Cite this article as: Chika, O. M., Okoro, H. O., & Aderibigbe, R. (2025). Multilingual situation in Nigeria and its impacts on the vowel system of educated Nigerian English. Sokoto Journal of Linguistics and Communication Studies (SOJOLICS), 1(1), 13-20. www.doi.org/10.36349/sojolics.2025.v01i01.003
MULTILINGUAL SITUATION IN NIGERIA AND ITS
IMPACTS ON THE VOWEL SYSTEM OF EDUCATED NIGERIAN ENGLISH
By
OzimMmaduabuchi Chika, PhD.
Department of English and Linguistics,
Federal University Dutse, Jigawa State, Nigeria
&
Henry ObumnemeOkoro
Henry.okoro.pg90184@unn.edu.ng
Department of English and Literary
Studies, University of Nigeria, Nsukka, Enugu State
&
Rachael Aderibigbe
Department of Basic Sciences, Federal
College of Forestry Mechanization Afaka, Kaduna State
Abstract
Keywords: Multilingualism in Nigeria, Nigerian English, Phonemic variation,
Language codification, Asymmetrical language distribution
1. Introduction
Multilingualism is a common phenomenon in most
countries of the world, either at the individual or societal level (Okai, 2014)
or what has been described respectively as “personality and territorial”
principles of multilingualism (Grosjean, 1982). Countries like Nigeria, India,
South Africa, Singapore, etc. are good examples of multilingual states. The
focus of this study is to examine the multilingual situation in Nigeria and its
impacts on the vowel system of the de facto standard variety
of Nigerian English, otherwise known as educated Nigerian English accent (ENEA)
(see Adegbite, et al., 2014; Bamgbose, 1982; Odumuh, 1984), with a view to draw
attention to the fact that some vowel sounds that are variants of specific
Received Pronunciation (RP) vowels are results of differences in ethnic tongues
of educated Nigerian speakers of English. The study also aims to argue further
that these vowels can be accordingly classified as free variations when
delineating them as the vowel system of Nigerian English.
Although a sizeable number of research outputs exists
on the segmental features of ENEA (see Simo Bobda, 2007; Josaiah &
Babatunde, 2011; Ugorji, 2010, etc.), it has been acknowledged as conflicting
the submissions of these studies, particularly those on the phonemicization of
the accent (Josaiah & Babatunde, 2011), and this has posed a challenge for
the codification process of the phonology of the standard variety of Nigerian
English. It is therefore the thesis in this study that the educated variety of
Nigerian English accent cannot be delineated without consideration of the
various variants of RP sounds that emanate from the tongues of peoples of
different linguistic origins that make up speakers of Nigerian English,
especially those variants that stemmed from educated Nigerians’ varying
articulations of English lexical items (as cases of free variation), which are
prominently idiosyncratic of ENEA. This is the gap this study aims to fill. To
further expand discussion on the impact of multilingual situation of Nigeria on
the vowel system of the standard variety of Nigerian English, the followings
are explored in what follows: the Nigerian state and its language situation,
evolution of multilingual situation in Nigeria, the politics of asymmetrical
multilingualism in Nigeria, standard Nigerian English and challenges of its
codification, and impacts of multilingualism on the vowel system of Nigerian
English.
2. Literature Review
Nigeria’s linguistic
landscape is characterized by remarkable multilingualism, making it one of the
most linguistically diverse countries in Africa. This complexity is reflected
in both national and regional asymmetrical multilingualism, which has drawn global
scholarly attention due to its implications for language planning, policy
formulation, and the emergence of domesticated varieties of English that
reflect the country’s ethnolinguistic diversity (Akujobi, 2019; Bamgbose, 2017;
Ugorji, 2010). With a population exceeding 200 million (Ugorji, 2010) and more
than 500 indigenous languages (Grimes, 1974; Oyetayo, 2006), Nigeria exhibits
extensive linguistic variation, including dialectal differences that often
impede mutual intelligibility. For instance, Akoko Yoruba speakers may
understand Ibadan Yoruba, but the reverse is not always true, and similar
patterns are observed among Gombe and Adamawa Fulfulde speakers (Mahmoud,
2016). Beyond indigenous languages, Nigeria’s linguistic repertoire
incorporates exoglossic languages such as English, French, Arabic, and Pidgin,
introduced through colonialism, trade, cultural contact, and religious
missions.
