Cite this article as: Adedun, E. A., Ojo, T. G., Oreoluwa, B. O., &Feranmi-Ojo, T. A. (2026). Age and gender variation in the use of take care among educated Nigerian English speakers. Sokoto Journal of Linguistics and Communication Studies (SOJOLICS), 2(2), 242-254. https://doi.org/10.36349/sojolics.2026.v02i02.022
By
Prof. Emmanuel Adedayo
Adedun
Department of Languages,
Mountain Top University, Ogun State,
and
Tolulope Grace Ojo
Department of Languages,
Mountain Top University, Ogun State,
and
Dr. Beatrice Osaro
Oreoluwa
Department
of Languages, Mountain Top University, Ogun State,
and
Toyin Abigail
Feranmi-Ojo
Department of English
and Literary Studies, Federal University, Oye-Ekiti.
toyin.feranmi-ojo@fuoye.edu.ng
Abstract
This
study investigates age and gender variation in the use of take care among 150
educated Nigerian English speakers. It deploys Malinowski's (1923) phatic
communion and Coupland et al.'s (1992) negotiation perspective. Data were
collected through a Google Form questionnaire measuring social variables and
self-reported usage frequency on a 5-point scale. The sample included four age
categories (13–19, 20–35, 36–55, 56+ years) with 64% females and 36% males, and
98% holding higher education qualifications. The findings in this paper reveal
three patterns. First, an age-graded pattern emerged in which teenagers (13–19)
used take care most frequently (43.8% frequent use), usage declined across the
lifespan, and age-group of (56+) showed the highest non-user proportion
(27.3%). Second, gender differences were evident where females used the phrase
more frequently than males (47.9% and 38.9% high-frequency users), with no
female reporting non‑use compared to 5.6% of males. Third, educational
homogeneity (98% higher education) precluded meaningful comparison across
education levels. The study also explains a usage‑interpretation paradox in
which teenagers use the phrase most often yet doubt its sincerity from
authority figures, thereby reflecting the negotiated nature of phaticity.
Keywords: Phatic Communion, Age, Gender, Education, Nigerian English.
1. Introduction
Language serves not only to convey information but also to establish and
maintain social relationships. Among the many routine expressions in everyday
English, take care occupies a distinctive position as a common
closing formula in face‑to‑face conversations, telephone calls, emails, and
digital messages. Although often taken for granted, its use reflects important
interpersonal functions related to goodwill, politeness, and relationship
maintenance.
Sociolinguistic
research has consistently shown that language use is systematically influenced
by social variables such as age and gender (Labov, 1994). While much attention
has been given to phonological and grammatical variation, less is known about
how routine phatic expressions vary across social groups. Expressions
like take care are particularly significant because they help
sustain social cohesion. Their frequency of use may differ by age and gender
reflecting broader patterns of communicative preference and social identity.
Nigeria
provides a valuable context for investigating such variation. As one of the
largest English‑speaking nations, Nigeria has developed distinctive varieties
of English shaped by local cultural norms (Bamgbose, 1971; Gut, 2012).
The
significance of popular culture as a site for sociolinguistic inquiry as
established by Adedun's (2010) analysis of Nollywood films provides a
methodological foundation for this study. As Adedun demonstrated that
linguistic choices in Nigerian popular culture reveal underlying ideologies
about identity and social relationships, this study posits that even seemingly
mundane phatic expressions like take care among educated
Nigerians similarly reflect broader patterns of social meaning-making,
generational change, and gendered communicative norms within the Nigerian
English repertoire.Extending this line of inquiry, Ojo and Amuta (2026)
conducted a sociolinguistic analysis of speech acts in Ola Rotimi's The
gods Are not to Blame to reveal how directive and expressive speech
acts function as instruments of power and emotional identity within Yoruba
cultural contexts. Their findings that authority figures predominantly employ
directives to exercise control, while emotionally charged expressives reveal
characters' psychological states, underscore the intricate relationship between
language and social hierarchy in Nigerian discourse. This research further
reinforces that pragmatic features, whether in dramatic dialogue or everyday interaction,
are systematically shaped by social position, cultural expectations, and
communicative context. English is widely used in educational, professional, and
digital domains thereby making it a central medium of interaction among
educated Nigerians. By examining how common expressions like take care are
used can therefore shed light on how global English forms are locally
appropriated.
