phonological processes in the speech of undergraduate students of English

rukayat oluwatosin

The spoken genre of English has been observed to pose a great challenge to the Nigerian users of English. Phonological processes, which account for proper pronunciation in English, are very crucial aspects of English phonology, which undergraduates students of English are expected to observe being role models. This paper therefore investigated the application of English phonological rules in the speech of undergraduate students of English language to ascertain how well they have internalized the phonological rules as taught. Chomsky and Halle’s (1968) Generative Phonology was adapted as the theoretical framework for the study. Fifty words were used to test the proficiency of fifty subjects in this area of study. The process of data collection involved two stages. The items were first read aloud and recorded with SFS/WASP computer program. The second stage involved the filling of questionnaire. The perceptual (auditory) method of analysis was adopted. The data was analysed using simple percentage to determine the subjects’ levels of conformity with the SBE phonological processes. The Longman talking Dictionary served as control. The results revealed that 54.98% of the subjects could conform to the rules of English phonology while a remarkable proportion of 45.02% deviated from the SBE phonological rules. Looking at the gender performances, the difference between the male and female performance is insignificant as the male had 55.7% while the female’s performance was 54.5%. From the overall performance of the subjects, it can be deduced that the undergraduate students of English have only fairly internalized the rules of English phonology despite their exposure to phonological rules. This underscores the peculiarity of the English language spoken in Nigeria. The study therefore adds to the body of knowledge that exists on the features of Nigerian English.

CHAPTER ONE 1.0 General introduction 1.1 Historical background Bilingualism is common in the history of human beings as there is always the need for them to communicate and interact with people that have different speech forms. Language contact is inevitable in human society; it often results from trade, adventure, colonization, conquest, migration, marriage and war, etc. Language contact is one of the factors that are responsible for language change, language shift, language conflict, language endangerment, language hybrid (e.g. pidgin and Creole), etc. When languages come into contact with one another, one tends to influence the other. Amongst the outcomes of language contact are generation and degeneration. In other words, the interaction of one language with another can lead to the loss of one and the promotion of the other, depending on the circumstances surrounding the contact. In a colonial situation, the colonizers might impose their language on the natives. In Nigeria, English was imposed on the natives as a colonial language. Nigeria as a heterogeneous country comprises people of different ethnic groups and languages. This enhances the retention of English in Nigeria as the language of wider communication that cuts across the varying speech communities. Odumuh (1987) argues that in contact situations as the case of Nigeria, a variety or varieties are bound to emerge that differ from that of Britain. The interaction between English and the Nigerian native languages has given birth to new variety of English which reflects the characteristics of both languages. Odumuh (1987; 1) viewed the emergence of the New Englishes from two different perspectives – Adekunle’s (1985) approach is chronological; the other by Jubril (1984) considers the diachrony and sociolinguistics as the underlying factors in the development of in its new environment. This approach was debunked for lumping disparate factors together, he proposes an alternative approach which examines the various agents of transmission and foci of contact. These, he referred to as PROVENANCES: history, education, Christian Missions, the colonial civil service (administration), the media (print and electronic), cinema, transport and communication, and influence of vernacular and culture. It was proposed at the special session of the 39th Poznan linguistic Meeting, 11th – 14th September 2008 in Gniezno Poland that “nothing in linguistics makes full sense except in diachronic light” (Ugorji, 2010). This proposition establishes the fact that the synchronic and the diachronic are interwoven. In other words, the features of a language cannot be studied in vacuum; recourse should be made to its evolutionary processes. In the light of Nigerian English, two level are involved; the linguistic ecology of the contact situation and the internal political history of the then Niger area. NE is born out of the Nigerian historical experience. Awonusi (2004) claims that the implantation of the English language in Nigeria can be categorized into three phases: the period before the missionary activity, the period during the missionary activities and the colonial period. The earliest contact between Nigeria and the Europeans was mainly with the Portuguese in the 15th century. This contact marks the genesis of the historical event which resulted in what is today known as ‘Nigeria’. There was a cordial relationship between the Portuguese and Nigerian which made the Portuguese establish a sea port in Gwarto in the ancient Benin Kingdom. The Oba of Benin sent their representatives to Portugal and this was also reciprocated by the Portuguese who also sent their agent to Benin. During this period, a Portuguese-based Pidgin also known as Negro-Portuguese was used (Spencer, 1971). Spencer (1971) reports that the Portuguese enjoyed the monopoly of Guinea trade until 1631 when the English Fort built Cormantine in the Gold Coast. The exact date of the early contact between the Englishmen traders and the Nigerians is not known. However, it is believed that this contact dates back to the sixteenth century. In Banjo (1996; 2), Spencer (1971) quoting Hakluyt corroborates this when he says ‘William Hawkins the Elder made three voyages to Brazil between 1530 and 1532, each time calling at the Guinea Coast en route for the world.’ It was in records that Englishmen paid frequent visits to the Nigerian shores especially the port of the ancient Oba of Benin and old Calabar in 1553. An English sailor, Thomas Windham and the son of another English Sailor, Nicholas Lambert, were reported to have visited Benin in 1553, although Lambert returned to England due to malaria attack leaving some seamen behind (Awonusi, 2004). With the arrival of the English traders, their language was introduced alongside their political ambitions. It was reported by Christopherson (1953) in Spencer (1971) that a pidginised form of Portuguese (often referred to as Negro-Portuguese) was used for contact between Englishmen and Africans on the Guinea Coast from the earliest times until well into the eighteenth century. However, the English language was spoken with some imperfections, hence; an English-based pidgin emerged. By the eighteenth century, the trade between the West Africans and the Europeans had become so intense that there was a shift from trade in materials to trade in human (slave trade). During the period of slave trade, some of the slaves were trained to work for the Europeans as interpreters or clerks. The trained slaves’ exposure to English language gave them the courage to advocate for the abolition of slave trade. Legitimate trade thrived after the abolition of slave trade and some of the freed slaves returned to Nigeria via Sierra Leone. The Yoruba among these ex-slaves who settled in Abeokuta and Lagos were called the ‘Saros and Krios’ and they used English freely in their new settlements (Awonusi, 2004: 53). The missionary activities also contributed a great deal to the abolition of slave trade. The years 1842-1914 were characterized with serious missionary activities of the white men who claimed to have brought the religion to the African pagans and unbelievers. In the process of doing this, it was necessary for them to understand the language of these people in order to ease their gospel propagation. Schools were also established along the line and English was made the medium of instruction. This was easily done in the southern Nigeria because most of them accepted Christianity; the contrary was the case in the Northern Nigeria. The missionaries could not penetrate them because of the Islamic religion. The incursion of the colonial administration was also very significant in the history of the English language in Nigeria. With the amalgamation of the Northern and the Southern protectorates, the colonialists started showing interest in Nigerian educational system. A good mastery of the English language became a very important means of economic empowerment. This made the Northerners change their attitudes towards the use of English as a medium of instruction in their region. Three types of teachers were used prior to the attainment of self-government; the ex-slaves of African descent, English teachers of German origin, teachers of English origin to auxiliary teachers of Nigerian descent. While the English native speakers and freed slaves were able to do justice to the teaching of English, the other set of teachers could not handle it the same way because of their level of proficiency in the language (Awonusi, 2004). The teachers of English origin were retained in the north and this accounted for the accent of the English spoken in each region till present. 1.2 Linguistic Situation in Nigeria The implantation of the English language across the world has engendered variations in its usage. The Kachru’s (1992) three circle theory describes the users of English at three levels: the inner circle, the outer circle and the expanding circle. The inner circle users of English are the countries that use English as their first language. Such countries include; Britain, America, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, etc. The outer circle countries are places where English was implanted as a colonial legacy and where only a minority of the population may be said to be proficient in it (Oyeleye, 2005). Examples are Nigeria, Ghana, India, Uganda, Kenya, Zambia, South Africa, etc. The expanding circle countries are those places where English is merely used as a foreign language. Nigeria as a member of the outer circle is a multilingual society with people of diverse cultures and languages. English was a colonial heritage of Nigeria and it is still maintained due to the benefits and prestige attached to it. Nigeria is divided into six geopolitical zones; The South-West, South-South, South-East, North-Central, North-East and North-West; with over 400 languages (Akindele and Adegbite, 1999). Three languages are recognized as the major ones in the country: Hausa, Igbo and Yoruba. The English language now occupies dominant position in government’s business in Nigeria. As a result of the multilingual nature of the country, English functions as a language of wider communication which unifies the diverse ethnic groups. Despite the primacy of English over the indigenous languages, Nigerian users of English have not attained proficiency in it. This is as result of the fact that the natives have acquired a set of habits in their native languages which now create difficulties in the learning of the second language. The influence that the native language bears on the second language gives birth to a new variety of English called the Nigerian English which also has its sub-varieties considering certain variables. The Nigerian English variety can be singled out on the bases of its phonology, grammar, lexis, collocations, idioms, discourse and style, code-mixing and code-switching, and a lack of homogeneity (Ugorji, 2010). We shall focus our attention on the Yoruba speakers of English in the South-Western geopolitical zone of Nigeria, specifically, undergraduate students of English language in the University of Ibadan. The phonology of the English spoken is largely influenced by their mother tongue interference and other social variable like linguistic group, age, sex and level of education, etc. 1.2.1 Yoruba In the course of this research, we shall focus our attention on the Yoruba ethnic group in the south-western geo-political zone of Nigeria. In the view of Odumuh (1987), one way to discuss variation in Nigerian English is to consider the ethno-linguistic influences. The English language spoken in the South-Western region is largely influenced by the mother tongue. Yoruba is a language that is widely used among the inhabitants of the south-west geo-political zone. Traditionally, Yoruba was used to refer to the people of Oyo who are still regarded as the Yoruba proper till date (Odumuh 1987; 19). The Yoruba language has about sixteen million speakers in the South-western Nigeria. It belongs to the Yoruboid language family, a group under the Kwa branch of Niger-Congo or Benue-Congo (Fabunmi, 2009). 1.2.2 The Yoruba Segmental The Yoruba segmental comprises seven oral vowels; i, e, ε, a, o, o, u, four of these orals; i, e, ε & u, have their nasalized counterparts which are distinguished by the diacritic [˜] on the vowels. The Yoruba vowel system is relatively few compared to the Standard English Vowel system. (Akinjobi, 2004). Long vowels are absent in Yoruba; this accounts for the inability of some Yoruba speakers of English to distinguish the quality and length of English vowels, therefore, words like: feel and fill, seat and sit, beat and bit, part and pat; are pronounced in the same way. The consonant segments of Yoruba consist of eighteen phonemes; [b, t, d, k, g, kp, gb, f, s, h, dᶚ, ᶴ, m, n, r, l, j, w]. Many of the Yoruba consonant segments are similar to those of English. However, the areas of differences are substituted with the similar phonemes as a result of the absence of their equivalent in the Yoruba phonological system. 1.2.4 RP RP, an acronym of Received Pronunciation, refers to the Standard variety of English which serves as a model for other speakers of English. This variety is often regarded as the ‘neutral’ and ‘correct’ accent devoid of any regional colouration. It is often associated with the members of upper class of southeastern England (Akinjobi, 2004). It is also known as “BBC English”, “Public School English”. The prestige attached to RP is not based on linguistic factors but sociolinguistic ones (Crystal, 1991). RP is used in the present research as a standard model because it is associated with the educated members of the society and it is often used as norm for the description and teaching of British English. 1.3 Statement of the problem Scholars like Akinjobi (2004 & 2009), Awonusi (2004), Bobda (1995), Bamgbose (1971), who have worked on Nigerian English have proven that the phonology of NE at both segmental and suprasegmental levels manifest some levels of inaccuracy especially from the educated variety perspective. It is assumed that the phonological processes which account for proper pronounciation in RP are not properly applied in Educated Yoruba English. This research intends to investigate the application of the English Phonological rules which results in proper realisation of the phonological processes in the speech of students of English language. 1.4 Research Questions It has been observed that the Yoruba speakers of English find it difficult to correctly apply the English phonological rules in their speech production due to certain factors. This study is aimed at investigating the extent to which these rules in the standard usage are approximated in the speech of the undergraduate students of English. To what extent does interference from the mother tongue influence speech production of the English undergraduates? Does the gender of the speaker bear any influence on their speech production? Does the orthography of English words create pronunciation problems for the English undergraduates? To what extent do English language undergraduates apply the following phonological rules in their speech production: aspiration, epenthesis, palatalisation, dentalisation, syllabification, vowel reduction, metathesis and consonant deletion rules? 