Article Citation: Armiya'u Malami Yabo (2018). Identifying Correlations in Lexical Stress of Hausa and Yoruba Speakers of Nigerian English. DEGEL: The Journal of the Faculty of Arts and Islamic Studies, Vol. 16. ISSN 0794-9316
IDENTIFYING
CORRELATIONS IN LEXICAL STRESS OF HAUSA AND YORUBA SPEAKERS OF NIGERIAN ENGLISH
By
Armiya’u Malami Yabo, PhD
National Teachers’ Institute, Sokoto
Abstract
The goal of the present study is to
investigate, empirically and accoustically, correlations in stress production
among speakers of Nigerian English (NE), with the aim of determining whether
there is any similarities or differences in the way in which Hausa and Yoruba
speakers of NE produce stress in NE. Guided by Stampe and Donegan’s (2009)
Natural Phonology theory (which is concerned with the production and perception
of speech in terms of a set of universal phonetically motivated phonological
processes), this paper employs Paul Boersma’s Praat speech analysis software to
analyze patterns of production of stress among some Hausa and Yoruba speakers
of NE. Results of the analysis reveals similarities rather than differences in the stress
production of Hausa and Yoruba speakers of NE. The paper shows and indeed
concludes that Hausa and Yoruba speakers of NE tend to follow similar pattern
of stress production.
Introduction
Scholars and linguists (e.g.
Brosnahan, 1958; Walsh, 1967; Banjo, 1971; Adesanoye, 1973; Adekunle, 1979;
Bamgbose, 1982, 1992, Jowitt, 1991; Ibrahim, 2002; Egwuogo, 2004; and Okoro,
2007) have for long recognized the existence of NE as a variety of world
Englishes. This variety of English, Banjo (1971) notes, has submitted itself to
a process of colouration, through which the taste and language habits of the
Nigerian society are inscribed on it. Similarly, Adetugbo (1984) argues that
NE, just like British and American English, should be regarded as a dialect or
group of distinct forms of a language devoid of any perforate connotation of
inferiority usually attached to the word. In this regard, Ekpe (2010:11)
observes that ‘NE is different from the English of the native speakers and
other Englishes in terms of its use of some culture-specific transformations as
well as its non-observance of certain global and surface structure
constraints’. Akere (1987) and Adeniran (1987) hold similar opinion that NE has
to be seen as a product of its own general social context. Many Linguists, such
as Banjo, Bamgbose, Odumuh, and Jowitt have observed that the variety of
English spoken by the Nigerian speakers of English varies from the Standard
English, henceforth, SE (i.e. RP or the BBC English) due to the local influence
and other adaptations posed by social, regional and even psycholinguistic
parameters. The term NE, therefore, as Jowitt (1991, p. 30) notes, has been “in
currency since pre-independence Nigeria” which is freely and proudly used by
Nigerians and many of the expatriates in schools and universities in 1960 and
beyond.
Although
the existence of NE is now an undebatable issue, there continues to be paucity
of research on some of its aspects especially, those relating to suprasegmental
aspects of its phonology. The few literature sources available on the phonology
of NE tended to be limited to segmental aspect of its phonology. This study is an attempt to fill that
gap. And, invariably it seeks to determine whether there is any correlation in
the way in which Hausa and Yoruba speakers of NE produce Stress.
Studies
on Nigerian English
One of the earliest studies on NE
was carried out by Brosnaham who in 1958 recognizes the existence of NE and
identifies four levels of English used in Southern Nigeria, using educational
status as a yardstick. Similarly, Banjo
(1971) identifies four varieties of English spoken by Nigerians based on the
degree of deviation or approximation to Standard British English (SBA).
However, Walsh (1967) recognises only one type of NE which he described as
‘Educated Nigerian English’ with three additional sub-varieties. Although, he
was more concerned with written NE, Adesanoye (1973) categorises NE into three
varieties using educational status and occupation as factors underlining his
study. Adekunle (1979) describes three varieties of spoken NE with much emphasis
on individual response to various situations (idiolectal boundaries). In a
similar study, Jowitt (1991) identifies two broad varieties of NE based on
mother tongue interference and approximation to SE with a correlation to
educational attainments. Jibril (1986) identifies varieties of NE along
regional and ethnic parameters with further identification of social varieties
within each of the regional varieties he identified. Ekundayo (2013) claims
that phonological differences are inevitable because every language is a
cluster of dialects that share mutual intelligibility in spite of their obvious
differences along geographical, social, professional and other dimensions, as
may be the case with the Hausa and Yoruba speakers of NE. Thus, two speakers
from different backgrounds and geographical settings may use different
varieties of the same language they speak. However, it is evident that while
certain aspects of NE such as its lexis, semantics, syntax, pragmatics,
discourse and idiomatic expressions have received a lot of scholarly attention
(e.g Adesanoye, 1973; Bamgbose, 1982, 1992; Banjo, 1971; Egwuogo, 2004; Jowitt,
1991; and Okoro, 2007), less focus was extended to the Phonology of NE
especially, at Supra-segmental level.