As a product of British
colonial amalgamation, Nigeria adopted English as its official language to
facilitate national unity and communication across ethnolinguistic boundaries
(Mann, 1990). Consequently, English has been domesticated within Nigerian contexts,
acquiring features influenced by interlanguage factors such as L1 transfer and
second-language acquisition strategies (Bamgbose, 1998). Regional variations in
Nigerian English emerged historically through different missionary influences:
the southwest was influenced by RP-speaking English teachers, the southeast by
Scots and Irish missionaries, and the north by RP-speaking English expatriates
(Awonusi, 1986; Simo Bobda, 1995; Ugorji, 2010). These historical interactions,
combined with local linguistic influences, produced a hybrid, globally
recognized variety of World Englishes that warrants codification for
standardization (Adegbite, Udofot, & Ayoola, 2014; Graddol, 1997).
Phonological variation, particularly at the segmental level, often signals
speakers’ ethnic backgrounds, for example, Yoruba speakers pronouncing “stir”
as /stia/ versus Igbo speakers pronouncing it as /stɛ/, while lexicosemantic
variations, such as lexical borrowings like “Okada,” are less obviously tied to
specific languages.
The evolution of
multilingualism in Nigeria stems from historical factors including cultural
contacts, trade, and colonization. Prior to British amalgamation, indigenous
groups existed as independent kingdoms or empires, interacting with
Arabic-speaking Islamic missionaries in the north and European Christian
missionaries in the south and middle belt (Taiwo, 1999; Uzoezie, 2004). These
interactions facilitated the introduction of exoglossic languages and
contributed to the development of Pidgin English as a lingua franca for trade
and informal communication (Ugorji, 2010). British colonial policies further
entrenched asymmetrical multilingualism, compelling speakers of diverse
languages to adopt English as a medium for governance, education, and national
communication (Oha, 2004).
Asymmetrical
multilingualism in Nigeria reflects unequal power, prestige, and functional
distribution among the country’s languages, with English dominating formal
domains while indigenous languages often remain regionally or locally
significant (Aina, 2022; Kachru & Sridhar, 1978). English’s dominance is
reinforced by its role as the medium of instruction beyond the early years of
schooling, its use in examinations, and its requirement for employment in both
public and private sectors. Although Hausa, Igbo, and Yoruba have regional
influence, promoting one as a national language risks perceived dominance and
the potential marginalization of other languages (Bamgbose, 2017; Yusuf, 2023).
Consequently, English has emerged as the de facto national language, coexisting
with indigenous and exoglossic languages for specific utilitarian purposes.
The domestication of
English in Nigeria has produced distinct varieties that differ from native
English contexts due to interlanguage factors and sociolinguistic influences
(Kachru, 1985, 1997; Kirkpatrick, 2014; McArthur, 1987; Schneider, 2007).
Debates persist regarding which features constitute standard Nigerian English
(Banjo, 1971; Jibril, 1982; Adegbija, 2004). Certain phonological features
influenced by mother tongue interference, such as the substitution of /l/ with
/r/ or /p/ with /f/ in consonants, are considered deviations from standard
Nigerian English because they alter meaning or hinder intelligibility. In
contrast, vowel variations, such as /stia/ versus /stɛ/ in “stir,” are less
disruptive due to context aiding comprehension, suggesting the presence of free
variation in vowel articulation. These phonemic patterns, particularly in
vowels, are therefore central to defining the phonological system of standard
Nigerian English, reflecting both the influence of Nigeria’s multilingual
situation and the need for codification to achieve endonormative stability
within the variety.
This body of research
underscores the intricate interplay between Nigeria’s sociolinguistic
diversity, historical language contact, and the development of English as a
dominant and codifiable national variety. It highlights how multilingualism,
asymmetrical language distribution, and interlanguage influence collectively
shape the phonemic, lexical, and sociolinguistic characteristics of Nigerian
English, providing a framework for understanding the challenges and imperatives
in standardizing this variety for educational, communicative, and policy
purposes.
