speech behaviour.

Another work reviewed by the researcher is the work of Cruz M.P. He

investigated on the understanding and overcoming of pragmatic failures in

intercultural communication from the focus on the speakers to focus on the

hearers. In this study, the researcher tried to look at the excessive focus of

teachers on the ability of the learners of a language to speak the language while

neglecting the importance of these learners to be able to interpret the utterances

from the speakers accurately in given contexts in order to avoid pragmatic

failures. The researcher adopted the framework of relevance-theoretic view of

communication to enable him explain why misunderstandings arise and to show

that learners’ sophistication in understanding is not the same as that of the

natives.

The study observes that pragmatic failures arise from factors such as

negative transfer of discourse stretches or linguist strategies due to a direct

translation; undue overgeneralisations of L2 forms to inappropriate settings,

lack of cultural knowledge, limited language to which learners are exposed in

the classroom. He therefore recommends that teachers should prepare

awareness-raising activities that stress the need and importance of activating the

learner’s meta-pragmatic knowledge involving the pragmatic development they

have already undergone in their L1 (First language). He also recommends that

learners must be taught to be cautious optimistic hearers in order to be able to

reject interpretations of utterances which they are led to regard as relevant

enough although their interlocutors may have expected them to interpret them

differently.

Agbedo (2007) studies the pertinent role of sociolinguists in creating awareness

towards the importance of the communicative content of language description.

Sociolinguistics draws the attention of grammarians and applied linguists to the

importance of communicative purposes of language rather than dwelling so

20

much on structural description and teaching same to learners of the language

which at the end does not produce a good result as regards proper behavioural

patterns in the environment of the target language. Agbedo, asserts that:

Although we acknowledge the fact that knowledge of the

grammatical rules as provided by the grammarian has served as

basis for the development of approaches, to the teaching of

language as system, our position in this paper is that

communicative approach to LT can equally develop from an

awareness of the many ways language functions in the contexts of

social use (341).

Pinango, explores the possible areas of application in the field of

Intercultural Pragmatics for the study of Intercultural Communication. Pinango,

also observes that, “Meanings associated with behaviours, states of affairs and

people are so divergent in each setting described by Professor Fish; it provides a

scenario that can help us speculate over what might happen if an individual

didn’t have an adequate command or understanding of the complex sets of

meaning assigned to objects, behaviours, states of affairs and people within

particular settings when involved in intercultural interactions. That is, it allows

us to speculate about the possible communicative effects that might result if

someone, who do not understand the meanings, value systems, and day-to-day

practices that converge within a particular set of circumstances, interacts with

people in specific sets of circumstances who do hold and share those particular

meanings, value systems, and enact certain day-to-day practices.”

From the foregoing, one of such effects that may occur in communication is

‘misfiring’, which will inadvertently lead to pragmatic failures that form the

main thrust of the investigation in this research. Pinango, in his conclusion

outlines and proposes two constructs – institutional framework and institutional

practice for the study of intercultural communication based on a perceived need

within the field of intercultural pragmatics to include a broader discursive aspect

21

that transcends beyond utterance level analysis when studying intercultural

communication (240).

Davies, adopts the theoretical framework of interactional sociolinguistics

and links the theoretical research on cultural ethos as well as research in cross-

cultural pragmatics with the interpretation of situated language; drawing

teachers’ attention to three interrelated aspects of conventional style which are

significant aspects of sociable cultural cross-cultural encounters between

Americans and Germans. The goal of his research is to provide teachers of both

English and German as second languages with conceptual bases for classroom

practice in teaching culture appropriately. He further posits that awareness of

cross-cultural pragmatics and the development of interactional competence

should be given high priority from the beginning of any language study as the

bases for developing all aspects of communicative competence.

Krisagbedo, conducted a study on pragmatic failures in the Nigeria, inter-

lingual communication context and the linguistic mechanism of accidental

humour. In the study, these researchers tried to examine the occurrence of

pragmatic failures such as accidental humour, which arises from Nigerian

English users’ production of wrong communicative effects through the faulty

use of speech acts or one of the rules of speaking.