Available
literature
on NE shows that Supra-segmental aspect of the phononogy of NE has remained an
under-researched area. This is perhaps, the more reason why
Banjo as far back as (1979) observes that for Nigerians, supra-segmental aspect
is the last hurdle which Nigerian speakers of English find impossible to cross
and also many language scholars evade from it. However, in recent years
attempts were made to study the
segmental phonology of NE (Udofot, 1997 and Surakat, 1992), word stress in NE
(Atoye, 1991; Akinjobi’s, 2002, 2006; Malami, 2010) intonation patterns of
educated speakers of NE (Ibrahim, 2002), and syllable structure of NE (Adamu,
2012 and Akindele, 2012). However, none of these studies has attempted to
determine whether there is any correlation in the way in which Hausa and Yoruba
speakers of NE produce stress especially, at sentence level. The
need to fill in the gap thereby exploring more knowledge on this aspect by
giving it the attention it rightly deserves informed the rationale for this
research work.
Despite the absence of stress in most
of African languages (Udofot 2011), it is clear that its acquisition and
understanding is an important component of second language learning not only
because pronunciation is one of the most important factors in language learning
but because it improves speech recognition and understanding (Benrabah, 1997).
Moreover, Al-Ameen (2005) observes that mutual intelligibility can be hindered
through wrong perception or production of even a small number of content words
due to misplacement of their stress. It is very clear, therefore, that the need
for investigating stress production and perception of two different speech
communities is equally important due to the fact that the goal of every
communication is intelligibility, which is an essential component of
communicative competence. This can be used to prevent (or at least reduce) the
possibility of miscommunication among the two different speakers. In this
regard, Cutler (1984, p. 80) and Benrabah (1997, p. 161) observe that
misplacement of stress in a language can ‘precipitate false recognition often
in defiance of segmental evidence’.
According to Ekundayo (2013),
phonological differences are inevitable because every language is a cluster of
dialects that share mutual intelligibility in spite of their obvious
differences along geographical, social, professional and other dimensions as in
the case of Hausa and Yoruba speakers of NE. Jibril (1979) claims that
historically, there exist some phonological differences between NE in the
southern and northern parts of the country. For the purpose of verifiability
and repeatability of the statement, we need to carry out more research to
ascertain whether this statement still holds water. The present study is a step
in that direction intends to re-examine the phenomenon using Hausa and Yoruba
speakers of NE who are from the northern and southern parts of the country
respectively.
Stress in English
Acording
to Cruttenden (1997), stress has been used in rather varied and ambiguous ways
in phonetics and linguistics, for it has sometimes been used as the equivalent
to loudness or length, and sometimes referring to syllables in a word. Being
ambiguous or not, many scholars have attempted to define the concept of stress
according to how they perceived it. For example, Crystal (1969) sees stress as
‘relative loudness or volume from the listener’s point of view and relative
energy from the speakers.’ In the same vein, Roach (2000) who submits that
stress could be studied from the perception and production points of view and
this is because the definition involves both listeners (who perceive) and
speakers (who produce) stress. However,
to Juba & Akindolire (2003), stress in English is ‘the syllables that we
pronounce with greater emphasis and which sounds loud than the other syllable
in bi-syllabic words’. Referring to the views expressed by these authors, we
can see that they have put more emphasis on the speakers’ effort in pronouncing
a syllable rather than the collective efforts of speakers and listeners. Jowitt
(1996), in what may be seen as a comprehensive definition, describes stress in
English as means of: (a) giving a greater power or force or volume to a
syllable, (b) giving a higher pitch to this syllable and (c) making the same
syllable longer.
To
Widdowson and Stork (n.d: 102), stress in English is ‘the process of
highlighting a particular syllable or syllables in the continuum of speech by
pronouncing them with greater force or effort’.