3. Theoretical framework
This study is anchored
on Labov’s sociolinguistic variation model. Labov’s sociolinguistic variation
model, developed in Labov(1966) and extended in Labov (2001), is grounded on
the idea that linguistic variation is systematic and socially conditioned. Central tenets of the
theory include orderly heterogeneity, which posits that phonological variation
follows structured patterns rather than randomness; social stratification,
where linguistic variables correlate with social factors such as ethnicity, class,
and education; and style-shifting, which highlights speakers’ ability to modify
their phonological choices depending on communicative context. Labov also
distinguishes between change from above (conscious adoption of prestigious
forms) and change from below (subconscious, community-driven shifts), and
emphasizes speech community norms as the basis for stabilising new phonological
patterns. These principles are directly applicable to this study. The
systematic, socially patterned variation that Labov describes aligns with how
Nigerian speakers from diverse L1 backgrounds influence ENE vowel realizations
in predictable ways. Social stratification helps explain differences in vowel
patterns across ethnic groups and educational levels, while style-shifting accounts
for variation between formal and casual speech among multilingual speakers. The
concepts of change from above and below illuminate how certain ENE vowel
features emerge through subconscious multilingual influence, whereas others are
shaped by conscious attempts at approximating standard norms.
4. Methodology
The objectives of this study are to discuss the
multilingual situation in Nigeria, examine the impacts of the situation on the
vowel system of ENE, and outline some examples of variation in vowel
realisations among speakers of ENE as direct impacts of the situation. The data
for the study are sourced from the existing literature. Thesecondarydata used
to discuss the impacts of multilingualism on the vowel system of ENE are
gathered fromOzim’s (2024) study which conducts a graphophonemic study of
educated Nigerian English accent. The study utilised data from International
Corpus of English, Nigeria (ICE-Nigeria). Data were also gathered via a read
aloud task administered to participants randomly selected from the University
of Jos, Federal University Dutse, Jigawa State and Karu Local Government
Secretariat, Nasarawa State from 2022 to 2023. From the findings of the study
on the ENEA’s variants of specific RP vowels, the variants that result from
ethnic tongues’ variation are identified in this study to account for the
impact of multilingual situation of Nigeria on the vowel system of ENEA.
5. Data Presentation and Analysis
In thissection, the ENEA’s variants of specific RP
vowels that result from ethnic tongues’ variation are identified to account for
the impact of multilingual situation of Nigeria on the vowel system of ENEA.
Out of the twelve RP monophthongs whose variants were outlined in Ozim (2024),
six are identified in this study to have some ENEA variants that are results of
differences in speakers’ ethnic backgrounds, while three out of eight
diphthongs are identified. These are presented in tables below.
a. Multilingual-Situation-Influenced ENEA Variants of
RP’s Mid-Central Long Vowel /ɜ:/
Table 1: ENEA Variants of /ɜ:/ Resulting from
Ethnolinguistic Differences
|
RP Vowel |
ENEA Variants Identified in Literature |
Ethnolinguistic Sources of Variation |
|
/ɜ:/ |
[a, ɛ, ia, e, ɔ, ua, o] |
South Eastern speakers→ [ɛ]; Northern speakers →[a] |
As can be seen in Table 1, out of seven ENEA variants
[a, ɛ, ia, e, ɔ, ua, o] of RP’s /ɜ:/identified in Ozim (2024), two [a,
ɛ]arefound in this analysis to have resulted from mother tongue interference.
For instance, in the articulation of words such as “circle”, most speakers from
the southeastern part of Nigeria usually realise the grapheme <ir> as
open-mid front vowel [ɛ] while speakers from the northern part of the country
usually realise it as open front vowel [a]. Thus, it can be said that [a] and
[ɛ] are used by ENEA speakers to realise free variations in most words that
contain grapheme <ir>. Also, both of them are ENEA variants of RP’s /ɜ:/
often resulting from speakers’ articulation of grapheme <ir> in lexical
items.