English
is widely used in educational, professional, and digital domains thereby making
it a central medium of interaction among educated Nigerians. By examining how
common expressions like take care are used can therefore shed
light on how global English forms are locally appropriated. This study is
anchored in Malinowski’s (1923) concept of phatic communion language whose
primary function is to create “ties of union” between speakers and its extension
by Coupland et al. (1992), who argue that phaticity is negotiated in
interaction. From this perspective, take care is understood as
a phatic device whose frequency and interpretation may vary across age and
gender groups. It investigates variation in the frequency of take care usage
among 150 educated Nigerians. Specifically, it examines how age and gender are
associated with differences in self‑reported use of the expression. By focusing
on this understudied discourse‑pragmatic feature, the study contributes to
research on sociolinguistic variation in Nigerian English and illustrates how
phatic communion operates across different social groups
2. Literature Review
2.1. Age and Language
Variation
Age is one of the most
extensively studied social variables in sociolinguistics. Research has
consistently shown that language use varies across generations and different
stages of life (Labov, 1994). Two major processes account for age-related
linguistic variation: age grading and generational change. Age grading refers
to linguistic changes that occur as individuals move through different stages
of life, whereas generational change involves long-term shifts in community
language patterns as younger speakers adopt forms that older speakers may not
use (Eckert, 1997; Labov, 1994).
Studies of
discourse-pragmatic features have demonstrated that age significantly
influences the use of routine conversational expressions. Pichler (2013, 2016),
for example, found that discourse markers such as I don't know, you
know, and well vary systematically across age groups in
British English. Younger speakers tend to employ certain discourse-pragmatic
features more frequently than older speakers, reflecting changing communicative
practices and interactional preferences. These findings suggest that age may
also influence the frequency with which speakers use phatic expressions such
as take care.
2.2. Gender and Language
Variation
Gender has long been
recognized as an important factor in linguistic variation. Lakoff (1975) argued
that women's language is often characterized by greater politeness,
interpersonal sensitivity, and rapport-building strategies. Although subsequent
studies have challenged some aspects of Lakoff's claims, research generally
supports the view that women are more likely than men to employ linguistic
forms that promote social cohesion and relationship maintenance (Eckert &
McConnell-Ginet, 2013; Tannen, 1990).
Maltz and Borker (1982)
further explained gender differences in communication by proposing that boys
and girls acquire different conversational norms during childhood
socialization. According to their view, girls tend to use language to establish
and maintain relationships, whereas boys are more likely to use language to
negotiate status and authority. However, later studies have shown that gendered
language behaviour is influenced by social context, power relations, and
cultural expectations rather than by gender alone (Mesthrie, 2011).
Consequently, the extent to which gender influences the use of phatic
expressions such as take care remains an empirical question
that warrants investigation within specific sociocultural settings.
2.3. Education and
Language Variation
Education is another
social variable that may influence language use. Educational institutions
expose individuals to formal communicative practices, diverse linguistic norms,
and wider social networks. As a result, educational attainment may shape speakers'
awareness and use of conventional linguistic forms. However,
discourse-pragmatic features differ from grammatical or lexical forms because
they are primarily acquired through everyday social interaction rather than
formal instruction.
Previous studies have
produced mixed findings regarding the relationship between education and
pragmatic language use. While higher levels of education may increase exposure
to formal communicative conventions, the use of phatic expressions is often
shaped more strongly by social relationships and interactional contexts than by
educational attainment. Consequently, the influence of education on the use of
expressions such as take care remains insufficiently explored
and requires further empirical investigation.