1.5 Aim and objective The research is intended to investigate how the phonological processes in the production of Standard English sounds are observed in the speech production of university students of English. This is to see the extent to which the English students conform to the standard phonological rules as taught. It also aims to examine the influence of the mother tongue, orthography and gender on the speech production of our subjects. 1.6 Justification for the Study Amongst researchers who have carried out a phonological analysis of the Nigerian English are; Bamgbose (1971), Jibril (1979), Odumuh (1987), Jowitt (1991), Banjo (1996), Egbe (1979), Bobola (2000,1993), Akinjobi (2004 & 2009), Awonusi (2004) and so on. It is discovered that certain variables are responsible for the variations that characterize the Nigerian English phonology. Such variables include region, education, gender, age, etc. The study will be using the educational and regional variables as the factors that influence the speech production of the Yoruba undergraduates. The current research is of the opinion that since different existing languages in Nigeria have their individual characteristics, the use of English in different parts of the country will vary yet the studies cited above have attempted a general description of the Nigerian English. In addition, education, being another factor which the (previous) works have considered is such that varies among users of the same level of education. This study is thus set to find out the interplay of education and region and their effects on the speech of the university students of English. This study therefore focuses specifically on the university students of English who are assumed to have been exposed to the rules of English phonology and therefore should have attained certain level of proficiency in their English usage. 1.7 Significance of the study The Nigerian undergraduates are expected to possess some level of proficiency in the English language. The research will establish the level of conformity of the speech production of the university students of English to the standard norm of pronunciation considering their level of educational exposure. It will add to the characteristics of Nigerian English that already exist in the literature and enhance a description for the codification of NE. 1.8 Delimitation of the Study This research work aims to investigate the application of the Standard English phonological rules in Nigerian English phonology at the segmental level. In doing this, we will do a survey of the consonants, vowels, the allophonic principles and phonological processes of SBE in contrast those of NE in order to see the extent to which the English language has been nativised. We shall examine the contextual processes that contribute to the emergence of the variety called Nigerian English among the educated Yoruba using the undergraduate students of English as a case study. 1.9 Definition of terms The following concepts are used in this research in the light of the definition given below: Phonetic Representations This is the level at which the concrete information (of distinct phonemes) necessary for production of utterances are fully specified. The phonetic description of a sound starts from the underlying level of representation. At this level, the abstract representation of sounds which is stored in the brain is represented. These two levels are linked together by the phonological rules. Phonological Rules Phonological rules are described as generalizations about the phonological behavior of a language (Giegerich 1992). Phonological rules show the process of language change; as the underlying representations are mapped onto the phonetic (actual pronunciation) level. Allophones These are different realizations of a particular phoneme. These variant forms are derived with the phonological rules which represent the occurrence of an actual sound in different environments (Crystal, 1991). In the current research, we shall examine how the English allophones are realised in the spoken English of Yoruba undergraduates. Nigerian English (NE) NE (Nigerian English) refers to the variety of English spoken in Nigeria. As the name implies, this is a nativised variety that has been bent by Nigerians to suit and express their socio-cultural norms. Education Education here is used to describe the level of literacy of the Nigerian speakers of the English language. Education is one of the parameters for the classification of Nigerian English. Region Region here refers to the geographical location of the speaker. This is also another parameter for the classification of Nigerian English. Gender It is believed that the gender of the speaker is also an important variable that should be considered in the classification of Nigerian English. CHAPTER TWO 2.1 THE CONCEPT OF NIGERIAN ENGLISH The rapid spread of the English language and its usage in varying domains has attracted the attentions of scholars across the world. The English language is spoken by about 600 million in the world, though half of that number speaks it as their mother tongue (Banjo, 1996). He claims that amongst the remaining 300 million people are those who speak it as a second language and a foreign language. This emphasizes the fact that the percentage of the non-native speakers surpasses those of the native speakers. There has been a positive attitude towards the use of English among the postcolonial English speakers. To corroborate this, Crystal (2003) quotes Salman Rushdie’s comment in an essay called ‘commonwealth literature does not exist’ that ‘the English language ceased to be the sole possession of the English sometime ago’. This global usage of English can be demonstrated in the emergence of new varieties of English in different countries where it is not native. These varieties are often referred to as ‘new Englishes’(Crystal, 2003). To support this view, Ajani (2007) asserts that; each of these new Englishes has distinct characteristics as well as distinct linguistic and cultural identities largely due to the different historical, geographical, political and socio-cultural factors that gave birth to them. The use of English in Nigerian context suggests the functions the language performs in the critical aspect of the national development. English has a wider geographical usage in Nigeria than any other native language. English has become a means of survival in the country since it serves as the language of administration, education, commerce, media, creative writing and so on. The existence of the Nigerian variety of English becomes indispensable because of these functions. In fact, the indigenised variety enjoys wider acceptability and usage than the native variety especially in countries where it performs the official function. In addition to the intranational function is the crucial role it performs in the international bodies like: UNO. UNICEF, ECOWAS, WHO and the host of others. The emergence of the local forms of English (LFE this term is from strevens) has been perceived from different perspectives; ranging from tolerance to rejection. Several literatures have established the fact of its existence; Adetugbo (1979), Bamgbose (1971), Jibril (1982), Odumuh (1987), Jowitt (1991) Banjo (1996), Ajani (2007), among others. Odumuh (1987) identifies Nigerian English as one of the new Englishes. He asserts that ‘our position is that there exists at the moment a single super-ordinate variety of Standard English in Nigeria which can be regarded as Nigerian English’. Similarly, in Jowitt (1991), Walsh (1967) suggests that the varieties of English spoken by the educated Nigerians, no matter what their first language is, have enough features in common to mark off a general TYPE, which may be called Nigerian English. Kachru (1995) also affirms in his foreword to New Englishes that an African canon of the English language has been established and recognised which is indeed a vital component of World Englishes. These scholars are of the view that Nigerian English is acceptable since the socio-cultural differences existing between the Nigerian users of English meets the criteria of the ‘New Englishes” developed by Platt et al. (1984, p.2 cited by Banjo 1996, p.63) which are: It has developed through the educational system. It has developed in an area where a native variety was not the language spoken by most of the population. It is used for a range of functions among those who speak or write it in the region where it is used. It has become ‘localized’ or ‘nativized’ by adopting some language features of its own such as sounds, intonation patterns, sentence, structure, word expressions. Scholars in this school include: Adegbija, Odumuh, Bamgbose, Banjo and the host of others. The Hawaii conference of 1978 also advocates for a change in attitude towards these new varieties. It contends that English can no longer be seen as the sole possession of the native speakers; as such the English of the non-native speakers should be accepted and given equal right with the native variety (Smith, 1981 in Dili, 2002). However, this variety of English has been regarded as error or deviation from the standard norm of usage by some scholars. Theo Vincent (1974) for instance sees it as ‘bad English’. Also, Salami (1968) in Jowitt (1991) contends that ‘although one finds some differences between certain usages by some Nigerians and for instance, British usage, most of such differences are due to mistake of some sort’. Similarly, Dili (2002), quoting Prator reports that, recognising and using these new varieties for educational purpose will invariably lead to loss of intelligibility, as they are undeniably inferior and debased. These scholars find the use of the term Nigerian English derogatory. In their own view, it is not a variety of the standard usage; rather, it is a deviation from the British variety. Having fairly reached a consensus on the existence of the Nigerian variety of the Standard British English, scholars have had controversies over the issues of standardisation and mutual intelligibility. NE as a variety of the New Englishes has also developed many sub-varieties based on the regional, educational and other factors. There have been arguments over the identification of a standard variety of the Nigerian English which can serve as a model among these multifarious varieties (Banjo, 1971; Bamgbose, 1982; Jibril, 1982; Jowitt 1991 among others). In doing this, Banjo (1996) identifies the spoken and the written form of Nigerian English. He argues that individuals possess higher level of proficiency in written than in spoken variety. According to Banjo (1971), the earliest full-scale empirical attempt at varieties differentiation was that made by Adesanoye (1973) with regards to written English in Nigeria. Ajani (2007) argues that according to most of the contributors and analysts of NE, Nigerian writers have been some of the major contributors to the standardization of Nigerian English. Other works that deal with variety differentiation in the use of English in Nigeria are Banjo (1971, 1996), Adesanoye (1973), Jibril (1982, 1986), Odumuh (1987), Jowitt (1991). Many scholars have explored the spoken genre (both segmental and suprasegmental aspect) of Nigerian English; amongst them are; Odumuh, (1987); Jowitt, (1991); Bamgbose, (1995); Banjo, (1996); Akinjobi, (2004, 2009). In the view of Akinjobi (2009), a major area of deviation from Standard English usage for Nigerian speakers of English is in the realization of vowels and syllables that occur in unstressed positions. In the same vein, Jowitt (1991) reports that the difference in the speech production among the regional varieties of the Popular Nigerian English (PNE) is too great to constitute a single system that is devoid of local colouration. This research work intends to examine the application of the Standard English phonological rules in the speech production of the university students of English. Although many works have investigated the phonological processes that characterise Nigerian English, much has not been done in the area of the application of the English phonological rules among students of English. This work will be looking at the extent at which the phonological processes that account for proper pronounciation are observed in the Educated Yoruba English using the undergraduate students of English as our subject of study. 2.2. STRATIFICATION OF NIGERIAN ENGLISH A cursory look at different scholarly views on Nigerian English has ascertained the fact that the Nigerian variety of English called Nigerian English actually exists. Researchers like Adeniran (1979), Odumuh (1984&1987), Jowitt (1991) among others, have agreed to the fact that Nigerian English exist in degree (continuum) with all the varieties striving towards an ideal. Adekunle (1979), describes Nigerian English as the "Local Colour Variety" of English developed within the Nigerian ethno-linguistic environment. According to him, Nigerian English is a "Nigerianized English" which has been assimilated into the local culture in order to serve the community. In an attempt to define Nigerian English, Okoro in Awonusi & Babalola (2004:167) opines that: Nigerian English is simply English the way Nigerians speak and write it. Nigerian English is made up, on the phonological level, of the peculiar forms of pronunciation typical of the Efik, the Hausa, the Igbo, the Urhobo, the Yoruba, and the numerous other ethnic groups that make up Nigeria; on the semantic level of meaning broadening, narrowing, total shift, literal translation, and the creation of peculiar idioms; on the lexical of coinages, loans, blends, compounding, acronyms; on the syntactic level by transfer of MT structures; and so forth. The use of English in a multilingual country like Nigeria has necessitated the emergence of several varieties. There is a general view that when a bilingual speaks, it is easy to discern his/her native language. Some of the characterisations of Nigerian English have been premised on this view. Controversies have emerged over the classification of NE. However, the major obstacle in the identification of Nigerian English lies in choosing the standard form. Nigerian English can be described as the kind of English spoken by Nigerians to express their world view. The classification of Nigerian English has been done by different researchers using different criteria. The earliest characterisation of NE was that done by Brosnaham (1958). He used the stage of educational attainment as a criterion for his variety differentiation (levels 1-1V). The level 1 is the variety spoken by people who have no formal education and may have acquired English ‘as a result of exigencies of daily life’. This is called Pidgin English and is often associated with market women, artisan, labourers and so on. However, the educated Nigerians use it in an informal setting for inter-ethnic communication. This variety is said to lack international intelligibility. The level II is the variety spoken by those that have just primary school education. The level III variety is associated with those that possess secondary school education and it is marked by increased fluency, wider vocabulary and conscious avoidance of level 1 usage. The level IV variety which is called the ‘University English’ is characterised with some linguistic features close to those of RP. In Surakat (2010), Bamgbose (1992: 150-151) observes that ‘in fairness to Brosnaham (1958: 100) who based his variety of NE on level of