In studying a number of expressions by some users of the English

language in the Nigerian intercultural communication environment such as the

speeches of Mr. Shema Obafaiye, Former Governor Elechi of Ebonyi state and

that of the former first lady of Nigeria, Dame Patience Jonathan, among others

and observed several pragmatic failures in them. The researcher observed that

pragmatic failures do not only occur due to errors in syntax, inaccurate

pronunciation, L1 interference or overgeneralization, but can also partly be from

the lack of pragmatic awareness and cross-cultural interactional communicative

competence and misunderstanding or miscommunication of implied meaning.

22

He also observes that unintentional humour in interlingual

communication arises from the poor communicative competence in the target

language (Standard English) on the part of the Nigerian English speakers’. With

this in mind, the researcher questions the persistent use of the English language

as the country’s official language amidst these recurrent pragmatic flaws and

accidental humour attendant with its usage among Nigerians whereas there are

over three hundred indigenous Nigerian languages out of which one can be

selected to occupy such status.

These reviewed works really went a long way to tackle issues relating to

this topic. However, gaps still remain which ought to be filled. Pragmatic

failures occur in so many communication settings, both within a given culture

and across two or more cultures. The way they occur, take place or manifest

also differ. Therefore, this work fills the studying of the pragmatic failures

experienced in the inter-cultural communication with emphasis on use of person

deixis, use of obscure lexical items, use of ambiguious expression, recognitions

of titless and meticulous address of names and personalities, political and social

class distinctions, respect for the populace who constitute a society and how

they constitute pragmatic failures in intercultural communication. That is, this

study provides a wider spread of tentacles in the study of pragmatic failures as it

relates to inter-cultural communication.

2.2 Summary

Intercultural communication and intercultural pragmatics can also be

understood and studied within the framework of non-native speakers of a

particular language while speaking a foreign language or a second language

carrying over certain cultures and norms from their native languages into the

new languages. In the case of the Nigerian situation, speakers of native Nigerian

languages, e.g Igbo, Yoruba, Hausa, may introduce some elements inherent in

their first language into the target language, in this case, English.

23

English has been adopted as the Official Nigerian language for

governmental, administrative, legislative, educational, business functions.

Hence, most users of English in the Nigerian official circles already have their

mother-tongues as their first language before coming in contact with the English

language.

2.4. Choice of Theoretical Framework

Communication across languages and cultures has become a new area of

study in pragmatics and this aspect of pragmatics is studied under Intercultural

pragmatics. According to Kecskes and Romeo-Trillo, “Intercultural pragmatics

investigates how the language system is put to use in social encounters between

human beings who have different first languages, communicate in a common

language and, usually represent different cultures” (1).

Furthermore, Kecskes, asserts that the theoretical stance in the foregoing

open a new frontier in advances in classical studies on communication, both for

bilingual and multilingual speakers and also covering interactions among

speakers of different languages. Kecskes and Romeo-Trillo, remark- “the three

primary applications of intercultural pragmatics: the linguistic and cognitive

domain, the social and cultural domain, and the discourse and stylistics domain”

(3).

In this study, we shall adopt the linguistic and cognitive domain in conjunction

with the social and cultural domain within the theoretical framework of

intercultural pragmatics.

24

CHAPTER THREE

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

In this segment of this work, the research method and procedures used in

this study are presented. Here, the following are discussed: research design, area

of study, population of study, instrumentation, sampling procedures, method of

data collection, method of data analysis.

3.1. Research Design

In order to guide the research appropriately in generating adequate data for

the analysis that will yield results, the descriptive method is adopted for this

work. Data are collected and described in a systematic way based on the

framework used in this study.

3.2. Area of the Study

The area of study for this research is pragmatics. Pragmatics is the area of

linguistic investigation which studies the way language is used to derive various

shades of meaning in a given context. It is based on this area within which this

work is situated that the researcher tries to study various meanings which the

users of the English language in the Nigerian environment attach to words and

expressions, leading ultimately, in some cases, to pragmatic failure.

3.3 Population of the Study

The target population of this study is the public office holders who use the

English language to carry out their day-to-day official duties including their

personal interactions as far as it is made in the public domain and also presented

in any form of media or public events.