The authors went on to distinguish between what they call word (lexical)
stress from sentence stress which they suggest is ‘used in giving prominence to
a particular word in a sentence and word stress which plays a part in the
phonological structure of individual words.’ With regard to this, Ibrahim
(2002) observes two weaknesses in the above definition, as pointed out below.
(a) That the definition is only
concerned with the concept of stress, without recognizing the roles of the
actual producers and perceivers of the said stressed syllables. This is an
observation that the present researcher strongly shares that the said definition
would have been more comprehensive when the
roles of both speakers and hearers are taken into consideration.
(b) That the notions ‘word’
(lexical) and ‘sentence’ stresses can be used interchangeably. This is because
“the distinction between the two concepts is in itself confusing and that
drawing a clear distinction between the two terms can hardly be taken seriously”.
Notwithstanding
Ibrahim’s opinion in (b) above, Adetugbo (1984) proves that, in word stress,
vocal cords tension remains stable, producing a note of consistent pitch while
in sentence stress, the vocal cords tension changes, thus, producing a sound of
varying pitch. The difference between the two concepts, therefore, can be drawn
from this point of view that word stress appears to be based on static high
pitch while sentence stress is made with gliding pitch either falling, rising
or a combination of the two. The present study is interested in how some
speakers of NE produce stress.
Stress
in Nigerian English
Okunsebour
(n.d.:136) notes the nature of English stress has made it over-bearing to many
speakers of NE.
Consequently, Simo-Bobda (1995) observes some deviations in stress placement in
by some speakers of NE. According to him, there is a marked tendency for
forward stress, as opposed to the generally backward stress in Receive
Pronunciation (RP) e.g saLAD instead of SAlad, peTROL instead of PETrol. He
further observes that speaker of Nigeria English (Nig. E) tend to reverse the
order of primary stress and secondary stress in words. However, as Surakat
(2010) points out, these findings are product of some surface performance data
based on other parameters and aspect that can only be generalized if
specifically applied to some ethnic groups. Moreover, Guella (1999) observes
that in their spoken English, second language speakers hardly reflect their
theoretical knowledge of stress.
From the preceeding discussion,
it is quite clear that Lexical stress is yet another intriguing subject in the
magnificent world of phonology, this is probably the reason why Brett-Hyde
(2013) attests that ‘there are no textbooks on lexical stress that are current
with early 21st century theory’, thus the manners in which some
Hausa and Yoruba speakers of NE produce lexical stress and their areas of
correlations remains an area worthy of research so as to contribute to the
existing scanty literature that is also obsolete with new studies on the
phenomenon.
Theoretical framework
Natural Phonology (hereafter NP) is
adopted as the main theoretical framework guiding the present study. Stampe
& Donegan (2009, p. 131) explain that NP “is a theory that characterized
the production and perception of speech in terms of a set of universal
phonetically motivated phonological processes.” This approach is adopted to
guide the present study because it can be used to account for variations that
may exist in the speech of second language speakers, which can define their
non-native accent, as it seems with NE speakers. It also postulates that
phonological processes are not rules governed as proposes by the generative
phonology; besides they are universal (motivated in all languages, and all
speakers) in view of the universality of the human vocal and perceptual
apparatus and common capabilities to react to speech difficulty.
Guella (1999), while referring to the study of
stress placement of L2 of English opines that, the study of stress should be
approached from a purely practical angle and that any tight or esoteric
theoretical framework should at many levels be simply ignored. This is because
many theoretical approaches to the study of stress in English language are in
themselves very controversial and quite abstract to most of the L2 speakers of
English and are hardly considered by them in their speech production, thus, speakers
of NE included. For instance, Goldsmith (1990, p. 102) criticizes the classical
theory of generative phonology in the sound pattern of English (Chomsky and
Halle, 1968) as a theory built without recognizing syllable as a unit of
phonological description, while Haugen in Goldsmith (1990) observes syllable
itself as a concept that phoneticians have not reached a very definite
agreement about its nature and definition. Also, Trudgill’s (1974) observes
that Labov’s studies are restricted only to native speakers of English in the
inner circle settings where most speakers are monolinguals in a monolingual
context, where differing levels of proficiency in the languages are not an
issue. The theory is therefore not suitable to account for the NE Stress in a
multilingual environment of Nigeria.
To avoid too much complexity and to make
language learning more concrete and very practical in nature, Guella (1999)
recommends that, active production and drilling of stress on the part of the
second language learners of English must be encouraged. According to him, the
purpose is to avoid theoretical complexity and technical burdensome references
and works in the field of stress placement such as those produced by
transformational generativists, metrical phonologists and other similar
theories that are more fruitful and understandable to the native speakers than
non-native speakers of English whose native languages lacks Stress as in the
case with the subjects concerned with this study.