education, it must be pointed out that he was aware of the need to qualify the criterion: he adds that ‘opportunity for its use (i.e. English), innate ability (sic); intelligence and perseverance with schemes of private study and correspondence schools (tuition) tend to smooth out the differences left by different opportunities for formal education’. This points to the fact that the level of competence in the use of English is relative considering the above factors. In the words of Jowitt (1991), Brosnaham’s level II variety is debatable considering the sub-standard educational system operated in the country presently. During the period the characterisation was made, the secondary school students were taught by the native speaker who handled it effectively. As a result, the Nigeria speakers of English tried to maintain the standard set by their teachers. The use of ‘stages’ was also criticised; he contends that the word ‘level’ should be used instead of ‘stages of education’ since education involves a continuous process. Similarly, the use education as yardstick for his classification has criticised by Banjo (1971) as inadequate in that there are some people who have a good mastery of the language with lower educational attainment. This may be as a result of the personal effort of the speaker or their exposure to those who speak it. Walsh (1967) also identifies the ‘Educated Nigerian English’ as the only type of Nigerian English which has three sub-varieties, based on the educational level of the user; mother tongue interference and individual idiosyncrasies. This view was refuted by Salami (1968) for lack of adequate evidence to back up his argument. Having debunked Brosnaham’s classification, Banjo (1971) characterises NE into four varieties based on the degree of deviation from the exoglossic standard (Jowitt, 1991) and the level of international intelligibility and social acceptability. His approach is socially and linguistically oriented. His first variety is marked by highest level of transfer of phonological, syntactic and lexical features of the mother tongue to English. This variety is neither socially acceptable nor internationally intelligible. The variety II has the largest percentage of speakers; as a result, it enjoys high social acceptability and lacks international intelligibility. Its syntax is somewhat close to that of Standard British English but with strong local colouration in lexis and phonology. Variety III has both social acceptability and international intelligibility. They are approximates to the RP in syntax, semantics and phonology. However, it contains certain features that identify it as Nigerian. This percentage is spoken by the minority population. The fourth variety is spoken by those who have been exposed to English in first language situation (Akinjobi, 2004). It is similar to Standard British English in syntax and semantics also with identical phonological and phonetic features of British regional English (Surakat, 2010). This variety is used by few Nigerians and it enjoys international intelligibility because of its proximity to RP. It is not socially acceptable among the majority. Banjo recommends the use of the third variety as the standard ‘Nigerian Spoken English’ its speakers never sound as foreign to the users of the other variety (p.170). In spite of Banjo’s criticism of Brosnaham’s use of education as a yard stick, there is still an underlying factor of education in Banjo’s categorisation. Bamgbose’s (1982) classification of Nigerian English was based on the evolution of English language in Nigeria. They include; Contact English, Victorian English and School English. He claims that the Nigerian Pidgin and Broken English evolved from the Contact English. This relationship is represented on the diagram below; NE CE VE SE NP BE (Adapted from Bamgbose, 1995:12) The contact English is associated with extracts from Antera Duke’s event records in Calabar between 1785 and 1788 as well as that of King Jaja of Opubu (1824). Example of the former is given below;Suppose my fader or my fader fader come up From ground and peak me why English man do dat, I no sabi tell why The kind of English found in King Opubu’s diary is an example of Broken English. Bamgbose (1995; 13) claims that the Broken English is less popular and examples of them are found in the popular television comedy plays like ‘Masquerade’ which was enacted by Zebrudaya, who mixes his bombastic English with such ungrammatical Broken English forms as: ‘When am I told you? It is suprisation to me. Ask ovularia to look it’. The second strand which is the Victorian English is associated with the 19th century Negro Lagos which comprises professionals like; doctors, lawyers, teachers and missionaries, who returned from Brazil, Sierra Leone, Liberia and America. They tried to display perfect mastery of the language (Eucheruo, 1977 quoted in Bamgbose, 1995). The third strand of the NE is the School English. Spencer (1971) refers to it as the English of the; school primer, sermon, bible and hymns. Based on the fact that this variety is used in the educational system, it has undergone the process of nativisation. Awonusi (1987) also classifies NE using the lectal pyramid. He contends that NE continuum which is pyramidal in shape is socially and geographically motivated. At the peak of the pyramid is the acrolectal Nigerian English, the Basilectal Nigerian English at the broad base and the Mesolectal NE occupies the middle position. acrolect Social placement mesolect basilect Southern NE Northern NE The continuum in the pyramid shows the fluidity of the use of English among its speakers. The speakers’ level may increase as his/her mastery improves. However, the user may move down the scale for creativity purposes. Examples of this are found in the works of the Nigerian creative writers like Wole Soyinka, T.M. Aluko and host of others. Awonusi (1987) contends that the acrolectal variety is that which is spoken by the minority. It is characterised by limited mother tongue interference and it enjoys average local social acceptability. According to him, this variety can be regarded as the standard Nigerian English as it is not only associated with the educational level but also socio-cultural identity. It is close to RP in terms of grammar and lexis (except in cases of loan words and coinages that mark the adaptation of the language in a new environment). However, it differs from RP phonetically at the segmental level. The Mesolectal Nigerian English is described as the general Nigerian English which has high social acceptability, locally and medium international intelligibility. Using a linguistic, educational and to some extent occupational parameter, Jowitt (1991) proposes that English usage in Nigeria can be arranged as a continuum with two polarities; the greatest deviation and standard respectively. He characterised all sub-standard forms (both errors and deviations) of NE as ‘Popular Nigeria English’ (PNE) because he considers the use of non-standard ‘derogatory’. He affirms that ‘the usage of every Nigerian user is a mixture of standard forms and popular Nigerian English forms, which are in turn composed of errors and variants’. Jowitt (1991)’s approach to the characterisation of Nigerian English can be viewed as that of a purist (looking at his use of the term ‘errors’ and ‘deviations’). He sees English as a perfect language which must not be used in a different way. He fails to acknowledge the fact that the non-native speakers have their peculiar ways of using the language. Odumuh (1987) identifies four varieties of spoken Nigerian English based on the speakers’ level of educational attainment. These varieties are: Variety I (Non-Standard): this is often associated with those with only primary school education; hence possess minimal level of exposure to the language both at home and in the school. It is characterized by strong deviation from the standard usage due to; first language interference, errors (segmental and non-segmental) and inappropriate choice and use of words and sentences. Variety II (Basic or General): The speakers have fair mastery of segmental and non-segmental features and can be easily understood. This usage is peculiar to the secondary School leavers. Variety III (Standard or educated): It has appropriate segmental and non-segmental distinction. It is nationally and internationally understood. It is used among the university graduates. Variety IV (Sophisticated or near-native): This variety is found among those who are highly educated, especially those with special training in spoken English and has long exposure to native speakers. In the words of Odumuh (1987), variety IV cannot be easily attained and also expensive in cost, thus, only few Nigerians can reach such level or afford special training in spoken English. However, it still manifest some features that identifies the users as non-native speakers in spite of their high level of proficiency. Similarly, Jibril (1982) uses the regional criterion to stratify spoken English in Nigeria into Northern English and the Southern English (which is further classified into Igbo and Yoruba English). He employs diachronic and sociolinguistic to account for this variation, without affecting intelligibility. He supports the view that the Hausa variety is more intelligible internationally than the southern counterpart. Based on the variety differentiations of Nigerian English done by different scholars, two principal models of spoken English have emerged which can be used for pedagogical purposes in Nigerian educational system. They are; Exo-normative model (Received Pronunciation) of British English and the Endo-normative model (Educated Nigerian English). In this study, we are concerned with the kind of English that is influenced by both region and the educational attainment of the speaker. It has been confirmed in several literatures that the spoken English of Nigerians is often with a peculiar accent that identifies the ethnic group of the speaker. The notable features that mark NE as a variety of the New Englishes cut across the; phonological, lexical, syntactic, semantic and discourse levels of language. It is therefore necessary investigate how the English phonological rules have been internalised among the Yoruba users of English. 2.3 NIGERIAN ENGLISH PHONOLOGY The description of the phonological patterns of Nigerian English has been explored by numerous scholars. Notable among them are; Odumuh, (1987); Jowitt, (1991); Bamgbose, (1995); Banjo, (1996); Udofot, (2003), Awonusi and Dadzie, 2004; Akinjobi, (2004, 2009); Ugorji, (2010). Quoting Ofule (2007), Owolabi (2012) says spoken English of Nigerians is appalling and that correct pronunciation skills are essential for intelligibility, in a second language context. It is a well known fact that the spoken genre of the variety of any language is often more noticeable than any other level of linguistic analysis. The phonological features of the variety of English spoken in Nigerian identify it as distinct variety of the World Englishes. The difference between this New English (Nigerian English) and the standard usage (Standard British English) can be accounted for by certain factors such as interference from the L1, level of educational attainment, mode of acquisition, gender, age and so on. Dadzie (2004) therefore posits that, “these changes may also be reflected in the sound patterns of a language, its grammar and its meaning mechanism, all of which are the matrices within which a language may be described, (p. 86)”. To corroborate Dadzie, Alabi (2007) observes that ‘interference occurs virtually at all the primary levels of language description most especially phonology, lexis and grammar.’ The common view in Nigerian English literatures is that the mother tongue interference is the primary cause of variation in the use of English in Nigerian. This is not often the case. There are other factors that account for the emergence of the Nigerian variety of English. Many researchers have attested to the fact that there are other variables that influence the use of English in Nigeria. This has even form the basis for their numerous classifications of Nigerian English. Awonusi (2004; 210) identifies; history, teaching method, orthography, configuration of the speech organ, language attitude and influence from foreign accent as other factors that necessitate the emergence of Nigerian English Accent (NEA). The phonological features of Nigerian English can be realised at the segmental and suprasegmental level. 2.31 NIGERIAN ENGLISH SOUND SEGMENTS Like the RP, Nigerian English phonology has its sound systems which also comprise the consonants and vowels. The Educated Nigerian English manifest different degrees of variation in their sound inventory (Ugorji, 2010). These segments are not totally different from the SBE counterpart but some of them constitute difficulties for speakers primarily because of the disparity between the English sound system and those of the Nigerian native languages. Other varieties of NE therefore arise based on the geographical location of the speaker. This can be found in Jibril’s (1982) regional classification of Nigerian English; Hausa English and Southern English (which is sub-classified into Yoruba and Igbo English). We shall examine Nigerian English segments in relation to the Standard British English in particular the RP, a neutral accent, which is free from any form of regional colouration. Ogbulogo (2005) claims that the following features are peculiar to Nigerian English phonology; Phoneme Under-differentiation; it reduces the 44 phones of English by eliminating those that do not occur in the mother tongue. Phoneme Substitution; where the absent sounds are replaced with the existing one in the mother tongue. He also adds that stress also create problem for the Nigerian users of English. The segmental of NE exhibits a greater difference in the realization of the consonant and the vowels sounds when compared to those of the Standard English. These differences are also evident in the Nigerian speakers of English’s use of stress, intonation and rhythm. 2.3.2 VOWELS Akinjobi (2009) is of the opinion that, ‘a major area of deviation from the standard usage for Nigerian speakers of English is in the realization of vowels and syllables that occur in unstressed positions’. This is because most of the indigenous languages have fewer vowels when compared to the SBE and they do not show distinctions between the tense and lax vowels. As a result, the Nigerian English speakers tend to neutralise certain segments, “such that while the sound may be attested in the clines, they enter into free variations in their distribution” (Ugorji, 2010). The RP vowel system has been classified into monophthongs, diphthongs and triphthongs. Adetugbo (2004; 181) contends that the RP has twelve monophthongs and eight diphthongs while most dialects of Nigerian English has seven simple vowels (two of which were derived from diphthongs) and six diphthongs. NE has no triphthong; even the diphthongs are reduced to monophthongs. MONOPHTHONGS RP I: u: ɪ ʊ ɜ: ᴐ: e ə ᴂ ʌ ᴐ a: Nigerian English ɪ u e o ɛ a ᴐ Adapted from Adetugbo (2004; 182) From the above, we can see that the contrast that occur between; /i:/ and /ɪ/, /u/ and /ʊ/, /æ/ and /a:/ in the RP are coalesced into /ɪ/, /u/ and /a/ respectively. To corroborate this point, Akande (2009) opines that, among the Yoruba speakers of English (YSE), the only difference between the vowels in sit and seat and between good and rude is of duration, as the monophthongs in each pair have about the same quality. Similarly, according to Alabi (2007, p.86) /ə/, /æ/, /з:/ and /a:/ as in the words father, cat, birth and star may all be replaced with the cardinal [a] by the Nigerian speakers of English. However, this distinction is not always true because a vowel in RP may realise different vowel forms in Nigerian English. For example, the central vowel /з: / may be realised as thus; [כ:] as in urged, [æ] as in earth, [e] as in girl, and so on. The central vowels /ᴧ/, /ə/, /з: /, /e/ is lost in NE. DIPHTHONGS Adetugbo (2004) contends that the eight diphthongs in the RP have been reduced to six in NE and that the remaining two have been monophthongised. The following analysis shows the correspondence between RP and NE diphthongs. RP NE Day /ei/ dei e de Go /əu/ gəu o go Buy /ai/ bai ai bai How /au/ haʊ ao hao Boy / כi/ bכi כi bכi Here /iə/ hiə ia hia There / eə/ ∂eə εa dεa Sure /ʊə/ ʃ ʊə ʊכ ʃ ʊכ (Adapted from Adetugbo 2004). He further explains that NE diphthongs do not operate with glides, rather they are characterised by a smooth but perceptible gradual change in a given direction. RP diphthongs begin and end with approximants while those of NE comprise two simple vowels. 