a study of attitudes of educated nigerians towards varieties of … · 2018-12-19 · on the...
TRANSCRIPT
A study of attitudes of educated Nigerians towards varieties
of World Englishes
Temitayo Olatoye (277262)
Master’s Degree Programme in Linguistic Sciences
Philosophical faculty
University of Eastern Finland
November 2018
ITÄ-SUOMEN YLIOPISTO – UNIVERSITY OF EASTERN FINLAND
Tiedekunta – Faculty Philosophical Faculty
Osasto – School School of Humanities
Tekijät – Author Temitayo Oluwayemisi Olatoye
Työn nimi – Title A Study of Attitudes of Educated Nigerians towards Varieties of World Englishes
Pääaine – Main subject Työn laji – Level Päivämäärä – Date
Sivumäärä – Number of pages
General Linguistics Pro gradu -tutkielma
X 12.11.2018 71 pages+Appendix
Sivuainetutkielma Kandidaatin tutkielma Aineopintojen tutkielma
Tiivistelmä – Abstract
This study investigates the attitudes of educated Nigerians towards Standard British English, Scottish
English, American English, Acrolectal Nigerian English, Mesolectal Nigerian English and Ivorian
English. Using an online questionnaire and the verbal guise technique, the attitudinal evaluations of
102 educated Nigerians were obtained via a six-point semantic differential scale with nine bipolar traits
and subsequently analysed along status and solidarity dimensions.
The results indicate that American English, Acrolectal Nigerian English and Standard British English
were rated most positively in terms of status, while American English was preferred to Standard
British in terms of solidarity and status. The respondents were also able to identify the American,
Standard British and mesolectal Nigerian varieties most correctly. Overall, the acrolectal Nigerian
variety was evaluated most favourably in terms of status and solidarity, thus providing support for the
adoption of an endonormative variety in Nigeria as a target norm for learners.
Avainsanat-Keywords
Language Attitudes, World Englishes, Verbal Guise Technique, Nigerian English
ITÄ-SUOMEN YLIOPISTO – UNIVERSITY OF EASTERN FINLAND
Tiedekunta – Faculty Philosophical Faculty
Osasto – School School of Humanities
Tekijät – Author Temitayo Oluwayemisi Olatoye
Työn nimi – Title A Study of Attitudes of Educated Nigerians towards Varieties of World Englishes
Pääaine – Main subject Työn laji – Level Päivämäärä – Date
Sivumäärä – Number of pages
Yleinen Kielitiede Pro gradu -tutkielma
X 12.11.2018 71 siivua+liitteet
Sivuainetutkielma Kandidaatin tutkielma Aineopintojen tutkielma
Tiivistelmä – Abstract Tämän tutkielman aiheena oli tutkia koulutettujen nigerialaisten asenteita eri englannin kielen
varieteetteja kohtaan. Tutkitut varieteetit olivat brittienglanti, skottienglanti, amerikanenglanti, niin
kutsuttu akrolekti- ja mesolekti- Nigerian englanti sekä Norsunluurannikon englanti. Tutkimus
suoritettiin verkkokyselynä käyttäen verbal guise- tekniikkaa, ja yhteensä 102 koulutetun Nigerialaisen
asenteet selvitettiin yhdeksällä väitteellä, joihin vastattiin kuusiportaisella bipolaarisella semanttisen
differentiaaliskaalan asteikolla. Vastaukset analysoitiin statuksen ja solidaarisuuden perusteella.
Tulokset osoittivat, että amerikanenglanti, akrolekti Nigerian englanti ja brittienglanti arvioitiin
paremmaksi statuksen kannalta. Amerikanenglantia pidettiin brittienglantia parempana solidaarisuuden
ja statuksen kannalta. Vastaajat pystyivät tunnistamaan parhaiten amerikanenglannin, brittienglannin ja
mesolekti- Nigerian englannin piirteitä. Akrolekti- Nigerian englanti arvioitiin parhaaksi statuksen ja
solidaarisuuden kannalta. Tämä tulos tukee endonormatiivisen Nigerian englannin valintaa normiksi
oppijoille kouluympäristössä.
Avainsanat-Keywords
Kieliasenteet, Englanti maailmankielenä, Verbal guise- tekniikkaa, Nigerianenglanti
Table of Contents
1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................. 1
2. Varieties of English .................................................................................................................................................. 5
2.1 English Worldwide ............................................................................................................................... 5
2.2 English in Nigeria ............................................................................................................................... 10
2.3 English as spoken in Nigeria………………………………………………………………15
3. Investigating Language Attitudes ............................................................................................................... 19
3.1 What Are Attitudes? ........................................................................................................................... 19
3.2 Components of Attitudes .................................................................................................................. 20
3.3 Measuring Language Attitudes ......................................................................................................... 21
3.4 Previous Research on Language Attitudes towards English……………………………….24
4. Data and Methodology ............................................................................................ 30
4.1 Research Instrument .......................................................................................................................... 30
4.2 Participants .......................................................................................................................................... 33
4.3 Speakers ............................................................................................................................................................... 35
4.4 Data Analysis…………………………………………………………………….………..36 4.4.1 Reliability Statistics ........................................................................................................... 36
4.4.2 ANOVA ............................................................................................................................. 37
5. Results and Discussion ............................................................................................ 39
5.1 Results……………………………………………………………………………………39
5.1.1 Mean Ratings .................................................................................................................... 39
5.1.2 Pairwise Comparisons..................................................................................................... 42
5.2 Discussion………………………………………………………………………………..47 5.2.1 Research Question 1 ..................................................................................................... 47
5.2.2 Research Question 2 ..................................................................................................... 56
5.2.3 Research Question 3 ..................................................................................................... 58
6. Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 60
References .................................................................................................................... 63
Appendix I………………………………………………………………………….…….72
Appendix II……………………………………………………………………………… 75
Appendix III………………………………………………………………………………77
Appendix IV…………………………………………………………………….……...…78
List of Figures
Figure 1: Map of West Africa……………………..…………………………………….…..…..1
Figure 2: Kachru’s concentric circles…………………………………………….…….……......6
Figure 3: A world system of Standard and Non-Standard Englishes………….....…......................8
Figure 4: The Nigerian English continuum………………………………………….......….…..17
Figure 5: The tripartite model of attitude structure………………………….…….........…..…..20
Figure 6: Evaluation of the six varieties of English by 102 Nigerian respondents…...............…..47
List of Tables Table 1: SSCE in Nigeria showing performance in English……………………….……..…..…14
Table 2: Statistical information about participants…………………………...………………....34
Table 3: Background information about speakers…………………………...……….............….35
Table 4: Cronbach Alpha coefficients for all speakers…………………………….............…….37
Table 5: Mean ratings (and standard deviation) of all attributes for 102 Nigerian respondents....40
Table 6: Test of within-subjects effects…………….……………………………........……...…41
Table 7: Post hoc test-pairwise comparisons of the varieties………….……….….................…..42
Table 8a: Pairwise comparisons - status dimension…………….……………….............………43
Table 8b: Pairwise comparisons - solidarity dimension………………………..........…………..45
Table 9: Ranking of the varieties………………………………………………………………49
Table 10: Identification of the speaker’s country of origin by Nigerian respondents ................…58
Table 11: Categorising the varieties……….…….………………………………......………….59
List of Abbreviations AME American English
AU Australian English
AUE Australian English
ELC English Language Complex
ELF English as Lingua Franca
ELT English Language Teaching
ENE Educated Nigerian English
GA General American
IVOR Ivorian English
L1 First language
MGT Matched Guise Technique
NIGacr Nigerian Acrolectal
NIGmes Nigerian Mesolectal
NP Nigerian Pidgin
NZE New Zealand English
RP British Received Pronunciation
SAE Standard American English
SBE Standard British English
SCOT Scottish English
SEE Southern English English
SEI Speech Evaluation Instrument
SSCE Senior Secondary Certificate Examination
VGT Verbal Guise Technique
WAEC West African Examination Council
WASSCE West African Senior Secondary Certificate Examination
WE World Englishes
Acknowledgement
I am grateful to my thesis supervisor, Professor Mikko Laitinen, for his guidance and support
throughout my research.
I am also indebted to my colleagues, Kasia Wiśniewska and Deniz Özel, who provided valuable
feedback and assistance during the writing process. I would also like to thank my sisters,
Opeyemi Olatoye and Yetunde Fasunon, for their assistance with data collection.
1
1. Introduction
Africa is characterised by linguistic diversity and varied language contact situations within
delimited geographical spaces. Of the 16 multilingual and multi-ethnic countries in West Africa,
only Liberia, Sierra Leone, Gambia, Ghana and Nigeria have English as an official language.
Figure 1: Map of West Africa1 (adapted from Encyclopaedia Britannica)
In Nigeria, English is used for intranational and international communication, especially
in the workplace. Business with English-speaking clients from other countries is conducted in
the workplace and intercultural communication skills are often required to ensure local and
international intelligibility. In urban areas, the axiomatic role of English language in both formal
and less formal sectors cannot be overlooked. Given the numerous English medium schools,
popular Nigerian movie industry “Nollywood”, music industry, radio and television broadcasts,
social media, outdoor advertising and local businesses, it seems that a sizeable percentage of the
urban population is exposed to English daily.
1 Chad, Cameroon and Equatorial Guinea are in Central Africa, not West Africa, however they are neighbouring countries to Nigeria.
2
Despite an increase in exposure towards local and foreign varieties of English (Igboanusi
2006, Awonusi 1994), a significant decline in the performance of Nigerian secondary school and
university students in English language examinations has been reported over the years
(Akeredolu-Ale 2007). It is also not uncommon for companies to organise English language
evaluation tests for prospective graduate employees before hiring. These tests are mostly based
on the Standard British variety, which is the prescribed variety chiefly employed in the Nigerian
educational system.
In the Nigerian society, proficiency in English is considered a symbol of good education.
Users of English are often judged by the way they speak. It is also not uncommon to hear jokes
about different ethnic groups such as the Hausa, Igbo and Yoruba and their stereotyped accents.
Many Nigerians migrate from rural areas to urban areas to find employment or undertake
courses of study; these rural dwellers are sometimes ridiculed for their pronunciation by urban
dwellers. These occurrences suggest that certain varieties of English are perceived quite
differently, in terms of status and prestige.
The purpose of this study is to investigate the attitudes of educated Nigerian adults
towards local and foreign varieties of English. The target group is considered the core of the
workforce, highly educated, as well as more exposed to popular media and language changes.
The target respondents in this study are graduates of tertiary institutions and they can be
classified as competent users of standard English in Nigeria.
In sociolinguistics, numerous studies of World Englishes have been carried out with the
aim of understanding language attitudes and linguistic preferences (Ladegaard 1998, Hiraga 2005,
McKenzie 2008, Bernaisch 2012, Chien 2014, Chan 2016). To measure the degree of local
acceptability and international intelligibility, attitudes towards a linguistic variety and its speakers
can be evaluated using a direct or indirect approach.
Under the indirect approach, one of the methods used to obtain attitudinal evaluations is
the matched guise technique introduced by Lambert et al. (1960). Using this method, the same
3
set of speakers are recorded multiple times speaking different languages, language varieties or
accents. The respondents are subsequently asked to evaluate the speakers using a scale of
personality traits, without being aware that the same speaker is being listened to under different
guises. The verbal guise technique is slightly modified to accommodate the use of different
speakers, especially when the accents or language varieties cannot be accurately produced by the
same person(s). Moreover, with the global spread and increased heterogeneity of English (Mair
2013), it is often impossible to find one person that can produce authentic varieties of English
from very different regions of the world.
In Nigeria, existing attitudinal research has mostly explored attitudes towards indigenous
languages competing with one another in various domains, such as Ikwerre and Nigerian Pidgin
(Ihemere 2007), Ogu and Yoruba (Onadipe-Shalom 2014). Igboanusi (2008) investigated the
attitudes of Nigerians, towards mother tongue-based bilingual education in indigenous languages
and English, while Adegbite (2003) studied the attitudes of university students towards the use of
indigenous languages and English for different communicative functions.
However, not a lot of empirical research has been done on attitudes of Nigerians towards local
and foreign varieties of English (Igboanusi 2006, 2003, Williams 1983).
Similar to previous research (McKenzie 2008, Chan 2016), the verbal guise technique was
adopted in this present quantitative study for data collection. Data were obtained from 102
respondents during a three week-period. Audio recordings of speakers of different varieties of
English were embedded in an online questionnaire. Participants in the study were required to
listen to seven interviews of sport athletes and subsequently evaluate the speakers using a six-
point semantic differential scale with nine bipolar traits.
To investigate the attitudes of educated Nigerians towards local and foreign varieties of
English, the following research questions were formed:
4
1. What are the attitudes of educated Nigerian adults towards different varieties of English
from the Inner Circle, Outer Circle and Expanding Circle?
2. Is there a significant difference between the attitudes of Nigerians towards standard and
non-standard varieties from the Outer Circle (acrolectal and mesolectal varieties in
Nigeria) and standard and non-standard varieties from the Inner Circle (Standard British
and Scottish in the United Kingdom)?
3. Which of these varieties are correctly identified by the target group?
In chapter 2, the use of English in Nigeria and the spread of English worldwide is
discussed. Chapter 3 presents an overview of previous research on language attitudes. In
Chapters 4 and 5, the research method and results of the data analysis are presented and
discussed, while recommendations are made in the concluding chapter.
5
2. Varieties of English
2.1 English worldwide
English like any other language is not spoken uniformly around the world. According to Mair
(2013), “the more English spreads globally, the more heterogeneous it becomes internally”. As a
world language with millions of speakers from different cultures, English has begotten numerous
varieties. For example, English in Africa has been categorised into three regional varieties: East
African English (EAfrE), Black Southern African English (BSAfrE) and West African English
(WAfrE) (Mutonya 2008).
While a language variety refers to a shared linguistic system within a territorial speech
community (Mair 2013), localised forms of English worldwide have been referred to by various
terms such as ‘New Englishes’, International Englishes, and most popularly ‘World Englishes’.
The World Englishes paradigm (WE) has been increasingly studied in the last four decades and
several researchers have attempted to describe the global use of English, using various models,
based on how it is acquired or transplanted (Bolton 2012, Schneider 2003, Kachru 1992).
Quirk (1985) categorises English as a global language into three categories: English as a
native language (ENL) situated primarily in countries, where English is the language used in all
domains. Secondly, English as a Second language (ESL) situated primarily in countries, where
English is not only acquired as a second language, but also in use in many domains. Thirdly,
English as a foreign language (EFL) situated primarily in countries, where English is primarily a
foreign language often used for international communication, but not for intranational
communication.
Kachru (1985,1992) proposed a model in which Englishes worldwide are divided into
three circles. According to Kachru (1985), speakers of English worldwide can be divided into
three concentric circles: the Inner Circle, the Outer Circle and the Expanding Circle. The Inner
6
Circle describes countries where English is chiefly spoken as a first language by a majority such
as UK, USA and Australia. The Outer Circle describes countries, where English is
institutionalised as an official language and widely spoken as a second language (L2) such as
Nigeria, Kenya, India, Singapore, Malaysia etc. The Expanding Circle describes countries, where
English is a foreign language with no official functions such as China, Japan, Germany, Côte
d’Ivoire etc.
Figure 2: Kachru’s concentric circles (Adapted from Kachru 1997, 1985)
These three circles have also been described as having norm-providing, norm-developing
and norm dependent functions respectively. The Inner Circle varieties provide the widely
accepted standards such as SBE (Standard British English) also referred to as Received
Pronunciation (RP) and SAE (Standard American English) which are often the designated
models used for pedagogical purposes worldwide. The Outer Circle varieties, found mostly in
former British colonies in Asia and Africa, are developing endonormative standards and the
The Expanding Circle e.g.
China Caribbean countries Egypt
Indonesia Israel Japan
Korea Saudi Arabia Nepal
South America Taiwan CIS
The Outer Circle e.g.
