WikiJournal Preprints/A Phonological Analysis of Selected Nigerian Undergraduates Renditions

Introduction
Language use in non-native contexts, most especially in the area of speech production—phonology, has attracted the attention of numerous scholars. Scholars such as Adedimeji, Adetugbo (1987), Alabi (2012), Alabi and Gobir (, 2021), Awe, Bamiro (1994, 2006 & 2009), Banjo, Babatunde and Udofot (2011), Bamgbose, Igboanusi (2001), Jibril (1973), Jowitt, Josiah (2009; 2013), Josiah and Babatunde (2011), Lawal (2013), Odumuh, Olaniyi (2013; 2014) and several others, have examined the nature and scope Nigerian English.

Not only this, the scholars have variously typified Nigerian English using different parameters, ranging from education to native-like exposure. From these myriads of research, it has been found that Nigerian English at the acrolectal level (Standard Nigerian English—SNE) is equivalent to the Standard British English (Josiah & Babatunde, 2011, etc.) based on the metrics of education and exposure. More recently, it has been found that education to some extent is not sufficient as a yardstick to determine the standard accent; attitude has a major role to play. It is based on this backdrop that this study aims at examining selected utterances of university undergraduates from a phonological perspective.

More specifically, the selected undergraduate utterances are evaluated in this study using the Generative Phonological Approach of Chomsky and Halle, to examine the distinctions in the target language, Standard Nigerian English and the undergraduates' utterances, especially the examination of the distinctive segmental features in the students' utterances and standard variety; and the peculiar distinctive features that characterise the undergraduates' utterances. Also, the study set out to investigate whether the university undergraduates are representatives of the Standard Nigerian English (SNE) or the Popular Nigerian English (Jowitt, & 2016).

The subsequent sections contain review of related literatures to the study. Concepts which are relevant to the study which include Standard Nigerian English (SNE), Popular Nigerian English (PNE) and contrastive analysis are components of the literature review section. Subsequent discussions centre on the theoretical basis for the study, the research methodology, the analysis of the data samples collected, the discussion of findings and conclusion of the study.

Literature review
Many researches by different scholars have been carried out on an analysis of pronunciation errors. Ononiwu and Njemanze investigated poor English pronunciation among Nigerian ESL students: The ICT Solution. In this study, these scholars examined the causes of poor English pronunciation among ESL Nigerian students. Also, Josiah, Bodunde and Robert (2012) embarked on an analysis of the patterns of English pronunciation among Nigerian university undergraduates: challenges and prospects. However, this research seeks to fill the vacuum left by past researchers by adapting theoretical tenets for the analysis selected undergraduates’ renditions, specifically, the tenets of Generative Phonology is adapted for the examination of the speech samples which constitute the research data.

Standard Nigerian English (SNE)
Standard Nigerian English is the variety of English used in Nigeria to communicate across Nigeria socio-cultural boundary. A Nigerian speaker of Standard Nigerian English may not sound like an English native speaker but speaks an internationally intelligible and acceptable variety of English that does not obscure understanding despite the fact that some vocabulary items have been brought into it to reflect the speakers socio-cultural norms. This variety of English have met the set down criteria of what make a language standard such as selection, elaboration of function, codification, acceptability and intelligibility. Most importantly, this variety of English has been classified by scholars at all levels of linguistic appraisal—Phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, pragmatics and lexico-semantics (Olaniyi 2013; Josiah; 2003, etc.).

Popular Nigerian English (PNE)
The concept of Popular Nigerian English was first coined by Jowitt in his typology of Nigerian English based on the yardstick of acceptability and its utilisation in formal and informal linguistic contexts such as classroom pedagogy, entertainment, religion, media and cross-cultural communication. According to him, this variety of English is classified as popular based to the fact that it has a wide range of speakers.

Even though the term "popular" in relation to the description of a Nigerian spoken variety of English was the effort of Jowitt, his predecessors such as Banjo (1996) have identified this variety of English in their categorisations. Jowitt's Popular Nigerian English is equivalent to Banjo's variety II (two), which he described as a variety close to the Standard British English but with strongly marked phonological and lexical peculiarities, and which has about 75% of speakers across the nation.

More recently, Association of Nigerian English Scholars, Adegbite, Ekundayo and numerous others in the 2021 conference of the English Scholars' Association of Nigeria ESAN are involved in an advocacy towards the recognition of the Popular Nigerian English as a the standard variety. In the views of these myriads of scholars, acceptability is one of the core parameters for standardisation, likewise codification, and the Popular Nigerian English has met these two conditions, hence its recommendation for the standard statusque within the nation. Be it as it may, further researches into the nature, scope, description and categorisation of the Popular Nigerian English are in the pipeline.