Research
Methodology
The data collected from the two
different groups of respondents was analyzed using Pratt speech software
application and the application of central limit theorem as a basis for
sampling and analysis of the data of the respondents. Praat is a computer programme
designed by Paul Boersma and David Weenink of the University of Amsterdam. This
software is found to be suitable for the current research because it can be
used to generate waveforms, wide and narrow band spectrograms, and pitch
tracks. It can also be used to process a speech signal by filtering it as well as enhancing certain frequency
regions; segment and label words, syllables, or individual phonemes; show an
intensity contour; put your work in graphic form ('draw a plot') for printing;
extract individual sounds for further analysis; and measure voice onset time
(VOT). In this study, this (Praat) software is used to measure duration in
stress production of Hausa and Yoruba speakers of NE. Duration refers to the
intervals in time in stress production. Beckman and Edwards (1994: 23) observes
that: “Although frequency, intensity and duration were identified to be cues
for stress judgment at both lexical and sentence level, there seems to be an
agreement that duration is the major perceptual cue to stress while other cues
are more controversial”. Therefore, duration is used here to determine the
stress pattern of Hausa and Yoruba speakers of NE. It thus serves as a clue to
stress production and identification among the respondents of this study, as
such, if the resulting valve was positive or negative (greater or less than
zero) it reveals a positive or negative correlation. Note that any duration
counts above zero is considered high, and the higher the counts, the better the
quality of stress production.
Eight
speakers of NE were used for the study; in which 2 males and 2 females were
chosen to represent each ethnic group (i.e. Hausa and Yoruba speakers of NE)
under study. Convienance sampling technique (Aroaye, 2007) was used to select
the participants. This sampling technique allows for the selection of subjects
because they happen to be available and interested in taking part in the
research. The four subjects were, two middle age male Hausa speaker of NE who
are lecturers with Masters degree; one middle age female Hausa lecturer and a
27 year old female Hausa speaker with a Bachelor degree; a middle age female
Yoruba female speaker of NE with a masters degree and a young Yoruba female
speaker with a Higher National Diploma; and two middle age male Yoruba speakers
of NE with bachelor degrees.
Data Analysis
In this section, we provide an
analysis of the data. However, our analysis is limited to production of
polysllabic words by some Hausa and Yoruba speakers of NE. The subjects were
asked to read some English sentences and the researcher tape-recorded their
production (of the sentences), which were later analyzed with Praat software.
Playing each recorded (utterance) file in PRAAT produces a spectrogram of each
utterance, on which I recorded the duration counts of every utterance within
the spectrogram. Note that duration is measured in milliseconds (hereafter ms),
which have been rounded up to two decimal points. Sample of the results of the
analysis are presented below.
Polysyllabic, Hausa Male (HM)
Figure 1. Waveforms of production of the sentence: What an unforgettable experience
Figure 1 shows
a screenshot of the Praat image of the utterance: What an unforgettable experience. As can be seen from the figure,
the duration counts of stress production in the utterance is recorded at 3.0 ms. This shows that the quality of
stress production in the above utterance of this sampled respondent, who is a
Hausa male speaker of NE, is high since it is greater than zero ms. Note that,
as was stated earlier, the higher the duration counts, the higher the quality
of stress production.
Polysyllabic, Hausa Female (HF)
Figure 2. Waveforms of
production of the sentence: What an unforgettable experience!
From Figure 2, we can see a screenshot of the Praat image of the utterance: What an unforgettable experience. As the figure shows, the duration counts of stress production in the utterance is recorded at 2.5 ms. This shows that the quality of stress production in the above utterance of this sampled respondent, who is a Hausa female speaker of NE, is high since it is greater than zero.
Polysyllabic, Yoruba Male (YM)
Figure 3. Waveforms of
production of the sentence: What an unforgettable experience!
The Praat image of the utterance: What an unforgettable experience can be seen in Figure 3. As the figure shows, the duration counts of stress production in the utterance is recorded at 3.8 ms. This shows that the quality of stress production in the above utterance of this sampled respondent, who is a Yoruba male speaker of NE, is high since it is greater than zero.
Polysyllabic, Yoruba Female (YF)
Figure 4. Waveforms
showing production of the sentence: What an unforgettable experience!