3.4 Instrumentation

The instrument involved in this research shall be in the form of listening to

audio recording devices which are employed in the recording of audio outputs

for the purposes of transcribing them and analyzing the data gathered in line

with the topic under study. Again, direct audio recordings done by the

25

researcher and research assistants are used. Besides, both print and online media

are read to purposively gather data that will be analysed.

3.5 Sampling Procedure

Eleven respondents are randomly selected from our area of study using

the purposive sampling method. All public office holders in Nigeria are

potential sources of data for this research. The purposive sampling technique is

adopted because it shall best serve the purpose of this research.

3.6 Methods of Data Collection

Some of the data were gathered from already existing media, both print and

electronic, while some were collected through the means of direct audio

recordings at public events through participant observation, both by the

researcher and a handful of research assistants at different times.

The issue of observers’ paradox would not present any challenge as the

audio recordings are made in the public places where the subjects may not

directly know that the researcher or research assistants are recording their

speeches. Besides, some speeches are taped from the electronic media where the

researcher need not necessarily have personal contact with the subjects of the

study. Again, data are also collected from relevant government documents that

capture speeches of public office holders such as books, bulletins, etc.

3.7 Method of Data Analysis

All data gathered in the course of this research are analyzed using the

descriptive approach within the theoretical framework adopted in this study as

has been earlier expounded.

26

CHAPTER FOUR

4.0 DATA ANALYSIS

As earlier stated, we shall adopt the linguistic and cognitive domain in

conjunction with the social and cultural domain within the theoretical

framework of intercultural pragmatics. The speeches delivered by some

prominent Nigerians such as former President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua,

Nigeria’s First Prime Minister Alhaji Sir Abubakar Tafawa Balewa, former

military heads of state of Nigeria- Major Chukwuma Kaduna Nzeogwu, Major-

General Yakubu Gowon, Brigadier Murtala Ramat Muhammed and Lt. General

Olusegun Obasanjo, Major Chukwuma Kaduna Nzeogwu, Major-General

Phillip Effiong, President Muhammadu Buhari, Honourable Patrick Obahiagbon

and Dame Patience Jonathan, in the public domain will provide the data for

analysis in this research.

4.1 Linguistic Domain

Here, peculiar linguistic features in the collected data are analyzed with

emphasis on how they bring about pragmatic failure. Patience Jonathan and

Patrick Obahiagbon’s speeches provide the data for this segment of analysis.

4.1.1 Use of Person Deixis

Deictic expressions, generally, are “bits of language which we can only

understand in terms of speaker’s intended meaning.” To Renkema (2008) as

quoted in Adegoju (2005) deictic words are words with a reference point that is

speaker or writer dependent, and is determined by the speaker’s or writer’s

position in space and time. The reference of such expressions, according to

Adegoju, cannot be determined without knowing the extra-linguistic context of

the utterance (who uttered them, where and when). Deictic expressions are

27

generally classified into person deixis, referring to interactants in a

communicative event, e.g., I, we, you, he, she, it, they; place deixis, referring to

spatial relations in a communicative event, e.g, here, there, this; and temporal

deixis, referring to time relations in a communicative event, eg now, then,

yesterday, tomorrow. Our interest here is on person deictic elements, which are

realized by using personal pronouns. Person deixis is classified on the basis of

number and this is purely on a grammatical ground. Hence, the use of the first

person I (singular) and we (plural); the second person, you (singular) and they

(plural) are all grammatically motivated. According to Chen (2007) it does not

mean that you cannot use the plural form of the first person when you alone are

speaking. We may, therefore, flout the regulation of person and number, thus

giving rise to signs of rhetorical motivation or persuasive intent. But it is also

observed that this style obscures meaning so that it is difficult to place the

speaker’s exact referent. This is what usually brings about a communicative gap

herein reffered to as pragmatic failure.

