A SOCIOLINGUISTIC STUDY OF THE PATTERNS OF NONSTANDARD

ENGLISH WORDS USAGE IN FORMAL CONTEXTS: A CASE STUDY

OF STUDENTS OF HIGHER INSTITUTIONS IN KADUNA STATE

BY

MARTHA NGUEMO TERNA-ABAH

(PhD/ARTS/2212/08-09)

DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH AND LITERARY STUDIES

AHMADU BELLO UNIVERSITY, ZARIA
NIGERIA

JULY 2014

i
A SOCIOLINGUISTIC STUDY OF THE PATTERNS OF NONSTANDARD
ENGLISH WORDS USAGE IN FORMAL CONTEXTS: A CASE STUDY
OF STUDENTS OF HIGHER INSTITUTIONS IN KADUNA STATE

BY

MARTHA NGUEMO TERNA-ABAH

(PhD/ARTS/2212/08-09)

A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL,

AHMADU BELLO UNIVERSITY ZARIA, IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE AWARD OF THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (PhD) IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE,
DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH AND LITERARY STUDIES,
FACULTY OF ARTS, AHMADU BELLO UNIVERSITY,
ZARIA, NIGERIA.

JULY, 2014

ii
 DECLARATION

I declare that the work in this dissertation entitled A Sociolinguistic Study of the

Patterns of Nonstandard English Words Usage in Formal Contexts: A Case Study of

Students of Higher Institutions in Kaduna State has been carried out by me in the

Department of English and Literary Studies. The information derived from the

literature has been duly acknowledged in the text and a list of references provided. No

part of this dissertation has been previously presented for another degree or diploma

at this or any other institution.

__________________________ _____________ ___________

Martha Nguemo TERNA-ABAH SIGNATURE DATE

iii
 CERTIFICATION

This is to certify that this study entitled A SOCIOLINGUISTIC STUDY OF THE

PATTERNS OF NONSTANDARD ENGLISH WORDS USAGE IN FORMAL

CONTEXTS: A CASE STUDY OF STUDENTS OF HIGHER INSTITUTIONS IN

KADUNA STATE by Martha Nguemo TERNA-ABAH meets the regulations

governing the award of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) in English

Language of the Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria and it is approved for its

contribution to knowledge and literary presentation.

__________________________ ____________________
Professor Adebayo A. Joshua Date
Chairman, Supervisory Committee

_________________________ ____________________
Dr S.A. Abaya Date
Member, Supervisory Committee

__________________________ _____________________
Professor S.G. Ibileye Date
Member, Supervisory Committee

_________________________ ____________________
Dr A.A. Liman Date
Head of Department

_________________________ _____________________
Professor Adebayo A. Joshua Date
Dean Post Graduate School

iv
 DEDICATION

This work is dedicated to God Almighty with whom all

things are possible; the reason for this great height

and

To the memory of him, who ensured that I got the best of

education. He, who made my world revolve around

academics right from an early age. My once loving mentor,

my dear late father - MR. SEBASTIAN ZEVER SHENGE.

Even though you are not alive to witness this feat, it is a

proof that your sacrifice was not in vain. But for death, how

proud you would have been of me!

v
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I wish to express my profound gratitude to my erudite supervisor, Professor Adebayo

.A. Joshua whose expertise, useful advice, invaluable words of encouragement and

unceasing effort at supervising my work actually made its realization possible.

I owe a debt of gratitude to my second supervisor Dr S.A. Abaya for his

meticulousness, valuable suggestions and for working so tirelessly to ensure that this

research was completed. I also wish to thank my third supervisor Professor S.G.

Ibileye for all his valuable contributions that made this work a success.

I will forever be grateful to the one woman who has sacrificed a lot for me. That

model of ideal motherhood- my dear mother, Mrs. Josephine Hanive Shenge. I thank

you for allowing God use you to shape my life after father’s demise.

My deep appreciation also goes to my brothers, sisters, nephews, nieces and in- laws.

They include: Mrs. Eugenia Adaa, Prof. K.C Shenge, Rev. Susan Orochihi, Doosy,

Angie, Kumsy, Jimmy, Danny, Afasco, Sewuese, Muha, Boy, Ahemen, Ordidi,

Terdoo, Baby Msaan, Terfa, Iwuese, Tuma, Iyua, Sesugh, Michelle, Richman, Oyen,

Sonenter, Mr Pius Adaa, Mr Dan Orochihi, Mercy Shenge, Seun Fayemi, Joy Daniel,

Doosuur, Hembafan and the Abahs. It is indeed a blessing having you all as family.

Thank you all for your support.

I wish to express my heartfelt gratitude to all my former lecturers in the department of

English and Literary Studies especially Prof. Gani-Ikilama, Prof. Joshua, Dr

Ofoukwu, Prof. Ibileye, Prof. Surakat, Mr Ekpeme, Dr. Sadiq, Dr Frank-Akale, Prof.

vi
Aliyu Muhammed and Prof. J. S. Aliyu. You all contributed in molding me

academically from that young and inexperienced undergraduate to what I am today.

I am sincerely grateful to Dr Ahmad Abdullahi and Abdulkadir Bala for providing me

with some of the literature I used for this research. My deepest gratitude goes to all

my colleagues at ABU/SBRS, Funtua especially those in the English language Unit

for all the support I enjoyed from them.

I must not forget to say a big thank you to my wonderful friends Ngusaar, Demvihin,

Erdoo, Fwanshishak, Ajuji, Aisha Jallo, Jerry Idu, Liman and Nankyer. Indeed, you

have stood the test of time as true friends.

I am highly indebted Pastor Zack Omale for his encouragement, prayers and labour of

love. Sir, you are simply exceptional. To members of Harvest Area and Pastor Peter

Aruwaji, I say thank you all.

Not left out are my adorable children, Wueseter (Brainy Boy) and Dooveren (Princess

Baby). Although there were times when you were rather a serious distraction, I still

thank you for teaching me how to combine motherhood, work and studies. You

remain priceless!

Lastly, to my amazing husband Engr. T.I. Abah, what else can I say? Your

encouragement and support really made the difference. I am most grateful.

vii
 ABSTRACT

This study dwells on the Sociolinguistic Patterns of Nonstandard English Words

usage in Formal Contexts using students of institutions of higher learning in Kaduna
State as its case study. The study begins by examining the centrality of the English
language in the Nigerian society particularly in the educational sector. It then goes on
to look at the variability of the English language and the role of social context in
determining the most appropriate variety to be used hence the use of standard and
nonstandard English in formal and informal contexts respectively. On the contrary,
the target group of this study uses nonstandard English words in their spoken and
written communication in formal contexts. The study, which is limited to the lexical
variants, thus identifies these variant lexical items from students’ scripts and recorded
discourses and thereafter examines their patterns of occurrence and the factors
motivating their usage. The study adopts an eclectic approach comprising Fishman’s
Domain and Topics, Labov’s Quantitative Paradigm and Giles’ Accommodation
theory. Using the Domain and Topics model, the study establishes the fact that the
context/domain under consideration is formal based on the general subject areas under
discussion, role relationships between the participants and setting of interaction. The
study thereafter examines the social factors responsible for the use of identified
nonstandard/non-English lexical items using the Labovian framework and
Accommodation theory. Based on the study’s findings, social factors of language of
the social media/Short Message Service’s shorthand, bilingualism used as a source of
pity/obtaining undue favours, religion, familiarity/relaxed atmosphere and nature of
students’ course/question asked motivated our subjects’ use of the identified
nonstandard English lexical items. The study then looks at the general patterns that
the identified lexical items take as well as the differences or similarities of these
identified nonstandard English lexical items across the selected institutions. Finally,
the study discusses its contributions to knowledge and makes suggestions for further
research.

viii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Title Page……………………….…….……………………………...……....i

Declaration…………….………………………………………………...… ii

Certification…………………………………..……………………………..iii

Dedication…………………………………………….………………….….iv

Acknowledgement……………………………………….………………….v

Abstract…………………………………………………….………….……vii

Table of Contents ……………………………………………………..…...viii

CHAPTER ONE: BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY

1.0 Introduction…………………………………………………………..1

1.1 The Centrality of English to the Field of Education

In Nigeria………………………………………………………….…..2

1.2 The Variability of the English language………………………………3

1.3 Social Context as a Determinant of What Variety of

English to Use…………………………………………………………4

1.4 Statement of the Research Problem………………………………….. 6

1.5 Aim and Objectives……………………………………………………7

1.6 Research Questions……………………………………………………8

1.7 Justification for the Study………………………………………………9

1.8 Scope and Delimitation………………………………………………..10

CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF LITERATURE AND THEORETICAL

FRAMEWORK

2.0 Introduction.………………………………………………..………. 12

2.1 The Field of Sociolinguistics………………………………………..12

2.2 The Study of Language Variation…………………………..........14

ix
2.2.0 Social Variables and Language Variation……………………….15

2.2.1 Age and Language Variation……………………………………15

2.2.2 Social Class and Language Variation……………………………17

2.2.3 Gender and Language Variation………………………………….18

2.2.4 Educational Status and Language Variation……………………..20

2.2.5 Culture and Language Variation………………………………….20

2.2.6 Ethnicity and Language Variation……………………………….21

2.2.7 Religion and Language Variation…………………………………23

2.3 Varieties of the English Language in Nigeria…………………….24

2.3.0. The Standard English (Process of Standardization)……………...25

2.3.1 The Standard/Formal English as a Variety of English…………….27

2.3.1.1 Standard British English…………………………………………..36

2.3.2 Nonstandard English/Informal English…………………….……. .37

2.3.2.0 Varieties of Nonstandard English Commonly Used by

the Target Population along with SBE in Formal Contexts……………...39

2.3.2.1 Standard Nigerian English(SNE)………………………………….39

2.3.2.2 The Written Language of the Global System for Mobile

Communication’s Short Message Service (GSM/SMS)……………………43

2.3.2.3 English Slang.……………………………………………………….44

2.3.2.4 Pidgin……………………………………………………………….47

2.3.2.4.1General Pidgin……………………………………………………..47

2.3.2.4.2English Pidgin/Nigerian Pidgin……………………………………52

2.4 Code Mixing…………………………………………………………55

2.5 Definition of Context………………………………………………..58

2.6. Theoretical Framework……………………………………………...63

2.6.1 Domain and Topics………………………………………………….63

x
2.6.2 The Quantitative Paradigm or Labovian Framework……………......65

2.6.3 The Accommodation Theory…………………………………………67

2.6.4 The Justification for Eclecticism……………………………………..69

CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.0 Introduction ……………………………….…….………………..….73

3.1 The Research Design………………………………………..….…….73

3.2 The Target Population ……………………………………….…..…..74

3.3. Sample and Sampling Procedure …………………………..…..…….74

3.4 Research Instruments …………………………………………...……75

3.4.1 Observation……………………………………………………………75

3.4.2 Recording……………………………………………………………..76

3.4.3. Students’ scripts……………………………………………………….77

3.5 Problems Encountered and How they were Overcome……………….77

CHAPTER FOUR: DATA PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND

DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS

4.0 Introduction ………………………………………………..…......…..79

4.1. Data Presentation and Analysis Based on Students’ Examination

Scripts……………………………………………………………….....79

4.2 Data Presentation and Analysis Based on Recorded Spoken

Discourses in Formal Contexts……………………………………….141

4.3 Discussion of Findings ………………………………….……….……159

CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

5.0 Introduction……………………………………………………………175

5.1 General Summary …………………………….……………….………176

5.2 Conclusion …………………………………………...………..………178

5.3 Implications of the Study………………………………………………179

xi
5.4 Contributions to Knowledge……………………………………………181

5.5 Suggestions for Further Research………………………………………182

REFERENCES………………………………………………………….…….183

APPENDICES…………………………………………………………………191

CHAPTER ONE

xii
 BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY

1.0 INTRODUCTION

One of the indispensable legacies of the British colonial administration in Nigeria that

has continued to thrive several years after independence is the English language. Even

when some Nigerians criticize some of the heritages of the colonial administration

such as the amalgamation, hardly do they complain about the English language and

the place it has come to occupy in Nigeria today. Corroborating these views,

Bamgbose (1971:36), states that, “of all the heritage left behind in Nigeria by the

colonial administration, probably none is more important than the English language.”

This same view is re-echoed by, Schmied (1991:119) who believes that the English

language has proved “far more durable than other parts of colonial inheritance.”

The centrality of English language to the life of the average Nigerian cannot be

overemphasized. The English language is the language of general interaction which

facilitates communication among Nigerians regardless of their linguistic, cultural and

social barriers or differences. Ogu (1992:79) while re-echoing the views expressed

above, states that, “the status of English language in Nigeria is that of a stable and

important second language.”

Another area where the impact of the English language is greatly felt in Nigeria is in

the mass media. News and other programmes on the Nigerian Television Authority

(NTA) and on other independent television networks such as African Independent

Television (AIT), Channels Television among others are broadcast in the English

language. Similarly, any newspaper or magazine which aims at national coverage

must necessarily publish in English. Banjo (1996:69) confirming this says that ‘no

African country is better served with English newspaper than Nigeria.’

1
The use of the English language is not restricted to the media alone but it is also the

language of the legislature, judiciary, interview for employment, the government as

well as business and commerce.

1.1 THE CENTRALITY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE TO THE FIELD

OF EDUCATION IN NIGERIA

One sector in which the English language has become crucial in Nigeria is in the field

of education. According to Bamgbose(p38), “the entrenchment of the English

language is perhaps most noticeable in the field of education…the Nigerian child’s

access to the cultural and scientific knowledge of his world is largely through the

English language” The relevance of the English Language in the educational system

in Nigeria is in two dimensions. One, it is studied as a separate discipline in the

country’s schools as one of the core subjects prescribed for all students in the

secondary school curriculum and secondly, English Language is pedagogically

important, as it is the language of instruction in virtually the entire school system

from upper primary to the level of higher education. In fact, it is the major medium of

expression in the Nigerian educational system. To buttress this point further, the

National Policy on Education (NPE) 2004, section 4e and f emphasizes among other

things that:

[e] The medium of instruction in the primary school shall be the

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

[f] From the fourth year, English shall progressively be used as

a medium of instruction and the language of the immediate
environment and French shall be taught as subjects.

Moreover, admission into tertiary institutions in Nigeria irrespective of the course of

study requires candidates to have a credit pass in the English language in the West

2
African Examination Council Senior Secondary Certificate Examination

(WAECSSCE) or the National Examination Council (NECO). No wonder, Bamgbose

(p38) maintains that, “the entrenchment of English language is perhaps most

noticeable in the field of education” and that “the Nigerian child’s access to the

cultural and scientific knowledge of the world is largely through the English

language”.

1.2 THE VARIABILITY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE

The English Language like any other living language is remarkably varied. According

to Wardhaugh (1983:15), ‘no language spoken by more than a very small number of

people is homogeneous.’ Every language has considerable internal variations and

speakers make constant use of the many different possibilities offered to them.

The English language as a global language has developed many varieties. These

varieties range broadly from Standard English to nonstandard English. The Standard

English in the words of Jowitt (2008:8) has come to be used as, “a label for either the

more or less institutionalized sub variety of a great number of Englishes around the

world... a reflection of what has been called International or World Standard English.”

It is used for varieties like the Standard British English (which is the focus of this

study), Standard American English, Standard Chinese English, Standard Canadian

English, Standard Nigerian English among others. On the other hand, nonstandard

English according to Corder and Ruszkiweicz (1979:10) “ is most often defined by its

vocabulary, its sounds or its grammatical construction and is appropriate in

discussions of informal or humorous situations and activities such as sports.”

They go further to equate nonstandard English with informal English which they say

“is that marked as colloquial in dictionaries and most of those marked as slang.” From

3
the foregoing, we can say that nonstandard English includes English varieties such as

English slang, English pidgin and all forms of colloquial expressions.

1.3 SOCIAL CONTEXT AS A DETERMINANT OF CHOICE OF

ENGLISH VARIETY

The choice of any language variety over another at any given point in time is

determined by several factors one of which is social context. Social context as most

sociolinguists are unanimous about plays a vital role in determining which variety of

language to be used. In this school of thought is Trudgill (1974:103) who posits that:

“language varies not only according to the social characteristics of the speaker (such

as social class, ethnic group, age and sex) but also according to the social context in

which a user finds himself.” Many factors can come into play in determining which

variety of language to be used in a given context. For instance, as Trudgil puts it,

certain subject matters under discussion are likely to produce a more formal variety

than others. The physical setting and occasion of the language activity like academic

lectures and ceremonial occasions are more likely to select relatively formal language

than public-house arguments or family breakfasts. He further states that, the person

spoken to, and in particular, the role relationships and relative statuses of the

participants in a discourse would also influence the variety of language to be used.

Like speech between individuals of unequal rank (due to status in an organization,

social class, age, or some other factors) is likely to be less relaxed and more formal

than that between equals. Thus in most, if not all linguistic communities, differences

in social context (broadly defined to include the hearer, the subject matter and the

medium as well as the situation) lead to the use of different styles. These styles can be

characterized through differences in vocabulary, including address forms and

pronouns and in grammar and pronunciation (Trudgil, 103-114).

4
While expressing similar views as those of Trudgil above, Catford (1965:84) posits

that “language use is determined by situation and context.” He sees language in its

varieties as a subset of formal and/or features that correlate with particular socio-

situational features. Therefore, any set of linguistic features must correspond

adequately with some particular situation.

In the same vein, Lyons (1977: 123-124) highlights six points that are vital to the

understanding of the relationship between language and context thus:

I. Each participant must know his role and status.

II. The participants must have knowledge of time and space of the conversation.

III. The participants must be able to categorize the situations in terms of degree of

formality.

IV. The participants must know what medium is appropriate to the situation.

V. Participants must know how to make their utterances appropriate to the subject

matter as a determinant in the selection of one dialect or language rather than

another.

VI. Finally, the participants must know how to make their utterances appropriate

to the ‘province’ or ‘domain’ to which the situation belongs.

From the foregoing, it can be said that both standard and nonstandard varieties of

English have their time and place depending on the social context. On the contrary

however, the use of nonstandard or informal English in formal contexts that call for

Standard British English is becoming prevalent among some students of institutions

of higher learning. It is not uncommon to hear words associated with nonstandard

varieties of English and in some cases, those of Nigeria’s indigenous languages such

as “yaro boy”, “okada”, “ko” “oga” “shit”, “fuck up”, “sha”, “u” “aiyaa” ‘guy’, ‘malo

5
guy’ ‘damn,’ ‘yeah’, ‘guys’ among others while interacting with students at a very

formal level. This is not limited to the spoken communication alone but also prevalent

in written communication where nonstandard English words like the shorthand

associated with the Global System Mobile Communication’s Short Message Service

(GSM/SMS), the English slang, English Pidgin and non English words from some of

Nigeria’s indigenous languages as well as other forms of colloquial lexical items

feature prominently. Consequent upon these, the study seeks to establish why there is

such a prevalence of the use of nonstandard English in formal contexts among

students of higher learning.

1.4 STATEMENT OF THE RESEARCH PROBLEM

One’s mastery of a language and particularly the English language is measured in part

by how one selects language suited to a given context. Most linguists are unanimous

about the central role context plays in determining the choice and use of a variety of

language. In the words of Alo (2004:77), “nonstandard English is appropriate for

communication among people who are intimate such as friends, husbands and wife.”

Corder and Ruszkiewicz (1979:548) believe that one’s vocabulary should be suited to

the audience one is addressing. It therefore follows that the choice of Standard

English (formal) or nonstandard (informal) should be determined by the context to

ensure that the variety chosen is appropriate for that context. Contrary to this assertion

however, the use of nonstandard English words among students of institutions of

higher learning in formal contexts that call for Standard British English is now

prevalent. For example, the researcher once asked one of her students who had just

finished writing a test about how the test was and his response was ‘Ma, I really

fucked up.” The researcher asked him a second time thinking his initial response was

a mistake but surprisingly, he still responded:”Ma, I fucked up big time”. At another

6
instance, the researcher was at the supervisor’s office when a postgraduate student of

the English and Literary Studies Department came to see him to find out if he had

effected corrections on her thesis. He told her that he had not and immediately she

said “shit”. Out of shock and disappointment particularly because that was coming

from an MA English language student, he quickly cautioned her against the use of

such an expression especially in that given context which was very formal. During

one of the students’ orientation programmes, a student while asking a question

directed at the vice chancellor referred to the Vice Chancellor and other distinguished

guests as ‘guys’. The prevalence of nonstandard English words usage in formal

contexts among students of institutions of higher learning cuts across both the spoken

and written communication. The curiosity to find out why there is such prevalence

birthed the topic for this research.

1.5 RESEARCH QUESTIONS

While seeking to find out the patterns of occurrence of these nonstandard English

words and the factors responsible for their usage in formal contexts, this research shall

provide answers to the following research questions:

1. What are the patterns of occurrence of the nonstandard English forms used by

the students of the selected institutions?

2. What are the motivations for the use of these nonstandard English items in

formal contexts among the target population?

3. Are there differences or similarities in the identified nonstandard English

items used by students from the two universities and two polytechnics

selected?

4. What role do staff members play students’ choices and uses of nonstandard

English words in formal contexts by students?

7
1.6 AIM AND OBJECTIVES

The main aim of this research is to examine the patterns of nonstandard English words

usage in formal contexts as well as establish the sociolinguistic factors responsible for

such usages among students of the Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria, Nuhu Bamali

Polytechnic, Zaria, Kaduna State University, Kaduna and Kaduna Polytechnic,

Kaduna.

The specific objectives of this research are:

1. To examine the patterns of occurrence of nonstandard English words used in

formal contexts by the target population

2. To establish the factors responsible for the use of identified nonstandard words

usage in formal contexts among the target group.

3. To find out if there are similarities or differences in the identified nonstandard

English items used by university students and those from polytechnics that

form the case study of this research.

4. To ascertain the role of staff members in students’ use of nonstandard English

in formal contexts.

1.7 JUSTIFICATION FOR THE STUDY

The significance of this study is in its attempt to identify the nonstandard English

lexical items used in formal contexts, examine their patterns of occurrence and

advance reasons for their usages. The knowledge of these nonstandard items, their

patterns and factors motivating their usage in formal context, which is against the

norm, will be of great importance to the students, teachers and other stakeholders

hence deliberate steps will be taken to curtail this practice.

8
Moreover, this study is a departure from previous works on language variety such as

those of Adekunle (1978), Madaki (1981a), Joshua (1983), Olaoye (1990), Kassim

(1994) Shenge (2008) among others. These works focused more on language choice

in multilingual communities and in some cases only the sociolinguistic factors

responsible for language variation and not the patterns of nonstandard lexical forms

that this particular research dwells on.

1.8 SCOPE / DELIMITATION OF THE RESEARCH

This research is limited to the sociolinguistic study of the patterns of nonstandard

English words used in formal contexts among students of universities and

polytechnics in Kaduna state comprising, Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria, Nuhu

Bamali Polytechnic, Zaria, Kaduna State University, Kaduna and Kaduna

Polytechnic, Kaduna. The study limits itself to students between their second and final

year because, it is assumed that those in their first year may not be familiar with the

language of a formal school environment. In addition, this study is limited to the

nonstandard English lexical items used in formal context because of the enormity of

attempting to examine other levels of variations such as phonological, syntactic,

connected speech processes, social indicators, social markers and stereotypes.

9
 CHAPTER TWO

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

2.0 INTRODUCTION

The review of literature in this chapter focuses on the key concepts in the title of this

study such as the field of sociolinguistics,the Study of language variation, the

standard and nonstandard English involving : Standard English(process of

standardization) and definition, Standard British English, Standard Engigerian

English, slang, pidgin, written language of Global System for Mobile

Communication’s Short Message Service (GSM/SMS), code-mixing, context and the

theoretical models adopted for the study.

2.1 THE FIELD OF SOCIOLINGUISTICS

According to Malmkjaek (2010:494-496), an attempt to offer a definitive delimitation

of the scope of sociolinguistics as a discipline may prove inadequate as the array of

topics sitting comfortably underneath this umbrella term is as wide ranging as it is

disparate. For some variationists, sociophonetics (associated principally with the

works of William Labov 1966, 1970, 1972, 1981, 1990 and 2006) lies at the heart of

sociolinguistics as a discipline and the statistical correlation of structured variation in

production patterns with global social variables such as socio-economic class and

gender are considered the core areas of research in the field. Others take a broader

view and in addition to interactional sociolinguistics (associated principally with the

work of John Gumperz 1971, 1972) which examines meaning-making processes in

contextualized language use and ways in which speakers signal and interpret meaning

in social interaction, fields such as sociology of language, discourse analysis,

ethnography of communication, pragmatics and linguistic anthropology, amongst

others, are also placed centrally within sociolinguistics.

10
Whether narrowly or broadly viewed, Malmkjeak maintains that the field borrows

from and in turn offers insights for sociology, social theory, anthropology, education,

social psychology and more. What unites practitioners of the various topics in

sociolinguistics is an interest in what speakers actually do. Variation in language use,

which is inherent and ubiquitous, is centrally important in sociolinguistics and is not

dismissed as free, unconstrained and of little consequence to theory. Analysis of this

variation, and of the linguistic and social constraints on it, allow us to understand

better how language changes. Consideration of why, as well as how speakers vary in

their language use also allows a better comprehension of the nature and functions of

language which lie beyond the need to impart knowledge and information. The ways

in which the individual speaker varies is also of central importance to sociolinguistics

While expressing similar views as those expressed by Malmkjeak, Trudgill (1974)

observes that Sociolinguistics is problematic in terms of its definition because it

means different things to different people. He notes that while everybody would agree

that ‘sociolinguistics has something to do with language and society, it is clearly not

concerned with everything that could be considered language and society.’ The

problem lies in drawing the line between language and society. Nevertheless, most

sociolinguists maintain that as far as sociolinguistics is concerned, there is definitely

interrelatedness between language and society with the society influencing the choices

that speakers make when they use language. In this school of thought are Atkinson,

Britain, Clahsen, Radford and Spencer (2007:14) who define sociolinguistics as,

the study of the relationship between language use and the

structure of society. It takes into account such factors as the
social backgrounds of both the speaker and the addressee (i.e.
their age, sex, social class, ethnic background, degree of
integration into their neighbourhood, etc.), the relationship
11
 between speaker and addressee (good friends, employer–
employee, teacher–pupil, grandmother–grandchild, etc.) and
the context and manner of the interaction (in bed, in the
supermarket, in a TV studio, in church, loudly, whispering,
over the phone, by fax, etc.), maintaining that they are crucial
to an understanding of both the structure and function of the
language used in a situation.

In the same vein, Yule (2010: 254) opines that “the term sociolinguistics is used

generally for the study of the relationship between language and society.”

Corroborating this further, Crystal (2008: 466) equally maintains that sociolinguistics

is,

a branch of linguistics which studies all aspects of the

relationship between language and society. Sociolinguists
study such matters as the linguistic identity of social
groups, social attitudes to language, standard and non-
standard forms of language, the patterns and needs of
national language use, social varieties and levels of
language, the social basis of multilingualism and so on.

Stockwell (2007:265) like Atkinson, Britain, Clahsen, Radford, Spencer, Yule and

Crystal re-echoes that sociolinguistics is “the branch of linguistics which studies the

relation between language and society.” He goes further to state that, sociolinguistics

may be usefully defined as “the study of variation in language, or more precisely of

variation within speech communities.” Ndukwe (1997) cited in Agbedo (2000:169)

while expressing similar views as those of Yule, Stockwell and Crystal states that

sociolinguistics is the “branch of linguistics that endeavours to study the significant

aspects of the relationship between language and society.”

One fact that runs through all the definitions examined above is that, there exists a

relationship between language and society whereby the use of language is conditioned

by certain social factors that influence the choices that speakers make.

12
According to Kerstin and Trauth (2006: 1089) who also share the same views with

those highlighted above although expressed slightly differently sociolinguistics is,

“the scientific discipline developed from the cooperation of linguistics and sociology

that investigates the social meaning of the language system and of language use, and

the common set of conditions of linguistic and social structure.” Likewise, Trudgil

(1974:32) also posits that sociolinguistics is “that part of linguistics which is

concerned with language as a social and cultural phenomenon.” According to him,

“language is not only determined by social factors but also by certain customs and

beliefs or attitude of speakers.” Some of these cultural phenomena even determine

what type of language variety is acceptable for instance when speaking with an older

person or someone of a particular gender thus the Yorubas for instance would insert

the “e” prefix when addressing an older person while the Hausas for instance use ”ki”

and “ka” when addressing a female and male respectively. In like manner, Gumperz

(1971:223) observes that “sociolinguistics is an attempt to find correlations between

social and linguistic structures and to observe the changes that occur”, a view also

held by Hudson (1980:1) who views sociolinguistics as “the study of language in

relation to society.” Wardhaugh (1986:12) like Gumperz and Hudson believes that

sociolinguistics is, “concerned with investigating the relationship between language

and society with the goal of a better understanding of the structure of language and of

how language functions in communication.”

For Akindele and Adegbite (1999:475) sociolinguistics can be

defined as:

the relationship which exists between a language or

languages and the culture or tradition as well as the politics
of a particular community. It is a discipline which assigns
functions to various languages which exist in a
community…it examines the interaction between the use
13
 of language and the social organization behaviour…..
Sociolinguistics provides answers to such questions as who
speaks what language to whom and when and to what
end….It also seeks to provide an answer to the question of
what accounts for the differential changes in the social
organization of language use and behaviour towards
language.

The different submissions by various sociolinguists on the definition of

sociolinguistics examined above point out that the society has an influence over the

choices that users make of language hence understanding the interrelatedness of

language and society is very central to understanding how language functions and

what informs the choices that speakers make of language which sociolinguistics

believe are usually determined by certain social variables such as one’s regional

background, social status or ethnic origin, gender, age, educational attainment among

others. Sociolinguistic methods as employed in this study seek to determine the

variants of English language used in formal contexts, their patterns of occurrence and

the social factors responsible for the choices that speakers of the selected speech

communities make with regards to formal contexts.

2.2 THE STUDY OF LANGUAGE VARIATION

One major pre-occupation of sociolinguistics, which is of relevance to this research, is

the study of language variation and change. This particular area is associated

principally with the pioneering work of William Labov in 1966 and subsequently,

1970, 1972, 1981, 1990 and 2006. Labov was able to prove through these studies that

language is inherently variable and that a great amount of variability dismissed before

by theoretical linguists like Chomsky (1957) as “free variation” adheres to definite

patterns determined by the linguistic environment (linguistic variable) on one hand

and the social environment (social variable) on the other. In other words, language is

not antiseptic and homogeneous rather it is susceptible to all sorts of social viruses

14
and therefore, inherently variable (Agbedo 2000:174). The linguistic variable

according to Wardhaugh 1986:137 is

an item in the structure of a language, an item that has

alternate realizations, as one speaker realizes it one way and
another different way or the same speaker realizes it
differently on different occasions.

The seven main types of linguistic variables so identified include, phonological,

syntactic, lexical, connected speech processes, social indicators, social markers and

stereotypes. The social variable on the other hand refers to behavioural factors that

may be isolated to correlate with linguistic variation. These factors include region,

sex, age, social class, ethnicity among others and are seen as accounting for language

variation in individuals or speech communities. We shall discuss how some of these

social variables are they relate to this research influence language variation and

change.

2.2.0 SOCIAL VARIABLES AND LANGUAGE VARIATION

2.2.1 Age and language variation

One of the social variables that has influenced variation in language use is age.

Language use varies greatly among the children, youths, middle aged and the old in

any given speech community. According to Cheshire and Milroy (1993, 20-21),

the frequency of nonstandard forms is highest among adolescents

and old people because, for adolescents, there is the influence of
peer group pressure and the desire to distinguish a generational
identity while the old are out of workplace, exhibit a more relaxed
attitude and thus greater linguistic creativity.

They go further to submit that, age exclusive features such as in-group slang words

characterized by coining may be dropped or abandoned as people grew older.