Bangladesh Ghana
India Malaysia
Nigeria Kenya
Philippines Singapore
Pakistan Sri Lanka
Tanzania Zambia
The Inner Circle
USA UK Canada
Australia
New Zealand
7
Expanding Circle is chiefly dependent on standards as prescribed by the Inner Circle varieties for
international communication.
While the three circles model has been criticised as inadequate in explaining the often-
complex linguistic variation and sociolinguistic reality present in many countries (Bruthiaux 2003,
Mesthrie and Bhatt 2008), for many researchers it provides a simplistic model description of
varieties of English worldwide, from which further analysis can be carried out.
Schneider’s (2003) dynamic model of world Englishes identifies five stages in the
evolution of post-colonial varieties of English in the world. At the foundation stage, initial
contact between the native speakers and indigenous community is established. This is followed
by the exonormative stage, wherein English is acquired by an elite minority of the indigenous
population. The nativization stage is considered most crucial as the substrate influence from the
indigenous languages begins to shapen the distinctiveness of the new variety, often characterised
by lexico-semantic differentiation and ownership of English. The fourth stage is the
endonormative stabilisation, whereby the new variety becomes increasingly accepted and
codified. This stage is often followed by the differentiation stage, whereby distinct forms of the
newly established variety become easily identifiable within the country’s borders.
McArthur (2003) suggests the English Language Complex (ELC) as a term which
encompasses all varieties of English. According to Mesthrie and Bhatt (2008), the ELC consists
of the metropolitan standards and colonial standards of English, regional and social dialects of
English, Pidgin Englishes, Creole Englishes, English as a second language, English as a foreign
language, immigrant Englishes, language-shift Englishes, jargon Englishes and hybrid Englishes.
Language-shift Englishes occur in speech communities, where the primary language has
been replaced by English. This variety of English can evolve into a social dialect, associated with
a particular social group. Jargon Englishes are basic, unstable varieties that can evolve into a
Pidgin, while Hybrid Englishes develop as a result of language contact between an indigenous
language and English, characterised by frequent code mixing.
8
To complement the ELC alongside previous models, Mair (2013) attempts to describe
standard and non-standard varieties of English in a dynamic multilingual world via a model
consisting of four hierarchical layers chiefly based on global influence in different spheres such
as media, music, literature, education. Mair’s (2013) model depicts the power differentials
between varieties of English in an increasingly globalised world, where English has become a
pluricentric language. Thus, varieties with larger number of users and institutional support are
ranked higher. For example, Standard British English (SBE) has strong institutional support and
has been the norm provider for many post-colonial varieties, however, Standard American
English (SAE) equally has strong institutional support and even more speakers, thus SAE is
considered the hyper-central variety.
“World System of Standard and Non-Standard Englishes”
• Hyper-central variety / “hub” of the World System of Englishes: Standard American
English
• Super-central varieties:
1. Standard: British English, Australian English, South African English, Nigerian
English, Indian English, and a very small number of others
2. Non-Standard: AAVE, Jamaican Creole, popular London, and a very small number
of others
(+ Domain-specific ELF uses: science, business, international law, etc.)
• Central varieties:
1. Standard: Irish English, Scottish (Standard) English, Jamaican English, Ghanaian
English, Kenyan English, Sri Lankan English, Pakistani English, New Zealand
English, and others
2. Non-Standard: Northern English urban koinés, US Southern, etc.
• Peripheral varieties:
1. Standard: Maltese English, St. Kitts English, Cameroonian English, Papua New
Guinea English, and others.
2. Non-Standard: all traditionally rural based non-standard dialects, plus a large
number of colonial varieties including pidgins and creoles.
Figure 3: A World System of Standard and Non-Standard Englishes (from Mair 2013)
9
At the hub of the model is Standard American English which has far reaching influence
across continents in virtually all English-using domains. This is followed by standard and non-
standard super-central varieties. The third layer has standard and non-standard central varieties,
while the fourth layer has peripheral varieties.
Although Mair’s (2013) depiction of Standard American English as the hyper-central
variety/ hub of world Englishes has not been proven to be untrue, theoretically, there is no
standard accent for English. It is widely accepted that standard English can be spoken with any
social or regional accent, although it was synonymous with British English spoken with the
‘Received Pronunciation’ (RP) accent in former British colonies such as Nigeria.
This present study is an attempt to shed more light on the acceptability of standard and
non-standard varieties of English to educated Nigerians. In order to explore the attitudes of
educated Nigerian adults towards standard and non-standard varieties of English in the Inner
Circle and Outer Circle, it is important to understand the concept of standard and non-standard
varieties of English.
The concept of standard vs non-standard varieties of English has been described in
terms of mainly written forms vs mainly spoken forms. However, it can be argued that the
relationship between standard and non-standard varieties is more complex. A standard variety is
one which has undergone the process of standardisation. Trudgill (1999) states that
standardisation consists of language determination, codification and stabilisation. This can be
interpreted as choosing a particular language variety for a specific purpose, creating literary
works, grammar books and dictionaries for the variety and the wide-spread acceptance of this
codified form within a society (Trudgill 1999).
Historically, Standard English was regarded as the widely accepted variety associated with
the upper class in the society (Trudgill 1999). It was considered the prestigious variety and social
dialect associated with the relatively well to do. Nowadays, Standard English can be described as
the codified variety found in grammar books, dictionaries etc. which is prescribed as an ideal
10
model for pedagogical purposes and use in prestigious domains such as academic writing,
broadcasting, official administration etc. as well as widely accepted by the ruling elite/highly
educated (Trudgill and Hannah 2008). Thus, a non-standard variety of English is one which is
substantially different from the accepted standard as described above.
Standard English is a social dialect that can be spoken with different accents. It is widely
accepted that a particular accent may be stigmatised in a certain setting and considered
prestigious in another setting. Since a language variety cannot be considered inherently good or
bad, favourable or unfavourable attitudes towards a dialect, an accent or speakers of certain
varieties are actually a reflection of the social structure within the society (Trudgill 1974). For
example, the domination of the USA on the international scene has led to the global recognition
and wide acceptability of Standard American English.
Among the numerous varieties of English worldwide, two varieties have a privileged
position in terms of standardisation. These native varieties are Standard British English and
Standard American English which are widely recognised as the pedagogical models employed in
English Language Teaching (ELT) curricula worldwide.
2.2 English in Nigeria
Nigeria is a multilingual country with an estimated population of 186 million (Central
Intelligence Agency 2016). The inhabitants speak about 400–500 indigenous languages and
numerous dialects, which are often mutually unintelligible.
Adegbija (2004, 1994) classifies the languages spoken in Nigeria into exoglossic,
endoglossic and Nigerian Pidgin. Exoglossic languages include Arabic (mainly in the North and
in Islamic schools), French2 (declared in 1996, as Nigeria’s second official language) and most
2 In December 1996, the late Head of State Gen. Sani Abacha pronounced French as Nigeria’s second
official language. According to the fourth edition of the National Policy on Education (2004:4e): “the prescription of French Language in the primary and secondary school curriculum as a second official language” is listed as one of the innovations and changes to be updated in the previous 1998 edition.
11
importantly English which is the de-facto official language used for interethnic and international
communication. Nigerian Pidgin is a lingua franca used in both informal and formal domains,
understood by more than 65% of the Nigerian population, but it has no official status in the
country. Endoglossic languages consists of 400–500 indigenous languages with numerous
dialects, including the three national languages Hausa, Igbo and Yoruba, which are recognised in
the Nigerian constitution.
The 400–500 indigenous languages can also be further classified into three: large
(national level), medium (state level) and small languages (local level). Yoruba in the South-West,
Hausa in the North and Igbo in the South-East, are the most developed indigenous languages
having more than 20 million speakers each, and extensive use within and outside of their
respective regions. Another set of 10–15 indigenous languages such as Tiv, Nupe, Idoma, Ijaw,
Urhobo, Igala, Kanuri, Edo, Efik, Fulfulde have more than 1 million speakers each and extensive
use in specific administrative states (Bamgbose 1994, Adegbija 2004). Some of the remaining
indigenous languages have established orthographies, but many are primarily spoken languages
with no written form.
During the British colonisation of Nigeria from 1861–1960, the English language was
introduced as the language of administration and formal education. English remains the de facto
official language in Nigeria with high prestige across public domains, business, education, science
and technology, media, entertainment etc., while Yoruba, Hausa and Igbo are officially
recognised as national languages.
The acquisition of the English language in Nigeria can be traced to the establishment of
formal education in the 19th century. During this period, English was acquired by a tiny fraction
of the Nigerian population, who came into contact with native speakers of English in the
Christian missionary schools or manumitted slaves, who had been taught the English language
before returning to their homelands (Adetugbo 1978).
*However, scarcity of qualified French teachers and resources often hinders implementation.
12
From 1882 until today, English has retained its dominant position in the Nigerian
educational system. Apart from a growing urban minority among the educated middle class and
upper-class echelons of the Nigerian society, who have English as home language, an average
Nigerian acquires English as a second language via formal education (Adegbite 2003). English is
not only learnt as a subject, but it is also a medium of instruction in primary, secondary and
tertiary institutions of learning. While a few elitist private schools have adopted the American
curriculum, Standard British English (Received Pronunciation) continues to be the textbook
variety taught across all levels (primary, secondary, tertiary) of the Nigerian educational system.
However, in reality, a nativized variety of English that is quite different from the target British
variety is taught by Nigerian teachers in many schools (Udofot 2011).
Most of the Nigerian teachers, especially in government public schools have learnt
English as a second language from non-native speakers and do not speak SBE themselves (Banjo
1993). In the educational system, there is a growing divergence between the prescribed norms in
the school syllabus and actual usage by both learners and teachers. The variety of English in
actual usage is a domesticated, nativized form with marked features, that is able to express
Nigerian customs and ways of life, hereby facilitating intranational communication (Bamgbose
1998, Adegbija 1989).
According to Nigeria’s National Policy on Education drafted in 1977 and revised in
1981,1998, 2004 and 2013, the Nigerian education system is structured into:
• Early child care and development (0–4years)
• Basic education – Ages 5–15years (1 year of Pre-primary, 6 years of Primary and 3 years
of Junior Secondary)
• Post-basic education of three years in Senior Secondary schools and technical colleges
• Tertiary education in colleges of education, monotechnics, polytechnics and universities.
The National Policy on Education (2013: 8) further states that:
13
“The medium of instruction in the Primary School shall be the language of immediate
environment for the first three years in monolingual communities. During this period,
English shall be taught as a subject.
From the fourth year, English shall progressively be used as a medium of instruction
and the language of immediate environment and French and Arabic shall be taught as
subjects”.
However, unlike public/government schools, this policy remains largely unimplemented
in privately owned schools, as the default medium of instruction from the first year in private
primary schools is English. Bamgbose, investigating African languages, reports as follows:
” It is amazing to find the large number of English medium private nursery and
primary schools offering education to young children. Patronage of such schools comes not
only from well-to-do parents but also from many lowly paid blue-collar workers, who
believe that they are making a great sacrifice for their children’s future.” (2011:5)
In addition to this, the use of indigenous languages in urban English-medium private
nursery and primary schools is discouraged and pupils are sometimes punished for speaking
“vernacular”3. Adegbite (2003:7) further argues that, “the straight use of a foreign language to
teach children, who are not yet competent in their mother tongues may result in lack of
competence in both the mother tongues and second language, especially when there is lack of
adequate exposure to the second language”. This argument further supports the claim that
subtractive bilingualism between the L1 and English is on the rise, especially in urban areas
(Bamiro 2003). This is in contrast to additive bilingualism, in which English is being acquired via
formal education, while the L1 continues to be developed simultaneously.
3 Indigenous languages are pejoratively called “vernacular”.
14
A key indicator of the standard of British English (SBE) in Nigeria is shown in the poor
performances of secondary school students at the final year West African Senior Secondary
Certificate Examination (WASSCE) in Nigeria. Between 2004 and 20124, the results show that
over 600,000 students are automatically disqualified from the university admission process
annually, based on their results in English language. Although a score of 40% is equivalent to a
pass grade of E8, a minimum grade of C6 (50%)5 in English is required to gain admission into
any tertiary institution in Nigeria. Students who score below 50% in English language have to
rewrite the examination even if they score above 50% in other key subjects.
Table 1: Secondary School Certificate Examination in Nigeria showing performance in English
Year Number of Students Performance in English (Grades A1–C6 results)
2004 1,035,280 29.59%
2005 1,080,162 25.63%
2006 1,114,065 32.48%
2008 1,274,166 35.02%
2009 1,355,725 41.55%
2010 1,307,745 35.13%
2011 1,514,164 57.25%
2012 1,658,887 58.51%
Source: Adapted from WAEC 2008, Sakiyo and Badau 2015
From independence to today, Nigeria’s language policy has remained somewhat
ambiguous. The only references to language in the 1999 constitution of the Federal Republic of
Nigeria are in sections 55 and 97:
“The business of the National Assembly shall be conducted in English, and in Hausa,
Igbo and Yoruba when adequate arrangements have been made therefore.
4SSCE Result for year 2007 was not included in the report. 5 WAEC grading system: A1=Excellent (75-100%), B2=Very good (70-74%), B3=Good (65-69%),
C4=Credit (60-64%), C5=Credit (55-59%), C6=Credit (50-54%), D7=Pass (45-49%), E8=Pass (40-44%), F9=Fail (0-39%)
15
The business of a House of Assembly shall be conducted in English, but the House
may in addition to English conduct the business of the House in one or more languages
spoken in the State as the House may by resolution approve”.
It is important to note that tertiary education is not a requirement for political office in
Nigeria. According to Section 65, 2a of the 1999 Nigerian constitution, “a person is qualified for
election, if he has been educated up to at least School Certificate level or its equivalent”. This
could be interpreted so that proficiency in English is not mandatory for lawmakers in the
National and State house of Assemblies, although English remains the de facto official language.
2.3 English as spoken in Nigeria
Contact with indigenous languages has left its mark on the phonological, syntactical and lexico-
semantic structure of the English language in Nigeria. In the last six decades, English as spoken
in Nigeria has been categorised into three or four varieties using sociolinguistic parameters such
as ethnicity, geographical region, level of education and mother tongue interference (Brosnahan
1958, Adetugbo 1978, Banjo 1993, Udofot 2003, Igboanusi 2006). Bamgbose (1998) further
states that, “Nigerian English is nothing more than an abstraction from individual first-language
varieties such as Yoruba English, Igbo English, Hausa English, Edo English, etc.”
Banjo (1993) argued that the formal adoption of an indigenous variety of English for
pedagogical purposes would be a more realistic target for learners in Nigeria. This standardising
variety should be socially acceptable to Nigerians for everyday life and highly intelligible to the
international English-speaking community. He further classified Nigerian English into a cline
consisting of four varieties based on L1 influence. Speakers of variety one exhibit the highest
number of L1 interference in speech, while speakers of variety four exhibit none.
In Banjo’s (1993) terminology, ‘variety one’ is characterised by numerous marked features such
as high frequency of L1 interference in pronunciation, simplification of consonant clusters,
16
limited grammar, reduced vocabulary, semantic shifts. It is syllabic-timed instead of stress-timed,
generally considered as unacceptable and unintelligible to users of standard varieties of English.
‘Variety two’ is the most widely spoken variety in Nigeria. It is a self-perpetuating variety with
slightly fewer marked features than variety one. Speakers of this variety have spent more years in
the educational system, possess wider vocabularies but vital phonemic distinctions are seldom
made.
‘Variety three’ is mostly void of negative L1 transfers, more phonemic distinctions are
made, and suprasegmental features are often constructively employed. Speakers of this variety
have spent the longest periods in the educational system and include a growing urban minority,
who have English as their home language. ‘Variety four’ is hardly any different from Standard
British English (SBE) and describes a tiny fraction of Nigerians for whom SBE is the first
language. This variety is typically acquired outside of Nigeria by virtue of birth or living abroad
for extended periods of time.
