Citation: Abubakar, A.U. & Shu’aibu, A. (2026). Impact of Language Contact Among Hausa-English Bilinguals: A Case of Social Network. Tasambo Journal of Language, Literature, and Culture, 5(2), 72-82. www.doi.org/10.36349/tjllc.2026.v05i02.009.
IMPACT OF LANGUAGE
CONTACT AMONG HAUSA-ENGLISH BILINGUALS: A CASE OF SOCIAL NETWORK
BY
Abubakar Usman
Abubakar
abubakar.usmanabubakar@umyu.edu.ng
07038752448
Department of
English and French, Umaru Musa Yar’adua University, Katsina
&
Abdulrahman Shu’aibu
Department of Liberal Studies, Federal Polytechnic Kaura Namoda,
Zamfara State
Abstract
This
study investigates the impacts of language contact between Hausa and English
among bilinguals in the contemporary Hausa social network. Although language
contact situations in Nigeria coexist with many other indigenous languages,
this study provides the context for examining language interaction between
Hausa and the English language. That is, the reciprocal influences which the
two languages have on each other as promoted by the social network. The paper
adopts Labov’s theory of Sociolinguistic Variation (1972) and Phillipson's
theory of Linguistic Imperialism (1992) as the framework of analysis. The
analysis identifies key contact phenomena, including lexical borrowing,
code-switching, code-mixing, and relexification. It also illustrates their
manifestation in specific lexical and syntactic features drawn from social
network interactions. The results showed that some of the dimensions of
language interaction included borrowing, code-switching and code-mixing,
relexification, and shifting, among others. It also found that there were some
lexicons and some syntactic characteristics of the utterances that were
purposely exchanged between Hausa–English bilingual speakers in the social
network. The study concludes that these contact strategies serve as communicative
tools for bilinguals but may also signal underlying shifts in language prestige
and use.
Keywords: Bilingualism, Language,
Language Contact, Social Network
Introduction
It is
generally believed that language is undoubtedly a means of communication among
humans. It consists primarily of vocal sounds. It is articulatory, systematic,
symbolic, and arbitrary (Derbyshire, 1967). Thus, language is not merely a
system of employing significant sounds through the organs of speech to refer to
things, persons, and ideas in order to facilitate communication and promote
understanding between people, but also a major factor that influences our ways
of thinking. However, people all over the world speak different languages
depending on their cultural backgrounds and also make contact in different
aspects of socialisation (Said, 2010).
Scholars
agree that when two or more languages come into contact, either because of
ancestry, shared environments, or as a result of migration or standardisation,
a variety of phenomena such as borrowing, interference, language convergence,
relexification, code-switching, and code-mixing, among others, will occur
(Akinloye, 2010). However, languages in contact often exchange segmental
sounds, lexical items, or phrasal items through the process known as
‘borrowing’ (Akinloye, 2010). This universal phenomenon usually entails the
phonological or syntactic reconstruction of linguistic items that are borrowed
from a donor language. This is particularly significant in the inequitable
history of contact between different European and African languages (Akinloye, 2010).
Sapir
(1921) states that “languages, like cultures, are rarely sufficient unto
themselves…when there is cultural borrowing, there is always the likelihood
that the associated words may be borrowed too….the careful study of such loan
words constitutes an interesting commentary on the history of culture”. This
shows that the phenomenon of language contact is also a result of cultural
contact. It is worth noting that such contact seems not only natural but also
inevitable, as Sapir (1921) pointed out above (Zabawa, 2006).
Therefore,
the Hausa language is one of the many endoglossic languages in Nigeria,
particularly in the northern region, that came into contact with the English
language from the first decade of the last century when Hausaland was taken up
as a colony by the British. As a result of this contact, many Hausa speakers,
particularly those who attended school (Western education), where English has
been the language of instruction, administration, and communication, have
learnt to speak English as a second language (L2). This group has become
bilingual because of such contact, which has led to the creation of social
networks as a result of socialisation and modern civilisation as well.