According to Helfrich (1979:85), some age exclusive language features may be due to

maturational factors reflecting in other words, biological age such as the one-word

15
utterance typical of children aged about one year or the “trembling voice” associated

with the elderly speakers.

This difference in language use does not affect only adolescents and the elderly but

also the middle aged. According to Eckert (1997:157) , “only the middle-aged are

seen as engaging in mature use as “doing” language than learning it or losing it.” The

research of Giles, Howard, Noels, Kim, Ota, Hiroshi et al (2000:319-20) in eleven

countries can be seen as confirming the vitality of middle age. In a series of

experiments carried out by Giles et al, they found middle aged people to have greater

ethno linguistic vitality than younger or older people (the mean age seen as the onset

of middle age was around thirty one, with fifty-two the mean for the onset of old age).

Vitality was measured by a version of the subjective ethno linguistic vitality

questionnaire which included items assessing judges’ perceptions of young middle-

aged and older adults in terms of their strength areas such as government, education,

business institutions and their social prestige and influence. The high profile of a

middle-aged probably explains why researchers have implicitly seen their language as

a standard against which the language of both older and younger speakers can be

measured. Thus, children’s language has been conceptualized in development terms

with adult language seen as the target. Conversely, the language of the elderly has

been analyzed as a degeneration and decline from the middle-aged adult norm.

Chambers and Trudgill (1998:79) and Downes (1998:225) advancing reasons for this

development state that “for older, retired people, the pressure to conform to societal

norms may weaken unlike the middle-aged whose lives tend to become more public

and they have to adapt to the norm and values of the mainstream society.” These may

be experienced because of pressures of work, personal independence or geographical

and/or social mobility, all of which lead to greater variability and social relationships.

16
2.2.2 Social class and language variation

Until the 1960’s, most studies of variability were concerned primarily with regional

variation or dialectology. Only during the latter half of the twentieth century would

the concern for status-based difference in language become a primary rather than

secondary focus when sociolinguists turned their attention to the language of the cities

where an increasing proportion of the world’s population lives in modern times. The

rise in urbanization is connected with an increase in social stratification reflected in

linguistic variation. (Romaine 2001)

Labov(1966) was the first to introduce systematic methodology for investigating

social dialects and the first large-scale sociolinguistic survey of an urban community.

Unlike previous dialectological studies which generally chose one person as

representative of a particular area, this survey was based on tape recorded interviews

with one hundred and three people who had been chosen by random sample as being

representative of the various social classes, age, ethnic group and so on to be found in

New York City.

Previous investigations had concluded that the speech of New Yorkers appeared to

vary in a random and unpredictable manner like in the case of pronouncing the post-

vocalic /r/ following a vowel such as “car” while others did not. This fluctuation was

termed “free variation” because there seemed not to be any explanation for it. Labov’s

study and subsequent ones modeled after it however showed that, when such free

variation in the speech of and between individuals was viewed against the background

of the community as a whole, it was not free but rather conditioned by social factors.

Thus, while idiolects considered in isolation may seem random, the speech

community as a whole behaved regularly. In his investigation, Labov (1966:58)

17
discovered that, the lower one’s social status as measured in terms of factors such as

occupation, education and income, the more of the post vocalic /r/’s one uses.

Trudgill (1974) also carried out a similar investigation in Norwich study of

nonstandard forms used by different class groups. The variable “-ing” referring to the

alternation between the alveolar /n/ and a velar nasal /ŋ/with –ing endings such as in

“reading” and “singing”. The results of the investigation showed that the lower a

person’s social status, the more likely he/she is to use a higher percentage of alveolar

rather than velar nasal endings. These findings are a confirmation that one’s social

status can affect one’s use of language and by extension bring about variation.

2.2.3 Gender and language variation

Another social variable that has influenced language variation among users is gender.

Eckert and Mc Connet-Ginet (1997) quoted in Wodak and Benke (1997:127) while

summing up the varied positions with regards to the role of gender in language

variation posit that,

women’s language reflects their conservativism, prestige

consciousness, upward mobility, insecurity, deference,
nurture, emotional expressivity, connectedness, sensitivity to
others, solidarity while men’s language evinces their
toughness, lack of affection, competitiveness, independence,
competence, hierarchy, control etc.

Sociolinguistic studies have long observed that women use more forms of standard

language than men do. To support this assertion, Wodak and Benke (1997:133) state

that in many speech communities, female speakers will use a higher proportion of

prestige forms than male speakers will. Women tend to use fewer stigmatized forms

than men do and in formal speech, they are more sensitive to prestige language than

men are.
18
Labov (1990:213-15)’s theory of the “gender paradox” states that,

while women adopt prestige forms of language proceeding

from upper level of public consciousness at a higher rate
than men, they also use higher frequency of innovative
vernacular form occurring below the level of public
awareness than men do.

He goes further to formulate two basic principles to capture the gender paradox theory

thus:

i. In linguistic change from above, women adopt prestige forms at a higher

rate than men do.

ii. In linguistic change from below, women use higher frequencies of

innovative forms than men do.

These two principles show contrasting tendencies in the way men and women

advance linguistic change. This view is re-echoed by Trudgill(1974a) who , in his

work on his native city, Norwich showed that, whatever their social class, men in

Norwich tended to choose pronunciations which were closer to the local vernacular

and less close to Standard English. This he attributed to the fact that men tended to be

breadwinners of their families and were more likely to go to work and get more

involved with the rest of the society where they pick up more vernacular forms than

women who tended to stay more in the confinement of their homes and did not mix

much as a result, used more standard forms of language. Whatever the reasons for the

difference between the language of men and women, it is an indication that gender is

linked with language variation.

Apart from the investigations above, in a smaller-scale study, Jenny Cheshire (1982)

observed the linguistic behaviour of three groups of teenagers in adventure

playgrounds in Reading, spending considerable time with them so that they came to

take her for granted. Her data revealed that adolescent males were more likely to use

nonstandard grammatical forms than adolescent females.

19
2.2.4 Educational status and language variation

One’s level of educational attainment has a lot of influence on how such a person

would use language. Investigations into this particular area viewed under social status

were pioneered by Labov’s study of the New York City speech community (Labov,

1966 and 2006:420 in The Stratification of New York first and second Edition,).

Several sociolinguists have seen educational status as influencing language variation

among speakers of the same language with their speech varying in terms of its

closeness to the standard form or its distance from the standard form for the educated

speakers and uneducated or fairly speakers respectively. The level of one’s education

plays a major role in shaping one’s language use. Indeed, people speak according to

their level of education such that according to Heidi, Richards and John (1985:271),

“the speech and writing of educated users of a language would reflect the standard

variety.” This view is also shared by Alo (2004:77) who maintains that educated

speakers are often associated with standard varieties especially in speech situations

that call for its use. Saeedi, Rasekh and Pavaresh (2009: 78) while giving reasons for

this practice state that, “those who are educated are exposed to the standard dialect

through mass media, colleagues, friends or institutions where standard, prestigious

dialect is mostly used”

2.2.5 Culture and language variation

How we view the world is shaped by the beliefs, values and experiences of prior

generations of our respective families. Each generation has refined its sense of what is

most important for children to know, believe, value, and do to ensure survival of the

cultural and social community. This unique family culture is passed unto the new

through the stories that are told to children and through the family and community’s

child rearing practices (Parlakian Rebecca and Sylvia Sanchez 2001:127). According
20
to Trudgil (1974:32) “language is not only determined by social factors but also by

certain customs and beliefs or attitude of speakers.” In the Nigerian context for

instance, English language variation is characterized by what Sridhar (1982: 297, 299)

refers to as “culture bound speech patterns” whereby the vocabulary of sentences is

English but the syntax is from the some indigenous languages. This is noticeable in

the area of transfer of proverbs and also certain variations that connote respect for

biological age such as the semantic extension of words like “daddy”, “mummy”,

“uncle” and “aunt” as mark of respect to refer to older interlocutors who may not be

members of one’s immediate or extended family. In some cultures, certain words are

considered taboo words and speakers are restrained in their choice of language by

such cultural practices. It is an aberration to say exactly how many children one has in

some cultures and this reflects in answers to questions about one’s number of

children. The usual response is always that one has many children.

2.2.6 Ethnicity and language variation

Ethnicity as a social variable has played a serious role in how people view and use

language. The term ethnicity has been different in so many ways depending on the

perspective one is viewing it from. Giles (1979:253) defines an ethnic group to mean

‘those who perceive themselves to belong to the same ethnic category’. The term

ethnicity is also defined by social practice rather than personal attributes. As Fought

(2002: 445) puts it, ethnicity is ‘not about what one is but about what one does and

that is the primary basis for establishing ethnicity.”

According to Wolfram (2007:78-83), there are several different kinds of formative

bases for the relationship between ethnicity and language variation. For ethnic groups

associated with a different heritage language historically, there is the potential of

21
language transfer from ethnic varieties. By transfer, we mean the incorporation of

language features into a non-native language based on the occurrence of similar

features in the native language. Loan translations of words from a heritage language

are also a common way in which the effects of an ancestral language can persist in an

ethnic variety.

He goes further to state that, ethno linguistic distinctiveness may extend from

significant typological language differences to minute details of prosody or restricted

lexical differences. In the case of different languages, speakers may make symbolic

choices in their language use or manage code switching to signal ethnic identity

while in the case of intra-language variation the manipulation of particular

phonological morphosyntactic, or discourse variables may be used to signal ethnic

affiliation. For instance, one of the reasons that African American English is so

strongly defined along ethnic lines throughout the United States is no doubt the bi-

racial ideology that has defined American society.

Independent language innovation may also contribute to the configuration

of ethnic varieties. Lexical items are the most obvious examples, including terms

for social categories and relationships endemic to the subculture, such as terms for

insiders versus outsiders and different social divisions within the ethnic community,

but grammaticalization, the encoding of a unique meaning onto a form, also

can occur.

According to Wolfram and Schilling-Estes(2000), ethnic varieties are no different

from other varieties of a language, whether they are defined primarily on the basis of

a regional or a social affiliation. Although, Lippi-Green (1997) says, an ethnic variety

22
may be subjected to the application of the principle of linguistic subordination in

which the speech associated with a socially subordinate ethnic group is interpreted

as a linguistically inferior version of the variety spoken by the socially dominant

group. Particular structures may be branded as “ungrammatical” or “bad grammar”,

and the variety as a whole may be described as ‘corrupt’ or ‘broken’. This is because,

ethnic varieties are rarely if ever associated with the standard variety or with

prescriptive language norms, since they are invariably associated with a marked, non-

mainstream social group. Accordingly, the varieties associated with these groups are

considered non-standard or non-normative.

Though a vernacular variety may be viewed as linguistically inferior, it may still serve

positively to mark ethnic identity and group solidarity, showing how evaluative

attributes related to social dominance differ from those related to social cohesion. As

one Lumbee Native American Indian in the American south put it, ‘We took English

and corrupted it to make it our own [. . .] That’s how we recognize

who we are, not only by looking at someone. We know just who we are by our

language’ (Hutcheson 2000). Language may function as one of the most robust

indicators of ethnic status, notwithstanding the application of the principle of

linguistic subordination. (Trudgill 1972).

2.2.7 Religion and language variation

Another social variable that brings about language variation is religion. Although very

little research has been carried out by renowned sociolinguists in this area, it is an area

that has injected a lot of religion specific lexical items particularly in the speech of

Nigerians. Ajani (2005:19) lists some of these religion induced items drawn from

Wole Soyinka’s collected plays such as “ogun”, the god of iron and of war in Yoruba
23
traditional religion. Other examples of these include “sango” the god of thunder. The

word prophet which has a broader semantic scope than the usual meaning in British or

American meaning is also religiously used among the Yoruba “Aladura” religious

group to refer to a child born with long and thick hair believed to be divinely

consecrated to be a prophet. (Ajani 2005)

Expressions like “bless you”, “it is well”, “I am strong” to mean I am sick,

brother/sister to refer to members of the same church are a common place among

Pentecostal Christians in the Nigeria. Among Muslim speakers of English language in

Nigeria, there are variations in the use of English which is manifest in their code

mixing of Arabic words that have to do with God and Islam with Standard English

expressions. Words like “Alhamdulillah, assalamu alaikum, insha Allah whose

English meanings are “praise be to God”, “peace be upon you”, “by the grace of God”

respectively are often used along with standard English expressions in formal

contexts.

2.3. VARIETIES OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE IN NIGERIA

A variety of a language according to Hudson (1980:22) ‘is a set of linguistic items

with similar social distribution.” The term according to him can be used to refer to

different manifestations of the language. From the above, it can be deduced that

varieties come about when speakers begin to use the same language in different ways

as a result of certain factors which may condition such different choices.

Corroborating this viewpoint, Jowitt (1991:37) also states that a variety of a language

is, “one of many general and complete language systems each used by a substantial

number of people and each possessing characteristics that distinguish it from other

systems without requiring it to be classified as a different language.”

24
This implies that varieties of the same language have to be similar in nature hence

mutually intelligible among the users if not, such varieties may be considered distinct

languages and not varieties of the same languages. In most cases, the vocabulary

items are shared but the usage and in some cases the meaning may differ as can be

seen in the case of English slang- a variety of the English language. In addition to the

above assertion, such varieties have to be used by a reasonable number of speakers if

not they may just be seen as idiolects. Ferguson (1971:30) further states that a variety

of a language is:

any body of human speech pattern which is sufficiently

homogeneous to be analyzed by available techniques of
synchronic description and which has a sufficiently large
repertory of elements and their arrangement or processes
with broad enough semantic scope to function in all normal
contexts of communication.

Based on the discussion above, we can say that there are broadly two main varieties of

the English language with each of them having other sub varieties. These two broad

varieties are the Standard English and the nonstandard English.

2.3.0 STANDARD ENGLISH (PROCESS OF STANDARDIZATION)

For any language to be considered standard, it must have gone through the process of

standardization. The standardization process results in a situation where in most cases,

a feature is either made standard or remains nonstandard. Trudgill (1992:71) defines

standardization as ‘consisting of the process of language determination, codification

and stabilization.’ Language determination according to him refers to decisions which

have to be taken concerning the selection of a particular variety for the purposes in

the society or nation in question. Codification on the other hand as Trudgil submits, is

‘the process whereby a language variety acquires a publicly recognized and fixed
25
form.’ The results of codification are usually enshrined in dictionaries and grammar

books. In the same vein, Hudson (1980:22) opines that for a language to be

considered standard, it must have passed through the following processes:

i. Selection

This is the first step in the process of standardizing a language. Many communities

have more than one language or variety in use. Before a language or variety is

standardized, such a language or variety has to be selected from the other existing

ones. The choice of such a language or variety must be generally endorsed by

members of that speech community as the language or variety to be to be developed.

ii. Codification

According to Crystal (2008:109), codification is term used in language planning

(corpus planning) referring to,

the compilation of a systematic statement of the rules and

conventions governing the use of a language variety,
typically the standard language of a community. When a
language has been codified, its products include spelling
and pronunciation guides, grammars, dictionaries, style
manuals, and guides to correct usage.

These views are also expressed by Holmes (2001) who equally posits that codification

means “to develop a writing system, set of official rules for grammar, orthography,

pronunciation, syntax and vocabulary as well as publishing grammar books,

dictionaries and similar guidelines.” Whether codification is successful depends

largely on its acceptance by the population as well as its form of implementation by

government such as promoting its prestige, spread, teaching the norm in schools,

language courses and so on.

26
iii. Elaboration of Function

This stage involves assigning more functions to a selected variety to enable it meet the

communicative needs of such a country or speech community both within and in its

interactions with other countries. It must be possible to use the selected variety in all

the functions associated with central government and with writing: for example, in

parliament and law courts, in bureaucratic, educational and scientific documents of all

kinds and of course, in various forms of literature (Hudson 1980:22).

iv. Acceptance

The target variety having undergone the processes highlighted above has to be

accepted by the relevant population as the variety of the community - usually in fact

as the national language. Once this happens and in most cases, the standard language

serves as a strong unifying force for the state says Hudson (p23).

It is in light of the above that the standard (British) English which has met the above

criteria is discussed below as the standard variety of the English language.

2.3.1 STANDARD/FORMAL ENGLISH AS A VARIETY OF THE ENGLISH

LANGUAGE

The notion Standard English in sociolinguistics as Crystal (2008:476) puts it, is a

much debated term for the variety of English used as a communicative norm

throughout the English-speaking world. The notion has become increasingly difficult

to handle because of the emergence of differing national standards of usage (in

vocabulary, grammar, pronunciation and spelling) in areas where large numbers of

people speak English as a first or second language. Crystal had expressed similar

views in 1994 when he said that the notion Standard English is a widely used term
27
that has resisted definition but is used as if most educated people nonetheless know

precisely what it refers to. According to him, the cautious opening of the entry on

Standard English (SE) in the Oxford Companion to the English Language edited by

Tom McAthur, suggests one may be entering a minefield (Crystal 1994:110).

Equally, Atkinson, Britain, Clahsen, Radford and Spencer (2009:15) maintain that the

views of lay people about language are often quite simplistic. One illustration of this

concerns the relationship between the so-called standard languages and the non-

standard dialects associated with those languages. Standard French and Standard

English, for example, are varieties of French and English respectively that have

written grammar books, pronunciation and spelling conventions, are promoted by the

media and other public institutions such as the education system and are considered

by a majority of people to be the ‘correct’ way to speak these two languages.

As problematic as the definition of Standard English might be, many linguists have

put forward various definitions of it which are assessed below. Adegbite and Akindele

(1999:155) who are of the view that the correct term for Standard English should be

world English or international English define Standard English as, “abstraction not

referring to any particular national standard of English like British English, American

English… but instead referring to a variety of English acceptable to the English

audience worldwide.”

This assertion portrays the fact that despite the various regional standard varieties of

the English language which are being widely used in such communities like the case

of the Standard Nigerian English, cannot be considered as Standard English because

they are not acceptable or mutually intelligible outside Nigeria. For instance, a

28
question like ‘How is your body?’ may be understood in the Nigerian context but may

appear ambiguous to a non Nigerian like an American or Briton.

The Standard English is also seen as a yardstick for measuring the correctness and

appropriateness or otherwise of other varieties of the English language. Jowitt

(2007:3) puts this more succinctly in his summary of dictionary meaning of Standard

English that Standard English is, “a variety in which other varieties are evaluated;

there is an expectation that other varieties will enter into conformity with this variety

and that the lack of uniformity displayed among the varieties will be removed.”

The views of Jowitt are also expressed by Schneider (2011:15) who posits that: we are

taught that there is a “proper English” or “Standard English” which is correct, “good,”

and more or less fixed, somewhat like mathematics. A grammar book informs us on

how to build its sentences, and we look up the words of the language in a dictionary.

These books, and our teachers, tell us what is “right” in language matters, and what

we should strive for, and everything else, including, we suspect, some of our own

performance, is somehow “wrong,” deviant.

The Standard English is equally viewed as a variety being taught in schools and that

which forms the basis of printed English. This is captured in the words of Yule

(1985:180) who defines Standard English as, “the variety which forms the basis for

printed English in newspapers and books, the variety normally taught to those who

want to learn English as a second language.” This assertion is in line with what Banjo

(p37) rightly observes that ‘no African country is better served with English

newspapers than Nigeria.’ In addition, most of the recommended books for Nigerian

schools are printed in the Standard British English. It is also a variety commonly used
29
in the mass media in Nigeria and generally taught in our schools as a subject in

addition to it being a medium of instruction.

Alo (2004:77) on the other hand believes that Standard English is “associated with

educated speakers” and that through education; it is possible for all members of a

speech community to speak the Standard English regardless of their social standing.

He stresses that, Standard English is “appropriate for formal contexts such as lectures,

public address, business reports, formal discourse or when we meet people for the

first time and are uncertain as to how to respond to them.” The views expressed by

Alo are shared by Mayerhoff (2006:293) who sees Standard English as:

a set of norms that are shared across many localities and which have
acquired their own special meaning. In general, they are the norms
that are associated with education, and they may function as gate
keeping norms establishing who will and who will not be able to
exercise authority of power….

Some definitions of the Standard English portray it as having the greatest prestige

when compared with other varieties even though the Standard English is only

prestigious by a twist of historical fate largely. This is so because, it was the variety

associated with the social group with the highest degree of power, wealth and prestige

if not the Standard British English has no innate superiority in linguistic terms. Those

who believe in the prestigious status of the Standard English are Heidi, Richards and

John (1985:271) who maintain that for a language to be considered a standard variety,

it must be ‘one which has the highest status in a community or nation and which is

usually based on the speech and writing of educated natives of the language’. The

Standard English in the Nigerian context suits this assertion held by Heidi et al as it is

viewed with high prestige and is also the variety commonly used by those who are

educated. This is not to say that all educated Nigerians for instance use the Standard

30
English as they should even in formal contexts especially now that the use of Standard

English in formal contexts seems to on the decline. The fact remains however that,

many educated Nigerians use the Standard English in contexts that call for its usage.

The Standard English is also seen as being devoid of grammatical errors and can be

widely understood by many hence it is preferred in formal contexts. However, it is

worth mentioning here that, it has no fixed accent thus, it can be spoken in a wide

range of accents. Although the Received Pronunciation is preferred, it is actually

spoken by just a few.

Crystal (1994:110, 459) defines the Standard English of an English speaking country

as,

a minority variety (identified chiefly by its

vocabulary, grammar and orthography) which
carries most prestige and is most widely
understood…. A prestige variety used as an
institutionalized norm in a community; forms not
conforming to this norm are said to be non standard
or pejoratively substandard.

Crystal goes further to postulate the following five essential characteristics of

Standard English based on extracts from definitions available in literatures on

English:

i. Standard English is a variety of English – a distinctive combination of

linguistic features with a particular role to play. Some people call it a

‘dialect’ of English and so it is, but of a rather special kind, for it has

no local base. There is nothing in the grammar and vocabulary of a

piece of Standard English to tell us which part of a country it comes

from.

31
ii. The linguistic features of Standard English are chiefly matters of

grammar, vocabulary, and orthography (spelling and punctuation). It is

important to note that Standard English is not a matter of

pronunciation: Standard English is spoken in a wide variety of accents

(including, of course, any prestige accent a country may have, such as

the British RP.)

iii. Standard English is the variety which carries most prestige within a

country. Prestige here is a social concept, whereby some people have

high standing in the eyes of others, whether this derives from social

class, material success, political strength, popular acclaim, or

educational background, the English these people choose to use will by

this very fact, become the standard within their community. Crystal

also quotes the US linguist- James Sledge as saying that the Standard

English is “the English used by the powerful.”

iv. The prestige attached to Standard English is recognized by adult

members of the community and this motivates them to recommend

Standard English as a desirable educational target. It is the variety

which is used as the norm of community by the community’s leading

institutions such as its government, law courts, and media. It is

therefore the variety which is likely to be the most widely disseminated

among the public. It will accordingly be widely understood, though not

to the same extent by everyone, and with a varying comprehension of

some of its features. It may or may not be the most liked.

v. Although Standard English is widely understood, it is not widely

produced. Only a minority of people within a country actually use it

when they talk. Most people speak a variety of regional English, or an

32
 admixture of standard and regional Englishes. Similarly, when they

write, which is itself a minority activity- the consistent use of Standard

English is required only in certain tasks such as formal or official

letters. More than anywhere else, Standard English is to be found in

print.

In the same vein, Trudgil cited in Bex and Watts (1999:117-128) also attempts a

characterization of Standard English just as Crystal did. According to him (Trudgil),

language varieties do not readily lend themselves to definitions thus, a clearer idea of

what Standard English is can be obtained by saying what it is not as well as by saying

what it is. Thus, Trudgill goes on to state the following as being what Standard

English is not:

i. Standard English is not a Language

Standard English is often referred to as ‘the standard language’. It is clear however

that, Standard English is not a ‘language’ in any meaningful sense of this term.

Standard English whatever it is, is less than a language since it is only one variety of

English among many. Standard English may be the most important variety of English

in all sorts of ways; it is the variety of English normally used in writing especially

printing; it is the variety associated with the education system in all English speaking

countries of the world and is therefore the variety spoken by those who are often

referred to as ‘educated people’ and it is the variety taught to non native learners.

ii. Standard English is not an Accent

There is one thing about Standard English on which most linguists or at least British

linguists do appear to be agreed and that is that, Standard English has nothing to do

33
with pronunciation. From a British perspective, we have to acknowledge that there is

in Britain a high status and widely described accent known as the Received

Pronunciation which is sociolinguistically unusual when seen from a global

perspective in that, it is not associated with any geographical area, being instead a

purely social accent associated with speakers in all parts of the country or at least in

England, from upper-class and upper-middle–class backgrounds. It is widely agreed,

though that while all RP speakers also speak Standard English, the reverse is not the

case. Perhaps nine to twelve percent of the population of Britain (Trudgil and

Cheshire 1989) speaks Standard English with some form of regional accent. It is true

that in most cases, Standard English speakers do not have ‘broad’ local accents i.e.

accents with large numbers of regional features which are phonologically and

phonetically very distinct from RP, but it is very clear that in principle, we can say

that, while RP is in a sense standardized, it is a standardized accent of English and not

of Standard English itself. This point becomes very clear from an international

perspective. Standard English speakers can be found in all English speaking countries

and it goes without saying that they speak this variety with different non RP accents.

iii. Standard English is not a Style

According to Trudgill, there is however and unfortunately too, considerable confusion

in the minds of many concerning the relationship between Standard English and the

vocabulary associated with formal varieties of the English language. Styles are

characterized as varieties of language viewed from the point of view of formality

(Trudgill 1992). They are varieties of language which can be ranged on a continuum

from formal to very informal. Formal styles are employed in social situations which

are formal and informal styles are employed in social situations which are informal.

Speakers of Standard English have a full range of styles open to them just as speakers

of other varieties do and can swear and use slang just as anybody else.
34
iv. Standard English is not a Register

The term register as Trudgill sees it is used in the sense of a variety of a language

determined by topic, subject matter or activity such as the register of Mathematics,

Medicine, Law or the register of pigeon fancying among others. In his words, one can

certainly acquire and use technical register without using Standard English just as one

can employ non technical registers while speaking or writing in Standard English.

After stating what Standard English is not, Trudgil goes on to say what it is. In his

words and as agreed upon by at least most British sociolinguists, Standard English is a

dialect. It is simply one variety of the English language among many. It is a sub-

variety of English. Sub-varieties of languages are usually referred to as dialects and

languages are often described as consisting of dialects. Standard English is however

of course, an unusual dialect in a number of ways. It is for example by the most

important dialect in the English speaking world from a social, intellectual and cultural

point of view and it does not have an associated accent.

Secondly, unlike other dialects, Standard English is purely a social dialect. Because of

its unusual history and its extreme sociological importance, it is no longer a

geographical dialect even if we can tell that its origins were originally in the Southeast

England. It is true that in the English speaking world as a whole, it comes in a

different number of forms, so we can talk if we wish to for some particular purpose,

of Scottish Standard English, American Standard English or English Standard

English. The most salient sociolinguistic characteristic of Standard English is that, it

is a social dialect.

Historically, Trudgill points out that, Standard English was selected (though of course

unlike other languages, not by any overt or conscious decision) as the variety to
35
become the standard variety precisely because it was the variety associated with the

social group with the highest degree of power, wealth and prestige. Subsequent

developments have reinforced its social character.

2.3.1.1 STANDARD BRITISH ENGLISH

According to Jowitt (2007:2), the Standard British English as a variety ‘emerged in

England quite rapidly in the 14th and 15th centuries out of the cluster of English

dialects of the time.’ Fundamentally, it was the dialect of the East Midlands, an area

which included London, the seat of government and also the universities of Oxford

and Cambridge. Of crucial importance to its development was the establishment of

the printing press in England and in Westminster close to (and now part of) London

by William Claxton. He further states that, “the standardization of the dialect was

further accelerated by industrialization, urbanization and the coming of mass formal

education. However, it can be said to have reached its climax with the completion in

1928 of the publication of the Oxford English Dictionary on Historical principles, a

process that had taken more than sixty years.

The Standard British English is a widely accepted and institutionalized standard

variety of the English language. Historically, it descended from the West Saxon

dialect of old English specifically the dialect of London. This variety was selected

(though of course, unlike many other languages not by any overt or conscious

decision) as the variety to become the standard variety probably because it was

associated with the social group with the highest degree of power, wealth and prestige

(Bex and Watts 1999: 117). Schneider (2011:16) describes the Standard British

English as “certain speech form shared by certain speakers for use in certain situations

36
– probably educated ones from anywhere in the British Isles performing in formal or

public contexts.”

The most important fact about the Standard British English is the fact that it has been

employed as the dialect of education to which pupils especially in earlier stages have

had differential access depending on their social class background.

Schneider(2011:16) went on to say that the Standard English is the variety of

language considered by its speakers to be ‘the most appropriate in formal and

educational contexts.’ This variety is also used in this research as a yardstick for

drawing comparisons with identified nonstandard lexical items.

2.3.2 NONSTANDARD/ INFORMAL ENGLISH.

Atkinson, Britain, Clahsen, Radford and Spencer (2009:15) posit that nonstandard

varieties (sometimes called ‘dialects’) are often considered to be “lazy,

ungrammatical forms, which betray a lack of both educational training and discipline

in learning.” Although this view according to them is sometimes strongly opposed by

linguists who maintain that the study of language use has shown not only that

nonstandard varieties exhibit grammatical regularity and consistent pronunciation

patterns in the same way that standard varieties do, but also that a vast majority of

people will use nonstandard features at least some of the time in their speech.

According to Parker and Riley (1994), nonstandard English is “any dialect of English

other than Standard English”. They go further to state that, it is a term used

disapprovingly to describe ‘bad’ or “incorrect” English. To them, a nonstandard

dialect “does draw negative attention to itself”. That is, educated people might judge

the speaker of such a dialect as socially inferior, lacking education and so on. ‘A
37
nonstandard dialect has socially marked forms’ (one that causes the listener to form a

negative judgment of the speaker).

In the words of Corder and Ruszkiweicz (1979:10), a language can be called

nonstandard ‘if its spelling is inconsistent, its punctuation idiosyncratic and its usage

not widely accepted.’ Nonstandard English according to them is,

most often defined by its vocabulary, its sounds or

its grammatical construction and its appropriateness
in discussions of informal or humorous situations
and activities such as sports…nonstandard English
is the same with informal English …it is marked as
colloquial in dictionaries and most of those marked
as slang

Alo (2004:16) in the same vein opines that, the nonstandard English is ‘that which

may be used by people who are intimate (e.g. friends, husband and wife) and allows

such devices as direct references, interjections, abbreviations and so on.’

From the various definitions of the nonstandard English, we see that nonstandard

English or informal English is not meant for official use in formal contexts but rather,

it is the expected choice of variety for informal discourses outside official or

academic related matters. Nonstandard English is thus that which students are

expected to use while interacting with their fellow students, friends and other

acquaintances. Consequently, nonstandard English or non-English words used in

formal contexts particularly in formal writings are therefore either circled or

underlined and marks deducted by the examiner as penalty for expression or

mechanical accuracy errors. These forms include both conventional and

unconventional shorthand such as abbreviations associated with SMS, substitution of

English words with numbers and contracted forms of English words like ‘don’t’ ‘I’d’

‘e.g.’. Other forms of nonstandard English include: English Slang, non-English words
38
especially those from Pidgin, Arabic, Hausa and in some cases Yoruba which our

subjects code mix with the Standard English language in formal contexts without

putting such words in inverted commas to show that even though their usage is not

allowed, such nonstandard words are used deliberately for certain reasons.