Of the four varieties, Udofot (2003) approximated ‘variety one’ as the non-standard
spoken Nigerian English, ‘variety two’ as standard spoken Nigerian English, variety three’ as
sophisticated spoken Nigerian English and ‘variety four’ as too foreign to be applicable in the
Nigerian sociolinguistic environment. A further examination of the stress patterns of these
varieties indicated that the stress patterns in the sophisticated variety were not identical with
those of a native speaker of SBE. Additionally, more syllabic-timed utterances, which are
characteristic of Nigerian indigenous languages, occurred in the non-standard variety at the lower
end of the cline, than in the sophisticated variety at the higher end of the cline.
Nigerian English is not a homogenous variety of English, but rather a cluster of varieties
and all educated Nigerians neither speak the same way nor have equal competence in English
(Simo-Bobda 2007, Bamgbose 1998). Users of English in Nigeria have been classified into three
groups based on communicative competence: basilectal, mesolectal and acrolectal. This
classification can be described as a continuum from a basilectal variety (least competent user), to
17
a mesolectal variety (competent user), to an acrolectal variety (most competent user) as illustrated
in Figure 4 (Okoro 2004). Therefore, a basilectal speaker would have more “Nigerianisms”, local
idioms, innovations and characteristic errors in his speech than the acrolectal speaker.
Nigerianisms, in this context, describe the characteristic features that have been transferred from
various Nigerian indigenous languages to English, especially at the lexico-semantic and morpho-
syntactic levels (Okunrinmeta 2014).
THE NIGERIAN ENGLISH CONTINUUM
COMMON-CORE FEATURES
NIGERIANISMS
AND
LOCAL
IDIOMS
CHARACTERISTIC ERRORS
LEAST COMPETENT USER ---------------------------------- MOST COMPETENT USER Figure 4: The Nigerian English Continuum (adapted from Okoro 2004)
Igboanusi (2006) argued that the characteristic features of Nigerian English
pronunciation are more pronounced in the basilectal and mesolectal levels of competence than
in the acrolectal level. Some of these features are listed as:
• The realization of the [əː] vowel as [ɔ] in words like ‘first’, ‘nurse’ or [a] in words like
‘sermon’, ‘thirteen’.
• The realization of the [ɪə] vowel as [ia] in words like ‘near’, ‘dear’.
• The realization of the [ɛː] vowel as [iɛ, eɛ, ia] in words like ‘square’, ‘pear’, ‘their’, ‘chair’
• The deletion of plosives before syllable-final /s/ in words like ‘six’, ‘extra’.
• The deletion of post-vocalic /l/ in coda position in words like ‘talk’, ‘children’
18
• The pronunciation of “g” in words with final <ng> like ‘sing’, ‘hang’
• The occurrence of /u/ in final “cle” clusters in words like ‘people’, ‘pinnacle’, ‘bible’
• Monophthongisation of /ai, au/ to /a/ in words like ‘primary’, ‘round’
• Monophthongisation of /eɪ/ to /e/ and /əʊ/ to /o/ in words like ‘face’ and ‘goat’.
• The lack of distinction between long vowels and short vowels /ɪ/, /i:/ in words like bit
and beat or /ɒ/, /ɔː/ in words like cot and caught.
It is important to note that there is considerable linguistic variation, even among the
acrolectal users of English in Nigeria, as idiolects are influenced by numerous factors in the
social environment. Nevertheless, this present study focuses on acrolectal users of English in
Nigeria and their attitudes to different varieties of World Englishes.
19
3. Investigating Language Attitudes
3.1 What Are Attitudes?
Attitude is a central concept in social psychology and more recently also in sociolinguistics. The
study of language attitudes has been mostly based on two approaches: the mentalist approach
and the behaviourist approach (Agheyisi and Fishman 1984).
In the behaviourist approach, attitudes are not considered to be multi-dimensional. They
are found in observed behaviours or overt responses to stimuli in a specific social environment.
While this approach may be a straightforward way of analysing language attitudes, it is
considered somewhat limited, as one is unable to predict other behaviours by the same
individual, outside of the initial setting (Agheyisi and Fishman 1984).
In the mentalist approach, which has been adopted by numerous researchers, attitude has
been defined as: “a mental and neural state of readiness, organised through experience, exerting a
directive or dynamic influence upon the individual’s response to all objects and situations with
which it is related” (Allport 1935 as cited in Eagly and Chaiken 1993). Despite its relative
widespread use, the mentalist approach has its limitations. Since the researcher infers attitudes
from observable responses or reported data, they may not accurately portray a subject’s attitudes
(Agheyisi and Fishman 1984).
As a hypothetical construct, attitudes are intangible entities that are seldom innate. They
are learnt directly or indirectly, and the social environment plays a pivotal role in the shaping of
individual attitudes towards attitude-objects, whether positive or negative (Garrett 2010). Based
on the mentalist approach, the working definition of language attitudes in this study is adapted
from Ajzen (2005), which simply states that, “an attitude is a disposition to respond favourably
or unfavourably to an object, person, institution or event”. Thus, language attitudes are
considered as evaluative dispositions to a language, language variety or speakers of a language
that are inferred from measurable responses.
20
3.2 Components of Attitudes
From the mentalist viewpoint, attitudes are described in terms of three components: affect,
behaviour and cognition (Breckler 1984, Baker 1992, Ajzek 2005).
As illustrated in Figure 5, the affective aspect of attitudes involves feelings towards an
attitude-object. Verbal statements of affect are often assessed in degrees of favourability or
unfavourability. On the other hand, facial expressions and other bodily reactions of the
sympathetic nervous system are assumed to indicate non-verbal responses of affect. Second, the
conative or behavioural aspect of attitudes involves both the verbal statements of behaviour and
overt actions/behaviours carried out towards the attitude-object. Third, the cognitive aspect of
attitudes involves both the verbal statements of beliefs and perceived responses towards the
attitude-object.
Figure 5: The tripartite model of attitude structure (from Breckler,1984, after Rosenberg & Hovland,1960)
It is easier to evaluate these attitudinal components from verbal responses than from
non-verbal responses. For example, in evaluating attitudes towards the use of Nigerian Pidgin
(NP), a Nigerian student could believe that NP is easy to learn (cognitive component), could be
enthusiastic about watching movies in NP (affective component) and could be an avid listener of
Nigerian Pidgin radio stations (behavioural component). It would be subsequently assumed that
this student has a positive attitude towards Nigerian Pidgin. Although these three components of
an attitude may not always be in harmony, reactions to a particular speaker or message can be
21
affective or cognitive in nature (Cargile, A. and Giles, H. 1997) and not necessarily expressed in
behaviour.
3.3 Measuring Language Attitudes
Several methods have been adopted in the measurement of language attitudes. These methods
can be divided into three: societal treatment, direct and indirect methods.
The societal treatment method is seldom employed in large-scale quantitative studies. It
involves the analysis of the societal treatment of a language or a language variety via a medium,
i.e. linguistic evaluations are not elicited from respondents directly. The researcher infers the
attitudes of the respondents from the way a language or language variety is treated in a society by
employing ethnographic studies, observational studies, participant observation, discourse analysis
amongst others (McKenzie 2010, Garrett 2010). It could involve the analysis of language
policies, media content or linguistic landscapes, which may not provide an accurate account of
individual attitudes. Here, linguistic landscape refers to the language(s) visible in the public
sphere; this includes public and private signs, billboards, posters, graffiti, advertisements, stickers
etc.
The direct approach is used to elicit responses directly from the respondents. The
researcher asks open-ended or closed-ended questions about language beliefs, feelings and
knowledge via surveys, questionnaires or interviews. Open-ended questions are designed to elicit
detailed responses about a particular subject, whereas close-ended questions are designed to elicit
short responses or one-word answers. The direct approach has however been criticised for not
being too reliable, as informants could be reluctant to reveal certain values for prestige reasons
(Agheyisi and Fishman 1970).
The indirect method is employed to elicit attitudes from the respondents, such that the
respondent is not overtly conscious of the process. The indirect method is chiefly carried out via
22
the Matched Guise Technique (MGT), which was designed by Wallace Lambert and his
colleagues in the 1960s to elicit attitudes towards users of different language varieties (Fasold
1984). In this method, a bilingual speaker makes several recordings under different guises (could
be two different languages or standard and non-standard varieties of a language), the
respondents listen to these speech recordings and subsequently evaluate the personal traits of the
speakers. The recordings are often interposed such that they appear to belong to different
speakers.
In the MGT, respondents are unaware that the alternate recordings are by the same
speaker, and the researcher is able to control both content and certain aspects of voice quality.
Ihemere (2006) investigated the attitudes of a bilingual community towards Nigerian Pidgin
English (NPE) and Ikwerre in Southern Nigeria via closed ended questions and the matched
guise technique. For the matched guise technique, two university graduates, male and female,
read the same passage in both languages (NPE and Ikwerre). 76 participants were asked to
evaluate the four varieties of speech using a semantic differential scale with ten traits, while being
unaware that two of the guises were produced by the same individual.
Thus, differences in speaker evaluations can be ascribed to a predisposed bias or idea
about those languages or language varieties on the listener’s part. However, it is not possible to
fully control paralinguistic differences in the VGT. The Verbal Guise Technique (VGT) is a
modified version of the Matched Guise Technique (MGT). It is often employed in situations, in
which one speaker is unable to produce all language varieties convincingly. While both methods
may appear similar initially, the MGT involves the same speaker, using at least two different
language varieties or guises in the same recording, while different speakers are employed in the
VGT. It is important to note that the MGT has its limitations. It has been criticised as unnatural
and unauthentic as it requires a multilingual individual producing several guises, which may not
be true representations of the language varieties being investigated (Garrett 2010).
23
In both the MGT and VGT, the measurement of dependent variables along varying
dimensions is mostly done via semantic differential scales or Likert scales. Unlike the Likert
scale, which is used to determine how strongly the listener agrees or disagrees with certain
statements, the semantic differential scale involves the use of bipolar adjectives such as rich-
poor, educated-uneducated, friendly-unfriendly etc. indicative of personality, character or
physical traits.
Ladegaard (1998) employed the VGT in his study of language attitudes in Denmark. The
findings from Ladegaard’s (1998) study suggest that Danish students have a favourable
disposition towards the American variety, but do not consider it an ideal model in terms of
pronunciation, to replace the SBE in English as Lingua Franca (ELF) classrooms. His sample
consisted of 96 Danish students, who evaluated the speech of five native speakers of Received
Pronunciation, Cockney, Scottish, Australian and Standard American via fifteen traits on a
semantic differential scale. These traits were classified into three dimensions: status and
competence, social attractiveness and linguistic attractiveness.
However, other evaluative dimensions have been identified by various researchers. Zahn
and Hopper (1985) designed the comprehensive Speech Evaluation Instrument (SEI). After
carrying out an analysis of various traits and dimensions used in previous studies, they concluded
that their original 150 questionnaire items could be reduced to 56 items and be chiefly assessed
along three evaluative dimensions: social status, superiority and competence. The selection of
evaluative dimensions and traits to be used in semantic differential scales can be done in several
ways. A researcher could adopt some of the traits in Zahn and Hopper’s SEI, another could
carry out pilot tests to determine traits that are most meaningful to the respondents, while
another researcher could adopt previously used traits in similar studies alongside new traits
derived from a pilot test study (Garrett 2010). To conclude, the use of contextually meaningful
traits in the attitudinal evaluation instrument instils confidence in the results.
24
3.4 Previous research on language attitudes towards English
Multilingualism and multiethnicity are characteristic of most African countries. Compared to the
Inner and Expanding Circles, relatively fewer studies have explored the multi-dimensionality of
language attitudes in the Outer Circle. In his investigation of language attitudes in sub-Saharan
Africa, Adegbija (1994) claims that, “deficiency in methodology appears to be the principle
weakness of most language-attitude studies hither to carried out in sub-Saharan Africa”. This
situation is slowly changing, as several empirical studies from sub-Saharan Africa have been
published in academic journals in recent years. For instance, researchers such as (Ihemere 2006,
Igboanusi 2008, Akande and Salami 2010, Onadipe-Shalom 2014) employed direct and indirect
methods in investigating language attitudes and language shift in Nigeria.
Williams (1983) investigated the attitudes of Nigerian English-language teachers towards
different accents of Nigerian English. Speech recordings of 11 educated Nigerians and 3 native
speakers from UK, USA and Canada were employed in his study. The educated Nigerians were
classified into three groups: heavily accented, mildly accented and near-native. Altogether, 81
respondents from teacher training programmes at two tertiary institutions listened to the
recordings and rated the speakers via a 10-point scale with twenty items. The results indicated
that the Canadian speaker was rated most favourably, followed by two of the near-native
Nigerian accents, subsequently followed by the British speaker and the American speaker in that
order, while the heavily accented Nigerian speakers were rated least favourably. Although the
respondents in this study were from about 36 ethnic groups, the Nigerian near-native accent and
native accents from Canada, UK and USA were considered more intelligible than the other two
varieties. This result suggests that an educated variety of Nigerian English, devoid of marked
phonological features, will be internationally intelligible and socially accepted as a standardising
norm suitable for pedagogical purposes in Nigeria.
25
While this study appears to be one of the earliest empirical attitudinal studies carried out
in Nigeria, it lacked several details. The researcher neither listed the attributes nor provided
details of the evaluative dimensions used in the study.
Muthwii and Kiokio (2010) explored the attitudes of 210 Kenyans towards ethnically
marked Kenyan English, standard Kenyan English and Native Speaker English from the Inner
Circle in the workplace, media and education. The participants were further classified based on
their ethnicity, level of education (primary, secondary, university) and place of residence
(rural/urban). They reported that respondents were readily able to identify the different varieties
of English. Ethnically marked Kenyan English was only preferred by a fraction of rural residents,
standard Kenyan English (non-ethnically marked) was the widely preferred variety for use in the
workplace, education and media, while only a minority of university graduates in urban areas
considered the Native Speaker English to be ideal for both intranational and international
communication. Overall, the variety of English considered most beautiful/admirable by Kenyans
was the Native Speaker variety. However, if audio recordings of these three varieties were not
made available to the participants, it is rather doubtful that all 210 participants could clearly
distinguish between these varieties and evaluate them via a paper questionnaire.
Igboanusi (2006) studied attitudes towards Ethnic English pronunciation in Nigeria. He
reports the stigmatisation and public ridicule, which basilectal and mesolectal users of English in
Nigeria encounter because of mother tongue interference. Among Igbo speakers, some of these
features include the alternation of /l/ and /r/, such that words like ‘dangerous’, ‘clinic’ are
pronounced as ‘dangelous’, ‘crinic’. Among Yoruba speakers, some of these features are the
substitution of /f/ for /v/ or /ʃ/ for /ʧ/ such that words like ‘vendor’, ‘champion’ are
pronounced as ‘fendor’, ‘shampion’. Among Hausa speakers, some of these features include the
alternation of /f/ and /p/ such that words like ‘people’, ‘difficult’ are pronounced as ‘feofle’,
dippicult’. These stigmatised features have been categorised as shibboleths by which one can
easily identify the user’s ethnicity.
26
Although this study makes a vital contribution to the existing body of research, the lack of
empirical data makes it difficult to compare findings with similar studies.
Other researchers have asserted that the linguistic stereotyping of users of certain non-
standard varieties makes them receive consistent negative evaluations, even in terms of social
attractiveness (Bishop, Coupland and Garrett 2005). Apart from this, the speaker’s level of
accentedness also plays a significant role in speech evaluation and language attitude studies as
mild accents are rated more positively than heavy accents (Giles and Coupland 1991).