The first category of deictic elements that speakers usually deploy

tactically in the discourse is that of the first-person plural subject/object,

reflexive and possessive pronominal elements, which are: we, us, our and

ourselves. Such elements actually perform certain pragmatic functions as deictic

devices. The interesting thing about them is their close association with two

dimensions fundamental to the analysis of social life: the dimensions of power

and solidarity. These dimensions are apparently integral to Mrs Jonathan’s

constant deployment of them in her speeches. Consider each of the samples of

her speeches below. The first one was made in a political rally in Akwa Ibom

State of Nigeria in 2015, while the second one was made when she engaged

some women in Abia State during a political rally before the 2015 general

elections. They are presented below: A

28

Akwaibom people, judge o. Because we are not here for lies. We

are not here for propaganda. Our business here is to tell you the

truth about our government. Because the APC number one

campaign is corruption, as if they are not corrupt; they are not

corrupt. APC will continue changing their name until they will

reach Ebola. And they will call it Ebola. You know what Ebola

normally do? Although we will wipe it off and they will bury it,

because it cannot stay here. So, let them continue changing their

name. If they fail this time, because I know they have failed, you

will hear they will change their name again; they will change it and

answer another name.

In Abia State women rally, she said: A

If we have not done well, come out and challenge us. If you vote

for us come March 28, 2015, we will do more.

We are here to tell you what PDP government has done. We are

here to tell you the truth. We are not propagandaly; we are not here

to deceive you. We are not here to lie for you, because whatever

we say, go and search because you will see it.

The point here is that it is difficult to establish who the plural pronominal

elements we and us as used by the speaker actually refer to. If the speaker refers

to herself and others, who exactly are these others. This apparent obscurity

engendered by the deployment of these deictic elements, no doubt, creates a

communication gap, as the speaker’s interlocutors are left wondering who the

real referents are; they are left wondering the speech is anything better than

mere political rhetorics.

29

On the other hand, the use of these pronouns here says a lot about how

much responsibility the speaker, Mrs Jonathan, wants to assume responsibility

for an utterance or an idea. The first person singular pronoun ‘I’, for instance,

clearly declares who is responsible while the first person plural pronoun, ‘we’,

makes the status of responsibility unclear. In the data above, therefore, it is

difficult to establish the level of responsibility which Mrs Jonathan takes or

hopes to take over what she says, for her use of ‘we’ and ‘us’ repeatedly here

shifts the bulk of responsibility from her to unknown persons. This linguistic

pattern has a rhetorical undertone, as it is meant to influence the thinking of her

supporters, but pragmatic failure remains its key feature. Person deixis, which is

used in the form of first person plural pronominal element, ‘we’and ‘us’ is,

therefore, beautifully exploited by Mrs Jonathan to achieve her persuasive

intentions, even if the speeches lack clarity.

4.1.2 Use of Obscure Lexical Items

Honourable Patrick Obahiagbon has securely established well-deserved

notoriety for himself as someone who is hardly incapable of stringing together a

single sentence that is not a comical representation of the use of English. There

is probably no public figure in Nigeria’s recent history who has publicly and

mindlessly complicated basic English syntax with as much indifference and

regularity as Honourable Obahiagbon . This is why his idiolect has been roundly

condemned by the general public for lacking basic communicative ingredients.

Consider the following collection of speeches:

1 Let me say as quickly as possible that the political “crinkum

crankum”, if you like, the political “higi haga” that has enveloped

the politics of Rivers State for a period of time now has all the

trappings of an odoriferous saga cum gargantua gaga

30

2.This ASUU strike is a miasma of depreccable apotheosis of a

hemorrhageing plutocracy cascadingly oozing into a malodorous

excresence of mobocracy. With all termagant ossifying proclivities

of a kakistocracy, our knowledgia centura is enveloped in a

paraphlegic crinkum crankum. Therefore, ASUU cest in a dejavu,

dejavu peret ologomabia(“Obahiagbon’s English”…).

3.The presidential invasion of the National Assembly which was

unscrupulously executed by its pursuivant Inspectore General of

police had all the trappings of an Entebbe raid and executive

rascality, which is deservable of an acidic excoriation and corrosive

pummeling. But the impeachment gambit is, however, a

frankeistous yoyo, with a potency for an erebus prone whirligig

4.I am maniacally bewildered, overgasted at the paraplegic

crinkum crankum that characterized the GLO CAF awards,

culminating in an oriferous saga cum gargatuangaga. The jiggery

pockery of CAF in crowning Yaya Toure instead of our very own

prodigy, Mikel Obi, is a veritable bugaboo that must be poo-

poohed by all compos mentis homo sapiens. The perfidy and

mendacity of all the apparatchic of sports is not only repugnant, but

also insalubrious.