b. Multilingual-Situation-Influenced ENEA Variants of
RP’s Mid Front Vowel /e/
Table 2: ENEA Variants of /e/ Resulting from
Ethnolinguistic Differences
|
RP Vowel |
ENEA Variants Identified in Literature |
Ethnolinguistic Sources of Variation |
|
/e/ |
[e, i, io, uɛ, ej] |
SE & Tiv speakers → [e]; others → [ɛ] |
As shown in Table 2, five variants [e, i, io, uɛ, ej]
of RP’s /e/ have been graphophonemically identified in ENEA. Two of these are
found to result from differences in speakers’ mother tongues. For example, in
the articulation of head, education, many, men, most speakers from
the southeastern and north central (specifically the Tivs) part of the Nigeria
usually realise the RP’s /e/ as [e] while other speakers realise it as [ɛ]. It
is to be noted that ENEA’s equivalent of RP’s front mid vowel /e/ is open-mid
front vowel /ɛ/ while the equivalent of /eɪ/ is /e/. Thus, those who pronounce
“many” as [meni] realise grapheme <a> as /e/ that sounds like RP’s /eɪ/,
while those that pronounce it as [mɛni] realise <a> as /ɛ/ that sounds
like RP’s /e/. Thus, there is an incidence of free variation in the
articulation of many, head, men, education in ENEA.
c. Multilingual-Situation-Influenced ENEA Variants of
RP’s Low FrontShort Vowel /æ/
Table 3: ENEA Variants of /æ/ Resulting from
Ethnolinguistic Differences
|
RP Vowel |
ENEA Variants Identified in Literature |
Ethnolinguistic Sources of Variation |
|
/æ/ |
[a, e, ɔ, ɛ, i] |
Some speakers → [e]; some (mostly from SE) → [ɛ] |
RP’s low front short vowel /æ/ attracts five variants
[a, e, ɔ, ɛ, i] in ENEA. Sounds [e] and [ɛ] are also graphophonemically
identified to indicate free variation in the pronunciation of words such as
“angelic” in ENEA. The initial <a> is usually hypercorrectly or
analogically pronounced by most ENEA speakers as [e] following the
pronunciation of the <a> in “angel”. However, just as a result of mother
tongue interference, some speakers would realise [e] (close to RP’s /ei/, while
some (mostly from southeastern part of the country) will realise /ɛ/, giving
room for free variation in the articulation of words such as “angelic” in which
the initial <a> is pronounced as /æ/ in RP.
d. Multilingual-Situation-Influenced ENEA Variants of
RP’s Low BackLong Vowel /ɑ:/
Table 4: ENEA Variants of /ɑ:/Resulting from
Ethnolinguistic Differences
|
RP Vowel |
ENEA Variants Identified in Literature |
Ethnolinguistic Sources of Variation |
|
/ɑ:/ |
[a, e, o, ɛ, ɔ, au] |
Southern speakers→ [o]; Hausa speakers → [e] |
As graphophonemically determined in Ozim (2024), six
variants [a, e, o, ɛ, ɔ, au] of RP’s /ɑ:/ are identifiable in ENEA. However, it
is observed that in the pronunciation of the word “guava”, free variation
occurs resulting from regional differences. For example, some Nigerian speakers
of English, particularly those from the southern part pronounce the word as
[gova] instead of /ˈgwɑ:və/ as obtainable in RP. This is an entrenched pattern
in this part of the country. In the north, you could hear something like
[gweva]. While the southerners blend grapheme <u> and <a> as one
grapheme realizing them as /o/, the Hausa speakers in the north realise
grapheme <u> as <w>, as it is pronounced in RP, but substitute the
open back long vowel /ɑ:/ with close-mid front vowel /e/, which is the ENEA
equivalent of RP’s closing diphthong /eɪ/. Thus, [o] and [e] are elements of
free variation in the articulation of “guava” among Nigerian speakers of ENEA.