Figure 4 shows
that the Praat image of the utterance: What
an unforgettable experience. In the figure we can see that the duration
counts of stress production in the utterance stands at 2.5 ms. This shows that
the quality of stress production in the utterance of this sampled respondent,
who is a Yoruba female speaker of NE, is high since it is greater than zero.
Discussion
and conclusion
The
analysis of the data reveals some interesting information about stress
production by some speakers of NE. The study observed that the production of both the
Hausa and Yoruba speakers of NE is in some cases unstressed or stressed with
equal duration for all the words. It was also discovered that stress production
by the subjects is generally inconsistent and unpredictable.
The study has also found
similarities rather than differences in the way the respondents from the two
ethnic groups produce stress in English. The analysis has also revealed that
regardless of variables such as ethnicity, gender, age and educational qualification,
speakers of NE tend to follow similar pattern of stress production. The study
also concludes that stress in NE is demarcative in function. This is
evidenced by the inconsistency and unpredictability of stress production
observed in the data. It was also observed that duration counts of male
respondents is higher than that of their female counterparts. This phenomenon
will be explored in my next seminar paper.
Finally,
due to time constraint and space limitation, many aspects of the data that may
require deeper analysis have been saved for future research. It is also
important to say that the conclusions arrived at in this research may not
necessarily apply to every Hausa and Yoruba speaker of NE but, they do say
something about the way in which speakers of NE from these two etthnic groups
produce stress in English.
References
Adamu,
I. M (2012). The study of syllable structure of the English of Educated
Nigerian. (Unpublished M.A
Dissertation), Usmanu Ɗanfodiyo University,
Sokoto.
Adekunle,
M.A (1979). Non-Random Variation in
Nigerian English. In E. Ubahakwe (Ed.), Varieties and Functions of English in
Nigeria (pp. 27-42). Ibadan: Africana Publishers.
Adeniran,
A. (1987). Sociolinguistics Perspective on Human Communication. In S. O. Unoh
(Ed.), Topical Issues in Communication
Arts. Uyo: Modern Business Press.
Adesanoye,
F. (1973). A study of varieties of
written English in Nigeria. (Unpublished doctoral Thesis). University of
Ibadan, Nigeria.
Adetugbo,
B. (1984). The English language in the
Nigerian experience. Lagos: University Press.
Akere,
F. (1987). English: An introductory
phonetics and phonological description. Lagos: University of Lagos Press.
Akindele,
J. A. (2012). Word stress in NE. Papers
in English and Linguistics, 9, 31–39.
Akinjobi
A. A. (2006). A phonological investigation of vowel weakening and unstressed
syllable in educated Yoruba English. (Unpublished doctoral thesis). University
of Ibadan, Ibadan.
Akinjobi,
A. (2002). Nigerian English or Standard English Supra-segmentals: The Question
of which variety to teach. In S.T. Babatunde & D. S. Adeyanju (Eds), Language, Meaning and Society. Ilorin: Hayatee Press.
Al-Ameen,
G. (2005), Teaching Pronunciation Development and Recent Issues. Retrieved from
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/flan.12084/full?campaign=jrpssh
Atoye,
R. (1991). Word Stress in Nigerian English. World
Englishes, 10(1): 1-6.
Bambgbose,
A. (1982). Standard Nigerian English: Issues of Identification. In B. Kachru (Ed.),
The Other Tongue: English Across Cultures.
(99-111). Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Bamgbose,
A. (1992). Standard Nigerian English: Issues of Identification. In: B. Kachru
(Ed.), The Other Tongue: English Across
Cultures (2nd Ed.) (pp. 148- 161). Urbana: 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). Ibadan: Mosuro Publishers.
Banjo,
A. (1971). Towards a Definition of Standard Nigerian Spoken English. Actes du 8e
Congress de la SociétéLinguistique de L‟ Afrique
Occidental, 24-28.
Banjo,
A. L. (1979). Beyond Intelligibility in
Nigerian English. In E. Ubahakwe (Ed.), Varieties
and Functions of English in Nigeria (pp. 7-13). Ibadan: African University
Press.
Benrabah,
M. (1997). Word stress: A source of Unintelligibility in English. International Review of Applied Linguistics,
35(3).
Burzio,
L. (1994). Principles of English Stress.
Cambridge: CUP.
Brett-Hyde,
H. (2013). Word Stress. Retrieved from http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199772810/obo-9780199772810-0123.xml
Borosnaham,
L. F. (1958). English in Southern Nigeria. English Studies, 39, 97-110.
Chomsky,
N. & Halle, M. (1968). Sound Patterns
of English. New York: Harper and Row.