2.3.2.0 VARIETIES OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE COMMONLY USED BY

THE TARGET POPULATION IN FORMAL CONTEXTS ALONGSIDE THE

STANDARD BRITISH ENGLISH

2.3.2.1 Standard Nigerian English (SNE)

One among the varieties of English spoken in Nigeria today is the “Standard Nigerian

English” (Bamgbose, 1982). This variety although characterized by features that

reflect the socio ethno-cultural linguistic background of Nigerians is considered

closer to the Standard British English than other varieties like Nigerian pidgin or

broken English. It is a variety common among educated Nigerians. Adekunle (1985:

36, 38) using the theory of language change and linguistic variation, puts forth

cultural needs, geographical and linguistic factors as responsible for changes in

English language in Nigeria. According to him,

the English has as a result of many years of active use in the

Nigerian speech community….become part of Nigeria’s
contemporary environment and behaviour. It is an artifact
whose foreign derived components have in the process of its
evolution combined with native Nigerian elements to make
it local

The Standard Nigerian English is considered the variety used by university-educated

Nigerians and is the variety often used in formal contexts. In the words of Walsh,

N.G.(1967) quoted by Ogu (1992:88), “the varieties of English spoken by educated

39
Nigerians no matter what their language have enough features in common to mark off

a general type which may be called Nigerian English”

According to Bamgbose 1971, 1982, Jibril 1986, Ufomata 1996, Jowitt 2000,

Standard Nigerian English differs systematically from British English in areas of

stress and usage of sentence stress. According to them, sentence stress is not used for

emphasis or contrast and given information is not usually deaccented. In the area of

rhythm, it is been suggested that Standard Nigerian English has syllable- timed rather

than stress-timed rhythm. It also most often than not reflect the prosodic structure of

the speaker’s native language and that stressed syllables are associated with a high

tone and unstressed syllables with a low tone. (Wells 1982)

According to Ajani (2000:5), the Standard Nigerian English is sometimes

characterized by direct lexical transfers from the local languages and mostly from

areas such as indigenous food, music , clothing, traditional religious beliefs, local

institutions among others as well as different creative strategies such as the

lexification of acronyms, neologisms and semantic extension. Drawing excerpts from

free speech from Wole Soyinka’s collected plays, Ajani exemplifies these features

using the following sentences.

1. Towards the end of this speech, the sound of “gangan” drums is heard, coming

from the side opposite the hut. A boy enters carrying a drum on each shoulder

(CP2152)

2. A man in an elaborate “agbada” outfit with a long train and a cap standing right

downstage, with a sheaf of notes in his hand.(CP2:167)

3. Silva: Now, now, let’s stop all this silliness. Here, let’s have another go. It’s all a

matter of tempo chummy. Not like high life or “juju” music. Now, shall we try again?

This time, follow the score. (CP2189)

40
Bola: what do you have on the menu today?

Waiter: We have “dodo”, “akara”, “amala”, “eba” and “tuwo”.

Bola: What about “soup”, what kind of “soup” do you have today?

Waiter: We have “egusi” soup, “ewedu” and “ogbonno”. Which one do you prefer?

We also have bush meat…

From the examples above, we see instances of direct transfer from Yoruba, Hausa

and Igbo exemplified in the words “akara”, “amala”, “eba” and “tuwo, “egusi” ,

“ewedu” and “ogbonno”. The use of “soup” in the Nigeria sense has a broader

semantic range than its British usage does where it is mainly eaten as an appetizer at

the beginning of a meal, or even taken just by itself. In the Nigerian context however,

soup is generally used as a side dish to eat the main meal. It is not often eaten alone

(Ajani 2007). Other cases of semantic extension abound in SNE especially in the

domain of relationship vocabulary. Thus, the words father, mother, brother, sister,

uncle, aunt and cousin could take on additional meanings in the Nigerian contexts

where they are used as terms of respect for an older female or male person who may

have no connection at all with one’s immediate or extended family. These are used as

honorific terms in those contexts (Wigwe 1990). Another example of semantic

extension is in the use of the expression “well done” as a form of salutation to mean

good morning, afternoon or evening whereas in its British sense, it is used only as a

form of commendation especially for one who is busy doing some work.

In the area of morpho-syntax, the Standard Nigeria English is characterized by what

Sridhar (1982: 297, 299) refers to as “culture bound speech patterns” whereby the

vocabulary of sentences is English but the syntax is from the indigenous language

noticeable in the transfer of proverbs. Also, among the Yorubas especially and in

most Africa, it is not socially and culturally appropriate to confront people directly
41
and the age factor, that is respect for age also requires certain discourse strategies to

avoid face threatening acts as well as to save face. Words like bride price, senior wife

which are cultural based may account for Nigerian English.

Not everyone however, believes in the existence of a distinct variety of English

language in Nigeria called Standard Nigerian English. Vincent (1974) for instance

sees this variety simply as a “bad English” likewise Salami (1968) who contends that

what has been identified as Standard Nigerian English in reality is “errors of usage”.

These two views according to Ajani (2007) seem to air the concern of English

language teachers in Nigerian institutions of learning who find it quite derogatory and

rather insulting to refer to such a variety of language. These would rather see any

departure from the British variety (which was imported to Nigeria) as either deviant

or incorrect. On the contrary, Adekunle (1974) maintains that,

there arises from the Standard Nigerian English the normal

process of language development involving a narrowing and
extension of meaning or a creation of new idioms and not
mother tongue interference.

He buttresses this point by using the example of “travel” used in the sense “to be

away” as in “My father travelled (My father is away). It is not a transfer of a first

language expression into English but a modification of the verb to travel.

Despite the differing opinions about the existence or non existence of this variety as

discussed above, one thing that is not open to debate as observed among the target

population for this study is the fact that, some of their usages although not hundred

percent British Standard English are closer to it than they are to Nigerian pidgin,

English slang or broken English thereby suggesting existence of a variety closer to

the Standard British English, a variety associated with educated Nigerians and used in

42
formal contexts hence, the Standard Nigerian English. This variety has also been used

along with the Standard British English as a yardstick for determining the

“nonstandardness” of lexical items used by the target group of this study.

2.3.2.2 THE WRITTEN LANGUAGE OF THE GLOBAL SYSTEM FOR

MOBILE COMMUNICATION’S SHORT MESSAGE SERVICE

(GSM/SMS)

One of the features of nonstandard English words usage in formal contexts

particularly in the written communication of the target population is the shorthand

associated with the GSM/SMS. GSM was introduced in Nigeria during the Obasanjo

led administration in 2001 with the licensing of MTN and Econet (now Airtel). Other

networks like Globacom and Etisalat in addition to the two mentioned earlier are in

operation currently in Nigeria with over sixty- five million subscribers as announced

on Africa Independent Television (AIT) during one of the MTN shows in August,

2012. With the arrival of GSM, Nigerians and particularly students of higher learning

now have access to not just telephoning but also to sending of messages on the Short

Message Service (SMS) which is considered a cheaper option.

According to Mgbemena (2007:2), SMS also known as text messaging is, “a feature

available in most modern mobile digital phones that allow users to send and also

receive graphic messages from 150 to 160 characters from other mobile phones.”

Similarly, Chiluwa (2007:2) posits that “the SMS gives the subscriber the advantage

of choosing specific number of words that would communicate comprehensively but

briefly with minimum cost.” Based on the fact that most handsets allow a maximum

of 160 characters including space, symbols and punctuation marks on a page,

subscribers become constrained by space and in some cases time. In the light of this
43
problem, subscribers become compelled to create new and in fact unique linguistic

forms characterized by abbreviations, acronyms and other forms of shorthand to

enable them maximize the limited available space and say all that has to be said.

Onadeko (2000: 81-82) states that,

text messages have become a dynamic written

communication strategy occurring naturally in practical
communication contexts and as discourses are
constructed in short texts in either formal or informal
modes not always conforming to lexical or grammatical
rules, but do certainly communicate and are recognized
by their writers and receivers as coherent.

While experienced writers are still able to draw a line between when to use the SMS

shorthand and the contexts that do not call for it, many students particularly those that

form the subjects of this study who receive the most messages have not been able to

switch easily or for whatever reasons are not willing to.

2.3.2.3 ENGLISH SLANG

The use of English slang among students of higher learning across the globe has

become a common phenomenon. According to Eble (1988:1-2), “the creative use of

language by college students to grumble to each other about their lot in life and about

those in authority over them must date back in Western Europe to the earliest days of

the universities”. Public interest in college slang during the latter part of the

nineteenth century is shown by the many short and often anecdotal articles on the

topic published in newspapers and magazines. Some of these include the works by

Eble (1979), (1980), (1983), (1986), (1988), (1989), (1990), (1991), (1992), (1993),

whose works dwell on slang used by students of the University of North Carolina,

Chapel Hill.

44
The use of English slang is not restricted to the United States of America and other

parts of the developed world alone. In Nigeria also, there is hardly any institution of

higher learning where students especially at informal contexts do not use slang. This

is evident from the web site http:/www.ngex:com/entertainment/on campus/ campus

slang which is exclusively for Nigerian campus slang where students from different

Nigerian Universities send in slang vocabularies and their meanings as used on such

campuses.

Despite the prevalence of particularly English slang among students of institutions of

higher learning, most linguists are unanimous in their views about the nonstandard

and informal nature of English slang hence its appropriateness in only the informal

contexts. This is captured succinctly in the words of Grossman and Tucker (1991:1)

who believe slang is, “a nonstandard vocabulary belonging to a particular culture or

subculture and consisting of raw and unrefined expressions many of which are

considered taboo, vulgar and derogatory.”

This is corroborated by Flexner (1975: IV) who also shares the view that slang is

informal variety of the English language thus, “slang is the body of words and

expressions frequently used by or intelligible to a rather large portion of the general…

public but not accepted as good, formal usage by the majority.”

Ockerstrom (2002:5) sees slang as “unconventional, hard-hitting, metaphorical

language that is colloquial, sometimes vulgar and always innovative” while Asher and

Simpson (1994.3964) quote dictionaries as defining slang with at least two senses:

first, “slang is the special, restricted speech of sub-groups or subcultures in the

society” and second, “it is a highly informal conventional vocabulary of more general

use”.

45
According to Eble (1983:1), a survey of writings about English slang confirms not

only the marginal status accorded to it but also the opposing values associated with

this status which often ‘puts slang continually at odds with good grammar and social

respectability.’ Equally, Bolton (1982:354) posits that, “slang makes a poor choice for

the writer who wants to address an audience beyond the time and place in which he

writes.” Quirk et al (1972) put slang in a footnote where it is described as an

“attitudinal variety outside the common core of English.”

Giving that English slang is considered informal and nonstandard as shown by the

different definitions discussed above, it is therefore not supposed to be used in formal

contexts. Unfortunately however, our data proves otherwise as students of the selected

institutions engage in the use of English slang which they code mix with Standard

English expressions in their write-ups during examinations without putting such

slang words in inverted commas. The use of slang words is not restricted to the

written communication of students alone but is also used in their spoken

communication in formal contexts.

2.3.2.4 PIDGIN

From the data obtained in both the spoken and written communication of our subjects,

it was equally discovered that some of the identified lexical items considered as

nonstandard but code mixed with Standard English expressions in formal contexts

took the form of Pidgin hence the relevance of our understanding of what Pidgin is.

Here we shall be looking at general Pidgin and English or Nigerian Pidgin.

46
2.3.2.4.1 General Pidgin

Pidgins all over the world arise from contact situations where the groups in contact

have no common means of communication. Those who share this view include Jowitt

(2000:12) who opines that pidgin the world over results from, “the hybridization of

two or more distinct languages which begin as a second language that is used for

limited purposes especially for commercial transaction and communication between

two races.”

The same view is re-echoed by the Linguistic Encyclopedia (1991:81) which states

that ‘a precondition for the development of pidgin is the contact between members

from two or more cultures who do not speak the same language.’ The contact which is

often as a result of trade or colonization has to be on over a period of time. In the

same vein, Hudson (1980) also believes that, “pidgin is used by people who otherwise

would have no common language whatsoever, and learned by one person from

another within the communities concerned.”

This is not however to say that every communication system that develops among

people who do not share a common language is pidgin as can be seen in the case of

sign language used among the deaf and dumb. For such a communication system to

be seen as pidgin, the people involved must have their own distinct languages which

are not however intelligible to either party found in such a situation where there is the

need to communicate but no common language to do so.

According to Crystal (2008:336), a pidgin is,

a system of communication which has grown up among

people who do not share a common language, but who

47
 want to talk to each other, for trading or other reasons.
Pidgins have been variously called 'makeshift',
'marginal', or 'mixed' languages. They have a limited
vocabulary, a reduced grammatical structure, and a
much narrower range of functions, compared to the
languages which gave rise to them. They are the native
language of no-one, but they are nonetheless a main
means of communication for millions of people.

Crystal’s postulation is evident in the case of slaves from Africa who were brought

over to North America to work on plantation farms. Because they were separated

from people whom they shared the same language with and thrown together with

people of different linguistic backgrounds, they were thus initially unable to

communicate with each other. In order for them to be able to communicate effectively

with their peers on the plantations and with their bosses, they were compelled to form

a language hence pidgin developed. Corroborating this view, Cook (1993:69),

believes that pidgin is “a contact language used by two groups with one being

socially dominant but neither speaking it as a first language.”

Pidgin is said to be sharply restricted in social role, used for limited communication

between speakers of two or more languages who have repeated or extended contacts

with each other, for instance, through trade, enslavement, or migration. A pidgin

usually combines elements of the native languages of its users and is typically simpler

than those native languages insofar as it has fewer words, less morphology and a more

restricted range of phonological and syntactic options (Rickford, 1998:163). This

position is equally held by Meyerhoff (2006: 15-16) who sees pidgin generally as “a

language variety that is not very linguistically complete or elaborate and is used in

fairly restricted social domains and for limited social or interpersonal functions”

Barber (1993:239) on the other hand posits that “pidgin is an auxiliary language used

48
in the first place for the purpose of trade between groups that have no common

language.” Crystal (1987:334) like Barber states that pidgin is “a system of

communication which has grown up among people who do not share a common

language but who want to talk to each other for trading or other reasons.”

Contrary to the assertions above, the use of pidgin especially in Nigeria today goes

beyond just the purpose of trade alone. Pidgin now is used by people from all walks

of life who employ its use for different purposes other than trade. One thing to note

however is the fact, that pidgin is often seen as a grammatically simplified form of a

language native to none of the parties involved.

While some of the definitions examined so far consider pidgin as a language, Yule

(1985:233) sees it as a variety of language. He defines pidgin as “a variety of a

language (e.g. English) which developed for some practical purposes such as trading

among groups of people who had a lot of contact but who did not know each other’s

language and as such it would have no native speakers.”

The views of Yule expressed above are similar to those of Holmes (2004:5) who

opines that pidgin is,

a reduced language that results from extended contact

between groups of people with no language in common;
it evolves when they need some means of verbal
communication, perhaps for trade, but no group learns
the native language of any other group for social reasons
that may include lack of trust or close contact.

He further states that those with less power (speakers of substrate languages) are more

accommodating and use words from the language of those with more power (the

superstrate), although the meaning, form and use of these words may be influenced by
49
the substrate languages. When dealing with the other groups, the superstrate speakers

adopt many of these changes to make themselves more readily understood and no

longer try to speak as they do within their own group. They cooperate with the other

groups to create a make-shift language to serve their needs, simplifying by dropping

unnecessary complications such as inflections (e.g., two knives becomes two knife)

and reducing the number of different words they use, but compensating by extending

their meanings or using circumlocutions. By definition the resulting pidgin is

restricted to a very limited domain such as trade, and it is no one’s native language

According to Kerstein and Traulth (2006:905-906), the term “pidgin” is probably a

corruption of the English word business, as pronounced by the indigenous Chinese,

and designates,

a mixed language that arises in situations where speakers

of different languages are unable to understand each
other’s native language and, therefore, need to develop a
common means of communication. In such situations,
the structure and vocabulary of the individual native
languages are reduced over time, in order to bring about
general, mutual understanding. Gradually, a functional
mixed language develops from the rudimentary contact
language and is learned along with one’s native
language.
They go further to state that linguistically, pidgins are characterized by a “limited

vocabulary, a greater use of paraphrase and metaphor, a simplified phonological

system, and a reduced morphology and syntax.”

Stockwell and Trask (2007:221) are also of the view that ‘pidgin is an auxiliary

language created by people with no language in common.’ This they say happens

when people with no language in common find themselves thrown together and

obliged to deal with one another. Sometimes the language of just one group will be
50
learned by the others and used as a lingua franca but often, something quite different

happens: words from one or more of the languages of the people involved will be

taken and stitched together into a kind of crude way of communicating. This is a

pidgin. In addition, Stockwell and Trask maintain that,

a pidgin is nobody’s mother tongue, and it is not a real

language at all: it has no elaborate grammar, it is very
limited in what it can convey, and different people
speak it differently. Still, for simple purposes, it does
work, and often everybody in the area learns to handle
it.

The view that pidgin is a variety of language as put forward by Stockwell and Trask

(2007:221) has been widely opposed by scholars such as Elugbe and Omamor (1987

and 1991), Gani-Ikilama (1989 and 1999), Muhlhausler(1986) among others who

equate Pidgin with fully fledged languages. According to Muhlhausler, the problem

with such definitions accorded to pidgin, those who stress the makeshift character of

Pidgin ignore the fact that ‘pidgins are developed to a considerable degree of stability

and complexity.’ There is also the possibility of confusing simplification (greater

grammatical regularity) with impoverishment (lack of referential and non referential

power). He further claims that pidgins are not mixed up languages in the sense most

often intended. This is most pronounced in the post- pidgin phase. That is, when a

pidgin comes into renewed contact with its original relexified language. It is in the

light of the above argument that Muhlhausler (1986) proposes a new definition of

pidgin thus,

pidgins are examples of partially targeted or non

targeted second language learning, developing from
simpler to more complex systems as communicative
requirements become more demanding. Pidgin
languages by definition have no native speakers; they
are social rather than individual solutions and hence are
characterized by norms of acceptability.

51
Whether pidgin is a language or a variety of the English language in the Nigerian

context as reflected in the divided opinion discussed above, one fact that is not

debatable is that pidgin has other varieties. The variety of pidgin spoken in Nigeria

particularly among students of institutions of higher learning and those selected for

this study is the West African pidgin also known as Nigerian pidgin.

2.3.2.4.2 English Pidgin/Nigerian Pidgin

Nigerian pidgin otherwise known as pidgin English is said to be a variety of West

African English spoken all through Anglophone West Africa. In the words of

Bamgbose et al (1995:291), Nigerian pidgin is “geographically spread all over Nigeria

and spoken by Nigerians of different ethnic origins, and it is indigenous to Nigeria

because it originated and is expanding here in Nigeria.”

Historically, Mafemi (1971:98) observes that the emergence of Nigerian pidgin ‘lies

in the early contacts between Europeans and Africans on the coast...’ particularly the

English who became Nigerians’ trading partners after the Portuguese had left from the

beginning of the 17th century onwards. This is captured in the words of Bamgbose et

al (1995) thus, “the continued stay of the English, whose number and interests also

continued to expand, encouraged the growth of Nigerian pidgin.”

The development and spread of Nigerian pidgin beyond its traditional coastal territory

can be said to have been facilitated by Nigerian themselves. The fact that Nigerians

despite their multilingual background had no indigenous language of common identity

forced them to follow the new language-pidgin which consequently expanded and

stabilized since it had to cope with the expanding experiences of its Nigerian users.

This made Nigerian pidgin to functionally penetrate further in the hinterland in

remote, rural, far-away northern villages (Gani-Ikilama, 1999)

52
In addition, urbanization has also helped the growth and spread of Nigerian pidgin.

Mafeni (1971:98) posits that ‘Nigerian Pidgin is essentially a product of the process

of urbanization.’ The setting together of people from different linguistic backgrounds

in urban centers makes the use of Nigerian Pidgin necessary.

The use of Nigerian pidgin cuts across different strata of the Nigerian society as it is

used by the educated and the illiterate, the rich and the poor and so on. This is

captured in the words of Elugbe and Omamor (1991) that Nigerian pidgin is used

today among factory workers, in schools, military and police barracks, illiterate

homes of mixed marriages and among office workers. It is also used by Nigerian

novelists, playwrights, advertising agents, the media, trade unionists and politicians as

a means of mass communication. Thus, it is no longer a surprise that Nigerian pidgin

is spoken in Standard English speaking homes where it was once considered

forbidden. Many artisans, gardeners, gatemen and other domestic staff of highly

educated homes/families can only communicate with their masters and employers in

Nigerian pidgin. Elugbe and Omamor further reiterate that, Nigerian Pidgin is spoken

almost anywhere and in all places where it is spoken; it is spoken by illiterates and by

university graduates, the lowly as well as those highly placed in the society. These

same views are confirmed by Akinluyi (1971:36) who observes that, ‘pidgin is used in

Nigeria by people in various walks of life ranging from the illiterate market women to

the university professor; it is used by people of different ages and linguistic

backgrounds.’

Like Elugbe, Omamor and Akinluyi, Adekunle (1972:198) states that, Nigerian pidgin

is ‘the language most frequently used as the means of inter ethnic communication at
53
the shopping centers, market places, motor parks and even in most informal

discussions in the offices and in linguistically heterogeneous cities.’ Also, Ronald

(1985:55) posits that Nigerian pidgin is not just a bad variety of the English language

but ‘language…with its own legitimacy, i.e., its own history, structure, array of

functions and the possibility of winning recognition as a proper language’

The Nigerian pidgin is English based pidgin. This implies that the English language is

the dominant language which supplies it with most of its vocabulary with the various

indigenous languages contributing minimally. In other words, the English language is

the superstrate language, major lexifier or super stratum while the indigenous

languages serve as the substratum.

Some of the examples of pidgin words commonly used among students are ‘okada’,

‘express man’, ‘allowee’, ‘oga’, ‘wahala’, ‘bulala’ , ‘drop’ ‘keke napep’ among

others.

2.4 CODE MIXING

Our study shows that one among the ways in which the subjects of this research use

nonstandard English is by code mixing both nonstandard words with Standard English

expressions in both their written and spoken communication. Although details are

discussed in chapter four, some of the examples of this can be seen in some of the

extracted sentences from our subjects’ spoken and written communication thus:

Example one: Wallahi, I am saying the truth.

Example two: The okada man dropped me at the gate.

Example three: Most of the killings during the post election violence were carried

out by yaro boys.

54
According to Mayerhoff (2006:227), code mixing generally refers to “alternation

between varieties or codes within a clause or phrase. Often, it elicits more strongly

negative evaluation than alternation or code switching across clauses.” While

Mayerhoff sees it as occurring between varieties or codes, Akindele and Adegbite

(1999:38) posit that code mixing refers to ‘a situation whereby, two languages are

used in a single sentence within major and minor constituent boundaries. The mixing

of items is almost at the word level.’ Poplack (1985:115) who adopts the label ‘mixed

speech’ to refer to code mixing also shares the same views with Akindele and

Adegbite that code- mixing occurs between languages. He posits that, code- mixing is

“associated with conversation that involves the use of two codes or languages and it is

at the level of the lexical or phrasal items.” He adds that “nouns are popularly

involved in code mixing not only because they are relatively free of syntactic

restrictions” but also due to the robustness of nouns in lexical items.

In the same vein, Crystal (2008:109) while expressing similar views as those

expressed by Akindele and Adegbije and Poplack maintains that, “code-mixing

involves the transfer of linguistic elements from one language into another: a sentence

begins in one language, then makes use of words or grammatical features belonging to

another.”

Fasold (1984: 180-209) on the review of language choice in his investigation of what

makes people in a society choose one language rather than another in a given instance

identifies three kinds of choices thus: code switching, code-mixing and variation

within the same language. Fasold describes code mixing as a ‘situation where ‘pieces’

of one language are used while a speaker is basically using another language. The
55
language ‘pieces’ taken from another language are often words or phrases as shown in

the examples at the beginning of this discussion. According to Fasold, one who

speaks more than one language will definitely have to choose one. The problem with

Fasold’s stand is that, it is not always all about choice but appropriateness with

regards to context - whether the context is formal or informal. It has also been

discovered that language users particularly the subjects of this study do not only mix

‘pieces’ of language as Fasold puts it but also mix words from other varieties of

language like the case of English Slang mixed with Standard English expressions.

There is also need to draw a distinction between code mixing and borrowing which

although some linguists believe are the same, some still maintain that they differ. One

of those in this school of thought is Romain (1992:133) who while differentiating

between code mixing and borrowing states that, “ as far as the question of borrowing

and code mixing are (sic) concerned, it goes beyond the particular utterance

concerned and the degree to which a particular utterance is integrated.”

In the same vein, Appel and Muyesken (1993:121) believe that code mixing and

borrowing are not the same and that in order to differentiate between the two, the

Saussurean langue and parole should be the yardstick. Thus they maintain that,

‘borrowing involves an integration of two languages at the level of langue… code

mixing, integration at the level of parole.’ They further state that,

in practice, it may not be simple to distinguish between

them. The classical view is that code mixing and
borrowing can easily be kept apart: with code mixing,
the non-native items are kept not adapted
morphologically and phonologically, with borrowing
they are… (Appel and Muyesken 1993: 133)

56
Code mixing which is our main concern and not borrowing is a sociolinguistic

phenomenon prevalent in any bilingual and multilingual setting. Appel and Muyesken

(p122) observe that, since bilinguals usually acquire two languages in different ways,

it is most likely that they also share two different cultural experiences. Thus, the

acquisition modes affect the usage as well as the choice of lexical items. According to

them,

if a bilingual speaker always uses language A in

informal and language B in formal settings, it will be
difficult to translate (or in this context, come up with a
word/phrase)…referring to experiences in informal
settings from A into B. it might take some extra time to
find ‘the right words’ for these words generally do not
come up in the situations in which B is spoken

Different reasons have been identified by linguists as to why bilinguals or

multilinguals code mix ranging from covering up deficiency or incompetence, as a

mechanism to exclude certain person(s) from having a complete understanding of the

subject of discussion, to demonstrate a personality of mixed identity, for the sake of

humour like in the case of comedians among many other reasons (Myers 1998:149).

Although as mentioned earlier, the subjects of this study code mix in their speech

behaviour however, the reasons for this behaviour which range from religious

inclinations to seeking favours are discussed in the findings of the analyzed data in

chapter four.

2.5. DEFINITION OF CONTEXT

The term context has been defined in a number of ways by different linguists such as

referring to ‘ a specific part of an utterance or text near or adjacent to a unit which is

the focus of attention’, ‘that which gives words meaning i.e. putting a word in context

in order to clarify the intended meaning’, ‘a particular characteristic of the

57
formulation of rules in Generative linguistics where the forms can be classified in

terms of whether they occur only within a specific context or are independent of the

context.(formal context)’ (Crystal 1980, 1987, Allerton 1979, Fromkin 2000) and a

host of many others. The different definitions of context that are discussed in this

section are those that have direct relevance to this study. That is, those definitions that

consider context as a determinant of the choice of formal or informal varieties of

language.

According to Nunan (1993:8-9), context refers to “the situation giving rise to the

discourse and within which the discourse is embedded.” He goes further to distinguish

between linguistic and non–linguistic contexts. The linguistic context in Nunan’s

view is “the language that surrounds or accompanies the piece of discourse under

analyses” whereas the non – linguistic context or experiential context within which

the discourse takes place includes,

the type of communicative event (for example joke, story,

lecture, greeting, conversation) the topic, the purpose of the
event, the setting including location, time of day, season of
the year and the physical aspects of the situation (for
example size of room, arrangement of furniture), the
participants and the relationship between them and the
background knowledge and assumption underlying the
communicative event.

Corroborating the above viewpoint, Alo (2004:75) opines that the term context

encompasses a wide notion embracing linguistic and non–linguistic factors of

language use. The linguistic context is primarily ‘seen in terms of what immediately

precedes and what follows an expression in a text.’ The social context which is non-

linguistic ‘refers to the person or participants involved in a large activity and their

58
social characteristics including social class, level of education, age, sex and

relationships.’

To crystal (1989:48), context is “the place in which a communicative event occurs”

while Lyons (1979:572) defines context as “a theoretical construct in the postulation

of which the linguist abstracts from the actual situation and establishes as contextual

all the factors which systematically determine the form and the appropriateness of the

meaning.”

Context no doubt has been viewed as a determinant of not only the meaning of

utterances but also their appropriateness in specific given contexts as already

discussed in the introductory paragraph in chapter one. According to Levinson

(1983:5), context can be understood to cover “the identities of participants, the

temporal and spatial parameters of the speech event, and all the beliefs, knowledge

and intentions of the participants in that speech event and no doubt much besides.”

He goes on to posit that, “context can also mean the selection of just those features

that are culturally and linguistically relevant to the production and interpretation of

utterances.” These features according to Lyons (1974:574) include the following:

1. Knowledge of the role and status (where role covers both role in the

speech event, as speaker or addressee, and social role and status covers

notions of relative social standing)

2. Knowledge of spatial temporal location

3. Knowledge of formality level.

59
 4. Knowledge of the medium(roughly the code or style appropriate to a

channel, like the distinction between written and spoken varieties of a

language)

5. Knowledge of appropriate subject matter.

6. Knowledge of appropriate province (or domain determining the

register) of a language)

Thornborrow and Wareing (1998:88) opine that, ‘context refers to factors which could

influence how an individual interprets a chunk of language” but for Crystal (1989:48)

however, context is ‘the place in which a communicative event occurs’ while

Adegbija (1999) opines that context refers to the relevant aspects of the physical or

social setting of an utterance or discourse’. Expressing similar views as those of

Adegbija, Sinclair and Coulthard (1975) state that ‘context includes all relevant

factors in the environments, social conventions and the shared experiences of the

participants.’ Thus, one’s audience as well as other societal norms should be

considered in every given situation as this will determine how language should be

selected.

In the words of Crystal (1980:79), “context is a term referring to the features of the

non- linguistic world in relation to which linguistic items are systematically used.”

According to him, the term situation is also used in this sense, as a compound term

“situational context.” In this broadest sense, situational context includes “the total

non-linguistic background to a text or utterance, including immediate situation in

which it is used and the awareness by speaker and hearer of what has been said earlier

and of any relevant beliefs or presuppositions.” Others restrict the term to what is

immediately observable in the co-occurring situation. Another sense of the term put

forward by Crystal is the general term “context of utterance” which he says is

60
 sometimes used to refer to all factors which systematically determine the form and

meaning of utterances.

Saeed (2006:190) however sees knowledge as context. To him knowledge cannot be

separated from context. In other words, “a speaker must make estimations of what the

hearer knows before uttering a referential statement.” For instance, if someone rushes

towards you and says: The baby swallowed the needle: their choice of word reveals

that they think you can identify both the baby and the needle involved. The three

different sources for the knowledge a speaker has to estimate according to Saeed are:

1. That computable from the physical context

2. That available from what has already been said: and

3. That available from background or common knowledge.

Under the first heading, we look at who is speaking to whom, the time and location of

verbal exchange. Under the second heading, the talk itself or discourse is considered the

context. In isolation, sentence fragments like: “John did” or “Me too” cannot be

interpreted. But in the right conventional context, they are meaningful: For instance;

a. Who moved these chairs?

b. John did.

c. I’m starving.

d. Me too.

Definitely, participants would have no difficulty interpreting “John did” as “John moved

these chairs”: or “me too” as “I’m starving too”.

The third type of knowledge can be called background, common sense, encyclopedic,

socio-cultural and real world knowledge. What is meant here is that, as members of any

human community; speakers of the same language, citizens of the same state, city or

neighbourhood, members of the same political association etc, it is assumed that we

61
possess some knowledge which others will draw upon in the process of any form of

verbal exchange.

Example:

a. I’m hungry

b. I’ll lend you some money

This exchange indicates that money can be used to buy food (Saeed, 2006:90-92).

From the foregoing, it can be deduced that shared knowledge is very important and

that it is also the context or background that determines what choice should be made

of language in every given situation in order to avoid communication breakdown.

Students of course understand the meaning of for instance the slang expressions

commonly used among them hence they can use such expressions in their

communication with one another especially at informal contexts because of the shared

knowledge they have. This however, may not be so with their lecturers or older

persons who are unfamiliar with such expressions. Using such expressions while

addressing one who is not familiar with them will not only be strange and

inappropriate particularly in a formal context but may also lead to ambiguity or

communication breakdown because there is no shared knowledge. This view is shared

by Alo (2004:74) who states that, “a very important aspect of context is provided by

social conditions.” In order to transmit and decode meaning, we do more than arrange

the form of language (sounds and words) in a particular order. One has to construct

meaning in a manner that is socially acceptable.