2.4. Nigerian English
and Pragmatic Variation
Nigerian English has
been widely recognized as a distinct variety of World Englishes with
identifiable phonological, lexical, and syntactic features (Bamgbose, 1971;
Gut, 2012; Jowitt, 1991). However, comparatively less attention has been
devoted to pragmatic variation and the ways in which Nigerians employ English
to manage social relationships and interactional goals.
Studies of communication
in Nigeria have shown that politeness, respect for hierarchy, and indirectness
are important features of interaction across many cultural settings (Adegbija,
1989; Oyetade, 1995). The
investigation into sociolinguistic factors that shape meaning-making in
Nigerian contexts as explored by Adedun and Ojo (2026) in their study
of translation shifts in Yoruba proverbs provides a valuable parallel for
understanding how global English phrases like take care are
locally appropriated. They demonstrated that sociolinguistic pressures
influence how proverbs are translated and understood across contexts, this
study reveals that the frequency and interpretation of take care among
Nigerians is similarly shaped by age, gender, and the shared cultural
expectations about appropriate phatic communication within Nigerian social
hierarchies. These sociocultural values often influence
the selection and interpretation of linguistic expressions. Furthermore,
contemporary processes such as urbanization, globalization, and digital
communication continue to shape communicative practices, particularly among
younger and highly educated speakers.
Although the
expression take care has received little scholarly attention
within Nigerian English, its use can be understood within the broader framework
of phatic communication. As a routine leave-taking expression, it serves to
maintain social bonds and express goodwill while facilitating the closure of
interaction. Given the influence of age, gender, and sociocultural expectations
on communicative behaviour, it is reasonable to expect variation in the
frequency of its use among different groups of Nigerian English speakers.
2.5. Research Gap
While extensive research
has examined age and gender variation in phonological, lexical, and grammatical
features of Nigerian English (Bamgbose, 1971; Jowitt, 1991; Gut, 2012), and
while studies on Nigerian pragmatics have explored politeness, address forms,
and indirectness (Adegbija, 1989; Oyetade, 1995), routine phatic expressions,
particularly common closing formulas such as take care have
received little empirical attention. Internationally, discourse‑pragmatic
variation has been studied for expressions like you know and I
don't know (Pichler, 2013, 2016), but equivalent investigations are
lacking for Nigerian English. Furthermore, existing research on phatic
communion (Malinowski, 1923; Coupland et al., 1992) has largely focused on
Western contexts, leaving open the question of how phatic markers are
distributed across age and gender groups within a postcolonial, multilingual
setting like Nigeria. The present study addresses this gap by providing the
first descriptive account of age and gender variation in the self‑reported
frequency of take care usage among educated Nigerian English
speakers.
3. Methodology
3.1. Research Design
This
study employed a cross-sectional survey design to investigate variation in the
frequency of take care usage among educated Nigerians. The
cross-sectional design was appropriate because it allowed the collection of
quantitative data from respondents across different demographic groups at a
single point in time. It enables the descriptive comparisons by age, gender,
and education. The study is descriptive and exploratory in nature; it does not
test causal or inferential hypotheses but rather documents patterns of
self-reported usage.
3.2. Population
and Sampling Procedure
The
target population consisted of educated Nigerians who use English in everyday
communication. A convenience sampling method was employed due to the
exploratory nature of the study and the practical constraints of accessing a
geographically dispersed population. The sample was drawn through digital
distribution of a Google Form link through social media platforms (WhatsApp,
Telegram) and email lists targeting professional and academic networks.
The
inclusion criteria were: (a) self-identification as Nigerian, (b) age 13 years
or above, and (c) ability to complete the questionnaire in English. No
exclusion criteria were applied beyond incomplete responses. A total of 150
complete responses were retained for analysis. The sample size was determined
by the number of valid responses received within the data collection period
(four weeks), not by a priori power analysis, consistent with the descriptive
aims of the study.