Contrastive analysis
Contrastive research first started in the 1940s by Charles Fries. Then in 1957, Lado developed the contrastive hypothesis stating that contrasting two languages would help predict the feature that would represent difficulty or ease in learning a second language due to realising the differences and similarities between the first and the second language. Lado assumed that second language learners transfer the forms, meaning and the way they are distributed in their native language to the second language. Lado stated that systematic comparison of languages can help predict and describe the difficult features that can face a second language learner in learning L2. This perspective relied on structuralism as stated by Bloomfield which further assumed that the structure of any language is finite and hence can be determined and compared to another language.

The second perspective to guide the contrastive analysis hypothesis was the school of behaviourism due to its assumption that the difficulty or easiness of acquiring a second language is rendered to the already acquired habits of the first language. This, therefore, led to the emergence of transfer theory that mainly relied on the assumption of transfer of habits from the native language to the learned one (Corder, 1967 cited in ). The transfer theory complements the contrastive analysis hypothesis and serves its applied purpose. It illustrates how certain linguistic features of the second language can be more difficult to acquire than others. Stockwell et al. (2011) claimed that when the features of the contrasted languages are similar, positive transfer occurs; while in cases of different features, negative transfer shows, causing difficulty of acquisition. And in cases of no relation between features, zero transfer takes place.

Theoretical framework
Chomsky and Halle are the proponents of Generative Phonology while Hale and Reiss are contributors to discussions on Generative Phonology. Generative Phonology is an aspect of generative grammar that assigns the correct phonetic representations to utterances in such a way as to reflect a native speaker’s internal grammar. The components of Generative Phonology include levels of phonological representation. Generative Phonology states two levels of phonological representation which incorporate the most basic form of a word before any phonological rules have been applied to it. This shows what a native speaker knows about the abstract underlying phonology of his language. Second is phonetic representation which is a form of a word that is spoken and heard.

Other tools of generative phonology include: phonological rules which delete, insert or change segments, or change the features of segments; distinctive features which make it possible to capture the generalities of phonological rules, to Durand (1999) binarism is the major function of distinctive feature in Generative Phonology while Roach among others classified distinctive features into the major class features, creative features and secondary features; and linearity, a stream of speech which is seen as a sequence of discrete sound segments, where each segment constitutes simultaneously occurring features.

Phonological processes are also aspects of generative grammar that concern with the patterns of sound errors that typically helps to simplify speech when trying to speak. Phonological processes include: substitution which has to do with replacing one class of sounds for another class of sounds; syllable structure which accounts for syllabic reduction, omission or replacement; assimilation which has to do with when sounds/ syllables start to sound like surrounding sounds.

Methodology
This research is both qualitative and quantitative. The population for this study constitutes selected 400 level students of Kwara State University. The instrument for this study consists of recorded utterances of selected Kwara State University students which are collected through the participatory observation method and questionnaire to verify the gender and geographical origin of the studied population. This method is adopted in order to generate objective data as the awareness of the population for the study may hinder the collection of valid data for analysis. The data collected will be analysed through the use of Praat software to generate objective results.

Distinctive segmental features of Nigerian English
The segmental feature of the Standard Nigerian English is different from the Popular Nigerian English as a result of the disparities in the educational status and exposure of every individual in the nation. From the samples collected for this study, it has been discovered that there are specific phonemes that are dropped and substituted or not substituted by the respondents, examples are cited as follows:

In example A, the diphthong /әu/ is substituted for [on] thereby bringing in the nasalised vowel in the inventory of the speaker. Apart from this, the consonant /j/ is also substituted with [y] in phoneme inventory traceable to the South Western part of Nigeria. This is also an illustration of the mother-tongue interference. In sample C, the monophthong /ᴂ/ and /ɪ:/ has been substituted with [a:] and [ɪ] in PNE.

In example A, the schwa sound /ә/ is replaced with [ↄ:] since there is no schwa sound /ә/ in either of the Nigerian languages and also in sample B the /ɪ/ sound is replaced with /e/. This variety is traceable to pronunciations, the inability of the non-native speaker of English to differentiate between alphabets pronunciation and word pronunciation. The respondent has pronounced the word orthographically based on the spelling. In sample C the /θ/ sound is not present in the Nigerian phonemic inventory so it has been substituted with [t]. In sample F, the schwa sound /ә/ has been replaced with [a] which is occasional variant of the /ә/ in the PNE.

Sample                                       Words          SNE                       PNE

The mallam tortured the students in Gombe. They beat them to the extent that they did not even care whether they are someone’s children.