62
2.6. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

2.6.0 AN ECLECTIC APPROACH

This study adopts an eclectic approach in the analysis of its data. The study adopts a

synthesis of Fishman (1972)’s “Domain and Topics”, Labov (2006)’s “Quantitative

Paradigm” and Giles (2001)’s “Accommodation Theory”. Before going on to discuss

the justification for adopting an admixture of the aforementioned models, these

approaches shall be briefly discussed below.

2.6.1. DOMAIN AND TOPICS

This model which is also known as ‘domain analysis’ was postulated by Fishman and

is representative of the theories from the Sociology of Language. Fishman (1972:587)

defines domain as, “a socio- cultural construct abstracted from topics of

communication, relationships between communicators and locales of communication

in accordance with the institutions of a society and the spheres of activity of a speech

community.”

In expressing his views about this model, Fishman attempts to correlate physical

setting and social context with language choice by asking the question “who speaks

what language, to whom, when and why by using the following parameters; topic,

interlocutor and spatial-temporal setting or domains.” By domain, Fishman means

“institutional contexts” in which one language variety is more likely to be appropriate

than another. This is referred to as congruent and incongruent social situation use of

language.

According to Crystal (2008:155), domain in Sociolinguistics refers to,

a group of institutionalized social situations typically

constrained by a common set of behavioural rules,
e.g. the domain of the family is the house, of religion
is the church, etc. The notion is seen as of particular
63
 importance in the analysis of multilingual settings
involving several participants, where it is used to
relate variations in the individuals’ choice and topic
of language to broader sociocultural norms and
expectations of interaction.

Explaining the assertion by Crystal further, Saville- Troike (1982) opines that certain

factors determine domain. These factors may include the general subject area under

discussion (e.g. education, work, family, friendship etc), the role relationship between

the participants (e.g. teacher- student, employer- employee, father- son etc) and

setting of the interaction (e.g. school, office, home, market etc). Fishman (1972:588)

sees role- relationships as implicitly recognized and accepted sets of mutual rights and

obligations between members of the same socio- cultural system. He argues that,

speakers are constrained in their choice and use of

language by the role relationships which exist between
them and their interlocutors. Some role- relationships
may experience some degree of role change or fluidity
while others do not. For example, a lawyer and his
client may also interact as relations, as friends, as
members of the same church etc, while a king and his
subjects (in the same speech community) may not
experience such a role range. In the case of the former,
the interaction is ‘personal’ while in the latter, it is
‘transactional’

“Social situation” associated with “Domain Analysis” is another important factor for

language choice and use. Fishman remarks that “social situation” is responsible for

some interactions being “personal” sometimes and “transactional” at other times. By

“social situation” he means “that the time and place of any social interaction must be

suited for the kind of role –relationships that exist between interlocutors.” In others

words, role relationships can change depending on whether or not a social situation is

congruent i.e. right behaviour at the right time and the right place.

64
2.6.2 THE QUANTITATIVE PARADIGM OR LABOVIAN FRAMEWORK

The first wave of variation studies launched by William Labov in 1966 laid a

foundation for the study of variation by establishing broad correlations between

linguistic variables and the primary social categories of socio economic class, sex and

age in his study of the social stratification of English in New York City (Labov:

2006). This approach is considered a statistical approach to the study of variation in

language. Labov collected statistical data on the frequency of competing forms used

by different speakers and then looked for correlations with non-linguistic factors

hence the quantitative approach which has since then proved outstandingly successful.

What Labov and his successors found is this: If we merely observe a speaker, or a

group of speakers, all we can notice is that speakers sometimes use this form and

sometimes that one, in a seemingly haphazard manner. However, if we tabulate the

frequency of each competing form, we often find first that, one individual differs

notably from another and second, that the frequency of a particular form correlates

strongly with some non-linguistic variables. Most often, the non-linguistic variables

are obvious ones like sex, age, social class and degree of formality, but sometimes we

find more unexpected correlations. What these studies have shown is that, variation is

not haphazard at all. Instead, variation is highly structured: statistically speaking, each

individual behaves in a highly consistent way, with some individuals behaving

differently from others, depending on some of the variables just mentioned and

moreover, the behaviour of each individual changes in a predictable way when the

context of speaking becomes more or less formal. The quantitative approach has

revolutionized the study of language by demonstrating that linguistic behaviour is

even more highly structured than we had previously suspected; it has contributed

65
enormously to the study of language change, and it has provided a resolution of the

Saussurean paradox (Stockwell and Trask 2007:240-241).

This approach as already mentioned assumes that language is inherently variable and

that a great amount of this variability adheres to definite patterns determined by the

linguistic environment on the one hand and the social environment on the other. The

linguistic variable has been defined by Wardhaugh (1986:135) as “a linguistic item

which has identifiable variant”. Hudson (1980:157) observes that linguistic variables

“are those where the meaning remains constant but the forms vary.” While Lehman

(1976:280) opines that it is “any feature of a language that is represented in differing

forms in the speech of one person or a social group….” Social variable on the other

hand refers to “the behavioural factor(s) that may be isolated to correlate with

linguistic variation. Such factors include region, social class, age, sex, ethnicity, etc”

Agbedo (2000:177) maintains that it is “the interaction of the various social factors

that account for language variation in individuals and in a speech community.”

Although the Labovian framework (quantitative paradigm) holds that a community of

speakers shares the same underlying grammar, what distinguishes them is their

differential production of diagnostic linguistic variables, which is amenable to

quantitative analysis and also sensitive to various kinds of social structures.

Individuals may then be grouped into various social categories by virtue of the

frequency of occurrence of a particular variable feature in their speech as constrained

by different social contexts. This was effectively demonstrated in the study of the

distribution of the variable (r) in the New York City speech community by Labov

(1966, 2006).

66
Worthy of note also are the stages of the quantitative paradigm outlined by Hudson

(1980: 144) thus:

1. Selection of speakers, circumstances and linguistic variables.

2. Collection of texts.

3. Identification of linguistic variables and variants.

4. Processing of figures:

5. Interpretation of results.

2.6.3 ACCOMMODATION THEORY

The Accommodation theory according to Giles (2001:193) is concerned with an

individual’s choice and use of language. That is, language behaviour according to the

interlocutor, the topic of the discourse and the setting in which language takes place.

Crystal (2008: 32) while defining the Accommodation theory posits that it is a theory

in Sociolinguistics which,

aims to explain why people modify their style of

speaking (accommodate) to become more like or
less like that of their addressee(s). For example,
among the reasons why people converge towards
the speech pattern of their listener are the desires to
identify more closely with the listener, to win social
approval, or simply to increase the communicative
efficiency of the interaction

Similarly Yule (2010:258-259) also maintains that “as we look more closely at

variation in speech style, we can see that it is not only a function of speakers” social

class and attention to speech, but it is also influenced by their perception of their

listeners. This type of variation is sometimes described in terms of “audience design,”

but is more generally known as ‘speech accommodation.’ Yule therefore defines

speech accommodation as,

67
 our ability to modify our speech style toward or away
from the perceived style of the person(s) we’re talking
to. We can adopt a speech style that attempts to reduce
social distance, described as convergence, and use
forms that are similar to those used by the person we’re
talking to. In contrast, when a speech style is used to
emphasize social distance between speakers, the
process is called divergence. We can make our speech
style diverge from another’s by using forms that are
distinctly different.

Studies have shown that, at least one member of an interactive dyad tends to adopt

the speech patterns of the person to whom he is talking. Giles (1975) in Giles and

Powesland (1975: 154-155) terms such accommodative changes in social interaction

as “convergent” behaviour in the case of accent changes. As he hypothesizes

convergence, whether symmetrical or asymmetrical in a dyad, may be only one aspect

of a wider phenomenon of speech change. According to him, “in certain social

interactions, there may exist dissociative motivational tendencies on the part of one or

both of the members of the dyad such that speech is modified so as to become less

similar- divergence rather than convergence.” A sender may attempt to dissociate

from any identification with the receiver or more broadly from the group which the

individual represents. And if both interlocutors are similarly motivated, then they may

be ‘symmetrical’ in their effort towards progressive divergence. Speech divergence

and convergence may then be seen as representing a strategy of conformity or

identification. In other words, speakers will change their speech to suit that of their

interlocutor when they converge to conform to the norms of the language of that

community or diverge in order to distance themselves from their interlocutor (Giles,

2001: 193-194).

Based on this model, an individual can induce another to evaluate him more

favourably by reducing the dissimilarities between them. This is the principle upon
68
which the process of speech accommodation operates and as such will be an

individual’s desire for social approval. Giles’ notion of a speaker seeking approval by

applying a general set of rules to accommodate others in most social situations is

similar to what Fielding (1972) cited in Giles and Powesland (1975) term

conversational rule for response matching in that, if a speaker desires a reward or

favourable interaction, he finds it advantageous to accommodate his speech style

towards that of his interlocutor. Accommodation through speech can be regarded as

an attempt of a speaker to modify or to disguise his persona in order to make it

acceptable to the person being addressed. According to Fielding, the receiver may not

necessarily be conscious of the speaker’s rationale.

2.6.4 THE JUSTIFICATION FOR ECCLECTICISM

It is difficult for a research of this nature which involves many distinct but interrelated

aspects of language to be analyzed to adopt a single approach. These aspects include

our subjects’ use of language with particular reference to their choice of nonstandard

and non-English lexical items, the patterns of occurrence of such lexical items,

determining the kind of context under consideration hence the suitable variety of the

English language for such contexts and the social variables motivating the use of

unsuitable identified lexical items used in those formal domains. In view of the

foregoing, Fishman’s “Domain and Topics” model was used to establish whether the

contexts being considered were formal or not using the factors of “role relationship

between participants”(with a special consideration to the demands of the questions

asked, the examiner-student and staff-student relationship), “the general subject area

under discussion” (whether what was being discussed was official or personal in both

the written and verbal discourses) and “setting of the interaction”. Using these

factors, we were able to establish that the contexts we dealt with were formal and thus
69
ought to have favoured the “transactional” choice of language. That is, the Standard

British English. On the contrary, there was a generous use of nonstandard and non-

English lexical items used by our subjects in such formal contexts. In an attempt to

find out the reasons for the “incongruent” language behaviour, Labov’s Quantitative

Paradigm which holds that certain social factors account for variation in the

realization of certain linguistic variables was adopted to explain the social factors

responsible for the use of nonstandard and non-English lexical items among our

subjects. Another justification for the inclusion of this approach is the relevance of its

five stages highlighted by Hudson (1980:144) which this study adopts wholly thus:

Stage one: Selection of speakers, circumstances and linguistic variables. For this

study, the selection of our subjects from the four institutions of higher learning was

done through the random sampling technique. For the spoken discourse, eight formal

domains involving eight students and eight staff were selected. Secondly, one

thousand scripts were also randomly selected across the four institutions. The

linguistic variable unlike Labov’s was the lexical type where nonstandard/non-

English words were extracted from students’ answers to examination questions and

from recorded discourses in formal contexts between some of them and some

selected staff.

Stage two: Collection of texts: The collection of what this approach calls ‘texts’ is

equated with the nonstandard/non-English lexical items which this study centres on.

The collection of these lexical items was done in two folds: one, selected examination

scripts were carefully examined and nonstandard/non-English words extracted from

sentences to see their patterns of occurrences and reasons for their usages. Two,

recorded discourses between students and staff in formal contexts were studied and

nonstandard/ non-English lexical items extracted for analysis.

70
Stage three: Identification of linguistic variables and variants: The application of this

stage to our study was in identifying these nonstandard/non-English lexical items and

analyzing them side-by-side their Standard English versions.

Stage four: Processing of figures: The processing of figures which this study equates

with the analysis of identified lexical variants was done based on the data obtained

using the theoretical models adopted for this study which include Fishman’s domain

analysis, Giles’s Accommodation theory and the Labovian model. Data was also

analyzed using identified nonstandard/non-English items, their patterns occurrence

and their Standard English versions.

Stage five: Interpretation of results: Here, the findings of the study were based on the

interpretation and analysis of data collected using tables with an extensive discussion

of the contents in each table as well as the findings.

In the same vein, the choice of the “Accommodation theory” in analyzing particularly

the spoken discourses between staff and students in formal contexts was to establish

why our subjects tended to accommodate their speech styles towards those of the staff

they were speaking with, for instance, code-mixing of Hausa words with standard

English expressions when they realized that their interlocutors were natives of Hausa

or understood Hausa. This as the theory maintains must have been done and

particularly as it was established in the course of our analysis (see 4.2.2, 4.2.4)

because such students desired favourable interaction or rewards from the staff in

question.

In summary, the adoption of the eclectic approach for our analysis was to determine

whether the contexts under consideration were formal or not hence the appropriate

choice of language using factors such as role relationship between participants,

71
general subject under discussion and the setting of interaction. These factors are all

related to “Domain and Topics.” Consequently, the factors responsible for the wrong

choice of language reflected in the use of nonstandard and non-English words used by

our subjects despite the established formal contexts are captured in the “Labovian

framework/Quantitative Paradigm and “Accommodation theory” hence the

justification for the adoption of these three theories for our analysis.

72
 CHAPTER THREE

METHODOLOGY

3.0. INTRODUCTION

This chapter examines the methodology for this research, focusing mainly on the

research design, the population of the study, sample and sampling system, the

research instruments, the procedure for data analysis and a discussion of the problems

encountered in the cause of data collection and how they were overcome

3.1 THE RESEARCH DESIGN: THE QUANTITATIVE AND

QUALITATIVE DESIGN

While quantitative methods involve counting and often fairly sophisticated tests to

determine the significance of data, qualitative methods involve close observation of a

linguistic community. A quantitative study of any given community might involve a

count of how many individualized variety X or Y with the numbers broken down

according to such variables as sex, age, socio economic status, or ethnicity. A

qualitative study of the same community might closely examine the behaviour of a

few individuals to determine the uses they might make of one variety or another.

Qualitative sociolinguistics also involves both the researcher’s personal familiarity

with the community and her use of introspection and intuition (Barbara Johnstone

2000:164). Based on these therefore, four speech communities involving the Kaduna

State University, Kaduna, Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria, Federal Polytechnic,

Kaduna and Nuhu Bamali Polytechnic, Zaria were selected and the individualized

varieties extracted from students’ written and spoken discourses and broken down

into the social variables that motivated their usage based on the patterns of

occurrences of the these varieties as well as the researcher’s familiarity, use of

introspection and intuition through non participatory observation.

73
3.2 THE TARGET POPULATION

The subjects of this research were mainly the students and in few instances staff of

four selected institutions of higher learning namely; Ahmadu Bello university, Zaria,

Federal Polytechnic, Kaduna, Nuhu Bamali Polytechnic, Zaria and Kaduna State

University, Kaduna. The focus was on students between their second and final year to

ensure that those selected were familiar with the language of a formal school

environment.

3.3. SAMPLE AND SAMPLING PROCEDURE

The random sampling method was adopted for this study. This was done in two folds:

the first fold had to do with obtaining students’ examination scripts to see how they

use language in formal contexts. To get one thousand scripts representative of the

entire students’ population of the four institutions, the following steps were taken:

STEP ONE: The faculties and departments were divided into arts and social sciences

on one hand and sciences on the other to ensure a fair selection.

STEP TWO: In those separate groups, all the departments were arranged in an

alphabetical order and then numbered.

STEP THREE: The faculties and departments with the odd numbers were then

picked from number one. The next odd number was picked after skipping three

numbers that is number two, three and four were skipped and five picked. In the case

of Kaduna State University which has only four faculties and a just a department in

the faculty of Medicine, two departments were selected from the Faculty of Arts

which has the highest number of students then one department from the remaining

three faculties.

74
In all, twenty departments were selected that is five per institution and one thousand

students’ scripts representing two hundred and fifty per institution were sampled

through this technique for the written communication while discourses between

lecturers and students were recorded at eight different formal settings representing

two per institution

Getting the subjects for the recorded discourse was done spontaneously mostly in the

offices of the Deans of Faculties and Heads of departments or examination officers of

the randomly selected departments. Recording of discourses sometimes was done

while going through scripts or during the process of obtaining approval from either

Faculty Deans or the Departmental Heads to have access to their students’ scripts.

3.4. RESEARCH INSTRUMENTS

Three sources of primary data collection were used for the research. They are: non-

participatory observation method, data from students’ examination scripts of the

2010/2011 academic session and tape recording (discrete/ surreptitious) of especially

verbal communication between staff and students in formal contexts.

3.4.1. OBSERVATION

Non-participatory observation was used to examine how the target population uses

language in formal contexts particularly the spoken communication. While doing this,

notes were taken to aid the memory of the researcher for instance with regards to the

degree of familiarity between interlocutors, the setting of the discourse, the age range

of the students among other social factors and how these factors all together

influenced the choices that the students made of language.

75
3.4.2. RECORDING

Giving the nature of this research which is the synchronic use of language,

surreptitious or discrete recording was done to record students’ speech in formal

contexts in order to identify those nonstandard forms being used. The main reason for

adopting this method was so that ‘natural speech’ or what Labov (1981) calls

‘vernacular’ could be obtained. Akindele and Adegbite (1992:15) while supporting

this view state that, “Sociolinguistics makes use of those appropriate techniques for a

particular study…the recording of natural speeches is most valid when surreptitiously

done….Recording of data has been done via tape recorder….”

To effectively do this, the researcher used a handset in some instances to record

conversations between staff and students in eight formal domains thus: one recording

was done during a classroom lecture, the other recording was that of an official

transaction between a dean of faculty in his office with a student, another between a

head of department and a student in the head of department’s office. Equally, one

other recording was between the hall administrator and a student, one between a

lecturer and a student on project supervision, another between a lecturer/registration

officer and a student with regards to registration of an elective and one between a

lecturer and a class representative. A handset was sometimes used instead of a tape

recorder because it was easier to conceal a handset which the researcher while

recording pretended she was either texting or retrieving telephone numbers from her

phone book thus making the participants unaware that their conversations were being

recorded.

76
3.4.3. STUDENTS’ SCRIPTS

Data was also obtained from students’ examination scripts where features of informal

expressions were identified and analyzed. Examination scripts were chosen because

examination contexts are formal hence call for formal use of language especially

bearing in mind the nature of questions that were asked which bordered on essay

writing, report writing, speech writing, newspaper article and formal letter writing.

It is important to note that all our subjects except those from Ahmadu Bello

University, Zaria offer a compulsory English language course where they must

answer questions on long essays unlike the students of Ahmadu Bello University,

Zaria’s general English course where students answer multiple choice questions and

fill-in-the-blanks. This therefore made it easier for the researcher to sample the scripts

of the selected departments and also understand the speech pattern of the students

with regards to the question asked.

3.5 PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED AND HOW THEY WERE OVERCOME

One among the major problems encountered by the researcher was in the area of data

collection for this study particularly with regards to having access to the scripts of

some of the randomly selected departments. This problem was peculiar to Ahmadu

Bello University, Zaria where some of the Deans and Heads of Departments

vehemently refused to allow the researcher have access to the scripts despite a proper

official covering letter from the researcher’s department. To overcome this problem,

the researcher had to rely on those scripts she could have access to although still

ensuring that the faculties and departments were fairly represented.

77
Similarly, due to the fact that lectures at institutions and particularly the ones under

consideration are not always interactive in nature; it was needless recording classroom

discourses except for those in the department of Theatre and Performing Arts where

students participated actively during lectures. One of such discourses was recorded in

a classroom situation at the Drama Village of one of the institutions.

Also, obtaining other forms of students’ written communication like formal letters

written to for instance lecturers, Heads of Departments, Registry among others to

corroborate the examination scripts at least to see how students use language in a

more relaxed atmosphere was practically impossible. This is because, the researcher’s

efforts at having access to such official documents was viewed with great suspicion as

such documents were considered classified. This explains why the researcher had to

rely on students’ examination scripts alone.

More so, identified non-English items were presented to native speakers of those

languages for validity.

78
 CHAPTER FOUR

DATA PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

4.0. INTRODUCTION

The interpretation and analysis of data has been divided into two segments. The first

segment centers on analysis of data obtained from examination scripts of students of

institutions that form the case study for this research. In all, twenty departments

involving one thousand students were sampled whereby for each of the four

institutions, five departments and two hundred and fifty scripts were randomly

selected and data obtained from them for analysis. The second segment focuses on

analysis of surreptitiously recorded discourses between staff and students in formal

settings.

4.1 DATA PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS BASED ON STUDENTS’

EXAMINATION SCRIPTS

These institutions have been code-named institution one, two, three and four for

confidentiality which was an agreement entered into between the researcher and the

authorities concerned.

4.1.0 INSTITUTION ONE

The data for this institution was obtained from the scripts of the 2010/2011 first

semester examination on Use of English and Communication II (GST 201) which is a

compulsory general course for all students of the university. The following questions

were asked during the said examination:

79
Question one. Of late, there has been an increase in the rate at which people are

kidnapped. Write an open letter to the Inspector General of Police on the measures

that could be adopted to eradicate the menace.

Question two. A newspaper house requested for contribution on the topic:

“Democracy in Nigeria: Dividends and Woes”. Write your contribution.

4.1.1. DEPARTMENT OF ACCOUNTING

SENTENCES EXTRACTED FROM STUDENTS’ ANSWERS TO THE

QUESTIONS ABOVE IN THEIR ORIGINAL FORMS

The sentences are presented in their original forms with most of them being

grammatically wrong. This explains why asterisks have been used to show that these

sentences are grammatically incorrect.

1. * If we have enof S.S.S in our country this problem will be reduced.

2. *…even in the military regime, you don’t have any right …

3. *As I’m sujest sir, there are ways that police role….

4.* …Alhamdulillah, we have little cases of kidnap now.

5. *Sir, on this letter, I want to give at least 2 measures that could be adopted to

eradicate the *menance of the culprits….

6.* The attitude of the people to be rich or grid during the democracy period to enrich

their *purket.

7. *…there will not be problems in Nigeria if they should conduct electn….

8. *Incentive should be given to any police that cot any kidnapper.

9. *Like in Kaduna we have operation yaki which is helping a lot.

80
10.* The place of kidnapping at that point of operation until after sometime before

they’ll recall.

11.* A man of about 32yrs old was in his house when two brave men came to him

saying….

12. *He then said that he doesn’t know anybody like that.

13. *The man with the white shirt touched the 32yrs old man and that was the end of

the man, he was never found.

81
TABLE SHOWING IDENTIFIED NONSTANDARD ENGLISH WORDS
EXTRACTED FROM SENTENCES ABOVE HIGHLIGHTING THEIR
PATTERNS OF OCCURRENCES AND STANDARD ENGLISH VERSIONS
(TABLE 1)

Context/ Role Number of Identified non Pattern of Standard

Domain relationship scripts standard occurrence English
between sampled English items version
interlocutors
Formal: The role 50 Enuf SMS Enough
relationship shorthand
First between
semester interlocutors don’t English do not
exam on: based on the contraction
questions are:
1.formal I’m English I am
letter 1.Inspector contraction
General of
2.Article Police/ student Sujest SMS suggest
shorthand
2.Newspaper
columnist/ Alhamdulillah Arabic/code praise be to
audience mix Allah
(readers)
2 Substitution two
of word with
number

grid SMS greed

shorthand

electn SMS election

shorthand

cot SMS caught

shorthand

operation yaki Hausa/code Joint Task

mix Force on
security in
Kaduna state

they’ll English they will

contraction

32yrs SMS thirty-two

shorthand years

doesn’t English does not

contraction

82
One among the views held by the ‘Domain Analysis’ model is that, certain factors

determine domain. These factors may include the “general subject area under

discussion” (e.g. education, work, family, friendship etc), the “role relationship

between the participants” (e.g. teacher- student, employer- employee, father- son etc)

and “setting of the interaction” (e.g. school, office, home, market etc)( Saville- Troike

1982). Fishman (1972) argues that, speakers are constrained in their choice and use of

language by the role relationships which exist between them and their interlocutors.

He further remarks that social situation (the time and place of any social interaction

must be suited to the kind of role –relationships that exist between interlocutors.) is

responsible for some interactions being ‘personal’ sometimes and ‘transactional’ at

other times. Maintaining this or not will lead to congruent (right behaviour at the right

time and the right place) or incongruent social situation.

Using Fishman’s “Domain analysis”, the domain or context under consideration here

is a very formal one because, apart from the examination context being formal, the

role relationship between the participants based on the demand of the questions is that

of the Inspector General of Police and the student on one hand and secondly, the

student as a newspaper columnist and the general audience of readers. The subject of

discussion as the two questions stipulate is also very formal that is, the issue of

kidnapping and the dividends or otherwise of democracy. In view of this, the choice

of language based on Fishman’s postulation ought to have been “transactional”.

Therefore, the choice of the identified nonstandard and non-English words in

students’ answers to the questions asked is inappropriate for the formal

domain/context. Interestingly however, Labovian framework holds that, the identified

nonstandard/non-English-words which Labov calls “linguistic variables” are

determined by social variables. A close look at some of the identified nonstandard

83
English lexical items shows that they are variant spellings of Standard English words

motivated by GSM/SMS. We see the variant spellings of English words like

“enough”, suggest, two, greed, caught and thirty-two years being realized as “enuf”,

“sujest”, “2” ”grid,” “cot” and “32yrs” respectively. These variant linguistic items

which are of the lexical type are associated with the shorthand of SMS thus as this

framework maintains, the use of these lexical items highlighted above has been

motivated by GSM/SMS. Similarly, there is also the use of Hausa and Arabic words

code mixed with English expressions. These two words are “yaki” (Hausa) (used in

line 9) and “Alhamdulillah” (Arabic) (used in line 4) whose Standard English versions

are “war” and “praise be to Allah” respectively. Based on the researcher’s general

observation and not the scripts, the code-mix of the Arabic phrase “Alhamdulillah”

with Standard English expressions in formal contexts is common among Muslim

speakers thus, the social factor that has influenced the use of this word is religion.

“Yaki” which is a coinage from the Hausa language in used with the English word

“operation” as “Operation Yaki” designating a Joint Task Force on security in Kaduna

state. This phrase is used literally to mean that the security outfit has declared war on

criminals in the state. Although it has become a common parlance in Kaduna state, its

prevalence of use in this context without inverted commas is inappropriate.

Interestingly this only proves how much influence the society has on the choice of

language our subjects make.

84
4.1.2. DEPARTMENT OF BIOCHEMISTRY

SENTENCES EXTRACTED FROM STUDENTS’ ANSWERS IN THEIR

ORIGINAL FORMS

1.*… if there will be security check point after 5km to 10km…

2. *I am at least 170% sure that the increase in the kidnapped is due to poverty and

lack of job opportunity….

3. *… you discover people are being kidnapped may be on their way to the market,

school, working places e.t.c.

4. *In conclusion, measures should be taken to eradicate the menace such as tight

security everywhere i.e every nook and angle corner….

5. *Last 2 weeks in a neighbouring area, a rich and wealthy trader was attacked in his

house.

6. *Provision of implements to the police such as nuclear weapons, missiles etc.

7. *I’m hereby written on the control measures that could be taking in eradicating the

rate of kidnapping in Kaduna state.

8. *Pls sir, I plead for my plea to be accepted and used in the society for a better

tomorrow.

9. *… since they are living without job, most of them *deside 2 trade but no money

for trading and you don’t *espect your parents who *sale all they have to send you to

school….

10.* The inspector can also stop this through this *vegillantee groups, operation yaki,

soldiers, police men etc.

11. *…they masakad the victim….

12. *if they saw a man, if they don’t trust him insted of killing him…

13. *Some even use okada to kidnap people.

14. *Taking drop in Kaduna now is very dangerous.

85
TABLE SHOWING IDENTIFIED NONSTANDARD ENGLISH WORDS
EXTRACTED FROM SENTENCES ABOVE INDICATING THEIR PATTERNS OF
OCCURRENCES AND STANDARD ENGLISH VERSIONS (TABLE 2)
Context/ Role Number of Identified Pattern of Standard
Domain relationship scripts non occurrence English
between sampled standard version
interlocutors English
items
Formal: The role 50 15km substitution of fifteen
First relationship word with kilometers
semester between numbers/SMS
exam interlocutors shorthand
based on the 10km substitution of ten kilometers
questions are: word with
1.Inspector numbers/SMS
General of shorthand
Police/ student 170% substitution of one hundred
word with and seventy
2.Newspaper numbers/ percent
columnist/ symbol
audience
(readers) i.e. English that is
shorthand

2 substitution of two
word with
number

2 SMS shorthand to

I’m English I am
contraction

pls SMS shorthand please

don’t English do not

contraction

insted SMS shorthand instead

Operation Hausa/code Joint Task

Yaki mixed with Force on
English security in
Kaduna state

masakad SMS shorthand massacred

okada Nigerian Pidgin commercial

motorcyclist
Nigerian
‘drop’ English/Pidgin alight/taxi

86
The pattern of occurrence of the nonstandard/non-English words identified in the

department of Biochemistry are in form of GSM/SMS shorthand, substitution of

words with numbers or symbols, contracted forms of English words, one Hausa word

mixed with an English word and Nigerian Pidgin. This is a reflection of what Alo

(2004:77) says are nonstandard forms which ‘allow such devices as direct references,

interjections, abbreviations and so on and are expected to be used by people who are

intimates for instance, friends, husband and wife.’ Apart from the shorthand

associated with SMS, one other feature that characterized the data above is the use of

abbreviations which like Alo submits are inappropriate for the formal context under

consideration. As the Domain analysis maintains, the use of these words make the

‘social situation’ incongruent because the choice of words hence English variety

ought to have been ‘transactional’ based on the role relationship, topic under

discussion and domain. A close look at some of these words shows that the social

factor of GSM/SMS manifesting in its shorthand in “km”, “2”, “masakad” and “pls”

could have most likely motivated students’ choices of the identified lexical variants.

4.1.3. THE DEPARTMENT OF HAUSA

SENTENCES EXTRACTED FROM STUDENTS’ ANSWERS IN THEIR

ORIGINAL FORMS

1. *We don’t know who they are and where are they in this town all the day the

kidnapped are going harder & harder we believe that Allah Subhanahuwa

Ta’alah….

2. *The federal *inec office of Nigeria should also conduct a free and fear election,

they shouldn’t collect anything from anybody as a brief to win the election

3. *NTA, announced the kidnapping of 4 people in one of the states….

4. *Nigeria must especially here in Kaduna state, the operation yaki and even the

banga boys are working hard for the people of the state.
87
5. *Paying *there salary i.e workers

6. *Sufficient moto car and sufficient petrol

7. *… so why can’t we give him education, job and enough amount of salary that he

will depend on.

8. *… because, if we do dat many improvement will come ….

9. *… he met two people waiting for him to drop….

10.* pls sir, action has to be taken.

11.* Demo means people while cracy means rules i.e peoples rules

12. *They don’t bother about what situation their peoples are….

13. *Sir, I want you 2 permit me to write an open letter to you.

14. *There is need for adequate police officers and infrastructures such as torch light,

rain coats etc.