Therefore,
Hausa–English bilingualism emerged as a strategic tool for navigating multiple,
overlapping social networks in pre-colonial, colonial, and post-colonial eras.
In all these eras, Hausa served as the lingua franca of trans-Saharan trade and
the Sokoto Caliphate, or Northern Nigeria in general, which bound vast regional
networks. English, on the other hand, was introduced as the national language
and the language of colonial administration, higher education, and the modern
economy. This created a diglossic situation in which English served vertical,
national, and global networks of power and modernity, whereas Hausa maintained
horizontal, local networks of culture, religion, and daily life interactions
within social networks. The post-colonial (post-independence) pattern
continued, as labour migration and national integration forced Hausa speakers
to use English for national engagement and Hausa for in-group cohesion, thereby
solidifying bilingualism as essential for social and economic participation.
However,
the advent of digital media has intensified these historical linkages by
providing new platforms that mirror and amplify traditional network structures.
On social media and messaging apps, bilinguals seamlessly code-switch, using
Hausa to strengthen local and cultural ties in private groups and popular
culture forums, while employing English for professional discourse, national
debate, and global connections. Thus, Hausa–English bilingualism is
fundamentally a sociolinguistic toolkit, historically forged and digitally
refined, for activating and managing distinct social networks from the local to
the global within a single fluid identity.
Literature
Review
Dada
(2007) studies the issue of language contact and language conflict in the case
of Yoruba–English bilinguals. The research examines the Yoruba–English contact
situation with regard to the individual personalities involved. The study also
describes the linguistic situation in Nigeria with particular reference to the
level of use and prestige of the two languages, English and Yoruba. The
findings reveal that speakers of all ages use English almost exclusively for
official matters, with a negative correlation between age and English use:
older speakers rely more on Yoruba, while younger speakers use both languages
or English more frequently. The study further suggests that the younger
generation may not be sufficiently proficient in Yoruba to transmit it effectively
to subsequent generations.
Similarly,
Idika (2017) examines language contact and linguistic borrowing in the
legislative domain, focusing on legislatively borrowed terms and their
phonological characteristics. The study reveals that Igbo borrows extensively
from English, with many borrowed words retaining phonological similarities that
make their meanings easily inferable. The research argues that deliberate
lexical coinage could enhance Igbo’s expressive capacity and strengthen its
linguistic autonomy.
Alvanoudi
(2017), however, presents an in-depth investigation of Greek as spoken by
immigrants in Far North Queensland, Australia. The study focuses on
contact-induced linguistic changes, including lexical borrowing,
discourse-pattern transfer, and code-switching. By integrating contact
linguistics with interactional approaches to code-switching, the study
contributes to understanding how diaspora communities restructure language use
under sustained contact conditions.
In
contrast, Abdulwahab (2012) conducts a sociolinguistic analysis of language
variation among academic and non-academic staff of Ahmadu Bello University,
Zaria. Anchored in the speech community model and social network theory, the
study demonstrates that language variation cuts across both staff categories
and is context-dependent. Hausa and Nigerian Pidgin emerge as dominant
indigenous influences on staff language use, alongside observable inter-speaker
and intra-speaker variation.
Aalberse
and Muysken (2019) further conceptualise bilingualism within the broader
framework of language contact, viewing it as an umbrella phenomenon
encompassing both societal and individual language interaction. Their work
shifts attention from individual bilingual competence to the structural and
functional consequences of bilingual language use.
Menendez
(2010) investigates cross-modal language contact in the written English
productions of deaf students in a bilingual secondary school in Barcelona. The
study argues that the transfer of morphosyntactic structures from Catalan Sign
Language into written English reflects positive linguistic transfer and
supports bilingual development, drawing parallels with hearing bilingual
learners.
Anieka
and Adaoma (2025) examine grammaticality in code-mixed sentences involving
Igbo, English, and German. Their findings indicate that Igbo code-switchers
frequently employ grammatically non-standard English or German constructions,
revealing complex structural constraints in multilingual code-switching
practices. Francisco (2024) assesses language change within contact situations,
emphasising that such change is not purely linguistic but also socio-cultural.