Tortured               /tↄ:ʧәd/                 [tↄ:ʧↄ:d]

Students               /stju:dәnts/        [studᴂnts]

Extent      /ɪkstent/                [ekstent]

Care        /kɛә/     [kɪe]

Whether               /weðә/    [weda:]

Children               /ʧɪldrәn/               [ʧɪldren]

In example A, the schwa sound /ә/ is substituted with /ↄ:/. In sample B, the palatal sound /j/ is omitted and also there is substitution of /u:/ with [u]. Lastly, the consonant cluster in the SNE realisation is reduced with vowel insertions. In sample C, the monophthong /ɪ/ is substituted with [e] in PNE. In sample D, /ɛә/ sound is substituted with [ɪә]. There is a substitution of diphthong phoneme. This time around it is the combination of vowel phonemes. Instead of /ɛә/ or its correspondent /ɪә/, the respondent chose /ɪе/, an indigenised version of the correct phoneme. In sample E, the /ð/ is substituted with /d/ and /ә/ is substituted with the variant [a:].

Sample                Words                       SNE                       PNE

The situation is different. In Northern Nigeria where they made Quranic education compulsory, the system of education there is brutal.

Situation           /sɪʧuеɪʃәn/           [sɪtweɪʃаn]

Different           /dɪfәrәnt/             [dɪfrent]

Northern               /nↄ:әәn/               [nↄ:tan]

Nigeria                /naɪʤɪәrɪә/         [naɪjɪrɪa]

Compulsory      /kәmpʌsrɪ/            [kↄmpↄsrɪ]

Brutal                 /bru:tәl/                  [bru:ta:]

In example A, the palate-alveolar affricate /ʧ/ is substituted for an alveolar plosive [t], the last syllable in the SBE which is syllabicised is nasalised in the PNE and there is substitution of the vowel /u/ for the labio-dental fricative [w]. Also in sample B, the lateral /l/ sound is omitted. In sample B, the schwa sound /ә/ in SNE has been omitted in PNE. In sample C, the dental fricative /ә/ has been substituted with the consonantal sound [t] in PNE. In sample D, the post-alveolar affricate sound /ʤ/ is substituted with the consonant sound [j] in PNE. In samples E and F, the schwa sound the schwa sound /ә/ is substituted with [ↄ], [ɪ] and [a:] in the SBE respectively.

Sample                 Words                      SNE         PNE

There is no cooperation between the literature and language students.

Cooperation               /kәuɒpәrеɪʃn/       [kↄ:preɪʃn]

Between            /bɪtwɪ:n/                [bɪtwɪn]

Literature           /lɪtrәʧә/                  [lɪtrеɪʃↄ:]

Language            /lᴂŋgwɪʤ/            [langweɪʤ]

In the illustrations, it has been observed that the diphthong /әu/ is dropped and substituted with monophthong [ↄ:] in PNE. The monophthong /ә/ that is present in SNE has been omitted in PNE. Also, a remarkable deduction is that the polysyllabic word has been realized as a trisyllabic word. In sample B, the long monophthong /ɪ:/ has been substituted with the short monophthong [ɪ] in PNE. In sample C, since we do not have schwa sound in PNE, it has been replaced with the phoneme [eɪ], [e] and [ↄ:]. Also in sample D, the sound /ᴂ/ has been replaced with [a] in PNE.

Binary Classifications

The previous analysis based on the juxtaposition of the SNE and PNE has revealed specific areas of disparities in the superstrate- SNE and the substrate- PNE. In this section, the distinctive features of the PNE variables will be analysed based on the combination of major class features, manner features, place of articulation features and the binary taxonomy.

Table 6: Deviant Phonemes and their Distinctive Properties PNE Transcription               Deviant Phonemes               Distinctive Features

Syllabic Labial               Nasal     Dental               Lateral  Continuant               Consonantal

don’t        on

[o]        +         -                              +             -             -                   -             -

yu:s           y

s           +

-           -

-             -

-            -

-            -

-             -

+          +

+

ka:ntɪn     a:

ɪ            +

+           -

-             -

-            -

-            -

-             +

-            -

-

preʃↄ:d     ↄ:           +            -                  -              -             -                   +             -

ekstent    e            +            -                  -              -             -                    -             -

tɪnk          t             -             -                  -              -             -                    -             +

kↄ:s           s             -             -                  -              -             -                    +             +

rɪzɪn         ɪ             +            -                  -              -             -                    +             -

ata:tsd     a

a:          +

+           -

-            -

-             -

-            -

-             -

+            -

-

tↄ:ʧↄ:d     ↄ:           +            -                  -              -             -                    +             -

studᴂnt                   ʊ

ᴂ         +

+          -

-            -

-            -

-            -

-              +

+           -

-

ekstent      e                      +                 -             -             -                             -                 -                    -

kɪә            ɪә                        +                  -              -             -                             -                   -                     -

weda:     da:                       +                  -              -             -                             -                   +                    +