88
TABLE SHOWING IDENTIFIED NONSTANDARD ENGLISH WORDS
EXTRACTED FROM SENTENCES ABOVE INDICATING THEIR
PATTERNS OF OCCURRENCES AND STANDARD ENGLISH VERSIONS
(TABLE 3)
Context/ Role Number Identified Pattern of Standard
Domain relationship of scripts non occurrence English
between sampled standard version
interlocutors English
items
Formal: The role 50 Allah Arabic/code mix glory be to
First relationship Subhanahu Allah
semester between wa Ta’alah
examination interlocutors
based on the shouldn’t English should not
questions contraction
are:
1.Inspector 4 SMS shorthand four
General of
Police/ Operation Hausa/ code mix JTF security
student yaki outfit in
Kaduna state
2.Newspaper
columnist/ ie English that is
audience shorthand
(readers) banga boys Hausa/ code mix vigilante
group

mato Hausa/borrowing vehicle

cant English cannot

contraction
dat SMS shorthand that

drop Nigerian Pidgin alight/taxi

pls SMS shorthand please

don’t English do not

contraction
2 SMS shorthand to

Etc Anglicized and so on

French
abbreviation

The patterns of occurrence of the identified nonstandard and non English items for

this department are largely in form of code mixing of Hausa/Arabic words with

English expressions, the use of variant English words’ spellings influenced by

89
GSM/SMS shorthand and the use of contracted forms of English words. The variant

English spellings which include “4”, “dat”, “pls” and “2” are variations of Standard

English spellings of “for/four”, “that”, “please” and “to/two” respectively. Another

pattern of occurrence is in form of code-mixing of Hausa words with English

expressions which include: “yaki”, “banga” and “mato” used instead of the Standard

English words/expression ‘Joint Task Force on Security code named “Operation

Yaki”, “vehicle” and “vigilante group”. Similarly, another pattern of occurrence of

these items takes the form of code mixing of the Arabic phrase “Allah Subhanahu wa

Ta’alah” whose English version is “glory be to Allah” and “vigilante” respectively.

One of the items-“drop” though an English word, in the context within which it was

used, is a vocabulary associated with Nigerian Pidgin and Nigerian English meaning

to alight or taxi. Based on Fishman’s ‘domain analysis’, the choice of language in this

given context ought to have been ‘transactional’ because of the ‘the role relationship

and general subject under discussion which make the domain formal. If this is the

case, what then is responsible for the seemingly ‘personal’ use of language by our

subjects? Using Labovian framework to explain this, Labov (2006) holds that, for

every use of a linguistic variable, there are social factors determining it. Based on this

assertion, the discussion above and close observation, GSM/SMS, religion and to

some extent bilingualism are the motivators for the use of items such as ‘4’, ‘dat’,

‘pls’ ‘2’ ‘Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’alah’, ‘banga’,’mato’ respectively. Probably lack

of knowledge of the Standard English equivalent of words like ‘Operation Yaki’ and

‘drop’ may have accounted for their usage despite the fact that they are inappropriate

for the ‘domain’, ‘role relationship between participants’ and ‘general subject area

under discussion’ as the ‘Domain model postulates.

90
4.1.4 DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN MEDICINE

SENTENCES EXTRACTED FROM STUDENTS’ ANSWERS IN THEIR

ORIGINAL FORMS

1. *The 2011 presidential election and the present threat of boko haram is a clear

exposition of how far disharmony among religion has extended.

2. *Sir, the method in which you impose of using the Operation Yaki as a stand by for

all negative acts *comitted by the people….

3. *My fellow Nigerians, disharmony doesn’t bring progress, sustainable development

rather underdevelopment, feud, looting, poverty, violence, crisis etc.

4. *Secondly, let there be house-to-house, bed-to-bed scrutiny…. Even beds and

pillows should be checked by security forces

5 *... Boko haram which lead or cause the suicide bomb attack

6. *It’s a state that has *learn to live beyond every religious intolerance….

7. *It’s known that the tongue and teeth do have some little crashes but they still learn

to live together.

8. *But in the past few years, we realized that the some intruders who are so- called

Buzu came from other nations like Niger, Chad etc.

9. *The major religions in the *contry are Islam, Christianity and traditional religion

with Christians and Muslims the majority and both religion have many sects ranging

from Catholic, Pentecostal, Protestants and so on among Christians and having Izala,

Darika, Shi’ism among Muslims.

91
TABLE SHOWING IDENTIFIED NONSTANDARD ENGLISH WORDS
EXTRACTED FROM SENTENCES ABOVE INDICATING THEIR
PATTERNS OF OCCURRENCES AND STANDARD ENGLISH VERSIONS
(TABLE 4)

Context/ Role Number Identified Pattern of Standard

Domain relationship of scripts non standard occurrence English version
between sampled English items
interlocutors
Formal: The role 50 Boko haram Hausa/Arabic An Islamic sect
First relationship code mix that believes
semester between western
exam. interlocutors education is
based on the forbidden
questions
are: Operation Hausa/code Joint Task
yaki mix Force security
1.Inspector outfit in
General of Kaduna state
Police/
student Doesn’t English Does not
contraction
bed-to-bed Slang House-to-
2.Newspaper house
columnist/
audience Buzu Hausa Tuareg from
(readers) Niger and
neighbouring
countries
It’s English It is
contraction

Izala Arabic/ code Islamic sect

mix

Darika Arabic/ code Islamic sect

mix

Shi’ism Arabic/ code Islamic sect

mix

First and foremost, the patterns of occurrence of the identified linguistic variables are

in form of code mixing of largely Arabic/Hausa words with English language on one

hand and on the other slang words code mixed with English expressions. Greenfield

(1972) using the domain analysis in his studies, revealed that certain domains favour

92
the use of one code rather than another. Saville-Troike (1983) also proposes that

factors like general subject matter, role relationship between participants and the

setting should determine domain. In view of the above, considering the fact that the

data being analyzed was obtained from answers to examination questions on formal

letter to the Inspector General of police and newspaper article (where the presumed

role relationship between the supposed participants is that of the Inspector General of

Police force and student on one hand and the newspaper audience and

writer/columnist on the other hand), the preferred variety in this ‘social situation’

ought to have been the Standard British English variety but because of the social

variable of religion, Arabic words motivated by religion particularly Islam were used

by the subjects. Age is another social factor responsible for the use of the identified

items particularly the use of the slang phrase ‘bed-to-bed’ search (used in line 4)

instead of the English version ‘house- to-house search. Descriptive terms which may

not have been readily available to some of our subjects could have been the reasons

for their use of expressions like ‘Operation Yaki’ and ‘Boko Haram’ otherwise they

would have just put such expressions in inverted commas. From the foregoing, we can

say in line with Labovian framework that, the variations of lexical items used by

students of the department of Medicine have been determined by the social factors of

religion and slang which is most of the times motivated by age. From the data

obtained, it can also be seen that, unlike other departments where there are a lot of

GSM/SMS motivated nonstandard English words, none of such featured in this

department. Thus, it can be inferred that students’ course of study too may affect the

choices they make of language.

93
4.1.5. DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH AND DRAMA

SENTENCES EXTRACTED FROM STUDENTS’ ANSWERS IN THEIR

ORIGINAL FORMS

1. *One day on my way to school, there was a bus behind me full of passengers

driving towards Kakuri, suddenly, the bus *stop and somebody drop from the bus.

2.*The person who drop from the first bus entad another bus again….

3. *Pls sir, I want you to put on more effort on that….

4.*pls sir, we know you are trying your possible best on these crimes….

5. *…they celebrated doing some rascal things such as love making, drinking etc.

6. *If the people being kidnapped can’t afford what the kidnappers want, they kill

them.

7. *But his family and friends don’t want him to marry her….

8. *They go out with fek ….

9.*Let’s take a look at Niger Delta, you can’t go there without being robbed.

10.*People are being kidnapped everyday like chickens in a cage, it worries me most

bc *...we rely felt your impact

11. *Please sa…

12. *This has become a threat to most students *bording a taxi or okada to their

various destinations.

13. *Sir, the okada riders and taxi *riders should register their motorcycles and taxi with the VIO.

94
TABLE SHOWING IDENTIFIED NONSTANDARD ENGLISH WORDS
EXTRACTED FROM THE SENTENCES ABOVE INDICATING THEIR
PATTERNS OF OCCURRENCES AND STANDARD ENGLISH VERSIONS
(TABLE 5)

Context/ Role Number Identified Pattern of Standard

Domain relationship of scripts non occurrence English version
between sampled standard
interlocutors English
items
Formal: The role 50 Drop Nigerian alight/ taxi
First relationship English/Pidgin
semester between
exam on: interlocutors entad SMS entered
1. Formal
based on the shorthand
letter questions
are: pls SMS please
2.Newspaper 1.Inspector shorthand
Article General of
Police/ etc Anglicized and so on/
student French among others
abbreviation
2.Newspaper
columnist/ can’t English cannot
audience contraction
(readers)
don’t English do not
contraction

fek SMS fake

shorthand

bc SMS because
shorthand

rely SMS really

shorthand

sa SMS sir
shorthand

okada Nigerian commercial

Pidgin motorcyclist

While the use of non-English words is absent in the department of English and Drama

unlike other departments examined so far, there is a generous use of shorthand

associated with Short Message Service (SMS). These SMS motivated shorthand are
95
‘entad’, ‘pls’,’fek’,’bc’, ‘rely’, ‘sa’ which are variant spellings of the Standard English

words ‘entered’, ‘please’, ‘fake’, ‘because’, ‘really’ and ‘sir’. There is also the use of

contracted forms of English words which include ‘can’t’ and ‘don’t’ used instead of

‘cannot’ and ‘do not’. Similarly, there is also the use of Nigerian Pidgin/Nigerian

English words code mixed with English expressions for example ‘okada’ and ‘drop’.

‘Drop’ although originally an English word is used in this context to mean “alight” or

“disembark”. (see line 2 under 4.1.5). All the identified words going by the domain

are not suitable for use because, apart from some being abbreviations, their spellings

are unconventional, their usage not widely accepted and therefore, they are meant for

informal communication with people who are intimate and not for the kind of role

relationship between the participants in the context under consideration (Corder and

Ruszkiweicz 1979:10, Alo 2004:77). Although these identified lexical items can be

said to be motivated by SMS and Nigeria English/Pidgin prevalence as social factors,

their usage has made the social situation incongruent as the Domain analysis posits.

4.2 INSTITUTION TWO

The scripts sampled for this institution were those of Higher National Diploma (HND)

I students. Students at this level offer a compulsory English Language course- GNS

301 whose questions vary based on the different Schools (faculties) within the

institution.

SCHOOL OF APPLIED SCIENCES

The course title for the General English offered by students of this school is known as

‘Higher Technical English’-GNS 301. Students during the first semester examination

of the 2010/2011 academic session were asked the following questions:

QUESTION 1: The outcome of the immediate past presidential polls led to civil

unrest in some parts of your country and a six man committee was set up by the state

96
government to uncover the causes of the unrest, determine the extent of damages to

life and property, identify the culprits and suggest steps to take against a recurrence of

the incident in future. In your capacity as the secretary of the committee, write out

your report using the schematic format.

QUESTION 2: You are the chief statistician in the budgetary department of the

Ministry for Economic Planning. You have detected an error in the estimates for

recurrent expenditure for two ministries. Write a letter to the commissioner for

economic planning drawing his attention to the error that you have detected and put

the record straight.

4.2.1 DEPARTMENT OF COMPUTER SCIENCE

ORIGINAL SENTENCES EXTRACTED FROM STUDENTS’ ANSWERS TO

THE QUESTIONS ABOVE

1. *They were saying sai Buhari, sai Buhari and started burning tyre on the way

2. *Some boys are between 10-15 yrs but what they are doing is only God that will

judge

3. *The budgetary dept wish to draw your attentn

4. *…if u check, the budget is 30m and not 28m

5. *I ope that with this little point of correction, you will put the record straight.

6. *I’m interested in telling you the error in the estimate for recurrent for two

ministries.

7. *All the almajiris in Zaria were part of those killing people, burning houses etc.

8. *In our school, 2 Christian lecturers and many students ie is arne according to them

were killed.

9. *It all start when pres Goodluck won the election.

10.* My friend was rescued by operation yaki if not they want to kill her.

97
11. *They don’t give a damn as they are killing innocent souls.

12. *Most of the killings during the post election violence were carried

out by yaro boys.

13. Let’s just divide d country to prevent more killings

98
TABLE SHOWING IDENTIFIED NONSTANDARD ENGLISH WORDS
EXTRACTED FROM SENTENCES ABOVE INDICATING THEIR
PATTERNS OF OCCURRENCES AND STANDARD ENGLISH VERSIONS
(TABLE 6)

Context/ Role Number Identified Pattern of Standard

Domain relationship of scripts non occurrence English
between sampled standard version
interlocutors English
items
Formal: Based on the 50 sai Hausa/ code mix only/except
First question Buhari Buhari
semester asked, the role
exam on: relationship 10-15yrs Substitution of ten to fifteen
1.formal between words with years
report interlocutors numbers/ SMS
2.formal are: shorthand
letter 1. state
governor/ dept SMS shorthand department
secretary of a
panel u SMS shorthand you
2. state
Commissioner/ 30m Substitution of thirty million
Chief word with number/
Statistician of SMS shorthand
the state
20m Substitution of twenty
word with number/ million
SMS shorthand

ope SMS shorthand hope

I’m English I am
contraction

almajiri Hausa/ code mix an Islamic

migrant
etc Anglicized French and so
abbreviation on/among
others

2 Substitution of two
word with number

i.e English shorthand that is

arne Hausa code mix unbeliever

pres SMS shorthand president

operation Hausa code mix JTF security

99
Context/ Role Number Identified Pattern of Standard
Domain relationship of scripts non occurrence English
between sampled standard version
interlocutors English
items
yaki outfit in
Kaduna

don’t English do not

contraction

damn Slang do not care

yaro boys Hausa code mix boy also

‘almajiris’
Islamic
migrants

let’s English let us

contraction

d SMS shorthand the

The nonstandard/non-English words identified in this department as shown in the

table above take the form of Hausa words, slang, contracted forms of Standard

English words and GSM/SMS shorthand which were code mixed with the Standard

English in the course of our subjects answering the questions indicated above. Using

Fishman’s ‘domain analysis’, we can say that the domain of this interaction is formal

hence calls for use of language that is ‘transactional’. On the contrary, there are

variations in spellings such as:‘10-15yrs,’ ‘dept’, ‘u,’ ‘30m’ ,’20m,’ ‘ope,’ ‘I’m’, ,’

‘etc,’ ‘2,’ ‘ i.e, ‘pres,’ ‘operation yaki’, ‘don’t’, ‘ damn’, ‘d’, ‘let’s’ which are a

departure from the Standard English spellings: ‘only/except’ ,’ten to fifteen years’,

’department’, ’you’, ’thirty million’, ’twenty million’, ‘hope’, ’I am’, ‘and so

on’/’among others’, ’two’, ’that is’, ‘president’, ‘let us’ ‘the’ and ‘do not’

respectively. These variant spellings are associated with SMS shorthand hence as

postulated by the Labovian framework; SMS is the motivation for students’ use of the

lexical variations associated with it. The use of Hausa induced words such as ‘sai
100
Buhari’, ’ ‘arne,’ ‘almajiri’ and’ ,’yaro’ is motivated by the users’ proficiency in the

Hausa language. Slang words like ‘damn’ and ‘guy’ are common with youths and

particularly students. From the foregoing therefore, we can say that although, the

domain under consideration is formal, students were motivated by GSM/SMS,

bilingualism and age to use the identified nonstandard lexical items in this

department.

4.2.2 DEPARTMENT OF MATHEMATICS AND STATISTICS

ORIGINAL SENTENCES EXTRACTED FROM STUDENTS’ ANSWERS TO

THE QUESTIONS ABOVE

1. *They enter our school coz we are writing exam that time.

2. *The problem is because of rigging if not Buhari will have won but inec announced

Goodluck who didn’t win.

3. *I came out and didn’t see any okada ….

4. *With due respect sir, pls I want to draw you attention to the error in the budget…

5. *Most of the guys jumped the fence but the ladies were unable to jump.

6. *Sir I want to draw your attention to the error in the budget i.e. the recurrent

budget…

7. *The electn is peaceful but after the result problem started.

8.*They burn over 50 houses before operation yaki came.

9. *I can’t understand why you kill a human being like yourself because of election.

10. *Even in Bauchi, corpers were killed ….

11. *The committee is made up of 5 members namely….

12. *Kd like other parts of north was on fire even inside your house you’re not safe

13. *There should be no rigging of election & anybody that is guilty should be

punished

101
TABLE SHOWING IDENTIFIED NONSTANDARD ENGLISH WORDS
EXTRACTED FROM SENTENCES ABOVE INDICATING THEIR PATTERNS OF
OCCURRENCES AND STANDARD ENGLISH VERSIONS (TABLE 7)

Context/ Role Number of Identified non Pattern of Standard

Domain relationship scripts standard occurrence English
between sampled English items version
interlocutors
Formal: Based on the 50 Coz SMS Because
First question shorthand
semester asked, the role
exam on: relationship didnt English did not
1.Formal between contraction
report interlocutors
2.Formal are: okada Nigerian commercial
letter 1. State Pidgin motor cyclist
governor/
secretary of a pls SMS please
panel shorthand
2. State
Commissioner/ guys English boys/men
Chief slang
Statistician of
the state ie English that is
abbreviation

electn SMS election

shorthand

can’t English cannot

contraction

corpers Nigerian Youth Corps

English members

5 Substitution
of word with five
number

Kd SMS
shorthand Kaduna

you’re English you are

contraction

& SMS and

shorthand

The domain of the written communication was a formal one by virtue of it being an

examination and based on the questions asked. As the Domain Analysis postulates the

‘social situation’ demands that the language be ‘transactional’ just as Alo (2004:77)

opines that ‘Standard English is appropriate for formal contexts such as lectures,
102
public address, business reports, formal discourse ….’ From the data obtained, the

following nonstandard English lexical items featured in students’ answers to questions

bordering on the formal letter and report writing: “coz”, “didn’t”, “okada”, “pls”,

“guys”, “ie”, “electn”, “can’t”, “corpers”, “5”, “Kd”, “You’re” and “&” instead of

“because”, “did not”, “commercial motorcyclist”, “please”, “boys/men”, “that is”,

“election”, “cannot”, “youth corps member”, “five”, “Kaduna”, “you are”, and “and”

respectively. The pattern of occurrence shows that these variant lexical items are

largely SMS shorthand, slang words, Nigerian Pidgin words and Hausa words which

were code mixed with Standard English expressions. The use of these words in the

domain under consideration is inappropriate but as Labov posits, there are reasons

behind these choices of language our subjects in this department make which are

similar to those in the other analysis, that is, GSM and slang.

SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES

The compulsory English language course for this school is Business Communication-

GNS301. During the first semester examination of the 2010/2011 academic session,

the following questions were asked

QUESTION ONE: You are the Executive Director of a business centre. Using the

fully blocked format, write a letter to a foreign supply company to supply you with

some computer systems to replenish your business centre.

QUESTION TWO: A reputable firm has advertised for the post of PRO. Write your

letter of application for the advertised post.

103
4.2.3. DEPARTMENT OF ACCOUNTING

ORIGINAL SENTENCES EXTRACTED FROM STUDENTS’ ANSWERS TO

THE QUESTIONS ABOVE

1. *We need about 150 pcs of thermo cool laptop computer….

2. *I hereby order for the supply of 20 computers in my business centre.

3. *Enclosed herewith is d draft of 105 million naira.

4. *Hp laptop 50pcs,Hp desktop computer with Pentium d.u.d rewritable 10 pcs, Hp

notebook computer with Pentium m.d.u.d rewritable 15pcs

6. *Thanks

7. *Sir, I’m short of computer system in my business centre.

8. *… there are some systems in the business centre that were attacked by virus so

they are not working now and the business has now *expand pls.

9. *I ope my request will be granted.

10. *If you can supply btw now and next month….

11. *I don’t want u to disappoint me please.

104
TABLE SHOWING IDENTIFIED NONSTANDARD ENGLISH WORDS
EXTRACTED FROM SENTENCES ABOVE INDICATING THEIR PATTERNS OF
OCCURRENCES AND STANDARD ENGLISH VERSIONS (TABLE 8)
Context/ Role Number of Identified Pattern of Standard
Domain relationship scripts non occurrence English
between sampled standard version
interlocutors English
items
Formal: Based on the 50 150pcs Substitution of one hundred
question words with and fifty
First asked, the role numbers/SMS pieces
semester relationship shorthand
exam on between the
Formal interlocutors 20 Substitution of twenty
letters are: words with
1.company numbers
Director/
supplier/ 105pcs Substitution of one hundred
business man words with and five
numbers/ SMS pieces
2. Human shorthand
Resource
Manager/ 15pcs Substitution of fifteen pieces
applicant words with
numbers/ SMS
shorthand

I’m English I am
contraction

pls SMS shorthand please

ope SMS shorthand hope

btw SMS shorthand between

don’t English do not

contraction

u SMS shorthand you

The two questions asked during this examination were both on the formal letter. The

domain is thus formal. The role relationship of the participants is that of a Human

Resource Manager and applicant in the first question and a supplier/consumer in the

second question which also makes the domain a formal one just as the topic under

discussion is also formal. These are in addition to the formal context of examinations.

This particular ‘social situation’ bearing the above in mind ought to have favoured a

105
more formal code than the one used by the subjects in answering the two questions.

The identified nonstandard English lexical items highlighted in the table above

therefore make the social situation incongruent. The pattern assumed by these

nonstandard words shows that a large number of them are abbreviations associated

with SMS which can be seen as the motivation for these usages.

4.2.4 DEPARTMENT OF OFFICE TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT

ORIGINAL SENTENCES EXTRACTED FROM STUDENTS’ ANSWERS TO

THE QUESTIONS ABOVE

1. *I ope I’ll get the supply on time thanks.

2. *If it is possible I want the supply before the xmas season.

3. *With due respect sir, I write 2 place order for the supply of the following…

4. *I need 100 pcs of Hp laptops, 20 pcs of Hp desktop ….

5. *I have enclosed an overdraft of 1m & catalogue so that you will not make mistake.

6. *Make sure that u send the best quality of the items.

7. *I hope I can get the supply between now and dec.

106
TABLE SHOWING IDENTIFIED NONSTANDARD ENGLISH WORDS
EXTRACTED FROM SENTENCES ABOVE INDICATING THEIR
PATTERNS OF OCCURRENCES AND STANDARD ENGLISH VERSIONS
(TABLE 9)

Context/ Role Number of Identified Pattern of Standard

Domain relationship scripts non occurrence English
between sampled standard version
interlocutors English
items
Formal: Based on the 50 Ope SMS shorthand hope
First question
semester asked, the role I’ll English I will
exam on relationship contraction
Formal between the
letters interlocutors thanks incomplete I thank you
are: sentence
1.company
Director/ xmas SMS shorthand Christmas
supplier/
business man 2 SMS shorthand to
2. Human
Resource 100pcs Substitution of one hundred
Manager/ words with pieces
applicant numbers/ SMS
shorthand

20pcs Substitution of twenty

words with pieces
numbers/

1m SMS shorthand one million

naira

u SMS shorthand you

& SMS shorthand and

dec SMS shorthand December

don’t English do not

contraction

107
The domain, topic and role relationship in this social situation which is the formal

examination context and the formal letter require very formal use of language yet as

shown in the table above, there is the use of contracted forms of the English words

such as ‘I’ll’, ‘don’t’ which are only appropriate for informal writings. These

contractions are variations of the Standard English spellings ‘I will’ and ‘do not’.

There is also the use of other Standard English words variants associated with the

SMS shorthand such as “ope”, “2”, “pcs” “m” “u”, “&” “xmas” and “dec” which are

used instead of “hope”, “to”, “pieces” “million” “and”, “Christmas” and “December”.

There is also the substitution of words with numbers like “100” for “one hundred,”

“20” for “twenty” and “1” for one. These variants forms are supposed to be used in

informal contexts but the as Labovian framework maintains, their use in the formal

context under consideration is influenced by SMS. This also proves how the subjects

of this study find it difficult to draw boundaries between when to use the Standard

English and nonstandard English.

SCHOOL OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE

4.2.5 DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING

ORIGINAL SENTENCES EXTRACTED FROM STUDENTS’ ANSWERS TO

THE QUESTIONS ABOVE

1. *Sir, I write 2 apply for PRO in your organization.

2. *I need 20 pcs of Dell laptops, 10 pcs of Hp 1020 professional printers….

3. *Sir, if u can send it urgently, I’ll be *greatful.

4. *Pls, I want the supply next month if possible.

5. *I’m your customer who placed order last yr for 100 laptops, this year I need only

50…

6. *I graduated from govt sec sch Yola in 2008.

108
7. *My business centre needs the ff computers and printers….

TABLE SHOWING IDENTIFIED NONSTANDARD ENGLISH WORDS

EXTRACTED FROM SENTENCES ABOVE INDICATING THEIR
PATTERNS OF OCCURRENCES AND STANDARD ENGLISH VERSIONS
(TABLE 10)

Context/ Role Number of Identified Pattern of Standard

Domain relationship scripts non occurrence English
between sampled standard version
interlocutors English
items
Formal: Based on the 50 2 SMS shorthand to
First question
semester asked, the 20pcs Substitution twenty pieces
exam on role with words/
Formal relationship
letters between the 10pcs SMS shorthand ten pieces
interlocutors Substitution
are: with words/
1.company SMS shorthand
Director/
supplier/ u SMS shorthand you
business man
2.Human pls SMS shorthand please
Resource
Manager/ I’m English I am
applicant contraction

yr SMS shorthand year

50 Substitution of fifty
words with
numbers

govt SMS shorthand government

sec SMS shorthand secondary

sch SMS shorthand school

ff SMS shorthand following

109
As already discussed in other analyses above, the students of the Department of

Building irrespective of the fact that the examination context is formal and also based

on certain factors such as the role relationship, topic of discussion which favour the

formal code have chosen a ‘code’ that is ‘personal’ instead of ‘transactional’ thereby

making the ‘social situation’ incongruent. The high use of shorthand associated with

SMS is meant to be used informally with people that are intimate as Alo (2004:77)

posits. Be that as it may, the nature of these identified items shows that they are

motivated by SMS as a social factor.

4.3 INSTITUTION THREE

The students considered in this institution were those of HND I. The analysis is based

on the compulsory English language 2010/2011 first semester examination where the

following questions were asked:

QUESTION ONE: Write an essay for or against government’s plan to withdraw

subsidy on fuel.

QUESTION TWO: There has been growing unemployment in Nigeria with its

attending problems. Write an essay on this growing rate of unemployment in Nigeria,

its causes and suggest the way forward.

Below is the analysis of nonstandard/ non-English items extracted from students’

scripts based on the selected schools and departments of this particular institution.

COLLEGE OF ADMINISTRATION AND BUSINESS STUDIES (CABS)

4.3.1 DEPARTMENT OF ACCOUNTING

ORIGINAL SENTENCES EXTRACTED FROM STUDENTS’ ANSWERS TO

THE QUESTIONS ABOVE

1. *…when it is been removed, since almost everything is dependent on it p.m.s

things like generators, transport fares etc….

110
2. *The hardship the common man is going through isn’t funny.

3. *Even the government reversing the price from N141 - N97, the prices of things

have rose up *talkless of when it will be N141.

4. *Finally, with these few reasons, I’m sure you’ll understand why I’m against the

fuel subsidy removal.

5. *Most leaders are corrupt and are the enemy of their people because they don’t

have the intention to build their society.

6. *Possible solution to the reduction of growing rate of unemployment, good plan of

entrepreneurship development because government alone can’t give job

opportunity to every citizen.

7. *The cabal which the country has i.e the government ….

8. *However, with all this my reasons, am against the government plan to remove

fuel subsidy.

9. *Why can’t they fish out the corrupt ones among them and make them face the

law? Why can’t Nigerian govt repair the refineries?

10. * …yet the government doesn’t want to take proper care of our security

11. *If you don’t have any godfather in a particular organization where recruitment is

taking place then you are on your own.

12. *… they won’t look at you because they have their own candidate.

13. *The federal gov’t says the removal of subsidy will allow them build

infrastructures and job creation but will they do it?

111
TABLE SHOWING IDENTIFIED NONSTANDARD ENGLISH WORDS
EXTRACTED FROM THE SENTENCES ABOVE INDICATING THEIR PATTERNS
OF OCCURRENCES AND STANDARD ENGLISH VERSIONS (TABLE 11)

Context/ Role Number Identified Pattern of Standard

Domain relationship of scripts non occurrence English
between sampled standard version
interlocutors English
items
Formal: Lecturer 50 pms English Premium Motor
First (examiner)/ abbreviation Spirit
semester Student
exam on: etc Anglicized and so on
1. Argumen- English
tative essay abbreviation
2.Expository
essay isn’t English is not
contraction

N141-N97 Substitution of one hundred

words with and forty-one
numbers naira to ninety-
seven naira

N141 Substitution of one hundred

words with and forty one
numbers naira

I’m English I am
contraction

don’t English do not

contraction

ie English that is
abbreviation

am omission of I am
pronoun I

doesn’t English does not

contraction

won’t English will not

contraction

gov’t SMS shorthand government

Like the previous tables, the ‘Domain analysis’ and the ‘Labovian framework’ are

used in the analysis of this data. The topics are argumentative essay on fuel subsidy

removal and an expository essay on the growing rate of unemployment. Giving that
112
the examination context is a formal one and that the nature of questions asked and the

role relationship are also formal, the domain can thus be said to be very formal and

requiring the formal code. However, from the data obtained from students’ scripts,

there is the use of nonstandard English lexical items. These items include: “pms”,

“etc”, “isn’t”, “N141-N97”, “N141”, “I’m”, “don’t”, “ie”, “am”, “doesn’t”, “wont”,

“gov’t” which are not suitable for the given context thereby making the given social

situation incongruent. The general pattern assumed by the identified nonstandard

English lexis is in form abbreviations, word contraction, omissions and SMS

shorthand.

43.2. DEPARTMENT OF HOSPITALITY, LEISURE AND TOURISM

MANAGEMENT

ORIGINAL SENTENCES EXTRACTED FROM STUDENTS’ ANSWERS TO

THE QUESTIONS ABOVE
1.* Some they don’t want to use their skill to provide job by *theirself.

2. *… am sure if ajakuta can work 80% , the rate of unemployment will reduce

3. *It’s not necessary to say govt must provide work for everyone.

4. *Fuel subsidy bring about the increment of many things such as transportation,

food, clothes, sheda etc.

5. *The way forward or solution is that most of the infrastructure that have been

abandoned e.g NNPC, Mines(coal), cotton, groundnut etc…

6. *…like Malaysia came to Nigeria and bought palm fruits to take to their country

and now they are the no one leading country exporting palm oil.

7. *The cause of unemployment in Nigeria is mainly greed and corruption, like now

the age limit of civil servants now they want to increase it to 70yrs before they

resign.

8. *Another cause of unemployment is that some that go and learn trade with an

113
 entrepreneur after they learn eg to make soap or any other cause don’t have money

to execute what they have learnt.

9. *…at this point, the government don’t have good policies to approach the situation.

10.* Let me say at least 75% of them are not trustworthy….

11. *For a country like Nigeria, the economy is ok before the natural resources are on

agriculture like cocoa, cassava etc ….

12. *The rijim of pres Umaru Musa Yaradua he bring down the price from 75/L to

65/L

13. *Furthermore, our government doesn’t put the right things in place….