2.3.3 CONSONANTS The production of the RP consonant sounds does not constitute much problem for Nigerian users of English. In spite of the differences between the segments of the RP and the native languages some speakers still pronounce these sounds correctly. Most NE speakers often find it difficult to pronounce the dental fricatives /θ/ and /ð/. They substituted with [t] and [d] respectively such that faith and brother are realised as fate and broda respectively. Also, the voiced palatal alveolar /Ʒ/ is another problematic area for Nigerian speakers of English. It is realised as [ʃ], [z] or [d] and even [s] (Jowitt, 1991). 2.4 STANDARD ENGLISH SEGMENTALS As we have in any other human language, the sound structure of English language is also grouped into the vowels and the consonants sounds. The production of any of these sounds requires the flow of air. The vowel sounds are the sounds produced with the free flow of air from the lungs through other speech organs. In other words, vowel sounds are produced without any form of obstruction or interaction within the speech organs. The consonant sounds on the other hand are the sounds produced with partial or total obstruction of the air that is used in the production of speech sounds. The numbers of these sounds in languages differ. English has twenty vowel sounds and twenty-four consonant sounds. However, these sounds in English are different from their alphabetic representations, unlike other phonetic languages like Yoruba, igbo, Ibibio, etc where the sounds correspond with the alphabets. This factor has also contributed a great deal to the improper pronunciation of sounds by majority of the Yoruba speakers of English and other Nigerian English speakers. 2.4.1 ENGLISH CONSONANTS The English consonant sounds can be described in terms of the; place of articulation, manner of articulation and the state of the glottis. The place of articulation is the various organs of speech employed in the production of speech sounds. Based on this, the English sounds can be classified into; bilabial sounds /b, p, m, w/, labiodentals sounds /f, v/, alveolar sounds /t, d, n, s, z, l, r/, dental sounds /θ, ð/, palatal sounds /ʃ, Ʒ, ʧ, ʤ, j/, velar sounds /k, g, ŋ/ and glottal sounds /h/. The manner of articulation describes the ways and processes involved in the production of consonant sounds. Thus, there are; the plosives /p, b, t, d, k, g/, fricatives /f, v, s, z, ʃ, Ʒ, θ, ð/, affricates /ʤ and ʧ/, nasal /m, n, ŋ/, liquid /l and r/ and semi-vowel /w, j/. The state of the glottis involves the production of the voiced and the voiceless sounds. The voiced sounds are those produced with the vibration of the vocal cords while they are pressed together while the voiceless sounds are produced with the vocal cords spread wide apart which results in free flow of air within the glottis without vibration. 2.4.2 ENGLISH VOWELS The English language has twenty vowel sounds; twelve of these are monophthongs while the remaining eight are diphthongs. All vowel sounds are voiced, that is, their production involves vibration within the vocal cords. In the view of Fromkin & Rodman (2011), a vowel can be classified according to these three questions; How high or low in the mouth is the tongue? How forward or backward in the mouth is the tongue? Are the lips rounded (pursed) or spread? The tongue and the lips are the organs that are crucial to the production of vowel sounds. Based on the three questions mentioned above, we can infer that the vowel sound can be described according to the part of the tongue used in its production and the height to which the tongue is raised towards the hard palate. The third one describes the shape/posture of the lips in speech production which can be rounded, spread, or neutral. Thus, the vowel sounds can be classified as follows. (i) Front: are produced using the front part of the tongue e.g. /i:, ɪ, e and ᴂ / (ii) Back: the back of the tongue is raised when producing this sound e.g. /a:, ᴐ:, ᴐ, ʊ, u:/ (iii) Central: It is produced using the middle of the tongue e.g. /ʌ, з:, ə / Considering the height to which the tongue is raised towards (but not touching the roof of the mouth), a vowel can be described as: (i) Close: If the tongue is raised very high towards the palate e.g. /ɪ:, ʊ / (ii) Open: If the tongue is lowered and lying flat in the mouth e.g. /a:, ᴂ, ᴐ, ʌ / (iii) Half-Open or Half-Close: If the tongue lies halfway between the two extremes. When considering the posture of the lips a vowel can be described as (i) Rounded: if the vowel is produced with rounded lips e.g. /u: ᴐ:, ᴐ, ʊ, / (ii) Unrounded: if the vowel is produced with spread or neutral lip posture e.g. /e, a/ 2.5 PHONEMES Within the phonological rank scale, the phoneme is the minimum meaningful unit of linguistic analysis. Hyman (1975:59) defines the phoneme in a way similar to the above popular definition: “a minimal unit of sound capable of distinguishing words of different meanings.” Any sound segment of any language that is capable of changing meaning when replaced with another sound segment is referred to as a phoneme. Such sound is said to be significant, contrastive and distinctive. For example, the minimal pair sin and bin can only be differentiated by the initial sound /s/ and /b/. These consonants constitute two distinctive phonemes and express different meanings. They cannot be allophones of the same phonemes because one cannot be used instead of the other. In generative phonology, the phoneme is seen as a bundle of distinctive features. These are idiosyncratic features that distinguish one sound from the other. This difference can be based on the manner or place of articulation or even in terms of voicing (e.g. plosives, bilabial, voiced etc.). However, these phonemes are said to exist in the mind of the speaker rather than the spoken form. 2.6 THE ALLOPHONES A phoneme can be pronounced in different ways depending on the environment or context in which it occurs and even the speaker. These are phonemic variants that are realised as a result of the application of certain phonological rules. They can be seen as the actual or concrete pronunciation of sounds in human utterances. For example, the phonemes underlined in the following words are different allophones of /l/; love and feel. The first [l] is the clear one while the second one is the dark [ł]. The clear /l/ often occurs at the word initial position while the dark [ł] occurs at medial or word final position in English as in luck and deliver. However, the substitution of [l] for [ł] does not change the meaning of the words; therefore they cannot form minimal pairs. 2.7 PHONOLOGICAL PROCESSES AND RULES Phonological processes are the natural changes that occur in the pronunciation of certain sounds as a result of their occurrence in a particular phonological environment. These changes are realised with the application of some (phonological) rules that link the underlying structure with the phonetic structure. Phonological rules are the directives which map underlying forms on to the surface forms. In the words of Oyebade (2004: 13), they show the derivational sequence of an item in its journey from the underlying level to the phonetic level. The phonetic representation of phonemes is derived by applying the rules. Phonological rules are the rules that account for proper pronunciation. The application of these rules in our pronunciations displays our knowledge of the sound pattern of the language. In other to give an accurate account of these processes, the P-rules are scientifically and notationally represented. Formalisation makes the rule relatively easy to understand and precise. For example; X Y/Z The above formula means X changes to ‘Y’ in the environment of ‘Z’. X here, represents the phoneme while ‘Y’ stands for the allophone that is realised after the application of the P-rule. The slant symbol (/) refers to the environment in which the change occurs. However, the (X, Y, Z) can be null, in this case, the formula is able to capture different phonological processes. In the case where ‘X’ is null, the rule will appear as thus; Ø Y/Z It should be noted that there are always exceptions to any rule in any language; the most important thing is the frequency of the occurrence of the phenomenon. It becomes a rule when its possibility of occurrence is higher than its non-occurrence. From the above notation, it becomes glaring that there are three important aspects of P-rules: the sound that undergo transformation, the rules applied on the sound and the environment where the rule is applied. 2.7.1 FUNCTIONS OF P-RULES P-rules provide concrete information that is needed for the pronunciation of sounds. It deletes and adds segments at the intermediate level which will be mapped unto the phonetic level e.g. epenthesis. It changes features e.g. aspiration, assimilation, dissimilation, etc. It reorders segment. This is called metathesis rule. 2.6.2 NOTATIONS Ø – Means Deletion / - means in the environment of - Changes to [ ] - it is used to indicate phonetic realisation / / - it is used to enclosed the phonemic realisation { } – it is applied to adjacent rules and only where environments can be (partially) combined. It is called braces (curly bracket). It indicates the position of the changing sound. ┼ It means the lowest level of English boundary (English morpheme) ## It means word boundary ### It means phrase boundary $ It indicates syllable boundary ASSIMILATION This is a process whereby a phoneme adapts the features of the sound that precedes or comes after it. According to Fromkin & Rodman (2011), assimilation rules in language reflect coarticulation- the spreading of phonetic features either in the anticipation or in the perseveration (the “hanging on”) of articulatory processes. A large part of the phonological processes can be classified under the assimilation process because the changes that occur in a sound are influenced by the sounds that surround it that is, its environment. The assimilation process can be notationally represented as thus; X/-Y This means ‘X’ takes on the feature of ‘Y’ when ‘X’ occurs before ‘Y’. Assimilation can either be progressive or anticipatory. It is progressive when a sound influences the one that comes after it. The changes occur from left to right. In the word man for example, [ã] is nasalised because of the bilabial nasal/m/ that precedes it. /a/ ã /m- The anticipatory assimilation occurs when the sound is influenced by the one that follows it. Hence, it has right to left directionality. An example of this is represented in the following words; son, bomb, soon, etc. /ᴐ/ ã/_ n and m Dentalisation: this is a process whereby [+alveolar] sound assimilates the feature of dental sound when it precedes it. Examples of this are found in tenth, width and wealthy. The rule states that a consonant becomes dental when it occurs before a dental sound. The rule can be formalised as thus; [+alveolar] → [+dental]/ [+dental] Lateralisation This involves a process whereby the English consonant that precedes the syllabic lateral is laterally released that is, it assimilates the feature of the syllabic lateral. Examples are rebel, hospital, little, sizzle. Labialisation: it involves the addition of lip rounding or lip protrusion to any sound which is normally articulated with the lips in a neutral or spread position (Clark, Yallop and Fletcher 2007). Example of this is found in word like: quick [kʷɪk]. This rule states that /k/ is labialised before a rounded segment. K [+rounded] / [+rounded] DELETION Amongst the functions of phonological rules is the addition and deletion of segments. This involves a process whereby a segment becomes null as a result of its existence with some sounds. Both vowels and consonants can be deleted depending on the phonological environment. This process occurs in different forms. The rule states that A is deleted in an environment when it occurs after B or before B. This rule can be formalised as thus: A Ø/ B B TYPES OF CONSONANT DELETION RULES /b/ deletion rule: the rule states that /b/ is deleted in an environment where it occurs after a nasal at the CODA of word. For example, /b/ is deleted in plumb [plᴐm] because of its occurrence before the voiced bilabial nasal /m/ at the word final position. The rule can be generated as follows: /b/ Ø/ [+nasal] # +consonantal +consonantal -sonorant +sonorant +obstruent Ø -obstruent +voiced +voiced +bilabial +nasal # /g/ deletion rule: The rule states that /g/ is deleted when it comes before a nasal at the word final or initial position. For example /g/ is deleted in the following words; gnash [nᴂʃ], phlegm [flem], malign [məlain], paradigm [pᴂrədain], etc. The process can be captioned as follows; /g/ Ø/ [+nasal] # +consonantal +consonantal -sonorant +sonorant +obstruent Ø -obstruent +voiced +voiced +velar +nasal # TYPES OF VOWEL DELETION RULE Schwa deletion rule: the rule states that schwa may be deleted in an environment where the preceding consonant is in turn preceded by a vowel; hence, the word category is pronounced as /kᴂtigᵊri/ in rapid speech. The rule can be captioned as thus: /ə/→Ø/ [+vowel] [+consonant] In the view of Clark, Yallop and Fletcher (2007), these rules which reveal linguistically significant generalization in phonology are either optional or obligatory. This is often done for cluster reduction. INSERTION Oyebade (2004) defines insertion as a phonological process whereby an extraneous element not present originally is introduced into the utterance usually to break up unwanted sequence. Vowel insertion (epenthesis) is a common process in languages. This case is peculiar to the loan words whose phonotactic constraint do not allow cluster of sounds. In English, the morphophonemic rules give room for vowel insertion in pluralisation which result in the co occurrence of sibilants ‘-s/-z’ and alveolar ‘-t/-d’ as in judges [ʤʌʤɪz], buses [bʌsɪz], wanted [wᴐntɪd], loaded [ləʋdɪd] etc Consonant insertion is not a common phonological process but it is possible in some languages. Roach (1992) claims that in English RP, it quite frequently happens that, in final nasal plus voiceless fricative clusters, an epenthetic voiceless is pronounced so that the word French, phonemically /frenʃ/ is pronounced [frenʧ], mince /mɪns/ is pronounced [mɪnts]. NASALISATION Some consonant sounds are characterised with the feature [+nasal], i.e. consonants that are produced with the air escaping through the nose. This process can also affect some vowels that occur in the environment of nasal consonants. Nasalisation is a process whereby an oral sound takes on the properties of a nasal sound because it occurs in the same distributional environment, e.g. man [mᴂ̃n], sing [sĩŋ], and so on. The rule states that A is nasalised in the when it occurs before or after a nasal sound and when it occurs between two nasal sounds. This rule can be notationally represented as thus: # A→ ͂ # [+nasal] [+nasal] Vowel Nasalisation Rule: This rule states that a vowel is nasalised in the environment where it occurs before a nasal. vowel→ ̃/ [+nasal] +sonorant + sonorant -consonantal ̃ + consonantal +vocalic -vocalic Homorganic Nasal: Homorganic is also an aspect of assimilation process which involves two sounds that share the same place of articulation. The homorganic sounds are [p] and [b], [t] and [s]. The rule applies where the point of articulation of the preceding sound is influenced by the following sound such that the negation prefix ‘in-’ is realised in three forms [in, im, and iŋ] depending on the root added to it. ‘in’ is realised as [in] when it occurs before an alveolar sound as in intolerant and indiscipline,. It is realised as [im] in the environment where it occurs before bilabial sounds as in impossible and imbalance. It becomes [ɪŋ] in the environment of a velar sound as in incorrect and incorrigible. The rule states that a nasal in a prefix assimilates the place of articulation of the sound that follows it. The rule is generated as follows: /N/ → [ɪn] ┼ [alveolar] /N/ → [im] ┼ [bilabial] /N/→ [ɪŋ] ┼ [velar] ASPIRATION Aspiration is neither assimilation nor a dissimilation process. In aspiration, the noise that accompanies the production of a consonantal is released and the air is allowed to escape relatively freely (Roach, 1992). This noise is often released after the production of a voiceless plosives /p, t, k, / when they occur at the beginning of a word in a stressed syllable. For example, /p, t, k/ are aspirated in words like; pick [pʰɪk], tame [tʰeim], cup [kʰʌp]. The rule therefore states that a voiceless, noncontinuant has [+aspirated] added to its feature matrix at the beginning of a syllable containing a stressed vowel with an optional intervening consonant (Fromkin & Rodman, 2011). The rule can be generated as thus; p pʰ t → tʰ ## k kʰ The occurrence of an intervening consonant does not make any difference on the aspirated sound. An illustration of this can be found in words like: tree, cloth, pray as in [tʰrı:], [kʰlᴐӨ] and [pʰ˳rei]. This rule also applies to voiceless affricate /ʧ/ as in chip [ʧʰɪp]. However, when the voiceless stops are preceded by /s/ at the beginning of the syllable, they are neutralised as in [spɪn, stᴐ:m, sku:l, skɜ:t]. The rule therefore states that, a voiceless noncontinuant has [+aspirated] added to its feature matrix at the beginning of a syllable containing a stressed vowel with an optional intervening consonant (Fromkin & Rodman, 2011). It should be noted that voiced plosive is also aspirated in many Indian languages (often spelt bh, dh, gh, in the Roman alphabet) where, after the release of the constriction, the vocal folds vibrate to produce voicing (Roach 1992). LENGTHENING AND WEAKENING RULES Consonant Lengthening Rules: The rule states that a consonant is voiced in an environment where it occurs between two vowels, where the first vowel is voiced and the second voiceless. For example, / t and d/ becomes [r] (a voiced tap) inter-vocalically in Americans’ pronunciation of writer [ra:ɪrə] and rider [raɪrə]. The rule is generated as follows: t [r] d V V +consonantal +consonsntal +obstruent +obstruent +coronal → +coronal +vowel +vowel αvoiced +voice +voice +voice + alveolar +roll Consonant Weakening Rule: the rule states that a consonant becomes weak when it occurs word finally. An example of this is in bad; /d/ is devoiced and it becomes [bᴂd] at final position in the word. The rule can be formed as thus: [+consonantal ] → [-voice] / # Vowel reduction: this process involves the reduction of the quality of a vowel to schwa in most cases due to its occurrence in an unstressed syllable. The rule states that a vowel is weakened when it occurs in an unstressed syllable. An example of this is found in words like phonetics [fə ˈnetiks], photography [fə ˈtᴐgrəfi] It is formalised as follows: vowel→ [ə/ɪ/ʋ] / [- stress]. + syllabic + sonorant + continuant -consonantal +vocalic In the view of Roach (1992), this feature is peculiar to English phonetics and that the differences between the languages that exhibit vowel reduction and those that do not is closely parallel to the proposed difference between stress-timing and syllable-timing in languages. Vowel lengthening rule: this rule state that a vowel is lengthened at end of word or phrase. V → lengthened / in phrase-final syllable (#) Dissimilation: Dissimilation is a process whereby sounds become less similar to their surrounding segments. This process shows the uniqueness of different sounds in the same environment. Methathesis: This process reorders the arrangement of segments in language of segments is juxtaposed. The process involves movement, permutation or reversal of segments in a string. This is common in speech errors and children’s language. This process also accounts for the mispronunciations of words like: ask /ᴂsk/ is pronounced [ᴂks], silver /silvə/ is pronounced [slivə], nylon /naɪlᴐn/ is pronounced [lainᴐn]. Syllabification: this involves a process whereby a nasal or lateral consonant constitutes the peak of an unstressed syllable at the word final position. This is found in words like sudden [sʌdn], little [litl], castle [kaesl] etc. CHAPTER THREE 3.0 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND METHODOLOGY 3.1 Introduction This chapter intends to do a survey of generative phonology, which will form the theoretical background for our analysis in the current research. It will also do description of the methodology that will be adapted for data collection and analysis. 3.1.1 Generative Phonology Generative phonology, as a theory of phonology, sprung up from Noam Chomsky’s Transformational Generative Grammar in the 1960s. Schane (1973) opines that generative phonological theory has not evolved in isolation from the rest of the language, but has been part of a comprehensive theory of language known as transformational grammar. This theory, also known as The Sound Pattern of English, was developed by the US linguists, Morris Halle and Noam Chomsky who were both Professors in the Department of Modern Languages & Linguistics at the Massachusetts Institutes of technology. This theory marked a turning point in the history of phonological theories in the 20th century. It shifted from the identification and classification of segments into a given corpus (which was the preoccupation of the taxonomic linguist) to the use of system of rules that explained the phonological structure of sentence and the phonological processes that characterise various segments. The taxonomic linguists were dominated with the desire to represent linguistics as an aspect of social science (whose object of study were taken to be human beings) and as a pure science that can be formally described (Goldsmith and Laks, 2011). Amongst them were Nikolai Trubetzkoy (1939) and Roman Jakobson (1941-1956), who were notable members of Prague School of linguistics. This school was highly visible in the development of phonological theories. It laid much emphasis on phonemes. Elaborate processes were employed to describe the phonemes of different languages. Sommerstein (1977), reports that the taxonomic principle states that: “. . . No two utterances which contrast at the phonetic level may be analysed as phonologically identical, and no two utterances which are in free variation may be analysed as phonologically distinct.” Generative phonology is a reaction against this over-emphasis on the phonemes. It contends that the phonemic representation was too close to the phonetic representation. The phonemic representation is expected to explicitly show the distinctive characteristics of the segments of a language. The proponents of GP are of the view that Generative Grammar, in the real sense of it, is the first truly scientific description of language that can be called a theory. The goal of this linguistic theory is to account for the universal properties of sound that can be linguistically significant in some human language. This is proposed because it is assumed that there is universal inventory of sounds of language from which each draws the ones relevant to its language. The universality of grammar is one of the basic tenets of Transformational Generative Grammar. This theory has the assumption that every child acquiring his/her first language naturally selects the suitable sound inventory from the universal repertoire. In other words, TGG portrays the competence of an ideal speaker-hearer. Competence, being the knowledge of the language internalised by the speaker in the process of language acquisition is represented in phonological representation (mental lexicon of the speaker/hearer). And this accounts for the actual performance in speaking and understanding. Therefore, a good phonological theory should be able to account for the universal and language specific sound inventories. Chomsky and Halle (1968)’s The Sound Pattern of English, is a major contribution to the development of phonological theories. The core idea in this book is that ‘the grammar of a language is a system of rules that specify sound-meaning correspondence (p.3). This implies that phonology is an integral aspect of grammar. The aim of this theory is to present how the various components of grammar can be formally and explicitly expressed. In their own view, phoneme should be seen as elements that can be further broken down using a bundle of binary features (Schane, 1973). 2.1.2 Levels of Representation Most phonological theories ranging from the theories of American to the European Phonologists in the 20th century recognise the existence of two levels of representation: the underlying (UR) and phonetic representation (PR) but differ in the derivational devices adapted. These levels are also recognised in the generative view of phonology. Phonemic Representation UR in generative phonology is assumed to be the abstract representation of sounds existing in the linguistic competence (implicit linguistic knowledge existing in the mind of the speaker) of the native speaker. At this level, the qualitative contrast in sound which also produces different meanings in any given language is represented. Therefore, sounds that are capable of distinguishing meaning in any environment are phonemes (i.e. occur in minimal pairs). The aim of generative phonology is to establish a single underlying representation for every morpheme from which the speaker will derive the appropriate phonetic surface form in any given context (Giegerich, 1992). The underlying representation consist a linear sequence of phonemes, each phonemic symbol representing a bundle of binary features (Giegerich, 1992) without any phonetic value. These features are the idiosyncratic properties of a sound that makes it different from any other one. Adequate feature specification that provides relevant information (and even the irrelevant ones) is one of the conditions under which phonological rules apply. Clark, Yallop & Fletcher (2007) noting Postal (1968), report that the concept of abstract segments (phonological representation) is expressed in form of naturalness condition. This condition states that a (systematic) phonemic representation implies the identical phonetic representation unless the phonological rule states otherwise. In other words, phonemic representation is supposed to be fully represented in the phonetic representation apart from the alterations made by the phonological rules. Surface Representation (phonetic) This level is characterised with concrete realisation of phonemes. It presents both relevant and redundant (those that are not important to the phonemic description of sounds). The phonetic representation of phonemes (allophones) is realised with the application of phonological rules. To corroborate this, Giegerich (1992) opines that the phonetic level of representation is essentially segmental and systematic in that it includes only those phonetic facts that are rule governed. In essence, a phonetic realisation of a sound does not contain the exact phonetic facts of the sound, but it is less abstract than the phonemic representation. The representation at this level is not located in the mind of the speaker; rather, it is located in the real world. Its realisation is determined by the context of occurrence in that speech varies among speakers and dialects. It cannot be treated in isolation but in relation to environment (phonetic) in which it occurs. Phonological Rules Phonological rules being the intermediary between the underlying representation and surface forms are generalised statements that account for forms that are not originally present in a segment at the underlying level. These rules are strictly ordered sequentially. In the view of McCarthy (2007), the only exception to this strict sequentiality is cyclic rule application, in which certain rules are allowed to reapply to successively larger grammatical constituents. The ordering relations among rules are either intrinsic, that is, dictated by the form of the rules themselves, or extrinsic, that is, specifically imposed on the grammar (Malmkjaer, 2002). Speakers have universal mental representation of phonemes. When a sound is produced differently by different speakers, it is often as a result of the unconscious application of the phonological rules in a different order. The process of applying phonological rules in a specific order is referred to as phonological derivation. These derivations are extremely relevant to the actual pronunciation of allophones. In addition, special attention was given to the functional relationship that occurs between rule in terms of feeding and bleeding. Rule A feeds B when A creates input for B rule to apply. When rule A deprives B of its input, A is said to bleed B. It should also be noted that the features are needed to formally capture the phonological behaviour of sounds. Types of Rules Feature changing rules Segment insertion and deletion rules Reordering rules Feature Changing Rules These are rules that change the feature that already exists at the phonemic level. Schane (1973) posits that three things are needed for a segment to undergo changes. 1. Which segment change 2. How they change 3. Under what condition they change The processes mentioned above are captured by set of feature notations. The segments that change are described in terms of features to specify the idiosyncratic characteristics. The features that undergo the changes and how it is changed are connected by an arrow pointing to the direction of the realised segment. For example: V [+NASAL] [+NASAL] The above rule states that a vowel (the segment that undergoes changes) changes to (indicated by the arrow) a nasal [ ̴ ] in the environment of (represented with slash / symbol) a nasal. The feature changing rules include; assimilation, dissimilation and aspiration. Segment Insertion and Deletion Rule The process of inserting a consonant or vowel is called epenthesis. The null symbol [ø] points to the segment to be inserted which will appear to the right of the rule. [ø] →ə / [+sibilant] [+sibilant] The rule states that schwa is inserted when it occurs between two sibilants. The deletion process is also captured by the null symbol. The segment that undergoes deletion appears to the left of the arrow, and the null symbol [ø] to the right (Schane, 1973). This rule deletes segments and not the feature of the segment. An example if deletion rule is: b→ ø / +nasal +bilabial The above rule states that /b/ is deleted in the environment of a bilabial nasal sound. Reordering Rules This rule reorders the arrangement of segments in language. The process involves movement, permutation or reversal of segments in a string. 