ʧɪldren     e                        +                 -             -             -                              -                   -                     -

sitweɪʃan                 w

an

[a]         +

+           +

-            -

+            -

-            -

-              +

-            +

-

dɪfrent      e           +            -                  -              -             -                     -              -

nↄ:tan       t

an

[a]         -

+           -

-            -

+             -

-            -

-             -

-             +

-

naɪjɪrɪa     j            -             -                  -              -             -                    -              -

kↄmpↄsrɪ                  ↄ

ɪ          +

+           -

-            -

-            -

-             -

-              -

-             -

-

bru:ta:l      a:         +            -                  -              -             -                     +             -

kↄ:preɪʃn                  ↄ:         +                  -             -              -                   -               +             -

bɪtwɪn       ɪ           +            -                  -              -             -                     -              -

lɪtreɪʧↄ:      eɪ

ↄ:         +

+           -

-            -

-             -

-            -

-              +

+            -

-

langweɪʤ                an

eɪ         +

+           -

-            +

-             -

-             -

-              -

+              -

-

The table above presents the deviant phonemes and their distinctive properties. In the table, it has been discovered that most of the deviant phonemes are vowels. This reveals that the SNE and PNE phonemes do not have much difference. The major areas of disparities are the vowels. This reflects that Nigerian speakers, which the undergraduates students under investigation represents have more problems with the realisation of the Standard Nigerian English (SNE)  vowel phonemes due to the unavailability of most of these phonemes in the inventories of the Nigerian indigenous languages. Based on this, almost all of the deviant phonemes are (+) syllabic because most of them constitute the peak of the syllables. There are few labials, nasals, dentals, lateral and consonants, most of the phonemes have negative (-) classification because all these characteristics are peculiar to the consonant sounds. The continuant takes the second position because most vowels are continuants. Both syllabic and continuant classifications are fairly represented. This further emphasise the vowels as the area of problems by Nigerian speakers of English.

Discussion of findings
The data has been examined using the tenets of Chomsky and Halle's Generative Phonology. Some deductions have been made: the distinctive segmental features of the Standard Nigerian English (SNE) and the Popular Nigerian English (PNE) in the undergraduates’ utterances include substitution of the SNE diphthongs with the PNE monophthong, likewise the substitution of triphthong with a disyllabic in PNE which is determined basically by the phoneme inventories of the indigenous languages. We also have the substitution of schwa sound /ә/ with other phonemes since there is no schwa sound /ә/ in either of the Nigerian languages. The substitution of weak syllable with a strong one is also traceable to PNE.

Also, the possible distinctive features in the binary classification of the deviant forms in the undergraduate students' renditions include the use of vowels which serves as the deviant phonemes by the PNE speakers. The undergraduate students’ under investigation have more problems with the realisation of the Standard Nigerian English (SNE) vowel phonemes due to the unavailability of most of these phonemes in the inventories of the Nigerian indigenous languages. Almost all the deviant phonemes are syllabic because most of them constitute the peak of the syllables. The continuant takes the second position because most vowels are continuants.

Conclusion and policy implication
Attempt has been made in this study to investigate the speech patterns of Selected Kwara State University Students through the deployment of the tenets of the theories of Chomsky and Halle's Generative Phonology. The study has revealed that the adaptation of the tenet of the phonological theory, Generative Phonology to the analysis of the studied undergraduates’ utterances has helped to identify the distinctive features that characterise the Popular Nigerian English as a variety of English. From the study, it has been observed that factors such as interlanguage phonology of the undergraduates are responsible for the variation in their speech patterns. However, there is a low level of compliance towards the Standard Nigerian English, which is the nation’s acrolect. In conclusion, more could be achieved by the undergraduates as representatives of the educated Nigerians if close attention could be paid on the areas of differences in the Standard Nigerian English and Popular Nigerian English, and attitudinal issues such as negligence are worked on.

Language is an entity of utmost importance to every nation and in the case of Nigeria, linguistic harmonisation is germane. Due to the Nigerian multi-ethnic nature, arriving at a language of national identity has continue to pose problem and English language, which is serving the official statusquo is controversial due to the problem of categorisation and standardisation issues. This study is a way forward towards solving this important national problem which has linguistic orientation. The implication of this study to policy implementation is that the popular English has been identified as the most accepted variety of spoken English among Nigerians. It is therefore recommended that the Nigerian government, language experts and other stakeholders should work together towards the codification of this variety of English and adopt it as the nation’s standard form of English, not only at the phonological level but also other levels of linguistic appreciation.