e. Multilingual-Situation-Influenced ENEA Variants of
RP’s Schwa Sound /ə/
Table 5: ENEA Variants of /ə/Resulting from
Ethnolinguistic Differences
|
RP Vowel |
ENEA Variants Identified in Literature |
Ethnolinguistic Sources of Variation |
|
/ə/ |
[a, e, ɛ, i, ɪ, ʊ, u, ɔ, ai, o, jɔ, ia, ie, iɔ] |
Southerners→/ɔ/ for <io>; Northerners → /ɪ/; <ure> → /ɔ/
vs /a/ |
As shown in Table 5, fourteen ENEA variants [a, e, ɛ,
i, ɪ, ʊ, u, ɔ, ai, o, jɔ, ia, ie, iɔ] of RP’s mid central short vowel /ə/ are
identified in the literature. It is found in this study that some of these
variants are results of differences in speakers’ mother tongues. For instance,
in the pronunciation of “-tion-ending” words (e.g., caution), the majority of
southerners realise grapheme <io> as /ɔ/, while northerners (particularly
those from northeast and northwest) realise it as /ɪ/, thereby creating cases
of free variation in the pronunciation of such words in ENEA. Also, grapheme
<ure> in “-ture-ending” words (e.g., feature) is realised by southern
speakers as /ɔ/, while their northern counterparts realise it as open front
vowel /a/; this is also the same with “or-ending” word (e.g., doctor). All this
illustrates the impacts of multilingualism on the phonemic system of ENEA,
which must be put into consideration while codifying the variety.
f. Multilingual-Situation-Influenced ENEA Variants of
RP’s Mid Back Long Vowel /ɔ:/
Table 6: ENEA Variants of /ɔ:/Resulting from
Ethnolinguistic Differences
|
RP Vowel |
ENEA Variants Identified in Literature |
Ethnolinguistic Sources of Variation |
|
/ɔ:/ |
[a, o, uu, au, oa, ɔ] |
Southern ENE → /ɔ/; Northern ENE → /o:/ |
Six variants [a, o, uu, au, oa, ɔ] of /ɔ:/ have been
graphophonemically found in the literature to exist in ENEA. However, it is
found that ENEA speakers realise /ɔ:/ as /ɔ/ or /o/ in some words. For example,
the majority of educated speakers from southern Nigeria realise it as /ɔ/ while
their northern fellows realise it as /o:/ in words like door, law,
and as /ua/ in words such as sure.
g. Multilingual-Situation-Influenced ENEA Variants of
RP’s Centring Diphthong /iə/
Table 7: ENEA Variants of /iə/Resulting from
Ethnolinguistic Differences
|
RP Vowel |
ENEA Variants Identified in Literature |
Ethnolinguistic Sources of Variation |
|
/iə/ |
[ia, ɛ, i, e, ie, io] |
Yoruba → [ia]; Igbo/others → [ɛ] |
Six variants [ia, ɛ, i, e, ie, io] of RP’s /iə/ have
been graphophonemically identified in ENEA. In the pronunciation of certain
words, free variations are observed to result from differences in regional or
ethnic tongues. For example, in the pronunciation of words like “atmosphere”,
Yoruba educated speakers would pronounce the final grapheme <ere> as
[ia], while their counterparts from other ethnic groups would realise it as
/ɛ/, especially the Igbos, resulting in free variation in the pronunciation of
“atmosphere”, or “sphere” in ENEA.
h. Multilingual-Situation-Influenced ENEA Variants of
RP’s Centring Diphthong /eə/
Table 8: ENEA Variants of /eə/Resulting from
Ethnolinguistic Differences
|
RP Vowel |
ENEA Variants Identified in Literature |
Ethnolinguistic Sources of Variation |
|
/eə/ |
[ia, ɛ, i, e, ie, io] |
Yoruba → [ia]; Igbo/others → [ɛ]; NW speakers → [awia] |
Just like /iə/, sound /eə/ has its ENEA’s variants.
Ozim (2024) graphophonemically identified four variants [a, e, ia, ɛ] of RP’s
/eə/ in ENEA. It is found in the current study that some of these variants
result from free variation in the pronunciation of certain words, and these
free variations are occasioned by differences in speakers’ mother tongue. For
instance, in the pronunciation of words like
“stir”. Yoruba educated speakers would pronounce the word as [stia] while their
counterparts from other ethnic groups would realise it as /ɛ/, especially the
Igbos. In pronouncing “stare”, you could hear [ste], [stɛ] and [stia], all
constituting a case of free variation in the pronunciation of “stare” within
ENEA. Also, in the pronunciation of “aware”, you could hear [awia],
[awɛ] or even [awe] among Nigerians. Some speakers from thenorthwestern part of
the country would favour [awia].