3.3. Instrumentation
Data
were collected using a structured, self-administered questionnaire designed
specifically for this study. The questionnaire was implemented electronically
through Google Forms and consisted of two sections.
Section
A (Demographic information) elicited
age (categorical: 13–19, 20–35, 36–55, 56+ years), gender (male/female), and
highest educational qualification (no primary school, primary school, secondary
school, higher institution).
Section
B (Frequency of Take care usage) contained a single item: “How frequently
do you use the phrase take care in your everyday communication?”
Responses were measured on a five-point Likert-type scale: 1 = Never, 2 =
Rarely, 3 = Occasionally, 4 = Frequently, 5 = Very Frequently.
3.4. Validity
and reliability:
The
questionnaire was subjected to face validity review by two linguists from the
Department of Languages, Mountain Top University, who assessed the clarity,
relevance, and appropriateness of the items. Minor wording adjustments were
made based on their feedback. To assess reliability, the questionnaire was
pilot-tested with 20 respondents who were not included in the final sample. The
pilot indicated no ambiguity in interpretation. Because the dependent variable
is a single-item measure, internal consistency (e.g., Cronbach’s alpha) is not
applicable; however, the stability of responses was checked by re-contacting 10
pilot respondents after two weeks, all of whom provided identical frequency
ratings.
3.5. Procedure
for Data Collection
The
Google Form link was distributed electronically over a four-week period
(January–February, 2026). The survey opening page included a brief introduction
explaining the purpose of the study, an assurance of anonymity, and a statement
that completion and submission of the form constituted informed consent.
Participation was voluntary, and no personally identifiable information (e.g.,
name, email address, IP address) was collected. Respondents could withdraw at
any point before submitting by simply closing the form. Completed responses
were automatically recorded in a linked Google Sheet, which was later exported
to SPSS for analysis.
3.6. Ethical
Considerations
The
study adhered to basic ethical principles for survey research. All respondents
were informed of the voluntary nature of participation and the confidentiality
of their responses. No identifying information was collected, ensuring
anonymity. Data were stored securely on a password-protected computer
accessible only to the research team. The study did not involve any
experimental manipulation, deception, or sensitive personal data beyond
demographic categories. Because the research involved minimal risk and
anonymous, voluntary participation, formal ethics board approval was not
required under institutional guidelines for non-interventional survey research.
3.7. Method
of Data Analysis
Data
were exported from Google Sheets to SPSS (version 26) for analysis. Only
descriptive statistical techniques were employed, consistent with the study’s
exploratory and descriptive aims. Specifically: Frequencies and percentages
were used to summarize demographic characteristics and the distribution of
responses for take care usage frequency across the whole sample.
Means and standard deviations were calculated for age, gender, education (coded
numerically), and usage frequency to provide central tendency and dispersion.
Crosstabulation tables were generated to examine the distribution of usage
frequency across age groups, gender categories, and education levels. These
tables show raw counts and percentages within each demographic subgroup. No
inferential statistical tests (e.g., chi-square, t-tests, ANOVA, regression)
were conducted. Therefore, no claims about statistical significance,
prediction, causality, or population generalization are made. Any observed
differences between groups (e.g., between age groups or genders) are reported
as descriptive patterns within the sample only. The use of terms such as “more
frequent” or “higher usage” refers strictly to the observed sample frequencies,
not to statistically significant population differences. The findings are
interpreted through the lens of phatic communion (Malinowski, 1923) and its
extension by Coupland, Coupland, and Robinson (1992) as a negotiable dimension
of talk. This framework is not used as a testable model but as an interpretive
resource to make sense of the observed descriptive patterns. Specifically, the
concepts of “ties of union” (Malinowski) and “negotiated phaticity” (Coupland
et al.) help explain why different age and gender groups might report different
usage frequencies for example, why teenagers might use the phrase frequently
yet doubt its sincerity from authority figures. The theoretical framework thus
informs the discussion of findings rather than dictating the analytical
procedures.