The study distinguishes between autonomous phonological regularity and
grammar-driven interpretations of linguistic change.
Darin
(2024) applies the concept of redeployment from second language acquisition to
contact-induced diachronic change, particularly in phonological systems. The
study demonstrates how phonetic cues may be re-weighted and re-mapped across
languages in prolonged contact situations. Nwaozuzu, Agbedo, and Ugwuona (2013)
present a sociolinguistic study of language contact in the rural Ubolo speech
community of Enugu State, Nigeria. The study identifies trade, migration,
historical ties, border proximity, and transportation access as major drivers
of contact, with outcomes including borrowing, code-switching, and
hyper-adaptation.
Sanesar
(2022) examines the impact of language contact on phonological systems,
highlighting processes such as diffusion, convergence, and borrowing. The study
contributes to understanding how contact shapes phonological diversity in a
globalised context. Olofin et al. (2024) investigate language contact in the
Nigerian Yoruba ESL environment using data from music and film. Their analysis
highlights the emergence of contact-induced features and their implications for
English usage as a second language.
Mohamed
(2020) provides a comprehensive review of theoretical approaches to language
contact, identifying linguistic and extralinguistic factors affecting
phonological, morphological, syntactic, semantic, and lexical systems. The
study critically examines issues such as multilingualism and linguistic
interference. Zhang and Peng (2018) trace the development of language contact
theories, noting a progression from pre-theoretical descriptions to
theory-driven analyses in contemporary scholarship.
More
recently, Sani and Ibrahim (2025) explore reverse acculturation in Sabon Gari,
Kano, where migrant communities exert significant linguistic and cultural
influence on host populations. Their study demonstrates how sustained social
interaction within dense urban networks can invert traditional prestige
hierarchies, allowing non-indigenous linguistic practices to reshape local
communicative norms. This finding underscores the role of social networks in
mediating language contact outcomes, particularly in multilingual Nigerian
settings.
Ultimately,
while numerous studies document language contact across Nigerian and
non-Nigerian contexts (e.g., Dada, 2007; Idika, 2017; Nwaozuzu et al., 2013;
Olofin et al., 2024), relatively few adopt a social network framework (cf.
Abdulwahab, 2012) to provide a fine-grained analysis of Hausa–English bilingual
interaction. This gap directly motivates the present study on the impact of
language contact among Hausa–English bilinguals within social networks.
Language
Contact
It is
generally agreed by sociolinguists that language contact occurs when two or
more languages or varieties interact. The phenomenon of language contact has
been viewed by various scholars. According to Crystal (2008, p. 267), “language
contact is used in sociolinguistics to refer to a situation of geographical
continuity or close social proximity (and thus of mutual influence) between
languages or dialects”. The author further explains that “the result of contact
situations can be seen linguistically in the growth of loanwords, patterns of
phonological and grammatical change, mixed forms of language (such as pidgins
and creoles), and a general increase in bilingualism of various kinds” (p.
268).
Another
slightly different definition of language contact was proposed by Bussmann
(2006, p. 241) as “a situation in which two or more languages coexist within
one state and where speakers use different languages alternately in specific
situations”. Nowadays, language contact does not have to imply the coexistence
of only two languages within one state. In a restricted sense, languages are
said to be ‘in contact’ if they are alternately used by the same persons
(Crystal, 2008). Linguistically, language contact can have a political,
historical, geographical, or cultural-historical basis. However, from
Bussmann’s definition, the present study does not necessarily witness mutual
influence in Hausa–English contact. Rather, it is often the case that such
influence is manifested by the existence of loanwords or borrowing, which is
frequently restricted to one direction only, with the more prestigious language
normally being the donor. This is the case, as Jespersen (1964) pointed out:
“Loan-words always show a superiority of the nation from those languages they
are borrowed, though this superiority may be of many kinds” (p. 95).