Chan (2016) investigated the attitudes of 386 Cantonese-speaking students (university,
JSS and SSS) in Hong-Kong towards seven varieties of English selected from the Inner Circle
(Britain, USA, Australia), Outer Circle (Hong Kong, India, Philippines) and Expanding Circle
(China). The Verbal Guise Technique (VGT) was used to elicit the students’ attitudes along
‘status’ and ‘solidarity’ dimensions. Using voice recordings of different female speakers from the
Speech Accent Archive, the students were asked to evaluate the speakers on a six-point
semantic-differential scale with eight bipolar adjectives (intelligent, rich, educated, successful and
considerate, kind, friendly, honest) and subsequently guess where the speaker was from.
He reported that the students not only identified the speakers from Hong Kong, UK and
USA more correctly than the others, thus indicating their familiarity with the local accent, RP
and GA, but they also evaluated the Inner Circle varieties as more intelligible than others.
Inner Circle varieties were rated highest along the status (RP, GA, AUS) and solidarity
dimensions (AUS, RP, GA) in different orders, but the Hong Kong variety was rated surprisingly
low along both dimensions. This rating suggests that Cantonese is perceived as the language of
solidarity in Hong Kong, not the Hong Kong variety of English.
A similar attitudinal study (Ahmed et al. 2014) carried out in Malaysia concluded that
Malaysian students preferred the English accents of non-native lecturers (Arabic, Chinese, Malay,
Indian) to those of native lecturers from the USA and UK. The results thus support the social
identity theory in which positive attitudes towards a variety of English or accent are an indicator
27
of an ingroup bias. In addition to this, the speaker identification task indicated that the Malaysian
students were more familiar with American English than British English.
Bayard et al. (2001) reported the attitudinal evaluations of New Zealand English (NZE),
Australian English (AUE), American English (AME) and Southern English English (SEE) by
over 400 students from three countries (USA, Australia, New Zealand). In their multinational
study, the participants listened to eight tape recordings of four male and female speakers of
NZE, AUE, AME and SEE and subsequently evaluated the speakers using a six-point semantic
differential scale with thirteen traits. These traits were evaluated along four dimensions: power,
competence, status and solidarity and the study also included a speaker identification task. The
results from the speaker identification task indicated that the American variety was the most
accurately identified across the three groups of Australian, New Zealander and American
participants. On the other hand, the male and female AME varieties received the highest ratings
along the solidarity dimension, while the male and female SEE varieties received the second
lowest ratings after the male NZE variety from the three groups. Bayard et al. (2001) further
concluded that the global domination of American media is becoming more evident in attitudes
to accents.
McKenzie (2008) argues that standard varieties of English tend to receive more
favourable ratings along the status dimension, while non-standard varieties of English receive
more favourable ratings along the solidarity dimension. In his investigation of Japanese students’
attitudes towards standard and non-standard varieties of English from the Inner and Expanding
Circles (UK–Glasgow vernacular and Glasgow Standard English, USA–Southern US English
Alabama and Midwest US English, Japan–Moderately accented and Heavily accented), he
categorises eight bipolar traits into two dimensions: competence(status) and social attractiveness
(solidarity).
His results demonstrate that the standard and non-standard American varieties were
most positively rated in terms of competence followed by the UK varieties, while the Japanese
28
varieties received the lowest ratings. In terms of social attractiveness, the converse is the case.
The three non-standard varieties are rated most positively followed by the three standard
varieties in the following order: Japan, UK, USA. Further analysis also indicated that the varieties
from the Inner Circle were more positively evaluated, when the speaker’s country of origin was
correctly identified by the participants.
In his study of Americanisms in Nigerian English, Igboanusi (2003) claimed that despite
the wide acceptance of American English in the Nigerian society, British English is still widely
preferred most especially in the school curriculum. Despite the overlooked lexical differences
between British and American English, educated Nigerians’ increased exposure to American
English via popular media such as movies, pop music, TV shows etc. plays a significant role in
the overall positive attitude towards American English. He further suggested that learners of
English language in Nigeria should be adequately exposed to British English, American English
and Nigerian English to ensure both local and international intelligibility.
Hartmann (2014) investigates the attitudes of Nigerians and Kenyans in the UK and
Germany towards seven different varieties of English (UK, USA, Jamaica, Nigeria, Kenya, China
and Germany) along two different levels of formality. Using online newscasts (formal) and
broadcast interviews with female sport athletes (informal), Hartmann employs a 4-point Likert
rating scale with nine traits alongside conversational interviews with participants. Preliminary
results of the study indicated that overall attitudinal evaluations of the seven varieties on the
formal level were positive; this suggests a higher tolerance/acceptance of different accents of
English by Africans in diaspora. In addition to this, the American and British varieties were rated
higher along the competence (status) dimension than along the solidarity dimension. However,
responses showed a clear preference for British English over American English. The home
country varieties (Kenya/Nigeria) were also rated high along both dimensions.
Previous research suggests that a native variety continues to be preferred over local
varieties of English in Outer and Expanding Circle countries, especially along the
29
status/competence dimension. However, there seems to be an ongoing shift whereby the British
variety of English is being replaced by the American variety in terms of status and solidarity.
Apart from Hartmann’s (2014) study, results from other researchers suggested that users of
English are more familiar with American varieties than British varieties nowadays.
Results from several investigations support the hypothesis that speakers of standard
varieties are associated with higher socioeconomic status and evaluated positively in terms of
status and competence. On the other hand, speakers of non-standard varieties are associated
with lower socioeconomic status and evaluated positively in terms of social attractiveness
(McKenzie 2008).
In addition to this, users of English often have very different attitudes towards standard
and non-standard varieties of English in their respective societies. Since very little research based
on empirical data has been published about attitudes towards varieties of English in multilingual
Nigeria, this study attempts to investigate the attitudes of acrolectal users of English towards
acrolectal and mesolectal varieties of Nigerian English, as well as varieties from Inner Circle and
Expanding Circle countries using online interviews of male athletes.
Unlike many attitudinal studies where university students are the target respondents, this
study focuses on Nigerian adults, who have already graduated from tertiary institutions and
currently use English language for communication in the workplace.
30
4. Data and Methodology
This study investigates the attitudes of educated Nigerian adults towards different varieties of
English from the Inner, Outer and Expanding Circles, based on Kachru’s three circles model of
world Englishes (Kachru 1985, 1992,1997). More specifically, it focuses on acrolectal users of
English in Nigeria and their perceptions of six varieties of English from: England (Standard
British English), Scotland, and USA (General American) in the Inner Circle, Nigeria (acrolectal
and mesolectal varieties) in the Outer Circle and Côte d’Ivoire in the Expanding Circle. Since
Nigeria is surrounded by French-speaking African countries, choosing a variety from a French
speaking West African country like Côte d’Ivoire was considered apt.
4.1 Research Instrument
In this present study, data were collected via the verbal guise technique (see Appendix I), since it
was impossible to find one speaker who could produce the selected varieties of English
convincingly. An online questionnaire was employed for data collection because it is an
inexpensive means of obtaining both qualitative and quantitative data within a limited time
frame. The link to the questionnaire, with the embedded audio files, could also be easily shared
via social media as well as forwarded to friends and former colleagues in Nigeria. Moreover, it
would have been extremely difficult to gather a sizeable number of the target respondents
together in one place and have them listen to the audio recordings for the verbal guise task.
To answer the research questions, seven informal interviews of sport athletes were used
for the verbal guise task. The seven athletes were from Jamaica, England, Nigeria, USA, Scotland
and Côte d’Ivoire. The audio recordings were obtained from two YouTube channels: ‘Making of
Champs’ and ‘Athletics Africa’. Written permission was obtained from both channels before
downloading the video interviews, from which the audio recordings were extracted for use in
31
this study (see Appendix III and IV). The edited audio recordings were 33 seconds each except
for the ‘SBE’ and ‘General American’ speakers, which were 31 seconds and 34 seconds
respectively.
The audio recordings were carefully selected to minimise variables such as background
noise and interruptions, ensure clarity of speech, while ascertaining that certain phonological
features of these varieties were distinguishable. Subsequently, the recordings were embedded in
an online questionnaire hosted by www.soscisurvey.de 6and data was collected over a period of
three weeks.
The online questionnaire had three sections (see appendix I). The first section, which had
12 questions, was used to obtain sociodemographic information about the participants such as
age, sex, location, occupation, ethnicity, mother tongue and educational level.
The second section had the verbal guise task, in which participants had to listen to the
seven varieties of English and evaluate them via nine attributes on a semantic differential scale
with values ranging from 1(least Favourable) – 6(most favourable). A scale with an even number
of values was chosen so that respondents would be more decisive and not merely opt for a
middle value.
The attributes adopted in this study were adapted from Chan (2016), Westphal (2015)
and Hartmann (2014). From these three studies, a total of 23 attributes were obtained: confident,
authentic, clear, pleasant, cool, friendly, correct, arrogant, refined, professional, intelligent, rich,
educated, successful, considerate, kind, honest, standard, proper, suitable, natural, modest and
not twanging.
A mini pilot study with five Nigerians was carried out and participants were asked to
describe the speakers, from the list of attributes. Two of the participants considered “pleasant”
and “friendly” synonymous, “not twanging” was replaced with “articulate” and certain attributes
6 www.soscisurvey.de is a website that hosts questionnaires and surveys for both academic and non-
academic research.
32
like ‘professional’, ‘suitable’ or ‘refined’ were not considered relevant in evaluating the speech of
sport athletes. From their observations, nine attributes were selected for the final version:
Intelligent, Confident, Educated, Articulate, Successful, Arrogant, Kind, Sincere, Pleasant.
In Hartmann’s (2014) study of Nigerian and Kenyan migrant communities located in the
UK and Germany, the verbal guise technique was used to investigate language attitudes towards
formal and informal speech of broadcasters and sports athletes, which were obtained from
online sources. Chan (2016) investigated the attitudes of Hong Kong junior secondary, senior
secondary and university students towards varieties of English from the Inner, Outer and
Expanding Circles, while Westphal (2015) investigated the attitudes of Jamaican university
students towards different accents employed in Jamaican radio newscasting.
The third section had the speaker identification task, in which participants were asked to
identify the speaker’s country of origin from a list of eleven countries (Nigeria, England, Jamaica,
USA, Côte d’Ivoire, Scotland, Ghana, Egypt, France, Kenya, South Africa). It also had an open-
ended question, where participants could provide additional comments or opinions about the
various varieties.
The online questionnaire was designed such that sociodemographic questions about the
participant’s age, sex, educational background alongside the verbal guise task were obligatory,
however the speaker identification task and open-ended question were optional. Although there
are a few missing values in these sections, with many of the participants skipping the open-ended
question, the majority of the participants provided answers in all other questions.
Using an online questionnaire facilitated data collection and analysis, but it was hardly
possible to control the number of times respondents could listen to the recordings. It is possible
that a more controlled listening environment would have provided slightly different results.
Nevertheless, the statistics showed that the link to the online questionnaire was clicked 544
times, but only 107 people completed the questionnaire. Five of the completed questionnaires
33
were discarded, as three respondents were not Nigerian, one respondent was a teenager and the
fifth respondent was over 50 years old.
4.2 Participants
Similar to previous attitudinal research, the verbal guise technique was adopted in this study.
However, unlike previous studies in which students were the target respondents (Chan 2016,
Ahmed et al. 2014, McKenzie 2008, Bayard et al. 2001), the findings for this study were derived
from the workforce. A total of 102 educated Nigerians completed the online questionnaire over
a period of three weeks. 99 respondents were university graduates (50 had postgraduate degrees,
49 had bachelor’s degrees) and three graduated from polytechnics/colleges. Altogether, 87
respondents worked in white-collar positions, six respondents were entrepreneurs, six
respondents were studying, while three provided no responses.
The sociodemographic data show that 15 of the respondents lived abroad (UK, USA,
Canada, Norway and Finland); the remaining 87 respondents lived mostly in Lagos, Nigeria.
They were randomly contacted via email and social media channels to participate in the research.
The link to the online questionnaire was sent in these messages and the need for headphones or
speakers was clearly stated to enable them listen to the audio recordings.
The respondents (60 men, 42 women) were between the ages of 23–42, with a mean age
of 31.82 years. 32 (31.4%) respondents were in their twenties, 64 (62.7%) respondents were in
their thirties and 6 respondents (5.9%) were in their forties.
Of the different ethnic groups, 77 (75.5%) respondents were Yoruba, 11 (10.8%)
respondents were Igbo and the others were from smaller ethnic groups. 55 respondents reported
indigenous languages as L1, 36 respondents reported indigenous languages alongside English as
L1 and 11 respondents reported only English as L1. The data support the multilingual situation
in Nigeria as 89.2% of the respondents identified themselves as bilinguals fluent in two or three
languages.
34
Table 2: Statistical information about participants
Sex Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Male 60 58.8 58.8 58.8
Female 42 41.2 41.2 100.0
Total 102 100.0 100.0
Age Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
23–29 32 31.3 31.3 31.4
30–39 64 62.9 62.9 94.1
40–49 6 6.0 6.0 100.0
Total 102 100.0 100.0
Education Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Postgraduate 49 48.0 48.0 48.0
Bachelors 50 49.0 49.0 97.1
Polytechnic/College 3 2.9 2.9 100.0
Total 102 100.0 100.0
Ethnicity Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Yoruba 77 75.5 75.5 75.5
Igbo 11 10.8 10.8 86.3
Edo 4 3.9 3.9 90.2
Others 7 6.9 6.9 97.1
Unavailable 3 2.9 2.9 100.0
Total 102 100.0 100.0
Mother Tongue7
Afenmai Bini English
English,
French,
Yoruba
English,
Pidgin,
Igbo
English,
Pidgin,
Yoruba
Ibani,
Ijaw
Igbo
Igbo,
English
Ika
Ora,
Yoruba
Owan Ukwani Yoruba
Yoruba,
English
Yoruba,
Eve
Yoruba,
Hausa
Yoruba,
Pidgin
Frequency 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 7 2 1 1 1 1 38 31 1 1 1
Percent 1.0 1.0 10.8 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 6.9 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 37.3 30.4 1.0 1.0 1.0
Valid Percent 1.0 1.0 10.8 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 6.9 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 37.3 30.4 1.0 1.0 1.0
Cumulative Percent 1.0 2.0 12.7 13.7 14.7 15.7 16.7 23.5 25.5 26.5 27.5 28.4 29.4 66.7 97.1 98.0 99.0 100.0
7In this study, mother tongue is defined as language(s) acquired in early childhood and spoken fluently.
35
4.3 Speakers
The six male speakers used in this study were between the ages of 21 and 39. The details of the
selected speakers, such as their place of origin, age and salient features of speech are provided in
Table 3.
Table 3: Background information of speakers
City,
Country
Speaker Age Distinguishable features of speech
London, England
SBE 37 Absence of post-vocalic /r/
Delta, Nigeria
NIGmes 21 • Substitution of dental fricatives: /θ/, /ð/ for /t/, /d/
• Simplification of consonant clusters: ‘ks’ as ‘s’ in words like next (nest)
• /ʃ/ for /ʧ/ in words like championship (sampionship)
• Double comparatives: go and work more harder
• Use of discourse particle: I am very happy oh
• S dropping: I was able to get to the final
Denver, USA General American
35 • Presence of post-vocalic [r] Ex: The ‘r’ is pronounced in words like: wear, uniform, start, hurdles
Edinburgh, Scotland
Scottish 31 • Reduced vowels in diphthongs like /ai/
Lagos, Nigeria
NIGacr 26 • ‘Me’ instead of ‘I’ in coordinate subjects
Ex: what me and my coaches have spoken about
• No distinction between long and short vowels: to, too =/tu:/
Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire
Ivorian 39 Substitution of dental fricative [ð] for [d] in words like ‘the’.
The six speakers were male athletes with varying degrees of success in their respective
sports. Although the recordings had a bit of background noise, the speakers were audible. The
use of spontaneous speech also made the recordings appear natural. However, as in natural
unrehearsed speech, some of the speakers employed pauses and several fillers such as ‘huh’,
‘erm’ in their speech.