5. To the Glory of the Great Grand Architect of the Universe and

the Cosmic Hosts. This statement engenders pragmatic failure

because of the kind of response it provokes from the listener(s) or

audience of the speaker. The expression ‘Great Grand Architect of

the Universe and the Cosmic Hosts’ is a complex expression which

simply expressed how great and glorious God is. The choice of this

grammatically cumbersome expression by the speaker leaves the

31

listener unable to concentrate on the discussion at hand or idea

being expressed. The listener may equally be left to wonder how

grammatically, morally and conventionally accurate such as an

expression is.

6. I also thank even more, all those who have vilified, excoriated,

bashed, lampooned and thrown acerbic punches at my person....

This statement also creates the same pragmatic failure as that observed in the

previous statement. The words ‘vilify’ means to say ill about a person. The

word ‘excoriate’ simply means to denounce. The word ‘lampoon’ simply means

to ridicule while the word ‘acerbic’ simple means sour or bitter or sharp-

tempered, among others. The use of these words by the speaker while speaking

to the Nigerian public with a higher percentage of illiterate and semi-literate

population kills the pragmatic aim of the speech made. Again, even the

educated Nigerians and English language users in general, conventionally prefer

the use of simple correct expressions. Therefore, the statement above leaves the

listeners also distracted from paying attention to the basic purpose of the speech

God bless all men and women on planet earth...so mote it be....

In this statement or expression, one can notice that the speaker goes over-

board to even make use of an archaic or outdated word ‘mote’ which in modern

English language, is expressed as ‘may’ or ‘might’. The use of such an

expression also causes pragmatic failure because the audience is left stranded,

wondering what the speaker means instead of understanding the speech itself.

I can see the ship of the Nigerian state hovering around the

political Bermuda Triangle.

This expression ‘…hovering around the political Bermuda Triangle’ is an

unnecessary show of English vocabulary knowledge or intellectual competence

given the nature of the Nigerian audience of the speaker. Bermuda triangle is a

32

phenomenon familiar mainly to people who possess the knowledge of

geography. It will therefore, result in pragmatic failure because of the inability

of the statement harbouring the expression to make meaning to the majority of

the listeners.

Beaugrade and Dressler(1981) had argued that the efficiency of a text is

contingent upon a number of factors: usefulness, effectiveness and

appropriateness. Whether it is spoken or written, a text has to be useful to the

participants with a minimum of effort; its effectiveness depends on whether it

makes a strong impression and has a good agreement with the established seven

standards of textuality.In the presented sample of speeches above, one can

observe that the speaker makes use of obscure and unidentified lexical items.

His choice of words is so difficult that it is easy to lose sense of what he intends

to communicate. In fact, nothing is communicated, instead, the deployment of

such words usually evokes laughter and ridicule to the detriment of the desired

response from the audience. This creates a certain gap in communication. This

breakdown in communication, this pragmatic failure, is apparently occasioned

by his choice of linguistic resources, which has been revealed to be hinged on

difficult choice of words and obscure imagery.

4.1.3 Use of Ambiguous Expressions

Certain ambiguous expressions which hamper communication are also variously

used by some of our objects of study. Examples of such uses include statements

by Chukwuma Kaduna Nzeogwu. Example 1:

No Minister or Parliamentary Secretary possesses administrative

or other forms of control over any ministry, even if they are not

considered too dangerous to be arrested.

This statement is ambiguous as the listener to the speaker gets confused,

not knowing what the speaker means. The ambiguity is caused by the use of the

referential expressions ‘No Minister or Parliamentary Secretary’, ‘ministry’ and

33

‘they’ and the expression ‘even if they are not considered too dangerous to be

arrested’.

Here, one wonders whether the speaker means that such action, if carried

out by a Minister of Parliamentary Secretary, will not be arrested or that

whosoever carries out such an action will be arrested? If this is the case, why

then does the prohibition of such an action rank high in the speaker’s list of

stern warnings or rules?