Therefore,
language contact phenomena may appear merely illustrative of diversity related
to lexis, phonology, and syntax. However, when examined from different
viewpoints, McColl Millar (2007) distinguishes the social relationships between
two languages in contact into three situations:
a. Superstratal
contact: this is a contact situation whereby the language of a socially
powerful group influences the language of less powerful groups. This is
commonplace in post-colonial experiences, with words from the colonisers’
language finding their way into the language of the colonised, as seen in the
contact between Hausa and English in Northern Nigeria.
b. Adstratal
influence: this is a situation where two or more languages come into contact
without a dominant community. A good example is the contact between
Scandinavian dialects and the English language in Northern England.
c. Substratal
influence: this involves influence from a less dominant language on a dominant
one, often spoken by native speakers, such as the influence between Hausa and
Fulfulde in some parts of Northern Nigeria.
Bilingualism
Bilingualism
means an equal ability to communicate in two languages, with greater skills in
one language or an ability to use two languages effectively (Tej, 2008;
Wardhaugh, 2006). Also, Yule (2007) describes bilingualism as “a member of a
minority group grows up in one linguistic community, mainly speaking one
language … but learns another language … in order to take part in the larger,
dominant, linguistic community” (p. 244).
Moreover,
bilingualism can be generally divided into three different groups, in which a
bilingual person can fall into one of the groups. These include:
a. Compound
bilingual: this is a single context that develops two language systems
simultaneously.
b. Coordinate
bilingual: this is a situation where a person learns two languages in separate
contexts distinctly.
c. Sub-coordinate
bilingual: this is a situation where a person learns a secondary language by
filtering it through their mother tongue.
Therefore,
bilingualism is the ability to speak two languages that are spoken with almost
equal proficiency for all purposes. A person who can communicate very well in
more than one language, i.e. Hausa and English or Hausa and French, among
others, may be called bilingual. However, a bilingual does not necessarily need
to possess equal or symmetrical competence in all four language skills:
listening, speaking, reading, and writing. He may have an extensive repertoire
of vocabulary but may not possess perfect control of the grammar of the second
language.
Social
Network
The
concept of social network was introduced into the field of sociolinguistics by
Lesley and James Milroy in a study of three working-class communities in
Belfast, Northern Ireland. Lesley Milroy (1980) found significant deviations
from the classic class and gender patterns. However, the linguistic variation
in these communities could be explained based on differences in speakers’
social network structures.
A social
network is an abstract mechanism that denotes social relationships and
individual contacts with other individuals in a society (Milroy, 1980). If
society as a whole is viewed as the macro-level, the social network can be
described as a “micro-level social cluster”. Chambers (2009) says “families,
friends, neighbourhoods, etc., i.e. particular patterns of social organisation
within society as a whole”. One can say that a social network is another way of
describing a particular speech community in terms of relations between
individual members in a community.
However,
a social network may not only apply to the macro level of a country or a city
but also to the interpersonal level of neighbourhoods or a single family.
Recently, social networks have been formed via the internet through various
chat rooms, MySpace groups, organisations, etc. (William, 2010; Chambers, 2009;
Trudgill, 2000). Therefore, social networks in the field of sociolinguistics
can be described as particular speech communities, and the interactions between
members within the networks serve as the driving force behind language change.
Impact
of Language Contact in Social Network
Contacts
between people speaking different languages can have a wide variety of
outcomes. In some cases, only a few words are borrowed; in other cases, a whole
new language can be formed. Thus, Thomason (2001) and McColl Millar (2007)
analyse contact in terms of levels of impact using a four-part scale:
1. Casual
contact: this is a level of contact where borrowers need not be fluent in the
source language, and only a few bilinguals exist among borrowing-language
speakers; only non-basic vocabulary can be borrowed in the lexicon or content
words without affecting sentence structure.
2. Slightly
more intense contact: this is a level of contact where borrowers must be
reasonably fluent bilinguals, though they are probably a minority among
borrowing-language speakers. Content words, function words, as well as slight
structural and phonological features, are realised in borrowing.