i. Multilingual-Situation-Influenced ENEA Variants of
RP’s Closing Diphthong /ei/
Table 9: ENEA Variants of /ei/Resulting from
Ethnolinguistic Differences
|
RP Vowel |
ENEA Variants Identified in Literature |
Ethnolinguistic Sources of Variation |
|
/ei/ |
[a, e, i, ai, ɛ] |
Igbo → [ɛ]; Others → [e] |
As shown in Table 9, five ENEA variants [a, e, i, ai,
ɛ] of RP’s /ei/ have been graphophonemically identified. Among these variants
[e] and [ɛ] are found in free variations occasioned by mother tongue
differences of speakers. Some Igbo speakers would pronounce “cane” as [kɛn]
while other Nigerians would say [ken].
6. Conclusion
This study has examined the multilingual situation in
Nigeria and its impact on the vowel system of ENEA. The findings of the study
indicate that multilingualism exerts a strong influence on the vowel system of
Educated Nigerian English Accent (ENEA), resulting in significant phonological
variation across speakers from different ethnic backgrounds. The analysis
reveals that out of the twelve Received Pronunciation (RP) monophthongs, six
have ENEA variants shaped by mother tongue interference, while three of the
eight diphthongs also exhibit similar influence. These variations create
patterns of free variation, where multiple vowel sounds are used
interchangeably in the pronunciation of certain words without altering meaning.
For instance, the RP vowel /ɜ:/ shows variants such as [a] and [ɛ], influenced
by the speech habits of northern and southeastern speakers respectively, while
the mid-front vowel /e/ alternates between [e] and [ɛ] in words like many and education.
Likewise, the low front vowel /æ/ and the low back long vowel /ɑ:/ reveal
region-based substitutions, reflecting the phonetic preferences of various
ethnic groups. The schwa /ə/ demonstrates the highest number of variants,
highlighting the extent of phonological diversity among Nigerian speakers.
Furthermore, diphthongs such as /iə/, /ɔ:/, /eə/, and /ei/ also show multiple
ENEA realizations, often influenced by regional articulation patterns. In
conclusion, the findings confirm that Nigeria’s multilingual environment plays
a pivotal role in shaping the vowel patterns of Nigerian English, making
uniform phonemicization difficult to achieve. The study concludes that these
variations should not be seen as errors but as legitimate phonological features
reflecting Nigeria’s complex linguistic ecology. It is, therefore, the
suggestion in this study that these variations should be acknowledged and
included when codifying the phonological system of standard Nigerian
English.
References:
Adegbija, E. (2004). The
domestication of English in Nigeria. In S. Awonusi and E. A. Babalola
(eds.). The domestication of English in Nigeria: A
Festschrift in Honour of AbiodunAdetugbo(pp. 20-44). University of Lagos
Press.
Adegbite, W., Udofot,
I., and Ayoola, K. (eds.). (2014). A Dictionary of Nigerian English
Usage. Obafemi Awolowo University Press.
Aina, T. E. (2022). The
multilingual nature of Nigeria: The English language as the primary
beneficiary. www.linkedin.com
Akujobi, O. S. (2019).
The English language coalescence and multilingualism in Nigeria. Igwebuike:
Journal of Arts and Humanities, 5(3), 17-33.
Awonusi, V. O. (1985).
Sociolinguistic variation in Nigerian English. (UnpublishedPh.D Thesis)
University of London.
Bamgbose, A. (1982).
Standard Nigerian English: issues of identification. In B. Kachru (ed.), The
Other Tongue: English Across Cultures, (pp. 99–111). University of Illinois
Press.
Bamgbose, A. (1995)
English in the Nigerian environment. In A. Bamgbose, A. Banjo, and A. Thomas
(eds.), New Englishes: A West African Perspective, (pp. 9–26).
Mosuro Publishers.
Bamgbose, A. (1998).
Torn between the norms: Innovations in world Englishes. World
Englishes, 17, 1-14.
Bangbose, A.
(2017). Beyond linguistics and multilingualism in Nigeria. DB
Martoy Books.