36
4.4 Data Analysis
The Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 24 was employed in the descriptive
analysis of the collected data. It is important to note that the Jamaican variety was the first
variety respondents listened to. The order effect of varieties in the evaluation task could not be
determined from the research design. Thus, the first variety was used as a filler for respondents
to familiarize themselves with the verbal guise task and it was excluded from further data
analysis.
4.4.1 Reliability Statistics
After data collection, it was observed that the values for the ‘Arrogant’ attribute were inversely
proportional to the connotative values of the eight other attributes. Unlike the other eight
attributes, high values for the ’Arrogant’ attribute indicated unfavourability, while low values
indicated favourability.
Subsequently, a reliability test was carried out to determine the internal consistency of the
attributes used in the semantic differential scale, which were adapted from previous studies. At
this phase, it was observed that the ‘Arrogant’ attribute not only had very low correlation to the
other attributes on the semantic differential scale, but its exclusion increased the Cronbach alpha
coefficients of the various varieties significantly, therefore it was omitted from further analysis.
The Cronbach Alpha is used to measure the internal consistency of a statistical test. A high value
for ‘Alpha’ indicates that the test items are highly correlated and measure the same construct.
The eight attributes used to measure attitudes in this study’s semantic differential scale
were categorised into two dimensions, ‘Status’ and ‘Solidarity’. Five attributes were grouped
under the ‘Status dimension’ (Intelligent, Confident, Successful, Articulate, Educated) and three
attributes were grouped under the ‘Solidarity dimension’ (Kind, Sincere, Pleasant). The grouping
was found to be of good reliability as the Cronbach’s alpha was higher than the acceptable value
of 0.70. (Kline 2000)
37
The alpha coefficients of sum-variables for each variety were computed along the two
dimensions. The final values were between 0.759–0.898, thus the scale can be considered
statistically reliable.
Table 4: Cronbach Alpha coefficients for all varieties
4.4.2 ANOVA
After the reliability test, the mean ratings were obtained for all speakers. The mean of each
attribute, the mean of the evaluative dimensions (status and solidarity) and an overall mean score
were calculated for each variety.
One-way repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Post hoc analyses were
conducted to compare the means of the various varieties along the status and solidarity
dimensions. The level of statistical significance employed in this study is 0.1% (p<0.001).
Separate two-way between-groups ANOVAs showed that there were no significant interaction
Variety Dimension Cronbach’s Alpha Items
SBE Status
Solidarity
.852
.793
5
3
NIGmes Status
Solidarity
.835
.824
5
3
American Status
Solidarity
.859
.805
5
3
Scottish Status
Solidarity
.820
.759
5
3
NIGacr Status
Solidarity
.898
.848
5
3
Ivorian Status
Solidarity
.780
.771
5
3
38
effects between any of the sociodemographic variables such as age, gender, level of education
and location for this particular group of respondents.
Subsequently, the speaker identification task was analysed using descriptive statistics, which are
presented in the next chapter.
39
5. Results and Discussion
The results of the descriptive and inferential statistics carried out are presented in this chapter.
5.1 Results
5.1.1 Mean Ratings
The results of the semantic differential scale were calculated via SPSS v24. In order to answer the
first and second research questions, the mean of each attribute, the mean of the evaluative
dimensions (status and solidarity) and an overall mean score was calculated for each variety.
The low standard deviations (in brackets) in Table 5 show that most of the individual ratings are
very close to the average. The highest and lowest ratings for each variety are in bold fonts, while
the highest and lowest ratings for each attribute are in red.
The quantitative findings in Table 5 indicate that along the status dimension, the
NIGmes variety was considered least intelligent (3.92), least educated (3.46) and least articulate
(3.47). This evaluation is in contrast to the AME variety, which was considered most intelligent
(4.85), most confident (4.87) and most articulate (4.93). However, the SBE variety was
considered most educated (4.83), while the SCOT variety was considered least confident (3.95)
and least successful (3.9); the IVOR variety mostly received average ratings and was perceived as
most successful (4.83).
Along the solidarity dimension, the NIGacr variety was considered most kind (4.56),
most sincere (4.8) and most pleasant (4.62). On the other hand, the SBE variety and SCOT
variety were both considered least kind (4.02). The SBE variety was also considered least sincere
(4.39) while the SCOT variety was considered least pleasant (3.95).
40
Table 5: Mean ratings (and standard deviations) of all attributes for 102 Nigerian respondents
SBE NIGERIAN M. AMERICAN SCOTTISH NIGERIAN A. IVORIAN
Status Dimension
Intelligent 4.58 3.92 4.85 4.2 4.75 4.39
(-1.019) (-0.992) (-0.872) (-1.015) (-0.872) (-0.869)
Confident 4.71 4.31 4.87 3.95 4.73 4.37
(-1.049) (-1.152) (-0.897) (-1.057) (-0.869) (-0.900)
Educated 4.83 3.46 4.82 4.26 4.78 4.26
(-0.945) (-0.919) (-0.861) (-0.933) (-0.908) (-0.984)
Successful 4.72 3.98 4.51 3.9 4.65 4.83
(-0.86) (-1.117) (-0.941) (-1.130) (-0.84) (-0.986)
Articulate
4.49 3.47 4.93 3.92 4.6 4.05
(-1.318) (-1.295) (-0.915) (-1.256) (-1.046) (-1.084)
Solidarity Dimension
Kind 4.02 4.51 4.35 4.02 4.56 4.42
(-1.117) (-0.972) (-0.961) (-0.933) (-0.839) (-0.949)
Sincere 4.39 4.79 4.72 4.49 4.8 4.67
(-0.987) (-0.948) (-0.937) (-0.941) (-0.868) (-0.894)
Pleasant 3.99 4.43 4.61 3.95 4.62 4.28
(-1.286) (-1.095) (-0.892) (-1.075) (-0.868) (-0.948)
OVERALL
4.47 4.11 4.71 4.09 4.69 4.41
(0.78075) (0.7792) (0.67609) (0.74166) (0.72199) (0.6734)
STATUS
4.66 3.83 4.8 4.05 4.7 4.38
(0.83163) (0.85568) (0.7178) (0.82638) (0.76702) (0.7059)
SOLIDARITY
4.13 4.58 4.56 4.15 4.66 4.46
(0.95586) (0.86609) (0.78932) (0.80929) (0.75194) (0.77064)
(On the rating scale, 1 = least favourable, 6 = most favourable)
41
Using the mean ratings for the six varieties along the status and solidarity dimensions,
one-way repeated measures ANOVA was carried out to analyse the data and confirm the
existence/non-existence of statistically significant differences in the respondents’ evaluations of
these varieties.
In the ANOVA results, Mauchly’s test indicated that the assumption of sphericity had
been violated (χ2(14) = 50.72, р<0.001), therefore degrees of freedom were corrected using
Huynh-Feldt estimates of sphericity (ɛ=.87). The main results in Table 6 show that there were
statistically significant differences between the six varieties of English along both dimensions,
F(4.35, 438.9) = 52.37, p<0.001.
Table 6: Tests of within-subjects effects
Tests of Within-Subjects Effects
Type III Sum
of Squares df
Mean
Square F Sig.
Partial Eta
Squared
English 57.938 5 11.588 17.871 .000 .150
57.938 4.043 14.332 17.871 .000 .150
57.938 4.232 13.690 17.871 .000 .150
57.938 1.000 57.938 17.871 .000 .150
Error(English) 327.440 505 .648
327.440 408.296 .802
327.440 427.447 .766
327.440 101.000 3.242
English * Dimension 46.732 5 9.346 52.365 .000 .341
46.732 4.146 11.272 52.365 .000 .341
46.732 4.346 10.754 52.365 .000 .341
46.732 1.000 46.732 52.365 .000 .341
Error(English*Dimensi
on)
90.135 505 .178
90.135 418.742 .215
90.135 438.904 .205
90.135 101.000 .892
In order to interpret the significant interaction effect of both evaluative dimensions, a
post hoc analysis was conducted using the Least Significant Difference. The results of the
pairwise comparisons between the varieties indicate that there was a significant difference
between all six varieties along the status dimension, F (5,97) = 42.91, p<0.001 and solidarity
dimension, F (5, 97) = 10.77, p<0.001.
42
5.1.2 Pairwise Comparisons
In Table 7, the results of the second half of the pairwise comparisons indicate that there were
significant differences (p<.001) between the status and solidarity evaluations of three varieties:
British, American and NIGmes. However, there was no significant difference between the status
and solidarity evaluations of the other three varieties: Scottish, NIGacr and Ivorian.
These results indicate that the attributes under the status dimension (educated, successful,
confident, articulate, intelligent) were rated significantly higher or significantly lower than the
attributes under the solidarity dimension (kind, sincere, pleasant) for the SBE, AME and
NIGmes varieties. These findings indicate that the respondents made a clearer distinction
between the status evaluations and solidarity evaluations for SBE, AME and NIGmes than for
the other three varieties; the SCOT, NIGacr and IVOR varieties received either averagely low
ratings for all eight attributes or averagely high ratings for all eight attributes.
Table 7: Pairwise comparisons of the varieties
ENGLISH
(I)
DIMENSION
(J)
DIMENSION
Mean Difference
(I-J) Std. Error Sig.
95% Confidence Interval for
Difference
Lower Bound Upper Bound
SBE Status Solidarity .531 .083 .000 .366 .696
Solidarity Status -.531 .083 .000 -.696 -.366
NIGmes Status Solidarity -.749 .074 .000 .896 -.602
Solidarity Status .749 .074 .000 .602 .896
AME Status Solidarity .239 .064 .000 .112 .367
Solidarity Status -.239 .064 .000 -.367 -.112
SCOT Status Solidarity -.107 .072 .140 -.248 .035
Solidarity Status .107 .072 .140 -.035 .248
NIGacr Status Solidarity .042 .049 .400 -.056 .140
Solidarity Status -.042 .049 .400 -.140 .056
IVOR Status Solidarity -.075 .058 .199 -.190 .040
Solidarity Status .075 .058 .199 -.040 .190
43
Table 8a : Pairwise comparisons - Status dimension
(J)
English
Mean
Difference (I-J)
Std.
Error Sig.(a)
95% Confidence Interval for
Difference(a)
Lower
Bound Upper Bound
SBE NIGmes .835 .110 .000 .617 1.053
AME -.133 .093 .153 -.317 .050
SCOT .618 .107 .000 .406 .829
NIGacr -.037 .099 .708 -.234 .159
IVOR .282 .098 .005 .088 .477
NIGmes SBE -.835 .110 .000 -1.053 -.617
AME -.969 .093 .000 -1.154 -.783
SCOT -.218 .108 047 -.432 -.003
NIGacr -.873 .074 .000 -1.020 -.725
IVOR -.553 .079 .000 -.709 -.397
AME SBE .133 .093 .153 -.050 .317
NIGmes .969 .093 .000 .783 1.154
SCOT .751 .090 .000 .573 .929
NIGacr .096 .081 .238 -.064 .257
IVOR .416 .081 .000 .255 .577
SCOT SBE -.618 .107 .000 -.829 -.406
NIGmes .218 .108 .047 .003 .432
AME -.751 .090 .000 -.929 -.573
NIGacr -.655 .095 .000 -.843 -.467
IVOR -.335 .083 .000 -.500 -.171
NIGacr SBE .037 .099 .708 -.159 .234
NIGmes .873 .074 000 .725 1.020
AME -.96 .081 .238 -.257 .064
SCOT .655 .095 .000 .467 .843
IVOR .320 .071 .000 .180 .460
IVOR SBE -.282 .098 .005 -.477 -.088
NIGmes .553 .079 .000 .397 .709
AME -.416 .081 .000 -.577 -.255
SCOT .335 .083 .000 .171 .500
NIGacr -.320 .071 .000 -.460 -.180
The results of the first half of the pairwise comparisons, where the varieties are
compared against each other along both dimensions, are presented in Tables 8a and 8b. The
varieties with significant differences (p<.001) are highlighted.
44
In Table 8a, the six varieties are compared against each other along the status dimension.
The results indicate the following:
1. There were statistically significant differences between the SBE variety and (NIGmes and
SCOT) varieties, which implies that the SBE was rated positively, while the NIGmes and
SCOT were rated negatively, compared to the SBE.
2. There were statistically significant differences between the NIGmes variety and (SBE,
AME, NIGacr, and IVOR) varieties, which implies that the NIGmes was rated
negatively, while the SBE, AME, NIGacr, and IVOR were rated positively, compared to
the NIGmes.
3. There were statistically significant differences between the AME variety and ( NIGmes,
SCOT and IVOR) varieties, which implies that the AME was rated positively while the
NIGmes, SCOT and IVOR were rated negatively, compared to the AME.
4. There were statistically significant differences between the SCOT variety and (SBE,
AME, NIGacr, and IVOR) varieties, which implies that the SCOT was rated negatively,
while the SBE, AME, NIGacr, and IVOR were rated positively, compared to the SCOT.
5. There were statistically significant differences between the NIGacr variety and (NIGmes,
SCOT and IVOR) varieties, which implies that the NIGacr was rated positively while the
NIGmes, SCOT and IVOR were rated negatively, compared to the NIGacr.
6. There were statistically significant differences between the IVOR variety and (AME,
NIGmes, NIGacr and SCOT) varieties, which implies that the IVOR was rated
negatively, while the AME, NIGmes, NIGacr and SCOT were rated positively,
compared to the IVOR.
45
Table 8b : Pairwise comparisons - Solidarity dimension
(I) speaker (J) speaker
Mean Difference
(I-J)
Std.
Error Sig.(a) 95% Confidence Interval for Difference(a)
Lower
Bound Upper Bound
SBE NIGmes -.444 .114 .000 -.670 -.219
AME -.425 .103 .000 -.629 -.220
SCOT -.020 .113 .863 -.245 .205
NIGacr -.526 .107 .000 -.739 -.313
IVOR -.324 .106 .003 -.534 -.113
NIGmes SBE .444 .114 .000 .219 .670
AME .020 .079 .806 -.138 .177
SCOT .425 .085 .000 .256 .594
NIGacr -.082 .071 .254 -.223 .060
IVOR .121 .077 .120 -.032 .274
AME SBE .425 .103 .000 .220 .629
NIGmes -.020 .079 .806 -.177 .138
SCOT .405 .084 .000 .239 .572
NIGacr -.101 .070 .151 -.240 .038
IVOR .101 .077 .191 -.051 .254
SCOT SBE .020 .113 .863 -.205 .245
NIGmes -.425 .085 .000 -.594 -.256
AME .405 .084 .000 -.572 -.239
NIGacr -.507 .082 .000 -.669 -.344
IVOR -.304 .068 .000 -.439 -.169
NIGacr SBE .526 .107 .000 .313 .739
NIGmes .082 .071 .254 -.060 .223
AME .101 .070 .151 -.038 .240
SCOT .507 .082 .000 .344 .669
IVOR .203 .068 .004 .068 .337
IVOR SBE .324 .106 .003 .113 .534
NIGmes -.121 .077 .120 -.274 .032
AME -.101 .077 .191 -.254 .051
SCOT .304 .068 .000 .169 .439
NIGacr -.203 .068 .004 -.337 -.068
46
In Table 8b, the six varieties are compared against each other along the solidarity dimension. The
results indicate the following:
1. There were statistically significant differences between the SBE variety and (NIGmes,
NIGacr and AME) varieties, which implies that the SBE was rated negatively, while the
NIGmes, NIGacr and AME were rated positively, compared to the SBE.
2. There were statistically significant differences between the NIGmes variety and (SBE and
SCOT) varieties, which implies that the NIGmes was rated positively, while the SBE and
SCOT were rated negatively, compared to the NIGmes.