3. More
intense contact: this is a level of contact where more bilinguals are present,
and attitudes and other social factors favour borrowing. Both basic and
non-basic vocabularies are borrowed, and moderate structural borrowing can be
realised. Borrowing at this stage includes function words, content words,
affixes, structural features, and phonological realisations.
4. Intense
contact: this is a level where very extensive bilingualism exists among
borrowing speakers, and social factors strongly favour borrowing. There is
heavy continuity of lexical borrowing across all sections of the lexicon, heavy
structural borrowing, and strong phonological and morphological influence.
Ways and
Reasons for Contact
Languages
can come into contact in a variety of ways. Thomason (2001) outlines two basic
reasons for contact:
Firstly,
direct contact, in which speakers of one language turn up in the midst of
speakers of another because of invasion or migration.
Secondly,
contact through the mediation of literature or, nowadays, television, radio,
and the internet.
Jacek
(1995) mentions two possible scenarios as reasons for change in any contact
language:
a. Lexical
borrowing takes place from language one (L1) into language two (L2).
b. Structural
interference from one language leads to change in language two (L2).
Methodology
A
qualitative research design was used in this study because the data are in the
form of words, phrases, and sentences. The data were collected through the
application of various interaction techniques with different social networks at
micro and macro levels using participant and non-participant observation. These
interactions occurred among diverse Hausa bilingual communities in some parts
of North-West Nigeria. The social networks used include colleagues, families,
neighbourhoods, course mates, friends, and market sellers between the ages of
25–45 years.
Therefore,
a purposive sampling technique was employed in this research. Bichi et al.
(2008, p. 49) describe purposive sampling “as judgmental sampling in which a
researcher selects not on the basis of representation, but rather on the basis
of his own judgment of the suitability of the said sample”. This sampling
technique was adopted in order to allow the researcher to select relevant data
that suit and fit the objectives and questions of the current research.
Theoretical
Framework
Tavakoli
(2012, p. 663) opines that “theory is a system of ideas based on interrelated
concepts, definitions, and propositions to explain or predict phenomena”. In
addition, Bello (2012, p. 103), in his study of discourse on proposal writing
formats for research students in English Literary Studies, considers a
theoretical framework “as observational concepts that drive, so to speak,
interpretation; it is a form of research in which theory (a paradigm, a
hierarchy of concepts) ‘under-determines’ (grounds) the use of
knowledge-generation mechanisms by way of conceptual analysis”. This is why the
theoretical or analytical framework is indispensable in any form of academic
research.
This
work proposes and adopts two theories as follows:
a. William
Labov’s theory of sociolinguistic variation (1972). Labov (1972) proposes that
language variation is systematic and socially structured rather than random. He
also sought to understand how social factors such as age, gender, ethnicity,
and social class affect how people speak.
b. Robert
Phillipson’s theory of Linguistic Imperialism (1992). Phillipson (1992)
postulates that the dominance of certain languages, particularly English, has
been systematically promoted at the expense of other languages, contributing to
cultural, social, and economic inequality.
The
study of language contact among Hausa–English bilinguals is effectively framed
by integrating the theories of William Labov and Robert Phillipson. Labov’s
theory of sociolinguistic variation provides the essential methodological
framework, positing that language change is systematic and structured by social
factors. By applying this theory to social networks, the research maps how
specific contact phenomena such as code-switching or borrowing correlate with
network characteristics like density, education, and profession. This allows
for a precise empirical analysis of how English influences Hausa in daily use
within different community circles.
Phillipson’s
theory of linguistic imperialism, on the other hand, supplies a critical
macro-level lens for interpreting these findings. It argues that English
contact is not a neutral process but one rooted in colonial and post-colonial
power structures that promote English at the expense of local languages. This
perspective justifies investigating the ideological impact within social
networks, explaining why English is adopted in prestige-driven contexts and how
this may threaten Hausa in certain domains. Together, Labov’s focus on
structured variation and Phillipson’s emphasis on political inequality offer a
comprehensive analytical model linking observed micro-level speech patterns to
broader forces of cultural and linguistic power.
