Coinages in Nigeria English: A Sociolinguistic Perspective
Chapter One
Objective of the study
The general objective of this study was to examine coinages in Nigeria English: a sociolinguistic perspective.
Specific objectives were:
- To analyze coinages in Nigerian English
- To examine sociolinguistic approaches to language change
- To determine the cultural interference and social meaning
- To determine the factors responsible for the deviations in the English language usage in Nigeria.
CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
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.
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.
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 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 nonstandard 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.
CHAPTER THREE
SOCIOLINGUISTIC APPROACHES TO LANGUAGE CHANGE
The literatures in sociolinguistics that appear relevant to this study on coinages in Nigerian English are historical in nature. They find expression in linguistic perspectives to language change, shift, transfer and dialectology; all insights from Gumperz (1968). Gumperz (1968) proposed a diffusionist theory of the speech community. The theory postulates the spread of linguistic change/transfer in intersecting waves that emanate from different centres of innovation with intensity proportionate to the prestige of their human carriers.
In contrast with the diffusionist principles is the geneticists. While geneticists regarded modern language distribution as the result of the segmentation of older entities into newer and smaller groups, duffusionists viewed the speech community as a dynamic field of action where phonetic change, borrowing, language mixture, and language shift all occur because of social forces. Our interest in this theory is its recognition of the result of two languages in contact. Gumperz (1982:223) states that “wherever, two or more speech communities maintain prolonged contact within a broad field of communication, there are cross-currents of diffusion. The contact between English language and the over four hundred Nigerian indigenous languages (see Bendor Samuel, et al 1994; Adegbija 2004:40-45; Gut and Milde 2002; Grimes 1996; Bamgbose 1971 among others) has necessitated lexico-semantic shifts and changes in the standard forms of English. These changes are prominently observed in forms of transfer – linguistically, culturally, metaphorically and socially.
CHAPTER FOUR
DATA PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS
Coinages in Nigerian English present themselves in different morphological dimensions. While some of them are used as compound words, some are one word terms which remain permanent in the lexicon of Nigerian English (see Igboanusi 2002). The compound words are strung together to express concepts of the speakers‟ intent. There are several ways by which words are derived through compounding. It could be through a combination of noun+noun, adjective+adjective, adjective+noun, verb+noun, etc.It should be pointed out that most of the compound words identified in this paper are not context restricted. That is they are meaningful within the language and have their denotative or connotative relevance even outside those contexts of use.
CHAPTER FIVE
CONCLUSIONS
Conclusion
This study has attempted to explain the sociolinguistic reasons for new forms of expressions identified as peculiarly non-native and Nigerian. We are concluding on the note that most of the coinages in Nigerian English are a result of the diffusions occurring between two cultures, i.e., the attempt to express the socio-political and cultural experiences of Nigeria in Standard English. Were there standard forms of English in the dictionary or other referential sources, Nigerians would have consulted such rather than describe events, matters, opinions and above all ideologies in their own innate experiences.
It is also important that we note that the ability of a non-native speaker of English to use metaphoric expressions, appropriate to describe some ideas, is indicative of the speaker‟s level of competence in the second language. For instance, metaphors shape thoughts and how thoughts are harnessed is culture bound or dependent. This is the situation in a non-native English speech community such as Nigerian English. We hope this paper has corroborated earlier findings or better still has revealed a new perspective from which Nigerian English coinages can be viewed.
References
- Adegbija, E. 2004. The Domestication of English in Nigeria. In Awonusi, S. & Babalola, E . (Eds.) The Domestication of English in Nigeria: A Festschrift in Honour of Abiodun Adetugbo. Lagos: University of Lagos Press
- Adesanoye, F.1973. A Study of Varieties of Written English in Nigeria. In Journal of
- Language Arts and Communication.53-66
- Adjemian, C. 1976. On the nature of Interlanguage systems. Language Learning 22, 297-320
- Akanbi, U.P 1992. A Stylistic Analysis of Selected Speeches of President Ibrahim
- Badamosi Babangida, B.A. Long Essay. University of Ilorin
- Allan, K. 1986. Linguistic Meaning (2). New York :Routlegde and Kegan Paul.
- Aminu, T. & David, W. (ed.) 1981. Sheu Shagari: M Vision for Nigeria. Great Britain: Frank Cass and Co. Ltd.
- Babatunde, S. & Shobomehin, T. 2006. A Sociolinguistic Analysis of Selected Nigerian English (NE.) Metaphors. In Adeyanju, D. (ed.) 2006. Sociolinguistics in the Nigerian ContextIleIfe. OAU Press
- Bamgbose, A. 1971. “The English language in Nigeria”. In Spencer (ed.) 35-48
- Cameron, D. 1997. Demythologizing Sociolinguistics. In Nikolas Coupland and Adam Jaworsky
- (eds.) Sociolinguistics – A Reader and Course book. Palgrave: New York
- Dulay H. & Burt, M. 1973. Should we teach children syntax? Language Learning 23, 245-258
- Corder, S. 1967. The Significance of Leraners’ Errors. International Review of Applied Linguistics 4, 161-170
- Corder, S. Idiosyncratic dialects and error analysis. International Review of Applied Linguistics 9,147-160