114
 TABLE SHOWING IDENTIFIED NONSTANDARD ENGLISH WORDS
EXTRACTED FROM THE SENTENCES ABOVE INDICATING THEIR PATTERNS
OF OCCURRENCES AND STANDARD ENGLISH VERSIONS (TABLE 12)
Context/ Role Number Identified Pattern of Standard
Domain relationship of non occurrence English
between scripts standard version
interlocutors sampled English
items
Formal: Lecturer 50 don’t English contraction do not
First semester (examiner)/
exam on: student am Omission of pronoun I am
1. I
Argumentative
essay 80% Substitution of word eighty percent
2.Expository with numbers/
essay symbols

its English contraction it is

SMS shorthand
govt government
Hausa/code mix
sheda cloth for
sewing
traditional
English abbreviation outfits
eg for example
Anglicized French
etc abbreviation and so on

SMS shorthand
no number
Substitution of words
70yrs with numbers/ SMS seventy years
shorthand

Substitution of words
75% with numbers/ seventy-five
symbol percent

SMS shorthand
ok okay/ alright
SMS shorthand
rejim regime
SMS shorthand
pres president
Substitution of words
75/L – with numbers/ SMS seventy-five
65/L shorthand naira per litre
to sixty-five
naira per litre
English contraction
doesn’t does not

115
The data presented above is a confirmation that the subjects actually use nonstandard

English words in formal contexts. The pattern of occurrence of these lexical items

takes the form of contracted forms of English words such as ‘doesn’t’, ‘it’s’. Other

patterns taken by these words are those of the shorthand associated with the written

language of SMS, substitution of English words with numbers, omission of pronoun I

and code mixing of Hausa words with English language expressions like in the case of

‘sheda’. The domain is one that requires the use of the standard variety of English

whereby even if such words were to feature at all; they ought to have been put in

inverted commas or brackets. The questions asked were on argumentative essay and

expository essays. The formal nature of questions and the fact that examinations are

also very formal contexts require very formal use of language. On the contrary, there

was the use of nonstandard features cutting across syntax, semantics and lexical

levels. Giving that the focus of this study is on the lexical items, only the lexical

variations were selected and their patterns of occurrence identified. The Quantitative

Paradigm holds that, social reasons are always responsible for variations in language

and the choices speakers make. From the patterns of occurrence of these nonstandard

lexical items, it can be said that the major social factor which motivated their use by

students of Hospitality Management is SMS.

116
SCHOOL OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

4.3.3. DEPARTMENT OF AUDIO-VISUALS

ORIGINAL SENTENCES EXTRACTED FROM STUDENTS’ ANSWERS TO

THE QUESTIONS ABOVE

1. *Many people today don’t really understand the meaning of subsidy.

2. *I am suggesting that the federal government should have a rethink and move the

country forward by addressing issues of infrastructure, road network, health,

environment, educational activities etc.

3. *We don’t need removal of fuel subsidy because even when they remove the fuel

subsidy of kerosene and diesel we don’t see any of their effort.

4. *Presently, masses are suffering bitterly, people are dying every day and night due

to lack of security in Nigeria, instead, tackle this problem. Thanks.

5. *…government policies, inadequate funding from corporate bodies like banks,

economic factors, social factors, geo- political factors etc.

6. *People that make and interpret knw they have the necessary power to withdraw the

subsidy….

7. *We have bad government as a result of promising several things without fulfilling

them such as constant electricity, employment rate, good roads etc.

8. *…the country cannot get u a job to cater for your financial needs.

9. *75% of Nigerians are living under abject poverty ie most Nigerians are living in a

manageable or even to say poor condition.

10. *…they roam about the street drinking & causing trouble.

11. *The world today is overpopulated; an estimate carried out has shown that more

than 5,000 students graduate every year from just one tertiary institution….

12. *…it has reached to the level that everybody in the country is corrupt not leaving

any one out cos some people want to get paid without working.
117
TABLE SHOWING IDENTIFIED NONSTANDARD ENGLISH WORDS
EXTRACTED FROM SENTENCES ABOVE INDICATING THEIR
PATTERNS OF OCCURRENCES AND STANDARD ENGLISH VERSIONS
(TABLE 13)

Context/ Role Number Identified Pattern of Standard

Domain relationship of non occurrence English
between scripts standard version
interlocutors sampled English
items
Formal: Lecturer 50 don’t English do not
First semester (examiner)/ contraction
exam on: student
1. etc Anglicized among
Argumentative French others
essay abbreviation
2.Expository
essay thanks Incomplete I thank
sentence you

knw SMS shorthand know

u SMS shorthand you

75% Substitution of seventy-

word with five
numbers/symbols percent

& SMS shorthand and

5,000 Substitution of five

words with thousand
numbers

cos SMS shorthand because

Like the previous departments analyzed, the role relationship, domain and topic in this

situation favour the Standard British English variety. However, out of the fifty scripts

sampled, the following non-English items were discovered: “don’t,” “etc”, “thanks”,

“knw” ,”u”, “75%,” “&”, “5,000” and “cos” used instead of “do not”, “among

others”, “I thank you”, “know”, “you”, “seventy-five percent”, “and”, “five

thousand”, and “because” . Their patterns of occurrence cut across SMS shorthand,

contracted forms of English words and substitution of English words with numbers.

118
From the patterns, we see that only those who are familiar with the shorthand

associated with texting/SMS can use the identified shorthand associated with it. This

follows that; texting by the students of this department motivated their use of the

shorthand associated with SMS.

4.3.5. DEPARTMENT OF MATHEMATICS AND STATISTICS

ORIGINAL SENTENCES EXTRACTED FROM STUDENTS’ ANSWERS TO

THE QUESTIONS ABOVE

1. *Why keep on pumping more money to the projects cos they are sharing it with the

contractors so corruption is the main root of unemployment.

2. *This is how corruption is being practiced in one country e.g when a person is in an

organization, he or she will only want his or her own people to be there.

3. *They don’t board commercial vehicles rather they have private jets, they don’t

buy fuel from filling stations….

4. *…adequate provision should be made for them like lending them money through

the micro- finance scheme so dat they can start something on their own.

5. *In conclusion, the federal gov’t should work on the electricity so that poor people

will benefit from gov’t….

6. *I don’t think it will work because, where we have 28 billion Naira in account and

they say it’s finished or not enough to do what we need and we’ve not even seen

that starting….

7. *…the poor that are buying fuel at the rate of sixty- five naira before and *sodily

increased it to the amount it’s now, will find it difficult couple with eg like

okadamen who even rent machine to buy this fuel at this price.

119
TABLE SHOWING IDENTIFIED NONSTANDARD ENGLISH WORDS
EXTRACTED FROM SENTENCES ABOVE INDICATING THEIR
PATTERNS OF OCCURRENCES AND STANDARD ENGLISH VERSIONS
(TABLE 14)

Context/ Role Number Identified Pattern of Standard

Domain relationship of non occurrence English
between scripts standard version
interlocutors sampled English
items
Formal: Lecturer 50 cos SMS because
First semester (examiner)/ shorthand
exam on: student
1. eg English for example
Argumentative abbreviation
essay
2.Expository don’t English do not
essay contraction

dat SMS that

shorthand

govt SMS government

shorthand

28 Substitution twenty-eight
of
words with
numbers

it’s English it is
contraction

we’ve English we have

contraction

okadamen Nigerian commercial

Pidgin motorcyclists

120
The data obtained from this department was collected from students’ answers to the

questions on essay writing. As already established, the domain, topic and role

relationship warranted the use of Standard British English by the students of the

department of Mathematics and Statistics but as can be seen in table above, their

answers were characterized by the use of not only nonstandard and non-English words

but also English numbers which were used to substitute English words. These

nonstandard English words appeared in form of SMS shorthand, Nigerian Pidgin,

contracted forms of English words, abbreviations and the substitution of English

words with numbers. A careful study of these features shows that the social factor that

motivated their usage are SMS and the prevalence of Nigerian Pidgin among the

students in particular and Nigerians in general.

4.3.5 DEPARTMENT OF ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING

ORIGINAL SENTENCES EXTRACTED FROM STUDENTS’ ANSWERS TO

THE QUESTIONS ABOVE

1.* I don’t have any gain in it apart from loses for the following reasons….

2. *…if you are a businessman/business woman etc

3. *If you don’t knw somebody, you will not be employed.

4. *In conclusion, unemployment rate can be reduced by propa parental upbringing.

5. *…it happened when pple were not expecting and were hoping that things will

change for good.

6. *The farmer in the village doesn’t need fuel for his farm or his generators; he

doesn’t need fuel to run his factories because he doesn’t have one.

7. *...it’s not supposed to be but all that is as a result of bad leadership.

8. *I advise the federal gov’t of Nigeria and urge them to always stand by their

words.

121
TABLE SHOWING IDENTIFIED NONSTANDARD ENGLISH WORDS
EXTRACTED FROM SENTENCES ABOVE INDICATING THEIR
PATTERNS OF OCCURRENCES AND STANDARD ENGLISH VERSIONS
(TABLE 15)

Context/ Role Number Identified Pattern of Standard

Domain relationship of scripts non occurrence English
between sampled standard version
interlocutors English
items
Formal: Lecturer 50 don’t English do not
First semester (examiner)/
contraction
exam on: student
1. etc Anglicized and so on
Argumentative
French
essay
2.Expository abbreviation
essay
knw SMS know
shorthand
pple SMS people
contraction
doesn’t English does not
contraction
govt SMS government
shorthand

its English it is
contraction

propa proper
SMS
shorthand

122
The students of the department of Electrical Engineering in spite of the questions

asked, the role relationship, topic and the examination context which expectedly

called for the use more formal lexical items still engaged in the use of nonstandard

lexical items irrespective of the domain. As shown in table 15 above, some of these

words based on their patterns can be said to be motivated by SMS. This analysis is

based on the Labovian framework and domain analysis.

4.4 INSTITUTION FOUR

FACULTY OF ARTS

4.4.1 DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH AND LITERARY STUDIES

(LITERATURE)

The scripts sampled were those of Contemporary English Usage I (LANG 201) first

semester examination. One among the questions asked was that students should write

an essay on the current insecurity in Nigeria while the other was on the guidelines to

follow in continuous writing.

ORIGINAL SENTENCES EXTRACTED FROM STUDENTS’ ANSWERS TO

THE QUESTIONS ABOVE

1. *The so-called boko haram have just been planting bombs and killing innocent

*souls.

2. *If they can bomb 1div in Kaduna, then nowhere is safe.

3. *The security are given enough funding because out of the last budget, they were

given 900 billion naira for use.

4. *For example, the boko haram may announce that they will be in so place to kill

people.

5. *… ie, the readers opinion what you feel about it.

6. *This objective also mean it’s not your own opinion….

123
7. *… even though you don’t really like it or you are not in good terms with it ie no

false thing about it.

8. *Nigerian government are singing the word insecurity everyday ….in order to put

an end to issue Boko Haram sects who call themselves western education is sin or

against their Islamic religion.

9. *Such *guidlines include definition, description, classification etc

10. An example of d contextual definition ….

11.* For example, the killing of Boko Haram leader in 2009 compounded the

problem.

12. *Some criminal acts such as murder or robbery in the name of Boko Haram

13. *The boko haram sect existed harmoniously not until 2009….

14. *The sect boko haram has been in existence as far back as 2002.

15. *Boko Haram for instance is hiding under the fact that ‘no western education’….

16. *It’s over a year yet there is no solution to the Boko Haram problem.

17. *Some of the members are as young as 15yrs old.

18. *For some, it is because of the 77 virgins promised them, some for revenge, some

for criminal reasons etc.

19. *Most of these youths u see around are members but people hardly know.

124
TABLE SHOWING IDENTIFIED NONSTANDARD ENGLISH WORDS
EXTRACTED FROM THE SENTENCES ABOVE INDICATING THEIR
PATTERNS OF OCCURRENCES AND STANDARD ENGLISH VERSIONS
(TABLE 16)

Context/ Role Number Identified Pattern of Standard

Domain relationship of scripts non occurrence English version
between sampled standard
interlocutors English
items
Formal: Lecturer 50 Etc Anglicised and so on
First semester (examiner)/ English
exam on: student
1. Expository it’s abbreviation it is
essay English
contraction

Boko Hausa/Arabic Islamic sect

haram code mix that believes
Western
Education is
forbidden
ie English that is
abbreviation

15 Substitution of fifteen
words with
numbers

yr SMS shorthand year

eg English for example

abbreviation

don’t English do not

contraction

d SMS shorthand the

1div substitution of Mechanized

word with one division
number/

u Contraction You
. SMS shorthand

125
Given the fact that this was an examination and that the question was also on

expository writing, the domain and topic can be considered as being very formal and

requiring the use of the Standard English variety which is the recognized variety for

such academic purposes. Based on the data obtained from randomly selected fifty

scripts, nonstandard lexical variations from the standard forms were identified. Their

patterns of occurrence took the form of abbreviations, contraction of English words,

shorthand associated with SMS and code mixing of non-English words. If this

particular ‘social situation’ is supposed to favour the Standard British English, what

then are the reasons for the use of these varied lexical forms? Using Labov’s

postulation that linguistic variations are determined by the social environment, it can

be inferred from the data presented in table 16 above that, students’ access to handsets

and particularly the Short Message Service (SMS) where some of these abbreviations

are used to economize space actually influenced their use of the SMS associated

shorthand that featured in their write-ups. The use of the other contractions and

abbreviations which are only fit for informal writing only confirm the students’

inability to draw boundaries between which context calls for formal context and

which one does not.

FACULTY OF MEDICINE

4.4.2 DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN MEDICINE

The scripts sampled were those of three hundred levels (300 L) Medical students

while the examination was a combination of the first and second semester of a course

titled Human Physiology- HPHY 300.

126
ORIGINAL SENTENCES EXTRACTED FROM STUDENTS’ ANSWERS TO

THE QUESTIONS ABOVE

1. *Some scholars divide the processes into stages 1,2 and 3….

2. *Parturition is the term used to describe the summation of all activities that are

involved to bring about the delivery of the foetus at term or earlier or later than

term- 38-40 wks

3. *This *occur about 15mins after the foetus is expelled.

4. *in the case of jaundice, the enfant should be exposed to UV rays in order to get

vit D

5. *Parturition occurs in stages which are divided into 3 stages.

6. *After the delivery of the baby, the placenta usually emerges after 15-30mins.

7. *Pregnancy lasts for 38-42wks.

8. *At the end of the 3rd trimester, the number of oxytocin receptors increases….

9. *This is the 3 rd stage of parturition that ends with the expulsion of the placenta.

10. *The stage III is the expulsion of the placenta.

11. *Normal gestation period is 9-11 months hence parturition takes place after

9mnths.

12. *this occurs after 290 days or 40 weeks.

13. *Stage 2: the expulsion of the baby (giving birth) 1hr.

14 *This is the removal of the product of pregnancy after about 28wks of conception.

15.*Defn: Labour can be defined as ….

16. *After a period of about 15 minutes, the placenta is expelled.

17. *Once the baby is delivered, it takes about 20-30mins for the placenta to be

expelled.

18. *Normal parturition period ranges from 1-4 hours.

19. *This is 10-15 minutes after expulsion of the foetus.

127
20. *The role of progesterone & oestrogen: during pregnancy there is high

concentration of progesterone & oestrogen both of which inhibit prolactin &

hence … the level of progesterone and oestrogen *fells & the inhibiting effect

on prolactin is relieved.

21. *… it takes a period between 38-40wks.

22. *… and final expulsion taking place in varying individual timing at 30-40mins.

128
TABLE SHOWING IDENTIFIED NONSTANDARD ENGLISH WORDS
EXTRACTED FROM THE SENTENCES ABOVE INDICATING THEIR
PATTERNS OF OCCURRENCES AND STANDARD ENGLISH VERSIONS
(TABLE 17)

Context/ Role Number Identified Pattern of Standard

Domain relationship of scripts non occurrence English
between sampled standard version
interlocutors English
items
Formal: Lecturer 50 1,2,3 Substitution of one, two,
First semester (examiner)/ words with three
exam on: student numbers
1. 38-40wks Substitution of thirty-eight to
Argumentative words with forty weeks
essay numbers/SMS
2.Expository shorthand
essay 15mins Substitution of fifteen
words with minutes
numbers/SMS
shorthand
UV English Ultra Violet
abbreviation rays

vit D English vitamin D

contraction

3 Substitution of three
words with
number
15-30mins Substitution of fifteen to
words thirty minutes
with
numbers/SMS
shorthand
38-42wks Substitution of thirty-eight to
words with forty-two
number/SMS weeks
shorthand
3rd Substitution third
of word with
numbers
III Substitution of three
words with
Roman
numeral
9-11 Substitution of nine to eleven
words with
numbers
290-40 Substitution of two hundred
words with and ninety
129
Context/ Role Number Identified Pattern of Standard
Domain relationship of scripts non occurrence English
between sampled standard version
interlocutors English
items
numbers days to forty
1hr Substitution of one hour
words with
numbers/SMS
shorthand
28wks Substitution of twenty-eight
words with weeks
numbers/SMS
shorthand
Defn SMS definition
shorthand

15 Substitution of fifteen
words with
number
20-30mins Substitution of twenty to
words with thirty minutes
numbers/ SMS
shorthand
1-4hrs Substitution of one to four
words with hours
numbers/SMS
shorthand
& SMS and
shorthand

Although the questions asked during this particular exam were not those that required

the students to write long essays still, given that the examination context is a formal

domain, they were expected to use formal English particularly with regards to the

choice and spelling of words. From the fifty scripts sampled, nonstandard English

items presented in table 17 were identified. There is an interesting discovery in the

pattern of occurrence of the nonstandard English items identified in this department

compared to the ones identified in the other departments examined so far. Most of

these items are derived from the English numbers used to substitute words. It was

observed that, unlike other departments where these items would have been circled

130
and marks deducted, these identified nonstandard items were neither circled nor

underlined to indicate that they were unacceptable in such a context.

FACULTY OF SCIENCE

4.4.3 DEPARTMENT OF GEOGRAPHY

Fifty scripts of the first semester examination on Rural Geography- GEO 422 were

selected for this analysis. One among the questions asked was:

QUESTION: Discuss the problem associated with commercial agriculture in

developing countries.

ORIGINAL SENTENCES EXTRACTED FROM STUDENTS’ ANSWERS TO

THE QUESTIONS ABOVE

1.*Commercial agric in Nigeria is threatened by lack on fertilizer which has been

hijacked by rich men.

2. *E.g nobody wants to buy the local rice, they all prefer foreign rice.

3. *… bad roads, lack of storage facilities, bad weather etc have also affected

commercial agriculture in Nigeria.

4. *Some farmers i.e mostly those in the village are not educated and can’t read

simple instruction on how to eg use hybrid seeds….

5. *in developed countries, everything is subsidized for d farmers but in developing

countries, this is not the case.

6. *80% of farmers in developing world are illiterate.

7. *In most cases, it’s the farmer that will still look for buyers….

8. *Like in Nig for example, govt is not ready to help farmers.

9. *Commercial agriculture is the production of crops for sale & for widespread

distribution.

131
10. *another problem of commercial agriculture in Nigeria is overproduction

sometimes leads 2 waste cos there are not buyers for such large quantity of products.

TABLE SHOWING IDENTIFIED NONSTANDARD ENGLISH WORDS

EXTRACTED FROM SENTENCES ABOVE INDICATING THEIR
PATTERNS OF OCCURRENCES AND STANDARD ENGLISH VERSIONS
(TABLE 18)

Context/ Role Number Identified Pattern of Standard

Domain relationship of non occurrence English
between scripts standard version
interlocutors sampled English
items
Formal: Lecturer 50 Agric English Agriculture
First semester (examiner)/
contraction/
exam on: Student
1. SMS shorthand
Argumentative
eg English for example
essay
2.Expository abbreviation
essay
etc Anglicized and so on
French
abbreviation

can’t English cannot

contraction

d SMS shorthand the

80% Substitution of
words with eighty percent
numbers/symbol
its English it is
contraction

Nig SMS shorthand Nigeria

& SMS shorthand And

132
The ‘domain analysis’ has been used to establish that this context is formal with

regards to the topic (exam question), role relationship in this particular department

involving the lecturer/examiner and then students. Consequently, the appropriate

variety of English that ought to have been used is the Standard British English which

is the institutionalized variety for academic purposes. This variety is devoid of

contracted forms of words, abbreviations and other forms of unconventional

shorthand. However, out of the fifty scripts sampled for this department, these

nonstandard English words and abbreviations were identified: ‘Agric’, ‘e.g.’, ‘etc’,

‘cant’, ‘d’, ‘80%’, ‘its’, ’Nig’ and ‘&’. From the pattern of these nonstandard items,

most of them are those associated with Short Message Service shorthand while the

rest are those of conventional English words contractions and abbreviations. Using the

Labovian framework to explain the motivations behind these usages (which are

variations from the Standard English variety spellings) despite the formal context, it

can be said from the pattern of occurrence that, SMS is a major motivation for the use

of the identified nonstandard English lexical items in this department.

FACULTY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES

4.4.4 DEPARTMENT OF MASS COMMUNICATION TABLE 19

The following questions were asked during MCOM 203 (Interpretative Writing) first

semester examination in the 2011/2012 session.

QUESTION 1: There has been serious water crises in Samaru campus of the

Ahmadu Bello University. As the president of the student union government, write a

letter to the authorities concerned about the problem.

133
QUESTION 2: What is news forecast?

ORIGINAL SENTENCES EXTRACTED FROM STUDENTS’ ANSWERS TO

THE QUESTIONS ABOVE

1.* Some scientists say water is no1 item that man needs to survive

2. *According to the Nigerian constitution, a president or governor can only spend a

maximum of 4yrs

3. *Making prediction does not mean by mallam or aladura but based on scientific

analysis

4.*This type of interpretative writing predicts what happens in future without

consulting Babalawos, soothsayers and traditional mallam

5.*From now, there are 3 more years to 2015

6. Lack of *maintaince only focus more or fairly on the issues & living that of water.

7. This type of interpretative writing predicts what happens in future without

consulting babalawos, soothsayers and traditional mallams

8. Some students are left at the mercy of water hawkers popularly *known as

mairuwa….

9. It took them a very long time to see those who hawk water known as mairuwa.

10. Students have to make line to get water which *the said can take 1hr to fill a

bucket.

11. When we talk about fashion i.e what a person will like to put on and how fashion

changes from one generation to another example of the recent way of dressing is

the guys sagging their trousers… and the modern music now is hip-hop by various

artists both Nigerian & international

12. The federal government wants to *modernized the almajiri system.

13. Forecast can be defined as the prediction of the future that goes beyond the power

of the *clergys, Aladuras, Alfa or Baba Alaoo.

134
14. If it is ok for the audience to understand what it is all about.

15. In feature writing, the 5 W & H

16. Example, the boko haram sect

17. *... e.g of an institution, organization, programme etc the notable should be 1st, 5th

,10th,25th, 50th,etc

18. *There is a slight drop in the removal from 147-98 naira per litre.

19. If there are any communities in the 3 rd world countries that would fight water

crisis….

20. Out of 24 hrs a day, the school’s water board provides water for only two hours

usually around 2am-4am

21. Comparison is also used to compare one government to another e.g. pres

Olusegun Obasanjo and his late successor pres Umar Musa Yaradua.

135
TABLE SHOWING IDENTIFIED NONSTANDARD ENGLISH WORDS
EXTRACTED FROM SENTENCES ABOVE INDICATING THEIR
PATTERNS OF OCCURRENCES AND STANDARD ENGLISH VERSIONS
(TABLE 19)

Context/ Role Number Identified Pattern of Standard

Domain relationship of non occurrence English
between scripts standard version
interlocutors sampled English
items
Formal: Based on the 50 no 1 SMS number one
First semester questions shorthand
exam on: asked, the
1. role 4yrs SMS four years
Argumentative relationship shorthand
essay are:
2.Expository 1. The Vice Mallam Hausa/ code teacher but
essay Chancellor/ mix used to mean
Student spiritualist
Union Aladura/ Yoruba/code spiritualist
President mix
2. Lecturer Alfa Yoruba/ code spiritualist
(examiner)/ mix
student Babalawos Yoruba/ code spiritualist
mix

3 Substitution of three
English word
with number

& SMS and

shorthand

mairuwa Hausa/code water vendor

mix

1hr SMS one hour

shorthand

ie English that is
abbreviation

guys English slang boys/men

almajiri Hausa/code Islamic

mix migrant in
search of
knowledge
Baba Alao Yoruba/code spiritualist
mix
136
Context/ Role Number Identified Pattern of Standard
Domain relationship of non occurrence English
between scripts standard version
interlocutors sampled English
items
ok SMS okay/alright
shorthand

5w&h SMS five W and H

shorthand questions

Boko Hausa/Arabic Islamic sect

haram code mix that believes
western
education is
sin
1st 5th, Substitution of first, fifth,
10th, 25th , words with tenth, twenty-
50th, numbers fifth, fiftieth

etc Anglicized and so on

French
abbreviation

147-90 Substitution of one hundred

words with and forty
numbers seven to
ninety

24hrs Substitution of twenty- four

words with
Numbers/SMS
shorthand

- Hyphen used to
instead of ‘to’

pres SMS president

shorthand

eg English for example

abbreviation

Apart from the context of examination (domain) being a very formal one, the

questions asked (topic) which are both on formal writing also demand the use of very

formal English. In addition, even though the channel of communication is writing, the

role relationship between the presumed participants is that of lecturer/examiner and

137
student. This of course establishes that the domain for this communication is formal.

However, out of the fifty scripts sampled, a large number of nonstandard and non-

English words were used by the students of Mass Communication. What made these

features informal hence unacceptable in the context within which they were used is

students’ failure to put them in inverted commas or in some cases use English

descriptive terms for such non-English words. The pattern of occurrence shows that

these items take the forms of English contractions, abbreviations, substitution of

English words with numbers and code mixing of non- English words with Standard

English language expressions. These nonstandard words also take the form of

abbreviations, clipping of English words like ‘Feb’ and omission of pronouns like ‘I’

in ‘am’. These are all what Labov calls variations of the linguistic items which he said

are motivated by social factors. A critical study of these items and their patterns as

presented in the table above shows that some of them like ‘mairuwa’,’mallam’,

‘aladura’, baba alaoo ‘babalawo are motivated by the bilingual nature of the users.

Others like ‘&’,’no’, ‘1hr’, ‘ok’, ‘pres’ can be said to be motivated by SMS. The use

of abbreviations, omissions and clipped words in formal contexts by students of this

department only brings to the fore the problems faced by students in choosing a

language variety that suits the context at any given time. However, as the Labovian

model explains, there are factors motivating these usages. After a careful analysis of

the nature of the identified nonstandard and non-English items in this department, we

can say based on Labov’s submission that their use is being motivated by bilingualism

and SMS.

138
4.4.5 DEPARTMENT OF LANGUAGE ARTS

The fifty scripts examined in this department were those of “EDLA 308: Subject

Method II”. The two questions below were asked during the second semester

examination among others:

QUESTION ONE: Distinguish between language acquisition and language learning.

QUESTION TWO: How would your knowledge help improve your English

language teaching in Nigerian schools?

ORIGINAL SENTENCES EXTRACTED FROM STUDENTS’ ANSWERS TO

THE QUESTIONS ABOVE

1. *Language acquisition has to do with the 1st language a child learns effortlessly

2. *It is believed that btw age 2 and puberty a lang is acquired

3. *The 2 nd lang is usually learnt and effort is put in by d speaker after localization of

brain functions after puberty.

4. *language in some children even *starts from below one yr

5. *Parents can be advised 2 start speaking with children early….

6. *Many schs and parents nowadays only teach English to their children that is why

most of them have only 1 language and no second language.

7. *At 10 mnths some children have started acquiring language

8. *Language acquisition & language learning differ based on age of speaker i.e

children mostly acquire language while adults have to learn a language to be able

to use it.

9. *Many schools in Nig don’t want to teach indigenous languages to pupils

139
TABLE SHOWING IDENTIFIED NONSTANDARD ENGLISH WORDS
EXTRACTED FROM SENTENCES ABOVE INDICATING THEIR
PATTERNS OF OCCURRENCES AND STANDARD ENGLISH VERSIONS
(TABLE 20)

Context/ Role Number Identified Pattern of Standard

Domain relationship of scripts non occurrence English
between sampled standard version
interlocutors English
items
Formal: Lecturer 50 1st SMS First
First semester (examiner)/
shorthand
exam on: Student
1.Expository
essay
2 SMS to
shorthand

lang English language

contraction

2nd SMS second

shorthand

yr SMS year
shorthand

10 Substitution of ten
words with
numbers

mnths SMS months

shorthand

ie English that is
abbreviation

Nig Nigeria
SMS
shorthand

140
Greenfield (1972) using the domain analysis in his studies reveals that, certain

domains favour the use of one code rather than another. Saville-Troike (1983) also

proposes that factors like general subject matter, role relationship between

participants and the setting should determine domain. In view of the above and

considering the fact that the data being analyzed in this department was obtained from

answers to examination questions that bordered on defining and differentiating

between concepts, the preferred variety in this ‘social situation’ ought to have been

the Standard British English but because of the social variable of SMS, the use of the

identified nonstandard words still manifested in the students’ answers.

4.2. DATA PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS BASED ON RECORDED

SPOKEN DISCOURSE IN FORMAL CONTEXTS

INTRODUCTION

An eclectic approach involving the Fishman’s ‘Domain Analysis’, Labov’s

Quantitative Paradigm/Labovian Framework’ and Giles’ ‘Accommodation theory’

has been adopted for the analysis of the spoken discourses as already discussed in 2.5

of chapter two

There are eight discourses in all numbered one, two, three, four, five, six, seven and

eight. The interlocutors are tagged A, B, C, D and so on as the case may be. How

these discourses were recorded is already discussed under 3.4.3.

141
4.2.1 .DISCOURSE ONE

BELOW ARE THE ORIGINAL SENTENCES RECORDED

KEY

Lecturer: A

Student: B-E

1. A: Please endeavour to come along with your costumes when coming by 4pm.

2 B: *A beg you people should stop making noise

3 A: What of Rabiu? Who did I send to find out if he will be coming for rehearsals or

not.

4 C: * Oya, na who o, talk.

5 D: *Ma, Oga Rabiu said no wahala

6 A: Ok. Please don’t forget your costumes I repeat. You that is acting the role of an

Alhaji, make sure you come with your agbada,

7 E: *No yawa ma. Consider it done

8 A: You can all go now. See you by 4pm

9 F: *You these children una too talk make person hear word

10E: *She said, we’ll meet by 4pm abi till dem use loud speaker?

11 F: *That one na your problem

142
BELOW IS A TABLE SHOWING IDENTIFIED NONSTANDARD ENGLISH
WORDS/PHRASES EXTRACTED FROM SENTENCES IN DISCOURSE
ONE ABOVE INDICATING THEIR PATTERNS OF OCCURRENCES AND
STANDARD ENGLISH VERSIONS

Context/ Role Identified Pattern of Standard Comments

Domain relationship non occurrence English
between standard version
participants English
items
Formal: Lecturer Abeg English Please The class
and students pidgin/ was a drama
lecture in a during a code mix rehearsal
supposed lecture involving
classroom oya na English Whoever was both lecturer
setting who o, Pidgin/ sent should and
talk code switch go ahead and students
talk. thereby
oga English Mr leading to
pidgin/code over
mix familiarity.
This made
wahala English problem the
pidgin/code transaction
mix personal
instead of
agbada Yoruba/ traditional transactional.
code mix outfit

yawa English problem

pidgin/
code mix

una English you all

Pidgin/
code mix

abi English or
Pidgin/
code mix

dem English they

Pidgin/
code mix

143
ANALYSIS OF DISCOURSE ONE

The discourse presented above was surreptitiously recorded during one of the

lectures/drama rehearsals at the drama village. The role relationship between the

participants was that of lecturer and students. The domain of language use was a

presumed classroom/lecture although the venue was actually under a giant tree with

students clustered round the lecturer who was seated in the middle giving instructions

shortly after the day’s rehearsals. According to Fishman (1972) speakers are

constrained in their choice and use of language because of the role relationship

between them and their interlocutors. On the contrary, we do not see that happening

in the discourse above. The code during this particular lecture which ought to have

been ‘transactional, turned ‘personal’ with the students feeling too free to express

themselves in whatever code they chose to (line 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) thereby making the

‘social situation’ incongruent. Using Labov’s model, the following social factors can

be used in explaining the speech behaviour of this target group. First and foremost,

giving the fact that the lecturer was seen rehearsing with the students made the

students too familiar with her. This obviously influenced their choice of informal

language. Another factor is the unconventional venue for this particular lecture which

was under a tree instead of a classroom. This unconventional classroom, made the

setting informal and the atmosphere too relaxed to be seen as a formal one by the

students. Thus like Labov postulated, we can say that the sociolinguistic factors of

familiarity and relaxed atmosphere were the motivations for the speech behaviour of

the participants in this discourse not minding the domain, topic and role relationship.