Data Analysis and Discussion
of Hausa-English Contact
The data
collected in the study found that contact situations resulted in a number of
further consequences in either of the languages involved. The contact in
Hausa-English bilingual occurs in various phenomena and is analyzed below:
Borrowing of Vocabulary
This is
the most common way two language influences each other, either in the exchange
of words or borrowing from the donor language and incorporated into the recipient
language without translation. There were several English words that were
borrowed in Hausa language. Some of these are:
Table 1:
Phonological
Invensions
|
English words |
Hausa phonological
inversion |
Standard Hausa |
|
Paper |
pepa |
Takarda |
|
Pencil |
Fensir |
Alkalami |
|
Machine |
Maashin |
Baabur |
|
Handset |
Hanset |
Hanset |
|
Motor |
Moota |
Moota |
|
Internet |
Intanet |
Yaanar gizo |
|
Cup |
Koofi |
Mooda |
|
Assignment |
Asament |
Aikin gida |
|
Appointment |
Appointment |
Tarkarda aiki |
Table 2:
Non-Phonological
Invensions
|
English words |
Hausa non-phonological
inversion |
Standard Hausa |
|
Biro |
Biiro |
Abin rubutu |
|
Test |
Tes |
Jarrabawar gwaji |
|
Road |
Rod |
Titi |
|
Belt |
Belt |
Bel |
|
University |
yunibasiti |
Jaami’a |
|
Lab. |
Lab. |
Dakin gwajeje |
|
Pure water |
Pure wata |
Pure water |
|
Bucket |
Boket |
Bokiti |
|
Computer |
komfuta |
Na’ura mai kwakwalwa |
|
Library |
Labrari |
Dakin karatu |
Therefore, all of the above words are presently incorporated into
Hausa language; you hardly see a Hausa man or woman mention the correct names
of such items in their language.
Code-Switching
This is another
case of language contact where a speaker alternates between two or more
languages or language varieties in the context of a single conversation. This
situation is also observed between Hausa-English bilinguals in different social
networks. These are some of the illustrations of code-switching:
·
Ali: a she ka samu appointment a university.
Meaning: you have gotten an
appointment with the university.
·
…….ai zamu fara exams on 17th
November
Meaning: we are starting
exams on the 17th of November.
·
Dan Allah mu tafi library muyi photocopy.
Meaning: please, let us go to
the library and make our photocopy
·
Mama, na cinye assignment din an kuma bamu
wani.
Meaning: Mama, I have passed
that assignment and we were given another one.
·
Nawa ne pensir da paper?
Meaning: how much is the
pencil and paper?
·
……ai banje wajen patin ba yesterday because I
was sick.
Meaning: I did not attend the
party yesterday, because I was sick.
Code-Mixing
This is a
process of combining the grammatical elements of one language and the lexical
items of another language. This also occurs between Hausa and English languages
in the following:
“Difference
din da ke akwai between affricate da fricatives is that, in affricates, iska na
getting total obstruction, kuma gradual release na iskar ke fita, su kuma
fricatives dama partial obstruction ne kawai”.
Meaning:
The difference between affricates and fricatives is that, in affricates, the
air is totally obstructed but gradually released, while in fricatives, the air
is partially obstructed.
Another
example:
“It
would not be possible to shift wannan lecture, because the only free period da
muke das hi is twelve-to-two (12:00 pm-2:00 pm) and most of us na da paper
presentation a education”.
Meaning:
It would not be possible to shift this lecture, because the only free period we
have is between twelve and two (12:00 pm-2:00 pm), and most of us are having
presentation in the Faculty of Education.
Relexification
This is
another mechanism of language contact whereby a language replaces much or its
entire lexicons, including basic vocabulary, with that of another language
without drastic change to its grammar, though this case is not heavily
co-occurring among the Hausa-English bilingual social network.
Shift
As a
result of contact between two languages, shift can occur. Thus, shift serves as
the replacement of one language by another. This is common when one language
has a higher prestige in the community. Although, in the Nigerian context,
English has the prestige of standardisation as a national language, Hausa is
still playing a vital role, especially in the Northern region of the country.