3. There were statistically significant differences between the AME variety and (SBE and
SCOT) varieties, which implies that the AME was rated positively, while the SBE and
SCOT were rated negatively, compared to the AME.
4. There were statistically significant differences between the SCOT variety and (AME,
NIGacr, NIGmes and IVOR) varieties, which implies that the SCOT was rated
negatively, while the AME, NIGacr, NIGmes and IVOR were rated positively, compared
to the SCOT.
5. There were statistically significant differences between the NIGacr variety and (SCOT
and SBE) varieties, which implies that the NIGacr was rated positively while the SCOT
and SBE were rated negatively, compared to the NIGacr.
6. There were statistically significant differences between the IVOR variety and (SCOT)
variety, which implies that the IVOR was rated positively, while the SCOT was rated
negatively, compared to the IVOR.
47
5.2 Discussion
5.2.1 Research Question 1
The first research question: what are the attitudes of educated Nigerian adults towards six
different varieties of English from the Inner, Outer and Expanding circles?
It aims at exploring how different varieties of English are perceived and rated across different
traits, in terms of prestige and social attractiveness, by acrolectal users of English in Nigeria.
Previous research shows that there is a preference for Inner Circle Varieties of English in Outer
Circle countries (Chan 2016, Muthwii and Kiokio 2010, Williams 1983) and Expanding Circle
countries (Chien 2014, McKenzie 2008, Ladegaard 1998). The findings will demonstrate whether
educated Nigerians equally prefer foreign varieties of English to local varieties or not.
Figure 6: Evaluation of the six varieties of English by 102 Nigerian respondents
To answer the first research question, the respondents were required to listen to online
audio recordings and evaluate the sports athletes via a semantic differential scale. The mean
scores from 1–3 indicated negative ratings, while mean scores from 4–6 indicated positive
ratings. The overall results in this study indicated that no variety obtained very negative ratings,
although there were statistically significant differences between the ratings.
48
In terms of status/prestige, educated Nigerians demonstrate a preference for standard
varieties of English regardless of the originating circle, while both standard and non-standard
local varieties (NIGacr and NIGmes) are most strongly identified with, in terms of
solidarity/social attractiveness.
On the one hand, Figure 6 shows a preference for AME, NIGacr and thirdly SBE,
followed by the IVOR, SCOT and NIGmes varieties along the status dimension. On the other
hand, there is a preference for NIGacr, NIGmes and AME, followed by the IVOR, SCOT and
SBE varieties along the solidarity dimension. This suggests that educated middle-class Nigerians
strongly identify with the two Nigerian speakers, but the acrolectal Nigerian variety is considered
more intelligible and a more salient marker of in-group identity. It is also possible that the
Nigerian speakers in the audio recordings were recognised by some of the respondents, who
might have come across their sport interviews online. This possibility may have influenced the
findings.
Contrary to McKenzie’s (2008) findings, in which the heavily accented Japanese speaker
was rated more positively than the mildly accented Japanese speaker in terms of solidarity, there
was no statistically significant difference between the NIGacr and NIGmes in terms of solidarity
in this present study. However, the heavily accented NIGmes speaker was rated less favourably
than the NIGacr speaker along the status dimension, even though the former was more correctly
identified by the respondents. The NIGacr speaker was misidentified as Kenyan, Ghanaian or
South African by 24 respondents, while the NIGmes speaker was correctly identified by 98
respondents.
A possible explanation for this rating could be the Nigerian education system. The
acrolectal user of English in Nigeria has been taught that the more Nigerianisms and local items
present in one’s speech, the less competent a speaker is; the less competent a speaker is, the
lower his socioeconomic status (Oyetade 2001). Since the target respondents belong to the core
of the active workforce and tend to move upwards in terms of socioeconomic mobility, it is not
49
surprising that the mesolectal variety is not considered prestigious. This supports Banjo’s (1993)
claim that the mesolectal variety enjoys high social prestige amongst Nigerians, but it is neither
considered highly intelligible nor suitable as a national standard.
The evaluations of the three varieties from the Inner Circle: SBE, American and Scottish
were statistically different from one another. The SBE and AME varieties received a more
positive evaluation on the status dimension than on the solidarity dimension, while the SCOT
variety received low ratings along both dimensions and ranked 5th in both cases.
The overall ranking of the six varieties along the status and solidarity dimensions are summarised
in Table 9.
Table 9: Ranking of the varieties
STATUS SOLIDARITY
1st AME NIGacr
2nd NIGacr NIGmes
3rd SBE AME
4th IVOR IVOR
5th SCOT SCOT
6th NIGmes SBE
In terms of status and solidarity, there was a statistically significant difference in the
evaluation of three varieties employed in this study. SBE and NIGmes varieties had large partial
eta-squared effect sizes of 0.287 and 0.502 respectively, while the American variety had a
medium partial eta-squared effect size of 0.121. These effect sizes suggest that the respondents
evaluated these three varieties most differently in terms of solidarity and in terms of status. The
larger the effect size, the greater the difference. Partial eta-squared is a useful estimate of effect
size, often used to measure the effect size for the independent variable.
This finding could be a reflection of the educated Nigerian’s familiarity and conscious
awareness of the prestige and social attractiveness, or lack thereof associated with these three
varieties in the Nigerian society. For the target respondents, the exposure to SBE or a
prescriptive form of SBE would have started at a young age either at home or via the Nigerian
50
education system, an increasing exposure to popular media, American music and movies would
have ensured exposure to American English, while the NIGmes variety is the popular variety
visible in the Nigerian society among less competent users of English.
It can be concluded that acrolectal users of English in Nigeria consider intelligibility to be very
important. The more intelligible a variety was perceived to be, the more positively rated the
speaker was, in terms of status/prestige. However, the converse was not always the case in terms
of social attractiveness/solidarity.
Attitudes towards the SBE speaker
The SBE speaker was rated as the most educated and least pleasant. Since the Nigerian education
system is chiefly based on British English, it is not surprising that the British variety was rated as
the most educated. In addition to this, the speaker of this variety received the third highest rating
along the status dimension and the lowest rating along the solidarity dimension. Some of the
additional comments provided by the Nigerian respondents are listed below:
1. Haughty 2. He really is an arrogant person 3. I cannot really ascertain some of his values from how he sounds as that can lead to
unconscious bias. However, he did come across as proud and arrogant. 4. Appears a conceited and reasonably successful athlete. Good education too. 5. I think he might be an arrogant person. 6. He has an interesting accent. 7. He’s got a rather strong British accent, real or fake, I can’t say. 8. The speaker has an accent but can communicate clearly.
Statistically, there was a significant difference (p<0.001) between the evaluation of SBE
and those of the NIGmes and the Scottish varieties along the status dimension. This supports
previous research (Hiraga 2005, McKenzie 2008, Ahmed et al. 2014, Chan 2016) that standard
varieties are evaluated more positively than non-standard varieties in terms of prestige and status.
Along the solidarity dimension, there was a statistically significant difference (p<0.001) between
the evaluation of SBE and that of NIGmes, NIGacr and American varieties. However, there was
no statistically significant difference between SBE and Scottish varieties. This suggests that the
51
educated Nigerian does not identify with standard and non-standard varieties from the Inner
Circle, UK specifically.
Attitudes towards the AME speaker
The American speaker not only received a high rating along the solidarity dimension (third
highest) but was also rated most positively along the status dimension. Despite the speaker’s
frequent use of space fillers such as ‘huh’ in his speech, he was rated as the most articulate. Some
of the additional comments provided by the Nigerian respondents included:
1. confident, fluent soft spoken 2. He is very confident of himself and successful. 3. Very confident and fluent, also has good usage of words.
Statistically, there was a significant difference (p<0.001) between the evaluation of the
American variety and that of NIGmes, Scottish and Ivorian varieties along the status dimension.
This finding also supports previous research that standard varieties are evaluated more positively
than non-standard varieties in terms of prestige and status (McKenzie 2008, Chan 2016).
Along the solidarity dimension, there was a statistically significant difference (p<0.001)
between the evaluation of the American variety and that of SBE and Scottish varieties. This
suggests that there is a subtle distinction between the evaluation of standard varieties from
Britain-SBE and USA-Standard American. Educated Nigerians had a very favourable attitude
towards the American variety in terms of solidarity, while SBE received the least favourable
evaluation.
The overall highly favourable attitude towards the American variety in terms of both
status and solidarity supports Mair’s (2013, 2016) depiction of standard American English as the
hyper-central variety/ hub of world Englishes with increasing acceptance worldwide. Bayard et
al. (2001) also argue that widespread favourable attitudes towards American English reflect
American global hegemony. Unlike Hartmann’s (2014) study of Nigerians and Kenyans in
52
diaspora, there was a clear preference for the American variety over SBE by respondents in this
study as shown in Figure 6.
Attitudes towards the SCOT speaker
The Scottish speaker received averagely low ratings along both evaluative dimensions. Educated
Nigerians had a relatively unfavourable attitude towards the Scottish variety. Among the
attributive traits, he was rated most sincere but least successful. Two respondents commented:
1. “He spoke well but speech was full, no confidence portrayed, speaker does not look motivated”.
2. “Scottish style, you would have to listen intently to make out what is being said.”
Statistically, there was a significant difference (p<0.001) between the evaluation of the
Scottish variety and that of NIGacr, SBE, American and Ivorian varieties along the status
dimension. However, there was no statistically significant difference between the Scottish and
NIGmes varieties in terms of status.
Along the solidarity dimension, there was no statistically significant difference (p<0.001)
between the evaluation of the Scottish variety and that of SBE. However, there was a significant
difference between the Scottish variety and other four varieties (AME, NIGacr, NIGmes,
IVOR). This finding suggests that educated Nigerians do not identify with both standard and
non-standard varieties from the UK in terms of solidarity.
Attitudes towards the NIGmes speaker
The NIGmes speaker received the lowest rating along the status dimension and second highest
along the solidarity dimension. Among the attributive traits on the semantic differential scale, he
was rated as very sincere and least educated. Compared to other speakers, he also received the
highest number of comments from the Nigerian respondents:
53
1. a little over confident. not fluent with English. 2. A lot of mother-tongue interference in his pronunciations. 3. Not too articulate. 4. She said something like "work more harder" instead of "work harder". I guess his level of
education is low. His confidence waivers too. 5. Have difficulty communicating in clear English without including Nigerian mannerisms.
English is evidently not a language the speaker is very comfortable with. 6. Not too educated. 7. Locally groomed and probably trained athlete. Command of the language is decent to the
accent and tonation play up. 8. I appreciate the use of mother tongue but NJ in the pronunciations. Speaker was also
sincere. 9. From his accent, it’s shown that he’s from Nigeria. He is very motivated and pleasant
with his position at that moment hoping to do better in the next outing. 10. He has an accent that sounds Western African precisely Nigerian. 11. He is well focus and proud of doing better. 12. His statements had certain key words that many Nigerians love to use. 13. The speaker has inflections. 14. The speaker passed her information in the best way possible.
Statistically, there was a significant difference (p<0.001) between the evaluation of the
NIGmes, SBE, American, NIGacr and Ivorian varieties along the status dimension. However,
there was no statistically significant difference between the Scottish and NIGmes varieties in
terms of status. This observation supports previous research that non-standard varieties are
evaluated more negatively than standard varieties in terms of prestige and status (McKenzie
2008).
Along the solidarity dimension, there was a statistically significant difference (p<0.001)
between the evaluation of the NIGmes, SBE and Scottish varieties. This finding supports the
notion that educated Nigerians had a favourable attitude towards the NIGmes variety, while
standard (SBE) and non-standard varieties(Scottish) from the Inner Circle received a more
negative rating in terms of solidarity.
The standard and non-standard varieties from the Outer Circle received varying
evaluations in terms of status but were both rated favourably in terms of solidarity. Overall, the
NIGacr variety was rated very favourably along the status and solidarity dimensions (4.7 and 4.66
respectively), while the NIGmes variety received a more negative evaluation in terms of
prestige/status and a favourable rating in terms of solidarity (3.83 and 4.58 respectively).
54
It is assumed that the Nigerian respondents will be most familiar with these two local
varieties present in the Nigerian speech community. However, statistics show that the NIGmes
variety was identified as Nigerian by 98 (96.1%) respondents, while the acrolectal user was only
correctly identified as Nigerian by 64 (62.7%) respondents.
Attitudes towards the NIGacr speaker
The NIGacr speaker was evaluated most positively in this study. The speaker received the
highest rating along the solidarity dimension and second highest rating along the status
dimension. Some of the additional comments provided by the Nigerian respondents included:
1. He has a different accent of English language close to the British English. 2. English not a first language but speaker is articulate. 3. Speech was OK but tone was a bit dull, speaker like he just experienced defeat. Spoke
like he was demotivated.
Statistically, there was a significant difference (p<0.001) between the evaluation of the
NIGacr, NIGmes, Scottish and Ivorian varieties along the status dimension. However, there was
no statistically significant difference between the NIGacr, SBE and American varieties in terms
of status. This finding equally supports previous research that standard varieties receive more
positive evaluations than non-standard varieties, in terms of prestige and status (McKenzie
2008).
Along the solidarity dimension, there was a statistically significant difference (p<0.001)
between the evaluation of the NIGacr, SBE and Scottish varieties. This finding supports the
notion that educated Nigerians had a favourable attitude towards the NIGacr variety, while
standard (SBE) and non-standard varieties (Scottish) from the Inner Circle received a more
negative evaluation in terms of solidarity. Overall, the NIGacr and AME varieties received very
similar positive ratings in this study. The NIGacr was rated 4.7, while AME was rated 4.8 in
terms of status; in terms of solidarity, the NIGacr was rated 4.66, while AME was rated 4.56.
55
Overall, the NIGacr speaker received only four additional comments from the respondents, but
they were relatively less critical than those received by the NIGmes speaker.
Attitudes towards the IVOR speaker
The IVOR variety from the Expanding Circle received average ratings from the respondents
along both dimensions. The Ivorian speaker was rated as most successful, but least articulate
among the speakers. He also received very few comments from the Nigerian respondents. One
respondent commented that “he sounds like an African” while another simply wrote “good
speech”.
The pairwise comparisons indicated that apart from SBE, there was a statistically
significant difference (p<0.001) between the Ivorian variety and the other four varieties in terms
of status. Along the solidarity dimension, there was only a statistically significant difference
(p<0.001) between the evaluation of the Ivorian and Scottish varieties.
This finding suggests that the educated Nigerian’s attitude towards the Ivorian variety was
neither overtly favourable or unfavourable along both dimensions, as the overall evaluation in
terms of status and solidarity was intermediate.
56
5.2.2 Research Question 2
The second research question: is there a significant difference between the attitudes of
educated Nigerians towards standard and non-standard varieties from the Outer Circle
(NIGacr and NIGmes) and standard and non-standard varieties from the Inner Circle
(SBE and Scottish)?
Previous research indicate that heavily marked varieties receive negative evaluations in attitudinal
studies (Williams 1983), especially along the status dimension (McKenzie 2008, Hiraga 2005).
This research question is an attempt to evaluate the degree of local acceptability of standard and
non-standard varieties of English to educated Nigerians.
The results show that there was no significant difference between the evaluations of
standard and non-standard varieties from the Inner and Outer Circles in terms of solidarity.
However, there was a significant difference (p<0.001) between the evaluations of standard and
non-standard varieties from both circles in terms of status.
From the Outer Circle, the NIGacr variety was rated very favourably along the status and
solidarity dimensions (4.7 and 4.66 respectively), while the NIGmes variety received a more
negative evaluation in terms of prestige/status and a favourable rating in terms of solidarity (3.83
and 4.58 respectively). From the Inner Circle, the SCOT variety received averagely low ratings
along the status and solidarity dimensions (4.05 and 4.15 respectively), while the SBE variety
received a more positive evaluation in terms of prestige/status and an unfavourable rating in
terms of solidarity (4.66 and 4.13 respectively).