144
4.2.2. DISCOURSE TWO

KEY

Student: A

Lecturer: B

BELOW ARE THE ORIGINAL SENTENCES RECORDED

1A: *Assalamu alaikum

2.B: *wa alaikumussalam

3A: Good morning sir?

4B: morning, how are you

5A: *Alhamdulillah sir.

6B: So what are you doing here? I thought you have gone for your I.T.?

7A: *Yes sir. I have. I just breezed in this morning with my younger ones for their

Post UME so I decided to come and greet my daddy

8B: That’s kind of you. So where are you doing your I.T?

9A: *Sir I’m patching up with a Construction Company in Kaduna.

10B: OK. But that’s completely different from your course of study.

11A:* It’s true sir. Sir (switches over to another discussion entirely) Sir, I don’t know

if you will be able to assist my younger ones in securing admission. (beckoning

on his younger ones). Please come in and greet daddy.

12B. *Well, I can’t give you a hundred percent assurance now but if there is any way

I can insha Allah, I’ll assist. Let them give me their details.

13A: Thank you very much sir. I will be on my way.

145
BELOW IS A TABLE SHOWING IDENTIFIED NONSTANDARD ENGLISH
WORDS/PHRASES EXTRACTED FROM SENTENCES IN DISCOURSE
TWO ABOVE INDICATING THEIR PATTERNS OF OCCURRENCES AND
STANDARD ENGLISH VERSIONS

Context/ Role Identified non Pattern of Standard Comments

Domain relationship standard occurrence English
between English items version
interlocutors
Formal: Head of Assalamu Arabic/code peace be The speech
Department alaikum switch upon you of A was
The (lecturer)/ adapted to
H.O.D’s student of Wa Arabic/code peace be accommodate
office. the alaikumussalam switch upon you that of B
department too because of
Subject: Alhamdulillah Arabic/code praise be the favour A
admission switch to Allah wanted to get
request from B
for a breeze in English came
sibling slang around

daddy Informal father

English
temporally
patching up Slang working
with with

ANALYSIS OF DISCOURSE TWO

The domain of language use here was the office of the Head of Department. The

speech situation is formal while the role relationship between the participants is that

of student-lecturer/ H.O.D. ‘A’ wishing to accommodate his speech towards that of B

by uses ‘assalamu alaikum’ knowing that B too is a Muslim. B converges in his

speech behaviour in line 2 to show religious solidarity. In lines 4 and 6, as soon as

there is slight role change from the lecturer who becomes less ‘transactional’, the

student also converges by referring to him as ‘daddy’ and also using the phrase

‘breeze in’, in line 11. We see that speaker A who all the while had been

accommodative in his speech pattern did so because he desired a ‘reward’ or

‘favourable interaction’ which was for B-to assist him is securing admission for his
146
younger ones. According to Fielding (1972), a receiver may not necessarily be

conscious of the speaker’s rationale so also was B unconscious of A’s intentions. He

possibly at the initial stage thought A came by just to greet him not knowing that the

main reason for A’s seemingly good posture was all because he needed B’s

assistance. From the foregoing, it can be inferred using Labov’s model that the

motivations for the code mix in this discourse were religion and seeking for favours.

4.2.3. DISCOURSE THREE

BELOW ARE THE ORIGINAL SENTENCES RECORDED

1A: Good morning sir

2B: Yes, how may I help you?

3A: Sir, I brought my letter for signing.

4B: Were you the one I instructed to ask the secretary to produce a letter of

introduction for?

5A: Yeah

6B: Yeah or yes sir or are we mates? For that reason I’ll not sign.

7A: Aiyaa, please I am very sorry sir.

8B: I don’t know why students no longer bother about how you speak these days

and you want to be a Pharmacist. Well, apology accepted. Let me have the letter.

9A: Here is it sir.

10B: (appends his signature) Take it and leave my office.

147
BELOW IS A TABLE SHOWING IDENTIFIED NONSTANDARD ENGLISH

WORDS/PHRASES EXTRACTED FROM SENTENCES IN DISCOURSE

THREE ABOVE INDICATING THEIR PATTERNS OF OCCURRENCES

AND STANDARD ENGLISH VERSIONS

Context/ Role Identified Pattern of Standard Comments

Domain relationship non occurrence English
between standard version
interlocutors English
items
Formal: Dean/student Yeah English yes sir The use of
Dean of slang the identified
Faculty’s items was
office. Aiyaa Hausa/code oh please inappropriate
Subject mix given that
matter: the domain
signing of was formal
introductory
letter

4.2.3. ANALYSIS OF DISCOURSE THREE

The domain of speech here is the office of the Dean of faculty. The topic is about

signing an official letter for the student in question. The role relationship is that of

lecturer/dean and student hence the speech situation is a formal one. The student

chooses a formal code suitable for the domain not until in line 5 where the student

uses the slang word ‘yeah’ instead of ‘yes sir’ which would have been appropriate for

the given domain, topic and role relationship. B in line 6 being very ‘transactional’

dissociates himself from any form of identification with A and the group (probably of

slang users) which she represents thereby leading to a ‘speech divergence’. Using the

Labovian model, we can say that the motivations behind the use of the varied

linguistic items (‘yeah’ ‘aiyaa’) by A are age (a key factor for slang use) and

bilingualism. From observation, the student could not have been beyond twenty two

years old.
148
4.2.4. DISCOURSE FOUR

BELOW ARE THE ORIGINAL SENTENCES RECORDED

KEY

Student: A

Lecturer: B

A: Sannu sir.

2B:Yes, what do you want?

3A: inna so…..

4B: (cuts in) can’t you speak English or does this look like Hausa department?

5A: I’m sorry sir.

6B: What is it you want me to do for you?

7A: Sir, I’ve come for you to sign my course registration form.

8B: Are you a student of this department?

9A: No sir. I am an elective student.

10B: Sorry, I’ve stopped signing for elective students because we already have too

many students.

11A: Please sir, consider me don Allah. I’ve been coming here for the past one week

but your office is always locked.

12B: It’s not true. Well, there is nothing I can do. You can always pick another

Elective course from any other department (makes for the door)

13A: Sir please, help me.

14B: let me have your forms.(signs and hands them back to the student)

149
BELOW IS A TABLE SHOWING IDENTIFIED NONSTANDARD ENGLISH
WORDS/PHRASES EXTRACTED FROM SENTENCES IN DISCOURSE
FOUR ABOVE INDICATING THEIR PATTERNS OF OCCURRENCES AND
STANDARD ENGLISH VERSIONS

Context/ Role Identified Pattern of Standard Comments

relationship non occurrence English
Setting
between standard version
interlocutors English
items
Formal: Lecturer/ Sannu Hausa/code No actual Given the
Lecturer/ registration mix standard context, the
registration officer/ English choice of
officer’s elective equivalent words
Office. student as it was should have
used to been
Subject mean ‘well transactional
matter: done’ but the code
course which is mix of
registration Nigerian Hausa
English words was
expression likely aimed
at getting
inna so Hausa/code I want favour.
mix

Hausa/Arabic/ for God’s

don Allah code mix sake

ANALYSIS OF DISCOURSE FOUR

Using Giles model, the student (tagged A) turns up late for registration of an elective

course hence she needs a favour from the registration officer (tagged B) She being

fully aware that ‘B’ understands Hausa decides to choose the word ‘sannu’ in line 1

and ‘inna so..’ in line 3 instead of the English words ‘good afternoon’ and ‘I want…’

respectively. Her ‘accommodative’ choice of language in order to get her forms

signed proves what Fielding (1972) states that if a speaker desires a rewarding or

favourable interaction, he finds it advantageous to accommodate his speech style

towards that of his interlocutor. Her interlocutor in line 2 and 4 responds in English

in line with what Giles considers ‘dissociative motivational tendencies’ on the part of

150
one or both of the members of the dyad such that the speech becomes modified to

become less similar. Despite his stance, the student still ends up getting exactly what

she wants. From the foregoing, it is right to say that the social factors of trying to get a

favour and bilingualism too have influenced the use of the identified nonstandard and

non-English words in the above discourse in line with Labov’s postulations.

4.2.5. DISCOURSE FIVE

BELOW ARE THE ORIGINAL SENTENCES RECORDED

KEY

Student: A

Lecturer: B

1A: Good afternoon sir.

2B: Afternoon.

3A: Sir, you asked me to see you today.

4B: What for? And you had better be fast because I have a meeting to attend.

5A: Sir, I’m the guy that complained to you about my missing result.

6B: I thought I asked you to put in writing. Have you done that?

7A: Yeah. Here is the letter.

8B: I just hope you actually sat for the said examination because you should know

better the consequences.

9A: Wallahi I did sir.

10B: Do you students ever say the truth? Well, check back in two weeks time. Two

weeks I say. Don’t come here disturbing me again until it is two weeks.

11A: Okay sir. Thank you sir

151
BELOW IS A TABLE SHOWING IDENTIFIED NONSTANDARD ENGLISH
WORDS/PHRASES EXTRACTED FROM SENTENCES IN DISCOURSE
FIVE ABOVE INDICATING THEIR PATTERNS OF OCCURRENCES AND
STANDARD ENGLISH VERSIONS

Context/ Role Identified Pattern of Standard Comments

relationship non occurrence English
Setting
between standard version
interlocutors English
items
Formal: Exam guy English Boy/man The use of
officer/ slang/ code the
Office of the student mix identified
departmental slang words
is age
examination yeah English Yes(sir)
specific as it
officer. slang/ code is commonly
mix used among
subject students
matter: who are
Missing Wallahi Arabic/code I swear to youths while
result mix God wallahi like
influenced
by religion

ANALYSIS OF DISCOURSE FIVE

The domain for the speech setting above is the departmental examinations office

while the role relationship between the participants is that of examination officer and

student. The subject matter is a complaint from the student about his missing result.

The choice of variety considering these three factors according to Fishman’s model

out to have been transactional but the student used “personal” codes like “guy”,

“yeah” and “wallahi” in the course of laying his complain in a very formal setting.

These slang and Arabic words can be classified under the social variables of age and

religion and are the motivations for the linguistic variation manifested in the use of

English slang and the code mix of the Arabic word “wallahi” which is very common

among Muslims.

152
4.2.6. DISCOURSE SIX

BELOW ARE THE ORIGINAL SENTENCES RECORDED

KEY

Student: A

Lecturer: B

1A: *Well done sir.

2B: Oh, hello. How are you?

3A: I’m fine sir. My supervisor asked me to see you with regards to my work that she

would be travelling.

4B: Yes, she informed me but if I must continue from where she stopped, you have to

remove this artificial hair. I like people that are natural.

5A: Ok sir.

6B: How far have you gone with her?

7A: I am on chapter two sir.

8B: You will have to call me next week so that I won’t forget or don’t you want me to

think of you?

9A: *Haba sir, why not?

10B:* So tell me. Do you want me to think of you academically or romantically or are

shy of madam?

11A: *Abeg o. sir I don’t know what you are talking about.

12B; Come back later.

13A: Ok sir.

153
BELOW IS A TABLE SHOWING IDENTIFIED NONSTANDARD ENGLISH
WORDS/PHRASES EXTRACTED FROM SENTENCES IN DISCOURSE SIX
ABOVE INDICATING THEIR PATTERNS OF OCCURRENCES AND
STANDARD ENGLISH VERSIONS

Context/ Role Identified Pattern of Standard Comments

relationship non occurrence English
Setting
between standard version
interlocutors English
items
Formal: Lecturer/ Well done Nigerian Used to The
Lecturer’s supervisor English mean good incongruent
office and student/ afternoon social
supervisee situation
Subject leading to
matter: haba Hausa/code Exclamation the use of
project mix though used these words
supervision to mean was
please triggered by
one of the
interlocutors
abeg o Nigerian please becoming
Pidgin personal
instead of
being
transactional

ANALYSIS DISCOURSE SIX

Like the previous discourses, the domain here is formal and the role relationship

between the participants is that of student and lecturer. The topic is project

supervision. These factors put together make the domain here a formal one. However,

an otherwise formal discourse is turned into an informal one at the instance of the

lecturer who for whatever ever reasons deviates into a discussion that ought to have

been private thereby making the ‘social situation’ incongruent. The student who had

all the while been very formal in her choice of words apart from her use of ‘well

done’ in line 1 which was used as a form of salutation suddenly begins to use the

phrases ‘abeg o’ and ‘haba’ in line 9 and 11 respectively to converge to the speech

pattern of B. Thus, the use of Pidgin and Hausa respectively are in response to

154
probably the unexpected and unprofessional dimension the discourse had taken. We

can therefore say that the familiar tone exhibited by the lecturer influenced the use of

the identified non English words ‘haba’ and ‘abeg o’.

4.2.7. DISCOURSE SEVEN

BELOW ARE THE ORIGINAL SENTENCES RECORDED

1A: *Assalamu alaikum

2B: *wa alaikumussalam

3A: Sir, I came to remind you about our fixed class today.

4B: And when is it?

5A: 2pm sir.

6B: *I’ll endeavour to attend insha Allah. How is your father’s health now?

7A: *Alhamdulillah. He is much better. My mother said he’ll be discharged from

hospital tomorrow.

8B: That’s nice. I wish him a quick recovery. Tell your course mates who are yet to

submit their assignment that today is the last chance I’m giving them. I’ll not

collect from anybody after today.

9A: I’ll inform them sir.

155
BELOW IS A TABLE SHOWING IDENTIFIED NONSTANDARD ENGLISH
WORDS/PHRASES EXTRACTED FROM SENTENCES IN DISCOURSE
SEVEN ABOVE INDICATING THEIR PATTERNS OF OCCURRENCES
AND STANDARD ENGLISH VERSIONS

Context/ Role Identified non Pattern of Standard Comments

Setting relationship standard occurrence English
between English items version
interlocutors
Formal Lecturer/ Assalamu Arabic/code peace be The
student alaikum mix upon you identified
items were
Wa Arabic/code peace be motivated
alaikumussalam mix upon you by Islam, a
too religion
practiced
insha Allah Arabic/code by god’s by A and B
mix grace

Alhamdulillah Arabic/code praise be

mix to Allah

ANALYSIS OF DISCOURSE SEVEN

The domain, topic and role relationship in the discourse above require formal use of

language however, A in the above discourse tries to adapt his speech towards that of

his interlocutor B –his lecturer whom he is aware is a Muslim. B converges in his

speech by responding ‘amu alaikum salaam’. This continues in line 6 where B uses

‘insha Allah’ and B also converges in line 7 by using ‘alhamdullilah’ this thus

changes the interaction from being ‘transactional to ‘personal.’ The social factors that

motivated the use of Hausa/Arabic words which were code mixed in this interaction

with the English language expressions are those of religion and familiarity. Both

participants share the same religion (Islam) where the use of such non English words

is common. Similarly, they know each other beyond the lecturer-student relationship

which explains why B inquired about A’s father’s health.

156
4.2.8. DISCOURSE EIGHT

KEY

Student: A

Hall Administrator: B

BELOW ARE THE ORIGINAL SENTENCES RECORDED

1A: *Sannu Hajia.

2B: What can I do for you?

3A: *Hajia. I’ve come to see you concerning the squatters my roommate brought to

our room.

4B: Which of the rooms?

5A. *3/12. Wallahi Hajia if nothing is done ko, I’ll deal with both that girl and those

her useless squatters. For goodness sake, I’m a final year student yet I cannot

have peace in my room.

6B: Will you stop shouting like that in my office?

7A: *Yankuri ma. It’s just that I’m so angry.

8B: Go and call her and her squatters to come. I don’t know how many times these

Students want to be warned over this issue of squatters.

9A: Ok ma. Thank you.

157
BELOW IS A TABLE SHOWING IDENTIFIED NONSTANDARD ENGLISH
WORDS/PHRASES EXTRACTED FROM SENTENCES IN DISCOURSE
EIGHT ABOVE INDICATING THEIR PATTERNS OF OCCURRENCES
AND STANDARD ENGLISH VERSIONS

Context/ Role Identified Pattern of Standard Comments

Setting relationship non occurrence English
between standard version
interlocutors English
items
Formal: The hall sannu Hausa/ used to A’s use of
Office of the administrator/ hajia code mix mean ‘well Hausa words
hall student done’ ma instead of the
administrator Standard
Arabic/ I swear to British English
wallahi code mix God is to
accommodate
Hausa/ really(as her speech to
ko code mix used in the that of B who
context) happens to be
of Hausa origin
Hausa/code I am sorry so as to get
yankuri mix ma undue favours

ANALYSIS OF DISCOURSE EIGHT

The domain is the Hall Administrator’s office. The role relationship between the

participants is that of student and Hall Administrator. The topic is ‘illegal’ squatting.

The social situation should naturally make A select the Standard English as the

appropriate code but because A realizes that B is Hausa, she decides to accommodate

her speech pattern to that of B in line 1 as ‘inducement for B to favour her. B also

converges in line 2 in her speech behaviour to that of A somehow unaware of A’s

rationale. After establishing this favourable disposition, A in line 3 goes ahead to lay a

complaint against her roommate. Even though A is not a native speaker of Hausa, she

is proficient in its use which explains why she is able to code mix freely. If she were

not bilingual, this would not have been possible. Thus, we can say using Labov’s

158
model that the factor motivating her use of Hausa words to code mix in the above

context apart from seeking for favour is bilingualism.

4.3. DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS

The findings about to be discussed are based on the data analyzed from one thousand

examination scripts (two hundred per institution) randomly selected across the

targeted institutions and recorded discourses at eight different formal contexts. Below

is the discussion of the findings which provide answers to the research problems.

4.3.1. Confirmation of the use of Nonstandard/Non-English Words in Formal

Contexts among Students of Institutions of Higher Learning and Particularly
those of the Target Institutions
It has been established from the data obtained from students’ examination scripts and

recorded discourses that there is indeed a prevalence in the use of nonstandard

English and in some cases non English words in formal contexts in both the written

and spoken communication of students of institutions of higher learning and

particularly the target group. Out of the one thousand scripts sampled, a total number

of two hundred and eighty- four (284) nonstandard and non English lexical items

were identified. From the recorded discourses in formal contexts, a total number of

thirty- seven (37) nonstandard and non English items were discovered.

4.3.2 Encouragement from staff members

Our findings showed that students are in some instances motivated to use nonstandard

English in formal contexts by their lecturers and other non-academic staff who

sometimes even initiate such uses thereby relaxing the atmosphere. Only in few cases

did staff members openly rebuke or correct students for using such nonstandard forms

in formal contexts while discussing with them. In such situations, students deviated
159
from the use of Standard British English meant for such contexts to code mixing

freely items from not just nonstandard English such as slang, pidgin but also

indigenous languages. Clear cases of this can be seen in the recorded discourses in

4.2.1, 4.2.2 as against 4.2.3 and 4.2.4 where the students were immediately cautioned

against the use of such nonstandard items identified.

4.3.3 Sociolinguistic Factors motivating the use of nonstandard and Non-English

Words in Formal Contexts.

The sociolinguistic factors responsible for the prevalence of the nonstandard and non

English items identified from both written and spoken communication of the students

in formal contexts include the following:

4.3.3.1. Global System for Mobile Communication/Short Message Services

(GSM/SMS)

Out of the two hundred and eighty-four nonstandard and non English items identified

among students’ examination scripts, eighty- two were peculiar shorthand associated

with the written language of GSM’ text messages. Before the advent of GSM/SMS,

these nonstandard features were absent in students’ writing. The problem is further

compounded by the prominence social networks have gained among students of

higher learning particularly the target of this study. All the chatting and texting that go

on, on these social networks is done using these shorthand identified in students’

scripts. Some examples of the GSM/SMS motivated nonstandard English items

identified are: ‘u’ for you, ‘yr’ for year, ‘d’ for the,’dat’ for that, ‘hrs’ for hours, ‘dnt’

for do not,’ &’ for and, ‘knw’ for know, ‘kd’ for Kaduna, ‘cos’ for because, ‘dis’ for

this, ‘4’ for four or for, ‘sch’ for school, ‘mnth’ for month, ‘ple’ for people, ‘2’ for

two or to among others.

160
4.3.3.2. Bilingualism

The ability of students to speak other languages beside the English language was also

discovered to be responsible for the use of some of the identified non-English items.

Most of the lexical items identified were from the Hausa language which happens to

be the language of the immediate environment. In all, thirty- six Hausa words which

were not put in inverted commas were identified. Apart from ‘Boko Haram’,

‘almajiri’, ‘mai ruwa’ and ‘Operation Yaki’ which are common words, it takes one

who is either a native speaker or is proficient in Hausa to use Hausa words like

‘yankuri’, ‘sai anjima’, ‘banga’, ‘inna so’ among others. This is a proof that

bilingualism is a motivating factor in the use of particularly non-English words of

Hausa origin.

4.3.3.3. Religion

The role of religion in the use of some of the identified informal words (informal in

the context under consideration because they were not English words and are not put

in inverted commas) cannot be overemphasized. Arabic words and phrases like

‘assalamu alaikum,’ ’alhadulillah,’ ‘insha Allah,’ ‘ Izala,’ ‘Darika’, ‘wallahi’

‘ummah’ among others are motivated by religion and particularly Islam. From

observation, many Muslims students prefer to use the Arabic versions of English

words that have to do with God and Islam generally. Non-Muslims rarely use these

Arabic words. For instance, a non Muslim would prefer to say ‘by God’s grace’,

‘peace be upon you’ than ‘insha Allah and ‘ Assalam Alaikum’ respectively. In the

recorded discourses analyzed in 4.2.2 and 4.2.8, we also see that because both

participants are Muslims thus, there is the liberal use of the words identified above

both by both the lecturer and the student.

161
4.3.3.4 Familiarity

This particular sociolinguistic motivation was observed in spoken communication

where students tended to use more of informal words in formal contexts when their

interlocutor was someone they were familiar with. A good example of this can be

seen in the discourse analyzed in 4.2.5 where because of the familiarity that exists

between the lecturer and student, made the student to use words like ‘haba’, ‘ai’, ‘sai

anjima’, ‘okada’ among others without the lecturer frowning at it. In fact, the lecturer

encouraged it rather. On the contrary, in the analyzed discourses in 4.2.3 and 4.2.4,

the lecturers were quick to stop the students from continuing with their use of

informal English in the contexts that were very official possibly because there was no

familiarity between them.

4.3.3.5 Relaxed Atmosphere

This sociolinguistic motivation with regards to this study is restricted to the spoken

communication. From observation in the course of recording the discourses for this

study, students used more of nonstandard and non-English items in formal contexts

when their interlocutors made the atmosphere relaxed by becoming unofficial or using

informal English as well. This can be seen in the discourse in 4.2.6 where the

interlocutor in question became flirtatious with the student thereby compelling the

student to use ‘abeg o.’ Similarly, in the discourse recorded at the drama village and

analyzed in 4.2.1, the unconventional venue for the class (under a tree) at the drama

village and the fact that the lecture was a rehearsal of a play to be presented during

which the lecturer too had to rehearse along with the students made the atmosphere

quite relaxed allowing students to engage in nonstandard English usage even though

the context was supposedly formal. This perhaps explains why students of this

162
particular department feel very free with their lecturers to the point of using the

informal title ‘oga’ in addressing them -lecturers.

4.3.3.6. Nature of Students’ Course and Question Asked

It was discovered in the course of data collection and analysis that, the students’

course of study played a role in the nature of nonstandard English items used.

Students from the core sciences like Medicine (see 4.1.14)used less of SMS motivated

informal words but tended to use alphabets to substitute words like ‘2-3’ for two to

three, ‘3rd’ for third among others. In addition, it was discovered that the nature of

question asked also influenced the number and nature of nonstandard items used by

students. Questions that had to do with continuous writing like those on letter writing,

report writing, article writing and essays attracted more nonstandard English items

that had to do with SMS, religion, Hausa, English Pidgin and English slang while

questions that had to do with defining concepts, explaining processes among others

tended to use more of the conventional forms of contracted English words and

abbreviations than SMS, Slang, Pidgin and Hausa motivated nonstandard English

words. In spoken discourses, it was also observed that science students were more

formal in their spoken communication with their lecturers than Arts and Social

Science students.

4.3.3.7. Age/Slang

One of the underlying reasons for the use of the identified slang words in the course

of data collection for this study is the fact that most of the students that form the target

of this study are youths. According to Cheshire and Milroy (1993, 20-21),

the frequency of nonstandard forms is highest among adolescents …

there is the influence of peer group pressure and the desire to
distinguish a generational identity….
163
They go further to submit that, age exclusive features such as in-group slang words

characterized by coining may be dropped or abandoned as people grew older. From

observation, the younger students tended to use slang words more. In fact, slang

words like ‘damn’ ‘guy’, ‘yeah’ , ‘shit’, ’stuff’ among others were rare among older

students but very common with youngsters in the selected institutions of higher

learning in Kaduna state.

4.3.3.8. Societal Challenges

Nigeria has in recent years faced a lot of security challenges leading to the

introduction of new concepts into the Nigerian vocabulary and by extension the

students of these institutions that form our case study. The frequently used words in

this category identified from students’ scripts are ‘Boko haram’ and ‘Operation Yaki’.

The two phrases which mean ‘western education is forbidden’ and ‘Operation War’ a

Joint Task Force on security in Kaduna State although informal were generously used

by students in their write-ups that called for very formal use of English language.

Ordinarily, these students would not have had cause to use these words but how do

they talk about insecurity particularly in Kaduna state without using these two

concepts? Although students were expected to put these non-English words in

inverted commas, it remains abundantly clear that the use of these words was

motivated by the current security challenges faced by Nigeria at the moment.

4.4. PATTERNS OF NONSTANDARD ENGLISH ITEMS USED BY THE

TARGET GROUP IN FORMAL CONTEXTS

The general pattern taken by the identified nonstandard English items used by the

students of the selected institutions took the form of GSM/SMS shorthand, contracted

164
forms of English words, English abbreviations, English numbers used to substitute

words, Slang, Pidgin words, Hausa/ Arabic words, and Yoruba words. In all, there are

a total number of eighty-six SMS related shorthand used, sixteen slang words, forty

one Hausa/Arabic words, forty five contracted forms of English words, fourteen

abbreviations, two omissions of for instance pronoun “I” in ‘am’ instead of ‘I am’, six

Yoruba words, sixteen pidgin words and a few others that could not be categorized.

These patterns are discussed below.

4.4.1. Code mixing

The general pattern of occurrence for the nonstandard and non-English words

identified was in form of code mixing of Hausa words with Standard English

expressions, Arabic words with Standard English expressions, Slang words with

Standard English expressions, Nigeria Pidgin with Standard English expressions and

in some instances Yoruba words mixed with Standard English expressions. These

words were used within the sentences and since the main preoccupation of this study

is on the lexical level, such code mixed words were extracted from the original

sentences and analyzed.

4.4.2. Shorthand Associated With Short Message Services (SMS)

Another pattern in which the identified lexical items manifested was in form of

shorthand associated with SMS which involved pseudo clipping of English words,

substitution of English words with English numbers or Roman numerals, use of single

letters to represent words among other forms of shortening of words for example

“coz”, “u”, “yr”, “hr”, “pres”, “d”, “1m”, used instead of “because”, “you”, “year”,

“hour”, “president”, “the’, “one million” respectively. Of all the other patterns

identified, that of SMS had greater prominence.

165
 4.4.3. Contraction of English Words

In addition, nonstandard words identified from students’ scripts took the form of

contracted forms of words; a feature suitable only for informal writings. These

contracted forms include for instance ‘I’m’, ‘doesn’t’, ‘can’t’, ‘it’s’, ‘didn’t’,

‘shouldn’t’ among others.

4.4.4. Substitution of Words with Numbers

Instead of writing English words in the cause of answering questions, some students

used numbers to substitute words. For example: ‘2’used to substitute ‘two/to’, ‘150’

for ‘one hundred and fifty’ among others.

4.4.5. Use of English Abbreviations

The use of abbreviations which is characteristic of informal writing as Alo (2004:77)

states was also another pattern some of the highlighted nonstandard words took.

Commonest among these abbreviations were ‘etc’, ‘eg’, ‘i.e’ among others.

