Bilingual pragmatic markers in Nigerian English

Unuabonah, Foluke Olayinka; Oladipupo, Rotimi O.

doi:10.1111/weng.12453

Cited by 18 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 61 publications

(83 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The Mandarin and the English particle are syntactically identical, and the meanings of accommodation, advice, and tentativeness are found in both languages (Leimgruber, 2016, p. 90). In a similar vein, Unuabonah and Oladipupo (2021) describe six bilingual markers borrowed from the three major indigenous Nigerian languages – that is, Yoruba, Igbo, and Hausa – into Nigerian English. Overall, the discourse markers are shown to have (inter)personal rather than textual functions, such as agreement‐seeking (Unuabonah & Oladipupo, 2021).…”

Section: Discourse Markers and World Englishesmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…In a similar vein, Unuabonah and Oladipupo (2021) describe six bilingual markers borrowed from the three major indigenous Nigerian languages -that is, Yoruba, Igbo, and Hausa -into Nigerian English. Overall, the discourse markers are shown to have (inter)personal rather than textual functions, such as agreement-seeking (Unuabonah & Oladipupo, 2021).…”

Section: Previous Researchmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…Analyses of ‘Outer Circle Englishes’ are rarer and largely focus on specific varieties, notably on Singapore English, such as Tan (2010) on right and Leimgruber (2016) on bah , and Nigerian English, for instance Ogoanah (2011) on as in , Fuchs et al. (2013) on even and still , and Unuabonah and Oladipupo (2021) on bilingual markers. While a few studies on discourse markers in varieties as yet neglected have been conducted recently, for example Wilson et al.…”

Section: Discourse Markers and World Englishesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

You know and I think in English(es) in Zanzibar

Mohr

2021

World Englishes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper provides an analysis of discourse markers in English(es) spoken by Zanzibaris, using data from sociolinguistic interviews. The focus is on you know and I think. In English as a lingua franca (ELF), both have been shown to be used differently than by ‘native’ speakers, especially marking subjectivity or speaker‐centeredness. The data show similarities with ELF communication, that is the markers express subjectivity in highlighting or evaluating part of the discourse, and convey speaker‐centeredness as ‘fumbling devices’. Thus, the paper raises the question as to whether these and similar sociolinguistic interviews applied for the documentation of New Englishes should be analyzed as lingua franca communication.

show abstract

Section: Discourse Markers and World Englishesmentioning

confidence: 94%

Section: Previous Researchmentioning

confidence: 96%

Section: Discourse Markers and World Englishesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

You know and I think in English(es) in Zanzibar

Mohr

2021

World Englishes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…On the one hand, research focuses on individual 'non-English' forms, which derive from Hausa, Igbo, or Yoruba and are integrated into Nigerian Englishoften via Nigerian Pidgin. Unuabonah and Oladipupo (2018) investigate abi, o, and sha, Unuabonah and Oladipupo (2021) analyze jare, biko, jor, shebi, shey, and fa, and Unuabonah (2020) examines na wa, shikena, ehn, and ehen. There are also studies on indigenized uses of English forms.…”

Section: Pragmatic Variation In World Englishesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Multilingual Pragmatics of New Englishes: An Analysis of Question Tags in Nigerian English

Westphal

2022

Front. Commun.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper presents a variational pragmatic analysis of multilingual question tags in Nigerian English, combining a corpus-pragmatic analysis of the Nigerian component of the International Corpus of English with a survey study on the preferences and attitudes of Nigerian students toward different question tag forms. The corpus study highlights multilingual pragmatic variation in terms of form and function of variant as well as English and non-English (i.e., derived from indigenous Nigerian languages) invariant question tags in six text types: conversations, phonecalls, classroom lessons, broadcast discussions, broadcast interviews, and legal cross-examinations. Nigerian speakers combine a wide range of English and non-English invariant forms, whereas variant question tags only play a marginal role and are not characteristic of Nigerian English. Text type influences the overall frequency of question tags and – together with the pragmatic function – constrains the use of individual forms. The survey study shows diverging results as the participants generally prefer variant over invariant question tags and show a strong dispreference for indigenous Nigerian forms when speaking English. Nevertheless, their preferences for specific forms over others are guided by the communicative setting and requirements of a given situation. The students also hold most positive attitudes toward variant question tags, while non-English tags are rated less positively on items reflecting decency. However, all question tag forms are valued in terms expressiveness. Hence, Nigerian students’ dispositions toward multilingual question tag use are guided by a prescriptive ideology that is biased toward canonized English forms. While indigenous Nigerian forms are well integrated into question tag use, indicating a high degree of nativization of Nigerian English at a pragmatic level, acceptance for these local forms is lagging behind. In general methodological terms, the paper shows that question tags – or discourse-pragmatic-features in general – have high potential for studying multilingual variation in New Englishes. However, studies on the multilingual pragmatics of New Englishes need to consider the full range of multilingual forms, take into account variety-internal variation via text type, and should ideally also study the users’ perspectives.

show abstract

“…For example, Unuabonah and Oladipupo (2021) focused on borrowed discourse‐pragmatic markers in Nigerian English. These are items such as jare , biko , jor , shebi , shey , and fa (Unuabonah & Oladipupo, 2021, p. 391) as well as o , sha , and abi (Unuabonah & Oladipupo, 2018) stemming from various indigenous languages.…”

Section: Discourse‐pragmatic Variationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Likein Korean English speech

Rüdiger

2021

World Englishes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article focuses on the use of like by Korean speakers of English. South Korea is a fascinating context for world Englishes studies: English is generally learned as a foreign language, but deep political and historical ties facilitate a high visibility and prominent status of the language in Korean society. In this study, the use of like by Korean speakers of English with particular attention to discoursepragmatic aspects are investigated with the help of the Spoken Korean English Corpus (SPOKE). Like is a high frequency item in SPOKE and clearly forms part of the Korean English repertoire across its functional range. Even though usage of like as discourse marker and particle is influenced by having spent time abroad and (self-reported) English proficiency, it forms part of the repertoire of nearly all surveyed speakers.Quotative like has also found a place in the Korean English repertoire, albeit to a lesser degree.This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

show abstract

Bilingual pragmatic markers in Nigerian English

Cited by 18 publications

References 61 publications

You know and I think in English(es) in Zanzibar

You know and I think in English(es) in Zanzibar

The Multilingual Pragmatics of New Englishes: An Analysis of Question Tags in Nigerian English

Likein Korean English speech

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About