In terms of solidarity, there was no statistically significant difference between standard
and non-standard varieties from the Inner Circle (SBE and Scottish); neither was there any
statistical difference between standard and non-standard varieties from the Outer Circle (NIGacr
and NIGmes). The two varieties from the Inner Circle received the lowest ratings, while the two
varieties from the Outer Circle obtained the highest ratings in terms of solidarity. This
observation suggests that the SBE and Scottish varieties were perceived similarly and considered
57
very socially unattractive in the Nigerian society, even though the Scottish was incorrectly
identified most of the time as French, English, South African and even Egyptian. Moreover, this
finding does not support results from previous research (Hiraga 2005, McKenzie 2008), where
non-standard varieties were preferred to standard varieties in terms of solidarity.
On the other hand, the NIGmes and NIGacr are strongly identified with and considered
to be equally socially attractive. This suggests that the presence of marked phonological features
and ‘Nigerianisms’ in speech does not influence social attractiveness/solidarity ratings per se.
This is rather surprising as findings from previous studies like McKenzie (2008) clearly suggest
that the degree of accentedness between two local varieties influences the social attractiveness
rating i.e. heavily marked varieties are considered more socially attractive than mildly marked
varieties and non-standard varieties are more favourably evaluated than standard varieties in
terms of social attractiveness. Since the NIGmes speaker was even more correctly identified as
Nigerian than the NIGacr speaker, one would expect a statistically significant difference between
the solidarity ratings.
In terms of status, there was a statistically significant difference between standard and
non-standard varieties from both circles. The results suggest that standard varieties are preferred
to non-standard varieties regardless of the originating circle. The SBE and NIGacr obtained
similar evaluations, with no statistically significant differences. The SBE (4.66) was more
favourably rated than the SCOT (4.05). This rating suggests that the SBE is recognised as more
intelligible and prestigious in the Nigerian society. The positive rating of the NIGacr (4.7) in
contrast to the NIGmes (3.83) suggests that the absence of marked phonological features and
Nigerianisms influences the status ratings of a local variety. A local variety with salient markers
or stigmatised features could be considered indicative of a poor education and be regarded as
socially unacceptable in terms of status/prestige (Igboanusi 2006).
In summary, the respondents demonstrated a preference for local varieties of English,
whether standard or non-standard, in terms of social attractiveness. However, the standard
58
varieties from both the Inner Circle and Outer Circle were preferred in terms of status, while the
non-standard varieties received lower ratings.
5.2.3 Research Question 3
The third research question: which of these varieties are correctly identified by the target
group?
It aims at exploring Nigerians’ awareness of other varieties of English, since findings from
previous research asserts that respondents in similar attitudinal studies are usually most familiar
with the local variety of English, SBE and American English (Chan 2016, Ahmed et al. 2014,
Kim 2007).
In the speaker identification task, the Nigerian respondents were asked to select a
possible country of origin for the speaker from a drop-down list of 11 countries. This question
was not obligatory; three respondents provided no response for the SCOT and IVOR, two
respondents provided no response for the NIGacr and one respondent provided no response
for the NIGmes and SBE.
Table 10: Identification of the speaker’s country of origin by Nigerian respondents
Speakers Identification of Speaker's country of origin in %
England USA Scotland Nigeria Côte d’Ivoire France Ghana South Africa Jamaica Kenya Egypt TOTAL
SBE 66.7 8.8 6.9 13.7 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 99%
American 12.7 74.5 6.9 2 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 100%
Scottish 15.7 1 37.3 1 1 22.5 0 3.9 2.9 2.9 8.8 97.10%
NIGmes 1 0 1 96.1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 99%
NIGacr 2 2.9 1 62.7 2.9 0 7.8 9.8 2.9 5.9 0 98%
Ivorian 1 0 0 6.9 38.2 4.9 16.7 17.6 5.9 4.9 1 97.10%
The most correctly identified variety was the NIGmes (96.1%) followed by the American
(74.5%), SBE (66.7%), NIGacr (62.7%), Ivorian (38.2%) and Scottish (37.3%) varieties. It is not
surprising that the NIGmes was the most easily identified by the respondents. In Nigeria, there
are more mesolectal than acrolectal users of English and the NIGmes variety is more visible in
public spaces and media. Education, travel and exposure to British and American cultures via
59
popular media, news channels, social media platforms make it easier for the Nigerian acrolectal
user of English to identify these two native varieties.
In his interview, the SBE speaker made a comment about his coach and an award-
winning Nigerian athlete. In hindsight, this statement should have been edited as it probably
made several respondents assume he was Nigerian. This detail could be the reason he was
misidentified as Nigerian by several respondents, otherwise the SBE variety could have been the
second most correctly identified variety.
The lowest identification scores in Table 10 are for the Ivorian and Scottish speakers.
This finding is not surprising since acrolectal users of English in Nigeria would probably have
had limited contact with the English-speaking minority from neighbouring multilingual
countries, who have French as their official language. Compared to England, Scotland is a less
popular travel destination for Nigerians. Therefore, only few respondents would have had any
encounters with Scottish English, either through travel or less popular media.
Further analysis of the results indicates that apart from the Scottish and Ivorian varieties,
the respondents were generally able to categorise the varieties into the various circles as shown
below. This categorisation as illustrated in Table 11 suggests that most respondents were able to
distinguish between speakers that had English as a native language and those who did not.
Table 11: Categorising the varieties
Inner Circle (%) Outer Circle (%) Expanding Circle (%)
SBE 83.1 16.9 0
NIGmes 2 98 0
American 94 6 0
Scottish 55.6 11 33.3
NIGacr 6 91 3
Ivorian 1 53.7 45.5
60
6. Conclusion
This study investigated the language attitudes of 102 educated Nigerians towards six varieties of
English from the Inner, Outer and Expanding Circles. The respondents’ perceptions of local and
foreign varieties of English were evaluated via a six-point semantic differential scale with eight
attributes. The target group of Nigerian respondents are considered to be either acrolectal users
of English or speakers of Educated Nigerian English (ENE).
The respondents evaluated standard varieties more favourably in terms of status and
prestige. The overall results indicate that there was a salient distinction between the two native
varieties employed in this study, as the American variety was preferred to SBE in terms of status
and solidarity. The evaluation of SBE is similar to that of previous studies (Ladegaard 1998,
Hiraga 2005, McKenzie 2008, Chien 2014, Ahmed et al. 2014, Chan 2016), where native varieties
were rated positively in terms of prestige and rated negatively in terms of social attractiveness,
but this was not the case for the American variety. In my results, the findings indicate an overall
preference for a standard local variety (NIGacr) alongside a standard foreign variety (American)
as these two varieties received similar positive ratings along the status and solidarity evaluative
dimensions.
Although a foreign variety (SBE) is the prescriptive variety chiefly used in the Nigerian
educational system, the findings suggest that educated Nigerians have more positive attitudes
towards a standard local variety (NIGacr). Since the emergence of positive attitudes towards an
evolving endonormative standard is essential for the recognition and widespread acceptability of
a “New English” (Schneider 2003), the favourable evaluation of the NIGacr suggests that its
usage as a ELT target model may be a much-welcomed development.
Kirkpatrick (2007) argues that an endonormative variety, after codification and
stabilisation, should be the target norm for learners in the Outer Circle and not the exonormative
61
SBE variety characteristic of former British colonies in Africa and Asia. This supports the claim
by several Nigerian scholars (Bamgbose 2011, Adegbite 2003, Banjo 1993), that adopting an
endonormative standard as the target variety in school curricula is a more realistic target, which
would help to reduce the failure rate in Nigerian school examinations such as WASSCE (p.14) .
Additionally, the multilingual environment ensures that the Nigerian learner of English is
exposed to numerous endonormative varieties of English, however, familiarity with
exonormative varieties from the other circles of World Englishes would greatly enhance
communication with other users of English in an increasingly globalised world.
The findings presented above show interesting quantitative patterns, but they need to be
approached with caution. They may have various limitations. The overall results cannot
necessarily be generalized to be representative of all Nigerians as only 102 people participated in
this study. The study focused on the attitudes of acrolectal users of English in Nigeria; this
section of the Nigerian population is mostly considered an elite minority. Scholars claim that
only about 4 to 20% of Nigerians are competent in English and the use of English is more
prevalent among younger Nigerians than with older generations (Jowitt 1995 as cited in Gut
2005).
Additionally, the use of spontaneous speech made it difficult to control the content of
the recordings. The contents of the athletes’ interviews were heterogeneous, and the interviewees
said very different things about their sport performances; this could have influenced their
evaluation by the Nigerian respondents. Apart from content, paralinguistic features such as
speech rate, modulation, pitch as well as the speaker’s use of fillers or pauses could also have had
significant effects on the attitudinal evaluations (Cargile and Giles 1997). It was also difficult to
find athletes from the Expanding Circle countries, who spoke English in their online interviews.
These athletes mostly spoke their home languages in interviews, which were subtitled in English.
The use of an equal number of traits along both evaluative dimensions might probably provide
62
better readings as well, as this study had five traits along the status dimension and only three
traits along the solidarity dimension.
The possibility of an existing bias towards some of the language varieties cannot be
overlooked. Since the recordings were extracted from existing YouTube videos, it is quite
possible that a few of the respondents had already watched these videos before participating in
the study. The use of formal speech instead of sport interviews might also have given better
results since the target respondents use English for daily communication in the workplace.
Moreover, the research could have been better designed or combined with qualitative interviews,
in order to elicit the respondents’ perception of their own speech. The online questionnaire
could also have been better controlled, such that respondents could only listen to the recordings
once or twice.
Despite these limitations, future empirical studies of larger cross-sections of the Nigerian
society would facilitate a better understanding of language attitudes towards World Englishes.
Although this study focused on acrolectal users, basilectal and mesolectal users of English in
Nigeria could be sampled in future studies. It would be equally interesting to compare findings
from this study with similar attitudinal studies in Outer Circle countries, in which acrolectal and
mesolectal varieties of English are evaluated. In an increasingly globalised world, attitudinal
studies can be further extended to include more varieties of World Englishes from Asia, Europe
and other parts of Africa. Future research can also explore attitudes of native and non-native
speakers from the Inner and Expanding Circles towards Nigerian English.
63
References
Adegbija, E. (2004). Language policy and planning in Nigeria. Current Issues in Language Planning,
5(3), 181–246.
Adegbija, E. (1994). Language attitudes in sub-Saharan Africa: A sociolinguistic overview. Clevedon,
Avon: Multilingual Matters.
Adegbija, E. (1989). Lexico-semantic variation in Nigerian English. World Englishes, 8(2), 165–
177.
Adegbite, W. (2003). Enlightenment and attitudes of the Nigerian elite on the roles of languages
in Nigeria. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 16(2), 185–196.
Adetugbo, A. (1978). The development of English in Nigeria up to 1914: A sociohistorical
appraisal. Journal of the Historical Society of Nigeria, 9(2), 89–103.
Agheyisi, R., & Fishman, J. A. (1970). Language attitude studies: A brief survey of
methodological approaches. Anthropological Linguistics, 12(5), 137–157.
Ahmed, Z.T., Abdullah, A. N., & Heng, C. S. (2014). Malaysian university students' attitudes
towards six varieties of accented speech in English. Advances in Language and Literary Studies,
5(5), 181–191.
Ajzen, I. (2005). Attitudes, personality and behaviour. Berkshire: Open University Press.
Akeredolu-Ale, B. (2007). Good English for What?: Learners’ Motivation as a Factor in
Declining Learners’ Performance in English Language Acquisition and Use in Nigerian
Schools. Changing English,14(2), 231–245
Awonusi, V. (1994). The Americanization of Nigerian English, World Englishes, 13(1), 75–82
Baker, C. (1992). Attitudes and language. Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters.
Bamgbose, A. (1994). Nigeria's choice. UNESCO Courier, 47(2), 22.
Bamgbose, A. (1998) Torn between the norms: innovations in world Englishes. World Englishes,
17(1), 1–14
64
Bamgbose, A. (2001). World Englishes and globalization. World Englishes, 20(3), 357–363
Bamgbose, A. (2011). African Languages Today: The Challenge of and Prospects of
Empowerment under Globalization. Selected Proceedings of the 40th Annual Conference on African
Linguistics, ed. Eyamba G. Bokamba et al., 1–14, Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings
Project
Bamgbose, A. (2014). The language factor in development goals. Journal of Multilingual and
Multicultural Development, 35(7), 646–657.
Bamiro, E. (2006). The politics of codeswitching. World Englishes, 25(1), 23–35
Banjo, A. (1993). An endonormative model for the teaching of the English language in Nigeria.
International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 3(2), 261–275
Bayard, D., Weatherall, A., Gallois, C., & Pittam, J. (2001). Pax Americana? accent attitudinal
evaluations in New Zealand, Australia and America. Journal of Sociolinguistics,5(1), 22–49.
Behrendt, S. D., Latham A.J.H. & Northrup D. The diary of Antera Duke: An eighteenth-century
African slave trader (2014). Cary: Oxford University Press.
Beinhoff, B. (2013). Perceiving identity through accent (2013). Oxford: Peter Lang AG, Internationaler
Verlag der Wissenschaften.
Bernaisch, T. (2012). Attitudes towards Englishes in Sri Lanka. World Englishes 31 (3),279–291
Bhatt, R. M. (2001) World Englishes. Annual Review of Anthropology, 30, 527–550
Bishop, H.,Coupland, N. And Garrett, P. (2005). Conceptual accent evaluation: Thirty years of
accent prejudice in the UK. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia, 37(1), 131–154
Bolton, K. (2012). Varieties of world Englishes. The encyclopedia of applied linguistics () Blackwell
Publishing Ltd.
Breckler, S. J. (1984). Empirical validation of affect, behaviour and cognition as distinct
components of attitude. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47(6), 1191–1205.
Brosnahan, L. F., (1958). English in Southern Nigeria. English Studies, 39, 97–110
65
Bruthiaux, P. (2003). Squaring the circles: Issues in modeling English worldwide. International
Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13(2), 159–178.
Campbell-Kibler, K. (2010). Sociolinguistics and perception. Language and Linguistics Compass, 4(6),
377–389.
Cargile, A. C. (2000). Evaluations of employability suitability: Does accent always matter? Journal
of Employment Counseling, 37, 165–176.
Cargile, A. C., & Giles, H. (1997). Understanding language attitudes: Exploring listener affect and
identity. Language and Communication, 17(3), 195–217.
Cargile, A. C., Takai, J., & Rodríguez, J. I. (2006). Attitudes toward African–American vernacular
English: A US export to japan? Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 27(6), 443–
456.
Chan, J. Y. H. (2016). A multi-perspective investigation of attitudes towards English accents in
Hong Kong: Implications for pronunciation teaching. Tesol Quarterly, 50(2), 285–313.
Chien, S. (2014). Varieties of English: Taiwanese attitudes and perceptions. Newcastle and
Northumbria Working Papers in Linguistics, 20, 1-16
Davydova, J. (2012). Englishes in the outer and expanding circles: A comparative study. World
Englishes, 31(3), 366–385.
Deuber, D. And Leung, G. (2013). Investigating attitudes towards an emerging standard of
English: Evaluation of newscasters’ accents in Trinidad. Multilingua, 32(3), 289–319
Dyers, C. (2015). Multilingualism in late-modern Africa: Identity, mobility and multivocality.
International Journal of Bilingualism, 19(2), 226–235.
Garrett, P. (2010). Attitudes to Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University press
Garrett, P., Williams, A., & Coupland, N. (2003). Investigating language attitudes: Social meanings of
dialect, ethnicity and performance. Cardiff: University of Wales Press.
Gill, S. K. (1999). Standards and emerging linguistic realities in the Malaysian workplace. World
Englishes, 18(2), 215–231
66
GMLZ - guides to research methods in language and linguistics: Research methods in sociolinguistics: A practical
guide (1) (2013), Holmes J., Hazen K. (Eds). Somerset, US: Wiley-Blackwell.