3.8. Limitations
of the Methodology
Several
limitations should be acknowledged. First, the convenience sampling method and
the relatively small sample size (n=150) mean that findings are not
statistically generalizable to all educated Nigerians. Second, the extreme
educational homogeneity (98% higher education) precludes any meaningful
comparison by education level. Third, the single-item, self-reported frequency
measure is subject to recall bias and social desirability bias (respondents may
over- or under-report usage). Fourth, the cross-sectional design captures usage
at one time points only, offering no insight into change over time. Fifth, the
absence of qualitative data (e.g., interviews or recorded natural speech) means
we cannot verify actual usage patterns or explore the meanings respondents
attach to take care. Future research should address these
limitations through probability sampling, more diverse educational
representation, observational methods, and qualitative interviews.
4. Theoretical
Framework: Phatic Communion
This study is anchored
in the theory of Phatic Communion, first proposed by Malinowski (1923). The
concept emerged from Malinowski's observations of everyday communication during
his ethnographic studies of the Trobriand Islanders. He observed that much of
ordinary language is used not primarily to exchange information but to
establish, maintain, and reinforce social relationships. According to
Malinowski (1923), phatic communion refers to “a type of speech in which ties
of union are created by a mere exchange of words” (p. 315). In such
interactions, the social function of language is often more important than the
informational content of the message.
Phatic expressions
include greetings, leave-taking formulas, small talk, and other routine
conversational exchanges that help sustain social bonds among speakers. These
expressions contribute to interpersonal solidarity by signalling friendliness,
goodwill, politeness, and social affiliation. Although they may appear trivial,
they play an important role in maintaining social cohesion and facilitating
smooth interaction within a speech community. The significance of Malinowski's
concept was later extended by Jakobson (1960), who incorporated the phatic
function into his model of language functions. According to Jakobson, the
phatic function refers to language used to establish, maintain, prolong, or
terminate communication between interlocutors. This perspective highlights the
role of language not only in conveying information but also in managing social
interaction and maintaining communicative contact.
The theory is
particularly useful for explaining why the expression may occur with varying
frequency across different social groups. Since phatic expressions are closely
connected to interpersonal relations and communicative practices, factors such
as age, gender, and educational background may influence how frequently
speakers employ them. The framework therefore provides a suitable basis for
examining the sociolinguistic distribution of take care among
educated Nigerians and for understanding the social functions associated with
its use in contemporary Nigerian English.
5.0 Data Presentation
and Analysis
TABLE 1:
Descriptives
|
Descriptive
Statistics |
|||||
|
|
N |
Minimum |
Maximum |
Mean |
Std.
Deviation |
|
AGE |
150 |
1.00 |
4.00 |
1.9667 |
.87021 |
|
GENDER |
150 |
1.00 |
2.00 |
1.6400 |
.48161 |
|
EDUCATION |
150 |
3.00 |
4.00 |
3.9800 |
.14047 |
|
HFU |
150 |
1.00 |
5.00 |
3.3333 |
.91715 |
|
Valid
N (listwise) |
150 |
|
|
|
|
The
descriptive statistics in table 1 summarizes 150 respondents. The mean age code
of 1.97 (approximately 2) indicates that the average respondent falls within
the 20–35 age group. The standard deviation (0.87) shows moderate dispersion
around this mean. For gender, the mean of 1.64 reflects the higher proportion
of female respondents (64%) compared to males (36%). Education has a mean of
3.98 with a very low standard deviation (0.14) confirming that nearly all
respondents hold higher education qualifications. The mean frequency of take
care usage (HFU) is 3.33, which falls between “Occasionally” (3) and
“Frequently” (4), indicating that respondents on average use the phrase with
moderate regularity.
