The Communicative Implications Of Nigerian English Usage

By and large, Kujore (369) tends to draw the inevitable conclusion. Though he admits that “establishing a standard model is not an easy one”, he however states that all departures from a given standard model, where they are neither a completely new creation nor a mere paraphrase, a valid and meaningful reinterpretation are basically or ultimately errorserrors either of analysis or of interpretation. There must however be a clear distinction between “established” or “institutionalized” error (variants) and “individual” or “isolated” or idiosyncratic errors (deviants) The latter appears to be the dominant features of Nigerian English usage. The subsequent analysis of Nigerian English slang, and other numerous infelicitous features (semantic, lexis, phonology neologism etc) would lend credence to this fact.

3.5 Summary of the Review of Related Literature

This review centered on three major areas. These include the argument on the existence of Nigerian English, Nigerian English: acceptability vs intelligibility, and Nigerian English: a variation or a deviation? The review equally covers both conceptual framework and some empirical studies. We discovered from the review, an account of polarity of opinions on the existence of Nigerian English. Kachru (1982) and Kujore (1985) cited in Uzoezie (171-173), Bamgbose in Jowitt (35), Nwoke (154), Jowitt (53), to mention but the six, are notable apostles of the Nigerian English school. 

Other notable scholars of this stance include Ker (125) and Oluikpe (17). To backup their argument, they posit that once two languages come in contact, certain changes tend to occur Hence Bamgbose in Olaoye (93) states, without hesitation, that The history of contact linguistics tells us that wherever two or more languages come in contact, number of phenomena take place, such as borrowing, bilingualism, code switching, code mixing, relexification calquing language domination and sometimes language shift and death. Olaoye goes on to add that “no language in any society which has come in contact with any other society or societies is totally pure”. The situation is worrisome because these “Impurities” or what Otagburuagu (ix) terms “numerous infelicities” found in English of some Nigerian users constitute the form classified as “Nigerian English”. Proponents of the Nigerian English school submit that “social acceptability” “international intelligibility” or “functionality” should be the measure to determine the existence of this variety. The question however remains: should we discard completely the issue of “correctness” as espoused by Fries (5) cited in Baldeh (40)? On the other side of the argument are scholars who do not concur with the existence of “Nigerian English” and thus wish that Nigerians should tread with caution in their path to create Nigerian English. Advocates of this view include Ikara (22) cited by Uzoezie (173), Nwaegbe, - 39 - Banjo and Baldeh (24). Baldeh (39), for instance, describes the “Nigerian English” as “a misnomer” Also Adesanya quoted in Babatunde (132) classifies the indexical features of Nigerian English as “very clearly as error”. The crux of the matter, the people tend to argue, is that there is not yet a standard Nigerian English, and where there is no standard, there cannot possibly be a dialect(s). Consequently the gradual development of “new Englishes” in Nigeria as their opponents argue is as illusory as the proverbial “City of Gold”. Secondly, since the so called “standard Nigerian English” has not yet been codified and its descriptive norms not yet established for pedagogical purposes, its acceptance as a full fledged variety like Australian, South African, Canadian or Indian. English is in the words of Babatunde (133), “Premature”. Based on the foregoing, the need for this research arises. That is the need to evaluate the communicative implications of the Nigerian flavour on Nigerian English usage.