The Communicative Implications Of Nigerian English Usage

Uzoezie’s “Probable Nigerian Englishes” adds more confusion to the situation. He quotes Ikara who gives the vivid picture of English at a crossroad in Nigeria thus it may even be safer to say that there is no such specific super – ordinate variety of standard Nigerian English; but a range and variety of Nigerian Englishes, each reflecting the cultural experiences of particular users and linguistic influences of their first language (173) .

Furthermore, Ker (125) makes some startling observations. He observes that

1. Language is not a genetic possession but belongs to its users.

2. Nigerian English is not a foreign language in Nigeria any longer.

3. English will continue to be used in Nigeria with a Nigerian flavour; for all the functions it is at present fulfilling, I do not see any change in the foreseeable future. Ker’s observation is that the English language is now Nigerian’s possession and so, Nigerians have the right to domesticate or to “Nigerianize” it. Unfortunately, if change, according to Ker, should not be expected in the foreseeable future” then the objectives of the adoption of English as an official language considering its unique role as an international language may be defeated. In other words something should be done urgently towards establishing an acceptable standard.

To this end, Boadi, Grieve and Nwankwo (44) emphasize the need for “standard”. They affirm that the fact that there does exist a particular variety of English which would be accepted by most native English speakers as standard is of greatest importance to all countries where English is taught, but more especially in those countries in which it is used as the medium of instruction They warn that it would be a colossal waste of resources if “at the end of the process, people cannot communicate effectively with one another within and across national boundaries”. Based on this, the idea of “Nigerian Englishes” evolving within the ethnolinguistic setting is not without some grave implications.

Consequently Grieve cited in Nwaegbe (38) sounds a serious warning against the Nigerian “flavour” often added to English in Nigeria or simply against Nigerian English forms. He states that Those forms which are widely accepted by educated people may safely be regarded as regional modifications of the standard; those current only among the less well educated or restricted to a particular locality cannot be so regarded. Clarifying this point, Nwaegbe catalogues some words or expressions from Adekunle’s “standard Nigerian English”. Words such as “gwon gworo bus “kia kia bus” “wayo man” etc are considered by Adekunle as lexical items in standard Nigerian English, perhaps, the “Nigerian flavour” Ker espouses. Nwaegbe frowns at these and consequently warns that  We must not mutilate the English language merely because we want to create a Nigerian variant. If the idea we wish to express is English in origin, then there is likely to be an English word for it. if we then coin for it an expression with a local flavour, that expression is Nigerian, not English – certainly not Nigerian English. Nwaegbe further advises that “if we wish to indicate a Nigerian concept which has no English equivalent, then an existing Nigerian expression can be used”. Consequently, “egwusi”, “gari”, “okoro”, etc. to him, are “legitimate Nigerianism” The above scholarly position indeed explains the main thrust of this research. It re-echoes our subject matter; whether the expressions used by Nigerians are truly Nigerian English or anglicized Nigerian expressions. Again what are the implication of these expressions as regards effective communication? Nwaegbe is not alone in this stance.

Banjo (63) is cited by Baldeh(24) as warning that “any reckless decolonization of English in Nigeria could result in English developing into an entirely new language intelligible only to Nigerians”. Baldeh himself is very pungent in his remark on the issue. He extensively explains What is really at the heart of the matter is that the term standard Nigerian English is a misnomer because a standard language presupposes the existence of a dialect which in turn, is a kind of language used by a particular group of native speakers of that language. Since English is not indigenous to Nigeria, it follows that there cannot possibly be a standard Nigeria English (39). Baldeh has earlier affirmed that “there is no Nigerian language which is genetically related and has some civilization as English, an Indo-European language “ (17).

In other words, English has not got what Weinreich, (viii)calls “genetic ties or synchronic resemblance” with any of the Nigerian languages. Since there exists such a tremendous genetic disparity between the English language and the indigenous languages, the marriage between it and any of the vernacular languages, as advocated by the apostles of Nigerian English, is, indeed, incompatible. Their offspring (“Nigerian English” or “Nigerian Englishes”) can never be a perfect breed. One thing particularly striking in Banjo’s view earlier cited is the issue of intelligibility. Many advocates of “Nigerian English” apparently lose sight of this important issue in language use. Scholars of this stance contend that “acceptability”, “functionality”, “communicability” or what Oluikpe (17) terms “appropriateness” should be the basis for judging the standard of performance of the educated Nigerian speakers of English rather than the native speakers performance.

They however lose sight of Bloomfield’s view in Kwofie (103) that the terminal objective of foreign language teaching is “a command of the spoken forms of the language”. This command presupposes “acceptable approximation to native pronunciation”.