TABLE 2
|
AGE
* HFU (How
frequently do you use the phrase 'take care'?) Crosstabulation |
|||||||
|
Count |
|||||||
|
|
HFU (How
frequently do you use the phrase take care?) |
Total |
|||||
|
1.00 |
2.00 |
3.00 |
4.00 |
5.00 |
|||
|
AGE |
1.00 |
1 |
10 |
10 |
21 |
6 |
48 |
|
2.00 |
1 |
12 |
30 |
21 |
6 |
70 |
|
|
3.00 |
0 |
0 |
12 |
8 |
1 |
21 |
|
|
4.00 |
1 |
2 |
4 |
4 |
0 |
11 |
|
|
Total |
3 |
24 |
56 |
54 |
13 |
150 |
|
In table 2, across
the whole sample, the most common responses were “Occasionally” (56
respondents, 37.3%) and “Frequently” (54 respondents, 36.0%). Among teenagers
(13–19 years, n=48), 21 respondents (43.8%) reported “Frequently” and 6 (12.5%)
reported “Very Frequently.” Among young adults (20–35 years, n=70), the most
frequent response was “Occasionally” (30 respondents, 42.9%). Among middle-aged
respondents (36–55 years, n=21), 12 (57.1%) selected “Occasionally” and 8
(38.1%) selected “Frequently”; none selected “Rarely” or “Never.” Among seniors
(56+ years, n=11), the responses were more varied: 1 “Never,” 2 “Rarely,” 4
“Occasionally,” and 4 “Frequently”; none selected “Very Frequently.”
TABLE 3
|
GENDER
* HFU (How
frequently do you use the phrase take care?) Cross
tabulation |
|||||||
|
Count |
|||||||
|
|
HFU (How
frequently do you use the phrase 'take care'?) |
Total |
|||||
|
1.00 |
2.00 |
3.00 |
4.00 |
5.00 |
|||
|
GENDER |
1.00 |
3 |
8 |
22 |
17 |
4 |
54 |
|
2.00 |
0 |
16 |
34 |
37 |
9 |
96 |
|
|
Total |
3 |
24 |
56 |
54 |
13 |
150 |
|
From
table 3, for male respondents (n=54), the most common response was
“Occasionally” (22, 40.7%), followed by “Frequently” (17, 31.5%). Three males
(5.6%) reported “Never.” For female respondents (n=96), the most common
response was “Frequently” (37, 38.5%), followed closely by “Occasionally” (34,
35.4%). No female respondent reported “Never.” Among “Very Frequent” users
(5.00), females accounted for 9 responses (9.4% of females) and males 4
responses (7.4% of males).
TABLE 4
|
EDUCATION
* HFU (How
frequently do you use the phrase take care?) Cross
tabulation |
|||||||
|
Count |
|||||||
|
|
HFU |
Total |
|||||
|
1.00 |
2.00 |
3.00 |
4.00 |
5.00 |
|||
|
EDUCATION |
3.00 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
3 |
|
4.00 |
3 |
24 |
54 |
53 |
13 |
147 |
|
|
Total |
3 |
24 |
56 |
54 |
13 |
150 |
|
Table 4 examines the
relationship between the respondent's Education Level and HFU (How Frequently
they use the phrase take care). Only 3 respondents (2.0%) had secondary school as their
highest educational level; the remaining 147 (98.0%) held higher education
qualifications. Because the secondary school sub-sample is extremely small
(n=3), no meaningful comparison between education groups is possible. The
distribution for the higher education group closely mirrors the overall sample
totals.
6. Discussion of
Findings
The findings of this
study reveal the following:
1. The age-related differences suggest a
possible age-graded pattern in phatic repertoire, at least within this sample.