4.5. COMPARISON OF IDENTIFIED NONSTANDARD ENGLISH WORDS

AND PATTERNS USED BY STUDENTS OF POLYTECHNICS AND

UNIVERSITIES IN KADUNA STATE

UNVERSITY STUDENTS POLYTECHNIC STUDENTS

Identified Patterns of occurrence Identified Patterns of occurrence

Nonstandard/ nonstandard
non English English words
words

166
Enuf SMS shorthand sai Buhari Hausa/ code mix

don’t English contraction 10-15yrs Substitution of word with

number/SMS shorthand
I’m English contraction

dept SMS shorthand

sujest SMS shorthand
30m SMS shorthand
Alhamdulillah Arabic/ code mix
20m SMS shorthand
2 Substitution of word with
number ope SMS shorthand

SMS shorthand i’m English contraction

grid
electn SMS shorthand almajiri Hausa/code mix
cot
SMS shorthand etc Anglicized French
operation yaki abbreviation
Hausa/ code mix
they’ll Substitution of word with
English contraction 2
number
32yrs
SMS shorthand
ie English abbreviation
doesn’t
English contraction
Hausa/ code mix
15km
substitution of word with arne
SMS shorthand
numbers/SMS shorthand pres
Hausa/ code mix
10km substitution of word with
operation yaki
numbers/SMS shorthand
English contraction
substitution of word with don’t
170% English slang
numbers/ symbol
damn
i.e
English shorthand Hausa/ code mix
yaro boys
2
substitution of word with SMS shorthand
coz
number
English contraction
2 didn’t
SMS shorthand
Nigerian Pidgin
I’m

167
pls English contraction okada SMS shorthand

pls English slang

don’t SMS shorthand
guys English abbreviation
insted English contraction
ie SMS shorthand

Operation Yaki SMS shorthand electn English contraction

Hausa/code mixed with can’t Nigerian English

English corpers
masakad Substitution of word with
number
okada SMS shorthand 5
SMS shorthand/slang
‘drop’ Nigerian Pidgin
English contraction
Allah Nigerian English/Pidgin kd

Subhanahu wa SMS shorthand

Arabic/code mix you’re
Ta’alah
Substitution of word with
&
shouldn’t number/ SMS
English contraction 150 pcs
4 Substitution of word with
number
Substitution of word with
20
Substitution of word with
yaki number
number /SMS
ie Hausa/ code nix 105 pcs Substitution of word with
banga boys English shorthand number/ SMS
15 pcs
mato Hausa/code mix
English contraction
cant Hausa/ borrowing
I’m SMS shorthand
dat English contraction
SMS shorthand d
drop SMS shorthand pls
ope SMS shorthand
pls Nigerian English/ Pidgin

168
don’t SMS shorthand bw English contraction

2 English contraction don’t SMS shorthand

etc SMS shorthand u SMS shorthand

Anglicized French ope English contraction

shorthand
boko haram i’ll Incomplete sentence
Hausa/Arabic code mix
operation yaki thanks SMS shorthand
Hausa/code mix
doesn’t xmas SMS shorthand
English contraction
bed-to-bed 2 Substitution of word
English
Buzu 100pcs With number/SMS
slang(exaggeration)
It’s Substitution of word with
Hausa/code mix
number/ SMS
Izala 20pcs
English contraction
Darika SMS shorthand
Arabic/code mix
Shi’ism SMS shorthand
Arabic/code mix 1m
drop
Arabic/ code mix u SMS shorthand
entad
Nigerian English/Pidgin
& English contraction
pls
SMS shorthand
etc dec SMS shorthand
SMS shorthand

don’t Substitution of word with

Anglicized French
can’t abbreviation number/SMS
2
don’t English contraction
SMS shorthand
fek
English contraction SMS shorthand
20pcs
bc
SMS shorthand
SMS shorthand 10pcs

169
rely SMS shorthand u SMS shorthand

sa SMS shorthand pls SMS shorthand

okada SMS shorthand I’m SMS shorthand

etc Nigerian Pidgin yr Substitution of word with

number
Anglicized French 50
abbreviation English abbreviation in
it’s
small letters
English contraction
Boko haram pms
Anglicized French
Hausa/Arabic code mix
ie etc abbreviation
English shorthand
15 English contraction
Substitution of word with
yr isn’t Substitution of word with
number
number
eg N141-N97
SMS shorthand
Substitution of word with
don’t
English abbreviation number
d N141
English contraction English contraction
1div I’m
SMS shorthand English contraction

Substitution of word with don’t English abbreviation

u
number/contraction
ie Omission of pronoun I
1,2,3 SMS shorthand

Substitution of words am English contraction

38-40wks
with numbers
doesn’t English contraction
Substitution of words
15mins with numbers/SMS wont SMS shorthand

Substitution of words
govt English contraction
with numbers/SMS
UV
shorthand

170
Vit D English abbreviation don’t omission of pronoun I

3 English contraction
am Substitution of word with
Substitution of word with
80% number/symbol
number
15-30mins
English contraction
Substitution of word with
number/ SMS shorthand its SMS shorthand
38-42wks
Substitution of word with govt Hausa code mix
rd
3 number/SMS shorthand
sheda English abbreviation
Substitution of word with
eg Anglicized French
number
III abbreviation
etc
Substitution of word with
9-11 SMS shorthand
Roman numeral

SMS shorthand/SMS
Substitution of word with no
290-40 number SMS shorthand
70yrs
Substitution of word with Substitution of word with
1hr ok
number number/symbol
75%
28wks SMS shorthand
SMS shorthand

Substitution of word with rejim

SMS shorthand
Defn number/SMS shorthand
pres Substitution of word with
15 SMS shorthand number/SMS

Substitution of word with 75/L-65/L English contraction

20-30mins number
doesn’t English contraction
Substitution of word with
1-4hrs don’t Anglicized French
number/ SMS shorthand
abbreviation
etc
& Substitution of word with
Incomplete and informal
numbers /SMS shorthand

171
agric SMS shorthand thanks sentence
eg
SMS shorthand knw SMS shorthand
etc
English abbreviation u SMS shorthand

Anglicized French Substitution of word with

can’t shorthand number/symbol
75%
d
English contraction SMS shorthand
&
SMS shorthand Substitution of word with
80% 5.000
number
Substitution of word with
it’s
number/symbol SMS shorthand
Nig coz
English contraction English abbreviation
& eg
SMS shorthand English contraction
No 1 don’t
SMS shorthand SMS shorthand
4yrs dat
SMS shorthand SMS shorthand
govt
Substitution of word with Substitution of word with
Mallam number/SMS shorthand 28 number
Aladura
Hausa/ code mix English contraction
Babalawo
Yoruba/code mix it’s
English contraction
3 Yoruba/code mix we’ve
Nigerian pidgin
Substitution of word with okadamen
Alfa
number English contraction
don’t
Baba alaoo
Yoruba/code mix
etc Anglicized French
& abbreviation
Yoruba/ code mix

Mairuwa SMS shorthand SMS shorthand

knw
1hr Hausa/code mix SMS shorthand

172
 Substitution of word with pple English contraction
ie number/SMS shorthand
doesn’t SMS shorthand
guys English shorthand
govt English contraction
almajiri English slang
its SMS shorthand
ok Hausa/code mix
propa
5w&h SMS shorthand

Boko haram SMS shorthand

1 st, 5th, 10th, Hausa/Arabic code mix

25th, 50th
Substitution of word with
etc number

Anglicized French
abbreviation
147-90

Substitution of word with

number
24
Substitution of word with
- number

pres Hyphen for ‘to’

1 st SMS shorthand

Substitution of word with

2 number

Substitution of word with

number
lang
SMS shorthand
nd
2
Substitution of word with
yr number

173
10 SMS shorthand

Substitution of word with

number
mnths
SMS shorthand
ie
English shorthand
Nig
SMS shorthand

The aim of the table above which captures all the items identified in the written

communication only is to bring out the similarities and differences in the nature of the

nonstandard/non English lexical items identified from students of the four institutions

that form the case study for this study. These institutions comprise two universities

and two polytechnics. Students of these institutions were all asked questions

bordering on article writing, formal letters, essays, reports and definition of concepts.

Apart from the fact that all the scripts examined were examination scripts, all the

questions asked were those that called for the use of Standard British English.

Based on the analysis, it was discovered that:

1. Students from both universities and polytechnics assessed used nonstandard and

non English words in their write-ups

2. Secondly, the use of SMS text messaging shorthand was present in writings of

students from both universities and polytechnics.

3. Contracted English words, abbreviations and shorthand fit only for informal

writings such as informal letters were also used generously in nearly all the scripts

3. Expression of views was observed to be generally poor with most of the sentences

being grammatically wrong. This explains why the researcher used asterisks to

174
indicate that such sentences were wrong at nearly all levels such as morphosyntactic,

semantics among others

On the other hand, it was discovered that whereas there were features of non-English

words usage across board, they were more prominent among the scripts of university

undergraduates. In addition, as seen from table above, the use of nonstandard English

words appeared to be more common with university students than their polytechnic

counterparts especially when you consider the fact that the same number of scripts

were sampled.

175
 CHAPTER FIVE

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

5.0. INTRODUCTION

This chapter summarizes the entire work, the findings, the conclusion, implications of

the study and suggestions for further research.

5.1 GENERAL SUMMARY

The study looked at the patterns of nonstandard English words usage in formal

contexts among students of institutions of higher learning using four institutions in

Kaduna as case study. The research comprises of five equal chapters.

Chapter one of this work examined the background by first of all looking at the

centrality of the English language in Nigeria and particularly in the educational sector

where it is not only offered as a course but most importantly as the language of

instruction. The chapter then discusses the varieties of the English language used in

Nigeria and the role of context in determining which of the English varieties to use in

every given context. The chapter further looked at the statement of research problem

bringing out the fact that although language choice is meant to suit the context such

that when the context is formal, the variety of language chosen is also expectedly

formal but that this is fast eroding as students were in the habit of using informal

varieties of English such as Slang, Pidgin, SMS shorthand, Hausa, Yoruba and in

some cases Arabic words in very formal write-ups. Other areas looked at under this

chapter were the research questions, the study’s aim and objectives, its justification

and scope and delimitation.

176
In the second chapter, the study reviewed related literature bordering on the field of

sociolinguistics, varieties of English language in Nigeria ranging from standard to non

standard, definition of context and context as a determinant of language choice. The

chapter finally discussed the theoretical framework adopted for the study which is the

eclectic approach comprising: Fishman (1972)’s ‘Domain Analysis’, Labov (2006)’s

‘Quantitative Paradigm’ or ‘Labovian Framework’ and the Giles (2001)’s

‘Accommodation Theory’ under the ‘Socio-Psychological Approach. The justification

for eclecticism is also discussed in this chapter

Chapter three discusses the quantitative and qualitative design adopted for the study,

the sample and sampling procedure, the target population which are the students of

Kaduna state university, Federal Polytechnic, Kaduna Nuhu Bamali Polytechnic,

Zaria and Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria. The chapter also discussed the research

instruments comprising recording of discourses at formal contexts between staff and

students and non participatory observation and finally, the chapter discusses the

problems encountered by the researcher in the course of conducting the research and

how such problems were tackled.

Chapter four of this study focused mainly on data presentation and analysis which

was done in two segments comprising of data obtained from students’ examination

scripts and recorded discourses. The chapter also discussed the findings which

confirmed the use of nonstandard and non English words in formal contexts by the

target population, the various sociolinguistic factors responsible for the prevalence of

and the use of such identified nonstandard and non-English items and the patterns of

occurrence of these items.

177
The final chapter which is the concluding chapter summarized the entire work,

concluded and then looked at the implications and suggestions for further research.

5.2. CONCLUSION

Our study has been able to show that there is actually a prevalence in the use of

nonstandard and non-English words in formal contexts among students of higher

learning and particularly those of Kaduna State University, Kaduna, Federal

Polytechnic, Kaduna, Nuhu Bamali Polytechnic, Zaria and Ahmadu Bello University,

Zaria and that there are certain sociolinguistic factors that motivated our subjects to

use the identified nonstandard and non-English items. These sociolinguistic factors

include GSM/SMS, Bilingualism, Religion, Familiarity, Age, Relaxed atmosphere,

nature of question asked and course of study and societal challenges.

In addition, our study has also demonstrated that the identified nonstandard and non-

English words follow certain forms or patterns which include GSM/SMS shorthand,

English slang, English Pidgin, English abbreviations, English contractions and non

English words which are usually code mixed with English language within the

sentence.

Similarly, this research also shows that there is a decline in the quality of students’

spoken and written English. Although this study set out to look at nonstandard

English words used in formal contexts, it was discovered in the course of extracting

the data that, most of the expressions used by students were generally wrong. This

explains the researcher’s use of asterisk for nearly all the sentences to show that they

are grammatically incorrect.

178
Consequently, it is hoped that this knowledge explicated above and discussed fully in

the work, will in turn act as an impetus in stakeholders taking deliberate steps at

curbing this menace that is gradually taking over the Standard British English variety

viewed as the acceptable variety for official transactions in Nigeria in general and for

academic purposes in particular.

5.3 IMPLICATIONS OF THE STUDY

One among the challenges teachers have faced in accurately comprehending and

grading students’ work even before the prevalence of nonstandard English usage in

formal contexts like examination by students has been that of ambiguity. With the

introduction informal English into academic papers, the problem of ambiguity has

been further compounded. Teachers are confronted with expressions and spellings

which are entirely new to them and worst still, highly varied. This of course has made

otherwise easy teaching tasks for teachers difficult.

Secondly, students' performance generally in both internal and external examinations

has been abysmal. This consistent dwindling performance of students for instance in

WAEC and NECO necessitated the recently organized Retreat and Stakeholders

Forum held on 19 th June, 2013 with both chairmen of WAEC and NECO in

attendance. The aim of the forum was to brainstorm and come up with measures that

could enhance students’ academic performance (Vanguard newspaper: June19, 2013).

So many factors have been cited as being responsible for this decline. Adding to this

catalogue of factors responsible for students’ poor performance is poor expression and

spelling caused by the use of nonstandard and non-English words associated with

SMS, slang, Pidgin, indigenous languages and so on. Usually, all these are considered

errors and penalized in writing under Mechanical Accuracy (MA) where each error is

179
rung and half a mark deducted. From the scripts analyzed, no student scored any mark

under M.A. Expression, which is also being assessed, has equally been badly affected

because of the use of nonstandard English and ambiguous expressions in formal

writing influenced by SMS abbreviations, slang, pidgin and even the indigenous

languages. This in turn has contributed to the overall poor performance of students

and particularly made comprehension of students’ work hence accurate grading an

uphill task.

Similarly, we are beginning to see a trend where vowel letters are gradually being

dropped from words in an attempt to shorten them. Examples include 'msg' for

'message' where 'e' and 'a' are dropped, ystdy for yesterday where ‘e’ and 'a' are also

dropped, ’arnd’ for ‘around’ where ‘o’ and ‘u’ are equally dropped. This trend makes

pronunciation more difficult than before especially to those who are not familiar with

such spellings and the given context. English language pronunciations in most cases

are naturally arbitrary. This has further made teaching pronunciation an enormous

task.

Teaching students how to use formal language in formal contexts especially in formal

writings seems to be yielding little results as students can hardly draw boundaries

between when to use Standard English devoid of SMS abbreviations, slang

expression, Pidgin and even indigenous languages.

Consequently, a study of this nature that examines the speech behaviour of students

has implications for the students, the teachers and other stakeholders because it

exposes in a modest way the consequences of the prevalence of the use of

nonstandard and non-English words in formal contexts which as this study has

confirmed is high among students at all levels and of all fields of study. Exposing

180
these therefore will act as a catalyst for the not just the English language teachers but

teachers of all subjects and courses to be actively involved in ensuring that an end is

put to this menace.

Knowledge of this nature is expected to aid stakeholders in taking deliberate measures

aimed at curtailing this trend thereby salvaging the Standard British English

particularly in its place in formal contexts.

For the students, this study will be of benefit because they will get to understand that

the choice of English variety is not something that should be determined by whether

the variety is in vogue or trendy but by whether it suits the given context or not. This

will go a long way in helping them draw boundaries between when to use Standard

British English as an institutionalized variety and when to use informal English.

5.4 SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

We wish to suggest that further studies on the use of nonstandard English in formal

contexts should not be restricted to the lexica variation level alone but should look at

these variations at the syntatic, semantic, phonological, morphological and even the

pragmatic levels which could not be delved into in this study because of the enormity

of studying all the levels of language.

Secondly, further research could also be carried out on the prevalence of informal

language use in formal contexts among lecturers themselves as it was discovered in

the cause of data collection for this study that teachers themselves engage in the use

of informal English in formal contexts with students and in fact sometimes the

teachers are the ones that initiate such usages.

181
More so, an independent study could be done on the sociolinguistic variables

identified to have motivated the use of nonstandard English words in formal contexts

for instance, ‘Age and Language Choice’ among others.

Further research could also be conducted on the future of the Standard British English

in Nigeria as the acceptable variety for academic purposes.

I hope, apart from extending the frontiers of knowledge, this thesis would be in the

library and students should be referred to it.

182
 REFERENCES

Adegbija, E. (1999) “Tit bits on Discourse Analysis”. In Adegbija,E.(ed) The English

Language and Literature in English: An Introductory Handbook. Ilorin:
The Department of Modern European Languages.

Adekunle, M.A.(1972) “Multilingualism of Language Use” in Lansing, E. (ed)

African Studies Review. Vol. 15, No. 2

---------------(1974) “ The Standard Nigerian English” Journal of Nigerian English

Studies Association (JNESA) Vol. 6, No 1

---------------(1985) The English Language in Nigeria as a Modern Nigerian Artifact

Jos: University of Jos Press

Adetugbo, A. (1979) “Appropriateness in Nigerian English.” In Ubahakwe,E. (ed)

Varieties and Functions of English in Nigeria. Ibadan: African
universities press.

Agbedo, C.U. (2000) General Linguistics: An Introductory Reader. Nsukka: ACE

Resources Konsult.

Ajani, T.T. (1994) “The Influence of Nigerian Languages on Nigerian English” Focus
on Linguistics. University of Florida Working Papers on Linguistics. Vol
1V. No 1 pp 34-48

---------------(2005) “Whatever Happened to “Queen’s English” Creativity and

Innovation in Wole Soyinka’s Collected Plays” West African Review
Issue 7 pp1-23

--------------(2007) “Is there Indeed a Nigerian English?” Journal of Humanities and

Social Science Vol 1. Issue 1

Akindele, F. and Adegbite, W (1999) The Sociology and Politics of English in

Nigeria. Ile-Ife: O.A.U Press limited.

Akinluyi, T. O. (1971) “The Place of Pidgin in Nigeria and its Educational

Implication” Unpublished M.A. Thesis. Institute of Education,
University of London

Allenton, D.J.(1979) Essentials of Grammatical Theory. London: Routledge and

Kegan Paul

Alo, M.A. (2004) “Context and Language Variations: The El2 Example”. In
Oyeleye, L. (ed) Language and Discourse in society. Ibadan: Hope
Publications

Appel, R. and Muyesken, P.(1993) Language contact and Bilingualism. London:

Edward Arnold

183
Asher, R.E. and Simpson, J.M. (1994) (ed) The Encyclopedia of Language and
Linguistics vol.7. New York: Pergamon press Ltd.

Atkinson, .M., Briatain, .D., Clahson, .H., Radford, .A. and Spencer, .A. (2009)
Linguistics: An Introduction Second Edition. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press

Bamgbose, A. (1971). “The English Language in Nigeria” In Spencer, J. (Ed) The

English Language in West Africa. London: Longman.

-----------------(1982) “Standard Nigerian English: Issues in Identification” in Kachru,

B. (ed) The other Tongue: English across Cultures. Oxford: Pergamon

Banjo, A. (1996) Making a Virtue of Necessity: An Overview of the English language

in Nigeria Ibadan: Ibadan University press.

Barber, C.(1993) The English Language: A Historical Introduction. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Berry, M. (1975) Introduction to Systematic Linguistics I. London: Batsford.

Bex, T. and Watts, R.J.(1999) (ed) Standard English: The Widening Debate.
London: Routledge

Brann, A. (1975) “The Democratization of Language Use in Public Domains in

Nigeria” paper presented at the 13th LAN conference in Abuja.

Catford, J.C. (1965) A Linguistic Theory of Translation. Cambridge: C.U.P.

Chambers, J. K. (1992) Linguistic Correlates and Gender in Sex . English World

Wide , (2) , 173 218

---------------------(1998) “Studying Language Variation: An Informal Epistemology”

in Coulmans, F. (1998) (ed) The Handbook of Sociolinguistics Oxford:
Blackwell

Chambers,J. and Trudgill, P. (1998) Dialectology. Second edition. London: C.U.P.

Chapman, R.L. (1986)(ed) New Dictionary of American Slang. New York: Harper
and Row.

Cheshire,J.(1982) Variation in an English Dialect: A Sociolinguistic Study.

Cambridge: C.U.P.

Chomsky, N. (1957) Syntactic Structures . The Hague: Mouton

------------ (1983) “The Relationship between Language and Sex in English. In P.

Trudgill (ed.), Applied Sociolinguistics London: Academic Press ..

------------- (1991) (ed.)English Around the World: Sociolinguistic perspectives

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .
184
Chiluwa, .I. (2007) “The Nigerianess of SMS Text Messages in English” in Journal of
Nigeria English Studies Association Vol 3 No 1(pp 95-96)

Cook, V. (1993) Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition. New York: St

Martin’s press.

Corder, J. W. and Ruszkiewicsz, J.J (1979) Handbook of current English. 7th edition
London: Scott Foresman and company.

Crystal, D. (1980) A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics. London: America

Deutsh Ltd.

………….(1987) The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language. Cambridge University

press.

…………..(1989) The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language. Cambridge:

Cambridge University press.

-----------------(2008) A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics. Sixth Edition

Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Limited

Dalzell,T.(1996) Flapper to Rappers: American Youth slang. Springfied:MD

Merriam Webster Inc.

Dittmer, N. (1976) Sociolinguistics. London: Edward Arnold (publishers) Ltd.

Dumas, B.K. and Lighter, J.(1978) “Is Slang a Word for Linguistics? “ Published in
American speech 53. Kansas University.

Downes, W. (1998) Language and Society, Second Edition. Cambridge: CUP

Eble C. (1983)” Slang: Deviation or Norm” 10th LACUS forum edited by Manning,
A. S. Pierre, M. and McCalla, J. (1984) South Carolina: Horribean press.

……….(1992) “African- American Contributions to American Slang” 19th LACUS

Forum edited by Reich, P.A (1993) Illinois: LACUS.

………..(1986)”The Subversiveness of Slang” 13th LACUS Forum edited by Fleming

L.(1987) Illinois, LACUS.

Elugbe, B.O. and Omamor, A.(1991) Nigerian Pidgin(NP) Language and Language
Policy in Nigeria. London: Longman

----------------(1987) ‘National Language and National Development’ Paper

Presented at the Linguistic Association of Nigeria Conference, Port
Harcourt

Ellis, Y. (2007)”What is Slang?” http//www. well.ac.uk/cfol/slang.asp

185
Erkert, P.(1998) “Age as a Sociolinguistic Variable” in Coulmas, F. ed The
Handbook of Sociolinguistics Oxford: Blackwell

-------------(1988) “Sound change and adolescent social structure . Language in

Society”, in Coulmas, F. ed The Handbook of Sociolinguistics Oxford:
Blackwell

------------(1989) “The whole woman: sex and gender differences in variation .

Language Variation and Change” , in Coulmas, F. ed The Handbook of
Sociolinguistics Oxford: Blackwell

Ervin- Tripp, S. “On Sociolinguistic Rules: Alternative and Co-occurrence” in

Gumperz and Hymes. (1972) Directions in Sociolinguistics: The
Ethnography of Communication. New York: Holt Rinehart and Winston.

Fasold, R. (1984) “Language Choice” In The Sociolinguistics of Society. Oxford:

Basil Blackwell

--------------(1986) “Choosing a Code” In The Sociolinguistics of Society. Oxford:

Basil Blackwell

Ferguson, C.F. ‘The Role of Arabic in Ethiopia: A Sociolinguistic Perspective’ in

Pride J.B. and Holmes, J. Sociolinguistics. Hammondsworth: Penguin

Flexner, S. B. (1975) Preface to the Dictionary of American Slang. New York:

Crowell.

Firth, J.R. (1957a) Papers in Linguistics. 1934-1951. London: Oxford University

Press.

------------- (1957b) A Synopsis of Linguistic Theory. 1930 -53 (special volume of

the Philological Society) Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Fishman, J.A. (1971) “The Links between Micro and Macro Sociolinguistics in the
Study of Who Speaks what Language, to whom and when” in Fishman, J.A.
Cooper, R.L. and Ma, R. Bilingualism in the Burro. Bloomington: Indiana
University publishers.

------------(1972) “Language in Sociocultural Change: Essays by J.R. Fishman”

(ed) by A.S. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.

-------------(1975) Sociolinguistics: A Brief Introduction. Massachusetts: Newbury

House Publishers.

Fought, C. (2002) “Ethnicity”, in J.K. Chambers, P. Trudgill and N. Schilling-Estes

(eds) Handbook of Language Variation and Change, Malden, MA: Blackwell.

-------------- (2006) Language and Ethnicity, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

186
Francis W.W.R. (1986) An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. Third Edition. Oxford:
Blackwell Publishers Ltd

Fromkin, V.A.(2000) Linguistics: An Introduction to Linguistic Theory. Oxford:

Blackwell Publishing Limited.

Gani-Ikilama,, T.O. (1999) “ A Case for Nigerian Pidgin as Official Language in

Nigeria” in Advanced Studies in Literature.

Giles, H., Taylor, D.M., Lambert, W.E. and Buorhis, R.Y.(1973) “Towards a Theory
of Interpersonal Accommodation through Language” Some Canadian Data

Giles and Powesland (1975) Speech Styles and Social Evaluation. New York:
Academic Press.

Giles, H., Noels, K., Ota, H. et al(2000) “Age Vitality Across Eleven Nations” in
Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development Vol. 21. Pp308-23

Giles, .H. (2001) “Speech Accommodation” in Mesthrie, .R. (ed) (2008) Concise
Encyclopedia of Sociolinguistics Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Grossman, A.L. and Tucker, J.S.(1997) “Gender Differences and sexism in the
knowledge and Use of Slang Sex Roles” a Journal of Research of
http://www. Find articles com/pl articles.

Gumperz, J. J. (1971) Language in social Groups. Stanford: Stanford University

press.

----------------(1972)Directions in Sociolinguistics: The Ethnography of

Communication. New York: Holt Rinehart and Winston.

Halliday, M.A.K. Hassan, R. (1976) Cohesion in English. London: Longman Group

Limited

Halliday, M.A.K. (1985) An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward

Arnold.

Helfrich, H. (1979) “Age Markers in Speech in Social Markers in Speech” Scherer

ed., Cambrige: CUP

Holmes, J. (2001) An Introduction to Sociolinguistics (2nd edition) London:

Longman

------------(2004) An Introduction to Pidgin and Creoles Cambridge: CUP

Hudson, R.A. (1980) Sociolinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University press.

------------- (1974) Foundations in Sociolinguistics: An Ethnographic Approach.

Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Igboanusi, H.(2001) Language Attitude and Language Conflict in West Africa

187
 Ibadan: Enicrownfit Publishers

Johnstone, B. (2000) Qualitative Methods in Sociolinguistics Oxford: Oxford

university press

Jibril, M(1986) “Sociolinguistic Variation in Nigerian English” English World-wide 7

------------(1982) “ Nigerian English: An Introduction” in J.B. Pride (ed) New English

New York: Routledge

Jowitt, D. (1991) Nigeria English Usage: An introduction. Lagos: Longman.

------------(2000) “Patterns of Nigerian English Intonation” English World-wide 21:1

………... (2007) “Standard Nigerian English: A Re-Examination” in Journal of the

Nigeria English Studies Association. Ikot Ekpene: NESA and
DEVCONSORT publishers. P2-3

Lyons, J. (1977) Semantics Vol 2. Cambridge: CUP

Kassam, .M..N. (1991) “Language Choice among some Segment of the Ahmadu
Bello University Community” Unpublished MA Thesis submitted to the
Department of English Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria

Kerlinger, F.R.(1973) Foundations of Behavioural Research second Edition New

York: Holt Saunders.

Kerstin, .K. and Trauth, .G. (ed and translated) (2009) Routledge Dictionary of
Language and Linguistics New York: Routledge

Labov, .W. (1970) “The Study of Language in its Social Context Studium Generale”,
Vol. 23 In Pride and Holmes (1972) (ed) Sociolinguistics Harmondsworth,
England: Penguin

----------- (1981) Sociolinguistic Patterns Philadelphia: University of Philadelphia

press Inc

--------------(2001) Principles of Language Change: Social Factors Vol. 2. Oxfeord:

Blackwell

--------------(2006) The Social Stratification of English in New York Second Edition

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Lehman, W.P. (1976) Descriptive Linguistics: An Introduction. New York: Random

House.

Le Page, R. and Tambouret-Keller, A. (1985) Acts of Identity. London: C.U.P.

Levinson, S.O.(1983) Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

--------------(1979) Semantics (2). Cambridge: Cambridge University press.

188
Lippi-Green, R. (1997) English with an Accent: Language, Ideology, and

Discrimination in the United States, New York: Routledge.

Malmkjaek, K. (1991) The Linguistic Encyclopedia London: Routledge

Malmkjaek, .K. (2010) The Linguistics Encyclopedia Third Edition New York:
Routledge

Maxwell, K. (2005) “New Word of The Mouth” Med Magazine London: Macmillan
publishers Ltd.

Mayerhoff, M. (2006) Introducing Sociolinguistics London: Routledge

Mendoza D. N. (2002) “Language and identity”, in J.K. Chambers, P. Trudgill and N.

Schilling-Estes (eds) Handbook of Language Variation and Change, Oxford:
Blackwell.

Mgbemena, .J. (2007) “The Language of GSM/SMS: Some Pedagogical

Implications” in Journal of Nigeria English Studies Association Vol 3 No
1(p110)

MiIroy, L. (1980) Language and Social Networks second edition. New York: Black
well.

Milroy, J. and Milroy,L. (1998) "Varieties and Variation.” The Handbook of

Sociolinguistics. Coulmas,F. (ed). Oxford: Blackwell

Mosoud, S., Raskh, E.S. and Parvaresh, V. (2009) “ The Effects of Speakers’ Gender
and Educational Level on their Regional Dialect: A Case of Hemedani
Persian” in Parkistan Journal of Social Sciences Vol.6 Issue 6 pp76-85

Muhlhausler, P. (1986) Pidgin and Creole Linguistics. Oxford: Basil Blackwell

Myers-Scotton, .C. (1998) “Code Switching” in The Handbook of Sociolinguistics by

Coulman, .F.(ed) Oxford: Blackwell

Nunan, D. (1993) Introducing Discourse Analysis. London: Penguin Books ltd.

Ogu, J. N. (1992) Historical Survey of English and the Nigerian Situation. Ibadan:
krafts Books Ltd.

Ogunsiji, A. (2004) “Status, Features and Functions of English in Nigeria and Their
Implication for EL2 Teaching/Learning” in Oyeleye, L. Language and
Discourse in Society. Ibadan: Hope publication

Onadeke, .T. (2000) “Discourse Analysis: The Fundamentals” in Studies in English

Language Babajide, .A. (ed) Ibadan: Enicrownfit Publishers

189
Oyeleye, L.(2004) Language and Discourse in Society. Ibadan: Hope publications.

Palmer, F.R.(2002)Semantics (second edition). Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press

Parker, F. and Riley, K.(1994)Linguists for Non linguists. New York: Allyn and
Bacon

Poplack, S.(1985) “Contrasting Patterns in Code- switching in Two Communities.” In

Warkentyne, H.J.(Ed) Methods V: Proceedings of the InternationalConference
on Methods in Dialectology. Victoria: University of Victoria Press.

Quirk, R. (1990) “Language Varieties and Standard Language”. English Today 21.

Reinecke, J.E.(1973) “Marginal Languages: A Sociological Survey of the Creole

Languages and Trade Jargons” Unpublished Ph D.Thesis,Yale University.

Rickford, J. R. and McWhorter, J.(1998) "Language Contact and Language

Generation: Pidgins and Creoles.” The Handbook of Sociolinguistics.
Coulmas, Florian (ed). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Romaine, S.(1988) Pidgin and Creole Languages. London: Longman

------------(1992) Bilingualism. Oxford: Blackwell

Richards, J. Heidi,W, John P.(1985) Longman Dictionary of Applied Linguistics

Great Britain :Longman group limited

Saeed, T.I.(2006):Semantics. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing

Salami, A.(1968) “Defining a Standard Nigerian English” in Journal of Nigeria

English Studies Association Vol. 2. No2 pp 99-104

Saville-Troike, M. (1982) The Ethnography of Communication: An Introduction.

Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Schmied, J.J. (1999) English in Africa: An Introduction London: Longman

Schneider, .E.(2011) English Around The World: An Introduction Cambridge: CUP

Seweje, E.O. (1998) “English Language Teaching and Presents’ Economic Situation”
in Nigeria in Journal of Nigeria English Studies Association .Vol. VII: III
p180

Sinclair J.M. and Coulthard, M. (1975) Towards an Analysis of Discourse: The

English used by Teachers and Pupils. London: Oxford University Press.

Singleton, D. (2000) Language and the Lexicon :An Introduction . London: Arnold a
member of the hodder headline group

Sridar, S. (1982) “Non-native English Literatures: Context and Relevance” in

190
 Kachru, B. ed The Other Tongue; English Across Cultures. Urbana:
University of Illinois Press

Spencer, J. (1971) The English Language In West Africa London: Longman

Stockwell, .P. and Trask, R.L. (2007) (ed) Language and Linguistics: The Key
Concepts New York: Routledge

Szabo, E. (2005) “Hungarian Prison Slang Today” http:// nevarchivum klte. Hu

/szleng/phd/szabo-eh-eng.htm

Todd, L. (1974) Pidgins and Creoles London: Routlege and kegan Paul.

Toivanen, P. (2000) “American Slang and Colloquial Expressions for Lying and
Cheating ‘’ a FAST - US - (TRENPP2A) Introduction to American
English First Paper, University of Tampere

Trudgil, P. (1974) Sociolinguistics: An Introduction to Language and Society

England: Penguin Book Ltd.

Trudgill, P. and Cheshire, J. (1989) “Dialect and Education in the U.K” In Cheshire,
J. Edwards, H. Minister, M. and Welten, B. (eds) Dialect and Education:
Some European Perspectives. Clevedon: Multilingual matters.

------------(1992) Introducing Language and Society. London: Penguin

------------( 1999) in Bex, T. and Watts, J.R. (ed) Standard English: The Widening
Debate. London: Routledge.

Vincent T. (1974) “Registers in Achebe” in Nigeria in Journal of Nigeria English

Studies Association Vol 3:1

Walsh, N. (1967) “Distinguishing Types and Varieties of English in Nigeria” in

Journal of Nigeria English Studies Association Vol2. No 2

Wardhaugh,. F. (1983) Dialectology: An Introduction: New York: Longman Group.

Wigwe, C.(1990) Language Culture and Society in West Africa Ems Court: Arthur
.H. Stockwell Ltd

Wolfram, W.(2007) “Ethnic Varieties” in Llamas, C., Millany, L. and Stockwell, P.

(ed) The Routledge Companion to Sociolinguistics New York: Routledge

Wodak, R. and Benke, G.(1998) "Gender as a Sociolinguistic Variable: New

Perspectives on Variation Studies." The Handbook of Sociolinguistics
. Coulmas, F. (ed). Oxford:Blackwell

Yule, G. (1985) The Study of Language Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

-------------(2010) The Study of Language Second Edition Cambridge. CUP

191