The ambiguity in the speaker’s statement causes pragmatic failure because the

listeners will not be able to understand him, even as this has a high percentage

of causing disaffection thereby distorting whatever message the speaker may

have. Another instance of this is seen below: Example II: Tafawa Balewa-

This is an occasion when our hearts are filled with conflicting

emotions: we are, indeed, proud to have achieved our

independence, and proud that our efforts should have contributed

to this happy event.

Probable meaning of the above expression: The above statement equally

creates ambiguity. The listener is left with two confusing ideas or interpretations

of the statement. In the first idea expressed, the speaker gives the impression

that his actions and those of his comrades are brought about by the

Independence which was being celebrated, and in the second idea expressed, he

contradicts himself by giving the listener the impression that their efforts ought

to have brought about the event. This second idea is expressed as a wish which

has not materialized. So, does he mean to tell the audience that Independence

has been achieved or does it mean that it has not been achieved; thereby making

the occasion appear irrelevant. This, no doubt, renders communication

impossible, hence pragmatics failure is achieved. The speaker’s intended

statement results in pragmatic failure as the meaning is shrouded in ambiguity

as to whether the name-changers will suffer the disease or whether they will

adopt the name for themselves.

34

4.2 Lexical gaps

Lexical gap can occur when the speaker fails to use the appropriate word in the

language to explore his intended meaning or when a word or a phrase is missing

in a sentence, this can lead to pragmatic failure as the meaning may not be well

gotten by the recipients as seen in the abstracts below

Example I: Chukwuma Kaduna Nzeogwu-

Our enemies are the political profiteers, the swindlers, the men in

high and low places that seek bribes and demand 10 percent; those

that seek to keep the country divided permanently so that they can

remain in office as ministers or VIPs at least, the tribalists, the

nepotists, those that make the country look big for nothing before

international circles, those that have corrupted our society and put

the Nigerian political calendar back by their words and deeds.

Pragmatic failure results from the lexical gap recorded in the statement

above. The lexical gap is observed in the expression ‘10 percent’. This is as a

result of the speaker’s failure to adequately explain what he means by the

expression ’10 percent’. This pragmatic failure could have been avoided if the

speaker had spared a little time to add few lexical expressions which could have

explained his concept of ‘10 percent’ as it will be obvious that even if some

sections of the audience understood what he may have meant, it is not every

member of the audience. Consequently, the intended meaning of the speaker’s

statement is lost due to the lexical gaps identified.

Example II: A primary objective is to create the right atmosphere for a rapid

increase in home ownership.

The lexical gap observed in this statement made by the speaker leaves the

listener wondering if the speaker is talking about a certain objective made the

primary focus by a certain person of group of persons. This is because the

speaker made use of the indefinite article ‘a’ instead of the definite article ‘the’.

35

This situation also leads to pragmatic failure because the listener is unable to

understand that the expression is meant as a promise or plan of the speaker to

make his/her current housing situation better. Therefore, the response of

excitement, happiness, joy and approval is not expressed leading to the

speaker’s disappointment that his ‘benevolence’ is not appreciated by the

‘ungrateful’ listener.

Example III: … you will hear they will change their name again

Here, ‘that’ is omitted leading to a lexical gap that can derail the focus of

a listener. This causes pragmatic failure also. This is because, with the omission

‘that’, the listener fails to capture the exact idea of the speaker. The hearer of

this statement may presume, while putting this statement into writing to express

it thus, “…you will hear, “They will change their name again”. One then

wonders whether the speaker is merely repeating the statement credited to a

certain group of people or whether she is expressing her own statement.

4.3 Cognitive Domain

Certain questions that cognitive psychology asks border partly on the

structure of language, how language is organized and represented in the mind,

how we process and understand language, the neurological basis of language,

and language disorders. Another subject of investigation in this regard concerns

the relationship between language and thought. For example, is thinking merely

speeches that are not vocalized, or are other processes involved? How does

language influence the way we think? It is this concern that interests us more

with regard to pragmatic failures in inter-cultural communication in the

cognitive context. In otherwords, what impression do Patience Jonathan and

Patrick Obahiagbon, for instance, create in us when they use language in their

own peculiar ways? Our analysis so far reveals that their use of language does

not give any linguistic appetite, hence pragmatic failure is achieved.