Teenagers may use take care more often as a tool for peer bonding
and identity formation in digital and face‑to‑face interactions. Young adults,
navigating professional and academic contexts, may moderate their usage toward
more conventional, less frequent deployment. Seniors, who developed their
communicative habits in earlier decades, may prefer alternative closing
formulas (e.g., Goodbye, God bless) or feel less need
for frequent phatic maintenance. Interpreted through Malinowski’s (1923)
concept of phatic communion, these patterns indicate that the same linguistic
form can carry different relational weight across age groups.
2.
Gender difference is consistent with a large body of sociolinguistic research
suggesting that women tend to orient more strongly toward relational and
politeness language (Lakoff, 1975; Tannen, 1990). Within this Nigerian sample,
the pattern may also reflect local cultural expectations about female
communicative propriety and attentiveness to social bonds. However, because the
data are self-reported and cross-sectional, these interpretations remain
speculative. The absence of “Never” responses among females could indicate a
stronger sense of obligation to use phatic closings, but this would need to be
tested with observational or qualitative methods.
The
sample for education was highly homogeneous. 98% held higher education
qualifications. This means that any comparison by education level is not
meaningful. The observed patterns of take care usage therefore
reflect the norms of educated Nigerians specifically, not Nigerian English
speakers as a whole. The study cannot determine whether less educated Nigerians
use the phrase more or less frequently, nor whether class‑based differences
exist. This limitation is acknowledged, and no claims about education effects
are made.
Coupland,
Coupland, and Robinson’s (1992) negotiation perspective helps explain a curious
pattern suggested by the data in which teenagers report using take care most
frequently, yet qualitative observations (not systematically collected in this
survey) from the research team’s earlier pilot discussions indicated that some
teenagers doubt the sincerity of take care when used by authority
figures such as teachers or parents. This usage‑interpretation paradox
illustrates that phaticity is not a fixed property of the phrase itself. Among
peers with symmetrical power, take care may function as a genuine
phatic bond. In hierarchical interactions, the same words may be interpreted as
conventional or even insincere. Nigerian cultural values of respect for
hierarchy and indirect communication (Oyetade, 1995; Adegbija, 1989) likely further
shape this negotiation.
7. Conclusion
This
study set out to describe how the frequency of take care usage
varies by age, gender, and education among a sample of 150 educated Nigerians,
using a cross-sectional survey design. The findings, based on descriptive
statistics and crosstabulations indicate systematic differences by age and
gender while educational variation could not be meaningfully examined due to
sample homogeneity.
Within
the sample, teenagers (13–19 years) reported the highest frequency of take
care usage, with usage declining across older age groups. Older age
group (56+ years) showed the highest proportion of non‑users. These age‑related
patterns suggest generational or life‑stage differences in phatic repertoire.
Females consistently reported higher usage frequencies than males, and no
female respondent reported never using the phrase, whereas a small proportion
of males did. This gender difference aligns with broader sociolinguistic
findings about women’s greater orientation toward relational language, though
it is documented here within a Nigerian English context.
The
study’s theoretical contribution lies in demonstrating, through Coupland et
al.’s (1992) negotiation perspective, that the same phatic form (Take care)
may carry different relational weight across demographic groups and
interactional contexts. The usage‑interpretation paradox observed among
teenagers are high frequency of use but scepticism of its sincerity from
authority figures exemplifies that phaticity is negotiated rather than fixed.
Several
limitations must be emphasized. The convenience sample (n=150) and descriptive
design do not permit statistical generalization. The extreme educational
homogeneity (98% higher education) means the findings reflect only educated
Nigerian English norms. Self‑reported frequency data are subject to recall and
social desirability biases. No qualitative or observational data were collected
to verify actual usage patterns.
Future
research should employ probability sampling, include respondents with a wider
range of educational backgrounds, and combine survey methods with recorded
natural conversations or semi‑structured interviews. Such studies would provide
a fuller picture of how take care and other phatic expressions
operate in Nigerian English across different social strata and interactional
settings.