However, we have not yet witnessed a clear case of language shift from Hausa to
English. This may occur in future generations if English continues to maintain
the highest prestige in communication and socialisation in the country.
Finally, this issue is a factor that sometimes leads to language endangerment
or total extinction.
Conclusion
This
study on the impact of language contact among Hausa–English bilinguals
basically centres on social networks (colleagues, families, neighbourhoods,
course mates, friends, and market sellers). It shows the position of
bilingualism and social networks by identifying certain situations in which
this contact leads to convergence, shift, or endangerment. The study examines
the phenomena of borrowing, relexification, code-switching, and code-mixing
between Hausa and English within the sociolinguistic concept of code usage. The
study finds constant switching of words and phrases, as well as shifting of
certain communicative elements from either language. This reveals communicative
strategies that some bilingual speakers within social networks use to effectively
convey differing shades of meaning in either language.
However,
based on the comprehensive exploration of language contact between Hausa and
English within social networks, this study concludes that the bilingual
practices of Hausa–English speakers are not merely linguistic phenomena but are
deeply embedded in historical, social, and political frameworks.
Also,
the analysis reveals that language contact, manifested through borrowing,
code-switching, and code-mixing, is a systematic and strategic adaptation. It
functions as a vital sociolinguistic toolkit, historically shaped by colonial
and post-colonial forces, as elucidated by Phillipson’s theory of linguistic
imperialism. This contact enables speakers to navigate and activate distinct
social networks: English serves as a vertical conduit for formal education,
national discourse, and global connectivity, while Hausa sustains horizontal
bonds of culture, religion, and local community solidarity.
Furthermore,
applying Labov’s theory of sociolinguistic variation demonstrates that these
contact patterns are not random but are structured by social factors within
specific networks, such as education, profession, and digital media engagement.
While these dynamic practices enrich communication and facilitate identity
negotiation in a multilingual world, the study also highlights underlying
tensions. The prestige and functional dominance of English in official domains
pose a latent risk of language shift, potentially endangering the full
intergenerational transmission of Hausa in its richer forms.
Ultimately,
Hausa–English bilingualism is a resilient and evolving system. It reflects a
complex balance between global integration and local preservation,
demonstrating how languages in contact can create new, hybrid spaces for
expression while simultaneously prompting critical reflection on cultural
sustainability in an increasingly interconnected world.
References
Aalberse,
S., & Muysken, P. (2019). Bilingualism and language contact. In A. De
Houwer & L. Ortega (Eds.), The
Cambridge handbook of bilingualism (pp. 524–543). Cambridge
University Press.
Abdulwahab,
S. (2012). A sociolinguistic
analysis of language variation among the academic and non-academic staff of
Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria (Unpublished master’s thesis).
Department of English and Literary Studies, Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria,
Nigeria.
Akinloye, O.
(2010). Language contact and
word integration: A sociolinguistic and phonological analysis of English words
in Yoruba. Kraft Books.
Alvanoudi,
A. (2017). Language contact, borrowing and code-switching: A case study of
Australian Greek. Journal of
Greek Linguistics.
Anieke, C.,
& Adaoma, I. (2025). Grammaticality and code-switching in the Igbo
language: Code-switching in Igbo–English, Igbo–German and Igbo–English–German. Multidisciplinary Journal of Law,
Education and Humanities, 2(2). Nnamdi Azikiwe University.
Bichi, A.
A., et al. (2008). Research
methods and documentation. Shamlad Business Center.
Bello, I. K.
(2012). A discourse on the proposal writing format for research students of
English literary studies. FAIS
Journal of the Humanities, Faculty of Arts and Islamic Studies,
Bayero University, Kano.
Bussmann, H.
(2006). Routledge dictionary
of language and linguistics. Routledge.
Chambers, J.
K. (2009). Sociolinguistic
theory: Linguistic variation and its social significance.
Blackwell.
Creswell, J.
W. (2009). Research design:
Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage
Publications.
Crystal, D.