36

4.4 Social and Cultural Domain

Language is indissolubly linked with members of the society in which it is

spoken, and social and cultural factors are inevitably reflected in their speech.

This is where the concern of sociolinguistics becomes relevant, for socio-

linguistics is explained elsewhere as that branch of linguistics which studies

those properties of language and languages which require reference to social,

including contextual factors in their explanation. Some of the collected data

below will help in placing the relevance of the social and cultural domain of

language in communication in proper perspective.

Similarities in the Cultural Communication Systems between English and

Nigerian Languages.

From the data, there are norms which are observed from the speeches of

these several speakers of various Nigerian languages; Nigerian languages such

as the Igbo, Hausa, Yoruba, etc. Identified norms establishe the fact that society

and culture could play a huge role in effecting communication.

4.4.1 Recognition of titles and meticulous address of names and

personalities:

This can be observed in examples such as His Excellency Vice President

Goodluck Jonathan, President of the Senate, the Speaker House of

Representatives, my Lord Chief Justice of Nigeria, President Olusegun

Obasanjo; Our founding fathers, Mr. Herbert Macauley, Dr. Nnamdi

Azikiwe, Chief Obafemi Awolowo, Alhaji Ahmadu Bello, the Sardauna of

Sokoto, Alhaji Abubakar Tafawa Balewa, Malam Aminu Kano, Chief J. S.

Tarka, Mr. Eyo Ita, Chief Denis Osadeby, Chief Ladoke Akintola, Your

Excellencies; Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth, Queen of NigBrigadier P. C.

Amadi (Army), Brigadier C. A. Nwawo (Army), Captain W. A. Anuku

(Navy), Wing Commander J. I. Ezeilo (Air Force), Inspector-General of

37

Police, Chief P. I. Okeke, Mr. J. I. Emembolu (Attorney-General), Professor

Eni Njoku, Dr. I. Eke, Chief A. E. Udofia, Chief Frank Opigo and Chief J.

M. Echeruo; General Yakubu Gowon as Head of the Federal Military

Government and Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, Vice Admiral

JEA Wey – . Chief of Staff, Supreme HQ, Major-General Hassan Katsina –

Deputy Chief of Staff, Supreme HQ, Major-General David Ejoor – Chief of

Staff (Army), Rear Admiral Nelson Soroh – Chief of Naval Staff, Brigadier

E. E Ikwue – Chief of Air Staff,… Alhaji Kam Salem – Inspector General of

Police, Chief T. A. Fagbola – Deputy Inspector General of Police5;

Brigadier TY Danjuma – Chief of Army Staff, Colonel John Yisa Doko,

Chief of Air Staff, Commodore Michael Adelanwa – Chief of Naval Staff,

Mr. MD Yusuf, Inspector General of Police, Lt. Col. B. S. Dimka and Mr. J.

D. Gomwalk.

These examples show that the Nigerian society places high premium on

the use of titles. In America, for instance, President Barrack Obama could

simply be addressed as Mr Barrack Obama and nothing else. A foreigner who

attends an occasion in Nigeria where these titles are reeled out will certainly

find it difficult to follow the train of events, for in many cases, the mere mention

of these titles suggest a lot of things which are already an integral part of the

culture, and which no longer needs any emphasis. This is what brings about

pragmatic failure in communication. Languages pay proper attention to the way

people are addressed or referred to. The excerpts from the speeches of various

Nigerians, drawn across from various tribes or ethnic groups (especially the

three major ethnic groups), who play and had played roles in the political setting

of the country, Nigeria, dedicated and still dedicate enormous effort to voicing-

out the titles with which people are addressed, even while speaking the official

language, which is English. Observations made reveal that the majority of the

titles with which persons are addressed in Nigerian languages reflect strong

traditional roots. There are so many titles which individuals are addressed which

38

are rooted in the traditions of majority of the Nigerian languages. Take a look at

the data below

Table 1

Titles reflecting cultural norms in

the use of the English language

Titles reflecting cultural norms in

the use of Nigerian languages

Mr.

Mrs.

Queen

Princess

Chief

Sir.

Mallam

Alhaji

Emir

Ooni

Oba

Alaafin

Eze

Nze

Ozo

Igwe, etc.