Banjo, A. (1971) Towards
a definition of Standard Nigerian Spoken English. Actes du 8e Congress
de la Soci´ et´ e Linguistique de L’ Afrique Occidental, 24–8.
Graddol, D.
(1997). The future of English. The British Council.
Grimes, J. E.
(1974). World lists and Languages. Cornell University.
Grosjean, F.
(1982). Life with two languages. Harvard University Press.
Jibril, M. M. (1982)
Phonological variation in Nigerian spoken English. (Unpublished PhD
Dissertation), University of Lancaster.
Josiah, U. E., and
Babatunde, S. T. (2011). Standard Nigerian English phonemes: The crisis of
modelling and harmonization. World Englishes, 4, 533-550.
Jowitt, D. (2019). Nigerian
English. de Gruyter Mouton.
Kachru, B. B. (1985).
Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: English language in outer
circle. In R. Quirk and H. Widowson (eds.), English in the world:
Teaching and learning the language and literature (pp. 11-36).
Cambridge University Press.
Kachru, B. B. (1997).
World Englishes and English-using communities. Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics, 17, 66-87.
Kirkpatrick, A. (2014).
Introduction. World Englishes- Routledge Companion to English Studies (33-45).
Routledge.
Labov, W. (1996). The social stratification of English in
New York City. Centre for Applied Linguistics.
Labov, W. (2001). Principles of linguistic change, volume
2: Social factors. Blackwell Publishers
Mahmoud, A. M. (2016).
Nigeria’s multilingual setting and critical evaluation of the national language
policy: Prognosis of the future of Nigerian languages. Journal of
Education and Social Policy, 3(4), 132-134.
McArthur, T. (1987). The
English language? English today, 11, 9-11.
Odumuh, A. E. (1984).
Educated Nigerian English as a model of standard Nigerian English. World
Language English, 3(4), 231-235.
Oha, O. (2004). National
politics and the deconstruction of linguistic subjectivity in Nigeria. In S.
Awonusi and E. A. Babalola (eds.). The domestication of English in
Nigeria: A Festschrift in Honour of AbiodunAdetugbo(pp.
280-297). University of Lagos Press.
Okai, B. O. (2014).
Benefits of multilingualism in education. Universal Journal of
Educational Research, 2(3), 223-229.
Oladipupo, R and
Akinola, A (2022). Nigerian English pronunciation preferences: A corpus-based
survey of pronunciation variants. Cogent Arts & Humanities,
9(1), 1-25.
Opara, C. G. (2021).
Educated Nigerian English phonemes. International Journal of English
Language and Linguistic Research, 9(3), 46-61.
Oyetayo, A.
(2006). Nigeria: Hope for the future: Languages of Nigeria. Freedom
Press.
Ozim, M. C. (2024). A
Corpus-based graphophonemic analysis of Educated Nigerian English accent, PhD.
Dissertation, University of Nigeria, Nsukka, Nigeria
Schneider, E. W.
(2007). Postcolonial English. Cambridge University Press.
Simo Bobda, A. S.
(2007). Some segmental rules of Nigerian English phonology. English world-wide,
28(3), 279-310.
Soneye, T. (2021).
Issues in Nigerian English phonology. A presentation at the monthly lecture
series of English Scholars Association of Nigeria (July 31, 2021).
Surakat, T. Y. (2021). A
dictionary of Nigerian English Usage (2014): Proposal for a second edition. A
presentation at the annual conference of English Scholars Association of
Nigeria.
Taiwo, B. M. (1999).
Arabic education in Nigeria: A historical overview. A paper presented at the
first annual national conference organised by Nigerian Association of Teachers
of Arabic in Colleges of Education and Allied Institutions, 28th April
to 1st May, 1999.
Ugorji, C. U. C.
(2010). Nigerian English Phonology. Peter Lang.
Uzozie, R. U. (2004).
The linguistic capital market and attitudinal ambivalence of Nigerians to
English as an adopted language. In S. Awonusi and E. A. Babalola (eds.). The
domestication of English in Nigeria: A Festschrift in Honour of
AbiodunAdetugbo(pp. 363-382). University of Lagos Press.
Yusuf, R. (2023). Hausa and others: Inside the language battle in northern Nigeria. www.themovee.com.
0 Comments