(2008). A dictionary of
linguistics and phonetics. Blackwell.
Dada, S. A.
(2007). Language contact and language conflict: The case of Yoruba–English. Kansas Working Papers in Linguistics,
29. University of Ado-Ekiti.
Darin, F.
(2024). Redeployment in language contact: The case of phonological emphasis. Frontiers in Language Science.
Derbyshire,
A. E. (1964). A descriptive
English. Arnold Heinemann.
Francisco,
G. M. (2024). Language change and language in contact. Journal of Humanities and Social
Science, 29(10). University of Alicante.
Idika, K. M.
(2017). Language contact and linguistic borrowing in the Igbo legislative
domain. Journal of the
Linguistic Association of Nigeria, 20(1). University of Nigeria,
Nsukka.
Jacek, F.
(1995). Linguistic change
under contact conditions. Mouton de Gruyter.
Jespersen,
O. (1964). Essentials of
English grammar. Allen & Unwin.
Jindal, D.
V., & Syal, P. (2007). An
introduction to linguistics: Language, grammar and semantics. PHI
Learning.
Labov, W.
(1972). Sociolinguistic
patterns. University of Pennsylvania Press.
McColl
Millar, R. (2007). Trask’s
historical linguistics. Hodder Arnold.
Menendez, B.
(2010). Cross-modal bilingualism: Language contact as evidence of linguistic
transfer in sign bilingual education. International
Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 13(2). Routledge.
Milroy, L.
(1980). Language and social
networks. Blackwell.
Mohamed, E.
M. (2020). Theoretical approaches to the study of language in contact. ResearchGate.
Muysken, P.
C. (1990). Language contact and grammatical coherence: Spanish and Quechua in
the wayno of Southern Peru. Conference lecture.
Nwaozuzu, G.
I., Agbedo, C. U., & Ugwuona, J. (2013). Sociolinguistic study of language
contact in Ubolo speech community, Enugu State, Nigeria. Research in Humanities and Social
Sciences, 3(12).
Olofin, O.
L., Odeiyi, O., Omisakin, O., & Adebayo, A. (2024). The phenomenon of
language contact in the Nigerian Yoruba ESL environment. International Journal of Law, Politics
and Humanities Research, 4(6). Cambridge Research and Publications.
Phillipson,
R. (1992). Linguistic
imperialism. Oxford University Press.
Said, A.
(2010). Code-switching and
code-mixing among Hausa–English students (Unpublished project).
UMYUK.
Sanesar, P.
N. (2022). The study of the impact of language contact on phonological systems.
International Journal of
Food and Nutritional Science.
Sani, A-U.
& Ibrahim, A. (2025). When the guests outdance the hosts: Reverse
acculturation in Sabon Gari, Kano. Scholars Journal of Arts, Humanities and
Social Sciences. 13(8), 230-236.
https://doi.org/10.36347/sjahss.2025.v13i08.005
Sapir, E.
(1921). Language: An
introduction to the study of speech. University of California
Press.
Tavakoli, H.
(2012). A dictionary of
research methodology and statistics in applied linguistics. Rahnama
Press.
Tej, K. B.,
et al. (2008). The handbook
of bilingualism. Blackwell.
Thomason, S.
G. (2001). Language contact:
An introduction. Edinburgh University Press.
Trudgill, P.
(2000). Sociolinguistic
patterns in British English. Arnold.
Usman, B.
(2007). Communication
research. Hassan Usman Katsina Polytechnic.
Wardhaugh,
R. (2006). An introduction
to sociolinguistics. Blackwell.
William, G.
(2010). Sociolinguistics: A
sociological critique. Routledge.
Yule, G.
(2007). The study of
language. Cambridge University Press.
Zabawa, M.
(2008). English–Polish language contact and its influence on the semantics of
Polish. Studia Germanica
Gedanensia, 17, 154–164.
Zhang, L.,
& Peng, W. (2018). Theory and method of language contact. In Advances in social science, education
and humanities research (Vol. 205). Atlantis Press.
0 Comments