From the data, one observes that the various Nigerian languages have different

titles with which they recognise people or persons in their various societies

unlike the English language in which there are only a handful of titles with

which people or persons are recognized. Because of this, in the use of English

language, the use of ‘chief’, ‘sir’ etc. to refer to or address persons is considered

inadequate in the cultural communicative norms of Nigerian languages.

This kind of ambiguity equally causes pragmatic failure because it fails to

communicate exactly, what the speaker actually has in mind and when this is

the case, the listener is unable to produce adequate response of joy, excitement,

happiness or even anticipation concerning the statement of subject of

discussion.

39

4.4.2 Political and Social class distinctions

From the excerpts of the speeches of Nigeria’s eminent persons

presented, it is also observed that while speaking Nigerian languages and the

English language, there is a conscious distinction of political and social class to

which a person or another belongs to. In addition, the norms of the cultures of

these languages also demand that these classes be dully recognised and

respected. One can observe that the use of titles as identified in the first

observation equally serves to distinguish people according to their various

political and social classes. These titles such as Mr., Chief, Her Majesty, Queen,

Mallam, Alhaji, Admiral, Sir, Princess, His Holiness the Pope, President,

Commodore, Major, Lieutenant, Colonel, Governor, Administrator, General,

Brigadier, Prime minister, etc. show that the people being addressed with such

titles belong to a given political or social class and not another. Respect is

equally accorded the bearers of these titles. This is why we can observe

statements denoting expressions of respect to one’s political or social class as

well as one expressing the power or right attached to one’s political or social

class such as:

- His Excellency Vice President Goodluck Jonathan, President of the

Senate, the Speaker House of Representatives, my Lord Chief Justice of

Nigeria, President Olusegun Obasanjo, distinguished Presidents and Heads of

Governments who have graciously honoured us with their presence today,

leaders of our nation (Inaugural Speech of President Umaru Yar’Adua May

29, 2007)

- I would like to thank President Goodluck Jonathan for his display of

statesmanship….

40

- Our founding fathers, Mr. Herbert Macauley, Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe, Chief

Obafemi Awolowo, Alhaji Ahmadu Bello, the Sardauna of Sokoto, Alhaji

Abubakar Tafawa Balewa, Malam Aminu Kano, Chief J. S. Tarka, Mr. Eyo Ita,

Chief Denis Osadeby, Chief Ladoke Akintola….(President Buhari’s

Inaugural speech on May 29, 2015).

- …our future relations with the United Kingdom will be more cordial than

ever, bound together, as we shall be in the Commonwealth, by a common

allegiance to Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth, whom today we proudly acclaim as

Queen of Nigeria and Head of the Commonwealth…. I must express our

gratitude to Her Royal Highness, the Princess Alexandra for personally bringing

to us these symbols of our freedom and especially for delivering the gracious

message from Her Majesty, The Queen. And so, with the words ‘God Save Our

Queen’, I open a new chapter in the history of Nigeria and of the

Commonwealth, and indeed, of the world. (Nigeria’s First Prime Minister,

Alhaji Sir Abubakar Tafawa Balewa on October 1, 1960)

- In the name of the Supreme Council of the Revolution of the Nigerian

Armed Forces, I declare martial law over the Northern Provinces of

Nigeria….(Major Chukwuma Kaduna Nzeogwu, on January 15, 1966).

4.4.3 Respect for the populace who constitute a society:

Observations from the excerpt from the speeches presented also show that

cultural norms of both English language and Nigerian languages demand the

respect of the majority (mass of people) that make up a given society.

Respecting them inculcates their collective statements, wishes, desires, needs,

etc. This is also why we can notice the speakers make use of the collective

pronoun ‘we/us’ in their respective speeches. Examples abound in the following

expressions:

41

- I am immensely grateful to God who has preserved us to witness this day

and this occasion…. (President Umaru Yar’Adua May 29, 2007)

- I have indeed every confidence that, based on the happy experience of a

successful partnership, our future relations with the United Kingdom will be

more cordial than ever (Nigeria’s First Prime Minister Alhaji Sir Abubaka r

Tafawa Balewa on October 1, 1960)

- Affirming your trust and confidenc