Cunillera, T, Gomila, A. &
Rodríguez-Fornells, A. (2006). Beneficial Effects of Word Final Stress. Retrieved from http:www.biomedcentral.com
Cruttenden,
A. (1997). Intonation (2nd edn.)
Cambridge: Cambridge University press.
Crystal,
D. (1969). Prosodic Systems and
Intonation in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University press.
Cutler,
A. (1984). Stress and Accent in Language Production and Understanding. In: J,
Gibbon, and H., Richter (eds), Intonation,
Accent and Rhythmic studies in Discourse phonology. (107 – 130). Berlin:
Walter de Gruyter.
Egwuogu,
C.B. (2004). Nigerian English and varieties Differentiation: A critical
Appraisal. In L. Oyelele (ed.), Language
and Discourse in Society. (pp. 98-112). Ibadan: Hope publications
Ekpe,
M. B. (2010). The English Language in Nigeria. Retrieved from
http://www.nou.edu.ng/noun/NOUN_OVCL.pdf
Ekundayo,
S.O. (2013). ‘Verbal Interference’ in Educated Nigerian English. International Journal of English Linguistics,
3 (6), 45 -70
Goldsmith
J. (1990). Auto segmental and metrical
phonology. Cambridge: Blackwell.
Guella,
N. (1999). Teaching English stress –
patterns at Arab Universities: An Absolute Requirement. Riyadh: King Saud
University Press.
Ibrahim
(2002). The intonation patterns of the educated speakers of Nigerian English.
(Unpublished doctoral thesis). Bayero University
of Kano.
Jawale,
P. (2009). Speech Analysis Using PRAAT. Available at: http://www.fon.hum.uva.nl/praat/manual/Intro_3_2_Configuring
the spectogram.html (Accessed 17 July, 2018)
Jibril,
M. (1986). Sociolinguistic Variation in Nigerian English. English world wide, 7, 147-174.
Jibril,
M. (1979). Regional Variation in Nigerian Spoken English In E. Ubahakwe (ed.), Varieties and Functions of English in
Nigeria (pp. 43-53). Lagos: A.
U. P.
Jowitt,
D. (1991). Nigerian English Usage: An
introduction. Lagos: Longman
Jowitt,
D. (1996). Spectrum Oral English for
Senior Secondary Schools. Ibadan: Spectrum
Juba,
O. & Akindolire, N. (2003). Comprehensive
English Language for Senior Secondary Schools for WASSCE, NECO, GCE & Jamb.
Lagos: Johnson publishers
Malami,
A. (2010). The Placement of Lexical Stress: A comparative study of some Native
and Native speakers of English Language. (Unpublished M.A Thesis), Usmanu Ɗanfodiyo University, Sokoto.
Ibrahim,
M.I. (2012). A study of the English Syllable Structure of the English of
Educated Nigerians. (Unpublished M.A. Dissertation0, Usmanu Ɗanfodiyo University, Sokoto
Okoro
O. (2007). Codifying Nigerian English: Some practical problems of Labelling. In
S. Awonusi & E. Babalola (eds.), The
Domestication of English in Nigeria. (pp. 166-181). Lagos: University of
Lagos Press.
Roach,
P. (2000). English Phonetics and
Phonology: A Self-contained, Comprehensive Pronunciation Course. Cambridge:
Cambridge University press.
Stampe,
D & Donegan, P. (2009). Hypotheses of Natural Phonology. Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics,
45(1), 1–31
Surakat,
T.Y. (1992). Ethnic Variation in the segmental Phonemes of Nigerian English and
the pedagogical implications. Savanna: A
journal of the environment and social sciences, 13(2), 43-55.
Surakat,
T.Y. (2010). Categorising varieties of Nigerian English: A psycholinguistics perspective.
Journal of the Nigeria English Studies
Association, 13(2), 84-94
Trudgill,
P. (1974a). International English: A
Guide to the Varieties of Standard English.
London: Oxford University Press.
Udofot,
I. M. (1997). The Rhythm of Spoken Nigerian English. (Unpublished Ph.D.
Dissertation), University of Uyo, Uyo
Udofot,
I. M. (2011). A Tonal Analysis of Standard Nigerian English. Journal of the Nigerian English Studies
Association, 3 (1), 58-68.
Walsh, N. (1967). Distinguishing Types and Varieties of English in Nigeria. Journal of the Nigerian English Studies 2(2), 47-55
The official website of the DEGEL Jounal is https://www.degeljournal.com
0 Comments