3.2 Distinctive features One of the basic assumptions of generative phonology is that segments are divisible units that can be further broken down into smaller indivisible units. Segments are made up of features (which are regarded as smallest unit of sound structure). The use of distinctive features did not start with generative phonology. This concept has its origin in the theory of phonological oppositions developed by the American Structuralist (Prague School). This theory was first developed by the Roman Jakobson and his colleagues and later elaborated by Chomsky and Halle (1968) in their popular book; The Sound Pattern of English. In their own view (Prague School), phonemes are differentiated by distinctive features. Jakobson claims that the ‘feature’ rather than phonemes is minimal unit of a phonological structure. Nikolai Trubetzkoy (1939) who was also a core member of the Prague School of linguistics focused on distinctive opposition. These oppositions could be bilateral or multilateral or private or gradual or equipollent. Bilateral opposition refers to a pair of sounds that have a set of features in common which are not shared by any other sound. Example of this is the ‘voiceless labial obstruents’ /p, f/ and no other sounds share these features. Multilateral opposition: These are sets of more than two sounds that share common features not found in the other. For example, /f, v/ are both labial obstruents, /v/ has the feature [+voice] while /f/ has the feature [-voice]. The sound that possesses the feature [+voice] is marked while that which lacks it is unmarked [-voice]. Gradual opposition: These are oppositions in which the members are characterised by degree or gradation of a feature. For example, the three short front unrounded vowels in English /ɪ, e, ᴂ/ which are differentiated only by their height, also occur in different degrees. Equipollents oppositions: This occurs when the relationship between the members are logically equivalent. Roman Jakobson (1939) who is regarded as the father of distinctive features also based his work theory on the following assumption (Mannell, 2011): All phonological features are binary, that is, a phoneme either possesses a feature or it does not. Segments are classified according to their articulatory and acoustic features. A small set of features can differentiate between the phonemes of a language There is a difference between phonetic and phonological features: Distinctive features are phonological features Phonetic features are surface realisations of underlying phonological features. A phonological feature may possess more than one phonetic feature. Chomsky and Halle’s Distinctive features Chomsky and Halle in their famous book The Sound Pattern of English (1968), also modified Jakobson’s features and integrated it into the system of generative phonology. They are also of the opinion that phonemes are characterised with indivisible features that distinguish one from the other. Defining distinctive features, Halle and Clement (1983) opines that distinctive features are: . . . a set of [articulatory and acoustic] features sufficient to define and distinguish, one from the other, the great majority of speech Sounds used in the languages of the world. In other words, these features comprise the least relevant properties to fully describe a phoneme as a unique entity. To support this, Giegerich (1992) contends that these features and not the phonemes are the smallest and most basic unit of phonological analysis. These features are in form of binarity, that is, in opposition. In other words, a segment either possesses a feature or lacks it (positive or negative value). Chomsky and Halle (1968) also maintain that features are binary, but only at the classificatory or systematic phonemic level, whereas, at the systematic phonetic level, they need not be. The distinctive features are very important in the formulation and formalisation of rules that account for phonological processes in languages. The phonological rules often apply to the natural classes of sound. In the view of Giegerich (1992), the phonological features perform the following functions: Contrastive Function: As mentioned above, features are expressed in binarity. In his own view, a feature is expected to express phonemic contrast in sounds fully and economically. This means that the differentiation and identification of phonemes are carried out by the positive and negative values of the features. Descriptive Function: The feature specification of a sound must describe accurately the phonetic nature of that sound at the concrete level. Classificatory Function: The phonological features help in expressing generalisation in the phonology of a language. These features establish the natural class of sounds, that is, sounds that undergo similar phonological processes. Such sounds are known as the major class features. Types of Distinctive Features Major class features (syllabic, consonantal and sonorant) Place of articulation features (anterior and coronal) Manner of articulation features (continuants, strident, lateral, nasal and delayed release) Tongue body features (high, low, back, ATR tense) Lip features Laryngeal features Major class features Syllabic: These are sounds that can constitute the peak of a syllable. All vowels are syllabic [+syllabic] while consonants are [-syllabic] except the syllabic consonants (nasals and liquid; m, n, l). Sonorant: Schane (1973) defines the feature [+sonorant] as the resonant quality of a sound. Vowels, nasal, liquid are sonorants. They are produced with vocal tract configuration that promotes spontaneous voicing. The obstruent on the other hand, is produced with a cavity configuration that makes voicing impossible. The obstruent [-sonorant] includes: stops, fricatives, affricates and glides. The obstruent is produced with obstruction of the air which leads to a friction or closure. In essence, obstruent may be voiced or voiceless. Consonantal: These are sounds whose production involves high degree of oral obstruction in the midsaggital region (between the glottis and lips) in the vocal tract. In this case, stops, fricatives, affricates, nasals and liquids are [+consonantal] while all vowels and semi-vowels are [-consonantal]. Place of Articulation Features Anterior: These sounds are characterised with air obstruction that occurs in front of the palato-alveolar region of the mouth while the production of the non-anterior does not involve such constriction. The bilabial, alveolar, labiodentals and dental sounds fall within the class of anterior. While palate-alveolar, palatal, velar and glottal sounds are classified as non-anterior. Coronal: These are sounds produced with the blade of the tongue raised above its neutral position; the non-coronal is produced with the blade of the tongue maintaining its neutral position. Manner of Articulation Features Strident: The production of strident is accompanied with high degree of noisiness while the non-strident counterpart is produced without such noise. Continuants: In continuants, the air flows out freely without being obstructed in the oral cavity. The non-continuant on the other hand is produced with total occlusion air with sudden or Delayed Release: This feature distinguishes between the stops and affricates. It involves a slow release of a total occlusion within the oral cavity. Affricates /ʧ and ʤ/ are characterised as [+delayed release]. Lateral: The feature lateral is articulated with the middle part of the tongue lowered and the tip of the tongue is raised to touch the roof of the mouth such that the airstream is prevented from flowing outward through the centre of the mouth, the air therefore passes through one or both sides of the tongue. The lateral sounds are approximants and lateral. All other sounds are [-lateral]. Nasal: This feature specification describes the positioning of the velum in relation to other organs. The production [+nasal] segment involves the lowering of the velum such that the nasal passage way becomes opened for the air to pass. The nasals are /m, n, ŋ/. The [-nasal] counterpart are produced with a raised velum, preventing the air from passing through the nasal cavity, thereby allowing it to escape through the mouth. Tongue Body Features This feature is related to the position of the body of the tongue. This can be high, low or back. High: These sounds are produced by raising the body of the tongue above its neutral position towards the palate. Thus, [i], [u], [k], and [ŋ] would be [+ high]. The [non-high] sounds are produced without such movement. Low: Low sounds are articulated with a tongue body lowered below its neutral position. The low sounds are /ᴐ and h/. The low sounds are produced without such gesture. Back: Back sounds are produced with body of the tongue retracted. Sounds like /u, ᴐ, a, k, g/ are [+back] while in the [-back] counterpart, the body of the tongue advances Lip features Rounded: This involves the rounding of the lips in the production of consonants and vowels. The sounds possessing the feature [+round] are /u and w/. Laryngeal features Voice: This feature is peculiar with sounds whose production vibration within the vocal folds. All English vowels, glides, liquids, nasals, and voiced stops, fricatives, and affricates are [+ voiced]. [p], [t], [k], [f ], [s], and [ʃ], by contrast, are [– voiced]. Spread glottis: This feature indicates the aspiration of a segment; the glottis is opened during the production of this sound. Constricted glottis: These features represent sounds that are produced with the vocal cords pressed together such that the air cannot escape momentarily. 3.3 METHODOLOGY The Nature of Research The thrust of this research is the investigation of the application of phonological rules among some undergraduate students of English. In doing this, fifty 300 level students were chosen by purposive sampling technique from the Department of English Studies in the University of Ibadan; twenty males and thirty females from English department. The selection of subjects was based on the assumption that the students from these departments have already undergone training in this area of study (phonetics and phonology). This will manifest the extent to which these concepts have been internalised by the students and how our variables (level of education, gender, region, age) have interfered with their performances. The selected words are those that are observed to pose challenges to the Yoruba learners of English. A questionnaire was administered in order to ascertain their age, gender, region, linguistic background and level of education. Subsequently, students from each group were required to read aloud a set of words that are structured in a way that the students’ competence in this area could be tested. Their responses were recorded in a tape with speech filing system SFS/WASP. The students were instructed to state the serial numbers on their questionnaire and departments in sequential order in a list. Their oral renditions were done one after the other so that none would affect the other. This group of respondent fairly falls within Odumuh’s (1987) educated variety specifically the university graduates. The Longman talking Dictionary was used as control; which will give us the Standard British pronunciation of these words. Analysis Method The data was analysed using the phonological rules within the framework of generative phonology. Also, variables such as gender, orthography, education and region intervened into our analysis. The analysis was based mainly on the materials read by the subjects. The perceptual method of analysis was used. Each of the words was classified under different phonological processes that characterise them. The responses were then described in relation to the processes and rules. The numbers of deviations were counted and calculated using simple percentage. ` CHAPTER FOUR DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS 4.1 Introduction The primary focus of this chapter is the analysis of the data collected for the purpose of this study. The study aims at scrutinising the application of English phonological processes and rules in the speech production of the undergraduate students of English. In doing this, words involving the following phonological processes were used to collect the data: Consonant deletion Insertion vowel insertion consonant insertion Assimilation Dentalisation Palatalisation Aspiration Metathesis Syllabification Vowel reduction Spelling pronunciation The university undergraduates, specifically the English students, who are expected to be the models to others in spoken English, were selected for this research. The data gathered in this research shall prove the validity or otherwise of this assumption. Data Analysis and Discussion of Findings 1 Consonant Deletion This involves the omission of speech sounds in certain environment. The type of deletion involved here is that of consonant. In RP, the underlined sounds are null in the processes of production. Table 1 S/N Words Potential score Instances of deviation Instance of consonant deletion Percentage (%) of deviations Percentage (%)of correct pronunciation 1 Plumb [plʌm] 50 7 43 14 86 2 King [kiŋ] 50 41 9 82 18 3 Bomb [bᴐm] 50 15 35 30 70 4 Coup [kʊ:] 50 23 27 46 54 5 Listen [li.sən] 50 17 33 34 66 6 Climb [klaɪm] 50 16 34 32 68 7 Young [jʌŋ] 50 12 38 24 76 8 Wednesday [wenz.deɪ] 50 21 29 42 58 9 Phlegm [flem] 50 10 40 20 80 10 Debt [det] 50 26 24 52 48 11 Sword [sᴐ:d] 50 28 22 56 44 12 Subtle [sʌt.l] 50 29 21 58 42 Total 600 245 355 40.8 59.2 The most difficult word to pronounce for these subjects in this process is king. Forty-one (41) of the subjects pronounced it as [kiŋg] and only nine (9) of the subjects could correctly pronounce it. The next in the hierarchy is the articulation of subtle. The word was realised as [sᴐbtu] by twenty-nine (29) of the subjects and the remaining twenty-one (21) deleted the [b]. The third most difficult was sword. It was realised as [swᴐd] by 28 respondents and as [sᴐd] by twenty-two (22) subjects. The fourth most difficult is debt. It was realised as spelt, [debt], by twenty-six (26) of the subjects and [det] by twenty-four (24). In the production of climb and bomb, sixteen (16) and fifteen (15) of the subjects failed to elide the silent /b/ and thirty-four (34) and thirty-five (35) of the subjects respectively pronounced it appropriately as [klaɪm] and [bᴐm]. In young, the velar /ŋ/ was realised as /g/ by twelve (12) subjects and the remaining thirty-eight (38) subjects produced it correctly. The word phlegm did not pose much difficulty for the subjects. It was realised as [flegm] by (10) subjects and a larger proportion of forty (40) produced it correctly. The least problematic of these words was plumb. A minority of seven (7) could not pronounce it appropriately. It was realised as [plᴐmb] by these subjects. Forty-three of the subjects correctly produced it as [plᴐm]. 4.2.2 Insertion i. Vowel insertion The process of vowel insertion did not pose much challenge for the subjects. The words judges [ʤʌʤɪz] and wanted [wᴐntɪd] were realised as [ʤᴐʤs] and [wᴐnted] by four (4) and (eight) 8 subjects respectively while the remaining subjects were able to produce them correctly. Table 2 S/N Words Potential score Instances of insertion Instances of substitution Instances of deletion % of correct pronunciation % of deviation 1 Judges ʤʌ.