Gorlach, M. (1991). Englishes: Studies in varieties of English 1984–1988. Amsterdam: John Benjamins
Publishing Company.
Gut, U. (2004). Nigerian English: Phonology. In Kortmann Bernd & Schneider Edgar (eds.), A
handbook of varieties of English, 813–830. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter
Gut, U. (2005). Nigerian English Prosody, English World-Wide, 26(2), 153–177
Halliday, M. A. (2003). Written language, standard language, global language. World Englishes,
22(4), 405–418.
Hartmann, J. (2014). Attitudes to different accents of English in African communities in the UK and
Germany. Unpublished manuscript. Retrieved from
https://www.soas.ac.uk/linguistics/events/deptseminars/09dec2014-attitudes-to-different-
accents-of-english-in-african-communities-in-the-uk-and-germany.html
Higgins, C. (2003). ”Ownership” of English in the Outer Circle: An Alternative to the NS-NNS
Dichotomy*. TESOL QUARTERLY, 37(4), 615–644
Hiraga, Y. (2005). British attitudes towards six varieties of English in the USA and Britain. World
Englishes, 24(3), 289–308
Holmes, J. (2013). Learning about language: Introduction to sociolinguistics (4th edition). Independence,
KY, USA: Routledge.
Hyrkstedt, I. and Kalaja, P. (1998). Attitudes towards English and its functions in Finland: A
discourse-analytic study. World Englishes, 17(3), 345–357
Igboanusi, H. (2003). Knowledge, use and attitudes towards Americanisms in Nigerian English.
World Englishes, 22(4), 599–604.
Igboanusi, H. (2006). A comparative study of the pronunciation features of Igbo English and
Yoruba English speakers of Nigeria. English Studies, 87(4), 490–497.
67
Igboanusi, H. (2008). Mother Tongue-based bilingual education in Nigeria: Attitudes and
practice. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 11(6), 721–734.
Ihemere, U. (2006). An integrated approach to the study of language attitudes and change in
Nigeria: the case of the Ikwerre of Port Harcourt city. In: Selected Proceedings of the 36th
Annual Conference on African Linguistics: Shifting the Center of Africanism in Language Politics and
Economic Globalization. Cascadilla Proceedings Project, Somerville, MA, 194–207
Kachru, B. (1997). World Englishes and English-using communities. Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics, 17, 66–87.
Kachru, B. (1992). World Englishes: Approaches, issues and resources. Language Teaching, 25(1),
1–14.
Kachru, B. (1985). Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: the English language in the
Outer Circle. In R. Quirk and H.G. Widdowson (eds.), English in the World: Teaching and
learning the language and literatures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 11–30
Kang, O. (2015). Learners' perceptions toward pronunciation instruction in three circles of world
Englishes. TESOL Journal, 6(1), 59–80. 10.1002/tesj.146
Kim, Y.S. (2007). Korean attitudes towards varieties of English. MSc Thesis, University of
Edinburgh.
Kioko, A. N., & Muthwii, M. J. (2003). English variety for the public domain in Kenya: Speakers'
attitudes and views. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 16(2), 130–145.
Kirkpatrick, A. (2007). World Englishes: Implications for International Communication and
English Language Teaching, 2007, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press
Kline, P. (2000). Handbook of psychological testing. London, Routledge
Kperogi, F. A. (2015). Berkeley insights in linguistics and semiotics: Glocal English: The changing face and
forms of Nigerian English in a global world. US: Peter Lang Publishing Inc.
Ladegaard, H. J. (1998). National stereotypes and language attitudes: The perception of British,
American and Australian language and culture in Denmark. Language and Communication, 18,
251–274.
68
Lambert, W. E., Hodson, R. C., Gardner, R. C., and Fillenbaum, S. (1960). Evaluational reactions
to spoken languages. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66(1), 44–51.
Liang, S. (2015). Language attitudes and identities in multilingual china: A linguistic ethnography Springer
Lindemann, S. (2003). Korean, Chinese or Indians? Attitudes and ideologies about non-native
English speakers in the United States. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 7(3), 348–364.
Lippi-Green, R. (2012). English with an Accent: Language, ideology and discrimination in the United States.
London and New York: Routledge
Mair, C. (2013). The world system of Englishes: Accounting for the transnational importance of
mobile and mediated vernaculars. English World-Wide, 34, 253–278.
Mair, C. (2016). Beyond and between the “Three circles”: World Englishes research in the age of
globalisation. In C. Suárez-Gómez, & E. Seoane (Eds.), World Englishes: New theoretical and
methodological considerations (pp. 17–36). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
McArthur, T. (2003). World English, Euro-English, Nordic English. English Today, 19(1), 54–58
McKenzie, R. M. (2008). Social factors and non-native attitudes towards varieties of spoken
English: A Japanese case study. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 18(1), 63–88.
McKenzie, R. M. (2010). The social psychology of English as a global language: Attitudes, awareness and
identity in the Japanese context Springer Science & Business Media.
Mesthrie, R. And Bhatt R. (2008). World Englishes: The Study of New Linguistic Varieties. New York:
Cambridge University Press
Mutonya, M. (2008). African Englishes: Acoustic analysis of vowels. World Englishes, 27(3/4),
434–449.
Norton, B. (2014). Introduction: The millennium development goals and multilingual literacy in
African communities. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 35(7), 633–645.
Odumuh, A. (1984). Educated Nigerian English as a model of Standard Nigerian English, World
Language English, 3(4), 231–235
69
Okebukola, P. A., Owolabi, O., & Okebukola, F. O. (2013). Mother Tongue as default language
of instruction in lower primary science classes: Tension between policy prescription and
practice in Nigeria. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(1), 62–81.
Okoro, O. (2004). Codifying Nigerian English: some practical problems of labelling. In
S.Awonusi, & E. A. Babalola, (Eds) The Domestication of English in Nigeria: a Festschrift in
Honour of Abiodun Adetugbo. Lagos: University of Lagos Press, 166–181
Okunrinmeta, U. (2014). Syntactic and Lexico-Semantic Variations in Nigerian English:
Implications and Challenges in the ESL Classroom. Open Journal of Modern Linguistics, 4, 317–
332
Onadipe-Shalom, T. A. (2014). The role of attitudes in language shift and maintenance in
Badagry town. Journal of the Linguistic Association of Nigeria, 17(1&2), 75–90.
Oyetade, S. O. (2001). Attitude to foreign languages and indigenous language use in Nigeria. In
H. Igboanusi (Ed.), Language Attitude and Language Conflict in West Africa. Ibadan, Nigeria:
Enicrownfit Publishers, 14-29
Pennycook, A. (2012). Critical language and literacy studies, volume 15: Language and mobility: Unexpected
places. Clevedon, GBR: Channel View Publications.
Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford: Oxford university press.
Purnell, T., Idsardi, W., & Baugh, J. (1999). Perceptual and phonetic experiments on American
English dialect identification. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 18(1), 10–30.
Quirk, R. (1985). The English language in a global context. In R. Quirk, & H. G. Widdowson
(Eds.), English in the world: Teaching and learning the language and literatures (1st ed., pp. 1–6).
Great Britain: Cambridge University Press.
Sakiyo, J. and Badau, K.M. (2015). Assessment of the trend of Secondary School Students’
academic performance in the Sciences, Mathematics and English: Implications for the
attainment of the millennium development goals in Nigeria. Advances in Social Sciences Research
Journal, 2(2), 31–38
70
Schneider, E. W. (2003). The dynamics of new Englishes: From identity construction to dialect
birth. Language, 79(2), 233–281.
Simo Bobda, A. (2007). Some segmental rules of Nigerian English phonology. English World-
Wide, 28(3), 279–310
Simpson, A. (2008). Language and national identity in Africa. Oxford, GBR: Oxford University Press.
The West African Examinations Council (2008). Executive summary of entries, results and chief
examiners’ report on the West African Senior School Certificate Examination (WASSCE)
conducted in Nigeria in 2006. Retrieved from
http://www.waecheadquartersgh.org/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_downlo
ad&gid=5&Itemid=30
Trudell, B. (2010). When ‘Prof’ speaks, who listens? the African elite and the use of African
languages for education and development in African communities. Language and Education,
24(4), 337–352.
Trudgill, P. and Hannah, J. (2008). International English: A Guide to Varieties of Standard
English
Trudgill, P. (1999). ’Standard English: what it isn’t’. In Bex, T. and Watts, R. J. (eds), Standard
English: The widening debate. London: Taylor and Francis. 117–128
Trudgill, P. (1974). Sociolinguistics: An introduction. Penguin books
Udofot, I. (2003). Stress and rhythm in the Nigerian accent of English. English World-Wide,24(2),
201–220.
Udofot, I. (2011). The English language and education in Nigeria. Journal of the Nigeria English
Studies Association, 14(2), 17–23
Westphal, M. (2015). Attitudes toward Accents of Standard English in Jamaican Radio
Newscasting. Journal of Linguistics,43(4), 311–333.
Williams, D. (1983). Attitudes towards varieties of Nigerian Spoken English. World Language
English, 3(1), 6-10
71
Zahn, C., & Hopper, R. (1985). Measuring language attitudes: The speech evaluation instrument.
Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 4(2), 113–123.
• Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (1999). Retrieved from
https://publicofficialsfinancialdisclosure.worldbank.org/sites/fdl/files/assets/law-
library-files/Nigeria_Constitution_1999_en.pdf
• CIA World fact view of Africa: Nigeria
Retrieved from https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-
factbook/geos/ni.html
• Map of West Africa. Retrieved from
https://www.google.fi/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&ved=2ahU
KEwjm8bqK6fvbAhWEY1AKHRrqAGcQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=https%3A%2F%2Fw
ww.britannica.com%2Fplace%2Fwestern-
Africa&psig=AOvVaw1npff73Odryo6dGFveKv5y&ust=1530462903105396
72
Appendix I
Page 01 Intro I am a Master’s degree student at the University of Eastern Finland. I am currently investigating the attitudes of educated Nigerians towards different varieties of English, which will constitute an important body of research for my MA Thesis.
I would be very grateful, if you could help me with my research by completing this questionnaire. This will take less than 20 minutes of your time.
As this questionnaire makes use of media files, you may need headphones or speakers. The contents of this questionnaire are completely confidential. Details of the respondent will not be disclosed under any circumstances.
If you have any additional information, I can be contacted via email: [email protected].
Thank you. 1. Year of birth
2. Sex
3. Current place of residence 4. Ethnic group
5. What is/are your native language(s)?
(Language(s) learnt from childhood and spoken fluently)
6. Which other language(s) apart from English have you learnt so far and at what age did you start learning? (e.g French-Age 12, Hausa-Age 15, Chinese-Age 20) 7. Profession 8. Level of education
Postgraduate
Bachelors
Polytechnic/College
Secondary school
Primary school
9. Mother’s level of education
Postgraduate
Bachelors
Polytechnic/College
Secondary school
Primary school
73
10. Father’s level of education
Postgraduate
Bachelors
Polytechnic/College
Secondary school
Primary school
11. Please listen to the recording. How do you feel about this speaker? On a scale of 1–6, kindly select a value. (1=least favourable, 6=most favourable)
Not Intelligent
1 2 3 4 5 6
Intelligent
Not Arrogant
1 2 3 4 5 6
Arrogant
Not Confident
1 2 3 4 5 6
Confident
Not Educated
1 2 3 4 5 6
Educated
Not Kind
1 2 3 4 5 6
Kind
Not Sincere 1 2
Sincere
74
3 4 5 6
Not Successful
1 2 3 4 5 6
Successful
Not Pleasant
1 2 3 4 5 6
Pleasant
Not Articulate
1 2 3 4 5 6
Articulate
Where might the speaker come from?
Any further comments about the speaker?
75
Appendix II
Extracts from YouTube Interviews
1. England
I’ve got a lot of experience. I’m 34 years old. So, I’ve got a lot of experience,
which is ‘huh’, it is a big thing. And also, I mean, my coach is here. You know, I paid for
my coach to come out here as well, so ‘huh’ so not only am I owed an ‘X’ amount of
money, I’m also owed an extra whatever for my coach coming out here. So my coach is
here, my coach believes in me, he used to coach Philips Edoho, who is now a world class
triple jumper Nigerian, who competes for Britain. So, my coach is here. He just told me
to trust in what we’ve been doing all year, and I trusted in it and I came through in the
last jump.
2. Nigeria(mesolectal)
To me I’m very happy o and I’m grateful to God for this because all the stress
from the World Junior, to the Commonwealth team down to the African Championship
and I was able to get to the final. Think I tried my best, I did my best. And this an
opportunity for me to run with the senior, the top athlete. And I know that…This just
an opportunity for me. It’s just left for me to go and work more harder by next year, ask
people to pick, by the next African championship, I should guarantee my country the
gold medal.
3. USA
Very tough to be in this situation and you know wear this uniform. So, huh,
being back in the finals, just have to do a bit better than I did today. Ah, in 2013, the
same I think wasn’t that great for me either. So, huh, I was able to do what I needed to
do in the finals, so I’m just looking forward to huh, you know, huh, cleaning up some of
my mistakes, you know, and just, huh, you know, doing the best that I can do. __Well, I
mean the start wasn’t that great, first few hurdles, got on track, got a little huh, loose with
the technique, huh, midway through. But then was able to finish up pretty strong and,
huh, just make it to the finals. So, is a__ it will be a interesting show tomorrow night.
76
4. SCOTLAND
There is nothing more disappointed than me, myself and I will say the rest of the
boys and the management. Extremely disappointed the way that — when we never got
going again and again, but we need to look forward. Now we have got three games left in
the championship, and I mentioned here, three massive games. Besides we never helped
ourselves, you know, that, that was therefore not really as if we gave away too much
possession, huh, boys fell off a few tackles. You know, and couldn’t…England as well,
England a good side, a powerful side and they showed Dundee.
5. NIGERIA (acrolectal)
Personal expectation is to go out there and execute the process. What me and my
coaches have spoken about. You know, just to enjoy the moment as well, you know,
don’t get too carried away and don’t get too excited. You know, just enjoy it, go out there
and enjoy it. And we’ll see what that brings, and it’s been fantastic, you know it’s been
fantastic, watching — and it’s been good, you know, trying to support everyone. Erm_
the row as well, that’s something big, you know, and the kayaking as well. We are just
supporting everyone even the basketball boys, So — but it’s been good, it’s been good
6. CÔTE D’IVOIRE
I think winning the game, winning this final was the key, was the key. And not
me scoring the penalty, the winning penalty or what — because... but winning the game
was the turning point. I think, that’s when I decided that I should leave. We made history
all together and eh_ I want people to remember that and eh. I think it’s the best time to,
to move on. We’ve been working for this for so long, so the reaction was we were very
happy.
77
Appendix III
Re: Academic research on Nigerian English
A AthleticsAfrica.Com <[email protected]>
Reply all| Tue 2/7/2017, 11:19 PM
Temitayo Olatoye;
+1 more
Action Items Hi Temitayo, Thanks for getting in touch with us. You may use the YouTube video for your academic work. However, we would appreciate if you could credit: "AthleticsAfrica.Com" as the copyright owner in your Survey and Thesis and kindly let us know. All the best in your academic endeavour. Kind regards, Motunde Smith Associate Editor https://www.athletics-africa.com
78
Appendix IV
Re: Academic research on Nigerian English
M Management <[email protected]>
Reply all| Thu 2/2/2017, 11:42 AM
Temitayo Olatoye
You replied on 2/3/2017 7:18 PM.
Action Items Hello Temitayo, many thanks for your email. Permission to use the videos below and any other videos on our YouTube Channel for your academic research is granted. Please do be kind enough to share with us afterwards the impact our work contributed to your thesis. All the best and good luck with it! Kind regards, MoC Management