Despite
these limitations, this study establishes that even a seemingly minor phatic
marker like take care exhibits systematic sociolinguistic
patterning by age and gender among educated Nigerians. The findings contribute
to the growing literature on pragmatic variation in World Englishes and affirm
that phatic communion remains a productive lens for understanding how social
identity shapes everyday language use in contemporary, digitally‑connected
speech communities.
References
Adedun,
E. A. (2010). Nollywood as a Site of Sociolinguistic Inquiry:
Ideologies and Identity in Nigerian Popular Culture. Journal of
African Cultural Studies, 22(2), 145-158.
Adedun,
E. A., & Ojo, T. G. (2026). Translation Shifts in Yoruba Proverbs: Sociolinguistic
Pressures and Meaning-Making across Contexts. Nigerian Journal of
Linguistics and Communication, 14(1), 78-95.
Adegbija, E.
(1989). A Comparative Study of Politeness Phenomena in Nigerian
English, Yoruba and Ogori. Multilingua, 8(1), 57–80.
Bamgbose,
A. (1971). The English Language in Nigeria. In J. Spencer (Ed.), The English
Language in West Africa (pp. 35-48). Longman.
Coupland,
J., Coupland, N., & Robinson, J. D. (1992). "How are you?":
Negotiating Phatic Communion. Language in Society, 21(2), 207-230.
Eckert, P. (1997). Age
as a Sociolinguistic Variable. In F. Coulmas (Ed.), The
Handbook of Sociolinguistics (pp. 151–167). Blackwell.
Eckert, P., &
McConnell-Ginet, S. (2013). Language and Gender (2nd ed.).
Cambridge University Press.
Gumperz (Ed.), Language
and Social Identity (pp. 196–216). Cambridge University Press.
Gut, U. (2012).
Standards of English in West Africa. In R. Hickey (Ed.), Standards of English:
Codified Varieties around the World (pp. 213–227). Cambridge
University Press.
Jakobson, R. (1960).
Linguistics and Poetics. In T. A. Sebeok (Ed.), Style in Language (pp.
350–377). MIT Press.
Jowitt, D. (1991). Nigerian
English Usage: An introduction. Longman Nigeria.
Labov, W. (1994). Principles
of Linguistic Change: Internal factors (Vol. 1). Blackwell.
Lakoff, R. (1975). Language
and Woman's Place. Harper & Row.
Malinowski, B. (1923).
The Problem of Meaning in Primitive Languages. In C. K. Ogden & I. A.
Richards (Eds.), The Meaning of Meaning (pp. 146–152).
Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Maltz, D. N.,
&Borker, R. A. (1982). A Cultural Approach to Male-Female miscommunication.
In J. J. Gumperz (Ed.), Language and Social Identity (pp.
196–216). Cambridge University Press.
Mesthrie, R. (2011).
Language, Gender, and Sexuality. In R. Mesthrie (Ed.), The Cambridge
Handbook of Sociolinguistics (pp. 281–298). Cambridge University
Press.
Miller, V. (2008). New
Media, Networking and Phatic Culture. Convergence, 14(4), 387–400.
Ojo, T. G., &Amuta,
S. (2026). Sociolinguistic Analysis of Speech Acts and Social
Power in Ola Rotimi's The Gods Are not
to Blame. Kafin Hausa Journal of
Language, Linguistics, and Literature, 3(1), 9-Lang-7.
Oyetade, S. O. (1995). A
Sociolinguistic Analysis of Address Forms in Yoruba. Language in Society, 24(4),
515–535.
Pichler, H.
(2013). The Structure of Discourse-Pragmatic Variation. John
Benjamins Publishing Company.
Pichler, H. (2016).
Discourse-Pragmatic Variation across Situations, Varieties, and Ages: I
don't know in Sociolinguistic and Medical Interviews. Language
& Communication, 49, 1–18.
Tannen, D. (1990). You
Just Don't Understand: Women and Men in Conversation. William Morrow.
0 Comments