ʤɪz/ 50 46 00 4 92 8 2 Wanted /wᴐn.tɪd/ 50 42 8 00 84 16 Total 100 88 8 4 88 12 ii. Consonant Insertion The application of this rule was the most difficult for the subjects. The pronunciation of the words mince, pronounce and maintenance which required the insertion of /t/ were realised as [mɪns], [preunauns] and [meinteinans] by all the subjects except three that could correctly produce mince as [mɪnts]. Table 3 S/N Words Potential score Instances of consonant deletion Instances of consonant insertion % of deviation % of correct pronunciation 1 Mince [mɪnts] 50 47 3 94 6 2 Pronounce [prə.naunts] 50 50 00 100 00 3 Maintenance [meintənənts] 50 50 00 100 00 Total 150 147 3 98 2 4.2.3 Assimilation i. Dentalisation This process seemed not to be difficult for the subjects. The production of wealthy [welɵɪ] was rightly done by forty-one (41) subjects while the rest (9 subjects) could not properly pronounce it. Width was pronounced as [wɪt] by four (4) subjects and four (4) other subjects realised it as [waɪt] while the remaining forty-two (42) subjects pronounced it correctly. The production of tenth seems to be the most difficult here. Twenty-three (23) subjects pronounced it as [tent] and the remaining twenty-seven (27) produced it correctly. Length, which is the second most difficult was realised as [lent] by fifteen (15) subjects and thirty-five (35) articulated it as [lenɵ]. Table 4 S/N Word Potential score Instances of deviation Instances of correct pronunciation % of deviation % of correct pronunciation 1 Wealthy [welɵɪ] 50 9 41 18 82 2 Width [widɵ] 50 8 42 16 84 3 Tenth [tenɵ] 50 23 27 46 54 4 Length [lenɵ] 50 15 35 30 70 Total 200 55 145 27.5 72.5 ii. Syllabification Table 5 S/N Words Potential score Instances of vowel insertion Instances of vowel substitution Instances of correct pronunciation Percentage (%) of deviation Percentage (%) of correct pronunciation 1 Little [lɪt.l] 50 30 18 2 96 4 2 Subtle [sʌt.l] 50 7 43 00 100 00 3 Castle [ka:s.l] 50 36 10 4 92 8 4 Buckle [bʌk.l] 50 8 42 00 100 00 5 Paddle [pa:d.l] 50 22 28 00 100 00 6 Able [eɪb.l] 50 4 46 00 100 00 Total 300 107 187 6 98 2 Of all the phonological processes involved in this research, syllabification is the second most difficult for the subjects. The production of syllabic consonants that is the dark [ƚ] which constitute the peak of a syllable at the word final position is assimilated by the preceding consonant. The subjects would either insert the vowel [ʊ] before the syllabic consonant [l] or substitute the [ƚ] with [ʊ]. The [t.l] in Subtle [sʌt.l] was pronounced as [tul] by 7 subjects while 43 subjects pronounced it as [tʊ] and none of the subjects could correctly produce it. In the production of little [lit.l], 30 of the subjects realised it as [litʊl] and 18 subjects substituted [ƚ] with [ʊ] and only 2 subject got the correct pronunciation of it. Castle [ka:s.l] was produced as [ka:sʊl] by 36 subjects. The syllabic [l]wais substituted with [ʊ] by 10 subjects while only 4 of the subjects pronounced it correctly. The production of buckle [bʌk.l] was realised as [bʌ.kʊl] by 8 subjects and substituted with [ʊ] by 42 subjects. The [d.l] in paddle [pa:d.l] was pronounced as [dʊl] by 22 subjects and the remaining 28 subjects realised it as [dʊ]. None of the subjects could pronounce it appropriately. The [b.l] in able [eib.l] was substituted with [bu] by 46 subjects and only 4 subjects inserted [u] to break the cluster. iii. Palatalisation Table 6 S/N Words Potential score Instances of omission Instances of correct pronunciation Percentage (%) of deviation Percentage (%) of correct pronunciation 1 Tune [tju:n] 50 28 22 56 44 Total 50 28 22 56 44 Tune [tjʊ:n] is the only word that involves the process of palatalisation among the variables used. Some of these English undergraduates found the application of this rule difficult. The /j/ was omitted and pronounced as /tu:n/ by 28 subjects. It was produced appropriately by the remaining 22 subjects. 4.2.4 Aspiration Table 7 S/N Words Potential score Instances of aspiration Instances of neutralisation % of correct pronounciation % of deviation 1 Tax [thᴂks] 50 50 - 100 00 2 Skin [skɪn] 50 33 17 66 34 3 Put [phʊt] 50 50 - 100 00 4 Tree [thrɪ:] 50 50 - 100 00 5 King [khɪŋ] 50 50 - 100 00 6 Pattern [phᴂtən] 50 50 - 100 00 7 Paddle [phᴂd.l] 50 50 - 100 00 8 Tune [thjʊ:n] 50 50 - 100 00 9 Castle [khᴂs.l] 50 50 - 100 00 10 Tenth [thenɵ] 50 50 - 100 00 11 Category [kh] 50 50 - 100 00 12 Pronounce [phrənaunts] 50 50 - 100 00 13 Covenant [khʌvənənt] 50 50 - 100 00 14 Coup [khʊ:] 50 50 - 100 00 Total 700 683 17 97.6 2.4 The application of this rule was the least problematic for these English undergraduates except in the word skin. The exception in aspiration rule which requires that when a voiceless stop is preceded by /s/, the /k/ is neutralised. The application of this in the word skin made it difficult for 33 of the subjects to neutralise the /k/. Only 17 of the subjects could appropriately use this rule. 4.2.5 Metathesis Table 8 S/N Words Potential score Instances of metathesis Instances of correct pronunciation % of metathesis % of correct pronunciation 1 Ask [ᴂsk] 50 16 34 32 68 2 Tax [tᴂsk] 50 23 27 46 54 3 Nylon [naɪlᴐn] 50 7 43 14 86 4 Lips [lɪps] 50 - 50 00 100 5 Risk [rɪsk] 50 3 47 6 94 6 Grasp [gra:sp] 50 12 38 24 76 Total 300 61 239 20.3 79.7 Metathesis is another difficult aspect of phonological processes for these English students. The most difficult of them is tax. The cluster /ks/ was reordered as [sk] by 23 subjects and the remaining 27 subjects pronounced it appropriately. The next difficult word in this hierarchy is ask. It was realised as [ᴂks] by 16 subjects while 34 subjects correctly produced it as [ᴂsk]. The next difficult word is grasp. It is articulated appropriately by 38 subjects and only 12 subjects mispronounced it as [grᴂps]. The production of nylon was appropriately done by 43 subjects and only 7 subjects realised it as [laɪnᴐn]. The least difficult was the production of risk. It was pronounced as [riks] by only 3 subjects while the remaining 47 subjects were able to produce it correctly. The production of lips did not create problem for any of the subjects; all the subjects were able to give its correct pronunciation. 4.2.6 Vowel Reduction Table 9 S/N Words Potential score Instances of vowel reduction Instances of vowel substitution Percentage (%) of vowel reduction (%) Percentage of vowel substitution 1 Chocolate [ʧᴐkələt] 50 17 33 34 66 2 Listen [lɪsən] 50 - 50 00 100 3 Photography [fətᴐgrəfɪ] 50 - 50 00 100 4 Hospital [hᴐspitəl] 50 4 46 8 92 5 Rebel [rebəl] 50 3 47 6 94 6 Sudden [sʌdən] 50 8 42 16 84 7 Pattern [pᴂtən] 50 16 34 32 68 8 Button [bʌt.ən] 50 14 36 28 72 9 Maintenance [meɪn.tən.ənts] 50 4 46 8 92 10 Covenant [kʌv.ən.ət] 50 12 38 24 76 11 Category [kᴂt.ə.gərɪ] 50 40 10 80 20 Total 550 118 382 21.5 69.5 The reduction of the vowel strength to schwa [ə] in an unstressed syllable constituted a great challenge to the English undergraduates. In most cases, the schwa was replaced with different stronger vowels in different environments. In the production of chocolate, 17 of the subjects could reduce the quantity of the vowel to shwa /ə/ and the remaining 33 subjects substituted the [ə] with the diphthong [əʊ]. The production of listen was the most difficult to pronounce here. None of the subjects could give the actual realisation of the schwa [ə]. It was realised as [ɪ] by all the subjects. With listen in this hierarchy is photography. They both constituted a major challenge to the subjects. In the production of photography, the schwas at the initial and final syllables were both realised as [ᴐ] and [ᴂ] respectively by all the subjects. In hospital, the weak schwa [ə] has two different realisations here [ʊl and ᴂl]. The schwa was realised as [ʊl] by a larger proportion of the subjects (42). The second allophone was produced by a minute proportion of 4, and only 4 subjects could pronounce the schwa [ə] appropriately. The second most difficult word to pronounce in this process was rebel [rebəl]. Only 3 of the subjects could utter the correct form of it. 34 of the subjects produced it as [rebʊl] and 13 realised it as [rebel]. The next in the hierarchy of difficulty is the production of maintenance. Just 4 of the subjects could appropriately produce the schwa in the second syllable of the word and 46 subjects substituted the schwa with diphthong [eɪ]. In sudden, the schwa was realised as [ɪ] by 42 subjects and only 8 subjects produced it correctly. In covenant, the weak schwa was lengthened and realised as [e] by 38 subjects and 12 of the subjects were able to render the correct form. Button is the next in this hierarchy. It was produced as [bᴐtɪn] by 36 subjects and [bʌtən] by 14 subjects. The schwa in pattern was produced as [ᴂ] by 34 subjects and [ə] was realised by 16 subjects. The least difficult among them is category. 40 of the subjects appropriately pronounced the weak schwa and only a minute proportion of 10 mispronounced it as [əʊ]. 4.2.7 Spelling Pronunciation One of the factors that contribute to the problems of pronunciation of Nigerians is that of orthography. This is based on the fact that there is no correspondence between some of the alphabets and the sounds they represent. To corroborate this, Bezrukova (2003) opines that English spelling is so hopeless at representing phonemes that a reform based on virtually any accent would be an improvement for everyone else. The ch digraph is also an aspect of English pronunciation that creates problem for users of English as a second language. Soneye (2009) defines a digraph as the combination of two graphemes that results in a single phoneme. Examples of these are found in the combination of th, ph, ch, ps, etc. which are pronounced as [ɵ and ð], [f], [ʧ, ʃ and k] and [s] respectively. Table 10 S/N Words Potential score Instances of correct pronunciation Instances of deviation % of correct pronunciation % of deviation 1 Coup [kʊ:] 50 24 26 48 52 2 Sachet [sᴂ.ʃeɪ] 50 21 29 42 58 3 Chocolate [ʧᴐkələt] 50 45 5 90 10 4 Champagne [ʃᴂm.peɪn] 50 22 28 44 56 5 Depot [de.pᴐ] 50 34 16 68 32 6 Sword [sᴐ:d] 50 20 30 40 60 7 Wednesday [wenz.deɪ] 50 33 17 66 34 8 Juice [ʤʊ:s] 50 35 5 70 30 9 Augment [ᴐ:g.ment] 50 16 34 32 68 Total 450 250 200 55.6 44.4 The ch in sachet was pronounced as [ʧ] by 19 subjects and 10 subjects produced the [eɪ] as [et] i.e. as it is spelt. The remaining 21 subjects pronounced it correctly. In chocolate, the ch was correctly realised as [ʧ] 43 of the subjects and only 7 subjects mispronounced it as [ʃ]. The word champagne is the most difficult in this aspect. The [ʃ] was correctly pronounced by 22 subjects and 28 of the subjects realised it as [ʧ]. Another aspect of spelling pronunciation that create problem for the English undergraduates is deletion. Some of the subjects pronounced the word as spelt even though deletion is required in some cases. In coup [kʊ:], the [p] was elided by 24 subjects while 26 subjects inserted it. In the production of sword, 30 of the subjects did not omit the w while 20 of them appropriately produced it. The production of depot was correctly done by 34 subjects and 16 subjects realised it as [depᴐt]. The production of Wednesday which required the reduction of wednes- to [wenz], was correctly done by 33 subjects and mispronounced as [wednes] by 17 of the subjects. The ui in juice was produced as [ʊ:] by 35 subjects and realised as [ʊɪ] by 15 subjects. The word augment was pronounced appropriately by only 16 subjects and the remaining 34 subjects inserted [ʊ] to break the cluster. They therefore mispronounced it as [ᴐ:gument]. Table 11 Analysis of gender differences in performances of the respondents S/N Words pronounced Potential score M F Actual score M F Percentage score M F 1 Coup (deletion) 20 30 10 14 50 46.7 2 Coup ( aspiration) 20 30 20 30 100 100 3 Sachet (spelling pronunciation) 20 30 8 13 40 43.3 4 Chocolate (vowel reduction) 20 30 5 12 25 40 5 Chocolate (spelling pronunciation) 20 30 17 28 85 93.3 6 Depot 20 30 14 20 70 66.7 7 Plumb 20 30 17 26 85 86.7 8 Little 20 30 00 02 00 6.7 9 Listen (vowel reduction) 20 30 00 00 00 00 10 Listen (consonant deletion) 20 30 09 24 45 80 11 Able 20 30 00 00 00 00 12 Photography 20 30 00 00 00 00 13 Phlegm 20 30 15 25 75 83.3 14 Bomb 20 30 14 21 70 70 15 Ask 20 30 15 19 75 63.3 16 Tax (metathesis) 20 30 12 15 60 50 17 Tax ( aspiration) 20 30 20 30 100 100 18 Wealthy 20 30 12 19 60 63.3 19 Width 20 30 14 28 70 93.3 20 Tenth 20 30 9 18 45 60 21 Hospital 20 30 1 3 5 10 22 Rebel (N) 20 30 00 03 00 10 23 Castle (syllabification) 20 30 01 03 5 10 24 Castle (aspiration) 20 30 20 30 100 100 25 Category 20 30 12 28 60 93.3 26 Wanted 20 30 15 27 75 90 27 Mince 20 30 00 03 00 10 28 King 20 30 2 7 10 23.3 29 Skin 20 30 11 22 55 73.3 30 Nylon 20 30 16 27 80 90 31 Sudden 20 30 3 5 15 16.7 32 Climb 20 30 11 23 55 76.7 33 Pronounce 20 30 00 00 00 00 34 Pronounce 20 30 20 30 100 100 35 Young 20 30 16 22 80 73.3 36 Length 20 30 12 23 60 76.7 37 Grasp 20 30 14 25 65 83.3 38 Tree 20 30 20 30 100 100 39 Put 20 30 20 30 100 100 40 Debt 20 30 8 16 40 53 41 Sword 20 30 7 13 35 43.3 42 Juice 20 30 11 24 55 80 43 Subtle (consonant deletion) 20 30 7 14 35 46.7 44 Subtle (syllabification) 20 30 00 00 00 00 45 Wednesday 20 30 10 23 50 76.7 46 Pattern (vowel reduction) 20 30 5 11 25 36.7 47 Pattern (aspiration) 20 30 20 30 100 100 48 Tune 20 30 7 15 35 50 49 Button 20 30 4 10 20 33.3 50 Lips 20 30 20 30 100 100 51 Risk 20 30 19 28 95 93.3 52 Champagne 20 30 7 15 35 50 53 Judges 20 30 18 28 90 93.3 54 Buckle 20 30 00 00 00 00 55 Paddle 20 30 00 00 00 00 56 Augment 20 30 5 11 25 36.7 57 Covenant 20 30 3 9 15 30 58 Maintenance (consonant insertion) 20 30 00 00 00 00 59 Maintenance (vowel reduction) 20 30 01 03 5 10 Total 1180 1770 657 965 55.7 54.5 Table 12 Analysis of general performance of the subjects on all variables S/N Words pronounced Potential score Actual score Percentage 1 Coup (deletion) 50 24 48 2 Coup ( aspiration) 50 50 100 3 Sachet (spelling pronunciation) 50 21 42 4 Chocolate (vowel reduction) 50 17 34 5 Chocolate (spelling pronunciation) 50 45 90 6 Depot 50 34 68 7 Plumb 50 43 86 8 Little 50 02 04 9 Listen (vowel reduction) 50 00 00 10 Listen (consonant deletion) 50 33 66 11 Able 50 00 00 12 Photography 50 00 00 13 Phlegm 50 40 80 14 Bomb 50 35 70 15 Ask 50 34 68 16 Tax (metathesis) 50 27 54 17 Tax ( aspiration) 50 50 100 18 Wealthy 50 31 62 19 Width 50 42 84 20 Tenth 50 27 54 21 Hospital 50 4 08 22 Rebel (N) 50 03 06 23 Castle (syllabification) 50 04 08 24 Castle (aspiration) 50 50 100 25 Category 50 40 80 26 Wanted 50 32 64 27 Mince 50 03 06 28 King 50 9 18 29 Skin 50 33 66 30 Nylon 50 43 86 31 Sudden 50 8 16 32 Climb 50 34 68 33 Pronounce 50 00 00 34 Pronounce 50 50 100 35 Young 50 38 76 36 Length 50 35 70 37 Grasp 50 39 78 38 Tree 50 50 100 39 Put 50 50 100 40 Debt 50 24 48 41 Sword 50 42 84 42 Juice 50 35 70 43 Subtle (consonant deletion) 50 21 42 44 Subtle (syllabification) 50 00 00 45 Wednesday 50 33 66 46 Pattern (vowel reduction) 50 16 32 47 Pattern (aspiration) 50 50 100 48 Tune 50 22 44 49 Button 50 14 28 50 Lips 50 50 100 51 Risk 50 47 94 52 Champagne 50 22 44 53 Judges 50 46 92 54 Buckle 50 00 00 55 Paddle 50 00 00 56 Augment 50 16 32 57 Covenant 50 12 24 58 Maintenance (consonant insertion) 50 00 00 59 Maintenance (vowel reduction) 50 04 08 Total 2950 1622 54.98 The overall performance of the students on all the variables is average (54.98%). In other words, the level of conformity of the English undergraduates is 55%. This implies that the level of deviation of the English undergraduates from the standard British usage is minimal. Their knowledge of the rules of English phonology has been employed, to a great extent, in their performances. Overall Performance Pie Chart 4.3 Findings From the perceptual analysis of the English phonological processes in the speech production of the English undergraduates done so far, the following answers have been proffered to the questions raised in earlier section of this research work. To a great extent, there was the influence of mother tongue on the speech production of the English students. Considering the region of the respondents, there seems to be a higher level of deviation among the south-western respondents who constituted a larger proportion (80%) of the population used. The production of the syllabic consonant [l] had the highest level of non-conformity. A very minute proportion (2%) of the population could appropriately pronounce the variable [l]. The respondents would either insert one vowel or the other to break the cluster of the syllabic consonant and other consonants or substitute the syllabic [l] with [u]. The production of the weak schwa in unstressed syllables proved difficult for the respondents. They would rather substitute the weak vowels with stronger ones like: [əʊ], [ɪ], [ʊ], [æ], [eɪ] and [e] in the variables. Only a percentage of 21.5 could correctly produce the variables tested. Akinjobi (2009) also confirms that the realisation of English vowels (especially schwa) and consonants that occur in unstressed positions is a major area of deviation from the Standard English usage for Nigerian users of English. These errors are probably as a result of the absence of the weak schwa in the mother tongue of the respondents. The non-Yoruba respondents were not exonerated from this error. Aside the mother tongue interference, spelling and orthographical discrepancies were also another significant factors that affected the speech production of the respondents. Some of the words were pronounced as spelt by almost half of the population. The overall performance in this section was 55.6%, which is an average score.To corroborate this, Soneye (2009) opines that spelling problem in some sounds is not as a result of non-availability of the sound (in the mother tongue) or their inability to articulate it, rather, it is most likely that they are confused and uncertain about how the ch especially in unfamiliar words. The application of consonant insertion rule also posed a great challenge to the respondents. This is as a result of the fact that the inserted consonant is not apparent in the spelling of the words. A small percentage of two (2%) could correctly insert the [t] in their renditions. The gender of the respondents is worth considering as an intervening factor. From the analysis done so far, it was surprising that the male students performed better than the female counterparts, contrary to the findings of the recent researches carried out on gender differences in language use. Recent researches have shown that the female gender is more proficient in spoken English than the male gender. The difference between their performances is not very significant (1.2%); the male scored 55.7% while the female had 54.5%. The subjects displayed a higher level of competence in the application of aspiration, vowel insertion, metathesis and dentalisation rules. Percentage of conformity Aspiration (ASP) - 97% Vowel insertion (VIS) - 88% Metathesis (MTH) - 79.7% Dentalisation (DNT) - 72.5% Consonant deletion (CSD) - 59.2% Spelling pronunciation problem (SPP) - 55.6% Palatalisation (PAL) - 44% Vowel reduction (VRD) - 21.5% Syllabification (SYL) - 2% Consonant insertion (CIS) - 2% Conformity Chart Frequency in percentage ASP VIS MTH DNT CSD SPP PAL VRD SYL CIS VV Variables 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 Percentage of non-conformity Aspiration (NASP) - 3% Vowel insertion (NVIS) - 12% Metathesis (NMTH) – 20.3% Dentalisation (NDNT) – 27.5% Consonant deletion (NCSD) – 40.8% Spelling pronunciation problem (NSPP) – 44.4% Palatalisation (NPAL) - 56% Vowel reduction (NVRD) - 21.5% Syllabification (NSYL) - 88% Consonant insertion (NCIS) - 88% Non-conformity Chart Variables NASP NVIS NMTH NDNT NCSD NSPP NPAL NVRD NSYL NCIS VV Frequency in percentage 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 CHAPTER FIVE CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION 5.1 Introduction The concept of Nigerian English has undergone several scrutiny before it gained the recognition it has today. This variety of English has been stratified into different categories using various parameters; interference, education, region, sociolinguistic parameter, etc. The main concern of this research is to examine the use of English phonological processes among the language English undergraduates. This will add to the body of knowledge that already exists on the features of Nigerian English phonology. 5.2 Conclusion The primary purpose of this research is to examine the application of English phonological processes among the university students of English language. To achieve this, several literatures were examined to establish the research done so far on the characteristics of Nigerian English. In addition to this, data was obtained from fifty English students of the University of Ibadan. These subjects were assumed to be conversant with the rules of English phonology. Fifty words were used to test the subjects’ competence in the application of some of the English phonological rules. These words contained relevant variables needed for this research; spelling pronunciation problem, vowel reduction, epenthesis, metathesis, syllabification, aspiration, deletion, dentalisation and palatalisation. The data collected has revealed that the English students have only fairly internalised the English phonological rule as they were taught considering the fact that only 54.98% (approximately 55%) could appropriately pronounce the words while a remarkable proportion of 45.02% were unable to pronounce the words correctly. They exhibited a sense of consciousness in their renditions which revealed that the subjects possess fair background knowledge of the concept. However, the application of some of the rules proved difficult to the subjects. The implication of this is that no matter how much we try to imbibe the rules of standard British English phonology in second language situation, there are limitations to the performances of the subjects. This is probably because the English phonological and orthographical systems are different from those of the respondents’ indigenous languages. It therefore becomes apparent that nativisation which is a product of language contact is inevitable in the Nigerian situation. 5.3 Recommendations Students of English should practise more using all available technological avenues such as practising on the internet, using pronouncing dictionary, going on video chatting with L1 users of English, etc. Some schools of thought regard Nigerian English as a bastardised form of English while some see it as a variety of English; Nigerian linguists should intensify their effort on differentiating errors from varieties. To achieve this, there is the need to set up an institution that will serve as a standard variety for the users of Nigerian English as different varieties are evolving. The attitude of government towards English should be reviewed. The government should make modern equipments needed for the teaching of oral English available to the students right from the primary school level such that lessons will be more of practices than mere talking in the classroom. This will give the students the fundamental knowledge needed in spoken English. In as much as Nigerian English is not a language of its own, the teaching of English should be tilted towards the standard form of the language so that its intelligibility will span beyond immediate socio-cultural domain. REFERENCES Adegbite, F. and Akindele, W. 1999. The sociology and politics of English in Nigeria. Ile-Ife: OAU Press. Adekunle, M.A. 1979. Non-Random variation in Nigerian English. Ed.Varieties and functions of English in Nigeria. E,Ubahakwe.Ed. Ibadan. African University Press. Adeniran, A. 1979. Nigerian elite English as a model of Nigerian English. Varieties and functions of English in Nigeria. Ubahakwe .Ed. Ibadan: African University Press pp 137-166 Nigerian English and communicative competence. Varieties and functions of English in Nigeria. Ubahakwe E. Ed. Ibadan. African University Press Adesanoye, F. A. (1979). Formality as an aspect of unreaderbility in Nigerian English. Varieties and functions of English in Nigeria. Ubahakwe. Ed. Ibadan: African African University Press Adesanoye, F. A. 1974. Aspect of varieties of written English in Nigeria. Ph.D. Thesis. University of Ibadan. Adetugbo, A. 2004. Problems of standardisation and Nigerian English phonology. Nigerian English: influences and characteristics. A. B. K. Dadzie and S. Awonusi. Eds. Lagos. Sam Iroanusi Publications. 2004. Chp. 10 pp. 177 – 199. Adetugbo, A.1979. Appropriateness and Nigerian English. Varieties and functions of English in Nigeria. E. Ubahakwe Ed. Ibadan: African University Press. Ahmed, R. 2011. The impact of Yoruba language on the spoken English of students (indigenes) of Ilorin township. B.A project. University of Ilorin. Akande, A.J. 2009. Some Aspects of the Pronunciation Problems in the spoken English of Some Nigerian Undergraduates. A papers in English and Linguistics vol. 10.p. 56-69 Akinjobi, A. 2004. Vowel weakening and unstressed syllable obscuration in educated Yoruba (Nigerian) English. PhD. Dissertation. Dept. of English. University of Ibadan. _____ 2009 English Syllabic Consonants and quantity factor in educated Yoruba Nigerian English. An International multi-disciplinary journal. Ethiopia vol. 3.2 Alabi. T.A. 2007. Language contact: the Nigerian experience with English. Critical Perspective on English Language and Literature. O. Obafemi, G.A. Ajadi and V.A. Alabi. Eds. Ilorin. Department of English. University of Ilorin pp.78-95. Awonusi, V. O. 1987. The identification of standard within institutionalized non-native Englishes. Review of English Studies ix, 47-63. Lagos. Awonusi.V. O. 2004. Some characteristics of Nigerian English phonology. Nigerian English: influences and characteristics. Dadzie. A. B. K. & S. Awonusi. Eds. Lagos. Concept Publications. Pp. 203-225. Bamgbose, A. 1971. The English language in Nigeria. The English Language in West African. J. Spencer Ed. London: Longman. Bamgbose, A. 1995. English in the Nigerian environment. New Englishes: A West African perspective. Ibadan. Mosuro Publishers & Booksellers. Banjo. A. 1996. Making a virtue of necessity: an overview of the English language. Blackwell Publishing.Ibadan. Ibadan University Press. Bobda, A. S. 1995. The phonologies of Nigerian English and Cameroon English. New Englishes: A West African perspective. A. Bamgbose, A. Banjo and A. Andrews. Eds. Nigeria. Mosuro 248-268 Brosnaham, 1958. English in Southern Nigerian. English studies. Vol 39 Cambridge: Cambridge University. Chomsky, N. and Halle M. 1968. The sound pattern of English. NY. Harper and Row Publishers. Clark, J. Yallop, C. and Flecher. J. 2007. An introduction to phonetics and phonology. 3rd ed. USA: Blackwell publishers. Crystal, D. 2003. English as a global language. 2nd ed. Cambridge. Cambridge UP. 1995. The Cambridge encyclopaedia of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dadzie, A. B. K. 2004. The concept of Nigerian English. Nigerian English: influences and characteristics. A. B. K. Dadzie and S. Awonusi Eds. Lagos: Sam Iroanusi Publications. 2004. Chp. 5 pp. 85 – 99. Dili, O. 2002. New Englishes as models for educational purpose. Work in progress . No 13, Abu Zaria. Nigeria. Egbe, D.1979. Spoken and written English in Nigeria. Varieties and functions of English in Nigeria. Ubahakwe E. Ed Ibadan. African University Press. Ekpe, M. B. 2010. The English language in Nigeria. A course guide for ENG 353. National Open University of Nigeria. Fromkin, V. Rodman R. and Hyams, N. 2011. An introduction to language. Wadsworth. Cengage Learning. Giegerich, H. J. 1992. English phonology: an introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge UP. Goldsmith and Laks. 2011. Generative phonology: its origin, its principles and its successor. Cambridge: Cambridge UP Halle, M. and Clement, G.N. 1983. Problem book in phonology. Cambridge Mass: MIT Press Hyman, L. M. 1975. Phonology theory and analysis. NY. Holt Rinehart and Winston. Jibril, M. 1982. Phonological variations in Nigerian English. Unpublished Ph.D Dissertation. Lancaster University Joans. D. 2006. English pronouncing dictionary. Seventh Edition. New York Jowitt, D. 1991. Nigerian English usage: an introduction. Lagos: Longman. Malmkjaer, K. 2002. The linguistics encyclopaedia.2nd ed. Routledge: London Mc Carthy, J.J. 2007. Derivations and level of representation. Faculty publication series. Linguistics Department. Paper 33 Odumuh, A.E. 1987. Nigerian English. Ahmadu Bello University Press. Zaria Ogbulogo, F. 2005. Another look at Nigerian English. Public lecture, Convent University, Ota Ogun State. Olaniyi. O. 2011. A cogno-variability study of spoken Nigerian English. Journal of Nigerian English Studies Association (JNESA). 14. 1. 46-59. Owolabi, D. 2012. Production and perception problems of English dental fricatives by Yoruba speakers of English as a second language. Theory and practice in language studies. Vol. 2 .6. Finland: Academy Publisher. Oyebade, F. 1998. A course book in phonology. Nigeria. Shebiotimo Publication. Oyeleye, L. 2005. The new Linguistics Order: a critical examination of impact of globalisation on the English Language (in Nigeria). Perspectives on language and literature. M, Olateju and L, Oyeleye, L. Eds. OAU Press ltd Nigeria. Roach, P. 1992. Introducing phonetics. London. Penguin Group. Salami, A. 1968. Defining standard Nigerian English.JNESA. Vol 2. 2 Schane, S. 1973. Generative phonology. New Jersey. Englewood cliff prentice- Hall Sommerstein, A. H. 1977. Modern phonology. London. Edward Arnold (Publishers) Ltd. Soneye, T. 2009. Ch- diagraph in English: patterns and propositions for ESL pedagogy. Papers in English and Linguistics. OAU Ile-Ife. vol. 10 pp 44 – 55 Surakat, T. Y. 2010. Categorising varieties of Nigerian English: a socio-pscholinguistic perspective. Journal of the Nigerian English Studies Association. 13: 2 pp 84 – 94. Tijani, T. T. 2007. Is there indeed a “Nigerian English”? Journal of Humanities & Social Sciences. Vol 1. 1. Udofot, 2003. Stress and rhythm in Nigerian accent of English: a preliminary investigation. English worldwide. vol. 24:2 Ugorji, C. U. C. 2010. New Englishes in diachronic light: evidence from Nigerian English phonology. The International Jorunal of Language Society and Culture. pp. 131 – 141. Walsh, N. 1967. Distinguishing types and varieties of English in Nigeria. JNESA. Vol. 2, No.2. pp. 47 – 55. APPENDIX I SECTION A Kindly read aloud the following words. Coup Sachet Chocolate Depot Plumb Little Listen Able Photography Bomb Ask Tax Wealthy Width Tenth Hospital Rebel (N) Castle Category Wanted Mince King Skin Nylon Sudden Climb Pronounce Young Length Phlegm Grasp Tree Put Debt Sword Juice Subtle Wednesday Pattern Tune Button Lips Risk Champagne judges buckle Paddle Augment Covenant Maintenance APPENDIX II QUESTIONNAIRE SECTION B Instruction: from the list of questions given below, tick the option that suites your response. Gender: male ( ) female ( ) Age: 18-22 ( ), 23-27 ( ), 28 and above ( ) Department: Level: Part I Linguistic Background: Number of languages spoken: Parts of the world lived: Parts of Nigeria lived: South north ( ), Southeast ( ), South south ( ), Southwest ( ), North central ( ), Northeast ( ), Northwest ( ). Do you speak any other languages fluently apart from your mother tongue and English? Yes ( ) No ( ) Uncertain ( ) Have you lived outside your linguistic domain? Yes ( ) No ( ) Uncertain ( ) Did you receive your primary education in your mother tongue area? Yes ( ) No ( ) Uncertain ( ) Did you receive your secondary education in your mother tongue area? Yes ( ) No ( ) Uncertain ( ) Are you a product of inter-tribal marriage? Yes ( ) No ( ) Uncertain ( ) Do your parents speak any other language apart from their mother tongue(s)? Yes ( ) No ( ) Uncertain ( ) PART II Do you speak English often? Yes ( ) No ( ) Uncertain ( ) Do you speak English on demand? Yes ( ) No ( ) Uncertain ( ) Did you undergo any oral English course in secondary school? Yes ( ) No ( ) Uncertain ( ) Have you undergone any training in phonetics and phonology? Yes ( ) No ( ) Uncertain ( ) Are you familiar with the rules of English phonology? Yes ( ) No ( ) Uncertain ( ) How will you score your performances in courses relating to English phonology? Excellent ( ) Good ( ) Average ( ) Poor ( ) Do you have challenges applying any of these rules? Yes ( ) No( ) Uncertain ( ) 85

RELATED PAPERS

RELATED TOPICS

Log In

phonological processes in the speech of undergraduate students of English

phonological processes in the speech of undergraduate students of English

Related Papers

RELATED PAPERS

RELATED TOPICS